No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Typology & Origins of Beakers in Wales
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 May 2014
Extract
The recent publication by Dr H. N. Savory of a corpus of beakers found in Wales enables us, for the first time as far as that part of Britain is concerned, to draw conclusions about the beaker cultures based on a considerable body of evidence from an area forming a geographical unit within the Highland Zone. In his discussion of this, Savory has raised general questions of considerable interest with regard to the origins and development of the British beaker cultures, and in particular to the derivation and spread of the A-beaker culture. The purpose of the present paper is to re-examine this evidence and to supplement it with the evidence from beaker graves in Wales (tabulated in Appendix I), including burials of beaker type not actually accompanied by pottery (Appendix II). The conclusions reached differ in some respects from those of Savory.
The belief formerly held that Wales is poor in beakers is no longer tenable. The precise number is of course uncertain since the sherds from sandhill sites cannot be allocated to an exact number of vessels, but it seems clear that at least 64 separate beakers must be represented, and perhaps fragments of an additional number whose total is unknown. Not all of these survive in their entirety: only about half have been preserved either intact or sufficiently complete for their shapes and the main outlines of their decoration to be ascertained and all these are illustrated in figs. 1–7; but even the unrestorable fragments preserve elements of decoration and can tell us much about the vessels to which they originally belonged.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1958
References
page 57 note 1 Bull. Celt. Stud. XVI, 215–41Google Scholar. The views there expressed (pp. 217–27) were foreshadowed by the same writer in Trans. Cardiff Nat. Soc., 1952–1953, 39–41Google Scholar.
page 57 note 2 There are 55 entries in Savory's list (loc. cit., 228–38), but some of these include more than one vessel, e.g. his entry A8 covers perhaps two beakers, D2 at least four, D3 at least five, E2 two, F8 two, and Hi at least four. That would make a total of 68 vessels, but not all are certainly beakers, e.g. G1–2 are ‘beaker urns’ (probably not connected with the beaker cultures at all, but related to the recently denned Middle Bronze Age group of biconical urns of ‘Hilversum’ type; cf. Isobel Smith in Inst. of Arch., 12th Ann Rep. (1956), 20 ff.Google Scholar), while H4–6 are lost and of uncertain character. Additions might be made to Savory's list to include the following:—(i) debased beaker of coarse grey-black ware, decorated with two broad zones of bluntly notched chevrons, found with a crouched skeleton and two flint flakes in a tumulus on Linney Burrows, near Castlemartin, Pembrokeshire (Arch. Camb., 1926, 186–90, 401–4Google Scholar); (ii) sherds decorated with triangular and oval indentations arranged roughly in rows, found in a cairn near Blaen-Nedd-isaf, Ystradfellte, Brecknock, which also yielded flints including a fine leaf-shaped dagger (Arch. Camb., 1898, 248–64Google Scholar; Wheeler, , Prehistoric and Roman Wales, 131–2Google Scholar, fig. 38); (iii) two additional burials from the Llithfaen site in Caernarvonshire (App. I, no. 15; Savory's F3) (Arch. Camb., 1939, 97)Google Scholar; (iv) sherds from a barrow at Crug-du, near Cynon, Capel, Cardiganshire (Arch. Camb., 1905, 69)Google Scholar.
page 58 note 1 In addition to these groups, his section H comprises six unclassified beakers.
page 58 note 2 Arch., LXXXIX (1943), 101Google Scholar.
page 59 note 1 The numbering throughout this paper is that given by Savory, loc. cit.
page 59 note 2 Chatellier, Du, La Poterie aux Epoques Préhistorique et Gauloise en Armorique (1897)Google Scholar, pl. 10, 9.
page 60 note 1 PPS, II (1936), 189Google Scholar, 1–3.
page 60 note 2 Abercromby, pl. IX, 82.
page 60 note 3 Fox, Arch. Camb. Region, pl. I, 4.
page 60 note 4 PPS, 11 (1936)Google Scholar, pl. XII.
page 60 note 5 Abercromby, pl. VIII, 65.
page 60 note 6 Pltt-Rivers, , Excavations in Cranborne Chase, IVGoogle Scholar, pl. 265.
page 60 note 7 Abercromby, pl. XI, 114.
page 60 note 8 Ant. Journ., XIII (1933)Google Scholar, pl. XLI, fig. 1.
page 60 note 9 Ibid., pl. XL.
page 62 note 1 Abercromby, pl. VIII, 58.
page 62 note 2 Ibid., pl. XIII, 148.
page 62 note 3 Ibid., pl. V, 1.
page 62 note 4 Ibid., pl. VIII, 47.
page 62 note 5 Cunnington, , Woodhenge (1929)Google Scholar, pl. 41.
page 62 note 6 Abercromby, pl. V, 12.
