Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T04:56:06.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Somerset hoards and their place in the Bronze Age of Southern Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

M. A. Smith
M. A. Smith
Affiliation:
Assistant to the Professor of European Archaeology, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Two articles published in recent years have drawn attention to distinctive bronzes which are found concentrated in Somerset. Sir Cyril Fox showed in 1941 that sickles cast with an elongated terminal knob for hafting, or pair of conical knobs, are in England entirely confined to the county; and in 1949 Mrs C. M. Piggott discussed types of bronze ornament also commonly found in Somerset, and often in association with such sickles, though distribution of these extends to other parts of southern England as well. As these authors demonstrated, the sickles and some of the ornaments must alike derive from foreign prototypes. The interest of the Somerset hoards in which they occur lies in their combination of other, peculiarly British, bronzes with these foreign-paralleled types, which may serve to link the developments of British industry with the established chronological sequences of Continental Europe.

Somerset hoards of this class are characteristically composed of several types of ornament together with a few bronze implements from a restricted number of forms. Fewer than half the ornaments seem to have been deposited in a pristine condition, and of those damaged some are in fragments. Most often, however, the associated tools are usable, and some (especially sickles) are still untrimmed from the mould.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 25 , December 1959 , pp. 144 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1959

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 144 note 1 ‘The non-socketed sickles of Britain’, Arch. Cambrensis, XCVI, Dec. 1941, pp. 136–62Google Scholar.

page 144 note 2 ‘A Late Bronze Age hoard from Blackrock and its significance’, PPS, XV, 1949, pp. 107–21Google Scholar.

page 144 note 3 These hoards are fully illustrated in the Inventaria Archaeologica (7th Set) GB, pp. 42–6. The bronzes at Edington Burtle were in a small wooden box, square and scooped hollow within, found in peat.

page 144 note 4 Op. cit. The name ‘quoit-headed’ is used here in preference to her term ‘loop-headed’ (and to Fox's ‘ring-headed’), which may be confused with English translations of the Ösennadel or Schleifenadel, and Knopfringnadel, of Early Bronze Age Aunjetitz culture.

page 146 note 1 Reproduced in SirEvans's, John, Ancient Bronze Implements, 1881, fig. 481Google Scholar; with figs. 468 and 87.

page 146 note 2 Proc. Somerset Arch. & Nat. Hist. Soc., LXXVI, 1932, p. 78Google Scholar.

page 146 note 3 Evans, op. cit., pp. 376–7, with figs. 466, 467 and 469.

page 146 note 4 Recorded in the Accession Register of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. The hoard is mentioned by Evans, op. cit., 90, 384.

page 146 note 5 E.g. in the Westbury-on-Trym hoard: PPS, IV, 1938, p. 284, fig. 11Google Scholar.

page 148 note 1 Arch., 61, Pt. 1, 1908, pp. 97–162, and Proc. Soc. Antiqs, London, 2nd Series, XXII, entry for 20 Feb., 1908, pp. 120–9Google Scholar.

page 150 note 1 Ulster J. Arch., 19, 1956, p. 33Google Scholar.

page 150 note 2 Op. cit., p. 137.

page 151 note 1 There are also two undated two-knobbed sickles from Vaals in S.E. Holland (near Aachen); information kindly given by Dr M. E. Mariën.

page 151 note 2 See Sandars, N. K., Bronze Age Cultures in France, 1957, Ch. 11Google Scholar.

page 151 note 3 A broken bronze from Hounslow, Middlesex, in the British Museum may be a fragment of a short-stemmed pin of this class.

page 153 note 1 List of Sussex loops in Sussex Arch. Colls., LXI, 1920, pp. 73–5Google Scholar, with additions in Curwen, , Arch. of Sussex, 2nd edit., 1953, p. 202Google Scholar (there were three loops in the Blackrock hoard). Stump Bottom first published in Antiq. J., VI, 1926, p. 444Google Scholar.

page 153 note 2 The hoard, Arch. J., v, 1848, pp. 324–5, with Pl.Google Scholar; Danish torcs in graves 1730, 1896 and 2364 of Broholm's catalogue (op. cit.).

page 154 note 1 Arch. Assoc. J., VI, 1851, p. 88Google Scholar; a coiled ring is figured by Evans, op. cit., fig. 488.

page 154 note 2 Wilts. Arch. Mag., LIII, 1949, pp. 257–8Google Scholar. The material is in Salisbury and Devizes Museums.

page 155 note 1 Wilts Arch. Mag., LIII, 1949, pp. 104–12, with Pl. oppGoogle Scholar.

page 155 note 2 Arch., 71, 1920–1921, p. 138 and pl. xGoogle Scholar.

page 155 note 3 British Museum, Later Prehist. Antiq., 1953, p. 39Google Scholar, fig. 13, 2 and 3, with p. 34.

page 155 note 4 Dorset Nat. Hist. & Arch. Soc. Proc., 56, 1934, xliii and pp. 131–2Google Scholar.

page 155 note 5 Where not otherwise specified, these finds are recorded by Evans, op. cit., pp. 337–8, 384–5. The Dorset, Holywell, Tarrant Konkton, Haselbury Bryan, Bryanston and Westminster finds are in the Brit. Mus.; Crewkerne in Exeter Mus., Methwold Fen at Cambridge, and the Isle of Wight tore in Carisbrooke Castle.

page 155 note 6 In the Green End Road hoard, Cambridge: VCH, Cambridgeshire, I, p. 278, pl. vi.

page 156 note 1 Pitt-Rivers, , Excavs. on Cranborne Chase, IV, 1898, pl. 238, 6Google Scholar.

page 156 note 2 Wilts. Arch. Mag., 46, 1935, pp. 466–89, 640–59Google Scholar; bracelet, p. 651, pl. v, 19.

page 156 note 3 PPS, VIII, 1942, pp. 44–7Google Scholar.

page 156 note 4 No. 10 in VCH, Wiltshire, 1 Pt. 1 (Gazetteer), 1957, p. 238; the bronze figured in Pitt-Rivers, op. cit., 11, pl. 86, 5.

page 156 note 5 Stevens, E. T., Stonehenge Excursion, 1876, p. 95Google Scholar.

page 156 note 6 Archaeologia, 37, 1857, p. 368Google Scholar.

page 156 note 7 The same is true of the ribbed gold bracelet fragment from Mountfield, Sussex: Brit. Mus. Bronze Age Guide, 1920, p. 52, fig. 39Google Scholar.

page 156 note 8 ‘A Late Bronze Age Invasion of Britain’, Ant. J., 1922, pp. 27–35Google Scholar.

page 156 note 9 PPS, XVII, Pt. 2, 1951, pp. 195–213Google Scholar.

page 157 note 1 Cf. Mrs Piggott's classification of the Blackrock hoard as Late Bronze Age.

page 157 note 2 Arch, J., XXII, 1865, p. 74, with plGoogle Scholar.

page 157 note 3 For this dating see Ant. J., XXXVII, nos. 3, 4, 1957, pp. 151–60Google Scholar, The bucket, fig. 5.

page 157 note 4 Manuel, 11, 1, 1910, pl. iv, 21 and p. 312; mistakenly represented as common in Lake Dwelling (Urnfield) sites through confusion with two and three strand bracelets (not made from bent wire) there typical: cf. Déchelette's statement, ‘quelquefois le bracelet porte une 3. tige médiane’. Carp's tongue hoards containing doubled and hooked bracelets in France include Vénat (Charente), Manson (Puy-de-Dôme) and Dreuil (Somme).

page 157 note 5 Jahrbuch Bernisches Hist. Mus., 1922, pp. 134–35Google Scholar.

page 157 note 6 Marburger Studien, 1938, pp. 205–11, 218–19Google Scholar, Taf. 98 (map), pp. 224–46 (list).

page 157 note 7 Anzeiger f. schweiz. Alterstumkunde, NF, XXIX, 1927, Taf. 14, 1, pp. 86–90Google Scholar.

page 157 note 8 Hampel, J., Alterthümer der Bronzezeit in Ungarn, 2. Aufl., 1890, pl. xlix, 4Google Scholar.

page 158 note 1 Holste, , Bronzezeit in Süd- und Westdeutschland, 1953, Taf. 12, 17Google Scholar.

page 158 note 2 K. Kersten, Urgeschichte der nordfriesischen Inseln, forthcoming. The Ilmenau-type bracelet is further mentioned below, p. 180, n.2.

page 158 note 3 French examples listed in PPS, XIV, 1948, p. 171Google Scholar.

page 158 note 4 Inventaria Archaeologica GB. (6th Set), 35.

page 158 note 5 Childe, V. G., The Bronze Age, 1930, p. 99, fig. 12, 9, with p. 100Google Scholar.

page 158 note 6 PPS, XXI, 1955, pp. 160–2Google Scholar.

page 159 note 1 Sandars, N. K., Bronze Age Cultures in France, 1957, p. 144Google Scholar, fig. 33, and (dating) 146 ff.

page 159 note 2 VCH, Wilts (op. cit.), p. 150.

page 159 note 3 Ant. J., XV, 1935, p. 449, pl. lxix, 3Google Scholar.

page 159 note 4 PPS, 1, 1935, pp. 16–59Google Scholar; esp. figs. 16 and 17 (p. 33).

page 159 note 5 Sprockhoff, E., Jungbronzezeitliche Hortfunde Norddeutschlands Periode IV, Katal. Röm-Germ. Zentralmua. No. 12, 1937, p. 31Google Scholar, Abb. 9, with pp. 30–1.

page 159 note 6 It is not round-butted, as claimed by Mrs Piggott (her p. 115), and neither form nor section resemble the Chatham Dockyard rapier there compared with it.

page 160 note 1 Mrs Piggott quoted a find in gold from Friedrichsruhe Grave 2 (Beltz, , Die Vorgeschichtlichen Altertümer des Grossherzzogtums Mecklenburg-Schwerin, 1910Google Scholar, Taf. 33, 99).

page 160 note 2 Arch. Res. Publicas. (N. Ireland), no. 3, 1955, esp. pp. 15–17 (Types 1 and 2)Google Scholar. I am indebted to Mr R. Kennedy for detailed examination of the Blackrock bracelets.

page 160 note 3 31 Ber. Röm.-Germ. Komm, 1941, 83 ffGoogle Scholar; the Rethwisch hoard in Hortfunde IV (op. cit.), Taf, 18, 5 (cf. Blackrock bracelet); full hoard, Sprockhoff, , Niedersächische Depotfunde, 1932, Taf. 12Google Scholar.

page 160 note 4 Hortfunde IV, 57 with 58, Abb. 19.

page 160 note 5 Evans, , Ancient Bronze Implements, p. 383, fig. 475Google Scholar. The Ilmenau bracelet is much closer than the MV parallel implied by Montelius in Arch. 61, Pt. 1, p. 143.

page 160 note 6 Arch., 71, 1920–1921, p. 139, fig. 4Google Scholar. The finds were lost in the bombing of Portsmouth Museum during the last war.

page 160 note 7 A round-sectioned (untwisted) bronze tore now at Carisbrooke Castle and possibly found near Billingham House, Newport in the Isle of Wight (Lockhart, , Guide to the Isle of Wight, 1870, p. 36Google Scholar) is also decorated with zones of incised decoration which enclose an ellipse motif.

page 161 note 1 PPS, VIII, 1942, 29 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 161 note 2 Glasbergen, W., in Palaeohistoria, III, 1954, 89 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 161 note 3 Figured by Hawkes, op. cit., p. 30, fig. 3, with fig. 6, following L'Anthropologie, T. XVIII, 1907, 513 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 161 note 4 Op. cit., fig. 7, 7 and figs, 8 and 9, pp. 1–4; Déchelette, , Manuel II, 1, 1910, App. 1, p. 103 for full list of publicationsGoogle Scholar.

page 162 note 1 Prähist. Z., XXVI, 1935, pp. 208–18Google Scholar.

