Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T02:15:43.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transforming Beaker Culture in North-West Europe; Processes of Fusion and Fission

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

Stuart Needham
Stuart Needham
Affiliation:
Department of Prehistory and Europe, British Museum, Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3DG
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

‘It is the slippery assemblages and the social traditions they represent, that we are trying to precipitate from the mass of beaker data’. Clarke 1970, 33

The pottery we collectively call ‘Beakers’ is united by the thread of a potting and style tradition, Wrapped up in that tradition are also expressions concerning what such a pot is for and who it may represent. Both style and those embedded meanings mutate through the long currency of British Beakers. Indeed, the newly emerging chronology for Beaker grave groups suggests that there was one critical point of rapid mutation in both pot form and associated artefacts. This phase is referred to as a fission horizon, c. 2250–2150 cal BC, and it underlines the difficulties that past schemes of steady evolution have run into.

In reviewing the continental background for Beaker-carrying cultures, a corridor of Bell Beaker/Corded Ware fusion is perceived along the southern flanks of the Channel. This created a modified spectrum of Beaker culture which stands at the head of the insular phenomenon. The long ensuing currency of Beaker pottery and Beaker graves in Britain does not hold up as a unified, steadily evolving entity. Instead, three ‘phases of meaning’ can be suggested: 1) Beaker as circumscribed, exclusive culture; 2) Beaker as instituted culture; 3) Beaker as past reference. The fission horizon initiates phase 2.

Résumé

C'est la tradition de fabrication et de style qui constitue le fil d'Ariane qui unit la poterie qu'on appelle collectivement ‘Beakers’ (campaniformes). Intimements liés à cette tradition se trouvent également les expressions concernant à quoi servait ce pot et qui il pouvait représenter. A la fois le style et ces significations intégrées effectuent une mutation au cours de la longue histoire des campaniformes britanniques. En vérité, la chronologie nouvellement apparue pour les groupes de tombes campaniformes donne à penser qu'il y a eu un moment crucial de mutation rapide aussi bien dans la forme du pot que dans les objets associés. On se réfère à cette phase sous le nom d'horizon de fission, vers 2250–2150 av. J.-C, et elle met en évidence les difficultés qu'ont rencontrées les anciens schémas d'évolution régulière.

En révisant l'arrière-plan continental des cultures porteuses de gobelets, on perçoit un couloir de fusion Vases Campaniformes/Céramique Cordée le long des flancs sud de la Manche. Ceci a produit un spectre modifié de culture des campaniformes qui se situe à la tête du phénomène insulaire. La longue occurrence de poterie campaniforme et de tombes campaniforme qui a suivi en Grande-Bretagne ne constitue pas unr entité unifiée ayant évolué régulièrement. Au contraire, on peut suggérer trois phases significatives 1) campaniforme comme culture circonstrite, exclusive 2) campaniforme comme culture instituée 3) campaniforme comme référence passée. L'horizon de fission marque le début de la phase 2.

Zusammenfassung

Die Keramik, die wir insgesamt als ‘Becher’ bezeichnen, sieht man auf der Grundlage einer Töpfer- und Stiltradition als Einheit an. Hierin eingeschlossen sind Äußerungen zum möglichen Gebrauch und wen ein solches Gefäß repräsentieren könnte. Sowohl der Stil als auch darin liegende Bedeutungen verändern sich des langen Umlaufs britischer Becher. In der Tat deutet die neue Chronologie für Becher Grabgruppen an, dass es einen kritischen Punkt radikaler Veränderung sowohl in der Gefäßform als auch bei den Begleitfunden gegeben hat. Diese Phase wird als ein Teilungshorizont bezeichnet (c. 2250–2150 BC). Dies unterstreicht die Schwierigkeiten früherer Modelle stetiger Evolution.

Indem der kontinentale Hintergrund der Becherführenden Kulturen neu betrachtet wird, kann man einem Korridor einer Glockenbecher/Schnurkeramikkultur Fusion erkennen, der entlang den südlichen Flanken des Kanals verläuft. Dies schafft ein verändertes Spektrum der Becherkultur, die an der Spitze des insularen Phänomens steht. Der lang andauernde Umlauf der Becherkeramik und Becher Gräber kann nicht als eine vereinigte, ständig sich entwickelnde Einheit betrachtet werden. Stattdessen können drei ‘Beutungsphasen’ vorgeschlagen werden: 1) Becher als eine begrenzte, exklusive Kultur; 2) Becher als errichtete Kultur; 3) Becher als eine vergangene Referenz. Der Trennungshorizont bringt die Phase 2 in Gang.

