R B Warner

The Broighter hoard: a reappraisal and the iconography of the collar

in Scott B. (ed.), Studies on Early Ireland (Belfast

1982), 29-38.

Studies on

Early IrelansdEssays in Honour ofM.~Duignan

Edited by B.G.Scott Belfa$t \'18f .

v, V","-u"T" v"u. --T~ u. . "...u. . . -U':1""""

THE BROIGHTER HOARD:A REAPPRAISAL,AND THE ICONOGRAPHYOF THE COLLAR. '

R.B. WarnerThe Hoard

In 1896 a subsoilingplough unearthed a hoard of gold objects which, after a prolonged court-case (summarised inPraeger 1937, 63-7), was declared to be treasure trove and deposited with the Royal Irish Academy, and by themplaced in the c91!ectiorisof what is now the Na\ional Museumof Irejand. Th~ ~oard was first published'by Arthur Evans(1897) in a report which, although failing to reveal the precise find-spot (perhaps Evansdid not know), neverthelessremains the best discussion of the objects yet published and my reason for not describingthe individual items in detailhere. Since then serious doubt has been cast on the authenticity o.fthe hoard, beginningwith an unsubstantiated claimby J. Raftery (1937,410) that some of the objects were of recent Indian origin. This has been followed to such anextent by Irish writers that the hoard is now seldom referred to, discussion being instead concentrated on the tubularcollar as the supposedly only, legitimate ancient object of Irish provenance (although even this has been doubted byHenry 1965, 11 n.2). I do not here intend to discuss the background o,fthis extraordinary controversy except to saythat it is, in my opinion. completely without basis. There is. as we shall see, not the slightest reason to doubt that thehoard represents a genuine associated ancient deposit, and in this essay I shall explore some implicationsof the hoardand present an iconographic interpretation of the art on the collar. ,

The hoard (illustrated conveniently in Clarke 1954, pis. 3 and 4) consists of a decorated tubular gold collar,two 'rod-twist' gold bracelets with hook-and-eye terminals (one fragmentary), two woven-chaingold necklaces,a goldboat with attachments including mast, seats, oars and steering oar, and a smallgold bowl with (originally)four twistedring-handles.

The gold chain necklaces are, as Evans (1897,396-8) saw, but as almost every subsequent writet has ignored, of aclass familiar in the Roman world between the first century B.C.and the third century A.D. Mostof the details of ournecklaces are readily paralleled amongst these 'Roman' ornaments (or 'Graeco-Roman' as Marshal!called them, 1911,nos. 2719, 2720, 2725, 2735, 2845; also Pfeiler 1970, pis. 12, 22, 28), particularly from Egypt (manufactured,perhaps, at Alexandria). In particular Evans noted (1897, 397) an Alexandrian provenanced 'bracelet' with a claspidentical, even in such decorative detail as the triple sets of granulation, to !hat of the largerof the Broighternecklaces,and mentioned other ,similar ones knownto him from the same region, belongingto the first century B.C.or the first.century A.D.

The two bracelets are of 'rod-twist' rather than the Irish 'bar-twist', 'flange-twist' or 'ribbon-twist' forms oftheLater Bronze Age and Earlier Iron Age (I am using 'rod' to signify round se~ion and 'bar' to 'mean 'square' section;for examples of the Irish forms see Eogan 1964,277-80). The terminals of the Broighterbracelets are hook-and-Ioop,contrasting with the double-hook terminals of the roughly contemporary Irish 'ribbon' tores and bracelets. TheBroighter bracelets are best paralleled at Newgrange,Co. Meath, where a pair were found with a loose-linkgold chainof Roman type and two Roman gold finger-rings (Topp 1956). The only good parallel outside Ireland seems to be abracelet from Sussex (Marshall 1911, no. 2793) which shares with the Newgrangebracelets the attached globules atthe terminals, lacking on the Broighter bracelets. All have hook-and-Ioopterminals except one of those from Newgrangewhich has a double hook exactly like the Irish 'ribbon' forms. On the basisof this example, and thb Irish distribution(albeit with Roman accompaniments), I feel we must take the type to be Irish. But the 'rod-twist' idea, and thespherical bosses, surely stem from the south-eastern Britishmulti-rad-tWistloop-ended tares of theSnettisham/lfJ.swichschool (Bums 1971, esp. fig. 2a; Brailsford& Stapley 1972; Clarke 1954,46-51, includes these Irish bracelets in thisclass). The hook-and-Ioop terminals may come either from the Britishtores or perhaps from the hook-and-Ioop Romanchain necklaces such as the one found in the Newgrangehoard itself. A largegroup of twisted bronze torcs, with hook-~md-Ioopterminals, in Early La T?meChampagne (Bretz-Mahler 1971, pis. 27-39) do not, in my opinion" stand asmadels for our bracelets.

The tubular collar is part of a small, but widely spread group of largetubular gold collarswith buffer terminals.Of particular importance are two hoards containing collars, Snettisham, Norfolk, hoard A, and Frasnes-Ies-Buissenal,Hainault, both dating to the first century B.C.on the evidenceof accompanying'coins (for both, Clarke 1!iJ54.3646). The tube of the larger Frasnescollar is decorated against each buffer with repousseornament of perhaps a nor;thGaulish Late La Tene style, motifs including ~frontally viewed horse's head whose divided mane-curls are in the form ofwide-sprung volutes, and two semi-naturalistic animals, probably horses, backward looking. This collar, and an almostidentical one from Mailly-Ie-Camp,Aube. (Joffroy 1969) are closely linked to the Broightercollar not just in the use ofrepousse ornament, but in the otherwise unique clustered granulation. On Frasnes and Maillythis is found on a ringbetween the buffers, and on Broighter on plates sprung in,tothe buffers (seebelow for discussion).Wealso find simplerows of raised beading, on the back ring of Frasnesand against the buffers on Broighter.This beadinggoes back to thesolid gold collars of Waldalgesheim(Jacobsthal 1944, nos. 43, 55 eg.) and is seen on a collar of the same class fromBelgium (ibid. no. 45). The technique is also found on the British loop-terminal collars (such as Snettisham hoard E,Clarke 1954, pI. 16), whose decorative traits are very similar to Broighter. and also share with Broighter the idea offilling the flat areas with simple geometric infill in order to emphasise the raised decoration. The Snettisham tubul~rcollar, linked to the Frasnesone by such details as little clusters of punched circles, and 'herring-bone' ornament, and toBroighter by the concentric-curve infill on the back ring (which compares with the Broighter 'machining'. see below), ispart of a rich collection of British collars, some tubular, some of rigid woven gold, mostly concentrated in East Anglia(Owles 1969). Of this group a number bear relief ornament, mostly solid rather than repousse'and on the buffers or

29

oil

terminals rather than on the ring, of a distinctive style found on a largenumber of ornaments of the first century B.C.and the first century A.D. in southern Britain and, ocCasionallybeyond, and of several allied schools (compare, forinstance the silver trumpet brooches of the Carmarthen school, Boon and Savory 1975). As MacGregor(1976, 181-3)has suggested, the various north British 'boss-styles' of the first few centuries A.D. stem directly from this traditionperhaps as the result of workshop fragmentation.

