^{page 156 note 1} Kemble, J. M., Horae Ferales; or Studies in the Archaeology of the Northern Nations (1863), 166Google Scholar.

^{page 156 note 2} Evans, J., The Ancient Bronze Implements of Great Britain and Ireland (1881), 343Google Scholar.

^{page 156 note 3} Smith, R. A., ‘Circular Bronze Shields’, P. Soc. Ant. London, (2), XXXI (1919), 145Google Scholar.

^{page 156 note 4} Lindenschmidt, L., Die Alterthümer unserer heidnischen Vorzeit, I (1858)Google Scholar, heft, ii, taf. 1; III (1881), heft, vii, taf. 2; Ebert, M., Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte, XI (1927–1928), 255Google Scholar, taf. 70–3.

^{page 156 note 5} Sprockhoff, E., Zur Handelsgeschichte der germanischen Bronzezeit (1930), 1Google Scholar.

^{page 156 note 6} The British series was however far from adequately published.

^{page 156 note 7} Hencken, H., ‘Herzsprung Shields and Greek Trade’, American J. of Arch., LIV (1950), 295Google Scholar.

^{page 156 note 8} Hencken, H., ‘Palaeobotany and the Bronze Age,’ JRSAI, LXXXI (1951), 53Google Scholar.

^{page 156 note 9} Sprockhoff, E., ‘Nordische Bronzezeit und frühes Griechentum’, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, I (1954), 28Google Scholar.

^{page 156 note 10} ibid, 74, n. 86.

^{page 157 note 1} Sprockhoff, op. cit. (1930), 10, nos. 6 and 6a.

^{page 158 note 1} Hencken, op. cit. (1950), fig. 2.

^{page 158 note 2} ibid, fig. 7.

^{page 158 note 3} ibid, fig. 3–6; four of the pieces were found below the level of Hekatompedos II; one fragment came from the Altar V filling.

^{page 158 note 4} ibid, fig. 8.

^{page 158 note 5} Kunze, E., Kretische Bronzereliefs (1931)Google Scholar; Benton, S., ‘The Date of the Cretan Shields’, Annual of the Br. School Athens, XXXIX (1938–1939), 52Google Scholar.

^{page 158 note 6} MacWhite, E., ‘Sobre unas losas grabadas en el Suroeste de la Península hispánica’, Actas y Memorias de la Sociedad Española de Antropología, Etnografía y Prehistoria (1947), 158Google Scholar.

^{page 158 note 7} Hencken, op. cit. (1950), 302.

^{page 158 note 8} Almagro, M., ‘A Propósito de la Fecha de las Fibulas de Huelva’, Ampurias, XIX–XX (1957–1958), 198Google Scholar; Santa-Olalla, J. Martinez, Esquema paletnológico de la Península hispánica (1946)Google Scholar.

^{page 158 note 9} Hencken, op. cit. (1950), fig. 20; Sprockhoff, op. cit. (1930), taf. 7c.

^{page 158 note 10} Sprockhoff, op. cit. (1930), 41.

^{page 158 note 11} MacWhite, op. cit. (1947), 160.

^{page 159 note 1} Almagro, op. cit. (1958), 203–4, fig. 7–8.

^{page 159 note 2} Inv. Arch. Espana, I (1958)Google Scholar; Almagro, M., Ampurias, II (1940), 85–143Google Scholar; Hencken, H., ‘The Fibulae of Huelva’, PPS, XXII (1956), 213Google Scholar.

^{page 159 note 3} Almagro, op. cit. (1958), fig. 3.

^{page 159 note 4} Hawkes, C. F. C. and Smith, M. A., ‘On some Buckets and Cauldrons of the Bronze and Early Iron Ages’, Ant. J., XXXVII (1957), 165Google Scholar; Hawkes, ‘Scheme for the British Bronze Age,’ Council for British Archaeology conference on Problems of the British Bronze Age, December 1960; review, Antiquity, XXXV (1961), 63Google Scholar.

^{page 159 note 5} Archaeologia, LXXX (1930), 1Google Scholar; Ant. J., XIX (1939), 369Google Scholar.

^{page 159 note 6} Hawkes, , Ampurias, XIV (1952), 81Google Scholar.

^{page 159 note 7} Antiquity, XII (1938), 225Google Scholar.

^{page 160 note 1} Hawkes and Smith, op. cit. (1957), 182.

