[225] This use of the word ‘dolmen’, which obtains in France, although

megalithic chambers enclosed in tumuli are there sometimes called by

the same name (_Archaeol. Cambr._, 5th ser., xvii, 1900, p. 221), is

becoming common in this country; but in Wales dolmens are still known

as cromlechs, a name which in France is applied only to stone circles.

[226] See _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, p. 214. The kistvaens of Dartmoor

are really small dolmens.

[227] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone

Ages_, 1886, p. 232; W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 1897, pp.

461-2.

[228] _Archaeol. Cambr._, 5th ser., xvii, 1900, p. 222; W. C. Borlase,

_Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 446.

[229] _Ib._, p. 426; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., v, 1870-3, pp.

367-70; viii, 1879-81, pp. 287-9; _Dict. des sc. anthr._, 1883, pp.

388, 1078; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 5th ser., xvii, 1900, p. 221; B.C. A.

Windle, _Remains of the Prehist. Age_, pp. 174-7; _Rev. de l’École

d’anthr._, xiv, 1904, pp. 259-62. In the eighteenth century the famous

Kentish dolmen called Kit’s Coty House was still partly enclosed within

a sepulchral mound. The Rev. W. C. Lukis, in a letter to Mr. George

Payne _(Collectanea Cantiana_, 1893, p. 127), says, ‘I have a letter

written ... in 1723 by one Hercules Ayleway [in which] ... Kit’s Coty

is represented as being partly in a long barrow.’ See also Borlase,

_op. cit._, iii, 752-3.

Mr. A. L. Lewis (_Man_, vii, 1907, No. 26, p. 38) says that a dolmen on

Great Orme’s Head shows ‘that there certainly were dolmens that were

never buried, but were intended to be “free-standing”’.

[230] W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 424-6, 612-3.

[231] In Pembrokeshire, Glamorganshire, Merionethshire, Carnarvonshire,

and Anglesey. Elsewhere they are almost entirely wanting, perhaps owing

to the lack of suitable stones (_Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., iv, 1904,

p. 199).

[232] See pp. 402-5, _infra_.

[233] See pp. 405-6, _infra_.

[234] See p. 382, _infra_.

[235] See pp. 101-2, _infra_.

[236] _B. G._, vi, 28.

[237] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xxxiv, 1878, p. 351; W.

Boyd Dawkins, _Early Man in Britain_, pp. 257-62, 484; R. Munro, _The

Lake-Dwellings of Europe_, 1890, p. 488; _Archaeologia_, lv, 1897, pp.

130-1, 158.

[238] See _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, v, 1876, p. 359; the topographical

index in Sir J. Evans’s _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897; and the

_Victoria County Histories of Berks._ (i, 276), _Hants_ (i, 257),

_Lancs._ (i, 212), _Northampton_ (i, 139), _Sussex_ (i, 311, 313, 470),

and _Worcester_ (i, 180).

[239] Sir J. Evans, _Ancient Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 65-6,

104-6, 107-9, 129-30, 213, &c. Implements of jade and jadeite, which

are common in the lake-dwellings (F. Keller, _Lake Dwellings of

Switzerland_ [trans. J. E. Lee], i, 1878, pp. 72, 195-6, 215-6), are

very rare in Britain (Evans, _op. cit._, p. 109), and were doubtless

imported, as jade apparently does not exist _in situ_ in Europe, except

in Silesia and Styria _(Journ. Anthr. Inst._, x, 1881, p. 359; xx,

1890-1, pp. 332-42, especially 334 and 338; _Report of ... the Brit.

Association_, 1890, p. 971; _L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, p. 555).

[240] Similar lamps have been found in neolithic caves in France (_Ass.

franç. pour l’avancement des sc._, 32^{e} session, 1903, 2^{e} partie,

pp. 896-900), and are still used in China (_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._,

xxii, 1888, p. 81). Cf. p. 258, _infra_.

[241] _Journ. Ethn. Soc._, N. S., ii, 1870, p. 430.

[242] _Ib._, p. 427.

[243] _Ib._, pp. 419-39; S. B. J. Skertchly, _Memoirs of the Geol.

Survey,--On the Manufacture of Gun-Flints_, pp. 39-41, 71, 74.

[244] _Journ. Ethn. Soc._, N. S., ii, 1870, p. 439.

[245] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, v, 1876, pp. 368-74. See p. 98, _infra_.

[246] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 80, 85-6; _Guide

to the Ant. of the Stone Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 79.

[247] See p. 214, _infra_.

[248] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, v, 1876, pp. 357-62, 382, 479;

_Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, pp. 59-60, 66, 68-9, 73-4; xlv, 1880, pp.

337-8, 340-7; _Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp.

69-70; _Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex_, i, 315.

[249] See J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone

Ages_, p. 306.

[250] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxii, 1902, p. 395.

[251] See pp. 131-2, 230, _infra_; E. B. Tylor, _Early Hist. of

Mankind_, 2nd ed., 1870, p. 194; A. Lang, _Custom and Myth_, 1885, p.

11; O. Schrader, _Prehist. Ant. of the Aryan Peoples_, 1890, p. 234;

and _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxiii, 1903, pp. 246-58.

[252] pp. 78-81, _infra_.

[253] _Nature_, Jan. 13, 1898, pp. 257-8.

[254] Traces of polishing are said to have been found on French

implements of late palaeolithic age (_Ass. franç. pour l’avancement des

sc._, 13^{e} sess., 1884, 1^{re} part., p. 212; _L’Anthr._, iv, 1893,

p. 550).

[255] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 73, 85-6, and

_Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 69-70. Much

depended upon the nature of the material. Certain hard stones, for

instance granite and diorite, were necessarily ground and polished. See

_L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, p. 550, and _Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age_

(Brit. Museum), p. 69.

[256] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 276.

[257] _Ib._, pp. 28-9, 31.

[258] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 14-37, 43. Cf.

_15th Ann. Report American Bureau of Ethn._, 1893-4 (1897), p. 25.

[259] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 37-43, 412,

414-6; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxiii, 1903, p. 47.

[260] J. A. H. Murray, _New Eng. Dict._, ii, 215. Cf. Sir J. Evans,

_Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 55.

[261] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 66, 107.

[262] _Ib._, pp. 71, 172, 205; _Proc. Suffolk Inst. of Archaeology_,

xi, 1903, p. 329.

[263] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 129, 235. See

also E. B. Tylor, _Early Hist. of Mankind_, 1870, pp. 205-6; _Prim.

Culture_, 1903, i, 65.

[264] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 136, 171.

[265] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--The Bronze and Stone

Ages_, pp. 353-4.

[266] _Archaeologia_, xliv, 1873, pp. 281-3.

[267] F. Keller, _The Lake Dwellings of Switzerland_, i, 1878, pp.

21-2, 38, 57, 90, &c.

[268] An axe-hammer has, however, been found in the Liverpool Docks,

scored with a groove, along which a withy was perhaps twisted to serve

as a handle (Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 168-9;

_Vict. Hist. of ... Lancs_, i, 218).

[269] M. Hippolyte Müller (_L’Anthr._, xiv, 1903, pp. 424-6) has cut

down numerous trees with flint axes, which were uninjured by the

experiments. Two of the trees were felled in thirteen and fourteen

minutes respectively.

[270] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 79, 171-2, 195-6.

[271] _Ib._, pp. 175-6.

[272] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 178.

[273] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, iv, 1875, p. 403.

[274] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 183-4.

[275] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 215; _L’Anthr._,

iv, 1893, p. 489.

[276] See _Archaeologia,_ xliii, 1871, p. 409.

[277] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone

Ages_, p. 246; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., iii, 1903, p. 234; _Proc.

Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, p. 355.

[278] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 183-4, 195, 215,

231.

[279] _Ib._, pp. 238-9, 245, 247-8, 250-2.

[280] _Ib._, pp. 275-6, 289. See pp. 92-3, _infra_.

[281] See _Anthr. Rev._, iii, 1865 (_Journ. Anthr. Soc._, p. lxvi);

_Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, pp. 229-30; and _Anc. Stone Implements_,

1897, p. 294. Dr. R. Munro. (_Prehist. Problems_, pp. 325-30, 359)

would refer all the British flint saws to the Bronze Age, on the ground

that ‘bronze saws have never yet been found in the British Isles’: but

this statement is inaccurate (see p. 132, _infra_); and, as we have

seen (p. 41, _supra_), serrated palaeolithic flints have been unearthed

in a gravel-pit at Swanscombe.

[282] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 299-300, 311-2.

[283] _Ib._, pp. 312-9; _Mem. Geol. Survey,--On the Manufacture of Gun

Flints_, p. 39.

[284] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 321.

[285] _Ib._, pp. 326-32, 356-7.

[286] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 360-1, 369-98;

_Man_, vii, 1907, No. 25, p. 37; No. 37, p. 56.

[287] See _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxiii, 1903, p. 54.

[288] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, p. 377.

[289] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone

Ages_, p. 272.

[290] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxix, 1899, p. 131.

[291] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xi, 1876, p. 509.

[292] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 361.

[293] _Ib._, pp. 428-30; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, pp.

355, 361.

[294] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, pp. 431, 433-4.

[295] Worthington G. Smith, _Man, the Primeval Savage_, p. 304. Messrs.

W. Johnson and W. Wright (_Neol. Man in N.-E. Surrey_, 1903, pp. 49,

169), who have been diligent in collecting tools from North-Eastern

Surrey, remark that ‘some were fitted for use in the right hand, and

others for the left’, and conclude that the people who used them were

ambidextrous. But surely the more natural conclusion would be that some

were left-handed!

[296] On the moors near Sheffield and in East Lancashire, in

Staffordshire and Lincolnshire, and at Hastings.

[297] Donegal.

[298] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 324-5; _Proc.

Roy. Irish Acad._, 3rd ser., vi, 1900-2, pp. 362-3; _Reliquary_, N. S.,

vii, 1901, pp. 123-6; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxv, 1901, pp. 98-101;

_Man_, ii, 1902, No. 15, pp. 18-22.

[299] See _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxix, 1899, p. 136.

[300] See _L’Anthr._, v, 1894, pp. 20-1, 146, and _Guide to the Ant.

of the Stone Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 77-8. M. Salomon Reinach (_Rev.

celt._, xiii, 1892, pp. 193-9) attributes the absence of such artistic

remains in France to the influence of Druids.

[301] _Carm._, ii, 15, 10-20.

[302] Professor B.C. A. Windle (_Remains of the Prehist. Age_, p. 257)

affirms that excavations in the stronghold of Eggardun in Dorsetshire

have proved that ‘pit-dwellings were in use in the Pre-metallic

period’; and he remarks (_ib._, p. 258) that there was ‘no trace of

any metallic object in the pits examined by Stevens at Hurstbourne or

in those at Standlake’ in Oxfordshire. It is shown on p. 97, _infra_,

that there is no sufficient reason for referring Eggardun to the

Neolithic Age: bronze was discovered at Standlake (_Archaeologia_,

xxxvii, 1857, p. 368), which, according to Pitt-Rivers (_Excavations

in Cranborne Chase_, i, 20-1), bore such an ‘exact resemblance to

the [Romano-British] Woodcuts village’, that, in his judgement,

‘further excavations would have proved it to have been of the Roman

or Late-Celtic period’: Romano-British pottery was found in the pits

at Hurstbourne; and Dr. Stevens himself (_Parochial Hist. of St. Mary

Bourne_, 1888, p. 34) only claimed that ‘the flint implements ...

establish that the site, if not the dwellings, was occupied by the

people of the Neolithic Age’. Professor Boyd Dawkins (_Vict. Hist. of

... Hants_, i, 262) rightly refers the dwellings to the Iron Age.

Bone weaving-combs, which were found in pit-dwellings at Highfield,

near Fisherton in Wiltshire, evidently belonged, like the querns with

which they were associated (J. Stevens, _Parochial Hist. of St. Mary

Bourne_, p. 25), to the Early Iron Age (cf. Sir J. Evans, _Ancient

Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 251, and _Reliquary_, N. S., vii, 1901, p.

115); and although Professor Boyd Dawkins (_Early Man_, &c., p. 268)

pleads that the pottery, which was ‘ornamented with incised curves’,

was ‘not turned in the lathe’, that does not prove that it was made in

the Neolithic or even the Bronze Age (see p. 244, _infra_); while the

‘curves’ suggest that it was Late Celtic.

[303] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xi, 1882, pp. 472-3.

[304] _Archaeol. Cant._, xiii, 1880, pp. 122-6.

[305] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxix, 1899, p. 128; _Vict. Hist. of ...

Surrey_, i, 237.

[306] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xii, 1887-9, pp. 258-63; xvii,

1897-9, pp. 216-21; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxix, 1899, pp. 124, 127,

134.

[307] _Norfolk Archaeology_, iii, 1852, pp. 232-6; _Journ. Anthr.

Inst._, xxix, 1899, p. 127; _Vict. Hist. of ... Surrey_, i, 236. Cf.

_Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., iv, 1904, p. 200.

[308] _Vict. Hist. of ... Hants_, i, 258-9.

[309] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxix, 1899, pp. 127, 139.

[310] _Ib._, p. 140. Stone mounds have been discovered in South Wales

by Messrs. T. C. Cantrill and O. T. Jones, who regard them as ‘probably

the remains of prehistoric hearths or cooking-places’ (_Archaeol.

Cambr._, 6th ser., vi, 1906, p. 17); but, as they ‘range in diameter

from 6 feet or so to as much as 50 feet’ (_ib._, p. 19), I would

suggest that the cooks must have been of Brobdingnagian stature.

