Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T17:38:57.585Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

British Prehistory half-way through the Century: Presidential Address

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

C. F. C. Hawkes
C. F. C. Hawkes
Affiliation:
Professor of European Archaeology in theUniversity of Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Prehistory, in Great Britain, is usually taken to denote the whole story of human activity in our country before its invasion, or before the invasion of any given part of it, by the Romans in the 1st century A.D.; it may also denote the totality of research upon, and interpretation of that story. The adjective Prehistoric was first popularized in the 19th century by Sir John Lubbock, the first Lord Avebury, and it and its cognate substantive Prehistory have been found so convenient, that we take their use for granted. Yet to a strictly logical mind they are tiresome and problematic words. Since what is Prehistoric must precede in time what is Historic, Prehistory should precede History; and History, to Lubbock, was evidently History in its restricted sense of the story of human activity known to us from written documents. But History can mean more than that: even the original Ancient Greek word historía did not mean history only in Lubbock's sense—the word for that was syngraphé—but rather, anything found out by enquiry. Thus to-day in the 20th century, when the range covered by documentary history has been enormously extended, both in time and space, by archaeology and anthropology in all their branches, we can speak also, as Elliot Smith did in his book of twenty years ago, of Human History as covering all the human story—all of What Happened in History, as Professor Childe's book called it in 1942—without restriction. In other words, History in the broad sense includes Prehistory, which must yet precede History in the narrow sense. We, as prehistorians, are of course quite used to this; and we seldom notice the patient smile on the face of the logician.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , 1951 , pp. 1 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1951

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 2 note 1 Daniel, G. E., A Hundred Years of Archaeology (London: Duckworth, 1950), p. 47Google Scholar.

page 4 note 1 See especially his fine study in the Chadwick, H. M. Memorial Volume, The Early Cultures of N.W. Europe (Cambridge, 1950), pp. 75–106Google Scholar.

page 5 note 1 Lethbridge, T. C., Archaeological News Letter, December 1950, p. 92Google Scholar, near the end of his article, ‘Boredom in Archaeology.’ Cf. his Herdsmen and Hermits (Cambridge, Bowes and Bowes, 1950), p. 10Google Scholar.

page 6 note 1 Burkitt, M. C., ‘The Transition between Palaeolithic and Neolithic times, i.e. the Mesolithic Period,’ Proc. Prehist. Soc. E. Anglia, v, part I (1926), pp. 16–32Google Scholar.

page 7 note 1 Journ. R. Anthrop. Inst., LXXVI, pt. II (1946), pp. 87 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 7 note 2 British Museum (Natural History): 1st edn., 1949; 2nd edn., 1950: chart, with explanatory text, pp. 1–2.

page 7 note 3 P.P.S., XVI (1950), pp. 163–83Google Scholar.

page 7 note 4 L'Anthropologie LIV (1951), pp. 393–420Google Scholar; table, pp. 414–15.

page 7 note 5 Santa-Olalla, J. Martínez, Esquema Paletnológico de la Península Hispánica, 2nd edn., Madrid 1946, sections–III (pp. 27 ff.), with Table on pp. 114–15Google Scholar.

page 7 note 6 Menghin, O., Weltgeschichte der Steinzeit, Vienna, 1931Google Scholar; see review by Clark, J. G. D. in Antiquity, v 931), pp. 518–21Google Scholar.

page 8 note 1 The Belt Cave, with its superb Mesolithic-Neolithic stratigraphical continuity, stands out here as of the very first importance. Summary now in Archaeological News Letter, April 1951, pp. 164–5Google Scholar.

page 10 note 1 In his review of ProfessorPiggott, 's British Prehistory (Home University Library, 1950)Google Scholar in Man, 1950, 190.

page 10 note 2 Daniel, G. E., ‘The Chronological Framework of Prehistoric Barbarian Europe,’ Man, 1951, 64Google Scholar.

page 10 note 3 The Spectator (London), 8 February, 1951: competition for a definition of prehistory (amongst other subjects) analogous to that of anthropology as ‘the study of rude people by more rude people.’

page 13 note 1 Conference on the Future of Archaeology, 6–8 August, 1943 (University of London Institute of Archaeology, Occasional Paper No. 5, 1944), pp. 51–3Google Scholar.

page 13 note 2 In the Surrey Archaeological Society's Prehistory of Farnham volume, 1939.

page 14 note 1 Daniel, G. E., The Prehistoric Chamber Tombs of England and Wales (Cambridge University Press, 1950)Google Scholar.

page 15 note 1 Archaeological Journal, CI (1944), pp. 17–49Google Scholar.

page 15 note 2 Grimes, W. F., Guide to the Collection illustrating the Prehistory of Wales, National Museum of Wales (Cardiff, 1939)Google Scholar.