Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-l4ctd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-07T05:20:29.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Deverel Urn and the Picardy Pin: A Phase of Bronze Age Settlement in Kent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

C. F. C. Hawkes
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In March 1929, foundations were being dug for the new Biological Laboratory at St. Lawrence College, Ramsgate, overlooking the coast of Thanet, 4 miles SSW. of the North Foreland. In the course of digging, the workmen came across an ancient excavation in the chalk rock, lying beneath several feet of humus and filled with earthy chalk rubble. Intact in this excavation was a hand-made pottery urn (fig. 1, and pl. v, 1), and inside the urn were three large pins of cast bronze (fig. 2, 1–3). The earthy chalk rubble also contained a small number of ancient animal bones and teeth, and shells of the common sea mussel. The discovery was witnessed, and the finds were collected, by Mr C. E. Baldwin, M.A., then Senior Science Master at St. Lawrence College. The urn, extracted in fragments, was subsequently identified as a Bronze Age vessel by the late Mr J. E. Couchman, and the pins were recorded by Miss Lily F. Chitty in the British Association Card-Catalogue of Bronze Age Implements. In 1939 Mr Baldwin, now Headmaster of the County School, Camberley, Surrey, kindly consented to submit the finds for examination by the present writer in the British Museum, and permitted their subsequent exhibition (the urn restored) to the Prehistoric Society, and their publication here.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 8 , 1942 , pp. 26 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1942

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 26 note 1 P.P.S. I (1935). 16 ff., 28–31, 38Google Scholar.

page 26 note 2 Ibid., and 47–49; pottery class Bib, figs. 6 and 7.

page 26 note 3 P.P.S., VII (1941), 119Google Scholar.

page 26 note 4 P.P.S., I, 21–28, 38Google Scholar.

page 26 note 5 Archaeologia, LXXVI, 1 ff., 14 ff.Google Scholar; Curwen, , Archaeology of Sussex, 187Google Scholar.

page 27 note 1 The report kindly provided by Dr Jackson is as follows:—

Horse. Three loose lower molar teeth (M. 1, 2, 3) of the right side. From similar Late Bronze Age sites I have seen the following: a few remains of a small horse collected by Mr L. F. Field at Newhaven, Sussex in 1938 (Sussex Arch. Colls. LXXX, 267Google Scholar); two bones from Boscombe Down East, Wilts (Wilts Arch. Mag., XLVII, 484Google Scholar); a lower molar tooth from Thorny Down, Wilts, (ibid., 659).

Ox. An imperfect right femur, rather robust; the lower half of a left humerus, also robust; a naviculo-cuboid, a harder bone than the rest and not so badly weathered (? more recent); small fragment of pelvis; two lower molar teeth (M. 2, 3) of the left side, rather small; and a small fragment of a horn-core of the ‘Celtic short-horn.’ From the site at Newhaven (supra) I have seen remains suggesting the small Celtic short-horn (Bos longifrons), along with a few others of a more robust kind. The same two kinds were present at Boscombe Down East (supra). The remains from Thorny Down (supra) suggested the small form only. Numerous bones and some small horn-cores of the Celtic short-horn type were found near Mildenhall, Suffolk, along with a somewhat larger horn-core (Antiq. Journ., XVI, 33—4Google Scholar). Many broken bones of the small form were found by CM. Piggott on Ogbourne Down near Marlborough (p. 54) on a site of this period, with three bones of a slightly larger animal (ident. J.W.J., June 1938).

Mussel. One valve of the common sea mussel (Mytilus edulis).

page 29 note 1 Dover Mus. 7th Annual Report (1938), 3Google Scholar.

page 29 note 2 Arch. Journ., IX, 7–8Google Scholar; SirEvans, J., Ancient Bronze Implements, 368, fig. 454Google Scholar.

page 29 note 3 Ibid.; Evans, op. cit., 282.

page 29 note 4 Ibid.; Evans, op. cit., 316.

page 29 note 5 Evans, loc. cit., and ibid., 465, hoard-list no. 26.

page 29 note 6 Arch. Journ., LXXXVI (1929), 90–1Google Scholar.