For descriptions of other pit-dwellings which may perhaps be of

neolithic age, see G. Young, _Hist. of Whitby_, ii, 1817, pp. 666-83;

T. Bateman, _Vestiges of the Ant. of Derbyshire_, 1848, p. 126; _Journ.

Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xi, 1855, pp. 305-13; _Anthr. Rev._, v,

1867, p. 253; and _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, pp. 223-4.

[311] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxvii, 1903, pp. 370-415.

[312] A chambered mound in Stromness, Orkney, which was not a sepulchre

but a dwelling, has also been recently excavated, and contained a stone

implement (_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxvii, 1903, pp. 352-9). Mr.

Christison (_ib._, xxxviii, 1904, pp. 5-6) tentatively refers it to the

Neolithic Age, while the discoverer more cautiously says that it must

have been built in ‘a remote period, not ... because the implement is

made of _stone_, but because the type is an ancient one’.

[313] Mr. George Clinch. See his article in _Surrey Archaeol.

Collections_, xvii, 1902, pp. 181-3.

[314] _Matériaux pour l’hist. ... de l’homme_, 3^e sér., ii, 1885, pp.

1-18.

[315] R. Munro, _The Lake-Dwellings of Europe_, 1890, pp. 470-1, 489.

Cf. _Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland_, 5th ser., x, 1900 (1901), pp. 208,

235, and _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp.

142-3. See p. 154, _infra_.

[316] _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, iii, 1870, p. 76; W. Greenwell, _Brit.

Barrows_, 1877, p. 742.

[317] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Ass._, N. S., v, 1899, p. 285.

[318] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 742.

[319] _Journ. Ethn. Soc._, ii, 1870, p. 431.

[320] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 740-1. Cf. p. 151, _infra_.

[321] _Archaeologia_, lv, 1897, pp. 132-3, 150; _Archaeol. Journal_,

liv, 1897, p. 379; R. Lydekker, _Mostly Mammals_, pp. 52, 299.

[322] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 743-4; F. Keller, _Lake

Dwellings of Switzerland_, i, 1878, p. 479.

[323] _Journ. Ethn. Soc._, ii, 1870, p. 431.

[324] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxix, 1899, pp. 135-6; J. R. Mortimer,

_Forty Years’ Researches_, p. lxx. Cf. E. B. Tylor, _Early Hist. of

Mankind_, 1870, pp. 262-70, and _Ency. Brit._, xxv, 1902, p. 467.

[325] _Archaeol. Review_, i, 1888, p. 6.

[326] _Congrès internat. d’anthr. et d’arch. prehist._, 1900 (1902), p.

407.

[327] F. Keller, _Lake Dwellings_, &c., i, 1878, pp. 518-36.

[328] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 257.

[329] A stone which appears to have been used as a grain-crusher was

found in the neolithic village at West Wickham (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._,

xxix, 1899, p. 133).

[330] See p. 76, _supra_.

[331] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 744-5.

[332] _Archaeologia_, xix, 1821, p. 48; _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, i, 1865,

p. 144; _Anthr. Rev._, iii, 1865 (_Journ. Anthr. Soc._, p. lxvii); W.

Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 701-5; _Brit. Med. Journal_, 1903, pp.

809-10; _Vict. Hist. of ... Derby_, i, 168. It must be admitted that in

some cases the teeth of neolithic skulls are as much worn as those of

the Bronze Age.

Messrs. W. Johnson and W. Wright (_Neol. Man in N.-E. Surrey_,

1903, pp. 53-4), referring to _Science Gossip_, July, 1901, p. 36,

affirm that under the tartar which covered the teeth of a skeleton

in a neolithic barrow on Warminster Downs were found particles of

quartzite,--‘apparently the rubbings from the mortar in which the corn

was ground.’ But the writer of the article in _Science Gossip_ states

that bronze was found in the barrow.

[333] See O. Schrader, _Prehist. Ant. of the Aryan Peoples_, p. 286,

and _Journ. Roy. United Service Inst._, xiii, 1870, p. 518.

[334] See _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, iii, 1874, pp. 35-6, and Mr. Clement

Reid’s article in _Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex_, i, 9-10.

[335] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, v, 1876, pp. 121, 478. See also p. 152,

_infra_.

[336] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 659-60, 704.

[337] _Nature_, Nov. 22, 1894, p. 92.

[338] F. Keller, _Lake Dwellings of Switzerland_, i, 1878, pp. 44, 46,

56, 63-4, 67, 69, 505-17, &c.

[339] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 744-5.

[340] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 436-9.

[341] _Ib._, p. 465.

[342] See p. 80, _supra_, and _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 312.

[343] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone

Ages_, p. 240.

[344] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 519-20, 543.

[345] ‘The fact is,’ says Professor Ridgeway (_Man_, iii, 1903, No. 97,

pp. 171-2), ‘that mankind was led to wear such objects by magic rather

than by aesthetic considerations ... the use of all the objects still

employed in modern jewellery has primarily arisen from the magical

powers attributed to them, by which they were thought to protect the

wearer.’ M. Salomon Reinach’s review (_L’Anthr._, xiv, 1903, pp.

711-12) of Professor Ridgeway’s article is worth reading.

[346] A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 179;

_Folk-Lore_, xii, 1901, p. 175.

[347] See Lord Avebury’s _Origin of Civilisation_, 1902, pp. 54-8.

[348] The primitive method was apparently scraping (_L’Anthr._, viii,

1897, p. 204). M. Hippolyte Müller (_ib._, xiv, 1903, pp. 430-4)

has performed the operation on four skulls by scraping with a flint

implement; and he concludes that this method was adopted in the case

of living patients. It appears (_ib._, p. 434) that the distinguished

anthropologist, M. Capitan, has been impelled by scientific ardour to

experiment ‘sur plusieurs chiens vivants’. What will happen if the

Anti-Vivisection Society hears of this?

[349] _Bull. de la Soc. d’anthr. de Paris_, 3^e sér., iv, 1881, p. 107;

vi, 1883, pp. 318-9; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xi, 1882, pp. 9, 12-4, 16;

xvii, 1888, pp. 101, 106; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxvi, 1892, pp. 5,

8, 14-5, 17-8, 21, 28, 30-2; Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_,

1897, p. 289; R. Munro, _Prehist. Problems_, pp. 191-232; E. B. Tylor,

_Prim. Culture_, i, 1903, p. 295; _Bull. et mém. de la Soc. d’anthr._,

5^e sér., v, 1904, pp. 67-73; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron

Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 58. See also _Man_, v, 1905, No. 27, p. 49. A

perforated skull which was found in an interment in Bute may perhaps

show that the practice of trepanning existed in this country as early

as the Bronze Age; but a physician who has examined the perforation

believes that it was not produced by trepanning (_Proc. Soc. Ant.

Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, pp. 67-8). Artificially perforated skulls were

found just outside the Late Celtic fortified village of Hunsbury near

Northampton. See A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, vol.

iii, unnumbered page following pl. ccxxviii.

[350] Diodorus Siculus, v, 14, § 2.

[351] Apollonius Rhodius, ii, 1011-4.

[352] Strabo, iii, 4, § 17.

[353] See Lord Avebury’s _Origin of Civilisation_, 1902, pp. 25,

157-68, and _L’Anthr._, v, 1894, pp. 352-7. According to Dr. G. A.

Wilken (_ib._, p. 356), certain communities in the Indian archipelago

who practised the _couvade_ in 1894 were in a state of transition from

matriarchy to father-right. Cf. _Man_, vi, 1906, No. 74, p. 112.

[354] _Rev. celt._, vii, 1886, p. 227.

[355] _Academy_, xxv, 1884, p. 112.

[356] E. B. Tylor, _Early Hist. of Mankind_, 1870, pp. 293-304; _Prim.

Culture_, 1903, i, 84.

[357] See, however, pp. 117-8, _infra_.

[358] See _Trans. Epping Forest ... Field Club_, ii, 1882, p. 60; iii,

1884, p. 228.

[359] _Bull. et mém. de la Soc. d’anthr. de Paris_, i, 1900, p. 53.

[360] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Ass._, N. S., vii, 1901, p. 17.

[361] See p. 156, _infra_.

[362] _Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. and Ant. Field Club_, xxii, 1901, pp.

28-42; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xviii, 1901, pp. 258-62.

[363] _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, pp. 195, 232.

[364] It should be noted that pottery of the types that characterized

the Bronze Age was still manufactured in the Early Iron Age. See p.

244, _infra_. Fragments of pottery were found in the long barrow of

West Kennet in Wiltshire; but Thurnam (_Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, p.

231) regards it as ‘very doubtful whether they belong to the people

by whom the chamber was erected’. They seem to have been portions of

‘food-vessels’, which belong to the Bronze Age (see p. 191, _infra_);

and Pitt-Rivers (_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 1898, pp. 100,

163) says that they ‘must probably have got in subsequently to the

construction of the barrow’. See also _ib._, pp. 147 and 162 (fig. 8);

and, for examples of round-bottomed domestic pottery which have been

found both in long barrows and in certain round barrows that may have

been erected in the Stone Age, see _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 488-9, 509, and

J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years’ Researches_, p. lxviii.

The Scottish chambered cairns have yielded more pottery than the

English barrows. Most of the vessels lacked decoration; but some were

ornamented either with cord patterns or by impressions of the potter’s

finger-tips and nails, or with vertical flutings; while a chambered

cairn at Unstan, in Orkney, contained a vessel with triangular

ornament of a kind which, as we shall see (pp. 197-8, _infra_),

was characteristic of the Bronze Age. It may, however, have been

manufactured at a time when bronze was coming into use in Southern

Britain. See _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xix, 1885, pp. 346-8, and J.

Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, pp.

240, 248-9, 252, 272-3, 294-7.

Some of the ‘drinking-cups’ which have been exhumed from round barrows

doubtless belong to the end of the Neolithic Age (see pp. 192-3,

_infra_); and a curious vessel, which Bateman (_Vestiges of the Ant.

of Derbyshire_, 1848, p. 43) described as ‘a small drinking or incense

cup of novel and unprecedented shape’, was found in a round barrow the

neolithic age of which is certain. See _Man_, vi, 1906, No. 44, pp.

70-1.

[365] _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, p. 44.

[366] _Ib._, pp. 32-3. See also _Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex_, i, 458,

461, 463.

[367] Worthington G. Smith, _Man, the Primeval Savage_, pp. 319-20;

_Vict. Hist. of ... Bedford_, i, 160.

[368] _Vict. Hist. of ... Surrey_, i, 237-8.

[369] Gen. Pitt-Rivers (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vi, 1877, pp. 359-60),

after remarking that in the region between Seaford and Beachy Head

‘the _débris_ of flint manufacture is so far abundant on the surface

... that the fact of finding flint flakes in the interior of these

entrenchments [Seaford and Beltout] is no proof whatever of their being

of the age of these entrenchments’, goes on to say that ‘this does

not apply to other parts of the Downs of Sussex and elsewhere. There,

worked flints are found in patches here and there; but considerable

distances may be traversed without coming to these patches, and the

fact of finding them in unusual numbers in the insides of these

earthworks remains to testify to the probability of their having been

used by the inhabitants of them.’

[370] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, v, 1876, pp. 383-4. Mr. George Clinch

(_Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex_, i, 316), referring to certain implements

which he found himself at Cissbury, says, ‘The position of the flint

flakes and chips upon [the side of one of the mounds] proves that the

earthworks were completed during the Neolithic Age’.

[371] _L’Anthr._, xiv, 1903, pp. 444-62, and especially 450-2. See

also A. Bertrand, _Archéol. celt. et gaul._, 1889, p. 105, n. 1, and

_Congrès internat. d’anthr. et d’arch. préhist._, 1900 (1902), pp.

430-1.

[372] _Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex_, i, 469-70. The authors of an

interesting article in the _Cornhill Magazine_ (May, 1906, pp. 611-2),

which, however, contains some unverifiable statements, assert that

earthworks of a peculiar form, ‘usually at the base of a hill on the

edge of a plain,’ were designed as a protection against wolves.

[373] _L’Anthr._, xv, 1904, p. 159.

[374] _Ib._, pp. 162, 165; _Man_, iv, 1904, No. 22, p. 37; _Fort.

Rev._, Oct., 1904, pp. 635-9. M. Piette, however (_L’Anthr._, xvi,

1905, pp. 6-7), holds that certain symbols which he himself discovered

in the cave of Gourdan form a real inscription.

[375] _L’Anthr._, xv, 1904, p. 162.

[376] Gongora y Martinez, _Antiguëdades prehist. de Andalucia_, 1868,

p. 40, fig. 24. Cf. _Fort. Rev._, Oct., 1904, p. 643. See also in

regard to primitive writing _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxix, 1899, pp.

204-6, _Rev. arch._, 4^e sér., i, 1903, pp. 231-2, and _Man_, iv, 1904,

No. 22, p. 37.

[377] _Archaeol. Cambr._, 4th ser., iii, 1872, p. 25; W. Boyd Dawkins,

_Cave Hunting_, pp. 155-9; _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, lx, 1904, pp.

335-48.

[378] See _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, i, 1865, p. 133, and W. Greenwell, _Brit.

Barrows_, pp. 1-2.

[379] See p. 58, _supra_.

[380] See _Folk-Lore_, xii, 1901, pp. 28-9.

