EXCAVATIONS AT MAUMBURY RINGS. 101 



cleared out at the foot of the earthwork in Cutting X. (1908), 

 depth 30ft. (the depth of all being given below the nearest 

 turf over the arena). In front of " the den " in Cutting XV. 

 (1909) at least two shafts (Nos. II. and III.) are known, one 

 of which was re-excavated to a depth of 19ft. Cutting XII. 

 Extension revealed part of the outline of a very large pit, 

 No. IV. (Plate III., 1910 Report) ; and a series of three 

 shafts (Nos. V., VI., and VII.) were met with in Cutting XX. 

 between the " inner trench " and the solid chalk core of the 

 arena-wall (Plate IV., 1910 Report). Of these, No. VI. was 

 completely re-excavated (depth 24- 5ft.), and within 2ft. of 

 the bottom fragments of a rude pottery vessel were found. 

 The outline of Shaft VIII. was partly revealed in 1910, and 

 partly in 1912 when Cutting XXI. was extended for the 

 purpose. At the top of the filling, part of an antler pick 

 (No. 320) was found. 



The excavation of Cutting XXI. added three shafts more 

 (Nos. IX., X., and XI.) to the list, and the bottom of all of 

 them was reached, their depth being 28'5ft., 25'5ft., and 

 28ft. respectively. The average depth of the five shafts 

 re-excavated was 27' 3ft. 



Their outlines were irregular (Plate I.). Nos. VI., VII., 

 and VIII. were separated from each other at the top by 

 very narrow partitions, and Nos. IX., X., and XI. were 

 similar in this respect. A few feet separated Shafts V. and 

 VI., and Shafts VIII. and IX. ; a V-shaped gutter cut in the 

 solid chalk connected the two latter. 



Shaft IX. (Plates III. and IV.). Below the mouth where 

 the sides became steep the shaft was 7ft. in diam., and at a 

 ledge further down the dimensions were 4'25ft. by 4* 5ft. 

 At 1ft. from the bottom it was only T7ft. across, and 

 ultimately it lessened to 1ft.* At the top of the shaft against 

 the N.W. side two deep, vertical, and well-worn grooves were 



* The floor of one of the shafts at Cissbury was 4'5ft. in diameter, 

 and this was unusually small (Archaeologia, LXIIL, 123). 



