Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:51:02.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Long Barrow in Brittany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2015

Stuart Piggott
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The English long barrows have for long been a fertile source of discussion, and since Thurnam’s paper of 1868~th ere has been much speculation as to the precise Continental affinities of these tombs. It seemed clear from the outset that they were members of the complex family of megalithic tombs distributed from Iberia to Orkney, while Thurnam himself compared more detailed features such as the chamber at West Kennet with such Breton examples as Mané Lud. Subsequent writers, notably Forde have seen in the Breton many-chambered passage-graves of the type of Keriaval the probable source of such long barrow chambers as Stoney Littleton, Parc Cwm or Wayland’s Smithy; but it was difficult to provide convincing Continental parallels for the whole specialized English long barrow type. While certain elements (notably details of passage, antechamber and chamber) could be paralleled again and again in the megalithic series, the persistent and carefully constructed trapezoidal mound eluded search outside Britain. Furthermore, a study of the grave-goods, particularly in the light of a number of recent excavations of barrows in southern England, showed that the long barrows of Wessex, mainly non-megalithic and supposedly derived from the megalithic barrows in the Cotswolds or further west, wele apparently contemporary with and an integral part of the earliest Neolithic culture of Britain (Neolithic A) and a similar cultural identity seemed probable in Sussex.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 11 , Issue 44 , December 1937 , pp. 441 - 455
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1937

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Archaeologia, XLII, 161-244.

2 American Anthropologist 1930, N.S. xxxII, 91ff; Proc. First Internat. Prehist. Congress; London, 1932, 114–17.Google Scholar

3 Proc. Prehist. Sac. 1935, I, 115–26.Google Scholar

4 loc. cit., 117

5 Bull. Soc. Poly. Morb. 1921, 85–92 Google Scholar. The excavation of Manio I is described in Carnac, fouilles faites dans la region, 1923, 47–115 Google Scholar; a summary with plan is in L’Anthrq. XLIII, 227–29, and photographs of the pots ibid. XLIV, 486.Google Scholar

6 Corpus des Signes Gravées, 1927, pls. 3–6.Google Scholar

7 Bull. Soc. Poly. Morb. 1883, 36–49 Google Scholar, with plans of the cairns but no illustrations of the finds. Two sherds however are illustrated in L’Anthrop. XLIV, 495.

8 Corpus pl. 6.

9 Proc. Prehist. Soc. East Anglia, VI, 348n. The axes of jadeite and allied stones, of Breton type, from various British sites may also be quoted. Cf. Crawford in L’Anthrop. XXIV, 641, and map in Proc. Prehist. Soc. East Anglia, VII, 154.

10 Quoted by le Rouzic in L’Anthrop. XLIV, 489.

11 Carnac, Fouilles faites, etc. pl. VII, 4.

12 ANTIQUITY 1928, II, 405, fig. 6c.

13 Neol. Ancien, pl. XIV, 6 ; ANTIQUITY, II, 406. The close similarity of these illustrations however suggests that they may represent the same sherd !

14 Middle Neolithic at Auvernier (ANTIQUITY, II, 397); Chassey II at Nècropole de Canteperdrix (ANTIQUITY, 1930, IV, 33) and at Fort Harrouard (Cinq Annèes, 127, 129) ; with incised ware at Croh-colle (L’Anthrop. XLIV, 496). The examples from Chassey itself (Dèchelette, I, 555, nos. 15 and 20) are presumably late, and the same may be said of the vessel from Er Mar, Riantec (Du Chatellier, La Poterie Pr’historique, pl. 7, no. 9).

15 ANTIQUITY IV, 41.

16 loc. cit., 40.

17 Devon Arch. Ex. Soc., 1931-37.

18 Arch. Fourn. LXXXVIII, 76.

19 D.A.E.S., Second Hembury report, 93 ; Third report, 175. The steatite bead, broken but apparently originally of a type characteristic of Vouga I at Neuchatel, may be cited as another exotic feature at Hembury. (Third report, pl. XVI and p. 182. Cf. Vouga, Neol. Ancien, pl. XVII, 17 and p. 48).

20 Fourn. Royal Inst. Cornwall, XIII, pt. I, 92. The sherds are at Truro, and the writer is grateful to Mr Lindsay Scott for directing his attention to their importance in this connexion.

21 Antiquaries Fourn. 1936, XVI, 266.Google Scholar

22 e.g. Haldon, Devon, (to be published shortly ; cf. Hembury Fort Exhibition 1936 Google Scholar (Royal Albert Memorial Mus., Exeter, 1936, p. 13); Holdenhurst Long Barrow, Hants (Proc. Prehist. Soc. III, 1937, 1–14), and probably Corfe Mullen, Dorset (J. B. Calkin Coll.—to be published shortly).

23 St. Germain Museum. Noted by the writer in 1935.

24 St. Germain Museum, cf. Fifth Hembury report, pl. XXXV.

25 L’Anthrop. XLIII, 228.

26 Alteuropa, 1926, 68–70.Google Scholar

27 At Rudh’ an Dunain, Skye, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot. LXVI, 198-9; Clettraval, North Uist, ibid. LXIX, 500-16; Unival, North Uist (unpublished, information from Mr Lindsay Scott).

28 At Lligwy, Anglesey. Arch. Camb. 1933, 68–72.Google Scholar

29 At Unival (v. note above).

30 Long Barrows of the Cotswolds, 94–97.Google Scholar

31 Third Hembury report, pl. XVI, p. 181.

32 Long Barrows of the Cotswolds, 134, 163.Google Scholar

33 Proc. Prehist. Soc. II, 77–96.Google Scholar

34 Hoare, Ancient Wilts. I, 170. ‘On reaching the floor of the long barrow we found a circular cist like a little well, but it contained no interment ; from this well-like cist, a tunnel, like a chimney, ascended nearly to the top ’ [of the barrow]. This clearly represents a circular post-hole, with the decayed post leaving a hollow in the packed rubble of the mound.

35 Excavated by Mr O. G. S. Crawford and Dr E. A. Hooton in 1914. The unpublished section of the barrow, which Mr Crawford has kindly shown me, presents a feature strongly suggesting a large upright post at one end of the mound.

36 Surrey Arch. Soc. Colls. 1937. cf. also Proc. Prehist. Soc. II , 247 ; 111, 173.