page 62 note 7 Proc. Bristol Univ. Spelaeological Soc., V (1938), 25–43Google Scholar.
page 62 note 8 Ant. Journ., XV (1935), 61Google Scholar.
page 62 note 9 Abercromby, pl. X, 104.
page 62 note 10 Ibid., pl. XI, 112.
page 62 note 11 Greenwell, , British Barrows, 162Google Scholar, fig. 101.
page 62 note 12 Proc. Roy Irish Acad., LIV (1951), C, 56Google Scholar.
page 62 note 13 Ibid., LV (1952), C, 73.
page 62 note 14 Map in Arch. Camb., 1925, opp. p. 7Google Scholar.
page 62 note 15 Fox, Arch. Camb. Region, pl. 1, 2.
page 62 note 16 Abercromby, p. XXI, 294.
page 62 note 17 Ibid., 295 bis.
page 62 note 18 Ibid., 295.
page 63 note 1 Abercomby, pl. V, 4 tris.
page 63 note 2 Arch. Camb., 1902, 208Google Scholar, fig. 40.
page 63 note 3 Ibid., 210, fig. 41.
page 63 note 4 Proc. Bristol Univ. Spelaeological Soc., V (1938), 25–43Google Scholar.
page 63 note 5 Abercromby, pl. VII, 44.
page 63 note 6 Arch. Camb., 1902, 208Google Scholar, fig. 39.
page 66 note 1 Arch., XLIII, 390Google Scholar, fig. 81.
page 66 note 2 Childe, Prehistoric Migrations in Europe, fig. 100.
page 66 note 3 Mortimer, , Forty Years' Researches, 12Google Scholar.
page 66 note 4 Abercromby, pl. X, 91.
page 66 note 5 Which Savory calls a ‘beaker urn’ (G2).
page 66 note 6 Arch., XLIII, 392Google Scholar, fig. 83.
page 66 note 7 Arch. Camb., 1902, fig. 43 opp. p. 214Google Scholar.
page 66 note 8 Abercromby, pl. V, II.
page 66 note 9 Ibid., pl. XII, 137–8.
page 66 note 10 Ibid., pl. XIV, 160.
page 66 note 11 Ibid., pl. XV, 183.
page 66 note 12 Ibid., pl. XVI, 211.
page 67 note 1 Daniel, , Prehistoric Chamber Tombs of England and Wales, 140Google Scholar.
page 67 note 2 Piggott, , Neolithic Cultures of Brit. Isles, 180Google Scholar.
page 67 note 3 Early Cultures of N.W. Europe (ed. Fox, and Dickins, , 1950), 43Google Scholar, pl. 1 d.
page 67 note 4 Abercromby, pl. XIV, 168.
page 67 note 5 PSAS, XL (1905–1906), 26Google Scholar, figs. 1 and 4; Abercromby, pl. XVIII, 245.
page 67 note 6 A1 beaker from Barrow 93, Durrington; Abercromby, pl. V, 4.
page 67 note 7 Fox, Arch. Camb. Region, pl. II, 2.
page 68 note 1 Abercromby, pl. X, 101.
page 68 note 2 Jessen, and Helbaek, , Cereals in Gt. Britain and Ireland in Prehistoric and Early Historic Times, 18Google Scholar.
page 69 note 1 Abercromby, pl. XX, 285.
page 69 note 2 Arch. Camb., 1902, fig. 31 opp. p. 200Google Scholar.
page 69 note 3 Abercromby, pl. XIV, 167.
page 69 note 4 Early Cultures of N.W. Europe (ed. Fox, and Dickins, , 1950), 45Google Scholar, pl. II b.
page 70 note 1 Trans. Woolhope Field Club, 1932, opp. p. 149Google Scholar.
page 70 note 2 Greenwell, , British Barrows, 254Google Scholar, fig. 122.
page 70 note 3 Abercromby, pl. XIII, 146.
page 70 note 4 PSAS, 1886–1887, 132Google Scholar.
page 70 note 5 Abercromby, pl. XIV, 168.
page 70 note 6 Ibid., pl. XVI, 207.
page 70 note 7 Ant. Journ., XIII (1933), 53Google Scholar.
page 70 note 8 Arch., LXXXIX (1943), 101–4Google Scholar; Arch. Journ., XCIX (1942), 23Google Scholar.
page 72 note 1 Pitt-Rivers, , Excavations in Bokerly and Wansdyke, III, 240Google Scholar, pl. CCXIV.
page 72 note 2 Mortimer, , Forty Years' Researches, 214–15Google Scholar.
page 72 note 3 See my detailed account of this pottery in Trans. Anglesey Ant. Soc., 1956, 2–5Google Scholar. There is no proof that the A and B beaker sherds were in actual association, but the constant occurrence of both types on sandhill sites in western Britain (cf. Merthyr Mawr Warren and Luce Bay) is suggestive.
