LEMERCIER O. (2015) - European Bell Beakers Phenomenon: Data, Problems and Prospects, Talk in...

1

The Harvard Talk

Harvard Medical School, Department of Genetics, ReichLab Boston (MA, USA) march 23, 2015

European Bell Beakers Phenomenon:Data, Problems and Prospects

Harvard Medical School – Department of Genetics – Boston (MA) – March, 23, 2015

European Bell Beakers Phenomenon: Data, Problems and Prospects

Olivier Lemercier

Université Bourgogne Franche Comté – UMR 6298 ArTeHiS Dijon (France)

2

Dear Colleagues, I'm going to briefly introduce the state of knowledge about the Bell Beaker phenomenon, current issues and the path towards solving them. Slide 2: drawing by A. Houot

Elements of definitionHistory of researchInterpretations

Houot , 1992

We'll start with a small introduction to present this curious phenomenon called Beaker that has annoyed researchers for over a century... Slide 3: © Del Rey Books

“Listen, three thousand years before Christ wasborn, a people came out of the Spain and spreadacross Europe.

They were nomads, strangers wherever they went,but respected –nearly worshipped– because theybrought with them the secret of beer‐making.They spread the art of brewing with a missionaryzeal – you can find their decorated beakers in gravesfrom Sicily to the northern tip of Scotland.

The fermented gift they brought to Europe is thebasis of more beliefs that I dare tell you right now;but I will tell you that in the very oldest versions ofthe story, it was beer, not fire, that Prometheus stolefrom the gods and brought to man.”

Tim Powers : The Drawing of the dark, New York: Del Rey Books, 1979, p. 101

It seems that this little piece of European prehistory is not entirely unknown in the United States... While writing my PhD thesis, in the evenings I read detective stories or science fiction and one night, I read a Historical Fantasy novel by Tim Powers... which describes very precisely one of the bell beaker interpretations, common until the sixties... So this is a subject that has haunted me ever since.

The expression Bell Beaker defines a ceramic form, that of an upside down bell, characterizing small cups long recognized as drinking vessels. Slide 4: pictures from various authors

One type of decorated potteryMany types of decorated potteries

Elements of definition

Pattern

Decoration

Various patterns and decorations

Many bell beaker styles

These beakers have recurring decorative horizontal stripes, hatched and alternate, made with a shell or a comb. From discovery to discovery, this type of decoration was found on other ceramic forms ‐ always fine ceramics of presentation and consumption: bowls, cups etc. Other patterns have been characterized, always organized in horizontal bands, but using other techniques. The expression Bell Beaker now means a fine dish for eating and drinking usually neat and decorated, having a small set of shapes and typical patterns. Slide 5: pictures from various authors

Decoratedbeaker

WeaponsPersonal adornments

Common Coarse Wareon settlements

Bell Beaker Set / PackageOther associatedelements / objects


Archaeological discoveries revealed some recurrent associations of objects with bell beakers.

3

First of all, other types of pottery, some strictly associated with the decorated beakers, upon excavation of settlement sites. In burial sites, it also concerns: ‐ Weapons:

Primarily arrowheads of two types: concave base frames in Central Europe and Portugal and the famous tanged and barbed arrowheads with squared‐off barbs in Western Europe.

But also limestone or sandstone wristguards for archery and copper blades that match daggers of various shapes.

‐ Many objects of personal adornment, including two recurring types:

V‐perforated Buttons, usually bone, but also amber for example.

Plain roughly arc‐shaped pendants (bone or shell).

Copper or gold beads and pendants, some silver items... sometimes in areas where metal was almost unknown until then.

All these objects associated with small decorated beakers define the Bell Beaker package or Bell Beaker set. Slide 6: pictures from various authors

United Kingdom

Portugal Spain

Sardinia Sicily

Czech Republic

AustriaDeutschland

Hungary

Italy

France

Switzerland

Netherlands

MoroccoSlovakia

Poland

Denmark

Bell Beaker geography


Another important element of definition: the geographical distribution of these elements that were discovered, year after year, throughout Europe and the Mediterranean in the west at least to North Africa. Usually we say: from Ireland to Sicily and from Morocco to Poland.

This is an unheard of distribution during Prehistory of the material elements of an archaeological culture. Slide 7: after Lemercier et al. 2014a, Lemercier 2012b

2500 – 1900 Cal BC

Bell Beaker ChronologyThe Mediterranean France example

(Lemercier, Furestier, Gadbois‐Langevin & Schulz‐Paulsson, 2014)

(Lemercier 2012b)

1900


In chronology, Beakers have been placed around two thousand BC, according to the times and regions; sometimes before, sometimes after two thousand BC. Initially, this timeline was based on cross‐dating with elements of the first Mediterranean civilizations. The development of radiocarbon dating clarified the chronology of this phenomenon that seems to appear between twenty six hundred and twenty four hundred cal BC by region to disappear between twenty one hundred cal BC and sixteen fifty cal BC at varying dates depending again on the region. You can see here the dates for Mediterranean France where the Beaker phenomenon can be dated between twenty five hundred and twenty one hundred cal BC but, in this region, Beaker traditions (the Late Beaker phase) persist until around nineteen fifty/nineteen hundred cal BC. Slide 8: pictures from various authors

Individual burials in manyregions

But also Collective burials

And Settlements

Contexts of discovery


4

To complement these defining elements, you should note that for several decades, Beaker elements have been recognized in many parts of Europe only in funerary contexts. This is mainly because domestic contexts and settlements were not excavated. Depending on the region and Neolithic burial traditions, it concerned both collective burial sites (chamber tombs “dolmens” or gallery graves etc.) and individual burials in pits, sometimes under mound. You can imagine the image of the Bell Beakers in the minds of archaeologists: drinking vessels associated with weapons and metal ornaments, sometimes in gold, often in individual and rich archer graves… Slide 9: after Hoare 1812, Abercromby 1912, Del Castillo 1928, Gordon Childe 1924

R. C. Hoare 1812J. Abercromby 1902‐1912

A. Del Castillo 1922‐1954 V. Gordon Childe 1924‐1950

History of research

I will not develop the research history, which would take too long. The first known discoveries date back to the eighteenth century, with reports of objects discovered at Stonehenge, in England, by William Stukeley, for example, from seventeen forty. And from the early nineteenth century, Richard Colt Hoare defined what he called "drinking cups" to describe the beakers that were called "Bell shaped beakers" at the end of the nineteenth century, then "bell beakers "at the beginning of the twentieth century. In the early twentieth century, the extent of the distribution of these objects began to be really noticed. From this period, inventories and distribution maps followed each other.

Slide 10: after Del Castillo 1928, 1944, Sangmeister 1963, Piggott 1965, Harrison 1974, Gallay 1979, Bill 1984, Gallay 1986, Benz et al. 1998

The impossible interpretation

(Del Castillo 1928, 1944, Sangmeister 1963, Piggott 1965, Harrison 1974, Gallay 1979, Bill 1984, Gallay 1986, Strahm 2001)

And, of course, interpretations will develop about the two main issues surrounding the distribution of these same or similar objects: ‐ The origin of this great distribution, ‐ The nature of this phenomenon. For decades according to researchers, the nature of this phenomenon was related to group travel or mass migrations from various origins. The Beakers origin is thus often sought in the East: Asia Minor (Troy connections) and Egypt (in the Old Kingdom), but also in the Iberian Peninsula (in Spain particularly), North Africa and Central Europe. According to theories, it concerns either invasions or migrations, or the movement of small groups of metallurgists, itinerant peddlers sometimes equated with Gypsy populations from Eastern Europe. The warrior dimension of these movements was still often exacerbated until after the Second World War. From the nineteen sixties onwards, the development of New Archaeology (processual archeology) led a generation of scholars to reject these old assumptions that are impossible to prove, to better characterize bell beaker production, through scientific methods that developed at this moment in archaeology. In the nineteen seventies, Bell Beakers were rather considered as the result of long‐distance trade, and were compared to the distribution of

5

certain types of dishes on the fringes of the Roman Empire, spread in the legionary camps, and even the current distribution of Coke cans on the surface of the Earth. The late seventies and eighties saw the development of a social archaeology where Beaker objects were considered as markers of social differentiation or social hierarchy, acquired in many areas by the elite eager to display their status. Slide 11: map O. Lemercier (data after Heyd 2013 and various authors)

Corded Ware groups and Bell Beakers Groups in Europe (compiled data 2850‐1900 cal BC)

In the same period, although the question of the geographical origin of the Beakers phenomenon became secondary, several researchers proposed that the beakers appeared in the Corded Ware Culture on the lower Rhine basin, in the Netherlands. This theory was more or less accepted by most of the community until the late nineteen nineties, while other researchers still argued for an Iberian origin of the phenomenon, especially in the Portuguese fortresses of the third millennium. From the nineteen nineties on, the effects of the New Archaeology faded, with a return to a diversity of theories asserting more subjective ideas, but these were supported by more serious studies and archaeometric analyses. The concept of group movements and migrations recurred next to the development of other visions, such as ideological ones, to explain Beakers phenomenon. Finally, today, we can quote a sentence from my colleague Christian Jeunesse Prehistory professor at the University of Strasbourg, "The Bell Beaker issue will long remain one of the most irritating of European prehistory." Indeed, after decades of research, no consensus has been reached on either the nature of the phenomenon, nor its origin, if any.

Slide 12: drawing by A. Houot

The context of the Beakers Phenomenon Spread

Houot , 1992

We now come, very quickly, to the context of development of the Bell Beaker phenomenon. Slide 13: map by R. Furestier (© Cité de la Préhistoire d’Orgnac)

7000‐4000 cal BC: the Neolithic Diffusion in Europe

You probably have some knowledge, I think, of the European neolithisation process, carried out from the Near East and Anatolia, between the seventh and fifth millennium cal BC from one end to the other of the continent. Slide 14: pictures from various authors

The farming World. From the Neolithicto the present day

But you may still have in mind the vision of the European Neolithic describing too often a quiet

6

peasant world that we can find in Millet's nineteenth century paintings. What we know today about the European Neolithic shows an increasingly unequal world in the fifth and fourth millennia cal BC, developing such phenomena as: Slide 15: pictures from various authors

Birth of the great monumental funerary northwest of Europe (France) in the 5th millennium cal BC: Monuments up to 300 and then 370 m long…

‐ The great monumentality, mostly funeral initially and in Western Europe especially. Slide 16: pictures from various authors

Varna (Bulgarie, 4600‐4200 cal BC)

‐ Metallurgy, in Eastern Europe first. Slide 17: pictures from various authors

In the 5th millennium cal BC, both Europe: An eastern Europe of metal and a Western Europe of monuments and jade

The result was a divided Europe, between a monumental Western Europe of and an Eastern Europe of copper and gold. Slide 18: map P. Pétrequin. Pictures from various authors

In the 5th millennium cal BC, both Europe: An eastern Europe of metal and a Western Europe of monuments and jade

The same division was seen with jade axes, found in Western Europe. Slide 19: map O. Lemercier. Pictures from various authors

Diffusion of metal objects and metallurgical practice in Europe (5000‐3000 cal BC)

Métallurgical Centers

Innovation Places (?)

First Metal Objects in France

Until the third millennium, metallurgy extended to a part of Central Europe and the Mediterranean, more or less quickly depending on the region. Slide 20: pictures from various authors

The Neolithic anthropomorphic art in Europe:Figurines ... (7th‐3rd millennia BC)

7

Human representation as figurines, Slide 21: map after A. D’Anna. Pictures from various authors

The Neolithic anthropomorphic art in Europe: statues... (4th‐3rd millennia BC) Then, real large‐size statues showing ‐for the first time‐ male individuals with weapons, from the middle of the fourth millennium and during the Third millennium. Slide 22: pictures from various authors

Giants sites and fortified sites in the late Neolithic period (4th and 3rd millennia cal BC) And the development of enclosures and real fortifications from the late fourth millennium cal BC and during the Third millennium. Slide 23: pictures from various authors

The wheel and animal traction in the European Neolithic (4th and 3rd millennia cal BC)

Or that of the wheel and animal traction. Slide 24: pictures from various authors

Paroxysm of monumentality in the 3rd millennium cal BC

During the Third millennium the monumentality reached its highest point in many areas... Slide 25: map O. Lemercier (Data from various authors)

A most complicated situation in the first half of the third millenium Europe It is in this context and in a Europe fragmented both by cultures with strong identities and at the same time crossed by major events at the level of the continent, we need to imagine the emergence and development of the Bell Beakers phenomenon. And you understand that this is very different from the views that we sometimes form of Prehistory...

8

Slide 26: drawing by A. Houot

Bell Beakers in Mediterranean France

Houot , 1992

We will now refocus on the case of Mediterranean France, a region where I have mainly worked and that I know slightly. Slide 27: map R. Gadbois‐Langevin (Lemercier et al. 2014a)

Distribution of Beaker sites in Mediterranean France

Here you can see the distribution of the sites that have yielded Bell Beaker objects in Mediterranean France, but also – in the small thumbnail – the distribution across France that is essentially maritime with inward penetration zones alongside large valleys. In Mediterranean France about six hundred sites have been listed. In this region, I worked a lot on the nature of bell beaker assemblies to divide this large set chronologically, because over at least six centuries of time, this phenomenon does not match a single reality.

Slide 28: DAO O. Lemercier (drawings from various authors)

1900

Partition into 3 phases of the Mediterranean France Bell Beakers

Dates cal BC Ceramic styles Lithic

EarlyBeakers

Middle Beakers

LateBeakers

The result is a division of the Mediterranean France beakers into 3 phases: ‐ The early phase (between twenty five hundred and twenty four hundred/twenty three hundred and fifty) corresponding to the first diffusion phenomenon, ‐ The Middle phase (around twenty four hundred/twenty three hundred and fifty and twenty one hundred) which corresponds to a regionalization of Bell Beakers into several groups, ‐ The Late phase (around twenty one hundred and nineteen fifty/nineteen hundred) Beakers traditions in a different context that is the transition to the Bronze Age. This division allows the bell beakers sets to be considered in different ways and not to mix everything up (which was too often done). For Mediterranean France, the six hundred sites recognized correspond to about seven hundred different occupations. Slide 29: drawings from various authors

Early Beaker pottery in Mediterranean France

(Auteurs dans Lemercier 2012b)

9

It’s now possible to question the nature (and possible origin) of the first Beaker phenomenon. We first consider the issue of a local or exogenous character of Beakers in Mediterranean France and the nature of this phenomenon and its possible origins. The fine decorated ceramic‐ware does not seem to derive from indigenous cultures, either from a stylistic point of view or from a technical point of view. Slide 30: map and picture after Prieto Martinez & Salanova 2009

An atlantic ceramic standard: the Maritime Beaker with shell impressions

A ceramic “standard” could be demonstrated, with the Maritime Beaker style with shell impressions that was common but essentially of Atlantic distribution between Portugal and Brittany, although it is well represented in the Western Mediterranean. Slide 31: drawing and pictures R. Furestier

Early Beakers flint artefacts in Mediterranean France

(R. Furestier)

This seems to apply also to the lithic industry with the use of local raw materials around the sites, a significant increase of arrowheads and the

appearance of the tanged and barbed type arrowhead (with squared‐off barbs). These were previously unknown and became widespread at this time, at the scale of Western Beaker diffusion. Slide 32: data F. Cattin & M. Labaune. Pictures from various authors

‐Palmela points‐Daggers hammered tab‐Gold objects

New types and better crafted objects Different types of copper

Beaker metal in Mediterranean France

Graphic of the elemental analysis of Copper objscts for the end of the Neolithic in south France Sb / As

Late NeolithicBell Beaker

0,001

0,010

0,100

1,000

10,000

0,001 0,010 0,100 1,000 10,000

Sb (log)

As (log)(d'après Krause 2003)

(M. Labaune& F. Cattin)

This is also true for metal objects that did not appear at this time (copper objects were present in this region from thirty‐eight hundred/thirty‐six hundred cal BC and metallurgy developed from thirty‐one hundred/thirty hundred cal BC). Different types of copper were seen and also the use of hammering and a more intensive work of shaping. This also applies to certain types of personal adornments like the previously unknown V‐perforated geometric bone buttons. Slide 33: map O. Lemercier. Pictures from various authors

First Bell Beaker dwelling places (Settlements) in Mediterranean France

Topography

Dwelling places

(Lemercier sous presse)

(photos R. Furestier, O. Lemercier, H. B

arge)

It is the same for the choice of the first major settlements that were on hilltops, and the rare huts known for their oval morphology and similar modules.

10

Slide 34: after Lemercier et al. 2011. Pictures SRA PACA

Beaker burials and funeral rites in Mediterranean France

Many traditional collective burials

(megaliths, cavities ...)

Exceptional individual burials in pits

(Lemercier et al. 2011) (photos DRAC PACA)

There are very few individual burials with codified orientations and positions, although the permanence of the collective burial remains in great majority. Slide 35: after Blaise et al. 2014

2.18.04.004.0-

-0.75

0

0.75

1.50

Facteur 1

Facteur 2

BalFer

Cal2

Bsac

Cal1

VinIV

GbesII

Mur

Rouy Sus sp.

CanisOC

Equus

Bos taurus

36,72%

34,86%

Grande chasse

Petit gibier

Animaux domestiques

Late Neolithic

Bell Beakers

E. Blaise (BLAISE, HELMER, CONVERTINI,FURESTIER, LEMERCIER 2014)

Correspondence analysis: number of determined remains by taxon(NR = 34380; 50 faunal assemblages)

Beaker Hunting and breeding in Mediterranean France

Beaker settlements: Les Calades 1 et 2; La Balance (rue Ferruce) Le Mas de Vignole IV; Le Bois sacré ; Grotte Murée George Besse II; La Rouyère

Finally this concerns the animal economy that remains overwhelmingly based on livestock but is distinguished by the practice of hunting small and big game animals: this activity didn’t exist in the indigenous cultures of the late Neolithic in Mediterranean France. If hunting can be considered marginal from the food perspective, it should provide other products (raw material, pelt etc.) and could perhaps give a special status to hunters within their community or to those receiving hunting products. Thus, each of the observed components shows profound differences between the local Neolithic traditions and the Bell Beaker practices or production.

In our opinion, these changes reflect the exogenous nature of this phenomenon, it is now necessary to clarify its nature and origins. ... And this is where the problems really start. Slide 36: map F. Convertini

petrography on bell beakers sites( early and recent) in Mediterranean France

(F. Convertini)

About the nature of this phenomenon, first proof: objects move little, or not at all. This is what petrographic studies of ceramics show for example with highly predominant local manufacture and small displacements over at most regional distances. It’s the same for the lithic raw materials, mostly local or regional. Slide 37: data and map M. Labaune & F. Cattin

The question of the source of copper for Beakers in Mediterranean France

Objets archéologiquesMinerais(mines préhistoriques)

Projet en cours : M. Labaune, thèse de doctorat Université de Bourgogne, et F. Cattin, Université de Bourgogne, Financement région Bourgogne (2013‐2014). Collaboration H. Gandois, doctorant Université Paris 1 Panthéon‐Sorbonne et I. M. Villa Université de Berne (Suisse)

208Pb/206Pb

207Pb/206Pb

The only objects for which we currently observe movements are metal ones (copper). The first elements from a lead isotope analysis program suggest a different origin for copper used by bell beakers relative to that used in the Late Neolithic in Mediterranean France.

11

An origin in the north of the Iberian Peninsula is envisaged for some objects. That which moves especially seems to be: ‐ The types of objects ... it's true for the shapes and decoration of ornamented pottery, some types of lithic and metal objects. ‐ But also technical standards shift, as is the case for pottery manufacture, through the choice of particles added for tempering, which on some sites is foreign to indigenous technical standards. If technical standards are shifting, this supports the idea of movement of individuals. These individuals could be: ‐ Either foreigners with their own traditions, ‐ Or, possibly, natives who traveled to learn other traditions elsewhere, although this seems less credible. The movements of individuals are studied at the European level in the various fields of biological anthropology. Slide 38: pictures UniGE/Forel/LAP

Metric: cranial morphology

dolichocephalicbrachycephalic

skulls from Swiss Neolithic sitesphoto: UniGE/Forel/LAP

Anthropological Approaches of Bell Beakers

For a long time, Scholars wanted to contrast a bell beaker and a Neolithic European population according to cranial morphology, the first being brachycephalic planoccipital and eurymorph (rounded skull with a flattening of the occipital and wide face) and the second being dolichocephalic (elongated skull). However, since the late eighties, considerate seems that this is not a good criterion to define the biological distances between populations and the correlation with the appearance of Bell Beakers in various regions does not seem so obvious.

Slide 39: data and maps J. Desideri (Desideri 2008)

non metric: Teething

(Desideri 2008)


The study of non‐metric dental traits carried out in Spain, France, Switzerland, Bohemia and Hungary, showed strong links between local populations and bell beakers only in Spain and Bohemia. But significant differences between Eastern Europe and South‐Western Europe allowed the movements of individuals to be proposed. Slide 40: data and maps J. Desideri (Desideri et al. 2010)

Petit‐Chasseur, Sion (CH)isotope geochemistry: strontium

Campaniforme (n=23)

adultes

immatures

30%

0/8 aucun

7/15 47%

(Desideri et al. 2010)


Similarly, isotopic geochemistry studies reflect the movement of individuals, reaching up to thirty percent of the population (with a slightly higher percentage for women). Side 41: Adler 2012, Brotherton et al. 2013

ancient DNA:mitochondrial DNA

(Brothertonet al. 2013)


12

Finally, the first studies of ancient DNA complement and confirm these initial results with likely significant migrations which would have altered the European gene pool at the time of Bell Beaker diffusion. Still, it remains difficult with so few results to correlate major population migrations in Western Europe with the Bell Beaker phenomenon: all observations converge rather in the sense of acculturation of the local populations over time, with the development of new schemas, combining both Beaker elements and indigenous traditions. Currently, the idea of movement of individuals or groups of individuals is more consistent with the archaeological data than that of migration. Slide 42: map O. Lemercier (data after Müller & van Willigen 2001)

Beaker radiocarbon dating in Europe

The distribution of the oldest radiocarbon dating of Bell Beakers in Europe was a major task in the early two thousands. With all necessary precautions for the use of radiometric dating, we can see a clear distribution from the southwest to the northeast of Europe, which could correspond to a general diffusion direction. Slide 43: pictures from various authors

Ceramic styles,Copper objectsDwelling typesRadiocarbon datingIndividuals ?

Choice of ceramic material(particles added ‐ Temper)

Standard ceramicdecoration

Individual Burial pitWarrior ? Beakers ?

?

The question of the origin of Bell Beakers in Mediterranean France

If we try to summarize the data concerning Beaker origin in Mediterranean France, the situation is not simple. Many elements refer to the Iberian Peninsula, above all the decorated pottery styles of the early phase, the shape of some huts, the corpus of isotopic dating, but also the first data on human mobility (geochemistry, DNA...) ‐ which must be confirmed by further studies ‐ but suggest a diffusion from the Iberian Peninsula to Central Europe, with different modes depending on the region: ‐ Adult individuals traveling in Western Europe, ‐ and probably Exogamy in Central Europe. Unfortunately the data are not unequivocal and other elements, such as rare individual burial graves or the use of (grog) clay as a temper for ceramic manufacture, could refer to the northern and eastern areas. All data converge to suggest that mobility was very important in this period and that individuals and ideas ‐ sometimes also objects ‐ from various origins circulate quickly across Europe according to different modalities. Back to the story of the Bell Beaker phenomenon in Mediterranean France, to clarify the terms of settlements and land and space management. Slide 44: map R. Gadbois‐Langevin (Lemercier et al. 2014a)

R. Gadbois‐Langevin

Distribution of early Beaker sites in Mediterranean France

The first Beaker settlements in France lie around twenty five hundred BC. Their distribution was mainly in the Mediterranean littoral and on the Atlantic coast.

13

The spread seems major from the South East of France, and is largely channeled by the Rhone‐Rhine corridor to reach the interior of the continent. However the integration of Bell Beakers was not even between the different regions and there are differences both in quantity and in the implantation of sites. Slide 45: pictures by R. Furestier, O. Lemercier, H. Barge, A. D’Anna

Early Beakers hilltop sites in Mediterranean France (Bouches‐du‐Rhône)

Le Fortin du Saut(Châteauneuf‐les‐Martigues)

Le Col Sainte‐Anne (Simiane‐Collongue)

Les Calades(Orgon)

(photos R. Furestier, O. Lem

ercier, H

. Barge, A. D

’Anna)

The local topography has some impact. Furthermore, it is found that east of the Rhone, settlements on hilltops are dominant, while further west, on the Languedoc plain, Beakers are frequently found in the littoral lowland. East of the Rhone, two types of sites are currently represented: ‐ Sites that deliver sizeable bell beaker assemblies.

Usually it is perched sites that are not easily accessible and are naturally defended. The assemblies in these sites are associated with abundant objects of indigenous late Neolithic.

There are very few of these particular sites.

‐ The large majority of sites that deliver bell beakers are of a different kind.

These sites are indigenous Neolithic sites that have only one or a few decorated bell beakers.

They can show a large topographic variety.

But overall in the early phase, the Beaker remains are more frequent in graves (usually regionally

traditional collective burial chambers), than in housing locations. It’s in this early phase that the differences between the Beakers and the local cultures are most pronounced, despite some mixed assemblies. We observe: ‐ The dominance of arrowheads, even a particular type, ‐ Local or nearby supply of raw materials, ‐ And two very distinct contexts of production: domestic productions (everyday objects), and hunting/war or status productions (arrowheads and personal adornments for example). Slide 46: data E. Blaise (Blaise et al. 2014)

57.005.052.0052.0-

-0.4

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

Facteur 1

Facteur 2

CO

CAL1

CLAP

BALrF

CAL2

MdT

Gmur

PG

Lauz

CTD

BRMNLF2

CR

BStM

LF1S7

PlStJ

LF1Rouy

2-6 mois

0,5-1 an

0-2 mois

+ 6 ans

1-2 ans

2-4 ans4-6 ans

41,04%

23,05%

high consumers(meat & milk)

Breedersdomestic consumption(meat, milk)

consumer(tender meat)

Producers (milk) et

Correspondence analysis: number of teeth by age(N = 1544; 18 faunal assemblages)

Gestion des troupeaux au Campaniforme

Sites campaniformes : Les Calades 1 et 2; La Balance (rue Ferruce)Grotte MuréeLa Rouyère

E. Blaise (BLAISE, HELMER, CONVERTINI,FURESTIER, LEMERCIER 2014)

Herders

I mentioned earlier the special emphasis on hunting, but we could also mention herd management, with the emergence of consumer groups differentiated from producer groups during the third millennium that appears to be increasing with Bell beakers from the early phase. Not only are the Bell Beakers farmers, but some groups looked after the herds more specifically. This choice of organization and the existence of well‐defined functions such as shepherds and hunters reinforced the idea of a strong segmentation of activities and some structuring of communities. A final feature concerns ceramics. In the early phase, beaker dishes are only distinguished by the decorated pottery and a thin undecorated pottery of the same shape exists.

14

All the preparation or storage pottery is characteristic of the local late Neolithic traditions. There is no specific Bell Beaker coarse ware in the early phase. Slide 47: map R. Gadbois‐Langevin (Lemercier et al. 2014a)

R. Gadbois‐Langevin

Distribution of Middle Beaker sites in Mediterranean France What we define as the Bell Beaker middle phase is marked by a significant increase in the number of sites, but also a greater inland distribution and a more balanced distribution between lowland and hilltop sites. Slide 48: drawings: authors in Lemercier 2012b. Pictures R. Furestier, L. Jallot, O. Lemercier

Middle Beaker ceramic in Mediterranean France : the example of the Rhone‐Provence Group

(Auteurs dans Lemercier 2012bPhotos : L. Jallot / R. Furestier, O. Lemercier)

The material culture changes with new ceramic styles (however shape and decorations retain a strong Beaker imprint), which are regionalized in Mediterranean France with two distinct groups: the Pyrenean group and the Rhone‐Provence group. Thus decorated pottery has a strong affinity with that of some Iberian groups but also common features with certain objects of Central Europe.

Slide 49: pictures O. Lemercier

Recent Beakers style origins in Mediterranean France: Spain, but also Central Europe…

Provence

Spain

Provence

Spain

Technically, at least in the Languedoc region, ceramic production is marked by a progressive transfer from local technical standards to Beaker technical standards. In this middle phase, these two groups (Pyrenean group and Rhone‐Provence group that are marked by their specific styles of ornamented pottery) have also a coarse ware that is very similar to, and shared with, other regional bell beaker groups in Western Europe. Slide 50: drawings and pictures R. Furestier

Middle Beaker lithic artefacts in Mediterranean France

(R. Furestier)

The tanged and barbed arrowheads (with squared‐off barbs) disappeared, and arrowheads in general were much less frequent and less well finished than before. The exogenous items of high value signs (daggers, Oligocene flint blades etc.) are reappearing. The raw material management is still mainly local, but does not seem to be limited to this and new elements appear as microlith crescents which probably reflect new ways of travel and trade.

15

About the animal economy; hunting is still present in the middle phase, but its share has decreased at some sites. Meanwhile, the indigenous cultures of the late Neolithic don’t disappear at the beginning of this middle phase but persist for a time, at least in eastern Languedoc. However, they clearly disappear before the late phase of the Bell Beaker at the time of the transition to the early Bronze Age. Slide 51: drawings and pictures from various authors

Late Beakers in Mediterranean France: the Barbed Wire Ware Group

The last phase of the Bell Beakers recognized in Mediterranean France corresponds to the appearance of the barbed wire ware group and that of the first bronze objects in the region. It is also the best dated being between twenty‐one hundred and nineteen hundred cal BC. It marks the transition to the Bronze Age for this region. Slide 52: tables O. Lemercier. Pictures A. Houot & Musée Henri Prades (Lattes)

(Lemercier 2002‐2012)

Iron Age interpretative model for Bell Beakers in Mediterranean France

Houot , 1992

To explain this appearance and these transformations, I already proposed some twelve years ago, an interpretative model, based on an Iron Age model (the Greek colonization of Mediterranean France around the late seventh century cal BC), which had the advantage of considering various data (objects, habitats, burials, practices and techniques). This model suggests an influx of groups of individuals, not necessarily very numerous, by sea. They set up along the coast, at the outlets of major rivers and going up these rivers. Their main sites were hilltop ones where they were in direct contact with some indigenous groups, assemblies being immediately mixed. From these particular locations, they dispersed, over relatively small distances, objects but also ideas. They seem to have been imitated by some of the local people. This phenomenon can be seen to the east of the Rhone river, while to the west in the area of development of the late Neolithic Fontbouisse group the Beakers are often represented only as isolated objects at indigenous sites. The second phase, corresponding to the development of the regional groups of the middle Beaker phase reflects a gradual acculturation of indigenous populations with a double phenomenon: ‐ Firstly, the appearance of real “more normal” cultures (full material culture with its communal pottery and sites in all topographic positions) and borrowing from both Beaker practices but also from earlier indigenous traditions, ‐ Secondly, the setting up of large networks of relationships between various groups of this middle Beaker phase. I had considered for this second phase, the possibility of major population movements more than during the first phenomenon. But their origin is not necessarily the same.

16

Nevertheless, this last idea, which could be confirmed by the earliest anthropological and genetic analyses must be qualified by the observation of the incremental evolution of changes in technical standards. In all cases, the bell Beaker expansion and its strong impact in some affected areas, such as Mediterranean France, means that over three hundred years of radiocarbon chronology, the Neolithic traditions will largely be transformed, opening what is call in French: la Protohistoire (the Early History). You will have understood that despite two hundred years of discovery and research, we are confronted by a difficult problem by seeking to understand phenomena that are probably historical, very close to the ones that archaic antiquity will know but with the tools of archaeologists and without the benefits of narratives or other written sources. If we now return to the European situation... Is this Iron Age model that seems to be used in Mediterranean France applicable to other regions? The same types of assemblies and evolution seem to be observed in the western Mediterranean: in central Italy and Sardinia, but also on the French Atlantic coast, showing that the west of the Iberian Peninsula (Portugal) is possibly the center of this dissemination system. Slide 53: map O. Lemercier. Drawing A. Houot

Maximal extension of Bell Beaker phenomenon and its influences in Europe

Houot , 1992

But it‘s still not possible to apply the same schema to continental Europe, which has a wide variety of situations.

Here, you can see the maximum extension of Bell Beakers in Europe (wider than usually presented as it includes the distribution of the use of the archer wristguards which will also involve the Aegean basin, for example). For what concerns us today: ‐ Contrary to what some researchers thought, the movement of individuals, groups or populations are now evident both in general at the end of Prehistory and specifically to explain the Beaker phenomenon. Slide 54: map O. Lemercier. Pictures from various authors

Corded WareYamnaya / Pit Graves from the East(Warrior, burials, beakers…)

Vila Nova de Sao PedroCeramic styles,Copper objectsDwelling typesRadiocarbondatingIndividuals ?

Origins of Bell Beakers… East or West ? Or Both ?

‐ We are facing a major contradiction between obvious influxes from the east with Corded Ware groups and perhaps beyond with the Yamnayas (types of burial chambers, the warrior, the use of cups etc.) and, on the other hand, archaeological evidence which rather refer to the south‐west of Europe. ‐ If archaeologists must continue to characterize material productions and their origins, it is anthropological studies that will provide the most important answers. ‐ It’s in this context, in addition to other types of analyses, that genetic approaches of the Beaker phenomenon must find their place. Provided that the analyses are numerous enough to characterize the "Beaker people" of the various successive time phases but also all “non Beaker populations” and “pre‐Beaker populations” of the concerned regions, perhaps these analyses will answer century‐old issues

17

Slide 55: pictures from various authors

The first warriors ?

Disches for the funeral banquet?

Two relatively new ideas seemed to occur with the Bell Beakers in Western Europe: ‐ firstly, The warrior image, with both graves and large stone steles of armed male adult individuals, ‐ secondly, The development of presentation dishes, of service and consumption (food and drink), that were found in the graves. These two things became important in the foundations of the first European civilizations, such as archaic Greece. Slide 56: drawings after Clarke 1970. Table after Guerra Doce 2006

Morphology of BeerMug…

Analyses

(Clarke, 1970)

(Guerra Doce, 2006)

The use of bell beakers to drink some beer ?I dont know, but…

Finally, returning to the Tim Powers science fiction novel, the assumption of the use of beakers for drinking beer and the idea that this type of consumption is the cause of the great spread across Europe, are not contradicted either by the beaker morphotypology or by the few analyses that have been conducted on residues in the beakers...

Slide 57: pictures from various authors

Thank you for your attention

More information: http://u‐bourgogne.academia.edu/OlivierLEMERCIER

Contact: olivier.lemercier@u‐bourgogne.fr

Acknowledgments

To my Colleagues:Emilie Blaise‐Lemercier, Florence Cattin MatthieuLabaune (UMR 6298 ArTeHiS, Dijon), FabienConvertini (INRAP, UMR 7269 Lampea, Montpellier),Jocelyne Desideri (Université de Genève, Switzerland),Robin Furestier (Cité de la Préhistoire d’Orgnac, UMR5140 ASM), Raphael Gadbois‐Langevin (SubarctiqueEnr., Chicoutimi, Québec, Canada)for their works and unpublisheddocuments.andKatherine Kean (INIST‐CNRS) for the English correctionofmy talk. Thanks for your attention. Acknowledgments To Prof. David Reich (Harvard University, Harvard Medical School, MIT, Broad Institute) and his team for the invitation and hospitality. To Salomon Manier (Harvard University, Harvard Medical School, Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute) for playing the translator during discussions. To my Colleagues: Emilie Blaise, Florence Cattin Matthieu Labaune (UMR 6298 ArTeHiS, Dijon), Fabien Convertini (INRAP, UMR 7269 Lampea, Montpellier), Jocelyne Desideri (Université de Genève, Switzerland), Robin Furestier (Cité de la Préhistoire d’Orgnac, UMR 5140 ASM), Raphael Gadbois‐Langevin (Subarctique Enr., Chicoutimi, Québec, Canada) for their works and unpublished documents. And to Katherine Kean (INIST‐CNRS) for the English correction of my talk. References ABERCROMBY J., 1912. A study of the Bronze Age

pottery of Great Britain and Ireland and their associated grave goods, Oxford : Clarendon Press, 2 vol., 163 p., 128 p., 110 pl.

BENZ M., GRAMSCH A., WIERMANN R. R., van WILLIGEN S., 1998. Rethinking Bell beakers. In : BENZ M., van WILLIGEN S. (Dir.), Some New Approaches to the Bell Beaker “Phonomenon”. Lost Paradise…? Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the « Association Archéologie et Gobelets”, Feldberg (Germany), 18th‐20th April 1997, Oxford : John and Erica Hedges : 181‐191.

18

(British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 690).

BILL J., 1984. Die Glockenbecherkultur in suddeutschland, der Schweiz und Ostfrankreich. In : GUILAINE J. (Dir.), L’Age du Cuivre européen. Civilisations à vases campaniformes. Paris : CNRS : 159‐173.

