2007, Whittle, Cummings (Eds), Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in NW Europe, Book

Going Over
The Mesolithic-Neolithic
Transition in North-West Europe
Edited by
Alasdair Whittle & Vicki Cummings
Proceedings of the British Academy 144, 2007
Contents
Alasdair Whittle
Preface
xvi
Introduction: transitions and transformations
1-4
Alan Barnard
From Mesolithic to Neolithic modes of thought
5-19
Jean Guilaine & Claire Manen
From Mesolithic to Early Neolithic in the western Mediterranean
21-51
Pablo Arias
Neighbours but diverse: social change in north-west Iberia during the

transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic (55004000 cal BC)
53-71
Detlef Gronenborn
Beyond the models: 'Neolithisation' in Central Europe
73-98
John Robb & Preston Miracle
Beyond 'migration' versus 'acculturation': new models for the spread of

agriculture
99-115
Alex Bentley
Mobility, specialisation and community diversity in the Linearbandkeramik:

isotopic evidence from the skeletons
117-140
Richard P Evershed
Exploiting molecular and isotopic signals at the Mesolithic-Neolithic

transition
141-164
Ruth Bollongino & Joachim Burger
Neolithic cattle domestication as seen from ancient DNA
165-187
Anne Tresset & Jean-Denis Vigne
Substitution of species, techniques and symbols at the Mesolithic-Neolithic

transition in Western Europe
189-210
Pierre Allard
The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Paris Basin: a review
211-223
Grgor Marchand
Neolithic fragrances : Mesolithic-Neolithic interactions in western France
225-242
Chris Scarre
Changing places: monuments and the Neolithic transition in western France
243-261
Philippe Cromb & Bart Vanmontfort
The neolithisation of the Scheldt basin in western Belgium
263-285
Leendert P Louwe Kooijmans
The gradual transition to farming in the Lower Rhine Basin
287-309
Graeme Warren
Mesolithic myths
311-328
Chris Tilley
The Neolithic sensory revolution: monumentality and the experience of

landscape
329-345
Richard Bradley
Houses, bodies and tombs
347-355
Amy Bogaard & Glynis Jones
Neolithic farming in Britain and central Europe: contrast or continuity?
357-375
Alasdair Whittle
The temporality of transformation: dating the early development of the

southern British Neolithic
377-398
Gill Hey & Alistair Barclay
The Thames Valley in the late fifth and early fourth millennium cal BC: the
appearance of domestication and the evidence for change
399-422
Julian Thomas
Mesolithic-Neolithic transitions in Britain: from essence to inhabitation
423-439
Alison Sheridan
From Picardie to Pickering and Pencraig Hill? New information on the

'Carinated Bowl Neolithic' in northern Britain
441-492
Vicki Cummings
From midden to megalith? The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in western

Britain
493-510
Steven Mithen, Anne Pirie, Sam Smith &

Karen Wicks,
The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in western Scotland: a review and new

evidence from Tiree
511-541
Gabriel Cooney
Parallel worlds or multi-stranded identities? Considering the process of

'going over' in Ireland and the Irish Sea zone
543-566
Snke Hartz, Harald Lbke & Thomas

Terberger
From fish and seal to sheep and cattle: new research into the process of
neolithisation in northern Germany
567-594
Lars Larsson
Mistrust traditions, consider innovations? The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition 595-616

in southern Scandinavia
Alasdair Whittle
Going over: people and their times
617-628
Preface
In proposing this conference to The British Academy I am grateful first to
fellow members of Section H7 for their encouragement, and especially to
Professor Paul Mellars for his advice and guidance. I would like to thank the
Research Committee and the Publications Committee of The British
Academy for their support, Angela Pusey for her help in the setting up of the
conference, and James Rivington and Amritpal Bangard for their help in the
publication of these papers. We are also grateful to Hilary Meeks for her
expert copy editing. The conference took place in Cardiff University on
1618 May 2005, and I am grateful to my colleagues Liz Walker, Sue Virgo,
Ian Dennis and Steve Mills for their various inputs, as well as to Vicki
Cummings for her help throughout. Daniela Hofmann looked after registration and accounts, and she, Ollie Harris, Jessica Mills, Andy Cochrane and
Penny Bickle gave invaluable support during the conference itself. Finally,
Vicki and I would like to thank all the contributors for their efforts to submit
papers promptly and to schedule.
ALASDAIR WHITTLE
Cardiff School of History and Archaeology
Cardiff University
June 2006
Copyright British Academy 2007 all rights reserved
Introduction: transitions and

transformations
ALASDAIR WHITTLE & VICKI CUMMINGS
THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT, in the long run and on a global scale, the transition from hunter-gatherer existence to farming society has had profound consequences for mankind. A world of vastly increased numbers, developed
social hierarchy, institutional diversity, technological innovation, and social
forms such as states and empires, is scarcely conceivable to us on the basis of
subsistence provided by hunting and gathering, even though there are interesting examples of hunter-gatherer social complexity such as found on the
North-west Coast of America. In these terms, adopting farming, settling
down, and becoming Neolithic, constituted one of the big changes in human
history, with big consequences, the effects of which we are still experiencing
today. The transformation can even be seen in moral terms, as a kind of fall
from a state of grace in the world of hunters and foragers, where different values and ideals prevailed, promoting sharing among people, creatures and the
earth itself (Brody 2001): a view that resonates today in an era of humanly
induced climate change.
Archaeology can identify, in broad terms, when these processes of change
and their subsequent consequences began, in a series of regional early
Holocene sequences around the globe. The situation in Europe appears
dependent on earlier developments in the Near East. As far as central and
north-west Europe is concerned, we can state with some confidence, after well
over a century of research in many areas, that there were no farmers before
6000 cal BC, and very few hunter-gatherers after 4000 cal BC except in peripheral regions. Surely, the optimist might claim, we are getting better not only
at the timescales, but also at understanding the main features of transformation: the connections with south-east Europe and beyond there with the Near
East, the spread of agriculture, sedentism and related new material practices,
the adaptations and adoptions of the people already there in the face of or in
reaction to incoming population, and the resultant, steady increase in social
complexity. Some might even argue that we are getting better at grasping
the major mechanisms and stimuli of change, such as leapfrog or targeted
Proceedings of the British Academy 144, 14, The British Academy 2007.
colonisation in search of prime conditions for agricultural life, on the one

hand, or responses to abrupt and major alterations in climatic conditions, on
the other.
In this perspective, the terms of debate have long been fixed, and the task
is to sift existing evidence and to win new data, in order further to refine the
timescalesabove all to grasp the moment of transition from one kind of
existence to anotherand to weigh in the balance the competing claims,
region by region, for a dominant role by colonisers or indigenous people.
That kind of debate has certainly been more complicated since the contribution of indigenous people was seriously acknowledged, which we could date
back to the appearance of the Man the hunter volume (Lee & DeVore 1968).
It has also become more interesting over the last 3040 years as more and
more evidence has been made available, region by region, by a combination
of research and contract/rescue investigations.
How long-term processes have ended, however, does not tell us automatically how they began. The consequence of this teleological fallacy is that our
narratives are given a predetermined form, shaped by long-term outcomes on
the one hand and a globalising perspective on the other. We therefore tend to
look for particular moments of transition, to privilege certain features such
as subsistence, residence, population and social complexity from the outset
and to discuss north-west Europe in the terms of everywhere else. What if
other things were in play in our particular area (and indeed elsewhere), including novel ways of thinking about the world, about time, about identity and
about sociality? What if the connections with elsewhere were not so much to
do with dependence as contingency: making use of what happened to become
available through other histories? What if new practices could be adopted
while existing, older ways of thinkingabout self, others and the natural
worldwere still dominant? What if the processes of change required or
resulted in complex mergings of both identity and practice, which our essentialising labels of hunter-gatherers versus farmers, or worse still Mesolithic
versus Neolithic, are simply inadequate to signify? What if we started with
the radical premise that most or all societies in the post-glacial period
whatever their subsistence or technological basewere normally in a state of
transformation, which would offer a quite different perspective on the holy
grail of finding moments of Mesolithic-Neolithic transition?
With these starting points, our enquiry in north-west Europe could transform itself from being a footnote to large-scale, global processes whose character and consequences had already been largely determined, and become
instead a detailed, particularising case study of change in specific human
societies, in particular times and places. As such, it can be seen as a contribution also to contemporary debate in archaeology about the play between
INTRODUCTION
agency and structure, the place of individual actors, and the meaning and
significance of diversity.
The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition has been investigated in Denmark for
some 150 years (Fischer & Kristiansen 2002), and Enlightenment philosophers such as Rousseau and Hume had already speculated extensively about
the shape and nature of social development. The dominant twentieth-century
trope was rapid and extensive change brought from the outside, but in northwest and central Europe an allowance for the contribution of indigenous
people can be traced back to the effects of Lee and DeVore (1968), suggestions by figures such as Humphrey Case (1976) and Pieter Modderman
(1988), and modelling by Marek Zvelebil and Peter Rowley-Conwy (1986),
among others. Other important and relevant recent theoretical trends to note
include debates on agency (e.g. Barrett 2001), dwelling (e.g. Ingold 2000) and
personhood (e.g. Fowler 2004; cf. Bailey & Whittle 2005; Pluciennik 1998).
Because the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition has long been in focus, there have
been many reviews of it, which it is not our intention here to list in detail.
There have been other good, recent collections of papers, but with either
rather broad European (e.g. Ammerman & Biagi 2003; Price 2000) or more
concentrated regional coverage (e.g. Marchand & Tresset 2005; Zvelebil et al.
1998). We have to go much further back in the literature to find a comparable regional coverage to that offered in the papers here, to the closed shop
of the former Atlantic Colloquium (e.g. Palaeohistoria 12 of 1966, and de
Laet 1976).
While we have arranged the order of papers largely on a geographical
basis, this volume also offers a wider range of approaches, which we believe
is another distinctive feature. It was as important for us to include discussion
of isotopic and aDNA analyses or plant remains and animal bone assemblages, for example, as to assemble a coherent regional coverage from northern Spain to southern Scandinavia. It has not been possible for every
thematic treatment presented at the conference itself to be included in the
volume, and if space were not a limitation we could have commissioned yet
more regional syntheses. We do not claim that the volume as a whole presents
a new consensus on the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in north-west
Europe. Some authors argue vigorously for the colonisation model (see also
Rowley-Conwy 2004), and others just as strongly for the indigenist perspective; some at least may agree with our own view of the complexities involved
and the likely resultant fusions of identities and practices. All would agree, we
think, about the diversity of the processes involved, and that sense of variation on not a single but several themes will act, we hope, as a spur to further
investigation and interpretation of this most intriguing and challenging of
changes.

REFERENCES
AMMERMAN, A. J. & BIAGI, P. (eds) 2003. The widening harvest. The Neolithic transition in
Europe: looking back, looking forward. Boston: American Institute of Archaeology.
BAILEY, D. & WHITTLE, A. 2005. Unsettling the Neolithic: breaking down concepts, boundaries and origins. In D. Bailey, A. Whittle & V. Cummings (eds), (un)settling the Neolithic,
17. Oxford: Oxbow.
BARRETT, J. C. 2001. Agency, the duality of structure, and the problem of the archaeological
record. In I. Hodder (ed.), Archaeological theory today, 14164. Oxford: Blackwell.
BRODY, H. 2001. The other side of Eden: hunter-gatherers, farmers and the shaping of the world.
London: Faber and Faber.
CASE, H. J. 1976. Acculturation and the Earlier Neolithic in western Europe. In S. J. de Laet
(ed.), Acculturation and continuity in Atlantic Europe, 4558. Brugge: de Tempel.
DE LAET, S. J. (ed.) 1976. Acculturation and continuity in Atlantic Europe. Brugge: de Tempel.
FISCHER, A. & KRISTIANSEN, K. (eds) 2002. The Neolithisation of Denmark. 150 years of
debate. Sheffield: J. R. Collis Publications.
FOWLER, C. 2004. The archaeology of personhood: an anthropological approach. London:
Routledge.
INGOLD, T. 2000. The perception of the environment: essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill.
London: Routledge.
LEE, R. B. & DEVORE, I. (eds) 1968. Man the hunter. Chicago: Aldine.
MARCHAND, G. & TRESSET, A. (eds) 2005. Unit et diversit du processus de Nolithisation
de la faade atlantique de lEurope (7e4e millnaires avant notre re). Paris: Mmoire 36 de
la Socit Prhistorique Franaise.
MODDERMAN, P. J. R. 1988. The Linear Pottery culture: diversity in uniformity. Berichten van
het Rijksdienst voor Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 38, 63140.
PLUCIENNIK, M. 1998. Deconstructing the Neolithic in the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition.
In M. Edmonds & C. Richards (eds), Understanding the Neolithic of north-western Europe,
6183. Glasgow: Cruithne Press.
PRICE, T. D. (ed.) 2000. Europes first farmers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ROWLEY-CONWY, P. 2004. How the west was lost: a reconsideration of agricultural origins in
Britain, Ireland and southern Scandinavia. Current Anthropology 45, Supplement AugustOctober 2004, 83113.
SKA, L. (eds) 1998. Harvesting the sea, farming
ZVELEBIL, M., DENNELL, R. & DOMAN
the forest: the emergence of Neolithic societies in the Baltic region. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press.
ZVELEBIL, M. & ROWLEY-CONWY, P. 1986. Foragers and farmers in Atlantic Europe. In
M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in transition: Mesolithic societies in temperate Eurasia and their
transition to farming, 6793. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
From Mesolithic to Neolithic

modes of thought
ALAN BARNARD
THIS PAPER HAS ITS ORIGIN in the comparative study of an observed

Mesolithic to Neolithic-type transition (actually in African tool-tradition
terms, Later Stone Age to Iron Age): the present-day shift from hunting and
gathering to agro-pastoralism in southern Africa. But before entering into
comparisons between Europe and Africa, let me make two disclaimers. First,
the paper is not specifically concerned with theories of the spread of herding
or farming. Indeed, my model is not contingent on any particular perspective
in archaeological theory or model of neolithisation (such as wave of
advance or indigenous development). It could prove useful under various
theoretical banners in reinterpreting aspects of the archaeological record
with reference to economics, sociality, politics, land use, and inter-group
interactions in the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. Secondly, the paper is
concerned not with direct ethnographic analogy, but rather with relational
analogy.
A relational analogy involves comparable archaeological periods, and it
involves equivalent sets of structural relations. Comparable here means literally compare-able; it does not mean identical. The pitfalls of crude ethnographic analogy are avoided because the model is structural and not dependent
on ethnographic or archaeological detail.
SOUTHERN AFRICAN/EUROPEAN COMPARISONS

My own field of research is as a social anthropologist among huntergatherers, part-time hunter-gatherers, and former hunter-gatherers (and
some herding groups) in southern Africa. These groups are comparable in
many ways to north-west European Mesolithic populations. The surrounding
agro-pastoral populations are similarly comparable to European Neolithic
peoples.
Alan Barnard
A word on the history of archaeology in the two regions is worthwhile. In

north-west Europe, the term Neolithic is attributed to Lubbock (1865, 12),
who made the contrast between the Neolithic and Palaeolithic ages.
Mesolithic was first used a year later, by Westrop, though what he described
was more the Upper Palaeolithic than what we call today the Mesolithic.
Piette in the 1880s and 1890s began to uncover the Mesolithic as we know it,
but used other terms for the periods he described (Bahn 1996, 1223; Daniel
1975, 12330). Read (1911, 347) mentions the Mesolithic (in inverted commas) as an attempt to bridge the gap between Palaeolithic and Neolithic, but
asserts that it would not seem probable that the missing links will occur at all
events as far north as Britain.
In southern Africa, early archaeologists sought to fit what they found into
European paradigms (Deacon 1990). Scholars at first used the terms
Palaeolithic and Neolithic, though the Cambridge anthropologist A. C.
Haddon, on a visit in 1905, argued that South African archaeology must
develop its own understandings of its Stone Age. Leading amateur archaeologists of the following decade, such as Johnson and Pringey, would only
go half way and used a mixture of local and European terminology. Pringey
died in 1924, and this gave the first professional, A. J. H. Goodwin, the
chance to go through his collection. Goodwin first presented his specifically
southern African typology in 1925, and by 1929 his detailed classification of
Stone Age cultures was complete (Goodwin & Van Riet Lowe 1929). It is the
one still in use.
The comparable ages then are, for Europe the modified Lubbock scheme
with Mesolithic and Neolithic, and for southern Africa the Goodwin scheme
comprising for our purposes here his Later Stone Age (or Late Stone Age, in
contemporary ethnography, Bushmen or San) and the Iron Age (Bantuspeaking agro-pastoralists). I stress that the southern African Later Stone
Age is analogous to the European Mesolithic, not the Neolithic. The southern African Iron Age is analogous to the European Neolithic, not the
European Iron Age (in modern usage, southern Africa has no Neolithic and
no Bronze Age).
NEOLITHISATION: MODELS FROM SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY

The next question, if I can employ the word neolithisation in a southern
African context, is when such neolithisation began there among its huntergatherer population. The traditional view among southern African ethnographers of so-called Bushman or San groups (actually a diverse set of
populations) is that it begins now; processes comparable to neolithisation
have been witnessed a great many times by several ethnographers in the last
FROM MESOLITHIC TO NEOLITHIC MODES OF THOUGHT
four or five decades (e.g. Guenther 1986). The revisionist view, among several
other ethnographers, archaeologists and historians (e.g. Wilmsen & Denbow
1990), is that it began some 1500 years ago and seemingly was rapid in its
effects on ways of life. The traditionalists are essentially gradualists, and see
slow transition rather than rapid revolution as the best description of the
process of change towards a full agricultural economy. Thus, in a sense, they
are in agreement with many today in their understanding of the process in
Europe, whereas the revisionists in that sense replicate at least a simplified
image of Gordon Childes classic vision of a Neolithic Revolution. I shall
return to this question later.
In social anthropology some five models have been created in order to
explain differences between foraging (Mesolithic) and non-foraging
(Neolithic) economies. Those concerned with the problem tend to be huntergatherer specialists, whereas in archaeology those concerned with the problem tend to be Neolithic (i.e. non-hunter-gatherer) specialists. The main
reason is simply that social anthropologists who do fieldwork among living
hunter-gatherers see themselves in terms of the transition which their
societies have gone through. We academics are all post-Mesolithic; our
hunter-gatherer informants are not.
The five models of foraging society include Sahlins original affluent society, Woodburns immediate-return economic systems, Bird-Davids giving
environment, the Marxists foraging mode of production, and my foraging
mode of thought. Sahlins (1974, 139) sees the perception of affluence
among hunter-gatherers as being based on the value of leisure time rather
than wealth; thus the Neolithic Revolution, as he, like Childe, sees it,
increases wealth but not leisure time. In the 1970s, one Botswana government
officer noted that original affluence in such a sense presupposes that there is
no post-Mesolithic, in other words that the model works only for those
who are not surrounded (as of course present-day Bushmen are) by agropastoralists. Sahlins model nevertheless survives, albeit with modifications,
in the tool-kit of anthropologists who are interested in transitions comparable to the Mesolithic-Neolithic. The most significant alteration has been
one suggested by Bird-David (1992), that we should take greater account of
cultural perceptions, especially sharing, in understanding original affluence.
The second model is Woodburns (1980) idea of immediate-return, as
contrasted to delayed-return, economic systems. Most hunter-gatherers are
immediate-return, but complex hunter-gatherers, along with all non-huntergatherers, are delayed-return. For Woodburn, delayed-return hunter-gatherers
include those who store or invest time in making nets, those such as
Australian Aborigines who farm out their women (i.e. who have complicated kinship systems based on investment in reproduction), and any who
are only part-time hunter-gatherers (i.e. who engage, however slightly, in
Alan Barnard
pastoralism or horticulture). The last might include European Mesolithic

hunter-gatherers, especially any with partly domesticated plants and animals
(cf. Zvelebil & Lillie 2000).
Bird-Davids (1990) model of the giving environment supposes that
hunter-gatherers perceive environments differently to farmers. For huntergatherers, the environment shares; one does not extract from it, and this is
related too to her later notion of the cosmic economy of sharing. Marxists
have emphasised production: what they have called the foraging mode of production or the communal mode of production (e.g. Lee 1981). The emphasis is
on the interplay between production and social relations. My own model
places the emphasis differently: on economic ideology (mode of thought)
rather than on production.
In earlier papers, I have distinguished a foraging or hunter-gatherer mode
of thought from an accumulation mode of thought. The model was derived
in part by altering the terms of reference of Marxist notions. In changing the
emphasis from subsistence to the ideological basis of diverse economies, different sets of social relations become apparent. Like modes of production,
modes of thought are in articulation; and in my observations in southern
Africa, the foraging mode of thought has proven more resilient than either
traditionalist or revisionist understandings would predict. My concern has
been with the continuity of the foraging mode of thought in transitional societies (i.e. ones that no longer practise pure foraging but possess livestock or
crops), and it is apparent at least in the Kalahari that the transition is a slow
one; people can hold on to ideologies reflecting foraging for generations, even
when their systems of production have undergone transition.
For the purposes of this paper, what I have previously labelled the foraging mode of thought will be described as Mesolithic, and what I have
described as the accumulation mode of thought will be called Neolithic.
What this implies is both that the significant European archaeological periods for these are Mesolithic and Neolithic, and that the transition there is
comparable to the observed differences between foraging and accumulation
practices in southern Africa (cf. Gronenborn 2004).
MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC MODES OF THOUGHT

My two proposed modes of thought are characterised by opposite perceptions in at least four domains: saving versus consumption (which reflect
notions of time and work); decision-making and political hierarchy; degree
and kind of kin category extension; and notions of land, place and settlement.
All of these have implications for understanding group structure, transhumance, migration, and so on. These are discussed with detailed evidence in
earlier papers (especially Barnard 2002), so for reasons of space just short
summaries and figurative representations will be presented here. A fifth
domain, identity in terms of ethnic group and nation, is not relevant for
Mesolithic-Neolithic comparisons, but I can add, at least for archaeological
speculation, several new ones: relative equality (gender, class and age), ritual
and belief, related aspects of kinship structure and memory, and magical
practices (including good magic, witchcraft and sorcery). Just the first of
these new ones lends itself to diagrammatic representation.
Take sharing (and immediate consumption) versus accumulation (Fig. 1).
Of course all hunter-gatherers accumulate and store to some extent, and I
include immediate-return Bushmen as well as complex hunter-gatherers like
those who lived at the time of contact on the north-west coast of North
America. However, what Bushmen value is sharing over accumulation, and
this usually takes the form of distribution, particularly of meat. Bushmen
value sharing not just in the sense of a belief that those who share are good
people, but also in the sense that failing to share is anti-social. Society itself
is based on sharing, and is offended by accumulation. Evidence for this
includes the very fact that people conceal accumulation, while nevertheless
acknowledging its existence. For example, one may have two tobacco
pouchesa full one, which is hidden, and a relatively empty one, to show
people and to share from. Furthermore, exchange is related to sharing, and
not equated with it. The well-known system of hxaro (as the Ju/hoansi or
!Kung call it) or //a (the Nharo or Naro term) is a sphere of exchange in
which non-consumable, movable property is exchanged for similar property,
but always with a delay. What is important is that the delay creates an ongoing relationship of generalised rights of access to resources, including water,
firewood, and rights to hunt in ones exchange partners territory: in other
words, a system of informal sharing that formal exchange overlies.
The second domain concerns decision-making and political hierarchy
(Fig. 2). Hunter-gatherers tend to have a political ethos in which leaders
emerge for specific tasks. Leadership is often not long-lasting and is generally
not hereditary. It may exist only for some specific purpose, such as for a hunt
or a ritual. Leaders aid in consensus-based decision-making, but they do not
hold power. Indeed, the act of seeking power is discouraged, and it would
weaken their prestige if it became apparent. One might claim that much the
same is true in some other societies, but hunter-gatherers couple the position
of self-seeking individuality with a low opinion of power itself. Even leaders
who have power thrust upon them are sometimes reluctant to take on the
role, as in one case I witnessed of the inability of a Ju/hoan group to find a
representative to speak to a government official. Leaders, though they might
bear labels like big one or great one, do not like making the decisions for
the rest of their communities.
Alan Barnard
10
MESOLITHIC MODE OF THOUGHT

Accumulation
Anti-social (equated with

not sharing)
Immediate consumption
Social (equated with sharing

with family and community)
NEOLITHIC MODE OF THOUGHT
Figure 1.
Accumulation
Social (equated with saving

for self and dependants)
Immediate consumption
Anti-social (equated with

not saving)
Sharing (immediate consumption) and accumulation.

Leadership
Negative (associated with

self interest)
Followership
Positive (associated with deference

to the will of the community)

Leadership
Positive (associated with

high status)
Followership
Negative (associated with low

status or possibly lack of initiative)
Figure 2. Followership and leadership.
The third domain may seem strange to archaeologists, but it is ethnographically attested throughout the world. Hunter-gatherers have universal
systems of kin classification, in which each member of society classifies every
other as belonging to a particular kin category (Fig. 3). This means that there
is no distinction between kin and non-kin. The mechanism of classification
varies greatly, even within southern Africa, but among both Ju/hoansi and
Nharo, for example, it is done through personal names. There are a limited
number of these, and they cycle through the generations from grandparent to
grandchild; anyone with the same name is believed to be descended from the
same namesake-ancestor and is therefore a grandrelative. A sisters namesake will be a sister, a daughters namesake a daughter, and so on (usually
11

Kin classification
Universal (everyone classed

as kin)
Society
Equated with kinship
Figure 3.
Kin classification
Non-universal (distinction between

kin and non-kin)
Society
Equated with tribe or ethnic group
The extent of kin classification.

Land
Sacrosanct (associated with

primordial possession)
People
Sovereign (people as free

individuals)
Figure 4.
Land
Sovereign (associated with alienable

wealth or political authority)
People
Sacrosanct (people as citizens

of a larger unit)
People and land.
older people classify younger, and the latter reciprocate appropriately). All
this determines things like incest and marriageability and whether to be informal or formal in verbal or physical association. Non-Bushmen who stay for
some length of time are given names too in order to fit them into the system.
Universal kinship often remains important even after permanent settlement,
and it ties in clearly with the idea that one has kinship with people across vast
areas, and not merely within ones own locality. It is easy to envisage this in
Mesolithic Europe too. The system is not dependent on trade or migration;
it is conducive to the exploitation of shared hunted and gathered resources,
seasonal movements, and great flexibility in group structure.
Alan Barnard
12

Equality
Natural (equated with social

harmony)
Inequality
Unnatural (equated with antisocial

behaviour, boasting, etc.)
Figure 5.
Equality
Unnatural (equated with stagnation)
Inequality
Natural (equated with ability to

accumulate, achievement, competition)
Relative equality.
Attitudes to land are embedded in local knowledge and longstanding

relations between peoples and their respective environments, and this represents my fourth domain. Accumulators and foragers may understand relations between land and people in reverse (Fig. 4). Agricultural peoples in the
modern world will tend to see land more in terms of sovereignty: for example with regard to the nation-states authority to decide what does and what
does not constitute legal ownership. They see semi-sacred rights of freedom
and so on, as vested in the people independently of the land they occupy.
Foragers and recent former foragers, however, see their lands as associated
with inalienable rights and the primordial possession of land by kin groups.
They see people as innately free and the state as the usurper, not the guarantor, of freedom and mutual aid. Agricultural peoples accumulate land by
conquest or purchase, whereas for most foraging peoples this is not possible
because relations between people and land are different, in terms of ritual
association, economic association, notions of ownership and knowledge, and
perceptions of power and rights.
My fifth case here is that of relative equality (Fig. 5). In an egalitarian
hunter-gatherer society, equality is associated with natural social harmony.
Bushmen value modesty and see any attempt to boast or assert superiority as
out of the order of things. Inegalitarian societies include examples from
Neolithic (and no doubt some Late Mesolithic) to capitalist, and my contention is that these will see the idea of social hierarchy differently. Of course,
there are many forms of social hierarchy, and these can be based on gender,
on class, on age, and so on. The significant thing here is simply the contrast
between the two forms. It is possible that some Late Mesolithic groups might
be seen for these purposes as Neolithic, or in any case deviating from
13
the model. This does not negate the model for the Mesolithic (or huntergatherers) in more general terms.
Finally, we have the cases of ritual and belief, memory and kinship, and
magical practices. These do not lend themselves to diagrammatic representation with two dyadic sets of relations. Let me here simply offer speculation on
the basis of my ethnographic experience. In terms of ritual and belief,
Mesolithic sites are not present in the archaeological record, and in a
Mesolithic mode of thought (like a Bushman or San one) I would expect ritual to be focused above all else on sociality. Living hunter-gatherers throughout the world base their rituals on sociality: more specifically on either curing
(as in the main Bushman ritual activities), on shamanic practices, or on
totemic association. In contrast, Neolithic sites are of course apparent in the
archaeological record, and I would expect that in contrast to a Mesolithic
mode of thought, the Neolithic would be focused on forces external to society and on kin groups within society (i.e. not society as a whole). These latter
could be totemic groups or simply ancestors. In Africa and many other parts
of the world, hunter-gatherers tend not to have unilineal descent groups,
whereas small-scale agro-pastoralists do. Hunter-gatherers, often nomadic,
have less emphasis on specific sites, even for example in burial of the dead.
There are exceptions, such as burial sites like Skateholm in Sweden, and
indeed the sedentary hunter-gatherer communities of Late Mesolithic southern Scandinavia as a whole may be the exception (see for example Larsson
1990; but also Larsson, this volume). That said, one can easily see classic
Neolithic burial sites as part of the general change of emphasis towards such
different kinds of genealogical memory in post-hunter-gatherer society (cf.
Whittle 1996, 89; 2003, 10732).
In a Mesolithic mode of thought, magic should be rare but communal,
focused either on good (in the abstract) or on non-humans (such as hunted
animals). This accords with the situation among all Bushman groups, and
many other hunter-gatherers too. In a Neolithic mode of thought, as in Iron
Age southern African and many other non-foraging communities, I would
expect magic to be more common and individual, focused either on affines or
on enemies.
THE PERSISTENCE OF MESOLITHIC THOUGHT INTO

THE NEOLITHIC?
Today we talk about the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. Childe talked instead
about a Neolithic Revolution. To me, it is not a matter of either/or, and indeed
Childe himself (1936, 105) referred to his revolution as the climax of a long
process. The Neolithic did eventually yield a revolutionary new way of
14
Alan Barnard
thinking for those societies undergoing the transition. It is not simply a matter of how many generations, or how many steps the transition requires. I say
this as someone who has observed a similar transition taking place, in my
period of observation over some thirty years, on and off; and in terms of
the full duration of the transition, much longer of course. Southern African
revisionists talk in terms of a millennium and a half of transition from first
contact between Iron Age agro-pastoralists and Later Stone Age huntergatherers.
The prevailing opinion among revisionists is that contact itself creates
new ways of thinking, and this fits too with Woodburns (1980) model. My
view is that both sides in that debate have overestimated the impact of culture
contact on mode of thought. Traditionalists used to expect purity from their
hunter-gatherers: one hundred percent or they do not count as real huntergatherers. Revisionists seem to expect the same. To exaggerate slightly, in the
traditionalist mind, the hunter-gatherer ceased to exist just after ones fieldwork; in the revisionist mind, the hunter-gatherer ceased to exist much
earlier, perhaps a millennium ago. Both sides are saying the same thing: the
hunter-gatherer mode of thought has disappeared.
I have seen and documented many cases of the persistence of huntergatherer thought among semi-sedentary and sedentary hunter-gatherercultivators and even among San wage labourers from diverse parts of the
Kalahari (e.g. Barnard 1988). So too have other ethnographers. What these
observations indicate is that mode of thought is much slower to change than
mode of production. Social relations (relations of production, if you like)
retain the structures of hunter-gatherer times if these are deeply rooted in
cultural understandings of sociality. The existence nearby of agro-pastoralists
does not make former hunter-gatherers think more like agro-pastoralists; it
may even accentuate the differences in their thinking by making each side
more aware of what makes them, say, Nharo or Tswana (or Mesolithic or
Neolithic).
Let me illustrate with two examples from southern Africa. My ethnographic summaries are necessarily very short and simplified, but they should
serve as models for thinking about possibilities in the transition of Late
Mesolithic groups in contact with a Neolithic culture to a Neolithic way of
thinking. My first example concerns individuals in Bugakhoe and Tsexa
Bushman communities in the swampy areas of northern Botswana, north of
the Kalahari. These have been described by Michael Taylor in his thesis on
community-based natural resource management in the area (Taylor 2000).
He describes how both livelihoods and identities are malleable and contextual. Individuals can operate in diverse economic situations: traditional hunting, gathering and fishing; subsistence-herding; being part of the modern
economy when temporarily in the south of the country, and so on. It is not
15
just that they have diverse strategies, but that they seem to think in terms of
different cultural systems (or modes of thought).
My second example concerns a specific community of Hai//om Bushmen
in northern Namibia. Aspects of the relation between Hai//om and their
neighbours and their transition to new ways have long existed in the ethnographic record, but my interest here is with the apparent seasonal difference
between hunting and gathering (in the winter dry season) and agriculture (in
the summer wet season). Among his descriptions of diverse settlement types,
Thomas Widlok (1999, 16470) describes seasonal movements between three
of particular interest here. One, which I had the good fortune to visit briefly
with Widlok in the dry season of 1991, is located in a remote mangetti (mongongo) grove some two hours walk from the nearest water. This group stays
there for only a few weeks of the year, but their lifestyle is based purely on
gathering and hunting. The main part of the dry season is spent at another
camp where water is permanently available, but where gathering and hunting
still provide the bulk of subsistence and there is little contact between the
Hai//om and their agricultural neighbours. Yet they spend the wet season at
another site, where they work for Ovambo agro-pastoralists, grow their own
crops, and even structure their encampment and build their dwellings in
Ovambo style. In European terms, it would not be too far-fetched to translate this pattern to a hypothetical community with a winter Mesolithic way of
life and a summer Neolithic way of life.
In broad terms, the foraging mode of thought is resilient and resistant to
contact with agro-pastoralists. Typical characteristics of hunter-gatherer
society include a band level of social organisation, large territory for size of
population, lack of social hierarchy, universal kinship (everyone being classified kind of kin, no non-kin), widespread sharing, a dualistic mentality
(farmers think in threes), symbolic relations between hunted animals and
humans, and flexibility in all realms. The very flexibility of such groups
enables the survival of many of the other attributes (cf. Barnard 1999; 2002).
Or, as Widlok (1999, 107) has put it: . . . former hunter-gatherers now forage
on agropastoralist economies and on the State without changing their internal social organisation drastically and without necessarily adopting new
social institutions.
Why should a hunter-gatherer population take up agro-pastoral pursuits
(cf. Sadr 2002)? There could be many reasons, of course: climate change (and,
for example, sea-level change in the case of Europe), population pressure,
pressure on old resources or the availability of new resources, political domination (either directly or through trade), culture change (including religious
conversion), desire for sedentary lifestyle, or desire for greater accumulation
of wealth. In considering these, it is wise to consider at the same time the
huge differences in mindset involved in the transition, both to the addition
Alan Barnard
16
of livestock as a major focus and to the addition of cultivating. These

differences are illustrated diagrammatically in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7.
Let me return to the Hai//om for two final examples of the difficulties
involved in the transition to a Neolithic mode of thought. In Botswana there
is a practice, known in the Tswana language as mafisa, whereby poor people
(often Bushmen) look after livestock for better-off people (usually Tswana)
and in return receive products from the livestock, or sometimes calves or kids
born to the cattle or goats they look after. Among the Hai//om in Namibia,
Widlok (1999, 11319) refers to a roughly equivalent practice as inverse
mafisa. The difference is that in inverse mafisa, the poor person (a Hai//om)
acquires his own livestock and leaves them with a well-off Ovambo, who in
turn keeps the products of the arrangement. Why does it occur? Plainly not
for economic advantage on the part of the poor Hai//om, but for social reasons: it is not good to be seen to have wealth, so one pays to deposit it elsewhere. It is as if one were to pay interest to a bank for keeping ones money!
In another example from Widloks (1999, 1006) ethnography, Hai//om sell
gathered mangetti nuts to Ovambo. The Ovambo make liquor from the
nuts, then sell it to the Hai//om at a profit. Again, Ovambo get wealthier
Figure 6.
Hunting and gathering versus herding, hunting and gathering.
Figure 7.
17
Hunting and gathering versus cultivating, hunting and gathering.
and Hai//om poorer, with the only gain for the latter being the retention of
original affluence in the form of more free time.
FINAL REFLECTIONS
A Neolithic Revolution is, of course, both technological and ideological,
and need not either be quick or affect all Mesolithic groups in contact with
Neolithic peoples equally (cf. Price 2000, 31418). Proper use of analogy is
not to pick up and drop on to, but more subtle than thatto be used to think
with. I can provide an analogy, but it is up to archaeologists to decide how
and where it might be useful. Indeed, I can see the case for analogy in reverse.
For example, it may be significant for the rethinking of Kalahari revisionism
that the timescale from first farmers in the Kalahari to the present, about
1500 years, is almost exactly the period reckoned for the process of neolithisation in the Netherlands (Verhart 2000, 233). As Louwe Kooijmans (1998,
51) puts it: The main problem with respect to the agricultural transformation
of Northern Europe is not why the new system was adopted, but why it was
adopted only after a substantial time lag.
18
Alan Barnard
Nor should the original affluent society or Mesolithic mode of thought

necessarily be regarded as either quite so original or quite so backward as it
may seem to us, in any post-Mesolithic Agebe it Neolithic, southern
African Late Stone Age, or global capitalist. The Mesolithic mode of
thought was a different value system from what came after (cf. RowleyConwy 2001), and whether economically rational or otherwise represents a
manner of thinking that encodes perceptions of social behaviour, relations to
land and so on, that are both adaptive and equally rational in their own
terms.
Note. I am grateful to Magdalena Midgley and Thomas Widlok for comments on
an earlier draft.
REFERENCES
BAHN, P. G. (ed.) 1996. The Cambridge illustrated history of archaeology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
BARNARD, A. 1988. Cultural identity, ethnicity and marginalization among the Bushmen of
southern Africa. In R. Vossen (ed.), New perspectives on the study of Khoisan, 927.
Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
BARNARD, A. 1999. Modern hunter-gatherers and early symbolic culture. In R. Dunbar,
C. Knight, & C. Power (eds), The evolution of culture: an interdisciplinary view, 5068.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
BARNARD, A. 2002. The foraging mode of thought. In H. Stewart, A. Barnard & K. Omura
(eds), Self- and other images of hunter-gatherers, 524. Osaka: National Museum of
Ethnology.
BIRD-DAVID, N. 1990. The giving environment: another perspective on the economic system
of gatherer-hunters. Current Anthropology 31, 18996.
BIRD-DAVID, N. 1992. Beyond the original affluent society: a culturalist reformulation.
Current Anthropology 33, 2547.
CHILDE, V. G. 1936. Man makes himself. London: Watts and Co.
DANIEL, G. 1975. A hundred and fifty years of archaeology (second edition). London:
Duckworth.
DEACON, J. 1990. Weaving the fabric of Stone Age research in Southern Africa. In
P. Robertshaw (ed.), A history of African archaeology, 3958. London: James Currey.
GOODWIN, A. J. H. & VAN RIET LOWE, C. 1929. The Stone Age cultures of South Africa.
Annals of the South African Museum 27, 1289.
GRONENBORN, D. 2004. Comparing contact-period archaeologies: the expansion of farming
and pastoralist societies to continental temperate Europe and to southern Africa. Before
Farming 2004/4, 135.
GUENTHER, M. 1986. The Nharo Bushmen of Botswana: tradition and change. Hamburg:
Helmut Buske Verlag.
LARSSON, L. 1990. The Mesolithic of southern Scandinavia. Journal of World Prehistory 4,
257310.
LEE, R. B. 1981. Is there a foraging mode of production? Canadian Journal of Anthropology
2(1), 1319.
19
LOUWE KOOIJMANS, L. P. 1998. Between Geleen and Banpo: the agricultural transformation
of prehistoric society, 90004000 BC. Amsterdam: Stichting Nederlads Museum voor
Anthropologie en Praehistorie.
LUBBOCK, J. 1865. Pre-historic times, as illustrated by ancient remains, and the manners and
customs of modern savages. London: Williams and Norgate.
PRICE, T. D. 2000. Lessons in the transition to agriculture. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europes first
farmers, 30118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
READ, C. H. 1911. Archaeology. Encyclopaedia Britannica (eleventh edition), 2, 34454.
ROWLEY-CONWY, P. 2001. Time, change and the archaeology of hunter-gatherers: how original is the original affluent society? In C. Panter-Brick, R. H. Layton & P. Rowley-Conwy
(eds), Hunter-gatherers: an interdisciplinary perspective, 3972. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
SADR, K. 2002. Encapsulated Bushmen in the archaeology of Thamaga. In S. Kent (ed.),
Ethnicity, hunter-gatherers, and the other: association or assimilation in Africa, 2847.
Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
SAHLINS, M. 1974. Stone age economics. London: Tavistock Publications.
TAYLOR, M. 2000. Life, land and power: contesting development in northern Botswana.
Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh.
VERHART, L. B. M. 2000. Times fade away: the neolithisation of the southern Netherlands in an
anthropological and geographical perspective. Leiden: Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden
University.
WHITTLE, A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic: the creation of new worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
WHITTLE, A. 2003. The archaeology of people: dimensions of Neolithic life. London: Routledge.
WIDLOK, T. 1999. Living on mangetti: Bushman autonomy and Namibian independence.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
WILMSEN, E. N. & DENBOW, J. R. 1990. Paradigmatic history of San-speaking peoples and
current attempts at revision. Current Anthropology 31, 48924.
WOODBURN, J. 1980. Hunters and gatherers today and reconstruction of the past. In
E. Gellner (ed.), Soviet and Western anthropology, 95117. London: Duckworth.
ZVELEBIL, M. & LILLIE, M. 2000. Transition to agriculture in eastern Europe. In T. D. Price
(ed.), Europes first farmers, 5792. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
From Mesolithic to Early Neolithic in the

western Mediterranean
JEAN GUILAINE & CLAIRE MANEN
INTRODUCTION
THE TRANSITION FROM the Mesolithic to the Early Neolithic in the western
Mediterranean is a stimulating subject for more than one reason. First, the
regions geographic position means that it is a case of distant Neolithisation
(between 20003500 km) from the presumed epicentre of Neolithisation in
south-east Asia, around the Turko-Syrian border. Attempting to grasp the
economic, social or symbolic differences compared with the parent region is
in itself a challenging exercise. Indeed, this remoteness, associated with the
idea of a substantial and dynamic indigenous substratum, has frequently
fostered the idea that this zone could have toppled into the Neolithic by
a process of acculturation of the native populations. For many years debates
have in fact opposed upholders of a process of colonisation by maritime
routes and those in favour of a transition merely due to cultural dissemination and local adaptation of farming or other aspects of the Neolithic. How,
on the basis of archaeological data and their interpretation, can these diverse
questions be approached today, and what conclusions can be drawn from
them?
The geographical context taken into consideration here is that of the
broad western Mediterranean (Fig. 1), from Liguria (northern Italy) to the
Valencian region (Mediterranean Spain). The French regions will be more
specifically examined, but there will be frequent comparisons with the
Mediterranean shores of the Iberian peninsula.
THE LAST HUNTER-GATHERERS

Only the Final Mesolithic will be considered here, with no attempt to explain
the genesis of the cultural complexes involved.

39
4140
44 42 43
45 46
38
37
34 33
35 36
30
32 31
29 28
24
21
15
16
17
13 14
22
18
27 25
26
23
19
20
9
10 11
12
22
MESOLITHIC TO NEOLITHIC IN THE MEDITERRANEAN
23
Geographical distribution: a state of research, or ecological selection?

The Mesolithic populations are still poorly known. Along the coast from
Liguria to Valencia there are relatively dense concentrations of sites (Lower
Ebro and southern Catalonia, Valencia) and zones completely empty of any
settlements (Liguria and coastal Catalonia). Is this due to an ecological selection of certain sectors to the detriment of others? It has often been observed
that sites of contacts between valleys and medium-altitude mountains are
privileged: the heart of the Causses region, or the Upper Segre for instance.
However, coastal or sub-coastal (Chteauneuf) occupations are also known.
The distribution map of Iberian sites grouping all those dated to between
6500 and 6000 cal BC points to a mainly peripheral, but fairly even, distribution (Juan-Cabanilles & Mart Oliver 2002). While the notion of systematic
poles seems plausible, it is certainly likely to be qualified under the effects of
a more balanced research policy. Indeed, there are areas where Mesolithic
and Cardial populations co-exist (such as western Provence and Valencia),
and others where they are mutually exclusive.
In addition, the effects of a contrasted, unevenly spread research background cannot be neglected. The destruction of coastal sites due to the
Versilian transgression should also be envisaged. Other possible culprits are
erosive crises which may have led to the truncation of deposits in caves or
rockshelters (such as Balma Margineda), and a fortiori on open-air sites. The
latter are, moreover, very poorly known; most of the evidence comes from
Figure 1. Location of the main sites mentioned in text. 1. Secche, Isola del Giglio, Italy 2.
Arene Candide, Finale Ligure, Italy 3. Pendimoun, Alpes-Maritimes, France 4. Fontbrgoua,
Salernes, Var, France 5. Font des Pigeons, Chteauneuf les Martigues, Bouches du Rhne,
France 6. Unang, Malemort de Comtat, Vaucluse, France 7. Lalo, Espeluche, Drme, France 8.
Grande-Rivoire, Sassenage, Isre, France 9. Montclus, Gard, France 10. Oullins, Le Garn, Gard,
France 11. LAigle, Mjannes-le-Clap, France 12. Bourbon, Cabrires, Gard, France 13. Peiro
Signado, Portiragnes, Hrault, France 14. Pont de Roque-Haute, Portiragnes, Hrault, France
15. Camprafaud, Ferrires-Poussarou, Hrault, France 16. Abeurador, Flines-Minervois,
Hrault, France 17. Gazel, Sallles-Cabards, Aude, France 18. Cuzoul, Gramat, Lot,
France 19. Le Martinet, Sauveterre-la-Lmence, Lot-et-Garronne, France 20. Borie-del-Rey,
Blanquefort-sue-Briolance, Lot-et-Garronne, France 21. Buholoup, Cazres, Haute-Garronne,
France 22. Jean Cros, Labastide-en-val, Aude, France 23. Dourgne, Fontans-de-Sault, Aude,
France 24. Balma Margineda, St Julia, Andorra 25. La Draga, Banyoles, Gerona, Spain 26.
Pasteral, La Cellera del Ter, Gerona, Spain 27. Avelanner, Les Planes dHostoles, Gerona, Spain
28. Lladres, Vascarisses, Barcelona, Spain 29. Frare, Matadepera, Barcelona, Spain 30. Forcas,
Graus, Huesca, Spain 31. Moro, Olvena, Huesca, Spain 32. Chaves, Casbas, Huesca 33.
Costalena, Maella, Aragon, Spain 34. Pontet, Maella, Aragon, Spain 35. Secans, Aragon, Spain
36. Botiqueria, Mazalon, Aragon, Spain 37. Cingle del Mas Nou, Ares del Maestre, Valencia,
Spain 38. Carasol de Vernissa, Valencia, Spain 39. El Collado, Oliva, Valencia, Spain 40. Cova
de lOr, Beniarrs, Valencia, Spain 41. Barranc del Castellet, Valencia, Spain 42. Cova dels Pilars,
Valencia, Spain 43. Coveta del Moro, Valencia, Spain 44. Cova de la Sarsa, Bocairente, Valencia,
Spain 45. Mas dIs, Penguila, Valencia, Spain 46. Cova del Cendres, Teulada, Valencia, Spain.
24
deposits in shelters and cavities. The great dearth of Final Mesolithic sites
often remains enigmatic. What should be thought of the fact that Mesolithic
series often end in caves and shelters during the Middle-Late Mesolithic (such
as Fontbrgoua c51, or Abeurador c3)? The total absence of any Final
Mesolithic in certain islands which were otherwise fairly well frequented during the ninth and eighth millennia cal BC, such as Corsica, may be explained
by the interruption of visits by mobile groups based on the continent. It is
therefore on the continent that the explanation of this halt in insular
exploration should be sought.
Techno-cultural aspects
The Final Mesolithic in the north-western Mediterranean presents some general characteristics: good knowledge of flint deposits, the obtaining of standard blades, use of the microburin technique, and trapezoidal or triangular
microliths.
Some slight differences can, however, be observed with respect to the principal complexes identified. The western version of the Castelnovian (as
opposed to the eastern Castelnovian from the karst, the Adige valley, Emilia
or the Alpine forelands in Lombardy) is known in Provence, along the Rhne
route and in the western Alps. The known sites are few and far between.
Whole areas are lacking in any data (western Liguria: the region of Early
Neolithic Ligurian impressed ware sites; eastern Provence). The characteristic technical features are a standardised blade production technique, asymmetric trapezes (Chteauneuf trapezes)sometimes practically triangles due
to reduction of the small baseand rhombuses (Binder 1987; 2000; Escalon
de Fonton 1956; 1971).
The Gazel-Cuzoul group stretches from the Pyrenees (Gazel, Dourgne,
Buholoup) to the Aquitaine borders of the Massif Central (Le Martinet, La
Borie del Rey, Le Cuzoul de Gramat). In Languedoc and the Pyrenees, the
poor quality materials (Thanetian flint, Pyrenean rocks, quartz) explain the
low proportion of blades. The most original pieces are the Gazel points:
triangular points with abrupt crossed retouch on the back, flat inverse
retouch on the base and thinning retouch on the faces (Barbaza 1993;
Guilaine 1973).
In the Iberian peninsula, where the contemporary Mediterranean facies
have long been designated by the general term of Geometric Complex
(Fortea Perez 1973), the following groups can be distinguished for the final
phases of the Mesolithic:
The Segre Basin group. At Forcas II, the levels for the end of the
Epipalaeolithic (III, IV) contain triangular and trapezoidal abruptly
retouched microliths with use of the microburin (Utrilla 2002).
25
The Lower Ebro group (Botiqueria, Costalena, Pontet, Secans). Trapezes,

short or asymmetric, often with one or two concave sides, are associated with
scalene triangles also presenting one or two concave sides (Costalena c3).
Thorn triangles are sometimes present (Botiqueria c4; Pontet e) (Barandiaran
& Cava 1981; 1989; Utrilla 2002).
The Cocinian group in the region of Valencia/Alicante. This is sometimes
subdivided into two cores: Central Valencian and Lara-Arenal (Bernabeu
Aubn 2002). The Cocina II group is characterised in particular by trapezes
and triangles with concave edges (Cocina-type triangles), use of the
microburin technique, and Montbani bladelets (Fortea Perez 1971; JuanCabanilles 1990; 1992).
Economy
The seventh and sixth millennia cal BC (a period which, in the western
Mediterranean, includes the last hunter-gatherer populations and the first
farmers) are characterised by the maximum development of the post-glacial
forest. The image of a generalised oak forest can sometimes be moderated;
naturally open spaces could also exist, for example at Lalo (Drme: Beeching
2003). Hunting was essential; red deer, boar and roe deer were the most
frequent prey. Ibex were also stalked in high-altitude zones. There is little
evidence concerning plant gathering, mainly attested on earlier sites
(Abeurador, Fontbrgoua: lentil, chickling vetch, pea, vetch, chick pea); it
must, however, have continued (Courtin 1975; Vaquer & Barbaza 1987).
Recently, taxa of Fabaceae, Lens sp., Vicia cf. tetrasprema and Vicia/Lathyrus
have been identified in the Mesolithic levels of the cave at Gazel (Laurent
Bouby, pers. comm.). Dried fruits (hazelnuts) are often attested (Dourgne), as
are the remains of pulpy fruits (La Margineda: blackberry, sloe, pistachio,
fruit of the dogwood-tree) (Marinval 1995). Mollusc collecting was common,
whether from the sea (as at Chteauneuf) or land (as at Dourgne and Gazel).
The question of the possible rearing of ovicaprins during the Final
Mesolithic, proposed for a time (for example at Gazel and Dourgne), has
been reconsidered, with probable Neolithic pollution or palimpsest strata
telescoping as it were the contents of successive occupation levels (cf.
Dourgne: Guilaine 1993). It often turns out, indeed, that in caves and rockshelters the archaeological strataor those observed as suchin fact only
represent the outwardly homogenous compaction of a certain number of
successive visits. Brochiers observations at Balma Margineda are edifying in
this respect; each layer proved to be the telescoping of several floors.
The temporal homogeneity of the evidence obtained from a given stratigraphic unit therefore often remains relative. Moreover, the idea that a technique (breeding) was borrowed or hunks of meat exchanged between
26
predators and producers is an agreeable picture, but one which is difficult to

prove.
It is interesting to note that a few years after the discussion concerning
possible Mesolithic animal husbandry, the concept of pre-Neolithic agriculture appeared in France. Pollen analyses carried out in filled-in depressions or in marshy coastal areas, from the Rhne to the Ebro, have indicated
clearing of the landscape with the development of ruderal plants and, sometimes, the presence of cereal pollens in horizons dated to between 6400 and
5800 cal BC, i.e. earlier than the first Neolithic settlements (for a survey see
Richard 2004): Etang de Berres (Triat-Laval 1982), Embouchac (Puertas
1998), Capestang (Jalut 1995), Petit Castelou (Guenet 1995). Should the
presence of fires on certain sites (Drassanes 1) be interpreted as the result of
natural phenomena, or as attempts at clearing the forest by hunters
(Riera i Mora 1996)? The chronology of the Neolithic spread through the
Mediterranean region is today sufficiently well established with regard to its
general features to consider such clearing (with cereals) as difficult to accept.
The phenomenon arises in more general terms since these possible traces of
pre-Neolithic human activity appear in several regions of France (Dordogne,
the Loire basin, Vosges and Jura), which reveal an obvious divergence
between palynological data and archaeological facts.
Chronology
The chronological distribution of dates between Italy and Spain for the various facies of the late Mesolithic is clear; they are all situated between 6600
and 6000 cal BC (Fig. 2). Without anticipating the discussion which follows,
we must also observe the very clear gap between dates for the late Mesolithic
and those for the Early Neolithic; the two series run side by side c. 6000 cal
BC with practically no overlapping. It must thus be recognised that the various hypotheses regarding Mesolithic/Neolithic interaction refer to a historic
reality even though the lack of precision of radiocarbon dating does not yet
allow this to be demonstrated.
THE MESOLITHIC INHERITANCE

The world of the dead
One domain in which the Mesolithic and early Neolithic populations in the
western Mediterranean had common features, and which thus allows the
hypothesis of a possible filiation to be proposed, is that of funerary contexts
and mortuary rites. In both cases, the dead are rare and inconspicuous, and
27
Figure 2. Comparisons of the histograms of the late Mesolithic and early Neolithic datings. In
grey, late Mesolithic datings; in white, early Neolithic datings. After Manen & Sabatier 2003.
do not seem to be part of the landscape of the living. The deceased of

Impressed Ware groups remain few and far between, unlike, for example, the
Neolithic of the Near East. There, from a very early date, sometimes in the
PPNA, necropolises appear (Kortik Tepe, Turkey) or, in the PPNB, houses
of the dead with multiple or collective burials (Skull Building, ayn,
Turkey; house of the dead, Djade, Syria), or individual burials in dwellings,
under the floors of houses (Halula, Syria). In southern France a few individuals have been found buried in caves or shelters used as temporary dwellings
during the Cardial or Epicardial (e.g. Pendimoun, Unang, Baume Bourbon
and Gazel: Binder et al. 1993; Coste et al. 1987; Duday & Guilaine 1980;
Paccard 1987). The phenomenon also existed in the Iberian peninsula where
certain individuals were buried in dwelling-caves (La Sarsa), or in small
peripheral cavities: El Carasol de Vernissa, El Barranc del Castellet, Cova
Negra, Coveta del Moro, Cova dels Pilars, Cova del Front in Valencia, and
Avellaner and Cova dels Lladres in Catalonia (Bernabeu Aubn et al. 2001;
Bosch i Lloret & Tarrus i Galter 1990; Pla & Junyent 1970). It was not until
the Catalonian Postcardial that the first Neolithic necropolis appears in that
geo-cultural zone: Caserna de San Pau (Barcelona).
This type of situation echoes a model observed previously in the Late or
Final Mesolithic in France, where practically no Castelnovian individuals
have been found: one in the Epi-Castelnovian at Montclus (Ferembach 1976),
and another at Le Rastel (Barral & Primard 1962).
28
In Spain, the burial at Cingle del Mas Nou was that of an individual
interred in a supine position in a narrow pit with, at the level of his legs, the
incomplete and disconnected remains of five other persons. This tomb is
dated to 58755650 cal BC, i.e. the Final Mesolithic-Neolithic transition
(Olria et al. 2005). The existence, in Valencia, of the El Collado necropolis
represents a case which is so far unique: 14 pit burials, with bodies in the
flexed position and accompanied by stone objects and shell ornaments (Arias
& Alvares-Fernandez 2004). It obviously calls to mind the graves in shell
middens at Muge (Portugal). This short survey suggests the hypothesis of a
relatively thin population density for the Mesolithic. However, assuming that
the human groups during the Early Neolithic were more numerous, we also
have to note the small amount of evidence available for that period. Whence
the idea, proposed by Chambon (in press), that the bodies found so far do not
represent the norm, but rather reprobates or outcasts. An archaeological
argument can be added to this hypothesis; the Early Neolithic individuals
found are rarely accompanied by any significant grave goods. In fact, they
very often have none at all (such as Pendimoun: Binder et al. 1993). It therefore seems that, in the Early Neolithic, the norm could have been deliberately
making bodies disappear, either by natural means (abandoning to wild animals, abandoning in rivers, and so on) or by anthropic means (dismembering,
breaking of bones, cannibalism, and so on). The deceased members of the
Cardial population seem to have been excluded from the cultural landscape.
As the same seems to be the case for the Final Mesolithic populations, the
hypothesis of a continuance of funerary rites among the early farmers can be
proposed. Basically, the Neolithisation of the western Mediterranean may
not have destabilised a well established tradition among the native populations. It was only with more marked territorial claims and the appearance of
more stable dwellings, and perhaps too with the emergence of social differences, that the signalling of certain deceased individuals became more obvious and that the dead became integrated, in one way or another, in the
cultural landscape.
Personal ornaments
Some typical items of adornment are common to the last hunters and the
Cardial populations. There are, first, perforated Columbellae rusticae. These
shells are found on several sites, both Mesolithic (e.g. Chteauneuf, Dourgne,
Costalena, Botiqueria dels Moros, El Collado, and others) and Early
Neolithic (e.g. Chteauneuf, Camprafaud, Cova de lOr, Chaves, and others).
The same observation is valid for unworked, merely pierced, cardium shells.
In addition, in Cardial and Epicardial contexts, beads made of shell,
stone or bone have been found which manifestly imitate the upper eyeteeth of
29
red deer. They are oval beads with a swollen base. They are also found in
Valencia (Or and Cendres), Catalonia (Cova Pasteral and Lladres), Aragon
(Chaves and Moro de Olvena) and southern France (Jean Cros, Chteauneuf
and Oullins). In a context where the environment was subject to the effects of
human action, this tradition underlines the continuing existence of a reference to the domain of the wild and hunting. Of course the Cardial culture
also developed at the same time items of adornment unknown to the
Mesolithic populations: for instance, stone bracelets and circular beads made
of shell.
Cardial art and Mesolithic art?
This problem, which would on its own merit greater development, will merely
be mentioned. The debates concerning the chronology of the famous
Levantine art in the Iberian peninsula are well known. Some authors, in
view of its favourite themehuntinghave considered it to be an iconography of hunters and initially dated it to the Mesolithic, or even to the Upper
Palaeolithic (Breuil, Cabr and Obermaier). Others perceived it as a longterm output, straddling the world of the hunter-gatherers and that of food
producers (Almagro, Ripoll and Beltran). Finally, more recently, it has been
attributed to the Neolithic and considered, due to the stylistic superpositions
observed in certain shelters (such as La Sarga), to have begun after the
macro-schematic art, itself envisaged as a typically Cardial production
(Mart & Hernandez 1988; Hernandez Perez & Segura Marti 2002).
Bernabeu recently proposed an interesting hypothesis. In the perspective
of the dual Neolithisation model (intrusive Cardial/accultured Mesolithic
populations), he attributed Levantine art to the neolithicised native populations of the sub-continental zones (Geometric Complex with pottery). This
naturalistic art would essentially have emerged during the Epicardial, as a
sort of cultural statement or even one of resistance to the Cardial environment with its foreign origin. This perpetuation could explain why the native
populations, although neolithicised, asserted their own artistic culture.
Schematic art and macro-schematic art, stamped by a certain degree of
conceptualisation or abstraction, would thus be the vectors of a Cardial
iconography promoting anthropomorphism (Bernabeu Aubn 2002). It is
interesting to note that this dual model, applied to the artistic domain, is also
echoed in Aragon (Utrilla 2002).
Another point, of more general interest, concerns the absence of figurines in the Western Mediterranean Early Neolithic (Guilaine 1996); they
are scarcely found beyond the Italian peninsula. We suggest that these
objects are linked to the social functioning of the fully sedentary communities of the Near East or of south-eastern Europe. In central and western
30
Mediterranean zones, this stage was generally attained only in the Middle
Neolithic (fifth/fourth millennia cal BC). Finding figurines in Cardial
dwellings cannot of course be excluded; it would be surprising if any were
found on neolithicised Mesolithic sites.
The question of microliths
It is interesting to note that it is often arrowheads which serve to raise the
question of tradition or rupture between hunters and farmers. This could
underline the role still played by hunting in farming populations (and even if
the arrowheads are sometimes microliths serving other uses). It should be
recalled that in the Valencian Cardial, the microliths are for the most part
trapezoidal with abrupt marginal retouch; they are obtained from laminary
supports broken by flexion or percussion (Juan-Cabanilles 1990; 1992). In the
Cardial at Chaves, Upper Aragon, however, the microliths are mainly doublebevelled (doble bisel) segments (Cava 2000). In France, arrowheads from the
Cardial in Provence, trapezoidal or triangular, often have abrupt or semiabrupt retouches, sometimes associated with covering retouch on one face
(Chteauneuf, Grotte de lAigle: Binder 1987; Roudil et al. 1979). A certain
morphological diversity reigns (Fig. 3).
It is the development, in France, of Montclus arrowheads and, in
Mediterranean Spain, of double-bevelled microliths (doble bisel), which
gives rise to several theories.
They may be items resulting from a technical process deriving from a
native practice: the presence of inverse flat retouch on the base of the triangular points of the Final Mesolithic in Languedoc, thinning retouch on the
faces of the same implements (Barbaza 1993), and use of the double bevel
technique among some Epipalaeolithic Geometric Complex populations in
Mediterranean Spain (Stage C of Juan-Cabanilles and Mart). They would
thus, in both cases, be a legacy from a pre-Neolithic population. Or it may be
a question of Neolithic types (Montclus, segments) secondarily adopted by
the hunter-gatherer cultures who had come into contact, directly or indirectly, with farmers (Marchand 1999). Their presence among predatory
groups would thus reflect late horizons, contemporary with farming settlements. This argument can be supported by the increase of these types during
the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition.
The problem is all the more acute in that often the chronology of the
Montclus and double-bevelled segments (doble bisel) is determined from
sites in shelters or cavesi.e. locations often frequented during hunting
activitieswhere the Mesolithic/Neolithic succession is legible. However,
this type of site also presents some risks; mixed or disturbed levels may lead
to questionable scenarios.
Figure 3. Some geometrical arrowheads and microburin present in Mesolithic and/or early Neolithic sites in western Mediterranean. After Briois 2000;
Binder 1987; Juan-Cabanilles 1990; Barbaza 1993; Cava 2000; Utrilla 2002; Barandiaran & Cava 1989.
31
32
It should be noted, however, that on sites such as Gazel or Dourgne, the

setting in place of the Early Neolithic is accompanied by a rapid redeployment pattern for microliths; the Montclus/Jean-Cros technique (direct semiabrupt retouch, covering retouch of the convex section) replaces the Gazel
points. These transformations seem to occur in a broader context of modifications to hafting techniques when Neolithisation arrives; the triangular
point, or one used as a barb, is replaced in farming communities by microliths
with a cutting edge.
This observation does not, however, settle the question of the origin (or
origins) of these microliths. A diffusionist hypothesis is unlikely; Montclus
points exist both in the Final Mesolithic and Early Neolithic levels of
Franchthi Cave (Argolis, Greece) where they are, in an early period, evidence
in favour of a possible native Neolithisation with borrowed technology during the seventh millennium cal BC (Perls 1990). They do not, on the other
hand, exist in either the Mesolithic (Latronico 3 cave) or the Early Neolithic
(Impressa) in southern Italy, the geographical relay of the westward advance
of Mediterranean Neolithisation.
No microliths of this type are known in the various Neolithic groups of
central Italy (Marmotta). Finally, these microliths are unknown in the small
settlements of Portiragnes where the stereotyped model is that of symmetrical trapezes obtained by the bitruncation of bladelets (Briois 2000). On the
other hand, bifacially retouched microliths are known in the Impressa at
Pendimoun. Arrowheads with covering retouch are found sporadically in the
Tyrrhenian Cardial (Caroppu di Sirri).
Lastly, the hypothesis of a western Mediterranean genesis for these two
types of microliths (Montclus, mainly known to the west of the Rhne, and
double-bevelled (doble bisel) segments, well represented in Iberian
Mediterranean regions) is thus the most likely explanation, whether invented
by the late Mesolithic or the early Neolithic populations in which they will
proliferate.
NEOLITHISATION IN THE SOUTH OF FRANCE:

ITALIC INFLUENCES
One of the lessons learnt from research over the past twenty years is that the
development of the Cardial Neolithic, previously considered to be the earliest culture of the southern French Neolithic, had been preceded chronologically by small settlements of populations with a clearly Italic origin. This
anteriority seems to be confirmed by the radiocarbon dates of these sites
which converge around 58005600 cal BC. From a cultural point of view these
sites, still few in number, while presenting some shared features, are not indis-
33
putably homogeneous. That could indicate varied origins and not colonisation from a single locality. The impression gained from excavation of the two
sites at Portiragnes is one of small dwellings, probably of limited duration,
linked to a first attempt at exploiting and utilising arable coastal environments. Although a certain amount of evidence attributable to this horizon
has been recorded between the Cte dAzur and Roussillon, three sites have
provided more representative information. They are the lowest level at
Pendimoun, Castellar (Alpes-Maritimes) and the two open-air sites of Pont
de Roque-Haute and Peiro Signado, Portiragnes (Hrault). We will describe
now their principal cultural aspects, which in spite of certain similarities are
far from being consistent.
Peiro Signado (Portiragnes, Hrault)
Discovered and excavated first in the late 1970s, the site of Peiro Signado
completely disrupted the classical schema of the Cardial/Epicardial succession by offering direct comparisons with the famous site of Arene Candide
(Liguria). The resumption of excavations by Briois has allowed the nature of
the occupation to be more precisely defined.
The pottery production at Peiro Signado presents shapes of the flat-based
basin type, but also bowls, bottles and cooking pots (Fig. 4). Handles are very
little used: vertical or horizontal ribbon handles, knobs (sometimes perforated), tongues or strips and nipples. The great majority of the sherds studied present a decoration made by the impressed groove technique. Other
decorative techniques are used, but to a lesser degree (less than 10%): impressions made with a cardium shell, short vertical or curved incisions, some rare
furrows, various impressions, more or less circular, elongated or half-moon
shaped and, lastly, finger-pinched decorations. The impressed groove technique is used to construct varied overall, extremely geometric, decorative
themes: vertical or horizontal chevrons organised in bands, vertical or horizontal zigzags, or simple lines. The short impressions made with cardium
shells form horizontal, vertical or oblique lines spreading in parallel across
the belly of the pot. The longer impressions give structured themes of blank
or hatched triangles near the lip and on the belly. The same themes are found
made from circular impressions, with fingers, or grooves which are sometimes
used to outline hatched triangles. From the lithic production point of view
(Briois 2000, fig. 4), the raw materials used consist almost exclusively of small
pebbles probably from secondary fluviatile formations of the Lower Rhne.
Small quantities of obsidian from the Tyrrhenian region, however, were
exploited on the site. This lithic industry has a very high proportion of blades
and uses the pressure technique. Tools include bladelets with lateral retouch,
borers and symmetrical trapezes produced by bitruncation.
34
Figure 4. Shapes and decoration of the pottery production at Peiro Signado, Portiragnes,
Hrault. After Manen 2002.
Pont de Roque-Haute (Portiragnes, Hrault)

Excavation of the site of Pont de Roque-Haute, also located at Portiragnes,
about 3 km from Peiro Signado, has revealed a dozen pits, mutilated by
ploughing, presenting, as a secondary deposit, fills of discarded rubbish. The
pottery production on this site presents shapes similar to those at Peiro
Signado (Fig. 5): flat-based basins, bowls, cooking pots and bottles. Handles
seem to have been little used: ribbon or rolled handles, knobs, lugs and
tongues; none are perforated. Among the decorative techniques, the use of
the cardium shell is well represented. As a complement, various other types
of impressions, but also incisions, impressed grooves and relief modelled
adornments are used. The decorative themes are predominantly simple, composed of lines or parallel bands. Observation of the fragments and more
complete shapes shows that the decoration generally covers the pot to a large
extent. In a few rare cases, a more geometric decoration (triangles or angles)
35
Figure 5. Shapes and decoration of the pottery production at Pont de Roque-Haute,

Portiragnes, Hrault. After Manen 2002.
adorns the upper section of the pot. The lithic industry is identical to that of
Peiro Signado, except for the many remains of macro-tools (grinding implements) at Pont de Roque-Haute. The blade knapping is carried out on local
raw material, but also on a few pieces of obsidian from the island of
Palmarola. Analysis of the faunal remains attests to well-mastered animal
husbandry with in particular some specialisation in sheep. In this very early
context of the first Languedoc Neolithic, it may be presumed that the occupants of Pont de Roque-Haute had acquired a long experience in animal
production elsewhere (Jean-Denis Vigne, pers. comm.). Einkorn, emmer and
barley have been identified. There is evidence of accessory predatory activities.
Pendimoun, Castellar, Alpes-Maritimes
In the Pendimoun shelter, the bottom of the stratigraphy has yielded, alongside
largely monochrome ceramics, pots characterised by a decoration made with
nail impressions, pinched patterns, and some discontinuous impressions of
36
various shells (cardium, patella, and so on). The decorative themes form
horizontal bands or panels filled with lines. The ceramic shapes
include spheroid or truncated conical open pots, bottles with narrow necks
and small pots in the shape of a flattened dome. Flat bases are attested.
Handles are mainly tongue-shaped, unperforated or with a vertical perforation. The excavator considers that Pendimoun 1 demonstrates connections with
Apulia, the Marches and Abruzzi (Binder et al. 1993). However, these comparisons require refinement since the Neolithisation of the Marches and
Abruzzi presents a probable chronological difference compared with the early
Neolithic in Apulia. In the lithic industry, the presence of triangular geometric pieces with flat bifacial retouch and sickle elements is observed. The
mammal fauna is mainly composed of domesticated species: sheep or goats
and cattle. The remains of cereals point to the cultivation of emmer and
barley. Gathering activities are attested. Chronologically, the early horizon
of Pendimoun seems to be located between 5800 and 5600 cal BC. Above
this horizon, levels related to the Cardial context have been compared, for
the earliest, with the Tyrrhenian zone (geometric Cardial) and, for the more
recent, with the Cardial in Provence (zoned Cardial ware).
Discussion
What can be concluded from these data? Although all three are related to the
Italian domain, these sites include a ceramic production with parallels in
diverse geographic areas. Peiro Signado presents ceramic similarities with the
series from the Arene Candide cave. It may thus be considered that it represents a sort of Ligurian bridgehead towards the west. Pont de Roque-Haute
has stronger relationships with a more southern site in the Tuscan archipelago: Giglio Island (Manen 2000). There are also resemblances to the vertical
layout of the shell decoration with separate impressions to be found in southern Italy (Guilaine & Crmonesi 2003). At Pendimoun, a strong monochrome element is associated primarily with spike motifs and with pinched
decorations and impressed edges. Thus, from a ceramic point of view, there
is no cultural unity. From a lithic point of view, a certain diversity also seems
apparent. As previously mentioned, the Pendimoun microliths with cutting
edges are for the most part triangular, and call on flat bifacial retouching. On
the contrary, arrowheads at Portiragnes are trapezoidal, made from bitruncated bladelets. The presence of obsidian from Sardinia and Palmarola points
to contacts with islands in the Tyrrhenian Sea. At Pont de Roque-Haute, the
abundant fauna indicates animal husbandry based for the most part on goat,
associated with some cattle, whereas predatory activities remain restricted to
a low level. Agriculture is shown by numerous millstones and the presence of
emmer, einkorn and barley.
37
The impression gained is thus one of a productive system based on a well

developed agro-pastoral economy. In that sense, we can speak of a colonisation process. Lastly, dwellings on the Portiragnes sites seem to call largely on
cob as a building material. The remains of a circular building with wooden
posts have been identified at Peiro Signado (Briois & Manen in press).
Seeking the chronological articulation between these different currents has
become an essential approach for understanding the settlement of the first
Neolithic societies in southern France.
GENESIS AND DEVELOPMENT OF

THE FRANCO-IBERIAN CARDIAL
In France
Distribution and chronological evolution. In comparison with the preceding
settler or colonised sites, the constitution of the Cardial culture in southern France seems to be, rather, the result of a more structured process of
development and demographic expansion, provoking a rapid transformation
of the scope of identity references. Recent research puts the accent on the
variety of economic systems adopted but also on an organisation based on a
mobile system of resource exploitation.
The Cardial in southern France is well installed in coastal territories, but
several indications attest to its early penetration into more continental
domains, in particular along the main fluvial routes, and even into highland
environments (Beeching 1999; 2003). Apart from these general considerations, it has to be admitted that we have insufficient knowledge of the
siting criteria for Cardial settlements and that it is difficult to identify the
geo-ecological features which may have determined settlement choices for
these communities. The relationship with water (coastal regions, ponds and
lakes, fluvial routes, marshy or swampy zones) is, however, evident.
The chronology of the French Cardial is still subject to debate (Manen &
Sabatier 2003). We are advocates of an early chronology, with the first phase
of the Cardial between 5600 and 5400/5300 cal BC. Coordinated study of
radiocarbon dates and ceramic styles has allowed the Cardial to be subdivided into two phases. The modalities of this evolution were identified at an
early date thanks to the stratigraphy at Chteauneuf (Escalon de Fonton
1967; Courtin et al. 1985), and later refined (Beeching 1995; Binder 1991;
Manen 2002).
Generally speaking, Cardial pottery was made with local clay to
which particles of chamotte (fire-clay) were added (in particular for the
early phase). The characteristic shapes are small and medium-sized pots:
38
basins, cooking pots, bottles, bowls and small globular pots (Figs 6 and 7).
Fragments of storage jars are rare. Among the main categories of decoration,
impression dominates to a large extent, followed by relief moulding. In the
impression category, cardium shells represent the dominant decorative
technique (over 60%). The decorative themes of the early Cardial consist of
various types of impressions organised in well defined ribbons. They are
frequently filled with geometric motifs (crosses, zigzags, chevrons, oblique
strokes, and so on) and framed or interrupted by a border. More rarely, the
Figure 6. Pottery styles from Cardial in south of France. 1, 5: Grotte de lAigle; 2, 4, 67, 9:
Baume dOullins; 3: Leucate; 8, 10: Grotte Gazel. After Manen 2002.
39
Figure 7. Pottery styles from Cardial in Catalonia. 1: Cova del Frare; 2: Cova Freda; 3:
Esquerda Roques del Pany; 45, 8: Cova Gran; 6: Guixeres de Vilobi; 7: Cueva de Chaves. After
Manen 2002.
ribbons are accompanied by pendants. The relief-moulded decorations form

themes which are often simple: a horizontal cord circling the pot and
repeated in parallel from top to bottom. The cords are often covered with a
band of impressed motifs, and may then serve as framing or dividing features.
In a more recent phase of the Cardial, the cardium shell loses its value, to the
advantage of other impressed implements: finger, comb and smooth shell.
The decorative themes are still structured in horizontal bands which may or
may not be repeated from top to bottom of the pot. Themes of vertical bands
40
and areas covered with decoration are also well represented. It is above all in
the filling of the bands that differences with the earlier style can be observed.
This filling consists mainly of simple lines of impressions; geometrical motifs
are less frequent.
The evolutionary sequence of the Cardial, which covers nearly 700 years,
remains to be defined, as does the question of regional variability.
The Cardial industry associates laminary production (sickles, knives)
obtained by indirect percussion with a flake industry providing denticulates
and sturdy endscrapers. The characteristic geometric pieces are trapezoidal
arrowheads with abrupt and also covering retouch. Distribution circuits
ensured the spread of polished stone: eclogites from Piedmont and Liguria
reached the Rhne, glaucophanites from the Durance region are found in
Languedoc up to the borders of Roussillon (Leucate), and calcic amphibolites,
probably from the Pyrenees (Ricq-de Bouard 1996).
The economy presents a fairly broad diversification. Settlements on
plains, centred on agro-pastoral production, are found alongside a sector
focused on exploiting ecological niches more favourable to pastoral activities
and hunting. These last activities imply a mobile aspect in the economy, probably with networks structured at an early date and the use of caves for shepherding activities. Agriculture (wheat and barley) was preferentially focused
on Triticum aestivum compactum (Marinval 1988). The long-lasting occupation of sites has not been demonstrated and there could have been frequent
moves.
Formation of the Cardial
The relegation of the appearance of the Cardial to a secondary position
after the Italic sites, vectors of the Neolithic package (agriculture/animal
husbandry/pottery/adzes), means that it has lost part of the innovative aspect
attributed to it until now. Long considered by many authors as intrusive, at
the head of new technologies, it has now come down in the world and is
henceforth envisaged as a second phase culture. Its interest is not any the less,
however, for it displays a power of expansion which goes far beyond the
coastal strip affected by the earliest sites of Italic inspiration, so that inland,
especially, the Cardial remains the true vector of Neolithisation. As the idea
of an intrusive neolithicising wave borne by the Cardial has weakened, several
hypotheses can be proposed for the genesis of that culture (Fig. 8).
It can be considered as consisting of a second wave of populations of
external origin. By its partly coastal geographical distribution, the Cardial
remains a fully Mediterranean culture, in spite of its continental breakthroughs. The only cultural horizon set on its eastern flank and likely to have
provided a certain influx remains the Tyrrhenian Cardial (Latium, Tuscany,
Figure 8. Hypotheses for the genesis of the Cardial culture.
41
42
Sardinia and Corsica). Apart from spatial proximity, it shares with it the taste
for decoration in bands treated with shells, but the Cardial in southern
France differs from that of the Tyrrhenian region in several aspects: a halt in
obsidian imports, the almost complete abandonment of flat-based pots,
decoration on pottery restricted to the cardium shell alone, and loss of the
decorative geometrism specific to the Tyrrhenian region. It should be noted,
however, that these two facies share a fairly similar management of meat
resources (sheep/goat and hunting well represented), a light installation on
the ground, or in any case of short duration, and the non-signalling of the
dead. Without excluding contacts (areas of geographical overlapping exist in
eastern Provence), it seems difficult to consider the Cardial as globally
imported from the Tyrrhenian zone.
The Cardial can be envisaged as a native process resulting from the conversion of local populations to the new economy introduced by the Italics.
In Provence, technological interruptions or breaks between the Castelnovian
and the Cardial industries do not argue in favour of this option (Binder
1987). On the other hand, in western Languedoc, we have seen that transit
terms could exist between Gazel points and Jean-Cros or Montclus arrowheads (Barbaza 1993). More generally, certain cultural features of the
Cardialinvisibility of the dead, use of Columbellae shells, and imitation
deers teethseem to be inscribed in a sort of native tradition. Our knowledge of the Mesolithic substratum is still too scanty and barely allows us to
go beyond these generalities.
A third hypothesis could rest on a process of the demographic transition
type. By introducing an agro-pastoral economy, settlers of Italic origin could
have provoked demographic stress, with a rapid population increase, a
process encouraged by the production economy. In a few generations, a new
culture would have emerged under the effect of several factors: earlier Italic
influence conveying the Neolithic package, contacts with the Tyrrhenian
zone promoting the acquisition of decorations with bands of shell impressions, and the maintainance of the native traditions (Columbellae and exclusion of the dead). Unlike the Italic settlements, localised and of short
duration, the Cardial is organised around large interactive territories (circulation of polished tools, flint materials and certain pots, bracelets, pastoral
activities), which explain its geographic extension and its long duration.
In Mediterranean Spain
Cardial and Neolithisation. The question of the Iberian Cardial will be considered more rapidly, for this culture is intrusive here and the question of its
genesis does not arise in the same manner as in southern France. We do not
know whether, in the Iberian peninsula, settlements of Italic origin exist as
43
we have seen between Liguria and the Pyrenees. The Cardial is thus in Spain
the vector of Neolithisation, a prolongation from the southern French core
(Fig. 9). Its distribution shows that it took root preferentially in some well
defined zones (occupied at an early date during the sixth millennium cal BC):
the Barcelona region, the area around Cabo de la Nao. At this early stage
c. 5500 cal BC, i.e. in the context of a rapid spread from Franceit seems
obviously contemporary with the Mesolithic populations strongly implanted
in certain neighbouring or continental regions: Upper Aragon, Lower Ebro,
Maestrazgo, the central Valencian group, and the Lara-Arenal sector (stage
3 of the evolutionary model of Juan-Cabanilles & Mart Oliver 2002).
In a second phasethe latter half of the sixth millennium cal BC we
note, as happened in the southern French evolution, the geographic (and
probably also demographic) progress of the farmers, but also the setting in
place of a Late Cardial/Early Epicardial duality (stage 4). Initiated at the very
start of the Cardial implantation, interaction with the native populations of
the Geometric Complex led to their progressive conversion to a production
economy.
At stage 5 of the previously mentioned model (Epicardial), during the
first half of the fifth millennium cal BC, the farmers had completely assimilated the native populations and no isolated Mesolithic groups remained.
Neolithic colonisation then spread to various points on the Meseta.
Figure 9. Experimental modelling of the Iberian Early Neolithic. After Juan-Cabanilles &
Mart Oliver 2002.
44
While, as in southern France, research long concentrated on natural cavities, recent work has shown the advantages to be gained from the study of
open-air settlements. On the lacustrian site of Draga (Gerona), remains of
quadrangular dwellings with wooden posts and cob have been identified
(Bosch et al. 2000). A research project in the Serpis Basin, in the region of
Alcoy, has revealed, at Mas dIs, the remains of three Cardial huts, one with
an apsidal end. Nearby, three concentric ditches, one of which is contemporary with the houses, have been identified (Bernabeu Aubn et al. 2003). These
circular structures are reminiscent of certain southern Italian models of the
end of the Early Neolithic.
Experimental models
Over the last few years a whole series of excellent research projects have
enormously improved our vision of the Iberian Early Neolithic, especially
in the Mediterranean zone. The Neolithisation of this area seems indeed to
have occurred from the southern French Cardial which is here the vector
of the Neolithic package. From the two principal settlement poles previously mentionedthe Barcelona region and Cabo de la Naothe Cardial
rapidly spread to zones far inland (see the Chaves cave and Upper
Aragon).
At a very early date, following a henceforth classical dual model,
contacts were initiated with the native populations of hunter-gatherers
(Geometric Complex). The interaction, combined with certain traditions,
gave rise here to the manifestation of specific Pericardial cultural features:
perpetuation of the lithic characteristics, a statistical rise in double-bevelled
segments (doble bisel), a more or less well mastered assimilation of ceramic
technology, with pots with no decoration or with a reinterpreted decorative
theme, and progressive infiltration of production economy behaviour.
It is interesting to note that the effects are not merely one way, in the
Cardial/Geometric Complex direction. The presence of double-bevelled segments (doble bisel) in certain Cardial assemblages (as at Chaves) points to
either influence from the opposite direction or the mixing of populations.
This continental Neolithisation of the Geometric Complex could in part
fashion the Epicardial, in parallel with a Late Cardial component. Bernabeu
considers the Epicardial to be the true creator of the naturalistic Levantine
art, a sort of identity reflex when faced with the intrusion of the schematic or
macro-schematic art linked to the Neolithic package (Bernabeu Aubn
2002).
45
THE EPICARDIAL
From the western Alps and the lower Rhne valley to Andalusia, the second
part of the Early Neolithic is characterised in particular by pottery styles
which often associate grooves and impressions arranged in bands, bundles or
garlands. Groups of grooved lines edged with dots represent a sort of denominator specific to the whole of this broad western Mediterranean area.
Regional stylistic nuances obviously exist over such a zone, still sufficiently
evident compared with the classical general features.
This Epicardial also developed over several stages; in Languedoc, three
are found at Gazel and Saint-Pierre-la-Fage. In a certain number of stratigraphies (at Chteauneuf, Gazel, Camprafaud, Cova del Frare, Cendres, and
Cariguela de Piar), the Epicardial style is established in parallel with the
Cardial, which it finally eliminated. This secondary stratigraphic position
explains the term itself (Escalon de Fonton 1956; Guilaine 1970). The matter
of its genesis is more delicate. While a gradual emergence from a Cardial substratum can be acknowledged, we are obliged to recognise that the Epicardial
has a character which makes it a fully autonomous culture, not a mere
epiphenomenon. The idea of a peripheral component of the Cardial in its
very essence cannot be excluded. Whatever the case as far as the mechanisms
are concerned (Cardial filiation and/or a peripheralisation process for the
Cardial), the expansionist strength of the Epicardial is obvious. In the
Mediterranean regions, from the Rhne to Andalusia, it finally eliminated
the Cardial and covered the whole of the initially Neolithicised area. Its vitality, however, probably related to a certain demographic surge linked to agricultural expansion, led it to colonise large continental regions and to take the
frontiers of the Neolithic well beyond the more limited Cardial sphere. Traces
are found as far as the Alps (Grande Rivoire) and the Causse region. In the
Iberian peninsula, this colonisation is in particular marked by its extension
along the valleys of the large rivers flowing towards the Atlantic (Douro,
Tagus, Guadiana, Guadalquivir). In so doing, the Epicardial is the vector of
the Neolithic package on the central plateaus (Meseta). In western Andalusia
and Portugal, the Mediterranean Epicardial appears in the form of a particular facies characterised notably by ornaments presenting panels with spike
incisions or impressions (Guilaine & Ferreira 1970; Zilho 1992).
OTHER FACIES
Pseudo-Limbourg/Pseudo-Hoguette
Some styles cannot be linked with either the Cardial or the Epicardial in their
classical form. Thus, a pot decorated with combed bands (at Margineda),
46
another with a pointed base and a motif of impressions on cords (at Gazel)
have clear affinities with the Hoguette style (Guilaine & Manen 1997), of
which they represent the extreme south-western extension. Similarly, a pot
from the cave at Gazel with incised bands associated with garlands or triangles echoes a classical Limbourg theme. These pieces show how many other
components, still not particularly apparent, exist in the Early Neolithic of the
western Mediterranean.
CONCLUSION
The spread of the production economy in the western Mediterranean
occurred in a cultural context extremely different from the zone where
Neolithisation was born, the Turco-Syrian borders where PPNB, the truly
founding culture of the Neolithic, seems to have emerged. Figure 10 sums up
some of these differences in the characteristics of dwellings, in the funerary
domain and in social functioning.
In southern France, the earliest Neolithic manifestations are due to small
groups of settlers of Italic origin. They are distinguished by the installation
of small settlements of limited duration but which were clearly vectors of the
Neolithic package: agriculture, animal husbandry, pottery, polished axes,
Eastern Mediterranean
Western Mediterranean
PPNB
Cardial
Settlements
- Building material : stone and brick

