Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:04:30.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Invasion Hypothesis in British Archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Grahame Clark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
Antiquity , Volume 40 , Issue 159 , September 1966 , pp. 172 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1966

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

* It is unfortunate that the terms ‘Windmill Hill’ and ‘Peterborough’ have been retained in this work, since they were devised to suit the ‘two great families of British Neolithic pottery’ concept, effectively destroyed by Dr Smith. The term ‘Windmill Hill’, again, belongs to a time when it was thought that the ditches of the Windmill Hill enclosure preserved the whole Neolithic sequence of the area; and, in any case, Dr Smith has applied the term to a particular class of pottery (our group A 2 i) peculiar to the name-site. As for the term ‘Peterborough ware’, Professor Piggott has recently pleaded to retain this (The West Kennet Long Barrow Excavations 1955–56 (London, 1962), 32)Google Scholar to denote small sherds too featureless to assign to any particular style within the series Ebbsfleet-Mortlake-Fengate: this hardly seems a valid reason for retaining a term which enshrines a discarded concept.