^{page 131 note 2} Archaeologia, lxxx (1930), 1–36.Google Scholar

^{page 131 note 3} This usage came in early in the present century, and is now standard (German Eimer). For situla, see p. 138, n. 3 below.

^{page 131 note 4} British National Grid ref. SH 74 20.

^{page 132 note 1} Antiq. Journ. xxxii, 128.

^{page 132 note 2} Its completion has been materially assisted by a Leverhulme Research Fellowship, awarded in 1955 for studies of which this forms part; we must express our gratitude to the Leverhulme Trustees for their generosity. It is now published with the aid of a grant from the Council for British Archaeology.

^{page 134 note 1} Archaeologia, lxxx, 15 ff. (cf. 2–4), 35–36.

^{page 134 note 2} von Merhart, Gero, ‘Studien über einige Gattungen von Bronzegefässen’, in Festschrift des Röm.-Germ. Zentralmuseums in Mainz. (1952), ii, 1—71; section on these buckets, 29–33 (with map 5); list, 69; drawings, Taf. 16–19.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 3} Von Merhart's Britisch-Irische Sondergruppe, op. cit. 33; list (entitled Englisch-Irische Gruppe), 70.

^{page 134 note 4} Formerly designated King's County.

^{page 135 note 1} For this, much the largest bronze hoard known from Ireland, and for its older literature, see Armstrong, E. C. R., in Proc. R. Irish Acad. xxxvi (1922), C, 134ff.Google Scholar; Crawford, H.S, in Journ.R.Soc. Antiq. Ireland, liv (1924), 14ff.Google Scholar; Macalister, R. A. S., The Archaeology of Ireland, 1st ed. (1928), 137–8; 2nd ed. (1949), 221–3. The place was in any case close to Whigsborough, and was apparently either Dooros heath, which lies south-west of it—whence the inaccurate name ‘Dowris’—or else lay north-west of it, towards the lake but located otherwise only by a name ‘Derreens’, which is itself not now locatable.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 2} Reg. no. 54, 7–14, 313 (Cooke colln.); Leeds, Archaeologia lxxx, 36, list no. 9 (with further references).

^{page 136 note 1} Proc. R. Irish Acad. iv, 423 ff.; bucket, 425. Cooke lived at Birr and had acquired it and most of the hoard, which passed from him to the British Museum five years after this. Hodges, H. W. M., in his paper on Irish bronze hoards in Ulster Journ. of Arch. xx (1957), very kindly shown to us by him in advance of publication, regards the Dowris bronzes as ‘largely a collection of scrap to be re-used by a bronze-smith’ buried on what he suggests was a habitation-site of the period, whence its discoverers may have adulterated the collection with bronzes found elsewhere. There is nothing positive to support this view, but if correct it would still leave the Dowris assemblage a unity as acceptable as that of the Heathery Burn Cave finds (p. 149 below). Our treatment of it as essentially unitary will be found supported below by independent evidences that its chief components are all of the late eighth or earlier seventh centuries B.C. (pp. 151—60, 189).Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 1} 1st ed. (1904), pl. IV, 2; 2nd ed. (1920), pl. 2. Hence Armstrong's drawing, Journ. R. Soc. Antiq. Ireland, liv, 10, fig. 1; and Merhart's, op. cit., Taf. 18, 2.

^{page 137 note 2} Archaeologia, lxxx, 34, n. 1, to the cauldronstaple no. 30; of the bucket, he merely declared its handles lost, supposing them to have been of the Irish-British type with cast staples: ibid. 36, on bucket no. 9.

^{page 137 note 3} Op. cit. 29–33. The Central Italian finds belong wholly to the later group; see further below.

^{page 137 note 4} The Childe-Hawkes attempt, in Proc. Prehist. Soc. 1948, to rename these ‘Bronze E’ and ‘Bronze F’ (as being industrially still Bronze stages like Bronze A—D) encounters the difficulty that ‘Bronze Age’ in South German terminology has come to mean ‘Pre-Urnfield Bronze Age’, so that its extension to cover Urnfield stages is felt as a contradiction in terms. Yet it is surely undesirable to use the same word ‘Hallstatt’ for pre-Iron Age Urnfield stages as for the Iron Age Hallstattian: that there is a cultural continuity is true, but it is not cultural identity. The evident solution is to number the Urnfield stages independently both of Bronze and of Hallstatt: it must naturally wait for agreement on what numbers they should get.

^{page 138 note 1} These are C and D because A and B have been used already for the preceding Urnfield stages; in terminologies without this peculiarity, they are just ‘older’ and ‘younger’ Hallstattian, or Hallstatt I and II.

^{page 138 note 2} Merhart, , op. cit., Taf. 17, 1.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 3} For their persistence on certain later situlae, see ibid. 35–38. In strict language a situla is a high-shouldered bucket with an arc-shaped handle, hooked into loop-attachments; these are prominent in Italy, where this Latin name was first bestowed on them in the nineteenth century. They are, of course, derived from Kurd-Eimer, and an Italian will naturally call those also situle; yet the name's associations are everywhere predominantly Iron Age, and we have purposely avoided using it for our Kurd and Irish-British buckets.

^{page 138 note 4} Op. cit., Taf. 16, 5–6.

^{page 138 note 5} Ibid., Taf. 16, 9; Taf. 17, 1.

^{page 138 note 6} Szombáthy, J. in Mitt, der Prähist. Komm. der Kais. Akad. der Wissenuhaften, ii, 2 (Vienna, 1913), 161–2Google Scholar (figs.), whence now Starè, F. in Zbornik Filozofske Fakultete, ii (Ljubljana, 1955), 115, 143, 158, Taf. 11. For the site see pp. 139–40, with n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 1} Arckaeologia, lxxx, 20–22, with pl. IX (T. del Duce) and fig. 7 (base-plates from Talamone, in Ashmolean Museum, Oxford); dating, 28, prototypes not later than 650, our buckets modelled on them thereafter, but before 600.

^{page 139 note 2} As did C. F. C. H. in Arch. Journ. ciii (1946), 10, on the base-plates from the Bagmoor hoard, N. Lincolnshire.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 3} Kindly provided by Prof. v. Merhart; literature in his op. cit. 30, and Sprockhoff, E., Zur Handelsgeschkhte der germanischen Bronzezeit (1930), 93, 132–6.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 4} Merhart, , op. cit., 31–32Google Scholar: Aichach (Taf. 17, 6) with iron dagger like that from the late grave 696 at Hallstatt; 36–38: Au (Taf. 22, 9) with ox-handled bronze jug (22–26; Taf. 14, 5). We are indebted to Prof. v. Merhart and the Staatssammlung at Munich for our fig. 3, A. The Italian finds are documented in his list, 69.

^{page 139 note 5} Starè, , op. cit. 116–17, 145–8, 158–60, Taf. IV, VI.Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 1} Szombáthy, , op. cit. (p. 138 above, n. 6), 156 (figs.), 161Google Scholar; not in Starè (same note). The place, St. Kanzian in the Austrian nomenclature of those days, was next included in Italy and called San Canziano; it is now just in Jugoslavia, and its Slovene name Skocijan has become official.

^{page 140 note 2} Above, pp. 136–7, with notes 1, 2.

^{page 140 note 3} SprockhofF, Zur Handehgeschkhte der germanischen Bronzezeit, 67; visible in Taf. 13, b; and in cup 10 in the new find of Dresden-Dobritz: Coblenz, W. in Arbeits- u. Forschungsberichte zur sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege, 1950–1 (Dresden, 1952), 135Google Scholar ff., 144, Abb. 10 and Taf. 27; technical description, 169. These can be seen as the small-sized cups to which the large-sized Kurd buckets technically correspond.

Also, though no use of conical rivets on buckets is instanced by Merhart, a published illustration of a Late Urnfield Kurd-Eimer from Absberg-Bierbaum in Lower Austria shows a pair fixing the handle inside the rim, in the manner of the Fuchstadt cups (Willvonseder, in Niederdonau, Natur und Kultur, Heft 6, 1940).Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 1} Pending further publications on this chronology, reference may be made to Müller-Karpe, H. in Schild von Steier, v (Graz, 1955), 25–29.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 2} Leeds, , Archaeologia, lxxx, 22Google Scholar; 35, no. 6; Merhart, , op. cit., Taf. 18, 3 (a sketch not accurate in all its details)Google Scholar; Evans, , Anc. Bronze Impts. 413, fig. 513.Google Scholar Leeds, Dervock (Irish—British), has a like profile.

^{page 142 note 3} With Merhart's, summary, op. cit. 58–62Google Scholar, cf. Childe, in Acta Archaeologica, xx (1949), 257–64.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 4} Merhart, , op. cit. 38 ff.Google Scholar; and in XXX. Bericht der Röm.-Germ. Komm. 1940 (1941), 33.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 5} Merhart, , op. cit. (1941), 8, Abb. 2, 3, with refs.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 6} On this chronology see p. 14.2, n. 1.

^{page 142 note 7} ‘Panzer-Studien’, in Rivista Arch. dell'Antica Prov. e Dioc. di Como, vol. ‘Origines’ (1954), Tav. III, 4; cf. Déonna, W. in Préhistoire, iii (1934), 117–20, figs. 26–28Google Scholar; G., and de Mortillet, A., Musée préhistorique, 2nd ed., pl. 99, no. 1108.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 1} Merhart, , op. cit. 44, 52–53.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 2} The Fillinges cuirasses (Déonna, , op. cit. 93 ff. SavoieGoogle Scholar) are shown by Merhart to be East Alpine imports (op. cit. 53), while that from Grenoble (Isère) seems local work (ibid. 51): Déchelette, , Manuel, ii, 1, 234–7, fig. 76Google Scholar; Déonna, 112–14, fig. 22.