Résumen

La cerámica que colectivamente denominamos ‘Campaniforme’ está unida por el hilo común de una tradición y estilo de producción cerámica. Envueltas en esa misma tradición están también expresiones acerca del sentido de esa vasija y a quién puede representar. Tanto el estilo como los significados contenidos cambian a través de la larga secuencia de Vasos Campaniformes británicos. De hecho, la nueva cronología para los grupos funerarios campaniformes que se está desarrollando, sugiere que hubo un momento crítico de rápida mutación tanto en la forma de la vasija como en los objetos con ella asociados. Nos referimos a esta fase como a un horizonte de fisión, alrededor de 2250–2150 BC, que subraya las dificultades encontradas por pasados esquemas de evolución constante. Al examinar el origen continental de las culturas que utilizaron vasos campaniformes, se puede apreciar un espacio de fusión entre las culturas de Vaso Campaniforme/Cerámica de Cuerdas a lo largo de las orillas sur del Canal. Este creó un espectro modificado de la Cultura Campaniforme que se encuentra al comienzo del fenómeno insular. La larga cadena de cerámica y enterramientos campaniformes en Gran Bretaña que siguió a continuación no se explica como una entidad unificada que evolucionó de modo constante, sino que más bien se pueden definir tres ‘fases de significado’: 1) La Cultura Campaniforme como una cultura restringida y exclusiva; 2) La Cultura Campaniforme como la cultura establecida; 3) La Cultura Campaniforme como una referencia al pasado. El horizonte de fisión inicia la fase 2.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 71 , 2005 , pp. 171 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 2005

