170
Documenta Praehistorica XLVII (2020)
Global processes, regional dynamics| Radiocarbon data
as a proxy for social dynamics at the end of the Mesolithic
and during the Early Neolithic in the NW of the
Mediterranean and Switzerland (c. 6200–4600 cal BC)
Héctor Martínez-Grau1, Reto Jagher 1, F. Xavier Oms2, Joan Anton Barceló 3,
Salvador Pardo-Gordó 4,5, and Ferran Antolín 1
1 Integrative Prehistoric and Archaeological Science (IPAS), Department of Environmental Sciences, University of
Basel, Basel, CH
hector.martinezgrau@unibas.ch< reto.jagher@unibas.ch< ferran.antolin@unibas.ch
2 Seminar on Prehistoric Studies and Research (SERP), Department of Prehistory, Ancient History and Archeology,
University of Barcelona, Barcelona, ES
oms@ub.edu
3 Laboratory of Quantitative Archeology (LAQU), Department of Prehistory, Autonomous University of Barcelona,
Bellaterra, ES
juanantonio.barcelo@uab.cat
4 Department of Prehistory, Ancient History and Archeology, University of València, València, ES
5 Archeological Research Group in the Mediterranean and Middle East (GRAMPO), Department of Prehistory,
Autonomous University of Barcelona, Bellaterra, ES
salvador.pardo@uv.es
ABSTRACT – The goal of this paper is to discuss the validity of radiocarbon dates as a source of know-
ledge for explaining social dynamics over a large region and a long period of time. We have care-
fully selected c. 1000 14C dates for the time interval 8000–4000 cal BC within the northwestern Me-
diterranean area (NE Iberian Peninsula, SE France, N Italy) and Switzerland. Using statistical ana-
lysis, we have modelled the summed probability distribution of those dates for each of the analysed
ecoregion and discussed the rhythms of neolithisation in these regions and the probability of social
contact between previous Mesolithic and new Neolithic populations.
IZVLE∞EK – Namen tega prispevka je razpravljati o veljavnosti radiokarbonskih datumov kot vira
znanja, s katerimi razlagamo ∏irjenje dru∫benih dinamik na ve≠jem obmo≠ju in v dalj∏em ≠asovnem
obdobju. Skrbno smo izbrali ok. 1000 14C datumov, ki sodijo v ≠asovno obdobje med 8000-4000 pr.
n. ∏t. na obmo≠ju severozahodnega Sredozemlja (SV Iberski polotok, JV Francija, S Italija) in v πvici.
S pomo≠jo statisti≠ne analize smo za te datume modelirali vsoto porazdelitve verjetnosti za vsako od
analiziranih ekoregij, v razpravi pa se osredoto≠amo na ritme neolitizacije na teh obmo≠jih ter na
verjetnosti socialnih stikov med prej∏njimi mezolitskimi in novimi neolitskimi populacijami.
KEY WORDS – Mesolithic-Neolithic transition; 14C; chrono-geostatistics; Bayesian analysis; GIS
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – prehod med mezolitikom in neolitikom; 14C; krono-geostratistika; Bayesova ana-
liza; GIS
Globalni procesi, regionalna dinamika| Radiokarbonski podatki kot nadomestek
dru/benih dinamik ob koncu mezolitika in v ;asu zgodnjega neolitika
v SZ Sredozemlju in {vici (ok. 6200–4600 pr. n. [t.)
DOI> 10.4312\dp.47.10
Global processes, regional dynamics| Radiocarbon data as a proxy for social dynamics at the end of the Mesolithic ...
171
chronological coverage and better understanding of
the complexity of the interactions of farmers with
different environments and indigenous populations.
This process is now understood as arrhythmic, with
phases of both stasis (Guilaine 2000–2001) and ac-
celeration (Isern et al. 2017), and the integration of
local dynamics is required to understand the global
processes (Fort 2018).
Recent genetic studies (particularly with whole-ge-
nome analyses) have revealed interactions between
local hunter-gatherer and incoming farming popula-
tions (Villalba-Mouco et al. 2019). Even contacts be-
tween Neolithic populations from the Mediterranean
and Central European regions have been suggested
by aDNA of human bones (García-Martínez de La-
grán et al. 2018). Therefore, from our point of view
and as highlighted in previous works (e.g., Perrin
et al. 2009), it would be misleading to understand
the process of the adoption of farming economies
without taking into account the last hunter-gatherer
indigenous groups. In the same way, we cannot as-
sume the absolute independence of the central Eu-
ropean and the Mediterranean routes of neolithisa-
tion.
It is in this sense that the SNF-Funded AgriChange
project (Antolín et al. 2018) investigates the area
between the northwestern Mediterranean region (NE
Iberian Peninsula, SE France and North Italy) and
Switzerland. This area potentially covers the contact
zone between the Danubian and the Mediterranean
routes of neolithisation from the Near East, and thus
potentially different patterns of interaction with di-
verse indigenous hunter-gatherer groups. It is an in-
tensively investigated area but it suffers from either
a very local/regional focus or a strictly western Me-
diterranean or Centro-European perspective, which
we want to avoid in this paper. In order to grasp the
end of the Mesolithic and the whole neolithisation
process, we consider the timeframe between 8000
and 4000 cal BC. The aim of this paper is to trace
where, when and how the transition phenomena
between Mesolithic and Early Neolithic groups took
place in the region mentioned above. The questions
we intend to solve in this paper are as follows: (i) Can
a robust radiocarbon dataset for a global region al-
low us to define different local scenarios of interac-
tion for the neolithisation process? (ii) Was neolithi-
sation a homogeneous process all along this region?
Our premise is that interaction took place when evi-
dence of hunter-gatherer and farming populations
are found together at the same place and at the same
moment. The problem lies, obviously, on the incom-
Introduction
The historical change from hunter-gatherer to farmer
economy is one of the main historical transforma-
tions in human behaviour. In Europe, this change
happened as a consequence of the arrival of farming
populations originating from southwest Asia. This
process started in the Aegean around 6500 BC and
lasted for about 2500 years. Hunter-gatherer popu-
lations inhabited Europe at that time, and despite
the fact that the spread of farming seems to be a
global process, the diverse ecological, topographic,
climatological and social contexts might have re-
sulted in a mosaic of regional dynamics. Several theo-
ries aiming to explain this process have been pro-
posed over time. These range from a migration mo-
del, where population waves were the main agent of
change (Cavalli-Sforza, Cavalli-Sforza 1995; Childe
1925) to proposals emphasizing an endogenous ori-
gin of the Neolithic way of life (Cruz Berrocal 2012;
Pluciennik 1998). Currently, the hypothesis with
greatest acceptance is the so-called diffusionist or in-
tegrationist model. With this, some degree of inter-
action and coexistence between the last hunter-ga-
therers and the first farmers is expected in most
parts of Europe (Bernabeu Aubán, Martí 2014; Bo-
gucki 1996; Guilaine 1976; 2000–2001; Zilhão
2001; Zvelebil 1986; 2000), although there were
some exceptions (Morales, Oms 2012). In any case,
it is important to take into account the extremely
low density of the hunter-gatherer population in most
areas of Europe (Shennan 2018), which makes its
related archaeological record virtually invisible.
For more than 50 years this topic has often been
studied using radiocarbon data. John Grahame Dou-
glas Clark (1965) presented the first historical ap-
proach to the Euroasiatic neolithisation process by
plotting on a map the earliest evidence for agricul-
tural activities, as estimated by the available radio-
carbon dates at that time. The study focused on the
Danubian route from the Near East, and also consi-
dered other parts such as the Mediterranean route,
and some isolated points in Northern Africa. With
this model, Clark gave statistical validity to the hypo-
theses based only on material culture, brought for-
ward by other pioneering scientists since the begin-
nings of the 20th century.
The classical Albert J. Ammerman and Luigi L. Cavalli-
Sforza (1971) wave of advance model that was cha-
racterized by an assumed homogenous and regular
spread of innovations and adaptations, can be criti-
cized on the basis of more thorough and precise
Héctor Martínez-Grau, Reto Jagher, F. Xavier Oms, Joan Anton Barceló, Salvador Pardo-Gordó, and Ferran Antolín
172
plete nature of the archaeological record itself, be-
cause in many circumstances one of these popula-
tions may be archaeologically invisible. The results
of our investigation are consequently limited by the
availability of well-dated archaeological contexts.
Undated or unreliably dated archaeological contexts
have not been included in this discussion. If the ab-
solute quantity of dated contexts was too small, the
study would have no meaning. However, given the
high number of dated contexts in our database, we
can assume the studied sample is a representative
unbiased sample of the original population. In that
sense, we have followed suggestions in the specia-
lized literature about the minimum number of radio-
carbon dated archaeological contexts for population
inferences (Williams 2012).
Study area and archaeological framework
The study area of this paper stretches between the
mouth of the Ebro River, the Po River and the up-
per Rhine River, thus encompassing the northwest
Mediterranean area and Switzerland. In order to
overcome any limitations derived from modern po-
litical borders, we have subdivided the study area
into 14 ecologically circumscribed regions, termed
ecoregions (Fig. 1). They have been defined accord-
ing to the modelled potential vegetation and climate
(Brus et al. 2012; Hijmans et al. 2005 and Supple-
mentary Material 1 at http://dx.doi.org/10.4312/dp.
47.10) and using criteria established by the Euro-
pean Environment Agency (2017). Topography and
geography were also considered, and thus coastal
areas and river valleys have been emphasized since
they facilitate rapid movement. On the other side,
mountain ranges above 1000m asl have been inte-
grated into single units, since archaeological evi-
dence in these environments is at the moment very
sparse and we can assume very irregular human mo-
vement and interaction.
Those ecoregions can be integrated into four main
biotopes: mountains, coastal areas, valleys and their
low-elevation hinterlands.
In the late Mesolithic context, two different cultural
spheres can be defined, according to differences in
their respective technocomplexes: there is a techno-
logical tradition present in the Alps, Apennines, Jura,
Swiss plateau, Rhone valley, shores of the Adriatic
Sea, and Mediterranean coast north of parallel 43°,
and a different one in the southern Pre-Pyrenees,
Pyrenees, and Mediterranean shores south of paral-
lel 43° (Fig. 2).
Fig. 1. Study area with the defined ecoregions.
Global processes, regional dynamics| Radiocarbon data as a proxy for social dynamics at the end of the Mesolithic ...
173
For the northern part of the studied area, the peri-
od is traditionally integrated into a so-called ‘2nd
Mesolithic’, and it has been characterized by the pre-
sence of trapezoidal arrow points in archaeological
assemblages. This characteristic lithic industry is the
consequence of blades obtained from the knapping
of big cores, and a successive modification of lami-
nar supports (Perrin, Defranould 2016). The distri-
bution of sites for this technocomplex is represent-
ed in Supplementary Material 2 at http://dx.doi.org/
10.4312/dp.47.10.
