Excavations on the site of a rectangular earthwork at Bryn Eryr, Angelsey, have identified a sequence of occupation. In the Middle Iron Age a single clay-walled round-house stood within a timber stockade. By the later Iron Age a second house had been added, adjacent to the first, and these two houses became the focus of a planned settlement. A rectangular bank and ditch enclosure was established of 0.3 ha internal area. A yard developed in front of the houses, at the head of a trackway leading from the entrance. Rectangular post-built structures, perhaps granaries, were built and pits were dug to provide clay flooring and, perhaps, wall plastering for the houses. By the early 1st millennium AD the perimeter ditch had become choked with silt and the bank was eroding badly. A third house, with stone footings, was added to the south of the original two, one of which was by now out of use. Romano-British pottery, in small quantities but of good quality, was in use on the site. The farm appears to have been abandoned, after perhaps 700 years of development, during the late 3rd or 4th century AD.

For a long time the study of the history of ancient metallurgy and mining in the Caucasus could not be conducted satisfactorily in the USSR due to the lack of adequate scientific analysis of metallic complexes from archaeological sites.

In his work devoted to the history of metallurgy in the Caucasus a well-known archaeologist A. A. Yessen justly remarks that for solving a number of problems connected with those questions the then existing data on chemical analysis was insufficient, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Because of this indeed it later became apparent that a number of questions investigated by A. A. Yessen were not always correctly elucidated. Even so, it should be certainly mentioned here that his monograph provided a rich historical material and already indicated the direction to be followed by further investigation of the history of ancient metallurgy and mining in the Caucasus, always assuming that sufficient chemical investigation was carried out.

Systematic investigation of metallic objects from the monuments in the Caucasus began in 1933. It was at this time that work on chemical analysis began to develop at Leningrad in the Institute of Historic Technology at the then existing Academy of Material Culture named after N. J. Marr. The purpose of this research, carried out under the guidance of A. A. Yessen and V. V. Danilevsky, was to find out the history of the use of tin.

Large areas of blown sand are among the characteristic natural features of North-west Lincolnshire, and for many years it has been known that these sandy warrens were prolific in remains of early occupation, particularly flint implements, which begin with a rich Mesolithic series. At certain sites, among which Risby Warren is pre-eminent, wind erosion of the surface has also revealed the Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery which is the subject of the present paper.

Excavation at a cropmark enclosure in the Upper Severn Valley was undertaken to try and obtain material from which to provide relative and absolute dating for the site. Lying within an area rich in Neolithic and Bronze Age archaeology and in close proximity to a proven long barrow, the conventional later prehistoric date postulated for the enclosure was questioned. Excavation proved the site to have been a ditched enclosure with internal bank and a possible gate structure. Post-pits ran inside the bank. Finds were few but radiocarbon dates from the floor of the ditch proved the early Neolithic credentials of the monument which seemed to have continued in use for at least some 500 years.

The study of grave goods plays a central role in two very different kinds of archaeology. As groups of artefacts that were deposited together, grave finds occupy a key position in chronological studies. At the same time, it is commonly supposed that the selection of artefacts for deposition with the dead may be some reflection of the social position that they had enjoyed in life; the contents of different graves may be studied for evidence of wealth and status. Although chronological studies have the longer history, these two types of analysis ought to be most informative where social variation can be traced over a lengthy sequence. As we shall see, this raises special problems.

Petroglyphs of light, spoked-wheeled chariots have recently been discovered in Armenia, in the Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan and Tadzhikistan and in the western Gobi. These will have to be considered in any future general surveys of chariotry. Although some have not yet received full publication, and although not all publications have been accessible to the author, the carvings seem too important to wait longer before being brought to the attention of the West. Lacking archaeological contexts, most of them have been dated only roughly by their publishers on the basis of typology. We shall not attempt here to appraise these datings, but by pointing to differences or similarities between these chariots and ones east or west, in both manner of rendering and in what is known of the actual construction of extant vehicles, we may provide greater means for doing so.

The well-known Palaeolithic site at Cuxton, Kent (TQ 710 665) is situated on a remnant of Pleistocene terrace deposits of the Medway, which lies on a chalk spur at the junction of the main river and one of its former tributaries (Fig. 1). These deposits have been known as a source of Palaeolithic artefacts since at least 1889 (Payne 1893, cited in Tester 1965), and have been the subject of two controlled excavations, the first by P.J. Tester in 1962–3 (Tester 1965), and the second by John Cruse (on behalf of the Maidstone Area Archaeology Group) in 1984 (Cruse 1987).

The Anglezarke/Rivington uplands of central Lancashire have, in recent years, suffered severe erosion. In response a programme of field survey was undertaken during 1983 and 1985, supplemented by palynological investigation, modern vegetation survey, and sample excavation. Two sites were investigated in detail, a cairn of likely Bronze Age date and a flint scatter of earlier Mesolithic type. The field survey demonstrated human activity on the upland throughout the prehistoric period and emphasised the heavy post-medieval exploitation of the moorland. Sample excavation confirmed the prehistoric activity and, in the case of the Mesolithic site at Rushy Brow, demonstrated the possibility of recognising and reconstructing periods of prehistoric activity of very short duration — perhaps only a few hours.

General habitation models based on well-researched regions tend to be applied to other, less intensively studied regions, usually implicitly. However, whether they lend themselves to do that is hardly ever tested. It may even be that such general models prevent us from obtaining a clear view of patterns of supra-regional, regional, and local diversity. As a test case, this paper focuses on the development of landscape and habitation in the eastern part of the Netherlands from the Late Neolithic period until the start of the Middle Roman period (c. 2850 BC–AD 100). Special attention is given to site location, settlement development, and landscape organisation. The research area until now has hardly entered the archaeological debate on the habitation history of the Low Countries. It is demonstrated that even though some habitation characteristics are well-known from other parts of the Low Countries, and sometimes beyond, the organisation of later prehistoric societies in the research area also deviates in interesting ways. The case-study makes clear that leaning too heavily on research results from other regions brings the risk that specific characteristics of a region will be overlooked or that regional diversity will be ignored in order to make the data fit the expected pattern. One size does not fit all. The only way to prevent this is to build new, solid interpretative frameworks for regions that have so far received little attention, and to create an awareness that existing models should not be applied uncritically.

The ornamental piece of sheet-gold found near Mold, in the county of Flint, North Wales (fig. 1), is one of the largest and heaviest pieces of prehistoric gold-work so far discovered in Europe, and it has been one of the principal treasures in the collection of prehistoric antiquities in the British Museum for more than a century.

Although the object has been frequently illustrated, no detailed study has been made of it since the original publication of its finding which appeared in Archaeologia in 1836.

In the present study an endeavour is made to restate the circumstances of the discovery, to offer a detailed description of the object itself, and to put forward certain views as to its age and use.

The gold ornament was discovered in 1833 during the destruction of a mound of stones and earth situated in a field named Bryn yr Ellyllon which lay about half a mile E.S.E. of the parish church of Mold, Flintshire. There are three early accounts of the discovery, but none of them are at first hand. They have been brought together by Canon Ellis Davies, and the fullest and most objective of these accounts is the second reproduced by him. In this, which was by the then Vicar of Mold, Rev. C. B. Clough, a fairly clear idea is obtained of the circumstances of the discovery, but it must be emphasized that the actual opening of the grave was not witnessed by him or by any of the other writers. The following reconstruction of, and commentary on, the discovery is, however, mainly based on the Vicar's account.

In recent years there has been a refreshing move away from simplistic interpretations of Palaeolithic art: few scholars still adhere to the view of ‘art for art's sake’ or ‘totemism’, although many are reluctant to abandon the formerly dominant theory of ‘hunting magic’. The approach of Laming-Emperaire (1962) and Leroi-Gourhan (1965) is undoubtedly more realistic, in view of what is now known about the highly complex thought-processes which lie behind present-day ‘primitive’ art; but interpretation of cave art's content is unlikely to advance very far, and is largely a waste of time.

There has been a similar move away from the study of Palaeolithic art as a single line of continuous evolution, as this view ignores the factors of artistic ability and individuality; moreover, the stretching of the period by absolute dating has underlined the rarity of the phenomenon. I have argued elsewhere (Bahn 1977a, 251) that Palaeolithic art represents a large output by a relatively small number of individuals. It is obvious that no one single explanation will suffice to account for any aspect of an art which assumed a wide variety of forms and which lasted for tens of thousands of years.

Pilsdon Pen is in west Dorset, very close to the Devon border, some 6 miles north-west of Bridport, and about 5½ miles from the nearest point of the coast (ST 413013). It is a long flat-topped hill, the highest in Dorset, reaching 908 ft above OD, and dominating Marshwood Vale from the north. The hill-fort occupies the south-east end of the Pen, at the north-west end of which there is a small embanked enclosure, much levelled by ploughing, which could be of Iron Age date also. The two nearest hill-forts are Lambert's Castle and Coneys Castle, about 3 and 3½ miles away respectively, which overlook Marshwood Vale from the west (fig. 1).

Excavation began in 1964, and continued annually until 1971, all but one of the seasons lasting four weeks. The work was initiated, and largely supported, by the owner of the site, Mr Michael Pinney, of Bettiscombe Manor, to whom archaeology owes a great debt. Mrs Betty Pinney was one of our most skilful excavators, and all those who took part will remember her hospitality. Financial help was also given by the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society and by Birmingham University. Among many helpers, to all of whom I am most grateful, I should like to mention in particular my wife, who shouldered the daunting task of keeping the camp supplied, and Mr Jack Wells, of Tanyard Farm, Marshwood, without whose regular assistance the excavation would have taken much longer, and cost a great deal more.

Excavations at La Sagesse Convent, Romsey, uncovered a Final Upper Palaeolithic flint assemblage representing an open-air, short-term camp. The site is in the Test Valley on a low gravel terrace at the edge of the river system. Two scatters were found. Although not in situ, little lateral movement is indicated for at least one of these scatters from which several core reduction sequences could be determined through a programme of refitting. The other scatter appears to have suffered more post-depositional disturbance. One scatter appears to have functioned as a knapping station, while the other may have been an area of tool production. Chronological, technological, and cultural affinities are discussed and it is concluded that the flint assemblage belongs with the Final Upper Palaeolithic Hengistbury-type industries, probably dating to the second part of the Windermere interstadial (c. 12,500–11,000 cal BC; 12,000–11,000 BP).

Since the work of Breuil and Koslowski on the Somme Valley and the publication of a summary of this work in the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, new finds have been made, and new points of view developed. I shall not give here a restatement of Breuil's work, but rather indicate the points where our interpretation differs and give our reasons for differing.

In the course of my investigations of the district of Ipswich, Suffolk, I have found a large series of flint implements and other remains of man, ranging in date from the pre-Chellean of the Sub-Red Crag horizon of Pliocene times to the period of the Anglo-Saxons. The majority of these discoveries, so far as those relating to the Stone Age are concerned, were made in the beds forming the plateau, or in the sides of now dry valleys tributary to the main valley of the Gipping. Some little time ago, however, I determined to make—if possible—an examination of the deeply-buried deposits of the Gipping, and this research was later on extended to the tidal portion of the river which is known as the Orwell. It is now my purpose to give an account of this work, which has resulted in the getting together of a great quantity of flint implements, flakes, and cores, mammalian bones in considerable numbers, and some fragmentary portions of the human skeleton. I would here record my thanks to the Percy Sladen Fund, the Royal Society, the Ipswich Dock Commission and their Chief Engineer, Mr. Clarke, Messrs. Warren Livingstone, Ltd., Messrs. Alfred Coe, Ltd., Messrs Packard and James Fison (Thetford), Ltd., Miss Nina Layard, Sir Arthur Keith, F.R.S., Dr. Duckworth, Dr. C. Forster Cooper, Mr. Reginald Smith, the Curator and Mr. F. M. Cullum, of Ipswich Museum, Dr. T. W. Woodhead, Mr. A. S. Barnes, and Dr. G. Erdtman, who have each given invaluable help in one way or another to the prosecution of this research.

The object of this report is to record “finds” rather than to deal with the problem of the date of the mines and implements.

The Circumstances which led up to the Discovery of the Mining Area at Stoke Down.

In 1910 I was ordered to Chichester Barracks for a tour of military duty, and among other things I became Scoutmaster of the 1st Chichester Boy Scout troop. It was these Scouts who first took me to Stoke Down. The Down is situated some three miles due North of the ancient city of Chichester. The boys were busy building a log cabin in the clump of trees on the summit of the Down. The clump is known as Stoke Clump. Being long interested in prehistory my eyes, as was their custom, wandered over the surface. My attention was soon arrested by a considerable quantity of what is generally recognised as Bronze Age Pottery, coarse, red and black, of unwashed clay, with finger nail decoration round the rims.

I am very grateful to Geoff Clark for his comment on my ecological interpretation of Palaeolithic art (PPS 58, 107–109, see Mithen 1990, 1991). I had no idea that it was a ‘post hoc accommodative argument’ with an ‘underaxiomatised’ theoretical framework and ‘unwieldy systematics’. I suppose this means he doesn't like it. Clark says that my interpretation reminds him of a Chinese meal — initially satisfying but not ‘sticking with you’ for very long. In 1992 Clark wrote that ‘Mithen's … work goes a long way to explaining the art of this period’ (Lindly & Clark 1990, 61) — he seems to have taken two years to digest the Chinese meal of my interpretation.

Clark's main objection is that I tried to develop a theoretical framework around individual decision making and then attempted to use this to interpret the variability and patterning in Palaeolithic art and other elements of the archaeological record. He objects to this on paradigmatic grounds, seeing no rationale for models of individual agency, but primarily on operational grounds, arguing that individuals cannot be monitored in the archaeological record.