^{page 167 note 1} Proc. Belf. N. Hist, and Phil. Soc., 1934–1935, pp. 70 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 2} ibid., 1932–3, pp. 1 ff.

^{page 167 note 3} Proc. Prehist. Soc., 1935, p. 140 Google Scholar.

^{page 167 note 4} Proc. Belfast N. Hist. and Phil. Soc., 1933–1934, pp. 79 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 5} Proc. Prehist. Soc., 1936, p. 222 Google Scholar.

^{page 167 note 6} Ant. J., 1936, pp. 208 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 7} Irish Naturalists' J., 1935 (July).

^{page 167 note 8} G. Coffey, New Grange.

^{page 167 note 9} ibid.; also Frazer, , Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., 1892–1893 Google Scholar.

^{page 167 note 10} Macalister, R. A. S., Proc. Roy. Irish Acad., XXIX, 1911–1912, pp. 311 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 11} The outstanding exception, of course, is cairn E at Carrowkeel, a long horned cairn.

^{page 167 note 12} Leask, H. G. Proc. Roy. Irish Acad., XLI, 1933, pp. 162 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 13} A loose slab engraved with a lozenge pattern was found near the Goward cairn.

^{page 169 note 1} Lindsay Scott's discovery. See Childe, , Proc. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland, LXV (1935), pp. 320 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 2} ibid.

^{page 169 note 3} Proc. Roy. Irish Acad., XXIX, 1911–12, pl. XXV, nos. 5–7.

^{page 169 note 4} P.P.S.E.A., VII (1932), pp. 62 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 5} See Childe, Prehistory of Scotland, pl. IV, 1.

^{page 169 note 6} Grimes, , Proc. Preh. Soc., 1936, p. 119 and pl. XXX (Upper)Google Scholar.

^{page 169 note 7} Map of the Trent Basin (Ordnance Survey), pp. 11 ff.

^{page 172 note 1} The Five Wells barrow is probably a degenerate form; ibid., p. 13.

^{page 172 note 2} The excavation report has just appeared in Ant. J., Oct. 1936, pp. 373 ffGoogle Scholar; a plan also appeared in these Proceedings for 1935, p. 81 Google Scholar.

^{page 172 note 3} For plans see Pericot y Garcia, Civilización megalitica Catalana, pl. XIV.

^{page 172 note 4} For plan see Matériaux, 1881, p. 528, and pl. XVGoogle Scholar.

^{page 172 note 5} Mackenzie, Duncan, The Tombs of the Giants and the Nuraghi of Sardinia, Memnon, 11, fasc. 3 Google Scholar.

^{page 172 note 6} Arch. J., LXXXVIII, pls. v, VI.

^{page 172 note 7} Antiquity, 1934, p. 32, fig. 4Google Scholar.

^{page 172 note 8} Proc. Preh. Soc., 1935, p. 81 Google Scholar.

^{page 172 note 9} County Louth Arch. J., 1934, pp. 165 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 10} ibid., 1935, pp. 234 ff.

^{page 175 note 1} Ant. J., 1934, pp. 107 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 2} Geogr. J., 1912, pp. 184–217 Google Scholar.

^{page 175 note 3} ‘Irish Copper Celts’, J.R.A.I., XXXI, pp. 265 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 4} ‘Irish Copper Halberds,’ P.R.I.A., XXVII, pp. 94 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 5} See Megaw, , ‘‘Note on the Ornamentation of Flat Bronze Axes,’ The Irish Naturalists' Journal, May, 1936 Google Scholar.

^{page 176 note 1} Smith, R. A., Arch., LXII (1910), pp. 348 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 2} Scott, W. L., Proc. of the First International Congress of Prehistoric and Proto-historic Sciences, p. 134 London, 1932 Google Scholar.

^{page 176 note 3} Proc. Roy. Irish Acad., XLI (1934), Sect, c, p. 255 Google Scholar.

^{page 176 note 4} Bericht über die Jahrhundertfeier des Archäologischen Institutes des Deutschen Reiches, 1930, 313 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 5} Buttler, W. and Harberey, W., Die Bandkeramische Ansiedlung bei Köln-Lindenthal, 1936 Google Scholar, s. 2. For a short account of this site see the last issue of these Proceedings ( Proc. Prehist. Soc., 1936, p. 245)Google Scholar.