- Houses : quadrangular
- Strong sedentism (in landnam)
- Existence of big villages (Abu
Settlements
- Building material : wood and clay

- Houses : circular, quadrangular or in apse
- Low sedentism (short duration)
- Absence of big villages
Hureyra, Ain Ghazal)
Burials
- Collective graves
- First necropolis
- Burials in settlement
- Houses of death
Society
- First hierarchisation
- Use of figurines
- Ceremonial building (cf. Gbekli)
Burials
- No collective graves
- No necropolis
- Isolated burials in caves
- Invisible dead
Society
- No hierarchisation
- Absence of figurines
-?
Figure 10. Differences in the characteristics of dwellings, in the funerary domain and in social
functioning between the first eastern and the western Mediterranean Neolithic cultures.
47
and so on. It thus seems that the trigger in the beginning was a process of
maritime colonisation of Italic origin.
The Cardial must henceforth be considered, in France, as a secondary
process. Its genesis is still subject to discussion. Three components seem to
have played a role in its composition: the previously mentioned Italic substratum, vector of the production economy; the Tyrrhenian Cardial group,
perhaps responsible for the band decoration; and a possible native substratum, still poorly known. These three components would then have blended
locally in a context of rapid population increase, stimulated by a demographic transition resulting from the agro-pastoral practices introduced
earlier. It is this hypothesis of demographic stress which would have led to
the process acquiring a stronger expansionist dynamism.
In Spain, where the pioneering Italic culture establishments have not yet
been identified, the Cardial, spreading from Provence and Languedoc,
seems to have been in its turn the vector of the economic and technical
Neolithic package. Settling first, preferentially, in Catalonia and Valencia,
it spread rapidly but sporadically in more continental regions (as seen at
Chaves).
Lastly, it is interesting to note that in the western Mediterranean the
founding of settlements during the Early Neolithic did not lead to their
continued existence over a long period, unlike, for example, certain tells in
Thessaly or the Balkans or some southern Italian sites, which were occupied
or frequented for several millennia throughout the Neolithic. Such a tendency
to a lasting territorial attachment does not exist here. During the Cardial,
sedentariness seems to have been relative, and the attachment to a given place
was periodically called in question. Perhaps this periodic mobility is also
responsible for the invisibility of the dead.
The question of the role played by the last hunter-gatherer communities
in Neolithisation will remain a subject for debate until a fuller corpus of data
concerning these populations becomes available. At all events, it does not
seem that these human groups could have carried much weight on an economic level except for prolonging for a while the hunting-gathering economy.
It was, however, on a cultural level that these populations could, in a certain
manner, have perpetuated themselves in the Neolithic system by means of
some persistent ideological features (exclusion of the dead, Columbella ornaments, culture of the wild by means of deer tooth type pendants or the
hunting scenes of Levantine art).
After a few hundred years, the various components which had participated in developing the early southern French and Iberian Neolithic seem to
have blended in the Epicardial complex, thereafter the only one present
throughout the western Mediterranean area.
48

REFERENCES
ARIAS, P. & LVAREZ FERNNDEZ, E. 2004. Les chasseurs-cueilleurs de la pninsule

Ibrique face la mort: une rvision des donnes sur les contextes funraires du Palolithique
suprieur et du Msolithique. In M. Otte (ed.), La spiritualit, 22136. Lige: Service de
prhistoire de lUniversit, ERAUL 106.
BARANDIARAN, I. & CAVA, A. 1981. Epipaleolitico y Neolitico en el abrigo de Costalena
(Bajo Aragon). Baja Aragon, Preistoria 3, 520.
BARANDIARAN, I. & CAVA, A. 1989. La ocupacin prehistrica del Abrigo de Costalena
(Maella, Zaragoza). Zaragoza: Diputacin General de Aragon, Departemento de Cultura y
Educacin. (Arqueologa y paleontologa; 6, Serie Arqueologa aragonesa: Monografias).
BARBAZA, M. 1993. Les pointes de Gazel. In J. Guilaine (ed.), Dourgne. Derniers chasseurscollecteurs et premiers leveurs de la Haute-Valle de lAude, 26382. Toulouse: Centre
dAnthropologie des Socits Rurales/Carcassonne: Archologie en Terre dAude.
BARRAL, L. & PRIMARD, S. 1962. Lhomme du Rastel. Commune de Peillon (A.-M.).
Bulletin du muse danthropologie prhistorique de Monaco 9, 17190.
BEECHING, A. 1995. Nouveau regard sur le Nolithique ancien et moyen du Bassin rhodanien.
In J.-L. Voruz (ed.), Chronologies nolithiques: de 6000 2000 ans avant notre re dans le
Bassin rhodanien, 93111. Ambrieu-en-Bugey: Socit prhistorique rhodanienne,
Documents du Dpartement dAnthropologie et dEcologie de lUniversit 20.
BEECHING, A. 1999. Les premires tapes de circulation et de peuplement dans les Alpes
franaises au Nolithique. Apport de la cramique. In A. Beeching (ed.), Circulations et
identits culturelles alpines la fin de la Prhistoire, 42780. Valence: Travaux du Centre
dArchologie Prhistorique de Valence, n 2.
BEECHING, A. 2003. Le Nolithique entre Rhne et Alpes. Habilitation diriger des recherches.
Universit de Lyon 2 Lumire.
BERNABEU AUBN, J. 2002. The social and symbolic context of Neolithization. In E. Badal,
J. Bernabeu Aubn & B. Mart (eds), El paisaje en el Neoltico mediterrneo, 20933.
Valencia: Universidad, Saguntum extra-5.
BERNABEU AUBN, J., MOLINA BALAGUER, L. & GARCIA PUCHOL, O. 2001. El
mundo funerario en el horizonte cardial valenciano. Un registro oculto. Saguntum 33, 2735.
BERNABEU AUBN, J., OROZCO KHLER, T., CASTILLO, A. D., GOMEZ PUCHE,
M. & MOLINA HERNANDEZ, F. J. 2003. Mas dIs (Penguila, Alicante): aldeas y recintos monumentales del Neoltico inicial en el valle del Serpis. Trabajos de Prehistoria 60, 2,
3959.
BINDER, D. 1987. Le Nolithique ancien provenal: typologie et technologie des outillages
lithiques. Paris: CNRS, Supplment Gallia Prhistoire 24.
BINDER, D. (ed.). 1991. Une conomie de chasse au Nolithique ancien: la grotte Lombard
Saint-Vallier-de-Thiey (Alpes-Maritimes). Paris: CNRS.
BINDER, D. 2000. Mesolithic and Neolithic interaction in southern France and northern Italy:
new data and current hypotheses. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europes first farmers, 11743.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BINDER, D., BROCHIER, J.-E., DUDAY, H., HELMER, D., MARINVAL, P., THIEBAULT,
S. & WATTEZ, J. 1993. Labri Pendimoun (Castellar, Alpes-Maritimes): nouvelles donnes
sur le complexe culturel de la cramique imprime mditerranenne dans son contexte
stratigraphique. Gallia Prhistoire 35, 177251.
BOSCH I LLORET, A., CHINCHILLA I SNCHEZ, J. & TARRUS I GALTER, J. 2000. El
poblat lacustre neoltic de La Draga. Excavacions de 1990 a 1998. Girona: Museu
dArqueologia de Catalunya, Monografies del CASC 2.
BOSCH I LLORET, A. & TARRUS I GALTER, J. 1990. La Cova sepulcral del Neolitic antic de
lAvellaner (Cogolls, Les Planes dHostoles, La Garrotxa). Girona: Centre dinvestigacions
arqueologiques de Girona (Serie monogrfica 11).
49
BRIOIS, F. 2000. Variabilit techno-culturelle des industries lithiques du Nolithique ancien en

Languedoc. In M. Leduc, N. Valdeyron & J. Vaquer (eds), Socits et espaces. Actes des
Troisimes Rencontres Mridionales de Prhistoire Rcente, 4350. Toulouse: Archives
dEcologie Prhistorique.
BRIOIS, F. & MANEN C. in press. Lhabitat Nolithique ancien de Peiro Signado Portiragnes
(Hrault). In A. Beeching & I. Snpart (eds), De la maison au village dans le Nolithique du
sud de la France et du nord-ouest mditerranen. Marseille: Journes de la SPF.
CAVA, A. 2000. La industria litica del Neolitico de Chaves (Huesca). SALDVIE I, 77164.
CHAMBON, P. in press. Des morts aux vivants: population et socit au Nolithique. In
J. Guilaine (ed.), Populations nolithiques et environnements. Paris: Sminaire du Collge de
France.
COSTE, A., DUDAY, H., GUTHERZ, X. & ROUDIL, J.-L. 1987. Les spultures de la Baume
Bourbon Cabrires (Gard). In J. Guilaine, J. Courtin, J.-L. Roudil & J.-L. Vernet (eds),
Premires communauts paysannes en Mditerrane occidentale, 5315. Paris: CNRS.
COURTIN, J. 1975. Le Msolithique de la Baume Fontbrgoua Salernes (Var). Cahiers ligures
de prhistoire et darchologie 24, 11017.
COURTIN, J., EVIN, J. & THOMMERET, Y. 1985. Rvision de la stratigraphie et de la
chronologie absolue du site de Chteauneuf-les-Martigues (Bouches-du-Rhne).
LAnthropologie 89, 54356.
DUDAY, H. & GUILAINE, J. 1980. Deux spultures la grotte Gazel. Les dossiers de
larchologie 44, 889.
ESCALON DE FONTON, M. 1956. Prhistoire de la basse Provence. Prhistoire 12.
ESCALON DE FONTON, M. 1967. Origine et dveloppement des civilisations nolithiques
mditerranennes en Europe occidentale. Paleohistoria 12, 20947.
ESCALON DE FONTON, M. 1971. Les phnomnes de nolithisation dans le Midi de la
France. In J. Lning (ed.), Die Anfnge des Neolithikums vom Orient bis Nordeuropa. Teil VI:
Frankreich, 12239. Kln: Institut fr Ur- und Frhgeschichte der Universitt zu Kln,
Fundamenta Monographien zur Urgeschichte, Reihe A Band 3.
FEREMBACH, D. 1976. Le peuplement de la France et du Bassin mditerranen au
Msolithique. Bulletin de la socit danthropologie du Sud-Ouest 11, 88106.
FORTEA PEREZ, J. 1971. La cueva de la Cocina. Ensayo de cronologia del Epipaleolitico
(facies Geomtricas). Valencia: Servicio d Investigacion Prehistorica, Serie de Trabajos
Varios 40.
FORTEA PEREZ, J. 1973. Los complejos microlaminares y geomtricos de Epipaleolitico
mediterraneo espaol. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, Memorias del seminario de
prehistoria y arqueologia 4.
GUENET, P. 1995. Analyse palynologique du sondage du Petit Castelou. In J. Guilaine (ed.),
Temps et espace dans le bassin de lAude du Nolithique lAge du Fer, 33440. Toulouse:
Centre dAnthropologie.
GUILAINE, J. 1970. Sur lEpicardial languedocien. Les civilisations nolithiques du Midi de la
France, 1316. Carcassonne: Atacina 5.
GUILAINE, J. 1973. Pointes triangulaires du Msolithique languedocien. Estudios dedicados al
Profesor Dr. Luis Pericot, 7783. Barcelona.
GUILAINE, J. (ed.) 1993. Dourgne. Derniers chasseurs-collecteurs et premiers leveurs de la
Haute-Valle de lAude. Toulouse: Centre dAnthropologie des Socits Rurales.
GUILAINE, J. 1996. Protomgalithisme, rites funraires et mobiliers de prestige nolithiques en
Mditerrane occidentale. Complutum 6, 12340.
GUILAINE, J. & CRMONESI, G. (ed.) 2003. Torre Sabea. Un tablissement du Nolithique
ancien en Salento. Rome: Ecole franaise de Rome.
GUILAINE, J. & FEIRREIRA, O. V. 1970. Le Nolithique ancien au Portugal. Bulletin de la
Socit Prhistorique Franaise 67, 30422.
50
GUILAINE, J. & MANEN, C. 1997. Contacts sud-nord au Nolithique ancien: tmoignages de

la grotte de Gazel en Languedoc. In C. Jeunesse (ed.), Le Nolithique danubien et ses marges
entre Rhin et Seine, 30111. Strasbourg: Colloque interrgional sur le Nolithique 22.
HERNANDEZ PEREZ, M. & SEGURA MARTI, J. 2002. La Sarga. Arte rupestre y territorio.
Alcoi: Museu Arqueologic Camil Visedo Molt.
JALUT, G. 1995. Analyse pollinique de sdiments holocnes de ltang de Capestang (Hrault).
In J. Guilaine (ed.), Temps et espace dans le bassin de lAude du Nolithique lAge du Fer,
293302. Toulouse: Centre dAnthropologie.
JUAN-CABANILLES, J. 1990. Substrat pipalolithique et nolithisation en Espagne: apport
des industries lithiques lidentification des traditions culturelles. In D. Cahen & M. Otte
(eds), Ruban et Cardial, 41735. Lige: Service de prhistoire de lUniversit.
JUAN-CABANILLES, J. 1992. La neolitizacion de la vertiente mediterranea peninsular: modelos y problemas. In P. Utrilla Miranda (ed.), Aragon/Litoral mediterraneo: intercambos
culturales durante la Prehistoria, 25568. Zaragoza: Institucin Fernando el Catlico.
JUAN-CABANILLES, J. & MART OLIVER, B. 2002. Poblamiento y procesos culturales en
la Pennsula Ibrica del VII al V milenio A. C. (80005500 BP). Una cartografa de la
neolitizacin. In E. Badal, J. Bernabeu Aubn & B. Mart (eds), El paisaje en el Neoltico
mediterrneo, 4587. Valencia: Universidad.
MANEN, C. 2000. Implantation de facis dorigine italienne au Nolithique ancien: lexemple
des sites Liguriens du Languedoc. In M. Leduc, N. Valdeyron & J. Vaquer (eds), Socits et
espaces. Actes des Troisimes Rencontres Mridionales de Prhistoire Rcente, 3542.
Toulouse: Archives dEcologie Prhistorique.
MANEN, C. 2002. Structure et identit des styles cramiques du Nolithique ancien entre
Rhne et Ebre. Gallia Prhistoire 44, 12165.
MANEN, C. & SABATIER, P. 2003. Chronique radiocarbone de la nolithisation en
Mditerrane occidentale. Bulletin de la Socit prhistorique franaise 100, 479504.
MARCHAND, G. 1999. La Nolithisation de louest de la France. Caractrisation des industries
lithiques. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 748.
MARINVAL, P. 1988. Lalimentation vgtale en France du Msolithique jusqu lge du Fer.
Paris: CNRS.
MARINVAL, P. 1995. Collecte et agriculture de lpipalolithique au Nolithique ancien:
analyse carpologique de la Balma Margineda. In J. Guilaine & M. Martzluff (eds), Les
excavaciones a la Balma de la Margineda (19791991), 6582. Andorra: Edicions del Govern
dAndorra.
MART OLIVER, B. & HERNANDEZ PEREZ, M. S. 1988. El neolitic Valenci. Art rupestre
i cultura material. Valencia: Servei dInvestigacio Prehistorica, Duputacio de Valencia.
OLRIA, C., GUSI, F. & GMEZ, C. F. 2005. Un enterramiento Meso-Neoltico en el Cingle
del Mas Nou (Ares del Maestre, Castelln) del 7000 BP en territorio de arte levantino. In III
congrs de Neoltic a la Peninsula Ibrica (Santander, 2003), 61523. Santander: Universidad
de Cantabria, Monografas del Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistricas de
Cantabria, 1.
PACCARD, M. 1987. Spultures du Nolithique ancien Unang (Malemort-du-Comtat) et
structures associes. In J. Guilaine, J. Courtin, J.-L. Roudil & J.-L. Vernet (eds), Premires
communauts paysannes en Mditerrane occidentale, 50712. Paris: CNRS.
PERLES, C. 1990. Les industries lithiques tailles de Franchthi (Argolide, Grce). In T. W.
Jacobsen (ed.), Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece. Tome II, fascicle 5. Les industries du
Msolithique et du Nolithique initial. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University
Press.
PLA, J. & JUNYENT, E. 1970. Noticia sobre el hallazgo de un vaso en la Cova dels Lladres
(Vacarisses, Barcelona). Pyrenae 6, 436.
PUERTAS, O. 1998. Evolution des indices polliniques danthropisation dans le secteur de Lattes
(Hrault) depuis le Nolithique ancien: mthodologie et rsultats. In A. DAnna & D. Binder
51
(eds), Production et identit culturelle. Actualit de la recherche. Actes des Deuximes

Rencontres Mridionales de Prhistoire Rcente, 343537. Antibes: APDCA.
RICHARD, H. (ed.) 2004. Nolithisation prcoce. Premires traces danthropisation du couvert
vgtal partir des donnes polliniques. Besanon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comt
(Environnement, socit et archologie 7).
RICQ-DE BOUARD, M. 1996. Ptrographie et socits nolithiques en France mditerranenne.
Loutillage en pierre polie. Paris: CNRS.
RIERA I MORA, S. 1996. Incendis i pertorbacions forestals dorigen antropic durant el Neolitic
antic al pla de Barcelona. In Congrs de Neoltic a la peninsula ibrica: formaci i implantaci
de les comunitats agrcoles, 3542. Rubricatum 1.
ROUDIL, J.-L., ROUDIL, O., SOULIER, M., ERROUX, J., POULAIN, T. & VERNET, J.-L.
1979. La grotte de lAigle Mjannes-le-Clap (Gard) et le Nolithique ancien du Languedoc
oriental. Mjannes-le-Clap: Socit languedocienne de prhistoire.
TRIAT-LAVAL, H. 1982. Pollenanalyse de sdiments quaternaires rcents du pourtour de
ltang de Berre. Ecologia Mediterranea 8, 97115.
UTRILLA, P. 2002. Epipaleoliticos y neoliticos del Valle del Ebro. In E. Badal, J. Bernabeu
Aubn & B. Mart (eds), El paisaje en el Neoltico mediterrneo, 179208. Valencia:
Universidad.
VAQUER, J. & BARBAZA, M. 1987. Cueillette ou horticulture msolithique: la Balma
de lAbeurador. In J. Guilaine, J. Courtin, J.-L. Roudil & J.-L. Vernet (eds), Premires
communauts paysannes en Mditerrane occidentale, 23142. Paris: CNRS.
ZILHO, J. 1992. Gruta do Caldeiro. O Neolitico Antigo. Lisboa: Instituto Portugus do
Patrimnio Arquitectnico e Arqueolgico.
Neighbours but diverse: social change in

north-west Iberia during the transition
from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic
(55004000 cal BC)
PABLO ARIAS
INTRODUCTION1
THE IBERIAN PENINSULA is often described as a miniature continent. The
complexity of its orography and its geographic situation in a temperate latitude, between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic environmental regions,
result in a highly compartmented landscape, with strong contrasts within relatively short distances. This is, indeed, the case in the north-west quadrant of
the Peninsula, including Galicia, northern Portugal, the Cantabrian coastal
area, the northern Meseta and the Upper Ebro valley. There we can find a
wide range of geographical regions, from the flat semi-steppe areas of
Central Castile, with its hard continental climate and Mediterranean vegetation, to the green mountainous Cantabrian region, one of the most humid
areas of Europe, covered with green meadows and deciduous forests.
Without implying in the slightest an environmental determinism, it is
obvious that the population involved in the transition to the Neolithic had
to face very different conditions. Besides, the Mesolithic backgrounds and
degrees of exposure to external influences are very diverse. All this permits
us to predict great variability in the transitions to the Neolithic in a relatively restricted area (around 200,000 square km), thus allowing the populations involved to know each other, and to develop complex systems of
relationships.
This paper is a contribution to the research project El origen de las sociedades campesinas en
la fachada atlntica europea (HUM2004-06418-C02-00), granted by the Programa Nacional de
Humanidades del Plan Nacional de I D I (20042007) of the Spanish Government. I would
also like to thank my colleagues Jess Garca Gazlaz and Jess Sesma for allowing me to use
unpublished data from their research at Los Cascajos.
Pablo Arias
54
From another point of view, it is likely that the existence of natural barriers, such as the Cantabrian, Central and Iberian Cordilleras, frequently
reaching 2000 m above sea level or more, favoured the territorial behaviour
characteristic of Holocene groups.
In this paper I will present the available information on the late
Mesolithic and the early Neolithic in north-west Iberia (Fig. 1), and discuss
its significance when attempting to understand the processes of transition
from foraging to peasant societies.
THE UPPER EBRO VALLEY

With the present information, the most probable scenario relates the origin of
the Neolithic in this part of Europe to the expansion of the Mediterranean
Neolithic towards the interior. That gives a paramount importance to the
Ebro valley, one of the main routes of communication in the Iberian
Peninsula. Actually, within the area analysed in this paper, it is this region
Figure 1. Sites that have provided relevant information on the transition to the Neolithic in
north-west Iberia.
SOCIAL CHANGE IN NORTH-WEST IBERIA
55
alone that has provided assemblages that might be related to the earliest
phase of the Iberian Neolithic, identified archaeologically by the predominance of pottery decorated with impressions of the cockle Cerastoderma
edule (cardial ware). Despite the low representativeness of the collection, this
might be the case of the cave site of Pea Larga (Fernndez Eraso 1997),
where the earliest layer has provided 17 sherds of cardial pottery (out of 24
decorated sherds among 460 fragments: Fig. 2). Unfortunately, the only radiocarbon date for this context is too imprecise (I-15150: 6150 230 BP, corresponding to the intervals 55204540 cal BC (at 2 sigma) and 53204800 cal BC
(at 1 sigma).2 Besides, the part of the interval with a highest probability lies
Figure 2.
Sherd of cardial pottery from Pea Larga Cave (from Fernndez Eraso 1997).
All the radiocarbon dates cited in this paper have been calibrated according to the IntCal04
curve (Reimer et al. 2004), using the 5.0.1 revision of the CALIB program (Stuiver & Reimer
1993).
56
Pablo Arias
clearly below the chronological boundary between the earliest (real cardial)
Neolithic horizon and a later, more complex, phase when this kind of pottery
tends to be substituted by assemblages where other types of impressed and
incised decorations predominate: the so-called Epicardial and the Late
Cardial or Neolithic IB (around 5300 cal BC: Bernabeu 1999; 2002; JuanCabanilles & Mart 2002; Mestres & Martn 1996).
However, around 5200 cal BC, there is a network of Neolithic sites in the
Upper Ebro valley, including both the left and the right banks of the river
and even some valleys that run up towards the north. This seems to be shown
by the amazingly homogeneous radiocarbon dates from Atxoste, Cueva
Lbrega, Los Husos and Los Cascajos, corresponding to contexts with
Epicardial type assemblages that may be classified as really Neolithic, given
the high proportion of domestic animals in the faunal assemblages that have
been studied so far.
But the situation in this area at the end of the sixth millennium cal BC is
relatively complex. On the left bank of the river, which is the best researched,
a dense network of Mesolithic sites, located in rock-shelters, has been studied in recent years (Alday 2002). These have provided assemblages comparable with the Geometric Mesolithic of Mediterranean Spain. The role played
by the populations which are behind those assemblages in the Neolithisation
process has still not been determined exactly. Nevertheless, there are signs
suggesting phenomena of acculturation, such as the relative continuity of the
population (most of the early Neolithic sites in this area are located in places
where there are final Mesolithic occupations: Fuente Hoz, Mendandia,
Atxoste, La Pea de Maran, Kanpanoste Goikoa) and in some cases, it
appears that there is a certain continuity between the Mesolithic and
Neolithic stone tool assemblages (Alday 1999; Cava 1994).
However, the data provided by some early Neolithic sites suggest a certain
break or novelty, such as occurs at Pea Larga itself, Los Husos, Cueva
Lbrega or Los Cascajos. The latter is a particularly relevant site. The preliminary reports that have been published so far on this recently excavated
open air settlement (Garca Gazlaz & Sesma 1999; 2001; Pea et al. 2005a)
show a clear break with the Mesolithic tradition in funerary behaviour
(Fig. 3), lithic technology and settlement pattern. Looking for references in
the Mediterranean (mainly Catalonian) Neolithic seems to be the most
promising path to understand this site.
A particularly interesting case is that of Mendandia, a site located near
the main nucleus of Neolithic population at the end of the sixth millennium,
where a sequence with three levels containing pottery has been documented
(Alday 2005). These are dated respectively to about 6050 (III sup), 5500 (II)
and 5400 (I) cal BC. Although they have been described as Neolithic, those
contexts have yielded assemblages of a Mesolithic type and only wild species.
57
Figure 3. Early Neolithic burial at Los Cascajos. Photo: courtesy of Jess Garca Gazlaz and
Jess Sesma.
This suggests the possibility of the existence of long range contacts with the
Mediterranean coast that would have allowed new goods to reach these distant, but well communicated interior areas. This hypothesis seems to be confirmed by the presence at this and other Mesolithic sites of adornments made
from shells of Columbella rustica, coming from the Mediterranean (lvarez
2003) or the predominance of evaporitic flint from the middle Ebro Valley at
Los Husos (Fernndez Eraso et al. 2005).
The case of Mendandia is not so exceptional in the region as it might
seem to be at first sight. To the north-east, in Navarra, in the foothills of the
Pyrenees, there are several sixth millennium cal BC contexts that have been
attributed to the Neolithic simply because of the presence of some pottery
sherds (Abauntz layer c, Aizpea layer b, and Zatoya layer I). In fact, in none
of these is there any sign of agriculture or stock herding, while the industries,
except for the very scarce pottery, may be classified as Mesolithic. This suggests that, as in other areas of Atlantic Europe, we may be facing the
archaeological evidence of foragers who owned pottery, either because they
had learnt how to make it, or because they had acquired some vessels
through exchange. Indeed, all these sites have provided Columbella rustica
Pablo Arias
58
shells, both in layers with pottery and in the preceding strata accepted as
Mesolithic (lvarez 2003).
In this respect, we may wonder if the inter-relationship could not have
worked in both directions. An aspect that has not been sufficiently examined is the expansion of the Helwan technique in the manufacture of geometric microliths. This type of retouch is very characteristic of the early
Neolithic in the Ebro valley, and it also appears after the middle of the
sixth millennium cal BC at sites in Lower Aragon and Valencia. Generally,
this has been interpreted as the addition of another element in the local
Neolithic package, spread by the supposed colonisers coming from the
Mediterranean coast, together with domestic species and pottery. However,
there is evidence against this rather simplistic idea, as some examples of
this type of retouch have been found in Mesolithic contexts in the north
of the peninsula since the start of the sixth millennium cal BC, as well as
there being no logical relation between this particular technique in the
manufacture of projectiles and the Neolithic way of life. The hypothesis
may be proposed, although not yet tested, that this technique arose among
the Mesolithic groups in the western Pyrenees, perhaps derived from a type
that is not unusual in the area in the seventh millennium: the triangles with
inverse retouch on the short side, sometimes related to the Sonchamp
points (Cava 2001). If this were confirmed, it may be proposed that they
spread inversely, from the hunter-gatherers in the north to the first
Neolithic groups in the east of the Peninsula, following the same routes
that pottery, domestic species and Mediterranean shells took, but in the
opposite direction.
THE NORTHERN MESETA

One of the most significant advances in the knowledge of the Iberian
Neolithic in the last few years has been the documentation of what has been
called the Interior Neolithic (Fernndez-Posse 1980). Several research projects have been able to document a network of Neolithic settlements with
Epicardial type assemblages dated to the last third of the sixth millennium
cal BC. Some of these are located in caves, such as the classic example of
La Vaquera (Fig. 4) in Segovia (Estremera 2003), but most of them are open
air settlements, like the important sites of La Lmpara and La Revilla
del Campo in Soria (Kunst and Rojo 1999) or some contexts documented
in palaeosoils sealed by megalithic monuments, like La Velilla and
Quintanadueas. It is even probable that the start of the impressive flint
mining activity at Casa Montero, near Madrid, can be attributed to this
moment (Consuegra et al. 2004).
Figure 4.
59
Early Neolithic impressed pottery from La Vaquera (from Estremera 2003).
Unfortunately, the study of the Neolithisation of the Meseta is seriously

complicated by the almost complete absence of Mesolithic remains in the
interior of the Peninsula. This has made many researchers propose a model
of colonisation in a completely empty territory (Delibes de Castro &
Fernndez Manzano 2000; Estremera 2003; Kunst & Rojo 1999).
As myself and others have developed in more detail elsewhere (Arias et al.
2005), the use of negative arguments, like the ones used for this problem, is
very risky, especially when many areas have not been explored yet, and the
Pablo Arias
60
interior Mesolithic has a serious problem of archaeological visibility (there

are no clear criteria to assign decontextualised material to this period). In
addition, there are signs that indicate the presence of hunter-gatherers in the
area. As well as some sites with material that is probably Mesolithic (see
Arias et al. 2005 for a detailed analysis), there is certain indirect evidence,
such as some absolute dates that are difficult to attribute to Neolithic groups
or the presence of mixed traits in the early Neolithic of the Meseta.
CANTABRIAN SPAIN
Cantabrian Spain is one of the classic areas for Mesolithic studies in the
Iberian Peninsula. A dense network of sites is known, particularly on the
eastern coast of Asturias, where about a hundred shell middens belonging to
this period have been catalogued along some 35 km of coastline (Fano 1998).
However, the distribution of the main settlements, generally located 1 or 2
km inland from the present shore, and the palaeoeconomic information, suggest that they were not groups specialised in exploiting only the marine environment, but that they are an example of a broad spectrum economy, centred
on hunting and gathering on the coastal platform, complemented with fishing and collecting seafood, and hunting on nearby rocky hills (Arias 1999).
Some stable isotope data for coastal sites confirm this hypothesis, showing a
diet in which the intake of protein was distributed approximately equally
between land and marine food, as the d13C suggests, and the high values of
d15N indicating that the latter probably derive more from fish than from
invertebrates (Arias & Fano 2005).
From this point of view, there is a notable contrast between the isotopic
values at coastal sites and those of a well documented inland site: Los Canes,
a burial cave with three graves holding five individuals. Despite being only
11 km from the coast, the diet of its inhabitants appears to have come exclusively from terrestrial resources (Fig. 5). This is particularly interesting, in
that it confirms the existence of inland populations, which has been a frequent topic for discussion in local prehistory. Equally, the fact that they did
not exploit the nearby marine resources suggests a territorial behaviour for
these groups, which is consistent with the concentration of graves in the site.
The first evidence of the exploitation of domestic species in the area is
dated to the first half of the fifth millennium cal BC. Cattle bones associated
with impressed ware, similar to that from the Upper Ebro, found at the
cave site of Arenaza, have been dated to about 4900 cal BC (Arias & Altuna
1999). At another cave site, El Mirn, a grain of emmer (Triticum dicoccum)
has been dated to around 4400 cal BC (Gx-30910: 5550 40 BP; 44604340
cal BC) (Pea et al. 2005b; Pea et al. 2005a). It is interesting to point out that
Figure 5.
61
Stable isotopes values for Mesolithic and Neolithic sites in Cantabrian Spain.
both sites have yielded assemblages with high percentages of domestic

animals (7080%), which makes one question gradualist hypotheses, such
as myself and others have occasionally supported. However, the regional
archaeological record for the first half of the fifth millennium cal BC is very
complex. Together with those fully Neolithic sites, we find numerous contexts showing a total continuity with the Mesolithic, many of which show no
signs of domestic species, and even have possible evidence of intensification
in gathering, such as the presence of barnacles (Pollicipes cornucopia) in some
late middens. At the moment, it is not clear if this is merely a question of
62
Pablo Arias
logistic mobility (specialised settlements corresponding to groups of farmers

who continued hunting and gathering in certain places, as has been proposed
to explain some Neolithic contexts in the south-east of France: e.g. Binder
1991), or whether we are dealing with a Neolithisation in a mosaic pattern,
with groups of farmers and hunter-gatherers living at the same time in nearby
areas.
In any case, there is an appreciable time difference between the start of the
Neolithic in the region and in the neighbouring Upper Ebro (at least four
centuries: probably more). These two regions are close to one another, communication (especially in the Basque Country) is easy, and there are signs that
even in the Mesolithic there were contacts between the two areas. We can
point out, for example, the use of flint from the Ebro valley at some sites in
the Basque Country (Fernndez Eraso et al. 2005), the presence of marine
shells at several Mesolithic sites in the Upper Ebro (lvarez Fernndez 2006)
or the existence of technical and stylistic similarities between the assemblages
on both sides of the Cordillera (Arias 1991). Helwan technique is particularly
interesting in this respect. Some Mesolithic contexts dated to the sixth millennium cal BC, such as Los Canes, have provided microliths made with this
technique, characteristic of the Ebro valley Neolithic. This suggests that
there could be contacts between the hunter-gatherers of Cantabrian Spain
and the earliest farmers in the Upper Ebro, perhaps prolonging in time social
networks that already existed before the Neolithisation of the latter region.
This allows us to define the last centuries of the Mesolithic in Cantabrian
Spain as an example of societies in the availability phase proposed by
Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy (1986; see Zvelebil & Lillie 2000 for a more elaborated version of the model). And probably change reached these societies
through these networks, as the available evidence indicates a process of acculturation with a fundamentally indigenous base. The industrial features of the
first Neolithic in the Cantabrian Region display considerable continuity with
the local Mesolithic. There are also signs of continuity in the symbolic world,
as shown by the presence of Asturian picks, a typically Mesolithic tool, used
as a grave good in the Asturian burial of Molino de Gasparn, and also in
megalithic monuments probably dated to the second half of the fifth millennium cal BC (Arias & Fano 2003). Some singular items point in the same
direction, such as some painted cobble stones in early megalithic assemblages, apparently continuing a tradition in the regional Mesolithic (Arias
1991).
Two main lines of explanation have been followed to tackle the problem
of the causes of the Neolithisation of this area. One relates change with the
development of social complexity among the hunter-gatherers, and the other
links it to subsistence problems. It is not easy at the moment to respond to
this dilemma, although the evidence for the second line is somewhat more
63
solid. Despite some signs of social inequality, such as the differences in the
grave goods found in the burials of Los Canes, it does not seem that the
complex hunter-gatherers model can be applied to the Cantabrian Mesolithic.
Besides, for the moment we have no evidence for the diffusion of prestige
items or imported goods among these groups. In contrast, the clear signs of
dietary stress in the most recent skeleton from Los Canes (Mara Dolores
Garralda, pers. comm.), and the indirect evidence provided by the intensification in the gathering of sea food, or the territoriality itself, in a narrow
region, relatively poor in natural resources, where there seems to have been
considerable population density in the Mesolithic, all suggest that the system
could have been near its limits and that farming might have become a socially
acceptable solution.
GALICIA AND NORTHERN PORTUGAL

The archaeological information about the Neolithisation of the far northwest of the Peninsula, the Spanish region of Galicia and the former
Portuguese provinces of Beira Alta, Douro Litoral, Minho and Trs-osMontes e Alto Douro,3 is scarce and incomplete. In great part, this comes
from preservation problems, related to the acidity of the soils which makes
the fossilisation of archaeological materials difficult, and it is also probably
due, in the case of coastal areas, to structural phenomena that have increased
the effect of the Flandrian transgression.
The information about the Mesolithic is particularly precarious. In Galicia
some very poor sites are known in inland areas like Serra do Xistral or O
Bocelo, and perhaps some of the problematic surface finds of lithic materials
in coastal areas can be attributed to this period. The situation in the north of
Portugal is a little better, as some sites have been studied in recent years, such
as the open air settlement at Prazo (Trs-os-Montes: Monteiro-Rodrigues
2000; Monteiro-Rodrigues & Angelucci 2004), with quartz tools associated
with problematic sixth millennium cal BC dates (see Zilhos comments in
Carvalho 2003), or the rock shelter of Buraco de Pala (Sanches 1997). We may
add some possible indirect evidence of the activity of the hunter-gatherer
groups, like some changes recorded in pollen diagrams for Serra do Xistral in
the second half of the seventh millennium cal BC (Ramil 1993).
The oldest evidence for the presence of Neolithic groups is probably provided by a series of sites in the area of Beira Alta, like Buraco da Moura de
So Romo or Penedo da Penha (Valera 2005). Although so far no absolute
3
In the current administrative division of Portugal, that corresponds, approximately, to the

districts of Viana do Castelo, Braga, Porto, Vila Real, Bragana, Guarda, Viseu and Aveiro.
64
Pablo Arias
dates have been published, the characteristic industries (pottery with conical
basis and impressed and incised designs comparable with the so-called cultura de las cuevas in the Meseta and Andalucia, almagra ware) suggest that
these sites correspond to the last third of the sixth millennium cal BC or the
start of the fifth, which is not surprising if we note their proximity to the
well known nucleus of Neolithic population in the limestone massif of
Estremadura. The radiocarbon date for the site of Quinta de Assentada (Sac1774: 5870 110 BP; 50004490 cal BC), with undecorated spherical-shaped
pottery that Valera (2005) attributes to a later phase of the local Neolithic,
might confirm this hypothesis.
To the north of the river Douro, there is no clear sign of the Neolithic
until c. 4750 cal BC, which is the date for contexts with pottery and domesticated vegetable or animal species at Buraco de Pala and Prazo. The
Neolithisation process, however, is not clear. The researchers who excavated
these sites, where Neolithic levels cover Mesolithic strata, interpret some continuity in settlement patterns and lithic technology as possible evidence for
processes of change within the local hunter-gatherer communities (MonteiroRodrigues 2000; Sanches 2003). However, recent studies question this interpretation, arguing that the lithic assemblages of those sites are highly
dependent on the limitations of the local raw material (Carvalho 2003). In
any case, the change seems to have been relatively rapid, if we consider the
high percentages of domesticated species (in particular, the remains of barley, wheat and pulses at Buraco da Pala: Fig. 6), which casts doubts on
extremely gradualist models like the one recently proposed by Jorge (1999).
Some data obtained further to the north are more difficult to interpret
at the moment. Among these we can point out the presence of impressed
pottery at coastal sites in the south of Galicia, like A Cunchosa, O
Regueirio or Lavaps, which has been linked with a possible maritime diffusion of the early Neolithic from central Portugal, and even with impressed
types on the French Atlantic coast (Surez Otero 1997). Unfortunately, the
context of this pottery is not well defined and in fact in some cases it is not
clear whether it can be related to later, Chalcolithic, decorated pottery from
the same sites. In fact, the oldest well documented contexts with pottery in
Galicia, the sites of Porto dos Valos and A Gndara, dated to the second
half of the fifth millennium cal BC, have only provided undecorated sherds
(Prieto 2005).
Equally problematic is the identification of cereal pollen associated with
sixth millennium cal BC dates, such as those from palaeosoils documented
below several Galician dolmens (Barbanza, As Rozas, Parxubeira, and As
Pereiras) or the questionable site of O Reiro, where a date of c. 5500 cal BC
has been obtained for a context with pottery, wild mammals, remains of fish
and cereal pollen (Ramil 1973). The stratigraphical association of all these
Figure 6.
65
Charred seeds of fava bean (Vicia faba) from Buraco da Pala (from Sanches 1997).
elements is not sufficiently clear, so the presence of agriculture or pottery

cannot be proven for such an early date in the far north-west of the
Peninsula.
THE REGIONAL SEQUENCE: A PROPOSAL FOR THE

TRANSITION TO THE NEOLITHIC IN NORTH-WEST IBERIA
In conclusion, the north-west of the Iberian Peninsula provides, in a
restricted area, a huge variety of Neolithisation processes, probably interrelated, on an unequal background of Mesolithic populations, with great
contrast between densely populated areas, such as the Cantabrian coast or
the Upper Ebro, and others with lower densities.
It is precisely in one of these densely populated areas where the first contacts appear to have happened. The evidence from Mendandia suggests that,
about 5500 cal BC, not much later than the time when the first Neolithic
groups were established on the Mediterranean coast, the first pottery could
have reached the Upper Ebro. The earliest pots were probably no more than
attractive prestige goods, which reached this area through exchange networks, whose existence is proved by the presence of Mediterranean shells in
the local Mesolithic.
66
Pablo Arias
However, for a long time, it is not likely that frequent contacts took place.
During the second third of the sixth millennium cal BC, the evidence is so
scarce that we can only talk of a very limited relationship. The situation
changes after 5300/5200 cal BC. At this time there is a rapid advance of the
agricultural frontier in the Ebro valley and the Meseta, and perhaps also in
central Portugal. It is likely that in some cases there was a true colonisation
by groups coming from the east or the south, as suggested by settlements like
La Lmpara, Los Cascajos and perhaps the sites in Beira. However, the
Mesolithic groups did not remain passive. They are probably responsible for
some Neolithic contexts with signs of continuity, and of some of the peculiarities of the local Neolithic. It is more than likely that the establishment of
Neolithic groups in the axis of the Ebro Valley intensified the contacts with
hunter-gatherer groups in the surrounding area. These relationships would
explain the proliferation of pottery in Mesolithic sites in the foothills of the
Pyrenees. It is also possible that there were some types of contacts with
groups in Cantabrian Spain, although pottery was not adopted, either
because the contacts were more sporadic or because there was greater social
resistance among these societies.
In the first half of the fifth millennium cal BC, the Neolithisation of the
north-west of the Peninsula was completed with the adoption of farming in
the Cantabrian region, the north of Portugal and perhaps Galicia. It appears
that this was carried out basically by the hunter-gatherer groups. Thus, it
seems that colonisation was restricted to ecologically more favourable areas,
such as the Ebro Valley, whereas in regions where it was more difficult to
adapt to the new ways of life, we should look at the local populations as the
most likely responsible for the change. In any case, the most recent evidence
suggests that it was a relatively rapid process, although the complexity of the
situation in the Cantabrian region still has not been explained.
Finally, in the second half of the fifth millennium cal BC, a most important change from the symbolic and social point of view happens: the building of the earliest megalithic monuments. Megaliths present some very
interesting features in this part of the Iberian Peninsula. The earliest structures appear practically simultaneously in all the regions we have studied in
this paper, about 4300 cal BC, and a true explosion in the number of monuments occurs around 40003900 cal BC (Arias et al. 2006; Scarre et al. 2003).
However, this apparent uniformity hides a great variety. In reality, what unifies this phenomenon is simply the notion of monumentality and probably of
funeral collectiveness. But, if we examine the concrete solutions, from both
the architectonic and the grave goods points of view, there are huge differences between, on the one hand, Galicia and the north of Portugal, on the
other, Cantabrian Spain, and finally the Meseta and Upper Ebro (Fig. 7).
This suggests that the arrival of megaliths cannot be explained as a simple
67
Figure 7. Examples of megaliths from Galicia (1. Casa dos Mouros, La Corua), the
Cantabrian Region (2. Cantos Huecos, Cantabria) and the Upper Ebro valley (3. La Cabaa,
Burgos).
68
Pablo Arias
case of diffusion, and much less, as has traditionally been suggested, as a consequence of colonisation. In reality, what spread, in a simultaneous, almost
explosive, way was an idea, a concept, and each society interpreted it in its
own way, incorporating elements of its own cultural background and its own
history. From this point of view, the megaliths can be seen as the end point
of the process of deep social change that we call Neolithisation: a process of
variable geometry in which the last Mesolithic societies in the north-west of
the Peninsula were transformed to give birth to a new world.
REFERENCES
ALDAY, A. 1999. Dudas, manipulaciones y certezas para el Mesoneoltico vasco. Zephyrus 52,
12972.
ALDAY, A. 2002. Las unidades industriales mesolticas en la Alta-Media Cuenca del Ebro.
Complutum 13, 1950.
ALDAY, A. 2005. El campamento prehistrico de Mendandia: Ocupaciones mesolticas y neolticas entre el 8500 y el 6400 b.p. Vitoria: Diputacin Foral de lava.
LVAREZ FERNNDEZ, E. 2003. Die Reise der Schnecke Columbella rustica whrend
des Mesolithikums und zu Beginn des Neolithikums in Europa. Archeologisches
Korrespondenzblatt 33, 15766.
LVAREZ FERNNDEZ, E. 2006. Los objetos de adorno-colgantes del Paleoltico Superior y
del Mesoltico en la Cornisa Cantbrica y en el valle del Ebro. Salamanca: Universidad de
Salamanca (col. Vtor, 195).
ARIAS, P. 1991. De cazadores a campesinos. La transicin al Neoltico en la regin cantbrica.
Santander: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cantabria.
ARIAS, P. 1999. The origins of the Neolithic along the Atlantic coast of continental Europe: a
survey. Journal of World Prehistory 13, 40364.
ARIAS, P. & ALTUNA, J. 1999. Nuevas dataciones absolutas para el Neoltico de la cueva de
Arenaza (Bizkaia). Munibe (Antropologia-Arkeologia) 51, 16171.
ARIAS, P., ARMENDARIZ, A. & TEIRA, L. C. 2006. The megalithic complex in Cantabrian
Spain. In A. A. Rodrguez Casal (ed.), Le Mgalithisme Atlantique/The Atlantic Megaliths:
Acts of the XIVth UISPP Congress. University of Lige, Belgium, 28 September 2001.
Symposium 9.4, 1129. Oxford: Archaeopress (British Archaeological Reports S1521).
ARIAS, P., CERRILLO, E. & GMEZ PELLN, E. 2005. A view from the edges: the
Mesolithic settlement of the interior areas of the Iberian Peninsula reconsidered. Paper
presented at the 7th International Conference on The Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast, 29 August
2 September 2005.
ARIAS, P. & FANO, M. A. 2003. Shell middens and megaliths: Mesolithic funerary contexts in
Cantabrian Spain and their relation to the Neolithic. In G. Burenhult (ed.), Stones and bones.
Formal disposal of the dead in Atlantic Europe during the Mesolithic-Neolithic interface
60003000 BC. Archaeological Conference in Honour of the Late Professor Michael J. OKelly.
Proceedings of the Stones and Bones Conference in Sligo, Ireland, May 15, 2002, 14566.
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 1201.
ARIAS, P. & FANO, M. A. 2005. Le rle des ressources marines dans le Msolithique de la
rgionb Cantabrique (Espagne): Lapport des isotopes stables. In G. Marchand & A. Tresset
(eds), Unit et diversit des processus de nolithisation sur la faade atlantique de lEurope
(6e4e millnaires avant J.-C. Table Ronde de Nantes 2627 avril 2002, 17388. Paris: Socit
Prhistorique Franaise (Mmoire 36).
69
BERNABEU, J. 1999. Pots, symbols and territories: the archaeological context of the neolihisation in Mediterranean Spain. Documenta Praehistorica 26, 10119.
BERNABEU, J. 2002. The social and symbolic context of Neolithization. In E. Badal,
J. Bernabeu & B. Mart (eds), El paisaje en el Neoltico mediterrneo, 20933. Valencia:
Universitat de Valncia (Saguntum extra 5).
BINDER, D. 1991. Une conomie de chasse au Nolithique ancien: La grotte Lombard SaintVallier-de-Thiey (Alpes-Maritimes). Paris: CNRS.
CARVALHO, A. F. 2003. A emergncia do Neoltico no actual territrio portugus: pressupostos
tericos, modelos interpretativos e a evidncia emprica. O Arquelogo Portugus, srie IV, 21,
65150.
CAVA, A. 1994. El Mesoltico en la cuenca del Ebro. Estado de la cuestin. Zephyrus 47, 6591.
CAVA, A. 2001. La industria ltica. In I. Barandiarn & A. Cava (eds), Cazadores-recolectores
en el Pirineo navarro: El sitio de Aizpea entre 8.000 y 6.000 aos antes de ahora, 63147.
Vitoria: Universidad del Pas Vasco.
CONSUEGRA, S., GALLEGO, M. M. & CASTAEDA, N. 2004. Minera neoltica de slex
de Casa Montero (Viclvaro, Madrid). Trabajos de Prehistoria 61/2, 12740.
DELIBES, G. & FERNNDEZ MANZANO, J. 2000. La trayectoria cultural de la Prehistoria
reciente (64002500 BP) en la Submeseta Norte espaola. In P. Bueno, J. L. Cardoso,
M. Daz-Andreu, V. Hurtado, J. Oliveira, S. O. Jorge & V. O. Jorge (eds), Pr-histria recente
da Pennsula Ibrica. 3 Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular. Actas, vol. IV, 95122. Porto:
ADECAP.
ESTREMERA, M. S. 2003. Primeros agricultores y ganaderos en la Meseta Norte: el Neoltico
de la Cueva de La Vaquera (Torreiglesias, Segovia). Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y Len.
FANO, M. A. 1998. El Hbitat Mesoltico en el Cantbrico Occidental. Transformaciones
Ambientales y Medio Fsico durante el Holoceno Antiguo. Oxford: British Archaeological
Reports International Series 732.
FERNNDEZ ERASO, J. 1997. Excavaciones en el abrigo de Pea Larga (Cripn-Alava).
Vitoria: Diputacin Foral de lava.
FERNNDEZ ERASO, J., MUJIKA, J. A. & TARRIO, A. 2005. Relaciones entre la Cornisa
Cantbrica y el valle del Ebro durante los inicios del Neoltico en el Pas Vasco. In P. Arias,
R. Ontan & C. Garca-Monc (eds), III Congreso del Neoltico en la Pennsula Ibrica,
2019. Santander: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cantabria (Monografas
del Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistricas de Cantabria 1).
FERNNDEZ-POSSE, M. D. 1980. Los materiales de la cueva del Aire de Patones (Madrid).
Noticiario Arqueolgico Hispnico 10, 3964.
GARCA GAZLAZ, J. & SESMA, J. 1999. Talleres de slex versus lugares de habitacin. Los
Cascajos (Los Arcos, Navarra), un ejemplo de neolitizacin en el Alto Valle del Ebro. In
J. Bernabeu & T. Orozco (eds), Actes del II Congrs del Neoltic a la Pennsula Ibrica, 34350.
Valencia: Universitat de Valncia (Saguntum extra 2).
GARCA GAZLAZ, J. & SESMA, J. 2001. Los Cascajos (Los Arcos, Navarra). Intervenciones
19961999. Trabajos de Arqueologa Navarra 15, 299306.
JORGE, S. O. 1999. Domesticar a terra. As primeiras comunidades agrrias em territrio
portugus. Lisboa: Gradiva.
JUAN-CABANILLES, J. & MART, B. 2002. Poblamiento y procesos culturales en la Pennsula
Ibrica del VII al V milenio A. C. (80005500 BP): Una cartografa de la neolitizacin. In
E. Badal, J. Bernabeu & B. Mart (eds), El paisaje en el Neoltico mediterrneo, 4587.
Valencia: Universitat de Valncia (Saguntum extra 5).
KUNST, M. & ROJO, M. 1999. El Valle de Ambrona: un ejemplo de la primera colonizacin
neoltica de las tierras del interior peninsular. In J. Bernabeu & T. Orozco (eds), Actes del II
Congrs del Neoltic a la Pennsula Ibrica, 25970. Valencia: Universitat de Valncia
(Saguntum extra 2).
70
Pablo Arias
MESTRES, J. S. & MARTN, A. 1996. Calibracin de las fechas radiocarbnicas y su contribucin al estudio del Neoltico cataln. In I Congrs del Neoltic a la Pennsula Ibrica,
791803. Gav: Museu de Gav.
MONTEIRO-RODRIGUES, S. 2000. A estao neoltica do Prazo (Freixo de Numo Norte
de Portugal) no contexto do Neoltico Antigo do Noroeste peninsular. Algumas consideraes preliminares. In P. Arias, P. Bueno, D. Cruz, J. X. Enrquez, J. de Oliveira &
M. J. Sanches (eds), 3 Congresso de Arqueologa Peninsular. Actas. Vol. 3: Neolitizao e
megalitismo da Pennsula Ibrica, 14980. Porto: ADECAP.
MONTEIRO-RODRIGUES, S. & ANGELUCCI, D. E. 2004. New data on the stratigraphy
and chronology of the prehistoric site of Prazo (Freixo de Numo). Revista Portuguesa de
Arqueologia 7, 3960.
PEA, L., ZAPATA, L., GARCA GAZLAZ, J., GONZLEZ MORALES, M. R., SESMA,
J. & STRAUS, L. G. 2005a. The spread of agriculture in northern Iberia: new archaeobotanical data from El Mirn cave (Cantabria) and the open-air site of Los Cascajos
(Navarra). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 14, 26878.
PEA, L., ZAPATA, L., IRIARTE, M. J., GONZLEZ MORALES, M. R. & STRAUS, L. G.
2005b. The oldest agriculture in northern Atlantic Spain: new evidence from El Mirn Cave
(Ramales de la Victoria, Cantabria). Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 57987.
PRIETO, M. P. 2005. La cermica neoltica en Galicia. Estudio de sntesis desde la perspectiva
de la Arqueologa del Paisaje. In P. Arias, R. Ontan & C. Garca-Monc (eds), III
Congreso del Neoltico en la Pennsula Ibrica, 33748. Santander: Servicio de Publicaciones
de la Universidad de Cantabria (Monografas del Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones
Prehistricas de Cantabria 1).
RAMIL, J. M. 1973. Paradero de Reiro. Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos 28, 84, 2331.
RAMIL, P. 1993. Evolucin climtica e historia de la vegetacin durante el Pleistoceno Superior
y el Holoceno en las regiones montaosas del Noroeste Ibrico. In A. Prez, L. Guitin &
P. Ramil (eds), La evolucin del paisaje en las montaas del entorno de los caminos jacobeos,
2560. Santiago de Compostela: Xunta de Galicia.
REIMER, P. J., BAILLIE, M. G. L., BARD, E., BAYLISS, A., BECK, J. W., BERTRAND,
C. J. H., BLACKWELL, P. G., BUCK, C. E., BURR, G. S., CUTLER, K. B., DAMON,
P. E., EDWARDS, R. L., FAIRBANKS, R. G., FRIEDRICH, M., GUILDERSON, T. P.,
HOGG, A. G., HUGHEN, K. A., KROMER, B., MCCORMAC, F. G., MANNING, S. W.,
RAMSEY, C. B., REIMER, R. W., REMMELE, S., SOUTHON, J. R., STUIVER, M.,
TALAMO, S., TAYLOR, F. W., VAN DER PLICHT, J. & WEYHENMEYER, C. E. 2004.
IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 026 kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46/3, 102958.
SANCHES, M. J. 1997. Pr-histria recente de Trs-os-Montes e Alto Douro: O abrigo do Buraco
da Pala (Mirandela) no contexto regional. Porto: Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e
Etnologia.
SANCHES, M. J. 2003. Sobre a ocupao do Neoltico inicial no Norte de Portugal. In V. S.
Gonalves (ed.), Muita gente poucas antas? Origens, espaos e contextos do Megalitismo.
Actas do II Colquio Internacional sobre Megalitismo, 15579. Lisboa: Instituto Portugus de
Arqueologia.
SCARRE, C., ARIAS, P., BURENHULT, G., FANO, M. A., OOSTERBEEK, L., SCHULTING, R.,
SHERIDAN, A. & WHITTLE, A. 2003. Megalithic chronologies. In G. Burenhult (ed.),
Stones and bones. Formal disposal of the dead in Atlantic Europe during the MesolithicNeolithic interface 60003000 BC. Archaeological conference in honour of the late Professor
Michael J. OKelly. Proceedings of the stones and bones conference in Sligo, Ireland, May 15,
2002, 65111. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 1201.
STUIVER, M. & REIMER, P. J. 1993. Extended 14C data base and revised CALIB 3.0 14C age
calibration program. Radiocarbon 35/1, 21530.
SUREZ OTERO, J. 1997. Del yacimiento de A Cunchosa al Neoltico en Galicia. Primera
aproximacin al contexto cultural de la aparicin del megalitismo en Galicia. In
71
A. Rodrguez Casal (ed.), O Neoltico Atlntico e as orixes do megalitismo, 485506. Santiago

de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.
VALERA, A. C. 2005. Problemas da Neolitizao na bacia interior do Mondego. In P. Arias,
R. Ontan & C. Garca-Monc (eds), III Congreso del Neoltico en la Pennsula Ibrica,
94555. Santander: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cantabria (Monografas
del Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistricas de Cantabria 1).
M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in transition: Mesolithic societies of temperate Eurasia and their
Beyond the models:

Neolithisation in Central Europe
DETLEF GRONENBORN
RESEARCH BY BRITISH AND AMERICAN SCHOLARS on the transition to farming in Central Europe has resulted in a number of models which have been
viewed with continuous scepticism in Central Europe. Contrary to the often
generalised Anglo-American approaches, particularistic traditions, based
methodologically and theoretically on culture history and environmental
archaeology, have continued, notably in the German-speaking countries but
also in France. These have been substantiated by an ever increasing body of
meticulously collected detailed data.
This ongoing research by a variety of disciplines on the question of
the transition to farming in Central Europe, notably in the western parts
along the Rhine valley, has by now resulted in a complex and differentiated picture of the so-called process of Neolithisation. This process began
during the latter half of the seventh millennium cal BC, then experienced
a major shift with the expansion of the Linear Pottery Culture (LBK),
and ended in the mid-fifth millennium cal BC. During these two thousand
years a multi-facetted combination of migrations, adaptations and acculturations, together with socio-political cycling, led to the fundamental
transformation of Central European societies from segmented tribes to
emergent complex chiefdoms. The trajectories were triggered by external
parameters like climatic fluctuations and internal factors such as human
agency.
A SLIGHTLY POLEMICAL INTRODUCTION

The emergence of farming in the Near East and its spread to Europe is one
of the most dramatic and significant processes of economic, social and political change in the history of modern humans. It is therefore unsurprising
that this period has received continuous and wide attention in the scholarly
74
Detlef Gronenborn
world; notably English-speaking researchers have often taken broad, indeed

global, perspectives.
After the early studies by the American geologist Raphael Pumpelly
(1908) it was Vere Gordon Childe in his many and diverse works (e.g. Childe
1929) who had studied the spread of farming to Europe. Childes interpretation of the expansion had been very influential in the English-speaking world
where scenarios had been propagated which saw this period of technical and
socio-political innovation connected to massive migration processes. These
hypotheses were to be substantiated by genetic studies; well known are the
works of Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (1984), later Chikhi et al. (2002),
and of course Renfrew (1987; 1996), who had added a linguistic aspect to the
discussions. This migrationist position is apparently still shared by a number of American scholars (e.g. Bogucki 2003), while in the United Kingdom
the tide has changed and post-processual archaeologies have resulted in indigenist standpoints (e.g. Whittle 1996). Only a few UK-based scholars,
notably Renfrew himself, continued to adhere to the idea of migration: The
model proposed by Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza seemed to me a very
compelling one [. . .] for its simplicity and its explicit nature. (Renfrew 2003,
328). In most of these studies, regardless whether migrationist or indigenist,
the Linear Pottery Culture (LBK) played a major role as the conveyor belt of
farmingand, in a way, civilisationto temperate Europe.
Recently, a number of scholars in the English-speaking world have taken
an intermediate position in which both migration and acculturation play a
role. Renfrew (2002, 11) has adjusted his position, and referring to Central
Europe he writes: . . .imagine the farming population becoming established
in one of these cells before pioneers move on to the next cell or region, having developed the further adaptive changes in farming techniques. . . . The
pattern is then one of numerous, successive stages, in each of which the population grows to a certain level over a period of several generations before the
next stage is colonised. Shortly thereafter Zvelebil (2004, 199) admitted: In
1986 I was convinced that the LBK culture was generated principally by
demic diffusion of intrusive farmers from the south-east. My understanding
of the problem has now changed. . .The Linear Pottery Culture has many
originsand we should celebrate its cultural and genetic diversity.
These statements sounded familiar to Central European archaeologists;
this was exactly the research agenda which had dominated on the continent
for decades. Contrary to the more general theoretical declarations published
by British and American researchers, prehistorians in Central Europe had for
long taken a particularistic and material-analyses-based standpoint (Scharl
2004). Beginning with Klopffleisch (1884), 1imek (1914) and Palliardi (1914),
continuous studies on Early Neolithic material culture allowed the construction of highly differentiated typo-chronological schemes, which served as
NEOLITHISATION IN CENTRAL EUROPE
75
fine-grained scales for further analyses of LBK emergence, expansion and

decline. One of the most notable breakthroughs were the studies of Quitta
(1960; 1964) who, following Neustupny (1956), not only defined the earliest
phase of the Linear Pottery Culture but also suggested the first differentiated
model of LBK emergence and expansion (Quitta 1960). Slightly later, Quitta
(1964) explained the sudden appearance of earliest LBK sites, with small
groups of settlers who would have left the Moravian and Lower Austrian core
area of LBK origin and would have migrated in two streams towards the
west. Thus, 40 years before Zvelebil (Zvelebil & Lillie 2000) had adopted the
leap-frog model for LBK expansion, Quitta had formulated the research
agenda for Central European archaeology and had sketched the step-wise
colonisation of circumscribed biotopes suitable for rain-fed cereal-based
farming. Admittedly, Central European Neolithic archaeology has also had
its brief yet hefty migrationist-diffusionist debate (Kind 1998; Tillmann
1993), but nowadays an intermediate scenario is preferred by the majority of
researchers closely acquainted with Early Neolithic archaeology. Hence, from
a continental European perspective, the ongoing debate in the Englishspeaking archaeology and genetics world (e.g. Balter 2005; Richards 2003) is
a somewhat curious phenomenon.
THE NEOLITHIC BEFORE THE NEOLITHIC

Traditional chronology charts of the Neolithic see the transition to farming
for Central Europe somewhere in the earlier to middle sixth millennium
cal BC. However, palaeobotanical work undertaken during the 1990s
(Beckmann 2004; Erny-Rodmann et al. 1997) has resulted in the resurrection of hypotheses of an earlier onset of attempts of cereal cultivation during a period traditionally called the Late Mesolithic and characterised by
trapezes and regular blades (Clark 1958; 1980; Gehlen & Schn 2003; 2005;
Taute 1973/74). This new style in lithics arrived in continental Europe
between 7000 and 6700 cal BC (Gronenborn 1997b) with a possible retardation phase of several hundred years towards the North (Bokelmann 1999).
The origins of regular blades and trapezes appear to lie somewhere in
Central Asia and might have arrived in Europe via the south Russian steppe
zones (Gronenborn 1997a). It is interesting to note that this technological
change came after a period of climatic unrest, which is currently only visible in the Greenland ice cores and the oxygen isotope ratios inferred from
deep-lake ostracods from the Ammersee in Bavaria (von Grafenstein et al.
1999). This Early-Holocene-Event (EHE) appears to have set in around
7500 to 7300 cal BC (Fig. 1) and may be correlated with the ice-raftingdetritus-event 6, one of the cooling cycles which also punctuated the
Figure 1. Cooling cycles of the Holocene with the period of Neolithisation. A: Holocene Cooling Cycles, proxy data: d18O GISP2 (Alley et al. 1997;
Grootes et al. 1993; Meese et al. 1997; Stuiver et al. 1995), d18O Ammersee (von Grafenstein et al. 1999), Cold Events Alps (Haas et al. 1998), Main river
oak growth anomalies and deposition rate (Spurk et al. 2002), ice rafting detritus drift ice index (Bond et al. 2001), IRD events (Bond et al. 2001, Heiri et
al. 2004). B: Period of Neolithisation (grey shading in chronology bar, LH La Hoguette). C: LBK chronology and climate fluctuations (for data refer to
Strien & Gronenborn 2005).
76
Detlef Gronenborn
77
Holocene climate optimum (Bond et al. 2001; Heiri et al. 2004). Whatever
may have been the effects of this fluctuation, shortly thereafter Continental
Europe experienced a major shift in lithic technology unparalleled in previous or following periods. Equally in temporal proximity to this period of
climatic unrest appeared the first farming settlements in south-eastern
Europe (Efstratiou et al. 2004; Perls 2001), and shortly thereafter the
earliest cereal-type pollen in Central Europe was associated with Plantago
lanceolata at the Soppensee in Switzerland (Lotter 1999). Throughout the
seventh millennium cal BC evidence for cereal-type pollen is present at various locations throughout Central and Western Europe (Beckmann 2004;
Erny-Rodmann et al. 1997; Gehlen & Schn 2003; Visset et al. 2002; Zapata
et al. 2004). These indications, albeit sparse and still debated (Behre 2007),
have inspired Jeunesse (2003) to replace the term Late Mesolithic with
Nolithique Initial for Central Europe. It may then be permissible to postulate that the expansion of farming to the European continent was triggered
by a climatically unfavourable period during the later eighth millennium cal
BC; equally the rapid spread of the blade-and-trapeze industries may have
been initiated by this event. The following seventh millennium cal BC, at
least in southern Central Europe, may then be considered as an opening
phase of the Neolithisation process (Fig. 1).
LBK ORIGINS AND EARLY EXPANSION

Following Neustupny (1956) and Quitta (1960), the LBK emerged in presentday western Hungary in the course of culture contact between a yet
unknown population of hunter-gatherers, the more southern Starcevo-KrsCris (SKC) groups and later early Vinca. This core territory may also be visible in the distribution area of Transdanubian radiolarites, among them the
so-called Szentgl variant, in Mesolithic assemblages (Fig. 2a). The internal
chronology of this process of culture transfer and redefinition is still debated
in its details (e.g. Bnffy 2004; Kalicz 1995; Lenneis & Stadler 2002; Pavk
2004; Whittle et al. 2002), but the general scenario of a regional origin of the
LBK is still acceptable to most Central European researchers. Clearly, contrary to what many earlier linguistic and genetic studies appear to suggest
(e.g. Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza 1984; Bellwood 2005; Chikhi et al. 2002;
Renfrew 1996), most continent-based archaeologists have never considered
any notable population expansions across the Balkanic-Central European
border. Also, recent ancient mtDNA evidence certainly does not contradict
the hypothesis of an emergence of the LBK within a local population in
Transdanubia and/or south-west Slovakia, and the expansion from these
territories towards the west and north-east (Haak et al. 2005).
78
Detlef Gronenborn
Figure 2. Development of distribution system of Transdanubian radiolarites with extension of

earliest LBK. A: Mesolithic (after Mateiciucov 2003; 2004); B: Earliest LBK (after Gronenborn
1999; Mateiciucov 2003; 2004).
79
Both the LBK and its eastern Carpathian Basin counterpart, the Alfld
Linear Pottery (AVK), could be materially visible representations of two
different socio-political entitiesmaybe tribes in traditional terminology
(Fowles 2002; Wenskus 1961)of which the western one was forced toor
had chosento expand. The first migration routes become visible through
the expanding network of Transdanubian radiolarites (Fig. 2b) and they
followed Late Mesolithic exchange routes, at least towards the west
(Gronenborn 1994; 1999, 1302; Mateiciucov 2004). What exactly initiated
this expansion is as yet unknown. Petrasch (2001) considers an enormous
population growth but does not take regional contacts and influx of local
hunter-gatherers in LBK societies into account. A possible link with the
eruption of Mount Mazama in Oregon, one of the largest volcanic eruptions
during the Holocene, has been suggested by Strien and Gronenborn (2005)
but is, of course, only speculation. The greatest problem is the uncertain date
of LBK emergence (Bnffy 2004; Pavk 2004) but the fifty-seventh century
cal BC is a good candidate.
In any case, the furthest extension of the LBK I was reached by the midsixth millennium cal BC (Fig. 2b); the loess regions were covered with widely
dispersed but tightly connected hamlets and villages, which served as the foci
of communication with local hunter-gatherers and hunter-gatherer/pastoralists in the west. Contact between immigrant farmers and local populations is
evident from microliths of non-LBK traditions on earliest LBK sites which
vary from region to region, particularly along the western margins but also in
Bavaria (Gronenborn 1999, 151, fig. 8; 2005).
The western margin of the earliest LBK is rather well researched as far as
contacts between immigrant farmers and local pastoralists and huntergatherers are concerned (e.g. Gronenborn 1990; 1999; Kind 1997; Jeunesse
2000; Jeunesse & Winter 1998; Strien 2000). This is, certainly, also due to
the fact that these contacts are archaeologically much more visible since
the local groups used potteryLa Hoguette, Limburg, and the socalled Begleitkeramikwhich is easily distinguishable from the LBK.
Bruchenbrcken is a site which has become widely known for its evidence of
Mesolithic-Neolithic contacts; data both from the lithic, as well as the
ceramic assemblages, indicate intensive interaction between people manufacturing LBK and those manufacturing La Hoguette ware (Gronenborn 1990;
2005; Lning et al. 1989). Traditionally, the manufacturers of the former have
been interpreted as the farmers of Transdanubian origin; the latter would be
pastoralists and hunter-gatherers of possibly local ancestry with cultural
links to southern France (Jeunesse 2000). A lithic technology foreign to
earliest LBK sites further east and carried out on Maas valley raw materials indicates that male herder/hunter-gatherers worked in the village
(Gronenborn 1997a, 7780). Furthermore, mineralogical analyses of both
80
Detlef Gronenborn
LBK and La Hoguette wares from Bruchenbrcken show that vessels of

either ceramic tradition were manufactured out of local clay; hence also
women should have lived and worked together (Eisenhauer 2003, 327; and
pers. comm.). This supports the evidence from stable isotope analyses also
discussed further below (Bentley et al. 2002; 2003; Bentley, this volume). At
least during the earliest and earlier LBK whole groups lived and worked side
by side in what, from a coarser perspective, appear to be LBK villages.
Little is known about the economy of the manufacturers of La Hoguette
pottery. Only the site of Stuttgart Bad-Cannstatt has revealed some aspects
(Brunnacker et al. 1967; Kalis et al. 2001; Meurers-Balke & Kalis 2001).
Apparently the location was visited by a small group of herder/huntergatherers during the spring and fall of the years between 5480 and 5210 cal
BC (Meurers-Balke & Kalis 2001, 634). This group hunted a variety of animals such as roe deer and red deer, aurochs, wild boar and hare but also
herded sheep/goats. An earlier excavation had produced possible evidence of
cattle (Brunnacker et al. 1967) but the recent re-examination of the site failed
to substantiate this (Arie J. Kalis, pers. comm.). Wheat pollen indicates the
processing of cereals at or near the site, but the temporal proximity to earliest LBK settlements in the region would allow for possible exchanges with
farming communities, and hence it is unclear whether the herders also grew
wheat themselves (Strien & Tillmann 2001).
La Hoguette pottery disappears during the Flomborn phase east of the
Rhine (Lning et al. 1989; Strien 2000), but certain traces of the pastoralists
remain visible in the archaeological record such as triangular points and local
elongated trapezes, but also the raw material networks of Maas Valley flint
or chert from the Swabian Alb (Gronenborn 2003b; Strien 2000; Strien, pers.
comm.). Contacts and exchange between pastoralists/hunter-gatherers and
farmers would certainly not only have entailed economic aspects but also
worldviews and sacral concepts. Here LBK conceptswhich should have
differed from those of the pastoralists and hunter-gatherersmight have
been more successful. Judging from anthropomorphic and zoomorphic clay
figurines, LBK ideology seems to have circled around fertility associated with
farming (Petrasch 2002) and may have been promoted by a cast of title holders, who may be represented in some of the anthropomorphic figurines
(Fig. 3). These show complicated headgear or hairstyles and dresses which
would have been unpractical in day-to-day farming activities and may have
been high status insignia. This group could have constituted the LBK elite,
composed of title holders perhaps recruited from members of founder
lineages (Gronenborn 2003a; Lning 2005).
Certainly, very little has hitherto been said and written about an LBK
elite, except by van de Velde (1993; 1997), and not many scholars would even
account for elevated individuals or sub-groups with status ascribed rather
Figure 3. Possible ceremonial structure and anthropomorphic figurine from Bad Nauheim-Nieder Mrlen (after
Schade-Lindig 2002; Schade-Lindig & Schwitalla 2003).
81
82
Detlef Gronenborn
than acquired. Jeunesse (1997) had suggested such a stratum for the later
LBK because of the appearance of rich burials of adolescents. In addition
to these more traditional approaches in social archaeology, an interpretation
of some of the anthropomorphic figurines as representations of ancestors
(Lning 2005), and/or high-ranking individuals, may lead to a thorough
reconsideration of Early Neolithic socio-political structures. This alleged
group of title holders may have formulated, conserved and promoted a belief
system which had emerged in Transdanubia and consisted at least partly of
Balkanic Neolithic traditions (Hckmann 1972; 1999; Kaufmann 1991).
Another material manifestation of LBK belief systems may be the ceremonial structure from the site of Bad Nauheim-Nieder Mrlen, north of
Frankfurt (Fig. 3). The circular ditch system, erected during LBK II (the
Flomborn phase), has a pathway leading to it and its interior appears to have
been artificially elevated with a mound structure (Lning 2005, 284; SchadeLindig & Schwitalla 2003). The site is also famous for the abundance of
anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines (Schade-Lindig 2002). Whatever
these LBK concepts may have been in detail, they would have dominated the
multi-tradition farming villages, and the hunter-gatherer and pastoralist
communities might have at least partly adopted the new ideas and incorporated them into their worldview. Along with the adoption of an LBK ideology
came the loss of much of their traditional material culture, and the former
herders and hunter-gatherers disappear in thedespite its diversitystill
uniform LBK material canon.
If this hypothesis (admittedly still speculative but nevertheless not
implausible) of the existence of a religious and political elite during the
earlier LBK eventually proves to be correct, we may also consider elite
dominance (Renfrew 2002; Zvelebil & Lillie 2000) as an applicable scenario
for the Danubian Neolithisation of Temperate Europe, despite the fact that
we are dealing with pre-state-level societies.
Contacts between farmers and hunter-gatherers were not only directed
towards the west but also towards the northapparently from the earliest
LBK onwards (Gronenborn 2005). The lithic assemblage of Bruchenbrcken
contained a microlith previously unclear in its attribution, but which can now
be identified as an oblique transverse trapeze with a circumscribed distribution in southern Scandinavia and northernmost Germany. This goes in
accordance with the appearance of northern lowland or Baltic flint at
Bruchenbrcken and other northerly earliest LBK sites (Gronenborn 1997a,
114).
83
FURTHER EXPANSION TOWARDS THE WEST

LBK expansion came to a standstill along the Rhine for a period of several
decades. While earliest indications of an LBK-type farming in the Wetterau
region date to the mid-sixth-millennium cal BC (Schweizer 2001) the first
expansion of the late earliest LBK/earliest Flomborn-type wares (LBK II) to
the Rhineland (Heinen et al. 2004) should have occurred around 5400 cal BC
(Strien & Gronenborn 2005). The transition between LBK I and LBK II
between 5490/5450 and 5370/5350 cal BC can be correlated with a climate
decline visible in a number of climate proxies (Schmidt & Gruhle 2003; Strien
& Gronenborn 2005). The Flomborn style itself seems to have evolved
slightly before the onset of the climate fluctuation, during the decades
between 5500 and 5475 cal BC in the Upper Neckar Valley and north-western
Bohemia (Strien 2000; Strien & Gronenborn 2005, 140). From these regions
the ceramic style expanded in the western part of the LBK oikumene but the
earliest LBK must have persisted as a pottery style up to about 5400 cal BC in
some regions and is also visible in the Rhenish site of NiederkasselUckendorf. Hence, according to the age-model favoured by Strien and
Gronenborn (2005) the expansion across the Rhine and into Alsace and the
Rhineland correlates with a climate fluctuation.
The new and more westerly regions are settled in the following decades, a
process described in detail in Stehli for the Merzbachtal west of Cologne
(Stehli 1989). Founder villages are installed in favourable locations on loess
soils and serve as core sites from where other hamlets and villages sprang off;
they may also have been central places with a certain function as distribution
centres for goods such as lithic raw material (Zimmermann 1993; 1995).
Other sites east of the Rhine continued with their function as regional centres, but in many locations we see a relocation of villages during the LBK
I-LBK II transition. One site which assumes a role as a central place is the
site of Vaihingen upon Enz in south-western Germany (Bentley et al. 2003;
Krause 2001; Krause et al. 1998). Groups with differing material culture traditions lived together in this village, which was fortified during a certain subperiod of the Flomborn phase (Krause 2002; Strien 2005). Vaihingen shows a
notable decrease in the number of houses during the change from Flomborn
(LBK II) to the middle LBK, a decrease occurring contemporaneously in the
Rhineland and also Alsace, which may be linked with another westward
advance (Strien & Gronenborn 2005), as the earliest published assemblages
in the Marne valley and the Hesbaye date to the middle LBK (Lodewijckx &
Bakels 2000; Tarpet & Villes 1996). In absolute terms, LBK II should have
ended around 5210/5200 cal BC during a period which seems to have been climatically unfavourable according to what a number of proxy-data suggest.
Again, temporal correlations of site occupation and climate fluctuations
Detlef Gronenborn
84
indicate a possible connection between migrations and climatically unstable

or adverse periods.
MULTI-TRADITION COMMUNITIES
Movement of individuals and groups between farming communities is one
way to explain the evidence for imports and also the considerable economic
and, perhaps also, social and political variation within and between LBK
villages and hamlets. Another way is to consider continuous influx of huntergatherer or pastoralist groups who had not yet been integrated into LBK
societies. Such a co-habitation between groups of different origins is also
indicated in recent strontium isotope analyses undertaken at a number of
sites along the Rhine Valley (Bentley et al. 2002; 2003; 2004; Bentley &
Knipper 2005; Bentley, this volume). Apparently whole groups merged during the earlier LBK which supports the archaeological interpretation presented above, and in later phases it seems that mostly females came in from
outside. This goes in accordance with hypotheses of a general patrilocality in
LBK societies (Eisenhauer 2003).
Some of these sub-groups appear to have continued a hunter-gatherer
subsistence; evidence exists for late LBK sites in the Paris Basin (Hachem
2000; Sidra 2001), but hunting also appears to have played a considerable
role at the earliest LBK site of Bruchenbrcken with its multi-tradition
material culture (Uerpmann 1997). A number of sites in southern Bavaria
at the southern margins of the LBK extension also show high percentages
of game (Dhle 1993). Game may have been brought into LBK villages by
hunter-gatherers who continued their life-way in the densely wooded hilly
regions unsuitable for agriculture, and were only visited occasionally by pastoralists; theoretically they could have served as refuge areas but because of
various preservation problems, and a somewhat underdeveloped research
situation, actual archaeological evidence for such groups is sparse (e.g.
Taute 1973/74; Grote 1994; Gehlen 1999). But these upland regions may
also have served as pastures for cattle (Kalis & Zimmermann 1988). Indeed,
recently Bentley and Knipper (2005; Bentley, this volume) have suggested
the existence of pastoralists as sub-groups within LBK villages. In short,
what previously appeared as culturallyand by implication ethnically
homogenous LBK villages were in reality focal points of varying cultural
traditions with differing regional origins across Central Europe; farmers
from Transdanubia were just one component. These complex compositions
continued from the earliest LBK throughout and may have been one of the
reasons why Early Neolithic societies were faced with a period of economic
85
and social crises, which ultimately resulted in considerable culture change

and the transition to the Middle Neolithic (Gronenborn 1999, 18790; 2006).
THE END OF THE LBK

