54 



THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 



Cunnington was wrong in her opinions. 

 Archaeologists in the 1920s and 30s could argue 

 with her conclusions, but with prehistory as a 

 subject in its infancy, even after the Stonehenge 

 excavations, they could not conclusively prove her 

 wrong. The Cunningtons continued to excavate and 

 Maud continued to be considered an authority in 

 the archaeological world: she gave a paper at the 

 International Congress on Prehistoric and 

 Protohistoric Sciences in 1932 (Grinsell 1989, 52); 

 was the president of the WANHS in 1933; and was 

 made an honorary fellow of the Society of 

 Antiquaries of Scotland in 1931. She published 

 excavation reports on the Sanctuary (Cunnington 

 1931) and Yarnbury (Cunnington 1933b), she 

 argued Belgic invasions with Hawkes and Dunning 

 in the Antiquaries Journal (Cunnington 1932a), and 

 in 1933 her synthesis of Wiltshire archaeology was 

 received with acclaim: 



This book has long been needed, and none other than 

 Mrs Cunnington could so fittingly have written it. 

 (Wheeler 1934, 203) 



Although Wheeler noted omissions, such as 

 reference to the work E.T. Leeds had undertaken 

 on the Anglo-Saxons, and errors such as her 

 adherence to the old Abercromby classification of 

 Beakers, he concluded: 



A last word on the book, however must be one of 

 appreciation for a manual which is a tribute alike 

 to the archaeological wealth of the county and to 

 the ability of its antiquaries, amongst whom the 

 author herself holds a high place. (Wheeler 1943, 

 204) 



Despite Mortimer Wheeler's praise, An 

 Introduction to the Archaeology of Wiltshire was 

 the last substantial work Maud produced. By the 

 time of its publication she was 64 and her 

 indefatigable energy was running out. Yarnbury in 

 1932 was to be the last excavation of the 

 Cunnington partnership. While Ben continued 

 publishing historical articles, Maud's contribution 

 diminished drastically (Appendix 2). Although a 

 revised edition of the Introduction was printed in 

 1938 (with a fourth edition in 1948), and she was 

 awarded a CBE in 1948 for her services to 

 archaeology, she became an increasingly forgotten 

 figure in the years before her death, and fifty years 

 later her name evokes little recognition outside 

 Wiltshire. 



In part this marginalisation was inevitable. In 

 the 1920s Maud Cunnington had followed and 



contributed to archaeological thought, discussing 

 migration, diffusion, race, and trade. She relied 

 upon new techniques such as aerial photography, 

 for example at Woodhenge. Her excavations had 

 helped define Neolithic and Iron Age studies, and 

 she had become a pottery expert consulted by other 

 archaeologists (e.g. Curwen and Curwen 1927, 29). 

 In the 1920s Wheeler had referred to her as a 

 revolutionary when it came to the dating of Iron 

 Age 'camps' (1923, 151), but the developments of 

 the 1930s and '40s largely passed unnoticed in her 

 work. Ill health led to her retiring from active 

 archaeology; by the late 1940s she was bed-ridden 

 and had lost her memory (Anon 1952, 104). New 

 techniques of excavation were developed by Wheeler 

 and Bersu, archaeology became increasingly 

 specialised, with workers concentrating on specific 

 periods, such as Piggott's (1931) and Daniel's 

 (1941) work on the Neolithic, and Hawkes (1931) 

 and the Wheelers' (1936) work on the Iron Age. 

 The days of the county amateur were over, and the 

 new, increasingly professional age of archaeology 

 had begun. 



LEGACY 



It could be suggested that Maud's achievement has 

 been overshadowed by more than just the changing 

 nature of archaeology. Whilst she has been forgotten 

 outside Wiltshire her name reverberates in certain 

 quarters of the county. Comparisons to Alexander 

 Keiller are inevitable, and it is arguable that his 

 attitude to Maud Cunnington has overshadowed 

 her achievements. Keiller's dislike of her is well- 

 known. In a letter that Keiller sent to WE. V.Young, 

 while Young was the Cunningtons' foreman at the 

 Sanctuary, he wrote of her as 'a very unpleasant 

 old woman' (Keiller, quoted in Pitts 2000, 45). In 

 fact Keiller often went further: 



Oh dear, oh, dear Young. Isn't it sad! I wish that you 

 and I had lived twenty-five years hence, or that Gray 

 and Mrs Cunnington had expired a quarter of a 

 century ago. (Keiller to Young 1930) 7 



Keiller seems to have felt the Cunningtons' 

 excavation and recording techniques were 

 impossibly lax and that he should have been in 

 charge of the Sanctuary excavations, a view which 

 Pitts appears to share (Pitts 2000, 45). It is true 

 that Keiller was undoubtedly the better excavator, 

 but that does not mean he conducted excavations 



