Iron Age tankards are stave-built wooden vessels completely covered or bound in copper-alloy sheet. The distinctive copper-alloy handles of these vessels frequently display intricate ‘Celtic’ or La Tène art styles. They are characterised by their often highly original designs, complex manufacturing processes, and variety of find contexts. No systematic analysis of this artefact class has been undertaken since Corcoran’s (1952a) original study was published in Volume 18 of these Proceedings. New evidence from the Portable Antiquities Scheme for England and Wales and recent excavations have more than quadrupled the number of known examples (139 currently). It is therefore necessary and timely to re-examine tankards, and to reintegrate them into current debates surrounding material culture in later prehistory. Tankards originate in the later Iron Age and their use continued throughout much of the Roman period. As such, their design was subject to varying influences over time, both social and aesthetic. Their often highly individual form and decoration is testament to this fact and has created challenges in developing a workable typology (Corcoran 1952a; 1952b; 1957; Spratling 1972; Jackson 1990). A full examination of the decoration, construction, wear and repair, dating, and deposition contexts will allow for a reassessment of the role of tankards within the social and cultural milieu of later prehistoric and early Roman Britain.

The object of this report is to record “finds” rather than to deal with the problem of the date of the mines and implements.

The Circumstances which led up to the Discovery of the Mining Area at Stoke Down.

In 1910 I was ordered to Chichester Barracks for a tour of military duty, and among other things I became Scoutmaster of the 1st Chichester Boy Scout troop. It was these Scouts who first took me to Stoke Down. The Down is situated some three miles due North of the ancient city of Chichester. The boys were busy building a log cabin in the clump of trees on the summit of the Down. The clump is known as Stoke Clump. Being long interested in prehistory my eyes, as was their custom, wandered over the surface. My attention was soon arrested by a considerable quantity of what is generally recognised as Bronze Age Pottery, coarse, red and black, of unwashed clay, with finger nail decoration round the rims.

In the course of my investigations of the district of Ipswich, Suffolk, I have found a large series of flint implements and other remains of man, ranging in date from the pre-Chellean of the Sub-Red Crag horizon of Pliocene times to the period of the Anglo-Saxons. The majority of these discoveries, so far as those relating to the Stone Age are concerned, were made in the beds forming the plateau, or in the sides of now dry valleys tributary to the main valley of the Gipping. Some little time ago, however, I determined to make—if possible—an examination of the deeply-buried deposits of the Gipping, and this research was later on extended to the tidal portion of the river which is known as the Orwell. It is now my purpose to give an account of this work, which has resulted in the getting together of a great quantity of flint implements, flakes, and cores, mammalian bones in considerable numbers, and some fragmentary portions of the human skeleton. I would here record my thanks to the Percy Sladen Fund, the Royal Society, the Ipswich Dock Commission and their Chief Engineer, Mr. Clarke, Messrs. Warren Livingstone, Ltd., Messrs. Alfred Coe, Ltd., Messrs Packard and James Fison (Thetford), Ltd., Miss Nina Layard, Sir Arthur Keith, F.R.S., Dr. Duckworth, Dr. C. Forster Cooper, Mr. Reginald Smith, the Curator and Mr. F. M. Cullum, of Ipswich Museum, Dr. T. W. Woodhead, Mr. A. S. Barnes, and Dr. G. Erdtman, who have each given invaluable help in one way or another to the prosecution of this research.

In the present study it is proposed to set out, in somewhat greater detail than has yet been attempted, the case for an independent and wholly indigenous development of the flange-hilted sword of bronze in extra-Aegean Europe. That these were not the first tanged or even flange-hilted swords to be made goes without saying. At a time which on any view must be earlier by a clear margin the Mycenaeans were enjoying the use of splendid rapiers of which the hilts were furnished with highly developed flanges. And in Anatolia swords with substantial tangs are known from towards the end of the 3rd millennium. The argument, accordingly, is for independent invention of the same device in more than one period and place—a concept which some prehistorians seem to find unpalatable to the point of disbelief, however simple and natural the device.

In the circumstances it is not altogether surprising that the subject has been long debated, and our main conclusion warmly contested, not so much in point of detail (on which in the ultimate the verdict must stand or fall) as on the broader ground of general resemblances, or even of preconceived ideas on probability. To analyse the ebb and flow of conflicting views is no part of the present purpose. It will suffice to observe that we have yet to see demonstrated a coherent chain of development by which the swords of central Europe can be derived from those of the Aegean, much less from Anatolia.

Since the work of Breuil and Koslowski on the Somme Valley and the publication of a summary of this work in the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, new finds have been made, and new points of view developed. I shall not give here a restatement of Breuil's work, but rather indicate the points where our interpretation differs and give our reasons for differing.

