Spatial separation between the English and Scottish distributions of jade axes gives validity to the latter as a discrete entity, the characteristics of which are examined. The majority of Scottish finds are large, thin, highly polished axeheads, unmatched in continental Europe, for which no datable contexts can be found. Distribution of these ceremonial axes is dispersed widely across Scotland south-east of the Great Glen, with little display of cultural exclusivity. Details of circumstances of recovery are reviewed, confirming the prevalence of deliberate deposition in both funerary and watery contexts.

Notes are appended additional to the Catalogue and Supplements of Jade Axes published by Campbell Smith (1963; 1965; 1972) and by Jones et al. (1977).

In March 1929, foundations were being dug for the new Biological Laboratory at St. Lawrence College, Ramsgate, overlooking the coast of Thanet, 4 miles SSW. of the North Foreland. In the course of digging, the workmen came across an ancient excavation in the chalk rock, lying beneath several feet of humus and filled with earthy chalk rubble. Intact in this excavation was a hand-made pottery urn (fig. 1, and pl. v, 1), and inside the urn were three large pins of cast bronze (fig. 2, 1–3). The earthy chalk rubble also contained a small number of ancient animal bones and teeth, and shells of the common sea mussel. The discovery was witnessed, and the finds were collected, by Mr C. E. Baldwin, M.A., then Senior Science Master at St. Lawrence College. The urn, extracted in fragments, was subsequently identified as a Bronze Age vessel by the late Mr J. E. Couchman, and the pins were recorded by Miss Lily F. Chitty in the British Association Card-Catalogue of Bronze Age Implements. In 1939 Mr Baldwin, now Headmaster of the County School, Camberley, Surrey, kindly consented to submit the finds for examination by the present writer in the British Museum, and permitted their subsequent exhibition (the urn restored) to the Prehistoric Society, and their publication here.

Artificial illumination is a fundamental human need. Burning wood and other materials usually in hearths and fireplaces extended daylight hours, whilst the use of flammable substances in torches offered light on the move. It is increasingly understood that pottery played a role in light production. In this study, we focus on ceramic oval bowls, made and used primarily by hunter-gatherer-fishers of the circum-Baltic over a c. 2000 year period beginning in the mid-6th millennium cal bc. Oval bowls commonly occur alongside larger (cooking) vessels. Their function as ‘oil lamps’ for illumination has been proposed on many occasions but only limited direct evidence has been secured to test this functional association. This study presents the results of molecular and isotopic analysis of preserved organic residues obtained from 115 oval bowls from 25 archaeological sites representing a wide range of environmental settings. Our findings confirm that the oval bowls of the circum-Baltic were used primarily for burning fats and oils, predominantly for the purposes of illumination. The fats derive from the tissues of marine, freshwater, and terrestrial organisms. Bulk isotope data of charred surface deposits show a consistently different pattern of use when oval bowls are compared to other pottery vessels within the same assemblage. It is suggested that hunter-gatherer-fishers around the 55th parallel commonly deployed material culture for artificial light production but the evidence is restricted to times and places where more durable technologies were employed, including the circum-Baltic.

The chronology of the flint dagger which is the subject of the present paper has been discussed by R. A. Smith, who established the date of the type in the first phase of the Bronze Age, the period to which it had already been assigned by Montelius. A summary ot the list made by Mr. Smith is given in Appendix II below (p. 354-5); the few examples recorded with datable associations since 1919 bring the total up to 26.

Sir John Evans's description, adopted by Mr. Smith, gives the length and breadth of the type as varying generally between 5 and 7 ins. and 1½ to 2½ ins. respectively, although both larger and smaller examples occur. The blades are thin in proportion to their length, and lanceolate in outline, although in this respect there is a certain amount of variation. Both faces are flaked, and the working is generally of a very high character. In some cases major excrescences have been reduced by grinding.