page 29 note 7 Brit. Mus. Bronze Age Guide, 56–7, fig. 48, top.

page 30 note 1 L'Anthropologie, XVIII (1907), 514Google Scholar (fig. 1, no. 5), 516 (Amiens Museum).

page 30 note 2 Ibid., 514 (fig. 1, no. 8), 516 (Evans Coll., Ashmolean Museum, Oxford).

page 30 note 3 Ibid., xxix (1918), 257 (fig. 3, 1–2), 260 (priv. coll. Macqueron, Abbeville).

page 34 note 1 Childe, , The Bronze Age, 106, 107 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 34 note 2 Ibid., 107; and Danube in Prehistory, pl. IX.

page 34 note 3 See examples in Childe, Danube in Prehistory, pl. XI, series C; earliest S. German finds: Holste, in Marburger Studien, 95–104Google Scholar.

page 34 note 4 Kraft, , Kultur der Bronzeseit in Süddeutschland, taf. XXIV, 1–6Google Scholar; Holste, op. cit., taf. 44 (in relation to the Bavarian).

page 34 note 5 E.g., Naue, , Bronzezeit in Oberbayern, taf. XXXII, 8Google Scholar; contrast the true Bavarian form taf. XXIX, 1–4.

page 34 note 6 Schaeffer, , Les Tertres funéraires préhistoriqties de la Forêt de Haguenau, I, 174Google Scholar, fig. 56 D = fig. 68 P.

page 34 note 7 Schaeffer, ibid., fig. 68, O, D, E, F, J, K. Similar heads also in Wurttemberg: Kraft, op. cit., taf. XXIV, 10, 11, 9.

page 34 note 8 Kraft, op. cit., taf. XXIV, 1–12.

page 35 note 1 Childe, , The Bronze Age, 111–12Google Scholar; Danube in Prehistory, pl. XII, series E (E9–E13).

page 35 note 2 Ibid., pl. XI, series D; Kraft, op. cit., taf. XXVI.

page 35 note 3 Schaeffer, op. cit., fig. 69 b, c, d.

page 35 note 4 E.g., Kraft, op. cit., taf. XXVII, 3–7.

page 36 note 1 This much can be gleaned e.g. from Beaupré, , Études préhistoriques en Lorraine, 29Google Scholar. Farther south there were other groups e.g., in Burgundy and the Jura, while in the west there was another in the Charente, and the earlier Bronze culture of Brittany is really only a very specialized parallel phenomenon. See Hawkes, , Prehistoric Foundations of Europe, 367–8 (refs., 396–7)Google Scholar; also Childe, , The Bronze Age, 174Google Scholar.

page 36 note 2 P.P.S., I (1935), 45–6Google Scholar, with refs.

page 36 note 3 L'Anthropologie, XXIX, 252–3, 255 (fig. 3, 4–5)Google Scholar.

page 36 note 4 Cf., of that period at Haguenau, Schaeffer, op. cit., 171, fig. 66, F, N; there are others at the Fort-Harrouard.

page 36 note 5 L'Anthropologie, XXIX, 253 (fig. 2, 3), 262–3Google Scholar.

page 36 note 6 Childe, , The Bronze Age, 122Google Scholar.

page 36 note 7 L'Anthropologie XXIX, 254, 257–9 (figs. 4–S), 263Google Scholar.

page 36 note 8 Ibid., 253, 255 (fig. 3, 3), 260.

page 36 note 9 Ibid., VIII, 514 (fig. 1, 7, 10), 515–6.

page 37 note 1 Ibid. (fig. 1, 9).

page 37 note 2 Ibid. (fig. 1, 2, 4, 3); XXIX, 260–1.

page 38 note 1 Janssen, H. L., Prähist. Zeitschrift XXVI (1935), 208–18Google Scholar (supplementing Childe, , The Bronze Age, 110–11Google Scholar).

page 38 note 2 P.S.A.Scot., LV, 29 ffGoogle Scholar. (with fig. 1), in the Glentrool hoard, with protected-loop spearhead, hammeredwing palstave, rapier, 2 razors, knife, and tore like the Villers-sur-Authie one: Childe, , Prehistory of Scotland, 149–51 (dating)Google Scholar.

