^{page 117 note 1} Kindly lent by him on behalf of Leicester Museum. Mr. Cottrill sees, and has here drawn, as many as four pellets on the tail-cylinder of the brooch. Mr. Jacobsthal (and I) saw only two, one on either side of the middle (p. 120).

^{page 118 note 1} On five Iron Age sherds, all picked up by Mr. Armitage in the same field as the brooch, and lately presented by him to Leicester Museum, I have had the benefit of Mr. F. Cottrill's opinion. Three of them are of carinated jars or bowls with finger-tip ornament. The fourth, of smoother ware, is from a small pot with a low, obliquely-slashed cordon in the neck/shoulder angle. The first three, anyhow, seem to be Iron Age A ware of a period at least as early as the brooch. They differ widely from the ‘devolved A’ pottery, represented here by the fifth sherd only, which is abundant on Leicestershire sites (e.g. Breedon-on-the-Hill) in association with ‘bee-hive’ rotary querns, and probably with other indications of a relatively late pre-Roman date. Mr. Armitage states that he picked up the brooch and these Iron Age sherds at points on the ploughed surface which he judges to have been not more than about 30 yards apart, and between about 100 and 150 yards south of the old gypsum mine situated at the summit known as Red Nob. He adds that much of the Romano-British material comes from this same area, whereas in the eastern half of the field there has been little of it.

^{page 119 note 1} My thanks are due to Professor J. D. Beazley and Mr. C. F. C. Hawkes who kindly read and improved my manuscript.

^{page 119 note 2} Early Celtic bird's-head fibulae with coral eyes: Jacobsthal, Early Celtic Art (I quote it as ECA), nos. 289, 291–3, 300; pls. 153–5. A human eye with an enamelled iris is in the fibula from Parsberg, ECA, no. 316, pls. 159–60, but this is one of the most elaborate and costly of Early Celtic fibulae.

^{page 120 note 1} ECA, pp. 30 and 128.

^{page 121 note 1} There is a similar case: in the bronze beak-flagons from Lorraine in the British Museum the gold-speckled surface had first led to the belief that the bronze was gilt: examination in the Research Laboratory of the British Museum established that it was not (ECA, p. 200).

^{page 121 note 2} The type was invented in seventh-century Italy: Montelius, La Civilisation primitive en Italie, série A, pl. 7, 74 (série B, pl. 79, 2), from the Benacci site at Bologna. It reappears in the later centuries B.C. in Spain (P. Paris, L'Espagne primitive, ii, figs. 343, 345; pl. 5, 1; Schulten, Numantia, ii, pl. 51, 6), and then, more widely distributed, in Roman times (Altertümer unserer heidnischen Vorzeit, ii, 7, pl. 4; S. Reinach, Saint-Germain, Catalogue des bronzes figurés, pp. 302–4).

^{page 122 note 1} Involuted brooches: Sir Arthur Evans, Archaeologia, lxvi, 571; Sir Cyril Fox, Arch. Cambr. 1927, 91 ff.; Leeds, Celtic Ornament, 49–50. Addenda to Sir Cyril Fox's list since 1927: (a) Princess Street, London (Guildhall Museum), Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. 1939, 399, fig. 9 (p. 386)Google Scholar: iron, (b) Eastburn, near Driffield, E. R. Yorks. (two: Hull Museum), Yorkshire Arch. Journ. xxxiv, pl. opp. p. 37, fig. 1: both iron, one with inlay, (c) Frilford, Berks. (Ashmolean Museum), Oxoniensia, iv, pl. 5 opp. p. 14: bronze.

^{page 122 note 2} Fox, Archaeology of the Cambridge Region, p. 81, pls. xv, 5; xviii, 2x; Antiq. Journ. vi, pp. 176–7, pl. 28, 2; V.C.H. Cambs. i, 294, fig. 26, b, whence G. Clark, Prehistoric England, p. 13.

^{page 122 note 3} Fox, Arch. Cambr. 1927, 93, fig. 25, whence Wheeler, Maiden Castle, 257, fig. 82.

^{page 122 note 4} V.C.H. Oxfordshire, i, pl. 12, b.

^{page 122 note 5} Archaeologia, lx, pt. 1, 267, fig. 13.

^{page 122 note 6} I have to describe the brooch from photographs, which I owe to the kindness of Mr. E. T. Leeds: I have not seen the original.

^{page 123 note 1} These terms are explained fully in my ECA: I call ‘Waldalgesheim Style’ a manner of decoration found chiefly on the Rhine, on the Marne, and in Switzerland, but not entirely missing in the eastern Celtic provinces. The chariot-tomb at Waldalgesheim (Hunsrück) and the graves of the Senones at Filottrano (near Ancona) contain Celtic objects decorated thus, together with classical works which are datable to the last years of the fourth century B.C. The ‘Plastic Style’ is one of the subsequent styles which have their centre in Hungary, Bohemia, south-east Germany, and, to a lesser extent, Switzerland. A chieftain grave in Bulgaria, which yielded chariot-parts decorated in Plastic Style, can be dated on historical grounds shortly after 275 B.C.

Waldalgesheim Style and Plastic Style are phases based on study of ornament; their chronology rests on study of graves containing datable southern objects. The traditional subdivisions of the La Tène period are chiefly based on typological criteria. A survey of Swiss tombs leads to the following equation: Waldalgesheim Style = Viollier, La Tène I, late b and early c. Plastic Style = Viollier La Tène I c-early II.

^{page 123 note 2} This is the only correct illustration: the pattern is misinterpreted in the older drawing, Archaeologia, lxvi, 571, fig. 2 (whence Arch. Cambr. 1927, 95, fig. 27; Kendrick and Hawkes, Arch, in England and Wales 1914–1931, 170, fig. 66; Leeds, Celtic Ornament, 51, fig. 19).

^{page 124 note 1} I should not like with Hawkes to call the Münsingen brooch ‘typologically slightly earlier’: the difference between the Kentish piece and the Swiss seems to me rather of quality than of time; British fibulae, with some exceptions, are of lower quality than their Swiss or French counterparts or models.

^{page 124 note 2} See ECA, pp. 206–8. This date is not refuted by the smaller of the involuted brooches from the Danes' Graves (Archaeologia, lx, 267, fig. 14; lxvi, 571, fig. 3; British Museum Iron Age Guide, fig. 130; Arch. Cambr. 1927, 95, fig. 28; Childe, Prehist. Communities, 220, fig. 80, 3), where it is deceptive that the cross-hatching on the foot-plaque should recall the well-known technique of so roughening a surface for the reception of enamel—a practice unknown before the first century B.C. (F. Henry, Préhistoire, ii, 82). Sir Cyril Fox, who has kindly discussed the problem with me, suggests that the foot-plaque was originally plain, bearing, as it evidently did, a mounting of coral, which its central pin-hole now alone attests, and that this mounting perished while the brooch was still in use: the cross-hatching was then executed in its stead, as a modest substitute.