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abercromby, J. 1912. A Study of the Bronze Age Pottery of Great Britain & Ireland and its Associated Grave-Goods. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Allen, D. 1981. The excavation of a Beaker burial monument at Ravenstone, Buckinghamshire, in 1978. Archaeological Journal 138, 72–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ApSimon, A.M. 1969. The earlier Bronze Age in the north of Ireland. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 32, 28–72Google Scholar
Ashbee, P.J. 1975/1976. Amesbury Barrow 51: excavation 1960. Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine 70/71, 1–60Google Scholar
Ashmore, P.J. 1989. Excavation of a beaker cist at Dornoch Nursery, Sutherland. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 119, 63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashmore, P.J., Brooks, M. & Strong, P. 1982. A cist at Ruchlaw Mains, East Lothian (NT 616742). Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 112, 542–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barclay, A. & Glass, H. 1995. Excavations of Neolithic and Bronze Age ring-ditches, Shorncote Quarry, Somerford Keynes, Gloucestershire. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 113, 21–60Google Scholar
Barclay, A., Gray, M. & Lambrick, G. 1995. Excavations at the Devil's Quoits, Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire, 1972–3 and 1988. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology; Oxford Archaeological Unit, Thames Valley Landscapes: the Windrush Valley 3Google Scholar
Barclay, A. & Halpin, C. 1999. Excavations at Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire. Volume I: the Neolithic and Bronze Age Monument Complex. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Oxford Archaeological Unit, Thames Valley Landscapes 11Google Scholar
Barclay, A., Serjeantson, D. & Wallis, J. 1999. Worked bone and antler. In Barclay, A. & Halpin, C. 1999, 235–6Google Scholar
Barrett, J. 1988. The living the dead and the ancestors; Neolithic and Early Bronze Age mortuary practices. In Barrett, J. & Kinnes, I. (eds) 1988, The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: recent trends, 30–41. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, Department of ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Bell, M. 1990. Brean Down Excavations 1983–87. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report 15Google Scholar
Benz, M., Strahm, C. & Willigen, S. van. 1998. Le campaniforme: phénomène et culture archéologique. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 95, 305–14Google Scholar
Besse, M. 1996. Le Campaniforme en France: analyse de la Céramique d'accompagnement. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bewley, R.H., Longworth, I.H., Browne, S., Huntley, J.P. & Varndell, G. 1992. Excavation of a Bronze Age cemetery at Ewanrigg, Maryport, Cumbria. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58, 325–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billard, C. (ed., with contributions). 1991. Nouveaux site campaniformes de la basse vallee de la Seine. Gallia Préhistoire 33, 137–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billard, C., Blanchet, J-C. & Talon, M. 1996. Origine et composantes de l'Age du Bronze Ancien dans le Nord-Ouest de la France. In Mordant, C. & Gaiffe, O. (eds,) Cultures et Sociétés du Bronze Ancien en Europe, 579–601. Paris: Comité des Travaux Historique et Scientifiques.Google Scholar
Billard, C. & Penna, B. 1995. Les sites de Poses ‘Les Quatre Chemins’ et ‘La Plaine de Poses’ (Eure): transition Néolithique Moyen-Recent et Campaniforme. Revue Archéologique d'Ouest, supplement 7, 273–91Google Scholar
Boast, R. 1995. Fine pots, pure pots, Beaker pots. In Kinnes, & Varndell, (eds.) 1995, 69–80Google Scholar
Boast, R. 1998. Patterns by design: changing perspectives of Beaker variation. In Edmonds, M. & Richards, C. (eds), Understanding the Neolithic of North-Western Europe, 384–406. Glasgow: Cruithne PressGoogle Scholar
Boston, C., Bowater, C., Boyle, A. & Holmes, A. forthcoming. Excavation of a Bronze Age barrow at the proposed Centre for Gene Function, South Parks Road, Oxford, 2002.Google Scholar
Boyle, A., Jennings, D., Miles, D. & Palmer, S. 1998. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Butler's Field, Lechlade, Gloucestershire. Volume 1: Prehistoric and Roman Activity and Grave Catalogue. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Oxford Archaeological Unit Thames Valley Landscapes 10Google Scholar
