When the present writer published his Mesolithic Settlement of Northern Europe in 1936, much had already been established about the pre-neolithic occupation of the West Baltic area. Paradoxically it is for this very reason that recent advances in this field are of more than regional interest, for it is only by intensifying fundamental research in the most favourable territories, in conjunction with more extensive surveys, that we can gain the evidence needed for a real insight into the processes of prehistory. One reason for the pre-eminence of the area in mesolithic research is the scope it provides for co-operation between archaeologists and natural scientists. Team-work in quaternary research has made it possible to study the earliest cultures in their correct chronological and ecological setting, and it has also guided prehistorians to the sites most likely to yield the maximum range of cultural evidence.

An unusual ⊏-shaped earthwork has been known for several generations (Nat. Grid. Ref. TA 099658) just over one mile to the south of the Wold village of Rudston, in the Western angle of two roads. It has often been interpreted as three contiguous long-barrows. Canon Greenwell described the site in 1877 as ‘two long mounds, almost parallel, their northern end gradually losing themselves in the surface-level, but connected together at the southern end by another long mound’. In 1958 when Messrs C. and E. Grantham of Driffield excavated a section across the western ditch, they appreciated that the western and eastern banks continued for a much greater distance than Greenwell had implied, travelling at least ½-mile downhill towards the village.

Aerial reconnaissance in 1961 by Dr J. K. St. Joseph established the existence of two long parallel ditches, extending intermittently for 1½ miles beyond the earthwork. The feature as a whole was recognizable therefore as a cursus, the earthwork being the squared southern end.

Discovery of the cave of Altamira in 1879 introduced a new aspect to ideas on human evolution, requiring a fresh approach to previous notions of life and customs among prehistoric groups. In the final years of the 19th century the prevailing view of prehistoric life was still coloured by the prejudice and concepts which had marked early discussion on the origin of man. From what was known of their tools and art forms, early men were presented as living in simple communities which were considered equivalent to the ‘primitive peoples’ being described, often with a Euro-centric superiority, by contemporary ethnographers. The already classical volumes of the period, such as the Reliquiae Aquitanicae recording Lartet and Christy's discoveries, were full of interesting parallels to Eskimos and Bushmen. Up to this time, known Palaeolithic art was confined to engraved bone, some of it of high technical competence as at Chaffaud and La Madeleine. Consequently when the discovery of Altamira was presented at the Lisbon Congress it was received with some degree of caution.

This paper, written at the kind invitation of the Honorary Editor of our Proceedings, has as its original aim the review of activity in Irish prehistory during war-time, thus to provide a résumé such as has already been furnished by other writers for other countries in Europe. It has, however, been agreed that a slight extension of the range of the period has in this case certain advantages, since an admirable summary of the position of Irish prehistory was provided in 1937 by Dr Mahr's Presidential Address to the Prehistoric Society (Mahr, 1937). The present paper cannot aim to give as full a treatment as did Mahr's, which has in many aspects served as a summary text-book of Irish prehistory, nor can it devote lengthy space to any theory—new or otherwise—as Mahr did for his Riverford Culture, yet it must be its aim to summarise the work which has been done since the publication of his ‘New Aspects,’ and to indicate as far as possible, the advances and modifications of outlook which have resulted during the intervening years.

This paper discusses rock art in southern Scandinavia as a multisensory format, where both sight and touch would have contributed to the comprehension of the images. From a structural semiotic point of view, we suggest that rock art can be construed as an organised set of features, such as visual and tactile elements, organised into heterogeneous unities with dynamic relations between elements that can change over time with respect to how they are experienced. We argue that in order to understand the rock art medium, it is crucial to take into consideration the multisensory interaction between the perceiver and the qualities of the rock art surface. The reason for including tactile elements in our interpretation of the conception of rock art is the way it was created: by hands interacting with tools and rock surfaces, as well as the spontaneous human tendency to explore the physical world through touch. One can identify key features in the images that would arguably facilitate tactile recognition, as well as be better explained from a multisensorial perspective. This includes the position of the images on horizontal outcrops, the moderate size of the images, the application of an orthographic perspective, the use of ‘tactile markers’ (ie crucial features having a strategic function for understanding images by touch), and the occurrence of incomplete images. A multisensorial perspective on rock art furthermore has semiotic implications. Incomplete images, for example, can be understood as indexical stand-ins for the whole imagined picture, ie as iconic indices. A multisensorial approach to Scandinavian rock art thus allows for new explanations for certain design choices, as well as a new understanding of how the images could relay meaning to a perceiver.

