The authors of these notes have to acknowledge the ready co-operation of the numerous excavators who have kindly contributed information concerning their work. The foregoing notes are designed to put members of the Prehistoric Society in possession of the main results of the summer's work, most of which will not be published in full for several months. Once again we would draw attention to the fact that notes on the publications of the year will be published in the Archaeological Journal by Mr and Mrs Hawkes.

This paper reinterprets the archaeological evidence from the Neolithic monument complex in the Milfield Basin, Northumberland; a palimpsest landscape of earlier Neolithic enclosures, later Neolithic henges and Early Bronze Age burial monuments. Recent interpretative accounts of the Early Neolithic use of this complex have stressed economic factors as the driving-forces behind enclosure construction, whilst the six major later Neolithic henges have been integrated into a scheme of ritual processions. These interpretations are critically evaluated and the sites are placed in their regional and national context in an attempt to provide a new framework for the use and development of the complex. It is concluded that, far from having simplistic economic functions, the earlier Neolithic enclosures could be unique to the area. Representing the formalisation of a community's attempts to ensure social reproduction in times of change, through the articulation of the difference between circular and linear monumental forms. The re-examination of the later Neolithic evidence raises interesting questions as to how far we can ‘read’ monument complexes, and critically evaluates the extent to which we can argue a unity of purpose for these enigmatic accumulations of the past. Importantly, the reinterpretation of the Neolithic activity in this area exposes how readily archaeologists export social models from other regions, such as Wessex, and attempt to fit very diverse evidence into their framework. This paper concludes that we must continue the definition of the British Neolithic on a more regional basis and accept that core-periphery models, even if not explicitly articulated, have no place in archaeological explanation.

There are at the moment several indications that a re-assessment of the problems of the neolithic in Britain and Ireland is required. Since the virtual discovery of the primary neolithic some thirty years ago, so vast has the field become that it is no longer possible for an individual to be familiar with all the material and it is inevitable that each will tend to see the whole from the viewpoint of his own special interest and region. In these circumstances, during the course of any re-assessment, workers on various aspects are especially liable to find themselves at cross-purposes. Moreover, in the developments which followed the brilliant pioneer syntheses many ideas have become traditional and tend to be accepted as axiomatic. The alteration or abandonment of such ideas may prove difficult and more difficult still may be the emendation or rejection of conclusions based on them.

Ireland lies to the west of Britain. To review the whole scene in any detail from a standpoint in Ireland would involve discussing at second-hand too much of the material on which current views are based and such is not the intention. These notes are designed merely to comment on some general issues which have been and may well in the future be sources of difficulty and misunderstanding, and in particular to deal with the Irish court cairns which have been the subject of recent discussion. It is scarcely to be hoped that they will obviate controversy, but they may help a little towards the mutual understanding of differences.

The lack of radiocarbon measurements of funerary contexts is a major shortcoming of the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age of the Eastern Carpathian Basin, especially in the Banat region. The present batch of samples tries to address these drawbacks, by detailing sampling strategies, employed pre-treatment and by providing a robust and coherent dataset of radiocarbon measurements. Implications of the new radiocarbon dates is discussed from a supra-regional perspective, while keeping aspects of typo-chronology, circulation of goods, and social nuances of employment of Bronze Age bronzes in the forefront. Ten burials were selected from four Banatian burial grounds according to the occurrence of metal finds in the funerary inventories. Beyond establishing a broad frame of absolute chronology for these sites of interment, the radiocarbon data provide reliable arguments for the precise attribution of metal discoveries. In addition, the data allow us to challenge some previously stated chronological assignments.

