| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Ancient Bronze Implements, Weapons, and Ornaments, of Great Britain and Ireland.
Author: Evans, John
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Ancient Bronze Implements, Weapons, and Ornaments, of Great Britain and Ireland." ***
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES:
—Obvious print and punctuation errors were corrected.
—Huge tables at pages 460 to 463 have been split into four parts each.
—Bold text has been rendered as =bold text=.
—At page 7 and 489 there are a few Coptic words; it is possible
that these characters will be not properly shown; in this case, a
translitteration has been here added:
-page 7: BENIPE and BAA-N-PE;
-page 489 (index): BENIPE.
THE ANCIENT
BRONZE IMPLEMENTS,
WEAPONS, AND ORNAMENTS,
OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.
THE ANCIENT
BRONZE IMPLEMENTS,
WEAPONS, AND ORNAMENTS,
OF
GREAT BRITAIN
AND
IRELAND.
BY
JOHN EVANS, D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.S.,
F.S.A., F.G.S., PRES. NUM. SOC., &c.
LONDON:
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
1881.
(_All rights reserved._)
LONDON
PRINTED BY VIRTUE AND CO., LIMITED
CITY ROAD.
PREFACE.
THE work which is now presented to the public has unfortunately been
many years in progress, as owing to various occupations, both private
and public, the leisure at my command has been but small, and it has
been only from time to time, often at long intervals, that I have
been able to devote a few hours to its advancement. During this slow
progress the literature of the subject, especially on the Continent,
has increased in an unprecedentedly rapid manner, and I have had great
difficulty in at all keeping pace with it.
I have, however, done my best, both by reading and travel, to keep
myself acquainted with the discoveries that were being made and the
theories that were being broached with regard to bronze antiquities,
whether abroad or at home, and I hope that so far as facts are
concerned, and so far as relates to the present state of information on
the subject, I shall not be found materially wanting.
Of course in a work which treats more especially of the bronze
antiquities of the British Islands, I have not felt bound to enlarge
more than was necessary for the sake of comparison on the corresponding
antiquities of other countries. I have, however, in all cases pointed
out such analogies in form and character as seemed to me of importance
as possibly helping to throw light on the source whence our British
bronze civilisation was derived.
It may by some be thought that a vast amount of useless trouble has
been bestowed in figuring and describing so many varieties of what
were after all in most cases the ordinary tools of the artificer, or
the common arms of the warrior or huntsman, which differed from each
other only in apparently unimportant particulars. But as in biological
studies minute anatomy often affords the most trustworthy evidence
as to the descent of any given organism from some earlier form of
life, so these minor details in the form and character of ordinary
implements, which to the cursory observer appear devoid of meaning,
may, to a skilful archæologist, afford valuable clues by which the
march of the bronze civilisation over Europe may be traced to its
original starting-place.
I am far from saying that this has as yet been satisfactorily
accomplished, and to my mind it will only be by accumulating a far
larger mass of facts than we at present possess that comparative
archæology will be able to triumph over the difficulties with which its
path is still beset.
Much is, however, being done, and I trust that so far as the British
Isles are concerned, the facts which I have here collected and the
figures which I have caused to be engraved will at all events form a
solid foundation on which others may be able to build.
So long ago as 1876 I was able to present to the foreign archæologists
assembled at Buda-Pest for the International Congress of Prehistoric
Archæology and Anthropology, a short abstract of this work in the shape
of my _Petit Album de l’âge du Bronze de la Grande Bretagne_, which I
have reason to believe has been found of some service. At that time my
friend the late Sir William Wilde was still alive, and as the bronze
antiquities of Ireland appeared to be especially under his charge, I
had not regarded them as falling within the scope of my book. After
his lamented death there was, however, no possibility of interfering
with his labours, by my including the bronze antiquities of the sister
country with those of England, Wales, and Scotland in the present work,
and I accordingly enlarged my original plan.
In carrying out my undertaking I have followed the same method as in
my work on the “Ancient Stone Implements, &c., of Great Britain;” and
it will be found that what I may term the dictionary and index of
bronze antiquities is printed in smaller type than the more general
descriptive and historical part of the book. I have in fact offered
those who take an ordinary interest in archæological inquiry without
wishing to be burdened with minute details a broad hint as to what they
may advantageously skip. To the specialist and the local antiquary
the portion printed in smaller type will be found of use, if only as
giving references to other works in which the more detailed accounts of
local discoveries are given. These references, thanks to members of my
own family, have been carefully checked, and the accuracy of all the
original figures for this work, engraved for me with conscientious care
by Mr. Swain, of Bouverie Street, may, I think, be relied on.
To the councils of several of our learned societies, and especially
to those of the Societies of Antiquaries of London and Edinburgh, the
Royal Irish Academy, the Royal Archæological Institute, and the Royal
Historical and Archæological Association of Ireland, I am much indebted
for the loan of woodcuts and for other assistance. I have also to thank
the trustees and curators of many local museums, as well as the owners
of various private collections, for allowing me to figure specimens,
and for valuable information supplied.
My warmest thanks are, however, due to Mr. Augustus W. Franks, F.R.S.,
and Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., not only for assistance in the matter of
illustrations, but for most kindly undertaking the task of reading my
proofs. I must also thank Mr. Joseph Anderson, the accomplished keeper
of the Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh, and Mr. Robert Day, F.S.A., of
Cork, for having revised those portions of the work which relate to
Scotland and Ireland.
The Index has been carefully compiled by my sister, Mrs. Hubbard. As
was the case with those of my “Ancient Stone Implements,” and “Ancient
British Coins,” it is divided into two parts; the one referring
generally to the subject matter of the book, and the other purely
topographical. The advantages of such a division in a book of this
character are obvious.
In conclusion, I venture to prefer the request that any discoveries of
new types of instruments or of deposits of bronze antiquities may be
communicated to me.
JOHN EVANS.
NASH MILLS, HEMEL HEMPSTED,
_March, 1881_.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
PAGE
The Succession of the Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages—A Copper Age
in America—Scriptural Notices of Bronze—Bronze preceded Iron
in ancient Egypt—Bronze in ancient Greece—The Metals mentioned
by Homer—Iron in ancient Greece—Bronzes among other ancient
Nations—Use of Iron in Gaul and Italy—Disputes as to the three
Periods—The Succession of Iron to Bronze—The Preservation of
ancient Iron 1
CHAPTER II.
CELTS.
Origin of the word Celt—Views of early Antiquaries—Conjectures
as to the Use of Celts—Opinions of modern Writers 27
CHAPTER III.
FLAT AND FLANGED CELTS.
Flat Celts from Cyprus and Hissarlik—Discoveries of Flat Celts
in Barrows—Those ornamented on the Faces—Flanged Celts—Those
from Arreton Down—And from Barrows—Decorated Flanged Celts—Flat
Celts found in Scotland—Decorated Scottish Specimens—Flat Celts
found in Ireland—Decorated Irish Specimens—Character of their
Decorations—Flat Celts with Lateral Stops 39
CHAPTER IV.
WINGED CELTS AND PALSTAVES.
Origin of the term Palstave—Celts with a Stop-ridge—Varieties
of Winged Celts—Transitional Forms—Palstaves with Ornaments
on Face—With Central Rib on the Blade—Shortened by Wear—With
a Transverse Edge—Looped Palstaves—With Ribs on Blade—With
Shield-like Ornaments—With Vertical Ribs on Blade—With
semicircular Side-wings hammered over—Iron Palstaves imitated
from Bronze—Palstaves with two Loops—Scottish Palstaves—Irish
Palstaves—Looped Irish Palstaves—Irish Palstaves with
Transverse Edge—Comparison with Continental Forms 70
CHAPTER V.
SOCKETED CELTS.
Terms, “the Recipient” and “the Received”—Evolution from
Palstaves—With “Flanches,” or curved Lines, on the Faces—Plain,
with a Beading round the Mouth—Of a Gaulish type—With vertical
Ribs on the Faces—With Ribs ending in Pellets—With Ribs and
Pellets on the Faces—With Ribs and Ring Ornaments—Variously
ornamented—Of octagonal Section—With the Loop on one
Face—Without Loops—Of diminutive Size—Found in Scotland—Found
in Ireland—Comparison with Foreign Forms—Mainly of Native
Manufacture in Britain—Those formed of Iron 107
CHAPTER VI.
METHODS OF HAFTING CELTS.
The perforated Axes of Bronze—Celts in Club-like Handles—Their
Hafts, as seen in Barrows—Hafting after the manner of
Axes—Socketed Celts used as Hatchets—Hafted Celt found at
Chiusi—Hafts, as seen at Hallstatt—Celts in some instances
mounted as Adzes—No perforated Axe-heads in Britain—Hafting
Celts as Chisels 146
CHAPTER VII.
CHISELS, GOUGES, HAMMERS, AND OTHER TOOLS.
Simple form of Chisel rare—Tanged Chisels—Chisels with
Lugs at sides—Socketed Chisels—Tanged Gouges—Socketed
Gouges—Socketed Hammers—Irish Hammers—Method of Hafting
Hammers—French Anvils—Saws and Files almost unknown in
Britain—Tongs and Punches—The latter used in Ornamenting—Awls,
Drills, or Prickers frequently found in Barrows—Awls used in
Sewing—Tweezers—Needles—Fish-hooks 165
CHAPTER VIII.
SICKLES.
Method of Hafting—Sickles with Projecting Knobs—With
Sockets—Sickles found in Scotland and Ireland—Found on the
Continent 194
CHAPTER IX.
KNIVES, RAZORS, ETC.
The Socketed Form—Scottish and Irish Knives—Curved
Knives—Knives with broad Tangs—With Lanceolate Blades—Of
peculiar Types—Double-edged Razors—Scottish and Irish
Razors—Continental Forms 204
CHAPTER X.
DAGGERS AND THEIR HILTS.—RAPIER-SHAPED BLADES.
Tanged Knives or Daggers—Knife-Daggers with three Rivets—Method
of Hafting Daggers—Bone Pommels—Amber Hilt inlaid with
Gold—Hilts with numerous Rivets—Inlaid and Ivory Hilts—Hilts
of Bronze—Knife-Daggers with five or six Rivets—Knife-Daggers
from Scotland—From Ireland—Daggers with Ornamented Blades—With
Mid-ribs—With Ogival Outline—Rapier-shaped Blades—Rapiers with
Notches at the Base—With Ribs on the Faces—Rapiers with Ox-horn
and Bronze Hilts—Bayonet-like Blades 222
CHAPTER XI.
TANGED AND SOCKETED DAGGERS OR SPEAR-HEADS, HALBERDS, AND MACES.
Arreton Down type of Spear-heads—With Tangs and with
Socket—Scandinavian and German Halberds—The Chinese Form—Irish
Halberds—Copper Blades less brittle than Bronze—Broad Irish
Form—Scottish Halberds—English and Welsh Halberds—The Form
known in Spain—Maces, probably Mediæval 257
CHAPTER XII.
LEAF-SHAPED SWORDS.
Their Occurrence in British Barrows not authenticated—Occur
with Interments in Scandinavia—The Roman Sword—British
Swords—Disputes as to their Age—Hilts proportional to
Blades—Swords with Central Slots in Hilt-plate—With many
Rivet-holes—With Central Rib on Blade—Representation of
Sword on Italian Coin—Those with Hilts of Bronze—Localities
where found—Comparison with Continental Types—Swords found
in Scotland—In Ireland—In France—Swords with Hilts of
Bone—Decorated with Gold—Continental Types—Early Iron Swords 273
CHAPTER XIII.
SCABBARDS AND CHAPES.
Sheaths with Bronze Ends—Wooden Sheaths—Bronze Sheaths—Ends
of Sword-Sheaths or Scabbard Ends—Chapes from England and
Ireland—Spiked Chapes—Mouth-pieces for Sheaths—Ferrules on
Sword-Hilts 301
CHAPTER XIV.
SPEAR-HEADS, LANCE-HEADS, ETC.
Different Types—Leaf-shaped—With a Fillet along the
Midrib—Ornamented on the Sockets—With Loops at the Sides—From
Ireland—Decorated on the Blade—With Loops at the Base of
the Blade—Of Cruciform Section near the Point—With Openings
in the Blade—With Flanges at the Side of the Openings—With
Lunate Openings in the Blade—Barbed at the Base—Ferrules for
Spear-shafts—African Spear Ferrules—Continental Types—Early
Iron Spear-heads 310
CHAPTER XV.
SHIELDS, BUCKLERS, AND HELMETS.
Shields with numerous raised Bosses—With Concentric Ribs—With
Concentric Rings of Knobs—Shields found in Scotland—In England
and Wales—Wooden Bucklers—The Date of Circular Bucklers—Bronze
Helmets—Their Date 343
CHAPTER XVI.
TRUMPETS AND BELLS.
Trumpets found in Ireland—Trumpets with Lateral Openings—The
Dowris Hoard—Riveted Trumpets—The Caprington Horn—Trumpets
found in England—Bells found in Ireland 357
CHAPTER XVII.
PINS.
Pins with Flat Heads—With Crutched Heads—With Annular
Heads—Those of large Size—With Spheroidal Heads—With Ornamental
Expanded Heads—From Scotland—From Denmark—Their Date difficult
to determine 365
CHAPTER XVIII.
TORQUES, BRACELETS, RINGS, EAR-RINGS, AND PERSONAL ORNAMENTS.
The Gaulish Torque—Gold Torques—Funicular Torques—Ribbon
Torques—Those of the Late Celtic Period—Penannular Torques
and Bracelets—Bracelets engraved with Patterns—Beaded
and Fluted—Looped, with Cup-shaped Ends—Late Celtic
Bracelets—Rings—Rings with others cast on them—Coiled Rings
found with Torques—Finger-rings—Ear-rings—Those of Gold—Beads
of Tin—Of Glass—Rarity of Personal Ornaments in Britain 374
CHAPTER XIX.
CLASPS, BUTTONS, BUCKLES, AND MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTS.
Difficulty in Determining the Use of some Objects—Looped
Sockets and Tubes—Possibly Clasps—Perforated Rings forming
a kind of Brooch—Rings used in Harness—Brooches—Late
Celtic—Buttons—Circular Plates and Broad Hoops—Perforated
Discs—Slides for Straps—Jingling Ornaments—Objects of Uncertain
Use—Rod, with Figures of Birds upon it—Figures of Animals 396
CHAPTER XX.
VESSELS, CALDRONS, ETC.
Fictile Vessels—Gold Cup—Bronze Vessels not found in
Barrows—Caldrons found in Scotland—In Ireland—Some of an
Etruscan Form—The Skill exhibited in their Manufacture 407
CHAPTER XXI.
METAL, MOULDS, AND THE METHOD OF MANUFACTURE.
Composition of Bronze—Lead absent in early Bronze—Sources of
Tin and Copper—Analyses of Bronze Antiquities—Cakes of Copper
and Lumps of Metal—Tin discovered in Hoards of Bronze—Ingots of
Tin—Methods of Casting—Moulds of Stone for Celts, Palstaves,
Daggers, Swords, and Spear-heads—Moulds of Bronze for Palstaves
and Celts—The Harty Hoard—Bronze Mould for Gouges—Moulds
found in other Countries—Moulds formed of Burnt Clay—Jets
or Runners—The Processes for Preparing Bronze Instruments
for Use—Rubbers and Whetstones—Decoration—Hammering out and
Sharpening the Edges 415
CHAPTER XXII.
CHRONOLOGY AND ORIGIN OF BRONZE.
Inferences from number of Types—Division of Period
into Stages—The Evidence of Hoards—Their different
Kinds—Personal, Merchants’, and Founders’—Lists of Principal
Hoards—Inferences from them—The Transition from Bronze to
Iron—Its probable Date—Duration of Bronze Age—Burial Customs
of the Period—Different Views as to the Sources of Bronze
Civilisation—Suggested Provinces of Bronze—The Britannic
Province—Comparison of British and Continental Types—Foreign
Influences in Britain—Its Commercial Relations—Imported
Ornaments—Condition of Britain during the Bronze Age—General
Summary 455
WOODCUT ILLUSTRATIONS.
The references are to the original sources of such cuts as have not
been engraved expressly for this book.
CHAPTER III.
FLAT AND FLANGED CELTS.
FIG. PAGE
1. Cyprus 40
2. Butterwick 41
3. Moot Low 44
Llew. Jewitt, F.S.A., “Grave Mounds,” fig. 187.
4. Yorkshire 45
5. Weymouth 46
6. Read 47
7. Suffolk 48
8. Arreton Down 49
_Archæologia_, vol. xxxvi. p. 329.
9. Plymstock 50
10. ” 50
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xxvi. p. 346.
11. Thames 52
12. Norfolk 52
13. Dorsetshire 53
14. Lewes 53
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 167.
15. Ely 53
16. Barrow 54
17. Liss 54
18. Rhosnesney 55
19. Drumlanrig 56
20. Lawhead 57
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. vii. p. 105.
21. Nairn 58
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. ii. N.S.
22. Falkland 59
23. Greenlees 59
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. xii. p. 601.
24. Perth 60
25. Applegarth 60
26. Dams 61
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. xiii. p. 120.
27. Ballinamallard 61
28. North of Ireland 62
29. Ireland 62
30. Tipperary 62
_Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 410.
31. Ireland 63
32. Connor 64
33. Clontarf 65
34. Ireland 65
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 248.
35. Ireland 66
36. Trim 66
37. Ireland 66
38. ” 66
39. Punched patterns 67
40. ” ” 67
41. ” ” 67
42. ” ” 67
43. ” ” 67
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” figs. 286 to 290.
44. Armoy 68
45. Ireland 68
46. ” 69
47. ” 69
CHAPTER IV.
WINGED CELTS AND PALSTAVES.
48. Icelandic Palstave 71
49. ” ” 71
_Arch. Journ._, vol. vii. p. 74.
50. Wigton 73
51. Chollerford Bridge 74
52. Chatham 74
53. Burwell Fen 75
54. Bucknell 75
55. Culham 75
56. Reeth 76
57. Dorchester 76
58. Colwick 77
59. Barrington 78
60. Harston 78
61. Shippey 79
62. Severn 80
63. Sunningwell 80
64. Weymouth 82
65. Burwell Fen 82
66. East Harnham 83
67. Burwell Fen 83
68. Thames 84
69. Stibbard 84
70. Irthington 85
71. North Owersby 85
72. Bonn 85
73. Dorchester 87
74. Wallingford 88
75. Stanton Harcourt 88
76. Brassington 89
77. Bath 89
78. Oldbury Hill 90
79. Ross 91
80. Honington 91
81. Ely 92
82. Bottisham 92
83. Nettleham 93
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 160.
84. Cambridge 93
85. Carlton Rode 94
86. Penvores 96
87. West Buckland 96
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xxxvii. p. 107.
88. Bryn Crûg 96
89. Andalusia 97
_Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 69.
90. Burreldale Moss 98
91. Balcarry 98
92. Pettycur 99
_Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 377.
93. Ireland 100
94. ” 100
95. ” 101
96. North of Ireland 101
97. Lanesborough 101
98. Trillick 102
99. Ireland 102
100. ” 102
101. ” 102
102. ” 103
103. ” 103
104. ” 103
105. Miltown 104
106. Ireland 105
107. ” 105
108. ” 105
109. Ballymena 105
CHAPTER V.
SOCKETED CELTS.
110. High Roding 109
111. Dorchester, Oxon 109
112. Wilts 110
113. Harty 110
114. ” 111
115. Dorchester, Oxon 111
116. Reach Fen 112
117. ” ” 112
118. Canterbury 114
119. Usk 114
120. Alfriston 115
121. Cambridge Fens 116
122. High Roding 116
123. Chrishall 117
124. Reach Fen 117
125. Barrington 117
126. Mynydd-y-Glas 119
127. Stogursey 120
128. Guildford 120
129. Frettenham 120
130. Ely 121
131. Caston 121
132. Carlton Rode 122
133. Fornham 122
134. Fen Ditton 123
135. Bottisham 123
136. Winwick 123
137. Kingston 124
138. Cayton Carr 124
139. Lakenheath 125
140. Thames 125
141. Kingston 125
142. ” 126
143. Thames 127
144. Givendale 127
145. Cambridge 127
146. Blandford 127
147. Ireland (?) 128
148. Barrington 128
149. Hounslow 128
150. Wallingford 128
151. Newham 129
152. Westow 130
153. Wandsworth 130
_Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 378.
154. Whittlesea 130
155. Nettleham 132
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 160.
156. Croker Collection 132
157. Nettleham 132
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 160.
158. Ulleskelf 132
159. Reach Fen 133
160. Carlton Rode 133
161. Arras 134
162. Bell’s Mills 135
“Catal. Ant. Mus. Ed.”
163. North Knapdale 136
164. Bell’s Mills 136
165. ” ” 136
“Catal. Ant. Mus. Ed.”
166. Leswalt 137
_Ayr and Wigton Coll._, vol. ii. p. 11.
167. Ireland 138
168. ” 138
169. Belfast 139
170. Ireland 139
171. ” 139
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 280.
172. Athboy 140
173. Meath 140
174. Ireland 140
175. Newtown Crommolin 141
176. North of Ireland 141
177. Ireland 141
178. ” 142
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R.I.A.,” fig. 275.
179. Kertch 142
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xiv. p. 91.
CHAPTER VI.
METHODS OF HAFTING CELTS.
180. Stone Axe of Montezuma II. 148
181. Aymara Stone Hatchet 148
182. Modern African Axe of Iron 149
183. Stone Axe, Robenhausen 150
184. Bronze Axe, Hallein 152
185. Raron, Brigue 154
186. Edenderry 155
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R.I.A.,” fig. 257.
187. Chiusi 156
188. Winwick 158
189. Everley 163
CHAPTER VII.
CHISELS, GOUGES, AND OTHER TOOLS.
190. Plymstock 166
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xxvi. p. 346.
191. Heathery Burn 166
192. Glenluce 166
192*. Carlton Rode 167
193. Wallingford 168
194. Reach Fen 168
195. Thixendale 168
196. Yattendon 169
197. Broxton 169
198. Scotland 170
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. xii. p. 613.
199. Ireland 170
200. Carlton Rode 171
201. Westow 172
202. Heathery Burn Cave 172
203. Carlton Rode 173
204. Thorndon 174
205. Harty 174
206. Undley 175
207. Carlton Rode 175
208. Tay 175
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. v. p. 127.
209. Ireland 176
210. Thorndon 178
211. Harty 178
212. ” 178
213. Carlton Rode 178
214. Taunton 178
215. Ireland 179
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 66.
216. Dowris 179
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 65.
217. Fresné la Mère 182
218. ” ” 182
219. Heathery Burn Cave 185
220. Harty 186
221. Reach Fen 186
222. Ebnall 186
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 66.
223. Upton Lovel 189
_Archæologia_, vol. xliii. p. 466.
224. Thorndon 189
225. Butterwick 189
226. Bulford 190
_Archæologia_, vol. xliii. p. 465.
227. Winterbourn Stoke 190
228. Wiltshire 191
_Archæologia_, vol. xliii. p. 467.
229. Llangwyllog 192
230. Ireland 192
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R.I.A.,” fig. 403.
CHAPTER VIII.
SICKLES.
231. Mœrigen 196
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xxx. p. 192.
232. Edington Burtle 197
233. ” ” 197
234. Thames 198
235. Near Bray 199
236. Near Errol, Perthshire 200
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. vii. p. 378.
237. Garvagh, Derry 200
238. Athlone 201
CHAPTER IX.
KNIVES, RAZORS, ETC.
239. Wicken Fen 204
240. Thorndon 205
241. Reach Fen 205
242. Heathery Burn Cave 206
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 132.
243. Kilgraston, Perthshire 206
244. Kells 207
245. Ireland 208
246. Moira 209
247. Fresné la Mère 209
248. Skye 209
Wilson’s “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” vol. i. p. 400.
249. Wester Ord 209
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. viii. p. 310.
250. Reach Fen 210
251. ” ” 210
252. Heathery Burn Cave 212
253. Harty 212
254. Ireland 212
255. Ballyclare 213
256. Reach Fen 213
257. Ballycastle 213
258. Ireland 213
259. Wigginton 214
260. Isle of Harty 214
261. Allhallows, Hoo 214
262. Cottle 215
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 301.
263. Reach Fen 216
264. Lady Low 216
265. Winterslow 216
266. Priddy 216
267. Balblair 217
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. vii. p. 476.
268. Rogart 217
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. x. p. 431.
269. Wallingford 218
270. Heathery Burn Cave 218
271. Dunbar 219
272. ” 219
273. ” 219
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. x. p. 440.
274. Ireland 219
Wilde’s “Catal. Mus. R.I.A.,” fig. 433.
275. Kinleith 220
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. v. p. 87.
276. Nidau 221
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. v. p. 91.
CHAPTER X.
DAGGERS AND THEIR HILTS.—RAPIER-SHAPED
BLADES.
277. Roundway 223
278. Driffield 224
279. Butterwick 225
280. Helperthorpe 227
281. ” 227
282. Garton 228
_Archæologia_, vol. xliii. p. 441.
283. Wilmslow 228
284. Hammeldon Down 229
285. Reach Fen 230
286. Allhallows, Hoo 230
287. Brigmilston 231
288. Leicester 231
289. Normanton 232
290. Roke Down 233
291. Ireland 235
292. Belleek 235
_Journ. R. H. and A. Assoc. of Ireland_,
4th S., vol. ii. p. 196.
293. Ireland 235
294. Woodyates 236
295. Homington 237
296. Idmiston 237
297. Dow Low 239
298. Cleigh 239
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Soc._, vol. x. p. 84.
299. Collessie 239
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. xii. p. 440.
300. Musdin 240
301. Plymstock 240
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xxvi. p. 346.
302. Winterbourn Stoke 240
303. Camerton 243
304. Cambridge 243
305. Magherafelt 245
_Journ. R. H. and A. Assoc. of Ireland_,
2nd S., vol. i. p. 286.
306. Arreton Down 245
307. Kinghorn 245
308. Colloony 246
309. Ireland 246
Wilde’s “Catal. Mus. R.I.A.” fig. 347.
310. Kilrea 247
311. Thames 247
312. Thatcham 247
313. Coveney 249
314. Thames 249
315. Chatteris 251
316. Thetford 251
317. Londonderry 251
318. Lissane 252
Wilde’s “Catal. Mus. R.I.A.,” fig. 314.
319. Galbally 253
_Journ. R. H. and A. Assoc. of Ireland_,
4th S., vol. ii. p. 197.
320. Tipperary 254
321. Ely 255
322. North of Ireland 255
323. Raphoe 255
CHAPTER XI.
TANGED AND SOCKETED DAGGERS, OR
SPEAR-HEADS, HALBERDS AND MACES.
324. Arreton Down 258
325. Stratford le Bow 258
326. Matlock 259
327. Plymstock 259
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xxvi. p. 349.
328. Arreton Down 260
329. Årup 261
Montelius, “Sver. Forntid,” fig. 131.
330. China 262
331. Ireland 264
332. Cavan 266
333. Newtown Limavady 267
334. Ballygawley 267
335. Falkland 268
336. Stranraer 268
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. vii. p. 423.
337. Harbyrnrigge 269
338. Shropshire 269
339. Lidgate 271
_Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 181.
340. Great Bedwin 271
_Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 411.
341. Ireland 271
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R.I.A.,” fig. 361.
CHAPTER XII.
LEAF-SHAPED SWORDS.
342. Battersea 278
343. Barrow 279
344. Newcastle 281
345. Wetheringsett 283
346. Tiverton 284
347. Kingston 284
348. Ely 286
349. River Cherwell 286
350. Lincoln 287
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. ii. p. 199.
351. Whittingham 288
352. Brechin 288
353. Edinburgh 290
354. Newtown Limavady 292
355. Ireland 292
356. ” 292
357. ” 292
358. Muckno 294
359. ” 294
_Journ. R. H. & A. Assoc. of Ireland_,
3rd S., vol. i. p. 23.
360. Muckno 295
361. Mullylagan 295
_Journ. R. H. & A. Assoc. of Ireland_,
4th S., vol. ii. p. 257.
362. Mullylagan 295
363. Ireland 296
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 322.
CHAPTER XIII.
SCABBARDS AND CHAPES.
364. Isleworth 302
365. Guilsfield 303
366. River Isis, near Dorchester 303
367. Ireland 303
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 335.
368. Stogursey, Somerset 304
369. Brechin 304
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. i. p. 81.
370. Pant-y-Maen 304
371. Reach Fen 305
372. Cloonmore 305
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 336.
373. Stoke Ferry 305
374. Keelogue Ford, Ireland 306
375. Mildenhall 306
376. Thames 307
377. Isle of Harty 308
CHAPTER XIV.
SPEAR-HEADS, LANCE-HEADS, ETC.
378. Thames, London 312
379. Lough Gur 312
380. ” ” 312
381. Heathery Burn Cave 312
382. Nettleham 314
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 159.
383. Achtertyre 315
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. ix. p. 435.
384. North of Ireland 316
385. Newark 317
386. Reach Fen 317
387. Ireland 317
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 367.
388. North of Ireland 319
389. Ireland 319
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 368.
390. Reach Fen 319
391. Thorndon 319
392. Culham 320
393. Athenry 320
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 382.
394. Thetford 321
395. Lakenheath 323
396. Near Cambridge 323
397. North of Ireland 323
398. Ireland 324
399. Thames 324
400. Ireland 324
401. Near Ballymena 325
402. Ireland 326
403. ” 326
404. ” 326
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” figs.
385, 386, 378.
405. Elford 327
406. Isleham Fen 328
407. Stibbard 329
408. Ireland 329
409. Lakenheath Fen 329
410. Nettleham 330
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 160.
411. Knockans 331
412. Lurgan 332
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 65.
413. Ireland 332
414. Antrim 332
415. Thames 333
416. Naworth Castle 333
417. Blakehope 334
418. Whittingham 334
419. Winmarleigh 335
420. Burwell Fen 336
421. Denhead 337
“Catal. Ant. Mus. Ed.,” p. 98.
422. Speen 337
423. Nettleham 339
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 160.
424. Guilsfield 339
425. Glancych 341
426. Fulbourn 341
427. Hereford 341
CHAPTER XV.
SHIELDS, BUCKLERS, AND HELMETS.
428. Little Wittenham 344
Messrs. James Parker & Co.
429. Harlech 345
430. Coveney 346
431. ” 347
432. Beith 347
433. ” 348
434. Beith 349
_Ayr and Wigton Coll._, vol. i. p. 66.
435. Yetholm 350
436. ” 350
437. ” 350
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. v. p. 165.
CHAPTER XVI.
TRUMPETS AND BELLS.
438. Limerick 357
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 360.
439. Tralee 358
440. ” 359
441. ” 359
_Journ. R. H. and A. Assoc. of Ireland_,
4th S., vol. iii. p. 422.
442. Africa 359
443. Derrynane 360
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 529.
444. Portglenone 361
_Journ. R. H. and A. Assoc. of Ireland_,
4th S., vol. iii. p. 422.
445. The Caprington Horn 362
_Ayr and Wigton Coll._, vol. i. p. 74.
446. Dowris 364
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 523.
CHAPTER XVII.
PINS.
447. Heathery Burn Cave 365
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 130.
448. Brigmilston 366
449. Everley 366
450. Bryn Crûg 367
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xxv. p. 246.
451. Taunton 367
452. Chilton Bustle 367
_Arch. Journ._, vol. ix. p. 106.
453. Ireland 368
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 452.
454. River Wandle 368
_Arch. Journ._, vol. ix. p. 8.
455. Scratchbury 369
456. Camerton 369
Both from _Archæologia_, vol. xliii. p. 468.
457. Ireland 370
458. ” 370
459. Cambridge 370
460. Ireland 370
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 447.
461. North of Ireland 370
462. Keelogue Ford 371
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 449.
463. Ireland 371
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.” fig. 448.
464. Edinburgh 372
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, New S., vol. i.
p. 322.
465. Ireland 372
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 450.
CHAPTER XVIII.
TORQUES, BRACELETS, RINGS, EAR-RINGS,
AND PERSONAL ORNAMENTS.
466. Wedmore 375
467. ” 376
468. West Buckland 377
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xxxvii. p. 107.
469. Wedmore 378
470. Yarnton 379
471. Montgomeryshire 380
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iv. p. 467.
472. Achtertyre 382
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. ix. p. 435.
473. Redhill 382
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. i. p. 138.
474. Scilly 383
475. Liss 383
476. Stoke Prior 384
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xx. p. 200.
477. Stobo Castle 384
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. ii. p. 277.
478. Guernsey 385
_Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. iii. p. 344.
479. Cornwall 385
480. Normanton 385
_Archæologia_, vol. xliii. p. 469.
481. West Buckland 386
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xxxvii. p. 107.
482. Ham Cross 386
483. Heathery Burn Cave 386
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 131.
484. County Cavan 387
485. Cowlam 387
486. ” 388
487. Ireland 389
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 480.
488. Woolmer Forest 390
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. ii. p. 83.
489. Dumbarton 390
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. iii. p. 24.
490. Cowlam 392
491. Goodmanham 392
Greenwell’s “British Barrows,” p. 324.
492. Orton 392
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. viii. p. 30.
CHAPTER XIX.
CLASPS, BUTTONS, BUCKLES, AND
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTS.
493. Reach Fen 397
494. ” ” 397
495. Broadward 397
_Arch. Camb._, 4th S., vol. iii. p. 354.
496. Trillick 398
_Journ. R. H. and A. Assoc. of Ireland_,
3rd S., vol. i. p. 164.
497. Ireland 399
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 494.
498. Cowlam 400
499. Reach Fen 400
500. Edinburgh 401
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, New S., vol. i.
p. 322.
501. Heathery Burn Cave 402
502. ” ” 402
Both from _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S.,
vol. iii. p. 236.
503. Harty 403
504. Dreuil, Amiens 404
505. Abergele 404
506. ” 404
507. ” 404
508. Dreuil, Amiens 405
CHAPTER XX.
VESSELS, CALDRONS, ETC.
509. Golden Cup, Rillaton 408
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xxiv. p. 189.
510. Kincardine Moss 410
Wilson, “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” vol. i.
p. 409.
511. Ireland 411
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 407.
512. Ireland 412
Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 409.
513. Capecastle Bog 413
CHAPTER XXI.
METAL, MOULDS, AND THE METHOD OF
MANUFACTURE.
514. Falmouth 426
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xvi. p. 39.
515. Ballymena 429
516. Ireland 431
517. ” 431
518. Ballymoney 433
519. Broughshane 433
520. Knighton 434
521. ” 434
522. Maghera, Co. Derry 435
523. Lough Gur 436
_Arch. Journ._, vol. xx. p. 170.
524. Campbelton 437
525. ” 437
526. ” 437
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. vi. p. 48.
527. Hotham Carr 439
528. Wiltshire 440
529. ” 440
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. iii. p. 158.
530. Harty 441
531. ” 442
532. ” 446
533. Heathery Burn Cave 448
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii.
p. 132.
534. Stogursey 450
535. ” 450
536. ” 450
537. Heathery Burn Cave 451
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 132.
538. Kirby Moorside 452
539. Hove 452
_Sussex Arch. Coll._, vol. ix. p. 120.
540. Harty 453
ERRATA.
Page 117, under fig. 123, _for_ “Crishall” _read_ “Chrishall.”
” 143, line 15, _for_ “Spain” _read_ “Portugal.”
” 207, ” 34, _for_ “St. Genoulph” _read_ “St. Genouph.”
” 215, ” 16, _for_ “St. Julien Chateuil” _read_ “St. Jullien,
Chapleuil.”
” 314, ” 3 from bottom, _for_ “Staffordshire” _read_
“Shropshire.”
” 322, ” 4, _for_ “Suffolk” _read_ “Sussex.”
” 336, ” 20, _for_ “Staffordshire” _read_ “Shropshire.”
” 452, ” 4 from bottom, _for_ “Staffordshire” _read_
“Shropshire.”
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
HAVING already in a former work attempted the arrangement and
description of the Ancient Stone Implements and Ornaments of Great
Britain, I am induced to undertake a similar task in connection with
those Bronze Antiquities which belong to the period when Stone was
gradually falling into disuse for cutting purposes, and Iron was either
practically unknown in this country, or had been but partially adopted
for tools and weapons.
The duration and chronological position of this bronze-using period
will have to be discussed hereafter, but I must at the outset reiterate
what I said some eight or ten years ago, that in this county, at all
events, it is impossible to fix any hard and fast limits for the close
of the Stone Period, or for the beginning or end of the Bronze Period,
or for the commencement of that of Iron. Though the succession of
these three stages of civilisation may here be regarded as certain,
the transition from one to the other in a country of such an extent
as Britain—occupied, moreover, as it probably was, by several tribes
of different descent, manners, and customs—must have required a long
course of years to become general; and even in any particular district
the change cannot have been sudden.
There must of necessity have been a time when in each district the new
phase of civilisation was being introduced, and the old conditions had
not been entirely changed. So that, as I have elsewhere pointed out,
the three stages of progress represented by the Stone, Bronze, and Iron
Periods, like the three principal colours of the rainbow, overlap,
intermingle, and shade off the one into the other, though their
succession, so far as Britain and Western Europe are concerned, appears
to be equally well defined with that of the prismatic colours.
In thus speaking of a bronze-using period I by no means wish to
exclude the possible use of copper unalloyed with tin. There is indeed
every ground for believing that in some parts of the world the use
of native copper must have continued for a lengthened period before
it was discovered that the addition of a small proportion of tin not
only rendered it more readily fusible, but added to its elasticity and
hardness, and thus made it more serviceable for tools and weapons. Even
after the advantages of the alloy over the purer metal were known, the
local scarcity of tin may at times have caused so small a quantity of
that metal to be employed, that the resulting mixture can hardly be
regarded as bronze; or at times this dearth may have necessitated the
use of copper alone, either native or as smelted from the ore.
Of this Copper Age, however, there are in Europe but extremely feeble
traces, if indeed any can be said to exist. It appears not unlikely
that the views which are held by many archæologists as to the Asiatic
origin of bronze may prove to be well founded, and that when the use of
copper was introduced into Europe, the discovery had already long been
made that it was more serviceable when alloyed with tin than when pure.
In connection with this it may be observed that the most important
discovery of instruments of copper as yet recorded in the Old World is
that which was made at Gungeria in Central India.[1] They consisted of
flat celts of what has been regarded as the most primitive type; but
with them were found some ornaments of silver, a circumstance which
seems to militate against their extreme antiquity, as the production
of silver involves a considerable amount of metallurgical skill, and
probably an acquaintance with lead and other metals. However this may
be, there are reasons for supposing that if a Copper Age existed in the
Old World its home was in Asia or the most eastern part of Europe, and
not in any western country.
The most instructive instance of a Copper Age, as distinct from one
of Bronze, is that afforded by certain districts of North America, in
which we find good evidence of a period when, in addition to stone as
a material from which tools and weapons were made, copper also was
employed, and used in its pure native condition without the addition of
any alloy.
The State of Wisconsin[2] alone has furnished upwards of a hundred
axes, spear-heads, and knives formed of copper; and, to judge from
some extracts from the writings of the early travellers given by the
Rev. E. F. Slafter,[3] that part of America would seem to have entered
on its Copper Age long before it was first brought into contact with
European civilisation, towards the middle of the sixteenth century. It
has been thought by several American antiquaries that some at least of
these tools and weapons were produced by the process of casting, though
the preponderance of opinion seems to be in favour of all of them being
shaped by the hammer and not cast. Among others I may mention my friend
the Hon. Colonel C. C. Jones, who has examined this question for me,
and has been unable to discover any instance of one of these copper
tools or weapons having been indisputably cast.
That they were originally wrought, and not cast, is _à priori_ in the
highest degree probable. On some parts of the shores of Lake Superior
native copper occurs in great abundance, and would no doubt attract
the attention of the early occupants of the country. Accustomed to the
use of stone, they would at first regard the metal as merely a stone
of peculiarly heavy nature, and on attempting to chip it or work it
into shape would at once discover that it yielded to a blow instead of
breaking, and that in fact it was a malleable stone. Of this ductile
property the North American savage availed himself largely, and was
able to produce spear-heads with sockets adapted for the reception of
their shafts by merely hammering out the base of the spear-head and
turning it over to form the socket, in the same manner as is so often
employed in the making of iron tools. But though the great majority
of the instruments hitherto found, if not all, have been hammered and
not cast, it would appear that the process of melting copper was not
entirely unknown. Squier and Davis have observed,[4] “that the metal
appears to have been worked in all cases in a cold state. This is
somewhat remarkable, as the fires upon the altars were sufficiently
strong in some instances to melt down the copper implements and
ornaments deposited upon them, and the fact that the metal is fusible
could hardly have escaped notice.” That it did not altogether escape
observation is shown by the evidence of De Champlain,[5] the founder of
the city of Quebec. In 1610 he was joining a party of Algonquins, one
of whom met him on his barque, and after conversation “tira d’un sac
une pièce de cuivre de la longueur d’un pied qu’il me donna, le quel
estoit fort beau et bien franc, me donnant à entendre qu’il en avoit en
quantité là ou il l’avoit pris, qui estoit sur le bort d’une rivière
proche d’un grand lac et qu’ils le prenoient par morceaux, et le
faisant fondre le mettoient en lames, et avec des pierres le rendoient
uny.”
We have here, then, evidence of a Copper Age,[6] in comparatively
modern times, during most of which period the process of fusing the
metal was unknown. In course of time, however, this art was discovered,
and had not European influences been brought to bear upon the country
this discovery might, as in other parts of the world, have led to
the knowledge of other fusible metals, and eventually to the art of
manufacturing bronze—an alloy already known in Mexico and Peru.[7]
So far as regards the Old World there are some who have supposed that,
owing to iron being a simple and not a compound metal like bronze, and
owing to the readiness with which it may be produced in the metallic
condition from some of its ores, iron must have been in use before
copper. Without denying the abstract possibility of this having been
the case in some part of our globe, I think it will be found that
among the nations occupying the shores of the eastern half of the
Mediterranean—a part of the world which may be regarded as the cradle
of European civilisation—not only are all archæological discoveries
in favour of the succession of iron to bronze, but even historical
evidence supports their testimony.
In the Introductory Chapter of my book on Ancient Stone Implements I
have already touched upon this question, on which, however, it will
here be desirable farther to enlarge.
The light thrown upon the subכject by the Hebrew Scriptures is but
small. There is, however, in them frequent mention of most of the
metals now in ordinary use. But the word כְהֹשֶה, which in our version
is translated brass—a compound of copper and zinc—would be more
properly translated copper, as indeed it is in one instance, though
there it would seem erroneously, when two vessels of fine copper,
precious as gold, are mentioned.[8] In some passages, however, it
would appear as if the word would be more correctly rendered bronze
than copper, as, for instance, where Moses[9] is commanded to cast
five sockets of brass for the pillars to carry the hangings at the
door of the tabernacle, which could hardly have been done from a metal
so difficult to cast as unalloyed copper. Indeed if tin were known,
and there appears little doubt that the word בְדִיל represents that
metal, its use as an alloy for copper can hardly have been unknown.
It may, then, be regarded as an accepted fact that at the time when
the earliest books of the Hebrew Scriptures were reduced to writing,
gold,[10] silver, iron, tin, lead, and brass, or more probably bronze,
were known. To what date this reduction to writing is to be assigned is
a question into which it would be somewhat out of place here to enter.
The results, however, of modern criticism tend to prove that it can
hardly be so remote as the fourteenth century before our era.
In the Book of Job, as to the date of which also there is some
diversity of opinion, we find evidence of a considerable acquaintance
with the metals: “Surely there is a vein for the silver, and a place
for gold where they fine it. Iron is taken out of the earth, and brass
is molten out of the stone.”[11] Lead is also mentioned, but not tin.
Before quitting this part of the subject I ought perhaps to allude to
the passage respecting Tubal-Cain,[12] the seventh in descent from
Adam, who is mentioned as “an instructer of every artificer in brass
and iron,” or a furbisher[13] of every cutting instrument in those
metals. This must, however, be regarded as a tradition incorporated
in the narrative at the time it was written, and probably with some
accessory colouring in connection with the name which Gesenius has
suggested may mean _scoriarum faber_, a maker of dross, and which
others have connected with that of Vulcan. Sir Gardner Wilkinson[14]
has remarked on this subject that whatever may have been the case
in earlier times, “no direct mention is made of iron arms or tools
till after the Exodus,” and that “some are even inclined to doubt the
_barzel_ (בִַֹרֲזֶל), of the Hebrews being really that metal,” iron.
Movers[15] has observed that in the whole Pentateuch iron is mentioned
only thirteen times, while bronze appears no less than forty-four,
which he considers to be in favour of the later introduction of iron;
as also the fact that bronze, and not iron, was associated with gold
and silver in the fittings for the Tabernacle.
For other passages in Scripture relative to the employment of brass
or bronze, and iron, among the Jews, the reader may consult an
excellent article by the Rev. John Hodgson in the first volume of the
_Archæologia Æliana_ (1816), “An Inquiry into the Era when Brass was
used in purposes to which Iron is now applied.” From this paper I have
largely borrowed in subsequent pages.
As to the succession of the two metals, bronze and iron, among the
ancient Egyptians, there is a considerable diversity of opinion among
those who have studied the subject. Sir Gardner Wilkinson,[16] judging
mainly from pictorial representations, thinks that the Egyptians of an
early Pharaonic age were acquainted with the use of iron, and accounts
for the extreme rarity of actual examples by the rapid decomposition
of the metal in the nitrous soil of Egypt. M. Chabas,[17] the author
of a valuable and interesting work upon primitive history, mainly as
exhibited by Egyptian monuments, believes that the people of Egypt
were acquainted with the use of iron from the dawn of their historic
period, and upwards of 3000 years B.C. made use of it for all the
purposes to which we now apply it, and even prescribed its oxide as a
medicinal preparation. M. Mariette,[18] on the contrary, whose personal
explorations entitle his opinion to great weight, is of opinion that
the early Egyptians never really made use of iron, and seems to think
that from some mythological cause that metal was regarded as the bones
of Typhon, and was the object of a certain repugnance. M. Chabas
himself is, indeed, of opinion that iron was used with extreme reserve,
and, so to speak, only in exceptional cases. This he considers to
have been partly due to religious motives, and partly to the greater
abundance of bronze, which the Egyptians well knew how to mix so as
to give it a fine temper. From whatever cause, the discovery of iron
or steel instruments among Egyptian antiquities is of extremely rare
occurrence; and there are hardly any to which a date can be assigned
with any approach to certainty. The most ancient appears to be a curved
scimitar-like blade discovered by Belzoni beneath one of the Sphinxes
of Karnak, and now in the British Museum.[19] Its date is stated to be
about 600 B.C.[20] A wedge of iron appears, however, to have been found
in a joint between the stones of the Great Pyramid.[21]
Without in any way disputing the occasional use of iron among the
ancient Egyptians, nor the interpretation of the colours red and blue
on the tomb of Rameses III. as being intended to represent blades of
bronze and iron or steel respectively, I may venture to suggest that
the round blue bar,[22] against which butchers are represented as
sharpening their knives in some of the pictures in the sepulchres of
Thebes, may have been too hastily regarded as a _steel_ instead of as a
whetstone of a blue colour. The existence of a _steel_ for the purpose
of sharpening seems to imply not only the knowledge of the preparation
of the metal and its subsequent hardening, but also of files or of
other tools to produce the peculiar striated surface to which the
sharpening property of a _steel_ is due. Had such tools been known, it
seems almost impossible that no trace of them should have come down to
our times. Moreover, if used for sharpening bronze knives, a steel such
as at present used would sooner become clogged and unfit for use than
if employed for sharpening steel knives.
Lepsius[23] has observed that the pictures of the old Empire do not
afford an example of arms painted in blue, the metal of weapons being
always painted in red or bright brown. Iron was but little used under
the old Empire; copper was employed in its stead where the hardness of
iron was not indispensable.
However this may be, it seems admitted on all hands that the use of
iron in Egypt in early times was much restricted, probably from some
religious motive. May not this have arisen from the first iron there
known having been, as it appears to have been in some other countries,
of meteoric origin? The Coptic name for iron, =ⲂⲈⲚⲒⲠⲈ= which has been
interpreted by Professor Lauth[24] as “the Stone of Heaven,” strongly
favours such a view. The resemblance of this term to =ⲂⲀⲀ-Ⲛ-ⲠⲈ=, the
_baa_ of heaven, or celestial iron, has also been pointed out by M.
Chabas,[25] who, however, is inclined to consider that steel was so
called on account of its reflecting the colour of the sky. If the iron
in use among the early Egyptians were meteoric, and its celestial
origin acknowledged, both its rarity and its restricted use would be
accounted for. The term “bone of Typhon,” as applied to iron, is given
by Plutarch on the authority of Manetho, who wrote in the days of the
first Ptolemy. It appears to be used only in contrast to the name “bone
of Horus,” which, according to the same author, was applied to the
loadstone, and it seems difficult to admit any great antiquity for the
appellation, or to connect it with a period when iron was at all rare,
or its use restricted.
Although the use of iron in Egypt was at an early period comparatively
unknown, that of bronze was most extensive. The weapons of war,[26]
the tools for various trades, including those of the engraver and
sculptor, were all made of that metal, which in its crude form served
also as a kind of circulating medium. It appears to have been mainly
imported from Asia, some of the principal sources of copper being
in the peninsula of Sinai. One of the chief mines was situated at
Sarbout-el-Khadem, where both turquoises and copper ore were extracted,
and the latter smelted at Wady-Nash. The copper mines of Wady-Magarah
are thought to have been worked as early as the second dynasty, upwards
of 3000 years B.C.; and in connection with ancient Egyptian mining, it
is worthwhile again to cite Agatharchides,[27] whose testimony I have
already adduced in my “Ancient Stone Implements,” and who relates that
in his time, _circa_ B.C. 100, there were found buried in some ancient
gold-mines in Upper Egypt the bronze chisels or wedges (λατομίδες
χαλκᾶι) of the old miners, and who accounts for their being of that
metal by the fact that when those mines were wrought, men were in no
way acquainted with the use of iron.
In the seventh century B.C., however, iron must have been in general
use in Egypt, for on the landing of the Carians and Ionians,[28]
who were armed with bronze, an Egyptian, who had never before seen
men armed with that metal, ran to Psammetichus to inform him that
brazen men had risen from the sea and were wasting the country. As
Psammetichus himself is described as wearing a brazen helmet, the arms
mentioned would seem to have been offensive rather than defensive.
The source whence the tin, which formed a constituent part of the
bronze, was derived, is much more uncertain. Indeed, to judge from M.
Chabas’ silence, its name and hieroglyphic are unknown, though from
some of the uses to which the metal designated by was applied, it seems
possible that it may have been tin.
On the whole, to judge from documentary evidence alone, the question
as to the successive use of the different metals in Egypt seems to be
excessively obscure, some of them being almost impossible to identify
by name or representative sign. If, however, we turn to the actual
relics of the past, we find bronze tools and weapons in abundance,
while those of iron are extremely scarce, and are either of late
date or at best of uncertain age. So strong, indeed, is the material
evidence, that the late Mr. Crawfurd,[29] while disputing any general
and universal sequence of iron to bronze, confesses that Ancient Egypt
seems to offer a case in which a Bronze Age clearly preceded an Iron
one, or at least in which cutting instruments of bronze preceded those
of iron.
Among the Assyrians iron seems to have been in considerable use at an
early date, and to have been exported from that country to Egypt, but
knives and long chisels or hatchets of bronze were among the objects
found at Tel Sifr, in Southern Babylonia. The earliest bronze image to
which a date can be assigned appears to be that on which M. Oppert has
read the name of Koudourmapouk, King of the Soumirs and Accads,[30]
who, according to M. Lenormant, lived about 2100 B.C. Dr. S. Birch
reads the name as Kudurmabug (about 2200 B.C.). Others in the British
Museum are referred to Gudea, who reigned about 1700 B.C.
The mythology and literature of ancient Greece and Rome are so
intimately connected, that in discussing the evidence afforded
by classical writers it will be needless to separate them, but
the testimony of both Greek and Latin authors may be taken
indiscriminately, though, of course, the former afford the more
ancient evidence. I have already cited much of this evidence in
the Introductory Chapter of my book on Ancient Stone Implements,
mainly with the view of showing the succession of bronze to stone;
on the present occasion I have to re-adduce it, together with what
corroborative testimony I am able to procure, in order to show that,
along the northern shores of the Mediterranean, philology and history
agree as to the priority of the use of bronze for cutting instruments
to that of iron.
The Greek language itself bears witness to this fact, for the words
significant of working in iron are not derived from the name of
that metal, but from that of bronze, and the old forms of χαλκεύς
and χαλκεύειν remained in use in connection with the smith and his
work long after the blacksmith had to a great extent superseded the
bronze-founder and the copper-smith in the fabrication of arms and
cutlery.[31] An analogous transition in the meaning of words has been
pointed out by Professor Max Müller. “The Mexicans called their own
copper or bronze _tepuztli_, which is said to have meant originally
_hatchet_. The same word is now used for iron, with which the Mexicans
first became acquainted through their intercourse with the Spaniards.
_Tepuztli_ then became a general name for metal, and when copper had
to be distinguished from iron, the former was called red, the latter
black _tepuztli_.”[32] I am not certain whether Professor Max Müller
still retains the views which he expressed in 1864. He then pointed
out[33] that “what makes it likely that iron was not known previous to
the separation of the Aryan nations is the fact that its names vary
in every one of their languages.” But there is a “name for copper,
which is shared in common by Latin and the Teutonic languages, _æs_,
_æris_, Gothic _ais_, Old High German _êr_, Modern German _Er-z_,
Anglo-Saxon _âr_, English _ore_. Like _chalkós_, which originally meant
copper, but came to mean metal in general, bronze or brass, the Latin
_æs_, too, changed from the former to the latter meaning; and we can
watch the same transition in the corresponding words of the Teutonic
languages.... It is all the more curious, therefore, that the Sanskrit
_ayas_, which is the same word as _aes_ and _aiz_, should in Sanskrit
have assumed the almost exclusive meaning of iron. I suspect, however,
that in Sanskrit, too, _ayas_ meant originally the metal, _i.e._
copper, and that as iron took the place of copper, the meaning of
_ayas_ was changed and specified.... In German, too, the name for iron
was derived from the older name of copper. The Gothic _eisarn_, iron,
is considered by Grimm as a derivative form of _aiz_, and the same
scholar concludes from this that ‘in Germany bronze must have been in
use before iron.’”
But to return to Greece. It is, of course, somewhat doubtful how far
the word χαλκὸς, as used by the earliest Greek authors, was intended
to apply to unalloyed copper, or to that mixture of copper and tin
which we now know as bronze. Mr. Gladstone,[34] who on all questions
relating to Homer ought to be one of the best living authorities,
regards the word as meaning copper: firstly, because it is always
spoken of by Homer as a pure metal along with other pure metals;
secondly, on account of the epithets ἐρυθρὸς, ἤνοψ, and νώροψ, which
mean red, bright, and gleaming, being applied to it, and which Mr.
Gladstone considers to be inapplicable to bronze; and thirdly, because
Homer does not appear to have known anything at all of the fusion or
alloying of metals. The second reason he considers further strengthened
by the probability that Homer would not represent the walls of the
palace of Alcinous as plated with bronze, nor introduce a heaven of
bronze among the imposing imagery of battle (Il., xvii. 424). On the
whole he concludes that χαλκὸς was copper hardened by some method, as
some think by the agency of water, or else and more probably according
to a very simple process, by cooling slowly in the air.[35]
I regret to say that these conclusions appear to me to be founded to
some extent on false premises and on more than one misconception. The
process of heating copper and then dipping it in water or allowing it
slowly to cool, so far from being adapted for hardening that metal,
is that which is usually adopted for annealing or softening it. While
the plunging into cold water of steel at a red heat has the effect
of rendering that metal intensely hard, on copper the reverse is the
result; and, as Dr. Percy has observed,[36] it is immaterial whether
the cooling after annealing—or restoring its malleability by means of
heat—takes place slowly or rapidly. Indeed, one alloy of copper and
tin is rendered most malleable by rapid cooling.
It has been stated[37] that bronze of the ancient composition may by
cooling it slowly be rendered as hard as steel, and at the same time
less brittle, but this statement seems to require confirmation.
According to some[38] the impossibility of hardening bronze like steel
by dipping it into water had passed into a proverb so early as the
days of Æschylus, but “χαλκοῦ βαφάς” has by others been regarded
as referring to the impossibility of dyeing metal.[39] Some of the
commentators on Hesiod and Homer speak, however, distinctly as to
a process of hardening bronze by a dipping or βαφὴ, and Virgil[40]
represents the Cyclopes as dipping the hissing bronze in water—
“Alii stridentia tingunt
Æra lacu”—
but the idea of bronze being hardened or tempered by this process
appears to me to have been based on a false analogy between this metal
and steel, or even iron. The French chemist, Geoffroy, thought he had
succeeded in imitating the temper of an ancient bronze sword, but no
details are given as to whether he added more than the usual proportion
of tin to his copper, or whether he hardened the edge with a hammer.
With regard to the other reasons adduced by Mr. Gladstone, it is no
doubt true that χαλκὸς is occasionally spoken of by Homer as a pure
metal, mainly, however, it may be argued, in consequence of the same
name being applied to both copper and bronze, if not, indeed, like
the Latin “æs,” to copper, bronze, and brass. We find, moreover, that
tin, for thus we must translate κασσίτερος, is mentioned by Homer; and
as this metal appears in ancient times to have been mainly, though
not exclusively, employed for the purpose of alloying copper, we must
from this fact infer that the use of bronze was not unknown. In the
celebrated description of the fashioning of the shield of Achilles
by Vulcan—which may for the moment be assumed to be of the same age
as the rest of the Iliad—we find the copper and tin mentioned in
juxtaposition with each other; and if it had been intended to represent
Hephaistos as engaged in mixing and melting bronze, the description
could not have been more complete.[41]
Χαλκὸς δ̓ έν πυρὶ βάλλεν ἀτειρέα, κασσίτερόν τε.
Even the term indomitable may refer to the difficulty of melting copper
in its unalloyed condition.
But tin was also used in the pure condition. In the breast-plate of
Agamemnon[42] there were ten bands of black κύανος, twelve of gold,
and twenty of tin. In his shield[43] were twenty bosses of tin. The
cows[44] on the shield of Achilles were made of both gold and tin,
and his greaves[45] of soft tin, and the border of the breast-plate of
Asteropæus[46] was formed of glittering tin.
This collocation of various metals, or inlaying them by way of
ornament, calls to mind some of the pottery and bronze pins of the
Swiss Lake dwellings, which are decorated with inlaid tin, and the
remarkable bronze bracelet found at Mœrigen,[47] which is inlaid with
iron and a yellow brass by way of ornament.
With regard to the epithets red, bright, and gleaming, they are
perfectly applicable to bronze in its polished condition, though they
ill assort with the popular idea of bronze, which usually assigns
to that metal the brown or greenish hues it acquires by oxidation
and exposure to atmospheric influences. As a matter of fact, the red
colour[48] of copper, though certainly rendered more yellow, is not
greatly impaired by an admixture of tin within the proportions now used
by engineers, viz. up to about two and a half ounces to the pound,
or about 15 per cent. As to the bright and shining properties of the
metal, Virgil, when no doubt speaking of bronze swords and shields,
makes special mention of their glitter—[49]
“Æratæque micant peltæ, micat æreus ensis.”
Indeed, the mere fact of the swords of Homer being made of χαλκὸς is in
favour of that metal being bronze, as pure copper would be singularly
inapplicable to such a purpose, and certainly no copper sword would
break into three or four pieces at a blow instead of being merely
bent.[50]
The bending of the points of the spear-heads against the shields of
the adversaries is, however, in favour of these weapons having been of
copper rather than of bronze.[51]
As to Homer having been unacquainted with the fusion or alloying of
metals, it may fairly be urged that without such knowledge it would
have been impossible to work so freely as he has described, in gold,
silver, and tin; and that the only reason for which Vulcan could have
thrown the latter metal into the fire must have been in order to melt
it.
Whether steel was designated by the term κύανος is a matter of
considerable doubt, and certainly in later times that word was applied
to a substance occasionally used as a blue pigment, not improbably
a dark blue carbonate of copper. Assuming the word to mean a metal,
the difficulty in regarding it as significant of steel appears in a
great measure due to the colour implied by the adjective form κύανεος,
being a dark blue.[52] If, however, it were the custom even in those
days to colour steel blue by exposing it, after it had been polished,
to a certain degree of heat—as is usually done with watch and clock
springs at the present day—the deep blue colour of the sky or sea
might well receive such an epithet. That steel of some kind was known
in Homeric days is abundantly evident from the process of hardening an
axe by dipping it in cold water while heated, which is so graphically
described in the Odyssey.
If κύανος be really steel, we can also understand the epithet black[53]
being occasionally applied to it, even though the adjective derived
from it had the signification of blue.
According to the Arundelian Marbles, iron was discovered B.C. 1432,[54]
or 248 years before the taking of Troy, but though we have occasional
mention of this metal and of steel in the Homeric poems, yet weapons
and tools of bronze are far more commonly mentioned and described.
Trees, for instance, are cut down and wood carved with tools of bronze;
and the battle-axe of Menelaus[55] is of excellent bronze with an
olive-wood handle, long and well polished.
Before noticing further the early use of iron in Greece, it will be
well to see what other authors than Homer say as to the origin and
ancient use of bronze in that country.
The name of the principal metal of which it is composed, copper, bears
witness to one of the chief sources of its supply having been the
island of Cyprus. It would appear that Tamassus in this island was
in ancient times a noted mart for this metal, as it is according to
Nitzsch and other critics the Temese[56] mentioned in Homer as being
resorted to in order to exchange iron for χαλκὸς, which in this as well
as some other passages seems to stand for copper and not bronze.
The advantage arising from mixing a proportion of tin with the copper,
and thus rendering it at the same time more fusible and harder, must
have been known before the dawn of Grecian history.
The accounts given by early Greek writers as to the first discoverer
of the art of making bronze by an admixture of copper and tin vary
considerably, and thus prove that even in the days when these notices
were written the art was of ancient date.
Theophrastus makes Delas, a Phrygian, whom Aristotle[57] regards as a
Lydian, to have been the inventor of bronze. Pausanias[58] ascribes the
honour of first casting statues in bronze to Rhœcus and Theodorus the
Samians, who appear to have lived about 640 B.C. They are also said
to have improved the accuracy of casting, but no doubt the process
on a smaller scale was practised long before their time. Rhœcus and
his colleague are also reported to have discovered the art of casting
iron,[59] but no really ancient objects of cast iron have as yet been
discovered.
The invention of the metals gold, silver, and copper is also ascribed
to the Idæan Dactyli,[60] or the Telchines, who made the sickle of
Chronos[61] and the trident of Poseidon.[62]
Though, as has already been observed, iron and even steel were not
unknown in the days of Homer, both seem to have been of considerable
rarity, and it is by no means improbable that, as appears to have
been the case with the Egyptians, the first iron used by the Greeks
was of meteoric origin. I have elsewhere[63] called attention to the
possible connection of the Greek name for iron (σίδηρος) with ἀστήρ,
often applied to a shooting-star or meteor, and with the Latin Sidera
and the English Star, though it is unsafe to insist too much on mere
verbal similarity. In an interesting article on the use of meteoric
iron by Dr. L. Beck,[64] of Biebrich on the Rhine, the suggestion
is made that the final ηρος of σίδηρος is a form of the Aryan _ais_
(conf. _æs_, _æris_). Dr. Beck, however, inclines to the opinion that
the recognition of certain meteorites as iron was first made at a time
subsequent to the discovery of the means of smelting iron from its ore.
The self-fused mass or disc of iron,[65] σόλον αὐτοχόωνον, which formed
one of the prizes at the funeral games of Patroclus, may possibly have
been meteoric, but this is very doubtful, as the forging of iron, and
the trouble and care it involved, were well known in those days, as is
evident from the epithet πολύκμητος so often bestowed upon that metal.
For a considerable time after the Homeric period bronze remained in
use for offensive weapons, especially for those intended for piercing
rather than cutting, such as spears, lances, and arrows, as well as for
those which were merely defensive, such as shields, cuirasses, helmets,
and greaves. Even swords were also sometimes of bronze, or at all
events the tradition of their use was preserved by the poets. Thus we
find Euripides[66] speaking of the bronze-speared Trojans, χαλκεγχέων
Τρώων, and Virgil[67] describing the glitter of the bronze swords of
some of the host of Turnus.
Probably, however, the use of the word χαλκὸς was not restricted to
copper or bronze, but also came in time to mean metal in general, and
thus extended to iron, a worker in which metal was, as we have already
seen, termed a χαλκεύς.
The succession of iron to bronze is fully recognised by both Greek
and Latin authors. The passage in Hesiod,[68] where he speaks of the
third generation of men who had arms of bronze and houses of bronze,
who ploughed with bronze, for the black iron did not exist, is already
hackneyed; nor is the record of Lucretius[69] less well known:—
“Arma antiqua, manus, ungues, dentesque fuerunt,
Et lapides, et item sylvarum fragmina rami, ...
Posterius ferri vis est, ærisque reperta,
Sed prior æris erat quam ferri cognitus usus; ...
Inde minutatim processit ferreus ensis,
Versaque in opprobrium species est falcis ahenæ,
Et ferro cœpere solum proscindere terræ.”
The difference between the age of Homer and Hesiod in respect to the
use of metals is well described by Mr. Gladstone. The former[70] “lived
at a time when the use of iron (in Greece) was just commencing, when
the commodity was rare, and when its value was very great;” but in
the days of Hesiod “iron, as compared with copper, had come to be the
inferior, that is to say the cheaper metal,” and the poet “looks back
from his iron age with an admiring envy on the heroic period.”
Hesiod gives to Hercules[71] a helmet of steel and a sword of iron, and
to Saturn[72] a steel reaping-hook. His remark that at the feast of
the gods the withered[73] part of a five-fingered branch should never
be cut from the green part by black iron, shows that this metal was in
common use, and that for religious ceremonies the older metal bronze
retained its place.
Bronze was, however, a favourite metal with the poet, if not indeed in
actual use long after iron was known,[74] for Pindar, about B.C. 470,
still frequently cites spears and axes made of bronze.
By the time of Herodotus, who wrote before 400 B.C., the use of iron
and steel was universal among the Greeks. He instances, as a fact worth
recording, that the Massagetæ,[75] a powerful tribe which occupied the
steppes on the east of the Caspian, made no use of iron or silver, but
had an abundance of χαλκὸς and gold, pointing their spears and arrows
and forming the heads of their battle-axes with the former metal. Among
the Æthiopians,[76] on the contrary, he states that bronze was rarer
and more precious than gold; nor was it in use among the Scythians.[77]
The Sagartii[78] in the army of Xerxes are mentioned as not carrying
arms either of bronze or iron except daggers, as if bronze were still
of not unfrequent use.
Strabo,[79] at a much later date, thinks it worth while to record that
among the Lusitanians the spears were tipped with bronze.
But certainly some centuries before the time of Herodotus, and probably
as early as that of Homer, the Chalybes on the shores of the Euxine
practised the manufacture of iron on a considerable scale, and from
them came the Greek name for steel, χαλυψ.[80] Daïmachus, in the fourth
century B.C., records that different sorts of steel are produced among
the Chalybes in Sinope, Lydia, and Laconia. That of Sinope was used for
smiths’ and carpenters’ tools; that of Laconia for files, drills for
iron, stamps, and masons’ tools; and the Lydian kind for files, swords,
razors, and knives. In Laconia iron is said to have formed the only
currency in the days of Lycurgus.
Taking all the evidence into consideration, there can be no doubt that
iron must have been known in Greece some ten or twelve centuries before
our era, though, as already observed, it was at that time an extremely
rare metal. It also appears that as early as B.C. 500, or even 600,
iron or steel was in common use, though bronze had not been altogether
superseded for offensive arms such as spear-heads and battle-axes.
The tradition of the earlier use of bronze still, however, remained
even in later times, and the preference shown for its employment in
religious rites, which I have mentioned elsewhere,[81] is a strong
witness of this earlier use. It seems needless again to do more than
mention the bronze ploughshare used at the foundation of Tuscan
cities, the bronze knives and shears of the Sabine and Roman priests,
and the bronze sickles of Medea and Elissa. I must, however, again
bring forward the speculations of an intelligent Greek traveller, who
wrote in the latter half of the second century of our era, as to the
existence of what we should now term a Bronze Age in Greece.
Pausanias[82] relates how Lichas the Lacedæmonian, in the fifth century
B.C., discovered the bones of Orestes, which his countrymen had been
commanded by an oracle to seek. The Pythia[83] had described the place
as one where two strong winds met, where form was opposed to form, and
one evil lay upon another. These Lichas recognised in the two bellows
of the smith, the hammer opposed to the anvil, and the iron lying on
it. Pausanias on this observes that at that time they had already begun
to use iron in war, and that if it had been in the days of the heroes
it would have been bronze and not iron designated by the oracle as the
evil, for in their days all arms were of bronze. For this he cites
Homer as his authority, who speaks of the bronze axe of Pisander, and
the arrow of Meriones. A farther argument he derives from the spear of
Achilles, laid up in the temple of Minerva at Phaselis, and the sword
of Memnon in that of Æsculapius at Nicomedia, which is entirely of
bronze, while the ferrule and point of his spear are also of that metal.
The spear-head which lay with the bones of Theseus[84] in the Isle
of Scyros was also of bronze, and probably the sword likewise. There
are no works of Latin authors of a date nearly so remote as that of
the earlier Greek writers, and long before the days of Ennius, iron
was in general use in Italy. If the Articles of Peace which “Porsena,
King of the Tuscans, tendered unto the people of Rome” were as
Pliny[85] represents them, the Romans must even in those early days
have had iron weapons, for they were forbidden the use of that metal
except for tilling the ground. In B.C. 224 the Isumbrian Gauls who
fought with Flaminius were already in possession of iron swords, the
softness and flexibility of which led to the discomfiture of their
owners. The Romans themselves seem but to have been badly armed so
far as swords were concerned until the time of the Second Punic War,
about B.C. 200, when they adopted the Spanish sword, and learnt the
method of preparing it. Whether the modern Toledo and Bilbao blades
are legitimate descendants of these old weapons we need not stop to
inquire. In whatever manner the metal was prepared, so thoroughly was
iron identified with the sword in classical times that _ferrum_ and
_gladius_ were almost synonyms.
Pliny mentions that the best steel used in Rome was imported from
China, a country in which copper or bronze swords are said to have been
in use in the days of Ki,[86] the son of Yu, B.C. 2197-48, and those of
iron under Kung-Kia, B.C. 1897-48, so that there also history points to
a Bronze Age. But this by the way.
Looking at the fact that iron and steel were in such general use at
Rome during the period of her wars in Western Europe, we may well
believe that had any of the tribes with which the Roman forces came
in contact been armed with bronze, such an unusual circumstance could
hardly have escaped record. In the Augustan age the iron swords of
Noricum were in great repute, and farther north in Germany, though
iron did not abound, it was, according to Tacitus, used for spears and
swords. The Catti had the metal in abundance, but among the Aestii,
on the right coast of the Baltic, it was scarce. The Cimbrians in the
first century B.C. had, according to Plutarch,[87] iron breast-plates,
javelins, and large swords.
The Gauls of the North of France had in the time of Julius Cæsar[88]
large iron mines which they worked by tunnelling; the bolts of their
ships were made of that metal, and they had even chain cables of
iron. The Britons of the South of England who were in such close
communication with the opposite coast of Gaul must have had an equal
acquaintance with iron. Cæsar mentions ingots or rings of iron as being
used for money, and observes that iron is obtained on the sea-coast,
but in small quantities, and adds that bronze was imported.[89] Strabo
includes iron, as well as gold, silver, and corn, among the products of
Britain. In Spain, as already mentioned, iron had long been known, so
that from the concurrent testimony of several historians we may safely
infer that in the time of Julius Cæsar, when this country was first
exposed to Roman influences, it had already, like the neighbouring
countries to the south, passed from the Bronze into the Iron Age.
Notwithstanding all this historical testimony in favour of the prior
use of bronze to that of iron, there have been not a few authors who
have maintained that the idea of a succession of stone, bronze, and
iron is delusive when applied to Western Europe. Among these was the
late Mr. Thomas Wright, who has gone so far as to express[90] “a firm
conviction that not a bit of bronze which has been found in the British
Islands belongs to an older date than that at which Cæsar wrote that
the Britons obtained their bronze from abroad, meaning of course from
Gaul.” “In fact these objects in bronze were Roman in character and in
their primary origin.” As in the same page he goes on to show that two
hundred years before Christ the swords of the Gauls were made of iron,
and as his contentions have already been met by Sir John Lubbock,[91]
and will, I think, be effectually disposed of by the facts subsequently
to be mentioned in this volume, it seems needless to dwell on Mr.
Wright’s opinions. I may, however, mention that,[92] while denying the
antiquity of British, German, and Scandinavian weapons and tools of
bronze, he admits that in Greece and Italy that metal was for a long
period the only one employed for cutting instruments, as iron was not
known in Greece until a comparatively late date.
About one hundred and thirty years ago,[93] in 1751, a discussion as to
the date of bronze weapons took place among the members of the Académie
des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres of Paris, on the occasion of some
bronze swords, a spear-head, and other objects being found near Gannat,
in the Bourbonnais. Some antiquaries regarded them as weapons made for
use; others as merely made for show. The Count de Caylus considered
that the swords were Roman, though maintaining that copper or bronze
must have been in earlier use than iron. Lévesque de la Ravalière
maintained, on the contrary, that neither the Greeks, Romans, Gauls,
nor Franks had ever made use of copper or bronze in their swords. The
Abbé Barthélemy showed from ancient authors that the earliest arms of
the Greeks were of bronze; that iron was only introduced about the time
of the siege of Troy; and that in later times among the Romans there
was no mention of bronze having been used for weapons of offence, and
therefore that these swords were not Roman. Strangely enough, he went
on to argue that they were Frankish, and of the time of Childeric. Had
he been present at the opening of the tomb of that monarch in 1653 he
would, however, have seen that he had an iron sword.[94]
A still warmer discussion than any which has taken place in England
or France, one, in fact, almost amounting to an international war of
words, has in more recent times arisen between some of the German
antiquaries and those of the Scandinavian kingdoms of Denmark and
Sweden.
So early as 1860[95] my friend Dr. Ludwig Lindenschmit, of Mainz, had
commenced his attack on “the so-called Bronze Period,” and shown a
disposition to regard all bronze antiquities of northern countries as
of Italian origin, or, if made in the countries where found, as mere
homely imitations of imported articles. Not content with this, he in
1875[96] again mustered his forces and renewed the campaign in even a
more formal manner. He found a formidable ally in Dr. Hostmann, whose
comments on Dr. Hans Hildebrand’s “Heathen Period in Sweden” are well
worth the reading, and contain a vast amount of interesting information.
Dr. Hostmann’s method of dealing with Dr. Hans Hildebrand brought Dr.
Sophus Müller[97] to the rescue, with whom Dr. Lindenschmit[98] at once
grappled. Shortly after Dr. Hostmann[99] again appears upon the scene,
and before engaging with Dr. Sophus Müller goes so far as to argue that
while Greek swords of iron are known to belong to the eighth century
B.C., no bronze sword of that country can with safety be assigned to
an earlier date than the sixth century, and, indeed, these may have
been only weapons of parade, or possibly funereal offerings in lieu of
efficient swords. Rector Genthe[100] also engages in the fight upon the
same side.
These three antagonists bring Sophus Müller[101] again to the front,
and as one great argument of his opponents was that bronze objects
could not be produced with the finish and ornamentation which is found
upon them without the use of iron and steel tools, he brings forward
an official document signed by four authorities in the museum at
Copenhagen, and stating that precisely similar ornamentation to the
spirals, zigzags, and punched lines which occur on Scandinavian bronze
antiquities had been produced in their presence by a workman using
bronze tools only on a plate of bronze. Both plate and tools were of
the same alloy, viz. 9 of copper to 1 of tin.
On this a final charge is made by Professor Hostmann[102] and Dr.
Lindenschmit, the former of whom produces a kind of affidavit from
the late director of the Polytechnic School at Hanover and the court
medallist of the same town, to the effect that certain kinds of punched
work cannot be produced with bronze punches, and the editors of the
_Archiv_ think it best to close the discussion after Dr. Lindenschmit’s
final retort.
I have not thought it worth while to enter into all the details of this
controversy, as even to summarise them would occupy more room than I
could spare. It seems to me, however, that a considerable amount of
misconception must have existed in the minds of some of the disputants,
both as to the accepted meaning of the term Bronze Age, as applied not
chronologically, but to a certain stage of civilisation, and as to the
limitation of the objects which can with propriety be referred to that
age. No antiquary of experience will deny that many bronze ornaments,
and even some bronze weapons, remained in use long after iron and even
steel were known, any more than he would deny that the use of stone
for certain purposes continued not only after bronze was known, but
even after iron and steel were in general use, and, in fact, up to
the present time, not only in barbarian but in civilised countries.
Our flint strike-a-lights and our burnishers are still of much the
same character as they were some thousands of years ago, and afford
convincing instances of this persistent use.
The real question at issue is not whether any bronze weapons co-existed
with those of iron and steel in Western Europe, but whether any of
them were there in use at a period when iron and steel were unknown.
Moreover, it is not a question as to whence the knowledge of bronze
was derived, nor whether at the time the Scandinavians or Britons were
using bronze for their tools and weapons, the inhabitants of Greece and
Italy were already acquainted with iron and steel; but it is a question
whether in each individual country there arrived a time when bronze
came into use and for certain purposes superseded stone, while iron
and steel were practically unknown.
This is a question to be solved by evidence, though in the nature of
things that evidence must to some extent be of a negative character.
When barrow after barrow is opened, and weapons of bronze and stone
only are found accompanying the interments, and not a trace of iron
or steel; when hoards of rough metal and broken bronze, together with
the moulds of the bronze-founder and some of his stock-in-trade, are
disinterred, and there is no trace of an iron tool among them—the
presumption is strong that at the time when these men and these
hoards were buried iron was not in use. When, moreover, by a careful
examination of the forms of bronze instruments we can trace a certain
amount of development which is in keeping with the peculiar properties
of bronze and not with those of iron, and we can thus to some extent
fix a kind of chronological succession in these forms, the inference is
that this evolution of form, which must have required a considerable
amount of time, took place without its course being affected by any
introduction of a fresh and qualifying influence in the shape of iron
tools and weapons.
When, however, in various countries we find interments and even
cemeteries in which bronze and iron weapons and instruments are
intermingled, and the forms of those in bronze are what we have learnt
from other sources to regard as the latest, while the forms in iron are
not those for which that metal is best adapted, but are almost servile
copies of the bronze instruments found with them, the proof of the one
having succeeded the other is almost absolutely conclusive.
The lessons taught by such cemeteries as that at Hallstatt, in Austria,
and by our own Late Celtic interments, such as those at Arras, in
Yorkshire, are of the highest importance in this question.
It is not, however, to be supposed that even in countries by no means
geographically remote from each other the introduction either of iron
or bronze must of necessity have taken place at one and the same
chronological period. Near the shores of the Mediterranean the use of
each metal no doubt prevailed far earlier than in any of the northern
countries of Europe; and though the knowledge of metals probably spread
from certain centres, its progress can have been but slow, for in each
part of Europe there appears to have been some special development,
particularly in the forms of bronze instruments, and there is no
absolute uniformity in their types extending over any large area. In
each country the process of manufacture was carried on, and though
some commerce in tools and arms of bronze no doubt took place between
neighbouring tribes, yet as a rule there are local peculiarities
characteristic of special districts.
So marked are these that a practised archæologist can in almost all
cases, on inspection of a group of bronze antiquities, fix with some
degree of confidence the country in which they were found. To this rule
Britain offers no exception, and though some forms of instruments were
no doubt imported, yet, as will subsequently be seen, our types are for
the most part indigenous.
As to the ornamentation of bronze by bronze tools, I have seen
none in this country on objects which I should refer to the Bronze
Age but what could have been effected by means of bronze punches,
of which indeed examples have been discovered in bronze-founders’
hoards in France,[103] and what are probably such also in Britain.
Such ornamentation is, however, simple compared with that on many of
the Danish forms, and yet I have seen the complicated Scandinavian
ornaments accurately and sharply reproduced by Dr. Otto Tischler, by
means of bronze tools only, on bronze of the ordinary ancient alloy.
But even supposing that iron and steel were known during some part of
the so-called Bronze Age, I do not see in what manner it would affect
the main features of the case or the interest attaching to the bronze
objects which I am about to describe. “De non apparentibus et non
existentibus eadem est ratio” is a maxim of some weight in archæology
as well as in law; and in the absence of iron and all trace of its
influence, it matters but little whether it was known or not, except in
so far as a neglect of its use would argue some want of intelligence
on the part of those who did not avail themselves of so useful a
metal. It will be seen hereafter that some of the objects described
in these pages actually do belong to an Iron Period, and nothing
could better illustrate the transition of one Period into another, or
the overlapping of the Bronze Age upon that of Iron, than the fact
that in these pages devoted to the Bronze Period I must of necessity
describe many objects which were still in use when iron and steel
were superseding bronze, in the same manner as in my “Ancient Stone
Implements” I was forced to describe many forms, such as battle-axes,
arrow-heads, and bracers, which avowedly belonged to the Bronze Period.
A point which is usually raised by those who maintain the priority
of the use of iron to that of bronze is, that inasmuch as it is more
readily oxidized and dissolved by acids naturally present in the soil,
iron may have disappeared, and indeed has done so, while bronze has
been left; so that the absence of iron as an accompaniment to all
early interments counts for nothing. Professor Rolleston,[104] in a
paper on the three periods known as the Iron, the Bronze, and the
Stone Ages, has well dealt with this point; and observes that in some
graves of the Bronze Period the objects contained are incrusted with
carbonate of lime, which would have protected any iron instrument of
the Bronze Period as well as it has done those of Saxon times. Not
only are the iron weapons discovered in Saxon cemeteries often in
almost perfect preservation, but on the sites of Roman occupation
whole hoards of iron tools have been found but little injured by rust.
The fact that at Hallstatt and other places in which graves have been
examined belonging to the transitional period, when both iron and
bronze were in use together, the weapons and tools of iron, though
oxidized, still retain their form and character as completely as those
in bronze, also affords strong ground for believing that had iron
been present with bronze in other early interments it would also have
been preserved. The importance attaching to the reputed occurrence
of bronze swords with Roman coins as late as the time of Magnentius
cannot be better illustrated than by a discovery of my own in the
ancient cemetery of Hallstatt. In company with Sir John Lubbock I was
engaged in opening a grave in which we had come to an interment of
the Early Iron Age, accompanied by a socketed celt and spear-heads of
iron, when amidst the bones I caught sight of a thin metallic disc of
a yellowish colour which looked like a coin. Up to that time no coin
had ever been found in any one of the many hundred graves which had
been examined, and I eagerly picked up this disc. It proved to be a
“sechser,” or six-kreutzer piece, with the date 1826, which by some
means had worked its way down among the crevices in the stony ground,
and which from its appearance had evidently been buried some years. Had
this coin been of Roman date it might have afforded an argument for
bringing down the date of the Hallstatt cemetery some centuries in the
chronological scale. As it is, it affords a wholesome caution against
drawing important inferences from the mere collocation of objects when
there is any possibility of the apparent association being only due to
accident.
In further illustration of the succession of the three Ages of Stone,
Bronze, and Iron in Western Europe, I might go on to cite cases of the
actual superposition of the objects of one age over those of another,
such as has been observed in several barrows and in the well-known
instance of the cone of La Tinière, in the Lake of Geneva, recorded by
Morlot.
It will, however, be thought that enough, if not more than enough, has
already been said on the general question of a Bronze Age in a book
particularly devoted to the weapons and instruments of bronze found
in the British Isles. It is now time to proceed with the examination
and description of their various forms; and in doing this I propose
to treat separately, so far as possible, the different classes of
instruments intended each for some special purpose, and at the same
time to point out their analogies with instruments of the same
character found in other parts of Europe. Their chronological sequence
so far as it can be ascertained, the position in time of the Bronze
Period of Britain and Ireland, and the sources from which our bronze
civilisation was derived, will be discussed in a concluding chapter.
I begin with the instrument of the most common occurrence, the
so-called celt.
CHAPTER II.
CELTS.
OF all the forms of bronze instruments the hatchet or axe, to which
the name of celt has been applied, is perhaps the most common and the
best known. It is also probably among the earliest of the instruments
fabricated from metal, though in this country it is possible that some
of the cutting instruments, such as the knife-daggers, which required
a less amount of metal for their formation, are of equal or greater
antiquity.
These tools or weapons—for, like the American tomahawk, they seem
to have been in use for peaceful as well as warlike purposes—may be
divided into several classes. Celts may be described as flat; flanged,
or having ribs along the sides; winged, or having the side flanges
extended so as almost to form a socket for the handle on either side of
the blade, to which variety the name of palstave has been given; and
socketed. Of most of these classes there are several varieties, as will
be seen farther on.
The name of celt which has been given to these instruments is derived
from the doubtful Latin word “celtis” or “celtes,” a chisel, which is
in its turn said to be derived _à cœlando_ (from carving), and to be
the equivalent of _cœlum_.
The only author in whose works the word is found is St. Jerome, and it
is employed both in his Vulgate translation of the Book of Job[105] and
in a quotation from that book in his Epistle to Pammachius. The word
also occurs in an inscription recorded by Gruter and Aldus,[106] but as
this inscription is a modern forgery, it does not add to the authority
of the word “celtis.”
Mr. Knight Watson, Sec. S. A., in an interesting paper communicated to
the Society of Antiquaries of London,[107] has given several details
as to the origin and use of this word, which he considers to have
been founded on a misreading of the word _certe_, and the derivation
of which from _cœlo_ he regards as impossible. There can be no doubt,
as Beger pointed out two centuries ago, that a number of MSS. of the
Vulgate read _certe_ instead of _celte_ in the passage in Job already
mentioned, and that in all probability these are the most ancient and
the best. But this only adds to the difficulty of understanding how a
recently invented and an unknown word, such as _celte_ is presumed to
be, can have ever supplanted a well-known word like _certe_; and so
far as the Burial Service of the Roman Catholic Church is concerned
can have maintained its ground for centuries. Nor is this difficulty
diminished when we consider that the ordinary and proper translation of
the Hebrew לֹער is either “in æternum” or “in testimonium,” according
as the word is pointed לָעַר or לְעֵר, and that, so far as I am aware,
there is no other instance of its being translated “_certe_.” On the
other hand, a nearly similar word, פְעֵס “with a stylus,” or, as it is
translated, “a pen,” occurs in the same passage; and assuming that this
was by some accident read for לער by St. Jerome, he would have thought
that the word for stylus was used twice over, and have inserted some
word to designate a graving tool, by way of a synonym. The probability
of such an error would be increased if his MS. had the lines arranged
in couplets in accordance with its poetical character, the passage
standing thus when un-pointed:—
עפרתו ברול בעס
יתצבון בַצזר לער
Very possibly the word used by St. Jerome may not have been _celte_ but
_cœlo_, and the corruption into _celte_ in order to make a distinction
between heaven and a chisel would then at all events have been possible.
The other contention involves two extreme improbabilities—the one,
that St. Jerome, having in his second revision of the Bible translated
the passage as “in testimonium in petris sculpantur,” should in the
Vulgate have given the inaccurate rendering “certe sculpantur in
silice;” the other and the more extreme of the two, that the well-known
word _certe_ should have been ousted by a word like _celte_ had it been
utterly new-fangled.
Under any view of the case there are considerable difficulties, but as
the word celt has now obtained a firm hold in our language, it will be
convenient to retain it, whatever its origin or derivation.
It has been the fashion among some who are fond of novelties to call
these instruments “kelts,” possibly from some mental association of the
instruments with a Celtic or Keltic population. From some such cause
also some of the French antiquaries must have coined the new plural
to the word, _Celtœ_. Even in this country it has been said[108] with
regard to “the ancient weapon denominated the celt,” “Our antiquarians
have commonly ascribed them to the ancient Celtæ, and hence have given
them this unmeaning appellation.” If any one prefers pronouncing celt
as “kelt,” or celestial as “kelestial,” let him do so; but at all
events let us adhere to the old spelling. How the Romans of the time of
St. Jerome would have pronounced the word _cœlum_ or _celtis_ may be
inferred from the punning line of Ausonius with regard to Venus.[109]
“Orta salo, suscepta solo, patre edita cœlo.”
The first author of modern times whose use of the word in
connection with Celts I can trace is Beger, who, in his “Thesaurus
Brandenburgicus”[110] (1696), gives an engraving of a celt of the
palstave form, under the title Celtes, together with the following
dialogue:—
“Et nomen et instrumentum mihi obscurum est, infit ARCHÆOPHILUS;
Instrumentum Statuariorum est, respondit DULODORUS, qui simulacra
ex Cera, Alabastro, aliisque lapidum generibus cædunt et poliunt.
Græcis dicitur Ἐγκοπεὺς, quâ voce Lucianus usus est in Somnio, ubi cum
lusum non insuavem dixisset, Deos sculpere, et parva quædam simulacra
adornare, addit ἐγκοπέα γὰρ τινά μοι δοὺς, scilicet avunculus, id quod
Joh. Benedictus vertit, _Celte datâ_. Celte? excepit ARCHÆOPHILUS; at
nisi fallor hæc vox Latinis incognita est? Habetur, inquit DULODORUS,
in versione vulgatâ Libri Hiob c. 19 quamvis alii non _Celte_,
sed _Certe_ ibi legant, quod tamen minus quadrat. Quicquid sit,
instrumentum Statuariorum hoc esse, ex formâ patet, figuris incidendis
aptissima; neque enim opinio Molineti videtur admittenda, qui _Securim_
appellat, cum nullus aptandi manubrii locus huic faveat. Metallum
reposuit ARCHÆOPHILUS, minus videtur convenire. Instrumentum hoc ex ære
est, quod duritiem lapidum nescio an superare potuerit? Uti lapides
diversi sunt, regessit DULODORUS, ita diversa fuisse etiam metalla
instrumentorum iis cædendis destinatorum, facilè cesserim. Vet.
Gloss. Celtem _instrumentum ferreum_ dicit proculdubio quòd durioribus
lapidibus ferreum chalybe munitum servierit. Hoc autem non obstat,
ut æreum vel ceris, vel terris, vel lapidibus mollioribus fuerit
adhibitum. Si tamen res Tibi minus probetur, me non contradicente,
molliori vocabulo γλυφεῖον _cœlum_ poteris et appellare et credere.
Γλυφεῖα etiam Statuariorum instrumenta fuisse, ex allegato modò Luciano
planum est, ubi Humanitas, _si me relinquis_, inquit, σχῆμα δουλοπρεπὲς
ἀναλήψη, καὶ μολία, καὶ γλυφεῖα, καὶ κοπέας, καὶ κολαπτῆρας ἐν ταῖν
χεροῖν ἕξεις, _habitum servilem assumes_, _Vectes_, _COELA_, _CELTES_,
_Scalpra præ manibus habebis_.”
The idea of a bronze celt being a statuary’s chisel for carving in wax,
alabaster, and the softer kinds of stone will seem the less absurd if
we remember that, at the time when Beger wrote, the manner in which
such instruments were hafted was unknown, and that all antiquities of
bronze were generally regarded as being of Roman or Greek origin.
Dr. Olaf Worm, a Danish antiquary of the seventeenth century, was more
enlightened than Beger, for in his “Museum Wormianum,”[111] published
in 1655, he states his belief that bronze weapons had formerly been
in use in Denmark, and cites two flat or flanged celts, or _cunei_,
as he calls them, found in Jutland, which he regards as hand weapons
for close encounters. He also was, nevertheless, at a loss to know how
they were hafted, for he adds that had they but been provided with
shaft-holes he should have considered them to have been axes.
In a work treating of the bronze antiquities of Britain we must,
however, first consider the opinion of British antiquaries, by whom
the word celt had been completely adopted as the name for bronze
hatchets and axes by the middle of the last century. Borlase,[112] in
his “Antiquities of Cornwall,” 1754, speaking of some “spear-heads” of
copper mentioned by Leland, says that by the spear-heads he certainly
meant those which we (from Begerus) now call Celts. Leland’s words are
as follows:[113]—“There was found of late Yeres syns Spere Heddes,
Axis for Warre, and Swerdes of coper wrapped up in lynid scant perished
nere the Mount in S. Hilaries Paroch in Tynne Works;” so that it by no
means follows but that he was right in speaking of spear-heads, for if
there were any celts among the objects discovered they were probably
termed battle-axes by Leland.
Camden makes mention of the same find:[114] “At the foote of this
mountaine (St. Michael’s Mount), within the memorie of our Fathers,
whiles men were digging up of tin, they found Spear-heads, axes, and
swordes of brasse wrapped in linnen, such as were sometimes found
within the forrest of Hercinia in Germanie, and not long since in our
Wales. For evident it is by the monuments of ancient Writers that the
Greeks, the Cimbrians, and the Britans used brazen weapons, although
the wounds given with brasse bee lesse hurtfull, as in which mettall
there is a medicinable vertue to heale, according as _Macrobius_
reporteth out of Aristotle. But happily that age was not so cunning in
devising meanes to mischiefe and murthers as ours is.”
Hearne, the editor of Leland’s “Itinerary,” took a less philosophical
view of these instruments. Writing to Thoresby[115] in 1709, he
maintains that some old instruments of bronze found near Bramham Moor,
Yorkshire, are not the heads of British spears; on the contrary, they
are Roman, not axes used in their sacrifices, nor the heads of spears
and javelins, but chisels which were used to cut and polish the stones
in their tents. Such instruments were also used in making the Roman
highways and in draining their fens.
Plot[116] also, at a somewhat earlier date, asserted a Roman origin
for bronze celts, which he regarded as the heads of bolts, founding
his opinion mainly on two, which are engraved in the Museum Moscardi.
These, which are reproduced in the _Archæologia_, vol. v. Pl. VIII. 18
and 19, are of the palstave form, and were regarded by Moscardo[117]
as the heads of great darts to be thrown from a catapult. A flat celt
found in Staffordshire,[118] Plot takes to be the head of a Roman
_securis_ with which the _Popæ_ slew their sacrifices.
Rowland,[119] in his “Mona Antiqua Restaurata,” 1723, suggested that
looped palstaves fastened by a thong to a staff might be used as war
flails.
The imaginative Dr. Stukeley, in the year 1724, communicated to the
Society of Antiquaries a discourse on the use of celts, which is to be
found in the Minute Book of the Society. An abstract of it is given
by Mr. Lort[120] in his paper subsequently mentioned. Dr. Stukeley
undertook to show that celts were British and appertaining to the
Druids, who, when not using them to cut off the boughs of oak and
mistletoe, put them in their pouches, or hung them to their girdles
by the little ring or loop at the side. In a more sensible manner he
divided them into two classes, the recipient and the received; that is
to say, the socketed, in which the handle was received, and the flat
and palstave forms, which entered into a notch in the handle.
Borlase,[121] notwithstanding that he was under the impression that a
number of socketed celts found at Karnbrê in 1744 were accompanied by
Roman coins, one of them at least as late as the time of Constantius
I., did “not take them to be purely Roman, foreign, or of Italian
invention and workmanship.”
He argues that the Romans of Italy would not have made such instruments
of brass after Julius Cæsar’s time, when the superior hardness of iron
was so well understood, and that metal was so easily to be procured.
Farther, that no representations of such weapons occur on the Trajan
or Antonine Columns, that few specimens exist in the cabinets of the
curious in Italy, where they are regarded as Transalpine antiquities,
and that none have been found among the ruins of Herculaneum;[122] nor
are any published in the Museum Romanum or the Museum Kircherianum. He
concludes that they were made and used in Britain, but that though they
were originally of British invention and fabric, they were for the most
part made when the Britons had improved their arts under their Roman
masters, as most of them seem too correct and shapely for the Britons
before the Julian conquest.
As to the uses of celts, Borlase cites the various opinions of the
learned, and observes that if they had not been advanced by men of
learning it would be scarce excusable to mention some of them, much
less to refute them. They had been taken for heads of walking staffs,
for chisels to cut stone withal (as such instruments must have been
absolutely necessary in making the great Roman roads), as tools with
which to engrave letters and inscriptions, as the sickles with which
the Druids cut the sacred mistletoe, and as rests to support the
_lituus_ of the Roman augurs. After all, however, Borlase himself comes
to the somewhat lame conclusion that they formed the head or arming
of the spear, the javelin, or the arrow, and thinks that Mr. Rowland
comes the nearest to the truth of any author he has read, when he says
that they might be used with a string to draw them back, and something
like a feather to guide them in flying towards the enemy, and calls
them sling-hatchets. He concedes, however, that for such weighty heads
there was no occasion for feathers, and as for slinging of hatchets
against an enemy, he does not remember any instance, ancient or modern.
Some of the celts, moreover, are too light to do any execution if
thrown from the hand.
The Rev. Mr. Lort,[123] who communicated some observations on celts
to the Society of Antiquaries in 1776, differed from Dr. Borlase, and
regarded a large flat celt found in the Lower Furness as manifestly
designed to be held in the hand only, and much better adapted to the
chipping of stone than to any other use which has hitherto been found
out for it. He will not, however, take upon himself to assert that
some socketed celts, which he also describes, were designed for the
same purpose. Appended to the paper by Mr. Lort are notices of several
bronze celts, which at different times had been brought under the
notice of the Society of Antiquaries. Some which had been exhibited in
1735 were regarded by Mr. Benjamin Cooke and Mr. Collinson as Gaulish
weapons used by the Roman auxiliaries at the time of Claudius. Mr.
Cooke, however, took them to be axes, and mounted one of them on a
shaft, citing Homer as his authority for doing so, and speaking of the
ἀξίνην ἔυχαλκον.
The Rev. Samuel Pegge in 1787 makes some pertinent remarks
respecting celts in a letter to Mr. Lort, which is published in the
_Archæologia_.[124] He points out that from some of them having been
found in barrows associated with spear-heads of flint, it is probable
that some at least were military weapons. He also maintains that though
the use of bronze originally preceded that of iron, yet that regard
must be had to the circumstances of each country, so that it would not
follow that a bronze celt found in Ireland was prior in age to the
invention of iron. All that could be said was that it was older than
the introduction of iron into Ireland, and when that was, no one could
pretend to say. Mr. Pegge did not approve of the derivation of the
name of celt from _celtis_ or _cœlare_, but thought it derived from
the name of the Celtic people who used the instruments. In his opinion
the instruments were not Roman, especially as they were frequent in
Ireland and in places where the Romans never were settled. The specimen
on which he comments is of the palstave form, and, though it might be
mounted as a tool, he thinks it could never have served as an axe, but
it might have tipped a dart or javelin.
Douglas[125] was of opinion that the bronze arms found in this country
were not Roman, but that it was more reasonable to refer them to the
early inhabitants, of probably not less than two centuries B.C.
Mr. C. J. Harford, F.S.A.,[126] writing in 1801, expressed his
opinion that a clue as to the uses of celts might be obtained from a
consideration of similar instruments which had been brought from the
South Sea Islands. “Our rude forefathers doubtless attached the celt
by thongs to the handle, in the same manner as modern savages do; and,
like them, formed a most useful implement or destructive weapon from
these simple materials.” He thought that the metal celts might have
been fabricated abroad and exported to this country, just as we have
sent to the South Sea Islands an imitation in iron of the stone hatchet
there in use.
Coming down to later times, we find Sir Richard Colt Hoare,[127] who
discovered a few flat and flanged celts in the Wiltshire barrows,
regarding them as for domestic, and not for military, architectural,
or religious purposes. He thought that the flat form must be the
most ancient, from which the pattern of that with the socket for the
insertion of a handle was taken; for among the numerous specimens
described by Mr. Lort in the _Archæologia_, not one of the latter
pattern is mentioned as having been discovered in a barrow. As many
were found in Gaul, he rather supposed that they were imported from
the Continent; or, perhaps, the art of making them might have been
introduced from Gaul. From the method of hafting of one of those he
found (see Fig. 189), he seems to have regarded the whole of them as
chisels rather than hatchets.
Sir Joseph Banks,[128] in some observations communicated to the
Society of Antiquaries in 1818, on an ancient celt found near Boston,
Lincolnshire, pointed out the manner in which looped palstaves could
be hafted so as to serve either as axes, adzes, or chisels. He thought
that they were ill adapted for any warlike purposes, and regarded them
as tools such as might be used in hollowing out the trunks of trees to
form canoes, and suggested that they were secured to their handles by
strings tied round them in the same manner as the stone axes used in
the South Sea Islands were fastened to theirs.
About the year 1816 the Rev. John Dow,[129] in some remarks on the
ancient weapon denominated the celt, advocated the opinion that it was
an axe, and probably a weapon of war. He also traces its connection
with the stone celt, from which he considered it to have been developed.
About the same year the Rev. John Hodgson, secretary of the Society
of Antiquaries of Newcastle-on-Tyne, communicated to that society a
valuable memoir in the shape of “An Enquiry into the Æra when Brass
was used in purposes to which Iron is now applied,”[130] of which
mention has already been made in the Introductory Chapter. He thought
that celts were tools which were well adapted for use as wedges for
splitting wood, or that with wooden hafts they might be used as chisels
for hollowing canoes and for similar purposes, some instruments found
with them being undoubtedly gouges. As to their date, he thought that
bronze began to give way to iron in Britain nearly as soon as it did
in Greece, and that consequently the celts, &c., found in this island
belonged to an era 500, or at least 400 years, B.C.
In 1839 Mr. Rickman[131] communicated to the Society of Antiquaries a
paper on the Antiquity of Abury and Stonehenge, in the notes to which
he propounds the theory that the socketed celts were used merely as
chisels, with hafts of wood inserted in the socket. They could be then
either held in the hand or by means of a withe, like a blacksmith’s
chisel, while they were struck with a stone hammer.
Among writers of comparatively modern times, the first whom I have to
mention is the late Mr. G. V. Du Noyer,[132] who in 1847 communicated
to the Archæological Institute two papers on the classification of
bronze celts, which are still of great value and interest. He traces
the gradual development in form from the bronze celt shaped like a
wedge to that which is socketed, and shows that an important element
in the transition from one form to the other has been the method
of hafting. He also enters into the subjects of the casting and
ornamentation of celts; and as in subsequent pages I shall have to
refer to these as well as to the methods of hafting, I content myself
here with citing Mr. Du Noyer’s papers as being worthy of all credit.
In 1849 Mr. James Yates communicated a paper to the Archæological
Institute of a far more speculative kind than those of Mr. Du Noyer,
his object being to prove that among the various uses of bronze celts
one of the most important was the application of them in destroying
fortifications and entrenchments, in making roads and earthworks, and
in similar military operations. He confines his inquiry, however, to
those which were adapted to be fitted to straight wooden handles.
Following in the steps of some of the older antiquaries, he appears
to regard them as of Roman origin, and identifies them with the Roman
_dolabra_, an instrument which he thinks was used as a chisel or a
crowbar. In fact, he was persuaded that the celt was commonly used not
as a hatchet, but as a spud or a crowbar. Had he but been acquainted
with the ancient handles, such as have been discovered in the Austrian
salt-mines and elsewhere, he would probably have come round to another
opinion as to the ordinary method of hafting, though it is of course
possible that in some instances these instruments may have been mounted
and used as spuds. Had he practically tried mounting them and using
them as crowbars, he would have found that with but slight strain the
shafts would break or the celts become loosened upon them. And had he
been better versed in archæology, he would have known that whatever
was the form of the Roman _dolabra_, or whatever the uses for which
it served, it can hardly have differed from their other implements
in being made of bronze and not of iron; and he would have thought
twice before engraving bronze celts from Cornwall and Furness as
illustrations of the Roman _dolabra_ in Smith’s “Dictionary of Greek
and Roman Antiquities.”
The ring or loop, which so often is found on the side of celts of
the palstave and socketed forms, was thought by Mr. Yates to have
been principally of use to assist in carrying them, a dozen or twenty
perhaps being strung together, or a much smaller number tied to the
soldier’s belt or girdle. He also thought that they might serve for the
attachment of a thong or chain to draw the instrument out of a wall,
should it become wedged among the stones in the process of destruction.
The next essay on celts and their classification which I must adduce
was written by the late Rev. Thomas Hugo, F.S.A.,[133] who followed
much the same system as Mr. Du Noyer, so far as the development of the
socketed celt was concerned, though he differed from him with regard
to the method of hafting, as he was persuaded that, in general, celts
were mounted with a straight shaft, like spuds. He considered that the
loop was not used for securing the celt to its haft, but for hanging
it up at home when not in use, or for suspending it from the soldier’s
girdle whilst on the march.
Mr. Hugo’s paper was followed by some supplementary remarks from
Mr. Syer Cuming, who suggests that a thong may have passed through
the loop by which the weapon might be propelled, and contends that
socketed celts are neither chisels nor axe-blades, but the ferrules of
spear-shafts, which might be fixed in the ground, or even used at times
as offensive weapons.
The name of the late Mr. Thomas Wright[134] has already been mentioned.
In his various works and papers he claims a Roman origin for bronze
celts and swords, though admitting that they may occasionally have been
made in the countries in which they are found.
Among other modern writers who have touched upon the subject of celts,
I may mention that accomplished antiquary, the late Mr. Albert Way,
F.S.A., whose remarks in connection with an exhibition of bronze
antiquities at a meeting of the Archæological Institute in 1861[135]
are well worth reading. I may also refer to the late Sir W. R. Wilde,
in his “Catalogue of the Copper and Bronze Antiquities in the Museum of
the Royal Irish Academy,” published in the same year; to Mr. Franks, in
the “Horæ Ferales;” to Sir John Lubbock, in his “Prehistoric Times;”
and to General A. Lane Fox (now Pitt-Rivers), in his excellent lecture
on Primitive Warfare, section iii.[136]
Canon Greenwell, in his “British Barrows,”[137] has also devoted a
few pages to the consideration of bronze celts and axe-heads, more
especially in connection with interments in sepulchral mounds.
Foreign writers I need hardly cite, but I may mention a remarkable idea
that has been promulgated by Professor Stefano de Rossi[138] as to
celts having served as money, which has, however, been shown by Count
Gozzadini to be unfounded.
In conclusion, I may also venture to refer to an address[139] which
I delivered to the Society of Antiquaries on the occasion of an
exhibition of bronze antiquities in their apartments in January, 1873.
* * * * *
In treating of the different forms of celts on the present occasion, I
shall divide them into the following classes:—
Flat celts.
Flanged celts.
Winged celts and palstaves, with and without loops.
Socketed celts.
What are known as tanged celts may perhaps be more properly included
under the head of chisels, to which class of tools it is not unlikely
that some of the narrow celts of the other forms should be referred.
It is difficult to draw a hard and fast line between the flat celts
and the flanged, and between these latter and the so-called palstaves.
I propose, therefore, to include the flanged celts, which are not
provided with a stop-ridge to prevent their being driven into their
haft, in the same chapter with the flat celts, and to treat of those
which have a stop-ridge in the same chapter as the palstaves, with and
without a loop. In a subsequent chapter I shall speak as to the manner
in which these instruments were probably hafted.
CHAPTER III.
FLAT AND FLANGED CELTS.
FLAT celts, or those of simple form with the faces somewhat convex, and
approximating in shape to the polished stone celts of the Neolithic
Period, have been regarded by several antiquaries as being probably
the earliest bronze implements or weapons. Such a view has much to
commend it, but, as already observed, it may be doubted whether in the
earliest times, when metal was scarce, it would be so readily applied
to purposes for which much of the precious material was required, as to
the manufacture of weapons or tools of a lighter kind, such as daggers
or knives.
Among celts, however, the simple form, and that most nearly approaching
in character to the stone hatchet, was probably the earliest, though
it may have been continued in use after the introduction of the side
flanges, the stop-ridge, and even the socket. Some celts of the
simplest form found in Ireland are of copper, and have been thought to
belong to the period when the use of stone for cutting purposes was
dying out and that of metal coming in; but the mere fact of their being
of copper is by no means conclusive on this point.
A copper celt of the precise shape of an ordinary stone celt, 6 inches
long and 2½ inches wide, which was found in an Etruscan tomb, and is
preserved in the Museum at Berlin, appears to have been cast in a mould
formed upon a stone implement of the same class. It has been figured
and described by Sir William Wilde.[140] I have not seen the implement,
nor am I aware of the exact circumstances of the finding. Celts may,
however, like the flint arrow-heads inserted in Etruscan[141] necklaces
of gold, have been regarded with superstitious reverence, and it does
not appear to me quite certain that this specimen was ever in actual
use as an implement, and was not placed in the grave as a substitute
for a stone hatchet or _Ceraunius_.
[Illustration: Fig. 1.—Cyprus. ½]
However this may be, some of the earliest bronze or, possibly, copper
celts with which we are acquainted, those from the excavations of
General di Cesnola in Cyprus, and of Dr. Schliemann at Hissarlik,
are of the simple flat form, and justify Sir W. Wilde[142] in his
supposition that the first makers of these instruments, having once
obtained a better material than stone, repeated the form with which
they were best acquainted, though they economized the metal and
lessened the bulk by flattening the sides. The annexed cut, Fig. 1,
shows a celt from Cyprus in my own collection, which in form might be
matched by celts of flint, though it must be acknowledged that the type
in stone is rather that of Scandinavia than of Eastern Europe or the
Levant. A slight ridge in the oxide upon it seems to mark the distance
that the narrow end penetrated the handle. Numerous tools or weapons
of the same form were found by Dr. Schliemann[143] in his excavations
in search of Troy. They were at first thought to be of copper, but
subsequently proved to have a small per-centage of tin in them. A
number of flat celts, some short and broad, and others long and narrow,
were found at Gungeria,[144] in the Mhow Talook, about forty miles
north of Boorha, in Central India, many of which are now in the British
Museum. On analysis Dr. Percy found them to be of pure copper. The
same form was found at Tel Sifr, in Southern Babylonia. Some from that
place, and from the island of Thermia,[145] in the Greek Archipelago,
are also in the British Museum. Nearly similar instruments, said to
be made of copper, have been found in Austria,[146] Denmark,[147]
Sweden,[148] Hungary,[149] France,[150] and Italy.[151] I have one 3¾
inches long, from Royat, Puy de Dôme. A large and thicker specimen is
in the Museum at Toulouse. They have usually a small per-centage, 0·15
to 2·08 of tin in them.[152]
I have already, in the Introductory Chapter, made some remarks on the
probability of a copper age having, in some part of the world, preceded
that of bronze, and need here only repeat that the occurrence of
implements in copper, of the forms usually occurring in bronze, does
not of necessity imply a want of acquaintance with the tin necessary
to mix with copper to form bronze, but may only be significant of
a temporary or local scarcity of the former metal. I may also add
that without actual analysis, it is unsafe, from appearance only, to
judge whether copper is pure, or whether it has not an appreciable
per-centage of tin in it.
In treating of the different forms and characters of bronze celts, and
of the places and circumstances of finding, I think it will be best
first to take those from England and Wales, then those from Scotland,
and lastly those from Ireland. I begin with those which have been found
in barrows in England.
Fig. 2 represents a flat celt found in a barrow in the parish of
Butterwick, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, by the Rev. Canon
Greenwell, F.R.S., F.S.A.[153] It lay at the hips of the body of a
young man, at whose right hand the knife-dagger (Fig. 279) and the
bronze drill or pricker (Fig. 225) were found, accompanied by a flint
knife formed from a broad external flake.
[Illustration: Fig. 2.—Butterwick. ½]
In front of the chest were six buttons, five of jet and one
of sandstone, two of which are figured in my “Ancient Stone
Implements.”[154] The handle of the celt or axe-head could be plainly
traced by means of a dark line of decayed wood, and to all appearance
the weapon had been worn slung from the waist. “The blade is of
the simplest form, modelled on the pattern of the stone axe, and
may, it is probable, be regarded as the earliest type of bronze axe
antecedently to the appearance of either flanges or socket. It is 4
inches long, 2⅜ inches wide at the cutting edge, and 1⅛ inches at the
smaller end. It had evidently been fixed into a solid handle to a
depth of 2 inches.”
A very similar discovery to that at Butterwick was made by the late
Mr. Thomas Bateman in a barrow upon Parwich Moor, Derbyshire,[155]
called Shuttlestone, opened by him in June, 1848. In this case a
man of fine proportions and in the prime of life had been interred,
surrounded by fern-leaves and enveloped in a hide with the hair
inwards. Close to the head were a small flat bead of jet and a
circular flint (probably a “scraper”). In contact with the left arm
lay a bronze dagger, much like Fig. 279, with two rivets for the
attachment of the handle, which had been of horn. About the middle
of the left thigh was a bronze celt of the plainest axe-shaped type.
The cutting edge was turned towards the upper part of the person,
and the instrument itself had been inserted into a wooden shaft for
about 2 inches at the narrow end. The celt and dagger are engraved in
the _Archæological Association Journal_,[156] and the former in the
_Archæologia_.[157] It is about 5½ inches long, and in form much like
Fig. 19.
In a small barrow named Borther Low,[158] about two miles south of
Middleton by Youlgrave, Mr. William Bateman discovered a skeleton with
the remains of a plain coarse urn on the left side, a flint arrow-head
much burnt, a pair of canine teeth of either a fox, or a dog of the
same size, and a diminutive bronze celt. In the catalogue of the
Bateman Museum[159] this is described as “of the most primitive type,
closely resembling the stone celts in form,” and 2 inches only in
length. It is there stated to have been found with a flint spear, but
this seems to be a mistake for an arrow-head.[160]
Dr. Samuel Pegge,[161] in his letter to Mr. Lort already cited,
mentions that “Mr. Adam Wolsey the younger, of Matlock in Derbyshire,
has a celt found near the same place A.D. 1787, at Blakelow in the
parish of Ashover, with a spear-head of flint, a military weapon
also.” Not improbably this was an axe-head of the same class.
A celt of much the same character as Fig. 2, but in outline more
nearly resembling Fig. 19, 4⅜ inches long and 2⅜ broad at the cutting
edge, was found in company with two diadems or lunettes of gold such
as the Irish antiquaries call “Minds,” at Harlyn, in the parish of
Merryn, near Padstow, Cornwall, and is engraved in the _Archæological
Journal_.[162] The objects were found at a depth of about six feet
from the surface, and with them was another bronze article, which
was unfortunately thrown away. This was described by the man at work
on the spot as “like a bit of a buckle.” The discovery was quite
accidental, and no notice seems to have been taken as to whether
there were any traces of an interment at the spot, though the earth
in contact with the articles is described as having been “of an
artificial character.”
It is a celt of this kind which is engraved by Plot[163] as found near
St. Bertram’s Well, Ilam, Staffordshire. He describes it as “somewhat
like, only larger than, a lath-hammer at the edge end, but not so on
the other,” and regards it as a Roman sacrificial axe.
One (4⅛ inches) was found on Bevere Island, Worcestershire.[164]
Others of the same kind have been found near Duxford, Cambs,[165]
near Grappenhall, Cheshire;[166] the Beacon Hill, Charnwood Forest,
Leicestershire;[167] and, near Battlefield, Shrewsbury,[168] in
company with a palstave without loop, some sickle-like objects,
and other articles. One, 9 inches long and 5 inches broad at the
cutting edge, found in the ruins of Gleaston Castle, Lower Furness,
Lancashire, is engraved in the _Archæologia_.[169]
The celts found on Baddow Hall Common,[170] near Danbury, Essex, one
of which was 6 inches long and 3½ inches broad at the edge, seem to
have been of this character.
I have seen specimens of the same type from Taxley Fen,
Huntingdonshire (4¾ inches long), in the collection of Mr. S. Sharp,
F.S.A.; and from Raisthorp, near Fimber, Yorkshire, in that of Messrs.
Mortimer.
In Canon Greenwell’s collection are three (about 4¾ inches) found at
Newbiggin, Northumberland, and others (about 5½ inches) from Alnwick
and Wallsend. A specimen in the same collection (5¼ inches), found at
Knapton, Yorkshire (E. R.), has a slight ridge along the centre of the
sides, which, as well as the angles between the faces and the sides,
is indented with a series of slight hammer marks at regular intervals.
Mr. Wallace of Distington, Whitehaven, has one (6½ inches) from Hango
Hill, Castleton, Isle of Man.
I have myself celts of the same class from the Cambridge Fens (4⅝
inches); Sherburn Carr, Yorkshire (5⅝ inches), found with another
nearly similar; Swansea (4¼ inches, much decayed); and near Pont
Caradog, Brithder, Glamorganshire (6¼ inches), found with three
others, and given to me by Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., in whose
collection the others are preserved.
A few of these flat plain celts have been found in France. Some from
the departments of Doubs and Jura are engraved by Chantre.[171]
One from Normandy,[172] figured by the Abbé Cochet, seems to show
some trace of a transverse ridge. One from the Seine is engraved
in the “Dictionnaire Archéologique de la Gaule.” Another was found
in Finistère.[173] Others are in the Museum at Narbonne[174] and
elsewhere. The form is also found in Spain, both in bronze and what is
apparently copper. I have specimens from the Ciudad Real district.
The plain flat form like Fig. 2 is also occasionally found in Germany.
One from Ackenbach, near Homberg, is figured by Schreiber.[175]
With nearly straight sides like Fig. 27, the form is not uncommon in
Hungary. Some of these are very thin.
Others of nearly the same form, but thicker, have been found on the
other side of the Atlantic in Mexico, and many of the copper celts of
North America are also of the plain flat type with an oblong section.
This circumstance to my mind rather proves that the form is the
simplest, and therefore that most naturally adopted for hatchets, than
that there was of necessity any intercourse between the countries in
which it has prevailed.
Many of the flat celts are ornamented in a more or less artistic
manner on the faces, or the sides, or on both; but before proceeding
to notice any of them, it will be well to mention another variety of
the plain celt, in which the faces, instead of being nearly flat or
uniformly convex, slope towards either end from a transverse ridge near
the middle of the blade. This ridge is never very strongly defined, as
the total thickness of the blade from ridge to ridge is rarely more
than half an inch. The plain variety is somewhat rare in Britain, but
one ornamented on both faces will be described, under Fig. 5, and an
Irish example is shown in Fig. 35.
A large doubly tapering celt (8 inches) was found at East Surby,
Rushen,[176] Isle of Man. Some of those already mentioned partake of
this character. In Hoare’s great work a specimen from the Bush Barrow,
Normanton,[177] is engraved as being of this plain doubly tapering
type; but from the more accurate engraving given by Dr. Thurnam[178] it
appears that this instrument has flanges at the side, like Fig. 8, and
must therefore be spoken of later on.
[Illustration: Fig. 3.—Moot Low. ½]
I now proceed to consider some of the flat celts ornamented with
patterns probably produced by punches, as will subsequently be
mentioned. The first which I adduce was found with an interment, and
the ornamentation is so slight that it is a question whether the celt
ought not to rank among those of the plain kind.
The late Mr. Thomas Bateman in 1845 found what he described as “a fine
bronze celt of novel form” and “of elegant outline” near the head of a
contracted skeleton in a barrow called Moot Low,[179] about half-way
between Alsop Moor and Dovedale, Derbyshire. “It was placed in a
line with the body, with its edge upwards.” By the kindness of Mr.
Llewellynn Jewitt, F.S.A.,[180] I am enabled to give a figure of this
instrument in Fig. 3. As will be seen, it has slight flanges along
the sides, and the upper part is ornamented with short vertical lines
punched in.
That shown in Fig. 4 was found in Yorkshire, and is now in the
British Museum. The patina upon it has been somewhat injured, but
the ornamentation upon the faces is in places very well preserved. It
consists of numerous parallel lines, each made up of short diagonal
indentations in the metal, and together forming the pattern which will
be better understood from the figure than from any description. The
sides are ornamented by having two low pyramidal bosses drawn out upon
them, leaving a long concave hexagonal space in the middle between
them. This celt has already been figured, but on a much smaller scale,
in the “Horæ Ferales.”[181]
[Illustration: Fig. 4.—Yorkshire. ½]
This style of ornamentation on the sides is more common on Irish than
on English or Scottish celts. One, however, 5½ inches long, of the
doubly tapering form with lunate edge, having the central portion of
the blade ornamented with a series of lines in a chevron pattern, and
having the sides worked into three facets of a pointed oval form,
was found at Whittington,[182] Gloucestershire, and was presented
by Mr. W. L. Lawrence, F.S.A., to the Society of Antiquaries. The
ornamentation is much like that on Fig. 7, but between the ornamented
portion of the blade and the edge there is a curved hollow facet, the
ridge below which runs nearly parallel with the edge.
[Illustration: Fig. 5.—Weymouth. ½]
The celt shown in Fig. 5 might perhaps be more properly placed among
the flanged celts, as, without having well-developed flanges along
the sides, there is a projecting ridge running along either margin
of the faces, in consequence of the sides having been somewhat
chamfered, or having had their angles beaten down by hammering. It was
found on Preston Down, near Weymouth, Dorsetshire; but I do not know
under what circumstances. It has become thickly coated with a dark
sage-green patina, which has in places been unfortunately knocked off.
The beautiful original ornamentation of the celt has been admirably
preserved by the patina. The greater part of the surface has been
figured with a sort of grained pattern like morocco leather, probably
by means of a punch in form like a narrow blunt chisel. The faces of
the blade are not flat, but taper in both directions from a ridge
rather more than half-way up the blade. Along the lower side of this
somewhat curved ridge, and again about an inch above the cutting edge,
a belt of chevrons has been punched in, having the appearance of a
plaited band. Below the lower band the surface has been left smooth
and unornamented, so that grinding the edge would not in any way
injure the pattern. The upper part of the blade has at the present
time exactly the appearance of dark green morocco with “blind-tooling”
upon it. No doubt many blades which were originally ornamented after
the same fashion as this specimen have now, through oxidation or
the accidental destruction of the patina, lost all traces of their
original decoration. On this, where the patina has been destroyed,
nothing can be seen of the graining.
I have a flat celt from Mildenhall, Suffolk (6 inches), in form like
Fig. 6, the greater part of the surface of which has been grained in a
similar manner, though the graining is now almost obliterated.
In the collection of the Duke of Northumberland[183] is a large celt
which appears to be of the flat kind, with the side edges “slightly
recurved,” and with the surface “elaborately worked with chevrony
lines and ornaments which may have been partly produced by hammering.”
It was found in Northumberland.
Another belonging to James Kendrick, Esq., M.D., found at Risdon,[184]
near Warrington, is described as being “ornamented with punched lines
in a very unusual manner.” Another, of which a bad representation
from one of Dr. Stukeley’s drawings is given in the _Archæologia_, is
said to have been found in the long barrow at Stonehenge.[185] One 4½
inches long, the faces ornamented with a number of longitudinal cuts,
was found near Sidmouth.[186]
[Illustration: Fig. 6.—Read. ½]
In some instances the faces of the celts have been wrought into a
series of slightly hollowed facets. One such from Read, Lancashire,
is in the British Museum, and is engraved as Fig. 6. The central
space between the two series of ridges and also the margins of the
faces are ornamented with shallow chevrons punched in. The sides
have been hammered into three facets, and this has produced slight
flanges at the margins of the faces. These facets are ornamented with
diagonal lines. This celt was found with two others, apparently of
the same kind, and is described and engraved in Whitaker’s “History
of the Original Parish of Whalley.”[187] The author says that these
instruments were from 9 to 12 inches long, and had a broad and narrow
end, but had neither loops, grooves, nor any other contrivance by
which they could be fixed in a shaft, or indeed applied to any known
use. That in the British Museum was obtained by the late Mr. Charles
Towneley. The two others were formerly in the collections of the Rev.
Dr. Milles, P.S.A., and of Dr. Whitaker.
I now come to the flanged celts, or those which have projecting ledges
along the greater part of each side of the faces, produced either by
hammering the metal at the sides of the blades, or in the original
casting. As has already been observed, some of the celts which have
been described as belonging to the flat variety might, with almost
equal propriety, have been classed as flanged celts, as the mere
hammering of the sides with a view to render them smooth or to produce
an ornament upon them “upsets” the metal, and produces a thickening
along the margin which almost amounts to a flange.
In the celt shown in Fig. 7 the flanges are very slight, and are in
all probability merely due to the hammering necessary to produce the
kind of cable pattern or spiral fluting which is seen in the side
view. The faces taper in each direction from a transverse ridge, and
the blade for some distance below this is ornamented with an incuse
chevron pattern. The blade towards the edge and above the ridge is
left plain. This specimen was found in Suffolk, but I do not know the
exact locality. It is in my own collection.
[Illustration: Fig. 7.—Suffolk. ½]
Among nineteen bronze celts discovered about the year 1845 on the
property of Mr. Samuel Ware, F.S.A., at Postlingford Hall,[188] near
Clare, Suffolk, were several of this class, two of which (6½ and 5½
inches), now in the British Museum, are figured in the _Archæologia_.
One of them is ornamented with a chevron pattern, covering the part of
the blade usually decorated, and having vertical lines running through
the centres of the chevrons, and through the junction of their bases.
The other is ornamented with a series of curved parallel lines running
across the blade, as on Fig. 16. They have a slight projection or
ridge at the thickest part of the blade, as have also two that are not
ornamented, which likewise were presented by Mr. Ware to the British
Museum.
Another celt of this kind (4⅞ inches) was found with a bronze
spear-head having loops at the lower part of the blade in the Kilcot
Wood,[189] near Newent, Gloucestershire. The faces are ornamented with
parallel rows of short diagonal lines, bounded at the lower end by a
double series of dots, and a transverse row of diagonal lines.
In the remarkable hoard of bronze instruments discovered on Arreton
Down, in the Isle of Wight, about the year 1735, were, besides the
spear-heads and dagger blades, of which mention will be made in
subsequent chapters, four of these flanged celts. Of these one (6⅞
inches) was ornamented both on the face and sides, but is at present
only known from a drawing in an album belonging to the Society of
Antiquaries.
[Illustration: Fig. 8.—Arreton Down. ½]
The others were plain, and of one of them a woodcut is given in the
_Archæologia_,[190] which by the permission of the Council of the
Society of Antiquaries is here reproduced as Fig. 8. It is 8 inches in
length, and is one of the largest of its class in the British Museum.
As will be seen, the blade itself is of the doubly tapering kind. The
others are 4½ and 4¾ inches long. They are said to have been found
arranged in regular order,[191] and, as Mr. Franks has suggested, may
possibly have been the store deposited by some ancient founder, which
he was unable to reclaim from its hiding-place.
[Illustration: Fig. 9.—Plymstock. ⅔]
[Illustration: Fig. 10.—Plymstock. ⅔]
In Figs. 9 and 10[192] are shown two more of these doubly tapering
flanged celts, which were found in the parish of Plymstock,[193]
Devonshire, about a mile east of Preston. They lay beneath a flat
stone at a depth of about two feet below the surface, together with
fourteen other celts, three daggers, one of which is given as Fig.
301, a spear-head or dagger, shown in Fig. 327, and a narrow chisel
(Fig. 190). All the sixteen celts are of the same general type, but
vary in length from 3¾ inches to 6¾ inches. The extent of the flanges
or wings also varies, and in some they project considerably, and
are brought with great precision to a sharp edge. At the narrow or
butt end, the late Mr. Albert Way, who described the hoard, noticed
a peculiar slight groove extending only as far as the commencement
of the lateral flanges. The character of the groove is shown in the
portion of the side view given with each figure. Mr. Way and Mr.
Franks thought that the narrow end of the celt, when produced from the
mould, had been slightly bifid, and that the little cleft had been
closed by the hammer. My own impression is that these marks are merely
the result of “drawing down” the narrow ends with the hammer after
their sides had been somewhat “upset” or expanded by hammering out the
side flanges.
The sides of some of these celts have been hammered so as to present
three longitudinal facets; others have the sides simply rounded. One
of the most interesting features of this discovery is its analogy
with that already mentioned as having been made at Arreton Down. The
greater number of the objects found at Plymstock were given by the
Duke of Bedford to the British Museum, and the remainder to the Exeter
Museum.
Four or five celts with slight side flanges were found in the
Wiltshire barrows by Sir E. Colt Hoare. The largest of these (6¼
inches long and 2½ inches broad) was found in 1808, in a tumulus
known as the Bush Barrow, near Normanton.[194] The following are the
particulars of this discovery:—On the floor of the barrow was the
skeleton of a tall man lying from south to north. Near his shoulders
lay the celt, which owes its great preservation to having been
inserted in a handle of wood. About eighteen inches south of the head
were several bronze rivets, intermixed with wood and thin pieces of
bronze, which were regarded as the remains of a shield. Near the right
arm were a large dagger of bronze and a spear-head of the same metal,
fully 13 inches long. The handle of this dagger, marvellously inlaid
with pins of gold, will be described in a subsequent chapter. On the
breast of the skeleton was a large lozenge-shaped plate of gold,
ornamented with zigzag and other patterns, and near it were some other
gold ornaments, some bone rings, and an oval perforated stone mace,
the representation of which I have reproduced in my “Ancient Stone
Implements.”
We have here an instance of bronze weapons occurring associated with
those of stone and with gold ornaments. Sir R. Colt Hoare has recorded
some other cases. In a bell-shaped barrow near Wilsford,[195] at the
feet of the skeleton of a tall man, he found a massive hammer of a
dark-coloured stone, some objects of bone, a whetstone with a groove
in the centre, and a bronze celt with small lateral flanges 3¼ inches
long. These were accompanied by a very curious object of twisted
bronze, apparently a ring about 4½ inches in diameter, having a tang
pierced with four rivet holes for fixing in a handle. In the ring
itself, opposite the tang, is a long oval hole, through which passes
one of three circular links forming a short chain.
In a barrow on Overton Hill,[196] Sir R. Colt Hoare found a contracted
skeleton buried either in the trunk of a tree or on a plank of wood.
Near the head were a small celt of this kind, an awl with a handle
(Fig. 227), and a small dagger, or, as he terms it, a “lance-head.”
The occurrence of celts of this character is not limited to interments
by inhumation. In another barrow of the Wilsford group Sir R. C. Hoare
found, in a cist 2 feet deep, a pile of burnt bones, an ivory (?) pin,
a rude ring of bone, and a small bronze celt, also with side flanges,
and only 2⅛ inches long.
Among other specimens of this form of celt may be cited one found on
Plumpton Plain,[197] near Lewes, Sussex, now in the British Museum;
one (4 inches) found near Dover in 1856; and one (6½ inches) from
Wye Down, Kent, both in the Mayer collection at Liverpool. Canon
Greenwell, F.R.S., has one (3½ inches) from March, Cambridgeshire.
Flanged celts much like Fig. 9 have been found in France. Some from
Haute-Saône,[198] Rhône, and Compiègne[199] (Oise) have been figured.
I have specimens from Evreux (Eure), Amiens (Somme), and Lyons.
The type also occurs in Italy[200] in some abundance; it is found
more rarely in Germany.[201] Examples from Denmark are figured by
Schreiber,[202] Segested,[203] and Madsen.[204] The form also occurs
in Sweden.[205]
A peculiar form of flanged celt is shown in Fig. 11. The flanges
extend as usual nearly to the edge, but at the upper part of the blade
are set down so as to project still farther over the faces, though at
a lower level. The original was found in the Thames,[206] and is the
property of Mr. T. Layton, F.S.A.
[Illustration: Fig. 11.—Thames. ½]. [Illustration: Fig. 12.—Norfolk.
½]
A small example, ornamented with a fluted pattern on the sides and
with the blade slightly tapering in each direction from a central
ridge, is shown in Fig. 12. The original was found in Norfolk, and is
in the collection of Mr. R. Fitch, F.S.A.
Another, decorated with a fluted chevron pattern on the sides, and
with indented herring-bone and chevron patterns on the faces, is given
in Fig. 13. This example was found in Dorsetshire, and is now in the
British Museum. In the same collection is a beautiful celt with side
flanges found near Brough, Westmoreland (6¾ inches), which has the
portion of the blade below the thickest part ornamented with a lozengy
matted pattern much like that on Fig. 51, but with the alternate
lozenges plain and hatched. The hatching on some of the lozenges is
from left to right, on others the reverse.
[Illustration: Fig. 13.—Dorsetshire. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 14.—Lewes. ½]
A flanged celt of unusual type, the sides curiously wrought and
engraved or punched, and the faces exhibiting a pattern of chevrony
lines, is shown in Fig. 14. It was found near Lewes,[207] Sussex, and
is the property of Sir H. Shiffner, Bart.
[Illustration: Fig. 15.—Ely. ½]
An example of nearly the same kind is shown in Fig. 15, from a celt
found in the Fens near Ely, and now in the museum of Mr. Marshall
Fisher, of that city. Both faces are ornamented below the thickest
part with broad indented lines, vertical and transverse, as will be
best seen in the figure. The sides are hammered into three facets,
each having a series of diagonal grooves wrought in them. The two
left-hand facets on each side have the grooves running upwards from
left to right; on the third facet they run downwards, but at a much
less inclination. The punch with which the grooves and ornaments were
produced has also been employed along the inner angle of the flanges.
A pretty little celt, ornamented with transverse ridges in the lower
part, is shown in Fig. 16. The original was found at Barrow, Suffolk.
The Rev. Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., possesses one (4⅝ inches) found at
Horncastle, Lincolnshire, the faces of which are decorated in a nearly
similar manner; but the sides show a cable pattern, and there is a
slight central ridge on the faces.
[Illustration: Fig. 16.—Barrow. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 17.—Liss. ½]
A much larger specimen (6¼ inches), found near the Menai Bridge,[208]
Anglesea, has also cabled sides, but the grooves on the faces are
straighter and wider apart.
A Danish celt, ornamented in a similar manner, is engraved by
Madsen.[209]
The celt shown in Fig. 17 is of somewhat the same character, but the
transverse lines are closer and not continuous. They have evidently
been produced by means of a small blunt punch, with the aid of a
hammer. The original was found at Liss,[210] near Petersfield, Hants,
and is now in the British Museum.
Flanged celts decorated on the faces are of rare occurrence in France.
One of narrow proportions, and ornamented with lozenges and zigzags,
was found at Mareuil-sur-Ourcq[211] (Oise).
[Illustration: Fig. 18.—Rhosnesney. ½]
The only instance known to me in which the rough castings destined
to be wrought into this form of celt have been found in Britain is
one recorded in the _Archæologia Cambrensis_[212] by the Rev. E. L.
Barnwell. At the meeting of the Cambrian Archæological Association at
Wrexham, Sir R. A. Cunliffe, Bart., exhibited what had evidently been
the stock in trade of an ancient bronze-founder or merchant. It had
been found at Rhosnesney, near Wrexham, and consisted of six palstaves,
all from the same mould, another somewhat slighter and broken in two,
the blade of a small dagger, three castings for flanged celts, and the
shank of a fourth—all of them rough as they came from the mould. The
cut given of one of the last-mentioned castings is here reproduced on a
smaller scale as Fig. 18. It will be seen that a broad runner is left
at the butt end, which was probably destined to be broken off; the
sides would also be hammered, so as to increase the prominence of the
flanges; and the whole would be planished by hammering and grinding.
All the specimens have the appearance of having been washed over with
tin, but this deposit of tin upon the surface may, I think, be due to
some chemical action which has gone on since the bronze was buried in
the ground, and may not have been intentionally produced.
A casting for a longer flanged celt found at Vienne (Isère) has been
figured by Chantre.[213]
Turning now to the flat and flanged celts discovered in Scotland, I may
remark that the instruments of the flat form appear to be comparatively
more abundant in that country than in England and Wales.
In Fig. 19 is shown a remarkably well-preserved specimen in my
own collection, which is said to have been found near Drumlanrig,
Dumfriesshire. The sides present two longitudinal facets at a low
angle to each other. In hammering these the margin of the faces
has been somewhat raised; they are otherwise smooth and devoid of
ornament. Other specimens have three facets on the sides.
[Illustration: Fig. 19.—Drumlanrig. ½]
Instruments of much the same character have been found near
Biggar[214] (6⅛ inches), Culter[215] (5¼ inches), both in Lanarkshire;
on the farm of Colleonard,[216] near Banff (found with three which
were ornamented); at Sluie on the Findhorn,[217] Morayshire (two,
6 inches); near Abernethy,[218] Perthshire (4 inches across face);
near Ardgour House,[219] Invernessshire (5¾ inches); the Hill of
Fortrie of Balnoon,[220] Inverkeithney, Banffshire (5¾ inches long);
Ravelston,[221] near Edinburgh (7 inches); Cobbinshaw, Midcalder,
Edinburgh (4¾ inches), in my own collection. One found in the Moss of
Cree,[222] near Wigton in Galloway, has been mentioned by Wilson, and
is engraved in the _Ayr and Wigton Collections_.[223] Others from Inch
and Leswalt, Wigtonshire, have also been figured.[224]
Some of these blades, and notably the celts from Sluie, the Hill of
Fortrie of Balnoon, and Ravelston, have been thought to be tinned. An
interesting paper on the subject has been written by Dr. J. Alexander
Smith and Dr. Stevenson Macadam.[225] Their conclusion is rather in
favour of the celts having been intentionally tinned, so as to protect
them from oxidation and the influence of the weather. I think, however,
that the tinned appearance of the castings for celts from Rhosnesney
affords a strong argument against this feature being the result of
intentional tinning; for, if so, that metal would have been applied
to the blades after they had been wrought and ground into shape, and
not to the rough castings, from the surface of which the tin would be
certainly removed in the process of finishing the blades. A bronze
hammer from France in my collection has all the appearance of having
been intentionally tinned, even partly within the socket; but in this
case the bronze appears unusually rich in tin, which was probably added
in order to increase the hardness of the metal, and some considerable
alteration of structure has taken place within the body of the metal,
as the surface is fissured in all directions, something like “crackle
china.”
In the Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh are other flat celts, some of
them with slight flanges at the edge, from Eildon, Roxburghshire;
Inchnadamff, Sutherlandshire; Dunino, Fifeshire; Vogrie and Ratho,
Midlothian; Kintore and Tarland, Aberdeenshire; and other places.
[Illustration: Fig. 20.—Lawhead. ¼]
Some celts of this form, but with slight side flanges, have been found
in the South of France.[226]
A celt of this class, also in the Museum at Edinburgh, is probably
the largest ever found in the United Kingdom. It is 13⅝ inches in
length, 9 inches in its greatest breadth, but only 1⅜ inch at the
narrow end. Its thickness is about ⅝ inch in the middle of the blade,
and its weight is 5 lbs. 7 ozs. It is shown on a scale of rather more
than one-fourth in Fig. 20, for the use of the woodcut of which I am
indebted to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. It was found in
digging a drain on the farm of Lawhead,[227] on the south side of the
Pentland Hills, near Edinburgh.
Some of the Scottish celts, both flat and doubly tapering, are
ornamented on the faces. One with four raised longitudinal ribs, and
two with a series of short incised or punched lines upon their faces,
were among those found on the farm of Colleonard,[228] Banff; another
has shallow flutings on the blade; another, E22, in the Catalogue of
the Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh, is also ornamented with incised
lines. One of those from Sluie,[229] Morayshire, is cited by Wilson.
[Illustration: Fig. 21.—Nairn. ½]
The tastefully ornamented celt shown in Fig. 21 was found near Nairn,
and is now in the Museum of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland,
to the Council of which I am indebted for the use of the cut. The
wreathed lines appear to have been produced by a chisel-like punch.
The ornamentation of both faces is almost exactly similar.
I have two flat celts, both said to have been found near Falkland,
Fifeshire, one of which (6¾ inches) has had grooves about half an inch
apart worked in the faces parallel to the sides, so as to form very
pointed chevrons down the centre of the blade. The other (5 inches
long) has had broad shallow dents about ½ inch long and ⅛ inch apart
made in its faces, so as to form a herring-bone pattern.
The doubly tapering celt shown in Fig. 22 is also said to have been
found near Falkland. Below the ridge the face has been ornamented with
parallel belts of short, narrow indentations arranged longitudinally
for about half the length of the lower face, but nearer the edge
transversely. The sides are worked into three longitudinal facets.
