seen as highly progressive for the time. On many of their excavations, charcoal and bone samples were collected for museum deposition which along with their sieving of soil indicates an early observance of the importance of environmental evidence, perhaps to date the site or examine in a laboratory for microscopic finds. However, some aspects of their methodology was flawed, such as bias in what they identified as a hut or cattle pen then determining what was an wasn't excavated, and to what extent it would be excavated - some huts like Hut II had only a single trench through it. The lack of a drawing and extra information in comparison to Hut I or Hut III is further evidence of their bias. The 1894 report surmised it was a Neolithic enclosed site and the succeeding report determined its function as a cattle enclosure, with their main reason for reaching this conclusion was the three areas of higher ground surrounding the site, making it militarily indefensible. It could also be argued that they reached this conclusion due to a reliance on the time of the three-age system, which determined the dating of many sites based on the absence or presence of stone, bronze and/or iron objects - the language in the conclusion of the first report suggests that this may have been the case, too. Post-Excavation Since 1894, very little has been done at Grimspound. Many early writers of the 20th century disagreed with the conclusions of the DEC, on both dating and function. The etymology was discussed in 1919 and Watkin concluded that it was of Saxon origin, due to a Saxon etymology of Grimspound meaning 'Witches Enclosure'. In 1927, Chanter firmly disagreed with the DEC, citing a lack of permanent occupation and therefore concluding that it was a defensive site to protect the tribe from cattle raiders. In 1964 Lady Aileen Fox, a prominent Dartmoor archaeologist during the later 20th century, helped restore the site primarily to help prevent erosion that had taken place since the excavations. Following a 60-year gap in Grimspound literature, Griffiths re-evaluated the date, placing it within the 2nd millennium BC, making it a Bronze Age site Alongside Griffith, Fleming contextualised the site by placing it within the Hameldown reave system, giving the site a 'territory' and then later interpreting it radically as a defensive camp for warrior bachelors. Marking the 100th anniversary of the