Lists of Hoards

LIST I.
Locality.	Remarks.	Reference.
1. Arreton Down, Isle of Wight.	Flanged celts, some ornamented, tanged spear-heads, ferrule to one, halberd? one socketed dagger.	Arch., vol. xxxvi. p. 326.
2. Plymstock, Devon.	Flanged celts, straight chisel.	Arch. Journ., vol. xxvi. p. 346;Trans. Devon. Assoc., vol. iv. p. 304.
3. Battlefield, Shrewsbury.	Mostly melted. Flat celts, palstaves, curved objects.	Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii, p.251.
4. Postlingford Hall, Clare, Suffolk.	Flanged celts, some ornamented.	Arch., vol. xxxi. p. 496; Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. i. p. 83.
5. Rhosnesney, Wrexham, Denbigshire.	Palstaves, all from one mould; castings for a dagger and for flanged celts of narrow form.	Arch. Camb., 4th S., vol. vi. p. 72.
6. Broxton, Cheshire.	Tanged chisel; socketed spear-head.	Penes Sir P. de M. G. Egerton, F.R.S.
7. Sherford, Taunton, Somerset.	One palstave, a defective casting.	Pring, “British and Roman Taunton,” p. 76.
8. Stibbard, near Fakenham, Norfolk.	Castings for small palstaves and spear-heads.	Arch. Inst., Norwich vol. p. xxvi.
9. Quantock Hills, Somerset.	Each palstave laid within torque.	Arch., vol. xiv. p. 94.
10. Hollingbury Hill, Brighton, Sussex.	Palstave laid within a torque, bracelets around.	Arch. Journ., vol. v. p. 323; Arch., vol. xxix. p. 372, &c.
11. Edington Burtle, Somerset.	One casting for a flat sickle; ribbed bracelet and ring.	Som. Arch. and Nat. Hist. Proc., vol. v. (1854) pt. ii. p. 91.
12. Woolmer Forest, Hants.	There appears some doubt about the small torques.	Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. vi. p. 88; Bateman’s Catal., p. 22
13. West Buckland Somerset.	Two-looped palstave.	Arch. Journ., vol. xxxvii. p. 107.
14. Blackmoor, Hants.	Fragments of swords and sheaths, large and small spear-heads.	White’s “Selborne,” Bell’s ed., 1877, vol. ii. p. 381.
15. Fulbourn Common, Cambs.	Swords broken, leaf-shaped spear-heads, broad-ended ferrules.	Arch., vol. xix. p. 56.
16. Pant-y-maen, Cardiganshire.	Swords and leaf-shaped spear-heads, broken or damaged.	Arch. Camb., 3rd S., vol. x. p. 221.
17. Wicken Fen, Cambs.	Nearly all fragmentary; fragments perhaps of two swords.	In British Museum.
18. Corsbie Moss, Legerwood, Berwickshire.	Sword perfect.	Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. iii. p. 121.
19. Weymouth, Dorset.	Both sword and spear-head nearly perfect.	Penes Auct.
20. Thrunton Farm, Whittingham, Northumberland.	Spear-heads, leaf-shaped, and with lunate openings; all objects unbroken.	Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 429.
21. Worth, Washfield, Devon.	Sword and leaf-shaped spear-heads, perfect.	Arch. Journ., vol. xxiv. p. 120.
22. Stoke Ferry, Norfolk.	Swords and leaf-shaped spearheads broken, halberd.	Penes Auct.; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p.425.
23. Brechin, Forfarshire.	Swords, &c., unbroken.	Arch. Journ., vol. xiii. p. 203; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. i. pp. 181 and 224.
24. Duddingston Loch, Edinburgh.	Swords, spear-heads, &c., in fragments; caldron.	Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. i. p. 132; Wilson, “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” vol. i. p. 348.
25. Point of Sleat, Isle of Skye.	Sword, spear-head, and pin, perfect.	Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. iii. p. 102.
26. River Wandle, Surrey.	All objects nearly perfect.	Arch. Journ., vol. ix. p. 7.
27. Tarves, Aberdeenshire.	Objects mostly perfect.	Horæ ferales, p. 161.
28. Cwm Moch, Maentwrog, Merionethshire.	Objects unbroken; loops at base of blade of spear-head.	Arch., vol. xvi. p. 365.
29. Bloody Pool, South Brent, Devon.	Spear-heads mostly barbed; all objects broken.	Arch. Journ., vol. xii. p. 84; xviii. p. 160.
30. Broadward, Leintwardine, Herefordshire.	Spear-heads, leaf-shaped, with perforations in blade, and barbed.	Arch. Camb., 4th S., vol. iii. p. 345; iv. 202.
LIST II.
31. Mawgan, Cornwall.	Rapier in high preservation.	Arch., vol. xvii., p. 337.
32. Wallington, Northumberland.		In Sir C. Trevelyan’s Collection.
33. Nottingham.	Fragments of swords, and possibly of scabbard-tip.	Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. i. p. 332.
34. Nettleham, Lincolnshire.	Socketed celts of peculiar types.	Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 159.
35. Haxey, Lincolnshire.		Penes Canon Greenwell, F.R.S.
36. Ambleside, Westmoreland.	Swords described as broad-swords,and sharp-pointed swords.	Arch., vol. v. p. 115.
37. Bilton, Yorkshire.	Swords broken, one spear-head ornamented.	Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. v. p. 349.
38. Alnwick Castle, Northumberland.	Found in 1726.	Arch., vol. v. p. 113.
39. Flixborough, Lincolnshire.	Sword broken. Possibly palstaves.	Arch. Journ., vol. xxix. p. 194.
40. Greensborough Farm, Shenstone, Staffordshire.	Swords apparently perfect.	Arch., vol. xxi. p. 548.
41. Wrekin Tenement, Shrewsbury.	One celt, a few swords, about 150 spear-heads and fragments.	Arch., vol. xxvi. p. 464.
42. Llandysilio,	See p. 119.	Penes Canon Greenwell, F.R.S.
43. Dunbar, Haddingtonshire.	Uninjured.	Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. x. p. 440.
44. Little Wenlock, Shropshire.	Spear-heads mostly broken, whetstones with them. Possibly thesame hoard as No. 41.	Hartshorne, “Salop. Ant.,” p. 96; Arch. Journ., vol. viii. p. 197.
45. Winmarleigh, Garstang, Lancashire.	One spear-head, large, and with lunate openings; all found in “a cist or box.”	Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 158.
46. Near Newark, Nottinghamshire.	Two large discs in hoard.	Penes Canon Greenwell, F.R.S.
47. Hagbourn Hill, Berks.	Bridle-bits and late Celtic buckles, said to have been found; coins also?	Arch., vol. xvi. p. 348.
48. Ty Mawr, Holyhead.	Said to have been found in a box.	Arch., vol. xxvi. p. 483.
49. Heath House, Wedmore, Somerset.	Amber beads found at same time; possibly palstaves and not socketed celts.	Arch. Journ., vol. vi. p. 81.
50. Wymington, Beds.	About sixty celts found.	Specimens penes Auct.
51. Reepham, Norfolk.	Found about 1747.	Arch., vol. v. p. 114.
52. Yattendon, Berks.	Swords in fragments, tanged chisels and knives, two socketed knives, flat celt much worn.	Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. vii. p. 480.
53. Taunton, Somerset.	Flat sickles, looped pin.	Arch. Journ., vol. xxxvii. p. 94.
54. Beacon Hill, Charnwood Forest, Leicestershire.	Leaf-shaped spear-heads.	Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. iv. p. 323.
55. Ebnall, Oswestry, Salop.	Two punches?	Arch. Journ., vol. xxii. p. 167.
56. Exning, Suffolk.	Mostly perfect?	Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 3; vol. ix., p. 303.
57. Melbourn, Cambs.	Sword broken, a clasp.	Arch. Journ., vol. xi. p. 294.
58. Stanhope, Durham.	Leaf-shaped spears, fragment of sword, broken hammer, &c.	Arch. Æliana, vol. i. p. 13.
59. Thorndon, Suffolk.	All entire. Most of these are figured on previous pages.	Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 3.
60. Wallingford, Berks.	Entire; mostly here figured.	Penes Auct.
61. Whittlesea, Cambridgeshire.	Entire; one celt with loop on face.	In Wisbech Museum.
62. Barrington, Cambs.	Perfect.	Penes Auct.
63. Porkington, Shropshire.	Point broken off sword.	Arch. Journ., vol. vii. p. 195.
65. Bo Island, Fermanagh.	Sword and hammer broken.	Journ. Hist. and Arch. Assoc. of Irel., 3rd S., vol. i. p. 164.
64. Trillick, Tyrone.	Perfect; two rings with cross perforations for the pin.	Journ. Hist. and Arch. Assoc. of Irel., 3rd S., vol. i. p. 164.
65. Bo Island, Fermanagh.	Sword and hammer broken.	Penes Auct.
66. Llangwyllog, Anglesea.	Connected with the other hoards by the razor and buttons.	Arch. Journ., vol. xxii. p. 74.
67. Meldreth, Cambs.	Most of the objects broken; socketedchisel, flat lunate knife with opening in middle, caldron ring.	In British Museum.
68. Hounslow, Middlesex.	One flat celt, swords in fragments.	Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 90; vol. v. p. 428.
69. Hundred of Hoo, Kent.	Most of the objects broken. See p. 95.	Arch. Cant., vol. xi. p. 123.
70. Guilsfield, Montgomeryshire.	Objects for the most part broken,	Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 251; Arch. Camb., 3rd S., vol. x. p. 214; Montg. Coll., vol. iii. p. 437.
71. Wick Park, Stogursey, Somerset.	Swords broken, numerous fragments of other forms.	Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 427.
72. Chrishall, Essex.	Portion of socketed knife.	Neville’s “Sep. Exp.,” p. 3.
73. Romford, Essex.	Swords broken, socketed chisel, celts not trimmed.	Arch. Journ., vol. ix. p. 302.
74. Cumberlow, Baldock, Herts.	Swords in fragments.	Journ. Anth. Inst., vol. vi. p. 195.
75. Beachy Head, Eastbourne, Sussex.	Fragment of sword, four gold bracelets.	Arch., vol. xvi. p. 363.
75. Beachy Head, Eastbourne, Sussex.	Fragment of sword, four gold bracelets.	Arch., vol. xvi. p. 363.
76. Burgesses’ Meadow, Oxford.	An ingot 9¾ inches long.	In Ashmolean Museum.
77. Westow, Yorkshire.	Seventeen fragments included among the celts; one chisel socketed, two tanged.	Arch. Journ., vol. vi. p. 381; Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. iii. p. 58.
78. Carlton Rode, Norfolk.	One tanged gouge, tanged and socketed chisels.	Smith’s “Coll. Ant.,” vol. i. 105; Arch. Journ., vol. ii. 80; Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. i. p. 51; Arch., vol. xxxi. p. 494.
79. Kenidjack Cliff, Cornwall.	Large oval jet.	Journ. Roy. Inst. of Corn., No. xxi.
80. Helsdon Hall, Norfolk.	Found before 1759.	Arch., vol. v. p. 116.
81. Worthing, Sussex.	Found in an earthern vessel.	Specimens penes Auct.
82. Reach Fen, Cambs.	Fragments of swords and many broken objects.	Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xxxvi., p. 56.
83. Haynes Hill, Saltwood, Kent.	Objects nearly all broken.	Arch. Journ., vol. xxx. p. 279; Journ. Anth. Inst., vol. iii. p. 230.
84. Allhallows, Hoo, Kent.	Objects mostly broken, flat knife. See p. 214.	Arch. Cant., vol. xi. p. 124.
85. St. Hilary, Cornwall.	Swords in fragments; weight altogether about 80 lbs.	Arch., vol. xv. p. 120.
86. Longy Common, Alderney.	Socketed sickle, objects mostly broken.	Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. iii. p. 9.
87. Kingston Hill, Coombe, Surrey.	Objects all fragmentary.	Arch. Journ., vol. xxvi. p. 288.
88. Sittingbourne, Kent.	In two urns; broken sword and rings in one urn, celts, &c., in the other.	Smith’s “Coll. Ant.,” vol. i. p. 101; Arch. Journ., vol. ii. p. 81.
89. Martlesham, Suffolk.	Fragments of swords, socketed knife.	Penes Capt. Brooke.
90. Lanant, Cornwall.	Fragments of swords; pieces of gold in one celt.	Arch., vol. xv. p. 118.
91. West Halton, Lincolnshire.	Fragment of sword.	Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 69.
92. Burwell Fen, Cambs.	The ring penannular and of triangular section.	Penes Auct.
93. Marden, Kent.	Found in an earthen vessel, mostly broken.	Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xiv. p. 257.
94. Kensington, Middlesex.	Knives broken.	Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 232.
95. Roseberry Topping, Yorkshire.	Mostly broken.	Arch. Æliana, vol. ii. p. 213; Arch. Scotica, vol. v. p. 55.
96. Danesbury, Welwyn, Herts.	Mostly imperfect.	Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 248.
97. Earsley Common, Yorkshire.	Nearly 100 celts found in 1735.	Arch., vol. v. p. 114.
98. High Roding, Essex.	Some figured in previous pages.	In British Museum.
99. Panfield, Essex.	Possibly other forms found at same time.	Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 428.
100. Westwick Row, Hemel Hempsted, Herts.	One celt broken.	Penes Auct.
101. Achtertyre, Morayshire.	With tin. See p. 425.	Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. ix. p. 435.
102. Dowris, Parsonstown, King’s County.	With caldrons, trumpets, bells, &c.	Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. See p. 361. A.,” pp. 360, 613, 626; Proc. R. I. Ac., vol. iv. pp. 237, 423.
103. Hotham Carr, Yorkshire.	Palstaves almost all damaged.	Penes Canon Greenwell, F.R.S.
104. Beddington, Surrey.	Many fragments, mould broken.	Surrey Arch. Soc. Coll., vol. vi.; Anderson’s “Croydon,” p. 10.
105. Isle of Harty, Kent.	See p. 441.	Penes Auct.
106. Heathery Burn Cave, Durham.	Socketed knife, large collars and discs. See p. 119, &c.	Arch. Journ., vol. xix. p.358; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 127.
107. Wickham Park, Croydon, Surrey.	Mould broken, other objects mostly fragmentary; list partly compiled from Anderson, and partly from originals.	Anderson’s “Croydon,” p. 10; British Museum.
108. Wilmington, Sussex.	Said to be in the Bateman Collection. Possibly the same hoard as No. 95.	Suss. Arch. Coll., vol. xiv. p. 171; Arch. Journ., vol. xx. p. 192; vol.Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., v. p. 423.
109. Cleveland, Yorkshire.	In an urn, mostly broken or worn.	Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 166.
110. Eaton, Norfolk.	Spear-heads apparently broken.	Arch., vol. xxii. p. 424; Arch. Journ., vol. vi. p. 387; Arch. Inst., Norwich vol. p. xxvi.

Turning now to the lists, the following observations may be made, though they must be accepted as liable to revision under the light of future discoveries:—

1. That flat celts and knife-daggers, such as have been frequently found in barrows, rarely occur in hoards, only two instances being recorded of the occurrence of flat celts.

2. That flanged celts and palstaves are occasionally found together, while the latter are frequently associated with socketed celts.

3. That socketed weapons are of rare occurrence in association with flanged celts, though a socketed dagger and a ferrule for a tanged spear-head or dagger were present in the Arreton Down hoard.

4. That such tanged spear-heads or daggers are never found in company with socketed celts.

5. That torques are more frequently associated with palstaves than with socketed celts, and are mainly confined to our western counties.

6. That there are several instances of swords and scabbards, and spear-heads and ferrules being found together without either palstaves or socketed celts being with them.

7. That swords, or their fragments, are not found with flanged celts.

8. That socketed celts are often found with swords and spear-heads, or with the latter alone.

9. That socketed celts are often accompanied by gouges, and somewhat less frequently by hammers and chisels, though even where such tools occur, spear-heads are generally present.

10. That caldrons, or the rings belonging to them, have been discovered with socketed celts, both in England and Ireland.

11. That where metal moulds are found in hoards they are usually those for socketed celts.

12. That where lumps of copper or rough metal occur in hoards, socketed celts are, as a rule, found with them.

The general inferences are much the same as have already been indicated in former chapters, viz., that two of the earliest forms of bronze weapons discovered in the British Isles are the flat and the slightly flanged celts, and the thin knife-daggers. That these are succeeded by the more distinctly flanged celts, and the tanged spear-heads, with which probably some of the thick dagger-blades found in barrows are contemporary. That subsequently the celts with a stop-ridge and the palstave form came in and remained in use to the close of the Bronze Period, though to a great extent supplanted by the socketed celt which, as has already been shown, was probably evolved from one of the forms of the palstave; and it may here be remarked that flanged celts with a stop-ridge seem rarely, if ever, to occur in the hoards. That the socketed chisels, gouges, hammers, and knives are contemporary with the socketed celts, as are also socketed spear-heads and swords. That hoards in which palstaves only, and not socketed celts, are present rarely belonged to ancient bronze-founders; but that the deposits which these artificers have left behind them almost all denote a period when the art of coring, and thereby producing socketed tools and weapons, was already well known.

From this latter circumstance, and the comparative abundance of bronze-founders’ hoards, it may reasonably be inferred that in this country they belong for the most part to the close of the Bronze Period. To how recent a date bronze remained in use for cutting purposes is a question difficult of accurate solution. There are, indeed, two instances in which socketed celts are reported to have been discovered in company with ancient British coins, but in neither case is the evidence altogether satisfactory. Two uninscribed silver coins, of the type of my Plate F, No. 2 1753, are stated to have been found with a human skeleton and a bronze celt at Cann, near Shaftesbury, in 1849; but I believe that this statement would, if it were now capable of being sifted, resolve itself into the fact of the two coins, the celt, and some bones having been found near together by the same workman, without their being actually in association together. The type of the coins, though probably among the earliest in the British silver series, is one which was derived from gold coins struck some considerable time after the introduction of a gold coinage into this country, and probably belongs to the first century b.c. If such coins were in contemporary use with socketed celts, it is strange that none of the gold coins of earlier date have ever been found associated with bronze instruments.

It is true that in the account given in the Archæologia 1754 of the antiquities discovered on Hagbourn Hill, Berks., it is stated that at the bottom of a pit about four feet from the surface of the ground was a further circular excavation, in which, together with bronze bridle-bits and buckles of Late Celtic patterns, were socketed celts, and a spear-head of bronze, and, in addition, some coins. These, however, were not seen by the writer of the account, but he was informed “that one of them was silver and the other gold, the latter of which was rather large and flat, and perhaps one of the lower empire.” Looking at the Late Celtic character of some of the objects it seems possible that Ancient British coins might have been found with them; but, on the other hand, it is evident that the particulars given of the find were all derived from the workmen who dug up the objects, and not from personal observation; and it is possible that not only were the coins described not actually found with the bronze celts and spear-heads, but that these latter were not discovered in actual association with the Late Celtic bridle-bits. I have, however, provisionally accepted the account of their being found together, relying to some extent on the Abergele 1755 hoard, in which some buckles allied in form to those from Hagbourn Hill were present, associated with slides such as have been elsewhere found with socketed celts.

Whatever may be the real state of the case in these discoveries, there is every probability of a transition having gradually taken place in this country, from the employment of bronze for cutting tools and weapons of offence to the use of iron or steel for such instruments; in other words, from a Bronze Age to an Iron Age, such as that to which the term “Late Celtic” has been applied.

That this transition must have been effected, at all events in the South of Britain, prior to the Roman invasion, is shown, as has already been pointed out, by the circumstance that the Early Iron swords found in France belong in all probability to a period not later than the fourth or fifth century b.c., while the southern parts of Britain had, long before Cæsar’s time, been peopled by Belgic immigrants, who either brought the knowledge of iron with them or must have received it after their arrival from their kinsmen on the continent, with whom they were in constant intercourse. In the more northern parts of Britain and in Scotland an acquaintance with iron was probably first made at a somewhat more recent period; but in the Late Celtic interments in Yorkshire no coins are present, and the iron and other objects found exhibit no traces of Roman influence. Moreover, the Roman historians, who have recorded many of the manners and customs of the northern Britons, do not in any way hint at their weapons being formed of bronze.

In Ireland, perhaps, which was less accessible from the continent than Britain, the introduction of iron may have taken place considerably after the time when it was known in the sister country; but there appears to have been a sufficient intercourse between Scotland and the north of Ireland at an early period for the knowledge of so useful a metal, when once gained, to have been quickly communicated from one country to the other.

On the whole I think we may fairly conclude that in the southern parts of Britain iron must have been in use not later than the fourth or fifth century b.c., and that by the second or third century b.c. the employment of bronze for cutting instruments had there practically ceased. These dates are of course approximate only, but will at all events serve to give some idea of the latest date to which bronze weapons and tools found in England may with some degree of safety be assigned.

As to the time at which such weapons and tools were here first in use, we have even less means of judging than we have as to when they fell into desuetude. It is, however, evident that the Bronze Period of the British Isles must have extended over a long period of years, probably embracing many centuries. The numerous bronze-founders’ hoards, containing fragments of tools and weapons of so many various forms, testify to the art of bronze-founding having been practised for a lengthened period; and yet in all of these the socketed celt occurs, or some other socketed instruments, which we know to have been contemporary with it, are present. It is true that the socketed celt was not originally developed in this country, but was introduced from abroad; and, as has already been pointed out, was derived from a form of palstave which is of rare occurrence in Britain. Yet the length of time requisite for the modification of the flat form of celt to that with flanges, of this latter again to that with the flanges produced into wings, and finally the transition into the palstave with the wings hammered over so as to form sockets on each side of the blade, must itself have been of very great duration.1756 The development of the forms of palstave common to Britain and the opposite shores of the Continent must also have demanded a long lapse of years, and most of the stages in its evolution can be traced in this country. We have the flat celt, the flanged celt, and the flanged celt with a stop-ridge; and we can trace the modification of form from one stage to another until the characteristic palstave is reached, in which the stop-ridge is as it were formed in the actual body of the blade. And it is to be observed that this form of palstave had already been developed at the time represented by the earliest of the ordinary bronze-founders’ hoards, in which, moreover, the flanged celts, either with or without a stop-ridge, are hardly ever present.

