The "Sanctuary" [Map] On Overton Hill, Near Avebury. By M. E. Cunnington (age 60). Being an account of excavations carried out by Mr. and Mrs. B. H, Cunnington in 1930.

The earliest known description of the circles of standing stones at Avebury and on Overton Hill is that of Aubrey in the 17th century. His account of the rings on Overton Hill is very brief, but he left a plan giving further details (Plate IV.). He says "above which place (i.e. West Kennet) on the brow of the hill, is another monument, encompassed with a circular trench, and a double circle of stones, four or five foot high, tho’ most of them are now fallen down."¹

Note 1. Gibson’s Camden (1695), 111—112; quoted by Stukeley in Abury, 32; see also Jackson’s Aubrey, 322; W.A.M., iv., 317. Aubrey's Monumenta Britannica, the MS. of which is now in the Bodleian Library, has never been published in full, but extracts relating to Wiltshire, with reproductions of the two plans referred to, will be found in Jackson’s Aubrey, published by the society in 1862, and in Long’s Abury, W.A.M., iv., 310 (1858); vii. 224.

Aubrey first saw Avebury in 1648¹ but his account does not seem to have been written till between the years 1659—1670.²

Note 1. W.A.M,, iv., 311

Note 2. Jackson’s Aubrey, ii.

Under date June 15th, 1668, Pepys in his Diary, after describing his visit to Avebury, writes "So took coach again, seeing one place with great high stones pitched round, which, I believe, was once some particular building, in some measure like that of Stonehenge. But, about a mile off, it was prodigious to see how full the Downes are of great stones; and all along the vallies stones of considerable bigness." Pepys was going from Avebury to Marlborough, so the circles on Overton Hill seem to be the only site to which this description of a place, reminding him of Stonehenge, could apply. If this is so, this mention of the circles is second only to that of Aubrey.

The next description that we have of Avebury and its environs is that of Dr. Stukeley, written some fifty or sixty years later. Dr. Stukeley visited Avebury in several successive years before and after 1720, but his book Abury was not published till 1743.

He made a detailed study of Avebury and its surroundings, and his observations, though not always very accurate, are invaluable. Stukeley was influenced by the idea of serpent worship, and thought that Avebury was laid out to represent a great serpent.

The circles at Avebury itself represented the coiled body; a double row of standing stones that Stukeley thought ran westwards (the problematical Beckhampton avenue) represented the tail, and the Kennet avenue the forepart of the body, while the circles on Overton Hill, at which the Kennet avenue ended, were regarded as the head.

Stukeley describes with feelings of lively regret how what still remained of these circles on Overton Hill were destroyed in the winter of 1724, in order to clear the ground for ploughing and "to gain a little dirty profit." They (i.e. the country people) still call it the Sanctuary."¹

Note 1. Abury, 31. This does not seem a name at all likely to have been given by the local country folk. Aubrey made a marginal note in his M.S. to ask the name of the rings, but unfortunately, if ever asked, the answer has not come down to us.

The accounts given by Aubrey and Stukeley of the Sanctuary differ very considerably. Aubrey’s sketch shows the rings as circles, while Stukeley describes them as two concentric ovals and plans them as such; he also states that the stones of the inner ring "were somewhat bigger than of the outer ring.¹"

Note 1. Abury, 32

Stukeley did not doubt that the Kennet avenue connected the Sanctuary with Avebury, but he says that Aubrey "did not see that ’tis but one avenue from Abury to Overton-hill, having no apprehension of the double curves it makes"¹ This suggestion that Aubrey did not realise this connection is scarcely born out by Aubrey’s own words "West Kynet stands in the angle where the walke (i.e. avenue) from Aubury hither, and that from the top of the hill did joine.... and ’tis likely that here might in the old time have been the celle or Convent for the priests belonging to these temples."² And again in describing the Kennet avenue Aubrey says — "From the south entrance runnes a solemne Walke, sc. of stones pitch’d on end about seven foot high, wch goes as far as Kynet (wch is (at least) a measured mile from Aubury) and from Kynet it turnes a right angle east-ward crossing the river, and ascends up the hill to another monument of the same kind (but less).... very probable this walke was made for processions."³

Note 1. Abury, 32

Note 2. Jackson’s Aubrey, 323.

Note 3. W.A.M., iv., 315—6; Aubrey made a slip in saying the avenue crossed the river Kennet and in his sketch where the river is shown, his drawing of the avenue does not cross it.

