I thank the two anonymous rapporteurs who, through their criticisms and comments, have led me to amend some paragraphs and clarify my ideas.

1. Introduction

• a geographical or spatial problem;

• an accumulation of methodological problems;

and more deeply,

• of a theoretical problem.

3Focusing on data from the French territory, let’s first look at geographical observations.

2. The French territory and the Bell Beaker: spatial logics and modes of dissemination

2.1. Spatial logics

4While, on the one hand, the distribution of the items attributed to the Bell Beaker today concerns a large part of the European continent (Norway and Greece included), its presence in Morocco has recently been highlighted and, on the other hand, the question of the “origin” of the Bell Beaker paralyzes and scleroses many discussions, the study of the Bell Beaker in France appears to be decisive, as the country’s territory has a central position in the European isthmus. It should be remembered that this part of the European territory is the only one to be bathed by the Mediterranean Sea, the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea.

5Although the cartography of the Bell Beaker itself is deficient, three salient facts can be identified quite easily:

• • 5 Here again, we follow the published literature and do not question in these lines what it means to (...)

  In general, the presence of the Bell Beaker in France (material items, tombs, and in a more ambiguous way the dwellings, etc.)5 is low compared to regions such as Bohemia, Moravia, Bavaria, Wiltshire, the Tagus estuary, etc. No region in France offers such densities of Bell Beaker sites.

• • 6 This does not mean that we conceive of the Bell Beaker as an ethnic entity or a people.

  Some regions are completely devoid of data. There are therefore areas where it can be argued that there was no Bell Beaker presence6, without it being possible to affirm that these areas were uninhabited at the end of the 3rd millennium BC. It must therefore be agreed that a non-Bell Beaker settlement probably existed at the end of the 3rd millennium, but the idea of areas not yet permanently inhabited cannot be totally excluded.

• From a quantitative and qualitative point of view, Bell Beaker sites in France are poor and do not compare well with other regions such as Bohemia, Moravia, the Central Meseta or the Tagus estuary. In these areas, the richness and diversity of the archaeological remains are striking for any archaeologist working on French territory.

6It must therefore be agreed that the distribution of the Bell Beaker on French territory is structured by various processes that we have not yet distinguished.

2.2. Heterogeneity of data on the Bell Beaker

7Although the Bell Beaker is first identified by complex funerary practices that break with existing traditions in Central and Western Europe during the first half of the 3rd millennium BC, the heterogeneity of the data is also reflected in qualitative terms.

• • 7 This idea put forward elsewhere (Bailly 2002, 2014) is further illustrated in a recent article (Lem (...)

  The sites containing material culture considered to be Bell Beaker on French territory are mainly settlements (Bailly & Salanova 1999). Observations relating to the architecture and organisation of the dwellings are uneven and disparate. There is no7 Bell Beaker architecture. This aspect needed to be pinpointed. Architecture is the most stable and rooted material element of a culture. The archaeological consequences of this fact known to geographers and anthropologists (Deffontaines 1972, Oliver 1990) have been widely explored by the work of A. Coudart (1999 among others references) and P. Pétrequin (Pétrequin 2005, Pétrequin et al. 1999). It is therefore particularly striking, even significant, that the beakers cultures of the 3rd millennium have standardized funerary traditions, an identifiable material culture but no specific architecture. This is clearly demonstrated by the recent book on Bell Beaker habitats in Europe (Gibson 2019).

• Despite the notable and consistent exception of the Alsace region, all the burials attributed to the Bell Beaker in France shows a significant diversity (Salanova & Tchérémissinoff 2011). Funeral practices are far from the usual standards of Central European necropolises. Some observations are quite unique (Blaizot & Vernet 2004). They also show only a few points of comparison matching with the archaeological data from the Iberian Peninsula.

• The spatial distribution of the Bell Beaker and the central role of funerary practices underline the close relationships with the Corded Ware Culture (Benz et al. 1998, Strahm 2004, Vander Linden 2004 and Besse 2003a). In Central Europe the opposition between Corded Ware Culture and the Bell Beaker is considered ’dialectical’ (Benz et al. 1998 or more recently Großmann 2016) although many differences appear: ornament, frequency of metal, lithic industry, etc. (Benz et al. 1998, Strahm 2004, Vander Linden 2004 or Besse 2003a).

2.3. Bell Beaker “Poles”?

• • 9 See Guilaine 2004 and 2009. The recent article by J. Guilaine (2019) takes up this genealogy of ide (...)

  First of all, several regions have a possible transition from the Pre-Bell Beaker Neolithic to the Bell Beaker and have not been selected as potential centres of origin (Jutland, Saxony, Bohemia, Moravia, Poland, Hungary, etc.)9. Is it the examination of the archaeological data which is at the origin of this lack of interest or is it the linguistic difficulty which grips all Bell Beaker specialists? To what extent does the mastery of the languages of Central and Eastern Europe influence our understanding and interpretation of this archaeological “phenomenon”?

• An examination of the non-ceramic productions of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon reveals that the spatial dynamics are structured across the European isthmus not between two poles (Iberian Peninsula and Central Europe) but at least across three, the third being the Armorican Peninsula (Nicolas 2016). The arrowhead models in particular are neither part of an Iberian nor a Dutch tradition (Bailly 2014). In fact, many elements of Bell Beaker culture show processes of diffusion and imitation on the scale of Central and Western Europe (Fitzpatrick et al. 2016).

9Let us therefore agree that there are components that are very largely underestimated and methods of dissemination that we are not able to grasp. Let us try to identify the scenarios in a few regions of the French territory which constitute interfaces between Central and Western Europe.