[381] _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, p. 109. Mr. J. R. Mortimer (_Forty

Years’ Researches_, &c., 1905, p. lxxxi) is ‘slightly inclined to

consider that the long barrows [of the Yorkshire Wolds] ... are more

recent than the greater number of the round ones’; but the only

reason which he gives for this singular opinion, namely, that he has

frequently found both long and round skulls in the round barrows of the

same district, has no weight against the facts which have led all other

investigators to regard the long as earlier than the round barrows. See

p. 393, _infra_. Not only has no metal ever been found with a primary

interment in a long barrow, but sepulchral pottery is also wanting. See

_Man_, v, 1905, No. 86, p. 159. If the contents of certain long barrows

‘do not show any features of interest differing from those found in

[some] round barrows’ (_Forty Years’ Researches_, p. xix), that only

suggests that long barrows were still made for some time after the

first interment in a round barrow took place. See W. Greenwell, _Brit.

Barrows_, pp. 509, 556.

[382] J. B. Davis and J. Thurnam, _Crania Britannica_, ii, 1865, pl.

33, p. 2; _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, pp. 170, 176, 202, 206-7; _Mem.

Anthr. Soc._, iii, 1870, p. 41; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp.

479, 484-511, 550-6; B.C. A. Windle, _Remains of the Prehist. Age_,

pp. 155, 157, 159-63, 166-71; _Vict. Hist. of ... Durham_, i, 200,

207. A few long barrows are said to exist in Lancashire, but it is

doubtful whether they can really be classed as such (_Vict. Hist. of

... Lancs._, i, 211).

[383] W. Boyd Dawkins, _Cave Hunting_, p. 162; J. Anderson, _Scotland

in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, pp. 232-67; _Proc. Soc.

Ant. Scot._, xxxvi, 1902, pp. 39-42.

[384] _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, pp. 206-7; W. C. Lukis, _Prehist.

Stone Monuments of the Brit. Isles,--Cornwall_, 1885, p. 13;

J. Anderson, _op. cit._, pp. 268-303; _Journ. Brit. Archaeol.

Association_, N. S., vi, 1900, p. 7; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxii,

1902, p. 404.

[385] _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, pp. 206-7; _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, iii,

1870, p. 41.

[386] See S. Nilsson, _Primitive Inhabitants of Scandinavia_, 1868, pp.

124-58; _Journ. Ethn. Soc._, N. S., ii, 1870, p. 448; W. Greenwell,

_Brit. Barrows_, p. 536; _Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, p. 314; E.

Cartailhac, _La France préhist._, 1889, p. 195; and A. H. Keane,

_Ethnology_, 1896, p. 126, note. The ‘Picts’ houses’, whose resemblance

to chambered _tumuli_, according to Thurnam (_Archaeologia_, xlii,

1869, pp. 223-4), is such that ‘in particular instances it has been

doubted whether the structure ... was a dwelling or a tomb’, belong to

a much later period than that of the _tumuli_. See pp. 261 and 391,

_infra_.

[387] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, v, 1876, pp. 130-1; W. Greenwell, _Brit.

Barrows_, p. 536, n. 2.

[388] Canon Greenwell (_ib._, p. 485, n. 1) says that in North

Gloucestershire ‘the rule of the primary interment having been made

at the larger end of the mound by no means holds good in all cases’.

See also p. 504. In the Wor Barrow on Cranborne Chase the primary

interments lay south of the centre of an oblong enclosure, which is

described on p. 106, _infra_ (A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne

Chase_, iv, 20-1 [preface]).

[389] _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, pp. 181, 208-9; _Mem. Anthr. Soc._,

iii, 1870, p. 41; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 484, 487-8, 491,

497, 501, 505, 509, 511, 513, 515, 521, 524; _Dict. des. sc. anthr._,

1883, p. 387; J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and

Stone Ages_, pp. 264-5; E. Cartailhac, _La France préhist._, 1889, p.

183; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xv, 1893-5, p. 404; W. C. Borlase,

_Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 489-90.

[390] _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, pp. 172, 208; J. B. Davis and J.

Thurnam, _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 50, pp. 1-2.

[391] J. B. Davis and J. Thurnam, _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 5, p. 2;

_Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, p. 212, pl. xiv.

[392] _Ib._, pp. 172-3, 209; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 544. See

p. 177, _infra_.

[393] See p. 65, _supra_.

[394] Oval neolithic barrows, which were not only fenced by

peristaliths, but also had ellipses of stone on the surface, and which,

like the West Kennet barrow, were each surmounted by a dolmen, exist in

Northern Germany, west of the Vistula (_L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, p. 487),

in Denmark (A. Bertrand, _Archéol. celt. et gaul._, 1889, pp. 163-4),

and in France (_ib._, p. 166). Cf. _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, p. 165

(pl. xii, figs. 3 and 4), 211, note b.

[395] J. B. Davis and J. Thurnam, _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 24, pp.

2-3, pl. 5, p. 2; _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, pp. 209-21; W. Greenwell,

_Brit. Barrows_, p. 544; J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the

Bronze and Stone Ages_, p. 232.

[396] _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, pp. 20-1 (preface).

[397] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, v, 1876, p. 153, fig. 1, 165, fig. 1.

[398] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 536; J. Anderson, _Scotland in

Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, pp. 232, 266-7; _Proc. Soc.

Ant. Scot._, xxxvi, 1902, pp. 39-42.

[399] J. Anderson, _op. cit._, p. 300.

[400] See, however, p. 108, and p. 109, n. 2, _infra_. According to Dr.

R. Munro (_Prehist. Scotland_, 1899, p. 325), ‘Although many [Scottish]

graves have been examined which contained ... stone and nothing of

bronze, it does not follow that they were earlier than others in which

bronze articles were found. It seems to me’, he continues, ‘that the

vast majority of the sepulchral memorials hitherto explored within the

Scottish area date from the introduction of bronze’.

The evidence that the Scottish chambered tombs belonged to the Scottish

Stone Age is precisely the same as that which is almost unanimously

accepted for the English long barrows. Since we find that not a single

article of bronze has ever been found with a primary interment in a

Scottish chambered cairn, while bronze is abundant in the short cists

and unchambered cairns of the same country; that the skeletons in

chambered cairns belong to the same stock as the people who built the

long barrows (see pp. 393-4, _infra_); and that the chambered cairns

and the chambered long barrows are structurally akin, we may infer that

the former, like the latter, belonged to the Stone Age. That, however,

some of them may have been built after bronze had been introduced into

Southern Britain is not improbable.

[401] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone

Ages_, pp. 249-50, 258, 264, 272, 274.

[402] _Journ. Ethn. Soc._, N. S., ii, 1870, pp. 416-9.

[403] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxviii, 1871, pp. 85-96.

[404] An oval cairn, however, at Pawton in East Cornwall (W. C. Lukis,

_The Prehist. Stone Monuments of the Brit. Isles,--Cornwall_, 1885, p.

11) contains a cist, apparently contemporary with its erection, and is

therefore presumably later than the chambered round barrows. It has

been suggested (_Vict. Hist. of ... Derby_, i, 175-6) that the oval

form of some barrows may be due to the addition, following secondary

interments, of new material.

[405] _Ib._, pp. 166-9.

[406] T. Bateman, _Ten Years’ Diggings_, &c., 1861, pp. 253-4. The

Derwent Moor barrow was opened in 1780, when the art of excavation

was in its infancy; and the urn in question may have belonged to a

secondary interment.

[407] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1888 (1889), pp. 289-316.

In regard to the chambered round barrows of Derbyshire, see also

_Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, N. S., vi, 1900, p. 7, and cf. W.

Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 447-52.

[408] _Archaeologia_, xlix, 1885, pp. 189-92, 194-7; W. C. Borlase,

_Dolmens of Ireland_, i, 145, 149, ii, 418, 441-2, 445-6, 448, 451,

462. See also Borlase’s _Nenia Cornubiae_, 1872, p. 3, and _Vict. Hist.

of ... Cornwall_, i, 358.

[409] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxvi, 1902, pp. 74-181: xxxvii, 1903,

pp. 36-67; xxxviii, 1904, pp. 17-81; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxii,

1902, pp. 398-406. These cairns have no passages of entrance. Their

outline was commonly rectangular, the ground-plan being defined by

flagstones, arranged at one end in a semi-circle, the space within

which led to a low portal that gave access to the chamber. The latter

consisted of two sections, one above the other, of which the lower

was built of large lateral slabs, covered by flagstones, and divided

by other slabs into compartments, while the upper was formed of small

flags laid horizontally.

A chambered cairn of abnormal form in the island of Ronsay, Orkney,

which has been described by Sir William Turner (_Proc. Soc. Ant.

Scot._, xxxvii, 1903, pp. 73-82), ‘consisted of a central part and four

recesses’ (_ib._, pp. 74-5, fig. 1); and on its roof were cremation

cists ‘quite different in character from the short cists so frequently

found in Scotland’ (_ib._, p. 79).

[410] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxii, 1902, pp. 398, 405; _Proc. Soc.

Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, p. 78.

[411] _Ib._, xxxvi, 1902, pp. 154-5. The chronology of the peculiar

chambered cairns of South-Western Scotland is somewhat perplexing. On

the one hand the structure of the cairns is presumptive evidence that

they were built in neolithic times (J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan

Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, pp. 271-2; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._,

xxxvi, 1902, p. 136); the successive interments which were made in them

were characteristic of the same period (_ib._, p. 134); the pottery

which they contained is almost all of neolithic type (_ib._, pp. 165-7;

xxxviii, 1904, pp. 78-9); and the presence of drinking-cups does not

necessarily point to a later date (p. 193, _infra_). On the other hand

a perforated stone hammer, which was found in one of the chambers

(_ib._, xxxvi, 1902, p. 100), belongs to a class of implements which in

this country were generally post-neolithic (p. 78, _supra_); an elegant

bowl which was obtained by Canon Greenwell in a cairn on Largie Farm,

near Crinan (_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxvi, 1902, pp. 165-7), although

neolithic in form, is somewhat similar to a food-vessel figured in

_Brit. Barrows_, p. 88, fig. 73, which, like it, is ornamented with

vertical flutings; and one of the drinking-cups deposited in the same

cairn is ‘almost identical in size, shape, and ornamentation’ with

a specimen that was associated with a bronze dagger in a barrow on

Roundway Hill, Wiltshire (_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vi, 1867, pp. 345,

n. 1, 347). I conclude that these cairns were locally of neolithic age,

but that the influence of the later culture had made itself felt in the

district,--in short, that they belonged to a period of transition.

[412] M. de Baye exaggerates when he says (_L’archéol. préhist._, 1888,

p. 108) that in France inhumation in the Neolithic Age was almost

universal. M. E. Cartailhac (_Matériaux pour l’hist. ... de l’homme_,

xxii, 1888, pp. 1-2, 4, 6-7; _La France préhist._, 1889, pp. 270-6)

gives numerous instances of incineration in neolithic tombs in the

departments of the Aisne, the Marne, the Morbihan, &c.

[413] W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 520.

[414] _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, pp. 191-2, 224-6; _Journ. Anthr.

Inst._, v, 1876, p. 129.

[415] _Ib._; _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p.

53.

[416] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, p. 81. Cremation was

common in the Neolithic Age in Derbyshire (_Report of ... the Brit.

Association_, 1888 [1890], p. 316).

[417] See, however, p. 187, _infra_.

[418] See _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, v, 1876, pp. 130-1.

[419] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 690-1; J. Anderson, _Scotland

in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, pp. 244-5, 250, 274, 293,

300; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, p. 42.

[420] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 506; _Guide to the Ant. of the

Stone Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 72.

[421] In a long barrow at Upper Swell in Gloucestershire (W. Greenwell,

_Brit. Barrows_, pp. 524, 526, 536) the primary interment was in a true

grave. No similar interment, so far as I know, has been found in any

long barrow.

[422] _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, pp. 189, 224-5. Sir J. Evans

(_Archaeol. Journal_, xxxv, 1878, p. 266) gives an instance of a

skeleton of neolithic age found in the extended position near Daventry

in Northamptonshire.

[423] _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, p. 189; W. Greenwell, _Brit.

Barrows_, pp. 23-4.

[424] _Archaeologia_, xv, 1806, p. 339; xix, 1821, pp. 43-4; xlii,

1869, pp. 184-5.

[425] _Ib._, pp. 190-1; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 504; A.

Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 20-1 (preface);

_Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 72-3. In

the Wor Barrow on Cranborne Chase (see p. 105, _supra_) Pitt-Rivers

discovered six skeletons ‘huddled together beneath a small mound’,

which was within and distinct from the monument itself. Three of them

were crouched, and the rest ‘put in with them as bones, with the

long-bones laid out by the side of the skull’. Referring to a discovery

made in Egypt by Professor Flinders Petrie, Pitt-Rivers observes that

the bones of a skeleton of the Fifth Dynasty (about 3500 B.C.) ‘had

been cut up and put in a box, with an effigy of the deceased by the

side of it. Something of this sort’, he continues, ‘may have occurred

here’.

[426] v, 18, § 2.

[427] _Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 73.

[428] _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, pp. 184-5; W. Greenwell, _Brit.

Barrows_, pp. 500-1.

[429] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, v, 1876, pp. 134-8. Even in cremation

deposits the bones are often imperfect and disconnected; and, previous

to cremation, the bodies must have been stored in an ossuary (W.

Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 547).

[430] _Ib._, pp. 527, 533-4, 547-8

[431] _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, pp. 185, 191-2, 222, 227; _Mem.

Anthr. Soc._, iii, 1870, p. 76.

[432] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 686-93. See also Canon

Greenwell’s remarks on pp. 544-5. Although he agrees in the main with

Rolleston, he admits the probability that Thurnam ‘found signs of

violent breakage upon a few skulls’.

[433] _Archaeologia_, xxxviii, 1860, p. 421.

[434] Gen. Pothier, _Les tumulus du plateau de Ger_, 1900, pp. 30-1.

[435] See the references in Greenwell’s _Brit. Barrows_, p. 685.

[436] See E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, i, 1903, pp. 458-67.

