Interpreting the Beaker Phenomenon in Mediterranean France: an Iron Age Analogy Olivier Lemercier

Interpreting the Beaker phenomenon in Mediterranean France: an Iron Age analogy Olivier Lemercier

To cite this version:

Olivier Lemercier. Interpreting the Beaker phenomenon in Mediterranean France: an Iron Age analogy. Antiquity, Antiquity Publications/Cambridge University Press, 2012, 86 (331), pp.131-143. hal-00674458

HAL Id: hal-00674458 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00674458 Submitted on 26 Oct 2012

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. li alycudsaeta w utamttdyta h eywd itiuinover economic distribution in wide explanation plausible very no the has still that decoration today of admit style Beaker must Bell “we the of that Europe state could Gallay Alain ald‘h ekrpeoeo’ hr aebe aypooasfrisae forigin of area its for proposals conventionally now many is Europe been individual Central what have Netherlands, in the explain Peninsula, There found (Iberian to phenomenon’. often tried Beaker have adornment, ‘the who personal called Beakers researchers, Bell of fascinated decorated objects of has Europe and burials, of regions weapons many in with discovery associated the century a than more For Context lve Lemercier Olivier Age analogy Iron an France: Mediterranean in phenomenon Beaker the Interpreting hl otnn mgaino aro ouain oeeto niiul,o objects, of individuals, of movement fashion population, or warrior ideas, a of of (migration continent whole a rnAe rthsoy rtmlenu BC millennium first protohistory, Age, Iron Keywords: ∗ ANTIQUITY C niut ulctosLtd. Publications Antiquity Universit io,Fac Eal [email protected] Tasae yMdlieHummler) Madeleine by (Translated [email protected]) (Email: France Dijon, 6(02:1113http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/086/ant0860131.htm 131–143 (2012): 86 ´ eBugge M 28ATHS B ArTeHiS, 6298 UMR Bourgogne, de e bra rne eierna,Bae,Cmaiom hr ilnimBC, millennium third Campaniform, Beaker, Mediterranean, France, Iberia, ... .Ytteei tl ocnessaogrsaces srcnl s2001, as recently As researchers. among consensus no still is there Yet ). ∗ tmn cecsGbil ,BueadGbil F-21000 Gabriel, Boulevard 6, Gabriel, Sciences atiment ˆ 131 utrlpcaeaebt set fteBeaker phenomenon. the of a aspects and both are immigration package cultural that shows explain author to the forward it, put models Comparing numerous the independent. more was Beaker but practice where phase final acculturation, a include to and adjusted implantation exploration Beaker of and phases The with coast. striking, is the analogy from away areas colonise then new and settlements influence and new create the phase, to on exploratory went Age, an 2000 Iron with area the began same In the later. in years influx Greek the to reference making and France Mediterranean on focusing by phenomenon, explana- Beaker the descriptive of tion new a offers author The ... ,adepaain fissra over spread its of explanations and ),

Research Olivier Lemercier

Figure 1. Distribution map of sites with Beaker assemblages in Mediterranean France.

terms, as there is no adequate ethnographic model” (Gallay 2001: 52). In this article we advance a model inspired not by ethnography, but by the later experience of the same region in the Iron Age. The area of study, Mediterranean France, consists of an area between the Iberian and Italian peninsulas, stretching from the Pyrenees to the Alps; it is wide open towards the Mediterranean but also towards the interior of the continent, via the Rhoneˆ valley. Around 540 sites (Figure 1) with Bell Beaker material can be catalogued: some 170 burial sites, 230 settlement or domestic sites and 130 sites of indeterminate function. The proportion of habitation sites compared to burials is of great importance because it allows a good understanding of the assemblages and of the context in which Beakers appear. Four Beaker ceramic styles have been deﬁned since the 1960s for certain areas of the Pyrenees and Provence and later extended to the whole of the region (Courtin 1967, 1974; Guilaine 1967, 1976). A reassessment of Beakers in south-eastern France, the eastern part of Mediterranean France, has allowed us to deﬁne more precisely the different styles and propose a three- phase chronological sequence (Early, Recent and Late Beakers) based on data from over 310 sites which produced over 1500 decorated vessels (Lemercier 2004b, 2004c & in press). In parallel, the past few decades have seen particularly active research on the Late Neolithic C Antiquity Publications Ltd.