page 162 note 2 Ibid., p. 214, Sparow Grab, (Atnt Malchow). There was already a side-looped pin in an Early Bronze Age Sögel context in Hanover, at Baven, near Celle; 31 Ber. Röm.-Germ. Komm, 35, Abb. 26.

page 162 note 3 Rev., belge d'arch. et d'hist. de l'art, xxv, 1956, fasc. 1–4, p. 92, fig. 6Google Scholar.

page 162 note 4 Prähist. Z., XXX–XXXI, 1939–1940, pp. 412–27Google Scholar.

page 162 note 5 Brit. Mus., Bronze Age Guide, 1920, p. 129, fig. 137Google Scholar.

page 162 note 6 Figured in PPS, VIII, 1942, p. 37, fig. 7, 4Google Scholar, following L'Anthropologie, XVIII, 1907, p. 514Google Scholar. fig. 1, 2, where the possibility of its deposit with the Le Plainseau hoard is suggested.

page 163 note 1 Curwen, E. C., Arch. of Sussex, 2nd edit., 1954, p. 201, fig. 62Google Scholar; and PPS, XV, 1949, p. 112Google Scholar.

page 163 note 2 The swords, fibulae and belt-plates which are regular components of MIII on the Continent are entirely absent here.

page 163 note 3 31 Ber. der Röm.-Germ. Komm., 1941, p. 113, Abb. 86Google Scholar. A fragmentary bow of a Spindlersfeld fibula, which has a Continental distribution similarly confined to east of the Elbe at this same period (p. 157, footnote 6), was possibly found near Ixworth in Suffolk: Proc. Soc. Ant. London, 2nd, XXI, p. 109, fig. 12Google Scholar.

page 163 note 4 Oud-België, 1952, p. 270, fig. 253Google Scholar; the author assigns them to his Late Bronze Age.

page 163 note 5 Rev. beige d'arch. et d'hist. de l'art, op. cit., p. 82, fig. 3e, with pp. 95–9.

page 163 note 6 ‘Cinq années de fouilles au Fort-Harrouard, 1921–25’, Soc. Normande d'études préhists., T. xxv bis, 1927, bracelets, pp. 40–1Google Scholar with pl. vii, saw 39 with pl. xiii, 2.

page 165 note 1 ‘Niedersachsens Bedeutung für die Bronzezeit Europas’, 31 Bar. Röm.-Germ. Komm., 1941, II Teil, pp. 1–138Google Scholar.

page 165 note 2 Zur älteren nordischen Bronzezeit, Taf. xxxvi, p. 39Google Scholar.

page 165 note 3 Sprockhoff, op. cit., Taf. 26 (with a ‘trunnion chisel’).

page 165 note 4 Broholm, H. C., Danmarks Bronzealder, I, 1943, p. 223, find M81Google Scholar; the Nordic axe dated in vol. II, 1944. pp. 96–100 (pl. 15, 7).

page 165 note 5 Sprockhoff, op. cit., Taf. 24, with p. 48.

page 165 note 6 Ibid., Taf. 27, with p. 48.

page 165 note 7 Ibid., Taf. 29, with p. 48.

page 165 note 8 PPS, IV, 1938, p. 89, fig. 20, 6Google Scholar.

page 166 note 1 Surrey Arch. Colls., LV, 195, p. 121, fig. 4 (from St. George's Hill)Google Scholar.

page 167 note 1 Admittedly there is some discrepancy between Continental and British evidence here, for if Wessex culture is dated 1550–1350 (London Univ. Inst. of Arch. 10th Ann. Rept., 1954, p. 51Google Scholar) it will run alongside MIIB, which contains Cretan-inspired material of pre-1400 B.C. Thus, either the Frøjk hoard must be late in MII, and the evidence of West European palstaves early in MII at Ilsmoor (p. 165) not relevant to the establishment of the palstave in South Britain, or some palstaves here must in fact be concurrent with late Wessex culture, though not represented in the graves or in hoards recognized to correspond to them.