[437] _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, pp. 188, 222. Cf. _Bull. de la Soc.

d’anthr. de Paris_, 2^e sér., ii, 1867, pp. 326-32; J. R. Mortimer,

_Forty Years’ Researches_, p. xxiv, and W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_,

p. 15; and, for a valuable caution against forming hasty inferences

as to cannibalism, _Journ. Derby. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc._, xv,

1893, p. 162.

[438] See p. 268, n. 1, _infra_.

[439] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 486, 499, 544.

[440] ‘Remains of the horse,’ says Lord Avebury (_Prehist. Times_, 6th

ed., 1900, p. 160, with which cf. p. 152, n. 5, _infra_), ‘are very

rare in English barrows, and I know no well authenticated case of their

occurrence in a long barrow’. See, however, _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869,

pp. 228-9. In Gaul at all events in the Neolithic Age horses abounded

(_Association franç. pour l’avancement des sc._, 32^e sess., 1903, 2^e

part., p. 851).

[441] _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, pp. 182-3, 227-8, 237-8, 241.

[442] See E. B. Tylor, _Early Hist. of Mankind_, 1870, p. 131.

[443] _Trans. Ethn. Soc._, N. S., iii, 1865, p. 317.

[444] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 735.

[445] _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, p. 183.

[446] _B. G._, v, 12, § 6.

[447] See W. Robertson Smith, _The Religion of the Semites_, 1901, p.

350.

[448] Primus in orbe deos fecit timor (Statius, _Theb._, iii, 661). Cf.

E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, ii, 1903, p. 230.

[449] _Ib._, pp. 28, 111, 113.

[450] _Acad. des inscr. et belles-lettres_,--comptes-rendus des séances

de l’année 1892, 4^e sér., xx, 6-7.

[451] See pp. 289-98, _infra_.

[452] _L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, p. 488; _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, p. 232.

[453] _Ib._, pp. 193, 229, 232; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 543.

[454] See _Trans. Ethn. Soc._, iii, 1865, p. 316, and cf. W. Greenwell,

_Brit. Barrows_, pp. 57-60, 120-1, whose remarks, though they apply to

the round barrows of the Yorkshire Wolds, are relevant.

[455] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vi, 1877, p. 500 (with which cf. p. 293);

W. Boyd Dawkins, _Early Man in Britain_, p. 287. Cf. J. R. Mortimer,

_Forty Years’ Researches_, p. 1.

[456] See pp. 201-2, _infra_.

[457] See Lord Avebury’s _Origin of Civilisation_, 1902, pp. 35, 301.

Professor Boyd Dawkins misunderstands the custom.

[458] See pp. 288, 403, _infra_; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 3rd ser., x,

1864, pp. 292, 296, 298; _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, pp. 216-7; and

W.C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, i, 68, 75, 95, 174. Numerous holed

stones exist in the vicinity of barrows and stone circles, which

were probably erected in the Bronze Age, in Cornwall, Ross-shire,

Inverness-shire, the Orkneys, and the island of Arran; but their

significance is unknown. There are holed megaliths in Britain (one of

which has in recent times been used for curing weakly children, whose

mothers passed them through it) that do not belong to dolmens (W. C.

Lukis, _Prehist. Stone Monuments of the Brit. Isles,--Cornwall_, p. 17).

[459] E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, i, 1903, p. 454. Cf. _Rev. des

études anc._, vii, 1905, pp. 31-2, and p. 288, _infra_.

[460] See E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, 1903, i, 477, ii, 144-5, 159,

242-3.

[461] _Ib._, i, 120.

[462] _Ib._, ii, 209-14; G. L. Gomme, _Ethnology in Folk-lore_, 1892,

pp. 78-9; Lord Avebury, _Prehist. Times_, 1900, pp. 207-8. See also W.

Robertson Smith, _The Religion of the Semites_, 1901, p. 182.

[463] E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, i, 1903, pp. 108-10; ii, 209.

[464] _Ib._, i, 357-8. Cf. A. Lang, _Custom and Myth_, 1885, pp. 124,

131, 137, 142.

[465] E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, ii, 1903, pp. 186, 248-9, 255.

[466] _Ib._, p. 364. Cf. _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxiv, 1904, p. 264,

and Mr. R. R. Marett’s interesting article, ‘From Spell to Prayer’

(_Folk-Lore_, xv, 1904, pp. 132-65).

[467] _L’Anthr._, xv, 1904, p. 120; A. Lang, _The Clyde Mystery_, 1905,

pp. 82, 89, 99.

[468] E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, ii, 1903, p. 22.

[469] E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, ii, 1903, p. 185.

[470] See W. Robertson Smith, _The Religion of the Semites_, 1901,

p. 152; Lord Avebury, _Origin of Civilisation_, 1902, pp. 466-70;

_L’Anthr._, xvi, 1905, p. 660; and A. Lang, _The Secret of the Totem_,

p. 2.

[471] See W. Robertson Smith, _The Religion of the Semites_, 1901, pp.

38, 41, 92, 119, &c.

[472] _Ib._, pp. 253-6, 263.

[473] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxviii, 1899, p. 145; E. B. Tylor, _Prim.

Culture_, ii, 1903, p. 370.

[474] ‘... die Phantasie, welche wie aller Poesie so auch aller

Historie Mutter ist’ (Th. Mommsen, _Röm. Gesch._, v, 1885, p. 5).

[475] See pp. 408-9, _infra_.

[476] W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 516-7, 549, 563; _Rev.

de l’École d’anthr._, xv, 1905, pp. 213-4. The rarity of long barrows

may partly be explained by supposing that a certain proportion of the

others belonged to the late Neolithic Age. That some did is certain.

See _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxvi, 1902, pp. 159, 171, and pp. 408-9,

_infra_.

[477] M. Salomon Reinach (_L’Anthr._, xvi, 1905, p. 659)

characteristically remarks in regard to the discovery of metals that

‘On l’explique ordinairement par une succession de hasards heureux, en

oubliant que l’humanité primitive, n’ayant aucune idée de l’utilisation

industrielle des métaux, ne pouvait en arriver là du premier coup....

Aujourd’hui toute la métallurgie primitive me semble un chapitre de

l’histoire des religions.... On a soumis ces métaux [gold and tin] à

l’action du feu, au cours d’opérations magiques; ainsi naquit l’idée

de traiter de même les minerais de cuivre ... et d’en dégager le métal

brillant qui ressemble à l’or ... L’alchimie primitive, absolument

étrangère à toute application industrielle, chercha à manier des

substances divines par l’action du feu, à opérer ... des _hiérogamies_

analogues à celle qui conduisit les agriculteurs à la découverte de la

griffe. L’alliage du bronze fut un des résultats de leurs efforts.’

That smiths were sometimes regarded with superstitious awe by those who

did not share their secrets (O. Schrader, _Prehist. Ant. of the Aryan

Peoples_, pp. 165-8); that metallurgy was connected at various points

with religion;--so much may be granted. But to say that ‘primitive

alchemy’ (if it existed) had no industrial application is simply to

make an unverifiable and improbable assertion. The discovery that

ores could be smelted must have been accidental. Why should not the

‘alchemist’, however superstitious he may have been, have thereupon

conceived the idea of turning gold to account for the manufacture of

ornaments, or copper for that of axes?

[478] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xvi, 1895-7, p. 333.

[479] See _Man_, ii, 1902, No. 19, p. 29.

[480] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxi, 1901, pp. 278-9; _Man_, iv, 1904,

No. 5, pp. 13-4.

[481] _Rev. mens. de l’École d’anthr._, iii, 1893, pp. 227-9; _Report

of ... the Brit. Association_, 1896, p. 911.

[482] See _L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, p. 559; xvi, 1905, p. 198.

[483] _Congrès internat. d’anthr. et d’archéol. préhist._, 1900 (1902),

p. 340; _Vict. Hist. of ... Hertford_, i, 232; C. H. Read, _Guide to

the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), 1904, pp. 5-6, 27, 101,

111, 130. M. P. du Chatellier (_Rev. de l’École d’anthr._, xiii, 1903,

pp. 169-72) thinks that there was a copper age in Brittany, but admits

that he cannot settle the question. Professor O. Montelius affirms

(_Man_, v, 1905, No. 7, p. 13) that ‘copper had been used there [in

Britain] for a long time’ before bronze; but British archaeologists

do not bow to his authority. Pitt-Rivers (_Journ. Roy. United Service

Inst._, xiii, 1870, p. 520) remarked that ‘it is not surprising that

on the first discovery of the advantages of [adding tin to copper] ...

all the old implements of copper, wherever procurable, should have been

taken to the melting-pot for conversion into bronze, and we should

thus be left with such scanty evidence of the existence of an age of

copper’. Still we have sufficient evidence for Ireland, and not for

Britain. Professor Gowland (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxvi, 1906, p. 23)

attributes the scarcity of copper celts in England to ‘the occurrence

of mixed copper and tin ores in Cornwall.’

[484] _Man_, iii, 1903, No. 8, pp. 147-9. Professor Montelius (_ib._,

v, 1905, No. 7, pp. 13-4) denies that iron was used by the Egyptians

before the fifteenth century B.C., and insists that the lump of iron

oxide which was found at Abydos in association with copper implements

of the Sixth Dynasty, or about 3200 B.C., ‘does not prove the _use_ of

iron, only the existence of that metal’. The professor doubtless wrote

‘existence’ by a slip for ‘knowledge’. But, as Mr. H. R. Hall points

out (_ib._, No. 40, pp. 69-71), he ignores the discovery in the Great

Pyramid of a piece of worked iron, which is now in the Third Egyptian

Room of the British Museum (Case K 29, No. 2433), and to which a date

about 300 years older ‘is assigned on good _prima facie_ grounds’; and

Mr. Hall reasonably asks whether the discovery of the lump of iron

oxide does not corroborate the other. It is unlikely that an unworked

lump of iron would have been deposited along with copper tools; and we

may fairly suppose that the lump is the remains of an iron tool.

[485] _Archaeologia_, lvi, 1899, pp. 302-3; L. Beck, _Die Gesch. des

Eisens_, i, 1884, pp. 593-6. As far as I can see, all that is proved by

the instances which Beck has collected is--what we know already--that

stone implements continued in use after the Iron Age had begun. In

regard to the discovery, mentioned on p. 595, which Worsaee made in a

stone chamber, may not graves of this kind have been built here and

there after the Neolithic Age? See pp. 108, 109, n. 2, _supra_.

[486] See _Man_, v, 1905, No. 7, p. 13.

[487] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxx, 1900, p. 16.

[488] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, &c., p. 25. See also p. 95.

[489] _Ib._, p. 23.

[490] See O. Schrader, _Prehist. Ant. of the Aryan Peoples_, pp. 194,

203-4, 242; _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp.

3-4; _Rev. mens. de l’École d’anthr._, iii, 1893, pp. 105-6, 118,

120-2; Daremberg and Saglio, _Dict. des ant. grecques et rom._, ii,

1075; and Pauly’s _Real-Encyclopädie_, v, 1905, col. 2143. Classical

scholars will remember that Lucretius (v, 1286), in his powerful

description of prehistoric times, affirmed that bronze was used before

iron.

[491] See O. Schrader, _Prehist. Ant. of the Aryan Peoples_, pp. 192-3,

_Reallexicon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde_, 1901, pp. 200-1;

and _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 9-11.

Dr. Schrader argues that as there are no special names for bronze in

the languages of any of the ancient bronze-using peoples except the

inhabitants of Mesopotamia, in whose tongue bronze, as distinct from

copper (_urudu_), was designated by the word _zabar_, they must have

been the inventors of bronze. See p. 494, _infra_.

[492] Professor Boyd Dawkins (_Early Man in Britain_, pp. 408-9) has

compiled tables which show that the percentage of tin in British bronze

implements varies between 5·09 and 18·31, and in French between 1·50

and 21·5. He concludes (_ib._, p. 410) that ‘the uniformity of the

composition of the cutting implements of the Bronze Age implies that

the art of compounding tin with copper was discovered in one place,

from which the knowledge of it spread over ... Europe and Asia, and the

greater part of the Americas. Had it spread from separate centres, this

uniformity would have been impossible.’ The uniformity which subsists

between 5·09 and 18·31, and between 1·50 and 21·5 is remarkable.

[493] See Sir John Evans’s _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 420; _Rev.

d’anthr._, 3^e sér., iii. 1888, pp. 209-10; and Lord Avebury’s

_Prehist. Times_, 1900, pp. 53-7.

[494] _L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, pp. 548, 561-2, 566. M. Salomon Reinach

(_ib._, iii, 1892, p. 280) has gone so far as to suggest that ‘les

origines mêmes de la métallurgie du bronze’ should be sought in Western

Europe.

[495] See _Journ. Roy. United Service Inst._, xiii, 1870, p. 539, and

J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 419.

[496] _Ib._, p. 476.

[497] _Ib._, pp. 476-7. See p. 144, n. 5, _infra_.

[498] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 420, 477; _Association

franç. pour l’avancement des sc._, 2^e partie, 1903, p. 931;

_L’Anthr._, xvi, 1905, p. 168.

[499] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 470-2. See pp. 231-4,

_infra_.

[500] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 472-3.

[501] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxix, 1899, pp. 308-10; _Man_, v, 1905,

No. 7, p. 13.

[502] See pp. 33-4, _supra_.

[503] See pp. 424-44, _infra_.

[504] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 111-2.

[505] _Ib._, pp. 118-20.

[506] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 313; _Report of ... the Brit.

Association_, 1888 (1889), p. 316. Cf. O. Schrader, _Prehist. Ant. of

the Aryan Peoples_, p. 389.