page 38 note 3 Evans, , Ancient Bronze Impts., 370–1, fig. 457Google Scholar.

page 38 note 4 Ibid., 370–2, figs. 461–4; Childe, op. tit., 163.

page 38 note 5 Dubus, A., ‘Carte et tableau analytique de la répartition du bronze dans la Seine-Inférieure,’ Bull. Soc. Géologique de Normandie, XXXI (1912), offprint pp. 24–7Google Scholar, Pl. III, 2 (flat disc head, plain subquadrangular swelling), and 3 (ribbed and virtually headless like our fig. 7, 6, with side-loop added).

page 38 note 6 E.g., Sprockhoff, , Jungbronzezeitliche Hortfunde Norddeutschlands (Periode iv), Kat. d. Röm.-Germ. Zentralmus. Mainz 12 (1937), taf. 5, esp. 1–2Google Scholar.

page 38 note 7 Ibid., 29, with taf. 4, 14, 18.

page 38 note 8 L'Anthropologie XVI, 156–7, 158 (fig. 5, 49–52), 168Google Scholar.

page 38 note 9 No. 51 ibid., our 3, is Déchelette's type-specimen for this class ‘à ailerons medians’: Manuel II, 251, fig. 86, 2.

page 38 note 10 L'Anthropologie ibid. (fig. 5, 54–5 from Le Plainseau, 56–7 from Marlers).

page 38 note 11 Ibid. XVIII, 513–4 (fig. 1, 14). A developed form (it is cast separately from its shank) of the type mentioned above, p. 35, note 3, as of Bronze Age D at Haguenau; e.g., Schaeffer, op. cit., 175, fig. 69b, so datable on S.W. German parallels to its ornament, and by its associated palstave.

page 38 note 12 Ibid., XIII, 467–8, 469 (fig. 1, 1). For the type see Hawkes, , Ann. Brit. School at Athens XXXVII, 141 ff., 158–9Google Scholar.

page 38 note 13 Congrès préhist. de France, Lons-le-Saunier 1913, 453 and Pl. II, 3.

page 38 note 14 L'Anthropologie XI, 511 (fig. 4, 32–5), 513–4, 527Google Scholar.

page 38 note 15 Ibid., 523 (fig. 6, 72–3), 524.

page 38 note 16 Kendrick, & Hawkes, , Arch. in England & Wales, 125Google Scholar; Childe, , Prehist. Communities of Br. Is., 170, fig. 55. 1Google Scholar.

page 38 note 17 E.g. Bull. Soc. Préhist. Française XXXVI (Oct. 1939), 411–12, fig. 5Google Scholar, from the Saône; Archaeologia LXXIII, Pl. XLI, 22a; and ibid. Pl. XI, 21 (with slit hilt-tongue), Thames at London (the type is exotic in Britain).

page 38 note 18 Ibid., Pl. XXXIX, 19–20; Kendrick & Hawkes, op. cit., Pl. XI, 1–2; Childe, op. cit., fig. 54, 1–2.

page 38 note 19 As Mr J. D. Cowen was the first to see: Arch. Aeliana 4th ser. X (1933), 197Google Scholar.

page 38 note 20 Kendrick & Hawkes, op. cit., Pl. XI, 3; Childe op. cit., fig. 54, 3.

page 39 note 1 L'Anthropologie XI, 511Google Scholar (fig. 4, 30), 513, from Romaine.

page 39 note 2 Ibid. (fig. 4, 28); cf. Archaeologia LXXIII, Pl. XL, 3, from the Tay.

page 39 note 3 Sprockhoff, , Die Germanischen Griffzungenschwerter, 36 ff.Google Scholar; note esp. the Badegow sword, taf. 17, 9.