3. From Alsace to Provence, several scenarios? (fig. 1)

3.1. Alsace

11In Alsace, while the presence of the Bell Beaker is known for a long time, while remaining rather discreet, development-led archaeological fieldwork has largely renewed the data. On the one hand, the settlements belonging to the Bell Beaker remain few in number but are now indisputable (Denaire & Croutsch 2010). On the other hand, there are now many more tombs. The excavated burial deposits are very similar to those found in Bavaria, Moravia or Hungary. Moreover, the burials are grouped together: they are small necropolises in accordance with what is known in southern Germany for instance. Recent data in Alsace confirm that this region belongs to the Central Europe realm of the Bell Beaker (Vergnaud 2014). This aspect is reinforced by the similarities with recent discoveries of dwellings and tombs attributable to the Corded Ware Culture (Denaire et al. 2014).

32. From Burgundy to the Swiss Jura

12Further south, in Burgundy, Franche-Comté and the Swiss Jura, the available data are much more diverse (Bailly 2002, 2003b, Salanova et al. 2005). The use of collective burials in caves or a few poorly documented individual tombs is attested. The reuse of megalithic monuments is identified. Metal is very rare in this region and there is no metallurgy attributable to the Bell Beaker (Cattin 2008). The settlements are mainly known in the valleys: wide valleys as along the banks of the Saône river, smaller hydrographic modules in the north-western Jura, or even in dry and steep valleys as in the southern French Jura, as illustrated by the archaeological site of Derrière-le-Château in Géovreissiat/Montréal-la-Cluse (Ain), a case which can be compared to the settlement of Crédéry, located in Satigny’s territory in the canton of Geneva (Besse et al. 2009). Further north, the Bevaix plateau (Canton of Neuchâtel, Switzerland) is a rare, poorly preserved but very interesting case, as it confirms the hypothesis of a relocation of the settlements synchronous with the transition between Auvernier-Cordé and Bell Beaker. In fact, while the first half of the 3rd millennium was densely populated on the lake shores of the Three Lakes region or the Combe d’Ain, the dendrochronological sequences of the lakes elapsed from the 26th century onwards and then came to an abrupt end in the second half of the 25th century (Arnold 2009: 220-221). In these last occupations, only the Cord Ware Culture is present. There is no Bell Beaker lake dwelling.

3.3. The middle Rhône Valley and the Northern Alps

13Along the middle and lower reaches of the Rhone valley, a fairly similar pattern can be described: collective burial sites, the presence of a few individual graves; most of the identified settlements are located on alluvial plains. The question of post-depositional processes and the over-representation of sites from highly excavated areas are decisive in the constitution of the available corpus. However, a probable relocation of the habitat can also be considered here.

3.4. Provence

15At the southernmost of our meridian transect, the south-east of France offers a rich but particularly complicated panorama (Lemercier 2004). Indeed, ancient excavations, stratigraphic problems, intense erosion, inadequate study methodologies and misinterpretation of data constitute a mixture that is today inextricable and singularly difficult to deal with. A panorama of the problems has recently been drawn up (Caraglio 2015), to which we refer the reader.

17Let’s briefly establish a preliminary list of obstacles that come to mind even before an in- depth examination of the contexts and data.

• • 15 However, this fact has been established since the end of the 19th century and it remains the backbo (...)
  • 16 In 2001, a collective review article on the Bell Beaker of the South of France even proposed to def (...)

  With the exception of “common ceramics”, we do not have a precise ceramic typology that would allow us to establish a robust typological structure. Nor do we currently have an inventory of single material culture assemblages (« ensembles clos »), an essential element for any chrono-typological construction15. Consequently, we do not have a matrix of association of types, and consequently a seriation. However, these facts in no way prevent specialists of the Mediterranean Bell Beaker from establishing chrono-typologies16, or even historical-cultural phases and scenarios!

• This scheme imposed for southern France is in fact the result of the application of the “Dutch model”, so called since the 1980s to refer to the work of I. Lanting and J. van der Waals (1976), on data from Mediterranean France. This transfer becomes clear when we look today at the publications following the international colloquia dedicated to the Bell Beaker: Oberried 1974 (1976), Nice 1976 (1984), Riva del Garda 1998 (2001). No demonstration is ever offered. The opinion of the authors seems to be a sufficient guarantee of veracity.

• The Iberian origin, preferred interpretation since the beginning of the 20th century, is considered the only one possible and is described as a process of allochthonous settlement, a migration, which is not supported by data. A more recent formulation considers the displacement of small groups of people or isolated individuals from the Iberian Peninsula (Lemercier et al. 2014: 197-198). There is a set of contradictions and even misinterpretations in this scenario that has been published several times: the Iberian origin is not sustainable and if people have moved from the Iberian Peninsula to Central Europe, it is certainly not the process that ’brings the Bell Beaker’ to South-Eastern France.

18From this barely sketched out panorama, two observations emerge. Firstly, more than the development of archaeometry, the data of development-led archaeology have - here again - completely renewed the questions of the transition from the Final Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age. Secondly, the traditional framework of “protohistorical” interpretation, coined by the search for an elusive origin and a historical-like reading of non-established chrono-typologies, has been emptied of its meaning. The only possible consensus does not go very far. The situations are highly contrasted and heterogeneous from one region to another (fig. 2).

4. Forms and manners: the techniques of the Bell Beaker

4.1. Variability as an obstacle and as a principle

19We know little about the Bell Beaker, however we can take a few things for granted. First of all, it is an elaborate ceramic production whose initial use could be the consumption of probably alcoholic beverages, of which we can presume a ritualised use (Guerra Doce 2015, Sherratt 1987) and the sharing of “public representations” (Sperber 1996) which motivate its distribution over a large part of Europe, a path which began in the Anatolian Plateau. This aspect is mainly established for Central Europe in funerary context. However, it should be pointed out that these vessels do not circulate over long distances (Convertini 1996 and later works, Salanova et al. 2016). We have also known for some forty years now that this original distribution of artefacts in Europe is also related to other archaeological items than decorated ceramics, mainly ornaments and weapons, the Beaker package (Burgess & Shennan 1976). The Bell Beaker is about the subjects: bodies and persons.

20Numerous typological studies have proposed the construction of chrono-typologies in order to propose scenarios of diffusion and to support historical interpretations since the beginning of the 20th century. There are many such scenarios, none of which is free of difficulties or even contradictions. Among these difficulties, the variability of material productions attributed to the Bell Beaker appears to be the most formidable. It forces some researchers to get around it by establishing historical-cultural scenarios without first establishing a chrono-typology (see above). Others try to cover the whole space which seems to be less of an infinite extension than an irreducible principle (Boast 1998) or try to thwart the aporias of classification (which always prioritizes the descriptors) by drawing out networks of formal similarities in order to derive a historical reading (Gallay 1997, 2001).

21But the real problem is theoretical. Variability indirectly raises the question of reification and identification: what is truly Bell Beaker? Does this question even make sense?

4.2. “Communities of practice”: hybridity, replication, drifts

23In this context, archaeometric approaches appear confusing for those who seek simple relationships between the chaine opératoire and the materiality of the results of this process (Salanova et al. 2016: 729-730). Moreover, the technological characterization of the settings makes it possible to group together productions behind the idea of a standard (Salanova 2000 and numerous subsequent publications), a sort of “ideal-type” for archaeologists, in order to reduce the diversity of observations. In the end, this ideal-type is more a matter of teleology, a frequent bias in archaeology, than of social analysis. This notion of the Standard, although useful at first glance, ultimately obscures what we are trying to identify: the meaning of the differences, the meaning of the deviation from the norm. For it is in the difference between the standard and the observed material achievement (the performance) that the role of the actors, their intentions and their background are revealed. The chaines opératoires are rarely rigid, especially when they travel. The notion of a community of practice (Wenger 2005) is then much more useful in enabling us to understand the difference between sharing values and respecting a technical standard. What counts is the performance and reiteration of the sharing of values materialized here by a ceramic tradition, and which are underpinned/justified by devices that undoubtedly have no material anchorage.

4.3. Grog temper and cord

25In the same vein, it would be possible to observe the spatial distribution of certain typological elements of the Bell Beaker and their more or less modified replicas: archer wristguard, bow-shaped pendants, V-buttons, etc. But with few technological arguments available. On the other hand, within the space we are considering, a certain number of typo-technological elements can be taken into account, although the data is partial.

27Corded Ware Culture and Bell Beaker also share a common technical feature: the use of cords or textiles to create ceramic decorations. Indeed, both sets are characterized by decorations created by printing cords and textiles on the still wet surface of the pottery during thepot making process. It is likely that this practice is involved in the very coiling of some beakers (Van der Leeuw 1976) with the use of very fine fibres (Grömer & Kern 2010) as found in the culture of Zlota in Poland in the second quarter of the third millennium BC. It should be noted, however, that in the Corded Ware Culture, the impressions of cords on fresh paste are not only found on beakers, since they are also found on amphorae, and that these impressions, which are not always displayed horizontally, as with beakers, may have a unique aesthetic appearance and be applied in a reduced manner on the wall of vases or on handling elements. Again, it should be pointed out that this type of practice does not originate from the Corded Ware Culture. The use of cord decoration goes back much further in time, to the 5th millennium, in Eastern Europe (Burdo et al. 2010), to the farthest reaches of the steppes of Central Asia. It is a long-lasting technical tradition totally foreign to the Mediterranean in general and the Iberian Peninsula in particular.

4.4. Follow the arrows

28Much has been written about arrowheads in Bell Beaker context and we quickly mention here points detailed elsewhere (Bailly 2002, 2014, Furestier 2007, Nicolas 2016). Two major morphological traditions oppose each other in Europe during the Bell Beaker: triangular arrowheads with a concave basis and bifacial façonnage, inherited from large models in Central Europe; pedunculated triangular arrowheads with bifacial façonnage in the West, including the British Isles. However, three regions have different ranges of arrowheads: In the Iberian Peninsula they are absent and replaced by copper tips; in Denmark and northern Germany, there are numerous small, narrow, concave-based arrowheads (present as early as the Einzelgrabkultur or EGK). In the area of interest here, the spatial distribution of the two main traditions is superimposed, with a North/South gradient. The concave-based arrowheads do not extend into the southern half.

5. Conclusion

29Structured by the heterogeneity of the available data and the irregularity of its geographical distribution in the Europe of the 3rd millennium B.C., the “Bell Beaker Phenomenon” or “the Bell Beaker” can no longer be considered today as an archaeological process of a different or unprecedented “nature”. It is a process of diffusion and change, as can be identified in Neolithic Europe and in the archaeology of other continents. However, its extension and diversity require an approach that takes into account the different spatial scales involved (as shown by studies of ceramic petrography, for example), gaps and discontinuities. Moreover, beyond the typological aspects (and therefore analogies), it is the technological differences that can inform us about the processes at work. The relationship between the variability/homogeneity of the repertoires of shapes on the one hand and the variability/heterogeneity of the production chaînes opératoires on the other hand offers us an interesting avenue of investigation, provided that we clarify the scenarios which determine the dissemination, replication (and deformation) of these new forms, most of which come from the East.