[Illustration: Fig. 22.—Falkland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 23.—Greenlees. ½]
Of Scottish flanged celts resembling Fig. 9, the following may be
mentioned. One found in Peeblesshire[230] (5⅜ inches long, with a
circular depression on one face); one from Longman,[231] Macduff,
Banffshire (3¾ inches long).
Another of the same class, having a round hole at the upper part of
the blade, is said to have been found in Scotland, and is engraved by
Gordon.[232]
A celt with but slightly raised flanges and peculiar ornamentation is
shown in Fig. 23. It was found at Greenlees,[233] near Spottiswoode,
Berwickshire, and is in the collection of Lady John Scott. There is a
faintly marked stop-ridge, above which the blade has been ornamented
by thickly set parallel hammer or punch marks. The sides are fluted in
a cable pattern. Parallel to the cutting edge are three slight fluted
hollows, and on the blade above are segments of concentric hollows
of the same kind, forming what heralds would term “flanches” on the
blade. Whether in this ornament we are to see a representation of the
“flanches” of the winged palstave like Fig. 85, such as is so common
on socketed celts, or whether it is of independent origin, I will not
attempt to determine.
[Illustration: Fig. 24.—Perth. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 25.—Applegarth. ½]
A flanged celt with a slight stop-ridge, having the sides ornamented
with a cable pattern and the faces with rows of triangles alternately
hatched and plain, is shown in Fig. 24. The original was found near
Perth,[234] and is in the collection of the Rev. James Beck, F.S.A.
A celt with five hatched bands surmounted by triangles, and with the
sides cable moulded, though found in Denmark,[235] much resembles this
Scottish specimen and some of those from Ireland. Another with similar
sides, but with the lower part of the faces ornamented with narrow
vertical grooves, was found at Applegarth,[236] Dumfriesshire, and is
now in the Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh. It is represented in Fig.
25.
Another decorated celt of the same character, though with different
ornamentation, is shown in Fig. 26. The curved hands on the faces
are formed of lines with dots between, and the sides have a kind
of fern-leaf pattern upon them, like that on the winged celt from
Trillick, Fig. 98. The original was found at Dams, Balbirnie,[237]
Fifeshire.
[Illustration: Fig. 26.—Dams. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 27.—Ballinamallard. ½]
A very large number of flat celts of the simplest form have been
found in Ireland. So numerous are they that it would only encumber
these pages were I to attempt to give a detailed account of all the
varieties, and of all the localities at which they have been found.
Sir William Wilde, in his most valuable “Catalogue of the Museum of
the Royal Irish Academy,” has placed on record a large amount of
information upon this subject, from which some of the facts hereafter
mentioned are borrowed, and to which the reader is referred for farther
information. Some of those of the rudest manufacture are formed “of
red, almost unalloyed copper.”[238] These vary in length from about 2½
inches to 6½ inches, and are never ornamented.
In Fig. 27 is shown a small example of a celt apparently of pure
copper, which was found at Ballinamallard, Co. Fermanagh, and was
kindly added to my collection by the Earl of Enniskillen. I have
another, more like Fig. 28, from Ballybawn, Co. Cork, presented to me
by Mr. Robert Day, F.S.A.
A small celt of this character, from King’s County, now in the British
Museum, is only 2⅛ inches in length.
Fig. 28 shows a very common form of Irish celt, in this instance made
of bronze. The instruments of this type are in general nearly flat,
and without any marked central ridge, such as is to be observed more
frequently on the longer and narrower form, of which a remarkably
small specimen from the collection of Mr. R. Day, F.S.A., is shown in
Fig. 29.
[Illustration: Fig. 28.—North of Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 29.—Ireland. ½]
In this case it will be seen that the blade tapers both ways from a
low central ridge. Others of these flat celts are in outline more like
Fig. 20. One such, in the museum of the Royal Irish Academy, is 12¼
inches long by 8½ inches broad, and weighs nearly 5 lbs. One in the
British Museum, which, unfortunately, is somewhat imperfect, must have
been of nearly the same size. The usual length of the celts like Fig.
28 is from 4 to 6 inches. One from Greenmount, Castle Bellingham, Co.
Louth, is engraved in the _Archæological Journal_.[239]
[Illustration: Fig. 30.—Tipperary. ½]
Occasionally the flat surface is ornamented. An example of this kind
(7½ inches) is given in Fig. 30, from a specimen found in the county
of Tipperary,[240] and now in the British Museum. The surface has the
patterns punched in, and the angles between the faces and the sides
are slightly serrated. Some few Irish celts are slightly fluted on the
face, like the English specimen, Fig. 6.
[Illustration: Fig. 31.—Ireland. ½]
Another ornamented celt of this class, from my own collection, is
shown in Fig. 31. On this the roughly worked pattern has been produced
by means of a long blunt punch, or possibly by the pane or narrow end
of a hammer; but it is far more probable that the former tool was used
than the latter. The two faces are nearly alike, and the sides have
been hammered so as to produce a central ridge along them.
A large and highly ornamented flat celt in the collection of Canon
Greenwell, F.R.S., is shown in Fig. 32. The ornamentation on each
face is the same, and the sides have been hammered so as to produce a
succession of flat lozenges upon them. It was found near Connor, Co.
Antrim, with two others of nearly the same size, one of which was
scraped by the finder. The other is ornamented with a cross-hatched
border along the margins, and three narrow bands across the blade,
one cross-hatched, one of triangles alternately hatched and plain,
and one with vertical lines. Parallel with the cutting edge, which,
however, has been broken off in old times, is a curved band of
alternate triangles, like that across the centre of the blade. Much
of the surface is grained by vertical indentations, and the sides are
ornamented like those of Fig. 4.
[Illustration: Fig. 32.—Connor. ½]
In the celts tapering in both directions from a slight transverse
ridge, the sides have often been “upset” by hammering, so as to
produce a thickening of the blade at the margins almost amounting to a
flange. Not unfrequently a pattern is produced upon the sides, as in
Fig. 33, where it will be seen that the median ridge along the sides
is interrupted at intervals by a series of flat lozenges. The faces of
this instrument below the ridge have been neatly hammered, so as to
produce a kind of grained surface not unlike that of French morocco
leather. This specimen, which is unusually large, was found near
Clontarf, Co. Dublin. The same kind of decoration occurs on the sides
of many specimens in the museum of the Royal Irish Academy.[241]
The decoration of the faces often extends over the upper part of the
blade, though, when hafted, much of this was probably hidden. In
Fig. 34, borrowed from Wilde (Fig. 248), this peculiarity is well
exhibited. The sides have the long lozenges upon them, like those on
the celt last described.
[Illustration: Fig. 33.—Clontarf. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 34.—Ireland. ½]
The beautiful specimen shown in Fig. 35 was presented to me by Mr.
Robert Day, F.S.A. The sides have in this case a kind of cable pattern
worked upon them. The ornamentation of the faces is remarkable as
having so many curved lines brought into it. The lower part of the
blade has two shallow flutings upon it, approximately parallel to the
edge.
[Illustration: Fig. 35.—Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 36.—Trim. ½]
In the case of a celt of much the same form and size (7¼ inches),
which belonged to the late Rev. Thomas Hugo, F.S.A., and was at one
time thought to have been found in the Thames,[242] it is the upper
part of the blade that is decorated, and not the lower, which is left
smooth.
[Illustration: Fig. 37.—Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 38.—Ireland. ½]
There is no central ridge, but the upper part has a coarse lozenge
pattern hammered upon it, the centres of the lozenges being roughly
hatched with transverse lines. Possibly this roughening may have
assisted to keep the blade fast in the handle, though in producing it
some artistic feeling was brought to bear. There is little doubt of
this instrument being of Irish origin.
Other celts, like Fig. 36, have the upper part of the blade plain and
the lower ornamented. This specimen was found at Trim, Co. Meath,
and is in the collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S. It will be
observed that even the cabled fluting of the sides ceases opposite the
transverse ridge.
In Figs. 37 and 38 are shown two more of these slightly flanged
ornamented celts. The first is in the museum of the Royal Irish
Academy, and has already been figured by Wilde (Fig. 298). The lower
part of the blade is fluted transversely with chevron patterns punched
in along the curved ridges. In the second, which was presented to
me by Dr. Aquilla Smith, M.R.I.A., there is a fairly well defined
though but slightly projecting curved stop-ridge, and the blade is
decorated by boldly punched lines, forming a pattern which a herald
might describe as “per saltire argent and azure.” The cable fluting
on the sides is beautifully regular. The Rev. G. W. Brackenridge,
of Clevedon, possesses a longer specimen (5⅜ inches), found at
Tullygowan, near Gracehill, Co. Antrim, the faces of which are
ornamented with a nearly similar design. Canon Greenwell has another
example found at Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim.
The patterns punched upon the celts of this type show a great
variety of form, and not a little fertility of design in the ancient
artificers.[243] Various combinations of chevron patterns are the
most frequent, though grained surfaces and straight lines like those
on Fig. 17 also frequently occur. Sir William Wilde describes them
as hammered, punched, engraved, or cast. Most of the patterns were,
however, produced by means of punches, though it is possible that in
some instances the other processes may have been used.
[Illustration: Fig. 39.]
[Illustration: Fig. 40.]
[Illustration: Fig. 41.]
[Illustration: Fig. 42.]
[Illustration: Fig. 43.]
Figs. 39 to 43, borrowed from Wilde (Figs. 286 to 290), show some of
the patterns full size. The punch most commonly employed must have
resembled a narrow and blunt chisel; but a kind of centre-punch,
producing a shallow round indentation, was also employed, and possibly
a somewhat curved punch like a blunt gouge. In some cases the lines
between the punched marks are, according to Wilde, engraved. It is,
however, a question whether even the finest lines might not have been
produced by a chisel used after the manner of a punch. What were
probably punches for producing such patterns have been found in some
English hoards, as will subsequently be mentioned; and in the Fonderie
de Larnaud, Jura,[244] was a punch with an engrailed end for producing
a kind of “milled” mark, either in the mould or on the casting.
Another, with concentric circles, seems best adapted for impressing the
loam of the mould.
Some few of the Irish ornamented celts have well-defined stop-ridges
like the English example, Fig. 51; but these will be more in their
place in the following chapter. One or two other forms may, however,
be here mentioned, though they approximate closely to the chisels
described in subsequent pages.
One of these is shown in Fig. 44, the upper part of the blade of which
is, as will be seen, so narrow, and the instrument itself so small and
light, that it is a question whether it should not be regarded as a
chisel or paring-tool rather than as a hatchet. The blade tapers both
ways, and the incipient flange is more fully developed above the ridge
than below. The original was found at Armoy, Co. Antrim. It is much
broader at the cutting edge than the blade from Culham, Fig. 55, to
which it is somewhat allied.
[Illustration: Fig. 44.—Armoy. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 45.—Ireland. ½]
Another Irish form of celt, or possibly chisel, tapers in both
directions from a central transverse ridge, near which there are
lateral projections on the blade, as if to prevent its being driven
into the handle. An example of this kind, from the museum of the Royal
Irish Academy, is given in Fig. 45. There are nine or ten in that
collection, and they vary in length from about 3¾ to 8 inches. Others
are in the British Museum, one of which is more distinctly tanged
than the figure, and the stops are formed by the gradual widening out
of the blade, which again contracts with a similar curve, and once
more widens out at the edge. This type is also known in France. Other
varieties of this form are described in Chapter VII.
A doubly tapering blade in the museum of the Royal Irish Academy,
shown in Fig. 46, has a slight stop-ridge on the face, and also
expands at the sides, though not to the same extent as the plain
specimens just mentioned. It is ornamented with straight and curved
bands formed of chevron patterns.
A double-edged instrument, also in the museum of the Royal Irish
Academy, has a stop-ridge on one of the faces only, as shown in Fig.
47.
An instrument of the same form, but with stops at the sides instead
of on the face, 4⅞ inches long, ⅝ inch broad at the edges, and about
¼ inch thick, was found at Farley Heath, Surrey, and is now in the
British Museum.
A Danish instrument of the same kind is figured by Worsaae.[245] /#
[Illustration: Fig. 46.—Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 47.—Ireland. ½]
Flat celts of iron with lateral stops have been found in the
cemetery at Hallstatt, Austria, as well as winged palstaves and
socketed celts of the same metal.
Some of the thin votive hatchets found at Dodona[246] are of the same
form, and are significant of such blades having been in actual use in
Greece.
In the next chapter are described the celts in which the side flanges
have become more fully developed, so as to form wings to embrace and
steady the handle, and the central ridge has grown into a well-marked
shoulder against which the end of the haft could rest.
CHAPTER IV.
WINGED CELTS AND PALSTAVES.
TO any one who has examined an extensive collection of the bronze
instruments found in this country it will at once be apparent that in
the class of celts designed to be fixed in some sort of haft, and not
themselves socketed for the reception of a handle, there is a wide
range of form. Any attempt, however, to divide them into well-marked
classes is soon seen to be futile, as there is found to be a gradual
transition from what at first sight appears to be a well-marked
form into some other which presents different characteristics. If,
for instance, we take the side flanges as a criterion, we find them
ranging from a mere thickening on the margins of the flat celts to
well-developed flanges, extending along nearly the whole blade; we
then find them confined to the upper part of the instrument, and in
some cases of great lateral extent, so as to be capable of being
hammered over to form a kind of semicircular socket on each side of
the blade. In other cases we find that the flanges have some part of
their apparent projection due to a diminution in the thickness of
the portion of the blade which lies between them. If we take as a
criterion the stop-ridge, as it has been termed, a projecting ridge
for the purpose of preventing the blade being driven too far into its
wooden handle, we find the ridge in a rudimentary form in the blades
which taper both ways; next as a slightly raised ridge or bead running
across the blade; then as a better-defined ridge, to which, at last,
greater development is given by a reduction in the thickness of the
blade above it. The presence or absence of a loop at the side is, no
doubt, a good differentiation, but as this is a mere minor accessory,
and two celts may be identical in other respects with the exception
of one being provided with a loop and the other being without it, it
does not materially assist in the classification of this group of
instruments, although for convenience’s sake it is best to treat of
the two varieties of form separately. An additional reason for this
may be found in the possibility that the loop was a comparatively
late invention, so that the palstaves provided with it may be in some
cases of later date than those without it, though the identity in the
ornamentation of some of the instruments of the two classes, and the
fact of their being occasionally found together, are almost conclusive
as to their contemporaneity.
[Illustration: Fig. 48. Fig. 49. Icelandic “Palstaves.”]
In the present chapter I propose to treat of the celts with a
stop-ridge, of the winged celts, and of those of the palstave form.
The winged celts may be generally described as those in which the
flanges are short and have a great amount of lateral extension. When
these wings are hammered over so as to form a kind of socket on each
side of the blade, one of the varieties of the palstave form is the
result. The other and more common variety of the palstave form has the
portion of the blade which lies between the wings or side flanges and
above the stop-ridge cast thinner than the rest of the blade, thus
leaving a recess or groove on each side into which the handle fitted.
I have already made frequent use of the term palstave, and it will
be well here to make a few remarks as to the origin and meaning of
the word. The term palstave, or more properly paalstab, comes to us
from the Scandinavian antiquaries. Their reason for adopting the term
was that there is still in use in Iceland a kind of narrow spade or
spud, which is known by the name of paalstab, and which somewhat
resembles these bronze instruments. Woodcuts of two of these Icelandic
palstaves are given in the _Archæological Journal_,[247] from drawings
communicated to Mr. Yates by Councillor Thomsen, of Copenhagen. They
are here by permission reproduced. The derivation of the term suggested
in a note to the Journal is that _paal_ comes from the Icelandic verb
_pula_, or _pala_, to labour, so that the word means the “labouring
staff.” But this appears to me erroneous. _Pul_, indeed, signifies
hard, laborious work; but _pæli_ (_at pæla_) means to dig, and _pall_
(_conf._ Latin _pala_ and French _pelle_) means a kind of spade or
shovel. The word, indeed, survives in the English language as _peel_,
the name of a kind of wooden shovel used by bakers for placing loaves
in the oven. The meaning of the term would appear, then, to be rather
“spade staff” than “labouring staff,” unless the word labouring be used
in the sense of the French _labourer_.
Mr. Thoms, in a note to his “Translation of Worsaae’s Primeval
Antiquities of Denmark,”[248] says that the “term Paalstab was formerly
applied in Scandinavia and Iceland to a weapon used for battering the
shields of the enemy, as is shewn by passages in the Sagas. Although
not strictly applicable to the (bronze) instruments in question, this
designation is now so generally used by the antiquaries of Scandinavia
and Germany, that it seems desirable, with the view of securing a
fixed terminology, that it should be introduced into the archæology
of England.” The term had already been used in 1848 in the “Guide to
Northern Archæology,”[249] edited by the Earl of Ellesmere, and has
now, like celt, become adopted into the English language.
I have not been able to refer to the passage in the Sagas mentioned as
above by Mr. Thoms, but whatever may be the original meaning of the
word palstave, it is applied by northern antiquaries to all the forms
of celts with the exception of those of the socketed type.[250]
Among English antiquaries it has, I think, been used in a more
restricted sense. Professor Daniel Wilson[251] defines palstaves
as “wedges, more or less axe-shaped, having a groove on each side
terminating in a stop-ridge, and with lateral flanges destined to
secure a hold on the handle. The typical example, however, which he
engraves has neither groove nor stop-ridge, but is what I should term a
winged celt, like Fig. 56.
In the present work I propose confining the term palstave to the two
varieties of form already mentioned; viz. the winged celts which have
their wings hammered over so as to form what may be termed external
sockets to the blade; and those with the portion of the blade which
lies between the side flanges and above the stop thinner than that
which is below.
The first form, however, of which I have to treat is that of the celts
provided with a stop-ridge on each face. These are almost always
flanged celts.
A fine specimen, with the stop-ridge consisting of a straight narrow
raised band across each face, and with a second curved band at
some distance below, is shown in Fig. 50. It was found at Wigton,
Cumberland, and is in the collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S. The
face between the two bands has a grained appearance given it by
hammering. The wings or side flanges are also faceted by the same
process. In the same collection is another blade (5¾ inches) of this
form, with a small stop-ridge, and having the lower part ornamented
with vertical punched lines. The sides have three facets, that in the
centre ornamented in a similar manner. This celt was found at Rougham,
Norfolk. I have a sketch of another (6¼ inches) found near Longtown,
Cumberland, in 1860.
[Illustration: Fig. 50.—Wigton. ½]
I have a nearly similar specimen, but only 4⅞ inches long, from
Stanton, Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire. Another (5¾ inches) with
only a slight stop-ridge was found at Aynhoe,[252] Northamptonshire,
and is in the collection of Sir Henry Dryden. Fig. 51 shows a
beautifully wrought and highly decorated flanged celt, provided with a
somewhat curved stop-ridge connecting the two flanges. The two faces
of the celt are ornamented with an interlaced pattern produced by
narrow dents, with a border of chevrons along each margin punched into
the metal. The flanges are worked into three facets ornamented with
diagonal grooves, and the lower side of the stop-ridge has a moulding
worked on it. This fine example of an ornamented celt was found near
Chollerford Bridge, Northumberland, and is in the collection of Canon
Greenwell, F.R.S.
[Illustration: Fig. 51.—Chollerford Bridge. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 52.—Chatham. ½]
A somewhat similar but unornamented variety of instrument, partaking
more of the palstave character, is shown in Fig. 52. The original
was found in excavations at Chatham Dockyard, and is now in the
British Museum. As will be seen, the recess for the haft ends in a
semicircular stop-ridge.
In Fig. 53 is shown a winged celt without stop-ridge found in
Burwell Fen, Cambridgeshire, and now in my own collection. The side
flanges or wings have been hammered into three facets, and are well
developed. The form of the blade is otherwise that of a flat celt,
except that there is a slight irregularity in the sweep of the sides,
which results from the hammering of the flanges. The form occurs
occasionally in Ireland, and one (4¼ inches) is figured by Wilde.[253]
Winged celts of nearly the same form, but provided with a stop-ridge,
are occasionally found. One of these in the British Museum, found at
Bucknell, Herefordshire, is shown in Fig. 54. The blade below the
stop-ridge is 9/16 inch thick; above it only ⅜ inch. A celt of much
the same character (7¼ inches), found at Wolvey, Warwickshire, is in
the collection of Mr. M. H. Bloxam, F.S.A.
[Illustration: Fig. 53.—Burwell Fen. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 54.—Bucknell. ½]
The double curvature of the sides may be noticed in the narrow
chisel-like celt shown in Fig. 55. The blade in this instance tapers
both ways from a line just below the wings, but without there being
any actual stop-ridge; a third slope is produced by the lower part of
the blade having been drawn down by hammering to form the edge. The
original was found at Culham, near Abingdon, Oxfordshire, and is in my
own collection.
[Illustration: Fig. 55.—Culham. ½]
I have another specimen, 4½ inches long, and half as wide again as the
Culham chisel, which was found near Dorchester, Oxon. The blade at
the lower end of the wings is an inch wide, but in the straight part
between that point and the edge only a little more than ¾ inch wide.
Although these instruments are so narrow that they may be regarded as
chisels rather than axes, yet from their general character so closely
resembling that of Fig. 53, I have thought it best to insert them here.
A Scotch example will be subsequently cited.
Another form of winged celt without stop-ridge is shown in Fig. 56.
In this the blade is flat, and the wings, which form triangular
projections, stand at right angles to it. Had they been hammered
over to form semicircular receptacles on each side of the blade the
instrument would have been more properly described as a palstave. It
was found with others near Reeth, in the North Riding of Yorkshire,
and is in the collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., where are also
other specimens of this type from Linden, Northumberland (5¼ inches);
Brompton, N.R., Yorkshire (5¼ inches); and Wolsingham, Durham (5⅜
inches).
[Illustration: Fig. 56.—Reeth. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 57.—Dorchester. ½]
Fig. 57 shows a winged celt with a broad low stop-ridge. The part of
the blade above this is about ⅛ inch thinner than the part below, so
that though transitional in character it belongs to one of the classes
to which I would wish to restrict the term palstave. This specimen was
found near Dorchester, Oxfordshire, and is in my own collection.
I have a nearly similar palstave (6 inches long) found in Wicken
Fen, Cambridgeshire. In this the blade below the stop-ridge is ½
inch thick, and above it 5/16 inch. In this as well as in that from
Dorchester the stop-ridge is well below the level of the side flanges.
In one found on Hollingbury Hill,[254] near Brighton, and now in the
British Museum, the stop-ridge is nearly on the same level as the side
flanges. It was found in the year 1825, together with four looped
armillæ, a torque, and three spiral rings, which are said to have been
arranged in a symmetrical manner in a depression dug in the chalk.
Both the torque and the palstave were broken; and it is thought that
this was done intentionally, at the time of the interment.
A similar discovery is recorded as having been made in 1794 on the
Quantock Hills, when two large torques were found, within each of
which was placed a palstave. In this case, however, these instruments
were of the looped kind.
Winged celts of the type of Fig. 57 are of not unfrequent occurrence
in Ireland, though the stop-ridge is usually less fully developed.
[Illustration: Fig. 58.—Colwick. ½]
They also occur in France. One from Jonquières[255] (Oise) has been
figured. I have a good specimen (6¼ inches) from the Seine at Paris.
The wings are rather wider and the stop-ridge better defined than in
the figure. One from Gasny is in the Museum at Evreux.
There are several in the Göttingen Museum, from a hoard found in that
neighbourhood.
Usually the stop-ridge is nearly on the same level as the part of
the side flanges on which it abuts, as will be seen in Fig. 58.
This specimen was found in the gravel of the Trent at Colwick, near
Nottingham, and is in my own collection. The blade immediately below
the stop is fluted, and the bottom of this fluting tapers somewhat
in the contrary direction to the tapering of the blade. The junction
of the fluting and the face produces an elliptic ridge of elegant
outline. The blade is ⅝ inch thick at this ridge, but above the
stop-ridge barely ⅜ inch. It is rather thinner near the stop-ridge
than somewhat higher up, so that the blade would be as it were
dovetailed into the handle, if tightly tied to it. I have specimens of
much the same type from Attleborough, Norfolk (6⅜ inches), Newbury,
Berks (6¾ inches), and Hay, Brecknockshire (7⅛ inches). A curious
variety of this type found at Monach-ty-gwyn,[256] near Aberdovey, has
on the bottom of one of the recesses for the handle a number of sunk
diagonal lines crossing each other so as to form a kind of lattice
pattern. It seems to me that though this cross-hatching occurs on only
one face of the palstave, it was intended rather as a means of giving
it a grip on the handle than as an ornament, for when hafted this part
of the instrument must have been concealed by the wood. Mr. Barnwell,
however, regards it in the light of an ornament.
Plain palstaves of this character are of not unfrequent occurrence in
the North of France. I have one from a hoard found at Bernay, near
Abbeville. With it were palstaves of different varieties, but none
of them provided with loops. The form also occurs occasionally in
Holland.
In the palstave engraved as Fig. 59, the half-oval ornament below the
stop-ridge is preserved, but there is a raised bead round it. There is
also a slight median ridge running down the blade. The joint of the
two moulds in which it was cast can be traced upon the sides of the
instrument, and it appears as if one of the moulds had been somewhat
deeper than the other. The original was found at Barrington, near
Cambridge, and is in my own collection. I have other specimens of the
same type, and of nearly the same size, from Swaffham Fen, Cambridge;
and from Dorchester, Oxfordshire. The semi-elliptical ridge on the
latter is larger and flatter than in that figured. The same is the
case in a large specimen (6½ inches long) from Weston, near Ross, also
in my own collection.
I have seen others from the Fens, near Ely (6½ inches), and from
Mildenhall (6¼ inches), in the collections of Mr. Marshall Fisher, of
Ely, and the Rev. S. Banks, of Cottenham, near Cambridge. Another (5½
inches) from the Carlton Rode find is in the Museum at Norwich.
[Illustration: Fig. 59.—Barrington. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 60.—Harston. ½]
One from North Wales[257] (7¼ inches), in an unfinished state, is
in the British Museum. Another (6⅜ inches) from Llanfyllin,[258]
Montgomeryshire, is also of nearly this type. One from North Tyne (6½
inches), in the Newcastle Museum, has two of the looped ridges one
below the other on each face. In this type and in that subsequently
described the ridge at the sides of the semi-elliptical ornament
sometimes dies into the upper part of the blade. The variety like Fig.
59 is also abundant in the North of France. There were two or three
in the hoard from Bernay, near Abbeville, and I have one from the
neighbourhood of Lille.
In Fig. 60 the same general type is preserved, but there is a
vertical rib running down the middle of the semi-elliptical ornament
below the stop; and the median ridge along the upper part of the
blade is more fully developed. In this specimen, which is in my own
collection, and was found at Harston, near Cambridge, there is an
attempt at ornamentation along the sides, the angles of the blade
having been hammered in such a manner as to produce a series of small
pointed oval facets along them.
I have other specimens of the same type, but without the ornamentation
on the sides, from Burwell, Quy, and Reach Fens, near Cambridge, 6
inches, 5⅞ inches, and 6¾ inches long respectively. In that from
Burwell there is no median ridge below the ornament. Canon Greenwell
has one which was found with three others, one of them with a loop,
near Wantage, Berks.
[Illustration: Fig. 61.—Shippey. ½]
A rather peculiar variety of this type (6¾ inches), found in
Anglesea,[259] has been figured, as well as another from Pendinas
Hill,[260] near Aberystwith.
In palstaves of this class there is often a slight projection on each
of the sides a little below the level of the stop-ridge. Below this
projection the sides are usually more carefully hammered and planished
than above it.
In a narrow palstave of this class, found at Freeland, near Witney,
Oxfordshire, there are three short ridges at the bottom of each of
the recesses for the handle, like those in a palstave from Newbury,
subsequently described. These were probably designed to assist in
steadying the handle.
A palstave (7¼ inches) from Cynwyd,[261] Merionethshire, appears to be
of this type.
An instrument of this type from Les Andelys[262] (Eure) has been
figured. Another, with the vertical rib in the shield, from a hoard
found in Normandy, has been engraved by the Abbé Cochet.[263] Some
from the Bernay hoard have a similar ornament.
On some palstaves of this class there is a series of vertical ribs
within the semi-elliptical loop, as will be seen in Fig. 61. This is
taken from a specimen found at Shippey, near Ely, which is in the
collection of Mr. Marshall Fisher of Ely, who has kindly allowed me to
engrave it. I have one from Bottisham, near Cambridge (6¾ inches), on
which there is a smaller vertical ridge, on each side of the central
ridge, within the ornament. One from Snettisham, Norfolk (6⅛ inches),
like that from Shippey, is in the Norwich Museum. Another from
Lakenheath, Suffolk (5¾ inches), is in the collection of Mr. James
Carter of Cambridge.
A palstave with this ornament is in the Museum at Soissons.
The type is also found in Northern Germany.[264]
In some cases these vertical lines below the stop-ridge are not
enclosed in any loop. In Fig. 62 is shown an example of the kind from
a specimen in my own collection found in the Severn, near Wainlodes
Hill, Gloucester. It has a slight rib down the middle of the blade.
One of the same class (6¼ inches), with four vertical stripes, found
on Clayton Hill, Sussex, is in the collection of Mrs. Dickinson of
Hurstpierpoint; four others (about 6½ inches long), with five short
vertical ridges, were found with two of the type of Fig. 63 in making
the railway near Bognor, and are now in the Blackmore Museum at
Salisbury.
[Illustration: Fig. 62.—Severn. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 63.—Sunningwell. ½]
Another, apparently of the same type, found near Brighton, is engraved
in the _Sussex Archæological Collections_.[265]
Another variety, having nearly the same general form, but no
elliptical ridge below the stop, is shown in Fig. 63, engraved from a
specimen in my own collection, found at Sunningwell, near Abingdon.
The end of the recess for the handle is somewhat rounded, and there is
a well-marked central rib running down the blade. At the upper part,
near the stop-ridge, there are also slight side flanges. The metal
in the recess for the handle is thinnest near the stop, so as to be
somewhat dovetailing.
This is markedly the case in a fine example of the same type (6½
inches) with the _provenance_ of which I am unacquainted. In another,
also in my own collection, found at Newbury, Berks, the side flanges
of the blade are continued almost down to the edge, and the bottom as
well as the end of the recess for the handle is rounded. Near the end
of the recess are some slight longitudinal ribs, one on one face and
two on the other, perhaps designed to assist in steadying the handle.
The mouldings along the sides of the blade are often much more fully
developed, like those on Fig. 77.
Palstaves of this type have been obtained from the following
localities: from South Cerney,[266] near Cirencester; from the mouth
of the River Wandle,[267] in Surrey, now preserved in the British
Museum; from Bucks[268] (6 inches long), also in the British Museum;
from Chichester;[269] Astley,[270] Worcestershire; Llangwyllog,[271]
Anglesea (6¼ inches); from near Bognor,[272] Billingshurst,[273]
and Iford,[274] Sussex; and Lovehayne,[275] near Broad Down, Devon
(5⅛ inches); where several appear to have been found in the rough
state in which they came from the mould. I have an example from the
neighbourhood of Penzance.
One (6¾ inches) found near Ashford, Kent, is in the Mayer Collection
at Liverpool. One of the same kind was found with a hammer, a tanged
chisel, broken spear-heads, and rough metal, in Burgesses’ Meadow,
Oxford. The hoard is now in the Ashmolean Museum. In three palstaves
of this kind found in the parishes of Llandrinio,[276] and Caersws,
Montgomeryshire, and St. Harmon, Radnorshire, there is a hole in
the metal between the two recesses for the handle just above the
stop-ridge. It has been thought by Professor Westwood that these
holes were connected with the manner of fastening the instrument to
its haft, but it appears to me much more likely that they arise from
accidental defects in casting. This is certainly the case with two
specimens of my own, which also have holes through the same part of
the instrument, where the metal is thin.
One (5 inches), rather narrower in the blade than the figure, found
near Longford, Ireland, is in the Blackmore Museum at Salisbury.
Palstaves with a central and two lateral ribs on the blade are of not
unfrequent occurrence on the Continent, especially in the North of
France. I have examples much like the figure found in the hoard at
Bernay, near Abbeville. Others, much narrower in the blade, have been
discovered in large numbers in the North-west of France.
German examples have been figured by Lindenschmit.[277]
In another variety the blade is nearly flat, having only a broad
protuberant ridge extending along the upper part to the stop. A
palstave of this kind, found near Winfrith, Weymouth, Dorset, is shown
in Fig. 64. In this, the metal between the side flanges tapers towards
the top of the instrument, instead of being of nearly even thickness,
as is often the case, or thinnest near the stop-ridge, as it is
sometimes. Close to the stop the metal is ½ inch thick, while at the
top of the recess it comes to a nearly sharp edge. A palstave of this
character was found on Kingston Hill,[278] Surrey, near Cæsar’s Camp.
[Illustration: Fig. 64.—Weymouth. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 65.—Burwell Fen. ½]
In a specimen found at Winwick,[279] Lancashire, the blade below the
stop-ridge appears to be nearly flat. A broad flat ring of bronze, 1¾
inch in diameter (Fig. 188), was found at the same time. It has been
thought that this was attached to the shaft to prevent its splitting.
A palstave much like that from Winwick was found at Chagford, Devon,
and is in the possession of Mr. G. W. Ormerod, F.G.S. Another (6½
inches), from Ashford, Kent, is in the Mayer Collection at Liverpool.
Another of these plain palstaves, found near Llanidan,[280] Anglesea,
with one of the looped kind somewhat like Fig. 76, is engraved in the
_Archæologia Cambrensis_.
I have a palstave of nearly the same form, but with a more clearly
defined semi-conical bracket below the stop, which was found at
Masseyck, on the frontiers of Belgium and Holland.
A short and thick form of palstave is shown in Fig. 65, engraved from
a specimen found in Burwell Fen, Cambridge. On one of its faces it
has the semi-elliptical ornament, with one vertical rib in it, below
the stop-ridge. On the other there are five ribs instead of one within
the ornament.
[Illustration: Fig. 66.—East Harnham. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. Fig. 67.—Burwell Fen. ½]
I have another from Bottisham Fen (4⅜ inches), not quite so heavy in
its make, and perfectly flat below the stop-ridge. The ends of the
recess for the handle are somewhat undercut, so as to keep the wood
close to the blade when a blow was struck.
The shortened proportions of these instruments are probably due to
wear. In this instance it is not improbable that the cutting end of
the original palstave has been broken off, and the blunt end that was
left has been again drawn to an edge by hammering.
A form of palstave without any ornament below the stop-ridge is shown
in Fig. 66. This specimen was found in 1846 at East Harnham, near
Salisbury, and is now in my own collection. The thickness of the blade
below the stop is nearly ½ inch, above it but little more than ⅛ inch.
The sides are remarkably flat.
One, only 2½ inches long, merely recessed for the handle, found at
Chatham Hill, Kent, is in the Mayer Collection at Liverpool.
This plain form with a square stop-ridge is found in France and in
Western Germany.
A long chisel-like form of palstave is shown in Fig. 67, engraved
from a specimen in my own collection found in Burwell Fen, Cambridge.
It is ornamented with a semi-elliptical projecting ridge below the
stop. The flanges at the sides of the recess have some notches running
diagonally into them, so as to form a kind of barb, such as would
prevent the blade from being drawn away from the handle when bound to
it by a cord.
[Illustration: Fig. 68.—Thames. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 69.—Stibbard. ½]
I have another nearly similar tool, also from the Cambridge Fens, but
without any barbs. In a third, from the neighbourhood of Dorchester,
Oxon, there are neither barbs at the sides nor any ornament below the
stop-ridge. I have seen another of the same character (4½ inches)
which was found at Wolsonbury, Sussex, and is in the collection of
Mrs. Dickinson. Another (4¾ inches), found in the Thames at Kingston,
Surrey, is in the Museum of the Society of Antiquaries. I have seen
another (6⅝ inches), found at Sutton, near Woodbridge, Suffolk, in
which there was a tongue-shaped groove below the stop-ridge, like that
on the socketed celt, Fig. 148, but single instead of double.
The Rev. James Beck, F.S.A.,[281] has a palstave of this kind 6 inches
long and 1¼ inch wide at the edge, with a projecting rib below the
stop-ridge and also in the recess above. It was found at Westburton
Hill, near Bignor, Sussex. There are depressions on each side of the
rib below the stop, forming an ornament like that on Fig. 81.
A narrow palstave, apparently of the same character, found at
Windsor,[282] is engraved by Stukeley.
A very beautiful narrow palstave, found in the Thames, and now in the
collection of General A. Pitt Rivers, F.R.S., is shown in Fig. 68. As
will be seen, the angles are ornamented with a kind of milling, and
the sides are also decorated with zigzag and chevron patterns.
In Fig. 69 is shown an unfinished casting for a palstave of
unusually small size, which formed part of the great hoard found at
Stibbard,[283] Norfolk. About seventy such castings were found, and
about ten castings for spear-heads (see Fig. 407).
[Illustration: Fig. 70. Irthington. ½]
The form of palstave with the side wings or flanges hammered over so
as to form a kind of semicircular socket on either side of the blade,
is of rare occurrence in Britain, and is usually provided with a loop.
In Canon Greenwell’s collection is one (7 inches) without any ornament
below the square stop-ridge, with the side wings slightly hammered
over. It was found with others (with and without loops), together with
a mould for palstaves (Fig. 527), at Hotham Carr, Yorkshire, E. R.
In a hoard of about sixty bronze objects found at Westow,[284] about
twelve miles from York on the Scarborough Road, was one palstave of
this kind, like Fig. 85, but without a loop, and about thirty socketed
celts, six gouges, a socketed chisel, two tanged chisels, and numerous
fragments of metal, including some jets or runners broken off castings.
The type is of common occurrence in Austria, South Germany, and the
South of France.
Palstaves of the adze form, or having the blade at right angles to
the septum between the flanges, are but very seldom found in Britain.
A small specimen from the collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., is
shown in Fig. 70. It was found at Irthington, Cumberland.
Another, from North Owersby, Lincolnshire, in the same collection, is
shown in Fig. 71. It has a remarkably narrow chisel-like blade.
Irish examples will be subsequently cited.
I have, in Fig. 72, engraved for comparison a larger specimen in my
own collection, which came from the Valley of the Rhine, near Bonn.
One from Baden[285] is figured by Lindenschmit.
[Illustration: Fig. 71.—North Owersby. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 72.—Bonn. ½]
Others have been found near Landshut,[286] Bavaria, and in the
Rhine district.[287] One with a loop, from Hesse,[288] is engraved
by Lindenschmit. A long and narrow example of this type[289] was
found at Villeder, near Ploërmel, Morbihan, and has been figured
by Simonin. There are specimens in the museums at Rouen and Tours.
Some have a loop on one face. A specimen from Escoville is in the
museum at Caen. Several with and without loops have been found in the
Swiss lake-dwellings,[290] the type being termed the Hache Troyon by
Desor.[291]
A beautiful palstave of the same character is preserved in the Antiken
Cabinet at Vienna. Its sides are ornamented with four small sets of
concentric circles and a pattern of dotted lines, punched in after the
instrument was fashioned. The form has also been found in Italy.[292]
Palstaves without loops, but of which no detailed description is
given, are recorded to have been found at the following places:—The
Thames,[293] near Kingston; Drewsteignton,[294] Devonshire; Cundall
Manor,[295] North Riding, Yorkshire; Aspatria,[296] Cumberland; Ackers
Common,[297] near Warrington, Lancashire; Bushbury,[298] Brewood,
Handsworth, and a barrow on Morridge, Staffordshire; near Llanvair
Station,[299] Rhos-y-gad, Anglesea.
Palstaves of which it is not specified whether they were provided with
a loop or no, have been found in the Thames,[300] near London; the old
River, Sleaford,[301] Lincolnshire; Canada Wharf,[302] Rotherhithe;
Wolvey,[303] Warwickshire; and near Corbridge,[304] Glamorganshire (?).
Plain palstaves without loops have frequently occurred with other
forms of instruments in hoards of bronze objects. The following
instances may be cited. Several were found with unfinished socketed
celts, fragments of swords and spears, a socketed chisel, and lumps
of metal, at Romford,[305] Essex. At Nettleham,[306] near Lincoln,
one was found with looped palstaves, socketed celts, spear-heads, and
a tube, most of which will be mentioned in subsequent pages. In the
hoard at Battlefield,[307] near Shrewsbury, a palstave without loop,
a flat wedge-shaped celt, and three curious curved objects were found
together. Other instances are given in Chapter XXII.
The palstaves which are provided with a loop on one side present
as many varieties as those without the loop. The same character of
ornamentation occurs on the instruments of both classes. Indeed, for
some length of time both forms appear to have been contemporaneous and
in use together.
Some of them are, however, entirely devoid of ornament, as will be
seen from Fig. 73. This represents a palstave in my own collection
found near Dorchester, Oxfordshire. The loop has unfortunately been
broken off. At the stop the metal is 1¼ inch thick, but the diaphragm
between the two recesses for the haft is only ⅜ inch thick. This
specimen is shorter than usual in the blade, which not improbably has
been considerably worn away by use.
A somewhat larger instrument, but of precisely the same type, found
at Ramsbury,[308] Wilts, is engraved in the Salisbury volume of the
Archæological Institute. The Rev. James Beck, F.S.A., has one (6¼
inches) of narrower proportions, found at Pulborough,[309] Sussex. I
have seen another from near Wallingford, Berks. Stukeley has engraved
a somewhat similar palstave found near Windsor.[310]
[Illustration: Fig. 73.—Dorchester. ½]
In some the bottom of the recesses, instead of being square, is
rounded more or less like Fig. 52, and there is a projecting bead
round its margin. I have a narrow specimen of this kind 5⅝ inches
long and 1⅛ inch broad at the edge, found in the neighbourhood of
Dorchester, Oxon.
A number of palstaves of this kind were discovered in 1861 at
Wilmington,[311] Sussex, in company with socketed celts, fragments of
two daggers, and a mould for socketed celts. The whole of these are
now in the Lewes Museum.
In the hoard found near Guilsfield,[312] Montgomeryshire, were some
instruments of this kind, associated with socketed celts, gouges,
swords, scabbards, spear-heads, &c. Others from Stretton,[313]
Staffordshire (5¼ inches), and Lancashire[314] (5½ inches) are
engraved, though badly, in the _Archæologia_. Two others of this
character (5 inches) were found on Hangleton Down,[315] near Brighton,
and another at Glangwnny,[316] near Caernarvon.
I have seen others found at Sutton, near Woodbridge, Suffolk.
A larger example of the same type, found near Wallingford, and
communicated to me by Mr. H. A. Davy, is shown in Fig. 74. In this
the blade is flat and without ornament. The short specimen shown in
Fig. 73 may originally have resembled this; as such instruments must
have been liable to break, and would then have been drawn out and
sharpened in a curtailed condition; or if not broken would become
eventually “stumped up” by wear. In the British Museum and elsewhere
are many palstaves and celts which have been worn almost to the stump
by resharpening.
Nearly thirty palstaves, mostly, I believe, of this type, were found
with about twelve socketed celts, like Fig. 116, and lumps of rough
metal, near Worthing, in 1877. The whole had been packed in an urn, of
coarse earthenware.
Looped palstaves of the type of Fig. 74 are occasionally found in
Ireland. One with a small bead running down the centre of the blade
found in West Meath is engraved in the _Archæologia_.[317]
One from Grenoble,[318] Isère, is engraved by Chantre.
[Illustration: Fig. 74.—Wallingford. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 75.—Stanton Harcourt. ½]
Some palstaves of much the same general character have a median ridge,
occasionally almost amounting to a rib, running down the blade below
the stop. One of this kind from Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire, is
shown in Fig. 75. On the face of the recess there are some slightly
raised ribs running down to the stop, which are not shown in the cut.
Two (6¾ inches) were found near Bolton Percy, Yorkshire, one of which
is in Canon Greenwell’s collection, and the other in the British
Museum.
Mr. John Brent, F.S.A., has an example of nearly the same type from
Blean, near Canterbury. Another from Buckland, near Dover (6¼ inches),
is in the Mayer Collection at Liverpool. One from Ombersley,[319]
Worcestershire, appears to be of the same kind. I have also a large
specimen (6⅞ inches) from Bottisham, Cambridge.
In the palstave engraved as Fig. 76, the central rib down the
blade is much more fully developed. It was found at Brassington,
near Wirksworth, Derbyshire, and is in my own collection. It is
considerably undercut at the stop, so as to keep the handle pressed
against the central diaphragm of metal.
A palstave of the same character from Llanidan,[320] Anglesea, has
been figured. It is said to have been found with another without a
loop. Another from Boston,[321] Lincolnshire, is engraved in the
_Archæologia_. Others with the ribs very distinct were found in a
hoard at Wallington, Northumberland, and are in the possession of Sir
Charles Trevelyan.
I have seen others of the same general character which were found
at Downton, near Salisbury (5¾ inches), and at Aston le Walls,
Northamptonshire.
One with a narrower and more distinct midrib, found at Nymegen,
Guelderland, Holland, is in the museum at Leyden.
[Illustration: Fig. 76.—Brassington. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 77.—Bath. ½]
In Fig. 77 is shown another variety which has two beads running down
the sides of the blade, in addition to the central rib. I bought
this specimen at Bath, but I do not know where it was discovered.
It is much like one which was found on the Quantock Hills,[322]
in Somersetshire, and is engraved in the _Archæologia_. The side
flanges are, however, in that case more lozenge-shaped, and project
to obtuse points about half an inch above the stop. Two palstaves
and two torques were on that occasion found buried together, as has
already been mentioned. One of the same type (5¾ inches) from Elsham,
Lincolnshire, is in the British Museum.
One of narrower form (6⅛ inches) but of the same character, found
with socketed celts (some of them octagonal at the neck) at Haxey,
Lincolnshire, is in the collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S.
I have another of the same type, but imperfect, which was found with a
plain bronze bracelet, and what from the description must have been a
small ribbon-like gold torque, at Winterhay Green, near Ilminster. I
have a smaller specimen (5 inches) from the Cambridge Fens.
The unfinished casting for a palstave of the type Fig. 77 (5½ inches)
was found with four looped palstaves, and one without a loop, and a
spear-head like Fig. 409 at Sherford,[323] near Taunton, in 1879. Some
of the palstaves have a raised inverted chevron below the stop-ridge
by way of ornament.
Palstaves of the same character, but without the loop, have already
been described under Fig. 63. The looped type, like Fig. 77, occurs
also in Ireland.[324]
In the Museum of the Society of Antiquaries of London is a heavy
narrow looped palstave (8 inches by 2 inches) with this ornamentation,
found in Spain.
[Illustration: Fig. 78.—Oldbury Hill. ½]
The central rib running down the blade is in many cases connected with
some ornament below the stop-ridge. The ornament consists usually of
raised ribs, either straight and converging, as on Fig. 78, or curved
so as to form a semi-elliptical or shield-shaped loop, as on Fig. 79.
The original of Fig. 78 was found on Oldbury Hill, Much Marcle,
Herefordshire, and is in my own collection. I have a smaller example
of the same type (5⅜ inches) found at Hammerton, Huntingdonshire, as
well as one from the Cambridge Fens (6 inches).
One (6¾ inches) found at Danesfield,[325] near Bangor, has been
figured. I have seen one found near Chelmsford (6¾ inches) with much
the same ornament. One (6¼ inches) in the Museum of the Society of
Antiquaries, found in Northamptonshire, has the middle rib large, and
the converging ribs much slighter. There are some which have only a
slight central ridge on the blade, and are ornamented with an indented
chevron below the stop-ridge. I have one such from the Cambridge Fens,
and I have seen one (6½ inches) which was found at Broomswell, near
Woodbridge, Suffolk.
A palstave of this character 6 inches long, found near the Upper
Woodhouse Farm, Knighton, Radnorshire, is engraved in the _Archæologia
Cambrensis_.[326] The loop, owing to a defect in casting, is filled
with metal. Six others (6 inches long), apparently of the same
character, were found with some rough castings of flanged celts at
Rhosnesney,[327] near Wrexham.
Two others (6 inches) were found with a chisel and a spear-head, like
Fig. 407, at Broxton, Cheshire, and are in the collection of Sir P. de
M. Grey Egerton, Bart.
The type is found upon the continent. One from Normandy[328] has been
engraved by the Abbé Cochet. I have an example from the neighbourhood
of Abbeville.
One from near Giessen, in the museum at Darmstadt, is figured by
Lindenschmit.[329]
[Illustration: Fig. 79.—Ross. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 80.—Honington. ½]
That with the shield-shaped ornament below the stop-ridge, shown in
Fig. 79, is in my own collection, and was found near Ross. The central
rib runs only part of the way up the shield. In a specimen from the
Cambridge Fens (5⅝ inches) it stops short on joining the ridge forming
the shield.
In others it forms a heraldic pale running through the shield, as in
five found at Waldron,[330] Sussex.
A smaller variety, in which the vertical rib does not extend into the
shield, is shown in Fig. 80. This specimen was found at Honington,
Suffolk.
In some the shield-shaped ornament consists of merely two triangular
depressions. A palstave of this class, rather narrow at the
stop-ridge, and with almost triangular blade, is shown in Fig. 81.
The original, which is of more yellow metal than ordinary, was found
in the neighbourhood of Ely, and is in the collection of Mr. Marshall
Fisher, who has kindly allowed me to figure it. In one such from
Downton, near Salisbury, in the Blackmore Museum, the faces of the
diaphragm between the recesses for the handle have raised ridges or
ribs running along nearly the whole length, five on one face and six
on the other. These are longer than in the Nottingham specimen shortly
to be mentioned.
In one found at Hotham Carr (5¾ inches), Yorkshire, and now in Canon
Greenwell’s collection, there is a bead running down the blade between
the two depressions.
[Illustration: Fig. 81.—Ely. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 82.—Bottisham. ½]
This shield-shaped ornament below the stop-ridge is well shown in a
palstave from Bottisham Lode, Cambridge, engraved as Fig. 82. What may
be called the field of the shield is on one face nearly flat; on the
other there are indentations on either side of the central ridge. As
will be seen, the extremities of the cutting edge are recurved, both
in this and the specimen from Ross shown in Fig. 79. It does not,
however, appear that the instruments were originally cast in this
form, but the wide segmental edge, together with the recurved ends,
seem to be the result of a constant hammering out of the blade, in
order to renew or harden the edge. Though the hammer was thus freely
used, the whetstone was employed both to polish the sides of the blade
and to perfect the cutting edge.
I have a French palstave found near Abbeville, almost identical with
this in size and form. The shield ornament is, however, replaced by
two triangular depressions with a rib left between them, like that on
Fig. 81.
In some specimens the ornamentation consists of a greater or less
number of parallel ribs below the stop-ridge, as in that from
Nettleham,[331] Lincolnshire, shown in Fig. 83. With this were found
two others and a fourth without loop, two peculiar socketed celts,
two spear-heads, and a ferrule, which will be subsequently mentioned.
They are now in the British Museum.
A nearly similar discovery was made in 1860 near Nottingham,[332]
where a palstave was found similarly ornamented, but also having three
ribs on the diaphragm above the stop-ridge. It was accompanied by
sixteen socketed celts, four spear-heads, a tanged knife, fragments of
swords, a ferrule, &c.
In Mr. Brackstone’s collection was a palstave of the same type, found
near Ulleskelf,[333] Yorkshire, in 1849, with two socketed celts, one
of them of the peculiar type shown in Fig. 158.
[Illustration: Fig. 83.—Nettleham. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 84.—Cambridge. ½]
I have a palstave found near Dorchester, Oxfordshire, of the same kind
as Fig. 83, with three ribs below the stop-ridge. There are also side
flanges at that part of the blade of the same length and character as
the ribs in the middle of the blade, so as virtually to make five ribs.
Canon Greenwell has specimens of this type (6⅛ inches) from
Llandysilio, Denbighshire, and (6 inches) from Ubbeston, Suffolk. One
(6¼ inches) from Keswick, Cumberland, in the same collection has the
ribs 1¾ inches long. Another (6⅜ inches) was found at Vronheulog,[334]
Merionethshire.
I have a very fine and perfect specimen (6¾ inches) from the Cambridge
Fens, on which the three ribs stand out in high relief and converge so
as to form a triangle below the stop-ridge something like that on Fig.
78.
A palstave, having a series of ribs upon the diaphragm as well as
below the stop-ridge, is shown in Fig. 84. In this instance the upper
series of ribs extends nearly to the top of the instrument. It was
probably thought that they assisted in making the haft firm to the
blade. This specimen, which has been much cleaned, is in the British
Museum, and as it formed part of the late Mr. Lichfield’s collection
it was probably found in the neighbourhood of Cambridge.
[Illustration: Fig. 85.—Carlton Rode. ½]
The form of palstave, so common in France and Germany, without
stop-ridge, and with the side wings hammered over so as to form a kind
of semi-cylindrical socket on either side of the blade, is rare in
England. A specimen from the great find of Carlton Rode,[335] Norfolk,
is shown in Fig. 85. There is usually at the top of the blade a sort
of dovetailed notch, which may possibly have been made of service in
hafting the tool. It originates, however, in there having been two
runners by which the metal was conducted into the mould, which when
broken off left two projections at the top of the blade. These being
hammered so as to round the external angles and flatten the ends have
come over towards each other, and made what was a notch with parallel
sides into one which is dovetailed.
In this hoard were found numerous socketed celts, gouges, chisels,
hammers, pieces of metal, &c. It seems to have been the stock in trade
of a bronze-founder. Some other specimens from the same hoard will
subsequently be described.
Another palstave of the same character was found, with many socketed
celts, fragments of swords and daggers, and rough metal, at
Cumberlow,[336] near Baldock, Herts.
Three others were found in 1806, with two socketed celts, a fragment
of a sword, three lumps of raw copper, and four gold armlets, on the
beach near Eastbourne,[337] immediately under Beachy Head. They passed
with the Payne Knight collection into the British Museum.
That found “in an old wall, in Purbeck,”[338] with the socket
“_double_ or _divided by a partition_,” as described by Mr. Hutchins
in a letter to Bishop Lyttelton in 1768, must probably have been of
this kind.
A good specimen of the same character but bent (5⅜ inches), as well
as part of another, was found at Wickham Park, Croydon, together with
several socketed celts. They are now in the British Museum.
The upper part of a palstave of this character was found with socketed
celts, gouges, &c., in the Hundred of Hoo,[339] Kent. It has been
thought that this was cast hollow to receive a central prong, but
the cavity is probably due to defective casting. A broken instrument
of this kind was found with socketed celts and metal on Kenidjack
Cliff,[340] Cornwall.
Palstaves of this type, both with and without loops, are much more
abundant on the Continent than in Britain. Numerous examples have been
found in France, in Rhenish Prussia, and in the Lake habitations of
Savoy and Switzerland.
A Danish example is engraved by Worsaae,[341] and several from
Germany[342] by Lindenschmit.
Iron palstaves with and without loops, some of them closely
approximating to the form of Fig. 85, but others more like the ordinary
Italian form of palstave, with a broad chisel-like blade, have been
found in the cemetery of Hallstatt.[343] In a specimen in my own
collection the side flanges are ornamented with transverse ribs,
precisely like those on some of the bronze palstaves from the same
locality. In one instance the upper part with the flanges is of bronze,
and the lower part of the blade of iron or steel.
This form of instrument, with a section in the form of the letter H
above, though easily cast, must have been extremely difficult to forge;
and though we can readily trace its evolution in cast bronze, it so ill
accorded with the necessary conditions for the profitable working of
malleable iron that it seems soon to have disappeared when iron came
into general use. The fact of the form occurring at all in iron shows
that the iron instruments were made in imitation of those in bronze,
and not the bronze in imitation of the iron. The same observation holds
good with the iron socketed celts, spear-heads, and swords from the
same cemetery.
Looped palstaves, without sufficient details being given of
their types, are recorded to have been found in Harewood Square,
London,[344] Oxford,[345] Devonshire,[346] and with socketed celts,
near Kidwelly,[347] Caermarthen.
A looped palstave rather like Fig. 75 is said to have been found in a
barrow near St. Austell,[348] Cornwall, in 1791, but no details are
given.
Palstaves provided with a loop on either side are of rare occurrence
in the British Islands.
A specimen found in 1871 at Penvores,[349] near Mawgan-in-Meneage,
Cornwall, is engraved as Fig. 86. In character it closely resembles
that from Brassington, Fig. 76, the main difference consisting in
its second loop. This specimen, with another from Cornwall and two
from Ireland, was exhibited to the Society of Antiquaries in 1873,
and is now in the British Museum. In the same collection is another,
6½ inches long, somewhat lighter below the stop-ridge, and having
the central rib less fully developed on the blade. It was found in
Somersetshire in 1868, in making the Cheddar Valley line of railway.
Another found in 1842, near South Petherton,[350] in the same county,
is in the possession of Mr. Norris at that place.
[Illustration: Fig. 86.—Penvores. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 87.—West Buckland. ½]
Another example, shown in Fig. 87 was found at West Buckland,[351]
Somersetshire, and is in the collection of Mr. W. A. Sanford. With
it were discovered a torque (Fig. 468,) and a bracelet, (Fig. 481,)
and also some charcoal and burnt bones, but there was no sign of any
tumulus. Irish specimens will be subsequently mentioned.
[Illustration: Fig. 88. Bryn Crûg. ½]
Another two-looped instrument of a different character was found at
Bryn Crûg,[352] near Carnarvon, in company with a tanged knife and a
pin with three holes through its flat head (Fig. 450). It is shown in
Fig. 88, copied on a reduced scale from the _Archæological Journal_.
It resembles a flanged celt except in having that part of the blade
which lies between the side loops raised to the level of the flanges.
In France these double-looped palstaves are of rare occurrence, but I
have seen one much like Fig. 86 which was found in the Department of
Haute Ariège, and is now in the Toulouse Museum. One from Tarbes[353]
was in the Exposition des Sciences Anthropologiques, at Paris in 1878.
Another was found at Langoiran (Gironde).
[Illustration: Fig. 89. Andalusia. ½]
The form is much more abundant in Spain, but in most cases both
the blade and the tang are long and narrow in their proportions.
An engraving of one from Andalusia is given in the _Archæological
Journal_,[354] and is here by permission reproduced as Fig. 89. I
have one like it from a mine in the Asturias. One rather broader
from the Sierra de Baza,[355] Andalusia, has also been figured. A
broken and unfinished double-looped palstave from Oviedo, now in the
British Museum, has a cup-shaped projection at the butt end which has
been filled with lead, possibly in old times, but for what purpose
it is impossible to say. An engraving of one much like it has been
published.[356] There are several such in the Museums at Madrid, with
the head of metal left on the castings.
The forms of celts and palstaves treated of in this chapter are found
also in Scotland, though perhaps less frequently than those of the flat
and flanged forms described in the previous chapter.
Many so closely resemble English specimens that it is needless to give
representations of them, as a reference to the figures in the preceding
pages will sufficiently indicate their character.
In the Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh is a winged celt 4½ inches long
much like Fig. 56, which was found on the top of a hill called Lord
Arthur’s Cairn, in the parish of Tullynessle,[357] Aberdeenshire.
Another, 6 inches long, with the wings somewhat curved inwards, was
found at Kerswell,[358] in the parish of Carnwath, Lanarkshire.
Another winged celt, 4 inches long, was ploughed up on the estate of
Barcaldine,[359] Argyleshire.
In the same Museum are also winged celts (5 inches) from Birrenswark,
Dumfriesshire, and from the neighbourhood of Peebles, much like that
from Reeth (Fig. 56).
A chisel-shaped celt, in character much like Fig. 55, but having a
slight stop-ridge, was found in Burreldale Moss,[360] Keith Hall,
Aberdeenshire, and has been engraved by the Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland, to whom I am indebted for the use of Fig. 90.
In a palstave (6¾ inches) from Kilnotrie,[361] Crossmichael,
Kircudbright, the lateral flanges are continued below the stop-ridge,
and there is a median ridge down the blade.
In some palstaves in the British Museum, found between Balcarry and
Kilfillan, Wigtonshire, the stop-ridges instead of being at right
angles to the face of the blade shelve outwards. One of them is
engraved as Fig. 91. The sides are hammered into V-shaped depressions
forming a kind of fern-leaf pattern along them.
Two of these palstaves are figured on a larger scale in the _Ayr and
Wigton Collections_.[362]
Another palstave from Windshiel, near Dunse, in the Antiquarian Museum
at Edinburgh, has also the flanges somewhat hammered over.
[Illustration: Fig. 90.—Burreldale Moss. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 91.—Balcarry. ½]
A palstave without loop, and which from the engraving appears to have
a well-marked stop-ridge and to have the side flanges much hammered
over, is said to have been found near Tintot-top,[363] in Clydesdale.
The description, however, says that it has no stop, otherwise the
figure would almost justify an attribution of the instrument to
Southern Germany rather than to Scotland. Another of much the same
character, but without any stop-ridge, has been figured from Baron
Clerk’s[364] collection as having been found in Scotland.
Palstaves with a side loop have been said[365] to be common in
Scotland; but this can hardly be the case, as in the Museum of the
Society of Antiquaries of Scotland there are no authenticated examples.
One from Aikbrae,[366] Lanarkshire (6¾ inches), like Fig. 77, has
been figured. Wilson gives another example like Fig. 78, but does not
say where it was found. The “spade” he gives as his Fig. 59 is in all
probability Italian.
[Illustration: Fig. 92.—Pettycur. ½]
A palstave rather like that from Balcarry, Fig. 91, but with a loop,
is figured by Gordon[367] as having been found in Scotland.
What may be classed as a celt with two side loops, or possibly as a
chisel, is said to have been found in the year 1810 in a barrow near
Pettycur,[368] Fifeshire. It is described as very strong, and the bend
in the upper part, as seen in Fig. 92, is thought to be accidental.
Wilson describes it as a crowbar or lever, but as its total length is
only 7½ inches it can hardly be classed among such instruments.
A somewhat similar tool, but without holes in the side stops (7⅞
inches), is in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy.[369]
Turning now to the instruments of this class discovered in Ireland,
I may observe that it is so difficult to draw the line between the
flanged celts, tapering both ways from a central ridge, and those
which have a slight projecting stop-ridge upon them, that some Irish
instruments of the latter class have already been mentioned in the
preceding chapter, to which the reader is referred for the more highly
ornamented varieties. Other Irish types have also been incidentally
cited.
Some of the Irish palstaves much resemble English and Scottish types,
but generally speaking there are sufficient peculiarities in their
forms to enable a practised observer to recognise their origin. For
several other varieties of form, besides those mentioned in the
following pages, the reader is referred to Wilde’s Catalogue.
Winged celts without a stop-ridge, like Fig. 53, have occasionally
been found in Ireland, and one is figured by Wilde.[370] I have one
(5¼ inches) from Armoy, Co. Antrim. The wide-spreading celt with a
slight stop-ridge and segmental band upon the blade, like Fig. 50,
also occurs. A remarkably fine specimen from Westmeath with punctured
ornaments on the wings and at the lower margin of the band has been
engraved by Wilde.[371] Some are without the segmental band.
The type of Fig. 54 has also been found. I have a specimen (6 inches)
from Ballinamallard, near Enniskillen.
Palstaves without a stop-ridge, and with broad lozenge-shaped wings,
like Fig. 56, are of rare occurrence. One of nearly the same type, but
having a low projecting ridge between the wings, is shown in Fig. 93.
[Illustration: Fig. 93.—Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 94.—Ireland. ½]
I have another from Armoy, Co. Antrim (6 inches), with a still
slighter transverse ridge, which forms the upper boundary to a
shield-shaped projection on the blade, on which is a central vertical
ridge with two others on each side less definitely marked. The base of
the shield is pointed.
A not uncommon type has a very high stop-ridge coming up to the level
of the side wings, the blade above the stop-ridge being somewhat
thinner than it is below. An example is shown in Fig. 94.
I have another from County Antrim, in which the lower part of the
blade has a slight median vertical ridge.
In a palstave in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy,[372] with
elliptical wings, a long fusiform boss has been cast in the centre of
the blade.
[Illustration: Fig. 95.—Ireland. ½]
In another instrument in the same collection the whole blade is
thickened out so as to form the stop-ridge, as will be seen in Fig. 95.
In other cases the ridge of the wings is continued as a moulding on
the face of the blade, so as to enclose a space below the stop-ridge.
From the base of this there sometimes proceeds a vertical rib, as seen
in Fig. 96.
Inverted chevrons by way of ornament below the stop-ridge are not
uncommon, sometimes with a vertical rib in addition.
Such compartments are often seen on the winged celts, with only
a slight stop-ridge. Fig. 97 shows an example from Lanesborough,
Co. Longford, now in the collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S. The
compartment is ornamented with vertical punch marks. The outside of
the wings is faceted after a fashion not unusual in Ireland, but there
is here a slight shoulder at the base of the central facet which may
have assisted in securing the blade to the handle. On a specimen at
Dublin there are on the otherwise flat sides elevated transverse
ridges, which, as Sir W. Wilde[373] has pointed out, may have served
“to keep the tying in its place.”
[Illustration: Fig. 96.—North of Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 97.—Lanesborough. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 98.—Trillick. ½]
The sides of other specimens of much the same type are otherwise
fashioned and ornamented. In Fig. 98 is shown a celt from Trillick,
Co. Tyrone, on the sides of which a kind of fern-leaf pattern has been
hammered, or rather punched, not unlike the carving on one of the
stones in the great chambered tumulus of New Grange. The shield plate
has two vertical hollows worked on it.
The side of a celt ornamented in the same manner is engraved by
Wilde.[374]
A small palstave, with two vertical grooves in the blade, is shown in
Fig. 99.
Another form of winged celt, with a low stop-ridge and with a vertical
rib passing through an inverted chevron on the blade, is shown in Fig.
100. The original is in the collection of Mr. Robert Day, F.S.A.
The same style of ornament occurs on palstaves of other forms.[375]
In some instances, there is in the centre of the stop-ridge a kind of
bracket on the blade, and the side wings are hammered over so as to
form an imperfect socket. A small example of the kind is shown in Fig.
101. I have a larger specimen (4½ inches) from Trillick, Co. Tyrone.
Vallancey[376] engraves a palstave of this type.
Others with flat blades and no brackets have the side flanges hammered
over in the same manner.
[Illustration: Fig. 99.—Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 100.—Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 101.—Ireland. ½]
A fine example, in which the conical bracket dies into the stop-ridge
and side flanges, is in the British Museum.
Palstaves with a loop at the side are not of such frequent occurrence
in Ireland as those without. Wilde[377] has engraved a specimen (6⅜
inches) like Fig. 77 as well as that[378] which I have here shown on a
larger scale as Fig. 102. This latter has the wings well hammered over
at the base, so as to form a kind of socket on each side of the blade.
It differs, however, from the English and foreign specimens like Fig.
85 in having a well-marked shoulder or stop on the blade between the
wings.
[Illustration: Fig. 102.—Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 103.—Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 104.—Ireland. ½]
Palstaves of nearly the same character, but without the loop, have
already been mentioned as found both in Ireland and Scotland. Others,
with loops like Fig. 103, have a bracket on the blade between the
flanges.
A remarkable form with slight side flanges and no stop-ridge, from
the Dublin Museum, is shown in Fig. 104. It is No. 630 in Wilde’s
Catalogue. The sides have deep diagonal notches upon them and the
upper part of each face is chequered, perhaps in order to assist in
steadying the blade in its handle.
Another noteworthy palstave, found at Miltown, Co. Dublin, is shown
in Fig. 105. In this the side wings are not hammered over, and the
stop is supported by a conical bracket. The shoulders, instead of
being nearly square to the midrib, are inclined upwards at an angle
of nearly 45°, so as to form receptacles in which the wedge-shaped
ends of the split handle would be held tight against the blade.
These inclined stops have been observed in other palstaves of
different forms, and Sir W. Wilde[379] has called attention to them
in connection with a palstave much like that now under consideration,
but without any projection or loop on the side. The most remarkable
feature in the Miltown example is a projecting, slightly curved
spike or neb placed near the top of the blade rather above the
position usually occupied by the loop. At first sight it looks like an
imperfect loop, but, on examination, it is evident that the casting is
perfect; and, on consideration, it seems clear that this projection
would serve quite as well as a loop for receiving a cord to hold the
blade back upon its haft, while for the actual tying it would be more
convenient, as the cord would have merely to be passed over a hook,
and not to be threaded through a loop. In a somewhat similar palstave
(3⅞ inches) in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy[380] there is
also a projecting neb, but more semicircular in outline. I am not
sure that it was intended for the same purpose. A looped palstave of
this type, but with the bottom of the side socket more circular, is
engraved by Vallancey.[381]
[Illustration: Fig. 105.—Miltown. ½]
Some of the socketed celts from the Bologna hoard have curved nebs on
each side instead of rings. Instruments of the same character, also
from Italy, have been engraved by De Bonstetten,[382] Schreiber,[383]
and Caylus.[384]
Double-looped palstaves, with a loop on either side, and in character
like Fig. 86, are almost or quite as rare in Ireland as in England.
The only specimen engraved by Wilde[385] is in the collection of Lord
Talbot de Malahide. It is 6¼ inches long, with the loops not quite
symmetrical. It was supposed to be unique. I have, however, another
specimen of this type (6⅜ inches) found at Ballincollig,[386] Co.
Cork, in 1854, which was formerly in the collection of the Rev. Thomas
Hugo, F.S.A. It so closely resembles Fig. 86 that it is not worth
while to engrave it.
Another remarkable and indeed unique instrument, in the Museum of the
Royal Irish Academy,[387] is shown in Fig. 106. It is like a flat
celt, but has grooves and stops at the side like a palstave with a
transverse edge. Below the stops are two loops. The sides below the
stops are ornamented with transverse lines, and on the face here shown
there is a dotted kind of cartouche below the stops, and a square
compartment chequered in lozenges above them. This latter is wanting
on the other face, but the corresponding cartouche below is divided
into small lozenges alternately hatched and plain.
[Illustration: Fig. 106.—Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 107.—Ireland. ½]
Another Irish instrument of nearly the same form, but without the
grooves and stops at the sides, is in the Bell Collection in the
Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh; but its exact place of finding is
uncertain. It is shown in Fig. 107, and, like that last described, has
each of its faces ornamented in a different manner.
[Illustration: Fig. 108.—Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 109.—Ballymena. ½]
The palstaves with a transverse edge are of more common occurrence in
Ireland than in England, but are even there very rare. That engraved
as Fig. 108 was formerly in the collection of the Rev. Thomas Hugo,
F.S.A.[388] A similar tool is figured by Vallancey.[389]
The smaller specimen shown in Fig. 109 was found near Ballymena, Co.
Antrim, and is in the collection of Mr. Robert Day, F.S.A. I have one
from the North of Ireland (4 inches) with the stops less distinct.
Another Irish specimen (3 inches) is in the British Museum. In the
Museum of the Royal Irish Academy are several varying in length from
2⅝ inches to 5¼ inches. They are classed by Wilde[390] among the
chisels. In describing the various forms illustrated by the figures,
I have from time to time called attention to the analogies which they
present with other European forms, and it is hardly necessary to make
any broad comparison of British palstaves and winged celts with those
of other European countries. It would indeed be a difficult task to
attempt, as in each country, if not in several districts in each
country, the instruments of this kind are characterised by some local
peculiarity.
Perhaps it will be more instructive to mention certain continental
forms which are conspicuous by their absence in Britain.
We have not, for instance, the southern French form with a kind of
contracted waist and broad side flanges or rounded wings in the middle
of the blade; nor, again, the long narrow form almost resembling a
marrow spoon; nor that with the almost circular blade, much like
an ancient mirror. Nor have we the German form, with the V-shaped
stop-ridge, nor that in which the stop-ridge forms a circular collar
above a blade with beadings along the sides. Nor have we the common
Italian form, with the blade like a long spud; nor, again, the narrow
Scandinavian form, which is often highly decorated.
And yet, in comparing the instruments described in the present chapter
with those of neighbouring countries, and especially of France, it will
at once be remarked that, as might have been reasonably expected, the
closest analogies are to be observed between some of those of England
and France, while in the more peculiarly Scottish and Irish types the
resemblances are more remote. It must, however, be borne in mind that
there is good evidence in the shape of moulds and bronze-founders’
hoards, such as will subsequently be mentioned, to prove that these
instruments were cast in various parts of this country; so that, though
some palstaves may be of foreign origin, yet, as a rule, it was the
fashion of the objects rather than the objects themselves for which
the inhabitants of Britain were indebted to foreign intercourse. Even
in the area now embraced by France there does not appear to have been
any single centre of manufacture, but, taken as a group, the palstaves
of the South, the North, and the North-west of France present some
distinguishing characteristics. The same is the case with the socketed
celts of that country, the English representatives of which will be
discussed in the next chapter.
CHAPTER V.
SOCKETED CELTS.
THE class of celts cast in such a manner as to have a socket for
receiving the haft is numerously represented in the British Isles. In
this form of instrument the haft was actually imbedded in the blade,
whereas in the case of the flat and flanged celts, and of the so-called
palstaves, the blade was imbedded in the handle, so that the terms,
“the recipient” and “the received,” originally given to the two classes
by Dr. Stukeley, are founded on a well-marked distinction, and are
worthy of being rescued from oblivion.
That the recipient class is of later introduction than the received is
evident from several considerations. In the first place, a flat blade
not only approaches most nearly in form to the stone hatchets or celts
which it was destined to supersede, but it also requires much less
skill in casting than the blade provided with a socket. For casting
the flat celts there was, indeed, no need of a mould formed of two
pieces; a simple recess of the proper form cut in a stone, or formed
in loam, being sufficient to give the shape to a flat blade of metal,
which could be afterwards wrought into the finished form by hammering.
And secondly, as will subsequently be seen, a gradual development can
be traced from the flat celt, through those with flanges and wings, to
the palstave form, with the wings hammered over so as to constitute
two semicircular sockets, one on each side of the blade; while on
certain of the socketed celts flanges precisely similar to those of
the palstaves have been cast by way of ornament on the sides, and
what was thus originally a necessity in construction has survived as
a superfluous decoration. There is at least one instance known of the
intermediate form between a palstave with pocket-like recesses on
each side of a central plate and a celt with a single socket. In the
museum at Trent[391] there is an instrument in which the socket is
divided throughout its entire length into two compartments with a plate
between, and, as Professor Strobel says, resembling a palstave with
the wings on each side united so as to form a socket on each side. The
evolution of the one type from the other is thus doubly apparent, and
it is not a little remarkable that though palstaves with the wings bent
over are, as has already been stated, of rare occurrence in the British
Islands, yet socketed celts, having on their faces the curved wings
in a more or less rudimentary condition, are by no means unfrequently
found. The inference which may be drawn from this circumstance is that
the discovery of the method of casting socketed celts was not made
in Britain but in some other country, where the palstaves with the
converging wings were abundant and in general use, and that the first
socketed celts employed in this country, or those which served as
patterns for the native bronze-founders, were imported from abroad.
Although socketed celts, with distinct curved wings upon their faces,
are probably the earliest of their class, yet it is impossible to say
to how late a period the curved lines, which eventually became the
representatives of the wings, may not have come down. This form of
ornamentation was certainly in use at the same time as other forms,
as we know from the hoards in which socketed celts of different
patterns have been found together. As has already been recorded, the
socketed form has also been frequently found associated with palstaves,
especially with those of the looped variety.
The form of the tapering socket varies considerably, the section being
in some instances round or oval, and in other cases presenting every
variety of form between these and the square or rectangular. There is
usually some form of moulding or beading round the mouth of the celt,
below which the body before expanding to form the edge is usually
round, oval, square, rectangular, or more or less regularly hexagonal
or octagonal. The decorations generally consist of lines, pellets, and
circles, cast in relief upon the faces, and much more rarely on the
sides. Not unfrequently there is no attempt at decoration beyond the
moulding at the top. The socketed celts are, almost without exception,
devoid of ornaments produced by punches or hammer marks, such as are so
common on the solid celts and palstaves. This may be due to their being
more liable to injury from blows owing to the thinness of the metal
and to their being hollow. They are nearly always provided with a loop
at one side, though some few have been cast without loops. These are
usually of small size, and were probably used as chisels rather than as
hatchets. A very few have a loop on each side.
The types are so various that it is hard to make any proper
classification of them. I shall, therefore, take them to a certain
extent at hazard, keeping those, however, together which most nearly
approximate to each other. I begin with a specimen showing in a very
complete manner the raised wings already mentioned.
[Illustration: Fig. 110.—High Roding. ½.]
[Illustration: Fig. 111.—Dorchester, Oxon. ½.]
This instrument formed part of a hoard of celts and fragments of
metal found at High Roding, Essex, and now in the British Museum, and
is represented in Fig. 110. With it was one with two raised pellets
beneath the moulding round the mouth, and one with three longitudinal
ribs. The others were plain.
Another (4 inches), with a treble moulding at the top, from
Wateringbury, Kent, was in the Douce and Meyrick Collections, and is
now also in the British Museum.
I have a German celt of this type, but without the pellets, found in
Thuringia. Others are engraved by Lindenschmit,[392] Montelius,[393]
and Chantre.[394] I have a good example from Lutz (Eure et Loir).
On many French celts the wings are shown by depressed lines or grooves
on the faces. I have specimens from a hoard found at Dreuil, near
Amiens, and from Lusancy, near Rheims. Others with the curved lines
more or less distinct have been found in various parts of France.
There is an example from Maulin in the Museum at Namur, and a Dutch
example is in the Museum at Assen.
In Fig. 111 is shown a larger celt in my own collection, found in
the neighbourhood of Dorchester, Oxon. The wing ornament no longer
consists of a solid plate, but the outlines of the wings of the
palstave are shown by two bold projecting beads which extend over
the sides of the celt as well as the faces. The socket is circular
at the mouth, but the neck of the instrument below the moulding
is subquadrate in section. In the socket are two small projecting
longitudinal ribs, probably intended to aid in steadying the haft.
Such projections are not very uncommon, and are sometimes more than
two in number.
A celt ornamented in a similar manner, but with two raised bands
near the mouth, was found with several other socketed celts and some
palstaves with the wings bent over at Cumberlow,[395] near Baldock,
Herts. Some of these are in the British Museum.
Another with two small pellets between the curved lines was found in a
hoard at Beddington,[396] Surrey.
[Illustration: Fig. 112.—Wilts. ½.]
[Illustration: Fig. 113.—Harty. ½.]
Fig. 112 represents another celt of much the same character, but with
a bolder moulding at top, and a slight projecting bead all round the
instrument just below the two curved lines representing the palstave
wings, which on these celts have just the appearance of heraldic
“flanches.” On the face not shown there is a triangular projection
at the top like a “pile in chief” between the flanches. Inside the
socket there are two longitudinal projections as in the last. The
original of this figure, which has been broken and repaired with the
edge of another celt, is in the Blackmore Museum at Salisbury, and was
probably found in Wilts.
In the British Museum is an example of this type (4 inches) which has
on one face only a pellet in the upper part of the compartment between
the two “flanches.” It was found at Hounslow.
Another (4 inches) from the Heathery Burn Cave, Durham, is now in the
collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S. I have one with the pattern less
distinct from a hoard found in the Barking Marshes, Essex, in 1862. A
celt much of the same pattern, but without the transverse line below
the flanches, was found on Plumpton Plain,[397] near Lowes.
The same type occurs in France. I have examples from a hoard found
at Dreuil, near Amiens. The same ornament is often seen on Hungarian
celts, though usually without the lower band.
In Fig. 113 is shown one of the celts from the hoard discovered in
the Isle of Harty,[398] Kent, to which I shall have to make frequent
reference. Besides eight more or less perfect unornamented socketed
celts, various hammers, tools, and moulds, five celts of this type
were found. Although so closely resembling each other that they were
probably cast in the same mould, in fact in that which was found at
the same time, there is a considerable difference observable among
them, especially in the upper part above the loop. In the one shown in
the figure there are three distinct beaded mouldings above the loop,
and above these again is a plain, somewhat expanding tube. In one
of the others, however, there are only the two lowest of the beaded
mouldings, and the upper half-inch of the celt first mentioned is
absolutely wanting. The three others show very little of the plain
part above the upper moulding. As will subsequently be explained,
the variation in length appears to be connected with the method of
casting, and to have arisen from a greater part of the mould having
been “stopped off” in one case than another.
[Illustration: Fig. 114.—Harty. ½.]
[Illustration: Fig. 115.—Dorchester, Oxon.]
It will be noticed that the “flanches” on these celts are placed below
the loop and not close under the cap-moulding. The beads which form
them are continued across the sides. Running part of the way down
inside the socket are two longitudinal ridges which are in the same
line as the runners by which the metal found its way into the mould.
The vertical ridge above the topmost moulding shows where there is a
channel in the mould for the metal to pass by. If the celts had been
skilfully cast so that their top was level with the upper moulding, no
traces of this would have been visible.
In Fig. 114 is shown one of the plain socketed celts from the same
hoard. The mould in which it was cast was found at the same time, as
well as the half of a mould for one of smaller size. The five other
plain celts from the same hoard were all rather less than the one
which is figured, and appear to have been cast in three different
moulds, as the beading round the top varies in character, and in some
is double and not single. The two projections within the socket are in
these but short, though strongly marked.
In the British Museum is a celt of this kind, 4 inches long, found at
Newton, Cambridgeshire, which on its left face, as seen with the loop
towards the spectator, has a small projecting boss 1½ inch below the
top.
Five socketed celts of this plain character (2½ inches to 3¾ inches)
were found together at Lodge Hill, Waddesdon, Bucks, in 1855, and were
lithographed on a private plate by Mr. Edward Stone.
The outline and general character of the celt shown in Fig. 115 may
be taken as representative of one of the most common forms of English
socketed celt. This particular specimen differs, however, from the
ordinary form in having a ridge or ill-defined rib on each face which
adds materially to the weight and somewhat to the strength of the
instrument. It was found near Dorchester, Oxon.
A nearly similar celt found in Mecklenburg has been figured by
Lisch.[399]
[Illustration: Fig. 116.—Reach Fen. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 117.—Reach Fen. ½]
A larger celt of the same general character, found with a hoard of
bronze objects in Reach Fen, Burwell Fen, Cambridge, is shown in Fig.
116. This may also be regarded as a characteristic specimen of the
socketed celts usually found in England, though the second moulding
is often absent, and there is a considerable range in size and in the
proportion of the width to the length. No doubt much of this range is
due to some instruments having been more shortened by use and wear than
others. The edge of a bronze tool must have been constantly liable to
become blunted, jagged, or bent, and when thus injured was doubtless,
to some extent, restored to its original shape by being hammered out,
and then re-ground and sharpened. The repetition of this process would,
in the course of time, materially diminish the length of the blade,
until eventually it would be worn out, or the solid part be broken away
from the socketed portion.
Celts of this general character, plain with the exception of a single
or double beading at the top, occur of various sizes, and have been
found in considerable numbers. In my own collection are specimens (3
inches) from Westwick Row, near Gorhambury, Herts, found with lumps of
rough metal; from Burwell Fen, Cambridge (3¼ inches), found also with
metal, a spear-head like Fig. 381 and a hollow ring; from Bottisham,
Cambridge (3 inches), and other places.
In the Reach Fen hoard already mentioned were some other celts
of this type. They were associated with gouges, chisels, knives,
hammers, and other articles, and also with two socketed celts, one
like Fig. 133, and two like Fig. 124, as well as with two of the type
shown in Fig. 117, with a small bead at some little distance below
the principal moulding round the mouth. One of them has a slightly
projecting rib running down each corner of the blade, a peculiarity
I have noticed in other specimens. The socket is round rather than
square.
I have other examples of this type from a hoard of about sixty celts
found on the Manor Farm, Wymington, Bedfordshire (3¾ inches); from
Burwell Fen, Cambridge (4 inches); and from the hoard found at Carlton
Rode, Norfolk (4 inches). This last has the slightly projecting beads
down the angles.
Socketed celts partaking of the character of the three types last
described, and from 2 inches to 4 inches in length, are of common
occurrence in England. Some with both the single and double mouldings
were found in company with others having vertical beads on the face
like Fig. 124, and a part of a bronze blade at West Halton,[400]
Lincolnshire. I have seen others both with the single and double
moulding which were found with some of the ribbed and octagonal
varieties, a socketed knife, parts of a sword and of a gouge, and
lumps of metal, at Martlesham, Suffolk. These are in the possession of
Captain Brooke, of Ufford Hall, near Woodbridge. Another, apparently
with the double moulding, was found with others (some of a different
type), seven spear-heads, and portions of a sword, near Bilton,[401]
Yorkshire. These are now in the Bateman Collection. Another with the
single moulding was found near Windsor.[402] Others with the double
moulding, to the number of forty, were found with twenty swords and
sixteen spear-heads of different patterns, about the year 1726,
near Alnwick Castle,[403] Northumberland. Some also occurred in the
deposit of nearly a hundred celts which was found with a quantity
of cinders and lumps of rough metal on Earsley Common,[404] about
12 miles N.W. of York, in the year 1735. A socketed celt with the
single moulding was found with spear-heads, part of a dagger, and
some small whetstones, near Little Wenlock,[405] Shropshire. Four
socketed celts of this class with the double moulding were found,
with a socketed gouge and about 30 pounds weight of copper in lumps,
at Sittingbourne,[406] Kent, in 1828. They are, I believe, now in the
Dover Museum. One (4¾ inches), obtained at Honiton,[407] Devonshire,
has a treble moulding at the top, that in the middle being larger than
the other two. The socket is square.
A plain socketed celt, 2¼ inches long, was found in digging gravel
near Cæsar’s Camp,[408] Coombe Wood, Surrey. It is now in the Museum
of the Society of Antiquaries. In the collection of Messrs. Mortimer,
at Fimber, is a celt with the double moulding (3 inches long), found
at Frodingham, near Driffield, which has four small ribs, one in the
centre of each side running down the socket. Another, with the double
moulding (4 inches), and with a nearly round mouth to the socket, was
found at Tun Hill, near Devizes, and is in the Blackmore Museum,
where is also one found near Bath (3¾ inches) with the mouldings more
uniform in size.
A socketed celt without any moulding at the top, which is hollowed and
slopes away from the side on which is the loop, is said to have been
found in a tumulus near the King Barrow on Stowborough Heath,[409]
near Wareham, Dorset.
Socketed celts of this character occur throughout the whole of
France, but are most abundant in the northern parts. They are of rare
occurrence in Germany.
The same form is found among the Lake habitations of Switzerland. Dr.
Gross has specimens from Auvernier and Mœrigen,[410] which closely
resemble English examples.
[Illustration: Fig. 118.—Canterbury. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 119.—Usk. ½]
A celt of the same general character as Fig. 114, but of peculiar
form, narrowing to a central waist, is shown in Fig. 118. The original
was found at Canterbury, and was kindly presented to me by Mr. John
Brent, F.S.A.
Broad socketed celts nearly circular or but slightly oval at the
neck, and closely resembling the common Irish type (Fig. 167) in
form and character, are occasionally found in England. That shown in
Fig. 119 is stated to have been discovered at the Castle Hill, Usk,
Monmouthshire.
I have seen another (3¼ inches) in the collection of Mr. R. Fitch,
F.S.A., which was found at Hanworth, near Holt, Norfolk.
Among those found at Guilsfield,[411] Montgomeryshire, was one of
somewhat the same character, but having a double moulding at the
top. Another,[412] with a nearly square socket, has above a double
moulding, a cable moulding round the mouth, like that on Fig. 172.
In the same hoard were looped palstaves, gouges, spears, swords,
scabbards, &c.
Another, that, to judge from a bad engraving, had no moulding at the
top, which was oval, is said to have been found under a supposed
Druid’s altar near Keven Hirr Vynidd,[413] on the borders of
Brecknockshire.
[Illustration: Fig. 120.—Alfriston. ½]
Another variety, with a nearly square socket and long narrow blade
is shown in Fig. 120, the original of which was found at Alfriston,
Sussex. The loop is imperfect, owing to defective casting. The socket
is very deep, and extends to within an inch of the edge. Instruments
of this type are principally, if not solely, found in our southern
counties. The type is indeed Gaulish rather than British, and is very
abundant in the north-western part of France. It appears probable that
not only was the type originally introduced into this country from
France, but that there was a regular export of such celts to Britain.
For I have in my collection a celt of this type, 4½ inches long, that
was found under the pebble beach at Portland, and in which the core
over which it was cast still fills the socket, the clay having by the
heat of the metal been converted into a brick-like terracotta. It
could, therefore, never have been in use, as no haft could have been
inserted. It is waterworn and corroded by the action of the sea, the
loop having been almost eaten and worn away, so that it is impossible
to say whether the surface and edge were left as they came from the
mould. In the large hoard, however, of bronze celts of this type which
was found at Moussaye, near Plénée-Jugon, in the Côtes du Nord, the
bulk were left in this condition, and with the burnt clay cores still
in the sockets.
I have another celt of the same size and form as that from the Portland
beach, which was found near Wareham, Dorset, and appears to have been
in use.
Two found with many others in the New Forest[414] (3 and 5 inches
long) are engraved in the _Archæologia_. The larger has a rib 3 inches
long running down the face and terminating in an annulet.
Others of the same type have been found at Hollingbury Hill,[415]
and near the church at Brighton,[416] Sussex.
Among the celts found at Karn Brê, Cornwall, in 1744, were some of this
character, but expanding more at the cutting edge. Others were more
like Fig. 124, though longer in proportion. With them are said to have
been found several Roman coins, some as late as the time of Constantius
Chlorus. Others (5 inches long) seem to have formed part of the hoard
found at Mawgan,[417] Cornwall, in which there was also a fine rapier.
Another, from Bath,[418] is in the Duke of Northumberland’s museum at
Alnwick. Another has been cited from Cornwall.[419]
Celts of this form are of rare occurrence in the North of England,
but one, said to have been disinterred with Roman remains at
Chester-le-Street,[420] Durham, is in the Museum of the Society of
Antiquaries of Newcastle-on-Tyne.
[Illustration: Fig. 121. Cambridge Fens. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 122. High Roding. ½]
Celts like Fig. 120 are of very frequent occurrence in Northern France;
large hoards, consisting almost entirely of this type, have been found.
A deposit of sixty was discovered near Lamballe[421] (Côtes du Nord),
and one of more than two hundred at Moussaye, near Plénée-Jugon, in
the same department. Most of the celts in both these hoards had never
been used, and in a large number the core of burnt clay was still in
the socket. A hoard of about fifty is said to have been found near
Bevay,[422] Belgium.
Plain socketed celts nearly square at the mouth have occasionally been
found in Germany. One from Pomerania[423] is much like Fig. 120 in
outline.
The form of narrow celt, which I regard as of Gaulish derivation, is
not nearly so elegant as that of a more purely English type of which an
example is shown in Fig. 121. The original was found in the Cambridge
Fens, and is in my own collection. Within the socket on the centre of
each side is a raised narrow rib running down 2 inches from the mouth,
or to within ¾ inch of the bottom of the socket.
The type is rare; but a specimen (5 inches) of nearly the same form
as the figure was found, with palstaves, sickles, &c., near Taunton,
Somerset.[424] There is also a resemblance to the Barrington celt, Fig.
148.
I have already mentioned a celt with a moulded top, which, on one of
its faces, is ornamented with a small projecting boss. In Fig. 122 is
shown an example with two pellets beneath the upper moulding. It was
found with others at High Roding, Essex, and is now in the British
Museum. Another with three such knobs on each face, placed near the
top of the instrument, is shown in Fig. 123. The original is in the
British Museum, and was found at Chrishall,[425] Essex, where also
several plain celts with single or double mouldings at the top, some
spear-heads, and a portion of a socketed knife were dug up.
A large brass coin of Hadrian, much defaced, is said to have been found
at the same time. As in other instances, the evidence on this point is
unsatisfactory, and if it could be sifted, would probably carry the
case no farther than to prove that the Roman coins and the bronze celts
were found near the same spot, and possibly by the same man, on the
same day. In illustration of this collection of objects of different
dates, I may mention that I lately purchased a fifteenth-century
_jeton_ as having been found with Merovingian gold ornaments.
[Illustration: Fig. 123.—Chrishall. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 124.—Reach Fen. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 125.—Barrington. ½]
Some of the Breton celts, in form like Fig. 120, have two or three
knobs on a level with the loop.
Another and common kind of ornament on the faces of socketed celts
consists of vertical lines, or ribs, extending from the moulding round
the mouth some distance down the faces of the blade. They vary in
number, but are rarely less than three. In some instances the ribs are
so slight as to be almost imperceptible, a circumstance which suggests
the probability of celts in actual use having served as the models or
patterns from which the moulds for casting others were made, as in each
successive moulding and casting any prominences such as these ribs
would be reduced or softened down. On any other supposition it is
difficult to conceive how an ornamentation so indistinct as almost to
escape observation could have originated. There are some celts which on
one face are quite smooth and plain, while on the other some traces of
the ribs may just be detected. The same is the case with some of the
celts which have the slightest possible traces of the “flanches,” such
as seen on Fig. 111. The smearing of metal moulds with clay, to prevent
the adhesion of the castings, would tend to obliterate such ornaments.
A celt with the vertical ribs from the hoard of Reach Fen, Cambridge,
is shown in Fig. 124. There are slight projecting beads running down
the angles. The three ribs die into the face of the blade. Another of
nearly the same type, but with coarse ribs somewhat curved, is shown
in Fig. 125. It has not the beads at the angles. This specimen was
found in company with a celt like Fig. 116, and with a gouge like Fig.
204, at Barrington, Cambridge, and is in my own collection.
Celts of wider proportions, and having the three ribs farther apart,
have been frequently found in the Northern English counties. I have
one (3¼ inches) from Middleton, on the Yorkshire Wolds, which was
given me by Mr. H. S. Harland; and Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., has
several from Yorkshire. The celt which was found near Tadcaster,[426]
in that county, and which has been so often cited, from the fact of
its having a large bronze ring passing through the loop, on which
is a jet bead, is also of this type. There can be little doubt that
the ring and bead, which not improbably were found at the same time
as the celt, were attached to it subsequently by the finder, in the
manner in which they may now be seen in the British Museum. A celt
with three ribs, from the hoard found at Westow,[427] in the North
Riding, has been figured, as has been one from Cuerdale,[428] near
Preston, Lancashire, and one (4½ inches) from Rockbourn Down,[429]
Wilts, now in the British Museum. One (3¾ inches long) was found near
Hull,[430] in Yorkshire; and five others at Winmarley,[431] near
Garstang, Lancashire, together with two spears, one of them having
crescent-shaped openings in the blade (Fig. 419).
Another was found, with other bronze objects, at Stanhope,[432] Durham.
The celts found with spear-heads and discs near Newark, and now in
Canon Greenwell’s collection, are of this type, but of different
sizes. That found at Cann,[433] near Shaftesbury, with, it is said, a
human skeleton and two ancient British silver coins, had three ribs on
its face.
Several others were found in the hoard at West Halton,[434]
Lincolnshire, already mentioned. Others were discovered in company
with a looped palstave, some spear-heads, ferrules, fragments of
swords, and a tanged knife, near Nottingham,[435] in 1860. Seven or
eight such celts, and the half of a bronze mould in which to cast
them, were found with a socketed knife, spear-heads, and numerous
other objects, in the Heathery Burn Cave,[436] near Stanhope, Durham,
of which further mention will subsequently be made. Many have also
been found in Yorkshire and Northumberland.
The type is not confined to the Northern Counties, for specimens
occurred in the great find at Carlton Rode,[437] near Attleborough,
Norfolk. I have seen another, 4 inches long, which was found with
many other socketed celts and other articles at Martlesham, Suffolk,
in the hoard already mentioned (p. 113). I have one (3⅝ inches)
from Llandysilio, Denbighshire. Another, with traces of the three
ribs, was found at Pulborough,[438] Sussex. This specimen is in
outline more like Fig. 130. A socketed celt of this kind (5 inches
long), with three parallel ribs on the flat surface, was found near
Launceston,[439] Cornwall. Some long celts of the same kind were found
at Karn Brê, in the same county, as already mentioned.
[Illustration: Fig. 126.—Mynydd-y-Glas. ½]
In some celts with the three ribs on their faces, found in Wales, the
moulding at the top is large and heavy, and forms a sort of cornice
round the celt, the upper surface of which is flat. That engraved as
Fig. 126 was found at Mynydd-y-Glas, near Hensol, Glamorganshire, and
is now in the British Museum. In the same collection is another of
much the same character, but of ruder fabric, 4¾ inches long, with a
square socket, found in 1849 with others similar, in making the South
Wales Railway, in Great Wood,[440] St. Fagan’s, Glamorganshire. The
loop is badly cast, being filled up with metal.
Canon Greenwell has a celt of this type (4 inches), found at
Llandysilio, Denbighshire, with two others having three somewhat
converging ribs (3¾ inches and 3¼ inches), a socketed knife, and part
of a spear-head.
Two others (5⅛ inches and 4⅜ inches) were found with part of a looped
palstave[441] and a waste piece from a casting, and lumps of metal, on
Kenidjack Cliff, Cornwall. Another (4 inches) from Cornwall is in the
British Museum. One from Sedgemoor, Somersetshire, is in the Taunton
Museum.
The three-ribbed type occurs occasionally in France. Examples are in
the Museums of Amiens, Toulouse, Clermont Ferrand, Poitiers, and other
towns. Three vertical ribs are of common occurrence on celts from
Hungary and Styria.
In some rare examples the three ribs converge as they go down
the blade. One such is shown in Fig. 127. The original is in the
possession of Sir A. A. Hood, Bart., and was found with twenty-seven
other socketed celts, some of oval and some of square section, two
palstaves, two gouges, two daggers, twelve spear-heads, and numerous
fragments of celts and leaf-shaped swords, as well as rough metal and
the refuse jets from castings. The whole lay together about two feet
below the surface at Wick Park,[442] Stogursey, Somerset.
In other rare instances there is a transverse bead running across
the blade below the three vertical ribs. The celt shown in Fig. 128
was found near Guildford, Surrey, and is in the collection of Mr. R.
Fitch, F.S.A.
[Illustration: Fig. 127.—Stogursey. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 128.—Guildford. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 129.—Frettenham. ½]
On other celts the vertical ribs are more or less than three in
number. A specimen with four ribs, also in Mr. Fitch’s collection, is
engraved as Fig. 129. It was found at Frettenham, Norfolk.
Others with four ribs occurred in the find at West Halton,[443]
Lincolnshire, already mentioned. One was also found at the Castle
Hill,[444] Worcester, and another at Broust in Andreas,[445] Isle
of Man. Examples with three and four ribs from Kirk-patrick and
Kirk-bride, Isle of Man, are in the collection of Mr. J. R. Wallace of
Distington, Whitehaven.
One (4⅛ inches) with five ribs was found in the hoard at Martlesham,
Suffolk, also already mentioned.
One (3¾ inches) with six small vertical ribs on the faces, found at
Downton, near Salisbury, is in the Blackmore Museum. In a celt with
square socket from the Carlton Rode find there are traces of six ribs
on one of the faces only. This specimen, in my own collection, is
in good condition, and the probability is in favour of this almost
complete obliteration of the pattern being due to a succession of
moulds having been formed, each rather more indistinct than the one
before it, in which the model that served for the mould was cast.
Celts closely resembling Fig. 129 are in the museums at Nantes and
Narbonne.[446]
As an instance of a celt having only two of these vertical ribs upon
it, I may mention a large one in my own collection (4¾ inches) found
in the Isle of Portland. The mouth of the socket is oval, but the
external faces are flat, the sides being rounded. The ribs run about
2½ inches down the faces, but the metal is too much oxidised to see
whether they end in pellets or no.
[Illustration: Fig. 130.—Ely. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 131.—Caston. ½]
It is not unfrequently the case that the ribs thus terminate in
roundels or pellets. That from the Fens, near Ely, which has been
kindly lent me by Mr. Marshall Fisher, and is shown in Fig. 130, is of
this kind, though the pellets are so indistinct as to have escaped the
eye of the engraver. This celt is remarkable for the unusually broad
and heavy moulding at the top. The notches in the edge, which the
engraver has reproduced, are of modern origin.
The celt from Caston, Norfolk, shown in Fig. 131, has also the three
ribs ending in pellets, but there are short diagonal lines branching
in each direction from the central rib near the top.
I have another of the same kind, but longer, and without the diagonal
lines, from Thetford, Suffolk.
A celt of this type is in the Stockholm Museum.
[Illustration: Fig. 132.—Carlton Rode. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 133.—Fornham. ½]
In Figs. 132 and 133 are shown two celts of this class, one with five
short ribs ending in pellets, from the Carlton Rode find, and the
other with five longer ribs ending in larger roundels, from Fornham,
near Bury St. Edmunds. The latter was bequeathed to me by my valued
friend, the late Mr. J. W. Flower, F.G.S.
It will be observed that in the Fornham celt the first and last ribs
form beadings at the angles of the square shaft. In the other none of
the beads come to the edge of the face. I have a celt like Fig. 133,
but shorter (4 inches), from the hoard found in Reach Fen, already
mentioned. Another (4⅛ inches), in all respects like Fig. 133, except
that the outer ribs are not at the angles, was found at Brough,[447]
near Castleton, Derbyshire, and is in the Bateman Collection, where
is also another (4¼ inches) from the Peak Forest, Derbyshire. Canon
Greenwell, F.R.S., has one (4½ inches) from Broughton, near Malton,
on one face of which there are only four ribs, and in the place where
the central rib would terminate, a ring ornament. The other face of
the celt has only four ribs at regular intervals, ending in pellets.
Another, similar (5 inches), was found in the Thames, near Erith.[448]
I have seen another rather more hexagonal in section, which was found
in the Cambridge Fens.
Celts with vertical ribs ending in pellets are occasionally found in
France. One from Lutz (Eure et Loir) is in the museum at Chateaudun;
others are in that of Toulouse. Another with four ribs, found at
Cascastel, is in the museum at Narbonne. Canon Greenwell has one from
l’Orient, Brittany.
I have a small one like Fig. 120 in form, but barely 3 inches long,
found near Saumur (Maine et Loire). It has five ribs, arranged as on
Fig. 133.
An example with a far larger array of vertical ribs than usual is
shown in Fig. 134. The ribs are arranged in groups of three, and each
terminates in a small pellet. The outer lines are so close to the
angles of the celt as almost to merge in them. This instrument was
found at Fen Ditton, Cambridge, and is now in the collection of Canon
Greenwell, F.R.S.
[Illustration: Fig. 134.—Fen Ditton. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 135.—Bottisham. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 136.—Winwick. ½]
On some celts there is, besides the row of roundels or pellets at the
end of the ribs, a second row a little higher up, as is shown in Fig.
135, which represents a specimen in the British Museum, from Bottisham
Lode, Cambridge. The sides of this celt are not flat, but somewhat
ridged, so that in its upper part it presents an irregular hexagon in
section. There are ribs running down the angles, with indications of
terminal pellets.
In the Warrington Museum is a curious variety of the celt with the
three vertical ribs ending in pellets, which by the kindness of
the trustees of the museum I have engraved as Fig. 136. It will
be seen that in addition to the vertical ribs there is a double
series of chevrons over the upper part of the blade. The metal is
somewhat oxidised, and the pattern is made rather more distinct in
the engraving than it is in the original. This celt has already
been figured on a smaller scale, and was found at Winwick,[449] near
Warrington, Lancashire.
An ornamentation of nearly the same character, but without pellets at
the end of the ribs, occurs on a socketed celt from Kiew,[450] Russia.
[Illustration: Fig. 137.—Kingston. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 138.—Cayton Carr. ½]
The vertical ribs or lines occasionally end in ring ornaments or
circles with a central pellet, like the astronomical symbol for the sun
☉. Next to the cross this ornament is, perhaps, the simplest and most
easily made, for a notched flint could be used as a pair of compasses
to produce a circle with a well-marked centre on almost any material,
however hard. We find these ring ornaments in relief on many of the
coins of the Ancient Britons, and in intaglio on numerous articles
formed of bone and metal, which belong to the Roman and Saxon periods.
On Italian palstaves they are the commonest ornaments. But though so
frequent on metallic antiquities of the latter part of the Bronze Age,
it is remarkable that the ornament is of very rare occurrence on any of
the pottery which is known to belong to that period.
A good example from Kingston, Surrey, of a celt with ring ornaments
at the end of the ribs is in the British Museum, and is shown in Fig.
137. Canon Greenwell possesses a nearly similar celt (5 inches) from
Seamer Carr, Yorkshire, the angles of which are ribbed or beaded. A
socketed celt with the same ornamentation, but with pellets having
a central boss instead of the ring ornaments, is in the museum at
Nantes.[451] It was found in Brittany.
Some of the Brittany celts like Fig. 120 have one ring-ornament on
each face, composed of two concentric circles and a central pellet.
On a celt found at Cayton Carr, Yorkshire, and in the collection of
Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., there is a double row of ring ornaments at
the end of the three ribs. Below the principal moulding at the top of
the celt is a band of four raised beads by way of additional ornament.
It is shown in Fig. 138. A nearly similar specimen is in the Museum of
the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle-on-Tyne.
In a very remarkable specimen from Lakenheath,[452] Suffolk, preserved
in the British Museum and engraved as Fig. 139, there are three lines
formed of rather oval pellets, terminating in ring ornaments, and
alternating with them two plain beaded ribs ending in small pellets.
There are traces of a cable moulding round the neck above.
[Illustration: Fig. 139.—Lakenheath. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 140.—Thames. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 141.—Kingston. ½]
In another variety, also in the British Museum, and shown in Fig.
140, the three ribs ending in ring ornaments spring from a transverse
bead, between which and the moulding round the mouth are two other
vertical beads, about midway of the spaces between the lower ribs. It
is probable that this celt was found in the Thames.
Another of remarkably analogous character was certainly found in the
Thames near Kingston,[453] and is now in the Museum of the Society of
Antiquaries. It is shown in Fig. 141. On it are only two descending
ribs, ending in ring ornaments, the pellets in the centre of which are
almost invisible; but above the transverse bead are three ascending
ribs, which alternate with those that descend. All these ribs are
double instead of single.
[Illustration: Fig. 142.—Kingston. ½]
In some rare instances there are ring ornaments both at the top
and at the bottom of the vertical lines, as is seen on one of the
faces of the curious celt shown in Fig. 142, where the usual ribs
are replaced by rows of two or three slightly raised lines. On the
other face it will be seen that the ornamentation is of a different
character, with one ring ornament at top and three below, the two
outer of which are connected with ribs diverging from two curved lines
above. The original was found, with three others less ornamented, at
Kingston,[454] Surrey, and is in the British Museum.
A nearly similar celt from Scotland is described at page 137.
In another very rare specimen the vertical lines are replaced by two
double chevrons of pellets, the upper one reversed. There is still
a ring ornament at the base, and lines of pellets running down the
margins of the blade. This specimen, shown in Fig. 143, was found in
the Thames,[455] and is in the collection of Mr. T. Layton, F.S.A.
In another equally rare form there is a treble ring ornament at the
bottom of a single central beaded rib, and at the top two “flanches,”
represented by double lines, as shown in Fig. 144. The neck of this
celt is in section a flattened hexagon. It was found at Givendale,
near Pocklington, Yorkshire, E. R., and is now in the British Museum.
In the celt shown in Fig. 145 the central rib terminates in a pellet,
and there are three curved ribs on either side. In this case the
section of the neck of the blade is nearly circular. The specimen is
in the British Museum, and was probably found near Cambridge, as it
formed part of the late Mr. Lichfield’s collection. A celt ornamented
in the same manner, but without the central rib, was found near
Mildenhall, Suffolk, and is in the collection of Mr. H. Prigg.
[Illustration: Fig. 143.—Thames.]
[Illustration: Fig. 144.—Givendale. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 145.—Cambridge. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 146.—Blandford. ½]
Another (4 inches), also in the British Museum, has two ribs on each
margin, parallel to the sides, as seen in Fig. 146. It was found near
Blandford, Dorsetshire, in company with unfinished gouges, and is
remarkable on account of its having been cast so thin that it seems
incapable of standing any hard work.
It seems probable that the instruments from Blandford, now in the
British Museum, formed part of a large hoard, for in the collection
of the late Mr. Medhurst, of Weymouth, were a dozen or more of much
the same outline and character. The section at the neck is a flattened
hexagon. Some have a straight rib on each of the sloping sides, as
well as two curved lines on the flat face. Others have three lines,
one straight and two curved, on the flat face, each ending in a
pellet; and others again have merely a central line on the flat face.
A celt of nearly the same outline as Fig. 146 (4¼ inches), found at
Gembling, Yorkshire, E. R., has slight flutings down the angles for
about two-thirds of its length. It is in the collection of Canon
Greenwell, F.R.S.
Another of these instruments, ornamented in the same manner, but
having a curved edge, is shown in Fig. 147, from an original in
the British Museum. It formed part of the Cooke Collection from
Parsonstown, King’s County, but I doubt its being really Irish.
A rare form of socketed celt is shown in Fig. 148. The original was
found in the Fens, near Barrington, Cambridge, and is in my own
collection. It has at the top of the blade, below the moulding, a
shield-shaped ornament, of much the same character as that on the
palstaves, like Fig. 60, but in this case formed by indented lines
cast in the metal.
[Illustration: Fig. 147. Ireland? ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 148. Barrington. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 149. Hounslow. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 150. Wallingford. ½]
Another, of unusually narrow form, found at Thames Ditton,[456] is in
the Museum of the Society of Antiquaries.
A broader celt, ornamented with a reversed chevron, formed of three
raised ribs, and with short single ribs on each side, is shown in Fig.
149. It was found at Hounslow, with a flat celt, a palstave, and a
socketed celt like Fig. 112, and is now in the British Museum.
A more common form has a circular socket and moulded top, below which
the neck of the blade is an almost regular octagon. That shown in
Fig. 150 is in my own collection, and was found at Wallingford,[457]
Berks, in company with a socketed gouge, a tanged chisel (Fig. 193), a
socketed knife, and a two-edged cutting tool or razor (Fig. 269).
One nearly similar, supposed to have been found in Yorkshire,
together with the mould in which it was cast, is engraved in the
_Archæologia_.[458] The mould was regarded as a case in which the
instrument was kept. Another of the same kind seems to have been
found, with other celts and fragments of swords and spears, at
Bilton,[459] Yorkshire. I have seen another, 4 inches long, from
the hoard found at Martlesham, Suffolk, already mentioned. A broken
specimen, found with a socketed gouge and an article like Fig. 493, at
Roseberry Topping,[460] in Cleveland, Yorkshire, appears to be of this
kind. Another (5 inches long), found at Minster, Kent, is in the Mayer
Collection at Liverpool. I have also one from the Cambridge Fens.
[Illustration: Fig. 151.—Newham. ½]
In the collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., are three socketed
celts with octagonal necks, which were found with others, both plain
and having three ribs on the face, together with a looped palstave,
at Haxey, Lincolnshire. Two of these are of the usual type, but the
third (3½ inches) is shorter and broader, resembling in outline the
common Irish form, Fig. 167. A celt apparently of the type of Fig.
150, but with a double bead round the top, was found in the Severn,
at Holt,[461] Worcestershire. In the Faussett Collection, now at
Liverpool, is a celt of this kind, with the angles engrailed or
“milled.” This was probably found in Kent.
A celt of this type, found at Orgelet, Jura, is figured by
Chantre,[462] as well as one from the Lac du Bourget.[463] They have
also been found in the Department of La Manche.[464] I have one from
the hoard found at Dreuil, near Amiens, the neck of which is decagonal.
Nearly the same form has been found in Sweden.[465]
Another example, more trumpet-mouthed, is shown in Fig. 151, from
the collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S. It was found in 1868 in
draining at Newham, Northumberland. I have another of nearly the same
form (4¾ inches), from Coveney, in the Isle of Ely. Another, found at
Stanhope,[466] Durham, without loop, and with two holes near the top,
was regarded as an instrument for sharpening spear-heads.
Occasionally the neck of the blade is hexagonal instead of octagonal.
In one found at Ty-Mawr,[467] on Holyhead Mountain, Anglesea, the
hexagonal character is continued to the mouth. The socket is of an
irregularly square form. It was found with a socketed knife, a tanged
chisel, spear-heads, &c., which are now in the British Museum. This
form occurs more frequently in Ireland. A nearly similar celt has been
found in the Lake of Geneva.[468]
Another celt, with the neck irregularly octagonal, but with a series
of mouldings round the mouth of the socket, is shown in Fig. 152. The
original is in the collection of Canon Greenwell, and formed part of
the hoard found at Westow, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, already
mentioned at p. 118.
[Illustration: Fig. 152.—Westow. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 153.—Wandsworth.]
[Illustration: Fig. 154.—Whittlesea. ½]
In Fig. 153 is shown, not on my usual scale of one-half, but of
nearly the actual size, a very remarkable celt, which was found in
the bed of the Thames[469] near Wandsworth, and was presented to
the Archæological Institute. The original is, unfortunately, no
longer forthcoming. It was 4¾ inches long, and, besides its general
singularity of form, presented the peculiar feature of having the hole
of the loop in the same direction as the socket of the celt, instead
of its being as usual at right angles to the blade.
Socketed celts with a loop on the face instead of on the side are of
exceedingly rare occurrence either in Britain or elsewhere. That shown
in Fig. 154 is in the Museum at Wisbech, and was found in company
with three socketed celts, two gouges, a hammer, and a leaf-shaped
spear-head at Whittlesea. The socket shows within it four vertical
ribs at equal distances, with diagonal branches from them. These
latter may have been intended to facilitate the escape of air from the
mould. I am indebted to the managers of the Museum for the loan of the
specimen for engraving.
The type has occasionally been found in the Lake-dwellings of Savoy.
In the Museum of Chambéry[470] there are three examples from the Lac
du Bourget, and I possess another specimen from the same locality.
Another (about 4 inches), from la Balme,[471] Isère, is in the Museum
at Lyons; it is more spud-shaped than the English example. Another, of
different form, was in the Larnaud hoard,[472] Jura. One has also been
found at Auvernier,[473] in the Lake of Neuchâtel. Another (4 inches),
in the late M. Troyon’s collection, was found at Echallens, Canton
Vaud.
One with curved plates on the sides, like Fig. 155, but having the
loop on one face, was found near Avignon, and is now in the British
Museum. It has a round neck with a square socket. A smaller one, of
nearly the same form, was found in a hoard at Pont-point, near the
River Oise. Another, with curved indentations on the sides, from the
department of Jura,[474] is in the museum at Toulouse. Socketed celts
with a loop on the face have been found in Siberia.[475]
In some socketed celts the reminiscence of the “flanches” or wings
upon the palstaves, of which I have spoken in an earlier part of this
chapter, has survived in a peculiar manner, there being somewhat
hollowed oval projections upon each side of the blade, that give the
appearance of the “flanches” on the face, but at the same time produce
indentations in the external outline of the instrument.
This will be seen in Fig. 155, which was found with the palstave
(Fig. 83), the socketed celt (Fig. 157), and other objects at
Nettleham,[476] near Lincoln, as already described (page 93).
Another of the same class is said to have been found in a tumulus
on Frettenham Common,[477] Norfolk. Another, shown in Fig. 156, was
in the Crofton Croker Collection. All these are now in the British
Museum. The second celt from Nettleham (Fig. 157) shows only the
indented outline without any representation of the oval plates. The
nearest approach in form to these celts which I have met with is to be
seen in some from the South of France. These are, however, generally
without loops. I have two from the departments of Haute Loire and
Isère. One from Ribiers, in the department of the Hautes Alpes, is in
the museum at St. Omer. Another is in the museum at Metz.
A socketed celt, found at Aninger, and now in the Antiken Cabinet at
Vienna, has large oval plates on each of its sides, which nearly meet
upon the faces.
In the collection of the late Mr. Brackstone was a remarkable celt,
exhibiting a modification of this form. It is said to have been found
with a large socketed celt with three mouldings round the mouth, and a
looped palstave with three ribs below the stop ridge, near Ulleskelf,
Yorkshire. Mr. Brackstone printed a lithographic plate of the three,
from which and from an engraving in the _Archæological Journal_[478]
Fig. 158 is taken. It will be observed that this celt is elaborately
ornamented, even on the ring, either by engraving or punching. The
original is now in the Blackmore Museum at Salisbury.
[Illustration: Fig. 155.—Nettleham. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 156.—Croker Collection. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 157.—Nettleham.]
[Illustration: Fig. 158.—Ulleskelf. ½]
A celt of closely allied character, with the lower part of the blade
and the C-shaped flanches similar to that from Ulleskelf, with the
exception of the chevron ornament, is said to have been also found in
Yorkshire. A woodcut, from a drawing by M. Du Noyer, will be found in
the _Archæological Journal_.[479] The upper part is rectangular and
plain, without any moulding round the top, and there is no loop. The
original is 6 inches long. In general appearance and character this
celt approaches those of Etruscan and Italian origin; but I see no
reason why it may not have been found, as stated, in Britain, though,
so far as I know, it is unique of its kind.
The next class of socketed celts which has to be noticed consists
of those in which the loop is absent. No doubt, in some cases, this
absence arises either from defective casting, or from the loop having
been accidentally broken off, and all traces of it removed; but in many
instances it is evident that the tools were cast purposely without
a loop. It seems probable that many of them were intended for use
as chisels, and not like the looped kinds as axes or hatchets. The
similarity between the looped and the loopless varieties is so great
that I have thought it best to describe some of the instruments which
may be regarded as undoubtedly chisels in this place rather than in the
chapter devoted to chisels, in which, however, such of the socketed
kinds as are narrow at the edge, and do not expand like the common
forms of celt, will be found described.
[Illustration: Fig. 159. Reach Fen. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 160. Carlton Rode. ½]
The small tool shown in Fig. 159 may safely be regarded as a chisel.
It does not show the slightest trace of ever having been intended
to have a loop, and is indeed too light for a hatchet. It was found
with a tanged chisel, a hammer, numerous socketed celts, and other
articles, in the hoard from Reach Fen, Cambridge, already mentioned
at p. 112. I have seen another, 2⅛ inches long, with a somewhat oval
socket and no loop, which was found in Mildenhall Fen, and was in the
collection of the Rev. S. Banks, of Cottenham.
A longer celt of the same character is engraved by Dr. Plot.[480] It
was sent to him by Charles Cotton, Esq., and according to Plot “seems
to have been the head of a Roman rest used to support the lituus,
the trombe-torte, crooked trumpet, or horne pipe used in the Roman
armies.” Another of nearly the same form was found on Meon Hill,[481]
near Camden, Gloucestershire.
A celt or chisel of this character found at Düren, in North Brabant,
is in the museum at Leyden.
Another was found at Zaborowo,[482] in Posen, in a sepulchral urn.
A celt of the octagonal form of section and without a loop is shown
in Fig. 160. It formed part of the great hoard found at Carlton Rode,
near Attleborough, Norfolk, of which some particulars have already
been given. The joint marks of the moulds are still very distinct
upon the sides. This specimen is in the Norwich Museum, and was
kindly lent by the trustees for me to have it engraved. A nearly
similar Scottish celt is shown in Fig. 165. A celt from the hoard of
Cumberlow, near Baldock,[483] has been figured as having no loop, but
I believe that this has arisen from an error of the engraver, as in a
drawing which I have seen the loop is present.
One of hexagonal section and socket from a hoard found on Earsley
Common,[484] Yorkshire, in 1735, is engraved as having no loop.
Celts without loops are not uncommon in France, and are often found of
small size in Denmark.[485]
Socketed celts have rarely if ever been found with interments in
barrows in Britain. Sir R. Colt Hoare mentions “a little celt” as
having been found with a small lance, and a long pin with a handle,
all of bronze, near the head of a skeleton, in a barrow on Overton
Hill,[486] near Abury, Wilts. The body had been buried in the
contracted attitude, and had, as was thought, been enclosed within the
trunk of a tree. It appears, however, from Dr. Thurnam’s account,[487]
that this was a flat and not a socketed celt. It was a celt like Fig.
116, 3¼ inches long, which is reported to have been discovered by the
late Rev. R. Kirwan in a barrow on Broad Down, Farway, Devonshire.[488]
It is said to have lain in the midst of an abundant deposit of charcoal
which was thought to be the remains of a funeral pyre. Mr. Kirwan
informed Dr. Thurnam that there was every reason to believe that the
celt was deposited where found at the time of the original interment.
No bones, however, were actually with the celt, which lay 18 inches
from the central cist.
[Illustration: Fig. 161. Arras.]
A socketed celt with three vertical ribs, like Fig. 125, is also said
to have been found with a human skeleton, and two uninscribed ancient
British coins of silver, at Cann,[489] near Shaftesbury, in 1849. The
celt and coins are now in the collection of Mr. Durden, of Blandford.
In neither case are the circumstances of the discovery absolutely
certain.
A curious instance of the survival of the bronze celt as an ornament
or amulet is afforded by that which was found in a barrow at Arras,
or Hessleskew,[490] near Market Weighton, Yorkshire. It is only an
inch in length, and is shown full-size in Fig. 161. With it was a pin
which connected it with a small light-blue glass bead. It accompanied
the contracted body of a woman laid in a grave, and having with it a
necklace of glass beads, a large amber bead, and a brooch, bracelets,
ring, tweezers, and pin, apparently of bronze, some of them ornamented
with a kind of paste or enamel. The majority of the objects found in
the group of barrows at Arras, of which this was one, seem to belong to
what Mr. Franks has termed the “Late-Celtic” period, or approximately
to the time of the Roman invasion of this country.
[Illustration: Fig. 162. Bell’s Mills. ½]
Socketed celts not more than ¾ of an inch in length have been found
in Ireland, but with sockets large enough for serviceable handles, so
that they might possibly have been used as chisels. The diminutive
celts, about 2 inches in length, which have been found in large numbers
in Brittany, and have been regarded by French antiquaries as votive
offerings, might also by some possibility have served as tools; but
this can hardly have been the case with the Arras specimen. A golden
celt found in Cornwall is said to have been in the possession of the
Earl of Falmouth,[491] but nothing is known of it by the present
Viscount Falmouth, and the statement in the “Barrow Diggers” is
probably erroneous.
It will be well to postpone the account of the different hoards of
bronze objects, in which socketed celts have been found with other
tools and weapons, until I come to treat of such ancient deposits,
though some of them have already been mentioned.
Turning now to the socketed celts which have been discovered in
Scotland, we find them to present a considerable variety of types,
though hardly so great as that exhibited by those from England, and the
recorded instances of their finding are comparatively few in number.
In Fig. 162 is shown a socketed celt of the plain kind which was found
at Bell’s Mills,[492] on the Water of Leith, Edinburgh, in company
with those given as Figs. 164 and 165.
A celt found in a bog between Stranraer and Portpatrick,
Wigtonshire,[493] like Fig. 162, but with a bead at the level of the
top of the loop, has been figured.
The nearly square-necked celt shown in Fig. 163 is of a broader type
than usual, and was found at North Knapdale,[494] Argyleshire.
Socketed celts with oval necks, and resembling the common Irish type,
Fig. 167, in form, have occasionally been found in Scotland. One (3¼
inches), with a double moulding round the mouth, was found on Arthur’s
Seat, Edinburgh. Another (3 inches) was found with several other
socketed celts and a spear-head near the Loch of Forfar. One of these,
like Fig. 150, has a round socket and a twelve-sided neck.
A celt with a long socket and narrow blade was found, with
spear-heads, bronze armlets, and some pieces of tin, at
Achtertyre,[495] Morayshire.
Another type, which appears to be more especially Scottish, has
the ornamented moulding placed on the neck of the blade in such a
manner as to run through the loop. One of this character, dug up
near Samson’s Ribs,[496] Arthur’s Seat, Edinburgh, has been figured
by Professor Daniel Wilson. A second (2⅞ inches), with three raised
bands passing through the loop, was found in the Forest of Birse,[497]
Aberdeenshire.
[Illustration: Fig. 163.—North Knapdale. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 164.—Bell’s Mills. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 165.—Bell’s Mills. ½]
A type which is also common to England is shown in Fig. 164 from
another of the Bell’s Mills specimens.
Others with raised lines on the sides are preserved in the museum at
Edinburgh. One of these was found near the citadel at Leith.[498]
One (3½ inches), ornamented with four longitudinal lines on each
face, was found in the parish of Southend,[499] Cantire. Another (4¼
inches), with traces of five ribs, three down the middle and two at
the margins of each face, was found at Hangingshaw,[500] in Culter
parish, Lanarkshire.
A third celt from Bell’s Mills is shown in Fig. 165. This is of the
variety without the loop, and closely resembles that from the Carlton
Rode hoard, Fig. 160, the main difference being that the neck is of
decagonal instead of octagonal section.
Moulds for celts of other patterns have also been found in Scotland,
as will subsequently be seen. A modern cast from some moulds found at
Rosskeen, Ross-shire, has been engraved by Professor D. Wilson.[501]
It is of hexagonal section, and is ornamented on each face by two
diverging ribs starting from an annulet close below the moulding round
the mouth, and ending in two annulets about two-thirds of the way down
the blade, which expands considerably, and has a nearly flat edge.
[Illustration: Fig. 166.—Leswalt. ½]
For the use of Fig. 166 I am indebted to the Council[502] of the
Ayrshire and Wigtonshire Archæological Association. The original
was found in a peat-moss near the farm-house of Knock and Maize, in
Leswalt parish, Wigtonshire, and is now in the cabinet of the Earl of
Stair. Its analogies with that found at Kingston, Surrey (Fig. 142),
are very striking, while at the same time it closely resembles the
type exhibited by the mould from Ross-shire already mentioned. The
occurrence of instruments of so rare a form at such a distance apart
is very remarkable; but if, as appears probable, the celts of this
type are among the latest which were manufactured, and may possibly
belong even to the Late Celtic period, their wide dissemination is the
less wonderful.
Socketed celts have been found in very large numbers in Ireland,
upwards of two hundred being preserved in the Museum of the Royal
Irish Academy; and numerous specimens are to be seen in other
collections, both public and private. Mr. R. Day, F.S.A., of Cork, has
upwards of forty in his own cabinet. The Irish celts vary much in size,
the largest being a little over 5 inches long, and the smallest less
than an inch. The most common form is oval at the neck, and expands
into a broad cutting edge. There is usually some kind of moulding round
the mouth, giving the end of the instrument a trumpet-like appearance.
The effect of the moulding is not unfrequently exaggerated by a hollow
fluting round the neck, as in Fig. 167.
[Illustration: Fig. 167.—Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 168.—Ireland. ½]
Celts of this and some of the following types have been figured by
Vallancey.[503]
In that shown as Fig. 168 there is a slight shoulder below the
trumpet-shaped part of the mouth, and the loop, instead of springing
straight out from the neck, has its ends extended into four ridges,
running over the neck of the celt like half-buried roots.
An example of a celt with the loop attached in a similar manner has
been engraved by Wilde.[504] Another (3¾ inches) is in the collection
of Mr. R. Day, F.S.A.
Fig. 169 shows a finely patinated celt, with a triple moulding below
the expanding mouth, which was found near Belfast. With it are said to
have been found a set of three gold clasps, or so-called fibulæ, with
discs at each end of a slug-like half-ring (see Wilde, Figs. 594-598).
Curiously enough, I have another set of three of these ornaments, also
found together at Craighilly, near Ballymena, Co. Antrim. Mr. Robert
Day, F.S.A., has a specimen which also is one of three found together
in the Co. Down. It seems, therefore, probable that, like our modern
shirt-studs, these ornaments were worn in sets of three.
[Illustration: Fig. 169.—Belfast. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 170.—Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 171.—Ireland. ½]
A celt with four hands (3½ inches) has been engraved by Wilde.[505]
The middle member of the triple band is often much the largest.
A small example of the same type, but with a single band at the mouth,
is shown in Fig. 170. One from Co. Antrim, 1⅝ inch long and 1¼ inch
broad at the edge, is in the British Museum.
These oval-necked celts are occasionally, but rarely, decorated with
patterns cast in relief upon them. One of them, in the Museum of the
Royal Irish Academy,[506] is shown in Fig. 171.
Inside the sockets of most of the instruments of this class there
are near the bottom, where the two sides converge, one, two, or more
vertical ridges, probably destined to aid in steadying the haft.
In some instances the upper member of the moulding round the mouth is
cast in a cable pattern. Fig. 172 shows an example of this kind from
Athboy, Co. Meath, in the collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S. Others
are in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy.
Socketed celts, with vertical ribs on the faces, are of rare
occurrence in Ireland. A specimen from Co. Meath, in Canon Greenwell’s
collection, is engraved as Fig. 173.
One (2⅝ inches) found near Cork, and now in Mr. Robert Day’s
collection, has six vertical ribs on each face, three on either
margin. They are placed close together, and vary in length, the
outer one being about twice as long as that in the middle, which is,
however, nearly three times as long as the innermost of the three ribs.
[Illustration: Fig. 172.—Athboy. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 173.—Meath. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 174—Ireland. ½]
I have an example of the same kind (2⅜ inches), from Trillick, Co.
Tyrone,[507] in which there are five equidistant vertical ribs on
each face. The edge has been much hammered, so as to be considerably
recurved at the ends. Wilde[508] has figured a much larger specimen
(4½ inches), with three vertical ribs, which cross a ring, level with
the top of the loop, and run up to the lip moulding. Another,[509]
with rectangular socket, has the ribs arranged in the usual manner.
In a few instances the ribs end in pellets, and in one instance
Wilde[510] describes them as “ending in arrow points.”
A short but broad socketed celt in the Petrie Collection has on each
face six vertical ribs terminating at each end in annulets.
The socketed celts with an almost square socket and neck are not so
common in Ireland as those of the broad type with an oval neck, but
are yet not absolutely rare. Fig. 174 shows a good specimen of this
type. I have another (3½ inches), from the neighbourhood of Belfast,
rather wider at the edge, and with three flat vertical ribs below the
neck moulding.
Fig. 175 shows a short variety of the same type, from Newtown
Crommolin, Co. Antrim. One from Trillick, Co. Tyrone (2½ inches),
though nearly rectangular at the neck, has an oval socket.
Mr. Robert Day has an example (3¼ inches), from Dunshaughlin, Co.
Meath, with two beads round it, the lower one at the level of the
bottom of the loop. This celt is rectangular at the neck, though the
socket is oval.
Some few have grooves running down the angles. One from Londonderry
(4¼ inches) is in Mr. Day’s collection.
The long narrow celt with a rib ending in an annulet on the face,
engraved by Wilde as Fig. 283, appears to me to belong to Brittany
rather than to Ireland.
[Illustration: Fig. 175. Newtown Crommolin. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 176. North of Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 177. Ireland. ½]
An elegant type of socketed celt of not uncommon occurrence in
Ireland is shown in Fig. 176. The neck is octagonal below the rounded
trumpet mouth, which is ornamented with a series of small parallel
beads, between which a number of minute conical depressions have been
punched, making the beads appear to be corded. Around the loop is
an oval of similar punch marks. A nearly similar specimen has been
engraved by Wilde (Catal., Fig. 276), who also gives one of the same
general type, but with two plain broad beads, alternating with three
narrow ones, round the mouth (Catal., Fig. 277). It has a hexagonal
neck. A celt (4¼ inches) from Ballina, Co. Mayo, in the collection of
Mr. Robert Day, F.S.A., has an octagonal neck, and five grooved lines
round its circular mouth.
Canon Greenwell has one of the type of Fig. 176 (3⅞ inches), with
hexagonal neck and five equal beads round the mouth, from Carlea,
Co. Longford, and another (3¾ inches), with ten small beads round a
somewhat oval mouth, from Arboe, Co. Tyrone. The neck of this latter
is nearly rectangular. I have a celt of this type from Balbriggan, Co.
Dublin (3½ inches), with a hexagonal neck and a plain mouth. The loop
has root-like excrescences from it, as already described.
[Illustration: Fig. 178.—Ireland. ½]
There is one more Irish type of looped socketed celts which it will
be well to figure, and to which Wilde has given the name of the
axe-shaped socketed celt. As will be seen, the blade is expanded
considerably below the socketed part, and assumes a form not uncommon
among iron or steel axes. I have copied Fig. 177 from Wilde’s cut, No.
281, on an enlarged scale.
A socketed celt expanding into a broad axe-like edge is in the Pesth
Museum.
An analogous but narrower form is found in France. I have seen the
drawing of one found at Pont-point, Oise (?).
Socketed celts without loops have not unfrequently been found in
Ireland. One of this type has been figured by Wilde,[511] whose cut
is, by the kindness of the Council of the Royal Irish Academy, here
reproduced as Fig. 178. There are two others in the same collection.
Another of the same length (2-1/16 inches), but wider at the edge, was
found in the Shannon,[512] at Keelogue Ford. A longer and narrower
instrument (3¾ inches) of the same kind has also been engraved by
Wilde.[513] Another has been engraved by Vallancey.[514] Others (2 and
2⅛ inches) from Lisburn and Ballymoney, Co. Antrim, are in the British
Museum. The former has a small bead on a level with the base of the
socket. The latter is oval at the neck, but oblong at the mouth.
A bronze instrument of this form, but wider at the edge, was in common
use among the ancient Egyptians, and has been regarded as a hoe.
[Illustration: Fig. 179.—Kertch. ½]
A socketed celt without loop, but with two projections on one side,
from the Sanda Valley,[515] Yunan, China, has been figured by Dr.
Anderson. The edge is very oblique. An example brought from Yunan
by the same expedition is in the Christy Collection. One from
Cambodia,[516] without loop, but in form like Fig. 119, has been
figured by Dr. Noulet.
A very remarkable socketed celt without loop from Java is in the
Cabinet of Coins at Stuttgart. It expands widely at the edge and has
three facets on one side of the neck, while the other is curved, so
that it was probably mounted as an adze. The surface of the socket is
not flat, but there is a V-shaped depression across it.
Socketed celts with two loops have not as yet been recorded as found
within the United Kingdom, though a stone mould for celts of this
form was found at Bulford Water, Salisbury. In Eastern Europe the
form is more common. The specimen shown as Fig. 179 was found in the
neighbourhood of Kertch,[517] and is now in the British Museum. I have
seen others ornamented on the faces, brought from Asiatic Siberia by
Mr. H. Seebohm. Others from Siberia[518] have been figured. One of
these is without loops, and has chevron ornaments in relief below a
double moulding.
A socketed celt with two loops, and apparently hexagonal at the neck,
found at Ell, near Benfeld, Alsace, is figured by Schneider.[519]
I have elsewhere described a two-looped socketed celt from
Portugal[520] (6½ inches). It is like Fig. 120, but has a second loop.
Another, of gigantic dimensions, 9½ inches long and 3½ inches wide,
was found in Estremadura, Portugal.[521]
A two-looped celt with square socket and the loops at the junction
with the flattened blade was in the great hoard found at Bologna. Only
one of the loops, however, is perforated.
In the museum at Stockholm are also some socketed celts with two loops.
In looking over these pages, it will have been observed, that though
socketed celts occur in numbers throughout the British Isles, yet
that those found in England for the most part differ in form from
those found in Ireland, and that some few types appear to be peculiar
to Scotland. Traces of continental influence are, as might have been
expected, most evident in the forms found in the southern counties of
England, and are barely, if at all, perceptible in those from Ireland
and Scotland. Some few of the socketed celts from both England and
Scotland are of the type Fig. 167—a type so common in Ireland as to
be characteristic of it—and these appear for the most part, though
by no means exclusively, to have been found in western counties.
Although, therefore, the first socketed celts in Britain were doubtless
of foreign origin, there was no regular importation of them for use
over the whole country; but the fashion of making them spread through
local foundries, and different varieties of pattern originated in
various centres, and were adopted over larger or smaller areas as
they happened to commend themselves to the taste of the bronze-using
public. The use of socketed celts would, from their abundance, seem
to have extended over a considerable period; and from their having
apparently been found with objects belonging to the Late Celtic Period
they must have been among the last of the bronze tools or weapons to
be superseded by those of iron. A socketed celt, somewhat like Fig.
116 but more trumpet-mouthed, is stated to have been found in company
with a looped spear-head, two pins like Figs. 453 and 458, a bronze
bridle-bit, and some portions of buckles of a late Celtic character on
Hagbourne Hill, Berks. These objects are now in the British Museum, and
there seems reason to believe the account of their discovery given in
the _Archæologia_.[522] Some coins of gold and silver are said to have
been found with them, but these are not forthcoming. Socketed celts
have also been found associated with clasps like Figs. 504 and 505 at
Dreuil, near Amiens, while at Abergele such clasps accompanied buckles
almost, if not quite, late Celtic in character.
No doubt the final disuse of socketed celts was not contemporaneous
throughout the whole of the country, and their employment probably
survived in the north and west of Britain and in Ireland to a
considerably later date than in the districts more accessible to
Gaulish influences. The chronology of our Bronze Period will, however,
have to be considered in a subsequent chapter. The transition from
bronze to iron cannot so readily be traced in this country as on
the Continent; but socketed celts, &c. formed of iron, and made in
imitation of those in bronze, have occasionally been found in Britain.
One (4 inches) with a side loop, and a part of its wooden handle, was
found in Merionethshire, and is now in the British Museum. It has been
figured in the Archæologia Cambrensis.[523] Another of the same type
was found in North Wales.[524]
I have one (5¼ inches) with a rounded socket and no loop, found at
Gray’s Thurrock, Essex.
I have another (4 inches) with a square socket, from Pfaffenburg in
the Hartz; and others of longer proportions with round sockets from
Hallstatt. The metal has been carefully welded together to form the
sockets, in which there is no slit like those commonly to be seen in
more modern socketed tools of iron. There are ornaments round the
mouth of some of the Hallstatt[525] socketed celts, and both they
and the iron palstaves are frequently provided with a side loop, in
exact accordance with those on their analogues in bronze. Some of the
socketed celts in iron from the cemetery of Watsch,[526] in Carniola,
are also provided with a loop.
As an illustration of the view that similar wants, with similar means
at command with which to supply them, lead to the production of similar
forms of tools and weapons in countries widely remote from each other,
I may mention a socketed celt (10¾ inches) found in an ancient grave
near Copiapo, Chili.[527] In general form it is almost identical
with some of the Italian bronze celts, but it is of copper, and not
bronze; and is not cast, but wrought with the hammer. The socket
has, therefore, been formed in the same manner as those of the early
iron celts from Hallstatt, with which it also closely corresponds in
outline. The surface, however, has been ornamented by engraving; and
among the patterns we find bands of chevrons, alternately plain and
hatched, closely allied to the common ornament of the European Bronze
Age. What is, perhaps, more striking still is that the Greek fret also
occurs as an ornament on the faces.
The method in which socketed and other celts were hafted will be
discussed in the next chapter.
CHAPTER VI.
METHODS OF HAFTING CELTS.
ANY account of the various forms of celts and palstaves which have been
discovered in this country, such as that attempted in the preceding
chapters, would be incomplete without some observations as to the
manner in which they were probably hafted or mounted for use, and some
account of the discoveries which throw light upon that subject.
In a previous chapter I have cited numerous opinions of the older
school of antiquaries as to the nature of these instruments or weapons,
and the uses which they were intended to serve. Many of these opinions
are so palpably absurd that it is needless again to refer to them.
Others which regard the instruments as having been mounted in such a
manner as to serve for axes or adzes, for chisels, or for spud-like
tools or weapons, have an evident foundation in the necessities of
the case. There can, in the first place, be no doubt that celts and
palstaves were cutting tools or weapons. There can, in the second
place, be but little doubt that they were not destined for direct use
in the hand without the addition of any shaft or handle. In fact, with
the palstave and socketed forms, it is evident that special provisions
are made for a haft of some kind. In the third place, this haft,
whether long or short, must either have been straight or crooked. If
straight, a kind of chisel or spud must have resulted; if crooked or
L-shaped, an axe, hatchet, or adze.
It is possible that the same form of bronze instruments may have been
mounted both with straight and with L-shaped handles; but, as will
subsequently be seen, the probability, judging from what few ancient
handles have been discovered, is that the great majority were mounted
with elbowed handles as axes. At the same time, from the form and
small size of some celts, especially of some of those of the socketed
variety, it is probable that they were used as chisels. Indeed,
judging from the analogy of some other forms, and from the discovery at
Everley, mentioned at p. 163, this may be regarded as certain.
