In his important study of early wheeled vehicles from the Caucasus region, S. Piggott briefly considered two terracotta models of wagons with arched tilts from the Near East (Piggott 1968, 273). Following Speiser (1934), he argued that the actual wagons represented by these models had been introduced into the Near East from the Caucasus by the later 3rd millennium B.C. The present article aims at a more comprehensive review of the Near-Eastern evidence. It will be almost exclusively concerned with terracotta models of both four-wheeled wagons and two-wheeled carts, because these constitute practically all the documentation we have of vehicles with tilts. This material undoubtedly will be incomplete, since there must be more examples among the many models that have not been published, or published only inadequately. A full description will be possible only in the one case where we have personally examined the model (wagon A1).

Recent arguments about the origins of the Predynastic in Upper Egypt have posited connections between the lithic industries of that region and those of the Western Desert. It has been further claimed that a mid-Holocene arid period may have led the inhabitants of the desert regions to migrate to the Nile Valley. This essay argues that the evidence of stone tools, as well as ceramic evidence from Dakhla Oasis, fail to support the ‘desert migration’ model, at least as it applies to Dakhla Oasis.

In 1932 the writer published a catalogue of and a commentary on the Neolithic Pottery of the British Isles, in which emphasis was laid on the essential division, first distinguished by Kendrick nearly ten years ago, into the Windmill Hill (Neolithic A) and Peterborough (Neolithic B) groups, and it was claimed that “evidence is consistent in pointing to a late date for Peterborough ware, with constant contacts with the beakers, while the Windmill Hill antedates this.” Since the publication of this paper, however, re-examination of the material, certain new evidence, and above all a most valuable discussion with Mr. E. Thurlow Leeds have made it clear that this claim for a difference of date all over Britain was unfounded. The most convincing, and indeed almost startling evidence was in the form of certain sherds from the recent excavations by Dr. Cecil Curwen in the causewayed camp of Whitehawk, near Brighton. Dr. Curwen invited the writer to examine and describe the pottery, and a brief commentary was contributed to the report on the excavations. Owing to the exigencies of space and other considerations it was thought advisable to omit from this report any discussion of the wider implications suggested, and to deal with them in a separate paper.

Since the Whitehawk sherds form the real basis of the revised views presented in this paper, it is well to consider them in some detail, at the risk of partial repetition of the account already published elsewhere. (Fig. 1.)

This article presents a detailed analysis of developments in British prehistoric research practices from 1980–2010, traversing the period during which Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 (PPG16) was introduced and changed substantially the way that archaeology was carried out. Using evidence from Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society (PPS) itself together with key fieldwork records collated over the duration of this period, a consideration is made of changes in the character of prehistoric investigations, in the evidence base available to researchers, and in the methodologies drawn upon and interpretations put forward in significant outputs of British prehistoric research. Several major shifts in research practices are highlighted. The findings augment considerably broad claims which have been made about the changing character of British prehistoric research practices and reveal some perhaps surprising traits of the investigative process. PPS's own role within this broader research milieu is also assessed.

Ever since large amounts of Bell Beaker complex pottery were first discovered within megalithic graves in north-western France, the Bell Beaker has been tightly tied to the ‘megalithic phenomenon’. However, the fact of construction of these various kinds of megalithic monument during the Middle to Late Neolithic pre-dates the users of Bell Beakers. While this is a case of the re-use of older funerary monuments, it is assumed that Bell Beaker funerary practices witness a shift from Neolithic collective burial to individual inhumation. For a long time finds from the megalithic graves have constituted our main source of information on the Bell Beaker complex in north-western France. However, these ‘artificial caves’ have biased our understanding of the Bell Beaker complex and, in particular, of its funerary practices. The re-assessment of old finds and recent large-scale excavations have brought to light a large number of new sites, revealing a greater diversity in Bell Beaker funerary practices in the region than had been perceived previously. In the first part, we set the broader picture, stating what we know or can say about funerary practices during the Recent and Late Neolithic (3350–2550 bc), before the beginning of the Bell Beaker phenomenon. We then discuss the different Bell Beaker burial practices (2550–1950 bc), their chronological and regional variabilities, and, above all, the research biases that might have affected their understanding.

The barrow whose excavation is described below was situated about 770 feet above Ordnance Datum a hundred yards south of the Hardy Monument on Black Down Hill, Portesham, on the edge of a large gravel pit. In the winning of gravel during the war the face of the pit had been worked round the barrow on both sides destroying the southern half of the ditch and part of the south side of the mound. As the mound was slowly falling into the gravel pit, it was decided by the Ministry of Works to excavate the barrow before further deterioration took place. The first-mentioned author undertook the supervision of this work for the Ministry in April and May, 1955, with a further fortnight in October of the same year, with the kind permission of the owner, Mrs H. Tuke.

Blawearie Cairn was first excavated by Canon William Greenwell in 1865. His findings indicated that the cairn was a cist cemetery of the Early Bronze Age. Recent excavation has demonstrated that the cairn was originally a kerb circle and that funerary rites were not necessarily its prime function.