The Bronze Age of Britain may, therefore, be regarded as an aggregate of three stages: the first, that characterized by the flat or slightly flanged celts, and the knife-daggers frequently found in barrows associated with instruments and weapons formed of stone; the second, that characterized by the more heavy dagger-blades and the flanged celts and tanged spear-heads or daggers, such as those from Arreton Down; and the third, by palstaves and socketed celts and the many forms of tools and weapons, of which fragments are so constantly present in the hoards of the ancient bronze-founders. It is in this third stage that the bronze sword and the true socketed spear-head first make their advent. The number of these hoards, and the varieties in the forms of these swords and spear-heads, as well as in the socketed celts and other tools, would, I think, justify us in assigning a minimum duration of some four or five centuries to this last stage. The other two stages together must probably have extended over at least an equal lapse of time; so that for the total duration of the Bronze Period in Britain we cannot greatly err in attributing eight or ten centuries. This would place the beginning of the Period some 1,200 or 1,400 years b.c.—a date which in many respects would seem to fit in with what we know as to the use of bronze in the southern parts of Europe.1757

Although I have thus attempted to assign a definite chronology to our Bronze Age, I do so with all reserve, as any such attempt is founded upon what are at best imperfect data, and each of the stages I have mentioned may have been of far longer duration than I have suggested, though it is not likely that any of them should have been materially shorter.

There is, it must be acknowledged, the difficulty which I have already mentioned, as to the absence of nearly all traces of the later stages of the Bronze Period in the graves and barrows that have been examined in Britain.1758 The reason of this absence has still to be discovered; but it may perhaps have been the case that during this time the method or fashion of interring the dead underwent some change, and the practice of placing weapons and ornaments with the bodies of departed friends and relatives fell into disuse. Among the bronze-using occupants of the Yorkshire Wolds, whose burial-places have been explored by Canon Greenwell, the interments by inhumation were much in excess over those which took place after cremation, but in other parts of England the proportions are reversed. Out of fourteen instances 1759 in which bronze articles were associated with an interment, it was only in two that the body had been burnt; or taking the whole number of burials, viz. 301 by inhumation and 78 after cremation, bronze articles were found with 4 per cent. of the burials of the former kind and only 2½ per cent. with those of the latter. This seems to point to a tendency towards departing from the old custom of burying weapons with the dead for use in a future life. And, indeed, if the custom of burning the dead became general, the inducement to place such objects among mere dust and ashes would be but small. An urn or a small recess in the ground would suffice to contain the mightiest warrior, and his weapons would be out of place beside the little calcined heap which was left by the purifying fire. Even the practice of raising mounds or barrows over the interments may have ceased, and “when the funeral pyre was out and the last valediction over, men took a lasting adieu of their interred friends.”

It has been suggested that the absence of the later bronze forms with interments is due to a superstitious reverence for the older forms, so that the habit of burying the flat wedge-shaped axe 1760 and the dagger with the dead continued down to the later Age of Bronze; but I cannot accept this view.

In Scandinavia 1761 interments with which bronze swords and other weapons are associated, have frequently been discovered; and in some instances in which coffins, hollowed out in trunks of trees, have been used, even the clothing has been preserved. In this country also coffins of the same kind have occasionally been discovered, but the bronze objects which have been placed in them are of the same character as those which are found in the barrows of the district, and never comprise socketed weapons or swords. Stone weapons are also occasionally present. Remains of clothing made of skins and of woven woollen fabric have also been found. The best-known instance of the discovery of the latter was in a barrow at Scale House,1762 near Rylston, Yorkshire, examined by Canon Greenwell, who has recorded other instances of these tree-burials. Neither bronze nor stone were in this instance present.

It is not, however, my intention to dilate upon the burial customs of our Bronze Age, as they have already been so fully discussed by Canon Greenwell, Dr. Thurnam, Sir John Lubbock, and others.

It will now be desirable to say something as to the sources from which the use of bronze in this country was derived, though on this subject also much has already been written.

The four principal views held by different authors have thus been summarized by Colonel A. Lane Fox, now General Pitt Rivers:—1763

1. That bronze was spread from a common centre by an intruding and conquering race, or by the migration of tribes.

2. That the inhabitants of each separate region in which bronze is known to have been used discovered the art independently, and made their own implements of it.

3. That the art was discovered and the implements fabricated on one spot, and the implements disseminated from that place by means of commerce.

4. That the art of making bronze was diffused from a common centre, but that the implements were constructed in the countries in which they were found.

For a full discussion of these hypotheses I must refer the reader to General Pitt Rivers’ Paper, but I shall here make use of some of the information which he has collected, premising that in my opinion there is a certain amount of truth embodied in each of these opinions.

The first view, of an intruding and conquering race having introduced the use of bronze into their country, has been held by most of the Scandinavian antiquaries, and Professor Boyd Dawkins seems to regard a Celtic invasion and conquest of the Iberic peoples in Britain as having been the means by which the knowledge of bronze was extended from Gaul to these islands. The osteological evidence in favour of the bronze-using Britons having as a rule been of a different race from the stone-using people of our Neolithic times is strongly corroborative of such a view; as is also the change which is to be noted in the burial customs of the two periods. Such an immigration or conquest must, however, have taken place at a very early period if we accept Sir John Lubbock’s 1764 view, that between b.c. 1500 and b.c. 1200 the Phœnicians were already acquainted with the mineral fields of Britain, a period at which it must not be forgotten the use of bronze had long been known in Egypt. Although it is true that at present we have no satisfactory proof of any Phœnician influence on the people of our Bronze Age, yet if at so early a period there was an export of tin from this country, the search for that metal and the means employed for its production would almost of necessity tend to an acquaintance with copper also, even supposing, what is improbable, that those who traded for tin in order to manufacture bronze with it kept the knowledge of this latter alloy from those with whom they had commercial relations, or that the natives of Britain were not already acquainted with more metals than tin when the trade first began. But to this subject I shall recur. It may be observed by the way that the date assigned for this Phœnician intercourse corresponds in a remarkable manner with the date assigned for the earliest instances of the use of bronze in Britain, which was suggested on other grounds.

The second view of the independent discovery of bronze in different regions has little or nothing to support it so far as the different countries of Europe are concerned, though there is a possibility that the discovery of copper and of the method of alloying it with tin, so as to produce bronze, may have been made independently in America. But it may even there be the case that the knowledge of bronze was imported from Asia.1765 In Europe, however, when once the use of the metal was known, there were certain types of weapons and implements developed in different countries which in a certain sense may be regarded as instances of independent discoveries.

The third view, that the art was discovered at some single spot at which subsequently implements were manufactured and disseminated by commerce must, at least to a limited extent, be true. Wherever the discovery of bronze may have been made, there is ample evidence of its use having spread over the greater part of Europe if not of Asia; and at first the spread of bronze weapons and tools was in all probability by commerce. Even subsequently there were local centres, such as Etruria, from which the manufactured products were exported into neighbouring countries, as well as to those lying to the north of the Alps. Some even of the bronze vases found in Ireland, though themselves not of Etruscan manufacture, bear marks of Etruscan influences in their form and character. In each country in Europe there may have been one or more localities in which the manufacture of bronze objects was principally carried on, though it may now be impossible to identify the spots. Such large hoards of unfinished castings as those of Plénée Jugon, and other places in Brittany, prove that district, for instance, to have been at one time a kind of manufacturing centre. Indeed, a socketed celt of Breton type, unused, and still retaining the burnt clay core, has been found on our southern coast.

The process of casting, as practised by the ancient bronze-founders, was, moreover, one requiring a great amount of skill; and though there appear to have been wandering founders, who, like the bell-founders of mediæval times, could practise their art at any spot where their services were required, yet there were probably fixed foundries also, where the process of manufacture could be more economically carried on, and where successive generations passed through some sort of apprenticeship to learn the art and mystery of the trade.

The fourth opinion, that the use of bronze spread from some single centre, though implements were manufactured in greater or less abundance in each country where the use of bronze prevailed, is one that must commend itself to all archæologists. It does not, of course, follow that in any given district the bronze tools and weapons were all of home manufacture, and none of them imported. There is, on the contrary, evidence to be found in most countries that some, at least, of the bronze instruments found there are of foreign manufacture, and introduced either by commerce or by the foreign travel of individuals.

Where the original centre was placed, from which the European use of bronze was propagated, is an enigma still under discussion, and one which will not readily be solved. Appearances at present seem to point to its having been situate in Western Asia;1766 but the whole question of the origin and development of the Bronze civilisation has been so recently discussed by my friend Professor Boyd Dawkins, in his “Early Man in Britain,” that it appears needless here to repeat the opinions of which he has given so good an abstract. Suffice it to say, that it has been proposed to regard the bronze antiquities of Europe as belonging generally to three provinces,1767 the boundaries of which, however, cannot be very accurately defined. These provinces are—the Uralian, comprising Russia, Siberia, and Finland; the Danubian, which consists of the Hungarian, Scandinavian, and Britannic sub-divisions or regions; and the Mediterranean, composed of the Italo-Greek and Franco-Swiss sub-divisions.

I must confess that I do not attach such high importance to this classification as at first sight it would seem to merit; for on a close examination it appears to me to involve several serious incongruities. Take, for instance, the Danubian province, and it will be found that the differences in type of bronze instruments belonging to the Hungarian region, when compared with those of the British, are on the whole greater than the difference presented when they are compared with the types of the Italian region, which, however, is made to belong to another province. There is, moreover, a difficulty in synchronizing the antiquities belonging to different provinces or regions, so as to be sure that any comparisons between them are of real value. Taking, for example, the Uralian province, it will at once be seen that though in Finland some Scandinavian types occur, such as swords and palstaves, yet the great majority of the bronze antiquities belonging to it, so far as at present known, consist of socketed celts, often with two loops; of daggers, with their hafts cast in one piece with the blade; and of perforated axes, sometimes with the representations of the heads of animals; in fact, of objects which evidently belong to a very late stage in the evolution of bronze, and which, as Mr. Worsaae has pointed out, not improbably show traces of Chinese influence. Such objects can hardly be satisfactorily compared with those of a province in which the whole development of bronze instruments, from the flat celt and small knife, to the socketed celt and the skilfully cast spear-head and sword, can be traced.

All things considered, I think it will be better and safer to content ourselves for the present with less extensive provinces; and, so far as these are concerned, the sub-divisions already enumerated may be accepted, and are quite sufficiently large, if, indeed, they are not too extensive. In the Britannic province, a part of France is included by M. Chantre, and there are certainly close analogies between many of the types of the south of England and those of the north and north-west of France. For the purpose of the present work, though accepting M. Chantre’s boundary in the main, I shall, however, restrict the Britannic province to the British Isles.

On a general examination of our British types it is satisfactory to see how complete a series of links in the chain of development of the bronze industry is here to be found, though many of them bear undoubted marks of foreign influence, and prove that though some of the types were of native growth, yet that others were originally imported. On general grounds, I have assigned an antiquity of 1,200 or 1,400 years b.c. to the introduction of the use of bronze into this country, but it is a question whether this antiquity will meet all the necessities of the case; for we can hardly imagine the Phœnicians, or those who traded with them, landing in Britain and spontaneously discovering tin. On the contrary, it must have been from a knowledge that the inhabitants of Britain were already producers of this valuable metal that the commerce with them originated; and the probable reason that tin was sought for by the native Britons was in order to mix it with copper, a metal which occurs native in the same district as the tin. If, therefore, the Phœnician intercourse, direct or indirect, commenced about 1500 b.c., the knowledge of the use of tin, and probably also of copper, dates back in Britain to a still earlier epoch.

A comparison of the various British types of tools and weapons with those of Continental countries has been frequently instituted in the preceding pages, but it will be well here to recapitulate some of the principal facts. We have in Britain the flat form of celt in some abundance, though none of the specimens exhibit traces of being direct imitations of hatchets formed of stone, as would probably have been the case in any country where the use of metal for such instruments originated. And yet many of our British flat celts exhibit a certain degree of originality, inasmuch as they are decorated with hammer- or punch-marks in a manner peculiar to this country, and others in a fashion but rarely seen abroad. We can trace the development of the flanged celt from the flat variety, through specimens with almost imperceptible flanges, the result merely of hammering the sides, to those with the flanges produced in the casting. At the same time, the flanges are never so fully developed as in some of the French examples.

The development of a stop-ridge between the flanges, which eventually culminated in the ordinary palstave form, can probably be better observed in the British series than in that of any other country. At the same time, the origin of the other form of palstave—that without a definite stop-ridge, and with semicircular wings bent over so as to form a kind of side-pocket—can best be traced on the Continent, and especially in the south of France. It was from this form of palstave that the socketed celt was developed, and although this development seems to have taken place abroad, possibly in Western Germany, the form was introduced into Britain at an early period of its existence, as is proved by the semicircular projections and curved “flanches” so common on the faces of the socketed celts of this country.

Our knife-daggers may originally have been of foreign introduction, but evidently belong to a time when metal was scarce, and like the flat and slightly-flanged celts have often been found associated with stone implements. The dagger-blades of stouter make, which seem to have succeeded them, show analogies with French, Italian, and German examples; but similar blades, with a tang such as those from the Arreton Down hoard, seem to be almost peculiar to Britain. The fact, however, that the socketed blade found with them has its analogues both in Switzerland and Egypt suggests the probability of the tanged form being also of foreign, and possibly Mediterranean origin; indeed, a specimen is reported to have been found in Italy.

Our halberd blades with the three rivets are nearly allied to those of northern Germany; and the type appears never to be found in France, though I have met with a solitary example in Southern Spain, and the form is not unknown in Italy, there being one from the province of Mantua in the British Museum. Socketed chisels, hammers, and gouges were probably derived from a foreign source; but tanged chisels, though not absolutely wanting in the North of France, are more abundant in the British Isles than elsewhere. Long narrow chisels with tangs were, however, present in the great Bologna hoard.

Bronze socketed sickles are almost peculiar to the British Isles, though they have occasionally been found in the North of France. The flat form, from which they must have been developed, is of rare occurrence, though not unknown in Britain. Its origin is to be sought in the South of Europe, though the British examples more closely resemble German and Danish forms than those of any other country. Tanged single-edged knives are almost unknown in our islands, though so abundant in the Swiss Lake-dwellings and in the South of France. Double-edged knives with a socket are, however, almost peculiar to Britain and Ireland, though they are found in small numbers in the North of France. The tanged razor may also be regarded as one of our specialities, though not unknown in Italy. Most of the foreign varieties have a ring for suspension at the end of the tang, a peculiarity almost unknown in Britain.

Bronze swords, no doubt, originated on the Continent; and as such long thin blades required great skill in casting, it seems probable that their manufacture was to some extent localized at particular spots, and that they formed an important article of commerce. The same type has been discovered in countries wide apart, and many of those found in Scandinavia are now regarded as being of foreign origin. Still there are some British types which are rarely or never found abroad, and the discovery of moulds proves conclusively that both leaf-shaped and rapier-shaped blades were cast in these islands. The latter kind of blades are, indeed, almost exclusively confined to Britain and the north of France. Bronze scabbard-ends, as distinct from mere chapes, seem also to be confined to the same tract of country.

When we turn to the spear-heads of these islands we find that though the leaf-shaped form prevails over the greater part of Europe, yet that those with loops at the side of the socket and with loops at the base of the blade are common in the British Isles, while they are extremely rare in France, and almost unknown elsewhere. The same may be said of the type with the small eyelet-holes in the blade, and of those with barbs. Those with crescent-shaped openings in the blades are also almost unknown elsewhere, though one example has been found in Russia. Our bronze shields with numerous concentric rings are also specially British.

Among ornaments formed of bronze, there are few, if any, that we can claim as our own. Our torques seem more nearly connected with those of the Rhine district than of any other part of Europe. Our bracelets, which are not common, hardly present any special peculiarities, and brooches we have none.

Our spheroidal caldrons seem to be of native type, but with them are vases which almost undoubtedly show an Etruscan influence in their origin.

We have here then, I think, sufficient proof that Britain, though not unaffected by foreign influences, and in fact deriving many of the types of its tools and weapons from foreign sources, was, nevertheless, a local centre in which the Bronze civilisation received a special and high development; and where, had extraneous influences been entirely absent after the time when the knowledge of Bronze was first introduced, the evolution of forms would probably have differed in but few particulars from that which is now exhibited by the prevailing types found in this country.

If we compare these British types with those of the other regions which together make up the so-called Danubian province, we shall at once be struck, not by the analogies presented, but by the marked difference in the general facies.

Taking Scandinavia to begin with, and Mr. Worsaae’s types as giving the characteristics of that region, what do we find? The perforated axe-hammers and axes of bronze are here entirely wanting; the tanged swords and the majority of those with decorated hilts are also unknown. There is hardly a type of dagger common to this country and Scandinavia. The saws, knives, and razors are of quite another character, but there is a resemblance in the sickles to a rare British type. The flat and flanged celts of the two regions are of nearly the same kind, and in one rare instance there is a similar decoration on a reputedly Danish and on an Irish celt. The palstaves, however, are of an entirely different character, with the exception of the form with semicircular wings, which is not essentially British. The socketed celts are nearly all unlike those of this country; and though the leaf-shaped spear-heads present close analogies, the looped and eyed kinds are absent. The shields are of a different character from ours. The tutuli and diadems are here unknown. There is but one form of torque common to this country and Denmark. Brooches, combs, and small hanging vases are never met with in Britain; and the spiral, whether formed of wire or engraved as an ornament, is conspicuous by its absence.

If we take the Hungarian region, we are driven to much the same conclusions. The perforated axes and pick-axes, principally formed of copper, the semicircular sickles, the spiral ornaments, the swords with engraved hilts of bronze, and several forms of minor importance are absent in Britain, while the socketed celts and the majority of the palstaves are of markedly different types, though that with the semicircular wings hammered over is of common occurrence in Hungary.

In Northern Germany the types of bronze may be regarded as intermediate between those of Hungary and Scandinavia, though in some few respects presenting closer analogies with those of Britain, with which, as will subsequently be seen, there may have been some commercial intercourse. The connection between British and German types is, however, but small, and on the whole I think that the evidence here brought forward is sufficient to prove that the British Isles can hardly be properly classified as forming part of any Danubian province of bronze.

The connection between France and Britain during the Bronze Period cannot be denied, and in many respects there is an identity of character between the bronze antiquities of the North of France and those of the South of England. The North of France cannot, however, at any time since the first discovery of bronze, have been absolutely shut out from all communication with the South and East. The East must always have been affected by the habits of those who occupied what is now Western Germany; and the South can hardly have been exempt from the influence of Italy, if not, indeed, of other Mediterranean countries. I am inclined to think that these external influences acted also on the bronze industry of Britain, not so much directly as indirectly, and that some of the types in this country may be traced to an Italian or German origin as readily as to a French.

It is, I think, a fact that as close a resemblance in type, so far as regards our earliest bronze instruments, may be found among Italian examples as among French. Many of the slightly flanged celts of Italy can hardly be distinguished from those of Britain, except by the faces of the latter being more frequently decorated; and there is also a great similarity between the dagger-blades of the two countries. In the later forms, such as palstaves and socketed celts, the difference between British and Italian examples is sufficiently striking. May it not be the case that at the time when first the commerce between Britain and the Mediterranean countries originated, always assuming that such a commerce took place, the flanged celt was the most advanced type of hatchet known by those who came hither to trade, and the palstave and socketed form were subsequently developed? At a later period it was the German influence that was felt in Britain, rather than the Italian, for our socketed celts appear, as already stated, to have had the cradle of their family in Western Germany; and the few flat sickles that have been found in Britain, as well as the more numerous torques, show a closer connection in type with those of Germany than with those of France or any other country. Whether this introduction of what appear to be North German types can in any way be attributed to commercial relations between the two countries, and especially to a trade in amber, is worth consideration. The abundance of amber ornaments in some of the graves of our Bronze Period shows how much that substance was in use. At the same time, the eastern shores of England might have furnished it in sufficient quantity to supply the demand, without having recourse to foreign sources. I have known amber thrown up on the beach so far south as Deal.

A curious feature in the comparison of the later bronze antiquities of Britain and those of France, is the marked absence of many of the forms which abound in the remains of the Lake-dwellings of Savoy, as well as in those of Switzerland. A glance through “Rabut’s Album”1768 or “Keller’s Lake-dwellings,” will at once show how few of the specimens there figured could pass as having been discovered in the British Isles. The large proportion of ornaments to tools and weapons is also striking. There is, indeed, as M. Chantre has pointed out, a closer connection between the bronze antiquities of the South of France and those of Switzerland and Northern Italy, than with those of Northern France.

Even the character of the ornaments is in many cases essentially different. The hollowed form of bronze bracelet, made from a thin plate bent in such a manner as to show a semicircular section, is entirely wanting in Britain, and is very rarely found in the North of France.

Enough has, however, now been said in favour of regarding Britain as one of those centres into which a knowledge of the use of bronze was introduced at a comparatively early date, and where a special development of the bronze industry arose, extending over a lengthened period, and modified from time to time by foreign influences. On the transition from bronze to iron, it is not necessary here further to enlarge. I have, in treating of the different forms of tools and weapons, pointed out those which I considered to belong to the close of the Bronze Period; and it is probable that these forms for some time continued in use, side by side with those made of the more serviceable metal, iron, which ultimately drove bronze from the field, except for ornamental purposes or for those uses for which a fusible metal was best adapted. It seems probable that, as was the case in Mediterranean countries, some of the socketed weapons, such as spear-heads, which were more easily cast than forged, may for some time have been made of bronze in preference to iron; but at present our knowledge of any transitional period is slight, and this question would be best treated of in a work on the Late Celtic or Early Iron Period of Britain.

Among the ornaments in use in this country during the Bronze Period, are some, the history of which, if it could be traced, might throw light upon the foreign intercourse of that time, for glass and ivory were probably not of native production.1769 Glass beads have occasionally been found in barrows of the Bronze Age, nearly always in our southern counties, and with burnt interments. They are usually small tubes of opaque glass of a light blue or green colour, with the outer surface divided into rounded segments, so as to give the appearance of a number of spheroidal beads side by side. I am not aware of any having been discovered with interments of the Bronze Age on the Continent, but it seems probable that such beads have been found, and they may eventually assist in marking out the lines of ancient commerce with this country. A few larger beads, with spiral serpent-like ornaments upon them, have likewise been found; but these, also, I am unable to compare with any Continental examples. The finding of glass, however, in tombs belonging to the early portion of our Bronze Age is suggestive of some method of intercourse, direct or indirect, with Mediterranean countries. The small quoit-like pendants, formed of a greenish vitrified material, which have been found in Sussex 1770 with burnt interments of the Bronze Age, closely resemble Egyptian porcelain, and their presence in this country corroborates this suggestion.