132 esquill h eane scaatrsdb n-caes iesrpr n pitrdpee ( pieces splintered and side-scrapers barbs). end-scrapers, squared-off by with variant characterised a is with remainder arrowheads and heart-shaped barbed toolkit The (leaf-shaped, and The high tanged anvil. be and an can forms arrowheads on of lanceolate or percentage percussion The form. direct debitage in by their limited made the produced; is flakes of locally essentially non-standard artefacts are earlier small which from of artefacts distinguish consists flint to as difficult well are as that Neolithic, objects Late artefacts antler stone or polished horn comprises indigenous bone, assemblage of and tool those from The wares differ 2009). coarse can 1996, produced used no (Convertini is practices traditions are pottery or the techniques there all the Nearly and but regionally, b). notable or & locally 2004a is (Lemercier beakers assemblages Beaker large and the AOC) Ornamented to Over specific and All (AOO most of Corded rarity the extreme and Over The style All 3.1). International (Figure vessels or This its Maritime BC. of of cal variants pottery common 2400 by and characterised 2500 is between presence France Mediterranean Beaker in visible become first Beakers horizon Beaker Early The data archaeological The vli ln ihflgtn or rwt urudn o al oe5 o60m to 50 some wall, low surrounding a with dwellings, or four floors to flagstone one with containing plan, small, in generally are oval Settlements ornaments). and points olnu eClSit-ne(Bocquenet Sainte-Anne Col Le – Collongue swl steBae psd ntergo,tu rvdn r hoooia framework chronological firm a providing thus Lemercier region, 2007; the (Lemercier in 2) episode (Figure Beaker the as well as (Furestier oanto tl cainlypdld(a e idn20:23,hre r omore no are horses 223), 2006: but Linden Contrary practices der 2010). indigenous (Van (Blaise peddled low from very occasionally differs remains still animals foodways notion local hunted a to to of hunting variety of contribution the the sites, certain On Beakers. isolated only yielded has interior ie,mr rls ifiutt ec.AlteestsaelctdaogteMediterranean the along located are Ch sites at as these hill-top such All rivers, defended reach. main naturally the to small, along difficult are and coast less sites The or elements Neolithic. with more associated Late sites, systematically local are the they too characterise decorated there that dozen sites; several settlement of on consisting found assemblages, vessels substantial more much with contexts are rvddb h igebra fFraqir–L aei h Alpes-de-Haute-Provence, two with the together in found or shell-impressed) Fare Rh funerary and local is La (cord- the example within style – of good mixed beakers found Forcalquier of A Beaker vessels of tradition. a burial Neolithic few yielded which Late single very local the of the by groups to provided belong small which or contexts vessels domestic isolated are there olciebra nmglti tutrso nlclcvso aiis u e individual few a but cavities, or Tch caves & local (Lemercier known in mainly also or is are tradition structures burials burial megalithic The in 2009). burial Gilabert & collective Lemercier 2004b; (Lemercier area surface aarltn oteeooyrva aeNoihcar-atrltp fsociety. of type agro-pastoral Neolithic Late a reveal economy the to relating Data ekrasmlgsaeecutrdi w itnttpso otx.O h n hand one the On context. of types distinct two in encountered are assemblages Beaker ´ ees Frsir20) ea bet r e al ihsur eto,dges Palmela daggers, section, square with (awls few are objects Metal 2007). (Furestier ) tal. et 07,Ogn–LsClds(eece 04;Frsir20)o Simiane- or 2007) Furestier 2004b; (Lemercier Calades Les – Orgon 2007), nepeigteBae hnmnni eierna France Mediterranean in phenomenon Beaker the Interpreting one-Ouv ˆ z ru (Lemercier group eze ` tal. et er ´ msiof2011). emissinoff ´ 133 2010). tanu-e-atge eFri uSaut du Fortin Le – ateauneuf-les-Martigues ˆ tal. et 98 nteBouches-du-Rh the in 1998) tal. et 01.O h te adthere hand other the On 2011). C niut ulctosLtd. Publications Antiquity n.The one. ˆ pi 2 ` eces in

Research Olivier Lemercier Figure 2. Chronological and cultural sequence of Mediterranean France at the end of the Neolithic.

C Antiquity Publications Ltd.

134 h aon alyadu ocnrlLnudc hra h Rhodano-Provenc the of whereas middle Languedoc, the central to to Pyrenees up regional the and from distinct tradition. valley west, ware Garonne two coarse the the of common occupies a presence group cal with Pyrenean the but 2200/2150 the pottery, by Geographically, and decorated characterised BC different cal by is identiﬁed 2400/2350 It groups between France. to Mediterranean dated in be BC can phase Beaker middle The phase Beaker Middle The 2010: (Blaise region the in periods Neolithic Late and 267). Middle previous the in than common iue3 ekrpteyi eierna rneb eid(rw fe:Bl 93 Sauzade 1973; Bill after: (drawn period by France Mediterranean in pottery Beaker 3. Figure 98 azd 93 Courtin 1983; Sauzade 1978; 96 aur19;Vtl20;BisnCtl&Vtl20;Vgad20;Abr 03 enn 03 Lemercier 2003; Leonini 2003; Ambert 2002; Vignaud 2002; Vital & Buisson-Catil 2000; 2004 Vital 1998; Vaquer 1996; c ). nepeigteBae hnmnni eierna France Mediterranean in phenomenon Beaker the Interpreting tal. et 95 Guilaine 1985; tal. et 135 99 01 ag-aiu19;Rui 93 Jallot 1993; Roudil 1992; Barge-Mahieu 2001; 1989, C niut ulctosLtd. Publications Antiquity tal. et 94 ori 1976, Courtin 1974; a ru is group ¸al tal. et

Research Olivier Lemercier located in the east, from the eastern Languedoc to the Alps. The two groups exhibit a great variety of pottery forms (beakers, bottles, pseudo-bottles, large pots, handled jugs, bowls, dishes, cups) and beakers are no longer the dominant form. The two groups differ mainly in their decoration techniques (generally impressed in the Pyrenean group, incised and stamped in the Rhodano-Provençal group), arranged in horizontal zones, in bands which may or may not be separated by plain bands. A second significant departure from the previous phase is the existence of plain coarse wares, consisting of vessels used in preparation, cooking and storage, which are similar in both regional groups. Vessel shapes are often open or straight and the bases are mostly flat. The greater part of the assemblages comprises pots of medium size with a cordon applied below the rim or directly attached to the lip. These cordons are generally triangular in section and always smoothed. Pots with perforations arranged in a line below the rim and associated with a triangular cordon are quite frequent (Besse 2003; Lemercier 2004b) (Figure 3.2). The lithic industry, better known in the Rhodano-Provençal group, shows strong links with the traditions of the local Late Neolithic. The raw material is mainly obtained locally in order to produce as many small flakes as possible. Splintered pieces (pièces esquillées) and scrapers (often thumb-nail scrapers) dominate the domestic assemblages and pieces produced by Late Neolithic specialists, such as large blades and daggers are reintegrated in the formal vocabulary, while new tools also make their appearance (microlith crescents and microdenticulates). Arrowheads are less frequent and tanged arrowheads with squared- off barbs are no longer current (Furestier 2007). Metal objects of copper from a secure provenance are rare (awls and daggers). Among objects of personal adornment, V-perforated bone buttons and plain roughly arc-shaped pendants join the types of ornament known from the Late Neolithic. Wristguards, mostly made of stone (limestone, sandstone) are well documented. The settlements show great variety and regional diversity: oval-shaped dwellings with flagstone floors in eastern Languedoc, post-built structures in the Rhoneˆ valley, and probably structures using mixed stone and timber in Provence (Lemercier 2004b; Lemercier & Gilabert 2009). The burial rite consists of burials in caves and in monumental structures, except for a few rare individual burials of children (Lemercier & Tcher´ emissinoff´ 2011). The sites are spread all over the region of study, including marginal and mountainous areas (Lemercier & Furestier 2009).

