VII.—When did the Beaker-folk arrive?

V. Gordon Childe

doi:10.1017/S0261340900013114

VII.—When did the Beaker-folk arrive?

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 November 2011

V. Gordon Childe

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Extract

The publication of the first volume of Sir Arthur Evans' Palace of Minos marks the beginning of a new era in the prehistory, not only of the Aegean, but of Europe as a whole. In the light of the new material there published and the precise dating of the old, it becomes possible to invest with an absolute value the relative chronology established for parts of central Europe as a result of the patient labours of Professor Vassits of Belgrade, the late Notary Palliardi of Moravské Budejovice, Dr. Seger of Breslau, and other workers during the last ten years. Thus chronology, the indispensable pre-condition for drawing historical conclusions from archaeological material, is on its way to finding a sure footing. The present paper represents an attempt to apply these results to our own country by giving precision to the date of the arrival of the Beakerfolk.

Type: Research Article
Information: Archaeologia , Volume 74 , 1925 , pp. 159 - 180

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261340900013114 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1925

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 161 note 1} For an explanation of these numbers see List of Abbreviations at the end of this paper.

^{page 161 note 2} W. P. Z., i, pp. 24 f.Google Scholar (Šimek, E.; Stocký, A., La Bohême à l'âge de la pierre, 1924)Google Scholar.

^{page 161 note 3} Niklasson, in Mannus, xi–xii, pp. 322 ff.Google Scholar, ibid., 1922, p. 54

^{page 162 note 1} Köhl, in Mannus, iv, p. 61Google Scholar; cf. the ingenious explanation offered by Schliz, , P. Z., ii, pp. 142 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 2} Wosinsky, Das prähistorische Schanzwerk von Lengyel.

^{page 163 note 3} Ibid., p. 216. Pulszky, Die Kupferzeit in Ungarn, pp. 34 f. Cf. W. P. Z. x, p. 6.

^{page 164 note 1} (II), pp. 153ff.

^{page 164 note 2} e. g. at Male Čičovice, Pič, Starozitnosti, i, pl. x, 7–9Google Scholar; Lobositz, , Mannus, i, p. 194, fig. 8Google Scholar; Czernosek, Gross, J. f. A. i, p. 185, fig. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 3} e. g. Straubing, , P. Z., iv, p. 64, fig. 18 c.Google Scholar Cf. W. P. Z. v, pp. 52 ff.

^{page 165 note 1} So called from the great cemetery of the period on the Moldau, south of Prague.

^{page 165 note 2} Mannus, xiii, p. 150.Google Scholar

^{page 165 note 3} Die Steinzeitgräber der Uckermark, pp. 90 and 94.

^{page 167 note 7} Aarbøger, 1917, pp. 131 ff.

^{page 167 note 2} Demetrykiewicz, , Przedhistoriczna Ceramika z polksięzycowemi Uchamiw Polsce, fig. 11Google Scholar; Mannus, ii, p. 63, fig. 8Google Scholar; Sophus Müller in M. S. A. N, 1914–15, p. 62.

^{page 167 note 3} Mannus, xiii, pp. 143 ff. and map.Google Scholar Cf. Die Indogermanen, 1921.

^{page 167 note 4} Imp. Arch. Kommissiya, Otchet za 1897, fig. 21; (14) fig. 61.

^{page 168 note 1} M. S. A. N., loc. cit., fig. 61 (Denmark), P.Z., v, p. 442, no. 229 (Drouwen near Drenthe, Holland, an example from Hanover is in the Provincial Museum there). Cf. fig. 5e.

^{page 168 note 2} Nordiske Fortidsminder, ii, p. 81, fig. 49, (4) fig. 285Google Scholar; cf. Lissauer in Z.f. E., 1907, p. 71. Such objects can be clearly distinguished from those due to a re-using of the tombs in the post-megalithic period.

^{page 168 note 3} M. S.A.N., 1908–9, pp. 267 f. and Nordiske Fortidsminder, i, pp. 171–3.

^{page 168 note 4} Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, Proc., iii, pp. 16 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 5} There were two in the above-mentioned tomb at Drouwen.

^{page 168 note 6} Cf. Smith, op. cit., p. 24, and Montelius (4) and (6), p. 115 and figs. 56, 60. I am quite unable to accept the interesting theory of Nils Åberg, which seems to make our battle-axes the prototype from which all the series, including those from Troy, developed. His typology seems vitiated by the fact that neither end of his series can be independently dated. Cf. Man, xxiv, 51.

^{page 168 note 7} Cf. Montelius (4), fig. 38, and Devizes Museum Catalogue, fig. 145 a.

^{page 169 note 1} Smith, Reginald in Proceedings, xxxii, pp. 6 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 2} Åberg (8), p. 177; Leeds, , Antiq. Journal, 1922, pp. 333 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 1} (4) fig. 243; Nord. Fortidsminder, ii, p. 117, fig. 81Google Scholar; Beltz, Vorgesch. Altertümer Mecklenburg-Schwerins, fig. 153.

^{page 170 note 2} (8) p. 120; cf. Schliz in Z.f. E., 1906.

^{page 170 note 3} Schliz, , P.Z. iv, pp. 58 ff.Google Scholar; W.P.Z. vi, p. 44Google Scholar; Boll, de Real. Acad. de la Historia (Madrid), lxxi, pp. 22 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 4} J.R.A.I., 1915, p. 13.