On the other hand, in the southwestern parts of our
study area – the Mediterranean shores south of pa-
rallel 43°, the southern Pre-Pyrenees and Pyrenees –
the lithic industry is quite different. Archaeological
assemblages are characterized by the presence of
notches and denticulates obtained from rough flakes
(Martínez-Moreno et al. 2006; Vaquero 2006). This
is the so-called ‘Mesolític d’Osques i Denticulats’. We
must stress that this seems to be a local phenome-
non, since archaeological sites along the Ebro valley,
for instance, show a different lithic industry with
different features, more similar to the geometric la-
minar items typical of the northern regions (e.g., Ca-
bezo de la Cruz, Rodanés, Picazo 2013; Forcas II,
Utrilla, Mazo 2014; Valcervera, Utrilla et al. 2016).
Starting with the beginning of Early Neolithic cultur-
al traditions, lithic industry homogeneity disappears
and we find instead significantly greater diversity
and regionalization. Pottery is now the most visible
innovation, although similarities between some of
these groups may be observed in other technologi-
cal and economic aspects (Fig. 2).
Along the north-western Mediterranean shores, small
nuclei of occupation are characterized by the Im-
pressa type of pottery (e.g., Guilaine, Manen 2005;
Manen et al. 2019a) first, and the Cardial style later.
During the latter phase, there is a visible expansion
in the number of sites and occupied areas (Manen
2002). In comparison, along the Adriatic Sea shores
the Impressa pottery documented is of a particular
type (Biagi 2003). In the same area, and also along
the Po valley, up to six different technocomplexes
are recognizable: the Fagnigola, Fiorano, Vhò, Ga-
ban, and Isolino groups (Pessina, Tiné 2008; Star-
nini et al. 2018). We will refer to all of them under
the label Neolitico Inferiore Padano Alpino (from
now on, NIPA), although we are aware of the com-
plex settlement history of this region. An undefined
NIPA is attributed to the canton of Ticino in Switzer-
land, in the southern slopes of the Alps (Stöckli
2016). Only in the northernmost parts of our study
area, around the Upper Rhine ecoregions, is there
LBK evidence (Stöckli 2016), suggesting a possible
relationship between the Central European and the
Mediterranean penetration routes of early farming
economies.
Also related with the interaction between north and
south zones, in the upper course of the Rhone River,
La Hoguette pottery has been documented in some
sites, although the interpretation of this remains con-
troversial (Manen, Mazurie De Keroualin 2003).
The Néolithique Ancien Valaisan (NAV), in the upper
stretch of the Rhone valley, between Lake Geneva
and the Alps, seems to be related to the complex in-
teraction networks between differentiated zones
(Gallay et al. 1983).
Review: contact Mesolithic-Neolithic popula-
tions in the study region
For a long time, archaeologists have debated the evi-
dence of contact between hunter-gatherer and farm-
ing populations. It is difficult to present hard facts
that prove exchanges or influences, because the
available record is scarce and well-dated, undis-
turbed contexts that can contribute to this discus-
sion have not been available up to now. We do not
intend to do a thorough review here, but it is neces-
sary to summarize the state of the art on this issue.
In the northeastern Iberian Peninsula, previous eva-
luations of the current radiocarbon evidence sug-
gest that no contact between the last Mesolithic and
first Neolithic populations was possible due to a
marked chronological hiatus between Mesolithic cha-
racteristic lithic industries and the assemblages with
characteristic Neolithic pottery (Morales, Oms 2012).
However, this conclusion is not considered as defi-
nitive by all researchers, and it is still open to debate.
Some authors argue about taphonomic bias affect-
ing the archaeological record of the 7th millennium
(Oms et al. 2018b). In some cave deposits, tentati-
vely assigned to Mesolithic chronology, remains of
domesticated plants or animals have been localized.
In the absence of radiocarbon dates, this data has
been speculatively interpreted either as contamina-
tion or evidence of mixed economies, depending on
the theoretical assumptions of the scholars. As an
example, in Can Sadurní Cave (Blasco et al. 2011)
cereal grains have been reported in Mesolithic layers
c.19 and c.20. These have been regarded as contami-
nation from superposed Neolithic deposits, which are
particularly rich in cereal remains (layer c.18) (Anto-
Héctor Martínez-Grau, Reto Jagher, F. Xavier Oms, Joan Anton Barceló, Salvador Pardo-Gordó, and Ferran Antolín
174
Fig. 2. Map with the Mesolithic (top) and Early Neolithic (bottom) technocomplexes of the study area.
NAV – Néolithique Ancien Valaisan; NIPA – Neolitico Inferiore Padano Alpino.
Global processes, regional dynamics| Radiocarbon data as a proxy for social dynamics at the end of the Mesolithic ...
175
lín 2008; Antolín, Buxó 2011). We have dated two
of these cereal grains from Mesolithic contexts, and
the results confirmed that both were contaminations
from layer c.18, dated to c. 5400 cal BC1.
In the Adriatic shores of northern Italy and the Me-
diterranean shores of southern France and Liguria, a
similar scenario has been observed. Mesolithic groups
abandoned at least some of the coastal areas before
the arrival of the first Neolithic groups (Binder et al.
2017b; Starnini et al. 2018), although it is unclear
if some groups of Mesolithic populations remained
in some spots of eastern Ligurian and the Maritime
Alps. Former hypotheses regarding cultivation or
herding practices in Mesolithic contexts – mostly in
cave sites – are being disregarded by most scientists
(Binder et al. 2008).
In Switzerland, there is evidence regarding a possi-
ble contact between late Mesolithic and early Neoli-
thic groups (Erny-Rodmann et al. 1997; Tinner et
al. 2007). In this area, as we will discuss below, some
authors suggest the acculturation of local Mesolithic
groups, who could be responsible for the first agri-
cultural practices and the acquisition of knowledge
with regard to pottery technology. One of the most
remarkable finds is the pintadera recovered in La
Souche rockshelter (Mauvilly et al. 2008), with a
date associated to the second half of the 7th mil-
lennium cal BC2. Unfortunately, the reliability of this
date does not fulfil our quality criteria (see the ma-
terial and methods section) and we cannot be sure
that the pintadera has such an old chronology. The
closest parallels for this object should be looked
for in the first Neolithic settlements of the southern
Balkans, and there are no other similar objects in
our study region until much younger periods (e.g.,
the first half of the 5th millennium cal BC in Arene
Candide).
A complete evaluation of the chronology of pollen
evidence of early farming practice would have re-
quired a different methodology, and it is out of the
scope of this paper. The fact is that very early (c.
6200–5800 cal BC) cereal-type pollen grains have
been documented in Switzerland and other regions
of our study area, such as the Ligurian coast (Bin-
der et al. 2018; Binder 2018). Such findings are as
problematic as the discovery of wheat DNA in off-
site sedimentary cores in the English Channel (Smith
et al. 2015): the evidence is scarce and inconclu-
sive, and the absence of a well-defined settlement
context (reaping tools, charred cereal grains, etc.)
prevents its use as a direct evidence of local agri-
culture.
The 6.2ka BC climatic event has been considered as
a potential factor explaining the abandonment of
the area by hunter-gatherer populations (Berger,
Guilaine 2009). Nevertheless, recent revisions of
the paleoenvironmental, geological and archaeolo-
gical records suggest that this event had no global
climatic impact, but limited and regional impact only
(Magny et al. 2003), with different consequences at
different places (Alley, Ágústsdóttir 2005). There-
fore, considering the current state of research, the
absence of late Mesolithic sites cannot be explained
in terms of adverse climatic conditions on a global
scale.
Material and methods
This paper builds upon the radiocarbon database
that we are generating within the framework of the
AgriChange Project. In addition to a systematic dat-
ing program of new sites – details of which are out
of the scope of this paper – we have critically re-
viewed all published Neolithic dates for the study re-
gion in order to better understand the chronology
of the adoption of farming technology in the area.
The critical analysis of already published dates con-
cerns, among other features, the reliability of the
radiocarbon estimate. There are archaeological cri-
teria for deciding this reliability, but there is also
an additional criterion based on the standard error
of the estimate. The higher the error, the less the re-
liability of the date. Often, archaeologists define the
acceptance of a radiocarbon date in absolute terms
(e.g., dates with a lab error (standard deviation)
<100). Problems can arise when the time range of
the studied period is long. A standard error of 100
years is not as relevant when considering a time
range of 2500 years or another of 800 years. We have
thus followed an acceptance criterion relative to the
central tendency of the estimate before calibration:
% = (SD/BP) x 100
where SD is the standard deviation of the BP lab es-
timation before calibration. In this way, we have de-
fined three degrees of accuracy: those with highest
precision (equal or lower than 0.99%), medium pre-
cision (1–1.99%) and lowest precision (equal or high-
er than 2%) (Fig. 6).
1 ETH-88890, 6451±26, sa, A / ETH-88891, 6434±26, Triticum dicoccum.
2 Ua-33243, 7225±60, charcoal
Héctor Martínez-Grau, Reto Jagher, F. Xavier Oms, Joan Anton Barceló, Salvador Pardo-Gordó, and Ferran Antolín
176
The radiocarbon database and filtering criteria
For each date, we refer to the published bibliogra-
phic reference for archaeological criteria of rele-
vance. When this primary reference could not be
consulted, we relied upon the information coming
from secondary references quoting the original one
(e.g., Pearce 2013; Stöckli 2016) or we used infor-
mation from the database containing that dated
sample (Perrin 2019). The following aspects were
considered as filtering criteria.
Disturbed archaeological contexts
This refers to the stratigraphic relationships of the
archaeological context the dated sample comes from
(Bernabeu Aubán 2006; Zilhão 2001; 2011). It has
required a detailed site-by-site analysis of postdepo-
sitional, taphonomic and stratigraphic issues (as far
as the publications give details of these issues) to
consider possible stratigraphic inversions and/or con-
taminations (Bernabeu Aubán et al. 1999; 2001).
Charcoal samples
In order to avoid the ‘old-wood effect’ (Zilhão 2001),
we have only considered charcoal fragments identi-
fied as branches, twigs or the innermost parts of the
growth rings coming from open contexts. However,
we have not discarded unidentified charcoal frag-
ments from clearly defined spatial structures such as
hearths, because we understand this charcoal as the
most reliable source to date the event.
No burnt bones
The implications of using dates from burnt bones in
a chronological model are similar to the ‘old-wood
effect’ (Olsen et al. 2008; Pardo-Gordó 2015), and
therefore we have avoided samples from this kind
of material.
No marine reservoir effect
We have discarded samples of marine origin (mala-
cofauna and ictiofauna) and any other item consi-
dered to have had a high maritime contribution.
Several works have addressed this problem (Alves
et al. 2018; Ascough et al. 2005; Soares, Dias 2006),
concluding that the reservoir effect fluctuates in
space and time, and the variation in the calculation
of the reservoir effect is still highly significant.