The Late Beaker phase This last phase is undoubtedly best anchored in time, with a number of dates ranging between 2150 and 1850/1800 cal BC. The decorated pottery belongs to the Beaker tradition in terms of arrangements of the decoration but also shows new traits in techniques of decoration and shape of vessels. The decoration is incised and/or of barbed-wire style (occasionally supplemented by stamped motifs), sometimes applied to the same vessel (Figure 3.3). The best represented vessel forms are beakers with usually a flat base, whose S-shaped profile is less curved or, on the contrary, more distinctly segmented than in the previous phase. Some barrel-shaped vessels, either biconical or with S-shaped profile, have a single handle and belong to large jugs. Smaller single-handled vessels with a simple or segmented profile C Antiquity Publications Ltd.

136 0prcn ftefiewrsfudi h ein ie h bec fara re colony Greek Phocaeans real of a group of small [ absence a community of the indigenous settlement Given to—an next permanent region. within—or “a the for proposes in local Nickels account found Languedoc, and soon wares to the number fine will in as the in ceramics) well of increase monochrome cent as (grey tradition per exchanges products 80 Greek of their of intensification created; Objects are first settlement. workshops a at to attempts and first contacts the regular by to coast corresponds the It of exploration are the These to vessels. linked drinking contacts imported episodic rare seafarers. in Greek of received characterised graves gifts is indigenous as It certain communities. interpreted in indigenous and presence phase’, the Greeks ‘exploration the for between the by contacts Nickels phase, first first A. the A by 1983). to diffusion, (Nickels proposed refers and Languedoc model the implantation the of ‘exploration, colonisation resembles as Greek and defined acculturation’ be and can colonisation here presented sequence The model protohistoric The groups. occupation tteei fteRh the of exit the at ysrpr n efsae n agdadbre rohasa ela pitrdpieces splintered as well dominated as still arrowheads is barbed toolkit and The tanged endure. ( and produced leaf-shaped tools and of scrapers types by the and flakes into debitage 2004b) (Lemercier vessels some of recurrent: handles are the arrangements by some 3.3). of but (Figure limited layout tradition panels Beaker general rectangular the or The Smoothed in square still rim. known. large is the also vessels below are the located on cordons cordons motifs finger-impressed the applied two but or frequent vessels one are have flat-based cordons can The barrel-shaped sizes or tradition. Cylindrical various Beaker containers. of handled, the jars sometimes in rounded, and clearly simple are of wares consist coarse The cups. resemble hwtepeec fdvrertseatdb ifrn at ftepplto wihimplies “which population the of parts different by [ enacted rites diverse of presence the show interior the reach to attempts by land. marked the also of is phase This 418). (1983: data” archaeological sa odao e Juill Les – Mondragon at as unme uilsts hr satnec oad cuyn iltpsts si the – Rove in at as as sites, enclosures, through hill-top fortification occupying by (Bouches-du-Rh towards accompanied Laure de time tendency Camp this a Settlements but typical. is be phase, to There initial seem section, sites. in burial lozenge-shaped awls, outnumber bronze small rare very few a hc bet fdvreoiisaefudtgte ihlcladGekproducts. Greek and local in with exchange, together in found intensification are significant origins a diverse by of characterised objects also which is period This 423). 1983: omnadsalcmtre aeterapaac Lmrir&Tch & (Lemercier appearance their make cemeteries small and common pi ... h eodpaei once oteipatto ftaigpssi eryareas. nearby in posts trading of implantation the to connected is phase second The h ihcidsr loflosasrn ekrtaiin a aeilprocurement, material Raw tradition. Beaker strong a follows also industry lithic The h hr hs esteetbiheto nofho fMsai Ad) t cemeteries Its (Agde). Massalia of offshoot an of establishment the sees phase third The ` csesquill eces h oaiainwti h rdn otisl feeet fdvreoiis (Nickels origins” diverse of elements of itself post trading the within cohabitation the ] ´ ees) Frsir20) ti adrt en h eto h aeilclue only culture: material the of rest the define to harder is It 2007). (Furestier nepeigteBae hnmnni eierna France Mediterranean in phenomenon Beaker the Interpreting n alybtaeas nw elbyn h rao td nsmall in study of area the beyond well known also are but valley one ˆ rs(acue Lmrir20) h ie r concentrated are sites The 2002). (Lemercier (Vaucluse) eras ´ n)(ori 95.Idvda uil r eoigmore becoming are burials Individual 1975). (Courtin one) ˆ 137 ... yohssta etfisteobserved the fits best that hypothesis a ] C niut ulctosLtd. Publications Antiquity er ´ msiof2011) emissinoff ´

Research Olivier Lemercier

Figure 4. Protohistoric model and Beaker data: interpretation.

Interpretation, extension and limitations of the model Using this Iron Age model as an analogy, it is possible to attempt a similar historic reading of the data relating to the Beaker phenomenon in Mediterranean France (Figure 4). It consists of three stages, overlapping those of the protohistoric model, which we can deﬁne as exploration, acculturation and independent development (Lemercier 1998a & b).

First stage: exploration and first contact This first stage corresponds to the arrival by sea into the area under study of the first Beaker elements. Comparisons lead us quite systematically to the Iberian Peninsula and Portugal in particular (Salanova 2000; Lemercier 2004a & b), regions that remain serious candidates for the area of origin of the European Beaker phenomenon as shown by the distribution of radiocarbon dates (Muller¨ & van Willigen 2001) and by local sequences (Kunst 2001). It is still impossible to identify a putative first phase of contact marked by exchanges and gifts, but the observed configuration, with its principal sites along main routes, and artefacts distributed towards the interior among the local population (often in burials), fits the description of the first phases of Greek colonisation in the Languedoc very well. In parallel, we see that the first establishments, in Provence, are on specific, naturally defended hill-top sites, but within local communities whose material culture is well represented on these sites. The absence of such sites in eastern Languedoc, in the zone of the Fontbouisse group, but the presence of isolated Beaker artefacts, are connected to a different historic situation and to different relationships between local communities and Beaker-using people. The Beaker C Antiquity Publications Ltd.

138 h pernei eierna rneo ml rneojcsde o,hwvr seem however, not, does objects bronze small of situation. France new a Mediterranean betrays doubt in no ascendency, appearance sites Beaker fortified from strong The new a of known forms has development that The assemblages vessel Italic. culture and is material The local the a both style Beakers. to 2004b), belong decoration north-Italian time (Lemercier this barbed-wire and at Balkans France the central southern north-western of of the origin reminiscent vessel in more the in both are If sought area, decoration. be Iberian Italic of the to the from style perhaps influence the with strong in and relationship a and shows model privileged shapes anchored pottery remain the proposed former industry, traditions, lithic the the the local as in where such outside elements, cycle some distinctly Although new disappears. is Peninsula a pottery to barbed-wire corresponds of appearance The traditions Beaker of end the stage: Third reveal. regional can the wares by fine exhibited this the differences of the in styles than decorative identity insight identified more common giving wares a France, perhaps sharing 2003), in coarse communities (Leonini groups into Italy Beaker regional central other even the and with 2003) affinities Furthermore, (Besse strong Switzerland show place. Europe France Beaker taken Mediterranean of in have regions certain phase other to of with the presence exchanges likely raising or place—the are of contacts took numerous point actually that earlier the suggests movement the strong—to objects while population from very hand, some different remain other that Peninsula the type, possibility On Iberian Beaker traditions. shown the of local as with culture some swift, relationships respecting material fairly also new was but hand communities a manifestations one Beaker indigenous by the the replacement On of the phenomenon. personal acculturation by double the of a that objects to seems or some corresponds provenances it easterly therefore and or stage northerly crescents) This more microlith However, other influences. evoke (the group. pendants) arc-shaped tools Ciempozuelos (the Spanish some ornament the Rhodano-Provenc forms, the with vessel of resemblances certain pottery decorated exhibiting regional the two clearly with and The affinity, sites group culture. Iberian lowland material an many fledged show are fully There still a valleys. groups of main development the the or show coast assemblages the the to restricted longer no now sa agae–L inu Gr)weetoBae esl eefud hywere they found; were vessels Beaker (Hayden two period where Fontbouisse the (Gard) in 3 present already Vignaud group, and Fontbouisse Le old the already of – settlements Langlade of Rhodano-Provenc remains at the disused of as the settlements Beaker on the The established in second. often regional attested the are well in group were disappear of cultures to Neolithic seem development Late they local stage, the first the While by model. protohistoric the characterised of is Rhodano-Provenc stage and groups—Pyrenean significant second The networks exchange and implantation stage: Second regional the when time the at later, somewhat region the Rhodano-Provenc in hold takes only phenomenon ti tti ieta h hl ftergo estearvlo ekrestablishments, Beaker of arrival the sees region the of whole the that time this at is It a ru eeos(eece 04;Lmrir&Frsir2009). Furestier & Lemercier 2004a; (Lemercier develops group ¸al nepeigteBae hnmnni eierna France Mediterranean in phenomenon Beaker the Interpreting a—n rbbycrepnst h hr phase third the to corresponds probably ¸al—and 139 C tal. et niut ulctosLtd. Publications Antiquity 2011). ¸al ¸al

Research Olivier Lemercier to indicate a signiﬁcant change in the material culture or in the lifeways of communities that are still very much anchored in Neolithic traditions. It is only in the eighteenth century BC that the Bronze Age really starts in our region.