Bradley, R. 1984. The Social Foundations of Prehistoric Britain: themes and variations in the archaeology of power. London: LongmanGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. 2000. An Archaeology of Natural Places. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Brassil, K.S., Owen, W.G. & Britnell, W.J. 1991. Prehistoric and early medieval cemeteries at Tandderwen, near Denbigh, Clwyd. Archaeological Journal 148, 46–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodie, N. 1997. New perspectives on the Bell Beaker culture. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16, 297–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodie, N. 1998. British Bell Beakers: twenty-five years of theory and practice. In Benz, M. & van Willingen, S. (eds) 1998 Some New Approaches to the Bell Beaker ‘Phenomenon’: lost paradise?, 43–56. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S690, 43–56Google Scholar
Brodie, N. 2001. Technological frontiers and the emergence of the Beaker Culture. In Nicolis, (ed.) 2001, 487–96Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsay, C.OxCal 3.9. www.rlaha.ox.ac.uk/orau/oxcal.htmlGoogle Scholar
Burgess, C.B. 1986. ‘Urnes of no small variety’: Collared Urns reviewed. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52, 339–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burl, H.A.W. (with contributions). 1984. Report on the excavation of a Neolithic mound at Boghead, Speymouth Forest, Fochabers, Moray, 1972 and 1974. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 114, 35–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. 1991. The excavation of a Beaker bowl barrow at Pyecombe, West Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 129, 1–28Google Scholar
Butler, J.J. & Waals, J.D. Van. 1966. Bell Beakers and early metal-working in the Netherlands. Palaeohistoria 12, 41–139Google Scholar
Case, H. 1993. Beakers: deconstruction and after. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 59, 241–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Case, H. 1995a. Beakers: loosening a stereotype. In Kinnes, & Varndell, (eds) 1995, 55–67Google Scholar
Case, H. 1995b. Some Wiltshire Beakers and their contexts. Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine 88, 1–17Google Scholar
Case, H. 2001. The Beaker culture in Britain and Ireland: groups, European contacts and chronology. In Nicolis, (ed.) 2001, 361–77Google Scholar
Case, H. 2004. Beakers and the Beaker culture. In Czebreszuk, (ed.) 2004, 11–34Google Scholar
Chambon, P. & Salanova, L. 1996. Chronologie des sépultures du IIIe millénaire dans le bassin de la Seine. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 93, 103–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, D.L. 1970. Beaker Pottery of Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Clarke, D.V., Ritchie, A. & Ritchie, G. 1984. Two cists from Boatbridge Quarry, Thankerton, Lanarkshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 114, 557–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleal, R.M.J. 1992. The Neolithic and Beaker pottery. In Gingell, 1992, 61–70Google Scholar
Close-Brooks, J. 1979. A Beaker cist at Skateraw, East Lothian. Transactions of the East Lothian Antiquarian & Field Naturalists' Society 16, 1–6Google Scholar
Coutts, H. 1971. Tayside before History: a guide-catalogue of the Collection of Antiquities in Dundee Museum. Dundee: Dundee Museum & Art Gallery Publication, Catalogue 1Google Scholar
Cowie, T. 1978. Bronze Age Food Vessel Urns in Northern Britain. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czebreszuk, J. (ed.) 2004. Similar but Different: Bell Beakers in Europe. Adam Mickiewicz UniversityGoogle Scholar
Day, W. (with H.N. Savory) 1972. The excavation of a Bronze Age burial mound at Ysgwennant, Llansilin, Denbighshire. Archaeologia Cambrensis 122, 17–50Google Scholar
De Laet, S.J. & Rogge, M. 1972. Une tombe à incinération de la civilisation aux gobelets campaniformes trouvée à Kruishoutem (Flandre Orientale). Helinium 12, 209–24Google Scholar
Dent, J.S. 1983. A summary of the excavations carried out in Garton Slack and Wetwang Slack, 1964–80. East Riding Archaeology 7, 1–14Google Scholar
Donaldson, P. 1977. The excavation of a multiple round barrow at Barnack, Cambridgeshire 1974–1976. Antiquaries Journal 57, 197–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drenth, E. & Hogestijn, W.J.H. 2001. The Bell Beaker culture in the Netherlands: the state of research in 1998. In Nicolis, (ed.) 2001, 309–32Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, M., Price, J. & Vale, V. 1982. The excavation of two Bronze Age round barrows at Welsh St Donats, South Glamorgan. Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 29, 776–842Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, A. 2002. ‘The Amesbury Archer’: a well-furnished Early Bronze Age burial in southern England. Antiquity 76, 629–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foxon, A. 1990. Antler spatula. In Russel, 1990, 166–7Google Scholar
Gallay, G. 1981. Die Kupfer- und Altbronzezeitlichen Dolche und Stabdolche in Frankreich. Munich, Prähistorische Bronzefunde VI, 5Google Scholar
Garwood, P. 1999. Grooved Ware in southern Britain. In Cleal, R. & MacSween, A. (eds), Grooved Ware in Britain and Ireland, 145–76. Oxford: Oxbow, Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 3Google Scholar
Gebers, W. 1978. Endneolithikum und Frühbronzezeit im Mittelrheingebiet: Katalog. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 28Google Scholar
Gebers, W. 1984. Das Endneolithikum im Mittelrheingebiet: Typologische und Chronologische Studien. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 27Google Scholar
Gibson, A. 1984. Problems of Beaker ceramic assemblages: the North British material. In Miket, R. & Burgess, C. (eds), Between and Beyond the Walls: essays on the prehistory and history of north Britain in Honour of George Jobey, 74–96. Edinburgh: John DonaldGoogle Scholar
Gibson, A. 2004. Burials and Beakers: seeing beneath the veneer in Late Neolithic Britain. In Czebreszuk, (ed.) 2004, 173–92Google Scholar
Gingell, C. 1992. The Marlborough Downs: a Later Bronze Age Landscape and its Origins. Devizes: Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society Monograph 1Google Scholar
Gourlay, R.B. 1984. A short cist beaker inhumation from Chealamy, Strathnaver, Sutherland. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 114, 567–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, C. & Rollo-Smith, S. 1984. The excavation of eighteen round barrows near Shrewton, Wiltshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50, 255–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, H.S. 1974. Early Bronze Age burial, territory and population in Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, and the Great Ouse valley. Archaeological Journal 131, 75–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilaine, J., Claustre, F., Lemercier, O. & Sabatier, P. 2001. Campaniforme et environment culturel en France méditerranéenne. In Nicolis, (ed.) 2001, 229–75Google Scholar
Haggarty, A. 1991. Machrie Moor, Arran: recent excavations at two stone circles. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 121, 51–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, R. 1980. The Beaker Folk: copper age archaeology in Western Europe. London: Thames & HudsonGoogle Scholar
Harrison, R.J., Jackson, R. & Napthan, M. 1999. A rich Bell Beaker burial from Wellington Quarry, Marden, Herefordshire. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18, 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, R.J. & Martin, A.M. 2001. Bell Beakers and social complexity in central Spain. In Nicolis, (ed.) 2001, 111–24Google Scholar
Healy, F. 1982. A round barrow at Trowse: Early Bronze Age burials and medieval occupation. In Trowse, Horning, Deserted Medieval Villages, Kings Lynn, 1–26. Norwich: East Anglian Archaeology 14Google Scholar
Healy, F. 1996. The Fenland Project, Number 11: the Wissey Embayment: evidence for pre-lron Age Occupation accumulated prior to the Fenland Project. East Dereham: East Anglian Archaeology 78Google Scholar
Healy, F. & Harding, J. 2004. Reading a burial: the legacy of Overton Hill. In Gibson, A. & Sheridan, A. (eds) 2004, From Sickles to Circles: Britain and Ireland at the Time of Stonehenge, 176–93. Stroud: TempusGoogle Scholar
Henshall, A.S. 1963–1964. A dagger grave and other cist burials at Ashgrove, Methilhill, Fife. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 97, 166–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henshall, A.S. 1968. Scottish dagger graves. In Coles, J.M. & Simpson, D.D.A. (eds) 1968, Studies in Ancient Europe: essays presented to Stuart Piggott. Leicester: University Press, 173–95Google Scholar
Heyd, V. 2001. On the earliest Beakers along the Danube. In Nicolis, (ed.) 2001, 387–409Google Scholar
Jobey, G. 1968. Excavations of cairns at Chatton Sandyford, Northumberland. Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser. 46, 5–150Google Scholar
Kinnes, I.A. 1985. Beaker and Early Bronze Age Grave Groups. London: British Museum Press, British Bronze Age Metalwork, Associated Finds Series A7–16Google Scholar
Kinnes, I.A. 1994. Beaker and Early Bronze Age Grave Groups. London: British Museum Press, British Bronze Age Metalwork, Associated Finds Series A17–30Google Scholar
Kinnes, I., Gibson, A., Ambers, J., Bowman, S., Leese, M. & Boast, R. 1991. Radiocarbon dating and British Beakers: the British Museum programme. Scottish Archaeological Review 8, 35–68Google Scholar
Kinnes, I.A. & Longworth, I.H. 1985. Catalogue of the Excavated Prehistoric and Romano-British Material in the Greenwell Collection. London: British Museum PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Kinnes, I. & Varndell, G. (eds). 1995. Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 55Google Scholar
Köster, C. 1965/1966. Beiträge zum Endneolithikum und zur Frühen Bronzezeit am nördlichen Oberrhein. Prähistorische Zeitshrift 43/44, 2–95Google Scholar
Kunst, M. 1995. Zylindrische Gefässe, Kerbblattverzierung und Glockenbecher in Zambujal (Portugal): ein Beitrag zur kupferzeitlichen Keramikchronologie. Madrider Mitteilungen 36, 136–49Google Scholar
Lanting, J.N. & Waals, J.D. Van. 1972. British Beakers as seen from the Continent. Helinium 12, 20–46.Google Scholar
Lanting, J.N. & Waals, J.D. Van. 1976. Beaker culture relations in the Lower Rhine Basin. In Lanting, J.N. & van der Waals, J-D. (eds), Glockenbecher Symposion, Oberreid 1974, 1–80. Bussem/HarlemGoogle Scholar