^{page 143 note 3} Maps: Childe in Proc. Prehist. Soc. 1948, 190, fig. 8; and previously Sprockhoff, Handelsgeschichte, 57–67, Taf. 17 (but no. 30, Hauterive, should be on Lake Neuchâtel). The Dresden-Dobritz find (p. 140, n. 3) has several. Swiss examples figured: Corcelettes, Déchelette, , Manuel, ii, 1, 287, fig. 108, 1Google Scholar; Gross, V., Les Protohelvètes, pl. 2, 6Google Scholar; Antijuités lacustres, Album Lausanne, pl. 25, 2; Guévaix, ibid. 4, has the same embossing; Cortaillod: Gross, loc. cit. 4.

^{page 143 note 4} Favret, P. in Revue archéologique (1928), 16–33Google Scholar; this cup, 27, fig. 4.

^{page 143 note 5} ibid.; the type, Merhart, in Festschr. d. Röm.-Germ. Zentralmus. Mainz (1952), ii, 19–22, Taf. 12–13; these cups, 20 (with map 3), Taf. 12, 5, 9; late pre-Hallstatt dating, 22.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 6} Op. cit. 33.

^{page 143 note 7} Baerloo, , Byvanck, A. W., Voorgeschiedenis van Nederland, Taf. 24Google Scholar; Oss, Holwerda, J. H. in Oudh. Med. Rijks-Mus. v. Oudh. Leiden, n. r. xv (1934), 39–55Google Scholar; Altschlesien, v, 194–7, Taf. 33.

^{page 143 note 8} Mariën, M. E., Oud-België (1952), 275 ff., 303–5.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 1} Inventaria Archaeologica, GB. 13; for these hoards see further, pp. 149 ff., 157–9.

^{page 144 note 2} Below, pp. 178–80.

^{page 144 note 3} For the continental documentation see his list; also Coblenz, , op. cit. (p. 140, n. 3)Google Scholar, and Möller-Karpe, H., Bay. Vorgeschichtsblätter, xxi (1955), 46–75. The handleless Au and Stična vessels (p. 139) are excluded.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 4} Mus. no. 1898. 114; Journ. R. Soc. Antiq. Ireland, liv, III, fig. 7 (where superposition of staple on patch can be seen); Leeds, , op. cit. 16, 20, 35, list no. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 1} Mus. no. 1901. 57; Proc. R. Irish Acad. xxii, 285 (fig.); Journ. R. Soc. Antiq. Ireland, liv, 110; Leeds, op. cit. 16, 36, list no. 13.

^{page 146 note 2} Leeds, , op. cit., pl. VIII, 3.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 3} ibid., pl. VIII, 4; 36, list no. 10.

^{page 146 note 4} ibid. 36, list no. 11.

^{page 146 note 5} Hence the description, ‘pan-shaped vessel’, in Proc. R. Irish Acad. iv, 425.

^{page 146 note 6} Wilde, W. R., Catal. Antiquities in Mus. Roy. Irish Acad. (pt. 2, 1861), 531, fig. 409Google Scholar; Leeds, , op. cit. 36, no. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 7} Leeds, , op. cit., pl. VIII, 1.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 8} Merhart, , op. cit. (1952), 33.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 9} Leeds, Archaeologia, LXXX, 25–26. But he supposed cauldrons and buckets to have been both introduced from the Mediterranean: cf. pp. 139, 160.

^{page 148 note 1} Professor Stuart Piggott has drawn our attention to an eighteenth-century drawing in the Society's MSS. (Soc. Antiq. MSS. 265, p. 30), by William Stukeley, of a vessel from near Chester, otherwise unknown but here described by him as ‘a Rom. Camp Kettle found sometime agoe of Copper of this form’, the form being that of a bucket with Kurd-like neck and round-shouldered body, but with a pair of ring handles falling outside the rim, and either a pair of corrugations or else an applied band encircling it below the lip; staples are not shown, but was this an early and experimental Irish—British rendering of the type, replacing the Kurd handle-carriers by staples outside and not inside the rim? If so, this placing was soon abandoned for the inside position, which is invariable on extant Irish—British buckets.

^{page 148 note 2} European bronze shields of this culture and their outliers and derivatives have most lately been reviewed by Sprockhoff, in Jahrb. d. Röm.-Germ. Zentralmus. Mainz, i (1953/1954), 73–77Google Scholar, with the result that their introduction here at this time seems really certain—including the U-indented ‘Herz-sprung’ type, whence the V-indented (Clonbrin) will have been a peripheral variant, as also in Spain (figurations on gravestones) and independently in the E. Mediterranean area. This supersedes Sprock-hoff's older account (Handelsgeschichte, 1930), and the intermediate views of MacWhite and of Hencken: Actas y Mem. de la Soc. Española de Antr., Etn. y Prehistoria, xxii (1947), 158 ff.; Estudios sobre las relaciones atlánticas de la Pen. Hispánica en la Edad del Bronce (Dis. Matr. II, 1951), 98 ff.; Journ. R. Soc. Antiq. Ireland, lxxxi, 6–8; Amer. Journ. of Arch. liv, 295 ff. (yet see further p. 180 below). Older shields will have had bronze studs at most, and seldom those. That the round bronze shield from Chatteris (Langwood Fen) in the Isle of Ely need not, as has been supposed, have been associated with the basal-looped Middle Bronze Age spearhead from the same place (i.e. same fen, but two finds) was first pointed out by Mr. H. W. M. Hodges in a paper read before the Society in December 1955. Affinity between shields and buckets can be seen further in their both having rims folded round a bronze wire stiffener.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 1} Leeds, op. cit. 16–20, and list (35–36) nos. 1, 3, and 9–11: Meldreth (above, p. 144), Hatfield Broad Oak (below, p. 152), and in Ireland ‘Dowris’ (Whigsborough), where the bucket discussed above was accompanied by the lower part of a second (Leeds's pl. VIII, 4) and of a third with two remaining angle-plates: see p. 152 below. For the Bagmoor hoard (Lincs.) see also p. 152. The hoard found in Duddingston Loch (Edinburgh) Leeds, ibid., no. 5) may have been votive.

^{page 149 note 2} Leeds, ibid., no. 2.

^{page 149 note 3} Archaeologia, liv (1892), 88 ff., 105. In calling it here a ‘caldron’, Greenwell was using the word in the North Country collier's sense, denoting a coaltub or large bucket; this use was avoided by Evans (Anc. Bronze Impts. 412–14), doubtless to distinguish these ‘conical vessels’ or ‘vases’, as he called our buckets, from the ‘spheroidal caldrons’, i.e. the cauldrons considered here below. It should not be revived.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 4} (1881), 412.

^{page 149 note 5} (1920), 46–51, with a selection of Greenwell's illustrations reproduced as figs. 34–35. Since his main collection was acquired in 1909, the British Museum has had nearly everything extant from the cave.

^{page 149 note 6} (1953), pl. IV, 1.

^{page 151 note 1} Leeds, op. cit. 20–22.

^{page 151 note 2} ibid. 22, fig. 8; 35, no. 4.

^{page 152 note 1} Leeds, op. cit. 20, pl. VIII, 3 and 4; 35–36, nos. 8, 10; no. 11 is the third ‘Dowris’ bucket.

^{page 152 note 2} Leeds's no. 11 lacks these.

^{page 152 note 3} Arch. Journ. ciii (1946), 8–11Google Scholar, pl. I, c—f and fig. 9; Dudley, H. E., Early Days in North-West Lincolnshire (1949), 95–101, figs. 34–35; Inventaria Archaeologica, GB. 23, 1.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 4} Leeds, op. cit. 22; 35, no. 3.

^{page 153 note 1} Déchelette, Manuel, ii, I, 291–5; Merhart, op. cit. (1952), 33 (could possibly have come over from N. Italy, where such Hallstattian buckets likewise extend); for the wheels see next note.

^{page 153 note 2} Déchelette, Manuel, ii, 1. 290–3, figs. III—IIIa.

^{page 153 note 3} Cf. Sprockhoff, in Archaeologia Geographica, ii (Hamburg, 1951).Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 1} Jacob-Friesen, K. H. in Prähist. Zeitschrift, xviii (1927), 154–86.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 2} Cf. Childe, in Proc. Prehist. Soc. xvii (1951), 177–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 154 note 3} Archaeologia, lii, 103, fig. 21; British Museum Bronze Age Guide (1920), 46Google Scholar, 48, fig. 34, top right; Evans, Anc. Bronze Impts. 402, fig. 502 (erroneously ‘about ten’). They are 2⅝ in. deep, or 6·66 cm., and do not much resemble (as has been suggested) the Early La Tène bands from the Armsheim grave in Rheinhessen. A.u.h. V. iii (1881), iiiGoogle Scholar, Taf. 11, 3, which measure only 1–6 cm., and require wheels as at Kärlich: Germania, xviii (1934), 8 ff. Abb. 1, 5.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 4} Archaeologia, lii, 103–4, fig. 22; B.M. Bronze Age Guide, ibid., top left; Evans, ibid., fig. 501.

^{page 154 note 5} Archaeologia, lii, 104; ‘larger button’ in Evans, 401.

^{page 154 note 6} Archaeologia, lii, 104, fig. 23; Guide, 47, fig. 33, bottom right.

^{page 154 note 7} Evans, op. cit. 400–1, fig. 499 (Reach), with refs.; Inventaria Archaeologica, GB. 17 (3), 26–27.

^{page 154 note 8} Sheppard, T. in Arch. Cambr. xcvi, 1 (1941), 1–10; these, 8–9 (nos. 83–91 and c, 82, and 74–81).Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 9} ‘Abergele’ in Evans, op. cit. 404–5, figs. 505–7.