[507] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 127, 711-2; _Vict. Hist. of

... Derby_, i, 180, 190, n. 1. See pp. 427-8, _infra_.

[508] See pp. 131-2, _infra_. Professor Boyd Dawkins (_Early Man in

Britain_, p. 342) asserts that ‘bronze weapons ensured victory [to the

brachycephalic immigrants] over enemies armed with the old weapons of

stone’. On page 344 he remarks that ‘while the chiefs and the rich

possessed bronze implements and weapons, the poorer classes would

naturally continue to use those of stone’, &c. How could bronze weapons

have decided battles if only ‘the chiefs and the rich’ wielded them?

[509] _Vict. Hist. of ... Lancs_, i, 212, 239.

[510] Since the publication of Sir John Evans’s work, bronze weapons

have been found in the Orkney and Shetland Islands (_Proc. Soc. Ant.

Scot._, xxi, 1887, pp. 340-2).

[511] See p. 133, n. 1, _infra_.

[512] See the Topographical Index in Sir J. Evans’s _Anc. Bronze

Implements; Vict. Hist. of ... Northampton_, i, 142; _Vict. Hist. of

... Nottingham_, i, 289; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxii, 1902, p. 386;

and _Archaeol. Journal_, lxiv, 1904, pp. 310-2. It must not, however,

be supposed that mere statistics of finds are necessarily valid

evidence. See _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, pp. 496-7.

[513] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 118, 133-5.

[514] _Vict. Hist. of ... Worcester_, i, 183-4. Cf. J. Evans, _Anc.

Bronze Implements_, pp. 81, 88, 129, 368.

[515] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 159-60; J. Evans, _Anc.

Bronze Implements_, p. 318, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 195;

_Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 409-12; lii, 1890, pp. 60-1; liv,

1895, p. 105; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., ii, 1902, pp. 60-1. Flint

arrow-heads are also found with burials of the Bronze Age in France (J.

Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, p.

171, n. 1); and Sir J. Evans (_Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 318) says

that ‘many of the bronze arrow-heads found on the Continent appear to

belong to the Early Iron Age’. He admits, however, that some very small

spear-heads, so called, ‘may possibly have served to point arrows’.

Bronze battle-axes are unknown in Northern France as well as in Britain

(_ib._, pp. 161-2).

[516] _Ib._, pp. 19-20, 41, 51, 165, 189-90, 224-5, 256, 480, 487;

_Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 143; _Trans. Ethn. Soc._, N. S.,

iii, 1865, p. 313; _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 412-3, 435-6,

438; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 38, 43, 360; A. Pitt-Rivers,

_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 11, 17; _Trans. Devon

Association_, xxxiv, 1902, p. 128; _Vict. Hist. of ... Lancs_, i, 218.

[517] No British bronze saws are mentioned in Sir J. Evans’s work,

which was published in 1880; but see _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xi,

1885-7, p. 12; _The Naturalist_, 1903, pp. 206-7; and J. R. Mortimer,

_Forty Years’ Researches_, p. 182.

[518] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 173.

[519] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, p. 78.

[520] See B. C. A. Windle, _Remains of the Prehist. Age_, &c., pp.

232-47. Durham, strange to say, has hardly any, though they abound in

Northumberland (W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 378, 440; _Journ.

Brit. Archaeol. Association_, N. S., xi, 1905, p. 168). In highly

cultivated districts many have of course been destroyed.

[521] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxix, 1872, p. 160, n. 1; xxxii, 1875, p.

292.

[522] See A. Pitt Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iii, 5, 7-8.

[523] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 250.

[524] _Trans. Devon. Association_, xxxi, 1899, pp. 146-55; _Trans. Hon.

Soc. Cymmrodorion_, 1898-9 (1900), p. 19.

[525] _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., ii, 1902, pp. 252-60.

[526] _Proc. Somerset. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc._, 1, 1905, part

ii, pp. 32-49.

[527] _42nd Annual Report Roy. Inst. Cornwall_, 1860, pp. 17-43;

_Journ. Roy. Inst. Cornwall_, xiii, 1895 (1896), pp. 98-9; _Trans. Hon.

Soc. Cymmrodorion_, 1898-9 (1900), p. 19; _Trans. Roy. Irish Acad._,

xxxi, 1896-1902, p. 633.

[528] _Ib._, pp. 618-9, 623; _Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland_, xxxv,

1905, pp. 244-5.

[529] _Vict. Hist. of ... Worcester_, i, 182.

[530] G. Payne, _Collectanea Cantiana_, 1893, pp. 176-7.

[531] _Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex_, i, 471.

[532] _Vict. Hist. of ... Berks_, i, 261.

[533] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xxviii, 1872, pp. 40, 42;

_Man_, iv, 1904, No. 105, pp. 161-2. Mr. Cunnington (_Proc. Dorset.

Nat. Hist. and Ant. Field Club_, xxiv, 1903, pp. xxxiv-xxxviii) has

wasted much labour in endeavouring to prove that the Maiden Castle was

constructed by the Romans. In 1882 and following years he excavated in

the eastern division of the fort and found remains of a Roman building,

which proves merely that the fort was occupied in Roman times.

[534] I am glad to find that I have the support of Mr. C. H. Read

(_Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_, p. 78) and Mr. Reginald

Smith (_Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_, 1905, p. 122), who

unhesitatingly refer the Dorsetshire hill-forts in general to ‘the

Bronze, and possibly, in some cases, the Neolithic period’. Mr. H.

St. G. Gray strains Pitt-Rivers’s doctrine when he argues (_Index

to Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, 1905, p. xix; _Proc. Somerset.

Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc._, 3rd ser., ix, 1903 [1905], p. 28)

that, without excavation, it is idle to express any opinion as to

the age of a camp. He says that ‘Caesar’s Camp’ at Folkestone ‘was

always considered to be pre-Roman before Lane-Fox excavated it and

proved it to be of Norman construction’ This remark is incorrect (see

_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iii, p. xi), and, even if it were

true, would only prove that less was known about the principles of

construction of prehistoric British camps in former days than now.

I cannot conceive how anybody could on _a priori_ grounds suppose

‘Caesar’s Camp’ to be pre-Roman, even if he had only seen the plan

on the 25-inch O. S. map. Of course I freely admit that, without

excavation, it would be generally (though not always) idle to express

any opinion as to the particular prehistoric epoch to which a fort

belonged.

Dr. Joseph Anderson (_Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone

Ages_, p. 139, with which cf. D. Christison, _Early Fortifications

in Scotland_, 1898, pp. 350-3, 380-1) observes that no one Scottish

fort ‘can be assigned with certainty to the Bronze Age’; but it is

nevertheless morally certain that many did then exist.

Mr. R. Burnard (_Vict. Hist. of ... Devon_, i, 366) remarks that it

is unsafe to infer from the fact that Cranbrook Castle, in the valley

of the Teign, contained pottery of Bronze Age type, that it belonged

to that period; for such pottery was also used in the Early Iron Age.

Certainly it was; and so also were bronze implements (see pp. 266-7,

_infra_); but, as a rule, the discovery of Bronze Age pottery, or

bronze implements, unaccompanied by objects of the Early Iron Age,

is enough to raise a presumption, which in most instances would be

correct, that the site was occupied in the Bronze Age.

[535] _Scheme for recording Ancient Defensive Earthworks and

Fortified Enclosures_, 1903, pp. 2-3, 6 (published by the Congress of

Archaeological Societies). My classification differs slightly in form,

but not in substance, from that adopted by the Congress.

[536] _Journ. Derbyshire Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc._, xxv, 1903, pp.

175-80.

[537] _Archaeologia_, xliv, 1873, p. 424; xlix, 1885, p. 181; _Journ.

Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland_, xxxv, 1905, p. 244; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 3rd

ser., xi, 1865, pp. 77-81. Many of the ‘cliff-castles’ probably do not

belong to the Bronze Age (see _Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall_, i, 451-2,

458-9).

[538] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vi, 1877, pp. 288-9. See also

_Archaeologia_, xlvi, 1881, p. 458.

[539] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vi, 1877, pp. 288-9. The same feature

exists in the camp at Seaford.

[540] See p. 98, _supra_.

[541] See _Archaeol. Journal_, xxii, 1865, p. 354.

[542] E.g. Ambresbury Banks in Essex, Yarnbury on Salisbury Plain, and

Hunsbury near Northampton. See R. C. Hoare, _Anc. Wilts_, i, 1812, pp.

89-90; _Trans. Epping Forest ... Field Club_, ii, 1882, pp. 55-68; and

_Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, N. S., vii, 1901, p. 23.

[543] See pp. 259-60, _infra_.

[544] Mr. I. Chalkley Gould (_Trans. Essex Archaeol. Soc._, N. S.,

viii, 1903, p. 139, with which cf. _Journ. Derby. Archaeol. and Nat.

Hist. Soc._, xxiv, 1902, p. 29) says that ‘the early constructors

fixed on the highest points, and ... adopted a system of tortuous and

involved entrances’; and that in later times engineers ‘no longer

depended on involved tortuous entrances’. There is some truth in this;

but forts which were at all events occupied in the Early Iron Age stood

‘on the highest points’, and the entrances of Cissbury (_Archaeologia_,

xlv, 1880, p. 338, pl. xxvi), which was probably erected in the

Neolithic Age (pp. 97-8, _supra_), and of many other hill-forts were

not tortuous.

[545] See, for instance, _Trans. Devon. Association_, xxxi, 1899, p.

151, xxxiii, 1901, pp. 129-38; and _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., ii,

1902, pp. 252-60.

[546] See _Vict. Hist. of ... Derby_, i, 364, and pp. 257-8, _infra_.

[547] _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, 1887-8 (1889), pp. 376-7;

_Papers Hants Field Club_, iii, 1896, part ii, p. 175; W. Johnson and

W. Wright, _Neol. Man in N.-E. Surrey_, 1903, p. 47; _Cornhill Mag._,

May, 1906, p. 612.

[548] _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 19-20.

[549] See my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1903, pp. 51, 160-1.

[550] See _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, p. 51; A. Pitt-Rivers,

_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 238; and _Journ. Derby. Archaeol.

and Nat. Hist. Soc._, xxiii, 1901, pp. 112-3.

[551] Prof. F. J. Haverfield (_Eng. Hist. Rev._, xix, 1904, p. 746)

says that ‘the scanty archaeological evidence hardly seems to justify

... Cornish mining so early as B.C. 800’. But it does prove that bronze

implements were made in Britain in the earlier part of the Bronze

Age,--considerably earlier than 800 B.C.; and the tin must have been

obtained either from Cornwall, or from Dartmoor, or from both. There is

no evidence of prehistoric mining in Dartmoor, and there is in Cornwall

(pp. 502-3, n. 8, _infra_).

[552] See Prof. Gowland’s interesting paper in _Archaeologia_, lvi,

1892, pp. 267-322, especially 268, 284-5, 287, 296.

[553] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 425. I do not know what

the results of later analyses have been. See also _Archaeologia_, liv,

1895, p. 97, and Addenda, p. 739.

[554] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 39, 188, 204-5, 222, 487.

[555] _Ib._, pp. 48, 69-70, 74, 76, 153.

[556] _Ib._, pp. 70-3, 160.

[557] _Ib._, p. 468.

[558] _Ib._, pp. 107-8.

[559] _Ib._, pp. 160, 162-3.

[560] _Archaeologia_, liv, 1895, p. 98.

[561] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 167. Cf. _Archaeol.

Journal_, xxvi, 1869, pp. 346-50.

[562] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 173, 175-6.

[563] _Ib._, pp. 207-8.

[564] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 480.

[565] _Ib._, p. 479; _Papers Hants Field Club_, iii, 1895, pp. 56-7.

[566] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 106.

[567] Sir J. Evans (_ib._, p. 483) observes that ‘our socketed celts

appear to have had the cradle of their family in Western Germany’. See

also _ib._, pp. 107-8.

[568] _Ib._, pp. 84, 108, 483.

[569] _Ib._, pp. 108, 135.

[570] _Ib._, pp. 114-5.

[571] _Journ. Roy. United Service Inst._, xiii, 1870, p. 531; J. Evans,

_Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 75, 133.

[572] Pitt-Rivers (_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 106-7),

referring to _Ancient Bronze Implements_, p. 72, remarks that a

palstave found on the bottom of the Angle Ditch on Handley Down was

probably used in excavating the ditch, the sides of the lower part

of which are ‘scored all along by vertical grooves’, some of which

‘coincide with the width of the flat side of the palstave’.

[573] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 194, 197-200, 202; J.

Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, p.

202; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xv, 1893-5, pp. 358-60.

[574] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 204, 222-4.

[575] _Ib._, pp. 257-60, 473, 480; _Archaeologia_, xxxvi, 1855, pp.

326-31.

[576] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 261-2, 265, 269-70.

[577] _Ib._, pp. 248-9, 256, 273, 342-3, 354-5.

[578] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 343-8, 354-5, 481;

_Archaeologia_, xxvii, 1838, pp. 298-300, liv, 1895, p. 112; J.

Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, p. 227.

[579] _Ib._, pp. 171, 173; J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp.

250-1, 278-81, 297, 301-2, 308, 481; _Archaeologia_, liv, 1895, p. 112.

[580] _Ib._, xliii, 1871, pp. 455-6; J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze

Implements_, p. 310.

[581] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xix, No. ii, 1902, pp. 287-9.

[582] ‘The openings’ [in one specimen], says Sir J. Evans (_Anc. Bronze

Implements_, p. 332), ‘are about 17 inches from the point. An Irish

friend has suggested that they were for the reception of poison, but

after the blade had penetrated seventeen inches into the human body

such an use of poison would probably be superfluous.’