The barrow is situated on the eastern fringe of the township of Bishop's Waltham, Hampshire, in the south-western corner of a recreation ground, adjacent to Folly Farm (fig. 1). It is some 190 feet in diameter and 7 feet in height; the grassy slopes (pl. XII, 1) have provided, for many years, a tumbling ground for the local children. At the end of 1953, the Parish Council planned to level the barrow, and lay out a football pitch. In the face of this impending destruction, excavations were undertaken by the Ministry of Works, under the directorship of the writer. He was assisted in this task by Miss D. G. Duckett (Mrs J. G. Hurst), who during the latter part of the operation was in charge of all day-to-day activities. Her good management and shrewd observation, in conditions which were often adverse, ensured the measure of success with which the labours were crowned.

Summary. Excavations at Bury Hill dated a small, continuously-ditched enclosure to the early Neolithic. The interior of the enclosure, c. 1 ha in extent, was sampled by two trial cuttings, 9 m wide, running across the enclosure at right angles to one another. No Neolithic features were found. Sampling the ditch produced early Neolithic pottery, flintwork and animal bone. Though continuous, the ditch had a ‘beaded’ appearance, with a single entrance. No corresponding bank survived, though aerial photographs indicated its existence on the inside of the ditch.

It has long been recognised that the post-glacial (25-ft.) raised-beach of north-east Ireland contains, in addition to flint implements of Early Neolithic age and aspect, artefacts of Lower Palaeolithic forms. The presence of these early types within this beach may be accounted for as:—

1. A recrudescence of earlier forms during Early Neolithic times;

2. Lower Palaeolithic artefacts which have been derived from the glacial and inter-glacial drifts of the locality:

3. A mixture embraced by categories 1 and 2.

The evidence for the determination of this question must be sought outside the beach itself owing to the masking of the surface variations of the specimens through the deposition of a creamy-white patination and through marine attrition, though, regarding the latter, it should be mentioned that glacial striae have been observed upon certain of the implements recovered from the post-glacial (25-ft.) raised-beach at Kilroot.

The majority of scientists hold the opinion that mankind first knew metal in the form of native copper. In particular, at this period the malleability of native copper was realized, and its brittleness when cold worked, as well as the need of annealing to cold forge the necessary tools. The melting of copper was discovered later when native copper was met with in association with ores.

These opinions are shared by H. H. Coghlan and H. Otto and W. Witter, though the first mentioned also pointed out that in some regions artifacts made from copper alloys existed in early periods while artifacts made of pure copper might be met with in the latest periods.

V. I. Vernadski also had some doubt about the unconditional validity of this theory. However, he did not deny that where native copper was distributed it was the first metal replacing (although only partly) stone and bone for making tools. In certain cases such an assertion has been supported by old and unreliable analyses of ancient artifacts, as well as by some mistakes in the determination of their age.

Fieldwork east of Oakham, Rutland has located evidence of prehistoric settlement, land use patterns, and ceremonial monuments. Part of this included the excavation of a cropmark site which has revealed an unusual sequence of Neolithic/Early Bronze Age pit circles and a burial area. This is complemented by a fieldwalking survey of the surrounding areas, allowing consideration of the relationship of juxtaposed flint scatters and the excavated ceremonial area.

The Presidency of the Prehistoric Society to which you have done me the great honour of calling me, differs from that of some other societies in that, though the period of office is four years the President is only required to deliver one Address. No doubt we owe this mercy to the fact that our customs have taken shape during an age, which it would be tempting providence to call more humane, but which is at any rate less tolerant of some forms of avoidable boredom than some previous ones. Yet even in these less rigorous times I suppose we should feel uneasy if we allowed our Presidents, or ourselves, to escape scot free: one year in four we must undergo the rite and trust that in some obscure way it will help us to avoid the evil eye and ensure at the cost of an hour's suffering a further spell of prosperity and well-being for the Society.