page 167 note 2 Proc. Cambridge Antiq. Soc., XXXIX, 1938–1939, p. 93, pl. ii, b: palstave from Gogmagog HillsGoogle Scholar.

page 168 note 1 See Appendix 2. Distribution of single finds is based on entries in the British Association Bronze Age Card-Catalogue up to May, 1958 (as are all statements on other bronzes in this paper not supported by a cited reference).

page 168 note 2 Grimes, W. F., Prehistory of Wales, 1951, p. 253, fig. 65Google Scholar (The Colyton find, Devon, however, is said to have filled ‘half a wheelbarrow’: App. No. 3).

page 168 note 3 See Appendix 1. The map of single finds again based on the record of the British Association Bronze Age Card-Catalogue.

page 168 note 4 Ulster J. Arch., 17, 1954, pp. 66–75Google Scholar.

page 171 note 1 Ulster J. Arch., 19, 1956, p. 47Google Scholar.

page 171 note 2 Inventaria Archaeologica, GB. (1st Set), 5.

page 171 note 3 Ibid., GB. 6.

page 173 note 1 Such an ‘eared’ axe figured in Evans, , Ancient Bronze Implements, p. 76, fig. 56Google Scholar, from Reeth (N. R. Yorks.). Childe proposed the term ‘winged-flanged’ in The Bronze Age, 1930, p. 63, cf. fig. 3, 4Google Scholar; though on occasion he also followed the confusing usage of calling these axes ‘winged axes’, the name given to the Continental type of axe, which is confined to carp's tongue contexts in South-east England (cf. of his description of the Glentrool axe, found with basal-looped spear and side-looped pin: Prehist. of Scotland, 1935, p. 150, fig. 39Google Scholar). This usage stems from Evans, op. cit., Ch. IV.

page 173 note 2 Davies, Ellis, Prehist. and Roman remains of Flintshire, 1949, Append. 434–6Google Scholar, with figs. 184–6. A Irish stone mould for this variant of haft-flanged axe figured in Evans, op. cit., p. 431, fig. 516.

page 173 note 3 PPS, IV, 1938, p. 281, figs. 8 and 9Google Scholar.

page 173 note 4 Some other items in the hoard figured in Grimes, W. F., Prehist. of Wales, 1951, pp. 258–9, figs. 70–1Google Scholar.

page 173 note 5 E.g. the palstave in the Sproatley hoard (British Mus. and Hull Mus.) with socketed axes. Carr, Hotham, Trans. Hull Sci. and Field Naturalists Club, 1, no. iii, 1900, pp. 120–2Google Scholar; mould in Evans, op. cit., p. 439, fig. 527.

page 176 note 1 The Llyn Mawr and Wilts. Downs (Evans, op. cit., p. 440, figs. 528–9) moulds are in the Brit. Mus., with two valves from Deansfield (Arch. Cambrensis 3rd S, II, 1856, pp. 12 ff.-30Google Scholar (with figs.). The South London mould is at Hull: Hull Mus. Publ., no. 213 (=North Western Naturalist, March, June, and Sept., XVI, 1941)Google Scholar, pl. vii and p. 11.

page 176 note 2 E.g. at Heathery Burn, Evans, op. cit., p. 448, fig. 533; Isle of Harty hoard (Kent): Inven. Arch., GB. (3rd Set) 18.

page 176 note 3 The Yattendon hoard, Berkshire (Evans, op. cit., pp. 169, 403, 466), which contains a low-flanged palstave, is probably also of this carp's tongue period, when smiths were using up out-dated types as scrap (cf. its sheet bronze fragments).

page 176 note 4 The Owslebury find in Winchester Mus., Granchester in the Brit. Mus., and Buildwas (not accepted as associated by Evans, op. cit., p. 282) in private hands.

page 176 note 5 Cf. Antiq. J., xx, 1940, 58 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 177 note 1 Nettleham: Brit. Mus. Bronze Age Guide, 1920, p. 43, fig. 31Google Scholar; Guilsfield: op. cit., fig. 70, 2–4; Wilburton: Fox, . Arch. of Cambridge Region, 1923, pl. xGoogle Scholar; Great Freeman Street: Invent. Arch., GB. (4th Set) 22. All these hoards contain long cylindrical spear ferrules, similar (though not pointed) to North German ones of MIV: Sprockhoff, , Hortfunde, IV, 25Google Scholar.