The discovery of beads made in sets like those of glass, of a bracelet, buttons, pins, and hooks, all, in Dr. Thurnam’s opinion, formed of ivory, gives indications in the same direction; for though billiard balls have been manufactured from Scottish mammoth ivory of the Pleistocene Period, the fossil tusks found in Britain are, as a rule, too much decomposed to be any longer of service, and in this respect differ materially from the fossil mammoth tusks of Siberia, which still furnish so much of our table cutlery with handles.

For the jet and amber ornaments of the Bronze Period we have not, of necessity, to go so far afield as for glass. Abundance of jet is to be obtained in our own country, and the usual type of jet necklace,1771 with a series of flat plates, seems to be essentially British. Some of the amber plates found at Hallstatt are, however, of the same form, and perforated in the same manner, so that possibly these jet necklaces may have been made in imitation of foreign prototypes in amber. How far the amber ornaments of the Bronze Period in Britain were of native production we have no good means of judging; but the circumstance just mentioned is suggestive of Hallstatt and Britain having been supplied from a common source, which may have been on the shores of the Baltic. On the other hand, our amber ornaments differ, as a rule, from those of Scandinavia, and, as already remarked, our eastern coast would furnish an ample supply of the raw material without seeking it abroad. It must, however, be remembered that some of the forms of our bronze instruments show traces of German influence, and that in Strabo’s time both amber and ivory were among the articles exported from Celtic Gaul to Britain. The remarkable amber cup from the Hove barrow, near Brighton, I have described elsewhere.1772

It remains for me to say a few words as to the general condition of the inhabitants of Britain during the Bronze Age; but on this subject, apart from the light thrown upon it by the tools, weapons, and ornaments which I have been describing, and by the contents of the graves of the period, we have in this country but little to guide us. Such a complete insight into the material civilisation of the period as that afforded by the Lake-dwellings of Switzerland, Savoy, and Northern Italy is nowhere vouchsafed to us in Britain. The Irish crannoges, which, in many respects, present close analogies with the pile-buildings, have remained in use until mediæval times, and in no instance has the destruction of a settlement by fire contributed to preserve for the instruction of future ages the household goods of the population. The nearest approach to a Lake-dwelling in England is that examined in Barton Mere,1773 Suffolk, where, however, the results were comparatively meagre. A single spear-head was found, apparently of the type of Fig. 406, and the remains of various animals used for food, including the urus and the hare, which latter in Cæsar’s time the Britons did not eat.

The information to be gained from the burial customs and the contents of the graves has already been gathered by the late Dr. Thurnam and by Canon Greenwell, as well as by other antiquaries, and I cannot do better than refer to the forty-third volume of the “Archæologia,” and to “British Barrows.”1774 I may, however, shortly depict some of the principal features of the external conditions of the bronze-using population of these islands, taken as a whole, for no doubt the customs and condition of the people were by no means uniform throughout the whole extent of the country at any given moment of time.

As to their dwellings, we seem to have no positive information, but they probably were of much the same character as those of the Swiss Lake population, except that for the most part they were placed upon the dry land, and not on platforms above the water. Their clothing was sometimes of skins, sometimes of woollen cloth, and probably of linen also, as they were acquainted with the arts of spinning and weaving. Of domesticated animals they possessed the dog, ox, sheep, goat, pig, and finally the horse. They hunted the red deer, the roe, the wild boar, the hare, and possibly some other animals. For the chase and for warfare their arrows were tipped with flint, and not with bronze: and some other stone instruments, such as scrapers, remained in use until the end of the period. At the beginning, as has already often been stated, the axe, the knife-dagger, and the awl were the only articles of bronze in use. For obtaining fire, a nodule of pyrites and a flake of flint sufficed. Some cereals were cultivated, as is shown by the bronze sickles. Pottery they had of various forms, some apparently made expressly for sepulchral purposes; but they were unacquainted with the potter’s wheel. Some vessels of amber and shale, turned in the lathe, may have been imported from abroad. Ornaments were worn in less profusion than in Switzerland; but the torque for the neck, the bracelet, the ear-ring, the pin for the dress and for the hair, were all in use, though brooches were unknown. Necklaces, or gorgets, formed of amber, jet, and bone beads were not uncommon; and the ornaments of glass and ivory, such as those lately mentioned, were probably obtained by foreign commerce. Gold, also, was often used for decorating the person, though coins, and apparently even the metal silver, were unknown. They appear to have been accomplished workers and carvers of wood and horn, and there were among them artificers who inlaid wood and amber with minute gold pins almost or quite as skilfully as the French workmen of the last century, who wrought on tortoise-shell. In casting and hammering out bronze they attained consummate skill, and their spear-heads and wrought shields could not be surpassed at the present day. The general equipment of the warrior in the shape of swords, daggers, halberds, spears, &c., and the tools of the workman, such as hatchets, chisels, gouges, hammers, &c., have, however, all been dealt with at large in previous pages. They contrast with the arms and instruments of the preceding Neolithic Age more by their greater degree of perfection than by their absolute number and variety. The material progress from one stage of civilisation to the other was no doubt great, but the interval between the two does not approach that which exists between Palæolithic man of the old River-drifts and Neolithic man of the present configuration of the surface of Western Europe.

So far as the general interest attaching to the Bronze Period is concerned, it may readily be conceded that it falls short of that with which either of the two stages of the Stone Period which preceded it must be regarded. The existence of numerous tribes of men who are, or were until lately, in the same stage of culture as the occupants of Europe during the Neolithic Age, affords various points of comparison between ancient and modern savages which are of the highest interest, while there exists at the present day not a single community in which the phases of the Bronze culture can be observed. The Palæolithic Age has, moreover, a charm of mysterious eld attaching to it as connected with the antiquity of the human race which is peculiarly its own.

The Bronze Age, nevertheless, from its close propinquity to the period of written history, is of the highest importance to those who would trace back the course of human progress to its earliest phases; and though in this country many of the minute details of the picture cannot be filled in, yet, taken as a whole, the broad lines of the development of this stage of civilisation may be as well traced in Britain as in any other country. It has been a pleasure to me to gather the information on which this work is based; and I close these pages with the consolatory thought that, dry as may be their contents, they may prove of some value as a hoard of collected facts for other seekers after truth.

FINIS

Footnotes

1 See postea, p. 40.

2 Butler, “Prehist. Wisconsin.”

3 “Preh. Copper Impl.,” Boston, 1879.

4 “Anc. Mon. of the Mississ. Valley,” p. 202.

5 “Les Voyages du Sieur de Champlain,” Paris, 1613, pp. 246-7, cited by Slafter, op. cit., p. 13.

6 For notices of American copper instruments see, in addition to the works already quoted, Wilson, “Prehist. Man,” vol. i. p. 205, &c.; Lubbock, “Preh. Times,” p. 258, &c. See also an interesting article by Dr. Emil Schmidt, in Archiv. für Anth., vol. xi. p. 65.

7 A Peruvian chisel analyzed by Vauquelin gave ·94 of copper and ·06 of tin (Moore’s “Anc. Mineralogy,” p. 42).

8 Ezra, ch. viii. v. 27.

9 Exod., ch. xxvi. v. 37.

10 Numbers, ch. xxxi. v. 22.

11 Ch. xxviii. v. 1, 2.

12 Genesis, ch. iv. v. 22.

13 Smith’s “Dict. of the Bible,” s. v.

14 “Anc. Egyptians,” vol. iii. p.

[15] “Phönicier,” ii. 3.

16 “Anc. Egyptians,” vol. iii. pp. 246, 247. See also “The Egyptians in the Time of the Pharaohs,” p. 99.

17 “Etudes sur l’Antiquité Historique d’après les sources Egyptiennes,” &c., 1872, p. 69.

18 “Catalogue de Boulaq,” pp. 247, 248; Chabas, p. 54. See also Emil Soldi, “L’Art Egyptien,” 1879, p. 41.

19 Catal., No. 5410.

20 Day, “Preh. Use of Iron and Steel,” page 14.

21 Day, op. cit., p. 32.

22 Wilkinson, op. cit., vol. iii. p. 247.

23 “Les Métaux dans les Inscrip. Egypt.,” 1877, p. 57.

24 “Zeitsch. f. Ægypt. Sprache,” &c., 1870, p. 114.

25 Op. cit., p. 67. Dr. Birch translates ba en pe “heavenly wood” or “stone” (Arch., vol. xxxviii. p. 377; Hierog. Dict.). See also a paper by the Rev. Basil Cooper in Trans. Devon. Assoc., vol. ii. p. 386, and Day, “Preh. Use of Iron and Steel,” p. 41.

26 Chabas, op. cit., p. 47. Lepsius, op. cit., p. 57.

27 “Photii Bibliotheca,” ed. 1653, col. 1343.

28 “Herod.,” lib. ii. c. 152.

29 Trans. Ethnol. Soc., vol. iv. p. 5.

30 Soldi, “L’Art Egypt.,” p. 25.

31 Χαλκεύειν δὲ καὶ τὸ σιδηρεύειν έλεγον, καὶ χαλκεάς, τοὺς τὸν σίδηρον ἐργαζομένους (Julius Pollux, “Onomasticon,” lib. vii. cap. 24).

32 “Lectures on the Science of Language,” 2nd S., 1864, p. 229; Tylor’s “Anahuac,” 1861, p. 140.

33 “Lectures on the Science of Language,” 2nd S., p. 231.

34 “Studies on Homer and the Homeric Age,” vol. iii. pp. 498, 499.

35 The reference is to Millin, “Minéralogie Homérique,” pp. 126, 132.

36 “Metallurgy—Fuel, Fireclays, Copper,” &c., p. 6.

37 Moore, “Anc. Mineralogy,” p. 57.

38 Rev. Arch., N.S., vol. iv. p. 97; Æsch. Agamem., v. 612. Professor Rolleston is inclined to refer the expression to the “tempering” of bronze (Trans. Brist. and Glouc. Arch. Soc., 1878).

39 Rossignol, “Les Métaux dans l’Ant.,” p. 238.

40 “Æn.,” viii. 450.

41 “Iliad,” xviii. 474.

42 xi. 24.

43 xi. 34.

44 xviii. 574.

45 “Il.,” xviii. 612.

46 xxiii. 561. For these and other instances see Prof. Phillips in the Arch. Journ., vol. xvi. p. 10.

47 Desor et Favre, “Bel Age du Bronze,” p. 16.

48 Holtzapffel, “Turning and Mechanical Manipulation,” vol. i. p. 271.

49 “Æneid,” vii. 743.

50 “Iliad,” iii. 363.

51 “Il.,” iii. 348, vii. 259.

52 M. Ch. Houssel in Rev. Arch., N.S., vol. iv. p. 98.

53 “Il.,” xi. 24.

54 Arch. für Anthrop., vol. viii. p. 295; Müller, “Fragm. Hist. Græc.,” vol. i. p. 549.

55 “Il.,” xiii. 612.

56 “Odyss.,” i. v. 184.

57 Plin. “Hist. Nat.,” lib. vii. c. lvi. 6.

58 Lib. viii. c. 14, § 5.

59 Op. cit., lib. iii. c. 12, § 8.

60 Diodorus Siculus, lib. v. c. 64.

61 Strabo, “Geog.,” lib. xiv. p. 935, ed. 1807.

62 Callimachus, “Hymn. in Del.,” l. 31.

63 “Anc. Stone Imp.,” p. 5.

64 Archiv für Anthrop., 1880, vol. xii. p. 293.

65 “Iliad,” lib. xxiii. v. 826.

66 “Troad.,” 143.

67 “Æn.,” lib. vii. 743.

68 “Op. et D.,” i. 150. Τοῖς δ̓ ἧν χάλκεα μὲν τεύχεα χάλκεοι δέ τέ οἶκοι
Χαλκῷ δ̓ ἐιργάζοντο, μέλας δ̓ ὀυκ ἔσχε σίδηρος.

69 Lib. v. 1282, et seqq.

70 “Juv. Mundi,” 1869, p. 26.

71 “Scut. Hercul.,” v. 122-138.

72 “Theogon.,” v. 161.

73 “Op. et D.,” v. 741.

74 “Olymp.,” od. i. 123; “Nem.,” od. x. 113, &c.

75 Lib. i. c. 215.

76 Lib. iii. c. 23.

77 Lib. iv. c. 71.

78 Lib. vii. c. 85.

79 Lib. iii. p. 208, ed. 1707.

80 Bochart’s “Phaleg.,” p. 208, cited in Arch. Æliana, vol. i. p. 52.

81 “Anc. Stone Imp.,” p. 4.

82 “Lacon.,” lib. iii. cap. iii.

83 Herod., lib. i. c. 67.

84 Plutarch, “Thes.,” p. 17, c. Ed. 1624.

85 “Nat. Hist.,” lib. xxxiv. cap. 14.

86 See “Zeitsch. für Eth.,” vol. ii, 1870, p. 131.

87 “Vit. Caii Marii,” 420, b.

88 “Bell. Gall.,” iii. 13; vii. 22.

89 Lib. v. 12.

90 Trans. Ethnol. Soc., vol. iv. p. 190. See also Anthrop. Rev., vol. iv. p. 76.

91 Trans. Eth. Soc., vol. v. p. 105; “Preh. Times,” 4th ed., p. 18.

92 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xxii. p. 73.

93 See Rossignol, “Les Métaux dans l’Ant.,” p. 205.

94 Cochet, “Le Tombeau de Childéric,” i. p. 17.

95 “Sammlung zu Sigmaringen,” p. 153.

96 Archiv. für Anthropol., vol. viii. p. 161.

97 Archiv., vol. ix. p. 127.

98 Op. cit., p. 141.

99 Op. cit., p. 185.

100 Arch. für Anthrop., vol. ix. p. 181.

101 A. f. A., vol. x. p. 27.

102 Arch. f. Anthrop., vol. x. pp. 41, 63.

103 Mortillet, “Fonderie de Larnaud,” 32, 33.

104 Trans. Brist. and Glouc. Arch. Soc., 1878.

105 Cap. xix. v. 24.

106 P. 329, l. 23. NEQVE HIC ATRAMENTVM, VEL PAPYRVS, AVT MEMBRANA VLLA ADHVC, SED MALLEOLO ET CELTE LITERATVS SILEX. This inscription is said to have been found at Pola, in Istria.

107 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. vii. p. 396.

108 Rev. John Dow in Archæol. Scot., vol. ii. p. 199. See also Pegge in the Arch., vol. ix. p. 88, and Whitaker’s “Hist. of Manchester,” vol. i. p. 24.

109 Epig. xxxiii. l. 1.

110 Vol. iii. p. 418.

111 P. 354.

112 P. 265.

113 “Itin.,” vol. iii. p. 7.

114 “Britannia,” ed. 1637, p. 188.

115 “Thoresby’s Correspondence,” vol. ii. p. 211.

116 “Nat. Hist. of Staffordshire,” 1686, p. 403.

117 “Mus. Lud. Moscard.”, Padua, 1656, fol. 305, lib. iii. c. 174.

118 “Nat. Hist. of Staff.,” p. 403.

119 P. 86.

120 Arch., vol. v. p. 110.

121 “Ants. of Cornwall,” p. 263.

122 Count de Caylus has, however, engraved two which are said to have been found at Herculaneum. He thought that they were chisels (Rec. d’Ant., vol. ii. pl. xciii. fig. 2; xciv. fig. 1).

123 Arch., vol. v. p. 106.

124 Vol. ix. p. 84.

125 “Nænia Britannica” (1793), p. 153.

126 Arch., vol. xiv. p. 98.

127 “Ancient Wilts,” vol. i. 1812, p. 203.

128 Arch., vol. xix. p. 102.

129 Archæol. Scot., vol. ii. p. 199.

130 Archæol. Æliana, vol. i. p. 17.

131 Arch., vol. xxviii. p. 418.

132 Arch. Journ., vol. iv. pp. 1 and 327.

133 Arch. Assoc. Journ., 1853, vol. ix. p. 63.

134 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xxii. p. 64.

135 Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 148, et seq.

136 Jour. Roy. Un. Service Inst., vol. xiii., 1869.

137 P. 43, et seqq. 188.

138 See Revue de la Numis. Belge, 5th Ser., vol. vi. p. 290.

139 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 392.

140 “Catal. Mus. R.I.A.,” pp. 367, 395 (Etruscan Coll., Berlin, No. 3244).

141 “Horæ Ferales,” p. 136; Arch. Journ., vol. xi. p. 169.

142 “Catal. M. R.I.A.,” p. 366.

143 “Troy and its Remains,” p. 330, &c.

144 “Cong. préh.,” Stockholm vol. i. p. 346. Proc. As. Soc. Bengal, May, 1870.

145 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 437.

146 Kenner, “Arch. Funde,” 1867, p. 29.

147 Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” fig. 178.

148 “Cong. préh.,” Bologna vol. p. 292.

149 “Cong. préh.,” Buda Pest vol. i. p. 227.

150 Bull. Soc. de Borda, Dax, 1878, p. 57.

151 “Cong. préh.,” Copenhagen vol. p. 484.

152 Morlot, Mém. Soc. Ant. du Nord, 1866-71, p. 25.

153 “British Barrows,” p. 188. The cut is Fig. 38.

154 Figs. 369 and 370, p. 407.

155 “Ten Years’ Diggings,” p. 34. “Catalogue,” p. 75. Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. vii. p. 217.

156 Vol. vii. p. 217, pl. xix.

157 Vol. xliii. p. 445.

158 “Vest. of the Ants. of Derb.,” p. 48.

159 P. 74, No. 11.

160 See “Catal.,” p. 32, No. 29.

161 Arch., vol. ix. p. 85.

162 Vol. xxii. p. 277.

163 “Nat. Hist. of Staffordshire,” tab. xxiii. p. 403.

164 Allies, p. 151, pl. iv. 11.

165 Arch. Journ., vol. vii. p. 179.

166 Op. cit., vol. xviii. p. 158.

167 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. i. p. 44.

168 P. S. A., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 251.

169 Vol. v. pl. vii. i. p. 106.

170 Arch., vol. ix. p. 378.

171 Pl. ii. 1, 2, 3.

172 “La Seine Inf.,” p. 552.

173 “Matériaux,” vol. iv. p. 525.

174 “Matériaux,” vol. v. pl. ii. 2, 3.

175 “Die ehernen Streitkeile” (1842), Taf. i. 1.

176 “First Rep. Arch. Comm. I. of Man,” pl. iv. 2.

177 “Ancient Wilts,” vol. i. p. 202, pl. xxvi.

178 Arch., vol. xliii. p. 444.

179 “Vest. Ant. Derb.,” p. 68. “Catal.,” p. 75, No. 18.

180 “Grave-mounds,” fig. 187.

181 Pl. iv. No. 4.

182 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. i. pp. 235, 250.

183 Arch. Journ., vol. xix. p. 363.

184 Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 159.

185 Arch., vol. v. p. 135, pl. viii. 14.

186 Trans. Devon Assoc., vol. v. p. 82.

187 3rd edit., 4to, 1818, pl. ii.

188 Proc. Soc. Ant., 1st S., vol. i. p. 83; Arch., vol. xxxi. p. 496; Proc. Bury and West Suff. Arch. Inst., vol. i. p. 26.

189 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. i. p. 369.

190 Vol. xxxvi. p. 329.

191 Arch., vol. v. p. 113.

192 For the loan of these cuts I am indebted to Mr. A. W. Franks, F.R.S.

193 Arch. Journ., vol. xxvi. p. 346. The scale of the cuts is there erroneously stated to be ½.

194 “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 202, pl. xxvi; Arch., vol. xliii. p. 444.

195 “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 209, pl. xxix.

196 “Anc. Wilts,” vol. ii. p. 90; Cran. Brit., xi. 7, where these objects are figured.

197 Suss. Arch. Coll., vol. ii. p. 268.

198 Chantre, “Album,” pl. iv. 2, 3. “Cong. préh.,” Bologna vol. p. 352.

199 Dict. Arch. de la Gaule. Rev. Arch., N.S., vol. xiii. Pl. i. fig. H.

200 Arch. Journ., vol. xxi. 100. Lubbock’s “Preh. Times,” p. 28, fig. 17.

201 Lisch, “Fred. Francisc.,” tab. xiii. 7.

202 Die ehernen Streitkeile, Taf. i. 5.

203 “Oldsag. fra Broholm,” pl. xxiii. 6.

204 “Afbild.,” vol. ii. pl. xxi. 6.

205 Montelius, “La Suède préh.,” fig. 42. “Cong. préh.,” Bologna vol. p. 292.

206 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 428, pl. i. fig. 1.

207 Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 167. Chichester vol. of Arch. Inst., p. 62, whence this cut is taken.

208 Arch. Camb., 4th S., vol. viii. p. 207.

209 “Afbild.,” vol. ii. pl. xxi. 2.

210 Arch. Journ., vol. xii. p. 278, xviii. p. 167.

211 Dict. Arch. de la Gaule.

212 4th S., vol. vi. p. 70. Cat. p. 1.

213 “Album,” pl. iii. 1.

214 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvii. p. 20.

215 Ibid.

216 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. iii. p. 245.

217 P. S. A. S., vol. iv. p. 187, and ix. p. 431.

218 P. S. A. S., vol. iv. p. 380.

219 P. S. A. S., vol. ix. p. 182.

220 P. S. A. S., vol. ix. p. 430.

221 Arch. Scot., vol. iii. App. II. p. 32; P. S. A. S., vol. ix. p. 431.

222 “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” 2nd ed., vol. i. p. 381.

223 Vol. ii. p. 6.

224 Op. cit., p. 7.

225 P. S. A. S., vol. ix. p. 428.

226 “Matériaux,” vol. v. pl. ii. 6, 7.

227 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. vii. p. 105.

228 P. S. A. S., vol. iii. p. 245.

229 “Preh. Ann.,” 2nd ed., vol. i. p. 381.

230 Engraved in Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvii. pl. vi. 4, p. 21.

231 P. S. A. S., vol. vi. p. 41.

232 “Itin. Septent.,” p. 116, pl. 1. No. 1.

233 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. xii. p. 601. I am indebted to the Council for the use of this cut.

234 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. viii. p. 5.

