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



57 



of the course of events that took place in 

 transforming the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 

 into the Prehistoric Society was faulty, there can 

 be no question that there was a genuine feeling that 

 the old order should give way to the new. The 

 Cunningtons, with their decades of involvement in 

 Wiltshire archaeology, and their stranglehold on the 

 Devizes Museum, were certainly part of old-style 

 archaeology, and must have seemed frustratingly 

 entrenched. Piggott recorded his own irritation and 

 contempt in a letter to Keiller in 1933: 



[Ben Cunnington] goes round squeaking and bleating 



the most incredible archaeological heresies and 



becoming apoplectic at the mention of Stonehenge. 



You will doubtless be interested to know that neither 



he nor Mrs C. (who mercifully is not here) 'believe' 



in a Neolithic period at all. I suppose their suggested 



sequence would be 



Palaeolithic (grudgingly recognized) 



All Cannings Cross (West Kennet phase) 



All Cannings Cross (Woodhenge phase) 



All Cannings Cross (All Cannings phase) 



and so on with Stonehenge somewhere in the Middle 



Ages (probably a litde later than Salisbury Cathedral) . 



(Alexander Keiller Museum ref. 88051524) 



There was also the problem of class. It has been 

 suggested that Stuart Piggott's dislike for Maud 

 Cunnington stemmed in part from her having 

 treated him as an employee, rather than as an 

 archaeologist in his own right (Guido pers. comm.). 

 While this was no doubt galling for Stuart Piggott, 

 to Maud Cunnington there can have seemed little 

 difference between W.E.V. Young - whom she and 

 Keiller employed as a foreman - and Stuart Piggott, 

 who was employed as Keiller's assistant. Both were 

 paid helpers, therefore neither were gentlemen. She 

 seems to have had a much easier relationship with 

 those she considered social equals. Her letters to 

 Keiller are polite, if not particularly friendly, and 

 the exchange with Wheeler in Archaeologia 

 Cambrensis shows a very different side to her 

 personality (Cunnington 1922a, Wheeler 1923, 

 Cunnington 1923a). 



It is also possible that Maud Cunnington's sex 

 has contributed to her subsequent low standing. 

 British social attitudes denied women a public voice 

 and the national archaeological societies were 

 equally hidebound in their attitudes to women. It 

 is clear that Maud felt this prejudice; she told Peggy 

 Guido not to become an archaeologist because it 

 was 'far too difficult' for a woman (pers. comm.). 

 It may be that Maud's noted abruptness partly 



sprang from the difficulties she encountered within 

 male-dominated archaeology as much as private 

 grief. 



Maud Cunnington's attitude to her perceived 

 social inferiors, her old-fashioned style of 

 archaeology, her emphasis on respectability, and 

 perhaps even her sex, alienated the next generation 

 of archaeologists and ensured that the very people 

 who might have kept her name alive and respected 

 were only too ready to be critical of her work and 

 deplore her methods. 



These factors have affected her subsequent 

 reputation and this is most clearly shown in Pitts' 

 comments on Maud Cunnington's work at the 

 Sanctuary, stating that she dug it too quickly and: 



If she had not gone to the trouble of writing this 

 report, it could have been that we would know almost 

 nothing about what she found, for she left no field 

 records. On the other hand, if some other 

 archaeologists of the time had excavated the site we 

 would know a great deal more than we do. (2000, 

 46) 



There are a number of faults in Pitts' statement, 

 and it can be suggested that they all arise from the 

 attitude of Keiller and his contemporaries. The idea 

 that site records formed an archive which it was a 

 duty to preserve for future generations is a relatively 

 modern one. To someone of Maud Cunnington's 

 generation the main criterion was to publish a full 

 report as soon as possible. Nor is it known what 

 happened to Maud's papers after she died, but it is 

 clear from the report, with its detailed contextual 

 information, that she kept records. To argue that 

 other archaeologists would have kept better records 

 is misguided: James Curie, excavating at Newstead 

 (191 l),Wilfred Hemp, at Brynyr Hen Bobl (1936), 

 Sir Lindsay Scott at Pant y Saer (1933), all kept 

 minimal records but published quickly and, 

 although this has led to problems with 

 reinterpreting their sites, it was perfectly acceptable 

 procedure at the time. It was the next generation of 

 archaeologists, such as Wheeler and Keiller, who 

 believed so strongly in record keeping. It could be 

 argued that Pitts has been unduly influenced by 

 Keiller's criticisms in castigating Maud Cunnington 

 when she was simply excavating in a similar manner 

 to others of her generation. Other archaeologists 

 have recognised the complexity of the site and the 

 quality of the work done: 'it stands as a testimony 

 to Maud Cunnington that the Sanctuary 

 [excavations] can be re-interpreted with a 

 reasonable degree of confidence 60 years after the 