Apart from possible internal factors which led to the decline of the LBK, the
period also appears to have been characterised by climate fluctuations
(Schmidt et al. 2004); these seem to have reached their climax around 5150 to
5100 cal BC and correlate with the emergence of the Hinkelstein pottery tradition (HST) in the Rhine-Hessen area around Mainz (Strien & Gronenborn
2005). From there HST spreads towards the south into the Neckar Valley;
this middle Neolithic pottery tradition coexisted with the terminal LBK in
adjacent areas. The emergence of the HST may be attributed to social, political and religious changes in late LBK societies that were confronted with
climate uncertainties; these uncertainties may have resulted in economic
instability such as harvest failures. There are a number of indications for
similar problems occurring during the thirty-seventh century cal BC in late
Michelsberg communities and lake-shore settlements in Switzerland and
south-western Germany (Schibler et al. 1997; Steppan 2003). Harvest failures
could have undermined the authority of lites who may have based some of
their power on the rituals associated with determining the time of sowing and
harvesting. If climatic fluctuations had resulted in a shift of vegetation periods, traditional knowledge would have become useless, lites and values
would have become powerless, and societies could have disintegrated (Tainter
2000). Social disintegration may be evident from the sites of Talheim in the
Neckar Valley and Schletz in Lower Austria where individuals were killed
intentionally and collectively (Wahl & Knig 1987; Wild et al. 2004).
Such periods of social and political unrest would have called forth charismatic individuals who could claim to be able to solve the problems better
than the old lite and to reinstate stability, and political change would have
been the result. Change in belief concepts is evident in the adoption of a new
pottery style, which had repeatedly been assigned to religious change as the
motifs resemble human figures in a praying position (Spatz 2003). Also,
burial rites changed from the flexed interments practised during the LBK to
extended burials (Spatz 1999). Clearly, LBK ideology had changed; those still
clinging to the old views were surrounded by the adherents of a new worldview. Conflicts between these groups may have arisen and it may be no coincidence that at the site of Herxheim assemblages of bones in the ditches
surrounding the village date to exactly this period. While current interpretations of the excavators would call for a communal burial ground where
Detlef Gronenborn
86
individuals had been brought from far-off LBK regions (Orschiedt et al.
2003), other interpretations consider less humanistic practices of ritual tortures and killings of captives, slaves or witches (Gronenborn 2001; 2006). In
whatever way Herxheim may one day be explained, the site served as a
supra-regional centre during the terminal LBK for the remaining communities with contacts visible in pottery styles stemming from western Belgium,
Hesse, Bavaria, the Elster-Saale Region and 1rka in Bohemia (Jeunesse
online). These imports show that the long-term networks in operation since
the first expansion of the earliest LBK had been maintained throughout the
Early Neolithic, and that terminal LBK societies were still tightly knit
together.
NEOLITHISATION CONTINUED
Contemporary to the emergence of HST and the final years of the LBK
along the Rhine, another advance of the Neolithic of Danubian tradition
took place. The expansion of LBK towards the west into the Paris Basin has
recently been reconsidered by Jeunesse (199899; 2001). His rearrangement
of the chronological order suggested by Constantin (1985) has a number of
considerable consequences for the Neolithisation of western Europe. The
LBK advances from the Marne valley towards the Paris Basin where it
formed the Ruban Rcent du Bassin Parisien (RRBP) shortly before 5000 cal
BC, possibly in connection with the climatic unrest during these years (Strien
& Gronenborn 2005). In the course of contacts between local huntergatherers and/or herders the group Villeneuve-Saint-Germain emerged and
coexisted with RRPB. Both finally formed the RRBP final which again is
superseded by the Group de Cerny (Jeunesse 2001). Cerny in particular is an
interesting phenomenon as monumental burial mounds have been preserved
which, according to Jeunesses chronology, date early in the fifth millennium
cal BC, and in fact superimpose terminal LBK house structures (Duhamel &
Mordant 1997). While the archaeologically preserved burial goods associated
with the single individual interments are unimpressivelithic points, flint
axes, bone artefacts and potterythe mounds reach an extension of several
hundred metres and constitute a work effort by a greater number of individuals. With these monumental structures societies had reached a new quantitative stage in individual representation; as said above, chieftaincy might have
begun already earlier, with the emergence of a stratum of title holders during
the earlier LBK, but now title holders were represented and memorised in
monuments erected with considerable effort by a larger community. During
the fifth millennium cal BC the Paris Basin constituted an area of cultural
activity which served as a point of origin for the eastward expansion of the
87
Michelsberg culture (Jeunesse 1998; Seidel & Jeunesse 2000), which may have
also had a part in the spread of the Neolithic to the British Isles (Sheridan
2003; Sheridan, this volume; Tresset 2003). It should be noted here that this
further expansion of farming towards northern and north-western Europe
has also been linked with climate fluctuations (Bonsall et al. 2002).
While societies in the Paris Basin underwent changes towards a more
differentiated complexity, the process of Neolithisation also reached the
northern European lowlands. These regions had gradually been incorporated
in a westward stream of technological innovation, namely the spread of a
pottery horizon which might have its ultimate roots in north-eastern Asia
(Dolukhanov et al. 2005). The earliest manifestations of this pottery might
be the Elshan tradition in the Samara region in south-eastern Russia
(Mamonov 2000) appearing around 7000 cal BC. From there pottery with
distinctively pointed bases and flared rims spread westward to the Russian
steppe-forest and forest belt and reached the eastern Baltic (Gronenborn
2003c; Hallgren 2003; Timofeev 1998). Ultimately it appears in the western
Baltic, and the north-western continental European lowlands (e.g. Cromb
et al. 2002; Hartz & Lbke 2005; Louwe Kooijmans 2003; Raemakers 1999).
One of the southernmost finds of a vessel with pointed base and flared rim
comes from the LBK site of Rosheim in Alsace (Jeunesse & Lefranc 1999).
Earlier finds from the Baltic region at the site of Vaihingen indicate continuous north-south contacts throughout the younger LBK (Krause 2002).
Flared rim and pointed base pottery is not, at least during the early spread,
associated with any kind of farming but was made by hunter-gatherers and
fishers: an association to be observed elsewhere in the world in different periods (Rice 1999). Despite the association with hunter-gatherers, such potteryusing traditions are marked as Neolithic in the Russian archaeological
terminology, for which there is a certain justification if farming is not understood as being central to the definition of the term but rather social complexity (Dolukhanov 1995). Seen from this perspective, the pointed-base
horizon constitutes a third element in the Neolithisation process of northern
Central Europe (Gronenborn 2003c). Contrary to southern Central Europe,
pottery is the first element to appear in this process, and only centuries later
is it followed by cultigens (e.g. Kalis & Meurers-Balke 1998; Klassen 2000).
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The earliest phase of the Neolithisation process in Central Europe sets in
around 7000 to 6700 cal BC and might have been triggered by the so-called
Early-Holocene-Event: a phase of cooling and/or fluctuating climatic conditions. The following seventh millennium cal BC in southern Central Europe
88
Detlef Gronenborn
may be understood as a transitional phase from a hunter-gatherer to farming

economy of the classic Neolithic of Danubian tradition which emerged
possibly during the fifty-sixth century cal BC. However, before LBK villages
sprang up, the western regions became involved in a process which had its
origins in southern France prior to the Impressa and Cardial traditions
sometime around 5800 cal BC (Gronenborn 1997a; van Willigen 2004).
Archaeologically it became manifest in the pottery tradition of La Hoguette,
which appears to be associated with groups practising small ruminant pastoralism, but also continued hunting and gathering. The origins of this peculiar pottery tradition remain unclear; north-western Africa is an interesting,
yet unexplored, option.
LBK expansion and interaction with local populations was a process of
wide-reaching advances of small-scale farming groups which settled biotopes
favourable for their technology. This expansion constitutes the second phase
of the Neolithisation process in southern Central Europe. The LBK settler
groups experienced considerable population increase within a relatively short
period of time which fostered socio-political differentiation. Perhaps from
founder lineages there evolved high-ranking individuals who conserved and
promoted a Balkanic-Danubian ideology. This worldview became dominant
within the LBK oikumene as local hunter-gatherers and pastoralists were
acculturated and assimilated into the multi-tradition settlements. These
groups may have continued with their former economy and may be visible as
those sub-groups practising predominantly hunting and pastoralism. Such a
cultural mlange is currently examined best at the western margins of the
LBK along the Rhine, from where the Neolithic of Danubian tradition
spread further into the Rhenish lowlands, Dutch Limburg and Alsace,
an expansion possibly triggered by a climatic fluctuation. The last expansion
towards the west into the Marne valley and the Belgium loess areas also
appears to correlate with a new climatically unfavourable period. Further
fluctuations in rainfall and temperature may have, among many other internal socio-political and economic reasons, fostered the decline of the LBK
towards the end of the sixth millennium cal BC. During these periods we see
the appearance of new pottery styles which might indicate the collapse of
traditional values and ties.
By 5000 cal BC the LBK existed only in a few regions which were, nevertheless, interconnected over hundreds of kilometres. By 4950 cal BC, also,
these communities had vanished and Middle Neolithic societies had emerged
throughout Central Europe. Now standardised monuments characterised the
landscape, the so-called roundels. They may be taken as archaeologically visible representations of a new lite which was able to command the erection
and continuous maintenance of massive communal work efforts; newly
emerged lites are also evident in the early earthen long barrows in the
89
Paris Basin Cerny culture. With this socio-political shift, the process of
Neolithisation had reached a third phase.
During these centuries the Central European North becomes included in
wider processes as pottery from eastern European, and probably Central or
Eastern Asian origins, appears in the sites of the hitherto aceramic Erteblle
culture. But while contacts towards the south with LBK farming villages had
existed at least since the mid-sixth millennium cal BC it was not until towards
the end of the fifth millennium that the northern societies gave more attention to a farming economy. Summing up, it may be stated that the process of
Neolithisation of Central and Temperate Europe is composed out of three
supra-regional traditions which have their origins in the Mesolithic and possibly Palaeolithic social networks: the classic and long-established Danubian
tradition with the LBK as its earliest manifestation; the western or occidental composition with its connections to southern France and the Iberian
Peninsula and possibly north-west Africa; and the tentatively baptised
hyperborean tradition of the Russian forest and steppe zones with pottery
but without farming.
Going back to the slightly polemical introduction, one aspect remains to
be dealt with, namely that of language. Throughout the last decades notably
Renfrew (1996) and later Bellwood (2005) promoted a model where the dispersal of a farming technology would be linked to the dispersal of languages.
These ideas have been received with much criticism and lately Renfrew (2002,
14) has published an appeasement offer: We could certainly postulate a
model where at least half of the population in any local area along the way
would, at a crucial stage, be composed of incoming farmers from the immediately previous area. The product of this down the line phenomenon could
be the transmission of the language of the incomers, and yet the significant
attenuation of the signal carried on by their genes. While this statement is
certainly intriguing and indeed intellectually stimulating, it hitherto lacks any
robust substantiation from linguistics (e.g. Rexov et al. 2003), and consequently the matter remains largely untouched in Central European archaeology. The uncertain explicatory power of the language-farming-dispersalhypothesis is unfortunate, however, as it would fit well with the lite
dominance model: the Indo-European language could have been introduced
by the LBK which ideologically dominated local hunter-gatherers and pastoralists; with this ideological domination came linguistic replacement: food
for further speculations.
As uncertain as the linguistic aspect may be and as little agreement there
may exist over it, it is nevertheless intriguing to note, that after many decades
of research on the spread of farming and its wider implications for world history, both Anglo-American modellers and Central European empiricists have
reached similar conclusions at least for Central Europe. The spread of
90
Detlef Gronenborn
farming is a complicated and differentiated process with considerable local

and regional variations. It is also certainly not a process occurring along a
supposedly well defined frontier but one which lasted for several millennia
and which happened in stages. Economic changes were certainly one major
point, and socio-political transformations were another: the famousinfamous trajectories towards complexity. As these points have nowadays
found widespread agreement among most scholars acquainted with the
matter, future research should be geared towards the precise role of a likely
triggering force: Holocene climate fluctuations.
Note. I am indebted to Alasdair Whittle and Vicki Cummings for inviting me to the
conference and for their subtle fine-tuning of the manuscript.
REFERENCES
ALLEY, R. B., MAYEWSKI, P. A., SOWERS, T., TAYLOR, K. C. & CLARK, U. 1997. Holocene
climatic instability: A prominent, widespread event 8200 years ago. Geology 25, 48386.
AMMERMAN, A. J. & CAVALLI-SFORZA, L. L. 1984. The Neolithic transition and the
genetics of populations in Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
BALTER, M. 2005. Ancient DNA yields clues to the puzzle of European origins. Science 310,
9645.
BNFFY, E. 2004. The 6th millennium BC boundary in Western Transdanubia and its role in the
Central European Neolithic transition (The Szentgyrgyvlgy-Pityerdomb settlement).
Budapest: Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Science.
BECKMANN, M. 2004. Pollenanalytische Untersuchung der Zeit der Jger und Sammler und der
ersten Bauern an zwei Lokalitten des Zentralen Schweizer Mittellandes: Umwelt und erste
Eingriffe des Menschen in die Vegetation vom Palolithikum bis zum Jungeneolithikum. Berlin:
J. Cramer.
BEHRE, K.-E. 2007. Evidence for Mesolithic agriculture in and around central Europe?
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 6, 20319.
BELLWOOD, P. 2005. First farmers: the origins of agricultural societies. Oxford: Blackwell.
BENTLEY, R. A. & KNIPPER, C. 2005. Transhumance at the early Neolithic settlement at
Vaihingen (Germany). http://antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/bentley/index.html.
BENTLEY, R. A., KRAUSE, R., PRICE, T. D. & KAUFMANN, B. 2003. Human mobility at
the Early Neolithic settlement of Vaihingen, Germany: evidence from strontium isotope
analysis. Archaeometry 45, 47186.
BENTLEY, R. A., PRICE, T. D., LNING, J., GRONENBORN, D., WAHL, J. & FULLAGAR,
P. D. 2002. Prehistoric migration in Europe: strontium isotope analysis of early Neolithic
skeletons. Current Anthropology 43, 799804.
BENTLEY, R. A., PRICE, T. D. & STEPHAN, E. 2004. Determining the local 87Sr/86Sr
range for archaeological skeletons: a case study from Neolithic Europe. Journal of
Archaeological Science 31, 36575.
BOGUCKI, P. 2003. Neolithic dispersals in riverine interior Central Europe. In A. J.
Ammerman & P. Biagi (eds), The widening harvest. The Neolithic transition in Europe: looking back, looking forward, 24972. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America.
BOKELMANN, K. 1999. Zum Beginn des Sptmesolithikums in Sdskandinavien. Geweihaxt,
Dreieck und Trapez, 6100 cal BC. Offa 56, 18397.
91
BOND, G., KROMER, B., BEER, J., MUSCHELER, R., EVANS, M. N., SHOWERS, W.,
HOFFMANN, S., LOTTI-BOND, R., HAJDAS, I. & BONANI, G. 2001. Persistent solar
influence on North Atlantic climate during the Holocene. Science 294, 21306.
BONSALL, C., MACKLIN, M. G., ANDERSON, D. E. & PAYTON, R. W. 2002. Climate
change and the adoption of agriculture in north-west Europe. European Journal of
Archaeology 5, 721.
BRUNNACKER, M., REIFF, W., SOERGEL, E. & TAUTE, W. 1967. Neolithische
Fundschicht mit Harpunen-Fragmenten im Travertin von Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt.
Fundberichte Schwaben N. F. 18, 4360.
CHIKHI, L., BARBUJANI, G. & BEAUMONT, M. A. 2002. Y genetic data support the
Neolithic demic diffusion model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 99,
1100813.
CHILDE, V. G. 1929. The Danube in prehistory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
CLARK, J. G. D. 1958. Blade and trapeze industries in the European Stone Age. Proceedings of
the Prehistoric Society 24, 2442.
CLARK, J. G. D. 1980. Mesolithic prelude: the Palaeolithic-Neolithic transition in Old World
prehistory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
CONSTANTIN, C. 1985. Fin du Ruban, cramique du Limbourg et post-Ruban. Le nolithique
le plus ancien en Bassin Parisien et en Hainaut. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports
International Series 273.
CROMB, Ph., PERDAEN, Y., SERGANT, J., VAN ROYEN, J.-P. & VAN STRYDONCK, M.
2002. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the sandy lowlands of Belgium: new evidence.
Antiquity 76, 699706.
DHLE, H. J. 1993. Haustierhaltung und Jagd in der Linienbandkeramik ein berblick.
Zeitschrift fr Archologie 27, 10524.
DOLUKHANOV, P. 1995. Archaeology in Russia and its impact on archaeological theory. In
P. Ucko (ed.), Theory in archaeology: a world perspective, 34272. London: Routledge.
DOLUKHANOV, P., SHUKUROV, A., GRONENBORN, D., SOKOLOFF, D., TIMOFEEV,
V. & ZAITSEVA, G. 2005. The chronology of Neolithic dispersal in Central and Eastern
Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 32/10, 144158.
DUHAMEL, P. & MORDANT, D. 1997. Les ncropoles monumentales Cerny du bassin SeineYonne. In C. Constantin, D. Mordant & D. Simonin (eds), La Culture de Cerny. Nouvelle
conomie, nouvelle socit au Nolithique, 4818. Nemours: Actes du Colloque International
de Nemours du Muse de Prhistoire dIle-de-France n 6.
EFSTRATIOU, N., KARETSOU, A., BANOU, E. & MARGOMENOU, D. 2004. The
Neolithic settlement of Knossos: new light on an old picture. In G. Cadogan, E. Hatzaki
& A. Vasilakis (eds), Knossos: palace, city state. proceedings of the conference in
Herakleion organised by the British School at Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of
Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of Herakleion, in November 2000, for the Centenary
of Sir Arthur Evans Excavations at Knossos, 3749. London: The British School at
Athens.
EISENHAUER, U. 2003. Matrilokalitt in der Bandkeramik? Ein ethnologisches Modell und
seine Implikationen. Archologische Informationen 26, 32131.
ERNY-RODMANN, Ch., GROSS-KLEE, E., HAAS, J. N., JACOMET, St. & ZOLLER, H.
1997. Frher human impact und Ackerbau im bergangsbereich SptmesolithikumFrhneolithikum im schweizerischen Mitteland. Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft
fr Ur- und Frhgeschichte 80, 2756.
FOWLES, S. M. 2002. From social type to social process: placing tribe in a historical framework. In W. A. Parkinson (ed.), The archaeology of tribal societies, 1333. Ann Arbor:
International Monographs in Prehistory Archaeology Series 15.
GEHLEN, B. 1999. Late Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Early Neolithic in the Lower Alpine
region between the rivers Iller and Lech (south-west Bavaria). In A. Thvenin & P. Bintz
92
Detlef Gronenborn
(eds), LEurope des derniers chasseurs. Lpipalolithique et Msolithique. Peuplement et

paloenvironnement de Lpipalolithique et du Msolithique, 48997. Paris: Actes du 5e
Colloque international UISPP.
GEHLEN, B. & SCHN, W. 2003. Das Sptmesolithikum und das initiale Neolithikum in
Griechenland Implikationen fr die Neolithisierung der alpinen und circumalpinen
Gebiete. Archologische Informationen 26/2, 25573.
GEHLEN, B. & SCHN, W. 2005. Klima und Kulturwandel Mgliche Folgen
des 6200Events in Europa. In D. Gronenborn (ed.), Klimavernderung und Kulturwandel
in neolithischen Gesellschaften Mitteleuropas, 67002200 v. Chr., 5374. Mainz:
RGZM-Tagungen 1. Verlag des Rmisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums.
GRONENBORN, D. 1990. Mesolithic-Neolithic interactions. The lithic industry of the Earliest
Bandkeramik Culture site at Friedberg-Bruchenbrcken (West Germany). In P. M.
Vermeersch & P. van Peer (eds), Contributions to the Mesolithic in Europe. Papers Presented
at the Fourth International Symposium The Mesolithic in Europe, Leuven 1990, 17382.
Leuven: Leuven University Press.
GRONENBORN, D. 1994. berlegungen zur Ausbreitung der buerlichen Wirtschaft in
Mitteleuropa Versuch einer kulturhistorischen Interpretation ltestbandkeramischer
Silexinventare. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 69/2, 13551.
GRONENBORN, D. 1997a. Silexartefakte der ltestbandkeramischen Kultur. Mit einem Beitrag
von Jean-Paul Caspar. Bonn: Habelt.
GRONENBORN, D. 1997b. Sarching 4 und der bergang vom Frh- zum Sptmesolithikum
im sdlichen Mitteleuropa. Archologisches Korrespondenzblatt 27, 387402.
GRONENBORN, D. 1999. A variation on a basic theme: the transition to farming in southern
Central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 13, 123210.
GRONENBORN, D. 2001. Zum (mglichen) Nachweis von Sklaven/Unfreien in prhistorischen Gesellschaften Mitteleuropas. Ethnographisch-Archologische Zeitschrift 42, 142.
GRONENBORN, D. 2003a. Der Jger/Krieger aus Schwanfeld. Einige Aspekte der
politischen-sozialen Geschichte des mitteleuropischen Altneolithikums. In J. Eckert,
U. Eisenhauer & A. Zimmermann (eds), Archologische Perspektiven. Analysen und
Interpretationen im Wandel. Festschrift fr Jens Lning zum 65. Geburtstag, 3548. Rahden:
Marie Leidorf.
GRONENBORN, D. 2003b. Lithic raw material distribution networks and the Neolithization of
Central Europe. In L. Burnez-Lanotte (ed.), Production and management of lithic materials in
the European Linearbandkeramik/Gestion des matriaux lithiques dans le Ruban europen.
Aczes du XIVme Congrs UISPP, Universit de Lige Belgique, 28 septembre 2001, 4550.
British Archaeological Reports International Series 1200. Oxford: Hadrian Books.
GRONENBORN, D. 2003c. Migration, acculturation, and culture change in Western Temperate
Eurasia, 65005000 cal BC. Documenta Praehistorica 30, 7991.
GRONENBORN, D. 2006. Climate change and sociopolitical crises: some cases from Neolithic
Central Europe. Journal of Conflict Archaeology 2, 1332.
GROOTES, P. M., STUIVER, M., WHITE, J. W. C., JOHNSEN, S. & JOUZEL, J. 1993.
Comparison of oxygen isotope records from the GISP2 and GRIP Greenland Ice Core.
Nature 366, 5524.
GROTE, K. 1994. Die Abris im sdlichen Leinebergland bei Gttingen. Archologische Befunde
zum Leben unter Felsschutzdchern in urgeschichtlicher Zeit. Oldenburg: Isensee.
HAAK, W., FORSTER, P., BRAMANTI, B., MATSUMURA, S., BRANDT, G., TNZER, M.,
VILLEMS, R., RENFREW, C., GRONENBORN, D., ALT, K. W. & BURGER, J. 2005.
Ancient DNA from the first European farmers in 7500year-old Neolithic sites. Science 310,
101618.
HAAS, J. N., RICHOZ, I., TINNER, W. & WICK, L. 1998. Synchronous Holocene climatic
oscillations recorded on the Swiss Plateau and at timberline in the Alps. The Holocene 8/3,
3019.
93
HACHEM, L. 2000. New observations on the Bandkeramik house and social organization.
HALLGREN, F. 2003. My place or yours? In H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Loeffler &
A. kerlund (eds), Mesolithic on the move. Papers presented at the Sixth International
Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000, 5929. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
HARTZ, S. & LBKE, H. 2005. Zur chronostratigraphischen Gliederung der Erteblle-Kultur
und der frhesten Trichterbecherkultur in der sdlichen Meckelnburger Bucht. Jahrbuch
Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 52, 11943.
HEINEN, M., NEHREN, R. & WEINER, J. 2004. lteste Bandkeramik und Flomborn . . . Der
Fundplatz Uckendorf wirft neue Fragen auf. In J. Kunow (ed.), Archologie im Rheinland
2003, 279. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss.
HEIRI, O., TINNER, W. & LOTTER, A. F. 2004. Evidence for cooler European summers during periods of changing meltwater flux to the North Atlantic. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science USA 101/43, 152858.
HCKMANN, O. 1972. Andeutungen zu Religion und Kultus in der bandkeramischen Kultur.
Alba Regia 12, 187210.
HCKMANN, O. 1999. Zur Bedeutung der neolithischen und neolithischen Figuralplastik im
Balkangebiet. In F.-R. Herrmann (ed.), Festschrift fr Gnter Smolla, 27192. Wiesbaden:
Materialien zur Vor- und Frhgeschichte von Hessen 8.
JEUNESSE, C. 1997. Pratiques funraires au Nolithique Ancien. Spultures et ncropoles
danubiennes 55004900 av. J.-C. Paris: ditions Errance.
JEUNESSE, C. 1998. Pour une origine occidentale de la culture de Michelsberg? In J. Biel,
H. Schlichterele, M. Strobel & A. Zeeb (eds), Die Michelsberger Kultur und ihre Randgebiete
Probleme der Entstehung, Chronologie und des Siedlungswesens. Kolloquium Hemmenhofen,
2123.2.1997, 2946. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss.
JEUNESSE, C. 19989. La synchronisation des squences culturelles des bassins du Rhin, de la
Meuse et de la Seine et la chronologie du Bassin parisien au Nolithique ancien et moyen
(52004500 av. J.-C.). Bulletin Socit Prhistoire Luxembourgeoise 201, 33792.
JEUNESSE, C. 2000. Les composantes autochtone et danubienne en Europe Centrale et occidentale entre 5500 et 4000 av. J.-C.: contacts, transferts, acculturations. In Les derniers
chasseur-cuilleurs dEurope occidentale, Actes du colloque international de Besanon, octobre
1998, 36178. Besanon: Presses Universitaires Franc-Comtoises. Annales Littraires 699,
Srie Environnement, socits et archaologie 1.
JEUNESSE, C. 2001. Armatures asymtriques, rgionalisation, acculturation. Contribution
ltude des relations entre la Ruban et la composante autochtone dans louest de la sphre
danubienne. In Prhistoire de la Grande Plaine du Nord de lEurope, 14765. Actes du
Colloque Chaire Francqui interuniversitaire au titre tranger. Lige: ERAUL 99.
JEUNESSE, C. 2003. Nolithique initial, nolithique ancien et nolithisation dans lespace
centre-europen: une vision rnove. Revue dAlsace 129, 97112.
JEUNESSE, C. online. Keramik. DFG-Projekt Siedlung und Grubenanlage Herxheim b.
Landau. http://www.projekt-herxheim.de/keramik.htm.
JEUNESSE, C. & LEFRANC, P. 1999. Rosheim Sainte-Odile (Bas-Rhin), un habitat ruban
avec foss denceinte. Premire partie: les structures et la cramique. Cahiers de lassociation
pour la promotion de la recherche archologique en Alsace 15, 1111.
JEUNESSE, C. & WINTER, S. 1998. propos de quelques dcors non traditionnels dans le
Ruban. Reflexions sur les changements stylistiques dans la cramique du Nolithique ancien
danubien. In X. Gutherz and R. Joussaume (eds), Le Nolithique du centre-ouest de la France.
Actes du XXIe colloque inter-rgional sur le Nolithique, Poitiers, 1416 octobre 1994, 34557.
Chauvigny: Association des Publications Chauvinoises, Mmoire n14.
KALICZ, N. 1995. Die lteste transdanubische (mitteleuropische) Linienbandkeramik.
Aspekte zu Ursprung, Chronologie und Beziehungen. Acta Archaeologica Academiae
Scientiarum Hungaricae 47, 2359.
94
Detlef Gronenborn
KALIS, A. J. & MEURERS-BALKE, J. 1998. Die Landnam-Modelle von Iversen und TroelsSmith zur Neolithisierung des westlichen Ostseegebietes ein Versuch zu ihrer
Aktualisierung. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 73, 1144.
KALIS, A. J., MEURERS-BALKE, J., VAN DER BORG, K., VON DEN DRIESCH, A.,
RHLE, W., TEGTMEIER, U. & THIEMEYER, H. 2001. Der La-HoguetteFundhorizont in der Wilhelma von Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt. Anthrakologische, archopalynologische, bodenkundliche, malakozoologische, radiometrische und sugetierkundliche
Untersuchungen. In B. Gehlen, M. Heinen & A. Tillmann (eds), Zeit-Rume. Gedenkschrift
fr Wolfgang Taute Band 2, 64972. Bonn: Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Ur- und
Frhgeschichte/Rudolf Habelt.
KALIS, A. J. & ZIMMERMANN, A. 1988. An integrative model for the use of different landscapes in Linearbandkeramik times. In J. L. Bintliff, D. A. Davidson & E. G. Grant (eds),
Conceptual issues in environmental archaeology, 14552. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
KAUFMANN, D. 1991. Sdstliche Einflsse in der Linienbandkeramik des Elbe-SaaleGebietes. Banatica 11, 27595.
KIND, C.-J. 1997. Die letzten Wildbeuter. Henauhof-Nord II und das Endmesolithikum in
Baden-Wrttemberg. Mit Beitrgen von H. Liese-Kleiber, A. Pawlk und R. Vogt. Stuttgart:
Theiss.
KIND, C.-J. 1998. Komplexe Wildbeuter und frhe Ackerbauern. Bemerkungen zur
Ausbreitung der Linearbandkeramik im sdlichen Mitteleuropa. Germania 76, 124.
KLASSEN, L. 2000. The Erteblle-culture and the Neolithic continental Europe: traces of contact and interaction. In A. Fischer & K. Kristiansen (eds), From foraging to farming. 150
years of Neolithisation debate in southern Scandinavia, 30318. Sheffield: J. R. Collis.
KLOPFFLEISCH, F. 1884. Charakteristik und Zeitfolge der Keramik Mitteldeutschlands. In
F. Klopffleisch (ed.), Die Grabhgel von Leubingen, Smmerda und Nienstedt. Heft II. Halle
an der Saale: Otto Hendel.
KRAUSE, R. 2001. Stierkopf, Spondylus und verziertes Knochengert: Neue Funde aus der
bandkeramischen Siedlung von Vaihingen an der Enz, Kreis Ludwigsburg, 2327.
Archologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Wrttemberg 2000. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss.
KRAUSE, R. 2002. Die bandkeramischen Siedlungsgrabungen von Vaihingen an der Enz, Kreis
Ludwigsburg, 336. Archologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Wrttemberg 2001. Stuttgart:
Konrad Theiss.
KRAUSE, R., ARBOGAST, R.-M., HNSCHEIDT, S., LIENEMANN, J., PAPADOPOULOS, S.,
RSCH, M., SIDRA, I., SMETTAN, H. W., STRIEN, H.-Chr. & WELGE, K. 1998. Die
bandkeramischen Siedlungsgrabungen bei Vaihingen an der Enz, Kreis Ludwigsburg (BadenWrttemberg). Bericht der Rmisch-Germanischen Kommission 79, 5105.
LENNEIS, E. & STADLER, P. 2002. 14C-Daten und Seriation altbandkeramischer Inventare.
Archeologick rozhledy 54, 191201.
LODEWIJCKX, M. & BAKELS, C. 2000. The interaction between early farmers
(Linearbandkeramik) and indigenous people in Central Belgium. In J. C. Henderson (ed.),
The prehistory and early history of Atlantic Europe. Papers from a session held at the European
Association of Archaeologists Fourth Annual Meeting in Gteborg 1998, 3346. Oxford:
British Archaeological Reports International Series 861.
LOTTER, A. F. 1999. Late-glacial and Holocene vegetation history and dynamics as shown by
pollen and plant macrofossil analyses in annually laminated sediments from Soppensee,
central Switzerland. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8, 16584.
LOUWE KOOIJMANS, L. P. 2003. The Hardinxveld sites in the Rhine/Meuse Delta, the
Netherlands, 55004500 cal BC. In H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Loeffler & A. kerlund
(eds), Mesolithic on the move. Papers presented at the sixth international conference on the
Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000, 60824. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
95
LNING, J. 2005. Die Macht der Ahnen und ihrer Abbilder. Wer hatte das Sagen in der
Gesellschaft? In J. Lning (ed.), Die Bandkeramiker: erste Steinzeitbauern in Deutschland,
27284. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.
LNING, J., KLOOS, U. & ALBERT, S. 1989. Westliche Nachbarn der bandkeramischen
Kultur: Die Keramikgruppen La Hoguette und Limburg. Mit Beitrgen von J. Eckert und
Chr. Strien. Germania 67, 35593.
MAMONOV, A. E. 2000. Rannij Neolit: Elshanskaja Kultura. In P. S. Kabetov, I. B. Vasileb,
Z. Dubman, J. Smirnov & L. B. Chramkov (eds), Istorija Samarskogo Powolchja. S drebnejchish vremen do natchish dnej. Kemennej vek. Rossijckaja Akademija Nauk. Samarskij
Nauchiej Zentr, 14776. Samara: Zentr Integrazija.
MATEICIUCOV, I. 2003. Mesolithische Traditionen und der Ursprung der
Linearbandkeramik. Archologische Informationen 26, 299320.
MATEICIUCOV, I. 2004. Mesolithic traditions and the origins of the Linear Pottery Culture
(LBK). In A. Lukes & M. Zvelebil (eds), LBK dialogues. Studies in the formation of the Linear
Pottery culture, 91108. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 1304.
MEESE, D. A., GOW, J.-L., ALLEY, R. B., ZIELINSKI, G. A., GROOTES, P. M., RAM, M.,
TAYLOR, K. C., MAYEWSKI, P. A. & BOLZAN, J. F. 1997. The Greenland Ice Sheet
Project 2 depth-age scale: methods and results. Journal of Geophysical Research 102,
2641123.
MEURERS-BALKE, J. & KALIS, A. J. 2001. Frh-, alt- und jungneolithische Landnutzung
archopalynologische Bearbeitung der Wilhelma-Travertine von Bad Cannstatt. In
B. Gehlen, M. Heinen & A. Tillmann (eds), Zeit-Rume. Gedenkschrift fr Wolfgang Taute
Band 2, 63148. Bonn: Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Ur- und Frhgeschichte/Rudolf Habelt.
E. F. 1956. K relativn chronologii volutov keramiky. Archeologick rozhledy 8,
NEUSTUPNY,
386406.
ORSCHIEDT, J., HUBER, A., HAIDLE, M. N., ALT, K. W. & BUITRAGO-TLLEZ, C. H.
2003. Survival of a multiple skull trauma: the case of an early Neolithic individual from
the LBK enclosure at Herxheim (southwest Germany). International Journal of
Osteoarchaeology 13, 37583.
PALLIARDI, J. 1914. Die relative Chronologie der jngeren Steinzeit in Mhren. Wiener
Prhistorische Zeitschrift 1, 25677.
PAVK, J. 2004. Early Linear Pottery Culture in Slovakia and the Neolithisation of Central
Europe. In A. Lukes & M. Zvelebil (eds), LBK dialogues. Studies in the formation of the
Linear Pottery Culture, 7182. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series
1304.
PERLS, C. 2001. The early Neolithic in Greece: the first farming communities in Europe.
PETRASCH, J. 2001. Seid fruchtbar und mehret euch und fllet die Erde und machet sie euch
untertan: berlegungen zur demographischen Situation der bandkeramischen Landnahme.
Archologisches Korrespondenzblatt 31, 1326.
PETRASCH, J. 2002. Idol, Fetisch oder Kultbild? Zu Terminologie und Interpretation anthropomorpher und theriomorpher neolithischer Statuetten. In R. Aslan, S. Blum, G. Kastl, F.
Schweizer & D. Thumm (eds), Mauerschau. Festschrift fr Manfred Korfmann. Band 2,
86184. Remshalden-Grunbach: Bernhard Albert Greiner.
PUMPELLY, R. 1908. Explorations in Turkestan: Expedition of 1904. Prehistoric civilizations of
Anau: origins, growth, and influence of environment. Washington, DC: Smithonian
Institution.
QUITTA, H. 1960. Zur Frage der ltesten Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa. Prhistorische
Zeitschrift 38, 138; 15388.
QUITTA, H. 1964. Zur Herkunft des frhen Neolithikums in Mitteleuropa. In P. Grimm (ed.),
Varia Archaeologica. Wilhelm Unverzagt zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht, 1424. Berlin:
Akademie Verlag.
96
Detlef Gronenborn
RAEMAKERS, D. C. M. 1999. The articulation of a new Neolithic. The meaning of the

Swifterbant culture for the process of Neolithisation in the western part of the north European
Plain (49003400 BC). Leiden: Archaeological Studies Leiden University. Faculty of
Archaeology, University of Leiden.
RENFREW, C. 1987. Archaeology and language: the puzzle of Indo-European origins. London:
Cape.
RENFREW, C. 1996. Language families and the spread of farming. In D. H. Harris (ed.), The
origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia, 7092. London: University
College of London Press.
RENFREW, C. 2002. The emerging synthesis: the archaeogenetics of farming/language
dispersals and other spread zones. In P. Bellwood & C. Renfrew (eds), Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis, 316. Cambridge: MacDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research.
RENFREW, C. 2003. The linguistic transition in Europe: Linguistic aspects. In A. J.
Ammerman & P. Biagi (eds), The widening harvest. The Neolithic transition in Europe: looking
back, looking forward, 32736. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America.
J. 2003. Cladistic analysis of languages:
REXOV, K., FRYNTA, D. & ZRZAVY,
Indo-European classification based on lexicostatistical data. Cladistics 19, 1207.
RICE, P. M. 1999. On the origins of pottery. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6,
154.
RICHARDS, M. 2003. The Neolithic invasion of Europe. Annual Review of Anthropology 32,
13562.
SCHADE-LINDIG, S. 2002. Idol- und Sonderfunde der bandkeramischen Siedlung von Bad
Nauheim-Nieder-Mrlen Auf dem Hempler (Wetteraukreis). Germania 80, 47114.
SCHADE-LINDIG, S. & SCHWITALLA, G. M. 2003. Die Kreispalisadenanlage des
bandkeramischen Zentralortes Bad Nauheim-Nieder Mrlen (Wetteraukreis). In J. Eckert,
U. Eisenhauer & A. Zimmermann (eds), Archologische Perspektiven: Analysen und
Interpretationen im Wandel. Festschrift fr Jens Lning zum 65. Geburtstag, 3518. Rahden:
Marie Leidorf.
SCHARL, S. 2004. Die Neolithisierung Europas. Ausgewhlte Hypothesen und Modelle. Rahden:
Marie Leidorf.
SCHIBLER, J., JACOMET, S., HSTER-PLOGMANN, H. & BROMBACHER, C. 1997.
Economic crash in the 37th and 36th centuries cal. BC in Neolithic lake shore sites in
Switzerland. Anthropozoologica 25/26, 55370.
SCHMIDT, B. & GRUHLE, W. 2003. Wuchshomogenitt als ein neues Analyseverfahren zur
Verbesserung der dendrochronologischen Datierungsmethode. Die Hlzer der neolithischen
Brunnen von Erkelenz-Kckhoven, Zwenkau und Mohelnice sowie vom Fundplatz Kaster.
In J. Eckert, U. Eisenhauer & A. Zimmermann (eds), Archologische Perspektiven. Analysen
und Interpretationen im Wandel. Festschrift fr Jens Lning zum 65. Geburtstag, 4960.
Internationale Archologie Studia honoraria 20. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.
SCHMIDT, B., GRUHLE, W. & RCK, O. 2004. Klimaextreme in Bandkeramischer Zeit (5300
bis 5000 v. Chr.). Interpretation dendrochronologischer und archologischer Befunde.
Archologisches Korrespondenzblatt 34, 3037.
SCHWEIZER, A. 2001. Archopalynologische Untersuchungen zur Neolithisierung der nrdlichen
Wetterau/Hessen. Berlin: Cramer.
SEIDEL, U. & JEUNESSE, C. 2000. propos dun tesson du Nolithique rcent de la valle du
Neckar. La technique du bouton au repuss et la question de la diffusion du Michelsberg.
Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise 97, 22937.
SHERIDAN, A. 2003. French connections I: spreading of the marmites thinly. In I. Armit,
E. Murphy, E. Nelis & D. Simpson (eds), Neolithic settlement in Ireland and western Britain,
317. Oxford: Oxbow.
97
SIDRA, I. 2001. Animaux domestiques, btes sauvages et objets en matires animales du

Ruban au Michelsberg. Gallia Prhistoire 42, 10794.
1IMEK, E. 1914. Grundzge der Vorgeschichte Bhmens. Wiener Prhistorische Zeitschrift 1,
2238.
SPATZ, H. 1999. Das mittelneolithische Grberfeld von Trebur, Kreis Gro-Gerau. Wiesbaden:
Landesamt fr Denkmalpflege Hessen.
SPATZ, H. 2003. Hinkelstein: Eine Sekte als Initiator des Mittelneolithikums. In J. Eckert,
U. Eisenhauer & A. Zimmermann (eds), Archologische Perspektiven. Analysen und
Interpretationen im Wandel, 57587. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.
SPURK, M., LEUSCHNER, H. H., BAILLIE, M. G. L., BRIFFA, K. R. & FRIEDRICH, M.
2002. Depositional frequency of German subfossil oaks: climatically and non-climatically
induced fluctuations in the Holocene. The Holocene 12/6, 70715.
STEHLI, P. 1989. Merzbachtal Umwelt und Geschichte einer bandkeramischen
Siedlungskammer. Germania 67, 5176.
STEPPAN, K. 2003. Taphonomie Zoologie Chronologie Technologie kononomie. Die
Sugetierreste aus den jungsteinzeitlichen Grabenwerken in Bruchsal/Landkreis Karlsruhe.
Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss.
STRIEN, H.-C. 2000. Untersuchungen zur Bandkeramik in Wrttemberg. Bonn: Habelt.
STRIEN, H.-C. 2005. Familientraditionen in der bandkeramischen Siedlung bei Vaihingen/Enz.
In J. Lning, C. Frirdich & A. Zimmermann (eds), Die Bandkeramik im 21. Jahrhundert,
18998. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.
STRIEN, H.-C. & GRONENBORN, D. 2005. Klima- und Kulturwandel whrend des mitteleuropischen Altneolithikums (58./57.51./50. Jahrhundert v. Chr.). In D. Gronenborn (ed.),
Climate variability and culture change in Neolithic societies of Central Europe, 13149. RGZM
Tagungen 1. Mainz: Rmisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum.
STRIEN, H.-C. & TILLMANN, A. 2001. Die La-Hoguette-Fundstelle Stuttgart-Bad
Cannstatt: Archologie. In B. Gehlen, M. Heinen & A. Tillmann (eds), Zeit-Rume:
Gedenkschrift fr Wolfgang Taute Band 2, 67381. Bonn: Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Ur- und
Frhgeschichte/Rudolf Habelt.
STUIVER, M., GROOTES, P. M. & BRAZIUNAS, T. F. 1995. The GISP d18O climate record
of the past 16,500 years and the role of the sun, ocean, and volcanoes. Quaternary Research
44, 34154.
TARPET, E. & VILLES, A. 1996. Contribution de la Champagne ltude du Nolithique
ancien. In P. Duhamel (ed.), Actes du XVIIIe colloque interrgional sur le Nolithique,
Dijon 1991. Revue Archologique de Est, supplement 14, 175256.
TAINTER, J. A. 2000. Global change, history and sustainability. In R. J. McIntosh, J. A. Tainter
& S. K. McIntosh (eds), The way the wind blows: climate, history, and human action, 33156.
New York: Columbia University Press.
TAUTE, W. 1973/74. Neue Forschungen zur Chronologie von Sptpalolithikum und
Mesolithikum in Sddeutschland. Archologische Informationen 23, 5966.
TILLMANN, A. 1993. Kontinuitt oder Diskontinuitt? Zur Frage einer bandkeramischen
Landnahme im sdlichen Mitteleuropa. Archologische Informationen 16/2, 15787.
TIMOFEEV, V. I. 1998. The east-west relations in the Late Mesolithic and Neolithic in the
Baltic Region. In L. Domanska & K. Jacobs (eds), Beyond Balkanization, 4458. Poznan:
Adam Mickiewicz University.
TRESSET, A. 2003. French connections II: of cows and men. In I. Armit, E. Murphy, E. Nelis
& D. Simpson (eds), Neolithic settlement in Ireland and western Britain, 1830. Oxford:
Oxbow.
UERPMANN, H.-P. 1997. Die Tierknochenfunde. In J. Lning (ed.), Ein Siedlungsplatz der
ltesten Bandkeramik in Bruchenbrcken, Stadt Friedberg/Hessen, 33348. Bonn: Rudolf
Habelt. Universittsforschungen zur prhistorischen Archologie 39.
98
Detlef Gronenborn
VAN DE VELDE, P. 1993. Soziale Struktur, Grberanalyse, und Reprsentativitt. Der Fall der
Nordwestlichen Bandkeramik. Helinium 33, 15767.
VAN DE VELDE, P. 1997. Much ado about nothing: bandkeramik funerary ritual. Analecta
Praehistorica Leidensia 29, 8390.
VAN WILLIGEN, S. 2004. Aspects culturels de la nolithisation en Mditerrane occidentale:
le Cardial et lpicardial. Bulletin de la socit prhistorique franaise 101, 46395.
VISSET, L., CYPRIEN, A.-L., CARCAUD, N., OUGUERRAM, A., BARBIER, D. &
BERNARD, J. 2002. Les prmices dune agriculture diversifie la fin du Msolithique dans
le Val de Loire (Loire armoricaine, France). Cahiers Revistes Palevol 1, 518.
VON GRAFENSTEIN, U., ERLENKEUSER, H., BRAUER, A., JOUZEL, J. & JOHNSEN,
S. J. 1999. A mid-European decadal isotope-climate record from 15,500 to 5000 years BP.
Science 284, 16547.
WAHL, J. & KNIG, H. 1987. Anthropologisch-traumologische Untersuchung der menschlichen Skelettreste aus dem bandkeramischen Massengrab bei Talheim, Kreis Heilbronn.
Fundberichte Baden-Wrttemberg 12, 65193.
WENSKUS, R. 1961. Stammesbildung und Verfassung. Das Werden der frhmittelalterlichen
gentes. Kln: Bhlau.
University Press.
D., PETTITT, P. & RICHARDS, M. 2002. In
WHITTLE, A., BARTOSIEWICZ, L., BORIC,
the beginning: new radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and
south-east Hungary. Antaeus 25, 63117.
WILD, E. M., STADLER, P., HUBER, A., KUTSCHERA, W., STEIER, P., TESCHLERNICOLA, M., WAHL, J. & WINDL, H. J. 2004. Neolithic massacres: local skirmishes or
general warfare in Europe? Radiocarbon 46, 37785.
ZAPATA, L., PEA-CHOCARRO, L., PREZ-JORD, G. & STIKA, H.-P. 2004. Early
Neolithic agriculture in the Iberian Peninsula. Journal of World Prehistory 18, 283325.
ZIMMERMANN, A. 1993. Bandceramic central places? An application of redundancy analysis. In J. Pavk (ed.), Actes du XIIe Congrs International des Sciences Prhistoriques et
Protohistoriques, 3459. Bratislava.
ZIMMERMANN, A. 1995. Austauschsysteme von Silexartefakten in der Bandkeramik
Mitteleuropas. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Universittsforschungen zur Prhistorischen
Archologie 26.
ZVELEBIL, M. 2004. The many origins of the LBK. In A. Lukes & M. Zvelebil (eds), LBK
dialogues: studies in the formation of the Linear Pottery culture, 183205. Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports International Series 1304.
Beyond migration versus acculturation:

new models for the spread of agriculture
JOHN ROBB & PRESTON MIRACLE
INTRODUCTION: A DESPERATE PLEA FOR NEW IDEAS

THE BEGINNING OF FARMING should be one of the most exciting issues in
European prehistory. Instead, it runs repetitively in well-worn ruts. Was it the
movement of farmers or was it foragers adopting farming for reasons of their
own? These are the choices. Our interpretive logic has remained static for at
least two decades, the chart depicting migration and acculturation zones has
been fought to a stable frontier, and scholars on both sides seem puzzled as to
what could possibly be done to further the question beyond accumulating
further data on their own corners of Europe. For example, in recent discussions of the topic, researchers continue to question the relative importance of
ideational versus economic changes (Rowley-Conwy 2004; Thomas 2003),
and to accumulate new evidence to track the movement of agriculture
(Colledge et al. 2004; Price et al. 2001). But with few exceptions (such as
Barnett 2000; Bellwood & Renfrew 2002; Forenbaher & Miracle 2005;
Zvelebil 2002), there has been little work on models that move beyond the
migration vs. acculturation stalemate. In many ways this is a debate in search
of a paradigm shift (cf. Price 2003).
Why all this should be so is mysterious, given that some of the most agile
minds in archaeology have been writing on the Neolithic transition. What has
happened, apparently, has been a case of talking past each other. Because the
various schools of thought writing on the issue start from different theoretical
propositionsoften differing even on what the term Neolithic implies
theorists tend to start out with strong a priori views, use the evidence to establish their own position to their own satisfaction, and then get on with writing
about what really interests them on their preferred side of the migrationacculturation line (whether this is big-picture spotting of cultural similarities
across Europe or an extremely localised view of culture as meaningful experience). As a solution to the practical and political difficulties of academic life,
this works ideally. However, among its collateral effects is a willingness to
100
accept basic terms of argument as a highly polarised dichotomy between only

two scenarios, neither of which is actually very plausible. Moreover, evidential tropes are presented as increasingly weary, formalistic claims, rather than
with real thought or conviction. The result is a lurking suspicion, in us at
least, that probably neither side is right about what actually occurred.
This paper aims to open up this theoretical can of worms, working in
similar directions to some recent essays in a non-dichotomised, nonessentialising archaeology of Europe in this period. These take two distinct
but related directions. One is to re-evaluate standard interpretive tropes in
classic cases such as the LBK, and to argue for much more complex processes at the forager-farmer encounter (Gronenborn 1999; 2004; Kind 1998;
Modderman 1988; Tillmann 1993). This strategy grapples closely with the
complexities of the evidence, and it often involves refreshingly concrete
models of social processes, but at times it implicitly accepts traditional
parameters of the problem (for instance, that economies such as farming and
foraging corresponded to social group identities). A more radical approach is
represented by theorists who question the idea that one can define essentialist
identities based upon economies (Bailey et al. 2005; Whittle 2003).
In keeping with what we hope is a growing critical trend, we first discuss
the basic terms of argument critically, then pose several new models, and conclude by discussingoptimistically, we hopethe resolvability of the question. Beyond the Socratic aim of annoying all parties to the debate equally,
we hope to open a theoretical space in which Europe between 7000 and 4000
cal BC can be freed of encumbering conceptual baggage and viewed as a real
ethnographic landscape.
INTERPRETIVE TROPES: WHAT IS THE STANDARD LOGIC

ACTUALLY BASED UPON, IF ANYTHING?
At 8000 cal BC Europe was a continent of foragers. At 4000 cal BC it was a
continent of farmers. How this happened has been the focus of argument for
at least a century (Rudebeck 2000), with causes cited ranging from the desperate need to stave off famine to the inherent perfectibility of human civilisation. However, before archaeologists can explain why the shift happened,
we need to describe the social process of how it happened. The question of
how has been posed, for at least a century, in terms of two opposed alternatives. Either the Neolithic was carried throughout Europe by the actual
movement of farming peoples intruding into a landscape of foragers, or foragers adopted it for their own endogenous reasons once they gained access to
it through neighbours who farmed. For the last two decades, these alternatives have been divided spatially as well. Champions of forager adoption have
NEW MODELS FOR THE SPREAD OF AGRICULTURE
101
generally conceded two or three core areas to migrationists: the initial

Neolithic of the Balkans, the LBK, and the initial spread of Impressed/
Cardial Ware throughout the Mediterranean. Conversely, outlying and interstitial areas such as the Alps, Central Iberia, the Atlantic fringe of France,
Belgium and the Netherlands, Scandinavia, Britain and Ireland are commonly viewed as places where foragers adopted the Neolithic slowly, late, and
often partially (Zvelebil 2002; Zvelebil & Lillie 2000; Zvelebil & RowleyConwy 1986). This approach is certainly an advance over simple monocausal
models through its recognition of geographic and temporal variability in
rate and mechanism of the adoption of farming. Recent work emphasising the mosaic nature of the transition when examined on a fine scale is
equally to be applauded. However, if taken too literally, this approach is still
founded on a dichotomous view of agriculture as being spread either by
migration or by acculturation. Even characterising the spread of agriculture
in prehistoric Europe as a fine-grained mosaic of small-scale migrations and
adoptions carves the map into smaller pieces rather than examining the
underlying mechanisms of the spread. It is more finely pixelated but still
bichromic.
What is this view based upon? Almost all parties use the same canonical
criteria (Table 1; Bogucki 2000; Rouse 1958; 1986). There are two principal
criteria: the speed with which the Neolithic spreads and whether the complete package (horticulture, domestic animals, polished stone tools, pottery
and settled villages) spread together or merely as piecemeal traits. More
complex interpretations tend to be extrapolations from these tenets; for
example, the idea that differences in the contextual usage of Neolithic
technologies indicates local adoption by foragers rests upon the same logic
of homogeneity equals migration, heterogeneity equals acculturation.
Each of these interpretive tropes rests upon highly questionable assumptions which have, however, received remarkably little critique. Speed of spread
first emerged as an issue when radiocarbon dating revealed a consistent, directional spread of farming across Europe at about 1 km/year (Ammerman &
Cavalli-Sforza 1973; 1984; Clark 1965). Certain parts of this expansion, particularly the LBK, turned out to move much more rapidly, and Ammerman
Table 1.
List of standard interpretive tropes.
Criterion
Migration
Acculturation
Speed
Migrations spread farming

quickly
Adoption is a gradual process
Traits transmitted
Transmission of complete
Neolithic package, or several
unrelated traits
Transmission of incomplete
Neolithic package, or only one
aspect
102
and Cavalli-Sforza admitted that, to sustain this growth, frontier farmers

would have to reproduce at a rate approaching the theoretical maximum for
human populations. However, three decades of research later, it is clear that
LBK farming did not spread through a demographic wave of advance but by
leap-frogging among patchy, low-density enclaves. Given this, and given the
difficulty of providing a satisfactory motive for LBK leap-frogging (Bogucki
2000; 2003), one would think that all bets are off as far as how fast or slow
migrating enclaves could reasonably be expected to move (Price 2003).
The converse assumption, that forager acculturation would inherently be a
slow process, seems to rest, logically enough, upon the idea that each forager
group could not adopt farming until it became available from a neighbouring
group, hence a long-distance movement of farming would require a long accumulation of such lag times. But as a prima facie assumption, why should we
believe that LBK farmers could move an entire village society 20 or 30 km in
a decade but that it would take foragers much longer than this to acquire
Neolithic ways from their neighbours this distance away? We should also bear
in mind that people are mobile for all sorts of reasons besides migration (see
below). There is abundant and compelling evidence of high residential and
logistic mobility among recent foragers, as well as evidence from long-distance
transfers of raw materials such as lithics and molluscs that past European foragers were highly mobile. Thus distance might not have been the same for the
two groups; foragers would have been more mobile over larger territories, so
that 50 km might involve one step of transmission from one foraging group to
the next, but many more transmission steps among settled farmers.
The other criterionwhether a complete Neolithic package or only
selected traits is transmittedhas really provided the keystone of interpretation. The logic seems common sense; immigrants will transport all their
traits, including unrelated ones and inconsequential cultural baggage, while
acculturating foragers will be free to choose what novelties interest them.
Granted, the range of lifeways we can actually monitor archaeologically is
limited (we lack, for instance, the dress, language and beliefs which often
mark immigrants in modern societies) and most are functionally related, for
instance pottery, sedentism, axes, and the storage of agricultural produce. We
might also note a latent directional teleology through which it is assumed that
foragers may adopt farmers lifeways but not the reverse. But the real problem here is a remarkable double standard of logic. Migrating farmers carry
their physical and conceptual baggage with them like a snail carrying its shell;
transmission, for them, is essentially a passive process. Foragers shop at the
Neolithic store; transmission is an active act of choice.1
1
In this sense, these two views come pre-aligned with theoretical positions; those viewing culture
as an active and meaningful choice are inherently predisposed towards forager acculturation
103
How does questioning this assumption actually change our interpretation? To take one example, it is often claimed that the homogeneity of the
LBK way of life over great distances indicates it was carried by migrants. But
it would be equally logical, and probably more so, to assume that groups
separating and meeting new environments and other populations would
change their culture as they moved, losing some elements and gaining new
ones. If so, we must regard LBK homogeneity not as passive photocopying
but as an actively chosen phenomenon, a rigid adherence to uniformity for
social reasons, a defiance of distance. Yet once we admit that more sophisticated social motives may influence choices about both farmer-farmer and
farmer-forager transmission, the basis of interpretation shifts. LBK homogeneity could equally well be due to migrants anxious about isolation maintaining a network with home or, for that matter, to foragers adopting a
package whose uniformity was important to maintain for ideological reasons.
To take another example, groups who had pottery or domesticates but who
hunted and foraged or used Mesolithic-style lithics are usually seen as acculturating foragers. Yet we might equally well expect migrants into a new
region, particularly one with a radically different environment, to learn ways
of living there from people already there and to change their way of life
accordingly.
The biggest assumption of all, of course, is that there are only two possible processes which patterns of transmission must be matched to. This is discussed further below; here we note only that it has become an unconscious
term of argument which pre-structures how one must interpret the evidence,
for instance in the mandate to resolve and mask ambiguities in order to be
able to pronounce any given situation as a result of either migration or
acculturation.
SOME BASIC PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION

The above discussion comes to the conclusion that for such a traditional and
solid-looking edifice, the standard arguments for both migration and
acculturation are based on remarkably little defensible logic. We now
attempt some constructive argument.
explanations, while those who view it as passive tradition are inherently predisposed towards
migrations. It gives a rather depressing picture of the level of critical debate that it has taken
several decades before anyone has apparently raised the idea that transmission from one group
of farmers to another is equally well an active social choice.
104
Economies technologies cultures identities

As a point of departure, it is worth restating the obvious. While we are interested in explaining the spread of the Neolithic (however it is defined), this is
our own preoccupation and need not correspond to anything recognised by
prehistoric Europeans. In the archaeological imagination, Mesolithic and
Neolithic become self-imposing and inescapable terms of discourse; it is
extremely difficult to avoid slipping, unconsciously, from classifying a society
archaeologically as Mesolithic to assuming that it was in fact ethnographically
made up of Mesolithic people who must have been socially distinct from
Neolithic people. This archaeological essentialism results in a dichotomous
approach to the societies we are trying to understand, and arguably forms the
greatest single obstacle towards actually understanding it.
An example helps. In ethnohistoric Native North America (Fig. 1), we
can draw a moderately clear line between horticulturalists and groups who
exclusively foraged. This frontier, however, corresponds poorly with the distribution of permanent (non-mobile) housing, and even less well with the
distribution of pottery. It bears no relation at all to aspects of ritual such as
the use of sweat lodges for purification, or for that matter to language groups.
Our point here is not merely to deconstruct the idea of an inviolable
Neolithic package, a point made many times in recent years. Rather, it is to
show how relations between farming and non-farming societies varied
immensely, to the degree that using economy-based archaeological classifications such as Neolithic and Mesolithic to envision what peoples identities
were and how they related is highly distorting. In some cases, for instance the
Hurons and the Algonquins, or the Pueblos and the Comanches, the edge of
farming coincides with a recognised ethnic difference. Such cases seem more
common at a sharp ecological frontier (in this case with ecologically specialised trade across it, somewhat as in Zvelebil and Lillies model (2000) for
the Baltic). In other cases, such as between the semi-farming groups on the
eastern Plains and the bison hunters of the Central Plains, they shared many
elements of worldview, ritual and material culture, and it is likely that the
most marked differences between them had a relatively shallow time depth.
In the Eastern Woodlands, groups moving into new environments (from
woodlands to prairies, for example) learned to practise new economies as
they moved. Other groups varied their economy along a spectrum from foraging to horticulture. Ojibway groups, for example, included groups reliant
upon maize gardens and groups living entirely on hunting, fishing and gathering. Here a sharp line between between farmers and foragers would cut
a self-recognised ethnic group in half. Moreover, there were widely shared
cultural practices and idioms which cut across all economic boundaries, such
as the ritual use of tobacco and sweat lodges.
105
Figure 1. The distribution of horticulture, non-mobile houses, pottery, and ritual use of sweat
lodges in Native North America (after Driver & Massey 1957).
106
Economy was often, perhaps usually, not the main way in which Native
American tribes defined themselves and their relations with their neighbours.
As this suggests, we need to approach the archaeological record without
preconceptions about how people with different economies or material
cultures would have interacted.
People are always moving
Social movement in space is central to explaining the spread of the Neolithic.
A second implicit tenet of much Neolithic-transitionology is that societies are
closed and static. This underlies the proposition that Neolithic things can
move into Mesolithic territories by only two ways: borrowing without the
movement of people, or the movement of an entire social group.
Even a cursory reading of any ethnohistory reveals this as a fiction.
Movement is fundamental to the lives of most foraging groups, and annual
routines may include aggregation with other groups as well as with their own
kin. Continuing with North American examples, the hunting and fishing
Nipissing, for instance, often over-wintered with sedentary Huron farmers.
Movement also typifies farmers. Pueblos are often considered the quintessential sedentary farming groups, self-contained islands in the desert. But
pueblos typically included people married in from neighbouring pueblos, resident or visiting people from neighbouring forager groups, and individuals
and families integrated as refugees or captives. Sometimes quite large groups
joined a pueblo en bloc as the survivors of a village decimated in war, as a faction driven out of its home village by internal politics, or simply lured by an
economic opportunity or cultural attraction. This fluidity, typical of both
farmers and foragers, is driven by many causes, among them the sheer vicissitudes of history, coping with the demographic needs of very small groups,
the inherent value of people and their labour, and the need for wide alliances
across ecological boundaries.
We would draw the following implications, in brief, for understanding the
Neolithic transition. First, movement of people was probably an essential
vector for the spread of the Neolithic. Our argument here is that artefacts
entail detailed systems of social knowledge; things such as domestic animals,
shorn of their techno-cultural context, can certainly be used and consumed,
but are difficult to reproduce and use fully. Hence Neolithic things probably
moved with Neolithic people to make and use them. But, secondly, the
movement of people happened in a great range of forms. The spectrum
would have included the movement of individuals and families, the movement of multi-family groups to be integrated into a recipient society, and the
movement of entire and self-sufficient societies (Barnett 2000; Forenbaher &
Miracle 2005). Much of this movement would not have been understood as
107
a migration but as normal social processes common to both foragers and

farmers. Of these, the most common forms, which we can assume to have
been present in all societies, would have been the relatively invisible movement of individuals and families. Moreover, and importantly, this normal
movement of people between groups need not have been directional. We cannot assume that normal people exchange happened only among foragers or
farmers and not between them, nor that movement between foraging and
farming groups was unidirectional and restricted to the movement of farming
groups into forager territory, the movement of forager women to marry
farming men, or any other single scenario.
Social reproduction for both foragers and farmers
As noted above, the standard construal of the problem uses a double standard of logic. To indigenous foragers, culture is a conscious choice; to incoming farmers, culture is passive baggage. This is clearly unjust to our putative
Neolithic farmers, whom we must theorise with similar capacity for social
and cultural action. In other words, we must consider a Neolithic farmers
decision of whether to reproduce, modify or give up the traditions of her
group as no different from a Mesolithic foragers decision. The same is true
for the decision to live in ones home, to move to another community, or to
move ones whole community elsewhere. For farmers and foragers equally,
and indeed for all the groups between these two stereotyped polarities, living
out their history meant continually evaluating and reinventing traditions, and
choosing from a repertoire of available possibilities, whatever the historical
source of this repertoire was.
Social and political models
The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition is documented and well interpreted in a
number of ways. Traditional archaeologists have regarded it as a change of
archaeological cultures. The transition is often understood principally as an
economic shift. Post-processualists have regarded the advent of the Neolithic
as a cultural choice, a shift in systems of meaning, decoupled from both
large-scale archaeological patterning and economy.
All of these are useful ingredients, but what is missing is the idea of social
action. Culture-historical models generally treat the transmission of culture
from one generation to the next, or from one group to a neighbouring one, as
a straightforward and obvious matter, without specifying the social context
which determines why it happens in one way and not in any of a myriad of
other possibilities. Economic interpretations typically treat Neolithic economy as an ecological adaptation driven by necessity; the people themselves
108
do not have particular reasons for choosing to produce what they do in the
way they do. While we find treatments of the Neolithic transition as a shift in
cultural attitude highly stimulating, they too lack a certain explanatory je ne
sais quoi. For example, Mesolithic foragers choices are typically interpreted
by referring them to generalised traditions and attitudes (such as food preferences, respect for ancestors, and so on), with little consideration of the
concrete social relations and reasons, the positioned actions, the cultural
micro-politics within which tradition is invoked or reinvented. Among the few
models to treat the transition socially have been those of Bender (1978), Price
(1995), Hayden (1990), Tillmann (1993) and Zvelebil (1986). The reproduction
of society and culture through human agency is a central locus which cannot
be omitted here, as it furnishes the common ground upon which cultural and
economic understandings of the Neolithic transition meet.
THE RANGE OF POSSIBILITIES:

RESULTING ARCHAEOLOGICAL PATTERNS
To put the point in concrete terms, consider an encounter between parties
with two distinct ways of life. As noted above, this may happen on scales
ranging from individuals to entire groups. There are at least four distinct
responses each party can have to this difference, including not changing their
way of life in any way, heightening differences between the groups, adopting
some new techniques or items or adjusting their way of life to integrate or
accommodate the other, and adopting all of the new way of life as a complete
package.
Table 2 presents some expected patterns for how the encounter might
unfold. This is simplified in considering only what impact an incoming way
of life might have on an indigenous way of life, rather than vice versa.
Moreover, it seems possible, even probable, that more than one of these
responses would occur in any given situation; in many contact situations, for
example, people simultaneously absorb practices and goods from each other
and heighten their own traditions to accentuate the difference between them.
Without labouring the obvious, we would point out five implications of
this admittedly first step in model-building.
1 One initial conclusion is that the traditional scenariosmigration
and acculturationoccupy only a small fraction of the total possibility
space. The classic migration scenario in particular may represent a relatively
uncommon possibility, if societies are rarely as well bounded as it supposes.2
2
Indeed, in assuming a collision between groups with strongly marked boundaries, no history of
previous interaction, and little common heritage, a strong migrationist scenario echoes the
109
2 A second implication is that many outcomes are equifinalleaving

similar archaeological patterns. For example, using the standard archaeological criteria discussed above, there is no way to differentiate between the
classic migration scenario and a wholesale adoption of a new way of life by
indigenous people.
3 Following from this, one archaeological priority must be to devise
criteria for interpreting a situation which can differentiate between a greater
range of possibilities. For example, we must look for patterning at different
scales within siteswhich requires forms of excavation not commonly
employed when it is assumed that sites can be classified as representing
homogeneous ways of life. New scientific methods such as the use of stable
isotopes to identify mobility patterns may be invaluable in this if the resulting
data are not simply to be used to reinforce conventional narratives.
4 Equifinality itself may be telling us something important. The past
furnishes material for continual reformulation of tradition in the present.
Tracing the historical derivation of a groups way of life genealogically is our
own preoccupation rather than a logical necessity of the past. The fact that a
group presents itself archaeologically in a way which does not make its
origins transparently evident may be telling us about the choices and priorities
involved in their way of life.
5 Given the latitude of possibilities involved in a cultural encounter, the
actual outcome must be understood as social in a number of ways. The act of
contact is best thought of not as a purely external phenomenon causing a
social response, but must have been enmeshed in social relations. Its effects
surely depended upon social context (for instance whether the groups
involved regarded themselves as related), on the desirability of mobility,
aggregation, tradition and similar factors, and upon social agendas within
each group. Difference itself may have been an important cultural resource to
be valued, shunned or played with.
Reinterpreting the LBK: enclave migration as cultural reformulation
As an illustration, we briefly sketch out a reinterpretation of the classic scenario of LBK migration. While the LBKs status as a migration has sometimes been questioned (Gronenborn 1999; 2004; Kind 1998; Modderman
1988; Tillmann 1993; Whittle 1996), it remains the prevailing wisdom that the
conditions of post-Columbian European colonialism in the Americas and elsewhere; even

ancient colonial situations such as the Mycenaeans and, later, the Greeks in the Central
Mediterranean, would often have involved greater equalities of technology and organisation and
much greater mutual comprehensibility in cultural idioms. On the political context of theorising
the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition, see Pluciennik (2001).
Static frontier between

well-bounded ways of
life
Blurry, polythetic and

moving frontier between
ways of life (classic
acculturation scenario)
Moving frontier between

two well-bounded ways
of life
None
Piecemeal adoption
of specific traits
Adoption of
complete lifestyle
Static frontier between

ways of life becoming
more accentuated
None

two well-bounded ways of
life
Heterogeneity on all scales

within and between groups;
spread of difference in
landscape without clear
boundaries
Fine-grained heterogeneity
within group; on regional
scale, gradual spread of
difference within
increasingly poorly
bounded ways of life
Fine-grained heterogeneity
within groups more marked
than it was between source
communities
Individual
Moving frontier between two

well-bounded ways of life
Heterogeneity on all scales

within and between groups;
spread of difference in
landscape without clear
boundaries
Heterogeneity within group

on household or segment
level; on regional scale,
gradual spread of difference
within increasingly poorly
bounded ways of life
Heterogeneity within groups

more marked than it was
between source communities
Family/ segments
Level of mobility between groups with different ways of life
Some possible models for social interaction where two ways of life meet.
Heightening cultural
difference
Table 2.
Response to cultural difference

life

two ways of life with
halo of blurry spread of
difference beyond it

life (classic migration
scenario)

two well-bounded,
increasingly differentiated
ways of life
Whole group
110
111
LBK was carried from Hungary to France on the backs of westwardlymoving peoples. We do not claim that this reinterpretation is necessarily
correct, just that it demonstrates how scenarios radically different from
conventional interpretations are equally plausible once we scrutinise the
foundations of interpretation critically.
For many archaeologists, the LBK is the Neolithic migration. It moves
quickly. From its origins in western Hungary around 5500 cal BC, it reached
as far west as west-central Germany in little more than two centuries, and by
5000 cal BC at the latest it had arrived in the Low Countries and eastern
France. This is a rapid spread by any standard, covering about 1500 km in no
more than 500 yearsan average of 3 km/year or 75 km/generation. As for
the other criteria of migration, LBK economy is overwhelmingly based upon
domesticated crops and animals. Moreover, the LBK is marked by a highly
consistent set of material things. LBK potsespecially from the first few
founding generationsare similar over a huge area. The same is true for the
famous LBK longhouses; these monumental dwellings show a very similar
layout throughout the LBK range. This implies a homogeneous sedentary
way of life radically different from that of mobile foragers. The standard
view, consequently, is that the LBK spread through Central and Western
Europe through a real movement of Neolithic colonists.
Yet once we begin to question the basis of such interpretations, other
views become equally plausible. There are three reasons why it is difficult to
defend an interpretation of the LBK as a migration.
1 First, such a rapid spread is demographically difficult to sustain. Even
if we acknowledge the lack of any evidence for population pressure to drive a
wave of advance model, and follow an enclave migration model instead, we
still have to imagine the frontier communities doubling their size to spawn off
a new daughter population every generation. This requires an average growth
rate of about 3% per year, close to the theoretical maximum and rarely
sustained in any human community for long (Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza
1984).
2 Secondly, the very uniformity of the LBK is a problem. We argue that
homogeneity is not likely to be the ground state of human beings, particularly
in small, widely separated, decentralised communities, and there is little reason to presume a priori that each generation moving into new territory would
maintain their culture and economy unmodified. If we consider the LBK as
created by increasingly distant small groups over about twenty generations,
realistically we should expect the pot or house arriving in France to be noticeably different from that leaving Hungary. Even if the accuracy of cultural
reproduction were 99% between each generation/move, one would still expect
a divergence of almost 20% between initial and final LBK groups. Strong
social processes must be at work to prevent replication/transmission errors.
112
3 Thirdly, it is difficult to understand the motivation or cause for the

LBK as a migration. Discounting population pressure, enclave migration has
been ascribed to either idiosyncratic social customs or characteristics of complex adaptive systems (Bogucki 2000) or a strategy for evading the possible
inegalitarian social relations possible within Neolithic villages (Zilho 2003).
The former is possible, but seems an ad hoc supposition; the latter begs the
question of why the phenomenon is therefore not found much more widely
among early farming societies, and why many groups within Neolithic landscapes, where such migration was not an option, do not display evidence of
marked inequality.
As an alternative scenario, we seek the roots of the LBK in Mesolithic
foragers enhancing a Mesolithic lifestyle. Mesolithic Europe was populated
by thinly dispersed groups, but they had a tendency to aggregate when exceptionally dense resources allowed it. Sociality was attractive; perhaps not yearround, but in a counterpoint of partial mobility. The Late Mesolithic
complex hunters of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts show the potential of
Mesolithic groups to transform in areas where resources were rich and dense.
In contrast, in the thinly settled heartland of Central Europe, resources did
not allow large groups to aggregate except in exceptional circumstances such
as the Iron Gates. Thus, there was a pre-existing Mesolithic association of
food surplus, periodic sedentism, and sociality.
The next step is obvious. In areas of dispersed natural resources, when
domesticated foods became available, they were slotted into this social role,
that of supporting sociality. This role for domesticates has been proposed for
Scandinavia by Price (1995), but it can fit foragers in less rich environments as
well or better. The new economy would have been transmitted through the
normal movement of people between Mesolithic groups; the LBK thus may
well have expanded along the lines of pre-existing linkages between Mesolithic
populations, which would have been along rivers since they provide corridors
for easy movement and surplus resources to underwrite aggregations.
With more frequent and permanent aggregation, however, came both economic and political changes. Sociality itself may have been collectively valued
rather than simply a tool for ambitious political strategists. Domesticates
provided controllable power resources for actualising sociality, at the cost of
shifting annual mobility rounds. Loose, flexible relations based upon movement within territory shifted to more rigidly defined ones centred upon specific places, the focus of labour, commitment and identity. And these places
and relations required new ways of conceptualising identity. Hence new
resources were conceptualised in terms of the construction of new kinds of
places. It is thus no accident that house design is one of the icons of unity,
with the massive, overbuilt longhouses which have rightly been considered
monuments of domestic identity. Likewise, pottery is a socially obvious thing
113
used in situations of communal eating and drinking. Moreover, the newly

adopted way of life would be understood in terms of a narrative of descent
which would trace its connections to the places and groups from which these
things were adopted. This may be the importance of the very strong stylistic
unity of the LBK pots and houses: surely the result of close attention to
uniformity rather than haphazard unthinking reproduction.
In this interpretation, LBK farming was adopted rapidly and uniformly
by a minority of Mesolithic foragers in very specific environments, for reasons originating in Mesolithic power relations and cultural themes of food,
aggregation, and sociality. When they did so, they used Neolithic material
culture to underscore the difference between themselves and their predecessors and neighbours. They were creating radical difference as a form of identity politics, severing themselves from local history. It seems unlikely that this
claim to exotic origins would be expressed only in material culture. We could
well expect revisionist group historyrecreating genealogy to create or
emphasise myths of exotic descent. Thus, we are arguing, if you showed up
at an LBK village and asked them whether their ancestors had come from
somewhere else, they would say yes. And they would be wrong.
CONCLUSIONS:
TRANSFORMATION OF AN ETHNOGRAPHIC LANDSCAPE
Asking did the Neolithic get there by migration or acculturation is really the
wrong question to ask, and it pre-structures any possible answer in unhelpful
ways. It represents only a fraction of possible social interactions, and it
imposes an almost irresistible need to think of Neolithic people meeting
Mesolithic people, even though these are our own constructed, essentialising
categories rather than necessarily referring to any real social identities (cf.
Bailey et al. 2005).
Rather, the problem becomes how did each group, whether forager,
farmer, or something in between, make use of cultural differences both
among themselves and available from their neighbours, to recreate their way
of life? The source of this repertoire is not irrelevant, but is hardly the only
or most important element. Instead, the key is the social logic with which
available possibilities were reinvented as actualities. Even if our interest,
ultimately, is to trace the historical origin of a way of life, we must approach
it by investigating how it was socially reproduced in the first instance.
Can this be done? We would like to think, optimistically, that it can. New
research questions challenge us to develop new methodologies. For example,
our just-so story about the Mesolithic origins of the LBK could presumably
be investigated, and differentiated from a migrationist account, in a range of
114
ways. Some would involve new forms of data, such as the use of human bone
chemistry to track patterns of mobility. It should be emphasised, however,
that cutting-edge scientific methods are only as reliable as the interpretive concepts they are used with; there is no point doing twenty-first-century science
to support nineteenth-century archaeology. For example, the challenge in this
case is to use isotope data to investigate how people moved, without assuming
a priori the existence of discrete forager and farmer groups. Other relevant
tactics involve simply re-examining traditional archaeological data such as site
locations and ceramics (to take one example, by looking at variability rather
than typological identification of pottery). Finally, a major step here is to
bridge the traditional divide in how specialists study Mesolithic and Neolithic
societies, by theorising social action equally for both.
REFERENCES
AMMERMAN, A. & CAVALLI-SFORZA, L. 1973. A population model for the diffusion of
early farming in Europe. In C. Renfrew (ed.), The explanation of culture change: models in
prehistory, 33558. London: Duckworth.
AMMERMAN, A. & CAVALLI-SFORZA, L. 1984. The Neolithic transition and the genetics of
populations in Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
BAILEY, D., WHITTLE, A. & CUMMINGS, V. (eds) 2005. (Un)settling the Neolithic. Oxford:
Oxbow.
BARNETT, W. K. 2000. Cardial pottery and the agricultural transition in Mediterranean
Europe. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europes first farmers, 93116. Cambridge; Cambridge
University Press.
BELLWOOD, P. & RENFREW, C. 2002. Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis.
Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
BENDER, B. 1978. Gatherer-hunter to farmer: a social perspective. World Archaeology 10,
20422.
BOGUCKI, P. 2000. How agriculture came to north-central Europe. In T. D. Price (ed.),
Europes first farmers, 197218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BOGUCKI, P. 2003. Neolithic dispersals in riverine interior Central Europe. In A. Ammerman
& P. Biagi (eds), The widening harvest. The Neolithic transition in Europe: looking back, looking
forward, 24972. Boston: American Institute of Archaeology.
CLARK, J. G. D. 1965. Radiocarbon dating and the spread of farming economy. Antiquity 31,
5773.
COLLEDGE, S., CONOLLY, J. & SHENNAN, S. 2004. Archaeobotanical evidence for the
spread of farming in the Eastern Mediterranean. Current Anthropology 45, S35S58.
DRIVER, H. E. & MASSEY, W. C. 1957. Comparative studies of North American Indians
(Transactions 47, Part 2). Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.
FORENBAHER, S. & MIRACLE, P. 2005. The spread of farming in the Eastern Adriatic.
GRONENBORN, D. 1999. A variation on a basic theme: the transition to farming in Southern
GRONENBORN, D. 2004. Comparing contact-period archaeologies: the expansion of farming
and pastoralist societies to continental temperate Europe and to southern Africa. Before
Farming 2004/4, 135.
115
HAYDEN, B. 1990. Nimrods, piscators, pluckers, and planters: the emergence of food production.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9, 3169.
het Rijksdienst voor Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 38, 63140.
PLUCIENNIK, M. 2001. Archaeology, anthropology and subsistence. Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute 7, 74158.
PRICE, T. D. 1995. Social inequality at the origins of agriculture. In T. D. Price & G. M.
Feinman (eds), Foundations of social inequality, 12951. New York: Plenum.
PRICE, T. D. 2003. The arrival of agriculture in Europe as seen from the North. In A. Ammerman
& P. Biagi (eds), The widening harvest. The Neolithic transition in Europe: looking back looking
forward, 27394. Boston: American Institure of Archaeology.
PRICE, T. D., BENTLEY, R. A., LNING, J., GRONENBORN, D. & WAHL, J. 2001.
Prehistoric human migration in the Linearbandkeramik of Central Europe. Antiquity 75,
593603.
ROUSE, I. 1958. The inference of migrations from anthropological evidence. In R. H. Thompson
(ed.), Migrations in New World culture history, 638. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
ROUSE, I. 1986. Migrations in prehistory: inferring population movement from cultural remains.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Britain, Ireland, and Southern Scandinavia. Current Anthropology 45, 83113.
RUDEBECK, E. 2000. Tilling nature, harvesting culture: exploring images of the human being in
the transition to agriculture (Acta Archaeologica Lundensia 32). Stockholm: Almqvist and
Wiksell International.
THOMAS, J. 2003. Thoughts on the repacked Neolithic revolution. Antiquity 77, 6775.
TILLMANN, A. 1993. Kontinuitat oder Diskontinuitat? Zur Frage einer bandkeramischen
Landnahme im sdlichen Mitteleuropa. Archologische Informationen 16, 15787.
WHITTLE, A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic. The creation of new worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
ZILHO, J. 2003. The Neolithic transition in Portugal and the role of demic diffusion in the
spread of agriculture across West Mediterranean Europe. In A. Ammerman & P. Biagi (eds),
The widening harvest. The Neolithic transition in Europe: looking back, looking forward,
20726. Boston: American Institute of Archaeology.
ZVELEBIL, M. 1986. Mesolithic prelude and Neolithic revolution. In M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters
in transition: Mesolithic societies of temperate Eurasia and their transition to farming, 515.
Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.
ZVELEBIL, M. 2002. Demography and the dispersal of early farming populations at the
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition: linguistic and genetic implications. In P. Bellwood &
C. Renfrew (eds), Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis, 37994. Cambridge:
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Mobility, specialisation and community

diversity in the Linearbandkeramik:
isotopic evidence from the skeletons
ALEX BENTLEY
THE THEME OF THIS CONFERENCE VOLUME reflects a growing recognition that

the Neolithic in Europe involvedin different proportions in different
placesboth the colonisation by small groups of farmers and an interaction
with hunter-gatherers. Generations of this interaction not only led foragers
eventually to adopt farming (e.g. Zvelebil 2002), but enabled early farmers to
survive in new surroundings through products and raw materials procured
from indigenous groups. Intermarriage between foragers and farmersas a
basic means to maintain alliances (e.g. Fox 1983, 136)may well be the way
in which small, isolated farmer communities survived through the earliest
generations, with indigenous groups the only option for exogamous marriage.
In fact, indigenous foragers in central Europe may have been as numerous as
the very first agriculturalists (Zvelebil 1997; 2002). At the time of the proposed demographic expansion of the Linearbandkeramik (LBK), even the
Hungarian Plain was sparsely populated with dispersed settlements (Whittle
1996; Zvelebil & Lillie 2000).
The consideration of forager-farmer intermarriage during the initial
phases of the Neolithic is an old topic, of course. Even the classic wave of
advance theory explicitly considered admixture between indigenous and
colonising groups (Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza 1984, 824), as have subsequent demic diffusion models (e.g. Chickhi et al. 2002; Currat & Excoffier
2005; Eswaran 2002). However, because the genetic effects of early foragerfarmer intermarriages would have multiplied themselves through the hundreds
of human generations since the Neolithic (e.g. Bellwood 2005, 260), genetic
models that extrapolate backward from modern populations will be highly
sensitive to tiny changes in not just the assumed admixture rate between
hunter-gatherers and farmers (Currat & Excoffier 2005), but also the sexspecific biases in these intermarriages. Adding this small amount of complexity to genetic models could clear up some apparent incongruities in the
118
Alex Bentley
data. For example, geneticists studying the Y-chromosome in modern