The Iron Age Site at Crayford, Kent, was discovered in 1936 during the development of the Glebe Building Estate. This Estate lies to the west of St. Paulinus' Church, between Watling Street Old Road and Manor Road, and Nos. 103, 105, 107 and 109 Watling Street Old Road now mark the site. The circumstances of the discovery did not permit of scientific excavation, but the finds were reported to Mr S. Priest, F.G.S., curator of the Dartford Public Museum, and thanks to him and to the facilities most generously afforded by Mr Roys ton Phillips, the owner of the Glebe Estate, a large quantity of pottery and other objects was preserved and is now in the possession of the Dartford Public Museum. To Mr Priest the writer is particularly indebted for the opportunity to examine and report upon the discoveries, and for help in the preparation of that report. It was Mr G. C. Dunning, F.s.A., who first drew attention to the largely unpublished comparative material, and a number of his drawings are here used. The writer is also indebted to Dr R. E. M. Wheeler, V.P.S.A., for much help and criticism.

An occasion such as this is an opportunity for looking both backwards and forwards. I propose first to speak about the activities of our Society during the past year, and then, looking forwards, to throw out a few suggestions. In the second part of my Address I shall not confine myself to the work of our society, but shall review the present position and future prospects of archaeological air-photography. To do so implies an optimistic outlook that I am very far from possessing. Let us leave it at that.

It is usual and proper for a President either to eulogize his predecessor or else to say that he is too distinguished to need any such eulogy. There is no harm in combining both methods. It is now generally recognized that Professor Mahr, working in happy and enviable co-operation with the Government of Eire, and also with his scientific colleagues in Northern Ireland, has built up a thoroughly sound administration and that he has even found time for personal research as well. His Presidential Address, delivered last year, which you will now have had time to read in the pages of our Proceedings, gives proof of that.

Fossil human remains which can be attributed to the Lower Palaeolithic period are so rare that it is important to investigate thoroughly all finds for which such claims have been made. Almost all the human skulls discovered in Pleistocene deposits in Britain have proved to belong to Homo sapiens. Where the deposits are older than Upper Palaeolithic it is more than likely that such remains are not contemporaneous but represent later intrusive burials. However, the confirmation of the Lower Palaeolithic (Acheulian) age of the Swanscombe skull which, in so far as it is preserved, is not distinguishable from Homo sapiens, has revived interest in other human remains of modern type which have been reported from early deposits but laid aside as being of doubtful antiquity. Unfortunately some of these finds are now lost (e.g. Foxhall jaw). Outstanding among those which have survived are the Galley Hill skeleton and the Bury St. Edmunds skull. By application of the fluorine-dating method the former has been shown to be a comparatively recent intrusive burial (Oakley and Montagu, 1949).

The human skull fragment found near Bury St. Edmunds in 1882 has been preserved in the Moyse's Hall Museum at Bury, and is especially worthy of re-investigation as it Was claimed to be in a fossilized condition, and to have been found in a deposit which contained remains of mammoth and Acheulian implements. A Committee under Section H of the British Association was appointed in 1949 to re-investigate this discovery, and to try to find out (1) the geological age of the deposit from which the skull had been reported and (2) whether the skull was contemporaneous with this deposit. The work and conclusions of this Committee are described in the present report.

The name ‘Azilian’ is firmly linked to that of Edward Piette, the principal excavator of the site on the left bank of the river Arize in the tunnel-cave of the Mas d'Azil (Ariège), in the French Pyrenees (see Bahn 1979). From 1887 onward this site yielded hundreds of painted and engraved pebbles (Piette 1896, 1903). Their decoration shows little variation, and consists largely of groups of dots and transverse marks; however, there are more complex signs such as longitudinal marks, lines of chevrons, grecques, crosses, perpendicular marks and ovals, while some pebble-faces are completely painted over. These little stones constitute almost the only evidence of artistic activity at the very end of the Upper Palaeolithic, and they span a period from c. 9000 to c. 7500 BC.

Twenty-eight sites in France, five in Spain, three in Italy and one in Switzerland have yielded a total of 1951 worked pebbles, but the Mas d'Azil accounts for no less than about 1427 of these. The figure is approximate because it is very difficult to reach an exact total: there have been losses, and infiltrations of fakes, and the ensemble is scattered in at least 16 museums and private collections.