As the discoveries of the original hafts of bronze celts have
principally been made upon the Continent, I shall, in treating of this
part of my subject, be compelled to have recourse to foreign rather
than British illustrations. It will also, in speaking of the method of
hafting, be desirable to make an attempt to trace the successive stages
of development of the socketed celts; and, in connection with this part
of the subject also, foreign examples will become of service.
And first, in illustration of the use of bronze blades as axes, rather
than as spuds, or chisels of any kind, I may mention an instrument
not uncommon in Hungary, and occasionally occurring in other parts of
Southern Europe, which is perforated and similar in general form to our
modern axe-heads of iron and steel. In Scandinavia also other varieties
of these perforated axe-heads have been found. The common axe-like
type has also been discovered among Assyrian antiquities. Another
and distinct form which has been found in Egypt mounted as an axe or
hatchet, with a wooden handle, is a flat blade not unlike the ordinary
flat celt, except that instead of tapering at the butt-end it expands
so as to have two more or less projecting horns, by which it was bound
against the haft in a shallow socket provided for it. Egyptian axes
mounted in this manner may be seen in many museums, and have been
frequently figured in works on Egyptian antiquities.[528] The blade of
an axe of this kind, formerly in the collection of the Rev. Sparrow
Simpson, D.D., F.S.A.,[529] and by him presented to the British Museum,
bears an inscription in hieroglyphics upon it, with cartouches probably
containing the name of a shepherd king of the sixteenth or seventeenth
dynasty. In my own collection is another bronze blade of the same
shape and size, and with the same inscription, except that the names
in the cartouches are different. Unfortunately this part of the blade
is corroded, but Dr. S. Birch thinks that the cartouches contain the
name either of Ramses I. or of a subordinate Ramses of the eighteenth
dynasty. The hieroglyphics are the same on both faces of the blade, but
on one run from right to left, and on the other from left to right. A
hatchet of the same form, still bound to its haft, was found in the
tomb of Queen Aah-Hotep,[530] of the eighteenth dynasty.
Some of the stone hatchets from Ecuador, in South America, are also
provided with projecting ears, and were tied against their helves in
the same manner.
The stone axe, said to be that of Montezuma II., preserved in the
Ambras Museum at Vienna, and shown in Fig. 180, may also be of this
kind. Copper or bronze blades of this crescent or cheese-cutter form,
with two projecting lugs at the top of the narrow part of the blade,
have been found in Peru.
[Illustration: Fig. 180.—Stone Axe of Montezuma II.]
Broad blades of bronze, in form more like the ordinary flat celts, but
with the projections at the top, have been found in the same country. I
have one about 5 inches long and 3 inches wide, with strong lugs at the
top 2 inches long. It came from Eastern Peru.
Some blades of this form were hafted in a rather different manner, as
will be seen by means of Fig. 181.
[Illustration: Fig. 181.—Aymara Indian Hatchet. ¼]
This represents an iron hatchet used by the Aymara Indians, of the
province of La Paz, Bolivia, which was brought from that country and
presented to me by my friend, the late Mr. David Forbes, F.R.S. In
this form the handle is split, and the blade is secured by a leather
thong, two turns of which pass under the two lugs of the blade, and
thus prevent it from coming forward; two other turns pass over the
butt-end, and thus prevent it from being driven backwards by any blow;
while all the coils of the thong hold the cleft stick firmly against
the two faces of the blade. Although no celts with the T-shaped
butt-end have been found in Britain, or, indeed, in Western Europe,
I have thought it worth while to engrave this curious example of the
method of mounting such blades, especially as the central projections
of the Irish form of celt, like Fig. 45, may have been secured by
thongs in a somewhat analogous manner.
[Illustration: Fig. 182.—Modern African Axe of Iron. ¼]
Turning now to the other British forms of celts, of which, as already
observed, the flat and doubly tapering blades, like Fig. 2, seem to
be the most ancient, it is probable that these were hafted by the
butt-end being merely driven into a club or handle of wood, in the same
manner as many stone celts appear to have been mounted. The modern iron
hatchet, from Western Africa, shown in Fig. 182, will give a good idea
of the manner in which the bronze celts that are so much like it in
form were probably hafted. Another modern African axe has been engraved
by Sir John Lubbock.[531] It is, of course, possible that some of the
ancient flat celts were mounted after the manner of spuds, as is, by
several German and Danish antiquaries, held to have been the case with
those of the palstave form. It must, however, be borne in mind that
as a rule the stone celts, which the earliest of those in bronze must
in all probability have supplanted, were mounted after the manner of
hatchets. Moreover, the few stone celts, the axis of the straight
handle of which was in the same direction as the blade, appear to have
been hafted with short handles as chisels, and not with long shafts as
spuds. Among those found still attached to their hafts in the Swiss
lake dwellings, some few were mounted in short stag’s-horn handles
as chisels, but the majority were fitted for use as hatchets, with a
club-like handle, in which a short stag’s-horn socket was mortised as
affording a receptacle for the stone, harder and less liable to split
than those of wood. In some cases, however, the handles were made from
a bough of a tree with a short projecting branch, which was cleft to
receive the stone. One of these, from Robenhausen, is shown in Fig.
183, which is copied from Dr. Keller’s work.[532]
[Illustration: Fig. 183.—Stone Axe, Robenhausen.]
In Britain the traces of the original handles of bronze celts have been
not unfrequently found, though the actual wood had perished.
In a barrow in the parish of Butterwick,[533] Canon Greenwell, F.R.S.,
found what he describes as “an axe-blade of bronze,” engraved as Fig.
2, which lay with a skeleton, and “the handle, which had been under
two feet in length, could be plainly traced by means of a dark line of
decayed wood extending from the hips towards the heels; moreover, from
the presence of decayed wood on the sides of the blade, it would seem
as if the axe had been protected by a wooden sheath. To all appearance
the weapon had been worn slung from the waist.” In this case the blade
had been fixed, apparently after the manner of Fig. 182, into a solid
handle to the depth of two inches, as is evident from the surface of
the metal being oxidized on that part of the blade differently from
what it is elsewhere.
In a barrow at Shuttlestone,[534] near Parwich, Derbyshire, Mr. Bateman
found about the middle of the left thigh of a skeleton a bronze celt,
of “the plainest axe-shaped type. The cutting edge was turned upwards
towards the upper part of the person, and the instrument itself has
been inserted vertically into a wooden handle by being driven in for
about two inches at the narrow end—at least, the grain of the wood
runs in the same direction as the longest dimension of the celt.” “A
fact,” adds Mr. Bateman, “not unworthy of the notice of any inclined
to explain the precise manner of mounting these curious implements.”
It may be remarked, however, that no part of the handle itself, beyond
this grain upon the bronze, was preserved, and that this direction of
the grain of the wood would be quite consistent with the blade having
been mounted in a side branch from the shaft, after the manner of the
Swiss stone celt shown in Fig. 183.
It appears to me possible that in other cases where the marks of the
grain of the wood, or even the traces of the wood itself, have been
found upon celts, running along and not across the blade, the somewhat
hasty conclusion has been drawn that they were attached to the end of
straight shafts instead of into side branches; and that possibly this
opinion, when once accepted, may have affected insensibly the reports
of the position of the blade of the celts with regard to the bodies
with which they were found, and to the traces of their shafts.
The opinion first enounced by J. A. Fabricius that the celt was the
ancient German _framea_ or spear mentioned by Tacitus, seems also
insensibly to have affected observers.
There is an account given by Thorlacius[535] of the discovery in a
tumulus near Store-Hedinge, in Denmark, of a palstave with the wooden
shaft an ell and a quarter long, into which the blade was inserted; the
wood, as might have been expected, running down between the side wings;
at the other end of the shaft there was a leather strap wound round for
about a quarter of an ell. The whole was so decayed that not the least
part of it could be taken out of the ground. Although nothing appears
to be said with regard to the position of the palstave with respect to
the shaft, this has been cited by Lisch[536] and others in evidence of
this form of instrument having been mounted spud-fashion, as a kind
of chisel-ended spear. A more conclusive instance is that adduced by
Westendorp,[537] who has figured a socketed celt without a loop, found
in a fen in the province of Groningen, Holland, mounted in this manner
on a straight shaft. I have, however, already remarked that some of the
socketed celts of this character were probably used as chisels.
[Illustration: Fig. 184.—Bronze Axe, Hallein.]
Whatever reliance may be placed upon the older discoveries, all those
of more recent times are in favour of the instruments of the palstave
form having been mounted as axes, hatchets, or adzes. In the museum at
Salzburg, Austria, there are at least four crooked handles for this
kind of blade, found in the salt-mines of Hallein, one of which is
shown in the annexed cut. I am not, however, sure whether the blade
was actually found with the haft in which it is now placed, nor, if
so, whether it was originally in its present position with the loop
outwards. It looks much more like an Italian than a German specimen,
which has been added to the haft in recent times, and it has not the
appearance of having been exposed for centuries to the action of salt.
It seems more probable that the salt, which has fortunately had the
power of preserving the wood, would in course of years have dissolved
the whole of the metal, assuming that at the time when the haft was
lost, or left in the mine, a blade was still attached to it, than that
it should have left the metal, as here, almost uninjured. In this
instance, moreover, the haft is perfect, and not, as in some of the
other cases, broken, so as to raise an inference of their having been
thrown away. The position of the blade with the loop outwards is also
suspicious.
A broken example of the same kind of haft, also from the salt-mines
of Hallein, has been figured by Klemm,[538] and is to be seen in the
British Museum. There are others in the museum at Linz.
Handles of the same kind, intended for palstaves, have been found in
the Italian lake dwellings. In some discovered in the “palafitta” of
Castione,[539] the notch is in the transverse direction to the shaft,
as if the blade had been mounted as an adze, and not as an axe. In
others the notch is longitudinal, and not transverse. In one instance
the side branch has no notch, but there is a shoulder on it, as if it
had served for a socketed celt.
A looped palstave, mounted in a similar branched handle, has been found
at the lake dwelling of Mœrigen,[540] on the Lac de Bienne. In this
case also the loop is on the farther side of the shaft.
That the flanged and winged celts and palstaves were, as a rule,
destined to be mounted in the manner of hatchets or adzes, and not as
spuds or spear-heads, is to some extent witnessed by the development
of their form; the progressive increase in the size of the wings and
flanges, more especially about the middle of the blade, appearing to be
intended as a precaution against lateral strains, such as the blade of
an axe undergoes, rather than against a mere thrust, such as that to
which the head of a spear or lance is subject. Of course the stop-ridge
is a preservative against the blade being driven back into its handle,
in whatever way it is mounted. But the flanges, at first slight, then
expanding at the middle of the blade, then becoming projecting wings,
and finally being bent over, so as to form side sockets on each side of
the blade, seem rather the result of successive endeavours to steady
the blade against a sideways strain.
This development can best be traced in the series of flat celts,
flanged and winged celts, and palstaves, discovered in the South of
France.
Even the long narrow palstaves, which have so much the appearance of
chisels, seem to have been mounted on crooked shafts. There is a long
German[541] form with a narrow butt above the stop-ridge, and with
but slight side flanges, which are continued down along the sides of
the blade below the ridge, that seems much more like a chisel than a
hatchet. The usual length of this form is about 6 inches, and the width
at the edge about 1½ inches, that of the butt-end, including the side
flanches, being about ¾ inch.
[Illustration: Fig. 185.—Raron, Brigue. ½]
But that palstaves of this kind were mounted as hatchets will be
evident from an inspection of Fig. 185, which represents a specimen in
my own collection, found in the district of Raron, near Brigue, Valais,
Switzerland. It is, as will be seen, in fact, a socketed celt, but
with the socket at right angles to the axis of the blade. The reason
why it should have been cast in this manner is probably to be found in
the fact that boughs of trees with a smaller branch at right angles
to them are not easily met with, though such boughs are best adapted
for conversion into the helves of this kind of hatchet. Some ingenious
bronze-founder of old times conceived the idea of producing a hatchet
which did not require a crooked helve, but for hafting which any
ordinary straight stick would serve; and we have here his new form of
axe-head. In practice, however, it was probably found both to balance
badly, and to be expensive in metal, and the design appears not to have
spread, as up to the present time this specimen seems to be unique. The
most remarkable features in it have still to be noticed. The pattern
from which it was cast seems to have been a palstave already mounted
on its haft, and we have here the smooth and rounded end of the bough,
with the smaller side branch running off at right angles, reproduced
in bronze. Even the band by which the blade was secured in the cleft
part of the handle is reproduced as a spiral moulding. The banding
which extends to the mouth of the socket is also spiral, and probably
represents a binding round the original wooden handle at the part
where, from experience, it was found most liable to break. The straight
haft of this hatchet was secured in its place by a bronze rivet passing
through the socket from side to side, which is still in its place,
though all trace of the wood has disappeared.
With this singular celt was found a small dagger, 6½ inches long,
which had been secured to its hilt by four rivets, and a penannular
bracelet decorated with ring ornaments. It is remarkable how well the
discovery of this form of celt bears out the theoretical suggestions
of Sir Joseph Banks,[542] Sir Samuel Meyrick,[543] Mr. Dunoyer,[544]
and others, including Sir W. Wilde.[545] Indeed, Dr. Richard
Richardson[546] many years ago advanced the same opinion as to the
manner in which such celts were hafted.
With regard to the usual manner of mounting those of the socketed form
there can be but little doubt, as in some few instances the original
handles have been preserved with them.
[Illustration: Fig. 186.—Edenderry. 1/6]
One such, found in the bed of the river Boyne, near Edenderry, King’s
County, has been figured by Wilde,[547] whose cut, by the kind
permission of the Royal Irish Academy, is here reproduced as Fig. 186.
The helve is only 13¾ inches long, but seems well adapted to the size
of the blade. So far as I know this is the only instance of such a
discovery within the United Kingdom.
In Fig. 187, however, is shown an Italian socketed celt of a common
form, with the original handle still attached. This specimen is in my
own collection, and was found about the year 1872 in the neighbourhood
of Chiusi, Tuscany. With it were another, also retaining its handle,
a large _fibula_ of silver, a scarabæus, and many small square plates
of bronze, each having a fylfot cross upon it, probably the ornaments
of a girdle. All these objects had been buried in an urn, which was
covered by a slab of stone, and most of them are to be seen in the
Etruscan Museum at Florence. With the exception of a fracture not far
from the angle, the handle of my specimen is perfect. The preservation
is due to its having been entirely coated with thin plates of bronze,
the sides of which overlap, and have been secured round the handle by
round-headed nails about ¾ inch apart.
[Illustration: Fig. 187.—Chiusi. ½]
This plating is turned over square at the end of the handle, where
there is a little projecting bronze eye, through which a ring may have
passed, so as to serve for its suspension. At the sides above the celt
there are some larger round-headed nails, or possibly rivets; and the
end of the branch which goes into the socket appears to be secured by a
rivet, which passes through from face to face. At the end of the handle
itself, above the celt, is a nearly circular flat bronze plate, with a
round-headed nail in the middle to attach it to the wood. The fracture
exposes the wood inside the plates, which has been preserved by the
salts, or oxide, of copper. It has been thought to be oak. On the blade
of the celt are some flakes of oxide of iron, as if it had lain in
contact with some articles made of that metal. Indeed, from the form,
as well as from the objects found with it, the presumption is that this
instrument belongs to quite the end of the Bronze Age of Italy, or to
the transitional period between bronze and iron.
It may be well here to mention that celts of iron of the flat form,
with projections at the sides like Fig. 45; of the palstave kind, with
the semicircular side sockets; and of the socketed form, have been
found in the cemetery at Hallstatt, in Austria, the researches in
which of Herr Ramsauer have been described by Baron Von Sacken. These
discoveries seem to show that all three varieties were still in use at
the close of the Bronze Period. In the same cemetery celts of the two
last-mentioned forms were found in bronze, and palstaves occurred with
the wings formed of bronze and the blade of iron.
In 1866 I exhumed from this cemetery with my own hands, when in company
with Sir John Lubbock, a socketed celt of iron, with a portion of the
haft still in it. The celt is attached to a branch of the main handle,
which projects at an angle of about 80°. This has been split off from
the handle, only a small part of which remains attached; and it is this
portion only of the wood which has been preserved by the infiltration
of some salts of iron, while the rest, which was detached from contact
with metal, has disappeared. The wood of which the handle was made
appears to be fir. On an iron palstave from the same spot it seems to
be oak. On two bronze palstaves from France in my own collection, one
from Amiens and the other from the Seine, at Paris, the portions of
wood which still remain attached to the blades appear also to be oak.
In the Hallstatt specimen the inclination of the blade seems to have
been towards the hand, and the part of the handle beyond the branch
which enters the socket presents some appearance of having been bound
with an iron ferrule, probably with the view of preventing it from
splitting. The projection is somewhat longer proportionally than that
in Fig. 185, and the end appears to have been truncated, and not
rounded.
There have been in this country a few instances of the discovery of
bronze rings in company with palstaves and socketed celts, and these
rings may possibly have served a similar purpose, though it must be
confessed that such an use is purely conjectural. That shown in Fig.
188 was found in company with a bronze palstave without a loop, but
much like Fig. 74, at Winwick,[548] near Warrington, Lancashire, and
was kindly lent me by Dr. James Kendrick, who in 1858[549] suggested
that it was a “sort of ferrule to put round the handle of the palstave
to prevent the wood from splitting when the instrument was struck.” The
ornament on the ring, somewhat like the “broad arrow” of modern times,
is of much the same character as the shield-like pattern below the
stop-ridge of some palstaves. In the British Museum is a stone mould
from Northumberland for flat rings, 3 inches in diameter, and for flat
celts; but such rings probably served some other purpose.
[Illustration: Fig. 188.—Winwick. ½]
Another bronze ring, 1⅔ inches in diameter, was found with a socketed
celt in the Thames,[550] opposite Somerset House, but here the actual
association of the two is doubtful.
I have already expressed a doubt whether the celt from Tadcaster,
Yorkshire, and now in the British Museum, had, when found, the bronze
ring with a jet bead upon it passing through the loop. The ring itself
is made not of one continuous piece of metal, but of stout wire, with
the ends abutting against each other, and nothing would be easier for
the workman who found the three objects than to pass the ring through
the loop of the celt and the hole of the bead. I have myself received
from Hungary two socketed celts, each having imperfect penannular
bracelets passed through the loop in the same manner, though they
certainly had no original connection with the celts. It is, however,
but right to mention that in the British Museum is the upper part of a
celt with an octagonal neck, found with other objects near Kensington,
on the loop of which is a small ring, barely large enough to encircle
the loop. Of what service this could have been it is difficult to
imagine.
If the association of the larger rings and the celts must be given up,
it is needless to cite the opinions which have been held as to the use
of the one in connection with the other. Some references are given in
the note.[551]
The early Iron Age of Denmark is no doubt considerably later in date
than that of Hallstatt, but in several of the discoveries of objects
of that period in Denmark socketed celts of iron have been found still
attached to their helves. In the Nydam find[552], described by Mr.
Conrad Engelhardt, the majority of the axes were of the ordinary form,
with eyes for the shafts; but there were some also of the form of the
socketed celt, though without any loops. These were mounted as axes,
and not as adzes, on crooked handles about 17 inches long. The helves
of axes of the ordinary form were from 23 to 32 inches in length. In
the Vimose find[553] there were several of these iron celts, one of
which was thought to have been mounted on a crooked handle, but the
others appear to have been mounted as chisels.
The palstaves with the edges transverse to the septum between the
side flanges seem to have been mounted in precisely the same manner
as those of the ordinary form, except that when attached to their
handles they formed adzes, and not axes. It has been suggested[554]
that the palstaves of the ordinary form may also have been mounted as
adzes, and probably this was so in some exceptional cases. Mention has
already been made of some Italian helves with transverse notches for
the reception of the blade. Some of the flat celts may have also been
mounted as adzes by binding them against the shorter end of an L-shaped
handle, in the same manner as the Egyptians fixed their adze blades.
In some palstaves, but more especially in those of the South of Europe,
there is at the butt-end of the blade a kind of dovetailed notch, which
appears to have been formed by hammering over a part of the jets or
runners of the original castings, which were left projecting a short
distance instead of being broken off short at the blade. Whether the
hammering over was for the purpose of rounding the angles or for that
of forming this dovetailed notch is somewhat uncertain; it is, however,
possible that one or more pins or rivets may have been driven through
the handle, so as to catch the dovetails and retain the blade in its
place. It is not often the case that this portion of the blade is so
long that it would have gone through the handle and have allowed of
a pin beyond it, as suggested by Mr. Dunoyer[555] in the case of a
long palstave, with a rivet-hole near the butt-end of the blade. A
palstave, found in a tomb in the department of Loir et Cher,[556] by
my friend the late Abbé Bourgeois, is provided with a rivet-hole near
the top, counter-sunk on either side so as to guide a pin into the
place intended for it; and it seems probable, as the Abbé suggests,
that this was connected with the securing of the blade, which is
destitute of a loop, to the helve. Of six thin flat bronze celts, 7
or 8 inches long, from the Island of Thermia,[557] or Cythnos, in the
Greek Archipelago, which are now in the British Museum, three that
are broad are provided with square or lozenge-shaped holes towards
the upper end of the blade, and three that are narrower are without.
A flanged celt from Italy,[558] 6 inches long, has a circular hole in
the same position, which may have received a pin. Some contrivance
for keeping blades of smooth bronze fast in their handles must have
been necessary or desirable from the earliest times. With stone celts
we often find that the butt-end destined to be let into the wooden
or horn socket was purposely roughened. With bronze, however, such a
process does not seem to have been adopted to any extent; and probably
with blades of bronze, so much less tapering than those of stone, the
difficulty of keeping them in place was surmounted by attaching them
with some sort of resinous or pitchy cement. A safe remedy against
slipping out was no doubt found in the addition of the ring or loop
to the side, which there can be but little doubt served for a cord to
pass through, so as to hold the blade back to the handle. In a socketed
celt, 5½ inches long, found in the Seine, at Paris, and now in my own
collection, not only is the wood preserved in the socket by saturation
with some salt of copper, but within the upper part of the loop there
are distinct traces of a cord which was apparently formed of vegetable
fibre. The Irish palstave, Fig. 105, with the curved projection instead
of the usual loop, seems to show that it was only against the upper
part of the loop that the strain came. No doubt, however, there was
more strength in the loop attached to the blade at both ends than in
the mere neb or projection. Some Italian socketed celts have similar
projecting nebs, one on either side. In the case of the palstaves and
celts with two loops, it seems probable that the handle must have been
somewhat prolonged beyond the side branch, which received the palstave
or went into the socket of the celt.
It has been stated that some of the Spanish palstaves[559] with two
loops were, when first discovered, attached to a straight handle of
wood. But this opinion may have been formed from the grain of the wood
impressed on the upper part of the blade running along and not across
it. In the first account[560] given of the discovery, these palstaves
were regarded as having been used for _picking_ out the strata of coal,
and one of them is said to have been firmly attached to a wooden handle
by means of thongs interlaced and held by notches in the wood. This
handle was described as having been straight, so that the instrument
was fitted to be used as a crowbar and not as a hatchet. But inasmuch
as the groove for the handle is only 2¼ inches long and ½ inch wide,
while the length of the blade projecting beyond the handle is nearly 5
inches, it is almost impossible for it to have served in this manner.
Axe-heads of bronze of the modern form with an eye through them to
receive a straight helve have not been found in this country, though,
as already observed, they are not uncommon in Hungary, Southern
Germany, and Italy. That the form was already known in Greece in
the Homeric Age is evident from the feat of skill in shooting an
arrow through the shaft holes of a number of axe-heads, arranged in
a row, recorded in the Odyssey.[561] I have in my collection a fine
double-edged axe, or πέλεκυς, from Greece, 8½ inches in length, with a
round shaft-hole ⅞ inch in diameter. I have also two from Salamis.
Looking at the widespread distribution of perforated stone implements,
especially battle-axes, throughout Europe, it seems strange that
so few bronze weapons of the same class should be found. Possibly,
however, these stone weapons may have remained in use even until the
latter part of the Bronze Period, as they certainly did through the
earlier part of it. In this country it seems doubtful whether any of
the perforated battle-axes of stone belong to a time when bronze was
absolutely unknown, as bronze knife-daggers, like Fig. 279, have so
often been found associated with them in interments. Hungary is the
country in which the perforated bronze battle-axes seem to have arrived
at their fullest development, many of them being of graceful form and
beautiful workmanship. The perforated copper implements of that country
were probably used for agricultural purposes, and I see no reason for
assigning them to so early a date as the commencement of the Bronze
Period of Hungary. They may, indeed, belong to a much later period.
It is hard to account for this absence of perforated axes of bronze
in Britain, but various causes seem to have conduced to render their
introduction difficult. When first bronze came into use it must have
been extremely scarce and valuable; and to cast an axe-head in bronze,
like one of the perforated axe-hammers of stone, would have required
not only a considerably greater amount of the then precious metal than
was required for a flat hatchet-head, but would also have involved
a far higher skill in the art of casting. Moreover, the flat form
of these simple blades rendered them well adapted for being readily
drawn out to a sharp cutting edge, and when once they had come into
general use they would not have been readily superseded by those of
another form, hafted in a different method, even were that method more
simple. If the bronze celts were mainly in use for peaceful industries,
while the warlike battle-axes were made of stone, the progressive
modifications in the shape of the former would be less likely to
be affected by the characteristics of the latter. It must also be
remembered that in France,[562] which then as now set the fashion to
Britain, perforated axe-heads of stone were very seldom used, and those
of bronze were in the north of the country unknown.
But, to return to the celts of the British Islands, there can, I think,
be but little doubt that the loop is, as already described, connected
with the method of mounting these instruments on their hafts; and is
not intended for the attachment of a cord, by which they might be
withdrawn and recovered after they had been thrown at the enemy. Like
the American tomahawks, they may, no doubt, have occasionally been used
as “missile hatchets,” the “missiles secures” of Sidonius;[563] but
the days of young Sigimer, whose followers were provided with these
weapons, are many centuries more recent than those to which the bronze
celts must be referred.
In the same manner, any idea of the loops having merely served for
hanging these instruments at the girdle may be at once discarded. For
such a purpose the projection which we find substituted for the loop
would be useless, and the presence of two loops would be superfluous.
[Illustration: Fig. 189.—Everley. 1/1]
On the whole, we may conclude that the majority of these instruments
were mounted for use, somewhat in the manner described, so as to serve
as axes or adzes. A smaller proportion of them may, however, not
improbably have been provided with short straight handles, to serve as
chisels, especially the socketed celts of small size and without loops.
This is the more probable as several socketed instruments closely
resembling them in character cannot be regarded as other than chisels
and gouges. No example, however, of a socketed celt provided with a
handle of this kind has as yet been found. The little instrument of
brass fixed into a handle made of stag’s horn, which was found in a
cist in a barrow at Everley,[564] Wilts, by Sir R. Colt Hoare, has more
the appearance of being a tanged chisel, such as will subsequently be
described, than a flat celt. It is shown full size in Fig. 189, which I
have copied from Sir R. C. Hoare’s plate. There were no bones or ashes
found in the cist, but several pointed instruments, and what appears
to be a kind of long, flat bead of bone, as well as two whetstones of
freestone, and a hone of a blueish colour had been deposited with it.
Professor Worsaae[565] has published an engraving of a narrow Danish
palstave, which was found in a hill in Jutland fastened to its handle
by three rings of leather. This handle was straight, but unlike that
from Store Hedinage, which was an ell and a quarter long, was not more
than about 8 inches in length. In some other instances, he says, the
blade has been fastened to the handle by nails or rivets.
I have already mentioned that some of the socketed celts of iron
belonging to the early Iron Age of Denmark have been found mounted
as chisels. A good example of one thus hafted has been figured by
Engelhardt.[566] The part of the handle which goes into the socket
is tapered to fit it. Above this the handle expands with a shoulder
projecting somewhat beyond the outside of the celt. It continues of
this size for about 1½ inches, and is then again reduced to the same
size as the mouth of the celt. The whole of the handle beyond the metal
is about 4 inches in length.
Having said thus much with regard to the early iron chisels, it will,
however, now be well to proceed to the consideration of those formed of
bronze, and of the other bronze tools found in this country.
CHAPTER VII.
CHISELS, GOUGES, HAMMERS, AND OTHER TOOLS.
ALTHOUGH, doubtless, many if not most of the instruments of different
forms, described in the preceding chapters, were used as tools, and
not as weapons, yet in some cases, especially where they have been
found in graves, it is more probable that they formed part of the
equipment of a warrior than of an artificer. With regard to the various
forms of which I intend to treat in the present chapter, there can
hardly exist a doubt that they should be regarded as tools, and not as
weapons. Already in the Neolithic Period we find many of these forms
of tools, such as chisels and gouges, developed; and so far as hammers
are concerned, it seems probable that for many purposes a stone held
in the hand may have served during the Bronze Period as a hammer or
mallet, just as it often does now in the age of steel and steam. I have
elsewhere[567] mentioned a fact communicated to me by the late Mr.
David Forbes, F.R.S., that in Peru and Bolivia the masons, skilful in
working hard stone with steel chisels, make use of no other mallet or
hammer than a stone pebble held in the hand.
The simplest form of chisel is of course a short bar of metal brought
to an edge at one end and left blunt at the other where it receives the
blows of the hammer or mallet. Such at the present day are the ordinary
chisels of the stone-mason, and the “cold chisel” of the engineer.
Most of the Scandinavian chisels of flint are of nearly the same
form as the simplest metal chisels, being square in section in the
upper part and gradually tapering to an edge at the lower end. Bronze
chisels of this form are, however, but rarely met with in any part of
Europe. One such, however, was found at Plymstock,[568] near Oreston,
Devonshire, in company with sixteen flanged celts like Figs. 9 and
10, three daggers, and a tanged spear-head, engraved as Fig. 327. It
is shown in Fig. 190. Its length is 4 inches, and the cutting edge
is rather more than ¼ inch in width. The late Mr. Albert Way, who
describes this specimen in the _Archæological Journal_, regarded it as
unique in England; and the form, so far as I am aware, has not again
been found in this country. It is now in the British Museum.
I have a large chisel of the same type, but apparently formed of
copper, which was found in the neighbourhood of Pressburg, Hungary. It
is 7½ inches long, about ⅞ inch square in the middle, and expands in
width at the edge, which is lunate. Others of the same form, 4½ inches
and 5¾ inches long, also from Hungary, are in the Zurich Museum. Such
chisels have also been found in the Swiss Lake-dwellings.
[Illustration: Fig. 190. Plymstock. ⅔]
[Illustration: Fig. 191. Heathery Burn. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 192. Glenluce. ½]
A long chisel, formed from a plain square bar drawn to an edge, was
found by Dr. Schliemann[569] in his excavations at Hissarlik.
Bronze chisels of the same form were also in use among the ancient
Egyptians.
A smaller chisel, conical at the butt end and possibly intended for
insertion into a handle, is shown in Fig. 191. The original is in the
collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., and was found with numerous
other bronze antiquities in the Heathery Burn Cave, Durham, already
so often mentioned. One rather larger, about 3 inches long and 1/5 inch
broad, probably found in one of the barrows at Lake[570] or Durnford,
is in the collection of the Rev. E. Duke, of Lake House, near
Salisbury. It may possibly have been a large awl.
An Aztec[571] chisel of nearly the same form as Fig. 191, and about 4½
inches long, contains 97·87 copper and 2·13 of tin. Another from Lima
contains 94 copper and 6 of tin.
The small bronze chisel from Scotland, shown in Fig. 192, exhibits
a somewhat different type; the blade tapering evenly away from the
edge. The point which was intended to go into the handle appears to
have been “drawn down” a little by hammering, which has produced
slight flanges at the sides. The edge has also been hammered. The
original was kindly lent me by the Rev. George Wilson, of Glenluce,
Wigtonshire, and was found, with a conical button and a flat plate
of cannel-coal or jet, on the Sandhills of Low Torrs, near Glenluce.
Numerous arrow-heads and flakes of flint have also been found among
the sands at the same place.
A flat chisel (4½ inches) like Fig. 192, but rather broader at the
edge, which is somewhat oblique, was found with two flat sickles on
Sparkford Hill,[572] Somersetshire.
There were some small chisels of this class in the Larnaud hoard[573]
(Jura).
Others have been found in the Swiss Lake-dwellings.[574]
Two shorter edged tools, found at Ebnall,[575] Salop, which have been
described as chisels or hammers, seem rather to have been punches, and
will be mentioned subsequently.
As chisels were probably used in ancient times, as at present, not only
in conjunction with a mallet, but also in the hand alone with pressure
as paring-tools, it would have been found convenient to attach them to
wooden or horn handles. Accordingly we find them both provided with a
tang or shank for driving into a wooden handle, like the majority of
modern chisels, and also, though more rarely, with a socket for the
reception of a handle, like the heavy mortising chisels of the present
day. Chisels of the tanged variety vary considerably in size and
strength, and in the relative width of the blade to the length.
[Illustration: Fig. 192*. Carlton Rode. ½]
That shown in Fig. 192 is from the great hoard discovered at Carlton
Rode,[576] Norfolk, already mentioned, and is preserved in the Norwich
Museum. The marks of the joint of the mould are still visible on the
tang. It was found with numerous celts and gouges, a hammer, and at
least one socketed chisel. Another tanged chisel of nearly the same
form and dimensions is also in the Norwich Museum. It formed part of
the Woodward Collection, and was probably found in Norfolk.
A chisel much more expanded at the edge, and also of lighter make,
was found at Wallingford, Berks, in company with a double-edged knife
or razor, and a socketed celt, gouge, and knife, of which notices are
given in other parts of this book. It is engraved as Fig. 193, and is
in my own collection, as is also the original of Fig. 194. This formed
part of the hoard discovered in Reach Fen, Cambridge, and was the only
one of the kind there found. A socketed chisel-like celt from the same
hoard has been already described and figured at page 133, Fig. 159.
Tanged chisels have also occurred in various other hoards of bronze
antiquities. Some were found with numerous celts and other tools at
Westow,[577] on the Derwent, Yorkshire, which from their curved edges
and general character the late Mr. James Yates regarded as the σμίλα
χαρτοτόμος, or chisel for cutting paper, mentioned by Philoxenus, and
as the currier’s chisel, σκιτοτόμος, mentioned by Julius Pollux. If
I were to offer an opinion it would be that any cutting tool of the
Bronze Period in Britain was more likely to have been used for cutting
leather than paper, the latter commodity being, to say the least of
it, scarce in Britain at that time; and, moreover, that chisels are
generally used for cutting wood and not leather.
In the collection of Canon Green well, F.R.S., are two of these tanged
chisels from Westow, about 4½ inches long and 1⅛ inch broad at the
edge. A small part of the blade below the round collar is cylindrical.
In the British Museum is a small specimen of this kind (3½ inches)
from the Thames.
[Illustration: Fig. 193.—Wallingford. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 194.—Reach Fen. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 195.—Thixendale. ½]
In the Mayer Collection at Liverpool is a specimen, 4 inches long and
⅞ inch broad at the edge, found near Canterbury in 1761. The collar is
flat above and almost hemispherical below. Another, with part of the
tang broken off, and the blade 2½ inches long and 1½ inch wide, was
found in the Kirkhead Cave, Ulverstone, Lancashire, and was described
to me by Mr. H. Ecroyd Smith.
Another, rather like Fig. 199, but broken at the angles, was found
with spear-heads and a socketed celt at Ty Mawr,[578] Anglesea. What
appears to be a chisel of this kind (4¾ inches long) was found near
Biggen Grange,[579] Derbyshire, and is in the Bateman Collection.
Another was found at Porkington,[580] Shropshire.
A fragment of a tanged chisel was found with a large hoard of broad
spear-heads, &c., at Broadward, Shropshire.
A remarkably small specimen from Thixendale, in the East Riding of
Yorkshire, is in the collection of Canon Greenwell, who has kindly
allowed me to engrave it as Fig. 195. The stop, instead of being as
usual a circular collar, consists of a bead on each face, so that in
the side view it appears as if an oval pin traversed the blade.
[Illustration: Fig. 196.—Yattendon. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 197.—Broxton. ½]
Nearly similar side-stops are to be observed in the chisel represented
in Fig. 196, which was found with two others (3¾ inches and 4½ inches)
in a hoard of bronze antiquities at Yattendon,[581] Berks, of which
I have given an account elsewhere. With the chisels were instruments
of the following forms, some in a fragmentary condition: flat celts,
palstaves, socketed celts, gouges, socketed and tanged knives, swords,
scabbard ends, spear-heads, and flat, conical, and annular pieces of
bronze. The other two chisels from this hoard were more like Fig. 194.
A very large example of a chisel of this kind is shown in Fig. 197,
the original of which was kindly lent me by Sir Philip de M. Grey
Egerton, F.R.S. It was found in company with two looped palstaves
and a spear-head near Broxton, Cheshire, about twelve miles south of
Chester.
An instrument of somewhat the same character, from Farley Heath, has
already been described at p. 69.
A tanged chisel, 5 inches long, and without any stops or collar, was
found with other objects at Burgesses’ Meadow, Oxford, in 1830, and is
now in the Ashmolean Museum.
This form of instrument occurs but rarely in Scotland; but what appears
to be a chisel of this kind is engraved by Wilson.[582] His figure is,
however, a mere diagram, without any scale attached, and the instrument
is described as an axe blade with a cross limb, or as a “spiked axe.”
Whatever its character, the original of the figure is said to have been
found with other bronze relics at Strachur, Argyleshire.
An example of a chisel of elongated form is in the Antiquarian
Museum[583] at Edinburgh, but it is uncertain in what part of Scotland
it was found. By the kindness of the Council of the Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland it is shown as Fig. 198.
[Illustration: Fig. 198.—Scotland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 199.—Ireland. ½]
In Ireland they are much more common. There are thirteen specimens in
the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy, as catalogued by the late Sir
William Wilde,[584] varying in length from 2½ to 6¼ inches. Some of
these Irish chisels, which approximate to flat celts in character, have
already been described in Chapter III.
That which Wilde has given as his Fig. 395 is almost identical in
form with the chisel from Ireland in my own collection which is here
engraved as Fig. 199, though considerably longer altogether, and
somewhat longer proportionally in the tang.
I have another example from Belaghey, County Antrim, which is 6⅜
inches long, and much stouter in the tang and in the neck of the blade
than that here figured. It is only 1⅜ inches wide at the edge.
Among those in the museum at Dublin is one which is decorated with
knobs round the collar. Two others are figured in “Horæ Ferales.”[585]
In the British Museum is one (4⅝ inches) with a well-marked collar.
Another, with the square tang broken off, has a loop at the side of
the round part of the blade, which is 2¼ inches long. This curious
specimen was found near Burrisokane, county Tipperary.
Another chisel (4¾ inches) in the same collection has side-projections
only, like Fig. 195.
Another (3¼ inches), with a well-developed collar, is engraved in the
_Archæological Journal_.[586] The form shades off into that of the
flat celts having projections at the sides.
Others in the collection of Mr. Robert Day, F.S.A., resemble Fig. 196
(4½ inches) and Fig. 197 (6 inches). The latter was found at Kanturk,
Co. Cork.
Tanged chisels have been found, though not abundantly, in France. One
from Beauvais is in the museum at St. Germain.
The socketed form of chisel is by no means common in this country; but
some instruments, probably intended for use as chisels, have already
been described among the socketed celts not provided with loops. These
are all comparatively broad at the cutting edge; but there is another
variety, with a narrow end, formed much like the modern engineer’s
“crosscut chisel,” some specimens of which will be now described.
[Illustration: Fig. 200. Carlton Rode. ½]
That shown in Fig. 200 is from the great find of Carlton Rode,[587]
Norfolk (1844), from which several specimens, including a tanged chisel
(Fig. 192) and a socketed celt without loop (Fig. 160), have already
been described; and some other forms, such as gouges and hammers, have
yet to be mentioned. The edge is only 3/16ths of an inch in width, and
the tool seems well adapted for cutting mortises. The idea of a mortise
and tenon must be of very early date, as a mere stake driven into the
ground supplies it in a rudimentary form; and tools let into sockets,
or having sockets to receive handles, afford instances of connections
of the same kind. In our modern mortising chisels the cutting edge,
instead of being in the middle of the blade, so as to have a V-shaped
section, is usually at the side, and presents an outline like the upper
part of a K, V. I have not met with this bevelled edge among bronze
chisels.
On the side of this Carlton Rode chisel may be seen the mark of the
joint of the mould in which it was cast. The socket, as usual with
these tools, is circular.
A bronze chisel of the same form, 3¾ inches long, was found at
Romford,[588] Essex, in company with socketed celts, palstaves,
fragments of swords, a broken spear-head, and lumps of metal. It has
already been figured.
In the hoard found at Westow, Yorkshire, already mentioned, were two
or three socketed chisels. One of them, 2½ inches long, is engraved in
the _Archæological Journal_.[589] That which I have here engraved as
Fig. 201 is probably the same specimen. It is now in the collection
of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S. Tanged chisels, gouges, and socketed celts
were found at the same time.
[Illustration: Fig. 201. Westow. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 202. Heathery Burn. ½]
In the same collection is a somewhat smaller chisel, the socket of
which is square instead of circular. This was found in the Heathery
Burn Cave, Durham, together with a number of objects, belonging to
the Bronze Period, of which further mention will be made hereafter.
Another, found at Roseberry Topping, Yorkshire, is now in the Bateman
Collection, at Sheffield. A small narrow-edged chisel was found in a
hoard at Meldreth, Cambridgeshire.
I am not aware of any socketed chisels of the narrow form having been
found in Scotland.
In Ireland they are rare, but in the collection of Mr. R. Day, F.S.A.,
are a few specimens of undoubtedly chisel-like character. The broad
celt-like form has been described in a previous chapter.
In France they are also far from common. There are, however, two in
the museum at Tours, found at the Chatellier d’Amboise. There is
also one in the museum at Narbonne.[590] They have been found in
Savoy,[591] Doubs,[592] and Jura.[593]
Several have been found in the Lake-dwellings of Switzerland.[594]
One with a treble moulding round the mouth and a polygonal neck from
Mœrigen[595] exhibits much taste in its manufacture.
A number of chisels both of the tanged and the socketed forms were
present in the great hoard of bronze objects discovered at Bologna.
Socketed examples from Italy are in the museum at Copenhagen,[596] and
in the British Museum.
I have some from Macarsca, Dalmatia, of which the sockets have been
formed by hammering out the metal and turning it over, instead of
being produced as usual, by means of a core in the casting.
Socketed chisels from Emmen and Deurne, Holland, are in the
museum[597] at Leyden.
From North Germany I may cite one (6⅛ inches) from Schlieben,[598]
which is in the Berlin Museum.
Others are engraved by Lindenschmit,[599] Schreiber,[600] and
Lisch.[601]
One from Kempten, Bavaria, is in the Sigmaringen Collection.[602]
[Illustration: Fig. 203. Carlton Rode. ½]
GOUGES.
Closely allied to chisels are gouges, in which, the edge, instead
of being straight, is curved or hollowed, so that it is adapted for
working out rounded or oval holes. In some languages, indeed, the name
by which these tools are known is that of “hollow chisels.” It is an
early form of instrument, and a few specimens made of flint have been
found in this country, though they are here extremely rare, while,
on the contrary, they are very abundant in Denmark and the South of
Sweden. In the Scandinavian countries, however, bronze gouges are never
found; and though gouges of stone were not unknown in this country
during its Stone Period, their successors in bronze do not appear to
belong to the early part of the Bronze Period, but, on the contrary,
seem to be characteristic of its later phases.
Of bronze gouges there are the same two varieties as of the ordinary
chisel, viz. the tanged and the socketed, of which the former is far
rarer than the latter. Indeed the only tanged gouge from Britain with
which I am acquainted is that from the Carlton Rode[603] hoard, already
so often mentioned, which is shown in Fig. 203. The original is in the
Norwich Museum, the trustees of which kindly allowed me to engrave
it. As will be seen, it is of remarkably narrow form, especially as
contrasted with the socketed gouge from the same hoard shown in Fig.
207. There was a broken tanged gouge in the great hoard of bronze
objects found at Bologna.
Of English socketed gouges the most common form is that shown in Fig.
204, from an original in the British Museum, which was found with a
spear-head (Fig. 391), socketed knife (Fig. 240), hammer (Fig. 210),
awl (Fig. 224), and two socketed celts, at Thorndon,[604] in Suffolk.
There were six gouges of the same character, but of different sizes,
in the hoard found at Westow,[605] Yorkshire, some of which have
been figured. Another (3½ inches) found with socketed celts and some
curious ornaments under a large stone at Roseberry Topping,[606] in
Cleveland, has also been figured. Another was found with socketed
celts and spear-heads at Exning,[607] in Suffolk. The cutting end of
another was associated with socketed celts in the hoard discovered
at Martlesham in the same county. Part of another was discovered,
with a socketed celt, fragments of blades, and rough copper, at
Melbourn,[608] Cambridgeshire. Another was found, with socketed celts,
spear-heads, and an armlet, within the encampment on Beacon Hill,[609]
Charnwood Forest, Leicestershire. Another, with socketed celts,
spear-heads, &c., at Ebnall,[610] near Oswestry; and another (2½
inches), with socketed celts, fragments of knives, a button or stud,
and lumps of metal, at Kensington.[611] This hoard is in the British
Museum.
[Illustration: Fig. 204. Thorndon. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 205. Harty. ½]
A gouge was found with four socketed celts and about 30 lbs. of
rough copper in an urn at Sittingbourne,[612] Kent. A plain gouge
formed part of the hoard found at Stanhope,[613] Durham. A remarkably
fine gouge, 4¼ inches long and nearly 1¼ inch wide at the edge, was
found, with spear-heads, socketed celts, part of a celt mould, and
lumps of metal, at Beddington,[614] Surrey. At Porkington,[615]
Shropshire, a gouge accompanied the tanged chisel lately mentioned.
In the hoard found at Guilsfield,[616] Montgomeryshire, there were
two gouges in company with looped palstaves, socketed celts, &c. In
my own collection are three socketed gouges, about 3½ inches long,
which form part of the hoard from Reach Fen, Cambridgeshire, in
which were socketed celts, socketed and tanged knives, and numerous
other objects. In some of the instances cited, as at Guilsfield and
Ebnall, the upper part of the socket is beaded instead of plain.
One of this kind from the Harty hoard already mentioned is shown in
Fig. 205. There were two such in the hoard, which comprised numerous
socketed celts and the moulds for them, and various tools of the
bronze-founder. There were also the two halves of a bronze mould for
such gouges which will subsequently be described. In the Museum of
the Cambridge Antiquarian Society is a gouge from Bottisham Lode (3
inches) with a slight shoulder about ½ inch from the top of the blade,
the upper part of the neck being larger than the lower. One of three
found in the Heathery Burn Cave (2¾ inches) is also shouldered. Of the
other two (3⅜ inches and 3¼ inches) one is very slightly shouldered.
They are in the collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., as is also a
plain example (3¾ inches) from Scothorn, Lincolnshire.
In the British Museum are the unfinished castings for two gouges, one
2¾ inches long and fully ½ inch wide, and the other 3 inches long and
⅜ inch wide at the edge, which in both is but slightly hollowed. They
were found with a socketed celt (Fig. 146) near Blandford, Dorset. The
longer one is of very white and hard bronze.
[Illustration: Fig. 206. Undley. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 207. Carlton Rode. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 208. Tay. ½]
Two gouges, one 3½ inches and the other broader, but only 2 inches
long, found with various other objects at Hounslow; as well as one
from the Thames at Battersea (4 inches), are in the same collection.
Two gouges (3¼ inches and 5 inches) were found, with a hammer, a
spear-head, and a socketed celt with a loop on the face (Fig. 154),
near Whittlesea. The whole are in the museum at Wisbech.
Two from Derbyshire are in the Blackmore Museum at Salisbury.
A socketed gouge of unusually long proportions is shown in Fig. 206.
It was found at Undley, near Lakenheath, Suffolk, and is in my own
collection. In the Carlton Rode hoard were also two long gouges with
the hollow extending more nearly to the socket end. They are both
rather trumpet-mouthed. One of them is 4½ inches long and 9/16 inch
wide at the edge, the other 4⅛ inches long and ¾ inch wide. I have not
seen the originals, but describe them from a lithographed plate.
The broad short gouge shown in Fig. 207 is also from Carlton Rode.
It is broken at the mouth of the socket, but I have, in the figure,
restored the part that is wanting. The original was lent me by the
trustees of the Norwich Museum. Another[617] from the same hoard,
about 3¼ inches long, has the groove, which is wide and rather flat,
extending only an inch upwards from the edge.
Socketed gouges have been found, though very rarely, in Scotland. That
shown in Fig. 208, the cut of which has been kindly lent to me by
the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, was dredged up in the river
Tay.[618] This appears to be almost the only Scottish specimen at
present known. Professor Daniel Wilson[619] terms it “one of the rarest
of the implements of bronze hitherto found in Scotland;” but he adds
that other specimens have been met with in the Tay.
In Ireland they are considerably more abundant, there being at least
twenty specimens in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy, one of them
as much as 4½ inches long.
One, much like Fig. 208, has been engraved by Wilde as Fig. 399.
Others are figured in the _Archæological Journal_[620] and “Horæ
Ferales.”[621] In one of these, 2½ inches long, the hollow is carried
up to the collar round the mouth as a square-ended recess. One gouge
appears to have been originally tanged. Several socketed gouges from
Ireland are in the British Museum. Mr. R. Day, F.S.A., has examples
from Mullingar and Derry, the latter with a collar at the top. They
occurred also in the Dowris hoard. A gouge[622] only 2½ inches long
and unusually broad has a small loop at the upper end of the concave
part. It is here engraved as Fig. 209, from the original in the Museum
of the Royal Irish Academy. This may be the specimen figured by
Vallancey.[623] I have a specimen like Fig. 208. /#
[Illustration: Fig. 209.—Ireland. ½]
#/ Socketed gouges are occasionally found in France. One, 4¼ inches
long, with two mouldings round the top, ornamented with faint diagonal
lines, was found with socketed celts and other implements in the
Commune de Pont-point[624] (Oise), near the river Oise, and is in
the Hotel Cluny, Paris. Others from the Hautes Alpes[625] and from
the Fonderie de Larnaud have been figured in Mr. Ernest Chantre’s
magnificent Album.
There are three with moulded tops, from the hoard of Notre Dame d’Or,
in the Poitiers Museum.
A fine gouge (about 5½ inches) with a moulded top is in the museum
at Clermont Ferrand (Puy de Dôme). A very fine French gouge of this
character is in the British Museum.
I have a specimen much like Fig. 208 found in the Seine at Paris.
Others were in the hoard at Dreuil, near Amiens, and in a second hoard
also found near that town.
Large gouges with moulded tops, from the Stations of Auvernier,[626] in
the Lake of Neuchâtel, and Mœrigen, in the Lake of Bienne, are in Dr.
Victor Gross’s collection.
There was at least one socketed gouge in the great Bologna hoard.
In Germany they are very rare, but one from the museum at Sigmaringen,
with a somewhat decorated socket, is engraved by Lindenschmit. It was
found at Kempten, Bavaria.[627] Others, from Düren and Deurne, North
Brabant, Holland, are in the museum at Leyden.
A socketed gouge, with the edge turned to a sweep of about 1 inch
radius, is in the museum at Agram, Croatia.
One from Siberia[628] has been figured by Worsaae.
HAMMERS AND ANVILS.
Another form of tool constructed with a socket to receive the handle
in precisely the same manner as the socketed celts and gouges is
the hammer. It is worthy of notice that, though perforated hammers
formed of stone are comparatively abundant in this country, yet that
instruments of the same kind in bronze are unknown. It is true that
what looks like a perforated hammer, said to be of bronze, was found in
Newport, Lincoln, and is engraved in the _Archæological Journal_,[629]
but there is no evidence of its belonging to the same period as the
ordinary tools formed of bronze; and the suggestion that it may have
been the extremity of a bell-clapper is, I think, not far from the
truth. It is very probable that many of the perforated stone hammers
belong to the Bronze Period of this country, as do doubtless most of
the perforated stone battle-axes or axe-hammers; for in the early part
of the Bronze Period it is likely that metal was far too valuable to
be used for heavy tools and weapons, and even towards the close of the
period it seems as if it was only the lighter kind of hammers which
were formed of bronze. The heaviest I possess weighs only five ounces,
and the lightest less than half that weight. As will subsequently be
seen, it is possible that some of these instruments were of the nature
of anvils rather than of hammers, but for the present it will be most
convenient to speak of them under the latter name.
The most common form of hammer is that which is shown in Fig. 210, from
an original in the British Museum found at Thorndon,[630] Suffolk, in
company with a spear-head, socketed gouge, socketed knife, and two
socketed celts. The two hammer-like instruments engraved as Figs. 211
and 212 were found, with a number of socketed celts, moulds, &c.—in
fact the whole stock-in-trade of an ancient bronze-founder—in the Isle
of Harty, Sheppey, and are in my own collection. The larger of the
two shows a considerable amount of wear at the end, which is somewhat
“upset” by constant use. The smaller is more oxidized, so that the
marks of use are less easily recognised. The metal of which they are
formed seems to contain a larger admixture of tin than is usual with
the cutting tools; and I have noticed the same appearance in some other
instances, so that even in early times the singular fact must have
been known that by adding to copper the softer metal, tin, in a larger
proportion than the one-tenth usually employed for bronze, a much
harder metal resulted. At the present time the extremely hard alloy
used for the specula of reflecting telescopes is formed by an admixture
of about two parts of copper and one part of tin, the two soft metals
mixed in these proportions forming an alloy almost as hard as hardened
steel.
[Illustration: Fig. 210.—Thorndon. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 211.—Harty. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 212.—Harty. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 213.—Carlton Rode. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 214.—Taunton. ½]
In the Carlton Rode find, of which mention has already been frequently
made, was a hammer of much longer proportions than those from the Isle
of Harty. By the kindness of the trustees of the Norwich Museum I have
been able to engrave it as Fig. 213. It expands considerably at the
mouth. As will be seen, the end is “upset” by use. What appears to
be a hammer of much the same kind, but with the face still smaller,
was found with a hoard of bronze objects, including palstaves,
spear-heads, flat sickles, a torque, &c., at Taunton.[631] It is shown
in Fig. 214.
A hammer somewhat larger in its dimensions than Fig. 211, but in
type more resembling Fig. 212, having no shoulder upon its body, was
found at Roseberry Topping,[632] in Cleveland, with a socketed celt,
a gouge, and other objects. Another broken hammer was found, with a
hoard of bronze objects, at Stanhope,[633] Durham.
A small hammer (2¼ inches), found with gouges and other objects near
Whittlesea, is in the Wisbech Museum.
Another with a circular socket was in the hoard found in Burgesses’
Meadow, Oxford.
A small one was found at Rugby,[634] and is in the possession of Mr.
M. H. Bloxam, F.S.A. I have one (3 inches) found near Cambridge.
I am not aware of any examples having as yet been found in Scotland.
In Ireland they are rare, but four “round-faced socketed punches,”
varying from 2 to 4 inches in length, are mentioned in Wilde’s
Catalogue. These are probably hammers.
In the British Museum are also several Irish hammers, one of which is
shown full size in Fig. 215, for the use of which I am indebted to the
Council of the Society of Antiquaries.[635] It is cylindrical in form,
with two rings of projecting knobs around it. The end is circular
and slightly convex, and has a ridge across it, due to constant use.
Another, found, with trumpets, spear-heads, and numerous other bronze
relics, at Dowris,[636] King’s County, is shown in Fig. 216, also
lent me by the same Council. It is of a different type from any of
the others, expanding beyond the socket into a large flat blade. It
appears never to have been in use. Two other small Irish specimens,
one with a long oval face, are in the British Museum. I have a hammer
(2½ inches) much like Fig. 210, but with the shoulder nearer the
top, found with a socketed celt and some perforated and other rings,
near Trillick, Co. Tyrone. I have also an imperfect specimen with the
end expanded, but not to the same extent as Fig. 216. This was found
with a broken sword, spear-heads, and a socketed knife, on Bo Island,
Enniskillen, and was kindly procured for me by the Earl of Enniskillen.
[Illustration: Fig. 215.—Ireland. 1/1]
[Illustration: Fig. 216.—Dowris. 1/1]
Socketed hammers have been found in several European countries. I have
two from France. One of them (3½ inches), like Fig. 212 in form, was
found, with a spear-head, a double-edged knife, some curved cutting
tools, and an anvil of bronze (Fig. 217), together with a large
torque and a plain bracelet of gold, at Fresné la Mère, near Falaise,
Calvados. The other (2 inches), stouter in its proportions and more
like Fig. 210, was found near Angerville, Seine et Oise. A short thick
hammer was found at Briatexte, Tarn.[637]
An instrument in the British Museum, in form much like Fig. 216, found
at Vienne (Isère?), has only a small square hole in the socket, and
may have served as an anvil rather than as a hammer. A hammer also
with expanded end was found near Chalon,[638] and another in the
Valley of the Somme.[639]
A cylindrical hammer or anvil was found in the hoard of the Jardin des
Plantes at Nantes.[640]
Cylindrical hammers have been found among the Lake-dwellings of the
Lac du Bourget,[641] Savoy, one of them provided with a loop. M.
Rabut, of Chambéry, has a stone mould from the same lake for casting
such hammers. Another hammer-mould of stone was found at the Station
of Eaux Vives, near Geneva.
In my own collection is one of these looped socketed hammers, nearly
square in section, from Auvernier, in the Lake of Neuchâtel. Others
from Swiss Lake-dwellings, both with and without loops, are engraved
by Keller. Professor Desor has a hammer expanding towards the end
from the Lake of Neuchâtel.[642] A hammer found at Mœrigen[643]
seems to have been formed from a portion of a looped palstave. The
Lake-dwellers frequently utilized such broken instruments. Another
hammer, from the Lake of Bienne,[644] is hexagonal in section, and
ornamented with reversed chevrons on its faces.
They are occasionally found in Hungary. I have seen one ornamented
with chevrons in relief upon the sides. One with saltires on the
sides, and some fragments of others, were in the Bologna hoard.
The object engraved by Madsen[645] as possibly the ferrule of a lance
may be a hammer of this kind.
A solid bronze hammer (4½ inches), of oblong section, with two
projecting lugs on each side for securing the handle, found near
Przemysl, Poland, was exhibited at the Prehistoric Congress at Pesth.
It was found with a bronze spear-head, and is in the Museum of the
Academy of Sciences at Cracow.
As to the manner in which these socketed hammers were mounted we have
no direct evidence. It seems probable, however, that many of them had
crooked hafts of the same character as those of the socketed celts. It
is worth notice that on some of the coins of Cunobeline[646] there is
a seated figure at work forging a hemispherical vase, and holding in
his hand a hammer which in profile is just like a narrow axe, the head
not projecting beyond the upper side of the handle. A seated figure
on a hitherto unpublished silver coin of Dubnovellaunus, a British
prince contemporary with Augustus, holds a similar hammer, or possibly
a hatchet, in his hand. But though when in use as hammers they were
mounted with crooked shafts, it is quite possible that some of these
instruments may have been fitted on to the end of straight stakes and
have served as anvils. The Rev. W. C. Lukis, F.S.A., informs me that
at the present day the peasants of Brittany make use of iron-tipped
stakes, which, when driven into the ground, form convenient anvils on
which to hammer out the edges of their sickles, and which have the
great advantage of being portable. Though such anvils are not, so far
as I am aware, any longer used in this country, traces of their having
been formerly employed appear to be preserved in our language, for a
small anvil to cut and punch upon, and on which to hammer cold work, is
still termed a “stake.”
It is worthy of remark that an implement of the same kind as these
so-called socketed hammers, and made in the same manner, of a very hard
greyish alloy, was found in the cemetery at Hallstatt,[647] and was
regarded by the Baron von Sacken as a small anvil. A bronze file was
found with it.
It is also to be observed that of the two hammer-like instruments found
together in the Harty hoard one is much larger than the other, and may
have formed the head of a stake or anvil, while the other served as a
hammer. Still, as a rule, a flat stone must have served as the anvil
in early times, as it does now among the native ironworkers of Africa,
and did till quite recently, for many of the country blacksmiths and
tinkers of Ireland.[648] Among Danish antiquities some carefully made
anvils of stone occur, but I am not certain as to the exact age to
which they should be assigned.
[Illustration: Fig. 217.—Fresné la Mère. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 218.—Fresné la Mère. ½]
Bronze anvils of the form now in use are of extremely rare occurrence
in any country. That figured by Sir William Wilde[649] appears to me to
be of more recent date than the Bronze Period, and I am not aware of
any other specimen having been found in the British Isles; but as it
is a form of tool which may eventually be discovered, it seems well to
call attention to it by engraving a French example. This anvil is shown
in two views, in Figs. 217 and 218. As will be seen, it is adapted for
being used in two positions, according as one or the other pointed
end is driven into the workman’s bench. In one position it presents
at the end two plane-surfaces, the one broad and the other narrow,
inclined to each other at an angle of about 120 degrees, so that their
junction forms a ridge. This part of the anvil has seen much service,
as there is a thick burr all round it, caused by the expansion of the
metal under repeated blows. On the projecting beak there are three
slight grooves gradually increasing in size, and apparently intended
for swages in which to draw out pins. In the other position the anvil
presents no smooth surface on which to hammer, but a succession of
swages of different forms—some half-round, some V-shaped, and some
W-shaped. There are also some oval recesses, as if for the heads of
pins. The metal of which the anvil is made appears to contain more tin
than the ordinary bronze, and therefore to be somewhat harder. On one
face is the mark of the runner ⅞ inch in diameter, which was broken off
after the tool was cast.
This interesting tool was found with the hammer already mentioned,
a spear-head, a double-edged knife or razor, a knife with the end
bent round so as to present a gouge-like edge, and a large curved
cutting-tool of the same character (Fig. 247), all of bronze, at
Fresné la Mère, near Falaise, Calvados. With them was a magnificent
gold torque with recurved cylindrical ends, the twisted part being of
cruciform section; and a plain penannular ring or bracelet, formed from
what was a cylindrical rod. The whole find is now in my own collection.
It is not by any means improbable that this anvil was rather the tool
of a goldsmith of the Bronze Age than that of a mere bronze-worker.
I have another anvil of about the same size, but thinner, which was
found in the Seine at Paris. It also can be mounted two ways, but in
each position it presents a nearly flat but somewhat inclined face,
and there are no swages in the beaks, one of which is conical and the
other nearly rectangular.
M. Ernest Chantre has engraved two other specimens, somewhat differing
in form, but of much the same general character. They were found near
Chalon-sur-Saône and near Geneva.[650] The analysis of the metal of
one of them gives 16 parts of tin to 84 parts of copper.
Another bronze anvil is in the museum at Amiens, and a fifth, also
from France, is in the British Museum. This has a flat projecting
ledge at the top, and at right angles a slightly tapering beak. An
anvil of the same kind, but without the beak, was found with other
objects near Amiens, and is now in the museum of that town.
A small anvil without a beak, found at Auvernier,[651] in the Lake of
Neuchâtel, is in the collection of Dr. Gross. A square flat anvil,
somewhat dented on the face, formed part of the Bologna hoard.
In my own collection is what appears to have been a larger anvil of
bronze, which was found, with other instruments of the same metal, at
Macarsca, Dalmatia. In form it is not unlike an ordinary hammer-head
about 5 inches long; but the eye through it appears to be too small
for it ever to have served to receive a haft of the ordinary kind,
though it probably held a handle by which to steady the tool when in
use. One end is nearly square and but slightly convex; the other is
oblong and rounded the narrow way. Both ends are much worn. On one
face and one side are rounded notches or swages. This tool has been
cast in an open mould, as one face presents the rough surface of the
molten metal, which contains a large proportion of tin. The other face
and the sides are fairly smooth.
SAWS AND FILES.
While speaking of bronze tools, which up to the present time have
not been noticed in Britain, but which may probably be some day
discovered—if, indeed, they have not already been found—the saw must
not be forgotten.
A fragment of what has been regarded as a rudely formed saw of bronze
was indeed found, with a sword and several celts, at Mawgan,[652]
Cornwall, and is now in the Museum of the Society of Antiquaries. It
is 4 inches by ¾ inch, coarsely toothed, and the serrations appear to
have been cast. I am, however, rather doubtful whether it was really a
saw.
Saws have been found both in Scandinavia and in France, in the latter
country in hoards apparently belonging to the later portion of the
Bronze Period. One from Ribiers,[653] Hautes Alpes, is about 5½
inches long and ¾ inch broad, slightly curved, and with a rivet-hole
at one end for attachment to the handle. Two from the “Fonderie de
Larnaud,”[654] Jura, are nearly one-half smaller. There were five
specimens in that hoard, and M. Chantre enumerates sixteen altogether
from various parts of France and Switzerland. A fine specimen, with a
rivet-hole for the handle, was found at Mœrigen,[655] in the Lake of
Bienne.
The Scandinavian[656] type is of much the same character, though some
are more sickle-like in shape, with the teeth on the inner sweep.
A saw, found with celts, spear-heads, diadems, &c., at Lämmersdorf,
near Prenzlau, is in the Berlin Museum. A short one, with a rivet-hole
for the handle, found at Stade, is in that at Hanover.
A saw of pure copper was found in some excavations of dwellings of
remote date at Santorin,[657] in the Grecian Archipelago, in company
with various instruments formed of obsidian. Some fragments of saws
occurred in the Bologna hoard. Part of one from Cyprus is in the
British Museum. A copper(?) saw from Niebla, Spain, 9 inches long,
also in the British Museum, has the teeth arranged to cut as it is
drawn towards the workman, and not when pushed away from him.
The file is another tool of exceedingly rare occurrence in bronze,
though not absolutely unknown in deposits belonging to the close of the
Bronze Period. Sir William Wilde[658] mentions “a bronze circular file,
straight, like a modelling tool,” as being in the Museum of the Royal
Irish Academy, but I have not seen the original and am not confident as
to its age. A file[659] was, however, found in the great hoard of the
Fonderie de Larnaud, and another from the Lake-dwellings of the Lac du
Bourget is in the museum at Chambéry.
[Illustration: Fig. 219. Heathery Burn. ¼]
The early form of file is indeed much the same as that of a very broad
saw, the toothing being coarse and running at right angles across the
blade. In the cemetery at Hallstatt,[660] in Upper Austria, files of
this character were found, several in bronze and one in iron. The
bronze files are from 5 to 10 inches long, and some which are flat for
the greater part of their length are drawn down, for about 2 inches at
the end, into tapering round files. In the Bologna hoard were several
fragments of files, including one of a “half-round” file.
TONGS AND PUNCHES.
From our greater acquaintance with the working of iron than with that
of bronze, there seems to us a sort of natural connection between
the anvil, hammer, and tongs. It must, however, be borne in mind
that bronze is a metal which instead of being, like iron, tough and
ductile, becomes “short” and fragile when heated, so that all the
hammering to which the tools and weapons of bronze were subjected in
order to planish their faces, or to draw out and harden their edges,
was probably administered to them when cold. At least one pair of
bronze tongs has, however, been found, which is shown in Fig. 219. This
instrument was discovered, with numerous other antiquities, in the cave
at Heathery Burn,[661] near Stanhope in Weardale, Durham, and is now
in the collection of Canon Greenwell. As half of a mould for socketed
celts and some waste runners of bronze were found, it is evident that
the practice of casting bronze was carried on in the cave, and these
tongs were probably part of the founder’s apparatus. Whether they were
used merely as fire-tongs, or for the purpose of lifting the crucible
or melting-pot, is a question. They appear, however, much too light to
be of service for the latter purpose.
In the museum of the Louvre at Paris are some Egyptian tongs of bronze,
which are remarkably similar to those from Durham. A workman seated
before a small fireplace, holding a blowpipe to his mouth with one
hand and with a pair of tongs in the other, is shown in a painting at
Thebes, published by Sir Gardner Wilkinson.[662]
What I have ventured to regard as another of the tools of the
bronze-founder is a kind of pointed punch or pricker, of which an
example is given in Fig. 220. This, as well as another which had lost
its point, was found, with socketed celts, gouges, moulds, &c., forming
the whole stock-in-trade of a bronze-founder, in the Isle of Harty,
Kent. It seems to have been furnished with a wooden handle, into which
the tang was driven as far as the projecting stop; and its purpose
appears to have been the extraction of the cores of burnt clay from out
of the sockets of the celts.
[Illustration: Fig. 220.—Harty. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 221.—Reach Fen. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 222.—Ebnall. 1/1]
That these sockets were formed over a core of clay inserted into the
mould is proved by numerous celts having been found with the cores
still in them. The heat of the melted metal was sufficient to convert
the clay into terracotta or brick, and in this condition the cores
have been preserved. Some force was necessary to extract such hardened
cores, and this could be well effected by driving in such a pointed
instrument as that here figured. If the two prickers from the Harty
hoard were originally of the same length, the broken one has lost a
portion from its end exactly corresponding in length with the depth
of the socket of the largest celts found with it; as if it had been
driven home through the burnt clay quite to the bottom of the socket,
and then had been broken off short at the mouth of the celt in the vain
endeavour to extract it.
Some small punches, without any tang for insertion in a handle, were
found with socketed celts and numerous other objects in the hoard
from Reach Fen, already mentioned. One of these is shown in Fig. 221.
No moulds were discovered in this case; and though the hoard has all
the appearance of being the stock of an ancient bronze-founder, it
is possible that these shorter punches may here have been used for
some other purpose than that of extracting cores. The end of one is
sharp, that of the other presents a small oblong face. It is possible
that, like the instruments next to be described, these may have been
punches used in the decoration of other articles of bronze. Mr. H.
Prigg,[663] in his description of this hoard, has suggested such an
use. The large end of the punch shown in the figure bears no mark of
having been hammered; it may, however, have been struck with a wooden
mallet. Punches, more chisel-shaped at the point, appear to have been
in use for producing the incuse ornaments which occur on so many of
the flat and flanged celts. I am not aware of any tools which were
undoubtedly used for this purpose having been observed in Britain; but,
as I have already remarked, there were found at Ebnall,[664] Salop,
two short-edged tools, which may possibly be punches, and if so may
have been applied to this use. One of these is shown in Fig. 222, the
block for which has been kindly lent me by the Council of the Society
of Antiquaries. The other is described as of similar form but of rather
longer proportions. They were found in company with spear-heads, celts,
gouges, and broad dagger-blades; but it does not appear that any of
these were ornamented with punch-marked patterns. The tools may,
therefore, have been merely some kind of strong chisels, possibly used
for breaking off the jets and superfluous metal from the castings. The
thickness of the tool is rather greater than the cut would lead one to
imagine, being ½ inch. These two tools have been regarded as hammers,
or possibly weights. I have now spoken of them as punches, or possibly
chisels, but it may be that after all it was the broad end that was
destined for use, in which case they might be regarded as anvils.
Whatever the purpose of these particular tools, there can be but little
doubt that punches were in use for the ornamentation of the flat faces
and the sides of celts; and it will be well to be on the look out
for such tools when hoards belonging to the ancient bronze-founders
are examined. For the most part, however, these seem to belong to a
period posterior to that of the ornamented flat celts, though decorated
spear-heads occur in them.
Some of the punches from the Fonderie de Larnaud and from the
Lake-dwellings may have served for decorating other articles in bronze.
AWLS, DRILLS, OR PRICKERS.
Allied to the pointed tools last described, but considerably smaller,
are the awls, drills, borers, or prickers of bronze which have so
frequently been found accompanying interments in barrows. No doubt such
instruments must have been in very extensive and general use; but it
is only under favourable conditions that such small pieces of metal
would be preserved, and when preserved it is only under conditions
equally favourable that they would attract the attention of an ordinary
labourer. It is, therefore, mainly to the barrow-digger that we are
indebted for our knowledge of these little instruments. Many belong
to a very early part of the Bronze Age, but the form continued in use
through the whole period.
A somewhat detailed essay upon them has already appeared in the
_Archæologia_[665] in the late Dr. Thurnam’s admirable and exhaustive
paper on “Ancient British Barrows,” from which I am tempted largely to
borrow. I am also, through the kindness of the Council of the Society
of Antiquaries, enabled to make use of some of the woodcuts which
illustrate Dr. Thurnam’s paper. He distinguishes three types of these
instruments, which, as he points out, correspond to some extent with as
many types or varieties of the bronze celt. They are as follows:—
I. That with a simply flattened end or tang for insertion into its
handle.
II. That with a well-marked shoulder, where the stem and tang unite;
the object being to prevent its passing too far into the handle.
III. That with a regular stop-ridge, or waist, almost as marked as that
in a carpenter’s awl, as distinguished from that of a shoemaker.
One of the first type, from the Golden barrow at Upton Lovel, is
engraved by Hoare,[666] and is shown in Fig. 223. With it were two
cups, a necklace of amber beads, and a small bronze dagger. It is
almost the longest of those found by Sir R. Colt Hoare, which were
upwards of thirty in number. The only longer specimen was found in a
barrow near Lake,[667] and there also some beads and a bronze dagger
accompanied the interment. It is considerably thicker than Fig. 223,
and the tang for insertion in the handle is broader and flatter. A
smaller awl of the same character was found in a barrow on Upton Lovel
Down,[668] opened by Mr. Cunnington. In this instance there were two
interments in the same grave, and several flint celts and a perforated
stone battle-axe were found, as well as numerous instruments of bone,
and a necklace of beads of jet or lignite.
[Illustration: Fig. 223. Upton Lovel. 1/1]
[Illustration: Fig. 224. Thorndon. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 225. Butterwick. 1/1]
An awl of this kind (3-1/10 inches) found, with a spear-head,
hammer, knife, and gouge of bronze, at Thorndon, Suffolk,[669] most of
them already described, is now in the British Museum, and is shown in
Fig. 224.
Several such instruments, some of them not more than an inch in
length, were found by Canon Greenwell[670] in his exploration of
the Yorkshire barrows. In nine cases awls or prickers accompanied
interments of unburnt bodies, and in three cases they were found among
burnt bones. In most instances instruments of flint were found with
them. An aged woman in a barrow on Langton Wold[671] had three bronze
awls or prickers, as well as an assemblage of bone instruments, animal
teeth, marine shells, and other miscellaneous property, buried with
her. Dr. Thurnam regarded these as drills used with a bow, but I think
such an use is doubtful. Some of the awls from the Yorkshire barrows,
instead of being flattened at one end, are drawn down to a point at
both ends, leaving the middle of larger diameter so as to form a kind
of shoulder. These, I presume, are included under Dr. Thurnam’s Type
II. Sometimes this central part of the blade is square and sometimes
the tang is square, like that described by Stukeley[672] from a barrow
near Stonehenge as “a sharp bodkin round at one end, square at the
other where it went into a handle.”
An awl, square at the centre, and round at each end in section, is
shown in Fig. 225. It was found by Canon Greenwell in a barrow at
Butterwick, Yorkshire, in company with the celt (Fig. 2), and other
objects. The point has unfortunately been broken off.
A typical example of Dr. Thurnam’s second class from a barrow at
Bulford,[673] Wilts, is shown in Fig. 226. Another was found at
Beckhampton, and a small pricker of the same type was found with a
burnt interment at Storrington,[674] Sussex. Like those found by Sir
R. C. Hoare, this was regarded as the pin for fastening the cloth in
which the bones were collected from the funeral pyre. The fact of
several of them having been found still inserted in their hafts, as
will subsequently be seen, will suffice to prove that this view is
mistaken.
Several awls pointed at both ends were found by the late Mr. Bateman
during his researches in the Derbyshire barrows. In Waggon Low[675]
at the right shoulder of a contracted skeleton were three instruments
of flint, and a small bronze awl 1½ inches long, tapering each way
from the middle, which is square. Another, pointed at each end, lay
with a drinking cup and a rude spear- or arrow-head of flint near the
shoulder of a youthful skeleton in a barrow near Minning Low.[676]
Another of the same kind was found in a barrow on Ilam Moor,[677]
Staffordshire. Another was found with calcined bones in a barrow in
Larks-Low,[678] Middleton.
[Illustration: Fig. 226. Bulford. 1/1]
[Illustration: Fig. 227. Winterbourn Stoke. ½]
In several instances there were traces of a wooden handle, as was
the case with one, upwards of 3 inches long, which was found with a
flint spear-head, a double-edged axe of basaltic stone, and objects of
bone, among the calcined bones in a sepulchral urn from a barrow at
Throwley.[679]
In a barrow at Haddon Field[680] there was a small drinking cup near
the back of a contracted skeleton, and beneath this an arrow-head of
flint, an instrument of stag’s-horn like a netting mesh, and a bronze
awl showing traces of its wooden handle.
In another barrow near Gotam, Nottinghamshire,[681] there lay near the
thigh of a contracted skeleton a neatly chipped spear-head of flint,
and a small bronze pin which had been inserted into a wooden handle.
In a barrow near Fimber,[682] Yorkshire, opened by Messrs. Mortimer,
there were found near the knee of a contracted female skeleton a
knife-like chipped flint and the point of a bronze pricker or awl.
With another female interment in the same barrow a bronze pricker was
found inserted in a short wooden haft. The Britoness in this instance
wore a necklace of jet discs with a triangular pendant of the same
material.
A bronze pin, 1½ inches long, accompanied by a broken flint celt and
some arrow-heads and flakes of flint, together with calcined bones,
was found in an urn in Ravenshill barrow,[683] near Scarborough.
In some of the Wiltshire barrows more perfectly preserved handles
have been found. One of these, copied from Hoare’s “Ancient
Wiltshire,”[684] is shown in Fig. 227. It was found in the King barrow
with what was probably a male skeleton buried in the hollowed trunk
of an elm tree. With it was a curious urn of burnt clay and two
bronze daggers, one near the breast and the other near the thigh.
The handle is described as being of ivory, but I think Dr. Thurnam
was right in regarding it as of bone. The awl in this instance is of
the third type, having a well-marked collar round it. Another of the
same character, but retaining only a small part of the haft, so that
the shoulder is better shown, was found with burnt bones in an urn
deposited in a barrow near Stonehenge.[685] No mention is made as to
the nature of the material of which the haft was formed.
In the case of an awl of the first type, engraved by Dr. Thurnam, and
here reproduced as Fig. 228, the handle is of wood, but the kind of
wood is not mentioned.
[Illustration: Fig. 228. Wiltshire. ½]
One or two bronze or brass awls with square shoulders are in the
Museum of the Royal Irish Academy.[686] Several awls with their
original wooden handles have been found in the Lake-dwellings
of Savoy,[687] and others in hafts of stag’s-horn in the Swiss
Lake-dwellings.
Whether the twisted pins from the Wiltshire barrows are of the nature
of gimlets, as suggested by Dr. Thurnam, is a difficult question. I
shall, however, prefer to treat of them as personal ornaments rather
than as tools. It is possible that they may to some extent have
combined the two functions. As to the instruments which I have been
describing being piercing tools or awls, there seems to be little
doubt; and Mr. Bateman can hardly have been far wrong in regarding
them as intended to pierce skins or leather. Though not curved like
the cobbler’s awl of the present day, they are probably early members
of the same family. In Scandinavia these instruments are of frequent
occurrence, sometimes being provided with ornamental handles also made
of bronze.[688] They are in that part of Europe often found in company
with tweezers and small knives of bronze, and all were probably used
together in sewing, the hole being bored by the awl and the thread
drawn through by the tweezers and, when necessary, cut with the knife.
Possibly the use of bristles as substitutes for needles dates back to
very early times.
In one instance at least tweezers have been found in Britain in company
with objects apparently belonging to the Bronze Age, though no doubt to
a very late part of it. Those represented in Fig. 229 were discovered
near Llangwyllog,[689] Anglesea, together with a two-edged razor, a
bracelet, buttons, rings, &c., which are now in the British Museum.
A more highly ornamented pair of tweezers, with a broad end, found
with a bone comb, a quern, spindle-whorls, &c., in a Picts’ house near
Kettleburn,[690] Caithness, belongs to a considerably later period.
[Illustration: Fig. 229. Llangwyllog.]
[Illustration: Fig. 230. Ireland.]
The needles of bronze found in the British Isles do not as a rule
appear to belong to the Bronze Period, though some of those found
on the Continent seem to date back to that age. Two are engraved by
Wilde,[691] and there are altogether eighteen such articles in the
Museum of the Royal Irish Academy. A broken specimen (1¼ inch) from the
sand-hills near Glenluce,[692] Wigtonshire, has been figured.
Another useful article anciently formed of bronze—though perhaps not,
strictly speaking, a tool—may as well be mentioned in this place;
I mean the fish-hook, of which, however, I am able to cite but one
example as having been found in the British Isles. This was found in
Ireland, and is shown in Fig. 230,[693] kindly lent by the Royal Irish
Academy.
Fish-hooks of bronze have been found in considerable abundance on the
site of several of the Swiss Lake-dwellings; and it is not a little
remarkable that in form many of them are almost identical with the
steel fish-hooks of the present day. The barb, to prevent the fish from
struggling off the hook, is in most instances present, and double hooks
are occasionally found. The attachment to the line was, even in the
single hooks, frequently made by a loop or eye, formed by flattening
and turning back the upper part of the shank of the hook. Fish-hooks
were found in the Fonderie de Larnaud (Jura),[694] and in the hoard of
St. Pierre-en-Châtre (Oise).
Such are the principal forms of tools and instruments of bronze found
in these islands. Some of them, such as the socketed gouges, hammers,
and chisels, can only belong to the latter part of the Bronze Period,
when the art of using cores in order to produce sockets or other hollow
recesses in castings was well known. Others, like the simple awls so
frequently found in company with instruments of flint in our barrows,
appear to extend from the commencement of the Bronze Age to its close.
There still remains to be described a class of instruments in use by
the husbandman, and not by the warrior; and as the present chapter has
extended to such a length, it will be well to treat of these under a
separate heading.
CHAPTER VIII.
SICKLES.
SICKLES are the only undoubtedly agricultural implements in bronze with
which we are acquainted in this country. Already in the Stone Period
the cultivation of cereals for food appears to have been practised, and
I have elsewhere[695] pointed out a form of flint instrument which may
possibly have supplied the place of sickles or reaping hooks in those
early times. The rarity of bronze sickles in this country, as compared
with their abundance in some parts of Southern Europe, is, however,
somewhat striking, and may, perhaps, point to a considerably less
cultivation of grain crops in Britain than in countries with a warmer
climate, while the inhabitants were otherwise in much the same stage of
civilisation.
The traditions of the use of bronze sickles survived to a
comparatively late period in Greece and Italy, and Medea is described
by Sophocles[696] as cutting her magic herbs with such instruments
(Χαλκέοισιν ἤμα δρεπάνοις τομάς), and by Ovid[697] as doing it
“curvamine falcis ahenæ.” Elissa is by Virgil[698] represented as using
a bronze sickle for similar purposes—
“Falcibus et messæ ad lunam quæruntur aënis
Pubentes herbæ nigri cum lacte veneni.”
When bronze sickles were used for reaping corn it seems to have been a
common custom merely to cut the ears of corn from off the straw, after
the manner of the Gaulish reaping machine described by Pliny,[699] and
not to cut and carry away straw and ear together from the field. This
practice will probably account for the small size of the sickles which
have come down to us, unless we are to reverse the argument, and derive
the custom of cutting off the ears only from the diminutive size of
the instruments employed for reaping.
Bronze sickles were hafted in different ways, sometimes being fastened
to the handle by a pin, either attached to the stem of the blade or
passing through a hole in it, combined with some system of binding; and
sometimes being provided with a socket into which the haft was driven,
and then secured by a transverse pin or rivet.
The sickles with a socket to receive the handle appear to be peculiar
to Britain and the North of France. The other form occurs over the
greater part of Europe, including Scandinavia, and the blades, as has
been observed by Dr. Keller, are always adapted for use in the right
hand. Dr. Gross, of Neuveville, on the Lake of Bienne, has been so
fortunate as to discover at Mœrigen, the site of one of the ancient
pile-villages on the lake, two or three handles for sickles of this
kind. A figure showing three views of one of these handles has been
published by the Royal Archæological Institute,[700] and is here by
permission reproduced as Fig. 231. This handle is formed of yew,
curiously carved so as to receive the thumb and fingers, and has a
flat place at the end against which the blade was fastened. In this
place there are two grooves to receive the slightly projecting ribs
with which the stem of the sickle-blade is usually strengthened. Dr.
Keller[701] has suggested that the blade of the sickle was made fast to
the handle by means of a kind of ferrule which passed over it, and was
secured in its place by two pins or nails.
The end of the handle forms a ridge, through which are two holes
that would admit a small cord for the suspension of the sickle, and
thus prevent its being lost either on land or water. We find this
sailor-like habit prevailing among the Lake-dwellers in the case of
their flint knives also, the handles of which were often perforated.
There is a remarkable resemblance in character between this handle and
some of those in use among the Esquimaux[702] for their planes and
knives, which are recessed in the same manner for the reception of the
fingers and the thumb.
Some iron sickles, of nearly the same form as those in bronze with
the flat stem, were present in the great Danish find of the Early
Iron Age at Vimose,[703] described by Mr. C. Engelhardt. The chord
of the curved blades is from 6 to 7 inches in length, and one of the
instruments still retained its original wooden handle. This is between
9 and 10 inches long, and is curved at the part intended to receive the
hand. The end is conical, like the head of a screw, and is evidently
thus made in order to give a secure hold to the reaper when drawing the
sickle towards him. Sickles with nearly similar handles were in use in
Smaaland,[704] in the South of Sweden, until recent days.
[Illustration: Fig. 231.—Three views of a handle for a sickle,
Mœrigen.]
Of sickles without a socket but few have been found in Britain, and
those mostly in our Western Counties. In a remarkable hoard found in a
turbary at Edington Burtle,[705] near Glastonbury, Somersetshire, were
four of these flat sickles. One of these had never been finished, but
had been left rough as it came from the mould, into which the metal had
been run through a channel near the point of the sickle. A projection
still marks the place where the jet was broken off. As will be seen
from Fig. 232, this blade is provided with two projecting pins for
the purpose of attaching it to the handle. In this respect it differs
from the sickles of the ordinary continental type, which, when of this
character, have usually but a single knob.
[Illustration: Fig. 232.—Edington Burtle. ½]
Another of the Edington sickles with a single projection is shown in
Fig. 233. This blade is more highly ornamented, and has a rib along the
middle in addition to that along the back, no doubt for the purpose of
increasing stiffness while diminishing weight. Of the other two sickles
found at Edington, one is imperfect and the other much worn. Both are
provided with the two projecting pins.
[Illustration: Fig. 233.—Edington Burtle. ½]
Two other sickles found on Sparkford Hill,[706] also in Somersetshire,
present the same peculiarity. One of these much resembles Fig. 233,
though nearly straight along the back. The other is flat on both faces.
Each has lost its point. A chisel-like tool was found with them.
With the Edington sickles were found a broad fluted penannular
armlet and what may have been a finger-ring of the same pattern, a
plain penannular armlet of square section, part of a light funicular
torque like Fig. 467, part of a ribbon torque like Fig. 469, and four
penannular rings, some of them apparently made from fragments of
torques.
Two other sickles of the same character, each with two projecting pins,
were found in Taunton[707] itself in association with twelve palstaves,
a socketed celt, a hammer (Fig. 214), a fragment of a spear-head, a
double-edged knife, a funicular torque (Fig. 468), a pin (Fig. 451),
some fragments of other pins, and several penannular rings of various
sizes.
[Illustration: Fig. 234.—Thames. ½]
All the objects found at Edington, Sparkford Hill, and Taunton are now
in the museum in Taunton Castle.
A thinner form of flat sickle, if such it be, has been found in Kent.
Among a number of bronze objects which were discovered at Marden,[708]
near Staplehurst, there is a slightly curved blade with a rivet at one
end, which appears to present a sickle-like character. I have not seen
the original, and as it is described as a knife-blade it may prove to
have been one, or possibly, what is of far rarer occurrence, a saw.
Of socketed sickles a few have at different times been dredged up from
the Thames. One of these, found in 1859, is in my own collection, and
is shown in Fig. 234. The blade, which is almost as sharp at the back
as at the edge, is not quite central with the socket, but so placed as
to make the instrument better adapted for use in the right hand than in
the left. The socket tapers considerably, and is closed at the end.
In another sickle found in the Thames, near Bray, Berks[709] (Fig.
235), the socket dies into the blade instead of forming a distinct
feature. A third, found near Windsor, and engraved in the _Proceedings
of the Society of Antiquaries_,[710] closely resembles Fig. 234, but
the end of the socket, instead of being closed, is open. The blade of
this also is sharp on both edges.
One from Stretham Fen, in the Museum of the Cambridge Antiquarian
Society (about 5½ inches), is of the same character. It has two
rivet-holes in the socket. Another from Downham Fen (5¾ inches) is
sharp on both edges.
[Illustration: Fig. 235.—Near Bray. ½]
In the Norwich Museum is a sickle of somewhat the same character
as Fig. 235, but the socket instead of being oval is oblong, and
is placed at a less angle to the blade, which in this case also is
double-edged. The socket is 11/16 by 7/16 inch, and has one rivet-hole
through it. The curved knife from Wicken Fen, to be described in the
next chapter, much resembles this Norwich example in outline. Another
sickle from Norfolk[711] was exhibited to the Archæological Institute
in 1851. Mr. Franks has shown me a sketch of another found at Dereham
which has the external edge of the blade extending across the end of
the socket. Both edges of the blade are sharp.
But few sickles have been found in Scotland. That shown in Fig. 236
was found in the Tay,[712] near Errol, Perthshire, in 1840, and has
been described by Dr. J. Alexander Smith. The block, which has been
kindly lent me by the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, is engraved
on the scale of two-thirds linear, instead of my usual scale of
one-half. The main difference between this specimen and mine from the
Thames (Fig. 234) consists in the blade being fluted. Another more
rudely made sickle, found at Edengerach,[713] Premnay, Aberdeenshire,
has also been engraved. This has a single central rib along the blade
and no rivet-hole through the socket. Perhaps it is an unfinished
casting.
[Illustration: Fig. 236.—Near Errol, Perthshire. ⅔]
In Sinclair’s “Statistical Account of Scotland”[714] it is stated that
an instrument of this class was found at Ledbeg, Sutherlandshire, and
was pronounced by the Earl of Bristol, then Bishop of Derry, to whom
it was presented, to be a Druidical pruning hook similar to several
found in England.
In Ireland these instruments are much more abundant. Eleven specimens
are mentioned by Wilde[715] as being in the Museum of the Royal Irish
Academy, and there are three in the British Museum, as well as one in
that at Edinburgh.
[Illustration: Fig. 237.—Garvagh, Derry. ½]
That engraved as Fig. 237 is in the collection of Canon Greenwell,
F.R.S., and was found at Garvagh, county Derry. The blade is fluted
somewhat like that of the Tay specimen. In one of those engraved
by Wilde (Fig. 405) it is more highly ornamented. In another the
socket is not closed at the end, but resembles that of the Windsor
example already mentioned. This appears to be the one engraved by
Vallancey[716] who observes that it was “called by the Irish a
Seare,” and that it was used “to cut herbs, acorns, misletoe, &c.” In
another[717] the blade forms a direct continuation of the socket as
in Fig. 238, which is engraved from a specimen in the British Museum,
found near Athlone, county Westmeath.
Vallancey, in his “Collectanea,” has figured another. In the
collection of Mr. J. Holmes is another example of this type. Another
sickle of the same character as Fig. 237, found near Ballygawley,[718]
Tyrone, has also been figured. This specimen is among those in the
British Museum.
A socketed sickle, double-edged, and with a concavity on each side at
the angle between the blade and the socket so deep as to meet and form
a hole, was found in Alderney, and is engraved in the _Archæological
Association Journal_.[719] With it were found socketed celts,
spear-heads, and broken swords and daggers. This may be regarded as a
French rather than an English example.
[Illustration: Fig. 238.—Athlone. ½]
In my own collection is another, from the Seine at Paris, about 7
inches in length along the outer edge of the blade, which extends
past the end of the socket. This still contains a part of the wooden
handle, which has been secured in its place by two rivets, apparently
of bronze. In general outline this sickle is much like Fig. 234, but
the blade is narrower and more curved and the socket more flattened.
In the museum at Amiens is another sickle, in form closely resembling
Fig. 234, but with a loop at the back of the socket. M. Chantre in his
magnificent work, “L’Age du Bronze,” does not specify this socketed
type, though he divides the form without socket into five different
varieties. The socketed form appears to be quite unknown in the South
of France, as it also is in Switzerland.
These three are the only instances I can cite of socketed sickles
having been found outside the British Isles, so that this type of
instrument appears to be peculiarly our own. The existence of a socket
shows that the form does not belong to an early period in the Bronze
Age, and the same is to be inferred from the character of the other
bronze objects with which the Alderney sickle was found associated.
Inasmuch as the continental forms are as a rule different from the
British, and as they are, moreover, well known, it will suffice
to indicate some few of the works in which descriptions of them
will be found. Some from Camenz, in Saxony, have been engraved in
illustration of a paper by myself in the _Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquaries_.[720]
Others from Germany, some of which are said to have Roman numerals upon
them, have been figured by Lindenschmit.[721]
Examples from Italy have been given by Strobel,[722] Gastaldi,[723]
Lindenschmit,[724] and others.
They have been found in great abundance in some of the settlements
on the lakes of Switzerland and Savoy. It has been thought that the
Lake-dwellers did not cut off merely the ears of their corn,[725] but
“that the straw was taken with it, otherwise there would not have been
the seeds of so many weeds in the corn.” Diodorus Siculus, however, who
wrote in the first century B.C., tells us distinctly that the Britons
gathered in their harvest by cutting off the ears of corn and storing
them in subterraneous repositories. From these they picked the oldest
day by day for their food. Whether for threshing they made use of the
_tribulum_,[726] that “sharp threshing instrument having teeth,” before
Roman times, is doubtful; but that so primitive an instrument, armed
with flakes of flint or other stone, should have remained in use in
some Mediterranean countries until the present day, is a remarkable
instance of the power of survival of ancient customs. Such an
instance of persistence in a primitive form much reduces the extreme
improbability of the use of bronze sickles in Germany having lasted
until a time when Roman numerals might appear upon them. If every St.
Andrew’s cross and every straight line found upon ancient instruments
is to be regarded as a Roman numeral, and the objects bearing them are
to be referred to Roman times as their earliest possible date, the
range of Roman antiquities will be much enlarged, and will be found
to contain, among other objects, a large number of the bronze knives
from the Swiss Lake-dwellings; for one of the most common ornaments on
the backs of these knives consists of a repetition of the pattern
XIIIIIXIIIIIXIIIII.
Even were it proved that in some part of Europe the use of bronze
sickles survived to so late a date as supposed by Dr. Lindenschmit,
their great scarcity in the British Isles affords a conclusive argument
against their being assigned to the period of the Roman occupation, of
which other remains have come down to us in such abundance.
CHAPTER IX.
KNIVES, RAZORS, ETC.
IT is a question whether, if in this work strict regard had been paid
to the development of different forms of cutting implements, the knife
ought not to have occupied the first place, rather than the hatchet or
celt; for when bronze was first employed for cutting purposes it was no
doubt extremely scarce, and would therefore hardly have been available
for any but the smaller kinds of tools and weapons.
[Illustration: Fig. 239.—Wicken Fen. ½]
Both hatchets and knives, or rather knife-daggers, have been found with
interments in barrows; but it seems better to include the majority of
the latter class of instruments, which appear to occupy an intermediate
place between tools and weapons, in the next chapter, which treats of
daggers; rather than in this, which will be devoted to what appear to
be forms of tools and implements. Some of these, however, like the
celt or hatchet, may have been equally available both for peaceful and
warlike uses; and though I have to some extent tried to keep tools and
weapons under different headings, it appears impossible completely to
carry out any such system of arrangement. Nor in treating of what I
have regarded as knives does it seem convenient first to describe what
appear to be the simpler and older forms, inasmuch as there are other
forms which in all respects except the shape of the blade so closely
resemble some of the socketed sickles described in the last chapter,
that they seem almost of necessity to follow immediately in order. The
first instrument which I shall cite has sometimes indeed been regarded
as a sickle, though it is more properly speaking a curved knife.
[Illustration: Fig. 240.—Thorndon. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 241.—Reach Fen. ½]
It was found in Wicken Fen, and is now in the Museum of the Cambridge
Antiquarian Society, the Council of which has kindly permitted me to
engrave it as Fig. 239. It has already been figured, but not quite
accurately, in the _Archæological Journal_,[727] the rib at the back
of the blade being omitted. I am not aware of any other example of
this form of knife having been found in the United Kingdom, but a
double-edged socketed knife with a curved blade, found in Ireland, is
in the Bateman Collection.
The ordinary form of socketed knife has a straight double-edged blade,
extending from an oval or oblong socket, pierced by one or two holes,
through which rivets or pins could pass to secure the haft. These holes
are usually at right angles to the axis of the blade, but sometimes in
the same plane with it.
Fig. 240 shows a knife with two rivet-holes, which was found at
Thorndon, Suffolk, together with socketed celts, a spear-head, hammer,
gouge, and an awl, several of which have been figured in preceding
pages. Another (9 inches long), much like Fig. 240, but with the
sides of the socket flat, and the blade more fluted, was found in the
Thames, and is engraved in the _Archæological Journal._[728] Another,
of much the same size and general character, formed part of a hoard of
bronze objects found in Reach Fen, near Burwell, of which mention has
already frequently been made. It is in my own collection, and is shown
in Fig. 241. I have another, 6½ inches long, found in Edmonton Marsh.
A fine blade of this kind, with two rivet-holes in the hilt (14½
inches), was found in the New Forest, Glamorganshire, and was formerly
in the Meyrick Collection.[729] It is now in the British Museum. The
blade has shallow flutings parallel with the edges.
A socketed knife of this kind (4½ inches) was found by General A. Pitt
Rivers, F.R.S., in a pit at the foot of the interior slope of the
rampart of Highdown Camp,[730] near Worthing, Sussex. It may possibly
have accompanied a funereal deposit.
In some instances the two rivet-holes run lengthways of the oval
of the socket. One such, discovered with other objects at Lanant,
Cornwall (8¼ inches), is engraved in the _Archæologia_.[731] It is now
in the Museum of the Society of Antiquaries. One like it was found on
Holyhead Mountain,[732] Anglesea, and is now in the British Museum.
A fragment of a knife of this kind is in the museum at Amiens, and
formed part of a hoard found near that town. It has a beading at the
mouth of the socket, and also one about midway between the rivet-holes.
[Illustration: Fig. 242.—Heathery Burn Cave. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 243.—Kilgraston, Perthshire. ½]
Commonly there is but a single hole through the socket, especially in
the smaller specimens. That shown in Fig. 242 is of this kind, but
presents the remarkable feature of having upon each face of the socket
six small projecting bosses simulating rivet-heads. It was found in the
Heathery Burn Cave,[733] Durham, with socketed celts, spear-heads, and
numerous other articles. Another from the same cave (5⅛ inches) with a
plain and rather larger socket is in the collection of Canon Greenwell,
F.R.S.
Of other specimens, but without the small bosses, the following may
be mentioned:—One (6½ inches long) found with socketed celts, part
of a sword blade, and a gouge, at Martlesham, Suffolk, and in the
possession of Captain Brooke, of Ufford Hall. Two found in the Thames
near Wallingford.[734] Another (5⅜ inches), from the same source, in
my own collection. This was found with a socketed celt, gouge, chisel,
and razor (Fig. 269). One from Llandysilio, Denbighshire, found with
socketed celts and a spear-head, is in Canon Greenwell’s collection. A
knife of this kind was among the relics found above the stalagmite in
Kent’s Cavern, near Torquay.
I have a knife of this character (4¾ inches), but with the rivet-hole
in a line with the edges of the blade, found in Dorsetshire.
In Scotland the socketed form of knife is very rare.
That shown in Fig. 243 was found at Kilgraston, Perthshire, and is in
the collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S. It has a central rib along
the blade and two shorter lateral ribs, and in some respects has more
the appearance of being a spear-head than a knife.
Another, with the rivet-hole in the same plane as the blade, was found
near Campbelton, Argyleshire, and has been engraved as a spear-head
by Professor Daniel Wilson.[735] The discovery of a blade having its
original handle, as subsequently mentioned, proves, however, that some
of these are rightly regarded as knives, though another form (Fig.
328) has more the appearance of being a spear-head. The curved knife
with a socket, figured by the same author,[736] can hardly, I think,
be Scottish.
[Illustration: Fig. 244.—Kells. ½]
In Ireland the socketed form of knife is more abundant than in either
England or Scotland. No less than thirty-three such knives[737] are
recorded by Sir W. Wilde, as preserved in the Museum of the Royal Irish
Academy, of five of which he gives figures. Many specimens also exist
in private collections.
That shown in Fig. 244 is in the collection of Canon Greenwell,
F.R.S., and was found at Kells, Co. Meath. As will be observed, the
blade is at the base somewhat wider than the socket. The indented
lines upon it appear to have been produced in the casting, and not
added by any subsequent process. A knife of the same kind, found in
the Bog of Aughrane, near Athleague, Co. Galway, is still attached to
the original handle, which, like many of those of the flint knives
found in the Swiss Lake-dwellings, is formed of yew. It has been
several times figured.[738]
I have a specimen of the same character, but in outline more like Fig.
240, 6 inches long, from the North of Ireland.
A knife of this kind, found in a hoard at St. Genouph, is in the
Tours Museum.
In some instances the junction between the blade and the socket is
made to resemble that between the hilt and blade of some of the bronze
swords and daggers, such as Figs. 291 and 349.
The example shown in Fig. 245 is in my own collection. I do not,
however, know in what part of Ireland it was found. The rivet-hole is
at the side, and not on the face, in which, however, there is a slight
flaw, which assumes the appearance of a hole in the figure. In Canon
Greenwell’s collection is a nearly similar specimen (10¾ inches),
found at Balteragh, Co. Derry, with two rivet-holes at the side and
the socket somewhat ornamented by parallel grooves at the mouth and at
the junction with the blade.
[Illustration: Fig. 245.—Ireland. ½]
One of the socketed knives in the Academy Museum at Dublin has two
rivet-holes on the face. Of the others, about two-thirds have a single
rivet-hole on the face, and the other third one on the side.
A long blade, somewhat differing in its details from Fig. 245, was
found between Lurgan and Moira, Co. Down, and, it is stated, in
company with the bronze hilt or pommel shown in Fig. 246. These
objects formed part of the Wilshe Collection, and are now in the
Museum of the Royal Irish Academy. Two objects, somewhat similar to
Fig. 246, found with spear-heads in Cambridgeshire, will subsequently
be mentioned. A piece of bronze of much the same form, found with a
hoard of bronze objects at Marden,[739] in Kent, seems to be a jet or
waste piece from a casting. It has, however, been regarded as part of
a fibula.
The socketed form of knife is hardly known upon the Continent,
though, as will have been observed, it has occasionally been found
in the North of France. Among the fragments of metal forming part of
the deposit of an ancient bronze-founder, and discovered at Dreuil,
near Amiens, I have the fragments of two such knives. I have also a
fine and entire specimen, 9¼ inches long, from the bed of the Seine
at Charenton, near Paris. There is a transverse rib at each end
and in the middle of the socket, through the face of which are two
rivet-holes. A portion of the original wooden handle is still in the
socket, secured in its place by two pins, also apparently of wood,
which pass through the rivet-holes. Another knife (6⅝ inches), like
Fig. 241, but with only one rivet-hole, was also found in the Seine at
Paris, and is now in my collection.
Several socketed knives with curved blades have been found in the
Swiss Lake-dwellings, and one such, found with the sickle already
mentioned, is in the Amiens Museum.
There is another form of socketed knife which it will be well here to
mention. The blade is sharp on both sides, but instead of being flat it
is curved into a semicircle. For a typical example I am obliged to have
recourse to a French specimen.
That shown in Fig. 247 is in my own collection, and was found with
a gold torque and bracelet, a bronze anvil (Fig. 217), and other
objects, at Fresné la Mère, near Falaise, Calvados. It seems well
adapted for working out hollows in wood. With it was found a small,
tanged, single-edged knife, the end of which is bent to a smaller
curve.
[Illustration: Fig. 246.—Moira. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 247.—Fresné la Mère. ½]
An instrument of much the same character (4 inches) was found, with a
bronze sword, spear-heads, &c., in the Island of Skye, and is now in
the Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh. As Professor Daniel Wilson[740]
observes, “in general appearance it resembles a bent spear-head, but
it has a raised central ridge on the inside, while it is nearly plain
and smooth on the outer side.—The most probable use for which it has
been designed would seem to be for scraping out the interior of canoes
and other large vessels made from the trunk of the oak.” It is shown
as Fig. 248. Another instrument of the same kind (4½ inches), found at
Wester Ord, Invergordon, Ross-shire, is engraved in the _Proceedings
of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,[741] and is here by their
permission reproduced as Fig. 249.
[Illustration: Fig. 248.—Skye. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 249.—Wester Ord. ½]
It seems by no means improbable that such instruments may have been
mistaken for bent spear-heads, and that they are not quite so rare as
would at present appear.
Two specimens of the socketed form have been found in the Lake
settlement of the Eaux Vives, near Geneva, and are now in the museum
of that town. Another, with a tang, is in the collection of M. Forel,
of Morges, and was found among the pile-dwellings near that place.
[Illustration: Fig. 250.—Reach Fen. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 251.—Reach Fen. ½]
A fragment of what appears to have been one of these curved knives,
but with a solid handle, and not a socket, was found with gouges and
various fragments at Hounslow, and is now in the British Museum.
What seems to be a tanged curved knife of this kind formed part of the
great Bologna hoard.
Another form of knife, which appears to be intermediate between those
with sockets and those with merely a flat tang, is shown in Fig. 250.
In this there are loops extending across the blade on either side,
which would receive the ends of the two pieces of wood or horn destined
to form the handle, so that a single rivet sufficed to bind them and
the blade between them firmly together.
The original was found in Reach Fen, Cambridgeshire, and is now in my
own collection. The blade has the appearance of having been originally
longer, but of being now worn away by use. I know of no other specimen
of the kind. The power to cast such loops upon the blade is a proof of
no ordinary skill in the founder.
A palstave with a loop of this kind instead of a stop or side-flanges
was found at Donsard,[742] Haute Savoie.
Another form of knife or dagger has merely a flat tang, in some cases
provided with rivets by which it could be fastened to a handle, in
others without rivets, as if it had been simply driven into a handle.
The blade shown in Fig. 251 was found in the same hoard as that
engraved as Fig. 241. The rivets are fast attached to the blade, and
the handle through which they passed was probably of some perishable
material, such as wood, horn, or bone.
Another blade (5¼ inches), with a broad tang and two rivet-holes, was
found in the Thames.[743]
In the British Museum is a knife much like the figure, 8 inches long,
and showing three facets on the blade, found in the Thames at Kingston.
The knife-blades with broad tangs, which were not riveted to their
handles, were in some instances provided with a central ridge upon the
tang, which served to steady them in their handles, and in others the
stem or tang was left plain.
One of the former class, from the Heathery Burn Cave, is shown in Fig.
252. It is in the collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S.
An imperfect knife of the same kind, found in Yorkshire, is in the
Scarborough Museum.
Another, with the edges more ogival, like Fig. 241, was found in the
neighbourhood of Nottingham,[744] with socketed celts and numerous
other objects in bronze.
Another, broader at the base and more like a dagger in character, was
found with various other articles at Marden,[745] Kent.
More leaf-shaped and sharply pointed blades of this kind, probably
daggers rather than knives, have been often found in Ireland. One[746]
(10½ inches) has been figured by Wilde. Another was in the Dowris
hoard.
In the Isle of Harty hoard, already more than once cited, was a knife
with a plain tang, shown in Fig. 253. It has rather the appearance of
having been made from the point of a broken sword, as the edges of the
tang have been “upset” by hammering. The blade itself is now narrower
than the tang, the result probably of much wear and use.
The end of a broken sword in the Dowris hoard has been converted
into a knife in a similar manner. In the collection of the late Lord
Braybrooke is what appears to be part of a tanged knife, sharpened at
the broken end so as to form a chisel.
In the Reach Fen hoard was a knife (4⅛ inches) of much the same
character, but not so broad in the tang.
A flat blade with a tang for insertion in a haft must have been a very
early form of metal tool. Among the Assyrian relics from Tel Sifr, in
South Babylonia, such blades were found, of which there are examples
in the British Museum.
Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., has two leaf-shaped blades of copper, with
tangs set in handles of bone rather longer than the blades, which were
lately in use among the Esquimaux. In form they resemble Fig. 257.
It will now be well to mention some of the other Irish specimens of
this class.
The knives with the projecting rib upon the tang are by no means
uncommon, and there are several in the Museum of the Royal Irish
Academy and elsewhere. Canon Greenwell has one (6⅜ inches) from
Ballynascreen, Co. Tyrone, much like that from the Heathery Burn Cave
(Fig. 252).
[Illustration: Fig. 252.—Heathery Burn Cave. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 253.—Harty. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 254.—Ireland. ½]
The knife or dagger with a plain tang and an ornamented blade engraved
as Fig. 254 is in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy. Another,
simply ridged and with a single rivet-hole in the tang, found at
Craigs,[747] Co. Antrim, is in the collection of Mr. R. Day, F.S.A.
It is less round-ended than the blade with a central rib along it
and one rivet-hole in the tang, shown in Fig. 255. This is in my own
collection, and was found at Ballyclare, Co. Antrim.
A mould for blades of this character will subsequently be mentioned.
Another form of knife, unless possibly it was intended for a
lance-head, is shown in Fig. 256. This specimen is also from the Reach
Fen hoard, but is of yellower metal and differently patinated from the
objects found with it. Canon Greenwell has a knife of the same form
(4¾ inches), found at Seamer Carr, Yorkshire. Another, smaller (3⅜
inches), is in the British Museum, but its place of finding is not
known. A nearly similar blade, found near Ballycastle, Co. Antrim, is
shown in Fig. 257.
Another example of this form (5⅜ inches) is in the British Museum.
Sir W. Wilde[748] has figured some other examples of the same kind,
from 3 to 4 inches long, which he regarded as arrow-heads. They appear
to me, however, too large for such a purpose.
In the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy is yet another variety, with
the blade pierced in the centre (Fig. 258).
[Illustration: Fig. 255.—Ballyclare. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 256.—Reach Fen. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 257.—Ballycastle. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 258.—Ireland. ½]
Before proceeding to describe some other symmetrical double-edged
blades, it will be well to notice such, few examples as have been found
of single-edged blades, like the ordinary knives of the present day.
Abundant as these are, not only in the Lake-dwellings of Switzerland,
but in France and other continental countries, they are of extremely
rare occurrence in the British Isles.
In Fig. 259 I have engraved a small instrument of this kind, found at
Wigginton, near Tring, Herts, the handle of which terminates in the
head of an animal. It was therefore not intended for insertion into a
haft of some other material.
I have another bronze knife, rather longer and narrower, and with a
pointed tang, which is said to have been found in London; but of this
I am by no means certain.
[Illustration: Fig. 259.—Wigginton. 1/1]
The rude knife found with the Isle of Harty hoard, and shown full
size as Fig. 260, is the only other English specimen with which I am
acquainted, but no doubt more exist.
[Illustration: Fig. 260.—Isle of Harty. 1/1]
The only specimen mentioned in the Catalogue of the Museum of the
Society of Antiquaries of Scotland is in all 14 inches long, with
a thick back and notched tang, and of this the place of finding is
unknown. Professor Daniel Wilson[749] speaks of it as having been
found in Ayrshire, and regards it as a reaping instrument. He also
figures a socketed knife of much the same size from the collection
of Sir John Clerk at Penicuick House, in which are also some tanged
specimens. I cannot help suspecting that these are of foreign origin.
In Ireland the form appears to be at present unknown.
[Illustration: Fig. 261.—Allhallows, Hoo. ½]
In Fig. 261 is shown a knife of a form which is of extremely rare
occurrence in this country; though, as will be seen, it has frequently
been found in France.
The specimen here figured has been kindly lent me by Mr. Humphrey
Wickham, of Strood, and was found with a hoard of bronze objects
at Allhallows, Hoo,[750] Kent. The hoard contained socketed celts,
gouges, a spear-head, fragments of swords, and the object engraved as
Fig. 286. One more crescent-like in form was found with a hoard of
bronze objects near Meldreth, Cambridgeshire, and is in the British
Museum.
Knives of this kind were associated with celts, gouges, &c., in
the hoard of Notre-Dame d’Or, now in the museum at Poitiers. Two
also were present in the Alderney hoard found near the _Pierre du
Villain_.[751]
Some knives of this character were found with a hoard of bronze tools
and weapons at Questembert, Brittany, and are now in the museum at
Vannes. A broken one was in the hoard of the Jardin des Plantes,
Nantes.[752] One from La Manche is engraved in the _Memoirs of the
Society of Antiquaries of Normandy_, 1827-8, pl. xvi. 20. A knife
of this character of rectangular form, each side being brought to
an edge, was found with other bronze relics at Plonéour, Brittany,
and is engraved in the _Archæologia Cambrensis_.[753] In character
this knife closely resembles some of those in flint.[754] A kind of
triangular knife of the same character was found at Briatexte[755]
(Tarn). One from the station of Eaux Vives, in the Lake of Geneva,
has the face ornamented at the blunt margin with a vandyke of hatched
triangles. In some French varieties there are rings at the top of the
blade instead of holes through it. In a curious specimen from St.
Jullien, Chapleuil, in the collection of M. Aymard, at Le Puy, the edge
is nearly semicircular, and there are eight round holes through the
blade as well as two rings at the back. Some of the razors from the
Lake-dwellings of Savoy and Switzerland are of much the same character
as these knives. I have a knife of this class with a rather large
triangular opening in it and two circular loops, found at Bernissart,
Hainault.[756] Another somewhat different was found at Lavène[757]
(Tarn).
[Illustration: Fig. 262.—Cottle.]
A Danish[758] knife of this character has five circular loops along
the hollowed back. A Mecklenburg[759] knife has three such loops and
corded festoons of bronze between.
The bronze knife or razor, shown full size in Fig. 262, was found at
Cottle,[760] near Abingdon, and is now in the British Museum. It is
of a peculiar and distinct type, but somewhat resembles in character
the oblong bronze cutting instrument found at Plonéour, Brittany,
already mentioned. It is thinner and flatter than would appear from
the figure. A Mecklenburg[761] knife or razor figured by Lisch is
analogous in form.
I have a rough and imperfect blade of somewhat the same character as
that from Cottle, but thinner and more curved. It has no hole through
it, but thickens out at one end into a short boat-shaped projection
about ½ inch long. It was found near Londonderry.
A diminutive pointed blade which appears to be too small to have
been in use as a dagger, and which from the rivet-hole through the
tang can hardly have served as an arrow or lance head, is shown in
Fig. 263. This specimen formed part of the Reach Fen hoard. A very
small example of this kind of blade, from a barrow near Robin Hood’s
Ball, Wilts, has been figured by the late Dr. Thurnam, F.S.A., in his
second exhaustive paper on “Ancient British Barrows,” published in the
_Archæologia_,[762] from which I have derived much useful information.
A small blade with the sides more curved is shown in Fig. 264, which I
have copied from Dr. Thurnam’s engraving.[763] The original was found
in Lady Low, Staffordshire.
A smaller example, with a longer and imperforated tang, found in an
urn at Broughton,[764] Lincolnshire, and now in the British Museum,
has been thought to be an arrow-head; but I agree with Dr. Thurnam
in regarding both it and the small blades described by Hoare[765] as
arrow-heads, as being more probably small double-edged knives.
[Illustration: Fig. 263. Reach Fen. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 264. Lady Low. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 265. Winterslow. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 266. Priddy. ½]
Some remarks as to the almost if not absolutely entire absence of
bronze arrow-heads in this country will be found in a subsequent page.
The larger specimens of these tanged blades of somewhat triangular
outline I have described as daggers, but I must confess that the
distinction between knives and daggers is in such cases purely
arbitrary. The more rounded forms which now follow seem rather of the
nature of tools or toilet instruments than weapons.
Fig. 265, copied from Dr. Thurnam’s plate,[766] represents what
has been regarded as a razor blade. It was found in a barrow at
Winterslow, Wilts, and is now in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford.
Its resemblance to the leaf of rib-wort (_Plantago media_) has been
pointed out by Dr. Thurnam, who records that it was found in an urn
with burnt bones and a set of beautiful amber buttons or studs. He
has also figured one of nearly the same size, but with fewer ribs,
from a barrow at Priddy, Somerset. This also has been regarded as an
arrow-head, though it is 3 inches long and 1½ inches broad. It has a
small rivet-hole through the tang. The original is now in the Bristol
Museum, and its edge is described as sharp enough to mend a pen.[767]
I have reproduced it in Fig. 266. A blade of much the same kind was
found in an urn, with an axe-hammer of stone and a whetstone, at
Broughton-in-Craven,[768] in 1675.
[Illustration: Fig. 267.—Balblair.]
[Illustration: Fig. 268.—Rogart. 1/1]
Canon Greenwell records the finding of an oval knife (2⅞ inches) with
burnt bones in an urn at Nether Swell,[769] Gloucestershire.
A flat blade, almost circular, with a somewhat longer tang than any
here figured, formed part of the great Bologna hoard.
These instruments are occasionally found in Scotland. Some of them are
of rather larger size, and ornamented in a different manner upon the
face.
A small plain oval blade, which has possibly lost its tang, was found
in a tumulus at Lieraboll,[770] Kildonan, Sutherland, and has been
figured. Two oval blades were found with burnt bones in urns near St.
Andrews.[771]
Another, found in a large cinerary urn at Balblair,[772]
Sutherlandshire, is shown full size in Fig. 267. The edges are very
thin and sharp, and the central rib shown in the section is ornamented
with incised lines.
Another blade of the same character, but ornamented with a lozenge
pattern, and with the midrib less pronounced, is shown in Fig. 268,
also of the actual size. It was found in a tumulus at Rogart,[773]
Sutherland.
[Illustration: Fig. 269.—Wallingford. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 270.—Heathery Burn Cave. ½]
Another, apparently more perfect, and with many more lozenges in the
pattern, is engraved in Gordon’s “Itinerarium Septentrionale.”[774] He
describes it as “the end of a spear or Hasta Pura of old mixt brass,
finely chequered.” It was in Baron Clerk’s collection.
The only English example which I can adduce was found with some
sickles, a torque, and numerous other objects at Taunton. It is of
nearly the same size and shape as Fig. 267, but the centre plate
is fluted with a slight ridge along the middle and one on either
side, and is not ornamented. It is described as a lance-head in the
_Archæological Journal_.[775]
I am not aware of any such blades having ever been found in Ireland,
in which country the plainer forms of oval razors also seem to be
extremely rare.
In Canon Greenwell’s Collection is an oval blade (4 inches) with a
flat central rib, tapering to a point, running along it. It has no
tang, but there is a rivet-hole through the broad end of the rib. It
was found in an urn with burnt bones at Killyless, Co. Antrim.
The form most commonly known under the name of razor is that shown in
Fig. 269, from a specimen in my own collection, found in the Thames,
with a socketed knife and other objects, near Wallingford. One of
almost identical character was found at Llangwyllog,[776] Anglesea.
[Illustration: Fig. 271.—Dunbar. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 272.—Dunbar. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 273.—Dunbar. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 274.—Ireland. ½]
Another, without midrib, from the Heathery Burn Cave, is, by the
permission of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., shown as Fig. 270.
An example from Wiltshire[777] in the Stourhead Museum (now at
Devizes) is more barbed at the base and rounded at the top, in which
there is neither notch nor perforation.
It is difficult to assign a use for the small hole usually to be seen
in these blades. It may possibly be by way of precaution against the
fissure in the blade extending too far, though in most cases the notch
in the end of the blade does not extend to the hole.
Razors of this character have been discovered in Scotland. Three which
are believed to have been found together in a tumulus at Bowerhouses,
near Dunbar,[778] Haddingtonshire, about 1825, are shown in Figs. 271,
272, and 273. They are all in the Antiquarian Museum, at Edinburgh,
together with a socketed celt found with them.
[Illustration: Fig. 275.—Kinleith. 1/1]
Razors of the class last described have been found in Ireland, and
three are mentioned in Wilde’s Catalogue[779] of the Museum of the
Royal Irish Academy, to the Council of which body I am indebted
for the use of Fig. 274. The midrib of the specimen here shown is
decorated with ring ornaments formed of incised concentric circles, an
ornament of frequent use in early times, though but rarely occurring
on objects of bronze in Britain. There is a large razor of this kind
in the Museum of Trinity College, Dublin. Several unornamented blades
of this character were present in the Dowris hoard. Two which were
found in a crannoge[780] in the county of Monaghan were regarded as
bifid arrow-heads. One of these (2⅝ inches) is in the British Museum.
A blade of this kind, but with a loop instead of a tang, and a hole at
the base of the blade as well as one near the bottom at the notch, was
found at Deurne,[781] Guelderland, and is in the Leyden Museum.
The only remaining form of razor which has to be noticed is that of
which a representation is given of the actual size in Fig. 275.
This instrument was found at Kinleith,[782] near Currie, Edinburgh,
and has been described and commented on by Dr. John Alexander Smith.
The blade, besides being perforated in an artistic manner and having a
ring at the end of the handle, is of larger dimensions than usual with
instruments of this kind. The metal of which it is composed consists
of copper 92·97 per cent., tin 7·03 (with a trace of lead).
[Illustration: Fig. 276.—Nidau.]
It affords the only instance of a razor of this shape having been
found in the British Isles. The form much more nearly approaches one
of not uncommon occurrence on the Continent than any other British
example, and Dr. Smith has illustrated this by the accompanying figure
of a razor from the Steinberg, near Nidau,[783] on the Lake of Bienne
(Fig. 276). I have a razor of nearly the same form from the Seine at
Paris, and others have been found in various parts of France.[784]
The nearest in character to Fig. 275 is perhaps one found in the hoard
of Notre-Dame d’Or,[785] and preserved in the museum at Poitiers.
Instead of the blade being a single crescent, it consists of two
penannular concentric blades with a plain midrib connecting them,
which has a ring at the external end. An instrument with the blade
formed of a single crescent was found at the same time.
A German example is in the Museum of the Deutsche Gesellschaft, at
Leipzig.
In the next chapter I shall treat of those blades which appear to be
weapons rather than tools.
CHAPTER X.
DAGGERS AND THEIR HILTS.—RAPIER-SHAPED BLADES.
AMONG all uncivilised, if not indeed among all civilised nations, arms
of offence take a far higher rank than mere tools and implements;
and on the first introduction of the use of metal into any country,
there is great antecedent probability that the primary service to
which it was applied was for the manufacture of weapons. So far as
there are means of judging, a small knife or knife-dagger appears to
have been among the earliest objects to which bronze was applied in
Britain. Possibly, like the Highland dirk, the early form may have
served for both peaceful and warlike purposes; but there are other and
apparently later forms made for piercing rather than for cutting, and
which are unmistakably weapons. The distinction which can be drawn
between knives, such as some of those described in the last chapter,
and the daggers to be described in this, is no doubt to a great
extent arbitrary, and mainly dependent upon size. In the same way the
distinction between a large dagger and a small sword, such as some of
those to be described in the next chapter, is one for which no hard and
fast rule can be laid down.
Nor in treating of daggers can any trustworthy chronological
arrangement be adopted, though it is probable, as already observed,
that the thin flat blades are earliest in date. The late Dr. Thurnam,
in the paper already frequently cited, has pointed out that of bronze
blades without sockets there are two distinct types. These are the
tanged, which he regards as perhaps the more modern, and those provided
with rivet-holes in the base of the blade, which seem to be the most
ancient. I purpose mainly to follow this classification; and, inasmuch
as the tanged blades are most closely connected with the smaller
examples of the same character, described in the last chapter, I take
them first in order, though possibly they are not the earliest in date.
[Illustration: Fig. 277.—Roundway. ½]
But for its size, the blade shown in Fig. 277 might have been regarded
as a knife for ordinary use. The original was found in a barrow at
Roundway,[786] Wilts, covered with a layer of black powder, probably
the remains of a wooden sheath and handle, the upper outline of
which latter is marked upon the blade. It lay near the left hand
of a contracted skeleton, with its point towards the feet. Between
the bones of the left fore-arm was a bracer,[787] or arm-guard, of
chlorite slate, and part of the blade and the tang of some small
instrument, perhaps a knife. Near the head was a barbed flint
arrow-head.
A smaller blade[788] (5½ inches), of nearly the same shape and
character, was found in one of the barrows near Winterslow, Wilts, as
well as one more tapering in form.
Another, from Sutton Courtney, Berks (6¼ inches by 1⅝ inches), is in
the British Museum.
Another (5½ inches) was found by Mr. Fenton in a barrow at Mere
Down,[789] Wilts. In this case also there was a stone bracer near the
left side of the contracted skeleton. Another, imperfect, and narrower
in the tang, was found at Bryn Crûg,[790] Carnarvon, with interments.
The double-looped celt (Fig. 88) was found at the same place.
Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., has what appears to be a tanged dagger (6
inches) from Sherburn Wold, Yorkshire.
A blade of this character (10 inches) was found by M. Cazalis de
Fondouce in the cave of Bounias,[791] near Fonvielle (Bouches du
Rhône), associated with instruments of flint.
Smaller tanged blades, of which it is hard to say whether they are
knives or daggers, are not uncommon in France. Two are engraved in the
“Matériaux.”[792] I have specimens from Lyons, and also from Brittany.
Another form, which appears to be a dagger rather than a knife, has
the tang nearly as wide as the blade, and towards its base there is a
single rivet-hole. A dagger of this kind was found with a contracted
interment in a barrow near Driffield, Yorkshire, and an engraving
of it is given in the _Archæologia_[793] from which Fig. 278 is
reproduced. It had a wooden sheath as well as the wooden handle, of
which a part is shown. On the arm of the skeleton was a stone bracer.
Another, rather narrower in the tang and about 4¼ inches long, was
found, with a stone axe-hammer, and bones, in an urn within a barrow
at Winwick,[794] near Warrington, Lancashire. One (2⅛ inches) with
a rivet-hole in its broad tang was found in an urn on Lancaster
Moor.[795]
A dagger of nearly the same form but having two rivet-holes was found
by the late Rev. R. Kirwan in a barrow at Upton Pyne,[796] Devon.
[Illustration: Fig. 278.—Driffield. ½]
One, only 3¼ inches long, and much like Fig. 278 in form, was
found in an urn with burnt bones in Moot Low,[797] near Middleton,
Derbyshire.
Another was found with burnt bones in a barrow at Lady Low,[798] near
Blore, Staffordshire. The end of the handle in this instance was
straight, and not hollowed. One (5⅜ inches) with a broad tang, through
which passes a single rivet, was found in the Thames.[799] It is now in
the British Museum.
What Sir R. C. Hoare terms a lance-head (3 inches), found with amber
beads in the Golden Barrow,[800] Upton Lovel, appears to have been a
knife-dagger of this character.
A knife, 1 inch wide, which had been fastened to its haft of ox-horn by
a single rivet, was found by Canon Greenwell in a barrow at Rudstone,
Yorkshire.[801] With the same interment was an axe-hammer of stone and
a flint tool. A blade like Fig. 278 (3 inches), from the sand-hills
near Glenluce,[802] Wigtonshire, has been figured.
Daggers, or possibly spear-heads, with a broad tang, as well as the
moulds in which they were cast, were discovered by Dr. Schliemann on
the presumed site of Troy.[803]
The more ordinary form of instrument is that of which the blade was
secured to the handle by two or more rivets at its broad base. These
may be subdivided into knife-daggers with thin flat blades, and daggers
which as a rule have a thick midrib and more or less ornamentation on
the surface of the blade. The former variety is now generally accepted
as being the more ancient of the two, and may probably have served as a
cutting instrument for all purposes, and not have been intended for a
weapon.
Fig. 279, representing a knife-dagger from a barrow at
Butterwick,[804] Yorkshire, E.R., explored by Canon Greenwell, will
give a good idea of the usual form, though these instruments are not
unfrequently more acutely pointed. This specimen was found with the
body of a young man, and had been encased in a wooden sheath. The haft
had been of ox-horn, which has perished, though leaving marks of its
texture on the oxidized blade. In the same grave were a flat bronze
celt (Fig. 2), a bronze pricker or awl (Fig. 225), a flint knife, and
some jet buttons. Another blade of the same character, but rather
narrower in its proportions, was found in a barrow at Rudstone,[805]
Yorkshire. The handle had in this instance also been of ox-horn. In
the same grave were a whetstone, a ring and an ornamental button of
jet, and a half-nodule of pyrites and a flint for striking a light.
Of the shape of the handles I shall subsequently speak; I will only
here remark that at their upper part, where they clasped the blade,
there was usually a semicircular or horseshoe-shaped notch, in some
instances very wide and in others but narrow. This notch is more
rarely somewhat V-shaped in form.
[Illustration: Fig. 279.—Butterwick. ½]
A blade of nearly the same form as Fig. 279, but with only two rivet
holes, found in a barrow at Blewbury,[806] Berks, is preserved in the
Ashmolean Museum at Oxford. Another, also with two rivets, was found
by the late Mr. Bateman in a barrow near Minning Low,[807] Derbyshire.
Its handle appears to have been of horn. Its owner, wrapped in a skin,
had been buried enveloped in fern-leaves, and with him was also a flat
bronze celt, a flat bead of jet, and a flint scraper. Dr. Thurnam
mentions eighteen[808] other blades, varying from 2½ inches to 6¾
inches in length, as having been found during the Bateman excavations,
as well as one 7¾ inches long and sharply pointed, found at Lett
Low,[809] near Warslow, Staffordshire. Of these twenty, sixteen
were found with unburnt bodies and four with burnt. Some of these
were, however, of the tanged variety, and some fluted or ribbed. At
Carder Low a small axe-hammer of basalt, as well as a knife-dagger of
this kind, with the edges worn hollow by use, had been placed with
the body. The same was the case in a barrow at Parcelly Hay, near
Hartington, Derbyshire.
At End Low, near Hartington, there was a rudely formed “spear-head” of
flint beside the knife-dagger, and at Thorncliff,[810] on Calton Moor,
Staffordshire, “a neat instrument of flint.”
In some cases, though there were holes in the blade, there were
no rivets[811] in them, which led Mr. Bateman to think that they
were attached to their handles by ligatures. In a barrow in
Yorkshire,[812] Mr. Harland found, with remains of a burnt body, a
small bronze knife which still had adhering to it some portions of
cord partly charred, apparently the remains of what had formed the
attachment to the handle. Pins of wood, bone, or horn were no doubt
frequently used instead of metal rivets. Such pins seem to have been
commonly employed for securing spear-heads to their shafts. “An
instrument of brass,[813] formed like a spear-head, but flat and
thin,” was found in a barrow on Bincombe Down, Dorsetshire. “It had
been fixed to a shaft by means of three wooden pegs, one of which
remained in the perforation when found, but on being exposed to the
air fell immediately into dust.” In certain dagger blades with four
or more rivet-holes some are devoid of rivets, while there are metal
rivets in the others.
A remarkably small blade, only 1¾ inches long, with two rivet-holes,
was found in a tumulus in Dorsetshire.[814] Another (4⅛ inches) lay
with burnt bones, in what was regarded as a cleft and hollowed trunk
of a tree, in a barrow near Yatesbury,[815] Wilts. Another, more
triangular in shape, and also with two rivet-holes, was found in a
barrow near Stonehenge.[816]
Another (2½ inches) of the same character was found with burnt
bones, a needle of wood, and a broken flint pebble, in an urn at
Tomen-y-Mur,[817] near Festiniog, Merionethshire.
Of knife-daggers with three rivet-holes found in our southern
counties, may be mentioned one (5½ inches) found with a drinking
cup and a perforated stone axe, accompanying an unburnt interment,
in a barrow at East Kennett,[818] Wilts. Another (4¼ inches), also
accompanied by a stone axe-hammer, was found in a barrow called
Jack’s Castle,[819] near Stourton. The body had in this instance
been burnt. Another knife-dagger, also with burnt bones, in a barrow
at Wilsford,[820] was accompanied by two flint arrow-heads, some
whetstones, and some instruments of stag’s-horn. Another, protected by
a wooden scabbard, was found in a barrow at Brigmilston.[821]
What appear to have been blades of the same kind were found with burnt
bones in the barrows near Priddy,[822] Somerset, and Ashey Down,[823]
Isle of Wight (6 inches). The latter is tapering in form. One (7⅜
inches) which shows no rivets was found at Culter,[824] Lanarkshire.
An unfinished blade without rivet-holes was also found, with castings
of palstaves and flanged celts, at Rhosnesney,[825] near Wrexham.
From Derbyshire may be cited that from Carder Low,[826] already
described, and one from Brier Low.[827] Another from Lett Low,[828]
Staffordshire, has already been mentioned, as have been others
described by Bateman.[829] One from a barrow at Middleton[830] was
regarded by Pegge as a spear-head.
[Illustration: Fig. 280.—Helperthorpe. ½]
From Yorkshire Mr. Bateman describes one (4½ inches) with a
crescent-shaped mark showing the form of the handle, found with an
extended skeleton at Cawthorn.[831] Another (6 or 7 inches), from
a barrow near Pickering,[832] had a V-shaped notch in the handle,
to which had been attached a small bone pommel. One from Bishop
Wilton,[833] belonging to Mr. Mortimer, has been engraved by Dr.
Thurnam.
The mention of this pommel suggests that it is time to consider the
manner in which these blades were hafted, as to which the discoveries
of Sir Richard Colt Hoare in the Wiltshire barrows, and of Canon
Greenwell in those of Yorkshire, leave no doubt. The hafts appear in
nearly all cases to have consisted of ox-horn, bone, or wood, sometimes
in a single piece with a notch for receiving the blade, and sometimes
formed of a pair of similar pieces riveted together, one on each side
of the blade. The lower end of the haft was often inserted in a hollow
pommel usually of bone.
[Illustration: Fig. 281.—Helperthorpe. ½]
The nature of the arrangement of the haft when formed of two pieces
will be readily understood on reference to Fig. 280, in which the
presumed outline of the original ox-horn haft is shown by dotted lines,
and the rivets by which the two plates of horn were bound together are
in the position they originally occupied along the centre of the haft.
The outline of the upper part of this handle, where it was secured
by two rivets to the blade, is still visible, and is shown by darker
shading. The pommel at the lower end was attached by pins of horn or
of wood, and not by metal rivets. A separate view and section of the
pommel is shown in Fig. 281. The original was found by Canon Greenwell,
F.R.S., with a contracted interment in a barrow at Helperthorpe,[834]
Yorkshire, at the opening of which I was present. As will be seen,
the blade has all the appearance of having been much worn by use and
repeated whetting.
Bone pommels of the same kind have been frequently met with in
barrows, but their purpose was not known to some of the earlier
explorers. One from a barrow on Brassington Moor[835] is described by
Mr. Bateman as a bone stud perforated with six holes, and was thought
to have been intended for being sown on to some article of dress or
ornament. Another was found in a barrow at Narrowdale Hill,[836] near
Alstonefield, and is also described as a bone button. In both these
instances the dagger itself seems to have entirely perished.
In a barrow subsequently opened by Mr. Ruddock near Pickering,[837]
the butt end of a dagger handle was recognised in one of these
objects. In this instance the pommel was made of three pieces of bone
fastened together by two bronze rivets, and having two holes for the
pegs by which it was secured to the handle.
[Illustration: Fig. 282.—Garton.]
[Illustration: Fig. 283.—Wilmslow.]
Two others in solid bone from barrows at Garton[838] and Bishop
Wilton, Yorkshire, have been figured by Dr. Thurnam. The former is
here by permission reproduced. That from the well-known Gristhorpe
tumulus,[839] near Scarborough, in which the body lay in the hollowed
trunk of an oak-tree, is more neatly made, being of oval outline with
a projecting bead round the base. It has holes for three pins.
Another pommel of an ornamental character was found with burnt bones
in an urn at Wilmslow, Cheshire, and is engraved in the _Journal of
the British Archæological Association_,[840] from which Fig. 283 is
here reproduced. The receptacle is so small that the haft to which it
was attached probably consisted of but a single piece of ox-horn or
wood. It appears as if the mortise had been made by drilling three
holes side by side.
A very remarkable and beautiful hilt of a sword or dagger, formed of
amber of a rich red colour and inlaid with pins of gold, was found in
a barrow on Hammeldon Down,[841] Devonshire. By the kindness of the
Committee of the Plymouth Athenæum I am enabled to give two views
and a section of this unique object in Fig. 284. Instead of a socket
or mortise, there is in this instance a tenon, or projection, which
entered into a mortise or hole in the handle. On each side of this
tenon is a small mortise of the same length, and through the tenon
have been drilled two small holes, one from each side, for pins to
attach the pommel to the handle. A small part of the pommel which was
broken off in old times seems to have been united to the main body by
a series of minute gold rivets or clips, but this piece has again been
severed, though the pins round the margin of the fracture remain. This
pommel seems disproportionately large for the slightly fluted blade,
of which a fragment was found in the same barrow.
[Illustration: Fig. 284.—Hammeldon Down. 1/1]
A small object of amber, apparently the pommel of a diminutive dagger,
was found in a barrow at Winterbourn Stoke,[842] Wilts. A small knife
or scraper, mounted in a handle formed of two pieces of amber, secured
by two rivets and bound with four strips of gold, is also preserved at
Stourhead.[843] The blade is at the side like that of a hatchet.
Amber was used for inlaying some of the ivory hilts of iron swords at
Hallstatt.
The bronze object shown full size in Fig. 285 may not improbably be
the pommel of the hilt of a dagger or sword. The hole through the base
is irregular in form, and may be accidental. It was found in the hoard
at Reach Fen, Cambridge, in which were also the tip of a scabbard and
some fragments of swords, as well as two large double-edged knives.
A somewhat similar object is in the Musée de l’Oratoire, at Nantes.
Another, found at Grésine,[844] Savoy, has been regarded as the tip
for a scabbard. Another was found in the department of La Manche.[845]
[Illustration: Fig. 285.—Reach Fen. 1/1]
[Illustration: Fig. 286.—Allhallows, Hoo. 1/1]
What appears to be the hilt of either a sword or dagger was found
in a hoard of bronze objects at Allhallows,[846] Hoo, Kent. By the
kindness of Mr. Humphrey Wickham I am able to engrave it as Fig.
286. It consisted originally of a rectangular socketed ferrule with
a rivet-hole through it, and attached to a semicircular end like the
half of a grooved pulley. The socket itself extends for some distance
into this semicircular part. From portions of a sword having been
found with it, Mr. Wickham has regarded it as a kind of pommel. It
may, however, have been the end of a scabbard or a chape, and, if so,
should have been described in Chapter XIII. The knife, Fig. 261, was
found in the same hoard.
To return, however, to undoubted examples. The most remarkable of all
dagger handles discovered in the British Isles are those obtained by
Sir R. Colt Hoare from the barrows of Wiltshire.
One of these, from a barrow at Brigmilston,[847] is here reproduced in
Fig. 287, taken from the engraving in “Ancient Wiltshire.” It is thus
described by the late Dr. Thurnam: “It is of the thin broad-bladed
variety. The handle is of wood, held together by thirty rivets of
bronze, and strengthened at the end by an oblong bone pommel fastened
with two pegs. It is decorated by dots incised in the surface of
the wood, forming a border of double lines and circles between the
heads of the rivets.” He goes on to say that a similar dagger of the
broad variety, having exactly the same number of rivets, was found
in one of the Derbyshire[848] barrows. Two buttons of polished shale
accompanied this interment. Another, from Garton,[849] Yorkshire, in
the collection of Mr. Mortimer, has thirty-seven rivets and two strips
of bronze at the sides of the handle, in addition to the four rivets
for securing the blade. The bone pommel is shown in Fig. 282.
Another dagger, of somewhat the same character, was found at
Leicester, and is preserved in the museum of that town. For the sketch
from which Fig. 288 is engraved I am indebted to Mr. C. Read. In this
instance the pommel consists of two pieces of bone riveted on either
side of a bronze plate, which, however, does not appear to have been
continuous with the blade. From the length of the rivets remaining in
the blade, the handle appears to have been somewhat thicker in the
middle than at the sides.