^{page 154 note 10} Piggott, S. in Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., lxxxvii (1953), 175–86.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 11} Powell, T. G. E. in Arch. Journ., cv (1950), 27–40; Inventaria Archaeologica, GB. 24, 2 (2).Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 1} Merhart, op. cit. 5, 14, 33; list, 64–65, with Taf. 5–6.

^{page 155 note 2} ibid. 4 ff., 11 (map of all classes), 13–14; list, 63, with Taf. 1–2. Sprockhoff's account: Handelsgeschichte, 100 ff. Unterglauheim bowl figured for comparison with Welby: Arch. Journ. cv, 3 5, fig. 4.

^{page 155 note 3} G. von Merhart in Jahrb. d. Röm.-Germ. Zentralmus. Mainz, iii (1956: Sprockhoff-Fest-schrift, 2), 28–120; maps, 53; lists, 103–4.

^{page 155 note 4} One, Layton colln.: Smith, R. A. in Archaeologia, lxix (1920), 17–18Google Scholar, fig. 17, Thames at or near Brentford; one, London Museum, ibid. 16: ‘Old England’, Brentford, , Wheeler, R. E. M. in Antiquity, iii (1929), 20 ff.Google Scholar, pl. I, fig. 1, 9; of other bronzes from here, some exotic, pl. 1, 2 shows knives and razors, Proc. Prehist. Soc. xii (1946), pl. VIII, fig. 9; for the Hallstatt types, see p. 188.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 5} Like his Abb. 2, 2, from the Auvernier site on Lake Neuchâtel.

^{page 155 note 6} With the four bosses making a quincunx with the central button: his Abb. 2, 4–10, from the same site and from Corcelettes.

^{page 155 note 7} Arch. Aeliana (4 to series), i, 13, pl. II, 14.

^{page 155 note 8} Merhart's Abb. 3 and 5–8. Smith's round plate from the Thames at Strand-on-the-Green (London: Archaeologia, lxix, 16; Vulliamy, Arch, of Middlesex and London (1930), 108)Google Scholar, with seventeen concentric ribs and a diameter of 11 in. (almost 28 cm.) must somehow be related, although so large: the urn-cover in the ‘king's grave’ at Seddin, which is one of these things re-used, measures 27·8 cm.: Merhart, 48–49, Abb. 6, 11. Seddin is in Brandenburg, but the North and West were certainly connected: the hilt of a North German kidney-sword, very like the one buried with this ‘king’, was in the Petit-Villatte hoard in central France, which also contained one of these phalerae (see p. 156, n. 1), and moreover hog-back knives of our ‘carp's-tongue sword’ complex too. Seddin is of Montelius period V and coeval with Late Urnfields, eighth century; the hilt was scrap at Petit-Villatte in the following century. See Sprockhoff, , Die germanischen Vollgriffschwerter (1934), 21–23Google Scholar, 90 with Taf. 8; Savory, , Proc. Prehist. Soc. xiv (1948), 155 ff., 161 (map), 175 (list).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 155 note 9} Arch. Journ. ix (1852), 200; Evans, op. cit. 401 (British Museum).Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 1} A search for more might prove rewarding both here (see Evans, ibid.) and in France too, where those cited and discussed by Merhart (45–46, n. 40) come from hoards including Petit-Villatte (Abb. 7, 7, 9), Vénat (apparently), and Manson (Abb. 7, 6, 8; Déchelette, Manuel, ii, 1, 283–4, fig. 105), all three of which contain also one or more ‘carp's- tongue complex’ objects: see Savory cited p. 155, n. 8.

^{page 156 note 2} Archaeologia, lii, 100, fig. 30; B.M. Bronze Age Guide, 49–50, fig. 35.

^{page 156 note 3} Mózsolics, A. in Arch. Értesitö ix (1948), 71—73Google Scholar, and Acta Arch. Acad. Sci.Hungaricae, iii (1953), 69–111 (both in French).Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 4} Kossack, G. in Jahrb. d. Röm.-Germ. Zentralmus. Mainz, i (1953/1954), 111–78Google Scholar; and in Schild von Steier, ii (Graz, 1953), 49–62.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 5} The Bronze Age (1930), 104, 230.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 6} Archaeologia, lii, 110, with fig. 31; B.M. Bronze Age Guide, 50 with 121.

^{page 156 note 7} Archaeologia, lxix, 20–21, with fig. 21.

^{page 156 note 8} Archaeologia, lii, 96, figs. 1 (bracelet) and 2; B.M. Bronze Age Guide, 46–47, fig. 33.

^{page 156 note 9} Proudfoot, V. Bruce, The Downpatrick Gold Find (Arch. Research Publ. N. Ireland, 3, Belfast, 1955).Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 10} ibid. 15 ff., following Benton, in Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., lxv (1931), 183. The Heathery Burn bracelet's terminals arc of type I.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 1} That the chronology given by C. F. C. H. in Proc. Prehist. Soc. 1948 was too low, has been apparent from much in the literature since then.

^{page 157 note 2} Proudfoot, ibid., from Benton, ibid. 184; Archaeologia, lii, 102.

^{page 157 note 3} ibid. 17–19.

^{page 157 note 4} ibid. 34–36.

^{page 157 note 5} Read in Proc. Soc. Antiq. xiv (1892), 174 ff., 177–8Google Scholar, fig.; Montelius, in Archaeologia, lxi, 1(1909), 50, fig. 172.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 6} R. A. Smith, Archaeologia, lxix, 17–18, fig. 16. See also the bracelets from Dreuil (Amiens) and Reach Fen (Cambs.) compared by Leeds: Archaeologia, lxxx, 17, fig. 5.

^{page 157 note 7} Gorget: e.g. Raftery, Prehistoric Ireland, 170–1, fig. 187; Lattoon disc, Macalister, Arch, of Ireland, 2nd ed. (1949), 197, from Man, xx, 45.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 8} Preliminary notice in Arch. News Letter, iv (1952–1853), 177.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 9} Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot, lxviii, 192; Childe, The Prehistory of Scotland (1935), 162–3, pl. XII.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 10} Maryon, H. in Arch. Aeliana 4, xvi (1939), 101–8Google Scholar; cf. Proc. R. Irish Acad. xliv (1938), C, 203–5.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 11} Not in St. George Gray's list of the gold penannulars, Antiq. Journ. v (1925), 141–4Google Scholar; nor in Proudfoot's (op. cit. 42–43), but mentioned by him (ibid. 28) from Childe's comment on the pair of these lately published by Miss P. M. Keef from Harting Beacon (Sussex), as deposited not earlier than pottery dated Iron Age A2: Antiq. Journ. xxxiii (1953), 205. If this is a case of long survival, it can in no way alter the date of the copies in France, which, even if absolutely as late as the start of Childe's ‘Hallstatt I’ (= German Hallstatt C), must be over three centuries before British Iron Age A2 (starting c. 300).Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 12} Favret, P. in Revue archéogique (1928), 16–33Google Scholar, with map, fig. 2; Choussy, figs. 3, 4; Vénat, ibid. 1–3; Saint-Martin-sur-le-Pré, fig. 1; cups, see p. 143 above, with nn. 4, 5.

^{page 159 note 1} Archaeologia, lii, 100–1, fig. 9; B.M. Bronze Age Guide, fig. 34.

^{page 159 note 2} Evans, Anc. Bronze Impts. 218–19, fig. 270; Archaeologia, 100, fig. 7; Bronze Age Guide, fig. 33; Proc. Prehist. Soc. xii (1946), 126–8, 138–40, no. 43.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 3} ‘Downs’, ibid. (1946), nos. 65–69.

^{page 159 note 4} See p. 149 here, n. 1.

^{page 159 note 5} Evans, op. cit. 335; Bronze Age Guide, 106, pl. VIII, 1.

^{page 159 note 6} Archaeologia, lii, 107, fig. 24; Bronze Age Guide, fig. 33.

^{page 159 note 7} R.C.A.M. Anglesey, liii, fig. 16.

^{page 159 note 8} Llangwyllog, ibid.; Evans, op. cit. 386, fig. 483, which is Heathery Burn: Archaeologia, lii, 103–4, fig. 20; also lxxx, 16–17, fig. 27; Bronze Age Guide, fig. 33.

^{page 159 note 9} Savory, H. N. in Proc. Prehist. Soc. xiv (1948), 155–76. For ring from Crozon (Finistère), see below, p. 185, with n. 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 159 note 10} Childe, The Prehistory of Scotland, 170 ff., 188–9, starting from Miss Benton on this ware in her cave at Covesea (Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot, lxv (1931), 177 ff., and continuing from that of the Old Keig stone circle, whence the ware has sometimes been named.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 11} On the pottery of Ballinderry Crannog No. 2: Proc. R. Irish Acad. xlvii, C, 10–11, 22–27. And see now Proudfoot, op. cit. 17.

^{page 160 note 1} In The Problem of the Picts (ed. Wainwright, 1955), 56–58.Google Scholar Note previously R. B. K. Stevenson on the pottery from Kildalton, Islay: Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot, lxxvii (1944), 120–5.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 2} Evans, J., Anc. Bronze Impts. (1881), 109–12.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 3} Archaeoiogia, lxxx (1930), 1–36.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 4} Proc. R. Irish Acad. xlii (1934), C (no. 3), 11–19; 26, map.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 5} Antiq. Journ. xix (1939), 369–404 (on the second Llyn Fawr cauldron, and iron sword); map pl. LXXVIII, opp. 381.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 6} See p. 185 below.