Extension, limitations and lessons from the model proposed If the cited protohistoric model seems a satisfactory way of interpreting the Beaker evidence in Mediterranean France, it may be possible to extend it to other areas. An assessment of the data available in central Italy and Sardinia has led to a similar proposal (Lemercier et al. 2007) for the spread of the Beaker phenomenon along the north-western and Tyrrhenian coast of the Mediterranean. On the continent, a similar evolution can be envisaged for central Spain (Harrison & Mederos Martin 2001). The Beaker assemblages known on the Atlantic coast of France could also be interpreted in the same way; this would then be a remarkable phenomenon, starting on the Atlantic coast of the Iberian Peninsula and reaching out towards the north Atlantic, the interior of the Peninsula and the Mediterranean area, whose origins are probably to be sought in the cultures that developed in Portugal and in southern Spain during the third millennium BC. This first diffusion appears to have a strong impact on indigenous cultures, to the point of sometimes transforming them radically, while others seem to have resisted for a while (the Fontbouisse group in the Languedoc) or for a very long time (the Terrina group in Corsica). At the same time it opens up routes of communication and exchange across Europe, which will see people, objects and ideas circulate in many ways and directions during the middle Beaker phase, creating privileged relationships between the new cultural groups that emerged from this first diffusion. It is however unlikely that this model is applicable to the whole of Mediterranean Europe in Beaker times. Conditions of dispersal, of implantation and of evolution of the Beaker phenomenon may have led to quite different paths being followed in the interior of the continent or in more northerly regions. The length of the Beaker cycle, and, more to the point, its remarkable spread speak against the application of a single model. In terms of limitations, trying to answer why the diffusion happened in the first place remains a question without a satisfactory answer. The protohistoric model, which fits specific economic and political conditions, cannot be transferred directly in this domain. The correlation between concentrations of Beaker material and copper deposits (Lewthwaite 1987) does not seem to be secure in all regions. It is highly likely that the reasons for the Beaker phenomenon are to be sought as much in its areas of origin as in those where it spread and that these reasons are as multiple and as complex as those at the heart of the spread of the Neolithic mode of life for example. When it comes to the question of the nature of the Beaker phenomenon itself, we can however respond to L. Salanova who described it as “neither people nor package” (Salanova 2000: 17): the Beaker phenomenon represents both people and ‘package’. People because the first diffusion happens through groups of people, attested by the transfer of techniques, and ‘package’ because Beaker artefacts are well and truly reaching indigenous communities affected by the phenomenon. Beyond that, we must not discount ideology as a factor (Strahm 1995), since these objects have a sometimes significant funerary dimension. C Antiquity Publications Ltd.

140 B B 09 C 2009. – B C B B B A fe nitra fsm 50yasi ra huad fklmte wy nclua and cultural References in away, kilometres of alien. thousands more happened areas far that in are valid that years situations less contexts 4500 no consider environmental some is of which earlier interval years ethnoarchaeology an 2000 from after than more derived occurred analogies that circumstances than of set a for period UISSON ILL LAISE OCQUENET ESSE ARGE MBERT ONVERTINI ocnld,w otn htteie famdlbroe rmaltrprehistoric later a from borrowed model a of idea the that contend we conclude, To ` cwieiceGslshf f Gesellschaft Schweizerische olcie elAd:oiiee tttd standard, du statut in et origine l’Aude: de collectives h erEs n Europe in and Age East Copper Near The the 10: Section 1996, September (Italia)8-14 Forli Sciences, Protohistoric of and Congress Prehistoric International XIII the of in Proceedings domestiques, espaces et d’habitat structures ’clgePr d’Ecologie Guilaine Jean rneeti franz im Bronzezeit ultnd aSoci la de Bulletin eihne u S zur Beziehungen apnfree ageo eta m central Languedoc en Campaniforme v ..dn esde ecnr-us el rnee en et France la de centre-ouest le occidentale et Suisse sud le dans J.C. av. Reparatum. Tempus Oxford: 656). Series International Fr aec ) vgo:A Barth A. Avignon: 4). Valence c 715–32. stpqe el’ de isotopiques arch rueu uN au troupeaux 00.xod on&EiaHedges. Erica & John 2080).Oxford: Series International Report Archaeological Bouches-du-Rh - (Simiane-Collongue Sainte-Anne asil:Eue tPopcie Arch Prospectives et Etudes Marseille: iid aFrance la de Midi ’cuaincmaiom ust perch site du campaniforme L’occupation Aventicum. ( r:lsc les ere: rvu uCnr d’Arch Centre du Travaux nVaucluse en .1973. J. , air d’Arch Cahiers ´ rmqecampaniforme eramique .2003. M. , uhgeschichte. ¨ -M .2010. E. , eM De .20.Contribution 2003. P. , ´ oolgqee otiuindsanalyses des contribution et eozoologique -C AHIEU rmqe apnfre ts et campaniformes eramiques ´ ATIL ´ rmqe omnsa Campaniforme au communes eramiques .. .L O. J.P., , ´ editerran .1996. F. , i lcebceklu n i fr die und Glockenbecherkultur Die ,J.&J.V .1992. H. , Ntcsd’Arch (Notices ’uoed emill 3e du L’Europe cnmeaiaee eto des gestion et animale Economie 2–4 olue Archives Toulouse: 221–34. : ehistorique. ´ ´ mi dentaire email ´ oihqefia nPoec approche : Provence en final eolithique n rne.S France). - one ooi oad 4.Lausanne: 94). Romande eologie ´ ˆ ´ ee ’ilus m d’ailleurs, et ee BiihAcaooia Reports Archaeological (British , ´ et udwestschweiz ¨ rgn tidentit et origine rdcine infiaind la de signification et Production EMERCIER sshnRoeeknudihre und Rhonebecken osischen ´ ¨ ePr nepeigteBae hnmnni eierna France Mediterranean in phenomenon Beaker the Interpreting ITAL eCmaiom asle dans Campaniforme Le ´ hsoiu Franc ehistorique 5–6 ol:Abaco. Forli: 159–66. : alafindu3 ` e. 2002. (ed.) ooi Pr eologie ´ ooi acuine5, Vauclusienne eologie ´ al’ ` (British , rUr-und ur ¨ &A.M el ´ td du etude ´ .Basel: re c eries ´ emy. ´ ´ nieaatnotre avant enaire ´ lne offerts elanges ´ culturelle e hsoiu de ehistorique ´ epultures ´ ` m mill eme ULLER ¨ gsd Bronze du Ages eramiques, ´ eologiques. ´ ¸aise eridional. ´ eduCol ´ 1998. . 100(4): uhe ¨ . ´ enaire a ` 141 C 96 e iiiain elAed rneen Bronze du l’Age de civilisations Les 1976. – 95 nhbttfortifi habitat Un 1975. – C 98 Quelques 1978. – F F G 1974. – G 96 acvlsto e oeescmaiomsdans campaniformes gobelets des civilisation La 1976. – URESTIER URESTIER OURTIN OURTIN ALLAY UILAINE rvne nJ ulie(ed.) en Guilaine moyen J. Bronze in le Provence, et ancien Bronze le Provence, 218–40. Marseille de Naturelle d’Histoire Museum Laure. de Camp le Basse-Provence: Arch Post-glaciaire. au Berre de l’Etang apnfred iedsLauzi des site du campaniforme I e iiiain n civilisations les II: Klincksieck. Vaucluse. aFrance la 5–9. xod on&EiaHedges. Erica & John Oxford: 1684). Series International Reports France Archaeological la de sud-est du campaniformes Soci Bouches-du-Rh rvne oepr note Provence, Pr apr evzoBn Culturali. Beni Servizio Europe prehistoric in symbols (ed.) ied otnd-at(Ch Fortin-du-Saut du site .P M. aslsPyr les dans icussiniqee Pr en scientifique discours Congr Pr ’IP,Clou XXIV Colloque l’UISPP, aFac m France la etmr 2004 septembre iiiaindsvsscampaniformes vases des Civilisation hsoiu Franc ehistorique ´ hsor td’Arch et ehistoire ´ es,inJ.Evin(ed.) .20.L’ 2001. A. , ` et ´ eN Le ´ ooiu eProvence de eologique ELLISSIER elBaestdy otr,pol,culture, people, pottery, today: Beakers Bell . .D’ A. J., , .16.L utr uvs apnfreen campaniforme vase du culture La 1967. J. , .1967. J. , ` sPr es ePr ´ .2007. R. , ,R.,J.C 4–1 ai:CNRS. Paris: 445–51. : ´ oihqed aProvence la de eolithique hsoiu Franc ehistorique ´ ultnArch Bulletin ´ hsoiu eFac,Ainn 21–25 Avignon, France, de ehistorique ´ en rdoae nJ ulie(ed.) Guilaine J. in eridionale, ´ ´ e franc ees tpsd epeetd ar la de peuplement du etapes ´ &J.C ANNA oue2 9–1.Prs Soci Paris: 297–310. 2: Volume , AULIEZ acvlsto uvs campaniforme vase du civilisation La ngecmaiom,i .Nicolis F. in campaniforme, enigme ´ n)e eCmaiom 0ans 30 Campaniforme le et one) ˆ e nutislithiques industries Les eliminaire. ´ ¸aise. ´ oihqe tpooitrqe de protohistoriques et eolithiques ´ eologie ¸aises. C HL 95 ac La 1985. AHCL. & OURTIN uBoz ninen ancien Bronze du e ´ nsi Un ,N.L niut ulctosLtd. Publications Antiquity ´ ooiu eProvence de eologique 9–1.Nc:UISPP. Nice: 197–213. : ´ hsor.Atsd XXVIe du Actes ehistoire. :1–36. 1: 6 27–36. 16: as 1.Paris: 11). ¸aise acson:Gabelle. Carcassonne: ateauneuf-l ˆ ` ced osrcindu construction de ecle 15.Trento: 41–57. : AZARD air iue de Ligures Cahiers 07 9420:le 1974–2004: 2007. . aPr La rs Lourmarin, eres, ` (M Bulletin ,O.L , ´ hsor franc ehistoire ultndu Bulletin X Congr IXe mied la de emoire ´ (British es-Martigues, ` 35: EMERCIER La eramique ´ go de egion ´ 15: ` sde es ¸aise et ´ e ´ ,

