Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:53:55.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The rattle pendants from the Parc-y-Meirch hoard, Wales

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

Henrik Thrane
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 24 , December 1958 , pp. 221 - 227
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1958

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 221 note 1 Sheppard, T., ‘The Parc-y-Meirch Hoard, St. George, Denbighshire’, Arch. Cambrensis, XCVI, 1941, p. 1 ffGoogle Scholar. with earlier literature. The pendants figured pl. i, 1–2.

page 222 note 1 Men, R. G. le, ‘Celtic Arms and Ornaments found at Plonéour, Brittany’, Arch. Cambr. III ser. vol. VI 1860, p. 136 ff.Google Scholar

page 222 note 2 de Mortillet, G. and de Mortillet, A., Musée Préhistorique, 1903Google Scholar, fig. 1136. Here it is just listed as dragged from the Seine but according to information kindly given by the Musée de St. Germain it was found at Villeneuve St. Georges.

page 222 note 3 Dubreuil-Chambardel, L., La Touraine Préhistorique, 1923Google Scholar, figs, xvi and xviii. Miss N. K. Sandars kindly drew my attention to this publication.

page 222 note 4 Florance, E. C., ‘L'Archéologie Prehistorique et Protohistorique et Gallo-Romaine en Loir-et-Cher, 1925’, 18 Bulletin de la Soc. d'Histoire Naturelle et d'Anthropologie de Loir-et-CherGoogle Scholar, pl. V, 77.

page 222 note 5 Gross, V., Les Pratohelvètes, 1883Google Scholar, pl. xxiii, 17; pl. xxiii, 56, is very close to our type.

page 222 note 6 Miske, K. v., Die prähistorische Ansiedlung Velem St. Vid, I, 1908Google Scholar, pl. xxxii, 25.

page 222 note 7 The North German finds have recently been treated by Sprockhoff, E., Jungbronzezeitliche Hortfunde der Siidzone des Nordischen Kreises (Periode V), 1956, I, p. 258Google Scholar, n, p. 106. The Danish finds have received a rather unsatisfactory treatment by Skjerne in Broholm, H. C., Larsen, W. P. and Skjerne, G., The Lures of the Bronze Age, 1949, p. 116 ffGoogle Scholar. A more complete survey is being prepared by the writer.

page 222 note 8 Halbert, L., ‘Om Maglarps Förhistorie’, Boken om Maglarp, 1954, p. 3 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 15.

page 222 note 9 Montelius, O., ‘Ett fynd fran Eskelhems Prästgård på Gotland’, Kgl. Vitterhets Historie och Antiqvitets Akademiens Månadsblad, 16, 1887, p. 145 ff.Google Scholar

page 224 note 1 Broholm, H. C., Danmarks Bronzealder, III, 194Google Scholar, M 127; Broholm, H. C., Danish Antiquities, IV, 1953Google Scholar, no. 216. I cannot agree with Sheppard's interpretation, op. cit., p. 3. f.

page 224 note 2 Götze, A., ‘Die Technik der gegossenen Bronzeketten’, Opuscula Oscari Montelio dicata 1913, p. 157 ffGoogle Scholar. A. Bezzenberger, ‘Ein ostpreussischer Bronzedepotfund’, ibidem, p. 141 ff.

page 224 note 3 Unpublished (National Museum, Copenhagen); from Bybjerg, Ourø Parish, Horns County. As we here have the same type of sets of rings and pendants as found in North Germany connected with a horse bit, this seems to me to contradict Sprockhoff's view (Hortfunde, 1956, 1, p. 258Google Scholar) that the German specimens were not used in connection with horse bits. It seems obvious to me that they had the same function as the Danish finds.

