Since the publication in 1951 of an article upon native copper considerable progress has been made concerning the occurrence and use of the metal in prehistoric Europe. In 1955 an important paper appeared by Professor Nestor dealing with the prehistory of the metal in Roumania and in 1957 Professor Pittioni published an outstanding survey and technical discussion upon the subject.

As archaeological research continues we may expect to learn more about the extent to which native copper was used by early man. It is generally agreed that some utilization of the native metal goes back even to Neolithic times, and that the first phase was that of cold hammered native copper, very shortly to be followed by its more extensive working in an annealed condition. The question of what quantity of native copper would have been available to prehistoric man, and was in fact used by him in different countries has hardly been touched upon as yet. No doubt in certain regions the quantity of native metal was very appreciable. For instance, Professor Nestor considers that in Roumania, and certain neighbouring countries, important deposits of copper minerals and notable quantities of native copper existed, and still exist. From Professor Nestor's discussion it appears that there was quite an intensive utilization of the local deposits of native copper in Roumania, not only as a ‘forged’ native copper phase, but leading on to the melting and casting of the metal culminating with the remarkable shaft-hole axe hammers and axe adzes so well known to archaeologists.

There are at the moment several indications that a re-assessment of the problems of the neolithic in Britain and Ireland is required. Since the virtual discovery of the primary neolithic some thirty years ago, so vast has the field become that it is no longer possible for an individual to be familiar with all the material and it is inevitable that each will tend to see the whole from the viewpoint of his own special interest and region. In these circumstances, during the course of any re-assessment, workers on various aspects are especially liable to find themselves at cross-purposes. Moreover, in the developments which followed the brilliant pioneer syntheses many ideas have become traditional and tend to be accepted as axiomatic. The alteration or abandonment of such ideas may prove difficult and more difficult still may be the emendation or rejection of conclusions based on them.

Ireland lies to the west of Britain. To review the whole scene in any detail from a standpoint in Ireland would involve discussing at second-hand too much of the material on which current views are based and such is not the intention. These notes are designed merely to comment on some general issues which have been and may well in the future be sources of difficulty and misunderstanding, and in particular to deal with the Irish court cairns which have been the subject of recent discussion. It is scarcely to be hoped that they will obviate controversy, but they may help a little towards the mutual understanding of differences.

The analysis of Early Bronze Age metal objects in Europe has been the concern of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Metallurgie at Stuttgart for a number of years. In 1960 the first major results of this ambitious programme were presented in a volume generally described as SAM 1, or Studien zu den Anfängen der Metallurgie (Junghans, Sangmeister and Schröder, 1960). Using the trace elements arsenic (As), antimony (Sb), silver (Ag), Nickel (Ni) and Bismuth (Bi), SAM 1 described the content and distribution of 12 European metal groups, each devised on the basis of the varying concentrations of these trace elements in Bronze Age metal. This programme was the first to attempt to examine metallurgy in this way for the whole of Europe. A number of regionally restricted studies had already been carried out before the appearance of SAM 1; the Irish, and some British, material had been previously examined by Coghlan and Case (1957) and by Britton (1961). In 1964 a major review of the Stuttgart production appeared, in which the method of combining the elements into groups was criticized on archaeological grounds (Butler and van der Waals, 1964). Subsequently a new approach was devised by Waterbolk; in this, the Stuttgart method of attempting to find clusters from a gigantic range of analyses, each one treated exactly as another, was abandoned, and replaced by a more archaeological approach in which typology and association were used (Waterbolk and Butler, 1965). The significance of the groups produced by this method are only now being assessed.

Pitt Rivers' excavations in Cranbourne Chase not only provided his successors with a lavish series of reports but also with a remarkable body of artefacts. These finds are now housed in the Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum. The research programme which is centred upon the re-excavation of South Lodge Camp will include a new assessment of the Bronze Age material in this collection. This work discussed here is the first stage in this project (cf. Barrett and Bradley 1978).

The Bronze Age sites investigated by the General include the well known enclosures of South Lodge Camp, Martin Down and the Angle Ditch, as well as a series of round barrows (Pitt Rivers 1888 and 1898). These excavations were extensive. The enclosures were trenched across much of the interior, the ditches were emptied and substantial parts of the surrounding banks were removed. Large scale excavation was also undertaken on many of the barrows, although the first mounds to be dug were examined by a single trench or by a central shaft. These earlier barrow excavations were among the first to be undertaken by Pitt Rivers on his Wessex estates.