Jope and Wilson (1957) have discussed the Irish version of the boss-style as it appears in developed form onsuch objects as the River Bann (Camus, Co. Derry) disc and a number of well known, mostly unprovenanced, bronzes(part of my Earlier Iron Age 2, or E.I.A.2, Warner 1976,268). This style is cognate with, and contemporary with, thenorth British style by virtue of its derivation from a southern British workshop (Jope and Wilson 1957,99), and Isuspect that the same mechanism by which the north Britishworkshop(s) were created will account for that (or those)in Ireland. The ornament which coversthe tube of the Broighter collar belongsto this Irishboss-style,though near or atits beginning. I would not agree with Jope (1958, 80) that the ~ingof the Broighter collar may have been added toolder, imported, buffer terminals,nor do I find Evans'(1897,400) Early LaTenecomparisons.forthe fasteningand granu-lar decoration all that relevant (but see.JacobsthaI1944, 211 for such a claim also). The decoration immediately againsteach buffer, part of the buffer rather than the tube, is quite acceptable as Irishboss-style. Moresignificantly, tlJe triple-grouped granulation on the buffers is almost identical to that on the clasp of the accompanying larger Roman chainnecklace. This latter, includingits granulation, has an undeniable eastern Mediterraneanorigin (above)and .wecan onlyconclucte that it provided the model for t.he granulation on the collar buffer. How we then derive that on the Frasnesand Aube collars other than from this or another 'Alexandrian' ornament I do not know.

The conclusion, that there is more than an associativeconnection betWeenthe Roman and Irish objects in t~eBroighter hoard, should not be surprising. Hartmann's analysis of the gold of each of the objects, includingthe boat a.ndthe bowl, leaves no room for any doubt that the gold of the native and imported ornaments in the hoard has the sameimmediate source (Hartmann, 1970, nos. 618-628). Interestingly the Irish ribbon tores and a number of ContinentalLa Tene ornaments (includingthe Aube collar, Joffroy 1969,48) and coins belongto the same general analytical group(Hartmann's 'PC' group). Hartmann has tentatively suggested (1976, 120-3) that the eastern.Mediterraneanmay wellhave been the source for the PC gold. I think that the 'Alexandrian' connection now stressed for Broighter stronglysupports the thesis (contnl Scott 1976), and also adequately explains the fact that it is from Latin rather than 'Celtic'that the old-Irish word for gold derives (but see Scott in this volume). A gold bracelet from Rhayader, Radnorshire,found with a number of other 'Roman' ornaments in a hoard dated by Henig (1974,48) to about A.D. 100 but byPfeiler (1970,51-3) to the middle of the first century, is very closely-paralleled by one from Alexandria (the two areillustrated together by Pfeiler 1970, pI. 10). The terminal ornament on the Rhayader bracelet is, however, decoratedin an acceptably 'celtic' scheme in which two overlappingS-curvesform a central double pelta (for an earlier Conti-nental example see Jacobsthal 1944, no. 46, a gold collar from the Danube in Bulgaria). But the addition of ears tothe scheme makes it uncannily like the scheme of the Broighter collar ornament, although the use of filligreeand blue enamel on the bracelet terminal would be unlikely in an Irish workshop. This apparent south Welshconnection. is strengthened by the decorative scheme on the bronze fragment from Llandyssul,Cardiganshire(Fox 1958, pI. 12d), whose style, moreover, is close to our Irish boss-style.The fragment may well belong, as Boon andSavory suggest (1975, 50), to their 'Carmarthen' brooch school, and I note their further suggestion (ibid., 49) thatbehind the metalwork concentration in south Walesmay lie the Dolaucothi gold-minecomplex. Trade in gold (andperhaps silver) may well then be the link between Broighterand the Roman world from, shall we say, the first centuryA.D., or earlier. This brings us back again to the Newgrangefind, for included amongst the largeamount of native andimported material of the first four centuries A.D. from around the entrance to the passage-gravewas a fragment of aLater Bronze Age gold flange-twist torc with a Roman inscr!ption in pointillEJe(Carson & O'Kelly 1977,51; for thetype Eogan 1967). This might have come from southern Britain or Wales, or from the area inland from Newgrange(map in Savory 1958, fig.7), but certainly suggeststhe seeking for, and recovery of, ancient gold (I shall discuss thiselsewhere). We are hardly surprised therefore that the NewgrangeRoman chain necklace is paralleled by one in theLlandovery, Carmarthenshire, hoard (Marshall 1911, no. 2741). I am reminded of the conclusion drawn by Hughes(197, 104-5) that the red 'enamel' used to decorate insular metalwork of the first century B.C. and the first twocenturies A.D. was probably imported from the Mediterranean. He included in his analysisa raw block of the materialfound at the earthwork complex at Tara, not far from Newgrange.

A group of objects' not entirely irrelevant to this discussion are the strange punched gold neckrings fromthe Rhenen and Velp hoards (Holland; Roes 1947), apparently Late Roman local imitations of much earlier 'ceitic'buffer-ended collars. They are fastened by hook-and-Ioop fastenings, the hook .ending in a little button. The Velphoard included a portion of a Roman necklace or collar (ibid., 183 ff.), best paralleled by one from Egypt and bearingon its reverse a poiniillee inscription giving its weight and value, surely indicating its having been purchased as scrapgold. Indeed the weight given was considerably greater than the present weight of the portion, so presumably the resthad found its way into tl1e"meltingpot, one would imagineto make the punched collars.

The BackgroundA particularly rich concentrat.ion of Irish E.I.A.2 (see above) metalwork has been found in the north-east of

Ireland, in north Co. Antrim, of which the Broighter collar is an offshoot (Warner 1976 fig.1; Warner 1981; Rafteryforthcoming). At the centre of this group is a stone (Derrykeighan)whose decorative scheme is close to that of theBroighter collar, but in two-dimensions only (fig. 1). Of simflarly reduced dimensionality are the geometricallyinscribed bone plaques from Loughcrew, Co. Westmeath (Crawford 1925), one of which (ibid fig. 4) againcompares closely with the Broighter ornament scheme. The Loughcrew collection is an extraordinary hoard of motifs

"

fIi

i1j!1j

~O

taken from schools throughout the British.Isles (Warner1981; Simpson 1968,250), many of which are never found inIrish art. The reasons for the creation and deposition of the collection are much'more likely to be ritual than to befound in such explanation as a workshop pattern-book.

