Clark, G. G D. (1966). The invasion hypothesis in British archaeology. Antiquity 40. Vol 40, pp. 172-189.

Title
Title
The title of the publication or report
Title:
The invasion hypothesis in British archaeology
Issue
Issue
The name of the volume or issue
Issue:
Antiquity 40
Series
Series
The series the publication or report is included in
Series:
Antiquity
Volume
Volume
Volume number and part
Volume:
40
Page Start/End
Page Start/End
The start and end page numbers.
Page Start/End:
172 - 189
Biblio Note
Biblio Note
This is a Bibliographic record only.
Biblio Note
Please note that this is a bibliographic record only, as originally entered into the BIAB database. The ADS have no files for download, and unfortunately cannot advise further on where to access hard copy or digital versions.
Publication Type
Publication Type
The type of publication - report, monograph, journal article or chapter from a book
Publication Type:
Journal
Abstract
Abstract
The abstract describing the content of the publication or report
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.
Author
Author
The authors of this publication or report
Author:
Grahame G D Clark
Year of Publication
Year of Publication
The year the book, article or report was published
Year of Publication:
1966
Locations
Locations
Any locations covered by the publication or report. This is not the place the book or report was published.
Subjects / Periods:
Arrowheads Long Barrows (Auto Detected Subject)
Artefacts (Auto Detected Subject)
B Wares (Auto Detected Subject)
Flint (Auto Detected Subject)
MESOLITHIC (Historic England Periods)
Hillforts (Auto Detected Subject)
Archaeologists (Auto Detected Subject)
Cereals (Auto Detected Subject)
Long Barrow (Auto Detected Subject)
NEOLITHIC (Historic England Periods)
SHERD (Object England)
Ringheaded Pin (Auto Detected Subject)
MIDDLE NEOLITHIC (Historic England Periods)
EARLY BRONZE AGE (Historic England Periods)
Archaeology (Auto Detected Subject)
LATE NEOLITHIC (Historic England Periods)
Round House Weaving Comb (Auto Detected Subject)
BRONZE AGE (Historic England Periods)
Peterborough Ware (Auto Detected Subject)
SETTLEMENT (Monument Type England)
IRON AGE (Historic England Periods)
Source
Source
Where the record has come from or which dataset it was orginally included in.
Source:
Source icon
BIAB (British Archaeological Abstracts (BAA))
Created Date
Created Date
The date the record of the pubication was first entered
Created Date:
05 Dec 2008