Taxonomic identification
This is important to identify short-lived samples, but
also to be sure that we are dating samples directly re-
lated to activities of farming or hunting-gathering
and not some random natural element present in a
site for unknown reasons. It may involve the use of
the ZooMS technic (Buckley et al. 2010) to define
whether a bone sample corresponds to a wild or do-
mestic goat, for instance (Martins et al. 2015).
Laboratory effect
A critical evaluation of the result provided by the la-
boratory is also essential, and any errors or systema-
tic offset produced by laboratories has been taken
into account to filter out dates (Lull et al. 2015; Niel-
sen 2009; Sjögren 2011).
Statistical methods
To analyse the radiocarbon dated samples retained
for explanation, we have used methods based on
the summation of probability density distributions
(SPD3 and KDE models4) and Bayesian statistics (Ba-
yes 1764). We use OxCal v4.3.2 (Bronk Ramsey
2017) and the IntCal13 calibration curve for terres-
trial samples (Reimer et al. 2013).
We have followed the most recent methodology for
summarizing dated contexts using the SPD method
and its variants for answering relevant hypotheses
about long-term social dynamics (Armit et al. 2013;
Kerr, McCormick 2014; Shennan et al. 2013; Silva,
Vander Linden 2017), also taking into account criti-
cal approaches to the method (see Contreras, Mea-
dows 2014; Williams 2012). The degree of the relia-
bility of the statistical results has been plotted in the
graphs for their critical evaluation.
Limitations implicit with the SPD method are:
● excessively noisy results that are difficult to ex-
plain;
● an over-smoothing of data, when statistical techni-
ques are used to remove random noise;
● failure to address the random variation and the
effects of the calibration curve irregularity, unless
SPD analysis is combined with other forms of Ba-
yesian analysis.
These issues, and a possible solution, were addressed
by Bronk Ramsey (2017) with the introduction of
Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) (in OxCal 4.3.2.,
the KDE_Model command). This attempts to narrow
the final probabilistic distribution taking into ac-
count the variation of measurement uncertainty,
and the variation correlated with peaks and valleys
3 Summed Probability Density
4 Kernel Density
Global processes, regional dynamics| Radiocarbon data as a proxy for social dynamics at the end of the Mesolithic ...
177
in the calibration curve. In our case, to define the
proper temporal range of the last Mesolithic popula-
tions and the first Early Neolithic occupations in
each region and to test for potential phases of coexi-
stence, we have defined different Bayesian models
of two partially overlapped phases, assuming a tra-
pezoidal distribution for each one (Bronk Ramsey
2009; Lee, Ramsey 2012). The same approach was
considered in previous investigations of the same hi-
storical problem (Binder et al. 2017a; Manen et al.
2019a; Oms et al. 2016). We add the assumption of
a trapezoidal distribution model to take into account
the most probable hypothesis of change as a non-
abrupt transformation (Lee, Ramsey 2012). To visu-
alize the results, the youngest Mesolithic sites and
the oldest Early Neolithic sites in each ecoregion,
based on the results of the Bayesian analysis, have
been plotted separately in a series of maps tempo-
rally organized, with one time step every 200 years,
beginning in 6200 cal BC and ending in 4600 cal BC.
Maps have been created using the ArcMap 10.6 soft-
ware (ESRI 2018).
Results
A total of 948 radiocarbon dated archaeological con-
texts has been recovered from the bibliographic de-
scription of 187 different sites (Tab. 1 and Supple-
mentary Material 3 at http://dx.doi.org/10.4312/dp.
47.10). At a general scale, c. 40% of the radiocarbon
dates have passed our filtering criteria for quality
and reliability.
Around 75% of retained dates can be assigned to
Neolithic contexts, and the remaining 25% to Mesoli-
thic occupations, according to the nature of the pub-
lished archaeological material. We have no reliable
radiocarbon dates in the Upper Rhine ecoregion.
Five ecoregions (Alps, Jura, Mediterranean shores
north of parallel 43°, southern Pre-Pyrenees and
Swiss Plateau) concentrate c. 75% of the retained
Mesolithic dates. Eight-five percent of these are con-
centrated in the Alps, Mediterranean shores north of
parallel 43°, the Rhone valley and Swiss Plateau;
however, reliable radiocarbon dates are scarce in
the Jura and both Pre-Pyrenees. No reliable dates
were found in the Adriatic shores, Apennines, High
Rhine, Po valley, Pyrenees and Mediterranean shores
south of parallel 43°.
Sixty-five percent of the reliable radiocarbon dated
contexts assigned to the Early Neolithic come from
archaeological sites in the Alps, Mediterranean shores
and Po and Rhone valleys. The best represented eco-
regions are the Mediterranean shores, the Rhone and
Po valleys and the northern Pre-Pyrenees, concen-
trating c. 85% of the retained Early Neolithic dates.
Chronostatistical analysis – Summed Probabi-
lity Density distribution
We have calculated the summed probability density
distribution (SPD) for each ecoregion and period.
Each graph plots three curves in Figure 3, corres-
ponding to the different accuracy ratios mentioned
in the previous section (red: it shows all the avail-
able radiocarbon dates; green: it shows selected
dates with medium degree of precision; blue: it
shows selected dates with high degree of precision;
for all the graphs see Supplementary Material 4 at
http://dx.doi.org/10. 4312/dp.47.10). The goal was
to observe in SPDs the effects of filtering criteria and
the accuracy degrees depending on the magnitude
of lab error. In this way, we may decide whether the
minimization of accuracy and reliability of dates –
and hence the maximization of the number of re-
tained dates for analysis – produced larger biases
than the ones produced by other methodological in-
accuracies. In Figure 3 we show as an example the
case of the number of dates and their accuracy levels
for the Mesolithic occupations in the Alps.
The results are very similar in all groups. When dis-
carding the dates that have not passed the filtering
criteria – those with the lowest accuracy – the result-
ing distribution is more robust, reducing ambiguity
and uncertainty by pruning excessively long tails.
Fig. 3. Distribution dates for the Alps as an example of an SPD. Lines = unfiltered data (red); filtered
data with an accuracy between 0–1.99 (green); filtered data with an accuracy between 0–0.99 (blue).
Héctor Martínez-Grau, Reto Jagher, F. Xavier Oms, Joan Anton Barceló, Salvador Pardo-Gordó, and Ferran Antolín
178
Chronostatistical analysis – Kernel Density Es-
timation
Considering preliminary results and the inherent sta-
tistical limitations of the SPD methodology, we have
applied the KDE technique to the datasets constitut-
ed by the most precise dates (SD £0.99) (Fig. 4; for
all graphs and table results see Supplementary Mate-
rial 5 and 8 at http://dx.doi.org/10.4312/dp.47.10).
A common trend is detectable when analysing the
KDE results for the Mesolithic dated contexts. In all
those cases where enough dates were available to
create a model, most of the high peaks created by
the SPD appear to be the result of spurious effects
of noise (random or correlated with the wiggles of
the calibration curve). Likewise, the long tails of the
SPD distributions are pruned.
In the case of KDE results of dated contexts assigned
to the Early Neolithic, and hence to the beginnings
of farming economy, a similar pattern arises, com-
patible with the trend observed in the KDE analysis
of the Mesolithic dates joint distribution. Given that
the temporal range of the early farming period is
shorter that the temporal range of the last hunter-
gatherer occupations, the smoothing of the statisti-
cal distribution is more marked.
In any case, the results are somewhat different at
different ecoregions. Where the Mesolithic occupa-
tions are well represented and well dated, it is pos-
sible to observe chronologically differentiated hun-
ter-gatherer occupations, and not only a chronologi-
cally uniform distribution. The KDE distribution sig-
nals the highest probability of occupation in the Jura,
Mediterranean shores south of parallel 43°, and the
Swiss Plateau.
In the early farming distributions with large datasets
we see how the distributions are quite similar. There
is a high probability increase in a short time at the
extreme μ–σ, a robust and well-defined μ and a de-
crease in the gradual probability over a considerable
time at the end of the μ+σ extreme.
Chronostatistical analysis – Bayesian
Bayesian analysis5 (for details see Supplementary
Material 6 at http://dx.doi.org/10.4312/dp.47.10)
makes it possible to better determine the precise
time interval when the latest Mesolithic and the first
Early Neolithic occupations occurred, and whether
some degree of contemporaneity – and hence sup-
posed cultural contact – between both populations is
possible in terms of radiocarbon evidence. Plotting
the boundary for the end of the Mesolithic time
range and the boundary for the
start of the Neolithic time inter-
val, and using the means and
standard deviations associated
with such temporal boundaries,
we have defined two different
scenarios: regions where the first
evidence of farming economy is
not contemporary with Mesoli-
thic occupations, regions where
the first evidence of farming eco-
nomy appears to be partially
contemporaneous with Mesoli-
thic occupations in the area. In
some cases, we have not been
able to establish any scenario
due to the lack of reliably dated
archaeological contexts that
could be assigned to Mesolithic
or Neolithic occupations (Fig. 5).
Graphs without any relevant
overlapping in the time inter-
vals for each dominant econo-
Fig. 4. KDE_Model of the dates for the Alps. The light grey curve is the
SPD distribution and the red (Mesolithic) and pink (Neolithic) curves
are the sampled KDE estimated distribution. For further information
on the graph legend see Bronk Ramsey 2017.182).
5 All models are statistically valid. However, Adriatic shores, High Rhine, Po valley, Pyrenees and Mediterranean shores south of pa-
rallel 43° only have reliable early Neolithic dates (see Supplementary Material 9 at http://dx.doi.org/10.4312/dp.47.10).
Global processes, regional dynamics| Radiocarbon data as a proxy for social dynamics at the end of the Mesolithic ...
179
my (hunter-gatherer and farming) can be interpret-
ed in a more straightforward manner than those in
which distributions partially overlap. Such overlap-
ping might be a mere spurious statistical side effect
of probability intervals with extremely long tails.
Therefore, KDE and SPD plots must be interpreted
with care, as hypothetical or potential scenarios.
The areas without any temporal overlap between
the last hunter-gatherers and the first farmers are
the Mediterranean shores north of parallel 43° and
the northern and southern Pre-Pyrenees. In this
last region, there is a temporal hiatus of 500 years
between the last hunter-gatherers and first farmers,
whereas this temporal difference is reduced to 100
years north of the Pyrenees. It is important to re-
mark that this difference could be the consequence
of the older age of early farming along Mediterra-
nean shores north of parallel 43°. In the northern
Pre-Pyrenees, Mesolithic occupations seem to end at
a later date than in other regions.
A time interval overlapping scenario of c. 100 and
300 years, respectively, seems evident in the Rhone
valley and Alps ecoregions. Here, the earliest farming
evidence is as old as in the southern regions, but
hunter-gatherer sites subsist until a younger age,
which generates the observed overlap in their res-
pective time intervals.
In the Jura and Swiss Plateau cases, as suggested by
the SPDs, a possible overlap can be detected. How-
ever, there are not enough reliable dates to make a
Bayesian model, and thus the conclusion is hardly
definitive.
Along Mediterranean shores south of parallel 43°
and the Adriatic shores, but also in the Po valley,
Apennines and possibly also in the High Rhine as
well, the end of the Mesolithic occupations could not
be fixed but the presence of early farming occupa-
tions is very clear. The most probable explanation
of this fact is the abandonment of the region by
local hunter-gatherers well before the arrival of early
farmers. Nevertheless, it is important to take into
account that the absence of evidence is not neces-
sarily an evidence of absence.
Geospatial analysis
We have created a series of maps separated every
200 years based on the results of the Bayesian ana-
lysis, to test whether the temporal contemporaneity
of the last hunter-gatherers and early farmers was
evidence of coexistence on a reasonably small spatial
scale.
In the first map, which refers to the time step 6200–
6000 cal BC (Fig. 6a), before the adoption of any
Fig. 5. Bayesian results. In the map is highlighted the possible relation between the last Mesolithic and
the first Neolithic groups by ecoregion.
Héctor Martínez-Grau, Reto Jagher, F. Xavier Oms, Joan Anton Barceló, Salvador Pardo-Gordó, and Ferran Antolín
180
attributes of early farming, we see only hunter-ga-
therer occupations in the Rhone valley and Alps –
Baume de Montclus (Perrin et al. 2009), Lalo (Mar-
chand, Perrin 2017), Grande Rivoire (Nicod et al.
2010) and Château d’Oex (Crotti et al. 2016). In the
next time step (6000–5800 cal BC, Fig. 6b), only Me-
solithic occupations are detected in mountain areas
of Alps and Pyrenees, and their surroundings – Gran-
de Rivoire (Perrin 2019), Château d’Oex (Nielsen
2009.143), abri du Roc de Dourgne (Perrin 2019),
and Abri La Souche (Mauvilly et al. 2008).
The earliest farming evidence is depicted for the
first time in the third time step (5800–5600 cal BC,
Fig. 6c), along the Mediterranean shores north of pa-
rallel 43° (Languedoc, Provence- and Liguria), where
Impressa type pottery appears in open-air and rock-
shelter/cave sites like Peiro Signado and Pont de Ro-
que-Haute (Binder et al. 2017b; Briois, Manen 2003),
San Sebastiano di Perti (Biagi, Starnini 2016), Abri
Pendimoun (Binder et al. 2017b), and Arene Candi-
de (Maggi, Chella 1999). At the same time step, Me-
solithic occupations continue in the northern areas
of the Alps (Abri La Souche, Mauvilly et al. 2008) and
the Jura (à Daupharde, Séara et al. 2002).
Between 5600–5400 cal BC (Fig. 6d) Neolithic occu-
pations continue along the Mediterranean shores
north of parallel 43°, and appear for the first time
along the Mediterranean shores south of parallel 43°,
and in the Rhone and Po valleys. There are still Me-
solithic occupations in the lower part of the Rhone
valley, Baume de Montclus (Binder et al. 2017a),
and in the alpine foothills near this valley, Grande
Rivoire (Nicod, Picavet 2011).
There is a relevant increase in the number of dated
contexts assigned to the Neolithic in the 5th time
step, 5400–5200 cal BC (Fig. 6e). This growth of evi-
dence is well-attested along the Mediterranean coast,
both north and south of parallel 43°, with the be-
ginning of a clear expansion towards their hinter-
lands. There is also the earliest evidence of Neolithic
occupations in the alpine foothills closest to the
Rhone valley, the Grande Rivoire (Perrin 2019), and
in the Po valley, Isolino Virginia (Banchieri 2009).
In addition, Neolithic occupations are also document-
ed for the first time in the Apennines, as Cecima
(Starnini et al. 2018), and in the Adriatic shores, at
Piancada (Skeates, Whitehouse 1999). In the Swiss
Plateau, at Abri La Souche (Guidez 2018), there are
still Mesolithic occupations.
The growth and territorial expansion of Mediterra-
nean and Adriatic Neolithic occupations continues
in the next time step, 5200–5000 cal BC (Fig. 6f). At
this moment, evidence of farming economy is well
attested in relatively remote areas like Grotte du
Gardon (Voruz, Perrin 2009), located in the area
between the upper Rhone valley and the Jura moun-
tains, or Cova Colomera (Oms 2008) in the southern
Pre-Pyrenees. Contemporaneous Mesolithic occupa-
tions are documented in the Alps, at Alp Hermettji
(Curdy et al. 1998), and in the Swiss Plateau, at Abri
La Souche (Mauvilly et al. 2008).
In the next time steps (5000–4600 cal BC, Figs. 6g,
6h), Neolithic groups expanded until occupying al-
most the entire study area.
Methodological discussion
Regarding the strict selection criteria applied to the
dataset, the most accurate models have been obta-
ined using only the dates with an SD/BP ratio £0.99.
The noise created by the excess of unreliable dates
is notorious, particularly in the tails of the probabi-
lity distributions, where the highest accuracy is need-
ed. Nevertheless, restricting the analysis only to
highest quality dates implies the absence of data for
Fig. 6. Geographical distribution of the sites with radiocarbon dates of the last Mesolithic and the first
Early Neolithic occupations in the NW Mediterranean and Switzerland between 6200–4600 cal BC: AA
Arma dell’Aquila, AC Arene Candide, aD à Daupharde, AH Alp Hermettji, Ai Aigle, APe Abri de Pendimoun,
Apa Aspres del Paradis, AS Abri la Souche, AU Abri Unterkobel, BF baume de Fontbrégoua, BMc Baume de
Montclus, BMg Balma Margineda, BO Baume d’Oullins, BR Baume de Ronze, BSP Bauma de Serrat del
Pont, Ca Camprafaud, CBl Coll Blanc, Cbo Cova Bonica, CC Cova Colomera, Ce Cecima, CE Cova de l’Espe-
rit, CF Les Coves del Fem, CFi Turó de Can Filuà, CFo Cova Foradada, CFr Cova del Frare, Cgu Cova de la
Guineu, CGr Cova Gran, ChO Château d’Oex, CR Can Roqueta II, CS Can Sadurní, CSL Cova de Sant Llo-
renç, CVd Cova del Vidre, Cvi Centre Ville, EC El Cavet, ET El Toll, FaP Font aux Pigeons, FC Fornace Cap-
puccini, FdR Font del Ros, FJ abri de Font-Juvénal, FMo Fiorano Modenese, FMa Font Major, Ga Gazel, GG
Grotte du Gardon, GL Grotte Lombard, GR La Grande Rivoire, GV Les Guixeres, IC Ile de Corrège, IV Isoli-
no Virginia, JC Jean Cros, La Lalo, LB Le Baratin, LD La Draga, LG Lugo di Grezzana, LR Lugo di Roma-
gna, LS La Serreta, MB Le Mourre de la Barque, MN Mas Neuf, PB Les Petites Bâties, Pi Piancada, PRH Pont
de Roque-Haute, PS Peiro Signado, PU Pavia di Udine, PVM Plaça Vila de Madrid, RD abri du Roc de Dour-
gne, Sa Sammardenchia, SPC Sant Pau del Camp, SSP San Sebastiano di Perti, Ta Taï, Va Valer, Vh Vhò,
Vi Villandro, VP Vinya d’en Pau.
Global processes, regional dynamics| Radiocarbon data as a proxy for social dynamics at the end of the Mesolithic ...
181
Héctor Martínez-Grau, Reto Jagher, F. Xavier Oms, Joan Anton Barceló, Salvador Pardo-Gordó, and Ferran Antolín
182
some ecoregions. This is a problem in the case of Me-
solithic occupations along the Adriatic shores, in the
High Rhine, Po valley, Pyrenees, Apennines and Me-
diterranean shores south of parallel 43°. In the same
way, there are only a few reliable dated Neolithic sites
in the Jura, Swiss Plateau, Pyrenees, High Rhine and
Apennines. The beginning of the Neolithic in those
areas is very uncertain. Consequently, we cannot ex-
clude that some of the explanatory models presented
in the previous section are biased and historical ex-
planation of the transition from hunting-gathering to
early farming will be only tentative until the quality
and quantity of chronological knowledge improves.
Comparison of the density of summed dates
and potential periods of hunter-gatherer and
farmer coexistence
To sum up our results using Bayesian analysis of
high accuracy radiocarbon dated archaeological con-
texts, we can say: the earliest farming communities
appeared at first in very limited areas, always near
the coast, and within a relative short time interval
of c. 200 years. Cultural contact or interaction be-
tween the last hunter-gatherer populations and these
new first farming communities has not been detect-
ed where the Neolithic is older, in the Mediterra-
nean shores north of parallel 43°. A short hiatus of
c. 100 years between the last hunter-gatherer occu-
pations (dated to c. 5900 cal BC) and the first farm-
ing sites (dated to c. 5800 cal BC) can be detected
in this area, which can be explained in terms of a
Neolithic colonization of an abandoned region.
In the neighbouring Pre-Pyrenean ecoregions, both
south and north of the Pyrenees, and even in the
central Pyrenees region, this period without appar-
ent occupation between the last Mesolithic and ear-
liest Neolithic would be longer, c. 500 years, given
the later entry in these territories of populations
with a farming economy. This situation has already
been highlighted by other authors, especially for the
southern Pre-Pyrenees (Oms et al. 2018b).
Current data also suggests the probability of the hy-
pothesis of no co-existence between hunter-gatherers
in the Po valley and along Adriatic shores. This hypo-
thesis is very dependent on the lack of properly dated
contexts, however. Here, the period of apparent aban-
donment can be situated around 5500–5400 cal BC.
One of the reasons why no late Mesolithic occupa-
tions have been identified in these areas may be of
a taphonomic nature, related to erosive processes
such as those detected along the Po valley (Starnini
et al. 2018), due to several hard affections during the
Atlantic climatic period (Antonioli et al. 2009). Both
the Po valley and the Adriatic coast share similar se-
dimentological patterns and geomorphological cha-
racteristics that make it quite complicated to deter-
mine whether the absence of data actually reflects
the contemporaneous absence of human activity.
The coexistence of hunting-gathering and farming
communities can only be suggested in the Rhone
valley and the Alps. In the first one, available reli-
able radiocarbon dates indicate an interval of 100
years, around 5500 cal BC, and mainly focused on
the lower Rhone valley, during which Mesolithic and
Neolithic sites seem to be synchronous. In the Alps,
this period of coexistence would have been longer,
around 300 years, and a bit later, between 5400 and
5100 cal BC. However, data for the Rhone valley
comes from very few sites, such as the Montclus,
Oullins and Ronze shelters, all of which are in the
lower Rhone valley area. Unfortunately, there are
not enough reliable late Mesolithic dates to confirm
this hypothetical coexistence or even cultural con-
tact. In the upper part of Rhone valley, and probably
also in the Jura, there is a similar lack of reliable ar-
chaeological information. The possible coexistence
period would have occurred a bit later than in the
lower valley. In the Alps the data comes mainly from
La Grande Rivoire and Alp Hermetjji, two very diffe-
rent sites. While Alp Hermetjji is in the middle of the
Alps, above 2000m asl, La Grande Rivoire is located
in an area of lower altitude, at 1000m asl and very
close to the middle/upper Rhone valley. Consequent-
ly, this last site seems to be more related to what
happened in the Rhone, with earlier Neolithic occu-
pations and shorter coexistence, rather than the si-
tuation in the central Alps area. Alp Hermatjji proves
that hunter-gatherer groups in the innermost areas
of the central Alps lasted for a longer time, due to
less pressure, both ecological and social, and the later
arrival of populations with farming economies.
Interpretation of geospatial patterns: contact
zones, interaction, non-interaction
If we focus on the Mesolithic sites, as depicted in Fi-
gure 6, we can suggest, hypothetically, that Mesoli-
thic groups abandoned coastal areas well before 6000
cal BC, moving towards the interior and mountains.
What we cannot prove for the moment, given the
existing reliable chronometric information, is whe-
ther they retreated because of the arrival of a new
population or as a consequence of climatic factors
negatively affecting coastal areas. Did the new Holo-
Global processes, regional dynamics| Radiocarbon data as a proxy for social dynamics at the end of the Mesolithic ...
183
cene climate conditions make a purely hunter-gath-
erer way of life in the coastal territories impossible,
forcing these populations to migrate to the hinter-
lands? Or was it due to Neolithic populations push-
ing them back to these hinterlands because they
were primarily interested in the coastal lands?
In order to better evaluate the advance of Neolithic
populations, an Empirical Bayesian kriging interpo-
lation (Krivoruchko, Gribov 2019) has been calcu-
lated (Fig. 7, and Supplementary Material 7 and 10
at http://dx.doi.org/10.4312/ dp.47.10).
At a macro-scale level, the Mediterranean drift of the
expansion of farming (the new Neolithic communi-
ties) becomes obvious and its impact in the studied
territory is readily traceable using radiocarbon dates.
If we take a more regional look, more nuanced
trends, rhythms and speeds are detectable.
According to our data, there are four foci for the
spread of farming practices: the Gulf of Lion and
the Gulf of Genoa, c. 5800–5700 cal BC, and the
northern part of the Adriatic Sea and the central Ca-
talan shores, c. 5600–5500 cal BC. This reinforces
previous observations on the maritime route for
the entry of Neolithic populations (e.g., Isern et al.
2017; Zilhão 2001). Such trends also suggest that
the neolithisation of the Po valley arrived from the
east, from earlier communities along the Adriatic
coast. There is also some probability that some po-
pulations entered the Po valley from the west, across
the Apennines, but at a slower speed. This suggests
that the maritime spread of the Neolithic would
have been split into two different drifts from the Sa-
lento Peninsula, one towards the Adriatic Sea, and
another one towards the Ionic and Tyrrhenian seas
(Guilaine et al. 2016; Natali, Forgia 2018).
Although we still need more and better data, the
Adriatic drift seems to have been slower than the
Tyrrhenian drift, reaching its northernmost shores
later than the first arrival of farming at the Ligurian
coast. The Tyrrhenian drift also had a more multi-
dimensional nature, with different final destinations
(Gulf of Lion and in the Gulf of the Genoa (Gabri-
ele et al. 2019; Fig. 6). The Levantine area of Ibe-
rian Peninsula, south of our study area, should also
be considered as a preliminary destination of the
same route (Bernabeu Aubán et al. 2003; 2009).
Fig. 7. Interpolated map model for the neolithisation process in the western Mediterranean and Switzer-
land. Each isochron represents an average of c. 80 years. (The points refer to the dated sites used for the
interpolation – see Supplementary Material 10 at http://dx.doi.org/10.4312/dp.47.10).
Héctor Martínez-Grau, Reto Jagher, F. Xavier Oms, Joan Anton Barceló, Salvador Pardo-Gordó, and Ferran Antolín
184
This has been named the leapfrog model of colo-
nization, based on a discontinuous settlement pat-
tern with a non-continuous littoral distribution (Bin-
der 2013; Zilhão 1993). Eventually, the Mediterra-
nean drift from the Gulf of Lion continued towards
the central Catalan shores.
After the first arrival to the coast, and also at diffe-
rent directions and with different speeds, an expan-
sion towards the interior occurred. Both the spread
from the Adriatic shores and from the Mediterranean
shores south of parallel 43° towards their respective
hinterlands seem to have been a rapid and contin-
uous advance. Neolithic populations coming from the
Adriatic coast occupied the Po valley up until the
southern alpine lakes area, the southern foothills of
the Alps and some parts of the Apennines. Those
from the Mediterranean shores south of parallel 43°
mainly occupied the littoral and pre-littoral corridors,
as well as the southern Pre-Pyrenees and some parts
of the Pyrenees (Oms et al. 2018a). The relationship
of these areas with Neolithic sites further south (Ala-
cant), which started a bit earlier c. 5700 cal BC, is
still a matter of further research (Bernabeu Aubán
et al. 2003; 2009).
On the other hand, two differentiated expansion pro-
cesses can be detected from the northern shores of
the Mediterranean towards its hinterland. From the
Gulf of Lion, Neolithic populations seem to have ex-
panded towards the west, to the northern Pre-Pyre-
nees and some areas of the Pyrenees. This expansion
would have been slow and over a reduced area.
From the Gulf of Genoa, the expansion adopted an
eastern direction, towards the Apennines and the
easternmost areas of the Po valley (Starnini et al.
2018). The colonization of the Rhone valley and ex-
pansion towards further north is more likely to have
originated from the Gulf of Genoa than the Gulf of
Lion. However, the evidence that it was a very fast
spread (Perrin 2008) suggests that the Rhone cor-
ridor may have been used by both original popula-
tions as an access to the hinterland. The fast expan-
sion of farming groups along the valley only decele-
rated when arriving to the southern Jura and the ac-
cess to the Swiss Plateau (Hafner, Suter 2003). The
northern alpine areas probably witnessed the arrival
of Neolithic farmers coming from the north, con-
nected to the LBK groups (e.g., Zizers et al. 2012).
Global processes, regional dynamics?
The last hunter-gatherer communities confronted
changing climate and environmental conditions at
the beginning of the Holocene, which probably af-
fected their ways of acquiring subsistence and the
necessary raw materials. The archaeological record
suggests that their economic activity was specialized
in the hunting of small animals that were probably
less available with diminishing forests and the open-
ing of woodland in Early Holocene (Battentier et al.
2018). The arrival of people with a different way of
life and specific needs for their economic and so-
cial reproduction also negatively affected local inha-
bitants of Western European regions. A combination
of both factors pushed the last Mesolithic groups
back from coastal and pre-coastal areas into hinter-
land and mountain zones. At a date around 5100 cal
BC, residual hunter-gatherer groups only subsisted
in the more marginal areas of the Alpine mountains,
with an associated technocomplex that had not ex-
perimented with any relevant developments in more
than two millennia.
All this means that neolithisation in the northwest-
ern Mediterranean was an exogenous process, in
which original hunter-gatherer local populations
had no relevant role. The fact that the hypothesis
of strict contemporaneity and possible coexistence
has support only in a few areas gives more support
to this statement.
Nevertheless, current data suggests that the process
of neolithisation was not homogeneous all across
Western Europe. The arrival of new farming popu-
lations of southwestern Asian ancestry into Central
Europe following the Danube route was very much
circumscribed by the use of a specific kind of soil
– loess soil – adapted to a specific kind of farming
economy. This kind of soil has only been detected
in few parts of our study area, notably in its northern-
most part. Our data allows us to consider as much
more probable a general trend moving from the
south and east towards the north and west for un-
derstanding the new colonization of the region from
the Ebro River to the Po River, and from the Medi-
terranean coast towards the Pyrenees and Alps. The
Mediterranean expansion route was therefore more
decisive for this region. With these results, the pos-
sibility of contacts between LBK and cardial groups
as suggested from human genetic data obtained in
the Pyrenees seems to be unlikely (García-Martínez
de Lagránet et al. 2018).
One of the main characteristics of the earliest Neo-
lithic sites in Western Mediterranean is their estab-
lishment along the seashores and influence areas.
Our data reveal that the process was fairly similar,
Global processes, regional dynamics| Radiocarbon data as a proxy for social dynamics at the end of the Mesolithic ...
185
but with particular local dynamics in the Gulfs of Lion
and Genoa, central Catalan coasts and the northern
part of Adriatic shores (Manen et al. 2019a; 2019b).
Expansion towards the closest interior territories
from these pioneer areas was somewhat different
in Provence and the Ligurian zones than on the Ca-
talan coast. In this last territory, data suggest a deep
abandonment of the area prior the arrival of the new
population, and therefore the expansion towards
the interior was faster and more intense than in areas
were local groups of hunter-gatherers subsisted, like
in the northern Pre-Pyrenees, upper Rhone valley
and pre-alpine areas. Nevertheless, this explanation
may be biased if we do not take into account the
possible disturbance of the archaeological record in
a time of ecological and climatic turmoil.
A similar phenomenon could have developed along
the northern coast of the Adriatic Sea and in the Po
valley, where Neolithic occupations seem to occur in
an almost unsettled territory. However, the density
of archaeological sites is very low – lower than in
northeastern Iberian Peninsula – and the hypothesis
remains untested.
In the Valais and Geneva regions, beyond the Rhone
valley, Neolithic evidence is attested c. 5400–5300
cal BC (cardial/Epicardial and La Hoguette). These
groups would have been the main agents for the
expansion of farming economy towards the Jura and
Swiss Plateau areas. The connections between these
sites and the original groups with Cardial pottery
from the Mediterranean coast has already been high-
lighted (Manen, Mazurie De Keroualin 2003).
The lack of a single uniform scenario in the study
area leads us to conclude that to understand the
neolithisation process we should always take into
account local dynamics. More intensive research is
thus needed to identify late hunter-gatherer groups;
however, existing radiocarbon dates seem to be
enough for suggesting the general traits of the pro-
cess. This preliminary hypothesis can be evaluated
using additional information (archaeological mate-
rial or aDNA from human remains). Therefore, we
cannot exclude the possibility of an admixture of
new faming populations with local hunter-gatherer
communities at some places (see Shennan 2018 for
a recent global review).