The Nympsfield chambered tomb or long barrow (NGR SO 79390132) is situated to the north-west of Nympsfield village, in the parish of Frocester, and occupies a position on the edge of the Cotswold escarpment. The tomb is at 237 m (777 ft) above Ordnance Datum, on a slight eminence, and lies on a bedrock of Inferior Oolite limestone. The site overlooks the Severn Valley, though the view in this direction is currently obscured by the trees of the wooded scarp slope, which in turn prevents an assessment of whether or not the tomb could be seen from the Vale (Note 1, following Appendices).

This paper reinterprets the archaeological evidence from the Neolithic monument complex in the Milfield Basin, Northumberland; a palimpsest landscape of earlier Neolithic enclosures, later Neolithic henges and Early Bronze Age burial monuments. Recent interpretative accounts of the Early Neolithic use of this complex have stressed economic factors as the driving-forces behind enclosure construction, whilst the six major later Neolithic henges have been integrated into a scheme of ritual processions. These interpretations are critically evaluated and the sites are placed in their regional and national context in an attempt to provide a new framework for the use and development of the complex. It is concluded that, far from having simplistic economic functions, the earlier Neolithic enclosures could be unique to the area. Representing the formalisation of a community's attempts to ensure social reproduction in times of change, through the articulation of the difference between circular and linear monumental forms. The re-examination of the later Neolithic evidence raises interesting questions as to how far we can ‘read’ monument complexes, and critically evaluates the extent to which we can argue a unity of purpose for these enigmatic accumulations of the past. Importantly, the reinterpretation of the Neolithic activity in this area exposes how readily archaeologists export social models from other regions, such as Wessex, and attempt to fit very diverse evidence into their framework. This paper concludes that we must continue the definition of the British Neolithic on a more regional basis and accept that core-periphery models, even if not explicitly articulated, have no place in archaeological explanation.

The lack of radiocarbon measurements of funerary contexts is a major shortcoming of the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age of the Eastern Carpathian Basin, especially in the Banat region. The present batch of samples tries to address these drawbacks, by detailing sampling strategies, employed pre-treatment and by providing a robust and coherent dataset of radiocarbon measurements. Implications of the new radiocarbon dates is discussed from a supra-regional perspective, while keeping aspects of typo-chronology, circulation of goods, and social nuances of employment of Bronze Age bronzes in the forefront. Ten burials were selected from four Banatian burial grounds according to the occurrence of metal finds in the funerary inventories. Beyond establishing a broad frame of absolute chronology for these sites of interment, the radiocarbon data provide reliable arguments for the precise attribution of metal discoveries. In addition, the data allow us to challenge some previously stated chronological assignments.

In January, 1912, Mr. Reginald Smith read a paper before the Society of Antiquaries entitled “Flint Implements of Special Interest,” in which figured an implement of the Thames pick type— the author relegating it to the palæolithic period. I will read an extract from this paper describing the “pick.”

“The implement in question was found during the War by the late Captain Harvey Webb while searching the coastal gravel near Netley Hospital. It is a flint rod of roughly triangular section, with one face chipped flat; one end is nosed with bold fluting, the other is crusted and therefore, not functional. The whole is patinated an ochreus colour and the ridges are much battered by rolling.

Length 6 inches—the flat face 2 inches across. It was submitted to the British Museum in November, 1916, with other (obviously palæolithic) specimens from the same deposits: a large pear-shaped hand-axe with brown patina; a white St. Acheul ovate much rolled; a cordate brown St. Acheul implement; unrolled; a pointed triangular hand-axe; and a brown chert ovate, this last being from the top of the loam beneath the gravel.”

Summary. Excavations at Bury Hill dated a small, continuously-ditched enclosure to the early Neolithic. The interior of the enclosure, c. 1 ha in extent, was sampled by two trial cuttings, 9 m wide, running across the enclosure at right angles to one another. No Neolithic features were found. Sampling the ditch produced early Neolithic pottery, flintwork and animal bone. Though continuous, the ditch had a ‘beaded’ appearance, with a single entrance. No corresponding bank survived, though aerial photographs indicated its existence on the inside of the ditch.

The name ‘Azilian’ is firmly linked to that of Edward Piette, the principal excavator of the site on the left bank of the river Arize in the tunnel-cave of the Mas d'Azil (Ariège), in the French Pyrenees (see Bahn 1979). From 1887 onward this site yielded hundreds of painted and engraved pebbles (Piette 1896, 1903). Their decoration shows little variation, and consists largely of groups of dots and transverse marks; however, there are more complex signs such as longitudinal marks, lines of chevrons, grecques, crosses, perpendicular marks and ovals, while some pebble-faces are completely painted over. These little stones constitute almost the only evidence of artistic activity at the very end of the Upper Palaeolithic, and they span a period from c. 9000 to c. 7500 BC.