I am very grateful to Geoff Clark for his comment on my ecological interpretation of Palaeolithic art (PPS 58, 107–109, see Mithen 1990, 1991). I had no idea that it was a ‘post hoc accommodative argument’ with an ‘underaxiomatised’ theoretical framework and ‘unwieldy systematics’. I suppose this means he doesn't like it. Clark says that my interpretation reminds him of a Chinese meal — initially satisfying but not ‘sticking with you’ for very long. In 1992 Clark wrote that ‘Mithen's … work goes a long way to explaining the art of this period’ (Lindly & Clark 1990, 61) — he seems to have taken two years to digest the Chinese meal of my interpretation.

Clark's main objection is that I tried to develop a theoretical framework around individual decision making and then attempted to use this to interpret the variability and patterning in Palaeolithic art and other elements of the archaeological record. He objects to this on paradigmatic grounds, seeing no rationale for models of individual agency, but primarily on operational grounds, arguing that individuals cannot be monitored in the archaeological record.

Mr Piggott's survey of British neolithic pottery in 1932 revealed the dense concentration of Windmill Hill pottery in and near the Yorkshire Wolds, while in a later note Mr Sheppard drew attention to further neolithic fragments in the Mortimer collection, and published one of the Hanging Grimston bowls, newly reconstructed from fragments. But much of the Yorkshire pottery could not be traced; its existence was merely inferred from Greenwell's and Mortimer's descriptions. Recently, however, through the kindness of the authorities of the British Museum and the Mortimer Museum at Hull the writer has been able to go through the entire reserves of both the Greenwell and the Mortimer Collections, with the result that almost all the missing pottery has been traced, bowls only known from fragments have been completed, stratigraphical details have been recovered, and a large number of entirely new sites has come to light. In view of this mass of new material the time seemed ripe to attempt a complete account of the neolithic pottery of Yorkshire, including both the old and the new material, and to see what light its distribution, associations and affinities throw both on the complex interrelationships of the neolithic folk throughout the country, and on the prehistory of its own area.

Of the two main divisions of neolithic pottery, by far the greatest quantity is of the ‘A’ type; the pure ‘B’ is nowhere represented, but some half dozen sites, whose significance is discussed later, have produced sherds which show indirect ‘B’ influence.

Denton's pit, Southcote, is situated about one mile to the west of Reading, immediately to the south of the Great West Road. The map references are as follows:—

6 inch. Berkshire 37 N.W. Lat. 51° 26′ 40″ N. Long. 1° 0′ 0″ w.

1 inch. 5th Edition, Sheet 113. Square 1,070–1,075 E. 1,295–1,300 N.

Geological. Sheet 268. (1 inch).

The occurrence of mesolithic artefacts around Malham Tarn and Great Close Mire has been noted from the 1920s onwards. Pollen analysis at Tarn Moss to the west of Malham Tarn in the 1950s indicated that forest clearance had begun during Zone VI (c. 7000–5500 bc). Between 1972 and 1982, five prolific flint sites and a sixth, minor site were located in this area. The sites are of ‘Narrow Blade’ affinities and may have formed a summer base camp for hunter/gatherer groups operating in the Craven Pennines. Some artefacts of neolithic date have been found on the sites and this may indicate continuity. There is evidence for forest clearance and settlement in the later neolithic and this was well established by the Early Bronze Age.

It is hardly necessary to point out the archaeological importance of the Christchurch region. As Mr Crawford showed in 1912, here was the great port of prehistoric Wessex, with the Avon and the Stour joining to flow into the sea by Hengistbury Head and providing natural waterways to Salisbury Plain and Cranborne Chase respectively. The results of Mr Bushe-Fox's excavations at Hengistbury in 1912, the contents of the well-known Druitt Collection, and above all the admirable work of preservation and publication carried out by Mr J. B. Calkin show that throughout the prehistoric periods the valley gravels above the Stour and the plateau gravels and sands now occupied by the town of Bournemouth constituted an area of optimum settlement. Most remarkable however is the presence of a long barrow, the subject of this report, on the gravel terrace above the Stour in Holdenhurst parish, and only 35 feet O.D.

The object of this paper is to call attention to certain facts in connection with flint implements, both Palæolithic and Neolithic, which have been hitherto overlooked, and to attempt to find an explanation for them. This explanation must inevitably run counter to the generally received opinions of geologists as to the sequence of events in the Pleistocene period, and also to a large extent to the views hitherto held by prehistoric archælogists regarding the Neolithic, and in a less degree the Palæolithic ages of man. I therefore approach the task, not indeed with misgiving, but with a deep sense of the gravity of the issues involved, and I would ask both geologists and prehistoric archæologists to do me the honour of giving their very careful attention to the matters I am bringing forward; to put for the moment on one side any preconceived views on the subject, and to suspend judgment until they have had the opportunity of examining for themselves the data upon which my conclusions are founded. These conclusions are the result of many years of work and observation. Starting from the orthodox standpoint and without any bias whatever against the generally received opinions as to the ice age of the Northern hemisphere, I have been, drawn on wholly by the observation of facts to my present position.

