Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Prometheus

« on: October 12, 2018, 05:27:05 PM »



Adriana Hamorova
What Happens When You Die


Spirits who believe in Reincarnation

Q&A From Spirits

Fear Processing

Law Of Attraction (the real one)

Law Of Desire

Secrets Of The Universe


square-mouthed vases, 232, 244, 245, 269
stamps, clay, see seals

Starcevo culture, 64, 85-8, 90, 108, 110,
136, 144, 156

statue menhirs, 250, 254, 256, 311, 312
stelae, 40, 78, 145, 150, 236
see also statue menhirs
Stentinello culture, 230-1, 233, 236, 253
Stonehenge, 331, 336, 342
Straubing (Bavaria), 130, 298
stroke-burnished decoration, 32, 36, 65,
91, 274, 278, 280

Sub-Boreal climatic phase, 2, 3, 207, 289
subcutaneous handles, 125, 231, 234, 242,

see also tunnel handles
Sulimirski, T., 173
suttee, English for sati, q.v.

Swiderian culture, 3, 116, 207
swords, 30, 82, 243, 250, 282, 336
Szoreg (Hungary), 131, 132

Tangaru (Romania), 96, 98
tankards, 69, 70, 76, 90, 103, 122, 132,
186, 235

Tardenoisean cultures, 5, 116, 266
teapots, 19, 95

tells, 17, 35, 36, 57, 58, 60, 85, 93, 94, 96,
89, 131, 240, 243, 248, 249, 293
temples, 217, 251, 252
terremare, 248
Teviec (France), 6, 306
Thapsos culture, 238-40, 257
Thermi (Lesbos), 36, 37-41, 49, 71, 130
tholoi, 23, 80, 215, 226, 273, 280, 375
see also corbelling, passage graves
thrones, model, 61, 91
tiles, 67

tin, 27, 38, 41, 51, 74, 83, 128, 241, 282,
308, 315, 322, 336, 344
tinetip pendants, 290, 303
Tiszapolg&r (Hungary), 120, 144
toggles, 272, 280
Tomaszdw culture, 167
Tordos (Transylvania), 89, 97, 98
Torque-bearers, 127, 129, 134, 301
Toszeg (Hungary), 130
totems, 8, 170

trade, 5, 17, 26, 38, 41, 46, 47, 49, 67, 69,
76, 80, 91, 97, 98,108,112,119, 125,
131,   139,   146,   185,   187,   195,   208,

223,   229,   234,   235,   242,   246,   254,

271,   278,   282,   293,   299,   309,   319,


transgressions of the sea, 2, 3, 5, 11, 182,
332, 334

Trapeza ware, 17, 19, 231
trepanation, 78, 118, 165, 227, 311, 314
trephining, see trepanation
Tripolye culture, 136-144, 147, 210
Troels-Smith, 13, 177, 191, 295
Traldebjerg (Denmark), 183
Troy, 36-47, 98, 129, 157, 235, 254, 272
tubes, bone, 38, 54, 69
tweezers, 19, 32, 53


TJnStician culture, 30, 132-5, 170, 199, 249,
283, 339, 342
Urfimis, 65, 69, 90

urnfields, 46, 103, 126, 132, 162, 167, 239,
250, 339

Usatova culture, 144-7, 158, 167

Vapheio cups, 33
vase supports, 393-4, 317
vases: ivory, 272

metal, 33, 42, 70, 75, 152, 238, 334
stone, 19, 25, 32, 60, 91, 152, 272, 275,

Vaufrey, R„ 268, 269
Vidra (Romania), 96, 98-104, 112, 143
Vila Nova de San Pedro (Portugal), 276,
278 279

Villafrati (Sicily), 258
Vinfia (Yugoslavia), 66, 84, 88-94, 100-1
110, 112, 126

Veselinovo (Bulgaria), 94-6, 104
Vogt, E., 288, 295, 298
votive deposits in bogs, 8, 177, 178, 185,

Vouga, P., 288, 289, 298
VuCedol (Yugoslavia), 91, 124, 156, 242,

Waltemienburg culture, 184, 193
wedges, antler, 4, 208
see also chisels
weels, 11, 14, 289

Weinberg, S., 54, 66

wheats: one-corn, 15, 37, 85, 94, 96, 106,
124, 136, 177, 183, 248, 289, 291,
292, 323, 328

emmer, 13, 15, 94, 96, 106, 124, 136, 177,
183, 248, 270, 289, 292, 323
hexaploid, 13, 106, 136, 177, 270, 276,
289 292

wheel, potters’, 26, 42, 46, 56, 75
wheeled vehicles, 26, 78,124, 126, 151, 154,
156, 158, 187, 190, 249
Windmill Hill culture, 323-5
wooden models for pots, 54, 75, 95, 198,
242, 249, 283, 300, 309, 337
wrist-guards, 99, 162, 168, 225, 309, 318,

writing, 26, 27, 77, 239, 262
Xanthudides, 5, 23

Yamno graves, 149,150-1, 157, 158, 79
Yessen, 149, 151, 154
Yortan (Turkey), 36, 38, 65
yokes, 187, 289

zinc, 139

Zlota (Poland), 112, 166
zoomorphic vases, 43, 50, 91, 115, 142, 301
see also askoi
Ziischen (Hesse), 190
Zygouries (Greece), 50, 69



The Earth Before History: Man’s Origin and the Origin of Life. By
Edmond Perrier, late Hon. Director of the Natural History Museum
of France. With four maps. £i 3s.

Language: a Linguistic Introduction to History. By J. Yendryes,
Professor in the University of Paris. £1 10s.

The Dawn of European Civilization. By V. Gordon Childe, D.Litt.,
D.Sc., Professor of Prehistoric Europeon Archaeology, University of
London. New edition, revised and enlarged. With 159 illustrations
and five maps. £z zs.

From Tribe to Empire: Social Organization among the Primitives and
in the Ancient East. By A. Moret, Professor in the University of
Paris, and G. Davy, University of Dijon. With 47 illustrations and
seven maps. £1 5 s.


Israel, from its Beginnings to the Middle of the Eighth Century. By A.
Lods, Professor at the Sorbonne. With 16 plates, three maps, and 38
text illustrations. £1 15s.   8

The Prophets and the Rise of Judaism. By A. Lods, Professor at the
Sorbonne. With eight plates. £1 10s.


The Greek City, and its Institutions. By G. Glotz, Professor of Greek
History in the University of Paris. £1 10s.


Primitive Italy, and the Beginnings of Roman Imperialism. By Leon
Homo, Professor in the University of Lyons. With 13 maps and
plans. £1 8s.

The Roman Spirit in Religion, Thought and Art. By A. Grenier, Pro-
fessor in the University of Strasburg. With 16 plates, and 16 text
illustrations. £1 8 s.
 Rome the Law-Giver. By J. Declareuil, Professor in the University of
Toulouse. £i 8s.

The Economic Life of the Ancient World. By J. Toutain, Director
at L’Ecole des Hautes Etudes. With six maps, £i ios.


Chinese Civilisation. By Marcel Granet, Professor at the School of
Oriental Languages, Paris. With 12 plates and 5 maps. £1 15s.

The Life of Buddha, as Legend and History. By E. J. Thomas, D.Litt.,
Under Librarian in the University Library, Cambridge. With four
plates. £1 12s.

A History of Buddhist Thought. By E. J. Thomas, D.Litt. With four
plates. £1 1os.

Ancient India and Indian Civilization. By P. Masson-Oursel, H. de
Willman-Grabowska, and P. Stern. With five maps, 16 plates and
24 black and white illustrations. £1 12s.


Life and Work in Medieval Europe, Y-XV Century. By P. Boissonnade,
Professor in the University of Poitiers.* Introduction by Eileen
Power, D.Litt. With eight plates. £1 ios.

Travel and Travellers of the Middle Ages. Edited by A. P. Newton,
Rhodes Professor of Imperial History in the University of London.
With eight plates and maps. £1 5s.

Chivalry : its Historical Significance and Civilizing Influence. Edited by
Edgar Prestage, Camoens Professor in the University of London.
With 24 plates. £1 3 s.

The End of the Ancient World, and the Beginnings of the Middle Ages.
By Ferdinand Lot, Professor in the University of Paris. With three
plates and three maps. £1 12s.

The Feudal Monarchy in France, and England from the Tenth to the
Thirteenth Century. By Ch. Petit-Dutaillis, Member of LTnstitut de
France. With 2 maps. £1 8s.

The Jewish World in the Time of Jesus. By Charles Guignebert,
Professor of the History of Christianity at the Sorbonne. £1 4s.


C 14, see radio-carbon
cairns, see barrows

callais, 223, 268, 269, 271, 275, 278, 281,
282, 309, 313, 315, 319
Campigny, le (France), 14, 305
cannibalism, 12, 102, 115, 290
Capo Graziano (Italy), 238, 256
Capsian culture, 7, 268
Cardial ornament, 58, 184, 230, 258, 269,
287, 353

Castelluccio culture, 234-7, 254, 256
Catacomb culture and period, 149, 154-6,
169, 184, 300, 301

cattle (bovids), domestic, 13, 22, 37, 60,
85, 106, 124, 136, 145, 150, 166, 177,
179, 201, 231, 248, 289, 298, 299,
304, 323, 328, 332

causewayed camps, 230, 292, 323, 332
cavalry, 82, 269

caves, inhabited, 4, 6, 85, 110, 265, 308
sepulchral, see burials
celts, see adzes, axes, chisels, gouges


cemeteries,   24, 27, 41,   48, 72, 115, 118,   120,

123,   125,   131,   132,   144,   149,   164,

166,   168,   204,   209,   226,   235,   239,

246,   250,   258,   270,   274,   290,   298,

301, 312, 337

chamber tombs, see rock-cut tombs
Chamblandes culture, 245, 290
channelled decoration, 32, 96, 125, 278,

306,   310, 317, 324, 326, 353
chariots, 78

Chassean or Chassey culture, 245, 287, 293,
303, 305, 206, 310, 317
chiefs, 37, 67, 78, 90, 119, 125, 144, 150,
151, 156, 162, 165, 170, 188, 200,
201, 209, 262, 281, 312, 320, 334
chisels, socketed bone, 11, 208
metal, 47, 130, 132, 154
chronology, 9, 15, 21, 26, 37, 47, 49, 57, 78,
80, 103, 110, 116, 126, 134, 135,
157, 175, 176, 199, 202, 204, 233,
238, 243, 247, 251, 283, 291, 321,
339, 342

circles round graves, 78, 145, 151, 153, 162,

167,   200

cists, megalithic, 51, 72, 152, 165, 193, 195,
213, 237, 274, 280, 296
see also gallery graves
climate, changes in, 2, 137, 167, 288
collared flasks, 119, 126, 179-184, 190, 196,

combs, bone, 12, 44, 91, 272
antler bunched, 293, 324
wood, 289

comb-ornament, 109, 140, 163, 170, 204,
224, 332

Conco d’Oro culture, 234, 238, 241
Conguel (Brittany), 317, 326
copper ores, 48, 121, 127, 220, 257, 270,
276, 298, 307, 322, 336
copper trinkets, etc., 97, 113,122, 142,164,
167, 168, 180, 194, 198, 283, 290,

see also adzes, axes, battle-axes, daggers,

corbelling,' 23, 27, 51, 78, 80, 213, 254, 270,

307,   311, 316, 319, 327, 328

cord ornament, 71, 96, 109, 133, 145, 151,
156, 159,   160,   164,   166,   168,   179,

184, 226,   297,   309,   318,   326,   330,

332, 340

core axes, see tranchet

Cortaillod culture, 191, 244-5, 287, 288-90.

294, 303, 311, 342
cranial deformation, 156
cranian amulets, see amulets
cremation, 12, 46, 72, 109, 115, 117, 126,
165, 167,   226,   239,   256,   259,   294,

301, 306,   311,   317,   319,   325,   326,

328. 329, 337

crescentic necklaces, 79, 81, 200, 336,

crusted ware, 72, 91, 112, 114, 116, 125,
231, 353

Cucuteni (Romania), 136-9, 140
cursus, 317, 325

daggers, flint, 168, 184,197, 224, 246, 247,

metal: bronze-hilted, 130, 198, 202, 248,

ogival, 29, 73, 298, 334
Peschiera, 83, 243, 250
rhomboid, 297, 299

round-heeled, 79, 130, 167, 200, 228,
243, 248, 262, 264, 320, 330, 334
tanged, 36, 38, 52, 120, 154, 165, 241,
247, 320

triangular, 29, 53, 61, 235, 241, 256
unifacial, 145, 183, 271, 275, 308, 340
West European, 130, 224, 246, 258, 260,
279, 308, 318, 329
Deer Island, see Olenil Ostrovo
Dendra (Greece), 80
depas, 43, 69
diadems, 53, 283
Diana style, 233, 241, 255
Dimini culture, 63-4, 98, 112
disks, metal, bossed, 123, 143, 202, 262
amber, gold-bound, 33, 334, 336
dogs, 3, 11, 203, 208
dolmens, 181, 190, 215, 221, 269
double-axes, 25, 74, 78, 108, 184, 193, 194,
202, 262, 318
see also ingot axes
dove pendants, 25, 78, 115, 264
dolmens, 181, 190, 215, 221, 269
drill-bits, 154, 157
drums, 196

duck-vases, see zoomorphic vases

earrings, 44, 129, 278, 283, 329
earthquakes, 27, 47
El Argar (Spain), 282, 340
El Garcel (Spain), 267, 268, 283
emery, 48

Ertebolle culture, 12, 166, 177, 179, 192
Eutresis (Greece), 50, 51, 57, 68, 69, 71,
74, 76

Evans, Arthur, 21, 23, 33, 238
excised decoration, 54, 69, 94, 97, 100,
242, 300, 310, 353

face-urns, 17, 43, 46, 90, 118, 231
see also zoomorphic vases
family likeness between skeletons, 82, 219
Fatyanovo culture, 154, 168-70, 211
fayence, 25, 33, 128, 132, 147, 150, 167,
199, 238, 239, 256, 282, 298, 309,
320, 336, 339

fibulae, 83, 135, 240, 243, 250
figurines: female, clay, 17, 35, 39, 58, 61,
65, 73, 84, 87, 91, 93, 100, 112, 117,
142, 145, 244, 256, 301, 305
bone, 101, 209, 274, 278
ivory, 274
gold, 101


figurines: female, stone, 25, 39, 46, 49, 51,
69, 101, 254, 260, 268, 274, 278, 280,

male, 73, 101, 142, 209
filagree, 41, 154

fish-hooks, 10, 12, 37, 89, 110, 137, 206,

fish-traps, see weels
flake axes, see axes, tranchet
flax, 106, 108, 183, 270, 289
fluted decoration, 65, 91, 103, 140, 353
Fontbouisse (France), 308, 310
forecourts, 818, 236, 253, 259, 263, 274,
275, 325, 326, 327
forests, 1, 9, 148, 159, 177, 178
Forssander, E. J., 172, 195
Fort Harrouard (France), 304-6
fortifications, 37, 41, 46, 48, 56, 63, 67, 78,
82, 112, 118, 124, 137, 147, 230,
231, 238, 239, 249, 264, 270, 382,
291, 299, 301, 303, 304, 306, 308,

Fosna culture, 11

fruitstands, 17, 36, 64, 97, 111, 122, 142,
184, 186, 190, 235, 279
frying pans, 50, 52, 54, 69
funerary goddess, 236, 249, 278, 311, 313,
314, 318, 328

funnel beakers, 13, 152, 158, 166, 176,
186, 190, 340

Gali6 (Russia), 170

gallery graves, 190, 196, 198, 214, 215, 221,
226, 240, 263, 296, 306, 312, 314,
316, 318, 340
see also cists
GaraSanin, 84, 87, 89
girdle clasps, 131, 194
Globular Amphorae, 154, 158, 194-6
goats, 13, 22, 37, 106, 136, 150, 177, 248,

OQQ 90ft OOO

gold, 25, 41, 64,' 68, 70, 122, 128, 133, 142,
198, 200, 220, 223, 238, 270, 278,
283, 309, 315, 319, 322, 329, 334,

Goldberg (Germany), 295, 296, 299, 301
gouges, copper, 74, 154
stone, 160, 183, 208, 267
see also drill-bits

gourd models for pots, 39, 108, 110
granaries, 67, 118, 231, 267
Grand Pressigny flint, 207, 305, 306, 313,
318, 319

graphite painting, 97, 100, 103

Gudenaa culture, 13

Gumelni^a culture, 63, 96, 98-102, 143

Haba3e§ti (Romania), 137, 139, 140, 142,

Hagia Marina (Greece), 60, 61, 71
Hagios Kosmas (Greece), 67, 69, 72, 280
Hagios Mamas (Macedonia), 68, 71, 155
halberds, flint, 277

metal, 56, 130, 183, 201, 202, 243, 246,
282, 334, 337
hammers, metal, 29, 56

see also battle-axes; axes, perforated

handles to pots: animal, 232
axe, 240, 242, 245, 255, 310
elbowed, 249

flanged, 17, 39, 70, 125,187
horned, 75, 94, 249

nose-bridge, 17, 234, 247, 249, 255, 260
thrust, 39, 66, 95
tunnel, 234, 255, 258, 300
wishbone, 17, 70, 76
see also lugs, subcutaneous
1'   , see amulets

1 ?   13, 89, 98, 111, 150, 166,

203, 289

Hawkes, C. F. C„ 281, 320
Hawkes, J., 317
hearses, 124, 125, 151
Helena, 307, 309, 310
helmets, 30, 79, 82, 132, 262
Hemp, W. J., 218, 264
Hencken, H. O., 132
henges, 317, 325, 332, 339
herring-bone masonry, 37, 66
Heurtley, W. J., 65, 76
Hissar, Tepe (Persia), 20, 77, 123, 154, 157
Hlubokd Masovky (Moravia), 113
hoards, 31, 44, 98, 109, 121, 128, 170, 198,
199, 202, 208, 211, 243, 249, 262,
293, 339
hoes, antler, 289
see also mattocks

Horgen culture, 198, 221, 263, 295-7, 310,
314, 334

horses, 46, 67, 71, 78, 79, 124, 136, 145,
150, 158, 187, 201, 235, 248, 293,
298, 299, 328
see also cavalry

houses: curvilinear, 22, 24, 67, 183, 238,
239, 249, 262, 267, 305, 308
rectilinear, 17, 26, 37, 46, 60, 63, 67, 74,
85, 89, 94, 96, 102, 106, 132, 137,
165, 180, 183, 192, 239, 282, 292,
296, 308, 323, 333
model, 60, 102, 111, 113, 138, 301
human feet to vases, 39, 97, 111, 232
Huns' Beds, 188, 192

Indo-Europeans, 27, 46, 77, 123, 127, 172,
190, 195

ingot-axes, 199, 318
torques, 125, 128-9, 133, 248, 249, 298,

iron, 28, 206, 264
ivory, 29, 33, 109, 271, 278

jet, 226, 271, 275, 281, 338
Jordanova culture, 103, 123, 167, 196
Jordansmuhl (Poland), see Jordanova
jugs with cut-away necks, 89, 52, 66, 263


Kakovatos (Greece), 80, 336, 339
Karanovo (Bulgaria), 84, 87, 94, 104
Khirospilia, see Levkas
kilns, potters’, 32, 43, 46, 62, 73, 74, 139
Kisapostag culture, 130, 132, 298
knives, boars’ tusk, 11, 208
Knossos (Crete), 17, 21, 26, 27, 33, 77, 81,
127, 336

Koln-Lindental (Germany), 106, 118
KolomisSina (Ukraine), 142
Koros culture, see Starievo
Kossinna, G., 172, 190, 195
Krazi (Crete), 23, 24, 51, 280
Krifievskii, E., 139, 147, 173
Kuban culture, 151-5,157,158,165,195,200
Kum Tepe (Turkey), 36, 65, 92, 116
Kuyavish graves, 188-9, 191, 195, 325

ladles, clay, 17, 96

socketed, 100, 114, 184, 186, 190, 244
Lagazzi (N. Italy), 248-9
Lagozza culture, 245, 249, 287
Laibach, see Ljubljansko
lake-dwellings, 165, 247, 248, 288, 299,
291, 295

lamps, cross-footed, see quatrefoil footed
lapis lazuli, 41, 152
lead, 25, 38, 41, 51, 68, 307, 308
leather models for pots, 39, 194, 266, 267,
287, 290, 293, 303, 305, 324
see also aslcoi

Ledro, Lago di (Italy), 248-9
Leeds, E. T„ 221
leisters (fish-spears), 9, 14, 206
Lengyel culture, 92,112-5, 123
Lerna (Greece), 67, 76, 235, 237, 254
Leubingen (Germany), 200
Levkas (Greece), 58, 69, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77
Lipari, see Aeolian Islands
Litorina Sea, 2, 204
Ljubljansko Blatt (Yugoslavia), 299
lock-rings, 44, 129, 150, 200
loom-weights, 40, 86, 96
Los MiUares (Spain), 218, 256, 270-4, 285,
306, 308, 329, 340
lugs, animal-head, 23, 64, 108

trumpet, 17, 39, 65, 66, 71, 96, 125, 233,
306, 324

see also subcutaneous string-holes,

lunates, see microliths
lunulse, 247, 285, 338
Lyngby (Denmark), 7

mace-heads, cushion, 331
disk, 109, 118, 184
knobbed, 122, 139, 150
rhomboid, 207

spheroid, 10, 17, 19, 38, 99, 114, 164,
260, 266, 299
spiked, 10, 164, 208

maeander patterns, 64, 96, 98, 108, 122,
231, 242

Maglemose culture, 10-12, 116, 206, 210
Maikop (S. Russia), 151-3, 157
Marinatos, S., 24
Mariupol (Ukraine), 149, 150
Matera (S. Italy), 232
mattocks, see axes, antler
megalithic tombs, see cists, dolmens,
gallery graves, passage graves
megaton houses, 41, 63, 183
Michelsberg culture, 118, 191, 290, 291-5,

microliths, 4, 5, 6, 9,10, 11, 13, 96, 98, 148,
150, 152, 245, 266, 267, 269, 276
see also arrow-heads, transverse
Mikhailovka (Ukraine), 147
Mikhalic (Bulgaria), 66, 68, 69, 71, 95
Mikov, V., 94, 96
Milazzo (Sicily), 239
millet, 85, 96, 136, 150, 223, 248
Milojfiid, V., 66, 84, 87, 89, 90, 92
mines, copper, 123, 128, 247, 282, 298, 302
flint, 183, 187, 235, 293, 324, 331
Minyan ware, 46, 47, 56, 73, 75, 77, 78, 79,
92 n.

models, see animals, basketry, altars,
gourds, houses, leather, wooden
Molfetta (S. Italy), 230-2, 234
Mondsee (Austria), 247, 299
Monte Bradoni (C. Italy), 241, 246
Montelius, O., 175, 185, 198, 221, 339
moulds (for casting metal), 38, 74, 83, 123,
128, 223, 249, 299

Mycenae (Greece), 29, 33, 73, 78, 127, 135,
150, 190, 218, 219, 239, 243, 250,
256, 336, 339

Natufians, 15, 23, 54, 150
Nestor, I., 142

nets (fishing), 10, 85, 110, 111, 137, 207,

Nezviska (Ukraine), 110, 136, 143, 144
Northsealand, 2, 13

Novosvobodnaya (Russia), 153-4,157,195
nuraghe, 262

Obermaier, H., 221

obsidian, 17, 27, 41, 48, 56, 68, 74, 76, 87,
91, 110, 113, 122, 139, 229, 231,
234, 238, 244, 245, 254, 257
ochre, red, in graves, 6, 209, 254, 259
ochre graves, 103, 168
oculi motive, 185, 271
Oder culture, 167-8, 198
Ofnet (Germany), 4

Olenix Ostrovo (N. Russia), 150, 204, 209

olives, 22, 267

Olynthos (Macedonia), 112

Orchomenos (Greece), 69, 73

Orsi, P„ 229, 239

orthostats, 213

Ossam (Austria), 124

ostrich eggs, 271


Otzaki (Greece), 58

ovens, 37, 46, 85, 89, 137, 292, 293

ovoid vases, 151, 158, 167, 204, 210, 324

paddles, 11, 208
Paestum (Italy), 241, 256, 279
palaces, 21, 26, 37, 56, 67
palettes, 19, 53, 69
Palmella (Portugal), 223, 275, 329
Pantalica (Sicily), 240
Paris cists, 312
see gallery graves

parti-coloured pottery, 58, 65, 90, 353
passage graves, 182, 185, 193, 214, 226,
242, 269, 276, 307, 316, 328
see also tholoi, rock-cut tombs
Passek, T., 136, 147
peas, 106, 289
P&el, see Baden
Peet, T. E., 229, 240
pedestailed bowls, see fruitstands
Pericot, L., 269, 307, 309
peristalith, 181, 218
see also circles round graves
Perj&mos culture, 130, 134
Pescale (Italy), 301
Peterborough ware, 324, 332
phalli, 25, 41, 46,101, 142, 325
Phylakopi (Greece), 48, 56, 75, 81
Piggott, S., 320, 323, 324, 331
pigs, 22, 37, 85, 106, 136, 145, 150, 166,
177, 195, 201, 203, 231, 248, 289,
298, 299, 304, 323
pins: bird headed, 50, 53
bulb headed, 309

Bohemian eyelet, 132, 200, 201, 248, 298
crutch headed, 193, 297
cylinder headed, 272, 274, 278, 338
double-spiral headed, 2, 44, 50, 53, 69, 98
hammer headed, 44, 76, 151, 154, 157,
165, 166, 169, 173, 183, 186, 247
knot headed, 44, 45, 129, 132, 139, 144,
201, 298

racket headed, 129, 298, 309
trefoil headed, 298, 309
with lateral loops, 331, 334
see also fibulae
piracy, 48, 61, 238

pit caves, 27, 51, 72, 91, 156, 167, 234, 241,

pit-comb ware, 204-210, 332
pithos burials, see burial in jars
pit ornament, 185, 204, 324
Pittioni, R„ 125, 126, 247
Plocnik (Yugoslavia), 90, 91
ploSHadki, 137
ploughs, 187, 248
points, slotted bone, 5, 10, 207
Polada (N. Italy), 246
Poliochni (Lemnos), 36, 37, 41
pollen-analysis, 1, 13, 178, 186, 206, 210,

polypod bowls, 309, 337

population density, see areas, cemeteries
portals, dummy, 23, 51, 72, 326
porthole slabs, 152, 158,165,190,195, 198,
217, 237, 240, 254, 259, 273, 274,
278, 313, 314, 318, 326
Postoloprty (Bohemia), 106, 132
Puglisi, 233, 240, 307
Punto del Tonno (Italy), 243, 251
pyxides, 19, 39, 54, 66, 122, 241, 272

quadrilobate vases, see square-mouthed
quatrefoil lipped cantharoi, 33, 132, 135
quatrefoil footed bowls, 86, 156, 300
querns, 85, 108, 138, 231, 254, 266, 267

races: brachycranial, 4, 6, 72, 102, 126,
156, 227, 241, 247, 260, 279, 283,
314, 329

dolichocranial, 72, 109, 126, 171, 241,
247, 260, 283, 290, 294, 314
Lapponoid, 158, 171, 203, 209
Mongoloid, 203, 209

radio carbon dates, 9,15, 36, 109, 162, 177,
269, 281, 342

rapiers, 29, 72, 79, 82, 238, 339
rattles, 112

razors, 32, 240, 243, 250
red-slipped ware, 44, 90, 276
Remedello culture, 246-8
ribbon decoration, 17, 93, 116, 122, 242
Rinaldone culture, 126, 231, 241, 301
ring pendants, 44, 64, 91, 98, 194, 198
rings: bone, 111
stone, 260, 313
Rinyo-Clacton culture, 332-4
rivets, silver, 29, 282
lead, 38

rock-cut tombs, 24, 27, 51, 72, 78, 82, 91,
213, 215, 226, 233, 236, 239, 240,
241, 254, 258, 263, 274, 275, 281,
285, 312

see also pit-caves
rock engravings, see art
Rdssen culture, 113, 117-8, 187, 190, 290,
291, 295, 304, 315
Rouzic, Z. le, 317, 319
rural economy, 58, 86, 105-6, 136, 177-8,
295, 302, 330

rusticated ornament, 58, 64, 86, 100, 108,
230, 305, 353

sacrifices, see votive offerings

Saflund, G., 249, 250

Salcu^a culture, 91, 102-3

Saale-Warta culture, 200-2, 320, 335

“salt cellars’1, 234, 241

sandals, 274, 278

Sangmeister, 106, 108, 109

sati, see burials, double

sauceboats, 52, 70, 93

saws, 29, 74, 271, 275, 276, 282

sceptre-heads, 103, 142, 158


Schachermeyr, 112
Schliemann, H., 36, 78
Schussenried style, 293, 303
scratched ornament, 231, 244, 263, 303
sea mammals, 12, 203
seals: cylinder, 36, 44, 50, 111

stamp, clay, 36, 46, 61, 87, 88, 98, 112,
142, 232, 233, 244
stone, 25, 60
seals, see sea mammals
segmented cists, 215, 226, 240, 306, 326
Seima (N.E. Russia), 170, 212
semicircle pattern, 32, 258, 260, 290, 310,
317, 326, 340
septal stones, 215, 307
Serra d’Alto (S. Italy), 232
Servia (Macedonia), 65, 92
Sesklo culture, 58, 63, 73, 88
shaft graves, 27, 51, 56, 78, 150
Shaft Graves, see Mycenae
sheep, 7, 13, 15, 37, 85, 88 n., 106, 124, 136,
145, 150, 152, 177, 179, 201, 231,
248, 269, 289, 299, 323, 328, 332
sickles, flint armed, 27, 38, 68, 85, 108, 154,
167, 197, 231, 248, 266, 267, 299
metal, 29, 47, 135, 243, 248, 250
silver, 25, 33, 41, 51, 53, 68, 75, 146, 152,
247, 256, 257, 260, 270, 283, 320
Siret, L., 267, 270, 280
Skara Brae (Orkney), see Rinyo
skis, 208
sledges, 11, 208

sleeves for celts, antler, 4, 11, 64, 74, 86,
96, 164, 247, 288, 293, 296, 297, 299,
303 313 333

sling, use of the, 35, 38, 60, 65, 68, 84, 85,
94, 156, 230, 299
slotted bone points, see points
smelting, 68, 270, 276, 298, 299
sockets, see axes, chisels, spear-heads
SOM. (Seine-Oise-Marne) culture, 214,

spatulae, bone, 60, 85, 108, 110, 266
spear-heads, metal: Helladic, 73, 79
hook-tanged, 44, 53
socketed, 30, 132, 199, 336
tanged, 334

spectacle spirals, 123, 235
Spiennes (Belgium), 293
spindle whorls, 39, 86, 96, 125, 267, 305
spiral patterns, 32, 49, 52, 54, 64, 65, 73,
78, 87, 93, 94, 96, 98, 108, 111, 115,
142, 156, 231, 236, 242, 245, 253,
256, 328, 333

splay-footed vases, 198, 263, 296, 313, 314,

Spondylus shell, 61, 65, 87, 91, 97, 102,
109, 113, 123, 125, 244, 254
spools, 39, 86, 125

spouts to vases, 17, 19, 24, 43, 90, 111, 112,







JST. '















Not. Sc.




Oudh. Med.






Journal of Hellenic Studies, London (Society for Promotion of
Hellenic Studies).

Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Oriental Institute, Chicago.

Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, London.

Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland,

Junta superior para excavaciones archeologicas, Madrid.

IJahresschrift fur die Vorgeschichte der sachsich-thuringische

I Lander, continued as

(jahresschrift fur Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte, Halle.

Kratkie Soobshcheniya o dokladakh i polevykh issledovaniyakh
Instituta Istorii Materialnoi Kultury, Moskva-Leningrad.

Kratkie Soobsceniya, Arkh, Institut, Ukrainian Academy of
Sciences, Kiev.

Annals of Archceology and Anthropology, Liverpool.

Monumenti Antichi, Rome (Accademia dei Lincei).

Mitteilungen der anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien.

Mitteilungen der antiquarischen Gesellschaft in Zurich.

Man, London (Royal Anthropological Institute).

Mannus, Berlin-Leipzig (Gesellschaft fur deutsche Vor-

MaUriaux pour Vhistoire primitive et naturelle de Vhomme,

Materialy i Issledovaniya po Arkheolgil SSSR., Institut Istorii
Materialnoi Kultury Akademiya Nauk, Moskva-Leningrad.

Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, Berlin.

Memoires de la Soci6t6 des Antiquaires du Nord, Copenhagen.

Museum Journal, Philadelphia (University of Pennsylvania
Free Museum).

Nachrichtenblatt fur deutsche Vorzeit, Leipzig.

Nachrichten aus Niedersdchsens Urgeschichte, Hannover.

Noiizie degli Scavi di Antichitd, Rome (Accademia dei Lincei).

Obzor prahistoricky, Praha.

0 Archceologo Portugues, Lisbon.

Oriental Institute, University of CVcngo 'C??v-nunications,
Publications, or Studies in Orientc' (..'' . r: ,\.

Oudheidkundige Mededeelingen uit ’s Rijksmuseum van
Oudheden te Leiden.

Pamdtky archeologiske a mistopisne, Praha.

Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Exploration Society,

Problemy Istorii Mat. Kult., Leningrad.

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, Cambridge.

Prihistoire, Paris.

Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin.







Raz. i. Pro.

Rev. Anthr.
Rev. Arch.

Rev. Ec. Anthr.



Rev. Gnim.
Riv. Sc. Pr.
Riv. St. Lig.



Slov. Arch.
Slov. Dej.



St. s. Cere.








Przeglad Archeologiczny, Poznan.

Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Edin-

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, Ipswich
(continued as PPS).

Prcehistorische Zeitschrift, Berlin.

Russ. A ntropologicheskii Zhurnal, Moskva.

Razkopki i Proucvaniya Sofia (Naroden Arkheologiceski

Revue Anthropologique, Paris.

Revue Archeologique, Paris.

R6vue de I’Ecole d’Anthropologie de Paris (continued Rev.

Revue des Etudes grecques, Paris.

Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte, edited by Max Ebert, Berlin.
Revista Guimaraes, Guimaraes.

Rivista di Antropologia, Rome.

Rivista di Scienze preistoriche, Florence.

Rivista di Studi liguri, Bordighera.

Rivue des Questions scientifiques, Bruxelles.

Sovietskaya Arkheologiya, Moskva-Leningrad.

Sussex Archceological Collections, Lewes.

Soobshcheniya GAIMK., Leningrad.

Slovenskd Archeologia, Bratislava (Slovenskd Akaddmia Vied).
Slovenski Dejiny, Bratislava (Slov. Akad. Vied) 1947.

Suomen Museo, Helsinki.

Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen A ikakauskirja^ Finsha
Fornminnesforeningens Tidskrift, Helsinki.

Studii §i Cercetdri de Istorie Veche, Bucuresti.

Swiatowit, Warsaw.

Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo Muzeya, Moskva.

Trudy Setksil ArkhelogU RANION, Moskva.

Ulster Journal of Archeology (3rd ser.), Belfast.

Wiadomosci archeologiczne, Warsaw.

Wiener Prahistorische Zeitschrift, Vienna.

Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie, Berlin.


(Only books mentioned in more than one chapter are mentioned here.)

Aberg, N. Bronzezeitliche und fruheisenzeitliche Chronologie, Stockholm, 1930-5.
Alaca. See Axik and Kosay.

Arilc, Remzi Oguz. Les Fouilhs d'Alaca Hdyuh, Ankara, 1937.

Bagge and Kjellmark. Stendldersboplatserna vid Siretorp i Blehinge (K. Vitter-
hets, Historie och Antikvitets Akademien), Stockholm, 1939.

Bailloud, C„ and Mieg de Boofzheim, P. Les Civilisations neolithiques de la
France, Paris, 1955.

Banner, J. Das Tisza-Maros-Kords-gebeit, Szeged, 1942.

Berciu, D. Arheologia preistoricd a Olteniei, Craiova, 1939.

Bemabo Brea, L. Gli Scavi nella Caverna degli Arene Candide, Bordighera,
1946, 1956.

Blegen, Caskey, et al. Troy, Princeton, 1950, 1951, 1953.

Bohm. J, Kronika Objeveneho Viku, Praha, 1941.

Bosch-Gimpera, P. Etnologia de la Peninsula Iberica, Barcelona, 1932.
Brondsted, J. Damnarks Oldtid, Copenhagen, 1938-9.

Brinton, G. The Badarian Civilization, London, 1928.

Briusov, A. Ocerki po istorii piemen evropaiskoi casti SSSR. v neoliticeshu
epokhu, Moskva, 1952.

Buttler, W. Der donauldndische und dev westische Kulturhreis der jungeren
Steinzeit (Handbnch der Urgeschichte Deutschlands, 2), Berlin, 1938.
Castillo Yurrita, A. del. La Cultura del Vaso campaniforme, Barcelona, 1928.
Caton-Thompson, G. The Desert Fayum, London, 1935.

Childe, V. G. The Danube in Prehistory, Oxford, 1929.

-----New Light on the Most Ancient East, London, 1954.

-----Prehistoric Communities of the British Isles, Edinburgh, 1940.

Clark, G. The Mesolithic Age in Britain, Cambridge, 1932.

-----Prehistoric Europe: the economic basis, London, 1952.

-----The Mesolithic Settlement of Northern Europe, Cambridge, 1936.

Coon, C. S. The Races of Europe, New York, 1939.

Correia, V. El Neolitico de Pavia, Madrid, 1921 (CIPP. Mem. 27).

Ddchelette, J. Manuel d'ArchSologie prehistorique, celtique et gallo-romaine,
Paris, 1908-14.

Ehrich, R. W. (ed.). Relative Chronologies in Old World Archceology, Chicago,

Engberg and Shipton. "The Chalcolithic Pottery of Megiddo”, Oriental
Institute Studies, 10, Chicago.

Evans, Arthur. The Palace of Minos and Knossos, London, 1921-8.

Forssander, J. E. Die schwedische Bootaxtkultur, Lund, 1933.

-----Der ostskandinavische Norden wdhrend der dltesten Metallzeit Europas,

Lund, 1936 (Skrifter av K. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet, XXII).


Frankfort, H. Studies in the Early Pottery of the Near East, London, 1925-7
(R. Anthrop. Institute, Occasional Papers, 6 and 8).

Garrod, D. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel, I, Oxford, 1937.

Gerasimov, M. M. Vosstanovlenie Litsa po Cerepu, Moskva (Trudy Instit.
Etnografii, XXVIII), 1955

Giffen, A. E. van. Die Bauart der Einzelgraber, Leipzig, 1930 (Mannus-Bibliothek,

Hancar, F. Urgeschichte Kaukasiens, Vienna, 1937. Das Pferd im prdhistori-
scher und fruher historischer Zeit, Vienna, 1956.

Hawkes, C. F. C. The Prehistoric Foundations of Europe, London, 1940.

Heurtley, A. W. Prehistoric Macedonia, Cambridge, 1939.

Kosay, Hamit Zubeyr. Ausgrabungen von Alaca Hoyuk, Ankara, 1944, Alaca
Hoyuk Kazisi, Ankara, 1951.

Kostrzewski, J. Prehistoria Ziem Polskisch, Poznan, 1948.

Loe, A. de. La Belgique ancienne, Brussels (Mus6es du Cinquantenaire), 1928.

Laviosa-Zambotti, Le piii antiche Culture agricole Europee, Milano, 1943.

Leisner, G. and V., Die M ?7‘'7   . lev iberischen Halbinsel, I., Der Suden.

(Romisch-germaniscl; !'   . 0. ,17) Berlin, 1943.

Mac White, Eoin, “Estudios sobre las relaciones atlanticas de la peninsula
hispanica” [Dissertationes Matritenses, II), Madrid, 1951.

Marien, M. E., Oud-Belgie, Antwerp, 1952.

Milojcic, V. Chronologie der jungeren Steinzeit Mittel- und Sudosteuropas,
Berlin, 1949.

Nordmann, C. A. “The Megalithic Culture of Northern Europe”, Helsinki, 1935
(SMYA., XXXIX, 3).

Osten, H. H. van der. The Alishar Huy ilk, Chicago, 1929-37 (Oriental Institute
Publications, XIX-XX, XXVIII-XXX).

Patay, P. “Friihbronzezeitliche Kulturen in Ungam”, Dissertationes Pan-
nonicce, S. II, no. 13) Buda-Pest, 1939.

Pendlebury, A. The Archcsology of Crete, London, 1939.

Pericot, L. Espaiia primitiva e romana (Historia de Espana, I), Madrid, 1947.

-----Los Sepulcros MegaUticos Catalanes y la Cultura Pirenaica, Barcelona, 1950.

Pittioni, R. Urgeschichte des bsterreichischen Raumes, Vienna, 1954.

Schaeffer, C. F. A. Missions en Chypre, Paris, 1936.

-----Stratigraphie comparee de I’Asie occidentale, Oxford, 1948.

Schmidt, E. Excavations at Tepe Hissar, Damghan, Philadelphia, 1937.

Schmidt, R. R. Die Burg VuZedol, Zagreb, 1945.

Sprockhoff, G. Die nordische Megalithkultur (Handbiicher der Urgeschichte
Deutschlands, 3), Berlin, 1938.

?----Die Kulturen der jungeren Steinzeit in der Mark Brandenburg (Vor-

geschichiliche Forschungen, I, 4), Berlin, 1926.

Stocky, A. La Boheme pr&historique, Praha, 1929.

Vaufrey, R. Prehistoire de I'Afrique, I, Maghreb, Paris, 1955.

Wace, A. J. B., and Thompson, M. Prehistoric Thessaly, Cambridge, 1912.

Xanthudides, S. The Vaulted Tombs of the Mesard, Liverpool, 1924.

Zeuner, F. E. Dating the Past, London, 1952.


Figures where a term is defined are printed in Clarendon type.

Aberg, N., 49, 172
adzes: antler, see axes
copper, 91, 120, 139, 271, 275
shaft-hole, 91, 99, 152
stone, 11, 59, 62, 64, 65, 68, 84, 86, 89,
91, 94, 96, 107, 110, 114, 122, 139,
164, 165, 168, 205, 206, 208, 267,
278, 296, 333

iEolian Islands, 81, 229-35, 237-8, 244,
254, 257, 300
air-photographs, 230-1
Alaca Hoyiik, 35, 38, 44, 54, 95, 152, 237
Alapraia (Portugal), 275, 278
Alcaide (Spain), 285
Alcala (Portugal), 275, 280, 286, 340
Alisar (Turkey), 36, 40, 44, 56, 67, 94, 95,
157, 272

Als6n<hnedi (Hungary), 124, 125
altars (model), 60, 61, 97, 101
Altheim (Bavaria), 296-7, 299
amber, 11, 25, 33, 34, 41, 44, 79, 81, 119,
127,   134,   145,   162,   165,   170,   178,

181,   183,   187,   193,   194,   199,   208,

220,   223,   226,   239,   240,   242,   243,

271,   275,   278,   281,   293,   298,   305,

309, 313, 318, 320, 334, 336, 344
amulets, axe, 17, 19, 234, 235, 254, 260,
274, 313, 319

cranian, 290, 291, 311, 314
hares’ phalange, 244, 287, 291
leg, 16, 69, 313
rabbit, 278

anchor ornaments, 71, 239, 257
Anghelu Ruju (Sardinia), 258-9, 262
animals, models of, 101, 115, 188, 209, 230,

see also zoomorphic vases
Antequera (Spain), 274, 281, 285
anthropomorphic vases, 17, 43, 46, 90, 91,
101, 111, 118, 142

Apennine culture, 239, 242, 250, 310
arc-pendants, 244, 296, 305, 313, 318
arcs, clay, 40, 271, 274, 275, 280
areas and sizes of settlements, 27, 37, 41,
46, 48, 60, 74, 81, 106, 113, 137, 231,
235, 249, 270, 282, 292, 299, 304,
313, 333

Arene Candide (Liguria), 6, 244-5, 291
Argaric, see El Argar
Ariu?d, 97, 113, 137, 139, 140, 142-3
armlets, bone, 12, 123
metal, 170, 183, 193, 200
shell, 61, 65, 102, 123, 244, 266, 268,

stone, 61, 65, 118, 150, 260, 266, 268,
313, 319

arrow-heads: bone, conical, 11, 206-7
double-pointed, 99, 289

flint, hollow based, 27, 68,118, 150, 197,
224, 227, 233, 234, 248, 272, 275,
278, 280, 290, 297, 299
leaf-shaped, 152, 187, 207, 272, 278,
278, 287, 313, 323, 327
triangular, 99, 122, 139, 260, 289, 305
tanged, 93, 194, 241, 247, 260, 269,
278, 303

tanged-and-barbed, 224, 260, 272,
297, 318, 320, 329

transverse, 9, 12, 27, 118, 180, 184,
187, 191, 207, 241, 247, 267, 269,
272, 278, 304,305, 313,318, 331, 334
arrow-straighteners, 8, 74, 79, 114, 116,
156,163,169,180, 226, 248, 260, 334
art: carvings and painting on stone, 190,
209, 248, 250, 253, 259, 269, 278,
317, 328, 336, 338
naturalistic sculpture, 208, 209
see also animal models, amulets, figur-
ines, anthropomorphic vases, zoo-
morphic vases, mseander, spiral,

Asine (Greece), 50, 67, 71, 74, 81
askoi, 60, 69,70-1, 98,103,104,142,241,256
Atlantic climatic phase, 2, 11, 13, 14, 177,

Avebury (England), 331
axes: antler, 8, 14, 37, 44, 74, 86, 90, 99,
110, 119, 121, 139, 191, 194, 203,
289, 305, 313

flint, tranchet, 11-13, 179, 191, 194, 234,
305, 314

polished, 9, 150, 167, 169, 178, 182,
187, 194, 197, 290, 313, 323
stone, polished, 4, 12, 17, 27, 37, 44, 64,
68, 94, 99, 114, 125, 180, 193, 231,
234, 235, 244, 246, 266, 267, 271,
274, 276, 277, 282, 289, 293, 295,
296, 298, 299, 305, 318, 324
perforated, 74, 90, 94, 107, 114, 122,
139, 165, 290, 295, 299, 303
copper, flat, 17, 28, 38, 53, 64, 68, 145,
154, 162, 167, 183, 201, 235, 241,
243, 246, 256, 258, 260, 262, 276,
282, 293, 299, 319, 334
flanged, 38, 130, 246, 319
shaft-hole, 19, 28, 95, 99, 130, 145,
152, 154, 158, 169, 299
bronze, flanged, 130, 132, 241. 248, 249,
256, 262, 282, 297, 313, 319, 334
winged, 83, 243, 250
palstav, 199, 262, 339
socketed, 47, 206, 211, 262
double, 28, 25, 74, 78, 108, 184, 193,
194, 262, 295, 318
shaft-hole, 240
see also adzes, battle-axes


axe-adzes, 28, 53, 68, 92, 99, 120,121, 139,
152, 157, 158, 262
Azilian culture, 4

Baalburg culture, 193, 196
Baden culture, 92, 124-9, 132, 187, 196,
242, 295

baking plates, 177,178, 293, 305
Banyata (Bulgaria), 84, 94-6, 103
Barkaer (Denmark), 180.
barley, 13, 15, 37, 60, 106, 136, 177, 183,
248, 266, 270, 276, 289, 292, 298,
323, 328, 330

barrows, long, 149, 181, 188, 190, 191, 213,
259, 306, 317, 325

round, 6, 72, 77, 80, 132, 145, 150, 156,
159, 160, 167, 181, 185, 200, 213,

226, 242, 247, 268, 274, 276, 297,

306,   317, 319, 329

basketry models for pots, 60, 62, 112, 115,
116, 118, 184, 187, 190, 192, 193,

227,   266

battle-axes, antler, 121, 123, 146,159, 161,

copper, 38, 68 n., 120, 125, 154, 161
stone, 38, 44, 43, 67, 68, 71, 94, 99, 119,
125, 139-54, 159 ff., 160, 169, 179,
182, 187, 226, 242, 247, 291, 295,
330, 318, 334
model, 68, 139, 144, 169
beads, disc, 118, 122, 260, 268, 272
double-axe, 335
hammer, 24, 329, 335
segmented, 34, 128, 132, 147, 167, 199,
239, 280, 282, 283, 309, 320, 336,

tortoise, 260, 278, 281, 310
spacer, 79, 81, 135, 181
winged, 54, 156, 254, 297
Beaker culture, 119, 127, 130, 132, 147,
162, 167, 185, 192, 221, 222-8, 234,
247, 258, 261, 272, 276, 278, 279,

307,   309, 318, 329
beans, 106, 270, 289

Becker, C. J., 13, 177, 191, 208, 210
Bell Beaker, see Beaker
binocular vases, 98, 142
birch pitch, 10, 14, 290
bits, bridle, 248

block topped, see particoloured
block vases, 19, 33, 113, 116, 114
boats, 11, 51, 52, 125, 208, 259
boat axes, see battle-axes
Bodrogkeresztur culture, 92, 120-3, 126
Boian culture, 94, 96-8, 143
Boreal climatic phase, 3, 5, 9, 10, 203,

Bosch-Gimpera, P., 221
bossed bone plaques, 44, 76, 235, 254
bothroi, 37, 66, 125
bottles, lopsided, 90, 94, 108
bows, reinforced, 10, 211
see also arrow-heads

Brea, L. Bernabd, 229, 237, 244, 257
Brenner Pass, 127, 128, 242, 249, 302
Briusov, A. YA., 11, 147, 171, 210
Brze£d Kujawski (Poland), 123, 144, 146,

Bubanj (Yugoslavia), 92, 93, 103
Biiyiik Giilliicek (Turkey), 36, 95
burials: in caves, 4, 5, 17, 23, 226, 240, 241,
242, 250, 258, 266, 278, 307, 311,

in short’ cists, 51, 72, 73, 81, 245, 268,
282, 290, 306, 317

in jars, 24, 41, 72, 73, 77, 81, 239, 282
in middens, 6, 7, 12, 87
in settlements, 77, 87, 101, 282, 294, 305
collective, 23, 24, 51, 72, 82, 91,126,165,
182, 185, 188, 198, 219, 226, 233,
235, 241, 242, 254, 266, 268, 270,

double, 115, 120, 125, 151, 156, 159 n.,
168, 200, 201, 283, 290
contracted, 5, 6, 23, 101, 118, 125, 131,
145, 159, 160, 166, 168, 226, 245,
246, 259, 269, 290, 293, 297
erect 2Q9

extended, 5, 6, 9, 12, 14, 78, 160, 182,
188, 191, 209, 250, 293
flexed, 5, 112, 115, 125, 241, 246
see also cemeteries, cremation, cists,
gallery graves, passage graves,
roclc-cut tombs, tholoi
of skulls, 4, 102
animals, 124, 167
Butmir (Yugoslavia), 93-4, 242
buttons: shanked, 112, 118, 272
V-perforated, 226, 241, 248, 260, 263,
291, 310, 329
prismatic, 258, 261, 272
Bygholm (Denmark), 183, 186



But each, column is virtually independent and should be regarded
as a single scroll hanging freely from its own roller. The lower end is
always loose, so that, as far as pure archaeology is concerned, each
scroll could be rolled up at least to the 1400 notch—deduced from
segmented fayence beads. Nuclear physicists have indeed diffidently
offered some provisional radio-carbon dates1 that might act as pins
to keep some scrolls extended. So in column 15 the Windmill Hill
culture (at Ehenside Tam in the Lake District!) might be pinned about
3000 b.c.1 2 and the Secondary Neolithic of Stonehenge I at 1850; in
column 7 Early Cortaillod about 2740,3 and in column 14 the earliest,
A, funnel-beakers at 2650, while in column 2 Danubian I (in Germany!)
might go back before 4000.4 But radio-carbon dating proves to be
infected by so many potential sources of error that European pre-
historians accept its results with as much reserve as the physicists
offer them. In any case the available dates do not suffice to decide
between the competing archaeological chronologies of the European
Bronze Age set out on pp. 135. The Stonehenge figure perhaps makes
the extreme dates for the beginning of the Unetician culture—before
2000 and after 1600 b.c. respectively—less likely, but any year between
1950 and 1650 B.c. would still be equally defensible. Fortunately, for
some positive conclusions at least, these uncertainties do not matter.