235 Madsen, “Afbild.,” vol. ii. pl. xxi. 7. See also “Ant. Tidsk.,” 1861-3, p. 24.

236 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. xii. p. 602.

237 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. xiii. p. 120. I am indebted to the Council for the loan of this cut.

238 Wilde, p. 361.

239 Vol. xxvii. p. 308.

240 Arch. Journ., vol. vi. p. 410. For the use of this cut I am indebted to Mr. A. W. Franks, F.R.S.

241 See Wilde, Fig. 249, 266.

242 Arch. Journ., vol. xi. p. 295.

243 See Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 389 et seq.; “Vallancey,” vol. iv. pl. x. 9.

244 Chantre, “Album,” pl. 1. 9, 10.

245 Nord. Oldsager, No. 176.

246 Carapanos, “Dodone,” pl. liv. 7.

247 Vol. vii. p. 74.

248 London, 1849, p. 25.

249 P. 59.

250 See Nilsson, “Skandinaviska Nordens Ur-Invånare,” p. 92.

251 “Preh. Ann.,” 2nd ed., vol. i. p. 382.

252 Baker’s “Hist. of North.,” p. 558.

253 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 373, fig. 258.

254 Arch. Journ., vol. v. p. 324.

255 Dict. Arch. de la Gaule.

256 Arch. Camb., 4th S., vol. ii. p. 21.

257 “Horæ Ferales,” pl. iv. 25.

258 Arch. Camb., 4th S., vol. viii. p. 209.

259 Arch. Camb., 4th S., vol. v. p. 13.

260 Meyrick’s “Cardigansh.” and “Ancient Arm.,” by Skelton, pl. xlvii. 1.

261 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xxxiii. p. 118.

262 Dict. Arch. de la Gaule.

263 “La Seine Inf.,” p. 272.

264 Lindenschmit, “Alt. uns. heidn. Vorz.,” vol. i. Heft. i. Taf. iv. 43.

265 Vol. ii. p. 268, No. 11.

266 Arch., vol. x. pl. x. 2, p. 132.

267 Arch. Journ., vol. ix. p. 8.

268 “Horæ Ferales,” pl. iv. 26.

269 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 38.

270 Allies, “Worc.,” p. 112, pl. iv. 4.

271 Arch. Journ., vol. xxvii. pl. x. No. 3, p. 163.

272 Suss. Arch. Coll., vol. xvii. p. 255.

273 Suss. Arch. Coll., vol. xxvii. p. 183.

274 S. A. C., vol. xxix. p. 134.

275 Trans. Dev. Assoc., vol. ii. p. 647.

276 “Montgom. Collections,” vol. iii. p. 435.

277 “Alt. u. h. Vorz.,” vol. i. Heft i. Taf. iv.

278 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. i. p. 82.

279 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xv. pl. xxv. p. 236; vol. xiv. p. 269.

280 3rd Series, vol. xiii. p. 283.

281 Proc. Soc. Ant., N.S., vol. iv. p. 442.

282 “Itin. Cur.” Cent., ii. pl. xcvi.

283 Arch. Inst., Norwich vol. p. xxvi.

284 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. iii. p. 58; Arch. Journ., vol. vi. p. 381.

285 “Alt. u. h. Vorz.,” vol. i. Heft i. Taf. iv. 48.

286 Von Braunmühl, “Alt. Deutschen Grabmäler” (1826), pl. i. 3; Schreiber, “Die ehern. Streitkeile,” Taf. i. 13, Taf. ii. 14.

287 Dict. Arch. de la Gaule.

288 “Alt. u. h. Vorz.,” vol. i. Heft i. Taf. iv. 49.

289 “La Vie Souterraine,” “Matériaux,” vol. iii. p. 100.

290 Keller, 6ter Bericht, Taf. vii. 30; 7ter Ber., Taf. ix. 30.

291 “Les Palafittes,” fig. 40.

292 Bull. di Palet. Ital., vol. i. p. 10, Tav. I. 9.

293 Arch. Journ., vol. v. p. 327.

294 Arch. Journ., vol. xxix. p. 96.

295 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xiv. p. 346.

296 Arch. Journ., vol. xvii. p. 164.

297 Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 158.

298 Plot’s “Nat. Hist. of Staffordsh.,” p. 403.

299 Arch. Journ., vol. xiii. p. 85.

300 Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 63.

301 Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 73.

302 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 412.

303 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 129.

304 Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 248.

305 Arch. Journ., vol. ix. p. 302.

306 Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 159.

307 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 251.

308 P. 112, fig. 37.

309 Proc. Soc. Ant., N.S., vol. iv. p. 442.

310 “It. Cur.” Cent., ii. pl. xcvi.

311 Suss. Arch. Coll., vol. xiv. p. 171; Arch. Journ., vol. xx. p. 192.

312 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 251; Arch. Camb., 3rd S., vol. x. p. 214; “Montgom. Coll.,” vol. iii. p. 437.

313 Vol. v. p. 113.

314 Ibid.

315 Suss. Arch. Coll., vol. viii. p. 268.

316 Arch., vol. vii. p. 417.

317 Vol. ix. p. 84, pl. iii. 1.

318 “Album,” pl. ix. 4.

319 Allies, p. 108, pl. iv. 3.

320 Arch. Camb., 3rd S., vol. xiii. p. 283.

321 Vol. xix. pl. viii. p. 102.

322 Arch., vol. xiv. p. 94.

323 Pring, “The Brit. and Rom. on the site of Taunton,” p. 76, pl. iii.

324 Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 381, fig. 273.

325 Arch. Camb., 3rd S., vol. ii. p. 130.

326 4th Ser., vol. vi. p. 20.

327 Ibid., p. 71.

328 “La Seine Inf.,” p. 14.

329 “A. u. h. V.,” vol. i. Heft i. Taf. iv. 44.

330 Suss. Arch. Coll., vol. ix. p. 366.

331 Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 160, whence this cut is reproduced.

332 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd. S., vol. i. p. 332.

333 Arch. Journ., vol. viii. p. 99, and Private Plate.

[334] Arch. Camb., 4th S., vol. viii. p. 209.

335 Arch., vol. xxxi. p. 494; Arch. Journ., vol. ii. p. 80; Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. i. p. 51; Smith’s “Coll. Ant.,” vol. i. p. 105; “Catal. Norwich Mus.,” No. 9.

336 Journ. Anthrop. Inst., vol. vi. p. 195.

337 Arch., vol. xvi. p. 363, pl. lxviii.

338 Arch., vol. v. p. 117. See Borlase, “Ant. of Cornw.,” pl. xx. 6.

339 Arch. Cant., vol. xi. p. 123.

340 Journ. Roy. Inst. of Cornw., No. 21.

341 Oldsager, fig. 184.

342 “Alt. u. h. V.,” vol. i. Heft i. Taf. iv.

343 Von Sacken, “Das. Grab. v. Hallst.,” Taf. vii.

344 Arch. Journ., vol. vi. p. 188.

345 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. ix. p. 186.

346 Arch. Journ., vol. xiii. p. 85.

347 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xii. p. 96.

348 Borlase, “Næn. Corn.,” p. 188.

349 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 398.

350 Arch. Journ., vol. ix. p. 387; vol. x. p. 247; vol. xxvii. p. 230.

351 Arch. Journ., vol. xxxvii. p. 107. For the use of this cut I am indebted to the Council of the Royal Archæological Institute.

352 Arch. Journ., vol. xxv. p. 246.

353 “Matériaux,” vol. xiv. p. 192.

354 Vol. vi. p. 69, 369.

355 Gongora y Martinez, “Ant. preh. de Andal.,” p. 110. Arch. Journ., xxvii. p. 237.

356 Arch. Journ., vol. xxvii. p. 230.

357 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. v. p. 30; Wilson’s “Preh. Ann.,” fig. 58.

358 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvii. p. 21.

359 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. vi. p. 203.

360 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. xi. p. 153.

361 Wilson’s “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” vol. i. p. 382, fig. 56; “Cat. Ant. Mus. Ed.,” E. 48.

362 Vol. ii. pp. 8 and 9.

363 Arch., vol. v. p. 113, pl. viii. No. 2; Gough’s “Camden,” vol. i. p. ccvi.

364 Gordon’s “Itin. Septent.,” p. 116, pl. 6.

365 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvii. p. 21; Wilson, “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” vol. i. p. 383.

366 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvii. p. 21.

367 “Itin. Septent.,” p. 116, pl. l. 4.

368 Arch. Journ., vol. vi. p. 377; “Cat. Mus. Arch. Inst. Ed.,” p. 27; Wilson, “Preh. Ann. Scot.,” vol. i. p. 386.

369 “Catal.,” p. 521, fig. 394.

370 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 373, fig. 258.

371 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 373, fig. 262.

372 Op. cit., p. 373, fig. 259.

373 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 373, fig. 260.

374 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 379, fig. 270.

375 Vallancey, vol. iv. pl. x. 7.

376 Vol. iv. pl. x. 2.

377 P. 381, fig. 273.

378 P. 379, fig. 265.

379 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 377, fig. 263.

380 “Catal.,” p. 433, No. 641.

381 Vol. iv. pl. x. 1.

382 “Recueil d’Antiq. Suisses,” pl. ii. 6. See also Arch. Journ., vol. vi. p. 377; vol. xxi. p. 100.

383 “Die eher. Streitkeile,” Taf. ii. 8.

384 “Recueil d’Ant.,” pl. xciv. 1.

385 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 382, fig. 274; Arch. Journ., vol. ix. p. 194.

386 Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. iii. p. 222.

387 “Catal.,” p. 521, fig. 393; Arch. Journ., vol. viii. p. 91, pl. No. 1.

388 Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. iii. p. 156.

389 Vol. iv. pl. x. 6.

390 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 521, fig. 397.

391 “Matériaux,” vol. iii. p. 395.

392 “Alt. u. h. V.,” vol. i. Heft ii. Taf. ii. 5.

393 “Cong. préh.,” Bologna vol. p. 293.

394 “Age du Br.,” ptie. i. p. 59.

395 Journ. Anthrop. Inst., vol. vi. p. 195.

396 “Surrey Arch. Soc. Coll.,” vol. vi.; Anderson’s “Croydon Preh. and Rom.,” p. 11, pl. ii. 1.

397 Suss. Arch. Coll., vol. ii. p. 268, fig. 8.

398 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 408; “Cong. Préh.” Stockholm vol., 1874, p. 444.

399 “Pfahlbauten, in M.,” 1865, p. 78.

400 Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 69.

401 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. v. p. 349; Bateman, Catal. M. 60, p. 76.

402 Stukeley, “It. Cur.,” pl. xcvi. 2nd.

403 Arch., vol. v. p. 113.

404 Arch., vol. v. p. 114.

405 Hartshorne’s “Salopia Antiqua,” 1841, p. 96, No. 9.

406 Smith’s “Coll. Ant.,” vol. i. p. 101.

407 Engraved in Arch. Journ., vol. xxvi. p. 343.

408 Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. i. p. 67; 2nd S., vol. i. p. 83.

409 “The Barrow Diggers,” p. 74.

410 Gross, “Deux Stations, &c.,” pl. i. 15, 18.

411 Arch. Camb., 3rd S., vol. x. p. 214, No. 4; “Montg. Coll.,” vol. iii. p. 437.

412 Arch. Camb., ubi sup. No. 3.

413 Arch., vol. iv. p. 24, pl. i. 6.

414 Arch., vol. v. p. 114, pl. viii. 9, 10; Gough’s “Camden,” vol. i. p. ccvi.

415 Suss. Arch. Coll., vol. ii. p. 268, fig. 7.

416 Ibid., fig. 12.

417 Arch., vol. xvii. p. 337.

418 Arch. Journ., vol. xvii. p. 75.

419 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. vii. p. 172.

420 Arch. Journ., vol. xvii. p. 75.

421 “Matériaux,” vol. i. p. 539.

422 Lindenschmit, “Alt. u. h. Vorz.,” vol. i. Heft ii. Taf. ii. 4.

423 “Zeitsch. für Eth.,” vol. vii. Taf. ix. 2.

424 Arch. Journ., vol. xxxvii. p. 94. Pring, “Brit. and Rom. on Site of Taunton,” pl. i. 1.

425 Neville’s “Sepulchra Exposita,” p. 3.

426 Arch., vol. xvi. p. 362, pl. liv.; Arch. Journ., vol. iv. p. 6.

427 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xx. p. 107, pl. vii. 5; see also vol. iii. p. 58.

428 Op. cit., vol. viii. p. 332, pl. xxxvii. 1; Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. ii. p. 304.

429 “Horæ Ferales,” pl. v. 7.

430 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. ix. p. 185.

431 Op. cit., vol. xv. p. 235.

432 Arch. Æliana, vol. i. p. 13, pl. ii. 8.

433 Evans’ “Anc. Brit. Coins,” p. 102.

434 Arch. Journ., vol. x. pp. 69, 70.

435 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. i. p. 332.

436 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 132.

437 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. i. p. 59.

438 Suss. Arch. Coll., vol. ix. p. 118, fig. 7.

439 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 31.

440 “Horæ Ferales,” pl. v. 6.

441 Journ. Roy. Inst. Corn., No. 206.

442 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 427, pl. i. 3.

443 Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 69.

444 Allies, “Worc.,” p. 18, pl. i. 1.

445 “1st Rep. Arch. Comm. I. of M.,” pl. iv. 1.

446 “Matériaux,” vol. v. pl. ii. 11.

447 Bateman’s “Catalogue,” p. 74; Marriott’s “Ant. of Lyme” (1810), p. 303.

448 Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 157.

449 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xv. pl. xxiv. 7, p. 236; Arch. Journ., vol. xv. p. 158.

450 Chantre, “Age du Bronze,” 2me partie, p. 284, fig. 81; Mém. des Ant. du Nord, 1872-7, p. 115.

451 Chantre, “Age du Bronze,” 2me partie, p. 292, fig. 138.

452 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. i. p. 106.

453 Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. ii. p. 101; 2nd S., vol. i. p. 83. See also Arch., vol. xxx. p. 491; and Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. i. p. 21.

454 Engraved also in “Horæ Ferales,” pl. v. 5.

455 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., v. p. 428.

456 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. 398.

457 This is possibly the specimen mentioned in Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. iv. 303.

458 Vol. v. 109, pl. vii. 5.

459 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. v. p. 349; Bateman’s Catal., p. 76, No. 60.

460 Arch. Scot., vol. iv. 55; Arch. Æliana, vol. ii. p. 213.

461 Allies, p. 149, pl. iv. 6.

462 “Album,” pl. x. 4.

463 Op. cit., pl. lv. 8.

464 Mém. Soc. Ant. Norm., 1827-8, pl. xvi. 4.

465 “Cong. préh.,” Bologna vol. p. 293.

466 Arch. Æliana, vol. i. p. 13, pl. ii. 7.

467 Arch. Journ., vol. xxiv. 255, pl. fig. 3.

468 Chantre, “Age du Br.,” 1re ptie. p. 59; Desor, “Les Palafittes,” fig. 39.

469 Arch. Journ., vol. vi. p. 378, whence this cut is borrowed.

470 Perrin, “Et. préh. de la Sav.,” pl. x. 4, 5; “Exp. Arch. de la Sav.,” 1878, pl. vi. 210; Chantre, “Album,” pl. lv. 3.

471 Chantre, “Album,” pl. x. 2.

472 Op. cit., pl. xl. bis. 3.

473 Gross, “Deux Stations,” pl. i. 17.

474 “Matériaux,” vol. xiv. pl. ix. 10.

475 “Matériaux,” vol. i. p. 463.

476 Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 160, whence this and fig. 157 are borrowed.

477 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. iv. 153; Arch. Inst., Norwich vol. p. xxvi.

478 Vol. viii. p. 91. The length is erroneously stated to be about 4 inches in a subsequent volume (vol. xviii. p. 164).

479 Vol. viii. 91.

480 “Nat. Hist. Staff.,” p. 404, pl. xxxiii. 7.

481 Arch., vol. v. pl. viii. 23, p. 118.

482 “Zeitsch. für Eth.,” vol. vii. Taf. viii. 4.

483 Journ. Anth. Inst., vol. vi. p. 195.

484 Arch., vol. v. pl. viii. 7, p. 114.

485 Segested, “Oldsag. fra Broholm,” pl. xxiii. 8.

486 “Anc. Wilts,” vol. ii. p. 90.

487 Arch., vol. xliii. 443.

488 Trans. Dev. Assoc., vol. iv. p. 300, pl. ii. 1.

489 Evans, “Anc. British Coins,” p. 102.

490 Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 156; Arch. Inst., York vol. Catal., p. 27.

491 “Barrow Diggers,” 1839, p. 72.

492 For the use of these cuts I am indebted to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

493 “Ayr and Wigton Coll.,” vol. ii. p. 10.

494 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. vii. p. 196.

495 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. ix. p. 435.

496 “Preh. Ann. Scot.,” vol. i. pp. 351, 384.

497 P. S. A. S., vol. ii. p. 153.

498 P. S. A. S., vol. xii. p. 209.

499 P. S. A. S., vol. iv. p. 396.

500 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvii. pl. xi. 5, p. 111.

501 “Preh. Ann. Scot.,” vol. i. p. 384, fig. 61.

502 “Collections,” vol. ii. p. 11.

503 Vol. iv. pl. ix. 3, 4, 6.

504 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 392, fig. 306.

505 P. 385, fig. 279.

506 Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 385, fig. 280. This cut is kindly lent by the Council.

507 Engraved in Journ. Roy. Hist. and Arch. Assoc. of Ireland, 4th Ser. vol. v. p. 259.

508 Fig. 282.

509 Fig. 284.

510 P. 429.

511 P. 384, fig. 275.

512 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. xi. p. 170.

513 P. 521, fig. 398.

514 Vol. iv. pl. ix. 7.

515 Report on “Expedit. to Western Yunan,” Calcutta, 1871, p. 414.

516 “Arch. du Mus. d’Hist. Nat. de Toulouse,” vol. i. pl. vi. 6.

517 Arch. Journ., vol. xiv. p. 91. For the use of this cut I am indebted to Mr. A. W. Franks, F.R.S.

518 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iv. p. 13; Arch. Journ., vol. xxxi. p. 262; Mém. des Ant. du Nord, 1872-7, p. 116, &c.

519 “Die ehern. Streitkeile,” Taf. ii. 12.

520 Trans. Ethn. Soc., N. S., vol. vii. p. 45.

521 “Cong. préh.” Copenhagen vol. p. 352.

522 Vol. xvi. p. 348.

523 3rd S., vol. i. p. 250.

524 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 518.

525 Von Sacken, “Grabf. v. Hallst.,” Taf. vii.

526 Deschmann und Hochstetter, “Präh. Ansied. u. Begr. stätt. in Krain.,” 1879, Taf. xvi.

527 Rev. Arch., vol. xxiii. p. 257, pl. viii.

528 See “Matériaux,” vol. v. p. 376.

529 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xxiii. p. 293, pl. xv.

530 “Matériaux,” vol. v. p. 379, pl. xix. 7.

531 “Preh. Times,” p. 29. For other examples see Klemm, “Allgem. Culturwiss.,” vol. i. p. 100.

532 “Lake Dwellings,” Eng. ed., p. 110, pl. x. 16. See also xi. 2, and xxviii. 24; and Lindenschmit, “Hohenz. Samml.,” Taf. xxix. 4.

533 “British Barrows,” p. 188.

534 “Ten Years’ Diggings,” p. 35.

535 Cited in Schreiber’s “Die ehernen Streitkeile,” Freiburg, 1842, p. 4.

536 See Lisch, “Frederico-Francisceum,” p. 38.

537 “Antiquiteiten,” iii. Stück, p. 285.

538 “Allgemeine Culturwissenschaft,” pl. i. fig. 186, p. 105.

539 Strobel in Bull. di Palet. Ital., Anno i. (1875), p. 7, Tav. i.; Anno 4to (1878), p. 46 Tav. ii.

540 Keller, “7ter Bericht,” Taf. xxiv. 17.

541 See Lindenschmit, “A. u. h. V.,” vol. i., Heft. i. Taf. iv. 32.

542 Arch., vol. xix. p. 102, pl. viii. 6.

543 “Ancient Armour,” by Skelton, vol. i. pl. xlvii.

544 Arch. Journ., vol. iv. p. 4.

545 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 367.

546 Leland’s Itin., Hearne’s ed., vol. i. p. 145.

547 P. 370, fig. 257.

548 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xv. pl. xxv. p. 236; Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 159.

549 A. A. J., vol. xiv. p. 269.

550 Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 161.

551 Arch., vol. xvi. p. 362; Arch. Journ., vol. iv. p. 6; Klemm, “Allg. Kult. gesch.,” p. 107.

552 “Nydam Mosefund,” 1859-1863. Copenhagen, 1865.

553 “Vimose Fundet” af C. Engelhardt, 1869, p. 29.

554 Westropp in Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 335.

555 Arch. Journ., vol. iv. p. 4, fig. B.

556 Revue Arch., vol. xxix. p. 73, pl. iii. 2.

557 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 436.

558 Arch. Journ., vol. xxi. p. 100.

559 Arch. Journ., vol. vi. p. 369.

560 Arch. Journ., vol. vi. p. 69.

561 Lib. xix. v. 573. See also Lib. v. v. 235.

562 While speaking of French celts, I may refer to a short Paper on the method in which they were hafted, written by the late M. Penguilly-l’Haridon.—Rev. Arch., 2nd S. vol. iv. p. 329.

563 Ep. 20, lib. 4. See Arch., vol. xxx. p. 492.

564 “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 182, pl. xxi.

565 “Prim. Ant. of Denmark,” p. 26.

566 “Vimose Mosefundet,” p. 28.

567 “Anc. Stone Imp.,” p. 207.

568 See Arch. Journ., vol. xxvi. p. 346. I am indebted to Mr. A. W. Franks, F.R.S. for the use of this cut.

569 “Troy and its Remains,” p. 332.

570 Arch., vol. xliii. p. 467.

571 “Anales del Museo de Mexico,” vol. i. p. 117.

572 Somerset Arch. and Nat. Hist. Proc., 1856-7, vol. vii. p. 27.

573 Chantre, “Album,” pl. xliii.

574 Keller, 7ter Bericht, Taf. ix. 34, 35.

575 Arch. Journ., vol. xxii. p. 167; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 66.

576 Arch. Journ., vol. ii. p. 80; Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. i. p. 59.

577 Arch. Journ., vol. vi. p. 381, 408; Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. iii. p. 5.

578 Arch. Journ., vol. xxiv. p. 253.

579 Bateman’s “Catalogue,” p. 74, No. 8; “Vest. Ant. Derb.,” p. 8.

580 Arch. Journ., vol. vii. p. 195.

581 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. vii. p. 480.