[583] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 341-2; _Guide to the Ant.

of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 68-9, 81.

[584] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 337-8, 341-2.

[585] _Ib._, p. 315.

[586] _Ib._, p. 311.

[587] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 107, 427-8, 430, 438,

440-1, 445; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xvi, 1895-7, pp. 328-30; xx,

1904-5, p. 259; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, pp. 487-505;

_Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 72-3.

[588] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 186, 451-2. See p. 71,

_supra_.

[589] _Ib._, pp. 67-8, 177, 179, 181, 451-3.

[590] Daggers with chevron ornament are very rare in the British Isles

except in Ireland (_Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., ii, 1902, p. 221). One

or two English specimens are noticed by Sir John Evans (_Anc. Bronze

Implements_, pp. 232, 238).

[591] _Ib._, pp. 108, 320, 330. Mr. Romilly Allen is mistaken when he

says (_Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., ii, 1902, p. 220) that winged,

looped, and socketed celts never have chevron ornament. Several

instances are given in _Anc. Bronze Implements_ (pp. 74, 84, 90, 126,

128, 132).

[592] See pp. 181-4, _infra_.

[593] _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 457-70. For details of hoards which

have been found since the publication of Sir John Evans’s book, see

_Archaeol. Cambr._, 5th ser., i, 1884, pp. 225-7; _Proc. Soc. Ant._,

2nd ser., xi, 1885-7, pp. 12, 42-51; xv, 1893-5, p. 138; xvi, 1895-7,

pp. 96-8, 327-30; xviii, 1900, pp. 285-7; _Archaeologia_, xlviii, 1888,

pp. 106-14; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxvi, 1892, pp. 182-8; xxxv, 1901,

pp. 266-75; _Papers Hants Field Club_, iii, 1895, pp. 53-66; and _Vict.

Hist. of ... Surrey_, i, 241.

[594] _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 457-8; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._,

xxxviii, 1904, p. 504.

[595] Some hoards of damaged and broken implements, unaccompanied by

copper cakes, may have been formed for barter with a bronze-founder

(_Vict. Hist. of ... Surrey_, i, 240).

[596] See p. 126, _supra_.

[597] Cf. _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 536, with Greenwell’s _Brit.

Barrows_, p. 740, and Pitt-Rivers’s _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_,

iv, 132.

[598] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 110-1; _Archaeologia_, liv,

1895, pp. 110-1; A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv,

19.

[599] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 192, 236.

[600] J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years’ Researches_, &c., pp. 111-2. See

also _Brit. Barrows_, p. 114; and _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxiv, 1904,

pp. 392, 396.

[601] See W. Robertson Smith, _The Religion of the Semites_, 1901, pp.

260-1.

[602] See p. 90, _supra_.

[603] Oxen drawing a plough are depicted on rock-carvings in

Scandinavia (_Congrès internat. d’anthr. et d’archéol. préhist._, i,

1874 [1877], pp. 454 [fig. 1], 473 [fig. 31]).

[604] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 220, 262; _Archaeologia_, liv,

1895, p. 110; A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv,

127-8.

[605] O. Montelius, _Civilisation of Sweden in Heathen Times_, 1888,

pp. 71-6; _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 141.

[606] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 399-400, 404. Harness

rings have been found, according to Dr. J. Anderson (_Scotland in

Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, p. 168), in Scottish hoards.

Professor W. Ridgeway (_The Thoroughbred Horse_, p. 92) argues that

‘the use of the horse by man in the British Isles cannot be placed

before the end’ of the Bronze Age.

[607] See p. 221, _infra_.

[608] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 656-7.

[609] _Nature_, Nov. 22, 1894, p. 92.

[610] O. Schrader, _Prehist. Ant. of the Aryan Peoples_, p. 379.

[611] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 139, 591-2, 599.

[612] See pp. 85-6, _supra_.

[613] See _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp.

52-3; and p. 467, _infra_.

[614] D. Wilson, _Prehist. Annals of Scotland_, 2nd ed., i, 1863, p.

107.

[615] See p. 87, _supra_.

[616] See B.C. A. Windle, _Remains of the Prehist. Age_, &c., p. 279.

[617] _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 486. Bronze spear-heads were

associated with objects of the Early Iron Age in a hoard found on

Hagbourne Hill in Berkshire, which belonged to a period of transition.

See p. 267, _infra_.

[618] _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 143. The

argument is no doubt generally sound, and no find, as far as I know,

refutes it; but I do not think that it is absolutely conclusive. Stone

implements were undoubtedly used in the Early Iron Age; and bronze and

iron implements have been found together.

[619] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxiv, 1867, pp. 229-35; xxvi, 1869, pp.

301-5, 317; xxvii, 1870, pp. 158-9. The workshops may have been used in

the Bronze Age; but one, in which iron slag was found, contained Roman

coins. Huts similar to those of Ty Mawr have been explored in Brittany

(_ib._, p. 148).

[620] _Archaeologia_, xlv, 1880, pp. 356-8. See p. 86, _supra_.

[621] W. C. Lukis, _Prehist. Stone Monuments of the Brit.

Isles,--Cornwall_, pp. 18-9.

[622] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 402; _Reliquary_, viii, 1902,

p. 92.

[623] _Vict. Hist. of ... Devon_, i, 350, 352.

[624] _Ib._, p. 349; _Trans. Devon. Association_, xxxiv, 1902, p. 161.

[625] _Ib._, p. 163.

[626] _Ib._, pp. 161-3.

[627] _Vict. Hist. of ... Devon_, i, 354.

[628] _Trans. Devon. Association_, xxxi, 1899, p. 148.

[629] _Ib._, xxxiv, 1902, p. 160. Cf. _Archaeologia_, xlv, 1880, pp.

362-3.

[630] _Trans. Devon. Association_, xxxiv, 1902, p. 160.

[631] _Reliquary_, N. S., viii, 1902, p. 91.

[632] _Trans. Devon. Association_, xxxiv, 1902, p. 163. Bronze has

been found, though rarely, in graves on Dartmoor (_Ib._, p. 130;

_Reliquary_, N. S., vii, 1901. p. 95).

[633] _Ib._, p. 92.

[634] A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 46-8.

[635] _Ib._, pp. 14, 15-6, 20 (preface), 185-90, and pl. 306. See also

_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxiv, 1904, pp. 387-97. Mr. J. R. Mortimer

(_Forty Years’ Researches_, pp. 365, 369) describes an ‘extensive

labyrinth of entrenchments’, which ‘traversed the high grounds of the

[Yorkshire] Wolds in every direction, forming a network ... connecting

hill to hill and valley to valley’. He states (p. 379) that several

round barrows have been mutilated by these entrenchments ‘in a manner

which shows that the latter are the more recent’ [but does not show

that they are later than the Bronze Age], but that they are ‘at least

for the most part pre-Roman, being in several instances crossed by what

are believed to be portions of ... Roman roads’; and he concludes,

disagreeing with Pitt-Rivers (see p. 441, n. 2, _infra_), that they

were intended to protect cattle against robbers. In regard to the

entrenchments near Flamborough Head which Pitt Rivers excavated, I

prefer his guidance.

[636] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 107-8; J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze

Implements_, pp. 179, 185; _Archaeologia_, liv, 1895, pp. 87-114.

Canon Greenwell (_ib._, p. 103) conjectures that the disks, which have

analogues in France, Switzerland, and Italy, may have been worn as

ornaments upon the breast; but their use is uncertain. Cf. _Anc. Bronze

Implements_, pp. 401-3.

[637] _Ib._, pp. 408-14; J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the

Bronze and Stone Ages_, p. 205; _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_

(Brit. Museum), pp. 28-30, 84. Cauldrons with ring-handles and rounded

bottoms have been found in Ireland and in various parts of Scotland,

but, according to Dr. J. Anderson (_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xix, 1885,

pp. 313-5; xxxix, 1905, pp. 14-20) and Mr. C. H. Read (_Guide_, &c.,

p. 30), not on the Continent. Dr. R. Munro, however (_Lake Dwellings

of Europe_, 1890, p. 290), affirms that they have been found in the

famous settlement of La Tène. They belonged indeed to the very latest

period of the Bronze Age, if not to the Early Iron Age (_Anc. Bronze

Implements_, p. 410). Only one cauldron of the flat-bottomed type has

been found in Scotland (_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxii, 1888, p. 36).

The British cauldrons of this kind differ in details from continental

examples, especially in their handles, which are rings, and may be of

native manufacture. Anyhow, the Heathery Burn Cave cauldron had been

mended with a degree of skill which shows that British workmen knew how

to rivet plates together.

[638] Professor Boyd Dawkins (_Early Man in Britain_, pp. 360-2)

remarks that if a well-known amber cup, which was found at Hove, was

of British workmanship, it proves that the use of the lathe was known

in Britain in the Bronze Age. Sir John Evans (_Anc. Stone Implements_,

1897, pp. 445-50), like the professor, thinks that the cup may have

been imported; but he points out that cups made of shale, which

were certainly turned in a lathe, and were most probably of British

manufacture, have been found in round barrows on Broad Down near

Honiton. Sir R. C. Hoare (_Anc. Wilts_, i, 122-3) found in the trunk

of a tree inside a bowl barrow along with a skeleton an urn which he

described as ‘different both in shape and colour to any we have ever

found in the British sepulchres’, and which appeared to him to have

been turned in a lathe. Still the statement in the text is, generally

speaking, true both of the British Isles and of Northern and Western

Europe.

[639] _Trans. Devon. Association_, xxxiv, 1902, p. 125. See also p.

467, _infra_.

[640] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 338-43, and pl. xxix; liv, 1895,

p. 110; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 11, 106-8; _Trans. Devon.

Association_, xxxiv, 1902, p. 125; _Proc. Somerset. Archaeol. and Nat.

Hist. Soc._, 1, 1905, part ii, p. 42; J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years’

Researches_, pp. lxvii, 9, 82.

[641] See pp. 395-7, _infra_.

[642] _Archaeologia_, liv, 1895, pp. 112-4.

[643] _Ib._, pp. 94, 108.

[644] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 438-9; _Anc.

Bronze Implements_, p. 383.

[645] Sir A. Mitchell, _The Past in the Present_, pp. 5-6, 12.

[646] _Archaeologia_, liv, 1895, pp. 108-9.

[647] _Ib._, xliii, 1871, p. 440; J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_,

pp. 191-2; A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 162-3.

[648] ‘So called’, says Pitt-Rivers (_ib._, i, 66), ‘because some

of them are found with an edge as sharp as a penknife’. The thought

of shaving with a bronze razor is not pleasant; but the negroes of

Tanganyika still use razors of this metal (_L’Anthr._, xiv, 1903, pp.

667-75; xv, 1904, p. 116); and everybody knows that the Flamen Dialis

might only shave with a bronze knife. See J. G. Frazer, _The Golden

Bough_, i, 1900, p. 242.

[649] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 451; liv, 1895, p. 99; J. Evans,

_Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 217-21, 480.

[650] See p. 156, _supra_. Cf. W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 118,

142.

[651] _Ib._, p. 411.

[652] See p. 189, _infra_.

[653] _Germania_, 17.

[654] _Archaeol. Journal_, ix, 1852, p. 8; _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871,

pp. 432-4; liv, 1895, pp. 101, 107; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_,

pp. 15, 31, 33; J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 366-73; J.

Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, p. 168.

[655] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 32-3, 54-6; _Archaeologia_,

xliii, 1871, pp. 510-2, 519-22; J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years’

Researches_, p. xli.

[656] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 452-5; _Anc.

Bronze Implements_, pp. 400-1; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxvi, 1902,

pp. 473-4, 477, 480-5. One button with a V-shaped perforation, found in

a barrow at Winterbourne Stoke, Wiltshire, was associated with glass

beads (_ib._, p. 474), which (p. 183, _infra_) appear to have belonged

to a comparatively advanced period of the Bronze Age. Cf. _Proc. Soc.

Ant. Scot._, xxxvi, 1902, p. 481.

[657] R. C. Hoare, _Anc. Wilts_, i. 99, pl. x; _Archaeologia_, xliii,

1871, pp. 524-5.

[658] _Ib._, pp. 490-1, 502-3; J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years’

Researches_, pp. li, 92.

[659] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 492.

[660] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 55, n. 1.

[661] _Trans. Devon. Association_, v, 1872, pp. 554-5 and pl. ii.

[662] _Anc. Wilts_, i, 202, pl. xxvii, 2. See also _Archaeologia_,

xliii, 1871, p. 459, and _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 51, 232.

[663] _Archaeologia_, xxvi, 1836, pp. 422-31; _Archaeol. Journal_,

lviii, 1901, p. 324; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xviii, 1899-1901, pp.

223-4.

[664] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 501. Cf. p. 502, note c.

[665] See _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 395, 481, 487.

[666] _Ib._, p. 481.

[667] _Ib._, p. 395.

[668] _Archaeologia_, liv, 1895, p. 102. Sir John Evans (_Anc. Bronze

Implements_, p. 402) does not accept them as armlets; but cf. _Guide to

the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 85.

[669] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 76, 90, 96, 375-9. Cf. W.

Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 55, n. 1, 436. Bronze torques of all

these patterns have also been collected. Funicular torques are unknown

in Scotland.

[670] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 283, 381-7;

_Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 489-90, 528; J. Anderson, _Scotland

in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, pp. 94-5, 168, 217; A.

Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 6.

[671] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., ii, 1861-4, pp. 247-8; J. Anderson,

_Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, p. 224, n. 1;

Mr. G. Clinch (_Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex_, i, 320) thinks that the

Mountfield hoard probably belonged to the Late Celtic period.

[672] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone

Ages_, pp. 217, 220-1.