. To return to the concentration of iJ'!'lportedmaterial in the north-east; within the small area covered by the map(fig. 1) are twelve recorded, and reasonably reliable, finds of Roman or Romano-British material of the first fourcenturies A.D. compared with not more than thirty from the rest of the country (an area some twenty times-larger).The objects are mostly stray finds, ranging from base coins to largesilverhoards (some in Bateson 1973, the fest to belisted elsewhere), I have shown (1976) that the other major concentration of intrusive material (the south-east) is quitedistinct fro.m the distribution-of contemporary native mat!i!rial,but here in the north-east the concentrations are notquite so separate, but overlap on the north Antrim coast and (in association) at Broighter. Lough Foyle is a goodanchorage and harbour and the major river joining it (Mourne) is navigablefor a considerable distance. ~rom the loughradiate a number of natural (and historically demonstrable) routes (Warner1976, fig 3) which coincide remarkably withthe find-spots of the intrusive material. One route along the river Mourne leads eventually to Clogher, Co. Tyrone,where one of Ireland's imported 'Langton Down' (first century A.D.)brooches wasfound duringexcavation (ibid.,274).-Itis along the same route that I w9uld incline to bring the 'B' amphorae that reached Clogherin the 5th and 6th centuriesA.D. (Warner1979). Finally, from an island in Lough Derg,the source of a major tributary ofthe Mourneriver, comeswhat appears to be a Roman inscribed stone, the only one from Ireland (Macalister1945,301-3). A strong contenderfor a site which might well relate to the intrusive material in the Lough Foyle area is a unique (for Ireland) vitrified fortat Rallagh, near Dungiven,Co. Derry (Warner, 1981). It liesat the head of the valleyofthe river Roe, at whose mouththe Broighter hoard was found, and is the centre of a small cluster of Roman finds including a bronze statuette ofMercury (McCloskey et. al. 1835).

The Find SpotThe river Roe is a smallish river which runs the last few miles of its course through a mature flood plain cut into

level glacial lake deposits. The plain is bounded by a very sharp cliff, and contains many alternative river channelsdiscernable from air-photographs (fig. 1). It is navigable only for a mile pr so in normal conditions, the water beingtoo shallow at the ford of Bellarena. At high tide or during floods shallow-draught vessels could travel several milesfurther. The Mourne is a much larger river, again with mature lower reaches (erroneously called the river Foyle). Bothrivers, with the Faughan, drain a considerable area of mountain into Lough Foyle. The lough, which is heavily silted,with extensive mud flats and shallows, has a sea outlet to the north restricted by a large triangular sand and gravel spit(Magilligan) laid down as a series of parallel ridges since glacial times (Carter 1981). Recent intake has moved theeastern shore into the lough by up to a mile, but the pre-18th century shore line can still be seen as a slight cliff mucheroded by cultivation, some four to six feet high (fig. 1, adapted from Bazley and Brandon 1970)..The base of thiscliff, allowing for cultivation build-up, is at the height of mean high water, about 10 ft. (3 m.) O.D. (Dublin datum).The top of the ~liff, at about 15 ft. (4.5 m.) O.D., is the surface of a raised beach composed of sands, sbell beds andmuds which rises slightly to some 20 ft. (6 m.) O.D. at the foot of a sharp cliff of the glacial lake deposits. It seems tobe generally agreed (e.g. Carter 1982) that this beach was formed during the maximum post-glacialtransgressJonofc. 7000 B.P. but it is widely held that there have since been a number of smaller, though widespread and more or lesssynchronous, transgressions (the work of Tooley and others on this matter for the Iron Age is briefly summarised byTurner 1981, 261-3). Two of these claimed transgressions, of 3 or 4 feet maximum height above present sea-lev~1in the northern Irish Sea, seem to bracket the probable date of the Broighter deposition (Lytham VIII ending in the4th century B.C. and Lytham IX beginning after the second century A.D.; Tooley 1980). The concept of a eustatically

induced oscillating sea level is s~verely criticised by Kidson (1977,10) who points out that storm surges and hightides can combine to cause major inundations with local sea level rises .of--upcto 25 feet (7 m; also-Everarrl 1980).Certainly the Mourne, Faughan and Roe rivers are susceptible to severe and suddenflQoding caused by he~vy mountainprecipitation (Roe < O. Ir. Roa<:. *Ravia may mean 'the Roarer', O'Rahilly 1946,5), and such conditions, combinedwith a spring high tide and northerly winds backing the outlet at Magilligan would inevitably cause disastrous floodingall around the shores of the Lough, overtopping the raised beach (even reaching the inland cliff) and flooding the river

plains for several miles. Ligar (183~) describes flooding of the Roe, for instance in 1798, in which the water in thelower mature stretches reached up to 12 feet above its normal level, sufficient to cover the whole plain. Carter hascommented (privately) that the shape of the lough, and the nature of the outlet, would set the water in the lough'resonating like a drum'. Even under normal conditions high water spring tides reach 15 feet (4.5 m.) O.D., enoughto cause flooding on the raised beach and in the Roe valley. That flooding of a severe nature was capable of reachingthe inland cliff, on the raised beach, may be indicated py an early report (Fagan 1835) that an iron anchor was foundseveral feet down in the deposits near its foot. Whatever m()del we take for the history of Late Flandrian relative sea-

levels, it seems probable that at the time of the deposition of the Broighter hoard the mean sea.level was not signifi-cantly below the present. It is equally clear that the raised beach was, then as since, a salt marsh with poor drainage,subject to frequent flooding, a conclusion bome out by the absence of early settlement traces on its surface.

It will be seen from :the map JfJg. 1) that the narrow peninsula of glacial gravels between the Roe flood plainand the raised beach has been breached at1he village of Myroe (presumably Ir. Maigru, glossed Murmagh 'sea-plain'

or 'salt-marsh', Joynt 1939). On those occasions of severe flooding, as in 1798, the Roe river water would be highenough to come through that breach fanning out across the raised beach. Opposite the gap, the old shore-line isindented with a series of small inlets, which I take to be run-off channels caused by this postulated Roe overspill. It

is quite possiblethat the anchor was the result of just such a river overspill, for it was found very near the gap.