[Illustration: Fig. 287.—Brigmilston. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 288.—Leicester. ½]
In the British Museum is a dagger from a barrow at Standlow,
Derbyshire, with a bone pommel of nearly the same character as that
from Leicester.
Perhaps the most highly ornamented dagger handle ever discovered is
that which was found by Sir R. Colt Hoare in the Bush Barrow,[850]
near Normanton, the lower part of which, copied from the engraving
in “Ancient Wiltshire,” is shown in Fig. 289. A drawing of the
whole dagger with its handle restored has been published by Dr.
Thurnam.[851] The blade is 10½ inches long and slightly fluted at the
sides, so that it is not, strictly speaking, a knife-dagger such as
those hitherto described. It appears, however, best to call attention
to it in this place. It lay with a skeleton placed north and south,
with which were some rivets and thin plates of bronze, supposed to be
traces of a shield.
[Illustration: Fig. 289.—Normanton.]
At the shoulders was a flanged bronze celt, like Fig. 9. Near the
right arm was the dagger and “a spear-head” of bronze. These were
accompanied by a nearly square plate of thin gold, with a projecting
flat tongue or hook, which was thought to have decorated the sheath
of the dagger. Over the breast lay another lozenge-shaped plate of
gold, 7 inches by 6 inches, the edges lapped over a piece of wood. On
the right side of the skeleton was a stone hammer,[852] some articles
of bone, many small rings of the same material, and another gold
lozenge much smaller than that on the breast. As to the handle, I may
repeat Sir Richard’s words: “It exceeds anything we have yet seen,
both in design and execution, and could not be surpassed (if, indeed,
equalled) by the most able workman of modern times. By the annexed
engraving you will immediately recognise the British zigzag or the
modern Vandyke pattern, which was formed, with a labour and exactness
almost unaccountable, by thousands of gold rivets smaller than the
smallest pin. The head of the handle, though exhibiting no variety of
pattern, was also formed by the same kind of studding.
[Illustration: Fig. 290.—Roke Down. ½]
So very minute, indeed, were these pins, that our labourers had thrown
out thousands of them with their shovels and scattered them in every
direction before, by the necessary aid of a magnifying glass, we could
discover what they were, but fortunately enough remained attached to
the wood to enable us to develop the pattern.” Some of the pins are
shown in the figure below the hilt.
As Dr. Thurnam has pointed out, the ornamentation on a thin piece of
metal (said to have been gilt), which apparently decorated the hilt of
a bronze dagger, found in a barrow in Dorsetshire,[853] is of the same
character, though produced in a different manner. This dagger is said
by Douglas to have been “incisted” into wood. It is uncertain whether
this refers to the hilt or to the sheath; but in several instances
remains of sheaths have been found upon the blades of daggers, some
of which have been already adduced, and others will hereafter be
mentioned. Sir R. Colt Hoare, in a barrow near Amesbury,[854] found
an interment of burnt bones, and with it a bronze dagger which had
been “secured by a sheath of wood lined with linen cloth.” A small
lance-head, a pair of ivory nippers, and an ivory pin accompanied the
interment. In one instance the wood of the sheath was “apparently
willow.”[855]
I am unable to guarantee the accuracy of the representation of a
large dagger with its handle given in Fig. 290, the original having
unfortunately been destroyed in a fire. I have, however, copied it
from Dr. Thurnam’s[856] engraving, which was taken from a drawing by
the late Mr. S. Solly, F.S.A.[857] It was found in 1845, in a barrow
on Roke Down, near Blandford, Dorsetshire, and is thus described by
Mr. Shipp:[858] “The blade is exquisitely finished, and the handle,
which is ivory, as perfect and as highly polished as any of more
recent date. It was found with two small bronze spear-heads at the
bottom of a cist cut in the chalk, and covered with burnt bones
and ashes; and over it was an inverted urn of the coarsest make,
unburnt and unornamented.” In Mr. Shipp’s drawing the handle expands
gradually to the base like the mouth of a trumpet. In a subsequent
communication[859] Mr. Shipp describes the two spear-heads as of iron.
Mr. Solly[860] says that with it was a second small blade, also of
bronze, which may have been a knife, and makes no mention of iron
spear-heads. He also says that it lay beneath a stone more than
a ton in weight. Mr. C. Warne, F.S.A., has informed me that the
spear-heads—if, indeed, such they were—were of bronze and not of
iron. He has engraved the dagger in his Plate X.,[861] not from the
original, but from the figure in the _Journal of the Archæological
Association_.
Hilts made of bronze, though of frequent occurrence in Scandinavia,
the South of France, and Italy, are rarely discovered in England or
Scotland. That said to have been found at Bere Hill, near Andover,
cast in one piece with the blade and with a raised rim round the
margin, and studs like rivet-heads in the middle, has been kindly
submitted to me by Mr. Samuel Shaw, its owner, and I believe it to
be of Eastern and probably Chinese origin. Near Little Wenlock,[862]
however, a portion of a dagger was found with part of the handle, in
form like that of the sword from Lincoln (Fig. 350), attached by four
rivets. With it were a socketed celt, some spear-heads, and whetstones.
A beautiful Egyptian[863] bronze dagger from Thebes is in the Berlin
Museum. It has a narrow rapier-like blade and a broad flat hilt of
ivory.
Others of nearly the same character are in the British Museum. The
end of the hilt is often hollowed, like that of Fig. 277, and the
attachment to the blade is by means of three rivets.
In Ireland a few daggers have been found with bronze hilts still
attached.
In the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy is a fine example, which
has frequently been published, and which I have here reproduced as
Fig. 291, from the engraving given by Wilde,[864] but on the scale
of one-half. Both blade and handle are “highly ornamented, both in
casting and also by the punch or graver.”
A portion of a blade with a bronze hilt still attached was found near
Belleek, Co. Fermanagh, and has been engraved in the _Proceedings of
the Royal Historical and Archæological Association of Ireland_.[865]
The cut is by their kindness here reproduced as Fig. 292. The handle
is hollow, and the blade appears to have been originally attached by
four pins or rivets, of which but two now remain. Possibly the other
two were of horn.
[Illustration: Fig. 291.—Ireland.]
[Illustration: Fig. 292.—Belleek.]
[Illustration: Fig. 293.—Ireland. ½]
Another Irish form of hafted dagger has also been frequently
published.[866] It is shown in Fig. 293. Vallancey describes this
specimen as cast in one piece, the rivets being either ornamental
or intended to stop against the top of the scabbard. No doubt these
imitation rivets are mere “survivals” from those of the daggers, which
were thus fastened to their handles before it was found that it saved
trouble to cast the whole in one piece. The hole in the handle, the
sides of which are left rough, was probably filled by two slightly
overlapping plates of wood or horn riveted together.
[Illustration: Fig. 294.—Woodyates. ½]
Another[867] (14½ inches) was thought to have the “loop-fashioned”
handle for suspending the weapon to a thong or the belt. I think,
however, that when the daggers were in use the handles were to all
appearance solid. In one found in Dunshaughlin[868] crannoge, Co.
Meath, there is a second oval hole at the end of the hilt, which may
have been used for suspension.
There is a good example of this type of dagger in the Blackmore Museum
at Salisbury.
A small dagger (7⅛ inches), found near Ballinamore,[869] Co. Leitrim,
has an extension of the blade in the form of a thin plate with a
button at the bottom so as to form the body of the handle. In this
part are two rivet-holes for the attachment of the plates of wood or
horn to form the handle.
Some handles of bronze knives found in Scandinavia and
Switzerland[870] are formed with similar openings. Daggers with the
blade and handle cast in one piece have been found in the Italian
_terramare_.[871] I have a dagger of the same kind from Hungary.
I must now return, from this digression as to the hafting of daggers,
to the thin blades or knife-daggers of which I was speaking.
Of those with four rivets but few can be cited. One of unusually
large size is shown in Fig. 294. The original was found by Sir R. C.
Hoare in a barrow at Woodyates.[872] It was protected by a wooden
scabbard. A perforated ring and two buttons of jet, four barbed flint
arrow-heads, and a bronze pin were found with the same skeleton.
This blade, like many others, is described as having been gilt, but
this can hardly have been the case. Dr. Thurnam[873] has tested such
brilliantly polished surfaces for gold, but found no traces of that
metal.
A blade of this form is engraved in the “Barrow Diggers,”[874] but is
described as a stone celt split in two.
A nearly similar blade from Oefeli[875] (Lac de Bienne) is said to be
of copper.
In Fig. 295 is shown a blade with, five rivets, from an interment at
Homington,[876] near Salisbury, which, is now in the British Museum.
One side is still highly polished, with an almost mirror-like lustre.
The mark of the hilt is very distinct upon it.
[Illustration: Fig. 295.—Homington. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 296.—Idmiston. ½]
One of more pointed form, and with a more V-shaped notch in the
hilt, was found with an unburnt body in a cairn at North Charlton,
Northumberland, and is in the Greenwell Collection in the British
Museum. The portion is broken off in which were the rivets.
Occasionally the surface of these thin blades is ornamented by
engraved or punched patterns. The decoration usually consists of
converging bands of parallel lines. The example given as Fig. 296 was
found in a barrow at Idmiston, near Salisbury, and is now preserved in
the Blackmore Museum. In one found in Dow Low,[877] Derbyshire, shown
in Fig. 297, there are three parallel lines on either side which meet
in chevron. This blade has two rivets.
In a barrow near Maiden Castle,[878] Dorchester, opened by Mr.
Sydenham, there lay in the midst of the ashes two bronze daggers. One
(4 inches) has two lines engraved on it, forming a chevron parallel
with the edges; the other (5½ inches) is described as “curiously
wrought, chased, and gilt.” This latter, to judge from Mr. Warne’s
engraving, has a slight projecting rib along the middle of the blade,
between two others converging to meet it near the point. The space on
each side of the central rib appears to be decorated by small circular
indentations.
One from another barrow in Dorsetshire[879] has a treble chevron on
the blade and a straight transverse groove between two ridges just
above the hilt.
A small blade found in an urn at Wilmslow,[880] Cheshire, seems to
have a single chevron upon it.
A dagger from a tumulus at Hewelinghen (Pas de Calais), and now in the
museum at Boulogne, is of this character. It has double lines to the
chevron and four rivet-holes.
Another was found with an interment at Rame[881] (Hautes Alpes) in
company with other articles of bronze. It has six rivet-holes. A
narrower blade and more of the rapier shape, with four rivet-holes,
was found in the Marais de Donges[882] (Loire Inférieure).
A dagger much like Fig. 296, but with a double row of rivets, has been
found at Mœrigen,[883] in the Lac de Bienne.
A dagger with a pointed blade having two parallel grooves just within
each edge was found with other dagger blades, flat celts, flint
arrow-heads, &c., in the tumulus of Kerhué-Bras, Finistère.[884] It
has a plain wooden handle, to which the blade is attached by six
rivets. The character of some of the other blades is peculiar.
A beautifully patinated dagger (7¼ inches) from the Seine at Paris,
now in my own collection, has six rivet-holes at the base, as in Fig.
296, and is of nearly the same shape, though rather more sharply
pointed. One of the rivets which remains is ⅝ inch long. The blade has
upon it a small low rib on either side running parallel with the edge.
On the inner side of the rib there is a groove, on the outer side the
blade is flat. The edge itself is fluted.
I have a small thin blade (4⅝ inches), like Fig. 298, found in the
Palatinate, which has four rivet-holes at the base. There is a band of
five parallel lines running along each edge, and in the centre of the
blade a chevron with the sides slightly curved inwards formed of two
similar bands. The lines seem to have been punched in. The mark left
by the hilt is like that on Fig. 296.
What appear to be knife-daggers, some of them with notches at the side
for the reception of rivets, have been found with interments in Spain,
and have been described by Don Gongora y Martinez[885] as lance-heads.
Knife-daggers of much the same character as the English have
occasionally been found in Scotland.
That shown in Fig. 298 was found in a stone cist in a cairn at
Cleigh,[886] Loch Nell, Argyleshire. Along the margin of the original
handle is a line of small indentations made with a pointed punch.
[Illustration: Fig. 297.—Dow Low.]
[Illustration: Fig. 298.—Cleigh. ½]
Another (4¼ inches) was found in a cairn at Linlathen,[887]
Forfarshire, together with a “drinking cup.” Particulars of the
finding of several others, with interments in sepulchral cairns, have
been given by Mr. Joseph Anderson[888] in an interesting paper, to
which the reader is referred.
[Illustration: Fig. 299.—Collessie. 1/1]
Three others, from Drumlanrick,[889] near Callander, Perth (4½ inches,
two rivets), Crossmichael, Kirkcudbrightshire, and Callachally,
Island of Mull, are in the Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh. Another,
apparently of the same type, was found in a cairn at Collessie,[890]
Fife, the handle of which appears to have been encircled by the gold
fillet shown in Fig. 299. The sheath seems to have been of wood
covered with cow-hide, the hairs on the outside.
In Ireland the thin flat blades are of rare occurrence. Canon
Greenwell, F.R.S., has one from Co. Antrim (4¾ inches) with three
rivet-holes, and with a V-shaped notch in the mark of the handle.
There is a form of blade which appears to be intermediate between
the flat knife-daggers and those to which the name of dagger may
more properly be applied, which are either considerably thicker at
the centre than towards the edges, or else have a certain number of
strengthening ribs running along the blade. This intermediate form has
a single narrow rounded rib running along the centre of the blade.
That shown in Fig. 300 is an example of the short and broad variety of
this kind. It was found in a barrow at Musdin,[891] Staffordshire, and
has a splendid patina, rivalling malachite in colour. The relation of
the dagger to any interment is uncertain.
[Illustration: Fig. 300.—Musdin. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 301.—Plymstock. ⅔]
[Illustration: Fig. 302.—Winterbourne Stoke. ½]
A dagger of this class, but more pointed and with two parallel lines
engraved on each side of the midrib, was found by Canon Greenwell,
F.R.S., in one of the barrows called the Three Tremblers,[892]
Yorkshire. It showed traces of both its handle and sheath. With it was
a beautifully flaked large flint knife.
A more pointed blade, with the central rib much less pronounced, and
the notch in the hilt more distinct, was found with a skeleton in a
cist near Cheswick,[893] Northumberland, and is now in the Greenwell
Collection in the British Museum. It has been carefully polished.
Another, with a small, well-defined central midrib and two rivets,
was found by Canon Greenwell in a barrow at Aldbourn, Wilts. It
accompanied a burnt body.
Some of the Italian dagger blades are provided with similar midribs.
Of the English weapons just described some closely resemble in
character the much larger blades of which I shall subsequently have to
speak, and which not improbably were those of some form of halberd or
battle-axe.
A much longer and narrower form, in which the central rib is
partly the result of two long lateral grooves along the sides of
the blade, is shown in Fig. 301. This was found with two others at
Plymstock,[894] Devon, in company with flanged celts, a chisel, and
a tanged spear-head or dagger, Fig. 327, and is now in the British
Museum.
I have a much smaller blade, of somewhat the same character
(4⅞ inches), but imperfect at the base, found in a barrow near
Cirencester; and one smaller still (4¼ inches), from a small barrow
near Ablington, Cirencester, Gloucestershire. This latter appears to
have had two rivet-holes.
A beautiful example of the form of dagger of which Sir Richard C.
Hoare found numerous examples in the Wiltshire barrows is shown in
Fig. 302. It lay with burnt bones in a wooden cist in a barrow near
Winterbourn Stoke.[895] With it was another, which was, however,
broken, an ivory pin and tweezers, and two small pieces of ivory with
bronze rivets, which were supposed to have appertained to the tips
of a bow. They may more probably have formed part of the hilt of the
dagger. The blade is ornamented with parallel lines as usual, but it
also has a series of fine dotted lines.
Two other blades (8½ and 8 inches), less highly ornamented, and one
of them straighter at the edges, were found with a skeleton buried in
the hollowed trunk of an elm-tree in the King Barrow,[896] Winterbourn
Stoke. With one of these at the breast of the skeleton were traces of
a wooden scabbard, with indentations which were thought to have been
gilt. The handle is described as having been of box-wood, and rounded
somewhat like that of a large knife. The other dagger was at the
thigh. On the breast was also a bronze awl with what is said to have
been an ivory handle (Fig. 227).
Dr. Thurnam[897] thinks it not improbable that one of the blades may
have been a spear-head for use in the chase. In writing of these blades
he observes, “Where two are found with the same interment they are not
exactly of one type, but one is light and thin and of greater breadth,
the other strengthened by a stout midrib relatively heavier and of more
pointed or leaf-like form; the rivets also are larger. In such cases
the former may, perhaps, be supposed to be the dagger, the latter the
spear.” Sir Richard Hoare in some cases discriminates between the spear
and the dagger when two blades were found; and Mr. Cunnington observed
in a barrow at Roundway,[898] Wilts, that a pointed blade only 3 inches
long with three rivets had a wooden shaft about a foot in length,
which, as Dr. Thurnam remarks, could not have been the haft of a dagger.
The fact that many of these blades bore traces of having had a sheath
is in favour of their being daggers rather than spear-heads, though it
must not be forgotten that Homer[899] describes Achilles as drawing the
spear which had belonged to his father from its sheath—
Ἐκ δ̓ ἄρα σύριγγος πατρώϊον ἐσπάσατ̓ ἔγχος
Though Sir Richard Colt Hoare at first regarded all these blades as
spear-heads, he observes, about two-thirds of the way through his first
volume,[900] “daily experience convinces me that those implements we
supposed to be spear-heads, may more properly be denominated daggers,
or knives, worn by the side, or in a girdle, and not affixed to long
shafts like the modern lance.” Further on, however, he mentions a
“spear-head” from a barrow near Fovant,[901] having the greater part
of the wooden handle adhering to it, so that the mode by which it was
fastened was clearly seen. From the figure given in the _Archæologia_,
and in an unpublished plate of Hoare, this seems, however, to have been
a dagger rather than a spear.
Other blades of much the same character, found at Everley and Lake,
Wilts, and West Cranmore, Somerset, are figured by Dr. Thurnam.[902]
This latter was found by my friend the late Mr. J. W. Flower, F.G.S.
It is straight at the bottom of the blade, which went only ¼ inch into
the handle at the part where the usual semicircular notch was formed.
There was a single rivet on either side. The one preserved is ½ inch
long. Another, from Lake,[903] is given by Hoare. It was found with
burnt bones and was accompanied by a whetstone.
Others have been found in a barrow at Ablington,[904] near Amesbury,
Wilts, and at Rowcroft,[905] Yattendon, Berks (7½ inches).
A fine blade of this character (9¼ inches long), with three rivets,
was found near Leeds. The midrib ends in a square base. It is not
unlike the blade of a halberd.
A hafted blade of the same kind,[906] from Bere Regis, Dorsetshire,
has already been mentioned; as well as the decoration of the hilt
of one of the same form. One (9 inches) was found in a barrow at
Came,[907] and exhibited to the Archæological Institute. Mr.
Warne,[908] however, records the finding of two at that place. One
seems to have the midrib dotted over with small indentations.
That shown in Fig. 303 (which is copied from Dr. Thurnam’s[909]
engraving) is from Camerton, Somerset. It is remarkable as having a
kind of second midrib beyond the parallel grooves which border the
first. As usual it has but two rivets.
[Illustration: Fig. 303.—Camerton. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 304.—Cambridge. ½]
A bronze dagger (5½ inches) of the Wiltshire type was found in the
well-known barrow at Hove,[910] near Brighton, in which the interment
had been made in an oak coffin. An amber cup, a perforated stone
axe-hammer, and a whetstone had also been deposited with the body.
In a blade of this class (7 inches), found with burnt bones and
chippings of flint in a barrow at Teddington,[911] the midrib appears
to be formed of three beads.
Another (9 inches) formed part of the Arreton Down[912] find, of which
more will hereafter be said. The blade is ornamented with delicate
flutings and curves, and the midrib ends in a crescented hollow
exactly opposite to the usual notch in the handle. This specimen is
now in the British Museum.
A bronze dagger (6¾ inches) with three rivets, of which the blade
has much suffered from decomposition, was found with a lump of iron
pyrites within an urn in a barrow at Angrowse Mullion,[913] Cornwall.
A dagger blade of nearly the same kind, but with six rivets, found in
a barrow at Carnöel,[914] Finistère, is in the museum at the Hôtel
Cluny, Paris.
I have a dagger (9 inches) much like Fig. 302, only somewhat more
taper, found in the Seine at Paris. It has had three rivet-holes, and
on the blade are two bands of four lines parallel with the edge.
The strengthening of the blade is sometimes effected by forming it
with three or more projecting ribs instead of a single midrib. In
Fig. 304 is shown a dagger blade in my own collection, found not far
from Cambridge. On either side of the central rib and along the outer
margin of the two other ribs are lines of minute punctures by way of
ornament.
A somewhat larger blade (8⅝ inches), from Little Cressingham,[915]
Norfolk, has two deep furrows, one on each side of the broad central
midrib, and beyond these again two lateral ribs. This was secured
to its hilt by six rivets, three on each side. It was found with a
contracted male skeleton, accompanied by a necklace of amber beads and
some articles made of thin gold plate.
A dagger with a central rounded midrib, and apparently two
lateral ribs like those on Fig. 304, was found in a barrow near
Torrington,[916] Devon. It has three rivets, by which it was attached
to a wooden handle, and the blade showed traces of a wooden sheath,
which like the handle had perished.
A very small dagger or knife, with apparently a well-marked central
rib, found near Magherafelt,[917] Co. Londonderry, is shown in Fig.
305. It has a haft of oak attached, which is thought to be original.
Any pins or rivets that may have existed are now lost, and possibly
what were used may have been formed of wood or horn. Some thin wedges
of oak appear to have been used for steadying the blade in the haft,
the upper part of which has somewhat suffered from fire.
One of the daggers from the great find at Arreton Down,[918] Isle of
Wight (9⅝ inches), has the blade strengthened by three raised ribs.
It is shown in Fig. 306. It was found with several tanged blades like
Fig. 324, some flanged celts, and other objects. In a blade (9 inches)
in Canon Greenwell’s collection, and found at Ford, Northumberland,
there are two slight ribs about ⅜ inch from the edges and parallel to
them. There are punctures along the sides of the ribs.
Possibly some of these weapons may have been halberd blades, such as
those hereafter described.
Another form of dagger widens out considerably at the base, so as to
give the edges an ogival outline, and this form passes into what have
been termed rapier-like blades. As is the case with the leaf-shaped
blades, which will presently be described, some of these latter are so
long that it is hard to say whether they ought to be classed as swords
or as daggers.
The example engraved as Fig. 307 is from Scotland, and not England,
the original being in the Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh. It was
found in 1828 upon the farm of Kilrie, near Kinghorn, Fifeshire. The
blade, as is usually the case, shows a central ridge upon it, but is
also ornamented with parallel lines engraved on either side, which is
a feature of far less common occurrence.
A plain blade of the same character (7½ inches), but narrower in its
proportions, was found at Bracklesham,[919] Sussex. It has as usual
two rivets only.
I have another (7⅛ inches), showing four facets on the blade, from
Soham Fen; the two rivet-holes cut through the margin of the base, as
in Fig. 304.
I have seen others from the Cambridge Fens.
Another (13½ inches) with four rivets, and more nearly approaching
the rapier form, was found in the Thames at Ditton,[920] Surrey,
and was presented to the British Museum by the Earl of Lovelace.
Another of the same character (7 inches) was found in the Thames near
Maidenhead,[921] and another (8 inches) at Battersea.[922]
[Illustration: Fig. 305.—Magherafelt. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 306.—Arreton Down. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 307.—Kinghorn. ½]
One (9¾ inches) with two rivets, and the base forming half a hexagon,
was found at New Bilton,[923] near Rugby. I have another of nearly the
same form (7¾ inches) from Waterbeach Fen, Cambridge.
In some the blade is ornamented by ribs cast in relief and by
engraving. A good example of the kind from the collection of Mr.
Robert Day, F.S.A., is shown in Fig. 308. It was found in the old
castle of Colloony,[924] Co. Sligo. One of much the same form as the
Wiltshire dagger (Fig. 302), found in the Thames,[925] near Richmond
(7-9/10 inches), has at the base a vandyke border and hatched diagonal
bands. The blade is slightly ridged but not otherwise ornamented. It
is now in the British Museum. One (5½ inches), ornamented at the base
in a similar manner, but with a short broad tang and one rivet-hole,
was found on Helsington Peat Moss,[926] Westmoreland.
[Illustration: Fig. 308.—Colloony. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 309.—Ireland. 1/1]
A blade (7 inches) also ornamented at the base with a vandyke pattern
was found at Pitkaithly, Perthshire, and is now in the museum at
Edinburgh.
Many blades of daggers from Germany are ornamented. One of the most
beautiful that I have seen is that in the museum at Laibach, Carniola.
Another (11½ inches), with the hilt complete, and the blade and
pommel-plate beautifully ornamented, was found near Vienna.[927] Von
Sacken points out that from the shortness of the hilt it is probable
that these daggers were held in the same manner as among the Peruvians
of the present day, with the two first fingers not round the hilt,
but stretched along the blade.
In the museum of the Royal Irish Academy[928] is a broad dagger blade
6⅝ inches long, and engraved with a kind of vandyke pattern at the
base. The ornamented portion is shown full size in Fig. 309, kindly
lent me by the Academy. It is rather remarkable that the ornaments
should extend to so near the base, as they must have been intended to
be free of the hilt, in which, in consequence, it would appear that
only a small part of the blade can have been inserted. The sides of
the socket in the hilt may, however, have extended some distance up
the sloping part of the base of the blade.
[Illustration: Fig. 310. Kilrea. ¼]
[Illustration: Fig. 311. Thames. ¼]
[Illustration: Fig. 312. Thatcham. ½]
An ornamented blade of more elongated form (16½ inches) is engraved
on the scale of one-fourth in Fig. 310. It was found at Kilrea, Co.
Sligo, and is in the collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S. There is a
vandyke pattern near the base, which is not shown in the cut.
I have a plain blade (14 inches) with merely a central ridge, and with
two rivet-holes, which is also from Ireland, and of much the same form.
In a small English blade (5 inches) of the same character there are no
rivet-holes at the base.
A blade from the Thames[929] of an ordinary rapier shape is shown on
the scale of one-fourth in Fig. 311. It is provided with two rivets,
and there are notches at the side of the base as if to allow of two
others being passed through the hilt to steady the blade.
A blade of the same form (10 inches), but with only two rivet-holes at
the base, was found at the foot of “the Castle Tump,” Newchurch,[930]
Radnorshire.
Rapier-shaped blades from 8½ inches to 12½ inches long, found at
Auchtermuchty, Fife; at Fairholm, Dumfriesshire; and near Ardoch,
Perthshire, are preserved in the Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh.
Fig. 312 represents a small blade of this character dredged up from
the Kennet and Avon Canal, between Theale and Thatcham, Berks, and
given me by Mr. W. Whitaker, F.G.S. The two little notches at the side
of the base are peculiar.
A number of blades of this character, but without these small notches,
have been found in the Cambridgeshire Fens. Mr. Fisher, of Ely, has
four, varying in length from 8 inches to 9 inches, about 2 inches wide
at the base and 1 inch in the middle of the blade. They all have two
rivet-holes, in some of which are rivets ⅝ inch long.
Two blades found at South Kyme,[931] Lincolnshire, seem to have been
of this character. Another (13½ inches) was found at Corbridge,[932]
Northumberland, in company with a leaf-shaped spear-head. One from
Burwell Fen, in my own collection, has three rivet-holes, in which are
still two of the rivets, of which one is formed from a nearly square
piece of metal. A long blade of this kind (16½ inches), but with the
blade tapering more gradually from a rounded base, was dredged from
the Thames[933] near Vauxhall. Other rapier-shaped blades (18⅝ inches
and 14-3/10 inches) have been found in the Thames near Kingston.[934]
The base of these blades appears sometimes to be disproportionately
broad with regard to the blades themselves. An example from Coveney,
near Downham Hithe, Cambridgeshire, is in the collection of Mr.
Fisher, of Ely, and is shown in Fig. 313. This widening was no doubt
intended to aid in steadying the blade in its hilt.
I have a dagger of the same form (8 inches), but with a more tapering
blade, found in Waterbeach Fen, Cambridge. Another (11½ inches),
from Harlech, Merionethshire, is even narrower in the blade than the
Coveney example, but it has lost its edges by corrosion.
Some blades, from 12½ inches to 15½ inches long, and rapier-like in
character, from Maentwrog in the same county, are engraved in the
_Archæologia_,[935] and are now in the British Museum. The rivet
arrangements vary. A spear-head, with loops attached to the blade, was
found with them. One of them has notches at the sides of the base, as
in Fig. 311.
One 14¾ inches long, and of much the same outline, but flat in the
centre instead of ridged, was found at Fisherton,[936] near Salisbury,
and is in the Blackmore Museum. Another of the same character, but
broad in the blade (16½ inches), was found in the Thames.[937]
Canon Greenwell has two rapier-like blades from the Thames, 17½ inches
and 15⅝ inches long, from Sandford. With the latter was found a
leaf-shaped blade (19 inches) with two rivet-holes in the base.
Such blades are almost long enough to be regarded as swords.
A weapon of this form (16⅞ inches), with the blade reduced in
thickness towards the edges, and with two large rivets, one of them
still _in situ_, was found in the Thames, and is now in the British
Museum. Another in the same collection (12⅞ inches), from the Thames
at Kingston, is much narrower at the base.
A blade of this character from Blair Drummond Moss was exhibited in
the museum at Edinburgh, and is preserved at Blair Drummond House.
The type occurs in France. One found at Auxonne,[938] Haute Saône, is
in the St. Germain Museum.
Another, rather shorter and broader, with two rivets and two notches
in the sides of the base, was found in the bay of Penhouët[939] (Loire
Inférieure).
[Illustration: Fig. 313.—Coveney. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 314.—Thames. ½]
I have examples from the Seine at Paris, and also from the
neighbourhood of Amiens.
In some cases the rivet-holes cut through the margin of the metal as
in Fig. 304.
Blades appear sometimes to have been cast with deep rounded notches in
the base to receive the rivets instead of having holes drilled or cast
in them. That shown in Fig. 314 is of this character, and was found in
the Thames at London. It was given to me by Mr. C. Roach Smith, F.S.A.
Others of the same character have also been found in the Thames. One
of these (16⅝ inches), of nearly the same type but more rounded at the
lower part of the wings, is in the British Museum.
Canon Greenwell has a blade of this type (8¾ inches), found near
Methwold, Norfolk.
A specimen of this form (11 inches) from Edington Burtle, Somerset, is
in the Museum at Taunton.
A blade from Inchigecla,[940] Co. Cork, figured in the _Archæological
Journal_, seems to be notched in a similar manner. Another of
different form, but apparently notched after the same fashion, is
engraved by Vallancey.[941]
Some of the rapier-shaped blades, and especially those of larger size,
such as seem intermediate between swords and daggers, are ornamented
as well as strengthened by a projecting midrib, while their weight is
diminished by flutings along either side. A beautiful example of this
kind, found at the bottom of an old canoe, between the peat and clay,
near Chatteris, Cambs, is shown one-quarter size in Fig. 315. I have
another (14 inches) with the midrib not quite so prominent, and with
the rivet-holes cutting the margin of the base, found at Aston Ingham,
Herefordshire. A portion of another was found near Waterbeach,[942]
Cambs.
A broader blade of the same character (12¾ inches), with two very
large rivets, was found in the Thames at Kingston, and is now in the
British Museum. A narrower blade (12 inches) with the rivet-holes
cutting through the base, was found at Cæsar’s Camp, Farnham, Surrey,
and is in the same collection.
A long blade of this character from the Thames (21 inches long and
2⅜ inches wide at the base), with central ridge and slight flutings
at the edges, may more properly be regarded as a sword. It is in the
British Museum.
Six blades, all of the rapier character, but varying in details,
and from 12 inches to 22 inches in length, were found at Talaton,
Devonshire.[943] Some moulds of stone for blades of the same kind
were found at Hennock in the same county, and will subsequently be
described. Another blade (17 inches) was found at Winkleigh,[944] near
Crediton, Devon.
A blade of the same character from Ireland is given by Vallancey.[945]
A fine specimen from the same country (18 inches) is in the British
Museum.[946] What appears to be a part of a blade[947] of the same
kind has been regarded as a kind of “steel” for sharpening other
blades.
A rapier-shaped blade (21 inches) with two rivet-holes was found, with
socketed celts and a palstave, at Mawgan,[948] Cornwall.
Blades of this character are also found in France. Two from the
departments of Aisne and Somme,[949] have been figured. One (20 inches
long) is in the Museum at Nantes.
A rapier blade from the Chaussée Brunehault, and now in the Boulogne
Museum, is almost like a trefoil in outline at the hilt end.
A still longer blade of this character, which perhaps ought with
greater propriety to have been classed among swords, is shown in Fig.
316 on the scale of one-fourth. It has unfortunately lost its point,
but is still 17¾ inches long. It would appear to have been originally
about 20½ inches long, as shown in the figure. The blade in this
case has three projecting ribs between which and again towards the
edges it is fluted. It was found in the River Ouse, near Thetford.
The imperfect rivet-holes at the base appear to have been cast in the
blade, and the means of steadying it in its hilt must have been but
inadequate. Such weapons, however, can only have been intended for
stabbing, and not for striking.
Another blade of similar form, but with perfect rivet-holes, was
found in the fine earthwork of Badbury, Dorsetshire, and is in the
collection of Mr. Durden, of Blandford. It is 23½ inches long and
2-9/16 inches wide at the base above the rivet-holes.
Blades of this kind are occasionally found in Ireland. In the British
Museum is one (9 inches) with deep notches for the rivets, found in
Rathkennan Bog, Co. Tipperary.
[Illustration: Fig. 315.—Chatteris. ¼]
[Illustration: Fig. 316.—Thetford. ¼]
[Illustration: Fig. 317.—Londonderry. ¼]
[Illustration: Fig. 318. Lissane. 1/5]
Nearly all the rapier-shaped blades which have still to be noticed
may be regarded as probably those of swords rather than of daggers.
That shown in Fig. 317 is in my own collection, and was found near
Londonderry. The method of attachment to the hilt by two rivets
fitting into notches at the sides of the base of the blade is the same
as in some of the shorter weapons already mentioned.
Another (19 inches), found at Killeshandra,[950] Co. Cavan, has
similar notches at the sides, but the base is somewhat differently
shaped. Many of these rapier-shaped blades have been found in Ireland,
and Canon Greenwell has one (27¼ inches) which was bought in Scotland,
and probably found in that country.
A blade (14 inches) found in the Loire, and now in the Nantes Museum,
has side notches of nearly the same character as those in Fig. 317.
The finest example of the rapier kind ever found in Ireland is that
shown in Fig. 318, which by the kindness of the Royal Irish Academy I
here reproduce from Sir W. Wilde’s Catalogue. It is no less than 30¼
inches long, and is only ⅝ inch in width at the centre of the blade,
which has a strong midrib. It was found in a bog at Lissane, Co.
Derry. I have a blade, found at Noailles, near Beauvais, Oise, France,
identical in form and character, but only 23¼ inches long. Were it not
that the rivets are wanting, Fig. 318 might have been taken from the
French instead of the Irish specimen.
Another narrow blade, with a heavy rounded midrib (22⅝ inches long
and 1¾ inch broad at the base), was found in a bog at Galbally,
Co. Tyrone, and had at the time of its discovery the original hilt
attached. There also appear to have been some remains of a scabbard,
but this is uncertain. The hilt has been engraved in the _Proceedings
of the Royal Historical and Archæological Society of Ireland_,[951]
and is here by their kindness reproduced as Fig. 319.
Mr. Wakeman, of Enniskillen, in his interesting account of the
discovery, describes the material of which the hilt is formed as bone,
or rather whalebone. Both blade and haft are, however, now in my own
collection, and I think there can be no doubt that the material of
the hilt is in reality a dark-coloured ox-horn. On some Danish blades
I have seen the fibrous texture of this substance still shown by the
oxide or salt of the metal, forming as it were a cast of its surface,
which has outlasted the horn against which it was originally formed.
There are no traces of the rivets in the Galbally hilt, so that
probably pins of hard wood served to secure it to the blade.
Some Scandinavian daggers have been found with their handles of horn
still attached. One from a barrow in Hasslöf,[952] South Halland,
Sweden, had its leather sheath with a long rectangular end of bronze
still preserved. The length of the sheath is about twice that of the
blade of the dagger.
The bronze hilts for the long rapier-like blades are rare, but not
unknown.
One of these blades, found in the Co. Tipperary,[953] has its hilt
still attached by metal rivets, as shown in Fig. 320. The hilt
is hollow and is now open at the end, though probably, as Wilde
suggests, originally closed by a bone stud.
[Illustration: Fig. 319.—Galbally. 1/1]
The hilt of a sword in the museum at Tours is joined to the blade
in much the same fashion, but has a mere indentation instead of the
central semicircular notch. The body of the hilt is engraved with
bands of triangles and circles.
[Illustration: Fig. 320.—Tipperary. ½]
A rapier-shaped blade, with a bronze hilt of nearly the same form, but
with six rivets, is in the museum at Narbonne.[954] Another nearly
similar was found at Cheylounet,[955] Haute Loire.
Some Egyptian bronze daggers have the hilts formed in the same style.
In another form, the blade of which is more leaf-shaped, like the
ordinary bronze sword, the means of attachment to the haft are merely
slight notches at the sides. That shown in Fig. 321 is only 11 inches
long, but the edge has been removed for about 1½ inch from the base,
showing the portion which presumably was inserted in the hilt. The
original was found near Ely, and is in the collection of Mr. M.
Fisher, of that town.
I have a small specimen of the same kind (6¾ inches) from Fordham,
Cambs.
A more leaf-shaped blade (14 inches), with rivet notches at the side
of the base, was found, with leaf-shaped spear-heads, at Worth,[956]
Washfield, Devon. Possibly this, as suggested by Mr. Tucker, F.S.A.,
was originally a sword from which the hilt was broken.
A blade more like Fig. 321 (15¼ inches long and 1 inch broad) was
found in the Mardyke, near Grays Thurrock,[957] Essex. Some of the
weapons of this kind, like one from the Thames at Kingston (11½
inches), appear to have been made from broken sword or rapier-like
blades.
A long-tanged form, of which it is sometimes difficult to say whether
it is a sword, a knife, or a dagger, is of not unfrequent occurrence
in Ireland. That shown in Fig. 322 is in my own collection.
I have another found near Armagh (8½ inches), which is rather broader
in its proportions. It has a diagonal row of circular indentations
across each side of the blade just above the shoulders. Not improbably
these and other specimens originally existed in a somewhat different
form, but having been injured at their base were refitted with a tang
for attachment to the haft instead of being secured by rivets at the
sides like those last mentioned.
Some Danish daggers are provided with merely a slight tang like that
of a modern chisel.
[Illustration: Fig. 321.—Ely. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 322.—North of Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 323.—Raphoe. ¼]
Another form of blade is more of the nature of a bayonet than of a
rapier, yet this would appear to be the proper place in which to
notice it. The example shown in Fig. 323 is in the collection of
Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., and was found at Raphoe, Co. Donegal.
The section of the blade is nearly square, and the faces are
ornamented with parallel engraved lines. It ends in a tang with a
single hole through it, and with it was found a ferrule of bronze for
receiving the end of the handle.
In the Royal Irish Academy Museum is another blade of the same
character, 33 inches long and nearly square in section, but having the
faces fluted. With it was a ferrule, 3¾ inches long, having four ribs
at the base, with hollows between. It has one rivet-hole through it.
This specimen was found in a bog near Glenarm, Co. Antrim.
From the ferrules and general form of the blades it is probable that
they were lance or pike heads rather than of the nature of swords or
daggers. The “javelin with loop” found in Monaghan, and engraved in
the _Archæological Journal_[958] seems to be somewhat of the same
nature.
It may possibly be the case that some of the other blades described in
this chapter have served as the points of spear-like weapons, though,
from the hilts being discovered with so many of them, there can be no
doubt that the majority must be regarded as having been the blades
of daggers or rapiers. Among modern weapons we have, however, some
which, like the sword-bayonet, are intended to serve a double purpose;
and though there can be little doubt as to the true character of the
knife-daggers, it is hardly safe to assert that all the dagger-like
blades were without exception mounted with short hilts as poniards,
and that none were provided with straight shafts as pikes, or placed
transversely on a handle to serve as halberds or battle-axes.
The weapons described in this chapter probably range over the whole
of the Bronze Period of Britain. The knife-daggers, which have almost
exclusively been found in barrows, often associated with other weapons
formed of stone, may be regarded as among the earliest of our bronze
antiquities; while the rapier-shaped blades, though of rare occurrence
in hoards, appear to belong to a period when socketed celts were
already in use. Of the dagger-like blades, in whatever manner they were
mounted, a considerable number belong to an early period. The analogies
of the different forms with those found upon the Continent have already
from time to time been noted in the preceding pages.
CHAPTER XI.
TANGED AND SOCKETED DAGGERS, OR SPEAR-HEADS, HALBERDS, AND MACES.
BEFORE passing to the leaf-shaped swords, which would seem naturally
to follow in order after the blades last described, it will be well to
notice two sets of weapons which, though in many respects identical
with daggers, may in the one case have served as spear-heads, and in
the other most probably as the blades of battle-axes or halberds. To
the first of these two classes the term “Arreton Down type” has been
conventionally applied, as it was in the hoard found at that place that
the largest proportion of such weapons occurred; and, indeed, until
that discovery the type appears to have been unknown.
The tanged blades are still rare, but have now been found in several
other places besides the Isle of Wight. The centre of the blade is
usually thick and strong, showing a central ridge and having the sides
more or less decorated with flutings or lines where the metal is
reduced in thickness. The tang, unlike that of the daggers described
at the beginning of the last chapter, is long and narrow, and tapers
away from the blade. At its end is a hole for a rivet or pin. In one
instance a ferrule was found upon the blade, as will be seen in Fig.
324. This figure is copied from that in the _Archæologia_[959] which is
taken from a drawing made in 1737 by Sir Charles Frederick. Upon the
ferrule are a number of raised bosses in imitation of rivets, but there
seems to be no rivet-hole in the ferrule itself, though there is one in
the end of the tang of the blade with the rivet still in it.
Accounts of the discovery of this and other weapons at Arreton Down,
near Newport, in the Isle of Wight, were communicated to the Society of
Antiquaries in the years 1735 and 1737, and the latter has been printed
by Mr. A. W. Franks, F.R.S.[960] At least sixteen articles were found
in a marl-pit, and they are said to have been arranged in a regular
order. Of these, nine were of this tanged type, but varying in details.
[Illustration: Fig. 324.—Arreton Down. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 325.—Stratford-le-Bow. ½]
One (Fig. 328) was provided with a socket; two were dagger blades,
already mentioned (one of which is given in Fig. 306), and four were
flanged celts, like Fig. 8, but varying in size. Six specimens from
this hoard are now in the British Museum. Mr. Franks, in the paper
already mentioned, regards these tanged weapons as spear-heads, and
is I think right in so doing; the blades, however, present such close
analogies with the daggers from the Wiltshire barrows, and the socketed
variety (Fig. 328) is so dagger-like in character, that it is hard to
speak with any degree of confidence upon this point.
In 1855 Mr. Franks observed that the type was quite new to him, but
since that time several other specimens have been found besides those
from Arreton Down. One of these, discovered in the River Lea at
Stratford-le-Bow, Essex, is now in the British Museum, and is shown
in Fig. 325. As will be seen, it has a rounded midrib, with several
parallel grooves on each side of it engraved or punched on the blade.
Some of the weapons from[961] Arreton Down are of nearly the same
description, but the midrib is more ridged, and is ornamented with
rows of engraved or punched dots. One has a double crescent-shaped
line of dots punched in at the base of the blade.
I have a blade (10 inches) of the same form and character, but without
any engraved dots upon it, from Burwell Fen, Cambridge. The parallel
flutings on the blade appear to have been produced in the casting, and
not by engraving or punching. The hole in the tang was also made in
the casting, being irregular in form. It is nowhere less than ¼ inch
in diameter. Another weapon (7⅛ inches) of the same character, but
apparently without any fluting, was found near Newbury,[962] Berks.
[Illustration: Fig. 326.—Matlock. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 327.—Plymstock. ⅔]
Such blades are of extremely rare occurrence in Ireland, but one (9
inches) closely resembling Fig. 325 was found in the county of West
Meath, and is now in the collection of Mr. Robert Day, F.S.A., of Cork.
A slightly different variety of blade is shown in Fig. 326. It is
ridged along the centre, and has a groove on each side running
parallel to the edge, such as would afford facility for sharpening
the edge by hammering it out. The end of the tang has been broken off
at the hole. This specimen is said to have been found near Matlock,
Derbyshire, and is in my own collection.
One with much broader and deeper grooves on each side of the midrib
(10 inches), found in Swaffham Fen, is in the Museum of the Cambridge
Antiquarian Society.
A nearly similar blade, but with four slight channels on either side
instead of one, is in the museum at Copenhagen, and is said to have
been found in Italy.[963]
Another of these blades, but without any lateral flutings, and in
character similar to Fig. 324, was found near Preston,[964] in the
parish of Plymstock, Devon, and is shown in Fig. 327. It is now in the
British Museum. In this instance, as at Arreton Down, the accompanying
articles were flanged celts like Fig. 9, of which there were sixteen,
and three dagger blades (see Fig. 301). There was also a narrow chisel
(Fig. 190).
Two specimens from Suffolk (8 inches and 10½ inches), one of them
from Hintlesham,[965] formed part of the collection of the late Mr.
Whincopp, and are now in the British Museum.
One of the Arreton Down[966] specimens, without a ferrule, is also
much of this type.
[Illustration: Fig. 328.—Arreton Down. ½]
In the Arreton Down hoard there was a single example of a weapon of
this kind which was provided with a socket for the insertion of a
handle or shaft, instead of having a tang. Fig. 328 is copied from the
engraving published in the _Archæologia_.[967] As will be observed,
the socket part is made to abut on the blade, much after the manner of
a dagger handle, and has cast upon it two bosses in imitation of the
heads of rivets for securing the blade. A weapon (8¼ inches), which
there can hardly be a doubt is the original from which Sir Charles
Frederick made his drawing for the Society of Antiquaries, is now
in Canon Greenwell’s collection, and I know of no other example. It
differs from the socketed knives in the character of the blade, which
is thicker and more highly ornamented, like some of the daggers from
the Wiltshire barrows. Whether it was itself intended to be a dagger,
or whether it was the head of a spear or lance, I will not attempt to
determine.
What has somewhat the appearance of being a weapon of the same
character was found in a moss near Campbeltown,[968] Argyleshire,
together with a bronze sword. It may, however, as already suggested,
be merely a socketed knife.
A very beautiful weapon of this kind is in the museum at Lausanne. The
blade is ornamented somewhat in the same manner as that of Fig. 328.
The socket is shorter and ornamented with parallel rings and bands
of triangles, alternately hatched and plain. There appear to be six
rivets, and what may be termed the hilt has a deep half-oval notch in
it, like that which is common on swords and daggers. The margin of
this notch is decorated with punctured dots. It was, I believe, found
near Sion, Valais, with portions of what may have been the ornaments
of a sheath, and also with a long narrow celt, flanged at the upper
part. The general resemblance between the Swiss and the English
specimens is very remarkable.
An Egyptian[969] blade, with the side edges slightly curved inwards,
and with the socket rather shorter than in Fig. 328, is in the museum
at Boulaq. It is attached to the socket by three rivets.
[Illustration: Fig. 329.—Årup. ⅓]
The second series of blades of which it is proposed to treat in this
chapter are usually from six to sixteen inches long, rather broad at
the base, and not unfrequently curved longitudinally. This latter
circumstance, as well as their shape and weight, proves that some of
these broad blades were not intended for use as daggers; and this being
admitted, it seems to follow that others, which resemble the curved
blades in all respects except their curvature, must be regarded as
belonging to the same class of weapons. What these weapons were may
I think be best shown by some examples from Scandinavia and Northern
Germany, which also show the manner in which similar blades were
attached to their shafts so as to form a kind of halberd or battle-axe.
That which I have selected by way of illustration is one that is
engraved in Dr. Oscar Montelius’ “Sveriges Forntid,”[970] who has
kindly lent me the block of Fig. 329. In this instance the scale
adopted is one-third linear measure. In A is given a view of the upper
end, seen from above, and in B a view from behind the blade, showing
the great projection of the rivet-like knobs. The handle as well as
the blade is in bronze. This specimen was found at Årup, in Scania.
Another is engraved in Lisch’s “Frederico-Francisceum.”[971] It was
found, with two others, at Blengow, near Buckow, Mecklenburg Schwerin,
and is regarded by Lisch as a kind of battle-axe, or possibly as a
“commander’s staff” or bâton of honour. Good examples of the same kind
are in the museums at Malmoe and Kiel, and others have been described
by Klemm.[972] Two have been found near Neu Ruppin. Others are in
the Schwerin Museum. Another, with a separate socket, having three
rivet-like bosses upon it, is in the Berlin Museum.[973] There can be
little doubt that this last-mentioned weapon is a representative of
an earlier form, when the shaft was merely of wood and the transverse
blade was secured in it by means of three rivets. An intermediate
form, in which the blade fits into a kind of open-work bronze socket
for receiving a shaft, is preserved in the Berlin Museum.[974]
[Illustration: Fig. 330.—China. ½]
An instance of the use of an analogous form of weapon in another part
of the world is afforded by some bronze blades from China, of which
one is represented in Fig. 330. For the loan of the original of this
figure I am indebted to Mr. A. W. Franks, F.R.S. As will be readily
seen, the blade is adapted for being attached at nearly a right angle
to a shaft, into which the flat tang behind the stop-ridge would be
inserted, and the blade would then be secured in its position by laces
or straps passing through the slots at the base of the blade. The
antiquity of such weapons in China it is hard to ascertain, but they
probably date back to a period many centuries remote from the present
day.
Several of them are engraved in a Chinese work on antiquities, “The
Golden Study,” to which Mr. H. N. Moseley, F.R.S., has kindly called
my attention. What appear to be bronze spear-heads and swords are
figured in the same work.
A bronze weapon of the same kind, but with a socket, which, like
the blade, is highly ornamented, was found on the Yenissei,[975] in
Siberia. There is the figure of a kind of antelope projecting from the
socket opposite the blade. Another, from Viatka, in Russia, has the
head of an animal in the same position.
An iron weapon with a socket at right angles to the blade, from the
Inwa,[976] Perm, appears to be a halberd of much the same kind.
This form of weapon closely approximates to the Australian
“malga”[977] and to some other wooden weapons in use in New Caledonia.
As it is in Ireland and Scotland that the most characteristic of the
halberd blades have been discovered, it will be well to commence with
the examples from those countries rather than with those from England.
In Fig. 331 is represented a fine specimen of a form not unusual in
Ireland, though the central rib is somewhat more ornamented than is
generally the case. The rivets, as usual, are three in number, and
are still preserved in the blade. In this case they are about ⅜ inch
in diameter and ¾ inch between the heads, which are about ⅝ inch in
diameter and have been carefully hammered into an almost hemispherical
form. The midrib ends abruptly in a straight line where it abutted on
the shaft. The metal appears to have a considerably less proportion
of tin to copper than is usual with bronze weapons. It looks in fact
almost like pure copper.
[Illustration: Fig. 331.—Ireland. ½]
This coppery appearance is by no means uncommon in these blades.
I have another specimen of the same form (9¾ inches), but without
the bead on the midrib. It was found at Letterkenny, Co. Donegal. A
specimen much like Fig. 331 is termed by Vallancey,[978] “the brass
head of a _Tuagh catha_, a general name for the war-axe.” “The large
rivets of this weapon show it was mounted on a very strong shaft.”
Sir W. Wilde has described, under the two distinct headings of “Broad
scythe-shaped Swords,” and “Battle-axes,” the weapons which I have here
classed together. Of the former he mentions forty-one specimens in the
Museum of the Royal Irish Academy, of the latter but two or three.
The “swords”[979] he describes as thick, heavy, and round-pointed,
averaging about 12 inches in length by about 2½ inches in breadth
at the base; twenty-two of the blades being curved. With the strong
blades, however, he classes some which are quite thin and flat, and
which have more the appearance of having been intended for daggers.
The curved shape is much against their having been attached to staves
“spear-ways;” so that Wilde’s other suggestion of the scythe-shaped
swords having been mounted like axes, or “affixed to long handles like
modern halberds,” seems much more reasonable. As to the shorter and
broader blades, whether curved or not, he appears to have had no doubt
of their being a kind of battle-axes.
Wilde has inferred from the large size of the rivets, some being 1½
inches in length and nearly 1 inch across the burr or head, that they
must have been attached to massive metal handles, of which, however,
no fragments have been preserved. If this view had been correct, the
disappearance of the handles would be a remarkable circumstance;
but the large rivets appear rather intended for securing the blades
to wooden shafts, the disappearance of which from ordinary decay is
exactly what might be expected. In one instance there are large conical
washers or broad rings of bronze 1¼ inches in diameter beneath the
rivet-heads, and these in the case of a metal handle would have been
superfluous.
Wilde appears to me to have fallen into another error with respect
to the antiquity of this form of weapon.[980] Arguing from the fact
that many of the specimens are formed either of red bronze or of pure
copper, he thinks it probable that, like the celts of that material,
they are of immense antiquity. And in another place he says that their
antiquity may be gathered from the fact of many being of copper, the
use of which metal invariably preceded that of bronze. As I have
already had occasion to observe, it is perfectly true that many of
these blades have the appearance of being made of copper, but the
absence of tin in their composition has not as yet been proved. Even
were they of pure copper the form and character of the blades show them
to be derivatives from the dagger, as the dagger itself sprang from the
simpler knife; and the cause for using a less proportion of tin, or
indeed none of that metal in them, appears to me to have been the wish
to make them less brittle than if they had been of bronze. A weapon
used as a battle-axe would not be less deadly from having a somewhat
duller cutting edge than if formed of bronze, and should it get bent
in an encounter, the straightening of it might quickly be effected,
while the loss of a blade by its breaking would be irreparable. I
have elsewhere contended that the Hungarian perforated double-ended
axes (like pick-axes) of copper, with but little or no tin in them,
were made of this material, not because tin was unknown, but because
the ductile and malleable copper was found better adapted for certain
purposes than the more fragile bronze. In the same manner copper rather
than brass sets or punches are in use among engineers at the present
day, when an intermediate piece of metal is required to convey the
blows of a hammer to an iron key or other object which would be injured
by receiving the blows direct.
Sir William Wilde, in his Fig. 360, has shown a hollow tube of bronze
as forming the handle of a wide halberd blade; but this juxtaposition
of the two objects has been questioned. Not only are the projecting
spikes upon the tube somewhat inconsistent with its use as a handle,
but from a comparison with some similar objects since discovered there
can be no doubt of the presumed halberd shaft being in reality a
portion of a trumpet.
[Illustration: Fig. 332.—Cavan. ½]
The blade which is figured in connection with this handle was found
near Roscrea, Co. Tipperary, and closely resembles Fig. 332 both in
form and size, being 7⅜ inches long and 8⅝ inches wide at the base, in
which are two rivet-holes and also two notches in the margin. It has
a kind of treble midrib. The blade shown in Fig. 332 has but a single
midrib, but near the edges and following the same curve is a minor
ridge. A section is given at the side of the figure. The original
was found near Cavan, and is in my own collection. From the absence
of rivet-holes it seems doubtful whether it was ever mounted on a
shaft so as to form a complete weapon, unless, indeed, the sharp base
was merely driven into the wood. The metal appears to have a larger
admixture of tin in it than is usual in the scythe-like blades. I am
not aware of the existence of any other specimens of this very broad
form besides the two now mentioned.
A curved blade, of much the same section as Fig. 332, but 15½ inches
long and 3¼ inches broad at the base, found at the foot of Slieve
Kileta Hill, Co. Wexford, is in the British Museum. It has three stout
rivets.
[Illustration: Fig. 333.—Newtown Limavady. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 334.—Ballygawley. ½]
The long and narrow blade shown in Fig. 333 seems also to belong to
the category of halberds, though the rivet-holes are smaller than
usual, and the blade itself thinner. It is strengthened by a number
of small converging ribs formed in the casting, instead of by a broad
midrib, and is also straight and not curved. The original was found
near Newtown Limavady, Co. Derry, and is in the collection of Canon
Greenwell, F.R.S.
The shorter and much more massive blade shown in Fig. 334 is also
in Canon Greenwell’s collection, and was found at Ballygawley, Co.
Tyrone. It has probably seen much service, as what appear to have been
the original three rivet-holes have in two cases been partly closed
by hammering, while in the third the base of the blade has broken
away. In order to make use of the weapon, three fresh holes have been
drilled rather farther from the base, in which the rivets are still
preserved.
[Illustration: Fig. 335.—Falkland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 336.—Stranraer. ¼]
Some of the Irish[981] blades are more rounded than this at the point,
and have been secured to the shafts by four rivets arranged as in Fig.
336. There is also occasionally a shoulder between the blade and the
part let into the handle, as in that from Stranraer.
[Illustration: Fig. 337.—Harbyrnrigge. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 338.—Shropshire. ¼]
In Fig. 335 is shown another blade much like that from Ballygawley,
but found near Falkland, Fifeshire. The metal appears to be nearly
pure copper, and it is doubtful whether it ever had more than one
rivet-hole, though there are notches for the reception of two besides
the rivet still left in the blade. It would, however, be fairly
secured in its handle by a second rivet in the notch on the left,
while a third at the back of the midrib would prevent the blade from
being driven into its handle by a blow.
In the Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh are several of these
halberd-like blades, some of them curved. One from Sluie,[982]
Edinkillie, Elginshire, is 11 by 3½ inches, and has four rivet-holes
arranged in a semicircle. It was found with two flat celts. Three
others, from 10 to 13½ inches by 3 inches, were found together at
Kingarth,[983] Bute. They are described as of reddish bronze.
The original of Fig. 336 was found near Stranraer,[984] Wigtonshire,
and is now in the Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh. It is 12½ inches
long and 4½ broad, and weighs nearly 1¾ lbs., so that if mounted as a
halberd, it must have been a formidable weapon. The rivets are an inch
in length.
In England and Wales the blades which can with any degree of confidence
be regarded as those of halberds are by no means common. I think,
however, that the example from Harbyrnrigge,[985] Crosby Ravensworth,
Westmoreland, shown in Fig. 337, must be looked upon as a halberd
rather than as a dagger. It is in the collection of Canon Greenwell,
F.R.S.
Another blade of much the same character is shown on the scale of
one-fourth in Fig. 338. It was found in Shropshire,[986] but the
exact locality is not known. Another (11¼ by 4 inches), bearing much
resemblance to that from Shropshire, was found near Manea,[987]
Cambridgeshire. It is provided with four rivets, and has a small rib
running down the thickened centre of the blade. It is now in the
Museum of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society.
The late Mr. J. W. Flower, F.G.S., bequeathed to me a blade of this
character (9¾ by 3½ inches) thickened out in the middle like Fig. 334,
and with three large rivet-holes in the base, which is somewhat of a
trefoil form. It was found with broken sword-blades and spear-heads at
Stoke Ferry, Norfolk, and appears to be formed of copper.
The only Welsh example which I have to mention was found in the parish
of Llansanffraid,[988] Cwm Deuddwr, Radnorshire. It is 9 inches long
and 4 inches wide, and weighs 15 oz. In form and character it closely
resembles the Irish and Scotch specimens (Figs. 334 and 335), having a
plain midrib, bevelled edges, and three rivet-holes.
A large blade, with a strong midrib and three rivets, found in
Zealand, and engraved by Madsen,[989] may have belonged to a halberd
of this class.
I have already mentioned the halberd blades from Scandinavia and
North Germany, and have seen but one example from any of the western
countries of Europe. This is from Spain, and was found near Ciudad
Real. It is about 8¼ inches long, and more T-shaped at the
base than any British specimen, the blade suddenly expanding from 2
inches in width to 5. In this expanded part are the usual three rivets,
each about 1 inch in length. The discovery of a weapon of this type in
Spain seems to lend support to those who maintain that there was some
connection between the Iberians and the early inhabitants of Ireland.
The curious similarity of some of the Portuguese forms of flint arrow-
and javelin-heads to those of Ireland is also worthy of notice.
[Illustration: Fig. 339.—Lidgate. 1/1]
[Illustration: Fig. 340.—Great Bedwin. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 341.—Ireland. ½]
Besides the battle-axe or halberd there is another form of weapon for
hand-to-hand encounters—the mace—of which it will be well to say a
few words; for though I do not for a moment believe that the bronze
mace-heads so frequently found in this and other European countries
belong to the Bronze Age, yet by many they have been classed among the
antiquities of that period. These weapons vary considerably in size and
weight, but the cuts will show the more common forms.
That shown in Fig. 339 is in the Museum of the Cambridge Antiquarian
Society, and is stated to have been found at Lidgate,[990] Suffolk.
In the Meyrick[991] Collection is one precisely similar, which was
brought from Italy. The mace to which these dentated rings were
attached is thought to have been a kind of “morning star” or flail.
Others from Lanarkshire[992] are of similar character. Professor
Daniel Wilson refers these to the time of the Roman occupation.
I have three heavy rings with four long and eight short spikes each,
from Hungary.
Another form is provided with a socket, and is evidently intended for
mounting on a straight staff. That shown in Fig. 340 was found in a
well at Great Bedwin,[993] Wilts, and is now in the British Museum.
Another of the same class, with a longer socket, is in the Museum[994]
of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society; and two are in the collection of
Mr. M. Fisher, at Ely. Others have been found in London,[995] and at
Stroud,[996] Gloucestershire.
An Irish example from Wilde[997] is shown in Fig. 341. There are three
such in the Museum of the Academy, varying in length from 2 to 5
inches. One from Tipperary[998] (4 inches) is of the same kind.
I have specimens of this kind from Hungary, one (4⅝ inches) with
three rows of four spikes, and one (4⅞ inches) with five rows of five
spikes. I have another from the Seine at Paris (4⅜ inches) with six
longitudinal ribs instead of spikes.
Lindenschmit[999] has figured seven examples, from various parts of
Germany and Italy, some more or less similar to each of the three
figures I have given. Some of these are decorated with spirals in
relief. Lisch[1000] has also engraved some specimens.
In the British Museum[1001] are some foreign specimens decorated with
patterns of a decidedly mediæval character.
An instrument of this kind, with eight lateral spikes and a long iron
spike coming out from the end, was found with numerous mediæval relics
in the ruins of Söborg,[1002] in North Zealand. Such a discovery
seems to me conclusive as to the date to be assigned to this class of
weapons.
I must apologise to the reader for this digression, and now proceed to
the consideration of the leaf-shaped bronze swords, which are far more
closely allied to the arms described in Chapter X. than to the objects
which have been discussed in the present chapter.
CHAPTER XII.
LEAF-SHAPED SWORDS.
AMONG ancient weapons of bronze, perhaps the most remarkable both
for elegance of form and for the skill displayed in their casting
are the leaf-shaped swords, of which a considerable number have come
down to our times. The only other forms that can vie with them in
these respects are the spear-heads, of which many are gracefully
proportioned, while the coring of their sockets for the reception of
the shafts would do credit to the most skilful modern founder. Neither
the one nor the other belong to the earliest period[1003] when bronze
first came into general use for weapons and tools, the flat celts and
knife-daggers characteristic of that period being as a rule absent from
the hoards in which fragments of swords and spear-heads are present.
There is also this remarkable circumstance attaching to the bronze
swords, viz., that there is no well-authenticated instance[1004] of
their occurrence with any interments in barrows. It is true that
Professor Daniel Wilson[1005] speaks of the frequent discovery of
broken swords with sepulchral deposits, and mentions one found
alongside of a cinerary urn in a tumulus at Memsie, Aberdeenshire, and
another which lay beside a human skeleton in a cist under Carlochan
Cairn, Carmichael, Galloway. But one of these discoveries took place
so long ago as 1776, and in both cases there may, as Canon Greenwell
has suggested, either have been some mistake as to the manner of
finding, or the connection of the sword with the interment may have
been apparent rather than real. A portion of a sword 6½ inches long,
said to have been found in a cairn at Ballagan,[1006] Strathblane,
Stirlingshire, in 1788, is in the Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh. A
“sarcophagus with ashes” is said to have been in the cairn. Another
sword, broken in four pieces, is said to have been found in a barrow
in Breconshire.[1007] Another, found at Wetheringsett, Suffolk, is said
to have lain fourteen feet deep in clay, with a great number of human
bones, but no pottery or other remains. In this case, however, there is
no mention of a barrow. The sword is elsewhere said to have been found
in a sandpit.[1008]
In Scandinavia, however, bronze swords have not unfrequently been found
with interments in barrows; and inasmuch as the owners of the bronze
swords in Britain were, after death, in all probability interred,
either in a burnt or unburnt condition, there appears no reason why in
some instances their swords may not have been buried with them, though
as yet the evidence of these weapons having been found in tumuli, is
far from satisfactory. Possibly at the time when the swords were in
use the practice of erecting mounds over graves had ceased, and there
are now no external marks upon the ground to indicate the graves of
the warriors who wielded the bronze swords, and who have thus escaped
disturbance in their “narrow cells” from the hands of treasure-seekers
and archæologists; or possibly the custom of burying weapons with the
dead may at that time have ceased.
But not only has there been a question, as to what was the method of
interment in vogue among the owners of the bronze swords, but, as
already mentioned in the Introductory Chapter, serious dispute has
arisen whether the swords themselves are not Roman, or at all events
of Roman date. The late Mr. Thomas Wright[1009] was the most ardent
advocate of this latter view, and he has been to some extent supported
by Mr. C. Roach Smith.[1010] The contrary view, that the swords belong
to a Bronze Age before the use of that metal was superseded by that
of iron, has been ably advocated by the late Mr. A. Henry Rhind,
F.S.A.Scot.,[1011] and Sir John Lubbock.[1012] It seems almost needless
for me here to enter further into this controversy, in which, to my
mind, as already stated in the Introductory Chapter, the whole weight
of the argument is in favour of a pre-Roman origin for these swords
in Western and Northern Europe. There was no doubt a time when bronze
swords were in use in Greece and Italy, and the substitution of iron
or steel for bronze, so far as we can judge from the early iron swords
found in the ancient cemetery at Hallstatt and elsewhere, involved
little if any alteration in the form and character of the weapon,
which was better adapted for thrusting than for striking. Even here
in Britain, by the time when the Roman invasion took place, not only
were swords made of iron in use, but the form of what is known as
the Late-Celtic[1013] sword was no longer leaf-shaped, but slightly
tapering, with the edges nearly straight almost as far as the point.
Among the Romans it would seem that more than one change was made in
the form of their swords after the introduction of iron as the material
from which they were formed. As Mr. Rhind has pointed out, Polybius
speaks of the swords wielded by the soldiers of Æmilius at the battle
of Telamon, B.C. 225, as made not only to thrust but to give a falling
stroke with singular effect. “During the Second Punic War, however,
which immediately succeeded the battle of Telamon, the Romans adopted
the Spanish sword,” the material of which we have no difficulty in
definitely ascertaining, as “Diodorus Siculus[1014] particularly
mentions the process by which the Celtiberians prepared their iron for
the purpose of manufacturing swords so tempered that neither shield,
helmet, nor bone could resist them.” How far their process of burying
iron underground until a part of it had rusted away would, in the
case of charcoal iron, leave the remaining portion more of the nature
of steel, I am unable to say. Perhaps the amount of manipulation in
charcoal necessary to restore the rusted plates to a serviceable
condition may have produced this effect of converting the iron into
mild steel. The steel of the sabres made in Japan,[1015] which will cut
through an iron nail without their edge being injured, is said to be
prepared in a similar manner from iron long buried underground.
Most of the bronze swords are shorter than those of the present day;
but the Roman sword would, in the time of Julius, appear to have
been longer than ours. Otherwise Cicero’s joke about his son-in-law,
Lentulus, would have but little point, however small in person he may
have been. Indeed, Macrobius[1016] expressly says that it was a long
sword that Lentulus was wearing when Cicero made the inquiry, Who has
tied my son-in-law to a sword?
The swords in use among the Britons at a somewhat later period appear
to have been of great size, for Tacitus speaks of them as “ingentes”
and “enormes.” They were also bluntly pointed, or “sine mucrone.” Such
a description is entirely inconsistent with the form and size of our
bronze swords, though it might well refer to some of the iron blades
of the Late-Celtic Period, which are 3 feet in length. Others are,
however, shorter.
Of the comparative rarity of bronze swords in Italy, and of their
abundance in Scandinavia and Ireland, countries never occupied by the
Romans, Sir John Lubbock[1017] has already spoken; and he has also
summarized the reasons which convince him, as they do me, that our
bronze weapons cannot be referred to Roman times. I will only repeat
one of the arguments, of which perhaps not sufficient use has been
made. It is that at the time when Julius Cæsar was invading Britain,
and its inhabitants were thus for the first time brought in contact
with Roman weapons, iron had been so long in use for swords in Italy
that the term for the weapon was “ferrum.”
Another feature in bronze swords, which has been frequently commented
on by archæological writers, is the comparatively small size of the
hilt. “The handles are always very small, a fact which tends to prove
that the men who used these swords were but of moderate stature.”[1018]
“The handles of the bronze swords are very short and could not have
been held comfortably by hands as large as ours—a characteristic much
relied on by those who attribute the introduction of bronze into Europe
to a people of Asiatic origin.[1019]
I must confess that I regard this view of the smallness of the hilts as
being somewhat exaggerated. My own hand is none of the smallest, and
yet where the bronze hilts of the Danish and Hungarian swords have been
preserved I have no difficulty in finding room to clasp them. The part
of the hilt where it expands to embrace the base of the blade was, I
think, probably intended to be within the grasp of the hand, and not to
be beyond it as a guard. In the case of some of the short dagger-like
weapons it seems possible that the projecting rim, which forms a kind
of pommel at the end of the hilt, was intended to rest between the
fourth and the little finger, and thus to assist in its being grasped
firmly when in use as a stabbing weapon. When the plates of horn or
wood, which, as we shall subsequently see, once covered the hilt
portion of the sword, have perished, it is hard to realise what was the
exact form of the hilt; but it is quite evident that we must not assume
that because the bare bronze does not fill the hand so as to give it
a good grip, the same was the case when it had a plate of some other
material on each face, which also possibly projected beyond the sides.
There is, moreover, one peculiarity about the hilt-plates of these
swords which I have often pointed out by word of mouth, but which
I think has not as yet been noticed in print. It is that there is
generally, though not universally, a proportion between the length of
the blade and the length of the hilt-plate; long sword blades having
as a rule long hilt-plates, and short sword blades short hilt-plates.
So closely is this kind of proportion preserved, that the outline of
a large sword on the scale of one-sixth would in some cases almost
absolutely correspond with that of one which was two-thirds of its
length, if drawn on the scale of one-fourth.
This relative proportion between the length and size of a blade and
its handle is by no means restricted to the swords of the Bronze
Period, but prevails also among various tools, such as the saws and
chisels of the present day. If, for instance, we were to argue from
the saw-handles in a carpenter’s shop as to the size of the hands of
the carpenters, we should soon find ourselves in difficulties. The
handle of an ordinary hand-saw is sufficiently large to admit the
hand of any one short of a giant, while the orifice in the handle of
a small keyhole-saw will not admit more than a couple of fingers,
and the handles of saws of intermediate size range between these two
extremes. This fact suffices to inculcate caution in arguing from the
hilt-plates of the bronze swords as to the size of the hands of those
who used them. It is a question which will be more safely determined on
osteological than archæological evidence; but, owing to the remarkable
absence of bronze swords from the interments in our barrows, it may be
some time before a sword and the bones of the hand that wielded it are
found in juxtaposition.
Professor Rolleston[1020] has well said, “I am not quite clear that
this bronze sword, leaf-shaped or other, has always a very small hilt.”
“At any rate, there can be no doubt that in this country the skeletons
of the Bronze Period belonged to much larger and stronger and taller
men than did the skeletons of the Long Barrow stone-using folk who
preceded them. In some parts of England the contrast in this matter of
size between the men of the Bronze and those of the Stone Age is as
great as that now existing between the Maori and the gentle Hindoo.”
[Illustration: Fig. 342. Battersea. ¼]
The stature of several of the men interred in the Yorkshire barrows,
examined by Canon Greenwell, was not less than five feet nine inches,
and the bones of the hands were proportional to those of the bodies;
but, unfortunately, no bronze swords accompanied them, though many of
the interments were of the Bronze Age.
The usual form of sword to which the term “leaf-shaped” has been
applied is that shown in Fig. 342. Their total length is generally
about 24 inches, though sometimes not more than 16 inches, but they
are occasionally as long as 30 inches, or even more. The blades are in
most cases uniformly rounded, but with the part next the edge slightly
drawn down so as to form a shallow fluting. In some instances, however,
there is a more or less bold rounded central rib, or else projecting
ridges running along the greater part of the blade near the edges. They
differ considerably in the form of the plate for the hilt, and in the
number and arrangement of the rivets by which the covering material
was attached. This latter, as will subsequently be seen, usually
consisted of plates of horn, bone, or wood, riveted on each side of the
hilt-plate. In rare instances the outer part of the hilt was of bronze.
Of the scabbards of such swords and the chapes attached to them I shall
subsequently speak.
The sword shown in Fig. 342 was found about the year 1864 in the
Thames, near Battersea Bridge, and is now in my own collection. Its
length is 25¼ inches, and the blade is 2⅛ inches broad in its broadest
part, though at the top of the hilt it is 2⅜ inches in breadth. Just
above this point the edge of the blade has been removed so as to form
two broad notches, the object being probably to save the hand of the
warrior from being cut should the sword be drawn back in his hand,
there being apparently no transverse guard. The hilt has been attached
by rivets or pins passing through three longitudinal slots, which have
been produced in the casting, and not subsequently drilled or made.
The hilt-plate expands into a kind of fish-tail termination, which
was probably enclosed in a pommel-like end formed by the plates of
horn, or other material, of which the hilt was made. I have another
sword, about 21 inches in length, which was found in the year 1851
near the circular encampment at Hawridge, on the south-eastern border
of Buckinghamshire. The hilt-plate is of the same character as that
of Fig. 342, but the lower slot is longer and the upper ones shorter.
In the latter were found the bronze rivets for fastening on the hilt.
This blade is figured on a small scale in the _Proceedings of the
Society of Antiquaries_.[1021]
[Illustration: Fig. 343. Barrow. ¼]
Another sword (22 inches) of the same character, with three pointed
oval slots for the rivets, was found at Washingborough,[1022]
Lincolnshire. Two other leaf-shaped swords were found near the
same spot. Another (24 inches), found near Midsummer Norton,[1023]
Somerset, has the central slot nearly rectangular.
The central slot is sometimes accompanied by two or more rivet-holes
in the projecting wings of the hilt-plate. A sword (24 inches) with
two rivets was found between Woodlands and Gussage St. Michael,[1024]
Dorset. Another, broken, was found, with fragments of others, socketed
celts, spear-heads, a sickle, and other objects, near the Pierre du
Villain, Alderney.[1025]
One (24½ inches) from the Thames,[1026] at Battersea, and now in the
Bateman Collection, has a long rectangular slot and four rivets. One
of two (24 inches), found in broken condition, with a spear-head and
two ferrules, on Fulbourn Common,[1027] near Cambridge, was of this
type. Another, from Aldreth, Cambs. (23½ inches), is in the Museum of
the Cambridge Antiquarian Society.
I have an example, originally 26 inches long, found with a leaf-shaped
spear-head near Weymouth.
The type occurs also in France. I have one (18¾ inches), with a slot
and four rivets, from Albert, near Amiens. Another was found near
Argenteuil,[1028] Seine et Oise. I have seen a bronze sword from
Spain, also with the three slots.
In the collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., is a remarkably fine
sword (27½ inches) from Barrow, Suffolk, in which the long slot in
the hilt-plate is combined with ten small rivet-holes. The central
ridge on the blade is well pronounced, as will be seen by Fig. 343.
The blunted part of the blade near the hilt is engraved or milled
diagonally. The number of rivets is here larger than usual; but in a
sword (28½ inches) from the Thames, near Vauxhall,[1029] there are
five rivet-holes in the centre of the plate in lieu of the slot, and
four in each of the wings—thirteen in all. In another (23½ inches)
from the same locality there are eleven, three in each wing and five
in the centre. One (27 inches) from the Thames, in the Museum of the
Society of Antiquaries, has ten rivets, of which four are in the
centre.
Another (28½ inches) with ten rivet-holes, four in the hilt-plate and
three in each wing, was found in the Thames[1030] in 1856, and is in
the British Museum.
A sword from the Roach Smith Collection (20⅜ inches) has a well-marked
midrib to the blade, which is somewhat hollowed on either side of it.
The hilt-plate has the central slot and four rivet-holes, in which two
rivets remain.
In the British Museum is another sword (27⅝ inches) of much the same
form at the hilt, but with ten rivet-holes, three in each wing and
four in the central plate, which is prolonged beyond the fishtail-like
expansion in the form of a flat tang, 1 inch by ⅝ inch. It was found
in the Lea,[1031] near London. The lower part of the hilt has been
united to the blade by a subsequent process of burning on, as will
shortly be mentioned.
This prolongation of the hilt-plate is not singular. In the
Rouen Museum is a sword with thirteen rivets which exhibits this
peculiarity. The same exists in a Swiss Lake[1032] sword, and is not
uncommon in swords found in Italy.
Another sword from the Thames (23 inches) has five holes in the
hilt-plate and four in each wing. The blade, which expands from 1¼
inch near the hilt to 2⅛ inches at two-thirds of its length, is
ornamented with a single engraved line skirting the edge.
In the British Museum is another remarkably fine sword from the
Thames, ornamented in a similar manner, but with a slot in the
hilt-plate and three rivet-holes in each wing. The blade is 24½ inches
long and from 1⅞ inch to 2⅜ inches wide.
Another, from Battle, Sussex (29½ inches), has eleven rivets, three
in the hilt-plate, which is in form much like that of Fig. 343. The
blade is drawn down towards the edges. The lower end shows where the
runner was broken off after it was cast, and is left quite rough, thus
raising the presumption that it was covered by some kind of pommel.
Five rivets are still preserved.
A sword from the Medway, at Upnor Reach, is 31¼ inches long and
1⅞ inch wide at the broadest part. It has no less than fifteen
rivet-holes for the hilt, in three groups of five each.
One from the Thames (28⅝ inches), with plain blade and thirteen
rivet-holes, has five small rivets still _in situ_.
More commonly the rivet-holes are fewer in number. One (24½ inches)
in Canon Greenwell’s Collection, from Broadway Tower, Broadway,
Worcester, has nine rivet-holes, three in the tang and three in
each wing. One from the Thames at Battersea[1033] (26 inches), and
one from Ebberston, Yorkshire, in the Bateman Collection, have the
rivets arranged in the same manner, as has one which was found near
Whittingham,[1034] Northumberland, with another sword subsequently to
be described, and also with three spear-heads.
[Illustration: Fig. 344.—Newcastle. ¼]
I have one (19 inches) with eight rivet-holes, four in the centre and
two in each wing, found near Cambridge. The holes appear to have been
either made or enlarged by a punch having been driven through them,
the rough burr being left on. On either side of the central ridge of
the blade there is a pair of engraved lines parallel to the edges
and at about ¼ inch distant from them. The base of the blade next
the expansion for the hilt has been neatly serrated or engrailed,
like that of the sword from Barrow, but in this case transversely.
Unfortunately this blade, which is beautifully patinated, has been
broken into three pieces.
French swords of this class, both with a central slot combined with
rivets and with rivets only, are by no means uncommon. Specimens
of each, from the department of Seine et Oise, are figured in the
“Dictionnaire Archéologique de la Gaule.” One with a slot and four
rivets is in the museum at Nantes. Two with seven rivet-holes were
found at St. Nazaire-sur-Loire[1035] (Loire Inférieure).
Seven is, indeed, a more usual number for the rivet-holes than any
of these higher numbers. In Fig. 344 is shown a fine example of a
sword with seven rivet-holes, found in the Tyne, near Newcastle, and
now in the collection of Canon Greenweil, F.R.S. It is 28 inches in
length, and has a bead or rib just within the edges, which is somewhat
exaggerated in the figure. The hilt-plate is provided with slight
flanges for retaining the horn or wood that formed the hilt, and has a
semicircular notch at the base, possibly for the reception of a rivet.
See Fig. 356.
A sword from the Thames near Battersea (28⅝ inches), in the British
Museum, is of nearly the same form as Fig. 344, but the end of the
hilt-plate has no notch, and there is no midrib running down it. The
hilt has been fastened by seven rivets, which fit tightly in the holes
and are nearly all in position. Their ends have conical depressions
in them, as if a punch had been used as a riveting tool. In some the
rivets have been closed by a hollow punch, so as to leave a small stud
projecting in the middle of each surrounded by a deep hollow ring.
Some French swords present the same peculiarity.
A sword of the same form (23¾ inches), but with a plain blade and only
five small rivet-holes, was found in the Medway at Chatham Reach, and
is now in the same collection. The hilt seems to have been burnt on.
A sword of this form (25¼ inches), with raised ridges parallel to the
edges, has a rounded end to the hilt-plate and holes for six very
small pins or rivets at the base and for one large one. The hilt-plate
has been much hammered. It was found in the Thames. A second (24¾
inches), almost identical in every respect, has retained five of its
pins.
There are two swords in the Norwich Museum, each of them with seven
rivet-holes, both 21½ inches long, but the one found at Woolpit,
Suffolk, and the other at Windsor. One of the swords found at
Fulbourn,[1036] Cambridge, had its rivets arranged as in Fig. 344. The
blade is somewhat fluted between the central ridge and has smaller
ridges running parallel to the edges. Another (23¾ inches), found in
Glamorganshire,[1037] is of the same character. Another like this was
found in the bed of the Lark,[1038] at Icklingham, Suffolk.
I have two swords (about 23 inches) with seven rivet-holes, which
were found with spear-heads, a halberd, and other objects at Stoke
Ferry, Norfolk. They are unfortunately broken. One of them appears
to have been a defective casting, and to have wanted a portion of
its hilt-plate. This has been subsequently supplied by a second
hilt-plate having been cast over the broken end of the original plate,
a hole in which has been stopped with a rivet, which has been partly
covered over by the metal of the second casting. This is not an unique
instance of mending by burning on additional metal. I have a small
leaf-shaped sword (17⅜ inches), for which I am indebted to the Earl
of Enniskillen, found near Thornhill, Killina, Co. Cavan, which has
in old times had a new hilt-plate cast on the original blade in this
manner.
Other swords with seven rivet-holes arranged as in Fig. 344 have been
found near Alton Castle,[1039] Staffordshire, and at Billinghay,[1040]
Lincoln.
A sword with six rivet-holes (23 inches) was found near
Cranbourne,[1041] Dorset. Another of the same length was dug up at
Stifford,[1042] near Gray’s Thurrock, Essex. Another (20½ inches) was
found in the Severn[1043] at Buildwas, Salop. The rivet-holes are two
in the middle and two in each wing.
A leaf-shaped sword, the hilt broken off, but the blade still 22½
inches long, was found with a bronze spear-head, a palstave, and a
long pin, in the Thames,[1044] near the mouth of the Wandle. It is now
in the British Museum.
A sword with the hilt-plate like that of Fig. 344 has been found in
Rhenish Hesse.[1045]
[Illustration: Fig. 345.—Wetheringsett. ¼]
Another variety of the sword has a strong central rounded rib along
the blade, of which kind a good example is shown in Fig. 345.
The original is in the collection of Mr. Robert Fitch, F.S.A.,
who has kindly lent it to me for engraving. It was found at
Wetheringsett,[1046] Suffolk, and is said to have had remains of a
wooden hilt and scabbard, attached to it when found. Human bones are
also reported to have been found near it. It is 25½ inches long, with
engraved lines on the hilt, and has only two rivet-holes besides the
central square-ended slot.
Mr. Fisher, of Ely, has a sword of the same character (25 inches), but
with four rivets and a slot, found in the Fens near Ely.
A fragment of what appears to have been a sword of the same
character, but with two rivet-holes instead of the central slot, was
found with socketed celts and spear-heads at Bilton,[1047] Yorkshire.
I have a fragment of a blade of this kind in the Reach Fen hoard.
Another fragment, from Chrishall, Essex, is in the British Museum, as
is also one found under Beachy Head.[1048] It has two rivet-holes in
each wing, and three considerably larger in the centre. They appear
to be cast, and not drilled. With this fragment were found palstaves,
socketed celts, lumps of copper, and gold armlets.
The type also occurs in France. I have a specimen from the Seine at
Paris, with the hilt and lower part almost identical with Fig. 345,
but the blade does not expand in the same manner, and has two lines
engraved on each side of the central rib, the inner pair meeting on
the rib some little way from the point, the outer continued to nearly
the end of the blade. I have fragments of a sword of similar character
from the hoard found at Dreuil, near Amiens. The fragment from Beachy
Head already mentioned may possibly be of Gaulish origin.
On an Italian oblong bronze coin or _quincussis_, 6⅝ inches by 3½
inches, and weighing about 3½ lbs., is the representation of a
leaf-shaped sword with a raised rib along the centre of the blade, and
in general character much like Fig. 345. A specimen of this coin is
in the British Museum,[1049] and bears upon the reverse the figure of
a scabbard with parallel sides, and a nearly circular chape. Another
coin of the same type, engraved by Carelli,[1050] has a nearly similar
scabbard on the reverse, but the sword on the obverse is either
represented as being in its scabbard or is not at all leaf-shaped,
the sides of the blade being parallel. The hilt is also curved, and
there is a cross-guard. In fact, upon the one coin, the weapon has
the appearance of a Roman sword of iron, and on the other that of a
leaf-shaped sword of bronze. These pieces were no doubt cast in Umbria,
probably in the third century B.C., but their attribution to Ariminum
is at best doubtful. From the two varieties of sword appearing on coins
of the same type, the inference may be drawn either that at the time
when they were cast, bronze swords were in Umbria being superseded by
those of iron; or that the type originally referred to some sacred
weapon of bronze such as is represented on the coin in the British
Museum, but was subsequently made more conventional so as to represent
the sword in ordinary use at the period.
[Illustration: Fig. 346. Tiverton. ¼]
[Illustration: Fig. 347. Kingston. ¼]
The sword with a central rib was sometimes attached to the hilt in
a different manner from any of the blades hitherto described, as
will be seen by Fig. 346, copied from the _Archæological Association
Journal_.[1051] This sword was found at Tiverton, near Bath, and it is
provided with four rivets, a pair on each side of the continuation of
the central rib along the hilt-plate. Human remains and stag’s-horns
are said to have been found near it.
In the British Museum is a blade of the same kind (19⅝ inches), with
semicircular notches for the four rivets. It was found in the Thames
at Kingston. Another from the Thames (21 inches) has the two upper
holes perfect.
Leaf-shaped swords of the ordinary type also occasionally had their
hilts attached in the same manner. Fig. 347 shows a blade from the
Thames,[1052] near Kingston (16⅛ inches) with the rivet-holes thus
arranged. I have another, from the Hugo Collection (18 inches), found
in the Thames about a mile west from Barking Creek,[1053] which has
had four rivet-holes arranged in the same manner, though the margins
are now broken away, so that only traces of the holes remain. Another
apparently of this type was found in Lincolnshire.[1054]
In Canon Greenwell’s Collection is a leaf-shaped blade of the same
character (15¾ inches), which, however, has only two rivet-holes, one
on each side of the hilt-plate. It was found at Sandford,[1055] near
Oxford, together with a rapier-shaped blade.
Another variety has a narrower tang and rivet holes in the median
line. A blade of this kind, which is in Mr. Layton’s Collection,
was found in the Thames at Greenwich, and is engraved in the
_Archæological Journal_.[1056]
Before proceeding to the consideration of the swords with more perfect
hilts and pommels found in England, it will be well to give references
to some of the other instances of leaf-shaped swords found in this
country and in Wales. Several have been found in the Thames[1057]
besides those already mentioned. Others have been discovered in the
Isle of Portland;[1058] at Brixworth,[1059] Northamptonshire; and in
the sea-dike bank between Fleet and Gedney,[1060] Lincolnshire. Two,
one with the chape of the scabbard, of which more hereafter, were
found at Ebberston,[1061] Yorkshire.
Two were found at Ewart Park,[1062] near Wooler, Northumberland,
one of which is in the Museum of the Society of Antiquaries of
Newcastle-on-Tyne.
Some fragments of swords, regarded as being of copper, were found,
with spear-heads, celts, and lumps of metal, at Lanant,[1063] and also
at St. Hilary, Cornwall, about the year 1802.
There were also some fragments in the Broadward find,[1064]
Shropshire, which consisted principally of spear-heads and ferrules.
Occasionally a considerable number of swords are said to have been
found together. No less than twenty are reported to have been
discovered about the year 1726 near Alnwick Castle,[1065] in company
with forty-one socketed celts and sixteen spear-heads; and two broad
swords, one sharp-pointed sword, a spear-point, and a socketed celt
were found “in a bundle together” at Ambleside, Westmoreland,[1066]
about 1741.
Two swords, some spear-heads, celts, and other relics were discovered
at Shenstone,[1067] Staffordshire, in 1824. Near them are said to have
been some fragments of human bones. Some swords are reported to have
been found in a marsh on the Wrekin Tenement,[1068] Shropshire, with a
celt and about one hundred and fifty fragments of spear-heads.
Two swords and a fragment of a third were found in the Heathery Burn
Cave, in company with numerous bronze and bone instruments and a gold
armlet and penannular hollow bead. Most of these objects are now in
the collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S. Three swords were found at
Branton, Northumberland, and are now in the Alnwick Museum; where are
also two which had pommels of lead, and were found with two rings near
Tosson, parish of Rothbury, in that county. Another, which was also
accompanied by two rings, were found near Medomsley, Durham. These
rings may in some manner have served to attach the swords to a belt.
Most of the swords found in Wales appear to be in a fragmentary
condition. Engravings of some leaf-shaped swords are said to exist on
a rock between Barmouth[1069] and Dolgellau, North Wales.
A fragment of a sword was found, with a bronze sheath-end, looped
palstaves, spear-heads, and a ferrule, near Guilsfield,[1070]
Montgomeryshire. Fragments of three swords were found, with
lance-heads, ferrules, a chape, and other objects, at Glancych,[1071]
Cardiganshire. They appear to have had six rivets.
[Illustration: Fig. 348. Ely. ¼]
[Illustration: Fig. 349. River Cherwell. ¼]
English swords, with the hilts, or pommels, or both, formed of bronze,
are not of common occurrence. The first which I have selected for
illustration has the side edges so straight that it hardly belongs to
the class usually known as leaf-shaped. The hilt-plate is peculiar
in having well-developed side flanges which expand at the base so
as to form an oval pommel. The hilt has as usual been formed of two
plates of bone or wood, which have been secured to the hilt-plate by
six rivets. This sword, which was found in the Fens, near Ely, has
unfortunately lost its point, but is still 19¼ inches long. It was lent
me for engraving (as Fig. 348) by Mr. M. Fisher, of Ely. In some Danish
examples the high flanges of the hilt-plates are covered by thin plates
of gold, beyond which, of course, the hilt of bone, wood, or horn did
not project, and no doubt in this instance also the side flanges were
left visible and not in any way covered. They are upwards of 4 inches
in length, so that the hilt would fit into a large hand.
A small but very interesting sword with a perfect bronze hilt and
pommel is shown in Fig. 349. It was found in the River Cherwell,[1072]
and is now in the Museum at Oxford. It was kindly lent me by Professor
Rolleston for the purpose of engraving. The total length of the
weapon is 21 inches, of which the pommel and hilt, which is adapted
for a decidedly large hand, occupy about 5 inches. The hilt has the
appearance of having been cast upon the blade, and seems to be formed
of bronze of the same character. There are no rivets visible by which
the two castings are attached the one to the other.
[Illustration: Fig. 350. Lincoln.]
I am of opinion that the same process of attaching the hilt to the
blade by casting the one upon the other was in use in Scandinavia and
Germany. Some of the bronze daggers from Italy seem also to have had
their hilts cast upon the blades in which the rivets were already fixed.
In the British Museum is a sword blade with slight ribs inside the
edges, retaining a portion of the hilt, which is cast in a separate
piece and attached to the wings by two rivets. It is said to have been
found in the Thames.[1073] The hilt has had ribs round it at intervals
of about half an inch apart.
On a fragment of a sword blade, ornamented on each side with five
parallel engraved lines, the upper margin of the hilt is marked out by
a raised and engrailed line of the same form as the upper end of the
hilt of Fig. 350. It was found in the Fen, near Wicken, Cambs, with
a part of a scabbard end, spear-heads, and other objects now in the
British Museum.
A remarkably fine sword, found in the River Witham,[1074] below
Lincoln, in 1826, is shown in Fig. 350, for the use of which I am
indebted to the Council of the Society of Antiquaries. The original is
in the museum of the Duke of Northumberland, at Alnwick. It presents
the peculiarity of having two spirals attached to the base of the hilt
with a projecting pin between them, the whole taking the place of the
pommel. The blade appears to be engraved with parallel lines on either
side of the midrib. These spirals are of far more common occurrence
on the Continent than in Britain, and this sword, though found so far
north as Lincoln, is not improbably of foreign origin.
Several such have been found in France. One with the spirals but a
different form of hilt was found at Aliès, Cantal.[1075]
A bronze sword found in the Rhône at Lyons, but now in the museum at
Rennes,[1076] Brittany, has a nearly similar hilt and pommel It has
three raised bands on the hilt, but no pin between the spirals. Some
of the swords from the Swiss Lake-dwellings have similar hilts. They
have been found at Concise,[1077] in the Lake of Neuchâtel, and in the
Lac de Luissel.[1078]
[Illustration: Fig. 351.—Whittingham. ¼]
[Illustration: Fig. 352. Brechin. ¼]
Another of the same kind is in the Johanneum at Gratz, Styria. The
same form was also found at Hallstatt.[1079] Another was found near
Stettin.[1080] Another from Erxleben,[1081] Magdeburg, is in the
Brunswick Museum.
The hilt of a sword with spirals and a central pin was found in the
great Bologna hoard. A perfect example is in the Royal Armoury at
Turin.[1082]
There are several swords with this kind of hilt in the Museum of
Northern Antiquities at Copenhagen,[1083] some of which are figured
by Madsen.[1084] The spirals are sometimes found detached. A highly
interesting paper by Dr. Oscar Montelius on the different forms of
hilts of bronze swords and daggers is published in the Stockholm
volume of the Congress for Prehistoric Archæology.[1085]
The remarkable sword with a somewhat analogous termination to the
hilt, shown in Fig. 351, was found at Thrunton Farm,[1086] in the
parish of Whittingham, Northumberland, and is in the collection of
Lord Ravensworth. With it was found another sword already mentioned,
a spear-head with lunate openings in the blade (Fig. 418), and some
smaller leaf-shaped spear-heads. They are said to have been all
found sticking in a moss with the points downwards, and arranged in
a circle. The pommel end of the hilt is in this instance a distinct
casting, and is very remarkable on account of the two curved horns
extending from it, which are somewhat trumpet-mouthed, with a
projecting cone in the centre of each.
In Scotland a number of bronze swords have been found which bear, as
might have been anticipated, a close resemblance to those from England.
That shown in Fig. 352 was found in a moss at Leuchland, Brechin, in
Angus, and is now in the collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S. Its
length is 26½ inches, and the six rivets for attaching the hilt are
still in the hilt-plate, which is doubly hooked at the end. A rib
from the thicker part of the blade is prolonged part of the way down
the hilt-plate as in Fig. 344. Another sword, broken at the hilt, but
still 26¼ inches long, was found on the same farm. A find from Brechin
is mentioned further on. A sword with four rivet-holes, like those
from Arthur’s Seat, found on the borders between England and Scotland,
and engraved by Grose,[1087] has the same peculiar end to the
hilt-plate, as has one with five rivets from Methlick, Aberdeenshire,
now in the Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh. Grose has also engraved
two, each with six rivet-holes in the wings and two or three in the
hilt-plate, found in Duddingston Loch,[1088] near Edinburgh, as well
as the hilt-plate of another, found near Peebles, with slots in the
wings and a slot and rivet-hole in the tang.
Some fragments of swords from this loch are in the Antiquarian Museum
at Edinburgh. Almost directly above Duddingston Loch, on Arthur’s
Seat,[1089] two other swords were found during the construction of the
Queen’s Drive. They are 26¼ inches and 24¼ inches long, in outline
like Fig. 342, with one rivet-hole in each wing and two in the centre
of the hilt-plate.
Two (23⅜ inches and 20½ inches) of the usual character, with
nine rivets and hilts much like Fig. 354, have been found in
Lanarkshire.[1090]
In Gordon’s “Itinerarium Septentrionale”[1091] a sword (24½ inches)
found near Irvine, Argyleshire, is engraved, as is also one (26
inches) found in Graham’s Dyke near Carinn, which is said to be in the
Advocates’ Library at Edinburgh. The figures do not seem accurate, but
show seven rivets in one and three in the other. Gordon makes no doubt
that these swords are Roman.
Other specimens have been found at Forse,[1092] Latheron, Caithness
(25 inches), near the Point of Sleat,[1093] Isle of Skye (22½ inches),
with two spear-heads and a pin. Another was found in Wigtonshire.[1094]
In the Antiquarian Museum are specimens from the following counties:
Aberdeen, Argyle, Ayr, Edinburgh, Fife, Forfar, Kincardine, and
Stirling.
In peat, at Iochdar,[1095] South Uist, were found two swords like that
from Arthur’s Seat, the hilts of which are said to have been formed of
wood. A leather sheath is also reported to have been present.
A bronze scabbard tip, such as will subsequently be described,
was found, with four bronze swords (about 24 inches) and a large
spear-head, near Brechin,[1096] Forfarshire; and in Corsbie
Moss,[1097] Legerwood, Berwick, a bronze sword and spear-head were
found, the former having, it is said, a scabbard, apparently of metal,
but so much corroded as to fall in pieces on removal. This also may
have been of leather stained by the metal.
[Illustration: Fig. 353.—Edinburgh. ¼.]
A sword with a large pommel (24 inches), closely resembling Fig. 353,
was found, together with two other sword blades (one 25 inches with
slots), a scabbard end, and two bronze pins, with large circular flat
heads, at Tarves,[1098] Aberdeenshire. Some of these were presented to
the British Museum by the Earl of Aberdeen. There is a recess on the
hilt-plate for the reception of the horn or bone of the hilt, which
was fastened by three rivets still remaining.
Another sword, the blade 22 inches long, the handle, including a
round hollow pommel, 5½ inches, was found in Skye, and is engraved in
“Pennant’s Tour.”[1099] It shows four rivet-holes arranged like those
in the sword from Arthur’s Seat, so that the hilt was probably formed
as usual of horn or wood and not of bronze.
A few other swords with pommels to their hilts have been found in
Scotland. That shown in Fig. 353 was found in Edinburgh,[1100] with,
it is said, thirteen or fourteen more, a pin, and ring, and a kind
of annular button, of bronze. It is now in the Antiquarian Museum at
Edinburgh. The hilt appears to have been added to the hilt-plate by a
subsequent process of casting. The pommel has been cast over a core
of clay, which it still retains within it. Another of the swords (24¼
inches) has the hilt-plate pierced for six rivets. Two others which
have been examined are imperfect.
Mr. Joseph Anderson, who has described this find, points out that this
hilt must have “been cast in a matrix modelled from a sword which had
the grip made up of two convex plates attached on either side of the
handle plate, and their ends covered by a hollow pommel”—in fact, from
such a sword as that from Tarves, already mentioned. He also observes
that the holes in the hilt are not rivet-holes, and thinks that they
may have been caused by wooden pins used to hold the clay core in
position, for the handle as well as the pommel is hollow. I am rather
doubtful as to the accuracy of this theory, as such pins would, I
think, produce blow-holes in the metal in casting. There may, however,
have been clay projections from the inner core which would leave holes
such as these, into which studs of wood, bone, or horn might afterwards
be inserted by way of ornament and to add firmness to the grip. For
details of the finding of from thirty to forty bronze swords in
Scotland, the reader is referred to Mr. Anderson’s paper.
The bronze leaf-shaped swords from Ireland, of which nearly or quite
a hundred, either perfect or fragmentary, are preserved in the Museum
of the Royal Irish Academy, have been treated of at some length by the
late Sir William Wilde,[1101] whose Catalogue the reader may consult
with advantage. Ingeneral appearance they closely resemble the swords
from the sister countries, and vary in length from about eighteen to
thirty inches. The blades are usually rounded on the faces, or have a
faintly marked median ridge, and are slightly fluted along the edges.
This fluting or bevelling is sometimes bounded by a raised ridge.
The form with a rounded rib along the middle of the blade is almost
unknown. There is considerable variation in the form of the end of the
hilt-plate, in which occasionally there is a deep V-shaped notch, or
several smaller notches. The most common termination is that like a
fish-tail as seen in Fig. 354. The number of rivet-holes is various,
ranging from four to eleven. There are occasionally slots[1102] in the
hilt-plate and in the wings at the base of the blade.
They have been found in most parts of the kingdom.
A common type of Irish sword is shown in Fig. 354 from a specimen found
at Newtown Limavady, Co. Derry, in 1870. One wing of the fish-tail
termination is wanting and has been restored in the sketch. The nine
rivet-holes seem to have been cast and not drilled, though they may
have been slightly counter-sunk subsequently to the casting. The
hilt-plate is slightly fluted, perhaps with the view of steadying the
hilt.
[Illustration: Fig. 354. Newtown Limavady. ¼]
[Illustration: Fig. 355. Ireland. ¼]
[Illustration: Fig. 356. Ireland. ¼]
[Illustration: Fig. 357. Ireland. ¼]
In a fragment of a sword found with spear-heads, a socketed dagger, and
a fragment of a hammer on Bo Island, Enniskillen, there are five deep
flutings on each side of the hilt-plate. As is the case with some of
the English examples already mentioned, this hilt-plate has been joined
to the blade by some process of burning on. One of the four rivet-holes
in it has been partially closed by the operation. Sir William Wilde
has noticed that several of the leaf-shaped swords under his charge
had been broken and subsequently “welded” both by fusion and by the
addition of a collar of the metal which encircles the extremities of
the fragments. The term “welding” is, however, inappropriate to a metal
of the character of bronze.
In the British Museum is a sword of this type with nine rivet-holes
(25¼ inches), found near Aghadoe,[1103] Co. Kerry.
In the small Irish blade of much the same type (Fig. 355) there are
only three rivet-holes, which have been cast in the blade, a fourth
having from some cause been filled up with the metal, though a
depression on each face marks the spot where the hole was intended to
be.
There were several swords, mostly broken, in the great Dowris hoard.
They had a rivet-hole in each wing and two or three in the hilt-plate.
Some of the bronze swords found in Ireland attracted the attention
of antiquaries upwards of a century ago. Governor Pownall described
two found in a bog at Cullen, Tipperary, which are engraved in the
_Archæologia_.[1104] They are 26½ inches and 27 inches long, and
one of them is of the same form as the Scotch sword, Fig. 352.
Vallancey[1105] has also figured one (22 inches) with eight rivets.
From among those in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy I have
selected two for engraving. The first, Fig. 356 (26¼ inches), has had
its hilt attached by a number of very small pins instead of rivets
of the usual size. The second, Fig. 357, is a short blade about 19½
inches long, with a central rib extending down the hilt-plate, in
which there are four rivet-holes, two on each side.
A bronze sword from Polignac, Haute Loire, now in the Museum at Le
Puy, Haute Loire, has its hilt-plate like that of Fig. 356, but has
only four rivets. Another with seven rivets was found in a dolmen
at Miers,[1106] Lot. Another with six rivets from the Department of
Jura[1107] is in the museum at St. Germain.
Another from near Besançon,[1108] Doubs, has six small rivets. One
found at Alise Ste. Reine,[1109] Côte d’Or, has four rivets only.
The type also occurred at Hallstatt,[1110] and in Germany.[1111]
At least two swords have been found in Ireland still retaining the
plates of bone which formed their hilts. By the kindness of Mr. Robert
Day, F.S.A., I am able to reproduce full-sized figures of both sides
of one of the most perfect specimens, as Figs. 358 and 359, which
have already appeared in the _Journal of the Royal Historical and
Archæological Association of Ireland_.[1112]
[Illustration: Fig. 358.—Muckno. 1/1]
[Illustration: Fig. 359.—Muckno. 1/1]
The sword itself, shown on a small scale in Fig. 360, was found in
Lisletrim Bog, Muckno, Co. Monaghan. It is 24½ inches long, with a
thick midrib running along the blade. The plates of bone which are
still attached have been pronounced by Professor Owen to be mammalian,
and probably cetacean. It will be observed that at the wings of the
hilt-plate the bone projects somewhat beyond the metal. The same
peculiarity may be observed in the bone hilt of a sword found at
Mullylagan,[1113] Co. Armagh, which has somewhat the appearance of
having been carved at the end next the blade into a pair of rude
volutes. It is shown full-size in Fig. 361. The sword itself, on a
small scale, is shown in Fig. 362. In this instance the bone projects
beyond the sides of the hilt-plate. I have not seen the specimen,
which is preserved in the collection of Mr. A. Knight Young, of
Monaghan.[1114] A bronze sword with six rivets, found near Kallundborg,
Denmark,[1115] had the hilt formed of wood.
[Illustration: Fig. 360.—Muckno.]
[Illustration: Fig. 361.—Mullylagan. 1/1]
[Illustration: Fig. 362.—Mullylagan. 1/6]
As is the case with several of the bronze swords discovered in
Scandinavia, some of those found in Ireland seem to have been decorated
with gold upon their hilts.
[Illustration: Fig. 363. Ireland.]
On one of the rivets of a sword found in a bog near Cullen,[1116]
Tipperary, was a thin piece of gold weighing upwards of 12 dwts.
Another sword,[1117] found near the same place in 1751, had a plate of
gold on one side which covered the hilt; at the end was a small object
like a pommel of a sword, with three links of a chain hanging from
it. The whole weighed 3 ozs. 3 dwts. 11 grs. In this bog about twenty
bronze swords were found at intervals, besides about forty pieces of
hilt-plates in which the rivets stood. In one sword[1118] there was a
recess near the blade, ½ × ¼ × 1/6 inch, in which was “a piece of pewter
which just fitted it, with four channels cut in it, in each of which
was laid a thin bit of fine copper, so that they resembled four figures
of 1.”
A fragment of a blade which Wilde[1119] considers to be that of a
sword, is decorated with raised lines and circles in relief, which
were cast with the blade. A portion of it is shown in Fig. 363. As the
whole fragment is only 4¼ inches long, it may have formed part of a
socketed knife or some other instrument, and not of a sword. A part of
a spear-head, with a series of ring ornaments engraved on the blade,
was in the hoard found at Haynes Hill, Kent.[1120]
There is considerable general resemblance between the bronze swords
found in the British Islands and those of the continental countries
of Europe. The similarities with those from France have already been
pointed out. Several with ornamented hilts have been figured by
Chantre[1121] and others. One has a hemispherical pommel and a varied
design on the hilt.
The bronze swords from the Swiss Lake-dwellings[1122] have frequently
bronze hilts, like those of the swords from the South of France. In
some instances the hilt-plate has side flanges, with a central slot
or line of rivets, and rivets in the wings. In others the broad tang
forming the hilt has two or three rivet-holes. In some hilts cast in
bronze there is a recess for receiving a piece of horn or wood. The
blades have frequently delicate raised ribs, sometimes six on each
face, running along them.
The bronze swords of Italy[1123] present several varieties not found
in Britain. The sides of the blades are more nearly parallel, and many
have a slender tang at the hilt, sometimes with two rivet-holes forming
loops at the side of the tang, sometimes with one rivet-hole in its
centre. In some the blade narrows somewhat for the tang, in each side
of which are two semicircular notches for the rivets. In some Italian
and French swords the blade is drawn out to a long tapering point, so
that its edges present a somewhat ogival curve.
A fragment of a very remarkable Greek sword from Thera[1124] has a
series of small broad-edged axes of gold, in shape like conventional
battle-axes, inlaid along the middle of the blade between two slightly
projecting ribs.
The double-edged bronze swords found by Dr. Schliemann[1125] at Mycenæ
are tanged and often provided with pommels made of alabaster. The
hilts and scabbards are in some cases decorated with gold. The blades
are usually long and narrow, though some widen considerably at the
hilt-end, so as to form a broad shoulder to the tang. Swords appear to
have been much rarer on the presumed site of Troy.
There appear to be doubts whether the beautiful bronze sword in
the Berlin Museum,[1126] reported to have been found at Pella, in
Macedonia, does not belong to the valley of the Rhine.
Bronze swords have but rarely been found in Egypt. In my own
collection, however, is one which was found at Great Kantara during the
construction of the Suez Canal. The blade, about 17 inches long, is
leaf-shaped, and much like that of Fig. 360, but more uniform in width.
Instead of having a hilt-plate it is drawn down to a small tang about
3/16 inch square. This again expands into an octagonal bar, about ⅜
inch in diameter, which has been drawn down to a point, and then turned
back to form a hook, probably for suspending the sword at the belt.
At the base of the blade are two rivet-holes. The hilt must have been
formed of two pieces which clasped the tang. The total length of the
sword from the point to the top of the hook is 22⅜ inches. I have never
seen another similar example, but a bronze sword blade, presumably from
Lower Egypt, is in the museum at Berlin. It has an engraved line down
each side of the blade, and its sides are more parallel than in mine
from Kantara, already mentioned. The hilt is broken off. A German sword
from the Magdeburg district, with a tang and two rivet-holes at the
base of the blade, closely resembles mine from Egypt, except that it
has no hook to the tang.
The bronze swords found in Denmark[1127] and Northern Germany[1128]
have often side flanges to the hilt-plate, like Fig. 348, occasionally
plated with gold; but the blades are generally more uniform in width,
and have the edges straighter than those from the United Kingdom. Some
blades have a simple tang. On a very large proportion the hilt formed
of bronze (or of some more perishable material alternating with bronze
plates) has been preserved. The pommels are usually formed of oval or
rhomboidal plates with a central boss, and are generally ornamented
below.
Some of the swords found in Sweden and Denmark have been regarded by
Dr. Montelius[1129] and Mr. Worsaae[1130] as of foreign origin.
A bronze sword from Finland with a flanged hilt-plate and eight
rivet-holes has been[1131] figured.
In Germany[1132] the bronze swords present types which more nearly
resemble those of France and Denmark than those of the British Isles.
Those with a flanged hilt-plate are found, however, both in Northern
and Southern Germany, as well as in Italy, Austria and Hungary. Others
have long and narrow tangs, but a large proportion are provided with
bronze hilts, usually with disc-like pommels. These hilts conceal the
form of the tangs. Some few have spirals at the end of the hilt, as
already mentioned, and one from Brandenburg, in the Berlin Museum, has
a spheroidal pommel. In some of the bronze hilts there are recesses for
the reception of pieces of horn or wood, as on some of the French and
Swiss swords.
Iron swords of the same general character as those of bronze have been
found in the ancient cemetery at Hallstatt and elsewhere. Those from
Hallstatt[1133] are identical in character with the bronze swords from
the same locality. In one instance the hilt and pommel of an iron
sword are in bronze; in another the pommel alone; the hilt-plate of
iron being flat, and provided with rivets exactly like those of the
bronze swords. In others the pommel is wanting. I have a broken iron
sword from this cemetery, with the hilt-plate perfect, and having three
bronze rivets still in it, and the holes for two others at the pommel
end. The blade has a central rounded rib along it like Fig. 345, but
with a small bead on either side. I have a beautiful bronze sword from
the same locality, on the blade of which are two small raised beads
on either side of the central rib, and in the spaces between them a
threefold wavy line punched in or engraved. In this instance a tang
has passed through the hilt, that was formed of alternate blocks of
bronze and of some substance that has now perished, possibly ivory. A
magnificent iron sword from Hallstatt, now in the Vienna Museum, has
the hilt and pommel formed of ivory inlaid with amber.
The late Celtic iron swords found in Britain have been described
by Mr. A. W. Franks, F.R.S., in an exhaustive paper in the
_Archæologia_,[1134] in which also the reader will find many
interesting particulars of analogous swords found in continental
countries.
Several iron swords have been found in France with flat hilt-plates
and rivets exactly of the same character as those of the bronze
swords. Nine have been discovered in tumuli at Cosne, Magny Lambert,
and elsewhere in the department of Côte d’Or. Others have been found
at Cormoz, Ain; and at Gédinne, in Belgium. There can be but little
doubt that M. Alexandre Bertrand[1135] is right in assigning the French
examples to the fourth or fifth century B.C., and in regarding them as
direct descendants from the bronze swords of ordinary type. He adduces,
also, the remarkable fragment of an iron sword with a bronze hilt found
in the Lac de Bienne, which is in exact imitation of a bronze sword
with ribs on the blade, as an additional proof that these early iron
swords are the reproductions, pure and simple, of those in bronze, and
fabricated from the metal then recently introduced into the West. How
far back in time the use of bronze swords in Gaul may have extended
it is difficult to say, but the varieties in their types testify to a
lengthened use before they began to be superseded by those of iron.
I must, however, now describe the sheaths by which these blades were
protected.
CHAPTER XIII.
SCABBARDS AND CHAPES.
ALTHOUGH the sheaths which protected the daggers and swords described
in the preceding chapters consisted probably for the most part of wood
or leather, yet in many instances some portion of the scabbard and its
fittings was made of bronze; and to the description of these objects
it seems desirable to devote a separate chapter. It is rarely that the
metallic portions of the sheaths have been found in company with the
blades; but in one instance at least a portion of a sword blade has
been discovered within a surrounding sheath of bronze; which, however,
does not extend the full length of the blade, the upper part of the
scabbard having probably been formed of wood. This discovery proves
that the short bronze sheaths, which are usually from 8 to 12 inches
long, belonged to swords, and not, as at first sight might be inferred
from their size, to daggers.
[Illustration: Fig. 364. Isleworth. ¼]
In France some much longer bronze sheaths have been found with
the swords still in them. The most noteworthy is that from the
neighbourhood of Uzés,[1136] Gard, now in the Musée d’Artillerie, at
Paris, which is decorated with transverse beaded lines alternating with
ornaments of concentric rings. This scabbard is longer by some inches
than the blade it contains. In fact, in no instance does the point
of the sword appear to have reached so far as the end of the sheath.
Another sheath found at Cormoz (Ain)[1137] is in the museum at Lyons.
In a few instances the wooden sheaths of bronze swords have been found
entire. The finest is that from the Kongshöi,[1138] Vamdrup, Ribe,
Denmark. It was found with a body in a tree-coffin of oak. This sheath
is about a fifth longer than the blade of the sword, and is carved on
both faces, though more highly decorated on what must have been the
outer face, than on the inner. There is no metal mounting at either
end. Another scabbard found in the Treenhöi[1139] is likewise of wood.
Its chape also is formed of some hard wood. It has been lined with
skin, the hair towards the blade of the sword. This sheath is about an
eighth longer than the blade of the sword.
No doubt many of the British sheaths were made of wood alone. Others,
though partly made of that material, were tipped with bronze, the metal
being secured to the wood, or the leather, if that material was used,
by a small rivet which passed diagonally through the metal. As Mr.
Franks[1140] has pointed out, the presence of this rivet-hole would
have been sufficient to show that these objects are not dagger sheaths,
as some have thought, for the rivet leaves too small a part of the
bronze receptacle available for a blade even as long as that of an
ordinary dagger. The discovery already mentioned places this question
beyond doubt.
The bronze sheaths of the iron swords and daggers of the Late Celtic
Period are of a different character from those I am about to describe,
and are made of sheet bronze, and not cast in a single piece.
In Fig. 364 is shown a portion of a sword blade, with the scabbard end
still in position, which was found in the Thames near Isleworth, and
is in the collection of Mr. T. Layton, F.S.A.[1141] This scabbard end
has a central rib and two other slight ribs along each margin in order
to give it strength, and, as will be seen from the figure, probably
extends at least 6 inches beyond the end of the sword, thus giving
an opportunity of securing the metal end to the wooden or leather
scabbard at a place where the blade would not interfere with the
passage of a pin or rivet.
A scabbard end of much the same form (13½ inches) is shown in
Fig. 365. It was found with fifteen others, some broken, near
Guilsfield,[1142] Montgomeryshire, together with looped palstaves,
spear-heads, &c. It has a small rivet-hole about half-way along it.
Another,[1143] somewhat straighter (12½ inches), found with a bronze
buckler in the River Isis near Dorchester, Oxon,[1144] is shown in
Fig. 366. It is now in the British Museum. There is a small rivet-hole
passing transversely through it. Several[1145] other sheath ends of
the same kind are preserved in the same collection. One, imperfect,
from the Thames at Teddington (10 inches), with ribs along the middle
and edges, has a hole for a diagonal rivet, and retains a fragment of
wood inside, as does also another from the Thames at London, which
has a very slightly projecting midrib. A third, of the same character
(10¾ inches), from the Thames at Chelsea, has a small end plate
secured by a central rivet. This has traces of either leather or wood
inside.[1146] In another, also from the Thames (7¾ inches), the end
plate has been cast with the sheath, and there is a wooden lining
secured by a diagonal rivet. The opening is nearly flat.
[Illustration: Fig. 365.—Guilsfield. ¼]
[Illustration: Fig. 366.—River Isis, near Dorchester. ¼]
[Illustration: Fig. 367.—Ireland. ½]
In some there is no rib down the middle, but merely a projecting
ridge, and in others no rivet-holes are visible.
This straight form of scabbard end has been very rarely found in
Ireland. The only specimen mentioned by Wilde is by permission here
reproduced as Fig. 367. Another (5½ inches) was in the collection of
Mr. Wakeman, of Enniskillen.
A scabbard end of much the same general character as that from
Guilsfield, but shorter and broader, is shown in Fig. 368. It was
found at Wick Park, Stogursey, Somerset,[1147] with palstaves,
socketed celts, gouges, spear-heads, and fragments of swords, together
with jets from castings and rough metal.
[Illustration: Fig. 368. Stogursey, Somerset. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 369. Brechin. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 370. Pant-y-maen. ½]
Scabbard ends occur also in Scotland, for one nearly similar to
these last (5¾ inches) was found with four leaf-shaped swords and
a large spear-head, all of bronze, at Cauldhame, near Brechin,
Forfarshire.[1148] They are now in the Antiquarian Museum at
Edinburgh. The scabbard is by permission of the Society of Antiquaries
of Scotland here shown as Fig. 369. Another scabbard tip in the same
museum is rather shorter. It was found at Gogar Burn, near Edinburgh,
together with a sword and a penannular brooch of bronze and a small
penannular ornament of gold. A Scotch specimen from the farm of
Ythsie, Tarves, Aberdeenshire, is in the British Museum. It is like
that from Brechin, and is 5½ inches long.
The straight form of scabbard end has been discovered, though
rarely, in Northern France. One from Caix, Somme, is engraved in the
Dictionnaire Archéologique de la Gaule. A fragment of another, more
like Fig. 365, has been found near Compiègne (Oise).
A still shorter form is shown in Fig. 370, the original of which was
found at Pant-y-maen, near Glancych, Cardiganshire,[1149] together
with broken swords, spear-heads, and ferrules, as well as some small
rings.
A still more simple form, and one more nearly approaching the modern
chape, has occasionally been found. That shown as Fig. 371 formed part
of the hoard found in Reach Fen, Cambridgeshire, which comprised also
some fragments of swords. It is of especial interest, as the small
bronze nail which served to fasten it to the wooden scabbard was found
with it. This nail is shown above the chape in the figure.
[Illustration: Fig. 371.—Reach Fen. 1/1]
Another chape of the same kind, but more like Fig. 372 in form, was
found at Haines Hill, near Hythe, Kent,[1150] with a perforated disc
of bronze, like Fig. 503, and some other objects.
Fig. 372, kindly lent by the Royal Irish Academy, shows a chape found
at Cloonmore, near Templemore, Co. Tipperary.[1151] This form seems to
be of very rare occurrence in Ireland.
It has, however, been found in Savoy,[1152] and in the Swiss
Lake-dwellings.
[Illustration: Fig. 372.—Cloonmore. 1/1]
[Illustration: Fig. 373.—Stoke Ferry. 1/1]
An English form, which is, I believe, as yet unique, is shown in Fig.
373. It was found, with several broken swords and spear-heads, at
Stoke Ferry, Norfolk. It is ornamented with a neat fluting, produced
apparently by means of punches. The rivet-holes are at the sides,
instead of being, as usual, on the face.
A curious socketed object in bronze, found near Piltown,[1153] in
the barony of Iverk, Co. Kilkenny, has been regarded as the haft of
a dagger. It is rectangular in section and expanding at the base
which is closed. But from its analogy with some of the scabbard
ends lately described it seems possible that it formed part of a
sheath. The objection to this view is that the breadth of the socket
is much greater than usual with these chapes. The zigzag and other
ornamentation upon it is described as having been engraved with a fine
point after the object was cast. The lower face is not ornamented.
The form is not unlike that of the end of the scabbard of some modern
African leaf-shaped swords of iron, as to which Mr. Syer Cuming[1154]
has remarked, that while the point of the blade is as sharp as a
needle, the base of its receptacle measures nearly 3 inches across. It
is possible that the object engraved as Fig. 286 may be intended for
the end of a scabbard, and not for that of a hilt, but this can only
be determined by future discoveries.
[Illustration: Fig. 374.—Keelogue Ford, Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 375.—Mildenhall. ½]
Another Irish form is shown in Fig. 374, the original of which was
found at Keelogue Ford, in the Shannon, and is in the Royal Irish
Academy. In this instance the chape has assumed a kind of boat-like
form with pointed ends. As Sir W. Wilde[1155] has observed, the
indentations at the top mark the overlapping of the wooden portion of
the scabbard, which was fastened to the bronze by two slender rivets,
so that the ends projected about an inch on each side.
Fig. 375 shows an English scabbard tip of the same class, though
differing in details, which was found in the neighbourhood of
Mildenhall, Suffolk, and is in the collection of Mr. Simeon Fenton,
of that town, to whom I am indebted for permission to engrave it. The
surface of this chape is beautifully finished, and the raised rib
round the semicircular notch is delicately engrailed or “milled.”
There is a single minute hole for a pin or rivet on one face only. As
will be seen, this English example closely resembles that from Ireland
shown in the previous figure.
Such projections as those on the chapes of this form would appear to
be inconvenient; but in another variety the projecting ends shoot
out into regular spikes, the ends of which are tipped by a small
button. In some cases the length from point to point is not less than
8 inches. There are several in the museum of the Royal Irish Academy.
Sir W. Wilde considered that the bronze sword was suspended high up
on the thigh and not allowed to trail on the ground, so that these
projections would be less in the way of the wearer than might at
first sight appear. The lengthening of these points may have been the
result of a kind of prehistoric dandyism, analogous to that which led
to the lengthening of the points of boots and shoes in England at the
beginning of the fifteenth century.[1156] Specimens of these still
exist in which the points extend 6 inches beyond the foot, and it has
been asserted that they had to be chained to the knees of the wearers
to give them a chance of walking with freedom.
[Illustration: Fig. 376.—Thames. ½]
Though chiefly found in Ireland, this elongated form of scabbard
has occasionally been discovered in England. Fig. 376 represents a
specimen from the Thames, now preserved in the British Museum.
Another example, but slightly more curved, was found with a bronze
sword at Ebberston, Yorkshire, and is in the Bateman Collection.[1157]
It has been figured. The rivets for attaching it to the wooden
scabbard are still in position.
This type of scabbard end has also been found in France. In the Museum
of Bourges is an example about 5½ inches long, much like Fig. 376, but
rather more V-shaped. Another, more like the figure, was found with a
bronze sword, near Marsanne[1158] (Drôme), and a third in the tumulus
of Barésia[1159] (Jura). Another was found at the end of an iron sword
in a tumulus at Mons[1160] (Auvergne).
It is to be observed that the ends of some of the knife sheaths of the
Early Iron Period[1161] expand in somewhat the same manner, so as to
assume an anchor-like appearance.
A bronze bouterolle or scabbard tip of a very peculiar type, the sides
being elongated and flattened out so as to form two sickle-shaped
wings curving upwards, was exhibited to the Society of Antiquaries in
1867[1162] as having been found in Britain. A figure of it was to have
appeared in the _Archæologia_, but has not yet been published. Perhaps
there was room to doubt its English origin. Certainly the description,
with the exception of the sickle-shaped wings curving upwards, agrees
with a form of which several examples have been found in Germany and
in France.[1163] Some of these are sharp at the end like a socketed
celt, with two expanding sickle-like wings, but their purpose as
chapes has not always been recognised. One from Hallstatt is described
by Von Sacken[1164] as a cutting tool to be attached to a thin shaft.
There are two in the Museum at Prague, found at Korno and Brasy.
One from Oberwald-behrungen is in the Museum at Würzburg. Another is
at Hanover.
[Illustration: Fig. 377.—Isle of Harty. 1/1]
The fact that traces of wooden sheaths to daggers have been found in
the Wiltshire and other barrows has already been mentioned, but no
bronze fittings have been found with them. There are, however, some
objects which may have served either as the mouth-pieces of sheaths
for daggers or small knives, or as ferrules for their hilts.
One of these from the Harty hoard is shown full size in Fig. 377.
Another of identically the same character, but rather shorter, was
found, with a bronze knife or dagger and numerous other articles, at
Marden,[1165] Kent. It was regarded by Mr. Beale Poste as the mounting
of the top of a dagger sheath formed of leather.
Another was found with various other relics near Abergele,[1166]
Denbighshire.
Some elongated loops formed of jet are of a shape that would have
served for the mouth-pieces of sword scabbards, but whether so fragile
a substance was used for such a purpose may well be questioned. They
may have been merely ornamental. One about 3 inches long, found in
Scotland,[1167] has been regarded as a clasp for a belt. Possibly
these objects in bronze may, after all, be of the nature of slides or
clasps.
Another loop, more rounded at the ends, found in the peat at
Newbury,[1168] Berks, has been described as a slider for securing
some portion of the dress, or for passing over a belt. Not improbably
this is their true interpretation. Some outer slides are described at
p. 404.
Some bronze objects of nearly similar form, but about 3 inches in
length, found with late Celtic remains, have been regarded as the
cross-guards[1169] of daggers or knives.
In my own collection is a fine bronze sword from Denmark with broad
side flanges to the hilt plate, on the blade of which is a bronze loop
about ¼ inch wide, rebated for the reception of wood, but without
any rivet-holes. Each face presents four parallel headings. For some
time, in common with some Danish antiquaries, I regarded this loop as
the mouth-piece of a scabbard, for which it appears well adapted; but
I now find that such a view is erroneous, and that this loop is the
ferrule for receiving the ends of the plates of wood or horn which
formed the hilt. For in the barrow of Lydshöi,[1170] near Blidstrup,
Frederiksborg, was a bronze sword with a similar ferrule upon it, and
the remains of the plates of horn beneath it still in position. One of
these Danish ferrules is of gold.[1171] A sheath[1172] from a barrow
at Hvidegaard, made of birch wood with an outer and inner casing of
leather, has a leather band for the mouth-piece, and a leather eye for
receiving the belt. Some small sheaths for bronze knives and for a
flint dagger found at the same time are simply of leather.
CHAPTER XIV.
SPEAR-HEADS, LANCE-HEADS, ETC.
THERE can be but little doubt that one of the weapons of offence in
earliest use among mankind must have been of the nature of a spear—a
straight stick or staff, probably pointed and to a certain extent
hardened in the fire. The idea of giving to such a staff a still harder
and sharper point by attaching to it a head of bone or of stone, such
as is still commonly in use among many savage tribes, would come next.
And, lastly, these heads or points would be formed of metal, when its
use for cutting tools and weapons had become general, and means had
been discovered for rendering it available for this particular purpose.
In the earlier part of the Bronze Age, when bronze was already in
use for knife-daggers and even for daggers, it would appear that the
spears and darts, if any such were in use, were in this country still
tipped with flint. How long this practice continued it is impossible
to say, and it is even doubtful whether any bronze spear-heads were in
use before the time when the founders had discovered the art of making
sockets by means of cores placed within the moulds. It is, however, not
impossible that some of the blades found in the Wiltshire barrows, and
the tanged weapons which have already been described in Chapter XI.,
may have been the heads of spears rather than the blades of daggers;
but even at the period to which they belong the art of making cores
must have been known, as the ferrule found at Arreton Down, and shown
in Fig. 324, will testify, as well as the hollow socket of Fig. 328.
In the South-east of Europe and in Western Asia, as in Cyprus and at
Hissarlik, tanged and not socketed spear-heads have been found in
considerable numbers; but such a form is of very rare occurrence in
Europe, and is unknown in Britain, unless possibly some of the blades
already described as knives or daggers, such as Fig. 277, were attached
to long rather than short handles, and should, therefore, have been
treated of in this chapter rather than in that in which I have placed
them. If spears were deposited in the graves with the dead, the shafts
must in all probability have been broken, for as a rule the graves for
bodies buried in the contracted position are not long enough to receive
a spear of ordinary length.
In the case of some few ancient socketed tools of bronze, the socket
has not been formed by casting over a core, but a wide plate of metal
has been hammered over a conical mandril so as to form a socket like
that of many chisels of the present day, and of the iron spear-heads
of earlier times. I am not aware of any bronze instruments with the
sockets formed in this manner ever having been found in this country.
In all cases the sockets have been produced by cores in the casting,
and in many spear-heads the adjustment of the core has been effected
with such nicety that a conical hollow extends almost to the tip,
with the metal around it of uniform substance, and often very thin in
proportion to the size of the weapon.
The heads of arrows, bolts, darts, javelins, lances, and spears so
nearly resemble one another in character, that it is impossible to draw
any absolute line of distinction between them. The larger varieties
must, however, have served for weapons retained in the hand as spears,
while those of small and moderate size may have been for weapons thrown
as lances, or possibly discharged as bolts or arrows. In length these
instruments vary from about 2 inches to as much as 36 inches.
Sir W. Wilde[1173] has divided the Irish spear-heads into four
varieties, as follows:—
1. The simple leaf-shaped, either long and narrow, or broad, with holes
in the socket through which to pass the rivets to fix them to the shaft.
2. The looped, with eyes on each side of the socket below and on the
same plane with the blade. These are generally of the long, narrow,
straight-edged kind.
3. Those with loops in the angles between the edge of the blade and the
socket.
4. Those with side apertures and perforations through the blade.
To these four classes may be added—
5. Those in which the base of each side of the blade projects at right
angles to the socket, or is prolonged downwards so as to form barbs.
[Illustration: Fig. 378.—Thames, London. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 379.—Lough Gur. ¼]
[Illustration: Fig. 380.—Lough Gur. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 381.—Heathery Burn Cave. ½]
A remarkably fine specimen of a broad leaf-shaped spear-head of the
first class is shown in Fig. 378. The original was found in the Thames
at London, and still contains a portion of the wooden shaft smoothly
and carefully pointed. The wood is, I think, ash; and my opinion
is supported by that of Mr. Thiselton Dyer, F.R.S., who has kindly
examined the shaft for me. There are no traces of the pin or rivet,
which in the spear-heads of this character appears to have been formed
of wood, horn, or bone, rather than of metal, probably with the view of
the head being more readily detached from the shaft, in case the latter
was broken. I have, however, a leaf-shaped bronze spear-head of this
class, found in the Seine at Paris, in which a metallic rivet is still
present. It is formed of a square rod of bronze, which at each end has
been hammered into a spheroidal button, of at least twice the diameter
of the hole through which the rivet passes. Portions of the wooden
shaft are still adhering to the rivet. The wood in this instance also
appears to be ash.
I have a rather narrower spear-head of the same type as Fig. 378
(10¾ inches), found with a bronze sword near Weymouth; and another
identical in type with that from the Thames, but only 9 inches long,
found in the county of Dublin.
Others of nearly the same form (12¾ inches and 8¾ inches) were found
with a bronze sword in an ancient entrenchment at Worth,[1174] in the
parish of Washfield, Devon.
Another spear-head of this type from the Thames[1175] (13½ inches) is
in the British Museum, as are others (13 inches and 10 inches long).
A remarkably fine bronze spear-head, found in Lough Gur, Co. Limerick,
with the lower part of the socket ornamented with gold, is of much
the same form as Fig. 378, and is shown on the scale of one-fourth
in Fig. 379. The ornamented part is shown on the scale of one-half
in Fig. 380. It is in the collection of General A. Pitt Rivers,
F.R.S., who has thus described the socket.[1176] Around it, “at top
and bottom, are two ferrules of very thin gold, each ⅜ inch in width.
Each ferrule is ornamented with three bands scored with from four to
seven transverse lines, and separated from each other by two bands
scored with incised longitudinal lines. The two ferrules are separated
by a band about 3/16 inch in width, in which longitudinal lines of
gold have been let into grooves in the bronze, leaving an intervening
line between each of the gold lines.” Most of these gold strips have,
however, now disappeared. The shaft of this spear is of bog oak 4 feet
8½ inches long, but though its authenticity has been accepted by many
good judges, I must confess that I do not regard it as the original.
Some other spear-heads ornamented with engraved lines, but not with
inlaid gold, will be mentioned further on. I may incidentally recall
the fact that the gold ring or ferrule around the spear-head of Hector
is more than once mentioned by Homer.[1177]
πάροιθε δὲ λάμπετο δουρὸς
Αἰχμὴ χαλκείν περὶ δὲ χρύσεος ϑέε πόρκης.
Another fine specimen of a spear-head with a long oval leaf-shaped
blade in Canon Greenwell’s Collection is shown in Fig. 381. It
was found with several others varying in length from 6⅝ inches to
11¼ inches, and numerous other articles of bronze and bone, in the
Heathery Burn Cave,[1178] Durham. As will be seen, the blade is
continued as a slight narrow projection along the socket as far as the
rivet-hole. The edges are somewhat fluted.
[Illustration: Fig. 382. Nettleham. ¼]
A spear-head of nearly the same form (10½ inches) was found in a peat
moss near the Camp Graves,[1179] Bewcastle, Cumberland. Another was
found in a hoard at Bilton, Yorkshire.[1180]
A very fine example (about 15 inches), as well as a smaller one of
the same type (about 8 inches), and one with lunate openings in the
blade (Fig. 418), were found with two swords (see Fig. 351) near
Whittingham,[1181] Northumberland.
I have others (9 inches to 11 inches) found with broken swords at
Stoke Ferry, Norfolk, and from the Reach Fen hoard. The same form
occurs in Ireland. I have a fine specimen (8⅝ inches) from Athlone.
Another (13¼ inches) is engraved by Wilde as his Fig. 362. A very
narrow spear-head, 14¾ inches long, and only 1⅜ inch wide, said to
have been found in a barrow near Headford, Co. Galway, is in the
British Museum.
A spear-head of this character from the Thames (16¾ inches), not
fluted at the edges and quite plain, is in the British Museum. The
blade is only 2¼ inches wide.
One from Stanwick, Yorkshire (8 inches), is in the British Museum, as
is one (11 inches) from Bannockburn, Scotland. An Irish specimen (10
inches) is devoid of rivet-holes.
Another spear-head of nearly the same type, but of smaller dimensions,
is given in Fig. 382. It was found, with some other spear-heads (Fig.
410), socketed celts (Figs. 155 and 157), palstaves (Fig 83), and
a ferrule, to be subsequently mentioned, at Nettleham,[1182] near
Lincoln, in 1860. They are now in the British Museum.
Others of the same type have been found at Winmarleigh[1183] and
Cuerdale,[1184] Lancashire, at Wardlow,[1185] Derbyshire, Little
Wenlock,[1186] Shropshire (8 inches), near Windsor[1187] (7 inches),
at Bottisham,[1188] Cambridge, and in Herts.[1189]
I have one from the River Lea[1190] at St. Margaret’s, Herts, and
others from Reach Fen, Cambridge.
[Illustration: Fig. 383. Achtertyre. ½]
Others were in the Guilsfield hoard,[1191] and in that of
Pant-y-maen,[1192] or the Glancych hoard. One from the latter hoard
is about 11 inches long. Another, more like Fig. 386, about 4 inches.
With them were found fragments of swords, a scabbard tip, some rings
and ferrules. Others (9 inches and 5 inches) were found, with a
socketed celt and knife, a tanged chisel, and other objects, at Ty
Mawr,[1193] on Holyhead Mountain.
Five were found in the hoard near Stanhope,[1194] Durham, with
socketed celts, a gouge, &c.
Of Scottish specimens the following may be noticed: one from
Lanark[1195] (5¾ inches), which has been figured; two (7¾ inches)
rather long in the socket, found with a bronze sword and a long
pin on the Point of Sleat,[1196] Isle of Skye; one (6 inches) from
Balmaclellan,[1197] New Galloway. One (5⅛ inches) from Duddingston
Loch, Edinburgh, is in the British Museum.
Leaf-shaped spear-heads such as Fig. 382 are of frequent occurrence in
various parts of France. A number were found at Alise Ste. Reine[1198]
(Côte d’Or), several of them ornamented with rings round the sockets.
They also are found in the Lake-dwellings of Switzerland[1199] and
Savoy. Many of them have parallel rings round the mouth of the
socket by way of ornament. They also occur in Germany[1200] and
Denmark.[1201] One from Northern Germany, still containing a part of
its wooden shaft, has been engraved by Von Estorff.[1202]
Those from Italy and Greece have very frequently facets running along
the midrib which contains the socket.
[Illustration: Fig. 384. North of Ireland. ½]
In Fig. 383 is shown a variety (11½ inches) with a projecting fillet
running down to the rivet-holes as in Fig. 381, which, however, in
this case forms the termination of small beads running along the sides
of the central rib. There is also a beading running along the midrib.
The original was found, with another spear-head, plain, a socketed
celt, some bronze rings, and fragments of tin, at Achtertyre,[1203]
Morayshire. Mr. R. Day, F.S.A., has a nearly similar spear-head (5
inches), found in Dublin.
A more elongated form, with the projecting part of the socket
considerably shorter, is shown in Fig. 384, from a specimen found
in the North of Ireland. A spear-head (20 inches) of the same form
of outline, but with a slight ridge running the whole length of the
socket from its mouth to the point, was found at Ditton,[1204] Surrey.
It is now in the British Museum, having been presented by the Earl of
Lovelace.
Another (14⅝ inches) in the same collection, found in the River
Thames,[1205] near the mouth of the Wandle, retains a portion of the
original wood in its socket. It was found in company with a bronze
sword, a palstave, and a long pin (Fig. 454).
One of much the same form as the figure (11 inches) was found at
Teigngrace,[1206] Devon. It has a delicate bead running down each side
of the midrib, and continued as a square projection below the blade.
Canon Greenwell has a long spear-head (14½ inches) from Quy Fen, with
grooves running up the blade at the side of the socket. The ends of
the blade are truncated so as to leave projections on the sides of the
socket above the rivet-hole. These are slightly ornamented.
I have seen another spear-head (11½ inches) with the base of the blade
slightly truncated in a similar manner. It was found near Eastbourne.
This elongated form is of common occurrence in Denmark and Northern
Germany,[1207] the necks being usually ornamented by delicate
punch-marking or possibly engraving.
A broader variety, with the socket considerably enlarged in the part
extending below the blade, is shown in Fig. 385. The original was
found in company with other spear-heads like Fig. 382 from 5⅝ inches
to 10⅝ inches long, two socketed celts with three vertical lines on
the face like Fig. 125, and two somewhat conical plates with central
holes, near Newark, and is in the collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S.
A spear-head (6½ inches) not quite so broad in its proportions, said
to have been found in a tumulus, near Lewes,[1208] Sussex, is in
the British Museum, as is another (6½ inches) found near Bakewell,
Derbyshire.
