BARRY CUNLI FFE

BRITAIN, THE VENETI AND BEYOND

Summary. Archaeological and documentary evidence f or contact
between north western France and central southern Britain in the first
millennium BC is presented and discussed. The tin trade may well have
been the principal motivation for contact until the late second century BC
when, following the foundation of Provincia Gallia Transalpina, the
Roman-dominated wine trade appears to have itensified cross-channel
intercourse. The position of Armorican middlemen is considered and port
sites such as Alet and Hengistbury are discussed. A Wessex Contact Zone
is defined within which overseas trade and local industrialproduction were
focused. The economic and social effects of these systems on other parts of
Britain are briefly outlined.
In two well-known texts Caesar and
Strabo bring the Veneti and the Britons
into relationship with each other. Caesar
is concerned with Venetic military
strength: now of all the peoples of the
coastal part of that area, the Veneti are by
far the strongest. They have a great many
ships and regularly sail to and from
Britain. When it comes to knowledge and
experience of navigation, they leave all
the other tribes standing ( BG iii 8).
Strabo adds: The Veneti are those who
fought at sea against Caesar, for they were
prepared to hinder his voyage to Britain
as they were using the emporion there
(Geog. iv.4.1).
There has been much discussion of
these two texts. To Stevens (1952, 8-15)
the Venetic revolt against the Romans
was designed to divert Caesar from
attacking Britain in 56 BC in order to
protect their trading monopoly - an
attractive and plausible explanation;
while more recently Melinda Mays has
argued convincingly that the emporion,
noted by Strabo, referred to a specific site
which she has tentatively identified as
Hengistbury (Mays 1980, 55-7).
It was a desire to explore the archaeo-
logical reality reflected by the texts which
lay behind the famous expedition to
Brittany and Normandy organized by Sir
Mortimer Wheeler in 1938-9 following
his excavations at Maiden Castle. In the
Maiden Castle report, published in 1943,
Wheeler stated his belief in trading
contacts between the Veneti andcornwall
in the pre-Caesarian era, and at the time
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY l(1) 1982 39
BRITAIN, THE VENETI AND BEYOND
of the Gallic Wars, and went on to explain
the Maiden Castle development in
historical terms: The urban peasantry of
Dorset, or at any rate of Maiden Castle,
comfortably ensconced in their ancient
and decaying hill-fort, offered a more
attractive prize to the homeless Vikings in
Brittany; and it is to the survivors of the
masterful Veneti in the folk-wanderings
which may be supposed to have followed
Caesars vengeance in 56 BC that, on all
grounds, I find it easiest to attribute the
new I ron Age B rttgime at Maiden
Castle (Wheeler 1943, 56-7).
The present paper attempts to explore
the archaeological background afresh in
the light of evidence which has become
available in the last forty years.
THE ATLANTI C SEAWAYS I N THE EARLY
FI RST MI LLENNI UM BC
It is not our purpose here to examine
the systems of exchange which bound
together the communities settled along
the Atlantic seaways in the later part of
the Bronze Age. The archaeological
evidence has been widely discussed by
Burgess (1969) and Briard (1965) and the
actual mechanisms of exchange have been
considered recently by Rowlands (1980,
15-55). Suffice it to say that between the
eighth and sixth centuries BC the com-
munities flanking the Channel were
closely bound in a complex of socio-
economic systems which resulted in the
widespread distribution of similar arte-
facts on both sides of the Channel. This is
particularly clearly shown by the distribu-
tion of Armorican axes (Briard 1965,
241-82 and below Fig. 5 ) and of bronzes
constituting the Carps Tongue sword
complex (Burgess 1969, fig. 14). Longer-
distance contacts are reflected in more
exotic pieces such as the Sicilian socketed
axes from near Rennes and from Hengist-
bury Head on the Dorset coast.
CONTACT I N THE LATER FI RST
MI LLENNI UM BC
With the collapse of the bronze-
dependent economy in the middle of the
millennium direct evidence for contact
becomes rarer (Fig. 6). Double pyramidal
iron ingots of European origin appear on
the south coast of Britain at Portland
(Grinsell 1958, 137). Their relatively
widespread distribution in Brittany (Giot
1964) suggests a likely origin in north-
western France. It is also possible that
some at least of the Hallstatt fibulae
recorded from Britain and of the later
Greek and Carthaginian coins may reflect
contemporary social contacts with the
west and south, but the finds of this kind
are notoriously difficult to interpret since
reliable contexts are almost invariably
lacking.
Wheeler thought he could see evidence
of contact between Brittany and southern
Britain in pottery finds, drawing attention
to ceramic traits such as the internally-
grooved rims and countersunk perforated
lugs - techniques found extensively in
Brittany and sporadically in the south-
west of Britain (Wheeler 1943, 204-18).
There is little more that can be added to
his analysis except to stress that evidence
for the actual transport of pottery between
Britain and Brittany before the late
second century BC is virtually unknown
(Fig.7). Two sherds from Carn Euny,
with a radiocarbon date of 420f70 bc
(HAR-238), are of Breton type though
one at least may be a Cornish product
(Elsdon 1978, 402-4), while one un-
doubted Breton sherd - a micaceous
fabric with haematite painting - has
40 OXFORD J OURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
BARRY CUNLIFFE
recently been found at Poundbury, just
outside of Dorchester, in a context
suggesting a third-century BC date (C.
Green, personal communication). It is
closely similar to vessels found at RuguCrC
B Plouvorn (Finistkre) and Kergourognon
B Prat (Cate-du-Nord) (Giot, Lecerf and
OnnCe 1971, figs. liv and xxxvi).
Although the list of imports is not long
it does not necessarily mean that the two
areas were isolated from each other.
Indeed it is hardly likely that the tradition
of south-western British decorated wares,
called collectively Glastonbury ware,
could have developed in total isolation
from contemporary Breton decorated
styles: the relationship is surely close -
each area developing in knowledge of the
other.
If the archaeological evidence is not
particularly informative about the nature
of contact in the later part of the first
millennium, the documentary evidence is
specific in its general message that a tin
trade, involving the Cornish peninsula,
remained in operation throughout this
time. The Massiliot Periplus of the sixth
century, quoted in the Ora Maritima of
Avienus, mentions the voyages of Tartes-
sans and Carthaginians to islands in the
west - Oestrymnis - close to Britain where
tin and lead could be had and where
natives sailed in skin boats. Pliny (Nut.
Hist. IV.30.16) derives elements of a
similar story, though in garbled form,
from Pytheas, a Greek who sailed the
Atlantic seaways in c. 325 BC; but Poly-
bius writing in the second century BC
(quoted by Strabo IV.2.1) offers the
observation that Scipio could get no
direct information about Britain from the
traders of Massilia, Narbo and Corbilo
when he made enquiries of them some
time about 135 BC. That the traders were
uncommunicative does not however mean
that they had no information to com-
municate: they may simply have been
protecting their monopoly. The difficulty
of obtaining reliable information is ampli-
fied in the story of Publius Crassus (surely
not the contemporary of Caesar as
Stevens argued) who had to resort secretly
to tracking Phoenician traders to find the
route to the tin-rich Cassiterides of the
north-west (quoted by Strabo 111.5.1 1).
Even if imprecise in its detail, the
documentary evidence is sufficient to