page 177 note 2 There were for example at least 18 in the Forty Acre Brickfield hoard at Worthing: Invent. Arch., GB. (5th Set) 37.

page 178 note 1 See Broholm, , Danmarks Bronzealder, II, pl. 35, 7Google Scholar (for a Nordic type palstave).

page 178 note 2 Ibid., pl. 35, 8 (for a Nordic type palstave).

page 178 note 3 See Jacob-Friesen, K. H., Einführung in Niedersächsische Urgeschichte, 1939, p. 100, Abb. 101Google Scholar (for a plain North-west German palstave).

page 178 note 4 E.g. on the palstave mould quoted in footnote above. The Knighton moulds, Evans, , Ancient Bronze Implements, p. 434, figs. 520 and 521Google Scholar.

page 178 note 6 Kersten, , Zur älteren nordischen Bronzezeit, Taf. XIX, 1–3Google Scholar.

page 179 note 1 Map in Arch. 83, 1933, p. 197, fig. 1Google Scholar.

page 179 note 2 Brit. Mus. Bronze Age Guide, p. 42, fig. 30.

page 179 note 3 Invent. Arch., GB. (2nd Set) 10; Evans, , Ancient Bronze Implements, pp. 91, 169, 331Google Scholar.

page 179 note 4 In the British Museum.

page 179 note 5 E.g. at Westbury-on-Trym: PPS, IV, 1938, p. 284, fig. 11Google Scholar.

page 179 note 6 Aberdeenshire: Proc. Soc. Antiqs. Scot., 60, 1921, p. 19Google Scholar, and a cast in Edinburgh Mus.; Croglin: Trans. Cumb. & West. Antiq. & Arch. Soc., 7, 1884, p. 279Google Scholar; Anglesey: Arch. J., 3, 1846, p. 257Google Scholar. It is tempting to relate the last to the find with an incense cup at Abermeurig (Cardiganshire): Wheeler, , Preh. & Roman Wales, 1925, p. 142, fig. 46, and 195, fig. 78, 2Google Scholar.

page 180 note 1 Cf. PPS, VII, 1941, p. 129Google Scholar.

page 180 note 2 Sprockhoff has claimed that this rib is adopted from Britain on the Lüneburg II spearhead of the Ilmenau Kreis: 31 Ber. Röm.-Germ. Komm., 79 and 82, with Abb. 66, 10 (=Abb. 19 of Hortfunde IV).

page 180 note 3 It would therefore be difficult to relate South British side-looped spearheads with the products of the Croglin mould, which are some 12 inches in length; though it is doubtless from this stone mould industry that looped spearheads in Late Bronze contexts in the North of England derive: e.g. in the North Middleton hoard, Wellington (Northumberland, Evans, op. cit., pp. 89, 333, 382, 465 and Arch., 73, pl. xxxvii, 3, for two of the bronzes) and the Shelf hoard (Bankside Museum, Halifax).

page 180 note 4 This would also seem the most likely horizon for the similar spearhead in the Twyford hoard (Hampshire) now dispersed by theft. With low-flanged palstaves was the fragment of a socketed tool with multiple V decoration, most unusual in these islands.

page 180 note 5 In the Yattendon hoard: p. 176, footnote 3.

page 180 note 6 PPS, VII, 1941, pp. 128–31Google Scholar.

page 181 note 1 But there is one example in each of the Taunton Workhouse, Edington Burtle and Sherford hoards.

page 181 note 2 PPS, XVII, Pt. 2, pp. 195–213Google Scholar; 35 Ber. Röm.-Germ. Komm., 1956, pp. 52–155Google Scholar.

page 182 note 1 Reinecke Festschrift, 1950, pp. 133–49, with pls. 22–6Google Scholar.