Europeans often argue that Neolithic farming spread primarily through
demic diffusion, or the migrations of the farmers themselves (e.g. Chikhi
et al. 2002; King & Underhill 2002). On the other hand, geneticists studying
mitochondrial DNA in modern Europeans have argued for a much larger
Palaeolithic component in modern Europeans, suggesting that the adoption
of farming by Mesolithic hunter-gatherers was of prime importance (e.g.
Richards 2003; Richards et al. 2000). The apparent discrepancy is most likely
due to over-generalising from different sources of evidence. In fact, because
the Y-chromosome is inherited strictly along the paternal line, and mtDNA
is inherited maternally, a potential solution is a colonisation of small
groups of farmers, in which those of whom survived did so by intermarrying
with indigenous women (e.g. Bellwood 2005, 2602; Bentley et al. 2003b).
Hundreds of generations later, modern European populations could have
inherited their Neolithic, Near-Eastern Y-chromosome haplotypes from
their colonising fathers, and their Palaeolithic mitochondrial DNA from
their indigenous, hunter-gatherer mothers of Continental Europe. A pioneering ancient DNA study appears to supports this, in that a particular
mtDNA haplotype (N1a) found in early Neolithic female skeletons is
comparatively rare among modern Europeans (Haak et al. 2005).
Population genetic studies are but one example of how explicit consideration of demographic heterogeneity greatly enhances our discussions of the
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Europe. Much of the progress so far has
focused on how things changed for populations as a generalised whole, such
as how the diet changed (e.g. Boquet-Appel 2002; Jackes et al. 1997; Richards
et al. 2003), or how the LBK archaeological assemblage (longhouses, pottery,
domestic animals and plants) appeared suddenly from Hungary to eastern
France in a relatively short period in the sixth millennium cal BC (e.g. Gkiasta
et al. 2003). With much of the basic where and when understood for the
spread of the LBK (even if the databases are not well coordinatedsee
Cromb & Van Strydonck 2004; Steele et al. 2004), what is becoming
more interesting at this point is the nature and reasons for the regional differences in the early LBK of central Europe (Bogucki 1996; Bogucki &
Grygiel 1993; Gronenborn 1998; 1999; 2003; Lning et al. 1989; Whittle
1996), including geographic differences in ceramic and lithic assemblages
(Lning et al. 1989; Gronenborn 1994), and in animal husbandry and
farming (Lning 2000).
Questions of LBK heterogeneity directly relate to how agriculture spread
and who it involved. Assessing indigenous involvement is more than a simple
modelling of admixture rates, not least in terms of when the intermarriage
may have taken place. Over time, in areas where foragers were in more frequent contact with farmer communities, foragers may have adopted agricul-
MOBILITY, SPECIALISATION AND COMMUNITY DIVERSITY
119
ture by competing for economic exchange with farmers (e.g. Dennell 1983;
Gronenborn 1999; 2003; Jeunesse 2000; Otte & Noiret 2001; Tillmann 1993;
Whittle 1996). For example, by considering the geographic distributions of
Mesolithic and Neolithic sites in Europe around 60005000 cal BC, Lahr
et al. (2000) argue that Mesolithic settlement was generally sparser in Central
Europe and the Northern European Plains when the first Neolithic groups
appeared, but forager populations may well have increased in these regions
after farming was established (see Lahr et al. 2000, fig. 8.3). This may have
resulted from foragers being attracted to agricultural areas for economic
exchange, and entering into what Bailey (1988) termed a symbiosis with
farmers. As described by the frontier mobility or availability model
(Zvelebil & Lillie 2000; Zvelebil & Rowley-Conwy 1984), foragers during the
early stages of the forager/farmer frontier would have acquired a few domestic animals through trade. Later on, status differences emerged among foragers as they over-exploited their resources in competition to exchange with
farmers. As male foragers lost prestige, forager women may have immigrated
into the farming communities. Eventually, this social competition induced
foragers to adopt farming. An ethno-historical example of this process
occurring involves the Muckogodo hunter-gatherers and Masaii pastoralists
of southern Africa (Cronk 1989).
One way to enhance our understanding of the LBK is to zoom in on the
generalised picture, and examine patterns of local diversity and specialisation
within LBK communities (e.g. Bentley & Shennan 2003; Strein 2000). Within
any typical LBK community, we might consider the heterogeneity that
existed ethnically, economically, and socially, and how each of those aspects
changed through time. Ethnically, the people occupying Central Europe during the LBK were a mix of indigenous and migrant ancestries. Economically,
it is doubtful that everyone in each LBK community made pottery, herded
livestock and cultivated plants as equal generalists. Did subsistence specialisations, such as livestock herding versus crop cultivation develop over time?
Socially, were early LBK communities subdivided in ways that mirrored these
specialities or potentially mixed ancestries?
This chapter considers the LBK in south-western Germany (Fig. 1),
which is an ideal study area regarding questions of community diversity,
because it was at or near the frontier zone between foragers and farmers for
centuries, c. 55005200 cal BC (e.g. Gronenborn 1999; 2003; Jochim 2000;
Zvelebil & Rowley-Conwy 1984). The presence of shell-tempered, La
Hoguette pottery in terminal Mesolithic contexts in Alsace indicates that
indigenous groups were at least in indirect contact with Neolithic (probably
Cardial) communities, even if it is debatable whether La Hoguette predates
the earliest LBK in southern Germany (e.g. Bogucki 2000; Gronenborn 1999;
Jeunesse 1987; Schtz et al. 1992). Flint from the Paris Basin and the Maas
120
Alex Bentley
Figure 1. The Rhine Valley and adjacent areas, showing the extent of early LBK settlement,
c. 5300 BC. Sites mentioned in the text include: D Dillingen, F Flomborn, S Schwetzingen,
SM Stuttgart-Mlhausen, T Talheim, V Vaihingen. Reproduced by courtesy of the
Institute of Archaeology, University College London.
121
Valley of the Netherlands, each well within Mesolithic territory during the
early LBK, are found in LBK contexts in the Rhine valley, at sites such as
Bruchenbrcken, Zimmersheim, Ensisheim, Bischoffsheim and SpechbachLe-Bas (Cziesla 1994; Gronenborn 1999; Jeunesse 1997; Mauvilly 1997). At
Bruchenbrcken, the earliest LBK blades have faceted striking platforms
with a 70 angle between the striking platform and the dorsal ridge, which is
common on Mesolithic blades from the Paris Basin, but not in Earliest LBK
blades elsewhere, for which 90 was the norm (Gronenborn 1998). In addition, a pointed base vessel recently discovered at the LBK site of Rosheim in
Alsace may derive from the Erteblle culture or even possibly the Russian
steppes (Gronenborn 2003; Jeunesse & LeFranc 1999).
LOCAL EVIDENCE ON THE SCALE OF THE INDIVIDUAL

Local diversity in the early European Neolithic can be characterised by
studying the skeletons of the people involved, either through craniometrics,
ancient DNA, or isotopic analysis, each of which has indicated some degree
of indigenous adoption through interaction with early farmers (Bentley
et al. 2002; Brace et al. 2006; Haak et al. 2005). In the LBK of central
Europe, many of the useful isotopic data so far have come from strontium
isotope analysis, which is a way of recovering a geographic signature from
archaeological tooth enamel, indicating where the animal spent its time during childhood, when the enamel mineral was forming (e.g. Price et al. 2002).
Essentially, strontium isotope ratios (hereafter 87Sr/86Sr) are conveyed from
weathering rocks, through the soil, into the food chain and ultimately into the
skeleton of local animals, without measurable fractionation (change in the
ratio) during the process (Capo et al. 1998). Unfortunately, 87Sr/86Sr in such
environmental materials such as rocks and soils can be quite variable, and not
necessarily representative of the biologically-available values (e.g. Capo et al.
1998; Sillen et al. 1998). However, by averaging the 87Sr/86Sr differences
between rocks, soils, parts of individual plants and so on, animals feeding in
the same location acquire similar 87Sr/86Sr in their skeletons, with a much
smaller variance than in the local soils and plants (Burton et al. 1999; Price
et al. 2002). Hence 87Sr/86Sr in the skeletons of animals tend to represent a
geographic average of their local, biologically-available strontium (Bentley
et al. 2004; Burton et al. 1999; Price et al. 2002).
Although tremendously useful for characterising variations within communities, strontium isotopes are rarely an exact signature that pinpoints just
where a person was born. The strontium isotope ratio in tooth enamel,
87
Sr/86Sr, is simply a number, usually 5 digits, that represents an average of the
biologically-available strontium taken in by an animal while the sampled
Alex Bentley
122
enamel was forming. Two people from places with similar geology will
acquire similar 5-digit numbers no matter how far apart those places were.
Furthermore, if an animal travelled while its enamel formed, then the measured 87Sr/86Sr reflects an average of all the locations visited in the time covered by the enamel sample. If it is possible to sample the enamel in very small
increments along its growth axis, then the time resolution is much improved,
but in any case, the 87Sr/86Sr reflects an average of strontium intake for some
particular time interval.
The point is that, rather than treating 87Sr/86Sr as a magic signature as it
is sometimes portrayed by journalists, a focus on patterns of 87Sr/86Sr variation can shed wonderful insight on prehistoric human mobility, community
and diversity. This is especially true when 87Sr/86Sr is combined with other
isotopes, such as oxygen and carbon or nitrogen. The trick is to look for
statistically-significant patterns of local versus non-local values among groups
of different individuals, rather than trying to pinpoint the exact origins of a
few individuals. For example, we might find a significantly higher incidence
of non-locals among either men or women (suggestive of matrilocality or
patrilocality, respectively), among those buried with a certain artefact or in a
certain cardinal orientation (indicative of social differences between locals
and non-locals), among those from a certain part of the site (characterising
neighbourhoods within the site), or among those whose skeletons are
morphologically distinctive (showing differences in health or possibly even
genetic ancestry between locals and non-locals). Furthermore, when paired
with measurements on domestic animals, it may be possible that certain
isotopic signatures in people were derived from herding animals to the
same places. In this way, community diversity, subsistence specialisation and
even kinship and marriage patterns can be inferred from the isotopic data,
through a knowledge simply of the difference between the local and non-local
signatures at a particular study site.
ISOTOPIC RESULTS FROM LBK SKELETONS OF

SOUTHERN GERMANY
South-western Germany is an ideal study region for strontium isotope analysis of LBK skeletal samples not just for the archaeological regions discussed
above, but also for its geology. On both sides of the Upper Rhine Valley are
the Vosges and Black Forest uplands, which are underlain by gneisses and
granites that have significantly higher 87Sr/86Sr values ( 0.715) than the
Jurassic and younger sedimentary rocks ( 0.710) of the regional lowlands
(Fig. 2). In the early stages of this project, the expected strontium isotope
ratios were predicted from measurements in area rocks and stream waters
Figure 2. Geology of Southern Germany, showing the mean 87Sr/86Sr measured in pig enamel from various archaeological sites (see Bentley &
Knipper 2005, table 2). After Bentley & Knipper (2005, fig. 1).
123
124
Alex Bentley
(listed by Bentley et al. 2003a; Price et al. 2003). Later, after determining that
archaeological pig teeth represent well their local, biologically-available isotope values (Bentley et al. 2004), Bentley and Knipper (2005) mapped the
biologically-available strontium, carbon and oxygen isotopic signatures of
prehistoric Southern Germany using archaeological tooth enamel samples
from domestic pigs. The mapping shows a marked upland-lowland difference
in biologically-available 87Sr/86Sr values, ranging between 0.7086 and 0.7103
in the sedimentary lowlands, and from 0.710 to as high as 0.722 in crystalline
uplands of the Odenwald, Black Forest and Bavarian Forest (Fig. 1). In addition, Bentley and Knipper (2005) found that carbon isotopes in the carbonate fraction of pig enamel were generally about 12% more enriched in 13C in
the uplands.
Regarding the LBK human skeletons, after several years of isotope measurements, a regional picture is finally emerging of the change in human
mobility patterns over time in early Neolithic southern Germany (Fig. 2).
The cumulative results show that shortly after farming arrived after 5500 cal
BC, there were many non-locals in each community, mostly with upland
strontium isotope signatures (Fig. 3). Centuries later, towards 5000 cal BC,
there were fewer non-locals overall, and females were more common among
the non-locals with upland signatures.
As Fig. 3 shows, many of the non-local 87Sr/86Sr values from human
enamel are above about 0.7108 (horizontal line), which indicates a significant
diet from the uplands. By combining different forms of information,1 Bentley
et al. (2003a) determined that foragers who spent a quarter of their childhood
in the uplands would acquire a 87Sr/86Sr value above 0.7108, whereas a lowland farmer would be below 0.710, even when allowing for 11% of the farmer
diet to be upland-reared meat (meat has less Sr than grain).
Since LBK settlements in southern Germany are found almost exclusively
in lowland settings, the distribution of flint and ceramic artefacts in BadenWrttemberg indicates that the main stream valleys were densely populated
during the early and middle Neolithic, with the uplands not settled until the
later Neolithic (Heide 2001). For this reason, the early LBK individuals with
upland 87Sr/86Sr values may have been either indigenous hunter-gatherers
who joined farmer communities, or pastoralists who spent time in the uplands.
Most likely, the upland values represent some of each, and ancient DNA
being analysed in some of these samples by Wolfgang Haak (J. Gutenberg
Universitt, Mainz) may help to resolve these questions. Given the
1
Specifically: (a) a diet derived from Greggs (1988) optimal foraging analysis for Neolithic
south-western Germany, (b) the approximate Sr contents of those different foods, and (c)
generalised estimates of the 87Sr/86Sr in the uplands vs. lowlands.
125
archaeological evidence for coexistence and trade between Neolithic and

indigenous groups during the early LBK (Gronenborn 1999), the upland
women in the early LBK are prime candidates for hunter-gatherers who
joined farmer communities through marriage (Bentley et al. 2002). Later in
the LBK, when farming was predominant, the upland males are more likely
to have been livestock herders.
SOCIAL DIFFERENCES WITHIN LBK COMMUNITIES

The compiled results in Fig. 3 indicate that certain people, having lived partly
on upland resources, were buried in socially-distinct ways among communities of people who subsisted primarily on lowland resources. This is because
the burials of non-locals show patterns consistent within each site, but
different between sites.
Also, at several sites most non-locals were buried with the head toward a
certain cardinal direction, with that direction particular to each site. At
Flomborn (Fig. 4) and at Stuttgart-Mhlhausen (Fig. 5), most of the nonlocals are buried with head pointing west, and at Stuttgart-Mhlhausen the
0.716
0.714
87
Sr/86Sr
0.712
0.710
0.708
0.706
Lowland
pigs
Upland
pigs
EM
LM
Figure 3. Summary of 87Sr/86Sr in human enamel from Neolithic Germany. Circles, females;
triangles, males; squares, child of unknown sex; crosses, pigs (used to map values). Filled
(grey) symbols are burials with a shoe-last adze. Sites ordered chronologically include Early
Mhlhausen (EM), Flomborn (F), Late Mhlhausen (LM), Schwetzingen (S), Talheim (T), and
Dillingen (D). 87Sr/86Sr above about 0.7108 (horizontal line) required significant diet from the
uplands.
Alex Bentley
126
0.713
Flomborn (5200 cal BC)
0.712
87
Sr/86Sr
0.711
0.710
0.709
0.708
W
NW
NE
SE
Figure 4. 87Sr/86Sr in human tooth enamel from Flomborn. The horizontal axis shows the
cardinal direction of the head during burial. Circles, females; triangles, males; squares, unsexed
children. The dashed line shows the local range estimated by Bentley et al. (2002).
relative number of these west-pointing non-locals decreases markedly later in

the LBK (Fig. 5a vs. 5b). At Schwetzingen (Fig. 6), most of the non-locals
point toward north or north-east (Bentley et al. 2002; Price et al. 2001; 2003).
Particularly interesting are correlations between 87Sr/86Sr and the inclusion of a shoe-last adze (Schuhleistenkeil), a ground-stone adze that is often
found in male LBK burials. At Flomborn (Fig. 4) and Dillingen (Fig. 7), very
few of those with non-local 87Sr/86Sr values, male or female, were buried with
a shoe-last adze (Flomborn: p 0.13; Dillingen: p 0.01), but adzes were
present with most of the local males (Bentley et al. 2002). At StuttgartMhlhausen, there are two west-pointing, non-local males with a shoe-last in
the early LBK (Fig. 5a), but by the middle LBK, seven out of the eight males
with shoe-last adzes are east-pointing (Fig. 5b), and with significantly lower
(p 0.10) 87Sr/86Sr, meaning that shoe-last adzes are again associated with
locals by this time. The simple reason for this association between the shoelast adze and local (or at least lowland) 87Sr/86Sr values may be that these men
were cultivatorsas opposed to hunters or livestock herdersand they used
the hafted adze for cutting wood or cultivation tasks, perhaps hoeing. As
discussed below, the men with upland 87Sr/86Sr values may have herded
livestock, and therefore had less use for one of these adzes.
127
Figure 5. 87Sr/86Sr in human tooth enamel from Stuttgart-Mhlhausen, during the (a) Early LBK
and (b) Mid-Late LBK. The horizontal axis shows the cardinal direction of the head during burial. Circles, females; triangles, males; squares, unsexed children. The dashed line shows the local
range estimated by Bentley et al. (2004), from archaeological pigs teeth at nearby Vaihingen.
Alex Bentley
128
0.712
Schwetzingen (51005000 cal BC)
0.710
87
Sr/86Sr
0.711
0.709
0.708
SW
NW
NE
SE
Figure 6. 87Sr/86Sr in human tooth enamel from Schwetzingen. The horizontal axis shows the
0.713
Dillingen (51004900 cal BC)
0.712
87
Sr/86Sr
0.711
0.710
0.709
0.708
S
Figure 7. 87Sr/86Sr in human tooth enamel from Dillingen. The horizontal axis shows the
129
MARRIAGE AND FAMILY IN THE LBK

Overall, the strontium isotope analyses of human skeletons from LBK cemeteries in the Upper Rhine valley show a significant proportion of non-local
females (Fig. 3). The prevalence of females among the non-locals is most significant at Schwetzingen (p 0.05) and at Dillingen (p 0.14). Although the
specific circumstances certainly differed from site to site, the simplest explanation2 is that the kinship system was broadly patrilocal, that is, it was the
women who relocated within the exogamous marriage system. Patrilocality
would appear to be the most stable kinship system for LBK society because
considerable herds of livestock were kept, and ownership of livestock is
strongly associated with patrilocality (Holden 2002; Holden & Mace 2003;
Holden et al. 2003). There is support for this interpretation also from genetics. By comparing data on the diversity of Y-chromosomes (inherited from
the father) and mtDNA (inherited from the mother) among modern
Europeans, Seilestad et al. (1998) identified generally greater mobility (i.e.
genetic homogeneity across space) among women than among men.
Assuming the differences are not artefacts of comparing data from different
molecules in different European populations, the most likely explanation is
patrilocality during the general prehistory of Europe (Calafell et al. 2000;
Seielstad et al. 1998; Stoneking 1998). Although the ancient DNA and isotope results so far do not overlap on many of the same LBK skeletons,
Flomborn Burial 13, the one identified by Haak et al. (2005) with Neolithic
farmer (haplotype N1a) ancestry, was also the only Flomborn woman without an upland strontium isotope signature, and hence the best candidate from
this site for a woman of Neolithic farmer ancestry. This is speculating, but it
shows how much could be learned by analysing both isotopes and ancient
DNA in the same individuals in the future.
Isotopic analyses from the site of Talheim, a late LBK community killed
in a violent raid, support the patrilineal hypothesis in rather dramatic fashion. The remains of 34 individuals recovered at Talheim (c. 49004800 cal
BC), in the Neckar valley of Germany, included nine men, seven women, two
adults of unknown sex and 16 children, all buried in a single pit 3 m long
(Wahl & Knig 1987; Wild et al. 2004). All show violent injuries as if the
victims were killed in a single massacre, and were probably the residents of
a village (Wahl & Knig 1987). Tooth enamel samples of most of these
individuals were analysed for strontium, oxygen and carbon isotopes
2
It should be noted that the greater variation in 87Sr/86Sr among Neolithic females is in no way
an artefact of any physiological differences between males and females, as strontium isotopes do
not fractionate during biological processes, and furthermore, the opposite pattern (local females,
non-local males) has in fact been observed for a case study from early agricultural Thailand
(Bentley et al. 2005).
Alex Bentley
130
(Bentley et al. n.d.). By plotting the strontium and oxygen isotopes from the
Talheim tooth enamel samples, three distinct clusters appear (Fig. 8), which
can be considered groups with different childhood origins (whether sedentary
or mobile). As Fig. 8 shows, Groups 1 and 2 are quite distinct, with the d18O
gap between them about as large as the variation within each group. Of these,
Group 1 appears to represent the local community because its 87Sr/86Sr is
consistent with the expected local range, and also because it contains all of
the young children.
It has been argued that the young women from Talheim, notably underrepresented among the remains, were taken away by their captors (e.g. Wild
et al. 2004). This is supported by the isotope evidence, as the most striking
aspect of Group 1 in Fig. 8 is that it contains no adult females: only males,
young children, and an 11-year-old girl. None of the four adult females
analysed fell within this local group; although a small sample, given that 10
out of 15 (23) of the other samples were in Group 1, the probability of this
happening by chance alone is less than 2% ( [13]4). Because there are two
adult women in both Group 2 and Group 3, it appears that the women of
Group 1 were selectively spared (captured) by the attackers.
Talheim
0.7105
Group 3: Pastoralists?
87
Sr/86Sr
0.7100
0.7095
0.7090
Group 2:
Family?
Group 1: No adult females!
0.7085
25
26
27
d18O
Figure 8. Isotope values in human tooth enamel from Talheim, showing 87Sr/86Sr vs. d18O. Circles,
females; triangles, males; squares, young children ( 6 years). Boys and girls ages 612 are shown
with symbols like the adults, but smaller. The colour shadings denote three groups determined
by Bentley et al. (n.d.), including: Group 1 (open), Group 2 (grey), and Outliers (black). To avoid
clutter, error bars are shown only for the children, as these are typical errors for all the other
measurements. After Bentley et al. (n.d., fig. 5a).
131
Remarkably, by combining the isotope data with the results of previous

skeletal analyses, it appears that Talheim Group 2 may have been a nuclear
family. Figure 9 shows the way in which Alt et al. (1997) summarised their
major skeletal-biological results, showing which Talheim individuals possess
relatively rare, heritable traits, numbered 164, 333, 554 and 673. The lines in
Fig. 9 connect individuals of particular similarity, which may include similarities involving traits other than these four. Of particular interest are a man
in his twenties (84-2), a boy (84-23) and a girl both about 11 years old (84-23
and 83-15A), whom Alt et al. (1995, 21415) postulated may have been a
father and his two children. The five individuals of Group 2 include the
father (84-2) and the 11-year-old daughter (83-15A) and, although it did
not include the son (84-23), Group 2 does contain another 11-year-old boy
(83-15B) who seems just as likely to be the son, as he shares traits 164 and
333 and was linked to the potential father by a line of genetic similarity
(Fig. 9). The two adult women in Group 2 include a 20-year old woman
83-11
83-20A
83-22VII
84-4
83-12
83-10B
83-15A
83-18B
554
83-221
83-22C1
84-2
83-7
84-23
673
83-15B
83-3A
333
83-19/20
84-28
164
Figure 9. Diagram of the major skeletal-biological results of Alt et al. (1995; 1997) on the
Talheim individuals. Individuals sampled in this study for isotopes are in black, with grey showing individuals not sampled. Similar individuals are connected, with solid lines for 35% similarity, and dashed lines for 25% similarity. Boxes show individuals possessing certain traits
(trait numbers are indicated at the bottom of each box). After Alt et al. (1995, fig. 2).
132
Alex Bentley
(84-4, upper left in Fig. 2), who seems a good candidate for the wife of the
father because she has relatively little genetic similarity with him, which
would mean that the children inherited traits 164 and 333 paternally. The
last member is a 50-year old woman, a potential grandmother (83-22D)
who could be on the mothers side, since she too lacks traits 164 and 333.
Although this interpretation is partly subjective, it really should be no surprise to discover a family within this community, and the particular group
membership of a man, a woman, two similarly aged children, and a woman
of the previous generation seems unlikely to be a chance combination.
Fox (1983, 2753) describes the nuclear family as generally viable within
patrilineal kinship systems, mainly because men, whose role in matrilineal
societies is essentially impregnation, generally commit in patrilineal societies
to one wife, in order to control the inheritance of paternal property for their
children. From an anthropological perspective, then, the isotopic evidence for
patrilocality suggests that nuclear families were possible in the LBK, and
reciprocally, the evidence for a nuclear family at Talheim supports the case for
patrilineal/patrilocal kinship.
SPECIALISATION AND FAMILIAL OCCUPATIONS IN THE LBK

The results from Talheim (Bentley et al. n.d.) yielded one additional revealing pattern involving Group 3. With the four highest 87Sr/86Sr values of the
Talheim sample (Fig. 8), Group 3 includes two females (83-10B, 83-20A) and
two males (83-7 and 83-18B). The two males were actually identified by Alt
et al. (1997) as possible brothers or cousins based on similarities in skeletal
morphology. All four were close to 30 years old when they died.
Bentley et al. (nd.) also measured carbon isotopes (d13C) in the Talheim
sample, and by plotting 87Sr/86Sr vs. d13C (Fig. 10). The data fall into two
arrays: a horizontal array with relatively uniform 87Sr/86Sr, and a diagonal
array in which 87Sr/86Sr correlates linearly with d13C (r2 0.89 for 10 data
points). Group 3 falls exclusively within the diagonal array, and Groups 1
and 2 fall within the horizontal array. Since the regional uplands tend to yield
both higher 87Sr/86Sr and higher d13C (Bentley & Knipper 2005), the diagonal
array probably aligns with increasingly upland diet contribution. Because
certain LBK cattle, sheep and goats from this area (discussed below) yield
values significantly above 0.710, we can be fairly sure that LBK livestock
were herded into the uplands, including the Black Forest (Kienlin & ValdeNowak 2003; Valde-Nowak 2002; Whittle 1996, 162). Hence the diagonal
array in Fig. 10 may represent different consumption of upland-reared
meat (see Bentley et al. n.d.), and possibly the livestock herders of the
community.
133
0.711
Trait 554
87
Sr/86Sr
0.710
0.709
Traits 164, 333
0.708
14
13
12
C
13
Figure 10. 87Sr/86Sr and d13C for the Talheim individuals, compared with the presence/absence
of the four important non-metric traits identified from skeletal morphology by Alt et al. (1995,
1997), including: 164 and/or 333 (black), 554 (grey), 673 (outlining square) or none of these
traits (open). As in Fig. 9, the smaller symbols indicate girls and boys aged 612. After Bentley
et al. (n.d., fig. 6).
What is most remarkable about Fig. 10 is that, by using the data symbols
to represent the genetic traits, we find that all six of the individuals possessing genetic trait 164 and/or 333 plot along the horizontal array, and the three
with trait 554 plot along the diagonal array. Although a small sample, this is
significant, as the probability that three samples of one description would
plot distinctly from six samples of another description by random chance is
less than 1%. Also, among the six remaining individuals without any of these
four traits, five occur within the diagonal array (Fig. 10). This indicates a
correlation between diet, geographic origin and genetic relatedness, suggesting the plausible association of specialised cultivators with the horizontal
array and livestock herders with the diagonal array (Group 3), with both
specialisations being familial, learned by children from their parent(s).
The idea of livestock herders as familial, socially-distinct specialists in the
LBK can be further explored at Vaihingen, a settlement occupied from the
early (Flomborn) phase of the LBK through to at least the mid-LBK, with
the remains of at least 80 longhouses, recovered in the excavations led by
Rdiger Krause. Some time after the settlement was established in the
Earliest LBK, Vaihingen was encircled by a ditch roughly 2 m wide, and less
134
Alex Bentley
than a century after that, the ditch was filled in (Krause 2000). During the
subsequent LBK phases, at least 80 people were buried in all layers of the
ditch fill. Other burials, at least 40, were made within the settlement, often in
the lateral trenches next to houses. Since the ditch burials usually contained
little more than a few potsherds, and a few individuals apparently were
simply thrown into the ditch, they would seem to reflect a social group
marginalised from those who were buried (and presumably lived) within the
settlement. Strontium isotope analyses of human enamel revealed significantly more non-local strontium isotope signatures in human tooth enamel
samples from the ditch burials than from the settlement burials (Bentley et al.
2003a).
Although it may be that the non-locals were immigrants from other villages, it seems at least as likely that they were livestock herders, especially
since the cattle, sheep and goats from Vaihingen show a wide range of
87
Sr/86Sr values. Bentley et al. (2004) found that pigs had the narrowest range
of signatures from the site, and were hence locally kept. That study also
found, however, a wide range of strontium isotope signatures from cattle,
sheep and goats, many of which were pastured into the uplands, such as the
Black Forest. In fact, archaeological survey of flint artefacts has shown that
people used the Black Forest Mountains probably for summer highland pasturing and leaf-foddering, by the Late Neolithic or before (Kienlin & ValdeNowak 2003; Valde-Nowak 2002).
Transhumance at Vaihingen was confirmed by analysing cow enamel
samples at regular intervals along the growth axis of the tooth, yielding a
continuous 87Sr/86Sr record for the first two years of the cows life. The results
(Bentley & Knipper 2005) from three Vaihingen cows show that one was
clearly taken into the uplands during the summer to pasture, while the other
two were taken to different places during the summer (Fig. 11). With further
analyses planned, what is so intriguing so far is that the three Vaihingen cows
are different; one appears to have gone from the settlement into the uplands
and then returned to the settlement, whereas the others seem to have started
somewhere away from Vaihingen. It may be that different groups, possibly
family lineages, maintained access to different pasture lands of the area. This
was the case in historic Corsica, for example, as pastoralists would return to
the same pasture land year after year, criss-crossing each others paths on the
island to their patches, which were distributed for particular historical reasons
rather than simply being nearest to their winter settlements.
Given the palaeobotanical evidence for intensive gardening in the LBK of
this region (Bogaard 2004), there may have been a division of labour between
cultivators and pastoralists. It is tempting to propose that men herded the
livestock and women tended the gardens, but not only is the relationship
between gender and Neolithic labour potentially more complicated than that
135
M2 M3
0.7110
Cow 3822
Cow 3194
Cow 4850
0.7115
pig range
87
Sr/86Sr
0.7100
0.7095
0.7090
0.7085
M2
M3
mo.
mo.
mo.
Figure 11. 87Sr/86Sr in teeth from three different cows at Vaihingen. Cattle teeth grow at different times after birth, with the second molar (M2) growing from about birth to about ten months,
and the third molar (M3) growing from about age 10 months to about 2 years old. After Bentley
& Knipper (n.d.)
(Peterson 2002), even the four potential livestock herders at Talheim (Group
3 in Fig. 8) include two women. But in any case, the data suggest a link
between heredity and subsistence specialisation, the relationship of which
with gender and settlement segregation is left to further research.
CONCLUSIONS
Isotopic analyses of tooth enamel from early Neolithic skeletons in southern
Germany add diversity to the picture of the Neolithic transition in central
Europe, which has often been described as a wholesale shift in diet and technology. Taken from several sites in southern Germany spanning most of the
LBK era, the isotopic data demonstrate: some degree of immigration from
nearby indigenous groups; social differences (in burial orientation and artefact associations) within LBK communities between locals and non-locals; a
pattern of patrilocal kinship which supports (via anthropological kinship
theory) the potential identification of a nuclear family at Talheim; and
136
Alex Bentley
finally, specialisation of subsistence activities, such as livestock herding and

cultivating, probably along hereditary lines. In any case, it is clear that early
Neolithic settlements in central Europe were not simply manifestations of a
homogenous package, but were diverse communities characterised by many
different social and economic roles which archaeology is actually capable
now of resolving.
Note. I thank Detlef Gronenborn for comments and suggestions, and the following people for their contributions over the years to the work discussed in this
paper: T. Douglas Price, Tina Hayes, Corina Knipper, Tim Atkinson, Elisabeth
Stephan, Matthew Cooper, Rdiger Krause, Joachim Wahl, Paul Fullagar, and
William M. White.
REFERENCES
ALT, K. W., VACH, W. & WAHL, J. 1995. Verwandtschaftsanalyse der Skelettreste aus dem
bandkeramischen Massengrab von Talheim, Kreis Heilbronn. Fundberichte aus BadenWrttemberg 20, 195217.
ALT, K. W., VACH, W. & WAHL, J. 1997. La reconstitution gntique de la population de la
fosse rubane de Talheim, Allemagne. Cahiers de lAssociation pour la Promotion de la
Recherche Archologique en Alsace 3, 18.
AMMERMAN, A. J. & CAVALLI-SVORZA, L. L. 1984. The Neolithic transition and the
genetics of populations in Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
BAILEY, R. C. 1988. The significance of hypergyny for understanding subsistence behavior
among contemporary hunters and gatherers. In B. Kennedy & G. LeMoine (eds), Diet and
subsistence: current archaeological perspectives, 5765. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
BELLWOOD, P. 2005. First farmers: the origins of agricultural societies. London: Blackwell.
BENTLEY, R. A. & KNIPPER, C. 2005. Geographical patterns in biologically available strontium, carbon and oxygen isotope signatures in prehistoric SW Germany. Archaeometry 47,
62944.
BENTLEY, R. A. & KNIPPER, C. n.d. Transhumance at the early Neolithic settlement at
Vaihingen (Germany). Submitted to Antiquity Project Gallery.
BENTLEY, R. A., PIETRUSEWSKY, M., DOUGLAS, M. T. & ATKINSON, T. C. 2005.
Matrilocality during the prehistoric transition to agriculture in Thailand? Antiquity 79.
BENTLEY, R. A., KRAUSE, R., PRICE, T. D. & KAUFMANN, B. 2003a. Human mobility
at the early Neolithic settlement of Vaihingen, Germany: evidence from strontium isotope
analysis. Archaeometry 45, 48196.
BENTLEY, R. A., PRICE, T. D. & CHIKHI, L. 2003b. Comparing broad scale genetic and
local scale isotopic evidence for the spread of agriculture into Europe. Antiquity 77, 636.
BENTLEY, R. A., PRICE, T. D., LUNING, J., GRONENBORN, D., WAHL, J. & FULLAGAR,
P. D. 2002. Human migration in early Neolithic Europe. Current Anthropology 43, 799804.
BENTLEY, R. A., PRICE, T. D. & STEPHAN, E. 2004. Determining the local 87Sr/86Sr range
for archaeological skeletons: a case study from Neolithic Europe. Journal of Archaeological
Science 31, 36575.
BENTLEY, R. A., PRICE, T. D., WAHL, J. & ATKINSON, T. C. n.d. Community structure in
the Neolithic community of Talheim (Germany): isotopic and skeletal morphological
evidence. Submitted to Antiquity.
137
BENTLEY, R. A. & SHENNAN, S. J. 2003. Cultural evolution and stochastic network growth.
American Antiquity 68, 45985.
BOCQUET-APPEL, J. P. 2002. Paleoanthropological traces of a Neolithic demographic
transition. Current Anthropology 43, 63750.
BOGAARD, A. 2004. Neolithic farming in central Europe: an archaeobotanical study of crop
husbandry practices. London: Routledge.
BOGUCKI, P. 1996. The spread of early farming in Europe farming crossed Europe haltingly
over the course of 3,000 years. American Scientist 84, 24250.
BOGUCKI, P. 2000. How agriculture came to north-central Europe. In T. D. Price (ed.),
Europes First Farmers, 197218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BOGUCKI, P. & GRYGIEL, R. 1993. The first farmers of central Europe: a survey article.
Journal of Field Archaeology 20, 399426.
BRACE, C. L., SEGUCHI, N., QUINTYN, C. B., FOX, S. C., NELSON, A. R., MANOLIS,
S. K. & QIFENG, P. 2006. The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze
Age to European craniofacial form. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA
103, 2427.
BURTON, J. H., PRICE, T. D. & MIDDLETON, W. D. 1999. Correlation of bone Ba/Ca and
Sr/Ca due to biological purification of calcium. Journal of Archaeological Science 26, 60916.
CALAFELL, F., PEREZ-LEZAUN, A. & BERTRANPETIT, J. 2000. Genetic distances and
microsatellite diversification in humans. Human Genetics 106, 1334.
CAPO, R. C., STEWART, B. W. & CHADWICK, O. A. 1998. Strontium isotopes as tracers of
ecosystem processes: theory and methods. Geoderma 83, 197225.
CHIKHI, L., NICHOLS, R., BARBUJANI, G. & BEAUMONT, M. A. 2002. Y genetic data
support the Neolithic diffusion model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA
99, 1100813.
CROMB, P. & VAN STRYDONCK, M. 2004. The Neolithic transition and European
population history. Antiquity 78, 70810.
CRONK, L. 1989. From hunters to herders: subsistence change as a reproductive strategy
among the Muckogodo. Current Anthropology 30, 22434.
CURRAT, M. & EXCOFFIER, L. 2005. The effect of the Neolithic expansion on European
molecular diversity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 272, 67988.
CZIESLA, E. 1994. The 6th millennium BC in southwestern Germany: regional Late-Mesolithic,
La Hoguette, and Banderkeramik. In G. Pion (ed.), Msolithique entre Rhin et Mditerrane:
Actes de la Table Ronde de Chambry 2627 Septembre 1992, 3142. Chambry: Association
Dpartementale pour la Recherche Archologique en Savoie.
DENNELL, R. W. 1983. European economic prehistory: a new approach. New York: Academic
Press.
ESWARAN, V. 2002. A diffusion wave out of Africa. Current Anthropology 43, 74974.
FOX, R. 1983. Kinship and marriage: an anthropological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
GKIASTA, M., RUSSELL, T., SHENNAN, S. & STEELE, J. 2003. Origins of European
agriculture, the radiocarbon record revisited. Antiquity 77, 4562.
GREGG, S. A. 1988. Foragers and farmers: population interaction and agricultural expansion in
prehistoric Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
GRONENBORN, D. 1994. berlegungen zur Ausbreitung der buerlichen Wirtschaft in
MitteleuropaVersuch einer kulturhistorischen Interpretation ltestbandkeramischer
Silexinventare. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 69, 13551.
GRONENBORN, D. 1998. ltestbandkeramische Kultur, La Hoguette, Limburg, and . . . what
else? Contemplating the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in southern Central Europe.
Documenta Praehistorica 25, 189202.
GRONENBORN, D. 1999. A variation on a basic theme, the transition to farming in Southern
138
Alex Bentley
GRONENBORN, D. 2003. Migration, acculturation and culture change in temperate Europe

and Eurasia, 65005000 cal BC. Documenta Praehistorica 30, 7991.
HAAK, W., FORSTER, P., BRAMANTI, B., MATSUMURA, S., BRANDT, G., TNZER,
M., VILLEMS, R., RENFREW, C., GRONENBORN, D., ALT, K. W. & BURGER, J.
2005. Ancient DNA from the first European farmers in 7500year-old Neolithic sites. Science
310, 101618.
HEIDE, B. 2001. Das ltere Neolithikum im westlichen Kraichgau. Rahden: Verlag Marie
Leidorf.
HOLDEN, C. J. 2002. Bantu language trees reflect the spread of farming across sub-Saharan
Africa: a maximum-parsimony analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 269, 7939.
HOLDEN, C. J. & MACE, R. 2003. Spread of cattle led to the loss of matrilineal descent in
Africa, a coevolutionary analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 270, 242533.
HOLDEN, C. J., SEAR, R. & MACE, R. 2003. Matriliny as daughter-biased investment.
Evolution and Human Behavior 24, 99112.
JACKES, M., LUBELL, D. & MEIKLEJOHN, C. 1997. Healthy but mortal: human biology
and the first farmers of western Europe. Antiquity 71, 63958.
JEUNESSE, C. 1987. La cramique de la Hoguette. Un nouvel lment non-ruban du
nolithique ancien de lEurope du Nord-Ouest. Cahiers Alsaciens dArchologie, dArt et
dHistoire 30, 533.
JEUNESSE, C. 1997. Pratiques Funraires au Nolithique Ancien. Spultures Ncropoles
Danubiennes 55004900 av. J.-C. Paris: ditions Errance.
JEUNESSE, C. 2000. Les composantes autochtone et danubienne en Europe centrale et occidentale entre 5500 et 4000 av. J.-C.: contacts, transferts, acculturations. In A. Richard,
C. Cupillard, H. Richard & A. Thvenin (eds), Les derniers chasseurs-cueilleurs dEurope
Occidentale: Actes du Colloque International de Besanon, Octobre 1998, 36178. Besanon:
Presses Universitaires Franc-Comtoises.
JEUNESSE, C. & LEFRANC, P. 1999. Rosheim Sainte-Odile (Bas-Rhin), un habitat ruban
avec foss denceinte. Premire partie, les structures et la cramique. Cahiers de lAssociation
pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archologique en Alsace 15, 1111.
JOCHIM, M. 2000. The origins of agriculture in south-central Europe. In T. D. Price (ed.),
Europes first farmers, 18396. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
KIENLIN, T. L. & VALDE-NOWAK, P. 2003. Neolithic transhumance in the Black Forest
Mountains, SW Germany. Journal of Field Archaeology 29, 2944.
KING, R. & UNDERHILL, P. A. 2002. Congruent distribution of Neolithic painted pottery
and ceramic figurines with Y-chromosome lineages. Antiquity 76, 70714.
KRAUSE, R. (ed.) 2000. Die bandkeramischen Siedlungsgrabungen bei Vaihingen an der Enz,
Kreis Ludwigsburg (Baden-Wrttemberg). Ein Vorbericht zu den Ausgrabungen von
19941997. Bericht der Rmisch-Germanischen Kommission 79, 5105. Mainz: Zabern.
LAHR, M. M., FOLEY, R. A. & PINHASI, R. 2000. Expected regional patterns of MesolithicNeolithic human population admixture in Europe based on archaeological evidence. In
C. Renfrew & K. Boyle (eds), Archaeogenetics, DNA and the population prehistory of Europe,
818. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
LNING, J. 2000. Steinzeitliche Bauern in Deutschland. Die Landwirtschaft im Neolithikum.
Bonn: Universittsforschungen zur Prhistorischen Archologie 58.
Kultur, La Hoguette und Limburg. Germania 67, 35593.
MAUVILLY, M. 1997. Lindustrie lithique de la Culture Cramique linaire de Haute et Basse
Alsace, tat des recherches et bilan provisoire. Cahiers de lAssociation pour la Promotion de
la Recherche Archologique en Alsace 3, 32758.
139
OTTE, M. & NOIRET, P. 2001. Le Msolithique du Bassin Pannonien et la formation du

Ruban. LAnthropologie 105, 40919.
PETERSON, J. 2002. Sexual revolutions: gender and labour at the dawn of agriculture. Lanham,
MD: AltaMira Press.
PRICE, T. D., BENTLEY, R. A., LNING, J., GRONENBORN, D. & WAHL, J. 2001. Human
migration in the Linearbandkeramik of central Europe. Antiquity 75, 593603.
PRICE, T. D., BURTON, J. H. & BENTLEY, R. A. 2002. The characterisation of biologicallyavailable strontium isotope ratios for investigation of prehistoric migration. Archaeometry
44, 11735.
PRICE, T. D., WAHL, J., KNIPPER, C., BURGER-HEINRICH, E., KURZ, G. & BENTLEY,
R. A. 2003. Das bandkeramische Grberfeld von Stuttgart-Mhlhausen, Anthropologische
Untersuchungen und chemische Analysen. Fundberichte aus Baden-Wrttemberg 27, 2358.
RICHARDS, M. 2003. The Neolithic invasion of Europe. Annual Review of Anthropology 32,
13562.
RICHARDS, M., MACAULAY, V., HICKEY, E., VEGA, E., SYKES, B., GUIDA, V.,
RENGO, C., SELLITTO, D., CRUCIANI, F., KIVISILD, T., VILLEMS, R., THOMAS, M.,
RYCHKOV, S., RYCHKOV, O., RYCHKOV, Y., GLGE, M., DIMITROV, D., HILL, E.,
BRADLEY, D., ROMANO, V., CAL, F., VONA, G., DEMAINE, A., PAPIHA, S.,
TRIANTAPHYLLIDIS, C., STEFANESCU, G., HATINA, J., BELLEDI, M., DI
RIENZO, A., NOVELLETTO, A., OPPENHEIM, A., NRBY, S., AL-ZAHERI, N.,
SANTACHIARA-BENERECETTI, S., SCOZZARI, R., TORRONI, A. & BANDELT,
H.-J. 2000. Tracing European founder lineages in the Near Eastern mtDNA pool. American
Journal of Human Genetics 67, 125176.
RICHARDS, M. P., SCHULTING, R. J. & HEDGES, R. E. M. 2003. Sharp shift in diet at
onset of Neolithic. Nature 425, 366.
SCHTZ, C., STRIEN, H. C., TAUTE, W. & TILLMANN, A. 1992. Ausgrabungen in der
Wilhelma von Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, Die erste Siedlung der altneolithischen La-HoguetteKultur. Archologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Wrttemberg 1991, 459.
SEIELSTAD, M. T., MINCH, E. & CAVALLI-SFORZA, L. L. 1998. Genetic evidence for a
higher female migration rate in humans. Nature Genetics 20, 27880.
SILLEN, A., HALL, G., RICHARDSON, S. & ARMSTRONG, R. 1998. 87Sr/86Sr ratios in
modern and fossil food-webs of the Sterkfontein Valley, implications for early hominid
habitat preference. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 62, 246378.
STEELE, J., GKIASTA, M. & SHENNAN, S. 2004. The Neolithic transition and European
population history a response. Antiquiy 78, 71113.
STONEKING, M. 1998. Women on the move. Nature genetics 20, 21920.
STRIEN, H.-C. 2000. Untersuchungen zur Bandkeramik in Wrttemberg. Bonn: Habelt.
VALDE-NOVAK, P. 2002. Siedlungsarchologie Untersuchungen zur neolithischen Nutzung der
mitteleuropischen Gebirgslandschaften. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf.
WAHL, J. & KNIG, H. G. 1987. Anthropologisch-traumatologische Untersuchung der menschlichen Skelettreste aus dem bandkeramischen Massengrab bei Talheim, Kreis Heilbronn.
Fundberichte aus Baden-Wrttemberg 12, 65193.
University Press.
WILD, E. M., STADLER, P., HUER, A., KUTSCHERA, W., STEIER, P., TESCHLERNICOLA, M., WAHL, J. & WINDL, H. J. 2004. Neolithic massacres, local skirmishes or
general warfare in Europe? Radiocarbon 46, 37785.
140
Alex Bentley
ZVELEBIL, M. 1997. Genetic and cultural diversity of Europe, a comment on Cavalli-Svorza.

Journal of Anthropological Research 53, 41117.
ZVELEBIL, M. 2002. Demography and dispersal of early farming populations at the
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition: linguistic and genetic implications. In P. Bellwood &
C. Renfrew (eds), Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis, 37994. Cambridge:
ZVELEBIL, M. & LILLIE, M. 2000. The transition to agriculture in eastern Europe. In T. D.
Price (ed.), Europes first farmers, 5792. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ZVELEBIL, M. & ROWLEY-CONWY, P. 1984. The transition to farming in northern Europe,
a hunter-gatherer perspective. Norwegian Archaeological Review 17, 10427.
Exploiting molecular and isotopic signals

at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition
RICHARD P. EVERSHED
INTRODUCTION
THE PAUCITY OF CULTURAL FINDS at this key stage in human prehistory
increases the need to fully and effectively exploit all the sources of evidence
that exist. Organic residues, preserved in association with skeletal remains
and pottery, have the potential to provide various levels of information relating to diet and subsistence, and thus the wider interactions of ancient
humans with their environment. Such organic residues are inherently biochemically complex and, thus, demand rigorous chemical and biochemical
methods be employed in their investigation. Further challenges to achieving
reliable interpretations, based on such residues, derive from the complexities
of human behaviour and the uncertain impacts of taphonomic/diagenetic
alterations during deposition and burial. This paper explores the potential to
enhance the rigour and level of information retrievable from the biochemical
constituents of skeletal remains and pottery by exploiting new sources of
molecular and isotopic information. The following possibilities will be
addressed: (i) deriving palaeodietary information from human remains via
the complementary use of amino acid and lipid components; and (ii) assessing terrestrial and marine contributions to organic residues preserved in
skeletal remains and pottery.
COMPOUND-SPECIFIC STABLE ISOTOPE ANALYSIS OF

BONE BIOCHEMICAL COMPONENTS
Light stable isotopes were first used in archaeology for palaeodietary reconstruction in the late 1970s (Vogel & Van der Merwe 1977). Since then
palaeodietary reconstructions, based on bulk carbon and nitrogen isotopes
values of the collagen and hydroxyapatite preserved in skeletal remains,
have been applied widely to archaeological studies and are discussed in
142
Richard P. Evershed
detail elsewhere in this volume. In brief, the reconstruction of ancient diets

in this way is possible because d13C and d15N values of fossil consumer tissues
reflect the isotopic signatures of the local environment, specifically the plants
that lie at the base of the food chain, i.e. the You are what you eat (or more
precisely assimilate) principle. Although isotopic analysis may not always
allow the precise reconstruction of diet, it can allow discrimination of major
dietary trends and niches (Gannes et al. 1998).
The vast majority of studies performed to date have used bulk stable
isotope values of collagen and apatite. The compound-specific stable carbon isotope approach draws on new technologies and allows access to
stable isotope information inaccessible to bulk methods, focusing on individual collagen amino acids, cholesterol and fatty acids. With these possibilities in mind we have explored the use of compound-specific stable
isotope methods. Our overarching aim has been to: (i) improve the understanding of the isotope signals carried by the various tissue biochemicals;
(ii) glean new information inaccessible to bulk stable isotope analyses, and
(iii) add new insights into interpretations based on the widely applied bulk
collagen isotope method.
In order to achieve this we have rigorously assessed analytical methodologies for compound-specific stable isotope analysis by gas chromatographycombustion-isotope ratio mass spectrometry (GC-C-IRMS; Docherty
et al. 2001; Jim et al. 2003a; Jones 2002; Stott & Evershed 1996). We have
used animal feeding experiments and mathematical modelling methods to
establish how macronutrient compositions and stable isotope values of
dietary constituents are reflected in the bone biochemicals, including the
amino acids that comprise collagen, cholesterol and fatty acids (Howland
2003; Howland et al. 2003; Jim 2000; Jim et al. 2001; 2003b; 2006; Jones 2002;
Stott et al. 1997b) and now are applying these approaches to address a range
of archaeological questions (Copley et al. 2004a; Corr et al. 2005).
Our investigations have demonstrated widely different turnover times for
collagen and lipids, offering the potential for gaining insights into long and
short-term dietary change (Copley et al. 2004a; Jim 2000). We have also
demonstrated how different bone biochemicals reflect different dietary components, i.e. cholesterol and apatite record d13Cwhole diet, while the bulk stable
isotope signal of collagen is biased towards dietary protein sources (Howland
et al. 2003; Jim 2000; Jim et al. 2004). Interestingly, by probing the carbon
isotope signals of individual amino acids in collagen, from experimental
animals (rats and pigs) raised on controlled diets, we have been able to: (i)
demonstrate that no detectable fractionation occurs during the assimilation
of essential amino acids, and (ii) determine the extent of incorporation of
non-protein dietary carbon into de novo synthesised non-essential amino
acids (Jim et al. 2006; Jones 2002; Howland et al. 2003).
MOLECULAR AND ISOTOPIC SIGNALS
143
Compound-specific stable isotope analyses of the building blocks of complex biopolymers, such as collagen, are essential to unravelling the stable
isotope signals expressed in bulk signals. The exploitation of individual
collagenous amino acids has great potential in palaeodietary reconstruction,
but surprisingly only a handful of studies have determined the d13C
values of amino acids from ancient bone collagen (Copley et al. 2004a; Corr
et al. 2005; Fogel & Tuross 2003; Hare & Estep 1983; Hare et al. 1991; Tuross
et al. 1988). Another advantage of determining compound-specific stable isotope values of amino acids is that the question of contamination can be minimised since: (i) the purity (% compositions of amino acids compared to fresh
collagen) of amino acid extracts are routinely assessed as part of the analytical protocol; (ii) compound-specific specific stable isotope values are
recorded on-line taking advantage of the high resolution capabilities of GC
capillary columns to resolve individual amino acids from any co-extracted
impurities; (iii) sample size of collagen, and hence of precious archaeological
bone, is greatly reduced since only c. 40 ng of each amino acid is required,
with 12 amino acids being determined in a single run; and (iv) whole collagen
stable isotope values can be readily reconstructed from the individual amino
acid d13C values via mass balance calculations (Jim et al. 2003a).
A major argument for developing this line of approach lies in the fact that
different dietary components (macronutrients) are used to biosynthesise
different bone biochemical components, i.e. lipids versus protein and the different amino acids comprising collagen. Thus, the application of compoundspecific isotopic approaches has the capacity to improve our understanding
of the relationship between dietary macronutrient composition and the
d13C values of bone components, thereby opening up new levels of dietary
information and refining archaeological interpretations (Ambrose 1993;
Hare et al. 1991; Jim et al. 2001; 2003b; 2004; 2006).
THE QUESTION OF MARINE FOOD CONSUMPTION

BY ANCIENT HUMANS
Evidence for changing patterns of marine food consumption by prehistoric
peoples, detectable via stable isotope analysis, was first presented by Tauber
(1981) as early as 1981, in his report of results from human skeletons from
Denmark. This led him to suggest a dramatic change in the diet of Mesolithic
humans, who ate mostly marine protein, to Early Neolithic people, who ate
none. A more recent report based on an increased sample set appears to confirm this trend (Richards et al. 2003). This recent report has been much
debated; indeed a recent issue of the journal Antiquity contained three papers
focusing on this question (Hedges 2004; Lidn et al. 2004; Milner et al. 2004).
144
Richard P. Evershed
Three areas of ambiguity appear to have emerged: (i) the precise definition of
the end member d13C values; (ii) the variation in the enrichment of d13C
values in food chains; and (iii) interpretation of the collagen isotope signals
represented by collagen. It has been acknowledged that there may be a degree
of uncertainty in the interpretation of marine diet resulting from these factors (Hedges 2004). We would add at least two further areas of uncertainty.
First, that the quality control criterion applied to assess the purity of isolated
collagen, i.e. the widely used C/N ratios of 2.9 to 3.4 (DeNiro 1985) or 3.1 to
3.5 (van Klinken 1999), leaves considerable room for exogenous (contaminating) organic matter affecting bulk carbon and nitrogen isotope values,
and, secondly, that a linear mixing model appears to be assumed between end
member values for marine and terrestrial protein based stable isotope values.
It would actually be rather surprising if when humans consumed diets of
such diverse biochemical compositions as those comprising marine and
terrestrial foods, their tissue (e.g. collagen) isotopic compositions varied
according to a simple linear function (Phillips & Koch 2002).
This recent controversy concerning the Mesolithic/Neolithic diet transition would seem to emphasise the importance of exploring compoundspecific approaches to palaeodietary reconstruction. Interestingly, we have
recently applied the compound-specific approach to the question of marine
resource exploitation by the hunter/gatherers from the southern and western
Cape Region of South Africa (Corr et al. 2005). Our findings would seem to
have relevance on the on-going debate concerning marine food consumption
by prehistoric humans in Europe, and highlight many other challenges that
exist in determining the consumption of marine resources by prehistoric
peoples around the world.
In parts of the Cape the arid nature of the environment (400 mm per
annum) results in extremely enriched herbivore bone collagen d15N values,
which overlap with the isotopic range for marine species; thereby effectively
negating interpretations based on this criterion alone (Heaton 1987; Heaton
et al. 1986; Schwarcz et al. 1999; Sealy 1997) since herbivore bone collagen
d15N values overlap with the range for marine species (Heaton et al. 1986;
Sealy et al. 1987). A further problem in this region is the presence of C4
grasses in the terrestrial ecosystem, which is reflected in the high mean bone
collagen d13C value of 111.9 recorded for many animals for the past
11,000 years. The latter factor largely precludes the use of bulk d13C values of
bone collagen to assess the extent of marine food consumption.
Our compound-specific methods appear to overcome both these problems and provide support for our decision to pursue this alternative
approach. To summarise, we applied GC-C-IRMS to determine d13C values
145
for amino acids from the bone collagen of a selection of terrestrial and
marine animals. We then investigated the collagen of 26 prehistoric inhabitants of the southern and western Cape recording compound-specific d13C
values for five essential (threonine, valine, leucine, isoleucine and phenylalanine) and seven non-essential (alanine, glycine, serine, proline, hydroxyproline, aspatate and glutamate) amino acids, which together constitute 85% of
the carbon in bone collagen. The results were then interpreted in the light of
models built on the results obtained from the tissues of experimental rats and
pigs (Howland 2003; Howland et al. 2003) and rats (Jim et al. 2006; Jones
2002). Interestingly, we revealed a phenomenon that would have remained
undetected if only bulk collagen isotope values had been determined.
Specifically, unusually high d13C values were observed for glycine in marine
mammals, which appear to be inherited in human bone collagen. Enriched
glycine d13C values are well known; indeed they account for the relative
enrichment of bulk collagen d13C values in mammalian tissues, since glycine
contributes 17.5% of the carbon atoms of collagen (Abelson & Hoering
1961; Fogel et al. 1997; Hare & Estep 1983). However, we have observed an
additional enrichment in glycine in marine organisms and have proposed this
as a new proxy for marine resource consumption by ancient humans (Corr et
al. 2005). The basis of the new proxy lies in the fundamentally different metabolic and biosyntheitic pathways of essential and non-essential amino acids.
Thus, phenylalanine (essential) and glycine (non essential, although unusually in this case glycine appears to behave as an essential amino acid) preserve
very different palaeodietary signals and the difference in their d13C values
(D13CGlycine-Phenylalanine) can be exploited to distinguish between marine protein
and terrestrial protein consumers. D13CGlycine-Phenylalanine values show strong
correlation (R2 0.84; Fig. 1) with collagen d15N values from the same individuals, thereby revealing the potential of this new marine dietary indicator
to serve as a substitute for d15N values of whole collagen. This observation
alone serves to illustrate the importance of investigating the isotopic signal of
bone collagen at the level of individual amino acids. We believe that such
investigations hold the key to fully exploiting the potential of the stable isotope values of bone collagen in order to add greater confidence to interpretations based on bulk stable isotope values. Indeed, such compound-specific
methods are proving of great value in the fields of ecology (Fantle et al. 1999)
and biogeochemistry (Keil & Fogel 2001).
146
Richard P. Evershed
Figure 1. Plot showing the correspondence between d13CGlycine-Phenylalanine and d15N values of
collagen from hunter/gatherers from the south-western Cape, indicating the potential of
compound-specific glycine carbon isotope values as new marine dietary proxy.
INTEGRATING PALAEODIETARY PROXIES FROM SKELETAL

AND SOFT TISSUE REMAINS
Lipids, including cholesterol and to a lesser extent fatty acids, are preserved
in skeletal remains, however, these are usually discarded as part of collagen
or apatite preparation protocols. The widespread survival of cholesterol
archaeological bone was demonstrated in 1995 (Evershed et al. 1995).
Archaeological human and animal bones, including a 75,000-year-old whale
bone from a permafrost deposit, were found to contain free cholesterol and
cholesteryl fatty acyl esters, and diagenetic products (5a and 5b-cholestan-3one, 5a and 5b-cholestanol and cholest-5-en-7-one-3b-ol; Evershed et al.
1995; Stott et al. 1997b). The cholesterol found in bone may derive from
either the remnants of the original blood-borne lipid (in the case of vascular
bones), the fat component of bone marrow that would have been present at
the time of death of the organism or a component of cellular lipids present
147
in bone forming cells (Stott et al. 1997a). The use of cholesterol as a palaeodietary indicator has been extensively investigated (Jim et al. 2004; Stott &
Evershed 1996; Stott et al. 1997a; 1997b; 1999). The d3C values of cholesterol
have been shown to be constant across different skeletal members for a given
individual (Stott & Evershed 1996). Assessment of d13C values for cholesterol
from animals raised on isotopically distinct diets (Corr 2003; Jim 2000; Jim
et al. 2001; 2003b; 2004; Stott et al. 1997a), indicate that: (i) cholesterol is a
good indicator of whole diet, (ii) neosynthesis of cholesterol is more significant than assimilation in determining the d13C value of cholesterol, and (iii)
bone cholesterol d13C values respond to changes in the isotopic composition
of whole diet more rapidly than collagen and apatite, such that cholesterol is
an indicator of short-term diet (Stott et al. 1997a; Jim 2000). These results
have been applied, alongside collagen and apatite analysis, to address
archaeological questions relating to the diets of a range of ancient populations (Copley et al. 2004a; Corr 2003; Howland 2003; Jim 2000; Jones 2002;
Stott et al. 1999).
The fatty acids present in archaeological bone, teeth and soft tissues have
been somewhat less explored as a source of palaeodietary information,
although they have been shown to survive in a wide variety of inhumations
(Buckley & Evershed 2001; Corr et al. submitted; Evershed 1990; 1992;
Evershed & Connolly 1988; 1994; Evershed et al. 1995). This appears due to
the low survival rate of bone fatty acids in the archaeological record; fatty
acids only seem to be preserved in significant abundances under exceptional
burial environments, for example arid and waterlogged sites (Copley et al.
2004a; Evershed & Connolly 1988). Fatty acids present in bone most likely
originate from bone marrow fat (Evershed et al. 1995).
Feeding studies on rats and pigs raised on isotopically controlled diets,
have shown that bone fatty acid d13C values are 13C-depleted by up to 3.4
with respect to whole diet (Howland et al. 2003; Jim 2000; Jim et al. 2001;
2003b), as a result of a kinetic isotope effect occurring during the oxidation
of pyruvate by pyruvate dehydrogenase to acetyl CoA, the common
precursor in lipid biosynthesis (DeNiro & Epstein 1977; Hayes 1993).
The d13C values of bone fatty acids have recently been used together with
those of individual amino acids and apatite as indicators of trends in
the management of domesticated animals in Egypt (Copley et al. 2004a).
More recent results obtained from compositional and stable isotope analyses
of the remains of Kwaday Dn Tsinchi, a remarkably well-preserved body
unearthed from a retreating glacier in the Tatshenshini Alsek Park, British
Columbia, Canada, have shown the bones and skin preserve abundant lipids,
including cholesterol and fatty acids, in addition to collagen (e.g. Fig. 2).
Unusually, the long chain hydroxy acids, 10- and 12-hydroxyeicosanoic
acid and the corresponding C22 homologues were detected, which point to
148
Richard P. Evershed
Figure 2. Partial gas chromatogram of trimethylsilylated total lipid extract of Kwaday Dn

Tsinchi bone. FA denotes fatty acid and IS the internal standard. Peak identities: 1 ndodecanoic acid; 2 iso-tridecanoic acid; 3 n-tridecanoic acid; 4 n-tetradecanoic acid;
5 anteiso-pentadecanoic acid; 6 iso-pentadecanoic acid; 7 n-pentadecanoic acid; 8
4,8,12-trimethyltridecanoic acid; 9 hexadecenoic acid; 10 n-hexadecanoic acid; 11
pristanic acid; 12 anteiso-heptadecanoic acid; 13 iso-heptadecanoic acid; 14 nheptadecanoic acid; 15 phytanic acid; 16 octadecenoic acids; 17 n-octadecanoic acid; 18
10-hydroxyhexanoic acid; 19 eicosenoic acids; 20 10-hydroxyoctadecanoic acid; 21 12hydroxyoctadecanoic acid; 22 docosanoic acids; 23 10-hydroxyeicosanoic acid; 24 12hydroxyeicosanoic acid; 25 10 and 12-hydroxydocosanoic acid; 26 cholesta-3,5-diene; 27
cholesterol; 28 cholest-3-en-4-one; 29 n-tetratriacontane (internal standard). The presence
of fatty acids of marine origin provides an unexpected new source of palaeodietary information.
See Fig. 5 for structures of the isoprenoid fatty acids.
C20:1 and C22:1 being present in the tissues at the time of death, possibly
originating from a substantial intake of marine foods by the individual.
Additional biomarkers for marine food consumption included the isoprenoidal compounds: phytanic acid, pristanic acid and trimethyltetradecanoic acid (Corr et al. submitted). The d13C values of the cholesterol and
collagen components of the skin and bone point to the more rapidly turning over skin components recording the consumption of C3 terrestrial/
fresh-water foods in the months prior to death, while the bone signatures
showed high marine protein consumption throughout life (Richards et al.
in press).
149
ORGANIC RESIDUE ANALYSIS OF

PREHISTORIC POTTERY VESSELS
During the processing of foodstuffs (e.g. cooking) in unglazed pottery vessels, organic residues can be either adsorbed onto the vessel surface or, more
commonly, absorbed into the vessel wall. Extensive investigations, performed
over the past two decades, have demonstrated the widespread survival of
organic residues in archaeological pottery. For a variety of reasons, but
mainly due to their hydrophobic nature and general ubiquity in foodstuffs,
absorbed lipids are commonly observed surviving in potsherds for many millennia. Indeed we have observed lipids in the oldest pottery we have so far
examined, namely those from prehistoric sites from south-east Europe and
the Near East. Our investigations have shown that analyses of both adsorbed
and absorbed residues, but most profitably the latter, can lead to the detection
of the processing of animal (e.g. Copley et al. 2003; 2005a; 2005b; 2005c;
2005d; Dudd & Evershed 1998; Evershed et al. 1997), plant (Copley et al.
2001; 2005e; Evershed et al. 1991; 1999) and bee (Evershed et al. 2003a;
Regert et al. 2001) products. Such analyses can therefore provide rather
specific information on the nature of commodities processed in the vessels
but also more general information concerning local, or even regional, trends
in agricultural practices or evidence of exploitation of natural resources.
By far the most common class of organic residue detected in archaeological pottery are degraded animal fats recognised by the high abundances of
the C18:0 fatty acid, together with its ubiquitous C16:0 counterpart. A variety
of approaches have been employed to identify the sources of animal fats
(Evershed et al. 1997; Mottram et al. 1999), but by far the most effective
method currently available is compound-specific stable isotope analysis via
GC-C-IRMS, which allows the structures of diagnostic (biomarker) components of lipid mixtures to be unambiguously linked to their stable isotope
values. As in the case of animal fats, compound-specific d13C values afford
insights into the biochemical sources of biomarkers even when their chemical
structures are identical.
d13C values of fatty acids provide the basis for distinguishing between
ruminant (e.g. sheep/goat and cattle) and porcine (pig) adipose fats (Evershed
et al. 1997; Mottram et al. 1999). The d13C values exhibited by these animals
must reflect their different diets and fundamental differences in their metabolisms and physiologies (Evershed et al. 1999). Especially relevant to detecting the emergence of the Secondary Product Complex as a component of the
Neolithisation of Europe (Sherratt 1981; 1983) is the ability to separate
ruminant adipose and dairy fats, again distinguished by the d13C values of
their fatty acids (Dudd & Evershed 1998). The C18:0 fatty acid in dairy fat is
significantly more depleted in 13C than the corresponding compound in
150
Richard P. Evershed
carcass fats (c. 2.1 ; Copley et al. 2003). Fatty acids in ruminant adipose
tissues are mainly synthesised from acetate (as acetyl CoA), originating predominantly from the fermentation of dietary carbohydrate in the rumen. In
contrast, the mammary gland is incapable of synthesising the C18:0 fatty acid;
instead, it is obtained via the remobilisation of adipose fatty acids and
directly from the dietary C18 fatty acids, after biohydrogenation in the rumen
(Moore & Christie 1981). The difference between the C18:0 fatty acids from
ruminant adipose and dairy fat can be explained by the fact that lipids are
more depleted in 13C than carbohydrates (DeNiro & Epstein 1977), and
approximately 60% of the C18:0 fatty acid in dairy fat are derived via biohydrogenation of dietary unsaturated C18 fatty acids (i.e. C18:1, C18:2 and
C18:3) in the rumen.
GC-C-IRMS analysis of remnant animal fats of archaeological origin
has now been extensively used to address some key questions concerning
animal husbandry in prehistory, for example the earliest evidence for dairying in prehistoric Britain and Europe (Copley et al. 2003; 2005a; 2005b;
2005c; 2005d; Craig et al. 2005a; 2005b; Dudd & Evershed 1998), and the
exploitation of pigs in the late Neolithic (Mukherjee 2005; Mukherjee et al.
in press).
A key aspect of the use of stable isotopes in archaeological studies is
establishing appropriate comparative collections. For example, animals
farmed today cannot be directly compared to those raised in antiquity due to
such factors as: (i) intensive farming which has led to animals being fed supplements to enhance their diets and to improve the nutritional quality of their
meat and milk (e.g. Chilliard et al. 2001; Lowe et al. 2002; Nrnberg et al.
1998); (ii) selective breeding resulting in changes in the biochemical composition of the tissues of domestic animals; (iii) the burning of fossil fuels since
the industrial revolution causing changes in the isotopic composition of
atmospheric CO2 (Friedli et al. 1986), resulting in the tissues of modern animals being depleted in 13C compared to their ancient counterpart; and (iv) C4
plants (e.g. maize) having been introduced to Britain and incorporated into
animals diets, again significantly altering the carbon isotopic composition of
animal tissues. Our identifications of remnant animal fats extracted from
archaeological pottery have been aided by a carefully assembled database of
modern fats (Copley et al. 2003; Dudd & Evershed 1998; Evershed et al.
2003b). The reference animals sampled were selected due to their having been
reared on known diets of C3 origin and comprise adipose fat from cattle,
sheep and pigs, and milk fat from cattle and sheep. The d13C values obtained
from the modern reference animals are adjusted for post-Industrial
Revolution effects of fossil fuel burning by the addition of 1.2 (Friedli
et al. 1986). Confidence ellipses (1 s.d.) corresponding to pig adipose, horse,
ruminant adipose and ruminant milk provide reference d13C ranges, onto
151
which the values for archaeological samples can be overlaid to assess lipid
origins (Fig. 3). In areas of the world where C4 plants form a significant
contribution to animals diets, modern reference animals should be chosen
accordingly. The C4 contribution accounted for it by comparing the difference in the D13C values of the C16:0 and C18:0 fatty acids for the reference and
archaeological fats (D13C) where D13C d13C18:0 d13C16:0 (Copley et al. 2003;
Evershed et al. 1999; Mukherjee et al. 2005).
Clearly, many archaeological vessels will have been used to process commodities from more than one type of animal. In order to account for this a
mixing model is used to calculate theoretical d13C values. This mathematical
model has been used elsewhere for the detection of the mixing of vegetable
oils of differing stable carbon isotope composition (Mottram et al. 2003;
Figure 3. Plot of d13C values of the major saturated fatty acids [palmitic (C16:0) and stearic
(C18:0) acids] of the adipose fats of modern horse, ruminant (cattle and sheep) adipose and milk
fats, and porcine adipose fats. The fields are 1r confidence ellipses. The d13C values have been
adjusted for the post-Industrial Revolution effects of fossil fuel burning.
Richard P. Evershed
152
Woodbury et al. 1995) and sedimentary lipids (Bull et al. 1999), and utilises
the percentage abundance of each specific fatty acid and its associated d13C
value. Recent work has shown that numerical values for types of animal fat
derived from plots of the type shown in Fig. 4 do show reasonable correlations with faunal assessments based on skeletal remains (Copley et al. 2005d;
Mukherjee 2005; Mukherjee et al. 2005; in press). Especially relevant in the
context of this volume is the observation that 25% of the Neolithic sherds
contained dairy fats, confirming that dairying was a major component of
prehistoric farming, suggesting that the emergence of dairying in farming
communities (the Secondary Products Complex) occurred prior to its introduction to Britain from, say, the end of the fifth millennium cal BC at the
earliest. Interestingly, evidence for the processing of bee products, most likely
honey, based on the detection of beeswax, and plant products, was also
detected in a relatively small number of sherds.
DETECTING MARINE FATS IN POTTERY VESSELS

A recent development in the study of animal fats in archaeological pottery
has been our recognition of a range of lipid biomarkers for the processing of
marine products in pottery vessels. Marine commodities contain high abundances of polyunsaturated fatty acids; indeed, two such polyunsaturated
fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (C20:5 n-3) and docosahexaenoic acid (C22:6
n-3), are believed to have health benefits for humans (e.g. Passi et al. 2002),
and so it is encouraged that modern diets include a greater consumption of
fish. Modern terrestrial and marine-based animal/plant fats and oils are relatively easy to distinguish through their lipid compositions; few terrestrial
plants or animal-derived fats contain high abundances of polyunsaturated
fatty acids as observed in marine fats/oils (e.g. Rossell 1991). However, unsaturated fatty acids rarely survive as significant components of organic residues
in pottery vessels, since they are particularly susceptible to oxidation during
vessel use and burial (Evershed 1993). Thus, the use of compositional data
derived from unsaturated fatty acids (not only di- and polyunsaturated fatty
acids but also monosaturated fatty acids) cannot be used in drawing
comparisons between modern reference fats and archaeological lipid
residues.
Despite these apparent complications, we recently obtained very promising new evidence that the processing of marine animal products can be
detected in organic residues from pottery vessels (Copley et al. 2004b; Hansel
et al. 2004). The initial pottery vessels investigated were excavated from a
coastal site in Brazil, and absorbed lipid residue analysis demonstrated the
presence of a range of unusual fatty acid (Figs 5 and 7), phytanic acid
Figure 4. Plots (a) of d13C values of methyl esters of C16:0 and C18:0 fatty acids from the three periods indicated. The ellipses correspond to those discussed
above in relation to Fig. 3. Sherds plotting between the represent the mixing of animal products in vessels. Plots (b) of D13C values versus d13C values of
C16:0 fatty acid provide a further environment independent method of classifying animal fats.
153
154
Richard P. Evershed
Figure 5. Unusual biomarkers of marine fats and oils observed in pottery vessels from coastal
sites (Hansel et al. 2004; Copley et al. 2004b). 1 4,8,12-trimethyltridecanoic acid
(4,8,12-TMTD); 2 phytanic acid (3,7,11,15-tetramethylhexadecanoic acid); 3 pristanic acid
(2,6,10,14-tetramethylpentadecanoic acid); and 4 to 10 x-(o-alkylphenyl)alkanoic acids.
(3,7,11,15-tetramethylhexadecanoic acid), pristanic acid (2,6,10,14-tetramethylpentadecanoic acid) and 4,8,12-TMTD (4,8,12-trimethyltridecanoic

acid) in some of the lipid extracts (Hansel et al. 2004). These isoprenoid compounds (already referred to above in relation to Kwaday Dn Tsinchi) are
found in particularly high concentrations in marine animals, and are absent
or present in only very low concentrations in some terrestrial organisms (e.g.
Ackman & Hooper 1968). Importantly, they have not been detected in sherds
analysed in this laboratory obtained from numerous inland archaeological
sites, and therefore appear to be a promising indicator for the processing of
marine products in the pottery.
Further evidence for a marine source was suggested (Hansel et al. 2004)
through the presence of x-(o-alkylphenyl)alkanoic acids (Figs 5 and 6) with
16 to 20 carbon atoms; these are fatty acids containing an unusual benzenyl
155
Figure 6. Partial GC/MS total ion current (TIC; A) and m/z 105 (B) and 290 (C) summed mass
chromatograms of the lipid extract of potsherd from a coastal site on Santa Caterina Island,
southern Brazil. m/z 105 is the dialkylbenzene fragment ion, and m/z 290 corresponds to
the molecular ion (M.) for x-(o-alkylphenyl)octadecanoic acids. The inset shows the positions
of the isomers C to I displayed in the m/z 290 mass chromatogram. n is the length of the alkyl
side chain 1 where, for x-(o-alkylphenyl)octadecanoic acids, n m 10 (modified from Hansel
et al. 2004). A ZB1 capillary column was utilised.
moiety within the Alkyl chain. x-(o-alkylphenyl)octadecanoic acids were first

detected during the heating of modern cooking oils containing triunsaturated
fatty acyl lipids in experiments employed to determine the potential toxicity
of frying oils (Michael 1966; 1996). More recently, x-(o-alkylphenyl)octadecanoic acids have been shown to form from methyl linolenic acid through
laboratory thermal degradation studies (Matikainen et al. 2003). Figure 7
summarises the reaction scheme leading to their formation; it proceeds with
isomerisation and, following a 1,5 hydrogen shift, trans/cis isomerisation
occurs, to yield a fully conjugated fatty acid. The cyclic products (4) to (10)
are formed via an intramolecular Diels-Alder (IMDA) reaction. Once the
cyclodienyl ester has been formed, aromatisation is energetically favourable
and occurs rapidly at cooking temperatures. Thus, a product-precursor
relationship exists between x-(o-alkylphenyl)alkanoic acids and triunsaturated fatty acids. Since, as noted above, unsaturated fatty acids are unlikely
to survive in appreciable concentrations in lipid residues in pottery vessels,
156
Richard P. Evershed
Figure 7. Scheme (after Hansel et al. 2004) showing the formation of x-(o-alkylphenyl) alkanoic acids from cis, cis, cis-9, 12, 15-octadecatrienoic acid via isomerisation, a 1,5 hydrogen shift
and then either a cis/trans isomerisation or a 1,7 hydrogen shift, followed by an intramolecular
Diels-Alder (IMDA) reaction and aromatisation. The reaction can occur at 270C over 17 h
(Matikainen et al. 2003).
these x-(o-alkylphenyl)alkanoic acids, which are stable compounds, offer a

novel means of detecting the processing of commodities containing unsaturated
fatty acids.
We have recently undertaken laboratory heating experiments to assess
whether x-(o-alkylphenyl)alkanoic acids form when pure compounds and triacylglycerol mixtures are heated with a potsherd matrix. The results obtained
demonstrate that these compounds form when tri-, di- and monounsaturated
fatty acids, but not saturated fatty acids, are heated at 270C with potsherd
157
(Fig. 7). Distributions obtained are consistent with those seen in lipid
residues obtained from potsherds from the coastal archaeological sites of
Santa Catarina Island, Brazil and Kasteelberg, South Africa (Copley et al.
2004b; Hansel et al. 2004), thereby confirming that they can serve as indicators for the processing of marine foods, high in marine oils, which contain
high abundances of polyunsaturated fatty acids (Copley et al. 2004b;
Evershed et al. in press; Hansel et al. 2004). Clearly, much scope exists for
investigating the presence or absence of these new marine biomarkers in early
Neolithic pottery where, through the use of high sensitivity GC/MS methods,
their presence or absence may add substantially to the on-going debate
concerning the exploitation or otherwise of marine resources by early
agriculturalists/pastoralists.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

From the foregoing discussion a range of new sources of molecular and isotopic information have been highlighted that show considerable promise for
application to studies of changes in diet, resource exploitation and agriculture at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transitions. These new possibilities have
been brought about by our efforts to probe the biochemically complex and
diagenetically altered organic constituents of skeletal remains and ancient
pottery at the molecular level. Such an approach is essential to attain valid
interpretations based on such aged and altered materials.
In the field of palaeodietary reconstruction, based on skeletal remains, we
have demonstrated a range of new biochemical proxies suitable for investigating: (i) whole diet; (ii) specific elements of the diet e.g. protein and energy
components; and (iii) long- and short-term dietary variation, applicable to
the investigation of ancient diet at any period in human prehistory, provided
of course preservation is favourable. Further refinements will be achieved
and new proxies will continue to emerge. For example, improvements are ongoing in compound-specific amino acid analyses, with the recent development of a new liquid chromatography LC-IRMS method offering potential
advantages over the GC-C-IRMS approach, since no derivatisation (esterification of carboxyl groups/acylation of amino groups) is required. Only
acid hydrolysis of the protein is required to provide free amino acids from
proteins or peptides and we have already shown that this treatment introduces no significant isotope effect (Jim et al. 2003a). Amino acids separated
by aqueous based HPLC are quantitatively converted to CO2 in a reactor
containing ammonium peroxodisulphate. Preliminary analyses have shown
that such amino acids can be analysed directly on the LC-IRMS systems to
provide d13C values, with sensitivities compatible with the concentrations of
158
Richard P. Evershed
collagen available from many prehistoric skeletal remains (Krummen et al.

2004).
Further developments include the possibility of adding compoundspecific d15N and dD determinations to the repertoire of light stable isotopes
used in palaeodietary and palaeoecological reconstruction. Both are technically feasible and should help to further unravel and exploit the stable isotope
signals carried by a number of biomolecules, including collagenous amino
acids. For example, the hydrogen isotope ratios of animal body protein have
recently been shown to reflect trophic level (Birchall et al. 2005), with further
compound-specific determinations likely to help to identify the biochemical
basis of the phenomenon. Additionally, compound-specific dD determinations of fatty acids from pottery will further extend the use of this class of
biomolecule. One area of application we are currently exploring is the use of
fatty acid dD values, in parallel with d13C values, to distinguish between terrestrial and marine resource exploitation and processing in pottery vessels.
Such applications are now possible as a result of the introduction of
GC-thermal conversion-IRMS instruments.
A further area of application of molecular proxies is that of compoundspecific radiocarbon analysis. Either preparative gas chromatography (Stott
et al. 2003) or high performance liquid chromatography (Tripp et al. 2006)
can be used to isolate components from complex extracts for radiocarbon
analysis. Potential gains in undertaking such analyses include dating early
pottery (Berstan 2002; Stott et al. 2003) and skeletal collagen derived amino
acids. The latter possibility will allow us to exploit the marine reservoir
effect or hard water effect to improve our understanding of the origins of
specific amino acids (Corr et al. 2005).
Note. None of the material discussed herein would have been possible without the
contributions of members of my research group, past and present. Particular thanks
go to Lorna Corr, Mark Copley, Susan Jim, Anna Mukherjee, Mark Howland and
Fabrico Hansel, whose recent work features prominently in this contribution. I am
also indebted to colleagues in institutions in several continents who have contributed
samples, expertise and ideas so generously, and make the undertaking of archaeological research such an enjoyable and infinitely varied endeavour. My collaborators
Stanley Ambrose, Bas Payne, Vanessa Straker, Judith Sealy and Mike Richards are
thanked for their generous contributions to the original investigations reviewed in this
paper. Drs Ian Bull and Robert Berstan are thanked for their expertise and tireless
efforts in developing and maintaining the analytical facilities in the Bristol laboratory.
None of the work discussed in this contribution would have been possible without the
financial support provided by the UK Natural Environment Research Council,
English Heritage, The Royal Society and the University of Bristol; their support is
gratefully acknowledged.
159
REFERENCES
ABELSON, P. H. & HOERING, T. C. 1961. Carbon isotope fractionation in the formation of
amino acids by photosynthetic organisms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science
USA 47(5), 62332.
AKMAN, R. G. & HOOPER, S. N. 1968. Examination of isoprenoid fatty acids as distinguishing characteristics of specific marine oils with particular reference to whale oils. Comparative
Biochemistry and Physiology 24, 54965.
AMBROSE, S. H. 1993. Isotopic analysis of palaeodiets: methodological and interpretive
considerations. In M. K. Sandford (ed.), Investigations of ancient human tissue, 59130.
Langhorne, PA: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.
BERSTAN, R. 2002. Compound-specific d13C and 14C determinations of archaeological animal
fats. PhD thesis, University of Bristol.
BIRCHALL, J., OCONNELL, T. C., HEATON, T. H. E. & HEDGES, R. E. M. 2005.
Hydrogen isotope ratios in animal body protein reflect trophic level. Journal of Animal
Ecology 74, 87781.
BUCKLEY, S. A. & EVERSHED, R. P. 2001. Organic chemistry of embalming agents in
Pharaonic and Graeco-Roman mummies. Nature 413, 83741.
BULL, I. D., VAN BERGEN, P. F., BOL, R., BROWN, S., GLEDHILL, A. R., GRAY, A. J.,
HARKNESS, D. D., WOODBURY, S. E. & EVERSHED, R. P. 1999. Estimating the
contribution of Spartina anglica biomass to salt-marsh sediments using compound specific
stable carbon isotope measurements Organic Geochemistry 30, 47783.
CHILLIARD, Y., FERLAY, A. & DOREAU, M. 2001. Effect of different types of forages,
animal fat or marine oils in cows diet on milk fat secretion and composition, especially conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Livestock Production Science 70,
3148.
COPLEY, M. S., ROSE, P. J., CLAPHAM, A., EDWARDS, D. N., HORTON, M. C. &
EVERSHED, R. P. 2001. Processing palm fruits in the Nile Valley biomolecular evidence
from Qasr Ibrim. Antiquity 75, 53842.
COPLEY, M. S., BERSTAN, R., DUDD, S. N., DOCHERTY, G., MUKHERJEE, A. J.,
STRAKER, V., PAYNE, S. & EVERSHED, R. P. 2003. Direct chemical evidence for widespread dairying in prehistoric Britain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the
United States of America 100, 15249.
COPLEY, M. S., JIM, S., JONES, V., ROSE, P. J., CLAPHAM, A., HORTON, M. C. &
EVERSHED, R. P. 2004a. Short- and long-term foraging and foddering strategies of domesticated animals from Qasr Ibrim, Egypt. Journal of Archaeological Science 31, 127386.
COPLEY, M. S., HANSEL, F. A., SADR, K. & EVERSHED, R. P. 2004b. Organic residue evidence for the processing of marine animal products in pottery vessels from the pre-Colonial
archaeological site of Kasteelberg D East, South Africa. South African Journal of Science
100, 27983.
COPLEY, M. S., BERSTAN, R., DUDD, S. N., STRAKER, V., PAYNE, S. & EVERSHED,
R. P. 2005a. Dairying in antiquity. I. Evidence from absorbed lipid residues dating to the
British Iron Age. Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 485503.
COPLEY, M. S., BERSTAN, R., DUDD, S. N., STRAKER, V., PAYNE, S. & EVERSHED,
R. P. 2005b. Dairying in antiquity. II. Evidence from absorbed lipid residues dating to the
British Bronze Age. Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 50521.
COPLEY, M. S., BERSTAN, R., MUKHERJEE, A. J., DUDD, S. N., STRAKER, V., PAYNE,
S. & EVERSHED, R. P. 2005c. Dairying in antiquity. III. Evidence from absorbed lipid
residues dating to the British Neolithic. Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 52346.
COPLEY, M. S., BERSTAN, R., DUDD, S. N., AILLAUD, S., MUKHERJEE, A. J.,
STRAKER, V., PAYNE, S. & EVERSHED, R. P. 2005d. Processing of milk products in
pottery vessels through British prehistory. Antiquity 79, 895908.
160
Richard P. Evershed
COPLEY, M. S., BLAND, H. A., ROSE, P., HORTON, M. & EVERSHED, R. P. 2005e. Gas
chromatographic, mass spectrometric and stable carbon isotopic investigations of organic
residues of plant oils and animal fats employed as illuminants in archaeological lamps from
Egypt. Analyst 130, 86071.
CORR, L. T. 2003. The evaluation of a multi-proxy stable isotope approach to palaeodietary
reconstruction. PhD thesis, University of Bristol.
CORR, L. T., RICHARDS, M. P., BEATTIE, O., GREER, S., MACKIE, A., SOUTHON, J. &
EVERSHED, R. P. submitted. Dietary fingerprint of ancient British Columbian glacier body
through molecular and isotope characterisation of bone and skin lipids.
CORR, L. T., SEALY, J. L., HORTON, M. C. & EVERSHED, R. P. 2005. A novel marine
dietary indicator utilising compound-specific collagen amino acid d13C values of ancient
humans. Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 32130.
CRAIG, O. E., TAYLOR, G., COLLINS, M. J. & PARKER PEARSON, M. 2005a. The
identification of prehistoric dairying activities in the Western Isles of Scotland: an integrated
biomolecular approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 91103.
CRAIG, O. E., CHAPMAN, J., HERON, C., WILLIS, L. H., BARTOSIEWICZ, L., TAYLOR, G.,
WHITTLE, A. & COLLINS, M. 2005b. Did the first farmers of central and eastern Europe
produce dairy foods? Antiquity 79, 88294.
DENIRO, M. J. 1985. Postmortem preservation and alteration of in vivo bone-collagen isotope
ratios in relation to palaeodietary reconstruction. Nature 317, 8069.
DENIRO, M. J. & EPSTEIN, S. 1977. Mechanism of carbon isotope fractionation associated
with lipid synthesis. Science 197, 2613.
DOCHERTY, G., JONES, V. & EVERSHED, R. P. 2001. Practical and theoretical considerations in the gas chromatography/combustion/isotope ratio mass spectrometry d13C analysis
of small polyfunctional compounds. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 15, 7308.
DUDD, S. N. & EVERSHED, R. P. 1998. Direct demonstration of milk as an element of
archaeological economies. Science 282, 147881.
EVERSHED, R. P. 1990. Preliminary report of the analysis of lipids from samples of skin from
seven Dutch bog bodies. Archaeometry 32, 13953.
EVERSHED, R. P. 1992. Chemical composition of a bog body adipocere. Archaeometry 34,
25365.
EVERSHED, R. P. 1993. Biomolecular archaeology and lipids. World Archaeology 25, 7493.
EVERSHED, R. P. & CONNOLLY, R. C. 1988. Lipid preservation in Lindow Man.
Naturwissenschaften 75, 1435.
EVERSHED, R. P., HERON, C. & GOAD, L. J. 1991. Epicuticular wax components preserved
in potsherds as chemical indicators of leafy vegetables in ancient diets. Antiquity 65, 5404.
EVERSHED, R. P. & CONNOLLY, R. C. 1994. Post-mortem transformation of sterols in bog
body tissues. Journal of Archaeological Science 5, 57784.
EVERSHED, R. P., TURNER-WALKER, G., HEDGES, R. E. M, TUROSS, N. & LEYDEN, A.
1995. Preliminary results for the analysis of lipids in ancient bone. Journal of Archaeological
Science 22, 27790.
EVERSHED, R. P., MOTTRAM, H. R., DUDD, S. N., CHARTERS, S., STOTT, A. W.,
GIBSON, A. M., CONNER, A., BLINKHORN, P. W. & REEVES, V. 1997. New criteria
for the identification of animal fats preserved in archaeological pottery. Naturwissenschaften
84, 4026.
EVERSHED, R. P., DUDD, S. N., CHARTERS, S., MOTTRAM, H. R., STOTT, A. W.,
RAVEN, A., VAN BERGEN, P. F. & BLAND, H. A. 1999. Lipids as carriers of anthropogenic signals from Pre-history. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 354,
1931.
EVERSHED, R. P., ANDERSON-STOJANOVIC, V. R., DUDD, S. N. & GEBHARD, E. R.
2003a. New chemical evidence for the use of combed ware pottery vessels as beehives in
ancient Greece. Journal of Archaeological Science 31, 112.
161
EVERSHED, R. P., DUDD, S. N., COPLEY, M. S. & MUKHERJEE, A. J. 2003b.

Identification of animal fats via compound specific d13C values of individual fatty acids:
assessments of results for reference fats and lipid extracts of archaeological pottery vessels.
EVERSHED, R. P., COPLEY, M. S., HANSEL, F. A., DICKSON, L., SADR, K. &
MADUREIRA, L. A. S. in press.. Experimental evidence for the processing of marine
animal products in pottery vessels. Archaeometry.
FANTLE, M. S., DITTEL, A. I., SCHWALM, S. M., EPIFANIO, C. E. & FOGEL, M. L. 1999.
A food web analysis of the juvenile blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, using stable isotopes in
whole animals and individual amino acids. Oecologia 120, 41626.
FOGEL, M. L. & TUROSS, N. 2003. Extending the limits of paleodietary studies of humans
with compound specific carbon isotope analysis of amino acids. Journal of Archaeological
Science 30, 53545.
FOGEL, M. L., TUROSS, N., JOHNSON, B. J. & MILLER, G. H. 1997. Biogeochemical
record of ancient humans. Organic Geochemistry 27, 27587.
FRIEDLI, H., LOTSCHER, H., OESCHGER, H., SIEGENTHALER, U. & STAUFFER, B.
1986. Ice core record of the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 in the past two centuries.
Nature 324, 2378.
GANNES, L. Z., DEL RIO, C. M. & KOCH, P. 1998. Natural abundance variations in stable
isotopes and their potential uses in animal physiological ecology. Comparative biochemistry
and physiology: a molecular and integrative physiology 119, 72537.
HANSEL, F. A., COPLEY, M. S., MADUREIRA, L. A. S. & EVERSHED, R. P. 2004.
Thermally produced x-(o-alkylphenyl)alkanoic acids provide evidence for the processing of
marine products in archaeological pottery vessels. Tetrahedron Letters 45, 29993002.
HARE, P. E. & ESTEP, M. L. F. 1983. Carbon and nitrogen isotopic composition of amino
acids in modern and fossil collagens. Carnegie Institution Washington Yearbook 82,
41014.
HARE, P. E., FOGEL, M. L., STAFFORD, T. W., MITCHELL, A. D. & HOERING, T. C.
1991. The isotopic composition of carbon and nitrogen in individual amino acids isolated
from modern and fossil proteins. Journal of Archaeological Science 18, 27792.
HAYES, J. M. 1993. Factors controlling 13C contents of sedimentary organic compounds
principles and evidence. Marine Geology 113, 11125.
HEATON, T. H. E. 1987. The 15N/14N ratio of plants in South Africa and Namibia: relationship
to climate and coastal/saline environments. Oecologia 74, 23646.
HEATON, T. H. E., VOGEL, J. C., VON LA CHEVALLERIE, G. & COLLETT, G. 1986.
Climatic influence on the isotopic composition of bone collagen. Nature 322, 8223.
HEDGES, R. E. M. 2004. Isotopes and red herrings: comments on Milner et al. & Lidn et al.
Antiquity 78, 346.
HOWLAND, M. R. 2003. Compound-specific stable isotope investigations of the influence of diet
on the stable isotope composition of body tissues. PhD thesis, University of Bristol.
HOWLAND, M. R., CORR, L. T., YOUNG, S. M., JONES, V., JIM, S., VAN DER MERWE,
N. J., MITCHELL, A. D. & EVERSHED, R. P. 2003. Expression of the dietary isotope
signal in the compound-specific d13C values of pig bone lipids and amino acids. International
Journal of Osteoarchaeology 13, 5465.
JIM, S. 2000. The development of bone cholesterol d13C values as a new source of palaeodietary
information: models of its use in conjunction with bone collagen and apatite d13C values. PhD
thesis, University of Bristol.
JIM, S., STOTT, A. W., EVERSHED, R. P., ROGERS, J. M. & AMBROSE, S. H. 2001. Animal
feeding experiments in the development of cholesterol as a palaeodietary indicator. In
A. Millard (ed.), Archaeological Sciences 97. Proceedings of the conference held at the
University of Durham 2nd4th September 1997. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports
International Series 939, 6877.
162
Richard P. Evershed
JIM, S., JONES, V., COPLEY, M. S., AMBROSE, S. H. & EVERSHED, R. P. 2003a. Effects of
hydrolysis on the d13C values of individual amino acid derived from polypeptides and
proteins. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 17, 22839.
JIM, S., AMBROSE, S. H. & EVERSHED, R. P. 2003b. Stable carbon isotope evidence for the
routing and de novo synthesis of bone lipids. Lipids 38, 17986.
JIM, S., AMBROSE, S. H. & EVERSHED, R. P. 2004. Stable carbon isotope evidence for
differences in the biosynthetic origin of bone cholesterol, collagen, and apatite:
Implications for their use in palaeodietary reconstruction. Geochimica et Cosmochimica
Acta 68, 6172.
JIM, S., JONES, V., AMBROSE, S. H. & EVERSHED, R. P. 2006. Quantifying dietary
macronutrient sources of carbon for bone collagen using natural abundance stable carbon
isotope analysis. British Journal of Nutrition 95, 105562.
JONES, V. 2002. Investigating the routing and synthesis of amino acids between diet and bone
collagen via feeding experiments and applications to palaeodietary reconstruction. PhD thesis,
University of Bristol.
KEIL, R. G. & FOGEL, M. L. 2001. Reworking of amino acid in marine sediments: stable
carbon isotopic composition of amino acids in sediments along the Washington coast.
Liminology and Oceanography 46, 1423.
KRUMMEN, M., HILKERT, A. W., JUCHELKA, D., DUHR, A., SHULTER, H.-J. &
PESCH, R. 2004. A new concept for isotope ratio monitoring liquid chromatography/mass
spectrometry. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 18, 22606.
LIDN, K., ERIKSSON, G., NORDQVIST, B., GTHERSTRM, A. & BENDIXEN, E.
2004. The wet and the wild followed by the dry and the tame or did they occur at the same
time? Diet in Mesolithic-Neolithic southern Sweden. Antiquity 78, 2333.
LOWE, T. E., PEACHEY, B. M. & DEVINE, C. E. 2002. The effect of nutritional supplements
on growth rate, stress responsiveness, muscle glycogen and meat tenderness in pastoral lambs.
Meat Science 62, 3917.
MATIKAINEN, J., KALTIA, S., ALA-PEIJARI, M., PETIT-GRAS, N., HARJU, K.,
HEIKKILA, J., YKSJARVI, R. & HASE, T. 2003. A study of 1,5-hydrogen shift and
cyclisation reactions of isomerised methyl linoleate. Tetrahedron Letters 59, 56773.
MICHAEL, W. R. 1966. Thermal reactions of methyl linoleate I. heating conditions, isolation
techniques, biological studies and chemical changes. Lipids 1, 353.
MICHAEL, W. R. 1996. Thermal reactions of methyl linoleate II. The structure of aromatic
C18 methyl esters. Lipids 1, 35964.
MILNER, N., CRAIG, O. E., BAILEY, G. N., PEDERSEN, K. & ANDERSEN, S. H. 2004.
Something fishy in the Neolithic? A re-evaluation of stable isotope analysis of Mesolithic and
Neolithic coastal populations. Antiquity 78, 922.
MOORE, J. H. & CHRISTIE, W. W. 1981. Lipid metabolism in the mammary gland of ruminant animals. In W. W. Christie (ed.), Progress in Lipid Research Supplement no. 1, 22776.
London: Pergamon Press.
MOTTRAM, H. R., DUDD, S. N., LAWRENCE, G. J., STOTT, A. W. & EVERSHED, R. P.
1999. New chromatographic, mass spectrometric and stable isotope approaches to the
classification of degraded animal fats preserved in archaeological pottery. Journal of
Chromatography A 833, 20921.
MOTTRAM, H., WOODBURY, S. E., ROSSELL, J. B. & EVERSHED, R. P. 2003. Highresolution detection of adulteration of maize oil using multi-component compound-specific
d13C values of major and minor components and discriminant analysis. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 17, 70612.
MUKHERJEE, A. J. 2005. The importance of pigs in the later British Neolithic: integrating
stable isotope evidence from lipid residues in archaeological potsherds, animal bone and modern
animal tissues. PhD Thesis, University of Bristol.
163
MUKHERJEE, A. J., BERSTAN, R., COPLEY, M. S., GIBSON, A. M. & EVERSHED, R. P.

in press. Compound-specific stable carbon isotope detection of pig product processing in
British Late Neolithic pottery. Antiquity.
MUKHERJEE, A. J., COPLEY, M. S., BERSTAN, R. & EVERSHED, R. P. 2005.
Interpretation of d13C values of fatty acids in relation to animal husbandry, food processing
and consumption in prehistory. In J. Mulville & A. K. Outram (eds), The zooarchaeology of
fats, oils, milk and dairying, 7795. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
NRNBERG, K., WEGNER, J. & ENDER, K. 1998. Factors influencing fat composition in
muscle and adipose tissue of farm animals. Livestock Production Science 56, 14556.
PASSI, S., CATAUDELLA, S., DI MARCO, P., DE SIMONE, F. & RASTRELLI, L.
2002. Fatty acid composition and antioxidant levels in muscle tissue of different
Mediterranean marine species of fish and shellfish. Journal of Agricultural Food
Chemistry 50, 731422.
PHILLIPS, D. L. & KOCH, P. L. 2002. Incorporating concentration dependence in stable
isotope mixing models. Oecologia 130, 10513.
REGERT, M., COLINART S., DEGRAND, L. & DECAVALLAS, O. 2001. Chemical
alteration and use of beeswax through time: accelerated ageing tests and analysis of
archaeological samples from various environmental contexts. Archaeometry 43, 54969.
RICHARDS, M. P., GREER, S., CORR, L. T., BEATTIE, O., MACKIE, A., EVERSHED, R. P.,
VON FINSTER, A. & SOUTHON, J. in press. Radiocarbon dating and dietary stable
isotope analysis of Kwaday Dn Tsinch. American Antiquity.
RICHARDS, M. P., SCHULTING, R. J. & HEDGES, R. E. M. 2003. Archaeology: sharp shift
in diet at onset of Neolithic. Nature 425, 366.
ROSSELL, J. B. 1991. Vegetable oils and fats. In J. B. Rossell & J. L. R. Pritchard (eds), Analysis
of oilseeds, fats and fatty foods, 261328. London: Elsevier Applied Science.
SCHWARCZ, H. P., DUPRAS, T. L. & FAIRGRIEVE, S. I. 1999. 15N enrichment in the
Sahara: in search of a global relationship. Journal of Archaeological Science 26, 62936.
SEALY, J. 1997. Stable carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios and coastal diets in the Later Stone
Age of South Africa: a comparison and critical analysis of two data sets. Ancient
Biomolecules 1, 13147.
SEALY, J. C., VAN DER MERWE, N. J., LEE-THORP, J. A. & LANHAM, J. L. 1987. Nitrogen
isotopic ecology in Southern Africa: implications for environmental and dietary tracing.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 51, 270717.
SHERRATT, A. 1981. Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the Secondary Products Revolution.
In I. Hodder, G. Isaac & N. Hammond (eds), Pattern of the past: studies in honour of David
Clark, 261305. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SHERRATT, A. 1983. The secondary exploitation of animals in the Old World. World
Archaeology 15, 90104.
STOTT, A. W. & EVERSHED, R. P. 1996. d13C analysis of cholesterol preserved in archaeological
bones and teeth. Analytical Chemistry 68, 44028.
STOTT, A. W., EVERSHED, R. P. & TUROSS, N. 1997a. Cholesterol in fossil bones: A new
source of palaeodietary and palaeoenvironmental information. Organic Geochemistry 26,
99103.
STOTT, A. W., DAVIES, E., EVERSHED, R. P. & TUROSS, N. 1997b. Monitoring the routing
of dietary and biosynthesised lipids through compound-specific stable isotope (d13C)
measurements at natural abundance. Naturwissenschaften 84, 826.
STOTT, A. W., EVERSHED, R. P., JONES, V., ROGERS, J. M., TUROSS, N. & AMBROSE, S.
1999. Cholesterol as a new source of palaeodietary information: experimental approaches
and archaeological applications. Journal of Archaeological Science 26, 70516.
STOTT, A. W., BERSTAN, R., EVERSHED, R. P., BRONK-RAMSEY, C., HEDGES, R. E. M.
& HUMM, M. J. 2003. Direct dating of archaeological pottery by compound-specific 14C
analysis of preserved lipids. Analytical Chemistry 75, 503745.
164
Richard P. Evershed
TAUBER, H. 1981. C-13 evidence for dietary habits of prehistoric man in Denmark. Nature 292,
3323.
TRIPP, J. A., MCCULLAGH, J. S. O. & HEDGES, R. E. M. 2006. Preparative separation of
underivatized amino acids for compound-specific stable isotope and radiocarbon dating of
hydrolysed bone collagen. Journal of Separation Science 29, 418.
TUROSS, N., FOGEL, M. L. & HARE, P. E. 1988. Variability in the preservation of the isotope composition of collagen from fossil bone. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 52, 92935.
VAN KLINKEN, G. J. 1999. Bone collagen quality indicators for palaeodietary and radiocarbon
measurements. Journal of Archaeological Science 26, 68795.
VOGEL, J. C. & VAN DER MERWE, N. J. 1977. Isotopic evidence for early maize cultivation
in New York State. American Antiquity 42, 23842.
WOODBURY, S. E., EVERSHED, R. P., ROSSELL, J. B., GRIFFITH, R. E. & FARNELL, P.
1995. Detection of vegetable oil adulteration using gas-chromatography combustion isotope
ratio mass-spectrometry. Analytical Chemistry 67, 268590.
Neolithic cattle domestication as seen

from ancient DNA
RUTH BOLLONGINO & JOACHIM BURGER
INTRODUCTION
THE EARLY NEOLITHIC comprises the time when pre-farming people became
sedentary and subsequently began to domesticate plants and animals. The
first settlers appeared about 12,000 years ago in the Middle and Near East;
the Neolithic then expanded all over Europe from about 7000 cal BC onwards.
The question is: did the first agro-pastoralists move to Europe, together with
their plants and animals, or was it rather a cultural transfer where the
Mesolithic people of Europe adopted the idea of domestication? It is possible that animals were imported without major human migration. We know
that many plant species, and some animal species, at least sheep and goat,
were imported from the Near East, as no wild progenitors existed in Europe.
With regard to domestic cattle (B. taurus), however, the situation is different.
Its wild ancestor is the aurochs (B. primigenius), which was prevalent all over
Europe, Asia and North Africa. Therefore the European aurochs remains a
potential progenitor of northern cattle breeds. Even if all cattle were
imported, it is still possible that crossbreeding occurred. This could have happened either purposefully (for example, through young female aurochs being
caught) or unwillingly (for example, when herds were driven to the forests
and the cows could not be kept separate from wild bulls).
The most up-to-date knowledge of cattle domestication is the achievement of archaeological and archaeozoological studies. The morphological
methods are based on size differences, with domesticated animals usually
being smaller compared to their wild relatives. These measurements are
sometimes insecure due to sexual dimorphism, high fragmentation of bones,
age or the nutritional status of the animals. Morphological methods are limited in the way that these data cannot tell the relation between populations or
reveal hybrids. This information can only be received from molecular genetic
data.
166
Studies on modern cattle populations already demonstrate the relations

of the two major cattle breeds, the humpless taurine cattle (B. taurus) and
the Asian humped zebu (B. indicus). Studies by Loftus et al. (1994), Bradley
et al. (1996) and MacHugh et al. (1997) showed that these two groups stem
from independent domestication events in different geographical regions.
Concerning the taurine cattle, recent population studies show that today the
genetic diversity is highest in the Near and Middle East (Loftus et al. 1999;
Troy et al. 2001). This is an indication of the centre of origin in this region.
But modern data can be biased by recent breeding practices and introgression. Only the analysis of ancient samples can help to get at detailed information about prehistoric situations. In this study, we present ancient DNA
data from mainly Neolithic bones of both cattle and aurochs from across
Central and Eastern Europe.
MATERIALS AND METHOD

Samples and amplified loci
Altogether 161 ancient bones were analysed. The geographic distribution
covers France, Germany, the Balkans and the Near East. Samples are mainly
Neolithic but some are dated to the Mesolithic and Bronze Age. Information
about origin, age, morphometric classification and haplotypes is given in
Table 1.
The analysed locus is the HVR I region within the mitochondrial d-loop.
The mitochondrial genome is only maternally inherited and does not recombine. Therefore the maternal lineage can be traced back for many generations
as changes only occur by mutation. The d-loop is a non-coding region and
the lack of selection enables mutations to accumulate at a high rate and therefore the HVR I region is very variable. It is also a prevalent marker for population genetic studies and a large modern dataset for comparison is
available. Another advantage of using a mitochondrial marker is the high
copy number of the mitochondrial genome. Each cell usually contains only
one nucleus but up to several thousands of mitochondrial genomes. This
increases the probability of finding sufficient DNA for a successful amplification within ancient samples.
In addition, the mitochondrial cytochrome b was amplified from two taurine and two aurochs samples. This marker is a gene and its sequence can be
translated into the encoded amino acid sequence, which is mainly of interest
for authentification of ancient DNA data.
Atlit Yam, Israel

YAM 4
SYR 09
Aswad, Syria
AP 6
AP 7
Bld. 11 Hat.190-210
A375, 92 ADN ZV
120 ZZ124 h. 176
(A208)
25-AP97 13l 18
26-AP99 9R 136
416/69
Allendorf, Germany
ALL 1
Asagi Pinar, Turkey
65 obj 777 (small)

65 obj 777 (big)
296 obj 3115
62 obj 1246
L146 level2, B1412

Hat. 696.16-696.10
Archaeol. code
ALB 1
ALB 2
ALB 3
ALB 4
Albertfalva, Hungary
Abu Gosh, Israel

ABU 2
Archaeological site,
Laboratory code
PPNC
Early EPPNB
Karanovo IV
12030-52 cal. BP
Bronze Age, Bell

Beaker, 2500 BC
PPNB
Date
L. Kolska Horwitz
C. Edwards,
J.-D. Vigne
H. Hongo,
M. zdogan
N. Benecke
Alice Choyke
L. Kolska Horwitz
Given by
Tibia
Radius
Scapula
Skeletal
element
B.p.?
B.p.
B.t.
B.t.?
Bos spec.
B.p.
B.p.
Species
Morhpol.
B.t.
B.t.
B.p.
B.t.
B.p.
B.t.
B.p.
Genetic
(Continued)
T3c
Tc
Pc
T3
Pg
T3e
Pg
Haplo-type
Table 1. Archaeological sites, sample names, age, origin, classification and haplotypes for samples used in this study. Haplotype names refer to
Fig. 1b. B.p. Bos primigenius, B.t. Bos taurus, Bison b. Bison bonasus, * independent replication in Dublin. ** These Near Eastern samples
are replications and were first sequenced by C. J. Edwards at Trinity College, Dublin.
NEOLITHIC CATTLE DOMESTICATION
167
151
23-1
Archaeol. code
CP / 33.116
Cave Lours, France

CAT 1
CH 02
CH 03
CH 04
CH 11**
CH1996#4
CH1996#3
CH1996#1
CH1996#X1
Budapest, Hungary
WIB 1
WIB 2
Catal Hyk, Turkey
Berlin, Germany
WIB
Berettyszentmrton, Hungary
BER 1
56.11.186
BER 2
56.11.426
BER 5
56.11.553
BER 6
56.11.979
BER 8
55.4.132
Bad Abbach, Germany

KOEL 1
KOEL 2
Laboratory code
70006000 BC
3694 BC cal.
Iron Age
Medieval
Late Neolithic
Neolithic
Neolithic
48004650 BC
Date
L. Martin,
C. Edwards,
J.-D. Vigne
Louis Chaix
Istvn Vrs
Norbert Benecke
Istvn Vrs
G. Roth
Given by
Metacarpus
Metacarpus
Metacarpus
Metacarpus
Skull
Rib
Rib
Radius
Humerus
Skeletal
element
Bos sp.
Bos sp.
Bos sp.
Bos sp.
B.p.
Bison b.
Bison b.
Bison b.
B.p.
B.t.
Species
Morhpol.
B.t.
B.p.
Bison b.
Bison b.
Bison b.
B.t.
Genetic
Pe
T3
Haplo-type
168
HK 83:1040 l
HK 88:354k
HK 83:933 c
HK 83:754 o
HK 83:702 i
HK 85:142
EIL 7
A367, 92 ADN
B x4 F2 (A200)
A372, 92 ADN
B x3 F2 (A205)
Eilsleben, Germany
EIL 1
EIL 2
EIL 4*
EIL 5
EIL 6
SYR 06
Djade, Syria
SYR 01
5000 BC, LBK
Hans-Jrgen Dhle
Metacarpus
Humerus
Humerus, distal
Radius, distal
Metacarpus,
proximal
Radius
Calcaneus
Calcaneus
DG 85-3-46
DG 85-3-11
DG 85-3-10
Tibia, distal
H.-P. Uerpmann
Didi Gora, Georgia

DID 1
DID2
DID 3
Bronze/Iron Age
Bernburg, 3600 BC Hans-Jrgen Dhle
Derenburg-Steinkuhlenberg,
Germany
DER 1
HK 87:183i
L. Chaix
H. Hongo,
M. zdogan
ca. 300 BP
(modern bone!)
19 1991 30M 5-13 R

2814 1987 25L 2-39 Lr
87 27M 4-27 G
1991 29M7-15 R2
2372 87 20L 9-46 CH2
91 30M 5-13 R
2672 1991 EF 7-6 Lr1
PPNB, 7000 BC
Chateaux, dOex, Switzerland

CAD 1
CO 1
CO 2
CO 5
CO 7
CO 9
CO 13
CO 14
Cayn, Turkey
B.t.
B.t.
B.p
B.p.
B.p.
B.t
B.p.
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.?
B.t.
B.t.
B.p.
B.p.
Bos sp.
Bos sp.
Bos sp.
B.t.
Bos sp.
Bos sp.
Bos sp.
Bos sp.
B.t.?
Ph
T3
(Continued)
T3b
T3
P1
Ph
Tc
T3
T3
169
Skull
Tibia
Tibia
Mietje Gemonpre
27.500 cal. BC
2230-2
2230-1
Goyet Cave, Belgium

BIP 1
BIP 2
Hans-Peter Uerpmann
Femur
Pelvis
Molar
Betty Arndt
Species
Morhpol.
Bison sp.
Bison sp.
B.t.
B.p. ?
B.p.
Bos sp.
Bos sp.
Bos sp.
B.p.
B.t.
Metacarpus, distal B.t.
B.t.
Tibia, distal
B.t.
Tibia, distal
B.p.
Skeletal
element
Radius
Radius
Radius
Oldest LBK
H. Hongo,
M. dogan
Louis Chaix
L.P. Louwe
Kooijmans
Given by
Early LBK
GO 73F-2 90
GO 9-217
GO 73i-1
Goddelau, Germany
GOD 1
GOD 2
GOD 3
62005500 BC
Mesolithic,
5464 / 78 BC
Late Neolith.
Bronze Age
Date
Gttingen FMZ, Germany

GOE 1
Obj.1181 F.Nr.6521/2
GOE 3
Obj.1222 F.Nr.806
GOE 4
Obj.777 F.Nr.761
10-FT 700
13 FT-137
14 FT 19/20
FT 1
FT 4
FT 5
Fikirtepe, Turkey
ETI 1
Etival, France
EMM
J97 A/B
HK 78:169
HK 85:138 p
HK 78:162
HK 88:487 g
HK 83:928 l
EIL 8
EIL 9
EIL 12
EIL 13
EIL 14
Emmeloord, Netherlands
Archaeol. code
Laboratory code
Bison sp.
Bison sp.
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.
B.p.
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.
B.p.
Genetic
T3
Tc
T3
T3b
T3
T3
T3
Pf
Haplo-type
170
HC 4
HC 6
HC 8
4-HC 93 14N 0-21

6-HC 93 15N 527
8-HC 99 43
Gr.389-26, Bef. n.v

Gr.394 Bef.963
Gr.159 2129
Hilzingen, Germany
HIL 1
HIL 3
HIL 5
Hocacesme, Turkey
Herpaly House, Hungary

HER 3
HER 4
A402,02Q:4j Est A10

sample2 (A235)
67004000 BC
LBK
H. Hongo,
M. zdogan
Elisabeth Stephan
Metacarpus
Humerus
Tooth
C. Edwards, J.-D. Vigne
Middle Neolithic A. Choyke
MPPNB-RPPNB
Calcan.
Haloula, Syria
SYR 26
Hans-Jrgen Dhle
100 BC, La Tne
97 A SF48
Halle, Germany
HAL 1
Radius
Tibia
Metacarpus
Metacarpus
Radius
L Chaix
33403150 BC cal. Louis Chaix
Early-mid.
Palaeol.
Grotte du Pardon, France

PAR 1
G90.K23:d44:22
Grotte de la Bouloie, France

BOU 1
BOU 2
GCH 1
GCH 2
Grotte Champeau, France
Bos sp.
Bos sp.
Bos sp.
B.p.
B.p.
B.t.
Bos sp.
B.t., B.p. ?
B.p.
B.p.
B.p.
B.p.
B.p./Bison ?
B.t.
B.p.
B.p.
T
(Continued)
Pa
Ph
171
Ulna
Skeletal
element
#201 Hat.175180
Mala Triglavca, Slovenia

LJU 1
LJU 2
LJU 3
West R59
Hat.0.82/4.59/0.21
Q 104, Settore-1,
US3coll
Lod NY, Israel

LOD 1
Kfar Hahoresh, Israel

KH 2
Isernia. Italy
ISE 2
P47.dec34 917
L. Kolska-Horwitz
Peretto
L. Chaix
Neolithic/Late
Neol.?
Mesolithic
Neolithic/Late
Neol.?
Mihael Budja
Ceramic Neolithic L. Kolslka-Horwitz
PPNB
730.000 BP
13680 BP
Incisivi
Atlas
Mandibula
Radius
Humerus
Bison?
Istvn Vrs
Istvn Vrs
Given by
Igue du Gral, France

IGU 1
Late Neolithic
Early Neolithic,
Koros
Date
5.5.13.11
Archaeol. code
Hdmezovsrhely- Gorza,
Hung.
HOD 2
68.8.47
HOD 4
68.8.68
HOB 2
HdmezovsrhelyBodzaspart, Hung.
Laboratory code
B.t.
B.t.
B.p.
Bison
Bos sp.
Bos sp.
Species
Morhpol.
Bison
B.p.
B.t
B.t.
Genetic
Pb
T3
T3
Haplo-type
172
72 / 1678
37 / 1854
111 / 1760
28 / 1832
21 E-8
21 E-10
26-1
21-1
2-2
Mareuil-les-Meaux,
France
MAR 2
MAR 8
MAR 9
MAR 10
Mezra Tel Eilat, Turkey

MEZ 1
MEZ 2
MEZ 3
MEZ 4
Mitterfecking, Germany
KOEL 3
NMR 24
NMR 22
NMR 19
NMR 3
Nieder-Mrlen, Germany
10/2. 2507B/26704
EV99/1
4/2. 1162/25890
EV98/2
4/2. 1162/25890
EV98/2
7/1. 877/25191
Neustadt (Schl.), Germany

NES 1
LA 156/02
N 100-101 E 118-119
NES 2
LA 156/04
N 100-101 E 116-117
A404
IRQ 02
Maral Tappeh, Iran
H.-P. Uerpmann
Rose-Marie
Arbogast
M. Mashkour,
C. Edwards,
J.-D. Vigne
G. Roth
Tibia
Phalanx
Phalanx
Metatarsus
Mandibula
Costae
Femur
Scapula
Flomborn
Sabine Schade-Lindig
Humerus, prox.
Tooth
Tooth
Humerus, dist.
Scapula
45004100 cal. BC S. Hartz, U. Schmlcke

Phalanx 1
Mnchshfener Culture
6000 BC
Late Neolithic
50004900 BC
Chalcolithic
B.t. ?
B.t. ?
B.t. ?
B.t., B.p. ?
B.t.?
Bos sp.
B.t.
B.p.
B.t.
B.p./Buffalo
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.
B.p.
B.p. ?
B.p. ?
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.
B.p.
B.p.
B.t.
B.t.
T3
(Continued)
T3
T3f ?
Pf
Ph
T3
Tc
173
9
8,A1B
60.9.669
60.9.197
60.9.1316
60.9.1409
60.9.1879
77:193
74:52
77:200
Ros74 VI A 148i
3-16994
95 Niv III 1-15316
1-17508
8145
1-18993
11196
1 Niv II
4522 Niv. IV
Polgr-Csoszhalom,
Hungary
POL 1
POL 2
POL 3
POL 4
POL 5
Quenstedt, Germany
QUE1
QUE 2
QUE 3
Rosenhof, Germany
ROS 1
Ruffey-sur-Seille, France
RUF 1
RUF 2
RUF 3
RUF 4
RUF 5
RUF 6
RUF 7
RUF 8
Archaeol. code
KAR 1
KAR 3
Orlovez, Bulgaria
Laboratory code

Skeletal
element
Tibia/Radius
Tibia?
Humerus
Metacarpus
Tibia
Radius
Metatarsus
S. Hartz, U. Schmlcke
Metatarsus
Hans-Jrgen Dhle
Istvn Vrs
Hans-Peter Uerpmann
Given by
Mesolithic
R.-M. Arbogast
Sauveterrien ancient
Sauveterrien moyen
Sauveterrien moyen
Sauveterrien moyen
Msolithique rcent
Msolithique rcent
4838 / 81 cal. BC
Bronze Age
Late Neolithic
earliest Neol.,
Karanovo
Date
B.p.
B.p.
B.p.
B.p.
B.p.
B.p.
B.p.
B.p.
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.
B.t., B.p. ?
Species
Morhpol.
B.p.
B.p.
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.
Genetic
Ph
Pd
T3a
T3
Ta
Tb
T3
T3
Haplo-type
174
Trebur, Germany
TRE 1
IRQ 09
LfD AD EV 1988:79
Grave 90
A419
30/93 27/38
Tel Hreiz, Israel

THE 2
Tall-i-Mushki, Iran
4.-3. JT
Phase IV, late
3rd. Mill.
TB94 A1077:2/H5
TB95 A1136:2/HS3
TB 03**
TB 07**
Middle Neolithic
8.-9. Jt. BC
PN
Chalcolith. BZ
Tell Brak, Syrien
Lengyel, 3000 BC
Neolithic
1159 SBSK 4103.49

SVBA 0625 / 46
SVBA 0625 / 56
47 000 BP
6000 BC Halaf
Oldest LBK
Szegvr-Tzkves, Hungary
SZE 1
72.1.260
SZE 2
72.1.174
Svodn, Slovakia
SVO 1
SVO 2
SVO 3*
Fig. 4 Table 9
in Ziegler 1994
Sed A4 aa
Shams-ed-Din, Syria
SED
Siegsdorf, Germany
Sieg 1
SF 762-14
Schwanfeld, Germany
SWA 1
Phalanx 1
Tooth
Holger Gldner
C. Edwards,
J.-D. Vigne,
M. Mashkour
L. Kolska Horwitz
K. Dobney/
C. Edwards
Istvn Vrs
Humerus
Tooth
Radius
Hans-Peter Uerpmann
W. Rosendahl
H.-P. Uerpmann
H.-P. Uerpmann
B.t.
B.t.
Bos sp.
Bos sp.
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.
Bison b.
B.t.
Bos sp.
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.
B.p.
B.t.
B.t.
B.p.
Steppe bis.
T3
(Continued)
(T?)
T3
T3
P
T3
T3
P
175
VIE 4
VIE 2
Viesenhuser Hof,
Germany
VIE 1
TRO 13
TRO 12
TRO 11
TRO 10
TRO 4
TRO 3
Trosly-Breuil, France
TRO 2
TRE 4
Bef.9 2111/329
Nr.1317
Bef.2 2423/1752
Nr.588
Bef.4 2510/199
Nr.1301
TB 89 K XX
/ 23 76
TB 89 K XIX
/ 9 20
TB 89 K XX
/ 16 59
TB 90 MXI/8
1/4 SW (10)
TB 89 KXIX/5
(16)
TB 87 DVIII
21 91 (12)
TB 0 87 EV
III 27 (13)
LfD AD EV 1988:79
Grave 60
LfD AD EV 1988:79
Gra. 113
LfD AD EV 1988:79
Grave 63
TRE 2
TRE 3
Archaeol. code
Laboratory code
middle/younger LBK
late/middle LBK
middle/younger LBK
LBK
Neolithic
Date
Elisabeth Stephan
Rose-Marie Arbogast
Given by
Radius
Humerus
Tibia
Metacarpus
Metacarpus
Metacarpus
Metacarpus
Humerus
- (calf)
Tibia prox.
Skeletal
element
B.p.
B.p.
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.
B.p.
B.t.?
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.
Species
Morhpol.
B.t.
B.t.
Genetic
T3
T3
Haplo-type
176
LA 518/1998
LA 505, 04 97/8
Ri-E51
Yilan, Trkei
YIL
Bef.1 2622/1606,
Nr.332
Bef.6 2205/891
Nr.2156
Bef.2 3435/2221
Nr.1853
Bef.6 2840/1362
Nr.5138
Bef.1 2201/944
Nr.5078
Wangels, Holstein,
Deutschland
WAN 1
WAN 2
VIE 25
VIE 24
VIE 18
VIE 14
VIE 13
3946/79 cal BC
ca. 6000 BC
LBK
LBK
middle/younger LBK
middle/younger LBK
late LBK
H.-P. Uerpmann
U. Schmlcke,
S. Hartz
1 Phalanx
Metatarsus
Metacarpus
Tibia
Tooth
Humerus
B.p.
B.t.
B.t.?
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.
B.t.
B.p.
B.t.
B.t.
T3
T3d
177
178
Precautions during ancient DNA analyses

The laboratories in Mainz are dedicated to ancient DNA only and fulfil the
highest international standard and criteria for DNA clean rooms. The preand post-PCR (polymerase chain reaction) areas are strictly separated in two
different buildings. A one-way-system avoids carry-over contamination: persons are only allowed to enter the pre-PCR lab with freshly washed clothes
but entry is not permitted if the person has already been to another lab or the
office on the same day. In an extra room clothes are changed with special
clean room overalls, shoe covers, gloves, facemasks and face shields. All items
are irradiated with UV light before they enter the lab. The rooms and workbenches are regularly cleaned with soap and bleach, and UV irradiated over
night. The water used for cleaning is irradiated with a water-proof UV bulb
for at least ten hours.
Sample preparation was performed as follows. First, the bones were irradiated with UV light. In order to remove contaminations, the surface of the
bones was removed. Approximately 2 by 1 by 0.5 cm were cut out of the bone
and additionally irradiated. All extraction and amplification reactions were
accompanied by blank controls. For authentification of the sequences each
sample was extracted independently at least two times, followed by one or
two PCRs, respectively. Randomly chosen PCR products were cloned. The
results were only accepted when all sequences were consistent. For two samples (see Table 1), bone preparation, extraction, PCR and sequencing were
independently reproduced in the Smurfit Institute of Genetics, Trinity
College Dublin.
Extraction, PCR, sequencing and cloning
The extraction was performed as described by Burger et al. (2004). The
analysed fragment of interest is determined by the use of specific starter molecules (primers). Three different primer pairs for the mitochondrial HVR 1
were designed and none of them were found to amplify human DNA. The
third primer system has two different lower primers that give a longer and a
shorter product, in order to get a haplogroup determination even for samples
where the DNA was highly fragmented.
The ancient DNA was amplified by PCR (polymerase chain reaction)
technique. The success of the PCR was checked on a 2% agarose gel.
Afterwards the DNA was purified, sequenced and subsequently analysed
on 310 Genetic Analyzer (Applied Biosystems). Randomly chosen PCR
products were additionally cloned in order to monitor possible background
contaminations and postmortal sequence damage. Detailed protocols of all
steps are described in Bollongino (2005).
179
RESULTS
Out of 161 samples, 65 (including seven bison samples for comparison) were
reproducibly amplifiable. The success rate within European samples was
52.1%. Within the Near Eastern samples less than 10% were amplifiable,
demonstrating the bad DNA preservation in hot climates.
Before trying an interpretation of the results of the ancient samples, it is
necessary to have a look at extant cattle populations. Modern taurinen cattle
can be divided into five groups (T, T1, . . ., T4, as described in Troy et al.
2001), so called haplogroups (see Fig. 1a). A haplogroup comprises all
sequences (haplotypes) that can be derived from a specific ancestral
sequence. The best way to detect an ancestral sequence is to draw a network
(see Fig. 1b). A network represents all types of sequences as circles that are
connected through branches. These branches show the positions at which the
respective sequences differ from each other. A haplogroup often appears in a
starburst pattern, showing the ancestral sequence in the centre. The different
sequences within one haplogroup are called haplotypes.
A network of the ancient sequences is shown in Fig. 1b. Two major clusters can be identified, one comprising the ancient cattle sequences and the
other cluster showing all ancient aurochs. These groups are separated by at
Figure 1a. Skeleton network showing the haplogroups of extant taurine cattle. The numbers
indicate the positions of mutations (16.000, the positions refer to the European consensus
sequence with the GenBank accession no. NC_001567, Anderson et al. 1982) that define the
respective haplogroup (for example haplogroups T3 and T can be distinguished by different
bases at the position 16255). Haplogroup T4 can only be found in Eastern Asia, T1 is predominant in Africa. T2 is also present in Europe (but rarely) and the Near East, but could not be
found within the ancient data set.
Figure 1b. Median Network of ancient sample sequences. Each circle represents a haplotype; the size is relative to the frequency of the haplotype. Each
dash marks a mutation. The haplotypes show a star-like formation with the ancestral sequence in the centre. All haplotypes that descend from one ancestral sequence belong to the same haplogroup (T3 black, T grey, P white, P1 sample EIL4). Haplotypes with a question mark indicate samples that
could not be amplified for all fragments, thus leaving some insecurity about possible further mutations. The network was drawn using the method described
in Bandelt et al. (1995).
180
181
least nine mutational steps. The cattle sequences belong to the haplogroups T
and T3. The majority of the cattle sequences belong to the central haplotype
of T3. T3 is the most dominant haplogroup within modern European cattle
whereas T is very rare. In the Near East both T and T3 are distributed.
The sequences of the ancient samples were compared to modern data
from taurine and zebu cattle and European bison in a neighbour-joining tree
(Fig. 2). Water buffalo is the outgroup, followed by wisent and zebu. The
modern cattle data cluster together with the ancient cattle samples, whereas
the ancient aurochs are the neighbour group of taurine cattle. None of the
extant sequences belongs to the aurochs clade. One sample (EIL 4) has a
very unusual sequence (haplotype P1) and neither belongs to the aurochs nor
the cattle cluster. A comparison with the sequences in GenBank (internet
database) revealed that it is a Bos sequence, but has no close similarity to any
known breed.
Figure 2. Neighbour-joining tree of ancient and modern sequences. The bootstrap values at the
branches indicate how many of 100 calculated trees showed exactly this branch. The small letters represent single haplotypes within the respective haplogroup referring to the network in Fig.
1. P1 is the uncommon haplotype of the sample EIL4. The tree was calculated with PAUP
(Swofford 2002).
182

DISCUSSION
Authentication
The sequences are regarded as authentic for the following reasons.
Contaminations during the lab procedure can effectively be ruled out, as all
extraction and PCR blank controls were blank. Cross contaminations did not
occur as both aurochs and cattle samples were extracted and amplified contemporarily, and none of the aurochs samples ever showed a taurine
sequence or vice versa. Many of the sequences are unique and the aurochs
lineage is extinct, which means that it cannot be found within modern data
and thus cannot stem from recent contaminations. The aurochs sequences are
identical, or very similar, to those previously published by Bailey et al. (1996)
and Troy et al. (2001). All results were extensively reproduced (see materials
and methods) and two samples were independently reproduced in Dublin.
Random cloning showed that no background contamination could be found.
Post-mortem damages, such as deaminations (Gilbert et al. 2003a; 2003b;
Hansen et al. 2001; Hofreiter et al. 2001), were ruled out by reproduction of
sequences and use of UNG. For four samples (two cattle [SVO 1 and EIL 2]
and two aurochs bones [SVO 3 and EIL 6]), an additional amplification of
the cytochrome b locus was performed (Czerwinski 2003). In contrast to the
d-loop, the cytochrome b is a coding gene and thus can be translated into
the amino acid sequence. The translation showed that the amino acid
sequence is correct so that reproducible post mortem sequence changes can
be excluded (data not shown). Two variable positions could be revealed (positions 14873 and 15134) and both are silent mutations (that is, they do not
affect the encoded amino acid), thus underlining the authenticity of the
sequences. Additionally, the analysis of the results showed that all data make
phylogenetic sense.
Genetic distinction of Bos taurus and Bos primigenius
A clear difference between B. taurus and B. primigenius is not necessarily
expected because the aurochs is the ancestor of the domestic cattle. They
share the same molecular background so that a strong genetic similarity
would not be surprising. But our data speak for a rather distant relation
between the two as both the neighbour-joining tree (Fig. 2) and the network
(Fig. 1b) divided all data in two major groups. The large distance of nine
mutations suggests a clear genetic difference between cattle and aurochs. We
believe that one of the groups (P, see Fig. 1b) represents the aurochs for the
following reasons. This group contains only sequences that belong to an
183
extinct lineage while the cattle haplogroups are identical to modern ones. Two
samples (ETI 1, RUF 4) date to the Mesolithic, which is definitely prior to the
first domestication and shows a typical aurochs haplotype. Our aurochs haplogroup is identical to those that have previously been published by Bailey
et al. (1996) and Troy et al. (2001). Furthermore, the majority (90%) of the
samples that were analysed by morphometric means supported the genetic
classification of the sequences in aurochs and domestic cattle (see Table 1).
The distinction between B. taurus and B. primigenius is also revealed by the
cytochrome b results. Compared to the d-loop, this locus is very conservative
and hardly shows any polymorphisms within one species. The two differences
(for positions see above) between cattle and aurochs underline the genetic
distance between the two groups.
The taxonomic status of the sample EIL 4 cannot be identified completely by the current data. The morphology of the bone is very robust and
above the size variation of Neolithic cattle, and therefore the morphometric
analysis clearly addresses this sample as an aurochs. It is possible that this
individual represents a different population that might stem from another
glacial refuge, maybe from a region in Asia, but aurochs sequences from this
geographical part of the world are not known yet. The final evaluation of the
EIL 4 sample has to be left for future research.
Differences in morphometric and genetic classification of Bos taurus and Bos
primigenius
Within the samples that were morphometrically determined, the consistence
with the genetic classification was 90%. Thus both methods confirm each
other for the great majority of bones. The few differences can be explained by
several possibilities. First, bones of a medium size are difficult to classify due
to sexual dimorphism; that is, it is not possible to tell whether the bone comes
from a female aurochs or a domestic bull. Secondly, the animal could be a
hybrid. For example, if the mother was a domestic cow and the father an
aurochs bull, the offspring may have had a rather aurochs-like phenotype, but
the mitochondrial matriline would identify it as domestic cattle. In order to
solve such a case, an additional analysis of a patrilinear marker is necessary.
These loci can be found on the Y-chromosome in the nucleus, but is very
difficult due to the very low copy number. Nevertheless, few Y-chromosomal
sequences from ancient wild and domestic cattle could be amplified.
Unfortunately the investigated locus (zinc finger gene) did not show any polymorphisms. The low variability does not allow us to distinguish patrilines of
aurochs and domestic cattle (Bollongino 2005).
184
The origin of European cattle and their relation to the European aurochs
The results of this study do not support the theory of an indigenous origin
of European domestic cattle. In the case of an independent secondary
domestication, the mitochondrial sequences of B. taurus and B. primigenius
should be almost identical. But even Early Neolithic cattle samples, like
those from Eilsleben and Goddelau in Germany, are very distant from their
contemporary aurochs sequences, and thus European aurochs cannot be the
progenitors of domestic cattle.
So where do domestic cattle originate? A possible centre of origin, from
the archaeological and archaeozoological context, is the Anatolian and
Near Eastern region. There has also been some discussion, initiated by
Bknyi (1974), about a local domestication in Hungary. We analysed samples from two sites that were addressed as possible domestication centres
(Polgr and Berettyszentmrton), plus two additional Hungarian sites
(Szegvr-Tzkves and Albertfalva). But the cattle sequences from these sites
(POL 2, POL 4, POL 5, ALB 1, ALB 3 and SZE 1) as well as the aurochs
data (SZE 2, ALB 2 and ALB 4) show the same haplogroups as the respective Central European samples and, most importantly, show the same distance too. Therefore our data do not support the theory of an independent
domestication in Hungary.
As Central Europe and the Balkans can be excluded as domestication centres, the Near East and Anatolia remain the most likely origins. And indeed the
ancient samples from this region (TB 07, CH 11, AP6, HC 8) belong either to
haplogroup T or T3, whereas the European aurochs haplogroup P can be
found in neither ancient nor extant Near Eastern cattle.
Even if all cattle were imported into Europe, it is still possible that the
European aurochs contributed to the domesticated population by subsequent
interbreeding. Genetically, there are two ways of interbreeding: male and
female introgression. Female aurochs might be caught as calves and added to
the herds in order to compensate for loss due to disease or a harsh winter. But
archaeological findings showed that an extensive trading system connected
the settlements, and it might have been easier to get domesticated animals
from neighbours, rather than taking the risk of introducing the uncontrollable behaviour of wild aurochs. Male introgression could have happened
when cattle herds were driven to the forest for feeding and cows were (on purpose or unintentionally) not kept separated from wild bulls. Both ways would
leave traces in the genome. Female introgression of wild aurochs cows would
have left aurochs matrilines in modern cattle populations. If female introgression occurred, it was a rare event and not a successful one, either. The
question of male introgression cannot be answered with the current data as
185
no ancient aurochs patrilines are known yet. Such data can only be obtained
by analysis of nuclear loci, such as the Y-chromosome, which are, as already
mentioned, unfortunately not informative so far.
The fact that European wild oxen and domestic cattle are so distant from
each other suggests that aurochs populations in Europe are different from
those in the Near East. It is completely unknown where the glacial refuges of
the aurochs were, but it seems that the post-glacial aurochs repopulation of
Europe did not start from Near Eastern regions.
SUMMARY
This study revealed ancient mitochondrial data from 40 domestic cattle and
17 aurochs samples (plus ancient bison for comparison), which date mainly
to the Neolithic, but which also includes some of Mesolithic and Bronze Age
date. A genetic distinction of B. taurus and B. primigenius within Europe
could be shown. The large molecular distance between the two groups, even
in the Early Neolithic, excludes an independent domestication of European
cattle. All European domestic cattle haplogroups could be traced back to the
Near East. A suggested secondary domestication centre in Hungary could
not be supported. Furthermore, there are no genetic traces of interbreeding
of imported cattle and European aurochs.
Note. We are very grateful to all the people who provided samples and would like to
thank all of them for their wonderful cooperation: Rose-Marie Arbogast, Betty
Arndt, Mihael Budja, Lszl Bartosiewicz, Norbert Benecke, Mihael Budja, Louis
Chaix, Alice Choyke, Keith Dobney, Hans-Jrgen Dhle, Rudi Fries, Mietje
Gemonpre, Holger Gldner, Snke Hartz, Daniel Helmer, Hitomi Hongo, Liora
Kolska Horwitz, L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, Louise Martin, Marjan Mashkour, Jens
Lning, Banu ksz, Mehmet zdogan, Carlo Peretto, Georg Roth, Sabine SchadeLindig, Ulrich Schmlcke, Liesbeth Smits, Reinhold Schoon, Helmut Spatz (),
Elisabeth Stephan, Anne Tresset, Hans-Peter Uerpmann, Jean-Denis Vigne and
Istvn Vrs.
Furthermore we would like to thank Jean-Denis Vigne, Anne Tresset, Detlef
Gronenborn, Helmut Hemmer and our colleagues Barbara Bramanti and Wolfgang
Haak, for fruitful discussion and support. We also want to thank Petra Czerwinski for
providing the cytochrome b data.
Special thanks go to Ceiridwen Edwards and Dan Bradley in Dublin for helpful discussions and proof-reading, as well as their support in data analysis and
reproduction of samples.
The project is funded by the Bundesministerium fr Bildung und Forschung and
partially funded by the OMLL project by the CNRS, Paris.
186

REFERENCES
ANDERSON, S., DE BRUIJN, M. H., COULSON, A. R., EPERON, I. C., SANGER, F. &
YOUNG, I. G. 1982. Complete sequence of bovine mitochondrial DNA. Conserved features
of the mammalian genome. Journal of Molecular Biology 156 (4), 683717.
BAILEY, J. F., RICHARDS, M. B., MACAULEY, V. A., COLSON, I. B., JAMES, I. T.,
BRADLEY, D. G., HEDGES, R. E. M. & SYKES, B. C. 1996. Ancient DNA suggests a
recent expansion of European cattle from a diverse wild progenitor species. Proceedings of
the Royal Society of London B 263, 146773.
BANDELT, H. J., FORSTER, P., SYKES, B. C. & RICHARDS, M. B. 1995. Mitochondrial
portraits of human populations using median networks. Genetics 141, 74353.
BKNYI, S. 1974. The history of domestic animals in Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest:
Akadmiai Kiad.
BOLLONGINO, R. 2005. Die Herkunft der Hausrinder in Europa. Eine aDNA-Studie an
neolithischen Knochenfunden. Unpublished Dissertation: Department of Biology, Johannes
Gutenberg-University, Mainz.
BRADLEY, D. G., MACHUGH, D. E., CUNNINGHAM, P. & LOFTUS, R. T. 1996.
Mitochondrial diversity and the origins of African and European cattle. Proceedings of the
Natural Academy of Science USA 93, 51315.
BURGER, J., ROSENDAHL, W., LOREILLE, O., HEMMER, H., ERIKSSON, T.,
GTHERSTRM, A., HILLER, J., COLLINS, M., WESS, T. & ALT, K. W. 2004.
Molecular phylogeny of the extinct cave lion. Panthera leo spelaea. Molecular Phylogeny and
Evolution 30, 8419.
CZERWINSKI, P. 2003. aDNA-Sequenzierungen des Cytochrom b Gens aus frhneolithischen
Knochen des europischen Auerochsen (Bos primigenius) und Hausrinds (Bos Taurus). Zur
Unterscheidung von postmortalen DNA-Schden und Artefakten von Polymorphismen und zur
Authentifizierung von aDNA-Sequenzen. Unpublished Diploma Thesis: Institute of
Anthropology, University of Mainz.
GILBERT, M. T. P., HANSEN, A. J., WILLERSLEV, E., RUDBECK, L., BARNES, I.,
LYNNERUP, N. & COOPER, A. 2003a. Distribution patterns of postmortem damage in
human mitochondrial DNA. American Journal of Human Genetics 72, 3247.
GILBERT, M. T. P., HANSEN, A. J., WILLERSLEV, E., RUDBECK, L., BARNES, I.,
LYNNERUP, N. & COOPER, A. 2003b. Characterization of genetic miscoding lesions
caused by postmortem damage. American Journal of Human Genetics 72, 4861.
HANSEN, A. J., WILLERSLEV, E., WIUF, C., MOURIER, T. & ARCTANDER, P. 2001.
Statistical evidence for miscoding lesions in ancient DNA templates. Molecular Biological
Evolution 18 (2), 2625.
HOFREITER, M., JAENICKE, V., SERRE, D., VON HAESELER, A. & PBO, S. 2001.
DNA sequences from multiple amplifications reveal artefacts induced by cytosine deamination in ancient DNA. Nucleic Acids Research 29 (23), 47939.
LOFTUS, R. T., ERTUGRUL, O., HARBA, A. H., EL-BARODY, M. A. A., MACHUGH,
D. E., PARK, S. D. E. & BRADLEY, D. G. 1999. A microsatellite survey of cattle from a
centre of origin: the Near East. Molecular Ecology 8, 201522.
LOFTUS, R. T., MACHUGH, D. E., BRADLEY, D. G., SHARP, P. M. & CUNNINGHAM, P.
1994. Evidence for two independent domestications of cattle. Proceedings of the Natural
Academy of Science USA 91, 275761.
MACHUGH, D. E., SHRIVER, M. D., LOFTUS, R. T., CUNNINGHAM, P. & BRADLEY,
D. G. 1997. Microsatellite DNA variation and the evolution, domestication and phylogeography of taurine and zebu cattle (Bos taurus and Bos indicus). Genetics 146, 107186.
187
SWOFFORD, D. L. 2002. PAUP. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony. Version 4. Sunderland,

Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates.
TROY, C. S., MACHUGH, D. E., BAILEY, J. F., MAGEE, D. A., LOFTUS, R. T.,
CUNNINGHAM, P., CHAMBERLAIN, A. T., SYKES, B. C. & BRADLEY, D. G. 2001.
Genetic evidence for a Near-Eastern origin or European cattle. Nature 410, 108891.
Substitution of species, techniques and

symbols at the Mesolithic-Neolithic
transition in Western Europe
ANNE TRESSET & JEAN-DENIS VIGNE
INTRODUCTION
IT IS OFTEN ASSUMED that the dissemination of the Neolithic way of life,
which originated in the Near East, took a more complex turn when arriving
in the western part of Europe (Guilaine 2003; Lichardus et al. 1985; Mazuri
2003; Whittle 1977; 1996). This may be partly due, on the one hand, to the
late survival of regional Mesolithic societies that probably interacted in some
places with incoming farmers, taking on the new way of life and possibly contributing to its dissemination, and on the other to the reunion of the two
main neolithisation streamscontinental and Mediterraneanin the same
area or at least in adjoining territories. The use of new techniques, including
ancient DNA (aDNA) and stable isotopes, has shed some light on key aspects
of those events at a large scale, such as the appearance of domesticates in
Europe and the way it affected human diets. Recent complementary
approaches at more local scales have helped to refine general observations on
the transformations of man/animal relationships between Mesolithic and
Neolithic periods, from biogeographic, zootechnical and symbolic angles.
This paper aims at gathering this very rich and polymorphic information in
order to set it against what is already known of the neolithisation of Western
Europe.
CHRONOLOGICAL BACKGROUND OF DOMESTICATION AND

EARLY DIFFUSION OF UNGULATES THROUGH EUROPE
Recent research has demonstrated that sheep, goat, cattle and pig were
domesticated on the southern slopes of the Eastern Taurus c. 8500 cal BC,
during the Early PPNB (Helmer et al. 2005; Peters et al. 1999; 2005; Vigne
190
et al. 2003). During the last quarter of the ninth millennium, these domesticates spread from this core region to a large part of the Near Eastincluding
Cyprus(Guilaine et al. 2000; Vigne & Buitenhuis 1999). The birth of a true
animal husbandry in the Near East as a major economic activity, however,
took place only during the eighth millennium (late middle PPNB and recent
PPNB).
The European history of husbandry began at the turn of the seventh millennium BC, when this expansion reached the south-eastern margin of
Europe, namely Greece and the Balkan region (Guilaine 2003; Mazuri 2003;
Perls 2002). On the European continent, the diffusion of domesticates,
together with husbandry techniques, followed two main routes that are now
well known and relatively well dated (Fig. 1): the northern coastline of the
Mediterranean during the seventh and sixth millennia on the one hand
(Guilaine 2003; Vigne & Helmer 1999; Zilho 2001), and the Danubian
corridor and main continental valleys during the sixth and beginning of the
fifth millennia, toward the Atlantic Ocean on the other hand (Bogucki 1988;
Marchand & Tresset 2005; Mazuri 2003; Tresset 2002; Tresset & Vigne
2001). The two flows might have converged to cross the Channel and the
Celtic Sea sometime during the mid-fifth millennium cal BC or at the beginning of the fourth (Milner & Woodman 2005; Tresset 2003; Whittle 1977;
Woodman 1986; Woodman & McCarthy 2003).
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE WILD ANCESTORS OF

DOMESTICATES AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF
PALAEOGENETICS TO DOMESTICATION ISSUES
The domestic sheep and goat result from the domestication of Oriental
Mufflon (Ovis orientalis) and Bezoar goat (Capra aegagrus), respectively.
These wild ancestors were not present in Europe. From morphological characters (Uerpmann 1979) and, more recently, DNA analyses (Luikart et al.
2001), it was already known that the European ibexes could not be the
ancestors of domestic goats. In addition, it was demonstrated in the 1970s
that the present-day Corsico-Sardinian Mufflon was produced by the
Neolithic feralisation of domestic sheep in these Mediterranean islands
(Poplin 1979; Poplin & Vigne 1983). This has been fully confirmed by DNA
investigations (Hassanin et al. 1998; Hiendleder et al. 1998). From there, it
was released in the wild to the European mainland during the nineteenth to
twentieth century (Bon et al. 1991). Thus, domestic sheep and goat had no
native ancestors in Europe. As they are present on this Continent from the
start of the Neolithic, they must have been introduced there by the first
farmers.
Figure 1.
cal BC.
The two main flows of dissemination of domesticates in Europe, as documented by zooarchaeology. Dates are
SUBSTITUTION OF SPECIES, TECHNIQUES AND SYMBOLS
191
192
The aurochs was present virtually everywhere in Europe, Ireland

excepted. Thus its domestication could have taken place anywhere on this
continent. Work by Bailey et al. (1996) and by Troy et al. (2001) have provided the first known mitochondrial aDNA sequences (control-region) for
this extinct species in Europe. Results have revealed a clear difference with
sequences obtained from extant breeds of domestic cattle in Europe and the
Near East (Troy et al. 2001), suggesting a non-European origin for the
domestic form. This hypothesis was also supported by results on extant
breeds that can be explained in the light of cattle ancient history. In particular, they revealed a highest genetic diversity in the Near East and a gradual
loss of this diversity (bottle-neck effect) north-westward. These features are
considered as typically resulting from a domestication event in the region
where the diversity is the highestthe Near East in this specific caseand
the subsequent diffusion of domesticates. More recent results on the
microsatellite diversity of the European present day cattle suggest that the
two flows of diffusion, Mediterranean and continental, have had different
origins in the Near East (Cymbron et al. 2005). However, several problems
persisted:
1 Even if likely, the time of the expansion phenomenon cannot be precisely derived from purely genetic considerations (at least not at a timescale
and not with an accuracy relevant to Neolithic studies), and there is no
evidence that it was actually a Neolithic event.
2 The aurochs sequences obtained by Bailey et al. and by Troy et al. all
came from British animals and there was no guarantee that they were
representative of the European aurochs population.
Further work on Neolithic domestic cattle and aurochs of the British
Isles, Ireland and mainland Europe has been done (Bollongino et al. 2005;
Edwards et al. 2004) and many mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences
have been obtained on aurochs from continental Europe (Bollongino et al.
2005; Edwards et al. 2007; see also Bollongino & Burger, this volume). Results
are all converging to reveal clearly distinct maternal lineages for European
domestic cattle on the one hand and aurochs on the other. This is a strong
argument to say that there was a very limited (if any) contribution of female
European aurochs to Neolithic domestic herds. Thus, local domestication
events sensu stricto seem to have been very limited in Europe, as far as
bovines are concerned. However, this does not preclude crossbreeding events
involving a male aurochs contribution, as mtDNA only reveals the female
genetic inheritance. Recent work on the Y Chromosome (documenting the
male genetic legacy) of the European aurochs and modern, as well as ancient
domestic cattle, from Europe and the Near East (Gtherstrm et al. 2005)
suggest that hybridisation of domestic cattle may have taken place at some
point during the Neolithic with local aurochs, especially in the northern part
193
of Europe. These genetic data are ambiguous in some respects. The fact that
some characteristics of paternal descent were shared by European aurochs
and European early domestic bovines does not imply that the latter stemmed
from the former as long as it has not been demonstrated that these very characteristics were not also shared by Near Eastern animals. However, these data
tend to converge with former claims of local domestication, especially
beyond the northern borderline of the Linearbandkeramik expansion
(Nobis 1975). The small size of bovines found at very late Mesolithic sites
(Erteblle), on which the local domestication hypothesis was based, could
thus be reinterpreted as resulting from backcrossing events linked to the
arrival of Neolithic farmers in adjacent regions. Palaeogenetic investigation
of this issue is currently in progress by Scheue, Bollongino and collaborators
(among whom are the authors of the present paper: see also Bollongino &
Burger, this volume).
Another aspect that still has to be explained concerns the mitochondrial
diversity in extent cattle breeds from the British Isles (Troy et al. 2001). It is
unexpectedly high in comparison with adjacent parts of mainland Europe,
and thus does not fit into the model of expansion derived from the bottleneck pattern perceptible across mainland Europe (see above). Basically, this
unexpected diversity could result from at least two different phenomena: the
contribution of local female aurochs to domestic herds (see for example
Bailey et al. 1996), which subsequently proved to be unlikely, or the admixture of several herds of different origins. This latter hypothesis still has to be
investigated on a broad basis. Among diverse scenarios, one would be the
contribution of the two main Neolithic streams of dissemination of domesticates and husbandry, respectively Mediterranean and Danubian, which
have probably distinct Near Eastern origins (Cymbron et al. 2005), to the
constitution of British herds. This possibility of a dual origin for the British
(and Irish) Neolithic has been debated in general terms, especially in relation
to megalithic monuments (Renfrew 1976; Scarre 1992; Shee-Twohig 1981),
and has more recently received further credit with the identification of several
distinct continental points of origin for various aspects of the material culture (Fairweather & Ralston 1993; Milner & Woodman 2005; Sheridan 2000;
2003; Tresset 2000; 2003; Woodman & McCarthy 2003).
Ongoing worldwide research on the origin of domestic pigs by Larson
et al. (2005) has revealed a striking geographic pattern of mtDNA from
extant breeds suggesting many distinct domestication events around the
world. Data obtained on extant European breeds both suggest an origin distinct from the Near Eastern ones and a strong contribution of the female
local wild boar to the constitution of domestic herds. The time of the events
involved here is a matter of debate but will certainly be clarified by aDNA
work currently in progress by the same authors. However, it is already clear,
194
as Larson et al. (2005) are stating, that these results do not exclude the possibility of a diffusion of domestic pigs with the first farmers in Europe, along
with domestic bovines, sheep and goat, but, unlike what has been observed
for those species, early Near Eastern pig lineages would not have survived
until modern times and would have been progressively replaced by locally
domesticated animals, at least the female part. This scenario would be very
consistent with zooarchaeological data. First, pig was rarely the basis of husbandry in most of early Neolithic communities in Europe, except in the western part of central Europe (Tresset & Vigne 2001), but began to develop to a
very large extent at the end of the fifth and the beginning of the fourth millennium in north-western mainland Europe (Arbogast et al. 1991; Augereau
et al. 1993; Mniel 1984; Pernaud et al. 2004; Tresset 1996). Secondly, this
development of pig husbandry more or less corresponds to an important rise
in the mean size of animals (Tresset 1996; Fig. 2). Very few metric data document the early pigs of German and Alsatian LBK sites (Arbogast 1994;
Mller 1964), but it is striking that they are all much smaller than their later
western counterparts. The rise in the size of domestic pigs could result from
several, possibly interlinked, causes among which zootechnical improvements
(congruent with the development of pig husbandry) and the incorporation of
wild local females to the herds. This latter explanation would have resulted in
the contribution of local wild boar mitochondrial sequences to domestic
herds. If Neolithic farmers kept doing this over centuries, it is likely that the
former domestic sequences originating in the Near East would have been
swept away.
THE INTRODUCTION OF DOMESTICATES INTO WESTERN

EUROPE: MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC PERSPECTIVES
We have investigated the history of the introduction of husbandry in three
areas: during the sixth to fifth millennia in Southern France, on the Atlantic
faade between 5500 and 4000 cal BC, and c. 4000 cal BC around the Channel.
Southern France
The analysis of the faunal assemblages of the early Neolithic sites of the
north coasts of the Central and Western Mediterranean evidences two very
different systems of exploitation (Vigne 2003; Vigne & Helmer 1999). In the
large villages of Greece and south-eastern Italy (Puglia), during the second
half of the seventh millennium, hunting was very reduced and husbandry
was highly specialised on cattle exploitation, for meat and secondarily probably for milk (see preliminary results for Trasano, Matera: Vigne 2006). In
Figure 2. Withers height estimated for domestic pigs in LBK and post-LBK cultures in central and
western Europe (after data collected in Tresset 1996).
195
196
other areas of the north-western Mediterranean, i.e. in the Western Impressa

and Cardial cultures (late seventh/early sixth millennia), cattle and sheep
(and secondarily goat and pig) husbandry was more balanced, and deer and
wild boar hunting kept an important role in the economy, irrespective of the
type of site considered (either open air or cave/rock shelters). Three nonexclusive lines of interpretation have been proposed (Tresset & Vigne 2001;
Vigne 1998): greater density and cultural prevalence of Mesolithic groups,
more forested environments, or different techno-economic traditions. But
these interpretations did not take into account the earliest phase of the
Neolithic in the South of France, i.e. Ligurian Impressa phase which has
been evidenced at Pendimoun and Portiragnes (Binder 1995; 2000; Guilaine
2003; Manen 2000; 2002; Manen & Sabatier 2003), as no archaeozoological
studies had been done at that time.
We recently studied the animal bones of Portiragnes, Pont de RoqueHaute (PRH), which yielded Ligurian Impressa ware dated to c. 5600 cal BC.
This site is considered as an early beachhead for the Neolithic colonisation of
the Languedoc: all the archaeological data suggest that people came more or
less directly from Italy (Guilaine 2003; Manen 2000; see also Guilaine &
Manen, this volume). The faunal analysis (Vigne 2007) suggests important
differences with the subsequent Cardial system of exploitation: though
fishing and shellfish collecting are attested, hunting is nearly absent and
husbandry seems very specialised on sheep. As a preliminary reflection, we
compared the faunal composition of this Portiragnes-PRH fauna with the
ones of three Cardial stratigraphic sequences in the same area (Fig. 3a).
Gazel (excavated by J. Guilaine 1976; 2003) is located in the Aude Valley,
on the lower slopes of the Montagne Noire, at 250 m above sea level; the cave
has been occupied by Mesolithic people, then by Cardial people starting from
c. 5500 cal BC (Manen 2002). Faunal analyses have been partly published by
Geddes (1980; 1985).
Camprafaud (excavated by G. Rodriguez 1985) is located more deeply in
the hinterland, at nearly 500 m above sea level; the stratigraphy in the cave
describes the evolution of the Neolithic, starting from c. 5300 cal BC. Faunal
analyses are due to Poulain-Josien (Rodriguez 1985, 253356). Dourgne
(excavated by J. Guilaine; Guilaine et al. 1993) is also located in the hinterland, in the Corbires Mountains, at 700 m above the sea level; the stratigraphy yielded two main early Neolithic phases. Faunal analyses have been done
by Geddes (in Guilaine et al. 1993).
The three Cardial-Epicardial sequences have come from cave or rockshelter sites, while the earlier Ligurian Impressa site is an open air one.
However, Vigne and Helmer (1999) demonstrated that the difference between
cave and open air sites is not the main factor explaining the faunal differences
between the sites, and suggested that this difference in the choice of site
197
setting should be considered as a consequence of economic strategies rather

than a cause.
The faunal assemblages of the different layers and sites have been
analysed by way of a correspondence analysis of the number of identified
specimens (NISP) of cattle, caprines (sheep goat), suids (domestic wild)
and other wild vertebrates, except fish (for the methodology see Vigne &
Helmer 1999). The scatter structure is strong (trace0.34). The first axis is
determined by an opposition between wild animals and sheep; the second one
is determined by high frequencies of cattle and, secondarily, suids. The
archaeozoological assemblages scatter following a gradient between three
types of faunal compositions (Fig. 3b):
Type 1 layers with dominant wild fauna (mostly deer and boar), which
indicate hunters or hunting sites;
Type 2 layers with mixed wild and well balanced sheep and cattle domestic fauna, which suggests balanced Neolithic subsistence with a secondary
but important role for hunting;
Type 3 layers with faunas mostly dominated by sheep and goat, i.e.
specialised Neolithic subsistence.
The early Neolithic Impressa fauna is highly dominated by sheep, and
plots at the left extremity of the gradient. This testifies that the first
pioneers coming from Italy brought with them their specialised Neolithic
subsistence, without hunting and with rather poor fishing and shellfish
collecting. The four different phases of the Early Neolithic stratigraphy of
Gazel, which describe the Cardial and Epicardial from c. 5500 to c. 4800
cal BC, show a rather specialised Neolithic subsistence, however more
balanced than in Portiragnes, hunting being more and more important
through time. The two layers at Dourgne are highly dominated by wild
animals, and, as already concluded by Guilaine (in Guilaine et al. 1993),
clearly represent occupations of Neolithic hunters or temporary settlements of Neolithic groups for hunting expeditions. The six layers of
Camprafaud describe the Cardial and Epicardial succession, contemporary
with Gazel. But, in contrast to Gazel, the early layers indicate a subsistence mostly dominated by hunting, sheep, cattle and pig becoming more
and more important through the stratigraphy. However, even at the end of
the Epicardial, i.e. c. 4800 cal BC, the Neolithic subsistence at Camprafaud
still included an important element of hunting, together with a non
specialised husbandry of sheep, cattle and pig.
This time and space pattern suggests a break between the specialised subsistence system that prevailed during the early Impressa stage of neolithisation. This seems to be confirmed by the preliminary results of the analyses of
the faunal remains of the Impressa layers at Pendimoun (Daniel Helmer and
Lionel Gourichon, pers. comm.).
198
Figure 3. Geographical location of the four Early Neolithic sites in the French Languedoc area
(a), and (b) projection of F1 F2 planes of the correspondence analysis of their taxonomic faunal composition. The different layers or phases of the different sites are abbreviated with the first
letter of the name of the site followed by the number of the layer or phase: i.e. C16 means the
layer 16 of Camprafaud. For Portiragnes, all the bones of all the contemporaneous pits have
been grouped. See further explanations in text.
199
This pattern also clearly shows that early Neolithic people in the hinterland, above 400 m, actually adopted domestic species such as sheep and goat.
But they integrated them in a completely different system of subsistence,
characterised by an important part of hunting which may be considered as a
Mesolithic heritage, and by a well balanced husbandry. The latter may be
considered as the evidence of a low level of breeding skills, at the opposite
end of the spectrum to those of early Impressa people, but it should rather
be considered as a cultural choice, which might have been better adapted to
the social, cultural and economic traditions of use of natural resources by
these local Neolithic people. It seems that each local Cardial population
rebuilt its own Neolithic subsistence system, according to its traditions and
natural environment.
The Atlantic faade
Zooarchaeological data collected in Brittany have revealed that late
Mesolithic communities (at the end of the sixth millennium cal BC) living by
the coast were relying on very diversified marine resources, including mammals, birds, fishes and molluscs (Dupont et al. in press; Schulting et al. 2004;
Tresset 2005a). Isotopic data derived from the collagen of a series of human
remains coming from the well known cemeteries at Tviec and Hodic
(Morbihan, Brittany) have revealed very high d13C values (Schulting 2005;
Schulting & Richards 2001), confirming the heavy reliance of the late
Mesolithic economy on marine resources. The Tviec and Hodic cemeteries
have also provided many data regarding symbolic aspects of the man/animal
relationship. Faunal remains found in graves (Pquart et al. 1937; Tresset
2005a) comprise bird of prey talons (white tailed eagle at Hodic), carnivore
mandibles, deer antlers, wild boar tusks, ray buckles or exceptionally big fish
jaws (for example, one maxilla at Tviec) and mirror the diversity of species
exploited for food (Tresset 2005a). Late Mesolithic sites in Ireland (e.g.
Ferriters Cove, mid fifth millennium; Woodman et al. 1999) and Scotland
(Oronsay sites: Mellars 1987; Morton: Coles 1971) display similar trends, and
the stable isotope data are congruent with zooarchaeological sources in indicating a heavy reliance on marine resources (Richards & Mellars 1998;
Schulting 1999).
Domesticates appeared on the north-western margin of Europe between
the end of the sixth and the beginning of the fourth millennium cal BC, introduced by the Mediterranean and the Danubian streams. It was probably a
complex process, and there is now evidence in Brittany and southern Ireland,
at the end of the sixth millennium and during the mid fifth millennium
respectively, for the introduction of domesticates in late Mesolithic contexts
(Tresset & Vigne 2007; Woodman et al. 1997; 1999; Milner & Woodman
200
2005), though the old claims for such events in Brittany (Benard Le Pontois
1929; Bender 1985; Pquart et al. 1937) proved to be relying on incorrect data
(Tresset 2000), resulting from mix-ups between Mesolithic and later layers. In
Brittany and southern Ireland, domesticates appeared several centuries
before the Neolithic package and before husbandry techniques. It proved to
be appropriate here to dissociate the concepts of domesticates and husbandry
techniques, as the occurrence of the former does not imply the presence of
the latter (see also Tresset 2002).
Whatever form the introduction of domestic animals might have taken,
their adoptiongradual or more abrupt had dramatic effects on peoples
diet, especially on the coastline of Europe. Isotopic analyses on human bones
in Scotland, Ireland and Brittany have demonstrated the same dramatic shift
from a mainly marine to a nearly exclusively terrestrial diet (Richards et al.
2003; Schulting 2005; Schulting et al. 2004). However, zooarchaeological evidence shows that shellfish, fish and seabirds were still exploited, though in
much smaller quantities. Interestingly, there are also some changes in the
species exploited between the two periods. This is particularly striking regarding seabirds, which are mostly auks and ducks, and sometimes gannets, during the Mesolithic, but are dominated by gulls, shags and cormorants in the
Neolithic (Dupont et al. in press; Schulting et al. 2004; Tresset 2005b). The
range of marine mollusc species exploited also narrows during the Neolithic
(Dupont et al. in press). These elements suggest a qualitative change in the
use of wild animals that could have become a seasonal buffering resource for
humans, fodder for domesticates, or items of prestige value (including
through hunting as a sport).
Southern England and the Paris Basin
Bibliographic data collected in southern England for the first half of
the fourth millennium cal BC, which locally corresponds to the beginnings of
the Neolithic, were compared with data elaborated in the Paris Basin for the
same period and for the last half of the fifth millennium (locally equivalent
to the middle Neolithic). Metrical data obtained in southern England
(Armour-Chelu 1991; Grigson 1999) clearly show that domestic cattle were
already much smaller than the local aurochs (as documented at Starr Carr:
Legge & Rowley-Conwy 1988), which weakens any hypothesis of local
domestication and is convergent with aDNA data (see above). The size of
these domesticates was similar to their continental contemporary counterparts, suggesting they were originating in the adjacent part of the Continent
(Tresset 2003).
Faunal spectra observed on either side of the Channel at the same time
seem to deliver a convergent picture, as they are very similar (Fig. 4). All this
Figure 4.
Faunal spectra observed on either side of the Channel c. 4000 cal BC (after Tresset 2002; 2003).
201
202
suggests a cultural continuity between the two sides of the Channel at the
time of the appearance of husbandry in southern Britain (Tresset 2000; 2003;
2005).
FROM FOOD TO SYMBOLS

