Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 May 2014
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.
page 1 note 1 Caesar, II, 3 and VIII, 6.
page 2 note 1 Caesar, V, 12.
page 2 note 2 ibid., 1, I and II, 4.
page 2 note 3 ibid., 1, I.
page 2 note 4 Déch., II, 1037–9 and App. VI; Arch. J., LXXXVII, 184Google Scholar.
page 2 note 5 References to individual sites will normally be found in the lists at the end of the paper; these are not repeated in the text.
page 3 note 1 Déch., II, 1022.
page 3 note 2 Mariën, 372.
page 3 note 3 Holwerda, Nederlands Vroegste Geschiednis, kaart II.
page 4 note 1 AJ., XXI, 267.
page 4 note 2 Arch., XC, 139Google Scholar; the reference to individual sites is only given on the first occasion, unless it is desired to draw attention to some special point.
page 4 note 3 Ptolemy, II, iii, 11–13.
page 4 note 4 Caesar, V, 13.
page 4 note 5 Ammianus Marcellinus, XV, xi, 10.
page 4 note 6 Ptolemy, II, iii, II; the identification of Salinae is not satisfactory, cf. Arch., XCIII, 44Google Scholar.
page 4 note 7 Camulodunum, 45.
page 5 note 1 Swarling, 27.
page 5 note 2 Verulamium, 149.
page 5 note 3 Arch., XC, 1Google Scholar sqq. for all references to coin distributions.
page 5 note 4 Caesar, V, 18.
page 5 note 5 Aspects of Archaeology: Essays presented to O. G. S. Crawford, 337.
page 6 note 1 Oxon., XI–XII, 44Google Scholar.
page 6 note 2 ibid., VIII–IX, 47.
page 6 note 3 Arch., XCIII, 32Google Scholar.
page 6 note 4 Ptolemy, II, iii, 12. I am indebted to Mr L. F. Rivet for help with this and similar problems.
page 6 note 5 Caesar, V, 14 and 22.
page 6 note 6 Pauli, Real Encyclopädie, s.v. Cantium promontorium.
page 6 note 7 PPS., IV, 152.
page 6 note 8 Arch., XC, 170Google Scholar.
page 7 note * The map shows inhumations attributed to the Durotriges to define limits of Belgic penetration: only those of the 1st century A.D. are included.
page 8 note 1 Caesar, II, 4.
page 8 note 2 Ptolemy, II, iii, 13.
page 8 note 3 JRS., XXXVIII, 58Google Scholar.
page 8 note 4 Arch., XCIII, 42Google Scholar.
page 8 note 5 Strabonis Geographicon, IV, V, 3Google Scholar. The argument is that of MrStevens, C. E. (Aspects of Archaeology, 338–41)Google Scholar, but his refusal to accept Tincommius as one of the dynasts mentioned by Strabo does not seem to be justified. The recognition of Augustus took place when Tincommius was still in power and on the strength of this recognition he was later received as an exile.
page 8 note 6 May, T., The Pottery found at Silchester, 195Google Scholar.
page 8 note 7 Camulodunum, 237.
page 9 note 1 Caesar, VII, 76.
page 9 note 2 Frontini Stratagemmata, II, xiii, 11Google Scholar.
page 9 note 3 Arch., XCII, 140Google Scholar.
page 9 note 4 JRS., XLIII, 89Google Scholar; I am greatly indebted to Mr G. Boon, who first drew my attention to this earthwork and communicated the results of his excavations.
page 9 note 5 Ptolemy, II, iii, 13.
page 10 note 1 Ant., I, 281Google Scholar; cf. PPS., IV, 306.
page 10 note 2 PPS., I, 37.
page 10 note 3 ibid., XVIII, 71.
page 11 note 1 Arch. J., XCVIII, 105Google Scholar.
page 11 note 2 Ant., XXVIII, 168Google Scholar.
page 11 note 3 Childe, , The Prehistory of Scotland, 224Google Scholar.
page 12 note 1 Pitt Rivers, IV, pf. 18.
page 12 note 2 WAM., XLVII. 468.
page 12 note 3 PPS., III, 57.
page 12 note 4 PDAES., report forthcoming.
page 12 note 5 JRIC., n.s., I, app.
page 12 note 6 Taciti Germania, XVI.
page 12 note 7 Ptolemy, II, iii, 13.
page 12 note 8 P. Som. AS., XCVI, 188Google Scholar.
page 12 note 9 Fox, A., Roman Exeter, 80Google Scholar.
page 14 note 1 Maiden Castle, 20 sqq.