show that a complex, and well guarded,
network of maritime contact existed by
means of which tin was delivered from
Britain and Brittany into the hands of
merchants acting for Mediterranean
states. The exact working of the network
is beyond recovery but a combination of
short-haul local traffic, transhipment at
ports-of-trade and long distance expedi-
tions by Mediterranean ship-owners seem
to be implied. I n such a network the
communities of the south-west of Britain
would have been brought, inevitably, into
direct and regular relationship with their
Breton neighbours.
The actual routes used throughout the
latter part of the first millennium may be
dimly reflected in the writings of the first-
century authors Strabo and Diodorus
Siculus both of whom rely heavily on the
works of Posidonius composed earlier in
the first century (Tierney 1960).Four
principal crossings were then in operation
springing from the mouths of the rivers
Rhine, Seine, Loire and Garonne (Strabo
IV.5.2). Of the Seine route Strabo tells us
that cargoes passed via the RhGne and its
tributaries overland to the Seine and
thence it begins its voyage down to the
ocean and to the Lexobii and Caleti, and
from these peoples it is less than a days
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 41
BRI TAI N, THE VENETI AND BEYOND
run to Britain (IV.1.14). A more likely
route for goods passing to the west of
Britain is specified: From Narbo traffic
goes inland for a short distance by the
River Atax, and then agreater distance by
land to the River Garonne . . . and the
Garonne flows to the ocean (IV. I . 14). If
the starting point was Massilia an alterna-
tive route was up the R hhe and overland
to the head-waters of the Loire and thence
to the Atlantic. Of the commodities for
which Britain was famed Strabo lists
grain, cattle, gold, silver and iron. These
things, he says, were exported from the
island along with hides, slaves and
hunting dogs (IV.5.2). Diodorus mentions
tin as a principal export, noting that it
came from Belerium (Cornwall) and was
taken on horseback through Gaul to
Massilia and Narbo (V.22.2; V.38.5).
The difficulty in dealing with these later
sources is one of chronology. Although
they may be reflecting long-established
trade-links, by the time they were written
the entire network would have been
revolutionized by the foundation of the
Roman province in southern Gaul in 124
BC. It is therefore a distinct possibility
that the works of Strabo and Diodorus
(building on Posidonius) are in reality
recording the trade-networks set up by
Roman merchants and have little to do
with the situation before 124 BC. Thus
strictly it would be anachronistic to use
these accounts in any attempt to discuss
mercantile contact before the foundation
of the province of Transalpina.
THE ROMAN WI NE TRADE
The foundation of the Provincia in 124
BC and in particular the creation of the
Roman enclave at Colonia Narbo Martius
(Narbonne) in or about 118 BC marked a
turning point in trade-relations with the
west. Among the wide range of commodi-
ties passing through the province was
Italian wine produced in the region of
Terracina and Capua and transported in
distinctive amphorae of Dressel 1 type
(mapped a decade ago by Peacock 1971,
fig. 36). An interesting insight into the
wine trade is offered by Cicero in his Pro
Fonteio- a defence of M. Fonteius,
propraetor of Transalpina in 75-3 (or
74-2). I n it we learn of an unofficial tax
charged per amphora as wine passed
through the inland cities. This portorium,
it was alleged, was exacted at the rate of
four denarii per amphora at Tolosa, three
victoriati at Cuodunum and two victoriati
at Vulchalo. At Elesioduli six denarii were
charged to those who shipped wine to
the enemy (Pro Fonteio, 19-20). Evi-
dently there were fortunes to be made at
the time for those who controlled the
export of wine to the barbarian west.
The distribution of Dressel 1 amphorae
gives substance to this trade. The early
type, Dressel 1 a, occurs in some numbers
in the region of Narbonne and is found on
the route to Toulouse and along the
Garonne. Considerable numbers have
recently been noted in Armorica (P.
Galliou, personal communication), a few
have been found in Lower Normandy
(Deniaux 1980) and the type recurs in
quantity at Hengistbury Head and in its
hinterland (Cunliffe 1978 and Fig. 12
below). It is tempting to suggest that this
was the trade in which the Veneti were
employed.The use of Venetic middlemen
would have had the obvious advantage of
allowing the southern merchants to leave
the difficult and unfamiliar waters of the
Armorican peninsula to local sailors used
to, and equipped for, these potentially
rough passages. If such was the system,
transhipment of wine would have been
42 OXFORD J OURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
BARRY CUNLIFFE
carried out somewhere in Venetic terri-
tory (at Vannes?) cutting out the need for
intermediate bases like Corbilo on the
Loire - a port which had lost its import-
ance and ceased to be recognized between
the time of Polybius in the late second
century and that of Strabo writing in the
early years of the first century AD
(IV.2.1). Indeed the demise of the em-
porium of Corbilo may be directly related
to the causes consequent upon the Roman
domination of the western trade route.
Some wine transhipped from the
Venetic port would have been offloaded
at other Breton ports; more would be
taken across the Channel to Britain. One
might suggest the Quimper region of
Finistkre and the Rance estuary of the
C6te-du-Nord as possible locations with
the potential for serving considerable
hinterlands. On the Rance a major Late
Iron Age port later called Alet has been
discovered on the Saint Servin peninsula.
Evidence of contemporary Late Iron Age
activity is well attested (Langouet 1978a)
as is the importation of amphorae
(Sanquer 1978). I n Britain the main port
of entry was clearly Hengistbury Head
(Cunliffe 1978) but it is not impossible
that other ports in Poole Harbour (below
pp. 46) and Cornwall were also visited:
evidence is, however, slight.
Whether or not other Mediterranean
commodities were transported along with
the wine there is little evidence to say. The
only evidence of exotics in the archaeo-
logical record are lumps of raw purple
glass found at Hengistbury, for which a
Mediterranean origin is likely.
SHORT-HAUL TRADE BETWEEN
BRITTANY AND BRITAIN
If the analysis offered above is correct,
Venetic shippers would have provided
one element in a system of long-distance
trade initiated, or reinvigorated, by
Roman merchants. There is also ample
evidence of short-haul traffic between the
two sides of the Channel. The clearest
indication for this comes in the form of
pottery imported into Hengistbury from
north-western France. Three categories
of ware are relevant (Fig. 1):
a) Black Cordoned Wares Wheel-turned
and finely finished, made in two similar
fabrics. These types were called Hengist-
bury Class B wares by Bushe-Fox (1915,
pls. xvii and xviii) and have been re-
categorized as Hengistbury Class 1 ware
by Cunliffe (1978, 49). Fabric-analysis
suggests a north-western France origin.
The distribution of Black Cordoned
wares in Britain is limited to the Hengist-
bury region and to Poole Harbour but the
types were widely copied in local fabrics
(below p. 50). In France the distribution
appears to be north-eastern Armorican
(Fig. 9).
b) Graphite-Coated Wares Wheel-turned
jars and bowls coated externally and
sometimes internally with graphite
(Bushe-Fox Class H, Cunliffe Class 2).
The fabrics are similar to those of the
Black Cordoned wares. I n Britain the
distribution is based on Hengistbury and
Poole Harbour while in France it concen-
trates on western Armorica, particularly
Finistkre (Fig. 10).
c) Rilled Wares Wheel-turned vessels of
two basic types: jars with coarse rillings
down the body and shouldered bowls
with furrows on the shoulders (Cunliffe
