No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 May 2014
Twenty-five years ago Professor Gordon Childe laid the foundations of our knowledge of the foreign affinities of our British Neolithic cultures in a classic paper. In it he gave expression to the view which we have all of us held since that time, that ‘the culture associated with Windmill Hill pottery belongs, like the pottery itself, to a Western family’; ‘Western’ being used in the sense defined by Schuchhardt in his division of the European Neolithic groups. Our knowledge of the complexities of the Windmill Hill culture increased with new discoveries, and we were also able to grasp something of the diversity of the cultures within the Western family at large, particularly as a result of the work of Vouga, Vogt and von Gonzenbach in Switzerland. But the place of the Windmill Hill culture within the family seemed unchallenged, and the present writer re-affirmed a couple of years ago that it seemed to him ‘abundantly clear that the Windmill Hill culture is a member of the great Western family’. It is the purpose of this paper to re-examine the question in the light of certain new orientations in Continental prehistory which make it desirable to ask whether the culture of Windmill Hill can be regarded as an indivisible unit, or whether it may not contain contributions from more than one European source.
page 96 note 1 Arch. J., LXXXVIII, 1931, 43Google Scholar.
page 96 note 2 Le Néolithique lacustre ancien, 1934; Antiquity II, 1928, 387Google Scholar.
page 96 note 3 Especially Zeitsch. f. schweiz. Arch. u. Kunstgesch., XII, 1951, 193Google Scholar.
page 96 note 4 Die Cortaillodkultur in der Schweiz, 1949.
page 96 note 5 Neo. Cultures Brit. Isles, 1954, 97Google Scholar.
page 96 note 6 Op. cit., 17 ff.
page 97 note 1 Loc. cit., 42–3.
page 98 note 1 Proc. Prehist. Soc. E. Aug., VII, 1934, 379Google Scholar.
page 98 note 2 Proc. Prehist. Soc., I, 1935, 127Google Scholar.
page 98 note 3 Neo. Cultures Brit. Isles, 100.
page 98 note 4 Antiquity, XI, 1937, 441Google Scholar.
page 98 note 5 Neo. Cultures Brit. Isles, 62.
page 98 note 6 C.I.S.P.P. Actes de la IIIe Session, Zürich, 1950, 1953, 34Google Scholar.
page 98 note 7 Mosefundne Lerkar fra Yngre Stenalder, 1948; cf. Childe, in Antiquity, XXIII, 1949, 129CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 98 note 8 Die Festung Hutberg (Halle, 1941)Google Scholar.
page 98 note 9 Raciborz, Silesia; Becker, op. cit. 263, fig. 56; Las Stocki, Cemetery B, Poland; Gajewski, , Ann. Univ. Marine Curie-Sklodowska, Sect. F., IV (Lublin, 1949), 99Google Scholar, fig. 56.
page 98 note 10 Acta Arch., XXIV, 1953, 174Google Scholar.
page 99 note 1 Sussex Arch. Colls., LXXXIX, 1950, 105Google Scholar; Piggott, Neo. Cultures, fig. 49, no. 4. Professor Childe suggested Funnel-Beaker affinities for the pot at the Brighton Conference of the Prehistoric Society in September, 1950.
page 99 note 2 Schwantes, Gesch.Schleswig-Holsteins I, 1939, 142Google Scholar, fig. 143.
page 100 note 1 Antiquity, XXIX, 1955, 159Google Scholar.
page 100 note 2 Boitsfort (Mariën, , Oud-België, 1952, 55Google Scholar) has been claimed as a multiple-ramparted earthwork with cremation-burials in the banks, but recent field-work by Professor Bersu and Mr Irwin Scollar suggests that the visible remains are in fact sunken tracks of recent date. For Ottenbourg (La Tombe) see p. 101 below.
page 100 note 3 Chmielewski, W., Zagadnienie grobowców kujawskich w swietle ostatnich badan (Lodz, 1952), 107Google Scholar.
page 100 note 4 Becker, op. cit.; Sprockhoff, , Die Nordische Megalithkultur, 1938Google Scholar; Jazdrzewski, , Kultura puharów Lejkowatych w Polsce, 1936Google Scholar; Chmielewski, op. cit.
page 100 note 5 Becker, op. cit., 249.
page 100 note 6 Chmielewski, op. cit.
page 101 note 1 Childe, , Antiquity, XXIII, 1949, 133Google Scholar.
page 101 note 2 Bericht Röm-Germ. Komm., XXXIII, 1951, 70Google Scholar, fig. 5, no. 8.
page 101 note 3 Arch. Rozhledy, VII, 1955, 7Google Scholar, fig. 1.
page 101 note 4 Sprockhoff, op. cit.
page 101 note 5 Cf. Crawford, in Antiquity, XII, 1938, 228Google Scholar, comparing these with the Maiden Castle Long Mound and Dorset ‘bank-barrows’.
page 101 note 6 Germania, XXXI, 1953, 233Google Scholar (with stone disc and pendant, and Group C funnel-beaker sherds). Professor Sprockhoff described further tombs of the same type to the International Prehistoric Congress at Madrid, in 1954.
page 101 note 7 Mariën, , Oud-België, 62Google Scholar, fig. 58. The identification as a possible long barrow is due to Mr Irwin Scollar (in litt., 1955).
page 101 note 8 Ant. J., XIX, 1939, 260Google Scholar; axe in fig. 1.