Sepulchral Barrows at Broad Down,Near Honiton,and an Unique Cup of Bituminous Shale there Found

The principal characteristics of the earthworks known as pillow mounds—artificial rabbit warrens—are discussed, together with the evidence for their date and purpose. Several aspects of their location and construction have caused considerable confusion to archaeologists in the past, and examples are suggested of current misidentification of these earthworks as prehistoric features. The need for a discussion of pillow mounds has recently become especially urgent due to the recognition of certain types of Neolithic earthwork of similar general appearance.     

Proceedings at Meetings of the Royal Archaeological Institute

Neolithic settlements are rare on the British mainland, and England in particular (Cooney 1997; Thomas 1999. 8–9 for somewhat differing comments}. One claimed site occurs at Portinscale 4 km west of the Castlerigg stone circle in the English Lake District where a number of stone axes and other artefacts were found in 1901. The finds were reported to consist of four unpolished stone axes, a number of ‘chippings of similar stone’ and of a ‘log…in an upright position, with the top rudely chipped as if by some clumsy instrument’ (Rawnsley 1902). The remains have sometimes been interpreted as those of a possible settlement where the axes were ‘finished’ or polished (Manby 1965, 3; cf. Fell 1950, 9), although Briggs (1989} noted that the axes also may have been used unpolished. The site is important in any discussion of the production of stone axes in the central Lake District (Bradley and Edmonds 1993). This paper reports the result of small-scale excavations designed to assess whether any material of archaeological interest survived on site and reviews the evidence reported by Rawnsley and that of stray finds of axes from the vicinity of Keswick and Castlerigg (Illus. 1).     

On the “Belgic Ditches,” and the Probable Date of Stonehenge

The acceptance of Caerlaverock castle into guardianship was followed by consolidation of the masonry and the clearance of the silted moat. In parallel with these operations, a series of excavations was carried out to investigate the nature of the outer defences and any surviving evidence for earlier bridges. Four different phases of timber bridges had crossed the moat to the gatehouse; the first three were dated by dendrochronology to 1277, 1371 and to the second quarter of the fifteenth century. An outer earthwork, originally intended purely to retain the water of the moat, was remodelled in the sixteenth century as an artillery defence. The approach to the castle was remodelled with an additional rock-cut moat, crossed by a timber bridge dated by dendrochronology c. 1559–94. Documentary evidence is examined for the use of these artillery defences, especially in the final siege of Caerlaverock in 1640. A rich assemblage of finds was recovered, mainly from unstratified contexts, both from the excavation of the bridges and from the general clearance work of the moat.     

Including people with learning difficulties in cultural and heritage sites

This paper examines the processes involved in a participatory inclusive research project in Liverpool and Merseyside, UK. The project involved 25 people with learning difficulties – the Heritage Forum – visiting 13 cultural and heritage sites on more than 50 occasions across a 15‐month period. The research provides a much needed resource at a time when there is a lack of provision for, and research into, the intellectual accessibility of cultural and heritage sites in the UK and globally. This paper details the research approach taken by the Heritage Forum, providing a flexible protocol about ways of working with groups and individuals with learning difficulties. It also reports on the Heritage Forum’s general findings about the cultural and heritage sites, providing some initial guidance about how to best include this diverse population.