page 14 note 2 ibid., 59.
page 14 note 3 ibid., 48 sqq.
page 14 note 4 PHFC., XIII, 162.
page 14 note 5 Oxon., V, 13Google Scholar.
page 15 note 1 Arch. J., CX, 88Google Scholar.
page 15 note 2 RA., V, XXVI, 88 sqq.
page 15 note 3 Maiden Castle, 380.
page 15 note 4 In the discussion of this paper Professor C. Hawkes pointed out that, in his view, the La Tene B brooches were a secondary development at All Cannings Cross and that the dating put forward in the text would need amendment in this respect. He has subsequently developed his thesis in a letter from which he allows me to quote: ‘The earliest All Cannings Cross pottery with furrowed bowls is entirely non-La Tène; the furrowed bowls go back to Hallstatt B and C and the excised pottery of All Cannings Cross echoes Hallstatt kerbschnitt. In fact, where not identical with Jogassian, its characters are pre-Jogassian. And the swan neck iron pin reminds one that this Hallstatt C sort of pin was in our Iron Age A from the start, so that we could derive our wholly-British ring-headed pins from it (cf. Arch. J., XCI, 270Google Scholar) without any La Tène interference, by the time the true La Tène invasions started. The Hallstatt elements of All Cannings Cross are, then, Hallstatt and not of the latest sort; this is made clearer by the fact that there are among them no Hallstatt D brooches, i.e. the types found in quantity at Les Jogasses. These brooches spread into France at the time of Les Jogasses, but are not found west of the Marne (Eyre, European Civilization, fig. 13). At an earlier stage the Hallstatt people, in so far as they used brooches, used imported Italic types (serpentiform, leech, etc.). Although none has ever been found in Britain in a good association, the wide scatter in the Lowlands of the various Italic types must surely have been contributed to, even if not wholly provided, by Iron Age A immigrants.’ A full discussion of this problem lies beyond the scope of the present paper. I am most grateful to Professor Hawkes for raising it and have included the essential points from his letter to show that the chronology put forward is not accepted by all scholars. I am also indebted to Professor Hawkes for raising other points, which I have dealt with by modifications in the text.
page 15 note 5 Pauli, Real Encyclopädie, s.v. Dumnonii; cf. TDA., LXXIX, 15.
page 15 note 6 VCH.: Cornwall, I, 366Google Scholar.
page 15 note 7 Arch. J., XXX, 267Google Scholar.
page 15 note 8 Arch., LXXVI, 229Google Scholar.
page 16 note 1 Arch. J., XCVII, 100Google Scholar.
page 16 note 2 Ant., XIII, 72Google Scholar.
page 16 note 3 PDAES., II, 163.
page 16 note 4 PDAES., IV, 62.
page 16 note 5 Hencken, H. O'N., Archaeology of Cornwall, 127Google Scholar.
page 16 note 6 VCH.: Cornwall, II, 33Google Scholar.
page 16 note 7 Ptolemy, II, iii, 12.
page 16 note 8 Archaeological Survey of Herefordshire, 4 n.
page 16 note 9 Lydney, 93.
page 17 note 1 Arch., LXXVI, 230Google Scholar.
page 18 note 1 Distribution in PPS., IV, 53; later additions do not affect the pattern.
page 18 note 2 Caesar, V, 12.
page 18 note 3 Distribution in Bulleid, A. and Gray, H. St. G., Glastonbury Lake Village, II, 399Google Scholar; cf. Maiden Castle, 384.
page 18 note 4 Caesar, VII, 75.
page 18 note 5 Ptolemy, II, iii, 11.
page 18 note 6 Fox, 81, who quotes other examples.
page 18 note 7 NA., XXX, 157.
page 19 note 1 PPS., V, 181.
page 19 note 2 Sussex AC., LXXX, 235Google Scholar.
page 19 note 3 Arch. J., XCVI, 18 and 43Google Scholar.
page 19 note 4 ibid., C, 218.
page 19 note 5 PPS., V, 176.
page 21 note * This and similar references are to the Bosteaux Paris collection destroyed during the bombardment of Rheims in 1914.
page 21 note † Perkins, Ward (Arch., XC, 141)Google Scholar lists further forts with a wide ditch in the Seine valley, which he ascribes to the same type.
page 23 note * Burials by cremation attributed to the Atrebates and Belgae are listed in the general list of cremation burials (see Appendix 2 supra).
page 23 note † Imported pottery refers to Arretine and butt beakers (see p. 8).
page 26 note * Stamped ware refers to ‘duck’-stamped pottery (p. 16).