Twenty-eight sites in France, five in Spain, three in Italy and one in Switzerland have yielded a total of 1951 worked pebbles, but the Mas d'Azil accounts for no less than about 1427 of these. The figure is approximate because it is very difficult to reach an exact total: there have been losses, and infiltrations of fakes, and the ensemble is scattered in at least 16 museums and private collections.

The widespread adoption of deeper ploughing has led to the discovery during recent years of many remarkable antiquities in East Anglia. Prominent among recent discoveries resulting from this practice have been a series of finds of metal objects of the Early Iron Age in north-western Norfolk. These have ranged from an iron anthropoid sword with an inhumation burial at Shouldham through isolated finds, such as tores at Bawsey and North Creake, to the impressive group of hoards of ornaments and coins at Snettisham and the small hoard here studied found at Ringstead five miles from Snettisham and two miles east of Hunstanton.

Few remains of the latter part of the Iron Age from about 100 B.C. to A.D. 43 had previously been recorded from north-west Norfolk. Within a ten-mile radius of Ringstead only indefinite traces of human occupation had been noted, such as pottery from Hunstanton and coins of the Iceni from Brancaster, Burnham Thorpe and possibly Ingoldisthorpe. A much-damaged hillfort at South Creake has been attributed to this period, though on very little direct evidence. Actual indications of settlement at this period are still very scanty.

An occasion such as this is an opportunity for looking both backwards and forwards. I propose first to speak about the activities of our Society during the past year, and then, looking forwards, to throw out a few suggestions. In the second part of my Address I shall not confine myself to the work of our society, but shall review the present position and future prospects of archaeological air-photography. To do so implies an optimistic outlook that I am very far from possessing. Let us leave it at that.

It is usual and proper for a President either to eulogize his predecessor or else to say that he is too distinguished to need any such eulogy. There is no harm in combining both methods. It is now generally recognized that Professor Mahr, working in happy and enviable co-operation with the Government of Eire, and also with his scientific colleagues in Northern Ireland, has built up a thoroughly sound administration and that he has even found time for personal research as well. His Presidential Address, delivered last year, which you will now have had time to read in the pages of our Proceedings, gives proof of that.

Fieldwork east of Oakham, Rutland has located evidence of prehistoric settlement, land use patterns, and ceremonial monuments. Part of this included the excavation of a cropmark site which has revealed an unusual sequence of Neolithic/Early Bronze Age pit circles and a burial area. This is complemented by a fieldwalking survey of the surrounding areas, allowing consideration of the relationship of juxtaposed flint scatters and the excavated ceremonial area.

Excavation of the surviving half of a barrow, identified from aerial photographs as having three concentric ditches, revealed a sequence of at least six major alterations. The site may originally have been a Class I henge monument subsequently adapted for use as a barrow. Features of all phases were mainly in the central area of the barrow and included two inhumations in coffins, one accompanied by a Yorkshire-type food vessel. A cremation in a Primary Series collared urn was accompanied by a bronze razor/knife and two flint plano-convex knives. A further cremation in a collared urn was found in the middle ditch. The barrow lay close to a settlement; early Bronze Age flintwork and pottery, including Grooved Ware and Beaker, were recovered from the several phases of mound make-up.

Fossil human remains which can be attributed to the Lower Palaeolithic period are so rare that it is important to investigate thoroughly all finds for which such claims have been made. Almost all the human skulls discovered in Pleistocene deposits in Britain have proved to belong to Homo sapiens. Where the deposits are older than Upper Palaeolithic it is more than likely that such remains are not contemporaneous but represent later intrusive burials. However, the confirmation of the Lower Palaeolithic (Acheulian) age of the Swanscombe skull which, in so far as it is preserved, is not distinguishable from Homo sapiens, has revived interest in other human remains of modern type which have been reported from early deposits but laid aside as being of doubtful antiquity. Unfortunately some of these finds are now lost (e.g. Foxhall jaw). Outstanding among those which have survived are the Galley Hill skeleton and the Bury St. Edmunds skull. By application of the fluorine-dating method the former has been shown to be a comparatively recent intrusive burial (Oakley and Montagu, 1949).

The human skull fragment found near Bury St. Edmunds in 1882 has been preserved in the Moyse's Hall Museum at Bury, and is especially worthy of re-investigation as it Was claimed to be in a fossilized condition, and to have been found in a deposit which contained remains of mammoth and Acheulian implements. A Committee under Section H of the British Association was appointed in 1949 to re-investigate this discovery, and to try to find out (1) the geological age of the deposit from which the skull had been reported and (2) whether the skull was contemporaneous with this deposit. The work and conclusions of this Committee are described in the present report.