In 1937 the philosopher Robin Collingwood excavated a henge monument in Cumbria and identified the postholes of a series of timber buildings, which he compared with those at other sites. These structures at Eamont Bridge were replaced by a stone circle. He planned to continue the work for a second season, but was prevented by illness. His project was completed by the famous German scholar Gerhard Bersu, who concluded that many of the features identified two years earlier were of geological origin; others were rootholes and animal burrows. Their projects have played a part in the history of fieldwork, but in recent years influential researchers have tried to rehabilitate Collingwood’s reputation as an excavator. Their views were encouraged by his pivotal role in studies of the northern frontier of Roman Britain. In 2023 parts of the monument at King Arthur’s Round Table were re-excavated with the aim of settling the dispute. The new work supported Bersu’s interpretation, but recognised that Collingwood’s approach was not as misguided as his critics had supposed – it was directly based on his agenda for historical research. The real problem is that he had been working without sufficient experience on a difficult subsoil. This article considers the methods used by both researchers at King Arthur’s Round Table and compares their distinctive approaches to field archaeology.

In recent scholarship on the Ottoman Mediterranean, it has become commonplace to challenge narratives of heroic discovery and cultural superiority expounded in publications by European travellers. Rather than taking a polished, published account as its starting point, this paper discusses the travels of Edward Falkener (1814–96), a lesser-known Victorian architect and writer whose extensive tour around Anatolia (1844–5) was never communicated to a broader audience. If Falkener is remembered today, it is usually as the author of the first anglophone monograph on ancient Ephesus and editor of the first British academic journal devoted to classical art and architecture. This paper reviews Falkener’s career, but instead of these publications, the focus is on his remarkable personal archive of diaries, sketchbooks, watercolours, contracts and notes for an incomplete book about his tour of Anatolia. Drawing on this collection, it explores his fluctuating interests in heritage from different periods of Anatolia’s history and well-documented interactions with a variety of local actors who helped or hindered his meandering tour. Representing the first attempt to study Falkener’s journey, this paper explores the utility of his archive for understanding the challenges and contingencies of Victorian travel in the Ottoman Empire.

John Carter’s fervour as a recorder and polemicist for Gothic architecture has been debated since his lifetime, but his classical designs have attracted less interest. However, these give some insight into the influences upon aspiring young Georgian architects, as Carter was in the 1770s. His two sets of designs for Bywell Hall, Northumberland, the first published in the Builder’s Magazine in 1776, and a more detailed portfolio now in a private collection, are presented together for the first time. This is an opportunity to examine Carter’s early ideas and his thoughts on the appropriate styles to be employed for public, domestic and ecclesiastical buildings. Analysis of Carter’s designs demonstrates his desire to create impressive interior spaces, but poor consideration of the practicalities for family and servant life in country houses. Carter’s preference for Gothic over classical architecture, combined with humble origins and personality traits, prevented his aspiration to be an architect, but his drawing skills secured fame as one of the foremost architectural draughtsmen.

Since its rediscovery in the context of nineteenth-century colonial India, the study of the ancient Buddhist sculpture of Gandhara (northern Pakistan) has been hampered by very limited information about the provenance of finds. This is the result of poorly documented expeditions by archaeologists and antiquarians, as much as the enduring appeal of classically-influenced Gandharan art to collectors. The present study casts light on the modern itineraries of antiquities recovered on the North-West Frontier of late colonial India with new discoveries about the extraordinary Evert Barger expedition of 1938.

Although it made a major contribution to the collections of the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, its nominal sponsor, the Barger expedition was characterised by a surprisingly haphazard and unstrategic approach, even by the standards of the day, and it straddled the diplomatically sensitive boundary between the official jurisdiction of British India and the princely state of Swat. By exploring new information about three Barger sculptures in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, two of which were previously unprovenanced, this study unpacks the complex history of the Barger antiquities, correcting past misapprehensions and adding depth to a story of colonial archaeology that has tended to rely on generalisations.

The Tudor and Stuart New Year's gift exchange rolls were prepared every year. The manuscripts were kept in the Jewel House as an audit and accounting record of the inventory and were removed when the contents of the Jewel House were dispersed in 1649. A total of thirty-five rolls of the Tudor and Stuart exchanges are known to be extant. Between the mid-seventeenth century and the present time these manuscripts were held in private muniment collections, sold at auctions and intermittently studied by dilettantes. Individuals purchased the rolls for personal study and as curiosities. Antiquarians and Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries of London were interested in and recognised the value of these gift rolls. Antiquarian book dealers and autograph collectors enhanced the rarity of royal signatures and emphasised the rarity of these manuscripts. Sale catalogues of various bookdealers and auction houses record the path of the gift rolls from and/or into private collections and archives. Presently, while they should be included with the other state papers, these manuscripts are in the custody of eleven different archival locations in three countries. This paper tracks the preservation of these manuscripts through their ownership journeys and the records related to their locations.

2026 sees the centenary of the publication of Mill Stephenson’s List of Monumental Brasses in the British Isles, a work that is still the sole complete inventory of all British monumental brasses. Stephenson was a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London, and it was the Society’s own collection of brass rubbings that provided the essential foundation for his work. Stephenson’s project was a collaborative one that drew heavily on the endeavours of other like-minded antiquaries, and the Society’s Inner Library was the nerve-centre of his operation. Stephenson published extensively, and he left many of his papers and collections to the Society. Together, these sources allow us to build a picture of his working methods and the stages from which the List was to emerge. The article will look afresh at Stephenson’s career, about which hitherto little has been written, looking especially at his private life and the range of his acquaintances, his List and the role of the Society in its creation. It will further attempt an evaluation of his scholarly achievement, considering both his strengths and weaknesses as a scholar, and it will conclude with some reflections on how the listing of brasses has evolved since his time.

As an antiquarian at the beginning of the age of professional scholarship, Francis Douce (1737–1834) has enjoyed a mixed reputation, exemplified by Meg Twycross’s account of his influence on beliefs regarding the origins of the Towneley Plays. Widely-read and embedded in a network of like-minded enthusiasts, Douce does not appear to have recorded his insights for publication, but he nevertheless participated in what might be considered scholarly exchange. This article will pay attention to the annotations that Douce made in the margins of – and on sheets tipped into – French-language books published before 1600. It will look at what sort of features attracted Douce’s attention (primarily bibliographical, but also some relating to the content of the books he was reading). It will consider where Douce was getting his information about the works he collected and will note instances where Douce revisited and revised his opinions, evaluating the extent to which he was up-to-date with contemporary advances. Where Douce expresses his own opinion, this article will examine whether this opinion has been supported by later scholars. In short, what do the annotations tell us about the state of scholarship in the first decades of the nineteenth century?