In the article by Webster (2021), the overall scope of the research was not expressed with sufficient clarity and a number of references were also omitted. This corrigendum states the necessary revisions.

The term ‘Brittonic’ is used throughout the article. The text should have made clear that the terms ‘Brittonic’ and ‘Brythonic’ are conventionally used in linguistic analysis to refer to language groups. The use of ‘Brittonic’ as a cultural term is problematic as it implies an equation of language with material culture.

p. 1: The following sentence in the introduction needs to be corrected:

This paper focuses on the analysis of Late Pre-Roman Iron Age (LPRIA) jewellery produced within Britain, with special reference to typology and metallurgy.

This sentence should read:

This paper focuses on the analysis of Late Pre-Roman Iron Age (LPRIA) jewellery produced within Britain, reviewing previously published typologies and metallurgical studies by Northover (1995), Pike and Cowell (1997), Dungworth (1997), Tite et al. (2008), McIntosh and Ponting (2014), and Machling and Williamson (2016).

p. 2: the following sentence should be added to footnote 1.

The term ‘particularisation of the universal’ has been introduced to Theoretical Roman Archaeology by Witcher (2000) based on the definition by Robertson (1992).

p. 18: The following sentence omitted in-text references:

The term ‘Wirral type’ has been attributed to this type as it is very distinctive and uniquely Brittonic, being made with leaded bronze (an alloy which does not appear commonly outside of Britain), and locally produced in the Wirral area.

This sentence should read:

The term ‘Wirral type’ has been attributed to this type as it is very distinctive and uniquely Brittonic, being made with leaded bronze (an alloy which does not appear commonly outside of Britain (McIntosh and Ponting 2014: 139–144)), and locally produced in the Wirral area (McIntosh 2013; McIntosh and Ponting 2014).

p. 19: The following paragraph omitted in-text references:

The Wirral type sub-group likely evolved from the earlier trumpet brooch, and although it arguably draws on a number of decorative and stylistic features of other brooch types once it is adopted, the type remains remarkably consistent…This would suggest that production was short-lived and there was a single manufacturer… Although this development could be attributed to Roman cultural, ideological, and physical influences on adornment and dress patterns in relation to pre-existing regional trends, it does not signify homogenous local appropriation of Roman culture or cultural practices.

This paragraph should read:

The Wirral type sub-group likely evolved from the earlier trumpet brooch, and although it arguably draws on a number of decorative and stylistic features of other brooch types once it is adopted, the type remains remarkably consistent (McIntosh 2013)…This would suggest that production was short-lived and there was a single manufacturer (McIntosh & Ponting 2014: 143–144)… Although this development could be attributed to Roman cultural, ideological, and physical influences on adornment and dress patterns in relation to pre-existing regional trends, it does not signify homogenous local appropriation of Roman culture or cultural practices (Philpott 1999: 283–284; McIntosh 2013; McIntosh and Ponting 2014).

p. 20: Figure 7 – the following image was incorrectly referenced:

Figure 7 (Philpott 1999: 281. Reproduced with permission).

The figure reference should be:

Figure 7 (McIntosh 2013: fig. 1. Reproduced with permission).