^{page 170 note 1} It is this third constructional analogue that was referred to as the Pavian Passage-Grave in Daniel, ‘Dual Nature of the Megalithic Colonisation of Prehistoric Europe’, Proc. Preh. Soc., 1941, 1 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 170 note 2} On this see Childe, V. G., ‘Megaliths’, Ancient India, 4 (1947–1948), 5 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 170 note 3} ‘Scottish Megalithic Tombs and their affinities’, Trans. Glasgow Arch. Soc., 1931–1933, 120–37Google Scholar. This paper should now be read in conjunction with Childe, 's ‘Megalithic Tombs in Scotland and Ireland’, Trans. Glasgow Arch. Soc., 1947, 1–16Google Scholar.

^{page 171 note 1} For a general account of the nomenclature and classification of prehistoric chamber tombs see Daniel, Dual, 1–10Google Scholar, and The Prehistoric Chamber Tombs of England and Wales, Cambridge, 1950,Google Scholar chapter 1.

Entrance Grave is perhaps an unfortunate term in that it suggests the type of tomb is a comparable main variety like Passage Grave and Gallery Grave. The term V-shaped Passage Grave or V-Passage Grave better suggests the real nature of the type.

^{page 171 note 2} This map supersedes than given in Daniel, 1941, 11, and is based on the new maps provided by the Leisners, op. cit. infra, pls. 164 and 174–6.

^{page 171 note 3} G. and Leisner, V., Die Megalithgräber det Iberischen Halbinsel. Vol. 1, 1943Google Scholar.

^{page 172 note 1} We are using the term B–Dolmens here as defined in Daniel, , Dual, 3–4Google Scholar. The B–Dolmen is a single polygonal chamber, the A–Dolmen a single rectangular chamber. These terms are descriptive abbreviations only.

^{page 172 note 2} For descriptions and plans of these see Cazurro, M., Los Monumentos Megaliticos de la Provincia de Gerona, Madrid, 1912Google Scholar, and Garcia, L. Pericot yLa Civilization Megalitica Catalana y la Cultura Pirenaica, 1925Google Scholar.

^{page 172 note 3} These south French Passage-Graves were classified as ‘Pseudo-Passage-Graves’ in Daniel, 1941, 16, 30 and fig. 9, but it now appears that they should properly be regarded as falling within the normal Passage-Grave category. Information from Professor Piggott; see also Arnal, , ‘Nouveaux Megalithes en Languedoc’, Revue d'études Ligures, 1948, 104–111Google Scholar; Arnal, and Martin-Granel, , ‘Influencia Ibérica en el sur de Francia durante la época de los dólmenes’, Crónica del IV Congreso Arqueológico del sudeste español (Cartagena, 1949)Google Scholar; and Louis, M., Préhistoire du Languedoc Méditerranéen et du Roussillon (1948), 72–80Google Scholar.

^{page 172 note 4} Correia, V., El Neolitico de Pavia, Madrid, 1921Google Scholar.

^{page 172 note 5} L'Anthropologie, 22 (1911), 413Google Scholar.

^{page 172 note 6} Bull. de la Soc. Poly. Morb., 1940, 38Google Scholar; see also ibid., 1939, 3 ff.

^{page 173 note 1} Prehistory of Scotland, chapter III and map 1.

^{page 173 note 2} Powell, , ‘The Passage Graves of Ireland’ Proc. Preh. Soc., 1938, 239 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 173 note 3} Grimes, , Proc. Preh. Soc., 1936, 129Google Scholar.

^{page 173 note 4} Daniel, 1950, 54–64.

^{page 173 note 5} The only general map of British Passage-Graves known to the writers is that of Childe, in Trans. Glasgow Arch. Soc., 1947, 9Google Scholar. There are also general maps distinguishing Passage-Graves in Davies, M., Ant. J., 1945, 133Google Scholar and id., 1946, 133 and in Childe, , Prehistoric Communities of the British Isles, 48Google Scholar.

^{page 175 note 1} Fabre, Mll. G. has argued (Gallia, 1946, 1 ff)Google Scholar that the distribution and siting of Gallery-Graves and A-Dolmens in south-west France argues for a mainly pastoral population. On this matter of environment in relation to occupation by builders of megalithic tombs see Evans, and Gaffikin, , Irish Naturalists Journal, V, (1935) 7 ff.Google Scholar; Watson, E., Ulster Journal of Archaeology (1945), 80, 90Google Scholar: de Valera, R. in ÓRíordaín, Proc. Preh. Soc., 1946, 152Google Scholar; Daniel, , Proc. Preh. Soc., 1937, 77Google Scholar.

^{page 175 note 2} We should recollect here in passing that the Passage-Grave builders in south Iberia were without any doubt dwellers in small Chalcolithic townships.

^{page 175 note 3} Grimes, (Proc. Preh. Soc., 1936, 129)Google Scholar would also classify as a Passage-Grave the northernmost of the four chamber tombs at Marros, Carmarthenshire.

^{page 175 note 4} For a full account of the Anglesey group see Daniel, 1950, 54 ff.

^{page 175 note 5} Proc. Isle of Man Nat. Hist. and Ant. Soc., new ser. 4, 224.

^{page 175 note 6} Manks Antiquities (1914), 33Google Scholar.

^{page 175 note 7} Ant. J., 1936, 376Google Scholar.

^{page 176 note 1} Though the barrow may contain other chambers than the one at present visible.

^{page 176 note 2} Childe used the designation Beauly group in his Prehistoric Communities of the British Isles (1940), 74Google Scholar but has now abandoned this term in favour of the Clava Group (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., LXXVIII (1943–1944), 26Google Scholar. Daniel used the term Moray Group in 1941 (p. 17), but it now seems best to call the group the Clava or Clava-Avielochan Group.

^{page 176 note 3} op. cit., pl. 1–7.

^{page 176 note 4} For plans and descriptions of the Clava-Avielochan sites see Proc. Scot. Ant. Soc., XVIII (1883–1884), 328–62Google Scholar, and 40 (1905–6) 240 ff. and 44 (1909–10), 189 ff.

^{page 176 note 5} Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., LXXVIII (1943–1944), 26 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 176 note 6} This is not so improbable as it may at first sound. The Danish Passage-Graves are now generally derived from Iberia or Brittany; and from the Straits of Dover to Jutland is no further than from the Straits to the Moray Firth. All through Europe the distribution of Passage-Graves is essentially one of selective colonization.

^{page 177 note 1} Professor and MrsPiggott, (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., LXXX (1945–1946), 83–4Google Scholar and 93–7) argue for the Firth of Lome-Great Glen route.

^{page 177 note 2} R.C.A.M. Scotland, Kirkcudbright Inventory, no. 350 (fig. 139, p. 187). This site was excavated in 1949 by Professor Piggott and Mr T. G. E. Powell.

^{page 177 note 3} Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., LXXX (1945–1946), 83–4Google Scholar and 93-7. The Dunan na Nighean site has since been shown by excavation not to be a chambered tomb.

^{page 177 note 4} On the Loch Etive sites see Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., IX (1870–1872), 409 ff.Google Scholar; LXI (1926–7), 226; and LVII (1932–3), where M. E. C. Mitchell describes several round barrows which, if chambered, may, with the known sites, form a Passage-Grave cemetery of tombs.

^{page 177 note 5} Trans. Glasgow Arch. Soc., new ser., 8, 129; and Anuario del Cuerpo Facultativo de Arch. Bib. y Arch., Madrid, 1934, 205Google Scholar.

^{page 177 note 6} Trans. Glasgow Arch. Soc., new ser. II (1947), 7Google Scholar, fn. 2.

^{page 177 note 7} Approximate figures from the R.C.A.M. Inventories and Childe are Skye and Western Isles, 39 Sutherland 28, Caithness 43, Orkneys 48, Shetlands 24.

^{page 177 note 8} Childe has drawn attention (Trans. Glasgow Arch. Soc., new ser. XI, 1947, 10Google Scholar)to the stone carved with spirals in the style of the New Grange spirals, formerly described as from an ‘earth-house’ on Eday, but now recognized by Calder as from a chamber-tomb (vide Proc. Soc Ant. Scot., IV (1860–1862), 185–6Google Scholar and R.C.A.M. Orkney Inventory, no. 225). This may be the remains of another passage-grave, but spirals alone do not make one, of course. The Ballarragh, Kirk Lonan stone in the Isle of Man is engraved with spirals in the Passage-Grave style (Megaw, op. cit., 225), and Margaret Davies has classified the Calderstones as the remains of a Passage-Grave on the strength of the engravings (Ant. J., 1945, 130Google Scholar). Spirals do occur on cists, e.g. the capstone of the Beaker cist at Carnwath, and the whole question has recently been discussed by McWhite, (Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland, LXXVI (1946), 59–80Google Scholar.

