Last updated 10th July 2024: 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
Ever since the complexity of the Early Iron Age civilization in the British Isles was first realized, the accepted classification of its cultures has been based primarily upon pottery-types. In its present form, as stated by Mr Hawkes in 1931, that classification is, with modifications, likely to remain a basis of research for many years to come. Not only is pottery the most universally durable of the domestic articles then in common use, but it is, from the conditions of its manufacture, particularly sensitive to narrow regional and cultural differences. Nevertheless the very success of the pottery-criterion demands that we should bear in mind its obvious limitations. Not only were several culturally important areas apparently almost devoid of any but the crudest pottery, but the essentially domestic character of the potter's craft, which makes it so faithful a mirror of the constituents of everyday life, at the same time precludes it from reflecting, save in a very general fashion, the wider cultural and political contacts which must have played so large a part in the history of the period.
page 173 note 1 Antiquity, V (1931), 60 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 173 note 2 Celtic Art, pp. 113–8.
page 173 note 3 This paper is not concerned with other types of horses' bits, e.g., the bone cheek-pieces which are a familiar feature of many British Iron Age sites (see Bulleid, and Gray, , Glastonbury Lake Village, II, p. 440 ff., pl. LXIVGoogle Scholar; see also Arch. J. XCV (1939), 88, fig. 12, no. 8)Google Scholar. Nor does it cover metal ‘bridle-spurs’ and similar fittings.
page 173 note 4 The only archaeologically attested example seems to be one from Léry, Eure (Coutil, , Archéologie de l'Eure, 11, pl. opp. p. 138)Google Scholar; and in the absence of other specimens even this evidence must be accepted with reserve.
page 175 note 1 Bulleid, and Gray, , The Glastonbury Lake-Village, 1, p. 36, pl. LXIIGoogle Scholar.
page 176 note 1 Archaeologia, XXI (1826), 41, pl. vGoogle Scholar.
page 176 note 2 Assoc. Arch. Soc. Reports, XVIII (1883), 59Google Scholar; Arch.J., XCIII (1937), 66Google Scholar.
page 176 note 3 Archaeologia, XIV (1808), pl. XIX, 1Google Scholar; B, M., Early Iron Age Guide, fig. 162.
page 176 note 4 Trans. Cambs. Ant. Soc., XIII, 152Google Scholar.
page 177 note 1 Mazard, H.-A., ‘Essai sur les chars gaulois de la Marne,’ Rév. Arch, 1877, 1, 171–2Google Scholar.
page 177 note 2 Déchelette, , Manuel, III, p. 284, fig. 316Google Scholar.
page 177 note 3 Ebert, , Reallexicon, III, tf. 24dGoogle Scholar. Cf. Åberg, Vorgeschichtliche Kulturkreise in Europa, pl. XX, three examples from Bohemia, Bavaria and Baden.
page 177 note 4 L. des Noëttes, L'attelage et le cheval de selle a travers les ages, fig. 34.
page 179 note 1 M. l'Abbé, Favret, ‘Le cimetière des Commelles,’ Bull. Soc. Arch. Champenoise (1929), fig. IVGoogle Scholar.
page 179 note 2 Fourdrignier, La Gorge Meillet, pl. III; Déchelette, , Manuel, III, 2, p. 705Google Scholar, remarks, in this connection, on the rarity of the 3-link type.
page 179 note 3 Album Caranda, suppl. pis. 139–40.
page 179 note 4 Bull. Arch, (1926), 1, p. 3, pl. IV, 3Google Scholar.
page 179 note 5 Davis, and Thurnam, , Crania Britannica, vol. II, pl. 6, 10Google Scholar; Archaeologica, LX (1907), 280, fig. 22Google Scholar; Proc. Arch. Inst. York (1846), pp. 28–31Google Scholar.
page 179 note 6 Archaeologia, LX (1907), 285, fig. 29Google Scholar.
page 179 note 7 Davis, and Thurnam, , Crania Britannica, vol. II, s.v. pls. 6 and 7Google Scholar; Archaeologia, LX (1907), 282Google Scholar; Proc. Arch. Inst. York (1846), pp. 28–31Google Scholar.
page 180 note 1 Archaeologia, LX (1907), 278Google Scholar.
page 180 note 2 Arch. J., LIX (1892), 216, pl. IIIGoogle Scholar.
page 180 note 3 Arch. J. XCV (1939), 71–2, fig. 5Google Scholar.
page 180 note 4 Archaeologia, LX (1907), 276–8Google Scholar.
page 180 note 5 Archaeologia, XVI (1812), 348–9, pl. LGoogle Scholar.
page 180 note 6 Yorks. A.J., XIX (1907), 487Google Scholar.
page 180 note 7 Assoc. Arch. Soc. Reports, XVIII (1885), 59, pl. VII, 8Google Scholar; Arch. J., XCIII (1937), 66, pl. VIaGoogle Scholar.
page 181 note 1 J.B.A.A., XV, 227, pl. 22, 1Google Scholar; Ant.J., XIII, 466–8, pl. LXXXI, 1Google Scholar.
page 181 note 2 Celtic Art, pp. 114–8; his types (c) and (e).
page 182 note 1 Proc. Preh. Soc., III (1937), 409–11, fig. 29Google Scholar.
page 182 note 2 This reservation was suggested to me by Mr S. Piggott. It is worth noticing that other Irish Iron Age types, e.g., scabbards, show a similar derivation from types current in Yorkshire rather than from their Highland Zone derivatives. At first sight this suggests that the Irish Iron Age types were derived from Britain before the later types developed; and that contact was then interrupted. Against this however is the simultaneous occurrence, e.g., on the Lisnacroghera scabbards, of basket-work ornament, a feature of the developed British Iron Age. In any case the point can only be decided in relation to the other Irish evidence.
page 183 note 1 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., XV, 1880–1881, 320, fig. 4Google Scholar; Childe, Prehistoric Scotland, fig. 66; Anderson, , Scotland in Pagan Times (Iron Age), p. 123, fig. 101Google Scholar.
page 183 note 2 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., n.s., I, 234Google Scholar; Childe, Prehistoric Scotland, fig. 66.
page 183 note 3 Childe, Prehistoric Scotland, pl. XV.
page 183 note 4 Ant. J., IX (1929), 41–2Google Scholar.
page 183 note 5 Archaeologia, LX (1907), 282, fig. 23Google Scholar; B.M. Early Iron Age Guide, p. 103, pl. VIII, 4.
page 183 note 6 V.C.H. Norfolk, 1, pl. opp. p. 273Google Scholar.
page 183 note 7 Leeds, Celtic Art, pl. 11, 4; Grimes, , Guide to the Collection Illustrating the Prehistory of Wales (National Museum of Wales Catalogue) p. 119, fig. 40Google Scholar.
page 183 note 8 Leeds, Celtic Art, fig. 32, 6; Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times (Iron Age), fig. 128; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., XV, 1880–1881, 319, fig. 3Google Scholar.
page 183 note 9 Archaeologia, LX (1907), fig. 38Google Scholar; Leeds, Celtic Art, fig. 31.
page 185 note 1 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2, XXIII, fig. opp. p. 159Google Scholar.
page 185 note 2 Childe, , Prehistoric Scotland, p. 230, pl. XVGoogle Scholar.
page 187 note 1 The type undoubtedly continued in use in the Roman period, but no distinction is here made between those used before and after the conquest. See list, p. 192.
page 187 note 2 Ant. J., VIII (1928), 81–6Google Scholar; pottery, largely unpublished, in the British Museum.
page 187 note 3 Déchelette, , Manuel, IV, fig. 502, 7Google Scholar.
page 187 note 4 Déchelette, , Manuel, IV, fig. 510Google Scholar.
page 188 note 1 Celtic Art, p. 52.
page 188 note 2 See distribution-map, Proc. Preh. Soc., IV (1938), p. 153, fig. 3Google Scholar.
page 188 note 3 Archaeologia, XIV (1803), pl. 22, 3Google Scholar.
page 189 note 1 See Dunning, , Arch.J., LXXXV (1928), 69–79Google Scholar.
page 189 note 2 British Museum Early Iron Age Guide, fig. 133.
page 190 note 1 British Museum, Early Iron Age Guide, fig. 174.
page 190 note 2 Celtic Art, p. 37.
page 190 note 3 It is not by any means obvious that the Colchester grave-group upon which he lays such stress (op. cit., pp. 36–7, fig. 10) should be dated to the first century B.C.
page 190 note 4 Archaeologia, XVI (1812), 348–9Google Scholar.
page 192 note * Added after map blocks were made.
