The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe

by Chris Fowler

  The cultural Bell Beaker attribution of these various types of sites rests on a restricted range of artefacts, namely Bell Beakers, preferably of the maritime type, and weapons such as copper triangular daggers and so-called Palmela points, distributed over the entire Iberian Peninsula and southern France (e.g. Briard and Roussot-Laroque 2002). This homogeneity of grave goods mirrors the situation in central and north-western Europe and thus constitutes the principal common trait to the entire Bell Beaker domain. Beyond this apparent uniformity lies something more fundamental: grave goods express idealized identities for the dead, of which the more salient is the man as warrior/hunter (Shennan 1993; Vandkilde 2005; Heyd 2007; Fokkens et al. 2008). The identities are ideals as, for instance, many of these men probably never fought during their lifetime (see for southern France: Guilaine and Zammit 2001), but were given brand new weapons, perhaps made and/or acquired specifically for deposition in the grave. The presentation of child burials in the same way reinforces this point. These men are not necessarily warriors or hunters, yet were categorized as such for other social, religious, cultural, and/or political reasons. In conclusion, although the period is sometimes heralded for the rise of individual burial, what we witness here is the establishment of a collective way to deal with the dead, if not with death per se.

  Settling the landscape

  Settlements have traditionally been the poor relation of Bell Beaker studies. Whilst the documentation is now extensive across Europe, evidence remains conspicuously lacking in some areas (see Allen 2005). Information on Bell Beaker settlement in Britain remains relatively scarce (Bradley 2007, 150–152). This is especially true when compared to the frenzy of monuments built during the second half of the third millennium BC, including extraordinary sites such as Stonehenge (Parker Pearson et al. 2007) or Silbury Hill (Bayliss et al. 2007), which, if they do not consistently yield Bell Beaker artefacts, make the British landscape unique in Europe for this period. This British peculiarity also reminds us that, despite the massive impact of the BBP there, local communities were at the core of the processes involved. A growing body of evidence for field clearance and boundaries is also emerging (Field 2008).

  Dutch Bell Beaker settlements include Molenaarsgraf (Fokkens 2005) and Emmeloord (see Arnoldussen 2008), where the remains of fishways are a rare opportunity to document the potential role of fishing in the diet of these communities (Bulten et al. 2002). The Danish Bell Beaker group was always primarily documented in settlements, characterized by so-called sunken-floor houses, recently confirmed by the discovery of some large sites, such as Bejsebakken with its 23 houses, by far the largest concentration of house plans for the entire BBP (Sarauw 2007). By contrast, central Europe remains largely devoid of Beaker settlements. This situation is the likely result of architectural techniques leaving limited archaeological traces, as demonstrated in eastern French sites with waterlogged preservation of, among others, construction wood (Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1988; Shennan 1993). In Bohemia, the distribution of pottery surface scatters suggests preferential settling on south-facing valley slopes (Turek et al. 2003).

  The western Mediterranean basin yields more extensive settlement evidence. Estimates for southern France alone suggest that no less than 300 domestic sites are known (Guilaine et al. 2001). Sites are variable, including some impressive dry-stone structures, which already featured prominently in the local late Neolithic, or some clearly defensive sites (e.g. Camp-de-Laure and Le Mourral: Vaquer 1998). Variety is also the main feature of Bell Beaker settlements across the Iberian Peninsula, with the use of caves, open-air settlements, or the partial re-affectation of older grand stone buildings, such as Leceia and Zambujal in the Estremadura (Cardoso 2001). The Meseta hosts an important concentration of open-air sites, often close to rivers, and defensive sites in its central part, the majority of them belonging to the local Ciempozuelos groups (Blasco 1994; Catalonia, Murcia and Valencia region: Harrison 1977). The proximity to freshwater sources, particularly rivers, is well documented in northern Italy and the Florentine plain (Nicolis 2001b; Sarti 2004). Caves were also inhabited (Nicolis 2001b). Evidence for settlement is scanty in the rest of the mainland as on the islands.

  MOBILITY AND COMPLEXITY: THE RETURN OF THE BEAKER FOLK?

