Chapter VIII: The Results of Caesar’s Invasions of Britain (20)

[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).