Conclusions
In this paper we have used a selection of highly pre-
cise and reliable radiocarbon dates to investigate the
regional rhythms of neolithisation in a specific part
of Western Europe. The analysis shows that broad-
scale approaches can hardly grasp the historical sce-
nario of the beginning of farming in the region, but
broad trends are necessary in order to detect local
specificities. We have argued the relevance of diffe-
rent mechanisms of expansion and adoption of in-
novations at a local scale, subdividing the study area
into different regions with homogenous ecological
features. We know that the quantity and quality of
data is not yet what we would need for a reliable
historical explanation. This is particularly clear for
the Mesolithic in the north-eastern Iberian Peninsula
and northern Italy, and for the Early Neolithic in the
northern parts of our study area.
From the chrono- and geostatistical interpretation of
available radiocarbon dates, we have been able to
define the chronological boundaries of the Mesoli-
thic and Neolithic in each region. The possibilities of
potential coexistence and interaction between hun-
ter-gatherer and farming populations has also been
asserted. This scenario is more probable in the north-
ern parts of the study area, in the Rhone valley and
around the Alps. Mesolithic communities relocated
at some moment, abandoning the coastal territories
and remaining in the hinterlands and mountains.
Whether this process started well before the arrival
of new populations with a different economic system
is still unclear in many parts of our study area. Our
investigation also confirms that Early Neolithic com-
munities were founded earlier along the coasts, ex-
panding later towards the interior. We observed that
despite a clear global trend towards territorial ex-
pansion, Neolithic colonization had different spatial
and temporal dynamics, due to the local geograph-
ical conditions, the possible presence of local hun-
ter-gatherer populations and the limitations and local
needs of farming populations in their initial hotspots.
Further research has already been designed for eva-
luating these preliminary results. We intend to ana-
lyse archaeobotanical and archaeozoological data
from the same study area, using the same division
in ecological areas. The idea is to consider how the
distribution and accessibility of resources at a local
scale may have affected the possibilities of coexis-
tence between hunter-gatherers and farmers in the
early days of agriculture and herding.
Héctor Martínez-Grau, Reto Jagher, F. Xavier Oms, Joan Anton Barceló, Salvador Pardo-Gordó, and Ferran Antolín
186
We thank Berta Morell for sharing the database generated during her PhD (2019) and to the anonymous revie-
wers for their critical comments, which greatly improved this paper. This research took place under the project
funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation entitled “Small seeds for large purposes: an integrated approach
to agricultural change and climate during the Neolithic in Western Europe” (Agri Change Project, SNSF Profes-
sorship grant number: PP00P1_170515, PI: F. Antolín).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Alley R. B., Ágústsdóttir A. M. 2005. The 8k event: cause
and consequences of a major Holocene abrupt climate
change. Quaternary Science Reviews 24(10): 1123–
1149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2004.12.004
Alves E. Q., Macario K., Ascough P., and Bronk Ramsey C.
2018. The Worldwide Marine Radiocarbon Reservoir Ef-
fect: Definitions, Mechanisms and Prospects. Reviews of
Geophysics 56(1): 278–305.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017rg000588
Ammerman A. J., Cavalli-Sforza L. L. 1971. Measuring the
Rate of Spread of Early Farming in Europe. Man 6(4):
674–688. https://doi.org/10.2307/2799190
Antolín F. 2008. Aproximació a l’estudi de la percepció
i la interacción amb l’entorn vegetal en societats caça-
dores – recol·lectores i agricultores ramaderes (10,000–
4,000 cal ANE). Treball de Recerca de Tercer Cicle. MA
Thesis. Department of Prehistory. Autonomous University
of Barcelona. Bellaterra.
Antolín F., Buxó R. 2011. Proposal for the systematic de-
scription and taphonomic study of carbonized cereal grain
assemblages: a case study of an early Neolithic funerary
context in the cave of Can Sadurní (Begues, Barcelona
province, Spain). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
20(1): 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-010-0255-1
Antolín F., Häberle S., Jesus A., Martínez-Grau H., Prats G.,
Schäfer M., and Steiner B. L. 2018. The AgriChange pro-
ject: an integrated on-site approach to agricultural and
land-use change during the Neolithic in Western Europe.
PAGES Magazine 26(1): 26–27.
https://doi.org/10.22498/pages.26.1.26
Antonioli F., and 13 co-authors. 2009. Holocene relative
sea-level changes and vertical movements along the Italian
and Istrian coastlines. Quaternary International 206(1):
102–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2008.11.008
Armit I., Swindles G. T., and Becker K. 2013. From dates
to demography in later prehistoric Ireland? Experimen-
tal approaches to the meta-analysis of large 14C data-sets.
Journal of Archaeological Science 40(1): 433–438.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.08.039
Ascough P., Cook G., and Dugmore A. 2005. Methodologi-
cal approaches to determining the marine radiocarbon re-
servoir effect. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and
Environment 29(4): 532–547. 
https://doi.org/10.1191/0309133305pp461ra
Banchieri D. G. 2009. I laghi prealpini della Lombardia
Nord Occidentale (Italia Settentrionale): dati riguardanti
aspetti della frequentazione umana durante il Neolitico.
Sibrium XXV: 9–30.
Battentier J., Binder D., Guillon S., Maggi R., Negrino F.,
Sénépart I., Tozzi C., Théry-Parisot I., and Delhon C. 2018.
The environment of the last hunters-gatherers and first
agro-pastoralists in the western Mediterranean region, be-
tween the Rhone and the Northern Apennines (7th–6th mil-
lennium cal. BCE): Attractiveness of the landscape units
and settlement patterns. Quaternary Science Reviews 184:
167–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2017.08.013
Bayes T. 1764. An Essay toward solving a Problem in the
Doctrine of Chances. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London 53: 370–418.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstl.1763.0053
Berger J.-F., Guilaine, J. 2009. The 8200 calBP abrupt en-
vironmental change and the Neolithic transition: A Medi-
terranean perspective. Quaternary International 200 (1):
31–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2008.05.013
Bernabeu Aubán J., Martínez Valle R., and Pérez Ripoll M.
1999. Huesos, Neolitización y Contextos Arqueológicos
Aparentes. Saguntvm Extra 2: 589–596.
https://ojs.uv.es/index.php/saguntumextra/article/view/
2796/2375
Bernabeu Aubán J., Barton C. M., and Pérez Ripoll M.
2001. A Taphonomic Perspective on Neolithic Beginnings:
Theory, Interpretation, and Empirical Data in the Western
Mediterranean. Journal of Archaeological Science 28(6):
597–612. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.2000.0591
References
∴
Global processes, regional dynamics| Radiocarbon data as a proxy for social dynamics at the end of the Mesolithic ...
187
Bernabeu Aubán J., Orozco T., Díez Castillo A., Gómez
Puche M., and Molina Hernández F. J. 2003. Mas d’Is (Pe-
nàguila, Alicante): aldeas y recintos monumentales del
Neolítico inicial en el valle del Serpis. Trabajos de Prehi-
storia 60(2): 39–59.
Bernabeu Aubán J. 2006. Una visión actual sobre el ori-
gen y difusión del Neolítico en la Península Ibérica. In O.
García-Puchol, J. E. Aura Tortosa (eds.), El abric de la Fal-
guera (Alcoi, Alacant): 8.000 años de ocupación huma-
na en la cabecera del río de Alcoi. Museu d’Alcoi. Alcoi:
189–211.
Bernabeu Aubán J., Molina Balaguer L., Esquembre-Bebiá
M. A., Ortega Pérez J. R., and Boronat Soler J. D. 2009. La
cerámica impresa mediterránea en el origen del Neolítico
de la península Ibérica In TRACES Collectif (ed.), De Mé-
diterranée et d’ailleurs … Mélanges offerts à Jean Guila-
ine. Archives d’Ecologie Préhistorique. Toulouse: 83–96.
Bernabeu Aubán J., Martí B. 2014. The first agricultural
groups in the Iberian Peninsula. In C. Manen, T. Perrin,
and J. Guilaine (eds.), La transition néolithique en Médi-
terranée. Éditions Errance. Toulouse: 419–438.
Biagi P. 2003. New data on the Early Neolithic of the Up-
per Adriatic region. In L. Nikolova (ed.), Early Symbollic
Systems for Communication in Southeast Europe. Archa-
eopress. British Archaeological Reports IS 1139. Oxford:
337–346.
Biagi P., Starnini E. 2016. La Cultura della Ceramica Im-
pressa nella Liguria di Ponente (Italia Settentrionale): di-
stribuzione, cronologia e aspetti culturali. In Diputació de
València and Museu de Prehistòria de València (ed.), Del
Neolític a l’Edat de Bronze en el Meditarrani occiden-
tal. Estudis en homenatge a Bernat Martí Oliver Servei
d’Investigació Prehistòrica del Museu de Prehistòria de
València 119. València: 35–49.
Binder D., Lepère R., and Maggi R. 2008. Epipaléolithique
et Néolithique dans l’Arc liguro-provençal: bilan et pers-
pectives de recherche. In D. Binder, X. Delestre, P. Pergo-
la, and J. Guilaine (eds.), Archéologies transfrontalières
(Alpes du Sud, Côte d’Azur, Ligurie, Piémont): bilan et
perspectives de recherche. Musée d’anthropologie préhi-
storique de Monaco 1. Monaco: 49–62.
Binder D. 2013. Mésolithique et Néolithique ancien en Ita-
lie et dans le sud-est de la France entre 7000 et 5500 BCE
cal: questions ouvertes sur les dynamiques culturelles et
les procès d’interaction. In T. Perrin, C. Manen, G. Mar-
chand, P. Allard, D. Binder, and M. Ilett (eds.), Transi-
tions, ruptures et continuité durant la Préhistoire. Actes
du XXVIIe Congrès préhistorique de France (Bordeaux –
Les Eyzies, 2010), Autour du Néolithique ancien: les out-
ils du changement: critique des méthodes. Société Préhi-
storique Française. Paris: 341–355.
Binder D., Battentier J., Delhon C., and Sénépart I. 2017a.
In pursuit of a missing transition: the Mesolithic and Neo-
lithic radiocarbon chronology at La Font-aux-Pigeons rock-
shelter. Antiquity 91(357): 605–620
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2017.65
Binder D., and 23 co-authors.  2017b. Modelling the ear-
liest north-western dispersal of Mediterranean Impressed
Wares: new dates and Bayesian chronological model. Do-
cumenta Praehistorica 44: 54–77.
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.44.4
Binder D. 2018. La Néolithisation et les premières étapes
du Néolithique en Provence: progrès récents et nouvelles
perspectives de recherche sur les systèmes techniques et
symboliques. In 53rd Scientific Conference Prehistory
and Protohistory of Liguria, Genoa. Genoa, 16–20 Octo-
ber. Oral communication.
Binder D., Maggi R., and Tiné V. 2018. Il Neolitico. In 53rd
Scientific Conference Prehistory and Protohistory of Li-
guria, Genoa. Genoa, 16–20 October. Oral communica-
tion.
Blasco A., Edo M., and Villalba M. J. 2011. La Cova de Can
Sadurní i la Prehistòria de Garraf. Recull de 30 anys
d’investigació. Hugony. EDAR. Arqueología y Patrimonio.