Arnold 2009, ARNOLD B., À la poursuite des villages lacustres neuchâtelois : un siècle et demi de cartographie et de recherche, Neuchâtel, Office et Musée Cantonal d’Archéologie, 2009, 252 p. (Archéologie neuchâteloise ; 45).

Bailly & Salanova 1999, BAILLY M., SALANOVA L., Les dates radiocarbone du Campaniforme en Europe occidentale : analyse critique des principales séries de dates, in 3ème Congrès international / 3rd international Symposium : ¹⁴C et archéologie / ¹⁴C and archaeology, Lyon, 6-10 avril 1998, Evin J., Oberlin C., Daugas J.-P. et al. (Dir.), Paris / Rennes, SPF / GMPCA, 1999, p. 219-224 (Mémoire de la Société préhistorique française ; 26 / Revue d’Archéométrie - Supplément).

Bailly 2002, BAILLY M., La flèche et l’éclat : production et consommation des outillages lithiques taillés de la fin du Néolithique au début de l’âge du Bronze entre Saône et Rhône (2600-2000 av. J.-C.), Besançon, Université de Franche-Comté - Faculté des Lettres et Sciences humaines, 2002, Thèse de Doctorat Université, 2 vol., 354 p.

Bailly & Besse 2004, BAILLY M., BESSE M., Le complexe campaniforme rhodano-rhénan : suite et fin ?, in Auvergne et Midi - Actualité de la recherche., Dartevelle H. (Dir.), Cressenac, Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest, 2004, p. 485-492.

Bailly 2014, BAILLY M., Discordance des temps, concordance des espaces ? Remarques sur les armatures de flèches en contexte campaniforme. De l’Arc jurassien à l’isthme européen, in Entre archéologie et écologie, une Préhistoire de tous les milieux : Mélanges offerts à Pierre Pétrequin Arbogast R.-M., Richard A. (Dir.), Besançon, Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté, 2014, p. 355-385 (Annales littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté ; 928 / Série “Environnement, sociétés et archéologie” ; 18).

Beckerman 2015, BECKERMAN S.M., Corded ware coastal communities: Using ceramic analysis to reconstruct third millennium BC societies in the Netherlands, Leiden, Sidestone Press, 2015, 311 p.

Benz et al. 1998, BENZ M., STRAHM C., VAN WILLIGEN S., Le Campaniforme : phénomène et culture archéologique, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, Paris, 95, 3, 1998, p. 305-314.

Besse 2003a, BESSE M., Les céramiques communes des Campaniformes européens, Gallia Préhistoire, Paris, 45, 2003a, p. 205-258.

Besse 2003b, BESSE M., L’Europe du 3e millénaire avant notre ère : les céramiques communes au Campaniforme, Lausanne, Cahiers d’archéologie romande, 2003b, 223 p. (Cahiers d’archéologie romande ; 94).

Besse et al. 2009, BESSE M., ANDREY C., TOBEL (VON) C., Le Néolithique : Le Néolithique final à Crédery (Satigny) - un site terrestre parmi les lacustres, in L’archéologie en territoire genevois, Basel, Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte (SGUF), 2009, p. 18-24 (AS. ; 32/2).

Binder et al. 2010, BINDER D., CLOP GARCIA X., CONVERTINI F., MANEN C., SÉNÉPART I., Les productions céramiques du Néolithique ancien entre Provence et Catalogne, in Premières sociétés paysannes de Méditerranée occidentale : structures des productions céramiques, Manen C., Convertini F., Binder D. et al. (Dir.), Paris, Société préhistorique française, 2010, p. 115-129 (Mémoires de la Société préhistorique française ; 51).

Blaizot & Vernet 2004, BLAIZOT F., VERNET G., La tombe en fosse campaniforme sur le site le Brezet à Clermont-Ferrand (Puy-de Dôme, France), in Graves and funerary rituals during the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in Europe (2700-2000 BC) : proceedings of the International Conference held at the Cantonal Archaeological Museum, Sion (Switzerland) October 4th-7th 2001, Besse M., Desideri J. (Dir.), Oxford, Archaeopress, 2004, p. 41-47 (British archaeological Reports - International Series ; 1284).

Boast 1998, BOAST R., Patterns by design: changing perspectives of Beaker variation, in Understanding the Neolithic of North-Western Europe, Edmonds M.R., Richards C. (Dir.), Glasgow, Cruithne Press, 1998, p. 384-406.

Boyer 1990, BOYER P., Tradition as truth and communication. Cambridge, Cambridge University press, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990, 143 p.

Burdo et al. 2010, BURDO N.B., KADROW S., KOŚKO A., KOTOVA N.S., KOWALSKI A.P., OLEJARCZYK P., SIKORSKI A., SZMYT M., VIDEIKO M.Y., ‘Cord’ ornaments on pottery in the Vistula and Dniepr interfluvial region: 5th-4th Mill. BC, Baltic-Pontic Studies, 15, 2010, p. 1-170.

Burgess & Shennan 1976, BURGESS C., SHENNAN S.J., The Beaker Phenomenon: Some Suggestions, in Settlement and Economy in the Third and Second Millennia BC, Burgess C., Miket R. (Dir.), Oxford, BAR Publishing, 1976, p. 309-331 (British archaeological Reports - British Series; 33).

Caraglio 2015, CARAGLIO A., Temps, Espaces, Dynamiques de peuplement : la fin du Néolithique provençal, Aix-en-Provence, Aix-Marseille Université, 2015, Thèse de Doctorat, 318 + 157 p.