582 “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” vol. i. p. 381, fig. 54.

583 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. xii. p. 613.

584 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 520.

585 Pl. v. 43, 44.

586 Vol. viii. p. 91.

587 Arch. Journ., vol. ii. p. 80; Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. i. pp. 57, 59; Smith’s “Coll. Ant.,” vol. i. p. 105; Arch., vol. xxxi. p. 494; “Horæ Ferales,” pl. v. 40.

588 Arch. Journ., vol. ix. p. 303.

589 Arch. Journ., vol. vi. p. 382. See also Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. iii. p. 58, fig. 4.

590 “Matériaux,” vol. v. pl. ii. 12.

591 Exp. Arch. de Savoie, 1878, pl. xxi. No. 3; pl. vi. 215, 216; Perrin, “Et. Préh. de la Sav.,” pl. x. 8.

592 Chantre, “Album,” pl. x. 7.

593 Ibid. No. 5.

594 Keller, 6ter Bericht, Taf. ix. 38; 7ter Ber., Taf. vii. 2, 3, 5, &c.; Desor, “Les Palafittes,” fig. 46.

595 Desor and Favre, “Le Bel Age du Br.,” pl. i. 7.

596 “Cong. Préh.,” Copenhagen vol. p. 485.

597 Jannsen’s “Catal.,” No. 21.

598 Schreiber, “Die ehern. Streitkeile,” Taf. ii. 11.

599 “Alt. u. h. Vorz.,” vol. i. Heft v. Taf. iii.

600 Taf. ii. 10.

601 “Freder. Francise.,” Tab. xxxiii. 5.

602 Lindenschmit, Taf. xlii. 7.

603 Arch. Journ., vol. ii. p. 80; Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. i. p. 51,59; “Horæ Ferales,” pl. v. 42.

604 Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 3; “Horæ. Fer.,” pl. v. 36.

605 Arch. Journ., vol. vi. p. 381, 408; Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. iii. p. 58.

606 Arch. Scot., vol. iv. p. 55, pl. vii. 5; Arch. Æliana, vol. ii. p. 213, pl. iv. c.

607 Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 3.

608 Arch. Journ., vol. xi. p. 294.

609 Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. iv. p. 323.

610 Arch. Journ., vol. xxii. p. 167; “Horæ Ferales,” pl. v. 35.

611 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 232.

612 Smith’s “Coll. Ant.,” vol. i. p. 101; Arch. Journ., vol. ii. p. 81.

613 Arch. Æliana, vol. i. p. 13, pl. ii. 12.

614 “Surrey Arch. Soc. Coll.,” vol. vi.

615 Arch. Journ., vol. vii. p. 195.

616 Arch. Camb., 3rd S., vol. x. p. 214; “Montgom. Coll.,” vol. iii. p. 437.

617 “Horæ Ferales,” pl. v. 39.

618 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. v. p. 127.

619 “Preh. Ann. Scot.,” vol. i. p. 388.

620 Vol. iv. p. 335, pl. iii. 1, 2, 3, 4.

621 Pl. v. 37, 38, 41.

622 “Horæ Ferales,” pl. v. 38.

623 Vol. iv. pl. ix. 5.

624 “Horæ Ferales,” pl. v. 34; Rev. Arch., N.S., vol. xiii. pl. ii. x.

625 Pl. x. 6, and xl. 5. See also Mém. Soc. Ant. Norm., 1828-9, pl. xvi. 16.

626 “Deux Stations Lacustres,” pl. iv. 34. Keller, 7ter Bericht, Taf. vii. 4; Desor and Favre, “Le Bel Age du Br.,” pl. i. 5.

627 “Alt. u. h. Vorz.,” Heft. v. Taf. iii. 9, 10; “Hohenzoll. Samml.,” pl. xlii. 7.

628 Mém. Soc. Ant. du Nord, 1872-7, p. 118.

629 Vol. xxvii. p. 142.

630 Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 3; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 66, where it is engraved full size; “Horæ Ferales,” pl. v. 33.

631 Arch. Journ., vol. xxxvii. p. 94; Pring, “Brit. and Roman Taunton,” pl. i. 2.

632 Arch. Scot., vol. iv. p. 55, pl. vii. 4; Arch. Æliana, vol. ii. p. 213, pl. iv. b.

633 Arch. Æliana, vol. i. p. 13, pl. ii. 13.

634 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 129; “Horæ Fer.,” pl. v. 32.

635 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 66.

636 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 65.

637 “Matériaux,” vol. xiv. pl. ix. 6.

638 Chantre, “Age du Br.,” 1ère ptie. p. 38.

639 “Matériaux,” vol. v. p. 452.

640 Parenteau, “Le fondeur du Jard. des Plantes;” “Matériaux,” vol. v. p. 190, pl. viii. 10.

641 “Exp. Arch. de la Sav.,” 1878, pl. v.; Chantre, “Album,” pl. v. 1.; Perrin, “Et. Préh. sur la Sav.,” pl. x. 6, 7, xix. 17.

642 Keller, 7ter Bericht, Taf. vii. 9.

643 Desor et Favre, “Le Bel Age du Br.,” pl. i. 9; Gross, “Deux Stations,” pl. iii. 22.

644 Desor, “Les Palafittes,” fig. 47.

645 “Afbild.,” vol. ii. pl. 13, 15.

646 Evans, “Anc. Brit. Coins,” pl. xii. 6.

647 “Grabfeld von Hallstatt,” pl. xix. 11, p. 89.

648 Wilde, “Catal. Stone Ant. in R. I. A. Mus.,” p. 81.

649 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 401.

650 “Age du Br.,” ptie. i. p. 39.

651 Keller, 7ter Bericht, Taf. vii. 8; Gross, “Deux Stations,” pl. iii. 28.

652 “Catal. Mus. Soc. Ant.,” p. 16; Arch., vol. xvii. p. 337.

653 E. Chantre, “Album” pl. xxv. No. 5.

654 Chantre, “Album,” pl. xliii.

655 Keller, 7ter Bericht, Taf. vii. 11.

656 Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” figs. 157, 158; “Cong. préh.,” Stockholm vol., 1874, p. 494.

657 “Comptes Rend. de l’Ac. des Sc.,” 1871, vol. ii. p. 476.

658 “Catal.,” p. 597, No. 96.

659 E. Chantre, “Age du Bronze,” 1ère ptie. p. 87.

660 Von Sacken, “Das Grabf. v. Hallst,” pl. xix. 12.

661 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 127.

662 “Anc. Egyptians,” vol. iii. p. 224, fig. 375.

663 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xxxvi., p. 59.

664 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 66; Arch. Journ., vol. xxii. p. 167.

665 Vol. xliii. p. 464.

666 Vol. i. p. 99, pl. xi. The cut is from the Arch., vol. xliii. p. 466.

667 Pl. xxx. 3.

668 Arch., vol. xv. p. 122, pl. iv. 5.

669 Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 3.

670 “British Barrows,” passim.

671 Op. cit., p. 138.

672 “Stonehenge,” p. 45, pl. xxxii.

673 Arch., vol. xliii. p. 465, fig. 163.

674 Suss. Arch. Coll., vol. i. p. 55.

675 “Ten Years’ Dig.,” p. 85.

676 “Vest. Ant. of Derb.,” p. 41.

677 “Vest. Ant. of Derb.,” p. 82.

678 Smith’s “Coll. Ant.,” vol. i. p. 60, pl. xxi. 3.

679 “Ten Years’ Dig.,” p. 155.

680 Lib. cit., p. 106.

681 “Vest. Ant. of Derb.,” p. 104.

682 “Reliquary,” vol. ix. p. 67.

683 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. vi. p. 3.

684 Vol. i. p. 122, pl. xv. No. 3.

685 “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 164, pl. xvii.

686 Wilde’s “Catal.,” p. 597.

687 Chantre, “Alb.,” pl. lxiii.

688 Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” figs. 274, 276; Nilsson, “Nordens Ur.-Invånare,” figs. 55, 57.

689 Arch. Journ., vol. xxii. p. 74.

690 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. i. p. 266; Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 218.

691 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 547.

692 “Ayr and Wigton Coll.,” vol. ii. p. 14.

693 Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 403.

694 Chantre, “Age du Br.,” 1ère ptie. p. 87.

695 “Anc. Stone Imp.,” p. 320.

696 Macrob. “Saturn.,” v. c. 19.

697 “Met.,” vii. 224.

698 “Æn.” lib. iv. 513.

699 “Nat. Hist.,” xviii. c. 30.

700 Arch. Journ., vol. xxx. p. 192.

701 Keller, 7ter Bericht, Taf. vii. 1.

702 See Lubbock’s “Preh. Times,” p. 513.

703 “Vimose Fundet,” 1869, p. 26.

704 “Aarböger for Oldkynd.,” 1867, p. 250.

705 Somerset Arch. and Nat. Hist. Proc., 1854, vol. v. p. 91.

706 Op. cit., 1856-7, vol. vii. p. 27.

707 Arch. Journ., vol. xxxvii. p. 94. Pring, “Brit. and Roman Taunton,” pl. i. 3.

708 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xiv. p. 258, pl. 13, No. 1.

709 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iv. p. 85.

710 2nd S., vol. v. p. 95.

711 Arch. Journ., vol. viii. p. 191.

712 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. vii. p. 378.

713 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. vii. p. 376.

714 Vol. xvi. p. 206, cited by Wilson, “Preh. Ann.,” vol. i. p. 401.

715 “Catal.,” p. 527.

716 “Coll. de Reb. Hib.,” vol. iv. pl. x. 4, p. 60.

717 Fig. 406. Compare “Horæ Ferales,” pl. x. 19.

718 Arch. Journ., vol. ii. p. 186. See also Dublin Penny Journ., i. p. 108: “Horæ Ferales,” pl. x. 18.

719 Vol. iii. p. 9.

720 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 333.

721 “Samml. zu Sigmar.,” Taf. xli.; “Alt. u. h. Vorz.,” vol. i. Heft xii. Taf. ii.

722 “Avanzi Prerom.,” 1863, Tav. ii. 6, 7.

723 “Nuovi Cenni,” 1862, Tav. iv. 17, 18.

724 “Samml. zu Sigmar.,” Taf. xli.

725 Stevens, “Flint Chips,” p. 157.

726 See Evans, “Anc. Stone Imp.,” p. 256.

727 Vol. vii. p. 302.

728 Vol. xxxiv. p. 301.

729 “Anc. Armour,” pl. xlvii. 11.

730 Arch., vol. xlii. p. 75, pl. viii. 22.

731 Vol. xv. p. 118, pl. ii.; “Catal. Mus. Soc. Ant.,” p. 16.

732 Arch. Journ., vol. xxiv. p. 254.

733 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 132; Arch. Journ., vol. xix. p. 359. This cut is lent by the Society.

734 Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. iv. p. 303.

735 “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” vol. i. p. 390.

736 Op. cit., p. 402.

737 “Catal.,” p. 465.

738 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 250: Arch., vol. xxxvi. p. 330: “Horæ Ferales,” pl. x. 29.

739 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xiv. p. 258.

740 “Preh. Ann.,” vol. i. p. 400; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. viii. p. 310. The cut is here reproduced by permission of Messrs. Macmillan.

741 Vol. viii. p. 310.

742 Chantre, “Album,” pl. vi. 2.

743 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 229.

744 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. i. p. 332.

745 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xiv. p. 258.

746 “Catal.,” p. 467, fig. 355.

747 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 269 (woodcut).

748 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 503, figs. 387, 388, 389.

749 “Preh. Ann. Scot.,” vol. i. p. 402.

750 Arch. Cant., vol. xi. p. 125, pl. c. 14.

751 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. iii. p. 9.

752 Parenteau, “Matériaux,” vol. v. pl. viii. 16.

753 3rd S., vol. vi. p. 138.

754 “Anc. Stone Imp.,” p. 304, fig. 255.

755 “Matériaux,” vol. xiv. pl. ix. 4.

756 “Ann. du cercle Arch. de Mons,” 1857, pl. i. 6.

757 “Matériaux,” vol. xiv. p. 489.

758 Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” fig. 160.

759 Lisch, “Freder. Francisc.,” tab. xvii. 10.

760 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 301. For the use of this cut I am indebted to the Council of the Society.

761 “Freder. Francisc.,” tab. xviii. 14.

762 Vol. xliii. p. 450, pl. xxxii. 5.

763 Arch., vol. xliii. pl. xxxii. fig. 4.

764 Arch. Journ., vol. viii. p. 346.

765 “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. pp. 67, 176, 238, pl. xxxii. 1.

766 Arch., vol. xliii. pl. xxxii. fig. 8.

767 Arch. Journ., vol. xvi. p. 152.

768 Thoresby’s “Catal.,” in Whitaker’s ed. of “Ducat. Leod.,” p. 114.

769 “British Barrows,” p. 446.

770 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. x. p. 434.

771 Greenwell, “Brit. Barrows,” p. 446.

772 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. vii. p. 476. For the use of this cut, as well as figs. 268, 271, 272, and 273, I am indebted to the Society.

773 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. x. p. 431.

774 P. 116, pl. l. 8 (1726).

775 Vol. xxxvii. p. 95. See also Pring, “Brit. and Rom. Taunton,” pl. i. 4.

776 Arch. Journ., vol. xxii. p. 74; Arch. Camb., 3rd S., vol. xii. p. 97; Arch., vol. xliii. pl. xxxii. 7.

777 Arch., vol. xliii. pl. xxxii. 6.

778 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. x. p. 440; “Catal.,” p. 83, No. 182.

779 P. 549, fig. 433.

780 Arch. Journ., vol. iii. p. 47.

781 Jannsen’s “Catal.,” No. 209.

782 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. v. p. 84; vol. x. p. 441. I am indebted to the Society for the use of this and the following cut.

783 See Keller, 5ter Bericht, Taf. xvi.

784 See Chantre, “Age du Br.,” 1ère partie, p. 76.

785 Mém. de la Soc. des Ant. de l’Ouest, 1844, pl. ix. 10.

786 Arch., vol. xliii. p. 450, fig. 154, from which this cut is copied; “Wilts. Arch. Mag.,” vol. iii. p. 186; “Cran. Brit.,” pl. 42, xxxii. p. 3.

787 “Anc. Stone Imp.,” p. 381, fig. 355.

788 Arch., vol. xliii. pl. xxii. 2, 3, p. 449.

789 Hoare’s “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. 44, pl. ii.

790 Arch. Journ., vol. xxv. p. 246.

791 Chantre, “Age du Br.,” 1re partie, p. 91; Cazalis de Fondouce, “Allées couv. de la Provence,” pl. iv. 1.

792 Vol. xiv. p. 491.

793 Vol. xxxiv. pl. xx. 8, p. 255.

794 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvi. p. 295, pl. xxv. 9.

795 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xxi. p. 160.

796 Trans. Devon. Assoc., vol. iv. p. 643.

797 “Vest. Ant. Derb.,” p. 51; Arch. Journ., vol. i. p. 247; Bateman’s “Catal.,” p. 4.

798 “Ten Years’ Digg,” p. 163; “Catal.,” p. 19.

799 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 45.

800 “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 99, pl. xi.

801 “British Barrows,” p. 265.

802 “Ayr and Wigton Coll.,” vol. ii. p. 12.

803 “Troy and its Remains,” p. 330.

804 “British Barrows,” p. 186.

805 “British Barrows,” p. 264, fig. 125; “Anc. Stone Imp.,” p. 284.

806 Arch. Journ., vol. v. p. 282; Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvi. p. 249.

807 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. vii. p. 217; Bateman’s “Catal.,” p. 15; “Ten Years’ Dig.,” p. 34.

808 “Vest. Ant. Derb.,” pp. 61, 63, 66, 68, 90, 96; “Ten Years’ Dig.,” pp. 21, 24, 34, 39, 57, 91, 113, 115, 119, 148, 160, 163; “Cran. Brit.,” pl. 13, xxii. 2.

809 “Ten Years’ Dig.,” p. 245; Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 42.

810 “Ten Years’ Dig.,” p. 119.

811 Op. cit., pp. 57, 113.

812 Greenwell, “Brit. Barrows,” p. 360, n.

813 M.S. Minutes of Soc. Ants., 1784, p. 51, cited in Warne’s “Celtic Tumuli of Dorset,” pt. iii. p. 7.

814 Arch. Journ., vol. v. p. 323.

815 Arch. Inst., Salisb. vol. p. 97.

816 Stukeley’s “Stonehenge,” p. 45, pl. xxxii.

817 Arch. Journ., vol. xxiv. p. 16; Arch. Camb., 3rd S., vol. xiv. p. 241.

818 Arch. Inst., Salisb. vol. p. 110; Arch. Journ., vol. xxiv. p. 29.

819 Hoare’s “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 39, pl. i.; Archæol., vol. xliii. p. 452.

820 “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 209.

821 “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 185.

822 Arch. Journ., vol. xvi. p. 148, 151.

823 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. x. p. 164.

824 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvii. p. 21.

825 Arch. Camb., 4th S., vol. vi. p. 71.

826 Archæol., vol. xliii. pl. xxxiii. fig. 4.

827 Ibid., fig. 3.

828 Ibid., fig. 5.

829 “Ten Years’ Dig.,” pp. 21, 115, 119.

830 Archæol., vol. ix. p. 94, pl. iii.

831 “Ten Years’ Dig.,” p. 206.

832 Op. cit., p. 226.

833 Arch., vol. xliii. pl. xxxiii. 6.

834 “British Barrows,” p. 207. This specimen has since been presented, with the rest of the Greenwell Collection, to the British Museum.

835 “Catal.,” p. 1; “Vest. Ant. Derb.,” p. 39.

836 “Catal.,” p. 12; “Vest. Ant. Derb.,” p. 98.

837 “Ten Years’ Dig.,” p. 226.

838 Arch., vol. xliii. p. 441.

839 “Cran. Brit.,” 52, 4; “Reliquary,” vol. vi. p. 4.

840 Vol. xvi. pl. 25, fig. 5, p. 288.

841 Trans. Devon. Assoc., vol. v. p. 555, pl. ii.

842 “Ancient Wilts,” vol. i. p. 124, unpub. pl. xv. B; Arch., vol. xliii. p. 503, fig. 196.

843 “Ancient Wilts,” vol. i. p. 201, pl. xxv. 4; Arch., vol. xliii. p. 458.

844 “Exp. Arch. de la Sav.,” 1878, pl. xii. 357.

845 “Mém. Soc. Ant. Norm.,” 1827-8, pl. xix. 4, 5.

846 Arch. Cant., vol. xi. p. 125, pl. c, 18.

847 “Ancient Wilts,” vol. i. p. 185, pl. xxiii.; Arch., vol. xliii. p. 458, pl. xxxiv. 2.

848 Bateman, “Vest. Ant. Derb.,” p. 68.

849 Arch., vol. xliii. p. 462, pl. xxxiv. 3.

850 “Ancient Wilts,” vol. i. p. 202, pl. xxvii. 2.

851 Arch., vol. xliii. pl. xxxv. 1.

852 “Anc. Stone Imp.,” p. 203, fig. 154.

853 Douglas, “Nenia,” p. 153, pl. xxxiii. fig. 3.

854 “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 207.

855 Op. cit., p. 194.

856 Arch., vol. xliii. pl. xxxiv. 1.

857 Proc. Soc. Ant., 1st S., vol. i. p. 75.

858 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. ii. p. 98; vol. xv. p. 228.

859 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. ii. p. 100.

860 Arch., vol. xliii. p. 459.

861 “Celtic Tumuli of Dorset,” pl. ii. p. 17.

862 Hartshorne’s “Salop. Ant.,” p. 96, No. 7.

863 Bastian und A. Voss, “Die Bronze schwerter des K. Mus.,” Taf. xvi. 31; Wilkinson’s “Ancient Egyptians,” vol. i. p. 320. Another dagger with a hilt is figured at p. 23.

864 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 458, fig. 334; “Horæ Ferales,” pl. vii. 14.

865 Proc., 4th S., vol. ii. p. 196.

866 Vallancey, “Coll.,” vol. iv. p. 61, pl. xi. 4; Gough’s “Camden,” vol. iv. pl. xviii. 4; Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 467, fig. 354; “Horæ Fer.,” pl. vii. 13.

867 Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 161.

868 Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 466, fig. 353.

869 Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 463, fig. 346.

870 “Cong, préh.,” Stockholm vol., 1874, p. 521; Keller’s “Lake-dwell.,” Eng. ed., pl. xli. 5.

871 Strobel, “Avanzi Preromani,” 1863, Tav. ii. 35; Gastaldi, “Nuovi Cenni,” 1862, Tav. ii. 7.

872 “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 239, pl. xxxiv.

873 Arch., vol. xliii. p. 455.

874 P. 74, pl. ii. fig. 3.

875 Gross, “Deux Stations,” pl. iv. 3.

876 Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. iv. p. 329; “Horæ Ferales,” p. 158, pl. vii. 21; Arch., vol. xliii. pl. xxxiii. 1.

877 “Vest. Ant. Derb.,” p. 96; Arch., vol. xliii. p. 461, fig. 161.

878 Arch., vol. xxx. p. 332, pl. xvii. 8; “Celtic Tumuli of Dorset,” pt. iii. p. 46 pl. x. d, e.

879 Arch. Journ., vol. v. p. 322.

880 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvi. p. 288, pl. 25, fig. 6.

881 “Matériaux,” vol. xiii. p. 155.

882 Rev. Arch., vol. xxxiii. p. 231.

883 Gross, “Deux Stations,” pl. iv. 4.

884 “Matériaux,” vol. xv. p. 289.

885 “Ant. Preh. de Andalusia,” pp. 97, 105.

886 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. x. pp. 84, 459. I am indebted to the Council of the Society for the use of this and the following cut.

887 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. xii. p. 449.

888 Op. cit., vol. xii. p. 439.

889 P. S. A. S., vol. xii. p. 456.

890 Op. cit., vol. xii. p. 440.

891 Bateman’s “Ten Years’ Diggings,” p. 148; engraved in Arch., vol. xliii. p. 461, fig. 162, from which my cut is copied.

892 “British Barrows,” p. 359; Arch. Journ., vol. xxii. p. 243.

