PETREQUIN P., SHERIDAN et al., 2015.- Projet JADE 2. ‘Object-signs’ and social interpretations...

PROOF

COPY

Connecting Networksan euroevol workshop on

lithic exchange

edited by

tim kerig and

stephen shennan

PROOF

COPY

Table of Contents

Preface and Acknowledgements iii

Introduction iv

Key raw materials for Neolithic shoe-last celts and axes in Central Europe: their sources and distribution

Antonín Přichystal 1

Long-distance distribution of raw materials for chipped stone artefacts in the Neolithic of Central Europe (Moravia and eastern Austria) in the 6th and 5th millennia BC

Inna Mateiciucová and Gerhard Trnka 8

Raw materials exchange as part of a network: the case study of the LBK Middle Mosel area

Anne Hauzeur 16

The ‘Rijckholt’ Connection: Neolithic extraction and circulation of Lanaye flints

Marjorie E.Th. de Grooth 24

Flint exchange in time and space: a study of Middle Neolithic assemblages from Western Germany and beyond

Kathrin Nowak 42

Stones on the move: the contribution of microwear analysis for understanding the Neolithisation process

Annelou van Gijn 55

The circulation of flint raw materials in northern France and Belgium during the Early Neolithic

Pierre Allard and Solène Denis 64

Flint productions and distribution networks at the end of the 5th and the beginning of the 4th millennia BC in north-western France and western Belgium

Françoise Bostyn 74

Projet JADE 2. ‘Object-signs’ and social interpretations of Alpine jade axeheads in the European Neolithic: theory and methodology

Pierre Pétrequin, Alison Sheridan, Estelle Gauthier, Serge Cassen, Michel Errera and Lutz Klassen 83

Chert from the Rein Basin (Styria, Austria): Prehistoric use and distribution

Michael Brandl, Maria M. Martinez, Daniel Modl and Estella Weiss-Krejci 103

A radiocarbon chronology of European flint mines suggests a link to population patterns

Tim Kerig, Kevan Edinborough, Sean Downey and Stephen Shennan 114

List of contributors 163

Programme of the workshop 165

PROOF

COPY

Preface and acknowledgements

This volume brings together a group of peer reviewed papers, most of them presented at a workshop held at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London. The event took place on 15–17 October 2011 and was part of the European Research Council (ERC) funded project Cultural Evolution of Neolithic Europe (EUROEVOL 2010-2015).

The aim of the EUROEVOL project is to contribute to the new interdisciplinary field of cultural evolution that has developed over the last 30 years, and at the same time use these ideas and methods to address specific questions concerning the links between demographic, economic, social and cultural patterns and processes in the first farming societies of temperate Europe. The aim of the EUROEVOL project is to do that for the first time and in doing so to provide the basis for a new account of the role of farming in transforming early European societies, c.6000-2000 cal BCE.

The study of lithic exchange is fundamental to this task because it provides a source of direct information on between-group interaction and contact patterns relevant

to understanding the patterns of cultural transmission, while at the same time informing us about a key aspect of non-subsistence production in these societies. It is for this reason that we thought it essential for the project to organise a workshop on this subject bringing together a group of leading workers in the field. Not all those present in the event were able to contribute to the publication so we invited further individuals to write papers for the volume.

The meeting itself was a very productive and pleasant occasion and we wish to thank Sue Colledge and Katie Manning, who helped us to set up the workshop, Fiona McLean for organising travel and accommodation, Louisa Goldsmith, George Davies and Ken Walton for their technical support; and Ulrike Sommer and Peter Topping, who made a splendid visit to Grimes Graves such a success. We are also most grateful to the paper referees and to the European Research Council for ERC Advanced Grant #249390 for the funding that made the workshop possible.

iii

PROOF

COPY

83

Abstract

Projet JADE (2006−2010) focused on the long axeheads of Alpine jades which circulated around the whole of Europe during the 5th and 4th millennia BC. The jades were exploited at high altitude in the Italian Alps, on Mont Viso near Turin and on the Beigua massif near Genoa. The project identified the long-distance movement of axeheads, over distances from the source areas of up to 1700 km as the crow flies, reaching the shores of the Atlantic to the west and those of the Black Sea to the east. The impression given by the distribution pattern and by the find spot contexts (at least as far as the Morbihan region of Brittany is concerned) is one of societies that were markedly inegalitarian, where the sphere of exchange practices was controlled by powerful individuals. These people manipulated objects, sacrificing and consecrating them, using them not only for competitive displays of social status but also for religious rituals, the axeheads forming part of the society’s mythology. The new project, JADE 2, seeks to find out more about the various ideological systems that lay behind the movement of these axeheads on a European scale, and to create social and historical interpretations that follow the principles laid down by an anthropological study of past societies.

Introduction

The JADE 2 project follows on from a previous project, funded by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (2006−2010), that focused on the production of large axeheads made from Alpine jades and their continent-wide circulation across Europe (Pétrequin et al., 2012a). This new project will adopt an anthropological approach to the find spot contexts of Neolithic jade axeheads in Europe, in order to understand how these remarkable ‘object-signs’, with their diverse social roles, were conceptualised by different societies. The project will explore this by comparing the situation at the centres of production (i.e. the western Alps and Piedmont) with that at the edges of jade-using Europe (Portugal, Spain, Brittany, Britain, Ireland, northern Germany, Denmark, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, southern Italy and Sardinia). It would appear that the social functions of the large axeheads became reinterpreted as the objects passed from group to group across Europe, between the Atlantic and the Black Sea.

These differing interpretations of the same object – an object elevated to the status of a social ‘sign’ – offer us the chance to perceive the conceptual basis of social relations during the Neolithic and to understand the exceptional, very long-distance movements travelled by these objects.

Recent discoveries have shown that axeheads were not the only ‘object-signs’ made from precious stones to have been produced in the Italian Alps. Our fieldwork in 2011 in the Mont Viso massif resulted in the discovery of several hundred roughouts for large ring-disc armlets (Pétrequin and Pétrequin 2011); the finished objects sometimes circulated along with the jade axeheads, and examples are known from Brittany and Italy. The addition of ring-discs to the equation helps us to understand the social dynamic of the use of Alpine stone objects. Meanwhile, the number of large axeheads of Alpine rock continues to grow, with the current total in excess of 1800 examples.

The aim of this new project, which will involve participation by most of the European specialists who have been working on the subject, is to reconstruct the social and religious foundations of Europe during the 5th and 4th millennia BC. This will be addressed through a systematic analysis of jade artefacts and of their find spot contexts, the latter being a very important source of information (Fig. 1).

This approach to jade artefacts – which utilises a Europe-wide inventory and GIS mapping (Gauthier 2008) – will be accompanied by cross-cultural and cross-chronological comparisons of the circulation and manipulation of other ‘object-signs’ such as copper objects in south-east Europe during the 5th millennium BC; large axeheads of pelite-quartz from the south of the Vosges during the 4th millennium; long blades of Grand-Pressigny flint; and Corded Ware period axe-hammers in western Switzerland during the 3rd millennium.

The JADE 2 project, which could result in a veritable ‘Atlas of Neolithic jade artefacts’, will try to identify the social dynamics and ideas that underlay the long-distance movement of large axeheads and ring-discs of Alpine rocks over a network that may have extended over 3000 kilometres between the shores of the Atlantic in the west, and of the Black Sea in the east, from the end of the 6th millennium to the beginning of the 4th millennium.

Projet JADE 2. ‘Object-signs’ and social interpretations of Alpine jade axeheads in the European Neolithic: theory and methodology

Pierre Pétrequin, Alison Sheridan, Estelle Gauthier, Serge Cassen, Michel Errera and Lutz Klassen

PROOF

COPY

ConneCting networks

84

The project rationale

The concepts of exchange, of the movement of objects and materials and of networks that feature prominently in current research into the European Neolithic, as shown by three recent conferences: Economic archaeology: from structure to performance (Cologne, 2010); Xarces al Neolitic (Gava, 2011) and EUROEVOL: Connecting networks (London, 2011). This interest has arisen in part from the recognition of the long-distance movement of rare and unevenly distributed raw materials. This movement began during the Mesolithic (as shown, for example, in the movement of columbella seashells) and developed rapidly as the earliest Neolithic expanded, by sea to the south (as shown in the movement of obsidian and coral) and by land to the north (as shown in the case of spondylus shell from the Aegean).

Extensive exchange networks, over which various specialist-produced precious ‘object-signs’ circulated, were already in place by the end of the 6th millennium. The products included beads and rings of Mediterranean shell; beads and pendants of Spanish variscite (Cassen et al. 2012); adzes of meta-amphibolite from the Jizera Mountains in northern Slovakia (Christensen et al. 2006); objects of jade from the Italian Alps (Pétrequin et al. 2012a); heavy copper artefacts in east-central Europe (Klassen 2000); and large flint blades from Gargano (Guilbeau 2010). These exchange networks extended over at least 1000 kilometres and could approach 2000 kilometres in the case of spondylus (Ifantidis and Nikolaidou 2011) and of large axeheads of Alpine jade.

Recognising that these long-distance exchange networks existed and were a characteristic feature of the Neolithic, is one thing; understanding the underlying reasons behind the transactions is quite another. The idea, proposed by Clark (1955), that the Neolithic economy was governed by the exchange of unevenly distributed resources does not offer a convincing explanation for the observed phenomena, even though this model is favoured by prehistorians. In fact, not only is it very uncommon to see any return of objects or materials during these ‘exchanges’; also, the long-distance transfers seem to involve goods that have no direct utilitarian use from an economic perspective (jewellery, salt) or are otherwise not indispensible (large flint blades) or are technically ineffectual (oversized axe- and adze-heads).

This is the reason why the concept of ‘prestige goods’ was developed, as much by anthropologists as by prehistorians, in order to show that specific social factors, rather than economic or technical necessity, must have underlain these long-distance movements. However, today the meaning of the term ‘prestige goods’ seems to have become less and less precise as it has gained in popularity. Renfrew (1984) was alone to have established well-founded theoretical underpinnings for the use of the term as applied to archaeological data, differentiating between market exchange and the exchange of prestigious objects.

Many prehistorians seem to be content with using the term ‘prestige good’ to denote ‘symbol of power’, without exploring the type of social structure within which such objects functioned. Moreover, as Testart observed (2005), prehistorians tend to the term within an implicit, simplistic classification of societies that follows Service’s (1962) evolutionary scale from simple to complex. Unfortunately, adopting Testart’s general classification of societies does not allow prehistorians to advance, since the category of ‘prestige goods’ could be limited to his ‘plutocratic societies featuring ostentatious displays of wealth’; this is the attitude adopted by Gallay (2006) to describe almost every Neolithic society. Alternatively, and by contrast, according to Testart’s scheme, the concept of ‘prestige goods’ could be linked with more ‘egalitarian’ societies, or sometimes even with highly stratified societal types such as royal societies (Cassen 2012; Gronenborn 2010; Pétrequin et al., 2012g).

Following on from Mauss’ remarkable essay on The Gift (1925), Godelier’s ground-breaking work (1996), particularly with his ethnographic investigations in New Guinea, opened up new directions for research. This work showed that, in order to understand the force and power that was associated with the objects that were given and received as gifts, it was necessary to escape from considerations of market exchange and instead explore the imaginary and ideal functions that people attributed to these ‘signs’. Using their own ethnographic experience in New Guinea, Pierre and Anne-Marie Pétrequin developed this approach further (2006) to study ‘objects of power’ which could only be explained and understood through a detailed study of the social context of their use.

This, then, is the approach that will be adopted by the JADE 2 project: we shall differentiate between technical and economic factors on the one hand, and the level of social functioning and of ideal representations on the other. It is the latter that form the foundation of society, being articulated through a religious system that makes sense of the world and of social disparities.

Situating the project

The JADE 2 project is a logical successor to its parent project, ‘JADE: Social inequalities in Neolithic Europe: the circulation of long axeheads of Alpine jades’ (2006−2010) (Pétrequin et al., 2012a). The latter focused on studying the sources of the jades (jadeitite, omphacitite, eclogite, certain amphibolites and nephrite) in the Italian Alps, discovered by our team in 2003 in the Mont Viso massif to the south-west of Turin (Pétrequin et al., 2006b); around Monte Beigua, to the north of Genoa; and in Valais (Pétrequin et al., 2012b). The excavation of high-altitude Neolithic extraction and working sites, between 1500 and 2400 metres above sea level, enabled us to establish not only the chronology of the activities but also the ways in which

PROOF

COPY

85

these rare and precious raw materials were worked in order to produce polished axeheads that are exceptionally tough.

An original and non-destructive method of undertaking petrographic analysis, using spectroradiometry, was used to establish a reference collection of the raw materials that had been used; this allowed us to identify the origin of many finished axeheads found at distance from the sources (Errera et al., 2007, 2012). In this way we were able to confirm the Alpine origin of around 1800 long axeheads held in the principal museums of Western Europe. Our typological and chronological investigations led us to conclude that the phenomenon of exploiting Alpine jades began around 5300 BC in north Italy, and continued until c. 2300 BC at the latest; at its greatest extent, it stretched over virtually the whole of the area between the Mediterranean and the North Sea, and between the Atlantic and the Black Sea, with individual axeheads travelling up to 1700 kilometres from the source areas as the crow flies – a kind of record for the period (Pétrequin et al., 2012d) (Fig. 2, top).

Finally, Projet JADE showed that, during the 5th millennium BC, Europe could be divided into two systems in which the elites in markedly hierarchical societies manipulated ‘object-signs’ and social values. In the west, there was a ‘jade Europe’, with the Morbihan as its epicentre, while in the East, there was a ‘copper Europe’, with Varna as its principal site (Fig. 2). This parallel evolution of the use of jade and copper, in social systems that were largely independent in their origins, constitutes the basis of the subsequent historical trajectory of Europe during the 5th millennium, as had previously been argued (e.g. by Lichardus 1991 and Lichardus et al., 1985, among recent references).

These results obtained by Projet JADE, which exceeded all expectations, enabled us to establish a large database relating to the various types of stone that had been used, the technical and social basis of their exploitation, and the chronology of exploitation. Projet JADE also featured our first anthropological hypotheses concerning the social significance of these jade objects (Pétrequin et al., 2012a).

The movement of objects made from Alpine jades during the Neolithic has become a textbook example of archaeological reasoning because it represents a remarkable advance in our understanding of the very long-distance movement of ‘socially valorised’ objects. Because of this, and given the high quality database and the fact that the phenomenon of jade use reached all the corners of Europe, the JADE 2 project has been able to position itself at the heart of the current issues concerning ‘prestige goods’ and their social context. Furthermore, the composition of the research team, encompassing geologists, Neolithic specialists and ethnoarchaeologists, guarantees that the research is dynamic and original, transcending national boundaries and different research traditions in Europe. It is for this reason that Projet JADE

is frequently cited in France, in Great Britain, in Spain and in Italy as illustrating a new way to undertake research.

Naturally, Projet JADE is not the only project to have investigated the circulation of socially-valorised goods: another, concerning the adze heads from the Jizera Mountains, is in its early stages (Christensen et al., 2006; Ramminger 2008). Another, focusing on the large blades of Grand-Pressigny flint, concentrates more on the technique of exploitation than on the social contexts of their use. Older projects, such as the study of the diffusion of spondylus shell, are handicapped by the absence of a systematic database. Yet others may be more restricted in their geographical or cultural scope. This is not to deny the merit of these projects, but they all lack the large-scale nature of the study of jades and copper.

The advantages and the originality of the JADE 2 project, then, lie in the large scale of the networks over which the jade objects circulated; the number of Neolithic cultures involved in this movement; the computer-based database, which permits a rapid search to be undertaken, within a GIS-based system, across the whole of Europe; and the scope to compare the exploitation and diffusion of jade with those of other systems involving ‘object-signs’ (and in particular, the flint axeheads of northern Europe, the Grand-Pressigny flint blades, the Corded Ware period battle-axeheads of western Switzerland, etc.). Furthermore, JADE 2 will feature the careful and measured employment of ethnoarchaeological hypotheses in order to tease out the social aspects of the phenomenon.

The current state of play regarding studies of Alpine jade exploitation

Until the 1990s, the study of axeheads made from Alpine jade was the domain of geologists and mineralogists. Petrological analyses had allowed the identification and description of the types of stone that had been used, but many issues remained unresolved, due to the lack of multi-disciplinary approaches and of collaboration with Neolithic specialists and ethnographers. These questions included the location of the raw material sources; the technical and social organisation of stone exploitation; chronology; the mapping of long-distance movements; and the social significance of jade objects. These uncontexted petrological studies have continued until the recent past, without the benefit of working with raw material reference samples from the source areas, due to the absence of surveys in the source areas (D’Amico 2005; D’Amico and Starnini 2012; Giustetto and Compagnoni 2004; Hovorka et al., 2008; Prichystal and Trnka 2001; Spisiak and Hovorka 2005; Starnini et al., 2004). The fundamental questions of the precise location of the raw material sources and of the way in which axeheads circulated remained unanswered. However, the pioneering work in Britain and Ireland by Campbell Smith and his successors

Pierre Pétrequin, Alison sheridAn, estelle GAuthier, serGe cAssen, Michel errerA And lutz KlAssen

PROOF

ConneCting networks

86

(Campbell Smith 1972) combined a typological approach with the cumulative results of petrological analysis.

The situation changed during the 1990s, due to two developments, namely: i) regional studies undertaken by geologists working alongside Neolithic specialists. The 1996 publications by Venturino Gambari and by Ricq -de Bouard marked an important advance in our understanding of the typology and chronology of Alpine jade objects in northern Italy and the south of France; and ii) the introduction of models based on the ethnoarchaeological work undertaken by Pierre and Anne-Marie Pétrequin in New Guinea (Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1993, republished in 1999 and developed in greater detail in Pétrequin and Pétrequin 2006). The development of models based on the comparison of current examples with archaeological cases seems to have enriched the study of stone extraction, use and circulation. A series of new regional studies has emerged, combining mineralogical approaches with those of typology and chronology and attempting to explain the social functioning of the system (Croutsch 2005; Le Maux 2010; Occhi 2008; Pailler 2007; Thirault 2004; Wentink 2008).

Since 1995, in an informal regrouping of scientists, we began to systematically test our ethnoarchaeological models, which we regarded as working hypotheses, to be tested and modified. At the same time we built up the first western Europe-wide inventories and distribution maps of jade axeheads (Pétrequin et al., 1998), and undertook the laborious task of investigating the raw material source

areas in the high Alps. In 2003, the discovery – which we had predicted on the basis of our ethnoarchaeological work (Pétrequin et al., 2002, 2003) – of Neolithic jade working sites in the Mont Viso massif at altitudes of between 1500 and 2400 metres above sea level, and then of further working sites on Mont Beigua (as predicted by Damour in 1881 and by Franchi in 1904) represented the key point in this stage of jade axehead studies. This was followed soon afterwards by the establishment of Projet JADE, which took place between 2006 and 2010 (Pétrequin et al., 2006b, 2008a, 2008b, 2009a, 2009b, 2012a).

Projet JADE was based on the systematic study of 1800 large polished axeheads of Alpine jade in western Europe, using a novel and totally non-destructive analytical method – spectroradiometry – which allowed us to compare the spectrum obtained for any single axehead with around 2500 other spectra which currently constitute our raw material reference collection (Errera et al., 2006, 2007, 2012; Pétrequin et al., 2007, 2009a, 2012c; Rossi et al., 2008, among others). Furthermore, since we were able to undertake spatial analysis using a GIS system, Projet JADE enabled us to propose a new interpretation of an exceptional archaeological phenomenon which had touched all the corners of western Europe, from Sicily to Denmark and from northern Italy to Brittany, namely the circulation of polished axeheads of Alpine jades from high-altitude quarries to the maritime fringes of Europe, from the 6th to the 3rd millennium BC.

Among the most interesting results of the project was the discovery that the quarry and working sites on Mont Viso and, to a lesser degree, Mont Beigua, lay at the origin of a system of social signs (i.e. jade axeheads and ring-discs) that was specific to western Europe. This system was contemporary with, and partly independent of, the system of object-signs (of copper and gold) that was in use in the Balkans and in central Europe (Fig. 2). The autonomy of the western European system was evident from at least the 5th millennium, even though there was some transfer of objects with the central and east-European system (Cassen 2003; Errera et al., 2006; Klassen et al., 2012; Pétrequin et al., 2002; 2009b; 2012f).

The jade quarries on Mont Viso were chiefly exploited between 5000 and 3700 BC, by means of seasonal expeditions up onto the mountain. These expeditions involved the performance of rituals and the application of specialist technical knowledge in order to exploit the best raw materials, i.e. jadeitites, omphacitites and fine eclogites. The fact that the production of axeheads was episodic added to the rarity of these ostentatious, outsized objects made of precious rock, even among the communities in north Italy who were responsible for their production (Pétrequin et al., 2006b, 2008b, 2009b, 2011a; Pétrequin and Pétrequin 2012).

The route taken by the large axeheads as they moved out of the quarry areas was via the alpine cols, and mostly in the

Fig. 1 Some long-distance imports to the Gulf of Morbihan region: fibrolite axehead, probably from the Iberian peninsula; large Alpine jade axeheads; ring-disc of Alpine jadeitite and Spanish variscite beads.Photo P. Pétrequin.

PROOF

COPY

87

direction of the Paris Basin, Brittany, Britain and Germany (Fig. 2) – in other words, in the opposite direction from the parts of Europe where copper axehead use prevailed. Along this route, certain jadeitite axeheads were selected for shape modification by repolishing, thereby making them into signs that could not be imitated, and increasing their exchange value (Pétrequin et al., 2011a, 2012d). During the 5th millennium, these highly polished axeheads followed the frontier between southern cultures and Danubian groups as they travelled to Brittany, and then they moved, with the expansion of the Michelsberg culture, out of the Paris Basin towards Germany (Jeunesse et al., 2003). Finally, around the beginning of the 4th millennium, they reached Britain and Ireland as part of the Neolithic colonisation of these islands (Pétrequin et al., 2008a, 2012d; Sheridan 2010; Sheridan and Pailler 2012).

Moreover, Projet JADE has enabled us to demonstrate, with a high degree of confidence, a hitherto wholly unrecognised axis of movement: a little before 4500 BC, jade axeheads travelled eastwards from north Italy (and, above all, the Beigua massif), probably as far as Bulgaria (Errera et al., 2006; Pétrequin et al., 2012f) (Fig. 2, top). This represents a major and unpredicted discovery, and is confirmed by the total absence of roughouts of jade-jadeite in the Dinaric Alps and the Balkans, where only jade-nephrite is currently known to occur naturally (Kostov 2007).

The Europe-wide distribution maps demonstrate that the movement of Alpine axeheads was not effected through down-the-line exchange (as outlined by Renfrew in 1977 and 1984). Rather, the movement took place at a higher social level, and featured direct contact between the elites who were concentrated in certain specific regions (such as the Morbihan, the Paris Basin and Germany). Thus, the number of large axeheads does not diminish with distance from the source of the raw material (Fig. 3). It is within this kind of highly inegalitarian society, where control over prestige goods resided in the hands of the elite, that we can situate the two symmetrical concentrations of large Alpine axeheads, on the shores of the Atlantic (in the Morbihan) and of the Black Sea (in Bulgaria) – even if the social significance of the axeheads varied from area to area (Fig. 2) (Cassen 2012; Cassen et al., 2011; Cassen et al., 2012; Klassen et al., 2011; Pétrequin et al., 2012e, 2012g).

In the west of Europe – if not also elsewhere – jade axeheads seem to have belonged to the realm of religious belief. This is why many of them were consecrated or sacrificed in places that were either subterranean-related (i.e. caves, rock shelters, fissures) or related to water (i.e. marshes, peat bogs, waterfalls, lakes and rivers), mountains (i.e. cols and peaks) or rocks, be they natural or humanly modified (boulders, menhirs, stelae). This religious significance accounts for the immense value of the jade axeheads, and for the fact that they were used by groups that were culturally and linguistically different from each other (Cassen 2012, Petrequin et al., 2009b, 2012g). It was only in the Gulf of Morbihan and Bulgaria that large Alpine axeheads were interred with high-

status individuals – a mark of the importance of Carnac and Varna as epicentres of power, even if the social structures at these opposing ends of Europe were not the same (Cassen 2012; Cassen et al., 2011; Cassen et al., 2012; Klassen et al., 2011; Pétrequin et al., 2002, 2009b; 2012e, 2012g).

Furthermore, certain jade axeheads that had been repolished in the Morbihan circulated along the Atlantic coast, as far as Portugal and Britain. Other such axeheads travelled inland towards the centre of the Continent, as far as the Swiss Alps and central Germany. Thus, the Carnac type axeheads of Alpine jades represent an excellent marker of the diffusion of ‘megalithism’ from the Morbihan (Klassen et al., 2011; Pétrequin et al., 2012c). It has also been possible to follow the trajectory of several axeheads that had started their lives at the quarries on Mont Viso, were repolished in the Paris Basin or in Brittany, and were then released back into circulation towards the end of the 5th millennium, reaching Germany, southern England and possibly also southern Italy (Klassen et al., 2011; Pétrequin et al., 2007; Pétrequin et al., 2012e; Sheridan 2010; Sheridan et al., 2010; Sheridan and Pailler 2012). It should therefore not be a surprise that the Carnac type axeheads, repolished in the Morbihan, were copied in local rocks elsewhere (Fabregas Valcarce et al., 2012; Pétrequin et al., 2006a, 2010a, 2012e) and that, in some regions, their use coincided with the opening of flint mines in order to produce workaday axeheads.

Finally, the early expansion of copper tools from the Balkans and central Europe from the end of the first half of the 5th millennium (Boric 2009; Higham et al., 2008) definitely had an effect on the production of Alpine jade axeheads at Mont Viso, in being the probable source of inspiration for certain types of axehead with expanded blades and in progressively orientating the diffusion of stone axeheads towards northwest Europe – that is to say, in the opposite direction from whence the Balkan influences were being felt in north Italy (Cassen 2003; Klassen et al., 2012; Pétrequin et al., 2012d; Roussot-Laroque 2008). The introduction of certain copper tools to north Italy around 4500 BC, having initially stimulated the production of large jade axeheads at Mont Viso, then seems to have led to a progressive decline in ‘jade Europe’ during the first half of the 4th millennium BC.

These results of Projet JADE shed new light on the functioning of European Neolithic societies. In this scientific context, we propose to undertake a second project, JADE 2, which will continue the work of the original project but will differ in the following respects:

• it will encompass the whole of Europe in order to complete our inventory, which currently suffers from gaps in Central Europe and the Balkans;

• continuing the systematic analysis of jade artefacts and the study of their findspots, it will adopt an explicitly anthropological approach towards investigating the ideal


ConneCting networks

88

concepts which will have governed the circulation and use of jade axeheads in Europe during the 5th and 4th millennia BC, in order to compare and contrast the social interpretations of these objects between the centre of the phenomenon (i.e. the Alpine production areas) and the peripheries (i.e. the various distant groups of consumers);

• and it will compare the circulation and use of Alpine artefacts with other systems that used ‘object-signs’, be they objects (such as flint blades) that travelled over long distances, or others that may have been destined to be sacrificed in considerable numbers, either through deliberate breakage or by burning (e.g. the Corded Ware battle axeheads of Switzerland and female baked clay statuettes of the Square-Mouthed Pottery Culture of Central Italy).

Objectives and novel aspects of JADE 2

The new project is based on the preliminary reconnaissance of a major network, covering virtually the whole of Europe, around which jade ‘object-signs’ circulated during the 5th millennium and the beginning of the 4th. The only phenomena that approach this in a spatial extent are the circulation patterns of obsidian, spondylus shell, copper and meta-amphibolite adze heads. The functioning of this jade network involved many long-distance movements whose nature remains imperfectly known. Alpine jade axeheads therefore represent objects that were accorded social value among most of the Neolithic cultures between the Atlantic and the Black Sea (Fig. 2, top).

A series of spatial oppositions can also be perceived in the use of these ‘object-signs’, as follows:

• a north-south opposition at a Europe-wide scale, with spondylus shell and meta-amphibolite adze heads in the north and axeheads and rings of jade in the south (Pétrequin et al., 2012d);

• later on, an opposition between the use of axeheads that are mostly of jadeitite in the north, and the use of axeheads mostly of eclogite/omphacitite in the south (i.e. in Danubian Europe vs. Mediterranean Europe) (Pétrequin et al., 2011a);

• a west-east opposition, in which jade axeheads predominate in the west whereas copper axeheads predominate in the east (i.e. ‘jade Europe’, vs. ‘copper and gold Europe’) (Fig. 2);

• jades from Mont Viso in the west vs. jades from Monte Beigua in the east; this also corresponds with the use of monumental tombs in the west vs. the use of unmounded cemeteries in the east (i.e. ‘Morbihan vs. Varna’, to put it simply) (Pétrequin et al., 2012c, 2012f).

Furthermore other oppositions, more regional in scale, can be seen, namely:

• within the Alpine area, a difference can be seen between the preferences of the different people who came to exploit the stone on Mont Viso: those who came from the Piedmont made long, narrow axeheads of eclogite/omphacitite, while those who came from the French side of the Alps preferred to produce broad, flat axeheads of jadeitite (Pétrequin et al., 2012d);

• to the west of the Alps, there was a preference for the use of large and broad-walled ring-discs, whereas those found to the east of the Alps are smaller, and seem mostly to be made of jadeitite and serpentinites (Pétrequin and Pétrequin 2011);

• the use of long axeheads of eclogite/omphacitite in north Italy, whereas these are rare in Peninsular Italy; and the production of small axeheads of Collecchio type, made from a magnificent jadeitite, seems to be a local speciality

Fig. 2 Distribution maps comparing the large Alpine jade axeheads (top) and objects of copper and gold belonging to the south-east European Chalcolithic (featuring the use of heavy copper tools) (bottom).Based on information collated by P. Pétrequin and L. Klassen.

PROOF

COPY

89

of Piedmontais communities belonging to the Square-Mouthed Pottery culture, with no example currently known to have been exported outside this area (Bernabò Brea et al., 2012).

This brief review shows that despite an apparent unity in the exchange networks over which Alpine axeheads travelled from the two groups of source areas (around Mont Viso and Monte Beigua, a hundred kilometres apart), there was actually some ideological variability according to the direction of movement, and the cultures through which the axeheads travelled. The choices of rock type and object shape, the modifications that were made to the axeheads, and the transformations that they underwent all belong to the domain of social values. These help us to identify frontier effects and boundaries of varying permeability, and to see how these boundaries were progressively crossed or modified over time, as the social significance of Alpine jade use evolved.

We must therefore now acknowledge that we cannot explain the movement of Alpine jade objects across Europe in terms of simple technological or economic models, or of arbitrary ‘cultural choices’. We must instead seek explanations in terms of the perceived social value of these objects, taking into account the evolutionary dynamic of this social value. Our starting point is, however, a well established database that allows us to place the jade axeheads and disc-rings in their chronological, spatial and cultural context right across the continent of Europe, and to examine closely their conditions of deposition (in settlements or graves, or as isolated finds, or as hoards lacking a conventional context, etc.).

The JADE 2 project sets out, then, to identify the different systems of ideas and values that lay behind the circulation of jade objects at a Europe-wide scale, and to propose interpretative hypotheses that are social and historical in nature, following the principles founded on an anthropological analysis of past societies.

An inventory covering the whole of Europe

At the moment, the inventory of Alpine jade objects is particularly well established for the central and north-western zones of western Europe, but it suffers from gaps in the areas that are peripheral to the main networks, and in particular the Iberian peninsula, Central Europe and the Balkans.

Consequently, the aim of JADE 2 is to fill these gaps in the inventory, involving in our team most of the specialists who are currently working on jade axeheads right across Europe, and especially those who are researching those from Central and Southeast Europe. The efficacy of this international approach is clear from the original Projet JADE.

Each member of the research team will be placed in charge of inventorising the Alpine jade axeheads in his or her region, recording their typology and undertaking preliminary macroscopic material identification, having first become familiarised with the raw materials. Each of these individuals will therefore have to make the necessary contacts in order to gain access to museum (and other) collections. That individual will also have to liaise with the relevant specialists in their area in order to study the find spot context of each axehead and to propose initial interpretations in the light of what is known about the Neolithic cultural groups in that region.

This task of completing the inventory for these peripheral areas of Europe will certainly be time-consuming and expensive in travel costs, but the preliminary tests that we have recently carried out have shown that there is a real potential to uncover a significant number of ‘new’ or previously unrecognised jade axeheads – including among those that had been incorrectly identified in the past as serpentinites (cf. Kostov 2007). In Poland we have uncovered at least one ‘new’ hoard of two large jade axeheads. In Hungary we have discovered examples among the grave assemblages of the richest tombs in the cemetery of Alsónyek (Zalai-Gaal et al., 2011) and have also found other examples from Lengyel culture tombs and enclosures (Pétrequin et al., 2010b, 2011b). In Bulgaria, we have identified further examples in the region where the famous Svoboda hoard had been found; and several of our colleagues in Croatia have drawn our attention to other axeheads of suspected Alpine stone. We must therefore undertake a systematic study of Alpine axeheads in the north-eastern and eastern periphery of the main jade exchange network, collecting information not only on the large examples but also on small axeheads. Similarly, it will be necessary to undertake a systematic review of the grave assemblages of the Rössen culture: it had previously been claimed that these did not include any Alpine axeheads, but we have already found some examples in Alsace and south-west Germany.

We also predict that further examples of large Alpine axeheads will have to be added to the general JADE inventory for western Europe, which already contains some 1800 entries. Since the completion of Projet JADE, one to two ‘new’ large Alpine axeheads have been drawn to our attention each month, including a fragment of a large axehead of Mont Viso jadeitite that had been found in the far south of Spain, in Almeria. This part of Europe remains poorly explored in terms of seeking examples of Alpine axeheads.

As for the large ring-discs, even though good inventories have been published for western Europe (including Auxiette 1989; Fromont 2011; Herbaut & Pailler 2000; Pailler 2007; Roussot-Laroque 1990; Tanda 1977; Thirault 2004), in France and in Italy the task of precise petrographic determination and comparison with Alpine rocks still remains to be undertaken.


PROOF

COPY

ConneCting networks

90

Petrographic and spectroradiometric comparisons

After the initial phase of listing suspected Alpine axeheads and large ring-discs has been completed – with the individual team members being free to establish their own networks of contacts – the next stage will be a systematic comparison between these objects and the c. 2500 specimens of Alpine jades (including both geological specimens and examples of working debris) in the Projet JADE reference collection (Errera et al., 2012; Pétrequin et al., 2012c). This is a unique resource, housed at the Musée d’Archéologie in Lons-le-Saunier, where it is available for consultation by researchers. When combined with a macroscopic approach, the use of spectroradiometry as a means of determining axehead material type has proved to be the most effective technique (and one which was developed for Projet JADE as a novel application of this analytical method). However, this will necessitate taking the spectroradiometry equipment to the various museums, involving unavoidable expenditure on travel costs.

Typological comparisons and the database

In contrast to the work of locating potential candidates for artefacts of Alpine origin, where each collaborator will have considerable freedom of action and reflection, the task of spectroradiometric analysis will be a more constrained operation, since it will have to be undertaken by at least two members of the core JADE 2 team.

It will be at this stage, when the spectroradiometric analysis is undertaken, that the definitive inventory entry for each object will be created, in order to conform to the typological and technical conventions, and to the styles of illustration and photographic recording, as established for Projet JADE. These conventions are not arbitrary, since they have been established, critically reviewed and corrected over the course of 15 years of research. Their robustness has been demonstrated by the fact that it is now possible to undertake Europe-wide mapping of Alpine jade use. The resulting inventory entries – comprising the analytical results, the descriptions and typological identifications, the drawings and the photographs, all presented in a uniform manner – will then be added to the overall Europe-wide inventory, enriching the information already obtained through Projet JADE (See below). The management of this database will have to be centralised, in order to use a GIS-based system to allow statistical analysis and cartography; to answer any questions that may arise from the annual team workshops or from individuals’ work; and to make the whole database available to everyone involved in JADE 2.