When in the Spring of 1930, the possibility of excavating the Sanctuary was being considered, the first difficulty was to locate the site. It was known only that it had stood somewhere in the field once known as Mill Field, west of the Ridgeway and south of the main road (see note 2, p. 317).

By the courtesy of the Archeology Officer of the Ordnance Survey, a number of photographs of the field taken from the air were examined, but none gave any indication of the site of the Sanctuary, though the ditch of the much-ploughed barrow in the same field, and of a barrow, quite invisible on the ground, in the corner just north of the road, west of the Ridgeway, were clearly defined. Attempts were made to locate the site in relation to barrows shown by Aubrey and Stukeley, but it was found impossible to identify these with the barrows still standing (see note 3, page 318).

Eventually it was found that a remark of Stukeley’s that it was possible to see the serpent’s head from its tail, limited the area that need be searched. Describing what he regarded as the end of the Beckhampton avenue, Stukeley says—‘in the low valley it terminates near a fine group of barrows under Cherhill-hill,.... This point facing that group of barrows and looking up the hill is a most solemn and awful place;.... And in this very point only you can see the temple on Overton-hill, on the south side of Silbury-hill.¹ The group of barrows is that close to what is now known as Fox Covert [Map], some three-quarters of a mile west of Beckhampton cross roads. On going to this spot it was found that a small triangular patch of Mill Field, 24 miles away, could be seen, and by counting the telegraph poles visible along the roadside, it became easy to define the possible area on which the Sanctuary must have stood.

Note 1. Abury, 36.

Mr. W.J. Osmond, the owner and occupier of the land, having given permission, although the field was already planted with sugar beet, excavations were begun on May 20th, 1930, and continued for five weeks, four men being employed all the time, and for three weeks five men.

A trial trench, 6ft. wide, was dug from the lower limit of the area towards the Ridgeway, roughly parallel with the main road, and on the third day when hopes were running low, two stone holes that proved to belong to the outer ring were found, and the position of the circles thus established, work went on uninteruptedly until all the holes of the two stone circles, and those of the hitherto unsuspected post hole rings, were uncovered.

THE SITUATION

The circles stand on a small level plateau at the south-western end of the spur or ridge of down that runs northwards to Hackpen Hill. The Ridgeway follows along this crest and passes within a few yards of the rings on their eastern side.

The site is like that of Woodhenge [Map] in that a river, the Kennet, flows at the bottom of the ridge less than a quarter of a mile away.

The situation is a beautiful one with extensive views. Through the valley eastwards the Kennet meanders towards Marlborough,with Savernake Forest to the right, and a glimpse of bare downs in the distance. Southward range the highest chalk hills in Wiltshire, with Wansdyke visible along the crest on its way from Savernake to Tan Hill. Westward are the scarp of Roundway Down, and Oldbury or Cherhill Hill [Map], crowned with a fine earthwork. Further to the north Windmill Hill with its barrows can be seen, and the tower of Avebury Church [Map] (when the trees are leafless), but not Avebury itself.

If it were not for some trees and buildings the whole course of the Kennet avenue would be visible, except for a short length of about 150 yards as it approaches the entrance to Avebury, a fold in the down shutting it off, and all of Avebury except for a glimpse of the crest of the bank on the eastern side.

There are some dozen round barrows in sight on the hill itself, and across the river to the south, just above the tiny village of East Kennet, is a broadside view of the East Kennet long barrow [Map] planted with trees.

Further to the west lies the well-known West Kennet long barrow [Map], called by Stukeley "South" barrow. "It stands," he says, ‘east and west pointing to the dragon’s head on Overton-hill"¹ Actually, however, its long axis is directed considerably to the south of the Sanctuary.

The upper part of Silbury Hill can be seen. Stukeley said "Silbury-hill answers the avenue directly, as it enters this temple, being full west hence."² It will be seen (Plate I) that the southern line of stones of the avenue is very nearly directed to Silbury, but that the avenue is not "full west." It must be remembered, however, that the recovered part of the avenue was not planned by Stukeley, and was, therefore, presumably destroyed before his time; the avenue stone nearest to the rings shown on Stukeley’s plan judging by the spacing of the recovered stone holes, must have been the fifth outwards from the rings. Plate IV.

Note 1. Abury, 46.

Note 2. Abury, 33. Again on page 51 Stukeley says "The neck of the snake going down from Overton-hill regards Silbury precisely, and their intent was that it should be full west, but tis ten degrees north of west."

