Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-cbk24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T09:42:43.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

British Faience Beads Reconsidered

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

R. G. Newton and
Colin Renfrew
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The ‘faience’ beads of the British Bronze Age have since the last century been appreciated as the product of a somewhat sophisticated technology. Although the possibility of local manufacture was seriously considered by earlier antiquaries, especially for the Scottish beads, in more recent years-since the writings of Childe and Piggott-a Mycenaean or Egyptian origin has been widely assumed for them.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Antiquity , Volume 44 , Issue 175 , September 1970, pp. 199 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1970

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aitken, M. 1961. Physics and Archaeology.Google Scholar
Beck, H. C., and Stone, J. F. S., 1935. Faience beads of the British Bronze Age, Archaeologia, LXXXV, 203–52.Google Scholar
Clark, J. G. D. 1966. The invasion hypothesis in British archaeology, Antiquity, Xl, 172–89.Google Scholar
Daniel, G. E. 1960. The Prehistoric Chamber Tombs of France.Google Scholar
Gimbutas, M. 1965. Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe.Google Scholar
Heurtlky, W. A. 1939. Prehistoric Macedonia.Google Scholar
Lucas, A. 1962. Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries.Google Scholar
Mann, L. McL. 1905–6. Prehistoric beads of coarse vitreous paste, Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., XL, 396–402.Google Scholar
Moucha, V. 1958. Faience and glassy faience in the Unetice culture in Bohemia, Epitymbion Roman Haken (Prague), 44–9.Google Scholar
Neuninger, H. and Pittioni, R.. 1959. Woher stammen die blauen Glasperlen der Urnenfelderkultur?, Archaeologia Austriaca, 26, 52–66.Google Scholar
Newton, R. G., and Spurrell, D. J.. 1967a. A development of multiple regression for the analysis of routine data, Applied Statistics, 16, 51–64.Google Scholar
Newton, R. G., and Spurrell, D. J.. 1967b. Examples of the use of elements for clarifying regression analyses, Applied Statistics, 16, 165–72.Google Scholar
Newton, R. G., and Spurrell, D. J.. 1969. Element Analysis—the anatomy of multiple regression, The Statistician, 19, no. 1, 143–51.Google Scholar
Noble, J. V. 1969. The technique of Egyptian faience, Am. J. Arch., 73, 435–7.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1967. Colonialism and Megalithismus, Antiquity, XLI, 276–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1968. Wessex without Mycenae, Ann. Brit. Sch. Arch. Athens, LXIII, 277–85.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1969a. Trade and culture process in European prehistory, Current Anthropology, 10, 151–69.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1969b. The autonomy of the south-east European Copper Age, PPS, XXXV, 12–47.Google Scholar
Stone, J. F. S. 1949. A second fixed point in the chronology of the Harappa culture, Antiquity, XXIII, 201–5.Google Scholar
Stone, J. F. S., and Thomas, L. C.. 1956. The use and distribution of faience in the ancient East and prehistoric Europe, PPS, XXII, 37–84.Google Scholar
Wulff, H. S., Wulff, H. E. and Koch, L., 1968. Egyptian faience, a possible survival in Iran, Archaeology, 21, 98–0.Google Scholar