56 



THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 



researchers and curators (Paul Robinson pers. 

 comm.). Keiller may have had more awareness of 

 modern archaeological techniques and the necessity 

 to keep substantial records for future reference, but 

 Maud Cunnington seems to have paid more 

 attention to the immediate need to keep the public 

 informed. This commitment continued after her 

 death with her bequest of £16,000 to the Wiltshire 

 Society, and her expressed wish that the interest 

 on this sum would be used towards employing a 

 professional curator for the museum (Anon 1952, 

 220). 



Differing styles of approach caused tension 

 between Keiller and the Cunningtons, but there 

 were other sources of irritation. The Cunningtons 

 were a formidable force in Wiltshire archaeology, 

 and it cannot have helped relationships between 

 the two camps that when Keiller decided to excavate 

 Windmill Hill in 1925 Harold St George Gray was 

 foisted upon him as a site director: 



Owing to the agreement sanctioned by Crawford, 

 Keiller was not permitted to excavate independently 

 until he had proved his worth to both the Cunningtons 

 and the Wiltshire Archaeological Society. (Murray 

 1999, 39) 



Unfortunately the two men were unable to agree 

 on excavation techniques and disagreed violently 

 on numerous occasions (Murray 1999, 36, 39, 41, 

 43, 49 and 52). 



Another source of conflict was Stonehenge.The 

 monument had been presented to the nation by 

 Mr Chubb in 1918. In 1929 Keiller and the 

 Cunningtons were involved in raising money to buy 

 the surrounding land, and demolishing the 

 aerodrome hangers that had dominated the site 

 since the First WorldWar. Keiller's plan was to build 

 a museum on the site to house the finds from 

 Hawley's, and previous, excavations. He was 

 prepared to pay for both the building and a curator. 

 The Cunningtons, however, felt that having 

 removed one set of buildings it would be perverse 

 to build another (Murray 1999, 48). They were not 

 alone in voicing their objections; O.G.S. Crawford, 

 amongst others, also disagreed (Murray 1999; 

 Chippindale 1983, 193). But it was the 

 Cunningtons Keiller blamed: 



Keiller wrote a defiant letter to the Office of Works, 

 criticising the Cunningtons' interference in his 

 scheme, and blamed them for 'the agitation aroused, 

 themselves inspired by some form of museum 

 curator's parochial jealousy'. He added that if the 

 Cunningtons 'could possibly be persuaded to regard 



archaeology as a science and not merely as a 

 personally directed local manifestation emanating 

 primarily and finally from Devizes, not only would 

 the said science of archaeology, but the general 

 advantage of Wiltshire as a County be considerably 

 advanced' (Murray 1999, 49) 



These disagreements were obvious sources of 

 rancour. Keiller felt that the Cunningtons were 

 sabotaging his plans, foisting unwanted help upon 

 him when he was the superior archaeologist, and 

 ignoring his good sense when it came to 

 Stonehenge. But these two events seem insufficient 

 to cause the deep hostility that Keiller obviously 

 felt towards Maud Cunnington: 



It is part of AK's childish manner that he cannot write 

 a letter on any archaeological matter without making 

 some caustic remark about Mrs Cunnington. It has 

 become quite a mania with him, and since it's quite 

 evident he is on the borderline of insanity in this 

 respect, I object to his coupling my name with this 

 strange obsession of his. . . (Young, quoted in Murray 

 1999, 108) 



Such animosity must have been provoked by 

 other sources of conflict that, while felt, were not 

 necessarily expressed. Maud and Ben 

 Cunnington were the established face ofWiltshire 

 archaeology, Alexander Keiller the brash new 

 incomer. Moreover, Keiller was famous for his 

 flamboyant lifestyle, his wealth, the fast cars, 

 champagne, and ambivalent sexuality (Murray 

 1999, 82). This cannot have endeared him to the 

 staid and respectable Cunningtons. If, as 

 Brentnall and Pugh (1953, 10) amongst others 

 have suggested, the Cunningtons saw their role 

 in Wiltshire archaeology as a memorial to their 

 son Edward, then although any incomer would 

 have been unwelcome, Keiller's outrageous 

 presence must have been particularly jarring. In 

 later life, Peggy Guido felt it was Edward's death 

 which had made Maud Cunnington so 'difficult' 

 (pers. comm.). 



A more general point, but one related to these 

 two, was the generation gap between the two camps. 

 Although Keiller was in his forties when he began 

 excavating in Wiltshire, the assistants he employed 

 were much younger. There was, as Stuart Piggott 

 recorded (1963, 1-16; 1989, 20-33), a feeling of 

 frustration among young archaeologists that their 

 profession was being controlled by hidebound 

 amateurs, who had to be cleared out of the way for 

 the good of the discipline. While Pamela Smith 

 (1999, 1 1-30) has shown that Piggott's recollection 