893 Raine, “North Durham,” p. 235.

894 Arch. Journ., vol. xxvi. p. 346; Trans. Devon. Assoc., vol. iv. p. 304. For the use of this cut I am indebted to Mr. A. W. Franks, F.R.S.

895 “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 122, pl. xiv.

896 Ibid., pl. xv.

897 Arch., vol. xliii. p. 456.

898 Wilts Arch. Mag., vol. vi. p. 164.

899 Iliad, lib. xix. v. 387.

900 P. 185.

901 Op. cit., p. 242.

902 Arch., vol. xliii. pl. xxxiv. fig. 4; xxxv. figs. 2, 4.

903 “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 211, pl. xxviii.

904 Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 248.

905 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvii. p. 334.

906 Ante, p. 233.

907 Arch. Journ., vol. v. p. 322.

908 “Celtic Tum.” pt. i. p. 35, pl. x. E. and G.

909 Arch., vol. xliii. p. 453, fig. 157.

910 Arch. Journ., vol. xiii. p. 184; vol. xv. p. 90; Suss. Arch. Coll., vol. ix. p. 120.

911 Surrey Arch. Soc. Trans., vol. i.; Arch. Journ., vol. xiii. p. 305.

912 Arch., vol. xxxvi. p. 328, pl. xxv. fig. 6; “Horæ Fer.,” pl. vii. 18.

913 Borlase, “Nænia Corn.,” p. 236.

914 Lindenschmit, “Alt. u. h. Vorz.,” vol. i. Heft xi. Taf. ii. 1.

915 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iv. p. 456; Arch., vol. xliii. p. 454, fig. 158.

916 Trans. Devon. Assoc., vol. vii. p. 104.

917 Journ. Royal Hist. and Arch. Assoc. of Ireland, 2nd S., vol. i. p. 286, whence this cut has been kindly lent.

918 Arch., vol. xxxvi. p. 328, pl. xxv. 5, from which the cut is copied.

919 Dixon’s “Geol. of Sussex,” p. 12; Arch. Journ., vol. viii. p. 112; Suss. Arch. Coll., vol. ii. p. 260.

920 Fig. in Arch. Journ., vol. xix. p. 364.

921 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. i. p. 311.

922 A. A. J., vol. xiv. p. 329.

923 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iv. p. 50.

924 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 268.

925 Arch. Journ., vol. xi. p. 79; “Horæ Ferales,” pl. vii. 19.

926 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 370.

927 Von Sacken, “Die Funden an der Langen Wand bei Wiener Neustadt,” 1865, p. 6.

928 Wilde, “Catal.,” p. 465, fig. 347.

929 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 403, fig. 6.

930 Arch. Camb., 4th S., vol. vi. p. 19.

931 Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 73.

932 Arch. Journ., vol. xix. p. 363.

933 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. iii. p. 60.

934 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. i. p. 83.

935 Vol. xvi. p. 365, pl. lxx.

936 Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 160.

937 Op. cit., p. 158.

938 Chantre, “Alb.,” pl. xvi. 2.

939 Rev. Arch., vol. xxxiii. p. 231.

940 Vol. x. p. 73.

941 “Collect.,” vol. iv. pl. xi. 9.

942 Arch. Journ., vol. xii. p. 193.

943 Arch. Journ., vol. xxiv. p. 110.

944 Op. cit., p. 113.

945 “Collect.,” vol. iv. pl. xi. 10; Gough’s “Camden,” vol. iv. pl. xviii. 10.

946 “Horæ Ferales,” pl. vii. 23.

947 Arch. Journ., vol. ix. p. 186.

948 Arch., vol. xvii. p. 337.

949 Dict. Arch. de la Gaule.

950 Wilde, “Catal.,” p. 448, fig. 326.

951 4th Series, vol. ii. p. 197.

952 “Hallands Fornminnes-Förenings Aarskr.,” 1869, p. 89.

953 Wilde, “Catal.,” p. 458, fig. 333, from which the fig. in the text is copied on a somewhat larger scale; “Horæ Ferales,” pl. vii. 15.

954 “Matériaux,” vol. v. pl. ii. 1.

955 “Matériaux,” vol. x. p. 370.

956 Arch. Journ., vol. xxiv. p. 120.

957 Arch. Journ., vol. xxvi. p. 191; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 406.

958 Vol. iii. p. 47.

959 Vol. xxxvi. pl. xxv. 2.

960 Arch., vol. xxxvi. p. 326.

961 Arch., vol. xxxvi. pl. xxv. 1; “Horæ Ferales,” pl. vi. 24.

962 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvi. p. 322, pl. 26, No. 1.

963 “Cong. préh.,” Copenhagen vol., p. 483.

964 Arch. Journ., vol. xxvi. p. 349. For the use of this cut I am indebted to Mr. A. W. Franks, F.R.S.

965 Arch. Journ., vol. xxvi. p. 349.

966 Arch., xxxvi. pl. xxv. 3; “Horæ Ferales,” pl. vi. 25.

967 Vol. xxxvi. p. 328, pl. xxv. 3.

968 Wilson’s “Preh. Ann.,” vol. i. p. 390; Catal. Mus. Arch. Inst., Edinb., p. 23.

969 “Matériaux,” vol. v. pi. xix. 11.

970 Fig. 131.

971 Taf. vii. 1; xxxiii. 1; “Horæ Ferales,” pl. x. 2.

972 “Handb. der Germ. Alterth.,” p. 208. See also Preusker, “Blicke,” Taf. iii. 44 f.; Klemm, “Allg. Culturwiss.” p. 112.

973 Bastian und A. Voss, “Die Bronze Schwerter des K. Mus.,” Taf. vi. 6.

974 “Horæ Ferales,” pl. x. 3; Von Ledebur, “Königl. Mus.,” p. 15.

975 “Matériaux,” vol. viii. pl. xvi. 14; vol. xiii. p. 232; Chantre, “Age. du Br.,” 2me partie, p. 283; Mém. des Ant. du Nord, 1872-7, p. 116.

976 “Zeitsch. für Ethnol.,” vol. ix. 1877, Proc., p. 34, Taf. vi. 3.

977 Col. A. Lane Fox, “Prim. Warfare,” lect. 2.

978 “Coll. Hib.,” vol. iv. p. 62, pl. xi. 11.

979 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 449.

980 P. 449.

981 Conf. Wilde, op. cit., p. 489, figs. 356 and 357; and “Horæ Fer.,” pl. x. 6.

982 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. iv. p. 187.

983 Ibid., vol. iv. p. 396.

984 Ibid., vol. vii. p. 423. I am indebted to the Council for the use of this cut.

985 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 258.

986 Arch. Journ., vol. xi. p. 414; vol. xviii. p. 161; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 403.

987 Arch. Journ., vol. xii. p. 193; “Horæ Fer.,” pl. x. 7.

988 Arch. Camb., 4th S., vol. vi. p. 20 (figured).

989 “Afbild.,” vol. ii. pl. xi. 14.

990 Arch. Journ., vol. vi. p. 181.

991 Skelton’s Meyrick, vol. i. pl. xlv.

992 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvii. p. 111.

993 Arch. Journ., vol. vi. p. 411.

994 Arch. Journ., vol. vii. p. 302.

995 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. i. p. 249, vol. iii. p. 60.

996 Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 160.

997 “Catal. Mus. R.I.A.,” p. 493, fig. 361. I am indebted to the Council for this cut.

998 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 12.

999 “Alt. u. h. Vorzeit,” vol. i. Heft viii. Taf. 2.

1000 “Freder. Francisc.,” Taf. xxv. 13, 14.

1001 Proc. Soc. Ant., ubi sup.

1002 Annalen for Nord. Oldkynd., 1851, Taf. v. 1.

1003 Conf. Greenwell, “British Barrows,” p. 49.

1004 Op. cit., p. 44.

1005 “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” vol. i. p. 394.

1006 Arch. Scot., vol. iii. App. p. 67.

1007 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. iii. p. 60.

1008 A. A. J., vol. xv. p. 230.

1009 “On the True Assignation of the Bronze Weapons,” &c., Trans. Ethn. Soc., N.S., vol. iv. p. 176. The Celt, Roman and Saxon, 2nd Ed. p. 7, et seqq.

1010 “Catal. Lond. Ant.,” p. 80.

1011 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. ii. p. 72.

1012 “Preh. Times,” 4th Ed. p. 17; Trans. Ethn. Soc., N.S., vol. v. p. 105.

1013 See “Horæ Ferales,” pls. xiv., xv., and xviii.

1014 Lib. v. c. 33.

1015 Beckman, “History of Inventions,” vol. ii. p. 328.

1016 “Saturn.,” lib. ii. cap. 3.

1017 “Preh. Times,” p. 22.

1018 Worsaae’s “Prim. Ant. of Denmark,” p. 29.

1019 Lubbock, “Preh. Times,” p. 32.

1020 Trans. Brist. and Glouc. Arch. Soc.

1021 1st S., vol. ii. p. 215.

1022 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xi. p. 263; vol. xv. 230, pl. 23, 5.

1023 Somerset Arch. and N. H. Soc. Proc., vol. xxii. p. 70, pl. iii.

1024 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xv. p. 229, pl. 23, 3.

1025 Op. cit., vol. iii. p. 9.

1026 Op. cit., vol. xiv. p. 328, pl. xxiv. 5.

1027 Arch., vol. xix. p. 56, pl. iv.

1028 Rev. Arch., N.S., vol. v. pl. ix. 1.

1029 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. iii. p. 60.

1030 See “Horæ Fer.,” pl. ix. 2, p. 161.

1031 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 50; Arch. Journ., vol. xix. p. 91.

1032 Keller, 8ter Bericht, Taf. iii. 1.

1033 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xiv. p. 329; op. cit., vol. xxii. p. 244.

1034 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 429.

1035 Rev. Arch., vol. xxxiii. p. 231.

1036 Arch., vol. xix. p. 56, pl. iv.; Skelton’s “Meyrick’s Anc. Armour,” pl. xlvii. 14.

1037 Arch. Journ., vol. iii. p. 67; Arch., xliii. p. 480.

1038 Bury and West Suff. Proc., i. p. 24.

1039 “Reliquary,” vol. iii. p. 219.

1040 Arch., vol. xi. p. 431, pl. xix. 9.

1041 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xv. p. 229, pl. xxiii. 2.

1042 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 406; Arch. Journ., vol. xxvi. p. 191.

1043 “Horæ Fer.,” pl. ix. 5, p. 162.

1044 Arch. Journ., vol. ix. p. 7.

1045 Lindenschmit, “A. u. h. V.,” vol. i. Heft iii. Taf. iii. 5.

1046 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. iii. p. 254; xv. p. 230, pl. xxiii. No. 4.

1047 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. v. p. 349.

1048 Arch., vol. xvi. p. 363.

1049 Catal. of Gr. Coins in Brit. Mus., Italy, p. 28.

1050 “Numm. Vet. Ital. descript.,” pl. xli.

1051 Vol. iv. p. 147; vol. iii. p. 334.

1052 Arch. Journ., vol. v. p. 327; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. i. p. 83, No. 14.

1053 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. i. p. 44.

1054 Arch. Journ., vol. xix. p. 91.

1055 Arch. Journ., vol. xxxiv. p. 301.

1056 Anth. Inst. Journ., vol. iii. p. 230.

1057 Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 158 (24½ inches); Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xxii. p. 243; Arch., vol. xxvi. p. 482 (said to have had a bone or wooden hilt when found).

1058 Arch. Journ., vol. xxi. p. 90.

1059 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. ii. p. 356.

1060 Stukeley, “It. Cur.,” vol. i. p. 14.

1061 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvii. p. 321.

1062 Arch. Æliana, vol. i. p. 11, pl. iv. 3.

1063 Arch., vol. xv. p. 118.

1064 Arch. Camb., 4th S., vol. iii. p. 353.

1065 Arch., vol. v. p. 113.

1066 Arch., vol. v. p. 115.

1067 Arch., vol. xxi. p. 548.

1068 Arch., vol. xxvi. p. 464.

1069 Arch. Journ., vol. ix. p. 91.

1070 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 250; Arch. Camb., 3rd S., vol. x. p. 214.

1071 Arch. Camb., 3rd S., vol. x, p. 221.

1072 Journ. Anthrop. Inst., vol. iii. p. 204.

1073 “Horæ Fer.,” pl. ix. 9, p. 162.

1074 Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. ii. p. 199.

1075 Rev. Arch., N.S., vol. xxiv. pl. xxv. 3.

1076 Chantre, “Alb.,” pl. xiv. bis, 3; Dict. Arch. de la Gaule.

1077 Keller, 7ter Bericht, Taf. iii. 4; 3ter Bericht, Taf. iii. 35; Desor and Favre, “Le Bel Age du Br.,” pl. v. 10; Troyon, “Habit. Lacust.,” pl. ix. 11.

1078 Keller, 7ter B., Taf. xxiv. 9.

1079 Von Sacken, “Grabf. v. Hallst.,” pl. v. 10.

1080 Lindenschmit, “A. u. h. V.,” Heft i. Taf. ii. 1.

1081 “Zeitsch. für Ethn.,” vol. vii. Taf. x. 2.

1082 “Bull. di Palet. Ital.,” anno ii., p. 26.

1083 “Atlas for Nord. Oldk.,” pl. B. iv., 40-42; Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” figs. 135, 136.

1084 “Afbild,” vol. ii. pl. v. vi.

1085 P. 882.

1086 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 429; “Horæ Fer.,” pl. ix. fig. 3, p. 161.

1087 “Treatise on Anc. Armour,” pl. lxi. 1.

1088 Op. cit., pl. lxi. 2, 3, 4.

1089 Wilson’s “Preh. Ann.,” vol. i. p. 352, fig. 52.

1090 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvii. p. 210, pl. xx. 10, 11.

1091 Pl. li. 2, 3, p. 118.

1092 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. ii. p. 33.

1093 P. S. A. S., vol. iii. p. 102.

1094 Ayr and Wigton Coll., vol. ii. p. 14.

1095 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. vi. p. 252.

1096 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. i. pp. 181, 224: Arch. Journ., vol. xiii. p. 203.

1097 Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. iii. p. 121.

1098 “Horæ Fer.,” pl. ix. 4, p. 161.

1099 Vol. ii. p. 334, pl. xliv.

1100 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. xiii. p. 321.

1101 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 439.

1102 Op. cit., p. 454.

1103 “Horæ Ferales,” pl. ix. 7, p. 162.

1104 Vol. iii. p. 355, pl. xix.

1105 Vol. iv. pl. vii. 1, p. 50.

1106 De Bonstetten, “Essai sur les Dolm.,” 1865, pl. ii. 2; Rev. Arch., N.S., vol. xiii. p. 183, pl. v. D.

1107 Chantre, “Alb.,” pl. xvi. 1.

1108 Dict. Arch. de la Gaule.

1109 Rev. Arch., N.S., vol. iv. pl. xiii. 23.

1110 Von Sacken, Taf. v. 2.

1111 Lindenschmit, “A. u. h. V.,” vol. i. Heft iii. Taf. iii. 6.

1112 3rd S., vol. i. p. 23; 2nd S., vol. vi. p. 72; “Reliquary,” vol. x. p. 65.

1113 Jour. Royal Hist. & Arch. Assoc. of Ireland, 4th S., vol. ii. p. 257. I am indebted to the Council for the use of the cuts.

1114 Op. cit., 4th S., vol. i. p. 505.

1115 “Aarböger for Nord. Oldk.,” 1871, p. 15.

1116 Arch., vol. iii. p. 363.

1117 Ib., p. 364.

1118 Ib., p. 365.

1119 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 446, fig. 322, here by permission reproduced.

1120 Arch. Journ., vol. xxx. p. 282.

1121 “Age du Br.,” lère ptie. p. 105 et seq.; Alb., pl. xv. bis, 2; De Ferry, “Macon préh.,” pl. xxxix.

1122 Keller, passim.

1123 See Gastaldi, “Iconografia,” 1869, Tav. viii.; Pellegrini, “Sepolchreto Preromano,” 1878, Tav. iii., iv. Gozzadini, “Mors de Cheval et l’Épée de Rorzano,” 1876.

1124 “Aarbög. f. Nord. Oldk.,” 1879, pl. i.

1125 “Mycenæ und Tiryns,” 1878, pp. 281, 303, &c.

1126 Bastian und A. Voss, “Die Bronze Schwerter des K. Mus. zu Berlin,” 1878, p. 56.

1127 “Atlas for Nord. Oldk.,” pl. B, ii., iii., iv.; Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” figs. 114 to 137.

1128 Lisch, “Freder. Francisc.,” Tab. xiv., xv.

1129 “Cong, préh.,” Stockholm vol. i. p. 506.

1130 “Cong, préh.,” Buda Pest vol., p. 238.

1131 “Cong, préh.,” Copenhagen vol., p. 449.

1132 See Bastian und A. Voss, “Die Bronze Schwerter des K. Mus. zu Berlin,” 1878.

1133 Von Sacken, “Grabf. v. Hallst.,” Taf. v.; Lindenschmit, “Alt. u. h. Vorz.,” vol. ii. Heft i. Taf. v.

1134 Vol. xlv. p. 251.

1135 Rev. Arch., N.S., vol. xxvi. p. 321.

1136 “Horæ Ferales,” pl. viii. 7; Chantre, “Age du Br.,” lère ptie., p. 108; Lindenschmit, “A. u. h. V.,” vol. ii. Heft i. Taf. 3.

1137 Chantre, op. cit., p. 135.

1138 Madsen, “Afb.,” vol. ii. pl. vii.; Lindenschmit, “Alt. u. h. Vorz.,” vol. ii. Heft i. Taf. iii. 1.

1139 Madsen, op. cit., pl. v.

1140 “Horæ Ferales,” p. 159. See also Arch. Journ., vol. xxxiv. p. 301, fig. 3.

1141 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 404.

1142 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 251; Arch. Camb., 3rd S., vol. x. p. 214; “Montgom. Coll.,” vol. iii. p. 437.

1143 Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 259, whence this cut is taken, by permission of Mr. Franks.

1144 Proc. Soc. Ant., iii. p. 118; Arch., vol. xxvii. p. 298.

1145 Arch. Journ., vol. xii. p. 201. See “Horæ Ferales,” pl. ix. No. 10 to 14, and C. R. Smith, “Coll. Ant.,” vol. iii. p. 72.

1146 Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. iii. p. 118.

1147 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 427.

1148 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. i. p. 181; Arch. Journ., vol. xiii. p. 203; “Catal. Mus. Arch. Inst. Ed.,” p. 24.

1149 Arch. Camb., 3rd S., vol. x. p. 221, whence the figure is copied.

1150 Arch. Journ., vol. xxx. p. 280.

1151 Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 461, fig. 336.

1152 “Exp. Arch. de la Sav.,” 1878, pl. xii. 354, 356.

1153 Journ. R. H. and A. Assoc. of Ireland

1154 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvii. p. 322.

1155 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 461.

1156 Fairholt’s “Costume in England,” p. 382.

1157 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvii. p. 321, pl. 30, fig. 2.

1158 Chantre, “Age du Br.,” 1ère ptie. p. 136. Rev. Arch., N.S., vol. xxxix. p. 306.

1159 Dict. Arch. de la Gaule.

1160 “Matériaux,” vol. xiii. p. 64. See also a paper by M. Alex. Bertrand, in the Bull. Soc. Ant. de France, 1878, p. 56. “Matér.,” vol. xv. p. 162.

1161 De Bonstetten, “Rec. d’Ant. Suisses,” Supp., pl. xxi. 1; Von Sacken, “Grabf. v. Hallstatt,” Taf. vi. 11.

1162 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 518.

1163 Rev. Arch., N.S., vol. xxxix. p. 305.

1164 “Das Grabfeld von Hallstatt,” p. 155, pl. xix. fig. 10.

1165 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xiv. p. 257, pl. xiii. 6; Wilson, “Preh. Ann.,” vol. i. p. 441, fig. 82.

1166 Arch. Scot., vol. i. p. 393.

1167 Arch., vol. xliii. p. 556, pl. xxxvii. 3.

1168 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvi. p. 323, pl. xxvi. 5; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iv. p. 521.

1169 Arch. Inst., York vol. p. 33; Arch., vol. xiv. pl. xx. 6.

1170 “Atlas for Nord. Oldk.,” pl. B ii. 2; Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” fig. 115; Madsen, “Afbild.,” vol. ii. pl. xi. 1.

1171 Boye, “Oplys. Fortegnelse over det K. M.,” p. 31.

1172 “Annalen for Oldk.,” 1848, p. 336; “Atlas for Nord. Oldk.,” pl. B. ii. 7; Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” fig. 119; Madsen, “Afbild.,” vol. ii. p. 9. pl. iv. 8.

1173 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 495.

1174 Arch. Journ., vol. xxiv. p. 120.

1175 “Horæ Fer.,” pl. vi. 29.

1176 Journ. Ethnol. Soc., 1868, N.S., vol. i. p. 36.

1177 Iliad, vi. v. 319; viii. v. 494.

1178 Dawkins, “Cave Hunting,” p. 143, fig. 34.

1179 Arch. Journ., vol. xi. p. 231.

1180 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. v. p. 349.

1181 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 429, pl. iv.

1182 Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 159. I am indebted to Mr. Franks for the use of this block.

1183 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xv. p. 235, pl. xxiv. 3.

1184 Op. cit., vol. viii. p. 332.

1185 Op. cit., vol. xv. p. 235, pl. xxiv. 4.

1186 Hartshorne’s “Salop. Ant.,” p. 96.

1187 Stukeley’s “It. Cur.,” pl. 96, vol. ii.

1188 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xiv. p. 351.

1189 Skelton’s “Meyrick’s Anc. Arm.,” pl. xlvii. 10.

1190 Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. iv. p. 279.

1191 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 251; “Montgom. Coll.,” vol. iii. p. 437.

1192 Arch. Camb., 3rd S., vol. x. p. 221.

1193 Arch. Journ., vol. xxiv. p. 254.

1194 Arch. Æliana, vol. i. p. 13, pl. i.

1195 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvii. p. 110.

1196 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. iii. p. 102.

1197 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. iv. p. 417.

1198 Rev. Arch., N.S., vol. iv. pl. xiii. 2-14.

1199 Keller, passim.

1200 Von Braunmühl, “Alt Deutschen Grabmäler;” Schreiber, “Die ehern. Streitkeile,” Taf. ii. 19; Lisch, “Fred. Francisc.,” Taf. viii.

1201 Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” fig. 190.

1202 “Heidnisch. Alterth.,” Taf. viii. fig. 1.

1203 P. S. A. S., vol. ix. p. 435. The cut has been kindly lent by the Society.

1204 Arch. Journ., vol. xix. p. 364.

1205 A. J., vol. ix. p. 8. It is there erroneously stated to be 26 inches long.

1206 Trans. Devon. Assoc., vol. vii. p. 199; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. vii. p. 40.

1207 Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” figs. 185, 186; “Atlas for Nord. Oldk.,” pl. B 1, 16.

1208 “Horæ Fer.,” pl. vi. 28.

1209 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. i. p. 332.

1210 Keller, 6ter Bericht, Taf. ix. 34.

1211 Arch. Journ., vol. xxi. p. 90.

1212 “Montgom. Coll.,” vol. iii. p. 433; vol. xi. p. 205.

1213 Suss. Arch. Coll., vol. viii. p. 269.

1214 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xx. p. 107.

1215 Arch. Journ., vol. iii. p. 47. There is an article by Mr. Du Noyer on the classification of bronze arrow-heads in vol. vii. p. 281.

1216 See “Anc. Stone Imp.,” p. 328.

1217 Arch. Journ., vol. xiii. pp. 20, 27; vol. xxii. p. 68; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. v. p. 187; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. i. p. 322.

1218 Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 3; “Hor. Fer.,” pl. vi. 27.

1219 Arch. Camb., 4th. S., vol. iii. p. 351.

1220 Anderson’s “Croydon Preh. and Rom.,” p. 11, pl. iii. 4.

1221 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. v. p. 349.

1222 Arch. Camb., 4th S., vol. iii. p. 351.

1223 Arch. Journ., vol. xxx. p. 282.

1224 Arch., vol. xix. p. 56, pl. iv. 5.

1225 Arch., vol. xvi. p. 361, pl. lxiv. 1.

1226 Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. iv. p. 244.

1227 P. S. A., 2nd S., vol. iv. p. 280.

1228 P. S. A., 2nd S., vol. i. p. 83.

1229 Arch., vol. xxvii. p. 105.

1230 P. S. A., vol. iv. p. 323.

1231 Plot’s “Stafford.,” p. 404, pl. xxxiii. 8.

1232 Arch., vol. v. p. 113.

1233 Arch. Camb., 4th S., vol. viii. p. 210.

1234 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. iii. p. 9.

1235 Vol. x. p. 480, pl. xl. 5.

1236 Sussex Arch. Coll., vol. viii. p. 269.

1237 “Montgom. Coll.,” vol. iii. p. 432. and vol. xii. p. 25.

1238 Vol. ix. p. 94, pl. iii.

1239 Arch., vol. xvi. p. 348, pl. 1.

1240 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvii. p. 334.

1241 Arch. Inst., Salisb. vol., p. 110.

1242 Wilde, “Catal. R. I. A.,” p. 496, fig. 363; “Hor. Fer.,” pl. vi. 15.

1243 Arch., vol. xliii. p. 447; “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 208.

1244 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. xi. p. 168.

1245 Arch. Journ., vol. vii. p. 282, and xviii. p. 167.

1246 Vol. ii. p. 187.

1247 Pl. vi. 17.

1248 “Coll. Hib.,” vol. iv. pl. xi. v.

1249 Pl. vi. 12, 13.

1250 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. ii. p. 280; “Vest. Ant. Derb.,” p. 9.

1251 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xv. p. 285.

1252 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 196.

1253 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” pp. 498, 501.

1254 Ibid., Figs. 385 and 386, p. 502.

1255 Pl. vi. 19.

1256 Arch. Journ., vol. ii. p. 187.

1257 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvii. p. 111, pl. xi. 4.

1258 Lindenschmit, “Alt. u. h. Vorz.,” vol. ii. Heft iv. Taf. i. 9.

1259 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xiv. p. 329, pl. xxiv. fig. 3.

1260 Arch. Assoc. Jour., vol. xvi. p. 322.

1261 Arch., vol. xvi. p. 365, pl. lxx. 3.

1262 Arch. Inst., Norwich vol., p. xxvi. Another from this hoard is in the Brit. Mus., “Hor. Fer.,” pl. vi. 22. Mr. Franks thinks that the mould was in four pieces besides the core, but on this point I am rather doubtful.

1263 Vol. iv. pl. xi. 6.

1264 Arch. Journ., vol. xi. p. 415.

1265 “Catal. Mus. Lond. Ant.,” p. 83, No. 370.

1266 Pring, “Brit. and Rom. Taunton,” pl. iii.

1267 “Horæ Fer.,” pl. vi. 20.

1268 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 366, p. 496; “Hor. Fer.,” pl. vi. 18.

1269 Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 160.

1270 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvi. p. 322, pl. xxvi. 3.

1271 Op. cit., vol. xvii. p. 110, pl. xi. 3.

1272 “Durobrivæ,” p. lvi. 4.

1273 Arch. Journ., vol. iii. 354; Allies, “Worcester.,” p. 60.

1274 Ayr and Wigton Coll., vol. ii. p. 13.

1275 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. v. p. 214.

1276 Arch. Journ., vol. xiii. p. 296.

1277 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 65. I am indebted to the Council for the use of this block.

1278 Arch. Journ., vol. xiii. p. 413; “Hor. Fer.,” pl. vi. 21.

1279 Arch. Journ., vol. xix. p. 363.

1280 Ibid., vol. xxv. p. 49.

1281 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. v. p. 89.

1282 Ibid., vol. xvi. p. 250.

1283 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 429.

1284 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xv. p. 234; Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 158.

1285 Grose’s “Treat. on Anc. Armour,” 1786, pl. lxi. 5.

1286 Vallancey, “Coll. Hib.,” vol. iv. pl. xi. 7.

1287 “Horæ Fer.,” pl. vi. 16.

1288 Arch. Camb., 3rd S., vol. x. p. 217, fig. 8; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 251.

1289 Hartshorne’s “Salop. Ant.,” p. 96.

1290 Arch. Camb., 4th S., vol. iii. p. 352.

1291 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. ii. p. 154.

1292 Mém. des Ant. du Nord, 1872-7, p. 115.

1293 Wilson’s “Preh. Ann.,” vol. i. p. 391; “Horæ Fer.,” pl. vi. 23; “Catal. Mus. Arch. Inst. Ed.,” p. 23.

1294 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 404, pl. iii. 11; Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvi. p. 322, pl. xxvi. 4.

1295 Arch. Journ., vol. ii. p. 187; vol. iii. p. 354; “Horæ Fer.,” pl. vi. 26; Allies, “Worc.,” p. 30; “Arch. Inst.,” York vol., pl. v. 4.

1296 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. i. p. 125.

1297 Arch. Journ., vol. xii. p. 84; vol. xviii. p. 160.

1298 Ibid., vol. xiv. p. 357; vol. xviii. p. 161.

1299 Arch. Camb., 4th S., vol. iii. pp. 339, 347.

1300 Arch., vol. xxvi. p. 464.

1301 Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 160. I am indebted to Mr. Franks for the use of this cut.

1302 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 250; vol. v. p. 422; Arch. Camb., 3rd S., vol. x. p. 214; “Montgom. Coll.,” vol. iii. p. 437.

1303 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. i. p. 332.

1304 Arch. Journ., vol. xii. p. 84.

1305 Arch. Camb., 3rd S., vol. x. p. 221.

1306 Ibid., 4th S., vol. iii. p. 353.

1307 Anderson’s “Croydon Preh. and Rom.,” p. 11, pl. iii. 5.

1308 P. 116, pl. l. 7.

1309 Arch. Journ., vol. xii. p. 96.

1310 Arch., vol. xix. p. 56, pl. iv. 10, 11; Skelton’s “Meyrick’s Anc. Arm.,” pl. xlvii. 12.

1311 Arch. ubi sup., “Millin, Peintures de Vases,” tome ii. p. 25.

1312 “Iliad.,” lib. x. 153; lib. xiii. 443. &c.

1313 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xv. p. 235.

1314 “Preh. Cong.,” Norwich vol., p. 77.

1315 Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” fig. 191; “Atlas for Nord. Old.,” pl. B 1, 22, 23.

1316 Vol. xi. p. 55.

1317 Arch., vol. xv. p. 118.

1318 Arch., vol. v. pl. viii. 15.

1319 Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. U. A.,” figs. 390, 391.

1320 Op. cit., p. 517.

1321 Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. iv. p. 211.

1322 “Matériaux,” vol. v. pl. ii. 25.

1323 Rev. Arch., N.S., vol. iv. pl. xiii.

1324 Vol. xlv. p. 383.

1325 “Horæ Fer.,” pl. xiv.; Arch., vol. xxiii. p. 97; Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. iv. p. 144; Skelton’s “Meyrick’s Anc. Arm.,” pl. xlvii. 7.

1326 “Horæ Fer.,” pl. xv.; Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xiv. p. 330.

1327 Vol. xxvii. pl. xxii. p. 298; “The Barrow Diggers,” pl. ii. 1, p. 73; Worsaae, “Prim. Ant. of Denm.,” Eng. ed., p. 32. I am indebted to Messrs. James Parker & Co. for the use of this block.

1328 Journ. R. H. and A. Assoc. of Ireland, 4th S., vol. iv. p. 488.

1329 “Horæ Fer.,” p. 167, pl. xi. 1; Arch. Journ., vol. xiii. p. 187.

1330 Op. cit., p. 167, pl. xi. 3; “Catal. of Ants., &c., of the Soc. Ant.,” p. 17.

1331 Arch. Journ., vol. vii. p. 77, whence the cut is copied; “Hor. Fer.,” p. 167, pl. xi. 4.

1332 “Hor. Fer.,” p. 167; Trans. Camb. Ant. Soc., vol. ii. p. 12.

1333 Copied from Publ. Camb. Ant. Soc., vol. ii. Misc. pl. 3.

1334 “Catal. Mus. Soc. Ant.,” p. 16.

1335 See “Ayr. and Wigt. Coll.,” vol. i. p. 66, where I have described this shield.

1336 “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” 1st ed., p. 267; 2nd ed., vol. i. p. 397.

1337 “Minute Book of Soc. Ant.,” vol. xxiv. p. 147.

1338 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. v. p. 165. See also Tr. R. Hist. and Arch. Assoc. of Ireland, 4th S., vol. iv. p. 487.

1339 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. viii. p. 393.

1340 Arch., vol. xxiii. p. 92; “Anc. Arm.,” by Skelton, vol. i. pl. xlvii. 4.

1341 Arch., vol. xxiii. p. 95.

1342 Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 157.

1343 “Hor. Fer.,” pl. ix. 168; C. Roach Smith, “Catal. of Lond. Ant.,” p. 80.

1344 C. Roach Smith, ubi sup.

1345 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 518; v. p. 363; Gent. Mag., Dec, 1865, p. 771.

1346 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 200.

1347 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. iv. p. 395; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 200; Proc. Roy. Irish Acad., 1874, p. 277.

1348 Arch. Assoc. Jour., vol. xxxvi. p. 165.

1349 Journ. Royal Hist. and Arch. Assoc. of Ireland, 4th S., vol. ii. p. 118, and vol. iv. p. 487. See Arch., vol. xliii. p. 480.

1350 Vol. x. p. 155.

1351 “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 203.

1352 Arch., vol. xiv. p. 90. pl. xviii.

1353 See Arch. Scot., vol. v. p. 217.

1354 “Hor. Fer.,” p. 166.

1355 Madsen, “Afbild.,” vol. ii. pl. xvii.; “Atlas for Nord. Oldk.,” pl. B, v.; Worsaae “Prim. Ant. of Den.,” Thoms’ Eng. ed., p. 31.

1356 “Cong, préh.,” Bologna vol., p. 294.

1357 Lindenschmit, “Alt. u. h. Vorzeit,” vol. i. Heft xi. Taf. 1, 4, and 5.

1358 “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” 2nd ed., vol. i. p. 398.

1359 Num. Chron., N.S., vol. xvii. pl. x. 7 and 8.

1360 See Arch. Journ., vol. xiii. p. 187.

1361 “De Bell. Civ.,” i. 39, 48.

1362 “Agric.,” 36.

1363 See Smith’s “Dict. of Ant.,” s. v. Cetra.

1364 “Horæ Ferales,” p. 168, pl. xii. 1.

1365 Lindenschmit, “A. u. h. Vorzeit,” vol. i. Heft xi. Taf. 1.

1366 Von Sacken, “Grabf. zu Hallst.,” Taf. viii. 5, 6.

1367 Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. i. p. 167.

1368 Lib. iii. c. 14.

1369 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 518.

1370 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 342; Waring’s “Ornaments of Remote Ages,” pl. xci. 10.

1371 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 362.

1372 Arch., vol. xliii. p. 553, pl. xxxvi.

1373 “Album,” pl. xvi. bis.

1374 Chantre, “Age du Br.,” 1ère ptie., p. 146.

1375 P. 623

1376 Fig. 360, p. 492. et seqq.

1377 “Discourse concerning Danish Mounds, &c.”

1378 Phil. Trans., vol. xxviii. p. 270.

1379 Vol. ii. pl. xx. 3, 4, 5; Gough’s “Camden,” vol. iv. pl. xiv.; “Hor. Fer.,” pl. xiii. 1.

1380 4th S., vol. iii. p. 422.

1381 P. 282.

1382 Wilde, fig. 529, p. 592, kindly lent by the Council of the R. I. A. One of Mr. Day’s trumpets is also patched.

1383 Arch. Journ., vol. xii. p. 96. There is an article on Irish trumpets by Dr. Petrie in the Dublin Penny Journal, vol. ii. See also Proc. R. I. A., vol. iv. pp. 237, 423.

1384 Von Bibra, “Die Br. u. Kupf.-leg.,” p. 140.

1385 Pl. xiii. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9.

1386 “Coll. Hib.,” vol. iv. pi. vii. 2.

1387 Vol. iv. pl. xiii. 2.

1388 Trans. R. I. A., vol. ii.

1389 Wilde’s “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 624 et seqq.; Jour. R. H. and A. A. of Ireland, 4th S., vol. iii. p. 422 et seqq. See also Ulster Journ. of Arch., 1860, vol. viii. p. 99; and “Horæ Ferales,” p. 172.

1390 Wilde, 630 et seqq.

1391 “Collections,” vol. i. p. 74; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. xii. p. 565.

1392 Vol. vi. p. 50.

1393 “Tour through Britain,” vol. iv. p. 130.

1394 Vol. lxxxvi. 1796, pl. xi.; “Horæ Fer.,” pl. xiii. 2; Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 150.

1395 Evans, “Anc. British Coins,” pl. iii. No. 11, and pl. v. No. 10, &c.

1396 “Anc. Armour,” pl. xiii.; Gough’s “Camden,” vol. iv. p. 231.

1397 Lisch, “Fred. Francisc.,” Tab. ix. 3.

1398 “Atlas for Nord. Oldk.,” pl. B, vii.; Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” figs. 199-201.

1399 Lib. ii. c. 29.

1400 Lib. v. c. 30. See also Livy, lib. v. 37 and 39.

1401 Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 612, fig. 523, whence this cut is reproduced. See also Proc. R. I. A., vol. iv. pp. 237, 423.

1402 Greenwell, “British Barrows,” pp. 15, 31.

1403 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 130. I am indebted to the Council of the Society for the use of this cut.

1404 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xiv. p. 259.

1405 Arch. Journ., vol. ix. p. 227.

1406 Arch. Journ., vol. xxii. p. 247.

1407 “Vest. Ant. Derb.,” p. 34; “Ten Years’ Dig.,” p. 130.

1408 “Brit. Barrows,” p. 366.

1409 Arch., xv. p. 129.

1410 “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. pp. 206-208.

1411 Op. cit., p. 207.

1412 Op. cit., p. 210. The references to the plate are somewhat confused or confusing.

1413 “Anc. Wilts,” vol. ii. p. 90.

1414 Arch. Journ., vol. vi. p. 319.

1415 “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 194, pl. xxiii., here copied. See also Arch., vol. xliii. p. 467.

1416 “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 199, pl. xxiv.

1417 Arch. Journ., vol. xxv. p. 246. I am indebted to the Institute for the use of this cut.

1418 Arch. Journ., vol. xxxvii. p. 94. Pring, “Brit. and Rom. Taunton,” pl. ii.

1419 Arch. Journ., vol. ix. p. 106.

1420 Suss. Arch. Coll., vol. ii. p. 265.

1421 Arch., vol. xliii. p. 469.

1422 2ème Mém., “Album,” pl. xi. 17.

1423 Fig. 452.

1424 Arch., vol. xvi. p. 348, pl. 1.

1425 Allies, “Worc.,” p. 149, pl. iv. 7.

1426 Arch. Journ., vol. ix. p. 8. I am indebted to Mr. Franks for the use of this cut.

1427 Arch., vol. xii. p. 414, pl. li. 8.

1428 Suss. Arch. Coll., vol. ii. p. 260.

1429 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 469.

1430 Arch., vol. xliii. p. 468. I am indebted to the Council of the Soc. Ant. for this and the next cut.

1431 Proc. Som. Arch. Soc., vol. viii. p. 45.

1432 Dr. Thurnam, ubi sup. (Horsfield, “Lewes,” vol. i. 48, pl. iii. 12).

1433 Journ. R. Hist. Arch. Assoc. of Ireland, 4 Sec. vol. v. p. 97.

1434 Arch., vol. xv. p. 394, pl. xxxiv. 5.

1435 Like Keller, “Lake-dwellings,” pl. xxxiv. 2.

1436 Lisch, “Freder. Francisc.,” Tab. xxiv. 5, 6.

1437 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 447.

1438 Op. cit., p. 558, fig. 449; Journ. Arch. Assoc. of Scot., 2nd S., vol. i. p. 194.

1439 Wilde, fig. 448.

1440 Journ. Arch. Assoc. of Ireland, 2nd S., vol. i. p. 194.

1441 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., N.S. vol. i. p. 322. For the loan of this block I am indebted to the Council of the Society.

1442 Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” fig. 239.

1443 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 558, fig. 450.

1444 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. iii. p. 102.

1445 Vol. ix. p. 247.

1446 Florus, lib. ii. c. 4.

1447 Aulus Gellius, lib. ix. c. 13.

1448 Cohen, “Méd. Cons.,” pl. xxvi. 5.

1449 Vol. ii. p. 368; vol. iii. p. 27.

1450 Arch., vol. xxvi. p. 471.

1451 Arch., vol. xxi. p. 557.

1452 Op. cit., vol. xxvi. p. 464.

1453 Op. cit., vol. xiv. p. 96.

1454 See Wilde’s “Catal.,” p. 70, et seqq.; and “Vetusta. Monum.,” vol. v. pl. xxix.

1455 Vol. xxi. pl. xii. 2.

1456 Arch. Journ., vol. vi. p. 81.

1457 Arch. Journ., vol. xxxvii. p. 107, whence this cut is lent by the Council.

1458 Som. Arch. and Nat. Hist. Soc. Proc., vol. vii. p. 27.

1459 Op. cit., vol. v. 1854, p. 91.

1460 Arch., vol. xiv. p. 94, pl. xxiii.

1461 Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. i. p. 234.

1462 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. vi. p. 88.

1463 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xxi. p. 232.

1464 Arch. Journ., vol. v. p. 323; Arch., vol xxix. 372; Suss. Arch. Coll., vol. ii. p. 267.

1465 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvii. p. 211, pl. xxi. 2.

1466 Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 74, fig. 603.

1467 Arch., vol. xi. p. 429, pl. xix. 3.

1468 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iv. p. 467; “Montgom. Coll.,” vol. iii. p. 419; vol. iv. p. 247.

1469 Arch., vol. xxxiv. p. 83, pl. xi.; Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. ii. p. 148; Arch., xxxii. p. 400.

1470 Arch., vol. xxx. p. 554.

1471 Arch., vol. xxv. p. 595; Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 167.

1472 Arch., vol. xxxi. p. 517, pl. xxiii; Arch. Journ., vol. iii. p. 32.

1473 Arch., vol. xxx. p. 521.

1474 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xiv. p. 258, pl. xiii. 2, 3.

1475 Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 367; vol. xxiv. p. 254.

1476 Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. i. p. 234.

1477 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. ix. p. 435.

1478 P. S. A. S., vol. iv. p. 377.

1479 P. S. A. S., vol. i. p. 138.

1480 Schoolcraft, “Ethn. Res.,” vol. i. p. 92; Squier and Davis, “Anc. Mon. Miss. Vall.,” p. 204.

1481 Arch. Journ., vol. ix. p. 96; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. pp. 406, 422; Borlase, “Nænia Corn.,” p. 162.

1482 “Ten Years’ Digg.,” p. 167.

1483 “Catal.,” p. 22; Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. ii. p. 83.

1484 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. vi. p. 88.

1485 Arch. Journ., vol. xx. p. 200. The Council of the Institute have kindly lent this figure.

1486 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. ii. p. 277.

1487 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xvii. p. 111, pl. xii. 2; vol. x. p. 8.

1488 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 332.

1489 “Barrow Diggers,” p. 77, pl. v. 14, 15.

1490 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. iii. p. 344 (I am indebted to the Council for the use of this cut); Arch., vol. xxxv. p. 247; “Anc. Stone Imp.,” p. 417.

1491 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. pp. 406, 430.

1492 Bateman, “Ten Years’ Dig.,” p. 167.

1493 Hoare’s “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 160; Arch., vol. xliii. p. 469, fig. 172. I am indebted to the Council of the Soc. Ant. for the use of this cut.

1494 “Reliquary,” vol. vi. p. 211, pl. xx. 1; Dawkins, “Cave Hunting,” p. 129.

1495 Som. Arch. and Nat. Hist. Soc. Proc., vol. v. 1854, p. 91.

1496 Arch. Journ., vol. xxxvii. p. 107. I am indebted to the Institute for the use of this cut. See Figs. 468 and 87.

1497 Arch. Journ., vol. v. p. 323.

1498 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. i. p. 148; Suss. Arch. Coll., vol. ii. p. 260.

1499 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 131. For the use of this cut I am indebted to the Council of the Society.

1500 Arch. Journ., vol. xxii. p. 74.

1501 Perrin, “Etude, préh. sur la Sav.,” pl. xviii. 6.

1502 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 570, fig. 479.

1503 “British Barrows,” p. 210.

1504 “Cran. Brit.,” pl. xii. B 4; Arch., vol. xliii. p. 474.

1505 Greenwell’s “British Barrows,” p. 209.

1506 Op. cit., p. 386.

1507 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xiv. p. 258.

1508 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. iii. p. 59.

1509 Arch. Journ., vol. xxiv. p. 256; Arch., vol. xxvi. p. 483.

1510 Arch. Journ., vol. xxii. p. 74.

1511 Arch. Camb., 3rd S., vol. x. p. 224.

1512 Pring, “The Brit. and Rom. on the Site of Taunton,” p. 50.

1513 Arch., vol. xxi. p. 39.

1514 Arch. Journ., vol. xi. p. 294.

1515 Journ. Hist. and Arch. Assoc. of Ireland, 3rd S., vol. i. p. 164.

1516 “Vallancey,” vol. iv. pl. xiv. 8; Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 578, fig. 490.

1517 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 570, fig. 480.

1518 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 46, fig. 573.

1519 Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. ii. p. 83. The cut is kindly lent by the Council.

1520 “Catal.,” p. 22.

1521 Sup., p. 378; Arch. Journ., vol. v. p. 323.

1522 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 332.

1523 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. iii. p. 24, whence this cut is borrowed.

1524 Arch. Journ., vol. xiii. p. 295.

1525 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 36.

1526 Arch., vol. xxxvii. p. 368.

1527 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 426.

1528 Som. Arch. and Nat. Hist. Soc. Proc., vol. v. 1854, p. 91.

1529 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 81.

1530 “British Barrows,” p. 223.

1531 “Brit. Barrows,” p. 324. For Fig. 491 I am indebted to the Delegates of the Clarendon Press.

1532 “Ten Years’ Dig.,” p. 80.

1533 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. viii. p. 30.

1534 Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 40, fig. 570.

1535 Op. cit., p. 38.

1536 Arch. Journ., vol. xix. p. 88.

1537 Von Sacken, “Grabf. v. Hallst.,” Taf. xvii. 4, 6.

1538 Arch., vol. xliii. p. 470.

1539 “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 243.

1540 “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 103.

1541 Arch., vol. xliii. p. 525.

1542 Op. cit., 114. A bead of burnt clay has also been found in a Westmoreland barrow. “Brit. Barrows,” p. 55.

1543 See Thurnam, Arch., vol. xliii. p. 495.

1544 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. v. p. 313, pl. xxi.

1545 Ibid.

1546 Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 3.

1547 Arch. Æliana, vol. ii. p. 213, pl. iv.; Arch. Scot., vol. iv. p. 55, pl. vii.

1548 Arch. Journ., vol. xi. p. 294.

1549 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. iii. p. 10.

1550 Arch. Camb., 4th S., vol. iii. p. 354. I am indebted to the Council of the Cambrian Arch. Assoc. for the use of this cut.

1551 Mém. Soc. Ant. Norm., 1827-8, pl. xvii.

1552 3rd S., vol. i. p. 164, whence the cut is borrowed.

1553 “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 579, fig. 494.

1554 Vol. iv. pl. xiv.

1555 See Wilde’s “Catal.,” p. 576 et seqq.

1556 Arch. Journ., vol. xxii. p. 74; Arch. Camb., 3rd S., vol. xii. p. 97.

1557 Type of Evans, “Anc. Brit. Coins,” pl. ii. 9.

1558 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xxxvi. p. 110.

1559 “British Barrows,” p. 209.

1560 “Essays on Arch. Sub.,” vol. i. p. 25.

1561 “Anc. Stone Imp.,” p. 407.

1562 Arch. Journ., vol. xxii. p. 74; Arch. Camb., 3rd S., vol. xii. p. 97.

1563 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 232.

1564 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., N.S., vol. i., p. 322, whence this cut is borrowed.

1565 Arch. Journ., vol. xi. p. 179.

1566 Ibid.

1567 Arch. Journ., vol. ix. p. 200.

1568 Arch. Journ., vol. xxiv. p. 120.

1569 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 236. This and the following cut are kindly lent me by the Council of the Society.

1570 Fourdrignier, “Double Sép. Gaul.,” 1878, pl. v. and vi.

1571 Arch. Æliana, vol. i. p. 13, pl. ii. 14.

1572 See Chantre, “Age du Br.,” 1ère ptie., p. 156.

1573 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. vii. p. 485.

1574 Arch. Journ., vol. xxx. p. 282, fig. 3; Anthrop. Inst. Journ., vol. iii. p. 230.

1575 Arch., vol. xliii. p. 556, pl. xxxvii. figs. 8 and 11.

1576 Pl. xl. 16; Samlede Fund, pl. xvi. 12.

1577 Arch. Camb., 3rd S., vol. vi. p. 137.

1578 “Age du Bronze,” 1ère ptie., p. 188.

1579 Rev. Anthrop., 1875, tome iv. p. 650.

1580 See Chantre, “Age du Br.,” 1re ptie., p. 152.

1581 “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 209.

1582 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 252.

1583 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. vi. p. 46.

1584 See Arch. Journ., vol. xxvi. pp. 35 and 52; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. v. p. 111; C. R. Smith’s “Catal. London Ant.,” p. 82; Arch. Camb., 3rd S., vol. viii. p. 208; vol. x. p. 57; “Hor. Fer.,” p. 184.

1585 Trans. Kilkenny Arch. Soc., vol. iii. p. 65. Annaler for Oldk., 1836, p. 175.

1586 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 90.

1587 Vol. xliii.

1588 Lubbock, “Preh. Times,” 4th ed., p. 223.

1589 P. 399 et seqq.

1590 Erroneously called a celt by Mr. Kirwan. See Arch. Journ., vol. xxiv. p. 189, whence this cut is borrowed.

1591 “Ten Years’ Dig.,” p. 173.

1592 P. 21.

1593 Wilson, “Preh. Ann.,” vol. i. pp. 350, 408.

1594 Shirley’s “Dominion of Farney;” Arch. Journ., vol. iii. p. 96.

1595 Wilson, op. cit., vol. i. p. 409. I am indebted to Messrs. Macmillan & Co. for the use of this cut.

1596 Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 529, fig. 407. This cut has been lent me by the Council of the Academy.

1597 Vol. v. p. 82.

1598 Catal. Mus. R. I. A., p. 531, fig. 409.

1599 Rev. Arch., N.S., vol. xxvi. p. 326.

1600 A paper on “Etruscan Commerce with the North,” by Dr. Hermann Genthe, will be found in the Archiv. für Anthrop., vol. vi. p. 237.

1601 Von Sacken, “Das Grabf. v. Hallst.,” Taf. xxi. 1.

1602 April 30, 1879.

1603 Percy’s “Metallurgy,” vol. i. p. 474 (ed. 1861).

1604 Comptes Rendus de l’Ac. des Sc., vol. lxxvi. (1873), p. 1232.

1605 Phil. Trans., 1796, vol. lxxxvi. p. 395.

1606 Chantre, “L’Age du Br.,” 1ère ptie., p. 62.

1607 J. A. Phillips, Q. J. Chem. Soc., vol. iv. p. 266.

1608 O’Curry’s “Mann. and Cust. of the Anc. Irish,” vol. i. p. ccccxx.

1609 O’Curry, op. cit., p. ccccxviii.

1610 For an interesting essay on the sources of bronze, see Prof. Sullivan in the Introduction to O’Curry’s “Manners and Customs of the Ancient Irish,” p. ccccvii. See also H. H. Howorth, F.S.A., on the “Archæology of Bronze,” Trans. Ethnol. Soc., vol. vi. p. 72; Sabatier, “Production de l’or, de l’argent, et du cuivre,” &c., 1850; Von Bibra, “Die Bronzen und Kupferlegirungen,” 1869; De Fellenberg, “Bull. de la Soc. des Sc. nat. de Berne,” 1860; Wocel, “Chemische Analysen anb. Bronze legirungen,” in Sitz.-Ber. phil. hist. Classe. Acad. der Wiss. Wien. Bd. xvi. 169; “Kelternes, Germanernes og Slavernes Bronzer,” in Antiq. Tidskrift., 1852-54, p. 206; Morlot, “Les Métaux dans l’Age du Bronze,” Mém. Soc. Ant. du Nord, 1866-71, p. 23; Wibel, “Die Cultur der Bronze-Zeit Nord und Mittel Europas,” 1865; Von Cohausen’s Review of Wibel, Archiv. für Anth., vol. i. p. 320, vol. iii. p. 37; Lubbock, “Prehistoric Times,” p. 59 et seqq.; Zaborowski-Moindron, “L’Ancienneté de l’Homme,” 1874; Dr. C. F. Wiberg, “Einfluss der Etrusker und Griechen auf die Bronze Cultur,” Arch. für Anth., vol. iv. p. 11; Troyon, “Monuments de l’Ant. dans l’Europe barbare,” 1868; De Rougemont, “L’Age du Bronze,” 1866; A. Bertrand, “Arch. Celtique et Gauloise,” 1876; G. De Mortillet, “Origine du Bronze,” Revue d’Anthrop., vol. iv. p. 650; Wilson, “Preh. Annals of Scotland,” and “Prehistoric Man.”

1611 Job, chap. xxviii. v. 2.

1612 P. 115.

1613 Comptes Rendus, 1866, vol. lxii. pp. 223, 346.

1614 The doubts raised by the late Sir G. C. Lewis on this point have been dealt with by Sir John Lubbock, “Preh. Times,” p. 63 et seqq.

1615 Von Bibra, op. cit., p. 94.

1616 Dr. Percy, F.R.S., and other practical metallurgists have shown that this view is untenable. See Lubbock, “Prehist. Times,” p. 621.

1617 Annales for Oldk., 1852, p. 249; Jahrbüch. des Ver. v. Alt.-freund im Rheinl., vol. lix. p. 21; Chantre, “Age du Br.,” 1ère ptie., p. 62; Perrin, “Et. préh. sur la Savoie,” 1870, p. 19; Layard, “Nineveh and Babylon,” p. 670.

1618 “Die Bronzen und Kupferlegirungen,” 8vo. Erlangen, 1869.

1619 Bull. di Paletnol. Ital., 1879, p. 159.

1620 Chantre, “Age du Br.,” 1ère ptie., p. 36; “Alb.,” pl. xxviii.; “Matériaux,” vol. xi. pl. i. 1. Proc. Soc. Ant. 2nd Ser., vol. viii. p. 250.

1621 Arch. Camb., 4th S., vol. ii. p. 59, vol. viii. p. 210; Pennant’s “Tour,” vol. i. p. 63; Arch. Journ., vol. xxix. 194; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 286.

1622 Arch., vol. xv. p. 118.

1623 Journ. Roy. Inst. Cornw., No. xxi.

1624 Arch., vol. xv. p. 120 (Leland).

1625 Arch., vol. xvi. p. 363.

1626 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd Ser., vol. v. p. 427.

1627 Arch. Journ., vol. xxvi. p. 288.

1628 Surrey Arch. Coll., vol. vi.

1629 Anderson’s “Croydon,” p. 10.

1630 Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 248.

1631 Journ. Anthrop. Inst., vol. vi. p. 195.

1632 Penes me, Arch. Journ., vol. xi. p. 24.

1633 Arch. Journ., vol. ix. p. 302.

1634 Arch., vol. v. p. 116.

1635 In the British Museum.

1636 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd Ser., vol. iii. p. 232.

1637 Smith’s “Coll. Ant.,” vol. i. p. 101.

1638 In the British Museum.

1639 Arch. Journ., vol. ii. p. 80.

1640 Arch., vol. v. p. 116.

1641 Arch., vol. v. p. 114.

1642 Penes Capt. Brooke, Ufford Hall, Woodbridge.

1643 Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 69.

1644 Arch. Æliana, vol. ii. p. 213.

1645 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. i. p. 306; Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 86.

1646 Arch., vol. v. p. 115.

1647 Wilson, “P. A. of Scot.,” vol. i. p. 348; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. i. p. 132.

1648 Crawfurd, Trans. Eth. Soc., vol. iii. p. 350.

1649 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. ix. p. 435.

1650 “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” vol. i. p. 376.

1651 Lubbock, “Preh. Times,” p. 44; Von Sacken, “Das Grabfeld von Hallstatt,” p. 118.

1652 Keller, 3er Bericht, p. 93.

1653 “Manners and Customs of the Anc. Irish,” O’Curry and Sullivan, p. ccccxix.

1654 “Cong. préh.,” Buda-Pest, vol. i. p. 242; Engineer, March 26, 1876.

1655 Arch. für Anth., vol. ix. p. 265.

1656 Jul. Pollux. “Onom.,” lib. ix. c. 6, p. 1055.

1657 Evans, “Coins of the Anc. Brit.,” p. 123.

1658 Arch. Journ., vol. xvi. p. 39; whence the cut is borrowed.

1659 Arch. Journ., vol. xxviii. p. 196. See also Arch. Journ., vol. xvi. p. 7, for an interesting paper on Ancient Metallurgy, by the late Prof. J. Phillips.

1660 Arch. Journ., vol. xvi. p. 39.

1661 Spano, “Paleoetnol. Sarda,” p. 26.

1662 Keller, “Lake-dwellings,” Eng. ed., p. 54.

1663 Op. cit., p. 118.

1664 “Preh. Times,” p. 40.

1665 Arch. Æliana, vol. iv. p. 107; Arch. Journ., vol. x. p. 2.

1666 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. ii. p. 33, vol. vi. p. 209.

1667 Journ. Ethnol. Soc., vol. ii. p. 341; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iv. p. 513. Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xxxvi. p. 146. Only seven depressions are there described.

1668 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. i. p. 45.

1669 Ibid., vol. iv. p. 383, and v. p. 109.

1670 Ibid., vol. ii. p. 34; Wilson, “Preh. Ann.,” vol. i. p. 343, pl. v.

1671 Arch. Journ., vol. iv. p. 335, pl. vi.; Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 392.

1672 “Catal.,” p. 78.

1673 Wilde’s “Catal.,” p. 91, fig. 72.

1674 Pegazzoni, “L’uomo preist. nella Prov. di Como,” 1878, pl. vi. 18-20.

1675 Wilson, “Preh. Ann.,” vol. i. p. 358, fig. 46.

1676 Arch. Journ., vol. iv. p. 335.

1677 “Les dernières trouvailles du Lac de Bienne,” 1879, pl. i. 10; “Matériaux,” 1880, pl. i. 10.

1678 Exp. Arch. de la Sav., 1878, pl. iv. 187; Chantre, “Alb.,” pl. lii.

1679 “Matériaux,” vol. x. p. 112.

1680 “Matériaux,” vol. xii. p. 185.

1681 “The Barrow Diggers,” p. 75, pl. v. 10. It is so badly drawn that it might be taken for a broken mould for a palstave. Arch., vol. xxviii. p. 451.

1682 P. 78.

1683 Hampel, “Cat. de l’Exp. préhist.,” 1876, p. 134; “Ant. préh. de la Hongrie;” “Matériaux,” vol. xii. p. 184.

1684 Wittlock, “Jord-fynd från Wärend’s förhist. Tid.,” 1874, p. 68.

1685 “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” vol. i. p. 345, figs. 48 and 49. Fig. 61 shows a casting from one of the moulds.

1686 Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 91, fig. 73.

1687 Gastaldi, “Nuovi cenni,” 1862, Tav. iv. 22.

1688 Vol. ix. p. 185.

1689 Mém. des Ant. du Nord, 1872-77, p. 142.

1690 Arch., vol. xv. p. 349, pl. xxxiv. 1, 2.

1691 Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 93.

1692 Arch. Journ., vol. xx. p. 170. The cut is kindly lent by the Council of the Institute.

1693 Ranchet e Regazzoni, Atti della Soc. Ital. de sc. nat., vol. xxi.

1694 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. vi. p. 48, pl. vi. I am indebted to the Council for the use of these four blocks.

1695 Arch. Journ., vol. iii. p. 257, vol. vi. p. 385; Lindenschmit, “A. u. h. V.,” vol. ii. Heft. xii. Taf. i. 5.

1696 Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 166.

1697 Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. iv. p. 148.

1698 Spano, “Paleoetnol. Sard.,” p. 27.

1699 “Troy and its Remains,” pp. 82, 110, 139, 173, 261, &c.

1700 See Arch., vol. v. p. 108 et seqq.

1701 “Collectanea,” vol. iv. p. 59.

1702 Arch. Journ., vol. vi. p. 386, vol. xviii. p. 166; Arch. Camb., 3rd S., vol. ii. p. 128.

1703 Vallancey, “Coll.,” vol. iv. p. 59, pl. x. 10.

1704 Proc. Soc. Ant., vol. iii. p. 158.

1705 Chantre, “Album,” pl. i.; “Age du Br.,” 1ère. ptie., p. 26

1706 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 433.

1707 Keller, 3er Bericht, p. 109, pl. vii. 43; Troyon, “Hab. Lac.,” pl. x. 15.

1708 Lindenschmit, “Alt. u. h. V.,” vol. ii. Heft. xii. Taf. i. 3.

1709 Bastian und A. Voss, “Die Bronze-schwerter des K. Mus. zu Berlin,” Taf. xiv. 9.

1710 Lindenschmit, ubi sup., Taf. i. 4.

1711 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 408; “Cong. préh.,” Stockholm vol. i. p. 445.

1712 Holtzappfel, “Turning and Mech. Manip.,” vol. i. p. 321; Arch. Journ., vol. iv. p. 337.

1713 “Anc. British Coins,” p. 124.

1714 Proc. Geol. and Polyt. Soc. of Yorkshire, 1866, p. 439.

1715 Lindenschmit, “Alt. u. h. Vorz.,” Heft. i. Taf. ii. 10, 11, 12.

1716 Suss. Arch. Coll., vol. xiv. p. 171; Arch. Journ., vol. xx. p. 192.

1717 Arch., vol. xxii. p. 424; Arch. Journ., vol. vi. p. 387; “Arch. Inst.,” Norwich vol., p. xxvi. I have assumed that the mould described in these passages is one and the same.

1718 Arch., vol. v. pl. vii.; Arch. Journ., vol. iv. p. 336, pl. iii. 5, 6, 7, 8.

1719 Arch. Journ., vol. iv. pl. ii. 5, 6, 7, 8.

1720 “Itin. Cur.,” pl. xcvi, 2nd ed.

1721 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 132; Arch. Journ., vol. xix. p. 358.

1722 Arch. Journ., vol. xviii. p. 166.

1723 Ibid.

1724 “Surrey Arch. Soc. Coll.,” vol. vi.

1725 Bastian und A. Voss, “Die Bronzeschwerter des K. Mus.,” p. 76.

1726 Ulfsparre, “Svenska Fornsaker,” pl. viii. 93.

1727 Mém. Soc. Ant. Norm., 1827-8, pl. xviii.

1728 Chantre, “Alb.,” pl. liv. 5.

1729 Keller, 7ter Bericht, p. 16, Taf. xvii.

1730 “Matériaux,” vol. xii. p. 184.

1731 “Aarböger for Nord. Oldk.,” 1866, p. 124.

1732 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 409.

1733 Arch. Journ., vol. vi. p. 382; Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. iii. pp. 10 and 58.

1734 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xiv. p. 258.

1735 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 232.

1736 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 132. I am indebted to the Council for the use of this cut; Arch. Journ., vol. xix. p. 358.

1737 Arch., vol. xv. p. 118, pl. ii.

1738 Journ. Roy. Inst, of Cornwall, No. xxi. fig. 4.

1739 “Petit Album,” pl. xxv. 6.

1740 Arch. Assoc. Journ., vol. xiv. p. 260.

1741 Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” figs. 213, 214.

1742 Montelius, “La Suède préh.,” fig. 40.

1743 Hartshorne’s “Salop. Ant.,” p. 95.

1744 Proc. R. I. Acad., vol. iv. p. 439.

1745 Chap. xi. p. 235 et seqq.

1746 Suss. Arch. Coll., vol. ix. p. 120, whence this cut is borrowed; Arch. Journ., vol. xiii. p. 184, vol. xv. p. 90.

1747 “Reliquary,” vol. iv. p. 63.

1748 Pennington, “Barrows and Bone Caves of Derbyshire,” 1877, p. 51.

1749 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. v. p. 412.

1750 Page 128.

1751 Page 84.

1752 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 328

1753 Evans’s “Coins of the Anc. Britons,” p. 102.

1754 Vol. xvi. p. 348.

1755 Supra, p. 405; Arch., vol. xliii. p. 556.

1756 See also Col. A. Lane Fox’s “Primitive Warfare, Sect. III.,” in Journ. R. U. Service Inst., vol. xiii.

1757 The Bronze Period of Switzerland has by some been calculated to have begun not less than 3,000 years b.c.—Zaborowski Moindron, “L’Anc. de l’homme,” 1874, p. 208.

1758 See Greenwell’s “British Barrows,” p. 44 et seqq.

1759 “British Barrows,” p. 19.

1760 Dawkins’s “Early Man in Britain,” p. 348.

1761 See Worsaae in Arch. Journ., vol. xxiii. p. 30.

1762 “British Barrows,” pp. 32, 375. See also Reliquary, vol. vi. p. 1.

1763 “Primitive Warfare, Sect. III.;” Journ. R. U. S. Inst., vol. xiii.

1764 “Preh. Times,” p. 73.

1765 Worsaae, in “Aarb. for Nord. Oldk.,” 1879, p. 327.

1766 See A. Bertrand in Rev. Arch., vol. xxvi. p. 363.

1767 See Chantre, “Age du Bronze,” 2ème ptie. p. 281.

1768 “Habitations Lacustres de la Savoie,” 1864, 1867, 1869.

1769 See Thurnam in Arch., vol. xliii. p. 494.

1770 Arch., vol. xliii. p. 497.

1771 See “Ancient Stone Impts.,” p. 411. I may take this opportunity of correcting the statement that the Assynt necklace is inlaid with gold. It is merely engraved with various patterns, in which micaceous grains of sand got lodged and were mistaken for gold.

1772 “Ancient Stone Impts.,” p. 402.

1773 Dawkins’s “Early Man in Britain,” p. 352; Quart. Journ. Suff. Inst., vol. i. p. 31.

1774 See also Rolleston’s App. to “British Barrows;” Lubbock’s “Prehist. Times;” Dawkins’s “Early Man in Britain,” &c., &c.

← Back to Ancient Bronze Implements of Great Britain