^{page 160 note 7} The two standard accounts are by Sprockhoff (I930: above, p. 139, n. 3) and von Merhart (1952: above, p. 134, n. 2).

^{page 160 note 8} Occasionally, instead, a wooden hoop: Leeds, op. cit. 4.

^{page 161 note 1} J.R.S. xxiii (1933), 203–4, fig. 14.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 2} Hawkes, and Hull, , Camulodunum (Res. Rep. Soc. Antiq. xiv, 1947), 4.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 3} ibid., pl. CVIII, just south of the ‘hearth or pit’, 50 ft. east of Ditch I, which was the burnt clay patch in squarish hollow described ibid. 55.

^{page 161 note 4} It was followed by a fresh occupation in the earliest Iron Age, attested by a good deal of scattered pottery, but separated by a further interval from the occupation in the first century A.D. under Cunobelin. These finds and their topographical significance at Colchester will be presented in a separate paper.

^{page 161 note 5} For the very occasional presence of iron already in Late Bronze Age contexts in southern England, see Wilts Arch. Mag. xlvii (1936), 484Google Scholar (Boscombe Down East); Proc. Prehist. Soc. i (1935), 36 (Plumpton Plain, Sussex).Google Scholar

^{page 163 note 1} e.g. from Ireland, the cauldron W14 in Nat. Mus. Dublin, and that from Derreen, Co. Ros-common: Leeds, op. cit. 5 (former misprinted W12) and list, 31–32, nos. 5, 12.

^{page 163 note 2} Leeds, op. cit, 1 ff., pls. 1, 11, 1, 111, 1; hence Kendrick and Hawkes, Arch, in E. & W. 1914–31, 129–30, pl. XII, 3;XXI BRGK, 93–94, Taf. 13, c; Ampurias, xiv, 109, 118, lám. 11, 1.

^{page 164 note 1} For these see below, pp. 183–5.

^{page 164 note 2} Leeds, op. cit. 20 (Shipton).

^{page 164 note 3} ibid. 20–23.

^{page 164 note 4} ibid. 7–8, 11–15.

^{page 164 note 5} ibid. 23.

^{page 165 note 1} See pp. 156–7 (Mr. Proudfoot); 186–7 (Dr. MacWhite).

^{page 166 note 1} Furtwängler, A., Olympia, iv (1890), 73–93Google Scholar, with Taf. XXVII-XXXIV; Schwendemann, K. in Jahrb. d. Deutsch. Arch. Inst. xxxvi (1921), 98— 185Google Scholar; Evans, A., The Palace of Minos, ii, 2 (1928), 623Google Scholar ff.; Lamb, W., Greek and Roman Bronzes (1929), 11–17, 32–35, 44–47, 70–72, 131–2Google Scholar; Benton, S. in Ann. Br. Sch. Athens, xxxv (1938), 45 IF., 56–70Google Scholar, pls. 10–17; and ‘The Evolution of the Tripod-Lebes’, ibid. 74–130, pls. 18–26.

^{page 166 note 2} Benton, op. cit. 79, 90–91, 114, 120–4: c. 750–700 B.C, and so made ‘Class 3’, instead of’II’ as by Furtwängler, op cit. 81–90, nos. 583 ff., Taf. XXVII, XXXI–XXXIII.

^{page 166 note 3} Furtwängler, op. cit. 80, no. 582a (a. 700?), and 73, the small model no. 535; both Taf. XXVII. Cf. that depicted on an early Corinthian vase, late seventh century: Payne, H. G. G., Necrocorinthia (1931), pl. 20Google Scholar, 2. Later, from the sixth century to the fourth, there are vases and coins that portray tripod cauldrons with a developed profile of everted rim, straight neck, and bold shoulder; but they all retain the vertical fixed handles of the older lebes. Leeds cited these in comparison with Atlantic cauldrons: Archaeologia, lxxx (1930)Google Scholar, 27, with fig. 11 (coins) and vase references, n. 5, taken from Schwendemann, op. cit. 127; really, however, they do no more than show the lebes as modified in the later sequels of the movement which concerns our cauldrons only in its beginnings, and are thus (like Leeds's equally late pottery comparisons, ibid.) relevant here only very indirectly.

^{page 166 note 4} Benton, op. cit. 112.

^{page 167 note 1} Woolley, Sir L. in Antiq. Journ. xvii (1937), 1—15Google Scholar; Journ. Hellenic Studies, lviii (1938), 1–30, 133–70Google Scholar; the early Greek pottery: M. Robertson ibid. lx (1940), 2–21.

^{page 167 note 2} Smith, Sidney, ‘The Greek Trade at Al Mina’, Antiq. Journ. xxii (1942), 87–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 167 note 3} List and classic study (with the earlier litera ture): Kunze, E., Kretische Bronzereliefs (1931), 267–80Google Scholar, with Beilage 6: supplemented by him in Reinecke-Festschrift(1950), 96–101, with Taf. 16 (Heraion, Argive), and in Bericht über die Ausgra-bungen in Olympia (1956), 81Google Scholar; see also Jantzen cited below (p. 168, n. 2) and Mrs. Maxwell-Hyslop below (ibid., n. 4), 151, pl. XXVI, and 167.

^{page 167 note 4} After Randall-MacIver, The Etruscans (1927), 75, fig 9.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 1} Olympia, iv, 115–31, Taf. XLIV–XLIX; cf. Lamb, op. cit. 70–72, and see further p. 197 below (La Colombe); Benton, op. cit. 124–6.

^{page 168 note 2} In his Griechische Greifenkessel(Berlin, 1955)Google Scholar; reviewed by Hanfmann, G. M. A., Gnomon, xxix (1957), 241–8.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 3} Jantzen's chronology, ibid. 84–86: early groups all before 650.

^{page 168 note 4} Not. Scavi (1913), 429 ff., figs. 7, 8, 14; Randall-Maclver, D., Villanovans and Early Etruscans (1924), 132–3Google Scholar, fig. 44 (lion heads, normal ‘sirens’) and 45 (gryphon heads, bifacial bearded male ‘sirens’ with tall back-bent caps or helmets, declared Urartian by Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R., Iraq, xviii, 2 (1956), 151–2, with pl. XXXIII, 4–5).Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 5} Randall-MacIver, op. cit. 220, 264, no. 75; Curtis in Mem. Amer. Acad. Rome, iii (1919), 72, pls. 52–54; heads gryphon.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 6} Randall-MacIver, op. cit. 226, 268, nos. 39–40 (pl. 42, 6); Curtis, ibid. v (1925), 45, pls. 29–31; Kunze, op. cit., Beilage, 7; Maxwell-Hyslop, op. cit. 152 ff., pl. XXVII, and see p. 170 with nn. 3, 4; heads lion and gryphon alternating.

^{page 168 note 7} Jantzen, op. cit. 43; one can have been Kunze's no. 50.

^{page 169 note 1} Randall-Maclver, op. cit. 202–3, 206, nos. 87–89 (pl. 37); Pareti, L., La Tomba Regolini-Galassi (1947), 234, no. 196, Tav. XX–XXI, from the cella deposit, dated by him 650–630; 306–7, nos. 307–8, Tav. XL, from the antechamber/left niche deposit, dated by him 630–610; see 510–11 for these dates.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 2} On these see Amandry, P. in The Aegean and the Near East: Studies presented to Hetty Goldman (1956), 239–61.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 3} Barnett, R. D., Iraq, xii (1950), 1–39, bull heads, 19, pl. XVI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 169 note 4} In the excavations of Piotrovsky, B. B. (Karmir-Blur, i–iii: Akademii Nauk Armyanskoy SSR, Erivan, 1950–2–5)Google Scholar, summarized by him in New Contributions to the Study of Ancient Civilization in the USSR: Report of the Soviet Delegations at the X. International Congress (1955Google Scholar) of Historical Sciences in Rome (Moscow, 1955; Russian and English; cf. also the Atti of the Congress, publ. Florence, 1955), and by Pallottino, M. in Archeo-logia Classica, vii, 2 (Florence, 1955: see n. 12 below), 109–23Google Scholar, citing further literature, and figur ing bull-head attachment Tav. XLVIII, 4. The same is fig. 8 (p. 137) in the summary of Karmir-Blur, i (1950)Google Scholar, by Barnett, R. D. and Watson, W., Iraq, xiv (1952), 132–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 169 note 5} E. Gjerstad, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, ii, 581–2, Type 13; pl. CLXXIX, 290.

^{page 169 note 6} Jantzen, op. cit., Taf. 60.

^{page 169 note 7} Copenhagen, National Museum: Breiten-stein, N., Fra Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark (1952), 12, fig. 5; Jantzen, op. cit. 42; Pallottino, op. cit. 117, Tav. XIX, 3.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 8} By Maxwell-Hyslop, Mrs., op. cit. 164, citing Giglioli, L' Arte Etrusca (1935), Tav. xxii, 3.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 9} Riis, P. J., ‘Rod Tripods’, in Ada Archaeologica, x (1939), 1–30; on the Urartian inspiration of his ‘Early Greek Group’, into which that tripod falls, see n. 12 below.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 10} Randall-Maclver, op. cit. 220, 264, no. 72 (pl. 42, 1); Curtis, op. cit. iii, 70, pl. 49; declared Urartian: Maxwell-Hyslop, op. cit. 153.