We have also examined the congruence between economic and symbolic systems in early farming contexts. These two registers do not always mirror each
other and their discrepancies can deliver precious information on mental
representations of different animal categories and their social value.
The Cerny culture that emerged in the Paris Basin shortly before 4500 cal
BC, and represented a radical transformation of the Danubian society, was
characterised by grave goods evoking hunting activities (arrowheads) and
wild animals (bangles made of wild boar tusks, necklaces made of red deer
canines, carnivore claws, bird of prey talons) in strong contrast to the economy, which mostly relies on cattle (Tresset 1997; 2005a). Interestingly, these
items are very similar to those retrieved in late Mesolithic funerary contexts,
as documented at Hodic and Tviec in Brittany (Pquart et al. 1937; Pquart
& Pquart 1954; Tresset 2005a). They are, at the same time, very different from
the grave goods traditionally placed in Danubian graves throughout Europe,
that usually consisted of shells (fossil or contemporary), ceramics, lithic and
bone tools, colourants and domestic animal joints. Wild animal elements
such as carnivore and red deer teeth were scarce (Jeunesse 1997).
There is a gap of three to four centuries, at least, between the arrival of
the first farmers and the beginning of the Cerny culture in the Paris Basin.
However, the contribution of the local Mesolithic societies to the formation
of this new culture is considered as plausible by a number of researchers (in
Constantin et al. 1997). Conversely to the Cerny case and roughly at the same
time, in west-central and south-western France, cultural groups of the midfifth millennium cal BC (Chambon and Monbolo groups as well as contemporary cultures in the same area) crafted pots with horn-like designs,
featuring cattle, sheep or goats (see Cassen & LHelgouach 1992 and Tresset
2005a for a survey), but the analysis of faunal samples revealed that domesticates were scarce in the subsistence economy of these societies (Lesur et al.
2000; Tresset 1998; 2001; Fig. 5), which mostly relied on large wild mammals
(red and roe deer, aurochs and wild boar). This discrepancy points toward a
special value, beyond the economic one, attached to the first domesticates in
this region, perhaps because they were of recent acquisition.
Following these early manifestations, domestic animals, and especially
cattle, became central to the Neolithic symbolic system in the whole of western Europe during the end of the fifth and the fourth millennia cal BC, as they
Figure 5.
203
Faunal spectra observed in the south-west of France during the fifth millennium cal BC.
did in the economic system, but as described above, this apparent uniformity
can result from very different local histories.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Zooarchaeological syntheses are still too scarce and regionally scattered
to provide a general overview of the diverse techno-economical and
204
cosmogonic reorganisations produced by the neolithisation waves in western

Europe, especially by the introduction of new animals and animal products.
However, the increase of conventional osteo-archaeological data, together
with more accurate dating methods (by AMS radiocarbon dating), a better
understanding of cultural dimensions of faunal assemblages and more diversified analytical information (isotopic and genetic data) raise some hope to
do so in the foreseeable future.
Today, it is nonetheless possible to say that the use of animals by early
Neolithic societies of Western Europe was very diverse through time and
space, and that this diversity mainly results from a combination of cultural
singularities and diverse histories of interaction between local hunter-gatherers and incoming Neolithic cultures. What arises from all this is that the socalled Neolithic package was only rarely adopted as a whole. We have
presented examples of probable (though scarce) local domestication, of geographical differences in the rhythm of transfer of domesticates, of different
systems of slow recombination of the Neolithic husbandry in the Cardial/
Epicardial culture but of drastic diet changes on the Atlantic faade, of discrepancies between the symbolic appropriation of domestic animals and their
actual use as sources of animal proteins. The model of a big wave of diffusion of the Neolithic package (including sheep, goat but also cattle and probably some pigs) is still acceptable at a broad timescale, but at a more precise
time resolution (more in accord with social phenomena), it must be refined
both in terms of rhythms and modalities. This is clearly visible in western
Europe, as in all the peripheral areas, because these territories are far from
the initial centres from geographical, ecological and cultural points of view,
and because the neolithisation flows acquired there a slower pace. But it is
very likely that similarly complex phenomena of local or regional recombination also occurred in places where the neolithisation stream was so fast and
so powerful that the interactions with local Mesolithic left very tenuous
evidence. Consequently, western Europe probably remains one of the best
documented areas to understand the complex and subtle relations between
the last hunter-gatherers and early farmers in the management of animal
resources during the Neolithic expansion toward the west. As such, it now
deserves a complete renewal of anthropozoological analysis, based on the
extraordinary set of new evidence recently acquired.
205
REFERENCES
ARBOGAST, R.-M. 1994. Premiers levages nolithiques du Nord-Est de la France. ERAUL 67.
Lige: University of Lige.
ARBOGAST, R.-M., HACHEM, L. & TRESSET, A. 1991. Le Chassen du Nord de la France:
les donnes archozoologiques. Actes du Colloque Identit du Chassen, Nemours, mai 1989.
Mmoires du Muse de Prhistoire dIle-de-France 4, 35163.
ARMOUR-CHELU, M. 1991. The faunal remains In N. Sharples, Maiden Castle. Excavations
and field survey 19856, 13951. London: English Heritage.
AUGEREAU, A., LEROYER, Ch. & TRESSET, A. 1993. La transition Nolithique ancien/
Nolithique moyen dans la valle de la Petite Seine: contribution des tudes lithiques,
zooarchologiques et palynologiques. Actes du XVIe Colloque Interrgional sur le Nolithique
Le Nolithique au quotidien, Paris, novembre 1989, Documents dArchologie Franaise, 39,
94105.
BAILEY, J., RICHARDS, M., MACAULEY, V., COLSON, I., JAMES, T., BRADLEY, D.,
HEDGES, R. & SYKES, B. 1996. Ancient DNA suggests a recent expansion of European
cattle from a diverse progenitor species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 263,
146773.
BENARD LE PONTOIS CMDT, 1929. Le Finistre prhistorique. Publications de lInstitut
International dAnthropologie 3.
BENDER, B. 1985. Prehistoric developments in the American mid-continent and in Brittany,
north-west France. In T. D. Price & J. A. Brown (eds), Prehistoric hunter-gatherers, the
emergence of complexity, 2158. Orlando: Academic Press.
BINDER, D. 1995. Elments pour la chronologie du Nolithique ancien cramique imprime
dans le Midi. In J.-L. Voruz (ed.), Chronologies nolithiques: de 6000 2000 ans avant
notre re dans le bassin rhodanien, 5565. Ambrieu-en-Bugey: Socit Prhistorique
Rhodanienne.
BINDER, D. 2000. Mesolithic and Neolithic interaction in southern France and northern Italy:
new data and current hypotheses. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europes first farmers, 11743.
BOGUCKI, P. 1988. Forest farmers and stockherders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BOLLONGINO, R., EDWARDS, C., BURGER, J., ALT, K. & BRADLEY, D. 2005. Early
history of European domestic cattle revealed by ancient DNA. Biology Letters (FirstCite
e-publishing).
BON, R., CUGNASSE, J.-M., DUBRAY, D., GIBERT, P., HOUARD, T. & RIGAUD, P. 1991.
Le Mouflon de Corse. Revue dEcologie (Terre and Vie), Supplment 6, 67110.
CASSEN, S. & LHELGOUACH, J. 1992. Du Symbole de la Crosse: chronologie, rpartition et
interprtation. Revue Archologique de lOuest 5, 22335.
COLES, J. M. 1971. The early settlement of Scotland: excavations at Morton, Fife. Proceedings
of the Prehistoric Society 37, 284366.
CONSTANTIN, C., MORDANT, D. & SIMONIN, D. 1997. La Culture de Cerny. Nouvelle
conomie, nouvelle socit au Nolithique. Actes du Colloque International de Nemours 1994.
Nemours: Mmoires du Muse de Prhistoire dIle-de-France 6.
CYMBRON, T., FREEMAN, A. R., MALHEIRO, M. I., VIGNE, J.-D. & BRADLEY, D. G.
2005. Microsatellite diversity suggests different histories for Mediterranean and Northern
European cattle populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 272, 183743.
DUPONT, C., SCHULTING, R. & TRESSET, A. in press. Prehistoric shell middens along the
French Atlantic faade: the use of marine and terrestrial resources in the diets of coastal
human populations. In N. Milner (ed.), Proceedings of the workshop held at York in
September 2005. Oxford: Oxbow.
EDWARDS, C. J., BRADLEY, D. G., MACHUGH, D. E., DOBNEY, K., MARTIN, L.,
HELMER, D., HORWITZ, L., MCINTOSH, S. K., TRESSET, A. & VIGNE, J.-D. 2004.
206
Ancient DNA analysis of 101 domestic cattle remains: limits and prospects. Journal of
EDWARDS, C., BOLLONGINO, R., SCHEUE, A., CHAMBERLAIN, A., TRESSET, A.,
VIGNE, J.-D., BAIRD, J., LARSON, G., HO, S., HEUPKIN, T., SHAPIRO, B.,
CZERWINSKI, P., FREEMAN, A., ARBOGAST, R.-M., ARNDT, B., BARTOSIEWICZ,
L., BENECKE, N., BUDJA, M., CHAIX, L., CHOYKE, A., COQUEUGNIOT, E.,
DHLE, H. J., GLDNER, H., HARTZ, S., HELMER, D., HERZIG, B., HONGO, H.,
MASHKOUR, M., ZDOGAN, M., PUCHERS, E., ROTH, G., SCHADE-LINDIG, S.,
SCHMLCKE, U., SCHULTING, R., STEPHAN, E., UERPMANN, H. P., VRS, I.,
BRADLEY, G. & BURGER, J. 2007. Mitrochondrial DNA analysis shows a Near Eastern
Neolithic origin for domestic cattle and no indication of domestication of European aurochs.
Proceedings of the Royal Society. FirstCite e-publishing.
FAIRWEATHER, A. & RALSTON, I. B. M. 1993. The Neolithic timber hall at Balbridie,
Grampian Region, Scotland: the building, the date, the plant macrofossils. Antiquity 67,
31323.
GEDDES, D. 1980. De la chasse au troupeau en Mditerrane occidentale. Les dbuts de llevage
dans le bassin de lAude. Archives dEcologie Prhistorique, 5. Toulouse: Ecoles des Hautes
Etudes en Sciences Sociales.
GEDDES, D. 1985. Mesolithic domestic sheep in West Mediterranean Europe. Journal of
GTHERSTRM, A., ANDERUNG, C., HELLBORG, L., ELBURG, R., SMITH, C.,
BRADLEY, D. & ELLEGREN, H. 2005. Cattle domestication in the Near-East was
followed by hybridization with Aurochs bulls in Europe. Proceedings of the Royal Society
of London B 272, 234550.
GRIGSON, C. 1999. The mammalian remains In A. Whittle, J. Pollard, & C. Grigson, The
harmony of symbols: the Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure, Wiltshire, 164252. Oxford:
Oxbow.
GUILAINE, J. 1976. Premiers bergers et paysans de lOccident mditerranen. Paris: Mouton.
GUILAINE, J. 2003. De la vague la tombe. La conqute nolithique de la Mditerrane. Paris:
Seuil.
GUILAINE, J., BARBAZA, M., GASCO, J., GEDDES, D., COULAROU, J., VAQUER, J.,
BROCHIER, J.-E., BRIOIS, F., ANDRE, J., JALUT, G. & VERNET, J.-L. 1993. Dourgne.
Derniers chasseurs-collecteurs et premiers leveurs de la Haute-Valle de lAude. Toulouse:
Centre dAnthropologie des Socits Rurales.
GUILAINE, J., BRIOIS, F., VIGNE, J.-D. & CARRERE, I. 2000. Dcouverte dun Nolithique
prcramique ancien chypriote (fin 9e, dbut 8e millnaires cal. BC), apparent au PPNB
ancien/moyen du Levant nord. Comptes rendus de lAcadmie des Sciences, Paris, Sciences de
la Terre et des Plantes 330, 7582.
HASSANIN, A., PASQUET, E. & VIGNE, J.-D. 1998. Molecular systematics of the subfamily
Caprinae (Artiodactyle, Bovidae) as determined from Cytochrome b sequences. Journal of
Mammalian Evolution 5 (3), 21736.
HELMER, D., GOURICHON, L., MONCHOT, H., PETERS, J. & SAA SEGUI, M. 2005.
Identifying early domestic cattle from pre-pottery Neolithic sites on the Middle Euphrates
using sexual dimorphism. In J.-D. Vigne, D. Helmer & J. Peters (eds), First steps of animal
domestication. New archaeozoological approaches, 8695. Oxford: Oxbow.
HIENDLEDER, S., MAINZ, K., PLANTE, Y. & LEWALSKI, H. 1998. Analysis of mitochondrial DNA indicates that domestic sheep are derived from two different ancestral maternal sources: no evidence for contributions from urial and argali sheep. Journal of Heredity 89,
11320.
JEUNESSE, C. 1997. Pratiques funraires au Nolithique ancien. Spultures et ncropoles
danubiennes, 55004900 av. J.-C. Paris: Errance.
207
LARSON, G., DOBNEY, K., ARBARELLA, U., FANG, M., MATISOO-SMITH, E.,
ROBINS, J., LOWDEN, S., FINLAYSON, H., BRAND, T., WILLERSLEV, E., ROWLEYCONWY, P. & COOPER, A. 2005. Worldwide phylogeography of wild boar reveals multiple
centers of pig domestication. Science 307, 161821.
LEGGE, A. J. & ROWLEY-CONWY, P. A. 1988. Star Carr revisited: a re-analysis of the large
mammals. London: University of London, Birkbeck College.
LESUR, J., GASCO, J., TRESSET, A. & VIGNE, J. D. 2000. Un approvisionnement carn chassen caussenard exclusivement fond sur la chasse? La faune de Roucadour (Lot). Prhistoire
du Sud-Ouest 8, 7190.
LICHARDUS, J., LICHARDUS-ITTEN, M., BAILLOUD, G. & CAUVIN, J. 1985. La
Protohistoire de lEurope. Le Nolithique et le Chalcolithique. Paris: Nouvelle Clio 1 bis.
Presses Universitaires de France.
LUIKART, G., GIELLY, L., EXCOFFIER, L., VIGNE, J.-D., BOUVET, J. & TABERLET, P.
2001. Multiple maternal origins and weak phylogeographic structure in domestic goats.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 98, 10, 592732.
MANEN, C. 2000. Implantation de facis dorigine italienne au Nolithique ancien: lexemple
des sites liguriens du Languedoc. In Rencontres mridionales de prhistoire rcente, 3e
session, Toulouse, 1998, 18. Toulouse: Editions Archives dEcologie Prhistorique.
MANEN, C. 2002. Structure et identit des styles cramiques du Nolithique ancien entre
Rhne et Ebre. Gallia Prhistoire 44, 12165.
MANEN, C. & SABATIER, P. 2003. Chronique radiocarbone de la nolithisation en
Mditerrane nord-occidentale. Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise 100, 3, 479504.
MARCHAND, G. & TRESSET, A. 2005. Derniers chasseurs et premiers agriculteurs sur la
faade atlantique de lEurope. In J. Guilaine (ed.), Les marges, dbitrices ou cratrices? La
mise en place du Nolithique et de ses prolongements la priphrie des foyers classiques,
25580. Paris: Errance.
MAZURIE DE KEROUALIN, K. 2003. Gense et diffusion de lagriculture en Europe:
agriculteurs, chasseurs, pasteurs. Paris: Errance.
MELLARS, P. (ed.) 1987. Oronsay. Prehistoric human ecology on a small island. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
MNIEL, P. 1984. Contribution lhistoire de llevage en Picardie du Nolithique lAge du Fer.
Revue Archologique de Picardie special issue.
MILNER, N. & WOODMAN, P. 2005. Combler les lacunes. . . lvnement le plus tudi, le
mieux dat et le moins compris du Flandrien. In G. Marchand & A. Tresset (eds), Unit et
diversit des processus de Nolithisation sur la faade Atlantique de lEurope (6e4e millnaire
av. J.-C.), 3946. Paris: Mmoire 36 de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise.
MLLER, H. 1964. Die Haustiere der mitteldeutschen Bandkeramiker. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
NOBIS, G. 1975. Zur Fauna des ellerbekzeitlichen Wohnplatzes Rosenhof in Ostholstein I.
Schriften des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins fr Schleswig Holstein 45, 530.
PQUART, M. & PQUART, S.-J. 1954. Hodic, deuxime station-ncropole du Msolithique
ctier Armoricain. Anvers: De Sikkel.
PQUART, M., PQUART, S.-J., BOULE, M. & VALLOIS, H. 1937. Tviec: station ncropole
msolithique du Morbihan. Archives de lInstitut de Palontologie humaine 18.
PERLES, C. 2002. The Early Neolithic in Greece. The first farming communities in Europe.
PERNAUD, J. M., CHARTIER, M., TRESSET, A., SIDRA, I., AUGEREAU, A. &
LEROYER, Ch. 2004. Gestion des territoires et volution de lexploitation des ressources
animales et vgtales aux Ve et IVe millnaires av. JC dans le Bassin Parisien. Actes du XXVe
Congrs Prhistorique de France. Nanterre, 2426 nov. 2000 Approches Fonctionnelles en
Prhistoire, 40925.
PETERS, J., HELMER, D., VON DEN DRIESCH, A. & SAA SEGUI, M. 1999. Early
animal husbandry in the Northern Levant. Palorient 25, 2747.
208
PETERS, J., VON DEN DRIESCH, A. & HELMER, D. 2005. The upper Euphrates-Tigris
Basin: cradle of agro-pastoralism? In J.-D Vigne, D. Helmer & J. Peters (eds), First steps of
animal domestication. New archaeozoological approaches, 96124. Oxford: Oxbow.
POPLIN, F. 1979. Origine du Mouflon de Corse dans une nouvelle perspective palontologique:
par marronage. Annales de Gntique et de Slection animales 11, 13343.
POPLIN, F. & VIGNE, J.-D. 1983. Observations sur lorigine des ovins en Corse. Actes Congrs
Prhist. de France 2, 23845.
RENFREW, C. 1976. Megaliths, territories and populations. In S. J. De Laet (ed.), Acculturation
and continuity in Atlantic Europe, 198220. Brugge: De Tempel.
RICHARDS, M. & MELLARS, P. 1998. Stable isotopes and the seasonality of the Oronsay
middens. Antiquity 72, 17884.
RICHARDS, M., SCHULTING, R. & HEDGES, E. 2003. Sharp shift in diet at onset of the
Neolithic. Nature 425, 366.
RODRIGUEZ, G., 1985. La grotte de Camprafaud. Montpellier: privately published.
SCARRE, C. 1992. The early Neolithic of Western France and megalithic origins in Atlantic
Europe. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 11, 12154.
SCHULTING, R. 1999. Appendix 7-4: Radiocarbon dates. In P. Woodman, E. Anderson &
N. Finlay, Excavations at Ferriters Cove, 198395: last foragers, first farmers in the Dingle
Peninsula, 219. Bray: Wordwell.
SCHULTING, R. 2005. Comme la mer qui se retire. Les changements dans lexploitation des
ressources marines du Msolithique au nolithique en Bretagne. In G. Marchand &
A. Tresset (eds), Unit et diversit du processus de Nolithisation de la faade atlantique de
lEurope (7e4e millnaires avant notre re), 16371. Paris: Mmoire 36 de la Socit
Prhistorique Franaise.
SCHULTING, R. J. & RICHARDS, M. P. 2001. Dating women and becoming farmers: new
paleodietary and AMS dating evidence from the Breton Mesolithic cemeteries of Tviec and
Hodic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20, 31444.
SCHULTING, R., TRESSET, A. & DUPONT, C. 2004. From harvesting the sea to stock rearing along the Atlantic faade of north-west Europe. Environmental Archaeology 9, 13142.
SHEE-TWOHIG, E. 1981. The megalithic art of western Europe. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
SHERIDAN, A. 2000. Achnacreebeag and its French connections: Vive the Auld Alliance. In
J. Henderson (ed.), The prehistory and early history of Atlantic Europe, 115. Oxford: British
SHERIDAN, A. 2003. French connections I: spreading the marmites thinly. In I. Armit,
E. Murphy, E. Nelis & D. Simpson (eds), Neolithic Settlement in Ireland and Western Britain,
317. Oxford: Oxbow.
TRESSET, A. 1996. Le rle des relations Homme/Animal dans lvolution conomique et culturelle
des socits des Ve-IVe millnaires en Bassin Parisien. Approche ethnozootechnique fonde sur
les ossements animaux. Thse de Doctorat de Prhistoire, Ethnologie, Anthropologie de
lUniversit de Paris I.
TRESSET, A. 1997. Lapprovisionnement carn Cerny dans le contexte nolithique du Bassin
Parisien. Actes du Colloque International La Culture de Cerny. Nouvelle conomie,
nouvelle Socit au Nolithique, Nemours, mai 1994. Mmoires du Muse Prhistorique
dIle-de-France n 6, 299314.
TRESSET, A. 1998. In T. Eneau, P. Fouere, R. Joussaume, I. Sidra & A. Tresset 1998, Le site
Nolithique moyen de Gouzon Chauvigny (Vienne). Actes du XXIe Colloque Interrgional
sur le Nolithique, Poitiers, Octobre 1994, 97116.
TRESSET, A. 2000. Early husbandry in Atlantic areas. Animal introductions, diffusion of
techniques and native acculturation at the north-western margin of Europe. In J. Henderson
(ed.), The prehistory and early history of Atlantic Europe, 1732. Oxford: British
209
TRESSET, A. 2001. La faune de vertbrs de lEscargotire (structure E5-2) de VilleneuveTolosane (Haute-Garonne). Unpublished manuscript.
TRESSET, A. 2002. De la mer au btail en Europe atlantique: unit et diversit des processus
dapparition de llevage la marge nord-ouest de lEurope. Anthropozoologica 36, 1335.
& D. Simpson (eds), Neolithic settlement in Ireland and Western Britain, 1830. Oxford:
Oxbow.
TRESSET, A. 2005a. La place changeante des bovins dans les bestiaires du Msolithique final
et du Nolithique du Nord-Ouest europen. In G. Marchand & A. Tresset (eds), Unit et
diversit du processus de Nolithisation de la faade atlantique de lEurope (7e4e millnaires
avant notre re), 27186. Paris: Mmoire 36 de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise.
TRESSET, A. 2005b. Lavifaune des sites msolithiques et nolithiques de Bretagne (55002500
av. J.-C.): implications ethnologiques et biogographiques. Revue de Palobiologie (Genve),
volume spcial 10 (Hommages Louis Chaix), 8394.
TRESSET, A. & VIGNE, J.-D. 2001. La chasse, principal lment structurant la diversit des
faunes archologiques du Nolithique ancien, en Europe tempre comme en Mditerrane.
In R.-M. Arbogast, C. Jeunesse & J. Schibler (eds), Actes des Premires Rencontres
Danubiennes de Strasbourg, Novembre 1996. Rle et statut de la chasse dans le Nolithique
danubien, 12951.
TRESSET, A. & VIGNE, J.-D. 2007. Le dpt danimaux de la structure e4 dEr Grah: une illustration de la symbolique des bovins la charnire du Msolithique et du nolithique bretons?
In Monographie du Dolmen dEr Grah. Supplment Gallia Prhistoire, 12339.
TROY, C. S., MACHUGH, D. E., BAILEY, J. F., MAGEE, D. A., LOFTUS, R. T.,
CUNNINGHAM, P., CHAMBERLAIN, A. T., SYKES, B. C. & BRADLEY, D. G. 2001.
Genetic evidence for Near-Eastern origins of European cattle. Nature 410, 108891.
UERPMANN, H.-P. 1979. Probleme der Neolithisierung des Mittelmeerraums. Weisbaden:
Dr Ludwig Reichert.
VIGNE, J.-D. 1998. Facis culturels et sous-systme technique de lacquisition des ressources
animales. Application au Nolithique ancien mditerranen. In A. DAnna & D. Binder
(eds), Production et identit culturelle. Actualit de la recherche (Actes 2e Rencontres
mridionales de Prhistoire rcente, Arles, 89 nov., 1996), 2745. Antibes: APDCA.
VIGNE, J.-D. 2003. Lexploitation des animaux Torre Sabea. Nouvelles analyses sur les dbuts
de llevage en Mditerrane centrale et occidentale. In J. Guilaine & G. Cremonesi (eds),
Torre Sabea, un tablissement du Nolithique ancien en Salento, 32559. Rome: Ecole
Franaise.
VIGNE, J.-D. 2006. Matrise et usages de llevage et des animaux domestiques au Nolithique:
quelques illustrations au Proche-Orient et en Europe. In J. Guilaine (ed.), Populations
nolithiques et environnement, 87114. Paris: Errance.
VIGNE, J.-D. 2007. Exploitation des animaux et nolithisation en Mditerrane nordoccidentale. In J. Guilaine, C. Manen & J.-D. Vigne (eds), Pont de Roque-Haute (Portiragnes,
Hrault). Nouveaux aperus sur la nolithisation de la France mditerranenne. Toulouse:
Centre dAnthropologie.
VIGNE, J.-D. & BUITENHUIS, H. 1999. Les premiers pas de la domestication animale
lOuest de lEuphrate: Chypre et lAnatolie centrale. Palorient 25, 4962.
VIGNE, J.-D., CARRERE, I. & GUILAINE, J. 2003. Unstable status of early domestic
ungulates in the near east: the example of Shillourokambos (Cyprus, IXVIIIth millennia
cal BC). In J. Guilaine & A. Le Brun (eds), Le Nolithique de Chypre, (Actes du Colloque
International, Nicosie, 1719 mai 2001). Bulletin de Correspondence Hllenique supplment
43, 23951.
VIGNE, J.-D. & HELMER, D. 1999. Nouvelles analyses sur les dbuts de llevage dans le
Centre et lOuest mditerranens. In Le Nolithique du Nord-Ouest Mditerranen, Actes du
XXIVe Congrs Prhistorique Franaise, Carcassonne, 2630 septembre 1994, 12946.
210
WHITTLE, A. 1977. The earlier Neolithic of southern England and its continental background.
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports Supplementary Series 35.
University Press.
WOODMAN, P. 1986. Problems in the colonisation of Ireland. Ulster Journal of Archaeology
49, 717.
WOODMAN, P., ANDERSEN, E. & FINLAY, N. 1999. Excavations at Ferriters Cove,
198395: last foragers, first farmers in the Dingle Peninsula. Bray: Wordwell.
WOODMAN, P. & MCCARTHY, M. 2003. Contemplating some awful(ly interesting) vistas:
importing cattle and red deer into Prehistoric Ireland. In I. Armit, E. Murphy, E. Nelis &
D. Simpson (eds), Neolithic settlement in Ireland and western Britain, 319. Oxford: Oxbow.
WOODMAN, P., MCCARTHY, M. & MONAGHAN, N. 1997. The Irish Quaternary Fauna
Project. Quaternary Science Reviews 16, 12959.
ZILHO, J. 2001. Radiocarbon evidence for maritime pioneer colonization at the origins of
farming in west Mediterranean Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98,
141805.
The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition

in the Paris Basin: a review
PIERRE ALLARD
INTRODUCTION
THE LAST THIRTY YEARS have seen increasing numbers of excavations of early
Neolithic settlements in the main Paris Basin river valleys. These early
Neolithic sites can be seen as part of the Danubian period, and specifically
belong to the Ruban (LBK) and Villeneuve-Saint-Germain (VSG)-Blicquy
cultures. The Paris Basin is also an area with many excavated Mesolithic sites.
This paper presents a review of research into neolithisation processes on the
westernmost edge of Danubian expansion. The study is mainly based on
lithic finds because recent work has greatly improved our knowledge not only
of Early Neolithic, but also of Mesolithic, flint industries in the Paris basin.
There is no doubt that some of the LBK arrowheads show precise analogies
with certain late/final Mesolithic arrowheads (asymmetrical trapezes and triangles with flat inverse retouch and the microburin technique). Yet in the current state of research, it is too restrictive to address the issue simply through
arrowheads. A much broader scope of comparison of the two industries is
required, integrating all possible levels of analysis.
The Paris Basin is located at the limit of the expansion of the two
Neolithic trends in Europe. The Ruban culture (Linearbandkeramik)
appeared around 5300 cal BC in Alsace and then developed in Champagne
(Middle Ruban). Most Ruban sites in the Paris Basin are later (RRBP,
around 5000 cal BC).
The question of neolithisation in this context concerns diverse aspects
such as the chronology of the Danubian sequence (the relation between the
Ruban and Villeneuve-Saint-Germain group), the cultural attribution of
Limburg and La Hoguette ceramics, and the characterisation of Final
Mesolithic industries. If we theoretically accept the existence of all these entities, the cultural context of the end of the sixth millennium cal BC is complex.
We must therefore attempt to more clearly define the principal protagonists
of this neolithisation (Fig. 1).
Pierre Allard
212
Figure 1. The LBK appears at around 5300 cal BC. A majority of sites date to the later LBK
phase, called Ruban rcent du bassin parisien (RRBP). Limburg pottery mostly occurs in this
late phase. The early Neolithic ends with the Villeneuve-Saint-Germain, just after the LBK.
THE RUBAN CULTURE

The Ruban expansion into the Paris basin originates both from Alsace to the
south-east, and the Meuse/Moselle regions to the north-east. The Ruban
sites are located in the river valleys of the eastern half of the Paris Basin,
though a few isolated discoveries show that the Ruban extends outside this
main distribution area.
At present, the material culture (architecture, ceramics, and so on) of
Ruban sites in the Paris Basin resembles that of the western LBK culture,
with the exception of a few regional particularities such as the T decoration
of pots (Ilett & Hachem 2001; Ilett et al. 1982).
The lithic debitage is very homogeneous (Allard 2005). It is oriented
toward the production of regular blades with parallel edges (detached by
indirect percussion), which are relatively short (812 cm) and 1.5 to 2.5 cm
wide. The technological particularity of this production lies in the systematic
preparation of the striking platform by the removal of small flakes. The tools
are made principally on blades, though the laminar debitage waste products
were also transformed into tools, including the cores which were reused as
hammers. True flake debitage does not appear until the final stage of the
Ruban (Allard 2005). Though the tools are highly standardised, variations
in the frequency of certain types exist in the different settlements (Fig. 2).
Lithic raw materials were generally procured on a regional scale (10 to
50 km), which shows that the presence of these materials did not play a role
MESOLITHIC-NEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN THE PARIS BASIN
213
Figure 2. The LBK has blade debitage, with a characteristic (facetted) preparation of the
striking platform. LBK sites produce a standardised range of tool types. n 1: blade, 2: core,
3: retouched blade, 45: asymmetrical arrowheads, 67: splintered pieces, 8: scraper, 910: sickles, 11: borer, 12: burin, 1314: scrapers (tools from Cuiry-ls-Chaudardes, Bucy-le-Long and
Berry-au-Bac in the Aisne Valley).
214
Pierre Allard
in the location of Ruban settlements. The circulation of siliceous products

attests to the existence of relations between all the zones. The Senonian and
Tertiary flints from Champagne represent a higher proportion of the materials procured at the Basse-Alsace and Moselle settlements (Blouet 2005;
Mauvilly 2000). The presence of a few Belgian flints (from Ghlin and
Hesbaye) in the Aisne and Oise Valleys and at Saint-Dizier in Champagne
attests to relations between Belgium and the northern Paris Basin (Allard
2005).
Within this homogeneous portrait, which indisputably links the lithic
industry of the Paris Basin to the central European Linearbandkeramik culture, there are regional differences within the Paris Basin. In the Paris Basin,
burins are present only in the Late Ruban (RRBP): they are absent further east
(Plateaux 1986). The sites of the Yonne Valley have a much higher proportion
of flake tools than elsewhere in Europe.
Arrowheads present certain characteristics that merit further study.
Arrowheads in the Aisne/Oise/Yonne area have an asymmetrical triangular or
trapezoidal shape with flat inverse retouch at the base. They are often made
on blades and produced by the microburin technique. There are also a few
transverse arrowheads. In Champagne, asymmetrical points are numerous
but the microburin technique is absent in many cases. Symmetrical arrowheads with bifacial retouch, usually on blades, are attested, notably at Juvigny
les Grands Traquiers (Tappret & Villes 1996). On the Moselle, both types
coexist. The asymmetrical points are usually produced without the microburin technique by covering retouch or short, triple side, bifacial removals
(Lhr 1994), which is different from the Paris Basin model. In Alsace, symmetrical forms are by far the most common and are made either on flakes or
blades. The few asymmetrical arrowheads are very often made from exogenous raw materials from the Paris Basin. The microburin technique is observable on only one arrowhead from Alsace (on a Paris Basin flint: Mauvilly
1997). Symmetrical arrowheads are apparently more frequent in the eastern
part of our study region (Fig. 3). The asymmetrical forms are more frequent
in the central Paris Basin, as well as in the Belgian LBK, especially in the
Hainaut area.
Another interesting technical detail of the asymmetrical arrowheads concerns their lateralisation. The right side was more often used in the north-east
Paris Basin and in Belgium, while the left side was more frequently used in
the Moselle and Alsace zones (Lhr 1994). Further south, both sides were
used equally. In summary, the lithic industry corresponds to the central
European LBK culture except for a few regional particularities, such as the
presence of burins or flake debitage and a high proportion of flake tools in
the Yonne sites (Augereau 1993). The arrowheads correspond to those of the
western LBK with a few marked regional variations.
215
Figure 3. The asymmetrical forms (in grey) are more frequent in the central Paris Basin and
also the Belgian LBK, especially the Hainaut area. Another interesting technical detail with the
asymmetrical arrowheads concerns lateralisation. The right side was mainly used in the northeast Paris Basin and in Belgium, the left side in the Moselle and Alsace, and both sides equally
further south.
Pierre Allard
216
THE VILLENEUVE-SAINT-GERMAIN (VSG) GROUP

Here there is a major change in settlement patterns with a significant
increase in the number of sites and an extension much farther west. In
Belgium, the Blicquy group is closely related to the VSG. The VSG settlements and material culture are clearly derived from the late Ruban, though
significant changes occur (Constantin 1985). It is impossible here to present
the debate concerning the chronological position of the VSG, but the most
recent analyses demonstrate that this group succeeded the Ruban and that
its principal elements appear in the final stage of the RRBP (Constantin &
Ilett 1997). The lithic industry is particularly convincing in this debate
(Allard 2005; Allard & Bostyn in press). This position has since been supported by a new examination of the radiocarbon dates (Dubouloz 2003),
which are presented below.
The flint industry shows the same kind of blade debitage as the Ruban,
but is generally more diverse (Augereau 1993; Bostyn 1994). The more common productions show a duality of short blade and flake debitage production,
as well as tool shaping on blocks, generally on local materials. There is no
technological distinction from the Ruban productions except the elongation
of blades made from Tertiary flint. Flake production, on the other hand, is
systematic and dominant in the settlements (Bostyn 1994). Nevertheless, one
of the more spectacular changes observed is the production and distribution
of long blades of Tertiary flint from the central Paris Basin.
Though the circulation of flints was mostly regional and concentrated in
the heart of the Paris Basin, an intense network existed between Belgium
and the Paris Basin. This network also concerned schist bracelets, which are
present at all the settlements. The typology of the tool industry is similar to
that of the Ruban with the notable exception of the appearance of tranchets
at the end of the VSG (Augereau 1993). On the other hand, the frequency of
tool categories changes, with flake tools becoming dominant, especially scrapers and denticulates. Burins become the most frequent blade tools, particularly
in the northern Paris Basin (Bostyn 1994). The arrowheads are triangular, or
less often asymmetrical trapezoids, fabricated with the microburin technique
like those of the Ruban. Symmetrical arrowheads are for the moment
unknown in the VSG-Blicquy context. Transverse arrowheads are, in contrast,
regularly found in this context.
In the sectors where the Danubian sequence is well documented, such as
in the Aisne Valley, the arrowheads of the VSG group present the following
characteristics (Allard 2005). The preference for right lateralisation of the
asymmetrical arrowheads disappears in the VSG group and transverse arrowheads gradually become more frequent: from 2% in the late Ruban to 16% in
the Villeneuve-Saint-Germain; inverse retouch at the base and the microburin
217
technique become less common; and the frequency of arrowheads drops to

only 3%. These features, which begin to disappear in the VSG, are in fact
the archaic features that the Ruban arrowheads share with Mesolithic
forms.
THE FINAL MESOLITHIC

Due to the large number of Mesolithic sites in the Paris Basin, this is one of
the best documented regions in Europe. However, many of the flint assemblages studied in the past come from sites located on sandy subsoils with
poor preservation. Relative dating is thus difficult and there are few reliable
radiocarbon dates.
Based on earlier studies of arrowhead typology and debitage types, Rozoy
(1978; 1997) and Hinout (1997) proposed various hypotheses concerning the
distribution of cultural groups. The final Mesolithic is characterised by
Rozoy (1978) through: the debitage of bladelets or regular, narrow blades
(known as the Montbani style); evolved arrowheads (trapezoids and triangles) with flat, inverse retouch; and a high percentage of Montbani blades
and bladelets (objects with a semi-abrupt retouch that forms notches or concavities). While these authors consider the site of Alle Tortue (Xb for Rozoy
& Slachmuylder 1990) at Fre-en-Tardenois as the reference for the late
Tardenoisian, they believe it is also possible to distinguish several Mesolithic
groups who occupied limited territories. The heart of the Paris Basin is
divided into the South and North Tardenoisian by the Seine River (corresponding to a change in the lateralisation of trapezoids), with the Ardennian
and Somme groups constituting two entities occupying the north of the zone.
The studies of Hinout are often based on these same sites (but not the
same excavations) but employing a different method, which relies mostly on
statistical analyses. He identified three principal groups with a main separation delimited by the Seine: the Sauveterrian with denticulates to the west of
the Seine and the Tardenoisian and the Mauregny to the north-east of the
Seine. These three entities existed throughout the entire Mesolithic (Hinout
1997).
The contexts considered are unfortunately weak since they are susceptible
to disturbances, and the construction of a chrono-cultural sequence based
only on the statistical evolution of typological, and sometimes technological,
classes is problematical. Therefore, despite a high number of sites, it has not
yet been possible to establish a reliable chronological sequence.
The real breakthrough regarding the Mesolithic results from more recent
work in the Somme Valley by Ducrocq (2001). Here the contexts are more
secure and Ducroq has established a reliable sequence for later Mesolithic
Pierre Allard
218
lithic material, supported by radiocarbon dates (Ducrocq 2001, 2245). By

6500 cal BC, asymmetrical trapezoidal arrowheads appear. They are made
with the microburin technique and have a left lateralisation. At around 6000
cal BC, feuille de gui (mistletoe leaf) arrowheads still exist. These are followed
by asymmetrical arrowheads with right lateralisation (but with no direct
dates). The latest, or final Mesolithic, dating to around 5000 cal BC, has the
same arrowheads. The evolution of the late Mesolithic toward the final
Mesolithic would therefore be oriented toward an increase in asymmetrical
arrowheads relative to arrowheads with skewed bases ( bases dcales). In
Ducrocqs work, the terminal Final Mesolithic is represented by the dated
series from Castel (6090 95 BP, 52244797 cal BC: Ducrocq 2001, 2245),
which is characterised by Montbani blades and bladelets, triangular or
asymmetrical trapezoidal arrowheads with right lateralisation and flat inverse
retouch (made with the microburin technique), and oblique truncations.
LIMBURG POTTERY
I will not present here the history of research on Limburg pottery (or of La
Hoguette pottery on the Rhine), whose stylistic and technical repertoire
remains unique relative to the material culture of the Ruban (Constantin
1985; Lning et al. 1989). Based on ceramics, some researchers have constructed a model that attempts to associate them with Mesolithic groups
(characterised by asymmetrical arrowheads with right lateralisation for the
Limburg zone and left lateralisation for the La Hoguette zone) that were
already modified by the Neolithic influence of the Cardial trend before the
arrival of the Ruban (Gronenborn 1990; Jeunesse 1998).
However, questions surrounding Limburg pottery are not necessarily the
same as those concerning La Hoguette pottery. Its total absence in numerous
Mesolithic sites of the Tardenois and the Somme is troubling, and has also
been observed for the Hesbaye sector and the Dutch Limburg (Cromb et al.
2005). At present Limburg pottery exists only in Ruban contexts and with a
diffusion zone principally concentrated in the RRBP of the Aisne and the
Ruban of Hainaut.
The hypotheses concerning Limburg pottery have largely surpassed
currently available data and are oriented toward the idea of a prominent
influence of native populations in the neolithisation of Western Europe, in
contrast to a simple colonisation of the Ruban. In the region that interests
us, there is no argument to support the former model.
219
NEW LEADS TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE

NEOLITHISATION OF THE PARIS BASIN
Radiocarbon dates
In terms of radiocarbon dates, there has always been some difficulty with the
late Ruban and Villeneuve-Saint-Germain sequence. Nonetheless, a new
detailed analysis of the cumulative diagrams of calibrated dates shows a tangible succession between the end of the Ruban and the VSG (Dubouloz
2003). This presentation places the latest Ruban at around 5000 cal BC, with
the VSG following shortly after (Fig. 4). This hypothesis is supported by
studies of the lithic industry, which indisputably confirm the chronological
succession of these two periods (Allard 2005; Allard & Bostyn in press). The
radiocarbon dates for the latest Mesolithic in the Somme area are broadly
contemporary with the late Ruban (Ducrocq 2001). However, dates are still
very rare for northern France.
Arrowheads
It is already known that arrowheads similar to those of the late Mesolithic
exist in the Ruban of the northern Paris Basin (Allard 2005; Ducrocq 2001;
Lhr 1994). If we compare late Mesolithic types from the Somme and
Figure 4. C14 dates of RRBP and VSG of the Paris Basin. This recent presentation
shows the latest LBK at around 5000 cal BC and the Villeneuve-Saint-Germain shortly after
(Dubouloz 2003).
220
Pierre Allard
Tardenois with RRBP types from the Aisne Valley, located just between the
two areas, the following points emerge. There are fewer types in the Ruban.
There are no oblique truncations in the Ruban. Right lateralisation and flat
inverse retouch, two technical details that are extremely common in the
Somme Mesolithic, are relatively less common in the Ruban (right lateralisation drops from 100% in the Mesolithic to 71%, while inverse retouch drops
to 46%). The blanks used for arrowheads are more varied in the Ruban.
Though similar in length, the Ruban arrowheads are generally wider.
In conclusion, though the technical and typological convergences are
indisputable, it is significant that the Ruban arrowheads of the northern
Paris Basin present technical differences from those of the local Mesolithic.
They are in fact much more similar to the arrowheads of the Belgian Ruban.
Likewise, oblique truncations disappeared and the symmetrical points of the
Ruban of Champagne are totally unknown in the local Mesolithic. Thus one
has to accept the idea that the Danubian asymmetrical arrowheads were
already an integral element of the lithic industry of the western LBK, which
developed in the Rhine-Meuse region during a phase earlier than that of the
Paris Basin Ruban.
Ideally, we would integrate all possible levels of analysis of the lithic
industry (raw material procurement, technology, use-wear analysis, and so
on). Unfortunately, these studies are lacking for the Paris Basin Mesolithic.
Nonetheless, based on current evidence, it is possible to make the following
observations (Fig. 5). The raw material procurement patterns are quite different; Mesolithic groups exploited local resources while Ruban populations
selected good quality regional materials from a range of 15 to 30 km, sometimes to the detriment of local materials (Allard 2005). The debitage products are different; there are bladelets and narrow blades in the Mesolithic
and mostly blades in the Ruban. The tool assemblages are different. Some
specific tool types are completely different (for example, Ruban scrapers,
borers and burins). The Yonne area, in the southern Paris Basin, is an exception to the general Ruban pattern. Here the Ruban industry is rather
different, with a greater use of local flint and true flake debitage, as in the
Mesolithic.
CONCLUSION
The main results of the study are the following. We now have a better understanding of late Mesolithic industries, especially concerning arrowhead
types. The radiocarbon dates show that the late Mesolithic is perhaps partly
contemporary with the Ruban. The Late Ruban-VSG sequence is firmly
established and we see that the VSG industry is derived from the Ruban,
221
Figure 5. Comparison between the Ruban (RRBP) and late Mesolithic (Tardenois and Somme)
lithic industries.
with a loss of Mesolithic elements. This suggests that the MesolithicNeolithic interaction in the Paris basin mainly involved the Ruban and was
largely completed by the time VSG emerged.
Following these results, we can now propose a tentative interpretation of
the regional differences observed. In the northern Paris Basin and Belgium,
the similarities between Ruban and Mesolithic arrowheads could reflect
farmer-forager contacts and interactions following Ruban colonisation in
the Rhine-Meuse region. Indeed, as a whole, the lithic industry of the Paris
Basin Ruban is most closely comparable with that of the earlier settled
neighbouring Ruban zones, and not with that of the Mesolithic (in blade
dimensions, raw material procurement and tool assemblages). For this reason, it seems more plausible to speak of a gradual integration of Mesolithic
populations who partially maintain a characteristic identity in their arrowheads. It is perhaps this same characteristic identity that is expressed in the
Limburg pottery, which would thus belong to the repertoire of the Ruban
populations of the Meuse and Aisne areas (and whose technique would originate in that of the Hoguette culture, in principle much earlier). Nonetheless,
222
Pierre Allard
this cannot be seen as more than an integration since the material culture
and technical system are clearly that of the Ruban. For example, the unpublished results of the faunal analysis of the site of Cuiry-ls-Chaudardes
(Hachem 1996) show that the Ruban populations of the Aisne arrived with
complete herds, and were perfectly familiar with the practices of raising and
slaughtering domestic animals.
Finally, in the southern Paris Basin, the situation appears rather different.
Here the additional technical similarities between Ruban and Mesolithic
industries possibly reflect a local acculturation of forager groups in areas such
as the Yonne. It is indeed in this region that the most significant differences in
the LBK lithic industry are currently observable and we must thus preserve the
possibility of an alternative hypothesis.
Note. I would like to thank M. Ilett (University of Paris I) for his help and for
improving the English text. I wish to thank, too, M. OFarrell for the translation of
this paper.
REFERENCES
ALLARD, P. 2005. Lindustrie lithique des populations rubanes du nord-est de la France et de la
Belgique. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.
ALLARD, P. & BOSTYN, F. in press. Gense et volution des industries lithiques danubiennes
du Bassin parisien. In P. Allard, F. Bostyn & A. Zimmermann (eds), Contribution of lithics
for early and middle Neolithic chronology in France and neighbouring regions. Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports.
AUGEREAU, A. 1993. volution de lindustrie du silex du V au IV millnaire avant J.-C. dans
le sud-est du Bassin parisien. Organisation techo-conomique du Villeneuve-Saint-Germain au
groupe de Noyen. Thse de Doctorat, Universit de Paris I.
BLOUET, V. 2005. Lindustrie lithique du site Nolithique ancien de Malling. In G. Auxiette &
F. Malrain (eds), Hommages Claudine Pommepuy, Revue Archologique de Picardie numro
spcial 22, 2938.
BOSTYN, F. 1994. Caractrisation des productions et de la diffusion des industries lithiques du
groupe nolithique du Villeneuve-Saint-Germain. Thse de Doctorat, lUniversit de Paris I.
CONSTANTIN, C. 1985. Fin du Ruban, cramique du Limbourg et post-ruban. Le nolithique
le plus ancien en Bassin parisien et en Hainaut. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
CONSTANTIN, C. & ILETT, M. 1997. Une tape terminale dans le Ruban Rcent du Bassin
parisien. In C. Jeunesse (ed.), Le Nolithique danubien et ses marges entre Rhin et Seine,
281300. Strasbourg: Actes du XXIIme colloque interrgional sur le Nolithique supplment
de lAssociation Pour la Recherche Archologique en Alsace.
CROMBE, P., PERDAEN, Y. & SERGANT, J. 2005. La nolithisation de la Belgique: quelques
reflexions. Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise 36, 4866.
DUBOULOZ, J. 2003. Datation absolue du premier Nolithique du Bassin parisien: complment et relecture des donnes RRBP et VSG. Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise
100, 67189.
DUCROCQ, T. 2001. Le Msolithique du bassin de la Somme. Lille: Publications du CERP n 7,
Universit des Sciences et Technologies de Lille.
223
GRONENBORN, D. 1990. Mesolithic-Neolithic interactions. The lithic industry of the earliest

bandkeramik site Friedberg-Bruchenbrcken, Wetteraukreis (West Germany). In P. M.
Vermeersch & P. van Peer (eds), Contribution to the Mesolithic of Europe, 17382. Leuven:
Leuven University Press.
HACHEM, L. 1996. La faune rubane de Cuiry-ls-Chaudardes; essai sur la place de lanimal dans
la premire socit nolithique du Bassin parisien. Thse de doctorat, Universit de Paris I.
HINOUT, J. 1997. volution des ensembles industriels msolithiques dans le Bassin parisien par
lanalyse des donnes. In J.-P. Fagnart & A. Thvenin (eds), Le Tardiglaciaire en Europe du
Nord-Ouest, 119me congrs du CTHS, Amiens, 1994, 22333. Paris: dition du CTHS.
ILETT, M., CONSTANTIN, C., COUDART, A. & DEMOULE, J.-P. 1982. The late
Bandkeramik of the Aisne valley: environment and spatial organisation. Analecta Praehistorica
Leidensia 15, 4562
ILETT, M. & HACHEM, L. 2001. Le village nolithique de Cuiry-ls-Chaudardes (Aisne,
France). In J. Guilaine (ed.), Communauts villageoises du Proche-Orient lAtlantique
(80002000 avant notre re), 17186. Paris: Errance.
JEUNESSE, C. 1998. La nolithisation de lEurope occidentale (VIIeVe millnaires av. J. C.):
nouvelles perspectives. In C. Cupillard & A. Richard (eds), Les derniers chasseurs-cueilleurs
du massif jurassien et de ses marges (130005500 avant J.-C.), 20817. Lons-le-Saunier:
Centre Jurassien du Patrimoine.
LHR, H. 1994. Linksflgler und Rechtsflger in Mittel-und Westeuropa. Der Fortbestand
der Verbreitungsgebiete asymmetrischer Pfeilspitzformen als Kontinuittsbeleg zwischen
Meso-und Neolithikum. Trierer Zeitschrift 57, 9127.
Kultur: La Hoguette und Limburg. Germania 67, 355420.
MAUVILLY, M. 1997. Lindustrie lithique de la culture cramique linaire de Haute et de
Basse Alsacetat des recherches et bilan provisoire. In C. Jeunesse (ed.), Le Nolithique
danubien et ses marges entre Rhin et Seine, 32758. Strasbourg: Actes du XXIIme colloque
interrgional sur le Nolithique, supplment de lAssociation pour la Recherche
Archologique en Alsace.
MAUVILLY, M. 2000. Le matriel lithique du site de Rosheim Sainte-Odile (Bas-Rhin).
Premire partieobjets en roches siliceuses et apparentes. Cahiers de lAssociation pour la
Recherche Archologique en Alsace 16, 6781.
PLATEAUX, M. 1986. Lindustrie lithique des premiers agriculteurs dans le nord de la France.
In Chipped stone industries of the early farming cultures in Europe. Actes du colloque de
Cracow, Archeologia interregionalis, 22545.
ROZOY, J.-G. 1978. Les derniers chasseurs. Charleville-Mzire: Mmoires de la Socit
Archologique Champenoise.
ROZOY, J.-G. 1997. Territoires sociaux et environnement en France du nord et en Belgique de
14,000 6000 b.p. In J.-P. Fagnart & A. Thvenin (eds), Le Tardiglaciaire en Europe du
Nord-Ouest, 119me congrs du CTHS, Amiens, 1994, 42954. Paris: dition du CTHS.
ROZOY, J.-G. & SLACHMUYLDER, J.-L. 1990. LAlle Tortue Fre-en-Tardenois (Aisne,
France). Site ponyme du Tardenoisien rcent. In P. M. Vermeersch & P. van Peer (eds),
Contribution to the Mesolithic in Europe, 42333. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
TAPPRET, E. & VILLES, A. 1996. Contribution de la Champagne ltude du Nolithique
ancien. In P. Duhamel (ed.), La Bourgogne entre les bassins rhnan, rhodanien et parisien
carrefour ou frontires?, 175256. Revue Archologique du Centre supplment 14.
Neolithic fragrances: Mesolithic-Neolithic

interactions in western France
GRGOR MARCHAND
THE OBJECT OF THIS PAPER is to consider the Neolithic transition of western

France through the relationships between communities of hunter-gatherers
and those of farmers. The intention is not so much to place farming pioneers
and natives in opposition, but rather to reflect on the traces left by the interactions between technical systems during the availability phase (Zvelebil &
Rowley-Conwy 1986). The area considered stretches from the Seine to the
Garonne, during the period in broad terms from 5500 to 4700 cal BC. The
meeting of the two main currents of the west-European Neolithic expansion,
coupled with the continued existence (chronologically ill defined) of
Mesolithic groups, created a mosaic process which we are only beginning to
analyse, region by region.
Western France is a region of peneplains and sedimentary basins, marked
by large rivers that are the main structuring elements of the landscape and
which provide rich biotopes. The Atlantic Ocean was also a fundamental geographical element for the prehistoric communities of the Armorican Massif,
as a purveyor of food and particularly of workable flint pebbles. The coast
was therefore the focus of numerous human occupations among which are a
number of shell middens. The importance of these marine economies, however, has long been over-estimated when attempting to explain the resistance
to change of the last Mesolithic communities. Recent work has demonstrated
that the impact of human communities was equally significant inland, where
they did not depend in any marked degree on the ocean (Gouletquer et al.
1996; Marchand 2003; 2005).
The situation I would like to present is made up of complex interactions
for which the natural environment forms a framework without ever becoming the main actor. These interactions will be approached via the extensive
technical transfers between Mesolithic and Neolithic systems. In interpreting
this material, we must be especially wary of taphonomic traps and biases in
the evidence, and these will be taken into account here.
Grgor Marchand
226
TAPHONOMIC PROBLEMS AND INFORMATION BIASES

For a long time, the Atlantic coast of France appeared as a Far West, where
every combination of archaeological elements was possible. This approach
gave birth to a variety of models of autochthonous change from Mesolithic
to Neolithic: a Neolithic developing from an extremely polymorphic
Mesolithic substrate, as for example on the edge of the Massif Central (the
so-called Roucadourian: Roussot-Larroque 1977; 1990); an Atlantic Cardial
based on a Sauveterrian substrate, as at La Lde-du-Gurp in Gironde
(Roussot-Larroque & Villes 1988); or a retarded Mesolithic, as for example
to the north of the Loire estuary (LHelgouach 1976). In effect, it seemed that
the great waves of Neolithic expansion had worn themselves out before
reaching the Atlantic shores. The whole scenario was, we should now admit,
incomprehensible and those hypotheses have today been discredited.
The present-day image of a Brittany steeped in folklore and economically
retarded has probably played a crucial part in giving rise to the idea of a
Mesolithic people unreceptive to the joys of agriculture. What is more, the
high density of Mesolithic sites in western Brittany is a result of the key role
accorded to amateur archaeologists (Gouletquer et al. 1996). By contrast, in
the south of France, the significance of surface sites is minimised compared
to that of rock-shelters and caves. The study of the Neolithic transition must
accordingly be approached warily, watching out for such present-day biases
and ways of thinking.
We must also take into consideration the geomorphological and taphonomic parameters that affect our corpus. With an estimated rise in sea-level of
10 m (Pirazzoli 1991), the coastline of the sixth millennium cal BC has completely disappeared in west-central France, where the continental shelf is
shallow. On the other hand, the shell middens of Brittany, set on rocky cliffs
bordering deep seas, have at least partially escaped that destruction.
Elsewhere, frequent discoveries of Early Neolithic evidence on the beaches of
the Vende or Aquitaine seem in my view to be attributable to conditions of
research, rather than to any prehistoric reality. Coastal marshlands, today
eroded by the sea, have fossilised these prehistoric traces, which can now be
collected on the beaches (Joussaume 1986). The ease of observation, and the
frequentation of these beautiful shores by archaeological prospectors, have led
to the over-evaluation of discoveries made along the sea shore. They are rather
too quickly taken to be Neolithic landing-places, in the manner of ancient
Greek trading-posts. When our eyes move inland, to favourable sedimentary
contexts such as the peat deposits of La Grange at Surgres (Laporte et al.
2000), we discover that Early Neolithic material is also present there.
These biases in what we know must alert us to the danger of overestimating the role of Mesolithic communities in the Neolithic transition.
MESOLITHIC-NEOLITHIC INTERACTIONS IN FRANCE
227
They oblige us to reassess the role of the ocean, which so often has been
conceived as a medium for rapid movement by boat in the Early Neolithic.
By contrast, the hypotheses presented in this paper could be qualified as
terrestrial models.
A STRONG MESOLITHIC IMPRINT

Stability of human communities in Brittany in segmented territories
In Brittany, our knowledge is no longer limited to the coastal strip that is so
well known through the shell middens of Tviec and Hodic. Intensive fieldsurveys led by Pierre Gouletquer and his team in Finistre in the 1990s
revealed a dense network of sites (Gouletquer et al. 1996); the available
corpus now stands at 62 sites with large-blade industries in Brittany, of which
16 have been more or less intensively excavated. Several elements lead us to
believe in a certain stability of territories that were of relatively reduced
dimensions (Fig. 1).
On the coast, the cemeteries of Tviec and Hodic reveal the high proportion of marine food in the diet. According to the work of Rick Schulting
and Michael Richards this indicates permanent occupations (Schulting &
Richards 2001). These results are seemingly corroborated by studies of seasonality on shellfish by Catherine Dupont, which suggest semi-sedentary or
sedentary occupations (Dupont 2003). Likewise, the structure of the lithic
industries reveals a significantly lower level of arrowhead production at shell
midden sites than at logistical sites on cliff tops (without shells). Finally, the
scarcity of stone materials of inland origin on the coast also pleads in favour
of acquisition territories turned towards the ocean. The organisation of
space inland seems to be identical, with large camps and small logistical sites.
It should be noticed that mobile settlements are always linked to potentially
navigable waterways and they never seek high or, in other words, defensive
positions.
On this ancient Massif, flint is found only along the coast, in the form of
beach pebbles. Late Mesolithic societies inland therefore resorted to a wide
variety of stone types in an economic system of a kind hitherto unknown in
this area. It is tempting to draw a parallel with the broad-spectrum economy
seen in subsistence behaviour. Systems for the distribution of raw materials
reached only up to 60 km; they were already much reduced in impact at distances of about 30 km. There seem to have been no contacts between north
and south Brittany; in any case, nothing leads us to believe in a territory of
seasonal exploitation on such a scale. Finally, three slightly different typological groups correspond closely to these relatively restricted ranges of
228
Grgor Marchand
Figure 1. Distribution of several territorial indications for the final Mesolithic of Brittany:
symmetrical bitruncation styles and raw-material territories. Black square: geological sites.
Grey circles: Mesolithic sites.
around 30 to 50 km. The homogeneity of the technical system over the whole
of Brittany implies contact on a large scale, but we must suppose social and
cultural integration at levels other than that of a single group travelling
around the peninsula, such as through exchanges or periodic encounters. Do
these characteristics indicate economic stress or, on the contrary, an age of
abundance? The answer depends on the ideological options of the individual
archaeologist.
In the lithic industries, we can identify two successive typological facies
within the Teviecian: the Hodic facies at around 5400 to 5200 cal BC and
the Beg-er-Vil facies at around 5100 to 5000 cal BC. This later facies sees the
supremacy of symmetrical bitruncations (transverse arrowheads) and the
appearance of the convex-backed blade. This is markedly different in style
from what we know in the rest of France where asymmetrical points domi-
229
nate (trapeze, triangle or point). The late date of the Beg-er-Vil facies makes
it a technical entity contemporary with the Early Neolithic of west-central
France and with the earliest Neolithic of Paris Basin. I shall argue below that
these technical mutations are probably the fruit of that coexistence. The
distance end to end of the Armorican Peninsula may also have favoured the
emergence of a stylistic particularism, rather as with an island.
Stability and multiple cultural influence in the Centre-West
In contrast to Brittany, the geographical openness of the centre-west resulted
in a great diversity of technical influences on the stone tools. The Retzian is
a technical entity discovered in the Vende and in Loire-Atlantique (Fig. 2).
Forty sites are known of which four have been excavated. So far, only one
date has been obtained, on charcoal, from the site of La Gilardire at Pornic.
This falls within the interval 56005260 cal BC (6520 120 BP: Tucson 8436).
The Late Mesolithic of Poitou, identified mainly at the site of LEssart at
Poitiers, is an entity in its own right defined by several typological features,
but is related to the Retzian. The external features which interest us here are
the transverse arrowheads of Chtelet and Montclus type. They originate in
the Impressed Ware sphere and rapidly become one of the main products of
bladelet working in the Late Mesolithic. It appears that the coexistence
between Mesolithic and Neolithic communities was long enough for the
Neolithic transverse arrowheads to become part of the Mesolithic technical
repertoire. Over time, rather than isolated extraneous elements they became
an important part of the Mesolithic arrowhead suite. The remainder of the
industry corresponds to the production norms of the Montbani type that is
found in the rest of France during the latest stages of the Mesolithic.
While we are able to demonstrate the limited extent of Late Mesolithic
territories in Brittany, economic data for the area between the Loire and the
Garonne rivers are extremely incomplete. The importance of marine foods in
diet is not so manifest as on the Breton coast, but the coastline of the period
has largely been destroyed by the encroachment of the sea. Several elements,
however, indicate a strong link to the aquatic environment. Recent work in
collaboration with Catherine Dupont, Yves Gruet and Michel Tessier in the
region of Pornic (Loire-Atlantique) has shown a system of small logistical
sites within a former estuary, but without any shell middens (Fig. 3;
Marchand et al. 2002).
At the heart of the Poitou region another type of settlement has recently
been discovered where activities seem to be characterised by the use of fire
(Fig. 4). On an island in the River Clain at LEssart, more than 50 stone
hearths and numerous dismantled hearths were excavated in 20032005,
extending across an area of approximately 2000 square metres. Over 75% of
230
Grgor Marchand
231
the flint had been burnt, making this an exceptional Mesolithic site; in
Brittany the corresponding figure for shell middens is around 2530%. The
poor bone preservation prevents us from determining exactly what the inhabitants were burning so relentlessly, but the proximity of the river suggests
activities such as smoking fish. Links with the sea and rivers remind us of
Brittany but may here have been associated with different economic structures. In the absence of preserved seeds or bones, it is difficult to address the
question of animal or plant domestication and we must remain cautious
about the lifestyle of these conveyors of final Mesolithic techniques.
THE EARLIEST NEOLITHIC

An ill defined Mediterranean current
In the course of palynological sampling, Lionel Visset and his team have discovered cereal pollen in the Morbihan, Loire-Atlantique, Maine-et-Loire and
Vende dating from between 7200 and 5800 cal BC (Visset et al. 1996; 2002).
These discoveries pose numerous problems, first, because the pollen comes
from coastal environments where it may derive from halophytic plants; and
also because the sedimentary contexts of the samples remain questionable.
Extremely sporadic and transient, these findings predate the earliest evidence
of plant domestication in France (the oldest of them predate the earliest
domestication in Europe), and thus constitute a chronological anomaly
which requires explanation. For the moment, they should be regarded with
considerable suspicion.
The earliest Neolithic impact detected through material culture comes
from the Impressed Ware cultural complex, originating in the north-west
Mediterranean. The traces are extremely diffuse. Fragments of pottery from
Figure 2. A: final Mesolithic sites in Western France; B: early Neolithic sites. 1. Tviec (SaintPierre-les-Quiberon, Morbihan); 2 . Beg-er-Vil (Quiberon, Morbihan); 3. Port-Nhu (Hodic,
Morbihan); 4. La Gilardire (Prfailles, Loire-Atlantique); 5. LEssart (Poitiers, Vienne); 6. La
Grange (Surgres, Charente-Maritime); 7. Le Cuzoul de Gramat (Gramat, Lot); 8. Les
Escabasses (Thmines, Lot); 9. Bellevue (Neulliac) and Le Dillien (Clgurec, Morbihan); 10. Le
Haut-Me (Saint-Etienne-en-Cogls, Ille-et-Vilaine); 11. Le Boulerot (Beaufort-en-Valle,
Maine-et-Loire); 12. La Bajoulire (Saint-Rmy-la-Varenne, Maine-et-Loire); 13. Btard
(Brtignolles-sur-Mer, Vende); 14. Le Rocher (Longueville-Plage); 15. Le Grouin-du-Cou (La
Tranche-sur-Mer, Vende); 16. La Grange (Surgres, Charente-Maritime); 17. Les Ouchettes
(Plassay, Charente-Maritime); 18. Germignac (Charente); 19. La Balise (Soulac-sur-Mer,
Gironde); 20. La-Lde-du-Gurp (Grayan-et-LHpital, Gironde); 21. Le Btey (Andernos-lesBains, Gironde); 22. Labri-des-Rocs (Bellefonds, Vienne); 23. Le Lazzaro (Colombelles,
Calvados).
Figure 3. The former estuary of Pornic River (Loire-Atlantique), with Retzian sites on top of the cliff. The ancient sea level at -10 m
below actual corresponds to the -7 m level of the hydrographic map.
232
Grgor Marchand
233
Figure 4. LEssart at Poitiers (Vienne). A: map of the hearths on the site. B: Hearth 14. C:
Hearths 20 and 21.
234
Grgor Marchand
surface collections and even charcoal, dated by radiocarbon to around 5400

cal BC, have been picked up on strands at low tide. The circumstances of discovery make it impossible to describe the technical systems, though we should
note that certain elements of the material culture are spread over a large
geographical area (Aquitaine, Poitou-Charentes, and the southern Vende;
Fig. 3). As for the lithic industry, Montclus and Betey arrowheads appear frequently to the south of the Marais poitevin. The former are usually found in
Cardial contexts and bear witness to a probable extension of those cultures
towards the north-west. The latter are the French equivalent of the triangles
and the segments with doble bisel retouch, well known in northern Iberia in
established Neolithic contexts (the Geometric Complex).
Colonisation by sea is a recurrent hypothesis in France, but it presupposes
sailing around the Iberian peninsula. Study of the Cardial industries of
Andalucia or Portugal (Carvalho 2002) reveals that they are radically different and obliges us to abandon this idea completely. The diffusion of Neolithic
artefacts is the result of an altogether different process, less romantic but
more realistic, involving a direct passage from western Languedoc towards
the centre-west, with perhaps a later contribution of elements from the Ebro
valley via the Pyrenees (Marchand 1999).
The presence of a Neolithic of Mediterranean origin is highly likely,
although its existence is mainly noticeable in the negative through its impact
on Late Mesolithic technical systems between 5600 and 5200 cal BC. The dates
obtained at Le Grouin-du-Cou in Vende for Early Neolithic material are
identical to that of the Retzian site of La Gilardire at Pornic, but the main
corpus of dates falls much later. Only with the site of Les Ouchettes at Plassay
in Charente-Maritime, c. 4700 cal BC, are we finally able to document the particular characteristics of the lithic industries of this early Atlantic Neolithic.
By this stage the lithic industries are already in a highly-evolved form, and
show virtually no link with the Mesolithic (Laporte et al. 2002). All dates for
the Early Atlantic Neolithic are contemporary with the Epicardial of
Languedoc, and the stylistic traits of pottery decoration are also convergent
with those of the latter group.
The Central European current: aspects of a colonisation
The extension towards the Atlantic of the Early Neolithic of Central
European origin forms another current of Neolithic expansion, whose nature
is more evident. The arrival of human groups in this case seems beyond question; that much is indicated by the evidence discovered at the sites, and above
all by the invariable character of material assemblages. The Late Bandkeramik
of the Paris Basin (RRBP) is now recognised on the Caen plain at Le Lazzaro
at Colombelles (Billard et al. 2004; Guesquire et al. 2000). Beyond Lower
235
Normandy, the Villeneuve-Saint-Germain which follows the RRBP chronologically is itself well documented in the east of the Armorican Massif, at Le
Haut-Me at Saint-Etienne-en-Cogls (Cassen et al. 1998) and at Pluvignon-La
Bunelais at Betton recently excavated by Stphane Blanchet (Blanchet 2003). In
the lower Loire valley, the site of Le Boulerot at Beaufort-en-Valle excavated
by Bertrand Poissonnier, and numerous surface finds, also indicate a high
density of occupation (Cassen et al. 1999). Finally, recent finds of VilleneuveSaint-Germain sites (Bellevue at Neulliac and Le Dillien at Clgurec) in the
centre of Brittany near Pont-Ivy confirm the extension of that group westwards. Available dates fall at the beginning of the fifth millennium cal BC.
The trapezoidal house plans and ceramic styles are identical to those of
the classic Villeneuve-Saint-Germain sites. Extensive importation of flint from
the Paris Basin into the Armorican Massif immediately places the VilleneuveSaint-Germain in an economic cycle radically different from the Mesolithic
cycle, but one that continues up to the final Neolithic. It is interesting to note
the way in which the system spreads as the distance of importation increases.
Within an initial band, up to 100 km from the sources (a two to four days
walk), Villeneuve-Saint-Germain technology remains stable, with only an
increase in the role of the blades. It is effectively more economical to import
blades or preformed cores than raw material. Between 100 and 200 km, acquisition territories change and tools are made from local material, but still with
a wide range of imports. The transport capacity of the Villeneuve-SaintGermain system is hence greatly superior to that of the late Mesolithic, but
leaving aside this geological determinism, there are no perceptible links
between the Villeneuve-Saint-Germain and the Teviecian.
The two currents of Neolithic expansion evoked through their lithic
industries are very different in their technical traditions. In the RRBP/
Villeneuve-Saint-Germain case, the motor of diffusion seems to be the westward expansion of farming groups, who progressively adapt their economic
system to the environment. In the other case, nothing yet permits us to
associate a typological unit (Monctlus or Betey arrowheads, or pottery of
Mediterranean tradition) with a type of economy and a specific human
group.
MESOLITHIC/NEOLITHIC INTERACTIONS:
THE REVELATIONS OF TECHNICAL SYSTEMS
In the second half of the sixth millennium cal BC, Early Atlantic Neolithic
groups coexisted with others of Late Mesolithic type. Early in the fifth millennium cal BC such a coexistence links the Villeneuve-Saint-Germain and
the Teviecian communities only in Brittany. We shall leave to one side the
236
Grgor Marchand
Epicardial influences on the Villeneuve-Saint-Germain that are particularly

visible in ceramic designs, and which gave birth to what is sometimes known
as the Augy-Sainte-Pallaye style.
Can we grasp the nature of these interactions from archaeological evidence? The character of Mesolithic/Neolithic contacts cannot be determined
simply by demonstrating their contemporaneity, since the time-intervals of the
radiocarbon method do not allow the discrimination of short-term events.
The image of passive hunter-gatherers outside history is one consequence of
this unduly limited way of thinking.
The Neolithic transition is a functional revolution that completely metamorphoses the tool and its means of production. Its effects cannot be minimised and the Mesolithic and Neolithic techniques in western France differ
in the tools, their method of production and their network of stone supply.
Scrapers, burins and borers of the Neolithic tool-kit rarely cross the cultural
boundaries, which means that the function they fulfilled did not interest the
last hunter-gatherers. An exception must, however, be made for the backed
blades of the Teviecian Beg-er-Vil facies, models for which could be found in
the Mediterranean Neolithic. Finally, we must note that Neolithic tools could
easily have been produced by Mesolithic methods, out of local materials, but
the abandonment of the Mesolithic traditions was nonetheless radical. This
absence of porosity between technical systems does not extend, however, to
the arrowheads; killing is atemporal, cross-cultural and over-rated.
The example of the transverse arrowhead must first be considered. It
would seem that the Retzian Chtelet arrowhead, elaborated by flat bifacial
retouch, owes much to the Montclus type of the Cardial groups, produced by
abrupt then flat retouch. The function is the same, it is the way the arrowhead
is made that is different (Fig. 5). It is important to note that the Chtelet
arrowheads of the Retzian do not have any regional antecedents, and that a
Mediterranean origin is the only one possible. The direct adoption of
Montclus arrowheads into Mesolithic systems finds striking illustration at
LEssart at Poitiers, where they comprise approximately 20% of arrowheads in
a series of asymmetrical trapezes (Fig. 6). Such associations can also be documented in south-western France, for example in level 5 of Cuzoul de Gramat
in the Lot (Lacam et al. 1944), at Les Escabasses (Valdeyron 2000) and more
generally in the south-west. Finally, as its geographical position would predict,
the Retzian plays the role of interface between the Cardial and the Teviecian
in the adoption of transverse arrowheads. But once again, in Brittany this
technical concept is retranslated into the local technical language, here with
retouch that is exclusively abrupt.
The multiple metamorphoses of the transverse arrowhead can only be
understood if Mesolithic and Neolithic communities remained sufficiently
stable for archaeology to be able to perceive them, albeit the sites are of
237
Figure 5. Technical transfer from early Neolithic to final Mesolithic in Centre-West: from
Montclus arrowhead to Chtelet arrowhead.
mediocre quality. The metamorphoses occur either through direct borrowing,

in Poitou or in Aquitaine, or by transfer followed by interpretation in the
Retzian and Teviecian. This partial porosity between Mesolithic and Neolithic
technical systemssometimes accompanied by misunderstandingsis not
the prerogative of Atlantic regions. In the current state of research, I am
almost tempted to reverse the classical conclusion; the Mesolithic areas of the
Atlantic Coast, both in Spain and France, seem less active in the Neolithic
transition than those of regions further to the east (Fig. 7). The Mesolithic
legacy can more easily be observed in the Early Neolithic of the central Paris
Basin, of western Languedoc (Barbaza et al. 1984) or of eastern Spain (JuanCabanilles 1985), than in western France. To return to the Montclus arrowhead and to complicate the pattern somewhat, we should note that it only
appears in the French Cardial and not in Italy. Its genesis owes much to the
local Mesolithic groups of Languedoc (the Gazel-Cuzoul group) as Jean
Guilaine, Jean Vaquer and Michel Barbaza have suggested (Barbaza et al.
1984). In this case, we have a pattern of multiple exchanges, first from
Mesolithic to Neolithic, and then from Neolithic to Mesolithic, as one
proceeds towards the west.
The adoption of transverse arrowheads is not a technical improvement or
an environmental adaptation, but rather a technical change depending on
238
Grgor Marchand
Figure 6. LEssart at Poitiers (Vienne). Arrowheads. 16: Montclus arrowheads; 824:

trapezoids. Drawings by F. Blanchet.
cultural choice. The reason behind this change in arrowhead design evidently
lay in the symbolic domain and the success of the new form was dependent
on the social relations at the very heart of Mesolithic society. It supposes first
that Mesolithic communities had links of some kind with Neolithic communities: regular exchanges of goods in a complementary economy, integration
of Neolithic immigrants, or intermarriages. In this last case, if we suppose
that war and hunting are male functions, the Neolithic hunter or warrior
would go to the Mesolithic village in a matrilocal postmarital residence pattern. Whatever happened, it means that Mesolithic society is sufficiently open
to accept the emergence of this new ethnic identity in close spatial proximity
to its own. This partial adoption of Neolithic tools into the Mesolithic system supposes, too, an attractive conception of the Neolithic way of killing
and more generally a positive image of the new technical system. In other
words, changes in lithic technology may reflect a more general attractiveness
of the agro-pastoral way of life to Mesolithic communities. Only the lithics
have been preserved but we cannot exclude the exchange of other things such
as food or organic implements. The poor state of preservation seen in the
239
Figure 7. Technical transfers of arrowheads in several areas of Atlantic Europe.
region leads to chronological imprecision and also to geographical uncertainty. It does not allow us to specify the location of each group in the wider
landscape: whether overlapping Mesolithic and Neolithic territories in a
small area (one in the valley, one on the plateau, and so on) or disconnected
territories across a no-mans land.
240
Grgor Marchand
CONCLUSIONS
The archaeological observations presented in this article are to be placed in a

general perspective of the arrhythmia of the Neolithic transition, recently
formalised by Guilaine (2001). It seems to me, however, that the phases of
resistance and of the redefinition of technical entities are not limited only to
two or three stops on the continent. They can be observed at a regional scale
and are multiple in number. The expansion of the Neolithic was a process
that fed on those interactions, not to say one which only progressed via those
interactions. Arrhythmia is integral to this. Attempting to formalise the technological principles that are observed suggests that contacts between
Mesolithic and Neolithic communities form a coherent subject for study that
can no longer make do with references to isolated pieces, nor simply with the
acknowledgement that there is an overlap between the intervals of confidence
of the radiocarbon dates.
The imprecision in our mastery of time for this period may well prevent
us from getting close to these rhythms of change, but the technical exchanges
are sufficient in scale to be evident even after seven thousand years. The transfer mechanisms are particularly visible in the case of the arrowheads, as these
are objects which condense a maximum of successive technical actions and
where style best expresses itself. These transfers are to be placed within a general framework that recognises two contrasting techno-functional systems.
We have therefore to admit that the interactions mainly concern the areas of
hunting and warfare, both of which are potentially highly symbolic. Isabelle
Sidra (2000) arrived at similar conclusions in her study of the decorative
objects of animal origin in tombs dating from the early Middle Neolithic in
the Paris Basin.
I have been careful not to evoke the manner in which Mediterranean
Neolithic influences spread through western France. It goes without saying
that the impact of these earliest communities was slight; saying more than
that goes beyond the evidence that is available. Clearly there is still room for
more audacious models, for example ceramic-bearing communities living
exclusively by hunting and gathering, or again, groups of Retzian shepherds,
but these lack the slightest proof. Scattered elements from the Late
Mesolithic of the centre-west or of the Paris Basin are found throughout
Brittany as far as its western limit. Population movements may also have
included movements of hunter-gatherers in an intermingling that is still
impossible to describe.
If the smell of cereals from the seventh millennium seems to be a delusion
that afflicts only a few botanists, certain fragrances from Neolithic material
cultures apparently seduced the last Atlantic Mesolithic societies. To the
south of the Loire, we find ourselves in the paradoxical situation of grasping
241
the earliest Neolithic by its effect on the Mesolithic, more than by its own
traces. The transition from the sixth to the fifth millennium cal BC was a
period of identity turmoil in Western France, which translated into technical
and cultural syncreticisms, following technical and symbolic logics that are
still to be explored. To conclude the process, it must be admitted that the
technical recomposition of the Middle Neolithic beginning in 4700 cal BC has
nothing more to reveal to us of the Mesolithic world.
Note. I would like to thank Alasdair Whittle for inviting me to the conference. I am
very grateful to Sheila Marchet for the translation, and to Chris Scarre and Rick
Schulting for interesting emendations.
REFERENCES
BARBAZA, M., GUILAINE, J. & VAQUER, J. 1984. Fondements chrono-culturels du
msolithique en Languedoc Occidental. LAnthropologie 88, 34565.
BILLARD, C., ALIX, P., BONABEL, L., BONNARDIN, S., BOSTYN, F., CASPAR, J.-P.,
DEGOBERTIERE, S., DIETSCH-SELLAMI, M.-F., HAMON, C., MARCOUX, N. &
MARGUERIE, D. 2004. Le site dhabitat du Nolithique ancien de Colombellles Le
Lazzaro (Calvados) Prsentation prliminaire. Interno 5, 2933.
BLANCHET, S. 2003. Betton. ZAC de Pluvignon, La Bunelais. Archopages 11, 39.
CARVALHO, A. F. 2002. Current perspectives on the transition from the Mesolithic to the
Neolithic in Portugal. In E. Badal, J. Bernabeu & B. Mart (eds), El paisaje en el Neoltico
mediterrneo. Saguntum extra-5, 23550.
CASSEN, S., AUDREN, C., HINGANT, S., LANNUZEL, G. & MARCHAND, G. 1998.
Lhabitat Villeneuve-Saint-Germain du Haut-Me (Saint-Etienne-en-Cogls, Ille-et-Vilaine).
CASSEN, S., MARCHAND, G., MENANTEAU, L., POISSONNIER, B., CADOT, R. &
VIAU, Y. 1999. Nolithisation de la France de louest: tmoignages Villeneuve-SaintGermain, Cerny et Chambon sur la Loire angevine et atlantique. Gallia Prhistoire 41,
22351.
DUPONT, C. 2003. Les coquillages alimentaires des dpts et amas coquilliers du Msolithique
rcent/final de la faade atlantique de la France: de la fouille un modle dorganisation
logistique du territoire. Prhistoire, Anthropologie Mditerranennes 12, 22138.
GOULETQUER, P., KAYSER, O., LE GOFFIC, M., LEOPOLD, P., MARCHAND, G. &
MOULLEC, J.-M. 1996. O sont passs les Msolithiques ctiers bretons? Bilan 19851995
des prospections de surface dans le Finistre. Revue Archologique de lOuest 13, 530.
GUESQUIERE, E., MARCIGNY, C., GIAZZON, D. & GAUME, E. 2000. Un village ruban
en Basse-Normandie? Lvaluation du site de la ZAC du Lazzaro Colombelles (Calvados).
GUILAINE, J. 2001. La diffusion de lagriculture en Europe: une hypothse arythmique.
Zephyrus 534, 26772.
JOUSSAUME, R. 1986. La nolithisation du Centre-Ouest. In J. P. Demoule & J. Guilaine (eds),
Le Nolithique de la France, 16179. Paris: Picard.
JUAN-CABANILLES, J. 1985. El complejo epipaleolitico geometrico (facies Cocina) y sus
relationes con el neolitico antiguo. Saguntum 19, 929.
LACAM, R., NIEDERLAENDER, A. & VALLOIS, H.-V. 1944. Le gisement msolithique du
Cuzoul de Gramat (Lot). Archives de lInstitut de Palontologie Humaine 21.
242
Grgor Marchand
LAPORTE, L., MARCHAND, G., SELLAMI, F., OBERLIN, C. & BRIDAULT, A. 2000. Les
occupations msolithiques et du Nolithique ancien sur le site de la Grange Surgres
(Charente-Maritime). Revue Archologique de lOuest 17, 10142.
LAPORTE, L., PICQ, C., CAMMAS, C., MARAMBAT, L., GRUET, Y., GENRE, C.,
MARCHAND, G., FABRE, L. & OBERLIN, C. 2002. Les occupations nolithiques du
vallon des Ouchettes (Plassay, Charente-Maritime). Gallia Prhistoire 44, 1120.
LHELGOUACH, J. 1976. Le tumulus de Dissignac Saint-Nazaire (Loire-Atlantique) et les
problmes du contact entre le phnomne mgalithique et les socits industrie
microlithique. Dissertationes Archaeologicae Gandenses 16, 1429.
MARCHAND, G. 1999. La nolithisation de louest de la France: caractrisation des industries
lithiques. British Archaeological Reports International Series 748, 487 p.
MARCHAND, G. 2003. Les niveaux coquilliers du Msolithique final en Bretagne:
fonctionnement des habitats ctiers et intgration territoriale. Prhistoire, Anthropologie
Mditerranennes 12, 20919.
MARCHAND, G. 2005. Le Msolithique final en Bretagne: une combinaison des faits
archologiques. In G. Marchand & A. Tresset (eds), Unit et diversit des processus de nolithisation sur la faade atlantique de lEurope (74me millnaires avant J.-C.), Mmoire de la
Socit Prhistorique Franaise 36, 6786. Paris: Socit prhistorique franaise (Mmoire 36).
MARCHAND, G., DUPONT, C. & TESSIER, M. 2002. Complment denqute sur la nolithisation: le site du Porteau-Ouest Pornic (Loire-Atlantique). Bulletin de lAssociation Manche
Atlantique pour la Recherche Archologique dans les Iles 15, 4766.
PIRAZZOLI, P. A. 1991. World atlas of Holocene sea-level changes. Elsevier: Elsevier
(Oceanography Series 58).
ROUSSOT-LARROQUE, J. 1977. Nolithisation et Nolithique ancien dAquitaine. Bulletin de
la Socit Prhistorique Franaise 74, 55982.
ROUSSOT-LARROQUE, J. 1990. Le mystre du Lot (suite): Roucadour et le Roucadourien. In
J. Guilaine & X. Gutherz (eds), Autour de Jean Arnal, 55100. Montpellier: Recherches sur
les premires communauts paysannes en Mditerrane occidentale.
ROUSSOT-LARROQUE, J. & VILLES, A. 1988. Fouilles pr et protohistoriques la Lde du
Gurp (Grayan-et-LHpital, Gironde). Revue Archologique de Bordeaux LXXIX, 1960.
SCHULTING, R. & RICHARDS, M. P. 2001. Dating women and becoming farmers: new
palaeodietary and AMS dating evidence from the Breton Mesolithic cemeteries of Tviec
and Hodic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20, 31444.
SIDERA, I. 2000. Animaux domestiques, btes sauvages et objets en matires animales du
Ruban au Michelsberg. De lconomie aux symboles, des techniques la culture. Gallia
Prhistoire 42, 10742.
VALDEYRON, N. 2000. Gographie culturelle du Msolithique rcent/final dans le sud-ouest
de la France. In Rencontres mridionales de Prhistoire rcente. Troisime session 1998, 2334.
Toulouse: Editions Archives dEcologie Prhistorique.
VISSET, L., CYPRIEN, A.-L., CARCAUD, N., OUGUERRAM, A., BARBIER, D. &
BERNARD, J. 2002. Les prmices dune agriculture diversifie la fin du Msolithique dans
le Val de Loire (Loire armoricaine, France). Compte-rendu Palevol 1, 518.
VISSET, L., LHELGOUACH, J. & BERNARD, J. 1996. La tourbire submerge de la pointe
de Kerpenhir Locmariacquer (Morbihan). Etude environnementale et mise en vidence de
dforestations et de pratiques agricoles nolithiques. Revue Archologique de lOuest 13,
7987.
M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in transition: new directions in archaeology, 6789. Cambridge:
Changing places: monuments and the