page 224 note 4 The unbroken (one-piece) mouth piece seems typologically to be earlier than the two-piece type, but unfortunately the evidence for the earliest types of horse bit in Europe is very incomplete and were we without the cheek-pieces we should be left without evidence of the use of horse bits before Hallstatt B (Bronze F). Both one and two-piece mouth pieces are known from Hallstatt B, and few one-piece examples can be dated to Hallstatt, A. Kossack, G., ‘Pferdegeschirr aus Gräbern der älteren Hallstatt-Zeit Bayerns’, Jahrb. Röm. Germ. Zentralmus, 1, 1953, p. 130Google Scholar, fig. 4. It is possible that the Høve bits are retarded examples of an earlier tradition for unbroken bits which may go back to Montelius period II c, where in the Trundholm horse provides an example of the use of horse bits.

page 224 note 5 Klindt-Jensen, O., ‘Foreign Influences in Denmark's Early Iron Age’, Acta Archaeologica, XX, 1950, fig. 49–51, pp. 80–87Google Scholar.

page 224 note 6 Oldeberg, A., ‘Ett märkligt bronsålderfynd från Åsle Socken i Vastergötland’, Falbygden, 4, 1939, p. 63 ffGoogle Scholar. Sprockhoff, op. cit. vol. I, fig. 56, 9.

page 225 note 1 Seen. 8. p. 222, Oldeberg also wants to date the Svartarp pieces to period VI, but in this I cannot follow him.

page 225 note 2 As stated by Miss Sandars in a letter dated 11 May 1957.

page 226 note 1 This is based on a study of the Danish material; see also Piggott, Stuart, ‘A Late Bronze Age Hoard from Peeblesshire, PSAS, LXXXVII, p. 182Google Scholar and scheme on p. 183.

page 226 note 2 Kossack, G., ‘Pferdegeschirr aus Gräbern der alteren Hallstattzeit Bayerns’, Jahrbuch des Römisch Germanisches Zentralmuseum, 1, 1953. p. 111 ff.Google Scholar; Gross, V., Les Protohelvètes, 1883Google Scholar, pl. xxiv, 15; and Gallus, S. and Horvath, T., ‘Un peuple cavalier Prescythique en Hongrie’, Dissertationes Pannonicae, II, 9, 1939Google Scholar.

page 226 note 3 Broholm, H. C., Danish Antiquities, IV, 1953Google Scholar, no. 215; Kossack, op. cit. p. 130, figs. 5–6; Montelius, O., Månadsblad 16, 1887, p. 155. NymöGoogle Scholar.

page 226 note 4 Danish Antiquities, IV, no. 141–2, 148, 188, 190, 197–202.

page 226 note 5 V. Gross, Les Protohelvètes, pl. xiv, 42, xxiii, 14, 18, 50, 56. Keller, J., ‘VII Pfahlbaubericht’, MAGZ, XIX, 2, 1876Google Scholar, pl. viii, 12, 15; and ‘V Pfahlbaubericht’, MAGZ, 1863, XVI, 14–15Google Scholar, 21.Cf. ‘II Pfahlbaubericht’, 1858, pl. v, 16, ii, 43, 48; Santel, , Préhistoire et Protohistoire de Vanduse, 1933Google Scholar, pl. xix, 226–9, 234. Choussy, see note 5, op. cit. pi. v, 73–5. Distribution Map: Kossack, G., ‘studien zum Symbol gut der Hallstattzeit Mitteleuropas’. RGF, 20, 1954, pl. XXV; pl. XV, 15–17; p. 96, p. 76 ffGoogle Scholar. with a list of the literature.

page 226 note 6 G. Kossack, op. cit. pp. 140 and 157, map. 2. Of course it cannot be excluded that the Høve rings may have been made under the influence of other Danish rings with a similar arrangement.

page 226 note 7 Gross, V., Les Protohelvetes, pl. xxiv, 19–20, 16–17Google Scholar. G. Kossack, op. cit. p. 130, fig. 4. That this type should be earlier than the two-piece type is only natural as it is the simpler type and was presumably translated into bronze from organic material.

page 226 note 8 Sprockhoff, E., ‘Pfahlbaubronzen in der Südzone des Nordischen Kreises während der jungeren Bronzezeit’ Archaeologia Geografica, 2, 1951, p. 125 ffGoogle Scholar. Sprockhoff, , Hortfunde, 1956, 1, p. 259Google Scholar.