---------"-':~.:::i.~.~!:~:~.'.::'.~:~.:::~

-------------------------------------------------

.-::- .:- .-::- .:::::- .:- .:- .:-

*

..::::- >GIANT'S WALK

~~~ ~-':-':-':-I~ ~~- . ##..#.# ~~ ?>,,~y..<;, ",-;,.,r,"""r,.", .--I- 1 1J\.'O ,,<!'.:- - ~ ::: = =.:- -.:-.:::::- - ?>O <i'Of"""""'"

==-.-= ~U~E.!:!:I:G.s.-; AD~S.-=--- -==-~ (1'\(\,\,~,(,,-<, ..:- .:- .:::::-.-::- -- .:- .:::::-.:::::-.:::- .:::::-.:::::- "'~'

~

,u.!'

EARLIER IRON AGE FINDS

0 NATIVE

. IMPORTS

6) aUERNS

ff!J150m. &over

0..

km.. 25IIacoi

Fig.1.Find-spotof BroighterHoard(mostlyafter BazleyandBrandon1970),

and distributionof earlierIronAgeobjectsin north-easternIreland.

,'31

I he Tlna.,spotOTtne tSrolgmern9ara ISon me ralseabeaen,ana ngnt on tne eageot the 010snoreline,betweenthe small inlets..The ground surface at this point is about 16 feet 0.0., only a foot above normal high-waterspring tide.As we have seen, although it seems unlikely that the spot was under permanent water at this time it is inconceivablethat. it.could have been truly dry land, or that anyone seekingto bury a hoard for future recovery would have put it insuch an unstable place. Three interpretations of the find-spot can be-discussed.The first would be that the hoard wasintentionally deposited at that point, though with no intention to recover. This explanation would, perhaps, gain thesupport of the included gold model of a sea-goingboat (Farrell et al. 1975). I am reminded of the find-spot of the'Cork horns' (O'Kelly 1961), some sort of head-dress of bronze decorated in a developed version of the Broighterstyle, perhaps a century or two later. They were found in Cork harbour in mud which, allowing for a slight isostaticfall, was, at the driest, a salt marsh at the time of the deposit. Gearoid MacEOinhas kindly drawn my attention to anOld Irish story (Binchy 1963), in which the 7th. centl}ry Scottish chieftain Gartnan (Gartnait) 'hid a vat, full of gold.and silver, on a tidal beach and killed the four men who brought the treasure thither so that the sea carried off theirbodies and no one knew of the treasure but he and his wife and son'. I would imagine that the story has been wovenaround the discovery of just such a hoard as Broighter. The second possible explanation of the find-spot is that it hasbeen carried, in some orgaDiccontainer or boat, down the river Roe during a major flood, through the Myroeoverspillgap and onto the mud at the shore. If we accept this mechanism it would seem more likely that it had been intention-ally placed in the riverthan accidentally washed in. A tubular gold collar of the same classas Broightef was found, partof a hoard, ~n the bank of the Rhine after a flood (Clarke 1954,44), and nearer home there are, of course, the largenumber of finds from Britishand Irish rivers. In particular three objects whose iconographicdetailswe shall becomparingwith Broighter: the bronze disc from the river Bann at Carnus,Co. Derry(the Banndisc,JoPt!and Wilson1957), an animalhandled bowl from the river Shannon at Keshcarrigan,Co. Leitrim (Jope 1954) and a bronze shield bossfrom the riverThames at Wandsworth (Fox 1958, pI. 13). The only other gold tubular collar from Ireland, although a couple ofcenturies tlarlier than Broighter, came from the river Shannon at Clonmacnoise, Co. Offaly (JacobsthaI1944, no. 49).Again Mac Eoin has found for me an old-Irish tract which seemsto rilferto the finding of treasures after a flood, in thiscase the river Moul"e, appeased by the.poet-Athirne (Gwynn 1940, 13). A thi~d possibleexplanation is that the hoard,again in a container or vessel,was washed onto the shore from the lough during a storm. A late life of Columba (seeCochrane1902,222) relateshowthe saintwasaimostwreckedat the mouth of the Roewhiletryingto crossLoughFoyle, finally being washed up the Roe in his boat. I find it quite difficult to decide between these various explanationsof the find-spot of the hoard, although I have no doubt that we see an act oj' propitiation for the river or the lough orboth.

The IconographyThe repousse decoration on the tube of the Broightercollar (repeated on each half) can be described in geometric

terms as an S-scroll based figure, two S's overlapping, with a double lentoid giving an eared effect at either end. Thecentral portion of the figure has the form of a double broken-backed curve and the development of the shape is bymeans of the decorative traits typical of Irish boss-style;' trumpets with lipped and simple bossesand both slender andbroad tails usually lapping (see MacGregor 1976, xvii-xix for some of these ten:ns), snail shells and crescents, all inrelief. The raised ornament has been isolated by a surround of very precise crossing 'machine' curves and the figure is,with only slight variations, symmetrical. But this is description, not explanation, and such a splendid design is belittledif we fail to see beyond its parts. It is true that in 'celtic' art one can easily find symbolism, much of it ambiguous,obscure or imaginary..Palmettes and faces are so often interchangeable and the claimed identification of the 'illusiveimage' can sometimes stretch credibility. But I let the pattern speak for itself in fig. 2 with only slight help.l!:tave sub~dued the detail, and lifted the relief pattern from its 'machined' background, objectiveenough-.and no more than theartist quite obviously intended. I have then (more subjective, but unnecessar:y"oncethe eye sees)-pulled the ornament.apart slightly. TwoanimalHire now clear, both repeated when the scheme isturned upside down.

The larger beast (a), has a long slender arched neck, a spiral eye and-a spatulate muzzle, two prominent ears (?)and a forward flying mane or forelock. We can find this beast, and its individualattributes, throughout the 'celtic'world. From the Taunus in ~er_manycomes an elegant long and slender necked, large-eared creature (horse?) of castbronze (JacobsthaI1944, no. 372). The forward flying mane.or forelock..can be widely found on animals, particularhorses, on Gaulish and Britishcoins.-ltbecomes.quiteex-3ggerated, with terminal coils, on, for instance, coins of theCoriosolites (de la Tour 1892, no. 6614; see Hawkes:-1976)'The best~contemporary parallels for the EJroighteranimal's head are on objects of its own north-east Irish school, on two bronze river finds, the handle of the