In our opinion, this is the only way in which we can avoid returning to the situation several years ago, in which each

researcher constructed his or her own regional typology, incompatible with all the others (cf. Thirault 2004), and offered his or her own petrographic identifications (without considering the necessity of establishing a reference collection of Alpine raw materials: cf. D’Amico 2005; D’Amico et al., 2012; Ricq-de Bouard 1996).

The epicentre of production: petrographic problems

The study of jades is always conditional on our knowledge – always incomplete – of the epicentre of Alpine jade use. This lies within the western Alps between the Mediterranean and the Valais, with two well-defined areas of exploitation around Mont Viso and Monte Beigua. Systematic field prospection has revealed that the production of jade axeheads was effectively limited to these two massifs. The suggestion that is sometimes made (but never substantiated) that jades in the Dinaric Alps had been exploited will be revisited, just to double-check. If these sources had indeed been used, it should be simple to find this out, since roughouts and partly-polished axeheads are abundant in the regions of production. This is certainly the case in north Italy, but further to the east it would seem that very few (if any) have been found.

The question of the use of jade-nephrite is harder to resolve, because there are more natural sources of this type of rock than there are of jadeitite. The Alpine arc between the Tessin and the Valais is a good candidate, but requires systematic field prospection, which will be a major task. One complication is the possible confusion between Alpine nephrites and Pyrenaean nephrites which were also exploited (as, indeed, were the nephrites of the Dinaric Alps and the Rhodope Mountains: Kostov 2007). It will therefore be necessary to create a good reference collection of raw material specimens from the Pyrenees, in order to attempt to differentiate them from the various Alpine nephrite sources (Servelle and Vaquer 2012; Vaquer et al., 2012).

The inclusion of ring-discs in the research project similarly implies an expansion of prospecting activities within the western Alps. Even though Mont Viso appears to have been an important centre of ring-disc roughout production (with around 300 roughouts listed from our prospections in 2010 and 2011 – the largest number in the whole of Europe), tests have shown that other Alpine production areas existed, particularly at Orsiera-Rocciavrè (between the Val Chisone and the Susa valley). Furthermore, the identification of one large ring-disc in the Morbihan (at Languidic) as being of nephrite suggests that other sources of Alpine rock had also been used (Pétrequin and Pétrequin 2011).

It is only by building up our knowledge of the Alpine source areas that were exploited that we will be able to differentiate between the large, wide-walled ring-discs that had been made in the Alps and those that were

91

made, at the same time, in west-central France (e.g. Chevillot et al., 2001). Once again, the latter need to be characterised through petrographic determination.

The epicentre of production: the people who exploited the rock, and the Square-Mouthed Pottery Culture

The prospection and trial excavation work undertaken during Projet JADE provided useful information about the technique and chronology of high-altitude exploitation of Alpine jade around Mont Viso (Pétrequin et al., 2008b, 2012b, 2012d). Nevertheless, considerable uncertainty remains about the origin of the different groups of people who came to exploit the rock. This is a complex question, since we know that some roughouts of jadeitite ring-discs had been taken nearly 200km away from the source area (Rossi et al., 2008). Similarly, we know that there had been some movement of early-stage roughouts for axeheads, both towards the French side of the Alps and towards Piedmont (Thirault 2004).

It is therefore necessary to try to narrow down the origin of the people who exploited the rock, to determine the rhythm of production, and the cultural and social identity of the people who extracted and worked it. This task is facilitated, as far as northern Italy is concerned, by the recent work by our Italian colleagues on the Square-Mouthed Pottery Culture, especially in Piedmont and in western Emilia-Romagna, where evidence for the working-up (by pecking) of axehead roughouts has been found (Bernabò Brea et al., 2007, 2012). Difficulty will arise, however, in tracking down the producers belonging to the Middle Neolithic I (during the first half of the 5th millennium) on the French side of the Alps: sites are

rare, axeheads are scarce and the hypotheses about how the Alpine jade was worked are often contradictory, or impossible to substantiate, at the moment (Denaire et al., 2011). This poses a serious problem which must be approached head on if we are to understand the movement of axehead roughouts across the Alps towards western Europe (Thirault 2004). However, this does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for the project, since the geographical area of incertitude is only a 150km-long corridor, within a Continent-wide network over which Alpine jades circulated.

The outward movement of jade objects, and return journeys

The systematic inventory that we propose to complete will allow us to map and date the principal networks over which jade objects circulated from the epicentre (in the western Alps) to the furthest limits (Britain, the Isle of Man and Ireland, northern Germany and Denmark, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Sicily, Sardinia, Spain and Portugal). Without resorting to terms such as direct or ‘differentiated’ exchange (Godelier 1996) – a concept that is often used by ethnographers, but which remains to be demonstrated for the Neolithic – we shall have to try to trace the possible movement back, towards the western Alps, of certain goods and ideas. A convincing example of this phenomenon was identified during the course of Projet JADE: the elite in the Morbihan region of Brittany received Alpine axeheads via the Paris Basin, had them repolished, and sent some out towards Spain, Portugal and the interior of the Continent. In exchange, the Morbihan elite received beads and pendants of variscite from the Iberian peninsula, along with fibrolite axeheads. Thus, we can identify the former existence of an axis of movement, featuring maritime travel, over

Fig. 3 The diffusion of large Puy-type axeheads in Alpine jades, evaluated in terms of numbers by distance from the raw material sources.Drawing: P. Pétrequin.


PROOF

COPY

ConneCting networks

92

which ‘object-signs’ characteristic of different regions were travelling; this implies that there had existed a certain community of ideas (Cassen et al., 2012).

In enlarging our focus of research to encompass the entirety of the European jade exchange network, we shall also be looking for other preferential axes of circulation, within this area of jade movement, along which exotic objects had travelled. As far as Italy is concerned, it has already been suspected that pottery of Serra d’Alto type (Bernabò Brea et al., 2007), and flint blades from Gargano (Guilbeau 2010) had been moving into the area of the Square-Mouthed Pottery (VBQ, Vases à Bouche carrée) Culture in northern Italy. Furthermore, northern Italy – particularly during the middle VBQ period – was profoundly affected by Balkan influences, as can be seen in the stylistic evolution of the pottery and by the early introduction of copper metallurgy in this region of Europe, probably during the second half of the 5th millennium (Mazzieri and Dal Santo 2007; Klassen et al., 2012). The route taken by jade axeheads between Italy and Bulgaria might coincide with the principal axis of circulation of objects and ideas which, subsequently, played a role in the emergence of the Chassey culture (Sargiano et al., 2010; Pétrequin et al., 2012f), preceding the progressive weakening of ‘jade Europe’.

Within this opposition between ‘jade Europe’ and ‘copper Europe’, the historical importance of the Funnel Beaker (TRB) Culture might also be a direct consequence of the circulation of ideas that accompanied the circulation of jade and copper objects (Klassen 2004).

Thus, our project stands a good chance of improving our general understanding of the historical development of Neolithic Europe between the middle of the 5th millennium and the beginning of the 4th, if we study the effects of the circulation of ‘object-signs’ from ‘copper Europe’ that were imported into ‘jade Europe’. Such objects, which are rare but very important (Klassen et al., 2012), could have opened the way for the earliest copper metallurgy; we have already spotted several examples in the French Jura, the Paris Basin and Brittany. These earliest copper artefacts need to be analysed in order to determine the origin of the copper. Likewise, in north Italy, several copper axeheads and awls need to be analysed, in order to determine which had been imported and which had been produced locally, as part of the earliest copper metallurgy in the region. A series of new radiocarbon dates would allow us to situate the latter more precisely.

Directions of movement, contexts of deposition and social representations

This aspect of our research is of fundamental importance since it should deliver a novel set of results, pertaining to the social interpretations that underpinned the movement of ‘object-signs’ at a continent-wide level. In effect it will

involve the documentation of every context of deposition of all the jade axeheads and ring-discs whose find spot is known with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Overall, nearly 75% of these objects have been discovered as isolated finds and have wrongly been treated as ‘stray finds’ (and thus of little scientific interest), despite the large size of the axeheads – a characteristic that makes it unlikely that they had been lost by accident. In fact, individual finds of large Alpine axeheads can be approached in the same way as those which have been found in larger numbers (between 2 and 29), and usually deposited vertically, with their blades uppermost. In other words, the axeheads found singly can be regarded as objects that may have been deposited deliberately (Cassen et al., 2010; Pétrequin et al., 2009b, 2012g). Similarly, it is noticeable that these precious objects are absent from settlements (and thus excluded from everyday life), and that it is unusual to find them as grave goods. The notable exceptions of jade axeheads deposited in graves are mostly those found in the giant Carnac mounds around the Gulf of Morbihan and in flat graves in the richest cemeteries of central and south-eastern Europe.

The results of Projet JADE had shown that in western Europe, the majority of these ‘object-signs’ can only be understood in terms of consecration or sacrifice, in particular in specific parts of the landscape that are linked with water, with boulders, with standing stones and with the subterranean world, as is the case with the large flint axeheads and the later hoards of northern Europe (Karsten 1994; Rech 1979) and the Netherlands (Wentink 2008). It is therefore in the sphere of religious belief that we have to seek the origin of these specific modes of deposition. However, we also have to clarify the status of the few individuals who were buried with jade objects, among a vast array of other exotic objects that had also travelled over long distances. (See, among other references, Cassen et al., 2011, 2012; Klimscha 2007; Manolokakis 2005; Vaquer et al., 2012; Vaquer and Rémicourt 2009).

The term ‘prestige good’ (Siklosi 2004), so often mobilised to account for the status of these ‘object-signs’, is now obsolete and far too imprecise a term to use when exploring the ideal interpretations that were applied to these objects by Neolithic societies during the

6th-5th millennia BC and which led to their long-distance circulation across Europe. The detailed examination of the environment in the immediate vicinity of deposits of Alpine axeheads ought to show that, along the main axes of movement, there existed perceptible differences in the social representation of these objects. Finding these differences would allow us to suggest boundaries and frontiers between different systems of belief, and, in contrast, privileged links between different Neolithic cultures, corresponding to types of social organisation that differed to varying degrees. The Morbihan society has become emblematic, with its alignments of standing stones, its representations that have been pecked or carved into stones (including those of axes and axeheads: Fig. 4), and its monumental tombs (Cassen 2012). The

PROOF

93

precise nature of this society has not been discussed very much (except by Laporte 2010, without detailed argumentation) and needs to be examined in greater detail so that it can serve as a reference point (Cassen et al., 2011). At the other end of Europe, the richest tombs in Hungary and Bulgaria, where jade axeheads seem to have been deluxe tools whose ownership was restricted to specific men, almost certainly represent a different mode of social organisation and of religious belief which underpinned the inequalities between individuals.

A European-wide mapping of jade artefacts and their contexts ought to allow us to distinguish such differences in social significance and tradition. Tests carried out on the current JADE database suggest that this approach should be feasible, especially once the database has been completed for the eastern half of Europe.

The necessary mobilisation of anthropological and ethnoarchaeological hypotheses

With Projet JADE we have seen the power and efficacy of certain ethnoarchaeological hypotheses for approaching the question of polished axeheads and their interpretation in terms of their social functions.

With JADE 2, more such hypotheses should be tested against the evidence, and there needs to be a systematic trawl through the anthropological literature for examples of ‘object-signs’ that have been used in different types of society. New Guinea is certainly a good source of such information (Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1993, 2006), although

the types of society there are not sufficiently diverse to provide a large repertoire of hypotheses for testing against the jade artefact data. Thus, we need to explore other kinds of society, where the degree of stratification is much more marked (including royal societies: Cassen 2012; Gronenborn 2010), in order to enrich our range of comparisons regarding the use of symbols of power and religious practices. Without attempting to be exhaustive, this initiative should – with two years’ bibliographic research – provide some interesting comparisons.

Conclusion

It is evident from the foregoing that JADE 2 is a collective and multi-disciplinary project, which brings together jade artefact specialists across Europe to work on an integrated cultural and historical study of the Neolithic. The project has the benefit of working with one of the best archaeological datasets that currently exists, and whose completion can be achieved in a short time. From the theoretical point of view, it is guided by several strong hypotheses that need to be tested against the continental-scale exchange of jade and copper objects, namely:

• the previously prevalent idea that a process of ‘hierarchisation’ (i.e. social inequality) occurred among Neolithic communities in Europe after around 4500 BC. This idea needs to be challenged as it is linked to the western myth of Progress and of increasing social complexity (Service 1962), and is probably contradicted by the archaeological evidence;

• the idea, so frequently proposed (cf. Lichardus 1991; Lichardus et al., 1985), that the phenomenon of ‘Chalcolithisation’ resulted from drastic social transformations that only took place in south-east Europe. On the contrary, ‘jade Europe’ and ‘copper Europe’ (among others that have not yet been recognised) seem to demonstrate two parallel and largely independent evolutions which need to be explained, especially in terms of the different regional traditions of the Early Neolithic which provided the roots of these subsequent developments; and

• the ideal interpretation of jade ‘object-signs’ (among other markers) should illustrate the way in which societies and religious concepts developed in Neolithic Europe.

Furthermore, the project will compare the results obtained about the social functioning of jade artefacts with information on other Neolithic systems of ‘object-signs’ which circulated over greater or lesser distances. The aim will be to compare and contrast systems that were either contemporary (as with the production and circulation of schist ring-discs in the Villeneuve-Saint-Germain culture, of irregularly-shaped ring-discs in Alsace and of pelite-quartz axeheads from Plancher-les-Mines) or

Fig. 4 Two large engraved standing stones in the Gulf of Morbihan.Drawing: S. Cassen.


PROOF

COPY

ConneCting networks

94

later (as in the case of the serpentinite battle-axeheads in western Switzerland and the blades and daggers of Grand-Pressigny flint). Some of the comparative data have already been acquired; others are being acquired.

Finally, such comparisons between different prehistoric systems of social value should allow us to determine the exact nature of the system of Alpine jade objects as it pertained to different Neolithic societies in space and time.

This ambitious project will therefore permit us to explore certain ideology-related aspects of social evolution during the 5th and 4th millennia, with its main focus on one of the very few ‘object-signs’ to have circulated around the whole of Europe. The initiative is wholly original, in its geographical scope (i.e. the whole of Europe), in the hypotheses that are envisaged (regarding the establishment of a novel ‘object-sign’ and the social modes by which it became adopted by widely-differing cultures), in its analytical technique (i.e. non-destructive spectroradiometry), in the procedures of research (featuring transcultural and trans-chronological comparisons and ethnoarchaeological approaches) and in its European network of researchers.

The project is perfectly feasible because it is based on almost 20 years’ research, mostly undertaken for Projet JADE (as far as western Europe is concerned). The extension of the project to cover the whole of Europe, the close association of researchers from the Atlantic to the Black Sea, the ability to study movements of objects from the raw material sources to their most distant users and the use of strong hypotheses with which to investigate the social functions of Alpine jade artefacts all mean that JADE 2 is not simply an extension of Projet JADE. By contrast, it features a deliberately novel approach, in which the cultural and social functioning of Neolithic societies will be accorded priority in formulating interpretations. Just one obstacle is envisaged (i.e. the question of the Neolithic in the interior of the Alpine massif), but this is not an insurmountable obstacle since it only concerns one short stretch along a route of very long-distance movements.

In addition to producing numerous specialist publications, the project will publish a veritable European Atlas of Neolithic Alpine Jades, which will complement the major 2012 Projet JADE monograph (Pétrequin et al., 2012a) and will be useful to archaeological theory in tackling the question of ‘prestige goods’. The atlas will provide a detailed, systematic and large-scale database – something that is all too often missing when synthetic studies of the European Neolithic are undertaken.

The JADE database

From the end of April 2012, the Projet JADE database has been directly accessible to all in the form of inventories of

large axeheads (in Excel files), drawings (in pdf form) and a general bibliography (in Word), at the following addresses:

http://jade.univ-fcomte.fr/bddhttp://jade.univ-fcomte.fr

The scientific community will therefore be able to make use of the data that were used in the Projet JADE monograph (Pétrequin et al., 2012a) to construct a chronology of large jade axeheads dating to between 5300 BC and 2500 BC, to create Europe-wide distribution maps and to suggest an evolutionary dynamic for the axeheads.

The use of the Projet JADE database by other researchers will be facilitated by making it available online, especially since it had not been possible to publish a hard-copy version owing to the printing costs. However, the use of this data in other ways will be conditioned by the analytical and descriptive criteria employed by Projet JADE; and it should be pointed out that the quality of the existing data is not uniform for all of the axeheads. Some axeheads could not be found, and their description has simply been taken from published sources, of varying date; some exist only as fragments, so that it was impossible to take into account all of the descriptive criteria; finally, the quality of our observations will naturally have improved over the course of the project, from 1998 to 2010. Therefore, the Projet JADE database comprises data of variable quality. This is as true of the raw material identifications as it is of the descriptions: while there are several hundred cases where macroscopic comparison with raw material specimens (Pétrequin et al., 2012a, 292−419) was accompanied by spectroradiometric analysis (Errera et al., 2012, 440−534), in other cases only the former kind of identification was undertaken; this may increase the risk of errors in attribution.

We are aware that, at a certain point in other people’s research into Alpine jades, once the questions, the issues and the chronological questions have been better established, it may well be necessary to return to the axeheads themselves and repeat the process of description and identification.

It would thus be useful to add a commentary on the Excel-based presentation of the list of large Alpine axeheads. In these inventories, where each line represents an individual object, only axeheads over 13.5cm in length (and fragments thereof) are included. Certain exceptions need to be indicated, however. In certain regions (notably Britain), where certain types of Alpine axehead were very rare, examples of such axeheads that are under 13.5cm in length have been included, in order to avoid unbalancing the distribution maps for these axehead types. A second exception needs to be mentioned: where a jade axehead was found in a hoard, every axehead in that hoard has been listed, irrespective of its length and raw material. The example from Bennwihr (Haut-Rhin, France) is a good illustration of this type of mixed hoard, comprising axeheads of various sizes and of both Alpine jade and non-jade rocks (here, local Vosges rock). Taking account of all the axeheads in a hoard was sometimes the

PROOF

COPY

95

crucial factor in determining its relative date, since all the axeheads were deposited at the same time. (They may, however, have been of varying antiquity when deposited).

The following comments are necessary in order to introduce the presentation of the axehead lists, which have been designed to be read line by line, from left to right.

The inventory number

A JADE inventory number has been allocated to every axehead, giving the year in which it was studied by the project and a project registration number (e.g. 2008_125). This number is linked permanently to the axehead and, in the JADE monograph, it is given whenever the axehead in question is cited in the text, illustrated by a drawing or a photograph, or analysed. Care needs to be taken not to confuse the JADE inventory number with the object’s Registration Number as given by the museum or other owner (and listed at the right of each entry).

Commune, followed by département

The centre point of the commune (or its equivalent outside of France) has been used for all the distributional studies using GIS; the coordinates have not been listed in the inventory. With old finds, we have retained old commune names, indicating in brackets the currently-used term where different communes have been grouped together recently. (See examples in France and Germany).

In the case of some ancient finds, the commune name is not known precisely and the find spot is only known to the level of region or département. In order not to lose that information when dealing with the large axehead collections (in Bordeaux, Clermont-Ferrand and Edinburgh), we have decided arbitrarily to impose a dot corresponding to the closest town to the find spot. (A French example is the region of Auvergne, whose epicentre is Clermont-Ferrand).

As for the axeheads where the find spot information is very imprecise (i.e. known only at department, or equivalent, level) level, these are included in the inventory, but not shown on the distribution maps.

Find spot, followed by context

Where the find spot and circumstances of deposition of an axehead or a hoard are well known, these specific details are given; and under ‘context’ is specified the immediate archaeological context, along with its cultural attribution (where the axehead/s has been associated with decorated pottery, for example) and any details of radiocarbon or dendrochronological dates, should they exist – although these are rare. The data in the ‘context’ field is essential for understanding the depositional circumstances.

Keywords

A list of keywords was introduced in order to facilitate searches on context type, be they archaeological (e.g. settlement, grave, menhir) or environmental (e.g. river, marsh, boulder, rock shelter). This attribution, which is partly interpretative, is especially important in helping us to propose hypotheses concerning the conditions under which polished axeheads were depoisted. (For an example of this, see Pétrequin et al., 2012g, 1354–1423).

Fragment

This field allows us to record whether the axehead is complete or broken and, in the latter case, which part of the axehead is present (i.e. blade, body or butt). In order to advance our understanding, we have realised that it is also essential to describe the cause of the breakage (i.e. deliberate breakage, re-working of the blade, etc.) and to describe any other pre-depositional changes (e.g. through burning). Recording these characteristics is vital for demonstrating cases where axeheads have been consecrated, deliberately destroyed and/or sacrificed. Unfortunately, however, we had not recorded them during the early years of Projet JADE, because we had not realised their potential significance. Therefore, there exists a gap and a bias in the existing database with regard to these characteristics.

Type, followed by cross-section shape

The observation of axeheads in plan and transverse section view has allowed us to define types, based on a statistical study of the first 400 complete axeheads to be studied (Pétrequin et al., 2012g, 595–601). Fifteen types were defined for the 5th and 4th millennia (ibid., 596, figure 20), and two further types were added for the end of the Neolithic during the 3rd millennium (ibid., 700, figure 137). The 17 categories of cross-section are described in the same chapter of the JADE monograph (ibid., 597, figure 21).

The study of associations between different axehead types in hoards has allowed us to propose an ‘average’ relative chronology for the evolution of large polished axeheads during the 5th and 4th millennia (ibid., 607–628, with a synthesis on p. 627, figure 54). We use the term ‘average chronology’ because it is chiefly based on axeheads found along the principal axis of diffusion from north Italy to the Morbihan, and is therefore not directly applicable to all the regions of Europe, since the movement of axeheads over large distances may, in some cases, have involved a considerable passage of time.

Polish

The degree of polish – from zero, in axehead roughouts (polish category 1) to a glassy polish and a perforation


PROOF

COPY

ConneCting networks

96

(polish category 6) (ibid., 590–594, especially p. 590, figure 14) – is a criterion which is essential in order to trace the biography of an axehead from its initial roughing out at source to its final use, far away. The ethnoarchaeological examples from New Guinea (Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1993) are absolutely clear on this point: the degree of polish increases with distance from source, and also with the increasing social value accorded to the axeheads.

Pecking, sawing and perforation

These three categories of secondary characteristic are intimately linked to the initial shaping of axeheads and to the question of polish. The categories of ‘pecking’ and ‘sawing’ allow us to record observations on the technique of roughing-out and on the methods of hafting of the axeheads.

The presence or absence of a perforation at the butt is considered to be a diagnostic characteristic of certain Carnac type axeheads. (A Carnac type axehead is an Alpine axehead that has been shape-modified through overall repolishing in the Gulf of Morbihan. Some of these were additionally modified through perforation. See ibid., 649–658, and for detailed photos and map, see p. 658, figures 90 and 91).

Decoration

With some long axeheads, the longitudinal polishing facets have not been ground smooth; rather, one or more, usually along the centre of one or both faces, has been deliberately enhanced through polishing, to create a ridge (Fig. 1, right). These are typically found in the Paris Basin, the Morbihan, Germany, England and Scotland and need to be differentiated from other examples of Alpine axeheads. Their significance and their distribution are described and discussed in Chapter 11 of the JADE monograph (ibid., 686–688).

Carnac type, followed by polished Bégude type or Chelles

The Carnac type of axehead (see above) – that is, an Alpine axehead whose shape in plan and section has been modified in the Gulf of Morbihan, was definied on the basis of at least three criteria (Pétrequin et al., 2012e, 1015–1045). The distribution of this type in western Europe might relate to the circulation of ideas and of novel religious concepts, spreading from the Morbihan along the Atlantic coast and towards the interior of the Continent.

The repolishing of axeheads of Bégude and Chelles types was similarly done as a way of accentuating the social value of these axeheads. This phenomenon cannot be associated directly with the creation of Carnac type axeheads, since its distribution is far more extensive than that of the latter in western Europe and since this mode of

repolishing, achieved by grinding against a flat surface, is also attested in Bulgaria. The creation of the Glastonbury type axehead, through secondary polishing, could have formed part of the same general phenomenon as seen with the Carnac type axeheads and with repolished Bégude and Chelles type axeheads (Pétrequin et al., 2012d, 680–8).

Length, width, thickness

The dimensions of artefacts are given in centimetres. Those pertaining to fragments and to incomplete axeheads need to be used with caution. Most of the measurements were made by the Projet JADE team, with callipers, measuring the actual objects, and rounding to the nearest millimetre. However, for some ancient finds where it was not possible to gain access to the axehead (e.g. because it had been lost), what is recorded on the database is the published dimensions, or – failing that – dimensions as calculated on the basis of drawings, sketches or photographs. Obviously, the reliability of such data cannot be guaranteed.

Spectroradiometric results: spectra, endmember, spectrofacies, material identification on the basis of spectroradiometric analysis

These four fields relate to the results of spectroradiometric analysis. It is necessary to read carefully the relevant chapter about the method and the results in the JADE monograph (Errera et al., 2012, 440–534) before using this part of the database, in order to avoid misinterpreting the individual results and in order to understand that the method can only suggest the most probable source, in one of the two Alpine massifs (i.e. Mont Viso and Monte Beigua); it cannot prove beyond doubt that an axehead came from a specific source.

The most likely origin

Here are listed the propositions about the most likely area of origin. In the best cases, these are based on: i) the results of spectroradiometric analysis, in comparing the axehead with the raw material samples in the JADE reference collection; combined with ii) macroscopic comparisons using the same reference specimens. Regarding the latter, the reader is directed to the relevant chapter in the JADE monograph (Pétrequin et al., 2012c, 292–419).

Colour: light/dark

With the exception of some dark-coloured jadeitites and some light-coloured eclogites/omphacitites (D’Amico 2012, 420–439), the Neolithic exploiters of the Alpine rock, and the people who subsequently used the axeheads, seem mostly to have selected light and luminous green jadeitites, and dark (blackish-green or blackish) and

PROOF

COPY

97

opaque eclogites/omphacitites. This type of deliberate selection, which started in the Mont Viso source area, has been described in detail elsewhere (Pétrequin et al., 2012d, 623–630, especially figure 57 on p. 630).

Macroscopic description of the rock

This is a rapid description of the raw material, in some cases obtained from old publications, in others obtained from spectroradiometric analyses and drawings. In the latter case, it has been possible to suggest comparanda among the JADE reference collection, using diagnostic criteria, with a degree of confidence. In using this column, the reader needs to refer to the description of these criteria (Pétrequin et al., 2012c, 292–419).

Drawing, museum or other collection, Reference/registration number, bibliography

These four last fields are purely for documentation purposes.

Drawing: the illustrated axeheads are accessible in pdf format. Those produced by the Projet JADE illustrators are schematic drawings, intended to highlight axehead typology; others have been taken from old publications or produced from photographs.

Museum or collection: this records where the axehead currently resides – where known; the current whereabouts of many old finds are unknown. Where a museum Registration number, or other reference number, is associated with the axehead, this is recorded here.

Bibliography: no attempt has been made to produce an exhaustive list of every bibliographic reference; only the most recent are given, along with the ones that give access to the most detailed information concerning old finds. The bibliography is available, in Word format, via the MSHE website http://jade.univ-fcomte.fr/bdd

Anyone who tries to use the JADE database will rapidly realise that it is essential to read the associated monograph (Pétrequin et al., 2012a), since it forms the basis for understanding the contents of the database. It is not possible to employ the database without having previously given it careful consideration, and without bearing in mind the relative dating of the principal axehead types, if one wants to avoid having to work through the entire inventory. The absence of a ‘typochronology’ field means that we avoid presenting, on a pan-European scale, a palimpsest of hundreds of axeheads belonging to long-lived types, whose dating could belong to either of two extremes: the end of the 6th millennium for the oldest examples, and the 3rd millennium for the latest.

Since we are aware that our understanding of the chronology of Alpine axeheads will inevitably be subject

to much modification and refinement in the future, we have not attempted to attribute a date to individual examples in the database. We could have made reference, in the inventory, to the relative and absolute chronology as they currently stand (Pétrequin et al., 2012d, 574–727), but this would have obliged future users to understand how the current chronological system – open to revision – had been constructed and substantiated; they would have to bear in mind the strengths and weaknesses of our current understanding and of the theories that underpin it.

The JADE database will be updated annually, to take into account all the large axeheads that have been inventorised each year.

Bibliography

Auxiette, G. 1989. Les bracelets néolithiques dans le nord de la France, la Belgique et l’Allemagne rhénane. Revue Archéologique de Picardie 1-2, 13-65.

Bernabò Brea, M., Salvadei, L., Maffi, M., Mazzieri, P., Mantini, S. and Sandias, M. 2007. Les sépultures du Néolithique moyen de l’Emilie occidentale: rituels, rapports avec les habitats, données anthropologiques, in P. Moinat et P. Chambon (eds.), Les Cistes de Chamblandes et la Place des Coffres dans les Pratiques Funéraires du Néolithique moyen occidental. Cahiers d’Archéologie Romande 110, Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française XLIII, 325-335. Lausanne et Paris, Société Préhistorique Française.

Bernabò Brea, M., Errera, M., Mazzieri, P., Occhi, S. and Pétrequin, P. 2012. Les haches alpines dans la culture des VBQ en Emilie occidentale: contexte, typologie, chronologie et origine des matières premières, in P. Pétrequin, S. Cassen, M. Errera, L. Klassen, J.A. Sheridan and A.M. Pétrequin (eds.), Jade. Grandes Haches Alpines du Néolithique Européen. Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C., vol. 2, 822-871. Besançon, Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté et Centre de Recherche Archéologique de la Vallée de l’Ain.

Boric, D. 2009. Absolute dating of metallurgical innovations in the Vinca culture of the Balkans, in T.L. Kienlin and B.W. Roberts (eds.), Metals and Societies. Studies in honour of Barbara S. Ottaway. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 169, 191-245. Bonn, Habelt.

Campbell Smith, W. 1972. Second supplement to the catalogue of jade axes from sites in the British Isles. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 38, 408-411.

Cassen, S., 2003. Importer, Imiter, Inspirer? Objets-signes centre-européens dans le Néolithique armoricain. L’Anthropologie 107, 255-270.

Cassen, S. 2012. L’objet possédé, sa représentation: mise en contexte général avec stèles et gravures, in P. Pétrequin, S. Cassen, M. Errera, L. Klassen, J.A. Sheridan and A.M. Pétrequin (eds.), Jade. Grandes Haches Alpines du Néolithique


PROOF

COPY

ConneCting networks

98

Européen. Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C., vol. 2, 1310-1353. Besançon, Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté et Centre de Recherche Archéologique de la Vallée de l’Ain.

Cassen, S., Boujot, C., Errera, M., Menier, D., Pailler, Y., Pétrequin, P., Marguerie D., Veyrat, E., Vigier, E., Poirier, S., Dagneau, C., Degez, D., Lorho, T., Neveu-Derotrie, H., Obeltz, C., Scalliet, F. and Sparfel, Y. 2010. Un dépôt sous-marin de lames polies néolithiques en jadéitite et un ouvrage de stèles submergé sur la plage dite du Petit Rohu près Saint-Pierre-Quiberon (Morbihan). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 107(1), 53-84.

Cassen, S., Pétrequin, P., Boujot, C., Dominguez Bella, S., Guiavarc’h, M. and Querré, G. 2011. Measuring distinction in the megalithic architecture of the Carnac region: from site to material, in M. Furholt, F. Lüth and J. Müller (eds.), Megaliths and Identities. Third European Megalithic Studies Group Meeting, 13-15 May 2010, Kiel, 225-228. Bonn, Habelt.

Cassen, S., Boujot, C., Dominguez Bella, S., Guiavarc’h, M., Le Pennec, C., Prieto Martinez, M.P., Querré, G., Santrot, M.E. and Vigier, E. 2012. Dépôts bretons, tumulus carnacéens et circulations à longue distance, in P. Pétrequin, S. Cassen, M. Errera, L. Klassen, J.A. Sheridan and A.M. Pétrequin (eds.), Jade. Grandes Haches Alpines du Néolithique Européen. Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C., vol. 2, 918-995. Besançon, Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté et Centre de Recherche Archéologique de la Vallée de l’Ain.

Chevillot, C., Rolin, J. and Tranchon, J. 2001. Ressources lithiques de la haute vallée de la Dronne (Dordogne). Premiers résultats sur leur exploitation et leur utilisation au Néolithique, in Les Matières Premières Lithiques en Préhistoire. Table ronde internationale, Aurillac 2002, 105-113. Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest, supplément 5.

Christensen, A.M., Holm, P.M., Schuessler, U. and Petrasch, J. 2006. Indications of a major Neolithic trade route? An archaeometric geochemical and Sr, Pb isotope study on amphibolithic raw material from present day Europe. Applied Geochemistry 21, 1635-1655.

Clark, J.G.D. 1955. L’Europe Préhistorique. Les Fondements de son économie. Paris, Payot.

Croutsch, C. 2005. Techniques et Sociétés Néolithiques. Le Sciage des Lames de Pierre Polie au nord-ouest des Alpes (4300-2450 av. J.-C.). British Archaeological Reports International Series 1361. Oxford, Archaeopress.

D’Amico, C. 2005. Neolithic ‘greenstone’ axe blades from northwestern Italy across Europe: a first petrographic comparison. Archaeometry 47(2), 235-252.

D’Amico, C. 2012. Jades and other greenstones from the Western Alps. A petrographic study of the geological sampling JADE, in P. Pétrequin, S. Cassen, M. Errera, L. Klassen, J.A. Sheridan et A.M. Pétrequin (eds.), Jade. Grandes Haches Alpines du Néolithique Européen. Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C., vol. 1, 420-439. Besançon, Presses Universitaires de

Franche-Comté et Centre de Recherche Archéologique de la Vallée de l’Ain.

D’Amico, C. and Starnini, E. 2012. Circulation and provenance of the Neolithic «greenstone» in Italy, in P. Pétrequin, S. Cassen, M. Errera, L. Klassen, J.A. Sheridan and A.M. Pétrequin (eds.), Jade. Grandes Haches Alpines du Néolithique Européen. Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C., vol. 1, 728-743. Besançon, Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté et Centre de Recherche Archéologique de la Vallée de l’Ain.

Damour, A. 1881. Nouvelles analyses sur la jadéite et sur quelques roches sodifères. Bulletin de la Société Française de Minéralogie 4, 157-164.

Denaire, A., Doppler, T., Nicod, P.Y. and Van Willingen, S. 2011. Espaces culturels, frontières et interactions au 5ème millénaire entre la Plaine du Rhin supérieur et les rivages de la Méditerranée. Annuaire d’Archéologie Suisse 94, 21-59.

Errera, M., Hauzeur, A., Pétrequin, P. and Tsonev, T. 2006. Etude spectroradiométrique d’une lame de hache trouvée dans le district de Chirpan (Bulgarie). Interdisciplinary Studies XIX, 7-24. Sofia, Archaeological Institute and Museum.

Errera, M., Pétrequin, P., Pétrequin, A.M., Cassen, S. and Croutsch, C. 2007. Contribution de la spectroradiométrie à la compréhension des transferts longue-distance des lames de hache au Néolithique. Société Tournaisienne de Géologie, Préhistoire et Archéologie X(4), 101-142.

Errera, M., Pétrequin, P. and Pétrequin, A.M. 2012. Spectroradiométrie, référentiel naturel et étude de la diffusion des haches alpines, in P. Pétrequin, S. Cassen, M. Errera, L. Klassen, J.A. Sheridan and A.M. Pétrequin (eds.), Jade. Grandes Haches Alpines du Néolithique Européen. Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C., vol. 1, 440-534. Besançon, Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté et Centre de Recherche Archéologique de la Vallée de l’Ain.

Fábregas Valcarce, R., De Lombera Hermida, A. and Rodriguez Rellan, C. 2012. Spain and Portugal: long chisels and perforated axes. Their context and distribution, in P. Pétrequin, S. Cassen, M. Errera, L. Klassen, J.A. Sheridan and A.M. Pétrequin (eds.), Jade. Grandes Haches Alpines du Néolithique Européen. Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C., vol. 2, 1108-1135. Besançon, Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté et Centre de Recherche Archéologique de la Vallée de l’Ain.

Franchi, S. 1904. I giacimenti alpini ed appenninici di roccie giadeitiche. Atti del Congresso Internazionale di Scienze Storiche Roma V(IV), 357-371.

Fromont, N. 2011. Anneaux et Cultures du Néolithique Ancien. Unpublished Phd thesis, Université de Paris I-Sorbonne.

Gallay, A. 2006. Les Sociétés Mégalithiques. Pouvoir des Hommes, Mémoire des Morts. Lausanne, Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes.

Gauthier, E. 2008. Consumption and circulation of prehistoric products in Europe: characterization of spatial evolutions using map algebra. Spatial analysis and modelling of ancient

PROOF

COPY

99

social-economic systems, in A. Posluschny, K. Lambers and I. Herzog (eds.), Layers of Perception. Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology (CAA). Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 10. Bonn, Habelt.

Giustetto, R. and Compagnoni, R. 2004. Studio archeometrico dei manufatti in pietra levigata del Piemonte sud-orientale: valli Curone, Grue e Ossona, in M. Venturino Gambari (ed.), Alla conquista dell’Appennino, 45-59. Torino, Omega Edizioni.

Godelier, M. 1996. L’énigme du Don. Paris, Plon.

Gronenborn, D. 2010. Eliten, Prestigegüter, Repräsentationsgräber. Eine Spurensuche nach politischen Organisationsformen, in C. Lichter (ed.), Jungsteinzeit im Umbruch. Die «Michelsberger Kultur» und Mitteleuropa vor 6.000 Jahren, 243-249. Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum.

Guilbeau, D. 2010. Les Grandes Lames et les Lames par Pression au Levier du Néolithique et de l’Enéolithique en Italie. Unpublished Phd thesis, Université de Paris Ouest.

Herbaut, F. and Pailler Y., 2000. Les anneaux en pierre dans le massif armoricain, in S. Cassen (ed.), Eléments d’Architecture. Exploration d’un Terte Funéraire à Lannec (Erdeven, Morbihan). Constructions et Reconstructions dans le Néolithique morbihannais. Propositions pour une lecture symbolique. Mémoire XIX, 353-385. Chauvigny, Association des publications Chauvinoises.

Higham, T., Chapman, J., Slavchev, V., Gaydarska, B., Honch, N., Yordanov, Y. and Dimitrov, A. 2008. New AMS radiocarbon dates for the Varna Eneolithic cemetery, Bulgarian Black Sea Coast, in The Varna Eneolithic Necropolis and Problems of Prehistory in Southeast Europe, 95-114. Varna, Acta Musei Varnaensis.

Hovorka, D., Spisiak, J. and Mikus, T. 2008. Aeneolithic jadeitite axes from Western Slovakia. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 38, 33-44.

Ifantidis, F. and Nikolaidou, M. (eds.) 2011. Spondylus in Prehistory. New Data and Approaches. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2216. Oxford, Hadrian Books.

Jeunesse, C., Lefranc, P. and Denaire, A. 2003. Groupe de Bischheim, Origine du Michelsberg, Genèse du groupe d’Entzheim. La Transition entre le Néolithique moyen et le Néolithique récent dans les Régions Rhénanes, Cahiers de l’Association pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archéologique en Alsace, volume 18-19.

Karsten, P. 1994. Att kasta yxan i sjön. En studie över rituell tradition och fornadring utifrån skånska neolitiska offerfynd. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia Series 23. Stockholm, Almqvist and Wiksell.

Klassen, L. 2000. Frühes Kupfer im Norden. Untersuchungen zu Chronologie, Herkunft und Bedeutung der Kupferfunde der Nordgruppe der Trichterbecherkultur. Jutland Archaeological Society 36. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press.

Klassen, L. 2004. Jade und Kupfer. Untersuchungen zum Neolithisierungprozess im westlichen Ostseeraum unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Kulturentwicklung Europas 5500-3500 BC. Jutland Archaeological Society. Moesgård, Moesgård Museum.

Klassen, L., Pétrequin, P. and Cassen, S. 2011. The power of attraction ... Zur Akkumulation sozial wertbesetzer alpiner Artefakte im Morbihan und im westlichen Ostseeraum im 5. und 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr., in S. Hansen and J. Müller (eds.), Sozialarchäologische Perspektiven: Gesellschaftlicher Wandel 5000-1500 v.Chr. zwischen Kaukasus und Atlantik. Archäologie in Eurasien 24, 13-40. Darmstadt, Philipp von Zabern.

Klassen, L., Cassen, S. and Pétrequin, P. 2012. Alpine axes and early metallurgy, in P. Pétrequin, S. Cassen, M. Errera, L. Klassen, J.A. Sheridan and A.M. Pétrequin (eds.), Jade. Grandes Haches Alpines du Néolithique Européen. Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C., vol. 2, 1280-1309. Besançon, Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté et Centre de Recherche Archéologique de la Vallée de l’Ain.

Klimscha, F. 2007. Die Verbreitung und Datierung kupferzeitlicher Silexbeile in Südosteuropa. Fernbeziehungen neolithischer Gesellschaften im 5. und 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr.. Germania 85, 275-305.

Kostov, R.I. 2007. Archeo-mineralogy of Neolithic and Chalcolithic Artefacts from Bulgaria and their Significance for Gemmology. Sofia, University «St. Ivan Rilski».

Laporte, L. 2010. Innate and/or Expressed Identities: Their Conceptualization through Monumentality, Funerary Practices and Grave Goods? Some examples from the megalithic tradition of Western France. (Retrieved 12.04.2015 from www.jungsteinzeitSITE.de).

Le Maux, N. 2010. Les lames de hache polies en roches tenaces et en grès-quartzite de la basse vallée de la Seine (de Paris au Havre), in C. Billard and M. Legris (eds.), Premiers Néolithiques de l’Ouest, Actes du Colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique, 237-271. Rennes, Presses universitaires de Rennes.

Lichardus, J. (ed.) 1991. Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 55. Bonn, Habelt.

Lichardus, J., Lichardus-Itten, M., Bailloud, G. and Cauvin, J. 1985. La Protohistoire de l’Europe. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

Manolokakis, L. 2005. Les Industries Lithiques énéolithiques de Bulgarie. Internationale Archäologie 88. Radhen, Leidorf.

Mauss, M. 1925. Essai sur le Don, Formes et Raisons de l’échange dans les Sociétés Archaïques. L’Année Sociologique nouvelle série I (1923-1934), 30-186.

Mazzieri, P. and Dal Santo, N. 2007. Il sito del Neolitico recente di Botteghino (Parma). Rivista di Science Preistoriche LVII, 113-138.


PROOF

COPY

ConneCting networks

100

Occhi, S. 2008. Le asce levigata della collezione storica del Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Parma. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Bologna university.

Pailler, Y. 2007. Des Dernières Industries à Trapèzes à l’Affirmation du Néolithique en Bretagne occidentale (5500-3500 av. J.-C.). British Archaeological Reports International Series 1648. Oxford, Hadrian Books.

Pétrequin, P. and Pétrequin, A.M. 1993. Ecologie d’un Outil: la Hache de Pierre en Irian Jaya. Monographie du CRA 12. Paris, CNRS Editions (second edition 1999).

Pétrequin, A.M. and Pétrequin, P. 2006. Objets de Pouvoir en Nouvelle-Guinée. Catalogue de la donation Anne-Marie et Pierre Pétrequin. Paris, Editions de la Réunion des Musées nationaux Saint-Germain-en-Laye Musée d’Archéologie Nationale.

Pétrequin, P. and Pétrequin, A.M. 2011. Abbozzi di anelloni neolitici nel massicio del Monviso a Oncino e Crissollo (Cuneo, Piemonte). Quaderni della Soprintendenza archeologica del Piemonte 26, 122-126.

Pétrequin, P. and Pétrequin, A.M. 2012. Chronologie et organisation de la production dans le massif du Mont Viso, in P. Pétrequin, S. Cassen, M. Errera, L. Klassen, J.A. Sheridan and A.M. Pétrequin (eds.), Jade. Grandes Haches Alpines du Néolithique Européen. Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C., vol. 1, 214-257. Besançon, Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté et Centre de Recherche Archéologique de la Vallée de l’Ain.

Pétrequin, P., Croutsch, C. and Cassen, S. 1998. A propos du dépôt de La Bégude: haches alpines et haches carnacéennes pendant le Ve millénaire. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 95(2), 239-254.

Pétrequin, P., Cassen, S., Croutsch, C. and Errera, M. 2002. La valorisation sociale des longues haches de l’Europe néolithique, in J. Guilaine (ed.), Matériaux, Productions, Circulations du Néolithique à l’Age du Bronze, 67-98. Paris, Editions Errance.

Pétrequin, P., Errera, M., Cassen, S. and Croutsch, C. 2003. De la pétrographie aux approches sociales: la circulation des grandes haches en roches alpines pendant le Néolithique, in Les Matières Premières Lithiques en Préhistoire, Table ronde internationale d’Aurillac, 20-22 juin 2002. Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest, special issue 5, 253-275.

Pétrequin, P., Cassen, S. and Croutsch, C. 2006a. Imitation ou convergence: les haches néolithiques à talon perforé au nord-ouest des Alpes, in L. Baray (ed.), Artisanats, Sociétés et Civilisations. Hommage à J.-P. Thévenot, 24e supplément à la Revue Archéologique de l’Est 163-177. Dijon.

Pétrequin, P., Errera, M., Pétrequin, A.M. and Allard, P. 2006b. The neolithic quarries of Mont Viso (Piedmont, Italy). Initial radiocarbon dates. European Journal of Archaeology 9(1), 7-30.

Pétrequin, P., Errera, M., Cassen, S., Gauthier, E. and Pétrequin, A.M., 2007. Du Mont Viso au golfe de Tarente à la transition V-IVe millénaires: la hache en jadéitite de Laterza (Puglia,

Italie). Jahrbuch der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission, Mainz 54, 25-51.

Pétrequin, P., Sheridan, A., Cassen, S., Errera, M. Gauthier, E., Klassen, L., Le Maux, N. and Pailler, Y. 2008a. Neolithic Alpine axeheads, from the Continent to Great Britain, the Isle of Man and Ireland, in H. Fokkens, B.J. Coles, A.L. Van Gijn, J.P. Klejne, H.H. Ponjee and C.G. Slappendel (eds.), Between Foraging and Farming. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 40, 262-279.

Pétrequin, P., Pétrequin, A.M., Errera, M., Jaime Riveron, O., Bailly, M., Gauthier, E. and Rossi, G. 2008b. Premiers épisodes de la fabrication des longues haches alpines: ramassage de galets ou choc thermique sur des blocs. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 105(2), 309-334.

Pétrequin, P., Errera, M., Pétrequin, A.M. and Gauthier, E. 2009a. Une production du Mont Viso en Italie: l’ébauche de haches de Lugrin (Haute-Savoie, France), in De la Méditerranée et d’ailleurs. Mélanges offerts à Jean Guilaine, 583-595. Toulouse, Archives d’Ecologie Préhistorique.

Pétrequin, P., Cassen, S., Errera, M., Gauthier, E., Klassen, L., Pailler, Y., Pétrequin, A.M. and Sheridan, A. 2009b. L’Unique, la Paire, les Multiples. A propos des dépôts de haches polies en roches alpines en Europe occidentale pendant les Ve et IVe millénaires, in S. Bonnardin, C. Hamon, M. Lauwers and B. Quilliec (eds.), Du Matériel au Spirituel. Réalités Archéologiques et Historiques des « dépôts » de la Préhistoire à nos jours. Actes des XXIXe Rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes, 417-427. Juan-les-Pins, éd. APDCA.

Pétrequin, P., Gauthier, E. and Pétrequin, A.M. 2010a. Les haches en silex de type Glis en France, en Suisse et en Allemagne du Sud-Ouest. Des imitations de haches alpines à la la transition Ve-IVe millénaires, in I. Matuschik and C. Strahm (eds.), Vernetzungen. Aspekte siedlungsarchäologischer Forschung, 237-252. Freiburg, Lavori.

Pétrequin, P., Errera, M., Gauthier, E., Klassen, L. and Trnka, G. 2010b. The alpine Beilnacken aus Kamegg (Niederösterreich) und die Verbreitung des Bégude-Typs in Westeuropa, in J. Šuteková, P. Pavúk, P. Kalábková and B. Kovár (eds.), PANTA RHEI. Studies in Chronology and Cultural Development of the South-Eastern and Central Europe in Earlier Prehistory presented to Juraj Pavúk on the Occasion of his 75. Birthday, Studia Archaeologica et Mediaevalia 11, 137-157. Bratislava.

Pétrequin, P., Sheridan, A., Cassen, S., Errera, M., Gauthier, E., Klassen, L., Le Maux, N., Pailler, Y., Pétrequin, A.M. and Rossy, M. 2011a. Eclogite or jadeitite: the two colours involved in the tranfer of alpine axeheads in western Europe, in V. Davis and M. Edmonds (eds.), Stone Axe Studies III, 55-82. Oxford, Oxbow books.

Pétrequin, P., Errera, M., Cassen, S., Gauthier, E., Hovorka, D., Klassen, L. and Sheridan, A. 2011b. From Mont Viso to Slovakia: the two axeheads of Alpine jade from Golianovo. Acta Archaeologica Scientiarum Hungaricae 62, 243-268.

PROOF

COPY

101

Pétrequin, P., Cassen, S., Errera, M., Klassen, L., Sheridan, A. and Pétrequin, A.M. (eds.) 2012a. Jade. Grandes Haches Alpines du Néolithique Européen. Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C. Besançon, Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté et Centre de Recherche Archéologique de la Vallée de l’Ain.

Pétrequin, P., Pétrequin, A.M., Errera, M. and Prodéo, F. 2012b. Prospections alpines et sources de matières premières. Historique et résultats, in P. Pétrequin, S. Cassen, M. Errera, L. Klassen, J.A. Sheridan and A.M. Pétrequin. (eds.), Jade. Grandes Haches Alpines du Néolithique Européen. Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C., vol. 1, 46-183. Besançon, Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté et Centre de Recherche Archéologique de la Vallée de l’Ain.

Pétrequin, P., Errera, M. and Rossy, M. 2012c. Viso ou Beigua: approche du référentiel des jades alpins, in P. Pétrequin, S. Cassen, M. Errera, L. Klassen, J.A. Sheridan and A.M. Pétrequin (eds.), Jade. Grandes Haches Alpines du Néolithique Européen. Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C. vol. 1, 292-419. Besançon, Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté et Centre de Recherche Archéologique de la Vallée de l’Ain.

Pétrequin, P., Cassen, S., Gauthier, E., Klassen, L., Pailler, Y. and Sheridan, A. 2012d. Typologie, chronologie et répartition des grandes haches alpines en Europe occidentale, in P. Pétrequin, S. Cassen, M. Errera, L. Klassen, J.A. Sheridan and A.M. Pétrequin (eds.), Jade. Grandes Haches Alpines du Néolithique Européen. Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C, vol. 1, 574-727. Besançon, Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté et Centre de Recherche Archéologique de la Vallée de l’Ain.

Pétrequin, P., Cassen, S., Klassen, L. et Fabregas Valcarce, R. 2012e. La circulation des haches carnacéennes en Europe occidentale, in P. Pétrequin, S. Cassen, M. Errera, L. Klassen, J.A. Sheridan and A.M. Pétrequin (eds.), Jade. Grandes Haches Alpines du Néolithique Européen. Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C., vol. 2, 1015-1045. Besançon, Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté et Centre de Recherche Archéologique de la Vallée de l’Ain.

Pétrequin, P., Cassen, S., Errera, M., Tsonev, T., Dimitrov, K. and Mitkova, R. 2012f. Les haches en roches alpines en Bulgarie, in P. Pétrequin, S. Cassen, M. Errera, L. Klassen, J.A. Sheridan and A.M. Pétrequin A.M. (eds.), Jade. Grandes Haches Alpines du Néolithique Européen. Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C., vol. 2, 1231-1279. Besançon, Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté et Centre de Recherche Archéologique de la Vallée de l’Ain.

Pétrequin, P., Cassen, S., Errera, M., Klassen, L. and Sheridan, A., 2012g. Des choses sacrées… fonctions idéelles des jades alpins en Europe occidentale, in P. Pétrequin, S. Cassen, M. Errera, L. Klassen, J.A. Sheridan and A.M. Pétrequin (eds.), Jade. Grandes Haches Alpines du Néolithique Européen. Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C., vol. 2, 1354-1423. Besançon, Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté et Centre de Recherche Archéologique de la Vallée de l’Ain.

Prichystal, A. and Trnka, G. 2001. Raw materials of polished artifacts from two Lengyel sites in Lower Austria. Slovak Geological Magazine 7(4), 337-339.

Ramminger, B. 2008. The exchange of LBK adze blades in central Europe: an example for economic investigations in archaeology, in D. Hofmann and P. Bickle (edd.), Creating Communities: New Advances in Central European Neolithic Research, 79-93. Oxford, Oxbow.

Rech M. 1979. Studien zu den Depotfunden der Trichterbecher- und Einzelgrabkultur des Nordens. Neumünster, Karl Wachholtz.

Renfrew C. 1977. Alternative models for exchange and spatial distribution, in T.E. Earle and J.E. Ericson (ed.), Exchange Systems in Prehistory, 71-90. London, Academic Press.

Renfrew C. 1984. Approaches to Social Archaeology. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.

Ricq-De Bouard, M. 1996. Pétrographie et Sociétés Néolithiques en France Méditerranéenne. L’outillage en pierre polie. Monographies du CRA 16. Paris, CNRS éditions.

Rossi, G., Errera, M., Pétrequin, P. and Pétrequin, A.M. 2008. Un abbozzo di anellone in pietra verde da Bobbio (Piacenza). Bollettino Storico Piacentino C III(2), 185-202.

Roussot-Larroque, J. 1990. Inventaire des bracelets, in D. Cahen and M. Otte (eds.), Rubané et Cardial, Actes du colloque de Liège (nov. 1988). Etudes et recherches archéologiques de l’Université de Liège 39, 361-381. Liège, Université de Liège.

Roussot-Larroque, J. 2008. La «sépulture de chef» de Pauilhac. Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest 16(1), 91-142.

Sargiano, J.F., Van Willigen, S., D’Anna, A., Renault, S., Hunger, K., Woerle-Soares, M. and Gaday, R. 2010. Les Bagnoles à L’Isle-sur-la-Sorgue (Vaucluse). Aspects nouveaux dans le Néolithique moyen du Midi de la France. Gallia-Préhistoire 52, 193-239.

Servelle, C. and Vaquer, J. 2012. Imitations et contrefaçons de longues haches polies d’origine alpine dans le Néolithique du sud-ouest de la France et de l’Andorre, in P. Pétrequin, S. Cassen, M. Errera, L. Klassen, J.A. Sheridan and A.M. Pétrequin (eds.), Jade. Grandes Haches Alpines du Néolithique Européen. Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C., vol. 2, 1088-1107. Besançon, Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté et Centre de Recherche Archéologique de la Vallée de l’Ain.

Service, E.R., 1962. Primitive Social Organization: an Evolutionary Perspective. New York, Random House.

Sheridan A. 2010. The neolithization of Britain and Ireland: The big picture, in B. Finlayson and G. Warren (eds.), Landscapes in Transition, 89-105. Oxford, Oxbow.

Sheridan, A., Field, D., Pailler, Y., Pétrequin, P., Errera, M. et Cassen, S. 2010. The Breamore jadeitite axehead and other neolithic axeheads of Alpine rock from Central Southern England. WANHM - Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine: Wiltshire Studies 103, 16-34.

Sheridan, A. and Pailler, Y. 2012. Les haches alpines et leurs imitations en Grande Bretagne, Irlande et dans les Iles anglo-


ConneCting networks

102

normandes, in P. Pétrequin, S. Cassen, M. Errera, L. Klassen, J.A. Sheridan and A.M. Pétrequin (eds.), Jade. Grandes Haches Alpines du Néolithique Européen. Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C., vol. 2, 1046-1087. Besançon, Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté et Centre de Recherche Archéologique de la Vallée de l’Ain.

Siklosi, Z. 2004. Prestige goods in the Neolithic of the Carpathian basin. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Hungarica, 1-62.

Spisiak, J. and Hovorka, D. 2005. Jadeite and Eclogite: Peculiar Raw Materials of Neolithic Stone Implements in Slovakia and Their Possible Sources. Geoarchaeology 20(3), 229-242.

Starnini, E., D‘Amico, C., Biagi, P., Ghedini, M. and Pitti, G. 2004. Strumenti in pietra levigata dalla Lombardia oientale: aspetti archeometrici e culturali. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana (Roma) 95, 21-82.

Tanda, G. 1977. Gli anelloni litici italiani. Preistoria Alpina 13, 111-155.

Testart A. 2005. Eléments de Classification des Sociétés. Paris, Editions Errance.

Thirault, E. 2004. Echanges Néolithiques: les Haches Alpines. Préhistoires 10. Montagnac, Editions Monique Mergoil.

Vaquer, J. and Rémicourt, M., 2009. Production et importation de grandes lames en silex dans le Néolithique et le Chalcolithique du Midi de la France (4500-2400 av. J.-C.), in J.FG. Gibaja, X. Terradas, A. Palomo and X. Clop (eds.), Les Grans Fulles de Silex. Europa al final de la Prehistoria. Actes du Workshop Barcelone-Gavà, 9-10 juin 2008, 35-45. Barcelona, Museu d’Arqueologia de Catalunya.

Vaquer, J, Martin, A., Pétrequin, P., Pétrequin, A.M. and Errera, M. 2012. Les haches alpines dans les sépultures du Néolithique moyen pyrénéen. In P. Pétrequin, S. Cassen, M. Errera, L. Klassen, J.A. Sheridan and A.M. Pétrequin (eds.), Jade. Grandes Haches Alpines du Néolithique Européen. Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C., vol. 2, 872-917. Besançon, Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté et Centre de Recherche Archéologique de la Vallée de l’Ain.

Venturino Gambari, M. (ed.) 1996. Le vie della pietra verde. L’industria litica levigata nella preistoria dell’Italia settentrionale. Torino, Museo di Antichità - Omega Edizioni.

Wentink, K. 2008. Crafting Axes, Producing Meaning: Neolithic axe depositions in the Northern Netherlands. Archaeological Dialogues 15(2), 151-173.

Zalai-Gaál, I., Gál, E., Köhler, K and Osztás, A. 2011. Das Steingerätedepot aus dem Häuptlingsgrab 3060 der Lengyel-Kultur von Alsónyék, Südtransdanubien, in H.J. Beier, R. Einicke and E. Biermann (eds.), Varia Neolithica VII: Dechsel, Axt, Beil, & Co – Werkzeug, Waffe, Kultgegenstand? Aktuelles aus der Neolithforschung. Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 63, 65-83. Weissbach, Beier und Beran.

Documentary films

*JADE. Grandes haches alpines du Néolithique européen. Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C., DVD, 70 mn, auteurs P. Pétrequin, A.M. Pétrequin et A. Lo Carmine, Centre de Recherche Archéologique de la Vallée de l’Ain et Cerimes, 2009.

*JADE. Large Alpine axeheads of the European Neolithic. Vth et IVth millennia BC, DVD, 40 mn, auteurs P. Pétrequin, A.M. Pétrequin et A. Lo Carmine, Centre de Recherche Archéologique de la Vallée de l’Ain et Cerimes, 2010.

PETREQUIN P., SHERIDAN et al., 2015.- Projet JADE 2. ‘Object-signs’ and social interpretations...

Documents

Transcript of PETREQUIN P., SHERIDAN et al., 2015.- Projet JADE 2. ‘Object-signs’ and social interpretations...