[673] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxiv, 1867, pp. 197, 201; J. Evans, _Anc.

Bronze Implements_, p. 42; J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the

Bronze and Stone Ages_, p. 222; _Rev. celt._, xxi, 1900, pp. 166-73;

_Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall_, i, 356. Cf. _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, p.

135.

[674] See _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxv, 1901, p. 263.

[675] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 470; J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze

Implements_, pp. 390-1.

[676] _Ib._, pp. 391-3; _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 471, 531; W.

Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 117, 223, 324; J. R. Mortimer, _Forty

Years’ Researches_, pp. xlvi, 218. A pair of ornaments, which may have

been ear-rings, have been found in a barrow in Wiltshire. Cf. _Guide to

the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 94, with _Anc. Bronze

Implements_, p. 393. Ear-rings of the Bronze Age are equally rare in

France (_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxv, 1901, pp. 267, 273).

[677] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 392-3

[678] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 514-5, 522; J. Anderson,

_Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, pp. 51-2; _Proc.

Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxv, 1901, pp. 270-1; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser.,

ii, 1902, p. 209.

[679] See p. 469, _infra_.

[680] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 494-5, 500, 504, 526-7.

[681] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxvi, 1892, p. 183.

[682] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 394, 485; _L’Anthr._,

xvi, 1905, pp. 173-5. Mr. L. M^cLellan (_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xl,

1906, pp. 396-402), unlike Mr. Abercromby (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._,

xxxix, 1905, p. 262), argues that the paste beads were made in Britain.

[683] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 492-4.

[684] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 485.

[685] _Journ. Roy. Inst. Cornwall_, xvi, 1904, p. 103.

[686] _Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant., Ireland_, 5th ser., v, 1895, p. 23;

_Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1896, pp. 912-4; _L’Anthr._,

vii, 1896, pp. 688-9; _Rev. celt._, xxi, 1900, pp. 166-75; _Guide to

the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 29, 145-6; _Man_, v,

1905, No. 7, p. 13. For evidences of intercourse between Scotland and

Ireland see _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vi, 1867, pp. 350-1; W. Greenwell,

_Brit. Barrows_, p. 62; and R. Munro, _Prehist. Scotland_, p. 290.

[687] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 508-9; J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze

Implements_, p. 484; _Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland_, 5th ser., vi,

1896, p. 37, n. 1.

[688] This conjecture, I find, has the support of Mr. Coffey (_ib._, p.

39).

[689] See p. 357, _infra_.

[690] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, iii, 1860, pp. 183, 195.

[691] _Ib._, xxvi, 1892, pp. 186-7; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p.

55.

[692] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxv, 1905, p. 261.

[693] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 54-6; _Archaeologia_, xliii,

1871, pp. 492, 494-5, 507, 530; lii, 1890, pp. 58-9. A glass bead has

been found in one Derbyshire barrow (_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xv,

1893-5, p. 425). Gold has only once been found in a barrow on the

Yorkshire Wolds (_Archaeologia_, lii, 58-9); and of 379 interments

only 10, of which 2 were Late Celtic, were found there accompanied by

ornaments (_Brit. Barrows_, pp. 51-2); whereas in Wiltshire 64 were

found out of 354 (_Archaeologia_, xliii, 488).

[694] The absence of gold and amber which distinguishes the group of

barrows round the great stone circle at Avebury from those associated

with Stonehenge (_Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 11, p. 5, n. 11) is

remarkable. Perhaps it may be due partly to the greater antiquity of

the Avebury barrows.

[695] In regard to the poverty of the people who, probably in the Early

Iron Age, used the stronghold of Winkelbury Hill, 13 miles WSW. of

Salisbury, see A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii,

236.

[696] Dr. Joseph Anderson assigns these balls, which have been found

only in Scotland, to the Iron Age; but Mr. George Coffey (_Journ. Roy.

Soc. Ant. Ireland_, 5th ser., vi, 1896, p. 42) thinks that ‘the general

character of these spirals appears to be distinctly Bronze Age, not

Late Celtic’. It has been pointed out (_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser.,

xvi, 1895-7, pp. 408-9) that Mr. Coffey’s theory is ‘strengthened by

the fact that stone balls of this class have been found associated

with cist burials [of the Bronze Age] ... near Ballater, and ... [in]

Elginshire’.

[697] Meath, Louth, Fermanagh, Tyrone, and Donegal.

[698] See Mr. G. Coffey’s articles in _Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland_,

5th ser., iv. 1894, pp. 349-79; v, 1895, pp. 16-29, 195-211; vi, 1896,

pp. 34-69, and especially 40-2, 65; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxi, 1887,

p. 144; xxiii, 1889, p. 133; xxix, 1895, pp. 191-4; xxxiii, 1899, pp.

363-4, 368; _L’Anthr._, vii, 1896, pp. 688-9; xvii, 1906, p. 332, fig.

6; _Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc._, N. S.,

ii, 1902, pp. 381-2; Romilly Allen, _Celtic Art in Pagan and Christian

Times_, 1904, pp. 50-3; C. H. Read, _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze

Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 96; and _Vict. Hist. of ... Lancs_, i, 240.

Mr. Read observes (_op. cit._, p. 103) that some of the Scandinavian

bronzes have been shown by analysis to have been imported from Britain.

[699] M. Salomon Reinach (_L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, pp. 688-90), if I do

not misunderstand him, although he admits that the British Isles in the

Bronze Age were connected by trade with Scandinavia, thinks it probable

that the spiral reached the former by way of Spain. He observes that

among Scandinavian rock-sculptures there are no spirals; that certain

designs--for example the boat--are common to sepulchral monuments in

Brittany and in Ireland; that there are striking points of resemblance

between the bronze culture of Ireland and Spain; and that designs which

have been found in the East Riding of Yorkshire represent Aegean types

which also appear in the departments of the Marne and the Gard (see p.

200, _infra_). These arguments seem unavailing against those stated in

the text, and especially against the almost complete absence of the

spiral from Spain, Gaul, and Southern England. If the figure does not

appear on Scandinavian rocks, it abounds on Scandinavian weapons and

ornaments; and on rocks boats are frequently represented (O. Montelius,

_Civilisation of Sweden in Heathen Times_, 1888, pp. 46, 73-6). Nor is

M. Reinach’s reasoning sound when he goes on to argue that we have no

right to trace the Bronze Age spiral of Western Europe to an Egyptian

source because the same design has been found engraved on mammoths’

tusks in the Pyrenaean cave of Espélungues at Arudy (_L’Anthr._, xv,

1904, p. 146, fig. 24; xvi, 1905, p. 5, fig. 4). As Dr. Arthur Evans

remarks (_Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1896, p. 913), ‘the

earliest cultural strata of Europe, from the Neolithic period onwards,

betray an entire absence of the recurring spiral motive. When we find

it later propagating itself as a definite ornamental system in a

regular chronological succession throughout an otherwise inter-related

European zone, we have every right to trace it to a common source.

[700] See pp. 499-500 and 511-4, _infra_.

[701] See _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxx, 1900, p. 94, and the Hon. John

Abercromby’s article in the same periodical, xxxv, 1905, pp. 256-64,

especially 262. Mr. George Coffey (_Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland_,

5th ser., vi, 1896, p. 40), remarking that Britain and Gaul were on a

lower plane of civilization in the Bronze Age than Scandinavia, argues

that one cause may have been that ‘the sea-way south of the Elbe was

possibly closed to Scandinavian enterprise in the Bronze Age’. But

the North Sea was not; and apparently there was nothing to prevent

Scandinavian traders from landing on our eastern coasts if they had

thought it worth while.

[702] See p. 119, _supra_. Prof. B.C. A. Windle (_Remains of the

Prehist. Age_, pp. 153-73) gives a fairly complete list. It would be

superfluous to print references for barrows belonging to counties not

mentioned in my text; for full lists are being given in the _Victoria

County History_.

[703] Long barrows may possibly have been erected in remote districts

after bronze had been introduced into Southern Britain. See _Archaeol.

Cambr._, 5th ser., viii, 1891, pp. 33-7.

[704] A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 58-9. Cf.

_Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, p. 196.

[705] See p. 108, _supra_.

[706] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 13, 451; _Trans. Devon.

Association_, xxxiv, 1902, p. 111.

[707] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 309, 314, 326; W. Greenwell,

_Brit. Barrows_, pp. 12-3.

[708] _Ib._, pp. 31-2; R. C. Hoare, _Anc. Wilts_, i, 52, 122-5; J.

Hutchins, _Hist. and Ant. of Dorset_, 3rd ed., i, 1861, p. 100;

_Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 314-5; A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations

in Cranborne Chase_, i, 4; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxix, 1905, pp.

179-81; J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years’ Researches_, p. xxvii.

[709] J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years’ Researches_, p. xxv.

[710] The same degeneration took place in Gaul (A. Bertrand, _Archéol.

celt. et gaul._, 1889, p. 104; _Rev. de l’École d’anthr._, xv, 1905,

pp. 213-4).

[711] Mr. J. R. Mortimer (_Forty Years’ Researches_, p. xxv) believes

that on the Yorkshire Wolds barrows were occasionally erected over

the dwellings in which the dead had lived; but the evidence which he

adduces, except in one instance (pp. 182-3), appears to me weak. See

pp. 155, 328-9, 336-7.

[712] _Stonehenge_, 1740, p. 45.

[713] _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, p. 63.

[714] _Ib._, xlix, 1885, p. 183.

[715] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone

Ages_, pp. 3-4; _Trans. Glasgow Archaeol. Soc._, N. S., iii, part ii,

1899, p. 499.

[716] _Trans. Devon. Association_, xxxvii, 1902, p. 106.

[717] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 309; lii, 1890, p. 63; _Proc.

Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., viii, 1879-81, p. 289.

[718] J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years’ Researches_, p. xxi.

[719] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 291-2; W. Greenwell, _Brit.

Barrows_, pp. 4-5.

[720] _Ib._, p. 3; _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 290-1, 301-4; A.

Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 7-8, 64.

[721] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 291. It has often been assumed

that barrows had no ditches because none were visible; but Pitt-Rivers

(_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, i, 4) showed that several barrows

on his estate were surrounded by ditches ‘of which no trace was seen

before excavating’. See also _ib._, ii, 7-8.

[722] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 302-4; W. Greenwell, _Brit.

Barrows_, pp. 3-4. Composite bowl barrows and bell barrows are

described in _Archaeologia_, xliii, 297-300.

[723] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 293-5, 303-4; _Folk-Lore_, vi,

1895, pp. 14-5. Pitt-Rivers (_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv,

145) suggests that the common form of disk barrows ‘may have arisen

through a failure to carry out the original intention’. ‘The first

idea,’ he continues, ‘of the mourners ... may probably have been to

erect a large monument ... and the ditch in such a case would contain

a large area. In the course of a few days, however, the grief may have

abated, and laziness supervened, in which case the arrested tumulus

would assume the form described. The habit of all primitive peoples

... of lashing themselves up into a frenzy on the occasion of a death,

and general excitability upon any uncommon occurrence, followed by a

speedy relapse, favours this hypothesis. When, however, a vallum is

seen to follow the line of the ditch, this cause cannot be assigned to

the particular structure. It may, however, be a form that has become

persistent and conventionalized through the cause already mentioned.’

This ingenious theory seems to imply that the motive of laziness only

began to operate when disk barrows came into fashion.

The few disk barrows of Derbyshire have no apparent ditches (_Vict.

Hist. of ... Derby_, i, 169). That county also contains barrows

constructed differently and of different materials from those which

undoubtedly belong to the Bronze Age: their date is uncertain, but may

be Romano-British (_ib._, pp. 186-9; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xv,

1893-5, p. 427).

Mr. G. F. Tregelles (_Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall_, i, 358) thinks that

in Cornwall the distinctions between conical, bowl, bell, flat, and

ring barrows ‘may be little more than differences in height’.

[724] _Journal Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xviii, 1862, p. 39;

_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., viii, 1879-81, pp. 289, 291-2; x, 1884-5,

pp. 305-6; W. C. Lukis, _Prehist. Stone Monuments of the Brit.

Isles,--Cornwall_, p. 6; _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, p. 63; _Trans.

Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc._, N. S., i, 1901,

pp. 295-9.

[725] _Vict. Hist. of ... Derby_, i. 169.

[726] The ditches of the Cranborne Chase barrows in Dorsetshire,

just outside the frontier of Wiltshire, are sometimes incomplete (A.

Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 138).

[727] See p. 104, _supra_.

[728] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 6-8; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd

ser., xi, 1885-7, p. 434. Canon Greenwell _(Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._,

vi, 1867, p. 339), speaking of a cairn near Crinan in Argyllshire,

surrounded by ‘a double circle of stones’, which ‘stood from 3 feet

to 5 feet apart, except for a space ... where, in both circles, four

stones were found placed close together’, says, ‘This is not an unusual

feature in circles which enclose burials; in fact it is, in one shape

or another, almost universal.... The object seems to be to make the

circle incomplete.... When the circle is made of stones placed close

together, or is formed of earth, then one or more openings occur in

it.’ On the other hand, Mr. W. C. Borlase (_Archaeologia_, xlix, 1885,

p. 183) found that in Cornwall the stone rings enclosing barrows were

almost always continuous.

[729] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 8.

[730] A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 138. Mr.

J. R. Mortimer (_Forty Years’ Researches_, p. xxii), referring to the

incomplete stone rings or trenches which are found _within_ barrows,

suggests that they were intended ‘to mark off ... the sacred spot in

which the ceremony and interment were afterwards to be conducted, and

that the break in the circle had no other significance than to serve as

a place of ingress and egress’.

