The recent discovery at Knossos of a bronze bell helmet (pl. 1; also de Jong and Hood, 1952, and Hood, 1952) of Late Minoan 11, usually dated 1450–1400 B.C., focuses attention on the series of similar helmets that have long been known from Europe. The helmet from Knossos is topped with a knob within which is a tube that penetrates the inside of the helmet. This must have been for a plume. The knob is held in place by seven small rivets. There are also a pair of cheek pieces of a more elaborately curved profile than the plainer ones from Ialysos of Late Helladic III (Lorimer, 1950, 211, pl. XIII), Weissig in Saxony of Bronze Age III b (Kleemann, 1941–2) or the pair belonging to the Pass Lueg helmet from Austria of Hallstatt A or B (Merhart, 1941, 30, fig. 8, 3). Around the rim of the Knossos helmet and around the cheek pieces are rows of small evenly-spaced holes. Inspection of the Ialysos cheek piece shows that it had a similar row of holes, though the examples from Weissig and Pass Lueg did not. Evidently these rows of holes were to attach a padded lining as well as to fasten the cheek pieces to the helmet and to the chin strap. No neck guard was found, though such were in use in the Aegean on boar tusk and other kinds of helmets of this shape (Lorimer, 1950, figs. 16, 22). I am greatly obliged to Mr Sinclair Hood of the British School in Athens for so generously giving me photographs and full information on this important find.

The cairn at Mount Stewart has attracted wide attention as the alleged find-site of one of the very small group of Irish beakers. Since the ‘beaker’ and another bowl-shaped food-vessel from the cairn have now been rediscovered in the Belfast Municipal Museum—and the last relic of the cairn recently removed—we feel the time has come for a review of the available data.

This paper deals with a period of transition from prehistory to history. This age of transition is one which the Prehistoric Society cannot overlook, for its very title implies an interest in the historical method. But the transition raises special problems. History, starting from the written record, is largely occupied with political questions and political entities. Man, as we learnt from Aristotle, is a political animal and no-one, who studies the archaeology of the historical ages, would wish to deny the profound influence of political factors on the development of cultures. But prehistory, based on the natural sciences and on archaeology, focuses attention primarily on material phenomena, though the growing interest in the sociological implications of these phenomena points the way to a better appreciation of the political factors, which were operative in prehistoric as in later times.

The renewed controversy over the question of Mycenaean trade with ‘barbarian’ Europe (Renfrew 1968; Branigan 1970, 1972; etc.) has emphasised the need for a thorough study of the various classes of evidence involved. Recent work on the faience beads of Early Bronze Age Europe (Harding 1971; Harding and Warren 1973) has tended to show that local production is likely, at any rate in continental Europe, while a study of the amber trade to Mycenaean Greece (Harding and Hughes-Brock 1974) has shown that two main periods of trade with the Baltic are likely, the first, via Wessex, in the sixteenth/fifteenth centuries B.C., the second around 1200, down the Adriatic. Here I should like to tackle another group of material, bronze tools and implements, some of which have been used (or mis-used) in the current debate. I include here agricultural, wood-working, metallurgical and general-purpose tools; razors and tweezers are omitted, and will be discussed elsewhere, as will ornaments and objects of personal use. Knives are included, but daggers await examination together with other weapons.

Tools and implements have not often been found as items of trade in the Bronze Age Aegean. They have intrinsic value as metal, it is true, but they are usually heavy and bulky, and most easily susceptible of adaptation to local needs by local smiths. Accidental loss and intentional imitation are correspondingly less likely.

This paper is inspired by and based upon a field survey of the Carrowmore megalithic cemetery carried out by the writer and Mr Desmond Smith, then Hon. Secretary of the Sligo Field Club, in 1972–73 and revised in 1977 following the clearance of scrub from a number of sites which had hitherto been incapable of proper examination. So far as is known, this is the first attempt at a definitive, if admittedly superficial, survey of this unique assemblage of tombs and other sites since that conducted by Col. W. G. Wood-Martin almost a century ago and recorded in The Rude Stone Monuments of Ireland (1888). The only other definitive survey was that made in 1837 by George Petrie, archaeologist to the Ordnance Survey, and recorded in the Ordnance Survey Letters for County Sligo. In addition, Petrie prepared a map of the area of the cemetery (unfortunately not reproduced in the Ordnance Survey letters) in which he marked and numbered all sites to his knowledge then extant. This map was revised and used by Wood-Martin and it is on this later version that the identification of sites in the present survey is based.

A fairly close acquaintance with Carrowmore over the past twenty years or so has encouraged the conviction that the problems posed are of greater variety and complexity than have up to now been acknowledged.

The Source of the Douix in Châtillon-sur-Seine, France, has been visited by local inhabitants for over 2000 years and served as a watery focal point for the ritual deposition of various types of offerings. While water deposits are by no means uncommon across Europe, the continued use of a single space over multiple millennia is. An examination of the preserved offerings at the Douix indicate there are three phases of depositional activity: late Hallstatt to early La Tène periods, late La Tène to Gallo-Roman periods, and the early modern period. Despite being separated by hundreds of years there are similarities across depositional phases including the importance of modified metallic objects, personal ornamentation, and possible connections to women. Could the persistence of these ritual practices be the result of behavioural and ideological continuities? If not, how can we interpret this complex record of intermittent deposition? We examine the deposits from each phase in their wider social and ritual contexts, including the Douix’s connection to the Hallstatt princely centre of Mont Lassois, Gallo-Roman ritual traditions, and the historic folklore surrounding springs. We then explore the inter-depositional phases and discuss the conditions that could lead to the persistence of ideas despite the dearth of material evidence and summarise what these patterns mean for the history of ritual activity at the Source of the Douix.