The hill itself is generally known as Overton Hill (as it was in Stukeley’s time), but the site is actually in the parish of Avebury, the Ridgeway being the boundary between that and the parish of West Overton. The hill is also known as Kennet Hill and Five Barrow Hill, and in a 10th century Saxon Charter was named Seven Barrow Hill. (Cod. Dip. No. 571; W.A.M,, vi., 327).

SUMMARY OF RINGS

Note 1. Posts only.

THE SIX RINGS OF POST HOLES

(Details of the holes are given on page 322).

Excavation revealed the wholly unexpected fact that, in addition to the two circles of stone holes, there are six rings of holes, concentric with the stone circles, that once held uprights not of stone but of timber (see note 5, page 319).

B. THE FENCE-RING

The outer of the timber circles lies between the outer and inner stone rings, and is exactly half the diameter of the outer one, i.e., 65ft. The holes of this ring are small and shallow and it is suggested that they may have served as supports to a wattle fence; the fact that two holes in the ring (Nos. 33—4) were much deeper and larger than any of the others, and may well have held gate posts, goes some way to support this suggestion.

C.—THE STONE-AND-POST-RING.

The second ring of post holes is on the same circumference as the inner stone circle, stone holes and post holes, alternating without a break all round the circle, 16 of each. These large holes must have held substantial timbers, one well-preserved core (hole 21) measuring 14 inches in diameter.

D. —BANK HOLIDAY-RING.

The first hole of this ring was found on Whit-Monday, June 9th, 1930. With the exception of the round hole No. 5, all the holes of this ring were oval in shape and very large; nine out of the eleven oval holes were stepped, i.e, the outer half was deeper than the inner. There was clear evidence that these large oval holes had held two distinct uprights, in some cases the two cores being seen with a packing of hard chalk between them.

Where the cores in the outer part of the holes were well enough defined to see, the timbers seem to have been about 12 to 14 inches in diameter, and rather less on the inner side. The cores were usually better defined in the outer than in the inner part of the hole, probably due to greater depth. In hole 10, two cores were particularly well defined, 1ft. in diameter and 2ft. apart from centre to centre, with a packing of hard chalk between. In this hole there were two roundish shallow depressions about an inch deep in the floor, apparently marking where the timbers had stood.

What purpose the twin posts in these holes served can only be a matter of conjecture; it has been suggested that they might have supported a log walling, the horizontal posts being held together by the twin uprights; they could have served some function in connection with a roof (if the rings were roofed over, see page 309); or they may merely have resulted from a replacement of decayed timbers with new ones.

Another puzzling feature is that one hole (No. 5) should have been circular with a single post while all the others in the ring were oval with twin posts. A line drawn from the centre of the rings through this hole cuts the burial at stone hole 12, of the Stone-and-post-ring, but the line also cuts hole 2 of the 6-foot ring. If there was any significance in this it seems rather to link up the stone with the wooden structure and to suggest that they were contemporary, but it could be explained equally well on the supposition of this having been a point of special significance in the earlier timber structure, the nearest stone to it was therefore chosen as the site of burial. It will be seen that this single hole and the burial are on the eastern side of the rings.

The single hole 5 was dug at a slant and the core seemed to be inclined (see section 5, Plate III.); the outer cores in holes 8 and 9 also appeared to be inclined outwards, the latter at an angle of about one-sixth; the cores in holes 7 and 19 of the Stone-and-post ring were also inclined.

E.—THE 10-FOOT-RING.

The holes of the 10-foot-ring (roughly its radius from the centre) as may be seen on the plan are also rather oval in shape. These holes, however, had held only single posts, or if two as the oval shape suggests, the two posts must have stood close together so that they appeared as only one core. Traces of the core were found in all the holes of this ring. Holes 3 and 4 were stepped, i.e., the floors were of unequal depth like those of the Bank Holiday-ring, but no trace of a second core was found in either. The steps were 27 and 24 inches deep respectively. A shallow circular depression was noticed on the floor of hole 3, similar to those in hole 10 of the Bank Holiday-ring. The oval shape of the holes in this ring may be due to a desired slight re-adjustment in the position of the posts, or as suggested in connection with the oval holes of the Bank Holiday ring, the decay and restoration of some of the posts.

F.—THE 7-FOOT-RING.

The eight small holes of this ring seem to have been placed with regard to the position of the eight holes of the 10-foot-ring. This also places them symmetrically with the six holes of the inmost ring (6-foot-ring), for it will be seen that there are two holes between 1—2 and 3—4, and one between each of the other holes of the inmost ring. As was only to be expected from the small size of the holes in this ring no trace of the core was found in either of them, and they were filled with a distinctive brown mould without relics of any kind.

G.—THE 6-FOOT-RING.

The inmost ring with a radius of some 6 feet, consisted of six deep round holes; the cores formed by the timber uprights were noticed in holes 3, 4, 5, and 6; these timbers seem to have had a diameter of about 12 inches.

Howes H. 1—5.

Between the Fence-ring and the Stone-and-post-ring, on the south-western side, there is a solitary stone hole, and on either side of it two small post holes of the same character as those of the Fence-ring. Presuming that the stone and timber rings are not contemporary, it seems that these five holes are more likely to belong to the timber than to the stone structure. The fact that the post holes are identical in character with those of the Fence-ring seems to connect them with that ring and therefore with the timber structure as a whole.

It may be remembered that at Woodhenge on the south weno side, between two uprights of the B ring, a hole was found which there was reason to believe had held a stone. It is suggested that this solitary stone on the south-western side of the Sanctuary is analogous to the solitary stone at Woodhenge,¹ whatever the meaning or significance of that stone may have been.

Note 1. 1 Woodhenge, p. 14.

THE CENTRAL POST HOLE

The central post must have been quite a slender one, the hole being only 42 inches deep, the diameter at top 20, and at bottom 10 inches. As the post cannot have been more than 10 inches across at the base. and must naturally have tapered if of any considerable height, it seems quite inadequate to have been the central roof-tree if the rings were roofed over as has been suggested. It may be remembered that a single upright stone once stood in the centre of the southern circle at Avebury. On the other hand it seems not altogether improbable that this small hole is a relic of the stake from which the rings were all laid out.

THE POSSIBILITY OF ROOFING

It has been suggested that the inner rings of posts may have supported a thatched roof. The idea suggested itself mainly on account of the strength implied by the size and depth of the post holes, the twin posts in the Bank-Holiday ring, and the fact of a central post (see above). There is no doubt that the posts of the four inner rings (excluding the 7-foot-ring) could have been used to support a roof, and drawings of several possible constructions have been made. One of the chief difficulties seems to be to give a reasonable explanation of the 10-foot-ring as well as the 6-foot ring; one reconstruction accounts for the twin posts in the Bank Holiday ring as serving the double purpose of supporting the ends of rafters and preventing their slipping, the ends of the uprights being assumed to be naturally forked trees; another plan utilises the twin posts as supports for a log walling.

It seems, however, that if a roof had been intended the ground plan would have been simpler, as any roof using all these uprights is necessarily a complicated structure. On the whole therefore it is felt that the arguments against there having been a roof are stronger than those in favour of one.

It has been suggested that Woodhenge was the forerunner of Stonehenge, and that the primitive timber structure was replaced by a more developed One in stone on a new site.¹ At the Sanctuary there is evidence that also points to the replacement of timber by stone. At Stonehenge the diameter of the outer or Aubrey circle is just double that of the long diameter of the A, or outer ring at Woodhenge. It is interesting therefore to find that the diameter of the outer stone circle at the Sanctuary is just double that of the outer timber or Fence-ring.

Note 1. Woodhenge, p. 21.

ORIENTATION.

There is no evidence of orientation at the Sanctuary any more than there is at Avebury itself; in this respect these two monuments differ from Woodhenge [Map] and Stonehenge which both show orientation. (On Lockyer’s claim for evidence of orientation at Avebury see W.A.M., xxxv., 515, June, 1908).

A DITCH SEARCHED FOR.

Aubrey speaks of a ditch and says—"I doe well remember there is a circular trench about this Monument or Temple, by the same token that Sir Robert Moray told me that one might be convinced and satisfied by it that the earth did growe."¹ But Stukeley writes—‘he (i.e. Aubrey) erred in saying there was a circular ditch on Overton-hill."² As Long points out³ there is no indication of a ditch or trench on Aubrey’s plan. Hoare also says that there was no appearance "of any ditch surrounding this circle of stones on Overton-hill."⁴ Incidentally this shows that the exact site where the circles had stood must still have been known in Hoare’s time. A glance at the plan of the area excavated will show that if there had in fact been a ditch surrounding the circles, within any reasonable distance, it would certainly have been found. The two long trenches on the east and north-east sides were made in searching for it, but as it was not found it may be considered as proved that in this particular Aubrey was mistaken and that Stukeley was right. Aubrey seems to have written his notes some considerable time after visiting the site, and it seems possible that he may have been confusing in his mind a ditch of one of the neighbouring barrows. His account of a ditch seems so circumstantial that it was not only hoped, but confidently expected, that a ditch would be found; indeed at one time it was actually thought that it had been found on the avenue side, but the would-be ditch proved after careful testing to be only a natural shallow channel in the chalk.

Note 1. Jackson’s Aubrey, 322; W.A.M, iv., 317.

Note 2. Abury, 32.

Note 3. W.A.M, iv., 328, note 2.

Note 4. An. Wilts, ii., 62, note.

DATE AND THEORY OF ORIGIN.

The evidence as far as it is at present known suggests that people living in the early Bronze Age (Beaker period) constructed on Overton Hill a series of concentric timber circles for ceremonial purposes. It is not necessary to picture these timbers as merely bare standing posts, they could have been coloured and adorned in a variety of ways.

These people some time later, but in the same "period," raised the circles of standing stones at Avebury. The site on Overton Hill was regarded as one of considerable importance, so when the circles at Ayebury were made it was thought desirable to connect the new site with the old by means of an "avenue" of standing stones, and the Kennet avenue was made and carried on to Overton Hill for this reason.

By this time the timbers may have been in a bad state of preservation, and as more in keeping with the stone avenue two circles of stones were erected in their stead, the same centre being retained, and the diameter of the outer stone circle being made just double that of the outer timber ring (Fence-ring). The new construction, consisting of only two stone circles, was simpler in design than the original timber rings for the reason that the ceremonial centre had now been transferred to the new site at Avebury.

The discovery of rings of timber uprights, that the evidence suggests were replaced by standing stones, on a site so closely connected with Avebury, is of no little interest in connection with the suggestion made with regard to Woodhenge [Map], that it was the forerunner of Stonehenge. (Woodhenge, 18). The fact that the timber was used in the midst of this sarsen-strewn country, where a practically unlimited number of naturally shaped and suitable stones were to be had in the immediate neighbourhood, is in itself remarkable, and shows that timber was not only used as a substitute when stone was not available, but in this case at least, was actually chosen in preference to stone.

Judging by the character of the pottery found the date of the original construction, and of reconstruction (if such took place) would fall within that part of the early Bronze Age known as the Beaker period, round about 1,500 B.C. (See also under Pottery).

THE BURIAL.

One burial was found. This consisted of a much crouched skeleton of a youth some 14 or 15 years of age, lying in a shallow grave on the inner side of the stone hole 12, in the Stone-and-post-ring, z.e., on the eastern side of the rings immediately behind the one single-post hole in the Bank Holiday ring (Plate X.).

The skeleton lay on its right side, head to the south, feet to the north i.e., facing east. The grave was 1½ft. deep, 3ft. long, by 2ft. wide. The grave and the stone hole cut into one another, and the body must have almost, if not quite, touched the inner face of the stone at the time of burial, if the stone was already standing. See Pl. III., 1.

The arms were crossed above the elbow in front of the face, the two hands seeming to enfold the face, finger bones being found over and under the facial bones; the head was bent forward over the chest, and the legs were crossed below the knees.

In front of the legs just below the knees lay the crushed fragments of a beaker. Intimately associated with the skeleton, apparently having been laid on the body when it was buried, were some bones of animals,¹ some being slightly charred. A few small flecks of charred (or decayed?) wood were noticed among the bones of the skeleton.

The bones of the skeleton were nearly all broken, most of the limb bones being in several pieces. The skull and the beaker were crushed flat and a few fragments of both were missing; it seems that this was probably due to a certain amount of disturbance caused when the stone fell, or was thrown down and removed. Some of the crushing may be due to heavy modern agricultural machines.

Note 1. See Dr. Jackson’s report.

It is hardly possible that the burial was made before the stone hole was dug; the probability seems to be that it was made at the time the stone was erected, for the risk of bringing down the stone would have been considerable had the grave been dug later. As all the ground within and including the Fence-ring was dug over, had there been other burials they must have been found, so this with Woodhenge [Map] makes the second elaborate series of wooden circles that were not erected primarily as burial places. This solitary somewhat insignificant burial may have been of a dedicatory nature as the only one in the rings at Woodhenge [Map] is thought to have been. The evidence from the burial affords a striking parallel to that of the pottery as regards an overlap in cultures. While some of the pottery is of the West Kennet Long Barrow type the rest is equally characteristic of the succeeding "Beaker" period. The youth buried beside the stone was of Long Barrow people ancestry, but the vessel by his side is one typical of the "Beaker"? people, who invaded Britain at the end of the Long Barrow period, imposing their culture—and presumably conquering—the Long Barrow people who were previously predominant in southern Britain. Better evidence of overlap could scarcely be expected.