^{page 178 note 1} Claims have been made for a Passage-Grave on Kilda, St. (Somerville, Boyle, J.R.A.I., LII, 1912, 25–52Google Scholar; Reliquary, XI, 32Google Scholar; M. Davies; but this structure now seems more likely to have been an earth-house (R.C.A.M. Inventory Hebrides, no. 158, pp. 46–7, and figs. 74 and 75; Mathieson, J., Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., 1927–1928, 123 ff)Google Scholar.

^{page 178 note 2} The degree of fusion of the two traditions in any one monument in the North Scottish province must always be a matter of dispute. For varying views on the status of Clettraval, see Childe, (Prehistory of Scotland, 41)Google Scholar; Daniel (1941, 44); Hawkes, (Prehistoric Foundations of Europe, 192)Google Scholar; Scott, Lindsay (Antiquity, 1942, 303)Google Scholar and Piggott, (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., LXXX (1945–1946), 96)Google Scholar.

^{page 178 note 3} Tramore, Powell's group (vide Proc. Preh. Soc., 1941, 142–3)Google Scholar.

^{page 178 note 4} Grenville, , Cole, A. J., Memoir and Map of Localities of Minerals … in Ireland, Stationery Office, Dublin, 1922Google Scholar.

^{page 179 note 1} Bishopp, D. W., Irish Mineral Resources, Emergency Period Pamphlet, Stationery Office, Dublin, 1943Google Scholar.

^{page 179 note 2} Mem. Geol. Sur., Special Reports on Mineral Resources of Gt. Britain, XXX, 1925, passim. Mem. Geol. Sur. of Scotland, XVII (1921), 120 ff.Google Scholar, Copper resources in Scotland.

^{page 179 note 3} MacWhite, E., ‘A new View on Irish Bronze Age Rock-Scribings’, J. Roy. Soc. Ant., Ireland, LXXVI (1946), 85–106Google Scholar.

^{page 179 note 4} On this see Childe, 's comments in Dawn, 4th edition, 301Google Scholar and footnote 4.

^{page 179 note 5} New Grange and other incised tumuli of Ireland (1912), passim.

^{page 180 note 1} Archaeologia, LXXX, 1930, 179 ff.Google Scholar: Arch. Camb., LXXXVI, 1931, 216 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 180 note 2} In Kendrick, and Hawkes, , Archaeology in England and Wales, 1914–1931, 116–7Google Scholar.

^{page 180 note 3} Prehistoric Foundations of Europe, 191.

^{page 180 note 4} Dawn of European Civilisation, 4th edition (1947), 333Google Scholar.

^{page 180 note 5} Revue Archeologique, 1908, 219 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 180 note 6} American Anthropologist, 1930, 19 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 180 note 7} Bronzezeitliche und Früheisenzeitliche Chronologie, especially volume III (1932)Google Scholar.

^{page 181 note 1} Almagro, , Introductión a la Arqueologiá: Las Culturas Prehistóricas Europeas (1941)Google Scholar; Santa-Olalla, J. Martinez, Esquema Paletnologico de la Peninsula Hispanica (Madrid, 1946)Google Scholar.

^{page 181 note 2} Antiquity, June, 1932.

^{page 181 note 3} Dawn of European Civilisation, 1st edition, 130; 4th edition, 332.

^{page 181 note 4} For a summary of the various views regarding the chronology of the Iberïan Passage Graves, see Leisners, op. cit., 586–9.

^{page 181 note 5} To take the most recently proposed Minoan dates. Vide Sidney Smith, American Journal Arch., 1945, 1 ff.Google Scholar; Hutchinson, R. W., ‘Notes on Minoan Chronology’, Antiquity, 1948, 61 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 181 note 6} These bone plaques have sometimes been attributed to Troy II, at other times from Troy 11 to V. Bittel, (Marburger Studien, 1, 12)Google Scholar would limit them to Troy III and IV, dating them to 2100 to 1800 B.C.; while in the most recent analysis, Schaeffer would restrict them to Troy III (as redefined by him) and dated 2300–2100 B.C. (Stratigraphie Comparée et Chronologie de l'Asie Occidentale, pp. 244–5).

^{page 181 note 7} Sestieri, P. C., ‘Primi Risultati Dello Scavo Delia Necropoli Preistorica di Paestum’, Rendiconti dell' Accademia di Archeologia … di Napoli, 1947–1948, 1 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 181 note 8} American Journ. Arch., 1946, 343Google Scholar.

^{page 181 note 9} Amer. Anth., 1930, 58Google Scholar.

^{page 182 note 1} These are illustrated in Leisners, op. cit., pl. 12. See also Leisner, G., Arqueologia e Historia, I, (1945), 11 ffGoogle Scholar. and plates 7 and 9.

^{page 182 note 2} Nor does it seem possible to tie down the chronology of the prehistoric chamber tombs of Iberia through the knife of allegedly Egyptian type found at Vilanova de San Pedro, obviously a contemporary Chalcolithic settlement of the Passage-Grave builders (vide E. Jalhay and Afonso do Paço, Actas y Memorias de la Sociedad Española de … Prehistoria, XX, 1945, 5 ffGoogle Scholar. and plate XIX.

^{page 182 note 3} The dates given by the Leisners are: Los Millare period 1 2200–1800, 11 1800–1500, and El Argar from 1500 B.C. onwards.

^{page 182 note 4} Revista de Guimaraes, 1948, 5 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 182 note 5} Kantor, H. J., The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium B.C. (1949)Google Scholar.

^{page 183 note 1} L'Anthropologie, 1934, 489Google Scholar; the previous year (Id., 1933, 233), these tombs had been classified by him as ‘énéolithiques,’ and in conversation and correspondence in the years 1934–9 Le Rouzic was not really prepared to defend the separation of this pre-Beaker group of Passage-Graves.

^{page 183 note 2} Man, 1929, 69Google Scholar.

^{page 183 note 3} The evidence from Conguel has often been cited to prove a pre-Beaker date for some Breton megaliths. It is indeed extremely probable that many Breton chamber tombs date from before the appearance of Iberian Bell-Beakers. Conguel is not a Passage-Grave.

^{page 184 note 1} Childe, (Prehistoric Communities of the British Isles, (1949) 67 ff.)Google Scholar gives a summary of the material from the Irish tombs.

^{page 184 note 2} For references to the original publications see Powell, , P.G.I., 239Google Scholar.

^{page 184 note 3} Macalister, R. A. S., Proc. Roy. Irish Acad., XXIX (1912), 311 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 184 note 4} Walshe, P. T., Proc. Roy. Irish Acad., XLVI (1941), 221 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 184 note 5} Archaeologia, LXXX, 208,Google Scholar fig. 2.

^{page 184 note 6} Arch. Camb., 1936, 97Google Scholar.

^{page 184 note 7} Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland, LXXVI (1947)Google Scholar and references therein.

^{page 185 note 1} Proc. Preh. Soc., 1937, 33Google Scholar.

^{page 185 note 2} Ó, Ríordaín, Proc. Preh. Soc., 1946, 157Google Scholar.

^{page 185 note 3} Raftery, J., Journ. Roy. Soc. Antiq. Ireland, LXX (1940), 61Google Scholar.

^{page 185 note 4} Chitty, L. F., J. Galway Hist, and Arch. Soc., XVI (1934), 63 ff.Google Scholar; Childe, V. G., Cuadernos de Historia Primitiva, II (1947), 18Google Scholar and fig. 3.

^{page 186 note 1} Jones, H. E. Kilbride, J. Roy. Soc. Antiq. Ireland, LXIX (1939), 190 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 186 note 2} J. Roy. Soc. Antiq. Ireland, LXX (1940), 57Google Scholar.

^{page 186 note 3} ÓRíordaín, , Archaeologia, LXXXVI (1937), 198Google Scholar and fig. 3.

^{page 186 note 4} Prehistoric Communities of the British Isles, 68.

^{page 186 note 5} Revista de Guimaraes, LVII (1948), fasc. 3/4, 11 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 186 note 6} Prehistoric Communities, 111 ff.

^{page 186 note 7} Revista de Guimaraes, LVII (1948), fasc 3/4, 11 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 187 note 1} Childe, (Dawn, 4th edition, p. 333Google Scholar, dates the Danish and South Swedish Passage-Graves from 1900 B.C. to 1500 B.C.). Note also the equation that can be made between the beginning of the Passage-Grave period in Denmark and the use of the Alcalá cemetery in Algarve; Childe, in London Inst. Arch. Fourth Ann. Report (1948), 57Google Scholar.

^{page 187 note 2} On this see Crawford, Long Barrows of the Cotswolds; Mrs E. M. Clifford, ‘The Cotswold Megalithic Culture,’ in Fox, and Dickins, , Chadwick Memorial Studies (1950), Daniel, 1950, 125 ffGoogle Scholar.