^{page 169 note 11} Osten, H. H. von der in Ber. VI. Intemaz. Kongr.f. Arch. (1939) (Berlin, 1940), 225 if., Taf. 9aGoogle Scholar; Bossert, H. T., Altanatolien (1942), 91Google Scholar, and Taf. 313, no. 1194; Barnett, and Gökce, in Ana-tolian Studies, iii (1953), 53ff; Pallottino, op. cit. 118, Tav. XLIX, 1; Maxwell-Hyslop, op. cit. 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 169 note 12} Though there is a tripod of this type at Erlangen coming from Lake Van (Smith, op. cit. 104, with references), it was the Altintepe find that did most to bring out this view of Riis' ‘Early Greek Group’ (see n. 9), while confirming his early date for it. On this and on the relationship between these and the dissimilar ‘Cypro-Phoenician’ tripods, see Pallottino, op. cit. 118–19; and on the analysis of Urartian and Urartian-inspired tripods altogether, Amandry, op. cit. 251 ff.

^{page 170 note 1} Jantzen's views are summarized for gryphon cauldrons of. cit. 14–54; for tripods 87–94.

^{page 170 note 2} Archeologia Classica, vii, 2, 109–23; see p. 169, n.4.

^{page 170 note 3} Iraq, xviii, 2, 150–67; see notes to pp. 167–9 above.

^{page 170 note 4} ibid., pls. XXVIII–XXX; Curtis, , Mem. Amer. Acad. Rome, v (1925), 44, pls. 28–29.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 5} Smith, of. cit. 99; Maxwell-Hyslop, of. cit.

^{page 170 note 6} Maxwell-Hyslop, ibid. 159–64.

^{page 171 note 1} So Barnett, in Iraq, xii (1950), 39.Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 2} The contrary suggestions uttered tentatively at the end of Mrs. Maxwell-Hyslop's paper (op. cit. 165–6) can hardly be admitted. What range of dis agreement there may still be in the dating of the relevant Greek pottery is surely not wide enough to admit them; nor in any case can one alter the seventh-century dating of these tombs’ Phoenician or Cypro-Phoenician silver. Their Urartian bronzes were therefore old when buried. We are indebted to Dr. Hugh Hencken, F.S.A., for his views on this and various related topics. It should perhaps be added that nothing in all this commits one necessarily to belief in an Oriental origin for the Etruscans as a people; that belief, if held, has to be based in the first place on other grounds.

^{page 171 note 3} Richter, G. M. A., Handbook of the Greek Collections: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (1953), 35, pl. 23a. We owe this and the next reference to the kindness of Miss Benton.Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 4} Payne, H. G. G., Protocorinthische Vasenmalerei (1933), 21, Taf. 9, 3. Painted on the other side is a rather broad-shouldered lebes: cf. p. 174 below.Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 5} Journ. Hellenic Studies, lxviii (1948), 1–25; see esp. 7–8.Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 6} Levi, D. in Ann. della R. Scuola Arch. di Atene, x–xii (1927–1929), 472–5, figs. 590a, 3, and 590b, 3, 4, 7. For the importance of Crete in the Orientalizing movement see Maxwell-Hyslop, op. cit. 159— 60, further to Kunze and others there cited.Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 7} Dragendorff, H., Thera, ii (1903), 29, Abb. 78 (grave 17D).Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 8} Payne, H. G. G. and others, Perachora, i (1940), 160, a number found; rim fragments are pl. 63, 6, 9.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 1} As suggested by Körte, cited below (n. 4), 95; further on Cyprus in the Orientalizing movement, see Maxwell-Hyslop, op. cit. 164, in connexion especially with the Al Mina sea-route.

^{page 172 note 2} Osten, H. H. von der, The Alishar Hüyük, 1930–2, ii (1937), 287 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 3} Bittel, K. and Güterbock, G., Bogazköy (1935), 52 ff.; see moreover Smith, op. cit 95, citing also the Pazarli site, and showing that Phrygia was not con nected directly with Al Mina by the Cilician coast.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 4} Korte, A. und G., Gordion: Jahrb. d. Deutsch. Arch. Inst. Ergänzungsheft, v (1904), 110–11, Abb. 73–74 (rim d. 22·5 and 21 cm.).Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 5} Körte, op. cit. 38–98; dating, around 700, 98.

^{page 172 note 6} Archaeologia, lxxx (1930), 26, with fig. 10, which is from Korte, op. cit. as follows: Leeds's top right is the large cauldron (rim d. 54 cm.) Abb. 44–45, with lid having animal-sculptured wooden handle (Taf. 5: reproduced by H. T. Bossert, Altanatolien (1942), 84, Taf. 286, nos. 1091–3); Leeds's top left is the medium-sized one, Abb. 46 (rim d. 29 cm.); bottom right and left are the smaller ones Abb. 48 (rim d. 15 · 5 cm., bronze rings) and 47, which the fifth, not illustrated, resembled (rim d. 17–5 cm.); the fragmentary sixth cauldron was still smaller.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 7} The narrow strip extending below this in Leeds's drawing is really, as a look at the original German picture shows, a corrosion-mark on the cauldron's body.

^{page 173 note 1} Furtwängler, op. cit. iv, 133 (fig.), no. 838.

^{page 173 note 2} Payne, etc., op. cit. i, 106, pl. 35, 4; 168, pl. 67, 10–11 (pair); for occurrence also later, see Robin son, Olyntkus, x, 252, pl. LXVIII.

^{page 173 note 3} Perceived already by Körte, op. cit. 71.

^{page 173 note 4} Körte, op. cit. 67–71, Abb. 43 (rim d. 16·5 and 17·5 cm.); hence Bossert, op. cit., nos. 1087–8.

^{page 173 note 5} Türk Tarih Belleten, xi (1947), 74.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 6} Otto, H. in Mitt. d. Deutsch. Orient-Gesellschaft, lxxviii (1940), 57–58, Abb. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 7} Ibid. 61–62, Abb. 10, 5.

^{page 173 note 8} Furtwängler, op. cit. iv, 133 (fig.), no. 837.

^{page 173 note 9} Türk Tarih Belleten, xi (1947), 73–74, pl. XXI, fig. 43.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 10} Olympia: Furtwängler, op. cit. iv, 131 ff., with text-figs, and Taf. 1. Perachora: Payne, etc., op. cit. i, 161–3, pls. 65–68; on pyxis-lids too, 158, pl. 60, 8, 10. For the abundance of them later in Greece, with penannular and other forms of drop-handle, cf. Robinson, , Olynthus, x (1941), 183–4, 229 ff., 249–52, pls. XXXVII–XLII, LVI—LXVII.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 11} On their further affinities see Jacobsthal, , Greek Pins (1956), 46–47 and 153 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 12} Orsi, P. in Not. Scavi (1903), 533–4 (fig.; the body, though amenable to a measured drawing at the time of excavation, was of bronze sheet too fragile to survive it).Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 13} Payne in Perachora, i, 106.

^{page 174 note 1} See p. 171 above, n. 8.

^{page 174 note 2} Payne, ibid. 160, pl. 63, 4, 5, 10; fig. 23, 1–2.

^{page 174 note 3} Daremberg-Saglio, Dict. des Ant. gr. et rom. III, ii. 1000–2.

^{page 174 note 4} Les Bronzes antiques du Louvre, ii (1915), nos. 2589–98, with bibliography.

^{page 174 note 5} Levi, op. cit. 484, fig. 592, form 4; cf. 164, fig. 176; 172, fig. 192, and 192, with 110, fig. 100 (no handles) and 134–5, fig. 122 (reel-shaped staples, no rings).

^{page 174 note 6} Archaeologia, lxxx, 26 and pl. x, Rhodian dinos in Berlin, from Vroulia in Rhodes: K. F. Kinch, Fouilles de Froulia, 214, 259, fig. 103.

^{page 174 note 7} Archaeologia, lxxx, ibid., with n. 2, from Kinch, op. cit., pl. 15, 1.

^{page 175 note 1} Ann. Brit. Sch. Athens, xliii (1948), 69–71, no. 383 (M. Robertson), with pl. 24.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 2} Ibid., no. 382, with fig. 42 (profile) and pl. 25.

^{page 175 note 3} Ibid. 101, no. 599, with fig. 52 (profile, p. 96) and pl. 45. We are most grateful to Miss Benton for lending us her negative for our illustration.

^{page 176 note 1} Jacobsthal, P. and Neuffer, E. in Préhistoire, ii, 1 (1933), 1–64Google Scholar; list of these, 38 ff, repeated by Bellido, A. García y in Archivo Español de Arqueo-logia, xli (1940), 109–10Google Scholar, and Hispania Graeca, i (1948), 64–66 and with concordance by Hawkes, in Ampurias, xiv (1952), 93–94, with map (91) and the addition of the seventh-century pottery from H. Rolland, Fouilies de St.-Blaise (Suppl. Gailia, iii, 1951), 7 ff., 60–63, 220–2. The fibulae are two of Blinkenberg's ‘Helladic’ series 7, which should be eighth-century, among the otherwise wholly native material from the Grotte de Rousson (Gard): Jacobsthal and Neuffer, op. cit. 40–42, fig. 42 (Mus. Montpellier).Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 2} e.g. in Homer, Odyssey, xiii, 24, and xv, 113. The poem seems to have been composed in just this period, when the new western voyages would bring a fresh attraction to its theme.

^{page 176 note 3} In Ireland the attribute of abundance pertaining to the Dagda (figure recognizable through the mythology as old god of Other-World) was an in exhaustible cauldron of good cheer; by such cauldrons supernatural banquet-halls were supplied; the Dagda himself (in another myth) had to gorge from an enormous cauldron; another, in Scotland, was filled daily with milk by the three magic cows of Echde; and in another, of three-man size, was contained the ‘hero's portion’ of wine and victuals awarded to Cúchullain. The cauldron's bounties could include also artistic inspiration, and even life itself. In the Welsh Mabinogi of Branwen the monstrous couple who emerge from a ‘Lake of the Cauldron’ in Ireland, the man with a cauldron on his back—thereafter brought to Anglesey: see Miss L. F. Chitty cited by Fox, Antiq. Journ. xix, 372, on this and the Llyn Fawr cauldrons—were primitively a goddess and her consort, and the cauldron could give resurrection to the dead, if put in it. These examples have been drawn from T. F. O'Rahilly's Early Irish History and Mythology (1946), and M. L. Sjoestedt's Gods and Heroes of the Celts (trans. Dillon, 1949). The high value, magic virtues, and vast size attributed to cauldrons in Irish texts are illustrated also by R. A. S. Macalister's quotations in The Archaeology of Ireland, 2nd ed. (1949), 217–19.