page 72 note 4 Childe, , Prehistoric Communities of Brit. Isles (2nd ed., 1947), 93Google Scholar.
page 72 note 5 PPS, XVII (1951), 53, 73Google Scholar.
page 72 note 6 Piggott cites an example from the Hebrides: Arch. Camb., 1933, 71Google Scholar.
page 74 note 1 Savory, loc. cit., 226.
page 74 note 2 Abercromby, pl. LIII, 384.
page 74 note 3 Ibid., pl. VII, 40.
page 74 note 4 Ibid., 42 bis.
page 74 note 5 Ant. Journ., XXIX (1949)Google Scholar, pl. XXIII b.
page 74 note 6 Arch. Camb., 1936, 93–9Google Scholar.
page 74 note 7 Ibid., 1921, 296–9; Crawford, , Long Barrows of the Cotswolds, 60–2Google Scholar; Grimes, , Prehistory of Wales, 153Google Scholar, no. 172.
page 75 note 1 Giffen, Van, Die Bauart der Einzelgraber (1930)Google Scholar.
page 75 note 2 Cf. the Glamorgan and Pembrokeshire palisade barrows, Crichel Down in Dorset, the Bleasdale Circle in Lancashire, Calais Wold in Yorkshire, and other sites.
page 76 note 1 Grimes, (PPS, II (1936), 110Google Scholar) suggests the Carneddau Hengwm circles may not be sepulchral.
page 76 note 2 Coffin burials of beaker age are recorded from Oxfordshire—either of wood (Harcourt, Stanton; Oxoniensia, 1944, 40–1Google Scholar) or of wickerwork (Amey's Pit, Dorchester; Inventaria Archaeologica, GB 1)—and less clearly dated examples occur in Yorkshire and Wessex.
page 74 note 3 Arch. Camb., 1919, 328–30Google Scholar.
page 77 note 1 A thirteenth case, from Ty'n-y-pwll in Anglesey (App. II, no. 1), is so much outside this range—cephalic index 71.1—as to raise the interesting question whether the occupant of the grave were not a Neolithic aborigine buried according to beaker fashions, a possibility strengthened by the megalithic traditions displayed in the construction of his tomb.
page 77 note 2 Wheeler, , Prehistoric and Roman Wales, 131–2Google Scholar, fig. 38.
page 77 note 3 Clark, , in Antiquity, V (1931), table on p. 418Google Scholar.
page 77 note 4 Cf. the association with a B beaker at Lockeridge, Wilts., mentioned by Clark, loc. cit., 420.
page 78 note 1 Cf. the example from Silesia illustrated by Childe, , Dawn of European Civilisation (1947Google Scholar ed.), fig. 109, 1.
page 78 note 2 Arch. Camb., 1936, 93–9Google Scholar.
page 78 note 3 Nat. Mus. Wales, 53.459/8, 54.141/4.
page 78 note 4 I omit any description of unassociated finds of objects normally regarded as of beaker type, e.g., flint daggers and some forms of perforated axe-hammers. The fine flint dagger from Ystradfellte has been mentioned above, and there are other stray finds that might conceivably be of beaker date. The only actual association of an axe-hammer I know of in Wales is with a food-vessel (Cairn, Foel, Montgomeryshire; Arch. Camb., 1923, p. 283)Google Scholar. But Grimes has drawn attention to the existence of several specimens of the small, flat axe-hammer normally associated with the A-beaker culture (Prehistory of Wales, 62); some of these are made of the spotted dolerite of Presely and may indicate A-beaker activity in that area at the time of the removal of the ‘blue-stones’ to Stonehenge (ibid.; Hundred Years of Welsh Archaeology (C.A.A. Centenary Vol., 1946), 48).
page 79 note 1 Davies, , Prehistoric and Roman Remains of Flintshire (1949), 370Google Scholar.
page 79 note 2 Arch. Camb., 1919, 328–30Google Scholar.
page 79 note 3 Ibid., 1923, 283.
page 79 note 4 Arch. Journ., XXIV (1867), 16–17Google Scholar.
page 79 note 5 Arch., LXXXIX (1943), 101–4Google Scholar: Arch. Journ., XCIX (1942), 23Google Scholar. Grimes has pointed out (Hundred Years of Welsh Archaeology, 49) the possibility that the movement may have been direct from Brittany into the Bristol Channel, and has cited a B beaker of Breton type from Brean Down in Somerset (Ant. Journ., XVIII (1938)Google Scholar, pl. XVII), associated there with part of a vessel with collared rim and fingernail ornament, in support of this Certainly the possibility exists, but the evidence for the direction of movement of the elements making up the Breton bell-beaker culture is not yet strong enough for certainty (see below).
page 80 note 1 Åberg, La Civilisation Enéolithique dans la Péninsule Ibérique, fig. 313 a. Cf. Childe, in Actas y Memorias de la Sociedad Espaőola de Antropología, Etnograjía y Prehistoria, XXI (1946), 196–201Google Scholar.
page 82 note 1 E.g. Fox, , Arch. Camb., 1925, 7Google Scholar; Grimes, , Prehistory of Wales, 50Google Scholar.
page 83 note 1 Antiquity, V (1931), 419Google Scholar, fig. 3; cf. Fox, , Personality of Britain (1943Google Scholar ed.), pl. 111.
page 83 note 2 Arch. Camb., 1925, 11–24, 33Google Scholar.
page 83 note 3 Childe, , Prehistoric Communities of Brit. Isles (2nd ed., 1947), 97Google Scholar.
page 83 note 4 Distribution map in L'Anthropologie, LVIII (1954), 5Google Scholar.
page 83 note 5 Matériaux pour l'Histoire Primitive et Naturelle de l'Homme, XIX (1885), 163–6Google Scholar, figs. 61–2.
page 83 note 6 Cronica del IV Congreso Arqueológico del Sudeste Espaőol, 1948, 163–8Google Scholar, fig. IV.
page 83 note 7 BSPF, XXVII (1930), 536–44Google Scholar, figs. 8–9.
page 83 note 8 de Fondouce, Cazalis, Alées Couvertes de la Provence (2nd mem., 1878)Google Scholar, pl. V, 1.
page 83 note 9 Boofzheim, Bailloud et, Les Civilisations Néolithiques de la France (1955)Google Scholar, pl. LXXX, 4.
page 83 note 10 Chatellier, Du, La Poterie aux Epoques Préhistorique et Gauloise en Armorique (1897)Google Scholar, pl. III 6, 7, 16; pl. IV, 25.
page 83 note 11 Boun-Marcou, loc. cit., fig. IV, 7; Saint-Eugéne, ibid., 167, fig. VI, 9.
page 83 note 12 E.g., Neuses, Eschwege, Mannheim; Sangmeister, , Die Glockenbecherkultur und die Becherkulturen (1951Google Scholar) taf. 1, 2; taf. 11, 6; taf. IV, 2, 4.
page 83 note 13 Aarbøger, 1944, fig. 52, 2; fig. 64, 2; fig. 74, 4.
page 83 note 14 Childe, Danube in Prehistory, fig. 96.
page 84 note 1 Glob, , Danske Oldsager, II: Yngre Stenalder (1952)Google Scholar, nos. 406–11.
page 84 note 2 Sangmeister, op. cit., taf. X.
page 84 note 3 Oudheidkundige Mededeelingen, XIV (1933)Google Scholar, taf. I, 4, 13.
page 84 note 4 Childe, , Danube in Prehistory, 201Google Scholar.
page 84 note 5 Childe, , Dawn of European Civilisation (1947 ed.), 95Google Scholar.
page 84 note 6 PSAS, LXVIII (1933–1934), 155–7Google Scholar, 161.
page 84 note 7 In a lecture to the Prehistoric Society, 29 February, 1956; see also Arch. News Letter, 1955, 15–6Google Scholar.
page 85 note 1 Savory, loc. cit., 226–7.
page 85 note 2 Piggott, , Neolithic Communities of Brit. Isles, 379–80Google Scholar.
page 85 note 3 Ibid., 374, and Chronological Table.
page 85 note 4 Inst. of Arch., 11th Ann. Rep. (1955), 1–14Google Scholar.
page 85 note 5 Arch., LXXXIX (1943), 104Google Scholar.
page 89 note 1 There are doubtless other, less easily recognizable, beaker burials in Wales, e.g. intrusive burials in the larger of the Gop Caves in Flintshire (Arch. Journ., LVIII (1901), 322–41Google Scholar; Arch. Camb., 1935, 198–200Google Scholar) may be of this type. Mention should also be made of the burials in the Blaen-Nedd-isaf tumulus which were accompanied by possible beaker sherds and a fine flint knife together with other objects (see p. 57, n. 2); and of the Ysceifiog barrow in Flintshire, which yielded an undated inhumation in a central pit entered by a sloping ramp and surrounded by a circular trench within the body of the mound—features which Fox compared with some beaker burials in Yorkshire, (Arch. Camb., 1926, 48 ff)Google Scholar. On the other hand the grave at Corston Beacon, near Hundleton, Pembrokeshire (ibid. 1928, 137 ff.), which produced a large bronze riveted dagger, has been omitted since the skeleton was extended and the burial may well be post-beaker.