The only other human remains found were three pieces of a lower jaw scattered in stone hole 16 of the Stone-and-post-ring; the pieces were subsequently fitted together but do not make a complete jaw.

An altogether exceptionally large piece of sarsen was found in post-hole 21 of the Stone-and-post ring; it measures 17in. X 12in. and 16in. deep, its base being 20in. below surface level (see Pl. III. 7). When this stone was lifted out of the hole it was found to be resting directly on the core which was particularly well defined in this hole. It is therefore certain that this large sarsen got into this hole after the post was decayed, and in some other way than that of the sarsens spoken of above. Much of its surface shows natural crust and it seems to have been broken off a larger boulder. It may be supposed that either at the time of the erection of the stones, or after their destruction had begun, this large fragment was dropped into the hollow marking the site of the hole, or purposely buried to be out of the way.

THE POTTERY.

The quantity of pottery found is small, but fortunately more than from the holes at Woodhenge [Map]. At Woodhenge [Map] most of the pottery and other objects came from the ditch or from under the bank, but at the Sanctuary there is no bank or ditch.

About 200 sherds in all were found, some showing distinctive ornament but many are plain and of indefinite character.

With the exception of three small pieces from the surface of Early Iron Age or Romano-British date, the pottery all belongs to one group, composed of two distinct but overlapping types, The earlier of these is known as the West Kennet, or Peterborough long-barrow type, the later as "Beaker" pottery.

Pottery of the West Kennet type seems to be characteristic of the long-barrow people who inhabited southern Britain before the arrival of the "Beaker" people who buried their dead in round barrows.

The Beaker people either themselves introduced the use of bronze into this country, or arrived about the time that it was first used. The Beaker period is therefore identical with that of the early Bronze Age in Britain, and the discovery of pottery of this type on any site shows that it must have been occupied in the Bronze Age.

The Beaker people presumably came as conquerers, but even so there is no reason to believe that they exterminated the older inhabitants, or that the earlier culture was entirely superseded.The association of the West Kennet and beaker types of pottery, not only in burials but also on living sites, is indeed good evidence to the contrary, and shows that elements of the older culture survived along with the new. The evidence of the burial found in the Sanctuary affords an example of this overlap. The youth buried, as his skeletal remains show, was a descendant of the narrow-headed long-barrow people, while at his side was placed a vessel of beaker type, that could not have found its way there but for the invasion of the "Beaker" people.

While there seems to have been among the West Kennet pottery a considerable variety of vessels, the most characteristic and best known form is that of a highly-ornamented round-bottom bowl with spreading lip and contracted below the rim. These are well represented by bowls in the British Museum, found in the Thames at Mortlake and Mongewell.¹ The ware is coarse and imperfectly fired, even when the surface is burnt red, usually showing a black core; the paste is often mixed with broken shells or particles of flint or other stone, and and. The ornamentation shows great variety, some of it being produced by impressions on the soft clay of twisted cord or sinews, finger tips or finger nails, and very frequently of the articulating ends of bones of small birds and mammals². Some of the fragments from the Sanctuary seem to have belonged to bowls of this type and are illustrated on Plates VII., VIII.

The fragments of beaker (except No. 2) are not illustrated, as the type is so well known, the ornament consisting exclusively of rows of horizontal parallel lines executed in the characteristic notched manner.

Note 1. Archæologia, lxii., 340.

Note 2. New light on an old Problem, Antiquity, September 1929, 283—291

Thanks are due to Mr. C. W. Pugh, M.B.E., Mr. E. L. Pegge, and to Lieut.-Col. R. H. Cunnington, R.E., for help rendered during the excavations. To Col. Cunnington we are indebted for the plan and measurements of the rings, etc., and to Mr. Pugh for the drawings reproduced in Plate VI. Mr. W. J. Osmond, of West Kennet, the former owner and occupier of the land, kindly gave us permission to excavate in the first instance, and subsequently allowed us to purchase this corner of his field in order that the site might be preserved.

We wish also to express our indebtedness to Sir Arthur Keith, M.D., F.R.S., for reporting on the human remains.

To Dr. J. Wilfrid Jackson, F.G.S8., Assistant Keeper of the Manchester Museum, for reporting on the animal remains.

To Dr. H. H. Thomas, of H.M. Geological Survey, for the identification of several specimens of minerals.

To Dr. T. W. Woodhead. Ph.D, M.Sc., F.L.S., for the identification of the charcoals.

To Mr. A. S. Kennard, A.L.S., for his report on the snail shells.