Caraglio 2016, CARAGLIO A., Sites domestiques et sites funéraires dans le Luberon, quelles dynamiques d’occupation des espaces à la fin du 3e millénaire av. n. è. ?, in De la tombe au territoire : actes des 11e Rencontres méridionales de Préhistoire récente, Montpellier (34) - 25 au 27 septembre 2014, Sénépart I., Leandri F., Cauliez J. et al. (Dir.), Toulouse, Archives d’Écologie préhistorique, 2016, p. 107-123.

Cassen 2003, CASSEN S., Importer, Imiter, Inspirer ? : Objets-signes centre-européens dans le Néolithique armoricain, L’Anthropologie (Paris), Paris, 107, 2, 2003, p. 255-270, http://www.sciencedirect.com/​science/​article/​B6X0X-490MSH4-4/​2/​540e6e88269b8d4e54570eda0a254c47.

Cattin 2008, CATTIN F., Modalités d’approvisionnement et modalités de consommation du cuivre dans les Alpes au 3ème millénaire avant notre ère : apport des analyses métalliques à la connaissance des peuplements du Néolithique final, du Campaniforme et du Bronze ancien, Faculté des sciences de l’Université de Genève, 2008, Thèse de Doctorat - Sciences : archéologie préhistorique, 458 p.

Clarke 1968, CLARKE D.L., Analytical Archaeology, London, Methuen, 1968, 684 p.

Clarke 1976, CLARKE D.L., The Beaker Network - Social and economic models, in Glockenbecher Symposion - Oberried, 1974, Lanting J.N., Van Der Waals J.D. (Dir.), Bussum / Haarlem, Fibula / Van Dishoeck, 1976, p. 459-477.

Convertini 1996, CONVERTINI F., Production et signification de la céramique campaniforme à la fin du 3ème millénaire av. J.C. dans le Sud et le Centre-Ouest de la France et en Suisse occidentale, Oxford, Tempvs Reparatvm, 1996, 372 p. (British archaeological Reports - International Series ; 656).

Convertini & Querré 1998, CONVERTINI F., QUERRÉ G., Apports des études céramologiques en laboratoire à la connaissance du Campaniforme : résultats, bilan et perspectives, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, Paris, 95, 3, 1998, p. 333-342.

Coudart 1999, COUDART A., Maisons d’hier et maisons d’aujourd’hui. L’espace domestique fabrique et donne à voir la société, in Habitat et société, Braemer F., Cleuziou S., Coudart A. (Dir.), Antibes, Association pour la Promotion et la Diffusion des Connaissances archéologiques, 1999, p. 535-548 (Rencontres internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes ; 19).

Deffontaines 1972, DEFFONTAINES P., L’homme et sa maison, Paris, Gallimard, 1972, 256 p. (Géographie humaine ; 36).

del Castillo Yurrita 1928, DEL CASTILLO YURRITA A., La Cultura del Vaso Campaniforme : su origen y extensión en Europa, Barcelona, Universidad de Barcelona - Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, 1928, 216 p.

Denaire & Croutsch 2010, DENAIRE A., CROUTSCH C., Du Campaniforme à la fin du Bronze ancien en Alsace : essai de synthèse chronologique, in Du Néolithique final au Bronze ancien dans le nord-est de la France. Actualité de la recherche : actes de la table ronde internationale de Strasbourg organisée par l’UMR 7044 du CNRS, Jeunesse C., Denaire A. (Dir.), Zimmersheim, Association pour la Promotion de la Recherche archéologique en Alsace, 2010, p. 165-186.

Denaire et al. 2014, DENAIRE A., VERGNAUD L., MAUVILLY M., BARRAND EMAM H., BOURY L., ARBOGAST R.-M., Geispolsheim « Schlossgarten », un nouveau site de la culture à Céramique cordée en Alsace, in Données récentes sur les pratiques funéraires néolithiques de la Plaine du Rhin supérieur, Lefranc P., Denaire A., Jeunesse C. (Dir.), Oxford, Archaeopress, 2014, p. 155-172 (British archaeological Reports - International Series ; 2633).

Desideri 2007, DESIDERI J., L’Europe du 3e millénaire avant notre ère et la question du Campaniforme : histoire des peuplements par l’étude des traits non métriques dentaires, Université de Genève, 2007, Thèse de Doctorat, 262 p.

Desideri & Besse 2012, DESIDERI J., BESSE M., De la dent à l’individu, du groupe humain à son histoire : le phénomène campaniforme dans le nord de l’Espagne, Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, Paris, 24, 1-2, 2012, p. 37-50.

Fitzpatrick et al. 2016, FITZPATRICK A.P., DELIBES DE CASTRO G., GUERRA DOCE E., VELASCO VÁZQUEZ J., Bell Beaker connections along the Atlantic façade: the gold ornaments from Tablada del Rudrón, Burgos, Spain, in Analysis of the Economic Foundations Supporting the Social Supremacy of the Beaker Groups, Guerra Doce E., Liesau Von Lettow-Vorbeck C. (Dir.), Oxford, Archaeopress Archaeology, 2016, p. 69-93 (Actes du 17ème Congrès de l’Union internationale des sciences préhistoriques et protohistoriques, Burgos 2014 : session 336).

Furestier 2007, FURESTIER R., Les industries lithiques campaniformes du sud-est de la France, Oxford, John and Erica Hedges Ltd, 2007, 339 p. (British archaeological Reports - International Series ; 1684).

Gallay 1968, GALLAY A., Le Jura et la séquence Néolithique récent Bronze ancien, Archives suisses d’Anthropologie générale, 33, 1968, p. 1-84.

Gallay 1988, GALLAY A., La transition Néolithique récent-Bronze ancien en Suisse romande : un état de la question, in Du Néolithique moyen II au Néolithique final au nord-ouest des Alpes : actes du 12ème colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique de l’Est de la France, Lons-le-Saunier, 11-13 octobre 1985, Pétrequin P. (Dir.), Lons-le-Saunier, Musée archéologique / Cercle Girardot, 1988, p. 189-199.

Gallay 1997, GALLAY A., L’énigme du Campaniforme, in L’énigmatique civilisation campaniforme, Dijon, Faton, 1997, p. 14-19 (Archéologia - hors-série ; 9).

Gallay 2001, GALLAY A., L’énigme campaniforme, in Bell beakers today: pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe, Nicolis F. (Dir.), Trento, Ufficio Beni Archeologici - Servizio Beni Culturali - Provincia Autonoma, 2001, p. 41-58 (Proceedings of the international Colloquium, Riva del Garda [Trento, Italy], 11-16 may 1998).

Gibson 2019, GIBSON A.M. Ed., Bell Beaker Settlement of Europe: The Bell Beaker Phenomenon from a Domestic Perspective, Oxford, Oxbow, 2019, 392 p. (Prehistoric Society Research paper; 9).

Giligny 1993, GILIGNY F., La variabilité des récipients céramique au Chalcolithique moyen récent jurassien (3400-3200 av. J.-C.) : analyse archéologique d’un système d’objets, Université Paris I - Panthéon-Sorbonne, 1993, Thèse de Doctorat, 4 vol., 882 p.

Grömer & Kern 2010, GRÖMER K., KERN D., Technical data and experiments on corded ware, Journal of Archaeological Science, London, 37, 12, 2010, p. 3136-3145, http://www.sciencedirect.com/​science/​article/​B6WH8-50KWG37-2/​2/​6ba17fccc10fb1b6e58efd3128435a31.

Großmann 2016, GROßMANN R., Das dialektische Verhältnis von Schnurkeramik und Glockenbecher zwischen Rhein und Saale, Bonn, Rudolf Habelt, 2016, 279 p. (Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie ; 287 / Human Development in Landscapes; 8).

Guerra Doce 2015, GUERRA DOCE E., The Origins of Inebriation: Archaeological Evidence of the Consumption of Fermented Beverages and Drugs in Prehistoric Eurasia, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, New Delhi, 22, 3, 2015, p. 751-782, http://dx.doi.org/​10.1007/​s10816-014-9205-z.

Guilaine 2004, GUILAINE J., Les Campaniformes et la Méditerranée, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, Paris, 101, 2 “Substrats et genèse(s) du Campaniforme : actes de la séance de la SPF du 21 février 2003 […]”, 2004, p. 239-249.

Guilaine 2009, GUILAINE J., La Sicile et l’Europe campaniforme, in La Sicile et l’Europe campaniforme : la collection Veneroso à Sciacca, Guilaine J., Tusa S., Veneroso P. (Dir.), Toulouse, Archives d’Ecologie préhistorique, 2009, p. 135-195.

Guilaine 2019, GUILAINE J., La question campaniforme : sur quelques débats d’hier et d’aujourd’hui, Estudos arqueologicos de Oeiras, 25, 2019, p. 9-46.

Herring 2008, HERRING E., Greek Traders in Native Contexts in Iron Age Southeastern Italy: From Interaction to Marginality, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 21, 1, 2008, p. 111-132.

Holmqvist et al. 2018, HOLMQVIST E., LARSSON A.M., KRIISKA A., PALONEN V., PESONEN P., MIZOHATA K., KOUKI P., RÄISÄNEN J., Tracing grog and pots to reveal Neolithic Corded Ware Culture contacts in the Baltic Sea region (SEM-EDS, PIXE), Journal of Archaeological Science, 91, 2018, p. 77-91, https://www.sciencedirect.com/​science/​article/​pii/​S0305440317302091.

Jeunesse 2014a, JEUNESSE C., Pratiques funéraires campaniformes en Europe - Faut-il remettre en cause la dichotomie Nord-Sud ? La question de la réutilisation des sépultures monumentales dans l’Europe du 3e millénaire, in Données récentes sur les pratiques funéraires néolithiques de la Plaine du Rhin supérieur, Lefranc P., Denaire A., Jeunesse C. (Dir.), Oxford, Archaeopress, 2014a, p. 211-228 (British archaeological Reports - International Series; 2633).

Jeunesse 2014b, JEUNESSE C., The dogma of the Iberian origin of the Bell Beaker: attempting its deconstruction, Journal of Neolithic Archaeology, 16, 2014b, p. 158-166.

Landragin 2004, LANDRAGIN F., Saillance physique et saillance cognitive, Corela, 2, 2, 2004, p. 1-30.

Lanting & Van der Waals 1976, LANTING J.N., VAN DER WAALS J.D., Beaker culture relations in the lower Rhine Basin, in Glockenbecher Symposion - Oberried, 1974, Lanting J.N., Van Der Waals J.D. (Dir.), Bussum / Haarlem, Fibula / Van Dishoeck, 1976, p. 1-80.

Lemercier 2004, LEMERCIER O., Les Campaniformes dans le Sud-Est de la France, Lattes, Association pour la recherche archéologique en Languedoc oriental, 2004, 515 p. (Monographies d’archéologie méditerranéenne ; 18).

