58 



THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 



original excavation' (Pollard 1992, 2 14). When there 

 is such a wide divergence of opinion about the value 

 of Maud Cunnington's work, it is impossible to 

 escape the suspicion that personal animosity from 

 Keiller's time is still bearing undue influence. 



CONCLUSION 



It can be argued that Maud Cunnington's current 

 low standing is as much due to the attitude of her 

 successors as the actual quality of her work. This is 

 not an attempt to argue that these archaeologists 

 were wrong and that Maud Cunnington was in fact 

 a sweet-natured and kindly woman. It is undeniable 

 that she was as difficult, abrupt, and actively 

 unpleasant, as she has often been portrayed. Nor is 

 this paper an attempt to suggest that those who 

 recorded her irritation and animosity towards her 

 should instead have concentrated solely on her work 

 rather than her personality. Archaeologists are not 

 objective, and however much we like to pretend 

 otherwise, personal reactions affect our 

 interpretations of our contemporaries, just as much 

 as they affect our interpretations of archaeology. 

 However, only one side of Maud Cunnington's 

 personality has been represented, and that negative 

 attitude has been allowed to dominate our thinking. 

 Had those writing memoirs of the Cunnington family 

 and obituaries of Maud followed a less traditional 

 approach we might have a more detailed knowledge 

 of her life and thoughts. This information may now 

 be irredeemably lost, but this paper proposes that 

 had Maud Cunnington been well liked her 

 limitations would have been more easily forgiven, 

 and that now, with no personal involvement, we 

 should assess her contribution to archaeology, instead 

 of being swayed by unsympathetic readings of her 

 character to dismiss her undeniable achievements. 

 Maud Cunnington opened up Wiltshire archaeology. 

 Whilst her writing about all periods of Wiltshire 

 archaeology may now seem eclectic, her deliberate 

 decision to specialise in non-funerary archaeology 

 shows a premeditated research strategy rather than 

 general antiquarian curiosity. Her work may be 

 flawed but when we consider the times in which she 

 was writing and the difficulties she faced, the 

 thoroughness and detail of her work is unsurpassed. 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 



I should like to thank Joshua Pollard for suggesting 



I write this article; Mr Ken Annable for his 



indispensable advice and information about the 

 Cunningtons; the late Prof. Stuart Piggott and 

 Peggy Guido for their personal recollections; and 

 the WANHS Museum and Dr Paul Robinson for 

 his valuable remarks on the initial draft. Also, thanks 

 are due to the staff at Avebury Museum who allowed 

 me access to the Keiller archive, the staff at UWCN 

 library for their help in tracking down books and 

 papers, and to all those wonderful people who read 

 and commented on various drafts of this paper. 



Notes 



1 . for WANHS: 



rule x 'Candidates for admission as members, 

 shall be proposed by two members at any of the 

 general or committee meetings and the election shall 

 be determined by ballot at the next committee or 

 general meeting; three fourths of the members 

 present, balloting shall elect.' 



rule xi 'Ladies shall be eligible as members 

 without ballot, being proposed by two members and 

 approved by the majority of the meeting.' 



2. The Society of Antiquaries of London received 



subsidies from the Government and free rental of 

 Burlington House. Pailey Bailden advised the other 

 council members that one or two 'carefully chosen' 

 women 'worthy of the honour' should be elected to 

 show the government that they were 'doing 

 something'. This would also give them justification 

 for rejecting unqualified women 'trying it on' (Evans 

 1956, 388). 



3. Although not spelt out in the All Cannings Cross 



volume, this belief seems to stem from her idea that 

 burial practices were conservative: '...objects 

 ceremonially deposited may be, and not uncommonly 

 are, of archaic type' (1930a, 108) 



4. That Maud Cunnington was mistaken in her dating of 



Woodhenge and Stonehenge was the first remark that 

 both Stuart Piggott and Peggy Guido made to me 

 when I mentioned her name. 



5. It may also be that Maud Cunnington played down 



the beaker evidence in the final report. Stuart Piggott 

 reported R. S. Newall as saying '..there's Beaker 

 ponery there all the time and she's keeping it quiet' 

 after a site visit (pers. comm.). 



6. Compare for example NewalPs discussion of the date 



of Stonehenge (1929, 88) and her presentation of 

 this discussion (Cunnington 1930a, 113). 



7. From Ken Annable's copies of Keiller's letters. 



8. Such a technique was, in fact, standard practice. In a 



note on the All Cannings Cross excavations in the 

 Antiquaries Journal it states '...a large number of urns 

 put together with exemplary patience and dexterity 

 by Mrs Cunnington for the museum' (1923, 263; 

 and Paul Robinson pers. comm.). 