Ancient fingerprints preserved in clay artefacts can provide demographic information about the people who handled and manufactured them, leaving their marks as an accidental record of a moment’s interaction with material culture. The information extracted from these ancient impressions can shed light on the composition of communities of practice engaged in pottery manufacture. A key component of the process is a comparator dataset of fingerprints reflecting as closely as possible the population being studied. This paper describes the creation of a bespoke reference collection of modern data, the establishment of an interpretive framework for prehistoric fingerprints, and its application to assemblages of Iron Age briquetage from coastal salterns in eastern England. The results demonstrate that briquetage manufacture was constrained by age and sex.

I must apologise for again addressing you on the subject of Grime's Graves. My work, however, has kept me in a practically flintless country, and I have been unable to accumulate any fresh material except of Roman date. Although the villa we have been excavating in our spare time is very interesting it is not an appropriate subject for the Prehistoric Society.

Owing to the kindness of the Trustees of the Weeting Estate, Mrs. T. S. Hall and Mr. C. Cockburn, we were able to do some fresh work at Grime's Graves in 1916, and on behalf of those who took part in it I wish to express our cordial appreciation for the permission.

I was associated in the work of last year, 1916, with Mr. A. Leslie Armstrong, F.S.A. (Scot.), and Mr. and Mrs. E. T. Lingwood, and the pieces exhibited are some of the best and most interesting things which came to light during this work.

The remains submitted to me by Mr. R. H. Chandler represent three species, Elephas antiquus, Rhinoceros, sp., and a deer which for the moment may be determined as Cervus browni. In general character these fossils are quite like those obtained many years ago from the “Shell Pit” in the High Terrace Drift of the Thames at Ingress Vale, near Greenhithe. A full account of the older collection will, I hope, be published before long. The present small collection forms a welcome addition to the relatively scanty material from this horizon, and by the kindness of Mr. A. C. Davis it will be presented to the British Museum.

The estuarine peaty shale still to be seen in the cliff section below the Martello tower at Clacton has a thickness of 10 or 12 feet, and seems to pass gradually into a dark clay which we find as the top layer of the shore deposit. On the shore below the Martello, and east of the stone groyne, the following layers were observed:—

1. Dark, stiff clay, without shells. To be seen only on the upper part of the shore, near the sea-wall. Further down, it. has been denuded. Thickness, c. 9 in. from shore sand.

2. A shelly layer, containing much Unıo littoralis: more sandy than the last. c. 3 in.

3. A dark layer with occasional shells. Lower limit variable. c. 4 in.

4. Blue loam: one of the most characteristic features of the deposit. Shells of Unio occur. Helix was also found. There is also in some parts much wood. Partly embedded in this layer most of the bones are found on the shore surface. Eastwards the layer grows less homogeneous and comes to rest directly on the London Clay. I am not sure what is the full thickness of this layer, but, where it is covered by others, I have dug 18 in. into it without reaching anything else. Accumulation of water and return of the tide prevented deeper trenching, but I think if we gave 2 feet as the total thickness we should not be far wrong.

5. A very thin layer, made up almost wholly of fragments of Unio.

6. Sand, shells, and broken flints. Thickness varies; 3 in. and 5 in. were measured in two trenches.

7. Stony layer. Flint pebbles, broken flints, some sand, some shells. Astragalus of deer, horn core (probably of deer), tibia of deer were found in trenching this layer.

An International Institute of Anthropology was founded in 1920, with central offices in Paris. Each country has been invited to form a National Office which would act with and be in relation with this Central Office. A Congress of the members of this International Institute was held in Liège (Belgium) in 1921 (July 25-August 1st). Being in France during July the writer decided to run over to Liege and very glad he was that he did so. Not only were there a number of new facts (not to speak of theories) brought forward, but one met again such savants as MM. Cartailhac, Capitan, Breuil, Begouen, Lalanne, Franchet, Hamal-Nandrin, Pittard, etc., etc. (to only mention a few), and discussions over lunch with such folk are worth weeks of work. Before describing the Congress and some of the papers, the writer would like to bear tribute to the extraordinary kindness and efficiency of the Belgian hosts, who were Professors at the Liege University. Everywhere we were received with the utmost kindness and no trouble was too great, if something could be arranged for us. It is impossible to mention everybody, but if ever the Congress comes to England, one can only hope that we may equal (we could not excel) such hosts (to mention only a few with whom the writer had most contact), as MM. Fraipont, Hamal-Nandrin, Servais, Max Lohest, Stockis, etc., etc. Eighteen countries were represented. The congress was divided into two parts:—(1) Work; (2) Excursions. For (1) Anthropology was divided into 8 sections, (a) What we should call Human Palæontology; (b) Prehistory; (c) Ethnography; (d) Criminology; (e) Eugenics; (f) Religions, later Archæology and Folk-lore; (g) Linguistic studies; (h) Sociology, etc. Of these the Prehistoric Section was one of the most important, there being nearly 50 people, on an average, at the Meetings.