  A growing number of isotopes studies have recently demonstrated that within the BBP, many people did not die in the same place as they were raised. Price and colleagues showed that more than half of their sample of some 80 individuals had relocated at one point during their life, although the geographical scale of these movements remains unclear (Price et al. 2004). A few years ago, it was shown that the Amesbury archer could have come as far as Bavaria (Evans et al. 2006; Fitzpatrick 2011). For a community of researchers educated in a dogmatic denial of migrations, this was astonishing. But there is much to support the view of human mobility during the BBP. The archipelago patterning itself suggests that movements of some sort must have taken place within and between each of the islands, the available documentation preventing further precision. As pots themselves were not moving, and other exchange networks were relatively local, movements of individuals have to be considered to explain typological similarities between different groups. The study of pottery techniques and the re-appraisal of domestic assemblages provide further elements to the argumentation (Vander Linden 2007). Yet the extent of human mobility remains difficult to appraise. Alison Sheridan (2008) has interpreted some Scottish graves as pioneering equivalents of the Amesbury Archer, suggesting that these people could have been metal prospectors. The reason for their journey might be uncertain, yet the fact that they were buried according to stereotyped Bell Beaker procedures implies that they were not isolated in alien cultural milieus, but part of a larger group responsible for conducting the proper funerals.

  This last point is crucial. Beyond the movements of individuals, probably a feature throughout prehistory, the BBP stands out for two reasons. First, movement must have been structured in some way, for instance through restrictive exchanges of marriage partners (Vander Linden 2007), in order to lead to the regularities observed in different facets of the archaeological record, especially ceramic decoration and morphology, and settlement pattern. Second, these people were not simply moving, but were diffusing at the same time as new funerary practices based on categories of dead and of grave goods. The stereotypy must have led to a feeling of shared identity, accompanied by a voluntary and reciprocal engagement. Thus, if we as archaeologists recognize a common Bell Beaker theme in funerary remains, it is because people were constantly re-enacting the same categories and the same associated practices.

  BY WAY OF CONCLUSION

  This brief review indicates that, beyond the evident material variability, there is a geographical patterning, echoed by each category of evidence (Vander Linden 2006). The main divide lies between central and north-western Europe, and the Atlantic façade and western Mediterranean basin. Within each of these large areas, further distinctions can be observed, with higher homogeneity between Britain and the Low Countries, while Denmark and especially Ireland are somewhat peripheral. The various central European groups also exhibit close affinities, with the exception of the Hungarian Csepel group. Similarly, the Iberian Peninsula presents a relative identity when compared to the rest of the western Mediterranean basin. These frontiers fluctuate according to the type of evidence privileged, and throughout the chronological development of the BBP. If these cultural regions roughly mirror some divisions in European physical geography, their stability remains impressive. Within each region, the links between the various Bell Beaker islands are tighter and more dense than within the BBP in its entirety. The establishment and maintenance of the BBP over such a large area and for several centuries thus results from the sum of manifold interactions, backed by a complex pattern of movements of ideas and individuals.

  Several issues, such as the origins of the BBP and the nature of social differentiation, have been omitted from this account. These are important, but the
criticisms made of the prestige model here—and elsewhere (Brodie 1994)—show that putative new élites do not explain the spread and constitution of the BBP in its entirety. A series of explanations are required to explain specific expansions and local social and cultural developments, but I have shown that alongside variability, the BBP does present some global coherent structure. Three simple processes account for this: human mobility; the resulting diffusion of practices; and the use of specific categories in burying the dead. In this sense, the BBP is not so much a tale of social hierarchy than one of multiple social links giving substance to a network of people, practices, and material culture.

  NOTE

  1.The term Bell Beaker is used in this paper as it corresponds to the various terminologies used in continental Europe (French campaniforme, German Glockenbecher …). The more general term Beaker can be found in the English-based literature but is misleading as it incorporates related but autonomous continental archaeological phenomena such as the Corded Ware Culture.

  REFERENCES

  Alday Ruiz, A. 1996. El entramado campaniforme en el País Vasco. Los datos y el desarollo del proceso historico. Vitoria: Instituto de Ciencias de la antigüedad (Anejos de Veleia. Series maior 9).

  Allen, M.J. 2005. Beaker settlement and environment on the Chalk Downs of southern England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71, 219–246.

  Apel, J. 2008. Knowledge, know-how and raw material—the production of late Neolithic daggers in Scandinavia. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15(1), 91–111.

  Arnoldussen, S. 2008. A living landscape—Bronze Age settlement sites in the Dutch river area (c. 2000–800 BC). Leiden: Sidestone.