Class 3). The fabrics are petrologically
similar, both containing copious mica,
quartz and felspar suggesting an origin in
the granitic areas of Brittany. The British
distribution is much the same as that of
the Black Cordoned ware but the Breton
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 43
BRITAIN, THE VENETI AND BEYOND
Figure 1
Imported north-western French pottery from Hengistbury. Nos. 1-3 Black Cordoned ware; 4-7
graphite coated ware; 8-9 rilled ware. Scale '/+
distribution appears to centre a little to apparent differences are significant is
the west. The type is not known in difficult to say. All three distributions
Normandy (Fig. 11). overlap in the C6te-du-Nord and it is
It will be noted that the Armorican most likely that from this region the
distribution of the three pottery types contact with Hengistbury sprang. Of
varies geographically though whether the possible French port sites we have already
44 OXFORDJ OURNALOFARCHAEOLOGY
BARRY CUNLIFFE
mentioned Alet on the Saint Servin
peninsula near St. Malo. On present site-
evidence it would appear highly likely
that a trading axis existed between Alet
and Hengistbury. Two further observa-
tions support this view. On Guernsey a
large settlement producing the three
major Armorican wares together with
Dressel la amphorae has been found at
Kings Road, St. Peter Port (R. Burns,
personal communication). The Kings
Road site evidently lies astride the pro-
posed north-south route. Even more
impressive evidence is provided by the
distribution of coins of the Coriosolites -
the tribe occupying the Cdte-du-Nord
area of which Alet is a principal port
(Cunliffe 1978, fig. 35). Of the total of 62
Armorican coins recorded in Britain, 45
are of the Coriosolites and 13 of these
come from Hengistbury, most of the rest
from the Hengistbury hinterland. The
implication clearly supports the idea of a
Hengistbury-Alet axis.
This impressive body ofevidence should
not however obscure the possibility that
other north-western French ports may
have traded with Hengistbury. Coins of
the Abrincatui and Baiocasses from
Hengistbury are a reminder that other
tribes of western Normandy (the area
producing Black Cordoned wares) may
well have been in direct contact with
Britain, and Professor Giot has drawn the
writers attention to the important, but ill-
known coastal site of Nacqueville, a few
kilometres west of Cherbourg on the
Cotantin where Black Cordoned vessels
have been recorded (Rouxel 1912, 30)
together with Dressel la amphorae
(Deniaux 1980, 50-1). I t is the closest
point on the French mainland to Hengist-
bury and almost exactly due south from
it - a distinct navigational advantage if
sailing was regulated by an equivalent to
the north star!
Sufficient will have been said to show
that there must have existed a complex
network of short-haul traffic plying be-
tween Brittany and central southern
Britain in the half century or so before
Caesars conquest of Armorica in 56
BC- a far more intricate pattern than
Caesar with his emphasis on the Veneti
alone would have led us to believe. I t
could, of course, be argued that the
appearance of French material in Britain
was a direct result of fugitives fleeing from
Caesar. Against this might be placed the
evident influence of the imported pottery
on native manufacturing over a wide area
(below p. 50) and the fact that a more
detailed analysis of the coins of the
Coriosolites shows that the coins from
Hengistbury include early types and do
not conform to the coin profiles reflected
in the flight hoards of France and J ersey.
The implication is that contact had been
maintained for some time before the
Caesarian wars (Gruel et a1 1980 and
Langouet 1978b).
THE WESSEX CONTACT-ZONE
The distribution of Armorican pottery
and coinage is concentrated in an area
centred on Hengistbury which we can
refer to as the Wessex Contact-Zone (a
concept equally relevant to earlier periods
to be discussed elsewhere). I n the centre of
the area lies Christchurch Harbour with
its fine riverine links - the Stour leading
inland into Dorset, the Avon into Wilt-
shire. The harbour is dominated by the
promontory of Hengistbury Head, de-
fended in the I ron Age and intensively
occupied in the first century BC (Fig. 2).
The evidence has been summarized else-
where (Cunliffe 1978) and since a new
OXFORDJOURNALOFARCHAEOLOGY 45
BRITAIN, THE VENETI AND BEYOND
HENGI STBl TRY HEA D DORSET
0 200 100 600 800 1000 Met res 1 HENGISTBURY H E A D
- u w - -
Figure 2
Hengistbury Head, Dorset and its environment.
programme of excavations is under way it
would be premature to say more at this
stage. Poole Harbour can also be regarded
as part of the contact zone (Fig. 3). Two
sites deserve particular note. Hamworthy,
on the north side of the harbour close to
the medieval heart of Poole, was partially
excavated before the last war (Smith
1930). Here, beneath Roman layers pre-
sumably representing a Roman military
base, the excavation come upon a late
Iron Age horizon that has never been
adequately published. The layer produced
a number of sherds of Dressel la ampho-
rae together with a range of pottery, much
of it imported from France, and including
Black Cordoned wares and graphite-
coated wares.
The second site of some significance lies
on Green Island close to the south shore
of the harbour. Here, in a comparatively
limited excavation, a wide range of north-
western French imports of Hengistbury
type have been located together with
sherds of Dressel la amphorae. I n addition
the excavator found a large number of
46 OXFORD J OURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
BARRY CUNLIFFE
cores from the turning of Kimmeridge
shale armlets. The cores are exclusively of
Calkin's Class A - a type with a single
central square-cut hole for the chuck. The
association is interesting, not only because
i t is evidence of armlet manufacture, but
because it is a clear indication that the
Class A cores belong to the early part of
the first century BC.
The relationship of the Poole Harbour
sites to Hengistbury and its trading axis
remains uncertain. The Poole Harbour
sites are by no means as prolific of finds as
Hengistbury; but this is, in part at least,
due to the disparity in the size of the
excavations: Hengistbury is however by
far the largest site. Taking the evidence at
its face value we may suggest that
Hengistbury was the port-of-trade and
that Poole Harbour provided subsidiary
bases for the transhipment of commodities
due to be transported into the heart of
~ ~~
L ATE I RON AGE SETTL EMENT A ROUND POOLE HARBOUR, DORSET
Figure 3
Poole Harbour, Dorset. The present land-forms, with alluvium stippled, showing I ron Age discoveries.
OXFORDJOURNALOFARCHAEOLOGY 47
BRITAIN, THE VENETI AND BEYOND
west Dorset by way of the River Frome.
Products such as salt from the harbour
fringes and shale from the Isle of Purbeck
may well have been among commodities
brought from the immediate region to
Hengistbury for wider distribution.
The area designated the contact-zone is
geographically isolated from the rest of
Wessex by the wide band of heathland
spreading from the New Forest to Egdon
Heath and consists of two comparatively
fertile areas: the Purbeck promontory and
the flood-plain in the immediate hinter-
land of Hengistbury (Fig. 16). The links
to the densely populated areas of Wessex
were by the Rivers Frome, Stour and
Avon. Within the contact-zone raw
materials abounded: Kimmeridge shale,
salt, good potting clay (around Poole
Harbour) and a readily accessible supply
of high-grade iron ore on Hengistbury
Head. There can be little doubt from the
British evidence that these products were
widely exploited and traded inland, the
salt, in its briquetage containers, and the
shale, used for armlet manufacture, being
the most readily recognizable. Later in the
first century BC pottery production took
on an increasing importance. Whether
any of these commodities were exported
