No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Stanwick Excavations, 1951. Interim Report
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 November 2011
Extract
In the parishes of Stanwick St. John and Forcett-with-Carkin, eight miles north of Richmond in the North Riding of Yorkshire, are more than six miles of rampart and ditch, forming a complex of enclosures of a very remarkable kind. Since Leland's day they have been a sufficiently notorious archaeological problem, but their size and remoteness on the one hand, and possibly the counter-attractions of Hadrian's Wall on the other, have combined to deter analytical investigation of them.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1952
References
page 1 note 1 Leland, J., The Itinerary, ed. Smith, L. T. (London, 1909), iv, 27.Google Scholar
page 1 note 2 Arch. Journ. vi(1849), 335Google Scholar; Arch. Tracts, p.19.
page 1 note 3 Wooler, E., The Roman Fort at Piercebridge, County Durham (Frome and London, 1917)Google Scholar; and in Proc. Soc. Ant. of Newcastle on Tyne, 4th ser. (1924), 287 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 1 note 4 V.C.H. York, ii, 61–62;Google ScholarElgee, F., Yorkshire (County Archaeologies Series), pp. 49,Google Scholar 233-4. Contrast with thectual deer-park within Stanwick Park, with its appropriate internal ditch, underlines the fallacy.
page 2 note 1 Museums Journal, li, no. 6 (Sept. 1951), 139.Google Scholar
page 2 note 2 Piggott, Stuart in Proc. Prehistoric Soc. xvi(1950), 17Google Scholar; Fox, Cyril, ‘The Study of Early Celtic Metalwork in Britain’, The Advancement of Science, no. 30 (Brit. Assoc, 1951)Google Scholar.
page 2 note 3 Proc. Roy. Arch. Inst., York volume, 1846, p. 10Google Scholar.
page 2 note 3 Bruce, J. C., A Descriptive Catalogue of Antiquities at Alnwick Castle, p. 88.Google Scholar
page 5 note 1 Antiq. Journ. xxi (1941), 267Google Scholar; Archaeologia, xc (1944), 139Google Scholar.
page 6 note 1 For its course from Swaledale to Teesdale, see Mackuchlin, H. in Arch. Journ. vi (1849), 221 ff.Google Scholar and V.C.H. York, ii, 55Google Scholar.
page 7 note 1 This is a fair general statement since, with the exception of one or possibly two sherds from the top, the Roman pottery from site A forms a substantially homogeneous group threaded throughout by occasional sherds of butt-beaker. The Roman wares are already dominant in the lowest levels, namely10, 7, and 8.
page 7 note 2 The significant site for this inference is Col-Chester: Hawkes, C. F. C. and Hull, M. R., Camu-lodunum (1947), p. 179Google Scholar.
page 7 note 3 Corder, P. and Pryce, T. Davies in Antiq. Journ. xviii (1938), 262 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 8 note 1 Camulodunum (1947), pp. 278–9,Google Scholar types 112, 113, 115, 116, 119.
page 8 note 2 e.g. Richborough, iv, nos. 403–4.
page 8 note 3 Annals xii, 32.
page 8 note 4 Ibid. 36.
page 8 note 5 Ibid.40.
page 9 note 1 Hist, iii, 45.
page 9 note 2 Miller, Stuart in Journ. of Roman Studies, xv(1925), 182–4,Google Scholar and xviii (1928), 98-99.
page 9 note 3 Tacitus, , Agricola, 17.Google Scholar
page 11 note 1 I am indebted to Dr. Gerhard Bersu, Hon. F.S.A., for these two analogies.
page 13 note 1 Proc. Prehist. Soc. xvi (1950), 1 ff.Google Scholar Professor Piggott will very kindly contribute a note on the new sword to the final report, and Dr. Plenderleith will describe the ingenious methods whereby its wood and metal have been conserved.
- 2
- Cited by