  Atzeni, E. 1998. La tomba ipogeico-megalitica di Bingia e Monti. In F. Nicolis and E. Mottes (eds, Simbolo ed enigma. Il bicchiere campaniforme e l’Italia nella preistoria europea del III millennio A.C., 254–260. Trento: Ufficio Beni Archeologici.

  Bátora, J., Marková, K., and Vladár, J. 2003. Glockenbecherkultur im Kontext der kulturhistorischen Entwicklung in der Südwestslowakei. In J. Czebreszuk and M. Szmyt (eds), The northeast frontier of Bell Beakers. Proceedings of the symposium held at the Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań (Poland), May 26–29 2002, 255–264. Oxford: Archaeopress.

  Bayliss, A., McAvoy, F., and Whittle, A., 2007. The world recreated: redating Silbury Hill in its monumental landscape. Antiquity 81, 26–53.

  Benz, M. and van Willingen, S. (eds) 1998. Some new approaches to the Bell Beaker phenomenon Lost Paradise …? Proceedings of the 2nd meeting of the ‘Association Archéologie et Gobelets’ Feldberg (Germany), 18th–20th April 1997. Oxford: Archaeopress.

  Besse, M. 2003. Les céramiques communes des Campaniformes européens. Gallia Préhistoire 45, 205–258.

  Billard, C., Querré, G., and Salanova, L. 1998. Le phénomène campaniforme dans la basse vallée de la Seine: chronologie et relation habitats-sépultures. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 95, 348–363.

  Blasco, C. (ed.) 1994. El horizonte campaniforme de la region de Madrid en el centenario de Ciempozuelos. Madrid: Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueologia, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid.

  Bradley, R.J. 2007. The prehistory of Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Briard J. and Roussot-Laroque J., 2002. Les débuts de la métallurgie dans la France atlantique. In M. Bartelheim, E. Pernicka, and R. Krause (eds), Die Anfänge der Metallurgie in der Alten Welt/The beginnings of metallurgy in the Old World, 135–160. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf.

  Brodie, N. 1994. The Neolithic-Bronze Age transition in Britain. A critical review of some archaeological and craniological concepts. Oxford: Archaeopress.

  Brodie, N. 1997. New perspectives on the Bell-Beaker culture. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16, 297–314.

  Bulten, E.E.B., van der Heiden, F.J.G. and Hamburg, T. 2002. Emmeloord, prehistorische visweren en fuiken. Leiden: Archeologische Diensten Centrum (ADC Rapport 140).

  Cardoso, J.L. 2001. Le phénomène campaniforme dans les basses vallées du Tage et du Sado (Portugal). In F. Nicolis (ed.), Bell Beakers today. Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 11–16 May 1998, 139–154. Trento: Ufficio Beni Archeologici.

  Case, H. 1998. Où en sont les Campaniformes de l’autre côté de la Manche? Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 95, 403–411.

  Chambon, P. 2003. Les morts dans les sépultures collectives néolithiques en France. Du cadavre aux restes ultimes. Paris: CNRS Supplément à Gallia Préhistoire XXXV.

  Childe, V.G. 1925. The dawn of European civilization. New York: Knopf.

  Clarke, D. 1970. Beaker pottery of Great Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Clarke, D. 1976. The Beaker network—social and economic models. In J.N. Lanting and J.D. van der Waals (eds), Glockenbecher Symposion Oberried 1974, 459–477. Haarlem: Fibula-Van Dishoeck.

  Cleal, R.M.J. 1995. Pottery fabrics in Wessex in the fourth to second millenia BC. In I. Kinnes and G. Varndell (eds), ‘Unbaked urns of rudely shape’. Essays on British and Irish pottery for Ian Longworth, 185–194. Oxford: Oxbow.

  Convertini, F. and Querré, G. 1998. Apports des études céramologiques en laboratoire à la connaissance du Campaniforme: résultats, bilan et perspectives. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 95, 333–341.

  Czebreszuk, J. 1998. The north-eastern borderland of the Bell Beakers. The case of the Polish lowlands. In M. Benz and S. van Willingen (eds), Some new approaches to the Bell Beaker phenomenon Lost Paradise …? Proceedings of the 2nd meeting of the ‘Association Archéologie et Gobelets’ Feldberg (Germany), 18th–20th April 1997, 161–174. Oxford: Archaeopress.