Milano: 546.
Bogucki P. 1996. The Spread of Early Farming in Europe.
American Scientist 84(3): 242–253.
Briois F., Manen C. 2003. L’habitat Néolithique ancien de
Peiro Signado à Portiragnes (Hérault). In A Beeching, I.
Senepart (eds.), Journées de la SPF. De la maison au vil-
lage dans le Néolithique du sud de la France et du nord-
ouest méditerranéen. Société préhistorique française.
Marseille, France: 31–37.
Brombacher C., Vandorpe P. 2012. Untersuchungen zu
Wirtschaft und Umwelt aus der mittelneolithischen Fund-
stelle von Zizers GR-Friedau. In W. E. Stöckli, A. Boschetti-
Maradi, A. de Capitani, S. Hochuli, and U. Niffeler (eds.),
Form, Zeit und Raum: Grundlagen für eine Geschichte
aus dem Boden: Festschrift für Werner E. Stöckli zu sei-
nem 65. Geburtstag. Archäologie Schweiz. Basel: 95–104.
Bronk Ramsey C. 2009. Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon
Dates. Radiocarbon 51(1): 337–360.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200033865
2017. Methods for Summarizing Radiocarbon Datasets.
Radiocarbon 59(6): 1809–1833.
https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2017.108
Brus D. J., Hengeveld G. M., Walvoort D. J. J., Goedhart P.
W., Heidema A. H., Nabuurs G. J., and Gunia K. 2012. Sta-
tistical mapping of tree species over Europe. European
Héctor Martínez-Grau, Reto Jagher, F. Xavier Oms, Joan Anton Barceló, Salvador Pardo-Gordó, and Ferran Antolín
Journal of Forest Research 131(1): 145–157.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-011-0513-5
Buckley M., Whitcher Kansa S., Howard S., Campbell S.,
Thomas-Oates J., and Collins M. 2010. Distinguishing be-
tween archaeological sheep and goat bones using a sin-
gle collagen peptide. Journal of Archaeological Science
37(1): 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.08.020
Cavalli-Sforza L. L., Cavalli-Sforza F. 1995. The great hu-
man diasporas: The history of diversity and evolution. Ad-
dison-Wesley. American Journal of Physical Anthropo-
logy 101: 300. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1331010403
Childe V. G. 1925. The Dawn of European Civilization.
Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd London.
https://doi.org/10.2307/625294
Clark J. G. D. 1965. Radiocarbon dating and the expan-
sion of farming culture from the Near East over Europe.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 31: 58–73.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00014717
Contreras D. A., Meadows J. 2014. Summed radiocarbon
calibrations as a population proxy: a critical evaluation
using a realistic simulation approach. Journal of Archaeo-
logical Science 52: 591–608.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.05.030
Crotti P., Guélat M., Bullinger J., and Pignat G. 2016. The
rockshelter of Château-d’OEx: pedosedimentary record of
human occupations in the Swiss Prealps from the Late
Glacial to the Mid-Holocene. Preistoria Alpina 48: 21–31.
Cruz Berrocal M. 2012. The Early Neolithic in the Iberian
Peninsula and the Western Mediterranean: A Review of the
Evidence on Migration. Journal of World Prehistory 25(3):
123–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-012-9059-9
Curdy P., Leuzinger-Piccand C., and Leuzinger U. 1998.
Ein Felsabri auf 2600 m ü.M. am Fusse des Matterhorns:
Jäger, Händler und Hirten im Hochgebirge. Archäologie
der Schweiz 21(2): 65–71.
Erny-Rodmann C., Gross-Klee E., Haas J. N., Jacomet S.,
and Zoller H. 1997. Früher “human impact” und Ackerbau
im Übergangsbereich: Spätmesolithikum-Frühneolithikum
im schweizerischen Mittelland. Jahrbuch der Schweizeri-
schen Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte 80: 27–
56. https://doi.org/10.5169/seals-117505
ESRI Development Team 2018. ArcGIS Desktop 10.6.
https://support.esri.com/en/download/7705
European Environment Agency 2017. Digital map of Eu-
ropean ecological regions. https://www.eea.europa.eu/
data-and-maps/data/digital-map-of-european-ecological-
regions#tab-gis-data. 2020, February 26
Fort J. 2018. The Neolithic Transition: Diffusion of People
or Diffusion of Culture? In A. Bunde, J. Caro, J. Kärger,
and G. Vogl (eds.), Diffusive Spreading in Nature, Tech-
nology and Society. Springer International Publishing.
Cham: 313–331.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67798-9_16
Gabriele M., Convertini F., Verati C., Gratuze B., Jacomet
S., Boschian G., Durrenmath G., Guilaine J., Lardeaux J.-
M., Gomart L., Manen C., and Binder D. 2019. Long-dis-
tance mobility in the North-Western Mediterranean dur-
ing the Neolithic transition using high resolution pottery
sourcing. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 28:
102050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.102050
Gallay A., Olive P., and Carazzetti R. 1983. Chronologie
C14 de la séquence Néolithique-Bronze ancien du Valais
(Suisse). Annuaire de la Société suisse de Préhistoire
et d’Archéologie 66: 43–72.
García-Martínez de Lagrán Í., Fernández-Domínguez E.,
and Rojo-Guerra M. A. 2018. Solutions or illusions? An
analysis of the available palaeogenetic evidence from the
origins of the Neolithic in the Iberian Peninsula. Quater-
nary International 470: 353–368.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.07.012
Guidez A. 2018. Les derniers chasseurs-cueilleurs de l’Arc
circum-alpin occidental et de ses marges: nouvelles don-
nées apportées par l’étude archéozoologique de l’abri
sous roche de la Souche à Arconciel (Canton de Fri-
bourg, Suisse). Université de Strasbourg. École doctorale
Sciences humaines et sociales – Perspectives européennes.
Archéologie et histoire ancienne: Méditerranée-Europe.
PhD dissertation. University of Strasbourg. Strasbourg.
Guilaine J. 1976. Premiers bergers et paysans de l’Occi-
dent Méditerranéen. Mouton 58. Paris.
2000–2001. La diffusion de l’agriculture en Europe: une
hypothèse arythmique. Zephyrus 53–54: 262–272.
Guilaine J., Manen C. 2005. From Mesolithic to Early Neo-
lithic in the western Mediterranean. In A. Whittle, V.
Cummings (eds.), Going over: The Mesolithic-Neolithic
Transition in the North-West Europe. Oxford University
press. Cardiff: 21–51.
Guilaine J., Metallinou G., and Berger J.-F. 2016. La néoli-
thisation de la Méditerranée occidentale: sur la piste des
pionniers? In Diputació de València and Museu de Prehi-
stòria de València (ed.), Del neolític a l’edat del bronze
en el Mediterrani occidental. Estudis en homenatge a
188
Global processes, regional dynamics| Radiocarbon data as a proxy for social dynamics at the end of the Mesolithic ...
189
Bernat Martí Oliver. Servei d’Investigació Prehistòrica del
Museu de Prehistòria de València 119. València: 27–34.
Hafner A., Suter P. J. 2003. Das Neolithikum in der Schweiz.
Journal of Neolithic Archaeology 5: 1–75.
https://doi.org/10.12766/jna.2003.4
Hijmans R., Cameron S. E., Parra J. L., Jones P. G., and Jar-
vis A. 2005. Very high resolution interpolated climate sur-
faces for global land areas. International Journal of Cli-
matology 25: 1965–1978.
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1276
Isern N., Zilhão J., Fort J., and Ammerman J. 2017. Model-
ing the role of voyaging in the coastal spread of the Early
Neolithic in the West Mediterranean. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 114(5): 897–902.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1613413114
Kerr T. R., McCormick F. 2014. Statistics, sunspots and
settlement: influences on sum of probability curves. Jour-
nal of Archaeological Science 41: 493–501. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.09.002
Krivoruchko K., Gribov A. 2019. Evaluation of empirical
Bayesian kriging. Spatial Statistics 32: 100368.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spasta.2019.100368
Lee S., Ramsey C. B. 2012. Development and Application
of the Trapezoidal Model for Archaeological Chronolo-
gies. Radiocarbon 54(1): 107–122.
https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_js_rc.v54i1.12397
Lull V., Micó R., Rihuete-Herrada C., and Risch R. 2015.
When 14C Dates Fall Beyond the Limits of Uncertainty:
An Assessment of Anomalies in Western Mediterranean
Bronze Age 14C Series. Radiocarbon 57(5): 1029–1040.
https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_rc.57.18180
Maggi R., Chella P. 1999. Chronologie par le radiocar-
bone du néolithique des Arene Candide (Fouilles Bernabò
Brea). In J. Vaquer (ed.), Le Néolithique du Nord-Ouest
méditerranéen: actes du colloque international/XXIVe
Congrès préhistorique de France, Carcassonne, 26–30
septembre 1994. Société préhistorique française. Joué-lès-
Tours: 99–110.
Magny M., Bégeot C., Guiot J., and Peyron O. 2003. Con-
trasting patterns of hydrological changes in Europe in res-
ponse to Holocene climate cooling phases. Quaternary
Science Reviews 22(15): 1589–1596.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-3791(03)00131-8
Manen C. 2002. Structure et identité des styles céramiques
du Néolithique ancien entre Rhône et Èbre. Gallia Préhi-
stoire 44: 121–165.
Manen C., Mazurie De Keroualin K. 2003. Les concepts »la
hoguette« et »limbourg«: Un bilan des données. In M. Bes-
se, L. I. Stahl Gretsch, and Ph. Curdy (eds.), Constella-
Sion. Hommage à Alain Gallay. Cahiers d’archéologie
romande 95. Lausanne: 115–145.
Manen C., Perrin T., Guilaine J., Bouby L., Bréhard S., Bri-
ois F., Durand F., Marinval P., and Vigne J. D. 2019a. The
Neolithic Transition in the Western Mediterranean: a
Complex and Non-Linear Diffusion Process – The Radio-
carbon Record Revisited. Radiocarbon 61(2): 531–571.
https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.98
Manen C. and 13 co-authors. 2019b. Le sommet de l’ice-
berg? Colonisation pionnière et néolithisation de la France
méditerranéenne. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique
française, Société préhistorique français 116(2): 317–
361.
Marchand G., Perrin T. 2017. Why this revolution? Ex-
plaining the major technical shift in Southwestern Eu-
rope during the 7th millennium cal. BC. Quaternary In-
ternational 428: 73–85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.07.059
Martins H., Oms F. X., Pereira L., Pike A. W. G., Rowsell K.,
and Zilhão J. 2015. Radiocarbon Dating the Beginning of
the Neolithic in Iberia: New Results, New Problems. Jour-
nal of Mediterranean Archaeology 28(1): 105–131.
https://doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v28i1.27503
Mauvilly M., Dafflon L., and Mccullough F. 2008. L’abri
mésolithique d’Arconciel/La Souche: bilan des recherches
2003–2007. Cahiers d’Archéologie Fribourgeoise 10:
44–75.