A spear-head of the same general outline as Fig. 385, but with the
sides of the socket straighter, was found with others, as well as with
16 socketed celts, a knife, fragments of swords and of a quadrangular
tube (qy. a scabbard?) and a long ferrule, near Nottingham.[1209]
[Illustration: Fig. 385.—Newark. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 386.—Reach Fen. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 387.—Ireland. ½]
It is often the case that the sides of the upper part of the blade are
nearly straight, and the socket itself appears large in proportion to
the width of the blade. Such a spear- or lance-head from the Reach
Fen hoard is shown in Fig. 386. I have several others from the Fen
districts, as well as one of a shorter and broader form (5 inches)
with a large socket extending only an inch below the blade, found at
Walthamstow, Essex.
A spear-head from Unter-Uhldingen[1210] exhibits the same narrowness
of blade in proportion to the size of the socket.
In some cases the blade and socket are of nearly equal length.
Fig. 387 is here by permission reproduced from Wilde’s Catalogue, Fig.
367. It is only 3½ inches long, and may have been the head of a dart
or javelin rather than of a spear. I have an example of nearly the
same form and size from Co. Dublin. One in the British Museum is only
2 inches long, though the mouth of the socket is ¾ inch in diameter.
Some of these very small weapons may possibly have served to point
arrows. In the Norwich Museum is a head like Fig. 387, but with the
blade shorter in proportion and narrower, the total length of which is
only 1-11/16 inch. The blade is ½ inch wide, and the socket is only ⅜
inch in external diameter. A bronze arrow-head is said to have been
found in the Isle of Portland,[1211] but particulars are not given.
Another small point, in form rather like Fig. 386, and only 3⅛ inches
long, was found at Llan-y-mynech Hill,[1212] Montgomeryshire. Another,
3½ inches, was found near Pyecombe,[1213] Sussex.
One 4 inches long is said to have been found in Yorkshire.[1214]
Some double-pointed arrow-heads of bronze are mentioned as having been
found in Ireland,[1215] but in point of fact these were “razors” like
Fig. 274.
In this country,[1216] however, and not improbably in others, during
the period when bronze was in use for cutting tools and the larger
weapons, flint still served as the material from which arrow-heads
were usually made. Such a method of taking the census as that devised
by the Scythian king Ariantas would in Britain have produced but small
results; at all events, but few of the inhabitants would have been
able each to contribute his bronze arrow-head. Many of the bronze
arrow-heads found on the Continent appear to belong to the Early Iron
Age, but it is mainly in southern countries that they have been found.
In Egypt[1217] and Arabia they have occurred of the leaf-shaped as well
as of the three-edged form, which latter is common in Greece.
Some spear-heads appear to have had the form of their point somewhat
modified by grinding, as if from time to time they became blunted by
use and required to be re-sharpened. A kind of ogival outline such as
is shown in Fig. 388 appears, however, to have been intentional. The
original was found in the North of Ireland.
This ogival outline is of frequent occurrence among the bronze
spear-heads from Hungary.
The lance-head shown in Fig. 389, also from Wilde (Fig. 368), has
the blade of a trapezoid rather than of a leaf-shaped form, and in
general character more nearly approaches the looped variety, Fig. 397,
than those now under consideration. The socket also appears to be
quadrangular rather than round.
It will now be well to speak of some of the spear-heads of this class
which have either their sockets or their blades ornamented by engraving
or punching.
In Fig. 390 is shown a spear-head from the Reach Fen hoard, the
nature of the ornamentation on which will be seen from the cut. The
five bands, each of four parallel lines around the socket, have the
appearance of being engraved; but I think that this is not actually
the case, but that the lines have been punched in with a chisel-like
punch. The short transverse dotted lines have probably been made with
a serrated punch.
[Illustration: Fig. 388. North of Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 389. Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 390. Reach Fen. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 391. Thorndon. ½]
Another spear-head, with ornamentation of a nearly similar
character, is shown in Fig. 391. This example was found at Thorndon,
Suffolk,[1218] in company with a hammer (Fig. 210), a knife (Fig.
240), a gouge (Fig. 204), and an awl (Fig. 224), the whole of which
are now in the British Museum. Another in the same collection from
Thames Ditton (6⅛ inches) has three sets of three rings each, with
short vertical lines above the upper ring.
A small lance-head of this type (4½ inches), found at Ingham, Norfolk,
with socketed celts, has one band of four parallel lines round the
socket. It is now in the Mayer Collection at Liverpool. Another from
the Broadward hoard (Shropshire)[1219] has two bands of four, and one
of two rings, the latter close to the mouth of the socket. A second
in the same hoard shows eight rings near the mouth of the socket, and
a line running down each side of the midrib prolonged below the blade
as far as the rivet-hole which it encloses. A spear-head from the
hoard found at Beddington, near Croydon,[1220] is ornamented in nearly
the same manner. It was found with a gouge, socketed celts, a portion
of celt mould, &c. That from Culham, near Abingdon, shown in Fig. 392,
has three sets of four rings and one of two, as well as some vertical
dotted lines above the upper ring. In this case the bands seem to have
been punched in with a serrated punch which produced four short lines
at each stroke, and by skilful manipulation these short lines were
made to join so as to form a continuous ring.
I have a spear-head from Lakenheath, Suffolk (5⅞ inches), with a small
raised band cast on the socket just below the rivet-hole.
[Illustration: Fig. 392. Culham. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 393. Athenry.]
A spear-head (6½ inches) in the Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh, found
near Forfar, is ornamented with two bands of three parallel lines
round the socket.
The sockets of some Irish spear-heads are highly decorated. That of
a long leaf-shaped specimen from Athenry, Co. Galway, is shown in
Fig. 393, kindly lent me by the Royal Irish Academy. It is Fig. 382
in Wilde’s Catalogue, in which also some other examples are engraved.
The chevron ornament and the alternate direction of the hatching are
highly characteristic of the style of the Bronze Period.
A similar decoration is found on English specimens. One found at
Bilton, Yorkshire,[1221] with other spear-heads, fragments of swords,
and socketed celts, has round the socket three bands of triangles
alternately hatched and plain, and the blade is ornamented with a
single row of the same kind on each side of the central rib. One from
Edington Burtle, Somerset (4½ inches), in the Taunton Museum, has a
band of hatched triangles above three bands of parallel lines with
transverse lines between.
A broken spear-head from the Broadward[1222] find has the blade
ornamented in the same way. A row of plain triangles is left on each
side of the midrib, while the rest of the blade is hatched, the set
of parallel lines in each point between the plain triangles being
alternately to the right and to the left.
A fragment of a blade from the Haynes Hill hoard,[1223] Kent, has ring
ornaments engraved along each side of the midrib.
As has already been observed, the edges of this class of spear-heads
are not unfrequently fluted, but it occasionally happens that the
whole blade is ornamented by minute ribs and flutings. The spear-head
(10½ inches) found with two swords and two ferrules at Fulbourn,
Cambridge,[1224] affords an example of this kind. On each side of the
central rib containing the socket are two sharp ridges one below the
other, next comes a hollow fluting, then a ridge, and then the fluting
which forms the edge. To judge from the engraving, another found at
Gringley, Nottinghamshire,[1225] must also have been fluted in a
somewhat similar manner.
[Illustration: Fig. 394.—Thetford. ½]
The discovery of other leaf-shaped spear-heads with rivet-holes
through the sockets is recorded to have been made at the following
places, and many others might no doubt be added to the list: the
Thames, near Battersea[1226] (16¾ inches); near Wallingford[1227] (7¼
inches); and Kingston[1228] (6½ and 7-6/10 inches); two (7¾ inches
and 6 inches) were found near Toddington, Beds;[1229] at Beacon Hill,
Charnwood Forest, Leicestershire,[1230] two (7½ inches and 6½ inches)
were found with a socketed celt and gouge. Others were discovered near
Yarlet, Staffordshire;[1231] near Alnwick Castle[1232] (sixteen with
celts and swords); Vronheulog, Merionethshire;[1233] and Longy Common,
Alderney[1234] (one with blade ornamented).
The spear-heads of the second of the classes into which they are here
divided are those with loops at the side of the projecting socket.
These loops are usually more elongated than those on socketed celts
and palstaves, though they probably served a similar purpose, that of
securing the metallic head to the wooden handle. The metal of which
the loops are formed has frequently been flattened by hammering, so as
to reduce the projection of the loops beyond the socket; the flattened
part is often wrought into a lozenge form.
The strings which passed through these loops were probably secured to
some stop or collar on the shaft, and may have been arranged in some
chevron-like pattern with which these lozenges coincided. There are
usually no rivet-holes in the spear-heads of this class.
A specimen exhibiting these lozenges, and with the blade of nearly
the same form as those of the spear-heads of the first class, is
shown in Fig. 394. The upper part of the midrib containing the socket
is ridged, so that the section near the point is almost square. The
socket is slightly fluted round the mouth. The original was found at
Thetford, Suffolk.
A spear-head of the same type, but with only a single large
loop, found in Glen Kenns, Galloway, is engraved in the
_Archæologia_,[1235] but it seems probable that the figure is somewhat
inaccurate.
Another (5½ inches) with two loops was found at Hangleton Down,
Sussex.[1236] Another (5¼ inches), rather more elongated than Fig.
394, was found at Trefeglwys, Montgomeryshire.[1237] Another from
Shirewood Forest is engraved in the Archæologia.[1238] It has a
slightly ogival outline on each side, a peculiarity I have noticed in
other specimens. An example given in the same plate seems to have lost
the flat part of the blade.
I have one (6¼ inches) from Fyfield, near Abingdon.
Mr. M. Fisher has a specimen from the Fens at Ely (5⅜ inches), with
the midrib ridged like Fig. 396.
One from Hagbourn Hill, near Chiltern, Berks,[1239] is reported to
have been found with a socketed celt, a pin like Fig. 458, and another
like Fig. 453, together with a bronze bridle-bit, and some portions
of buckles like those of the late Celtic Period. These are now in the
British Museum. A few coins of gold and silver are said to have been
found at the same time.
One (6 inches) was found at Chartham, near Canterbury.[1240]
One, 5 inches long, from the Thames, is in the British Museum. It has
a small ridge or bead along the mid-feather. The loops have a diamond
engraved or punched upon them.
In one from Beckhampton, Wilts[1241] (4¾ inches), the side loops do
not appear to be flattened.
The form is of not unfrequent occurrence in Ireland, though perhaps
that with the raised ribs on the blade, like Fig. 397, is more common.
In one instance (13½ inches)[1242] the loops upon the socket are not
opposite each other, though, as usual, in the same plane as the blade.
A small specimen (5¼ inches) from Fairholme, Lockerbie, Dumfriesshire,
is in the British Museum.
A small example of this type (about 3½ inches) is in the collection
formed by Sir R. Colt Hoare at Stourhead, and now at Devizes, and in
the same case with the dagger blades. It has been figured by the late
Dr. Thurnam[1243] in his valuable memoir in the _Archæologia_, and is
thought by him to have been found in a grave with burnt bones in one
of the Wilsford barrows near Stonehenge.
There is a diminutive variety of this class of weapon with two loops,
in which the blade is extremely narrow, like that from Lakenheath
shown in Fig. 395. I have another, 4⅞ inches, with even a smaller and
shorter blade, from Cumberland.
Canon Greenwell has one only 3 inches long, found near Nottingham. It
has three parallel grooves round the socket mouth. One, 4¼ inches,
from Ashdown, Berks, is in the British Museum.
A fragment of another of very small dimensions was found at Farley
Heath, Surrey, and is now in the British Museum.
A lance-head with a more leaf-shaped blade (6¼ inches) is said to have
been found in a tumulus at Craigton, near Kinross.[1244]
An Irish example, 2⅜ inches long, and comparatively broad in
proportion to its length, has been regarded as an arrow-head. It was
found at Clonmel, Co. Tipperary.[1245] It has probably been broken and
repointed. An example much like Fig. 395 is engraved by Wilde as his
Fig. 379.
In some cases there is a ridge running along the whole or a great
part of the midrib on the blade so as to make the section near the
point almost cruciform. An example of this kind from the neighbourhood
of Cambridge is shown in Fig. 396. In this case the side loops are
unusually near the mouth of the socket, the cavity of which extends
about half-way along the blade. Canon Greenwell has an example of this
type (6½ inches), from Langton, Lincolnshire, with a longer socket,
and the loops about half-way along it.
[Illustration: Fig. 395. Lakenheath. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 396. Near Cambridge. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 397. North of Ireland. ½]
This ribbing along the midrib is of frequent occurrence on Irish
spear-heads, and was probably intended to strengthen as well as to
decorate the blade. The projecting ribs on the flat part of the blade
were also probably added for the same purpose. Fig. 397 shows a
spear-head with these ridges, found in the North of Ireland.
[Illustration: Fig. 398.—Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 399.—Thames. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 400.—Ireland. ½]
The blade is carried down as a slight projection along the socket
until it meets the side loops, the outer faces of which are expanded
into lozenges.
I have a shorter example (5½ inches) from Old Kilpatrick,
Dumbartonshire, Scotland; one from Termon, Co. Tyrone, is engraved in
the _Archæological Journal_.[1246]
In some the blade is proportionally wider and shorter. I have one from
near Enniskillen (7¼ inches), in which the blade between the socket
and the ribs is so thin that two long holes have been eaten or worn
through it, giving it the appearance of belonging to the perforated
class to be subsequently described.
An Irish specimen much like Fig. 397 is engraved in “Horæ
Ferales.”[1247]
A small broad-bladed form is of very common occurrence in Ireland. An
example is given in Fig. 398. Another is engraved by Wilde (Fig. 369).
Some have two diagonal ribs on each side of the blade instead of only
one. A rather more pointed form is given by Vallancey.[1248] There are
others figured in the “Horæ Ferales.”[1249]
This type is of rare occurrence in England, but one (4½ inches?)
much like Fig. 398 was ploughed up at Heage,[1250] in the parish
of Duffield, Derbyshire, and another (4⅝ inches) was found near
Lincoln.[1251]
A gracefully shaped spear-head, with parallel beadings upon the blade,
and having very flat loops with pointed oval faces on the socket, was
found in the Thames, and formed part of the Roach Smith Collection,
now in the British Museum. It is shown in Fig. 399, and appears to be
unique of its kind. A plain spear-head (7 inches) of much the same
form, and another of the same length, but wider and flatter, were
found at Edington Burtle, Somerset, and are now in the Museum at
Taunton.
[Illustration: Fig. 401.—Near Ballymena. ½]
A very remarkable specimen in the Royal Irish Academy is engraved as
Fig. 400. It has already been figured on a small scale by Wilde, who
thus describes it:[1252] “A long narrow spear with concave or recurved
sides, and long lozenge-shaped loops on each side of the socket, where
the circular form of that portion of the weapon becomes angular.
Narrow lateral ridges connect these loops with the base of the blade,
which has hollow bevelled edges, and is as sharp as the day it came
from the mould. The socket margin is decorated with a fillet of five
elevations, and a double linear engraved or punched ornament forming
a triangular pattern like that seen in some antique gold ornaments.
A sharp ridge extends along the middle of the socket from the loops
to the point, on each side of which, as well as in the angles between
the blade and the socket, there are lines of small oval punched
indentations apparently effected by the hand.”
In one of the looped forms both the blade and the socket are often
highly ornamented. The socket part is made to appear somewhat like a
haft to the blade, as in the Arreton Down specimen (Fig. 328), and
the blade itself has ridges running nearly parallel to the edges,
the midrib being almost square in section. An example of this kind
from Ballymena is, by the kindness of Mr. R. Day, F.S.A., shown in
Fig. 401. As will be seen, the socket, blade, and external faces of
the loops are all ornamented with engraved and punctured lines. A
beautiful example from Ireland (6½ inches), the socket engraved with
a double ring of chevrons near the middle, and a single ring near the
base, and also ornamented with dotted circles and lines extending down
the blade, is in the British Museum. It has two knobs on each side of
the socket simulating rivets.
Other varieties with the midrib more rounded are given by Wilde,[1253]
and two of his figures are, by the kindness of the Council of the
Royal Irish Academy, here reproduced as Figs. 402 and 403.[1254] The
original of Fig. 402 is 5 inches long. It has “a central circular stud
opposite the base of the blade, beneath which there are a series of
minute continuous lines margined on both sides by a row of elevated
dots.” The socket and the outer surface of the loops are also highly
decorated.
Fig. 403 is 7½ inches long, and is also artistically ornamented.
[Illustration: Fig. 402.—Ireland. ⅔]
[Illustration: Fig. 403.—Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 404.—Ireland.]
An example of this kind is given in “Horæ Ferales.”[1255]
One (5¼ inches) from the Dean Water, Forfarshire, is in the
Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh. The blade is ornamented by incised
lines and punctulations.
Fig. 404, also kindly lent by the Royal Irish Academy (Wilde, Fig.
378), shows a smaller and a plainer type.
An unornamented lance-head of this type (5 inches) was found at
Peel,[1256] in the Isle of Man. Another, 5⅝ inches, with three
bands of parallel lines round the socket, was obtained at Douglas,
Lanarkshire.[1257]
The spear-heads of this class with loops at the side of the sockets
are almost unknown out of the British Islands. In my own collection,
however, is one from the Seine at Paris (6¼ inches), almost identical
in form with Fig. 394, but with the lozenge-shaped plates forming the
loops somewhat wider.
[Illustration: Fig. 405.—Elford. ½]
A highly ornamented spear-head from Hungary,[1258] preserved in the
Museum at Buda-Pest, has small semicircular loops at the sides of the
socket.
The third class of spear-heads consists of those with loops at the base
of the blade connecting it with the socket. There are many varieties
of this class, which includes some of the most elegant forms of these
ancient weapons. The reason for adopting this particular kind of loop
appears to be that they were, when thus attached to the blade, less
liable to be broken off or damaged than when they formed isolated
projections from the socket. The spear-heads were also more readily
polished and furbished when the socket was left as a plain tube.
The loops are very frequently formed by the continuation of two ribs
along the margin of the blade, which are curved inwards from the base
of the blade until they join the socket.
A good example of this formation of the loop is shown in Fig. 405. The
original was found at Elford, Northumberland, and is in the collection
of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S.
Another of nearly the same form, but without the ribs on the blade,
was found near Lowthorpe, Yorkshire, E.R., and is in the possession of
Mr. T. Boynton, of Ulrome Grange.
The very graceful spear-head shown in Fig. 406 was found at Isleham
Fen, Cambridge, in 1863, and is a remarkably fine casting, the cavity
for the reception of the shaft being no less than 12¼ inches in
length, and perfectly central in the blade.
[Illustration: Fig. 406.—Isleham Fen. ½]
I have another spear-head of the same type (18 inches), probably from
the Thames, almost as well cast, but rather heavier in proportion to
its size. There are traces of wood in the socket, as is also the case
in another of the same form (14½ inches) dredged from the Thames at
Battersea,[1259] and now in the Bateman Collection. The wood has been
thought to be ash. Another similar, but originally about 20 inches
long, was found in the Thames near Runnymede;[1260] and another in
the collection of General A. Pitt Rivers, F.R.S., 17 inches long, was
found at Hampton Court.
Another (13¾ inches) from the Thames at Thames Ditton is in the
British Museum.
One (15¼ inches) from Bottisham Lode, Cambridge, is in the British
Museum; as is another (14¼ inches) from the New River Works,
Pentonville. I have seen others from Coveney Fen (16¾ inches, Mr.
Fisher), and from Woolpit, near Bury St. Edmunds (8⅞ inches). The
blade of one (11⅜ inches) without the socket was found at Stanwick,
Yorkshire, and is now in the British Museum.
One (13½ inches) was found with three rapier-shaped blades near
Maentwrog, Merionethshire, and is in the same collection.[1261]
Another, broken, in the Museum at Taunton, is said to have been found
in the Roman villa at Wadsford, Combe St. Nicholas, near Chard. Its
original length must have been about 18 inches.
In the specimen from Stibbard, Norfolk,[1262] shown in Fig. 407, the
ribs upon the blade are less distinct, and the loops are widened out
so as to show a lozenge form when the edge of the blade is seen. This
spear-head was found with nine others and about seventy palstaves
about 1806, and is in the state in which it left the mould, having
never been finished by hammering and grinding, though the core has
been extracted. I have seen a specimen in the collection of Mr. J.
Holmes, found at Morley, near Leeds, in which the hammering process
had been applied to a part only of the blade, which had evidently
broken in the operation. The partly finished base and the unfinished
point were found together.
An Irish example of this form has been engraved by Vallancey.[1263]
This type is rare in France, but a specimen is in the Museum at
Carcassonne (Aude), and another in that at St. Germain.
In some spear-heads of nearly the same form there is a raised bead
running down the midrib as in Fig. 408. This beautifully finished
weapon was bought in Dublin, but I cannot say in what part of Ireland
it was found.
A smaller and broader specimen (7 inches) in my collection was found
at Clough, near Antrim.
I have another (10¾ inches) from the north of Ireland in which the
midrib half-way along the blade expands to form an edge almost as
sharp as that at the sides. Near the point the section is cruciform,
as in Fig. 396.
[Illustration: Fig. 407.—Stibbard. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 408.—Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 409.—Lakenheath Fen. ¼]
A spear-head found near Hay, on the river Wye, and now in the Museum
of the Society of Antiquaries of London, presents the same peculiarity
as Fig. 408.
Some ancient bronze spear-heads from China[1264] are provided with
central ridges of the same kind on the blades. They have but one loop,
and that is on the face, and there is a deep notch at the mouth of the
socket.
[Illustration: Fig. 410. Nettleham. ½]
The long blades are often more leaf-shaped and less truncated at the
base than that shown in Fig. 406. A very large specimen of this kind
from Lakenheath Fen is shown on the scale of ¼ inch in Fig. 409. The
point is unfortunately lost, but is restored in the engraving. The
midrib containing the socket is ridged, and the outer faces of the
loops expand into the diamond form.
One of nearly the same character (22¼ inches), found in the Thames
at Datchet, forms part of the Roach Smith Collection,[1265] now in
the British Museum. Another (11½ inches) was found with palstaves at
Sherford,[1266] near Taunton.
A specimen in the British Museum (15¾ inches) has an ornament of
hatched chevrons round the base of the socket, and the lozenge-shaped
flanges are also ornamented with hatched open mascles.
A spear-head of the same form (15½ inches) from Ireland[1267] has the
ridge decorated with lines of dots, and the socket with bands and a
chevron pattern. A plain specimen, no less than 26¾ inches long, found
at Maghera, Co. Londonderry,[1268] has been figured by Wilde.
In others the midrib is conical, and the blade nearly flat, or with
only a shallow channel along the sides of the midrib. One such from
the find at Nettleham, Lincolnshire,[1269] now in the British Museum,
is, by the kindness of Mr. Franks, shown in Fig. 410. I have one
nearly similar (9½ inches) from Edmonton Marsh. One (7½ inches) from
the Thames at Lambeth is in the British Museum, as are others from the
same river varying in length from 9 to 15¾ inches.
One from Speen, Berks[1270] (7 inches), is of the same character,
as is one (8¼ inches) from Crawford, Lanarkshire.[1271] Another (9
inches) from Horsey, near Peterborough, Hunts, has been engraved
by Artis.[1272] Another (10½ inches) from the Severn at Kempsey,
Worcestershire,[1273] appears to have been of this type. I have seen
others from the Cambridge Fens. One (5½ inches) from Edington Burtle,
Somerset, is in the Taunton Museum.
[Illustration: Fig. 411.—Knockans. ½]
A spear-head of this character (10½ inches), with the faces of the
loops lozenge-shaped, was found with two looped palstaves and a
chisel (Fig. 197) at Broxton, about twelve miles south of Chester. It
is now in the collection of Sir P. de M. G. Egerton, Bart., who has
kindly shown it to me.
Spear-heads of this character are occasionally found in Scotland. Two
from Wigtonshire[1274] have been figured.
The form is common in Ireland. I have one 12 inches long from one of
the northern counties.
A spear-head (6½ inches) with small projecting loops at each side of
the blade was found near Hawick, Roxburghshire.[1275]
In Fig. 411 is shown a remarkably fine spear-head in the collection
of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., which exhibits the peculiarity of having
the loops formed by the prolongation of small ribs on each side of the
midrib, and of having, in addition, a rivet-hole through the socket.
It was found at Knockans, Co. Antrim.
An Irish spear-head (14¾ inches) with loops at the lower end of the
blade, and the socket pierced for a rivet, was exhibited to the
Archæological Institute in 1856.[1276]
The fourth class of spear-heads, those with openings in the blade, may
again be subdivided into those in which the openings appear to have
served as loops for attaching the blade to the shaft, and those in
which these apertures seem to have been mainly intended for ornament,
or possibly for diminishing weight.
Of the former kind appear to be those which have merely two small slits
in the lower part of the blade, such as would seem adapted for the
insertion of a cord. These holes are usually protected by projections
rising from the blade on the outer side of the holes.
[Illustration: Fig. 412.—Lurgan. ¼]
[Illustration: Fig. 413.—Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 414.—Antrim. ½]
A fine spear-head in my own collection thus perforated, found near
Lurgan, Co. Armagh,[1277] is shown in Fig. 412. It is 24 inches in
length, and 3¼ inches in extreme breadth.
The openings are about 17 inches from the point. An Irish friend has
suggested that they were for the reception of poison, but after the
blade had penetrated seventeen inches into the human body such an use
of poison would probably be superfluous.
A spear-head of the same form (19⅛ inches) was found on the hill
of Rosele, Duffus, Morayshire,[1278] and is now in the Elgin
Museum. Another, broken, but still 10⅝ inches long, was found with
a rapier-shaped blade at Corbridge, Northumberland.[1279] A broken
specimen was found in the Isle of Portland.[1280]
A spear-head (10 inches) with small openings in the blade was found,
with palstaves, socketed celts, rapiers, bracelets, and a ferrule, at
Wallington, Northumberland, and is in the possession of Sir Charles
Trevelyan.
[Illustration: Fig. 415.—Thames. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 416.—Naworth Castle. ½]
An “eyed” spear-head 22 inches long was found in the Thames near
Datchet,[1281] but whether it was of this or some other type I cannot
say. One (9 inches) with two holes at the base of the leaf above the
ferrule was found near Speen, Berks.[1282]
A broader form (13½ inches) from Ireland is engraved by Wilde (Fig.
365), and another broader still is shown in my Fig. 413. This has a
rivet-hole on the front of the socket, as well as the holes in the
blade. This is also in the Dublin Museum.
In some instances the blade is very much shorter in proportion to
the length of the socket, as will be seen in Fig. 414, the original
of which was found in the county of Antrim, and is now in Canon
Greenwell’s collection.
A remarkably fine English example of the same class is shown in Fig.
415. This specimen was found in the Thames, and is now in the British
Museum. The small projecting flanges at the side of the holes in the
blade are very strongly marked, and form circular discs when seen with
the edge of the spear-head towards the spectator.
The simplest of the forms, in which the holes in the blade appear
to be for ornament rather than use, is that in which there are two
circular or oval holes through the blade, one on either side of
the midrib containing the socket. The spear-head shown in Fig. 416
was found near Naworth Castle, Cumberland, in 1870, and is in the
collection of Canon Greenwell. In general form it resembles the type,
Fig. 381. It is provided with a rivet-hole through the socket.
[Illustration: Fig. 417.—Blakehope. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 418.—Whittingham. ¼]
Some Italian spear-heads have two circular holes in the blade, but
nearer the base.
In the spear-head shown in Fig. 417 there is no trace of a rivet-hole
in the socket, the end of which, however, is broken, and the two
oval orifices in the blade are placed one somewhat below the other.
This specimen is in Canon Greenwell’s collection, and was found at
Blakehope, Northumberland.
[Illustration: Fig. 419.—Winmarleigh. ¼]
The more truly characteristic spear-heads of this class have two
crescent-shaped or lunate openings, one on each side of the midrib
containing the socket, which thus is made, as it were, to reappear
in the middle of the blade. There is usually a rivet-hole in the
projecting part of the socket below the blade, so that these openings
must be regarded as ornamental, or else as intended to diminish the
weight of the weapon.
The original of Fig. 418 was found about 1847, near Whittingham,
Northumberland,[1283] in company with some other spear-heads and two
swords, and is now in the possession of Lord Ravensworth. The surface
of the blade is ornamented by being worked into steps or terraces, and
the socket by bands of parallel lines.
A rather longer specimen was found, together with a plain leaf-shaped
spear-head and five socketed celts, at Winmarleigh, near Garstang,
Lancashire.[1284] By the kindness of the curators of the Warrington
Museum I am enabled to give it as Fig. 419. It is 19½ inches long.
There are small ridges by the side of the midrib and round the margin
of the openings.
Another like it, but only 15¼ inches long, was found with a socketed
celt near Middleham, Yorkshire.
Some fragments of spear-heads of this character were found with other
bronze antiquities in Duddingston Loch, Edinburgh.[1285]
The same form has occurred in Ireland.[1286] A fine example (14
inches) from a hoard at Dowris, King’s County,[1287] is in the British
Museum.
A spear-head of this type, about 8 inches long, is in the Boucher de
Perthes Collection at Abbeville.
A spear-head smaller than Fig. 419, but of the same general character,
is shown in Fig. 420. It was found in Burwell Fen, Cambridge, about
1869. There is a double bead along each side of the midrib, and the
blade is in two steps or terraces. Around the crescent-shaped opening
the beading is grained or milled transversely. A projection is carried
down along the socket from the blade, so as to allow the rivet-hole to
be made in it. The socket extends to within 1½ inches of the point.
[Illustration: Fig. 420.—Burwell Fen. ½]
A spear-head of nearly the same size, with the openings somewhat
smaller, but ornamented in a similar manner, was found with
celts, palstaves, gouges, swords, scabbards, &c., at Guilsfield,
Montgomeryshire,[1288] in 1862. Another, broken, was found at the same
time. Another was in the hoard at Little Wenlock, Shropshire,[1289]
but does not appear to have been ornamented. There was a fragment of
another, plain, in the Broadward[1290] find.
In the Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh are some spear-heads of this
character, with the openings on the blade rather longer in proportion.
One was found in the bottom of a cairn at Highfield, Urray, near
Dingwall, Ross-shire.[1291] Others were found in Roxburghshire and
Stirlingshire.
Some of the spear-heads of this type which have been found in Ireland
are highly ornamented. A very fine specimen given by Wilde (Fig. 374)
has several mouldings with a kind of cable pattern upon them. Others
have circular perforations in addition to the lunate openings; and in
one instance the socket is decorated with bands and vertical lines
(Wilde, Fig. 372).
A small lance-head from Jelabugy, Russia,[1292] with comparatively
large crescent-shaped openings in the blade, has been figured by
Worsaae.
The cut for Fig. 421 is kindly lent me by the Society of Antiquaries
of Scotland. The original, 19 inches long, was found with a
bronze sword at Denhead, Cupar-Angus, Forfarshire,[1293] and has
unfortunately been somewhat broken.
[Illustration: Fig. 421.—Denhead. ¼]
[Illustration: Fig. 422.—Speen. ½]
As will be seen, there are ten circular holes, besides two long
crescents. The socket is said by Professor Daniel Wilson to contain
a thin rod or core of iron, which was inserted in the mould to
strengthen this unusually large weapon; but what seemed to Dr. Wilson
to be an iron rod is really a piece of wood that has been recently
inserted when the spear-head was mended.
In the last class into which these weapons are here divided, are placed
those which are barbed at the base of the blade, or in very rare
instances are square at that part.
A good typical example (10-7/12 inches) is shown in Fig. 422, from an
original found at Speen, Berks.[1294] It is very heavy, weighing 11¾
ozs. troy, or more than ¾ lb. avoirdupois. Another of the same size,
but lighter (8 ozs.), was found in the Severn, near Worcester.[1295]
Another (10¾ inches), found in the Plaistow Marshes, Essex, and now in
the British Museum, has a rivet of bronze 2⅜ inches in length still
in the rivet-hole. Curiously enough this long rivet appears to be a
speciality of this class of weapons. Some of this type, together with
some fragments twisted and adhering together as if partially molten,
were found in the Thames at Kingston,[1296] and in one of them was the
bronze rivet. These are now in the British Museum. Some broken barbed
spear-heads of larger size (about 14 inches), also with the rivets
still in position, were found with bronze ferrules at a spot called
“Bloody Pool,” South Brent, Devon.[1297]
Another (7 inches), found at Pendoylan, near Cardiff,
Glamorganshire,[1298] has an oval socket pierced on one side for a
rivet, which, however, is wanting.
Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., possesses an example much like that from
Speen (10⅞ inches) found in Yorkshire, near the river Humber.
In the Broadward find[1299] (Shropshire) were several spear-heads of
this type, mostly retaining their bronze rivets. One of them, about
6 inches long and 3 inches broad, has the base of the blade at right
angles to the socket, and not sloping downwards. Several bronze
ferrules were included in the hoard. What appears to have been a
discovery of nearly the same character took place in a bog on a farm
called the Wrekin Tenement,[1300] also in Shropshire, where a celt,
a small number of swords, and about one hundred and fifty fragments
of spear-heads were found. They are described as being for the most
part about 8 inches in length, and having rivets of bronze through the
sockets. I have not met with the type in Scotland or Ireland.
It has been suggested that these weapons were fishing spears, and
certainly their barbed form, so distinct from that of the more common
spear-heads, raises a presumption that they were intended for some
special purpose. It appears to me, however, as it already has done to
others, that such weapons are too clumsy to have been used for the
capture of fish of any ordinary size, and would have made sad havoc
even of a forty-pound salmon. If they were used for the chase at
all, it is more probable that they were intended for attacking large
four-footed game, such as wild oxen, either by thrusting or darting,
and that the weapons were left in the wound, the shafts encumbering
the animal in its flight. If, as would probably be the case, these
got broken by the animal, the long rivets were well adapted for being
removed so as to allow of the broken shaft being taken out, and would
again serve to retain a new one.
Mention has already been made of ferrules having been frequently
discovered in company with ordinary spear-heads; and from this fact,
and the size and character of the ferrules, the inference has, with
much probability, been drawn that they served to tip the lower ends of
the shafts of spears and lances.
[Illustration: Fig. 423. Nettleham. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 424. Guilsfield. ¼]
The illustrations given in Figs. 423 and 424 will serve to show the
usual character of these objects. They vary in length from about 16
inches down to 8 inches, and are about ¾ inch or less in diameter. They
are not made from a flat piece of metal turned over, but are cast in
one piece, having been very carefully “cored.” The metal, especially
near the mouth, is very thin, and there is usually a small hole nearer
this end than the other to allow of a pin or rivet being inserted to
keep the ferrule on the shaft.
The original of Fig. 423 (8¼ inches) was found with spear-heads and
other articles at Nettleham, near Lincoln, and is now in the British
Museum.[1301]
One 14 inches long, bluntly pointed at the base, was found in the
Thames, near London, and is now in the British Museum. It has a
portion of the wooden shaft inside, which appears to be of beech.
The hole for the pin is still visible in the wood, but the pin has
perished. It may have been made of horn.
Fig. 424 is on the scale of one-fourth, the original being 14 inches
long. It was found with eleven others, varying in length from 10 to
16 inches, and with spear-heads and other articles, at Guilsfield,
Montgomeryshire.[1302]
Another ferrule (9½ inches) was found, with spear-heads, socketed
celts, &c., near Nottingham.[1303]
Four such (about 7 inches) were found, with spear-heads, &c., at
Bloody Pool, South Brent, Devon.[1304]
Canon Greenwell has a specimen from Antrim (9½ inches), the end of
which is worn obliquely, as if by trailing on the ground. It has a
single rivet-hole.
A very long ferrule of this kind (14½ inches), but with a small disc
at the base, is in the Museum at Nantes. It was found in the bed of
the Loire.
A shorter form, somewhat expanding towards the base, is shown in Fig.
425. This, together with three others, none more than 4¼ inches long,
was found, with spear-heads, &c., at Pant-y-maen, near Glancych.[1305]
In the Broadward find[1306] were six tubes, varying in length from 6
to 2 inches, of which one only was of this type. Some were so small
that the diameter did not exceed ¼ inch.
A small ferrule of this kind was in the hoard found at Beddington,
near Croydon,[1307] and part of one in that of Wickham Park. The
latter is now in the British Museum.
What appears to be a ferrule of this kind, but more widely expanded
at the end, like Fig. 425, is described in Gordon’s “Itinerarium
Septentrionale”[1308] as “a Roman tuba, or trumpet.”
Another of these expanded ferrules is in the Museum of the Cambridge
Antiquarian Society.[1309]
In the Fulbourn find[1310] there were two ferrules expanding at the
base to about 2 inches in diameter, which were regarded by Dr. Clarke
as having been the feet of two spears. He points out that similar feet
for spears may be seen represented on Greek vases.[1311] The οὐρίαχος
or σαυρωτήρ of Homer[1312] appears to have been more susceptible of
being driven into the ground. This point at the base was sometimes
used for fighting when the spear-head proper was broken.
Among the African tribes on the shores of the Gambia, the spears, as
Mr. Syer Cuming[1313] has pointed out, have a chisel- or celt-like
ferrule at the base of their shafts; and this fashion extends all
across Africa to Madagascar,[1314] and recurs in Borneo.
Some Danish ferrules[1315] present the same peculiarity of being
chisel-like at the base.
Another form, more spherical at the base, is shown in Fig. 427, copied
from the _Archæological Journal_.[1316] The original, with several
others, was found at St. Margaret’s Park, Hereford. The socket tapers
to a point 1½ inches from the extremity.
A nearly similar ferrule, but with a slight cylindrical projection
beyond the spherical part, was found with other bronze objects at
Lanant, Cornwall.[1317] A kind of pointed ferrule of a nearly square
section, with the faces hollowed, which was found near Windsor,[1318]
and is now in the British Museum, not improbably belongs to a later
date than the Bronze Period.
In the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy are several ferrules,
apparently for the end of spear shafts, some of which are said to have
been found with spear-heads. Many of these have ornaments of a late
Celtic[1319] character upon them. Others[1320] appear to have been
made from plates turned over and soldered, and not to have been cast
hollow. Both of these kinds are of more recent date than the Bronze
Age.
Tapering ferrules of bronze occur in Italy, and a pointed iron
ferrule, probably belonging to a barbed javelin of Roman age, was
found in the river Witham, near Lincoln.[1321]
A ferrule, about 3 inches long, with parallel lines engraved round it,
is in the Museum at Clermont Ferrand. Another, more conical, is in
that of Narbonne.[1322] Some with expanded button-like ends have been
found in the Lake-dwellings of Savoy. Several ferrules, some of them
very short, were found with bronze spear-heads at Alise Ste. Reine
(Côte d’Or).[1323]
[Illustration: Fig. 425.—Glancych. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 426.—Fulbourn. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 427.—Hereford. ½]
Others, some of them ornamented, formed part of the great Bologna
hoard.
A ferrule was found with a bronze spear-head, between 23 and
24 inches long, in the Alban Necropolis, and is figured in the
_Archæologia_.[1324] Padre Garrucci regards this spear as neither
Greek, nor Etruscan, nor Latin, but Celtic.
Although the simple leaf-shaped spear-heads from the British Isles
present close analogies with those from the other parts of Europe,
yet for the most part those of the other types, with loops to the
sockets, with openings in the blade, or of the barbed class last
described, present peculiarities of their own. Several of these types
appear, indeed, to have been evolved in Britain or in Ireland, and the
differences they exhibit from the ordinary continental types are more
marked than in any other class of bronze weapons. Though loops are
such a common adjunct to the socketed celts of other countries, yet
looped palstaves are comparatively rare abroad. At the same time, as
will have been seen, hardly any examples of looped spear-heads from
foreign countries can be cited, while in Britain, and more especially
in Ireland, they are very abundant. This fact, in whatever way it is to
be accounted for, affords a most conclusive argument against assigning
a Roman origin for our bronze weapons; a looped spear-head, so far as
I am aware, never having been discovered in Italy, and but very rarely
even in Gaul. The spear-heads with the small apertures in the blade
appear also to be of an indigenous type.
Some of the iron spear-heads from Hallstatt and elsewhere have been
made in imitation of those in bronze, and have been welded along the
whole length of their sockets in a manner which displays the highest
skill in the smiths. But, unlike the iron palstaves and socketed celts,
none of the spear-heads are provided with a loop. In later times the
sockets of the iron spear-heads were left with an open slit along them,
a method of manufacture which produced an equally serviceable weapon,
and involved far less trouble.
As to the position in time which spear-heads occupy in the Bronze Age,
it is probable that it is towards the close rather than the beginning
of that period. Not only are spear-heads almost, if not quite, absent
from our barrows, but the skill involved in producing implements so
thin and so truly cored could only have been acquired after long
practice in casting. The objects to be considered in the next chapter
are also of comparatively late date.
CHAPTER XV.
SHIELDS, BUCKLERS, AND HELMETS.
HAVING now described the various weapons of offence of which in early
times bronze formed the material, it will be well to examine the arms
of defence fabricated from the same metal, and presumably of the same
or nearly the same age.
The shields first in use in Britain were probably formed of perishable
materials, such as wicker-work, wood, or hide, like those of many
savage tribes of the present day; and it can only have been after a
long acquaintance with the use of bronze that plates could have been
produced of such size as those with which some of the ancient shields
and bucklers found in this country were covered. They would appear,
therefore, to belong to quite the close of the Bronze Age, if not to
the transitional period when iron was coming into use. There are,
indeed, several bronze coverings of shields of elongated form, such
as those from the river Witham[1325] and from the Thames,[1326] with
decorations upon them, in which red enamel plays a part, that have been
found associated with the iron swords of what Mr. Franks has termed the
Late Celtic Period. Those, however, which appear to have a better claim
to a place in these pages are of a circular form.
That which I have shown in Fig. 428 is now in the British Museum, and
has already been figured in the _Archæologia_[1327], and described by
Mr. Gage. It was dredged up from what appears to have been the ancient
bed of the river Isis, near Little Wittenham, Berks, not far from the
Dyke Hills, near Dorchester, Oxon. It is about 13½ inches diameter, not
quite circular in form, though probably intended so to be. The raised
bosses have all been wrought in the metal with the exception of four,
two of which form the rivets for the handle across the umbo, and two
others serve as the rivets or pivots for two small straps or buttons of
bronze on the inner side of the buckler. Such buttons occur on several
other examples, but it is difficult to determine the exact purpose
which they served. From the pains taken in this instance to conceal the
heads of these pivots on the outside, by making them take the form and
place of bosses, it would appear that they were necessary adjuncts of
the shield, and possibly in some way connected with a lining for it.
[Illustration: Fig. 428.—Little Wittenham.]
Such a lining can hardly have been of wood, or many rivet or pin holes
would have been necessary for securing the metal to it. It may be that
a lining of hide was moulded while wet to the form of the shield,
and that these buttons served to keep it in place when dry. In one
case[1328] it is said that some fibrous particles resembling leather
still remain attached to the inside of the shield. In general the
metal is so thin that without some lining these bucklers would have
afforded but a poor defence against the stroke of a sword, spear, or
arrow. In this Little Wittenham example, and possibly in some others,
it is probable that the shield itself was larger than the bronze plate.
Another view is that these buttons fastened a strap for carrying the
shield when either in or out of use.
Another buckler, in Lord Londesborough’s collection, 14 inches in
diameter, with two circles of small bosses divided by a raised
band, is stated to have been found with a large bronze spear-head
at Athenry,[1329] Co. Galway. Two of the bosses of the inner circle
are the heads of rivets for securing the handle. A much smaller
buckler, or centre of a buckler, only 9¼ inches in diameter (also
with two rings of bosses), presumably found in the Isis,[1330] near
Eynsham Bridge, is in the Museum of the Society of Antiquaries. It
has a slightly conical boss, surrounded by a circle of smaller bosses
between two raised ribs. There is also a raised rib round the margin
formed by turning over the metal towards the outer face. In the outer
ring of bosses two are missing at the places where, no doubt, were
formerly the rivets of the buttons or loops.
[Illustration: Fig. 429.—Harlech.]
A shield in the British Museum (21 inches), found in the Thames, has
four rows of bosses, about an inch in diameter, and the same number of
raised rings. The inner set of bosses abuts on the umbo. There is a
marginal rim about an inch beyond the outer ring. This shield appears
to have had two buttons, which as usual are nearly in a line with one
of the rivets which fasten the handle. One of these loops remains
secured by a large-headed rivet matching the bosses. There is at least
one hole through the shield which may have resulted from a spear
thrust.
The rivets which secure the handle have heads made in imitation of
bosses.
In some the decoration consists of a series of concentric ribs or
beads, as in that found in a peat moss near Harlech,[1331] which is
shown in Fig. 429. Its diameter is 22 inches. The heads of the four
rivets for holding the handle and the two buttons are in this case
visible in the spaces between the ribs.
Another of the same pattern was discovered in company with that shown
in Fig. 430, in Coveney Fen,[1332] near Ely, and is now in the Museum
of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society. The metal of which it is formed
has been found on analysis to contain—
Copper 87·55
Tin 11·72
Nickel 0·40
—————
99·67
The presence of the nickel is probably due to impurities in the ore
from which the copper was extracted.
[Illustration: Fig. 430—Coveney. 1/6]
[Illustration: Fig. 431.—Coveney. 1/1]
The second Coveney shield is shown in Fig. 430.[1333] The ornament
in this instance is of a very peculiar character, and appears to
represent two snakes, one long and the other short, twisted about into
a symmetrical pattern. They are of the _amphisbæna_ kind, with a head
at each end. The two outermost ribs, one of them at the margin, are
continuous. The rivets for holding the handle are visible, as are also
three on either side connected with the inner buttons, that in this
case have been regarded as loops by which the shield was suspended.
The buttons have a small hole through them, as will be seen by Fig.
431. In front of each is a pair of small conical studs, of which the
purpose can now hardly be determined. Mr. Goodwin thought that they
might be intended to prevent a thong which passed beneath the buttons
from slipping away from them.
[Illustration: Fig. 432.—Beith. 1/6]
The type of shield, of which, the largest number has been found in the
British Isles, is that having a series of concentric rings, from about
twelve to thirty in number, and between them circles of small studs.
A very fine example of this kind of shield is preserved in the
Museum of the Society of Antiquaries of London,[1334] and is shown
on the scale of one-sixth, together with some of its details on a
larger scale, in Figs. 432, 433, and 434, for the use of which I am
indebted to the Council of the Ayrshire and Wigtonshire Archæological
Association.[1335]
[Illustration: Fig. 433.—Beith. 1/1]
A figure of the shield has been given by Professor Daniel
Wilson,[1336] but the illustrations here given will convey a much more
accurate impression of its character and details.
Though there is some discrepancy as to measurement, there is little
doubt that this is the shield found about the year 1780 in a peat moss
on a farm called Luggtonrigge, in the parish of Beith, Ayrshire, and
presented to the Society of Antiquaries by Dr. Ferris,[1337] who was
informed that four or five others of the same kind were discovered
at the same time. A portion of the margin of the shield is shown of
the full size in Fig. 433, and the handle across the inner side of
the boss on the scale of one-half in Fig. 434. These figures give
so complete an idea of the original that it seems needless to enter
into further details. It is, however, well to call attention to the
fact that the handle of the buckler, which is made from a flat piece
of bronze, is rendered more convenient to grasp, and at the same
time strengthened, by its sides being doubled over, and thus made to
present a rounded edge. It is secured to the shield by a rivet at each
end. About midway between the edge of the umbo and that of the shield,
but placed so that one of the rivets of the handle is in the same line
and midway between them, have been two rivets, each fastening a short
button like those on the Coveney Fen shield, of which at present only
one remains. The rivet-hole for the other has been closed by a short
rivet.
[Illustration: Fig. 434.—Beith. ½]
Other shields, almost identical in character, have likewise been found
in Scotland, one of which, by the kindness of the Council of the
Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, is shown in Fig. 435, on the scale
of one-sixth. A portion of the margin is shown full size in Fig. 436,
and the interior of the umbo in Fig. 437, on the scale of one-fourth.
It was found in 1837, together with another, in a marshy field near
Yetholm, Roxburghshire. These shields have been described in a paper
by the late Mr. W. T. M^cCulloch,[1338] of some of whose references I
have here made use.
One of these Yetholm shields is 23½ inches in diameter, and has
thirty concentric rings of convex knobs alternating with projecting
circular ribs or beads; the other measures 24 inches across, and has
twenty-four rings of both knobs and ribs. In the centre of each is
a hollow circular umbo 4 inches in diameter, with a handle riveted
across it.
Another shield of the same character was found at Yetholm[1339] in
1870, near the place where the two others were discovered. It is 22½
inches in diameter, with twenty-nine concentric rings alternating
with the usual small knobs. The boss is 3½ inches in diameter.
[Illustration: Fig. 435.—Yetholm. 1/6]
[Illustration: Fig. 436.—Yetholm. 1/1]
[Illustration: Fig. 437.—Yetholm. ¼]
At the back of each of these shields, about midway between the centre
and the rim, are the usual small movable tongues of bronze, which
have been supposed to serve for the attachment of a leather strap by
which the shield might be slung round the body. Mr. Jeffrey, F.S.A.
Scotland, of Jedburgh, who described this third shield, has pointed
out that there is too little room beneath the tongues for a strap of
any kind.
So far as at present known these are the only instances of bucklers of
this kind having been discovered in Scotland.
In England and Wales several such have been found. One was in the
Meyrick Collection[1340] at Goodrich Court, and is now in the British
Museum. It is about 26½ inches in diameter, with twenty concentric
circles of knobs and ribs between, and is in all respects like those
just described. It was found about 1804 in a turbary near Aberystwith,
Cardiganshire. It has had the usual buttons, one of which remains.
Another example[1341] of the kind (25¼ inches), with twenty-seven
concentric rings, was also in the Meyrick Collection, and is now in
the British Museum. It was found in a peat moss at Moel Sinbod, near
Capel Curig, Carnarvonshire. It has one of the usual loops and the
rivet of the other. Sir Samuel Meyrick had heard of another shield,
dug up near Newcastle-on-Tyne, which the owner, wishing to gratify
all his friends, cut up like a cake, and sent to each a slice. This
may be the shield found at Broomyholme, Chester-le-Street, Durham, of
which a fragment is in the Museum of the Society of Antiquaries of
Newcastle-on-Tyne.
Another now in the possession of Sir Edward Blackett, Bart., was found
near Corbridge, Northumberland.
Fragments[1342] of two other shields of the same character were also
found in Northumberland, at Ingoe, in the parish of Stamfordham,
about two miles north of the Roman wall. They were originally about
20 inches in diameter, and like so many others were discovered during
draining operations.
Another buckler of the same character was found in the Thames[1343]
at London, and passed into the British Museum with the Roach Smith
Collection. This specimen is 21¼ inches in diameter, and has eleven
rings of the small bosses upon it separated by concentric ribs.
A curious feature in this shield is that the places to which the
usual little buttons were attached have been neatly cut out, leaving
triangular holes. There is also a third hole of the same kind. In one
place also there is a hole through the shield, such as might have
been produced by the thrust of a bronze spear. Close by this hole is
a clean cut, such as might have been made by a sword. The plate of
bronze has been turned over on to the face, so as to form the outer
rim.
A circular shield,[1344] with twenty-six concentric rings of studs,
was dredged up, together with a leaf-shaped bronze sword, from the bed
of the Thames off Woolwich in 1830.
A thin bronze plate from the Thames, 19 inches in diameter, convex,
and with small knobs round the margin, is in the Mayer Collection at
Liverpool. It has been marked with the hammer, possibly in imitation
of basket-work, and has been mended in one place in ancient times. It
may be the bottom of a caldron, and not a shield.
Another buckler, 26 inches in diameter, having twelve concentric
raised rings with the usual knobs between them, is also said to
have been found in the Thames[1345] between Hampton and Walton, in
September, 1864.
In draining a meadow at Bagley,[1346] about five miles from Ellesmere,
in Shropshire, another of these circular bucklers was found. This is
23 inches in diameter, with an umbo of 4 inches, and has twenty-six
concentric circles, with the same rings of knobs between them as on
the other examples. It has the usual holes for the rivets of the small
buttons.
Another, found on Burringham Common,[1347] Lincolnshire, in 1843, is
26 inches in diameter, with an umbo of 4½ inches, and only nineteen
concentric circles with intermediate rings of knobs. The boss of
this shield is conical rather than hemispherical. It is now in the
Museum of the Royal Irish Academy. A shield of this kind 20½ inches
in diameter, having thirteen concentric circles of small bosses and
raised rings between, was found at Sutton St. Michael’s, Norfolk.[1348]
In the collection of Canon Greenwell is the bronze boss of a shield
nearly 5 inches in diameter, probably intended for the centre of a
wooden buckler. It has three small holes for nails or rivets in the
rim. In one place there is a square hole, apparently made by a thrust
from a spear. This boss was found at Harwood, Northumberland.
Shields like Fig. 435, with several concentric rings alternating with
small knobs, are rare, but by no means unknown in Ireland. One (27¾
inches in diameter) was found in a bog near Ballynamona,[1349] Co.
Limerick, and has been figured. As usual, it has the two movable loops
or buttons at the back. There is a little patch of bronze over a small
irregular hole in the shield, such as an arrow or a javelin would
make. It is soldered on with a metal which is stated to be bronze,
but which I imagine must be some more fusible alloy of copper. This
shield is now in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy, and in their
_Proceedings_[1350] is stated to have been found in Lough Gur, Co.
Limerick, but this must be an error.
The central portion of a bronze shield, including the umbo, was found
at Toome Bar, Lough Neagh, and is now in the collection of Mr. William
Gray, of Belfast.
A somewhat doubtful instance has been recorded of the remains of a
bronze shield having been found with an interment in a barrow. Sir R.
Colt Hoare, in his examination of the Bush Barrow, Normanton,[1351]
found a skeleton lying from S. to N., and about eighteen inches S.
of the head “several brass rivets intermixed with wood, and some
thin bits of brass nearly decomposed. These articles covered a space
of twelve inches or more; it is probable, therefore, that they are
the mouldered remains of a shield.” Near the shoulders lay a flanged
bronze celt like Fig. 9. A large dagger of bronze, and what Sir
Richard calls a spear-head of the same metal, but which was probably a
dagger, the inlaid hilt (Fig. 289). a stone hammer, and some plates
of gold accompanied this interment. It is much to be regretted that
more is not known of the real character of the object with the rivets,
but their presence shows that it could not have been a shield such as
those here described, in which the only rivets are those securing the
handle and the movable buttons.
The umbo of a Late-Celtic shield was among the objects found at Polden
Hill,[1352] Somersetshire.
Some wooden bucklers have been found both in Scotland[1353] and
Ireland, but it is hard to determine their age.
Mr. Franks[1354] has already remarked that bronze shields are of far
less common occurrence on the Continent than in the British Isles. He
cites three from the Copenhagen Museum,[1355] one of which, about 27
inches in diameter, has five concentric ribs round the boss and ten
sets of knobs; these, however, are arranged in such a manner as to
leave a star of eight rays of smooth metal radiating from the boss.
The other two are less like the British in character. A fine shield in
the Stockholm Museum, with swan-like figures upon it, has been thought
to have been imported from Italy.[1356]
One found near Bingen, on the Rhine,[1357] about 15½ inches in
diameter, has merely four raised concentric ribs. There are two small
bowed handles secured with two rivets, each in about the same position
as the usual button. They seem certainly intended for a strap to pass
through them. There are, however, two other rivets in the shield to
which movable buttons may possibly have been attached.
The Italian shields mentioned by Mr. Franks are of a different type.
One in the British Museum (34 inches in diameter) has a very slight
boss, and is ornamented with concentric bands of sphinxes and other
designs.
As has already been observed, it is somewhat hard to judge of the date
of these bucklers. I am not aware of any portions of them having been
found in the hoards of metal in which fragments of swords frequently
occur. Still in the case of the shield dredged up off Woolwich the
sword which accompanied it was of bronze, though of course there is no
evidence of the two having been lost or deposited together. The whole
character, however, of the ornamentation and workmanship is, I think,
more in accordance with the Bronze Age than with the Late Celtic or
Early Iron Period, though the shields probably belong to the close of
the Bronze Period.
Circular bucklers, or targets, no doubt remained in use until a
considerably later date, but it seems probable that some other material
than a thin plate of bronze was used for their manufacture. Professor
Daniel Wilson[1358] remarks that on the gold coins of Tasciovanus,
Cunobeline, and others of our native rulers contemporary with the
first intercourse with Rome, the shields borne by the warriors are
either long and double-pointed, or, if round, large and disked, and
of very different construction from the Luggtonrigge shield. On one
coin of Cunobeline, however (Evans, pl. xii. 14), the horseman bears
a circular buckler, which, so far as can be judged from so diminutive
a representation as that given on the coin, would be about 2 feet in
diameter. On two small gold coins of Verica,[1359] recently published,
the horseman carries a target of somewhat larger proportions. Somewhat
smaller circular bucklers are carried by the horsemen on certain
Spanish coins,[1360] probably of the second century B.C. One of these
shields shows four smaller bosses, arranged in cruciform order around
the central boss; another seems to be plain except the umbo and a
projecting rim.
This buckler is no doubt the Cetra, or Cætra (καίτρεα, Hesych.),
in use among the people of Spain and Mauretania, which was usually
made of hide, among the latter people sometimes of that of the
elephant. Cæsar[1361] speaks of the “cetratæ Hispaniæ cohortes,” and
Tacitus[1362] mentions the Britons as armed “ingentibus gladiis sine
mucrone et brevibus cetris.” It does not appear that the Romans ever
carried the cetra, which has been by Livy compared to the pelta of the
Greeks and Macedonians.[1363] The clipeus appears to have been larger
in size, and to have been held on the arm and not by the handle only.
But whatever shields may have been in use in this country at the time
of the Roman invasion, I am inclined to refer these circular bucklers
to a somewhat earlier date, as already in Cæsar’s time iron was fully
in use for swords and for cutting purposes generally; and, as has
already been observed, the shields with which the early iron swords
are found are of a different form from these. As is the case with
bronze swords, such bucklers are never found with interments, and those
discovered seem to have been lost in the water, or hidden in bogs,
rather than buried as accessories for the dead.
The skill requisite for the production of such bucklers must have
been great, and the appliances at command by no means contemptible.
The whole of the work is _repoussé_ and wrought with the hammer, and
not improbably the original sheet of bronze from which a shield was
made was considerably less in diameter and also much thicker than the
finished shield. To produce so large a casting of such even substance,
and yet so thin, would I think be beyond the skill of most modern,
and probably most ancient, brass-founders; and moreover there is no
appearance on the shields, of the metal having been cast in the form in
which it now appears.
While still upon the subject of defensive armour it will be well to
say a few words about bronze helmets, though there is good reason
to believe that in this country at all events such objects do not
belong to the Bronze Age properly so-called. Indeed the earliest known
bronze helmets in some other countries, such as those from Assyria and
Etruria, appear to belong to a time when iron was already in use in
those countries. The date of an Etruscan helmet of bronze preserved
in the British Museum[1364] can be determined with precision, for
an inscription upon it proves that it was offered in the Temple of
Zeus at Elis, by Hiero, Tyrant of Syracuse, from the spoils of the
Etruscans after the naval battle of Cumæ, which took place in B.C.
474. It is of simple form with a brim around it. Those which have
been found in Styria and Germany[1365] are in some cases half ovals
in form, sometimes with a knob at the top, without any rims round the
opening, but with a certain number of small holes for the attachment of
cheek-pieces or appendages of other kinds. These may belong to a true
Bronze Period. Others, like those from Hallstatt,[1366] have rims and
even ridges for crests.
In the Salzburg Museum is a fine helmet without a rim, but with an
ornamented ridge and cheek-pieces. It was found, with twelve others now
at Vienna, at Mattrey,[1367] between Innsbruck and Brixen. One of these
bears an Etruscan inscription upon it. According to Pliny, “the ancient
inhabitants of Brixen came from Etruria.”
Even in the time of Severus, the Britons, according to Herodian,[1368]
made no use of helmets or cuirasses, though they wore an iron collar
round the neck and an iron belt round the body, and regarded them as
ornaments and signs of wealth.
The following English and French helmets of bronze may just be
mentioned.
(1.) A helmet of hemispherical form tapering to a projection, pierced
above to receive a crest or ornament, the extreme height being about
8½ inches, and the diameter at the base nearly the same. This was
found in Moorgate Street, London.[1369]
(2.) One found in the Thames,[1370] near Waterloo Bridge, with
projecting horns and ornamented with scroll-work and red enamel. This
is undoubtedly of the Late Celtic Period. Some Etruscan helmets also
bear horns, but more curved in form than those on this helmet from the
Thames.
(3.) Another, more conical in form, and with a semicircular plate at
the back, locality unknown, but probably from a river.[1371] This was
in the Meyrick Collection, and is now in the British Museum.
The helmets found on Ogmore Down,[1372] Glamorganshire, appear to be
of much later date.
A helmet from Auxonne, Côte d’Or, has been figured by Chantre.[1373]
Another was found with various bronze antiquities at Theil[1374] (Loir
et Cher).
CHAPTER XVI
TRUMPETS AND BELLS.
ANOTHER instrument probably connected with warfare, though not strictly
speaking an arm either of offence or defence, is the trumpet, of which
numerous examples in bronze have been found, especially in Ireland. It
is very doubtful whether the greater part of them do not belong to the
Early Iron Age, rather than to that of Bronze; but as it seems probable
that some at least belong to a transitional period, and it is possible
that others are of even earlier date, they could hardly be passed over
without notice in these pages.
[Illustration: Fig. 438.—Limerick. 1/6]
There are two distinct classes of these instruments, so far as the
process of their manufacture is concerned, viz. those which are cast in
one piece, and those which are formed of sheet-metal turned over and
riveted to form the tube. There are also two distinct varieties of the
instrument, viz. those in which the aperture for blowing is at the end,
and those in which it is at the side.
Sir W. Wilde, in his Catalogue[1375] of the Museum of the Royal Irish
Academy, has devoted several pages to a detailed description of the
trumpets found in Ireland, to which the reader is referred. Those
which he figures are all curved, some almost to a semicircle, others
to a more irregular sweep. Some straight tubes which were found
in company with several curved horns he has regarded, but without
sufficient cause, as the portions of a “commander’s staff,” or of the
handle of a halberd. One of these is shown in Fig. 438, borrowed from
his Catalogue.[1376] A similar straight tube, (23¾ inches,) found
with trumpets at Dunmanway, Co. Cork, is now in the British Museum.
The earliest known instance of the discovery of such instruments is,
according to Wilde, that recorded by Sir Thomas Molyneux,[1377] in
1725, of a “short side-mouthed trumpet” being found with others in a
mound near Carrickfergus, which was then regarded as of Danish origin.
But so early as 1713 Mr. F. Nevill described eight bronze trumpets
found at Dungannon,[1378] Co. Tyrone. In 1750 thirteen or fourteen more
curved bronze horns were discovered between Cork and Mallow, three of
which are described and figured in the “Vetusta Monumenta.”[1379]
[Illustration: Fig. 439.—Tralee.]
There is a remarkable resemblance between these trumpets and three
of those found near Chute Hall, Tralee, Co. Kerry, and described by
Mr. Robert Day, F.S.A., in the _Journal of the Royal Historical and
Archæological Association of Ireland_.[1380] By his kindness I am able
here to reproduce his cuts as Figs. 439, 440, and 441. It will be
observed that in two of them the ends are open, so as to be adapted for
the reception of mouth-pieces, and that the end of the other is closed.
In this there is a lateral opening to which to apply the mouth. It is
on the inner curve of the trumpet, but in some other cases it is at
the side. As Mr. Day has observed, there are rivet-holes at the wide
ends of two of the horns, as if for securing some more widely expanding
end, while in the more bell-mouthed examples no such rivet-holes are
present. The trumpet shown in Fig. 440 is made of two pieces which fit
exactly into each other, one of them being nearly straight. The length
of this instrument, taken along the external curve, is 50 inches, and
its bell-shaped mouth is 4 inches in diameter. It will be seen that
at the mouths, and in other positions on these three trumpets, there
are small conical projections or spikes always in groups of four. Mr.
Day has suggested the possibility of these being added to give effect
to blows with the trumpets in case it became necessary to use them as
weapons of offence. He has also pointed out the remarkable resemblance
between the horns with the lateral openings and the war trumpets in use
in Central Africa, which are made from elephants’ tusks. One of these
is shown in Fig. 442, also kindly lent by Mr. Day. The conch-shell
trumpets of Fiji have also lateral openings.
[Illustration: Figs. 440 and 441.—Tralee.]
As will subsequently be seen, trumpets of the two types represented by
Figs. 439 and 440 have been found associated with bronze weapons.
[Illustration: Fig. 442.—Africa.]
To return to the trumpets from Cork described in the “Vetusta
Monumenta.” Two of these are formed, like Fig. 440, of two pieces, and
are open at the end, which may have been provided with some kind of
mouth-piece. The other, like Fig. 439, is cast in a single piece and
is closed at the small end, but has a large orifice at the side like
the Portglenone specimen Fig. 444. Both are provided with a number
of conical projections by way of ornament round the mouth, and one of
them has similar small spikes in other positions. With them were found
some pieces of straight tubing, which were also decorated in a similar
manner. The horn with the side aperture is provided with a ring for
suspension, like Fig. 439. Some of the straight tubes have a sliding
ferrule upon them also furnished with a ring.
Sir W. Wilde observes of a horn about 24 inches long with the aperture
at the end slightly everted, as if for holding the lips, that it
requires a great exertion even to produce a dull sound with this
instrument. As to those with lateral apertures 2 inches long on the
average, and 1¼ inches wide, he says that “it is not possible by
any yet discovered method of placing the lips to this mouth-hole to
produce a musical sound; but, as conjectured by Walker in 1786, these
instruments might have been used as speaking-trumpets, to convey the
voice to a great distance as well as render it much louder.”
[Illustration: Fig. 443.—Derrynane.]
In one instance of a trumpet, like Fig. 439, being broken across the
mouth-piece, it has been repaired by a process of burning together,
like that adopted in the case of broken swords[1381] previously
mentioned. The mended portion is shown in Fig. 443,[1382] borrowed from
Wilde. This trumpet was found at Derrynane, Co. Kerry.
A trumpet, broken across the middle and mended in a similar manner,
formed part of the “Dowris find,” from which a number of specimens are
preserved in the British Museum,[1383] and others are in the Museum of
the Royal Irish Academy. The metal of which most of the articles in
this hoard are formed has a peculiar golden lustre which is thought
to arise from the admixture of a certain proportion of lead. A horn
analyzed by Donovan[1384] gave:
Copper 79·34
Tin 10·87
Lead 9·11
———
99·32
The find took place at Dowris, near Parsonstown, in King’s County,
and comprised, besides trumpets and socketed celts, a casting for
a hammer-head, a socketed knife, tanged knives, razors, a broad
rapier-shaped dagger-blade, broken swords, a dagger formed from a part
of a sword, spear-heads both leaf-shaped and with openings in the
blade, vessels of thin bronze, rough metal, some rattles or crotals,
such as will shortly be mentioned, a pin with a hook somewhat like a
crochet-needle, and some rubbing stones for grinding and polishing.
There may have been other articles, but those here mentioned are
represented in the portion of the hoard now in the British Museum. The
association of trumpets with such a series raises the presumption that
some of them at least belong to the close of the Bronze Age proper.
Some of these Dowris trumpets are engraved in the “Horæ
Ferales,”[1385] and one of them belonging to the Earl of Rosse is
peculiar as having two loops opposite each other above and below. A
detached portion of another consists of a nearly straight tube, 9
inches long, expanding at each end.
[Illustration: Fig. 444.—Portglenone.]
Another slightly differing example with the opening at the side is
also figured by Mr. R. Day, and here with his permission reproduced.
It was found at Portglenone, Co. Derry, and measures 24½ inches along
the convex margin.
The other finds of trumpets have been for the most part isolated. Most
of those I am about to cite have already been mentioned by Wilde. A
fine specimen, like Fig. 444, is figured by Vallancey[1386] and in
Gough’s “Camden’s Britannia.”[1387] Three others and a portion of a
straight tube were found in the county of Limerick[1388] in 1787.
Others have been found near Killarney;[1389] Cornaconway, Co. Cavan;
Kilraughts, Co. Antrim; Diamond Hill, Killeshandra; Crookstown and
Dunmanway, Co. Cork.
[Illustration: Fig. 445—The Caprington Horn. 1/5]
As the riveted variety of trumpet appears from its ornamentation to
belong to the Late Celtic Period, a short mention of it will suffice.
One[1390] found near Armagh, and now in the Museum of the Royal Irish
Academy, has at the end a disc 7½ inches in diameter, embossed with
the peculiar scroll patterns characteristic of that period.
Another is no less than 8 feet 5 inches along the convex margin, and
consists of two portions made of sheet bronze, each turned over to
form a tube, and having the abutting edges riveted to a long strip of
metal extending along the interior of the tube. This strip of bronze
is only half an inch in width, and has two rows of minute rivet-holes
in it, the rivets being placed alternately. Their circular heads are
on the inside of the tube, and so minute are the rivets, that there
are no less than 638 of them along the seam. It is, indeed, not
unlike a modern riveted hose pipe of leather. In what manner such an
ingenious and complicated piece of riveting could have been effected
is, as Sir W. Wilde remarks, a subject for speculation.
These riveted trumpets appear to be unknown in Britain, and the
cast-bronze variety is extremely scarce. A fine and perfect specimen
found at Caprington, Ayrshire, has been engraved for the Ayrshire
and Wigtonshire Archæological Association,[1391] and is here, by the
kindness of the Council of the Association, reproduced as Fig. 445.
It was found some time before 1654, on the estate of Coilsfield, in
the parish of Tarbolton, in Kyle, but is known as the Caprington horn.
According to Mr. R. W. Cochran-Patrick, F.S.A., it has been described
by Sir Robert Gordon in Blaeuw’s Atlas[1392] and by Defoe.[1393] This
horn is 25 inches in length, and is the only specimen recorded to
have been found in Scotland. The metal of which it is formed has been
analyzed by Professor Stevenson Macadam, and consists of—
Copper 90·26
Tin 9·61
Loss ·13
———
100·00
English trumpets of bronze are of extremely rare occurrence. One
found in the river Witham, Lincolnshire, has been figured in the
_Philosophical Transactions_,[1394] and is nearly straight for the
greater part of its length (about 28 inches), curving upwards near the
end into an irregularly-shaped expanding mouth. It has an ornament or
crest like a mane along the exterior curve. In form it is not unlike
the _carnyx_ which is brandished by the horseman on the coins of the
British princes Eppillus and Tasciovanus,[1395] and which also appears
on some Roman coins and monuments commemorative of Gallic and British
victories. The metal on analysis gave copper 88, tin 12, and the
tube was formed from a hammered sheet and soldered with tin. It not
improbably belongs to a period not far removed from that of the Roman
invasion of this country.
Another, with two joints and a perfect mouth-piece, is said to have
been found at Battle, Sussex, and has been engraved by Grose.[1396] A
bronze horn about 3 feet 7 inches long, found in Mecklenburg,[1397] is
not unlike the Scotch horn in character, though smaller at the wide
end. The curved bronze horns or “lurer,” found in Denmark,[1398] have
usually broad bossed flanges at the wide end, and most resemble the
Irish Late Celtic trumpets.
The use of war trumpets among the Celtic population of Western Europe
has been more than once mentioned by classical writers, and passages
from them have been cited by Mr. Franks and others. Polybius[1399]
speaks of the innumerable trumpeters in the army of the Celts, and
Diodorus Siculus[1400] says of the Gauls that they have barbaric
trumpets of a special nature which emit a hoarse sound well suited to
the din of battle. The Roman _lituus_ in use for cavalry seems to have
been of much the same shape as the _carnyx_, the end of which latter
was in some cases made to resemble a fanciful head of an animal. The
continuance of the same character of instrument into the Early Iron
Age, and the advanced art shown in producing such castings as the
trumpets from Dowris and elsewhere, go to prove that they must belong
to the close of the Bronze Period, if, indeed, some may not more
probably be placed in a period of transition from Bronze to Iron.
[Illustration: Fig. 446.—Dowris.]
Another form of instrument intended for producing sound, if not indeed
deserving to be classed as a musical instrument, is the bell, or
rattle, formed of a hollow egg-shaped or pear-shaped piece of bronze,
with a pebble or piece of metal inside by way of clapper.
The only examples which I am able to adduce are those which formed part
of the Dowris hoard, one of which is represented in Fig. 446.[1401]
There are three such in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy, and four
in the British Museum. With the latter is a smaller plain bell of the
same character and two unfinished castings. Sir W. Wilde observes that
in casting, the metal appears to have been poured into the mould by an
aperture at the side, through which the core of clay that contained the
metal clapper was broken up. The mould was in two halves, and the rings
and staples at the ends were cast together. In the perfect examples
at the British Museum, the sides of the holes by which the core was
extracted have been hammered together so as in some cases to be almost
closed. In one instance there is some appearance of the sides having
been brazed together.
The sound emitted by these bells is dull and feeble. Like the modern
horse bells, a number of them may have been hung together, and not
improbably employed in a similar manner to attract the attention both
of the eye and ear.
CHAPTER XVII.
PINS.
PINS for the purpose of fastening the dress or the hair seem to have
been in use from very early times. Made of bone,[1402] they have been
found associated with polished stone implements, and pins of the same
material are of extremely common occurrence with Roman remains, and
are not unknown at the present day. In the same manner, pins of bronze
or of brass have remained in use ever since their first introduction
during the Bronze Period, and it is, therefore, by no means easy,
and, indeed, often absolutely impossible, to assign a date with any
degree of confidence to such objects when found by themselves, and not
in association with other remains of which the antiquity can be more
readily determined. In the case of small or imperfect pins there is
considerable difficulty in distinguishing them from awls, such as have
already been described in Chapter VII. In other cases, it is often
difficult to say whether bronze pins, certainly of great antiquity, are
to be assigned to the Bronze Period properly so called, or the Late
Celtic or Early Iron Period.
[Illustration: Fig. 447. Heathery Burn. ½]
In describing the objects of this class, it will, perhaps, be best
to take first such examples as have been found in the exploration of
tumuli or in direct association with bronze weapons or instruments.
Among the numerous relics found in the Heathery Burn Cave, Durham,
were a large number of bronze pins, of which one,[1403] 3⅛ inches
long, is shown in Fig. 447. Canon Greenwell has eleven others from
3 inches to 5⅝ inches long, with flat heads, all from this cave, as
well as one which has had its end hammered flat, and then turned over
into a loop, so as to form the head. A socketed knife and many other
objects from this cave have been described in previous pages.
Four imperfect bronze pins, without heads, the longest 3⅞ inches long,
were found in the hoard at Marden,[1404] Kent, with a sickle, dagger,
and other objects.
[Illustration: Fig. 448. Brigmilston. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 449. Everley. ½]
What is termed part of a bronze pin, some chipped flints, and long
ribbed beads of pottery, were found in the barrow called Matlow
Hill,[1405] Cambridgeshire. Another, also fragmentary, was found
with a flake of calcined flint, four jet beads, and burnt bones in a
barrow on Wykeham Moor,[1406] Yorkshire, by Canon Greenwell. Others
are mentioned by Bateman;[1407] but in all these cases, as Canon
Greenwell[1408] has pointed out, the presumed pins may have been awls
or prickers. The little pin found with a lance-head, a small urn,
and some gold ornaments at Upton Lovel,[1409] Wilts, may have been
of the same character, as also other pins mentioned by Sir R. Colt
Hoare.[1410] A “fine brass pin” is described as having been found with
glass, jet, and amber beads, together with burnt bones, in a barrow
near Wilsford.[1411] A very fine one in a barrow at Lake,[1412] which,
from the engraving, was probably an awl. The long pin with a handle
found with a bronze celt and lance-head, or dagger, in a barrow at
Abury,[1413] may also have been a tool of that kind. The bronze pins
recorded to have been found in a barrow at Bulford,[1414] Wilts,
likewise seem to come under this category.
In a barrow at Brigmilston[1415] an interment of burnt bones was
accompanied by a pin of twisted bronze, 6 inches long, in the form of
a crutch, the head perforated (Fig. 448), a small dagger of bronze,
and two whetstones.
A smooth pin of the same character and nearly the same size, but
broken, was found in a barrow at Normanton,[1416] in company with
burnt bones, two bronze daggers, a whetstone, and a pipe of bone.
The curious pin, with two rings at the head, in each of which is
another ring (Fig. 449), was found by Sir R. Colt Hoare in a barrow
near Everley. The interment seems to have been in the hollowed trunk
of a tree, but the bones were burnt. With them was a dagger with three
rivets, and this instrument, which is described as having been in a
sheath of wood lined with cloth. Its purpose is difficult to determine.
[Illustration: Fig. 450.—Bryn Crûg. 1/1]
[Illustration: Fig. 451.—Taunton. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 452.—Chilton Bustle. 1/1]
Another pin (4½ inches), with a bi-lobed head and three perforations,
was found with a two-looped palstave and a knife with an interment at
Bryn Crûg,[1417] near Carnarvon. It is shown in full size in Fig. 450.
Pins with large rings for their heads have occasionally been found.
One such from Taunton,[1418] 7¾ inches, is shown in Fig. 451. It was
found with palstaves, a socketed celt, rings, and other objects. The
part forming the pin is bent, it would appear intentionally, but for
what purpose it is difficult to guess.
[Illustration: Fig. 454. River Wandle.]
Another with a straight pin was found at Chilton Bustle,[1419]
Somersetshire. The annular part is divided in the middle, and is flat
and thin. It is shown full size in Fig. 452.
Another object of a similar character, but with the ring larger (being
oval and 4½ inches by 3 inches) and with the pin part shorter, was
found in a barrow between Lewes and Brighton,[1420] with a long pin,
to be subsequently mentioned, and a pair of looped bronze bracelets,
like Fig. 482. These are now in the museum at Alnwick Castle. Another
(6 inches, with ring 2 inches in diameter), probably from a Wiltshire
barrow,[1421] is in the collection at Stourhead.
A pin of the same character from the Lake-dwellings of Savoy has been
figured by Rabut.[1422]
Another form has a smaller ring at the top, and the pin beneath is
usually curved. Fig. 453, from Wilde,[1423] shows an example of this
kind. One of the two pins reported to have been found with bronze
bridles and buckles of “Late Celtic” character, as well as with a
bronze lance-head and socketed celt, at Hagbourn Hill,[1424] Berks,
was of this type. The other had a flat head.
I have a pin of the same kind (4¼ inches) found at Holt,[1425]
Worcestershire. It has, however, a small cross, formed of five knobs,
attached to the front of the ring. It was found in the bed of the
Severn, and was presented to me by Mr. G. Edwards, C.E. The pins of
this character seem to belong to quite the close of the Bronze Period,
if not indeed to the “Late Celtic.”
[Illustration: Fig. 453. 1/1 Ireland.]
A much larger form of pin appears, from its style of ornamentation, to
belong more truly to the Bronze Period. That shown in Fig. 454 was,
indeed, found with a bronze sword, spear-head, and palstave, in the
Thames at the mouth of the river Wandle,[1426] Surrey, and is now in
the British Museum. It is 7¾ inches in length, and the bulging portion
in the centre is pierced probably for some means of attachment. The
point, Mr. Franks thinks, was purposely curved. He regards the pin as
having been intended to adorn the hair or fasten the dress.
Another pin, of much the same fashion, 12½ inches long, also has the
point curved. The bulging portion is in this instance nearer the
head, which, moreover, has a piece of amber set in it, and there is a
small loop on the side of the pin, as in Fig. 457, instead of a hole
through the bulging part. This specimen was found in a mine near the
river Fowey,[1427] at a depth of ten fathoms from the surface, when a
new work was begun for searching after tin ore.
The long pin already mentioned as found in a barrow near Lewes[1428]
has an expanded head with a boss upon it, and about 4 inches below,
an ornamented lozenge-shaped plate, beneath which is a small loop for
attachment.
Large pins of the same character have been found in the Lake-dwellings
of France, Switzerland, and Italy.
[Illustration: Fig. 455. Scratchbury. 1/1]
[Illustration: Fig. 456. Camerton. ⅔]
A large bronze pin, 13½ inches long, found on Salisbury Plain,[1429]
is described as having a flattened head, ornamented on one side with a
pattern. This which is now in the British Museum is, however, of the
late Celtic Period.
It is by no means impossible that these larger and heavier pins may at
times have served as piercing-tools and even as weapons. The stiletto
survives as a ladies’ piercing-tool, but no one at the present day
would “his quietus make with a bare bodkin;” though there was probably
a time when both stiletto and bodkin served a double purpose, and were
used, as occasion might require, either as weapons or as tools.
Smaller pins, ornamented at the blunt end, have not unfrequently been
found.
A fragment of one discovered by Sir R. Colt Hoare in a barrow at
Scratchbury, is engraved in his unpublished plate, and has also
been figured by Dr. Thurnam, F.S.A.,[1430] in his memoir so often
quoted. It is here reproduced as Fig. 455. Another from a barrow at
Camerton,[1431] Somerset, has a hollow spheroidal head, with a double
perforation. The head and upper part of the stem are decorated with
parallel rings and oblique hatching, as may be seen in Fig. 456.
In character this pin much resembles some of those from the Swiss
Lake-dwellings.
A very similar pin was obtained from a barrow near Firle,[1432]
Sussex, by Dr. Mantell.
A fine pin, nearly 12 inches long, with a head of this shape, was
found near Enniskillen. The upper part of the pin is ornamented,
with groups of five small beadings round it, and between these are
spiral ribs, forming many threaded screws alternately right- and
left-handed.[1433]
A long pin from Galway,[1434] of which the lower part is twisted into
a spiral, has a head with a notch in it, much like that of a modern
screw.
[Illustration: Fig. 457. Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 458. Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 459. Cambridge. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 460. Ireland. ⅓]
[Illustration: Fig. 461. North of Ireland. ½]
The pins with spherical heads, ornamented by circular holes, with
concentric circles around them, so common in the Swiss Lake-dwellings,
are as yet unknown in Britain. I have, nevertheless, a portion of what
appears to be the large spherical head of a pin, which formed part of
the hoard found at Dreuil, near Amiens. Instead of holes, however, it
has bosses at intervals, with concentric circles round them. In the
spaces between are bands of parallel dotted lines.[1435] Some of the
Swiss pins have knobs of tin, or some other metal than bronze, and even
red stones inlaid in the perforations, so that not improbably those
which now show merely holes in the metal may have been inlaid with horn
or some perishable material.
Pins with flat heads, sometimes of large size, are of not unfrequent
occurrence, and appear to belong to the Bronze Age.
An Irish example with a small loop at the side is shown in Fig. 457,
from a specimen in my own collection. It has apparently at some time
been longer. Some German pins[1436] are provided with side loops in
the same manner.
[Illustration: Fig. 462. Keelogue Ford. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 463. Ireland. ½]
A large pin, 8⅛ inches, with the upper part beaded, and with a small
side loop, was in the hoard found near Amiens, and is preserved in the
museum of that town. With it were socketed celts, a sickle, &c.
A pin of the same general form, but without any loop and with a more
ornamental head, also from Ireland, is shown in Fig. 458, and an
English example, found near Cambridge, in Fig. 459.
One with a plain flat head, and 11¾ inches long, is figured by Wilde
(Fig. 446).
Similar pins with flat heads have been found in the Lake-dwellings of
Savoy and Switzerland.
The large flat heads are often highly ornamented.
The pin from Ireland, of which the head is shown in Fig. 460,[1437]
one-third of the actual size, is 13½ inches long. This cut and Figs.
453, 462, 463, and 465, are kindly lent by the Royal Irish Academy.
The ornamental expanded heads, which usually have a conical projection
in the centre, are more frequently turned over so as to be in the same
plane as the pins and be visible when stuck into a garment. Fig. 461 is
from a specimen of my own found in the North of Ireland.
Fig. 462, from Wilde,[1438] shows a small pin of the same kind, found
at Keelogue Ford.
Occasionally the head seems disproportionately large to the pin.
That of which the highly ornamented head is shown in Fig. 463,[1439] is
only 5½ inches long, while the head itself is 2¼ inches in diameter.
A grand pin of this kind from Ireland, with the head 4⅝ inches in
diameter, and the pin 10¾ inches long, is in the British Museum. The
face of the disc has five concentric circles upon it, with triangles,
squares, and ring ornaments between them.
A Scottish specimen of the same character as Fig. 462 (9 inches), found
at Tarves, Aberdeenshire, together with bronze swords, is in the same
collection. The head is 1⅜ inches in diameter. Another of the same type
from Ireland[1440] is said to have had the cone originally gilt.
The head of another, which was found with a number of bronze swords at
Edinburgh,[1441] is shown in Fig. 464. This discovery seems to prove
that the pins of this type belong to quite the latter part of the
Bronze Period.
Pins with flat heads turned over so as to be parallel with their stems
are of common occurrence in Denmark.[1442] They are usually ornamented
with concentric ribs, and the heads are sometimes plated with gold. The
stems are also often decorated.
[Illustration: Fig. 464.—Edinburgh. 1/1]
[Illustration: Fig. 465.—Ireland. ½]
Another form of pin has a cup-shaped head, not unlike the termination
of the large gold clasps, like drawer-handles, so frequently found in
Ireland. One of these is shown in Fig. 465, borrowed from Wilde.[1443]
An example of this kind was found in the Heathery Burn Cave. Another
pin of this type, 10⅛ inches long, with the cup-shaped head ⅞ inch in
diameter and ½ inch deep, with a small cone projecting in the bottom
of the cup, was found with a bronze sword and two spear-heads in peat
near the Point of Sleat,[1444] Skye.
Sir W. Wilde has given figures of numerous other types of pins, but
they nearly all belong to a later period than that of which I am
treating. That from a brooch at Bowermadden, Caithness, engraved in
the _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,[1445] is
also of later date. Altogether the subject of pins belonging to the
Bronze Age in the British Islands is one of which, in the present
state of our knowledge, it is difficult to treat satisfactorily, so
few of the more highly developed types having been found in actual
association with other bronze relics. In England especially the rarity
of bronze pins, as compared, for instance, with their abundance in
the Lake-dwellings of Southern Europe, is very striking. As will
subsequently be seen, there is nearly as great a scarcity of bracelets
and of some other ornaments. It may be that for personal decorations
the jet and amber, which during our Bronze Age were so much in fashion
for ornaments, suited the native taste better than decorations
manufactured from the same metal as that which served for tools and
weapons; and that when metal was used gold had the preference. At the
same time, for useful articles, such as some kinds of pins, bronze may
well have served, and it is to be observed that no pins decorated with
gold have as yet been found with bronze weapons in Britain, though they
have occurred in other countries.
CHAPTER XVIII.
TORQUES, BRACELETS, RINGS, EAR-RINGS, AND PERSONAL ORNAMENTS.
ALTHOUGH some of the pins described in the last chapter were destined
for ornament rather than for use, they cannot as a class be regarded
as purely ornamental. The collars and armlets, to which the present
chapter is to be devoted, must, I think, be considered as essentially
ornaments, though possibly in some cases affording protection to the
neck and arms. The modern epaulette was originally intended for the
protection of the shoulder, though now, as a rule, little better than
an ornament.
The torque, or torc, takes its name from the Latin _torques_, which
again is derived _à torquendo_. This word _torques_ was applied to a
twisted collar of gold or other metal worn around the neck. Among the
ancient Gauls gold torques appear to have been abundant, and to have
formed an important part of the spoils acquired from them by their
Roman conquerors. About 223 B.C.,[1446] when Flaminius Nepos gained his
victory over the Gauls on the Addua, it is related that instead of the
Gauls dedicating, as they had intended, a torque made from the spoils
of the Roman soldiers to their god of war, Flaminius erected to Jupiter
a golden trophy made from the Gaulish _torques_. The name of the
Torquati, a family of the Manlia Gens, was derived from their ancestor,
T. Manlius,[1447] having in B.C. 361 slain a gigantic Gaul in single
combat, whose torque he took from the dead body after cutting off the
head, and placed it around his own neck.
On some of the denarii of the Manlia family[1448] the torque forms a
circle round the head of Rome on the obverse. Two interesting papers
“On the Torc of the Celts,” by Dr. Samuel Birch, will be found in the
_Archæological Journal_.[1449]
Although these gold torques in many instances undoubtedly belong to
the Bronze Period, they are sufficiently well known to antiquaries to
render it needless for me here to enter into any minute description
of them. The commonest form presents a cruciform section, so that
the twist is that of a four-threaded screw, and at either end there
is a plain, nearly cylindrical bar, turned back so as to form a kind
of hook. I have a fine example of this kind of torque, found with a
bronze anvil (Fig. 217) and other bronze instruments and weapons at
Fresné la Mère, Calvados. A similar but smaller gold torque was found
near Boyton, Suffolk,[1450] which is said to have had the extremities
secured together by two small penannular rings of gold, embracing the
two terminal hooks.
[Illustration: Fig. 466.—Wedmore. ½]
One 42 inches long was found on Cader Idris;[1451] others in
Glamorganshire;[1452] at Pattingham, Staffordshire;[1453] and in
several other parts of Britain. Some fine examples of these funicular
torques of gold, as well as of other varieties of the same kind of
ornament, are in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy at Dublin.[1454]
The torques formed of bronze are, as a rule, thicker and bulkier in
their proportions than those of gold, and the ends are usually left
straight or but slightly hooked over so as to interlock. They are never
provided with the projecting cylindrical ends already mentioned.
[Illustration: Fig. 467.—Wedmore. ½]
The form most frequently discovered in the British Islands is that
known as funicular, one of which is shown in Fig. 466, copied from the
_Archæological Association Journal_.[1455]
The original was found with two others at Wedmore, Somersetshire. One
of these is of the same type, but of smaller size, and not quite so
closely twisted, as shown in Fig. 467; and the other is made of a flat
ribbon of metal, ⅜ inch broad, twisted, as shown in Fig. 469, which is
copied from the same plate as Figs. 466 and 467.
From another account of these torques,[1456] it appears that they were
found near Heath House, in the parish of Wedmore, and that with them
were two celts and a few amber beads strung on a wire. This latter,
to me, sounds doubtful, as the wire is probably a later addition. The
weight of the largest is said to be ½ pound, of the second 2 ounces,
and of the smallest 1½ ounce.
Another torque of the character of Fig. 466, about 9 inches in
diameter, was found with a bracelet, Fig. 481, and a two-looped
palstave, Fig. 87, at West Buckland, Somersetshire,[1457] and is in
the collection of Mr. W. A. Sanford. It is shown on the scale of
one-third in Fig. 468.
A portion of another torque, but of slender make, was found at Pen
Pits,[1458] in the same county; and another, somewhat imperfect, near
Edington Burtle.[1459] With the latter was a portion of a ribbon
torque like Fig. 469, two bracelets, some rings, and four palstaves.
Two very fine torques, like Fig. 468, 8¾ inches in diameter, were also
found in Somersetshire on the Quantock Hills,[1460] in 1794. Within
each of them is said to have been placed a looped palstave, like Fig.
77. The weight of one of the torques is reported to have been nearly 2
pounds.
[Illustration: Fig. 468.—West Buckland. ⅓]
In the collection of the Rev. E. Duke, of Lake House, near Salisbury,
are two fine torques of this kind, one large and heavy, and the other
smaller and more slender, which were found near Amesbury. With them
were several spiral rings closely resembling Fig. 489.
Two others found with armillæ in Dorsetshire[1461] are now in the
British Museum. The larger of these is closely twisted, and about 7½
inches in diameter. The smaller is thicker, and shows a coarser twist,
and is about 6⅜ inches in diameter. The armillæ are penannular and of
rhomboidal section.
Two small torques, some bronze rings or bracelets, and a palstave
are recorded to have been dug up in Woolmer Forest, Hants.[1462] Two
spiral rings were found with them.
In the collection of Mr. Durden, at Blandford, are several specimens
found at Spetisbury, Dorset.[1463]
I have a thin torque about 6¼ inches in diameter, but unfortunately
broken, found in Burwell Fen, Cambridgeshire.
[Illustration: Fig. 469.—Wedmore. ½]
In some instances the plain ends of the torque are left without hooks.
Such is the case with the fine collar found, with four looped armlets
and a palstave without loop, at Hollingbury Hill,[1464] near Brighton,
which is now in the British Museum. On each extremity was a spiral
ring of bronze, considerably larger than the rod forming the torque,
and a third ring is shown in the published drawing. The palstave,
which is broken in the middle, apparently on purpose, lay within the
circle of the torque, which also was broken across the middle. At
regular intervals round it lay the four bracelets, which resemble Fig.
482, and vary somewhat in weight.
The third of the torques already mentioned as found at Wedmore is
shown in Fig. 469.
It is of a type which occurs more frequently in gold than in bronze,
and in the former metal has often been found in Scotland. Several
such were discovered under a large stone at Urquhart, Elginshire.
Others have been found at Culter, Lanarkshire;[1465] Belhelvie,
Aberdeenshire; Little Lochbroom, Ross-shire; Rannoch, Perthshire; and
elsewhere. Some of these are in the Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh.
There are three or four such in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy.
A gold torque of this class found at Clonmacnoise,[1466] King’s
County, has oval balls at each end instead of hooks.
So far as at present known, the funicular torques of bronze are more
abundant in the southern and western counties than in the other parts
of England. They appear to be unknown both in Scotland and Ireland,
though torques of Late Celtic patterns occur in those countries.
[Illustration: Fig. 470.—Yarnton. ½]
The inference is that, although socketed celts are rarely if ever found
with them, these twisted neck-rings belong to the close of the Bronze
Period, and were introduced into Britain from the Continent. The form
is, however, rare in the North of France, and the nearest analogues to
the English torques with which we are acquainted are to be seen among
those from Northern Germany and Denmark.
The Danish form, with broad expanding ends terminating in spirals,
and the derivatives from it in which the spirals are represented by
solid cast plates with volutes upon them, are nevertheless unknown in
Britain, as is also that with the twist alternately to the right and to
the left.
Another form of bronze torque found in Britain is made from a
plain piece of wire, hammered out at each end into a broad, nearly
quadrangular, plate.
That shown in Fig. 470 lay near the head of a contracted skeleton at
Yarnton, four miles from Oxford, at a spot which seems to have been a
prehistoric cemetery. I obtained it through the kindness of Professor
Rolleston when visiting the place. The ends are ornamented by hammer
marking. In a line with the wire forming the torque is a slightly
raised flat band perpendicularly fluted; the expanding parts above and
below are fluted horizontally. A herald would engrave “azure, a fesse
gules” in the same manner, but with the lines much closer together.
Two torques of the same character, found at Lumphanan, Aberdeenshire,
are in the Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh.
The form probably belongs to the close of the Bronze Period, if not
indeed to the Late Celtic or Early Iron Age.
[Illustration: Fig. 471.—Montgomeryshire. ⅔]
A torque about 5 inches in diameter, described as of copper, made
of a simple wire, with the ends turned back so as to form hooks,
and on each a lenticular button of metal, was found near Winslow,
Bucks,[1467] and may also be Late Celtic.
Another form of torque is made from a stout wire expanding into small
flat discs at the end, a type which is also common among bracelets
both in bronze and gold. A torque of this kind, together with a
bracelet, is shown in Fig. 471, kindly lent by the Council of the
Society of Antiquaries.
These objects were found with seven others in the parish of
Llanrhaiadaryn-Mochnant, Montgomeryshire.[1468] One of them is said
to have had pendants upon it. Several of them were too small to have
served as torques for the neck, and were most probably bracelets or
anklets. To these penannular ornaments I shall have to refer further
on.
The other varieties of torques found in Britain seem decidedly to
belong to the Late Celtic rather than to the Bronze Period, so that
a brief notice of them will suffice. They are frequently made in two
halves, hinged or dowelled together, and are often decorated with a
series of ornamental beads.
A collar found in Lochar Moss, Dumfriesshire, is now in the British
Museum.[1469] About one-third of it is formed by a solid piece of
bronze of flat section, having the face ornamented with a peculiar
wavy pattern and the outer rim with cabled lines. The rest consists of
fluted melon-like beads with pulley-shaped collars between them. They
appear to have been strung on an iron wire.
A portion of another collar found at Perdeswell,[1470] Claines, near
Worcester, has the iron wire still preserved. The ornamental beads are
flatter, with leaf-shaped projections upon them, and between them are
smaller pulley-like beads.
Another, formed in much the same fashion as that from Lochar Moss, was
found at Mow-road, Rochdale, Lancashire.[1471] This was in halves,
dowelled together with iron pins.
Another, entirely of bronze, is made in two pieces, one part
resembling a row of beads, the other engraved like a closely plaited
cord, and was found at Embsay, near Skipton, Yorkshire.[1472]
A torque, weighing no less than 3 lbs. 10 ozs. avoirdupois, was found
in the parish of Wraxall, Somerset.[1473] This also is in halves,
with pins to form the joint. It is described as appearing to have
been adorned with precious stones. Possibly, like some other objects
of Late Celtic manufacture, it may have been inlaid with enamel of
different colours.
Bracelets of the same type as the torque and bracelet shown in Fig. 471
have not unfrequently been found in Britain, though, perhaps, they are
less common in bronze than in the more precious metal, gold.
They are sometimes slightly hollowed at the expanding ends. One found
with the hoard at Marden, Kent,[1474] is of this kind. Another plain
penannular bracelet tapers off at the ends instead of expanding. This
latter is too small for an adult person.
One found, with various other bronze relics, at Ty Mawr, on Holyhead
Mountain,[1475] expands at one end and tapers at the other. As is
often the case, the inner side of the ring is flatter than the outer.
One, 2⅜ inches by 2 inches inside, expanding at each end, was in the
Heathery Burn Cave hoard. Some others were also found there.
In some instances the section of the metal, instead of being rounded,
is nearly square. Two such, tapering towards the ends, were found in
Dorsetshire,[1476] with the torques already mentioned, and are now in
the British Museum.
Three plain penannular bracelets were in the hoard of palstaves and
socketed celts found at Wallington, Northumberland.
Several have been found in Scotland. Two such bracelets, the
one slender and the other thick, were found at Achtertyre,
Morayshire,[1477] in company with a socketed celt, a spear-head, Fig.
383, another spear-head, and some fragments of other bracelets and of
tin. One of these is shown full-size in Fig. 472.
[Illustration: Fig. 472.—Achtertyre. 1/1]
Another, 2½ inches in greatest diameter, slightly thickened at the
extremities, was found in a peat moss at Conage, Banffshire.[1478]
Other penannular armlets, one of which is shown as Fig. 473, were
found with socketed celts at Redhill, Premnay, Aberdeenshire,[1479]
and are now in the Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh; as is another
found with burnt bones near Preston Tower, East Lothian.
[Illustration: Fig. 473.—Redhill. 1/1]
This very simple penannular form of bracelet is found all over the
world, and is indeed the form of necessity adopted wherever it became
the fashion to wear thick metal wire round the arm. It was common
among the ancient Assyrians, and several bronze bracelets of this
form from Tel Sifr, in South Babylonia, are in the British Museum.
The hammered copper bracelets of North America[1480] are usually
penannular.
Two very massive penannular armlets, formed of rounded bronze fully ½
inch in diameter, and weighing about 12 ozs. each, were found with an
agate bead and a spindle-whorl in a tumulus near Peninnis Head, in the
Scilly Isles.[1481] One of these is shown in Fig. 474.
An imperfect armlet of thick bronze wire was found in a barrow at
Wetton,[1482] by the late Mr. Bateman.
Four plain armillæ of bronze found with the spiral ring, Fig. 489, and
with a palstave, in Woolmer Forest, Hants, are also in the Bateman
Collection.[1483] As already mentioned, two small torques and a celt
are said to have been found with them.[1484]
[Illustration: Fig. 474.—Scilly. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 475.—Liss. ½]
Ornamented bracelets, such as have been found in abundance in the
Swiss Lake-dwellings, and such as are common in most continental
countries, are scarce in Britain.
In the British Museum are two bracelets, slightly oval in section,
and engraved with parallel lines, chevrons, &c., as will be seen by
Fig. 475. They were found at Liss, Hampshire. Though the two ends are
brought more closely together than usual in continental examples, the
general character of these bracelets is much like that of some French
and German specimens. The _patina_ upon them closely resembles that on
the celt Fig. 17, also found at Liss; so they were probably deposited
together.
A curious penannular armlet with flat broad ends, and ornamented with
punctured markings, was found with another armlet of smaller diameter,
but plain, more massive, and broader, together with the remains of
a skeleton, at Stoke Prior,[1485] Worcestershire. It is now in the
British Museum, and is represented in Fig. 476. It may belong to a
later period than that of which I am treating, and is possibly Saxon.
[Illustration: Fig. 476.—Stoke Prior. ½]
Fig. 477, kindly lent by the Council of the Society of Antiquaries
of Scotland, shows another form of armlet, made from a bar of nearly
semicircular section, bent into a circular form. The original,
together with another of the same kind, were found near Stobo
Castle,[1486] Peeblesshire, beneath a flat stone, and lying on a large
boulder, under which was a collection of small stones, burnt and with
apparently calcined bones among them.
[Illustration: Fig. 477.—Stobo Castle. 1/1]
Another armlet (3 inches) of the same type was found with an urn
containing burnt bones in a cairn in the parish of Lanark.[1487] A
bronze spear-head is stated to have been found with it.
One of the bracelets from the find at Camenz,[1488] in Saxony, is of
nearly the same type.
Two circular armlets, one with the ends slightly apart, were found in
Dorsetshire, one in the parish of Milton.[1489] I have an imperfect
armlet of this kind, found with a palstave, at Winterhay Green,
Ilminster, Somerset.
A penannular armlet of bronze, with compressed oval knobs at the
extremities, was found by Mr. F. C. Lukis, with a jet armlet, in the
cromlech of _La Roche qui sonne_,[1490] in Guernsey, and is shown
in Fig. 478. The scale has been said to be one-third, though from
information kindly furnished to me by the Rev. W. C. Lukis, F.S.A., it
appears to be one-half.
A somewhat different and more elegantly ornamented armlet from
Cornwall[1491] is shown in Fig. 479.
[Illustration: Fig. 478.—Guernsey. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 479.—Cornwall. ½]
A bronze armilla, made from a flat ribbon of metal, ½ inch broad,
and ornamented outside with a neatly engraved lozengy pattern, was
found with an interment in a barrow at Castern,[1492] near Wetton,
Staffordshire.
Another, about 1½ inch wide, ornamented with four parallel bands of
vertical lines, with chevrons at the end, was found in a barrow at
Normanton,[1493] Wilts, encircling the arm of a skeleton, and is shown
in Fig. 480. In this example the ends overlap.
[Illustration: Fig. 480.—Normanton. ⅔]
Another, with a series of small longitudinal beads or mouldings upon
it, was found near Lake, Wilts, and is in the collection of the Rev.
E. Duke. Some plain penannular bracelets from that district are in the
same collection.
An armlet of nearly the same character, but narrower, was found in
Thor’s Cave,[1494] near Wetton, Derbyshire. Remains of Late Celtic and
of Roman date were found in the same cave.
A fluted bracelet was found with rings and other objects at Edington
Burtle, Somersetshire.[1495]
A bracelet of bronze, of which some of the fragments are represented
in Fig. 481, was found with a bronze torque and a two-looped palstave
at West Buckland,[1496] Somersetshire. It is flat on the inside,
so that the ornaments appear to have been cast in a mould, though
subsequently the more delicate work was added by means of punches or
gravers.
[Illustration: Fig. 481.—West Buckland. ½]
Another form of bracelet, probably of earlier date than some of
those represented in the previous figures, is of the type shown in
Fig. 482. It consists of a long bar of bronze, either circular or
subquadrangular in section, doubled over so as to leave a broad loop
in the middle, and then curved round so as to form the bracelet, the
two ends of the bar being bent over to form a hook, which engages
in the central loop. That shown in the figure was formerly in the
collection of the late Sir Walter Trevelyan, and is now in the
British Museum. As will be seen, the edges are in some parts minutely
serrated. The original was discovered with two others, and a ring of
the same metal, in a moss at Ham Cross, near Crawley, Sussex.
[Illustration: Fig. 482.—Ham Cross. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 483.—Heathery Burn. ½]
Four others, forming two pairs, neatly placed round a torque, were
found at Hollingbury Hill,[1497] near Brighton, as already described.
They are now in the British Museum. I have seen two others of the same
kind which were found at Pyecombe, Sussex. They are in the collection
of Mrs. Dickinson, of Hurstpierpoint. Another was found in a barrow
near Brighton,[1498] with the long pin already mentioned, and is
now at Alnwick Castle. This was slightly ornamented with a kind of
herring-bone pattern.
Bracelets constructed on the same principle are sometimes formed of
much thinner wire. One from the Heathery Burn Cave,[1499] already so
often mentioned, is shown in Fig. 483.
Another of the same size and character, but made of even thinner wire,
was found with a bronze razor, a button, and other antiquities, in the
bed of a stream near Llangwyllog Church,[1500] Anglesea. These objects
are now in the British Museum. The type is not confined to Britain,
for a bracelet clasping in the same manner was found in the Lac du
Bourget.[1501]
Penannular bracelets, like Fig. 473, with the ends slightly expanding,
have been not unfrequently found in Ireland. One engraved by
Wilde[1502] is described as of pure red copper.
In many there are large cup-shaped ends at about right angles to each
other. One from Co. Cavan is shown in Fig. 484. I have another of the
same type, but much smaller and lighter, from Ballymoney, Co. Antrim.
[Illustration: Fig. 484.—Co. Cavan. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 485.—Cowlam. 1/1]
They much resemble the manillas or ring-money in use on the West
Coast of Africa, but are more cup-shaped at the ends. It appears
possible that, like some large Irish rings which will subsequently be
described, they are not actually bracelets. The other armillæ engraved
by Wilde appear to be of later date than the Bronze Period. The same
may be said of the elegant bracelet shown full size in Fig. 485, which
is certainly Late Celtic. It was found by Canon Greenwell, F.R.S.,
on the right arm of a female skeleton in a barrow at Cowlam,[1503]
Yorkshire, and is similar to some found at Arras,[1504] in the same
county.
Another somewhat plainer bracelet, with a short dowel at one end,
fitting into a socket at the other, so as to form an almost invisible
joint, was found with a fibula, Fig. 498, on the skeleton of an aged
woman in another of the Cowlam[1505] barrows, and is shown in Fig. 486.
Another bronze armlet of the same period was found in a barrow in
the parish of Crosby Garrett,[1506] Westmoreland. It encircled the
right arm of a skeleton, and is penannular, “oval in section, and
unornamented, except in having a series of notches along both edges.”
Many bracelets of Late Celtic date have been found at various times
in Scotland. Some of these are of very ornate design, and extremely
massive; while on others a _repoussé_ pattern has been worked upon
a plate of thin bronze. Such bracelets hardly come within the scope
of the present work, but a few references to engravings of them are
subjoined:—
Aboyne, Aberdeenshire (_Arch. Journ._, vol. xxii. p. 74; Wilson’s
“Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” vol. ii. pp. 136, 139).
Alvah, Banffshire (_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. vi. p. 11, pl. iii.
1).
Muthill, Perthshire, now in the British Museum (_Arch._, vol. xxviii.
p. 435).
Plunton Castle, Kirkcudbright (_Arch. Journ._, vol. xvi. p. 194;
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. iii. p. 236).
Strathdon, Aberdeenshire (_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. vi. p. 13, pl.
iii. 2).
[Illustration: Fig. 486.—Cowlam. 1/1]
Among hoards of bronze antiquities belonging to the latter part of the
Bronze Period, rings of various sizes are of not unfrequent occurrence.
They are usually plain and of circular section, as if formed of a
piece of cylindrical wire, though actually cast solid, and do not
for the most part seem to require any illustrations. Some also are
lozenge-shaped in section.
In the hoard found at Marden,[1507] Kent, there were six perfect
bronze rings, varying in diameter from 1⅛ to 1⅜ inch. In the Heathery
Burn Cave were numerous rings of circular section, and varying in
thickness from ½ inch to 1½ inch in diameter. Many of these are now in
the collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S. One, 2½ inches in diameter,
was in the hoard found at Westow,[1508] Yorkshire, and may have been
an armlet. Several stout rings, about 1 inch in diameter, “probably
cast in moulds,” were found with various other antiquities in bronze
at Ty Mawr,[1509] Holyhead, and a number of rings of various sizes,
from ⅜ inch to 1½ inch in diameter, were found in the deposit at
Llangwyllog,[1510] Anglesea. There were also three small rings in the
great hoard found at Pant-y-maen,[1511] Glancych.
Several rings, some of lozenge-shaped section and of delicate
workmanship, were found in the hoard at Taunton,[1512] with the pin
and other objects already mentioned.
Such rings may have served various purposes, but were probably used
as means of connection between different straps or accoutrements.
Canon Greenwell has called my attention to two separate instances
of two rings being found together, in company with a bronze sword,
in one case near Medomsley, Durham, and in the other near Rothbury,
Northumberland.
[Illustration: Fig. 487.—Ireland. ½]
The rings found with remains of chariots at Hamden Hill,[1513] near
Montacute, Somersetshire, appear to be of Late Celtic date, and to be
hollow. A hollow ring, however, 1⅜ inch in diameter, and made from
a strip of bronze, fashioned into a tube and left open on the inner
side, was found with a socketed celt, a gouge, and other objects of
bronze, at Melbourn,[1514] Cambridgeshire. Many of those from the
cemetery at Hallstatt are of this kind, wrought from a thin plate of
metal. Some hollow rings from Ireland will subsequently be mentioned.
Near Trillick,[1515] Co. Tyrone, a pin passing transversely through
the body of two rings (see Fig. 496) was found, and with it two large
rings about 3½ inches in diameter, and four smaller, about 2 inches.
These latter appear to be hollow, with probably a clay core inside.
With these objects a socketed celt and a bronze hammer were found.
Nearly six hundred bronze rings are in the Museum of the Royal Irish
Academy.
Some of the Irish rings are cast in pairs, like a figure of 8.[1516]
Others of large size have smaller rings cast upon them. That shown in
Fig. 487, borrowed from Wilde,[1517] is 4¼ inches in diameter, with
rings of 1½ inches diameter upon it. Sir W. Wilde was inclined to
regard it as a bangle with two rings by which to suspend it, but this
appears to me very doubtful. I have an almost identical example of the
form from Ballymoney, Co. Antrim.
A gold ring, 4¼ inches in diameter, with a single small ring playing
upon it, from the great Clare find, is figured by Wilde.[1518] He
states that “similar articles are occasionally observed sculptured
upon the breasts of the statues of ancient Roman generals, the small
ring being attached to the dress.”
Some few bronze ornaments, which have been thought to be finger rings,
have from time to time been found associated with other objects of the
same metal, such as armlets, torques, &c.
One found with the armlets and palstaves in Woolmer Forest,[1519]
Hants, as already mentioned, is shown in Fig. 488. It has been formed
from a small quadrangular bar of metal, cylindrical at the ends,
twisted after the manner of an ordinary torque, and subsequently
coiled into a spiral ring. Mr. Bateman[1520] describes it as a finger
ring. With it was also another twisted bronze ring of the same kind,
but of only one coil. It appears doubtful whether these rings were
not more of the nature of ornamental beads. It will be remembered
that three spiral rings of the same kind, but plain and of about four
coils each, were found on the extremities of the torque discovered
at Hollingbury Hill,[1521] Sussex. They were considerably too large
to fit on the torque, and were regarded as intended in some way to
fasten the garment. Some rings of this kind were found with torques
near Amesbury, as already mentioned. A ring of a single coil, but made
from a twisted bar like that in the figure, was in the hoard found at
Camenz,[1522] Saxony, in which also were fragments of torques.
[Illustration: Fig. 488.—Woolmer Forest. 1/1]
[Illustration: Fig. 489.—Dumbarton.]
I have three small twisted penannular rings of gold which were found
with a small torque of the same metal near Carcassonne, Aude. They
are of different sizes and weights, but are all too small for the
finger or for ear-rings. One of them is indeed too small to pass over
the recurved end of the torque, but the ends may possibly have been
pinched together since it was found. I am not aware that any of the
rings were ever actually upon the torque, though I have reason to
believe they were found with it.
Mr. Franks has recently presented to the British Museum a gold torque
from Lincolnshire, which has three banded rings of gold, strung like
beads upon it.
Some small penannular rings found on a gold torque at Boyton have
already been mentioned.
The penannular rings so often found in Ireland, and commonly called
ring money, may after all be of the nature of beads.
The large hollow penannular ornaments made of thin gold, and nearly
triangular in section, seem also to be of the nature of beads or
possibly clasps. Straps passed through the narrow notch would require
some trouble to take out; but still such beads could be dislodged from
their string without its ends being unfastened. The ornament shown in
Fig. 489 was found near Dumbarton.[1523]
Others, similar, have been found in Anglesea, Heathery Burn Cave, near
Alnwick,[1524] and in other places. They occur also in Ireland.[1525]
They have frequently been found associated with armlets. Some Egyptian
rings of carnelian, ivory, and other materials have similar notches
through them. They have, however, been regarded as ear-rings.
Bronze finger rings seem to have been in occasional use.
In a perished urn with burnt bones, found with several others,
one containing a barbed flint arrow-head, in the cemetery at
Stanlake,[1526] Oxfordshire, there was a spiral bronze finger ring
of the plainest form, the only fragment of metal brought to light
during nearly a month’s excavations by Mr. Akerman and Mr. Stone.
What may have been a finger ring was also found in the Heathery Burn
Cave,[1527] Durham. It is formed of stout wire, the ends expanding,
and slightly overlapping each other, and is ⅞ inch in diameter.
In the hoard of bronze antiquities found near Edington Burtle,[1528]
Somersetshire, were several small rings; but with one exception
they are hardly such as could have served for finger rings. This
exceptional ring is penannular, and fluted externally like the
bracelet found with it in the same hoard. The form is not unlike that
of the gold ring engraved by Wilde[1529] as his Fig. 609.
Another form of ornament, the ear-ring, appears to have been known
in Britain during the Bronze Period. In two of the barrows on the
Yorkshire Wolds, explored by Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., female skeletons
were found accompanied by such ornaments.
In a barrow at Cowlam,[1530] “touching the temporal bones, which were
stained green by the contact, were two ear-rings of bronze. They
have been made by beating the one end of a piece of bronze flat,
and forming the other end into a pin-shaped termination. This pin
had been passed through the lobe of the ear and then bent round,
the other and flat end being bent over it.” Thus the ear-ring must
have been “permanently fixed in the ear.” One of these rings is,
by Canon Greenwell’s kindness, shown as Fig. 490, as is one from
Goodmanham,[1531] in Fig. 491.
[Illustration: Fig. 490.—Cowlam. 1/1]
[Illustration: Fig. 491.—Goodmanham. 1/1]
In the latter case there was a bronze awl, or drill, behind the head;
the ear-ring here figured was at the right ear, and its fellow, in
a more broken condition, lay under the left shoulder. The better
preserved of the two is somewhat imperfect, and may, I think, have
formed a perfect circle when whole.
[Illustration: Fig. 492.—Orton. 1/1]
Mr. Bateman records finding in a barrow called Stakor Hill,[1532] near
Burton, a female skeleton, “the mastoid bones of which were dyed green
from contact with two small pieces of thin bronze bent in the middle
just sufficiently to clasp the edge or lobe of the ear.” With the
skeleton was a flint “javelin head,” and Mr. Bateman considered the
interment to be the oldest he had met with in which metal was present.
By way of illustration, a much longer form of trough-shaped ear-ring
may be adduced, though the metal in this instance is gold and not
bronze. That shown in Fig. 492 was found with another in a stone cist
at Orton, Morayshire.[1533]
It seems possible that a lunette or diadem of gold was buried with
these ear-rings.
A pair of circular embossed plates, with a beaded ring on each and a
smaller disc above, were found in a tumulus near Lake, Wilts, and have
been regarded as ear-rings. They are in the collection of the Rev. E.
Duke.
In the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy[1534] is another gold ornament
of the same form as Fig. 492. It is, however, smaller, and the lower
part is at present flat. Gold penannular rings of torque-like patterns,
pointed at each end, and which may have been ear-rings, and not
bead-like ornaments, are not uncommon in Ireland and Britain.[1535]
Rings of nearly the same kind are still in use in Northern Africa.
Plain double-pointed penannular ear-rings in bronze are also found, but
I am uncertain as to the period to which they should be assigned. Some
appear to be of Saxon date.[1536]
I have a pair of ear-rings of circular form from Hallstatt, about 2
inches in diameter, of hollow bronze, made from a thin plate, and
with one end pointed which fits into a socket at the other end. Other
ear-rings of bronze,[1537] from the same cemetery, have a small ring
encircling them, to which, in one instance, three small spherical bells
are attached.
In the Laibach Museum are some bronze ear-rings of the Early Iron Age,
much like those from Goodmanham, but broader.
Ear-rings of the Bronze Period appear to be almost unknown in France. I
have, however, specimens found with a hoard of bronze socketed celts,
fragments of swords, spear-heads, bracelets, and a variety of other
objects at Dreuil, near Amiens, about 1872.
They are two in number, in form like Fig. 490, but rather shorter. One
of them is coiled up, and the other has the broad part nearly flat.
Each is ornamented with some parallel lines stamped in across the
broader part. Several small hollow and some solid rings, circular,
semicircular, and flattened in section, were in the same hoard.
Some few objects of bead-like character have from time to time been
found in barrows and with other bronze objects. Dr. Thurnam[1538]
describes a tubular bronze bead, 1¼ inch long, found in a barrow
in Dorset, and now in Mr. Durden’s collection. He thinks the bead
mentioned by Sir R. Colt Hoare as found in a barrow near Fovant[1539]
may have been the spheroidal head of the bronze pin with which it was
found. Some beads of amber and jet were, however, discovered with it.
A notched bead of tin, like a number of small beads strung together,
accompanied a little pin of copper or bronze, most probably an awl,
and some conical buttons of bone or ivory, in a barrow on Sutton
Verney Down,[1540] in which there had been deposited a burnt body.
Hoare says that “it is the only article of that metal we have ever
found in a barrow.”
Small beads, or more probably drum-shaped buttons of gold, as
suggested by Dr. Thurnam,[1541] have also been found in the Wiltshire
barrows.
Beads formed of joints of encrinites, with others formed of burnt
clay, as well as a necklace formed of the shells of dentalium, were
found in a barrow near Winterbourn Stoke.[1542] Glass beads of the
notched form have been found with burnt interments, and frequently
with bronze instruments in others of the Wiltshire barrows.[1543]
Other beads have spiral ornaments in white upon a blue ground. A blue
glass bead, with three yellow spirals on it, was found with the point
of a bronze blade in a cist with burnt bones in a barrow at Eddertoun,
Ross-shire.[1544] Such beads, known as Clachan Nathaireach,[1545] or
serpent stones, have been used as charms for diseased cattle and other
evils.
Glass beads with the same spiral ornamentation have been found in the
cemetery at Hallstatt, and their presence in these graves certainly
affords an argument for assigning them to a comparatively late period,
or at all events to a time when commerce with the Continent was well
established.
Among the objects found at Exning, Suffolk,[1546] are some “curious
bullæ” with clay cores, but they appear to belong to a later date.
As will be seen from the list of personal ornaments described in
the preceding pages, their forms are but few and their number small
in the British Islands, as compared with those of analogous objects
found in some continental countries, as, for instance, Scandinavia
and Switzerland. The absence of several forms of torques has already
been mentioned; the Danish and North German lunette, or diadem-like
bandlets, are also never found in this country, though, perhaps, the
crescent-shaped gold plates or “minds” of the Irish antiquaries may
represent the same class of ornaments. Spirals formed by coiling
long tapering pieces of wire, such as are common in Scandinavia and
throughout Germany, are also unknown, and this circumstance affords an
argument against there having been any direct intercourse in very early
days between this country and Etruria, where such spiral ornaments
abounded. Besides this absence of spirals formed of solid metal, the
engraved spiral ornament which in some countries is characteristic
of the Bronze Period may be said to be absolutely unknown in Britain.
The nearest approach to it is the ring ornament formed of concentric
circles.
The bracelets formed of cylindrical coils of wire are also unknown,
as well as those of hollowed bronze with discoidal ends, such as are
so common in the Swiss Lake-habitations. Decorated pendants, like
those which are found in Switzerland and the South of France, are
also wanting. Altogether the bronze ornaments of Britain are neither
abundant nor, as a rule, highly artistic; and it would appear that
here, at all events, the serviceable qualities of bronze were more
highly appreciated than its decorative lustre.
CHAPTER XIX.
CLASPS, BUTTONS, BUCKLES, AND MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTS.
THERE still remain to be noticed a number of objects in bronze, of
some of which the precise nature and use are now hardly susceptible of
being determined; and of others but so few examples are known that they
are best placed in a chapter which, like the present, is intended to
treat of miscellaneous articles. It has occasionally been observed of
antiquaries that when at a loss to explain the use or destination of
some object of bronze or brass, their usual refuge is in the suggestion
that it formed some portion of harness, or was what is termed a
horse-trapping. To judge from what may be seen on the dray-horses and
waggon-horses of the present day, future antiquaries, in examining
the relics of the nineteenth century, will have some justification in
assigning a vast number of forms of ornamental pendants and tongueless
buckles to this comprehensive class of trappings; while a number
of curious instruments of brass and other alloys, some of them not
unlike complicated dentists’ instruments, will probably be given up
in despair, though now in most cases susceptible of being recognised
by the adept as destined to extract cartridges or their cases from
breech-loading guns. If these puzzles await future antiquaries, those
of the present day must be pardoned for occasionally being at fault as
to the destination of some ancient instrument or ornament, and they may
even be forgiven for making suggestions as to probable uses of such
objects, provided they do not insist upon possibilities being regarded
as strong probabilities, much less as facts.
In Fig. 493 is shown full-size a mysterious object, consisting of
a tube with a slight collar at each end, having on one side a long
narrow loop of solid metal subquadrangular in section, and on the
other an elongated oval opening, a part of the side of which has been
broken away. It was found with a number of socketed celts, knives,
and other articles in the hoard at Reach Fen, Cambridge, already
often mentioned. With it was also another smaller object of the
same kind, shown in Fig. 494. This, however, has the orifice in the
front, and not at the side opposite the loop, the section of which
in this case is circular. One end of the tube is plugged up with a
bronze rivet. The mouth of the oval opening is rough, and has no lip
to it, as in the other case; and within the tube there are remains of
wood. I have a broken specimen found at Malton, near Cambridge, of
the same character as Fig. 493, but with the loop round in section,
and both shorter and stouter. The end of the tube is cast with a flat
plate closing the aperture, except for a central hole about ⅛ inch in
diameter. I have another specimen much like Fig. 493, but the loop is
longer and flatter, and beneath it the tube has a long oval opening
with a lip around it, as well as a somewhat shorter opening on the
opposite side of the tube. The loop also has a deep groove on its
inner side extending its whole length. I am not sure where this object
was found, but there is little doubt of its being English.
[Illustration: Fig. 493.—Reach Fen. 1/1]
[Illustration: Fig. 494.—Reach Fen. 1/1]
[Illustration: Fig. 495.—Broadward. 1/1]
An object like Fig. 493 was found with socketed celts, gouges, and
hammers at Roseberry Topping,[1547] Yorkshire, in 1826. With them
was a flat quadrangular whetstone(?) and fragments of a flat plate
of bronze, the ends hollowed and with crescent-shaped openings or
lunettes in them, and with staples for attachment at the corners.
There are three rivet-holes on the convex side of the lunettes.
Another object of the same kind was found with a socketed celt, a
hollow ring, gouge, &c., at Melbourne,[1548] Cambridge. There were two
of these looped tubes found with spear-heads, socketed celts, broken
swords, &c., near La Pierre du Villain,[1549] Longy, Alderney.
In the great hoard of bronze spear-heads, &c., found at
Broadward,[1550] Shropshire, was a short object of this kind about
1½ inch long, with the loop as large in diameter as the tube and
extending the whole length, so as to give it the form of the letter
D. The orifice of the loop is only ½ inch long. This specimen is shown
in Fig. 495. Another seems to have been found at the same time.
[Illustration: Fig. 496.—Trillick. ½]
A fragment of another was in the collection of the late Lord
Braybrooke.
An example, like Fig. 493, but somewhat broken, was in the deposit of
Notre-Dame d’Or, now in the Poitiers Museum.
Another (2¾ inches), almost identical with Fig. 493, was found in a
hoard with other objects near Amiens, and is now in the museum of that
town.
Another of much the same kind was found at La Parnelle, Manche.[1551]
I have an object from the Seine at Paris, which appears to belong
to the same class as the tubes lately described, though without any
loop. The tube is in this instance about 3 inches long, with small
flanges at each end; and through the middle of it is an oval opening
about 1 inch by ⅜ inch, with mouth-pieces standing out on each side of
the tube, making the whole length of the oval cross-tube thus formed
nearly 1¼ inch. Each mouth-piece has two parallel beads running round
it. I am at a loss to assign a purpose to it.
Those with a loop seem to me possibly intended as clasps for leather
straps or belts, one end of which passed through the metal loop and
was sewn or fastened to the strap so as to form a loop of leather,
while a corresponding loop at the other end was inserted into the
oval mouth-piece, so that a pin passed down inside the tube would go
through it and secure it. This pin need not have been of metal, but of
some more perishable material.
The objection to this view is that the side orifice in the tube is
not in all cases opposite to the loop, but in one instance at least
at right angles to it. A second suggestion is that they were loops in
some manner attached to wooden or leather scabbards of swords, which
could at any time be detached by withdrawing a pin that passed down
the tube. Whatever purpose they served, they do not appear to have
been permanently attached to any other article, as in no instance have
any rivet-holes been observed in them.
Some of the hollow rings found in Ireland with transverse perforations
through them, appear also to have been made for attachment at will to
leather or cloth by means of a pin passing through the cross-holes,
which at once converted the rings into brooches or buckles of a
peculiar kind.
This purpose has already been suggested by Mr. T. O’Gorman, in the
_Journal of the Royal Historical and Archæological Association of
Ireland_.[1552] He there describes a bronze pin with two thick
bronze rings upon it, which was found with two large rings of bronze,
four rings of about the same size as those on the pin, a large
socketed celt, and a bronze hammer, in what appears to have been a
sepulchre near Trillick, Co. Tyrone. These objects are now all in my
own collection, and, as will be seen in Fig. 496, there can be no
doubt of an efficient form of double buckle being presented by the
pin and rings. Whether it was used for fastening a cloak or tunic,
as suggested by Mr. O’Gorman, or for some other purpose, I need not
stay to examine. I think, however, that the discovery of the pin and
perforated rings in juxtaposition throws some light upon the character
of other rings with cross perforations, of which many have been
found in Ireland. One of these is shown in Fig. 497, borrowed from
Wilde.[1553] I have one of precisely the same character, 2⅜ inches
in diameter, with a cross perforation through the two projecting
mouth-pieces, slightly oval, and about the size to receive a common
pencil. Vallancey[1554] has figured others, in one of which there is
a cross-pin with a small ring at each end, somewhat like a horse’s
bit.[1555]
[Illustration: Fig. 497. Ireland. ½]
Others, with numerous small loops round the circumference, and with
central bosses secured by pins, or occasionally with cross arms within
them, appear to be of later date and to have had bands of chain-mail
attached. In some of the plain rings, however, there is a portion of a
strap of bronze left, which Sir W. Wilde regards as having served to
connect the ring-chains, of which he thinks that coats of mail were
made. Under any circumstances, these perforated rings seem to come
under the category of fastenings or clasps, to which the looped tubes
already described may also be referred.
A perforated ring was in the hoard found at Llangwyllog,[1556]
Anglesea, already mentioned.
Large rings, such as those described in the last chapter, may also have
served as connections for bands or straps.
There is, indeed, numismatic evidence that among the Ancient Britons,
shortly after the time of Julius Cæsar, rings were employed as
connecting links between the different straps forming the harness of
war-horses. On a gold coin of Verica,[1557] engraved on the title-page
of Akerman’s “Ancient Coins of Cities and Princes,” and now in my
own collection, there is on the reverse a warrior on horseback. The
engraving of the die is exquisitely minute, and the warrior’s saddle is
shown to be secured by four girths, and by straps running from it round
the chest and the hind-quarters to keep it in position. On the shoulder
and the haunches there are rings to which these straps are joined, and
from each of these rings another strap runs down to pass below the
body of the horse. Each ring, therefore, has three straps secured to
it, one running forwards, another backwards, and the third downwards.
Rings with three loops for straps attached occur among Etruscan
Antiquities.[1558]
[Illustration: Fig. 498.—Cowlam. 1/1]
Of brooches proper, with a pin attached by a spring or hinge, and
secured by a hasp or catch, none are, I think, known in Britain which
can with safety be assigned to an earlier period than the Late Celtic.
That shown in Fig. 498 was found by Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., in a
barrow in the parish of Cowlam,[1559] Yorkshire, together with an
armlet (Fig. 486) and a necklace of glass beads, on the body of an
aged woman. The pin was of iron, which had replaced the original
of bronze. I have a somewhat similar brooch from Redmore, near St.
Austell, Cornwall, as well as one of longer form and with a larger
disc, which was found in a barrow near Bridlington, together with two
remarkable buckles formed of penannular rings. These were described by
the late Mr. Thomas Wright[1560] (who has figured them) as undoubtedly
Roman, but their character is decidedly “Late Celtic.” Other brooches
of the same character as the figure, found in the Thames, London, and
near Avebury, Wilts, are in the British Museum.
[Illustration: Fig. 499. Reach Fen. 1/1]
Another article in use for fastening or attaching parts of the dress
is the button, which claims a high antiquity. I have elsewhere[1561]
described some made of stone and jet, in which a V-shaped perforation
in the body of the button afforded the means of fastening it to the
dress. In the bronze buttons a legitimate loop or shank is found, which
is cast in one piece with the button itself.
In Fig. 499 are shown three full-size views of one of two bronze
buttons from the Reach Fen hoard in my own collection. There is a
sharpness and smoothness about their faces which suggests their having
been finished by some process of turning or rotary grinding. The
centre and raised bands, though similar, are not identical in the two,
or it might have been thought that they were cast in a metal mould.
Four others were found at the same time.
A button of almost the same size and pattern was found with a razor
and other objects at Llangwyllog, Anglesea.[1562] One of the same
character, but of larger size (1¾ inch), was found with a gouge,
socketed celts, &c., at Kensington.[1563] It has a central boss and
two raised ridges. Both these buttons are now in the British Museum.
In the Heathery Burn Cave, Durham, was a small button, ¾ inch in
diameter, with one loop at the back; and another larger (1½ inch),
with five loops at the back, one in the centre, and the four others
at equal distances around it forming four sides of an octagon. This
larger button has a series of concentric rings or grooves on the face;
the small one has a central pointed boss with one groove around it.
Some curious buttons, like half barrels in shape, were found with
a hoard of bronze objects at St. Genouph (Indre et Loire), and are
preserved in the Museum at Tours. Numerous buttons of circular form
have been found in other parts of France.
Buttons of various sizes and shapes have also been found in abundance
in the Swiss Lake-dwellings.
A clay mould, apparently for buttons of this kind, is in the Museo
Civico at Modena.
[Illustration: Fig. 500.—Edinburgh. 1/1]
In the cemetery at Hallstatt immense numbers of small button-like
objects have been found, some of the warriors’ coats having been
completely studded with them. Some of these are not more than ⅜ inch
in diameter, nearly hemispherical, and with a small bar cast across
them inside.
A peculiar annular button with two loops at the back, found with
bronze swords (see Fig. 353) and a flat-headed pin (Fig. 464) at
Edinburgh,[1564] is represented in Fig. 500. The original is now in
the Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh. It has been thought to be the
mounting of a belt.
Bronze discs of larger size than any ordinary buttons or clasps are
occasionally found. One such, 31/5 inches in diameter, with three
concentric circles engraved on one of its faces, was discovered at
Castell y Bere, Merionethshire.[1565] Another was found at Wolsonbury
Hill,[1566] Sussex. A third, about 5 inches in diameter, with raised
concentric rings upon it, is in the Scarborough Museum. One found at
Inis Kaltra,[1567] Lough Derg, between Clare and Galway, has been
figured. It has a hollow conical projection like the umbo of a shield,
surrounded by five concentric raised rings, the interval between the
second and third being about double that between any other pair. The
inner side has grooves corresponding with the external ridges, and
across the inside of the hollow umbo is a small bar of metal. The
diameter of this ornament is 4¾ inches. It is now in the British
Museum. In many respects such discs resemble the so-called _tutuli_
of the Scandinavian antiquaries, though the long-pointed form has not
been found in the British Islands.
[Illustration: Fig. 501.—Heathery Burn Cave. ⅓]
An irregularly rounded flat plate of bronze, about 5 inches by 5½, and
1⅛ inch, thick, apparently hammered out, was found with leaf-shaped
spear-heads and a sword at Worth,[1568] Devon. I have a round flat
plate, about 6½ inches in diameter and ⅛ inch thick, found near
Clough, Co. Antrim, which bears deep hammer marks in sets of parallel
grooves on both faces. Perhaps such plates were destined to be still
further drawn out into sheets for the manufacture of caldrons or other
vessels.
In the Heathery Burn Cave, already so often mentioned, were about ten
convex plates, with a raised rim round their edge, a small hole in the
middle, and four loops cast on at the back. One of these is shown in
Fig. 501.[1569] With them were found about the same number of broad
hoops, of which an example is given in Fig. 502.
[Illustration: Fig. 502.—Heathery Burn Cave. ⅓]
These are dexterously cast in one piece, with a groove inside
corresponding with the raised central ridge on the outside. Their
diameter is only about 4⅜ inches, while that of the discs is about
5-3/10 inches. It is difficult to see any connection between the two
forms, though from the correspondence in their numbers a connection at
first sight seems probable. The hoops have been spoken of as armlets,
but I can hardly regard them as such. Most of the specimens are in the
collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., though thanks to his kindness I
have an example of each; and two hoops and a disc are in the British
Museum. Canon Greenwell has two other discs of a somewhat similar
character, found with spear-heads and socketed celts near Newark. They
are 5¼ inches in diameter, with a raised rib round the margin and a
central hole. The surface, instead of being regularly convex, rises
more rapidly towards the centre, so as to make a kind of cone with
hollowed sides. There are no loops nor any means of attachment on the
interior. It may be that a shank was riveted through the central hole,
as was the case with some analogous conical objects from Hallstatt.
Without expressing any definite opinion on the subject, I may call
attention to a certain analogy that exists between these hoops and
discs, and the hoops and axle ends of Gaulish chariots of the Early
Iron Age. The naves of the wheels of the chariot found in the tomb of
la Gorge Meillet[1570] (Marne) had bronze hoops on either side of the
naves, and an ornamented plate at each end of the axle. The hoops,
however, are made of plates riveted together, and were not cast in one
piece, and the centre of the plates is open, though crossed by an iron
pin.
Fragments of what may have been discs of the same kind, with a hole in
the centre and four small bosses at intervals around it, were found
in the hoard at Stanhope,[1571] Durham, which comprised spear-heads,
celts, &c., much like those in the Heathery Burn Cave.
Similar large discs with concentric circles upon them, and having
loops at the back, have been found in various parts of France,
Switzerland, and Italy.[1572]
[Illustration: Fig. 503.—Harty. ½]
Another and smaller disc with a central hole, having a short collar
round it, is shown in Fig. 503. This is only the rough casting; and
at one time I thought it was merely a waste piece or jet from the
foundry, as it was discovered with moulds, celts, &c., in the Isle
of Harty hoard. Another disc of the same kind was, however, found
with the hoard of bronze at Yattendon,[1573] Berks, which shows so
much finish all over that it would seem to have been adapted for
some special purpose, and not to have been merely a piece of waste
metal. Another disc of the same kind was found in the hoard at Haynes
Hill,[1574] Kent, and was regarded as part of an utensil. Mr. Franks
informs me that an example with a rather longer tube has been found
in Brittany. In the Yattendon hoard were also some fragments of thin
bronze plate very highly planished on one face, and a hollowed conical
piece of bronze, not unlike an extinguisher; but the purpose for which
either of these was intended is a mystery.
Returning to bronze objects which appear to be in some manner
connected with straps, I may cite some loops or slides of which
an example is given in Fig. 504. The original is not in this case
English, having formed part of the hoard found at Dreuil, near Amiens.
But a specimen of the same size and shape, though rather more convex
on the faces, is in Lord Braybrooke’s collection at Audley End, and
was, I believe, found with other bronze objects, including a hollow
ring, in Essex. At first sight such objects might appear to be
intended for mouth-pieces of scabbards, but on trial I find that the
opening is not wide enough to allow of the passage of a sword blade,
much less to admit of a thickness of leather or wood in addition.
They seem more probably to be slides, such as might have served for
receiving the two ends of a leather belt.
In the Dreuil hoard was also a flat kind of ferrule, about 2¼ inches
wide and closed at the end, which may have served as a sort of tag or
end to a broad strap. There were also socketed celts and knives.
[Illustration: Fig. 504.—Dreuil, Amiens. 1/1]
[Illustration: Fig. 505.—Abergele. 1/1]
[Illustration: Fig. 506.—Abergele. 1/1]
[Illustration: Fig. 507.—Abergele. ½]
In the same hoard was a loop fluted on one face, like Fig. 505, but
with four divisions instead of three, and 2½ inches wide. The loops
shown in Figs. 505 and 506 formed part of a large hoard found near
Abergele,[1575] Denbighshire, and described in the _Archæologia_,
whence my cuts are copied. There were present in the hoard forty-two
loops or slides of this kind, though of various widths, as well as
eighteen buttons, a reel-shaped object like Fig. 377, and numerous
rings, some of them almost like buckles in shape. There were also
several double rings fitting the one within the other, the inner
about 1¼ inch in diameter and the outer about 2⅛ inches. They are
cast hollow, and on the inner ring is a loop which fits into a hole
in the outer ring. In the same hoard was the remarkable object shown
half-size in Fig. 507. It consists of three pairs of irregular oval
plates with loops, through which is passed a bar of bronze. Mr.
Franks, who has described the hoard, says that “the loops show marks
of wear, and the whole was probably a jingling ornament to be attached
to horse-harness. Objects of the same nature have been found with
bridle-bits, and are engraved in Madsen, _Afbildninger_,[1576] and in
Worsaae’s _Nordiske Oldsager_, Fig. 266.”
These examples, however, do not present such close analogies with
the Welsh specimen as do some interlinked rings with flat pendants
found at Plonéour,[1577] Brittany, with looped palstaves and a flat
quadrangular knife. Some other analogous objects are mentioned by
M. Chantre,[1578] who has also described several _sistrum_-like
instruments, to which M. de Mortillet[1579] is inclined to assign an
Eastern origin.
Reverting to the Abergele hoard, I may add that Mr. Franks regards it
as belonging to the close of the Bronze Period, and conjectures that
most of the objects which it comprised formed part of the trappings of
a horse.
Bronze bridle-bits, such as have been found in various parts of the
Continent,[1580] have very rarely been found in Britain, though
occasionally discovered in Ireland. In the British Isles they appear
for the most part, if not in all cases, to belong to the Late Celtic
Period.
[Illustration: Fig. 508.—Dreuil. 1/1]
Another form of bronze objects of uncertain use is shown in Fig. 508,
which is taken from a French and not an English original. This formed
part of the Dreuil hoard; and as in so many respects the articles
comprised in this deposit present analogies with those found in
England, it appeared worth while to call attention to this particular
object. It is a kind of semicircular flap, with a hole running through
the beaded cylinder at top. What was its purpose I cannot say, though
I have a thin gold plate of the same form, but decorated with ring
ornaments, that was found at Hallstatt. It may be merely a pendant.
Among other miscellaneous objects of bronze may be mentioned an
article of twisted bronze already cited at p. 51. It has a flat tang
for insertion into a handle, in which are four rivet-holes. Beyond
the handle project two twisted horns, which seem to have nearly or
quite met, so as to form a somewhat heart-shaped ring. In the centre
opposite the tang is a long slot with a chain of three circular rings
attached. The whole covers a space of about 6½ inches in length by
4½ inches in breadth. With Sir E. Colt Hoare, “I leave to my learned
brother antiquaries to ascertain” what was the ancient use of this
singular article, which was found in a barrow at Wilsford,[1581] with
a stone hammer, a flanged bronze celt, and other objects in company
with an unburnt body.