Keshcarrigan bowl and the heads on the Bann disc {refs. above). The bowl is usually takeh to be an impo~ thoughI agree with Raftery (1977, 147) that its handle at least is local.The Banndiscisdecor~ted in preciselythe trumpet-basedstyle of the collar, but the flying mane tufton..eachhead goes backward rather than forward, in order to givetriskeloidsymmetry to the head to match that of-the disc as a whole. The triskeloid animal head becomes common in later art,as lshallsho~ elsewhere-.Thedisc itself iscomparableto apfain-bronzedisc from Snettisham hoard B/C (CI~rke1954, 57).A series of Irish brooches, the so-called 'Navan'style (Jope 1962, pi. 11;ffiiftery 1960, no. 161), are basicallya front-view horse head, with expanded muzzle as Keshcarriganand Broighter. One from Navan, Co. Armagh (Jope 1962, pI.IIc) even has prominent, quite naturalistic, ears. All are openwork and decorated with the lapping-trumpet style ofBroighter, and all betray their stylistic origin (though not as brooches) in; as we would expect, East Anglia or there-abouts. The openwork body of the brooches, particularly the two with contained roundels, invite comparison with theLakenheath dragonesque brooch (below), and all find, in their details, close parallels on the handles of the class /libmirrors of the same region (Fox 1958, fig.66).

33

5

b

Fig.2.Thedecorationon the collar,and its interpretation.

I am certain that an animal is shown on the collar, and reasonably happy that the animal represented is a horse,or the derivative of a horse. I prefer to take the absence of limbs as intentional but am nevertheless mindful of thetheme of the dismembered horse, a feature of the development of this animal on Gaulishand Britishcoins during thelast century B.C. and the first A.D. At an early stage in this dissolution the legscan become dissociatedfrom the body,becoming mere separate shapes, the body itself being a substantive leglessbeast. An example is to be found on the goldcoins of the GaulishParisii(de la Tour 1892, nos. 7777 to 7790) on which the horse has a very slender S-curvedbody, along arched neck and a prominent waving forelock. For what it is worth the pattern of crossing concentric curvesabove the horse on these coins is very reminiscent of the 'machining' background on the Broighter collar. On someBritish coins, such.as those of the Coritani (Alien 1980, pl.31 nos. 459-61) eventhe rear of the body has dissolvedintoa number of almost random crescents. It must remain a possibility that this stage is represented by the horse on thecollar, the central ('broken-back') part of whose scheme, with crescent/trumpets and snail-shellcoils, preservingsuch adissolved!Jodyand legs.

The second beast (b), smaller and simpler, has a beak-likemuzzle and againa spiral eye, and a prominent pointedor dome-shaped crest. At first sight it appears to be some sort of bird, perhaps a duck; the beaked head is a commontrait on E.I,A.2 art (Warner 1981). The best parallel for this particular head, and its crest, is the unprovenanted (butIrish) 'Petrie' crown (O'Kelly 1961, pi 5b). It is my strong belief that the animal represented here is a hippocamp.The association of the two beasts is therefore of some importance. Wehave a legless,impressivelymaned, horse (whiclic~uld be taken to be a 'classical' form of hippocamp, see below), and a little crested beast which is almost certainlya hippocamp (of the 'naturalistic' form). Their association, which ~ shall see to be recurrent in Celtic art, serves, in

"'~ 4p'; ""Pi'll~O{tll~~ t~nature afttre.ffi8jJrVea5t ID).as a steed of the sea. . '31+

..1 L' I_~ . r ", te\t~IC1\-l: (Jrte .fL4 (1'lto.t"W""Q.\lsh~~:for-O\Io.\;~ {~Cj\~.sS&-rarTl£,)C!+ot'>'1IS 0') l\,'PfOQMl\f~\'l~,.<lO~'O- . I I -with curly hind-quarters, clearly based on the fish Hippocampus gen., and the 'classical' form, the front end a normalleggedhorse and the rear end a fish tail. The n9rmal northern limit of the fish Hippocampusgen. is at present south ofthe British Islesalthough occasional specimenshavebeen seenasfar north as the northern Irishcoast (B.Turner pers. inf.).There is no doubt that the northern limitof their range istemperature dependent and they may wellhavebeen more com-mon in northern waters during climatic optima, for instance as claimedforthe time of the Broighterhoard (Turner, 1981,261). It is therefore interestingthat Greekand Romanartists, familiar with the actual animal, usedonly the classicalformin their art, wheras, as we shall see, the natl,lrallsticform isartistically morecommon inthose areas to which it would bearare visitor, or inwhich it could not befoimd atall. From Mediterraneanart the classicalform would havereachedthe Celtson such exports as the Etruscan stamnos found at Durkheim (JacobsthaI1944,1)1. 253); or-through the Greek coloniesin southern France, to provide the splendid winged hippocamp on a coin type of the Celtic town of Narbo (de la Tour1892, .no. 2496); or on Roman intagli to provide the model for the hippocamp on the coins of the British.rulerAmminiu.s (so Henig 1912,220). The classi"calform is found widelYon Gaulishcoins (seeColbert de Beaulieu1954,64ft.), such as those of the Redones (Alien 1980, pI. 36 nos. 547-9), usually in association with a full-leggedhorse{O'Rahilly 1946, 295, points out that the root of the name of this Gaulishtribe is also that of the probable early namefor the 'people of the extreme north-east of Ireland, *Redodii:> O.lr. (Dal) Riata}. A pair of winged classicalhippo-camps appear on the Gundestrup cauldron (Klindt-Jensen 1961, fig. 21), and a pair with prominent ears and a wavingforelock on a bronze coin ascribed to the Ambiani (de la Tour 1892, no. 8526).

The naturalistic hippocamp is rarer. It may perhaps be seen paired on a number of central European Early and

Middl,: la Time objects, such as sword scabbards (Jacobsth~1.1944, nos. 121-5), and girdle-clasps (double-headed;e.g. ibid., pi. 360). Jacobsthal (1944,53 ff.) brings thi~ facing pair of beasts, basicallya zoomorphic lyre in its 'celtic'form, from the..Near East where the beast is a nameless dragon. Neverthelessthe splendidly equine heads of t~e twqanimals on the Late(?} La Tfme mount from the Bavarian oppidum of Kelheim (de Navarro 1959) make them soclearly hippocampic that I feel sure that this is intentional. I do not think it is very likely that this particular paired-form can be claimed as the origin for the single naturalistic Western examples next discussed. The truly naturalisticform is rare on Gaulish coins, a winged example occurring with a winged horse on a coin attributed to the AulerciEburovices (de la Tour 1892, no. 7056). But a pseudo-naturalistic form can be found on numerous cQinsofthenorth GaulishAmbiani, this hippocamp being a horse with no front legs and a single, rudimentary back leg. On thesecoins this beast frequently appears with a normal horse, on the same face {egode la Tour 1892, no. 8519), or, oustingthe usual human head (and occasionally in groups), on the obverse (Ioc. cit., nos. 8479, 8503, 8505). Flowing coil-ended manes and forelocks, or a divided curl, are not infrequent. I should add that the Ambiani were one of a smallgroup of northern Gaulish (Belgic) tribes whose coins were found with a number of the tubular gold collars, includingSnettisham and two from a newly found grave at DUren,on the Rhine. The terminals of the last (Pauli 1980, no.267)have a connection and expansion very close to Broighter. One of these Belgicpeoples, the Menapii,hasa tribal name-sake in Ptolemy's first century list of Irish tribes, though in the south-east (Warner 1976,279; O'Rahilly 1946,30 ft.see ibid., 54 ff, for a discussion of 'Belgae' and Irish '(Fir) Bolg').; In Britain a splendid silver coin type _fromSelsey(Hampshire) has on the obverse a good, very naturalistic, hippocamp next to a 'PallasAthene' head, and on the reversea naturalistic hippocamp with' a large-double-earedtrumpet-mouthed horse (Alien 1980, fig.14). The animalon theWandsworth shield boss (Fox 1958, pI. 13) is very relevant to this discussion. Fox (ibid., 26) sees it as a flying birdbut I see it as a slender-necked horse with a flying forelock and mane. Indeed with its leglessbody and curled hind-quarters it should surely be interpreted as a hippocamp. The second century A.D. British dragonesque brooches(Feachem 1951), their crested heads so like'the Irish boss-style animal heads on the 'Petrie crown' (O'Kelly 1961,pI.5b), are, with their bicephalate S-based symmetry and upturned muzzles close cousins to the Broighteranimal. Onedragonesque brooch, from lakenbeath, Suffolk (not far from Snettisham; Fox 1958, pi. 41b), is, unlike the rest,decorated in the trumpet-based local boss-style from which, earlier, the Irish boss-sty.lesprang. These brooches mustsurely represent hippocamps. Perhaps the most surprising hippocamps, whose development must be connected to thistheme, are those that appear, much later, on the Pictish symbol stones (Thomas 1963,49 ff). We find the classicalform (the 'sea-horse' of Alien 1903, 77), the naturalistic form (/oc. cit., 'hippocampus') and a strange, but common,mixed fo~mwith a prominent head-Iappet (ibid., 72, now usually called the 'Pictish elephant').

I would not claim that the Broighter animal has an ancestry traceable through the un~rtain history of 'celtic'hippocamp representation. I do, however, claim thatit is a respectable water-horse, and I am struck by the flowing-maned horses head on the Frasnescollar atop a seriesofS-curls that could surely represent turbulent water. I feel thatthe repeated inclusion of this curious animal, particularly the naturalistic form, in 'celtic' art is neither coincidentalnor flippant. It seems to me that the incidence of the naturalistic form in those areas in which the insignificant fishwould seldom, or never, be found may well indicate a particular importance of, or fear of, that which it symbolised.

SymbolismThe explanation of the animal on the Broightercollar, and of the hoard and its constituents, isvery closely linked

to its findspot. I must say that I am not convinced that old-Irish literary sources contain as much pre-Christiansocialinformation as is often claimed (seeMalloryin thi~volume) . Neverthelessthere can be no doubt that there. is a kernel.of information that can, perhaps, be prised out, particularly if an archaeological constraint is used on any interpre-tation. lough Foyle (the name, Febal, may mean 'lip' and may possibly refer to the narrowing of its mouth atMagilligan, O'Brien 1971, 212 for the name) is, in the early literature as we shall see, implied to be the otherworld/undersea abode of the major Irish sea-god Manann/3n mac Lir ('M. son of the sea'). The importance of this god isdiscussed at length by Wagner (1979) where he is equated with Poseidon, the 'Black horse~ of the sea and of the under-

35

world, and with Aegir, the Nordic sea-god. He is the same as the WelshManawydan,Vab LIyr, and the main elementof his name eponymously names the Isle.of Man, the island of Anglesey and several Celtic tribes and rivers. His sonMongan('little mane'), Manannanhimself euhemerised as a historic king of the Cruithin, is represented,in an earlylegendconcerning Calumba, as living under Lough Foyle (Meye'r 1899, 314-5); Another doublet ot' Manannan, Br~n macFebai/ ('B. son of Foyle'). was a sea-traveller (Meyer 1895), a giant, possessorof a great cauldron (Wagner1979,27).

Thr?ugh another son, Echdonn, 'the horse, the dark one', Manann'n was symbolised as a horse. He was the possessorof a horse that could travel over land and sea (Ross 1967,332). of treasure (ibid., 284;cf. Aegir in Wagner1979,29),and of a metal boat (Ross 1967,332). Sea-horsesare a kenning for waves in the 'Voyage of Bn'n' (Gabralir, Gabrarein, both lit. 'sea-horses'; Meyer 1895,5 & 19), and are there associated with the land of Manannan.Elsewherein earlyIrish literature waves are described as Groigmaic Lir, 'Mac Lir's horses' (ibid., 5 n.4), and mong, 'mane', is frequentlyused of the crest and spray of a wave (ibid., 8 n. 3). Riangabair(lit. 'sea-horse'), Manannan by another name (O'Rahilly1946,291), was father of Cuchullain's charioteer Laeg, 'foal', who lived at Lough Foyle (Seebelow). Wemay sum upthus; the popular image of Manannan, the major god of the -underworld whose undersea realmwas apparently enteredthrough Lough Foyle, was hippomorphic, and we would suspect that he was represented artistically in the same way.His obvious extension as a merchant (Wagner1975) would clearly equate him with the Roman Mercury,described byCaesar (De Bello Gal/ico 1,1) as the chief 904 of the Gauls 'who directs men upon their journeys, and is their mostpowerful helper in trading and money'. This reminds us of the Mercury statuette from the head of the Roe Valleyaswell as the wealth of Roman material from the hoard and the area (above). Thus the contents of the treasure, modelcauldron, model boat, foreign necklaces and stylised (sea-?)horse, as well as its context and location all support theinterpretation that it was ritually deposited as an offering to the otherworld/undersea god. Evans-heldthis viewbut wasunable to demonstrate it (1897,408).