^{page 176 note 6} It is interesting to note that the different periods of house construction could be recognised in the field, from the varying discolorations of the material filling the post-holes and wall-slots; thus the traces of houses of periods I and II showed up as brownish grey in colour, those of period in as grey, and those of periods IV and V as black.

^{page 178 note 1} Vouga, P., Classification du néolithique lacustre Suisse, 1929 Google Scholar.

^{page 178 note 2} Vogt, E., ‘Zum schweizerischen Neolithikum,’ Germania, vol. 18, 1934, pp. 89 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 3} Bertsch, K., ‘Klima, Planzendecke und Besiedlung in vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit,’ Ber d. Röm.-German. Komm. d. Deutschen Archäolog. Instituts, XVIII, 1928 Google Scholar. Bertsch's main results and many of his diagrams are also printed in Reinerth's book (op. cit.), to which references in the present text to Bertsch's diagrams refer.

^{page 178 note 4} Reinerth claims that the pollen-analysis, if strictly interpreted, would place the Dullenried site in the Late Bronze Age, but it would be difficult to agree with this view.

^{page 178 note 5} Cassau, Adolf, ‘Einzigartiger steinzeitlicher Moorfund in Wiepenkathen, Kr. Stade,’ Nachr. für Deutsche Vorzeit, 1935, s. 91Google Scholar; ‘Ein Feuersteindolch mit Holzgriff und Lederscheide aus Wiepenkathen, Kreis Stade,’ Mannus Z., 1935, s. 199Google Scholar.

^{page 180 note 1} Nummedal, A., Stone Age Finds in Finnmark, Oslo, 1929 Google Scholar.

^{page 181 note 1} Clark, J. G. D., The Mesolithic Settlement of Northern Europe, p. 70 Google Scholar.

^{page 181 note 2} Harrison, H. S., ‘Flint Tranchets in the Solomon Islands and Elsewhere,’ J.R.A.I, LXI, 1931, pp. 425 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 1} These can be expressed in terms of percentages. Thus a site 20 feet above modern sea-level would in relation to a strand line standing at 50 feet have a value of 40%: a site at 50 feet above sea-level would have the same value where the same strand line stood at 125 feet.

^{page 182 note 2} Actually, as is well known, the post-glacial emergence was interrupted by a phase of subsidence at the height of which the Tapes strand was formed. It is possible that archaeological sites situated below the Tapes lines and belonging to time immediately prior to the phase of subsidence may have been destroyed by the sea during this phase. It is possible, therefore, that the latest stages of the Finnmarkian have been destroyed, although the general distribution of sites shown on Fig. 1 makes it likely that sites belonging to this time did not exist; for some height above the Tapes line the sites have already thinned out, and in fact have almost disappeared.

^{page 183 note 1} Clark, J. G. D., The Mesolithic Settlement of Northern Europe, pp. 4 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 2} Douglass, A. E., Climatic Cycles and Tree-growth. A study of the annual rings of trees in relation to climate and Solar activity. Part I, 1919 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Part II, 1928. See also The Smithsonian Report for 1931, pp. 303 ff.

^{page 184 note 1} See review article on ‘Tree-Ring Chronology Applied to American Prehistory,’ in Nature, 1936, pp. 315–6Google Scholar.

^{page 184 note 2} de Geer, E. H., ‘Prehistoric Bulwark in Gotland Biochronologically Dated,’ Geografiska Annaler, 1935 Google Scholar.

^{page 184 note 3} See Appendix in by Gwyneth Harrington to the report on Ballinderry Crannog no. 1., P.R.I.A., 1936, XLIII, Sect. C, pp. 235 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 1} Reygasse, M., ‘Gravures et Peintures Rupestres du Tassili des Ajjers,’ L'Anthropologie, XLV, 1935, pp. 533 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 2} Bull. Soc. Préhist. Franc., XXXII, 1935, p. 315 Google Scholar.

^{page 185 note 3} Vaufrey, R., ‘L'Age des Spirales de l'art rupestre nord-africain,’ Bull. Soc. Préhist. Franc., XXXIII, 1836, pp. 624 ff.Google Scholar