Portions of three sickle-like objects, with a kind of square tang,
through which is a large hole, were found with a palstave and a flat
celt and many other bronze antiquities, near Battlefield, Salop.[1582]
These measure about 7 inches by 7¼ inches, and their purpose is as
much veiled in mystery as that of the Wilsford relic, with which they
present a slight analogy.
The flat annular and horseshoe-shaped plates—the one 13 inches in
diameter, and the other 2 feet 1 inch long—found with an oblong
cup-shaped boss on the hill of Benibhreæ,[1583] in Lochaber, appear
to me to be probably Late Celtic.
Some of the curious spoon-like articles[1584] of bronze occasionally
found in all parts of the United Kingdom may also belong to the Late
Celtic Period, and most of them probably to quite the close of that
period, if not to a later date.
The remarkable bronze rod, about 18 inches long, with small figures
of birds and pendent rings upon it, found near Ballymoney,[1585]
County Antrim, is probably of later date than the Bronze Period: as
are also the curious figures of boars and other animals found near
Hounslow.[1586]
In concluding this chapter, it may be observed that although I have
attempted to give in it some notice of various forms of bronze relics
of many of which the use is uncertain, yet that I do not pretend that
the list here given comprises all such objects as have been discovered
in Britain. In several hoards of bronze there have been found portions
of thin plates and fragments of objects the purpose of which is
unknown; and I have thought it best not to encumber my pages with
notices of mere fragments about which even less is known than about
the mysterious articles to the description of which, perhaps, too much
space has already been allotted.
CHAPTER XX.
VESSELS, CALDRONS, ETC.
OF the various forms of fictile vessels which were in use at the same
period as daggers and other weapons formed of bronze, it is not the
place here to speak. Much has already been written on the subject,
not only in various memoirs which have appeared in the proceedings
of our different Antiquarian and Archæological Societies, but also
in several standard archæological works. For the pottery found in
the tumuli of this country I would more particularly refer to Canon
Greenwell’s “British Barrows,” and to Dr. Thurnam’s “Paper on the
Barrows of Wiltshire,” published in the _Archæologia_.[1587] Both these
authors agree that none of the pottery from the barrows has been made
upon the wheel. The greater part of the fictile ware with which we are
acquainted was used for sepulchral purposes, and there appears good
reason for supposing that much of it was manufactured expressly for
the dead, and not for the living. Still there are a certain number of
examples known of what has been termed culinary pottery, some of which
have been found in barrows, and some in the remains of dwellings of
the Bronze Period. This pottery, unlike the sepulchral, is devoid of
ornament, and is well burnt, “plain, strong, and useful,” but it is
also made by hand. Some of the pottery from the Swiss Lake-dwellings
is, however, ornamented in various ways, but the potter’s wheel does
not seem to have been in use.[1588] And yet, in more than one instance,
there have been found in barrows in the South of England weapons of
bronze, accompanied by vessels of amber and of shale, which have all
the appearance of having been turned in a lathe. Of some of these
vessels I have given figures in my “Ancient Stone Implements,”[1589]
and also stated the particulars of the discoveries. I have also
mentioned the discovery of a gold cup in a barrow at Rillaton,
Cornwall, which was accompanied by what appears to have been a bronze
dagger.[1590] As this vessel is of metal, I have here reproduced the
cut as Fig. 509. It seems to me probable that the same kind of vessel
which was made in the nobler metal may also prove to have been made in
bronze, although as yet no examples have been discovered. The hanging
cups of bronze of which many have been found in Scandinavia, and at
least one example in Switzerland, are at present not known to have been
discovered within the British Isles.
[Illustration: Bottom of cup.
Fig. 509.—Golden Cup. Rillaton. Height, 3¼ inches.]
It was probably not until nearly the close of the Bronze Period that
the art was discovered of hammering out bronze into sufficiently large
and thin laminæ for the manufacture of cups and vessels. It would be
impossible to cast the metal so thin as even that employed for shields,
and before ingots or flat plates, like those already mentioned at
page 402, could be thus drawn out, an acquaintance with some process
of annealing must have been gained. It is a remarkable fact that the
same process which has the effect of hardening steel has exactly the
contrary effect on copper, and to some extent on bronze. Steel when
heated to redness and then dipped in cold water becomes so intensely
hard, that tools treated in this manner have to be somewhat tempered,
or softened by heat, before they can safely be used; while to soften
copper the usual method adopted is to make it red-hot and dip it in
cold water. In whatever way the metal was drawn out, some of the large
vessels of the transitional period between Bronze and Iron, such as
those from Hallstatt, are wonderful examples of skill in working bronze.
Almost the only bronze vessel found in a barrow in England had an
iron handle to it, showing that it could not belong to the Bronze
Age properly so called. It is, indeed, somewhat doubtful whether
it accompanied an interment. In the centre of a low mound near
Wetton,[1591] Staffordshire, about a foot below the surface, Mr.
Bateman found “two very curious vessels,” one about four inches high,
and of rather globular form, carved in sandstone, and at the distance
of a foot from it the other, “a bronze pan or kettle four inches high
and six inches in diameter, with a slender iron bow like a bucket
handle. It has been first cast and then hammered, and is very slightly
marked with horizontal ridges.” It was inverted, and above it were
traces of decayed wood. There appear to have been some remains of burnt
bones near the surface of the ground. This bronze vessel is somewhat
like the lower part of an ordinary flower-pot in form. In Mr. Bateman’s
Catalogue[1592] there is a note to the effect that this object is
“probably Romano-British,” but I have thought it best to cite it.
Several caldrons made of thin bronze plates riveted together have been
found in Scotland, in some instances in company with bronze weapons.
In Duddingston Loch,[1593] near Edinburgh, together with swords and
spear-heads, were some bronze rings and staples similar in character
to those attached to the rim of a large bronze caldron found at
Farney,[1594] Ulster, but there is no record of any caldrons. Others
of these rings are in the Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh, two of
which were found with the large caldron here figured (Fig. 510) in the
Moss of Kincardine,[1595] near Stirling, in the year 1768. In this
case no weapons appear to have been found. At the side is a broad band
embossed with circles. This vessel is of large size, being 16 inches
high, 16 inches across the mouth, and 25 inches in extreme diameter.
An imperfect caldron, with handles of the same kind, was found at
Kilkerran, Ayrshire, with socketed celts and fragments of swords.
[Illustration: Fig. 510.—Kincardine Moss.]
Others of these caldrons, but little differing in form from those
found with bronze relics, have been accompanied by various tools
formed of iron, as, for instance, those found at Cockburnspath,
Berwickshire; and in Carlinwark Loch, Kelton, Kirkcudbright. There
can, indeed, be little doubt that such vessels, if belonging to
the Bronze Age, are to be assigned to the close rather than to the
beginning or even middle of that period.
Several such caldrons have been discovered in Ireland.
That shown in Fig. 511 is about 21 inches in diameter and 12 inches
high.[1596] It is composed of a number of pieces of thin bronze, each
averaging 3¼ inches broad and decreasing in length near the bottom.
“These plates bear the marks of hammering, and are joined at the seams
with rivets averaging about half an inch asunder. These rivets have
sharp conical heads externally, and some were evidently ornamental, as
they exist in places where there are no joinings, and in the circular
bottom portion they are large and plain. The upper margin of this
vessel is 2½ inches broad,” and corrugated. “Its outside edge next
the solid hoop has a double line of perforations in it.” It was in
a vessel of this kind that part of the great Dowris hoard of bronze
antiquities was deposited.
The metal is said by Mr. McAdam, in a paper on “Brazen Caldrons,”
published in the _Ulster Journal of Archæology_,[1597] to be thinner
than anything of the kind used in our modern cooking vessels, while
the surfaces are almost as even and level as that of modern sheet
brass.
Another caldron from Dowris, more nearly hemispherical, also with two
rings, is in the collection of the Earl of Rosse. A specimen from
Farney has been already mentioned. It resembles Fig. 511.
In the collection of Mr. T. W. U. Robinson, F.S.A., is a remarkably
fine and perfect caldron, closely resembling Fig. 511, found in the
parish of Ballyscullion, Co. Antrim, in June, 1880. The following are
its dimensions:—
Diameter at top 18 inches.
Width of rim 2⅜ ”
Extreme diameter 24 ”
Height 16 ”
Outside diameter of rings 4¼ ”
The rings are about ⅝ inch wide and of this section ┣╋.
[Illustration: Fig. 511.—Ireland.]
Although no such vessels have been found in barrows in England, they
are not entirely unknown in this country.
A very fine caldron of this character, about 21 inches in extreme
diameter and about 16 inches in height, was dredged up in the Thames
near Battersea, and is now in the British Museum. It is formed of two
tiers of plates above the concave bottom, and has had two rings at the
mouth, one of which, about 5 inches in diameter, remains. The rings
are of this section ┣╋, which combines great strength with economy of
metal.
The expanding rim of the mouth is supported on four small brackets,
pierced so as to leave a saltire ornament in each. The rivet-heads are
about ¼ inch in diameter. From these brackets two strips of thin brass
run down about 3 inches, each ornamented with a fern-leaf pattern.
The bottom of another caldron, from Walthamstow, of about the same
size, is also in the same collection. The metal is remarkably thin.
The two rings of such a caldron, 5¼ inches, of this section ┣━, found
near Ipswich, are in the British Museum. The semi-cylindrical beaded
brackets through which they pass and a part of the rim are still
attached. Another ring was found with a hoard at Meldreth, Cambs.
In some vessels very large sheets of bronze have been used. That
shown in Fig. 512, also from Wilde,[1598] is 18½ inches deep, but was
formed of three plates only, one for the circular bottom and two for
the remainder of the vessel. At the neck is a stout bronze ring, over
which the plates are turned. “It originally stood on six feet, each
forming an inverted cup.” It has suffered much from wear, and has been
carefully patched in several places. The metal is very tough and of a
rich golden colour. It is composed of—
Copper 88·71
Tin 9·46
Lead 1·66
Iron Trace
—————
99·83
Among three bronze vessels from the Dowris find now in the British
Museum is one of the form of Fig. 512, 16 inches high.
[Illustration: Fig. 512.—Ireland.]
The form is almost identical with some of the bronze urns from the
cemetery at Hallstatt, of which several appear to be of Etruscan
fabric.
Another vessel of the same character was found in a tumulus in
Brittany,[1599] and contained burnt bones.
In the collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., is a vessel of hammered
bronze of the same character as the figure, but of rather broader
proportions, being nearly 17½ inches high and about 16 inches in
diameter; at the shoulder the neck contracts to 13 inches. It has
the usual two massive handles; and at the bottom is a flat ring with
arms across it like a four-spoked wheel, rather more than 9 inches
in diameter. The arms are ribbed longitudinally, and the ring has
concentric ribs upon it, except at the junction with the arms, where
there are cross-ribs. There are five rivets in it, one in the centre
and four in the ring opposite each end of the arms. This vessel, which
has been patched in more than one place, was found with numerous other
bronze objects in the Heathery Burn Cave, already so often mentioned.
A remarkably fine specimen of a vase of this character, found in
Capecastle Bog, near Armoy, Co. Antrim, is in the collection of Mr.
T. W. U. Robinson, F.S.A. It formerly belonged to Mr. William Gray,
of Belfast, who kindly allowed me to engrave it as Fig. 513. Its
dimensions are as follows—
Height 17½ inches.
Diameter of mouth 13 ”
Diameter at shoulder 15½ ”
Diameter at bottom 7¼ ”
The weight is 5 lbs. 9 ozs. The plates of which it is formed are
carefully riveted together, and are of large size. Some holes which
have apparently been worn by use have been carefully patched. All
the upper part of the vessel above the shoulder is decorated by small
raised bosses produced by means of a punch applied on the inside of
the vessel, and below the shoulder is a series of triangles embossed
in a similar manner forming a kind of vandyke collar round the vessel.
This character of ornamentation is very characteristic of the Bronze
Period, and though not uncommon on urns formed of burnt clay, has not,
I think, been before observed on those made of bronze.
[Illustration: Fig. 513.—Capecastle Bog.]
The bottom of the vessel is secured by a ring and cross piece of
bronze forming a kind of four-spoked wheel, as shown in the lower
figure. The rings for suspension are solid, and hang towards the
inside of the vessel.
As will be seen, there is much analogy between this Irish vessel and
that from the Heathery Burn Cave last described. The latter, however,
is without ornament.
These conical vessels are probably earlier in date than the spheroidal
caldrons.
Whether either were actually manufactured in Britain and Ireland is
an interesting question. There can, I think, be little doubt that
the conical form originated among the Etruscans, whose commerce
certainly extended to the northern side of the Alps.[1600] One of
the upright vases found at Hallstatt[1601] has animal figures upon
it almost undoubtedly of Etruscan work, though showing some signs of
Eastern influence in their style, and bronze helmets bearing Etruscan
inscriptions have been found in Styria. On the other hand, M. Alexandre
Bertrand and some other antiquaries are inclined to believe in a
more direct commerce with the East along the valley of the Danube or
Dnieper. The finding of vessels of the same form in Brittany, England,
and Ireland seems to point to a more western course of trade, always
assuming that these objects were imported. That some of them may have
come from abroad appears in the highest degree probable. Not impossibly
the _æs importatum_ of Cæsar may refer to a continuance of such a
trade. But whether there were no bronze-smiths in the British Isles
capable of imitating such products of skill is doubtful. The bronze
shields which are of essentially indigenous character exhibit an amount
of dexterity in producing thin plates of bronze quite sufficient for
the manufacture of such vessels. Moreover, the handles of these British
and Irish vessels are formed by rings, while those of the vessels from
southern countries are loops like the handles of pails or buckets. The
spheroidal caldrons are also of a form and character which appears to
be unknown on the Continent, and are therefore, in all probability, of
indigenous manufacture.
The careful manner in which some of the vessels are mended affords an
argument that such utensils were rare and valuable; but it also shows
that the native workmen understood how to make thin plates—unless
these were portions of other vessels—and at all events how to rivet
plates together.
CHAPTER XXI.
METAL, MOULDS, AND THE METHOD OF MANUFACTURE.
HAVING now passed in review the various forms of weapons, tools,
ornaments, and vessels belonging to the Bronze Period of this country,
it will be well to consider the nature of the metal of which they
are formed, and the various processes by which they were produced
and finished ready for use. Some of these processes, as for instance
the hammering out of the cutting-edges of tools and weapons, and the
production of ornamental designs by means of the hammer and punch, have
already been mentioned, and need be but cursorily noticed. The main
process, indeed, of which this chapter will treat is that of casting.
Bronze, as already stated, is an alloy of copper and tin, and
therefore distinct from brass, which is an alloy of copper and zinc.
Many varieties of bronze—or, as it is now more commonly called,
gun-metal—are in use at the present day; and one remarkable feature
in bronze is that the admixture with copper of the much softer metal
tin, in varying proportions, produces an alloy in most if not all cases
harder than the original copper; and when the tin is much in excess, as
in the metal used for the specula of telescopes, so much harder that,
_à priori_, such a result of the mixture of two soft metals would have
been thought impossible. The following table compiled from a paper in
_Design and Work_, reprinted in Martineau and Smith’s _Hardware Trade
Journal_,[1602] gives some of the alloys now in most common use and the
purposes to which they are applied:—
Per cent.
Tin. Copper. of Copper.
11 108 = 90·76 {A common metal for cannon and machine
{brasses, used also for bronze statues.
11 99 = 90· }
11 96 = 89·72 }Gun-metal proper, used for cannon.
11 84 = 88·44 {Used for bearings of machinery,
{frequently called gun-metal.
11 72 = 86·75 Rather harder.
11 60 = 84·50 Harder, not malleable.
11 44 = 80·00 Used for cymbals and Chinese gongs.
11 48 = 81·35 Very hard, used for culinary vessels.
11 36 } {76·69 }Bell-metal
12 36 } or {75·00 }
11 24 = 68·57 Yellowish, very hard, sonorous.
11 4 = 26·66 {Very white, sometimes used for specula
{with with some other slight admixture.19746
Lord Rosse, however, in casting specula, preferred using copper and tin
in their atomic proportions, or 68·21 per cent. of copper and 31·79 of
tin.
The addition of tin, while increasing the hardness of copper, also
renders it more fusible. In small proportions it but little affects
the colour of the copper,[1603] and it is difficult to recognise its
presence from the physical characters of the copper, except from that
of increased hardness. What appear, therefore, to be copper instruments
may, and indeed often do, contain an appreciable admixture of tin,
which, however, can only be recognised by analysis.
Besides the superiority of one alloy over another, it appears probable
that the method of treatment of the metal may somewhat affect its
properties. M. Tresca[1604] found that a gun-metal cast by Messieurs
Laveissière, consisting of—
Copper 89·47
Tin 9·78
Zinc 0·66
Lead 0·09
was superior in all respects to either the common gun-metal A or the
phosphor-bronze B cast at Bourges, the constituents of which were as
follows:—
A B
Copper 89·87 90·60
Tin 9·45 8.82
Zinc 0·31 0·27
Lead 0·37 0·31
—————— ——————
100·00 100·00
The results of both ancient and modern experience as to the proportions
in which copper and tin should be mixed, in order to produce a tough
and hard though not brittle metal, appear to be nearly the same;
and nine parts of copper to one part of tin may be regarded as the
constituents of the most serviceable bronze or gun-metal.
In the following table I have given the results of some of the more
recent analyses of bronze antiquities found in the United Kingdom,
and have omitted the early analyses of Dr. Pearson[1605] in 1796 as
being only approximative. I have arranged them so far as practicable
in accordance with the different forms of the objects analyzed; and
one feature which is thus brought out tends strongly to confirm the
conclusion which has been arrived at from other premises, that certain
forms of bronze weapons and other instruments and utensils are of later
date than others.
It will be seen, for instance, that in the flat and flanged celts, the
palstaves, and even spear-heads, lead, if present at all, exists in but
very minute quantity; whereas in the socketed celts and swords, which
are probably later forms, and especially in those from Ireland, this
metal occurs in several cases in considerable proportions.
This prevalence of lead is very remarkable in some of the small
socketed celts found in very large numbers in Brittany, which from
their diminutive size have been regarded as “votive” rather than as
destined for actual use. In some of these Professor Pelligot[1606]
found as much as 28·50 and even 32·50 per cent. of lead, with only 1½
per cent. or a small trace of tin. In others, with a large per-centage
of tin, there was from 8 to 16 per cent. of lead. Some of the bronze
ornaments of the Early Iron Period also contain a considerable
proportion of this metal, which, in the early Roman _as_[1607] and
its parts, is found to the extent of from 20 to 30 per cent. Although
some such proportion as 9 to 1 appears to have been aimed at, there is
great variation in the proportions of the principal ingredients even in
cutting tools of the same general character, the tin being sometimes
upwards of 18 per cent. and sometimes less than 5 per cent. of the
whole.
This variation was no doubt partly due to occasional scarcity of tin;
but, as Dr. W. K. Sullivan has pointed out,[1608] there are two other
causes for it: first, the separation of the constituent metals in the
fused mass, and the accumulation of the tin in the lower portion of
the castings; and, second, the throwing off of the tin by oxidation
when the alloys were re-melted. M. Dusaussoy[1609] found that an alloy
containing 90·4 per cent. of copper and 9·6 per cent. of tin lost so
much of the latter metal by six fusions that it ultimately consisted of
95 per cent. of copper and only 5 per cent. of tin.
With regard to the early sources of the copper and tin used in this
country, and in general through Western Europe, it will not be in my
power to add much to what has already been published on this subject.
It seems probable that gold, which commonly occurs native and
brilliant, was the first metal that attracted the attention of mankind.
The next metal to be discovered would, in all probability, be copper,
which also occurs native, and has many points of resemblance with gold.
The use of this metal, as I have observed in the Introductory Chapter,
no doubt originated in some part of the world where, as on the shore
of Lake Superior, it occurs in a pure metallic state. When once it was
discovered that copper was fusible by heat, the production of the metal
from some of the more metallic-looking ores, such as copper pyrites,
would follow; and in due time, either from association with the
metal, or from their colour and weight, some of the other ores, both
sulphuretted and non-sulphuretted, would become known.[1610]
When once the production of copper in this manner was effected, it is
probable that the ores of other metals, such as tin, would also become
known, and that tin ores would either be treated conjointly with the
ores of copper, as suggested by Dr. Wibel, so as at once to produce
bronze; or added to crude copper, as suggested by Professor Sullivan;
or again, be smelted by themselves so as to produce metallic tin. At
what date it was generally known that “brass is molten out of the
stone”[1611] is, however, a question difficult to answer.
Native copper and many of its ores occur in Hungary, Norway, Sweden,
Saxony, and Cornwall; but copper pyrites is far more generally
distributed, and is found in most countries of the world. So far,
therefore, as the existence of this metal is concerned, there was no
necessity for the Britons in Cæsar’s time to make use of imported
bronze, especially as tin was found in abundance in Cornwall, and
long before Cæsar’s time was exported in considerable quantities to
the Continent. And yet his account may to some extent be true, as a
socketed celt of what is almost undoubtedly Breton manufacture has been
found near Weymouth,[1612] and several instruments of recognised French
types have been found in our southern counties. Bronze vessels also may
have been imported.
Copper and its ores are abundant in Ireland, especially copper pyrites
and gray copper.
Although tin was formerly found in abundance in some parts of Spain,
and also in less quantity in Brittany,[1613] there can be but little
doubt that the Cassiterides, with which either directly or indirectly
the Phœnicians traded for tin,[1614] are rightly identified with
Britain. But, with due deference to Professor Nilsson and other
antiquaries, I must confess that the traces of Phœnician influence in
this country are to my mind at present imperceptible; and it may well
be that their system of commerce or barter was such as intentionally
left the barbarian tribes with whom they traded in much the same stage
of civilisation as that in which they found them, always assuming that
they dealt directly with Britain and not through the intervention of
Gaulish merchants.
The argument, however, that the Phœnician bronze would have been
lead-bronze, because the Phœnicians derived their civilisation and
arts from Egypt, and had continual intercourse with that country,
where lead-bronze was early known, appears to me wanting in cogency.
For though the Egyptians may have used lead-bronzes for statues and
ornaments, the Egyptian dagger[1615] analyzed by Vauquelin gave copper
85, tin 14, and iron 1 per cent., and showed no trace of lead. Of one
point we may be fairly certain, that the discovery of bronze did not
originate in the British Isles, but that the knowledge of that useful
metal was communicated from abroad, and probably from the neighbouring
country, France. When and in what manner that and the other countries
of Western and Central Europe derived their knowledge of bronze it is
not my intention here to discuss. I will only say that the tendency of
the evidence at present gathered is to place the original source of
bronze, like that of the Aryan family, in an Asiatic rather than an
European centre.
The presence in greater or less proportions of other metals than copper
and tin in bronze antiquities may eventually lead to the recognition of
the sources from which in each country the principal supplies of metal
were obtained. Professor Sullivan, in the book already cited, arrives
at the following among other conclusions from the chemical facts at his
command:—
1. The northern nations in ancient times used only true bronzes—those
formed of copper and tin—of greater or lesser purity according to the
kind of ores used.
2. Many of these bronzes contain small quantities of lead, zinc,
nickel, cobalt, iron, and silver, derived from the copper from which
the bronze was made.
3. Though some bronzes may have been produced directly by melting a
mixture of copper and tin ores, the usual mode of making them was by
treating fused crude copper with tin-stone.[1616] In later times bronze
was made by mixing the two metals together.
4. The copper of the ancient bronzes seems to have been smelted in many
different localities.
Some analyses of bronze antiquities found in other countries are given
in the works indicated below,[1617] in addition to those mentioned on
page 418.
Key to Line Item and Location
Line A. Flat celt, Ireland
Line B. Flanged celt
Line C. Palstave (Mean)
Line D. ” Fife
Line E. Socketed celt, Yorkshire
Line F. Socketed celt, Ireland
Line G. ” ” (Mean)
Line H. ” ” Wicklow
Line I. ” ” Cavan
Line J. ” ” Dowris
Line K. Dagger, Newton, near Cambridge
Line L. Dagger, Ireland (?)
Line M. ” “
Line N. Sword, England (Mean), Chertsey, Br.
Line O. Sword, Scotland
Line P. ” Ireland (Mean)
Line Q. ” “
Line R. ” ” (Mean)
Line S. ” “
Line T. ” “
Line U. Spear-head, Ireland
Line V. ” “
Line W. ” “
Line X. Halberd, Ireland
Line Y. Shield, Coveney Fen
Line Z. ” “
Line AA. Trumpet, Dowris
Line BB. Caldron, Scotland
Line CC. ” “
Line DD. ” Ireland
┌————┬—————┬—————┬————┬—————┬—————┬—————┬—————┬—————┬—————┬——————┬———┐
│ │ C │ T │ L │ I │ N │ C │ S │ Z │ S │ T │ A │
│ │ o │ i │ e │ r │ i │ o │ i │ i │ u │ o │ n │
│ │ p │ n │ a │ o │ c │ b │ l │ n │ l │ t │ a │
│ │ p │ . │ d │ n │ k │ a │ v │ c │ p │ a │ l │
│ │ e │ │ . │ . │ e │ l │ e │ . │ h │ l │ y │
│ │ r │ │ │ │ l │ t │ r │ │ u │ . │ s │
│ │ . │ │ │ │ . │ . │ . │ │ r │ │ t │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ . │ │ . │
├————┼—————┼—————┼————┼—————┼—————┼—————┼—————┼—————┼—————┼——————┼———┤
│ A. │86·98│12·57│ │ │ │ │ 0·37│ │ │ 99·92│ B │
│ B. │90·18│ 9·82│ │Trace│ │ │ │ │ │100·00│ A │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ C. │89·33│ 9·20│ │ 0·34│ │ │ │ │ 0·24│ 99·11│ A │
│ D. │81·19│18·31│0·75│ │ │ │ │ │ │100·25│ D │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ E. │81·15│12·30│2·63│ Tr. │ 0·13│ │ 0·07│ │ [*]│96·28 │ A │
│ F. │90·69│ 7·44│1·28│ Tr. │ Tr. │ Tr. │ │ │ │ 99·41│ A │
│ │ │ │ │ \——v——/ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ G. │83·65│11·02│3·20│ 0·58│ 0·34 │ │ │ │ 98·79│ A │
│ H. │88·30│10·92│0·10│ Tr. │ │ │ │ │ Tr. │ 99·32│ B │
│ I. │95·64│ 4·56│0·25│ │ │ │ 0·02│ │ │100·47│ B │
│ J. │85·23│13·11│1·14│ │ │ │ │ │ 0·15│ 99·63│ F │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ K. │85·33│14·20│0·29│ Tr. │ 0·27│ │ 0·04│ │ [**]│100·13│ A │
│ L. │99·72│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 0·28│100·00│ A │
│ M. │87·97│11·35│0·28│ │ │ │ │ Tr. │ Tr. │ 99·60│ B │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ N. │89·69│ 9·59│ │ 0·33│ │ │ │ │ Tr. │ 99·61│ A │
│ O. │88·51│ 9·30│2·30│ │ │ │ │ │ │100·11│ D │
│ P. │91·79│ 8·17│ │ Tr. │ │ │ │ │ Tr. │ 99·96│ A │
│ Q. │87·07│ 8·52│3·37│ │ │ │ │ │ Tr. │ 99·96│ B │
│ R. │85·63│10·03│2·93│ 0·44│ │ │ │ │ │ 99·03│ A │
│ S. │88·63│ 8·54│2·83│ │ │ │ │ │ │100·00│ E │
│ T. │83·50│ 5·15│8·35│ 3·00│ │ │ │ │ │100·00│ E │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ U. │86·28│12·74│0·07│ 0·31│ │ 0·09│ │ │ │ 99·49│ B │
│ V. │84·64│14·01│ │ Tr. │ │ │ │ │ Tr. │ 98·65│ B │
│ W. │88·42│11·29│ │ Tr. │ 0·29│ 0·29│ │ │ │100·29│ G │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ X. │95·85│ 2·78│0·12│ 1·32│ │ │ │ │ │100·07│ B │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ Y. │87·50│11·62│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 99·12│ C │
│ Z. │87·55│11·72│ │ │ 0·40│ │ │ │ │ 99·67│ C │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│AA. │79·34│10·87│9·11│ │ │ │ │ │ │ 99·32│ F │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│BB. │92·89│ 5·15│1·78│ │ │ │ │ │ │ 99·82│ D │
│CC. │84·08│ 7·19│8·53│ 0·03│ │ │ │ │ │ 99·83│ D │
│DD. │88·71│ 9·46│1·66│ │ │ │ │ │ │ 99·83│ B │
└————┴—————┴—————┴————┴—————┴—————┴—————┴—————┴—————┴—————┴——————┴———┘
A, Mr. J. A. Phillips, see _Quart. Journ. Chem. Soc._, vol. iv.
p. 276.
B, J. W. Mallet, _Trans. R. I. Ac._, vol. xxii. p. 324.
C, T. H. Henry, F.R.S., _Pub. Camb. Ant. Soc._, No. xiv. p. 13.
D, Dr. George Wilson, Wilson’s “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” vol. i. p. 374.
E, Prof. Davy, ” ” ” “
F, Dr. Donovan, ” ” ” “
G, De Fellenberg. ” ” ” “
* In this case oxygen to the extent of 3·83 was present. The bronze
had become so friable as to be easily pulverised in a mortar. Mr. J.
Arthur Phillips writes about it as follows:—“When a freshly-broken
fragment of it is examined under a low magnifying power, it is seen
to consist of a metallic net-work enclosing distinct and perfectly
formed crystals of cuprite, surrounded by a greyish white substance
which is chiefly bioxide of tin. In this alloy the nickel, silver, and
iron are evidently accidental impurities, but the lead is no doubt an
intentional ingredient.” The specific gravity after pulverization is
about 7·26 only.
** Specific gravity 8·59.
I have here given most of the trustworthy analyses already published,
and have only added two new analyses kindly made for me by Mr. J. A.
Phillips, F.G.S., of a socketed celt from Yorkshire and of a small
dagger from Newton, near Cambridge.
Those who wish for detailed information as to the composition of
the bronze antiquities found in other countries are referred to De
Fellenberg’s essays and to Von Bibra’s comprehensive work.[1618]
The copper which was used by the bronze-founders of old times appears
to have been smelted from the ore and run into a shallow concave mould
open at top, in which the metal assumed the form of a circular cake,
convex below and flat above; but before becoming sufficiently cold
to be quite set into tough metal, these cakes seem as a rule to have
been disturbed and broken up into numerous pieces, better adapted
for re-melting than the whole cakes would have been. This method of
breaking up the solid cakes while hot saved also an infinity of labour;
as to cut such masses into small pieces when cold would, even with
modern appliances, be a difficult task; and with only bronze and stone
tools at command would have been nearly impossible. Many of the cakes
are, however, interspersed with cavities formed in the metal, and in
some cases there seems reason to think that this may have been produced
intentionally, so as to render the breaking of the cakes even when cold
more readily practicable.
Many of the blocks of metal cast in rough moulds, and known by Italian
antiquaries as _æs signatum_, have a similar broken appearance at the
ends. Professor Chierici[1619] has suggested that the moulds in which
they were cast were of considerable length, and that from time to time
clay and sand were thrown in so as to break the continuity of the
metal, which indeed was poured in at intervals, after the insertion of
the sand or clay, to form the break in the mould.
Some pieces of metal which have been regarded as ingots, and which not
improbably are really such, have the form of a double-ended axe with a
very small shaft hole. They have been discovered with several of the
bronze-founders’ hoards in France. Dr. V. Gross, of Neuveville, has a
fine example of this kind found at Locras, in the Lac de Bienne.[1620]
It is about 16½ inches long and 4¾ inches wide at the ends, the hole
through the centre being about ¼ inch in diameter, and the weight of
the ingot, which is of pure copper, is about 6½ lbs.
Rough lumps of metal have frequently been found with deposits of
bronze implements in Britain, these latter being sometimes in a
worn-out or broken condition, and apparently brought together as old
metal for re-casting. In other deposits the instruments seem new and
ready for use, or again they are in an unfinished condition. All the
circumstances of these discoveries, however, go to prove that they are
in fact the stock-in-trade of the ancient bronze-founders. The jets
or waste pieces from the castings, of which I shall subsequently have
to speak, are often found mixed with the rude lumps. These lumps have
usually the appearance of pure copper, and in many cases have proved to
be so on analysis.
Some copper cakes appear, however, to belong to Roman times. They
differ in shape from those already described, in being of nearly even
thickness, but with the edge inclined as if they had been cast in a
small frying-pan. They are from 10 to 13 inches in diameter and about
2 inches thick; and on more than one found in Anglesea[1621] there are
inscriptions in Roman characters. They weigh from 30 to 50 lbs.
Turning now to the instances of lumps of rough metal being found with
bronze weapons and tools, the following may be cited, though other
instances are given in the tables at page 462:—
Lanant, Cornwall,[1622] heavy lumps of fine copper, found with broken
socketed celts, &c.
Kenidjack Cliff, Cornwall,[1623] with palstaves and socketed celts.
St. Hilary, Cornwall,[1624] lumps weighing 14 or 15 lbs. each, said to
have been found with spear-heads.
Near Worthing, Sussex, several lumps of metal, with palstaves and
socketed celts.
Beachey Head,[1625] three lumps of raw copper, apparently very pure,
with palstaves, socketed celts, &c.
Wick Park, Stogursey, Somerset,[1626] with palstaves, socketed celts,
broken swords, spears, &c.
Kingston Hill, Surrey,[1627] with socketed celts, fragments of swords,
and spear-head.
Beddington, Surrey,[1628] with mould, socketed celts, gouge,
spear-heads, &c.
Wickham Park, Croydon, Surrey,[1629] with palstave, gouge, hammer, &c.
Danesbury, near Welwyn, Herts,[1630] lumps of metal with damaged
socketed celts.
Cumberlow, Herts,[1631] with palstaves, socketed celts, fragments of
swords, &c.
Westwick Row, Hemel Hempsted,[1632] several lumps, with socketed celts.
Romford, Essex,[1633] lumps of metal in waste pieces and imperfect
castings, untrimmed socketed celts, &c.
Fifield, Essex,[1634] upwards of 50 lbs. of metal, with socketed celts.
High Roding, Essex,[1635] with socketed celts, &c.
Kensington,[1636] with socketed celt, gouge, &c.
Sittingbourne, Kent,[1637] with socketed celts, gouges, &c.
Meldreth, Cambs,[1638] with socketed celts, chisel, ring of caldron,
&c.
Carlton Rode, Norfolk,[1639] lumps of metal, with socketed celts,
gouges, &c.
Helsdon Hall, Norwich,[1640] pieces of copper, socketed celts, &c.
Earsley Common, York,[1641] several lumps of metal, with nearly a
hundred socketed celts.
Martlesham, Suffolk,[1642] a large quantity of metal, including some
lumps weighing 5 or 6 lbs., with socketed celts, gouge, &c.
West Halton, Lincolnshire,[1643] with socketed celts and broken sword.
Roseberry Topping, Yorkshire,[1644] with socketed celts, gouges,
hammer, &c.
In the Heathery Burn Cave, Durham, and in the Guilsfield find, there
was in each case at least one lump of metal.
Besides the cakes of copper, bars of that metal appear to have been
hammered into an oblong form, and then cut into lengths of from 4 to
5 inches, weighing each about ¼ lb., and in that state to have served
as the raw material for the bronze-founders. Thirteen of these short
bars were found at Therfield, near Royston, Herts,[1645] and Dr. Percy
found on analysis that they contained about 98½ per cent. of copper
with a small alloy of tin or antimony, probably the latter. Some
fifteen or sixteen “pieces of long triangular brass” are described
as having been found with about the same number of celts at Hinton,
near Christchurch, Hants.[1646] These bars “seemed to be pieces of the
metal out of which the celts were cast.”
In Scotland some “lumps of brass” were found with the swords, spears,
&c., in Duddingston Loch.[1647] Probably other lumps of metal have
been found in that country, but they seem to be scarcer in Scotland
and Ireland than in England.
Although, as already observed, Spain may have been the principal
Western source of tin in early times, and possibly Malacca[1648] in
the East, the trade with Britain for that metal must have commenced
at a very remote epoch. We might expect, therefore, that fragments of
tin would be frequently found in the old bronze-founders’ hoards. But
though lumps of copper have so often been discovered in them, tin is
at present conspicuous by its absence. The only instance to which I am
able to refer is the discovery at Achtertyre,[1649] Morayshire, of four
“broken bits of tin,” in company with socketed celts, spear-heads, and
bracelets. These pieces seem to be fragments of a single bar which was
about 6 inches in length, of oval section, and somewhat curved, and in
weight about 3 ounces. Though spoken of as tin, the metal is in fact a
soft solder composed, according to Dr. Stevenson Macadam, of—
Tin 78·66
Lead 21·34
——————
100·00
This, he points out, is a more fusible alloy than the ordinary
plumbers’ solder, which consists of 1 of tin to 2 of lead, and fuses
at 441 degrees Fahr., as it contains nearly 4 of tin to 1 of lead,
and would fuse at 365 degrees. Whether this bar was intended for
use as solder, or represents a base tin exported to Scotland from
the tin-producing districts, is an interesting question. Professor
Daniel Wilson[1650] has called attention to the fact that in all the
bronze instruments found in Scotland which have been submitted to
analysis lead is uniformly present, though in varying proportions.
Soldering[1651] is considered to have been entirely unknown in the
Bronze Age, and even during the earlier times of the Iron Age; but the
art of burning bronze on to bronze was certainly known, and instances
of its having been practised are given in preceding pages.
Some fragments of pure metallic tin have from time to time been found
on the Continent. A small hammered bar found at the Lake-dwelling of
Estavayer,[1652] and analyzed by M. de Fellenberg, was free from lead,
zinc, iron, and copper.
Besides being found in Cornwall, tin occurs in France,[1653] Saxony,
Silesia, Bohemia, Sweden, Spain, and Portugal. It also occurs in
Etruria,[1654] and is said to be found in Chorassan.[1655]
This metal is said by Dionysius[1656] to have been struck into coins
at Syracuse, but none such are at present known. Among the Ancient
Britons,[1657] however, tin coins cast for the most part in wooden
moulds were in circulation, not in the tin-producing districts, but
in Kent and the neighbouring parts of England. Their date is probably
within a century of our era, either before or after Christ.
[Illustration: Fig. 514.—Falmouth. 1/12]
A large ingot of tin, in shape like the letter H, was
dredged up in Falmouth harbour.[1658] It is 2 feet 11 inches long and
about 11 inches wide, and 3 inches thick, and, though a small piece has
been cut off at one end, it still weighs 158 lbs. It is shown in Fig.
514. The late Sir Henry James, F.R.S.,[1659] has pointed out that the
form in which the ingot is cast adapts it for being laid in the keel of
a boat, and for being slung on a horse’s side, two of them thus forming
a proper load for a pack-horse. He has also suggested that this was the
form of ingot in which the tin produced in Cornwall was transported to
Gaul, and thence carried overland, as described by Diodorus Siculus,
to the mouths of the Rhone. Curiously enough this author speaks of the
blocks being in the form of astragali, with which this ingot fairly
coincides. Other ingots[1660] of tin of different form have also been
found in Cornwall, but there appears to me hardly sufficient evidence
to determine their approximate date, and I therefore content myself
with mentioning them. A lump cast in a basin-shaped mould, with two
holes in the flat face converging so as to form a V-shaped receptacle
for a cord, is in the Blackmore Museum at Salisbury.
What appear to be ingots of copper rather than votive or mortuary
tablets have been found in Sardinia,[1661] and in their form present a
close analogy with this ingot of tin, though they are of much smaller
dimensions. Both the sides and ends curve inwards, the notch at the
ends of some being semicircular. They are counter-marked with a kind of
double T.
As to the method of melting the metal but little is known. It seems
probable, however, that the crucibles employed must have been vessels
of burnt clay provided with handles for moving them; while for pouring
out the metal small ladles of earthenware may have been used. At
Robenhausen,[1662] on Lake Pfäffikon, Switzerland, small crucibles of
a ladle-like form have been found, in some cases with lumps of bronze
still in them. Crucibles without handles have been discovered at
Unter-Uhldingen,[1663] in the Ueberlinger See.
The methods of casting were various. Objects were cast—
1. In a single mould formed of loam, sand, stone, or metal, the upper
surface of the casting exhibiting the flat surface of the molten
metal, which was left open to the air. In the case of loam or sand
castings a pattern or model would be used, which might be an object
already in use, or made of the desired form in wood or other soft
substance.
2. In double moulds of similar materials. The castings produced in
this manner when in unfinished condition show the joints of the
moulds. When sand was employed a frame or flask of some kind must have
been used to retain the material in place when the upper half of the
mould was lifted off the pattern. The loam moulds were probably burnt
hard before being used. In many cases cores for producing hollows in
the casting were employed in conjunction with these moulds.
3. In what may be termed solid moulds. For this process the model was
made of wax, wood, or some combustible material which was encased in
a mass of loam, possibly mixed with cow-dung or vegetable matter,
which on exposure to heat left the loam or clay in a porous condition.
This exposure to fire also burnt out the wax or wood model and left a
cavity for the reception of the metal, which was probably poured in
while the mould was still hot.
Sir John Lubbock[1664] regards this as the commonest mode of casting
during the Bronze Age, but so far as this country is concerned it
appears to me to have been very seldom, if ever, in use. Except in
highly complicated castings, such as ring within ring, no advantage
would be gained by adopting the process, as the same result could
usually be obtained by the use of a mould in two halves, while the
pattern would then be preserved. In comparing a number of objects
together, though, like the six hundred and eighty-eight specimens of
celts in the Dublin Museum, no two may appear to have been cast in
the same mould, it does not follow that this was actually the case,
for allowance must be made for hammering, polishing, and ornamenting,
which were subsequent processes, and also for wear at the edge. Even
in castings from the same metal mould there will be considerable
variations, from differences in the amount of coating used to prevent
the hot metal from adhering to mould, and the length stopped off by the
core. But of this I shall shortly speak.
The moulds formed of burnt clay have but rarely lasted to our times,
though some have been found on the continent of Europe.
One for a perforated axe found among the remains of Lake-dwellings
near Laibach, in Carniola, is in the museum of that town. Others will
subsequently be mentioned.
The single moulds found within the United Kingdom are all of stone, and
are adapted for the production of flat celts, rings, knives, and small
chisels. In some cases it is hard to say whether a mould was intended
to be used alone or in conjunction with another of the same kind, so as
in fact to be only the half of a mould.
The single mould, which I have engraved as Fig. 515, was found near
Ballymena, Co. Antrim, and, as will be seen, is for a flat celt of
the ordinary form. The material is a micaceous sandstone, which a
recent possessor of the mould has thought so well adapted for use as
a whetstone, that the mould is in places scored with the marks where
apparently a cobbler’s awl has been sharpened. A celt cast in such a
mould would be flatter on one face than the other, and be blunt at the
ends, though much thinner there than in the middle. Before being used
it would be submitted to a hammering process, which would render the
two faces nearly symmetrical, and at the same time condense the metal
and render it harder and fitter for cutting purposes, especially at the
edge which was drawn out. In an Irish specimen in my collection there
is in one face a deep conical depression, apparently caused by the
contraction of the metal in cooling. It was probably necessary to add
a little molten metal to the casting while cooling in order to avoid
such defects. The sides as well as the faces of these plain celts have
usually been wrought with the hammer, and it seems probable that some
even of the flanged celts were originally plain castings in an open
mould.
[Illustration: Fig. 515.—Ballymena. ½]
Moulds of the same kind have been found, though rarely, in England. In
a field near Cambo,[1665] near Wallington, Northumberland, was found
a block of sandstone, having on one face two moulds for flat celts of
different sizes, and on the other face another such mould, and also one
for a flat ring. It is now in the British Museum.
Stone blocks with moulds cut in them have been found in Scotland.
One with a mould for a large celt in the centre, and near it in one
corner of the slab a mould for a very small celt, was found in a cairn
near Kintore, Aberdeenshire.[1666]
Another large block, forming the end of a cist, near Kilmartin,
Argyleshire,[1667] has nine depressions in it in the form of flat
celts, which may have been used as moulds. They are barely an
eighth of an inch in depth, and on this account have been thought
to be pictorial representations rather than moulds. With a metal so
imperfectly fluid as melted bronze, castings could be made thicker
than the depth of the moulds, and it is by no means impossible that
this stone and another forming part of the same cist may have been
intended for the production of castings. The second slab of stone may
have served for casting pins.
The stone moulds from Trochrig, near Girvan, Ayrshire,[1668] and
Alford, Aberdeenshire,[1669] with depressions of various forms upon
them, not improbably belong to a later period than that of which I am
treating.
A mould for casting rings, 2½ inches in diameter, found at Kilmailie,
Invernessshire, is in the Museum at Edinburgh.
One for two flat celts on the one face, and for a larger celt and
perhaps a knife on the other, is in the Antiquarian Museum at
Edinburgh.[1670]
These moulds are more abundant in Ireland.
One in the Belfast Museum,[1671] polyhedral in shape, has moulds upon
four of its faces for flat celts of different sizes. In the Bateman
Collection is a slab of schistose stone (7 inches by 6 inches) with
three such moulds upon it. It was found near Carrickfergus, Co.
Antrim.[1672]
On a slab in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy[1673] there are
moulds for two flat celts, and also for one with a stop-ridge and a
loop. It would appear as if the founder must have possessed a second
half of this latter mould.
Two moulds formed of stone, and apparently intended for flat or
slightly flanged celts, have been found at Bodio in the Lago di
Varese.[1674]
Moulds for palstaves and socketed celts have been found both of stone
and of bronze, but it will be well to reserve the latter until all the
forms of moulds made of stone have been considered. Such celt moulds
have always been made in halves.
In Fig. 516 is shown the half of a mould for palstaves, which is now
in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy. The other half is with it.
They are formed of sandstone. It is uncertain in what part of Ireland
they were found.
Another mould, formed of mica schist, and now in the British Museum,
was found in the river Bann, and was intended for short palstaves
about 3½ inches long.
[Illustration: Fig. 516.—Ireland. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 517.—Ireland. 1/1]
The half of a mould for casting palstaves of a somewhat broader form
was found near Lough Corrib, Galway,[1675] and is in the Antiquarian
Museum at Edinburgh. Another has been engraved by Dunoyer,[1676] who
has also figured a mould for a looped palstave, from the Museum of the
University of Dublin. A stone mould from Ireland, for palstaves with
double loops, is in the Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh. As the halves
of these stone moulds are rarely made so as to be dowelled together,
they are almost always of exactly the same size externally, so as to
be readily adjustable into their proper position when tied together
for the reception of the metal.
The half of a mould for a small palstave, with transverse edge, is
shown full size in Fig. 517. The original is of green schist, and
is in the Royal Academy Museum at Dublin. It is remarkable that a
mould for so rare a form should have been found. A stone mould for
transverse palstaves of the same kind has, however, lately been
discovered in the Lac de Bienne[1677] by Dr. V. Gross.
On the Continent stone moulds for ordinary palstaves have been found
in some numbers, especially in the Lake habitations. In the museum
at Geneva are several from the Station of Eaux Vives. The wings as
originally cast were vertical to the blades, so that they might be
withdrawn from the mould, and they were subsequently hammered over to
form the side pockets, as in Fig. 85.
Moulds for looped palstaves have been found in the Lac du Bourget,
Savoy.[1678] One of them is in my own collection. A broken mould for a
palstave was found at Billy (Loir et Cher).[1679]
Others have been found in Hungary.[1680]
A few stone moulds for casting socketed celts have been found in
England. The half of one, apparently for celts without loops, was
found near Milton, Dorsetshire,[1681] and is now in the Dorchester
Museum. It has several holes on the face of the slab, as if for the
reception of dowels, on which the other half of the mould would fit.
In another instance a set of moulds has been formed of three slabs of
stone, and would produce two varieties of socketed celts, one half
of the mould of each being engraved on the two faces of the central
slab. It is only this central piece which has been preserved. It was,
I believe, found at Bulford Water, near Salisbury, and not at Chidbury
Hill, near Everley, as stated in the “Barrow Diggers.”[1682] On one
face is the mould for a single-looped socketed celt about 4½ inches
long, of oblong section, with three vertical ribs on the face; on the
other is that for a double-looped celt of the same character, but
about 5¼ inches long, also with three vertical ribs. This mould is
formed of some variety of greenstone, and is now in the collection of
the Rev. E. Duke, of Lake House, near Salisbury.
Stone moulds for socketed celts, with vertical ribs upon them, have
been found in the Lacustrine Station of Eaux Vives, near Geneva. There
are often moulds on each face of the stones.
Others in sandstone for socketed celts have been found in
Hungary.[1683]
Several moulds for such instruments have been discovered in
Sweden.[1684] One with diagonal air-passages, like those in Fig. 521,
is in the Copenhagen Museum.
Stone moulds for socketed celts have also been found in Scotland. Two
pair from the parish of Rosskeen, Ross-shire,[1685] have been figured
by Professor Daniel Wilson. They are for looped celts rather wide and
straight at the edge, about 5 inches long and of hexagonal section.
The castings from the one are plain upon the faces; in those from the
other there are three annulets connected by raised ribs, much the same
as on one face of the celt from Wigtonshire (Fig. 166). These moulds
had the two halves dowelled together when in use. On one there appears
to be a second mould for a small flat bar.
In Ireland stone moulds for socketed celts are rare, and they appear
to have been for the most part cast in sand or loam. There is,
however, in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy,[1686] the half of
a mould of this kind made of mica slate, and much worn by age and
exposure, apparently intended for a ribbed socketed celt. It has
dowel-holes on the face of the slab.
The mould, or more properly half of a mould, for a tanged knife,
with a central rib along the blade, is shown in Fig. 518. It is of
close-grained sandstone, and was found near Ballymoney, Co. Antrim.
The surface on which the knife has been engraved is ground very
smooth, as if to fit another half mould. In this other half there was
probably little more than grooves for the central rib and tang, as the
mould at the edge of the knife would produce a casting fully 1/16 inch
thick, which would require a good deal of hammering out.
[Illustration: Fig. 518.—Ballymoney. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 519.—Broughshane. ½]
Fig. 519 shows the half of a mould for a dagger blade of elegant form.
It is of mica slate, and was found near Broughshane, Co. Antrim. It
is about 1 inch in thickness; and on the other face are moulds for a
small flat chisel with side stops, in total length about 2⅝ inches,
for a flat triangular celt-like tool about 1½ inch long, and an
unfinished mould for a segment of a flat ring.
Stone moulds for daggers have been found in the Italian
_terramare_.[1687]
[Illustration: Fig. 520.—Knighton. ¼]
[Illustration: Fig. 521.—Knighton. ¼]
In Figs. 520 and 521 I have reproduced on the scale of one-fourth the
engravings of two stone moulds which were found near Knighton, but
in the parish of Hennock, near Chudleigh, Devon, and are published
in the _Archæological Journal_.[1688] They are of a light greenish
micaceous schist, such as occurs in Cornwall. The large one is 24½
inches in length by 3 inches in its greatest width, the smaller is
21½ inches long and also 3 inches wide. When found the two halves of
each mould were in apposition; the longer mould placed vertically, the
shorter horizontally. As will be seen, they are for the production of
rapier-shaped blades. In the smaller is a series of small channels, to
allow of the escape of air during the process of casting.
[Illustration: Fig. 522.—Maghera. ½]
On the larger, by the side of the main mould, is a second, which would
produce a slightly tapering casting, ribbed longitudinally on one
face and flat on the other. It is difficult to judge of the purpose
for which it was intended, but it may possibly have been at once an
ornament and a support for the scabbard of the blade.
Some fluted pieces of bronze, such as would be produced from a mould
of this kind, are in the museum at Tours, found in a hoard at St.
Genouph.
A mould for a short leaf-shaped sword has been found in Ireland.[1689]
A stone mould, formed of green micaceous schist, and found at Maghera,
Co. Derry, is in the collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., and is
shown in Fig. 522. As will be seen, it is for a spear-head of the
ordinary Irish type, with loops on the socket. These, however, were
probably flattened down during the finishing process. The outside of
the mould has been neatly rounded, and has shallow grooves in it to
assist in keeping the string in place with which the two halves of the
mould were bound together when ready for use.
In the same collection is the half of a mould for spear-heads, from
Armoy, Co. Antrim. It is much like the figure, but 7⅞ inches long.
I have the half of a mould for a nearly similar spear-head, made of
light brown stone, with the sides left square, and not rounded. This
is also from the North of Ireland. It is difficult to understand the
manner in which the cores for forming the sockets of the spear-heads
were supported in the moulds. Possibly small pins of bronze were
attached to the clay core, which kept it in position, but which
during the casting process got burnt into the molten metal. I have,
however, found no actual traces of such a contrivance. On examining
broken spear-heads it will sometimes be found that the socket core
inside the blade, instead of being simply conical, has lateral
projections running into the thicker part of the blade.
A mould for spear-heads of the same kind as Fig. 521, found near
Claran Bridge,[1690] in the barony of Dunkellen, Co. Galway, has at
the base two pin-holes about 1 inch long and ¼ inch in diameter.
Their axes are parallel to that of the socket. These may possibly be
connected with the steadying of the core.
A stone mould found at the edge of Lough Ramer, Co. Cavan,[1691] and
now in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy, is quadrangular in
section, with moulds for very small lance-heads on three of its faces.
On the fourth there are marks of a worn-out mould. The corresponding
halves have not been found. Such instances of several half-moulds on a
single block of stone are not unfrequent.
[Illustration: Fig. 523.—Lough Gur. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 524.—Campbelton. ½]
A moiety of a stone mould for casting spear-heads of various sizes, and
also pointed objects, “possibly,” though not probably, “arrow-heads,”
was found at Lough Gur,[1692] Co. Limerick, and is now in the British
Museum. It is a four-sided prism, 6½ inches long and 2½ inches broad
at one end of each face, and 1¾ inch at the other. A second similar
prism would, it has been observed, give four perfect moulds for casting
spear-heads slightly varying in form, but in each case provided with
side loops. These loops are as usual semicircular in form on the mould,
and were no doubt destined to be flattened in the usual manner by a
subsequent process of hammering. There is one special feature in this
mould, viz. that at the base of the blade there is a transverse notch
in the stone, evidently destined to receive a small pin, which would
serve to keep the clay core for the socket in its proper position.
There is a similar transverse notch in one of the smaller moulds for
the pointed objects. This mould is shown in Fig. 523.
There is a similar notch in a mould for leaf-shaped spear-heads
without loops in the Preusker Collection at Dresden. It would seem
as if the pin which formed the hole for the rivet was also of use to
support the core. Another such mould is in the museum at Modena.
There are similar notches in a stone mould for spear-heads, in one
of burnt clay for socketed knives, found at Mœrigen, in the Lake of
Bienne, and in one found in the Lake of Varese.[1693]
A small Irish mould for casting broad leaf-shaped lance-heads without
loops is in the Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh.
A mould of much the same character as the Irish examples was found
near Campbelton,[1694] in Kintyre, Argyleshire. It is formed of dark
serpentine, and one of its halves is shown in Fig. 524. On the same
spot were found two polished stone celts and another stone mould for
spear-heads, in two portions, also of serpentine, shown in Figs. 525
and 526, both sides being cut for moulds, one for a looped spear-head
and the other for one without loops.
[Illustration: Fig. 525.—Campbelton. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 526.—Campbelton. ½]
Dr. Arthur Mitchell, who has described this find, says that in this
second mould the two halves are not alike, as in the one first
described. In this case one-half has the shape of the spear-head deeply
cut into the stone, so as to include the whole thickness of the edge of
the spear, and the other side has simply the midrib alone cut on it,
and the rest of that side of the mould is gently bevelled towards the
edges, the result of which simple plan is that when the two sides are
laid together a perfect mould is made, the two sides of the casting
being almost exactly alike, less labour being thus required than in
forming an outline exactly alike on both sides of the stone mould, and
the result being equally satisfactory.
An English, or rather Welsh, quadrangular mould, much like that from
Lough Gur, was found between Bodwrdin[1695] and Tre Ddafydd, Anglesea.
It is formed of hone-stone 9¼ inches long, with the sides tapering
from 2 inches to 1½ inch. It is adapted for casting looped spear-heads
of two sizes, and what has been regarded as a double-looped celt. The
fourth side has a conical groove, and may be the complement of another
more defined mould, as is the case with Fig. 525B. It has been thought
to have been for a spike-like javelin. What has been regarded as the
mould for double-looped celts seems also to be the shallow half of a
mould for spear-heads. In the museum at Clermont Ferrand[1696] there
is an analogous stone mould for palstaves of three types and a point
or ferrule.
Of other stone moulds, I may mention one for casting buckles of a
kind like those from Polden Hill, which was found at Camelford,
Cornwall.[1697] This is not improbably of Late Celtic date.
I have a flat oval slab of compact grit, about 2 inches thick, having
on one face a mould for a thin oval plate of metal about 5 inches by
4½ inches, and on the other a mould for a rather thicker oval plate,
about 6 inches by 4½ inches. It was found near Nantlle, Carnarvon, and
was given me by Mr. R. D. Darbishire, F.S.A. I am uncertain as to the
period to which it ought to be assigned.
Of foreign moulds of stone besides those already cited, I may mention
some for double-ended hatchets and for flat celts which have been
found in the Island of Sardinia.[1698]
A number of moulds formed of stone, principally mica-schist, were
found by Dr. Schliemann[1699] during his excavations on the presumed
site of Troy. They were for casting flat celts, tanged spear-heads or
daggers, and various other forms. Several of the blocks had moulds
on both sides and ends, and served for casting as many as a dozen
different objects.
The moulds made of bronze which have been found in this country are
for palstaves, socketed celts, and gouges only. They appear to be more
abundant in England than in any of the neighbouring parts of Europe. At
one time the whole school of English antiquaries regarded the moulds
for socketed celts as cases or sheaths specially prepared to hold such
instruments.[1700] To Vallancey, I think, belongs the credit of being
the first to recognise their true character. In writing about the half
of a bronze mould for palstaves found in Ireland, he observes,[1701]
“Dr. Borlase and Mr. Lort had seen brass cases of these instruments,
which fitted them as exactly as if they had been the molds in which the
instruments were cast. I cannot conceive why these gentlemen hesitate
to call them molds, as a certain proof that they were manufactured
in Ireland, where the Romans came not, either as friends or foes,
the molds are found in our bogs; they are of brass also, mixed with
a greater quantity of iron, or in some manner tempered much harder
than the instruments.” I am not sure that the latter remark as to the
comparative hardness of the moulds holds good in all cases, otherwise
the correctness of the opinion expressed by Vallancey, now about a
hundred years ago, is undeniable.
[Illustration: Fig. 527.—Hotham Carr. ½]
In Fig. 527 are given three views of one half of a complete mould for
palstaves, which was found with a hoard of bronze objects, including
seven palstaves without loops, at Hotham Carr, in Yorkshire, E.R. It is
in the collection of Canon Greenwell, F.R.S. Among the palstaves which
were found with it only one was in an undamaged condition.
[Illustration: Fig. 528—Wiltshire. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 529—Wiltshire. ½]
As will be seen from the figure, there are projections or dowels on the
face of this half of the mould which fit into corresponding depressions
in the counterpart, so as to steady the two halves when brought
together and keep them in proper position. At the top is a cup-shaped
cavity for the reception of the metal. Any portion of the casting which
occupied this part of the mould was broken off from the palstave when
it was cool, and was kept for re-melting. Such waste pieces, or jets,
from the moulds are of common occurrence in the old founders’ hoards,
and some will be subsequently noticed.
Another mould for simple palstaves was found in Danesfield, near
Bangor,[1702] in 1800. It is for a blade rather wider at the edge and
narrower in the shank than that produced by the Yorkshire mould. With
it was found another mould for a looped palstave of about the same
size. One half of each pair of moulds is in the British Museum, and
the other half in Lord Braybrooke’s collection at Audley End. The half
of a bronze mould for a simple palstave, with a shield-shaped ornament
below the stop-ridge, was found in Ireland.[1703] One of the same kind
was lately in the collection of Mr. Stevenson of Lisburn.
In the British Museum is another mould for looped palstaves, which is
shown in Figs. 528 and 529, for the use of which I am indebted to the
Council of the Society of Antiquaries.[1704] The original was found
in Wiltshire. It is remarkable as bearing on each of its halves bands
evidently cast from actual twine which has been upon the model; but
the bands on the two halves do not coincide, being on the one placed
higher than on the other. The sides are also joggled together in a
singular manner. As to the bands of cording, it may be that the model
of the first half of the mould was formed of clay, which when dry,
in order to prevent its being broken, was tied on to the palstave on
which it had been shaped, and was thus moulded in clay or loam; and
that afterwards, when the second half of the mould had to be cast by
a similar process, the model for it was tied on to the half-mould
already formed, the binding being in contact with the side of the band
already in relief upon the back and sides of the half-mould.
Several palstave moulds formed of bronze have been found in different
countries in Europe.
The half of one, found in the Saône, for looped palstaves, is in the
museum at Lyons.[1705]
[Illustration: Fig. 530—Harty. ½]
General A. Pitt Rivers, F.R.S., has one from the neighbourhood of
Macon.[1706]
M. Charles Seidler, of Nantes, has another.
Another from the hoard of Notre-Dame d’Or, Vienne, is in the museum at
Poitiers.
M. Forel has another found in the Lake-dwellings at Morges.[1707]
A palstave mould of bronze, found near Medingen, is in the museum at
Hanover.[1708] The half of one found at Polsen, near Merseburg,[1709]
is in that of Berlin.
Another bronze mould from the neighbourhood of Grünberg,[1710] is in
the museum at Darmstadt.
There are several bronze moulds of this character in the Museum of
Northern Antiquities at Copenhagen.
In Figs. 530 and 531 are engraved the halves of two moulds for casting
socketed celts of different sizes and patterns, which were found with
a number of other relics in the Isle of Harty, Sheppey, and are now in
my own collection. I have already given an account of this discovery
elsewhere;[1711] but as it throws so much light upon the whole process
of casting as practised towards the close of the Bronze Period, it will
be desirable to give a somewhat detailed account of the entire find and
its teachings in this place.
The hoard, which may very fairly be described as the stock-in-trade of
an ancient bronze-founder, consisted of the following articles—
Both halves of the mould, Fig. 530.
5 celts cast in this mould and a fragment.
Both halves of the mould, Fig. 531.
1 celt cast in it.
One-half of a smaller mould with a portion of a lead lining adhering to
it, as kindly determined for me by Dr. J. Percy, F.R.S.
[Illustration: Fig. 531.—Harty. ½]
3 celts, more or less worn out, apparently cast in it.
2 large celts from different moulds.
2 small socketed celts from other and different moulds.
Both halves of a gouge mould, Fig. 532.
2 gouges, both from one mould, but it is doubtful whether they are from
this. See Fig. 205.
2 pointed tools, Fig. 220.
1 double-edged knife, Fig. 253.
1 single-edged knife, Fig. 260.
1 perforated disc, Fig. 503.
1 ferrule, Fig. 377.
1 part of a curved bracelet-like object of doubtful use, with small
hole near the end.
1 hammer or anvil, Fig. 211.
1 small hammer, Fig. 212.
2 pieces of rough copper.
1 whetstone, Fig. 540.
Of the largest mould itself, Fig. 530, not much need be said. The
dowels on the face of one of the halves have been much injured by
oxidation, so that the two parts of the mould do not now fit so well
together as they did originally. On the outside of each valve are two
projecting pins intended to hold the cord in position, by which the
two parts of the mould were held together when in use. As will be
seen, the mould itself is somewhat bell-mouthed. Of the ornamental
“flanches” on the celt, I have already given the history at page 108.
The instruments cast from this mould, and present in the hoard, are
five in number, four in fairly perfect condition, and one broken in two
in the middle. Though cast in the same mould, no two are absolutely
alike. Not only do they vary in width at their edges—the natural
result of one having been more freely hammered out than another—but
in the upper part, to which very little has been done in the way of
hammering or grinding since the celt left the mould, there are striking
differences. As will be seen, the mould is calculated to produce three
parallel mouldings round the mouth of each celt; but in one of the
castings only two of these mouldings are present; in another there are
three, and there is metal enough beyond to represent half the width
of another moulding. In two others the length is equivalent to nearly
another moulding, so that the celts appear to have four mouldings round
their mouths; and in the fifth celt there is a collar of plain metal
extending ⅜ inch beyond the three bands (see Fig. 113.) On comparing
this instrument with that first described, the difference in the
length above the loop is upwards of ½ inch. This difference can only
be accounted for by a difference in the arrangement of the mould and
core at the time of casting. On comparing the interior of one celt with
that of another, it is evident that the core was not produced in any
mould or core-box, as the small projecting ribs of metal left as usual
to help in steadying the haft vary in number and position. In the case
of the celt broken in two in the middle, the core has been placed so
much out of the centre that there is a large hole in the casting where
there was not room for the metal to run. The system adopted appears,
therefore, to have been much as follows.
First, the mould was tied together in proper position, and loam or clay
was rammed into it so as tightly to fill the upper part. The mould
was, secondly, taken apart—and the clay removed and probably left
to become nearly dry. Thirdly, the lower part of the clay was then
trimmed to form the core, a shoulder being left which would form the
mould for the top of the celt. The upper part of the clay would be left
untouched, beyond having two channels cut in it to allow of the passage
of the melted metal. Fourthly, the mould would be tied together again
with the prepared core inside, the untrimmed part of which would form
a guide for its due position in the mould. Fifthly, the mould would
then be placed vertically, probably by being stuck into sand, and the
melted metal would be poured down the channels. When cool the runners
thus formed would be broken off, and the fractured surfaces would be
hammered or ground. The knife found with the hoard was probably used
for cutting the channels and trimming the core. If such a process as
that which I have described were in use, it is evident that the chances
would be much against the shoulders of the clay core being always
cut at exactly the same place, and we have at once a reason for the
variation here observed.
There is another cause for slight variations in the sharpness of the
mouldings and the other details of the castings. In order to prevent
the molten bronze from adhering to the bronze mould, the latter must
have been smeared over with something by way of protection, so as
to form a thin film between the metal of the mould and that of the
casting. Modern founders, when casting pewter in brass, or even iron,
moulds,[1712] “anoint” the latter with red ochre and white of egg, or
smoke the inside of the mould; and our plumbers prevent solder from
amalgamating with lead by using lamp-black and size, or even by rubbing
it with a dock-leaf. No doubt the ancient founders had some equally
simple method, such as brushing the mould over with a very thin coat
of marl. Turning now to the second mould, Fig. 531, it will be seen
that just below the mouldings there is accidentally present a sharply
defined small recess; the impression, however, of this recess on the
celt cast in this mould is not nearly so sharp, probably in consequence
of the mould having been smeared as lately suggested. It will also be
noticed that though there is a double band of mouldings in the mould,
there is but one and a fraction on the celt itself, which is shown in
Fig. 114.
The outside of this mould is provided with three knobs to keep the
binding cord from slipping off. The other and smallest half-mould has
a single projection in the middle, like an imperfectly formed loop.
The three celts which were apparently cast in this mould show great
uniformity at their upper ends, and to the reason for this I think the
lead adhering to the mould furnishes a clue. It is evident that if, in
preparing the cores, instead of beginning by having the mould empty
and ramming clay into it, which was subsequently to be trimmed, the
founder placed a celt in the mould, its socket would act as a core-box
or mould for a clay core which would require no further trimming so far
as the part of forming the socket was concerned. On opening out the
mould this core could be withdrawn from the socket of the model celt,
and when dry would be ready for use. Perhaps in the celts with long and
not highly tapering sockets there would be a difficulty in getting out
the clay unbroken, and the process would not be found to answer; but in
the case of the small celts there would probably be less difficulty.
In this mould I think we have the remains of a celt formed of lead,
an instrument which would be utterly useless as a cutting tool, but
which might well have been made and kept as a core-box. The very fact
of its being made of another metal would prevent its being confounded
with the other castings and being bartered away; while in the first
instance a casting in lead might have been made on a wooden core, which
could probably be trimmed to the exact shape required more readily than
one of clay. I have elsewhere[1713] called attention to the fact that
wooden moulds were in use among the Ancient Britons for the casting of
coins formed of tin. Several socketed celts made of lead have from time
to time been found, though not in association with bronze-founders’
hoards, and have been a great puzzle to antiquaries. One found at
Alnwick,[1714] near Sleaford, Lincolnshire, was thought to have come
from a barrow. One found with bronze celts in the Morbihan, is in the
collection of the Rev. Canon Greenwell, F.R.S., but it is doubtful
whether it was used as a core-box. The use which I have suggested
for them is at all events one that is possible, but we must wait for
further discoveries before accepting it as the only cause for their
existence.
A mould for sword hilts found in Italy,[1715] and now in the museum at
Munich, is formed by three pieces of bronze, even the core by which the
cavity in them was produced being formed of that metal.
But that the cores were frequently if not always made of clay, and not,
as has been sometimes supposed, of metal, is proved by the numbers of
socketed celts which from time to time have been found with the cores
still in them, though this, it is true, has been the case in France
rather than in England. In the great hoard of socketed celts found near
Plénée Jugon, in Brittany, the majority were as they had come from the
mould, with the clay cores still in them, burnt as hard as brick by the
heat of the metal. I have already mentioned this fact in describing
the tool from the Harty hoard, which appears to have been used for
extracting the cores. I have also described the anvil, if such it be,
and the hammer, Figs. 211 and 212, by means of which, probably, the
edges of the celts were drawn out and hardened. I will now add that the
celt, Fig. 114, is too long and too broad at the edge for that part of
it to enter into the mould in which it was cast. This shows how much
its edge was drawn out by hammering. The final sharpening was no doubt
effected by the whetstone, Fig. 540.
[Illustration: Fig. 532.—Harty. ½]
The other mould from this hoard is almost unique of its kind. Two views
of each of its halves are given in Fig. 532. Originally there was a
loop on the back of each half, but from one this has in old times been
broken off. The arrangement for carrying the core is different from
what it seems to have been in the other moulds. There is in the upper
part of the mould when put together a transverse hole, which would
produce what may be termed trunnions on the clay core, and assist
materially in holding it in proper position during the process of
casting. From the upper surfaces of the gouges found with the mould,
it appears that there were two channels cut for the runners of metal,
one at the middle of each half of the mould, so as to alternate with
the joint of the mould through which the air could escape during the
casting process.
What appears to be part of a mould for gouges was found in the hoard of
Notre-Dame d’Or, and is now in the museum at Poitiers.
I must now return to the other examples of moulds for socketed celts
which have been found in this country.
One, with external loops on each half, like that on Fig. 532B, was
found with looped palstaves, socketed celts, and broken dagger or
sword blades, at Wilmington,[1716] Sussex, and is now in the museum
at Lewes. All these objects, as is the case in many other hoards, had
been deposited in a vessel of coarse pottery.
Another mould, found with eleven celts and fragments of weapons at
Eaton,[1717] near Norwich, has smaller and broader loops near the
top. On each side of the face of one half, a little distance from the
actual mould, and roughly following its contour, is a shallow groove,
into which fits a corresponding ridge on the counterpart. The outer
face of each half is ornamented with two slightly curved vertical
ribs, one on each side of the loop, and joined at the base by a
transverse rib. It is for casting celts about 4¼ inches long, and of
the ordinary form.
Another mould, for celts with an octagonal neck, was found on the
Quantock Hills,[1718] Somersetshire (and not in Yorkshire), and is
now in the British Museum. The halves are adjusted to each other by a
rib and groove, as on that last mentioned, and the back is ornamented
with a peculiar raised figure with three vertical lines and a straight
transverse line at the top, and two lines at the bottom running up
to the central vertical line so as to form on each side of it an
angle of about 120°. At the junction there is a ring ornament, and
two others near the angles formed with the side lines. This mould has
a transverse hole at the top like that in the gouge-mould already
mentioned.
Another mould, also in the British Museum,[1719] is for celts with
three vertical ribs on the face. This likewise has a transverse and
nearly square hole at the top, and also recesses in each half-mould,
so as to give four points of support to the core between which the
channels for the runners might be cut. On the outside, near the top,
is a loop, and near the bottom two projecting pins to retain the
string. This appears to be the mould from Yorkshire belonging to Mr.
Warburton, figured by Stukeley.[1720]
The half of another mould for celts, of nearly the same character, was
found in the Heathery Burn Cave,[1721] already so often mentioned,
and is shown in Fig. 533, for the use of which I am indebted to the
Council of the Society of Antiquaries.
Another mould was found in the fen at Washingborough,[1722] near
Lincoln. Another, from Cleveland,[1723] found with chisels, gouges,
&c., is in the Bateman Collection.
A part of another was found in a hoard at Beddington, Surrey,[1724]
and a fragment of another at Wickham Park, Croydon. This latter is
now in the British Museum.
A bronze mould for socketed celts, found at Eikrath, was in the
collection of the late Dr. Hugo Gärthe, of Cologne. Upon the outside
there are six ribs with ring ornaments at the ends, diverging from a
loop in the centre.
A bronze mould for socketed celts, ornamented with V-shaped lines, and
found at Gnadenfeld,[1725] in Upper Silesia, is in the Berlin Museum.
Another bronze mould with an external loop, also for socketed celts,
was found in Gotland,[1726] and is in the Stockholm Museum.
[Illustration: Fig. 533.—Heathery Burn. ½]
A magnificent mould for socketed celts was found in the Cotentin[1727]
in 1827. It has broad loops outside either half, with three processes
from it running up and down the mould.
A bronze mould for spear-heads was exhibited in Paris in 1878. A part
of another was in the Larnaud hoard, and is now in the museum at St.
Germain.
There were some fragments of bronze moulds in the great Bologna hoard.
The process of casting bronze instruments in loam, clay, or sand must
have been much the same as that in use at the present day; but it was
very rarely that the mould consisted of more or less than two pieces.
On a great many bronze instruments the joint of the mould is still
visible; and in some of the large hoards, such as those which have been
found in the North of France, we see the castings just as they came
from the moulds, except that the runners have been broken off. For
socketed celts there were usually two runners of metal; for palstaves
sometimes two, and sometimes only one nearly the full width of the
upper part. It is not uncommon to find castings which show that the two
halves of the mould or the flasks have slipped sideways, so that they
were not in proper position when the casting was made.
I have a palstave from a large hoard found near Tours, in which the
lateral displacement of the mould is as much as a quarter of an inch,
so that there is what geologists might term a “fault” in the casting.
The metal which has been in contact with what was the face of the mould
is smooth, and appears to have been cast against clay. A considerable
variety of patterns was in use by the founder to whom this hoard
belonged, and they appear to have been of metal and not of wood,
some of the palstaves having been apparently cast from tools already
shortened by wear.
That castings were occasionally made even from tools already mounted in
their handles is proved by the Swiss hatchet, Fig. 185.
Some portions of moulds formed of burnt clay were found with broken
palstaves, socketed celts, gouges, knives, spear-heads, daggers,
swords, lumps of metal, runners, &c., at Questembert, Brittany, and are
in the museum at Vannes.
Part of a mould for spear-heads formed of burnt clay was found in the
Lac du Bourget;[1728] but the most interesting discoveries are those
which have been made by Dr. V. Gross at the station of Mœrigen,[1729]
on the Lake of Bienne. He there found a considerable amount of the
plant of an ancient bronze-founder, all of whose moulds, however,
were either in stone or burnt clay, and not formed of metal. The
stone moulds appear to have been principally used for the plainer
articles, such as knives, sickles, pins, &c., while for articles with
irregular surfaces, or requiring cores, clay was preferred. Of clay
moulds Dr. Gross recognises two types: one formed in a single piece,
which could serve but once, and which was broken in extracting the
casting; and the other, which was composed of two or more pieces, and
which could be used over and over again. Of the first kind there were
two examples—one for a socketed chisel and the other for a socketed
knife. The form of the mould for a chisel is nearly cylindrical, with a
funnel-shaped opening at one end, at the bottom of which are two holes
leading into the interior of the mould. The clay between these two
holes forms part of a conical core. Such a mould would give the idea of
its having been formed on a model of wax on the system known as that of
_cire perdue_; but this appears not to have been really the case, for
on examination the mould itself appears to have been originally formed
of two halves, or valves, formed of fine clay, which had been well
burnt, and these when put together had been surrounded by an external
envelope of coarse clay, which held them and the core they enclosed in
their proper position. The core itself seems to have been T-shaped,
the ends of the transverse line being triangular and fitting into
corresponding recesses in the valves of the mould.
The best-preserved mould of the second kind was one for a socketed
hammer, which was also provided with a core of the same kind. It seems
to me, however, that the distinction drawn by Dr. Gross between the two
classes of moulds does not really exist, as by enveloping such a mould
as that for the hammer in a mass of clay it would be transferred from
the second class to the first.
Clay moulds for socketed-celts have been found in Hungary.[1730]
In some Scandinavian examples[1731] of what appear to have been
ceremonial axes there is merely a thin coating of bronze cast over a
clay core, but no such specimens have as yet been found in Britain.
That bronze so thin could have been cast shows wonderful skill in the
founder.
[Illustration: Fig. 534.—Stogursey. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 535.—Stogursey. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 536.—Stogursey. ½]
The heads and runners, jets or waste pieces, from the castings
were reserved for being re-melted, and are frequently found in the
bronze-founders’ hoards. They are of course of various sizes, but are
usually conical masses, showing the shape of the cup or funnel into
which the metal was poured, and having one, two, or more processes from
them showing the course of the metal into the mould.
Figs. 534, 535 and 536, all from the same hoard, found at
Stogursey,[1732] Somersetshire, will give a fair idea of the general
character of these waste pieces, or jets. They are shown with their
flat face downwards, or in the reverse position to what they occupied
when in the molten state, and exhibit one, two, and four runners from
them respectively. No less than fifteen of these objects were found
with this deposit—six with one runner, three with two, and six with
four.
Jets of metal, for the most part with two runners, were found with
the Westow hoard,[1733] Yorkshire, those of Marden,[1734] Kent; of
Kensington;[1735] and of Hounslow. Those from the two latter deposits
are in the British Museum.
Another waste piece, 1¾ inch long, with two runners, was found in the
Heathery Burn Cave,[1736] and is shown in Fig. 537.
A very symmetrical jet, circular, with four irregularly conical
runners proceeding from it, was in the hoard found at Lanant,[1737]
Cornwall, and is now in the Museum of the Society of Antiquaries.
Another oval head (2 inches long), with four runners from it, has much
the appearance of a sword pommel. It was found with socketed celts on
Kenidjack Cliff,[1738] Cornwall.
[Illustration: Fig. 537. Heathery Burn.]
A perforated disc, with a collar round the central hole (Fig. 503),
which at one time[1739] I regarded as a waste piece from a casting,
I have now reason to think was prepared for some special purpose, as
at least one object of this class has been found with the runners
removed, and in a finished condition. See page 403.
The conical lump of metal found with the hoard at Marden,[1740] Kent,
and described as “a very rare species of fibula,” may be the head of
metal from a casting.
Some conical funnels of burnt clay, found in the Lake-dwellings near
Laibach, have been regarded as having served to receive the metal in
the casting process.
Runners of the same character as those already described have been
found in different countries, including Denmark[1741] and Sweden.[1742]
We must now briefly consider the processes to which the castings were
subjected before being finally brought into use. Where the objects had
sockets cast over clay cores, those cores had to be removed, probably
by means of pointed tools, such as that already described under Fig.
220. Where they were solid they seem in most cases to have undergone a
considerable amount of hammering, which both rendered the metal more
compact, and to a certain extent removed the asperities resulting from
the joints in the mould. With edged tools and weapons, whether socketed
or not, the edges especially were drawn down by means of the hammer.
These hammers, as has already been shown, were occasionally themselves
of bronze, and so also were some of the anvils. It is, however,
probable that in most cases both hammers and anvils were stones, either
natural pebbles and flat slabs, or occasionally wrought into special
shapes. In South Africa at the present day the iron assegais are
wrought with hammers and anvils of stone. Judging from the unfinished
condition of the tools and weapons in some of the old bronze-founders’
hoards, and from large deposits of socketed celts having been found
with the clay cores still in them, it seems not improbable that the
founders often bartered away their castings nearly in the state in
which they came from the moulds, with only the runners broken off, and
that those who acquired them finished their manufacture themselves.
Possibly a hammering process upon the surface of the socketed
spear-heads and celts would so loosen the cores that they would fall
out or could be extracted with merely a pointed stick.
[Illustration: Fig. 538.—Kirby Moorside. ½]
[Illustration: Fig. 539.—Hove. ½]
After the hammering, the surface of most weapons and of some tools
was further polished, probably by friction with sand, or with a
rubbing-stone of grit. I have elsewhere described some of the stone
rubbers which appear to have been in use in conjunction with sand, for
the purpose of grinding and polishing the faces of different forms of
perforated stone axes, which in Britain at all events belonged to the
period when bronze was known. It is, therefore, probable that similar
rubbers were employed for grinding and polishing the faces of bronze
weapons; and the rubber shown in Fig. 538 appears to have been destined
for this purpose. It was found with several socketed celts at Keldholm,
near Kirby Moorside, North Riding of Yorkshire, and is now in Canon
Greenwell’s collection. The material seems to be trap.
No doubt many other such rubbing-stones must exist, and it is possible
that some of those which I have regarded as used for the grinding and
polishing of weapons of stone may have served for those of bronze.
Whetstones of various kinds have from time to time been discovered
in company with bronze instruments. Near Little Wenlock,[1743]
Shropshire, some spear-heads, a socketed celt, and part of a dagger
were found in 1835, and with them are recorded to have been three or
four small whetstones. In the Dowris hoard[1744] also some rubbers of
stone with convex, concave, and flat surfaces were present. In my
“Ancient Stone Implements”[1745] I have given an account of a number
of whetstones found at various places in company with bronze relics,
not unfrequently with interments in barrows, and I need not here repeat
the details. I reproduce, however, in Fig. 539 a whetstone found in a
barrow at Hove, near Brighton,[1746] with the remains of a skeleton, a
stone axe-head, an amber cup, and a small bronze dagger.
Another whetstone, shown in Fig. 540, was found with the hoard in the
Isle of Harty, and no doubt was employed by the ancient bronze-founder
for finishing off the edges of the socketed celts and gouges in which
he dealt. It is made from a sort of ragstone.
[Illustration: Fig. 540. Harty. ½]
The decoration of the surfaces of bronze implements by sunk, and in
some cases by raised lines appears to have been effected, not as a
rule by any method of engraving, but by means of punches, as already
described in Chapter III. I have in that chapter accidentally omitted
to mention two decorated bronze celts which have been figured and
described by Mr. Llewellynn Jewitt, F.S.A.[1747] They were both found
at a place called Highlow, in the High Peak of Derbyshire, about
two miles from Hathersage, and are in the possession of the Duke of
Devonshire. There seems some reason to believe[1748] that the celts
were found in a barrow accompanied by burnt bones and pottery. One
of them (6¾ inches) is flat and ornamented with lines of slightly
impressed chevrons running along it. The other (6¼ inches) is flanged
and ornamented with a similar herring-bone pattern, which in this
instance ends in a row of triangles near the edge of the celt. In some
few cases the patterns may have been engraved, and I find on trial
that there is no difficulty in engraving such parallel lines as are
frequently seen on dagger blades by means of a flake of flint. Such an
instrument suffers but little by wear, and by means of a ruler, either
straight or curved, there is no difficulty in engraving lines of the
required character in the bronze, though the lines are hardly so smooth
as if made with a chisel-edged punch.
Notches which would assist in the breaking off of superfluous pieces
of metal, such as the runners in the moulds, can readily be made with
flint flakes used as saws.
For smoothing the surface of bronze instruments flint scraping-tools
are not so efficient, as they are liable to “chatter” and to leave an
uneven and scratched surface, much inferior to one produced by friction
with a gritty rubber.
There remains little more to be said with regard to the manufacture
of the ancient bronze tools and weapons. It may, however, be observed
that the processes of hammering-out and sharpening the edges were
employed not only by those who first made the instruments, but also by
the subsequent possessors. Many tools, such for instance as palstaves,
like Fig. 65, were no doubt originally much longer in the blade than
they are at present, and have in the course of use either been broken
and again drawn down and sharpened, or have been actually worn away and
“stumped up” by constant repetition of these processes. The recurved
ends of the lunate cutting edges of many such instruments are also due
to repeated hammering-out. In some instances the broken part of one
instrument has been converted into another form—as, for example, a
fragment of a broken sword into a knife or dagger, or a palstave that
has lost its cutting end, into a hammer.
CHAPTER XXII.
CHRONOLOGY AND ORIGIN OF BRONZE.
HAVING now passed in review the various forms of instruments, arms, and
ornaments belonging to the Bronze Period of Great Britain, it will be
well to attempt some chronological arrangement of the different types,
and to examine the means at our command for fixing the approximate
date and duration of the Period as well as the sources from which the
knowledge of bronze in this country was derived.
The sequence and extent of variation in the types of an instrument or
weapon destined to serve some given purpose are of course important
factors in any theoretical calculation of the length of time such an
instrument was in use. For if the type has remained one and the same
during the whole period of the use of the instrument, it affords no
evidence as to the length of its duration; whereas, if it has varied,
and the sequence of its variations can be traced, their nature and
extent may afford some means of judging of the length of time probably
necessary for the development of the succession of forms. Or where
an instrument has been so well adapted for its particular ends that
no material modification in its form was likely to take place in
it, so long as its use was limited to its original purpose, yet the
springing from it of what may be termed collateral types of instruments
specialized for other though analogous purposes may also be indicative
of the original form having remained in use during a lengthened period
of time.
The extremely numerous variations which may be observed in socketed
celts afford conclusive evidence of that instrument having been
employed in this country during a long series of years; and the
collateral varieties, such as socketed chisels and gouges, as well
as the more distantly related socketed hammers, give corroborative
testimony to the same effect.
Improvements in the method of working metals will often react on the
forms of tools and weapons, but here again the chronological element
exists, as old processes and old forms are slow to die, especially
among a people of no very high material civilisation. The discovery,
for instance, of the art of producing hollow sockets in bronze castings
by the use of cores of loam or clay, though it materially modified the
form of many instruments, did not cause the entire extinction of the
older forms without sockets, the use of which in some cases went on
side by side with that of the instruments of more novel invention; and
this fact tends to prove that bronze must have long been in use for
tools with tangs instead of sockets, before the process of coring was
known. Indeed, as I have elsewhere[1749] pointed out, the Bronze Period
of Britain is susceptible of division into an earlier and later stage,
the former mainly characterized by instruments which were let into
their hafts or handles, and the latter by those which received their
handles in sockets. As will subsequently be seen, it may be divided
even into three more or less distinct stages.
A division into two stages has been suggested for the Scandinavian
Bronze Age. M. Gabriel de Mortillet has in like manner divided the
Bronze Period of France and Switzerland into an earlier and later
stage—the one distinguished by flanged celts, which came into use at
the close of the Stone Period (his Epoque _robenhausienne_), and the
other by palstaves and socketed celts, which he regards as belonging
to the close of the Bronze Period. To these two stages he has applied
the terms _morgien_ and _larnaudien_, derived from the Lake-dwelling
of Morges, in the Lake of Geneva, and from the large founder’s hoard
discovered at Larnaud (Jura). Curiously enough he regards the flat
celts as being even more recent in date than the socketed, forgetful
that the form with flanges at the sides can hardly by any possibility
have been an original type, as such flanges must either have been
produced by hammering the sides of flat celts, or must have been cast
in a mould consisting of two halves, which certainly cannot have been
so early a form of mould as a simple recess in stone, sand, or clay,
adapted for casting a nearly flat plate of metal like a wedge-shaped
celt.
Such flat celts, as has already been mentioned, have been found with
interments in barrows associated with what were apparently lance-heads
of flint, and maces and battle-axes of stone; and their nearest allies,
those with but slight flanges—the result of hammering the sides—have
also been found under similar circumstances.
The knife-daggers, as described in Chapter X., and the awls or
prickers, are the only other bronze instruments which in this country
can challenge a similar antiquity; and none of these, as a rule, are
found in those deposits of bronze objects to which the name of “hoards”
has been given.
As M. Gabriel de Mortillet and others have pointed out, these hoards
are of more than one character. In certain cases they seem to have been
the treasured property of some individual who would appear to have
buried his valued tools or weapons during troublous times, and never
to have been able to disinter them. In other cases the hoards were
probably the property of a trader, as they consist of objects ready for
use and in considerable numbers; and in others, again, they appear to
have been the stock-in-trade of some bronze-founder of ancient times,
as they comprise worn out and broken tools and weapons, lumps of rough
metal, and even the moulds in which the accumulation of bronze was
destined to be recast.
Mr. Worsaae has suggested that some of these hoards may be of a votive
character and have been deposited in the ground as precious offerings
to the gods. I am not, however, aware of any of our British hoards
being of such a character that they can safely be regarded as votive.
As to the other three kinds of hoards, the small group from
Wallingford[1750] (No. 60 in the following table), consisting of a
socketed celt, gouge, and knife, and a tanged chisel and razor, may be
taken as a good instance of a private deposit. That of Stibbard[1751]
(No. 8), consisting of seventy palstaves and ten spear-heads, some of
them rough from the mould, would appear to have belonged to a merchant;
and the Harty hoard (No. 105), described in the last chapter, affords a
typical example of the stock-in-trade of a bronze-founder.
In some other cases, deposits, especially when consisting exclusively
of ornaments, may possibly be of a sepulchral character.
The value of the evidence afforded by hoards, especially by those
of the first and second kinds lately mentioned, is great and
unquestionable in determining the synchronism of various forms of
instruments—as, for instance, of plain and looped palstaves with
socketed celts. In the case of the bronze-founders’ hoards of old
metal, it is of course possible that the fragments contained may belong
to various periods. Nevertheless the objects, as a rule, appear to be
such as were in use at the time, and which, being worn out or broken,
were collected by the bronze-founder for the purpose of re-melting. In
order to make them at once more portable and more ready for placing in
the crucible, he generally broke the larger and longer articles into
fragments, broken spear-heads, swords, &c., being frequently present
in the hoards, as well as the jets or waste pieces of metal broken off
from castings. In some instances fragments of various instruments have
been inserted in the sockets of others, so as to diminish the space
occupied by the whole.
As will subsequently be seen, by far the greater number of the
undoubted bronze-founders’ hoards belong to a time when socketed
celts were already in use, and therefore to the close rather than the
beginning of our Bronze Period.
M. Ernest Chantre has divided the principal hoards of the Bronze Age
discovered in France into three principal categories, to which he has
applied the terms “_Trésors_,” “_Fonderies_,” and “_Stations_.” The
first, as a rule, comprise articles which have never been in use,
and are, in fact, of the same character as the hoards which I have
classed under the head of “Personal” or “Merchants.” The principal
_trésors_, those of Réallon, Ribiers, Beaurières, Manson, Frouard,
are characterized by the presence of socketed instruments; and in two
instances—those of La Ferté-Hauterive, and Vaudrevanges, Rhenish
Prussia—either an ingot or a mould of metal was present. I should,
therefore, have classed these two among the “_fonderies_.”
M. Chantre has, however, in the main, restricted this term to hoards
consisting principally of broken objects, and of these _fonderies_
he has examined some fifty in France. In the southern part of that
country these hoards are by no means so constantly characterized by
the presence of socketed celts and other socketed instruments as in
Britain. In the north of France, however, the socketed forms are more
frequent in the hoards.
The _stations_ are considered to represent habitations of the Bronze
Age of the same character as the Lake-dwellings, but fixed on _terra
firma_ instead of on piles or artificial islands. Some of the hoards
placed under this head appear from the presence of moulds and lumps of
metal to be those of founders.
Hoards of broken objects of bronze have been found in other parts
of Europe, but it seems needless to do more than mention the fact.
I may, however, refer to the hoards of Camenz and Grossenhain, in
Saxony,[1752] of which I gave an account to the Society of Antiquaries
some fifteen years ago.
In the following lists I have divided the principal hoards discovered
in the United Kingdom into two main categories, the one, in which
socketed celts, gouges, or other tools were absent; the other,
in which they were present in greater or less abundance. This is
perhaps the simplest method of arriving at what may be regarded as a
fairly trustworthy chronological division. Some of the results of an
examination of the lists will subsequently be discussed. In the first
list I have given the precedence to those hoards in which flat or
flanged celts were present. Second, I have placed those in which there
were palstaves. Third, those in which ornaments were found; and last,
those mainly characterized by swords and spear-heads, or spear-heads
and ferrules, but in which both palstaves and socketed celts were
absent.
In the second list I have placed at the head the hoards in which
socketed celts, sometimes accompanied by palstaves, were found
associated with swords or spears, while mere tools, such as gouges and
hammers, were absent. Next come a few cases in which socketed celts
occurred either in company with ornaments or alone. Then follow the
hoards in which chisels, gouges, or hammers were found, but no lumps of
metal were present. After these are placed the bronze-founders’ hoards,
in which lumps of metal and the jets or waste pieces from castings were
found, including one or two Scotch and Irish hoards; and, finally,
those in which moulds were present.
In each case I have attempted to distinguish whether a hoard was
personal or belonged to a merchant or founder, by adding the letters
P, M, or F. Where two of these letters occur, the hoard seems to come
under either category. It is possible that some of those characterized
by a P may be sepulchral.
Appended to the tabulated lists is a more detailed account, mentioning
some of the principal features in each case, and giving references to
the works in which the discoveries are recorded. Of course this is to a
great extent a repetition of what has been recorded in previous pages.
It must be observed that the numbers given in the lists do not always
refer to entire objects but frequently to fragments only. Where the
numbers are unknown the presence of the objects is shown by an _x_.
─—──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
LIST I.
│FLANGED CTS.
│ │PALSTAVES
│ │ │SOCK. CELTS
│ │ │ │CHISELS
│ │ │ │ │GOUGES
│ │ │ │ │ │AWLS
│ │ │ │ │ │ │HAMMERS
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │SICKLES
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │KNIVES
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
────────────────────────────┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┤
1.Arreton Down P.M. │ 4│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
2.Plymstock P.M. │ 16│ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
3.Battlefield M. │_x_│_x_│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
4.Postlingford Hall M. │ 19│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
5.Rhosnesney M.F. │ 3│ 6│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
6.Broxton P. │ — │ 2│ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
7.Sherford M. │ — │ 6│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
8.Stibbard M. │ — │ 70│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
9.Quantock Hills P. │ — │ 2│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
10.Hollingbury Hill P. │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
11.Edington Burtle P.M. │ — │ 4│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 4│ — │
12.Woolmer Forest P. │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
13.West Buckland P. │ — │ 2│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
14.Blackmoor M.F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
15.Fulbourn Common P.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
16.Pant-y-maen M.F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
17.Wicken Fen F.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
18.Corsbie Moss P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
19.Weymouth P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
20.Whittingham P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
21.Worth P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
22.Stoke Ferry M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
23.Brechin M.P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
24.Duddingston Loch M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
25.Point of Sleat P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
26.River Wandle P. │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
27.Tarves P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
28.Maentwrog P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
29.Bloody Pool M.F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
30.Broadward M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
│ FC│ P│ SC│ Ch│ G│ A│ H│ S│ K│
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
│RAZORS
│ │HALBERDS
│ │ │DAGGERS
│ │ │ │RAPIERS
│ │ │ │ │SWORDS
│ │ │ │ │ SCABBARDS
│ │ │ │ │ │ │TANGED SP.
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │SPEAR-HEADS
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │FERRULES
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
───────────────────────────┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┤
1.Arreton Down P.M. │ — │ 1│ 2│ — │ — │ — │ 9│ — │ 1│
2.Plymstock P.M. │ — │ — │ 3│ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │
3.Battlefield M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
4.Postlingford Hall M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
5.Rhosnesney M.F. │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
6.Broxton P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │
7.Sherford M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │
8.Stibbard M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 10│ — │
9.Quantock Hills P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
10.Hollingbury Hill P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
11.Edington Burtle P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
12.Woolmer Forest P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
│TRUMPETS
│ │PINS
│ │ │TORQUES
│ │ │ │BRACELETS
│ │ │ │ │BUTTONS
│ │ │ │ │ │CLASPS
│ │ │ │ │ │ │RINGS
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │CALDRONS
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
────────────────────────────┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┤
1.Arreton Down P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
2.Plymstock P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
3.Battlefield M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
4.Postlingford Hall M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
5.Rhosnesney M.F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
6.Broxton P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
7.Sherford M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
8.Stibbard M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
9.Quantock Hills P. │ — │ — │ 2│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
10.Hollingbury Hill P. │ — │ — │ 1│ 4│ — │ — │ 3│ — │
11.Edington Burtle P.M. │ — │ — │ 1│ 3│ — │ — │ 6│ — │
12.Woolmer Forest P. │ — │ — │ 2│ 4│ — │ — │ 2│ — │
13.West Buckland P. │ — │ — │ 1│ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │
14.Blackmoor M.F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 3│ — │
15.Fulbourn Common P.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
16.Pant-y-maen M.F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 3│ — │
17.Wicken Fen F.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
18.Corsbie Moss P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
19.Weymouth P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
20.Whittingham P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
21.Worth P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
22.Stoke Ferry M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
23.Brechin M.P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
24.Duddingston Loch M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │_x_│
25.Point of Sleat P. │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
26.River Wandle P. │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
27.Tarves P. │ — │ 2│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
28.Maentwrog P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
29.Bloody Pool M.F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
30.Broadward M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 2│ — │ — │
│ Tr│ P│ T│ Br│ Bu│ Cl│ R│ C│
│MISCELLAN.
│ │MOULDS
│ │ │JETS
│ │ │ │METAL
│ │ │ │ │
────────────────────────────┼───┼───┼───┼───┤
1.Arreton Down P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
2.Plymstock P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
3.Battlefield M. │_x_│ — │ — │ — │
4.Postlingford Hall M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
5.Rhosnesney M.F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
6.Broxton P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
7.Sherford M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
8.Stibbard M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
9.Quantock Hills P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
10.Hollingbury Hill P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
11.Edington Burtle P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
12.Woolmer Forest P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
13.West Buckland P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
14.Blackmoor M.F. │ 2│ — │ — │ — │
15.Fulbourn Common P.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │
16.Pant-y-maen M.F. │_x_│ — │ — │ — │
17.Wicken Fen F.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │
18.Corsbie Moss P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
19.Weymouth P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
20.Whittingham P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
21.Worth P. │ 1│ — │ — │ — │
22.Stoke Ferry M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
23.Brechin M.P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
24.Duddingston Loch M. │_x_│ — │ — │ — │
25.Point of Sleat P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
26.River Wandle P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
27.Tarves P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
28.Maentwrog P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
29.Bloody Pool M.F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
30.Broadward M. │_x_│ — │ — │ — │
│ Mi│ Mo│ J│ M│
LIST II.
│FLANGED CTS.
│ │PALSTAVES
│ │ │SOCK. CELTS
│ │ │ │CHISELS
│ │ │ │ │GOUGES
│ │ │ │ │ │AWLS
│ │ │ │ │ │ │HAMMERS
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │SICKLES
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │KNIVES
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
────────────────────────────┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┤
31. Mawgan P.M. │ — │ 1│_x_│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
32. Wallington M. │ — │ 8│ 7│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
33. Nottingham M.F. │ — │ 1│ 16│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│
34. Nettleham M. │ — │ 4│ 2│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
35. Haxey ? │ — │ 1│_x_│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
36. Ambleside P.M. │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
37. Bilton M.F. │ — │ — │ 6│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
38. Alnwick Castle M.? │ — │ — │ 41│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
39. Flixborough M.F. │ — │ — │ 7│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
40. Shenstone P.M. │ — │ — │_x_│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
41. Wrekin Tenement F.M. │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
42. Llandysilio P.M. │ — │ — │ 3│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│
43. Dunbar P. │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
44. Little Wenlock M.F. │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
45. Winmarleigh P.? │ — │ — │ 5│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
46. Newark M. │ — │ — │ 4│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
47. Hagbourn Hill M.P. │ — │ — │ 2│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
48. Ty Mawr P. │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
49. Wedmore P. │ — │ — │ 2│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
50. Wymington M. │ — │ — │_x_│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
51. Reepham M. │ — │ — │ 31│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
52. Yattendon F. │ 1│ 3│ 2│ 3│ 6│ — │ — │ — │ 5│
53. Taunton M.? │ — │ 12│ 1│ — │ — │ — │ 1│ 2│ — │
54. Beacon Hill P.? │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │
55. Ebnall M.? │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │
56. Exning M.? │ — │ — │_x_│ — │ 1│ — │ 1│ — │ 1│
57. Melbourn P.? │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ 1│
58. Stanhope F.? │ — │ — │ 4│ — │ 1│ — │ 1│ — │ — │
59. Thorndon P. │ — │ — │ 2│ — │ 1│ 1│ 1│ — │ 1│
60. Wallingford P. │ — │ — │ 1│ 1│ 1│ — │ — │ — │ 1│
61. Whittlesea P.M. │ — │ — │ 4│ 2│ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │
62. Barrington P. │ — │ — │ 2│ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │
63. Porkington P. │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │
64. Trillick P. │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │
65. Bo Island P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ 1│
66. Llangwyllog P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
67. Meldreth F. │ — │ 2│ 25│ 1│ 1│ — │ — │ — │ 1│
68. Hounslow F. │ 1│_x_│_x_│ — │ 3│ — │ — │ — │ 1│
69. Hundred of Hoo F. │ — │ 4│ 16│ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ 1│
70. Guilsfield F. │ — │_x_│_x_│ — │ 2│ — │ — │ — │ — │
71. Stogursey F. │ — │ 2│_x_│ — │ 2│ — │ — │ — │ 2│
72. Chrishall F.M. │ — │ — │_x_│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│
73. Romford F. │ — │_x_│_x_│ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
74. Cumberlow F. │ — │_x_│_x_│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
75. Beachy Head F. │ — │ 3│ 2│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
76. Oxford F.? │ — │ 1│ — │ 1│ — │ — │ 1│ — │ 1│
77. Westow F. │ — │ 1│ 47│ 3│ 6│ — │ — │ — │ 1│
78. Carlton Rode F.M. │ — │_x_│_x_│_x_│ 4│ — │ — │ — │ — │
79. Kenidjack Cliff F. │ — │ 1│ 2│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
80. Helsdon Hall F. │ — │ 1│_x_│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
81. Worthing F. │ — │ 29│ 12│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
82. Reach Fen F.M. │ — │ — │ 11│ 2│ 3│ — │ 1│ — │ 5│
83. Haynes Hill F. │ — │ — │ 21│ — │ 2│ — │ — │ — │ — │
84. Allhallows F. │ — │ — │ 9│ 1│ 2│ — │ — │ — │ 1│
85. St. Hilary F. │ — │ — │_x_│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │_x_│
86. Alderney F.M. │ — │ — │_x_│ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│_x_│
87. Kingston Hill F. │ — │ — │ 2│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
88. Sittingbourne F. │ — │ — │ 4│ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │
89. Martlesham F. │ — │ — │ 17│ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ 1│
90. Lanant F. │ — │ — │_x_│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
91. West Halton F. │ — │ — │ 17│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
92. Burwell Fen F.M. │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
93. Marden F. │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ 1│
94. Kensington F. │ — │ — │ 4│ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ 2│
95. Roseberry Topping F. │ — │ — │_x_│ — │_x_│ — │_x_│ — │ — │
96. Danesbury F. │ — │ — │_x_│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
97. Earsley Common F. │ — │ — │_x_│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
98. High Roding F.M. │ — │ — │_x_│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
99. Panfield F.? │ — │ — │_x_│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
100. Westwick Row F. │ — │ — │ 2│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
101. Achtertyre P. │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
102. Dowris M.F. │ — │ — │ 31│ — │ 3│ — │_x_│ — │_x_│
103. Hotham Carr F.? │ — │ 7│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
104. Beddington F. │ — │ — │ 6│ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │
105. Harty F. │ — │ — │ 14│ — │ 2│ — │ 2│ — │ 2│
106. Heathery Burn F. │ — │ — │_x_│ 2│ 3│ — │ — │ — │ — │
107. Wickham Park F. │ — │ 1│ 6│ — │ 1│ — │ 1│ — │ 1│
108. Wilmington F. │ — │ 13│ 17│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 2│
109. Cleveland F. │ — │ — │ — │_x_│_x_│ — │ — │ — │ — │
110. Eaton F. │ — │ — │ 11│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
│ FC│ P │ SC│ Ch│ G│ A│ H│ S│ K│
│RAZORS
│ │HALBERDS
│ │ │DAGGERS
│ │ │ │RAPIERS
│ │ │ │ │SWORDS
│ │ │ │ │ SCABBARDS
│ │ │ │ │ │ │TANGED SP.
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │SPEAR-HEADS
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │FERRULES
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
────────────────────────────┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┤
31. Mawgan P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
32. Wallington M. │ — │ — │ — │ 2│ — │ — │ — │ 4│ 1│
33. Nottingham M.F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 6│ — │ — │ 4│ 1│
34. Nettleham M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 2│ 1│
35. Haxey ? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
36. Ambleside P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ 2│ — │ — │ 1│ — │
37. Bilton M.F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 2│ — │ — │ 7│ — │
38. Alnwick Castle M.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 20│ — │ — │ 16│ — │
39. Flixborough M.F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ 2│ — │
40. Shenstone P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 72│ — │ — │_x_│ — │
41. Wrekin Tenement F.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │_x_│ — │ — │_x_│ — │
42. Llandysilio P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │
43. Dunbar P. │ 3│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
44. Little Wenlock M.F. │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │_x_│ — │
45. Winmarleigh P.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 2│ — │
46. Newark M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 6│ — │
47. Hagbourn Hill M.P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │
48. Ty Mawr P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 2│ — │
49. Wedmore P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
50. Wymington M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
51. Reepham M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
52. Yattendon F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 4│ 1│ — │ 28│ — │
53. Taunton M.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 2│ — │
54. Beacon Hill P.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 2│ — │
55. Ebnall M.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │_x_│ — │
56. Exning M.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │_x_│ — │
57. Melbourn P.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ 1│ — │ — │ — │
58. Stanhope F.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ 5│ 1│
59. Thorndon P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │
60. Wallingford P. │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
61. Whittlesea P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │
62. Barrington P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
63. Porkington P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │
64. Trillick P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
65. Bo Island P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ 4│ — │
66. Llangwyllog P. │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
67. Meldreth F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 9│ — │ — │ 3│ — │
68. Hounslow F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │_x_│ — │ — │_x_│ — │
69. Hundred of Hoo F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ 2│ — │
70. Guilsfield F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 6│ 16│ — │ 7│ 12│
71. Stogursey F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │_x_│ 1│ — │ 13│ — │
72. Chrishall F.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │_x_│ — │
73. Romford F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │_x_│ — │ — │ 1│ — │
74. Cumberlow F. │ — │ — │ — │_x_│_x_│ — │ — │ — │ — │
75. Beachy Head F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │
76. Oxford F.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 2│ — │
77. Westow F. │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
78. Carlton Rode F.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
79. Kenidjack Cliff F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
80. Helsdon Hall F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
81. Worthing F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
82. Reach Fen F.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 2│ 1│ — │ 7│ — │
83. Haynes Hill F. │ — │ — │_x_│ — │_x_│ 1│ — │ 8│ — │
84. Allhallows F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 4│ — │ — │ 1│ — │
85. St. Hilary F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │_x_│ — │ — │_x_│ — │
86. Alderney F.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │_x_│ — │ — │_x_│ — │
87. Kingston Hill F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ 1│ — │
88. Sittingbourne F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │
89. Martlesham F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │
90. Lanant F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │_x_│ — │ — │ — │ — │
91. West Halton F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │
92. Burwell Fen F.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │
93. Marden F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
94. Kensington F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
95. Roseberry Topping F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
96. Danesbury F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
97. Earsley Common F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
98. High Roding F.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
99. Panfield F.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
100. Westwick Row F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
101. Achtertyre P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 2│ — │
102. Dowris M.F. │_x_│ — │ — │_x_│_x_│ — │ — │ 27│ — │
103. Hotham Carr F.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
104. Beddington F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ 2│ 1│
105. Harty F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
106. Heathery Burn F. │ 3│ 1│ — │ — │ — │ 3│ — │ — │ 8│
107. Wickham Park F. │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ 1│ — │ — │ 1│ 1│
108. Wilmington F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
109. Cleveland F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
110. Eaton F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │_x_│ — │
│ R│ H│ D│ R│ S│ Sc│ TS│ Sp│ F│
│TRUMPETS
│ │PINS
│ │ │TORQUES
│ │ │ │BRACELETS
│ │ │ │ │BUTTONS
│ │ │ │ │ │CLASPS
│ │ │ │ │ │ │RINGS
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │CALDRONS
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
────────────────────────────┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┤
31. Mawgan P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
32. Wallington M. │ — │ — │ — │ 3│ — │ — │ — │ — │
33. Nottingham M.F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
34. Nettleham M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
35. Haxey ? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
36. Ambleside P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
37. Bilton M.F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
38. Alnwick Castle M.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
39. Flixborough M.F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
40. Shenstone P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
41. Wrekin Tenement F.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
42. Llandysilio P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
43. Dunbar P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
44. Little Wenlock M.F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
45. Winmarleigh P.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
46. Newark M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
47. Hagbourn Hill M.P. │ — │ 2│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
48. Ty Mawr P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 2│ — │
49. Wedmore P. │ — │ — │ 3│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
50. Wymington M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
51. Reepham M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
52. Yattendon F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
53. Taunton M.? │ — │ 1│ 1│ — │ — │ — │_x_│ — │
54. Beacon Hill P.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
55. Ebnall M.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
56. Exning M.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
57. Melbourn P.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ 1│ — │
58. Stanhope F.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
59. Thorndon P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
60. Wallingford P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
61. Whittlesea P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
62. Barrington P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
63. Porkington P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
64. Trillick P. │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │ 8│ — │
65. Bo Island P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
66. Llangwyllog P. │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ 2│ — │_x_│ — │
67. Meldreth F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│
68. Hounslow F. │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
69. Hundred of Hoo F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
70. Guilsfield F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
71. Stogursey F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
72. Chrishall F.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
73. Romford F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
74. Cumberlow F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
75. Beachy Head F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
76. Oxford F.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
77. Westow F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │
78. Carlton Rode F.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
79. Kenidjack Cliff F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
80. Helsdon Hall F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
81. Worthing F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
82. Reach Fen F.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 6│ 2│_x_│ — │
83. Haynes Hill F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │_x_│ — │
84. Allhallows F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
85. St. Hilary F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
86. Alderney F.M. │ — │ — │ — │_x_│ — │ — │ — │ — │
87. Kingston Hill F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
88. Sittingbourne F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 6│ — │
89. Martlesham F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
90. Lanant F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
91. West Halton F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
92. Burwell Fen F.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │
93. Marden F. │ — │ 4│ — │ 2│ — │ — │ 6│ — │
94. Kensington F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │ — │
95. Roseberry Topping F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ 1│ — │ — │
96. Danesbury F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
97. Earsley Common F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
98. High Roding F.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
99. Panfield F.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
100. Westwick Row F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
101. Achtertyre P. │ — │ — │ — │ 4│ — │ — │ — │ — │
102. Dowris M.F. │_x_│_x_│ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │_x_│
103. Hotham Carr F.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
104. Beddington F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
105. Harty F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
106. Heathery Burn F. │ — │ — │_x_│ — │ 4│ 2│ — │_x_│
107. Wickham Park F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
108. Wilmington F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
109. Cleveland F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
110. Eaton F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │ — │
│ Tr│ P│ T│ Br│ Bu│ Cl│ R│ C│
│MISCELLAN.
│ │MOULDS
│ │ │JETS
│ │ │ │METAL
│ │ │ │ │
────────────────────────────┼───┼───┼───┼───┤
31. Mawgan P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
32. Wallington M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
33. Nottingham M.F. │ 2│ — │ — │ — │
34. Nettleham M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
35. Haxey ? │ — │ — │ — │ — │
36. Ambleside P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
37. Bilton M.F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
38. Alnwick Castle M.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │
39. Flixborough M.F. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
40. Shenstone P.M. │_x_│ — │ — │ — │
41. Wrekin Tenement F.M. │_x_│ — │ — │ — │
42. Llandysilio P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
43. Dunbar P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
44. Little Wenlock M.F. │_x_│ — │ — │ — │
45. Winmarleigh P.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │
46. Newark M. │ 2│ — │ — │ — │
47. Hagbourn Hill M.P. │_x_│ — │ — │ — │
48. Ty Mawr P. │_x_│ — │ — │ — │
49. Wedmore P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
50. Wymington M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
51. Reepham M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
52. Yattendon F. │ 5│ — │ — │ — │
53. Taunton M.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │
54. Beacon Hill P.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │
55. Ebnall M.? │ 2│ — │ — │ — │
56. Exning M.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │
57. Melbourn P.? │ — │ — │ — │ — │
58. Stanhope F.? │ 2│ — │ — │ — │
59. Thorndon P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
60. Wallingford P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
61. Whittlesea P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
62. Barrington P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
63. Porkington P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
64. Trillick P. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
65. Bo Island P.M. │ — │ — │ — │ — │
66. Llangwyllog P. │_x_│ — │ — │ — │
67. Meldreth F. │ 1│ — │ — │ 15│
68. Hounslow F. │ — │ — │_x_│ — │
69. Hundred of Hoo F. │ 2│ — │ — │ 10│
70. Guilsfield F. │_x_│ — │ — │ 1│
71. Stogursey F. │ — │ — │ 15│_x_│
72. Chrishall F.M. │ — │ — │ — │_x_│
73. Romford F. │ — │ — │_x_│_x_│
74. Cumberlow F. │ — │ — │ — │_x_│
75. Beachy Head F. │ — │ — │ — │ 3│
76. Oxford F.? │ — │ — │ — │ 1│
77. Westow F. │ — │ — │ 1│ — │
78. Carlton Rode F.M. │ — │ — │ — │_x_│
79. Kenidjack Cliff F. │ — │ — │ 1│_x_│
80. Helsdon Hall F. │ — │ — │ — │_x_│
81. Worthing F. │ — │ — │ — │_x_│
82. Reach Fen F.M. │ 3│ — │ — │ 1│
83. Haynes Hill F. │_x_│ — │ — │_x_│
84. Allhallows F. │ — │ — │ — │ 9│
85. St. Hilary F. │ — │ — │ — │_x_│
86. Alderney F.M. │ — │ — │_x_│_x_│
87. Kingston Hill F. │ — │ — │ — │ 1│
88. Sittingbourne F. │ — │ — │ — │ 30│
89. Martlesham F. │ — │ — │ — │_x_│
90. Lanant F. │ — │ — │ 1│_x_│
91. West Halton F. │ — │ — │ — │_x_│
92. Burwell Fen F.M. │ — │ — │ — │ 1│
93. Marden F. │ — │ — │ 2│ — │
94. Kensington F. │ — │ — │ 2│ — │
95. Roseberry Topping F. │_x_│ — │ — │_x_│
96. Danesbury F. │ — │ — │ — │_x_│
97. Earsley Common F. │ — │ — │ — │_x_│
98. High Roding F.M. │ — │ — │ — │_x_│
99. Panfield F.? │ — │ — │ — │_x_│
100. Westwick Row F. │ — │ — │ — │ 6│
101. Achtertyre P. │ — │ — │ — │ 4│
102. Dowris M.F. │_x_│ — │ — │_x_│
103. Hotham Carr F.? │ — │ 1│ — │ — │
104. Beddington F. │ — │ 1│ — │ 3│
105. Harty F. │ 6│ 3½│ — │ 2│
106. Heathery Burn F. │_x_│ 1│ 1│ 1│
107. Wickham Park F. │ — │ 1│ 1│_x_│
108. Wilmington F. │ — │ 1│ — │_x_│
109. Cleveland F. │ — │ 1│ — │ — │
110. Eaton F. │ — │ 1│ — │ — │
│ Mi│ Mo│ J│ M│
LISTS OF HOARDS.
LIST I.
Locality. │ Remarks. │ Reference.
│ │
1. Arreton Down, │Flanged celts, some │_Arch._, vol.
Isle of Wight. │ ornamented, tanged │ xxxvi. p. 326.
│ spear-heads, ferrule│
│ to one, halberd? │
│ one socketed dagger.│
│ │
2. Plymstock, Devon. │Flanged celts, │_Arch. Journ._,
│ straight chisel. │ vol. xxvi. p. 346;
│ │ _Trans. Devon.
│ │ Assoc._, vol. iv.
│ │ p. 304.
│ │
3. Battlefield, │Mostly melted. Flat │_Proc. Soc. Ant._,
Shrewsbury. │ celts, palstaves, │ 2nd S., vol. ii.
│ curved objects. │ p.251.
│ │
4. Postlingford Hall,│Flanged celts, some │_Arch._, vol. xxxi.
Clare, Suffolk. │ ornamented. │ p. 496;
│ │_Proc. Soc. Ant._,
│ │ vol. i. p. 83.
│ │
5. Rhosnesney, │Palstaves, all from │_Arch. Camb._, 4th S.,
Wrexham, │ one mould; castings │ vol. vi. p. 72.
Denbigshire. │ for a dagger and │
│ for flanged celts │
│ of narrow form. │
│ │
6. Broxton, Cheshire.│Tanged chisel; │_Penes_ Sir P. de M. G.
│ socketed spear-head.│ Egerton, F.R.S.
│ │
7. Sherford, Taunton,│One palstave, a │Pring, “British and
Somerset. │ defective casting. │ Roman Taunton,”
│ │ p. 76.
│ │
8. Stibbard, near │Castings for small │_Arch. Inst._,
Fakenham, │ palstaves and │ Norwich vol. p. xxvi.
Norfolk. │ spear-heads. │
│ │
9. Quantock Hills, │Each palstave laid │_Arch._, vol. xiv.
Somerset. │ within a torque. │ p. 94.
│ │
10. Hollingbury Hill,│Palstave laid within a│_Arch. Journ._, vol.
Brighton, Sussex.│ torque, bracelets │ v. p. 323; _Arch._,
│ around. │ vol. xxix. p. 372, &c.
│ │
11. Edington Burtle, │One casting for a flat│_Som. Arch. and Nat.
Somerset. │ sickle; ribbed │ Hist. Proc._, vol. v.
│ bracelet and ring. │ (1854) pt. ii. p. 91.
│ │
12. Woolmer Forest, │There appears some │_Arch. Assoc. Journ._,
Hants. │ doubt about the │ vol. vi. p. 88;
│ small torques. │ Bateman’s Catal., p.
│ │ 22.
│ │
13. West Buckland, │Two-looped palstave. │_Arch. Journ._, vol.
Somerset. │ │ xxxvii. p. 107.
│ │
14. Blackmoor, Hants. │Fragments of swords │White’s “Selborne,”
│ and sheaths, large │ Bell’s ed., 1877,
│ and small │ vol. ii. p. 381.
│ spear-heads │
│ │
15. Fulbourn Common, │Swords broken, │_Arch._, vol. xix.
Cambs. │ leaf-shaped │ p. 56.
│ spear-heads, │
│ broad-ended │
│ ferrules. │
│ │
16. Pant-y-maen, │Swords and leaf-shaped│_Arch. Camb._, 3rd S.,
Cardiganshire. │ spear-heads, broken │ vol. x. p. 221.
│ or damaged. │
│ │
17. Wicken Fen, Cambs.│Nearly all │In British Museum.
│ fragmentary; │
│ fragments perhaps of│
│ two swords. │
│ │
18. Corsbie Moss, │Sword perfect. │_Proc. Soc. Ant._,
Legerwood, │ │ vol. iii. p. 121.
Berwickshire. │ │
│ │
19. Weymouth, Dorset. │Both sword and │_Penes Auct._
│ spear-head nearly │
│ perfect. │
│ │
20. Thrunton Farm, │Spear-heads, │_Proc. Soc. Ant._,
Whittingham, │ leaf-shaped, and │ 2nd S., vol. v.
Northumberland.│ with lunate │ p. 429.
│ openings; all. │
│ objects unbroken │
│ │
21. Worth, Washfield, │Sword and leaf-shaped │_Arch. Journ._, vol.
Devon. │ spear-heads, │ xxiv. p. 120.
│ perfect. │
│ │
22. Stoke Ferry, │Swords and │_Aenes Auct._;
Norfolk. │ leaf-shaped │ _Proc. Soc. Ant._,
│ spear-heads broken, │ 2nd S., vol. v.
│ halberd. │ p.425.
│ │
23. Brechin, │Swords, &c., │_Arch. Journ._,
Forfarshire. │ unbroken. │ vol. xiii. p. 203;
│ │ _Proc. Soc. Ant.
│ │ Scot._, vol. i. pp.
│ │ 181 and 224.
│ │
24. Duddingston Loch, │Swords, spear-heads, │_Proc. Soc. Ant..
Edinburgh. │ &c., in fragments; │ Scot._, vol. i p. 132;
│ caldron. │ Wilson, “Preh. Ann. of
│ │ Scot.,” vol. i.
│ │ p. 348.
│ │
25. Point of Sleat, │Sword, spear-head, │_Proc. Soc. Ant.
Isle of Skye. │ and pin, perfect. │ Scot._, vol. iii.
│ │ p. 102.
│ │
26. River Wandle, │All objects nearly │_Arch. Journ._,
Surrey. │ perfect. │ vol. ix. p. 7.
│ │
27. Tarves, │Objects mostly │_Horæ ferales_, p. 161.
Aberdeenshire. │ perfect. │ p. 365.
│ │
28. Cwm Moch, │Objects unbroken; │_Arch._, vol. xvi.
Maentwrog, │ loops at base of │
Merionethshire. │ blade of spear-head.│
│ │
29. Bloody Pool, South│Spear-heads mostly │_Arch. Journ._, vol.
Brent, Devon. │ barbed; all objects │ xii. p.84; xviii.
│ broken. │ p. 160.
│ │
30. Broadward, │Spear-heads, │_Arch. Camb._,
Leintwardine, │ leaf-shaped, with │ 4th S., vol. iii.
Herefordshire. │ perforations in │ p. 345; iv. 202.
│ blade, and barbed. │
LIST II.
│ │
31. Mawgan, Cornwall. │Rapier in high │_Arch._, vol. xvii.,
│ preservation. │ p. 337.
│ │
32. Wallington, │ │In Sir C. Trevelyan’s
Northumberland. │ │ Collection.
│ │
33. Nottingham. │Fragments of swords, │_Proc. Soc. Ant._,
│ and possibly of │ 2nd S., vol. i.
│ scabbard-tip. │ p. 332.
│ │
34. Nettleham, │Socketed celts of │_Arch. Journ._,
Lincolnshire. │ peculiar types. │ vol. xviii.p. 159.
│ │
35. Haxey, │ │_Penes_ Canon
Lincolnshire. │ │ Greenwell, F.R.S.
│ │
36. Ambleside, │Swords described as │_Arch._, vol. v. p. 115.
Westmoreland. │ broad-swords, and │
│ sharp-pointed │
│ swords. │
│ │
37. Bilton, Yorkshire.│Swords broken, one │_Arch. Assoc. Journ._,
│ spear-head │ vol. v. p. 349.
│ ornamented. │
│ │
38. Alnwick Castle, │Found in 1726. │_Arch._, vol. v. p. 113.
Northumberland. │ │
│ │
39. Flixborough, │Sword broken. Possibly│_Arch. Journ._,
Lincolnshire. │ palstaves. │ vol. xxix. p. 194.
│ │
40. Greensborough │Swords apparently │_Arch._, vol. xxi.
Farm, Shenstone, │ perfect. │ p. 548.
Staffordshire. │ │
│ │
41. Wrekin Tenement, │One celt, a few │_Arch._, vol. xxvi.
Shrewsbury. │ swords, about 150 │ p. 464.
│ spear-heads and │
│ fragments. │
│ │
42. Llandysilio, │ See p. 119. │_Penes_ Canon Greenwell,
Denbighshir │ │ F.R.S.
│ │
43. Dunbar, │ Uninjured. │_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._,
Haddingtonshire. │ │ vol. x. p. 440.
│ │
44. Little Wenlock, │Spear-heads mostly │Hartshorne, “Salop.
Shropshire. │ broken, whetstones │ Ant.,”p. 96; _Arch.
│ with them. Possibly │ Journ._,vol. viii.
│ thesame hoard as │ p. 197.
│ No. 41. │
│ │
45. Winmarleigh, │One spear-head, large,│_Arch. Journ._,
Garstang, │ and with lunate │ vol. xviii. p. 158.
Lancashire. │ openings; all found │
│ in “a cist or box.” │
│ │
46. Near Newark, │Two large discs in │_Penes_ Canon Greenwell,
Nottinghamshire. │ hoard. │ F.R.S.
│ │
47. Hagbourn Hill, │Bridle-bits and late │_Arch._, vol. xvi.
Berks. │ Celtic buckles, said│ p. 348.
│ to have been found; │
│ coins also? │
│ │
48. Ty Mawr, Holyhead.│Said to have been │_Arch._, vol. xxvi.
│ found ina box. │ p. 483.
│ │
49. Heath House, │Amber beads found at │_Arch. Journ._,
Wedmore, Somerset.│ same time; possibly │ vol. vi. p. 81.
│ palstaves and not │
│ socketed celts. │
│ │
50. Wymington, Beds. │About sixty celts │Specimens _penes Auct._
│ found. │
│ │
51. Reepham, Norfolk. │ Found about 1747. │_Arch._, vol. v. p. 114.
│ │
52. Yattendon, Berks. │Swords in fragments, │_Proc. Soc. Ant._,
│ tanged chisels and │ 2nd S., vol. vii.
│ knives, two socketed│ p. 480.
│ _flat_ celt knives, │
│ much worn. │
│ │
53. Taunton, Somerset.│Flat sickles, looped │_Arch. Journ._,
│ pin. │ vol. xxxvii. p. 94.
│ │
54. Beacon Hill, │Leaf-shaped │_Proc. Soc. Ant._,
Charnwood Forest, │ spear-heads. │ vol. iv. p. 323.
Leicestershire. │ │
│ │
55. Ebnall, Oswestry, │Two punches? │_Arch. Journ._,
Salop. │ │ vol. xxii. p. 167.
│ │
56. Exning, Suffolk. │Mostly perfect? │_Arch. Journ._,
│ │ vol. x. p. 3; vol.
│ │ ix., p. 303.
│ │
57. Melbourn, Cambs. │Sword broken, a clasp.│_Arch. Journ._, vol. xi.
│ │ p. 294.
│ │
58. Stanhope, Durham. │Leaf-shaped spears, │_Arch. Æliana_, vol. i.
│ fragmentof sword, │ p. 13.
│ broken hammer, &c. │
│ │
59. Thorndon, Suffolk.│All entire. │_Arch. Journ._,
│ Most of these are │ vol. x. p. 3.
│ figured on previous │
│ pages. │
│ │
60. Wallingford, │Entire; mostly here │_Penes Auct._
Berks. │ figured. │
│ │
61. Whittlesea, │Entire; one celt with │In Wisbech Museum.
Cambridgeshire. │ loop on face. │
│ │
62. Barrington, Cambs.│Perfect. │_Penes Auct._
│ │
63. Porkington, │Point broken off │_Arch. Journ._, vol.
Shropshire. │ sword. │ vii. p. 195.
│ │
64. Trillick, Tyrone. │Perfect; two rings │_Journ. Hist. and Arch.
│ with cross │ Assoc. of Irel._,
│ perforations for │ 3rd S., vol. i.
│ the pin. │ p. 164.
│ │
65. Bo Island, │Sword and hammer │_Penes Auct._
Fermanagh. │ broken. │
│ │
66. Llangwyllog, │Connected with the │_Arch. Journ._,
Anglesea. │ other hoards by the │ vol. xxii. p. 74.
│ razor and buttons. │
│ │
67. Meldreth, Cambs. │Most of the objects │In British Museum.
│ broken; │
│ socketedchisel, │
│ flat lunate knife │
│ with opening in │
│ middle, caldron │
│ ring. │
│ │
68. Hounslow, │One _flat_ celt, swords│_Proc. Soc. Ant._,
Middlesex. │ in fragments. │ 2nd S., vol. iii.
│ │ p. 90; vol. v. p. 428.
│ │
69. Hundred of Hoo, │Most of the objects │_Arch. Cant._, vol. xi.
Kent. │ broken. See p. 95. │ p. 123.
│ │
70. Guilsfield, │Objects for the most │_Proc. Soc. Ant._,
Montgomeryshire. │ part broken, │ 2nd S., vol. ii.
│ spear-heads with │ p. 251; _Arch. Camb._,
│ lunate openings. │ 3rd S., vol. x.
│ │ p. 214; _Montg.
│ │ Coll._, vol. iii.
│ │ p. 437.
│ │
71. Wick Park, │Swords broken, │_Proc. Soc. Ant._,
Stogursey, │ numerous fragments │ 2nd S., vol. v.
Somerset. │ of other forms. │ p. 427.
│ │
72. Chrishall, Essex. │Portion of socketed │Neville’s “Sep. Exp.,”
│ knife. │ p. 3.
│ │
73. Romford, Essex. │Swords broken, │_Arch. Journ._,
│ socketed chisel, │ vol. ix. p. 302.
│ celts not trimmed. │
│ │
74. Cumberlow, │Swords in fragments. │_Journ. Anth. Inst._,
Baldock, Herts. │ │ vol. vi. p. 195.
│ │
75. Beachy Head, │Fragment of sword, │_Arch._, vol. xvi.
Eastbourne, │ four gold bracelets.│ p. 363.
Sussex. │ │
│ │
76. Burgesses’ Meadow,│An ingot 9¾ inches │In Ashmolean Museum.
Oxford. │ long. │
│ │
77. Westow, Yorkshire.│Seventeen fragments │_Arch. Journ._, vol.
│ included among the │ vi. p. 381; _Arch.
│ celts; one chisel │ Assoc. Journ._,
│ socketed, two │ vol. iii. p. 58.
│ tanged. │
│ │
78. Carlton Rode, │One tanged gouge, │Smith’s “Coll. Ant.,”
Norfolk. │ tanged and socketed │ vol. i. 105; _Arch.
│ chisels. │ Journ._, vol. ii.
│ │ 80; _Arch. Assoc.
│ │ Journ._, vol. i.
│ │ p. 51; _Arch._, vol.
│ │ xxxi. p. 494.
│ │
79. Kenidjack Cliff, │Large oval jet. │_Journ. Roy. Inst. of
Cornwall. │ │ Corn._, No. xxi.
│ │
80. Helsdon Hall, │Found before 1759. │_Arch._, vol. v. p. 116.
Norfolk. │ │
│ │
81. Worthing, Sussex. │Found in an earthern │Specimens _penes Auct._
│ vessel. │
│ │
82. Reach Fen, Cambs. │Fragments of swords │_Arch. Assoc. Journ._,
│ and many broken │ vol. xxxvi., p. 56.
│ objects. │
│ │
83. Haynes Hill, │Objects nearly all │_Arch. Journ._,
Saltwood, Kent. │ broken. │ vol. xxx. p. 279;
│ │ _Journ. Anth. Inst._,
│ │ vol. iii. p. 230.
│ │
84. Allhallows, Hoo, │Objects mostly broken,│_Arch. Cant._, vol. xi.
Kent. │ flat knife. See │ p. 124.
│ p. 214. │
│ │
85. St. Hilary, │Swords in fragments; │_Arch._, vol. xv.
Cornwall. │ weight altogether │ p. 120.
│ about 80 lbs. │
│ │
86. Longy Common, │Socketed sickle, │_Arch. Assoc. Journ._,
Alderney. │ objects mostly │ vol. iii. p. 9.
│ broken. │
│ │
87. Kingston Hill, │Objects all │_Arch. Journ._,
Coombe, Surrey. │ fragmentary. │ vol. xxvi. p. 288.
│ │
88. Sittingbourne, │In two urns; broken │Smith’s “Coll. Ant.,”
Kent. │ sword and rings in │ vol. i. p. 101; _Arch.
│ one urn, celts, &c.,│ Journ._, vol. ii.
│ in the other. │ p. 81.
│ │
89. Martlesham, │Fragments of swords, │_Penes_ Capt. Brooke.
Suffolk. │ socketed knife. │
│ │
90. Lanant, Cornwall. │Fragments of swords; │_Arch._, vol. xv.
│ pieces of │ p. 118.
│ │
91. West Halton, │Fragment of sword. │_Arch. Journ._,
Lincolnshire. │ │ vol. x. p. 69.
│ │
92. Burwell Fen, │The ring penannular │_Penes Auct._
Cambs. │ and of triangular │
│ section. │
│ │
93. Marden, Kent. │Found in an earthen │_Arch. Assoc. Journ._,
│ vessel, mostly │ vol. xiv. p. 257.
│ broken. │
│ │
94. Kensington, │Knives broken. │_Proc. Soc. Ant._,
Middlesex. │ │ 2nd S., vol. iii.
│ │ p. 232.
│ │
95. Roseberry Topping,│Mostly broken. │_Arch. Æliana_,
Yorkshire. │ │ vol. ii. p. 213;
│ │ _Arch. Scotica_,
│ │ vol. v. p. 55.
│ │
96. Danesbury, Welwyn,│Mostly imperfect. │_Arch. Journ._,
Herts. │ │ vol. x. p. 248.
│ │
97. Earsley Common, │Nearly 100 celts found│_Arch._, vol. v. p. 114.
Yorkshire. │ in 1735. │
│ │
98. High Roding, │Some figured in │In British Museum.
Essex. │ previous pages. │
│ │
99. Panfield, Essex. │Possibly other forms │_Proc. Soc. Ant._,
│ found at same time. │ 2nd S., vol. v.
│ │ p. 428.
│ │
100. Westwick Row, │One celt broken. │_Penes Auct._
Hemel Hempsted, │ │
Herts. │ │
│ │
101. Achtertyre, │With tin. See p. 425. │_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._,
Morayshire. │ │ vol. ix. p. 435.
│ │
102. Dowris, │With caldrons, │Wilde, “Catal. Mus.
Parsonstown, │ trumpets, bells, &c.│ R. I. A.,” pp. 360,
King’s County. │ See p. 361. │ 613, 626; _Proc. R. I.
│ │ Ac._, vol. iv.
│ │ pp. 237, 423.
│ │
103. Hotham Carr, │Palstaves almost all │_Penes_ Canon Greenwell,
Yorkshire. │ damaged. │ F.R.S.
│ │
104. Beddington, │Many fragments, mould │_Surrey Arch. Soc.
Surrey. │ broken. │ Coll._, vol. vi.;
│ │ Anderson’s “Croydon,”
│ │ p. 10.
│ │
105. Isle of Harty, │See p. 441. │_Penes Auct._
Kent. │ │
│ │
106. Heathery Burn │Socketed knife, large │_Arch. Journ._,
Cave, Durham. │ collars and discs. │ vol. xix. p. 358;
│ See p. 119, &c. │ _Proc. Soc. Ant._,
│ │ 2nd S., vol. ii.
│ │ p. 127.
│ │
107. Wickham Park, │Mould broken, other │Anderson’s “Croydon,” p.
Croydon, Surrey.│ objects mostly │ 10; British Museum.
│ fragmentary; list │
│ partly compiled from│
│ Anderson, and partly│
│ from originals. │
│ │
108. Wilmington, │In an urn, mostly │_Suss. Arch. Coll._,
Sussex. │ broken or worn. │ vol. xiv. p. 171;
│ │ _Arch. Journ._, vol.
│ │ xx. p. 192; _Proc.
│ │ Soc. Ant._, 2nd S.,
│ │ vol. v. p. 423.
│ │
109. Cleveland, │Said to be in the │_Arch. Journ._,
Yorkshire. │ Bateman Collection. │ vol. xviii. p. 166.
│ Possibly the same │
│ hoard as No. 95. │
│ │
110. Eaton, Norfolk. │Spear-heads apparently│_Arch._, vol. xxii.
│ broken. │ p. 424; _Arch.
│ │ Journ._, vol. vi.
│ │ p. 387; _Arch. Inst._,
│ │ Norwich vol. p. xxvi.
Turning now to the lists, the following observations may be made,
though they must be accepted as liable to revision under the light of
future discoveries:—
1. That flat celts and knife-daggers, such as have been frequently
found in barrows, rarely occur in hoards, only two instances being
recorded of the occurrence of flat celts.
2. That flanged celts and palstaves are occasionally found together,
while the latter are frequently associated with socketed celts.
3. That socketed weapons are of rare occurrence in association with
flanged celts, though a socketed dagger and a ferrule for a tanged
spear-head or dagger were present in the Arreton Down hoard.
4. That such tanged spear-heads or daggers are never found in company
with socketed celts.
5. That torques are more frequently associated with palstaves than with
socketed celts, and are mainly confined to our western counties.
6. That there are several instances of swords and scabbards, and
spear-heads and ferrules being found together without either palstaves
or socketed celts being with them.
7. That swords, or their fragments, are not found with flanged celts.
8. That socketed celts are often found with swords and spear-heads, or
with the latter alone.
9. That socketed celts are often accompanied by gouges, and somewhat
less frequently by hammers and chisels, though even where such tools
occur, spear-heads are generally present.
10. That caldrons, or the rings belonging to them, have been discovered
with socketed celts, both in England and Ireland.
11. That where metal moulds are found in hoards they are usually those
for socketed celts.
12. That where lumps of copper or rough metal occur in hoards, socketed
celts are, as a rule, found with them.
* * * * *
The general inferences are much the same as have already been indicated
in former chapters, viz., that two of the earliest forms of bronze
weapons discovered in the British Isles are the flat and the slightly
flanged celts, and the thin knife-daggers. That these are succeeded by
the more distinctly flanged celts, and the tanged spear-heads, with
which probably some of the thick dagger-blades found in barrows are
contemporary. That subsequently the celts with a stop-ridge and the
palstave form came in and remained in use to the close of the Bronze
Period, though to a great extent supplanted by the socketed celt which,
as has already been shown, was probably evolved from one of the forms
of the palstave; and it may here be remarked that flanged celts with
a stop-ridge seem rarely, if ever, to occur in the hoards. That the
socketed chisels, gouges, hammers, and knives are contemporary with
the socketed celts, as are also socketed spear-heads and swords. That
hoards in which palstaves only, and not socketed celts, are present
rarely belonged to ancient bronze-founders; but that the deposits which
these artificers have left behind them almost all denote a period when
the art of coring, and thereby producing socketed tools and weapons,
was already well known.
From this latter circumstance, and the comparative abundance of
bronze-founders’ hoards, it may reasonably be inferred that in this
country they belong for the most part to the close of the Bronze
Period. To how recent a date bronze remained in use for cutting
purposes is a question difficult of accurate solution. There are,
indeed, two instances in which socketed celts are reported to have been
discovered in company with ancient British coins, but in neither case
is the evidence altogether satisfactory. Two uninscribed silver coins,
of the type of my Plate F, No. 2[1753], are stated to have been found
with a human skeleton and a bronze celt at Cann, near Shaftesbury, in
1849; but I believe that this statement would, if it were now capable
of being sifted, resolve itself into the fact of the two coins, the
celt, and some bones having been found near together by the same
workman, without their being actually in association together. The
type of the coins, though probably among the earliest in the British
silver series, is one which was derived from gold coins struck some
considerable time after the introduction of a gold coinage into this
country, and probably belongs to the first century B.C. If such coins
were in contemporary use with socketed celts, it is strange that none
of the gold coins of earlier date have ever been found associated with
bronze instruments.
It is true that in the account given in the Archæologia[1754] of the
antiquities discovered on Hagbourn Hill, Berks., it is stated that at
the bottom of a pit about four feet from the surface of the ground
was a further circular excavation, in which, together with bronze
bridle-bits and buckles of Late Celtic patterns, were socketed celts,
and a spear-head of bronze, and, in addition, some coins. These,
however, were not seen by the writer of the account, but he was
informed “that one of them was silver and the other gold, the latter
of which was rather large and flat, and perhaps one of the lower
empire.” Looking at the Late Celtic character of some of the objects
it seems possible that Ancient British coins might have been found
with them; but, on the other hand, it is evident that the particulars
given of the find were all derived from the workmen who dug up the
objects, and not from personal observation; and it is possible that
not only were the coins described not actually found with the bronze
celts and spear-heads, but that these latter were not discovered in
actual association with the Late Celtic bridle-bits. I have, however,
provisionally accepted the account of their being found together,
relying to some extent on the Abergele[1755] hoard, in which some
buckles allied in form to those from Hagbourn Hill were present,
associated with slides such as have been elsewhere found with socketed
celts.