PostscriptManannan is associated with the prehistoric mound at Newgrange(Sfd an Bragha, 'fairy mound of the mansion',

his favourite mansion, Wagner1979,29), which produced, as we have seen, the only other Irish gold-hoardwith Romanjewellery in it, comparable in several ways to Broighter. The more popular name for the mound, Brugh na Boinne,may survive in Bro Farm and Bro Mill nearby. The names of the three adjoining townlands in which theBroighter hoard was found, Broighter, Broharrisand Brog/asco,seem to imply an older common form, anglicisedBra.Admittedly this is most likely to be bruach (shore, bank, border) but I might be forgiven for wondering if we mighthave brugh (mansion, abode) as at Newgrange. I wonder, therefore, if the site had some survivingtradition, orindication of antiquity in recent times. Cochrane (1902,218) mentions tliat fields immediately adjoiningthe find-spotof the treasure were locally called 'Church field' and 'Graveyard field' and that in the latter quantities of bones had'frequently been dug up'. It seems to me extremely unlikely that there had ever been a church and Christian graveyardat this spot, so the explanation eludes me.

Continuing the idea that Lough Foyle was believed to be an entrance to the underworld, as implied by a storyof Calumba (Meyer, 1899), I offer the following notes. The area in which the hoard was buried, including the lowerreachesof the Roeand the Magilliganspit, was anciently called Tuath Eo/airg,and included a now lost Carn (or Carrai'c)Eo/airg(where Mongan, that is Manannan,told Columbaabout his realmunder LoughFoyle;the carn was on the edge9fthe lough). O'Rahilly (1950,395) explains the name Eo/arg as Eo/-arg, 'path of the warrior' (or hero). In the 'CattleRaid of Caoley' we read (O'Rahilly 1970, 1. 4058), in a list of mythical persons summoned to battle, of 'Laegat hiscauseway (tochar)'. The position in the list suggeststhat the 'hero's path' and Ueg's causeway are one and the same.The topographical feature referred to is clearly the massivenatural boulder and gravel ridge which forms the core ofthe Magilliganspit and against which the Roe swingsto the west. It is visiblewhere not covered by blown sand and istraditionally known as the 'Giant's walk' or the 'Giant's grave'. We have already seen that Laeg's father, Riangabair

. ('sea-horse') was Mananm!n. I will explore the problem of Laeg, Manannan and chariots in a future essay.The importance of Manannan as, perhaps, the major god of the earliest stratum of Irish mythology has been

discussed by Vendryes (1954), who described him as a sort of 'Celtic Neptunus'. (op. cit. 254). In the Old-IrishstoryA/tram Tige Da Medar (one version in Duncan, 1932) he is described as 'high-king'of the mythical Tuatha De Danaan,and is associated with treasures and with Brugh na B6inne. One of the great colonising battles of this god-tribe wassupposedly fought at Loch Febail (Lough Foyle, op. cit. 187f). According to the 1Oth~century Sanas ChormaicManan~nn had been a famous merchant 'whom the Scots and Britons called a god of the sea', with his home on theIsleof Man (one version in Stokes 1862, 31).

I take the association ofthe Boyne with Nechtan (Sidh N. and Dun N., unidentified monuments on Carbury Hill,Kildare, the source of the Boyne) to be an early replacement of Manannan by his classicalequivalent Neptunus byRomanisedsettlers, and will pursue this line elsewhere.

I have deli5erately avoided detailed discussion of the relationship between the imported and native goldornaments in this essay. However I should point out that the implications of the analytical identity between theimported Broighter bracelets and the Irish ribbon torcs are given support by the three gold globules attachedto the terminal of a ribbon torc from the Law Farm, Morayshire, hoard (Coles 1975). I would also draw attention totwo gold ornaments, a ring from Co. Cork? and a necklet from Co. Waterford, both now lost but both b~ringdecoration consisting of gold globules or small bosses alternating with linear triplets of gold granules (Anon 1857 andHoare 1857, I owe these references to W. Glover). I must add that I am firmly of the opinion that the Kanturk, Co.Cork, neck-ring (Megaw 1964) is a copy, in 'ribbon to rc' styl~, of just such a multistrand imported necklace as thatfrom Broighter. Its analytical identity to the Later Bronze Age goldwork should occasion no surprise considering theNewgrangeterminal (above).

~

------------

Alien, D.F (1980) The Coins of The Ancient Celts, Edinburgh.Alien, J.R. (1903) The Early Christian Monuments of Scotland Edinburgh.Anon (1857) J. Kilkenny Archaeol. Soc., 1, 254. .

Bateson, J.D. (1973) 'Roman Material from Ireland: a Reconsideration', Proc. Royal Irish Acad., 73C, 21-97..Bazley RA. and Brandon, A (1970) Field maps of drift deposits, Geological Survey of Northern Ireland.Binchy, DA (1963) Scela Cano Meic Gartnain. Medieval & Modern Irish Ser., 18, Dublin.Boon, G.C. and Savory, H.N. (1975) 'A Silver Trumpet-Brooch with Relief Decoration, Par"el-Gilt, from Carmarthen. . :,

Antiq. J., 55, 41-61.Brailsford, J. and Stapley, J.E. (1972) 'The Ipswich Torcs', Proc. Prehist. Soc., 38, 219-234.Bretz-Mahler D. (1971) La Civilisation de Le Time en Champagne, 23rd. suppl. to Gal/ia, Paris.Burns, J. (1971) 'Additional Torcs from Snettisham, Norfolk', Proc. Prehist. Soc., 37, 228-9.Carson,. R.AG. and O'Kelly, C. (1979) 'A Catalogue of the Roman Coins from Newgrange, Co. Meath, and Notes on the

Coins and Related Finds', Proc. Royal Irish Acad., 77C, 35-55~Carter, RW.G. (1982) 'Sea Level Changes in Ireland', Proc. Geol. Assoc.. 93, 7-23.Clarke, R.R. (1954) 'The Early Iron Age Treasure from Snettisham, Norfolk', Proc. Prehist. Soc., 20, 27-86.Cochrane, R (1902) 'On Broightet . '. and the Find of Gold Ornaments there in 1896', J. Ray. Soc. Antiq. Ireland 32,

212-224.Colbert de Beaulieu, J.B. (1954) 'La Contremarque dans le Monnayage d'Or Gaulois', Gal/ia, 12,55-72.Coles, J.M. (1975) 'The 1857 Law Farm Hoard: an Addition', Antiq. J., 55, 128.Crawford, H. (1925) 'The engraved Bone-Objects found at Lough Crew, Co. Meath, in '1865', J. Ray. Soc. Antiq.lreland,