Some typological development may be observed in the forms, although this cannot be compared with the elaborate evolution of the well-known Scandinavian series (below, p. 350). The changes take place in the butt. The earliest form typoiogically speaking, would seem to be a simple leaf-shaped blade, the widest part of which is approximately at the middle. There is no distinction between blade and tang or handle, and the latter is generally rounded off. Such daggers as the Green Low, Alsop Moor (Appendix I, no. 27, and fig. 1), and Acklam Wold (126) examples represent this form. It is not always easy to decide, however, whether other blades approximating to this shape represent a so-called prototype, and care has also to be taken to differentiate surface-found laurel-leaf blades of Solutrean age, although these are more usually pointed at both ends.

Many of Pembrokeshire's 58 coastal promontory forts are iconic and well-known monuments. They occur in a density unparalleled in the rest of Wales. Morphology is highly variable, as is Pembrokeshire's ever-changing coastal geology, from resistant granite in the north to softer limestones and sandstones in the south. New surveys by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales (RCAHMW) of three promontory forts on the Castlemartin Peninsula in south Pembrokeshire – Linney Head Camp, Flimston Bay Camp, and Greenala Point Fort – have demonstrated how complex and different each of these sites is and, as part of a wider study of the Castlemartin Peninsula, have raised new questions concerning our understanding of this monument type. Dominating and shaping the discussion is our modern-day perception that coastal promontory forts are remote, exposed, and dangerous places. How much is this an accurate portrayal of prehistoric attitudes to the sea or was their outlook more mundane and practical? Did coastal promontory forts share identical functions as defended domestic/agricultural settlements, exploiting a seaward position for ease of defence, or were they indeed special places? Their highly variable architecture – coupled with some unusual characteristics of topography and setting – may indicate varying functions among even closely neighbouring sites. The evidence revealed from the study suggests that some coastal promontory forts may have been exclusively used for ceremonial or seasonal activity, while others may have been quite different prestigious residences investing heavily in monumental architecture. In conclusion, there is considerable merit in the detailed resurvey and re-investigation of coastal promontory forts within distinct regional groups to shed new light on our understanding of this later prehistoric monument type.

Our Palaeolithic ancestors did not make good representations of themselves on the rocky surfaces of caves and barring certain exceptions – such as the case of La Marche (found on small slabs of stone or plaquettes) or the Cueva de Ambrosio – the few known examples can only be referred to as anthropomorphs. As such, only hand stencils give us a real picture of the people who came before us. Hand stencils and imprints provide us with a large amount of information that allows us to approach not only their physical appearance but also to infer less tangible details, such as the preferential use of one hand over the other (i.e., handedness). Both new and/or mature technologies as well as digital processing of images, computers with the ability to process very high resolution images, and a more extensive knowledge of the Palaeolithic figures all help us to analyse thoroughly the hands in El Castillo cave. The interdisciplinary study presented here contributes many novel developments based on real data, representing a major step forward in knowledge about our predecessors.

This paper examines the containment and covering of people and objects in burials throughout later prehistory in Britain. Recent analyses of grave assemblages with exceptionally well-preserved organic remains have revealed some of the particular roles played by covers in funerary contexts. Beyond these spectacular examples, however, the objects involved in covering and containing have largely been overlooked. Many of the ‘motley crew’ of pots and stones used to wrap, cover, and contain bodies (and objects) were discarded or destroyed by antiquarian investigators in their quest for more immediately dazzling items. Organic containers and covers – bags, coffins, shrouds, blankets – are rarely preserved. Our study brings together the diverse and often elusive objects that played a part in covering and containing prehistoric burials, including items that directly enclosed bodies and objects, and those that potentially pinned together (now mostly absent) organic wraps. Overall, we contend, wrapping, covering, and containing were significantly more prevalent in prehistoric funerary practices than has previously been recognised.