Whatever may be the real state of the case in these discoveries, there
is every probability of a transition having gradually taken place in
this country, from the employment of bronze for cutting tools and
weapons of offence to the use of iron or steel for such instruments; in
other words, from a Bronze Age to an Iron Age, such as that to which
the term “Late Celtic” has been applied.
That this transition must have been effected, at all events in the
South of Britain, prior to the Roman invasion, is shown, as has already
been pointed out, by the circumstance that the Early Iron swords found
in France belong in all probability to a period not later than the
fourth or fifth century B.C., while the southern parts of Britain had,
long before Cæsar’s time, been peopled by Belgic immigrants, who either
brought the knowledge of iron with them or must have received it after
their arrival from their kinsmen on the continent, with whom they
were in constant intercourse. In the more northern parts of Britain
and in Scotland an acquaintance with iron was probably first made at
a somewhat more recent period; but in the Late Celtic interments in
Yorkshire no coins are present, and the iron and other objects found
exhibit no traces of Roman influence. Moreover, the Roman historians,
who have recorded many of the manners and customs of the northern
Britons, do not in any way hint at their weapons being formed of bronze.
In Ireland, perhaps, which was less accessible from the continent than
Britain, the introduction of iron may have taken place considerably
after the time when it was known in the sister country; but there
appears to have been a sufficient intercourse between Scotland and the
north of Ireland at an early period for the knowledge of so useful a
metal, when once gained, to have been quickly communicated from one
country to the other.
On the whole I think we may fairly conclude that in the southern parts
of Britain iron must have been in use not later than the fourth or
fifth century B.C., and that by the second or third century B.C. the
employment of bronze for cutting instruments had there practically
ceased. These dates are of course approximate only, but will at all
events serve to give some idea of the latest date to which bronze
weapons and tools found in England may with some degree of safety be
assigned.
As to the time at which such weapons and tools were here first in
use, we have even less means of judging than we have as to when they
fell into desuetude. It is, however, evident that the Bronze Period
of the British Isles must have extended over a long period of years,
probably embracing many centuries. The numerous bronze-founders’
hoards, containing fragments of tools and weapons of so many various
forms, testify to the art of bronze-founding having been practised
for a lengthened period; and yet in all of these the socketed celt
occurs, or some other socketed instruments, which we know to have been
contemporary with it, are present. It is true that the socketed celt
was not originally developed in this country, but was introduced from
abroad; and, as has already been pointed out, was derived from a form
of palstave which is of rare occurrence in Britain. Yet the length of
time requisite for the modification of the flat form of celt to that
with flanges, of this latter again to that with the flanges produced
into wings, and finally the transition into the palstave with the wings
hammered over so as to form sockets on each side of the blade, must
itself have been of very great duration.[1756] The development of the
forms of palstave common to Britain and the opposite shores of the
Continent must also have demanded a long lapse of years, and most of
the stages in its evolution can be traced in this country. We have the
flat celt, the flanged celt, and the flanged celt with a stop-ridge;
and we can trace the modification of form from one stage to another
until the characteristic palstave is reached, in which the stop-ridge
is as it were formed in the actual body of the blade. And it is to
be observed that this form of palstave had already been developed at
the time represented by the earliest of the ordinary bronze-founders’
hoards, in which, moreover, the flanged celts, either with or without a
stop-ridge, are hardly ever present.
The Bronze Age of Britain may, therefore, be regarded as an aggregate
of three stages: the first, that characterized by the flat or slightly
flanged celts, and the knife-daggers frequently found in barrows
associated with instruments and weapons formed of stone; the second,
that characterized by the more heavy dagger-blades and the flanged
celts and tanged spear-heads or daggers, such as those from Arreton
Down; and the third, by palstaves and socketed celts and the many forms
of tools and weapons, of which fragments are so constantly present in
the hoards of the ancient bronze-founders. It is in this third stage
that the bronze sword and the true socketed spear-head first make their
advent. The number of these hoards, and the varieties in the forms of
these swords and spear-heads, as well as in the socketed celts and
other tools, would, I think, justify us in assigning a minimum duration
of some four or five centuries to this last stage. The other two stages
together must probably have extended over at least an equal lapse of
time; so that for the total duration of the Bronze Period in Britain we
cannot greatly err in attributing eight or ten centuries. This would
place the beginning of the Period some 1,200 or 1,400 years B.C.—a
date which in many respects would seem to fit in with what we know as
to the use of bronze in the southern parts of Europe.[1757]
Although I have thus attempted to assign a definite chronology to our
Bronze Age, I do so with all reserve, as any such attempt is founded
upon what are at best imperfect data, and each of the stages I have
mentioned may have been of far longer duration than I have suggested,
though it is not likely that any of them should have been materially
shorter.
There is, it must be acknowledged, the difficulty which I have
already mentioned, as to the absence of nearly all traces of the
later stages of the Bronze Period in the graves and barrows that have
been examined in Britain.[1758] The reason of this absence has still
to be discovered; but it may perhaps have been the case that during
this time the method or fashion of interring the dead underwent some
change, and the practice of placing weapons and ornaments with the
bodies of departed friends and relatives fell into disuse. Among the
bronze-using occupants of the Yorkshire Wolds, whose burial-places
have been explored by Canon Greenwell, the interments by inhumation
were much in excess over those which took place after cremation,
but in other parts of England the proportions are reversed. Out of
fourteen instances[1759] in which bronze articles were associated with
an interment, it was only in two that the body had been burnt; or
taking the whole number of burials, viz. 301 by inhumation and 78 after
cremation, bronze articles were found with 4 per cent. of the burials
of the former kind and only 2½ per cent. with those of the latter. This
seems to point to a tendency towards departing from the old custom of
burying weapons with the dead for use in a future life. And, indeed, if
the custom of burning the dead became general, the inducement to place
such objects among mere dust and ashes would be but small. An urn or
a small recess in the ground would suffice to contain the mightiest
warrior, and his weapons would be out of place beside the little
calcined heap which was left by the purifying fire. Even the practice
of raising mounds or barrows over the interments may have ceased, and
“when the funeral pyre was out and the last valediction over, men took
a lasting adieu of their interred friends.”
It has been suggested that the absence of the later bronze forms with
interments is due to a superstitious reverence for the older forms,
so that the habit of burying the flat wedge-shaped axe[1760] and the
dagger with the dead continued down to the later Age of Bronze; but I
cannot accept this view.
In Scandinavia[1761] interments with which bronze swords and other
weapons are associated, have frequently been discovered; and in some
instances in which coffins, hollowed out in trunks of trees, have
been used, even the clothing has been preserved. In this country
also coffins of the same kind have occasionally been discovered, but
the bronze objects which have been placed in them are of the same
character as those which are found in the barrows of the district,
and never comprise socketed weapons or swords. Stone weapons are also
occasionally present. Remains of clothing made of skins and of woven
woollen fabric have also been found. The best-known instance of the
discovery of the latter was in a barrow at Scale House,[1762] near
Rylston, Yorkshire, examined by Canon Greenwell, who has recorded other
instances of these tree-burials. Neither bronze nor stone were in this
instance present.
It is not, however, my intention to dilate upon the burial customs of
our Bronze Age, as they have already been so fully discussed by Canon
Greenwell, Dr. Thurnam, Sir John Lubbock, and others.
It will now be desirable to say something as to the sources from which
the use of bronze in this country was derived, though on this subject
also much has already been written.
The four principal views held by different authors have thus been
summarized by Colonel A. Lane Fox, now General Pitt Rivers:—[1763]
1. That bronze was spread from a common centre by an intruding and
conquering race, or by the migration of tribes.
2. That the inhabitants of each separate region in which bronze is
known to have been used discovered the art independently, and made
their own implements of it.
3. That the art was discovered and the implements fabricated on one
spot, and the implements disseminated from that place by means of
commerce.
4. That the art of making bronze was diffused from a common centre, but
that the implements were constructed in the countries in which they
were found.
For a full discussion of these hypotheses I must refer the reader to
General Pitt Rivers’ Paper, but I shall here make use of some of the
information which he has collected, premising that in my opinion there
is a certain amount of truth embodied in each of these opinions.
The first view, of an intruding and conquering race having introduced
the use of bronze into their country, has been held by most of the
Scandinavian antiquaries, and Professor Boyd Dawkins seems to regard
a Celtic invasion and conquest of the Iberic peoples in Britain as
having been the means by which the knowledge of bronze was extended
from Gaul to these islands. The osteological evidence in favour of the
bronze-using Britons having as a rule been of a different race from the
stone-using people of our Neolithic times is strongly corroborative
of such a view; as is also the change which is to be noted in the
burial customs of the two periods. Such an immigration or conquest
must, however, have taken place at a very early period if we accept
Sir John Lubbock’s[1764] view, that between B.C. 1500 and B.C. 1200
the Phœnicians were already acquainted with the mineral fields of
Britain, a period at which it must not be forgotten the use of bronze
had long been known in Egypt. Although it is true that at present we
have no satisfactory proof of any Phœnician influence on the people of
our Bronze Age, yet if at so early a period there was an export of tin
from this country, the search for that metal and the means employed for
its production would almost of necessity tend to an acquaintance with
copper also, even supposing, what is improbable, that those who traded
for tin in order to manufacture bronze with it kept the knowledge of
this latter alloy from those with whom they had commercial relations,
or that the natives of Britain were not already acquainted with more
metals than tin when the trade first began. But to this subject I shall
recur. It may be observed by the way that the date assigned for this
Phœnician intercourse corresponds in a remarkable manner with the date
assigned for the earliest instances of the use of bronze in Britain,
which was suggested on other grounds.
The second view of the independent discovery of bronze in different
regions has little or nothing to support it so far as the different
countries of Europe are concerned, though there is a possibility that
the discovery of copper and of the method of alloying it with tin, so
as to produce bronze, may have been made independently in America. But
it may even there be the case that the knowledge of bronze was imported
from Asia.[1765] In Europe, however, when once the use of the metal was
known, there were certain types of weapons and implements developed
in different countries which in a certain sense may be regarded as
instances of independent discoveries.
The third view, that the art was discovered at some single spot at
which subsequently implements were manufactured and disseminated by
commerce must, at least to a limited extent, be true. Wherever the
discovery of bronze may have been made, there is ample evidence of its
use having spread over the greater part of Europe if not of Asia; and
at first the spread of bronze weapons and tools was in all probability
by commerce. Even subsequently there were local centres, such as
Etruria, from which the manufactured products were exported into
neighbouring countries, as well as to those lying to the north of the
Alps. Some even of the bronze vases found in Ireland, though themselves
not of Etruscan manufacture, bear marks of Etruscan influences in their
form and character. In each country in Europe there may have been one
or more localities in which the manufacture of bronze objects was
principally carried on, though it may now be impossible to identify
the spots. Such large hoards of unfinished castings as those of Plénée
Jugon, and other places in Brittany, prove that district, for instance,
to have been at one time a kind of manufacturing centre. Indeed, a
socketed celt of Breton type, unused, and still retaining the burnt
clay core, has been found on our southern coast.
The process of casting, as practised by the ancient bronze-founders,
was, moreover, one requiring a great amount of skill; and though there
appear to have been wandering founders, who, like the bell-founders
of mediæval times, could practise their art at any spot where their
services were required, yet there were probably fixed foundries also,
where the process of manufacture could be more economically carried
on, and where successive generations passed through some sort of
apprenticeship to learn the art and mystery of the trade.
The fourth opinion, that the use of bronze spread from some single
centre, though implements were manufactured in greater or less
abundance in each country where the use of bronze prevailed, is one
that must commend itself to all archæologists. It does not, of course,
follow that in any given district the bronze tools and weapons were
all of home manufacture, and none of them imported. There is, on the
contrary, evidence to be found in most countries that some, at least,
of the bronze instruments found there are of foreign manufacture, and
introduced either by commerce or by the foreign travel of individuals.
Where the original centre was placed, from which the European use
of bronze was propagated, is an enigma still under discussion, and
one which will not readily be solved. Appearances at present seem to
point to its having been situate in Western Asia;[1766] but the whole
question of the origin and development of the Bronze civilisation has
been so recently discussed by my friend Professor Boyd Dawkins, in his
“Early Man in Britain,” that it appears needless here to repeat the
opinions of which he has given so good an abstract. Suffice it to say,
that it has been proposed to regard the bronze antiquities of Europe as
belonging generally to three provinces,[1767] the boundaries of which,
however, cannot be very accurately defined. These provinces are—the
Uralian, comprising Russia, Siberia, and Finland; the Danubian, which
consists of the Hungarian, Scandinavian, and Britannic sub-divisions
or regions; and the Mediterranean, composed of the Italo-Greek and
Franco-Swiss sub-divisions.
I must confess that I do not attach such high importance to this
classification as at first sight it would seem to merit; for on a close
examination it appears to me to involve several serious incongruities.
Take, for instance, the Danubian province, and it will be found
that the differences in type of bronze instruments belonging to the
Hungarian region, when compared with those of the British, are on the
whole greater than the difference presented when they are compared with
the types of the Italian region, which, however, is made to belong to
another province. There is, moreover, a difficulty in synchronizing the
antiquities belonging to different provinces or regions, so as to be
sure that any comparisons between them are of real value. Taking, for
example, the Uralian province, it will at once be seen that though in
Finland some Scandinavian types occur, such as swords and palstaves,
yet the great majority of the bronze antiquities belonging to it, so
far as at present known, consist of socketed celts, often with two
loops; of daggers, with their hafts cast in one piece with the blade;
and of perforated axes, sometimes with the representations of the heads
of animals; in fact, of objects which evidently belong to a very late
stage in the evolution of bronze, and which, as Mr. Worsaae has pointed
out, not improbably show traces of Chinese influence. Such objects can
hardly be satisfactorily compared with those of a province in which
the whole development of bronze instruments, from the flat celt and
small knife, to the socketed celt and the skilfully cast spear-head and
sword, can be traced.
All things considered, I think it will be better and safer to content
ourselves for the present with less extensive provinces; and, so far
as these are concerned, the sub-divisions already enumerated may be
accepted, and are quite sufficiently large, if, indeed, they are not
too extensive. In the Britannic province, a part of France is included
by M. Chantre, and there are certainly close analogies between many of
the types of the south of England and those of the north and north-west
of France. For the purpose of the present work, though accepting
M. Chantre’s boundary in the main, I shall, however, restrict the
Britannic province to the British Isles.
On a general examination of our British types it is satisfactory to
see how complete a series of links in the chain of development of the
bronze industry is here to be found, though many of them bear undoubted
marks of foreign influence, and prove that though some of the types
were of native growth, yet that others were originally imported. On
general grounds, I have assigned an antiquity of 1,200 or 1,400 years
B.C. to the introduction of the use of bronze into this country, but it
is a question whether this antiquity will meet all the necessities of
the case; for we can hardly imagine the Phœnicians, or those who traded
with them, landing in Britain and spontaneously discovering tin. On the
contrary, it must have been from a knowledge that the inhabitants of
Britain were already producers of this valuable metal that the commerce
with them originated; and the probable reason that tin was sought for
by the native Britons was in order to mix it with copper, a metal which
occurs native in the same district as the tin. If, therefore, the
Phœnician intercourse, direct or indirect, commenced about 1500 B.C.,
the knowledge of the use of tin, and probably also of copper, dates
back in Britain to a still earlier epoch.
A comparison of the various British types of tools and weapons with
those of Continental countries has been frequently instituted in the
preceding pages, but it will be well here to recapitulate some of the
principal facts. We have in Britain the flat form of celt in some
abundance, though none of the specimens exhibit traces of being direct
imitations of hatchets formed of stone, as would probably have been
the case in any country where the use of metal for such instruments
originated. And yet many of our British flat celts exhibit a certain
degree of originality, inasmuch as they are decorated with hammer-
or punch-marks in a manner peculiar to this country, and others in a
fashion but rarely seen abroad. We can trace the development of the
flanged celt from the flat variety, through specimens with almost
imperceptible flanges, the result merely of hammering the sides, to
those with the flanges produced in the casting. At the same time, the
flanges are never so fully developed as in some of the French examples.
The development of a stop-ridge between the flanges, which eventually
culminated in the ordinary palstave form, can probably be better
observed in the British series than in that of any other country. At
the same time, the origin of the other form of palstave—that without
a definite stop-ridge, and with semicircular wings bent over so as to
form a kind of side-pocket—can best be traced on the Continent, and
especially in the south of France. It was from this form of palstave
that the socketed celt was developed, and although this development
seems to have taken place abroad, possibly in Western Germany, the form
was introduced into Britain at an early period of its existence, as is
proved by the semicircular projections and curved “flanches” so common
on the faces of the socketed celts of this country.
Our knife-daggers may originally have been of foreign introduction,
but evidently belong to a time when metal was scarce, and like the
flat and slightly-flanged celts have often been found associated with
stone implements. The dagger-blades of stouter make, which seem to
have succeeded them, show analogies with French, Italian, and German
examples; but similar blades, with a tang such as those from the
Arreton Down hoard, seem to be almost peculiar to Britain. The fact,
however, that the socketed blade found with them has its analogues both
in Switzerland and Egypt suggests the probability of the tanged form
being also of foreign, and possibly Mediterranean origin; indeed, a
specimen is reported to have been found in Italy.
Our halberd blades with the three rivets are nearly allied to those of
northern Germany; and the type appears never to be found in France,
though I have met with a solitary example in Southern Spain, and the
form is not unknown in Italy, there being one from the province of
Mantua in the British Museum. Socketed chisels, hammers, and gouges
were probably derived from a foreign source; but tanged chisels, though
not absolutely wanting in the North of France, are more abundant in
the British Isles than elsewhere. Long narrow chisels with tangs were,
however, present in the great Bologna hoard.
Bronze socketed sickles are almost peculiar to the British Isles,
though they have occasionally been found in the North of France.
The flat form, from which they must have been developed, is of rare
occurrence, though not unknown in Britain. Its origin is to be sought
in the South of Europe, though the British examples more closely
resemble German and Danish forms than those of any other country.
Tanged single-edged knives are almost unknown in our islands, though
so abundant in the Swiss Lake-dwellings and in the South of France.
Double-edged knives with a socket are, however, almost peculiar to
Britain and Ireland, though they are found in small numbers in the
North of France. The tanged razor may also be regarded as one of
our specialities, though not unknown in Italy. Most of the foreign
varieties have a ring for suspension at the end of the tang, a
peculiarity almost unknown in Britain.
Bronze swords, no doubt, originated on the Continent; and as such long
thin blades required great skill in casting, it seems probable that
their manufacture was to some extent localized at particular spots,
and that they formed an important article of commerce. The same type
has been discovered in countries wide apart, and many of those found
in Scandinavia are now regarded as being of foreign origin. Still
there are some British types which are rarely or never found abroad,
and the discovery of moulds proves conclusively that both leaf-shaped
and rapier-shaped blades were cast in these islands. The latter kind
of blades are, indeed, almost exclusively confined to Britain and the
north of France. Bronze scabbard-ends, as distinct from mere chapes,
seem also to be confined to the same tract of country.
When we turn to the spear-heads of these islands we find that though
the leaf-shaped form prevails over the greater part of Europe, yet that
those with loops at the side of the socket and with loops at the base
of the blade are common in the British Isles, while they are extremely
rare in France, and almost unknown elsewhere. The same may be said of
the type with the small eyelet-holes in the blade, and of those with
barbs. Those with crescent-shaped openings in the blades are also
almost unknown elsewhere, though one example has been found in Russia.
Our bronze shields with numerous concentric rings are also specially
British.
Among ornaments formed of bronze, there are few, if any, that we can
claim as our own. Our torques seem more nearly connected with those of
the Rhine district than of any other part of Europe. Our bracelets,
which are not common, hardly present any special peculiarities, and
brooches we have none.
Our spheroidal caldrons seem to be of native type, but with them are
vases which almost undoubtedly show an Etruscan influence in their
origin.
We have here then, I think, sufficient proof that Britain, though not
unaffected by foreign influences, and in fact deriving many of the
types of its tools and weapons from foreign sources, was, nevertheless,
a local centre in which the Bronze civilisation received a special
and high development; and where, had extraneous influences been
entirely absent after the time when the knowledge of Bronze was first
introduced, the evolution of forms would probably have differed in
but few particulars from that which is now exhibited by the prevailing
types found in this country.
If we compare these British types with those of the other regions which
together make up the so-called Danubian province, we shall at once be
struck, not by the analogies presented, but by the marked difference in
the general _facies_.
Taking Scandinavia to begin with, and Mr. Worsaae’s types as giving
the characteristics of that region, what do we find? The perforated
axe-hammers and axes of bronze are here entirely wanting; the tanged
swords and the majority of those with decorated hilts are also
unknown. There is hardly a type of dagger common to this country
and Scandinavia. The saws, knives, and razors are of quite another
character, but there is a resemblance in the sickles to a rare British
type. The flat and flanged celts of the two regions are of nearly the
same kind, and in one rare instance there is a similar decoration on a
reputedly Danish and on an Irish celt. The palstaves, however, are of
an entirely different character, with the exception of the form with
semicircular wings, which is not essentially British. The socketed
celts are nearly all unlike those of this country; and though the
leaf-shaped spear-heads present close analogies, the looped and eyed
kinds are absent. The shields are of a different character from ours.
The _tutuli_ and diadems are here unknown. There is but one form of
torque common to this country and Denmark. Brooches, combs, and small
hanging vases are never met with in Britain; and the spiral, whether
formed of wire or engraved as an ornament, is conspicuous by its
absence.
If we take the Hungarian region, we are driven to much the same
conclusions. The perforated axes and pick-axes, principally formed of
copper, the semicircular sickles, the spiral ornaments, the swords
with engraved hilts of bronze, and several forms of minor importance
are absent in Britain, while the socketed celts and the majority of
the palstaves are of markedly different types, though that with the
semicircular wings hammered over is of common occurrence in Hungary.
In Northern Germany the types of bronze may be regarded as intermediate
between those of Hungary and Scandinavia, though in some few respects
presenting closer analogies with those of Britain, with which, as will
subsequently be seen, there may have been some commercial intercourse.
The connection between British and German types is, however, but small,
and on the whole I think that the evidence here brought forward is
sufficient to prove that the British Isles can hardly be properly
classified as forming part of any Danubian province of bronze.
The connection between France and Britain during the Bronze Period
cannot be denied, and in many respects there is an identity of
character between the bronze antiquities of the North of France and
those of the South of England. The North of France cannot, however,
at any time since the first discovery of bronze, have been absolutely
shut out from all communication with the South and East. The East must
always have been affected by the habits of those who occupied what is
now Western Germany; and the South can hardly have been exempt from the
influence of Italy, if not, indeed, of other Mediterranean countries. I
am inclined to think that these external influences acted also on the
bronze industry of Britain, not so much directly as indirectly, and
that some of the types in this country may be traced to an Italian or
German origin as readily as to a French.
It is, I think, a fact that as close a resemblance in type, so far as
regards our earliest bronze instruments, may be found among Italian
examples as among French. Many of the slightly flanged celts of Italy
can hardly be distinguished from those of Britain, except by the faces
of the latter being more frequently decorated; and there is also a
great similarity between the dagger-blades of the two countries. In
the later forms, such as palstaves and socketed celts, the difference
between British and Italian examples is sufficiently striking. May
it not be the case that at the time when first the commerce between
Britain and the Mediterranean countries originated, always assuming
that such a commerce took place, the flanged celt was the most advanced
type of hatchet known by those who came hither to trade, and the
palstave and socketed form were subsequently developed? At a later
period it was the German influence that was felt in Britain, rather
than the Italian, for our socketed celts appear, as already stated,
to have had the cradle of their family in Western Germany; and the
few flat sickles that have been found in Britain, as well as the more
numerous torques, show a closer connection in type with those of
Germany than with those of France or any other country. Whether this
introduction of what appear to be North German types can in any way
be attributed to commercial relations between the two countries, and
especially to a trade in amber, is worth consideration. The abundance
of amber ornaments in some of the graves of our Bronze Period shows how
much that substance was in use. At the same time, the eastern shores
of England might have furnished it in sufficient quantity to supply the
demand, without having recourse to foreign sources. I have known amber
thrown up on the beach so far south as Deal.
A curious feature in the comparison of the later bronze antiquities of
Britain and those of France, is the marked absence of many of the forms
which abound in the remains of the Lake-dwellings of Savoy, as well
as in those of Switzerland. A glance through “Rabut’s Album”[1768] or
“Keller’s Lake-dwellings,” will at once show how few of the specimens
there figured could pass as having been discovered in the British
Isles. The large proportion of ornaments to tools and weapons is also
striking. There is, indeed, as M. Chantre has pointed out, a closer
connection between the bronze antiquities of the South of France and
those of Switzerland and Northern Italy, than with those of Northern
France.
Even the character of the ornaments is in many cases essentially
different. The hollowed form of bronze bracelet, made from a thin plate
bent in such a manner as to show a semicircular section, is entirely
wanting in Britain, and is very rarely found in the North of France.
Enough has, however, now been said in favour of regarding Britain
as one of those centres into which a knowledge of the use of bronze
was introduced at a comparatively early date, and where a special
development of the bronze industry arose, extending over a lengthened
period, and modified from time to time by foreign influences. On the
transition from bronze to iron, it is not necessary here further to
enlarge. I have, in treating of the different forms of tools and
weapons, pointed out those which I considered to belong to the close of
the Bronze Period; and it is probable that these forms for some time
continued in use, side by side with those made of the more serviceable
metal, iron, which ultimately drove bronze from the field, except for
ornamental purposes or for those uses for which a fusible metal was
best adapted. It seems probable that, as was the case in Mediterranean
countries, some of the socketed weapons, such as spear-heads, which
were more easily cast than forged, may for some time have been made
of bronze in preference to iron; but at present our knowledge of any
transitional period is slight, and this question would be best treated
of in a work on the Late Celtic or Early Iron Period of Britain.
Among the ornaments in use in this country during the Bronze Period,
are some, the history of which, if it could be traced, might throw
light upon the foreign intercourse of that time, for glass and ivory
were probably not of native production.[1769] Glass beads have
occasionally been found in barrows of the Bronze Age, nearly always
in our southern counties, and with burnt interments. They are usually
small tubes of opaque glass of a light blue or green colour, with
the outer surface divided into rounded segments, so as to give the
appearance of a number of spheroidal beads side by side. I am not aware
of any having been discovered with interments of the Bronze Age on the
Continent, but it seems probable that such beads have been found, and
they may eventually assist in marking out the lines of ancient commerce
with this country. A few larger beads, with spiral serpent-like
ornaments upon them, have likewise been found; but these, also, I am
unable to compare with any Continental examples. The finding of glass,
however, in tombs belonging to the early portion of our Bronze Age is
suggestive of some method of intercourse, direct or indirect, with
Mediterranean countries. The small quoit-like pendants, formed of a
greenish vitrified material, which have been found in Sussex[1770]
with burnt interments of the Bronze Age, closely resemble Egyptian
porcelain, and their presence in this country corroborates this
suggestion.
The discovery of beads made in sets like those of glass, of a bracelet,
buttons, pins, and hooks, all, in Dr. Thurnam’s opinion, formed of
ivory, gives indications in the same direction; for though billiard
balls have been manufactured from Scottish mammoth ivory of the
Pleistocene Period, the fossil tusks found in Britain are, as a rule,
too much decomposed to be any longer of service, and in this respect
differ materially from the fossil mammoth tusks of Siberia, which still
furnish so much of our table cutlery with handles.
For the jet and amber ornaments of the Bronze Period we have not, of
necessity, to go so far afield as for glass. Abundance of jet is to be
obtained in our own country, and the usual type of jet necklace,[1771]
with a series of flat plates, seems to be essentially British. Some of
the amber plates found at Hallstatt are, however, of the same form,
and perforated in the same manner, so that possibly these jet necklaces
may have been made in imitation of foreign prototypes in amber. How
far the amber ornaments of the Bronze Period in Britain were of native
production we have no good means of judging; but the circumstance just
mentioned is suggestive of Hallstatt and Britain having been supplied
from a common source, which may have been on the shores of the Baltic.
On the other hand, our amber ornaments differ, as a rule, from those of
Scandinavia, and, as already remarked, our eastern coast would furnish
an ample supply of the raw material without seeking it abroad. It must,
however, be remembered that some of the forms of our bronze instruments
show traces of German influence, and that in Strabo’s time both amber
and ivory were among the articles exported from Celtic Gaul to Britain.
The remarkable amber cup from the Hove barrow, near Brighton, I have
described elsewhere.[1772]
It remains for me to say a few words as to the general condition
of the inhabitants of Britain during the Bronze Age; but on this
subject, apart from the light thrown upon it by the tools, weapons,
and ornaments which I have been describing, and by the contents of
the graves of the period, we have in this country but little to guide
us. Such a complete insight into the material civilisation of the
period as that afforded by the Lake-dwellings of Switzerland, Savoy,
and Northern Italy is nowhere vouchsafed to us in Britain. The Irish
crannoges, which, in many respects, present close analogies with the
pile-buildings, have remained in use until mediæval times, and in no
instance has the destruction of a settlement by fire contributed to
preserve for the instruction of future ages the household goods of the
population. The nearest approach to a Lake-dwelling in England is that
examined in Barton Mere,[1773] Suffolk, where, however, the results
were comparatively meagre. A single spear-head was found, apparently
of the type of Fig. 406, and the remains of various animals used for
food, including the urus and the hare, which latter in Cæsar’s time the
Britons did not eat.
The information to be gained from the burial customs and the contents
of the graves has already been gathered by the late Dr. Thurnam and
by Canon Greenwell, as well as by other antiquaries, and I cannot do
better than refer to the forty-third volume of the “Archæologia,” and
to “British Barrows.”[1774] I may, however, shortly depict some of
the principal features of the external conditions of the bronze-using
population of these islands, taken as a whole, for no doubt the customs
and condition of the people were by no means uniform throughout the
whole extent of the country at any given moment of time.
As to their dwellings, we seem to have no positive information, but
they probably were of much the same character as those of the Swiss
Lake population, except that for the most part they were placed upon
the dry land, and not on platforms above the water. Their clothing was
sometimes of skins, sometimes of woollen cloth, and probably of linen
also, as they were acquainted with the arts of spinning and weaving.
Of domesticated animals they possessed the dog, ox, sheep, goat, pig,
and finally the horse. They hunted the red deer, the roe, the wild
boar, the hare, and possibly some other animals. For the chase and for
warfare their arrows were tipped with flint, and not with bronze: and
some other stone instruments, such as scrapers, remained in use until
the end of the period. At the beginning, as has already often been
stated, the axe, the knife-dagger, and the awl were the only articles
of bronze in use. For obtaining fire, a nodule of pyrites and a flake
of flint sufficed. Some cereals were cultivated, as is shown by the
bronze sickles. Pottery they had of various forms, some apparently
made expressly for sepulchral purposes; but they were unacquainted
with the potter’s wheel. Some vessels of amber and shale, turned in
the lathe, may have been imported from abroad. Ornaments were worn in
less profusion than in Switzerland; but the torque for the neck, the
bracelet, the ear-ring, the pin for the dress and for the hair, were
all in use, though brooches were unknown. Necklaces, or gorgets, formed
of amber, jet, and bone beads were not uncommon; and the ornaments
of glass and ivory, such as those lately mentioned, were probably
obtained by foreign commerce. Gold, also, was often used for decorating
the person, though coins, and apparently even the metal silver, were
unknown. They appear to have been accomplished workers and carvers of
wood and horn, and there were among them artificers who inlaid wood and
amber with minute gold pins almost or quite as skilfully as the French
workmen of the last century, who wrought on tortoise-shell. In casting
and hammering out bronze they attained consummate skill, and their
spear-heads and wrought shields could not be surpassed at the present
day. The general equipment of the warrior in the shape of swords,
daggers, halberds, spears, &c., and the tools of the workman, such
as hatchets, chisels, gouges, hammers, &c., have, however, all been
dealt with at large in previous pages. They contrast with the arms and
instruments of the preceding Neolithic Age more by their greater degree
of perfection than by their absolute number and variety. The material
progress from one stage of civilisation to the other was no doubt
great, but the interval between the two does not approach that which
exists between Palæolithic man of the old River-drifts and Neolithic
man of the present configuration of the surface of Western Europe.
So far as the general interest attaching to the Bronze Period is
concerned, it may readily be conceded that it falls short of that with
which either of the two stages of the Stone Period which preceded it
must be regarded. The existence of numerous tribes of men who are, or
were until lately, in the same stage of culture as the occupants of
Europe during the Neolithic Age, affords various points of comparison
between ancient and modern savages which are of the highest interest,
while there exists at the present day not a single community in which
the phases of the Bronze culture can be observed. The Palæolithic Age
has, moreover, a charm of mysterious eld attaching to it as connected
with the antiquity of the human race which is peculiarly its own.
The Bronze Age, nevertheless, from its close propinquity to the period
of written history, is of the highest importance to those who would
trace back the course of human progress to its earliest phases; and
though in this country many of the minute details of the picture
cannot be filled in, yet, taken as a whole, the broad lines of the
development of this stage of civilisation may be as well traced in
Britain as in any other country. It has been a pleasure to me to gather
the information on which this work is based; and I close these pages
with the consolatory thought that, dry as may be their contents, they
may prove of some value as a hoard of collected facts for other seekers
after truth.
FINIS.
GENERAL INDEX.
A
Achilles, shield of, 12;
spear of, 18, 242
Addua, Gauls defeated on the, 374
_Æs importatum_, 414, 419;
_signatum_, 422
Æschylus quoted, 11
Æsculapius, temple of, 18
Æstii, the, iron scarce among, 19
Æthiopians, bronze rare among, 17
African axe of iron, 149;
ironworkers, 181;
swords, 306;
trumpet, 359
Agamemnon, breast-plate of, 12
Agatharchides quoted, 8
Akerman, J. Y., F.S.A., cited, 391, 399
Alban necropolis, 341
Alcinous, walls of palace of, bronze-plated, 11
Algonquins, fusing of copper among the, 3
Alloys, various, of copper and tin, 22, 178, 265, 352, 415, 476
Amber, beads, 135, 189, 244, 366, 394, 487;
buttons or studs, 217;
cup with interment, 243, 486;
hilts or pommels, 228, 229;
ornaments, 373, 483, 485, 487;
trade in, 483, 486
American tomahawks, 162
Amulets, celts used as, 134
Analysis of metal of caldron, 412;
celts, 417, 421;
Indian celts, 40;
chisels, Mexican and Peruvian, 166;
shield, 346;
solder, 425;
trumpets, 360, 363;
various bronzes, 415 to 422
Anderson, Mr. Joseph, quoted, 239, 290
Anvils, 180 to 183, 375, 451
Ariantes, Scythian king, 318
Armillæ and Armlets. _See_ Bracelets
Arreton Down type of spear-head, 257, 480
Arrow-heads, 216, 318, 323;
flint, 39, 42, 167, 190, 223, 226, 236, 318, 391, 487
Arundelian marbles, 14
Aryan name for copper, 10
Asiatic origin of bronze, 2, 276, 420, 477
Assyrians, early use of iron among, 9;
wore penannular bracelets, 383
Asteropæus, breast-plate of, 13
Ausonius quoted, 29
Awls, 188 to 191;
double-pointed, 190;
tanged, 189, 190;
handled, 191;
with interments, 189, 190, 191, 225, 241, 319, 392, 457
Axes, 14, 41, 147 to 156, 161, 162;
African modern iron, 149;
ceremonial, 450;
Egyptian, 147;
Hungarian, 147, 161, 482;
clay mould for, 428;
of copper, 265;
perforated, 161, 478, 482;
stone, 190, 226
Axe-hammers, of stone, 217, 224, 225, 243
Axe-shaped socketed celts, 142
Aymara Indians, 148
Aymard, M., collection, 215
Aztec chisel, 166
B
Banks, Sir J., quoted, 34, 155
Banks, Rev. S., collection, 78, 133
Barnwell, Rev. E. L., quoted, 55, 77
Barthélemy, Abbé, quoted, 20
Bateman collection, _see_ Museums, Sheffield;
Mr., quoted, 42, 44, 151, 190, 225, 227, 228, 383, 390, 392, 393,
402, 409
Battle-axe of Menelaus, 14. _See_ Axes
Bayonet-like blades, 255, 256
Beads, 393;
agate, 383;
amber, 135, 189, 244, 366, 487;
bone, 487;
bronze, 381, 393;
dentalium shells, 394;
fluted, 381;
glass, 134, 366, 394, 485;
gold, 391, 394;
ivory, 485;
jet, 118, 158, 366, 394, 487;
joints of encrinite, 394;
penannular, 285, 391;
pottery, 366;
pulley-shaped, 381;
tin, 394;
with leaf-shaped projections, 381;
with spiral ornaments, 394, 485
Beck, Rev. James, F.S.A., collection, 60, 84, 87
Beck, Dr. L., quoted, 15
Beger quoted, 28, 29
Bell or rattle of bronze, 364
Bell collection in the Ant. Mus., Edinburgh, 105
Bell-metal, 416
Bells to ear-rings, 393
=ⲂⲈⲚⲒⲠⲈ=, its meaning, 7
Bertrand, M. Alexandre, quoted, 300, 413
Birch, Dr. S., F.S.A., quoted, 9, 147, 374
Birds on rod, 406
Blackett, Sir Edward, collection, 351
Blackmore Museum. _See_ Museums, Salisbury
Blades, bayonet-like, 255, 256;
curved, 264;
difficulty of determining character of, 258, 260;
lance-shaped, perforated, 213;
of dissimilar character, in the same interment, 241;
tanged, 211, 244
Blaeuw’s Atlas, 362
Bloxam, Mr. M. H., F.S.A., collection, 75, 179
Boars found at Hounslow, 406
Bodkin obsolete as weapon, 369
Bone, instruments of, 189, 285, 366;
of Horus, 8;
of Typhon, 6, 8;
plates for sword-hilt, 296;
pommels for dagger-hilts, 228;
rings, 51
Borlase, Dr., quoted, 30, 32, 439
Bourgeois, the Abbé, 160
Bouterolle. _See_ Chapes
Boynton, Mr. T., collection, 327
Bracelets, 381-388, 90, 96, 135, 136, 155, 198, 333, 377;
American, 383;
Assyrian, 383;
beaded, 385;
circular, 384;
gold, 94, 180, 209, 283, 285;
jet, 385;
Late Celtic, 385 to 388;
looped, 76, 368, 378, 384, 386, 387;
penannular, 381, 382;
Scottish, 388, 400;
with interments, 135, 385, 387
Bracer of chlorite slate, 223
Brackenridge, Rev. G. W., collection, 67
Brackstone, Mr., collection, 93, 131, 132
Braybrooke, Lord, collection, 211, 398, 403, 440
Brent, Mr. John, F.S.A., 88, 114
Bridle-bits, 144, 322, 368, 404, 405, 470
Bristles, possible early use of, 191
Britain, condition of its inhabitants in the Bronze Age, 486
Britannic province of bronze antiquities, 478
British types of instruments mostly indigenous, 24, 481
Britons, ancient, merely cut off the ears of corn, 202;
used iron before the Roman invasion, 19, 276, 354, 471, 472;
used no helmets in time of Severus, 355
Brixen, ancient inhabitants of, came from Etruria, 355
“Broad arrow” ornament on ring, 158
Bronze, analysis of, 22, 178, 265, 415 to 422;
Asiatic origin of, 2, 276, 420, 477;
bronze burning on to, 280, 293, 425;
cakes of, 423;
early value of, 17, 177, 204;
brittle when heated, 185, 409;
hardening of, 11, 12, 178, 415;
lumps of, _see_ Metal;
moulding of, 427 to 470;
survival of use of, 18, 22
Bronze-founders’ hoards, 24, 55, 94, 110, 113, 185, 361, 422, 423, 440
(_see_ Hoards);
classification of, 457, 459;
lists of principal, 460 to 468
Bronze Period, antiquities of, divided into provinces, 477;
chronology of, 455, 456, 472, 473;
condition of the inhabitants of Britain during the, 487;
succession of, to Stone Period, 9, 40;
succession of iron to, 16, 33, 274, 299, 300, 471
Brooches, 135;
Late Celtic, 400;
penannular, 304
Brooke, Capt., collection, 113, 206
Buckles, Late Celtic, 144, 368, 470;
penannular, 400
Bucklers, 303;
date of, 353;
not found with interments, 354;
Spanish, 354
“Bullæ,” 394
Burnishers, 22
Buttons, 400, 401;
annular, 290;
bone or ivory, 394;
gold, 394;
jet, 41, 225, 236;
polished shale, 230;
sandstone, 41
C
Cable-pattern, 48, 54, 140
Cæsar, Julius, quoted, 19, 354, 414;
time of, 19, 276, 354, 399, 419, 486
Caldrons, 409 to 413;
spheroidal, 481
Camden’s “Britannia” quoted, 31, 361
Canoe, rapier-blade found in, 250
Caprington horn, the, 362
Carelli quoted, 283
Carians armed with bronze, 8
_Carnyx_ on British coins, 363
Carter, Mr. James, collection, 80
Cassiterides identified with Britain, 419
Casting from hafted celt, 154;
from worn instruments, 117, 121, 442, 449
Castings, defective, 81, 114, 428, 448;
unfinished, 84, 90, 115, 175, 328
Catti, the, used iron, 19
Caylus, Count de, quoted, 20, 104
Cazalis de Fondouce, M., 223
“Celestial iron,” 7
Celts, as amulets, 134;
analysis of, 40, 417, 421;
casting, method of, 111, 443;
casting from ready mounted, 154;
casting from worn specimens, 117, 121, 442, 449;
classification of, 38;
conjectures as to, 31 to 37;
copper, 2, 39, 40, 43, 61, 145;
decoration of, 44 to 49, 52 to 54, 60 to 63, 102;
derivation of name, 27 to 29;
flint, 189, 190;
gold (?), 135;
gradation of types of, 35, 70, 76, 77, 95, 99, 108, 153, 456, 469,
479;
hafting of, 70, 146 to 164;
moulds for, 136, 143, 428, 429, 430, 442 to 450;
“recipient” and “received,” 32, 107, 456;
restored at edge by hammering, 83, 112, 446, 454;
shortened by wear, 83, 87, 112;
stone, 40, 150;
superstitious reverence for, 39;
supposed identity with German _framea_, 151;
tanged, included under chisels, 38;
tinned appearance of, 55, 56;
votive, 69, 135, 417;
with interments, 41, 42, 44, 47, 51, 134, 145, 150, 352
Celts, countries where found.—
Austria, 69, 131, 144, 157;
Belgium, 116;
Cambodia, 142;
China, 142;
Cyprus, 40;
Denmark, 40, 52, 54, 60, 69, 95, 134, 159, 163;
Egypt, 142, 147;
Etruria, 39, 132, 156;
France, 43, 52, 54, 55, 77, 109, 110, 115, 119, 121, 122, 129, 131,
142, 144, 152;
Gaul, 115, 116;
Brittany, 117, 124, 419, 445, 477;
Savoy Lake-dwellings, 131;
Germany, 43, 52, 77, 109, 112, 116, 133, 142, 144;
Greece, 69, 160;
Holland, 77, 109, 133, 152;
Hungary, 40, 43, 110;
India, 2, 40;
Italy, 104, 132, 142, 143, 155, 157, 160;
Java, 142;
Jutland, 30;
Mexico, 43;
Portugal, 143;
Russia, 143;
Siberia, 131, 143;
Spain, 43;
Sweden, 52, 129, 143
Celts, flat.—
English, 39 to 48;
Scottish, 55 to 59;
Irish, 39, 45, 61 to 65;
copper, 39, 40, 43, 61;
decorated, 44, 49, 58, 59, 62 to 65, 69, 453;
double-ended, 69;
doubly tapering, 44, 49, 69;
earliest in date, 39, 107, 149, 469;
iron, 157;
largest found in Britain, 57;
moulds for, 430, 428, 438;
perforated, 160
Celts, flanged.—
English, 48 to 55;
Scottish, 59 to 61;
Irish, 66 to 68;
castings for, 55;
decorated, 48, 53, 54, 58 to 61, 66 to 69;
doubly tapering, 68, 69;
perforated, 59;
roughening blade of, 67;
with “flanches” on face, 60;
with stop-ridge, 68, 69, 73, 74, 479
Celts, socketed.—
English, 107-135, 87, 93, 94, 95;
Scottish, 135 to 137, 143;
Irish, 137 to 142;
apparently of German origin, 483;
axe-shaped, 142;
castings for, 86;
clay cores left in, 115, 116, 186, 445;
of copper, 145;
“flanches” on, 60, 107 to 111, 131, 480;
of iron, 116, 144, 157, 159, 163;
of lead, 445;
method of casting, 442;
moulds for, of bronze, 438 to 445;
moulds for, of burnt clay, 450;
moulds for, of stone, 432;
origin of, 107, 483;
rarely or never found with interments in Britain, 134;
with loop on face, 130;
with two loops, 142, 143;
without loops, 133, 142, 144;
with ribs inside socket, 109, 110, 111;
with ribs on face, 117, 127, 136, 137, 140
Celts, winged.—
English, 71 to 77;
Scottish, 97;
Irish, 99 to 102
Celts, trumpeters in army of, 363
Celtiberian method of preparing iron, 275
“_Celtis_,” Roman pronunciation of, 29
Census, method of taking, 318
Centres of manufacture, independent, 106, 143, 475
“Ceraunius,” 40
Cereals cultivated during the Stone Period, 194;
cultivated during the Bronze Period, 487.
_See_ Sickles
Cesnola, General di, 40
_Cetra_ in use in Spain and Mauretania, 354
Chabas, M., quoted, 6, 7
Chalybes, the, 17
Chantre, M. Ernest, quoted, 43, 55, 88, 109, 176, 183, 184, 202, 297,
358, 405, 478, 484;
his classification of hoards, 458
Chapes, 285, 305 to 307;
wooden, 302
Chariots of Early Iron Age, 389, 403
Chierici, Professor, quoted, 422
Chilian celt of copper, 145
China, steel imported to Rome from, 19
Chinese antiquarian work, 263;
halberd, 262;
influence, 478;
spear-heads, 329
Chisels, 165 to 173, 113, 148;
Aztec, 166;
celts used as, 38, 133, 146;
Egyptian, 8, 166;
flint, 165;
narrow, 259;
mould for, 449;
socketed, 171, 172;
from Swiss Lake-dwellings, 166;
tanged, 167 to 171, 315
Christy collection, 142
Chronos, sickle of, 15
Cicero’s facetious inquiry, 275
Cimbrians used iron, 19
“Cire perdue” method of casting, 427, 449
“Clachan nathaireach,” 394
Clasps, 396;
or slides, 308;
found with celts, 144;
gold, 139
Clerk, Baron, collection, 98, 214, 218
_Clipeus_ longer than _cetra_, 354
Coins, British, 118, 134, 181, 354, 363, 399, 470;
of Cunobeline, 181, 354;
of Dubnovellaunus, 181;
of Eppillus, 363;
of Hadrian, 117;
of gold and silver, 322;
Italian, 283;
Roman, 115, 117, 363;
Spanish, 354;
Syracusan, 426;
of Tasciovanus, 354, 363;
of Verica, 354, 399;
unknown in Bronze Age, 487
Collars, with beads strung on iron wire, 381.
_See_ Torques
“Commander’s staff,” 262
Commerce between Britain and the Mediterranean countries, 483, 485;
of the Etruscans, 413, 476;
of the Phœnicians, 419, 475, 479;
with the East, 413
Congress of Prehistoric Archæology, Buda-Pest, 180;
Stockholm, 288
Continental influence on British forms, 106, 143, 297, 379, 472,
479 to 486
Cooke collection, 128
Cooke, Mr. B., quoted, 33
Copper Age, in America, 2;
in Europe, 2;
in modern times, 4
Copper, bars of, 424;
blades, 265;
cakes, 422;
cakes with Roman inscriptions, 423;
celts, Chilian, 145;
celts, Etruscan, 39;
celts, Indian, 2;
celts, Irish, 61;
early sources of, 8, 14, 418;
halberds, Irish, 265;
ingots, 426;
knives, Esquimaux, 211;
lumps of (_see_ Metal);
native, 3, 418, 419;
perforated axe, 265;
punches, or sets, modern, 265;
pyrites, 419;
saw from Santorin, 184;
smelting of, 422
Cord, traces of, on celt, 160;
traces of, on dagger, 226
Cores of clay for bells, 384;
extraction of, 186, 451;
method of casting with, 443;
remaining in celts, 115, 116, 186, 445;
wooden and bronze, 445
Cornwall, native copper in, 419;
native tin in, 419
Cotton, Charles, Esq., 133
Crannoges, Irish, 220, 486
Crawfurd, Mr. J., quoted, 9
Crofton Croker collection, 131
Cross-guards of daggers or knives, 309
Crotals or rattles, 361
Crowbar, 161
Crucibles, probably of clay, 427
Cumæ, Battle of, 355
Cuming, Mr. Syer, quoted, 37, 306, 340
Cunliffe, Sir R. A., collection, 55
Cunnington, Mr., F.S.A., quoted, 189, 242
Cunobeline, hammer on coins of, 181;
shields on coins of, 354
Cups, amber, 243, 486;
gold, 407;
hanging, 408;
with interments, 189, 190, 226, 239, 243
Curved cutting tools, 180
D
Dactyli, invention of metals ascribed to, 15
Daggers, 222 to 247, 254, 256 to 260;
Danish, 254;
Egyptian, 254, 420;
French, 223, 234, 238, 243, 254;
German, 246;
Hungarian, 236;
Irish, 234, 239, 244, 254;
Italian, 236, 241, 287;
methods of hafting, 227 to 236;
moulds for, Italian, 434;
ornamented on blade, 234, 241, 246;
Peruvian mode of holding, 246;
Scandinavian, 234, 236, 252;
socketed, 260, 480;
tanged, 222, 223, 224, 254, 258, 259, 260;
tanged, peculiar to Britain, 480;
with stone axes in interments, 161, 224, 225
Daïmachus quoted, 17
Dalmatian hammer, 183;
chisels, 172
Danubian province of bronze antiquities, 478, 482
Darbishire, Mr. R. D., F.S.A., 438
Davy, Mr. H. A., 87
Dawkins, Prof. W. Boyd, F.R.S., 475, 477
Day, Mr. R., F.S.A., collection, 61, 62, 65, 102, 105, 138, 139, 140,
141, 171, 172, 176, 212, 246, 59, 293, 315, 325, 358
Delas, inventor of bronze, according to Theophrastus, 15
De Bonstetten, 104
De Champlain quoted, 3
De Fellenberg referred to, 422, 425
Defoe quoted, 362
Dentalium necklace, 394
Desor, Prof., collection, 86, 180
Diadems, 184;
Danish and German, 394;
gold, 42, 393
Dickinson, Mrs., collection, 80, 84, 386
Diodorus Siculus quoted, 202, 275, 363, 426
Dionysius said to have struck coins of tin, 426
Discs with concentric circles, 401;
perforated, 403
_Dolabra_, Roman, 36
Dolmen, French, 293
Donovan’s analysis of trumpet, 360
Douce and Meyrick collection, 109
Douglas, “Nænia Brit.,” quoted, 34, 233
Dow, Rev. John, quoted, 35
“Dowris Find,” golden lustre on articles from, 360
Drills. _See_ Awls
“Druidical pruning-hook,” 32, 200
Druid’s altar, supposed, 114
Dryden, Sir Henry, collection, 74
Dubnovellaunus, hammer on coin of, 181
Duke, Rev. E., collection, 166, 377, 385, 393, 432
Dunoyer, Mr. G. V., quoted, 35, 132, 155, 160, 431
Durden, Mr., collection, 134, 250, 378, 393
Dusaussoy, Mr., analysis by, 418
Dyer, Mr. Thiselton, F.R.S., 313
E
Early Iron Age of Denmark, 159;
hoard at Vimose, 195;
interment, belonging to, 25;
trumpets of, 357, 363.
_See_ also Hallstatt and Late Celtic Period.
Ear-rings, 391;
gold, 393
Edwards, Mr. G., C.E., 368
Egerton, Sir P. de M. G., F.R.S., collection, 91, 169, 331, 464
Egypt, bronze as circulating medium in, 8;
early rarity of iron and steel in, 6;
early use of bronze in, 475;
lead bronze used in, 419
Egyptian arrow-heads, leaf-shaped, 318;
axes, 142, 147;
celts with ears, 147;
chisels, 166;
daggers, 234, 254;
daggers, analysis of, 420;
daggers, socketed, 261, 480;
hatchet still hafted, 148;
hoe-like instrument, 142;
method of fixing adze blades, 159;
rings, penannular, 391;
swords, 298;
tongs, 185
Elissa, bronze sickle of, 18, 194
Enamel on bronze articles, 135;
red, on shields, 343
Encrinite beads, 394
Engelhardt, Mr. Conrad, quoted, 159, 164, 195
Enniskillen, Earl of, F.R.S., 61, 180, 282
Ennius, iron used in Italy before the days of, 18
Epaulettes, originally intended for protection of shoulder, 374
Esquimaux, handles of instruments, 195;
knives of copper, 211
Etruscan, celts, 132;
commerce, 413, 476;
gold necklaces, 39;
helmets, 355;
influence on form of Irish vases, 412, 476, 481;
rings with loops, 400;
tomb, copper celt in, 39;
urns at Hallstatt, 412
Euripides quoted, 16
F
Fabrics, woven, 474
Fabricius, J. A., quoted, 151
Falmouth, Earl of, golden(?) celt belonging to, 135
Faussett collection, 129
Fenton, Mr., 223
Fenton, Mr. S., 306
Ferris, Dr., 348
Ferrules, 338 to 341, 256, 257, 309, 315, 317, 333;
African celt-like, 340;
Danish, 309, 340;
flat, 404;
gold, 309, 313;
Irish, 340;
iron, 341
“Ferrum” used for sword in Cæsar’s time, 276
Fibula of silver, 155;
with interment, 387, 400
Fiji, conch-shell trumpets from, 359
Files, bronze, 7, 181, 184, 185;
iron, 184
Finds of bronze. _See_ Hoards of Bronze
Finger-rings, 198, 391
Fisher, Mr. Marshall, collection, 53, 78, 79, 91, 121, 248, 254, 272,
282, 286, 322, 328
Fish-hooks, 192
Fitch, Mr. R., F.S.A., collection, 52, 114, 120, 282
Flaminius Nepos, 374
“Flanches” on celts, 60, 107 to 111, 131, 480
Flint, arrow-heads, 42, 167, 223, 226, 236, 238, 318, 391;
Etruscan, 39;
celts, 189, 190;
chipped, 243, 366;
chisels, 165;
flakes, 167, 366;
flakes used as saws, 454;
implements, 189, 224, 225;
implements, French, 223;
implements, Irish, 271;
knives, 41, 225, 240;
scraper, 225;
similarity between Irish and Portuguese forms, 271;
spear-heads, 190, 225;
“strike-a-lights,” 22, 225
Flower, Mr. J. W., F.G.S., 122, 242, 270
Forbes, Mr. David, F.R.S., 148, 165
Forel, M., collection, 210, 441
Franks, Mr. A. W., F.R.S., quoted, 37, 49, 51, 135, 199, 257, 299,
302, 330, 353, 363, 404, 405, &c.
Frederick, Sir Charles, 257, 260
G
Gage, Mr., F.S.A., 343
Garrucci, Padre, 341
Gärthe, Dr. Hugo, collection, 448
Gastaldi, Prof., 202
Gauls, gold torques among the, 374;
Isumbrian, had iron swords, 19;
of North of France had iron mines, 9
Gaulish reaping machine, 194;
torques used for trophy, 374;
trumpets, 363
Genthe, Rector, quoted, 21
Geoffroy’s experiments, 12
Gesenius, suggestion of, 5
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. W. E., quoted, 11, 16
Glass beads, 134, 135, 366, 394, 485, 487
Gold, bracelets, 180, 209, 283, 285;
buttons, 394;
clasps, 139, 391;
Cornish celt, doubtful, 135;
diadems, 42, 393;
ferrules, 309, 313;
fillet, 239;
mines, Egyptian, 8;
necklaces, 39;
on dagger hilts, 51, 228, 232;
ornaments, 51, 304, 391, 393;
Merovingian, 117;
pins for inlaying, 51, 228, 232;
plates, 51, 232, 244;
plates, crescent-shaped, 394;
probably the first metal used, 418;
rings, 389, 390, 393;
torques, 90, 180, 209, 374, 375, 376, 379, 390;
trophy of Gaulish torques, 374
Gongora y Martinez, Don M., 238
Goodwin, Mr., 347
Gordon, Sir R., 218, 289, 340, 362
Gouges, 173 to 177, 319, 320, 336;
French, 176
Gozzadini, Count, quoted, 37
Gray, Mr. W., collection, 352, 412
Greece, early use of iron in, 14
Greek axe, 161;
fret on Chilian celts, 145;
language, testimony of, 10;
sword, 298;
vases, representations on, 340
Greenwell, Rev. Canon, F.R.S., collection, _passim_;
quoted, 37, 41, 151, 224, 227, 387, 389, 400, 407, &c.
Grimm quoted by M. Müller, 10
Grose quoted, 363
Gross, Dr. Victor, collection, 114, 176, 183, 195, 422, 431, 449
Gudea, King of Assyria, 9
Gun-metal, 415
H
Hafting. _See_ Handles and Hilts
Halberds, 261 to 270;
Chinese, 263;
Irish, 263, 266, 268;
iron, 263;
Italian, 480;
mode of attachment to shaft, 262;
rare in Britain, 270;
Russian, 263;
Scandinavian, 262;
Scottish, 269;
Spanish, 271
Hallstatt, 23, 25, 69, 144, 181, 184, 229, 288, 293, 308, 342, 355,
389, 393, 394, 401, 405, 409, 412
Hammers, 177 to 181;
bronze, 81, 94, 319, 442, 451;
in Bologna hoard, 180;
casting for, 361;
clay mould for, 450;
formed of part of palstave, 180;
Hungarian, 180;
Lake-dwellings, 181;
looped, 180;
stone, 165;
stone with interment, 51, 232, 353, 405
Handles to celts, 146 to 164;
to celts, club-like, 149;
to celts, elbowed, 146;
to celts, original, 150;
to iron celt, 144, 157;
to Italian celt, 155;
to knife, of amber, 228;
to stone celts, of stags-horn, 150;
to vessels, variety of, 414
Hare, remains of, at Barton Mere, 486
Harford, Mr. E. J., F.S.A., quoted, 34
Harland, Mr. H. S., 118, 226
“_Hasta Pura_,” 218
Hatchets, iron, 148
Hearne, quoted, 31
Hector, gold-ringed spear-head of, 313
Helmets, bronze, 355;
Late Celtic, 356
Herodian quoted, 355
Herodotus quoted, 17
Hesiod quoted, 16, 17
Hiero, Tyrant of Syracuse, 355
Hieroglyphic inscriptions on axes, 147
Hildebrand, Dr. Hans, quoted, 21
Hilts of daggers, 229 to 236;
of rapiers, 252 to 256;
of swords, 286 to 300;
proportional to blades, 277;
made of amber, 228;
made of ivory, inlaid with amber, 299;
made of ox-horn, 252;
inlaid, of dagger, 352
Hoards of Bronze—
Abergele, 144, 308, 404, 405, 471
Achtertyre, 136, 315, 382, 425, 468
Allhallows, Hoo, 214, 230, 467
Alnwick, 43, 113, 285, 321, 391, 465
Ambleside, 285, 465
Amiens, 52, 157, 176, 201, 206, 249, 371, 398
Arreton Down, 49, 243, 244, 257, 258, 260, 464, 473, 480
Barrington, 78, 118, 466
Battlefield, 43, 86, 405, 464
Beachy Head, 94, 283, 423, 467
Beacon Hill, 43, 174, 321, 466
Beddington, 110, 174, 320, 340, 423, 447, 468
Bernay, 77, 78, 79
Bilton, 113, 129, 282, 314, 320, 465
Blackmoor, 464
Bloody Pool, 338, 339, 465
Bo Island, 180, 292, 466
Bologna, 104, 143, 172, 173, 176, 180, 183, 184, 185, 210, 217, 288,
341, 448, 480
Brechin, 290, 465
Broadward, 168, 285, 319, 320, 336, 338, 397, 465
Broxton, 91, 169, 331, 464
Burgesses’ Meadow, Oxford, 81, 169, 179, 467
Burwell Fen, 467
Camenz, 202, 384, 390, 459
Carlton Rode, 78, 94, 113, 119, 121, 122, 133, 167, 171, 173, 175,
178, 424, 467
Chrishall, 117, 283, 465
Clare, Postlingford Hall, 48, 464
Cleveland, 447, 468
Corsbie Moss, 290, 464
Cumberlow, 94, 110, 134, 424, 467
Danesbury, 423, 468
Dowris, 176, 179, 211, 220, 293, 335, 360, 361, 410, 411, 412, 452,
468
Dreuil, 109, 110, 129, 144, 176, 208, 283, 370, 393, 403, 404, 405
Duddingston Loch, 289, 315, 335, 409, 424, 465
Dunbar, 220, 465
Earsley Common, 113, 134, 424, 468
Eaton, 447, 468
Ebnall, 167, 174, 187, 466
Edington Burtle, 197, 249, 320, 325, 330, 377, 385, 391, 464
Exning, 174, 394, 466
Flixborough, 465
Fresné la Mère, 180, 183, 189, 209, 375
Fulbourn, 279, 282, 320, 340, 464
Glancych, 285, 304, 315, 340, 389, 464
Greensborough Farm, Shenstone, 285, 465
Guilsfield, 87, 114, 174, 285, 302, 315, 336, 339, 424, 467
Hagbourn Hill, 144, 322, 368, 466, 470, 471
Harty, Isle of, 110, 111, 174, 177, 181, 186, 211, 214, 308, 403,
441, 442, 453, 457, 468
Haxey, 89, 129, 465
Haynes’ Hill, 297, 305, 320, 403, 467
Heathery Burn Cave, 110, 118, 166, 172, 175, 185, 206, 211, 219,
285, 314, 365, 372, 381, 386, 388, 391, 401, 402, 412, 424,
447, 451, 468
Helsdon Hall, 424, 467
High Roding, 109, 116, 424, 468
Hollingbury Hill, 76, 115, 378, 386, 390, 464
Hotham Carr, 84, 92, 440, 468
Hounslow, 128, 175, 210, 451, 466
Hundred of Hoo, 95, 466
Kenidjack Cliff, 95, 119, 423, 451, 467
Kensington, 158, 174, 401, 424, 450, 467
Kingston Hill, 126, 423, 467
Lamballe, 116
Lanant, 206, 285, 340, 423, 451, 467
Larnaud, Fonderie de, 68, 131, 167, 176, 184, 192, 448, 456
Little Wenlock, 113, 234, 314, 336, 452, 465
Llandysilio, 93, 119, 206, 465
Llangwyllog, 81, 192, 219, 387, 389, 400, 466
Longy Common, 321, 467
Maentwrog, 248, 328, 465
Marden, 198, 208, 211, 308, 366, 381, 388, 450, 451, 467
Martlesham, 113, 119, 120, 129, 174, 206, 424, 467
Mawgan, 116, 184, 250, 465
Melbourn, 174, 389, 397, 466
Meldreth, 172, 201, 411, 424, 466
Moussaye, 115, 116, 445, 477
Nettleham, 86, 92, 131, 314, 330, 395, 465
Newark, 118, 316, 402, 466
Nottingham, 93, 118, 317, 322, 339, 465
Panfield, 468
Pant-y-maen. _See_ Glancych
Pierre du Villain, 214, 279, 397
Plénée-Jugon. _See_ Moussaye
Plymstock, 50, 165, 241, 259, 464
Point of Sleat, 289, 315, 372, 465
Porkington, 168, 174, 466
Quantock Hills, 77, 377, 447, 464
Reach Fen, 79, 112, 118, 122, 133, 167, 174, 187, 205, 210, 211,
213, 216, 229, 283, 305, 314, 315, 317, 319, 396, 400, 467
Reepham, 466
Rhosnesney, 55, 90, 226, 464
Romford, 86, 172, 424, 467
Roseberry Topping, 129, 172, 174, 178, 397, 424, 468
St. Hilary, 285, 423, 467
Shenstone, 285, 465
Sittingbourne, 113, 174, 424, 467
Stanhope, 118, 129, 174, 179, 315, 403, 466
Stibbard, 84, 328, 457, 464
Stoke Ferry, 270, 282, 305, 314, 465
Tarves, 290, 372, 465
Taunton, 116, 178, 198, 218, 367, 389, 466
Thorndon, 174, 177, 189, 205, 319, 466
Thrunton Farm, Whittingham, 280, 288, 314, 335, 464
Tours, 448
Trillick, 180, 389, 399, 466
Ty-Mawr, 129, 168, 315, 381, 389, 466
Vimose, 159, 195
Wallingford, 87, 128, 167, 206, 219, 321, 457, 466
Wallington, 89, 333, 382, 465
Wandle River, 282, 316, 368, 465
Wedmore, 376, 378, 466
West Buckland, 96, 377, 386, 464
” Halton, 113, 118, 120, 424, 467
Westow, 85, 118, 130, 168, 172, 174, 388, 450, 467
Westwick Row, 112, 424, 468
Weymouth, 279, 313, 419, 464
Whittlesea, 131, 175, 179, 466
Wick Park, 120, 304, 423, 450, 467
Wicken Fen, 76, 199, 205, 287, 464
Wickham Park, 95, 340, 423, 448, 468
Wilmington, 87, 447, 468
Winmarleigh, 118, 314, 335, 466
Woolmer Forest, 378, 383, 390, 464
Worth, 254, 313, 402, 464
Worthing, 87, 423, 467
Wrekin Tenement, 285, 338, 465
Wymington, 113, 466
Yattendon, 169, 403, 466
Hoare, Sir Richard Colt, quoted, 34, 44, 51, 134, 163, 190, 232, 241,
242, 352, 369, 405, and _passim_
Hodgson, Rev. John, quoted, 35
Holmes, Mr. J., collection, 201, 328
Homer, bronze or copper? mentioned by, 11;
mentions tin, 12;
other metals, 13
Homeric Age, 16, 18, 161, 242, 313, 340
Hones. _See_ Whetstones
Hood, Sir A. A., Bart., collection, 119
Hoops, 402
Horns, curved, found in Denmark, 363
Horn, the Caprington, 362
Horn, used, 225, 226, 227, 252, 487
Horse-trappings, 396
Hostmann, Dr., quoted, 21
Hugo, Rev. T., F.S.A., quoted, 36
Hugo collection, 65, 104, 105, 284
Hungary, native copper in, 419
Hungarian province of bronze antiquities, 482
Hutchins, Mr., quoted, 94
I
Imitation rivets, 235, 257, 260, 344
Inlaying of metals, 13, 296, 297;
wood and amber, 51, 228, 232, 368, 487
Instruments, broken, converted into another form, 180, 211, 361, 454;
tanged, of earlier date than socketed, 456
Intercourse between Britain and the Continent, 106, 143, 162, 379,
413, 483;
Ireland and Spain, 271
Interments, 41, 42, 237, 238, 239;
burnt, 51, 96, 189, 190, 224, 226, 233, 241, 242, 243, 366, 384,
394, 474, 485;
contracted, 44, 51, 134, 190, 223, 244, 380;
comparison of size of men of the Stone and Bronze Periods, 277;
in a hide, with fern leaves, 225;
in wooden cist, 241;
Late Celtic, 23, 391;
with beads, 135, 366, 394;
with bracelets, 135, 385, 387;
with awls, 189, 190, 191, 225, 241, 319, 392, 457;
with axes, 190, 226;
with celts, 41, 42, 44, 47, 51, 134, 145, 150, 352;
with stone hatchets, 204;
with stone hammers, 51, 232, 353, 405;
with knife daggers, 41, 161, 204, 225, 226, 256, 367, 480;
with marine shells, 189, 394;
tree-burials, 190, 226, 228, 241, 243, 301, 367, 474;
urn-burials, 42, 190, 191, 217, 226, 234, 384, 391;
at Hallstatt, 412;
various modes of, 473
Ionians armed with bronze, 8
Ireland, use of iron probably later than in Britain, 471;
never occupied by the Romans, 276
Iron, ancient, preservation of, 25;
approximate date of introduction into Britain, 472;
“Celestial,” 7;
celts, 116, 144, 157, 159, 163;
Celtiberian method of tempering, 275;
collars and belts, 355;
currency, 17;
date of discovery of, from the Arundelian marbles, 14;
effects of long burying, 275;
files, 184;
forms copied from bronze, 23, 95, 144, 299;
hatchet from Bolivia, 148;
meteoric origin of, 7;
mines in France, 19;
probably unknown till after the separation of Aryan nations, 10;
pyrites in urn, 243, with interment, 225;
for obtaining fire, 487;
religious avoidance of, in Egypt, 6;
self-fused mass of, 15;
succession of, to bronze, 4, 6, 16, 22, 23;
spear-heads, 342;
swords, 19, 274, 275, 276, 280, 287, 297, 299, 300, 343, 354;
used in Britain before Roman invasion, 19, 276, 354, 471, 472;
used by the Catti, 19;
used by the Gauls, 19;
used in ancient Greece, 14, 15;
used in Italy, 19
Italian, coins with type of sword, 283;
origin suggested for Northern bronze antiquities, 21
Ivory, bracelets, 485;
buttons, 394, 485;
dagger handles, 233;
exported from Gaul to Britain, 486;
hilts to iron swords, 229;
hooks, 485;
nippers, 233;
pieces of, with bronze rivets, 241;
pins, 51, 233, 241, 485;
rings, Egyptian, 391;
tweezers, 241;
war trumpets, African, 359
J
James, Sir Henry, F.R.S., quoted, 426
Japanese sabres, 275
Java, socketed celt from, 142
“Javelin with loop,” 256
Jeffrey, Mr., F.S.A.Scot., 351
Jerome, St., quoted, 27, 28
Jet, beads, 118, 158, 189, 336, 394;
Buttons, 225, 236;
discs, 190;
loops, 308;
necklaces, 189, 190, 487;
ornaments, 485;
pendant, 190;
used for decorations, 373
Jets and runners, 450
Jewitt, Mr. Llewellynn, F.S.A., quoted, 44, 453
Job, book of, quoted, 5;
translation of, by St. Jerome, 27
Jones, Hon. Col. C. C., quoted, 3
Jutland, flat celts in, 30
K
Keller, Dr. F., quoted, 150, 195
Kendrick, James, M.D., 46, 158
Kirwan, Rev. R., 134, 224
Klemm, Dr., cited, 153
Knife-daggers, antiquity of, 222, 457;
associated with stone implements (_see_ Stone and Bronze together);
attached to haft by perishable rivets, 226;
ornamented, 212, 237;
perforated, 225;
Scottish, 238;
short and broad, 240;
Spanish, 238;
with handle of yew, 207;
with haft of ox-horn, 225;
with interments, 41, 161, 204, 205, 226, 256, 367, 480
Knives, 204 to 216;
flint, 41;
flint with interment, 225, 240
Knives, socketed, curved, 204, 205, 209;
double-edged, 205 to 208, 167, 216, 480;
Irish, 207;
looped, 210, 215;
moulds for, 449;
with fluted blade, 205
Knives, tanged, 211 to 216;
curved, 209, 214, 215;
Danish and German, 215;
made from broken swords, 211;
moulds for, 433;
perforated, 213, 215;
single-edged, 214, 215, 480;
tang ending in head of animal, 213;
tangs flat, 211, 212;
with rings on blade, 215
Koudourmapouk, King of the Soumirs and Accads, 9
L
Laconia, steel of, 17
Lake-dwellers probably cut straw, 202
Lake-dwellings of Savoy, 95, 131, 191, 371;
of Switzerland, 13, 95, 114, 370;
insight into early civilisation given by, 486
Lake Superior, native copper found near, 3, 418
Lance-head, 368
Lane Fox, Gen. A. _See_ Pitt-Rivers, Gen. A.
Late Celtic Period.—Arrow-heads, 318;
bridle-bits, 144, 368, 405, 470;
bracelets, 135, 387, 388;
brooches, 400;
buckles, 144, 368, 470;
celts, 137, 144, 157, 163;
chariots, 389, 403;
ear-rings, 393;
ferrules, Irish, 340;
helmet, 356;
interments, 23, 25, 135, 471;
pins, 144, 369;
remains, 135, 144, 385;
sheaths, 302, 308;
shield, 353;
spear-heads, 144, 342;
swords, 229, 275, 299, 343;
torques, 381;
trumpets, 362;
vessel with iron handle, 409
Lauth, Prof., quoted, 7
Laveissière, Messrs., gun-metal, 416
Lawrence, Mr. W. L., F.S.A., 45
Layton, Mr. T., F.S.A., collection, 52, 126, 284, 302
Lead, absent in early bronze, 417;
at butt-end of palstave, 97;
socketed celts, made of, 445;
in small socketed celts, from Brittany, 417;
in articles from Dowris, 360;
spoken of by Job, 5
Lead bronze used in Egypt, 419
Leather sheath for flint dagger, 309;
for bronze knives, 309;
for Scandinavian dagger, 252;
thongs for securing hatchet, 148
Leland quoted, 30
Lepsius quoted, 7
Lichas the Lacedemonian, 18
Lichfield, Mr., collection, 94, 127
Lindenschmit, Dr. Ludwig, quoted, 21, 81, 202
Lisch, Dr. F., quoted, 151, 262
Livy quoted, 354
Local peculiarities of bronze antiquities, 24, 477
Londesborough, Lord, collection, 345
“Long Barrow” period, skeletons of, 277
Loops or slides, 403;
of jet, 404
Lort, Rev. Mr., F.S.A., quoted, 31, 33, 439
Lovelace, Earl of, 245, 316
Lubbock, Sir John, F.R.S., quoted, 20, 37, 149, 157, 274, 276, 427,
475
Lucretius quoted, 16
Lukis, Rev. W. C, F.S.A., 181, 385
“Lurer,” or curved horns found in Denmark, 363
Lusitanians, bronze spears among the, 17
Lycurgus, iron currency in time of, 17
Lydia, steel of, 17
M
Macadam, Dr. Stevenson, quoted, 56, 362, 410, 425
McCulloch, Mr. W. T., quoted, 349
Maces, 271, 272;
perforated stone, 51
Macrobius quoted, 275
Madsen quoted, 52, 54, 288, 404
Magnentius, bronze swords attributed to time of, 25
Malacca the principal Eastern source of tin, 424
“Malga,” Australian wooden weapon, 263
Manetho quoted by Plutarch, 8
Manillas, or African ring money, 387
Manlia Gens, denarii of, 374
Mariette, M., quoted, 6
Marine shells with interments, 189, 394
Martineau and Smith quoted, 415
Masons of Peru still use stone pebbles as mallets, 165
Massagetæ a bronze-using people, 17
Mayer collection. _See_ Museums, Liverpool
Medea, bronze sickle of, 18, 194
Medhurst, Mr., collection, 127
Medicinal use of iron in ancient Egypt, 6;
“virtue in brass,” 31
Mediterranean province of bronze antiquities, 478
Memnon, sword of, 18
Menelaus, battle-axe of, 14
Meriones, arrow of, 18
Merovingian gold ornaments, 117
Metals, 415 to 426;
admixture of other than copper and tin in bronze, 346, 360, 417,
420;
early use of, 1 to 20, 418, 420;
lumps of, 81, 87, 94, 113, 119, 120, 283, 423, 425, 442, 449, 459,
469
Meteoric origin of first-known iron, 7, 15
Mexican, bronze, 4;
name for copper transferred to iron, 10
Meyrick collection, 109, 205, 271, 351, 356;
Sir Samuel, quoted, 155
Milles, Rev. Dr., collection, 48
“Minds,” Irish, 42, 394
Mines, Egyptian gold, 8
Minerva, Temple of, at Phaselis, 18
“Missile hatchets,” 162
Mitchell, Dr. Arthur, F.S.A. Scot., 437
Molyneux, Sir T., quoted, 358
Money, suggestion that celts served as, 37
Montelius, Dr. O., quoted, 109, 262, 288, 298
Montezuma II., axe of, 148
Morlot, M., quoted, 26
“Morning Star,” or flail, 271
Mortillet, M. Gabriel de, 405, 456, 457
Mortimer, Messrs., collection, 43, 113, 190, 227, 230
Mortise and tenon, 171
Moseley, H. N., F.R.S., 263
Moulds, 427 to 450;
bronze, 84, 174, 438 to 448;
clay, 427, 428, 448, 449;
clay, for buttons, 401;
stone, 143, 158, 180, 250, 428 to 438;
notches on, 436;
wooden, for British coins of tin, 445
Movers, Prof., quoted, 5
Müller, Prof. Max, quoted, 10
Müller, Dr. Sophus, quoted, 21
Museums—
Abbeville, 335
Agram, 177
Alnwick Castle, 46, 116, 285, 287, 368, 386
Amiens, 119, 183, 201, 206, 208, 371, 398
Assen, 109
Belfast, 430
Berlin, 39, 173, 184, 234, 262, 263, 298, 299, 441, 448
Boulaq, 261
Boulogne, 238, 250
Bourges, 307
Bristol, 217
Brunswick, 288
Buda-Pest, 142, 327
Caen, 86
Cambridge Ant. Soc., 174, 199, 205, 259, 270, 271, 272, 279, 340,
346
Carcassonne, 328
Chambéry, 131, 184
Chateaudun, 122
Clermont-Ferrand, 119, 176, 341, 438
Copenhagen, of Northern Antiquities, 172, 259, 288, 353, 432, 441
Cracow, Academy of Sciences, 181
Darmstadt, 91, 441
Devizes, _see_ Stourhead
Dorchester, 432
Dover, 113
Dresden, Preusker collection, 437
Dublin, Royal Irish Academy, _passim_;
Trinity College, 220, 431
Edinburgh, Ant., _passim_;
Advoc. Library, 289
Elgin, 333
Evreux, 77
Exeter, 51
Florence, 156
Geneva, 210
Göttingen, 77
Gratz, Johanneum, 288
Hanover, 184, 308, 441
Kiel, 262
Laibach, 246, 393, 428
Lausanne, 260
Leipsig, Deutsche Gesellschaft, 221
Le Puy, 293
Lewes, 87, 447
Leyden, 89, 133, 173, 176, 221
Linz, 153
Liverpool, Mayer collection, 52, 81, 82, 83, 88, 129, 168, 319, 351
London, British Museum, _passim_;
Soc. Ant., 49, 90, 125, 348, and _passim_
Lyons, 131, 301, 441
Madrid, 97
Malmoe, 262
Metz, 131
Modena, Museo Civico, 401, 437
Munich, 445
Namur, 109
Nantes, 121, 124, 230, 250, 252, 281, 339
Narbonne, 43, 121, 122, 172, 254, 341
Newcastle-on-Tyne, 78, 116, 125, 285, 351
Norwich, 78, 80, 134, 173, 175, 178, 199, 281, 318
Oxford, 287; Ashmolean, 81, 169, 189, 216, 225
Paris, d’Artillerie, 301;
Hôtel Cluny, 176;
Louvre, 185
Plymouth, Athenæum, 228
Poitiers, 119, 176, 214, 221, 398, 441, 447
Prague, 308
Rennes, 287
Rouen, 86, 280
St. Germain, 171, 248, 293, 328, 448
St. Omer, 131
Salisbury, Blackmore, 80, 81, 91, 110, 114, 120, 132, 175, 236, 237,
248, 426
Salzburg, 152, 355
Scarborough, 211, 401
Schwerin, 262
Sheffield, Bateman collection, 42, 44, 113, 122, 150, 168, 172, 190,
205, 225, 279, 280, 307, 321, 327, 390, 392, 393, 409, 430,
447
Sigmaringen, 173, 176
Soissons, 80
Stockholm, 122, 143, 353, 448
Stourhead, 219, 322, 368, and _passim_
Stuttgart, Cabinet of Coins, 142
Taunton, 119, 198, 249, 320, 325, 328, 330
Toulouse, 41, 97, 119, 122, 131
Tours, 86, 172, 207, 254, 401, 435
Trent, 107
Turin, Royal Armoury, 288
Vannes, 215, 449
Vienna, Ambras, 148;
Antiken Cabinet, 86, 131, 299, 355
Warrington, 123, 335
Wisbech, 131, 175, 179
Wurzburg, 308
Zurich, 166
“Museum Moscardi,” quoted, 31
N
Nail for fastening scabbard end, 305
Native copper, 3, 418, 419
Neb, projecting, on celts, 104, 160
Necklaces, amber, 244, 487;
bone, 487;
of dentalium shells, 394;
of glass beads, 135;
jet, 189, 190, 487
Necropolis, Alban, 341
Needle of bronze, 192;
wood, 226
Neolithic Period, gouges developed in, 165
Neville, Mr. F., quoted, 358
Nickel present in bronze of shield, 346
Nilsson, Prof., 419
Nitzsch quoted, 14
Noricum, iron swords of, 19
Norris, Mr., collection, 96
Northumberland, Duke of, collection, 46, 116
Norway, native copper in, 419
Noulet, Dr., 142
O
Objects of uncertain use, 306, 308, 396, 397, 405
Obsidian instruments from Santorin, 184
Odyssey, description of hardening axe in, 14;
testimony of, as to axe-heads, 161
O’Gorman, Mr. T., quoted, 398
Oppert, M., referred to, 9
Orestes, bones of, 18
Origin of term celt, 27;
of term palstave, 71, 72;
continental, of British bronze forms, 108, 115, 143, 297, 379
Ormerod, Mr. G. W., F.G.S., collection, 82
Ornaments, 374 to 395, 481, 483 to 486;
bronze, rare in Britain, 395, 481, 487;
gold, 51, 304, 391, 393, 487;
for horse-trappings, 404;
silver, 2
Ornamentation on bronze, preserved by patina, 46;
cable pattern, 54, 60, 140;
chevron patterns, 90, 145, 160, 180, 320, 321, 330, 338;
by enamel, 135, 338;
fern-leaf pattern, 61, 102;
Greek fret, 145;
by inlaying of metals, 13, 296, 297;
by hatched lozenges, 53, 66, 218;
by punching, 67, 187, 319, 453;
by matted patterns, 53, 74;
resembling Roman numerals, 203;
rings, 296;
rings concentric, on shields, 347 to 353;
ring and pellet, 124 _et seqq._;
shield-shaped, 128;
on back of Swiss Lake knives, 203
Osteological observations, 278, 475
Overlapping of Stone and Bronze Periods, 1, 24
Owen, Prof., F.R.S., cited, 296
P
Paalstab, the term, 71, 72
Palafitta of Castione, 153
Palstaves, 70 to 106, 159, 169;
broken, with broken torques, 378;
castings for, 90, 448;
Danish, 95, 151, 163;
development of, from flat celts, 107, 472;
double-looped, 95 to 97, 104, 105;
edge renewed by hammering, 92, 454;
French, 81, 88, 91, 97, 160;
German, 80, 83, 91;
Icelandic, 71;
Irish, 81, 99 to 105, 160;
iron, 157, 159;
looped, 80, 98, 103;
moulds for, 431, 439, 440;
of two metals from Hallstatt, 95;
origin of term, 71;
roughening blade of, 77;
Scottish, 77 to 79, 99;
socketed celts evolved from, 108, 472;
Spanish, 90, 97, 161;
transitional forms between celts and, 76, 77, 95, 472;
with ridges on recesses for handle, 79;
with transverse edge, 85, 105, 159;
with socket formed by wings, 85;
worn by resharpening, 83, 87, 454
Paris Exhibition of 1878, 97, 448
Patina, preservation of ornament by, 46
Patrick, Mr. R. W. Cochran, F.S.A., 362
Patroclus, funeral games of, 15
Pausanias, quoted, 15, 18
Payne-Knight collection, 94
Pegge, Rev. Samuel, F.S.A., quoted, 33, 42, 226
Pelligot, Prof., analysis of Breton celts, 417
Pelta or buckler of Greeks and Macedonians, 354
Penguilly l’Haridon, M., quoted, 162
Pennant’s “Tour” quoted, 290
Pentateuch, mention of metals in, 5
Percy, Dr. J., F.R.S., quoted, 11, 40, 420, 424, 442
Perthes, Boucher de, collection, 335
Peru, bronze in, 4;
use of stone mallets in, 165
Peruvian mode of holding dagger, 246
Pest, Congress of Prehistoric Archæology at, 180
Petrie collection, 140
Phillips, Mr. J. A., F.G.S., 422, 426
Philology, testimony of, 9, 110
Philoxenus quoted, 168
Phœnician trade with Britain, 419, 475, 479
Pins, 365 to 373;
134, 135, 191, 282, 290, 322;
associated with swords, 290, 372;
bone, with Roman remains, 365;
curved, 368;
Danish, gold-plated, 372;
French, 370;
German, 371;
gold, for inlaying, 51, 228, 232;
Irish, 369, 371, 372;
Late Celtic, 368, 369;
looped, 368, 369;
Scottish, 372;
spiral, 370;
Swiss, 370;
twisted, 191, 366;
with amber inlaid, 368;
with annular heads, 367;
with flat heads, 290, 365, 371;
with perforated heads, 96
Pindar quoted, 17
Pipe of bone, 366
Pisander, axe of, 18
Pitt-Rivers, Gen. A., F.R.S., 37, 84, 205, 313, 328, 441, 475
Plates, conical, with central hole, 316;
convex, 351;
with rims, 402;
flat, 402;
gold, articles made of, 244;
gold, lozenge-shaped, 51, 232;
horse-shoe shaped, 405;
with lunate openings, 397
Pliny quoted, 18, 19, 194, 355
Plot, Dr., quoted, 31, 42, 133
Plutarch quoted, 19
Pollux, Julius, mentions currier’s chisel, 168
Polybius quoted, 275, 363
Pommels, of dagger hilts, 229;
to iron sword, 229;
object like, with links of chain, 296;
cast on core of clay, 290;
to Scottish swords, 290
Porsena, articles of peace tendered by, 18
Poseidon, trident of, 15
Poste, Mr. Beale, quoted, 308
Pottery, from barrows, 407;
of Bronze Age, 407, 487;
from Swiss Lake-dwellings, 13
Pownall, Governor, F.S.A., quoted, 293
Preservation of iron, 25
Prickers of bronze for extracting clay cores, 186.
_See_ Awls
Prigg, Mr. H., quoted, 187;
collection, 127
Proportion between size of tool and handle, 277
Proximity of objects no proof of identity of date, 25, 117, 273, 470
Psammetichus, brazen helmet of, 8
Punches, used in ornamenting, 67, 68, 187, 188, 453;
serrated, 319, 320
Punic War, Second, 19, 275
Pyramid, Great, iron wedge found in, 7
Pyrites, iron, 225, 243, 487;
copper, 419
Q
Queen Aah-Hotep, axe found in tomb of, 148
Queen’s Drive, Edinburgh, swords found at, 289
“Quincussis,” 283
R
Rabat, M., collection, 180, 368
Rameses III., tomb of, 7
Ramsauer, Herr, 157
Ramses, the name on Egyptian axe, 147
Rapier-shaped blades, 245 to 254, 328, 333;
broken, regarded as a steel, 250;
rare in hoards, 256;
with hilt of ox-horn, 252
Rattles, crotals, or bells, 361, 364
Ravalière, Lévesque de la, quoted, 20
Ravensworth, Lord, collection, 288, 335
Razors, 217 to 221, 480;
continental forms, 221;
crescent-shaped, 221;
from Lake-dwellings, 215;
Irish, 218, 318;
perforated, 218 to 221;
tanged, 217 to 219;
tanged, peculiar to Britain, 480
Read, Mr. C., 231
Reaping-hooks, of flint, 194 (_see_ Sickles);
Saturn’s, 17
Reaping-machine, Gaulish, 194
“Recipient” and “received,” the terms as applied to celts, 107
Religious rites, use of bronze in, 18
Repoussé work on Late Celtic bracelets, 388
Reproduction in bronze of stone forms, 40
Reverence, superstitious, for celts, 39
Rhœcus and Theodorus, the Samians, 15
Rhind, Mr. A. Henry, 274, 275
Richardson, Dr. Richard, quoted, 155
Rickman, Mr., quoted, 35
Rings, 388 to 391; 82, 135, 158, 290;
bone, 51, 232;
of caldron, 411;
concentric, on shields, 347 to 353;
connecting straps of harness, 399;
dentated, for maces, 271;
Egyptian, 391;
Etruscan, 400;
gold, 389, 390, 391;
hollow, with transverse perforations, 389, 398, 399;
interlinked, 405;
Irish, in pairs, 389;
on loop of celt, 118, 158;
penannular, 198, 390, 391;
and plates as ornaments for horse-trappings, 404;
and pellet ornament, 124 to 127;
spiral, 76, 390, 391;
stone mould for, 158;
twisted, 390
Ring-money, African, 387;
Irish, 391
Rivets, horn or wood, 227;
imitation of, 235, 257, 260, 344;
long, for barbed spear-heads, 338;
numerous, for trumpet, 362
Robinson, Mr. T. W. U., F.S.A., collection, 411, 412
Rod, with birds and rings, 406
Rolleston, Prof., F.R.S., quoted, 25, 277, 287, 380
Roman, coins, at Karn Bré, 32, 115;
commemorative of victories, 363;
priests, bronze knives of, 18;
pronunciation of _celtis_, 29;
remains, 116;
sword, long, 275
Roman numerals, ornaments resembling, 203
Rome, best steel imported to, from China, 19
Rosse, Earl of, collection, 361, 411;
his speculum metal, 416
Rossi, Prof. Stefano de, quoted, 37
Roughening of butt-end of celts, 67, 77, 160
Rowland quoted, 31, 32
Rubbing-stones for grinding and polishing, 361, 452
S
Sabine priests, bronze knives of, 18
Sabres, Japanese, 275
Sacken, Baron von, 157, 181, 246, 308
Sagartii, the, had bronze daggers, 17
Sagas, use of term Paalstab in, 72
Sanford, Mr. W. A., F.G.S., collection, 96, 377
Sanscrit term for iron, 10
“Sarcophagus with ashes” in cairn, 273
Savoy Lake-dwellings. _See_ Lake-dwellings
Saws, 183, 184;
flint flakes used as, 454
Saxon cemeteries, preservation of iron in, 25
Saxony, native copper in, 419
Scabbards and scabbard-ends, 301 to 309, 336;
French, 301;
localities where found, 481;
Scottish, 304
Scandinavia never occupied by the Romans, 276
Scarabæus of bronze, 155
Schliemann, Dr., quoted, 40, 166, 224, 297, 438
Schreiber, quoted, 43, 52, 104
Scott, Lady John, collection, 60
Scythians, the, did not use bronze, 17;
method of taking census among, 318
“Seare” or Sickle, 200
Segested cited, 52
Seidler, Mr. Charles, collection, 441
Severus, Britons of the time of, 355
Sharp, Mr. S., F.S.A., collection, 43
Sharpeners, 7;
broken bronze rapier regarded as, 250
Shaw, Mr. S., collection, 234
Sheaths, bronze, 301;
bronze, for iron sword, 302;
leather, 252, 289;
wooden, with interment, 301, 302
Shields, 343 to 356;
on British coins, 354;
Italian, 353;
Late Celtic, 363;
Scottish, 349;
with Early Iron swords, 354;
with interment, 352
Shiffner, Sir H., Bart., collection, 53
Shipp, Mr., 233
Sickle of Chronos, 15;
of Elissa and Medea, 18, 194;
of Saturn, 17
Sickles, 194 to 203, 480, 487;
English, 197;
Scottish, 199;
Irish, 200;
French, 201;
German, 202;
Italian, 202;
Scandinavian, 195;
Swiss, 195, 202;
method of hafting, 196;
flat, with knobs on blade, 197, 480;
socketed, 195, 198 _et seqq._, 480
Sidonius quoted, 162
Sigimer, his followers provided with missile hatchets, 162
Silver, apparently unknown in the Bronze Age, 487;
ornaments at Gungeria, 2
Simpson, Rev. Sparrow, D.D., collection, 147
Sinai, copper from peninsula of, 8
Sinclair quoted, 200
Sinope, steel of, 17
Sistrum-like instruments, 405
Slafter, Rev. E. F., quoted, 3
Smith, Dr. Aquilla, 67
Smith, Mr. C. Roach, F.S.A., quoted, 274;
collection, 249, 280, 325, 330, 351
Smith, Mr. Ecroyd, 168
Smith, Dr. John Alexander, 56, 199, 221
Soldering unknown in the Bronze Age, 425
Solly, Mr. S., F.S.A., 233
Sophocles quoted, 194
Spain, tin in, 419, 424
Spear-heads, 310 to 338;
absent from barrows, 342;
African, 340;
Arreton Down type, 257, 260;
barbed, 337, 338, 481;
castings for, 84;
Celtic, in the Alban Necropolis, 341;
Chinese, 330;
“eyed,” 333;
ferruled, 257;
flint, 100, 225;
Greek, 313, 340;
inlaid with gold, 313;
Irish, 311, 320;
iron, 342;
leaf-shaped, 248, 254, 312 to 321, 341, 481;
looped on blade, 248, 327 to 331;
looped on socket, 321 to 326;
moulds for, 435 to 438;
perforated, 288, 330 to 337;
retaining portion of shaft, 312, 313, 316, 327;
tanged, 257, 258;
types peculiar to Britain, 341;
where found, 481
Speculum-metal, 178, 416
Spindle-whorl, 383
Spirals, their absence in Britain, 287, 394;
on beads, 394, 485
Spiral rings, 76, 390, 391
Spoon-like articles, 406
Squier and Davis quoted, 3
Stag’s-horns, 284;
horn handle to brass instrument, 163;
handle to celts, 150;
instruments in barrow, 226;
instruments like netting-meshes in barrow, 190
Stair, Earl of, collection, 137
“Stake,” possible origin of this name for a small anvil, 181
Stature of men interred in Yorkshire barrows, 278
Steel of three kinds produced by the Chalybes, 17;
helmet of Hercules, 17;
known in Homer’s day, 14;
Japanese method of preparing, 275;
reaping-hook of Saturn, 17;
of Sinope, 17
Stevenson, Mr., collection, 440
Stiletto and bodkin, served a double purpose, 369
Stone, Mr., 391
Stone, Mr. Edward, 111
Stone anvils, 181;
mallets, 165
Stone, forms reproduced in bronze, 40;
and bronze associated, 41, 42, 51, 161, 165, 189, 190, 223, 224,
225, 226, 232, 236, 238, 243, 256, 366, 391, 405, 452, 453,
456, 480, 487
Strabo quoted, 17, 19, 486
Strobel, Prof., quoted, 108, 202
Stukeley quoted, 31, 87, 107, 189
Succession of iron to bronze, 4, 6, 16, 22, 23
Sullivan, Prof. W. K., 417, 420
Superposition of articles of different date, 26
Superstitious reverence for beads, 394;
for celts, 39
Survival of celts as amulets, 134;
of “flanches” as ornaments, 60, 107, 108, 110, 111, 131
Sweden, native copper in, 419
Swiss Lake-dwellings. _See_ Geographical Index.
Swords, 273 to 300;
British, 275, 278 to 287;
Celtiberian, 275;
Danish, 286, 296, 298, 309;
Egyptian, 298;
Finnish, 299;
French, 281, 287, 293, 297, 301;
Gaulish, 300;
German, 298, 299;
Greek, 297;
Hallstatt, 299;
Hungarian, 276;
Irish, 291, 293 to 296;
Italian, 274, 297;
from Mycenæ, 297;
Roman, 275;
Scandinavian, 274, 276, 287, 296, 298;
Scottish, 273, 289, 290, 291;
from site of Troy (presumed), 298;
Spanish, 275;
Swiss Lakes, 280, 287, 297
Swords, absent from interments, 273, 274, 277;
date of, 273, 274, 275, 276;
Early Iron, 274, 275, 276, 280, 287, 297, 299, 300, 343, 354;
found in a moss arranged in a circle, 288;
inlaid, 296, 297;
length of, 275;
methods of mending, 254, 293;
mode of grasping, 276;
on Italian bronze coin, 283;
types almost peculiar to Britain, 481;
with bronze sheaths, 301
Sword-hilts and hilt-plates added by casting, 287, 290;
Danish, 276;
Hungarian, 276;
ferrules on, 306;
gold on, 286, 296, 298;
of ivory inlaid with amber, 299;
longitudinal slots in, 278, &c.;
pommels to, of alabaster, 291;
pommels with curved horns, 288;
pommels of lead, 285;
with plates of bone, horn, or wood, 278, 286, 290, 293, 296;
spirals on, rare in Britain, 287
Sydenham, Mr., 237
T
Tacitus, quoted, 275, 354
Talbot de Malahide, Lord, collection, 104
Tamassus, mart for copper at, 14
Tasciovanus, coins of, 354, 363
Teeth of animals in barrows, 42, 189
Telamon, battle of, 275
Telchines, the, gold, silver, and copper discovered by, 15
Teutonic languages, name for copper in, 10
Thebes, paintings in sepulchres at, 7, 185
Theophrastus quoted, 15
Theseus, grave of, 18
Thoms, Mr., note on _Paalstabs_, 72.
Thomsen, Councillor, 72
Thorlacius quoted, 151
Thurnam, Dr., F.S.A., quoted, 44, 134, 188, 189, 191, 216, 222, 225,
230, 232, 236, 241, 242, 369, 393, 475, 485
Tin, bead of, 394;
coins of, 445;
early sources of, 418;
Egyptian, source unknown, 8;
exported from Britain, before Roman invasion, 419, 476;
found in Brittany, 419;
fragments of, 136, 315, 425;
in bronze, loss of, by fusion, 418;
in hoards of bronze, 425;
in ingots, 426;
Malacca, principal Eastern source of, 424;
mentioned by Homer, 12;
pure metallic, 425;
pure, used by early Greeks, 12;
Spain, principal Western source of, 424;
trade with Britain for, 424;
used for soldering, 363
Tinned, implements supposed to be, 55, 56, 57
Tischler, Dr. Otto, 24
Tongs, 185
Torquati, origin of their name, 374
Torques, 374 to 381; 76, 96, 198;
beaded, 381;
Danish, 379;
on denarii of the Manlia Gens, 374;
derivation of name, 374;
funicular, 375 to 377;
gold, 90, 180, 209, 375, 376;
gold, Gaulish, 374;
gold, Irish, with ball at each end, 379;
Late Celtic, 381;
ribbon, 90, 379;
rings on, 390, 391
Towneley, Mr. Charles, 48
Tree-burial. _See_ Interment.
Tresca, M., 416
Trevelyan, Sir Charles, collection, 89, 333;
Sir Walter, 386
“Tribulum,” the, 202
Trojans, “bronze-speared,” 16
Troy, swords rare on the presumed site of, 298
Troyon, M., collection, 131
Trumpets, 357 to 364;
African, of elephants’ tusks, 359;
broken and repaired by burning, 360;
English, 363;
found at Dowris, 361;
from Fiji, of conch shells, 359;
Gaulish, 363;
Irish, 357, 361;
Late Celtic, 362;
metal of, 360, 363;
Scottish, 363;
with lateral opening, 358
“Tuagh-catha,” Irish war-axe, 263
Tubal-Cain, 5
Tubes, 265;
looped, 397
Tucker, Mr., F.S.A., 254
Tuscan cities, bronze ploughshare used in founding, 18
“Tutuli,” 402
Tweezers, 191, 192;
ivory, 241
U
Umbrian coins with the type of a sword, 283
Unfinished castings, 84, 90, 115, 175, 328
Uralian province of bronze antiquities, 477
Urn-burials, 42, 190, 191, 217, 226, 234, 384, 391;
at Hallstatt, 412
Urns, cinerary, 474;
cinerary, said to contain sword, 273;
of coarse earthenware, 87;
found at Chiusi, 156;
inverted, 234
Urus, remains of, at Barton Mere, 486
Utilization of broken instruments, 180, 361, 454
V
Vallancey quoted, 138, 176, 200, 201, 234, 263, 361, 399;
as to Irish moulds, 439
Variations in implements cast in the same mould, 111, 442, 444
Various centres of bronze-founding in Britain 143, 477
Vases of Etruscan origin, 413, 481
Vauquelin’s analysis of Egyptian dagger, 420
Verica, gold coins of, 354, 399
Vessels, amber, 407;
bronze, 361;
bronze, conical, 413;
bronze, ornamented, 413;
bronze, with iron handle, 409;
gold, 408;
sandstone, 409;
shale, 407
Virgil quoted, 12, 13, 16, 194
Von Bibra, referred to, 422
Von Estorff quoted, 315
Von Sacken quoted, 157, 181, 246, 308
Votive celts or hatchets, 69, 135, 417;
hoards, 457
Vulgate, different readings of, 28
W
Wakeman, Mr., collection, 303
Wakeman, Mr., quoted, 252
Wallace, Mr. J. R., collection, 43, 120
Warburton, Mr., 447
Ware, Mr. Samuel, F.S.A., quoted, 48
Warne, Mr. C, F.S.A., quoted, 234, 238, 243
Watson, Mr. C. Knight, Sec. S.A., quoted, 27
Way, Mr. Albert, F.S.A., quoted, 37, 50, 51, 166
“Welding,” the term, 293
Westendorp quoted, 152
Westwood, Prof., quoted, 81
Whetstones in hoards, 113, 397, 452;
with interments, 51, 225, 226, 242, 366;
in urns, 163, 217;
use of, 453
Whincopp, Mr., collection, 260
Whitaker, Dr., collection, 48;
quoted, 47
Whitaker, Mr. W., F.G.S., 248
Wibel, Dr., 419
Wickham, Mr. Humphrey, collection, 214, 230
Wilde, Sir W. R., 37, 39, 40, 61, 65, 67, 101, 155, 170, 184, 252,
264, 293, 306, 311, 357, 360, 361, 364, 372, 389, 399, 410
Wilkinson, Sir Gardner, quoted, 5, 6, 185
Wilshe collection, 208
Wilson, Prof. Daniel, quoted, 58, 72, 99, 136, 137, 169, 176, 207,
209, 214, 272, 273, 337, 348, 354, 425, 432
Wilson, Rev. George, 167.
Wood preserved by salt, 152;
preserved by salts of copper, 160;
preserved by salts of iron, 157
Wooden hafts for celts, 144, 149, 150, 151, 155, 157;
handle of sickle, of yew, 195;
handle of knife, of yew, 207;
shafts for spears, of ash, 312, 313;
shafts for spears, of beech, 339;
shafts for spears, of bog-oak, 313;
sheath for dagger, 308;
sheath for dagger, apparently of willow, 233
Woodward Collection, 167
Worm, Dr. Olaf, quoted, 30
Worsaae, Councillor, quoted, 72, 163, 276, 298, 457, 478, 482
Wright, T., F.S.A., quoted, 9, 20, 37, 274, 400
Y
Yates, Mr. James, F.R.S., quoted, 36, 168
Young, Mr. A. Knight, collection, 296
INDEX,
GEOGRAPHICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL.
_See also “Hoards” and “Museums” in General Index_.
ENGLAND.
BEDFORDSHIRE.
Toddington, 321
Wymington, 113, 466
BERKSHIRE.
Ashdown, 322
Blewbury, 225
Cottle, 215
Fyfield, 322
Hagbourn Hill, 144, 322, 368, 466, 470, 471
Isis, near Little Wittenham, 343
Kennet and Avon Canal, 247
Newbury, 77, 81, 259, 308
Rowcroft, Yattendon, 242
Speen, 330, 333, 337
Sunningwell, 80
Sutton Courtney, 223
Thames, near Bray, 199
” near Maidenhead, 245
Thatcham, 247
Theale, 247
Wallingford, 87, 128, 167, 206, 219, 321, 457, 466
Wantage, 79
Windsor, 84, 113, 199, 281, 314, 340
Yattendon, 169, 403, 466
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE.
Buckinghamshire, 81
Hawridge, 279
Lodge Hill, Waddesdon, 111
Thames, near Datchet, 330, 333
Winslow, 380
CAMBRIDGESHIRE.
Aldreth, 279
Barrington, 78, 118, 128, 466
Bottisham, 79, 83, 88, 112, 314
” Lode, 92, 123, 175, 328
Burwell Fen, 74, 79, 82, 83, 113, 248, 258, 336, 378, 467
Cambridge, 94, 127, 179, 244, 281, 323, 371
Chatteris, 250
Coveney, Isle of Ely, 129, 248
” Fen, 328, 346
Downham Fen, 199
Duxford, 43
Ely, 91, 254
” Fens at, 53, 78, 121, 282, 286, 322
Fens, 43, 83, 90, 91, 93, 116, 122, 129, 245, 248, 317, 330
Fen Ditton, 123
Fordham, 254
Fulbourn, 279, 282, 320, 340, 464
Harston, 79
Isleham Fen, 327
Malton, 397
Manea, 270
March, 52
Matlow Hill, 366
Melbourn, 174, 389, 397, 466
Meldreth, 172, 201, 411, 424, 466
Mildenhall Fen, 78, 133
Newton, 111, 422
Quy Fen, 79, 316
Reach Fen, 79, 112, 118, 122, 133, 167, 174, 187, 205, 210, 211, 213,
216, 229, 283, 305, 314, 315, 317, 319, 396, 400, 467
Shippey, Ely, 79
Soham Fen, 245
Stretham Fen, 199
Swaffham Fen, 78, 259
Waterbeach, 245, 248, 250
Whittlesea, 131, 175, 179, 466
Wicken Fen, 76, 199, 205, 287, 464
Wisbech, 131
CHESHIRE.
Broxton, 91, 169, 331, 464
Grappenhall, 43
Wilmslow, 228, 238
CORNWALL.
Cornwall, 96, 116, 119, 135, 385, 419, 425, 426
Angrowse Mullion, 243
Camelford, 438
Falmouth, 426
Fowey River, 369
Harlyn, 42
Karn Bré, 32, 115, 119
Kenidjack Cliff, 95, 119, 423, 451, 467
Lanant, 206, 285, 340, 423, 451, 467
Launceston, 119
Mawgan, 116, 184, 250, 465
Penvores, 95
Penzance, 81
Redmore, 400
Rillaton, 407
St. Austell, 95
St. Hilary, 285, 423, 467
St. Michael’s Mount, 31
CUMBERLAND.
Cumberland, 322
Aspatria, 86
Camp Graves, Bewcastle, 314
Irthington, 85
Keswick, 93
Longtown, 73
Naworth Castle, 334
Wigton, 73
DERBYSHIRE.
Derbyshire, 175
Bakewell, 316
Biggen Grange, 168
Blakelow, 42
Borther Low, 42
Brassington Moor, 88, 228
Brier Low, 226
Brough, 122
Carder Low, 225, 226
Dow Low, 237
Duffield, 325
End Low, 225
Haddon Field, 190
High Low, 453
Lark’s Low, 190
Matlock, 42, 259
Middleton, 226
Minning Low, 190, 225
Moot Low, 44, 224
Narrowdale Hill, 228
Parcelly Hay, 225
Parwich Moor, 42
Peak Forest, 122
Shuttlestone, 42, 150
Stakor Hill, 392
Standlow, 231
Thor’s Cave, Walton, 385
Throwley, 190
Waggon Low, 190
Wardlow, 314
DEVONSHIRE.
Devonshire, 95
Bloody Pool, 338, 339, 465
Broad Down, Farway, 134
Chagford, 82
Drewsteignton, 86
Hammeldon Down, 228
Hennock, 250
Honiton, 113
Kent’s Cavern, 206
Knighton, 434
Lovehayne, 81
Plymstock, 50, 165, 241, 259, 464
Sidmouth, 47
Talaton, 250
Teigngrace, 316
Torrington, 244
Upton Pyne, 224
Winkleigh, 250
Worth, 254, 313, 402, 464
DORSETSHIRE.
Dorsetshire, 52, 206, 226, 233, 238, 377, 381, 393
Badbury, 250
Bere Regis, 242
Bincombe Down, 226
Blandford, 127, 175
Came, 242
Cranbourne, 282
Gussage St. Michael, 279
King Barrow, Wareham, 114
Maiden Castle, 237
Milton, 380, 432
Portland, Isle of, 115, 121, 285, 318, 333
Preston Down, 46
Purbeck, 94
Roke Down, 233
Spetisbury, 378
Wareham, 115
Weymouth, 279, 313, 419, 464
Winfrith, 81
Woodlands, 279
DURHAM.
Broomyholme, 351
Chester-le-Street, 116
Heathery Burn Cave, 110, 118, 166, 172, 175, 185, 206, 211, 219, 285,
314, 365, 372, 381, 386, 388, 391, 401, 402, 412, 424, 447, 451,
468
Medomsley, 285, 389
Stanhope, 118, 129, 174, 179, 315, 403, 466
Wolsingham, 76
ESSEX.
Essex, 403
Baddow Hall Common, 43
Barking Marshes, 110
Chelmsford, 90
Chrishall, 117, 283, 467
Fifield, 424
Gray’s Thurrock, 144
High Roding, 109, 116, 424, 468
Lea, at Stratford-le-Bow, 258
” River, 280
Mardyke, 254
Panfield, 468
Plaistow Marshes, 338
Romford, 86, 172, 424, 467
Stifford, 282
Thames, near Barking Creek, 284
Thames, near Erith, 122
Walthamstow, 317, 411
GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
Ablington, 241
Cirencester, 241
Kilcot Wood, Newent, 48
Meon Hill, 133
Nether Swell, 217
Severn, near Wainlodes Hill, 80
South Cerney, 81
Stanton, 73
Stroud, 272
Whittington, 45
HAMPSHIRE.
Arreton Down, Isle of Wight, 49, 243, 244, 257, 259, 260, 278, 464,
473
Ashey Down, 226
Bere Hill, 234
Blackmoor, 404
Fovant, 393
Hinton, 424
Liss, 54, 383
New Forest, 115
Woolmer Forest, 378, 383, 390, 464
HEREFORDSHIRE.
Aston Ingham, 250
Broadward, 168, 285, 319, 320, 336, 338, 340, 397, 465
Bucknell, 74
Oldbury Hill, 90
Ross, 91
St. Margaret’s Park, Hereford, 340
Weston, 78
HERTFORDSHIRE.
Hertfordshire, 314
Cumberlow, 94, 110, 134, 424, 467
Danesbury, 423, 468
Lea River, St. Margaret’s, 315
Royston, 424
Westwick Row, 112, 424, 468
Wigginton, 213
HUNTINGDONSHIRE.
Hammerton, 90
Horsey, 330
Taxley Fen, 43
KENT.
Kent, 129, 426
Allhallows, Hoo, 214, 230, 467
Ashford, 81, 82
Blean, 88
Buckland, 88
Canterbury, 114, 168
Chartham, 322
Chatham Dockyard, 74
” Hill, 83
Dover, 52
Harty, Isle of, 110, 111, 174, 177, 181, 186, 211, 214, 308, 403, 441,
442, 453, 457, 468
Haynes Hill, 297, 305, 320, 403, 467
Hundred of Hoo, 95, 466
Marden, 198, 208, 211, 308, 366, 381, 388, 450, 451, 467
Medway, Chatham Reach, 281
Medway, Upper Reach, 280
Minster, 129
Sittingbourne, 113, 174, 424, 467
Thames at Greenwich, 284
Thames off Woolwich, 351
Wateringbury, 109
Wye Down, 52
LANCASHIRE.
Lancashire, 87
Acker’s Common, 86
Cuerdale, 118, 314
Gleaston Castle, 43
Kirkland Cave, 168
Lancaster Moor, 224
Mow Road, Rochdale, 381
Read, 47
Risdon, 46
Winmarleigh, 118, 314, 335, 466
Winwick, 82, 124, 158, 224
LEICESTERSHIRE.
Beacon Hill, 43, 174, 321, 466
Leicester, 231
LINCOLNSHIRE.
Lincolnshire, 284, 390
Alnwick, Sleaford, 445
Billinghay, 282
Boston, 34, 89
Broughton, 216
Burringham Common, 352
Elsham, 80
Fleet and Gedney, Sea-dike between, 285
Flixborough, 465
Haxey, 89, 129, 465
Horncastle, 54
Langton, 323
Lincoln, 325
Nettleham, 86, 92, 131, 314, 330, 339, 465
Newport, 177
North Owersby, 85
Scothorn, 175
Sleaford River, 86
South Kyme, 248
Washingborough, 279, 447
West Halton, 113, 118, 120, 424, 467
Witham River, 287, 341, 363
MIDDLESEX.
Edmonton Marsh, 205, 330
Hampton Court, 328
Hounslow, 110, 128, 175, 210, 406, 451, 466
Kensington, 158, 174, 401, 424, 450, 467
London, 95, 214, 272, 356
Pentonville, 328
Teddington, 243
Thames, at Chelsea, 303
” between Hampton and Walton, 352
” near Isleworth, 52, 302
” at or near London, 84, 86, 125, 126, 158, 168, 198, 205, 211,
224, 247, 249, 280, 287, 303, 307, 312, 314, 322, 325, 333, 339,
345, 351, 400
” at Teddington, 303
” near Waterloo Bridge, 356
MONMOUTHSHIRE.
Castle Hill, Usk, 114
NORFOLK.
Norfolk, 52, 167
Attleborough, 77
Carlton Rode, 78, 94, 113, 119, 121, 122, 133, 167, 171, 173, 175,
178, 424, 467
Caston, 121
Dereham, 199
Eaton, 447, 468
Frettenham, 120
” Common, 131
Hanworth, 114
Helsdon Hall, 424, 467
Ingham, 319
Little Cressingham, 244
Methwold, 249
Ouse River, near Thetford, 250
Reepham, 466
Rougham, 73
Snettisham, 79
Stibbard, 84, 328, 457, 464
Stoke Ferry, 270, 282, 305, 314, 465
Sutton, St. Michael’s, 352
NORTHAMPTONSHIRE.
Northamptonshire, 90
Aston-le-Walls, 89
Aynhoe, 73
Brixworth, 285
NORTHUMBERLAND.
Northumberland, 46, 158
Alnwick, 43, 113, 285, 321, 391, 465
Blakehope, 335
Branton, 285
Cambo, 429
Cheswick, 241
Chollerford Bridge, 74
Corbridge, 248, 333, 351
Elford, 327
Ewart Park, 285
Ford, 244
Harwood, 352
Inghoe, 351
Linden, 76
Newbiggin, 43
Newcastle-on-Tyne, 351
Newham, 120
North Charlton, 237
” Tyne, 78
Rothbury, 389
Tosson, 285
Tyne, near Newcastle, 281
Wallington, 89, 333, 382, 465
Wallsend, 43
Whittingham, 280, 288, 314, 335, 464
NOTTINGHAM.
Colwick, 77
Gotam, 190
Gringley, 321
Newark, 118, 316, 402, 466
Nottingham, 93, 118, 211, 317, 322, 339, 465
OXFORDSHIRE.
Oxfordshire, 95
Burgesses’ Meadow, Oxford, 81, 169, 179, 467
Cherwell River, 287
Culham, 75, 320
Dorchester, 75, 76, 78, 83, 86, 93, 109, 112
Dyke Hills, 343
Freeland, 79
Isis, near Dorchester, 303
Isis, near Eynsham Bridge, 345
Sandford, 248, 284
Stanlake, 391
Stanton Harcourt, 88
Yarnton, 380
SHROPSHIRE.
Shropshire, 270
Bagley, 352
Battlefield, 43, 86, 405, 464
Broadward (_see_ Herefordshire)
Ebnall, 167, 174, 187, 466
Little Wenlock, 113, 234, 314, 336, 452, 465
Porkington, 168, 174, 466
Severn, near Buildwas, 282
Wrekin Tenement, 285, 338, 465
SOMERSETSHIRE.
Bath, 89, 114, 116
Camerton, 243, 369
Cheddar Valley, 96
Chilton Bustle, 368
Edington Burtle, 197, 249, 320, 325, 330, 377, 385, 391, 464
Hamden Hill, 389
Midsummer Norton, 279
Pen Pits, 377
Polden Hill, 353
Priddy, 217, 226
Quantock Hills, 77, 377, 447, 464
Sedgemoor, 119
Sherford, 90, 330, 464
Sparkford Hill, 167, 197
South Petherton, 96
Taunton, 116, 178, 198, 218, 367, 389, 466
Tiverton, 284
Wadsford, 328
Wedmore, 376, 378, 466
West Buckland, 96, 377, 386, 464
” Cranmore, 242
Wick Park, Stogursey, 120, 304, 423, 450, 467
Winterhay Green, 90, 384
Wraxall, 381
STAFFORDSHIRE.
Staffordshire, 31
Alton Castle, 282
Brewood, 86
Bushbury, 86
Castern, near Wetton, 385
Ilam Moor, 190
” St. Bertram’s Well, 42
Lady Low, 216, 224
Lett Low, 225, 226
Morridge, 86
Musdin, 240
Pattingham, 375
Shenstone, 285, 465
Stretton, 87
Thorncliff, 225
Wetton, 383,409
Yarlet, 321
SUFFOLK.
Suffolk, 48
Barrow, 54, 279
Barton Mere, 486
Boyton, 375, 391
Broomswell, Woodbridge, 90
Exning, 174, 394, 466
Fornham, 122
Hintlesham, 260
Honington, 91
Ipswich, 411
Lakenheath, 80, 125, 320, 322
” Fen, 330
Lark River, Icklingham, 282
Lidgate, 271
Martlesham, 113, 119, 120, 129, 174, 206, 424, 467
Mildenhall, 46, 78, 127, 306
Postlingford Hall, 48, 464
Sutton, 84, 87
Thetford, 122, 321
Thorndon, 174, 177, 189, 205, 319, 466
Ubbeston, 93
Undley, 175
Wetheringsett, 274, 282
Woolpit, 281, 328
SURREY.
Battersea, 245
Beddington, 110, 174, 320, 340, 423, 447, 468
Cæsar’s Camp, Farnham, 113, 250
Canada Wharf, Rotherhithe, 86
Ditton, 128, 245, 316, 319, 328
Farley Heath, 69, 169, 322
Guildford, 120
Kingston, 124, 126, 321
” Hill, 82, 423, 467
Thames at Battersea, 175, 278, 279, 281, 321, 327, 411
” Kingston, 84, 86, 125, 211, 248, 250, 254, 284, 338
” Lambeth, 330
” Richmond, 246
” Runnymede, 328
” Vauxhall, 248, 279
” Wandsworth, 130
” mouth of Wandle, 282, 316, 368
Wandle River, 81, 465
Wickham Park, Croydon, 95, 340, 423, 448, 468
SUSSEX.
Alfriston, 114
Battle, 280, 363
Beachy Head, 94, 283, 423, 467
Billingshurst, 81
Bognor, 80, 81
Bracklesham, 244
Brighton, 80, 115
Chichester, 81
Clayton Hill, 80
Eastbourne, 316
Firle, 369
Ham Cross, 385
Hangleton Down, 87, 322
Highdown Camp, 205
Hollingbury Hill, 76, 115, 378, 386, 390, 464
Hove, 243, 453, 486
Ilford, 81
Lewes, 53, 316, 369
Lewes and Brighton, between, 368
Plumpton Plain, 52, 110
Pulborough, 87, 119
Pyecombe, 318, 386
Storrington, 190
Waldron, 91
Westburton, 84
Wilmington, 87, 447, 468
Wolsonbury Hill, 84, 401
Worthing, 87, 423, 467
WARWICKSHIRE.
New Bilton, 245
Rugby, 179
Wolvey, 75, 86
WESTMORELAND.
Ambleside, 285, 465
Brough, 53
Crosby Garrett, 387
Harbyrnrigge, 270
Helsington Peat Moss, 246
WILTSHIRE.
Wiltshire, 110, 219, 440
Ablington, 242
Abury, 366
Aldbourn, 241
Amesbury, 233, 377, 390
Avebury, 400
Barrows, 51, 190, 191, 227, 230, 241, 242, 260, 322, 394
Beckhampton, 190, 322
Brigmilston, 226, 230, 336
Bulford, 190, 366
” Water, 143, 432
Bush Barrow, 44, 51, 232, 352
Cann, 118, 134, 470
Downton, 89, 91, 120
East Harnham, 83
” Kennett, 226
Everley, 147, 163, 242, 366
Fisherton, 248
Fovant, 242, 393
Golden Barrow, 189, 224
Great Bedwin, 272
Homington, 237
Idmiston, 237
Jack’s Castle, Stourton, 226
King Barrow, 190, 241
Lake, 166, 189, 242, 366, 385, 393
Mere Down, 223
Normanton, 366, 385
Overton Hill, 51, 134
Ramsbury, 87
Robin Hood’s Ball, 216
Rockbourn Down, 118
Roundway, 223, 242
Salisbury Plain, 369
Scratchbury, 369
Stonehenge, 47
” Barrow near, 189, 191, 226
Stourhead, 229
Sutton Verney, 394
Tun Hill, 114
Upton Lovel, 189, 366
Wilsford, 51, 226, 322, 366, 405
Winterbourn Stoke, 229, 241, 394
Winterslow, 216, 223
Woodyates Barrow, 236
Yatesbury, 226
WORCESTERSHIRE.
Astley, 81
Bevere Island, 42
Broadway Tower, 280
Castle Hill, 120
Holt, 129, 368
Ombersley, 88
Perdeswell, 381
Severn at Kempsey, 330
” near Worcester, 337
Stoke Prior, 384
YORKSHIRE.
Yorkshire, 44, 118, 129, 132, 189, 211, 226, 318, 422, 447, 471
Arras, or Hessleskew, 23, 134, 387
Bilton, 113, 129, 282, 314, 320, 465
Bishop Wilton, 227, 228
Bolton Percy, 88
Bramham Moor, 31
Bridlington, 400
Brigmilston, 230
Brompton, 76
Broughton in Craven, 217
Butterwick, 41, 151, 189, 224
Cawthorn, 227
Cayton Carr, 125
Cleveland, 447, 468
Cowlam, 387, 391, 400
Cundall Manor, 86
Driffield, 223
Earsley Common, 113, 134, 424, 468
Ebberston, 280, 285, 307
Embsay, 381
Fimber, 190
Frodingham, 113
Garton, 228, 230
Gembling, 127
Givendale, 127
Goodmanham, 392
Gristhorpe, 228
Helperthorpe, 227
Hotham Carr, 84, 92, 440, 468
Hull, 118
Humber River, 338
Keldholm, 452
Knapton, 43
Langton Wold, 189
Leeds, 242
Lowthorpe, 327
Middleham, 335
Middleton, 118
Morley, 328
Pickering, 227, 228
Raisthorp, 43
Ravenshill Barrow, 190
Reeth, 76
Roseberry Topping, 129, 172, 174, 178, 397, 424, 468
Rudstone, 224, 225
Scale House, Barrow near, 474
Seamer Carr, 124, 213
Sherburn Carr, 43
” Wold, 223
Stanwick, 314, 328
Tadcaster, 118, 158
Thixendale, 168
Three Tremblers, 240
Ulleskelf, 93, 132
Westow, 85, 118, 130, 168, 172, 174, 388, 450, 467
Wolds, 391, 473
Wykeham Moor, 366
CHANNEL ISLANDS, &c
ALDERNEY.
Alderney, 201
La Pierre du Villain, 214, 279, 397
Longy Common, 321, 467
GUERNSEY.
“La Roche qui sonne,” 385
ISLE OF MAN.
Broust in Andreas, 120
Castleton, 43
East Surby, 44
Kirk-bride, 120
Kirk-patrick, 120
Peel, 326
SCILLY ISLES.
Peninnis Head, 383
WALES.
North Wales, 78, 144
ANGLESEA.
Anglesea, 79, 391, 423
Bodwrdin and Tre Ddafydd, between, 438
Holyhead Mountain, 206
Llangwyllog, 81, 192, 219, 387, 389, 399, 400, 466
Llanidan, 82, 89
Llanvair Station, 86
Menai Bridge, 54, 86
Ty-Mawr, Holyhead, 129, 168, 315, 381, 389, 466
BRECKNOCKSHIRE.
Brecknockshire, 274
Hay, 77, 329
Keven Hirr Vynidd, 114
CAERMARTHEN.
Kidwelly, 95
CAERNARVON.
Bryn Crûg, 96, 223, 367
Danesfield, 90, 440
Glangwnny, 87
Moel Siabod, 351
Nantlle, 438
CARDIGANSHIRE.
Aberystwith, 351
Glancych or Pant-y-Maen, 285, 304, 315, 340, 389, 464
Pendinas Hill, 79
DENBIGHSHIRE.
Abergele, 144, 308, 404, 405, 471
Llandysilio, 93, 119, 206, 465
Rhosnesney, 55, 90, 226, 464
GLAMORGANSHIRE.
Glamorganshire, 282, 375
Corbridge, 86
Great Wood, St. Fagan’s, 119
Mynydd-y Glas, 119
New Forest, 205
Ogmore Down, 356
Pendoylan, 338
Pont Caradog, 43
Swansea, 43
MERIONETHSHIRE.
Merionethshire, 144
Barmouth, 285
Cader Idris, 375
Castell-y-Bere, 401
Cynwyd, 79
Dolgellau, 285
Harlech, 248, 345
Maentwrog, 248, 328, 465
Monach-ty-Gwyn, 77
Tomen-y-Mur, 226
Vronheulog, 93, 321
MONTGOMERYSHIRE.
Caersws, 81
Guilsfield, 87, 114, 174, 285, 302, 315, 336, 339, 424, 467
Llandrinio, 81
Llanfyllin, 78
Llanrhaiadar-yn-Mochnant, 380
Llan-y-Mynech Hill, 318
Trefeglwys, 322
RADNORSHIRE.
“Castle Tump, The,” Newchurch, 247
Llansanffraid, Cwm Deuddwr, 270
St. Harmon, 81
Woodhouse Farm, Knighton, 90
SCOTLAND.
Scotland, 97, 126, 166, 170, 238, 252, 289, 290, 291, 308, 424, 471
ABERDEEN.
Aberdeen, 289
Aboyne, 388
Alford, 430
Belhelvie, 378
Burreldale Moss, 97
Edengerach, 200
Forest of Birse, 136
Kintore, 57, 430
Lumphanan, 380
Memsie, 273
Methlick, 289
Redhill Premnay, 382
Strathdon, 388
Tarland, 57
Tarves, 290, 372, 465
Tullynessle, Lord Arthur’s Cairn, 97
Ythsie, 304
ARGYLESHIRE.
Argyleshire, 289
Barcaldine, 97
Callachally, Isle of Mull, 239
Campbelton, 207, 260, 437
Cleigh, 239
Irvine, 289
Kilmartin, 430
North Knapdale, 135
Southend, Cantire, 136
Strachur, 170
AYRSHIRE.
Ayrshire, 289
Caprington, 362
Coilsfield, 362
Kilkerran, 410
Lugtonridge, Beith, 348
Trochrig, 430
BANFF.
Alvah, 388
Colleonard, 56, 58
Conage, 382
Hill of Fortrie of Balnoon, 56
Longman, 59
BERWICKSHIRE.
Cockburnspath, 410
Corsbie Moss, 290, 464
Greenlees, 60
Windshiel, 98
BUTE.
Kingarth, 270
CAITHNESS.
Bowermadden, 372
Forse, 289
Kettleburn, Pict’s House near, 192
DUMBARTON.
Dumbarton, 391.
Old Kirk-patrick, 324
DUMFRIES.
Applegarth, 60
Birrenswark, 97
Drumlanrig, 55
Fairholm, 247, 322
Lochar Moss, 381
EAST LOTHIAN.
Preston Tower, 382
EDINBURGH.
Edinburgh, 289
Cobbinshaw, 56
Duddingston Loch, 289, 315, 335, 409, 424, 465
Edinburgh, 190, 289, 372, 401
” Arthur’s Seat, 136, 289
” Bell’s Mills, 135, 136
” Leith Citadel, 136
Gogar Burn, 304
Kinleith, 221
Lawhead, Farm of, 57
Ravelston, 56
ELGIN.
Sluie, 270
Urquhart, 378
FIFESHIRE.
Fifeshire, 289
Auchtermuchty, 247
Collessie, 239
Dams, 61
Dunino, 57
Falkland, 59, 269
Kilrie, 244
Pettycur, 99
St. Andrew’s, 218
FORFARSHIRE.
Forfarshire, 289
Brechin, 290, 465
Cauldhame, 304
Dean Water, 326
Denhead, 337
Forfar, 320
Leuchland, 289
Linlathen, 239
Loch of Forfar, 136
HADDINGTONSHIRE.
Bowerhouses, Dunbar, 220, 465
Corsbie Moss, 290
INVERNESS-SHIRE.
Ardgour House, 56
Benibhreæ, Hill of, 406
Craigton, 322
Kilmailie, 430
Skye, Isle of, 100, 209, 290
” Point of Sleat, 289, 315, 372, 465
South Uist, Iochdar, 289
KINCARDINE.
Kincardine, 289
KIRCUDBRIGHTSHIRE.
Balmaclellan, 315
Carlinwark Loch, 410
Crossmichael, 239
Kilnotrie, 98
Plunton Castle, 388
LANARKSHIRE.
Lanarkshire, 271, 289
Aikbrae, 99
Biggar, 55
Kerswell, 97
Carmichael, 273
Crawford, 330
Culter, 55, 226, 378
Douglas, 326
Hangingshaw, 136
Lanark, 315, 384
Tintot-top, Clydesdale, 98
MIDLOTHIAN.
Ratho, 57
Vogrie, 57
MORAYSHIRE.
Achtertyre, 136, 315, 382, 425, 468
Orton, 393
Rosele, 332
Sluie, 56, 58
NAIRN.
Nairn, 58
PEEBLES-SHIRE.
Peeblesshire, 59
Peebles, 97, 289
Stobo Castle, 384
PERTHSHIRE.
Abernethy, 56
Ardoch, 247
Blair Drummond, 248
Drumlanrick, 239
Kilgraston, 207
Kincardine, 289
Muthill, 388
Perth, 60
Pitcaithly, 246
Rannoch, 379
Tay River, 175
” near Errol, 199
ROSS-SHIRE.
Eddertoun, 394
Highfield, 336
Little Lochbroom, 379
Rosskeen, 137, 432
Wester Ord, 209
ROXBURGHSHIRE.
Roxburghshire, 336
Eildon, 57
Hawick, 331
Yetholm, 349
STIRLINGSHIRE.
Stirlingshire, 289, 336
Ballagan, 273
Bannockburn, 314
Graham’s Dyke, 289
Moss of Kincardine, 410
Stirling, 289
SUTHERLAND.
Balblair, 218
Inchnadamff, 57
Ledbeg, 200
Lieraboll, 218
Rogart, 218
WIGTONSHIRE.
Wigtonshire, 289, 331, 432
Balcarry, 98
Glen Kenns, 322
Glenluce, 167, 192, 224
Inch, 56
Kilfillan, 98
Leswalt, 56, 137
Moss of Cree, 56
Portpatrick, 135
Stranraer, 135, 270
IRELAND.
Ireland, 34, 39, 63, 90, 98 to 105, 128, 138, 140, 142, 170, 176, 179,
192, 205, 208, 212, 234, 247, 250, 254, 263, 291, 293, 296, 303,
314, 317, 318, 322, 324, 326, 328, 330, 331, 333, 336, 340, 368,
371, 387, 389, 393, 398, 405, 406, 410, 430, 432, 440, 471, 476
North of Ireland, 105, 207, 316, 318, 323, 329, 371, 435
ANTRIM.
Antrim, 100, 139, 239, 333, 339
Armoy, 68, 99, 100, 435
Ballycastle, 213
Ballyclare, 212
Ballymena, 105, 325, 428
Ballymoney, 142, 387, 389, 406, 433
Ballyscullion, 411
Bann River, 431
Belaghey, 170
Belfast, 139, 141
Broughshane, 433
Capecastle Bog, Armoy, 412
Carrickfergus, 67, 358, 430
Clough, 328, 402
Connor, 63
Craighilly, 139
Craigs, 212
Glenarm, 256
Killyless, 219
Kilraughts, 361
Knockans, 331
Lisburn, 142, 440
Newtown Crommolin, 141
Toome Bar, Lough Neagh, 352
Tullygowan, Gracehill, 67
ARMAGH.
Armagh, 254, 362
Lurgan, 332
Mullylagan, 296
CAVAN.
Cavan, 266, 387
Cornaconway, 361
Diamond Hill, Killeshandra, 361
Killeshandra, 251
Lough Ramer, 436
Thornhill, Killina, 282
CLARE.
Clare, 389
Inis Kaltra, Lough Derg, 401
CORK.
Ballincollig, 104
Ballybawn, 61
Cork, 140, 359
” and Mallow, between, 358
Crookstown, 361
Dunmanway, 358, 361
Inchigeela, 249
Kanturk, 171
DERRY (see Londonderry).
DONEGAL.
Letterkenny, 263
Raphoe, 256
DOWN.
Down, 139
Lurgan and Moira, between, 208
DUBLIN.
Dublin, 315, 317
Balbriggan, 142
Clontarf, 65
Dublin, 101, 315
Miltown, 103
FERMANAGH.
Ballinamallard, 61, 100
Belleek, 234
Bo Island, 180, 292, 466
Enniskillen, 324, 369
GALWAY.
Galway, 370
Athenry, 320, 345
Athleague, Bog of Aughrane, 207
Claran Bridge, Dunkellen, 436
Headford, 314
Keelogue Ford, 142, 306, 371
Lough Corrib, 431
KILKENNY.
Piltown, Iverk, 306
KERRY.
Aghadoe, 293
Chute Hall, Tralee, 358
Derrynane, 360
Killarney, 361
KING’S COUNTY.
King’s County, 61
Boyne River, near Edenderry, 155
Clonmacnoise, 379
Dowris, 176, 179, 211, 220, 293, 335, 360, 361, 410, 411, 412, 452,
468
LEITRIM.
Ballinamore, 236
LIMERICK.
Limerick, 361
Ballynamona, 352
Lough Gur, 313, 436
LONDONDERRY.
Londonderry, 141, 176, 215, 251
Balteragh, 207
Garvagh, 200
Lissane, 252
Maghera, 330, 435
Magherafelt, 244
Newtown Limavady, 268, 291
Portglenone, 361
LONGFORD.
Longford, 81
Carlea, 141
Lanesborough, 101
LOUTH.
Greenmount, Castle Bellingham, 63
MAYO.
Ballina, 141
MEATH.
Meath, 140
Athboy, 140
Dunshaughlin, 141
” Crannoge at, 236
Kells, 207
Trim, 67
MONAGHAN.
Monaghan, 220, 256
Farney, 409
Lisletrim Bog, 295
SLIGO.
Colloony, 246
Kilrea, 247
TIPPERARY.
Tipperary, 63, 253, 272
Burrisokane, 171
Clonmel, 323
Cloonmore, Templemore, 305
Cullen, 293, 296
Rathkennan Bog, 251
Roscrea, 266
TYRONE.
Arboe, 142
Ballygawley, 201, 268
Ballynascreen, 212
Dungannon, 358,
Galbally, 252
Terman, 324
Trillick, 61, 102, 140, 141, 180, 389, 399, 466
WESTMEATH.
Westmeath, 88, 100, 259
Athlone, 201, 314
Mullingar, 176
WEXFORD.
Slieve Kileta Hill, 266
FRANCE.
Gaul, 300, 426
France, 41, 83, 94, 95, 114, 119, 142, 281, 287, 297, 301, 369, 401,
403, 425, 480
France, North of, 19, 81, 116, 304, 379, 448, 480, 481, 483
France, North-west of, 81, 115
” South of, 57, 85, 131, 153, 234, 479, 484
Brittany, 117, 124, 135, 181, 223, 403, 412, 417, 419, 477
Normandy, 43, 79, 91
AIN.
Cormoz, 300, 301
AISNE.
Aisne, 250
ALLIER.
Ferté Hauterive, La, 458
Gannat, 20
AUDE.
Carcassonne, 390
Cascastel, 122
BOUCHES DU RHONE.
Bounias, Cave of, 223
CANTAL.
Aliès, 287
Mons, St. Flour, 307
CALVADOS.
Escoville, 86
Fresné la Mère, 180, 183, 189, 209, 375
COTE D’OR.
Alise Ste. Reine, 293, 315, 341
Auxonne, 356
Cosne, 300
Magny Lambert, 300
COTES DU NORD.
Lamballe, 116
Moussaye, Plénée-Jugon, 115, 116, 445, 477
DOUBS.
Doubs, 43, 172
Besançon, 293
DROME.
Beaurières, 458
Marsanne, 307
EURE.
Bernay, 77, 78, 81
Evreux, 52
Gasny, 77
Les Andelys, 79
EURE ET LOIRE.
Lutz, 122
FINISTERE.
Finistère, 43
Carnoël, 243
Kerhué-Bras, 238
Plonéour, 215, 405
GARD.
Uzés, 301
GIRONDE.
Langoiran, 97
HAUTES ALPES.
Hautes Alpes, 176
Rame, 238
Réallon, 458
Ribiers, 131, 184, 458
HAUTE ARIEGE.
Haute Ariège, 97
HAUTE LOIRE.
Haute Loire, 131
Cheylounet, 254
Polignac, 293
St. Jullien, Chapteuil, 215
HAUTES PYRENEES.
Tarbes, 97
HAUTE SAONE.
Haute Saône, 52
Auxonne, 248
ILLE ET VILAINE.
Rennes, 287
INDRE ET LOIRE.
Chatellier d’Amboise, 172
St. Genouph, 207, 401, 435
Tours, 448
ISERE.
Isère, 131
Grenoble, 88
La Balme, 131
Vienne, 55, 180
JURA.
Jura, 43, 131, 172, 293
Barésia, 307
Fonderie de Larnaud, 68, 131, 167, 176, 184, 192, 448, 456
Orgelet, 129
NORD.
Lille, 78
LOIRE INFERIEURE.
Marais de Donges, 238
Nantes, 180, 215, 281
” Loire at, 252, 339
Penhouët, 249
St. Nazaire-sur-Loire, 281
LOIR ET CHER.
Loir et Cher, 160
Billy, 432
Theil, 356
LOT.
Miers, 293
MAINE ET LOIRE.
Saumur, 123
MANCHE, LA.
Manche, La, 129, 215, 230
Cotentin, 448
La Parnelle, 398
MARNE.
La Gorge Meillet, 403
Lusancy, 109
MEURTHE.
Frouard, 458
MORBIHAN.
Morbihan, 445
L’Orient, 122
Questembert, 215, 449
Villeder, 86
OISE.
Beauvais, 171
Compiègne, 52, 304
Jonquières, 77
Mareuil-sur-Ourcq, 54
Noailles, 252
Pont-point, 131, 142, 176
St. Pierre-en-Châtre, 192
PAS DE CALAIS.
Chaussée Brunehault, 250
Hewelinghen, 238
PUY DE DOME.
Manson, 458
Royat, 41
RHONE.
Lyons, 52, 223
” Rhone at, 287
” Saône at, 441
SAONE ET LOIRE.
Chalon-sur-Saône, 180, 183
Macon, 441
SAVOIE.
Savoie, 95, 131, 172, 191, 305, 315, 341, 368, 484
Donsard, 210
Grésine, 230
Lac du Bourget, 129, 131, 180, 184, 387, 432, 449
SEINE.
Seine River, at Paris, 77, 157, 160, 176, 183, 201, 208, 221, 238,
243, 249, 272, 283, 313, 327, 398
SEINE ET OISE.
Seine et Oise, 281
Angerville, 180
Argenteuil, 279
SOMME.
Somme, 250
Abbeville, 91, 92, 335
Albert, 279
Amiens, 52, 157, 176, 183, 201, 206, 208, 249, 371, 398
Caix, 304
Dreuil, 109, 110, 129, 144, 176, 208, 283, 370, 393, 403, 404, 405
Somme Valley, 180
TARN.
Briatexte, 180, 215
Lavène, 215
VAUCLUSE.
Avignon, 131
VIENNE.
Notre-Dame d’Or, 176, 214, 221, 398, 441, 447
GERMAN EMPIRE.