^{page 160 note 2} Boletín de la Comision de Monumentos de Orense, XX (1959–1960), 233–41Google Scholar. I am grateful to Professor Hawkes for drawing my attention to this note.

^{page 160 note 3} My thanks are due to Dr W. Bray for noting this find in Montpellier Museum.

^{page 160 note 4} Jessen, K., ‘Studies in the Late Quaternary Deposits and Flora History of Ireland’, PRIA, 52B (1949), 88Google Scholar; Godwin, H., ‘The Relationship of Bog Stratigraphy to Climatic Change and Archaeology,’ PPS, XIII (1946), 1Google Scholar; Hencken, op. cit. (1951), 53.

^{page 161 note 1} Full descriptions on page 180.

^{page 161 note 2} Alterum uns. heid. Vorzeit, III (1881)Google Scholar, heft, vii, taf. 2, 1–2.

^{page 161 note 3} Becker, C. J., ‘Et Pragtskjold fra yngre Bronzealder’, Fra Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark (1947), 91Google Scholar; Broholm, H. C., Danmarks Bronzealder, IV (1949)Google Scholar, pl. 70.

^{page 161 note 4} Punktbuckel style, von Merhart, G., ‘Studien über einige Gattungen von Bronzegefässen’, Festschrift des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums in Mainz, II (1952), 40Google Scholar; of the 14 rows of bosses making the decorative outer border, five are incomplete, only appearing at the ends of the oval shield.

^{page 161 note 5} Sprockhoff, op. cit. (1930), taf. 6.

^{page 161 note 6} Broholm, H. C., Danske Oldsager, IV (1953)Google Scholar, fig. 163, 196, 199–201 respectively.

^{page 161 note 7} Although occurring also in Period IV, ibid, fig. 64, 69, 115.

^{page 161 note 8} ibid, fig. 110–1; see pages 168–9.

^{page 161 note 9} Broholm, H. C., Danmarks Bronzealder, III (1946), 258Google Scholar, pl. 70A.

^{page 161 note 10} As well as provision for carrying the shield by a strap or cord, not seen on the pointed-oval group of notched shields.

^{page 161 note 11} Hencken, op. cit. (1950), fig. 25.

^{page 162 note 1} Sprockhoff, op. cit. (1930), pl. 4.

^{page 162 note 2} Hencken, op. cit. (1950), 305; Randall-MacIver, D., The Iron Age in Italy (1927), 48Google Scholar, pl. 10.

^{page 162 note 3} The Pilsen shield measures 50 × 47.8 cm.

^{page 162 note 4} Sprockhoff, op. cit. (1954), taf. 9.

^{page 162 note 5} ibid., 73–4; and probably determined the placing of the Danish shields in Period IV rather than V.

^{page 162 note 6} Sbornik městského historického musea v Plzni, II (1911), 96Google Scholar; quoted in Sprockhoff, op. cit. (1954), 74.

^{page 162 note 7} Sprockhoff, op. cit. (1930), 11; op. cit. (1954), taf. 9.

^{page 162 note 8} Childe, V. G., The Danube in Prehistory (1929), 345Google Scholar.

^{page 162 note 9} Hencken, op. cit. (1950), 303.

^{page 162 note 10} Sprockhoff, op. cit. (1930), 1; Reinecke, P., ‘Der Bamberger Bronzeschildfund’, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, III (1956), 23Google Scholar.

^{page 163 note 1} The Nipperwiese and Schiphorst shields possess tabs which in general form resemble the British style.

^{page 163 note 2} von Merhart, G., ‘Uber blecherne Zierbuckel (Faleren)’, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, III (1956), map p. 53Google Scholar, abb. 7, 6 and abb. 5, 2.; ibid., list p. 104; Sprockhoff, op. cit. (1930), taf. xi b.

^{page 163 note 3} And rare as a decorative motif on North European metalwork.

^{page 163 note 4} Supported by the Langwood Fen, Cambs., ‘association’; see page 166.

^{page 163 note 5} Müller-Karpe, H., ‘Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnerfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen’, Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 22 (1959)Google Scholar.

^{page 163 note 6} Müller-Karpe, H., Die Vollgriffschwerter der Urnerfelderzeit aus Bayern (1961)Google Scholar; review Cowen, J. D., Antiquity, XXXVI (1962), 75CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See pages 173–4.

^{page 163 note 7} Seen on the Nipperwiese and Schiphorst shields, and on some British and Irish shields, see page 183.