overseas is difficult yet to say; but
lignite bracelets have been found at
Alet and quantities of roughcut lignite
bracelets were recovered at Nacqueville
(Rouxel 1912). I n advance of analysis
however it would be unwise to indentify
them as Kimmeridge shale. When con-
sidering exports we should however
remember that Strabo specifically refers
to British iron.
Thus the Wessex Contact-Zone emerges
as an area isolated from the main
population centres, rich in natural mineral
wealth and provided with excellent com-
munications, by river to Wessex and by
sea to the maritime regions of France and
Britain. I ts fine, safe harbours and close
proximity to France suited it admirably as
a region of maximum contact on the
overseas trade network.
THE CONTACT-ZONE AND SOUTHERN BRITAIN
Certain commodities brought into or
produced in the Wessex Contact-Zone
were distributed to the Wessex hinterland.
Kimmeridge shale had been a major
import throughout the second half of the
first millennium. Hand-cut armlets were
made in quantity on Purbeck (Calkin
1955, and Cunliffe and Phillipson 1968)
and transported inland from the eighth/
sixth century onwards: there is evidence
that distribution continued throughout
the first century BC and into the early first
century AD when fine wheel-turned shale
vessels found their way to the aristocratic
households of eastern Britain (Fig. 15).
Salt too is a commodity likely to have
been long prized among the Wessex
arable farmers.
The development of a long-distance
trade and the injection of wine into the
exchange system is well attested by the
distribution of characteristic Dressel la
amphorae in Hampshire and Dorset
within what can be regarded as the
primary distribution-zone from Hengist-
bury (Fig. 12). That amphorae (and thus
presumably wine) reached Cornwall may
reflect a secondary distribution pattern
emanating from Hengistbury or, alterna-
tively, evidence of direct trade to the
south-west peninsula using a port such as
Mount Batten.
The distribution of Armorican coins in
Britain may well have owed something to
the direct trade link: significantly a
48 OXFORDJ OURNALOFARCHAEOLOGY
BARRY CUNLlFFE
majority of those from southern Britain
lie within the primary distribution zone
around Hengistbury (Fig. 12).
If products such as wine, iron, shale
and glass were being fed into the exchange
systems via Hengistbury we might rea-
sonably ask what was flowing the other
way. Strabos list of exports gives some
indication of what the Continent desired
after the annexation of Gaul, but it
cannot be taken as direct evidence of pre-
Caesarian trade. The archaeological re-
cord however gives some indication, since
Hengistbury has produced evidence of the
desilvering of lead (presumably of Men-
dip origin), a mass of argentiferous
copper ore from the Callington region of
Cornwall and Glastonbury-style pottery
manufactured in western Cornwall, east-
ern Devon and the Mendips. I t is
tempting to suggest that the pottery is an
indicator of the regions from which
commodities came: lead from the Men-
dips; copper/silver ore from east Cornwall
or Devon; and perhaps tin from Cornwall
(although none has yet been found on the
site). To this we might add hides from the
south-west, corn and woollen fabrics
from the centre south and slaves from
practically anywhere in the region. Two
maps (Figs. 13 and 14) sum up both the
evidence and the reasonable speculations
deriving from it.
THE EFFECTS OF LONG-DISTANCE TRADE:
TECHNOLOGICAL
The most readily recognizable effects of
the patterns of long-distance trade des-
cribed above are technological - the intro-
duction of the lathe and the potters
wheel. The lathe had an immediate effect
on the shale industry: armlets which had
previously been cut by hand were now
turned, giving rise to a more regular
product and to the easily recognizable
wastecores withchuck holes. The industry
has already been described in some detail
by Calkin (1955). To his assessment we
can now add that the earliest cores of
Class A can be dated to the period
100-50BC on the evidence of their
association with north-western French
pottery on Green Island (above p. 46).
Class A cores have been found extensively
on Purbeck at Tyneham, Povington,
Encombe Obelisk, Gallows Gore, Hers-
ton, Hobarrow and Studland, all of which
were within easy reach of the shale source
at Kimmeridge and must therefore repre-
sent a continuation of the native industry.
Significantly all but two of the Purbeck
sites (Tyneham and Povington) produced
the earlier hand-cut armlets as well.
Outside the Isle of Purbeck Class A cores,
implying shale working on site, have been
recovered at Green Island, Hengistbury,
Glastonbury and Shipton Gorge, suggest-
ing that raw shale may have been
exported from Purbeck to these locations.
The exact dating of Calkins other classes
of core (B-D) is in doubt; most can be
shown to be post-conquest but some may
represent pre-conquest improvements in
methods of attachment to the lathe.
I n addition to bracelets, shale was also
being used to manufacture vessels. Two
have been found on Purbeck at Rempston
and Kimmeridge. Fourteen others are
recorded (though not all can be demon-
strated conclusively to be pre-Roman) of
which four occur in the rich Aylesford-
Swarling graves of eastern Britain (Great
Chesterford, Old Warden, Barnwell and
Harpenden). The Somerset sites of
Glastonbury, Meare and Wookey are also
represented (Fig. 15). If it is assumed that
the vessels were manufactured within the
OXFORDJOURNALOFARCHAEOLOGY 49
BRI TAI N, THE VENETI AND BEY OND
Wessex Contact-Zone and exported, the
two major concentrations in Somerset
and eastern England may represent areas
with which the contact-zone had establi-
shed exchange links. There is however
uncertainty over dating. Although eleven
of the vessels can be shown to date to the
pre-Roman period none can be proved to
be pre-Caesarian. I ndeed those from
eastern England are almost certain to be
dated to the early first century AD. I t is
safer, therefore, to see the shale vessels as
the eventual result of the introduction of
the lathe which continued to be felt long
after the initial contact phase.
A more widespread effect of the period
of contact was a dramatic improvement in
pottery technology in central southern
and south-western Britain. The importa-
tion of quantities of fine wheel-turned
vessels and the accompanying knowledge
of the potters wheel appear to have had
an immediate effect on pottery styles over
a considerable area. The evidence may be
briefly considered.
I n Dorset and adjacent areas the effects
of wheel-turning on the native style - the
Maiden Castle-Marnhull style (Cunliffe
(1974) 1978, 47-8) - lead to a tightening
of the profiles of the range of jars with
beaded rims. As might be expected the
forms are more precisely tooled and the
vessels tend to become smaller. This
change characterizes the Durotrigan style
(Brailsford 1958; Cunliffe (1974) 1978,
382). The precise process of evolution is
exemplified in a stratified sequence of
deposits found during the 1980 season of
excavation at Hengistbury which demon-
strates ceramic development beginning
with the appearance of French imports
and lasting to the early Roman period.
Several of the imported types were
directly copied by local potters, the most
popular being the Black Cordoned vessels
which give rise to the necked cordoned
bowls, typical of Durotrigan assemblages,
sometimes called Hengistbury Class B
derivatives. The type was sufficiently
desirable to find its way to beyond the
fringes of Durotrigan territory. Vessels of
this kind are found in the Somerset
region, quite possibly reflecting a recipro-
cal aspect of the exchange network by
which Somerset lead reached Hengist-
bury. Another type less frequently copied
is the tazza, while the lattice decoration,
found on graphite-coated jars, becomes a
common motif on Durotrigan jars.
I n Hampshire the effects of the contact