Research Olivier Lemercier

GUILAINE,J.,J.VAQUER,J.COULAROU &F. – 2002. Les occupations neolithiques´ de Mondragon – TREINEN-CLAUSTRE (ed.). 1989. Médor / Ornaisons. Les Juilleras´ (Vaucluse), in Archéologie du TGV Archéologie et écologie d’un site de l’Age du Cuivre, de Méditerranée, Fiches de Synthèse. Tome 1: la l’Age du Bronze final et de l’Antiquitétardive. Préhistoire (Monographies d’Archeologie´ Toulouse: CASR; Carcassonne: Archeologie´ en Mediterran´ eenne´ 8): 147–72. Lattes: UMR 154 du Terre d’Aude. CNRS/ADAL. GUILAINE,J.,F.CLAUSTRE,O.LEMERCIER &P. – 2004a. Explorations, implantations et diffusions: le SABATIER. 2001. Campaniformes et environnement “phenom´ ene”` campaniforme en France culturel en France mediterran´ eenne,´ in F. Nicolis mediterran´ eenne.´ Bulletin de la SociétéPréhistorique (ed.) Bell Beakers today: pottery, people, culture, Française 101(2): 227–38. symbols in prehistoric Europe: 229–75. Trento: – 2004b. Les Campaniformes dans le sud-est de la France Servizio Beni Culturali. (Monographies d’Archeologie´ Mediterran´ eenne´ HARRISON,R.J.&A.MEDEROS MARTIN. 2001. Bell 18). Lattes: UMR 154 du CNRS/ADAL. Beakers and social complexity in central Spain, in F. – 2004c. Historical model of settling and spread of Bell Nicolis (ed.) Bell Beakers today: pottery, people, Beaker culture in Mediterranean France, in J. culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe: 111–24. Czebrezuk (ed.) Similar but different: Bell Beakers in Trento: Servizio Beni Culturali. Europe (Poznan Symposium, Poland, 26–29 May HAYDEN,C.,E.BLAISE,R.FURESTIER,O.LEMERCIER, 2002): 193–203. Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz J. LINTON,M.PEREZ,W.SMITH &D.TODISCO. University. 2011. Le Vignaud 3, Chemin du Puits Neuf – 2007. La fin du Neolithique´ dans le sud-est de la (Langlade, Gard): du Fontbouisse au France: concepts techniques, culturels et Campaniforme, in I. Senepart, T. Perrin, E. chronologiques de 1954 a` 2004, in J. Evin (ed.) Un Thirault & S. Bonnardin (ed.) Marges, frontières et siècle de construction du discours scientifique en transgressions, actualité de la recherche (8e Préhistoire, Actes du XXVIe Congrès Préhistorique de Rencontres Meridionales´ de Prehistoire´ Recente,´ France, Avignon, 21–25 septembre 2004,Volume1: Marseille, 7–8 novembre 2008): 439–48. Toulouse: 485–500. Paris: Societ´ ePr´ ehistorique´ Française. Archives d’Ecologie Prehistorique.´ – In press. The Mediterranean French Beaker JALLOT,L.,M.BORDREUIL,J.VITAL &R.VEJUS. 1996. transition, in H. Fokkens & F. Nicolis (ed.) Beakers Un nouveau site a“d` ecor´ barbele”´ dans le Gard in transition (EAA congress, The Hague, 2010). (Aven Roger, Saint-Jean-de-Maruejols-et-Av´ ejan).´ Leiden: Sidestone. Etat de la question dans le midi de la France, in C. Mordant & O. Gaiffe (ed.) Cultures et sociétés du LEMERCIER,O.&R.FURESTIER. 2009. Apres` les “vrais Bronze ancien en Europe, Actes du 117e Congrès campaniformes”: le Rhodano-Provençal dans le National des Sociétés Savantes, Clermont-Ferrand sud-est de la France, in De Méditerranée et d’ailleurs, 1992: 339–48. Paris: CTHS. mélanges offerts a` Jean Guilaine: 391–402. Toulouse: Archives d’Ecologie Prehistorique.´ KUNST, M. 2001. Invasion? Fashion? Social rank? Consideration concerning the Bell Beaker LEMERCIER,O.&C.GILABERT. 2009. Approche phenomenon in Copper Age fortifications of the chronoculturelle de l’habitat de la fin du Iberian Peninsula, in F. Nicolis (ed.) Bell Beakers Neolithique´ en Provence, in A. Beeching & I. today: pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Sen´ epart´ (ed.) De la maison au village: l’habitat Europe: 81–90. Trento: Servizio Beni Culturali. Néolithique du sud de la France et du nord-ouest méditerranéen. Actes de la table ronde de Marseille, LEMERCIER, O. 1998a. Phenom´ ene,` culture et tradition: 23–24 mai 2003 (Memoire´ de la Societ´ e´ statuts et rolesˆ du Campaniforme au IIIe millenaire´ Prehistorique´ Française 48): 255–66. Paris: Societ´ e´ dans le sud-est de la France. Bulletin de la Société Prehistorique´ Française. Préhistorique Française 95(3): 365–82. LEMERCIER,O.&Y.TCHER´ EMISSINOFF´ . 2011. Du – 1998b. The Bell Beaker phenomenon in the southeast Neolithique´ final au Bronze ancien: les sepultures´ of France: the state of research and preliminary individuelles campaniformes dans le sud de la remarks about the TGV-excavations and some France, in L. Salanova & Y. Tcher´ emissinoff´ (ed.) other sites of Provence, in M. Benz & S. van Les sépultures individuelles campaniformes en France Willigen (ed.) Some new approaches to the Bell (Supplement a Gallia Prehistoire 41): 177–94. ... ´ ` ´ Beaker phenomenon. Lost Paradise ? (Proceedings of Paris: CNRS. the 2nd Meeting of the “Association Archéologie et Gobelets”, Feldberg (Germany), 18th–20th April 1997) (British Archaeological Report, International Series 690): 23–41 Oxford: Archaeopress.

C Antiquity Publications Ltd.

142 L L L M L N L eevd 4Jnay21;Acpe:3 ac 01 eie:2 a 2011 May 25 Revised: 2011; March 30 Accepted: 2011; January 24 Received: EMERCIER EMERCIER EMERCIER EWTHWAITE EONINI ICKELS ULLER ¨ m .Oe,&J aur(ed.) pr Vaquer J. & Ogel, L. mill nSine uans–Dmiecorse. Domaine – humaines Sciences Chercheurs en des Association CTHS, Paris: 241–51. cagseteCre adin,Tsaee Midi franc et Toscane Sardaigne, Corse, entre echanges ata2003 Bastia m d’Italie et France de continentaux F CNRS/ADAL. N emill 4e 16.Ofr:BiihAcaooia Reports. Archaeological British Oxford: 31–60. 331): Series International Report Archaeological 1986) (Oxford Conference data International site new and definition, theory Mediterranean: interpretation, Western the of Beakers Bell prehistory,inW.H.Waldren&R.C.Kennard(ed.) Mediterranean Western in conjecture Chalcolithic .B C. oa:ptey epe utr,smosi prehistoric in Europe symbols culture, people, pottery, today: (ed.) Bell Nicolis F. the in of phenomenon, diffusion Beaker the for consequences the Beakers and Bell European for evidence radiocarbon 01 as La 2011. .Slnv .Tch Y. & Salanova L. in (Alpes-de-Haute-Provence), Forcalquier Fare, La M r StudidiPisa. degli Universita’ dissertation, europea. doctoral culturale Unpublished provincia una di prospettiva nella centro-settentrionale Italia dell’ Campaniforme rnfraindn e soci les dans transformation in Languedoc, alaPr Gallia a cl Franc Ecole Franc l’Ecole 1981 mai Cortone, de Colloque niiule apnfre nFrance en campaniformes individuelles ´ ` ´ gosvoisines egions URESTIER ´ editerran ´ oihqefia asl u-s el rnee les et France la de sud-est le dans final eolithique ´ editerran hsoius eain et Relations ehistoriques. ´ editerran ´ nieaatnotre avant enaire ´ asdn ascnemoiti seconde la dans ¸ais ,J.&S. .20.L eaiacmn del comune ceramica La 2003. V. , .18.LsGese al:leepedu l’exemple Gaule: en Grecs Les 1983. A. , OUVILLE 98.Tet:Srii eiCulturali. Beni Servizio Trento: 59–80. : ´ nie atasto uN du transition la enaire: ,O.,V.L ,O.,R.F ,O.,R.F .G 97 h rueinBae:a Beaker: Braudelian The 1987. G. J. plueidvdel apnfrede campaniforme individuelle epulture ´ ´ e,Atsd 2eCongr 128e du Actes een, hsor 1:155.Prs CNRS. Paris: 145–59. 41): ehistoire 07 apnfre nuarset insulaires Campaniformes 2007. . ´ as eRome. de ¸aise ens ead crois regards eennes: ´ en 7.Lte:UR54 du 5140 UMR Lattes: 27). eenne ´ as eRm 7:492.Pise-Rome: 409–28. 67): Rome de ¸aise DcmnsPr (Documents ,F.C VAN oe ecnat tpoessde processus et contacts de Modes Mngahed’Arch (Monographie EONINI URESTIER URESTIER W ONVERTINI nepeigteBae hnmnni eierna France Mediterranean in phenomenon Beaker the Interpreting ILLIGEN er ´ r) nA ’na .Cesari, J. D’anna, A. in ere), ` msiof(ed.) emissinoff ´ ,P.T ,&E.B ,A.M ´ cagsdn econtexte le dans echanges ´ et os tSardaigne et Corse ´ sacens ce du Actes anciennes. es 01 New 2001. . hsoius22): ehistoriques ´ RAMONI ,&L.S edutroisi ´ Cleto de (Collection (British ´ oihqemynau moyen eolithique s(eain et (relations es ´ ULLER ¨ LAISE ` sd CTHS, du es ,&R. eologie ´ ALANOVA (Suppl ,E.B e s Les eme ` e. 2010. (ed.) elBeakers Bell ´ epultures LAISE ement ´ . , 143 S S V V V V R S S TRAHM AUZADE AUZADE ALANOVA OUDIL AQUER NDER AN IGNAUD ITAL 8–3 ai:Soci Paris: 581–93. e prahst h elBae hnmnn Lost phenomenon. Beaker Paradise Bell (ed.) the Willigen to van approaches S. new & Benz M. Bell in by Beakers, reoccupied site Neolithic late languedocian Soci RC Minist DRAC, Pr AscainArch “Association 52.Ofr:Archaeopress. Oxford: 15–21. 690): Series International Report Archaeological 1997) April 18th–20th (Germany), ai-oie in Marie-Louise, aTu,Sit-aie(a) in (Var), Sainte-Maxime Tour, la DcmnsPr (Documents R in France, la de sud-est rdcin c productions 6 317–32. 16: BC). (third millennium France southern Bell of the culture in Beaker integration social vs hierarchy social Fr riugi rigu ntttf Institut Breisgau: in Freiburg Seminar hoooi tr et chronologie rnee asles dans et France omn1d San-S de 1 dolmen N l’Ard 6) 7–6 ats M 154/ADAL. UMR Lattes: 573–76. Mngahe d’Arch (Monographies ce esynth de fiches osi d Conseil ´ go AA1999 PACA egion .20.Cmoatscluelsdspremi des culturelles Composantes 2000. J. , ´ eolithique ai:Eiin LPHP/IPH. Editions Paris: . gshct e Universit der ugeschichte ´ hsoiu eFrance de ehistorique ¨ .L 1993. J.-L. , .19.L ora,Tr Mourral, Le 1998. J. , et .1995. C. , ´ ` ce l’ eche, ,G.,J.C .1983. G. , .20.Axe-rvne-Clos - Aix-en-Provence 2002. A. , L ePr ´ .2000 L. , INDEN ... Febre rhelgsh tde,2). Studien, Archaeologische (Freiburger preetld aClued l’Ard de Culture la de epartemental ´ hsoiu Franc ehistorique ´ Poednso h n etn fthe of Meeting 2nd the of (Proceedings ? g uCir tl’ et Cuivre du age ˆ ’g uBoz Eue Quaternaires (Etudes Bronze du l’Age a ` .20.FrWo h elTolls: Bell the Whom For 2006. M. , ` s.Tm :l Protohistoire la 2: Tome ese. rmqe uBoz nindn le dans ancien Bronze du eramiques ´ OURTIN lsdu tnadc standard d’un oles ˆ r el Culture. la de ere ` a Glockenbecher-Ph Das aqeto uCmaiom en Campaniforme du question La . hsoius1) ai:CTHS, Paris: 13). ehistoriques ´ e s Les ´ ooi tGblt” Feldberg Gobelets”, et eologie e rmesm premiers Les ˆ lsagonrads productions, anglo-normandes: ıles Arch abig rhelgclJournal Archaeological Cambridge 0–.Aix-en-Provence: 205–7. : bsin omnsd lnde Plan de communes ebastien, ´ et ´ ´ plue uVuls du Vaucluse du epultures C ePr ´ ´ ooi uTVM TGV du eologie , &G.C ooi M eologie ´ niut ulctosLtd. Publications Antiquity ia cetfiu ela de Scientifique Bilan 0 eso,Mrius1974 Martigues session, 20e hsoiu Franc ehistorique ´ ¸aise. at. ¨ g uBronze du age ˆ bs(ue:afortified a (Aude): ebes ` HABAUD rUr-und ur ¨ ´ tlugse de etallurgistes editerran ´ ´ eramique Congr (British nmn ein anomen: ¨ 94 Le 1974. . ` es ´ editerran ¸aise. en 9): eenne ´ .Privas: Some eche. ` eres ` ´ ee: :

Research