| Abstract: |
In the past, British archaeologists have usually explained changes in material culture as the result of invasions of these islands, or at least of intrusive influences, and the author welcomes current tendencies to show that new phenomena can arise indigenously. He examines in some detail trends of archaeological thought about the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in S England from 1910 onwards, commenting particularly on Piggott's classification of Neolithic wares in the 1930s. In 1940 Childe suggested that a common Mesolithic tradition underlay the apparent similarities between Baltic and Peterborough (Neolithic B) wares, and thence Piggott published in 1954 his concept of Secondary Neolithic, the assimilation of intrusive Neolithic elements by the indigenous Mesolithic population. The way was then clear for I F Smith's demonstration in 1956 (assisted by the new 14C dated `long chronology') that Peterborough ware was an indigenous, not intrusive phenomenon. Clark regrets that Smith has retained old terminologies in her book Windmill Hill and Avebury (1965); he proposes instead a new framework termed 'Round-Based Bowl Culture'. This has five pottery styles but an underlying homogeneity of associated cultural remains (leaf arrowheads, long barrows etc). In the Late Neolithic a second indisputable invasion occurred when the Beaker folk brought new pottery and habits, stimulating the development of native wares and new flint types. Nonetheless, phenomena such as the W Kennet long barrow and the great and small henges illustrate an underlying continuity of behaviour unaffected by these changes in material culture. Bronze Age archaeology was once similarly treated as a series of intrusive features, but now the 'Wessex Culture' is seen as a socio-economic development from the Late Neolithic, not an importation from Brittany. Longworth has shown how collared urns stem ultimately from Middle Neolithic wares with Beaker influence, and cordoned urns are likewise recognised as native developments. The Deverel-Rimbury culture has been shown to be largely indigenous in origin, although its globular urns are still a focus of controversy. Though the introduction of new farming methods and cereals might give more decisive evidence for invasion, barley-growing and perhaps even cross-ploughing can be traced to Beaker times. Clark then discusses Hodson's recent critiques of Iron Age classification and suggests that, apart from the long native history of the round house, weaving comb and ring-headed pin, even the exotic-seeming groups of artefacts show strongly insular features. The evidence for 'Marnian invaders' is considered, and hillforts postulated as local expressions of warrior prestige. Apparently contradictory evidence for Belgic penetration may be attributable to trade rather than settlement. The better understanding of complex trade relations can account for much 'intrusive' material, and nowadays invasions must be demonstrated, not assumed. |