Morales J. I., Oms F. X. 2012. Las últimas evidencias me-
solíticas del NE peninsular y el vacío pre-neolítico. Rubri-
catum: revista del Museu de Gavà 5: 35–42.
Morell B. 2019. La cronología como medio de inter-
pretación social: los contextos funerarios del NE de la
Península Ibérica entre finales del V e inicios del IV mi-
lenio cal BC. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Departament de
Prehistòria. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Barcelona.
Natali E., Forgia V. 2018. The beginning of the Neolithic
in Southern Italy and Sicily. Quaternary International
470: 253–269.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.07.004
Nicod P.-Y., Picavet R., Argant J., Brochier J. L., Chaix L.,
Delhon C., Martin L., Moulin B., Sordoillet D., and Thié-
bault S. 2010. Une économie pastorale dans le nord du
Vercors: analyse pluridisciplinaire des niveaux néolithi-
ques et protohistoriques de la Grande Rivoire (Sassenage,
Isère). In A. Beeching, E. Thirault, and J. Vital (eds.), Eco-
Héctor Martínez-Grau, Reto Jagher, F. Xavier Oms, Joan Anton Barceló, Salvador Pardo-Gordó, and Ferran Antolín
190
nomie et société à la fin de la préhistoire. Actualité de
la recherche. Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée,
Jean-Pouilloux – MOM Documents d’Archéologie en Rhône-
Alpes et en Auvergne 34. Lyon: 69–86.
Nicod P.-Y., Picavet R. 2011. Sassenage: La Grande Rivoire.
Bilan scientifique de la région Rhône-Alpes: 86–87.
Nielsen E. H. 2009. Paläolithikum und Mesolithikum in
der Zentralschweiz. Mensch und Umwelt zwischen
17 000 und 5500 v. Chr. Archäologische Schriften Luzern.
Luzern.
Olsen J., Heinemeier J., Bennike P., Krause C., Margrethe
Hornstrup K., and Thrane H. 2008. Characterisation and
blind testing of radiocarbon dating of cremated bone.
Journal of Archaeological Science 35(3): 791–800.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2007.06.011
Oms F. X. 2008. Caracterització tècnica, tipològica i crono-
lògica de les ceràmiques del Neolític antic de la Cova Co-
lomera (Prepirineu de Lleida). Archivo de Prehistoria
Levantina 27: 51–80.
Oms F. X., Martín A., Esteve X., Mestres J., Morell B., Su-
birà M. E., and Gibaja J. F. 2016. The Neolithic in Northeast
Iberia: Chronocultural Phases and 14C. Radiocarbon 58
(2): 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2015.14
Oms F. X., Mazzucco N., Santos F. J., Guilaine J., Subirà M.
E., and Gibaja J. F. 2018a. Les dades radiocarbòniques i
la seva anàlisi durant el Neolític a les valls d’Andorra. In
G. Remolins, J. F. Gibaja (eds.), Les Valls d’Andorra du-
rant el Neolític: un encreuament de camins al centre
dels Pirineus. Museu d’Arqueologia de Catalunya. Mono-
grafies Del Mac 2. Girona: 91–100.
Oms F. X., Terradas X., Morell B., and Gibaja J. F. 2018b.
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the northeast of Iberia:
Chronology and socioeconomic dynamics. Quaternary
International 470: 383–397.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.06.003
Pardo-Gordó S. 2015. La diversidad cultural del primer
Neolítico (VII cal BP) en el Mediterráneo Occidental:
un análisis desde los sistemas complejos y la simula-
ción basada en agentes. PhD Thesis. Universitat de Va-
lència. Department of Prehistory and Archeology. Univer-
sity of Valencia. Valencia.
Pearce M. 2013. Rethinking the North Italian Early Neo-
lithic. Accordia Research Institute, University of London.
London: 245.
Perrin T. 2008. La néolithisation de la vallée du Rhône et
de ses marges. In S. Grimaldi, T. Perrin, and J. Guilaine
(eds.), Mountain environments in Prehistoric Europe:
settlement and mobility strategies from the Palaeo-
lithic to the Early Bronze Age. Actes du XVe Congrès
Mondial de l’UISPP, Lisbonne, Portugal, 4–9 septembre
2006 (vol. 26, session C31). British Archaeological Re-
ports IS 1885. Archaeopress. Oxford: 121–130.
Perrin T., Marchand G., Allard P., Binder D., Collina C.,
Garcia Puchol O., and Valdeyron N. 2009. The late Meso-
lithic of Western Europe: origins and chronological stages.
Annales de la Fondation Fyssen 24: 160–176.
Perrin T., Defranould E. 2016. The Montclus rock shelter
(Gard) and the continuity hypothesis between 1st and 2nd
Mesolithic in Southern France. Quaternary International
423: 230–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.09.046
Perrin T. 2019. BDA: une Base de Données Archéologique
collaborative en ligne. Société Préhistorique Française
116(1): 159–162.
Pessina A., Tiné V. 2008. Archeologia del Neolitico. L’Ita-
lia tra VI e IV millenio cal a.C. Carocci. Roma: 375.
Pluciennik M. 1998. Deconstructing “the Neolithic” in the
Meoslithic-Neolithic transition. In M. R. Edmonds, C. Ri-
chards (eds.), Understanding the Neolithic of North-West-
ern Europe. Cruithne Press. Glasgow: 61–83.
Reimer P. J. and 30 co-authors. 2013. IntCal13 and Ma-
rine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0–50,000
Years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4): 1869–1887.
https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947
Rodanés J. M., Picazo J. 2013. El campamento mesolítico
del Cabezo de la Cruz: La Muela, Zaragoza. Prensas Uni-
versitarias de Zaragoza. Monografías del Departamento
de Prehistoria 45. Zaragoza.
Séara F., Rotillon S., and Cupillard C. 2002. Campaments
mésolithiques en Bresse jurassienne: Choisey et Ruffey-
sur-Seille (Jura). Editions de la Maison des Sciences de
l’Homme. Documents Archéologie Française 92. Paris.
Shennan S., Downey S. S., Timpson A., Edinborough K.,
Colledge S., Kerig T., Manning K., and Thomas M. G. 2013.
Regional population collapse followed initial agriculture
booms in mid-Holocene Europe. Nature Communications
4(1): 2486. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3486
Shennan S. 2018. The First Farmers of Europe: An Evo-
lutionary Perspective. Cambridge University Press. Cam-
bridge World Archaeology. Cambridge.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108386029
Silva F., Vander Linden M. 2017. Amplitude of travelling
front as inferred from 14C predicts levels of genetic ad-
mixture among European early farmers. Scientific Reports
7(1): 11985. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-12318-2
Global processes, regional dynamics| Radiocarbon data as a proxy for social dynamics at the end of the Mesolithic ...
191
Sjögren K. G. 2011. C-14 chronology of Scandinavian
megalithic tombs. MENGA. Revista de Prehistoria de An-
dalucía M1: 103–120.
Skeates R., Whitehouse R. 1999. New Radiocarbon Dates
for Prehistoric Italy, 3. Specialist Studies on Italy. Accor-
dia 7. London.
Smith O., Momber G., Bates R., Garwood P., Fitch S., Pal-
len M., Gaffney V., and Allaby R. G. 2015. Sedimentary
DNA from a submerged site reveals wheat in the British
Isles 8000 years ago. Science 347(6225): 998–1001.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261278
Soares A. M. M., Dias J. M. A. 2006. Coastal Upwelling and
Radiocarbon-Evidence for Temporal Fluctuations in Ocean
Reservoir Effect off Portugal During the Holocene. Radio-
carbon 48(1): 45–60.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200035384
Starnini E., Biagi P., and Mazzucco N. 2018. The beginning
of the Neolithic in the Po Plain (northern Italy): Problems
and perspectives. Quaternary International 470: 301–
317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.05.059
Stöckli W. E. 2016. Urgeschichte der Schweiz im Über-
blick (15000 v.Chr. –Christi Geburt). Die Konstruktion
einer Urgeschichte. Archäologie Schweiz Antiqua 54. Ba-
sel.
Tinner W., Nielsen E. H., and Lotter A. F. 2007. Mesolithic
agriculture in Switzerland? A critical review of the evi-
dence. Quaternary Science Reviews 26(9): 1416–1431.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2007.02.012
Utrilla P., Mazo C. 2014. La Peña de las Forcas (Graus,
Huesca). Un asentamiento estratégico en la confluencia
del Ésera y el Isàbena. Prensas Universitarias de Zarago-
za. Monografías del Departamento de Prehistoria 46. Za-
ragoza.
Utrilla P., Berdejo A., Obón A., Laborda R., Domingo R.,
and Alcolea M. 2016. El abrigo del Esplugón (Billobas-Sa-
biñánigo, Huesca). Un ejemplo de transición Mesolítico-
Neolítico en el Pirineo central. In Diputació de València
and Museu de Prehistòria de València (ed.), Del Neolític
a l’Edat del Bronze en el Mediterrani occidental. Estu-
dis en homenatge a Bernat Martí Oliver. Servei d’Inves-
tigació Prehistòrica del Museu de Prehistòria de València
119. València: 75–96.
Villalba-Mouco V., and 20 co-authors. 2019. Survival of
Late Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherer Ancestry in the Iberian
Peninsula. Current Biology 29(7): 1169-1177.e7. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.cub.2019.02.006
Voruz J.-L., Perrin T. 2009. Chronologie absolue. In Jean-
Louis Voruz (ed.), La Grotte du Gardon (Ain). Le site et
la séquence néolithique des couches 60 à 47. Archives
d’Écologie Préhistorique. Toulouse: 113–126.
Williams A. N. 2012. The use of summed radiocarbon pro-
bability distributions in archaeology: a review of methods.
Journal of Archaeological Science 39(3): 578–589.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.07.014
Zilhão J. 1993. The Spread of Agro-Pastoral Economies
across Mediterranean Europe: A View from the Far West.
Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 6(1): 5–63.
2001. Radiocarbon evidence for maritime pioneer colo-
nization at the origins of farming west Mediterranean
Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-
ences of the United States of America 98(24): 14180–
14185. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.241522898
2011. Dynamics of Neolithisation in Europe. In A. Had-
jikoumis, E. Robinson, and S. Viner (eds.), The dynam-
ics of Neolithisation in Europe. Studies in honour of
Andrew Sherratt. Oxbow Books. Oxford; Oakville: 46–
65.
Zvelebil M. 1986. Hunters in transition: mesolithic so-
cieties of temperate Eurasia and their transition to
farming. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge & New
York.
2000. The social context of the agricultural transition
in Europe. In C. Renfrew, K. Boyle (ed.), Archaeogene-
tics: DNA and the population prehistory of Europe. Mc
Donald Institute for Archaeological Research Mono-
graphs. Cambridge: 57–79.