During these four hard years of German occupation and in spite of hindrances of all kinds—preliminary permits to be obtained, censorship and severe limitations imposed on the liberty of the scientific press—research and the publication of works on our national antiquities have not meanwhile been interrupted. Excavations have been carried on with an activity, which the struggles for liberation during the summer of 1944, have not invariably retarded. The reviews and publications of the learned societies of the departments, although perceptibly reduced in bulk, continued to record discoveries and to print erudite articles. A new documentary review, Gallia: Excavations and Archaeological Monuments of Metropolitan France, was even published for the first time in 1943. Edited under the aegis of the National Centre for Scientific Research, its object is to publish, with the least delay possible, the reports of excavators upon their discoveries. Such results could not have been attained without the co-operation of all archaeologists, editors and printers, in fulfilling a single and imperative duty, namely, to assure the continuity of French archaeology in spite of the uncertainties and distress of the period. This amounted moreover, at the same time to a form of service and was one of the aspects of resistance to the invader. All were thus only following the example, set at the time of the first world war by Camille Jullian, the great historian of Gaul, who then placed his science and his eloquence at the service of his country. The book, dedicated to him by Albert Grenier, is no mere biography; it traces another page of the history and archaeology of contemporary France.

The period of the war has in Denmark, as in most other European countries, been one of difficulty and anxiety. Would it be possible to carry on the fieldwork, and, still more important, to preserve the valuable collections and carry them safe through this life- and death-battle of all the great world powers? The danger was especially obvious after the German occupation of Denmark in 1940. In the National Museum at Copenhagen we have one of the best prehistoric collections in Europe, and it was with great anxiety that we saw Copenhagen changed into an important German base. Air raids and invasion by the Allied forces were both expected, and, still worse, the enemy threatened to bomb the museum as vengeance for the sabotage done by the Danish Resistance Movement. A good proportion of the collections was dismantled, some of it evacuated to safe places, and some of it deposited in the cellars of the museum. Fortunately the National Museum—and also all the prehistoric museums in the small towns—came through the war without damage.

The museum authorities tried to save the prehistoric remains in the country—protected by law—from violation through the German fortification works. We got a promise from the German military authorities that nothing would be destroyed without very important military reasons; but a good many barrows from the Stone Age and the Bronze Age had to be removed at the large new flying bases, especially in Jutland. Although we got a chance to excavate most of the barrows before destruction, many others—more than 200—were destroyed or damaged by the various fortifications, mostly in western Jutland. It will, however, be possible to restore a good many of them.

When the Saxons from the mainland of Europe sailed up the Thames around the middle of the 5th century A.D. to lay the foundation-stone for the Anglo-Saxon Empire, they brought with them a signum sacre which has been handed down to us as the decoration of an urn from the burial-ground at Lackford in Suffolk. This consists of the figure of a horse, against which at the rear is a swastika (fig, 1, 1). Already at that time this sign had clearly a long history—a similar combination, closely related in style, is known to us from the first half of the last millennium B.C.; at that time it represented the Northern idea of the movement or journey of the ‘divine’ sun (fig. 1, 2), which idea has been brought down to us in plastic form from more than five hundred years earlier in the sun-chariot from Trundholm on Zealand.

The recent paper by Coles et al. (1978) on the use and character of prehistoric timber is a most timely reminder that the study of wooden artifacts can make a significant contribution to our understanding of early man. This potential may never be realised, however, unless full records are compiled on site whilst the artifacts are maintained in a stable state by ‘passive’ conservation techniques, and samples of the timber are recovered for post-excavation research. In the past much information has been irretrievably lost because these actions were not taken. It is also necessary to be cautious before accepting that wooden artifacts excavated or found before, say, 1960 are necessarily from the period ascribed to them. Not all simple artifacts are prehistoric.

The barrow whose excavation is described below was situated about 770 feet above Ordnance Datum a hundred yards south of the Hardy Monument on Black Down Hill, Portesham, on the edge of a large gravel pit. In the winning of gravel during the war the face of the pit had been worked round the barrow on both sides destroying the southern half of the ditch and part of the south side of the mound. As the mound was slowly falling into the gravel pit, it was decided by the Ministry of Works to excavate the barrow before further deterioration took place. The first-mentioned author undertook the supervision of this work for the Ministry in April and May, 1955, with a further fortnight in October of the same year, with the kind permission of the owner, Mrs H. Tuke.

The object of this paper is to draw attention to certain archæological problems which, at the present time, have an important bearing upon the study of prehistoric man in England.

Most archæologists are familiar with the pieces of tabular flint exhibiting human flaking, of a rough and primitive kind, along one or other of their edges, which Benjamin Harrison found, many years ago, in and upon the highest portions of the plateau of Kent. It is my purpose in this note, to discuss the geological, and cultural age of these specimens, and to endeavour to show that they represent the most ancient as well as the most primitive flint implements yet discovered.