[731] _Ib._, p. lxxi; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 112.

[732] _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, pp. 169-71.

[733] _Archaeol. Journal_, lviii, 1901, pp. 328-31.

[734] _Journ. Derby. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc._, xi, 1889, pp.

39-44; xiv, 1892, pp. 244-7, 250; xv, 1893, pp. 161-2.

[735] In certain cases, however, the mound may have been so worn down

by denudation as to escape notice.

[736] A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 148.

[737] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone

Ages_, pp. 28, 37-8; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xx, 1886, pp. 114, 240-1;

xxix, 1895, pp. 46-8; xxxv, 1901, pp. 258-66; xxxix, 1905, pp. 189,

528-32.

[738] _Anthr. Rev._, v, 1867, p. 255.

[739] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 112-3.

[740] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone

Ages_, pp. 38, 48-50, 63-4.

[741] _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 22-3 (preface). ‘There is

no knowing,’ says Pitt-Rivers, ‘how many of these graves without mounds

or ditches may exist in the soil; as they show no mark on the surface,

they can only be found accidentally’.

[742] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 113.

[743] _Trans. Devon. Association_, xxxiv, 1902, p. 111.

[744] _Brit. Barrows_, p. 402. For other instances of moundless graves

see _Anthr. Rev._, iii, 1865 (_Journ. Anthr. Soc._, p. lxvii); _Journ.

Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xlv, 1889, pp. 112-22; _Proc. Soc. Ant._,

2nd ser., xvi, 1895-7, p. 335; W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_,

iii, 1013; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., ii, 1902, p. 28; _Wilts

Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Mag._, xxxiii, 1904, pp. 410-1; _Archeol.

Aeliana_, 3rd ser., ii, 1906, p. 132; and _Vict. Hist. of ... Lancs_,

i, 245. Mr. J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years’ Researches_, p. lxxii,

suggests that ‘the great number of small cairns which even yet exist on

the uncultivated moors of Yorkshire’ may have ‘belonged to the masses’.

[745] See pp. 105-6, _supra_.

[746] _Trans. Lancs. and Cheshire Ant. Soc._, xviii, 1900 (1901), pp.

114-24.

[747] These cists are assigned by the excavators, Dr. W. A. Herdman

and Mr. P. M. C. Kermode (_Proc. Liverpool Biol. Soc._, viii, 1894,

pp. 159-72), to the Neolithic Age; but the evidence which they adduce

is purely negative. Perhaps the people who built them only had stone

tools; but the fact that the interments were in cists and accompanied

by cinerary urns proves that they were made after bronze had come into

use.

[748] A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 4;

_Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 24-7, 41, 60; W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of

Ireland_, ii, 634; Général Pothier, _Les tumulus du plateau de Ger_,

1900, pp. 28-9. See also _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xv, 1886, pp. 95-7.

[749] J. H. F. Brabner, _Gazetteer of England and Wales_, vi, 31.

[750] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 2, n. 2. Mr. J. R. Mortimer

(_Forty Years’ Researches_, p. xviii, n. ||) remarks that ‘it could

hardly be expected that these two small openings would be more likely

to find the primary grave ... than two rat holes would be likely

to come upon the ashes of a mouse placed under a mound ten feet in

diameter’.

[751] _Wilts Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Mag._, xxiii, 1887, pp. 245-52.

At the foot of Garrow by Hill, on the Yorkshire Wolds, there is another

gigantic mound, 50 feet high and 250 feet in diameter, which has not

been opened (J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years’ Researches_, p. xx).

[752] J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 134, 273-4, 277, 342;

W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 44, 48-9; _Archaeologia_, xliii,

1871, pp. 442-6. See also _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, x,

1855, p. 8. Dr. Thurnam (_Archaeologia_, xliii, 447 and note b) quotes

one instance of the discovery in a round barrow of a socketed celt,

which, notwithstanding the doubts expressed by Sir John Evans (_Anc.

Bronze Implements_, p. 134), appears to have been contemporaneous with

the interment; and another is mentioned in _Anc. Bronze Implements_,

p. 114. On the other hand, Pitt-Rivers, referring to the spear-head

mentioned in _Archaeologia_, xliii, 447, says, ‘I am informed by Mr.

William Cunnington ... that ... it was found by his grandfather ...

immediately under the turf near Stonehenge, and not in a barrow’. The

reference given by Pitt-Rivers (_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv,

20) to _Archaeologia_ is incorrect.

[753] See J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone

Ages_, pp. 169-70. Canon Greenwell (_Brit. Barrows_, pp. 48-50) asserts

that knife-daggers and flat axes--the only bronze implements found in

Yorkshire barrows--never accompany swords and spear-heads in hoards,

and argues that this proves the early date of round barrows in general.

If the assertion were true, the fact would prove the early date of

those Yorkshire barrows in which daggers and flat axes were found;

but the question is whether many other barrows do not belong to later

periods of the Bronze Age. Moreover, flat axes have been found twice

in hoards,--one with palstaves (J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p.

464), another with swords (_ib._, p. 466).

[754] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 463.

[755] The Hon. John Abercromby (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxv, 1905,

p. 262) affirms that ‘the few bronze swords, spear-heads, etc., of

the Bronze Age and Hallstatt Period, that first filtered in driblets

into this country, and were then reproduced with variations by native

smiths, were too precious to be laid by for ever in a grave, even

at the end of the Bronze Age in Britain’. Is not this begging the

question? If small bronze weapons were ‘laid by for ever’ in graves in

the earlier period, when bronze was scarce, why should not large ones

have been laid by when it was common? And if gold ornaments were not

too costly to be sacrificed, why should bronze swords have been deemed

so precious?

[756] _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 473-4.

[757] See p. 288, _infra_, and Addenda.

[758] See p. 181, n. 2, _supra_; _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp.

447-8; and _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p.

93. Sir John Evans (_Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 310), referring

to the tanged weapons of Arreton Down type and to certain blades

found in the Wiltshire barrows, which (see pp. 145, 147, _supra_) he

thinks ‘may have been the heads of spears rather than the blades of

daggers’, remarks that ‘at the period to which they belong the art of

making cores must have been known, as the ferrule found at Arreton

Down will testify’. This is significant; but on p. 473 he refers the

‘tanged spear-heads or daggers’ to the second period of the Bronze

Age,--earlier than that of palstaves and socketed celts.

Mr. C. H. Read (_Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_, p. 24) observes

that cinerary urns ‘possibly represent the period during which swords

and spear-heads of bronze were manufactured ... by our population’. It

is true that certain urns of overhanging rim type were contemporary

with socketed weapons (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxv, 1905, pp. 262-4);

but the oldest urns were much earlier. Cf. _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser.,

xviii, 1899-1901, pp. 251-3.

[759] _Archaeol. Rev._, ii, 1889, p. 323. Cf. _Folk-Lore_, vi, 1895,

pp. 15-7. Dr. Evans remarks in this article that ‘the characteristic

form presented by a spiral ring of bronze found in one urn leads

one indeed to believe that these flat disk-barrows of Standlake [in

Oxfordshire] belong to a time when iron was coming into use’.

[760] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxv, 1905, pp. 256-64.

[761] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 366, 369.

[762] See p. 149, _supra_.

[763] See pp. 205-6, _infra_.

[764] Flat bronze celts were found by Canon Greenwell in two only

of the multitudes of barrows which he has explored not only in the

northern counties but also in Wiltshire and Berkshire (_Archaeologia_,

lii, 1890, p. 3); while Mr. J. R. Mortimer (_Forty Years’ Researches_,

p. xlvi) never found one with any of the 893 interments which he

examined on the Yorkshire Wolds. The canon opened four Late Celtic

barrows in the parish of Cowlam, of which he says (_Brit. Barrows_,

p. 212), ‘Had the bodies occurred without the necklace, fibula, or

armlets, I should not have hesitated the least about classing these

four barrows with the other barrows in the immediate vicinity,

which were of the time of stone, or more probably of bronze.’ Is it

unreasonable to conclude that a few other barrows which contain no

relics of the late Bronze Age may nevertheless belong to that time?

[765] _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, pp. 321-42. Cf. W. Greenwell, _Brit.

Barrows_, p. 44, n. 2, and _Rev. de l’École d’anthr._, xv, 1905, pp.

213, 215.

[766] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 21, 333.

[767] _Ib._, p. 21, n. 1.

[768] _Ib._ See p. 185, n. 3, _infra_.

[769] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 19-20; J. R. Mortimer, _Forty

Years’ Researches_, p. xxxiv. Canon Greenwell remarks, however (pp.

28-30), that charcoal was almost always found in contact with unburnt

bodies; and he was doubtful whether it was merely the ashes of the fire

at which the funeral feast had been cooked, or might be regarded as a

sign that the corpses had been passed through fire, just as in baptism

aspersion was substituted for immersion. But this would of course imply

that cremation on the Wolds was earlier than inhumation. Cf. J. R.

Mortimer, _Forty Years’ Researches_, p. lxxvii.

[770] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 21 n. l, 445; _Archaeologia_,

xliii, 1871, p. 310; xliv, 1873, p. 426; lii, 1890, pp. 37-8, 43;

_Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1888 (1889), p. 315; _Journ.

Anthr. Inst._, xxxii, 1902, p. 386. In regard to the few interments by

inhumation that have been found in Cornwall see _Vict. Hist. of ...

Cornwall_, i, 362-3, 366.

[771] _Trans. Devon. Association_, xxxiv, 1902, p. 119.

[772] _Archaeol. Scotica_, ii, 1822, pp. 76-102; iii, 1831, pp. 40-50;

_Nature_, Jan. 13, 1898, p. 236.

[773] O. Montelius, _Sur la chronologie de l’âge du bronze_, 1885, p. 3.

[774] Mr. Abercromby in _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, p. 364,

denies that any drinking-cups were contemporary with cinerary urns; but

in _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxii, 1902, p. 385, he affirms that some

were.

[775] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 390; A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations

in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 6; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxii, 1902, pp.

375, 381; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, p. 364. Five more

drinking-cups have lately been found with burnt bones in two cists in

Dilston Park, Northumberland (_Archaeol. Aeliana_, 3rd ser., ii, 1906,

pp. 142-6, 148).

Mr. John Ward (_Vict. Hist. of ... Derby_, i, 177-8) shows from an

examination of the sepulchral pottery of Derbyshire (cf. pp. 191-6,

_infra_) that in those districts in which interments of both kinds are

found cremation was, generally speaking, later than inhumation. This

conclusion is supported by the fact that in Wiltshire, where cremation

on the whole greatly predominates, it occurs only about as often as

inhumation in bowl and bell barrows (_Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p.

293).

[776] _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, p. 326.

[777] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, p. 78. Canon Greenwell

(_Ib._, vi, 1867, p. 343, n. 2), speaking of a cairn near Crinan in

Argyllshire, which he explored, remarks that ‘in this part of Scotland

at all events the earliest interments in the large megalithic chambers

are of burnt bodies’.

[778] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vii, 1870, pp. 268-70; xx, 1886, p.

252; xxix, 1895, pp. 191-4; _Archaeologia_, xxx, 1844, p. 335; xliii,

1871, pp. 450-1; lii, 1890, pp. 25, 64; J. B. Davis and J. Thurnam,

_Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 1, p. 1; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_,

pp. 20-1; J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone

Ages_, p. 90; A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 2,

29; iii, 17; _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, N. S., vi, 1900,

p. 10. Secondary interments by inhumation sometimes succeeded primary

interments by cremation (_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 173;

_Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. and Ant. Field Club_, xvi, 1895, p. 50).

[779] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxvi, 1902, pp. 650-1.

[780] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 312, 450-1; _Journ. Brit.

Archaeol. Association_, N. S., vi, 1900, p. 10; _Guide to the Ant. of

the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 16. The two latter authorities only

suggest that in cases like that mentioned in the text the unburnt body

was that of the chief.

[781] _Archaeologia_, xv, 1806, pp. 340-1. The nine skeletons may have

belonged to a secondary interment, but Cunnington inferred from the

careless manner in which they had been buried that they were ‘slaves or

dependents of the great personage below’. Mr. J. R. Mortimer (_Forty

Years’ Researches_, p. xxxii), remarking that ‘in several instances

where the body of the chief burial was reduced to ashes the attendants

[?] were inhumed’, argues that in some cases cremation, in others

inhumation, was considered the more honourable mode of sepulture.

Perhaps.

[782] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 20-1. Cf. J. R. Mortimer,

_Forty Years’ Researches_, pp. xxxii, 60, 318.

[783] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xvi, 1895-7, p. 304.

[784] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 313-4.

[785] _Ib._, lii, 58-9; J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years’ Researches_, p.

xxxviii. Cf. _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p.

90.

[786] _Nature_, Jan. 13, 1898, p. 237; J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan

Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, pp. 17, 74-5.

[787] _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 48.

[788] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 309; W. Greenwell, _Brit.

Barrows_, p. 12.

[789] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 22-3; _Archaeologia_, xliii,

1871, pp. 315-8. Cf. _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, N. S., vi,

1900, pp. 8-9.

[790] C. Warne, _Celtic Tumuli of Dorset_, 1866 (‘Tumuli opened at

Various Periods’, pp. 10-1, 72, 76). The instance mentioned on p.

72 is, in my opinion, doubtful, and no certain pre-Roman instances

are recorded in the sections entitled ‘Personal Researches’ and

‘Communications from Personal Friends’. Prof. Ridgeway (_Early Age of

Greece_, i, 1901, p. 502), referring to Greenwell’s _Brit. Barrows_, p.

22, states that ‘in Dorsetshire ... the extended position seems to be

the prevalent one’, a remark which illustrates the danger of relying on

second-hand evidence.