Spread of Farming in Europe

Antiquity, March 2003 v77 i295 p45(18)

Neolithic transition in Europe: the radiocarbon record revisited

Marina Gkiasta et al.

A set of 508 Neolithic sites and 207 Mesolithic sites was used in these analyses. The classification of dates as Mesolithic or Neolithic was on the basis of conventional cultural assignment

...

This suggests that the overall rate of spread is ~1.3 km/year and that the mean notional departure time from Jericho was ~8240 [+ or -] 110 yrs BP (uncal.). In this case, linear regression of the two variables produces a correlation coefficient, r = 0.73. In other words, with the larger data set now available the mean rate of spread is similar to that observed by Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza, although the dispersion around that rate is somewhat greater.

...

It is important to note that calibrating the radiocarbon values derived from in this major axis model would give us a mean origination time in Jericho of about 10 400 cal BP for European Neolithic populations. If we approximate a confidence range for this date by taking estimates from linear regression models for dates on distance and for distance on dates (cf. Draper 1992), we derive a range for the mean Near Eastern origination time of 9200-12 400 cal BP. Such estimates fit quite well with observed dates for the end of the Natufian (c. 10 200 BP, Belfer-Cohen 1991, which becomes c. 12 000 cal BP after calibration). This is interesting when we consider that current debate about European genetic origins contrasts a possible major dispersal at 11-14 000 cal BP (variously described as `Mesolithic' by Sykes, 1999 and as `Late Upper Palaeolithic' by Richards et al., 2000), with one at 8500 cal BP (described as `Neolithic' by Sykes, 1999). In other words, one effect of calibration is that the mtDNA signatures of these two events appear less well-resolved than some geneticists suggest. Some of the mtDNA variation currently attributed to the late glacial recolonization of Europe may in fact derive from Neolithic demic diffusion!

...

The pattern for Greece does not contradict the view that we are dealing with the expansion of new populations from Anatolia rather than an indigenous Neolithic development. However, the number of Mesolithic dates is still small and it remains unclear how much the current state of affairs reflects lack of work rather than lack of settlement.

In the former Yugoslavia the Mesolithic dates come from a very small number of sites, dominated by Lepenski Vir, indicating a need for caution. Nonetheless, what emerges is a Neolithic represented by the Starcevo culture which appears very suddenly at around 8000 cal. BP, most probably as a result of populations expanding from Greece, and a Mesolithic which carries on in such locations as the Iron Gates gorges or the mountains of Montenegro, overlapping and interacting with the newly arrived Neolithic colonists.

Italy has a rather firmer foundation and at first sight looks more ambivalent in terms of its possible implications for `neolithisation' processes since there is a later Mesolithic concentration of dates immediately prior to and overlapping with the earliest Neolithic ones. However, an examination of the geographical location of the sites concerned reveals that all the late Mesolithic sites are in northern Italy while virtually all the earliest Neolithic dates come from the south, suggesting that in this region at least the earliest Neolithic is likely to represent colonisation.

In Germany there is a marked decline Mesolithic occupation before 8000 cal. BP and the body of the Neolithic distribution begins very sharply at around 7400 cal. BP, associated with the appearance of the Linearbandkeramik (LBK). This would seem to suggest a decline in Mesolithic occupation after 8000 cal. BP and hardly fits in with the suggestion that the German LBK represents an indigenous adoption of Neolithic culture and economy. On the contrary, it seems to confirm the idea of the LBK as an expanding, colonising population moving into an area which was relatively thinly occupied. However, the probable presence of Mesolithic groups with distinctive La Hoguette pottery in the west of the area should be noted (see e.g. Jochim 2000, Figure 7.5). The recent work of Price et al. (2001; see also Bentley et al. 2002), involving strontium isotope analysis of LBK skeletons, suggests both population immigration and some degree of mixing with neighbouring groups, possibly foragers.

In the case of Belgium a continuous low level of Mesolithic occupation is suggested, continuing in parallel with the early Neolithic, but examination of the coordinates of these later Mesolithic sites indicates that they are located significantly further west than their early Neolithic contemporaries. The Neolithic begins quite abruptly at 5400 cal. BC with the earliest Bandkeramik settlements.

...

The pattern for France once again shows a series of Mesolithic fluctuations but its most striking feature is the very gradual increase in the number of Neolithic dates through time ... There would appear to be strong evidence here for the early indigenous adoption of Neolithic attributes by Mesolithic populations in France, at least in its southern half.

...

The picture for Britain is more ambivalent in that there is a decline in the summed Mesolithic probabilities prior to the rise of the Neolithic but in the light of the other patterns, it seems at present more convincing to see it as pointing towards indigenous adoption rather than than colonisation. This seems even more likely to be the case for Ireland, where the main Mesolithic peak is immediately prior to the beginning of the Neolithic, followed apparently by a very sudden transition. However, as Woodman (2000) makes clear, the picture remains very unclear.

Posted by Dienekes at October 26, 2003 10:30 PM | PermaLink