page 40 note 1 Best modern account: Vogt, , Die Spätbronzezeitliche Keramik der Schweiz (Denkschr. d. Schweiz. Naturforsch.-Gesellschaft LXVI, 1, 1930), 23–25)Google Scholar. The best-known French sites are Pougues-les-Eaux (Nièvre) and Dompierre-sur-Besbre (Allier): Matériaux 1879, 385 ff.Google Scholar; Déchelette, , Manuel II, 155–6, 386Google Scholar. In L'Anthropologie XLVII, 282Google Scholar, Philippe has recently given a more extended list of sites (either, like these, true urnfields, or barrow-cremations indicating fusion with the Middle Bronze Age tradition; or else settlements) in commenting on the pottery of this period at Fort-Harrouard: its nearest neighbours among them are pieces from Barbonne and Vert-la-Gravelle (Marne) published by Hubert, (Revue Préhistorique 1910, 97 ff.Google Scholar), from the Camp de Catenoy (Oise) by Ponthieux, (Le Camp de Catenoy, Beauvais, 1873, pl. XXXVIII)Google Scholar, and from Villeneuve-St.-Georges (near Paris), by Laville, (Bull, de la Soc. d'Anthropologie de Paris 1910, 455 ff.; 1911, 457 ff.Google Scholar)

page 40 note 2 Plumpton Plain Site A (p. 26 above) and Park Brow; P.P.S. I, 43–6 (refs.)Google Scholar.

page 40 note 3 Dunlop, Margaret, L'Anthropologie XLVIII (1938), 477–80Google Scholar, with refs., and map (fig. 12), 489.

page 40 note 4 Ibid., 480.

page 40 note 5 P.P.S., I, 57–8Google Scholar.

page 40 note 6 Cf. Kraft, op. cit., taf. XXVI, 11–13 (Bronze Age D); and from Picardy our fig. 7, 4.

page 40 note 7 Mantell collection (B.M. no. 53, 4–12, 110).

page 40 note 8 Greenwell collection (no. WG. 1772).

page 41 note 1 B.M. Bronze Age Guide, 56–7, fig. 48, bottom; Childe, The Bronze Age, fig. 14, 9.

page 41 note 2 Archaeologia, XII, 414, pl. LI, 8Google Scholar; Evans, , Ancient Bronze Impts., 368–9Google Scholar; Hencken, , Arch. of Cornwall and Scilly, 87–8Google Scholar, fig. 24 M (stated to be from a tin-working).

page 41 note 3 British Museum (no. 55, 5–3, 7).

page 41 note 4 Archaeologia, XLIII, 468Google Scholar; Evans, op. cit., 369, fig. 455.

page 41 note 5 Curwen, , Arch. of Sussex, 176–8, fig. 49, 2Google Scholar, with further refs. Associated were a loop-headed pin (ibid., 1), like those from East Dean (Antiq. Journ., XVI, 461–2Google Scholar), and a pair of ‘Brighton loops,’ proper to the end of the local Middle Bronze Age, the culture of which persisted, as above stated, into Late Bronze Age I. The diamond-shaped plate bears engraved ornament of similar diamond pattern; this, as my wife points out, should be a modified version of the lozenge design on the Swollen-neck and Picardy pins (pp. 32–6), which no doubt, as its long survival suggests, had a symbolic significance.

page 41 note 6 Vogt, op. cit., 71.

page 41 note 7 Ibid., 28 ff.

page 41 note 8 Evidence e.g., in Sprockhoff, Die Germanischen Vollgriffschwerter.

page 41 note 9 Vogt, ibid., 78.

page 41 note 10 Kendrick & Hawkes, op. cit., Pl. XI, 3; Childe, Prehist. Communities of Br. Is., fig. 54, 3.

page 42 note 1 ‘A Prehistoric Invasion of England,’ Antiq. Journ. II (1922), 27–35Google Scholar.

page 42 note 2 ‘The Sword-Bearers,’ Antiquity IV (1930), 157–72Google Scholar; ‘The Late Bronze Age in Western Europe,’ Man, 1931, 209Google Scholar.

page 42 note 3 Dunlop, M., L'Anthropologie, XLVII, 480Google Scholar. In her synoptic tables appended to that paper, Miss Dunlop has followed a chronology which the work of the last dozen years in Central Europe has shown to be rather too high; but her scheme can be readily adjusted to the datings given here.

page 42 note 4 P.P.S., I, 32–3, fig. 16Google Scholar (winged axe); 46 ff., 55–7 (pottery); 58–9 (conclusions).