Lanting, J.N. & Plicht, J. Van. 1999/2000. De 14C-chronologie van der Nederlandse Pre- en Protohistorie, III: Neolithicum. Palaeohistoria 41/42, 1–110Google Scholar
Lawson, A.J. 1986. The excavation of a ring-ditch at Bowthorpe, Norwich, 1979. In Lawson, A.J. (ed.), Barrow Excavations in Norfolk, 1950–1982, 20–49. East Dereham: East Anglian Archaeology 29Google Scholar
Lawson, J.A. 2001. Haddington Mains cist. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland new series 2, 123Google Scholar
Lawson, J.A. & Henderson, D. 1999. Abbey Mains Farm, Haddington. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland (for 1999), 28Google Scholar
L'Helgouac'h, J. 2001. Le cadre culturel du campaniforme armoricain. In Nicolis, (ed.) 2001, 289–99Google Scholar
Liversage, G.D. 1968. Excavations at Dalkey Island, Co Dublin, 1956–1959. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 66C, 53–233Google Scholar
Mallet, N. 1992. Le Grand Pressigny: ses relations avec la Civilisation Sâone-Rhône. Supplément au Bulletin de la Société des Amis du Musée du Grand PressignyGoogle Scholar
Manby, T.G. 1999. Prehistoric pottery. In Haughton, C.A. & Powlesland, D. J. 1999, West Heslerton – the Anglian Cemetery. Yedingham: Landscape Research Centre Monograph 2, 63–77Google Scholar
Manby, T.G., King, A. & Vyner, B.E. 2003. The Neolithic and Bronze Ages: a time of early agriculture. In Manby, T.G., Moorhouse, S. & Ottaway, P. (eds), The Archaeology of Yorkshire: an assessment at the beginning of the 21st century, 35–116. York: Yorkshire Archaeological Society Occasional Paper 3Google Scholar
Mariën, M-E. 1948. La civilisation des gobelets en Belgique. Bulletin des Musées Royaux d'Art et d'Histoire 20, 16–48Google Scholar
Martin, E.A. 1976. The excavation of two tumuli on Waterhall Farm, Chippenham, Cambridgeshire, 1973. Proceedings of the Cambridgeshire Antiquarian Society 66, 1–21Google Scholar
Martin Cólliga, A. 2001. État de la question du campaniforme dans le contexte culturel chalcolithique du Nord-Est de la péninsule Ibérique. In Nicolis, (ed.) 2001, 155–71Google Scholar
Mercer, R. 1981. The excavation of a late Neolithic henge-type enclosure at Balfarg, Markinch, Fife, Scotland, 1977–78. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 111, 63–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, J. & Willigen, S. van. 2001. New radiocarbon evidence for European Bell Beakers and the consequences for the diffusion of the Bell Beaker phenomenon. In Nicolis, (ed.) 2001, 59–80Google Scholar
Murray, D. & Ralston, I. (with contributions) 1997. The excavation of a square-ditched barrow and other cropmarks at Boysack Mills, Inverkeilor, Angus. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 127, 359–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, S.P. 1996. Chronology and periodisation in the British Bronze Age. In Randsborg, K. (ed.), Absolute Chronology: archaeological Europe 2500–500 BC. Acta Archaeologica 67, 121–40Google Scholar
Nicolis, F. (ed.). 2001. Bell Beakers Today: pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe. Trento: Officio Beni ArcheologiciGoogle Scholar
Perkins, D.R.J. & Gibson, A.M. 1990. A Beaker burial from Manston, near Ramsgate. Archaeologia Cantiana 108, 11–27Google Scholar
Piggott, S. 1971–1972. Excavation of the Dalladies long barrow, Fettercairn, Kincardineshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 104, 23–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powlesland, D. 1986. Excavations at Heslerton, North Yorkshire, 1978–82. Archaeological Journal 143, 53–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, T.D., Grupe, G. & Schröter, P. 1998. Migration in the Bell Beaker period of central Europe. Antiquity 72, 405–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, T.D., Knipper, C., Grupe, G. & Smrcka, V. 2004. Strontium isotopes and prehistoric human migration: the Bell Beaker period in central Europe. European Journal of Archaeology 7, 9–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ralston, I.B.M. (with contributions) 1996. Four short cists from north-east Scotland and Easter Ross. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 126, 121–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, J. 1986–1990. Death and the past environment: the results of work on barrows on the Berkshire Downs. Berkshire Archaeological Journal 73, 1–42Google Scholar
Ritchie, J.N.G. & Crawford, J. 1977–1978. Excavations at Sorisdale and Killunaig, Coll. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 109, 75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson-Mackay, M.E. 1980. A ‘head and hooves’ burial beneath a round barrow, with other Neolithic and Bronze Age sites, on Hemp Knoll, near Avebury. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 46, 123–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russel, A.D. 1990. Two Beaker burials from Chilbolton, Hampshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 56, 153–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutland, R.A. 1974–1945 (plus addendum 1975–1976). A Beaker burial at Smeeton Westerby, Leicestershire, 1975. Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society 50, 46–8 & 75–6 (plus addendum in volume 51, 64–5)Google Scholar