^{page 177 note 1} The medieval Lebor Gabála Erenn, the ‘Book of Invasionsof Ireland’, credits the first Irish cauldron to Brea, of the race of Partholon, which however is quite fictitious; later it brings the Dagda and his cauldron in among the Tuatha Dé Danann, again fictitiously, for these ‘people’ had all been gods, and their ‘invasion’ seems invented for this book. It is indeed curious that it should bring them from the ‘islands of Northern Greece’, where they had learnt all arts; and Leeds wondered if the story might echo the real contacts with Greeks and Greek cauldrons which he suggested archaeologically (Archaeologia, lxxx, 27). But the weapons that it also brings with them are again attributes of gods, the sword of Nuada and the spear of Lug, which apparently symbolize lightning, as does the Dagda's cauldron life and plenty. See the works cited in the preceding note: all this is myth, not history. The conclusion then will be no rationalizing invasion-theory, but simply that adoption of such material things as divine symbols must indicate a prestige for them; and that this, for the cauldron in Ireland, is likeliest to have accompanied it direct from the Mediterranean, where such vessels were revered already.

^{page 178 note 1} Hencken, Archaeology of Cornwall and Scilly (1932), has what remains the classic chapter on this tin trade; see also Collingwood, R. G. in Tenney Frank, Economic Survey of Rome, iii (1937), 45–47.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 2} For this as the route of our ‘faience bead’ connexion with the Mycenean Greek world, see the late Stone, Dr. J. F. S. in Proc. Prehist. Soc. xxii (1956), 56–61Google Scholar; Hawkes, in Ampurias, xiv (1952), 81–118, considers these same matters (esp. 96–99), though more from the Mediterranean and Spanish angle.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 3} For the importance of native bronze industry in Sicily to the colonizing Greeks there, see the remarks of Dunbabin, T. J. in The Western Greeks (1948), 190–1. The Sicilian and then Greek in terest in the north-west was surely above all for tin, though there would doubtless be other things to buy as well. Gold is always possible; and if copper were offered too, Greeks trading here so early would not disdain it, seeing Sardinian copper cornered by the Phoenicians, and Etruscan purchaseable only against their (and more of other Greeks’) competition. The Etruscans indeed had all metals; but remoter barbarians would be cheaper sellers. The ideal solution was of course awaiting the Greeks in southern Spain, but they did not find it till 638: Herodotus, iv, 152.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 4} Déchelette, Manuel, ii, app. i, nos. 735 and 94; Hencken, in Zephyrus, vii, 2 (1956), 126–36 (figs.).Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 5} Hawkes in Ampurias, xiv, 100–1, with maps and refs.; Southbourne axe, Antiquity (1938), 225–8. The same route in reverse must have brought to Sicily the West-European maple-leaf or Class II bronze razor (ibid. 99) found there in grave 78 of the cemetery at Cassibile. This is unique in Sicily, and must be an exported member of the Western class, not a Sicilian prototype for it: see Hencken, in Proc. Prehist. Soc. xxi (1955), 160–2.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 6} Archaeologia, lxxx, 27–28 (though ‘1000 B.C.’ seems a slip for ‘600’; for the buckets mentioned here, see p. 185, n. 6

^{page 179 note 1} It figures in Ebert's Reallexikon (s.v. Huelva) and in all general works on pre- and protohistoric Spain from Bosch Gimpera's Etnología de la Península Ibérica (1932) onwards; fullest descriptive account, Almágro, M. in Ampurias, ii (1940), 85–143. See also E. MacWhite, Estudios sobre las Relaciones Atlánticas de la Peninsula Hispánica en la Edad del Bronce (Dis. Matritenses, II); Hawkes in Ampurias, xiv, 100 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 2} Both, briefly, in Actes du IV. Congrès Internat. des Sc. P. & P., Madrid 1954 (1956), 639 and 679; Hencken's, expanded in Zephyrus, vii, 2 (1956), 125–78. We are most grateful to each for communication of text before publication.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 3} See Hencken, 132–7, 141–2 (figs.; the prototype of all these seems Syrian, as in the 5th stratum at Megiddo).

^{page 179 note 4} Taramelli, A. in Monumenti Antichi, xxviii (1921), 9–98Google Scholar; compared with Huelva by Bosch Gimpera (1932) and all subsequently (see above, n. 1). MacWhite's map (op. cit. 86, fig. 25), with distribution of the swords, well shows the route, Atlantic-Straits-Sardinia, with link to Etruscan Italy but not to any Greek-held coasts. And see Pallottino, in Ampurias, xiv (1952), 137–55; Hencken, op. cit. 137–8, 144.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 5} On native and Phoenician/Carthaginian Sardinia, see Lilliu, G. in Not. Scavi (1944), 323–70, and his Il Nuraghe de Barumini (1955).Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 6} Despite earlier belief, and despite Al-bright, W. F. in Amer. Journ. of Archaeologia, liv (1950), 174Google Scholar ff., this is the necessary conclusion today: any thing supposed brought to south Spain or Portugal by Phoenicians before Greeks first arrived there in 638 is either not so early, or else (like the few Saite-Egyptian scarabs) could have been brought by Greeks as well, and any exception to this—unless some great surprise awaits us—will be a rarity that could have been traded through Sardinia, where the eighth-century Semitic inscriptions from Nora emphasize the contrast (CIS. 144–5). In this and on the strong case against seeing Spanish Tartessos in the Biblical Tarshish, see Lonmer, H. L., Homer and the Monuments (1950), 66–67; for the modern Spanish literature, see above, n. 1, and refs. in Ampurias, xiv, 88, nn. 25–26.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 7} Taramelli, op. cit. 62–63, figs. 88–89; Bosch Gimpera, op. cit. 233–6, fig. 196.

^{page 180 note 1} By Mr. J.D. Cowen (April i954): see Hencken, in Ampurias, xvii–xviii (1955–6), 224–8.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 2} Cf. pp. 153–9; the helmets are distributed as far towards the English Channel as Bernières- d'Ailly, near Falaise.

^{page 180 note 3} Amer. Journ. of Arch, liv (1950), 295–309; Zephyrus, vii (1956), 132.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 4} Most recent treatment: Pericot in Zephyrus ii, 2 (1951), 83–88Google Scholar; Uxea, J.Ramón y Fernandez in Arch. Esp. de Arq. xxiv (1950), 293 ff.; and xxix (1955), 266–73.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 5} Suggested by C.F.C.H. in Ampurias, xiv, 106 (with 102–4 after Savory in Proc. Prehist. Soc. xv, 128 ff.).

^{page 180 note 6} See p. 148 above, with n. 2, and Sprockhoff in Jahrb. d. Röm.-Germ. Zentralmus. Mainz, i (1953–4), with classified distribution map.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 7} That is, the Clonbrin leather shield and the leather shield-maker's wooden form from Church-field; but both so resemble the best carved Spanish representations that these two groups must in any case be directly linked.

^{page 181 note 1} This was not remarked by Leeds (op. cit. 4), since he mistakenly thought that the relevant continental buckets were all sharp-shouldered like that from the Tomba del Duce at Vetulonia (his pl. IX; see p. 139 above), which is really too late to be directly relevant. Cf. then our fig. 1 and pl. 1 with his pl. 11, 2 (Belfast Mus. 1911.142, his no. 14) and pl. 111, 4, from Edleston (Hattenknowe, S. Scotland). The Portglenone and Ramelton cauldrons are similar: see below (p. 183, with n. 5).

^{page 183 note 1} But not the loose staple, Leeds's no. 30 (p. 137), which was afterwards mounted falsely on the ‘Dowris’ bucket; that is of Class B1, for which see below.

^{page 183 note 2} Leeds, op. cit. 14, (list) 31–32.

^{page 183 note 3} Leeds, 7–8, 16.

^{page 183 note 4} Leeds,ibid.: his nos. 2(Dulduff) and 4(DU 4), in Nat. Mus. Antiq. Edinburgh, and 13 and 15 in Nat. Mus. Dublin.

^{page 183 note 5} Leeds, 15–16, 29.

^{page 183 note 6} Photo by courtesy of Prof. C.J. Becker and Nat. Mus. Copenhagen, from his publication of the find in Ada Archaeologica, xx (1949), 265–70.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 7} i.e. it is numbered 13 in Wilde's Catalogue (531, fig. 408); Leeds, op. cit. 8, 12, 15, 32, no. 19; pls.IV, 4, and VI, 2.

^{page 184 note 1} Leeds, of. cit. 5.

^{page 184 note 2} Proc. Prehist. Soc. xii (1946), 160.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 3} In Proc. R. Irish Acad. liii (1951), B, 177Google Scholar (diagram, pl. VII, no. 92). Mitchell here supersedes the diagram no. xix of his paper ibid. 1 (1945), 1–19, placing the cauldron in the lower part of what he was then calling Zone VII, now Zone VIII. The ‘horizon’ will represent the surface of the bog, down from which the cauldron will have purposely been buried; but see below.

^{page 184 note 4} Cf. the case of the Llyn Fawr lake-find, p. 187 below.

^{page 184 note 5} From photo kindly given by Prof. M.J. O'Kelly, F.S.A., U.C.C. Museum, Cork, to whom C.F.C.H. is most indebted also for photos of the Kealanine and Ballynorig cauldrons noticed below (p.186), and for assisting his examination of all of them in Sept. 1951.

^{page 184 note 6} Leeds, of. cit. 10, pl. VI, 3.

^{page 185 note 1} The staple is the loose one noticed above, p.137 and p.183, n.1. Its rescue from its improper perch on the rim of the bucket has thus helped not only to reveal the bucket as a Kurd, but also to peg its own chronology.

^{page 185 note 2} On the correlation-problems here involved, see at present Hencken in Journ.R.Soc. Antiq. Ireland, lxxxi, 1 (1951), 1 ff., esp. 9–10. It is of course known that further work on them by Mitchell is in progress. For Llyn Fawr see p. 187 below.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 3} Worsfold, F.H. in Proc. Prehist.Soc. ix (1943), 33–35, pl.XII, no.37.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 4} Drawing kindly communicated by him, for re production in Ampurias, xiv (1952), 110Google Scholar, fig. 8, 2. For the hoard, see Déchelette, Manuel, ii, app. 1, no.452; Savory, Proc. Prehist. Soc.xiv (1948), 175, and map, 161.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 5} Quimper, Musée des Beaux-Arts: kindly com municated by Prof. Piggott.

^{page 185 note 6} Leeds, op. cit. 16. If so, this would represent the only Irish—British bucket claimable from the Continent. For that cited on Leeds's p.28 from Le Rocher, Plougoumelen (Morbihan) is not one, but a situla, with low rim and arc handle, of the Hall-statt Iron Age, and here not earlier than the sixth century, if as early: Déchelette, Manuel, ii, 2, fig. 292. The situla from Lentini in Sicily, with which Leeds suggested connecting it (ibid.), no doubt comes from North Italy (though Orsi, quoted by Leeds for this, said just the opposite: Bull. Paletn. Ital. xxxviii (1912), 30), but need hardly have been en route to the Breton coast. And in fact, the Crozon handle is quite probably from a cauldron, since that from Cabárceno (below, n. 9) has handle-rings of quadrangular section also,Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 7} Obermaier in Bol. Com. Mon. Orense (1923), 28; Almágro in Ampurias, ii (1940), 104–6Google Scholar, fig. 22; Savory in Proc. Prehist. Soc. xv (1949), 135Google Scholar, 141, 155; MacWhite, Estudios sobre las Relaciones Atlánticas … (1951: p. 179 here above, n. 1), 108, lám. xxxv; Hawkes in Ampurias, xiv (1952), 112.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 8} For the uncertain fragments in the Ria de Huelva find, see p.179.

^{page 185 note 9} Bellido, A. Garcia y in Archivo Español de Arq. xiv (1941), 560–3Google Scholar; Santa-Olalla, J.Martinez in Actas y Memorias de la Soc. Esp. de Antr., Etn. y Prehist. xvii (1942), 163 (‘imported’); MacWhite, op. cit. 105–6 (‘Irish’), fig. 32 (correct section of rim and staple); Hawkes, op. cit. 110–12 (‘Spanish’), fig. 8, 1 (incorrect), fig. 9, lám. 11, 2–3.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 1} Op. cit. 32–34.

^{page 186 note 2} Photo as before kindly given by Prof. O'Kelly. For the finds see Proc. Prehist. Soc. xii (1946), 160.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 3} Op. cit. 11, with pl. v.

^{page 186 note 4} In journ. R. Soc. Antiq. Ireland, ixxv, 2 (1945), 94–98; hence his Estudios (p. 185, n. 7, above), 106–8, 128.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 5} Merhart, again in Festschrift d. Röm.-Germ. Zentralmus. Mainz, 1952, ii, as above: 22 ff., 28— 29, Taf. 14–15 (jugs: see below); 55 ff., 58, Taf. 24–25 (‘amphorae’).Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 6} ibid., Taf. 24, 1–3.

^{page 186 note 7} ibid. 58, doubting Stachelgürtel (viz. girth-band with conical rivets) in Italy before Hallstatt times; but see n. 9.

^{page 186 note 8} Mon. Antichi, xxxvi (1937), 165 (for Tar-quinia). Cf. also the lateral spikes on the comb helmets from such Italian sites, which should originate in similar spike-headed rivets: Merhart in XXX. Bericht d. Röm.-Germ. Komm. 1940 (1941).Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 9} In Journ. R. Soc. Antiq. Ireland, ixxxi (1951), 5Google Scholar; and see his full case in Zephyrus, vii, 2 (1956) 138–55.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 10} And their imitation in the spikes of the Irish trumpets of Mac White's class B: see n. 4. above, and Hencken, op. cit. 5–6.

^{page 187 note 1} For these see MacWhite in Journ. Cork Arch. & Hist. Soc. xlix (1944), 122 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 2} Leeds, op. cit. 10–12, with pl. VII.

^{page 187 note 3} e.g. lately MacWhite in Iris Hibernia (Fribourg), 1956, 11.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 4} First: Wheeler, R.E.M., Archaeologia, lxxi (1921), 136Google Scholar, pl. XII, 1; Leeds, op. cit. 8–10 (fig. 2), 32, no. 17; Fox, Antiq. Journ. xix (1939), 371–2Google Scholar, pl. LXXII. Second: Fox, ibid. 369–73, pls. LXXIII—LXXIV.

^{page 187 note 5} ibid. 391–402.

^{page 187 note 6} ibid. 378–9.

^{page 187 note 7} Godwin, H. in Proc. Prehist. Soc. xii (1946), 10.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 8} Fox, op. cit. 373–6, with pl. LXXIV and fig. 3.

^{page 187 note 9} Handiest concise description now: Grimes, The Prehistory of Wales (1951), 221–3 (and see Index), with figs. 25, 37, 63 (6–8), 72, and pl. VII.

^{page 188 note 1} Archaeologia, lxxi, 134, pl. IX; Antiq. Journ. xix, 370, fig. 1, 6; Proc. Prehist. Soc. xii (1946), 128, 134, fig. 8 and 141, no. 96; Grimes, of. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 2} Archaeologia, lxxi, 135, fig. 1 and pl. IX; Antiq. Journ. xix, 370, fig. 1, 14; Grimes, op. cit. 75, 222, fig. 63, 6–8.

^{page 188 note 3} Again in Jahrb. d. Röm.-Germ. Zentralmus. Mainz, iii (1956), 85–86, with illustration Abb. 9, 13–15, after Grimes.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 4} As Prof. Piggott had in fact just independently suggested: Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot, lxxxvii, 184.

^{page 188 note 5} These (one and a fragment) are not winged chapes, as both we and Merhart have erroneously called them: see Piggott, ibid. They are to be republished shortly by Dr. M.E. Mariën, in his new monograph on the finds from Court-Saint-Étienne in Belgium, which resemble Llyn Fawr in these and a number of other features. See meanwhile Actes du IV. Congrès Internal, des Sc. P. & P. Madrid 1954 (1956), 887 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 6} Wheeler, R.E.M. in Antiquity, iii (1929), 20 ff., pl. 1, fig. 1, 10; chape, pl. 11, fig. 1, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 188 note 7} Leeds, op. cit. 12–15; list, 34.

^{page 188 note 8} Proc. Prehist. Soc. xii (1946), 160; we are in debted to Dr. Raftery for further information,Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 9} Curwen, E. Cecil in Antiq. journ. xxviii (1948), 157–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cauldron, figs. 1–2 and pls. XVIII—XIX; axes, pls. XX—XXIa; ‘phalera’, fig. 5 and pl. XXIb. It cannot be a hub-sheath from a Hallstatt wooden wheel, as Prof. Piggott and C.F.C.H. overstimulated each other into thinking in 1953 (Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot, lxxxvii, 180, 185), because those are always made of two equal halves riveted together, whereas this is raised all in one.

^{page 189 note 1} Merhart, op. cit. 76, with Abb. 9, nos. 23 (Hallstatt, grave 465) and 21 and 24 (grave 469).

^{page 189 note 2} Cf. also the Leckwith (Cardiff) hoard: Antiq. Journ. xiii (1933), 299–300; Grimes, op. cit. 75, 189, fig. 66, 1–11.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 3} Proc. Soc. Antiq., 1st ser. ii, 199; Evans, Anc. Bronze Impts. 287, fig. 330; Archaeohgia, Ixi, 1, 47, fig. 161; Ixxiii, 265, pl. XLVIII, fig. 55; Sprockhoff, Die germ. Vollgriffschwerter (1934), 113, no. 138. Taf. 12, 12; Arch. Journ. xc (1933), 142, fig. 3; ciii (given by C.F.C.H. (1946) too late a date), 11—12, pl. 111, a—b.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 4} Sprockhoff, op. cit. 136, no. 49, Taf. 5–9 (previously unrecognized; the hoard is Evans's no. 107).

^{page 189 note 5} Balmashanner: Archaeohgia, Ixi, 1, 550–6, fig. 193; Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot, xxvi, 182 ff., 187–8, fig. 5; Ardoe: ibid, ix, 269; Abercromby, Br. Age Pottery, ii, 21, 124, 0.7. Childe, Prehistory of Scotland (1935), 161: cf. Rhineland hoards of Homburg, Wonsheim, etc., Alt. uns. heidn. Vorzeit, v (1911), 133 ff., 140, fig.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 1} See especially Mr. Cowen's recent recognition of this British version in the Kirke Søby hoard in Denmark, not after Montelius Period V, which cannot last longer than to between 650 and 600 at the latest: Proc. Prehist. Soc. xviii (1952), 129 ff. For the swords and their associations in Belgium, see Mariën, Oud-België (1952), 275 ff., esp. fig. 265, Gedinne, compared with 264 from the Tyne at Newcastle (Evans, Anc. Bronze Impts., fig. 344), and 279, Harchies.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 2} Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot, xlv, 27 f.; Childe, op. cit. 153; and Scotland Before the Scots (1946), 131 and pl. XII, 1.

^{page 190 note 3} Childe, ibid., citing the Hallstattian bowl Alt.uns. heidn. Vorzeit, 11, iii, Taf. v, 6, = Déchelette, Manuel, ii, 2, fig. 304, 3, from Kreuznach; Piggott in Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot, lxxxvii, 185, has compared the cross-handleholder bowls of Merhart's angular class B2b (misprinted ‘B2f’).

^{page 190 note 4} Childe's suggestion, ibid., following Mrs. Piggott in Proc. Prehist. Soc. xii (1946), 124, has been off c. 500.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 5} Antiq. Journ.xi (1939), 375–6. The Belgian case put by Mariën in his Oud-België, 290 ff., will be restated by him in his forthcoming Court-Saint-Étienne monograph (p. 188, n. 5).Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 6} Fox, ibid. 373.

^{page 191 note 1} Dept. of British and Medieval Antiquities, Reg. no. 59, 1–22, 13. We are once more indebted to Mr. Brailsford for transcribing and checking the information, as for kindly arranging for the supply of our illustrations.

^{page 191 note 2} On which C. F. C. H. was instructed by both Reginald Smith and G. F. Lawrence; but the cauldron has certainly been well cleaned.

^{page 191 note 3} (1920), 55: ‘plain’, and not ‘the more usual form’.

^{page 191 note 4} Archaeologia, lxxx, 3, n. 1; omitted from further consideration there along with various other cauldrons, certainly or probably of the Early or the Roman or later Iron Age.

^{page 191 note 5} Vulliamy, C. E., The Archaeology of Middlesex and London (1930), 109: ‘found in London’.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 1} Mus. Tübingen.

^{page 193 note 2} Mus. Sigmaringen.

^{page 193 note 3} Jit. tins, heidn. Vorzeit, v, 329 ff., with figs, and Taf. 56.

^{page 193 note 4} Manuel, ii, 2, 777, with fig. 301.

^{page 193 note 5} C. F. A. Schaeffer, Les Tertres funéraires pré-historiques de la Forêt de Haguenau, ii, 141, fig. 124, top right.

^{page 193 note 6} Fundberichte aus Schwaben, n.f. viii (1935), Anhang 1, 10–11.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 7} Trierer Zeitschrift, xiv (1939), 136–7, Eckfeld; xv (1940), 49, Taf. XIII, 3, Thoma.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 8} Ibid. XX (1951), 44 ff., with Abb. 21–22 and n. 96. We are much indebted to Professor Dehn, not only for bringing these publications by him to our notice, but also for helpful discussions on the type and on its period in general.

^{page 193 note 9} Kossack, G. in Bayerischer Vorgeschichtsblätter, xx (1954), 1 ff., 20, 22, 30, Abb. 12, 2: they belong here to his form-groups II and III, corresponding in the main with the two principal phases of Reinecke's Hallstatt D. Being rarer and much larger than the cross-handleholder bowls of Hallstatt C (his form-group 1), Kossack thinks of them as indicating bigger banquets for fewer banqueters, and therefore a more eminent and exclusive chieftainship now arising, with wealth in southern trade: see below, pp. 195, with n., 196.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 10} For Bavaria, see preceding note; for the Würt-temberg–Hohenzollern area, H. Zürn in Germania, xxvi, 116; xxvii, 20; xxx, 38: phases, D1 and D2. See further pp. 196, with n. 1, 197; in north-eastern France, the ‘Jogassien’ of Favret is later than Zürn's D1, and may start even later than his D2.

^{page 194 note 1} See Mariën, Oud-België, 301–32.

^{page 195 note 1} 195Op. cit. 22: imported, then, for the aggrandized chieftains (p. 193, n. 9).

^{page 195 note 2} See p. 174 above, n. 2.

^{page 195 note 3} Pareti, , La Tomba Regolini-Galassi (1947), 197, Tav. xx; here too was the gryphon cauldron noticed above, pp. 168–9, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 4} Ibid. 305–6, Tav. XXXVIII, no. 304 (no. 305 is rather less like).

^{page 195 note 5} Mon. Antichi, iv (1893), 428–9, no. 9, Tav. IV–V, fig. 4–4a: Mus. Villa Giulia, Rome, where sketched by C. F. C. H. in May 1950 with the kind permission of the Director. The forked rivet-plate faintly recalls those plates noticed above as reflecting the Oriental ‘siren’ form: p. 173, nn. 1–3. The cauldron in the same Museum from the Tomba dei Alari at Cervetri is closely similar, but lacks handles.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 6} We owe this considered dating to the kindness of Dr. W. Ll. Brown.

^{page 195 note 7} Ibid. xxxiv (1932), 291 ff., Tav. IX, 2; we again thank Dr. Brown.

^{page 195 note 8} Mon. Antichi, xvii (1906), 323–4Google Scholar, fig. 240 (the associated pottery bowl not before this century), We are here indebted to Miss Benton. The handles show the ‘winged’ rivet-plate which stands as a reminder, noticed already in n. 5, of these cauldrons’ ultimately Oriental origin. That the inbent bodyform in great measure assimilated the profiles of the dinos and the old Greek lebes, so that despite their different handles the latter name is often used for all, we have noticed above, p. 174; see then again de Ridder, , Les Bronzes antiques de Louvre, ii (1915), pl. 93, esp. no. 2590, cauldron with inbent profile and four bronze ring-handles in reel-shaped staples, on which recall p. 173, with fig. 8, c (p. 168).Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 1} See Matériaux (1869), 242–5 and pl. XII, 1; associated Hallstattian bronze cup, pl. XII, 2, is Déchelette, Manuel, ii, 2, fig. 302, 3, and Merhart, op. cit. (1952), 15 ff., 66, Taf. 9, no. 9—very like no. 10 from Vilsingen, whence came also our Hallstatt D cauldron fig. II, D.

^{page 196 note 2} Cf. Hatt, J. J. in Actes du IV. Congrès Internat. des Sc. P. & P., Madrid 1954 (1956), 823 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 3} We are deeply indebted to Professors Dehn and Kimmig and Dr. Rieth, as directors of the Heuneburg excavations, for our invitation and reception there during the campaign of 1955. The excavations of course are still in progress; with Bittel, K. and Rieth, A., Die Heuneburg an der oberen Donau (1951)Google Scholar, must now be read the further interim reports in Germania, xxx (1952), 325–9Google Scholar, and xxxii (1954), 22–59. A brief summary thus far will be found in Antiq. Journ. xxxvi (1956), 91–92.Google Scholar For the period in these regions altogether, see Zürn cited above, p. 193, n. 10 (comparing for Switzerland W. Drack in Jahrb. d. Schw. Ges.f. Urgesck. xl (1950), 232Google Scholar ff.); Kossack, op. cit. ibid.; and Dehn in Prähist. Zeitschr. xxxiv/v (1944/1950)Google Scholar, 329 ff.; and also Bonner Jahrb. cli (1951), 91–92.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 1} This would probably hold true if what we got came directly out of France, where the La Colombe gryphon cauldron from Hallstattian Burgundy (p. 178: Dechelette, Manuel, ii, 2, fig. 221; further, W. Lamb, U. Jantzen, cited pp. 166, n. 1, 168, n. 2) shows what could have inspired local smiths there in the sixth century. But evidence, if there is any, has still to be gathered in. That the Continent outside the west-central Hallstatt D region has more in this matter to reveal is shown by the extraordinary cauldron lately found at Brå a in Jutland, with bull's heads and ring-handles recalling our Urartian and Mediterranean prototypes, which yet is La Tène work no earlier than c. 300, probably from Moravia, in the eastern Celtic province: see Ole Klindt-Jensen, Bronzekedelen fra Brå (Jysk Ark. Selsk. Skr. III, 1953), esp. 66 ff. But the western Celtic provinces give no hint of anything of that kind.

^{page 197 note 2} See meanwhile Atti del I. Congresso Internaz. di Preist. e Protostoria Mediterranea (1950), 315–24.

^{page 197 note 3} Arch. Journ. xcvi, 31, pl. VI.

^{page 197 note 4} Brit. Mus. E.I.A. Guide, fig. 84; Later Prehist. Antiquities, fig. 23, 1. Belgium: Déchelette, Manuel, ii, 2, fig. 316; Mariën, Oud-België, 301–2, fig. 282, 3 (Court-Saint-Étienne: see next his forthcoming monograph, p. 188, n. 5; also p. 143, n. 8, Oss).

^{page 197 note 5} Childe, , Prehistory of Scotland (1935), 163–4, fig. 47.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 6} Clynnog (Hendre Bach, Caernarvonshire): Hemp, in Arch. Camb. lxxxvi (1932), 354–5; Grimes, Prehistory of Wales, 117, pl. XVI, 1.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 7} Probably Co. Antrim: Armstrong, , Journ. R. Soc. Antiq. Ireland, liv (1924), 124, fig. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 8} Smith, Reginald in Antiq. Journ. xiv (1934), 301–2.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 9} Ibid., xxxiii (1953), 14–21.

^{page 198 note 1} Proc. R. Irish Acad. xliii (1934), C, 11–29.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 2} Hawkes, in Aspects of Archaeology in Britain and Beyond: Essays presented to O. G. S. Crawford (1951), 172–97.Google Scholar