Though there is very good reason to suppose that the eoliths of the Kent Plateau (the term “eolith” should be confined solely to these specimens, and to those of the same type found elsewhere), as is the case with others found in similar situations in different parts of the country, are of a great antiquity, it is nevertheless clear that, having not yet been discovered at these places, under any geologically datable deposit, the exact measure of that antiquity remains unknown.

It may seem a paradox, but it is nevertheless true, that more is known of the remote Palæolithic period than of the later Stone Age that ended about 4000 years ago. This applies to the Continent as well as to Britain, but Scandinavia is exceptional, and for our present purpose the best subject of investigation. The accepted view is that the three Baltic kingdoms were uninhabited in Quaternary times, and could only be approached by man after the last, or Baltic, glaciation had come to an end. There are certain facts inexplicable on that hypothesis, but all will agree that the Neolithic period in that area can be divided into early and late divisions; and so rich are the prehistoric remains and so advanced is this study, that the Scandinavian system can be used as a touch-stone by which to test the facts and theories of our own later Stone Age. I propose, therefore, on the present occasion to deal in some detail with the latest results of Scandinavian research, and then to proceed in order with the districts that face us across the North Sea and the Channel—North-west Germany, Holland, Belgium, and Northern France. It is hoped that such a survey will enable a more rigid classification to be made of the large amount of British material referred to the Neolithic period. In this country one has to rely mainly on form, but in Scandinavia that element is combined with others, such as habitation-sites, shell-mounds, and megalithic remains that furnish proof of the succession of forms, and open up the question of relations with Britain at that early date. If the claims already made on that head be valid, then comparisons become possible, and certain stages at least of the period in question can be arranged on scientific lines.

It has been my privilege to work under Prof. Man at Cambridge, and discuss with him the problems of the relation between Quaternary Man and the Ice Age. His ideas have been ably expressed in the Presidential Address that he gave to the Society. One point, however, it seemed to me was rather passed over lightly, and that is the correlation of the results obtained in England with those found abroad. Dr. Marr suggested in his paper that the time was not yet ripe for such a correlation, and that it was as yet dangerous. Yet the results obtained by Prof. Marr and Mr. Moir are so definite and far-reaching that the writer feels that an attempted correlation is necessary to avoid the danger of a too great insularity of thought. The results obtained abroad may be grouped under two heads;—

(1) Those showing positive results

(2) Those showing negative results

Abroad, and especially in France, not only have there been a number of gifted amateurs engaged in the study of prehistory, but further, owing to the generosity of the Prince of Monaco, there have been a number of distinguished specialists who have been devoting their whole energies to the elucidation of various problems.

Mr. Moir has described the circumstances under which the skeleton was found and has given the evidence on which these bones have been assigned to the period preceding the formation of the Boulder Clay. It remains for me to give a description of the skeleton and to draw certain inferences as to the kind of man to which it belonged. Before doing so, however, I should like to mention a matter which may be of service to future investigators. So fragile were the remains, such was the degree of disintegration, that Mr. Moir found it impossible to extract the bones from the matrix in which they were embedded. He therefore, most wisely, cut out the stratum in which the bones lay as solid blocks, which were forwarded to me in the condition in which they were excavated. On reaching the Museum we impregnated each block with a solution of gelatine and then proceeded to expose the bones by removing from them the overlying boulder clay piecemeal and leaving them still in situ on the underlying glacial sands. The removal of the boulder clay required extreme care and great patience, but the advantage of leaving the bones attached to the underlying parts of the blocks became very apparent when we came to reconstruct the position of parts of the skeleton.

This site lies in the parish of Little Somborne, Hants, to the west of Turnpike Copse and just south of the Stockbridge-Winchester road. The ground rises steeply from the road to form a ridge about 300 O.D. and then gradually sinks towards Fox Heath Copse. Just below the crest of this ridge, the plough brings to the surface many large blocks of flint where a stratum outcrops. These blocks are the raw material from which the tools were made and the picks found were probably used to extract them. Large rough flakes are very numerous. Many of them show trimmed butts. This site extends for about 2 acres, and in this area are found picks, choppers, large cores, hammer stones, anvil stones, borers, end scrapers, and rarely a large horseshoe scraper, but no arrow heads or polished axes. The tools are patinated a blue-white or blue-grey; but the quality of the flint is so bad, there are so many quartz, chertz and calcedonic inclusions, that the patination is often patchy and unequal and sometimes varies in colour in different parts of the same flake scar. There is not much lustre. Iron staining and at times iron incrustation, found chiefly on the aretes, is very marked and there are numerous quicksilver spots of polish. The edges of these tools are sharp and show very little signs of use. What signs there are may be due to accidental damage by the plough.