The excavations of the Iron Age site at Little Woodbury were carried out by the Prehistoric Society in 1938–39 under the direction of Dr Gerhard Bersu. The first part of the report, published in Proc. Prehist. Soc. VI (1940), 30–111, was Dr Bersu's account of the structures revealed by excavation. This second part deals with the pottery, by far the most abundant material recovered, and discusses its significance for the history of the site and its relation to other Iron Age settlements in Wessex. The general conclusions are given first, and the detailed evidence on which they are based follows, with a catalogue of the pottery and two appendices.

About 170 round barrows and 15 flat graves from Kent are here recorded, almost all on the Chalk. In addition there are at least as many ring-ditches, mostly of ploughed-out round barrows, in Thanet, only a small selection of which are here included as a full list is being prepared by the Trust for Thanet Archaeology. Nine sites have yielded primary central inhumations and ten have contained primary central cremations. Four sites have yielded burials in their encircling ditch. Warrior equipment has come from two sites, and ‘Wessex’ interments from another two. Barrow Wouldham 1/THAN contained a central primary cremation in a four-post mortuary structure with parallels in the Toterfout-Halve-Mijl cemetery in the Netherlands, with which area relations are suggested. One site (Lydden 1/DOV) is identified as the Ellenbeorge of an Anglo-Saxon land charter. Several Bronze Age round barrows were used by the Jutes and Saxons for their intrusive burials, and there are two instances of an Anglo-Saxon cemetery being sited to adjoin a Bronze Age round barrow. More than twenty sites have recorded local names of which the most frequent general name is Mount. Some of the best surviving barrows are beside or near the North Downs Way and the Pilgrims' Way.

Sir Grahame Clark's interests in wetland archaeology were not restricted to his pioneering work at Star Carr and much of his writing was illuminated by his wide knowledge of the fruits of wetland research in many parts of the world. The paper presents the case for wetland archaeology, to show how it has expanded our knowledge of the past and has made prehistory more colourful and dynamic to both archaeologists and the public. In seeking the patterns of behaviour that existed in the past, six key elements contribute to our studies: environment and change; economy and subsistence; stratification and context; structures and activities; chronology and precision; and range of material culture. The evidence for all of these aspects is well-preserved in many wetland environments, and a number of key sites are identified and assessed for their contribution to prehistoric studies.

A paper in Vol. I., Part III., of the “Proceedings,” on “Pygmy Implements from Cornwall,” by E. L. Arnold, has spurred me on to place on record my discoveries on the same spot.

During the years 1898 to 1903 I paid numerous visits to the western side of Trevose Head, Booby Bay, Constantine Island, and also to the Late Celtic Cemetery at Harlyn Bay, one mite N.E. Flint flakes and cores or cones lay on the surface of the ground, at the cliff edge, all the way from Dinas Head (the western-most corner of the Trevose promontory, and a splendid look-out place), down to Booby Bay and Constantine Island. They had evidently once been covered with soil and are now exposed by the wastage thereof near the cliff edge. Some I dug out from the banks of tiny runlets formed after heavy rain.

Mr. Arnold says that “the artificers appear to have turned out immense numbers of barbs and arrow-points, but practically nothing else.” Like him, I found many hundreds of chipped flints, leaving quantities of them where I found them, after examination. But I found no true arrow-head. None of the pygmy tools were of especial smallness, but some were straight and sharply pointed, and I suggested, in “Man,” Vol. VII., No. 9, 83, their possible use as barbs to harpoons and also as fish hooks.

One flake, however, has been cleverly snicked from the base to half-way up its length, on each side, so as to leave two projecting shoulders as barbs, and a tang. It is carefully retouched round the edges on one face only. It has curved edges and a narrow, sharp chisel end.

A Lower Palaeolithic handaxe found a few years ago at St Catherine's Hill, Christ church, is described. Various aspects of its technology and morphology appear archaic, and although it was found in a secondary context, with no clear geological evidence for its true age, relatively old Pleistocene gravels do occur at the summit of the hill. At the Ballast Hole, Corfe Mullen, a few miles west, J. B. Calkin and J. F. N. Green recorded some 25 years ago a number of handaxes very similar to this one, in a hill-wash deposit below bluff gravels; they suggested that the implements had originally been dropped on the surface of the Sleight (170 ft) terrace while the 130 ft terrace was forming nearby. These implements were demonstrably older than the well-made later Acheulian ovate handaxes from the same pit. They were called Middle Acheulian by Calkin and Green, but it is suggested that Earlier Acheulian would be a better description. Their likely context in the British sequence is briefly discussed. Early Acheulian occurrences in situ in early deposits are rare in Britain and Europe.

Volume 52 of the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society contained two articles (Salisbury 1986; Tipping 1986) critical of our paper ‘The stratigraphy of Kirkhead Cave, an upper palaeolithic site in northern England’ (Gale and Hunt 1985). Here we reply.

Before dealing with the criticisms made by Salisbury, we correct the factual errors in his paper.

1. Bolton and Morris ‘… excavated through, and ultimately removed some 5 to 7 metres of cave earth…’ (Salisbury 1986, 321). In fact, the reports indicate a maximum depth of excavation of 7 ft (2.1 m) (Bolton 1864, cclii) or 8 ft (2.4 m) (Morris 1865–66, 360, 361; 1866, 169, 170; Bolton 1869, 167–68).

2. Bolton and Morris's ‘… publications are of little value today, and both may be considered to have been “bone hunters” and collectors’ (Salisbury 1986, 321). The assertion that Bolton and Morris's excavation reports are of little value suggests that Salisbury is not familiar with the wealth of early literature on this site. The reports provide a picture of a rich and varied assemblage of artefacts and macrofauna in the unit overlying the stalagmite floor in the cave. Information is also provided on the lithology of that unit. Interpretation of these reports allows the reconstruction of the stratigraphic context of the finds: we direct Salisbury's attention to Gale and Hunt (1985, 296–97) for an indication of the stratigraphic reconstruction possible from the information given in these early publications.