^{page 165 note 1} Compare Hawkes and Smith, op. cit. (1957), map p. 145 with shield map, page 164; the differences appear with the distributions of the continental ancestors, cf. Hawkes and Smith map with shield map, p. 157.

^{page 165 note 2} von Merhart, op. cit. (1952), 29, taf. 16–19.

^{page 165 note 3} Hawkes and Smith, op. cit. (1957), 150.

^{page 165 note 4} e.g. Spalt, Pilsen, Bingen, reported in Sprockhoff op. cit. (1930) and Yetholm, Roxburghshire (Nat. Mus. Ant. Scot., L1933.2114).

^{page 165 note 5} PSAS, XIX (1884–1885), 314Google Scholar. fig. 3.

^{page 165 note 6} See Hawkes and Smith, op. cit. (1957), 186.

^{page 165 note 7} e.g. The author in a lecture to the Prehistoric Society, December, 1961.

^{page 165 note 8} Sprockhoff, op. cit. (1930), 12.

^{page 165 note 9} Evans, op. cit. (1881), 343.

^{page 165 note 10} Smith, op. cit. (1919), 145.

^{page 165 note 11} Sprockhoff's maps however of British shields are often misleading as to locations.

^{page 166 note 1} The Ingoe, Northumberland, shield is an exception.

^{page 166 note 2} Thames at Woolwich (now destroyed).

^{page 166 note 3} Hodges, H. W. M., ‘Studies in the Late Bronze Age in Ireland’, Ulster J. Arch (3), XIX (1956), 44Google Scholar.

^{page 166 note 4} Fox, C., ‘The Socketed Bronze Sickles of the British Isles’, PPS, V (1939), 222Google Scholar.

^{page 166 note 5} von Merhart, op. cit. (1952), taf. 15, 3.

^{page 166 note 6} Sprockhoff's lists of closed finds need correction, for of his seven associations with other-than-shield material, only one is correct, op. cit. (1930), 17.

^{page 166 note 7} These two shields were reported as both of Yetholm type by Sprockhoff, based on Smith's notes of ‘corrugated’ and ‘small bosses’; Smith employed the term ‘plain ribs’ to signify the Harlech type.

^{page 166 note 8} Smith only noted one of these, listed by him under Mitchell Hill, and described again as ‘corrugated’; Sprockhoff included both the Auchmaleddie shields in his lists, and added Mitchell Hill as a third shield from Aberdeenshire; there are only two.

^{page 166 note 9} Evans, E. E., ‘The Bronze Spearhead in Great Britain and Ireland’, Archaeologia, LXXXIII (1933), 191Google Scholar; Smith, M. A., ‘Some Somerset Hoards and their Place in the Bronze Age of Southern Britain’, PPS, XXV (1959), 178Google Scholar.

^{page 166 note 10} Fox, C., The Archaeology of the Cambridge Region (1923), 60Google Scholar.

^{page 166 note 11} University Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, Accessions 1910.229.230.

^{page 167 note 1} Suggested first for Langwood by Dr G. Bushnell; comparable odd associations occur in Late Bronze hoards such as Stoke Ferry, Norfolk (Inv. Arch. GB8,4) and Guilsfield, Montgom. (Grimes, W. F., The Prehistory of Wales (1951), 258Google Scholar, fig. 70, 1).

^{page 167 note 2} Although both Broholm, op. cit. (1946), 181, M25 and Sprockhoff, op. cit. (1930), 17, published it as associated with other material.

^{page 167 note 3} Of the eight groups of bosses, three have 52 bosses, two have 51, one has 50, one has 48, one has 44; the distances between the groups (nearest points) vary from 5 to 63 millimetres.

^{page 167 note 4} Shields of the Nipperwiese group are also said to be cast, but these and perhaps the Lough Gur shield were probably formed in the same manner as the Lommelev and some other Danish shields (see p. 182).

^{page 167 note 5} Broholm, op. cit. (1946), 181, M24; op. cit. (1949), 256.

^{page 168 note 1} e.g. von Merhart, op. cit. (1956), abb. 11, 6–7; Holste, F., Die Bronzezeit in Süd-und Westdeutschland (1953)Google Scholar, taf. 19, 5.

^{page 168 note 2} Kirkendrup cups, Müller-Karpe, op. cit. (1959), abb. 40, 1; Sprockhoff, op. cit. (1930), taf. 17, taf. 15g.

^{page 168 note 3} Hallstatt B3 on the basis of Central Italian metalwork, e.g. Müller-Karpe, op. cit. (1959), abb. 56, 20 of von Merhart's Amphoren, op. cit. (1952), taf. 24, including Mariesminde; the Scandinavian notched shields should be placed within Period V rather than within Period IV as normally proposed, because the Punktbuckel style is certainly not as restricted chronologically as the notched motive, which must appear for the first time in Period V, contemporary with Hallstatt B3, in Central Europe.

^{page 168 note 4} Broholm, op. cit. (1949), pl. 69, 2.

^{page 168 note 5} von Merhart's Vogel-Sonnen-Motive, op. cit. (1952), taf. 23, p. 40.

^{page 168 note 6} ibid., taf. 20.

^{page 169 note 1} Fragments of ribbed and bossed metal from Voldtofte, Denmark, are more likely to have come from a beaten handled cup rather than from a shield (Broholm, op. cit. (1946), 221, M155), although the double ribs and rows of small bosses are very like those on the Svendstrup shield; no part of a shield rim is left, and one flattened rivet could have come from a cup or from a shield like Svendstrup.

^{page 169 note 2} Smith's list of ‘corrugated’ shields consists of three shields, only one of which is really of this corrugated type.

^{page 169 note 3} Sprockhoff, op. cit. (1930), 14, no. 30 (wrong illustration); Smith, op. cit. (1919), 150; Archaeologia, LXIX (1918), 16Google Scholar.

^{page 170 note 1} Brondsted, J., Danmarks Oldtid, II (1958), 176gGoogle Scholar; Broholm, op. cit. (1953), no. 96.

^{page 170 note 2} Broholm, op. cit. (1953), nos. 130, 147, 161.

^{page 170 note 3} See page 168 for discussion of this style; rectilinear versions on pottery: Müller-Karpe, op. cit. (1959), taf. 71, 72, 81 for Italian relations, and Sandars, N. K., Bronze Age Cultures in France (1957), 190Google Scholar, fig. 47, 4, fig. 48, 5 and fig. 62, 8 for eastern France.

^{page 170 note 4} Not Toome Bar, Ireland, Sprockhoff, op. cit. (1930), no. 45; this is a true phalera with loop.

^{page 171 note 1} Called the London type by Sprockhoff, op. cit. (1930), 3.

^{page 171 note 2} While the London shield has only four rows of bossed and four ribs, it is 52 cm. in diameter.

^{page 171 note 3} e.g. Sprockhoff, op. cit. (1930), taf. 1–2.

^{page 171 note 4} von Merhart, op. cit. (1956), abb. 5, 6.

^{page 171 note 5} ibid., abb. 2, 2; Müller-Karpe, op. cit. (1959), taf. 141 A4; Cambridge Univ. Mus. of Archaeology and Ethnology has three examples of bossed and ribbed phalerae from Auvernier.

^{page 171 note 6} It is conceivable that these bossed phalerae, and the Eynsham group, are the starting point for the whole British series, in which case the Thames at London shield would certainly represent a stage towards the Yetholm type. The proposed dating would not be altered.

^{page 171 note 7} ‘Prähistorische Grabhügel auf der Schwabischen Alb’, Prähistorische Blätter, XVII (1906)Google Scholar, no. 4. 50; Childe, op. cit. (1929), 298, n. 7.

^{page 171 note 8} Cowen, J. D., ‘Eine Einführung in die Geschichte der bronzenen Griffzungenschwerter in Süddeutschland und den angrenzender Gebieten’, Ber. der Röm.-Germ. Komm., XXXVI (1955)Google Scholar; taf. 19; Müller-Karpe, op. cit. (1959), taf. 208, p. 314.

^{page 171 note 9} Erbenheim type: Cowen, op. cit. (1955), 73.

^{page 172 note 1} My thanks are extended to Professor S. Piggott for noting this find in Munich Museum.

^{page 172 note 2} Hoare, R. Colt, The Ancient History of Wiltshire (1812–1819), 203Google Scholar; Piggott, S., ‘The Early Bronze Age in Wessex’, PPS, IV (1938), 52Google Scholar; Ashbee, P., The Bronze Age Round Barrow in Britain (1960), 76Google Scholar, fig. 24. I am grateful to Professor Piggott for assistance in attempting to interpret these remains.

^{page 172 note 3} In the museum of the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, Devizes; my thanks are due to Mr D. Simpson for help in examining these.

^{page 172 note 4} ApSimon, A. M., ‘Dagger Graves in the Wessex Bronze Age’, University of London, Inst. Arch., 10th Ann. Report (1954), 42Google Scholar; R. J. C. Atkinson, C.B.A. Conference on Problems of the British Bronze Age, December 1960.

^{page 172 note 5} There may be an analogous find in the 15th-century Warrior's Grave at Ayios Ioannis in Crete (Hood, M. S. F., ‘Another Warrior-Grave at Ayios Ioannis near Knossos’, The Annual of the British School at Athens, LI (1956), 81 ff)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The grave has yielded a number of short pieces of copper wire from a circular area, 30 cm. in diameter, above the head of the corpse, both shape and positions as at the Bush Barrow (ibid., 82, 85–6, 96). Similar wire fragments came from Tomb III of the Hospital Site and were originally thought to represent the fasteners for attaching the leather part of a figure-of-eight shield to the wooden shield. However, as Hood now points out, these wire pieces have blunt ends, completely unsuitable for penetrating wood, and probably were wires used to fasten leather to leather, a helmet, perhaps, made up of scales. Tomb 55 at Zafer Papoura, Knossos, yielded part of a helmet of boars' tusks, and Tomb V of the Hospital Site had one of bronze (The Annual of the British School at Athens, XLVII (1952), 253Google Scholar; PPS, XVIII (1952)Google Scholar, pl. 1). Related to this form is the bronze helmet from Beitzsch, which Hencken suggests is more or less contemporary on the basis of an association with an Oder-Elbe dagger and ingot torques (PPS, XVIII (1952), 36Google Scholar). The Beitzsch helmet, its close relation from Oranienburg (Sprockhoff, op. cit. (1930), taf. 9a), and the Knossian Hospital Site helmet, show that the tradition of metal helmets was in existence in central Europe and the Aegean area at a time when Wessex was in receipt of influences from these sources. Possibly then the fragments of wood and metal and the rivets, from the Bush Barrow, were a part of some form of helmet, perhaps basically of metal, perhaps utilizing wooden plates as scales. The surviving evidence is too fragmentary to be certain.

^{page 173 note 1} Neustupny, , Vorgeschichte der Lausitz (1951), 26Google Scholar; illustrated in Childe, op. cit. (1929), fig. 132a.

^{page 173 note 2} Evans, A., Palace of Minos, vol. 1 (1921)Google Scholar, fig. 482.

^{page 173 note 3} For other types of shield see Lorimer, H. L., Homer and the Monuments (1950), 132Google Scholar.

^{page 173 note 4} Ephemeris Archaiologike (1904), 46Google Scholar, fig. 11.

^{page 173 note 5} McFadden, G., ‘A Late Cypriote III Tomb from Kourion, Kaloriziki no. 40’, Amer. J. Arch. (1954), 131Google Scholar, pl. 25, fig. 33; also see Catling, H. W., ‘Bronze Cut-and-Thrust Swords in the Eastern Mediterranean’, PPS, XXII (1956), 113Google Scholar; Lorimer, op. cit. (1950), 155.

^{page 173 note 6} Latest discussion, Catling, , Antiquity, XXV (1961), 117Google Scholar.

^{page 173 note 7} Hencken, op. cit. (1950), fig. 13.

^{page 173 note 8} The Urartian shields of the 8th and later centuries may have something in common with the European notched groups; I am indebted to Mr A. Snodgrass of the Department of Classical Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, for information about these and other eastern shields.

^{page 173 note 9} L. Pareti, La Tomba Regolini Galassi, taf. xxxiv-xxxv; Randall-MacIver, D., Villanovans and Early Etruscans, (1924), 111Google Scholar, pl. 22, 8 (Tomba del Duce at Vetulonia).

^{page 173 note 10} Anati, E., Camonica Valley (1961), 184, 186 etc.Google Scholar; Arch. Inst. Pal. Hum., XXXI (1960)Google Scholar, figs. 15 and 16.

^{page 173 note 11} Zervos, C., La Civilisation de la Sardaigne (1954)Google Scholar, fig. 179, 185.

^{page 173 note 12} Breuil, H., Peintures schematiques, IV (1933), 16Google Scholar.

^{page 173 note 13} Sprockhoff, op. cit. (1930), taf. 2a, taf. 7a.

^{page 174 note 1} My thanks are due to Mr E. Albrechtsen and Mr S. Larsen for allowing me to examine this find.