page 182 note 2 Zephyrus (Salamanca), VIII, 2, 1957, pp. 195–240Google Scholar.

page 182 note 3 Cowen, op. cit., 1951, p. 202, fig. 3, 5 (reproduced op. cit., 1956, p. 74, Abb. 4); cf. stud in the Bäk hoard (Kr. Lauenburg): Sprockhoff, op. cit., 1950, Taf. 23, 10—‘reines Periode IV Character’ (p. 135).

page 182 note 4 Figured in Kimmig, Urnenfelder Baden, Taf. 8B.

page 182 note 5 The find of a Rixheim sword, with British rapiers, at Eriswell in Suffolk may anticipate relations with this area; alternatively, this sword may be a Reinecke Bronze D-type retarded to Hallstatt A times, like the one which the Wiesloch grave contained (Ant. J., XXXVI, 1955, pp. 218–19 with pl. xxxiii–ivGoogle Scholar). A further hilt of a Rixheim, said to come from an inhumation in a Sussex barrow, is in private hands in England.

page 182 note 6 Ant. J., XI, 1931, pp. 170–1, pl. xxviGoogle Scholar.

page 182 note 7 Sword, , Déchelette, , Manuel, II, 1, p. 207, fig. 6, 4, 1Google Scholar (after de Mortillet, , Musée Préhist., 1881, pl. lxxxii, p. 914)Google Scholar; argument, Actas IV Congres. internat. pre- & protohist., Madrid, 1954, pp. 639–41Google Scholar.

page 182 note 8 Ant. J., XXXVII, 1957, pp. 157–9Google Scholar.

page 182 note 9 Zephyrus, VII, 2, 1956, 125 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 183 note 1 Sprockhoff, , Hortfunde IV, 25 and 31Google Scholar.

page 183 note 2 The argument from Mediterranean-type fibulae in Middle Europe set out by von Merhart in the Schumacher Festschrift, 1930, pp. 116–21Google Scholar (this author has always proposed the earliest possible dates for the start of Urnfields), and resumed in PPS, XIV, 1948, pp. 202–3Google Scholar.

page 183 note 3 Cowen, op. cit., 1951, pp. 203–6, defines the type and summarizes its European position.

page 183 note 4 PPS, XIV, 1948, pp. 202, 204Google Scholar (though the swords are now agreed to derive from Middle Europe).

page 183 note 5 Proc. Soc. Ant. London, 2nd Ser., XIV, 1894, pp. 328–9Google Scholar. The axe produced by the mould however is not yet the rather stumpy form usual in Late Bronze Age hoards; but its narrow body and mouth mouldings are not unlike an axe in the Wilburton hoards; Fox, op. cit., pl. x, top, 3rd from left.

page 184 note 1 The bronzes came from the same depth in the brickfield.

page 184 note 2 Ulster J. of Arch., 19, 1956, p. 37Google Scholar.

page 184 note 3 Arch., LXXIII, 1924, pp. 256–7Google Scholar, figs. 15–17 on pls. xxxviii and xxxix.

page 184 note 4 Fox, Archaeology of the Camb. Region, pl. viii, 2.

page 184 note 5 Camb. Arch. Soc. Proc., XII, 1908, pp. 96–105Google Scholar.

page 184 note 6 Ant. J., IV, 1924, pp. 220–4Google Scholar; the transitional palstave is top left on the pl.

page 185 note 1 Though the broken palstave at the bottom of the Handley Down ‘Angle Ditch’ is already of ‘transitional’ form (Pitt-Rivers, , Excavs. on Cranborne Chase, IV, pl. 263 and p. 10)Google Scholar. Another indication is the ‘late’ appearance of a palstave associated with an MIV, Ems-Weser type bracelet (p. 163) at Steenodde, Holland, in a region where West European palstaves of the British low-flanged type had previously been current (Inventaria Archaeologica, NL, ‘Bronze Age Grave-groups and hoards of the Netherlands’, by J. J. Butler).

page 185 note * Or associated finds containing low-flanged palstaves.

page 186 note * Or associated finds containing low-flanged palstaves.