It has been to me a fascinating occupation to follow in the foot-steps of my mentor, the veteran prehistorian, Worthington G. Smith, in the study of flint implements in parts of the Lea valley in mid-Herts. At times, I have had the honour of supplementing, in a small way, his well known labours.

One day, in 1903, I had a little while to wait for the train at Hertingfordbury, near Hertford, just above the junction of the rivers Mimram and Lea. Mr. Smith had found implements at Hertford; but none had, as yet, been discovered at Hertingfordbury. A large gravel pit, on the west side of the road, looked tempting. A very hasty search in the failing light revealed a flint (Fig. 62B) of promising appearance in the tough, upper, ochreous gravel, at 10ft. depth from the surface. By strenuous exertions: with hands, to extract it; and with feet, to keep my balance on a tiny ledge, I managed to secure the stone: and catch the train ! This was in the early days of my flint-hunting. But I have never found another quite like it. It has the appearance of an adze, of kite-shaped outline, with an obtusely pointed basal end, for mounting. Very few implements from the river drift, show, to my thinking, any signs of having been made for mounting.

The Azé Cave (Sâone-et-Loire, France) has yielded, among other archaeological and palaeontological remains, a Lower Palaeolithic industry within a layer dated through faunal remains to 400–350 kya. This industry is made up of local rocks, mostly poor quality flint, and also chert and crystalline rocks.

Only flint was definitely knapped; chert was only broken into pieces before being used. The process of knapping is opportunistic and the cores, seldom exhausted, usually bear two opposite reduction faces. The flakes often reveal patches of residual cortex. They are moderately thick and the striking platform angle varies within a wide range of values. Some of them seem to be the result of a tearing-off motion. All the flint pieces have been heavily retouched; half of them have been simply utilised, others are proper tools, mostly scrapers, usually with steep retouch. Fragments of chert, sometimes obtained by tearing-off (from the cave walls?) have been often retouched but with less intensity than the flint. A good number of more or less trimmed cobbles are also part of this collection. However, handaxes are completely missing.

The lithic industry of Azé 1–1 lacks standardisation for the core reduction process as well as for trimming or retouching. It fits well in the Lower Palaeolithic industry but the absence of handaxes is noteworthy. This industry offers one more contribution to the diversity of this cultural period.

In the summer of 1978 pottery and flintwork were noticed in the sections to the south of Cliffe Village during the laying of a pipeline by British Gas (TQ 734744) (fig. 1). This led to the excavation of a series of small trial trenches by Mr David Thomson with the help of local volunteers in the same year. The retrieval of a Beaker and Collared Urn suggested an early Bronze Age site, and excavations by Dr Ian Kinnes for the British Museum were done in September 1979. Although the excavated features contained mainly Iron Age pottery and metalwork, both seasons' work also produced a large quantity of flint artefacts ranging from Mesolithic to Bronze Age in date. The following report is an analysis of the Mesolithic tranchet axe manufacturing debitage which could be distinguished as a discrete group from the other flintwork. It is not intended to present a comprehensive flint report for Cliffe, but to provide a framework for analysis at other sites where tranchet axe production has been shown to take place (Wymer 1962; Parfitt and Halliwell 1982).

The area which Mr. Reginald Smith asked me to watch since 1922 is that of the upper reaches of the River Wey from Alton to Farnham, a ten mile stretch of the valley of the Wey which in the 18th century was described by Arthur Young as “the finest ten miles in England.”

To-day the Wey follows a zig-zag course some 50 ft. below the Railway Terrace on the South, and the opposite terrace on the North, on which the village of Bentley (Hants.) is built. Above this lowest terrace of the Wey, deeply covered with a pale stratified gravel of the river drift, is another terrace about 100 ft. above this river, also much gravelled with stratified river drift heavily iron stained. Then still ascending we come to the top of the Alice Holt spur known as the Alice Holt—Bourne plateau on which there are three levels, all much gravelled, but with contorted drift as opposed to the river drift of the terraces on the Northern slope.

This Alice Holt spur is the northern of three spurs that run from Alice Holt to the Waverley Valley: here the river makes a right angle with the Alton–Farnham Valley as it turns south immediately east of Farnham town. The area watched measures in all some 20 square miles.

In 1909 I found, near the crest of the North Downs above Eynsford, several unshapely pieces of flint showing signs of having been flaked.

The flint is spicular and of a pale honey colour, some pieces quite unpatinated, but others very slightly patinated and with occasional flecks of siliceous high glaze. Judging from the appearance of the cortex, the flint has come from the clay-with-flints which caps the chalk in this neighbourhood.

Practically every piece of honey coloured flint to be found here bears a bulb or a bulb hollow, and none but the honey-coloured flint has been worked.

The site is in a narrow strip of woodland about 20 ft. deep, and just below the crest of the North Downs. It is in the bank of “hill-wash” formed by these trees that rabbits have burrowed and thrown up the flints under description. These flints have been shown to several collectors but the shapes are so crude and, apparently, purposeless that I could get no suggestions as to their use, or information about comparable finds.