We have purchased the site and it is intended to mark the holes in the different circles in some suitable way so that visitors may be able to realise on the spot the size and general lay-out of the monument that once stood there.

It is hoped eventually to hand the site over to the care of some public body for the benefit of the public.

The pottery, etc., found on the. site will be placed in the Society’s Museum at Devizes. ‘The skeleton from the burial has been given to the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, Lincolns Inn Fields, London.

NOTE 1.—ON THE METHOD OF DESTRUCTION OF THE SARSENS.

During the excavation of the stone holes, especially those of the outer ring, the holes were found to have been enlarged, usually on the outer side; the floors of these holes were covered with a burnt layer and quantities of charred material consisting largely of charred straw; while in the soil filling the hole and round about it, numerous scorched pieces and fired flakes of sarsen were found, thus confirming the following method of destruction described by Stukeley:—‘‘ The method is, to dig a pit by the side of the stone, till it falls down, then to burn many loads of straw under it. They draw lines of water along it when heated, and then with smart strokes of a great sledge hammer, its prodigious bulk is divided into many lesser parts. But this atto de fe commonly costs thirty shillings in fire and labour, sometimes twice as much. ‘They own too ’tis excessive hard work, for these stones are often 18 foot long, 13 broad, and 6 thick [these figures refer to stones at Avebury itself], that their weight crushes the stones in pieces, which they lay under them to make them lie hollow for burning, and for this purpose they raise them with timbers 20 foot long and more, by the help of 20 men, but often the timbers were rent in pieces." Abury, 15—16. Holes nos. ], 2, and 41, of the outer circle, are probably those that held the stones shown by Stukeley as still standing in July, 1723 (Pl. V.). The enlargement of these holes in order to throw the stones, and the evidence of their destruction by fire was very marked.

NOTE 4.—THE GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS.

The rubbly condition found to a depth of one to two feet seems to be characteristic of the Holaster planus zone in this region, at the bottom of the Upper Chalk and just above the Chalk Rock. The green-coated and iron-stained chalk nodules that appear to be characteristic of the Chalk Rock were very noticeable at the bottom of the deeper holes. The site is about 560 feet O.D.; the nearest Bench Mark being 562. 4. (We are indebted to Mr. H. C. Brentnall for information derived from the Geological Memoir). A considerable area east of the Ridgeway (north and south of the road), has been dug over for the sake of the chalk rubble found here and formerly much used for road making, yard paving, etc.

PLATE IV.

1.—Plan of the Sanctuary after Aubrey (reduced). It shows two barrows close to its eastern side, also the bend in the avenue at its junction with the rings, which Aubrey gave it apparently in order to include the three stones numbered N1 and N2 on plan (Plate I.), and one stone beyond, the hole for which could not be definitely verified by excavation (see page 306).

2.—Plan of the Sanctuary after Stukeley (reduced). It shows the two stone rings as ovals, with the first pair of avenue stones as some 80ft. from the outer ring.

PLATE V.

Stukeley’s sketch of the Sanctuary entitled ‘Prospect of the Temple on Overton Hill, 8 July, 1723. The Hakpen, or head of the Snake in ruins," Stukeley says "It had suffer’d a good deal when I took that prospect of it, with great fidelity, anno 1723, which I give the reader in plate xxi. Then, about sixteen years ago, farmer Green aforemention’d took most of the stones away to his buildings at Bekampton; and in the year 1724 farmer Griffin plough’d half of it up. But the vacancy of every stone was most obvious, the hollows still left fresh, and that part of the two circles which I have drawn in the plate was exactly as I have represented it. In the winter of that year the rest were all carry’d off, and the ground ploughed over." (Abury, 31).

The inner ring is represented by holes only, all the stones evidently hav- ing been removed. ‘The stone lying outside the rings, to the right, must be the one that stood in the hole N1 or N2 on plan (Plate I. and page 306).

PLATE VI.—FLINTS.

A considerable number of small flakes and chips of flint were found in the surface rubble round about the holes 15, 16, and 19 of the Stone-and- post ring. These seemed to be debris of flint knapping. Some half-dozen or so scrapers were found on the surface, and one small barbed and tanged arrowhead, weathered white.

1.—Arrowhead of grey flint, with rudimentary tang and poor workmanship. Found 4½ft. deep in hole 5 of the Bank Holiday ring.

2.—Arrowhead? of grey flint, irregular in shape and of poor workmanship. Found 2½ft. deep in the packing of hole 6 of the Bank Holiday ring.

3.—Arrowhead of flint with hollow base, weathered white, worked on both sides of one edge only. Found in hole 1 of the outer stone circle.