Salanova, L. 1998. Le statut des assemblages campaniforme en contexte funéraire: le notion de ‘bien de prestige’. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 95, 315–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salanova, L. 2000. La Question du Campaniforme en France et dans les Iles Anglo-Normandes: Production, Chronologie et Rôles d'un Standard Céramique. Paris: Société Préhistorique Française/ Comité des Travaux Historiques et ScientifiquesGoogle Scholar
Salanova, L. 2001. Technological, ideological or economic European union? In Nicolis, (ed.) 2001, 91–102Google Scholar
Salanova, L. 2003. Heads north: analysis of Bell Beaker graves in western Europe. Journal of Iberian Archaeology 5, 163–9Google Scholar
Shennan, S. 2002. Genes, Memes and Human History: Darwinian archaeology and cultural evolution. London: Thames & HudsonGoogle Scholar
Shepherd, A.N. 1989. A note on the orientation of Beaker burials in north-east Scotland. In Greig, M.K., Greig, C., Shepherd, A.N. and Shepherd, I.A.G. 1989. A Beaker cist from Chapleden, Tore of Troup, Aberdour, Banff and Buchan District. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 119, 79–80Google Scholar
Shepherd, I.A.G. 1986. Powerful Pots: Beakers in north-east prehistory. Aberdeen: Museum of AnthropologyGoogle Scholar
Shepherd, I.A.G. & Bruce, M.F. 1987. Two Beaker cists at Keabog, Pitdrichie, near Drumlithie, Kincardine and Deeside. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 117, 33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepherd, I.A.G., Shepherd, A.N. & Bruce, M.F. 1984. A beaker burial at Mains of Balnagowan, Ardesier, Inverness District. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 114, 560–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheridan, A. & Davis, M. 2002. Investigating jet and jet-like artefacts from prehistoric Scotland: the National Museums of Scotland project. Antiquity 76, 812–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheridan, A. 2003. New dates for Scottish Bronze Age cinerary urns: results from the National Museums of Scotland ‘Dating Cremated Bones Project’. In Gibson, A. (ed.), Prehistoric Pottery: people, pattern and purpose, 201–26. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S1156Google Scholar
Simpson, D.D.A. 1976. The later Neolithic and Beaker settlement site at Northton, Isle of Harris. In Burgess, C. & Miket, R. (eds) 1976, Settlement and Economy in the Third and Second Millennia BC. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 33, 221–31Google Scholar
Smith, M.A. 1956. Grave-groups and hoards of the British Bronze Age (2). Inventaria Archaeologica GB 14–18. London: GarrawayGoogle Scholar
Taylor, H. & Taylor, E.E. 1946–1952. An early Beaker burial? at Brean down near Weston-super-Mare. Proceedings of the University of Bristol Speleological Society 6, 88–92Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 1991. Reading the body: Beaker funerary practice in Britain. In Garwood, P., Jennings, D., Skeates, R. & Toms, J. (eds) 1991, Sacred and Profane, 33–42. Oxford: University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 32Google Scholar
Thurnam, J. 1871. On ancient British barrows, especially those of Wiltshire and the adjoining counties (part II, round barrows). Archaeologia 43, 285–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomalin, D. 1988. Armorican vases à anses and their occurrence in southern Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54, 203–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandkilde, H. 2001. Beaker representation in the Danish Late Neolithic. In Nicolis, (ed.) 2001, 333–60Google Scholar
Vajsoz, I. 1993. Die frühesten Metaldolche Südost- und Mitteleuropas. Prähistorische Zeitshrift 68, 103–45Google Scholar
Vatcher, F. de M. & Vatcher, H.L. 1976. The excavation of a round barrow near Poor's Heath, Risby, Suffolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 42, 263–92Google Scholar
Wainwright, G. J. & Davies, S.M. 1995. Balksbury Camp, Hampshire: Excavations 1973 and 1981. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report 4Google Scholar
Watkins, T. 1982. The excavation of an Early Bronze Age cemetery at Barn's Farm, Dalgety, Fife. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 112, 48–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittle, A. 1981. Later Neolithic society in Britain: a realignment. In Ruggles, C. & Whittle, A. (eds) 1981, Astronomy and Society during the period 4000–1500 BC. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 88, 297–342Google Scholar
Woodward, A. 2002. Beads and Beakers: heirlooms and relics in the British Early Bronze Age. Antiquity 76, 1040–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar