'THAT TERRIBLE WOMAN': THE LIFE, WORK AND LEGACY OF MAUD CUNNINGTON 



55 



to modern standards, nor does it mean that Maud 

 Cunnington's work was hopelessly flawed. Keiller 

 opened larger areas than the Cunningtons, insisted 

 on straight sections and three-dimensional 

 recording. Keiller kept drawn and photographic 

 records, but although these techniques may look 

 very modern he dug and recorded in arbitrary spits 

 rather than following layers. 



It was not just techniques of excavation that 

 differed between the two camps; the whole ethos 

 of what they were doing and why could not have 

 been more divergent. The only common factor in 

 the archaeology practised by the Cunningtons and 

 Keiller was their ability to purchase the sites they 

 excavated and to pay for the publication of their 

 site reports. But the difference of scale makes this 

 similarity largely meaningless. The Cunningtons 

 purchased Woodhenge and the Sanctuary, as well 

 as paying for their own excavations and taking part 

 in raising funds for the public ownership of the land 

 around Stonehenge; while Keiller's immense 

 fortune was directed towards the excavation and 

 purchase of Windmill Hill and Avebury. Although 

 these two sites could be classed as more important 

 than the Cunningtons' excavations, and there is 

 little doubt that Keiller was the better excavator, 

 his perfectionism was his downfall (Murray 1999, 

 58). Despite Keiller's good intentions to produce 

 large-scale, lavishly illustrated final reports for 

 Windmill Hill and Avebury this failed to happen in 

 his lifetime (Smith 1965), somewhat negating his 

 insistence on modern 'scientific' excavation 

 practices. The Cunningtons' techniques and modes 

 of reporting might have appeared amateur 

 compared with Keiller's but their excavations were 

 always rapidly published. 



In fact, Maud Cunnington seems to have been 

 very strongly committed to public awareness of 

 archaeology. This theme runs through all of her 

 work: many of her excavations were on low-key sites, 

 practising what can be seen as an early form of 

 rescue excavation, such as the pits in Battlesbury 

 Camp (Cunnington 1922b, 378-9), or the salvage 

 of the Saxon burial at RAF Netheravon 

 (Cunnington 1939a, 469-70). Maud also recorded 

 stray finds by workmen, like the Bronze Age urn 

 found near Marlborough (Cunnington 1922b, 

 378), and the skeletons uncovered near Warminster 

 (Cunnington 1939b, 468-9), as well as writing-up 

 other people's discoveries for WANHM 

 (Cunnington 1927b, 490-1; 1937a, 265) and 

 submitting endless notes on every conceivable 

 archaeological subject from church wall paintings 



(Cunnington 1937c, 420-1) to the 'Horns of Urus 

 said to have been found in a barrow at Cherhill' 

 (Cunnington 1937b, 583-6). She was also involved 

 in bringing sites to the attention of the Ancient 

 Monuments Commission so that they could be 

 scheduled (Anon 1927, 445; 1929, 476). 



The sites excavated by the Cunningtons were 

 open to visitors, and Maud was prepared to give 

 public lectures as well as publishing her work, even 

 though her shyness made such practices an uneasy 

 and uncomfortable experience (R.H. Cunnington 

 1954, 229; Anon 1952, 105). Nor were her 

 publications limited to strictly archaeological 

 forums: her Presidential speech for WANHS was 

 published in The Wiltshire Gazette ( 1 932b), as was 

 her paper on 'Some Norman Castle Sites in 

 Wiltshire' (1926). Although a great deal of Maud 

 Cunnington's energies were devoted to excavation 

 and publication she still found the time to write on 

 more general archaeological topics. In 1922 she and 

 Ben Cunnington wrote A Short Outline Guide to 

 the Archaeological Periods as Illustrated by the 

 Exhibits in the Museum, Devizes, which was 

 primarily aimed at children, the Guide to Avebury 

 (1931) catered for an adult audience, and the 

 popularity of An Introduction to the Archaeology 

 ofWiltshire was demonstrated by it running through 

 four editions during the 1930s and '40s. 



There was also the museum work that the 

 Cunningtons undertook. Ben Cunnington took 

 over as the honorary curator of Devizes Museum 

 in 1887, and presumably soon after their marriage 

 Maud became involved. How they divided this work 

 between them is not recorded. It is, as ever, she 

 who is held responsible for all that was bad about 

 their fifty year tenure: 



Her techniques were primitive, she mended pots with 

 sealing wax and concrete 8 . . . the museum was like a 

 mausoleum, the Colt Hoare collection was in 

 crenellated cases full of dead flies . . . there was stuff 

 in cigarette boxes, it was terrible. (Ken Annable pers. 

 comm.). 



Yet even in this damning critique Ken Annable 

 pointed out that Maud Cunnington's prolific work 

 opened up Wiltshire, and with her emphasis on 

 obtaining artefacts for the museum whenever 

 possible she was making the information available 

 to all who were interested. Her presentation of a 

 series of sherds from All Cannings Cross to other 

 museums can be seen as another way in which she 

 was actively seeking to extend knowledge of early 

 Iron Age archaeology to a wide audience of 