  Czebreszuk, J. (ed.) 2004. Similar but different. Bell Beakers in Europe. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University.

  Czebreszuk, J. and Kozłowska, D. 2007. Sztylety krzemienne na Pomorzu Zachodnim. Poznań: Szczenin.

  Czebreszuk, J. and Szmyt, M. (eds) 2003. The Northeast frontier of Bell Beakers. Proceedings of the symposium held at the Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań (Poland), May 26–29 2002. Oxford: Archaeopress.

  Dickson, J.H. 1978. Bronze Age mead. Antiquity 52, 108–113.

  Drenth, E. and Hogestijn, W.J.H. 2001. The Bell Beaker culture in the Netherlands: the state of research in 1998. In F. Nicolis (ed.), Bell Beakers today. Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 11–16 May 1998, 309–332. Trento: Ufficio Beni Archeologici.

  Evans, J., Chenery, C.A., and Fitzpatrick, A.P. 2006. Bronze Age childhood migration of individuals near Stonehenge, revealed by strontium and oxygen isotope tooth enamel analysis. Archaeometry 48(2), 309–321.

  Field, D. 2008. The development of an agricultural countryside. In J. Pollard (ed.), Prehistoric Britain, 202–224. Oxford: Blackwell.

  Fitzpatrick, A. 2011. The Amesbury archer and the Boscombe Bowmen: early Bell Beaker burials at Boscombe Down, Wiltshire, Great Britain: excavations at Boscombe Down, vol. 1. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology.

  Fokkens, A. 2005. Longhouses in unsettled settlements. Settlements in Beaker period and Bronze Age. In L. Louwe Kooijmans, P. van den Broeke, H. Fokkens, and A. Van Gijn (eds), The prehistory of the Netherlands, Vol. 1, 407–428. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

  Fokkens, H., Achterkamp, Y., and Kuijpers, M. 2008. Bracers or bracelets? About the functionality and meaning of Bell Beaker wrist-guards. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 74, 109–140.

  Furestier, R. 2007. Les industries lithiques campaniformes dans le sud-est e la France. Oxford: Archaeopress.

  Gardin, C. du 1998. Le Campaniforme et l’ambre: mythe ou réalité. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 95, 343–350.

  Garwood, P. 2007. Before the hills in order stood: chronology, time and history in the interpretation of Early Bronze Age round barrows. In J. Last (ed.), Beyond the grave: new p
erspectives on barrows, 30–52. Oxford: Oxbow.

  Gibson, A. 1980. Pot beakers in Britain? Antiquity 54, 219–221.

  Gosselain, O.P. 2000. Materializing identities: an African perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7, 187–217.

  Guilaine, J. 1984. Conclusions générales. In J. Guilaine (ed.), L’âge du cuivre européen. Civilisations à vases campaniformes. Paris: CNRS: 247.

  Guilaine, J., Claustre, F., Lemercier, O. and Sabatier, P. 2001. Campaniformes et environnement culturel en France méditerranéenne. In F. Nicolis (ed.), Bell Beakers today. Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 11–16 May 1998, 229–275. Trento: Ufficio Beni Archeologici.

  Guilaine, J. and Zammit, J. 2001. The origins of war. Oxford: Blackwell.

  Harrison, R.J. 1977. The Bell Beaker cultures of Spain and Portugal. Harvard: Peabody Museum.

  Harrison, R. and Heyd, V. 2007. The transformation of Europe in the 3rd millennium BC. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 82(2), 129–214.

  Heyd, V. 2000. Die Spätkupferzeit in Süddeutschland. Bonn: Habelt.

  Heyd, V. 2007. Families, prestige goods, warriors and complex societies: Beaker groups and the 3rd millennium cal BC. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 73, 327–380.

  Kalicz-Schreiber, R. and Kalicz, N. 1998. Die Somogyvár-Vinkovci-Kultur und die Glockenbecher in Ungarn. In B. Fritsch, M. Maute, I. Matuschik, J. Müller, and C. Wolf (eds), Tradition und innovation. Prähistorische Archäologie als Historische Wissenschaft. Festschrift für Christian Strahm, 325–347. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf.

  Lanting, J.N. 2007–8. De NO-Nederlandse/NW-Duitse Klokbekergroep: culturele achtergrond, typologie van het aardewerk, datering, verspreiding en grafritueel 11. Palaeohistoria 49/50, 11–326.