52 



THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 



archaeology at this period, detailed contextual 

 information. More interpretation was included, 

 such as this succinct discussion of the rampart 

 stratigraphy: 



It is scarcely possible that a rampart can be older 

 than the remains which are contained in it, in such 

 positions as these, and if this pottery is more recent 

 than the Bronze Age the rampart must be also. 

 (1908c, 419) 



Nor was Maud's new found expertise restricted 

 to excavation and publication techniques. She also 

 expressed awareness of more general archaeological 

 problems: 



The exploration of earthworks has been neglected in 

 the past far more than their intrinsic interest has 

 deserved. Some of the reasons for this neglect are 

 obvious enough. The chances are, that, from the relic 

 hunters point of view, the results will be disappointing; 

 ramparts are apt to be unproductive, and searching 

 for scanty fragments in the silt of the ditches is often 

 dull work, and much time and labour may be 

 expended without any very tangible results. It is so 

 much quicker and simpler to explore a barrow, that 

 it is little wonder that our knowledge of barrows is 

 comparatively ample while of earthworks it is still so 

 meagre. As the contents of many barrows had to be 

 recorded before much light was thrown upon their 

 history, so the examination of many earthworks is 

 needed to help interpret the history of one. (1908c, 

 419) 



After Manton Barrow the Cunningtons 

 focussed their interest primarily on non-funerary 

 sites, which in the light of this statement must have 

 been a research strategy chosen for the good of 

 Wiltshire archaeology. 



Further seasons of excavation followed, 

 including Knap Hill in 1908 (Cunnington 1911), 

 which was arguably the first causewayed enclosure 

 to be recognised in this country (Anon 1952, 105; 

 Oswald eta/. 2001, 12-1 3). But it was the excavation 

 of the Iron Age site at All Cannings Cross which 

 made Maud Cunnington's name as an archaeologist 

 outside the confines of Wiltshire. The publication 

 of this site was hailed as 'one of the finest 

 publications in recent years' (Kendrick and Hawkes 

 1932, 1 60) .The irony is that the Cunningtons began 

 their excavations unaware of the site's importance 

 (Cunnington 1923b, 13) and the amount of work 

 needed to do it justice. However, having started, 

 the Cunningtons continued until - at least by the 

 standards of the time - the excavations were 



complete. This dedication is particularly admirable 

 when one considers that, as ever, their excavations 

 were self funded, and that their time at All Cannings 

 Cross was interrupted not only by the First World 

 War but also Edward's death in 1917. 



All Cannings Cross became a reference point 

 for many later studies of the British Iron Age. 

 Furthermore, the report shows Maud Cunnington 

 gaining confidence in her archaeological abilities 

 and developing her own ideas on prehistory, ideas 

 which would affect her interpretation of other sites, 

 and in particular Woodhenge. At the end of the All 

 Cannings Cross report is a section entitled 'The 

 sequence of types of pre-Roman pottery in 

 Wiltshire' in which she argued for a more fluid 

 pottery sequence, and therefore chronology, than 

 previously accepted. Maud's suggestion was that 

 because known Bronze Age pottery was 

 predominantly from funerary contexts, whereas 

 Iron Age pottery was predominantly from domestic 

 contexts, there could be a chronological overlap 

 between the two styles (Cunnington 1923b, 194- 

 5). 3 While this assertion is patently flawed, in the 

 context of the 1 920s and early '30s, with so little 

 known about typological sequences, the suggestion 

 of contemporaneity of pottery styles had plausibility. 



Woodhenge 



Woodhenge is an enclosed multiple timber circle 

 close to the large henge at Durrington Walls. The 

 site was originally believed to be a disc barrow but 

 aerial photographs by Squadron Leader Insall in 

 1 925 revealed concentric rings within the earthwork 

 (Wainwright and Longworth 1971, 207). The site 

 was excavated between 1926 and 1928, and the 

 work was reported with typical Cunnington 

 thoroughness (1929), but Maud's interpretation of 

 the monument proved extremely controversial. Her 

 assertion, on the basis of the work at Woodhenge, 

 that Stonehenge was a single phase monument of 

 Iron Age date was immediately disputed 

 (Engleheart 1930, 142-3). It is this assertion which 

 has been remembered and ridiculed 4 and is, 

 arguably, partly responsible for her diminished 

 reputation. However, if we study her argument in 

 detail, and without the benefit of hindsight, it does 

 demonstrate a certain logic, even if it equally 

 demonstrates inconsistencies. At Woodhenge Maud 

 Cunnington uncovered a timber monument of 

 concentric circles. In the absence of similar wooden 

 sites, she turned to Stonehenge for comparisons 

 (Figure 4). This was an obvious choice, given 