4.—Small spear or lance-head of flint, weathered white on one side, grey on the other. Found in surface rubble.

PLATE VIII.—POTTERY.

11.—Rim fragment of bowl?, slight ridge below rim on inside, fairly well baked buff ware. Found 2½ft. deep in post hole 13 of the Stone-and-post ring.

12.—Rim fragment of bowl? with ridge below rim on the inside similiar to No. 11 above. Paste black mixed with flint. Found at the bottom of hole 10 of the Bank Holiday ring.

13.—Rim fragment of bowl? very poor soft brown ware, exterior tooled. Found near the bottom of hole 3 of the Bank Holiday ring.

14, 15, 17, 18.—Four sherds of fairly hard well baked pottery, surface a dull red, paste black, ‘These look as if they were all sherds of the same pot but were found in three different holes. No. 14, 1ft. deep in hole 15 of the Bank Holiday ring; No. 15, 3ft. deep in hole 13 of the same ring; Nos. 17 and 18, 2ft. deep in hole 4 of the 10ft. ring.

16.—Rim fragment of brown ware with flint particles, ornamented as shown on the flat of the rim with diagonal lines of small punch marks. Found in hole 26 of the outer stone circle.

PLATE IX.

Photograph and drawing of the beaker found in front, and just below the knees, of the skeleton in the burial close to the inner side of the stone hole 12, in the inner stone circle. Height 4½in., rim diam, 4in., base 2½in. Paste black and sparingly mixed with particles of flint, surface dull brown, rim; out-bent. Ornamented with horizontal rows of small punch marks arranged in three groups with plain zones between, six rows in the two upper groups and five in the lower.

The vessel approximates to type B, i.e. ovoid cup with recurved rim. Of the beakers illustrated by Abercromby No. 42 bis, from Stoford, Somerset, is nearest to it with regard to the punch mark decoration.¹

It may be remembered that a skeleton burial with a beaker was found close to the foot of the stone "Adam [Map]," at Beckhampton, when it fell in 1911.²

Note 1. Bronze Age Pottery, vol. 1.

Note 2. W.A.M., vol. xxxviii., 1.

PLATE X.

The crouched skeleton found close to the inner side of stone hole 12 of the Stone-and-post ring. The stone hole is seen lengthwise to the left, i.e. in front of the skeleton, the left knee is on the edge of the hole. The upper part of post hole 13 may be seen beyond the stone hole.

The article continues with a series of tables.

The following were found immediately on the top of a human skeleton burial, C 12:—

Ox.—A lower tooth, toe-bone, split tibia, etc., belonging to a small animal.

Pig.—Teeth and a few bones.

Fragment of antler of red deer.

It is interesting to note the absence of sheep from the above collection of remains.

The absence of sheep bones as noted by Dr. Jackson is particularly interesting in view of the extreme scarcity of the remains of this animal at Woodhenge [Map] also. Whether it is due tothe rarity of this animal in Britain in the early and middle Bronze Age, or a prejudice against it on ceremonial sites such as these, must for the present remain uncertain.

In addition to the bones sent to Dr. Jackson a few fragments of antlers of red deer were found, one at the bottom of hole 2 of the 6-ft. ring, one in hole 4, and another at the bottom of hole 2 of the 10-foot ring.

Toad bones.—In some of the post holes quite a number of these bones were found in a very fragmentary state, only a selection of these being sent to Dr. Jackson. Their presence in the holes may be due to the animals creeping into the decaying trunks for shelter. In the grave beneath a neighbouring barrow a number of what were reported as frogs’ bones were found some years ago.¹ Mr. Mortimer records that in a Bronze Age barrow in Yorkshire he found a number of bones of toads and frogs in the lower part of the mound near the interments.²

Note 1. W.A.M., xx., 343.

Note 2. Forty Years Researches, 351—2.

REPORT ON THE NON-MARINE MOLLUSCA. By A.S. KENNARD, A.L.S., AND THE LATE B. B. WOODWARD, F.L.S.

Thirty-five samples of earth from as many post-holes were submitted to us for examination and from these we obtained thirty-two species of non-marine mollusca. The samples varied somewhat in character, some containing far more humus than the remainder. Chips of sarsen, small flint flakes, and burnt flints were also present. The preservation of the shells also varied, but these differences would have arisen from the differences in the matrix. A large number of bones of small vertebrates were also present, a feature that did not occur at either Stonehenge or Woodhenge [Map]. We have tabulated the number of samples in which each species occurred, thus in- dicating the relative frequency.

List of species - see Original