^{page 174 note 2} Broholm, op. cit. (1946), M127.

^{page 174 note 3} Broholm, op. cit. (1953), no. 175.

^{page 174 note 4} Broholm, op. cit. (1946), M113.

^{page 174 note 5} ibid, also in Gjedesby and Kettinge (Nat. Mus. Denmark).

^{page 174 note 6} ibid, M101a and M163.

^{page 174 note 7} ibid, Grav 1331.

^{page 174 note 8} Nat.Mus.Denmark.

^{page 174 note 9} Broholm, op. cit. (1953), no. 132.

^{page 174 note 10} Baudou, E., Die Regionale und Chronologische Einteilung der jüngeren Bronzezeil im nordischen Kreis (1960), 25Google Scholar.

^{page 174 note 11} Broholm, op. cit. (1953), no. 135.

^{page 174 note 12} Baudou, op. cit. (1960), 132 ff.

^{page 174 note 13} Müller-Karpe, op. cit. (1959).

^{page 175 note 1} Armstrong, E. C. R., ‘Prehistoric Shield found at Clonbrin, County Longford’, PRAI, XXVII (1909), 259Google Scholar.

^{page 175 note 2} Ridgeway, W., The Early Age of Greece (1901), 468–9Google Scholar, quoting Polybius, ‘… shields of bull's hide … were useless at close quarters because they were flexible rather than firm; and when their leather shrunk and rotted from the rain, unserviceable as they were before, they then became entirely so’. In actual fact the Roman auxiliaries' shields were probably made of wood, perhaps plywood, covered with hide or leather and bound with metal strips (bronze or iron) at the edges, and would be capable of withstanding not only force but damp conditions, e.g. they were used in Scotland. Curle, J., A Roman Frontier Post and its People (1911, Glasgow), 181–3Google Scholar; see also Webster, G., The Roman Army (1956), 28Google Scholar.

^{page 175 note 3} e.g. Forbes, R. J., Studies in Ancient Technology, V (1957), 16Google Scholar.

^{page 175 note 4} Accounts of this in Forbes op. cit.; I am indebted to the British Leather Manufacturers' Research Association, and especially to Mr K. M. Roper and David Callender and Sons Ltd., Bonnington Tannery, Leith, for assistance in the initial stages of this work.

^{page 176 note 1} The hides used in the experiments of shield-making have not been shaved, and there is some variation in the thickness within each piece, depending on the skin's relation to the shoulder of the ox.

^{page 176 note 2} Forbes, op. cit. 9. A recent article in Museum News, State University of South Dakota, vol. 23, no. 3, describes the manufacture of rawhide shields by the Oglala Indians. A slightly oval piece of hide was cut from the hump of a buffalo bull and the hair removed; it was then stretched over a mound of sand about 4 inches high in the centre, pegged down and allowed to dry naturally. The finished product was toasted over burning coals to toughen the hide. I am grateful to Dr G. Bushnell for drawing my attention to this note.

^{page 176 note 3} Pliny mentions oak galls as trade objects.

^{page 176 note 4} Modern vegetable tanning methods require only 6–8 weeks, and the leather so formed is used for belting and harness, and for shoe-sole leather.

^{page 176 note 5} Mongait, A. L., Archaeology in the U.S.S.R. (1961), 95Google Scholar, fig. 8, 5.

^{page 176 note 6} Clark, Grahame, Prehistoric Europe, The Economic Basis (1952), 219Google Scholar.

^{page 177 note 1} ibid., 224–5, 217–18.

^{page 177 note 2} See The Illustrated London News, 10 Feb. 1962.

^{page 177 note 3} PPS, III (1937), 178Google Scholar.

^{page 177 note 4} Ashbee op. cit. (1960), pl. xia, and in correspondence.

^{page 177 note 5} Broholm, H. C. and Hald, M., Nordiske Fortidsminder, III, 2 (1939), 84–9Google Scholar.

^{page 177 note 6} Preuschen, E. and Pittioni, R., Mitt. der Präh. Komm. der Akademie der Wissen, VI (1937)Google Scholar, nr. 1–3, abb. 2.

^{page 177 note 7} Brondsted, J., Danmarks Oldtid (1938), 11Google Scholar, fig. 85d; Schwantes, G., Geschichte Schleswig-Holstein, I (1939)Google Scholar, fig. 515–16.