with north-western France are no less
apparent, giving rise to the Northern and
Southern Atrebatic styles (Cunliffe( 1974)
1978, 97-100). Wheel-turning becomes
widespread while cordoned necked jars
and occasionally tazze are a recurring
component of the assemblage. Although
it is possible that these areas received
some influences from the Aylesford-
Swarling culture to the east, close simi-
larity to the Durotrigan developments is a
strong argument in favour of the stimulus
emanating from the Wessex Contact-
Zone - an observation strengthened when
it is recalled that early Dressel amphorae
are widespread in Atrebatic territory.
Another area of the South-west to
develop a wheel-made, cordoned ceramic
assemblage at about this time is Cornwall,
where distinctive cordoned ware has long
been recognized(Threip1and 1957,58-63).
At St. Mawgan-in-Pyder several wheel-
made types were classified (Types E-K)
among which were plain bowls (E),
cordoned bowls (F), tazze (G) and large
cordoned jars (H, J , K). The assemblage is
well represented in Cornwall (Fig. 8) in
the last stages of the pre-Roman I ron Age.
50 OXFORD J OURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
BARRY CUNLIFFE
The simplest explanation for its sudden
appearance is as a result of exchange links
with the Wessex Contact-Zone already
exemplified by the Kimmerdige shale
armlets from Cornwall and possibly by
the Dressel la amphorae. While it could
be argued that the Cornish cordoned
wares were the result of direct contact
with Brittany it should be remembered
that the Armorican cordoned wares
which the Cornish examples evidently
copy are concentrated in the eastern part
of the Armorican massif. I t is simpler
therefore to see the short route to
Hengistbury becoming the main axis of
contact with Britain, coastal British
shipping being responsible for transmit-
ting ideas to Cornwall. If these views are
accepted then the Cornish cordoned
wares could have begun to develop in the
first half of the first century BC.
From the brief discussion offered here
it is clear that the trade axis with north-
western France, developing in the period
100-50 BC, can be considered to be a
formative influence in the changing cera-
mic technologies of the Atrebates, Duro-
triges and the western Dumnonii: only
eastern Dumnonia (Devon) and the
southern Dobunni (Somerset) seem to
have continued in traditional styles
though with imported exotic types. The
chronological horizon provided by these
changes is of some significance in asses-
sing the social and political changes
consequent upon the phase of contact.
THE EFFECTS OF LONG-DISTANCE TRADE:
SOCIAL AND POLITICAL
I t is not the aim of the present paper to
explore these matters in any detail except
to note that in much of the region covered
by the Durotrigian and Atrebatic tribes,
most of the hillforts, which had dominated
the countryside for centuries, quite sud-
denly ceased to be occupied on any scale.
The evidence for this generalization will
be considered elsewhere together with
possible explanations: suffice it to say that
the principal cause is thought to be the
change from a simple embedded economy
to a market economy. There are conse-
quent changes in other aspects of the of
the settlement archaeology.
The political situation was evidently
complicated by political transformations
taking place at this time in the South-east,
but the result was that, while the Atrebatic
tribe developed a coinage consistent with
their eastern and northern neighbours,
the Durotriges adhered to a silver stan-
dard reflecting perhaps the coinage of
their Armorican associates. That the
contact with north-western France and
beyond had comparatively little effect on
the political structure of the South-west,
when compared to the effects of Belgic
contact with the South-east, is an indica-
tion of the differences between the nature
of the cross-Channel links. I n the South-
east Britain was brought into close
political relationship with the Continent -
a relationship intensified by actual folk
movement. The western axis seems to
have been based entirely upon exchange
mechanisms. That it evolved no further is
a reflection of the socio-political develop-
ment reached by communities on either
side of the Channel.
The question of incoming refugees
should not be overlooked. That some
refugees reached Britain from the ravages
of Caesar in Armorica is not unlikely. All
that can be said is that there is no
archaeological evidence to support the
idea, unless the few sword burials of
southern Britain are regarded as evidence
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 51
BRITAIN, THE VENETI AND BEYOND
of refugees or of returning mercenaries
who had learnt new religious practices
(Cunliffe forthcoming).
AFTER CAESAR
The Caesarian conquest of Armorica in
56 BC appears to have put an end to direct
trade between the south-west of Britain
and north-western France. The evidence
is threefold: post-Caesarian ceramic deve-
lopments in Armorica are not reflected in
Britain; British coinage which developed
after Caesar is only very rarely found in
Armorica and Normandy; and the influx
of Italian wine in Dressel la amphorae
ceases. The virtual absence of the lb type
of amphora in central southern Britain is
in marked contrast to the large number
now found in the South-east. At the very
least the distribution pattern must mark a
dislocation in the Italian wine trade with
Britain, which could be explained in terms
of new monopolies negotiated between
the Romans and the pro-Roman tribes of
eastern Britain (Cunliffe 1978, 78-9).
I t remains then to consider briefly the
post-Caesarian development of the South-
west. At Hengistbury there is clear
evidence that the site continued to deve-
lop and in its later stages (c. 50 BC-AD
50) it may even have become the seat of a
mint (Cunliffe 1978, 44-7). Thus its
continuing function as a commercial
centre seems likely. It is now known, as
the result of the excavation of 1980, that a
certain level of overseas trade continued;
but so far the only definite evidence is
provided by sherds of Spanish, Pasqual l ,
amphorae, a type also found at Cleave1
Point on the southern side of Poole
Harbour (D. Williams, personal com-
munication). The intensity and duration
of the trade is uncertain, but no doubt
current excavation will throw further
light on the problem. That it appears to
have had little effect on local communities
suggests that the overseas links were
probably not extensive.
The general impression given by Duro-
trigan culture in the last century before
the Roman invasion is of politically
backward communities showing none of
the socio-economicadvances ofthesouth-
east. The Dumnonii in the South-west
were even without coinage. Thus the post-
Caesarian period in the South-west may
have been a time of stagnation - a marked
contrast to the previous half century.
THE CHANGI NG PATTERNS
If we stand back from the detail in an
attempt to see broad patterns of change it
is possible to suggest four principal stages
in the systems of contact and exchange
linking the communities of the Atlantic
seaways. They may be summarized thus:
c. 800 - c. 600 BC. Complex con-
tact involving short-haul exchange pro-
bably linked ultimately to long-distance
networks. This manifests itself in the
regional distribution of bronzes.
2. c. 600 -c. 120 BC. Long-distance
trading expeditions for tin (and other
metals?) involving Greek and Carthagi-
nian merchants. I t is possible that the
foundation of the Greek colony at
Massilia may have been a significant
factor in instigating the movements. The
archaeological record appears to suggest
that local exchange patterns were not
extensive: there is intense cultural regiona-
lism in Brittany and southern Britain.
Mediterranean trade may be reflected in
the distribution of Greek and Carthagi-
nian coins in barbarian territories.
3. c. 120-c. SO BC. The intrusion of
1.