page 42 note 5 Childe, The Bronze Age, fig. 25, 3.

page 42 note 6 Childe, , Danube in Prehistory, 336Google Scholar.

page 42 note 7 Prähist. Zeit., XXI (1930), 161 ff.Google Scholar; hence Antiq. Journ., XIII, 440 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 43 note 1 Bursch, F. C., ‘Zur Frage der Deverel-Urnen in den Niederlanden,’ Marburger Studien (1938), 20–25, esp. 23Google Scholar. Bell-urns: id., ‘Die Becherkultur in den Niederlanden,’ O.M.R.O.L., XIV (1933), 39 ff.; P.P.S., III, 178 ff.Google Scholar; Hawkes, , Prehistoric Foundations of Europe, 270—1, Pl. IX, 5Google Scholar. Sherds, e.g., from Emmen: Bursch, , O.M.R.O.L., XVII (1936), 62, abb. 43, 4–5Google Scholar.

page 43 note 2 The ‘rusticated’ or all-over finger-tip ornament of the Beaker-period bell-urns actually re-appears on some Deverel urns in our eastern counties, e.g., Manningtree (Essex) and Ipswich (Suffolk): Man, 1919, 3Google Scholar.

page 43 note 3 Cf. Kersten, in Germania, XXII, 71 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 43 note 4 P.P.S., I, 43–4, 45–6, 55–6, 57–8, with refsGoogle Scholar.

page 43 note 5 E.g., from the Hochelheimer Pfad settlement-site at Langgöns, near Giessen (Giessen Mus.): Kunkel, , Oberhessens Vorgeschichtliche Altertümer, 92–3, abb. 77Google Scholar.

page 43 note 6 From photographs kindly supplied before the war by Dr Bursch.

page 43 note 7 The Soesterberg barrows; Bursch, , O.M.R.O.L., XV (1934), 54 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 43 note 8 Marburger Studien, 20–22.

page 43 note 9 Op. cit., 23–25.

page 44 note 1 de Loë, , La Belgique Ancienne, I, 178 ff., 181, 183 (note the Grand-Pressigny flint)Google Scholar.

page 44 note 2 Déchelette, , Manuel, II, 164, 373Google Scholar.

page 44 note 3 Hawkes, Jacquetta, Archaeology of Jersey, 114 ff.Google Scholar, with special reference to the west of northern France and Channel Islands.

page 44 note 4 The thesis of this last section was first propounded in the author's paper The Western Bronze Age and the Celts, read at the International Prehistoric Congress at Oslo in 1936, and it seems fair to claim that subsequent work, especially Dr Bursch's, has confirmed it satisfactorily. In the study of the Picardy pin I was greatly assisted in the nine months before the war by the Abbé Favret (Épernay), Dr E. Sprockhoff (Frankfurt), Dr J. Holste (Munich), and Miss Margaret Dunlop (Manchester), my thanks to whom can only now be recorded.

page 45 note 1 Antiq. Journ., VIII, 331 ff.Google Scholar; X, 30 ff.

page 45 note 2 Curwen, , Archaeology of Sussex, 187, 194Google Scholar.

page 45 note 3 P.P.S., VII, 118–9 (figs. 2 and 3, 1), 126Google Scholar.

page 45 note 4 Antiq. Journ., XIII, 414–54Google Scholar.

page 46 note 1 The cast torc from Hollingbury, near Brighton, a precursor or early variant with ends plain instead of hooked, was found with a late-Middle Bronze Age palstave: Curwen, , Archaeology of Sussex, 177, with refsGoogle Scholar.

page 47 note 1 Arch. Camb., Dec. 1941, 148Google Scholar.

page 47 note 2 Childe, , The Bronze Age, 122Google Scholar.

page 47 note 3 Evans, , Ancient Bronze Implements, 379Google Scholar.

page 47 note 4 Fox, loc. cit.; Evans op. cit., 376–8.

page 47 note 5 Evans, op. cit., 385–6, Edington Burtle and West Buckland (fig. 481).

page 47 note 6 Wilts Arch. Mag., XLVII, 651 (pl. V, no. 19), 652–4Google Scholar; P.P.S., VII, 128Google Scholar.