^{page 177 note 8} Rausing, G., Medd. Lunds Univ. Hist. Mus. (1949), 170Google Scholar.

^{page 177 note 9} Leather covering for wooden shields would not require such stiffening; parts of such a cover from an Iron Age shield are preserved in the Museum at Aars, Denmark. I am indebted to Professor C. J. Becker for telling me of this find, and to Mr V. B. Quist for permission to examine the fragments.

^{page 177 note 10} Identification and analysis of the Clonbrin leather is planned, thanks to the courtesy of the National Museum of Ireland.

^{page 178 note 1} My thanks are due to Mr J. S. Waughman of David Callender and Sons Ltd., St. John's Works, Newcastle, for carrying out this process.

^{page 179 note 1} See Piggott, S. in PSAS, XC (1956–1957), 238Google Scholar, for tripartite construction of a wheel from Blair Drummond Moss, formerly thought to be a shield.

^{page 179 note 2} Nordiske Fortidsminder, III (1937)Google Scholar.

^{page 180 note 1} Skalk, I (1959), 9Google Scholar.

^{page 180 note 2} Drummond, J., Ancient Scottish Weapons (1887)Google Scholar; my thanks are due to Mr S. Maxwell, of the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, for helpful advice.

^{page 180 note 3} PRAI, VIII (1861–1864), 489Google Scholar.

^{page 181 note 1} Hodges, H. W. M., ‘Studies in the Late Bronze Age in Ireland’, Ulster J. Arch., XX (1957), 57Google Scholar, fig. 6.

^{page 181 note 2} Clark, J. G. D., ‘A Late Bronze Age find near Stuntney, Isle of Ely’, Ant. J., XX (1940), 54Google Scholar, fig. 2.

^{page 181 note 3} Maryon, H., ‘The Technique of the Irish Smiths in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages’, PRAI, XLIV (1938), 181Google Scholar; ‘Metalwork and Enamelling’ (1959); ‘Some Prehistoric Metalworkers' Tools’, Ant. J., XVIII (1938), 243Google Scholar. My thanks are due to Mr Maryon for helpful advice.

^{page 181 note 4} Coghlan, H. H., ‘Notes on the Prehistoric Metallurgy of the Copper and Bronze Ages’, Pitt-Rivers Mus. Occ. Paper in Technology, IV (1951)Google Scholar.

^{page 182 note 1} Of the Eynsham group, only the ?West Linton shield has a turned rim, all the others are left flat. The metal of these, too, is slightly heavier than that of the larger shields.

^{page 182 note 2} The Svendstrup handle is held in place by small metal straps set over the handle-ends and riveted.

^{page 183 note 1} J. R. Hist. and Arch. Ass. of Irel., 4, II (1872–1873), 118–21Google Scholar.

^{page 183 note 2} ibid., 120

^{page 184 note 1} One of the Danish notched shields has three rivets set on each side of the handle, holding a metal strip, providing two spaces for a strap attachment: .

^{page 184 note 2} The Svendstrup shield has a leather strap c. 90 centimetres long, each end slotted and fastened together by a short knotted piece, attached through the handle; it could have been slung by this.

^{page 184 note 3} The two meander-decorated shields, from Coveney and Auchmaleddie, have, in addition to the handle-rivets and the normal tab-rivets, respectively four and two extra rivets of unknown use; possibly the Auchmaleddie tabs were of the single-hole type jammed against another rivet in which case this shield would have no rivets left over, but the Coveney shield certainly has four extras.

^{page 184 note 4} e.g. Herzsprung, Coveney Fen, Brumby Moor, Langwood Fen.

^{page 184 note 5} Smith and Blin-Stoyle, op. cit. (1959).

^{page 185 note 1} Test carried out in the Department of Metallurgy, University of Cambridge.

^{page 185 note 2} In addition to their thinness and elaborate decoration, the small oval central boss and small handle of for instance the Taarup shield make it unlikely that these shields could have been held with sufficient purchase to accurately turn a blow (maximum holding space 8 centimetres). Note that of the six provenanced Danish shields, four have come from the adjoining parishes of Torkildstrup, Nørre Kirkeby and Eskildstrup in Falster.

^{page 185 note 3} It however seems difficult to visualize other conditions under which such fragile objects would survive.

^{page 185 note 4} The one surviving shield from Beith has a number of holes punched through from the front, although this is practically the only case where any British shields seem to have been deliberately damaged; there is no record when this damage was done, and it may have occurred in modern times.