52 OXFORD J OURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
BARRY CUNLI FFE
Roman merchants into the Atlantic routes
trading wine, following the foundation of
the province of Transalpina. This pro-
bably involved short-haul transport using
middlemen. Archaeologically it is seen in
the distribution of amphorae and north-
western French pottery and the develop-
ment of ports-of-trade at Alet and Hen-
gistbury.
Locally in Britain the establishment of
new exchange networks and the intensi-
fication of production on an industrial
scale took place at various foci, in par-
ticular the entry-points.
4. c. 50 BC-AD 43. A reorientation
of the principal axis of trade. Following
the conquest of Gaul, a greater emphasis
on the Seine and later the Rhine as the
routes of communication with the Medi-
terranean world, leading to adevelopment
of British east coast markets. The
southern ports lose their monopoly but
retain their links with the Atlantic com-
munities and remain centres of production
for their hinterland.
The summary, so briefly stated, looks
deceptively simple, but it provides a
broad model against which to compare
the available evidence. To complicate it
with more sophisticated theoretical rea-
soning would be to go far beyond the
reasonable limits imposed by the data
deep into the realms of unacceptable
speculation. What is now needed is the
more detailed excavation of key sites, an
analysis of changes in the settlement-
pattern and new approaches to the
numismatic evidence. Much of this work
is now in hand and the results will, we
hope, appear in the pages of this journal.
Acknowledgements
This paper is a revised version of a lecture given
at a conference entitled Britain and Brittany held in
Oxford in J anuary 1981. The text has benefited
from discussion with Professor Giot both at the
conference and subsequently. The author wishes to
express his grateful thanks to Professor Giot and to
other French colleagues who have so readily
responded to requests for help, and to the curators
of the Red House Museum, Christchurch and the
Borough Museum of Poole. The maps are thejoint
work of Alison Wilkins (Institute of Archaeology,
Oxford) and the author.
Institute of Archaeology,
36 Beaumont Street,
Oxford
APPENDI X A: THE MAPS
A series of 13 maps are offered here to
provide support for the arguments laid
out in the text. In order not to clutter the
text with lists of site-names and references
the relevant information is given in the
extended captions to the maps.
OXFORD J OURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 53
BRITAIN, THE VENETI AND BEYOND
Figure 4
Amorican axes found in hoards. The French distribution is plotted after Briard 1965. The six British sites
are mapped by OConnor 1980 map 77 with references (p. 586). The sites are Eggardon, Dorset; Nether
Wallop, Hants.; Danebury, Hants.; New Forest, Hants.; Ventnor, Isle of Wight; and Tintern, Mons. Note
no attempt has been made to map the hundreds of isolated finds.
54 OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
BARRY CUNLIFFE
- Greek and Car t hagi nJan coins
1 Sl cl l l an axes
0 Pyvami dal i ron i ngot s
c3 Iber i an l i bul ae 100 LmS
Figure 5
Exotic imports. Shown are various categories of non-local artefacts. Greek and Carrhaginian coins: based on
information supplied by J ohn Taylor. Many if not most of these finds are likely to have been deposited in
the Roman period but some must be contemporary imports (Taylor forthcoming). Silician axes:
Hengistbury Head (Cunliffe 1978, fig. 9) and Rennes region (Briard 1970, 25-2). Double Pyramidal Iron
ingots: for the French examples, Giot 1964.. The British site is Portland Bill where two ingots were found
(Grinsell 1958, 137). Fibulae of Iberian type (possibly western French): the Breton sites are Kerancoat en
Ergut Armel and Roz-an-Tremen en Plomeur both in Finistbre (Giot 1958). The British sites are Mount
Batten, Devon (Fox 1958, pl. 31) and Harlyn Bay, Cornwall (Whimster 1977, 77-8).
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 55
BRITAIN. THE VENETI AND BEYOND
Figure 6
Selected pottery types: Early-Mid La T he. Breton stamped wares are plotted after Schwappach 1969, abb.
11. For the Breton style sherds from Carn Euny see Elsdon 1978, fig. 53. The distribution of British
Glastonbury wares is assembled from various sources. The distributions reflect parallel developments of
decorated pottery styles. The rarer (and selected) haematire painted wares shown are from Poundbury,
Dorchester (inf. C. Green); Rugutre Plouvorn, Finisttre; and Kergourognon ?I Prat, CGte-du-Nord
(discussed in Giot 1979, 314-8).
56 OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
BARRY CUNLI FFE
Figure 7
Cliff castles and souterrains. To emphasize certain similarities of settlement type in the second half of the
first millennium we have plotted cliff castles and souterrains. The Breton souterrains differ structurally
from the Cornish fogous while cliff castles though structurally alike are best seen as a similar response to
defending a natural promontory. Souterrains see Giot 1979, 292-300 for a distribution map and general
discussion.of the Breton sites. For the Cornish see Christie 1979 for a recent reassessment. Ctiff Castles are
plotted from various sources including Wheeler and Richardson 1957, Got 1980, Bernier 1964,OS Map of
Southern Britain in the Iron Age, Cotton 1958 and, in Guernsey, recent fieldwork.
OXFORD J OURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 57
BRITAIN, THE VENETI AND BEYOND
, -
0 Cor ni sh Cordoned war e
0 Hengl st bur y der i vat i ves
Figure 8
Selected Late La Tene pottery. The distribution of north-western French Black Cordoned ware and its
British derivatives. BIack Cordoned ware Cunliffe 1978, fig. 33 with corrections and additions. Sites plotted:
see list Appendix B p. 66. Hengistbury derivatives various sources summarized in Cunliffe 1978, fig. 32.
Cornish cordoned ware (Threipland 1957 with additions).
58 OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
BARRY CUNLIFFE
Figure 9
Selected Late La Tene pottery. The distribution of north-western French graphite coated wares
(Cunliffe 1978, fig. 33 with corrections). Sites plotted see list Appendix B p. 66.
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 59
BRITAIN, THE VENETI AND BEYOND
Figure 10
Selected Late La T h e pottery. The distribution of north-western French rilled wares (Cunliffe 1978, Fig. 33
with corrections). Sites plotted: see list Appendix B p. 66.
60 OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
BARRY CUNLIFFE
Figure 1 1
Names and routes. Tribal and place names mentioned by the classical sources shown in capitals, modern
place names in lower case. The principal routes to Mount Batten and Hengistbury Head are indicated
assuming northward sailing on a north star equivalent.
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
61
BRITAIN, THE VENETI AND BEYOND
Figure 13
Resources in southern Britain. The Glastonbury ware distributions are based on various sources beginning
with Peacock 1969 and updating.
62 OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
BARRY CUNLI FFE
Figure 12
Imports into southern Britain. The coins of the Coriosolites and other Armorican tribes are plotted after
Allen 1961 and Haselgrove 1978. Dressel 1 amphorae are plotted after Peacock 1971 with additions. Sites
plotted: Horndean, Hants.; Winchester, Hants.; Owslebury, Hants.; Danebury, Hants. (current
excavation); Knighton, Isle of Wight; Gills Cliff; Ventnor, Isle of Wight; Hengistbury Head, Dorset;
Hamworthy, Dorset; Green Island, Dorset; Gussage All Saints, Dorset (Peacock 1979,72); Maiden Castle,
Dorset; Weymouth Bay, Dorset; Carn Euny, Cornwall (Elsdon 1978,403): Trethurgy, Cornwall (current
excavation).
Figure 14
Model for trade in south-west Britain.
OXFORD J OURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
63
) -
I
( I N O A X B C I N V I 1 3 N 3 A 3 H L N I V L I X E
E
N
G
I
S
T
B
U
R
Y

H
E
A
D

0

1
0

k
m
s

0
A
l
l
u
v
i
u
m

a

F
r
e
n
c
h

i
m
p
o
r
t
s

0

D
r
e
s
s
e
l

1

a
m
p
h
o
r
a

a

G
r
a
v
e
l

"

C
l
u
r
o
r
r
l
g
a
r
l

p
o
l
l
a
r
y

u
d
y

a

C
l
a
y

n

H
i
l
l
f
o
r
t
s

I
=
]

S
a
n
d

0
C
h
a
l
k

a
n
d

l
i
m
e
s
t
o
n
e

F
i
g
u
r
e

1
6

L
a
t
e

I
r
o
n

A
g
e

s
i
t
e
s

i
n

T
h
e

W
e
s
s
e
x

C
o
n
t
a
c
t

Z
o
n
e
.

BRI TAI N, THE VENETI AND BEY OND
APPENDI X B
Sites producing north-western French
late La T he pottery of selected types:
Black Cordoned ware, graphite-coated
ware and rilled ware.
France
1 Petit Celland, Manche (Wheeler and
Richardson 1957)
2 Camp dArtus, Huelgoat, Finisttre (Wheeler
and Richardson 1957)
3 he Gaignog, Landtda, Finistttre (Giot and
Bourhis 1964)
4 Stang-Vihan, Concarneau, Finisttre (Le Roux
1967)
5 Kermoysan, Plabennec, Finisttre (Le Roux
and Lecerf 1973; Le Bihan and Galliou 1974)
6 Kercaradec, Penhars, Finisthe (Wheeler and
Richardson 1957)
7 Tronoen, Port lAbbe, Finistbre (Wheeler and
Richardson 1957)
8 Kersigneau, Plouhinec, Finisttre (Wheeler
and Richardson 1957)
9 Kervedan, Ile de Groix, Morbihan (Threip-
land 1945)
10 Plouhinec, Port Louis, Morbihan (Threipland
1945)
11 Pointe du Vieux Chitteau, Belle-he en Mer,
Morbihan (Threipland 1945)
12 Saint-J ude en Bourbriac, CBtes du-Nord
(Briard and Giot 1963)
13 Villers-sur-Mer, Calvados (Caillaud and
Lagnel 1964)
14 Saint Malo-dAlet, Ille-et-Vilaine (Sanquer
1975)
15 Moulin-de-la-Rive, Locquirec, Finisttre
(Giot Deunff, Briard and LHelgouach 1958)
16 Bellevue, Ploukgat-Moyson, Finisttre (Giot,
Le Roux and Onnee 1968)
17 St. Donan, St. Brieuc, CBtes-du-Nord (Giot,
Lecerf and Onnee 1971)
18 Grhe des Rosaires, Plerin, CBtes-du-Nord
(Giot, Lecerf and Onnee 1971)
19 Bourg, St. Glen, CBtes-du-Nord (Giot, Lecerf
and Onnee 1971)
20 Rugire, Plouvorn, Finistkre (Giot, Lecerf and
Onnke 1971)
21 La Fresnais, Marais de Dol, Ille-et-Vilaine
(Sanquer 1979)
22
23 Moulay, Mayenne (Naveau 1972)
Ile Agot, CBte-du-Nord (Giot 1980)
Channel Islands
101 Mont Orgteil, J ersey
102 Maitresse Ile, Minquiers, J ersey (Hawkes
103 La Hougue au Compte, Cgtel, Guernsey
(Cunliffe forthcoming)
104 Les Issues, St. Saviour, Guernsey (Cunliffe
forthcoming)
105 Catioroc, St. Saviour, Guernsey (Cunliffe
forthcoming)
106 Kings Road, Peter Port, Guernsey (inf. R.
Burns)
1937, 186-8)
Britain
201 Hengistbury Head, Dorset (Bushe-Fox 1915;
Cunliffe 1979)
202 Mill Plain, Christchurch, Dorset (Calkin
1965)
203 Burleigh Road, Bournemouth, Dorset
(Calkin 1965)
204 Tuckton Farm, Bournemouth, Dorset
(Calkin 1965)
205 Wick, Bournemouth, Dorset (Calkin 1965)
206 Hamworthy, Poole, Dorset (unpublished:
Poole Museum)
207 Green Island, Poole, Dorset (unpublished:
private collection)
BlBLlOGRAPHY
ALLEN, D. F. 1961: The Origins of Coinage in
Britain: a reappraisal: In Frere, S. S. (editor),
Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain
(London) 97-308.
BERNI ER, G. 1964: Les Promontoires Barres des Iles
Vanuetaises du Mor BrBs. Annales de Breragne 71,
67-74.
BRAI LSFORD, J . 1958: Early I ron Age C in
Wessex. Proc. Prehist. SOC. 24, 101-19.
BRI ARD, J . 1965: Les Dip6ts Bretons et LAge du
Bronze Atlantique (Rennes).
BRI ARD, J . 1970: Rennes a Iage du Bronze. Annales
de Bretagne 77, 11-35.
BRI ARD, J . and GIOT, P-R. 1963: Fouille dun tumuhs
de 1Age du Bronze a Saint-J ude en Bourbriac
(CBtes-du-Nord). Annales de Bretagne 70, 5.
BURGESS, C.B. 1969: The Later Bronze Age in the
British Isles and North-western France. Archaeo-
logical Journal 125, 1-45.
66 OX FORD J OURNAL OF ARCHAEOL OGY
BARRY CUNLI FFE
BUSHE-FOX, J .P. 1915: Excavations at Hengistbury
Head, Hampshire in 1911-12 (Oxford).
CAI LLAUD. D. and LAGNEL, E. 1964: Une station de
la Tkne finale a Villers-sur-Mer (Calvados).
Annales de Normandie 14e annee, no 2, 83-102.
CALKI N, J . B. 1955: Kimmeridge Coal-money The
Romano-British Shale armlet industry. Proc.
Dorset Nat. Hist. and Arch. SOC. 75, 45-71.
CALKI N, J . B. 1965: Some Early Iron Age Sites in the
Bournemouth Area. Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. and
Arch. SOC. 86, 120-30.
CHRI STI E, P. M. 1978: The excavation of an Iron Age
souterrain and settlement at Carn Euny, Sancreed,
Cornwall. Proc. Prehist. SOC. 44, 309-434.
CHRI STI E, P. M. 1979: Cornish souterrains in the
light of recent research. Bull. Inst. of Archaeology,
London 16, 187-213.
COTTON, M. A. 1958: Early Iron Age Earthworks in
J ersey. Bull. SociPte Jersiaise 17, 171-80.
CUNLI FFE, B. (1974) 1978: Iron Age Communities in
Britain (London: second edition 1978).
CUNLI FFE. B. 1978: Hengistbury Head (London).
CUNLI FFE, B. forthcoming: The Warrior Burials of
Guernsey.
CUNLI FFE, B. and PHI LLI PSON, D. W. 1968: Excava-
tions at Eldons Seat, Encombe, Dorset, England.
Proc. Prehist. SOC. 34, 191-237.
DENI AUX, E. 1980. Recherches sur Les Amphores
Antiques de Basse-Normandie. Cahier des Annales
de Normandie No. 12B (Caen).
ELSDON, S. M. 1978: The Pottery. In Christie, P. M.
1978, 396-424.
FOX, C. 1958: Pattern and Purpose (Cardiff).
GI OT, P-R. 1958: Apropos des affinitts Hispano-
Armoricaines a Lage du Fer. Annales de Bretagne
GIOT, P-R. 1964: Les lingots de fer bipyramidaux en
Bretagne. Annales de Bretagne 71, 51-60.
GI OT, P-R. 1979: LAge du Fer. In Giot, P-R.,
Briard, J . and Pape, L. 1979, 217-360.
GI OT, P-R. 1980: Apercus sur lage du Fer du Nord-
est de la Bretagne. Les Dossiers du Centre Regional
Archeologique dAlet (1980) 99-1 12.
GI OT, P-R. and BOURHI S, J . 1964: Sur une
remarquable ctramique Gauloise de Iile Gaignog.
Annales de Bretagne 71, 61-66.
65, 15-26.
GIOT, P-R., BRI ARD, J . and PAPE, L. 1979: Pro-
tohistoire de la Bretagne (Rennes).
J . 1958: Lhabitat protohistorique du Moulin-de-la-
Rive en Locquirec (Finistkre). Annales de Bretagne
GI OT, P-R., DEUNFF, J ., BRI ARD, J . and LHELGOUACH,
65, 27-32.
GI OT, P-R., LE ROUX, C-T and ONNEE, Y. 1968:
Ceramique Armoricaine de l Age du Fer (Rennes).
Ceramique Armoricaine de IAge du Fer 2 (Rennes).
GRI NSELL, L. V. 1958: The Archaeology of Wessex
(London).
GRUEL, K., LLERES. J . and WI DEMANN, F. 1980: Etude
des Liaisons de Coins dans le Tresor de Monnaies
Coriosolites de Trebry. Communication a la Table
Ronde Numismatique et Statistique Paris 17-19
Sept. 1979.
HASELGROVE, C. 1978: Supplementary Gazetteer of
Find-spots of Celtic Coins in Britain, 1977(London).
HAWKES, J . 1937: The Archaeology of the Channel
Islands: 2 The Bailiwick of Jersey (J ersey).
HI LL, D. and J ESSON, M. 1971: The Iron Age and its
Hill- f ort s (Sou tham p ton).
LANGOUET, L. 1978a: Les Ceramiques Gauloises
dAlet. Les Dossiers du Centre Regional Archeo-
logique dAlet 6, 57-104.
LANGOUET, L. 1978b: Les Monnaies Gauloises
dAlet. Les Dossiers du Centre Regional Archeo-
logique dAlet 6, 23-9.
Antiques de Quimper-Kermoisan. Archkologie en
Bretagne 4 (Sept. 1974) 7-20.
LE ROUX, C-T. 1967: Le Souterrain de IAge du Fer
de Stang-Vihan, en Concarneau (Finistkre).
Annales de Bretagne 74 , 127-46.
LE ROUX, C-T. and LECERF, Y. 1973: La ctramique du
souterrain de IAge du Fer de Kermoysan en
Plabennec (Finistkre). Annales de Bretagne 80,
MAYS, M. 1981: Strabo Iv 4.1: a reference to
Hengistbury Head? Antiquity 55 (March 1981),
55-7.
NAVEAU, J . 1972: LOppidum de Moulay. Bull. de la
Commission historique et archeologique de la
Mayenne 243 (0ct.-Dec. 1972) 3-36.
OCONNOR, B. 1980: Cross-Channel relations in the
Later Bronze Age (Oxford).
GI OT, P-R., LECERF, Y. and ONNEE, Y. 1971.
LE BI HAN, J. P. and GALLI OU, P. 1974: LeS Forges
89-104.
OXFORD J OURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 67
BRITAIN. THE VENETI AND BEYOND
PEACOCK, D. P. S. 1969: A Contribution to the Study
of Glastonbury Ware from South-western Britain.
Antiq. Journ. 49, 41-61.
PEACOCK, D. P. S. 1971: Roman Amphorae in pre-
Roman Britain. In Hill, D. and J esson, M. 1971,
PEACOCK, D. P. S. 1979: The Amphorae. In
Wainwright, G. J . 1979, 72.
ROUXEL, G. 1912: Station prkhistorique de Nac-
queville-bas (Manche). Un Atelier de fabrication
d Anneaux de Lignite. Bulletin archbologique du
Comitb des Travaux Historique et Scientifiques
ROWLANDS, M. J . 1980: Kinship, alliance and
exchange in the European Bronze Age. In Barrett,
J. and Bradley, R. (eds.), The British Later Bronze
Age (Oxford) 15-55.
SANQUER, R. 1978: Amphores Romaines trouvees
Alet en Saint Malo. Les Dossiers du Centre Regional
Archeologique dAl et 6, 51-6.
SANQUER, R. 1979: Circonscription de Bretagne.
Gallia 37, 349-81.
SCHWAPPACH, F. 1969: Sternpelverzierte Keramik
von Armorica. Fundberichte aus Hessen 1,213-87.
161-88.
1912, 25-33.
SMITH, H. P. 1930: The occupation of the
Hamworthy peninsula in the Late Keltic and
Romano-British Periods. Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist.
and Arch. Soc. 52, 96-130.
STEVENS, C. E. 1952: The Bellum Gallicum as a
work of propaganda. Latomus 11, 3-18.
THREIPLAND, L. M. 1945: Excavations in Brittany,
Spring, 1939. Archaeological Journal 100, 128-49.
Mawgan-in-Pyder, North Cornwall. Archaeological
Journal 113, 33-81.
TIERNEY, J . J . 1960: The Celtic ethnography of
Posidonius. Proc. Royallrish Academy 60,189-275.
Age settlement in Dorset (London).
WHEELER, R. E. M. 1943: Maiden Castle, Dorset
(Oxford).
WHEELER, R. E. M. and RICHARDSON, K. M. 1957: Hill-
forts of Northern France (Oxford).
WHIMSTER, R. 1977: Harlyn Bay Reconsidered: the
excavations of 1900-1905 in the light of recent
work. Cornish Arch. 16, 61-88.
THREIPLAND, L. M. 1957: An Excavation at St.
WAINWRIGHT. G. J . 1979: Gussage AllSaints: an Iron
68
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY