We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2015
The racial prehistory of Great Britain, while incomplete, has been brought to a provocative stage in its reconstruction. What follows is an attempt to set forth the framework of present knowledge, with its major lacunae, for the particular scrutiny of the archaeologists, on whom the anthropologists must largely rely for the testing of its stresses and strains.
1 Tildesley, M. L.. ‘Bones and the excavator’ Man, 1931,31, 31, no. 112.Google Scholar
2 More exact tests, based upon the standard deviation, may be performed upon a group of crania to determine the homogeneity of its composition. Thestandard deviation is likewise the basis for all determinations of the likeness or unlikeness of two series.
3 Morant, G.M.. ‘A first study of the craniology of England and Scotland from Neolithic to early historic times, with special reference to the Anglo–Saxon skulls in London museums’ Biometrika, 1926,18, 56–98.Google Scholar See also Hooke, B.G.E., and Morant, G.M., ‘ The present state of our knowledge of Eritish craniology in late prehistoric and historic times’ Biometrika, 1926, 18, 99–104;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Keith, A., ‘The Bronze Age invaders of Britain’ four. Royal Anthrop. Institute, 1916, 45, 12–22.Google Scholar
4 In order to have the benefit of the largest possible number of skulls, Morant included in his Neolithic series a number of crania resembling theNeolithic physical type, but of Bronze Age date. These he selected from the Bronze Age material by a mathematical process for which the reader must be referred to the original paper. Whilethe author agrees entirely with Morant that such individuals of the Neolithic race were present in the Bronze Age, he feels that the method by which they were segregated by Morant may haveaffected his total ‘British Neolithic’ series, in which they were incorporated ;i.e., the variability of the latter may have been artificially reduced, and it is possible thtthe average figures for basion-bregma height and bizygomatic breadth are too high and too low respectively. There is therefore the greatest needfor sufficient crania of unquestioned Neolithic date.
5 Archaeological opinion doubts that the Beaker People actually introduced bronze into Britain, but in dealing with physical form the terms ‘Beaker People’ and ‘Bronze Age type’ may be used synonymously.
6 See Howells, W.W., ‘The Iron Age population of Great Britain’ American four. of Physical Anthropology, 1937, 23, 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Howells, W.W., op. cit. The paper referred to constitutes a preliminary report on the material, which was excavated by the author as a part of the Harvard Anthropological Survey of Ireland. Google Scholar
8 Dingwall, W.W and Young, M., ‘The skulls from excavations at Dunstable, Bedford shire’ Biometrika,1933, 25, 147–157. [The series from the Maiden Castle cemetery is likely to provide even more valuable material when it has been studied. ED.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Reports in Biometrika by Morant, , op. cit.;Google Scholar Brash, J.C., and Young, M. 1935;Google Scholar Layard, D., and Young, M., 1935;Google Scholar
10 Reports in Biometrika, by Macdonell, W.R., 1904 1906;Google Scholar Hooke, B.G.E. 1926.Google Scholar
11 Keith, , op. cit., also The Antiquity of Man, 1928 ,2nd ed.Google Scholar
12 See Howells, , op. cit.Google Scholar
13 Archaeology has an analogy : in lowland Britain invading cultures tended to replace those existing, while in the highlands they tended to be absorbed by the latter.