^{page 170 note 5} L'Anthropologie, 1910, p. 32.

^{page 170 note 6} e. g. near Fulda; cf. Vonderau in Fiddaer Geschichtsverein, Schriften, vi.

^{page 170 note 7} e. g. at Uddelermeer, Gelderland, P. Z. iv, pp. 370 f.

^{page 170 note 8} (8) p. 170; (14) p. 186.

^{page 171 note 1} Its British origin is, in the opinion of Dr. Grössler, confirme by the analysis revealing no perceptible nickel content as contrasted with early bronzes made from Austro-Hungarian copper. S. T.J. vi, p. 58 and pli. ii, 8.

^{page 171 note 2} S. T.J. v, pl. 11, 1.

^{page 171 note 3} (6) p. 114.

^{page 171 note 4} Cf. (6) figs. 201–2 and (7), pl. vi, 3.

^{page 171 note 5} (10) 11, p. 63.

^{page 171 note 6} M.S. A. N., 1916–17, p. 229.

^{page 172 note 1} Cf. Wace, and Thompson, , P. T., p. 146Google Scholar, and Childe, , in J. H. S. xxxv, p. 201Google Scholar and P. Z. iii, p. 127.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 2} Wosinsky (12), pl. vii, 11, etc.; fig. 5d sphere.

^{page 172 note 3} (2) p. 10; cf. also Pravek, 1911, pl. xi, 17.

^{page 172 note 4} I follow Sir Arthur Evans in adopting Meyer's dating for the twelfth and earlier dynasties because it harmonizes so much better than any longer chronology with the Aegean evidence.

^{page 172 note 5} P. K., pl. xxv, F.

^{page 172 note 6} P. Z. iv, pp. 22 f. But this Asiatic specimen may be unconnected with the European types B and C.

^{page 173 note 1} The origin of these implements may have to be sought in or near Mesopotamia, but that will not affect the validity of the typology proposed for central Europe—including the Aegean. Cf. Otchet za 1897, fig. 35; (14) pp. 146–9.

^{page 173 note 2} S. T. J. x, pl. x, 1; cf. also (7) p. 27.

^{page 173 note 3} S. V. iii, p. 51, fig. 2.

^{page 173 note 4} Knut Stjerna, Före Hällkistiiden, p. 108.

^{page 174 note 1} e. g. at Hedesheim on the Rhine, with a zoned beaker in a grave closely adjacent to a true bellbeaker interment, Mainzer Zeitschrift, 1913, p. 52.

^{page 174 note 2} (7) p. 100. I am indebted for this information to a letter from Dr. Schränil of Prague.

^{page 174 note 3} But compare the remarks of Professor H. Schmidt in P. Z. i, p. 130. I much regret that I can accept neither his view as to the close temporal relation between the Villafrati beakers and the Sicanian period represented by Stentinello ware nor his inference from the similarity in technique of the latter to Cretan neolithic fabrics that the two ceramic groups are roughly contemporary, nor yet the date of 2500 b.c. proposed for Siculan I on the strength of the well-known worked bone plate found somewhere among the ruins of Troy II.

^{page 174 note 4} (7) p. 91 and fig. 5, 3.

^{page 174 note 5} Cf. Naqada and Ballas, p. 48, and pl. LXV, 19.

^{page 174 note 6} Man, xxiv, 51; (14) pp. 63, 190 f.

^{page 175 note 1} (5) pl. 2,9; (7) pl. 111, 2.

^{page 175 note 2} Illahun, Kahun, and Gurob, pl. xiii, 18.

^{page 175 note 3} Z. f. E., 1904, pp. 615 ff.

^{page 175 note 4} (5) p. 22, and pls. vi, 12, and vii, 12.

^{page 176 note 1} This weapon was first recognized by Professor Hubert Schmidt, but I am indebted to Sir Arthur Evans for a drawing of it.

^{page 176 note 2} I should like to thank Dr, A. Mahr, of Vienna, for information as to this new find.

^{page 176 note 3} S. T. J. iv, pp. 3 ff. and pl. 11, 7.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 4} Ibid., x, pl. x, 5.

^{page 176 note 5} Palace, fig. 183 b; cf. Seager, Mochlos, p. 62, fig. 31, xii f.

^{page 176 note 6} I use these figures in the sense of Montelius, to denote the middle of the century in question.

^{page 176 note 7} With the fullest recognition of the great contributions Lord Abercromby has made to our knowledge of the Beaker period, I cannot accept as conclusive his estimate of 450 years for its duration, especially in view of the possibility suggested by Mr. A. G. Wright that the invaders may have landed at more than one point on our coasts.

^{page 177 note 1} Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, i, pp. 18 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 2} Evans, op. cit., pp. 492 ff., and especially note 5 on p. 492. The star-shaped bead cited by Sir Arthur Evans in 1908 is less serviceable since it now appears that 1380 b. c. is not an upper limit for the type in Egypt, that its Egyptian origin at all is questionable, and that its attribution to Bronze II is problematical; cf. (10), ii, pp. 68 and 73, where they belong to periods IV and V.

Article contents

VII.—When did the Beaker-folk arrive?

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests