The bronze age and the Celtic world - Universal History Library

78
FIG. 5.—SILVER VASE
FROM HISSARLIK ii.
THE BRONZE AGE AND THE CELTIC WORLD
monuments at such distant points as Denmark, the Isle of Arran, Guernsey and
Brittany, the Pjnrenees, Spain, Algeria, Taranto, Sicily and Malta. This type of
pot is distinguished by having a hemispherical base, while the sides, half way up,
have a knee or angle, above which they are concave.
Now it is of course possible that the bell-beaker of Spain
may be derived from this carinated vase, though intermediate
forms seem to be lacking. I am inclined to think, however,
that this beaker has a double parentage, and has been influenced,
too, by certain types of ware not uncommon at Hissarlik II., the
form of which is best shown by a silver vase found in that
city.""
However this may be, the bell-beaker, which has invariably
a convex base, seems to have been evolved in Andalusia, and to
have been carried, amongst other places, to North Italy, and
thence northward to Bohemia, where it is localised in the western
part of that province. Here another type of pottery, called cord vases, which had developed
in the plain of North Germany, had been already introduced, and the northern t5^e of
beaker, which has a flat base, seems to have been derived from a
combination of both types.
Some years ago Dr. O. Reche« described a people, very closely
resembling the Beaker-folk, as inhabiting Silesia and especially
Bohemia during the closing phases of the megaUthic period in the
Baltic, that is to say about the time we are considering. Into this
population there intruded invaders of the Nordic type, extermin-
ating the men but marrying the women and adopting their customs.
These invaders entered Silesia in force, but only penetrated into
Bohemia in small numbers.
FIG. 6.
BELL BEAKER.
This seems to point to the fact that some of our Tripolje people were, as we have
seen before, occupying Silesia, while others had settled in Bohemia. Here they were using,
4> SchUemann (1880) figs. 254, 255, 300, pp. 357-367 ; fig. 781, p. 468 ; see also Abercromby (1912) i. 10, where he
quotes Montelius (1900) 119.
43 Reche (1908) 220.