55, 15-29.de la Tour, H. (1892) Atlas de Monnaies. Gauloises, Paris. .de Navarro, J-M- (1959) 'A Bronze Mount of the LaTene Period from Kelheim, Lower Bavaria', Germania, 37, 131-140.Dunean, L. (1932) 'Altram Tige Da Medar', Eriu, 11, 184-225.'Eogan, G. (1964) 'The Later Bronze Age in Ireland in the Light of Recent Research', Proc. Prehist. Soc., 30,268-351.Eogan, G. (1967) 'The Associated Finds of Gold Bar Torcs', J. Ray. Soc. Antiqs. Ireland., 97, 129-175.Evans, A (1897) 'On a Votive Deposit of Gold Objects from the North West Coast of. Ireland', Archaeologia, 55,391-

~08.Everard, C.E. (1980) 'On Sea Level Changes' in Thompson F.H. ed. Archaeology and Coastal Change, London (Soc.

Antiqs.), 1-23.Fagan, T. (1835) Manuscript Notes on the Parish of Tamlaght Finlagan. Co. Londonderry, Ordnance Survey Memoirs,

Dublin. -

Farrell, AW., Penny, S., and Jope, E.M. (1975) 'The Broighter Boat: a reassessment' ,Irish Archaeol. Forum. 2, 15-28.Feaehem, R.W. (1951) 'Dragonesque Fibulae', Antiq. J., 31,32-44.Fox, C. (1958) Pattern and Purpose: a Survey of Early Celtic Art in Britain. Cardiff.Gwynn E.J. (1942) 'An Old Irish tract on the Privileges and Responsibilities of Poets', Eriu, 13, 1-60, 220-236.Hartmann, A. (1970) Prahistorische GoldfiJnde aus Europa, Berlin (RG.Z.M.).Hartmann, A (1976) 'Ergebnisse spektralanalytischer Undersuchungen an Keltischen Goldmunzen aus Hessen und

Su(ideutschland', Germania, 54, 102-134.Hawkes, C.F.C. (1976) -'The Horse on the Painted Vase from Betheny (Mame)'. in P-M Duval and C.F.C Hawkes (eds)

Celtic Art in Ancient Europe, London, 281,Henig, MA (1972) 'The Origin of Some Ancient British Coin Types', Britannia, 3, 209-223.Henig, M.A (1974) Corpus of Roman Engraved Gemstones from British Sites, British Arehaeol. Reps. (Oxford).Henry, F. (1965) ,Irish Art in the Early Christian Period to A.D. 800, London.Hoare, E. {1857)'J. Kilkenny Archaeol. Soc., 1, 320-321. .Hughes, M.J. (1972) 'A Technical Study of Opaque Red Glass ofthe Iron Age in Britain', Proc. Prehist. Soc., 38, 98-107.Jacobsthal, P. (1944) Early Celtic Art. Oxford (and reprint 1969).Joffroy, R.(1969) 'Le Torque de Mailly-Ie-Camp (Aube)', Monuments et Memoires Piot, A cad. des Inscr. et Belle Lettres,

56, 45-59.Jope, E.M. (1954) The Keshcarrigan Bowl and a Bronze Mirror-handle from Ballymoney, Co. Antrim', Ulster J.

Archaeol., 17, 92-96.Jope, E.M. (1958) 'The Beginnings of La TEmeOrnamental Style in the British Isles', in S. Frere ed. Problems ofthe Iron

Age in Southern Britain. London.Jope, E.M. (1961) 'Iron Age Brooches in Ireland: a Summary', Ulster J. Archaeol., 24/25, 25-38.Jope, E.M. and Wilson, B.C.S. (1957) 'The Decorated Cast Bronze disc from the River Bann near Coleraine', UlsterJ.

Archaeol., 20, 95-102.Joynt, M. (1939) Contributions to a Dictionary of the Irish Language, Le.tter M, Dublin.Kidson, C. (1977) 'Some Problems of the Quaternary of the Irish Sea', in C- Kidson and M. Tooley(eds) The Quaternary

History of the Irish Sea, (G801. J., special issue). ~

Klindt-Jensen A.O. (1961) Gundustrupkedelen. Copenhagen.Ligar, C. (1835) as Fagan T., 1835.Macalister RA.S. (1945) Corpus Inscriptionum Insula'rum Celticarum, vol. 1, Dublin.MaeGregor, M. (1976) Early Celtic Art in North Britain Leicester.Marshall, F.H. (1911) Catalogue of the Jewellery, Greek Etruscan and Roman. in the Depts. of Antiquities, British

Museum, London.McCloskey et al. (1835) Manuscript Notes on the Parish of Banagher, Co. Londonderry, Ordnance Survey Memoirs,

Dublin.Megaw.).v.S..O 9Q4) 'An Irish Neck-Ring in the Nicholson Museum, Sydney', J. Cork Hist. Archaeol. Soc., 69,94-100.Meyer, K. (and Nutt, h) (1895) The Voyage of Bran Son of Febal, vo!. 1, London.Meyer, K., (1899) 'The Colloquy of Colum Cille and the Youth at Carn Eolairg', Zeit. Celtische Phi/ol., 2,313-320.O'Srien, M.A (1971) 'Notes of Some Irish Proper Names', Celtica, 9,212. 'O'Kelly, M.J. (1961) 'The Cork Horns, the Petrie Crown and the Bann Disc', J. Cork Hist. Archaeol. Sac.. 66, 1-12-O'Rahilly, C. (1970) Tain B6 Cualnge from the Book of Leinster, Dublin.O'RahHly, T.F. (1946) Early Irish History and Mythology, Dublin.O'Rahilly, T.F. (1950) 'Notes on Early Irish History and Mythol~gy', Celtica, 1, 387-409.Owles E. (1969) 'The Ipswich Gold Tores', Antiquity, 43, 208-212.Pauli, L., (1980) Catalogue in Pauli ed. DieKelten in Mitteleuropa, Salzburg.

37

Pfeiler, B. (1970)Romischer Goldschmuck des Ersten undZweitenJahrhunderts n. Chr. nach Datierten Funden. Mainz.Praeger, RL. (1937) The Way That I Went, London.Raftery, B. (1977) Review, J. Roy. Soc. Antiq. Ireland, 107, 145-8.Raftery, J. (1960) 'A Hoard of the Early Iron Age', J. Roy. Soc. Antiq. Ireland, 90,2-5.Roes, A (1947) 'Some Gold Torcs found in Holland', Acta Archaeol., 18,175-187.Ross, A. (1967) Pagan Celtic Britain. London.Savory, H.N. (1958) 'The Late Bronze Age in Wales', Arch. Cambrensis., 107, 3-63.Scatt, B.G. (1976) 'The Occurence of Platinum as a Trace Element in Irish Gold: Comments on Hartmann's Gold

Analyses', Irish Archaeol. Res. Forum, 3, 21-24.Simpson, M. (1968) 'Massive Armlets in the North British Iron Age', in Coles, J. & Simpson, D. eds. Studies in Ancient

Europe, Leicester.Stokes, W. (1862) Three Irish Glossaries, London.Thomas, A.C. (1963) 'The Animal Art of the Scottish Iron Age and its Origins', Archaeol. J., 118,14-64.Tooley, M.J. (1980) 'Theories of Coastal Change in N.W. England', in Thompson F.H.(ed.) Archaeology & Coastal Change,

London, 74-86. -

Topp, C. (1956) 'The Gold Ornaments Reputedly Found near the Entrance to New Grange in 1842',Ann. Reportoflnst.- of Archaeol. London, 12, 53-62. .

Turner, J. (1981) 'The Iron Age'in Simmons, I.and Tooley, M.(eds.), The Environment in British Prehistory, London 251-281Vendryes, J. (1954) 'Manannan Mac Ur', Etudes Celtiques, 6,239-254. -

Wagner, H. (1975) 'Studies in the Origins of Early Celtic Traditions', Eriu, 26, 1-26.Wagner H., (1979) 'Origins of Pagan Irish Religion and the Study of Names', Bull. Ulster Place-Name Soc., 2,24-40.Warner, RB. (1976) 'Some Observations on the Context and Importation of Exotic Material in Ireland, from the First

Century B.C. to the Second Century AD.' Proc. Roy. Irish Acad., 76C, 267-292.Warner, R.B. (1979) 'The Clogher Yellow Layer', Medieval Ceramics, 3,37-41.Warner, RB. (1981) 'Ireland, Ulster & Scotland in the Early Iron Age', in Clarke D. & Grieve A eds. From Stone Age to

the Forty-Five:Studies in Scottish Material Culture, Edinburgh.