The northern world, from the wide expanses of North America across the even wider spread of Asia and Europe, was subjected to the effects of the Pleistoceneice for centuries after areas to the south had been released from nature's grip. But as conditions eased the north, and open landscapes were newly created, plants and animals began to colonize and humans were not far behind. Across enormous territories of the Old and New Worlds, hunters, gatherers and fishers began to explore the resources of the virgin lands, and from before 8000 BP for at least five millennia their societies were seemingly in balance with nature's gifts. Settlements from all around the vast northern latitudes demonstrate a reliance upon wild resources that were abundant, varied and easily exploited. In such circumstances, the opportunities existed for the development and elaboration of systems of belief concerned with the principles of existence. Such systems in all likelihood took many forms of expression, only a few of which have survived today. Burials, tools and weapons, settlement organization and territorial exploitation are capable of demonstrating the systems for survivaldeveloped by these communities of people, and rock carvings and paintings add other possibilities for those who seek to understand the social scenes of the past.

The traditional definition of a Fürstensitz, outlined in 1969 by W. Kimmig, is in need of modification. Greater precision is needed in the interpretation of imported and imitated Mediterranean pottery and élite burials. From our discussion, it becomes clear that both rich settlements and burials underwent crucial changes within the late Hallstatt period: the élite burial rite was becoming increasingly exclusive, and imported or imitated Mediterranean pottery generally appeared on hillforts only after the end of Hallstatt D1. Clearly, a model for the West Hallstatt culture should take account of its dynamic nature. Some important trends are described: (1) the spread of élite burial practices, (2) the foundation of the Fürstensitze, and (3) the ‘concentration of power’ in the late Hallstatt culture north-west of the Alps.

The emergence of an élite during the Hallstatt period had an internal logic which did not necessarily require a Mediterranean instigator. The foundation of Massalia in 600 BC has traditionally been seen as providing the impulse for the emergence of the ‘princely’ culture of Hallstatt D. But neither the internal developments of the Hallstatt culture, nor the degree of contact with the Greek colonies in Hallstatt D1, can support this view.

Previous emphasis on influence from the Greek colonies in the South of France has obscured the effects of contacts and trade with Italy, although it is certain that the increasing acquaintance with the civilized neighbours across the Alps led to events of historic importance: the Celtic invasion of Italy and the start of the Celtic diaspora. This process of acquaintance must be assigned to the late Hallstatt period (Hallstatt D2/3), when Italic imports became frequent north of the Alps. In fact, the transalpine areas which in the late Hallstatt period had especially close trading relations with Italy (particularly east central France) seem to have been the origin of most of the important contingents of Celtic invaders. The imported or imitated Italic objects in Hallstatt D2/3 and La Tène A reflect the changed political situation before and after the Celtic invasion. Whereas in both phases the Celts imported luxurious feasting equipment, only in the Early La Tène period is Italic influence apparent in Celtic weaponry.

In 1902 Emile Cartailhac published his Mea Culpa d'un Sceptique. His acceptance of the high antiquity of prehistoric art in western Europe followed Capitan and Breuil's convincing discoveries in Font de Gaume and Les Combarelles and reflected a widespread change of opinion. Despite previous scepticism, researchers were beginning to allow that the parietal as well as the mobile art did indeed date back to the Upper Palaeolithic. But this swing in scientific opinion opened up an even more baffling problem: why did Upper Palaeolithic people make these pictures? In the year following Cartailhac's turn-about Salomon Reinach tried to answer this question by developing an analogical argument based on ethnographic parallels. He could see no other way of approaching the problem: ‘Our only hope of finding out why the troglodytes painted and sculpted lies in asking the same question of present-day primitives with whom the ethnography reveals connections’ (Reinach 1903, 259; my translation, his emphasis).

This report describes the total excavation of a small, rectangular ditched enclosure measuring 23.5 m by 15 m. It was shown to have been a cemetery enclosure (probably that of a small family group), belonging to the second half of the 1st century BC. Three vessels containing cremation burials were found in pits within the enclosed area, along with nine other funerary bowls, urns and jars. Whilst cremation burials of this date are fairly common, this is the first published example of such a cemetery enclosure from Essex.

Rock art associated with modern human populations has a comparable antiquity in Western Europe and Australia (table 1). In Western Europe personal adornment, human and animal statuettes and some carved stone blocks date from the early Aurignacian. In Australia a date of 30,000 BP has been claimed for the origin of the geometric art tradition of the Olary Province of Southern Australia, a date which would make it contemporary with the modern human community at Lake Mungo 150 miles to the east, who were practising deliberate burial (Bowler and Thome 1976, 129,138). This date, however, depends on the cation ratio method, whose calibration is still open to question (Nobbs and Dorn 1988; Clarke 1989; Watchman 1989).

Secure dates based on C14 measurements show that both geometric motifs and engraved animal silhouettes in northern Australia are contemporary with the flowering of European Palaeolithic art during the Magdalenian (for Dampier, see Lorblanchet 1988, 286; for Laura, see Rosenfeld 1981, 12, 53).