BLAISE E., 2010. Economie animale et gestion des troupeaux au Néolithique final en Provence : approche archéozoologique et contribution des analyses isotopiques de l’émail dentaire. Oxford : John & Erica Hedges Ltd., XVI+399 p. (British Archaeological Reports IS 2080).

BLAISE E., BREHARD S., CARRERE I., FAVRIE T., GOURICHON L., HELMER D., RIVIERE J., TRESSET A., VIGNE J.‐D., 2010. L’élevage du Néolithique moyen 2 au Néolithique final dans le Midi méditerranéen de la France : état des données archéozoologiques. In : LEMERCIER O., FURESTIER R., BLAISE E. (éd.), 4è Millénaire. La transition du Néolithique moyen au Néolithique final dans le sud‐est de la France et les régions voisines : 261‐284. Lattes : Publications de l'UMR 5140 / ADAL (Monographies d'Ar‐chéologie Méditerranéenne 27).

BLAISE E., HELMER D. CONVERTINI F., FURESTIER R., LEMERCIER O., 2014. Bell Beakers herding and hunting in south‐eastern France: technical, historical and social implications. In : BESSE M. (éd.), Around the Petit Chasseur and the Bell Beaker Culture. Proceedings of the Interna‐tional Conference (Sion, Switzerland, October 27‐30, 2011). Oxford : Archaeopress : 163‐180 (Archaeopress Archaeology).

BROTHERTON P., HAAK W., TEMPLETON J., BRANDT G., SOUBRIER J., ADLER C J., RICHARDS S. M., DER SARKISSIAN C., GANSLMEIER R., FRIEDERICH S., DRESELY V., VAN OVEN M., KENYON R., VAN DER HOEK M. B., KORLACH J., LUONG K., HO S. Y. W., QUINTANA‐MURCI L., BEHAR D. M., MELLER H., ALT K. W., COOPER A. & The Genographic Consortium, 2013. Neolithic mitochondrial haplogroup H genomes and the genetic origins of Europeans, Nature Communications 4: 1764 | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms2656

CASTILLO A. del, 1928. La cultura del vaso campaniforme (su origen y su extension en Europa), Barcelona : Universidad de Barcelona, Facultad de Filosofia y letras, 216 p., 206 pl., 2 cartes.

CASTILLO A. del, 1944. Cronología de la Cultura del Vaso campaniforme en Europa”, Archivo Español de Arqueología, XVII, p. 1‐67.

CATTIN F., 2008. Modalités d’approvisionnement et modalités de consommation du cuivre dans les Alpes au 3e millénaire avant notre ère : apport des analyses métalliques à la connaissance des peuplements du Néolithique final, du Campaniforme et du Bronze ancien. Thèse de doctorat : Faculté des sciences. Section de biologie ; Archéologie préhisto‐rique. Genève : Département d'anthropologie et d'écologie de l'Université.

CHILDE V.G., 1925. When did the Beaker‐folk arrive?, Archaeologia, 74 : 163‐180

CLARKE D.L., 1970. Beaker Pottery of Great Britain and Ireland, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1970, 2 vol, 576 p.

CONVERTINI F., 1996. Production et signification de la céramique campaniforme à la fin du 3ème millénaire av. J.‐C. dans le Sud et le Centre‐Ouest de la France et en Suisse occidentale. Oxford : Tempus Reparatum, 351 p. (British Archaeological Reports IS 656).

CONVERTINI F., 2009. Céramiques campaniformes et sépultures collectives de l’Aude: origine et statut du standard. In : De Méditerranée et d’ailleurs, Mélanges offerts à Jean Guilaine : 221‐234. Toulouse : Archives d’Écologie Préhistorique.

DESIDERI J., 2011. When Beakers met Bell Beakers, An analysis of dental remains. Oxford : Archaeopress. VI+205 p. + CD Rom (British Archaeological Reports IS 2292).

DESIDERI J., BESSE M., 2010. Swiss Bell Beaker population dynamics: eastern or southern influences? Archaeological and Anthropolo‐gical Sciences 2 : 157‐173.

DESIDERI J., BESSE M., 2012. De la dent à l’individu, du groupe humain à son histoire : le phénomène campaniforme dans le nord de l’Espagne. Bulletins et mémoires de la Société d'anthropologie de Paris 24 : 39‐50.

DESIDERI J., PRICE D., BURTON J., FULLAGAR P., BESSE M., 2010. Mobility evidence during the Bell Beaker period in Western Switzerland through strontium isotope study. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 141 : 93.

FURESTIER R., 2007. Les industries lithiques campaniformes du sud‐est de la France.

19

Oxford : John & Erica Hedges Ltd., 339 p. (British Archaeological Report IS 1684).

GADBOIS‐LANGEVIN R., 2012. Le Campaniforme en France méditerranéenne : de la Haute‐Garonne à la Haute‐Savoie. Etude spatiale de l’évolution d’un territoire, Mémoire de Master 1. Dijon : Université de Bourgogne.

GALLAY A., 1979. Le phénomène campaniforme : une nouvelle hypothèse historique. In : MENCK R., GALLAY A. (Dir.), Anthropologie et archéologie : le cas des premiers âges des Métaux. Actes du Symposium, Sils Maria 1978, Archives Suisses d’Anthropologie Générale, Tome 43, fascicule 2 : 231‐257

GALLAY A., 1986. Autonomie du Campaniforme rhodano‐rhénan : la question de la céramique domestique. In : DEMOULE J.‐P., GUILAINE J. (Dir.), Le Néolithique de la France, Hommage à G. Bailloud, Paris : Picard : 431‐446.

GUERRA DOCE 2006. Exploring the significance of Beaker pottery through residue analyses. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, vol. 25, 3 : 247‐259.

HARRISON R.J., 1974. Origins of Bell beakers cultures, Antiquity, vol. XLVIII, n°190 : 99‐109.

HARRISON R.J., HEYD V., 2007. The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC: the example of ‘Le Petit‐Chasseur I + III’ (Sion, Valais, Switzerland). Praehistorische Zeitschrift, vol. 82, 2 : 129‐214.

HEYD V., 2013. Europe at the Dawn of the Bronze Age. In : HEYD V., KULCSAR G., SZEVERENYI V. (éd.), Transitions to the Bronze Age. Interregional Interaction and Socio‐Cultural Change in the Third Millennium BC Carpathian Basin and Neighbouring Regions, Budapest : Archaeolingua : 9‐66.

HOARE R.C., 1812. Ancient history of south Wiltshire. volume 1, London : William Miller, 259 p

LABAUNE M., 2013. Bell Beaker metal and metallurgy in Western Europe: the case of France. In : PRIETO‐MARTINEZ P., SALANOVA L. (éd.), Proceedings of the 15th International Bell Beaker Conference : From Atlantic to Ural. Meeting 5th‐9th May 2011 Poio (Pontevedra, Galicia, Spain): 177‐188. Santiago de Compostela: Galician ArchaeoPots.

LEMERCIER O., 2004a. Les Campaniformes dans le sud‐est de la France. Lattes : Publications de

l’UMR 154 du CNRS / ADAL, 2004, 515 p. (Monographies d’Archéologie Méditerra‐néenne 18).

LEMERCIER O., 2004b. Explorations, implantations et diffusions. Le "phénomène" Campaniforme en France méditerranéenne, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 101 : 227‐238.

LEMERCIER O., 2011. Le guerrier dans l’Europe du IIIe millénaire av. n. è. L’arc et le poignard dans les sépultures individuelles campaniformes. In : BARAY L., DIAS‐MEININHO M.‐H., HONEGGER M. (Dir.) : L’armement et l’image du guerrier dans les sociétés anciennes. De l’objet à la tombe, Table ronde de Sens (jeudi 4 et vendredi 5 juin 2009), Dijon : EUD : 121‐165.

LEMERCIER O., 2012a. Interpreting the Beaker phenomenon in Mediterranean France: an Iron Age analogy, Antiquity 86 : 131‐143.

LEMERCIER O., 2012b. Chapter 5. The Mediterranean France Beakers Transition. In : FOKKENS H., NICOLIS F. (éd.), Background to Beakers. Inquiries into the regional cultural background to the Bell Beaker complex : 81‐119. Leiden : Sidestone Press.

LEMERCIER O., 2014. Bell Beakers in Eastern France and the Rhone‐Saone‐Rhine axis question. In BESSE M. (Dir.) : Around the Petit‐Chasseur Site in Sion (Valais, Switzerland) and New Approcaches to the Bell Beaker Culture. Proceedings of the International Conference held at Sion (Switzerland) October 27th – 30th, 2011, Oxford : Archaeopress : 181‐204. (Archaeopress Archaeology).

LEMERCIER O., FURESTIER R., MÜLLER A., BLAISE E., BOUVILLE C., CONVERTINI F., SALANOVA L., 2011. Chapitre XI. La sépulture individuelle campaniforme de La Fare (Forcalquier, Alpes‐de‐Haute‐Provence). In : SALANOVA L., TCHEREMISSINOFF Y. (Dir.), Les sépultures individuelles campaniformes en France, Paris : CNRS : 145‐159. (Supplément à Gallia Préhis‐toire XLI).

LEMERCIER O., FURESTIER R., GADBOIS‐LANGEVIN R., SCHULZ PAULSSON B., 2014. Chronologie et périodisation des campaniformes en France méditerranéenne. In : SENEPART I., LEANDRI F., CAULIEZ J., PERRIN T., THIRAULT E. (Dir.) : Chronologie de la Préhistoire récente dans le sud de la France : Acquis 1992‐2012. Actualité de la recherche. Actes des 10e Rencontres Méridionales de Préhistoire Récente (Porticcio,

20

18‐20 octobre 2012), Toulouse : Archives d'Ecologie Préhistorique : 175‐195.

LEMERCIER O., BLAISE E., CATTIN F., CONVERTINI F., DESIDERI J., FURESTIER R., GADBOIS‐LANGEVIN R., LABAUNE M., 2014. 2500 avant notre ère : l’implantation campaniforme en France méditerranéenne. In : MERCURI L., VILLAESCUSA R.G., BERTONCELLO F. (Dir.), Implantations humaines en milieu littoral méditerranéen : facteurs d’installation et processus d’appropriation de l’espace (Péhistoire, Antiquité, Moyen‐Age), actes des XXXIVe Rencontres internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes (Antibes, 15‐17 octobre 2013), Antibes : Editions APDCA : 191‐203.

LEMERCIER O., TCHEREMISSINOFF Y., 2011. Chapitre XIV. Du Néolithique final au Bronze ancien : les sépultures individuelles campaniformes dans le sud de la France. In : SALANOVA L., TCHEREMISSINOFF Y. (éd.), Les sépultures individuelles campaniformes en France : 177‐194. Paris : CNRS (Supplément à Gallia Préhistoire XLI).

MÜLLER J., VAN WILLIGEN S., 2001. New radiocarbon evidence for European Bell Beakers and the consequences for the diffusion of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon. In : NICOLIS F. (Dir.), Bell Beakers Today. Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy) 11‐16 may 1998, Trento : Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Servicio Beni Culturali, Ufficio Beni Archeologici, volume 1 : 59‐80.

NICKELS A., 1983. Les Grecs en Gaule : L’exemple du Languedoc. In : Modes de contacts et processus de transformation dans les sociétés anciennes, Actes du Colloque de Cortone, mai 1981 : 409‐428. Pise‐Rome : Ecole française de Rome (Collection de l’Ecole Française de Rome 67).

PIGGOTT S., 1965. Ancient Europe. From the begennings of Agriculture to Classical Antiquity, Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press, 343 p.

PRIETO MARTINEZ M.P., SALANOVA S., 2009. Coquilles et Campaniformes en Galice et en Bretagne : mécanismes de circulation et stratégies identitaires, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique Française, tome 106, 1 : 73‐93.

SANGMEISTER E., 1963. Exposé sur la civilisation du vase campaniforme. In : Les Civilisations Atlantiques du Néolithique à l’Age du Fer, Actes du Premier Colloque Atlantique, Brest 1961, Rennes : Laboratoire d’Anthropologie Préhistorique : 25‐56.

VITAL J., CONVERTINI F., LEMERCIER O., 2012. Composantes culturelles et Premières productions céramiques du Bronze ancien dans le sud‐est de la France. Oxford : Archaeopress, xiv + 412 p. + CD Rom annexes : vi + 338 p. (British Archaeological Reports IS 2446).

LEMERCIER O. (2015) - European Bell Beakers Phenomenon: Data, Problems and Prospects, Talk in...

Documents

Transcript of LEMERCIER O. (2015) - European Bell Beakers Phenomenon: Data, Problems and Prospects, Talk in...