Context (Field collection)
Found: ?Found in a barrow; Collected by: ?Webb.Dr; ?Webb Collection
Event Date
Author: Annie McKay

Context (Found together / assemblage)
The CAS Register associates this object with 1883.169 but it is unclear whether " found in a tumulus" applies to both objects or just to 1883.170. Nevertheless, they are best regarded as a possible set of grave goods.
Event Date
Author: maa

Description (Physical description)
Three rivet holes. No rivets extant. Very thin profile; Surface lightly corroded; Plain; ?Grave
Event Date 1883
Author: maa

Context (Related Documents)
CAS Register adds, in a different hand to the descriptions on .169 and .170: "Hardly accurate description". Old labels stuck in B.C.R. Register (referring to 1883.170 only, not 1883.169) read: "Found in a Tumulus" and "From the late ["Mr. I.Deck" crossed through] Dr. Webb's Collection" (S-J Harknett)
Event Date 11/10/2004
Author: Annie McKay

Context (References)
Hunter, John and Woodward, Ann. (2015). ‘Ritual in early Bronze Age Grave Goods Project’. Unpublished Leverhulme research project record sheets, University of Birmingham.
Event Date 2015
Author: Annie McKay

Context (Amendments / updates)
Measurement fields have been updated with information gathered from Hunter and Woodward.
Event Date 26/7/2018
Author: Annie McKay

Context (Related Documents)
See Doc.427 for Hunter and Woodward unpublished object sheets.
Event Date 29/8/2018
Author: Annie McKay

Context (Analysis)
On Friday 11th November 2022 Stuart Needham analysed this dagger. He noted Gerloff's original analysis suggested it was an unfinished flat riveted dagger, but 'The constant thickness of the plate, unsharpened edges, odd blade shape and certain surface features are all out of keeping with an EBA dagger. This is I think best regarded, subject to any future analysis, as a poor attempt to replicate an EBA dagger in the 19th century. On this assumption the 'provenance' would presumably indicate that of the original, i.e. no 169. The fact that the CAS register says '(?) ditto [i.e. Litlington]' suggests uncertainty or already a suspicion about the authenticity of the object... it is this piece rather than no 169 that is suggested to have come from a barrow, but this could be due to poor information coming from the previous owner, assuming both were indeed acquired from Webb. If the date of discovery of 1821 recorded in the later register [BCR accession register] is correct, the objects had been in private hands for over 30 years'.
Event Date 11/11/2022
Author: Eleanor Wilkinson