Whichever chronology be eventually vindicated, the primacy of
the Orient remains unchallenged. The Neolithic Revolution was
accomplished in South-Western Asia; its fruits—cultivated cereals
and domestic stock—were slowly diffused thence through Europe,
reaching Denmark only three centuries or so after the Urban Revolu-
tion has been completed in Egypt and Sumer. Ere then the techniques
of smelting and casting copper had been discovered and were being
intelligently applied in Egypt and Mesopotamia, to be in their turn
diffused round the Mediterranean during the third millennium, but
north of the Alps only at its close, if not already in the second. The
development of industry and commerce in Greece and subsequently
in Temperate Europe was as much dependent on Oriental capital as
the industrialization of India and Japan was on British and American
capital last century.

On the other hand, European societies were never passive recipients
of Oriental contributions, but displayed more originality and inventive-

1   The method is explained by Zeuner, Dating the Past (1952), pp. 341 ff.

2   Libby, Radio Carbon Dating (Chicago, 1953), 75- British prehistorians unanimously
reject this date.

8 See p. 291, n. 3.

4   These figures have frequently been mentioned by archaeologists, but not formally
published by the responsible physicists.


ness in developing Oriental inventions than had the inventors’ more
direct heirs in Egypt and Hither Asia. This is most obvious in the
Bronze Age of Temperate Europe. In the Near East many metal types
persisted unchanged for two thousand years; in Temperate Europe an
extraordinarily brisk evolution of tools and weapons and multiplication
of types occupied a quarter of that time.

The startling tempo of progress in European prehistory thus docu-
mented is not to be explained racially by some mystic property of
European blood and soil, nor yet by reference to mere material habitat,
but rather in sociological and historical terms. No doubt the Cro-
Magnons of Europe created a unique art in the Upper Palaeolithic
Age while their mesolithic successors devised and bequeathed to con-
temporary Europe much ingenious equipment for exploiting their
environment (p. 14). No doubt, too, its deeply indented coastline,
its propitiously situated mountain ranges and navigable streams, and
its resources in tin, copper, and precious metal have conferred on our
continent advantages possessed by no other comparable land mass,
while the Mediterranean was a unique school for navigators. But the
creative utilization of these favours of Nature must be interpreted in
sociological terms.

The bounteous water-supply and seemingly unlimited land for
cultivation allowed Early Neolithic farmers an unrestricted dispersion
of population; dense aggregations had to grow up in the arid cradle of
cereal cultivation where settled farming was possible only in a few
oases or in narrow zones along the banks of permanent rivers. Hence
Jericho, the earliest known neolithic settlement in the Near East,
probably contained ten times as many inhabitants as any Early
Neolithic village in Europe. But such aggregations require rigid dis-
cipline which the scarcity of water enables society to enforce. So from
the first the Oriental environment put a premium on conformity. In
Europe it was always feasible, however perilous, to escape the restraints
of irksome custom by clearing fresh land for tillage; indeed, such an
escape was actually imposed on the younger children of a village in
historical times, at least in Italy, by the Sacred Spring. But such dis-
persion under neolithic conditions of self-sufficiency encouraged
divergence of traditions and the formation of independent societies.
Just that is imperfectly reflected during our period II in the multi-
plication within a comparatively small area of cultures distinguished
by differences in ceramic art, burial rites, equipment, and even economy.
Thereby even on our simplified map Europe appears in contrast to
Hither Asia where the Halafian and Ubaid cultures are successively
but uniformly spread over a vast area. Again in the ideological sphere


the variations in megalithic architecture—really far greater than
could be indicated here—should be the counterpart of the fission of a
single and presumably Oriental orthodoxy into a myriad local sects.
It might then be compared to the disruption of Christianity after the
Reformation and contrasted with the faithful repetition of temple
plans from the Persian Gulf to the Orontes in the third millennium.
In short, a multiplicity of neolithic societies, distinguished by divergent
traditions but never completely isolated one from the other, offered
a European peasant some possibility of comparison and free choice.

The observed diversity was, of course, due not only to the splitting
of a few immigrant societies and foreign traditions. Divergence was
accelerated and emphasized also on the one hand by the multiplicity of
pre-existing mesolithic groups who absorbed the neolithic techniques
or were absorbed in the neolithic societies, on the other by the plurality
of external stimuli that impinged upon them from Africa, the Levant,
Anatolia, and perhaps Central Asia.

Still, material progress was impossible without an accumulation of
capital, a concentration of the social surplus. This was effected in
Early iEgean times and during period III of the temperate zone by the
emergence of chieftains or aristocracies, spiritual or temporal; it made
effective a demand for reliable metal weapons promoted by the con-
commitant intensification of warlike behaviour. Yet the small inde-
pendent groups of herdsmen, cultivators, and fishers, owing allegiance
to such rulers, just could not by themselves accumulate resources
sufficient for the development of a metallurgical industry and of an
efficient machinery for the distribution of its products. That had
demanded the Urban Revolution, the concentration of the surplus
produced by thousands of irrigation-farmers in the hands of a tiny
minority of priests, kings, and nobles in the valleys of the Nile, the
Tigris-Euphrates, and the Indus. Fortunately the effective demands
of the masters of this concentrated wealth in Egypt and Mesopotamia
enabled iEgean farmers and fishermen to secure a share in the surplus
thus accumulated without themselves submitting to the same degree
of political unification and class division. The archseological picture
of Bronze Age Greece at its most prosperous period corresponds well
with Homer’s description of many independent but loosely federated
principalities, smaller but more numerous than even the Temple
States of pre-Sargonic Mesopotamia.

In the sequel, Minoan and Mycensean demand for tin, gold, and
eventually amber, created a reliable market for the peculiar products
of Temperate Europe. Thus indirectly the barbarian societies of Central
Europe and thg British Isles obtained a share in the capital accumu-


lated through the Urban Revolution for the development of their own
extractive, manufacturing, and distributive industries without sub-
mitting to the repressive discipline of urban civilization or suffering
the irrevocable class division it entailed. Specialist craftsmen were
liberated from the absorbing preoccupation of food production, but
yet were not dependent on a single despot’s court, temple, or feudal
estate. They must no doubt sell their products and their skill to patrons,
but whether these were classless societies, as perhaps in Bohemia and
on the Middle Danube, or chieftains, as in the Saale-Warta province
and in Wessex, there was plenty of competition for their services. As
in Homeric Greece, a craftsman was welcome everywhere. So they had
every inducement to display their virtuosity and inventiveness. In
the European Bronze Age metal-workers were in fact producing for an
international market.

In the ancient East the Urban Revolution had finally divided the
societies affected by it into two economically opposed classes and had
irretrievably consigned craftsmen, the pioneers of material progress,
to the lower class. In prehistoric European and Mycenaean societies
the cleavage was never so deep, if only because of their smallness and
poverty. Craftsmen at least were not depressed into a class of slaves
or serfs.






 Segmented faience beads




Europe in Period I,


5* Meridian of 0* (ii-eeirricli

Europe in Period II.
 MAP Ilia







Europe in Period III: Beaker and Battle-axe cultures.

Europe in Period IV: Early Bronze Age cultures and trade routes.

Definitions of certain terms, descriptive of ceramic decoration, here used in a
special or restricted sense.

Cardial—decorated with lines executed with a shell edge.

Channelled—with relatively wide and shallow incisions, round-bottomed.
Cordoned—with applied strips of clay in relief.

Crusted—with colours (paints) applied to the vase surface after the firing of
the vessel.

Excised—with regular small triangular or square hollows made by depressing the
surface or actually cut out ("fret-work” or “chip-carving” or "false relief”).

Fluted—with flutings separated only by a sharp narrow ridge.

Grooved—with broad incisions, not normally round-bottomed.

Incrusted—with incised lines filled with white or coloured paste.

Maggot—with the impressions of a loop of whipped threads, see Fig. 155.

Particoloured—by firing the vessel so that part is reddened by the oxidization
of the iron oxides exposed to a free access of air while part is blackened by
the reduction of these oxides. (Egyptian black-topped ware is one variety.)

Rusticated—by roughening the surface, generally covered with a thick slip, by
pinching with the fingers, brushing, etc. ("barbotine”).

Rouletted—as described on p. 224.

Stab-and-drag—decorated with continuous lines formed by jabbing a pointed
implement into the soft clay, then drawing the point backwards a short
distance and stabbing it in again, and so on.

Celt, a term formerly used to describe chopping implements of stone or metal
that could be used as axes, adzes, gouges, chisels, or even hoe-blades. Here we
distinguish, where possible, between the several types and in particular describe

Adze—a celt that is asymmetrical about its major axis so that it could not
possibly be used as an axe (Fig. 29, D, B). When hafted the handle is
perpendicular to the plane of the blade.

Axe—therefore describes a celt that is symmetrical about its major axis even
though such a celt could often be used as an adze.

An axe (or adze) provided with a hole for the shaft, like a modem axe-head, is
termed a shaft-hole axe (or adze), but, if the butt end is elongated and
carefully shaped, the term battle-axe is conventionally used.

Burials should be described as contracted when the knees are drawn up towards
the chin so as to make an angle of 90° or less with the spinal column. When
the angle is more than a right angle, the terra, flexed should be used. Owing
to ambiguities in the authorities followed, it has not been possible to main-
tain this distinction strictly here.





Acta Ay oh.
Act. y Mem.







Am. Anthr.

Ant. J.

Arch. Camb.
Arch. Ert.
Arch. Hung.
Arch. J.


Arh. Vest.
Arkh. Pam.





Acta Archesologica Hungarica, Buda-Pest.

“Stenalderbopladser i Aamosen,” by T. Mathiassen, J. Troels-
Srnith, and M. Degerbol, Nordiske Fortidsminder, iii, 3,
Copenhagen, 1943.

Aarb0ger for Nor dish Oldkyndighed og Historic, Copenhagen.
Acta Archesologica, Copenhagen.

Adas y Memorias de la Sociedad Espanola de Antropologla,
Etnograffa y Preistoria, Madrid.

’Ap^aioKoyiKov Ae\rLov, Athens.

Archcsologiai Ertcsit'6, Buda-Pest (A Magyar Tudomanyos

Archiv fur Orientforschung, Vienna.

Archiv fur Anthropologic, Brunswick.

Association fran9aise pour Tavancement des Sciences (Reports
of congresses).

American Journal of Archaeology (Archaeological Institute of

Altschlesien, Breslau (Schlesische Altertumsverein).

American Anthropologist (New Haven, Conn.).

Mitteilungen des archaologischen Instituts des deutschen Reiches,
Athenische Abteilung.

Ampurias, Barcelona.

Antiquity, Gloucester.

Antiquaries' Journal, London (Society of Antiquaries).

Anuari de I'Institut d’Estudis Catalans, Barcelona.

ArchcBologia, London (Society of Antiquaries).

Archceologia Cambrensis, Cardiff.

See A .E.

Archesologia Hungarica, Buda-Pest.

Archaeological Journal, London (R. Archaeological Institute).

Archeologiske Rozhledy, Praha (Ceckoslovenskd Akademie

Arheoloski Vestnik, Ljubljana (Slovenska Akademija Znanosti)

Arkheolog. Pamyaiki U.R.S.R., Kiev (Ukrainian Academy of

Arsberdttelse K. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundets i Lund.
Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina, Valencia.

Anzeiger fur schweizerische Altertumskunde, Zurich.




Bad. Fb.







Archives suisses d’Anthropologie generate, Geneva.

American School of Prehistoric Research, Bulletin, New Haven,

Badische Fundberichte, Baden-Baden.

Bulletin de correspondance hellenique.

Belleten, Ankara (Turk Tarih Kurumu).

Blatter fur deutsche Vorgeschichte, Konigsberg.

Boletin de la R. Academia de la Historia, Madrid.

Bullettino di paletnologia italiana, Parma, Roma.

Bericht der rbmisch-germanischen Kommission des arch.
Instituts des deutschen Reiches, Frankfurt.





















Inst. Arch.AR.




Annual of the British School at Athens.

Papers of the British School at Rome.

Bulletin et Memoires de la Soci6te d’Anthropologie de

Bulletin de la Soci6t6 d’Anthropologie de Paris.

Bulletin de la Soci6t6 prdhistorique fran£aise, Paris.

Institut international d’anthropologie, Congres.

Comisidn de investigaciones paleontologicas y prehistoricas,
Madrid (Junta para Ampliaci6n de estudios cientificas).

Congres international des sciences pr6historiques et proto-

Cuadernos de Historia Primitiva, Madrid.

Dacia'. Recherches et Decouvertes arcMologiques en Roumanie,

Dolgozatok a m. kir. Ferencz J dszef-tudom&nyegyetem
archaeologia int6zet6bol, Szeged.

’E<pr]nepis ’ApxaioXoytKrj, Athens.

'Eurasia septentrionalis antiqua, Helsinki.

Folya Archceologica, Buda-Pest.

Finsht Museum, Helsinki.

Fra Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark, Copenhagen.

Fornvannen, Stockholm (K. Vitterhets, Historie och Anti-
kvitets Alcademien).

Gallia, Paris.

Rdmisch-germanische Kommission des archaologischen Insti-
tuts des deutschen Reiches.

Izvesiiya Gos. Akademrya Istorii Materialnoi Kultury, Lenin-

Annual Report of London University Institute of Archaeology,

Jakrbuch fur prdhistorische und ethnographische Kunst, Koln.

Institut de Pal6ontologie humaine, MSmoire, Paris.

Iraq, London (British School of Archaeology in Iraq).




arrived there. On those wind-swept islands they found ideal pasture
for their flocks and herds, but were forced to translate into stone,
dwellings and furniture elsewhere made of wood. Their huts, grouped
in hamlets of seven or eight, and several times rebuilt on the old site,
were some 15 ft. square. On either side of the central hearth were

Fig. 155. Peterborough bowl from Thames (£), and sherds from West Kennet
Long Barrow. By permission of Trustees of British Museum.

fixed beds framed with stone slabs on the edge and covered with
canopies of hide. A dresser stood against the back wall, there were
cupboards above the beds and tanks let into the floor. As clothing,
skins were worn, for the dressing of which innumerable scrapers of
flint and awls and other bone tools were made. Adzes, of polished stone,
were mounted in perforated antler sleeves. The pots, though badly
fired, were flat-bottomed and decorated with grooved or applied ribs
and knobs forming lozenges, wavy lines, and even spirals.


Personal ornaments, ingeniously made entirely from local materials,
include beads of bone, cows' teeth, and walrus ivory, arc-pendants of
boars’ tusk laminae and bone pins with lateral loops.

The Rinyo-Clacton culture was an insular British creation, but
doubtless incorporates fresh Continental traditions. So Rinyo houses
are stone versions of the Horgen huts (p. 296), and antler sleeves and
arc-pendants again point to Horgen. The patterns adorning the vases
can be paralleled in late Cave pottery from Catalonia,1 in the Late
Chassey ware of Brittany, and its Wessex derivatives and in the
carvings on Boyne tombs. But in the earliest habitation level at Rinyo
“Western” Unstan pottery was still current side by side with the local
ware as if the latter had grown up out of the former. Though in Essex
Rinyo-Clacton ware is older than the Lyonesse transgression and in
Orkney than the oldest local Beaker, the similarity of its decoration
to that of Wessex incense cups has convinced Scott2 and others that
the Rinyo-Clacton culture need be no older than the Wessex culture
in Southern England, i.e. Early Bronze Age II. In any case, its tradi-
tions live on in the Encrusted and Cordoned Urns of our Middle and
Late Bronze Ages.

The Wessex Culture and International Trade

If the Beaker culture represent the first phase of our Early Bronze
Age (E.B.A.I), that phase ended with the emergence of a new warrior
aristocracy in Wessex and Cornwall and of more isolated warrior
chieftains in East Anglia, Yorkshire, and Scotland, known exclusively
from burials under elaborate barrows. The Wessex chieftains3 dominated
the chalk downs from Sussex to Dorset, but established outposts on
both sides of the Bristol Channel. Their bones or ashes were buried,
sometimes in coffins hollowed out of a tree-trunk,4 with extravagantly
rich furniture—handled cups of gold, amber or shale, grooved triangular
or, later,5 ogival daggers (some with gold-studded hilts or amber
pommels), tanged spear-heads (Fig. 156, 2), flat or low-flanged axes,
but also superb flint arrow-heads tanged and barbed in the Breton
manner, arrow-shaft straighteners, and stone battle-axes (derivable
from the A Beaker type, but absurdly like the Northern Middle Neo-
lithic type of Fig. 95, 4). Their ladies wore gold-bound discs and
crescentic necklaces with pattern-bored spacers of amber, halberd

1   PSAS., LXIII (1929), 273.

2   PSAS., LXXXII (1950), 44 ft.

3   Piggott, PPS., IV (1938). 52-106; cf. ibid., 107-21; Inst. Arch. AR., X, 107-21.

4   PPS., XV (1949), 101-6.

6 Ap Simon, Inst. Arch. AR., X (1954), 107-10.


pendants of amber, gold, and bronze, double-axe, hammer and other
beads of jet and amber and of fayence imported from the Mediterranean.

The vases distinctive of the Wessex graves (domestic pottery is
unknown) are “incense cups” decorated with punctured ribbons or
knobs admittedly inspired by the Late Chassey tradition of Brittany,
but contemporary Cinerary Urns reflect the Secondary Neolithic

2   3

Fig. 156. Evolution of a socketed spear-head in Britain after Greenwell:
1, Hintelsham, Suffolk; 2, Snowshill, Glos.; 3, Arreton Down, I. o W. (•£).

traditions of the subject population. Though they are not found in the
aristocratic Bronze Age barrows there, the Armorican parallels to
Wessex funerary pottery are the strongest arguments for regarding
the Wessex chiefs as immigrants from Brittany (p. 320); the rest of
their equipment cannot be derived thence, but, in so far as it is not
of British origin, is based on Unetician (Saale-Warta) models.1 If the
Wessex rulers be not just aggrandized A-Beaker-Battle-axe folk, they
are most likely to have come immediately from the Saale valley.

Wherever the chiefs themselves came from, their wealth was prim-

1   For instance, the earlier Wessex daggers seem derivable from the Elbe-Oder type;
the halberd pendants reproduce the Saale-Warta bronze-shafted type.


arily based on the produce of flocks and herds grazed on the chalk
downs. But it was greatly augmented by the profits of trade. For the
chieftains controlled trade in Irish gold and copper and Cornish tin
with the Baltic, Central Europe, and even the Aegean. In return they
secured lumps of amber and late Unetician pins like Fig. 71, 6, 8, and 9.
Their wealth enabled them to enlist the services of highly skilled
craftsmen who devised original British products. Smiths, who had
learned core-casting in Bohemia, developed for instance a distinctively
British type of socketed spear-heads (Fig. 156). Jewellers translated
Highland crescentic necklaces into amber and bound with Irish gold
amber discs. Such products found a market even in the civilized iEgean;
the amber disc from Knossos (p. 33) and the necklaces from Mycenae
and Kakovatos (p. 80) must rank as “made in England”. In return,
the Wessex chieftains were of course given segmented fayence beads,
(Fig. 157), trinkets suitable for barbarians. But surely they acquired

Fig. 157. Segmented fayence beads, Wilts (£). By permission of the Trustees
of the British Museum.

more enticing rewards. A dagger, carved on a trilithon in Stonehenge
III, may represent an imported Mycenaean dirk. The hilt of an actual
imported Mycenaean L.H.IIIb sword (like Fig. 15, 1) was in fact
recovered from a barrow at Pelynt near the south coast of Cornwall
though not from a typical Wessex grave1.

At the same time the Wessex chieftains devoted part of their wealth
to sanctifying their power by transforming and enriching the grandest
sanctuary of their predecessors. Stonehenge IIP combines a new
arrangement of the holy Bluestones with the trilithon horseshoe and
circle of sarsen blocks, dragged some twenty-five miles from Marl-
borough Downs; the well-dressed uprights are consecrated and dated
by carved representations of the axes found in Wessex graves and of a
dagger, possibly imported from Greece.

Meanwhile in the Highland Zone of Britain the absorption of the
Beaker aristocracy is symbolized by the gradual replacement of their
lordly drinking-cups by humble Food Vessels as the appropriate
funerary vessels. For these can be derived from Secondary Neolithic
vases though sometimes hybridized with Beaker or Battle-axe types.
At the same time individual interment finally replaces collective burial
in megalithic tombs. But the single graves are often grouped in little

1   Childe, PPS., XVII (1951), 95.


2 Atkinson, Stonehenge, 68-77.

cemeteries, as in class I henges, and inhumation slowly gives place to
cremation, a change that once more documents a revival of Neolithic
rites and ideas. Food Vessels—of the Yorkshire vase form with a
sharp, generally grooved shoulder (Fig. 158, 2)—were introduced into
Ireland, presumably by a fresh wave of immigrants from Great Britain.
As a result, there too collective burial gradually gave way to individual

X   2

Fig. 158. Food Vessels, Argyll and East Lothian (|): 1, Bowl; 2, Vase.

interment; in several Boyne tombs Food Vessels accompanied intrusive
secondary cremations. But in Ireland and Western Scotland1 developed
a bowl type of Food Vessel (Fig. 158, 1) as a substitute for wooden
bowls, the form and decoration of which may also be inferred from the
Pyrenaean polypod bowls like Fig. 144 and Beaker associates like
Fig. hi, 2.

The predominantly pastoral economy favoured by the Beaker-folk
was maintained by Food Vessel societies. Though the latter are less
obviously stratified than that of Wessex, industry and trade flourished
among them too. Halberds and decorated axes made in Ireland2 were

1   Childe, PCBI., 1x9-34; SBS., 8-10, 51-62, 105-18.

2   PPS., IV, 272-82; Arch., LXXXVI, 305 £E.; Childe, PCBI., 115-17.

Y   337

transported across North Britain for shipment to Northern Europe
without paying tribute to the chieftains of Wessex. Direct maritime
intercourse with the Atlantic coastlands as far as Portugal may be
deduced from a cylinder-headed pin, like Fig. 131, found with a
Yorkshire Food Vessel in a grave in Galway, from the exact agreement
of the cup-and-ring marks, carved on the slabs of such graves with the
petroglyphs of Galicia and Northern Portugal1 and from the distribu-
tion in Brittany and Normandy (and perhaps the imitation in Portugal,

Fig. 159. Gold lunula, Ireland. By permission of Trustees of British Museum.

p. 285) of gold lunulas like Fig. 159. For the latter, if inspired in the
last resort by gold collars worn by Egyptian nobles, are immediately
Irish translations into sheet gold of the crescentic jet necklaces,
repeatedly associated with Food vessels in Scotland,1 2 which were
copied in amber in Wessex.

Finally cremationists,3 of Secondary Neolithic stock, using as Ciner-
ary Urns derivatives of Peterborough vases, were spreading from
South-East England into the Highland Zone. They had reached Ireland

1   MacWhite, Estudios, 42-3; Sobrino Buhigas, Corpus Petroglyphorum GallacicB
(Compostella, 1945).

2   Childe, PCBI., 123-4. Note that the gold lunulas found in Northern Europe are not
of Irish manufacture.

3   Childe, PCBI., 145-59.


while segmented fayence beads were still current,1 while another
party, crossing the North Sea, colonized the Low Countries.1 2 Burials
in Cinerary Urns, like the urns themselves, preserve even more clearly
than those with Food Vessels the native neolithic traditions. For they
cluster in small cemeteries or urnfields, some enclosed in a penannular
bank and ditch like a class I henge.3 They are still poorer and less
aristocratic. Nevertheless, contemporary hoards of Middle Bronze Age
II show that, though the Wessex chieftains had been expelled or
absorbed, the established bronze industry continued to flourish,
creating novel types—distinctively British spear-heads with a loop at
the base of the blade, palstaves, and rapiers, while goldsmiths devised
a variety of splendid ornaments, culminating in the superb tippet of
sheet gold richly embossed, found in a grave at Mold in Flintshire.4

The widespread diffusion of Britannico-Hibemian metal-work, and
the variety of products that reached the British Isles in exchange,
not only illustrate the leading role of these islands at the dawn of the
Continental Bronze Age and the diverse influences that fertilized
insular culture; they also provide a unique opportunity for corre-
lating several local sequences and assigning to them historical dates.
The crescentic amber necklaces from the Shaft Graves of Mycenae and
from Kalcovatos (p. 79) give a terminus ante quem not later than 1600
B.c. for the rise of the Wessex culture, though the imported segmented
fayence beads probably indicate that it lasted till 1400. Danubian and
North European chronologies can be checked against this dating.

The pins of late Unetician form from Wessex graves (p. 336) on the
one hand. Irish axes, halberds, and even a gold ornament of the bar-style
from the Unetician hoards on the other5 prove that our Early Bronze
Age 2 falls within period IV of the Danubian sequence. The Early
Bronze Age I round-heeled daggers, associated here with A Beakers,
are typologically parallel to the earliest Unetician forms and can
in fact be matched in late Bell-beaker graves in Bohemia and the
Rhineland. The earlier Bi beakers should then be contemporary with
their Central European counterparts and go back to late Danubian III.
A synchronism with Northern Neolithic Illa-b (M.N. Ill) can in fact
be established by J. J. Butler with the aid of the sun-disc mentioned
on p. 330. Northern Neolithic IV is substantially parallel to our Wessex
culture. But it is itself equivalent to Montelius’ Northern Bronze

1   Such, a bead was discovered in a secondary grave in the Mound of the Hostages at
Tara by Prof. O’Riordain in 1955.

2   Glasbergen, “Excavations in the Eight Beatitudes” (Palceohistoria, II-III), Gron-
ingen, 1954, esp. pp. 127-31; 168-70.

3   Childe, PCBI., 151-3.

4   PPSXIX (1953), 161 ff.   6 Germania, XXII (1938), 7-11.


Age I, though metal was locally too rare to be buried in its characteristic
Long Cist tombs. But one of the earliest Northern graves, furnished
with metal gear and so representative of Montelius’ Bronze Age Ha
at Liesbiittel in Schleswig1 contained an imported British spear-head
of the type distinctive of our Middle Bronze Age 2. In the opposite
direction a synchronism between Northern Neolithic II (E.N.C.) and
some phase of our Clyde-Carlingford (Megalithic) culture may be
deduced from the adoption of the Western semicircle motive, prom-
inent on Beacharra vases, on C funnel-beakers in Denmark and Sweden,
and the application of the Northern device of cord impression to the
decoration of some Beacharra vases.1 2

Correlations with the Iberian Peninsula are not quite so conclusive.
Segmented fayence beads no doubt prove an overlap between the
Wessex culture and the El Argar culture of South-Eastern Spain—
Spanish Bronze II. But the cylinder-headed pin found with a Food
Vessel in Ireland should belong there to Bronze I while the incense
cups from Wessex graves and associated with Cinerary Urns have
significant parallels in the incised pots and stone vessels of Los Millares
and contemporary sites. So, too, daggers with a midrib on one face only,
as at Los Millares and Alcala, have been found with Cinerary Urns
in Scotland and Southern Ireland.3 This phase of the Los Millares
culture should then on the British evidence be assigned to Bronze lb
(Los Millares II) and later than the popularity of at least Pan-European
Beakers in the Peninsula. These would have to be assigned to Bronze la
(Los Millares I as Leisner put it), which would be roughly parallel to
the Beaker period in England. Even so, the neolithic passage graves
of Portugal maybe at least as early as the Northern ones of Neolithic III.

1   Kersten, Zur alteren nordisehen Bronzezeit (Neumiinster, n.d.), 65; cf. also Broholm,
Dcmmavhs Bronzealder, I (Copenhagen, 1944), 223.

2   Childe in Corolla archtsologica in honorem C. A. Nordmann (Helsinki, 1952), 8.

3   Childe, APL., IV (1953), 182-4.



What meaning can be extracted from the intricate details compressed
into the foregoing pages? What patterns unify the fragmentary archae-
ological data? To clarify the issue the abstract results have been
schematized into tables and maps. These present the distribution in
time and space of cultures, assemblages of archaeological phenomena
that should reflect the distinctive behaviour patterns of human societies.

The maps at first sight present a very complicated mosaic of con-
temporary cultures. But historical reality was certainly more compli-
cated still. So many pieces of the mosaic are missing that even the
spatial pattern is blurred. Here it has been deliberately simplified
by the omission of a number of assemblages, some of which have been
mentioned in the text but most of which in 1956 are little more than
pottery styles. This bewildering diversity, though embarrassing to the
student and confusing on a map, is yet a significant feature in the
pattern of European prehistory. Across it another pattern may be
discerned. The first two maps exhibit quite clearly the gradual spread
of neolithic farmers, or at least of farming, from the south-east during
two consecutive periods of uncertain duration. (But even here there is
some doubt as to the right of “Western cultures” to a place on map II!)
Map III should suggest the groups, the complex relations between
these and the impact upon them of alien or peripheral cultures in a
period not necessarily longer than I or II, but more crowded with
archseologically recognizable events. The main cultures distinguishable
at the opening of the period are designated by letters, their boundaries
defined by solid lines. Different hatchings denote cultures that subse-
quently arose from, or were superimposed upon, the foregoing. Finally,
map IV displays the main areas that benefited from the Early Bronze
Age economy, their interrelation and their dependence on Mycenaean

The distribution of entries on the several maps is based on the
chronological discussions included in all the preceding chapters and
summarized in the following tables. In most of the columns the actual
order of the entries, the sequence of cultures, is reasonably well-
established, though here again a reference to the text will disclose
doubts as to the order both in the extreme West and in the East.




falls on the west coasts and round the Irish Sea. More or less close
parallels can be found in Western Europe to the plans of these tombs,
but their furniture and the long cairns that cover them seem distinc-
tively British. So in Britain the megalith-builders do not appear so
much as fresh contingents of neolithic farmers as a spiritual aristo-
cracy who may have led Windmill Hill farmers to the colonization of
the rugged coasts of Scotland and Ulster and the adjacent islands.
Peculiarities of sepulchral architecture allow of the recognition of at
least three groups of missionaries in Great Britain.

The Bristol Channel would have been the entry for the designers of
the Cotswold-Severn tombs. All are covered by long cairns with a
cuspidal, rather than semicircular, forecourt. Typologically the oldest
chambers are long galleries with one or more pairs of transepts or
lateral cells opening off them and roofed by corbelling. Cairns, termin-
ating in a dummy portal in the wide end but with small chambers
opening on to their sides, twice through porthole slabs, should be later
degenerations. Tombs of this family occur on both sides of the Bristol
Channel and spread across the Cotswolds to the chalk downs of North
Wiltshire and Berkshire. The finest of them all was built under a
typically English long barrow at West Kennet near Avebury and
Windmill Hill, and the first interments were accompanied by Windmill
Hill vases though the tomb remained open till Beaker and Peterborough
wares had come into fashion.

Segmented cists characterize the Clyde-Carlingford group of tombs
that spread inland from these sea-inlets in South-West Scotland and
Northern Ireland but occur also in Man, in Wales, and on the limestone
plateau of Derbyshire. Two tombs of this group—in Man and Stafford-
shire—were entered through porthole slabs. The tombs contain up to
sixteen corpses, normally inhumed but occasionally cremated. In
addition to classical Windmill Hill pottery and arrow-heads, the
grave goods comprise vases of Beacharra ware, decorated with semi-
circles arranged in panels and executed by channelling or cord-
impression as at Conguel in Brittany (Fig. 146, 2), but also types to
be classed as “Secondary Neolithic”; Beakers accompanied the latest
interments in three cases. The sepulchral architecture of the tombs
and the semicircular forecourts on to which they open (Fig. no), but
not the long cairns that cover them, seem to be inspired by Pyrenasic
or even Sardinian traditions. Beacharra ware too might have been
introduced from the same quarter, but since its decorative technique
was used also in the non-megalithic province of Southern England,
only the magic semicircle motive need be regarded as a fresh contribu-
tion from the south-west.


Tombs of the Pentland group on the treeless moors and sandy coasts
of North Scotland and the adjacent archipelagoes are formally passage
graves. But some are covered by extravagantly long cairns with “horns”
framing semicircular forecourts at both ends and the corbelled chambers
are normally subdivided into at least three segments by paired jambs
projecting from the side walls (Fig. 152). In the stalled cairns of Orkney

Fig. 152. Passage grave in horned cairn, 240 ft. long, Yarrows, Caithness.

a multiplication of the same device divided a long corbelled gallery
into six to twelve benched stalls (Fig. 153). Round or oval cairns in
Orkney, too, cover elongated corbelled chambers with three or more

Fig. 153. Long stalled cairn, Midhowe, Rousay.

small cells opening off them. In Pentland tombs, too, Beakers accom-
pany only the last interments. The older grave goods include leaf-
shaped arrow-heads, developed Windmill Hill ware, a single vase
decorated in Beacharra style, and others ornamented with stab-and-
drag patterns best represented at Unstan, Orkney, but also Secondary


Neolithic types. Here, too, cases of cremation have been reported, but
inhumation was the normal practice.

Judging from the dispersal of the tombs, each, if it were a communal
ossuary, might correspond to a single homestead. But such a unit and
the number of burials would be too small to provide the manpower
for the erection of such monuments. They should rather be, like un-
chambered long barrows, the family vaults of the leaders of small
local groups. These remained simple farmers. The multitude of bones
of calves, sheep, and game animals—including horses even in the
Cotswolds1—imply an economy based primarily on stock-breeding and
hunting. But barley (not, however, wheat) was demonstrably culti-
vated in Orkney and one-corn wheat in Ulster.2 Metal is totally absent
from the grave goods. A few beads of soft stone can be paralleled in
the causewayed camps of Southern England. The only imports are
products of axe-factories not far away. Chronologically these mega-
lithic tombs had demonstrably been built before the arrival in the
province of Beaker-folk and no fresh ones were built thereafter. These
round-headed invaders replaced the megalithic aristocracy. If, then,
the latter came from the Armorican or Iberian peninsulas, they must
have set out before the rise of Beaker-folk there. On the other hand,
the secondary neolithic types, so prominent in the Clyde-Carlingford
and Pentland tombs, may be little, if at all, older than the Beaker
invasion of Southern England; some indeed occur in graves of Early
Bronze Age II.

On Ireland a direct impact of megalithic culture from the south-west
can be detected only after the island had been colonized from Britain
by neolithic farmers of the Clyde-Carlingford and other groups, and
hardly before bands of Beaker-folk had established themselves in
Limerick and Sligo. The recognizable result of that impact was the
erection of passage graves under round cairns that constitute the sole
monuments of a Boyne culture.

The standard and most widespread type of Boyne tomb is cruciform
in plan—a corbelled chamber entered through a long passage with
three cells grouped symmetrically round the remaining sides. Such
tombs, generally located on conspicuous heights, form scattered
cemeteries, notably on Carrowkeel and other limestone mountains
in Sligo, along the Boyne, and on the Lough Crew hills. The stones
walling the tomb and supporting the cairn are often adorned with
elaborate incised or pecked patterns, including stylized boats, spirals,
and distorted conventionalizations of the funerary goddess of Los

1   Crawford, Long Barrows of the Cotswolds (Gloucester, 1925), 26; AntJ., XV, 435.
a Jessen and Helbaek, see p. 323, n. 2.


MiUares and Palmella. Most tombs had been plundered. In the finest,
large stone basins alone survive of the original furniture. At Carrowkeel,
cremated bones, resting on stone slabs but originally enclosed in hide
bags fastened with skewer pins of bone or antler, should represent
primary interments while cremations in food-vessels may be intrusive.
Of the furniture survive stone balls, V-perforated buttons and beads,
including hammer beads, of hard stone, small scraps of ill-fired pottery,
but not a scrap of metal.

It is assumed that these magnificent sepulchres were built for aristo-
cratic lineages. A few decorated tombs in Anglesey and Antrim indicate
an extension of their sway to the coasts of Wales and the shores of
the North Channel. A spread thence may be denoted by some simpler
tombs in Galloway and round the Moray Firth. Most authorities agree
that the founders of the Boyne culture came by sea from Portugal and
—with less unanimity—that they started after, rather than before,
the Beaker phase there.1 In their wake should have come prospectors
and metallurgists who initiated the exploitation of Irish copper and
gold and introduced Hispanic types and techniques. In Britain their
products—decorated axes and basket-shaped gold earrings—were
purchased first by Beaker-folk, while the most significant British
parallels to the furniture of the Boyne tombs are hammer-beads from
Wessex graves of the succeeding period, but British B Beaker sherds
were found in an atypical Boyne tomb at Moytirra, Sligo. Such are the
rather slender grounds for believing that the Boyne culture began as
early as the Beaker period of England. Raftery has found evidence
that at least one decorated tomb at Lough Crew was built as late as
Iron Age II!

The Earliest Bronze Age and Secondary Neolithic Phase

The Bronze Age of the British Isles is traditionally considered to begin
with the arrival in England and Eastern Scotland of bands of round-
headed invaders who buried their dead individually in single graves,
generally under round barrows and accompanied by some kind of
Beaker. Variations of the latter and of the associated grave goods
allow us to distinguish three or even five main groups of invaders. The
earliest arrivals used Bi Beakers, decorated with simple zones of
rouletted patterns and preserving the profile of Pan-European beakers.
They used West European daggers, tanged-and-barbed arrow-heads

1 The. sole probable Hispanic import found in a Boyne tomb is matched in a Spanish
sepulchral cave, JSEA. (1929), pi. VII, 11-12; Rev. Guim. (1948), 12.


Fig. 154.
Gold earring

and stone wrist-guards, as on the Continent, and wore as ornaments
basket-shaped earrings (Fig. 154) and sun discs bearing a cruciform
pattern of gold.1 B3 Beakers, of the same shape but decorated with
a spiral cord impression, have close analogies in
Western Europe (p.224) and the Rhineland, and may
denote a distinct invasion from the latter quarter
unless they spread from Britain.2 A second major
group of invaders, coming this time from Holland
and landing on the coasts of Northern England and
Scotland, introduced the same arrow-heads and
wrist-guards, but coarser and more angular Beakers,
labelled C. But perhaps the most prominent group
of Beaker-folk are characterized by A Beakers, gen-
erally decorated with metopic patterns and in profile more like corded
than bell-beakers. These vases have no Continental counterparts and
are associated with stone battle-axes and flint, or rarely round-heeled
bronze daggers. So the A-Beaker culture is believed to be due to a
local fusion of intrusive North European Battle-axe with established
C—and perhaps also B—Beaker traditions.

From their landing-places on the south and east coasts Beaker-folk
must have spread rapidly across Britain and even sent out contingents
to Ireland.3 The latter are just as likely as the Boyne megalith-builders
to have organized the exploitation and export of Irish copper and gold,
but must have been quickly absorbed in the native populations; for
they are scarcely represented in the funerary record in which in Britain
the Beaker-folk figure so conspicuously. But even in Britain Beaker-
folk must have formed a small ruling class, or a succession of ruling
classes, among the already heterogeneous Neolithic population,
replacing the “Megalithic aristocracy”. Their advent accelerated a
general trend towards pastoralism and promoted the cultivation of
barley in preference to wheat.4 But no pure Beaker settlements are
known; Beaker pottery is always mixed with Late Neolithic pottery
and flints whether in secondary occupation levels of South English
causewayed camps, in coastal encampments in the Highland zone, or
in hut-villages in Western Ireland.5

The surplus they appropriated enabled them to become the first

1   Childe, PCBI., 92-4; add Arch. Aeliana (1936), 210, and Oxoniensia, XIII (1948),
1-9; the earrings are associated with B3 rather than Br beakers.

2   Childe, Act. y Mem., XXI (1946), 196; Piggott, L’Anthr., LVIII, 6; Fox, Arch.,
LXXXIX (1943), 100-4.

3   To Co. Limerick from the Bristol Channel {PRIA., XLVIII (1942), 260-9); LTV.
(1951), 56-9, 70-2; to Ulster from Southern Scotland (UJA., II, 264; III, 79).

4   PPS., XVIII, 204.

8 PRIA., LVI (1954), 343- 379; PPS., XVII, 53.


purchasers of metal gear in Britain. But metal is found in only 5 per
cent of the known Beaker graves, and their bronze axes came from
Ireland while the round-heeled daggers should be of Central European
manufacture. In addition to the metal trade, Beaker-folk may have
organized the distribution of axes from flint-mines and from factories
at Langdale in the Lake District, Penmaenmawr in North-West Wales,
and Tievebulliagh in Antrim,1 and elsewhere; these factory products
were distributed all over England and Scotland, but always turn up
in a Secondary Neolithic context.

By displacing the spiritual aristocracy, the invaders liberated
farmers and herdsmen in Britain—but not in Ireland—from the Mega-
lithic superstition, but they patronized native cults or gave them a
new celestial, rather than chthonic, orientation. Circles of great stones
were set up, sometimes in old class I henges or in those of the new
class II, with two entrances,2 that the Beaker-folk had begun to con-
struct. From the Presely Mountains in South-West Wales huge blocks
of spotted dolerite (Bluestone) were transported to Salisbury Plain
for erection in a Secondary Neolithic class I henge to become Stone-
henge II.3 This fantastic feat, like the construction of the huge class II
henge (diameter 1,400 feet!) at Avebury (North Wilts4), must illustrate
a degree of political unification or a sacred peace guaranteed by the
Beaker aristocracy or by the spiritual leaders of the Cotswold-Sevem
culture before them, and reflects the resources at their disposal but
produced by the neolithic farmers of the Wiltshire Downs,

The round-headed invaders did not exterminate the native neolithic
population or replace their culture by a new one, brought ready made
from the Continent. Yet, while they were establishing themselves as a
ruling class, the old Windmill Hill culture changed into, or was replaced
by, what Piggott terms “Secondary Neolithic” cultures. In all these,
animal husbandry plays a more prominent part in the subsistence
economy than even in the older “Western” Neolithic, and in sympathy
therewith ceramic technique declines. Types of mesolithic ancestry,
such as lopsided arrow-heads (Fig. 150, 1), derivatives of the petit
tranchet (cf. Fig. 3, 6-7), re-appear as if the traditions of autochthonous
hunter-fishers were being incorporated in those of neolithic societies.
Novel types—narrow flint knives with polished edges, antler mace-
heads and cushion or pestle-shaped mace-heads of stone, bone pins,
some with a lateral loop or bulb, boars'-tusk pendants—came into
use. These, though missing from primary Windmill Hill sites in Southern

1   PPS., XVII, 1951, 100-59; uja., xv, 1952,32-48.

2   Atkinson, Excavations at Dorchester, I, 84 ff.

3   Atkinson, Stonehenge (London, 1956), 63 ff.

4   Childe, PCBI., 102-4.


England, are found in long barrows in Northern England, in Clyde-
Carlingford and Pentland tombs, and in class I henges, but also alone
in single graves under round barrows or at the centre of a ring ditch.
Yet none are regular components of the Beaker culture nor of any
other assemblage outside Britain. So all may be accepted as insular
products of native genius.1

Even the new pottery styles were not introduced ready made from
the Continent. With Peterborough ware2 no assemblage of distinctive
types is exclusively associated. Three consecutive styles can now be
recognized under this head. In the earliest, Ebbsfleet, style the rather
ovoid pots have distinct necks but simple rims; they are decorated
with a row of pits below the rim supplemented at times with an incised
lattice band above the pits or vertical cord impressions. In the deriv-
ative Mortlake style the rims are thickened and the pits are supple-
mented by a lavish decoration of "maggot” imprints or the impressions
of a “comb” or a bird’s leg bone that covers the whole vase surface
(Fig. 155). Vases of the still later Fengate style are the immediate
forerunners of the Overhanging Rim Urns of the “Middle Bronze Age”.
Ebbsfleet pottery is found, alone or associated with normal Windmill
Hill ware, in two causewayed camps in Sussex, in one Cotswold-Severn
tomb, and with normal Windmill Hill pottery and arrow-heads in a
barrow on the Chilterns.3 Mortlake pottery recurs repeatedly together
with Windmill Hill, and usually also Beaker, wares in causewayed
camps, megalithic tombs and around long barrows, but always in
strata later than the primary occupational or burial deposits. Hence,
despite the really surprising similarity of Peterborough pottery to
that of the Swedish “dwelling-places” and to pit-comb ware beyond
the Baltic, no invasion from the Baltic need be postulated to explain it.
It may more economically be regarded as the product of the established
Windmill Hill farmers, now mixed with descendants of mesolithic
stocks and, in the Mortlake stage, subject to the Beaker aristocracy.

Rinyo-Clacton pottery, found in East Anglia in pits submerged
by the subsequent “Lyonesse transgression” and in henge monuments
in Wiltshire—sometimes with, never demonstrably before, Beaker
ware—does characterize conveniently a distinctive culture,4 best
known from the Orkney Islands,5 created by a tribe of sheep- and
cattle-breeders who had reached Orkney before the first Beaker-folk

1   Bone pins with lateral loops occur in a boat-axe grave in Sweden and in another in
Estonia {Fv. (1956), 196-207); all may be copies of—rare—metal Unetician pins of like

2   Piggott, op. cit., 315, must be revised in the light of Isobel Smith’s researches.

3   Smith, PPS., XX (1954), 227.

4   Piggott, op. cit., 321-40.

3   Childe, Skara Brae (London, 1931); PSAS., LXXIII, 6-31 (Rinyo).




island it was found below the Beaker layer in the stratified settlement
at le Pinnacle.1 It was presumably introduced by land from Central
France, and the first connections with Grand Pressigny were probably
established at the same time. Neither Chassey ware nor Grand Pressigny
flint reach Guernsey.

The Beaker-folk seem to have come by sea, like the first megalith-
builders from Portugal; they reached even Guernsey, but on land have
left only one grave between the Garonne and the Loire, and that not
far from the coast.2 Besides the classic rouletted style, cord ornament
is common on Breton beakers, while specifically South French variants
are missing. Wrist-guards3 are represented by a gold strip from Mane
Lud, like the South French ones, and a few doubtful stone specimens
which may really be whetstones. Two West European daggers have
been found in Brittany4 and one on Guernsey.5

From the Paris basin came the SOM gallery grave, the porthole
slab, carvings of a funerary goddess, characteristic splay-footed vases6
and arc-pendants.7 Finally, from the North came an amber bead and
a boat axe.8 But "collared flasks’’9 may be local SOM pots rather than
First Northern vessels.

The culture which blended all these foreign elements preserved a
rigidly neolithic aspect in Morbihan. Axes with pointed butts were
made of fibrolith and greenstone. Large, thin and superbly polished
specimens, obviously ceremonial and perhaps late,10 are surprisingly
common and were exported to Portugal and England. Celts with a
knob at the butt end found stray in Morbihan seem to copy Egyptian
adzes,11 while double-axes of stone12 imitated the Minoan metal form or
the "ingot axes’’ from Vogtland.13 For arrows, transverse and tanged-
and-barbed heads were preferred; leaf-shaped forms are exceptional.14
In addition to the foreign pottery absorbed, carinated bowls adorned

1 CISPP. (London, 1932), 140; Hawkes, Channel Islands, 7, 162.

*   In a “small dolmen'1 near Trizay, Charente Inferieure, with, a West European
dagger, tanged-and-barbed arrow-heads and gold ribbon; BSPF., XXXVIII (1941), 45;
cf. L’Anthr., LVIII, 26.

3   L’Anthr,, XLIV, fig. 19, u; Rev. Arch. (1883), pi. XIV.

*   Inst. Arch., AR. VI (1950), 49.

6   V. C. C. Collum, “Re-excavation of Delius”, Trans. Soc. Guernesiaise (1933).

*   Kendrick, Axe Age, 34.

7   Jersey, Kendrick, Channel Islands, 94.

8   L’Anthr., XLIV, 504, figs. 14, 5 and 15.

9   From an angled passage grave at Lann Blaen (Morb.) and a SOM gallery at Trdgastel
(Cotes du Nord); BSPF., XLIII (1946), 306.

10   Some have expanded blades imitating copper axes, Am. Anthr., XXXII, 87.

11   Petrie, Tools and Weapons, Z., pi. XVII.

12   L’Anthr., XLIV, figs 14, 11 and 16, 1; Ant. /., VII, 17.

13   Copper double-axes with a hole too small to take a shaft occur in Central France,
Switzerland, and Southern Germany, ZfE., XXXVII, 525; Childe, Danube, 177, 193;
BSA., XXXVII, 152-6.

14   L’Anthr., XLIV, 500.


with pairs of vertical ribs are a distinctively Breton variant on the
West European tradition, replaced in Jersey by similar shapes decor-
ated with horizontal lines and punctuations.

As charms were worn rather simple beads of talc, callais, rock-
crystal, or gold, axe-amulets and bracelets of hammered gold. The
callais and gold may have been obtained locally, but Grand Pressigny
flint was certainly imported. Unless the Portuguese and South French
callais be of Armorican origin, the peninsula’s exports must have been
immaterial goods. Whatever they were, they were employed to obtain
magical rather than practical materials. The whole society was so
obsessed with funerary cult that material advancement was neglected.

The chronological criteria applicable to more materialistic societies
cannot then be used for dating the megalithic culture in Brittany.
Despite its neolithic exterior it may have lasted well into the Bronze
Age elsewhere. In fact, in Guernsey some megalithic tombs do contain
"incense cups" and cinerary urns of types appropriate to the mature
Bronze Age of England. In Morbihan closed megalithic chambers under
gigantic barrows at Tumiac, Mont St Michel and Mane er Hroek are
assigned to the Bronze Age by le Rouzic on typological grounds.1 But
they contained ceremonial axes of greenstone, greenstone bracelets
and beads of callais and rock-crystal that can be matched in more
normal megalithic tombs.

The Armorican Bronze Age

Throughout the Atlantic megalithic province, desire for a good burial
stimulated production of surplus wealth; the erection of gigantic
tombs and the importation of magic substances kept accumulated
wealth in circulation. But it was not used to support professional smiths
nor to purchase ores. In France, graves furnished with bronze tools
and weapons and hoards of bronzes begin in general only during the
Middle Bronze Age when Tumulus-builders from Central Europe spread
along the Massif Central. Only in Armorica is there a group of graves2
richly furnished with weapons of Early Bronze Age type.

The tombs in question are closed chambers of dry masonry, some-
times roofed by corbelling and always surmounted by a cairn. The dead
were buried in them, generally but not always after cremation, on
wooden planks (remains of coffins ?), with arms and ornaments. The
armament consisted typically of one or two flat or hammer-flanged

1   L’Anthr., XLIII, 251-3; Forde, Am. Anthr., XXXII, 76-9, notes that the supports
are sculptured like those of normal collective tombs.

2   L’Anthr., XI, 159; XLIV, 511; LV, 425-43; Bui. Soc. Arch. FinisUre, XXXIV (1907),
125; Ant. J., VII, 18; Les Tresors arcMologiques de VArmorique occidentale.


axes, several daggers and superb arrow-heads with squared barbs and
tangs. The daggers are either round-heeled and strengthened with a
midrib or triangular with grooves parallel to the edge and sometimes
a rudimentary tang. In eight cases the wooden hilts
(or scabbards) had been adorned with tiny gold nails
forming a pointille pattern. Ornaments include a
ring-head pin1 and some spiral rings of silver, beads
of amber, and one segmented fayence bead.2 Pottery
is represented by biconical urns with two to four
handles joining rim and shoulder (Fig. 149).

Evidently these graves belong to rich and war-
like chiefs. They are concentrated3 in the north
and interior of the peninsula and in general avoid
the principal megalithic centres, where the old family vaults were
presumably still in use. The Bronze Age war-lords can therefore
hardly be descendants of the old megalithic chiefs or Beaker-folk, and
owe nothing of their equipment to these. Their silver probably came
from Almeria or Sardinia. The ring-head pin is a Central European
type. The grooved daggers seem related most closely to those of the
Saale-Warta culture (p. 200). But the chief source of metal and the
dominant inspiration in metal-work must have been in the British
Isles, where for instance gold-studded dagger hilts also occur. Relations
with Britain were indeed so close that for a while Armorica and Wessex
became a continuous cultural province.

Piggott4 explained this continuity by an invasion of Southern
England from Brittany. Cagne and Giot5 would reverse the process
or postulate parallel occupations of both regions by seafarers, coming
like the Vikings from farther North. Actually the last-named view
is the most likely and the Saale-Warta area the ultimate starting-point.
To link the Armorican with the West German Tumulus culture,
Hawkes6 can cite only two isolated "Bronze Age" barrows between
the Rhine and the Atlantic.7 Relations with the Saale-Warta culture,
on the contrary, are clear but direct. While these give a limiting date

1   Bui. Soc. Arch. Fin., XXXIV.

2   From the tholos of Parc Guerin which had been converted into a single grave of
Bronze Age type, L'Anihr., LV (1952), 427.

3   See maps in PPS., IV (1938), 65, and L'Anihr., LV, 428.

4   PPS., IV (1938), 64 ff.

6   L'Anihr., LV (1952), 442-3.

8 Foundations, 312-14.

7   Apart from these barrow graves in Allier and Dordogne (Dechelette, II, 142, 147),
the poor non-megalithic cists in Vienne, Charente, and Loz&re (de Mortillet, Origine du
culte des marts (Paris, 1921), 79 f.) might be “Bronze Age" though only one contained
any metal. East of the Sa6ne, of course, there are Early Bronze Age graves, related to
the Swiss though several contained polished flint or greenstone axes (Dechelette, II,
136 ff.).

Fig. 149.

Breton Bronze Age


for the rise of the Armorican Bronze Culture, its strict parallelism with
the Wessex culture equates it with Early Bronze Age 2—Danubian
IVb—which, judging by the fayence beads, should last down to 1400
b.c. The conquering aristocrats may have freed the local population
from excessive devotion to megalithic rites, but the metal industry
that flourished under their patronage failed to develop. The leaders
sailed away or were absorbed. No graves in Brittany are furnished with
types of my period V, and it is not till the Late Bronze Age—or perhaps
even Iron Age I—that large hoards reveal the inclusion of Brittany
in a commercial system guaranteeing regular supplies of metal gear.




All routes from the South hitherto considered converge on Britain.
It is the northern terminus of the “megalithic” seaway along the
Atlantic coasts from Portugal; the land route across France is con-
tinued beyond the Channel by the South Downs; the Danube thorough-
fare and the wide corridor formed by the North European plain con-
verge on the North Sea coasts to be continued in Kent and East Anglia.
And the British Isles offers to voyagers, migrants, and prospectors
inducements to settlement—downs and moors swept bare of trees,
excellent flint, copper, and gold, and above all tin. But islands they were
already in neolithic times. Would-be colonists embarking in frail craft
must discard unessential equipment and relax the rigid bonds of tribal
custom. Any culture brought to Britain must be insularized by the
very conditions of transportation. Many streams contributed to the
formation of British culture, but the blending of components already
insularized inevitably yielded a highly individualized resultant.

Nor is Britain a unity. The Highland Zone of mountains and ancient
rocks to the West and North is contrasted with a “Lowland Zone” of
more recent formation in the South-East.1 And beyond the Highland
Zone lies Ireland. It is the Highland Zone with Ireland that yields tin,
copper, and gold. But the megalithic route alone leads thither directly.
Cultures and peoples, desiring “short sea crossings”, must land in the
Lowlands and reach the Highland Zone only after crossing them and
absorbing their already insular cultures.

Cultures arriving from the Continent often preserve their ancestors'
lineaments recognizably in the Lowland Zone; in the Highlands they
assume a mask of stubborn insularity.

Great Britain and Ireland were relatively well populated with meso-
lithic hunters and fishers. But a neolithic culture2 of distinctive Western
type was first introduced by peasants who crossed to Southern England
from North France or Belgium and did not mingle with the pre-existing
food-gatherers. In Sussex the latter occupied the greensands, the
neolithic peasants colonized the chalk,3 The neolithic farmers owed

1   Fox, The Personality of Britain (Cardiff, 1938).

2   For Neolithic Britain see Piggott, The Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles (1954),

unless other reference is given. But on relations with Northern Europe see now PPS.,
XXI (1955), 96-101.   3 Clark, Mesolithic Britain, 90.


hardly an item in their equipment to their mesolithic forerunners and

Windmill Hill Culture

The oldest neolithic culture is best known from a series of hilltop
encampments strung out all along the downs and uplands of Southern
England from Eastern Sussex at least to Devon and probably to
Cornwall. The classic site where this culture was first really defined'—
as recently as 1925!—Windmill Hill, near Avebury, Wilts, must serve
hereafter as the patent station. The hilltops are girt with a system of
three or four flat-bottomed ditches, interrupted at frequent intervals
by causeways, as in Michelsberg camps, and supplemented by palisades.
The areas thus enclosed are often small: the diameters of the inner
ring lie between 250 ft. at Windmill Hill and 400 ft. at the Trundle,
though there is room for settlement beyond it, and Maiden Castle
covered 12 acres. It is not yet clear how far the “camps" should be
regarded as permanent villages. Piggott regards them rather as en-
closures where cattle were rounded up in the autumn. No houses have
been identified inside them, but in Devon, Wales, and Ireland a few
isolated neolithic houses are known—most rectangular in plan.1

The camps’ occupants lived principally by breeding cattle—of a
robust breed, perhaps a cross between imported short-horns and native
oxen of Bos primigenius stock. But they kept a few sheep, goats, and
pigs, and cultivated crops—principally wheat (emmer with a small
proportion of one-corn), but also a little barley.2 And naturally they
hunted deer and collected nuts and shell-fish. The huntsman used leaf-
shaped arrow-heads, Fig. 150, 3. Axes were made of flint where this

1   23

Fig. 150. 1, lop-sided, 2, Tanged-and-barbed, 3, leaf-shaped, and arrow-heads

from Britain (£).

1 Piggot, op. cit.; cf. PRIA., LVI (1956), 300-6, 447-7; Arch. CambCII, (1953), 24-9.
a Jessen and Helbaek, Det hong, danske Videns. Selskdb, Biol. Skrifter, III, 2; PPS.,
XVIII, 194-200.


material is abundant and then include archaic "picks” as well as
polished implements. Elsewhere, in Devon for instance, polished celts
of fine-grained stone competed with flint axes. In Southern England
and Norfolk flint was systematically mined by specialized groups of
highly skilled miners, who must have lived largely by exporting the
products of their industry. But while hint-mining began early in
Neolithic times, it flourished more in the subsequent Beaker period.
And in Norfolk and even Wiltshire "Peterborough folk” (p. 331, below)

were associated with its exploitation. A textile industry is not clearly
attested but flint scrapers and bunched combs of antler emphasize
the importance of leather-dressing.

The earliest Windmill Hill vases (Fig. 151) are leathery round-
bottomed pots with simple rims and sometimes vertically pierced lugs.
Thickening of the rims by pressing down or rolling over the wet clay
is thought by Piggott to mark a later phase in Southern England and
is more prominent in the Highland Zone. To an equally late phase
should belong incised and channelled decoration and shallow flutings
produced by drawing the finger-tips over the moist clay. Trumpet
lugs, confined to Dorset and Devon, denote specially close relations
with Brittany (p. 306).

Fig. 151. Windmill Hill pot-forms. After Piggott.


A few figurines and phalli, carved in chalk so rudely as to be almost
dubious, are all that survives of ritual paraphernalia. Windmill Hill
ideology found more durable expression in funerary monuments. Most
authorities believe that Windmill Hill farmers or their "chiefs” were
buried under “unchambered long barrows”. These are pear-shaped
mounds reaching the extravagant length of 300 feet though the inter-
ments occupy only a small space near the wide end. The corpses, from
one to twenty-five in number, had been interred disarticulated or
cremated on chalk platforms or in crematorium-trenches. In two cases
a timber revetment at the wide end looks like an attempt to reproduce
the forecourt of the chambered long barrows of Highland Britain
(p. 326). So it has been suggested that unchambered long barrows are
just substitutes for the megalithic tombs of the Atlantic coasts in
stoneless regions. However, the extravagantly long mounds seem alien
to the general megalithic tradition while the plans and the arrangement
of the interments within them find surprisingly close parallels in the
long dolmens and Kuyavish graves of the German and West Polish
tracts of the North European plain of which Lowland England is just
the westernmost section.

If such monumental sepulchres were reserved to families of special
rank or sanctity, commoners perhaps were buried, after cremation,
in pits, arranged in a ring in a cemetery surrounded by a penannular
bank and internal ditch. For a few of these so-called "class I henges”
have yielded pure Windmill Hill relics though most contain also
“Secondary Neolithic” types.1 But even these henges may not have
been primarily constructed as cemeteries and to the same periods
belong certain non-funerary but ceremonial monuments, traditionally
known as "cursus”,2 enclosures varying from one to six miles in length
and defined by banks and ditches. Association with long barrows
justifies their attribution to the Windmill Hill culture.

No causewayed camps have been identified north of the Thames.
But judging from pottery finds and long barrows, Windmill Hill
farmers colonized East Anglia and the Yorkshire Wolds and spread
over Northern England and Eastern Scotland as far as the Moray
Firth. In the Highland Zone their culture is known only from mega-
lithic tombs.

Megalithic Tombs in Britain

Apostles of the megalithic faith presumably arrived by the Atlantic
seaway; for the tombs they should have introduced fan out from land-

1   Atkinson et ah, Excavations at Dorchester, Oxon. (Oxford, 1951).

2   Atkinson in Antiquity, XXIX (1955), 4-10.




may reflect a reaction from the corded ware of Central Europe; a few
stone battle-axes1 might be connected therewith. Vases decorated with
incised and punctured patterns should be related to those of Los
Millares and the later Chassey style. But channelled ware, adorned with

concentric circles, might be of Early Minoan ancestry (p. 32) and
parallel to the Portuguese. It would on Helena's view be associated with
the first megaliths in Chalcolithic I, but at Fontbouisse it is said to be
later than Beakers and so Bronze II.1 2

In this latter period emerged flat-bottomed vases, sometimes
decorated with applied ribs and presumably related to Horgen ware.
To much the same phase might be attributed carinated cups with axe-
handles, ancestral to, or derived from, those of the South Italian
dolmens3 (Fig. 116, 3). A few specimens, decorated with excised
patterns identical with those on Apennine ware,4 may be actual imports
from Italy.

If they created no novel industrial types, the Pyrensean and Provencal
societies did develop distinctive toilet articles and ornaments that were
exported to or copied by other groups. For fastening their garments
Beaker-folk, as elsewhere, used V-perforated buttons, but local
variants5 were devised and exported. Thus an elongated prismatic type
was preferred round the Eastern Pyrenees, particularly in Bronze II,
while Aude may have been the cradle of tortoise beads which were

1   Pericot, Sepulcras, 190.

8   L’Anthr., XLVIII, 8-10; BSPF., XLVIII, 557.

3   Riv. St. Lig., XV (1949), 42-4; Peric'"1' c'p:   125-6, and map 84.

4   Maluquer de Motes, ‘‘Yacimientos ; V ?1 Monografias de la Estacion de
Estudios Pyrenaicos, I (Zaragoza, 1948), 22 and n. x.

3   BSPF., LI (1954), 255-66.


diffused thence to Sardinia and Portugal. Winged beads of East
Mediterranean ancestry found a secondary centre of manufacture in
South France, while some bone tubes from the cave of Treille, Aude,1
and the dolmen of Cabut, Gironde, are vaguely like the Early JEgean
type of Fig. 27, 1.

The main creative impulses of Pyrenaeic-Proven$al societies were
diverted to ideological ends. The overwhelming importance attached to
the funerary cult is patently displayed in the innumerable megalithic
tombs and cave ossuaries. But no rigid orthodoxy prevailed. Some
clans adopted cremation at an uncertain date; a sort of collective
cremation is reported from some caves,2 while under a cairn near
Freyssinel3 (Lozere) fifty corpses had been burned on the spot.

South France was certainly one, and perhaps the primary, centre of
the practice of ritual trepanation, though the superstition was potent
also round the Tagus estuary4 and in the SOM culture. Certainly an
astonishingly large number of the skulls from the Cevennian megaliths
and from the caves5 had been trephined, some while their owners were
still alive! As the cranian amulets produced by this operation were
found in Cortaillod sites in Switzerland, the practice presumably goes
back to premegalithic times in South France, though it persisted like
so much else. In Aveyron, Gard, Herault, and Tarn monoliths were
carved with representations of a female divinity armed with an axe6;
one such statue-menhir was used as a lintel in a corbelled megalithic
tomb at Collorgues, Gard (Fig. 145a).7 Clearly this is no “portrait statue”
but represents the same deity as the citizens of Troy I carved also on a
monolithic stele. We shall meet her again in the Marne valley. Pre-
sumably these statue-menhirs mark her route northward, unless her
journey should be reversed; with a change of sex the deity was carried
eastward to Upper Italy (p. 250), presumably by immigrants from
South France. The latter, though recognizable in pottery too, are not
likely to have made contributions, such as ploughs and halberds, to
the material culture of the Apennine peninsula. Sculpture and surgery
in South France developed outside the frame of urban life and with-
out relation to practical ends, as we understand them, in a society
whose material culture remained fossilized for perhaps a thousand

1   Ampurias, XI (1949), 29.   2 Helena, Origines, 80.   3 Seep. 309, n. 1.

4   MacWhite (Cuadernos, I (1946), 61-9) enumerates 15 trepanned skulls from this

5   In Loz&re 52 cases come from “dolmens”, 105 from caves, D^chelette, Manuel, I,
474 f.; cf. AsAg., XI (1945), 56; E. Guiard, La trepanation cranienne chez les neolithiques
et chez les primitifs modernes (Paris), 1930.

6   Rev. Anthr., XLI (1931), 300 ff.

7   Afas., 1890, 629; Rev. Anthr., XLI, 362; the usual plans are wrong.


The Seine-Oise-Marne (SOM) Culture

The adoption of themegalithic faith by a Forest population on the chalk
downs of Champagne and round the Paris basin produced a remarkable
culture, known almost exclusively from collective tombs and termed
the Seine-Oise-Marne culture (abbreviated SOM).1 The burial-places
may be natural caves,2 artificial caves hewn in the chalk,3 or “Paris
cists", a specialized type Of gallery grave. In the Marne4 the rock-cut
tombs form regular cemeteries; there are some fifty in the valley of
Petit Morin alone. All are rectangular chambers entered by a descending
ramp like the dromos of a Mycenaean tomb. A few are more carefully

a   b   c

Fig. 145. Statue-menhirs from. Gard and sculptured tomb (b), Petit Morin (Marne).

excavated than the rest and are provided with an antecella on the walls
of which may be carved or sketched in charcoal representations of the
same funerary goddess, bearing an axe,5 as appears on the statue-
menhirs of the Midi (Fig. 145). While the smaller tombs contain forty
or more corpses (including some cremated bones), not more than eight
bodies were deposited in the more elaborate chambers, but the funerary
furniture in them is much richer. They accordingly belong to “chiefs”,
while poorer common-folk were crammed into family ossuaries. The
gallery graves in the valleys of the Aisne, Seine, Oise, and Eure6 (Paris
cists) are generally built of slabs erected in a long trench, a compart-

1   General review Childe and Sandars, L'Anthr., LIV (1950), 1 ff., and Bailloud and
Mieg, 190-9.

2   E.g. Vaucelles, Namur, Loe, La Belgique ancienne, I, 144.

3   In Marne and also Oise, Mem. Soc. academique d’Archeol. du Dep. de VOise, IV
(Beauvais, i860), 465.

4   J. de Baye, L'Archeologie prehistorique (Paris, 1884); cf. also BSPF., VIII (1911),
669; Gallia, I (1943), 20-5.

6 Rev. Antkr., XLI, 371-3.

6 Ddchelette, Manuel, I, 397 ff.; Rev. Arch., XXVII (1928), 1-13; Forde, Am. Anthr.,
XXXII, 63-6; AsA., XL (1938), 1-14.


ment at one end, divided from the rest by a porthole slab, serving as the
entrance (cf. Fig. ioo). The funerary goddess1 reappears in the entrance,
generally more conventionalized than on the Marne, so that only her
breasts are recognizable.

The grave goods disclose a warlike population living by stock-breed-

Fig. 146. Horgen pot from Paris cist (Mureaux) (?$?), and channelled vase
from Conguel, Morbihan (?$•).

ing and hunting, but almost certainly also tilling the soil. Its role in
flint-mining is uncertain, but Grand Pressigny flint was obtainable, and
the chieftains of the Marne secured even beads of amber, callals and
rock-crystal and small copper trinkets. Even flanged axes of bronze
have been reported from SOM gallery graves.2 The grave gear consisted,
however, of polished flint axes, normally mounted in perforated antler

Arc-pendant of stone (}).

sleeves, antler axes with square-cut shaft-holes, very numerous trans-
verse arrow-heads together with a very few leaf-shaped ones, daggers of
Grand Pressigny flint and characteristic splay-footed vases of rather
coarse ware (Fig. 146, i).a The ornaments include shells, bracelets, rings,
and arc-pendants (Fig. 147) of stone, a leg amulet of antler,4 axe-

1 Rev. Anthr., XLI, 371-3.   2 Breuil in Afas. (1899), 590.

3   See also BSPF. (1934), 282-5; (1951), 558; L‘Anthr., LVIII, 18-20.

4   Gallia, I (1943). 24.


amulets, and cranian amulets. Nearly a third of the population was
round-headed, less than a quarter really dolichocranial. Quite a large
number of individuals had undergone ritual trepanation as in South

The tomb plans and sculptures and the trepanned skulls suggest that
the megalithic religion had reached the Seine-Marne basins from the
lower Rhone. Paris cists, as slab-lined trenches, reproduce most faith-
fully the plan of the rock-cut tombs near Arles, and the chalk-hewn
tombs of the Marne are the most Mediterranean chamber tombs north
of the Pyrenees and the Alps. The missionaries who introduced the faith
must have travelled fast and kept it fresh. But the SOM culture pre-
serves so many mesolithic traits that the bulk of their converts must
have been descendants of native Forest-folk. The transformation of
these "savages’1 into farmers may be attributed not so much to the
“missionaries” as to Danubian peasants who had established colonial
outposts on the Somme, the Marne, and the Seine,1 or to less well-
documented Westerners (p. 304).

The composite warlike population thus unified by the megalithic
faith soon embarked on a crusade of conquest and colonization, in the
course of which some items of the faith, or at least their durable ex-
pressions, were lost or distorted. Westward the whole complex with its
specialized gallery graves, porthole slabs, and splay-footed vases reached
Brittany,2 Normandy, and Jersey—but not Guernsey—while Beakers
were still current there. Even the funerary goddess, albeit degraded to
a mere pair of breasts, was thus carried to the Atlantic coasts. To the
north-east the culture is classically represented in Belgian caves,3 while
Paris cists were built in Belgium, Westfalia, and Hesse. Finally the
long cists of South Sweden (p. 198) not only reproduce the Paris plan
but also contain splay-footed pots of SOM form. To the south-east
the Horgen culture (p. 295) must be attributed to a similar colonization,
though relatively few tombs were built for its spiritual leaders. Even to
the south the grave goods from Bougon (Deux Sevres) unmistakably
mark the site of a SOM colony, while a couple of “porthole dolmens”
in the Cevennes and the pottery already mentioned from South France
and the Baleares might denote a return of the faith in a barbarized
version towards its assumed starting-point.4
From this expansion chronological limits for the rise of the SOM

1   Bailloud and Mieg, 48.

2   E.g. Tregastel, BSPF., XLIII (1946), 305.

3   Marien, Oud-Belgie, 142-5; 152 ff.

4   But if the megalithic religion were introduced into the Seine-Marne basins from
the Loire, from the coasts of Normandy (Piggott, L’Anthr., LVIII, 20), or from the
Caucasus via Hesse, the Paris cists and the Marne carvings must represent the germs
from which evolved the rock-cut tombs and statue-menhirs of South France!


culture can be more precisely deduced. Not only have Beaker sherds
been found in three tombs in the Paris basin/ but also in those of its
colonial outposts in Brittany. Thus in the French sequence the culture
goes back at least to Chalcolithic II or Pericot’s Bronze I. So its arrival
in Switzerland initiates Middle Neolithic there. Collared flasks appro-
priate to Northern Neolithic II occur in the Paris cists of Westfalia
and of Brittany,1 2 while, judging from a couple of tiny Rossen sherds
from their counterparts in Hesse (p. 190), the culture should have
arrived there near the beginning of Danubian III if not in Danubian II.
The SOM culture must then be among the earliest manifestations of
the megalithic religion in temperate Europe. Yet it lasted a long time
with no recognizable progress or change. It reached Scandinavia only
in Northern Neolithic IV—i.e. Danubian IV, the Early Bronze Age.
In its homeland there are no other burials save those in Paris cists and
SOM caves to represent the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in the
funerary record, while types of these periods are inordinately scarce.
The region remained isolated from the great currents of Bronze Age
trade, and its population, absorbed in cult practices, was content to
subsist in a neolithic stage.

The Armorican Megalithic Culture

In megalithic times the Armorican Peninsula with its extension to the
Channel Islands became a goal of pilgrimage so that a bizarre assort-
ment of cultures was superimposed on the primary Western neolithic
described on p. 306. Brittany offers the first land-fall on the northward
voyage from the Iberian Peninsula to Cornish tin-lodes and Irish gold-
fields and sets the limit to terrestrial wanderings in search of isles of the
blest beneath the setting sun. Moreover, its old rocks contain gold,
perhaps also tin and callais.3 The densest and most varied concentration
of collective tombs in Europe is to be found round the Gulf of Morbihan,4
but from this centre the tombs spread coastwise to the mouth of the
Loire and to Jersey (still perhaps joined to the Continent in megalithic
times) and Guernsey. The diverse tomb plans and the heterogeneous
articles constituting the furniture of every sepulchre indicate the
varied traditions that went to make up the Armorican culture and the
complexity of their interweaving.

1   Sievekng, Inst. Arcli. AR., IX (1953), 60-7; L’Anthr., LVIII, 20.

2   BSPF., XLIII, 307.

s Forde, Am. Anthr., XXXII, 85.

4   Types summarized by le Rouzic, L’Anthr., XLIII (1933), 233-48; for Guernsey,
T. D. Kendrick, Archcsology of the Channel Islands, I (1928), for Jersey, J. Hawkes,
Archeeology of the Channel Islands, II (1939).


Corbelled passage graves are concentrated on the coasts and Islands
and are obviously inspired by Iberian, immediately by Portuguese,
models. Their counterparts in the orthostatic architecture, more suited
to the local rocks, are megalithic passage graves, often P-shaped in
plan (Fig. 148), rarely with a lateral cell, as the standard type for

Morbihan, while undifferentiated passage graves, like the South
Spanish, are commoner in the Channel Islands. The gallery grave,1 on
the other hand, exhibits a more inland distribution and does not cross
the sea to Guernsey. Accordingly the idea was brought by land from
the Paris basin by migrant pastoralist families. Divergent variations
on the exotic models were devised locally. Undifferentiated passage
graves with one or two pairs of lateral chambers, arranged like tran-
septs on either side of the principal gallery, may be derived from tholoi
with lateral cells, as at Los Millares, and are common to the peninsula2
and the Islands (La Houge Bie, Jersey,3 and Dehus, Guernsey4).
Passage graves with a bent corridor and gallery graves similarly
"angled” are peculiar to Armorica.

1   Forde, Man, XXIX, So; Am. Anthr., XXXII, 74.

2   L’Anthr., XLIII, 242; Antiquity, XI, 455.

3   Soci£t6 Jersiaise, Bulletin (St. Helier, 1925).

4   V. C. C. Collum, “Re-excavation of Ddhus”, Trans. Soc. Guernesiaise (1933).


Fig. 148. Passage grave, Kercado, Morbihan.


Most tombs were covered by a cairn or barrow, generally round and
carefully constructed, but sometimes two or even three tombs are
covered by a single mound which may then be oblong. Elaborate
carvings, including representations of hafted axes and human feet, are
a feature of the megaliths of Morbihan.1 And in Brittany the tombs
often contain remains of cremated skeletons. The same heretical rite
is associated with other equally novel manifestations of the megalithic
cult that are peculiar to the extreme west, but common to Brittany
and Britain. Oval or horseshoe settings of megalithic uprights on the
islet of Er Lannic,2 now half submerged, were associated with vase
supports decorated with punctured patterns in late Chassey style. But
at the feet of the orthostats were little stone cists containing cremated
bones almost certainly human; these must be compared to the
cremations in pits within British “henge monuments” (p. 325). So, too,
alignments of huge upright stones, one of which runs across one of the
long barrows described on p. 306, might be Armorican equivalents
of the English cursus which too are associated with long barrows.

Most tombs have been violated in Roman times and further dis-
turbed in the nineteenth century, so that the grave goods do not
contribute as much help as might be expected to unravelling the com-
ponents of the megalithic complex and establishing the sequence of
events. Tombs of most types contain Beaker ware, proving that the
Paris galleries had arrived and the local variants been elaborated
during the Beaker phase. But the number and variety of the beakers
prove that this period was a long one. Z. le Rouzic3 and Jacquetta
Hawkes4 assign to a pre-Beaker phase the corbelled passage graves
of Morbihan and Jersey; they certainly contain no Beaker ware. That
some megaliths are really pre-Beaker is established by the succession
of burials in the passage grave (one wall of which was formed of natural
rock) at Conguel,5 Quiberon. There the later interments only were
accompanied by beakers, the earlier by vases bearing channelled
semicircle patterns as in Portugal and South France (Fig. 146, 2).
This fabric is found in other tombs too, and in the fortified settlement
at Croh Colie.6 It links the Pyrenees or Portugal with the Beacharra
culture in Scotland.

Chassey pottery, chiefly in the form of vase-supports, is represented
in many tombs on the Mainland and in Jersey (Fig. 142). In that

1 Pecquart et le Rouzic, Corpus des signes gravis, Paris, 1927; Prehistoire, VI (i938)*





Z. le Rouzic, Les Cromlechs de Er Lannic (Vannes, 1930).

L’Anthr., XLIII, 233-5; XLIV, 490-2, so Breuil, Prehistoire, VI, 47.
CISPP. (Oslo, 1936); Archceol. Channel Islands, II, 90, 248.

BSA. (Paris, 1892), 41.

L’Anthr., XLIV (1934), 496, fig. 9, numbers 8, and 12-16.




The corridors of the Garonne and the Rhone valleys offer passage from
the Mediterranean to the Atlantic West, traversed in historical times
by the trade-route that carried Cornish tin to the Greek colonies round
the Gulf of Lions. Along it perhaps had spread a millennium or so
earlier the megalithic religion in the wake of prehistoric trade from
colonies on the same shores. But still earlier the Western farmers whose
arrival and spread to the north-east were postulated in Chapter XVI
should have expanded also north-westward to Central France, Nor-
mandy, and Brittany. It is convenient to consider the results attribut-
able to such an expansion before describing the impact of megalithic
ideas on South France.

Chassey and Fort Harrouard

The famous but badly excavated station of the Camp de Chassey
(Saone-et-Loire)1 certainly ought to mark a stage in the assumed
expansion of Western neolithic culture. It is a fortified hilltop, and
from it have been gathered many objects distinctive of the West Swiss
Lower Neolithic Cortaillod culture—plain leathery pots, tapering
antler sleeves for axes, segmented tine pendants. But collections from
the site include also types that are not older than Middle or even
Upper Neolithic on Lake Neuchatel, such as sleeves like Fig. 139, B,
perforated stone axes, and tanged arrow-heads. If these denote a
second phase of occupation, there are no stratigraphical observations
to decide to which the decorated pottery, often called simply Chassey
ware,2 belongs. This ware bears hatched rectilinear patterns scratched
on the surface after firing or on the hard-dried clay just before (Fig.
142, 2).3 The “vase-support" is a distinctive shape.4 Such decoration is
missing from Cortaillod sites in Switzerland, but finds analogies in
Schussenried pottery farther east (p. 293). In Liguria, scratched
decoration was Middle Neolithic.

1   Ddchelette, Manuel, 1, 559; Bailloud and Mieg, 97 fi.; Piggott, L’Anthr., LVII
(1953), 410-32.

2   Many authors thus describe all plain Western pottery from France; Arnal and
Benazet distinguish therefrom "Chasseen decord" which they consider earlier than the
plain ware; BSPF., XLVIII (1951), 552-5.

3   BSPF., XLVIII, 555.   4 BSPF., XXVII (1930). 268-76.


After crossing the Massif Central the neolithic colonists would reach
the downlands of Northern France, an area rich in flint1 and already
inhabited by mesolithic hunter-fishers, probably of the Forest culture.
In the oldest recognizable neolithic settlements the farmers appear
to have adopted much of the food-gatherers’ equipment'—core and
flake axes, transverse arrow-heads, and other items—giving the local
cultures a hybrid, “secondary neolithic” aspect. Their neolithic ele-

Fig. 142. Vase-supports in Chassey style: i, Le Moustoir, Carnac; 2, Motte
de la Garde, Charente.

ments might have been contributed by Rossen farmers, spreading
through the Belfort Gap as far as Yonne2 or Danubians advancing
from the Meuse to the Somme and the Marne as well as by Westerners.
The best picture available of the ambiguous result is provided by Fort
Harrouard3 (Eure-et-Loire), a promontory camp about 17 acres (7 hr.)
in extent, where Father Philippe could distinguish two neolithic strata.

The villagers lived by cultivating indeterminate grains and breeding
mainly horned cattle; they kept also some pigs and goats and a very
few sheep too, but relied very little on hunting or fishing.4 They lived

1   This is the truth underlying Bosch-Gimpera’s thesis of the existence in North
France of a "culture de silex"—just another way of saying that in this area rich in
flint but poor in fine-grained rocks, flint was the normal material even for axes, cf.
Rev. Anthr., XXXVI (1926), 320.

2   At Nermont, Danubian pottery seems to precede Western, Bailloud and Mieg, 50.

3   Philippe, "Cinq ann6es de fouiUes au Fort Harrouard” (Socidte normande d’dtudes
pr&iistoriques, XXV bis), Rouen, 1927.

4   The actual proportions are: cattle 68 per cent, swine 18 per cent, sheep 10 per cent,
goats 1-5 per cent, game 2-5 per cent; L'Anthr., XLVII (1937), 292.



in irregular oval huts partly excavated in the ground1 and dressed in
woven fabrics, using whorls for spinning and clay loom-weights in
weaving. The carpenter used polished axes of imported stone occasion-
ally, but relied mainly on the “mesolithic” flint tranchets and “picks”,
together with rare antler axes.2 Besides transverse arrow-heads the
bowman sometimes used triangular ones. Before the end of the period
Grand Pressigny flint was imported, as were amber beads and arc-
shaped pendants of schist.3

The pots, baked in the fort in tiny kilns, are typically Western, but
include, besides simple leather forms, baking plates as in the Michels-
berg complex, vessels with pan-pipe lugs perforated vertically and
horizontal tubes expanding at the ends like the trumpet lugs of
Troy I, and vase-supports and other vessels decorated in the Chassey

Though there are a megalithic tomb and some small long barrows in
sight of the camp, villagers were buried extended, or in one case con-
tracted, within the enclosure.4 Female figurines were modelled in clay,
a quite exceptional cult practice within the Western cycle.

Judging by the pottery, other sites in North France, notably the
celebrated fortified station at Le Campigny (Seine Inf6rieure) (once
made the patent station for a mesolithic culture) and the Camp de
Catenoy (Oise)5 were occupied at the same time as Fort Harrouard I.
At that station the second neolithic stratum illustrates a development
of the older culture. While cattle-breeding predominates, a large breed
of Bos brachyceros now co-existed with the small cattle of the older
herds. Goats had died out, but game bones now amount to as much
as 8 per cent of the total. And oysters and other shell-fish were imported
from the coast. Finished implements, such as daggers and lance-heads
of Grand Pressigny flint, were also obtained by barter. But the old
types of tools, including the “mesolithic” core and flake-axes, were still
retained. The pottery shows a development of the Chassey style with
much coarser incisions combined with rusticated wares.

Since the late Chassey style inspires the decoration of “Incense
Cups” at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Southern England,
it must follow that Fort Harrouard II falls at least into the “Beaker”
period of the West; it may indeed outlast it, since, as on the Swiss
lakes, the record of settlement is continued only by the Late Bronze
Age occupation of Fort Harrouard III.6 For all we can tell, the pastoral

1 L’Anthr., XLVI, 270-1.   2 L'Anthr., XLVI, 559.

3 L'Anthr., XLVI, 604.   4 L'Anthr., XLVI, 541 f.

6   L’Anthr., XII (1901), 359 and 354; LVII, 441-2.

6 But besides Late Bronze Age pins the crutch-head type occurs, as in the Copper
Age lake-dwellings, Philippe, “Cinq Anndes,” pis. XI, 11, and XVIII, 19.

u   305

communities of Northern France preserved their neolithic economy
unaffected by the cultural impulses that crossed South-Western France.

So even Fort Harrouard I may begin relatively late; Grand Pressigny
flint in Switzerland is Middle Neolithic, so are arc-pendants in both
the Swiss and the Ligurian sequences. In other words, Fort Harrouard I
is not demonstrably pre-megalithic or anterior to the earlier SOM
tombs. Even the ceramic evidence for a pre-megalithic Western colon-
ization is no more explicit at Fort Harrouard than at Michelsberg. An
acculturation of Forest hunters by Danubians in North France,
parallel to that suggested as a possible explanation of Michelsberg,
cannot be ruled out. Indeed, if Michelsberg represent a south-western
extension of First Northern, Fort Harrouard I could be claimed as an
outpost still farther west (p. 291 ff.). Still, in 1956 the best authori-
ties consider the neolithic elements of North French culture Western.

Brittany, too, may have been reached in pre-megalithic times by
Western neolithic herdsmen-cultivators who would have joined forces
with survivors of the Teviec strand-loopers. The stone-walled “camps”
of Croh Colle and Lizo have indeed yielded pottery of the channelled
and later Chassey styles common in the peninsula’s megalithic tombs.
But leathery vases, generally plain, rarely decorated with scratched
patterns and sometimes provided with trumpet lugs, found in small
cist graves,1 conform to the standard Western neolithic types. The
cists recall the mesolithic sepulchres of Teviec, but contain cremated
human bones. Some groups of cists, e.g. at Manio, were covered by
elongated mounds of earth and stones which in plan offer the closest
West European analogy to the British long barrow.2

The Megalithic Culture of South France

If the megalithic religion were implanted round the Gulf of Lions by
colonists from the East Mediterranean, a cemetery of monumental
collective tombs on an island in the Rhone delta near Arles might well
belong to a bridgehead station comparable to Los Millares. The tombs,
cut in the rock but roofed with lintels and covered by round barrows,
are in plan long galleries3 and might have provided the models for the
built gallery graves which constitute the majority of the megalithic
tombs in South-West France and, south of the Pyrenees, in Catalonia
and the Basque Provinces.4 Segmented cists occur in Catalonia (Puig

1   L'Anthr., XLIV (1934), 486-9.

2   Antiquity, XI (1937), 441-52.

3   Cazalis de Fondouce, Les Allies couvertes de la Provence (1878), describes the
“grottes" de Bouxxias, Castellet, and des F<£es; cf. Hemp., Arch., LXXVI, 150.

4   Pericot, Sepulcros megaliticos (1950), gives a comprehensive survey of tombs and
grave goods from South France as well as from Spain.


Rodo), in the Basque Provinces and at La Halliade1 near Tarbes; that
at La Halliade was 14-2 m. long, divided by septal slabs into seven
compartments with a lateral compartment added at one end and
covered with a cairn of stones. Others like St Eugenie near Carcassonne
are subdivided by internal portals.2

On the other hand, passage graves in the area might be inspired from
Spain. A group of corbelled passage graves in Provence3 and Gard might
be connected directly with Los Millares. A series of rectangular ortho-
static chambers entered by dry-stone walled passages is strung out
significantly along a line from the coast to the copper and lead deposits
near Durfort,4 Gard. Architecturally these resemble Puglisi’s Tuscan
“dolmens” (p. 240), and their builders seem to have been pastoralists.
Finally, many caves in the area were still used as collective ossuaries in
megalithic, as in Early Neolithic, times. If burial in megalithic tombs
were the prerogative of aristocratic clans, commoners may have been
interred in caves.

The furniture of these various sepulchres is the principal source for
any picture of the cultures of North Spain and South France during a
long period, traditionally termed Chalcolithic, but certainly capable of
subdivision. Two phases stand out clearly: during the first (Pericot's
Bronze I) Bell-beakers were generally current; they had gone out of
fashion by the second (Pericot's Bronze II and III), which might last
down to the advent of Urnfield invaders with an equipment of
Danubian VI types. Near Narbonne, Helena5 claimed to distinguish a
pre-Beaker megalithic phase (Chalcolithic I), two phases with Beakers
(II and III), and two later. Other authorities,6 however, do not accept
his separation of Chalcolithic I from II. It is therefore a disputed issue
whether the transformation of the neolithic cultures, described in the
last chapter, into a “Chalcolithic” one were due to the simultaneous
arrival of megalith-builders and Beaker-folk or whether the latter
arrived only after the former and in either alternative precisely what is
to be attributed to the newcomers and what to the earlier neolithic and
mesolithic groups.

In any case the subsistence economy of the Chalcolithic as thus dis-
closed appears more pastoral and less sedentary than the previous

1   Mat. (1881), 522.

2   BSPF., XXVII (1930). 536-9; the tomb contained “300” skeletons, at least 7
beakers, 12 palettes, gold beads, tanged arrow-heads.

3   Goby ‘‘Les Dolmens de Provence”, Rodania: Congres de Cannes-Grasse (1929).

4   Amal, Ampurias, XI (1949), 29-44.

6 Les Origines de Narbonne (1937)- To Bernabo Brea (A.C. II, 232) only some sherds
from the Arles tombs might be (Upper) Neolithic; the pottery from all other tombs
should be Chalcolithic—in the Ligurian sequence.

6 Bailloud and Mieg (1955), 163-79; Pericot, Sepulcros megal.-, Piggott, L’Anthr.,

LVIII (1954), 7-22.


“Western Neolithic”. Apart from inhabited caves, only two settlements
are known—Fontbouisse in Gard1—a disorderly cluster of round and
rectangular huts on stone foundations'—and La Couronne—a fortified
site near the Rhone delta that might be comparable to Los Millares or
Vila Nova de San Pedro.

But food-production was now certainly combined with some secondary
industry and trade. Local ores of copper, lead, and perhaps even tin2
were probably worked. They do not seem to have formed the basis for a

Fig. 143. Late Chalcolithic types from Cevennian cists: a-e, Liquisse;
f-i, Grotte d’en Quisse, Gard; j-o, "dolmens” of Aveyron (f).

metal industry capable of satisfying local demand such as arose in the
Alpine valleys (p. 298), and only elementary techniques of casting are
illustrated by local finds. West European daggers3 were no doubt manu-
factured for the Beaker-folk, and several notched daggers with a mid-
rib on one face only (cast in an open-hearth mould) were found in a

1   Louis, Peyrolle, Arnat, Gallia, V (1947), 235-57.

2   L'Anihr., XXII (1911), 413.

3   Listed by Sandars, Inst. Arch., AR., VI (1950), 44 ff.


curious crematorium near Freyssinel in Lozere.1 Otherwise metal was
used mainly for ornaments. Metal daggers were replaced by bifacially
flaked flint copies—some polished on one face to enhance the similarity,2
Only in the post-Beaker phase, Helena’s Chalcolithic IV, do a few
Bronze Age types appear, and these—daggers, trefoil,3 bulb-head,4 and
racket pins5—are imports from Central Europe or Switzerland, not East
Mediterranean (Fig. 143).

Gold was obtained in Beaker times and used to cover wrist-guards
(like Fig. 113, 4), and for other purposes. Callais was imported at the
same time, but earlier in Catalonia. Amber arrived still later, in Chalco-
lithic III according to Helena, only in Bronze II on Pericot’s6 division.
The sole recognizable Mediterranean import found in any context is a
segmented fayence bead from the sepulchral Grotte du Ruisseau,
Aude.7 To this may be added a Middle Cycladic jug8 (Fig. 41, 3) dredged
up from Marseilles harbour and two contemporary Cypriote daggers
found stray in Provence.9 All three could, with the bead from Almeria,
be accounted for by coastwise traffic with the West as well as by a trans-
peninsular tin-trade with Cornwall. Yet in the first millennium the
Greek and Sicilian manufactures that should mark archseologically that
historic route are sparse enough.10 If the Cycladic jug be accepted as a
counterpart of the Classical vases, it means that the route was open
before 1600 b.c.

Most Chalcolithic pottery is based on older native traditions, but
bell-beakers are of course intrusive; those of Pan-European type are
presumably the oldest, but several local variants grew up.11 With the
latter are associated12 polypod bowls with grooved shoulders (Fig. 144),
inspired by wooden models, but at least indirectly related to British
food-vessels (p. 337) on the one hand, to the Central European and
Sardinian associates of beakers (pp. 224, 258) on the other. Well-made
bell-beakers, decorated by wrapping a cord spirally round the vase13

1   Morel, “Sepultures tumulaires de la Region de Freyssinel”, Bui. Soc. des Lettres,
Sci., Art. du Lozere (1936), 17-23.

2   L'Anthr., LVIII, 7 and 27.

3   Rev. £t. Anc., XIII, 435.

4   Helena, Origines, fig. 64.

B Mat. (1869), 328.

6   Sepulcros megal., 122, 131.

7   Helena, Les Grottes sdpulchrales de Monges (Toulouse, 1925), pi. V, 49; wrongly
termed “stone”; a segmented bone bead from the “dolmen” of Cabut, Gironde, may be
a copy, Bailloud and Mieg, 190.

8   Cuadernos, III, 37-42; Prehistoire, II (1933), 37.

9   Ibid.

10 Ibid.; cf. Hawkes, Ampurias, XIV, 90 ff.

Bailloud and Mieg, 190; BSPF., XLIX (1952), 158; (1953), 60.

12   At La Halliade and other sites in Acquitaine, Fabre, Les civilisations protohistoriques
de VAcquitaine (Paris, 1952); a similar bowl was found in a Hallstatt grave in C6te d’Or.

13   Act. v Mem., XXI (1946), 196; L’Anthr., LVIII, 6.



those of Dullenried grouped in clusters of four or five, was super-
imposed on the ruins of the Michelsberg settlement and thus occupies
the same stratigraphical position as Horgen layers in the Swiss sites. It
too belongs to period Ilia, but the Altheim culture is so closely linked
with the East Alpine that it can best be considered on pages 299 ff.

Upper Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods

Though separated by a “flood layer” from the Middle, the Upper
Neolithic strata on Lake Neuchatel1 exhibit essentially the continued
evolution of the Horgen culture; there are new types of antler sleeve
(Fig. 139, D) and tanged-and-barbed or hollow-based arrow-heads. But
battle-axes indicate that warlike tribes were already reaching the
western lakes. On Lake Zurich2 typical corded ware from the im-
mediate successor of a Horgen village attests already the sway of
Battle-axe warriors.

In the Chalcolithic phase on Lake Neuchatel3 their sway was extended
westwards; for cord-ornamented sherds and fine battle-axes are found
in the Chalcolithic villages. The barrows of the invaders covering
cremation burials were raised in the interior. But in the western lake-
villages the native tradition is presumably illustrated by coarse wares
decorated with finger-printed cordons. This decoration at the same time
recalls that of some pottery in North Spain, South
France, and Liguria. On the Lake of Geneva south-
western connections are more explicitly attested by
polypod bowls,4 like the Pyrenaean vase of Fig. 144.

A surplus, perhaps exacted by Battle-axe chieftains,
was now available to purchase foreign material; rare
objects of metal including flat axes and riveted
daggers, Grand Pressigny flint from Central France,
and, on the Lake of Geneva, winged beads (like Fig.

143, j, n) from the Midi5 occur in the lake-dwellings.

But not till the Late Bronze Age did bronze-smiths,
supplied with raw materials by regular commerce,
establish themselves in the lacustrine villages. Stray UnStidan'pSs^i).
axes and triangular and rhomboid daggers, appro-
priate to periods IV and even V, together with bone copies of Unetician
pins (Fig. 140), have indeed been collected from many “neolithic” (in

1 Antiquity, II, 398; AsA., XXXI, 171.   2 Germania, XVIII, 94.

3   Antiquity, II, 401; VIII, 38; Childe, Danube, 175-6.

4   Altschles., V (1934), I02-

5   Altschles., V., pi. XVIII, 5.


Vouga’s sense Chalcolithic) lake-dwellings.1 But the economy remained
formally neolithic.

The West Alpine Bronze Age

But to prosperous villages on dry land must belong cemeteries of richly
furnished flat graves in the Rhone and Aar valleys.1 2 In them the
deceased, buried contracted, were equipped with flanged axes, triangular
or ogival daggers, ingot torques, and ring-head, trilobate, trefoil,
racket, bulb-headed, or even knot-headed and Bohemian eyelet pins.
All types can be derived from Central European models and disclose the
extension westward of the Danubian traditions of metallurgy. Indeed,
two currents from that quarter can be distinguished3: the one charac-
terized by classical Unetician pins, ingot torques, and axes brought
Bohemian traditions via the Upper Danube and the Aar to the Rhone
valley; the other, distingushed by a preference for ornaments of sheet
metal (Vogt’s “Blechstil”), brought the traditions of Kisapostag and
Straubing through Upper Austria and Bavaria to the Upper Rhine and
to Vallais.

Copper was won from small local lodes to exploit which metal-
lurgists penetrated far into the high Alps. They based their operations
on tiny fortified villages like Mutter-Fellers,4 Crestaulta,5 and Borscht
in Liechtenstein.6 The villagers were primarily farmers who cultivated
wheat and barley and bred cattle, sheep, cows, pigs, and goats, and
perhaps horses,7 and who must have devised a rural economy almost as
well adapted to the Alpine environment as that practised there to-day;
for the villages seem to have been permanently occupied. They included
also metallurgists who smelted the local ores and developed from
Danubian models local types—spatulate axes, bronze hilted daggers of
Rhone type, a variety of handsome engraved ornaments. Such were
exported to Upper Italy and France. In return, amber and glass beads
reached Crestaulta, while a quoit-shaped fayence pendant was acquired
by a resident in the contemporary village of Bleich-Arbon in North-

1   AsAg., IV, 2 if., Viollier in Opuscula archcsologica O. Montelio dicata, 126 ff.;
MAGZ., XXIX, 200.

2   Kraft, AsA., XXIX (1927), 5 ff.

3   Vogt in Tschumi Festschrift (Frauenfeld, 1948), 54-68.

4   ZfsAK., VI (1944), 65 ff.

5   Burkart, Crestaulta (Monographien zur Ur- und Friihgeschichte, V), Basel, 1946;

JSGU. (1947), 42.

6   The Early Bronze Age village succeeded Horgen and Michelsberg settlements, all
stratified; D. Beck in Vols. 47 and 48 of Jahrbuch des historischen Vereins fur das
Fiirstentum Liechtenstein.

7   The bones of 22 bovids, 22 sheep, 22 pigs, 10 goats, and 71 horses were recognized
at Crestaulta.


Eastern Switzerland. Judged by the types produced, this brilliant Swiss
bronze industry flourished mainly in the latter part of period IV and in
period V. But despite their enterprise and originality, the Swiss smiths
seem to have remained content with supplying a local market. Cut off
from the great trade-routes to the Mediterranean, the West Alpine
Early Bronze Age culture did not progress so far towards urbanization
as did the North Italian or Hungarian.

The Eastern Alps

Altheim1 near Landshut, Bavaria, Mondsee2 in Upper Austria, Vucedol3
on the lower Drave in Slavonia, and Ljubljansko Blat (Laibach Moor)4
in Slovenia are patent stations for a series of related cultures extending
along the eastern slopes of the Alps from Goldberg in Wiirttemberg to
Debelo brdo on the Bosna near Serajevo. They are lake-dwellings or
fortified hilltop camps; at Altheim three concentric rings of ditches and
palisades enclosed an area 40 m. in diameter. Their occupants lived
by cultivating cereals which they reaped with crescentic sickles made
from a single flint flake and, on the Austrian lakes, also apples and
beans, by breeding cattle, sheep, pigs, and horses, by hunting and by
fishing—in Upper Austria using double-pronged fish-spears of bone.
Stone was still used for axes which might be mounted with antler
sleeves and sometimes notched at the butt5 and for weapons—knobbed
polygonal battle-axes, spheroid mace-heads, daggers, hollow-based
arrow-heads, and sling bullets.

But copper was generally used, too, both for flat axes and rhomboid
daggers, like Fig. 121, c, and for ornaments. On the Austrian lakes and
Ljubljansko Blat and at Vucedol it was also worked locally; for moulds
have been found in the settlements (one from Ljubljansko Blat would
yield an axe like Fig. 64, 3) as well as grooved hammer-stones. Indeed,
the Austrian lake-villagers, living at the head of navigation on the
Traun,6 were supplementing the products of farming by smelting copper
ores and shipping their winnings down the Danube's tributaries. So,
too, Ljubljansko Blat lies at the head of navigation on the Save and
may have been the precursor of the Roman station of Nauportus for
trade from the Middle Danube basin to the Adriatic. Intercommunal

1   Bayerische Urgeschichtsfreund, IV (Munich, 1924), 13 ff.; Childe, Danube, 125-8.

3   Franz, “Die Funde aus den prahistorischen Pfahlbauten im Mondsee” (Materialien
zuv Urgeschichte Osterreichs, III), Vienna, 1927; Willvonseder, Oberdsterreich in der
Vorzeit, Vienna, 1933, 2°~8 (Attersee); WPZ., XXVI (1939), 135; Pittioni, Urgeschichte.

3   Childe, Danube, 210-12; Schmidt, Vutedol', Patay, "Korai Bronzkori”, 24-8 (“Zok”

4   Childe, Danube, loc. cit.

5   MAGW., LXI, 75-80.   ® Franz, “Mondsee”, 11-12.


specialization is further illustrated by “axe-factories” on the Enns1
and elsewhere.

Everywhere, many of the vases are coarse and decorated only with
cordons though they have flat bases and include handled cups and jugs.
But on the Attersee and Mondsee and in land stations in Salzburg,
vases were decorated with concentric circles incised in stab-and-drag
technique and filled with white paste (Fig. 141).

Fig. 141. Mondsee Pottery (i).

In the Vucedol or Slavonian ware2 of the Lower Drave, the Save,
and the Bosna the same magical motives were combined with excised
patterns that imitate the chip-carving of wooden vessels, and dis-
tinctive shapes, proper to the latter, were reproduced in pottery.
Among these are bowls or lamps on a cruciform foot, like those of the
Starcevo culture, but even closer to the lamps from the Pontic Cata-
comb Graves (pp. 86, 156). But some vases from Ljubljanslco Blat
are provided with tunnel-handles just as in Maltese “Neolithic B”,
in Piano Conte on Lipari, and in Sardinia.

Models of animals were moulded in clay on the Austrian lakes;

1 WPZ., V, 19.   2 Schmidt, Viicedol.


Slavonian ideology1 was expressed in the production also of figures of
human beings fully dressed, of vases in the shape of a bird, and of
models of huts, tables, and perhaps in “horns of consecration”. At
Vucedol itself the dead were buried in loss-cut “cellars”, formally like
the pit-caves of the Mediterranean and the Pontic “catacombs”.

On the Drave, Save, and Bosna, Vucedol ware, being exclusively
associated with the assemblage just summarized, may serve to define
a distinct Slavonian culture. But vases, decorated in the same style
and including cross-footed lamps, have been unearthed at many
points—usually fortified hilltop settlements—in Hungary,2 Austria,3
Slovakia, Moravia, and Bohemia,4 but always associated with relics
proper to some other culture, generally Baden. Still, in a small
cemetery at Caka in Slovakia,5 Slavonian vases alone furnished the
graves, one serving as a cinerary urn. For here the burial rite was

At the Goldberg, the Altheim settlement succeeded an occupation
by Michelsberg folk, and at Vucedol Slavonian pottery was stratified
above Baden wares. Hence the East Alpine neolithic cultures cannot
well begin before period III. On the other hand, though ingot torques
and even metal types of period V have been found in and around the
Austrian lakes, the abundance of well-made polygonal battle-axes
from the lake-villages suggest that their foundation should be put early
in that period. Allied types occur in Slavonian contexts and in the
Rinaldone culture of Italy. The latter should give a partial synchronism
between East Alpine and Italian Chalcolithic.

Now, the symbolic patterns adorning Mondsee pottery are notori-
ously identical with motives popular on Early Cypriote Bronze Age
vases, while the Mondsee daggers are at least East Mediterranean in
form. If, then, Central European metallurgy were initiated by Torque-
bearers from the Levant coasts (p. 134), these patterns may well be
an ideological reflection of the arrival of a few Asiatic prospectors
among a native Baden-Horgen population whose labour they enlisted
in the exploitation of the adjacent copper lades. Analogies to Slavonian
ceramic decoration at Pescale in Upper Italy (p. 246) and to Vucedol
tombs in the Central Italian Rinaldone culture (p. 241) might even, if
less plausibly, be interpreted as indicators of the prospectors’ route,
but even closer analogies in the Pontic Catacomb graves and the cross-

x Schmidt, Vubedol.

2   Patay, “Korai Bronzkori”, 24-8.

2   WPZ., XXVI (1939), 135-47*

4   Novotny, Slov. Arch., Ill (1955), 7-22, lists and maps 15 sites in Bohemia, 3 in
Moravia and 22 in Slovakia.

5   Ibid., 16.


footed lamps therefrom (p. 156)1 might just as well mark a circuitous
route from the Black Sea coasts.

In any case, if a trading-post were early established on the Mondsee
during period III, it declined in importance during period IV. Trade
southward was diverted to the Brenner route.2 Carinthia, Slovenia, and
Slavonia lay outside the system that distributed the metal types of
period IV to Upper Italy and to the Maros valley. The Slavonian
culture presumably lasted through that period, but as none of the
constitutive metal types reached the province, it still looks neolithic.
Even in the Eastern Alps it is not till period VI that the rich graves
of the Hotting umfield culture attest a local prosperity based on
mining for copper and salt and a rural economy adapted to take full
advantage of Alpine conditions. No counterpart of the West Alpine
Early Bronze Age, described in the last section, is discernible in the
Eastern Alps nor in the North-West Balkans.

1   As far as the shape is concerned, both groups could be derived independently from
the Starfievo types of period I, but the decoration of the Slavonian and the Catacomb
lamps is also very similar.

2   The porterage (from the Adige to the Inn) is much shorter on the Brenner route
than on that across the Julian Alps which replaced it when the Romans had built a road
to Nauportus.




late Atlantic and Sub-Boreal times. Similarly the so-called "stacked
platforms" (Packwerkbauten) were not artificial islands floating in
bogs, but houses built on firm peat the floors of which required frequent
renewal owing to subsidence.

The farmers cultivated wheats (Triticum monococcum, dicoccum, and
comfiactum) and barley, and also peas, beans and lentils.1 Plums and
apples were at least gathered; apples were eventually cultivated by the
Lake-dwellers, though not certainly in the Cortaillod phase, and a sort
of cider brewed from them. Homed cattle (Bos brachyceros) were bred
together with minor herds of pigs and small flocks of sheep and goats.1 2
Cattle were tethered and fed on leaves during the winters.3 A neolithic
(? Cortaillod) yoke4 survives, and Vouga con-
siders some stone implements to have been
used as ploughshares, but more probably the
land was tilled only with antler hoes.5 Game
contributed much less to the community's
diet than domestic stock. But the huntsman
used arrows tipped with double-ended bone
points (Fig. 135), or more rarely with trans-
verse or triangular flint heads. Fish were
caught in traps, in nets weighted with grooved
stones and suspended from birch-bark floats,
and were also speared with antler "harpoons"

(Fig. 135).

Wood-work was done with stone axes and
rare adzes made from suitably shaped pebbles
or sawn-out blocks of fine-grained rock. They

were mounted directly in straight shafts or in tapering antler sleeves
(Fig. 139 A) which were fitted into straight wooden shafts. Antler
axes and picks with square-cut shaft hole were also employed.

A local flax was cultivated for its seeds and for its fibres, which were
woven into linen, but the spinner did without whorls. Skins were
doubtless largely worn; bundles of bone spines, like the antler combs
of Michelsberg and Windmill Hill, could have served for leather-
dressing. Baskets were plaited with great skill.

Fig. 135.

Antler harpoon (£) and bone
arrow-head (1). Switzerland.

1   Urgeschichte der Schweiz, 597; cf. Beck, Rytz, Steklen, and Tschumi, ‘‘Der neol.
Pfahlbau Thun”, Mitt, naturforschenden Gesellschaft (Bern, 1930).

2   The proportions are: oxen 39 per cent, swine 21 per cent, sheep and goats each
18* 5 per cent of food animals; game only 30 per cent of total animal bones; Vouga,
op. cit. Bones of wild horse are reported from Port; Tschumi, Die ur- und friihgeschicht-
liche Fundstelle von Port, im Amt Nidau (Biel, 1940), 73.

3   Troels-Smith, Pfahlbauproblem, 49-52; Guyan, ib., 262.

4   Ischer, Pfahlbauten des Bielersees (Biel, 1928), 43, pi. VII.

6 Such actually survive with wooden handles: von Gonzenbach, Cortaillodkultur, 51.
T   289

Early Cortaillod pots are of simple leathery forms without handles
save for lugs, which may be perforated with several vertical holes
(Fig. 136). In the Late phase much more sophisticated forms were
produced and vases were often decorated1 with strips of birch bark,

Fig. 136. Cortaillod pottery. After Antiquity (£).

stuck on with birch-pitch to form patterns, including the magic con-
centric circles popular at Conguel and Beacharra (pp. 317, 326), or
just with paired nipples simulating human breasts.

In Late Cortaillod sites appear some vases of Rossen style or at
least influenced by Rossen and others of Michelsberg affinities. And on
all Cortaillod sites flint instruments were made exclusively of a trans-
lucent yellow flint, strange to the Neuchatel basin but of unknown
provenance. Otherwise Cortaillod sites have yielded no conclusive
evidence for trade.

Combs for the hair were made of wood. As ornaments were worn
beads of steatite, wood, and bored teeth, cranian amulets (p. 311),
pendants made from segmented tines, from perforated phalanges of
hares, boars’ tusks, perforated at both ends, and wooden models of

No cemeteries attached to the lake-side villages have been found,
but some human bones, broken to extract the marrow, turned up in
the villages—as if the peasants had practised cannibalism'—while two
measurable skulls proved to be dolichocranial. On the other hand,
Sauter2 has argued that cist graves of the Chamblandes type belonged
to Cortaillod people. Cemeteries of such graves,8 containing single
contracted skeletons or a male and female together, extend from the
vicinity of Basel in the Aar valley to the Upper Rhone and thence
beyond the Great St. Bernard along the Aosta valley into Upper Italy.
The grave goods—unpolished flint axes, a triangular axe hammer,
hollow-based arrow-heads, coral and Mediterranean shells, a copper

1   von Gonzenbach, 25; Vogt, PPS., XV (1949), 50-2.

2   Sibrium, II (1955), 133-8.

8 Tschumi, "Die steinzeitliche Hockergraber der Schweiz, AsA., XXII-XXIII
(1920-21); Altschles., V, 96 ff.


disc, a cranian amulet, and a V-perforated button—are certainly very
poor, but look late. The “Chamblandes culture” has therefore generally
been assigned to Swiss Middle or Late Neolithic. But its distribution
agrees very closely with that of the Cortaillod culture, and the grave-
type is identical with that characteristic of the Middle Neolithic levels
of Arene Candide.

Chronologically the Cortaillod culture, at least in its Late phase,
can be conclusively equated with the Rossen culture, again mainly
with its later manifestations,1 thus giving a partial synchronism between
Swiss Lower Neolithic and Danubian II. A knobbed battle-axe, how-
ever, from the Late Cortaillod layer at Seematte,2 must mean that
Swiss Lower Neolithic lasts into Danubian III and Northern E.N.c.
A radio-carbon estimate for the pre-Rossen Cortaillod of Egolzwil 33 put
the oldest tangible phase of Lower Neolithic at 2740^90 b.c.—a figure
that would be perfectly reasonable for Danubian II too, but only on a
“long” chronology.

In the Cortaillod culture such elements as mounting celts with
antler sleeves, antler harpoons, microlithic arrow-heads, can econ-
omically be derived from the mesolithic heritage. Of the constituents
that make it neolithic, one-corn wheat must be Danubian. But it could
have been introduced by the Rossen colonists (pp. 117-18), for it is
not yet attested before their influence becomes perceptible, and no
distinctively Danubian artifacts, necessarily older than Rossen, have
yet been found in the West Alpine area. So it still seems most likely that
the primary impulse—i.e. the cereals and domestic stock together with
a tradition of leathery vessels, cranian amulets, hares’ phalange pend-
ants—that engendered the pre-lake village cultivations and the pre-
Rossen Cortaillod culture of Egolzwill4 came up the Rhone despite the
ambiguity of the analogies in South France.

The Michelsberg Culture

North of the Cortaillod province, in lake-side villages on the Lake of
Constance, in moor villages in northern Switzerland and Wurttemberg,
in hilltop camps in South-West Germany, and at the flint-mines of
Spiennes in Belgium, the place of Cortaillod is taken by a quite different
culture—named after the hilltop camp at Michelsberg5 in Baden.

1   von Gonzenbach, 68-76; Kimmig, Bad. Fb. (1948-50), 58-64.

2   von Gonzenbach, 47; Vogt, Ada Arch., XXIV (1953), 180, Abb. 2, 2.

3   Das Pfahlbauproblem, 113.

4   The culture of this (Vogt, Ztschr.f. schweiz. AUertum. u. Kunst, XII (1951), 205-15)
and other villages in Middle Switzerland diverges from that familiar on Lake Neuch&tel;
it might be Cortaillod still quite uninfluenced by Rossen (von Gonzenbach, op. cit., 21).

6 Buttler, Donaulandische, 79-91; Baer, A., Die Michelsberger Kultur in der Schweiz,
(.Monographic zur Ur- und Friihgeschichte, Bile.)


The moor villages may comprise up to 24 houses grouped along regular
corduroyed streets.1 In land settlements as many as 75 houses have been
recorded, but, since a hut might be pulled down at its owner's death,
they cannot all be regarded as contemporary. The houses themselves
were again rectangular, varying in size from 6 by 3*6 m. to 5-3 by 3*2 m.
or less, but normally divided into two rooms with a hearth in the inner
and an oven in the outer (like Fig. 137). The dry land stations in

Germany were generally defended by flat-bottomed ditches and
palisades; the ditches of many camps are interrupted by frequent
causeways as in England.

The rural economy seems very similar to that of the Cortaillod and
First Northern A cultures. But there are some hints of more pastoral
clans separating out from the mass of Michelsberg villagers and pre-
sumably allowing their stock to graze freely. The principal crop in
Wiirtteniberg2 was barley, but wheats (T. monococcum, dicoccum, spelta,
and compactum) too were grown, and apples, strawberries, and other
fruits collected. Flour was not, according to Guyan,3 converted into

1   See also R. R. Schmidt, Jungsteinzeitliche Siedelungen in Federseemoor, Tubingen,
1930 ff.; Paret, Das Steinzeitdorf Ehrenstein bei Ulm (Stuttgart, 1955).

8 Paret, op. cit., 60.   3 Pfahlbauproblem, 269.



Fig. 137. Plan of a house at Aichbiihl (TJT)


bread, but eaten as a sort of gruel, but the ovens, so conspicuous in
most villages, must surely have served for baldng bread. Guyan1
believes that the villagers practised shifting cultivation, deserting their
homes at intervals but returning to the same site as soon as the scrub
had grown up again on their old clearings. The villages were certainly
occupied over considerable periods, during which the house floors at
least had to be renewed more than once—at Ehrenstein near Ulm as
many as thirteen times.2 The evidence here suggests not reoccupation
but continuous habitation on the same site for fourteen years or
probably longer. Finally, hunting played a far more prominent role in
the Michelsberg subsistence economy than it did in that of the Cortaillod
farmers; bones of game animals, including horses,8 form a relatively
high proportion in the food refuse.

Secondary industry and trade played a recognizable part in the
Michelsberg economy. Thus at Spiennes in Belgium4 lived a com-
munity of specialized flint-miners skilled at sinking shafts and digging
out subterranean galleries. Indeed, the Michelsberg settlers there con-
stituted a specialized industrial community, supplementing their liveli-
hood by exporting the products of their mines and workshops—and
Spiennes was no isolated phenomenon within the Western complex. It
implies also the development of hunting expeditions and transhumance
into something like regular commerce. Hoards of Western axes in
Southern Germany may belong to Michelsberg traders. As a result of
such trade some communities, like that at Weiher near Thayngen,
eventually obtained copper axes and amber beads.

But on the whole Michelsberg equipment is typically neolithic and
agrees generally with that of Cortaillod; axes were preferred to adzes
and often mounted in antler sleeves. The pots are generally plain and
many could be called leathery in shape. But many have flat bases and
jugs have genuine handles. Supposedly distinctive forms are “tulip
beakers” (Fig. 138, 1, 12, 14) and flat round plates, reputedly used for
baking cakes, which, however, recur in a First Northern context
(Fig. 91). A few contemporary sites in Wurttemberg have yielded vases
of more or less Michelsberg shapes but decorated with fine incised
patterns reminiscent of Chassey (p. 303). These represent the "Schus-
senried” style, but do not suffice to define a distinct culture.5 For
leather-dressing, bunched antler combs were employed at Spiennes as
in Southern England.

The dead were normally buried, contracted or extended, within the

1 Ibid., 261.   2 Paret, op. cit., 20.

3   Ibid., 66.

4   Loe, La Belgique ancienne, I, 190 ff.; and Marien, Oud-Belgie, 59-79.

5   Kimmig, JSGU., XL (1950), 150, regards it as a Michelsberg-Rossen hybrid.


confines of the settlements, but small cemeteries comprising up to seven
graves have been recorded. On the other hand, at Ottenbourg and
Boitsfort in Belgium1 cremations have been reported under long mounds,

but the latter may be the ramparts of fortified villages rather than
barrows. The skulls examined proved to be dolichocranial to mesati-
cranial, none brachycranial.

In Switzerland, Michelsberg2 is partly parallel to Cortaillod, and both

1   Loe, La Belgique ancienne, 235, 241; Marien, Oud-Belgie, 55-83; L’Anihr., LVII, 4x0.

2   von Gonzenbach, 35, 76; Vogt, CISPP. (Zurich); Acta Arch., XXIV, 185.


overlap locally with Rossen. But farther east on the Goldberg in
Wurttemberg1 the Michelsberg settlement succeeded the fortified
Rossen village. Thus in the Danubian sequence Michelsberg could not
be placed before the final phase of period II. Its persistence well into
period III can be deduced from polygonal battle-axes and even copper
celts from Michelsberg settlements.2 Indeed, Baden influence has been
recognized in the pottery from some eastern sites.3

The main concentration of Michelsberg settlements lies on the
Neckar and the Middle Rhine.4 There are outposts on the Saale, in
Bohemia, and near Salzburg. Settlements in Belgium and in the Aar
valley likewise look peripheral. This distribution might well prompt
doubts as to the Western origin traditionally attributed to our culture.
Indeed, Vogt has argued that the Michelsberg culture is just a south-
western extension of the First Northern culture of (Northern) Early
Neolithic times (p. 191). The Michelsberg rural economy is in fact
strikingly like that of the A group of First Northern as described by
Troels-Smith, and the ceramic agreements are even closer than Vogt
imagined. All might perhaps be explained more simply by positing an
acculturation of Forest hunter-fishers in Western Germany by im-
migrant Danubian peasants, parallel to that assumed farther east to
account for the First Northern itself. But if the latter originated
farther south-east, Vogt's account would seem the most probable, at
least until a primary Western Neolithic immigration be better

The Middle Neolithic Horgen Culture

On Lake Neuchatel, after a flood which overwhelmed the Early
Neolithic stations, many sites were reoccupied and new ones founded
by people of a quite different culture5—the Horgen culture. It is re-
cognizable too above a Michelsberg settlement at Greifensee, on many
lakes and probably also in land stations.6 Economically the Middle
Neolithic witnesses a cultural regression. On Lake Neuchatel agri-
cultural equipment is poorer (no more "plough-shares"); hunting con-
tributes more to the meat supply than stock-breeding, the percentage
of bones of game as against those of domestic beasts rising from 30 to
45 per cent; local flint replaces the imported material. But triangular
perforated axes now reach the Rhone valley, copper double-axes were

1   Germania, XX (1936), 230.

2   E.g. JSGU. (1944). 32.

3   Germania, XXXIII (1955), 166-9.

4   JSGU., XL, 149.

5   Childe, Danube, 171-3; Vouga, AsA., XXXI (1929). 167-70; Vogt, ib., XL, 1938, 1-14.

6   Germania, XVIII, 92-4; AsA., XL, 2-4.


copied in stone and unbored Western celts were mounted as axes in
perforated or heeled antler sleeves and as adzes in socketed ones
(Fig. 139, B). Continued inter-communal specialization is illustrated by
an axe-factory at Mumpf, Aargau. The pottery is coarse, badly baked,
and ornamented only with raised cordons (what used to be regarded as

Fig. 139. Types of antler sleeves for axes: A-B, Lower; C, first in Middle;
D, first in Upper Neolithic; Lake Neuchatel (£).

early because crude), but the vases have flat and even splayed bases
(cf. Fig. 146). Spindle-whorls of stone, however, came into use.

Even architecture declines; while some Horgen houses from the Lake
of Constance are long rectangles, as at Aichbuhl, the occupants of other
sites, like Dullenried, were content with small rectangular houses with
a peaked roof, more suited to pastoral nomads than sedentary

Such a reversion to hunting and pastoralism was formerly attributed
to adversities overtaking the West Alpine farmers. Really it reflects the
advent of fresh settlers with stronger mesolithic traditions. Judged by
its pottery, its perforated antler sleeves, its arc pendants, and other
artifacts, the Horgen culture is only an aspect of that which we shall
meet (p. 3x2) in the collective tombs of the Seine-Oise-Marne basins.2
Moreover, even gallery graves of the Paris type were built near Lake
Neuchatel and on the Upper Rhine, while five megalithic cists are
known in the area.

The Altheim culture of the Upper Danube basin may be regarded as
an eastern extension of the Horgen culture. On the Goldberg3 in
Wiirttemberg the Altheim village, consisting of one-roomed huts like

1 Germania, XXI, 155-8; Buttler, Donauldndische, 76.   2 AsA., XL, 2-14.

3 Germania, XXI (1937), I49> cf. von Gonzenbach, Cortaillodhultur, 76.




larly striking. It is accentuated by the cemetery of rock-cut tombs near
Antequera that seem to bear the same relation to the tholos as chamber
tombs do to Mycenaean tholoi. But perhaps the similarity in plan is
deceptive; in Greece the passage was unroofed, where in Iberia it was
always covered. In any case it is no longer plausible to derive from the
Mycenaean the Iberian tholoi any more than to make the latter the
models for the Portuguese passage graves. Indeed, it is now just as
plausible to derive the Mycenaean tholoi from the Peninsula (p. 80.)
Hence its East Mediterranean relations provide no indisputable limiting
dates for the Early Hispanic Copper Age.

Whether as a consequence of East Mediterranean colonization or
no, during the Copper Age the several societies inhabiting the Peninsula,
while asserting their autonomy in divergent ceramic styles, fashions in
amulets, and preferences for arrow-heads, had achieved a considerable
degree of uniformity in stone and metal tools and weapons, in costume
and personal ornaments and from one coast to the other. To this cultural
uniformity no political union need have corresponded. Only in Andalusia
and perhaps Algarve do a few monumental tombs look like princely
sepulchres rather than communal ossuaries or family vaults.

The exotic materials—turquoise, amber, jet, callais—and foreign
types, like tortoise beads, from Copper Age tombs illustrate wide
commercial relations, particularly with the North-west. The counter-
balancing exports—at least before the Beaker expansions—seem to
have been of a less substantial character—elements of a cult. The
passage graves of Brittany are so closely related to the Portuguese in
architecture and furniture as to suggest direct maritime intercourse
foreshadowing that of the Tartessians in the eighth century.1 The
Northern passage graves should result from a further extension of such
relations that might account for the amber at Los Millares. The symbol-
ism and the technique of ceramic decoration in Brittany and Scotland
point in the same direction, while the magic patterns on Irish bronzes2
are inspired by the hieratic art of Palmella. In the sequel, of course, the
Beaker-folk, presuming they did set out from Spain, played a decisive
role in initiating a Bronze Age in Central Europe and Upper Italy. The
main contribution of the Peninsula to Atlantic and North-Western
Europe was, however, surely "the Megalithic Religion”. With Hawkes3
we might imagine the megalith-builders sailing from the Portuguese
coasts, like the Conquistadores, to conquer for that faith a New World.

1   As described in the late Latin poem, Ora Maritima, by Avienus; cf. Hawkes in
Ampurias, XIV (1952), 81-95.

2   MacWhite, Estudios sobre las reladones atldnticas de la peninsula hispdnica (Disserta-
Hones Matritenses, II, Madrid, 1951).

3   The Prehistoric Foundations of Europe (London, 1940), 159.


Or perhaps the saints of the Celtic Church would provide a better
analogy; some actually followed routes marked out by megalithic tombs
while our megalith-builders have left no superior copper weapons to
correspond to the fire-arms with which the Conquistadores vindicated
the authority of the cross.

The great creative moment was transient. As in the seventeenth
century, after the great expansion, Peninsular culture stagnated and—
compared to Britain and Central Europe—declined. Even in Copper
Age II decline is perceptible. According to Leisner the later tombs at
Los Millares contain a poorer and less varied furniture than the earlier
ones. In the succeeding Bronze Age (Bronze II), though tin was now
obtainable and alloyed with copper and methods of casting were
improved, Hispanic culture seems less progressive and its domain

The Bronze Age

In Eastern Spain the Copper Age culture of Los Millares develops into,
or is succeeded by, a no less well-defined semi-urban culture of Bronze
Age type, named after the type station at El Argar.1 Its authors con-
tinued to live in hilltop townships, or citadels, more solidly fortified than
before. There might even be galleries in the walls. The houses are agglo-
merations of rectangular rooms with stone foundations, but the total
areas are small—the acropolis of El Officio covered 2\ acres. The dead
were no longer buried in collective tombs but individually in cists or
jars among the houses; the 780 graves actually identified at El Argar
give some indication as to how large the population must have become
or how long the Argaric Bronze Age lasted. Metal was mined and worked
locally on a larger scale than in the Copper Age and was effectively dis-
tributed throughout the province. Long-distance trade, on the contrary,
languished; it brought only a few beads of callais and segmented beads
of Egyptian fayence like those from Perjamos graves. Tin was scarce,
and the smith had generally to be content with copper or poor bronze.
But he could turn out flat axes with splayed blades or even with
hammered flanges, awls, saws, round-heeled daggers that might be
elongated into swords up to 70 cm. long (Fig. 134) and specialized
halberds which seem to be local translations of Copper Age flint forms.1 2
Silver was sometimes used for rivets. Whetstones perforated at both
ends were in regular use. Yet polished stone axes are quite plentiful on
all Argaric settlements.

1   Siret, Les premiers dges is the principal source.

2   Arch., LXXXVI (1936), 288, 298.


Round-bottomed and carinated pots might seem to carry on some
Copper Age traditions (Fig. 134), but technically the fabric—red, black,


o /?..*» «>4.v *•:nuvs .   • ~w''i '?,   %   y

v.'irl   1 " ?   1 ' Hh i« ?! "

Fig. 134. Argaric burial-jar showing diadem (^); funerary vases (J); halberd and
dagger-blades (£); sword (£). By permission of Trustees of British Museum.

or mottled—is surprisingly like Anatolian Bronze Age pottery and its
Danubian IV analogues. The carinated shapes, too, but for the absence
of handles, would fit well into the Unetician repertory; indeed, one mug


from a typical cemetery near Orihuela is actually provided with a

Ornaments included diadems of silver (Fig. 134, top), beads, rings,
and simple bracelets of gold, silver, or copper, perforated boars’ tusks
carrying tiny rings of copper wire, shells, fish-vertebrae, and various
beads (none of amber). Rare burials with diadems (Fig. 134) must
belong to chiefs or nobles, burials of males and females together
should be instances of sati. A class division of society and a patriarchal
organization are thus attested. Concurrently the cult of a mother
goddess, in so far as it inspired the production of female figurines, was
given up. Indeed, apart from an “altar” surmounted by “horns of
consecration” at Campos, ritual objects are no longer conspicuous.
In the mixed population, round-heads were mingled with a majority of

The Argaric culture might be regarded as a continuation of the old
Almerian stripped of foreign elements after appropriating the technical
advances introduced therewith.3 The Almerians, having emancipated
themselves from the megalithic superstition, went on to develop the
metallurgy introduced therewith on original native lines. Yet the novel
burial practices, as strange to El Garcel as to Los Millares, but tradi-
tional in Central Anatolia and adopted in Middle Helladic Greece,
suggest that this emancipation was not effected without help from the
East Mediterranean. Indeed, there is better evidence for an East
Mediterranean colonization of Almeria at the beginning of the Bronze
Age than in the Copper Age. Agreements in burial practices are more
specific. The typical Argaric chalices are just ZBgean kylikes of wood*
or metal translated into the local pottery as they were into Minyan or
painted Mycenasan ware in Greece. The fayence beads are actual Aegean
imports. On the other hand, some would derive the innovations of the
Argaric culture from Upper Italy. Italian prehistorians, however, prefer to
regard the halberd-brandishers there as immigrants from the Peninsula.

The segmented fayence beads from Fuente Alamo in any case prove
that the Argaric culture was flourishing at latest by 1400 b.c. If due to
/Egean colonists, it could not have started much before 1500, since
even the Minyan kylikes are Late Helladic (p. 75). How long it lasted
is still more uncertain. There are no connected remains outside the
Argaric citadels and graves till the Iron Age began after 1000 b.c.,
so that Almeria is in much the same plight as Sardinia. Outside that
province the position is still worse.

1   Institut d’Estudis Valencians: Servei d’Investigacio Prehistorica, No. 5 (1928),
Colleccid de Treballs del P. J. Fergus, IV, lam. I, 2.

2   Coon, Races, 151, insists on contrast with "Copper Age" population.

3   So Bosch-Gimpera, Archivo Espanol de Arqueologia (1954), 4&-


Typical Argaric cemeteries, well provided with metal tools, as far
north as Alicante and Valencia1 illustrate the effective extension of the
Almerian economic system. But in the province of Alicante itself in
the Alcoy district on the hilltop citadels of Mola alta de Serelles2 and
Mas de Menente3 axes of Argaris type were cast, or Argaric riveted
daggers used, but the round-bottomed bowls and globular jars pre-
serve purer traditions of the Almerian culture in contrast to the sharper
profiles of Argaric pottery, while polished stone axes were still regularly

Westward in Granada some megalithic tombs in the cemeteries of
Gor, Gorafe, and Los Eriales contain Argaric bronzes, ornaments, and
pots. So at Alcaide near Antequera,4 rock-cut tombs, reproducing
exactly the plan of the built tholos, contain relics of Argaric type.
Otherwise there is nothing in South Spain till the Iron Age. In Portugal
cemeteries of cist graves containing (? Argaric) carinated pottery are
rare and mainly concentrated in Algarve.5 Sometimes the capstones of
the short cists are carved with representations of developed metal
axes.6 Apart from cist graves, only the megalithic passage graves and
natural cave sepulchres are available to fill the gap in the funerary
record between the Copper and Late Bronze Ages; carinated and even
handled pots from such might well be “Bronze Age”. On the other hand,
bronzes of highly specialized type, especially two-eared palstaves,7
show that there arose in North Portugal and. Galicia during the Late
Bronze Age an important centre of metallurgy the products of which
were exported to Britain in a revival of the old trade that had been
reflected in the ear-rings of Irish form from Ermageira and lunulse
from Galicia.8

With this revival the Peninsula’s Atlantic coast or at least its stan-
niferous northern part at length became again a creative centre of
metallurgy and trade, of which Avienus’ verses have preserved a
memory.9 Yet this Late (Atlantic) Bronze Age began only after 1000 b.c.
No Middle Bronze Age is defined by typological landmarks. Into this
vacuum the poor Early Bronze Age cists and even some Copper Age
collective tombs might easily slide! Between 1550 and 1400 b.c.
indirect commerce between Britain and Mycenaean Greece by some

1   Bol. R. Acad. Hist., LIV, 357; APL., II, 151-63.

2   JSEA., Mem. 94 (1927).

3   A.P.L., I, 101-12.

* Gimenez Reyna, “Mem. Arqueol. de Malaga”, Informes y Mems., 12 (Comisario
gen. de Excavaciones, Madrid, 1946), 49 ff.

s Archivo Espatlol de Arq., XXII (1949), 310.

6   OAP., XI (1906), 108; Act. y Mem., XXII (1947), 158.

7   Savory, ‘‘TheAtlantic Bronze Age”, PPS., XV (1949), 128 ff.

8   Cf. Mac White, Estudios, 48-64.

9   Hawkes, Ampurias, XIV, 81 ff.


western route is positively attested. Were Alcala—and Los Millares—
points on that route? An affirmative answer seems quite plausible1 and
the extra-short chronology for the Hispanic Copper Age cannot be
refuted just by the vague parallels in the third millennium we have
cited. But then the Peninsula’s claim to cradle the Beaker-folk would
become precarious unless the chronology for Temperate Europe be
similarly telescoped!

1   Piggott, Revista Guimaraes, LVII (1948), xo ff. Sir Lindsay Scott (PSAS., LXXXII
(1950), 44) has pointed out the close resemblances between British Middle Bronze Age
“incense cups” and stone and pottery vases from Los Millares and cognate Copper
Age sites.



The diversified region north of the Pyrenees and west of the Rhine
and the high Alps, which had been steppe and parkland during the
Ice Age, in the subsequent forest period still supported Azilian de-
scendants of the Magdalenian reindeer-hunters and salmon-fishers, of
Tardenoisian immigrants from Africa, and of Forest-folk who spread
southward. These autochthonous food-gatherers were converted
gradually to a food-producing economy by the spread of an exotic
neolithic culture, and, multiplying in response to the new opportun-
ities of livelihood, accelerated its expansion. This conversion itself
might indeed have taken place in Provence and round the Pyrenees,
where the Cardial herdsmen, as shown in Chapter XV, had implanted
their neolithic culture and economy. It is, however, generally attributed
to a second wave of immigrants who would have introduced a Western
Neolithic culture and spread it thence to more temperate regions,
indeed to the Alps and the Channel. Even on the latter view the
primary Western farmers admittedly mixed with native food-gatherers
and, in adapting their rural economy to the novel environment, took
advantage of their experience and equipment. Moreover, in South
France the postulated Western immigrants have left only ambiguous
traces of their passage, and the Western culture they should have
brought with them is largely an inference from the “Western” cultures
of Lombardy, Western Switzerland, Central and North France, and
Southern England.

No doubt in a number of South French caves Cardial ware is replaced
in higher strata by plain leathery pots that can be more or less exactly
matched on the one hand in the Lagozza, Cortaillod, Chassey, and
Windmill Hill cultures,1 on the other in the Almeria culture and its
Portuguese counterpart (p. 269), while similar pots occur in the basal
levels of caves outside the narrow zone colonized by Cardial herdsmen.
It is less clear whether other distinctive traits occur so early in South
France or, if they do, whether they be distinctive of the Western
Neolithic. Leaf-shaped arrow-heads are thus found2 and are distinctive
of the earliest Neolithic in Britain, but not of Lagozza or Cortaillod.

1   J. Hawkes, Antiquity, VIII, 26-40; Piggott, L’Anthr., LVII (1953), 413-42.

2   Piggott, loc. cit., 426; Bailloud and Mieg, 100.


Antler sleeves for celts so distinctive of Cortaillod occur early in Aude
and Ariege,1 but are missing from the deepest levels in Gard as from
Lagozza and Windmill Hill. Hares’ phalange pendants again occur2
in Gard as in South Spain and in Cortaillod and in the Lower to Middle
Neolithic of Liguria. Hence the South French caves have yielded some
material, stratified below Beaker layers, which could be treated as
intermediate between the Almeria culture on the one hand, the Ligurian
Middle Neolithic and the Alpine Cortaillod cultures on the other. In
the last-named assemblage we have the fullest picture of the Western,
indeed of any, neolithic culture available in Europe.

The Early Neolithic Phase on the West Alpine Lakes

The Swiss lakes have provided not only an unique picture of neolithic
equipment and economy, owing to the preservation by the waters of
organic materials, but also the clearest record of cultural development
in Western Europe, thanks firstly to the stratigraphical excavations
on Lake Neuchatel, initiated by Paul Vouga in 1919, and to the subse-
quent observations of E. Vogt3 and others which have clarified and
extended Vouga’s sequence. The names Cortaillod-Michelsberg, Horgen,
and Corded Ware denote three culture periods that follow one another
in that order on all the Alpine lakes and bogs. But the earliest neolithic
colonization of the area is not represented by lacustrine habitations at
all, but is known exclusively from cereal pollen blown into some peat
mosses from cultivated fields adjacent to unidentified settlements on
what is still dry land.4

So the oldest “lake-dwellings” in Western Switzerland were erected
by farmers who arrived with a complete neolithic equipment, con-
stituting what is termed the Cortaillod culture—now divisible into an
Early and a Late phase.5 But the majority of Swiss prehistorians by
19566 have become convinced that “lake-dwellings” were not raised
on piles above the waters but erected on solid, if rather moist, ground,
strung out along the shore between the reed belt and the strand scrub,
which had then been left dry owing to the contraction of the lakes in

1   Riv. Sc. Pr., VI (1951), 130-7; Helena, Les Origines de Narbonne (Paris-Toulouse,

2   Vogt, CIPPS. (Zurich, 1950), 33; Piggott, loc. cit. 430.

3   Germania, XVIII (1934), 91 ff.

4   Welten, in Das Pfahlbauproblem (Monographien zur Ur- und Friihgeschichte der
Schweiz, XI), (Basel, 1955), 78.

6 Vouga, “Le N6olithique lacustre ancien", (Universite de Neuchatel, Recueil de
Travaux, Faculte de Lettres, 1934); Antiquity, II (1928), 388-92; von Gonzeobach, Die
Cortaillodkultur in der Schweiz (Monographien zur Ur- und Friihgeschichte, 1949).

G Vogt, Guyan, Welten in Das Pfahlbauproblem', butTschumi, Urgeschichte der Schweiz
(1948) adhered to the classical theory of pile-dwellings formulated by Keller in 1854.




cairns supported by a built retaining-wall on to which straight or
curved walls may be built to frame a forecourt. Wooden pillars are said
to have supported the roofs. A few of the earlier tombs at Los Millares
are rectangular or trapezoid megalithic cists from 2 to 5 m. long, pre-
ceded by a short entrance passage. Ritual objects include owl-eyed
female figurines made by painting bovine phalanges (Fig. 131, 1), or
stone and ivory cylinders, plain plaques of schist (Los Millares), and
flat stone figures without faces like Fig. 8, 13, and, at Almizaraque,
bone models of sandals. Axe-amulets were worn as charms at Los
Millares and elsewhere.

The urbanization of Almerian economy seen at Los Millares and
Almizaraque is presumably a reflection, however indirect, of Oriental
cities' demands for metal. But the townships thus created, themselves
constituted local secondary centres of demand and radiated their
influence right across the Peninsula. Westward, parallel or colonial
settlements sprang up all across Andalusia to the coasts of Portugal
along the natural route, followed by the modern railways from Almeria
to Algarve, and principally at focal-points (now junctions) thereon or
in metalliferous districts.

On the plateau of Granada1 are several large cemeteries of collective
tombs round Guadix, Gor, and Gorafe, composed partly of tholoi,
more often of cists of the Almerian form and frequently entered through
porthole slabs. The tombs contain typical Almerian products—oculi
vases, flat stone idols, phalange idols, ribbed cylinder-headed pins—
as well as a few Beakers. Yet other tombs of the same form in these
cemeteries contain pottery and bronzes characteristic of the succeeding
Argaric Bronze Age. Farther west at Antequera2 and in the ancient
Betica,8 the route is marked by superbly built tholos tombs. But near
the princely tholos of Romeral at Antequera is a small cemetery of
rock-cut tombs4 that reproduce in miniature the plan of the tholos
but contained mainly Argaric bronzes. On the other hand, stroke-
burnished ware from villages near Jerez and Carmona5 points to fresh
impulses direct from the East Mediterranean. But at Campo Reale
near Carmona, Bonsor6 found burials in "silos”—really chamber
tombs—accompanied by polished stone axes, plain pottery, and a
little painted ware akin to the Almerian and the characteristic clay arcs.

1   Leisner, Megalithgraber, 84-168.

2   Ibid., 174-85.

3   Ibid., 194-213.

4   S. Gimenez Reyna, "Mem. arqueol. de Prov. Malaga hasta 1946”, Informes y
Memorias (Madrid, Junta para Excavaciones, 1946).

fi Acta Arqueol. Hispanica, III (1945), 37; Bonsor, "Les Colonies agricoles pr6-
roinaines de la vall6e du Bdtis," Rev. Arch., XXXV (1899), in.

6   Op. cit., 36-9, 105-10, fig. 41-2.


Then, in Algarve, a metalliferous region where the rocks are suited
to dry-stone masonry, a cemetery of seven tholoi at Alcala1 marks the
site of a smaller Los Millares. The tombs contained flat adzes, notched
daggers with midribs on one or both faces (Fig. 132), awls and saws
of copper, superbly worked hollow-based arrow-heads of flint (Fig.
129, 1), undecorated vases of Almerian type, a marble paint-pot, a
clay arc, hammer beads, and beads of amber, callai's, and jet, but not
Beaker ware nor West European daggers. Corbelled tombs extend along


Fig. 132. Copper daggers and adze, Alcala, and bone pin, Cabe9o da
Ministra (-&).

the Portuguese coasts as far north as Torres Vedras (Pena and Barro
with semicircular forecourt).1 2 Tombs at Monge and San Martinho,
Cintra,3 excavated in the rock but roofed by corbelling, illustrate the
transition from the built tholos to the rock-cut tomb.

Tombs of the latter class, agreeing in plan with the tholoi and, like
them, sometimes preceded by an antechamber, a curved forecourt or
a long entrance passage divided by rock-cut versions of the porthole
slab form regular cemeteries at Palmella,4 Alapraia,5 Estoril, and

1   Estacio de Veiga, Aniiguidades monumentaes do Algarve (Lisbon, 1886-91).

2   Pena (OAP., XIV, 354), and Barro, with semicircular forecourt; V. Correia, CIPP.,
Mem. 27 (1931), 72, relics at Belem.

3   Cartailhac, op. cit.; OAP., II, 211.   4 OAP., XII (1907), 210, 320.

6 Afonso do Pafo, “As Grutas de Alapraia”, Broteria, XXI (Lisbon, 1935); Anais

IV (Lisbon, 1941).


other sites round the Tagus estuary.1 From their situation at the
river mouth and from the tomb furniture these cemeteries of the
Palmella culture might belong to maritime colonists from the East
Mediterranean like Almizaraque and Los Millares, with which they are
in fact largely contemporary.

But in the hinterland, including the stanniferous plateaux of Northern
Portugal, are cemeteries of four or five megalithic passage graves
{antas) under round cairns which embody an older tradition of sepulchral
architecture and should belong to a native population of neolithic
ancestry (p. 269)—the builders of the unpublished “dolmens”. Nearly
all antas had been pillaged in the seventeenth century. The surviving
furniture from most includes beakers and typical relics of the Palmella
culture. But at least two1 2 were demonstrably earlier than “Almerian”
tholoi that had been built up against them under the same cairns. And
from a couple of very simple passage graves (Fig. 133) the original
furniture has been recovered intact.3 Each interment was accompanied
by an axe and an adze, a set of geometric microliths and a couple of
plain round-bottomed “Western” pots and a plate of red-slipped ware.
So the first megalithic passage graves in Portugal were built by a neo-
lithic population akin to the Almerian and at a time at least culturally
equivalent to Neolithic II in Spain. Yet larger, and presumably later,
tombs reproduce in orthostatic masonry all the features of the tholoi and
rock-cut tombs4 with their divided passage and even porthole slabs.5

The only settlement yet explored in Portugal is Vila Nova de S.
Pedro,6 not on the coast, but well in the hinterland of Lisbon. It was
founded before Beaker ware became fashionable locally,7 but was
occupied throughout the “Copper Age” (Bronze I) and until Argaric
types were locally produced in Bronze II. The villagers cultivated
hexaploid wheat,8 barley, and beans and engaged in stock-breeding and
hunting. Local copper ores were smelted at the site and the metal
worked into flat axes, saws, and other types,9 though perhaps not before
Bronze II. The domestic pottery is characterized by reinforced rims,
surprisingly like those of neolithic Britain.10 But beakers and other
vases, found in the rock-cut tombs, were also used, and on the whole
the site reveals just a provincial variant on the Palmella culture.

1   Alapraia e S. Pedro, Junta de Turismo de Cascais, 1946; Congresso Luso.-Espanhol.
do Porto, T. VIII, 1943.

2   Leisner, Antas do Concelho de Reguengos (Lisbon, 1951), 284-9.

3   Ibid., 212 and 310.

4   Correia, CIPP., Mem. 27.   5 Marburger Studien, i, 150.

6 Afonso do Pa^o, Act. y Mem., XX (1945).   7 Id. Broteria, LIV (1952), 7-16.

8 Andis, V (1954), 280-356, T. sphcerococcuw, cereals from other sites are described here.

8 Zephyrus, III (Salamanca, 1952), 32-9.

10 Childe, Revista Guimardes, LX (1950), 7-12.



Fig. 133. Plan of "neolithic” passage grave (anta) and part of furniture; Alemtejo.
After Leisner. Pottery and celts (i), flints (£).

In the Palmella culture the essential features of the Millares economy
are conserved though less fully than in Algarve. Metal tools and weapons
are rare in the rock-cut tombs and practically confined to the odd arrow-
heads1 shown in Fig, 129, 2. The place of copper in industry is taken

1   One such “point” was found sticking in a skull at Valdenabi, Leon; Corona d'Estudis
dedica a sus Martiros (Madrid, 1941), 128.

2 77

by stone axes and adzes and superbly worked flints, including halberd
blades like Fig. 129, 4, that may be polished on the faces as if in imita-
tion of metal. Arrow-heads include still microlithic types, but hollow-
based, tanged, and leaf-shaped forms, none comparable in delicacy to
those from Alcala, occur in the proportions of 72,19, and 9 respectively
at Palmella. Trade brought gold, callais, amber, and ivory, while the
connections with Almeria are explicitly attested by cylinder-head pins
from tombs and by clay plaques perforated at the corners from con-
temporary settlements. But tortoise beads from Palmella and Vila Nova
de S. Pedro conform to the Sardinian-Proven9al type of Fig. 126a,
while a pair of basket-shaped gold earrings from a rock-cut tomb at
Ermageira1 reproduce a familiar Irish type (cf. Fig. 154).

In the Palmella pottery Beaker ware, both of the "grand style”
(Fig. hi, 1-2) and of the "classical” variety decorated with rouletted
zones, is the most conspicuous element, but plain round-bottomed and
carinated vessels may just carry on the native "neolithic” tradition,
illustrated in the megalithic tombs. Stroke-burnished sherds have
been recovered from tholoi and from sepulchral caves while channelled
and other kinds of incised decoration are also represented in caves and

Among the ritual objects too, besides familiar Millares types'—
phalange (S. Martinho) and cylinder idols and schist sandals (Alapraia)
—the Palmella tombs contain a variety of peculiar Portuguese forms—
plaque idols richly decorated with incised patterns (Fig. 131, 2), schist
croziers, similarly decorated, marble copies of shafted hoe-blades, large
crescentic "collars” of limestone,1 2 and pendants in the form of a rabbit.3
The owl-face of a funerary goddess and even representations of a copper
dagger were carved or painted on the uprights of some tombs.4

Similarly on the east coasts from Almeria northward to Catalonia
rural communities continued to bury the dead in natural cave ossuaries.
While they relied mainly on stone for axes, they obtained objects of
copper, and beads of callais, learned to work metals and copied locally
such Almerian types as cylinder-head pins and painted phalange idols.5
Flint daggers and hollow-based arrow-heads of Portuguese form are
not, however, found north of Almeria. The local pottery preserves the

1   Ethnos, II (Lisbon, 1942), 449-58.

2   Afonso do Paco, Anais, IV, 122, compares these to Irish gold lunulas, but the per-
forations, if any, are near the centre, not the ends; comparison with the clay arcs might
be equally legitimate.

3   Leisner, As Antas de Monsarraz (Lisbon, 1952), 145.

4   Breuil, Les Peintures rupestres schematiques, IV (1936), 148.

5   Blanquires de Labor, Murcia, Cuadernos, III, 5-30; Cami Real and Barranc de
Castellet, Alicante (Arch. Preh. Levant., I, 31-72); Monte de Barsella, Alicante, JSEA.,
Mem. 112 (1930); APL., II, 115-40.


rounded Almerian shapes but is generally mixed up with decorated
“Cave wares” and beakers. A round-headed minority is represented in
most of these caves.

From many Copper Age tombs and settlements, especially in Portugal,
but also in Almeria, bones of horses—or just possibly asses—have been

We might thus recognize in the Copper Age Almerian (Los Millares)
Andalusian, Algarvian, Portuguese, and East Spanish cultures though
the first four might be grouped together as local facies of one Early
Hispanic culture. Should we distinguish a sixth entity'—a “pure”
Beaker culture in the Peninsula. Beakers of the Pan-European type,
like Fig. hi, 3-4, with their usual accompaniment of West European
daggers and arrow-heads but no wrist-guards, have been found in every
type of Copper Age tomb—tholos, rock-cut, megalithic, natural cave—
but far more frequently in Portugal than in Almeria. But there are local
variants on this standard model. Fig. in, 1-2, illustrates a Portuguese
variant that may be found in the same tomb as the Pan-European
form.1 Beakers, decorated in this style, are associated with chalices of
Argaric shape at Acebuchal near Carmona in Betica.1 2 In two tombs at
Gandul in Betica beakers were associated only with the latest (Copper
Age I) and presumably intrusive, interments and must thus be later
than the erection of the tombs. Similarly, at Vila Nova de San Pedro
Beaker ware was missing from the oldest habitation deposit. On the
other hand, at Los Millares, Leisner assigns beakers to the earliest
phase. So it is impossible in the south of the Iberian Peninsula to
isolate an assemblage of relics and rites that should distinguish archseo-
logically a Beaker people from the rest of the interrelated societies
responsible for the Early Hispanic culture. Physically Beaker-folk were
undoubtedly represented among those societies, and, assuming they
were of East Mediterranean origin, should have been among the first
colonists thence who founded those societies. Yet they did not arrive
as Beaker-folk since Beakers are not known in the East Mediterranean
nor yet at Paestum, where the physical type is represented.

Presumably they separated out from them in the Peninsula. Margaret
Smith has shown that the beaker cannot be derived from the native
Cave culture pottery of Betica3 and that the Tagus estuary is the most
likely focus for the wide dispersion described in Chapter XII. But

1   The alleged stratigraphical evidence for Bosch-Gimpera’s view (Man, XL (1940),
6-10) making the Palmella style older than the Pan-European, has been demolished by
Castillo, APL., IV (1953), 135 ff.; cf. also Savory, Revista Guimaraes, LX, 363-6; Leisner,
As Antas nas Herdades da Casa de Braganga (Lisbon, 1955), 20-27.

2   "Colonies agricoles’' (Rev. Arch., XXXV), 88-90, 116-23, 132.

2 pps., xix (1953)- 95-107.


unless the fine bifacially worked arrow-heads they carried with them
evolved in the Peninsula from microlithic forms as Siret suggested,
we might suspect that they had been joined by a contingent of bowmen
from the Sahara, where such arrow-heads were made in profusion,
whether as a local continuation of the Aterian tradition or under
inspiration from the Fayum neolithic.

The foundation of the Copper Age cultures in the Peninsula, as in
Italy and Sardinia, is generally attributed to an actual colonization by
East Mediterranean prospectors. But these colonists did not, like the
Phoenicians and the Greeks, bring shiploads of manufactured articles;
not a single East Mediterranean export has been recognized on any
Peninsular site before the Argaric period. The metal gear, locally made
by the immigrant smiths, was technically inferior to that current in the
East Mediterranean even during the third millennium—but after all
the “prospectors” would have been looking for silver and gold, not
copper. Some Millares pot forms have general parallels in the Early
Minoan ossuaries of Crete,1 the stone figurines are obviously like
Cycladic and Anatolian ones; the owl-face engraved on plaques and
vases or painted on phalanges and caves belongs to the same “goddess”
whom the Sumerians depicted on the handles of funerary jars and the
Trojans on a stele and on face-urns. The plaque-idols like Fig. 131, 2,
are very like Egyptian block figures (p. 19) or Early Cypriote clay
“idols”.2 The clay arcs have exact parallels in Anatolia, as has the
toggle3 from Almizaraque; a segmented stone bead from Palmella is
quite like Fig. 12, 2, while the stroke-burnished ware from Betica
(p. 274) is identical with the East Mediterranean fabric. The idea of the
aritficial collective tomb is East Mediterranean and was translated into
corbelled vaults in Crete and the Cyclades in the third millennium.
The tholoi of Los Millares are actually rather similar to Krazi in Crete
(p. 23), while the contemporary cists resemble those of H. Kosmas
in Attica (p. 72).

Still these analogies are distinctly vague. Collective burial had
apparently been practised in the Peninsula already in the neolithic
period. In Portugal even built collective tombs may be equally neo-
lithic. There, too, megalithic tombs are demonstrably older than tholoi.
Even for the Almerian tholoi Leisner has expounded a plausible evolu-
tion from the neolithic round cists. The similarity between tholoi, like
those at Antequera and Alcala and the Mycenaean looks indeed particu-

1   Xanthudides, Vaulted Tombs, pis. XI, 1850 (stone birds' nest vases), XXXI, 687
(clay tumbler), XXX, 4982 (stud-ornament), M.M.I.

2   Act. y Mem. Soc. Espafi. Anthropologia, XIX (1944), I35-

3   Schliemann, Ilios, fig. 536; van der Osten, “The Alishar Hiiyiik, 1928-29,” OIC.
Pubs., XIX, fig. 85; for arcs, see p. 40, n. 1.