Germany, 19, 52, 94, 95, 114, 153, 272, 287, 293, 298, 299, 315, 355
” North of, 80, 298, 315, 316, 379, 480 482, 483
” South of, 85, 161
” West of, 83, 479, 483
Hercinia, 31
Thuringia, 109
Baden, 85
Bohemia, 425
Brandenburg, 299
Hanover, 308
Hesse, 85
Mecklenburg, 112, 215, 363
Palatinate, 238
Pomerania, 116
Rhenish Hesse, 282
” Prussia, 85, 95, 481
Saxony, 419, 425
Silesia, 425
Benfeld, 143
Bingen, 353
Blengow, 262
Bonn, 85
Camenz, 202, 384, 390, 459
Eikrath, 448
Erxleben, 288
Giessen, 91
Gnadenfeld, 448
Göttingen, 77
Grossenhain, 459
Grünberg, 441
Kempten, 173, 176
Lämmersdorf, 184
Landshut, 85
Magdeburg, 298
Medingen, 441
Neu-Ruppin, 262
Oberwald-behrungen, 308
Pfaffenburg, 144
Polsen, 441
Schlieben, 173
Stade, 184
Stettin, 288
Vaudrevanges, 458
Watsch, 145
Zaborowo, 133
AUSTRIAN EMPIRE.
Austria, 40, 85
Dalmatia, 172, 183
Hungary, 40, 43, 119, 147, 158, 161, 180, 236, 272, 276, 318, 327,
419, 432, 450, 478, 482
Styria, 119, 355, 413
Agram, 177
Aninger, 131
Brasy, 308
Brixen, 355
Gratz, 288
Hallein, 152, 153
Hallstatt, 23, 25, 69, 95, 144, 157, 181, 184, 229, 274, 288, 293,
308, 342, 355, 389, 393, 394, 401, 403, 405, 409, 413, 485, 486
Korno, 308
Laibach, 246, 393, 428, 451
Macarsca, 172, 183
Mattrey, 355
Pressburg, 166
Przemysl, 180
Vienna, 246
HOLLAND.
Holland, 77
Deurne, 173, 176, 221
Düren, 133, 176
Emmen, 173
Groningen, 152
Masseyck, 82
Nymegen, 89
BELGIUM.
Bernissart, 215
Bevay, 116
Gédinne, 300
Maulin, 109
SCANDINAVIA.
Scandinavia, 147, 184, 191, 195, 234, 236, 252, 274, 287, 296, 298,
408, 474, 478, 481, 482, 486
NORWAY.
Norway, 419
DENMARK.
Denmark, 30, 40, 52, 54, 60, 69, 95, 134, 159, 163, 270, 286, 296,
298, 309, 315, 316, 340, 363, 372, 379, 451
Iceland, 71
Jutland, 30, 163
Hvidegaard, 309
Kallundborg, 296
Kongshöi, 301
Lydshöi, 309
Nydam, 159
Söborg, 272
Store-Hedinge, 151, 163
Treenhöi, 302
Vimose, 159, 195
SWEDEN.
Sweden, 40, 52, 129, 298, 419, 425, 432, 451
Gotland, 448
Smaaland, 196
Årup, 262
Hasslöf, 252
SWITZERLAND.
Lake-dwellings, 13, 86, 95, 150, 166, 167, 172, 180, 191, 208, 236,
280, 287, 297, 305, 315, 369, 370, 383, 395, 401, 403, 407, 408,
480, 484, 486, 487
Lake of Bienne, 180, 300, 431
” ” Locras, 422
Lake of Bienne, Mœrigen, 13, 114, 153, 172, 176, 180, 184, 195, 238,
437, 449
” ” Oefeli, 237
” ” Nidau, 221
” Geneva, 130, 183
” ” Eaux Vives, 180, 210, 215, 432
” ” La Tinière, 26
” ” Morges, 441, 456
” Luissel, 288
” Neuchâtel, Auvernier, 114, 131, 176, 180, 183
” ” Concise, 288
” Estavayer, 425
” Pfäffikon, Robenhausen, on, 150, 427, 456
Echallens, 131
Raron, 154
Sion, Valais, 260
Unter-Uhldingen, in the Ueberlinger See, 317, 427
ITALY.
Italy, 41, 52, 86, 104, 155, 160, 234, 241, 259, 271, 272, 274, 280,
287, 297, 315, 334, 341, 369, 403, 445, 480, 483, 484
Etruria, 39, 355, 394, 400, 412, 413, 425, 476, 481
Bologna, 104, 143, 172, 173, 176, 180, 183, 184, 185, 210, 217, 288,
341, 448
Alban Necropolis, 341
Castione, 153
Chiusi, 155, 480
Herculaneum, 32
Lake of Varese, 430, 437
Modena, 401
Sardinia, Island of, 426, 438
“Terramare,” 236, 434
SPAIN.
Spain, 19, 43, 90, 97, 161, 238, 271, 275, 279, 354, 419, 424, 425,
480
Asturias, 97
Ciudad Real, 43, 271
Niebla, 184
Oviedo, 97
Sierra de Baza, 97
PORTUGAL.
Portugal, 425
Estremadura, 143
GREECE.
Greece, 10, 160, 161, 297, 315, 318
Archipelago, 40
” Scyros, 18
” Santorin, 184
” Thermia, 40, 160
Dodona, 69
Mycenæ, 297
Salamis, 161
Thera, 297
MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES.
Mediterranean Countries, 478, 480, 483
RUSSIAN EMPIRE.
Russian Empire, 477
Finland, 299, 477
Siberia, 131, 143, 177, 477
Inwa, the, 263
Jelabugy, 336
Kertch, 143
Kiew, 124
Viatka, 263
Yenissei, the, 263
ASIA.
Asia, 310, 476
Asia Minor, Hissarlik, the presumed site of Troy, 40, 166, 224, 310,
438
Arabia, 318
” Sarbout-el-Khadem, 8
” Wady-Magarah, 8
” Wady-Nash, 8
Assyria, 147, 355
Cambodia, 142
China, 19, 263, 329
” Sanda Valley, Yunan, 142
Chorassan, 425
Cyprus, Island of, 40, 184, 310
” Tamassus, 14
India, Gungeria, 2, 40
Southern Babylonia, Tel Sifr, 9, 40, 211, 383
AFRICA.
Africa, 149, 181, 306, 340, 359, 387, 393, 451
Egypt, 6, 7, 8, 147, 261, 298, 318, 391, 419, 475, 480
” Great Kantara, 298
” Karnak, 6
” Thebes, 7, 185, 234
Mauretania, 354
AMERICA, NORTH.
America, North, 43, 383, 476
Mexico, 4, 43, 166
Wisconsin, 2
AMERICA, SOUTH.
Bolivia, 165
” La Paz, 148, 165
Chili, Copiapo, 145
Ecuador, 148
Peru, 4, 148, 165
” Lima, 166
OCEANIA, &c.
Australia, 263
Borneo, 340
Fiji, 359
Japan, 275
Java, 142
Madagascar, 340
Malacca, 424
New Caledonia, 263
South Sea Islands, 34
Works by the same Author.
THE COINS OF THE ANCIENT BRITONS, Arranged and described by JOHN
EVANS, F.S.A., F.G.S., Hon. Sec. Num. Soc. of London, and engraved by
F. W. FAIRHOLT, F.S.A. Medium 8vo, 26 plates, price 21_s._
J. RUSSELL SMITH. LONDON, 1864.
THE ANCIENT STONE IMPLEMENTS, WEAPONS, AND ORNAMENTS OF GREAT BRITAIN.
By JOHN EVANS, F.R.S., F.S.A., Hon. Sec. of the Geol. and Num. Socs.
of London, &c., &c., &c. Medium 8vo, 476 woodcuts, 2 plates, price
28_s._
LONGMANS & CO. 1872.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] See _postea_, p. 40.
[2] Butler, “Prehist. Wisconsin.”
[3] “Preh. Copper Impl.,” Boston, 1879.
[4] “Anc. Mon. of the Mississ. Valley,” p. 202.
[5] “Les Voyages du Sieur de Champlain,” Paris, 1613, pp. 246-7, cited
by Slafter, _op. cit._, p. 13.
[6] For notices of American copper instruments see, in addition to the
works already quoted, Wilson, “Prehist. Man,” vol. i. p. 205, &c.;
Lubbock, “Preh. Times,” p. 258, &c. See also an interesting article by
Dr. Emil Schmidt, in _Archiv. für Anth._, vol. xi. p. 65.
[7] A Peruvian chisel analyzed by Vauquelin gave ·94 of copper and ·06
of tin (Moore’s “Anc. Mineralogy,” p. 42).
[8] Ezra, ch. viii. v. 27.
[9] Exod., ch. xxvi. v. 37.
[10] Numbers, ch. xxxi. v. 22.
[11] Ch. xxviii. v. 1, 2.
[12] Genesis, ch. iv. v. 22.
[13] Smith’s “Dict. of the Bible,” _s. v._
[14] “Anc. Egyptians,” vol. iii. p.
[15] “Phönicier,” ii. 3.
[16] “Anc. Egyptians,” vol. iii. pp. 246, 247. See also “The Egyptians
in the Time of the Pharaohs,” p. 99.
[17] “Etudes sur l’Antiquité Historique d’après les sources
Egyptiennes,” &c., 1872, p. 69.
[18] “Catalogue de Boulaq,” pp. 247, 248; Chabas, p. 54. See also Emil
Soldi, “L’Art Egyptien,” 1879, p. 41.
[19] Catal., No. 5410.
[20] Day, “Preh. Use of Iron and Steel,” page 14.
[21] Day, _op. cit._, p. 32.
[22] Wilkinson, _op. cit._, vol. iii. p. 247.
[23] “Les Métaux dans les Inscrip. Egypt.,” 1877, p. 57.
[24] “Zeitsch. f. Ægypt. Sprache,” &c., 1870, p. 114.
[25] _Op. cit._, p. 67. Dr. Birch translates _ba en pe_ “heavenly wood”
or “stone” (_Arch._, vol. xxxviii. p. 377; _Hierog. Dict._). See also a
paper by the Rev. Basil Cooper in _Trans. Devon. Assoc._, vol. ii. p.
386, and Day, “Preh. Use of Iron and Steel,” p. 41.
[26] Chabas, _op. cit._, p. 47. Lepsius, _op. cit._, p. 57.
[27] “Photii Bibliotheca,” ed. 1653, col. 1343.
[28] “Herod.,” lib. ii. c. 152.
[29] _Trans. Ethnol. Soc._, vol. iv. p. 5.
[30] Soldi, “L’Art Egypt.,” p. 25.
[31] Χαλκεύειν δὲ καὶ τὸ σιδηρεύειν έλεγον, καὶ χαλκεάς, τοὺς τὸν
σίδηρον ἐργαζομένους (Julius Pollux, “Onomasticon,” lib. vii. cap. 24).
[32] “Lectures on the Science of Language,” 2nd S., 1864, p. 229;
Tylor’s “Anahuac,” 1861, p. 140.
[33] “Lectures on the Science of Language,” 2nd S., p. 231.
[34] “Studies on Homer and the Homeric Age,” vol. iii. pp. 498, 499.
[35] The reference is to Millin, “Minéralogie Homérique,” pp. 126, 132.
[36] “Metallurgy—Fuel, Fireclays, Copper,” &c., p. 6.
[37] Moore, “Anc. Mineralogy,” p. 57.
[38] _Rev. Arch._, N.S., vol. iv. p. 97; Æsch. Agamem., v. 612.
Professor Rolleston is inclined to refer the expression to the
“tempering” of bronze (_Trans. Brist. and Glouc. Arch. Soc._, 1878).
[39] Rossignol, “Les Métaux dans l’Ant.,” p. 238.
[40] “Æn.,” viii. 450.
[41] “Iliad,” xviii. 474.
[42] xi. 24.
[43] xi. 34.
[44] xviii. 574.
[45] “Il.,” xviii. 612.
[46] xxiii. 561. For these and other instances see Prof. Phillips in
the _Arch. Journ._, vol. xvi. p. 10.
[47] Desor et Favre, “Bel Age du Bronze,” p. 16.
[48] Holtzapffel, “Turning and Mechanical Manipulation,” vol. i. p. 271.
[49] “Æneid,” vii. 743.
[50] “Iliad,” iii. 363.
[51] “Il.,” iii. 348, vii. 259.
[52] M. Ch. Houssel in _Rev. Arch._, N.S., vol. iv. p. 98.
[53] “Il.,” xi. 24.
[54] _Arch. für Anthrop._, vol. viii. p. 295; Müller, “Fragm. Hist.
Græc.,” vol. i. p. 549.
[55] “Il.,” xiii. 612.
[56] “Odyss.,” i. v. 184.
[57] Plin. “Hist. Nat.,” lib. vii. c. lvi. 6.
[58] Lib. viii. c. 14, § 5.
[59] _Op. cit._, lib. iii. c. 12, § 8.
[60] Diodorus Siculus, lib. v. c. 64.
[61] Strabo, “Geog.,” lib. xiv. p. 935, ed. 1807.
[62] Callimachus, “Hymn. in Del.,” l. 31.
[63] “Anc. Stone Imp.,” p. 5.
[64] _Archiv für Anthrop._, 1880, vol. xii. p. 293.
[65] “Iliad,” lib. xxiii. v. 826.
[66] “Troad.,” 143.
[67] “Æn.,” lib. vii. 743.
[68] “Op. et D.,” i. 150. Τοῖς δ̓ ἧν χάλκεα μὲν τεύχεα χάλκεοι δέ τέ
οἶκοι
Χαλκῷ δ̓ ἐιργάζοντο, μέλας δ̓ ὀυκ ἔσχε
σίδηρος.
[69] Lib. v. 1282, _et seqq._
[70] “Juv. Mundi,” 1869, p. 26.
[71] “Scut. Hercul.,” v. 122-138.
[72] “Theogon.,” v. 161.
[73] “Op. et D.,” v. 741.
[74] “Olymp.,” od. i. 123; “Nem.,” od. x. 113, &c.
[75] Lib. i. c. 215.
[76] Lib. iii. c. 23.
[77] Lib. iv. c. 71.
[78] Lib. vii. c. 85.
[79] Lib. iii. p. 208, ed. 1707.
[80] Bochart’s “Phaleg.,” p. 208, cited in _Arch. Æliana_, vol. i. p.
52.
[81] “Anc. Stone Imp.,” p. 4.
[82] “Lacon.,” lib. iii. cap. iii.
[83] Herod., lib. i. c. 67.
[84] Plutarch, “Thes.,” p. 17, _c._ Ed. 1624.
[85] “Nat. Hist.,” lib. xxxiv. cap. 14.
[86] See “_Zeitsch. für Eth._,” vol. ii, 1870, p. 131.
[87] “Vit. Caii Marii,” 420, _b._
[88] “Bell. Gall.,” iii. 13; vii. 22.
[89] Lib. v. 12.
[90] _Trans. Ethnol. Soc._, vol. iv. p. 190. See also _Anthrop. Rev._,
vol. iv. p. 76.
[91] _Trans. Eth. Soc._, vol. v. p. 105; “Preh. Times,” 4th ed., p. 18.
[92] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xxii. p. 73.
[93] See Rossignol, “Les Métaux dans l’Ant.,” p. 205.
[94] Cochet, “Le Tombeau de Childéric,” i. p. 17.
[95] “Sammlung zu Sigmaringen,” p. 153.
[96] _Archiv. für Anthropol._, vol. viii. p. 161.
[97] _Archiv._, vol. ix. p. 127.
[98] _Op. cit._, p. 141.
[99] _Op. cit._, p. 185.
[100] _Arch. für Anthrop._, vol. ix. p. 181.
[101] _A. f. A._, vol. x. p. 27.
[102] _Arch. f. Anthrop._, vol. x. pp. 41, 63.
[103] Mortillet, “Fonderie de Larnaud,” 32, 33.
[104] _Trans. Brist. and Glouc. Arch. Soc._, 1878.
[105] Cap. xix. v. 24.
[106] P. 329, l. 23. NEQVE HIC ATRAMENTVM, VEL PAPYRVS, AVT MEMBRANA
VLLA ADHVC, SED MALLEOLO ET CELTE LITERATVS SILEX. This inscription is
said to have been found at Pola, in Istria.
[107] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. vii. p. 396.
[108] Rev. John Dow in _Archæol. Scot._, vol. ii. p. 199. See also
Pegge in the _Arch._, vol. ix. p. 88, and Whitaker’s “Hist. of
Manchester,” vol. i. p. 24.
[109] Epig. xxxiii. l. 1.
[110] Vol. iii. p. 418.
[111] P. 354.
[112] P. 265.
[113] “Itin.,” vol. iii. p. 7.
[114] “Britannia,” ed. 1637, p. 188.
[115] “Thoresby’s Correspondence,” vol. ii. p. 211.
[116] “Nat. Hist. of Staffordshire,” 1686, p. 403.
[117] “Mus. Lud. Moscard.”, Padua, 1656, fol. 305, lib. iii. c. 174.
[118] “Nat. Hist. of Staff.,” p. 403.
[119] P. 86.
[120] _Arch._, vol. v. p. 110.
[121] “Ants. of Cornwall,” p. 263.
[122] Count de Caylus has, however, engraved two which are said to have
been found at Herculaneum. He thought that they were chisels (_Rec.
d’Ant._, vol. ii. pl. xciii. fig. 2; xciv. fig. 1).
[123] Arch., vol. v. p. 106.
[124] Vol. ix. p. 84.
[125] “Nænia Britannica” (1793), p. 153.
[126] _Arch._, vol. xiv. p. 98.
[127] “Ancient Wilts,” vol. i. 1812, p. 203.
[128] _Arch._, vol. xix. p. 102.
[129] _Archæol. Scot._, vol. ii. p. 199.
[130] _Archæol. Æliana_, vol. i. p. 17.
[131] _Arch._, vol. xxviii. p. 418.
[132] _Arch. Journ._, vol. iv. pp. 1 and 327.
[133] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, 1853, vol. ix. p. 63.
[134] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xxii. p. 64.
[135] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 148, _et seq._
[136] _Jour. Roy. Un. Service Inst._, vol. xiii., 1869.
[137] P. 43, _et seqq._ 188.
[138] _See Revue de la Numis. Belge_, 5th Ser., vol. vi. p. 290.
[139] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 392.
[140] “Catal. Mus. R.I.A.,” pp. 367, 395 (Etruscan Coll., Berlin, No.
3244).
[141] “Horæ Ferales,” p. 136; _Arch. Journ._, vol. xi. p. 169.
[142] “Catal. M. R.I.A.,” p. 366.
[143] “Troy and its Remains,” p. 330, &c.
[144] “Cong. préh.,” Stockholm vol. i. p. 346. _Proc. As. Soc. Bengal_,
May, 1870.
[145] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 437.
[146] Kenner, “Arch. Funde,” 1867, p. 29.
[147] Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” fig. 178.
[148] “Cong. préh.,” Bologna vol. p. 292.
[149] “Cong. préh.,” Buda Pest vol. i. p. 227.
[150] _Bull. Soc. de Borda, Dax_, 1878, p. 57.
[151] “Cong. préh.,” Copenhagen vol. p. 484.
[152] Morlot, _Mém. Soc. Ant. du Nord_, 1866-71, p. 25.
[153] “British Barrows,” p. 188. The cut is Fig. 38.
[154] Figs. 369 and 370, p. 407.
[155] “Ten Years’ Diggings,” p. 34. “Catalogue,” p. 75. _Arch. Assoc.
Journ._, vol. vii. p. 217.
[156] Vol. vii. p. 217, pl. xix.
[157] Vol. xliii. p. 445.
[158] “Vest. of the Ants. of Derb.,” p. 48.
[159] P. 74, No. 11.
[160] See “Catal.,” p. 32, No. 29.
[161] _Arch._, vol. ix. p. 85.
[162] Vol. xxii. p. 277.
[163] “Nat. Hist. of Staffordshire,” tab. xxiii. p. 403.
[164] Allies, p. 151, pl. iv. 11.
[165] _Arch. Journ._, vol. vii. p. 179.
[166] _Op. cit._, vol. xviii. p. 158.
[167] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. i. p. 44.
[168] _P. S. A._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 251.
[169] Vol. v. pl. vii. i. p. 106.
[170] _Arch._, vol. ix. p. 378.
[171] Pl. ii. 1, 2, 3.
[172] “La Seine Inf.,” p. 552.
[173] “Matériaux,” vol. iv. p. 525.
[174] “Matériaux,” vol. v. pl. ii. 2, 3.
[175] “Die ehernen Streitkeile” (1842), Taf. i. 1.
[176] “First Rep. Arch. Comm. I. of Man,” pl. iv. 2.
[177] “Ancient Wilts,” vol. i. p. 202, pl. xxvi.
[178] _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 444.
[179] “Vest. Ant. Derb.,” p. 68. “Catal.,” p. 75, No. 18.
[180] “Grave-mounds,” fig. 187.
[181] Pl. iv. No. 4.
[182] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. i. pp. 235, 250.
[183] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xix. p. 363.
[184] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 159.
[185] _Arch._, vol. v. p. 135, pl. viii. 14.
[186] _Trans. Devon Assoc._, vol. v. p. 82.
[187] 3rd edit., 4to, 1818, pl. ii.
[188] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 1st S., vol. i. p. 83; _Arch._, vol. xxxi. p.
496; _Proc. Bury and West Suff. Arch. Inst._, vol. i. p. 26.
[189] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. i. p. 369.
[190] Vol. xxxvi. p. 329.
[191] _Arch._, vol. v. p. 113.
[192] For the loan of these cuts I am indebted to Mr. A. W. Franks,
F.R.S.
[193] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxvi. p. 346. The scale of the cuts is there
erroneously stated to be ½.
[194] “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 202, pl. xxvi; _Arch._, vol. xliii. p.
444.
[195] “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 209, pl. xxix.
[196] “Anc. Wilts,” vol. ii. p. 90; _Cran. Brit._, xi. 7, where these
objects are figured.
[197] _Suss. Arch. Coll._, vol. ii. p. 268.
[198] Chantre, “Album,” pl. iv. 2, 3. “Cong. préh.,” Bologna vol. p.
352.
[199] _Dict. Arch. de la Gaule._ _Rev. Arch._, N.S., vol. xiii. Pl. i.
fig. H.
[200] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxi. 100. Lubbock’s “Preh. Times,” p. 28,
fig. 17.
[201] Lisch, “Fred. Francisc.,” tab. xiii. 7.
[202] Die ehernen Streitkeile, Taf. i. 5.
[203] “Oldsag. fra Broholm,” pl. xxiii. 6.
[204] “Afbild.,” vol. ii. pl. xxi. 6.
[205] Montelius, “La Suède préh.,” fig. 42. “Cong. préh.,” Bologna vol.
p. 292.
[206] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 428, pl. i. fig. 1.
[207] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 167. Chichester vol. of _Arch.
Inst._, p. 62, whence this cut is taken.
[208] _Arch. Camb._, 4th S., vol. viii. p. 207.
[209] “Afbild.,” vol. ii. pl. xxi. 2.
[210] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xii. p. 278, xviii. p. 167.
[211] _Dict. Arch. de la Gaule._
[212] 4th S., vol. vi. p. 70. Cat. p. 1.
[213] “Album,” pl. iii. 1.
[214] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvii. p. 20.
[215] Ibid.
[216] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. iii. p. 245.
[217] _P. S. A. S._, vol. iv. p. 187, and ix. p. 431.
[218] _P. S. A. S._, vol. iv. p. 380.
[219] _P. S. A. S._, vol. ix. p. 182.
[220] _P. S. A. S._, vol. ix. p. 430.
[221] _Arch. Scot._, vol. iii. App. II. p. 32; _P. S. A. S._, vol. ix.
p. 431.
[222] “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” 2nd ed., vol. i. p. 381.
[223] Vol. ii. p. 6.
[224] _Op. cit._, p. 7.
[225] _P. S. A. S._, vol. ix. p. 428.
[226] “Matériaux,” vol. v. pl. ii. 6, 7.
[227] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. vii. p. 105.
[228] _P. S. A. S._, vol. iii. p. 245.
[229] “Preh. Ann.,” 2nd ed., vol. i. p. 381.
[230] Engraved in _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvii. pl. vi. 4, p. 21.
[231] _P. S. A. S._, vol. vi. p. 41.
[232] “Itin. Septent.,” p. 116, pl. 1. No. 1.
[233] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. xii. p. 601. I am indebted to the
Council for the use of this cut.
[234] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. viii. p. 5.
[235] Madsen, “Afbild.,” vol. ii. pl. xxi. 7. See also “Ant. Tidsk.,”
1861-3, p. 24.
[236] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. xii. p. 602.
[237] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. xiii. p. 120. I am indebted to the
Council for the loan of this cut.
[238] Wilde, p. 361.
[239] Vol. xxvii. p. 308.
[240] _Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 410. For the use of this cut I am
indebted to Mr. A. W. Franks, F.R.S.
[241] See Wilde, Fig. 249, 266.
[242] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xi. p. 295.
[243] See Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 389 _et seq._; “Vallancey,”
vol. iv. pl. x. 9.
[244] Chantre, “Album,” pl. 1. 9, 10.
[245] _Nord. Oldsager_, No. 176.
[246] Carapanos, “Dodone,” pl. liv. 7.
[247] Vol. vii. p. 74.
[248] London, 1849, p. 25.
[249] P. 59.
[250] See Nilsson, “Skandinaviska Nordens Ur-Invånare,” p. 92.
[251] “Preh. Ann.,” 2nd ed., vol. i. p. 382.
[252] Baker’s “Hist. of North.,” p. 558.
[253] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 373, fig. 258.
[254] _Arch. Journ._, vol. v. p. 324.
[255] _Dict. Arch. de la Gaule._
[256] _Arch. Camb._, 4th S., vol. ii. p. 21.
[257] “Horæ Ferales,” pl. iv. 25.
[258] _Arch. Camb._, 4th S., vol. viii. p. 209.
[259] _Arch. Camb._, 4th S., vol. v. p. 13.
[260] Meyrick’s “Cardigansh.” and “Ancient Arm.,” by Skelton, pl.
xlvii. 1.
[261] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xxxiii. p. 118.
[262] _Dict. Arch. de la Gaule._
[263] “La Seine Inf.,” p. 272.
[264] Lindenschmit, “Alt. uns. heidn. Vorz.,” vol. i. Heft. i. Taf. iv.
43.
[265] Vol. ii. p. 268, No. 11.
[266] _Arch._, vol. x. pl. x. 2, p. 132.
[267] _Arch. Journ._, vol. ix. p. 8.
[268] “Horæ Ferales,” pl. iv. 26.
[269] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 38.
[270] Allies, “Worc.,” p. 112, pl. iv. 4.
[271] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxvii. pl. x. No. 3, p. 163.
[272] _Suss. Arch. Coll._, vol. xvii. p. 255.
[273] _Suss. Arch. Coll._, vol. xxvii. p. 183.
[274] _S. A. C._, vol. xxix. p. 134.
[275] _Trans. Dev. Assoc._, vol. ii. p. 647.
[276] “Montgom. Collections,” vol. iii. p. 435.
[277] “Alt. u. h. Vorz.,” vol. i. Heft i. Taf. iv.
[278] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. i. p. 82.
[279] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xv. pl. xxv. p. 236; vol. xiv. p. 269.
[280] 3rd Series, vol. xiii. p. 283.
[281] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, N.S., vol. iv. p. 442.
[282] “Itin. Cur.” Cent., ii. pl. xcvi.
[283] _Arch. Inst._, Norwich vol. p. xxvi.
[284] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. iii. p. 58; _Arch. Journ._, vol. vi.
p. 381.
[285] “Alt. u. h. Vorz.,” vol. i. Heft i. Taf. iv. 48.
[286] Von Braunmühl, “Alt. Deutschen Grabmäler” (1826), pl. i. 3;
Schreiber, “Die ehern. Streitkeile,” Taf. i. 13, Taf. ii. 14.
[287] _Dict. Arch. de la Gaule._
[288] “Alt. u. h. Vorz.,” vol. i. Heft i. Taf. iv. 49.
[289] “La Vie Souterraine,” “Matériaux,” vol. iii. p. 100.
[290] Keller, 6ter Bericht, Taf. vii. 30; 7ter Ber., Taf. ix. 30.
[291] “Les Palafittes,” fig. 40.
[292] _Bull. di Palet. Ital._, vol. i. p. 10, Tav. I. 9.
[293] _Arch. Journ._, vol. v. p. 327.
[294] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxix. p. 96.
[295] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xiv. p. 346.
[296] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xvii. p. 164.
[297] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 158.
[298] Plot’s “Nat. Hist. of Staffordsh.,” p. 403.
[299] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xiii. p. 85.
[300] _Arch. Journ._, vol. x. p. 63.
[301] _Arch. Journ._, vol. x. p. 73.
[302] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 412.
[303] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 129.
[304] _Arch. Journ._, vol. x. p. 248.
[305] _Arch. Journ._, vol. ix. p. 302.
[306] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 159.
[307] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 251.
[308] P. 112, fig. 37.
[309] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, N.S., vol. iv. p. 442.
[310] “It. Cur.” Cent., ii. pl. xcvi.
[311] _Suss. Arch. Coll._, vol. xiv. p. 171; _Arch. Journ._, vol. xx.
p. 192.
[312] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 251; _Arch. Camb._, 3rd
S., vol. x. p. 214; “Montgom. Coll.,” vol. iii. p. 437.
[313] Vol. v. p. 113.
[314] Ibid.
[315] _Suss. Arch. Coll._, vol. viii. p. 268.
[316] _Arch._, vol. vii. p. 417.
[317] Vol. ix. p. 84, pl. iii. 1.
[318] “Album,” pl. ix. 4.
[319] Allies, p. 108, pl. iv. 3.
[320] _Arch. Camb._, 3rd S., vol. xiii. p. 283.
[321] Vol. xix. pl. viii. p. 102.
[322] _Arch._, vol. xiv. p. 94.
[323] Pring, “The Brit. and Rom. on the site of Taunton,” p. 76, pl.
iii.
[324] Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 381, fig. 273.
[325] _Arch. Camb._, 3rd S., vol. ii. p. 130.
[326] 4th Ser., vol. vi. p. 20.
[327] Ibid., p. 71.
[328] “La Seine Inf.,” p. 14.
[329] “A. u. h. V.,” vol. i. Heft i. Taf. iv. 44.
[330] _Suss. Arch. Coll._, vol. ix. p. 366.
[331] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 160, whence this cut is reproduced.
[332] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd. S., vol. i. p. 332.
[333] _Arch. Journ._, vol. viii. p. 99, and Private Plate.
[334] _Arch. Camb._, 4th S., vol. viii. p. 209.
[335] _Arch._, vol. xxxi. p. 494; _Arch. Journ._, vol. ii. p. 80;
_Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. i. p. 51; Smith’s “Coll. Ant.,” vol. i. p.
105; “Catal. Norwich Mus.,” No. 9.
[336] _Journ. Anthrop. Inst._, vol. vi. p. 195.
[337] _Arch._, vol. xvi. p. 363, pl. lxviii.
[338] _Arch._, vol. v. p. 117. See Borlase, “Ant. of Cornw.,” pl. xx. 6.
[339] _Arch. Cant._, vol. xi. p. 123.
[340] _Journ. Roy. Inst. of Cornw._, No. 21.
[341] Oldsager, fig. 184.
[342] “Alt. u. h. V.,” vol. i. Heft i. Taf. iv.
[343] Von Sacken, “Das. Grab. v. Hallst.,” Taf. vii.
[344] _Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 188.
[345] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. ix. p. 186.
[346] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xiii. p. 85.
[347] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xii. p. 96.
[348] Borlase, “Næn. Corn.,” p. 188.
[349] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 398.
[350] _Arch. Journ._, vol. ix. p. 387; vol. x. p. 247; vol. xxvii. p.
230.
[351] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxxvii. p. 107. For the use of this cut I am
indebted to the Council of the Royal Archæological Institute.
[352] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxv. p. 246.
[353] “Matériaux,” vol. xiv. p. 192.
[354] Vol. vi. p. 69, 369.
[355] Gongora y Martinez, “Ant. preh. de Andal.,” p. 110. _Arch.
Journ._, xxvii. p. 237.
[356] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxvii. p. 230.
[357] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. v. p. 30; Wilson’s “Preh. Ann.,”
fig. 58.
[358] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvii. p. 21.
[359] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. vi. p. 203.
[360] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. xi. p. 153.
[361] Wilson’s “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” vol. i. p. 382, fig. 56; “Cat.
Ant. Mus. Ed.,” E. 48.
[362] Vol. ii. pp. 8 and 9.
[363] _Arch._, vol. v. p. 113, pl. viii. No. 2; Gough’s “Camden,” vol.
i. p. ccvi.
[364] Gordon’s “Itin. Septent.,” p. 116, pl. 6.
[365] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvii. p. 21; Wilson, “Preh. Ann. of
Scot.,” vol. i. p. 383.
[366] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvii. p. 21.
[367] “Itin. Septent.,” p. 116, pl. l. 4.
[368] _Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 377; “Cat. Mus. Arch. Inst. Ed.,” p.
27; Wilson, “Preh. Ann. Scot.,” vol. i. p. 386.
[369] “Catal.,” p. 521, fig. 394.
[370] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 373, fig. 258.
[371] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 373, fig. 262.
[372] _Op. cit._, p. 373, fig. 259.
[373] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 373, fig. 260.
[374] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 379, fig. 270.
[375] Vallancey, vol. iv. pl. x. 7.
[376] Vol. iv. pl. x. 2.
[377] P. 381, fig. 273.
[378] P. 379, fig. 265.
[379] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 377, fig. 263.
[380] “Catal.,” p. 433, No. 641.
[381] Vol. iv. pl. x. 1.
[382] “Recueil d’Antiq. Suisses,” pl. ii. 6. See also _Arch. Journ._,
vol. vi. p. 377; vol. xxi. p. 100.
[383] “Die eher. Streitkeile,” Taf. ii. 8.
[384] “Recueil d’Ant.,” pl. xciv. 1.
[385] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 382, fig. 274; _Arch. Journ._, vol.
ix. p. 194.
[386] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. iii. p. 222.
[387] “Catal.,” p. 521, fig. 393; _Arch. Journ._, vol. viii. p. 91, pl.
No. 1.
[388] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. iii. p. 156.
[389] Vol. iv. pl. x. 6.
[390] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 521, fig. 397.
[391] “Matériaux,” vol. iii. p. 395.
[392] “Alt. u. h. V.,” vol. i. Heft ii. Taf. ii. 5.
[393] “Cong. préh.,” Bologna vol. p. 293.
[394] “Age du Br.,” ptie. i. p. 59.
[395] _Journ. Anthrop. Inst._, vol. vi. p. 195.
[396] “Surrey Arch. Soc. Coll.,” vol. vi.; Anderson’s “Croydon Preh.
and Rom.,” p. 11, pl. ii. 1.
[397] _Suss. Arch. Coll._, vol. ii. p. 268, fig. 8.
[398] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 408; “Cong. Préh.”
Stockholm vol., 1874, p. 444.
[399] “Pfahlbauten, in M.,” 1865, p. 78.
[400] _Arch. Journ._, vol. x. p. 69.
[401] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. v. p. 349; Bateman, Catal. M. 60, p.
76.
[402] Stukeley, “It. Cur.,” pl. xcvi. 2nd.
[403] _Arch._, vol. v. p. 113.
[404] _Arch._, vol. v. p. 114.
[405] Hartshorne’s “Salopia Antiqua,” 1841, p. 96, No. 9.
[406] Smith’s “Coll. Ant.,” vol. i. p. 101.
[407] Engraved in _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxvi. p. 343.
[408] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. i. p. 67; 2nd S., vol. i. p. 83.
[409] “The Barrow Diggers,” p. 74.
[410] Gross, “Deux Stations, &c.,” pl. i. 15, 18.
[411] _Arch. Camb._, 3rd S., vol. x. p. 214, No. 4; “Montg. Coll.,”
vol. iii. p. 437.
[412] _Arch. Camb._, _ubi sup._ No. 3.
[413] _Arch._, vol. iv. p. 24, pl. i. 6.
[414] _Arch._, vol. v. p. 114, pl. viii. 9, 10; Gough’s “Camden,” vol.
i. p. ccvi.
[415] _Suss. Arch. Coll._, vol. ii. p. 268, fig. 7.
[416] Ibid., fig. 12.
[417] _Arch._, vol. xvii. p. 337.
[418] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xvii. p. 75.
[419] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. vii. p. 172.
[420] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xvii. p. 75.
[421] “Matériaux,” vol. i. p. 539.
[422] Lindenschmit, “Alt. u. h. Vorz.,” vol. i. Heft ii. Taf. ii. 4.
[423] “Zeitsch. für Eth.,” vol. vii. Taf. ix. 2.
[424] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxxvii. p. 94. Pring, “Brit. and Rom. on
Site of Taunton,” pl. i. 1.
[425] Neville’s “Sepulchra Exposita,” p. 3.
[426] _Arch._, vol. xvi. p. 362, pl. liv.; _Arch. Journ._, vol. iv. p.
6.
[427] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xx. p. 107, pl. vii. 5; see also vol.
iii. p. 58.
[428] _Op. cit._, vol. viii. p. 332, pl. xxxvii. 1; _Proc. Soc. Ant._,
vol. ii. p. 304.
[429] “Horæ Ferales,” pl. v. 7.
[430] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. ix. p. 185.
[431] _Op. cit._, vol. xv. p. 235.
[432] _Arch. Æliana_, vol. i. p. 13, pl. ii. 8.
[433] Evans’ “Anc. Brit. Coins,” p. 102.
[434] _Arch. Journ._, vol. x. pp. 69, 70.
[435] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. i. p. 332.
[436] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 132.
[437] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. i. p. 59.
[438] _Suss. Arch. Coll._, vol. ix. p. 118, fig. 7.
[439] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 31.
[440] “Horæ Ferales,” pl. v. 6.
[441] _Journ. Roy. Inst. Corn._, No. 206.
[442] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 427, pl. i. 3.
[443] _Arch. Journ._, vol. x. p. 69.
[444] Allies, “Worc.,” p. 18, pl. i. 1.
[445] “1st Rep. Arch. Comm. I. of M.,” pl. iv. 1.
[446] “Matériaux,” vol. v. pl. ii. 11.
[447] Bateman’s “Catalogue,” p. 74; Marriott’s “Ant. of Lyme” (1810),
p. 303.
[448] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 157.
[449] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xv. pl. xxiv. 7, p. 236; Arch.
Journ., vol. xv. p. 158.
[450] Chantre, “Age du Bronze,” 2me partie, p. 284, fig. 81; _Mém. des
Ant. du Nord_, 1872-7, p. 115.
[451] Chantre, “Age du Bronze,” 2me partie, p. 292, fig. 138.
[452] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. i. p. 106.
[453] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. ii. p. 101; 2nd S., vol. i. p. 83. See
also _Arch._, vol. xxx. p. 491; and _Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. i. p. 21.
[454] Engraved also in “Horæ Ferales,” pl. v. 5.
[455] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., v. p. 428.
[456] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. 398.
[457] This is possibly the specimen mentioned in _Proc. Soc. Ant._,
vol. iv. 303.
[458] Vol. v. 109, pl. vii. 5.
[459] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. v. p. 349; Bateman’s Catal., p. 76,
No. 60.
[460] _Arch. Scot._, vol. iv. 55; _Arch. Æliana_, vol. ii. p. 213.
[461] Allies, p. 149, pl. iv. 6.
[462] “Album,” pl. x. 4.
[463] _Op. cit._, pl. lv. 8.
[464] _Mém. Soc. Ant. Norm._, 1827-8, pl. xvi. 4.
[465] “Cong. préh.,” Bologna vol. p. 293.
[466] _Arch. Æliana_, vol. i. p. 13, pl. ii. 7.
[467] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxiv. 255, pl. fig. 3.
[468] Chantre, “Age du Br.,” 1re ptie. p. 59; Desor, “Les Palafittes,”
fig. 39.
[469] _Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 378, whence this cut is borrowed.
[470] Perrin, “Et. préh. de la Sav.,” pl. x. 4, 5; “Exp. Arch. de la
Sav.,” 1878, pl. vi. 210; Chantre, “Album,” pl. lv. 3.
[471] Chantre, “Album,” pl. x. 2.
[472] _Op. cit._, pl. xl. bis. 3.
[473] Gross, “Deux Stations,” pl. i. 17.
[474] “Matériaux,” vol. xiv. pl. ix. 10.
[475] “Matériaux,” vol. i. p. 463.
[476] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 160, whence this and fig. 157 are
borrowed.
[477] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. iv. 153; Arch. Inst., Norwich vol. p.
xxvi.
[478] Vol. viii. p. 91. The length is erroneously stated to be about 4
inches in a subsequent volume (vol. xviii. p. 164).
[479] Vol. viii. 91.
[480] “Nat. Hist. Staff.,” p. 404, pl. xxxiii. 7.
[481] _Arch._, vol. v. pl. viii. 23, p. 118.
[482] “Zeitsch. für Eth.,” vol. vii. Taf. viii. 4.
[483] _Journ. Anth. Inst._, vol. vi. p. 195.
[484] _Arch._, vol. v. pl. viii. 7, p. 114.
[485] Segested, “Oldsag. fra Broholm,” pl. xxiii. 8.
[486] “Anc. Wilts,” vol. ii. p. 90.
[487] _Arch._, vol. xliii. 443.
[488] _Trans. Dev. Assoc._, vol. iv. p. 300, pl. ii. 1.
[489] Evans, “Anc. British Coins,” p. 102.
[490] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 156; Arch. Inst., York vol.
Catal., p. 27.
[491] “Barrow Diggers,” 1839, p. 72.
[492] For the use of these cuts I am indebted to the Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland.
[493] “Ayr and Wigton Coll.,” vol. ii. p. 10.
[494] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. vii. p. 196.
[495] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. ix. p. 435.
[496] “Preh. Ann. Scot.,” vol. i. pp. 351, 384.
[497] _P. S. A. S._, vol. ii. p. 153.
[498] _P. S. A. S._, vol. xii. p. 209.
[499] _P. S. A. S._, vol. iv. p. 396.
[500] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvii. pl. xi. 5, p. 111.
[501] “Preh. Ann. Scot.,” vol. i. p. 384, fig. 61.
[502] “Collections,” vol. ii. p. 11.
[503] Vol. iv. pl. ix. 3, 4, 6.
[504] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 392, fig. 306.
[505] P. 385, fig. 279.
[506] Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 385, fig. 280. This cut is
kindly lent by the Council.
[507] Engraved in _Journ. Roy. Hist. and Arch. Assoc. of Ireland_, 4th
Ser. vol. v. p. 259.
[508] Fig. 282.
[509] Fig. 284.
[510] P. 429.
[511] P. 384, fig. 275.
[512] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. xi. p. 170.
[513] P. 521, fig. 398.
[514] Vol. iv. pl. ix. 7.
[515] Report on “Expedit. to Western Yunan,” Calcutta, 1871, p. 414.
[516] “Arch. du Mus. d’Hist. Nat. de Toulouse,” vol. i. pl. vi. 6.
[517] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xiv. p. 91. For the use of this cut I am
indebted to Mr. A. W. Franks, F.R.S.
[518] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iv. p. 13; _Arch. Journ._, vol.
xxxi. p. 262; _Mém. des Ant. du Nord_, 1872-7, p. 116, &c.
[519] “Die ehern. Streitkeile,” Taf. ii. 12.
[520] _Trans. Ethn. Soc._, N. S., vol. vii. p. 45.
[521] “Cong. préh.” Copenhagen vol. p. 352.
[522] Vol. xvi. p. 348.
[523] 3rd S., vol. i. p. 250.
[524] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 518.
[525] Von Sacken, “Grabf. v. Hallst.,” Taf. vii.
[526] Deschmann und Hochstetter, “Präh. Ansied. u. Begr. stätt. in
Krain.,” 1879, Taf. xvi.
[527] _Rev. Arch._, vol. xxiii. p. 257, pl. viii.
[528] See “Matériaux,” vol. v. p. 376.
[529] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xxiii. p. 293, pl. xv.
[530] “Matériaux,” vol. v. p. 379, pl. xix. 7.
[531] “Preh. Times,” p. 29. For other examples see Klemm, “Allgem.
Culturwiss.,” vol. i. p. 100.
[532] “Lake Dwellings,” Eng. ed., p. 110, pl. x. 16. See also xi. 2,
and xxviii. 24; and Lindenschmit, “Hohenz. Samml.,” Taf. xxix. 4.
[533] “British Barrows,” p. 188.
[534] “Ten Years’ Diggings,” p. 35.
[535] Cited in Schreiber’s “Die ehernen Streitkeile,” Freiburg, 1842,
p. 4.
[536] See Lisch, “Frederico-Francisceum,” p. 38.
[537] “Antiquiteiten,” iii. Stück, p. 285.
[538] “Allgemeine Culturwissenschaft,” pl. i. fig. 186, p. 105.
[539] Strobel in _Bull. di Palet. Ital._, Anno i. (1875), p. 7, Tav.
i.; Anno 4to (1878), p. 46 Tav. ii.
[540] Keller, “7ter Bericht,” Taf. xxiv. 17.
[541] See Lindenschmit, “A. u. h. V.,” vol. i., Heft. i. Taf. iv. 32.
[542] _Arch._, vol. xix. p. 102, pl. viii. 6.
[543] “Ancient Armour,” by Skelton, vol. i. pl. xlvii.
[544] _Arch. Journ._, vol. iv. p. 4.
[545] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 367.
[546] Leland’s Itin., Hearne’s ed., vol. i. p. 145.
[547] P. 370, fig. 257.
[548] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xv. pl. xxv. p. 236; _Arch. Journ._,
vol. xviii. p. 159.
[549] _A. A. J._, vol. xiv. p. 269.
[550] _Arch. Journ._, vol. x. p. 161.
[551] _Arch._, vol. xvi. p. 362; _Arch. Journ._, vol. iv. p. 6; Klemm,
“Allg. Kult. gesch.,” p. 107.
[552] “Nydam Mosefund,” 1859-1863. Copenhagen, 1865.
[553] “Vimose Fundet” af C. Engelhardt, 1869, p. 29.
[554] Westropp in _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 335.
[555] _Arch. Journ._, vol. iv. p. 4, fig. B.
[556] _Revue Arch._, vol. xxix. p. 73, pl. iii. 2.
[557] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 436.
[558] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxi. p. 100.
[559] _Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 369.
[560] _Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 69.
[561] Lib. xix. v. 573. See also Lib. v. v. 235.
[562] While speaking of French celts, I may refer to a short Paper
on the method in which they were hafted, written by the late M.
Penguilly-l’Haridon.—_Rev. Arch._, 2nd S. vol. iv. p. 329.
[563] Ep. 20, lib. 4. See _Arch._, vol. xxx. p. 492.
[564] “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 182, pl. xxi.
[565] “Prim. Ant. of Denmark,” p. 26.
[566] “Vimose Mosefundet,” p. 28.
[567] “Anc. Stone Imp.,” p. 207.
[568] See _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxvi. p. 346. I am indebted to Mr. A. W.
Franks, F.R.S. for the use of this cut.
[569] “Troy and its Remains,” p. 332.
[570] _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 467.
[571] “Anales del Museo de Mexico,” vol. i. p. 117.
[572] _Somerset Arch. and Nat. Hist. Proc._, 1856-7, vol. vii. p. 27.
[573] Chantre, “Album,” pl. xliii.
[574] Keller, 7ter Bericht, Taf. ix. 34, 35.
[575] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxii. p. 167; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S.,
vol. iii. p. 66.
[576] _Arch. Journ._, vol. ii. p. 80; _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. i. p.
59.
[577] _Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 381, 408; _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol.
iii. p. 5.
[578] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxiv. p. 253.
[579] Bateman’s “Catalogue,” p. 74, No. 8; “Vest. Ant. Derb.,” p. 8.
[580] _Arch. Journ._, vol. vii. p. 195.
[581] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. vii. p. 480.
[582] “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” vol. i. p. 381, fig. 54.
[583] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. xii. p. 613.
[584] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 520.
[585] Pl. v. 43, 44.
[586] Vol. viii. p. 91.
[587] _Arch. Journ._, vol. ii. p. 80; _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. i.
pp. 57, 59; Smith’s “Coll. Ant.,” vol. i. p. 105; _Arch._, vol. xxxi.
p. 494; “Horæ Ferales,” pl. v. 40.
[588] _Arch. Journ._, vol. ix. p. 303.
[589] _Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 382. See also _Arch. Assoc. Journ._,
vol. iii. p. 58, fig. 4.
[590] “Matériaux,” vol. v. pl. ii. 12.
[591] _Exp. Arch. de Savoie_, 1878, pl. xxi. No. 3; pl. vi. 215, 216;
Perrin, “Et. Préh. de la Sav.,” pl. x. 8.
[592] Chantre, “Album,” pl. x. 7.
[593] Ibid. No. 5.
[594] Keller, 6ter Bericht, Taf. ix. 38; 7ter Ber., Taf. vii. 2, 3, 5,
&c.; Desor, “Les Palafittes,” fig. 46.
[595] Desor and Favre, “Le Bel Age du Br.,” pl. i. 7.
[596] “Cong. Préh.,” Copenhagen vol. p. 485.
[597] Jannsen’s “Catal.,” No. 21.
[598] Schreiber, “Die ehern. Streitkeile,” Taf. ii. 11.
[599] “Alt. u. h. Vorz.,” vol. i. Heft v. Taf. iii.
[600] Taf. ii. 10.
[601] “Freder. Francise.,” Tab. xxxiii. 5.
[602] Lindenschmit, Taf. xlii. 7.
[603] _Arch. Journ._, vol. ii. p. 80; _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. i. p.
51,59; “Horæ Ferales,” pl. v. 42.
[604] _Arch. Journ._, vol. x. p. 3; “Horæ. Fer.,” pl. v. 36.
[605] _Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 381, 408; _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol.
iii. p. 58.
[606] _Arch. Scot._, vol. iv. p. 55, pl. vii. 5; _Arch. Æliana_, vol.
ii. p. 213, pl. iv. c.
[607] _Arch. Journ._, vol. x. p. 3.
[608] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xi. p. 294.
[609] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. iv. p. 323.
[610] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxii. p. 167; “Horæ Ferales,” pl. v. 35.
[611] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 232.
[612] Smith’s “Coll. Ant.,” vol. i. p. 101; _Arch. Journ._, vol. ii. p.
81.
[613] _Arch. Æliana_, vol. i. p. 13, pl. ii. 12.
[614] “Surrey Arch. Soc. Coll.,” vol. vi.
[615] _Arch. Journ._, vol. vii. p. 195.
[616] _Arch. Camb._, 3rd S., vol. x. p. 214; “Montgom. Coll.,” vol.
iii. p. 437.
[617] “Horæ Ferales,” pl. v. 39.
[618] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. v. p. 127.
[619] “Preh. Ann. Scot.,” vol. i. p. 388.
[620] Vol. iv. p. 335, pl. iii. 1, 2, 3, 4.
[621] Pl. v. 37, 38, 41.
[622] “Horæ Ferales,” pl. v. 38.
[623] Vol. iv. pl. ix. 5.
[624] “Horæ Ferales,” pl. v. 34; _Rev. Arch._, N.S., vol. xiii. pl. ii.
x.
[625] Pl. x. 6, and xl. 5. See also _Mém. Soc. Ant. Norm._, 1828-9, pl.
xvi. 16.
[626] “Deux Stations Lacustres,” pl. iv. 34. Keller, 7ter Bericht, Taf.
vii. 4; Desor and Favre, “Le Bel Age du Br.,” pl. i. 5.
[627] “Alt. u. h. Vorz.,” Heft. v. Taf. iii. 9, 10; “Hohenzoll.
Samml.,” pl. xlii. 7.
[628] _Mém. Soc. Ant. du Nord_, 1872-7, p. 118.
[629] Vol. xxvii. p. 142.
[630] _Arch. Journ._, vol. x. p. 3; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol.
iii. p. 66, where it is engraved full size; “Horæ Ferales,” pl. v. 33.
[631] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxxvii. p. 94; Pring, “Brit. and Roman
Taunton,” pl. i. 2.
[632] _Arch. Scot._, vol. iv. p. 55, pl. vii. 4; _Arch. Æliana_, vol.
ii. p. 213, pl. iv. b.
[633] _Arch. Æliana_, vol. i. p. 13, pl. ii. 13.
[634] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 129; “Horæ Fer.,” pl. v.
32.
[635] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 66.
[636] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 65.
[637] “Matériaux,” vol. xiv. pl. ix. 6.
[638] Chantre, “Age du Br.,” 1ère ptie. p. 38.
[639] “Matériaux,” vol. v. p. 452.
[640] Parenteau, “Le fondeur du Jard. des Plantes;” “Matériaux,” vol.
v. p. 190, pl. viii. 10.
[641] “Exp. Arch. de la Sav.,” 1878, pl. v.; Chantre, “Album,” pl. v.
1.; Perrin, “Et. Préh. sur la Sav.,” pl. x. 6, 7, xix. 17.
[642] Keller, 7ter Bericht, Taf. vii. 9.
[643] Desor et Favre, “Le Bel Age du Br.,” pl. i. 9; Gross, “Deux
Stations,” pl. iii. 22.
[644] Desor, “Les Palafittes,” fig. 47.
[645] “Afbild.,” vol. ii. pl. 13, 15.
[646] Evans, “Anc. Brit. Coins,” pl. xii. 6.
[647] “Grabfeld von Hallstatt,” pl. xix. 11, p. 89.
[648] Wilde, “Catal. Stone Ant. in R. I. A. Mus.,” p. 81.
[649] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 401.
[650] “Age du Br.,” ptie. i. p. 39.
[651] Keller, 7ter Bericht, Taf. vii. 8; Gross, “Deux Stations,” pl.
iii. 28.
[652] “Catal. Mus. Soc. Ant.,” p. 16; _Arch._, vol. xvii. p. 337.
[653] E. Chantre, “Album” pl. xxv. No. 5.
[654] Chantre, “Album,” pl. xliii.
[655] Keller, 7ter Bericht, Taf. vii. 11.
[656] Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” figs. 157, 158; “Cong. préh.,” Stockholm
vol., 1874, p. 494.
[657] “Comptes Rend. de l’Ac. des Sc.,” 1871, vol. ii. p. 476.
[658] “Catal.,” p. 597, No. 96.
[659] E. Chantre, “Age du Bronze,” 1ère ptie. p. 87.
[660] Von Sacken, “Das Grabf. v. Hallst,” pl. xix. 12.
[661] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 127.
[662] “Anc. Egyptians,” vol. iii. p. 224, fig. 375.
[663] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xxxvi., p. 59.
[664] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 66; _Arch. Journ._, vol.
xxii. p. 167.
[665] Vol. xliii. p. 464.
[666] Vol. i. p. 99, pl. xi. The cut is from the _Arch._, vol. xliii.
p. 466.
[667] Pl. xxx. 3.
[668] _Arch._, vol. xv. p. 122, pl. iv. 5.
[669] _Arch. Journ._, vol. x. p. 3.
[670] “British Barrows,” _passim_.
[671] _Op. cit._, p. 138.
[672] “Stonehenge,” p. 45, pl. xxxii.
[673] _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 465, fig. 163.
[674] _Suss. Arch. Coll._, vol. i. p. 55.
[675] “Ten Years’ Dig.,” p. 85.
[676] “Vest. Ant. of Derb.,” p. 41.
[677] “Vest. Ant. of Derb.,” p. 82.
[678] Smith’s “Coll. Ant.,” vol. i. p. 60, pl. xxi. 3.
[679] “Ten Years’ Dig.,” p. 155.
[680] _Lib. cit._, p. 106.
[681] “Vest. Ant. of Derb.,” p. 104.
[682] “Reliquary,” vol. ix. p. 67.
[683] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 3.
[684] Vol. i. p. 122, pl. xv. No. 3.
[685] “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 164, pl. xvii.
[686] Wilde’s “Catal.,” p. 597.
[687] Chantre, “Alb.,” pl. lxiii.
[688] Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” figs. 274, 276; Nilsson, “Nordens
Ur.-Invånare,” figs. 55, 57.
[689] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxii. p. 74.
[690] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. i. p. 266; _Arch. Journ._, vol. x.
p. 218.
[691] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 547.
[692] “Ayr and Wigton Coll.,” vol. ii. p. 14.
[693] Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 403.
[694] Chantre, “Age du Br.,” 1ère ptie. p. 87.
[695] “Anc. Stone Imp.,” p. 320.
[696] Macrob. “Saturn.,” v. c. 19.
[697] “Met.,” vii. 224.
[698] “Æn.” lib. iv. 513.
[699] “Nat. Hist.,” xviii. c. 30.
[700] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxx. p. 192.
[701] Keller, 7ter Bericht, Taf. vii. 1.
[702] See Lubbock’s “Preh. Times,” p. 513.
[703] “Vimose Fundet,” 1869, p. 26.
[704] “Aarböger for Oldkynd.,” 1867, p. 250.
[705] _Somerset Arch. and Nat. Hist. Proc._, 1854, vol. v. p. 91.
[706] _Op. cit._, 1856-7, vol. vii. p. 27.
[707] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxxvii. p. 94. Pring, “Brit. and Roman
Taunton,” pl. i. 3.
[708] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xiv. p. 258, pl. 13, No. 1.
[709] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iv. p. 85.
[710] 2nd S., vol. v. p. 95.
[711] _Arch. Journ._, vol. viii. p. 191.
[712] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. vii. p. 378.
[713] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. vii. p. 376.
[714] Vol. xvi. p. 206, cited by Wilson, “Preh. Ann.,” vol. i. p. 401.
[715] “Catal.,” p. 527.
[716] “Coll. de Reb. Hib.,” vol. iv. pl. x. 4, p. 60.
[717] Fig. 406. Compare “Horæ Ferales,” pl. x. 19.
[718] _Arch. Journ._, vol. ii. p. 186. See also _Dublin Penny Journ._,
i. p. 108: “Horæ Ferales,” pl. x. 18.
[719] Vol. iii. p. 9.
[720] 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 333.
[721] “Samml. zu Sigmar.,” Taf. xli.; “Alt. u. h. Vorz.,” vol. i. Heft
xii. Taf. ii.
[722] “Avanzi Prerom.,” 1863, Tav. ii. 6, 7.
[723] “Nuovi Cenni,” 1862, Tav. iv. 17, 18.
[724] “Samml. zu Sigmar.,” Taf. xli.
[725] Stevens, “Flint Chips,” p. 157.
[726] See Evans, “Anc. Stone Imp.,” p. 256.
[727] Vol. vii. p. 302.
[728] Vol. xxxiv. p. 301.
[729] “Anc. Armour,” pl. xlvii. 11.
[730] _Arch._, vol. xlii. p. 75, pl. viii. 22.
[731] Vol. xv. p. 118, pl. ii.; “Catal. Mus. Soc. Ant.,” p. 16.
[732] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxiv. p. 254.
[733] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 132; _Arch. Journ._, vol.
xix. p. 359. This cut is lent by the Society.
[734] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. iv. p. 303.
[735] “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” vol. i. p. 390.
[736] _Op. cit._, p. 402.
[737] “Catal.,” p. 465.
[738] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 250: _Arch._, vol. xxxvi. p. 330:
“Horæ Ferales,” pl. x. 29.
[739] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xiv. p. 258.
[740] “Preh. Ann.,” vol. i. p. 400; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. viii.
p. 310. The cut is here reproduced by permission of Messrs. Macmillan.
[741] Vol. viii. p. 310.
[742] Chantre, “Album,” pl. vi. 2.
[743] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 229.
[744] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. i. p. 332.
[745] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xiv. p. 258.
[746] “Catal.,” p. 467, fig. 355.
[747] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 269 (woodcut).
[748] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 503, figs. 387, 388, 389.
[749] “Preh. Ann. Scot.,” vol. i. p. 402.
[750] _Arch. Cant._, vol. xi. p. 125, pl. c. 14.
[751] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. iii. p. 9.
[752] Parenteau, “Matériaux,” vol. v. pl. viii. 16.
[753] 3rd S., vol. vi. p. 138.
[754] “Anc. Stone Imp.,” p. 304, fig. 255.
[755] “Matériaux,” vol. xiv. pl. ix. 4.
[756] “Ann. du cercle Arch. de Mons,” 1857, pl. i. 6.
[757] “Matériaux,” vol. xiv. p. 489.
[758] Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” fig. 160.
[759] Lisch, “Freder. Francisc.,” tab. xvii. 10.
[760] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 301. For the use of this
cut I am indebted to the Council of the Society.
[761] “Freder. Francisc.,” tab. xviii. 14.
[762] Vol. xliii. p. 450, pl. xxxii. 5.
[763] _Arch._, vol. xliii. pl. xxxii. fig. 4.
[764] _Arch. Journ._, vol. viii. p. 346.
[765] “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. pp. 67, 176, 238, pl. xxxii. 1.
[766] _Arch._, vol. xliii. pl. xxxii. fig. 8.
[767] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xvi. p. 152.
[768] Thoresby’s “Catal.,” in Whitaker’s ed. of “Ducat. Leod.,” p. 114.
[769] “British Barrows,” p. 446.
[770] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. x. p. 434.
[771] Greenwell, “Brit. Barrows,” p. 446.
[772] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. vii. p. 476. For the use of this
cut, as well as figs. 268, 271, 272, and 273, I am indebted to the
Society.
[773] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. x. p. 431.
[774] P. 116, pl. l. 8 (1726).
[775] Vol. xxxvii. p. 95. See also Pring, “Brit. and Rom. Taunton,” pl.
i. 4.
[776] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxii. p. 74; _Arch. Camb._, 3rd S., vol.
xii. p. 97; _Arch._, vol. xliii. pl. xxxii. 7.
[777] _Arch._, vol. xliii. pl. xxxii. 6.
[778] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. x. p. 440; “Catal.,” p. 83, No. 182.
[779] P. 549, fig. 433.
[780] _Arch. Journ._, vol. iii. p. 47.
[781] Jannsen’s “Catal.,” No. 209.
[782] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. v. p. 84; vol. x. p. 441. I am
indebted to the Society for the use of this and the following cut.
[783] See Keller, 5ter Bericht, Taf. xvi.
[784] See Chantre, “Age du Br.,” 1ère partie, p. 76.
[785] _Mém. de la Soc. des Ant. de l’Ouest_, 1844, pl. ix. 10.
[786] _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 450, fig. 154, from which this cut is
copied; “Wilts. Arch. Mag.,” vol. iii. p. 186; “Cran. Brit.,” pl. 42,
xxxii. p. 3.
[787] “Anc. Stone Imp.,” p. 381, fig. 355.
[788] _Arch._, vol. xliii. pl. xxii. 2, 3, p. 449.
[789] Hoare’s “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. 44, pl. ii.
[790] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxv. p. 246.
[791] Chantre, “Age du Br.,” 1re partie, p. 91; Cazalis de Fondouce,
“Allées couv. de la Provence,” pl. iv. 1.
[792] Vol. xiv. p. 491.
[793] Vol. xxxiv. pl. xx. 8, p. 255.
[794] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvi. p. 295, pl. xxv. 9.
[795] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xxi. p. 160.
[796] _Trans. Devon. Assoc._, vol. iv. p. 643.
[797] “Vest. Ant. Derb.,” p. 51; _Arch. Journ._, vol. i. p. 247;
Bateman’s “Catal.,” p. 4.
[798] “Ten Years’ Digg,” p. 163; “Catal.,” p. 19.
[799] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 45.
[800] “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 99, pl. xi.
[801] “British Barrows,” p. 265.
[802] “Ayr and Wigton Coll.,” vol. ii. p. 12.
[803] “Troy and its Remains,” p. 330.
[804] “British Barrows,” p. 186.
[805] “British Barrows,” p. 264, fig. 125; “Anc. Stone Imp.,” p. 284.
[806] _Arch. Journ._, vol. v. p. 282; _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvi.
p. 249.
[807] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. vii. p. 217; Bateman’s “Catal.,” p.
15; “Ten Years’ Dig.,” p. 34.
[808] “Vest. Ant. Derb.,” pp. 61, 63, 66, 68, 90, 96; “Ten Years’
Dig.,” pp. 21, 24, 34, 39, 57, 91, 113, 115, 119, 148, 160, 163; “Cran.
Brit.,” pl. 13, xxii. 2.
[809] “Ten Years’ Dig.,” p. 245; _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xviii. p.
42.
[810] “Ten Years’ Dig.,” p. 119.
[811] _Op. cit._, pp. 57, 113.
[812] Greenwell, “Brit. Barrows,” p. 360, n.
[813] M.S. Minutes of Soc. Ants., 1784, p. 51, cited in Warne’s “Celtic
Tumuli of Dorset,” pt. iii. p. 7.
[814] _Arch. Journ._, vol. v. p. 323.
[815] _Arch. Inst._, Salisb. vol. p. 97.
[816] Stukeley’s “Stonehenge,” p. 45, pl. xxxii.
[817] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxiv. p. 16; _Arch. Camb._, 3rd S., vol.
xiv. p. 241.
[818] _Arch. Inst._, Salisb. vol. p. 110; _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxiv. p.
29.
[819] Hoare’s “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 39, pl. i.; _Archæol._, vol.
xliii. p. 452.
[820] “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 209.
[821] “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 185.
[822] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xvi. p. 148, 151.
[823] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. x. p. 164.
[824] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvii. p. 21.
[825] _Arch. Camb._, 4th S., vol. vi. p. 71.
[826] _Archæol._, vol. xliii. pl. xxxiii. fig. 4.
[827] Ibid., fig. 3.
[828] Ibid., fig. 5.
[829] “Ten Years’ Dig.,” pp. 21, 115, 119.
[830] _Archæol._, vol. ix. p. 94, pl. iii.
[831] “Ten Years’ Dig.,” p. 206.
[832] _Op. cit._, p. 226.
[833] _Arch._, vol. xliii. pl. xxxiii. 6.
[834] “British Barrows,” p. 207. This specimen has since been
presented, with the rest of the Greenwell Collection, to the British
Museum.
[835] “Catal.,” p. 1; “Vest. Ant. Derb.,” p. 39.
[836] “Catal.,” p. 12; “Vest. Ant. Derb.,” p. 98.
[837] “Ten Years’ Dig.,” p. 226.
[838] _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 441.
[839] “Cran. Brit.,” 52, 4; “Reliquary,” vol. vi. p. 4.
[840] Vol. xvi. pl. 25, fig. 5, p. 288.
[841] _Trans. Devon. Assoc._, vol. v. p. 555, pl. ii.
[842] “Ancient Wilts,” vol. i. p. 124, unpub. pl. xv. B; _Arch._, vol.
xliii. p. 503, fig. 196.
[843] “Ancient Wilts,” vol. i. p. 201, pl. xxv. 4; _Arch._, vol. xliii.
p. 458.
[844] “Exp. Arch. de la Sav.,” 1878, pl. xii. 357.
[845] “Mém. Soc. Ant. Norm.,” 1827-8, pl. xix. 4, 5.
[846] _Arch. Cant._, vol. xi. p. 125, pl. c, 18.
[847] “Ancient Wilts,” vol. i. p. 185, pl. xxiii.; _Arch._, vol. xliii.
p. 458, pl. xxxiv. 2.
[848] Bateman, “Vest. Ant. Derb.,” p. 68.
[849] _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 462, pl. xxxiv. 3.
[850] “Ancient Wilts,” vol. i. p. 202, pl. xxvii. 2.
[851] _Arch._, vol. xliii. pl. xxxv. 1.
[852] “Anc. Stone Imp.,” p. 203, fig. 154.
[853] Douglas, “Nenia,” p. 153, pl. xxxiii. fig. 3.
[854] “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 207.
[855] _Op. cit._, p. 194.
[856] _Arch._, vol. xliii. pl. xxxiv. 1.
[857] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 1st S., vol. i. p. 75.
[858] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. ii. p. 98; vol. xv. p. 228.
[859] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. ii. p. 100.
[860] _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 459.
[861] “Celtic Tumuli of Dorset,” pl. ii. p. 17.
[862] Hartshorne’s “Salop. Ant.,” p. 96, No. 7.
[863] Bastian und A. Voss, “Die Bronze schwerter des K. Mus.,” Taf.
xvi. 31; Wilkinson’s “Ancient Egyptians,” vol. i. p. 320. Another
dagger with a hilt is figured at p. 23.
[864] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 458, fig. 334; “Horæ Ferales,” pl.
vii. 14.
[865] _Proc._, 4th S., vol. ii. p. 196.
[866] Vallancey, “Coll.,” vol. iv. p. 61, pl. xi. 4; Gough’s “Camden,”
vol. iv. pl. xviii. 4; Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 467, fig. 354;
“Horæ Fer.,” pl. vii. 13.
[867] _Arch. Journ._, vol. x. p. 161.
[868] Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 466, fig. 353.
[869] Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 463, fig. 346.
[870] “Cong, préh.,” Stockholm vol., 1874, p. 521; Keller’s
“Lake-dwell.,” Eng. ed., pl. xli. 5.
[871] Strobel, “Avanzi Preromani,” 1863, Tav. ii. 35; Gastaldi, “Nuovi
Cenni,” 1862, Tav. ii. 7.
[872] “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 239, pl. xxxiv.
[873] _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 455.
[874] P. 74, pl. ii. fig. 3.
[875] Gross, “Deux Stations,” pl. iv. 3.
[876] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. iv. p. 329; “Horæ Ferales,” p. 158, pl.
vii. 21; _Arch._, vol. xliii. pl. xxxiii. 1.
[877] “Vest. Ant. Derb.,” p. 96; _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 461, fig. 161.
[878] _Arch._, vol. xxx. p. 332, pl. xvii. 8; “Celtic Tumuli of
Dorset,” pt. iii. p. 46 pl. x. d, e.
[879] _Arch. Journ._, vol. v. p. 322.
[880] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvi. p. 288, pl. 25, fig. 6.
[881] “Matériaux,” vol. xiii. p. 155.
[882] _Rev. Arch._, vol. xxxiii. p. 231.
[883] Gross, “Deux Stations,” pl. iv. 4.
[884] “Matériaux,” vol. xv. p. 289.
[885] “Ant. Preh. de Andalusia,” pp. 97, 105.
[886] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. x. pp. 84, 459. I am indebted to
the Council of the Society for the use of this and the following cut.
[887] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. xii. p. 449.
[888] _Op. cit._, vol. xii. p. 439.
[889] _P. S. A. S._, vol. xii. p. 456.
[890] _Op. cit._, vol. xii. p. 440.
[891] Bateman’s “Ten Years’ Diggings,” p. 148; engraved in _Arch._,
vol. xliii. p. 461, fig. 162, from which my cut is copied.
[892] “British Barrows,” p. 359; _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxii. p. 243.
[893] Raine, “North Durham,” p. 235.
[894] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxvi. p. 346; _Trans. Devon. Assoc._, vol.
iv. p. 304. For the use of this cut I am indebted to Mr. A. W. Franks,
F.R.S.
[895] “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 122, pl. xiv.
[896] Ibid., pl. xv.
[897] _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 456.
[898] _Wilts Arch. Mag._, vol. vi. p. 164.
[899] Iliad, lib. xix. v. 387.
[900] P. 185.
[901] _Op. cit._, p. 242.
[902] _Arch._, vol. xliii. pl. xxxiv. fig. 4; xxxv. figs. 2, 4.
[903] “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 211, pl. xxviii.
[904] _Arch. Journ._, vol. x. p. 248.
[905] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvii. p. 334.
[906] _Ante_, p. 233.
[907] _Arch. Journ._, vol. v. p. 322.
[908] “Celtic Tum.” pt. i. p. 35, pl. x. E. and G.
[909] _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 453, fig. 157.
[910] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xiii. p. 184; vol. xv. p. 90; _Suss. Arch.
Coll._, vol. ix. p. 120.
[911] _Surrey Arch. Soc. Trans._, vol. i.; _Arch. Journ._, vol. xiii.
p. 305.
[912] _Arch._, vol. xxxvi. p. 328, pl. xxv. fig. 6; “Horæ Fer.,” pl.
vii. 18.
[913] Borlase, “Nænia Corn.,” p. 236.
[914] Lindenschmit, “Alt. u. h. Vorz.,” vol. i. Heft xi. Taf. ii. 1.
[915] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iv. p. 456; _Arch._, vol. xliii.
p. 454, fig. 158.
[916] _Trans. Devon. Assoc._, vol. vii. p. 104.
[917] _Journ. Royal Hist. and Arch. Assoc. of Ireland_, 2nd S., vol. i.
p. 286, whence this cut has been kindly lent.
[918] _Arch._, vol. xxxvi. p. 328, pl. xxv. 5, from which the cut is
copied.
[919] Dixon’s “Geol. of Sussex,” p. 12; _Arch. Journ._, vol. viii. p.
112; _Suss. Arch. Coll._, vol. ii. p. 260.
[920] Fig. in _Arch. Journ._, vol. xix. p. 364.
[921] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. i. p. 311.
[922] _A. A. J._, vol. xiv. p. 329.
[923] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iv. p. 50.
[924] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 268.
[925] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xi. p. 79; “Horæ Ferales,” pl. vii. 19.
[926] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 370.
[927] Von Sacken, “Die Funden an der Langen Wand bei Wiener Neustadt,”
1865, p. 6.
[928] Wilde, “Catal.,” p. 465, fig. 347.
[929] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 403, fig. 6.
[930] _Arch. Camb._, 4th S., vol. vi. p. 19.
[931] _Arch. Journ._, vol. x. p. 73.
[932] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xix. p. 363.
[933] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. iii. p. 60.
[934] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. i. p. 83.
[935] Vol. xvi. p. 365, pl. lxx.
[936] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 160.
[937] _Op. cit._, p. 158.
[938] Chantre, “Alb.,” pl. xvi. 2.
[939] _Rev. Arch._, vol. xxxiii. p. 231.
[940] Vol. x. p. 73.
[941] “Collect.,” vol. iv. pl. xi. 9.
[942] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xii. p. 193.
[943] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxiv. p. 110.
[944] _Op. cit._, p. 113.
[945] “Collect.,” vol. iv. pl. xi. 10; Gough’s “Camden,” vol. iv. pl.
xviii. 10.
[946] “Horæ Ferales,” pl. vii. 23.
[947] _Arch. Journ._, vol. ix. p. 186.
[948] _Arch._, vol. xvii. p. 337.
[949] _Dict. Arch. de la Gaule._
[950] Wilde, “Catal.,” p. 448, fig. 326.
[951] 4th Series, vol. ii. p. 197.
[952] “Hallands Fornminnes-Förenings Aarskr.,” 1869, p. 89.
[953] Wilde, “Catal.,” p. 458, fig. 333, from which the fig. in the
text is copied on a somewhat larger scale; “Horæ Ferales,” pl. vii. 15.
[954] “Matériaux,” vol. v. pl. ii. 1.
[955] “Matériaux,” vol. x. p. 370.
[956] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxiv. p. 120.
[957] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxvi. p. 191; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S.,
vol. iii. p. 406.
[958] Vol. iii. p. 47.
[959] Vol. xxxvi. pl. xxv. 2.
[960] _Arch._, vol. xxxvi. p. 326.
[961] _Arch._, vol. xxxvi. pl. xxv. 1; “Horæ Ferales,” pl. vi. 24.
[962] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvi. p. 322, pl. 26, No. 1.
[963] “Cong. préh.,” Copenhagen vol., p. 483.
[964] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxvi. p. 349. For the use of this cut I am
indebted to Mr. A. W. Franks, F.R.S.
[965] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxvi. p. 349.
[966] _Arch._, xxxvi. pl. xxv. 3; “Horæ Ferales,” pl. vi. 25.
[967] Vol. xxxvi. p. 328, pl. xxv. 3.
[968] Wilson’s “Preh. Ann.,” vol. i. p. 390; Catal. Mus. Arch. Inst.,
Edinb., p. 23.
[969] “Matériaux,” vol. v. pi. xix. 11.
[970] Fig. 131.
[971] Taf. vii. 1; xxxiii. 1; “Horæ Ferales,” pl. x. 2.
[972] “Handb. der Germ. Alterth.,” p. 208. See also Preusker, “Blicke,”
Taf. iii. 44 f.; Klemm, “Allg. Culturwiss.” p. 112.
[973] Bastian und A. Voss, “Die Bronze Schwerter des K. Mus.,” Taf. vi.
6.
[974] “Horæ Ferales,” pl. x. 3; Von Ledebur, “Königl. Mus.,” p. 15.
[975] “Matériaux,” vol. viii. pl. xvi. 14; vol. xiii. p. 232; Chantre,
“Age. du Br.,” 2me partie, p. 283; _Mém. des Ant. du Nord_, 1872-7, p.
116.
[976] “Zeitsch. für Ethnol.,” vol. ix. 1877, Proc., p. 34, Taf. vi. 3.
[977] Col. A. Lane Fox, “Prim. Warfare,” lect. 2.
[978] “Coll. Hib.,” vol. iv. p. 62, pl. xi. 11.
[979] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 449.
[980] P. 449.
[981] Conf. Wilde, _op. cit._, p. 489, figs. 356 and 357; and “Horæ
Fer.,” pl. x. 6.
[982] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. iv. p. 187.
[983] _Ibid._, vol. iv. p. 396.
[984] _Ibid._, vol. vii. p. 423. I am indebted to the Council for the
use of this cut.
[985] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 258.
[986] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xi. p. 414; vol. xviii. p. 161; _Proc. Soc.
Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 403.
[987] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xii. p. 193; “Horæ Fer.,” pl. x. 7.
[988] _Arch. Camb._, 4th S., vol. vi. p. 20 (figured).
[989] “Afbild.,” vol. ii. pl. xi. 14.
[990] _Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 181.
[991] Skelton’s Meyrick, vol. i. pl. xlv.
[992] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvii. p. 111.
[993] _Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 411.
[994] _Arch. Journ._, vol. vii. p. 302.
[995] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. i. p. 249, vol. iii. p. 60.
[996] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 160.
[997] “Catal. Mus. R.I.A.,” p. 493, fig. 361. I am indebted to the
Council for this cut.
[998] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 12.
[999] “Alt. u. h. Vorzeit,” vol. i. Heft viii. Taf. 2.
[1000] “Freder. Francisc.,” Taf. xxv. 13, 14.
[1001] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, _ubi sup._
[1002] Annalen for Nord. Oldkynd., 1851, Taf. v. 1.
[1003] Conf. Greenwell, “British Barrows,” p. 49.
[1004] _Op. cit._, p. 44.
[1005] “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” vol. i. p. 394.
[1006] _Arch. Scot._, vol. iii. App. p. 67.
[1007] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. iii. p. 60.
[1008] _A. A. J._, vol. xv. p. 230.
[1009] “On the True Assignation of the Bronze Weapons,” &c., _Trans.
Ethn. Soc._, N.S., vol. iv. p. 176. _The Celt, Roman and Saxon_, 2nd
Ed. p. 7, _et seqq._
[1010] “Catal. Lond. Ant.,” p. 80.
[1011] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. ii. p. 72.
[1012] “Preh. Times,” 4th Ed. p. 17; _Trans. Ethn. Soc._, N.S., vol. v.
p. 105.
[1013] See “Horæ Ferales,” pls. xiv., xv., and xviii.
[1014] Lib. v. c. 33.
[1015] Beckman, “History of Inventions,” vol. ii. p. 328.
[1016] “Saturn.,” lib. ii. cap. 3.
[1017] “Preh. Times,” p. 22.
[1018] Worsaae’s “Prim. Ant. of Denmark,” p. 29.
[1019] Lubbock, “Preh. Times,” p. 32.
[1020] _Trans. Brist. and Glouc. Arch. Soc._
[1021] 1st S., vol. ii. p. 215.
[1022] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xi. p. 263; vol. xv. 230, pl. 23, 5.
[1023] _Somerset Arch. and N. H. Soc. Proc._, vol. xxii. p. 70, pl. iii.
[1024] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xv. p. 229, pl. 23, 3.
[1025] _Op. cit._, vol. iii. p. 9.
[1026] _Op. cit._, vol. xiv. p. 328, pl. xxiv. 5.
[1027] _Arch._, vol. xix. p. 56, pl. iv.
[1028] _Rev. Arch._, N.S., vol. v. pl. ix. 1.
[1029] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. iii. p. 60.
[1030] See “Horæ Fer.,” pl. ix. 2, p. 161.
[1031] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 50; _Arch. Journ._, vol.
xix. p. 91.
[1032] Keller, 8ter Bericht, Taf. iii. 1.
[1033] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xiv. p. 329; _op. cit._, vol. xxii.
p. 244.
[1034] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 429.
[1035] _Rev. Arch._, vol. xxxiii. p. 231.
[1036] _Arch._, vol. xix. p. 56, pl. iv.; Skelton’s “Meyrick’s Anc.
Armour,” pl. xlvii. 14.
[1037] _Arch. Journ._, vol. iii. p. 67; _Arch._, xliii. p. 480.
[1038] _Bury and West Suff. Proc._, i. p. 24.
[1039] “Reliquary,” vol. iii. p. 219.
[1040] _Arch._, vol. xi. p. 431, pl. xix. 9.
[1041] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xv. p. 229, pl. xxiii. 2.
[1042] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 406; _Arch. Journ._,
vol. xxvi. p. 191.
[1043] “Horæ Fer.,” pl. ix. 5, p. 162.
[1044] _Arch. Journ._, vol. ix. p. 7.
[1045] Lindenschmit, “A. u. h. V.,” vol. i. Heft iii. Taf. iii. 5.
[1046] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. iii. p. 254; xv. p. 230, pl. xxiii.
No. 4.
[1047] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. v. p. 349.
[1048] _Arch._, vol. xvi. p. 363.
[1049] Catal. of Gr. Coins in Brit. Mus., Italy, p. 28.
[1050] “Numm. Vet. Ital. descript.,” pl. xli.
[1051] Vol. iv. p. 147; vol. iii. p. 334.
[1052] _Arch. Journ._, vol. v. p. 327; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol.
i. p. 83, No. 14.
[1053] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. i. p. 44.
[1054] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xix. p. 91.
[1055] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxxiv. p. 301.
[1056] _Anth. Inst. Journ._, vol. iii. p. 230.
[1057] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 158 (24½ inches); _Arch. Assoc.
Journ._, vol. xxii. p. 243; _Arch._, vol. xxvi. p. 482 (said to have
had a bone or wooden hilt when found).
[1058] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxi. p. 90.
[1059] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. ii. p. 356.
[1060] Stukeley, “It. Cur.,” vol. i. p. 14.
[1061] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvii. p. 321.
[1062] _Arch. Æliana_, vol. i. p. 11, pl. iv. 3.
[1063] _Arch._, vol. xv. p. 118.
[1064] _Arch. Camb._, 4th S., vol. iii. p. 353.
[1065] _Arch._, vol. v. p. 113.
[1066] _Arch._, vol. v. p. 115.
[1067] _Arch._, vol. xxi. p. 548.
[1068] _Arch._, vol. xxvi. p. 464.
[1069] _Arch. Journ._, vol. ix. p. 91.
[1070] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 250; _Arch. Camb._, 3rd
S., vol. x. p. 214.
[1071] _Arch. Camb._, 3rd S., vol. x, p. 221.
[1072] _Journ. Anthrop. Inst._, vol. iii. p. 204.
[1073] “Horæ Fer.,” pl. ix. 9, p. 162.
[1074] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. ii. p. 199.
[1075] _Rev. Arch._, N.S., vol. xxiv. pl. xxv. 3.
[1076] Chantre, “Alb.,” pl. xiv. _bis_, 3; _Dict. Arch. de la Gaule_.
[1077] Keller, 7ter Bericht, Taf. iii. 4; 3ter Bericht, Taf. iii.
35; Desor and Favre, “Le Bel Age du Br.,” pl. v. 10; Troyon, “Habit.
Lacust.,” pl. ix. 11.
[1078] Keller, 7ter B., Taf. xxiv. 9.
[1079] Von Sacken, “Grabf. v. Hallst.,” pl. v. 10.
[1080] Lindenschmit, “A. u. h. V.,” Heft i. Taf. ii. 1.
[1081] “Zeitsch. für Ethn.,” vol. vii. Taf. x. 2.
[1082] “Bull. di Palet. Ital.,” anno ii., p. 26.
[1083] “Atlas for Nord. Oldk.,” pl. B. iv., 40-42; Worsaae, “Nord.
Olds.,” figs. 135, 136.
[1084] “Afbild,” vol. ii. pl. v. vi.
[1085] P. 882.
[1086] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 429; “Horæ Fer.,” pl. ix.
fig. 3, p. 161.
[1087] “Treatise on Anc. Armour,” pl. lxi. 1.
[1088] _Op. cit._, pl. lxi. 2, 3, 4.
[1089] Wilson’s “Preh. Ann.,” vol. i. p. 352, fig. 52.
[1090] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvii. p. 210, pl. xx. 10, 11.
[1091] Pl. li. 2, 3, p. 118.
[1092] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. ii. p. 33.
[1093] _P. S. A. S._, vol. iii. p. 102.
[1094] Ayr and Wigton Coll., vol. ii. p. 14.
[1095] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. vi. p. 252.
[1096] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. i. pp. 181, 224: _Arch. Journ._,
vol. xiii. p. 203.
[1097] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. iii. p. 121.
[1098] “Horæ Fer.,” pl. ix. 4, p. 161.
[1099] Vol. ii. p. 334, pl. xliv.
[1100] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. xiii. p. 321.
[1101] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 439.
[1102] _Op. cit._, p. 454.
[1103] “Horæ Ferales,” pl. ix. 7, p. 162.
[1104] Vol. iii. p. 355, pl. xix.
[1105] Vol. iv. pl. vii. 1, p. 50.
[1106] De Bonstetten, “Essai sur les Dolm.,” 1865, pl. ii. 2; _Rev.
Arch._, N.S., vol. xiii. p. 183, pl. v. D.
[1107] Chantre, “Alb.,” pl. xvi. 1.
[1108] _Dict. Arch. de la Gaule._
[1109] _Rev. Arch._, N.S., vol. iv. pl. xiii. 23.
[1110] Von Sacken, Taf. v. 2.
[1111] Lindenschmit, “A. u. h. V.,” vol. i. Heft iii. Taf. iii. 6.
[1112] 3rd S., vol. i. p. 23; 2nd S., vol. vi. p. 72; “Reliquary,” vol.
x. p. 65.
[1113] _Jour. Royal Hist. & Arch. Assoc. of Ireland_, 4th S., vol. ii.
p. 257. I am indebted to the Council for the use of the cuts.
[1114] _Op. cit._, 4th S., vol. i. p. 505.
[1115] “Aarböger for Nord. Oldk.,” 1871, p. 15.
[1116] _Arch._, vol. iii. p. 363.
[1117] Ib., p. 364.
[1118] Ib., p. 365.
[1119] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 446, fig. 322, here by permission
reproduced.
[1120] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxx. p. 282.
[1121] “Age du Br.,” lère ptie. p. 105 _et seq._; Alb., pl. xv. _bis_,
2; De Ferry, “Macon préh.,” pl. xxxix.
[1122] Keller, _passim_.
[1123] See Gastaldi, “Iconografia,” 1869, Tav. viii.; Pellegrini,
“Sepolchreto Preromano,” 1878, Tav. iii., iv. Gozzadini, “Mors de
Cheval et l’Épée de Rorzano,” 1876.
[1124] “Aarbög. f. Nord. Oldk.,” 1879, pl. i.
[1125] “Mycenæ und Tiryns,” 1878, pp. 281, 303, &c.
[1126] Bastian und A. Voss, “Die Bronze Schwerter des K. Mus. zu
Berlin,” 1878, p. 56.
[1127] “Atlas for Nord. Oldk.,” pl. B, ii., iii., iv.; Worsaae, “Nord.
Olds.,” figs. 114 to 137.
[1128] Lisch, “Freder. Francisc.,” Tab. xiv., xv.
[1129] “Cong, préh.,” Stockholm vol. i. p. 506.
[1130] “Cong, préh.,” Buda Pest vol., p. 238.
[1131] “Cong, préh.,” Copenhagen vol., p. 449.
[1132] See Bastian und A. Voss, “Die Bronze Schwerter des K. Mus. zu
Berlin,” 1878.
[1133] Von Sacken, “Grabf. v. Hallst.,” Taf. v.; Lindenschmit, “Alt. u.
h. Vorz.,” vol. ii. Heft i. Taf. v.
[1134] Vol. xlv. p. 251.
[1135] _Rev. Arch._, N.S., vol. xxvi. p. 321.
[1136] “Horæ Ferales,” pl. viii. 7; Chantre, “Age du Br.,” lère ptie.,
p. 108; Lindenschmit, “A. u. h. V.,” vol. ii. Heft i. Taf. 3.
[1137] Chantre, _op. cit._, p. 135.
[1138] Madsen, “Afb.,” vol. ii. pl. vii.; Lindenschmit, “Alt. u. h.
Vorz.,” vol. ii. Heft i. Taf. iii. 1.
[1139] Madsen, _op. cit._, pl. v.
[1140] “Horæ Ferales,” p. 159. See also _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxxiv. p.
301, fig. 3.
[1141] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 404.
[1142] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 251; _Arch. Camb._, 3rd
S., vol. x. p. 214; “Montgom. Coll.,” vol. iii. p. 437.
[1143] _Arch. Journ._, vol. x. p. 259, whence this cut is taken, by
permission of Mr. Franks.
[1144] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, iii. p. 118; _Arch._, vol. xxvii. p. 298.
[1145] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xii. p. 201. See “Horæ Ferales,” pl. ix.
No. 10 to 14, and C. R. Smith, “Coll. Ant.,” vol. iii. p. 72.
[1146] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. iii. p. 118.
[1147] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 427.
[1148] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. i. p. 181; _Arch. Journ._, vol.
xiii. p. 203; “Catal. Mus. Arch. Inst. Ed.,” p. 24.
[1149] _Arch. Camb._, 3rd S., vol. x. p. 221, whence the figure is
copied.
[1150] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxx. p. 280.
[1151] Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 461, fig. 336.
[1152] “Exp. Arch. de la Sav.,” 1878, pl. xii. 354, 356.
[1153] _Journ. R. H. and A. Assoc. of Ireland_
[1154] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvii. p. 322.
[1155] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 461.
[1156] Fairholt’s “Costume in England,” p. 382.
[1157] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvii. p. 321, pl. 30, fig. 2.
[1158] Chantre, “Age du Br.,” 1ère ptie. p. 136. _Rev. Arch._, N.S.,
vol. xxxix. p. 306.
[1159] _Dict. Arch. de la Gaule._
[1160] “Matériaux,” vol. xiii. p. 64. See also a paper by M. Alex.
Bertrand, in the Bull. Soc. Ant. de France, 1878, p. 56. “Matér.,” vol.
xv. p. 162.
[1161] De Bonstetten, “Rec. d’Ant. Suisses,” Supp., pl. xxi. 1; Von
Sacken, “Grabf. v. Hallstatt,” Taf. vi. 11.
[1162] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 518.
[1163] _Rev. Arch._, N.S., vol. xxxix. p. 305.
[1164] “Das Grabfeld von Hallstatt,” p. 155, pl. xix. fig. 10.
[1165] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xiv. p. 257, pl. xiii. 6; Wilson,
“Preh. Ann.,” vol. i. p. 441, fig. 82.
[1166] _Arch. Scot._, vol. i. p. 393.
[1167] _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 556, pl. xxxvii. 3.
[1168] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvi. p. 323, pl. xxvi. 5; _Proc.
Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iv. p. 521.
[1169] Arch. Inst., York vol. p. 33; _Arch._, vol. xiv. pl. xx. 6.
[1170] “Atlas for Nord. Oldk.,” pl. B ii. 2; Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,”
fig. 115; Madsen, “Afbild.,” vol. ii. pl. xi. 1.
[1171] Boye, “Oplys. Fortegnelse over det K. M.,” p. 31.
[1172] “Annalen for Oldk.,” 1848, p. 336; “Atlas for Nord. Oldk.,” pl.
B. ii. 7; Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” fig. 119; Madsen, “Afbild.,” vol. ii.
p. 9. pl. iv. 8.
[1173] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 495.
[1174] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxiv. p. 120.
[1175] “Horæ Fer.,” pl. vi. 29.
[1176] _Journ. Ethnol. Soc._, 1868, N.S., vol. i. p. 36.
[1177] Iliad, vi. v. 319; viii. v. 494.
[1178] Dawkins, “Cave Hunting,” p. 143, fig. 34.
[1179] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xi. p. 231.
[1180] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. v. p. 349.
[1181] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 429, pl. iv.
[1182] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 159. I am indebted to Mr. Franks
for the use of this block.
[1183] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xv. p. 235, pl. xxiv. 3.
[1184] _Op. cit._, vol. viii. p. 332.
[1185] _Op. cit._, vol. xv. p. 235, pl. xxiv. 4.
[1186] Hartshorne’s “Salop. Ant.,” p. 96.
[1187] Stukeley’s “It. Cur.,” pl. 96, vol. ii.
[1188] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xiv. p. 351.
[1189] Skelton’s “Meyrick’s Anc. Arm.,” pl. xlvii. 10.
[1190] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. iv. p. 279.
[1191] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 251; “Montgom. Coll.,”
vol. iii. p. 437.
[1192] _Arch. Camb._, 3rd S., vol. x. p. 221.
[1193] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxiv. p. 254.
[1194] _Arch. Æliana_, vol. i. p. 13, pl. i.
[1195] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvii. p. 110.
[1196] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. iii. p. 102.
[1197] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. iv. p. 417.
[1198] _Rev. Arch._, N.S., vol. iv. pl. xiii. 2-14.
[1199] Keller, _passim_.
[1200] Von Braunmühl, “Alt Deutschen Grabmäler;” Schreiber, “Die ehern.
Streitkeile,” Taf. ii. 19; Lisch, “Fred. Francisc.,” Taf. viii.
[1201] Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” fig. 190.
[1202] “Heidnisch. Alterth.,” Taf. viii. fig. 1.
[1203] _P. S. A. S._, vol. ix. p. 435. The cut has been kindly lent by
the Society.
[1204] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xix. p. 364.
[1205] _A. J._, vol. ix. p. 8. It is there erroneously stated to be 26
inches long.
[1206] _Trans. Devon. Assoc._, vol. vii. p. 199; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd
S., vol. vii. p. 40.
[1207] Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” figs. 185, 186; “Atlas for Nord. Oldk.,”
pl. B 1, 16.
[1208] “Horæ Fer.,” pl. vi. 28.
[1209] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. i. p. 332.
[1210] Keller, 6ter Bericht, Taf. ix. 34.
[1211] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxi. p. 90.
[1212] “Montgom. Coll.,” vol. iii. p. 433; vol. xi. p. 205.
[1213] _Suss. Arch. Coll._, vol. viii. p. 269.
[1214] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xx. p. 107.
[1215] _Arch. Journ._, vol. iii. p. 47. There is an article by Mr. Du
Noyer on the classification of bronze arrow-heads in vol. vii. p. 281.
[1216] See “Anc. Stone Imp.,” p. 328.
[1217] _Arch. Journ_., vol. xiii. pp. 20, 27; vol. xxii. p. 68; _Proc.
Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. v. p. 187; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. i. p.
322.
[1218] _Arch. Journ._, vol. x. p. 3; “Hor. Fer.,” pl. vi. 27.
[1219] _Arch. Camb._, 4th. S., vol. iii. p. 351.
[1220] Anderson’s “Croydon Preh. and Rom.,” p. 11, pl. iii. 4.
[1221] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. v. p. 349.
[1222] _Arch. Camb._, 4th S., vol. iii. p. 351.
[1223] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxx. p. 282.
[1224] _Arch._, vol. xix. p. 56, pl. iv. 5.
[1225] _Arch._, vol. xvi. p. 361, pl. lxiv. 1.
[1226] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. iv. p. 244.
[1227] _P. S. A._, 2nd S., vol. iv. p. 280.
[1228] _P. S. A._, 2nd S., vol. i. p. 83.
[1229] _Arch._, vol. xxvii. p. 105.
[1230] _P. S. A._, vol. iv. p. 323.
[1231] Plot’s “Stafford.,” p. 404, pl. xxxiii. 8.
[1232] _Arch._, vol. v. p. 113.
[1233] _Arch. Camb._, 4th S., vol. viii. p. 210.
[1234] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. iii. p. 9.
[1235] Vol. x. p. 480, pl. xl. 5.
[1236] _Sussex Arch. Coll._, vol. viii. p. 269.
[1237] “Montgom. Coll.,” vol. iii. p. 432. and vol. xii. p. 25.
[1238] Vol. ix. p. 94, pl. iii.
[1239] _Arch._, vol. xvi. p. 348, pl. 1.
[1240] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvii. p. 334.
[1241] Arch. Inst., Salisb. vol., p. 110.
[1242] Wilde, “Catal. R. I. A.,” p. 496, fig. 363; “Hor. Fer.,” pl. vi.
15.
[1243] _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 447; “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 208.
[1244] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. xi. p. 168.
[1245] _Arch. Journ._, vol. vii. p. 282, and xviii. p. 167.
[1246] Vol. ii. p. 187.
[1247] Pl. vi. 17.
[1248] “Coll. Hib.,” vol. iv. pl. xi. v.
[1249] Pl. vi. 12, 13.
[1250] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. ii. p. 280; “Vest. Ant. Derb.,” p. 9.
[1251] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xv. p. 285.
[1252] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 196.
[1253] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” pp. 498, 501.
[1254] Ibid., Figs. 385 and 386, p. 502.
[1255] Pl. vi. 19.
[1256] _Arch. Journ._, vol. ii. p. 187.
[1257] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvii. p. 111, pl. xi. 4.
[1258] Lindenschmit, “Alt. u. h. Vorz.,” vol. ii. Heft iv. Taf. i. 9.
[1259] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xiv. p. 329, pl. xxiv. fig. 3.
[1260] _Arch. Assoc. Jour._, vol. xvi. p. 322.
[1261] _Arch._, vol. xvi. p. 365, pl. lxx. 3.
[1262] Arch. Inst., Norwich vol., p. xxvi. Another from this hoard is
in the Brit. Mus., “Hor. Fer.,” pl. vi. 22. Mr. Franks thinks that
the mould was in four pieces besides the core, but on this point I am
rather doubtful.
[1263] Vol. iv. pl. xi. 6.
[1264] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xi. p. 415.
[1265] “Catal. Mus. Lond. Ant.,” p. 83, No. 370.
[1266] Pring, “Brit. and Rom. Taunton,” pl. iii.
[1267] “Horæ Fer.,” pl. vi. 20.
[1268] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 366, p. 496; “Hor. Fer.,” pl. vi.
18.
[1269] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 160.
[1270] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvi. p. 322, pl. xxvi. 3.
[1271] _Op. cit._, vol. xvii. p. 110, pl. xi. 3.
[1272] “Durobrivæ,” p. lvi. 4.
[1273] _Arch. Journ._, vol. iii. 354; Allies, “Worcester.,” p. 60.
[1274] Ayr and Wigton Coll., vol. ii. p. 13.
[1275] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. v. p. 214.
[1276] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xiii. p. 296.
[1277] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 65. I am indebted to the
Council for the use of this block.
[1278] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xiii. p. 413; “Hor. Fer.,” pl. vi. 21.
[1279] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xix. p. 363.
[1280] Ibid., vol. xxv. p. 49.
[1281] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. v. p. 89.
[1282] Ibid., vol. xvi. p. 250.
[1283] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 429.
[1284] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xv. p. 234; _Arch. Journ._, vol.
xviii. p. 158.
[1285] Grose’s “Treat. on Anc. Armour,” 1786, pl. lxi. 5.
[1286] Vallancey, “Coll. Hib.,” vol. iv. pl. xi. 7.
[1287] “Horæ Fer.,” pl. vi. 16.
[1288] _Arch. Camb._, 3rd S., vol. x. p. 217, fig. 8; _Proc. Soc.
Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 251.
[1289] Hartshorne’s “Salop. Ant.,” p. 96.
[1290] _Arch. Camb._, 4th S., vol. iii. p. 352.
[1291] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. ii. p. 154.
[1292] _Mém. des Ant. du Nord_, 1872-7, p. 115.
[1293] Wilson’s “Preh. Ann.,” vol. i. p. 391; “Horæ Fer.,” pl. vi. 23;
“Catal. Mus. Arch. Inst. Ed.,” p. 23.
[1294] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 404, pl. iii. 11; _Arch.
Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvi. p. 322, pl. xxvi. 4.
[1295] _Arch. Journ._, vol. ii. p. 187; vol. iii. p. 354; “Horæ Fer.,”
pl. vi. 26; Allies, “Worc.,” p. 30; “Arch. Inst.,” York vol., pl. v. 4.
[1296] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. i. p. 125.
[1297] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xii. p. 84; vol. xviii. p. 160.
[1298] Ibid., vol. xiv. p. 357; vol. xviii. p. 161.
[1299] _Arch. Camb._, 4th S., vol. iii. pp. 339, 347.
[1300] _Arch._, vol. xxvi. p. 464.
[1301] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 160. I am indebted to Mr. Franks
for the use of this cut.
[1302] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 250; vol. v. p. 422;
_Arch. Camb._, 3rd S., vol. x. p. 214; “Montgom. Coll.,” vol. iii. p.
437.
[1303] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. i. p. 332.
[1304] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xii. p. 84.
[1305] _Arch. Camb._, 3rd S., vol. x. p. 221.
[1306] Ibid., 4th S., vol. iii. p. 353.
[1307] Anderson’s “Croydon Preh. and Rom.,” p. 11, pl. iii. 5.
[1308] P. 116, pl. l. 7.
[1309] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xii. p. 96.
[1310] _Arch._, vol. xix. p. 56, pl. iv. 10, 11; Skelton’s “Meyrick’s
Anc. Arm.,” pl. xlvii. 12.
[1311] _Arch._ _ubi sup._, “Millin, Peintures de Vases,” tome ii. p. 25.
[1312] “Iliad.,” lib. x. 153; lib. xiii. 443. &c.
[1313] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xv. p. 235.
[1314] “Preh. Cong.,” Norwich vol., p. 77.
[1315] Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” fig. 191; “Atlas for Nord. Old.,” pl. B
1, 22, 23.
[1316] Vol. xi. p. 55.
[1317] _Arch._, vol. xv. p. 118.
[1318] _Arch._, vol. v. pl. viii. 15.
[1319] Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. U. A.,” figs. 390, 391.
[1320] _Op. cit._, p. 517.
[1321] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. iv. p. 211.
[1322] “Matériaux,” vol. v. pl. ii. 25.
[1323] _Rev. Arch._, N.S., vol. iv. pl. xiii.
[1324] Vol. xlv. p. 383.
[1325] “Horæ Fer.,” pl. xiv.; _Arch._, vol. xxiii. p. 97; _Proc. Soc.
Ant._, vol. iv. p. 144; Skelton’s “Meyrick’s Anc. Arm.,” pl. xlvii. 7.
[1326] “Horæ Fer.,” pl. xv.; _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xiv. p. 330.
[1327] Vol. xxvii. pl. xxii. p. 298; “The Barrow Diggers,” pl. ii. 1,
p. 73; Worsaae, “Prim. Ant. of Denm.,” Eng. ed., p. 32. I am indebted
to Messrs. James Parker & Co. for the use of this block.
[1328] _Journ. R. H. and A. Assoc. of Ireland_, 4th S., vol. iv. p. 488.
[1329] “Horæ Fer.,” p. 167, pl. xi. 1; _Arch. Journ._, vol. xiii. p.
187.
[1330] _Op. cit._, p. 167, pl. xi. 3; “Catal. of Ants., &c., of the
Soc. Ant.,” p. 17.
[1331] _Arch. Journ._, vol. vii. p. 77, whence the cut is copied; “Hor.
Fer.,” p. 167, pl. xi. 4.
[1332] “Hor. Fer.,” p. 167; _Trans. Camb. Ant. Soc._, vol. ii. p. 12.
[1333] Copied from _Publ. Camb. Ant. Soc._, vol. ii. Misc. pl. 3.
[1334] “Catal. Mus. Soc. Ant.,” p. 16.
[1335] See “Ayr. and Wigt. Coll.,” vol. i. p. 66, where I have
described this shield.
[1336] “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” 1st ed., p. 267; 2nd ed., vol. i. p. 397.
[1337] “Minute Book of Soc. Ant.,” vol. xxiv. p. 147.
[1338] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. v. p. 165. See also _Tr. R. Hist.
and Arch. Assoc. of Ireland_, 4th S., vol. iv. p. 487.
[1339] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. viii. p. 393.
[1340] _Arch._, vol. xxiii. p. 92; “Anc. Arm.,” by Skelton, vol. i. pl.
xlvii. 4.
[1341] _Arch._, vol. xxiii. p. 95.
[1342] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 157.
[1343] “Hor. Fer.,” pl. ix. 168; C. Roach Smith, “Catal. of Lond.
Ant.,” p. 80.
[1344] C. Roach Smith, _ubi sup._
[1345] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 518; v. p. 363; _Gent.
Mag._, Dec, 1865, p. 771.
[1346] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 200.
[1347] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. iv. p. 395; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd
S., vol. iii. p. 200; _Proc. Roy. Irish Acad._, 1874, p. 277.
[1348] _Arch. Assoc. Jour._, vol. xxxvi. p. 165.
[1349] _Journ. Royal Hist._ and _Arch. Assoc. of Ireland_, 4th S., vol.
ii. p. 118, and vol. iv. p. 487. See _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 480.
[1350] Vol. x. p. 155.
[1351] “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 203.
[1352] _Arch._, vol. xiv. p. 90. pl. xviii.
[1353] See _Arch. Scot._, vol. v. p. 217.
[1354] “Hor. Fer.,” p. 166.
[1355] Madsen, “Afbild.,” vol. ii. pl. xvii.; “Atlas for Nord. Oldk.,”
pl. B, v.; Worsaae “Prim. Ant. of Den.,” Thoms’ Eng. ed., p. 31.
[1356] “Cong, préh.,” Bologna vol., p. 294.
[1357] Lindenschmit, “Alt. u. h. Vorzeit,” vol. i. Heft xi. Taf. 1, 4,
and 5.
[1358] “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” 2nd ed., vol. i. p. 398.
[1359] _Num. Chron._, N.S., vol. xvii. pl. x. 7 and 8.
[1360] See _Arch. Journ._, vol. xiii. p. 187.
[1361] “De Bell. Civ.,” i. 39, 48.
[1362] “Agric.,” 36.
[1363] See Smith’s “Dict. of Ant.,” _s. v._ Cetra.
[1364] “Horæ Ferales,” p. 168, pl. xii. 1.
[1365] Lindenschmit, “A. u. h. Vorzeit,” vol. i. Heft xi. Taf. 1.
[1366] Von Sacken, “Grabf. zu Hallst.,” Taf. viii. 5, 6.
[1367] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. i. p. 167.
[1368] Lib. iii. c. 14.
[1369] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 518.
[1370] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 342; Waring’s “Ornaments
of Remote Ages,” pl. xci. 10.
[1371] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 362.
[1372] _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 553, pl. xxxvi.
[1373] “Album,” pl. xvi. _bis._
[1374] Chantre, “Age du Br.,” 1ère ptie., p. 146.
[1375] P. 623
[1376] Fig. 360, p. 492. _et seqq._
[1377] “Discourse concerning Danish Mounds, &c.”
[1378] _Phil. Trans._, vol. xxviii. p. 270.
[1379] Vol. ii. pl. xx. 3, 4, 5; Gough’s “Camden,” vol. iv. pl. xiv.;
“Hor. Fer.,” pl. xiii. 1.
[1380] 4th S., vol. iii. p. 422.
[1381] P. 282.
[1382] Wilde, fig. 529, p. 592, kindly lent by the Council of the R. I.
A. One of Mr. Day’s trumpets is also patched.
[1383] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xii. p. 96. There is an article on Irish
trumpets by Dr. Petrie in the _Dublin Penny Journal_, vol. ii. See also
_Proc. R. I. A._, vol. iv. pp. 237, 423.
[1384] Von Bibra, “Die Br. u. Kupf.-leg.,” p. 140.
[1385] Pl. xiii. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9.
[1386] “Coll. Hib.,” vol. iv. pi. vii. 2.
[1387] Vol. iv. pl. xiii. 2.
[1388] _Trans. R. I. A._, vol. ii.
[1389] Wilde’s “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 624 _et seqq._; _Jour. R. H.
and A. A. of Ireland_, 4th S., vol. iii. p. 422 _et seqq._ See also
_Ulster Journ. of Arch._, 1860, vol. viii. p. 99; and “Horæ Ferales,”
p. 172.
[1390] Wilde, 630 _et seqq._
[1391] “Collections,” vol. i. p. 74; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. xii.
p. 565.
[1392] Vol. vi. p. 50.
[1393] “Tour through Britain,” vol. iv. p. 130.
[1394] Vol. lxxxvi. 1796, pl. xi.; “Horæ Fer.,” pl. xiii. 2; _Arch.
Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 150.
[1395] Evans, “Anc. British Coins,” pl. iii. No. 11, and pl. v. No. 10,
&c.
[1396] “Anc. Armour,” pl. xiii.; Gough’s “Camden,” vol. iv. p. 231.
[1397] Lisch, “Fred. Francisc.,” Tab. ix. 3.
[1398] “Atlas for Nord. Oldk.,” pl. B, vii.; Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,”
figs. 199-201.
[1399] Lib. ii. c. 29.
[1400] Lib. v. c. 30. See also Livy, lib. v. 37 and 39.
[1401] Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 612, fig. 523, whence this cut
is reproduced. See also _Proc. R. I. A._, vol. iv. pp. 237, 423.
[1402] Greenwell, “British Barrows,” pp. 15, 31.
[1403] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 130. I am indebted to the
Council of the Society for the use of this cut.
[1404] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xiv. p. 259.
[1405] _Arch. Journ._, vol. ix. p. 227.
[1406] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxii. p. 247.
[1407] “Vest. Ant. Derb.,” p. 34; “Ten Years’ Dig.,” p. 130.
[1408] “Brit. Barrows,” p. 366.
[1409] _Arch._, xv. p. 129.
[1410] “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. pp. 206-208.
[1411] _Op. cit._, p. 207.
[1412] _Op. cit._, p. 210. The references to the plate are somewhat
confused or confusing.
[1413] “Anc. Wilts,” vol. ii. p. 90.
[1414] _Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 319.
[1415] “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 194, pl. xxiii., here copied. See also
_Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 467.
[1416] “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 199, pl. xxiv.
[1417] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxv. p. 246. I am indebted to the Institute
for the use of this cut.
[1418] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxxvii. p. 94. Pring, “Brit. and Rom.
Taunton,” pl. ii.
[1419] _Arch. Journ._, vol. ix. p. 106.
[1420] _Suss. Arch. Coll._, vol. ii. p. 265.
[1421] _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 469.
[1422] 2ème Mém., “Album,” pl. xi. 17.
[1423] Fig. 452.
[1424] _Arch._, vol. xvi. p. 348, pl. 1.
[1425] Allies, “Worc.,” p. 149, pl. iv. 7.
[1426] _Arch. Journ._, vol. ix. p. 8. I am indebted to Mr. Franks for
the use of this cut.
[1427] _Arch._, vol. xii. p. 414, pl. li. 8.
[1428] _Suss. Arch. Coll._, vol. ii. p. 260.
[1429] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 469.
[1430] _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 468. I am indebted to the Council of the
Soc. Ant. for this and the next cut.
[1431] _Proc. Som. Arch. Soc._, vol. viii. p. 45.
[1432] Dr. Thurnam, _ubi sup._ (Horsfield, “Lewes,” vol. i. 48, pl.
iii. 12).
[1433] _Journ. R. Hist. Arch. Assoc. of Ireland_, 4 Sec. vol. v. p. 97.
[1434] _Arch._, vol. xv. p. 394, pl. xxxiv. 5.
[1435] Like Keller, “Lake-dwellings,” pl. xxxiv. 2.
[1436] Lisch, “Freder. Francisc.,” Tab. xxiv. 5, 6.
[1437] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” fig. 447.
[1438] _Op. cit._, p. 558, fig. 449; _Journ. Arch. Assoc. of Scot._,
2nd S., vol. i. p. 194.
[1439] Wilde, fig. 448.
[1440] _Journ. Arch. Assoc. of Ireland_, 2nd S., vol. i. p. 194.
[1441] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, N.S. vol. i. p. 322. For the loan of
this block I am indebted to the Council of the Society.
[1442] Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” fig. 239.
[1443] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 558, fig. 450.
[1444] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. iii. p. 102.
[1445] Vol. ix. p. 247.
[1446] Florus, lib. ii. c. 4.
[1447] Aulus Gellius, lib. ix. c. 13.
[1448] Cohen, “Méd. Cons.,” pl. xxvi. 5.
[1449] Vol. ii. p. 368; vol. iii. p. 27.
[1450] _Arch._, vol. xxvi. p. 471.
[1451] _Arch._, vol. xxi. p. 557.
[1452] _Op. cit._, vol. xxvi. p. 464.
[1453] _Op. cit._, vol. xiv. p. 96.
[1454] See Wilde’s “Catal.,” p. 70, _et seqq._; and “Vetusta. Monum.,”
vol. v. pl. xxix.
[1455] Vol. xxi. pl. xii. 2.
[1456] _Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 81.
[1457] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxxvii. p. 107, whence this cut is lent by
the Council.
[1458] _Som. Arch. and Nat. Hist. Soc. Proc._, vol. vii. p. 27.
[1459] _Op. cit._, vol. v. 1854, p. 91.
[1460] _Arch._, vol. xiv. p. 94, pl. xxiii.
[1461] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. i. p. 234.
[1462] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 88.
[1463] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xxi. p. 232.
[1464] _Arch. Journ._, vol. v. p. 323; _Arch._, vol xxix. 372; _Suss.
Arch. Coll._, vol. ii. p. 267.
[1465] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvii. p. 211, pl. xxi. 2.
[1466] Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 74, fig. 603.
[1467] _Arch._, vol. xi. p. 429, pl. xix. 3.
[1468] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iv. p. 467; “Montgom. Coll.,”
vol. iii. p. 419; vol. iv. p. 247.
[1469] _Arch._, vol. xxxiv. p. 83, pl. xi.; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. ii.
p. 148; _Arch._, xxxii. p. 400.
[1470] _Arch._, vol. xxx. p. 554.
[1471] _Arch._, vol. xxv. p. 595; _Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 167.
[1472] _Arch._, vol. xxxi. p. 517, pl. xxiii; _Arch. Journ._, vol. iii.
p. 32.
[1473] _Arch._, vol. xxx. p. 521.
[1474] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xiv. p. 258, pl. xiii. 2, 3.
[1475] _Arch. Journ._, vol. x. p. 367; vol. xxiv. p. 254.
[1476] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. i. p. 234.
[1477] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. ix. p. 435.
[1478] _P. S. A. S._, vol. iv. p. 377.
[1479] _P. S. A. S._, vol. i. p. 138.
[1480] Schoolcraft, “Ethn. Res.,” vol. i. p. 92; Squier and Davis,
“Anc. Mon. Miss. Vall.,” p. 204.
[1481] _Arch. Journ._, vol. ix. p. 96; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol.
v. pp. 406, 422; Borlase, “Nænia Corn.,” p. 162.
[1482] “Ten Years’ Digg.,” p. 167.
[1483] “Catal.,” p. 22; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. ii. p. 83.
[1484] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 88.
[1485] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xx. p. 200. The Council of the Institute
have kindly lent this figure.
[1486] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. ii. p. 277.
[1487] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xvii. p. 111, pl. xii. 2; vol. x. p.
8.
[1488] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 332.
[1489] “Barrow Diggers,” p. 77, pl. v. 14, 15.
[1490] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. iii. p. 344 (I am indebted to the
Council for the use of this cut); _Arch._, vol. xxxv. p. 247; “Anc.
Stone Imp.,” p. 417.
[1491] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. pp. 406, 430.
[1492] Bateman, “Ten Years’ Dig.,” p. 167.
[1493] Hoare’s “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 160; _Arch._, vol. xliii. p.
469, fig. 172. I am indebted to the Council of the Soc. Ant. for the
use of this cut.
[1494] “Reliquary,” vol. vi. p. 211, pl. xx. 1; Dawkins, “Cave
Hunting,” p. 129.
[1495] _Som. Arch. and Nat. Hist. Soc. Proc._, vol. v. 1854, p. 91.
[1496] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxxvii. p. 107. I am indebted to the
Institute for the use of this cut. See Figs. 468 and 87.
[1497] _Arch. Journ._, vol. v. p. 323.
[1498] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. i. p. 148; _Suss. Arch. Coll._, vol.
ii. p. 260.
[1499] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 131. For the use of this
cut I am indebted to the Council of the Society.
[1500] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxii. p. 74.
[1501] Perrin, “Etude, préh. sur la Sav.,” pl. xviii. 6.
[1502] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 570, fig. 479.
[1503] “British Barrows,” p. 210.
[1504] “Cran. Brit.,” pl. xii. B 4; _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 474.
[1505] Greenwell’s “British Barrows,” p. 209.
[1506] _Op. cit._, p. 386.
[1507] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xiv. p. 258.
[1508] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. iii. p. 59.
[1509] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxiv. p. 256; _Arch._, vol. xxvi. p. 483.
[1510] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxii. p. 74.
[1511] _Arch. Camb._, 3rd S., vol. x. p. 224.
[1512] Pring, “The Brit. and Rom. on the Site of Taunton,” p. 50.
[1513] _Arch._, vol. xxi. p. 39.
[1514] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xi. p. 294.
[1515] _Journ. Hist. and Arch. Assoc. of Ireland_, 3rd S., vol. i. p.
164.
[1516] “Vallancey,” vol. iv. pl. xiv. 8; Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,”
p. 578, fig. 490.
[1517] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 570, fig. 480.
[1518] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 46, fig. 573.
[1519] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. ii. p. 83. The cut is kindly lent by the
Council.
[1520] “Catal.,” p. 22.
[1521] _Sup._, p. 378; _Arch. Journ._, vol. v. p. 323.
[1522] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 332.
[1523] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. iii. p. 24, whence this cut is
borrowed.
[1524] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xiii. p. 295.
[1525] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 36.
[1526] _Arch._, vol. xxxvii. p. 368.
[1527] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 426.
[1528] _Som. Arch. and Nat. Hist. Soc. Proc._, vol. v. 1854, p. 91.
[1529] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 81.
[1530] “British Barrows,” p. 223.
[1531] “Brit. Barrows,” p. 324. For Fig. 491 I am indebted to the
Delegates of the Clarendon Press.
[1532] “Ten Years’ Dig.,” p. 80.
[1533] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. viii. p. 30.
[1534] Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 40, fig. 570.
[1535] _Op. cit._, p. 38.
[1536] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xix. p. 88.
[1537] Von Sacken, “Grabf. v. Hallst.,” Taf. xvii. 4, 6.
[1538] _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 470.
[1539] “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 243.
[1540] “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 103.
[1541] _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 525.
[1542] _Op. cit._, 114. A bead of burnt clay has also been found in a
Westmoreland barrow. “Brit. Barrows,” p. 55.
[1543] See Thurnam, _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 495.
[1544] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. v. p. 313, pl. xxi.
[1545] Ibid.
[1546] _Arch. Journ._, vol. x. p. 3.
[1547] _Arch. Æliana_, vol. ii. p. 213, pl. iv.; _Arch. Scot._, vol.
iv. p. 55, pl. vii.
[1548] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xi. p. 294.
[1549] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. iii. p. 10.
[1550] _Arch. Camb._, 4th S., vol. iii. p. 354. I am indebted to the
Council of the Cambrian Arch. Assoc. for the use of this cut.
[1551] _Mém. Soc. Ant. Norm._, 1827-8, pl. xvii.
[1552] 3rd S., vol. i. p. 164, whence the cut is borrowed.
[1553] “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 579, fig. 494.
[1554] Vol. iv. pl. xiv.
[1555] See Wilde’s “Catal.,” p. 576 _et seqq._
[1556] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxii. p. 74; _Arch. Camb._, 3rd S., vol.
xii. p. 97.
[1557] Type of Evans, “Anc. Brit. Coins,” pl. ii. 9.
[1558] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xxxvi. p. 110.
[1559] “British Barrows,” p. 209.
[1560] “Essays on Arch. Sub.,” vol. i. p. 25.
[1561] “Anc. Stone Imp.,” p. 407.
[1562] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxii. p. 74; _Arch. Camb._, 3rd S., vol.
xii. p. 97.
[1563] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 232.
[1564] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, N.S., vol. i., p. 322, whence this cut
is borrowed.
[1565] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xi. p. 179.
[1566] Ibid.
[1567] _Arch. Journ._, vol. ix. p. 200.
[1568] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxiv. p. 120.
[1569] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 236. This and the
following cut are kindly lent me by the Council of the Society.
[1570] Fourdrignier, “Double Sép. Gaul.,” 1878, pl. v. and vi.
[1571] _Arch. Æliana_, vol. i. p. 13, pl. ii. 14.
[1572] See Chantre, “Age du Br.,” 1ère ptie., p. 156.
[1573] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. vii. p. 485.
[1574] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxx. p. 282, fig. 3; _Anthrop. Inst.
Journ._, vol. iii. p. 230.
[1575] _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 556, pl. xxxvii. figs. 8 and 11.
[1576] Pl. xl. 16; _Samlede Fund_, pl. xvi. 12.
[1577] _Arch. Camb._, 3rd S., vol. vi. p. 137.
[1578] “Age du Bronze,” 1ère ptie., p. 188.
[1579] _Rev. Anthrop._, 1875, tome iv. p. 650.
[1580] See Chantre, “Age du Br.,” 1re ptie., p. 152.
[1581] “Anc. Wilts,” vol. i. p. 209.
[1582] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 252.
[1583] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. vi. p. 46.
[1584] See _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxvi. pp. 35 and 52; _Proc. Soc. Ant.
Scot._, vol. v. p. 111; C. R. Smith’s “Catal. London Ant.,” p. 82;
_Arch. Camb._, 3rd S., vol. viii. p. 208; vol. x. p. 57; “Hor. Fer.,”
p. 184.
[1585] _Trans. Kilkenny Arch. Soc._, vol. iii. p. 65. _Annaler for
Oldk._, 1836, p. 175.
[1586] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 90.
[1587] Vol. xliii.
[1588] Lubbock, “Preh. Times,” 4th ed., p. 223.
[1589] P. 399 _et seqq._
[1590] Erroneously called a celt by Mr. Kirwan. See _Arch. Journ._,
vol. xxiv. p. 189, whence this cut is borrowed.
[1591] “Ten Years’ Dig.,” p. 173.
[1592] P. 21.
[1593] Wilson, “Preh. Ann.,” vol. i. pp. 350, 408.
[1594] Shirley’s “Dominion of Farney;” _Arch. Journ._, vol. iii. p. 96.
[1595] Wilson, _op. cit._, vol. i. p. 409. I am indebted to Messrs.
Macmillan & Co. for the use of this cut.
[1596] Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 529, fig. 407. This cut has
been lent me by the Council of the Academy.
[1597] Vol. v. p. 82.
[1598] Catal. Mus. R. I. A., p. 531, fig. 409.
[1599] _Rev. Arch._, N.S., vol. xxvi. p. 326.
[1600] A paper on “Etruscan Commerce with the North,” by Dr. Hermann
Genthe, will be found in the _Archiv. für Anthrop._, vol. vi. p. 237.
[1601] Von Sacken, “Das Grabf. v. Hallst.,” Taf. xxi. 1.
[1602] April 30, 1879.
[1603] Percy’s “Metallurgy,” vol. i. p. 474 (ed. 1861).
[1604] _Comptes Rendus de l’Ac. des Sc._, vol. lxxvi. (1873), p. 1232.
[1605] _Phil. Trans._, 1796, vol. lxxxvi. p. 395.
[1606] Chantre, “L’Age du Br.,” 1ère ptie., p. 62.
[1607] J. A. Phillips, _Q. J. Chem. Soc._, vol. iv. p. 266.
[1608] O’Curry’s “Mann. and Cust. of the Anc. Irish,” vol. i. p. ccccxx.
[1609] O’Curry, _op. cit._, p. ccccxviii.
[1610] For an interesting essay on the sources of bronze, see Prof.
Sullivan in the Introduction to O’Curry’s “Manners and Customs of
the Ancient Irish,” p. ccccvii. See also H. H. Howorth, F.S.A., on
the “Archæology of Bronze,” _Trans. Ethnol. Soc._, vol. vi. p. 72;
Sabatier, “Production de l’or, de l’argent, et du cuivre,” &c., 1850;
Von Bibra, “Die Bronzen und Kupferlegirungen,” 1869; De Fellenberg,
“Bull. de la Soc. des Sc. nat. de Berne,” 1860; Wocel, “Chemische
Analysen anb. Bronze legirungen,” in Sitz.-Ber. phil. hist. Classe.
Acad. der Wiss. Wien. Bd. xvi. 169; “Kelternes, Germanernes og
Slavernes Bronzer,” in _Antiq. Tidskrift._, 1852-54, p. 206; Morlot,
“Les Métaux dans l’Age du Bronze,” _Mém. Soc. Ant. du Nord_, 1866-71,
p. 23; Wibel, “Die Cultur der Bronze-Zeit Nord und Mittel Europas,”
1865; Von Cohausen’s Review of Wibel, _Archiv. für Anth._, vol. i. p.
320, vol. iii. p. 37; Lubbock, “Prehistoric Times,” p. 59 _et seqq._;
Zaborowski-Moindron, “L’Ancienneté de l’Homme,” 1874; Dr. C. F. Wiberg,
“Einfluss der Etrusker und Griechen auf die Bronze Cultur,” _Arch. für
Anth._, vol. iv. p. 11; Troyon, “Monuments de l’Ant. dans l’Europe
barbare,” 1868; De Rougemont, “L’Age du Bronze,” 1866; A. Bertrand,
“Arch. Celtique et Gauloise,” 1876; G. De Mortillet, “Origine du
Bronze,” _Revue d’Anthrop._, vol. iv. p. 650; Wilson, “Preh. Annals of
Scotland,” and “Prehistoric Man.”
[1611] Job, chap. xxviii. v. 2.
[1612] P. 115.
[1613] _Comptes Rendus_, 1866, vol. lxii. pp. 223, 346.
[1614] The doubts raised by the late Sir G. C. Lewis on this point have
been dealt with by Sir John Lubbock, “Preh. Times,” p. 63 _et seqq._
[1615] Von Bibra, _op. cit._, p. 94.
[1616] Dr. Percy, F.R.S., and other practical metallurgists have shown
that this view is untenable. See Lubbock, “Prehist. Times,” p. 621.
[1617] _Annales for Oldk._, 1852, p. 249; _Jahrbüch. des Ver. v.
Alt.-freund im Rheinl._, vol. lix. p. 21; Chantre, “Age du Br.,” 1ère
ptie., p. 62; Perrin, “Et. préh. sur la Savoie,” 1870, p. 19; Layard,
“Nineveh and Babylon,” p. 670.
[1618] “Die Bronzen und Kupferlegirungen,” 8vo. Erlangen, 1869.
[1619] _Bull. di Paletnol. Ital._, 1879, p. 159.
[1620] Chantre, “Age du Br.,” 1ère ptie., p. 36; “Alb.,” pl. xxviii.;
“Matériaux,” vol. xi. pl. i. 1. _Proc. Soc. Ant._ 2nd Ser., vol. viii.
p. 250.
[1621] _Arch. Camb._, 4th S., vol. ii. p. 59, vol. viii. p. 210;
Pennant’s “Tour,” vol. i. p. 63; _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxix. 194; _Proc.
Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 286.
[1622] _Arch._, vol. xv. p. 118.
[1623] _Journ. Roy. Inst. Cornw._, No. xxi.
[1624] _Arch._, vol. xv. p. 120 (Leland).
[1625] _Arch._, vol. xvi. p. 363.
[1626] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd Ser., vol. v. p. 427.
[1627] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxvi. p. 288.
[1628] _Surrey Arch. Coll._, vol. vi.
[1629] Anderson’s “Croydon,” p. 10.
[1630] _Arch. Journ._, vol. x. p. 248.
[1631] _Journ. Anthrop. Inst._, vol. vi. p. 195.
[1632] _Penes me, Arch. Journ._, vol. xi. p. 24.
[1633] _Arch. Journ._, vol. ix. p. 302.
[1634] _Arch._, vol. v. p. 116.
[1635] In the British Museum.
[1636] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd Ser., vol. iii. p. 232.
[1637] Smith’s “Coll. Ant.,” vol. i. p. 101.
[1638] In the British Museum.
[1639] _Arch. Journ._, vol. ii. p. 80.
[1640] _Arch._, vol. v. p. 116.
[1641] _Arch._, vol. v. p. 114.
[1642] _Penes_ Capt. Brooke, Ufford Hall, Woodbridge.
[1643] _Arch. Journ._, vol. x. p. 69.
[1644] _Arch. Æliana_, vol. ii. p. 213.
[1645] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. i. p. 306; _Arch. Journ._, vol.
xviii. p. 86.
[1646] _Arch._, vol. v. p. 115.
[1647] Wilson, “P. A. of Scot.,” vol. i. p. 348; _Proc. Soc. Ant.
Scot._, vol. i. p. 132.
[1648] Crawfurd, _Trans. Eth. Soc._, vol. iii. p. 350.
[1649] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. ix. p. 435.
[1650] “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” vol. i. p. 376.
[1651] Lubbock, “Preh. Times,” p. 44; Von Sacken, “Das Grabfeld von
Hallstatt,” p. 118.
[1652] Keller, 3er Bericht, p. 93.
[1653] “Manners and Customs of the Anc. Irish,” O’Curry and Sullivan,
p. ccccxix.
[1654] “Cong. préh.,” Buda-Pest, vol. i. p. 242; _Engineer_, March 26,
1876.
[1655] _Arch. für Anth._, vol. ix. p. 265.
[1656] Jul. Pollux. “Onom.,” lib. ix. c. 6, p. 1055.
[1657] Evans, “Coins of the Anc. Brit.,” p. 123.
[1658] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xvi. p. 39; whence the cut is borrowed.
[1659] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxviii. p. 196. See also _Arch. Journ._,
vol. xvi. p. 7, for an interesting paper on Ancient Metallurgy, by the
late Prof. J. Phillips.
[1660] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xvi. p. 39.
[1661] Spano, “Paleoetnol. Sarda,” p. 26.
[1662] Keller, “Lake-dwellings,” Eng. ed., p. 54.
[1663] _Op. cit._, p. 118.
[1664] “Preh. Times,” p. 40.
[1665] _Arch. Æliana_, vol. iv. p. 107; _Arch. Journ._, vol. x. p. 2.
[1666] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. ii. p. 33, vol. vi. p. 209.
[1667] _Journ. Ethnol. Soc._, vol. ii. p. 341; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd
S., vol. iv. p. 513. _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xxxvi. p. 146. Only
seven depressions are there described.
[1668] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. i. p. 45.
[1669] Ibid., vol. iv. p. 383, and v. p. 109.
[1670] Ibid., vol. ii. p. 34; Wilson, “Preh. Ann.,” vol. i. p. 343, pl.
v.
[1671] _Arch. Journ._, vol. iv. p. 335, pl. vi.; Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R.
I. A.,” p. 392.
[1672] “Catal.,” p. 78.
[1673] Wilde’s “Catal.,” p. 91, fig. 72.
[1674] Pegazzoni, “L’uomo preist. nella Prov. di Como,” 1878, pl. vi.
18-20.
[1675] Wilson, “Preh. Ann.,” vol. i. p. 358, fig. 46.
[1676] _Arch. Journ._, vol. iv. p. 335.
[1677] “Les dernières trouvailles du Lac de Bienne,” 1879, pl. i. 10;
“Matériaux,” 1880, pl. i. 10.
[1678] _Exp. Arch. de la Sav._, 1878, pl. iv. 187; Chantre, “Alb.,” pl.
lii.
[1679] “Matériaux,” vol. x. p. 112.
[1680] “Matériaux,” vol. xii. p. 185.
[1681] “The Barrow Diggers,” p. 75, pl. v. 10. It is so badly drawn
that it might be taken for a broken mould for a palstave. _Arch._, vol.
xxviii. p. 451.
[1682] P. 78.
[1683] Hampel, “Cat. de l’Exp. préhist.,” 1876, p. 134; “Ant. préh. de
la Hongrie;” “Matériaux,” vol. xii. p. 184.
[1684] Wittlock, “Jord-fynd från Wärend’s förhist. Tid.,” 1874, p. 68.
[1685] “Preh. Ann. of Scot.,” vol. i. p. 345, figs. 48 and 49. Fig. 61
shows a casting from one of the moulds.
[1686] Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 91, fig. 73.
[1687] Gastaldi, “Nuovi cenni,” 1862, Tav. iv. 22.
[1688] Vol. ix. p. 185.
[1689] _Mém. des Ant. du Nord_, 1872-77, p. 142.
[1690] _Arch._, vol. xv. p. 349, pl. xxxiv. 1, 2.
[1691] Wilde, “Catal. Mus. R. I. A.,” p. 93.
[1692] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xx. p. 170. The cut is kindly lent by the
Council of the Institute.
[1693] Ranchet e Regazzoni, _Atti della Soc. Ital. de sc. nat._, vol.
xxi.
[1694] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. vi. p. 48, pl. vi. I am indebted
to the Council for the use of these four blocks.
[1695] _Arch. Journ._, vol. iii. p. 257, vol. vi. p. 385; Lindenschmit,
“A. u. h. V.,” vol. ii. Heft. xii. Taf. i. 5.
[1696] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 166.
[1697] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. iv. p. 148.
[1698] Spano, “Paleoetnol. Sard.,” p. 27.
[1699] “Troy and its Remains,” pp. 82, 110, 139, 173, 261, &c.
[1700] See _Arch._, vol. v. p. 108 _et seqq._
[1701] “Collectanea,” vol. iv. p. 59.
[1702] _Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 386, vol. xviii. p. 166; _Arch.
Camb._, 3rd S., vol. ii. p. 128.
[1703] Vallancey, “Coll.,” vol. iv. p. 59, pl. x. 10.
[1704] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, vol. iii. p. 158.
[1705] Chantre, “Album,” pl. i.; “Age du Br.,” 1ère. ptie., p. 26
[1706] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 433.
[1707] Keller, 3er Bericht, p. 109, pl. vii. 43; Troyon, “Hab. Lac.,”
pl. x. 15.
[1708] Lindenschmit, “Alt. u. h. V.,” vol. ii. Heft. xii. Taf. i. 3.
[1709] Bastian und A. Voss, “Die Bronze-schwerter des K. Mus. zu
Berlin,” Taf. xiv. 9.
[1710] Lindenschmit, _ubi sup._, Taf. i. 4.
[1711] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 408; “Cong. préh.,”
Stockholm vol. i. p. 445.
[1712] Holtzappfel, “Turning and Mech. Manip.,” vol. i. p. 321; _Arch.
Journ._, vol. iv. p. 337.
[1713] “Anc. British Coins,” p. 124.
[1714] _Proc. Geol. and Polyt. Soc. of Yorkshire_, 1866, p. 439.
[1715] Lindenschmit, “Alt. u. h. Vorz.,” Heft. i. Taf. ii. 10, 11, 12.
[1716] _Suss. Arch. Coll._, vol. xiv. p. 171; _Arch. Journ._, vol. xx.
p. 192.
[1717] _Arch._, vol. xxii. p. 424; _Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 387;
“Arch. Inst.,” Norwich vol., p. xxvi. I have assumed that the mould
described in these passages is one and the same.
[1718] _Arch._, vol. v. pl. vii.; _Arch. Journ._, vol. iv. p. 336, pl.
iii. 5, 6, 7, 8.
[1719] _Arch. Journ._, vol. iv. pl. ii. 5, 6, 7, 8.
[1720] “Itin. Cur.,” pl. xcvi, 2nd ed.
[1721] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 132; _Arch. Journ._, vol.
xix. p. 358.
[1722] _Arch. Journ._, vol. xviii. p. 166.
[1723] Ibid.
[1724] “Surrey Arch. Soc. Coll.,” vol. vi.
[1725] Bastian und A. Voss, “Die Bronzeschwerter des K. Mus.,” p. 76.
[1726] Ulfsparre, “Svenska Fornsaker,” pl. viii. 93.
[1727] _Mém. Soc. Ant. Norm._, 1827-8, pl. xviii.
[1728] Chantre, “Alb.,” pl. liv. 5.
[1729] Keller, 7ter Bericht, p. 16, Taf. xvii.
[1730] “Matériaux,” vol. xii. p. 184.
[1731] “Aarböger for Nord. Oldk.,” 1866, p. 124.
[1732] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 409.
[1733] _Arch. Journ._, vol. vi. p. 382; _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol.
iii. pp. 10 and 58.
[1734] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xiv. p. 258.
[1735] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 232.
[1736] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. ii. p. 132. I am indebted to the
Council for the use of this cut; _Arch. Journ._, vol. xix. p. 358.
[1737] _Arch._, vol. xv. p. 118, pl. ii.
[1738] _Journ. Roy. Inst, of Cornwall_, No. xxi. fig. 4.
[1739] “Petit Album,” pl. xxv. 6.
[1740] _Arch. Assoc. Journ._, vol. xiv. p. 260.
[1741] Worsaae, “Nord. Olds.,” figs. 213, 214.
[1742] Montelius, “La Suède préh.,” fig. 40.
[1743] Hartshorne’s “Salop. Ant.,” p. 95.
[1744] _Proc. R. I. Acad._, vol. iv. p. 439.
[1745] Chap. xi. p. 235 _et seqq._
[1746] _Suss. Arch. Coll._, vol. ix. p. 120, whence this cut is
borrowed; _Arch. Journ._, vol. xiii. p. 184, vol. xv. p. 90.
[1747] “Reliquary,” vol. iv. p. 63.
[1748] Pennington, “Barrows and Bone Caves of Derbyshire,” 1877, p. 51.
[1749] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. v. p. 412.
[1750] Page 128.
[1751] Page 84.
[1752] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd S., vol. iii. p. 328
[1753] Evans’s “Coins of the Anc. Britons,” p. 102.
[1754] Vol. xvi. p. 348.
[1755] _Supra_, p. 405; _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 556.
[1756] See also Col. A. Lane Fox’s “Primitive Warfare, Sect. III.,” in
_Journ. R. U. Service Inst._, vol. xiii.
[1757] The Bronze Period of Switzerland has by some been calculated to
have begun not less than 3,000 years B.C.—Zaborowski Moindron, “L’Anc.
de l’homme,” 1874, p. 208.
[1758] See Greenwell’s “British Barrows,” p. 44 _et seqq._
[1759] “British Barrows,” p. 19.
[1760] Dawkins’s “Early Man in Britain,” p. 348.
[1761] See Worsaae in _Arch. Journ._, vol. xxiii. p. 30.
[1762] “British Barrows,” pp. 32, 375. See also _Reliquary_, vol. vi.
p. 1.
[1763] “Primitive Warfare, Sect. III.;” _Journ. R. U. S. Inst._, vol.
xiii.
[1764] “Preh. Times,” p. 73.
[1765] Worsaae, in “Aarb. for Nord. Oldk.,” 1879, p. 327.
[1766] See A. Bertrand in _Rev. Arch._, vol. xxvi. p. 363.
[1767] See Chantre, “Age du Bronze,” 2ème ptie. p. 281.
[1768] “Habitations Lacustres de la Savoie,” 1864, 1867, 1869.
[1769] See Thurnam in _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 494.
[1770] _Arch._, vol. xliii. p. 497.
[1771] See “Ancient Stone Impts.,” p. 411. I may take this opportunity
of correcting the statement that the Assynt necklace is inlaid with
gold. It is merely engraved with various patterns, in which micaceous
grains of sand got lodged and were mistaken for gold.
[1772] “Ancient Stone Impts.,” p. 402.
[1773] Dawkins’s “Early Man in Britain,” p. 352; _Quart. Journ. Suff.
Inst._, vol. i. p. 31.
[1774] See also Rolleston’s App. to “British Barrows;” Lubbock’s
“Prehist. Times;” Dawkins’s “Early Man in Britain,” &c., &c.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Ancient Bronze Implements, Weapons, and Ornaments, of Great Britain and Ireland." ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.