It is so rare for Palaeolithic artifacts to be found unequivocably stratified beneath glacial till, that the recent report by Alabaster and Straw (1976) of such an occurrence in Lincolnshire warrants some comments. Three hand-axes (fig. 1) were found between 1969 and 1973 in the quarry of Stephen Toulson and Son Ltd at Welton-le-Wold (TF 282884, 5 km west of Louth). They were found in association with fragmentary faunal remains of elephant, deer, horse and possibly Irish Giant Deer (see appendix by Boylan, in Alabaster and Straw 1976). Both artifacts and fauna came from a narrow zone in the Upper Division of the Welton Gravels underlying some 13 m of glacial till. This Upper Division, comprising silts, sands and flint gravels, is considered to have been deposited by periglacial aeolian and niveofluvial processes, whereas the Lower Division contains more water-bedded sands. The conclusion of the investigators was that as the animals represented could not have lived under the severe environmental conditions that prevailed during the accumulation of this Upper Division of the gravel, they had presumably been derived from an earlier temperate, interglacial deposit. The relative concentration of animal remains, the finding of two conjoinable elephant molars and the fairly fresh state of the artifacts suggests that they had not travelled far before coming to rest in the gravel. No sediment was traced in the quarry area which could have been a likely source.

The results of an area-intensive surface collection survey are described and evidence for a coarse-grained response to the distribution of resources is presented. Surface collection surveys have occurred over many areas of southern England with attention focused especially on the neolithic landscape of the monument zone. The results of such surveys provide an indication of the social landscape within which monument building occurred. However, to fully appreciate human behaviour in an active and emergent landscape, the results of similar investigations from what appear passive landscapes must be available as well as evidence for human exploitation in earlier and later periods. The upper Meon valley survey represents one of only few attempts to redress that imbalance and to assess objectively the nature of occupation away from the monument zone throughout the prehistoric period. The results demonstrate an intensity of occupation equal to that in other parts of Wessex but confined, predominantly, to the mesolithic and earlier neolithic periods. The survey also provides a case-study in interpretation. The emphasis is less on places than on the space in which they occurred.

An evaluation of the concept of ‘Lower Perigordian‘ is attempted in this paper. The conclusion of this work suggests that the Lower Perigordian is a fallacious concept, that it can no longer be accepted as the first stage of the French Upper Palaeolithic, and that the so-called Lower Perigordian stone industries may not even represent a unified stage in the development of stone-tool technology.

The terms ‘industry’ and ‘assemblage’ will be used in this paper in the sense defined by Braidwood (1946, 133–6). An industry is a collection of tools of one category of material (here stone or bone only) which appears in archaeological context, or in an untransported geological context. An assemblage is ‘… a variety of categories of artifacts and non-artifactual materials which appears in archaeological context.’ The non-artifactual aspect of an assemblage most notably provides information on geological context and physical relationships. Many of the collections of tools to be dealt with below can in no way be considered assemblages, but we still know something of their archaeological contexts, so they have not yet sunk to the level of Braidwood's ‘aggregations’. ‘Culture’ will be used in its anthropological sense to mean the whole of patterned, learned behaviour shared by a group of human beings, and the effects of this behaviour on material artifacts. If set off by quotation marks, ‘culture’ may refer also to the ‘material culture’ of other writers or be a convenient translation of the French word ‘civilization.’

This study attempts to define patterns in the artefact distributions from subsoil features at Winklebury Camp, an early Iron Age hillfort in lowland Britain. Two aims are identified: the first is to elucidate the nature and organization of past human activities within early Iron Age hillforts; the second is to determine whether meaningful patterns can be identified within the artefact distributions preserved in subsoil features. A variety of hypotheses drawn from the literature are presented and these are compared with the results of a number of statistical techniques. It is possible to distinguish patterns within the artefact distributions from Winklebury and some interesting results are produced. Specifically, it can be suggested that Winklebury was not participating in specialized craft production, that round-houses had a variety of functions, and that four-posters did not have a domestic function.

A petrographic analysis of 74 Ausonian (Late Bronze Age) sherds from the Acropolis of Lipari (Aeolian Islands, Sicily) was undertaken to ascertain whether they represent intrusive mainland Italian Subapenninian and Protovillanovan imports, as their typology might suggest, or were the products of an indigenous island economy. The sample included ‘impasto’ and painted pottery and was extended to include 15 Apenninian sherds from the preceding Milazzese cultural phase. The Acropolis has an almost unbroken stratified ceramic succession from the Middle Neolithic to the early historic period and the site is located in an island with a restricted, but well defined, volcanic geology. The petrographic evidence indicates that the Ausonian pottery is the product of the indigenous insular economy using both local and imported materials. This conclusion suggess that new ceramic forms were quickly transposed by the ‘native’ potters of Lipari to produce an indigenous ‘Subapenninian’ and ‘Protovillanovan’ range of wares.

Sixteen accessory or pygmy cups of the Early Bronze Age front Lincolnshire are illustrated and discussed for the first time: many were previously unpublished. The possible origins of the cups are considered and it is suggested that they had organic counterparts in domestic use more suitable for the lifestyle of the early 2nd millennium BC. The use of grog tempered fabrics is considered, leading to the concept of ritual use of the cups in traditional rites connecting society with its past. In the Early Bronze Age it seems very likely that the use of pottery was restricted to special occasions, and the cups in particular were used for drinking and smoking sessions, recognisable as part of both modern and past social gatherings and ceremonies.

Ring cairns in Wales have been viewed as a discrete form of structured cairn, a stony ring enclosing an open central area, dating to the second millennium be, whose distinctive character may reflect a particular role not primarily connected with the interment of the dead. Fifteen likely ring cairns were noted in cairn groups on five ridges in SE Dyfed and on the Gower Peninsula. Although the position of ring cairns on these ridges to some extent overlaps that of other cairns, ring cairns tend towards locations particularly dominated by higher ground which are not so favoured by the other cairns. A range of structural elaborations was present amongst the ring cairns including kerbing, in-filled interiors, orthostats in the bank, and breaks in the ring possibly representing entrances.

Two ring cairns adjacent to each other, GCRC I and II, on Cefn Bryn, Gower were excavated. GCRC I was a stony ring bank, originally with two entrances, one of which had been blocked in antiquity. It enclosed an open area at the centre of which was a pit containing a very little burnt bone. GCRC II comprised a ring bank of stone with inner kerb, against which was a pit containing earth and charcoal flecks. It certainly had one entrance, which was deliberately blocked perhaps at the same time as the interior was filled with stone to the level of the top of the kerb. The pit contents at the rings each gave mid-ind millennium be radiocarbon dates. It is possible that the pit fill at GCRC I came from an earlier burial elsewhere so the determination may not reflect the time of deposition at GCRC I.

A case can be argued that ring cairns in the area were built for the public performance of ceremonial on the basis of the apparent absence of formal burial at GCRC I and II, and the structure and siting of the monuments suggesting their suitability as arenas. Ceremonial may have been connected with mortuary ritual, although undated evidence for early agricultural activity in the vicinity of the rings indicates a potentially wider social and economic context for their use. While aspects of the evidence for activity at the two excavated ring cairns may be paralleled at structurally similar monuments in N Wales and S W England, some variations in form and activity are apparent which could indicate differences of emphasis during the time they were in use across the region. Finally, ring cairns are not the only form of broadly contemporary monument to which a ceremonial role can be assigned, and the differences in monumental form could well reflect different ritual requirements, or even social distinctions though too little work has been undertaken as yet on possible social models for the region for this idea to be developed.

It is intended in this paper to describe briefly the occurrence and, to a limited extent, the variety of ornamented metal axes belonging to the earlier part of the British and Irish Bronze Age, rather than to publish the results of an exhaustive study, such as the present writers have had no opportunity of making. The present aim is to indicate in a general way the importance of these axes in the material culture of our Bronze Age, and that of Western and Northern Europe. The objects themselves have been well discussed up to a point by Wilde (51) and Evans (23), but without special consideration of the significance of their distribution and associations.

These ornamented axes, which are of the ‘flat’ or ‘flanged’ type, are apparently all of bronze. Some analyses have been made (3, 27, 42), but without spectrographic examination (48) it is difficult to draw any definite conclusions as to the source of the ores used or the place of manufacture. Open moulds for casting axes of the ‘flat’ form (e.g. pl. LIII, c, d) have been found in various parts of the British Isles, and their distribution is discussed on page 287.

The paper re-examines arguments concerning the early development of early Celtic (La Tène A) art and its relations with the Mediterranean world. Taking as a focus the recent spectacular discoveries below the hillfort of the Glauberg north-east of Frankfurt, the Celtic approaches to representations of the human form are analysed and the complex question of meaning and the relationship of early Celtic art to contemporary belief systems discussed. As a brief coda, the striking changes which took place in many parts of the early Celtic world after c. 400 BC are referred to in the context of the major population movements of the time, notably those which brought settlers from north of the Alps to Italy.

British Iron Age tankards and their handles have been somewhat neglected in recent archaeological literature and so far have not received a separate study. This paper is intended to bring together such information as is available to the writer in the hope that it may prompt a greater interest in this minor field of Iron Age craftsmanship. The first part is a general discussion of those tankards which are either complete or could be reconstructed, their handles, and handles found unassociated with any vessel. The second offers some comment on chronology and typology. The appendix contains a distribution map and an inventory of all the known examples. A list of acknowledgments is at the end, but special mention must be made here to the generosity of Mr R. W. Feachem, who unreservedly placed at the writer's disposal all his material which had been collected for a similar study but which he relinquished on hearing of the present paper.

The distribution of Mesolithic sites in Wales is controlled to a great extent by the terrain, for physiographically, Wales is a highland block defined on three sides by the sea and for the greater part of the fourth side by a sharp break of slope. Geologically the Principality is composed almost entirely of Palaeozoic rocks, of which the 600-foot contour encloses more than three quarters of the total area. There are extensive regions above 1,500 feet and 2,000 feet and in the north the peaks of Snowdonia and Cader Idris rise to 3,560 feet and 2,929 feet respectively. Indeed North Wales consists of an inhospitable highland massif, skirted by a lowland plateau and cut deeply by river valleys, providing only limited areas for settlement. The hills and mountains of Snowdonia with their extension at lower altitudes into the Lleyn Peninsula, and the ranges of Moelwyn, Manod Mawr, Arenig Fach and Cader Idris, are discouraging obstacles to penetration, save for a short distance along the river valleys. To the east of these peaks are extensive tracts of upland plateau dissected by rivers, bounded on the west by the vale of the river Conway and cleft by the Vale of Clwyd. To the east of this valley lies the Clwydian Range and further again to the east these uplands descend with milder contours to the Cheshire and Shropshire plains.

To the south the district merges into the uplands of Central Wales, which are continuous until they are replaced by the lowland belt of South Wales.

It may well seem presumptuous to attempt a fresh analysis of the Late Bronze Age in the Iberian peninsula, after the numerous contributions which the subject has received in recent years from Spanish archaeologists, and in view of the fact that the Civil War prevented the writer, when Maclver student in Iberian Archaeology, from visiting Spain at all. In fact he would not have dared to make such an analysis, if the recent output of well illustrated books and articles by Spanish archaeologists had not made study from a distance somewhat less hazardous. But the itinerary which political conditions in 1936–8 imposed on him—Portugal first, then south-western France and finally the Rhône basin—at least showed him an aspect of the Late Bronze Age in south-western Europe which is perhaps less obvious to archaeologists who look from Madrid and Barcelona with eyes trained in Central Europe.

Long ago Louis Siret was impressed by the typological lacuna between the copper and bronze implements of early forms in the Iberian peninsula and those which appeared to represent the second and last phase of the local bronze industry. He drew what most archaeologists now recognize to be the right conclusion, namely, that the Early Bronze Age industry of El Argar stagnated and was replaced at a relatively late date by an industry, which had passed through the earlier stages of its development elsewhere, but soon took on a strongly local character. In his recently enunciated Esquema Paletnológico de la Peninsula Iberica Professor Santa Olalla has taken account of this new conception.