The studies of Leon Coutil and Marcel Baudouin on the gallery grave of Vaux-Louvets at Vaudancourt and Kendrick's general survey in his Axe Age, first drew the attention of modern archaeologists to the problems associated with the nature and origin of portholes in megalithic tombs in Europe. Recently interest has again been stimulated in this subject. In Britain, Hemp has excavated Bryn yr Hen Bobl in Anglesey with its curious pair of holes in the southern transverse orthostat of the chamber, Fleure has begun to excavate the Bridestones in Cheshire, and the newly discovered chamber in the north flank of the Lanhill long barrow in Wiltshire was described as having a porthole entrance; and abroad Dr Leisner has given us an excellent study of the Iberian portholes. It has therefore been thought worth while to survey afresh the problem of the European portholes, and more especially to bring together the information known about the British portholes and to relate this to the general problem of the origin and spread of portholes in Europe.

From the published accounts it was clear that the most perfect examples of portholes in the British Isles were those in the Rodmarton and Avening long barrows in Gloucestershire (fig. 1), but none of these portholes had actually been seen in their entirety by present day archaeologists. Rodmarton was excavated in 1863 by the Rev. S. Lysons, but the excavations were partially filled in and by the present day nothing of the two portholes was visible and we had only the inadequate drawings in the published accounts to rely on.

Archaeologists have for some time been employing geoelectric resistivity methods to locate buried remains in order to avoid wasteful trial-and-error excavations. The results have been successful in some cases, but unexpectedly disappointing in others. The purpose of this paper is to indicate some of the peculiar difficulties which arise when applying the usual techniques suitable for deep surveys to the location of resistance anomalies buried at relatively shallow depths below the surface. The difficulties which have been experienced depend mainly on the fact that, for small electrical resistance discontinuities at shallow depths, factors arise which are negligible with deep surveys. In other words, when the dimensions and depth of an anomaly (such as a cist in a Bronze-age tumulus or the buried foundations of a Roman Wall) are comparable with the distance between the electrodes, then the usual theoretical assumptions underlying deep surveys need to be re-examined.

I desire first of all to express my appreciation of the honour you have done me in electing me President of the Society. Faced with the necessity of choosing a subject suitable for a Presidential Address, it occurred to me that a brief survey of the distribution of Man in East Anglia during the Neolithic, Bronze and Early Iron Ages might be appropriate. Selection of the region wherein the Society was born, and which inspired the fruitful work of its founders and their successors, is intended as a tribute of gratitude from one who has profited by the study of the many important Papers published in its Proceedings.

The general principles, recognized as governing Man's distribution under uncivilized or semi-civilized conditions in Britain, may first be summarized.

In the Lowland area to which East Anglia belongs soil is the chief determinant. There are two main types of soil: pervious, such as that overlying chalk, sand, gravel; impervious, as that overlying clay. The pervious soils induce an open type of country, or carry forest with relatively thin undergrowth; the rapidity with which such soils dry up after rain, the ease with which a scratch agriculture can be practised on them, their suitability for pastoral life, the ease of movement on them—all these factors render them attractive to early Man. As a group they form the Area of Primary Settlement. The impervious clay soils, on the other hand, carry forest with dense undergrowth, are difficult to clear, and when cleared difficult to cultivate with primitive tools. To the physical unsuitability of such soils for settlement there is added a second deterrent; water-laden soils under the conditions of savage life produce disease in man and beast. But when cultivation of such soils is possible they are found to yield the heaviest crops to tillage, being especially good for corn-growing. They are, then, utilized when civilization reaches a certain level, and have accordingly been grouped as the Area of Secondary Settlement.

In June, 1927, Mr. H. H. Halls noticed that the footpath beside the main Cambridge line of the L.N.E.R. had been made up with gravel. With the then recent discovery of implementiferous gravels at Whitlingham fresh in his mind he scrutinised the gravel carefully and soon found definite flakes. With some difficulty the gravel was traced to its source, and proved to come from Messrs. J. &. J Colman's Carrow works, where to extensive alterations were in progress. By the courtesy of the Directors, Mr. Halls was enabled to visit the site and examine the sections exposed. No flakes were seen in situ, but the workmen were instructed what to look for, and he arranged that any find of apparent interest should be preserved for his inspection. Throughout the rest of the year Mr. Halls regularly visited the site and a number of flakes were recovered, and fragments of bone, too decayed for identification, were seen.

Early in 1928 the Rev. T. C. Rae found the end of a broken hand-axe—a promise of future discoveries—and in February a good hand-axe was recovered from a sand layer 12 feet below the top of the section. The same deposit also yielded a worked flake of Chellean type, evidently derived from an older deposit, as well as some fresh-looking flakes with prominent bulbs. Finds of coarse scrapers and worked flakes continued steadily, and early in July a mammoth tooth, too disintegrated for preservation, prepared us for the discovery of a large portion of tusk, over three feet long.

During recent years certain transitional cultural stages have been recognised which link up the Palæolithic and Neolithic civilisations, and for which the term Mesolithic is generally accepted. Of these the Maglemose stage is perhaps the most important, because in it are seen pronounced Palæolithic influences, and survivals, side by side with the first recognisable expressions of Neolithic culture.

The typical station was discovered in 1900 by Dr. Sarauw, the Danish archæologist, in the peat moss of Maglemose, literally “the great moor,” formerly a fresh water lake but now thirteen feet above sea level, and situated near Mullerup, on the west coast of Zeeland.

During the autumn of 1927, Mr. S. Williams, of Murston, observed palæolithic implements in a gravelly deposit underlying the brickearth in the pit which lies west of Haywood Farm, Bapchild. He kept a watch on the site, and, shortly after his first finds had been made, a small quarry was sunk in the bottom of the brickpit. This exposed the sub-brickearth deposits in section, and here Mr. Williams, assisted by Mr. T. Revel and other keen workers, carried out excavations, by permission of the owners of the property, Messrs. Smeed, Dean & Co., Ltd. Their labours were rewarded by a haul of more than four hundred artifacts, of Le Moustier type.

The brickearth dug at Bapchild is placed in a wash-mill and converted to slurry, in which state it is pumped to the brickworks. The wash-mill is periodically cleaned out, and from the accumulation of stones that, at such times, is removed from the mill, a number of flakes of post-Le Moustier form have been found. These obviously came from the brickearth, but none had hitherto been found in situ. Towards the end of 1928 Mr. Williams was joined in his work of implement hunting by Mr. E. A. Mount, of Sittingbourne, whom he advised to give special attention to the brickearth in an endeavour to discover the source of the flakes that had been found in the wash-mill.

It is not necessary to dispute the existence of a Rostro-Carinate type of undoubtedly human manufacture. It occurs occasionally in the Late Stone Age. I have several in my own Collection which are probably fabricators and triangular implements of Neolithic Age.

My criticism applies solely to certain so-called “Humanly-made Implements” from the Basement Beds of East Anglia, which I consider bear only a superficial resemblance to the undoubted specimens. While the latter stand every investigation as to the characteristics of the chipping itself, the former, though they may bear some resemblance, will not, to my mind and that of many other students, stand critical examination.

Sir E. Ray Lankester, F.R.S., in his monograph on “The Test Specimen of the Rostro-Carinate Industry found beneath the Norwich Crag” (see Plate XV, E), claimed the “Rostro-Carinate” as a new type of “Implement” made by Man of a much greater antiquity than the Palæolithic Period.

Since my original paper on the flint implements found in the Brown Boulder Clay of north-west Norfolk, I have continued my researches in that region, and now wish to give some account of these, and of the further specimens which have been discovered in this most recent boulder clay of East Anglia. I would take this opportunity of thanking the Trustees of the Percy Sladen Fund for their kindness in supporting this research with a money grant, and so enabling me to continue my examination of an era of much interest and importance to prehistoric archæology. I am also very grateful to my friends, Mr. J. B. Calkin, Mr. Guy Maynard, and Mr. J. S. Fisher, for the valuable help they have given me in carrying out the investigation of the Brown Boulder Clay.

As is now widely known, this deposit, so far as Norfolk is concerned, is confined to the north-western portion of that county, and many years ago was examined and reported upon by the Geological Survey in two of their memoırs. The Brown Boulder Clay occurs approximately at sea-level at Hunstanton, while at Brancaster, as reported by Mr. Clement Reid, the deposit is exposed at low water upon the foreshore, underlying the ‘submerged forest’ which he saw there. At other places, such as Holkham brickfield, and the remarkable formation (probably a terminal moraine) in Hunstanton Park, the boulder clay rests at about 50 ft, above O.D.

Few regions have yielded so many bronzes as the East Anglian fens, yet accurate records of the circumstances of their discovery exist for a small fraction only of the finds. This is very regretable since this evidence is usually of far more importance been than the objects found. In the case of the Methwold spear-head it has to some extent recovered by the diligence of Major Gordon Fowler, F.S.A., who interviewed the discoverer, Mr. John Harrod of Methwold, and obtained the object for the University Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Cambridge. The only completely satisfactory method is an immediate visit to the site of a discovery, and in this the Fenland Research Committee, which is vitally interested in such finds, is always keen to co-operate.

The site of the discovery may be found immediately below the “un” of Queen's Ground, Methwold Fen (Norfolk 6 in. sheet LXXXI, S.E., 1906 edtn.; Long. 0° 28′ 57″, Lat. 52° 30′ 29″). The spear-head itself (fig. 1) has loops at the junction of the socket and wings. Mr. Estyn Evans, F.S.A., to whom a photograph has been submitted, is of the opinion that this type marks the transition from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age in Britain, in which case it would date from approximately 1000 B.C.

It would, perhaps, be more conventional to ascribe the spear-head to the end of the Middle Bronze Age.

The experiments on which these notes were made were undertaken to clear up a little of the mystery which has been thrown around the subject by well-meaning but not always chemically-minded people. Much has been said lately on the necessity for prehistorians being also geologists, but it is perhaps too much to ask that they shall, in addition, be chemists. But a very little knowledge of chemistry would have averted some of the blunders and misstatements met with on the patination problem. These notes contain no really original idea, but were made on experiments proving what to most chemists are well-known facts. The experiments were carried out in the brief intervals of routine work in a very busy laboratory, unfitted with any special re-agents or apparatus for the work.

Silica is, chemically speaking, the dioxide of the element silicon, a body which does not appear to exist in a free state in nature, and which can only be brought into a free or elementary state by some what tedious laboratory processes.

A rare find was made in 2012 when a metal-detectorist on land near Bridge, a few miles south of Canterbury, Kent, recovered a copper alloy brooch, other metal items, and a quantity of burnt bone contained in a near complete, probably imported Gallic, helmet of Iron Age type. Excavation was undertaken to ascertain the immediate context of the helmet, confirm that it represented a cremation burial, and determine if it formed part of a larger funerary deposit. The helmet and brooch suggest a burial date in the mid-1st century bc and the apparently isolated cremation burial, of a possibly female adult, can be broadly placed within the Aylesford–Swarling tradition; the helmet taking the place of a more usual pottery cinerary urn. Cropmark evidence suggests that the burial was made within a wider landscape of Iron Age occupation.

In Taranto Archaeological Museum is a group of bronze objects, which are believed to have been found at Surbo, a village some 5 kilometres north of Lecce in Apulia. When Professor Drago was Director of the Museum, he heard of the existence of a group of bronzes, already partly dispersed: he bought the remaining bronzes but could gain no further information concerning the provenance or the dispersed objects. The Atto d'Immissione of Taranto Museum, No. 679, dated 20 March 1952, mentions seven objects under the Inventory Nos. 17140–17144 and lists the sword hilt, shaft-hole axes, hammer-heads and chisel. Under No. 17142, it describes ‘Una accetta a margini rialzati o coltello ascia. Cms. 2,3 × 0,7’. The measurement must be an error and the description might apply to the medial winged axe or to the spatulate axe. In view of this ambiguity, the eight bronze objects from Surbo, now grouped together in the Museum, are described here, noting that, if the spatulate axe could with confidence be omitted from the group, the remaining bronzes cohere well and an Apulian source is credible. It will be wise to keep these points in mind throughout the following discussion, where the bronzes will first be considered individually and then as a group.