Lemercier 2012, LEMERCIER O., Interpreting the Beaker phenomenon in Mediterranean France: an Iron Age analogy, Antiquity, 86, 331, 2012, p. 131-143.

Lemercier et al. 2014, LEMERCIER O., BLAISE E., CATTIN F., CONVERTINI F., DESIDERI J., FURESTIER R., GADBOIS-LANGEVIN R., LABAUNE M., 2500 avant notre ère : l’implantation campaniforme en France méditerranéenne, in Implantations humaines en milieu littoral méditerranéen : facteurs d’installation et processus d’appropriation de l’espace (Préhistoire, Antiquité, Moyen Âge), Mercuri L., Gonzalez Villascusa R., Bertoncello F. (Dir.), Antibes, Association pour la Promotion et la Diffusion des Connaissances archéologiques, 2014, p. 191-203 (Rencontres internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes ; 34).

Lemercier & Strahm 2018, LEMERCIER O., STRAHM C., Nids de coucous et grandes maisons : l’habitat campaniforme, épicampaniforme et péricampaniforme en France dans son contexte européen, in Habitations et habitat du Néolithique à l’âge du Bronze en France et ses marges. Actes des IIe Rencontres Nord/Sud de Préhistoire récente, Dijon, 19-21 novembre 2015, Lemercier O., Sénépart I., Besse M. et al. (Dir.), Toulouse, Archives d’Écologie préhistorique, 2018, p. 459-478.

Lemonnier 2012, LEMONNIER P., Mundane objects: materiality and non-verbal communication, Walnut Creek, Left Coast, 2012, 205 p. (Critical cultural heritage series).

Marguet & Rey 2007, MARGUET A., REY P.-J., Le Néolithique dans les lacs alpins français : un catalogue réactualisé, in Sociétés néolithiques : des faits archéologiques aux fonctionnements socio-économiques : actes du 27ème Colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique (Neuchâtel, 1 et 2 octobre 2005), Besse M. (Dir.), Lausanne, Cahiers d’archéologie romande, 2007, p. 379-406 (Cahiers d’archéologie romande ; 108).

Moreau et al. 2014, MOREAU C., LINTON J., AFFOLTER J., Continuités et variations entre le Néolithique final et le Bronze ancien en moyenne vallée du Rhône. L’apport de l’occupation structurée et stratifiée de Savasse (Drôme), in Chronologie de la préhistoire récente dans le sud de la France : acquis 1992-2012 - actualité de la recherche : actes des 10e Rencontres méridionales de Préhistoire récente, Porticcio (20) - 18 au 20 octobre 2012, Sénépart I., Leandri F., Cauliez J. et al. (Dir.), Toulouse, Archives d’Écologie préhistorique, 2014, p. 159-173.

Nicolas 2016, NICOLAS C., Flèches de pouvoir à l’aube de la métallurgie, de la Bretagne au Danemark (2500-1700 av. n. è.), Leiden, Sidestone Press, 2016, 951 p., http://www.sidestone.com/​bookshop/​fleches-de-pouvoir-a-l-aube-de-la-metallurgie.

O'Brien & Shennan 2010, O'BRIEN M.J., SHENNAN S.J. Eds., Innovation in Cultural Systems: Contributions from Evolutionary Anthropology, Cambridge (Massachusetts), MIT Press, 2010, 248 p. (Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology).

Oliver 1990, OLIVER P., Dwellings: the house across the world, 2nd edition, Austin, University of Texas Press, 1990, 256 p.

Pétrequin & Pétrequin 1978, PÉTREQUIN P., PÉTREQUIN A.-M., Le phénomène Campaniforme - Cordée en Franche-Comté. Chronologie et rapports avec les groupes régionaux, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 75, 10, 1978, p. 361-393.

Pétrequin et al. 1999, PÉTREQUIN P., VIELLET A., ILLERT N., Le Néolithique au nord-ouest des Alpes : rythmes lents de l’habitat, rythmes rapides des techniques et des styles ?, in Habitat et société, Braemer F., Cleuziou S., Coudart A. (Dir.), Antibes, Association pour la Promotion et la Diffusion des Connaissances archéologiques, 1999, p. 297-324 (Rencontres internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes ; 19).

Pétrequin 2005, PÉTREQUIN P., Habitats lacustres néolithiques et perception du temps, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, Paris, 102, 4 “La perception du temps en préhistoire : 129ème Congrès du CTHS, Besançon, 19-24 avril 2004”, 2005, p. 789-802.

Pralon 1992, PRALON D., La légende de la fondation de Marseille, Études massaliètes, 3, 1992, p. 51-56.

Rey & Marguet 2016, REY P.-J., MARGUET A., Caractérisation technique et culturelle de la céramique du site lacustre de Conjux 3 (lac du Bourget, Savoie) : le Néolithique final des avant-pays savoyards en question, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, Paris, 113, 1, 2016, p. 57-94, http://www.prehistoire.org/​shop_515-39559-5197-474/​tome-113-1-p.57-94-caracterisation-technique-et-culturelle-de-la-ceramique-du-site-lacustre-de-conjux-3-lac-du-bourget-savoie-le-neolithique-final-des-avant-pays-savoyards-en-question-pierre-jerome-rey-et-andre-marguet.html.

Rodot & Martineau 2007, RODOT M.-A., MARTINEAU R., Les matériaux céramiques, du Néolithique moyen au Néolithique final, du lac de Constance (Suisse) à la vallée de la Saône (France) : marqueurs techno-culturels de l’évolution des sociétés, in Sociétés néolithiques : des faits archéologiques aux fonctionnements socio-économiques : actes du 27ème Colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique (Neuchâtel, 1 et 2 octobre 2005), Besse M. (Dir.), Lausanne, Cahiers d’archéologie romande, 2007, p. 227-248 (Cahiers d’archéologie romande ; 108).

Salanova 2000, SALANOVA L., La question du Campaniforme en France et dans les îles anglo-normandes : productions, chronologie et rôle d’un standard céramique, Paris, Comité des Travaux historiques et scientifiques / Société préhistorique française, 2000, 392 p. (Documents préhistoriques ; 13).

Salanova et al. 2005, SALANOVA L., DUCREUX F., ARGANT A., CONVERTINI F., GROS O., GROS A.-C., SAINTOT S., GARDINI M., JEUDY F., OBERLIN C., VIRLOGEUX Y., L’habitat campaniforme de La Noue à Saint-Marcel (Saône-et-Loire) : Éléments de définition du groupe bourguignon-jurassien, Gallia Préhistoire, Paris, 47, 2005, p. 33-146.

Salanova et al. 2016, SALANOVA L., PRIETO MARTÍNEZ M.P., CLOP GARCIA X., CONVERTINI F., LANTES SUÁREZ O., MARTÍNEZ CORTIZAS A., What are large-scale Archaeometric programmes for? Bell beaker pottery and societies from the third millennium BC in Western Europe, Archaeometry, 58, 5, 2016, p. 722-735, http://dx.doi.org/​10.1111/​arcm.12173.

Salanova & Tchérémissinoff 2011, SALANOVA L., TCHÉRÉMISSINOFF Y. Eds., Les sépultures individuelles campaniformes en France, Paris, CNRS Éditions, 2011, 238 p. (Gallia Préhistoire. Supplément ; 41), https://www.persee.fr/​collection/​galip.

Shennan 2002, SHENNAN S.J., Genes, memes and human history: Darwinian archaeology and cultural evolution, London, Thames & Hudson, 2002, 304 p.

Sherratt 1987, SHERRATT A.G., Cups that cheered: The introduction of alcohol to prehistoric Europe, in Bell beakers of the western Mediterranean: definition, interpretation, theory and new site data: the Oxford international conference, 1986, Waldren W.H., Kennard R.-C. (Dir.), Oxford, B.A.R., 1987, p. 81-114 (British archaeological Reports - International Series; 331).

Sperber 1996, SPERBER D. Ed., La contagion des idées : Théorie naturaliste de la culture, Paris, Éditions Odile Jacob, 1996, 244 p.

Stockhammer 2013, STOCKHAMMER P.W., From From hybridity to entanglement, from essentialism to practice, Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 28, 1, 2013, p. 11-28.

Stockhammer 2017, STOCKHAMMER P.W., The dawn of copy in the Bronze Age, in The transformative power of the copy: a transcultural and interdisciplinary approach, Forberg C., Stockhammer P.W. (Dir.), Heidelberg, Heidelberg University Publishing, 2017, p. 169-189 (Heidelberg studies on transculturality; 2).

Strahm 2004, STRAHM C., Le phénomène campaniforme et les composantes autochtones non campaniformes, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, Paris, 101, 2 “Substrats et genèse(s) du Campaniforme : actes de la séance de la SPF du 21 février 2003 […]”, 2004, p. 201-206.

Van der Leeuw 1976, VAN DER LEEUW S.E., Neolithic Beakers from the Netherlands: the potter's point of view, in Glockenbecher Symposion - Oberried 1974, Lanting J.N., Van Der Waals J.D. (Dir.), Bussum / Haarlem, Fibula / Van Dishoeck, 1976, p. 81-139.

Vander Linden 2004, VANDER LINDEN M., Polythetic networks, coherent people. A new historical hypothesis for the Bell-beaker phenomenon, in Similar but Different: Bell Beakers in Europe, Czebreszuk J. (Dir.), Poznan, Adam Mickiewicz University, 2004, p. 33-60.

Verger 2003, VERGER S., Des objets gaulois dans les sanctuaires archaïques de Grèce, de Sicile et d’Italie, Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 147, 1, 2003, p. 525-573.

Verger 2013, VERGER S., Reliques des limites du monde, course du soleil et maternité tragique, in Une odyssée gauloise : parures de femmes à l’origine des premiers échanges entre la Grèce et la Gaule, Verger S., Pernet L. (Dir.), Arles, Errance, 2013, p. 277-327.

Vergnaud 2014, VERGNAUD L., Les sépultures campaniforme de Sierentz « Les Villas d’Aurèle » (Haut-Rhin), in Données récentes sur les pratiques funéraires néolithiques de la Plaine du Rhin supérieur, Lefranc P., Denaire A., Jeunesse C. (Dir.), Oxford, Archaeopress, 2014, p. 173-210 (British archaeological Reports - International Series; 2633).

Vital et al. 1999, VITAL J., BROCHIER J.L., DURAND J., PROST D.C., REYNIER P., RIMBAULT S., Roynac le Serre 1 (Drôme) : une nouvelle séquence holocène en Valdaine et ses occupations des Âges des métaux, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, Paris, 96, 2, 1999, p. 225-240.

Vital 2008, VITAL J., La séquence Néolithique final-Bronze ancien dans l’axe rhodanien : enseignements chronométriques et perspectives culturelles, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, Paris, 105, 3 “Les ensembles problématiques de la transition Néolithique - Bronze en France”, 2008, p. 539-554.

Wenger 2005, WENGER E., La théorie des communautés de pratique : apprentissage, sens et identité, Saint-Nicolas, Presses de l’Université Laval, 2005, 308 p.