Neolithic transition in western France
CHRIS SCARRE
RECENT DEBATES ABOUT THE Neolithic transition among British archaeologists have become polarised between two contrasting views of the process. On
one side are those who argue that the Neolithic way of life developed in a
piecemeal way, through the adoption and integration of novel features by
indigenous foraging communities. These features included not only cereals
and livestock, but ground stone tools, pottery and monuments. It has been
argued, indeed, that the change in material culture was more sudden than the
change in subsistence practices, and that in southern Britain agriculture may
not have become fully established until the Middle Bronze Age (Thomas
1999, 1517). On the other side of this debate are those who argue that the
transition to agriculture was rapid and probably traumatic, and that
Neolithic people subsisted mainly on cultivated plants and domestic animals,
and were fully sedentary (Rowley-Conwy 2004). Instead of invoking the
adoption of Neolithic features by indigenous Mesolithic communities, this
latter perspective favours a return to earlier models of population replacement, viewing the Neolithic transition (in Britain at least) as one of incoming farmers displacing and absorbing the native foraging communities.
Abrupt change is indicated by analyses of stable isotopes which reveal an
abandonment or neglect of marine food sources by Neolithic populations in
most areas of north-west Europe, even those living close to the coast, which
contrasts with the marine emphasis of Late Mesolithic coastal communities
(Schulting 2005; Schulting & Richards 2002a; 2002b).
The return to a more radical Neolithic transition implies that the development of monuments, too, must be reconsidered. In constructing monuments, the earliest Neolithic communities of north-west Europe established a
pattern of behaviour that set them apart from their Mesolithic antecedents.
This is not to deny that Mesolithic communities enculturated the landscapes
that they inhabited, attributing special and sometimes sacred significance to
rocks, trees, springs and caves. These may in a sense have become monuments through the activities and deposits that they attracted. The well
Chris Scarre
244
known example of the Stonehenge car park suggests indeed that the construction of post alignments may have a very long pre-Neolithic ancestry
(Cleal et al. 1995). Yet claims that the Oronsay shell middens, for example,
should be seen as Mesolithic monuments are problematic (Warren, this
volume) and Mesolithic demography may simply have been insufficient for
the creation of monuments on a significant scale (Rowley-Conwy 2004,
S84S85). Through their sheer numbers and variety, the monuments that
began to be shaped and constructed in north-west Europe from the fifth millennium cal BC represent a new phenomenon, one that must betoken the
emergence of a novel relationship between people and place.
How rapidly this new relationship developed remains uncertain, and several centuries may have elapsed between the introduction of pottery and
domesticates and the appearance of the first monuments in many areas. The
pre-monument Neolithic may have been relatively short: as little as two or
three centuries in Britain; perhaps as much as a millennium in Portugal (Jorge
2000; Whittle, this volume). In South Scandinavia, the time interval is less
clear. Radiocarbon dates for earthen long barrows cluster in the range
40003600 cal BC, although megalithic tombs (dolmens and passage graves)
first appear in significant numbers around 3500 cal BC (Persson & Sjgren
1995). It should be noted that the majority of long barrow dates in Persson
and Sjgrens list are on charcoal, and it is possible that the old wood
effect is making these monuments appear earlier than they should. A premonument Neolithic of one or two centuries would hence be perfectly
compatible with this information.
The suggestion that monuments were not a feature of the initial Neolithic
poses anew the question of the Mesolithic contribution to the earliest
Neolithic of Atlantic Europe. Put bluntly, are these monuments the consequence of contact and acculturation between incoming farmers and indigenous hunter-gatherers, as was envisaged twenty years ago (Kinnes 1982)?
If so, what was the nature of the Mesolithic contribution? Was it the
forms of the monuments themselves, or did it lie more generally in attitudes
to materials, places and landscape?
NORTH-WEST FRANCE
The appearance of pottery, domesticates and other classic Neolithic features
in north-western France is conventionally attributed to contacts in one of
two directions: either with the Epicardial communities of southern France
and the Ebro valley; or with the Bandkeramik and its successor groups in the
Paris Basin and Normandy. In the west French context the most significant
of these successor groups is that named after the site of Villeneuve-Saint-
MONUMENTS AND THE NEOLITHIC TRANSITION
245
Figure 1. North-west France showing location of sites mentioned in the text.
Germain. This is marked by a scatter of small longhouse communities across

northern France as far as the borders of Brittany which may be dated to the
period 49004700 cal BC, and can plausibly be interpreted as a movement of
colonist farmers (Scarre 2003). One of the most westerly sites of this group
is Le Haut-Me near Fougres (Cassen et al. 1998). This had a classic
246
Chris Scarre
trapezoidal longhouse, represented by the truncated remains of post-holes

dug into the loess. There was also a series of pits, in one of which a block of
local granite had been placed horizontally (Fig. 2). This block had also been
shaped at one end to give it a shouldered form, and the excavators suggested
that it was in fact a menhir that had stood alongside the pit before being
dismantled and lowered into it.
The Le Haut-Me menhir, if that indeed is what it was, may be an early
example of an anthropomorphic standing stone, a foretaste of the Breton
megalithic tradition that was to follow. The adjacent pit could have been a
grave, though no bone was preserved owing to the acidity of the soil. Like
many Villeneuve-Saint-Germain sites, Le Haut-Me also had a number of
polished stone rings, made mainly from locally available schist. One of the
stone rings at Le Haut-Me was, however, of serpentine that came probably
Figure 2. The Early Neolithic longhouse of Le Haut-Me (Ille-et-Vilaine) showing the shaped
granite slab recovered from the possible burial pit (after Cassen et al. 1998).
247
from the Ile de Groix, off the southern coast of the Morbihan, where a serpentine production site is known. It seems therefore that the Early Neolithic
community of Le Haut-Me was obtaining raw materials from Late
Mesolithic groups in adjacent regions. More generally, it has been suggested
that the schist bracelets (and production sites) scattered across Brittany, and
destined for the Villeneuve-Saint-Germain communities, may have been produced in part by Mesolithic groups living close to the outcrops (Marchand &
Tresset 2004).
Other evidence of incipient monumentalism can be found to the south of
the Loire in the context of the Epicardial. If the Villeneuve-Saint-Germain
sites represent a westward expansion of longhouses, pottery and farming,
then the Epicardial south of the Loire may reflect the northward spread of
pottery and farming in association perhaps with circular houses (Laporte &
Marchand 2004). The earliest pottery of the region is generally held to derive
from the Epicardial of southern France; logically this should place these west
French sites in the late sixth or early fifth millennium cal BC, though the
radiocarbon evidence does not yet provide secure support. Radiocarbon
dates from the Grouin du Cou headland at La Tranche-sur-Mer on the
Vende coast overlap in the age range of 56005070 cal BC, although reservations have been raised about the relationship between the charcoal samples
and the Early Neolithic occupation (Cassen 1993; Joussaume et al. 1986). A
date range for these Epicardial sites of western France from the second half
of the sixth millennium cal BC into the early fifth millennium cal BC is
nonetheless most likely (Laporte 2005).
The most important of the Early Neolithic sites south of the Loire is Les
Ouchettes (Laporte & Marchand 2004; Laporte & Picq 2002). A pattern of
eight shallow postholes in the centre of the excavated area defined an oval
structure 7 m across which was interpreted as a house, though one of relatively insubstantial construction. To either side of the door were spreads of
pottery, and directly in front was a circular hearth dated to the mid-fifth millennium cal BC, although the ceramic parallels would be more consistent with
a date a few centuries earlier. It was close to the house on the western side of
the valley that possible traces of a monumental structure were found. A series
of seven limestone blocks lay along the foot of the slope, in some cases with
possible packing stones around them. Though both the age and the origin of
these structures remain open to question, they may be the remains of a fifth
millennium alignment of stone blocks (Laporte & Picq 2002).
Les Ouchettes is one of the key sites in the development of Neolithic
communities in western France, and the character of the pottery indicates
links with the south. One reading of the evidence might be that Neolithic features spread northward along the Atlantic coast of France through maritime
movement. Such movement could have involved small groups of colonist
248
Chris Scarre
farmers setting to sea in skin-covered boats. It is equally possible, however,

that these maritime patterns are simply part of a long established network of
coastal connections.
This spread of Neolithic features might represent partly the movement of
people and partly one of ideas, techniques, social practices and (of course)
domesticates, that were quickly adopted by some indigenous communities,
and resisted or rejected by others. Above all, however, what we may be witnessing in this area south of the Loire, in the early fifth millennium cal BC, is
a renegotiation of social identities that may have been the consequence of
these changes.
At Germignac, a short distance inland from Les Ouchettes, were found
the disturbed remains of a double burial comprising a young adult female
and a child of 910 years, associated with 3288 shell beads and four perforated polished stone rings (Gaillard & Gomez 1984; Laporte & Gomez de
Soto 2001). The fact that the polished stone rings are not of schist distinguishes them from the stone rings common in Villeneuve-Saint-Germain
contexts. Burials richly furnished with shell ornaments are known from
southern France in Early Neolithic contexts, from the Paris basin in
Bandkeramik contexts, and from the Late Mesolithic cemeteries of Tviec
and Hodic in southern Brittany. The Germignac grave goods may hence
have framed a singular identity, one drawing perhaps on regional traditions
of some antiquity along with new ideas and practices from the east and
south. Though formally Neolithic by virtue of the polished stone rings, there
is nothing to exclude the possibility that the woman and child buried at
Germignac belonged to an indigenous community rapidly coming to terms
with a changing world.
Another kind of response is found at other sites in the same region. At La
Goumoizire on the east bank of the River Vienne, some 45 km south-east of
Poitiers, a small group of cist burials was discovered. These are among the
earliest Neolithic structures in this region, dating probably to the second
quarter of the fifth millennium cal BC (Airvaux 1996; Patte 1971). They were
small box-like structures of limestone slabs and cover stones, partially buried
in the ground. Access must have been via the roof, and it is possible that each
was covered by a small mound, though of these (despite recent new excavations) nothing survives. The cists held multiple inhumations: six adults and
two children in grave 1, six adults and an infant in grave 5. At first sight, it
may be tempting to compare grave 2 (containing two children) with the triple
child burial of Tviec C. A significant difference, however, lies in the fact that
many of the individual corpses had undergone a process of reduction and are
incomplete. In grave 5, and possibly in grave 2 also, bundles of bones from
other bodies had been placed underneath the principal inhumation to form a
kind of cradle for it.
249
A second site in the Poitiers region is La Jardelle at Dissay, on the valley floor of the River Clain. The location is very similar to that of La
Goumoizire but at La Jardelle there are remains of ten cist graves, three of
them lying within elongated ditched enclosures that appear to have been
palisade trenches edging a low mound. Two of the three were excavated, and
the cist graves were found to contain traces of single inhumations, though
these had been badly disturbed by the plough (Fig. 3). Two of the structures
have dates of around 45004300 cal BC, and thus are perhaps a few centuries
later than La Goumoizire (Pautreau et al. 2003). The form of these elongated enclosures invites close comparison with the long enclosures or long
mounds of Passy and Balloy in northern Burgundy, which are dated to the
mid-fifth millennium BC (Mordant 1998). Thus here at La Jardelle, long
funerary enclosures suggest early links with the east. Once again we may be
seeing local communities in the process of framing new kinds of identities,
and drawing in the process on a diversity of traditions both indigenous and
extraneous.
During the course of the fifth millennium cal BC, these modest funerary
monuments south of the Loire are succeeded by long mounds and passage
graves that are often impressive in their size and construction. The earliest
may date to the middle of the fifth millennium cal BC (even earlier, if the dates
from Bougon are to be believed: Mohen & Scarre 2002). Recent excavations
at Priss-la-Charrire have revealed how in this particular case a massive
100-metre long mound containing two separate passage graves developed
from a small dry-stone rotunda enclosing a modest megalithic tomb (Scarre
et al. 2003). The Priss sequence suggests a process of growing and indeed
accretional monumentalism during the second half of the fifth millennium
cal BC, a process that may have had its origins in modest cist graves of the
kind seen at La Goumoizire.
The first Neolithic monuments of western France south of the Loire
appear on present evidence to date no earlier than the second quarter of the
fifth millennium cal BC. They are hence unrelated chronologically to the
Neolithic transition in this region, which must be placed at least half a millennium earlier. Thus in this part of western France, there must have been a
substantial pre-monument Neolithic lasting five centuries or more. It may be
significant that links can be drawn between the earliest cist graves and the
Cerny monuments of the Paris basin. It was in the context of those connections that new burial traditions appear to have developed. The same is true of
Normandy, where Passy-type monuments have been discovered in the Caen
plain, notably at Rots and Fleury (Chancerel & Desloges 1998). At Rots, as
at La Jardelle and La Goumoizire, stone slabs were used within the grave pit
to create a burial cist, a use of stone that is absent in the Passy monuments
of the Paris basin. These sites must accordingly be regarded as variations on
250
Chris Scarre
Figure 3. The Neolithic cemetery of La Jardelle at Dissay (Vienne) (after Pautreau et al. 2003).
251
a theme, though one that cannot be traced back before the second quarter of
the fifth millennium cal BC.
BRITTANY
West of Normandy and north of the Loire, the peninsula of Brittany may be
viewed as a kind of cul-de-sac in relation to a Neolithic transition spreading
from the east and south. It was here, one might expect, that the two traditionsVilleneuve-Saint-Germain and Epicardialshould have met and
merged. The particular status of Brittany in this debate is enhanced by two
other factors: the number and scale of its Neolithic monuments, and the presence of Late Mesolithic cemeteries that allow the question of continuity to be
explored in a way that is not possible for adjacent regions.
The cemeteries of Tviec and Hodic, both today on small islands off the
southern coast of Morbihan, have frequently been cited as possible
antecedents for the Breton Neolithic tradition of monumental tombs (e.g.
Case 1976; Scarre 1992). The argument draws both on the presence of collective burials and on the construction of small cairns on top of the graves,
most notably at Tviec (Pquart et al. 1937). Tviec grave A had an edging of
small vertical stone slabs around the base of the grave pit, forming a rudimentary cist; Hodic grave K an arrangement of three flat slabs, two placed
horizontally over the head of the corpse, and a third standing semi-vertical
as if intended as a grave marker (Pquart & Pquart 1954). Cassen cites the
semi-vertical stone of Hodic grave K in discussing the standing stones of the
southern Morbihan, noting that the latter could themselves be the work of
the last Mesolithic societies, or of societies that had only recently become
Neolithic (Cassen et al. 2000, 2034).
The chronology of the Tviec and Hodic graves revealed by an AMS
dating programme places them in the second half of the sixth millennium cal
BC (Schulting 1999; 2005). This dating is especially significant as it makes
them contemporary with the earliest Neolithic south of the Loire. The flint
industries are attributed to the Tviecien, a Late Mesolithic grouping present
throughout Brittany and extending along the south coast as far as the mouth
of the River Vilaine (Marchand 1999; 2005; Rozoy 1978). Beyond the Vilaine,
in the area of the Loire estuary, the Late Mesolithic is represented by the
Retzien. Contact between these Late Mesolithic groups and the earliest
Neolithic communities south of the Loire is shown in a number of ways. In
the Retzien, alongside Mesolithic flint types, techniques derived from an
Early Neolithic of Mediterranean origin are present. In particular, the type
of arrowhead known as the armature du Chtelet indicates links with
Neolithic industries further south. The Retzien may indeed be considered the
Chris Scarre
252
filter between the Breton Mesolithic and the Aquitainian Neolithic of

Mediterranean origin (Marchand 2005).
The most powerful evidence of contact between the southern Morbihan
and neighbouring Neolithic communities is the pit sealed beneath the long
mound of Er Grah that contained two complete cattle skeletons (Tresset
2000; 2005; Tresset & Vigne, this volume). Study of the remains indicates that
they had been partially defleshed but that the ligaments and vital organs had
been left in place. Radiocarbon dates place them in the final centuries of the
sixth millennium cal BC; that is to say, in a Late Mesolithic context. It is likely
that these cattle were obtained by the Late Mesolithic groups of the region
through contact with Neolithic communities south of the Loire. They predate the arrival of the Villeneuve-Saint-Germain communities from the east.
The careful deposition of the remains suggests that they were exotic imports,
similar in status perhaps to the cattle remains found in a Late Mesolithic
context at Ferriters Cove in southern Ireland (Tresset 2000; 2005: Woodman
et al. 1999). The discovery of two potsherds with rocker pattern decoration
beneath the passage grave of La Table des Marchand close to Er Grah
provides confirmation of contacts with southern Neolithic groups (Laporte
2005).
Given these southern contacts it is difficult to determine whether the
cemeteries of Tviec and Hodic should be interpreted exclusively in terms of
indigenous development among Breton Mesolithic communities or should
instead be seen as a response to external pressures and novel concepts. In
favour of the latter view is the fact that the cemeteries are found in exactly
that part of Brittany where evidence of such contacts has been found. This is
also the part of Brittany, with its estuaries and bays, offshore islands and
marine-focused Late Mesolithic subsistence economy, that would have been
most open to maritime contact with the Loire estuary and areas to the south.
It is also the area that is the main focus for the famous decorated standing
stones that may be the earliest of the Breton megalithic monuments.
STANDING STONES
Brittany is a land of many menhirs. Giot estimates the surviving number of
menhirs at probably between 1100 and 1200, with the three western dpartements of Morbihan, Finistre and Ctes dArmor being the richest in monuments of this type (Giot in Giot et al. 1998, 5312). Some are simple irregular
blocks of stone, only a metre or two in height, and scarcely distinguishable
from ordinary boulders; others, conversely, are tall shapely monoliths, such
as the famous menhir of Kerloas, at 9.5 m the tallest prehistoric menhir still
standing in western Europe. Its fine shaping, evident from the smoothed
253
granite surfaces and the facetting visible on its narrower sides, has been compromised by the lightning strike that truncated its apex. Weighing some 90
tonnes, the Kerloas menhir is testimony to the organisation and commitment
of the Neolithic communities who erected it; the probable source of the
material is located 2.5 km downslope (Giot in Giot et al. 1998, 516).
An early date can be suggested for several of these menhirs. At Saint-Just
in central Brittany, three of the large quartz menhirs (nos 17, 19 and 20) of
the southern Le Moulin alignment were later enclosed within a rubble platform or cairn; hearths on the ground surface beneath the platform gave early
to mid-fifth millennium cal BC dates (5550120 BP (45704100 cal BC) foyer
2; 5660120 BP (47304380 cal BC) foyer 3; 570080 BP (49404430 cal BC)
foyer 4), and while the stratigraphic relationship is not beyond question they
may be taken to date the erection of the quartz menhirs (Le Roux et al. 1989,
267). The fallen menhir by the entrance to the northern passage at La CroixSaint-Pierre, a kilometre to the west, may be even earlier. Charcoal from its
socket gave a date of 607080 BP (52704740 cal BC) (Briard et al. 1995). A
similar date has been suggested for the menhir at Lilia on the north coast of
Brittany, which is within the current intertidal zone and is completely submerged at high water. Its visible height is a little over 2 m (2.05 m in Devoir
1912) and its summit is in fact 4.4 m below the level of the highest tides. If we
assume that the stone was originally erected on dry ground, it must have been
raised at a time when sea level was 6 m or more below its present level. A date
of the fifth millennium cal BC at the latest has been proposed on this basis (Le
Roux 1997; 1998). Against this proposal, the gradual tectonic uplift to which
northern Brittany is subject (Giot 1990, 9), together with uncertainties over
past tidal regimes in these deeply inset bays, urge a measure of caution.
The most numerous group of potentially early menhirs is located, however, not in central or western Brittany but in the southern Morbihan. Their
early dating rests on two lines of evidence. The first comes from the recent
excavations at Locmariaquer. These have revealed the sockets of an alignment of menhirs associated with an old ground surface, a long mound (Er
Grah), and the massive broken fragments of the Grand Menhir Bris
(LHelgouach 1997). The second is the recognition that several well known
megalithic monuments, mainly passage graves, incorporate menhirs or menhir fragments in their structure. This is an observation which has its origins
in the nineteenth century, when writers such as De Closmadeuc and De
Mortillet observed that many of the carvings seen in megaliths were partially
concealed by neighbouring stones and must have been carved before those
were placed in position. De Mortillet in particular concluded that certain
stones had originally been carved for a different purpose, but were subsequently reused (Cassen 2000; De Mortillet 1894). The more specific realisation that some had been decorated menhirs goes back to the period
254
Chris Scarre
immediately before the First World War (e.g. Le Rouzic 1914), but took on a
new significance in the 1980s with the work of LHelgouach (LHelgouach
1983) and with Le Rouxs discoveries at Gavrinis (Le Roux 1984).
It would make for a neat and tidy narrative if the earliest menhirs could
be shown to be unshaped blocks of stone, close in form and appearance to
the natural boulders whose veneration and established significance may have
formed the inspiration for the whole standing stone phenomenon. The derivation of menhirs from natural boulders is a step that may easily be envisaged. Indeed, one could imagine that the raising of large unshaped monoliths
soon led to the grouping of similar blocks to create megalithic tombs and
chambers. In this way the veneration of natural boulders might be followed
by the raising of standing stones by early Neolithic communities. That much
is suggested by the example of Kerlescan, within the same region, where the
stone rows appear to have been created simply by levering up and arranging
in rows a series of natural blocks and boulders (Sellier 1995). In other
casesat Lostmarch on the Crozon peninsula, or at Saint-Just (Scarre
2002)rows of menhirs were clearly lined up on natural outcrops or pillars,
again suggesting that the purpose of the standing stones was to embellish a
feature already perceptible in the surface geology. Serge Cassen, too, has
remarked a relationship between alignments and rock outcrops in his study
of lesser known sites in the Carnac region (Cassen & Vaquero Lastres 2003).
The craggy landscapes of Brittany and indeed of other Atlantic coastlines
might thus be the source not only of many of the materials but also the inspiration for the whole megalithic tradition of Neolithic north-west Europe.
Against this seductive hypothesis, however, is the evidence that many of
the earliest menhirs were not brute blocks set on end but were elaborately
smoothed, carved and decorated. The earliest menhirs of the southern
Morbihan, for example, were not unshaped blocks; many of them carry
carved motifs, but no less noteworthy is the fact that their entire surfaces have
been shaped and smoothed. Even the massive Grand Menhir Bris, 20 m tall
and weighing 280 tonnes, was ground and pounded into a desired shape, with
clearly facetted surfaces.
There are in fact three groups of shaped menhirs in Brittany: in northwest Finistre, the Saint-Malo area and the southern Morbihan (Fig. 4) All
of them may have been carved and erected within a generation or so, at some
point in the early or mid-fifth millennium cal BC. The Morbihan and SaintMalo groups include decorated examples, and all three groups are relatively
close to the coast. If coastal traffic was important, then we may wonder
whether the creation of menhirs in the southern Morbihan might not have
inspired other communities to attempt similar feats. This would be especially
relevant if the massive effort represented by the erection of the Grand Menhir
Bris depended upon the drawing together of communities from across the
255
Figure 4. Early decorated menhir traditions of Brittany.
whole of Brittany, and perhaps beyond. Is it possible that those who shaped
and raised the menhirs of Kerloas in Finistre and of Saint-Samson near
Saint-Malo had actually participated in the erection of the Grand Menhir
Bris?
If these are indeed the earliest Breton standing stones, then their form
would suggest an emphasis on artificiality, on the creation of something
striking, new and decidedly unnatural in appearance. The fact that the
shaped menhirs of the southern Morbihan can now confidently be assigned
to the fifth millennium cal BC opens the possibility that those of Bas-Lon are
equally early in date. That does not necessarily mean that they are the earliest menhirs of north-western Finistre, nor that shaped menhirs preceded
unshaped standing stones in this region. But it does suggest that no simple
sequence of unshaped to shaped stones (pace Tilley 2004, 85) can be applied.
Thus, rather than a smooth transition from the veneration of boulders and
outcrops, these particular Breton menhirs may have marked a distinct break
256
Chris Scarre
with the past. Whether they are seen as axes or phalluses (Cassen et al. 2000,
65781; Le Pontois 1929, 71; Tilley 2004), they make no attempt to reproduce
natural rocky features.
CONCLUSION
The early menhirs of the southern Morbihan date probably to the middle
centuries of the fifth millennium cal BC, and a similar dating may be suggested for analogous monuments in other regions of Brittany. Long mounds
and chambered tombs began to be constructed at about the same time, or
very slightly later. Several authors, drawing overtly or implicitly on the apparent richness of the Late Mesolithic of southern Morbihan, have suggested
that some at least of the early menhirs were raised by Late Mesolithic people
or their immediate descendants (Whittle 2000, 253), by the very last
Mesolithic societies or by societies that had only recently made the transition
to the Neolithic way of life (Boujot & Cassen in Cassen et al. 2000, 203). The
implication of this conclusion is that the concept of the standing stone may
owe something to earlier understandings of the landscape, and to the veneration of natural features such as boulders and rock outcrops. There are many
ethnographic examples of these practices, such as the holy stone on the
Kanin Nos peninsula of Arctic Russia, venerated by the Nenets people who
deposited offerings at its foot (Ovsyannikov & Terebikhin 1994).
The derivation of the cult of standing stones from the veneration of natural boulders is in many ways entirely plausible, and boulders and outcrops
may indeed have provided the inspiration and meaning that lay behind the
construction of megalithic monuments. It remains difficult to determine
whether indigenous communities and beliefs played any significant part in
this process. South of the Loire, there appears to be an interval of several centuries between the Neolithic transition and the first monuments. It is difficult
to argue that these monuments represent the transformation of indigenous
practices that were materialised in new ways from the very outset of the
Neolithic. In Brittany, the sequence is less clear. The widespread distribution
of schist rings (Pailler in Cassen et al. 2000), and the recent discovery of
Villeneuve-Saint-Germain sites in the Morbihan interior (Marchand et al.
2006) may suggest that most of the Breton peninsula came within the ambit
of early farming communities during the early centuries of the fifth millennium cal BC, though some of the schist rings may date to the middle or later
part of that millennium (Pailler in Cassen et al. 2000). Pollen evidence from
the Kerpenhir core near Locmariaquer indicated a sudden and dramatic
decline in forest cover around the turn of the sixth/fifth millennium cal BC.
Although the evidence from this core has been disputed, the possibility that
257
forest was cleared and cultivation begun several centuries before the first
standing stones were erected cannot be excluded (Visset et al. 1996).
Several of the motifs on the decorated standing stones suggest a Neolithic
attribution. It is true that the axe-plough has been reinterpreted as a whale,
and the quadrupeds considered either domestic or wild (Cassen et al. 2000;
Whittle 2000). The carvings of axes, however, are representations of an artefact (the polished stone axe) which is unknown from Late Mesolithic contexts. The long mounds that accompany, or shortly follow, the decorated
standing stones in the mid-late fifth millennium cal BC can also directly be
related to Neolithic forms. The plan of long mounds such as Le Manio 2 in
southern Brittany finds a close parallel in the plan of the Villeneuve-SaintGermain longhouse of Le Haut-Me (Laporte et al. 2002; Laporte & Tinevez
2004). This does not exclude the possibility of an indigenous contribution to
these new monument forms. Hodder, for example, argued in Brittany for the
subtle interlacing of indigenous principles and the Danubian principles of
social domination centred on the dramatic idea of linear monumentality
(Hodder 1990, 233).
Whereas in western France, south of the Loire, there appears to be an
interval of several centuries between the Neolithic transition and the earliest
monuments, in Brittany the evidence remains ambiguous. Indigenous beliefs
and practices may have contributed to the development of Early Neolithic
monument forms, but it is also possible that Late Mesolithic communities
had already themselves embarked on a process of transformation through
prolonged contacts with Neolithic neighbours. As much as a millennium may
have separated the first farming communities south of the Loire from the
Neolithic transition on the Morbihan coast. The process was one of renegotiation that may have encompassed relationships between people and people,
between people and places, and between people and material culture. It was
in the course of this that some communities began to commemorate the
deador perhaps the powers of placeby appropriating and manipulating
stones, earth and timbers. The monuments are novel in form, drawing on
ideologies of longhouse and axe. They represent something new, but do
they also draw upon the past, upon the beliefs and practices of indigenous
Late Mesolithic communities? The question is difficult to resolve, given the
contrasting materialisations of foraging and farming societies, and the
answer may well vary from region to region.
In seeking the origin of megalithic monuments, we have remarked how
the craggy landscapes of Atlantic Europe may have inspired their construction, as several authors have proposed (Bradley 1998; Scarre 2004; Tilley &
Bennett 2001). The new monumentality could as well have been the response
of incoming farming communities to these landscapes, however, as a transformation in the behaviour of indigenous foraging groups, who may have
258
Chris Scarre
envisaged these landscapes in entirely different ways. The landscape beliefs of

Mesolithic communities might have played a role in the inception of megaliths, but the scarcity of Mesolithic monuments and the presence of a premonument Neolithic suggests that it was the advent of farming groups or
farming ideologies that laid the crucial foundations.
REFERENCES
AIRVAUX, J. 1996. Dcouverte dune nouvelle spulture nolithique en ciste la Goumoizire
de Saint-Martin-la-Rivire (Valdivienne). Premiers rsultats. Le Pays Chauvinois 34, 65105.
BRADLEY, R. 1998. Ruined buildings, ruined stones: enclosures, tombs and natural places in
the Neolithic of south-west England. World Archaeology 30, 1322.
BRIARD, J., GAUTIER, M. & LEROUX, G. 1995. Les mgalithes et les tumulus de Saint-Just,
Ille-et-Vilaine. Paris: Comit des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques.
CASE, H. 1976. Acculturation and the earlier Neolithic in western Europe. In S. J. de Laet (ed.),
Acculturation and continuity in Atlantic Europe, 4558. Brugge: De Tempel.
CASSEN, S. 1993. Le Nolithique le plus ancien de la faade atlantique de la France. Munibe 45,
11929.
CASSEN, S. 2000. Stelae reused in the passage graves of western France: history of research and
sexualization of the carvings. In A. Ritchie (ed.), Neolithic Orkney in its European context,
CASSEN, S., AUDREN, C., HINGUANT, S., LANNUZEL, G. & MARCHAND, G. 1998.
Lhabitat Villeneuve-Saint-Germain du Haut-Me (Saint-Etienne-en-Cogls, Ille-et-Vilaine).
CASSEN, S., BOUJOT, C. & VAQUERO, J. 2000. Elments darchitecture. Exploration dun
tertre funraire Lannec er Gadouer (Erdeven, Morbihan). Constructions et reconstructions
dans le Nolithique morbihannais. Propositions pour une lecture symbolique. Chauvigny:
Association des Publications Chauvinoises.
CASSEN, S. & VAQUERO LASTRES, J. 2003. Les marches du Palais. Recherches archologiques
sur alignements de stles et tertres funraires nolithiques autour de la baie de Quiberon
(Morbihan). Nantes: Laboratoire de Prhistoire rcente et Protohistoire de lOuest de la
France.
CHANCEREL, A. & DESLOGES, J. 1998. Les spultures pr-mgalithiques de BasseNormandie. In J. Guilaine (ed.), Spultures dOccident et genses des mgalithismes, 91106.
Paris: Errance.
CLEAL, R. M. J., WALKER, K. E. & MONTAGUE, R. 1995. Stonehenge in its landscape.
London: English Heritage.
DE MORTILLET, A. 1894. Les figures sculptes sur les monuments mgalithiques de France.
Revue de lEcole dAnthropologie de Paris 1894, 273307.
DEVOIR, A. 1912. Tmoins mgalithiques des variations des lignes de rivages armoricains.
Bulletin de la Socit Archologique du Finistre 39, 22039.
GAILLARD, J. & GOMEZ, J. 1984. La tombe nolithique de Germignac (Charente-Maritime).
Gallia Prhistoire 27, 97119.
GIOT, P.-R. 1990. Le niveau de la mer: changeant, fluctuant, mouvant . . . Bulletin dinformation
de lAssociation Manche-Atlantique pour la recherche archologique dans les Iles 3, 516.
GIOT, P.-R., MONNIER, J.-L. & LHELGOUACH, J. 1998. Prhistoire de le Bretagne (second
edition). Rennes: Editions Ouest-France.
HODDER, I. 1990. The domestication of Europe. Structure and contingency in Neolithic societies.
Oxford: Blackwell.
259
JORGE, S. O. 2000. Domesticating the land: the first agricultural communities in Portugal.
Journal of Iberian Archaeology 2, 4398.
JOUSSAUME, R., BOIRAL, M. & TERS, M. 1986. Sites prhistoriques submergs La
Tranche-sur-Mer (Vende). Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise 83, 42335.
KINNES, I. 1982. Les Fouaillages and megalithic origins. Antiquity 56, 2430.
LAPORTE, L. 2005. Nolithisations de la faade atlantique du Centre-Ouest et de lOuest de la
France. In G. Marchand & A. Tresset (eds), Unit et diversit des processus de nolithisation
sur la faade atlantique de lEurope (6e-4e millnaires avant J.-C.), 99125. Paris: Socit
Prhistorique Franaise.
LAPORTE, L. & GOMEZ DE SOTO, J. 2001. Germignac et Lamrac: perles discodes et
anneaux-disques dans le Centre-Ouest de la France. Revue Archologique de lOuest 18,
1326.
LAPORTE, L., JOUSSAUME, R. & SCARRE, C. 2002. The perception of space and geometry; megalithic monuments of west-central France in their relationship to the landscape. In
C. Scarre (ed.), Monuments and landscape in Atlantic Europe, 7383. London: Routledge.
LAPORTE, L. & MARCHAND, G. 2004. Une structure dhabitat circulaire dans le Nolithique
ancient du Centre-Ouest de la France. Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise 101,
5573.
LAPORTE, L. & PICQ, C. 2002. Les occupations nolithiques du vallon des Ouchettes (Plassay,
Charente-Maritime). Gallia Prhistoire 44, 1120.
LAPORTE, L. & TINEVEZ, J.-Y. 2004. Neolithic houses and chambered tombs of western
France. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14, 21734.
LHELGOUACH, J. 1983. Les idoles quon abat . . . (ou les vicissitudes des grandes stles de
Locmariaquer). Bulletin de la Socit Polymatique du Morbihan 110, 5768.
LHELGOUACH, J. 1997. De la lumire au tnbres. In J. LHelgouach, C.-T. Le Roux &
J. Lecornec (eds), Art et Symboles du Mgalithisme Europen. Actes du 2me Colloque
International sur lArt Mgalithique, Nantes 1995, 10723. Rennes: Revue Archologique de
lOuest, supplment no. 8.
LE PONTOIS, B. 1929. Le Finistre prhistorique. Paris: Publications de lInstitut International
dAnthropologie.
LE ROUX, C.-T. 1984. A propos des fouilles de Gavrinis (Morbihan): nouvelles donnes sur
lart mgalithique armoricain. Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise 81, 2405.
LE ROUX, C.-T. 1997. Aspects non funraires du mgalithisme armoricain. In A. Rodrguez
Casal (ed.), O Neoltico Atlntico e as Orixes do Megalitismo, 23344. Santiago de
Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.
LE ROUX, C.-T. 1998. Du menhir la statue dans le mgalithisme armoricain. In J. Guilaine
(ed.), Actes du 2me Colloque International sur la Statuaire Mgalithique, 21734. Lattes:
Archologie en Languedoc 22.
LE ROUX, C.-T., LECERF, Y. & GAUTIER, M. 1989. Les mgalithes de Saint-Just (Ille-etVilaine) et la fouille des alignements du Moulin de Cojou. Revue Archologique de lOuest 6,
529.
LE ROUZIC, Z. 1914. Carnac: menhirs-statues avec signes figuratifs et amulettes ou idoles des
dolmens du Morbihan. Nantes: Imprimerie Armoricaine.
MARCHAND, G. 1999. La Nolithisation de louest de la France. Caractrisation des industries
lithiques. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
MARCHAND, G. 2005. Le Msolithique final en Bretagne: une combinaison des faits
archologiques. In G. Marchand & A. Tresset (eds), Unit et diversit des processus de
nolithisation sur la faade atlantique de lEurope (6e4e millnaires avant J.-C.), 6786. Paris:
Socit Prhistorique Franaise.
MARCHAND, G., PAILLER, Y. & TOURNAY, G. 2006. Carrment lOuest! Indices du
Villeneuve-Saint-Germain au centre de la Bretagne (le Dillien Clgurec et Bellevue
Neulliac; Morbihan). Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise 103, 51933.
260
Chris Scarre
MARCHAND, G. & TRESSET, A. 2004. Derniers chasseurs-cueilleurs et premiers agriculteurs

sur la faade atlantique de lEurope. In J. Guilaine (ed.), Aux marges de grands foyers du
Nolithique. Priphries dbitrices ou cratrices?, 25780. Paris: Errance.
MOHEN, J.-P. & SCARRE, C. 2002 Les tumulus de Bougon (Deux-Svres): complexe
mgalithique du Ve et IVe millnaire. Paris: Errance.
MORDANT, D. 1998. Emergence dune architecture funraire monumentale (alles de la Seine
et de lYonne). In J. Guilaine (ed.), Spultures dOccident et genses des mgalithismes, 7388.
Paris: Errance.
OVSYANNIKOV, O. V. & TEREBIKHIN, N. M. 1994. Sacred space in the culture of the Arctic
regions. In D. L. Carmichael, J. Hubert, B. Reeves & A. Schanche (eds), Sacred sites, sacred
places, 4481. London: Routledge.
PATTE, E. 1971. Quelques spultures du Poitou du Msolithique au Bronze ancien. Gallia
PAUTREAU, J.-P., FARAGO-SZEKERES, B. & MORNAIS, P. 2003. La ncropole nolithique
de la Jardelle Dissay (Vienne). LArchologue 64, 479.
PQUART, M. & PQUART, S.-J. 1954. Hodic. Deuxime station ncropole msolithique du
Morbihan. Antwerp: De Sikkel.
PQUART, M., PQUART, S.-J., BOULE, M. & VALLOIS, H. V. 1937. Tviec: stationncropole msolithique du Morbihan. Paris: Archives de lInstitut de Palontologie Humaine 18.
PERSSON, P. & SJGREN, K.-G. 1995. Radiocarbon and the chronology of Scandinavian
megalithic graves. Journal of European Archaeology 3, 5988.
ROWLEY-CONWY, P. 2004. How the west was lost. A reconsideration of agricultural origins
in Britain, Ireland, and southern Scandinavia. Current Anthropology 45, S83S113.
ROZOY, J.-G. 1978. Les derniers chasseurs. LEpipalolithique en France et en Belgique: essai de
synthse. Charleville: Bulletin de la Socit Archologique Champenoise.
SCARRE, C. 1992. The early Neolithic of France of western France and megalithic origins in
Atlantic Europe. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 11, 12154.
SCARRE, C. 2002. A place of special meaning: interpreting prehistoric monuments through
landscape. In B. David & M. Wilson (eds), Inscribed landscapes: marking and making place,
15475. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
SCARRE, C. 2003. Pioneer farmers? The Neolithic transition in western Europe. In P. Bellwood
& C. Renfrew (eds), Examining the language/farming dispersal hypothesis, 395407.
SCARRE, C. 2004. Diverse inspirations: landscapes, longhouses and the Neolithic monument
forms of northern France. In G. Burenhult (ed.), Stones and bones. Formal disposal of the
dead in Atlantic Europe during the Mesolithic-Neolithic interface 60003000 BC, 3952.
Oxford: Archaeopress.
SCARRE, C., LAPORTE, L. & JOUSSAUME, R. 2003. Long mounds and megalithic origins
in western France: recent excavations at Priss-la-Charrire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society 67, 23551.
SCHULTING, R. J. 1999. Nouvelles dates AMS Tviec et Hodic (Quiberon, Morbihan).
Rapport prliminaire. Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise 96, 2037.
SCHULTING, R. 2005. Comme la mer qui se retire: les changements dans lexploitation des
resources marines du Msolithique au Nolithique en Bretagne. In G. Marchand &
A. Tresset (eds), Unit et diversit des processus de nolithisation sur la faade atlantique de
lEurope (6e4e millnaires avant J.-C.), 16371. Paris: Socit Prhistorique Franaise.
SCHULTING, R. J. & RICHARDS, M. P. 2002a. The wet, the wild and the domesticated: the
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition on the west coast of Scotland. European Journal of
SCHULTING, R. J. & RICHARDS, M. P. 2002b. Finding the coastal Mesolithic in southwest
Britain: AMS dates and stable isotope results on human remains from Caldey Island, south
Wales. Antiquity 76, 101125.
261
SELLIER, D. 1995. Elments de reconstitution du paysage prmgalithique sur le site des

alignements de Kerlescan (Carnac, Morbihan) partir de critres gomorphologiques. Revue
Archologique de lOuest 12, 2141.
THOMAS, J. 1999. Understanding the Neolithic. London: Routledge.
TILLEY, C. 2004. The materiality of stone. Explorations in landscape phenomenology. Oxford:
Berg.
TILLEY, C. & BENNETT, W. 2001. An archaeology of supernatural places: the case of West
Penwith. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 7, 33562.
TRESSET, A. 2000. Early husbandry in Atlantic areas. Animal introductions, diffusions of techniques and native acculturation at the north-west fringe of Europe. In J. Henderson (ed.),
The prehistory and early history of Atlantic Europe, 1732. Oxford: British Archaeological
Reports.
TRESSET, A. 2005. La place changeante des bovins dans les bestiaries du Msolithique final et
du Nolithique dArmorique et des rgions adjacentes. In G. Marchand & A. Tresset (eds),
Unit et diversit des processus de nolithisation sur la faade atlantique de lEurope (6e4e
millnaires avant J.-C.), 27386. Paris: Socit Prhistorique Franaise.
VISSET, L., LHELGOUACH, J. & BERNARD, J. 1996. La tourbire submerge de la pointe
de Kerpenhir Locmariaquer (Morbihan). Etude environnementale et mise en vidence de
dforestations et de pratiques agricoles nolithiques. Revue Archologique de lOuest 13,
7987.
WHITTLE, A. 2000. Very like a whale: menhirs, motifs and myths in the Mesolithic-Neolithic
transition of northwest Europe. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10, 24359.
WOODMAN, P., ANDERSON, E. & FINLAY, N. 1999. Excavations at Ferriters Cove,
198395: Last foragers, first farmers in the Dingle Peninsula. Bray: Wordwell.
The neolithisation of the Scheldt basin

in western Belgium
PHILIPPE CROMB & BART VANMONTFORT
INTRODUCTION
THIS PAPER FOCUSES on the neolithisation process in two different landscape
zones of the Scheldt basin extending over western Belgium: first, the northern
coversand lowland bordering the Atlantic coast and secondly the southern
loess area of Middle Belgium. Although the neolithisation of both areas
seems to have had a different course, there is evidence of continuous and
increasing contact and interaction between population groups occupying
each region. In the loess hill land, neolithisation can be distinguished in two
phases, separated by an archaeological hiatus of several centuries. The first
phase is related to the arrival of the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) and the
Groupe de Blicquy (BQY), while the second is connected with the Michelsberg
culture (MK) occupation of the area. Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine the place of local hunter-gatherers in this process. In the sandy lowland,
on the other hand, Mesolithic hunter-gatherers culturally belonging to the
Swifterbant culture seem to have survived much longer, probably until the
end of the fifth millennium cal BC.
LOESS HILL LAND

Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic
Around 5300 cal BC, the LBK arrives in the Scheldt basin. It is responsible
for the first hard evidence of a Neolithic way of life in that area. Settlement
sites of these first farmers have been discovered in three settlement clusters
(Fig. 1): first, in the Hesbaye region, on the eastern fringe of the Scheldt basin
and part of a larger LBK occupation territory including the Graetheide cluster in the Netherlands and the Aldenhovener Platte in Germany; secondly, in
the Kleine Gete area where only three sites are known at present; and thirdly,
Figure 1. Map of Belgium indicating the core-areas of the LBK and BQY (hatched zones) and the sites of Oudenaarde (1), Kerkhove (2) and Melsele (3)
which yielded isolated finds from the Early Neolithic. The grey shaded area corresponds to the loess area; the sandy lowland is situated north of it.
264
THE NEOLITHISATION OF THE SCHELDT BASIN IN BELGIUM 265
in the upper Dendre area, in the western part of the area and separated from
Hesbaye by a nearly 100 km stretch, devoid of settlements. Based on the
present data, including that recently gathered during archaeological followup of large infrastructural transects through the Scheldt basin, the number
and distribution of settlement clusters seem fairly reliable. The area in
between these three LBK territories, however, is speckled with stray finds dating from the Early Neolithic period, including adzes and typical LBK arrowheads (Jadin & Hauzeur 2003). A similar image is available for the Groupe de
Blicquy, i.e. the second Early Neolithic cultural group in the Scheldt basin.
The chronological relationship between LBK and BQY has been the subject
of a lively debate, with opinions ranging from an anterior position of BQY,
over a more or less complete overlap to an unquestionable posterior position
(Constantin & Ilett 1998). Recent radiocarbon dates and the spatial distribution of sites confirm the close chronological connection between the two
groups (Fig. 2). However, although recent radiocarbon dates show a possible
contemporaneity of BQY sites in the Upper Dendre region and the RRBP
sites in the Paris Basin (Jadin & Cahen 2003), the existence of a local overlap
between both groups remains an unanswered question (Jadin 2003, 70910).
In this light, the absence of contact finds, and several elements in the relative
chronology, hint at the slightly posterior position of the BQY sites. Apart
from two sites located near LBK settlements in the Hesbaye region, most
BQY settlement sites are located in the upper Dendre region. Similar to the
LBK remains, BQY stray finds such as schist bracelets (fragments) and
artefacts in a flint raw material typical for this group can be found all over
the loam region of the Scheldt basin (Jadin & Hauzeur 2003). Both groups
thus seem to have operated in or exploited the entire loess belt from their base
settlements in Hesbaye, Kleine Gete and Upper Dendre.
Remarkably, the number of stray finds beyond the loess cover is extremely
restricted and contrasts with the numerous LBK stray finds on the sandy soils
north of the loess in the Meuse valley (Verhart 2000, figs 1.1415). Two sites
deserve wider attention because of their location more to the north within the
loess region: Kerkhove (Cromb 1986) and Oudenaarde Donk (Parent et al.
1987). Both are situated along the Scheldt River, respectively on top of a Late
Glacial wind-blown sandloam ridge and on scroll bars. On the first site, a
shallow pit filled with some flint and pottery artefacts can be attributed to the
Groupe de Blicquy. It was disclosed on the western fringe of a 10 ha large field
surveyed with test trenches. Apart from this pit, no other features could be
attributed to the Early Neolithic. It cannot be excluded that the BQY pit is
the easternmost remain of a BQY settlement. Nevertheless, given the particular location of the site along the Scheldt River and some 20 km north-west
of the known settlement cluster in the upper Dendre region, it should rather
be regarded as a particular element in the (logistic) exploitation of the wider
Figure 2.
account.
Summed probability distributions of the three chrono-cultural groups in the loess belt of Belgium. Only reliable dates are taken into
266
area. Another indication for this is the Early Neolithic grog-tempered vessel
that was found during the excavations of Oudenaarde Donk some 20 years
ago. Originally, it was published as a Middle Neolithic Epi-Roessen pot fragment (Parent et al. 1987), but a new reconstruction and study of the remains
revealed it to be of Early Neolithic age. Both fabric and morphology of the
vessel fit well with LBK and BQY pottery variability (Fig. 3). Unfortunately,
the precise depositional context of the vessel as well as its relationship with the
Late Mesolithic flint scatter that was found at the same spot remain unsure.
These two sites, both possibly belonging to the Groupe de Blicquy, can be
related to the northern contacts and interactions in this phase of the
Neolithic as were confirmed by BQY pottery fragments in Swifterbant context at Hardinxveld De Bruin (Raemaekers 2001, 147). The Early Neolithic
pottery found at Melsele Hof ten Damme (see below) should probably be
placed in the same perspective. One of the intriguing questions in this respect
is what role local hunter-gatherers of the loamy hill land played in this interaction. Unfortunately, data on the final Mesolithic occupation of the area are
extremely scarce. In addition to the few sites located in the river floodplains,
for example Oudenaarde Donk, most Mesolithic sites are known from small
Figure 3. Early Neolithic pot found at Oudenaarde Donk (photo PAMZOV).
268
surface scatters on sandy hilltops of the region; examples of such sites are
known at Oeudeghien, Ellezelles, Ronse-Muziekberg and Wodecq-Paradis.
Obviously, it is often impossible to determine the precise nature and age of
these sites, often being palimpsests. This frequently results in the idea that the
loess belt was virtually uninhabited by hunter-gatherers at the time of the
LBK arrival. Although taphonomy and post-depositional processes can partially explain the general scarcity of data (Cromb & Cauwe 2001; Gob 1990;
Vermeersch 1990), it is beyond doubt that the loess plateaux were at most
characterised by a fairly sparse hunter-gatherer occupation (Vanmontfort
submitted). Possibly, hunter-gatherer camps were concentrated along the
major rivers crossing the loess belt, in contexts that still remain underinvestigated. In any case, the location of LBK and BQY groups outside
hunter-gatherer core territory is in favour of a colonisation hypothesis.
Middle Neolithic
The last LBK and BQY radiocarbon dated sites end around 4800 cal BC.
While neighbouring regions, including the Paris Basin and Rhineland are
from that moment on occupied by post-LBK groups such as Cerny, Roessen
and Bischheim, the Belgian loess belt is characterised by a chronological hiatus until around 4300 cal BC (Fig. 2). Apart from the absence of radiocarbon
dated sites, this hiatus is particularly perceptible by the nearly complete
absence of Roessen Breitkeile, a common stray find in both loamy and sandy
contexts in the Meuse basin. Although the complete absence of occupation
during this phase is one of the possible explanations, it is extremely unlikely
(Cromb et al. 2005). Rather, it seems that the probably sparse occupation of
the region has become archaeologically invisible. This can be due to the particular location of settlement sites in the hardly explored riverine wetlands of
the loamy region, similar to the Swifterbant occupation in the sandy lowland
(and see below). It is also possible, however, that the lithic toolkit used during this period did not differ fundamentally from that of the post-4300 cal BC
Michelsberg people and that surface sites in this region cannot reliably be
dated to either of these periods. The difference with the Michelsberg sites that
have yielded substantial and datable features as a result of their enclosure
building activities might explain the absence of radiocarbon dates from the
period between 4800 and 4300 cal BC.
By 4300 cal BC, a completely different Neolithic to that of the preceding
LBK and BQY groups has set foot in the loess region. Concentrated
Siedlungskammer occupation of the Early Neolithic in two or three areas is
replaced by a fairly homogeneous distribution over the entire region and by
a hierarchised settlement pattern with enclosures and flint mines as central
foci (Fig. 4). Large dwelling structures with large and deeply planted posts are
Figure 4. Map of Belgium showing the distribution of Michelsberg sites in the loess belt (grey shaded area) and the northern sandy lowland. Sites
mentioned in the text are: Spiere (1), Doel Deurganck (2) and Melsele (3).
270
no longer constructed. Instead, the absence of clear house structures hints at

a more mobile settlement system with less permanent dwellings. Enclosures,
although their origin can be traced back to LBK times (Jeunesse 1996), have
become the monuments for which a gathering of labour force is implied.
In the contrast between the Early Neolithic way of life, as it was imported
by the LBK, and the hunter-gatherer existence, as it is presumed to have been,
the Middle Neolithic can be regarded as a converged state (Vanmontfort 2004).
Apart from the more mobile settlement pattern, several differences in the lithic
toolkit confirm this hypothesis, including the contrast between an expedient
common tool production and the specialised production of standardised tools.
This fits with the view of Thomas (1988) with regard to a second neolithisation
wave during the late fifth and early fourth millennia cal BC, once the Neolithic
had modified to a state more compatible with north-west European huntergatherer existence. However, from the lack of hunter-gatherer data or sites
from the period between the arrival of the LBK and the beginning of the
Michelsberg period at 4300 cal BC, it is impossible to verify or reject this
hypothesis. Nor can a co-habitation of hunter-gatherers and Michelsberg
groups be confirmed. A continuation of hunter-gatherer occupation till at
least the end of the fifth millennium cal BC has often been claimed for both
loess and sandy regions (and see below). The sites of the loamy region on
which such a claim is based are, particularly, Neufvilles (de Heinzelin et al.
1977) and Thieusies (Vermeersch & Walter 1980; Vermeersch et al. 1990),
where Mesolithic artefacts were found in the same strata as Michelsberg
remains. The site of Neufvilles, however, yielded only artefacts in secondary
contexts and a mixture of both older and younger occupation remains could
never be excluded. Two recently obtained radiocarbon dates from the site
confirmed this situation, with at least a mixture of Middle Mesolithic and
Middle Neolithic occupation remains (Vanmontfort et al. 2003). Also at
Thieusies, the mixture of residual Mesolithic artefacts and Michelsberg occupation remains cannot entirely be excluded. The particular, locally available
flint type that was used to produce the Mesolithic artefacts as well as the
typology of the microliths (mistletoe points commonly dated in the Middle
Mesolithic) even make this a very plausible hypothesis (Cromb et al. 2005).
With no proof of hunter-gatherer activities in the post-LBK era of the
loamy region, but with the recognition that it would be very hard to identify
their remains outside the riverine wetlands, the question can also be considered from the other side. If the Michelsberg culture in the Belgian loess belt
was not the result of local acculturation of hunter-gatherer groups, we
should be able to single out an exterior source for this culture group. Until
recently, however, the available data did not allow the detailed (stylistic) analysis that would shed light on such a topic. Most sites are known solely as
undated flint surface scatters, while pottery assemblages are generally small
and undated. The recently studied enclosure site at Spiere (Vanmontfort

2004; Vanmontfort et al. 2001/2002), on the other hand, did yield a remarkable set of pottery and flint artefacts, dating from the early post-4300 cal BC
period and allowing us to tackle this problem. Both technically and stylistically, the pottery occupies an intermediate position between the Chassen
septentrional of northern France and the Michelsberger Kultur of the
Rhineland, i.e. neighbouring cultural groups that came into existence at more
or less the same time (Vanmontfort 2004; Vanmontfort et al. 2001/2002).
Several elements of the lithic toolkit confirm this position, with leaf-shaped
arrowheads similar to those of the Rhineland Michelsberg culture and a flake
technology with flake axes and massive flake scrapers that are clearly linked
with the north-west French Neolithic (Vanmontfort 2004; Vanmontfort et al.
2001/2002). In the absence of an unambiguous source for the Belgian
Michelsberg culture, it seems likely that it was formed as a local adaptation
of a Middle Neolithic, strongly influenced by that of the northern Paris Basin.
Whether or not it was locally formed in an interaction between neighbouring
regions (Schier 1993; Vanmontfort 2004) or formed in the northern Paris
Basin (Jeunesse et al. 2004), and quickly migrated to the north after which it
was locally translated, is a question that can only be resolved with new sites
and reliable radiocarbon dates. The shape of the currently used calibration
curve with a plateau at the point of origin of most north-west European
Middle Neolithic groups, however, makes it unlikely that this dating technique
will ever be able to reach this resolution (Vanmontfort 2004, 300).
THE SANDY LOWLAND

The Late Mesolithic
In the northern coversand region, numerous sites can be dated to the Late
Mesolithic on the basis of techno-typological criteria, such as the presence
of different types of mainly broad trapezes and regular blade(let)s, some
presenting an irregular and discontinuous utilisation retouch (so-called
Montbani-blades). So far only a few of these sites have been excavated, for
example at Weelde (Huyghe & Vermeersch 1982), Brecht (Vermeersch et al.
1992) and Oudenaarde (Parent et al. 1987). Unfortunately, these excavations
have not yielded highly reliable information concerning the absolute chronology of the Late Mesolithic. The available radiocarbon dates have a rather
limited resolution due to problems with sample integrity (bulk samples, charcoal problems, and so on) and site integrity (bioturbated/mixed contexts,
palimpsests, natural features, and so on) (Cromb et al. 1999; Cromb & Van
Strydonck 2004; Van Strydonck et al. 2001). Therefore it remains currently
272
impossible to determine which Mesolithic sites in the sandy lowland were or

could have been contemporaneous with the Early Neolithic occupation of
the loess or loamy hill land.
In addition there are hardly any finds of Early Neolithic objects that
point to contact and interaction between both areas and communities. Apart
from a few isolated asymmetrical points with ventral basal retouch (so-called
LBK-points), only one specific find-context should be mentioned. It concerns
the wetland site of Melsele Hof ten Damme, situated in the Lower Scheldt
valley, which yielded a small number of pottery sherds with clear Early
Neolithic affinities. The latter (Fig. 5) are characterised by a burnt bone tempering and a decoration pattern consisting of small impressions made with a
two-pointed spatula (van Berg et al. 1992). Although the exact cultural attribution is not known so far, it is beyond any doubt that these potsherds belong
to an Early Neolithic pottery tradition. Unfortunately these potsherds were
found in a severely bioturbated, and hence mixed, horizon, which also
includes material evidence from older and younger occupation events. The
available radiocarbon dates from this find-layer, albeit mostly obtained on
charcoal samples, range between approximately 8000 and 3000 cal BC (Van
Strydonck et al. 1995). According to our own observations, made during a
short visit (PC), the archaeological material is an admixture of at least three
Figure 5. Decorated, bone-tempered potsherds from the site of Melsele (van Berg et al. 1992).
occupation events: a Late Mesolithic one, a Final Mesolithic one and a

Middle Neolithic one (see below). The bone-tempered potsherds might
belong to one of these phases, but could also represent a fourth event. In the
former case, they may be interpreted as exchanged items, while in the latter
case they might reflect extra-territorial visits from Early Neolithic groups (for
example stock-herders or hunters) down the Scheldt river. Unfortunately
it will never be possible to determine which scenario is the right one.
Nevertheless these pottery finds of Melsele, together with the ceramics of
Oudenaarde and Kerkhove further upstream (see above) and the Blicquy pottery found at Hardinxveld in the delta of the western Netherlands (Louwe
Kooijmans 2001), prove that the Scheldt valley already played a major role in
the diffusion of materials from the south to the north, from Neolithic to
Mesolithic occupation territory. This will increase even more in later times.
The Final Mesolithic (the Swifterbant phase)
An important change in the sandy lowland is the appearance of the first
locally produced pottery. According to the presently available data, pottery
was manufactured by local hunter-gatherers from at least the middle of the
fifth millennium cal BC onwards (Fig. 6). In view of the older dating of similar pottery in the adjacent parts of the Netherlands (Raemaekers 1999), an
earlier start cannot yet be fully excluded. Four wetland sites situated in the
Lower Scheldt floodplain near Antwerp have recently yielded numerous potsherds associated with Late/Final Mesolithic lithic assemblages, dominated
by small irregular trapezes and bladelets in Wommersom quartzite as well as
charred organic remains of wild resources, such as game (wild boar and red
deer), wild plants (hazelnuts, wild apples, sloe plums, acorns and berries from
hawthorn) and freshwater fish (mainly carp family). Three sites were discovered underneath thick layers of peat and alluvial clay during construction
works along the Deurganck dock at Doel (Bats et al. 2003; Cromb 2005;
Cromb et al. 2000; Cromb et al. 2004). The fourth site is the already
mentioned site of Melsele Hof ten Damme. So far only one site, Doel
Deurganckdok sector B, has been securely radiocarbon dated to the second
half of the fifth millennium cal BC (Van Strydonck & Cromb 2005). The
other sites are still undated (Doel sector-M) or badly dated (Melsele and Doel
sector-J/L).
The pottery of these four sites (Fig. 7) is mainly tempered with grog and
plant material, relatively thick-walled and fired in a reduced followed by an
oxidised atmosphere. Morphologically it is dominated by slightly S-shaped
vessels provided with a rounded or pointed bottom and to a lesser degree by
bowl-shaped vessels. Decoration is very restricted and mostly consists of
oblique incisions or impressions on the rim top (so-called Randkerbung) and
274
Figure 6. Calibrated radiocarbon dates from two Final Mesolithic (Swifterbant) sites in the
Deurganck dok at Doel. The food crust dates are on average a few hundred years older than
the dates on carbonised remains of seeds, fruits, bone and charcoal. Stable isotope analyses
(Craig et al. 2007) have clearly pointed out that this age-difference is due to the presence of some
amount of fish in the food crust samples.
round or oval knobs, which are nearly always unperforated. Perforated

knobs, a series of small perforations underneath the rim as well as series of
fingertop impressions, only occur incidentally. Typologically this pottery, in
particular the S-shaped vessels with conical bottoms, presents close similarities with the so-called (Early) Swifterbant pottery typical of The Netherlands
Figure 7.
Two almost complete vessels from the Final Mesolithic sites of Doel Deurganck.
(Raemaekers 1999) and to a lesser degree with the pointed-bottomed pottery

traditions from the Baltic coast (such as Erteblle and Narva) (Hallgren
2004; Timofeev 1998). A major difference with the latter is the so far total
absence of clay lamps in the Belgian assemblages. On the other hand there are
also clear similarities with the pottery from Early/Middle Neolithic cultures, for example with the Grossgartach/Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint-Germain
276
cultures and the Roessen/Cerny cultures. These pottery traditions offer good
parallels for the Randkerbung and knob decoration as well as for the morphology of the bowl-shaped vessels. Although some influence might have
come from northern indigenous pottery traditions, it seems more likely that
the basic knowledge of pottery manufacturing was taken over from the
southern Neolithic traditions just mentioned. Probably here too, the Scheldt
valley was an important corridor in the diffusion of ideas and know-how.
This might also be true for the diffusion of other goods, such as cereals.
One of the sites excavated in the Deurganck dock at Doel (site sector B)
yielded a single cereal grain belonging to bread wheat (Bastiaens et al. 2005).
Despite the fact that this grain is not yet dated directly, it is clear from its spatial and stratigraphical position that it belongs to the second half of the fifth
millennium cal BC. The question arises how this cereal grain got to the site.
Was it locally produced or was it brought in from fields situated in another
location? In the latter case the question of where these fields were has to be
answered. The probability that agriculture was practised at the site itself
seems rather unrealistic, due to the wet environment and limited size of the
available dry land as well as the fact that only a single grain was recovered.
All four sites are indeed located on the highest parts of relatively small coversand ridges, surrounded by a swamp/peat fen that was occasionally inundated
by brackish water from the nearby Scheldt river (Deforce et al. 2005). It is
doubtful whether in such conditions (with limited dry grounds) farming
would have been possible. Arable fields might have been situated in nearby
locations outside the peat fen, but these have not yet been located. However,
it is questionable whether the pottery producing hunter-gatherers of the fifth
millennium cal BC also occupied the dry coversand area of western Belgium.
So far there is no clear evidence which points in that direction. According to
some scholars (Raemaekers 1999), the absence so far of Swifterbant sites in
the dry coversand landscape might be a result of taphonomic factors, such as
the bad preservation of weakly fired pottery in acid coversands, or the absence
of diagnostic lithic artefacts within the flint industry of the Swifterbant culture. The latter, however, is not valid, because the Belgian sites that are discussed in this paper yielded typical small trapezes which differ considerably
from Late Mesolithic ones (Cromb et al. 2002). An important argument
against an intense occupation and exploitation of the dry coversand area
during the second half of the fifth millennium cal BC is the observed trend
towards a decreasing number of sites already from the middle of the eighth
millennium cal BC, combined with a concentration along major river valleys.
Compared to the Early Mesolithic there is much less evidence for inland
occupation and exploitation during the Middle and Late Mesolithic. This
pattern has been observed quite convincingly in the north-western part of
Belgium (the area of Sandy Flanders) and could be related to major environ-
mental and/or social changes (Cromb et al. in press). In the Campine area a
similar shift in site location pattern was observed and could be linked with
climatic and hydrological changes during the Early Holocene period; rivers
only became a reliable water source from the Boreal period onwards
(Vanacker et al. 2001).
A third possibility regarding the origin of the bread wheat is that it was
obtained through exchange with contemporaneous Neolithic farming communities further upstream in the Scheldt valley. As discussed earlier, agropastoral groups belonging to the Epi-Roessen and Michelsberg culture were
already present from 4300 cal BC in the loamy upland as far as the border
with the coversand area. Interaction between both communities must have
been at least temporarily possible between c. 4300 and 4000 cal BC (see
below). Some scholars (Creemers & Vermeersch 1989; Verhart 2000, 11315;
Vermeersch 19878; Vermeersch 1990) have postulated interaction from the
presence of some Neolithic artefacts/ceramics on Late Mesolithic sites in the
sandy lowlands at Weelde, Dilsen, Meeuwen and Opgrimbie; a model has
been proposed in which Final Mesolithic hunter-gatherers tended the
Michelsberg cattle. Unfortunately this model is exclusively based on information derived from ploughed sites, whose chronological integrity remains
very questionable and difficult to evaluate. It is likely that they represent
mixed assemblages from Late Mesolithic and Michelsberg occupation phases
(and see below).
The Early Neolithic? (The Michelsberg phase)
Near the end of the fifth millennium cal BC an even more radical change in
the material culture occurred, which might be due to increased influence or
colonisation from the Michelsberg culture. Important changes can be
observed in both the lithic and ceramic inventories. New tool types appeared
(Fig. 8), such as leaf-shaped and transverse arrowheads, polished axes and
broad regular blades, as well as imported high quality flint, partly originating
from the flint mine sites in the loess area (see above). At the same time, typical Final Mesolithic tools and raw materials (for example Wommersom
quartzite) seem to disappear completely. Important morphological and technological changes also occurred in the pottery. New Michelsberg/Hazendonk
1/3-inspired vessels were introduced made of clay tempered with mainly
crushed flint (in the west) or quartz (in the east). Due to a too limited number of radiocarbon dates this transition in the material culture cannot yet be
dated precisely or securely. Nevertheless, the available dates strongly suggest
that the shift occurred most probably shortly before or after 4000 cal BC (Fig.
9). This is in agreement with dates from other north-west European countries,
where similar material changes have been observed, for example in southern
278
Figure 8. Lithic artefacts from the Final Mesolithic (top) and Early Neolithic (bottom) found
at Doel Deurganck.
Figure 9. Calibrated radiocarbon dates related to the transition between the Final Mesolithic (Late Swifterbant culture) and the Early
Neolithic (Michelsberg culture) in the sandy lowland. The association between the radiocarbon dates and the Michelsberg finds at Melsele
Hof ten Damme remains hypothetical.
280
England (Whittle, this volume), Scotland (Sheridan, this volume), southern

Scandinavia (Fischer 2002), and northern Germany (Hartz et al. 2002; Hartz
& Lbke 2004; Hartz et al., this volume).
Detailed information on the Early Neolithic settlements is not yet available, as most sites are documented only by small assemblages of surface
finds (see above), generally including just a handful of diagnostic Neolithic
artefacts. Extensive sites comparable to the Michelsberg settlements in the
loamy area, consisting of thousands of lithics spread over many tens of
hectares, are absent in the sandy lowlands. Based on the evidence of the
sealed Michelsberg site of Doel Deurganck dock sector C (Cromb et al.
2000), it can be assumed that Neolithic settlements in the coversand area are
much more discrete in surface- and find-density. The partially excavated site
of Doel yielded an assemblage of about 300 artefacts, of which only six or
seven were diagnostic ones. Other, more recent sites confirm that most
Neolithic settlements in the sandy lowlands were small, single house sites.
The site of Waardamme (Demeyere et al. 2004) may be a good representation of an average Neolithic settlement in the coversand area. It consists of
a single house plan, measuring 20.2 m long, and associated with a lithic
assemblage of less than 500 artefacts. Probably such settlements were relocated after some years as a result of the relatively quick exhaustion of the
sandy agrarian land. Such wandering farmyards are also attested for later
periods in the sandy area, in particular during the Early and Middle Bronze
Age (Roymans & Fokkens 1991). As these settlements were only occupied
for relatively short periods, they produced only small amounts of settlement
waste and are archaeologically less visible.
Another important problem is related to the introduction of the first
domesticates into the sandy lowland. The presently available data do not
allow us to date the appearance of the first domesticated animals or plants.
So far the only sandy site which yielded evidence of domesticated animals is
Melsele Hof ten Damme. In the mixed layer mentioned already, small burnt
fragments of cattle and pig (alongside wild game) were collected. Although
these have not yet been dated directly, they definitely must be older than the
sealing of the layer ultimately during the first half of the third millennium cal
BC. It is very tempting to link these bones with the apparently youngest occupation event of the site, which is represented by a (storage?) pit covered with
bark, some leaf-shaped arrowheads and flint-tempered pottery. This occupation phase is dated on two bark samples from the pit to the first half of the
fourth millennium cal BC and is probably related to a Michelsberg culture
occupation.
Late Mesolithic
5500
sandy area
Late Mesolithic
Final Mesolithic
(Swifterbant)
Early Neolithic ?
(Michelsberg)
Comparison of the chronological schemes in the loess belt and the sandy lowland.
Early Neolithic
(LBK/Blicquy)
5000
Figure 10.
Middle Neolithic A
(hiatus)
Middle Neolithic B
(Epi-Roessen/Michelsberg)
(sand-)loamy area
4500
4000
3500
Cal BC
282

CONCLUSION
There are still important hiatuses in the documentation of the MesolithicNeolithic transition of both the loamy and sandy areas of the Scheldt basin.
Nevertheless the difference in neolithisation process of both areas is beyond
any doubt (Fig. 10). The Neolithic way of life probably arrived as a package
in specific parts of the loess area from 5300 cal BC onwards and gradually
spread over the entire region ultimately around 4300 cal BC. It seems possible,
but far from proven, that the gradual spread during the early and middle fifth
millennium cal BC involved the uptake of local hunter-gatherers in the new
way of life. In the sandy lowland, on the other hand, the Neolithic was introduced more gradually and slowly. Mesolithic hunter-gatherer-fishermen, albeit
living very close to the Neolithic frontier, probably persisted as long as c. 4000
cal BC. As a result of contact and interaction with southern Neolithic communities they started to make pottery around the middle of the fifth millennium
cal BC, but the biggest changes occurred only at the end of this millennium as
a result of a further northward expansion of the Michelsberg culture.
REFERENCES
BASTIAENS, J., DEFORCE, K., KLINCK, B., MEERSSCHAERT, L., VERBRUGGEN, C.
& VRYDAGHS, L. 2005. Palaeobotanical analyses. In P. Cromb (ed.), The last huntergatherer-fishermen in sandy Flanders (NW Belgium); the Verrebroek and Doel excavation
projects, Part 1: palaeo-environment, chronology and features, 25178. Gent: Archaeological
Reports Ghent University.
BATS, M., CROMB, P., PERDAEN, Y., SERGANT, J., VAN ROEYEN, J.-P. & VAN
STRYDONCK, M. 2003. Nieuwe ontdekkingen in het Deurganckdok te Doel (Beveren,
Oost-Vlaanderen): Vroeg- en Finaal-Mesolithicum. Notae Prahistoricae 23, 559.
BRONK RAMSEY, C. 2005. OxCal Program v3.10, http://www.rlaha.ox.ac.uk/oxcal/oxcal.htm.
CONSTANTIN, C. & ILETT, M. 1998. Culture de Blicquy Villeneuve-Saint-Germain,
rapports chronologiques avec les cultures rhnanes. Anthropologie et Prhistoire 109, 20716.
CRAIG, O. E., FORSTER, M., ANDERSEN, S., KOCH, E., CROMB, Ph., MILNER, N. J.,
STERN, B., BAILEY, G. N. & HERON, C. P. 2007. Molecular and isotopic demonstration
of the processing of aquatic products in Northern European prehistoric pottery.
Archaeometry 49, 13552.
CREEMERS, G. & VERMEERSCH, P. M. 1989. Meeuwen-Donderslagheide: a Middle
Neolithic site on the Limburg Kempen Plateau (Belgium). Helinium 29, 20626.
CROMB, P. 1986. Een prehistorische site te Kerkhove (Mesolithicum-Neolithicum).
Westvlaamse Archaeologica 2, 339.
CROMB, P. (ed.) 2005. The last hunter-gatherer-fishermen in sandy Flanders (NW Belgium); the
Verrebroek and Doel excavation projects, Part 1: palaeo-environment, chronology and features.
Gent: Archaeological Reports Ghent University.
CROMB, P., BATS, M., WUYTS, F. & VAN ROEYEN, J.-P. 2004. Een derde vindplaats van
de Swifterbantcultuur in het Deurganckdok te Doel (Beveren, Oost-Vlaanderen, Belgi).
Notae Praehistoricae 24, 1057.
CROMB, P. & CAUWE, N. 2001. The Mesolithic. Anthropologica et Praehistorica 112, 4962.

CROMB, P., GROENENDIJK, H. & VAN STRYDONCK, M. 1999. Dating the Mesolithic
of the Low Countries: some methodological considerations. Actes du 3me Congrs
International 14C et Archologie, 610 Avril 1998, Lyon, Mmoires de la Socit Prhistorique
Franaise 26 and Supplment 1999 de la Revue dArchomtrie, 5763.
CROMB, P., PERDAEN, Y. & SERGANT, J. 2005. La nolithisation de la Belgique: quelques
rflexions. In G. Marchand & A. Tresset (eds), Unit et diversit des processus de nolithisation sur la faade atlantique de lEurope (6e4e millnaires avant J.-C.), Table ronde de Nantes,
2627 Avril 2002, 4766. Paris: Mmoire de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise 36.
CROMB, P., PERDAEN, Y. & SERGANT, J. in press. Le Msolithique ancien dans louest de
la Belgique: quelques rflexions concernant loccupation du territoire. Actes de la table ronde
Le Msolithique ancien et moyen de la France septentrionale et des pays limitrophes, Amiens
910/10/2004. Paris: Mmoires de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise.
CROMB, P., PERDAEN, Y., SERGANT, J., VAN ROEYEN, J.-P. & VAN STRYDONCK, M.
CROMB, P., VAN ROEYEN, J.-P., SERGANT, J., PERDAEN, Y., CORDEMANS, K. &
VAN STRYDONCK, M. 2000. Doel Deurganckdok (Flanders, Belgium): settlement traces
from the Final Palaeolithic and the Early to Middle Mesolithic. Notae Praehistoricae 20,
11119.
CROMB, P. & VAN STRYDONCK, M. 2004. The Neolithic transition and European
population history. Antiquity 78, 70810.
DE HEINZELIN, J., HAESAERTS, P. & DE LAET, S. J. 1977. Le Gu du Plantin (Neufvilles,
Hainaut), site nolithique et romain (avec la collaboration de B. Bastin, S. Czepiec, A. Gautier,
B. Hulthn, M. Splingaer and A. Van Doorselaer). Dissertationes Archaeologicae Gandenses
17. Brugge: De Tempel.
DEFORCE, K., GELORINI, V., VERBRUGGEN, C. & VRYDAGHS, L. 2005. Pollen and
phytolith analyses. In P. Cromb (ed.), The last hunter-gatherer-fishermen in sandy Flanders
(NW Belgium); the Verrebroek and Doel excavation projects, Part 1: palaeo-environment,
chronology and features, 10826. Gent: Archaeological Reports Ghent University.
DEMEYERE, F., BOURGEOIS, J. & CROMB, P. 2004. Plan dune maison du groupe de
Dele-Escaut Waardamme (Oostkamp, Flandre occidentale). Notae Praehistoricae 24,
16773.
FISCHER, A. 2002. Food for feasting? An evaluation of explanations of the neolithisation of
Denmark and southern Sweden. In A. Fischer & K. Kristiansen (eds), The Neolithisation of
Denmark. 150 years of debate, 34393. Sheffield: J. R. Collis Publications.
GOB, A. 1990. Du msolithique au nolithique en Europe nord-occidentale: un point de vue du
msolithicien. In D. Cahen & M. Otte (eds), Ruban and Cardial, Actes du Colloque de Lige,
novembre 1988, 1559. Lige: ERAUL 39.
HALLGREN, F. 2004. The introduction of ceramic technology around the Baltic Sea in the 6th
millennium. In H. Knutsson (ed.), Coast to coast arrival. Results and reflections.
Proceedings of the Final Coast to Coast Conference 15 October 2002 in Falkping, Sweden,
12342. Uppsala: Coast to Coast Project.
HARTZ, S., HEINRICH D. & LBKE H. 2002. Coastal farmers the neolithisation of
northernmost Germany. In A. Fischer & K. Kristiansen (eds), The Neolithisation of
HARTZ, S. & LBKE, H. 2004. Zur chronostratigraphischen Gliederung der Erteblle-Kultur
und frhesten Trichterbecherkultur in der sdlichen Mecklenburger Bucht. In H. Lbke,
F. Lth & T. Terberger (eds), Neue Forschungen zur Steinzeit im sdlichen Ostseegebiet,
11943. Lbstorf: Bodendenkmalplege in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 52.
HUYGE, D. & VERMEERSCH, P. M. 1982. Late Mesolithic settlement at WeeldePaardsdrank. In P. M. Vermeersch (ed.), Contributions to the study of the Mesolithic of the
Belgian Lowland, 115209. Tervuren: Studia Praehistorica Belgica 1.
284
JADIN, I. 2003. Trois petits tours et puis sen vont. . . La fin de la prsence danubienne en Moyenne
Belgique (avec la participation de D. Cahen, I. Deramaix, A. Hauzeur, J. Heim, A. Livingstone
Smith and J. Verniers). Lige: ERAUL 109.
JADIN, I. & CAHEN, D. 2003. Datations radiocarbones et Ruban. Pour un mariage de raison.
In I. Jadin, Trois petits tours et puis sen vont. . . La fin de la prsence danubienne en Moyenne
Belgique, 52381. Lige: ERAUL 109.
JADIN, I. & HAUZEUR, A. 2003. Des dcouvertes isoles qui parsment le territoire. In
I. Jadin, Trois petits tours et puis sen vont. . .La fin de la prsence danubienne en Moyenne
Belgique, 81113. Lige: ERAUL 109.
JEUNESSE, C. 1996. Les enceintes fosss interrompus du Nolithique danubien ancien et
moyen et leurs relations avec le Nolithique rcent. Archologisches Korrespondenzblatt 26,
25161.
JEUNESSE, C., LEFRANC, P. & DENAIRE, A. 2004. Groupe de Bischheim, origine du
Michelsberg, gense du groupe dEntzheim. La transition entre le Nolithique moyen et le
Nolithique rcent dans les rgions rhnanes. Zimmersheim: Cahiers de lAssociation pour la
Promotion de la Recherche Archologique en Alsace 18/19.
LOUWE KOOIJMANS, L. P. 2001. Hardinxveld-Giessendam Polderweg. Een mesolithisch
jachtkamp in het rivierengebied (55005000 v.Chr.). Amersfoort: Rapportage Archeologische
Monumentenzorg 83.
PARENT, J.-P., VAN DER PLAETSEN, P. & VANMOERKERKE, J. 1987. Prehistorische
jagers en veetelers aan de Donk te Oudenaarde. Vobov-info 245.
RAEMAEKERS, D. C. M. 1999. The articulation of a New Neolithic. The meaning of the
Swifterbant culture for the process of neolithisation in the western part of the North European
Plain (49003400 BC). Leiden: Archaeological Studies Leiden University 3.
RAEMAEKERS, D. C. M. 2001. Aardewerk en verbrande klei. In L. P. Louwe Kooijmans
(ed.), Hardinxveld-Giessendam De Bruin. Een kampplaats uit het Laat-Mesolithicum en het
begin van de Swifterbant-cultuur (55004450 v.Chr.), 11752. Amersfoort: Rapportage
Archeologische Monumentenzorg 88.
REIMER, P. J., BAILLIE, M. G. L., BARD, E., BAYLISS, A., BECK, I. W., BERTRAND,
HOGG, A. G., HUGHEN, K. A., KROMER, B., MCCORMAC, G., MANNING, S.,
BRONK RAMSEY, C., REIMER, R. W., REMMELE, S., SOUTHON, J. R., STUIVER,
M., TALAMO, S., TAYLOR, F. W., VAN DER PLICHT, J. & WEYHENMEYER, C. E.
2004. IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0-26 cal kyr BP, Radiocarbon, 46(3),
102958.
ROYMANS, N. & FOKKENS, H. 1991. Een overzicht van veertig jaar nederzettingsonderzoek in
de Lage Landen. In H. Fokkens & N. Roymans (eds), Nederzettingen uit de bronstijd en de
vroege ijzertijd in de lage landen, 119. Amersfoort: Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 13.
SCHIER, W. 1993. Das westliche Mitteleuropa an der Wende vom 5. zum 4. Jahrtausend:
Kulturwandel durch Kulturkontakt? In A. Lang, H. Parzinger & H. Kster (eds), Kulturen
zwischen Ost und West. Festschrift G. Kossack, 1959. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
THOMAS, J. 1988. Neolithic explanations revisited: the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in
Britain and South Scandinavia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54, 5966.
TIMOFEEV, V. I. 1998. The beginning of the Neolithic in the Eastern Baltic. In M. Zvelebil,
L. Domanska & R. Dennell (eds), Harvesting the sea, farming the forest, 22536. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press.
VAN BERG, P.-L., KEELEY, L., VAN ROEYEN, J.-P. & VAN HOVE, R. 1992. Le gisement
msolithique de Melsele (Flandre-Orientale, Belgique) et le subnolithique en Europe occidentale. In C.-T. Le Roux (ed.), Paysans et btisseurs; lmergence du Nolithique atlantique
et les origines du mgalithisme, Actes du 17me Colloque interrgional sur le Nolithique,
Vannes, 2831 octobre 1990, 939. Rennes: Revue Archologique de lOuest, supplment 5.

VAN STRYDONCK, M. & CROMB, Ph. 2005. Radiocarbon dating. In P. Cromb (ed.), The
last hunter-gatherer-fishermen in sandy Flanders (NW Belgium); the Verrebroek and Doel
excavation projects, Part 1: palaeo-environment, chronology and features, 180212. Gent:
Archaeological Reports Ghent University.
VAN STRYDONCK, M., CROMB, P. & MAES, A. 2001. The site of Verrebroek Dok and
its contribution to the absolute dating of the Mesolithic in the Low Countries. Radiocarbon
43(2B), 9971005.
VAN STRYDONCK, M., VAN ROEYEN, J.-P., MINNAERT, P. & VERBRUGGEN, C. 1995.
Problems in dating stone-age settlements on sandy soils: the Hof ten Damme site near
Melsele, Belgium. Radiocarbon 37, 2917.
VANACKER, V., GOVERS, G., VAN PEER, P., VERBEEK, C., DESMET, J. & REYNIERS,
J. 2001. Using Monte Carlo simulation for the environmental analysis of small archaeologic
datasets, with the Mesolithic in northeast Belgium as a case study. Journal of Archaeological
Science 28, 6619.
VANMONTFORT, B. 2004. Converging worlds: the Neolithisation of the Scheldt basin during the
late fifth and early fourth millenium cal BC. Unpublished PhD thesis, Katholieke Universiteit
Leuven.
VANMONTFORT, B. submitted. Forager-farmer connections in an unoccupied land: The
start of the neolithisation process on the western edge of LBK territory. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology.
VANMONTFORT, B., GEERTS, A.-I., CASSEYAS, C., BAKELS, C. C., BUYDENS, C.,
DAMBLON, F., LANGOHR, R., VAN NEER, W. & VERMEERSCH, P. M. 2001/2002. De
Hel in de tweede helft van het 5de millenium v.Chr. Een midden-Neolithische enclosure te
Spiere (prov. West-Vlaanderen). Archeologie in Vlaanderen 8 (2004), 977.
VANMONTFORT, B., HAESAERTS, P. & JADIN, I. 2003. Deux dates radiocarbone par AMS
sur le gisement nolithique du Gu du Plantin (Neufvilles, Province du Hainaut, Belgique).
Notae Praehistoricae 23, 1739.
VERHART, L. B. M. 2000. Times fade away.The neolitization of the southern Netherlands in an
anthropological and geographical perspective. Leiden: Archaeological Studies Leiden
University 6.
VERMEERSCH, P. M. 19878. Le Michelsberg en Belgique. Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia
2627, 120.
VERMEERSCH, P. M. 1990. La transition du Msolithique au Nolithique en Basse et
Moyenne Belgique. In D. Cahen & M. Otte (eds), Ruban and Cardial, Actes du Colloque de
Lige, nov. 1988, 95103. Lige: ERAUL, 39.
VERMEERSCH, P. M., LAUWERS, R. & GENDEL, P. 1992. The Late Mesolithic sites of
Brecht-Moordenaarsven (Belgium). Helinium 32, 377.
VERMEERSCH, P. M., VYNCKIER, G. & WALTER, R. 1990. Thieusies, Ferme de lHost,
site Michelsberg.II. Le matriel lithique. Leuven: Studia Praehistorica Belgica 6.
VERMEERSCH, P. M. & WALTER, R. 1980. Thieusies, Ferme de Host, site Michelsberg.
Bruxelles: Archaeologia Belgica 230.
The gradual transition to farming in the

Lower Rhine Basin
LEENDERT P. LOUWE KOOIJMANS
THE NETHERLANDS ORGANISATION FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH finances a

research programme directed to a new synthesis of the transition to farming
in the Netherlands, viewed in its wider geographical context, profiting from
the new wealth of data made available by modern large-scale field research.
The programme encompasses various projects: a critical approach to the sitebound evidence by Luc Amkreutz, a regional approach by Bart Vanmontfort
(Leuven), the first physical anthropological and isotopic study of the area by
Liesbeth Smits, the acquisition and distribution of raw materials and prestigious items by Leo Verhart, and a re-evaluation of the various sources of
palaeobotanical evidence from the delta district by Welmoed Out. This paper
is meant as a short interim report, anticipating the synthetic volume planned
for the year 2008. Comments are made especially on the seemingly parallel
developments at the other end of the North German Plain in the Baltic
coastal area.
THE LOWER RHINE BASIN

The Lower Rhine Basin embraces all of the Netherlands and Belgium
together with the adjacent parts of the Rhineland, Westfalia and Lower
Saxony (Fig. 1). We have chosen this arena for our research, since the presentday Netherlands are too restricted to give a sufficient overview of the cultural
phenomena in question and so to allow us to understand the processes of
interaction properly. It is even argued below that communities as far as the
German Baltic coast experienced similar developments.
The Lower Rhine Basin is the southern part of a wider long-term geological subsidence area, which centres in the southern North Sea, into which
a series of rivers discharge: the Rhine, the Meuse and the Scheldt being the
most prominent. The Basin shows a distinct zoning. It consists mainly of a
flat sandy plain with Late Glacial coversands at the surface, sandy and
288
Leendert P. Louwe Kooijmans
Figure 1. The Lower Rhine Basin with the two major concentrations of sites, in the IJsselmeer
Basin and the Rhine/Meuse estuary. Hardinxveld (H) and Schipluiden (S) are two examples of
the exchange relations of the gradually transforming communities in the north with the farming
communities in the southern loess zone. Location of the Hde I site indicated in Lower Saxony.
gravely river deposits and occasional Saalian boulder clays in the subsoil.
These deposits have been pushed up to hilly ranges by the Saalian ice sheets
in some regions like the Veluwe district in the central Netherlands. The Basin
has hilly ranges along its southern margins with a zone of loess deposition to
the north of it, separating the hills from the sands. Essential for our research
is the extensive complex of Holocene deposits at the confluence of the lower
courses of the rivers mentioned, a complex consisting of clastic and organic
deposits of widely different facies, ranging from coastal marine sediments to
sphagnum bogs. It has been named the Rhine-Meuse Delta, although it
extends far beyond the sedimentation area of the rivers. This must have been
a region rich in natural resources, plant as well as animal, which were
exploited by people, who settled on dry outcrops or sediments, like river levees. The remains have been preserved below several metres of sediments that
FARMING IN THE LOWER RHINE BASIN
289
were formed during the continuous rise of sea level and of the ground water
table. As such they became waterlogged but also not so easy to prospect.
We are generally inclined to stress the contrast between these wetlands
and the upland sands, but are nowadays more and more aware as well that
the low and gently undulating coversand landscape, intersected by numerous
wide and shallow brook valleys, also offered very diverse ecological conditions, comprising a considerable wetland component as well. The main distinction, as compared to the delta, is the presence of the stretches of light
and sandy soils on the coversand ridges, which will have been suited for crop
cultivation.
THE STUDY OF NEOLITHISATION

The study of neolithisation in this basin is the study of the extension of a
subsistence-based food production from the loess belt into the North
European Plain, into a landscape that will not have differed so much in
climatic terms (although more so in more northern latitudes), but will have
differed in other aspects, especially in soil conditions, vegetation and fauna.
It was a landscape with a high rate of ecological diversity, with a mosaic of dry
and wet microregions, and so was presumably an attractive ground for hunting, fishing and gathering, while the loess zone offered a much less differentiated and more densely wooded landscape, but well suited as it appears to the
early hoe cultivation of the Bandkeramik farmers and their successors.
While one party in the process (the early farmers) have become known in
detail from an early stage of research on the basis of their well preserved settlements, the other party (the foragers and their successors) have not, as a
result of the bad preservation of their upland sites and the invisibility of their
wetland locations. The upland flint scatters often have a palimpsest character
and hardly any organic remains have been preserved. This was a serious
drawback for the development of an appropriate model of the transformations that took place as a result of the interaction of both communities. It
was mainly the isolated items that found their way into the hunters land in
the north that demonstrated communication, but what went back in return
still completely escapes us. For some time the Hde I site in Lower Saxony
(Deichmller 1965; Raemaekers 1999, 72f) stood alone, but in the last
decades a series of stratified settlement sites have been discovered in the delta
wetlands, where organic remains have been preserved in large quantities, with
artefacts as well as discarded animal remains and plant food. These are the
basis for the definition of the Swifterbant culture (Figs 2 and 3). The sites
cover now the full trajectory in which the transition took place with the
exception of the relatively short phase of 44504100 cal BC. We profited
290
Northern France
East
West
Late
4000
Netherlands
South West Centre North
Rhineland
Lower Saxony
and Westfalia
2500
Bell
Beakers
Bell
European
All
Veluwe Type
Denmark
Beakers
VL 2b
2a
Single
3000
Single Grave
Beakers
Ornamented
Over
LBB
Grave
Vlaar-
Seine-Oise-Marne
4500
Stein
VL?
Wartberg
1b
3500
Chassen du
ChasseoBassin
Michelsberg
Parisien
5000
SW4
IV
Spiennes
III
4000
Hazendonk 3
Rijckholt
Michelsberg (MK)
SW 3
4500
Bischheim
Cerny
Blicquy
6000
Rssen
Hardinxveld
Villeneuve
Grossgartach
Ruban
Limburg
La Hoguette
5500
phase 2
Dmmer
6500
(early)
MK
Swifterbant S3
Epirssen
5000
phase 3
II
MK
5500
(northern)
(western) TRB
dingen
(VL) 1a
Hde 1
C14
BP
Belgium
cal.
BC
2000
f3
BL
SW 2
Erteblle
(ceramic)
phase 1
SW 1
f2
(aceramic)
Linear Bandkeramik
Limburg
f1
La Hoguette
Figure 2. Chrono-geographical scheme for the Neolithic in the Lower Rhine basin and adjacent areas. Update of a scheme originally presented in 1976. Stages covered by the Hardinxveld
and Hazendonk sites indicated with bars.
especially from the more recent discovery of new, highly informative wetland
sites during survey in advance of public works, while the funds to excavate
and analyse these sites properly are available as a result of the implementation of the Malta Convention in the Netherlands. There is, however, one
major problem in the use of these wetland data for our view of the neolithisation process, which is the extent to which these essentially wetland sites can
be viewed as representative of developments in a wider region, including the
uplands as well, or whether the new evidence should be seen as documenting
specific wet environment aspects of the former societies.
I concentrate in this paper mainly on the excavated evidence. This survey
is, however, just one in a long series of syntheses, like those by Keeley (1992),
Thomas (1996) and myself (Louwe Kooijmans 1993b; 1998; 2004). The latest
overview is given in the recent handbook on Dutch prehistory (Louwe
Kooijmans et al. 2005). Raemaekers (1999) made a thorough analysis of the
Swifterbant ceramics, as the basis for the proper definition of this relatively
291
Figure 3. Palaeogeography of the Dutch Holocene sedimentation area around 4200 cal BC with
sites mentioned in the texts and other selected locations outside the loess zone. 1. Bergumermeer;
2. Jardinga; 3. Gietsenveentje; 4. Bronneger; 5. Heemse; 6. De Gaste; 7. Northeastpolder; 8.
Schokkerhaven; 9. Urk; 10. Swifterbant cluster; 11. Hoge Vaart; 12. Voorschoten; 13.
Wateringen; 14. Schipluiden; 15. Rijswijk; 16. Ypenburg; 17. Bergschenhoek; 18. Hekelingen; 19.
Rhoon; 20. Hardinxveld; 21. Hazendonk; 22. Brandwijk; 23. Zoelen; 24. Ewijk; 25. Wijchen-het
Vormer; 26. Grave; 27. Gassel; 28. Kraaienberg; 29. Merselo; 30. Doel-Deurgancksdok; 31.
Weelde-Paardsdrank; 32. Meeuwen-Donderslagheide; 33. Geleen-Janskamperveld.
292
new cultural entity, and developed the argument of primitive communism to

describe and explain Swifterbant subsistence. Verhart (2000) followed the
process in the Limburg Meuse Valley on the basis of a systematic analysis of
the thousands of flint assemblages in that region. He stressed the attraction
which artefacts of the dominant farming group will have had for the hunters,
in explaining the wide spread of such items outside the farmers territories.
The extension of the Swifterbant complex in the Scheldt Basin has been documented by the excavations at Doel in the new Antwerp harbour (Cromb
2005; Cromb et al. 2002; see also Cromb & Vanmontfort, this volume).
THE LATE MESOLITHIC

Until a few years ago and for want of something better, similar developments
for the transition of hunter-gatherers to farmers to those supposed in
Denmark were presumed for the Lower Rhine Basin Late Mesolithic, i.e. a
shift to a more sedentary society with a strong seasonal exploitation system,
although archaeological evidence was almost non-existent and rather different from that in Scandinavia. Shell middens for instance were completely
absent.
The new sites and reflection on the older evidence tell us now that the Late
Mesolithic settlement system is characterised by site diversity as well as the
systematic and long-term use of specific locations in the landscape. This
holds for the wide artefact spread of Weelde-Paardsdrank, of which just one
small cluster was excavated (Huyge & Vermeersch 1982); it is the case with
the well-known Bergumermeer site, for which a time depth of roughly a millennium has been documented by radiocarbon dates (Lanting & van der
Plicht 19978, 136; Newell 1980); and Hoge Vaart, the first location excavated
in the modern capital intensive style, is also interpreted as an accumulation
of multiple use over an extensive period of time (Hogestijn & Peeters 2001).
All can be seen as normal base camps possibly of seasonal use. Another
type of site is formed by concentrations of hundreds of hearth pits, like
Marinberg (Verlinde in Louwe Kooijmans et al. 2005; Verlinde & Newell in
press), conceived as locations where specific processes were carried out, possibly related to food conservation. Similar sites are known from the earlier,
Boreal, Mesolithic as well. A third type is the butchering location of Jardinga
(Prummel et al. 2002), where game was dismembered. Since different animals
are documented and since the excavation is just a cutting of restricted dimensions in a valley floor, which has produced bones at other locations as well,
we feel permitted to consider the valley stretch as a micro-region with a special function in the settlement system. Verhart (2000, 55) could demonstrate
that communities along the Middle Limburg Meuse Valley shifted their activ-
293
ities between two micro-regions of different potential, the one along the river
valley floor, the other at a distance of 10 km, along smaller brooks.
The most detailed information, however, is given by two sites, close to the
village of Hardinxveld-Giessendam, excavated in 19989 in advance of the
construction of a new railway (Louwe Kooijmans 2001a; 2001b; 2003). They
appearedon the basis of a wide spectrum of palaeoecological indicators
to have been distinct winter base camp locations, the one used for five
centuries, the other for a millennium. They are pure Mesolithic in their lower
levels and reflect increasing Neolithic elements upwards through the stratigraphy. These are two Late Glacial river dunes with tops at c. -5 m below
Dutch OD, which were used as settlement locations in the extensive delta
swamps at a time when the water level was several metres lower than these
dune tops. The two sites are within 1 km of each other and in the main we
consider one to succeed the other, the Polderweg site being occupied mainly
in the earlier stages from 5500 to 5000 cal BC, and the De Bruin site continuing down till 4450 cal BC. The natural Holocene stratigraphy of the aquatic
deposits alongside the dune allowed the distinction of three main phases of
occupation and offered a wealth of ecological, economic and artefactual
information, since the occupants had used this zone as a rubbish dump. Main
subsistence activities in all phases had been hunting wild boar, trapping
beaver and otter (Fig. 4), fishing for pike, and fowling. There are several clear
winter indicators and negative scores on summer correlates, leading to the
conclusion of exclusive or dominant winter use of the site. The presence of
burials of people and dogs, the presence of women and children among the
human skeletal material (Fig. 5a), the extent of the site, and the broad flint,
bone and antler artefact spectra, are the basis for assuming a base camp function for a number of households, at least in the first phase (55005300 cal BC).
So the option of a settlement system with seasonal base camps of very long
term use has been substantiated at least for this single case of high quality
evidence. The model could be extended with the suggestion of summer residences in the upland margin zone, at a distance of 1020 km, which brings
the Dutch territorial pattern close to the Ringkloster-Norsminde model of
eastern Jutland (Andersen 19945, 503).
The communities were, in contrast, rather different as regards their material culture, as far as can be assessed from the preserved artefacts. This holds
at any rate for the antler industry with its unperforated T-axes and sleeves
with and without shaft holes. The slender wooden paddle blades are different
in design from those in the north as are important details of the dugout
canoe, found at the De Bruin site. The links were distinctly in a southern
direction as illustrated by the pointill design on one of the antler sleeves.
That is also documented by the sources of several classes of flint from the
southern chalk belt, by the most likely sources of large pieces of quartzitic
294
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
elk/aurochs/horse/roe
red deer
wild boar
HardinxveldPolderweg
phase 1/2 + 2
HardinxveldPolderweg
phase 1
N=402 N=6799 N=344 N=1128
2600
Hardinxveld De Bruin phase 3
N=548
sea mammals
otter
beaver
4100- ..
3400
Hazendonk
levels 1-3
36003400
Swifterbant S3
36003400
Hekelingen 3
Ypenburg
32002800
Hazendonk
phase VL2b
Schipluiden
Voorschoten
3200
Ewijk
cal BC
Northeastpolder
P14
0%
32002800
41004000
40003400
47004450
51005000
55005300
N=623 N=1224 N=3530 N=603
N=534
N=571 N=3520
pig
sheep/goat
cattle
Figure 4. Faunal spectra from selected Late Mesolithic and Neolithic sites, 55003500 cal BC, in
the Holocene sedimentation area in two groups: wetland sites to the right and agricultural locations at the left. In both groups spectra are arranged in chronological order. Excluded are antler,
dog and all fur animals except otter. Indeterminate pig/wildboar bones are spread over pig and
wild boar according to the ratio of these positive identifications. The same holds for cattle/
aurochs. Four factors arise in the interpretation of these data: the stage in the process of neolithisation, the ecozone in which the site was situated, the possible differences in function of the site
in the former settlement system, and seasonality. The left group is considered possibly to reflect
the upland processes.
coastal
Schipluiden, Ypenburg, Voorschoten
river district
Ewijk
upland margin
Northeastpolder P14
estuarine, marshes
Hardinxveld, Hazendonk, Swifterbant, Hekelingen
Data from: Clason 1990; Gehasse 1995; Groenman-van Waateringe et al. 1968; Oversteegen
et al. in Louwe Kooijmans 2001b; de Vries 2004; Van Wijngaarden-Bakker et al. 2001 in Louwe
Kooijmans 2001a; Zeiler 1997 and in Louwe Kooijmans & Jongste 2006.
295
rock and small pieces of pyrite in the Ardennes and by the presence of unmistakable bone-tempered Blicquy type of pottery. We concludesince material culture must be seen as fully independent of wet environmental
conditionsthat the Hardinxveld community, being embedded in a southern interaction sphere, can be viewed as representative of the communities
north of the loess zone and north of the later agricultural frontier along its
margins.
FIRST FARMERS IN THE LOESS ZONE, 55004300 CAL BC

Traditionally the beginning of the Neolithic is marked by the extension of the
Bandkeramik culture from the early nucleus in Hessen, through the Rhine
corridor to the north.
There are a series of arguments to view this expansion first and foremost
as a colonisation. First, there are no microliths found in the rich material of
any of the large-scale excavations: neither in the Rhineland, nor in Dutch
southern Limburg, nor in its earliest stage, like the Geleen-Janskamperveld
settlement. Secondly, no transitional complexes between Mesolithic and
Bandkeramik are known, and thirdly, the whole Bandkeramik cultural
complex contrasts to everything we know of the late Mesolithic.
There are two arguments that this stage was preceded by a phase in
which these northern regions had contacts with farmer communities further south. One is the use of grey western flintmost probably from the
South Limburg chalk regionin the earliest Bandkeramik settlements to
south of the Rhineland Plateau. The second argument is the site of
Sweikhuizen, where people had left some La Hoguette pottery, a pottery
type present in the lteste Bandkeramik (earliest LBK) assemblages to the
south, but completely lacking in the slightly later ltere Bandkeramik
(early LBK) of the Rhineland and Limburg. The site shows that the La
Hoguette interaction sphere extended to the southern fringe of the Lower
Rhine Basin. Either these Hoguettiens or the indigenous Mesolithic will
have been the intermediary in the acquisition of western flint.
It might be superfluous to do so, but it should be stressed in view of some
recent discussion that all evidence points to permanent settlements in the
middle of clearances in the forests for fields for cereal cultivation. The labour
input in the sturdy houses, the communal surrounding enclosing structures
and the palaeobotanical evidence on weeds and crops are the main and
convincing arguments.
These most north-western LBK communities extended into the Belgian
Hesbaye, but not farther west, with the exception of the small Wange/
Overhespen enclave and a second cluster in Hainaut, that might best be
296
viewed as a pioneer extension from the later LBK community in northern

France. This pattern remained the same as material culture developed into
Rssen in the east and Blicquy in the west. Most of the Belgian loess zone
seems to have remained hunter-gatherer territory.
CONTACTS AND INTRODUCTION, 55004450 CAL BC

The interference of the Bandkeramik with the northern hunters was
restricted in extent and intensity. A zone of c. 30 km of the adjacent sand
seems to have been used for herding and/or hunting from Late Bandkeramik
times onward. Bandkeramik adzes found their way in small numbers farther
north, supposedly in a form of exchange. The well known Rssen Breitkeile
have a much denser and wider distribution all over the North European Plain
and as such demonstrate more intensive contacts andhidden behind these
wedgesother Neolithic elements and ideas. They were, however, rarely
deposited on settlement sites, Hde I in Lower Saxony being the rare exception in the Lower Rhine Basin (Deichmller 1965). The introductions can be
followed in some detail in the Hardinxveld stratigraphy. The rich material
allows us to believe that the lack of evidence in levels below the first occurrence of new elements really reflects a genuine absence of innovations at this
stage.
Most intriguing is a distinct LBK type of arrowhead, made on a
Rijckholt type of flint blade, from phase 1: so with a latest date synchronous
with the earliest LBK occupation in southern Limburg. One might even think
of the preceding phase for which a Hessen connection has been postulated
above. The arrowhead at any rate reflects not only southern links at this stage
but contacts with the agrarian communities there as well and so documents
the start of an availability stage, sensu Zvelebil (1986). The first pottery in a
local style is dated sharply at the Polderweg site around 5000 cal BC and
marks the start of the Swifterbant culture, a ceramic Mesolithic stage, comparable to evolved Erteblle, but three centuries earlier. The same stage has
been documented in the extensive excavations at Hoge Vaart, in the
IJsselmeer Basin (49004800 cal BC) and in the deposition at Bronneger,
province of Drenthe (48004600 cal BC). It has a counterpart in the early pottery from Schlamersdorf in the German Baltic coastal area, prima facie dated
to c. 5300 cal BC. A fresh water reservoir effect should, however, not be
excluded in this case, but the pottery certainly precedes the earliest Erteblle
ware in Denmark dated around 4700 cal BC (Andersen 19945, 42; Hartz
et al. 2002, 330; and see Hartz et al., this volume). Pottery seems to be present
at Hde I from the beginning of its occupation, c. 4700 cal BC (Lanting & van
der Plicht 19992000, 58; Raemaekers 1999, 89).
297
Bones of domestic animals do not occur before phase 3, i.e. between

4700 and 4450 cal BC and more probably late in this phase 3 rather than
early (Fig. 4). All four domesticatescattle, pig, sheep and goatare represented in low numbers and document animal husbandry by this community. It must be doubted, however, whether the animals were kept on the site
itself. The pattern of deposition can better be explained by depositional
practices than by consumption, and so chunks of meat might have been
brought to the site from the upland and not the animals themselves, which
is also more in line with winter conditions in this marsh landscape. As far
as crop cultivation is concerned, in spite of sampling and wet sieving
directed to the recovery of cereals, no such remains were found. This simply
means that cereals if grown at allapparently were not brought in, like
the chunks of meat. Low percentages of domestic animal bones (2% and
cattle only) have similar ages, around 4700 cal BC, again at the German
Baltic coast, at the site of Rosenhof (Hartz et al. 2002, 327; and see Hartz
et al., this volume).
We must realise that the earliest occurrence of these agricultural indicators on isolated dune tops in the delta does not exclude an earlier introduction on the sandy uplands. The present archaeological evidence, however,
makes us more surprised about the early dates for the domestic animals than
about the absence of cereals, since the expansion of the Neolithic all over the
Belgian loess zone and to the north is dated to the phase of the Michelsberg
culture and not earlier, i.e. c. 4300 cal BC (and see Cromb & Vanmontfort,
this volume).
MICHELSBERG EXPANSION, 43003400 CAL BC

Turning again to the loess zone, remarkable changeseven disruptions
can be attested in the transition of the Rssen and Blicquy communities into
those of the Michelsberg culture (Vanmontfort 2004). It seems that Neolithic
society is restructured and that the basic unit shifts to a higher level, from the
village in a segmentary society towards groups for which supra-local enclosures have a central function, a development seen over wider tracks of western and northern Europe. It is in this stage, to be dated from 4300 cal BC
onward, that the wide spaces between the restricted Neolithic enclaves in
Belgium are filled in. Apparently both the Blicquy farmers and all final
Mesolithic groups transformed into Michelsberg and changed to a new way
of life. The Michelsberg complex also demonstrates an expansion towards
the north, beyond the loess zone, into the Limburg Meuse Valley and the
Mnster Basin. This means a northern shift of the old agricultural frontier
which must have had its effect on the local communities beyond.
298

SWIFTERBANT AND HAZENDONK, c. 42003600 CAL BC
The period 45004200 cal BC is as yet not covered by any excavation, with the
exception of the Bergschenhoek fishing site, but the stage around 4100 cal BC
is documented by the earlier work at Swifterbant and the Hazendonk.
Detailed pottery analysis (de Roever 2004) demonstrates that the Swifterbant
area was exploited before this stage, people using outcropping dune tops as
temporary bases. Sites shifted to the levees of fresh tidal gulleys around 4100
cal BC when these became more or less fixed, only for people to leave these
locations again as the water level rose and the levees became too wet and were
silted over. In the main excavation, at the site S3, two synchronous hut locations could be traced on the basis of multiple renewed fireplaces and the distribution pattern of artefacts. These sites are, in spite of their setting,
certainly no simple fishing camps like Bergschenhoek. The animal bones document a wide range of hunting activities, with wild boar, beaver, red deer and
otter, in this order, being the most important game (Zeiler 1991; 1997). The
inhabitants raised pigs and herded cattle as well and these must have been of
roughly equal importance for the meat supply (Fig. 4; Zeiler 1997, table 3).
The exact ratios are difficult to establish, however, in view of the difficulties
in separating pig and wild boar and the discrepancies between the numbers
of identifications and bone weights. The spread of cereal remains (chaff and
grains) all over the place demonstrate that cereals were used as a food source
as well. The local group can on this basis be characterised as semi-agrarian
and be viewed as representing a next stage in the gradual process of neolithisation. It is, however, difficult to establish which function the site or sites had
in the settlement system: year-round occupation or summer camps only? A
few bones of swans and one bone of beaver are the scarce evidence for winter presence, but space does not allow a full discussion of this problem here.
The small and isolated dune top of the Hazendonk was intermittently
used as a settlement location from c. 4000 cal BC onward up till late Beaker
times. Domestic animals (cattle and pig) and cereals have been attested in
most phases, especially in the lowest levels. Cattle has a score of 14% of the
number of identifications in this phase, but later never more than a few per
cent of all bones (Fig. 4). The main activity of the occupants appears to have
been the hunting (or trapping) of beaver, red deer, roe deer, wild boar and
otter in rather diverging ratios in the various Neolithic phases. Seasonal indicators do not point to use of the Hazendonk site in a specific season, but
rather to its use at various times of the year (Zeiler 1991; 1997).
There are two competing interpretations for this site: a seasonal or permanent base camp versus a specialised hunting site. The first option would
imply that there would have been communities, which relied for their living
for the greater part on the exploitation of natural resourceswith fur
299
animals like beaver and otter in a prominent positioneven as late as the

Late Neolithic, around 2600 cal BC, while groups in other parts of the delta
were predominantly or fully agrarian. The second option would mean that
the use of the dune tops for the exploitation of the marsh district would have
shifted in due course from a seasonal base camp function (as at Hardinxveld)
to that of a subordinate special activity site, linked to permanent settlement
elsewhere. The author prefers the second option, mainly because the first supposition seems rather unlikely, but also in view of the difference in flint procurement between the various Vlaardingen group settlements in the different
delta ecozones. The main problem, however, is the lack of evidence, especially of the supposed permanent settlements elsewhere on the sandy uplands
south of the wetland district. But both options would mean that a prominent
exploitation of natural resources continued up till the end of the Neolithic.
Another approach towards the start of crop cultivation has been the
detailed pollen analytic investigation of a kettle moor called Gietsenveentje
on the Drenthe Plateau (Bakker 2003). The earliest indications for arable
weeds and disturbance of the natural vegetation were dated to 4050 cal BC.
So the introduction of cereal cultivation seems for the time being to be
fixed at c. 41004000 cal BC by the presence of charred cereal grains and chaff
at Swifterbant S3 and in the lowest Hazendonk level, in combination with the
pollen evidence of Gietse Veentje. Again this date matches the first occurrence in the Early TRB assemblage of Wangels on the German Baltic coast,
in the form of charred grains and impressions in pottery, together with a faunal assemblage, consisting of about 50% of livestock bones, cattle as well as
sheep (Hartz et al. 2002, 328; and see Hartz et al., this volume).
SCHIPLUIDEN, A PERMANENT SETTLEMENT IN THE

COASTAL ZONE, 36003400 CAL BC
An important new anchor site for our view of the neolithisation process was
discovered in the subsoil of the former municipality of Schipluiden, close to
Delft at a depth of 35 m in the preparation of a new water purification
plant, and excavated in 2003 preceding its construction (Fig. 5; Louwe
Kooijmans & Jongste 2006). The results are complementary to and widen
those of earlier investigations at Wateringen (Raemaekers et al. 1997) and
Ypenburg (Koot in Louwe Kooijmans et al. 2005) in the same region.
Schipluiden involves a rather low (1.5 m) coastal dune, located in a vast
coastal plain, at c. 3 km behind the coastline of that time. The dune measured
c. 40120 m and was used as a settlement location in its full extent between
c. 3630 and 3380 cal BC. Similar settlements are known from locations in the
same Delfland district. This community is characterised by the so-called
Figure 5. Overall plan of the Schipluiden site. Notable are the complex of wells in the north-west, the stretches of surrounding fences and the post
clusters all over the dune. Domestic refuse was found in a wide zone all along the south-eastern dune margin.
300
301
Hazendonk ware, a development in and beyond the southern zone of the

Swifterbant culture. As in earlier times their links were predominantly to the
south and east, as reflected in the sources of flint and stone. Material culture
here thus combined a native pottery tradition with a flint tool kit, including
flint axes, of strong southern (Michelsberg) affinities.
The Schipluiden settlement consisted of four or five households, each
having its fixed yard on the crest of the dune. The community surrounded the
entire dune with a fence halfway through the period of occupation, and subsequently maintained the fence by replacing stretches of it once or twice (Fig.
6). The construction of it is seen as a communal effort and as a purposeful
structuring of the settlement, separating the wild natural land outside it from
the domestic space, and possibly protecting gardens or fields that might have
been kept between the houses. It has been calculated that c. 2000 m of
straight wooden posts with diameters of c. 6 cm must have been brought to
the site for the construction of the first fence in a basically open landscape,
with only localised shrubs on the widely spread dunesa considerable effort.
This is the first time that the layout and character of a Neolithic settlement
could be determined to the north of the loess zone. So we should not consider
it as the beginning of permanent settlement, but merely as the earliest
documentation of this.
Extensive palaeoecological investigation and modern parallels for the
reconstructed landscapes show that the Delfland microregion must have been
a rich grazing ground and attracted people for that reason, in spite of the
risks of salt incursions from the nearby estuary now and then. People even
grew cereals on the salt marshes, but collected a wide range of fruits, tubers
and onions from the wild as well. Little can be stated about the relative
importance of crop cultivation, but more can be said about the meat supply.
In all phases domestic animals (cattle and pig only) account for c. 60% of the
number of identified bones, the remaining 40% mainly consisting of wild
boar and red deer (Fig. 4). The ratio is more favourable for domesticates in
bone weight (70%), seemingly reflecting a rather conventional Neolithic subsistence. The faunal evidence for fowlingmainly waterfowlis very rich
and we should not underestimate the role of fish in this setting between the
estuary to the south and the fresh water swamps to the east. That aquatic
resources were indeed of great significance is strongly supported by the isotopic evidence of human skeletal remains, pointing towards a fresh water
contribution of about half of all proteins (Figs 7a7b and 8; Budd et al. in
prep.). Carrying capacity calculations demonstrate clearly, moreover, that the
hunting of large mammals could only contribute 10% of the daily food for
the 10050 people that supposedly inhabited the region. This implies a contribution by cattle and pigs of not more than 20% and makes us conclude
that the subsistence of this community still had the character of what I once
302
Figure 6. Schipluiden fence traces in the field and an ethnographic reference in the Norsk
Folkemuseum, Oslo 1976. Photo by the author.
303
Figure 7a. Hardinxveld, burial of an elderly woman in a Late Mesolithic tradition, c. 5500 cal BC.
304
Figure 7b. Schipluiden, tightly flexed burial of an adult man in a Middle Neolithic tradition, c.
3500 cal BC. Photos Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden.
called an extended broad spectrum economy (Louwe Kooijmans 1993a). We

conclude that the change in material culture preceded changes in settlement
system and the transformation of subsistence, at least in this coastal region.
The fact that these people settled in this region by free will, and that they
must have considered it attractive for their preferred way of life, implies that
305
Figure 8. 13C and 15N values of human skeletal material from Schipluiden, compared to the
values of farmers, inland and coastal fishers. After Smits in Louwe Kooijmans & Jongste 2006.
we should not consider this economy an adaptation to specific conditions

but rather see it as representative for the period involved.
CONCLUSION
We have given priority in this contribution first and foremost to the presentation of the factual evidence and its interpretation, since we fully agree with
Peter Rowley-Conwy (2004) that some explanations of the MesolithicNeolithic transition have moved far away from this basis and can even be
contradicted by the data.
Our main conclusions from the foregoing accounts are:
1 There has been a long-lasting, static, frontier between the agricultural
world in the south and the hunter-gatherers in the north: a long availability
phase of about seven centuries between 5300 and 4600 cal BC.
2 The Neolithic was not adopted as a package, but piecemeal: the main
Neolithic cultural elements preceding the subsistence shift. So the adoption
of food production took place within societies of local origin and within the
point-based pot tradition of the Swifterbant culture (Table 1).
306
Table 1. The neolithisation sequence in the Lower Rhine Basin represented by the first
occurrences of Neolithic elements in the Dutch and North German Plain.
cal BC
aspect
site, location
c. 3200
first fully agrarian faunal assemblages

(cattle 50%), Vlaardingen group
end of Swifterbant-Hazendonk pottery
traditions
permanent settlement, extended broad
spectrum economy
cereals (cattle 50%), crop cultivation
livestock (cattle, pig, sheep, goat 5%)
Neolithic flint blades
adzes (Breitkeile)
first local (point-based) pottery
first contacts
Ewijk, Voorschoten
3400
3600
41004000
4500
4800
49004800
5000
55005300
Schipluiden; Hazendonk
Schipluiden
Swifterbant S3, Gietse Veentje
Hardinxveld-De Bruin phase 3 (end?)
Hardinxveld-De Bruin phase 2
Hde I, Dmmer
Hardinxveld-Polderweg phase 2
Hardinxveld-Polderweg phase 1
3 There are striking parallels in this sequence of adoption between the

Lower Rhine Basin and the German Baltic Zone, where new research documents a similar and synchronous sequence. Both regions might be viewed as
just two areas where processes occurring all over the (intermediate) North
German plain have been documented by their favourable conditions for
preservation.
4 This sequence contrasts with the more abrupt changes in Britain on
the one hand and Denmark on the other, around 4000 cal BC.
5 The transition, finally, viewed in a wider geographical context, can be
seen as one piece in a mosaic of micro-regional transformations, being the
results of region-specific choices of hunter-gatherers in their contacts with
early farming communities.
Apart from the interpretational problems of the wetland sites, mentioned
above, there is another problem in establishing the domestic:wild ratio and
the application of the 50% criterion of Zvelebil (1986). The questions are:
1 Do we measure in numbers of identified bones or in bone weight, or
perhaps the isotope evidence for protein intake?
2 What species do we include in the 100% bone sum? Are dog, antler,
small rodents, birds included or excluded?
3 To what extent and on which criteria are pig and wild boar separated?
These matters play an important role when we compare faunal assemblages
identified by different zoologists at widely different times, as Raemaekers
(2003) did. He argued that neolithisation did not take that long, and that the
substitution phase must have ended around 3600 cal BC and not much later.
The 50% domestic boundary was passed for the first time in his Wateringen 4
site and the same is the case in the later Vlaardingen sites in agriculture-friendly
ecozones. This still leaves us, however, with the existence of locations devoted
307
for the greater part to the exploitation of natural resources in both phases. The
question of whether neolithisation ended 3600 cal BC or continued till the Late
Neolithic seems to be above all a matter of definition and choices.
The last question to be answered is why the communities in the Lower
Rhine Basin and perhaps the whole North German-Dutch Plain reacted so
cautiously to the new life style, in contrast to what happened earlier in the
loess zone and later in Britain, for example. I have earlier (Louwe Kooijmans
1998) suggested that there will have been a fundamental difference in attitude
to the natural environment between the fully domestic Bandkeramik and the
foragers of the North German-Dutch Plain. They just made other choices
because of this differences in attitude, but that never can be the sole explanation. The agricultural system which the Bandkeramik offered most probably
was not attractive enough to adopt. The transformation into Michelsberg
culture meant a new settlement system and possibly also a less rigorous agricultural system. It was at any rate eagerly adopted all over Britain and
Denmark, but still piecemeal and without any cultural disruption in the
Lower Rhine Basin, where the exploitation of the rich natural resources
remained the more attractive alternative.
Note. The author thanks Leo Verhart and Luc Amkreutz for their comments on an
earlier draft of the text, Liesbeth Smits for the use of Fig. 8, Walter Laan for making
the map in Fig. 1 on the basis of the NASA Worldwind data, and Medy Oberendorff
for Figs 2, 3 and 6.
REFERENCES
ANDERSEN, S. H. 19945. Ringkloster. Erteblle trappers and wild boar hunters in eastern
Jutland. A survey. Journal of Danish Archaeology 12, 1359.
BAKKER, R. 2003. The emergence of agriculture on the Drenthe Plateau. A palaeobotanical
study supported by high-resolution 14C dating. Bonn: Archologische Berichte 16.
BUDD, P., MILLARD, A. & SMITS, E. in preparation. Isotopic investigation of residential
mobility and diet in the Neolithic of the Lower Rhine Basin.
CLASON, A. T. 1990. Ewijk, an inland Vlaardingen settlement; Archaeozoology and the
amateur archaeologist. In J. Sedlemeier & H. Spycher (eds), Beitrge zur Archozoologie,
Archologie, Anthropologie, Geologie und Palontologie, 6375. Basel: Helbing and
Lichtenahn.
CROMB, P. (ed.) 2005. The last hunter-gatherer-fishermen in Sandy Flanders (NW Belgium).
The Verrebroek and Doel excavation projects (vol. 1). Gent: Archaeological Reports Ghent
University 3.
CROMB, P., PERDAEN, Y., SERGEANT, J., VAN ROEYEN, J.-P. & VAN STRYDONCK, M.
DEICHMLLER, J. 1965. Die neolithische Moorsiedlung Hde I am Dmmer, Kreis
Grafschaft Diepholz, Vorlufiger Abschlussbericht. Neue Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in
Niedersachsen 2, 118.
308
DE ROEVER, P. 2004. Swifterbant-aardewerk. Een analyse van de neolithische nederzettingen bij

Swifterbant, 5e millennium voor Christus. PhD thesis, Groningen University.
DE VRIES, L. S. 2004. Luilekkerland aan de kust. De faunaresten van de neolithische nederzetting
bij Rijswijk-Ypenburg. Amersfoort: Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 106.
GEHASSE, E. F. 1995. Ecologisch-archeologisch onderzoek van het Neolithicum en de Vroege
Bronstijd in de Noordoostpolder met de nadruk op vindplaats P14. PhD thesis, Amsterdam
University.
GROENMAN-VAN WAATERINGE, W., VOORRIPS, A. & VAN WIJNGAARDENBAKKER, L. H. 1968. Settlements of the Vlaardingen Culture at Voorschoten and
Leidschendam (ecology). Helinium 8, 10530.
HARTZ, S., HEINRICH, D. & LBKE, H. (eds) 2002. Coastal farmers the neolithisation of
HOGESTIJN, J. W. H. & PEETERS, J. H. M. (eds) 2001. De mesolithische en vroeg-neolithische
vindplaats Hoge Vaart-A27 (Flevoland). Amersfoort: Rapportage Archeologische
Monumentenzorg 79.
HUYGE, D. & VERMEERSCH, P. M. 1982. Late Mesolithic settlement at WeeldePaardsdrank. Studia Prehistorica Belgica 1, 116209.
KEELEY, L. H. 1992. The introduction of agriculture to the western North European plain. In
A. B. Gebauer & T. D. Price (eds), Transitions to agriculture in prehistory, 8195. Madison:
Monographs in World Archaeology 4.
LANTING, J. N. & VAN DER PLICHT, J. 19978. De 14C-chronologie van de Nederlandse
pre- en protohistorie II, Mesolithicum. Palaeohistoria 39/40, 99162.
LANTING, J. N. & VAN DER PLICHT, J. 19992000. De 14C-chronologie van de Nederlandse
pre- en protohistorie III, Neolithicum. Palaeohistoria 41/42, 1110.
LOUWE KOOIJMANS, L. P. 1993a. Wetland exploitation and upland relations of prehistoric
communities in the Netherlands. In J. Gardiner (ed.), Flatlands and wetlands: current themes
in East Anglian archaeology, 71116. Norwich: East Anglian Archaeology Report 50.
LOUWE KOOIJMANS, L. P. 1993b. The Mesolithic/Neolithic transformation in the Lower
Rhine Basin. In P. Bogucki (ed.), Case studies in European prehistory, 95145. Boca Raton:
CRC Press.
LOUWE KOOIJMANS, L. P. 1998. Understanding the Mesolithic/Neolithic frontier in the
Lower Rhine Basin, 53004300 cal BC. In M. Edmonds & C. Richards (eds), Understanding
the Neolithic of north-western Europe, 40727. Glasgow: Cruithne Press.
LOUWE KOOIJMANS, L. P. (ed.) 2001a. Hardinxveld-Giessendam, Polderweg. Een jachtkamp
uit het Laat-Mesolithicum, 55005000 v. Chr. Amersfoort: Rapportage Archeologische
Monumentenzorg 83.
LOUWE KOOIJMANS, L. P. (ed.) 2001b. Hardinxveld-Giessendam, De Bruin. Een jachtkamp uit
het Laat-Mesolithicum en het begin van de Swifterbant-cultuur, 55004450 v. Chr. Amersfoort:
Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 85.
LOUWE KOOIJMANS, L. P. 2003. The Hardinxveld sites in the Rhine/Meuse delta, 55004450
cal BC. In L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Leoffler & A. kerlund (eds),
Mesolithic on the move. Papers presented at the Sixth International Conference on the
Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000, 60824. Oxford: Oxbow.
LOUWE KOOIJMANS, L. P. 2004. Transition to farming along the lower Rhine and Meuse,
55003500 BC. In P. Bogucki & P. J. Crabtree (eds), Ancient Europe 8000 BCAD 1000, Volume
1, The Mesolithic to Copper Age, 28692. New York: Charles Scribers Sons, Thomson Gale.
LOUWE KOOIJMANS, L. P. & JONGSTE, P. B. F. (eds) 2006. Schipluiden, a Neolithic settlement on the Dutch North Sea coast, 36003400 cal BC. Leiden: Analecta Praehistorica
Leidensia 37/38 (20056).
LOUWE KOOIJMANS, L. P., VAN DER BROEKE, P. W., FOKKENS, H. & VAN GIJN, A. L.
(eds) 2005. The prehistory of the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
309
NEWELL, R. R. 1980. Mesolithic dwelling structures: fact and fantasy. In B. Gramsch (ed.),
Mesolithikum in Europa. 2e Internationales Symposium Potsdam, 38 april 1978, 23584.
Berlin: Verffentlichungen des Museums fr Ur und Frhgeschichte Potsdam 14/15.
PRUMMEL, W., NIEKUS, M. J. L. Th., VAN GIJN, A. L. & CAPPERS, R. T. J. 2002. A Late
Mesolithic kill site at Jardinga, Netherlands. Antiquity 76, 41324.
RAEMAEKERS, D. C. M. 1999. The articulation of a New Neolithic. The meaning of the
Swifterbant culture for the process of neolithisation in the western part of the North European
Plain (49003400 BC). Leiden: Archaeological Studies Leiden University 3.
RAEMAEKERS, D. C. M. 2003. Cutting a long story short? The process of neolithization in
the Dutch delta re-examined. Antiquity 77, 7408.
RAEMAEKERS, D. C. M., BAKELS, C. C., BEERENHOUT, B., VAN GIJN, A. L.,
HNNINEN, K., MOLENAAR, S., PAALMAN, D., VERBRUGGEN, M. &
VERMEEREN, C. 1997. Wateringen 4: a coastal settlement of the Middle Neolithic
Hazendonk 3 group. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 29, 14391.
in Britain, Ireland, and southern Scandinavia. Current Anthropology 45 Special Issue,
S83S113.
THOMAS, J. 1996. The cultural context of the first use of domesticates in continental central
and northwest Europe. In D. R. Harris (ed.), The origins and spread of agriculture and
pastoralism in Eurasia, 31022. London: UCL Press.
VANMONTFORT, B. 2004. Converging worlds: the neolithisation of the Scheldt Basin during the
late fifth and early fourth millennium cal BC. PhD thesis, Leuven University.
VERHART, L. B. M. 2000. Times fade away. The neolithization of the southern Netherlands in an
anthropological perspective. Leiden: Archaeological Studies Leiden University 6.
VERLINDE, A. D. & NEWELL, R. R. in press. A multi-component complex of Mesolithic settlements with Late Mesolithic grave pits at Marinberg in Overijssel. Amersfoort: Nederlandse
Archeologische Rapporten.
ZEILER, J. T. 1991. Hunting and animal husbandry at Neolithic sites in the western and central
Netherlands; interaction between man and the environment. Helinium 31, 60125.
ZEILER, J. T. 1997. Hunting, fowling and stock-breeding at Neolithic sites in the western and
central Netherlands. PhD thesis, Groningen University.
ZVELEBIL, M. 1986. Mesolithic prelude and the Neolithic revolution. In M. Zvelebil (ed.),
Hunters in transition. Mesolithic societies of temperate Europe and their transition to farming,
515. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mesolithic myths
GRAEME WARREN
GENERALISING COMMENTS ABOUT THE different models of humanity in the

Mesolithic and Neolithic are less appropriate than they once were. A perusal
of recent conference proceedings suggests that the Mesolithic is awash with
landscapes, monuments, natural places and ancestors (e.g. Bevan & Moore
2003; Conneller 2000; Fewster & Zvelebil 2000; Larsson et al. 2003; Young
2000). In fact, there is a sense that the Mesolithic is suffering from Neolithic
creep, with interpretations that are successful in one period being extended
back. It is important to be clear here, and my concerns are not parochial
boundary policing; the increased interest in the period has been exceptionally
stimulating. But the character of the evidence for the two periods creates significant differences in the nature of archaeological practice. Put simply, the
practice of landscape archaeology, especially in terms of the working
through of key theoretical concepts, is different for periods characterised by
such different data sources. This suggests that critical attention is required
when models effective in one period are imported into others. These difficulties are compounded when details of the archaeology of the recipient
period are not receiving due care. Furthermore, many general models are
founded on very old understandings of the nature of the economic base or
social process in the Mesolithic. These are open to major question. Finally, a
range of new interpretations of the Mesolithic suggests radically new possibilities for understanding going over. In this context it is appropriate to
stress that these new interpretations of the Mesolithic have grown from a very
fine-grained attention to materiality (e.g. contributions to Conneller &
Warren 2006), and they lead to the creation of a very distinct and original
archaeology of the Mesolithic.
I would like to substantiate some of these broad claims, and highlight
important new trends in Mesolithic archaeology, by presenting some myths.
Put crudely, myths are stories that help us to tell stories, or guide other
actions. Whilst myths may have their origins in a real event or process, such
stories also grow in the telling, and take on a life of their own. And myths, of
course, reveal much about the community within which they exist. With this
broad definition, I explore three myths of the Mesolithic. The first myth
Graeme Warren
312
explores Mesolithic monuments. The second relates to analytical scale.

Finally, I explore myth in early Mesolithic Britain.
MESOLITHIC MONUMENTS?
One of the most persistent themes in recent reappraisals of the Mesolithic
has been middens. Once treated as little more than an indication of economic
organisation, middens are now the monuments of the Mesolithic, with attendant roles in funerary process, territorial claims and feasting (e.g. Cummings
2003; Pollard 1990; 1996). Iconic images, such as the view of Caisteal nan
Gillean, Oronsay, used as promotional material for the conference (Fig. 1),
have undoubtedly helped establish this equivalency. The distinctive profile of
this construction has been compared to many features; some have seen the
Figure 1.
Promotional material for the Going Over conference.
MESOLITHIC MYTHS
313
shape of distant hills mirrored in the midden, others have suggested that the
shape is an evocation of a limpet (Mellars 2004). For many, however, the simplest comparison is with later prehistoric tumuli. This comparison, of course,
is not new. Symington Grieve recalled of a visit in 1880, that it was a remarkable object, evidently artificial, and gave the impression that it might have
been a place of burial (cited in Mellars 1987, 117), and excavated the mound
hoping to find Neolithic or Bronze Age burials. Such rethinkings of middens
have been important in shifting perceptions of Mesolithic archaeology, yet
they require critical attention (see debate between Cross 2001 and Woodman
2001). Here I focus primarily on the middens of Oronsay, which have
dominated discussion, set into a broader context.
The oft-reproduced 1881 photograph or engraving demonstrates the
remarkable conical mound of Caisteal nan Gillean I which at the time
included over 2 m of midden material. Yet this image is misleading, not
least because Caisteal nan Gillean is exceptional, even amongst the Oronsay
middens (Mellars 1987, 11718). The dominant mound is mainly a sand
dune, with a thick capping of midden, which was initially set in a complex
of dunes of unknown character. Many other large dunes may have existed
in the immediate vicinity; some may have also been focal points of activity.
Birch and hazel woodland was encroaching on the site. The sea was immediately beneath the midden. Furthermore, the importance of marine foods,
as well as the clear evidence of links to the mainland, suggest that sea passage was routine for Mesolithic communities (Mellars 2004; see also Warren
2000). A Mesolithic view of the middens was most likely from the sea. At
the least then, our icon is looking in the wrong direction, and this may be a
metaphor for our approaches to the transition. More critically, this view
radically misrepresents the later Mesolithic landscape. Clearly, these points
need substantiation.
The monumental status of the Oronsay middens is founded, at least in
part, in a perception of the middens playing a dominating role in the landscape. The Oronsay middens occupy a variety of landscape locations, but
many are reasonably prominent features today. Cnoc Sligeach is a conspicuous landmark on the north-eastern coast of Oronsay (Mellars 1987, 122),
located on a rocky outcrop above a grassy coastal plain, the two Caisteal nan
Gillean sites occupy commanding positions (Mellars 1987, 153), and Priory
is a well defined mound (Mellars 1987, 182), although it is important to note
Chattertons (2006) argument that most are capped by sand. However, it is
not clear that they were prominent in the past. The middens can only be
understood in their fifth millennium cal BC environment. As is well known,
sea levels were high, and many middens were located immediately adjacent to
the shores (for detail see Jardine 1987). At Cnoc Sligeach the midden would
have sat on a rocky outcrop almost cut off by the sea at high tide, mixing of
314
Graeme Warren
midden and storm beach material in the lower parts of the section demonstrating just how close the sea was. That the sites were immediately adjacent
to the shore does not deny their monumentality, but it does shift our focus a
little.
Molluscan evidence shows that Cnoc Coig and Caisteal nan Gillean II
were constructed on dune surfaces with woodland in the immediate vicinity
(Paul 1987), and that woodland was encroaching closer to the midden locations during the period of occupation of both sites (Paul 1987, 102). Based
on island-wide models this is likely to have been a hazel and birch scrub
(Birks 1987). In fact, trampling in and around the edges of the middens may
have been responsible for maintaining an open space (Paul 1987). The
Oronsay middens are not exceptional in being located in woodland; parallels
are found throughout Britain, for example at Morton B, Fife (Coles 1971).
The middens were built on to accumulations of dune sand, some of which
had stabilised into land surfaces and contain evidence of earlier occupation.
Dune systems themselves are hugely dynamic, and extensive evidence of
spade cultivation in post-midden levels offers another example of landscape
transformation. The sand capping the middens is clearly a very dynamic land
form: the entire sequence of post midden levels at Caisteal nan Gillean . . .
represents a complex succession of deposition, erosion and soil forming
episodes (Mellars 1987, 176). For example, the trough between Caisteal nan
Gillean I and II that contributes greatly to the prominence of the two sites is
an erosive feature. To my knowledge detailed models of the fifth millennium
dunescape have not been constructed, and therefore assessing the landscape
location of the middens in their contemporary dunescape is very difficult.
The hints that are available suggest different associations than some
recent discussions might imply. Although some middens are found in higher
locations the details of formation suggest complexity. At Cnoc Sligeach, for
example, it is argued that: . . .the flattened area on the summit of the hill
served as the major focus of human activity on the site, from which the bulk
of the shell refuse was conveniently discarded down the steeper slopes of the
mound to the south and east (Mellars 1987, 205). At Cnoc Coig, Mellars discusses concentrated zones of shell deposition which accumulated immediately adjacent to both a major occupation structure and a complex succession
of superimposed hearths (Mellars 1987, 227). If anything dominated the
Mesolithic landscape it was not the midden. In fact, Chatterton argues that
looking more widely across Britain and Ireland many middens are rather
ephemeral: lodged into caves, or hollows of rock (Chatterton 2006, 114).
Questions of preservation are significant here (Finlayson 2006, 177), but few
of the British and Irish middens approach the scale of the southern
Scandinavian examples. The large oyster middens of the Forth estuary, for
MESOLITHIC MYTHS
315
example, are complex multiphase features, which may largely date to the
Neolithic (Ashmore & Hall 1996; Sloan 1993).
These discussions suggest that the monumental role of Mesolithic middens may be exaggerated. Of course, many Neolithic monuments were constructed in woodlands, and many writers have stressed the significance of
clearings and tree throws (e.g. Brown 1997; 2000; Cummings & Whittle 2003;
Edmonds 1999; Evans et al. 1999), and monuments have been considered in
their marine context (e.g. Phillips 2003). It is clear that a detailed analysis of
the significance of Mesolithic middens within their contemporary landscape
could make a substantial contribution to our understanding of wider
processes. However, discussion of Mesolithic middens as monuments has
been undertaken without this detailed understanding.
Recent dating programmes also cast doubt on the funerary associations
of many Scottish middens in the Mesolithic. Burials from An Corran include
Iron Age individuals (Saville & Hallen 1994) and those from Rasochoille
Cave and Carding Mill Bay are often assumed to be Neolithic due to a
terrestrial diet and dates in the earlymid fourth millennium cal BC (e.g.
Schulting & Richards 2002a). It is important to be critical here. Most dates
for human bone from Scottish and Irish shell middens fall in the late fifth and
early fourth millennia cal BC, and it is not clear that there is any meaningful
distinction between Mesolithic and Neolithic in this context. But a simple
equation between middens and funerary associations for hunting and gathering communities in general stretches our data too far, not least because the
absence of organic preservation on the majority of sites means that we cannot be sure how other places compared to middens. Fragments of human
bodies appear frequently on Mesolithic sites in Europe, and occasionally in
Britain (Conneller 2006, with references).
Further problems exist with dominant models of funerary process on the
Oronsay middens that stress excarnation (e.g. Mellars 1987; Pollard 1996).
Meiklejohn and colleagues (2005) argue that the human remains from Cnoc
Coig are the result of two phenomena: first, a general European trend for
stray human bones to appear on Mesolithic sites with faunal preservation (a
random taphonomic phenomenon (Meiklejohn et al. 2005, 102); and second,
a deliberate pattern of deposition involving the bones of the hands and feet.
Most importantly, accounts of funerary practices there must include discussion of the placement of human finger bones on top of a seal flipper.
Conneller (2006, 161) argues that connections can be drawn between the representation of animal and human body parts throughout the middens and
that these lines of evidence suggest that parallels were being drawn between
the human body and analogous animal body parts. Cnoc Coig was therefore
a place where equivalencies between humans and other agents (animals) were
316
Graeme Warren
established and where the specifics of these relationships can be analysed.

Arguably, our focus on monuments and excarnation, concepts familiar to us
from the archaeology of the Neolithic, has distracted us from these aspects
of our data.
A focus on monumentality has also deflected us from considering the
processes by which middens came into being: the presence of hearths and
working areas on top of uncomfortable and presumably smelly dumps of
shell and other refuse. Minimally, middens are composed of food waste, and
we have not accounted for the cultural significance of food (Milner 2006).
Middens are a deliberate creation, embodying repeated depositional acts
(Warren 2001). At times, it was important to undertake tasks amongst this
material. This provides links to other places in the Mesolithic landscape,
albeit ones that often fall into a different archaeological class of site: that is,
at sites that are not shell middens. At Newton, Islay (McCullagh 1991), for
example, during the seventh millennium cal BC a building with a pitched roof
and sunken floor appears to have been intermittently filled with midden
material, with fires and occupation on these surfaces. The excavators argue
that it is difficult to imagine how such deposits accumulated within an active
inhabitation, yet the fragile nature of the scorched gravel argues against redeposition of these contexts. It may be that occupation was intermittent
between phases within which the sunken floor area received midden material
(McCullagh 1991, 27). This suggests complex and intimately linked episodes
of deposition and activity. Broad parallels also exist at Kinloch (WickhamJones 1990) and Staosnaig (Mithen 2000). Many of the large post-defined
buildings (East Barns or Howick, for example) that have recently been discovered in northern Britain are also filled with midden deposits (Gooder
2003; Waddington et al. 2003). These patterns provide links between middens
and other sites. The processes involved in depositing culturally altered material and lighting fires within these accumulations appear to have been much
more significant to the Mesolithic occupants of Scotland than we have often
allowed.
These discussions imply that a rather different series of questions can be
developed for Mesolithic middens. It is not enough to call them monumental,
with all the echoes of Neolithic archaeology which this carries. Middens,
understood in the context of other Mesolithic sites, have the potential to tell
us how people understood the world and their place within it and how this
in turn guided their actions. This kind of context is vital to considering the
transition to the Neolithic.
MESOLITHIC MYTHS
317
ANALYTICAL SCALE
My second myth concerns the analytical scale of narratives about the
Mesolithic and the transition to the Neolithic. Most models are constructed
at very broad spatio-temporal scales. Commonly, and teleologically, the
Mesolithic is defined as a period of time when hunter-gatherers were in transition to farming; or by increasing socio-economic complexity and complex
hunter-gatherers; or by increasing sedentism; or by population growth; or by
adaptation to woodlands, or the coasts. Many of these processes are interconnected, and many are seen as relevant to the end of the Mesolithic; in particular the link between maritime adaptations, sedentism and complexity is
often seen as pre-adapting hunter-gatherers to agriculture. The development
of these models within Mesolithic archaeology is picked up in discussions of
the nature of the transition and becomes embedded within them. As such,
they might be described as myths.
I say myths, because there is reason to question many of these generalisations. In Britain, for example, Penny Spikins (1999; 2000) has demonstrated
that traditional upland/lowland models of mobility are flawed. Even concepts such as sedentism are the subject of heated debate, with suggestions
that classic Erteblle sites may not have seen permanent occupation (Milner
2003; 2005a; 2005b; Rowley-Conwy 1998). Given the importance of notions
of sedentism in the Erteblle culture to constructions of Mesolithic complexity (Price 1985; Price & Brown 1985; Rowley-Conwy 1983; also Arnold
1996; but see Gould 1985; Warren 2005) and the transition, such reappraisals
are of great significance. Put simply, we know much less about the Mesolithic
than we think we do. The argument that the Mesolithic sees increased
exploitation of maritime resources over time, for instance, has often been
mobilised in recent discussions. Notwithstanding concerns about sample
sizes and what we can infer from isotopes (Barbarena & Borrero 2005;
Hedges 2004; Lden et al. 2004; Milner et al. 2004), such models misrepresent
the Mesolithic. Nicky Milner (2006), for example, argues that there is
much greater variation in the British and Irish record than most discussions
allow.
There is also significant spatial variation at differing scales, with arguments, for example, that the late Mesolithic of the Southern Netherlands
(Verhart 2000) is characterised by high levels of mobility, and minimal evidence for complexity. Likewise, recent reviews stress that the Mesolithic in
Britain and Ireland is not an impoverished rendition of continental themes,
but demonstrates a range of distinct expressions of ways of living as a
hunter-gatherer at this time (Conneller & Warren 2006). This variation is lost
in recent discussion, which may stress a multitude of ways of being Neolithic,
but rarely considers hunter-gatherer diversity in any detail.
318
Graeme Warren
At times it seems that the success of models in some parts of Europe

becomes the template for how the transition in other areas should be
explained. The transition in Southern Scandinavia and the Baltic, for example, is understood in considerable detail. But it is not clear that this provides
a meaningful way of interpreting the transition in other areas. Again, the
issue here is not that preservation conditions in Britain and Ireland militate
against recovering evidence demonstrating social processes similar to those
understood in Scandinavia; there is no compelling reason that the evidence
should be of this kind. I have suggested elsewhere that the success of huntergatherers in the Baltic in negotiating the transition whilst retaining aspects of
hunter-gatherer social organisation may be distinctive (Warren 2004).
The stress on the large scale is most problematic in the distinction established between our archaeological accounts and the scales at which people in
the past lived their lives (e.g. Whittle 2003). This is highlighted by the increasing resolution of archaeological data. Skeletal analyses, for example, present
striking pictures of diet, migration and local complexity (e.g. Bentley et al.
2003; Budd et al. 2004; Price et al. 2001; Richards 2003; Richards & Hedges
1999a; 1999b; Richards & Mellars 1998; Schulting & Richards 2000; 2002a;
2002b; 2003; Wysocki & Whittle 2000; and contributions to this volume). But
all too often our accounts are based on normalised data at crude temporal
resolution: such as the economy of a shell midden that was occupied for a
thousand years (see Jones 2002). For example, recent isotopic analysis of
human bone from the late Mesolithic site of Ferriters Cove suggests a diet
heavily dominated by marine protein (Woodman 2004), whilst the faunal
assemblage from the site had included substantial quantities of terrestrial
mammals (Woodman et al. 1999): mainly boar, but including domesticated
cattle. It should not surprise us that sometimes the data from individuals
bears no clear comparison to the normalised picture. But it does, however,
raise a substantial archaeological challenge, especially given the key role
which considerations of site function, mainly based on aggregated analyses
of faunal remains, have played in the construction of models of Mesolithic
settlement.
Increased radiocarbon dates and statistical sensitivity allow exceptional
refinement of the chronologies of the transitional period, suggesting a framework in which we can try to understand the scales of the processes involved
for communities. But all too often issues of scale and process remain frustratingly abstract. Yet a range of work implies that scale is vital to our
attempts to make sense of the transition. Through the example of Petsos
Field, Kathy Fewster (2001) has demonstrated that we cannot think about
the transition without thinking about individual decisions: to farm or not to
farm, to move or to stay, what to build, and where to build it. Others have
stressed that the transition involves changes in both directions, and is not sta-
MESOLITHIC MYTHS
319
ble (e.g. Armit & Finlayson 1992; 1996). For all of our stress on personhood
in the Neolithic (Jones 2005 with references), the constituting of identity in
the Mesolithic and the role of these people in structuring the transition
remain muted (although for an exception see Fowler 2004). Accounts of
change without agents are limited; reducing historical process to the playing
out of structures confuses the resolution of our evidence with the processes
existing in the past (Sahlins 2004). If the transition requires an understanding of agency then it necessitates a critical appreciation of the contexts within
which historical agency became possible. At present this is rarely explored in
our discussions.
MYTH IN THE EARLY MESOLITHIC

My third myth focuses on Mesolithic worldviews, and asks what role they
played in structuring the production, use and deposition of material culture.
Of course, interest in how Mesolithic people understood their landscape is
not new. In Britain and Ireland there have been increasing numbers of
accounts that highlight the importance of symbolism (e.g. contributions to
Conneller 2000; Fewster & Zvelebil 2001; Larsson et al. 2003; Young 2000).
Arguably these accounts are often insufficiently radical.
Recent years have seen yet another reappraisal of Star Carr, stressing
both the distinctive character of the site in its immediate landscape context,
and a broad suite of European parallels (Chatterton 2003; Conneller 2003;
2004; Conneller & Schadla-Hall 2003). Work in the Vale of Pickering has
demonstrated that Star Carr is a very unusual location. Shale and amber
beads, axes, barbed points and the famous antler frontlets are all either rare
or absent elsewhere in the Vale (Conneller & Schadla-Hall 2003, 102).
Chatterton (2003) has argued that the association of barbed points, antler
frontlets and beads is common across Europe, and sometimes appears to have
involved deliberate deposition into water. Conneller (2004) has argued that
the deposits at Star Carr suggest an interest in negotiating human-animal
relationships, especially through an interest in the heads of animals and
humans suggested by many artefacts. This is not to suggest that Star Carr is
a ritual site, simply that some aspects of activity there involved structured
deposition of particular kinds of material. But it implies that we cannot
understand Star Carr without considering the role of myth in the Mesolithic.
Turning our attention to the barbed points recovered on site allows further extension of the argument, In brief, 191 barbed points were recovered
from Star Carr of which 187 were manufactured on red deer antler with no
evidence for the use of roe deer or elk antler (Fig. 2). Although the function
of the barbed points is not known, antler is a resilient material, ideally suited
Graeme Warren
320
Figure 2.
Barbed points from Star Carr (after Clark 1954).
MESOLITHIC MYTHS
321
for uses involving impacts. But the selection of red deer is harder to justify on
practical grounds, and appears to be a deliberate choice. Indeed, at a
European level, bone barbed points are common (Blankholm 1994, 30, table
2). Conneller has argued that the barbed points can only be understood in
connection with the antler frontlets, noting that the tines may have been
removed from these not simply to make the frontlets lighter but in order to
provide raw material for barbed points. Therefore the life histories of the
frontlets were intimately linked with the technical actions of barbed point
manufacture (Conneller 2003, 83). Production of barbed points involved the
removal of a splinter blank and the finishing of this blank through sawing
and abrasion. Whilst there is plentiful evidence at Star Carr for the former,
and for the deposition of used and broken points, it appears that finishing of
blanks took place elsewhere. The production and deposition of barbed
points, therefore, are complex; and the complexity of this technical procedure
seems to emphasise the process by which the points were brought into being.
Gell has argued that the enchantment of technology is the power that
technical processes have of casting a spell over us (Gell 1992, 44), through
the ability of an agent to control the powers and forces of production. Often,
Gell argues, the power of objects is founded upon their becoming rather
than their being (Gell 1992, 46) and thus emphasis is placed on the process
of production. This model fits well with the complex history of barbed point
manufacture and deposition witnessed at Star Carr, where the enchantment
of technology appears to be connected to human-animal relationships, and
more specifically those between humans and red deer. Thus we cannot understand the production, use and deposition of barbed points in the early
Mesolithic landscape without considering the role of myth.
We can go further. The broadly contemporary sites found in the Kennet
valley, Berkshire, derive from the repeated occupation of a lowland riverine
environment over the long term. At the time, the Kennet was a braided
stream with an open floodplain overlooked by drier, sometimes wooded,
bluffs. The bluffs were a focus for occupation, but some activity appears to
have taken place on the floodplain (Ellis et al. 2003; Healey et al. 1992). Most
importantly, Thatcham appears to have been a location where some potentially unusual deposits were made, including human bone (Wymer 1962). At
Thatcham II an inverted red deer skullcap and antlers were found, standing
approximately 30 cm above the Mesolithic land surface, with a battered antler
beam propped against it, and knapping waste to one side (Fig. 3; Wymer
1962, 338). The skull appears to have been used as a prop in the manufacture
of stone tools through soft-hammer percussion. It is especially striking that
red deer skulls are generally rare at Thatcham (Wymer 1962); this was not
simply a convenient surface.
322
Graeme Warren
Figure 3. Thatcham II, Berkshire. Inverted red deer antlers overlain with antler beam, tines
removed, associated with flint waste flakes and interpreted as a knapping station. Wymer 1962,
pl. XLVIII, reproduced with the kind permission of the Prehistoric Society.
This remarkable discovery has received surprisingly little attention. The

clear association between stone working and the head of an animal finds resonance with Connellers discussion of Star Carr. Following on from the argument that the enchantment of barbed point technology in early Holocene
North Yorkshire was achieved through association with red deer, the evidence from Thatcham suggests that, in some circumstances at least, early
Mesolithic stone-working was enchanted through similar processes. Myth
concretely structured the ways in which at least some stone tools were produced in the Mesolithic. Consequently, we cannot understand the appearance
of stone tools in the archaeological record without considering myth.
These arguments suggest strongly that myth played a very significant role
in Mesolithic life. This is, of course, no surprise. What will be surprising, to
some, is that the archaeological record allows us to examine this. That we have
not done so is simply a product of the kinds of questions we choose to ask.
It is important to think more radically about the implications of these
Mesolithic myths. In the examples above I have demonstrated that complex
symbolic associations between humans and animals played a role in shaping
the creation, use and deposition of archaeological material. And yet most
general models for interpreting what Mesolithic sites mean in terms of
MESOLITHIC MYTHS
323
broader systems of settlement or social relations have paid little attention to

such issues. It is worth stating explicitly that, in far too many cases, we simply do not understand how the archaeological record came into being. This
is not an issue of taphonomy, although clearly this has a role. More crucially
we do not understand the cultural decisions lying behind the deposition of
material. As a consequence our generalising models are built on the weakest
of foundations and require complete reappraisal. Furthermore, it is clear that
a reinterpretation of the Mesolithic that adds a symbolic gloss to existing
models of economic or social complexity also lies on this poor foundation.
A new archaeology of the Mesolithic is required, from the base up.
CONCLUSIONS
I have argued that our understandings of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition
have often failed to pay sufficient attention to Mesolithic archaeology. Recent
years have seen interest in the period, but at times, this has not engaged sufficiently with the characteristics of Mesolithic materials. We fail to understand the role of agency in the transition, not least because our approaches
cannot inform us of the conditions within which agency developed. New
trends in Mesolithic archaeology in Britain and Ireland are identifying new
questions and approaches which offer great potential in addressing such
issues. Importantly, one result of this is a distinctive series of interpretations
that do not sit easily with current models of the transition. A radically new
archaeology of the Mesolithic is beginning to fall into place. This in turn
demands a different view of the transition.
For example, and very simply, my three disparate myths of the Mesolithic
suggest that in the fifth millennium cal BC in the west of Scotland the use and
deposition of material culture were structured, in part, through specific
understandings of human/animal relationships, and included concern about
deposition of midden material. In particular, the striking association
between humans relying heavily on marine foods and a seal at Cnoc Coig suggests powerful equivalencies being drawn between the human and animal. At
the least, this suggests that the new relationships to animals involved in the
changes of the transition, perhaps especially in terms of cattle, most likely
presented a fundamental challenge to existing understandings of the world. I
have argued elsewhere that one way of understanding the presence of
Neolithic bones and material culture on Mesolithic shell middens in the
west of Scotland, is that these places played a role in occasional rites of passage that allowed people in transition to a new way of life to hark back to
older identities (Warren 2004); middens provided a way of negotiating the
transition.
324
Graeme Warren
All too often in considering the transition to agriculture in north-west

Europe our thinking and writing fall into binary oppositions: Mesolithic or
Neolithic; hunter-gatherer or farmer; immigrant or indigenous; ritual or settlement. These categories have, for many years, provided convenient shorthands, that have allowed us to approximate to the processes existing in the
past. More recently, our analytical demands have become greater, and full of
confidence. We ask, and hope to be able to answer, questions about how individual lives were woven into and gave form to large-scale events and
processes. In a recent review, Peter Rowley-Conwy argued that in essence the
Mesolithic has been treated as a way of life and livelihood, the Neolithic as a
way of death and ritual. We must, however, accept that the Neolithic too had
a domestic way of life and that we have many data casting light upon it
(Rowley-Conwy 2004, 99). This slightly divisive characterisation misses the
point in two ways. First, it is not simply that we must look at life and livelihood in the Neolithic, but also at ritual in the Mesolithic. Secondly, and more
importantly, it is clear that we must understand how life and belief were
inseparable in both periods. It is only when we understand what life was like
in the fifth millennium cal BC that we have any hope of understanding what
we might mean by going over.
Note. I would like to thank Alasdair Whittle and Vicki Cummings for their work
in organising such a successful and interesting conference. I am grateful to Gabriel
Cooney for comments on a previous draft of this paper. Thanks also to the
Prehistoric Society for permission to reproduce Fig. 3. Any errors or inconsistencies
are solely my responsibility.
REFERENCES
ARMIT, I. & FINLAYSON, B. 1992. Hunter-gatherers transformed: the transition to agriculture
in northern and western Europe. Antiquity 66, 66476.
ARMIT, I. & FINLAYSON, B. 1996. The transition to agriculture. In T. Pollard & A. Morrison
(eds), The early prehistory of Scotland, 26990. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
ARNOLD, J. E. 1996. The archaeology of complex hunter-gatherers. Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 3, 77126.
ASHMORE, P. & HALL, D. 1996. Shell midden at Braehead, Alloa. Forth Naturalist and
Historian 20, 12330.
BARBARENA, R. & BORRERO, L. A. 2005. Stable isotopes and faunal bones. Comments on
Milner et al. (2004). Antiquity 79, 1915.
BENTLEY, R. A., CHIKHI, L. & PRICE, T. D. 2003. The Neolithic transition in Europe:
comparing broad scale genetic and local scale isotopic evidence. Antiquity 77, 636.
BEVAN, L. & MOORE, J. (eds) 2003. Peopling the Mesolithic in a northern environment. Oxford:
British Archaeological Reports.
BIRKS, H. J. B. 1987. The past and present vegetation of Oronsay and Colonsay. In P. A.
Mellars, Excavations on Oronsay. Prehistoric human ecology on a small island, 5277.
MESOLITHIC MYTHS
325
BLANKHOLM, H. P. 1994. On the track of a prehistoric economy: Maglemosian subsistence in

early postglacial south Scandinavia. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
BROWN, A. G. 1997. Clearances and clearings: deforestation in Mesolithic/Neolithic Britain.
Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16, 13346.
BROWN, A. G. 2000. Floodplain vegetation history: clearings as potential ritual spaces? In
A. S. Fairbairn (ed.), Plants in Neolithic Britain and beyond, 4962. Oxford: Oxbow.
BUDD, P., MILLARD, A., CHENERY, C., LUCY, S. & ROBERTS, C. 2004. Investigating
population movement by stable isotope analysis: a report from Britain. Antiquity 78,
12741.
CHATTERTON, R. 2003. Star Carr reanalysed. In L. Bevan & J. Moore (eds), Peopling the
Mesolithic in a northern environment, 6980. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
CHATTERTON, R. 2006. Ritual. In C. Conneller & G. Warren (eds), Mesolithic Britain and
Ireland: new approaches, 10120. Stroud: Tempus.
CLARK, J. G. D. 1954. Excavations at Star Carr: an early Mesolithic site at Seamer near
Scarborough Yorkshire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
COLES, J. M. 1971. The early settlement of Scotland: excavations at Morton, Fife. Proceedings
CONNELLER, C. J. (ed.) 2000. New approaches to the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic.
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 17.
CONNELLER, C. J. 2003. Star Carr recontextualised. In L. Bevan & J. Moore (eds),
Peopling the Mesolithic in a northern environment, 816. Oxford: British Archaeological
Reports.
CONNELLER, C. J. 2004. Becoming deer: corporeal transformations at Star Carr.
Archaeological Dialogues 11, 3756.
CONNELLER, C. J. 2006. Death and the body. In C. Conneller & G. Warren (eds), Mesolithic
Britain and Ireland: new approaches, 13964. Stroud: Tempus.
CONNELLER, C. J. & SCHADLA-HALL, T. 2003. Beyond Star Carr: The Vale of Pickering
in the 10th Millennium BP. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 69, 85106.
CONNELLER, C. J. & WARREN, G. M. (eds) 2006. Mesolithic Britain and Ireland: new
approaches. Stroud: Tempus.
CROSS, S. 2001. Competitive feasting in the Neolithic. Archaeology Ireland 55, 1113.
CUMMINGS, V. 2003. The origins of monumentality? Mesolithic world-views of the landscape
in Western Britain. In L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Loeffler & A. kerlund
(eds), Mesolithic on the move: papers presented at the sixth international conference on the
Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000, 7480. Oxford: Oxbow.
CUMMINGS, V. & WHITTLE, A. 2003. Tombs with a view: landscape, monuments and trees.
EDMONDS, M. 1999. Ancestral geographies of the Neolithic. London: Routledge.
ELLIS, C., ALLEN, M. J., GARDINER, J., HARDING, P., INGREM, C., POWELL, A. &
SCAIFE, R. G. 2003. An Early Mesolithic seasonal hunting site in the Kennet Valley,
southern England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 69, 10736.
EVANS, C., POLLARD, J. & KNIGHT, M. 1999. Life in woods: tree-throws, settlement and
forest cognition. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18, 24154.
FEWSTER, K. J. 2001. Petsos Field: ethnoarchaeology and agency. In K. Fewster & M. Zvelebil
(eds), Ethnoarchaeology and hunter-gatherers: pictures at an exhibition, 8191. Oxford: British
FEWSTER, K. J. & ZVELEBIL, M. (eds) 2001. Ethnoarchaeology and hunter-gatherers: pictures
at an exhibition. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
FINLAYSON, B. 2006. Overview setting up questions. In C. Conneller & G. Warren (eds),
Mesolithic Britain and Ireland: new approaches, 16584. Stroud: Tempus.
FOWLER, C. 2004. The archaeology of personhood: an anthropological approach. London:
Routledge.
326
Graeme Warren
GELL, E. 1992. The technology of enchantment and the enchantment of technology. In J. Coote
& A. Shelton (eds), Anthropology, art and aesthetics, 4063. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
GOODER, J. 2003. Excavating the oldest house in Scotland: East Barns, Dunbar, East Lothian.
Scottish Archaeological News 42, 12.
GOULD, R. A. 1985. Now lets invent agriculture . . . a critical review of concepts of
complexity among hunter-gatherers. In T. D. Price & J. A. Brown (eds), Prehistoric huntergatherers: the emergence of cultural complexity, 42734. London: Academic Press.
HEALY, F., HEATON, M. & LOBB, S. J. 1992. Excavations of a Mesolithic site at Thatcham,
Berkshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58, 4176.
HEDGES, R. E. M. 2004. Isotopes and red herrings: comments on Milner et al. and Lidn
et al., Antiquity 78, 347.
JARDINE, W. G. 1987. The Mesolithic coastal setting. In P. A. Mellars, Excavations on
Oronsay. Prehistoric human ecology on a small island, 2551. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
JONES, A. 2002. Archaeological theory and scientific practice. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
JONES, A. 2005. Lives in fragments? Personhood and the European Neolithic. Journal of Social
LARSSON, L., KINDGREN, H., KNUTSSON, K., LOEFFLER, D. & KERLUND, A.
(eds) 2003. Mesolithic on the move: papers presented at the sixth international conference on
the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000. Oxford: Oxbow.
time? Diet in Mesolithic Neolithic southern Sweden. Antiquity 78, 2333.
MCCULLAGH, R. 1991. Excavation at Newton, Islay. Glasgow Archaeological Journal 15,
2351.
MEIKLEJOHN, C., MERRETT, D. C., NOLAN, R. W., RICHARDS, M. P. & MELLARS,
P. A. 2005. Spatial relationships, dating and taphonomy of the human bone from the
Mesolithic site of Cnoc Coig, Oronsay, Argyll, Scotland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society 71, 85106.
MELLARS, P. A. 1987. Excavations on Oronsay. Prehistoric human ecology on a small island.
MELLARS, P. A. 2004. Mesolithic Scotland, coastal occupation and the role of the Oronsay
middens. In A. Saville (ed.), Mesolithic Scotland and its neighbours: the early Holocene prehistory of Scotland, its British and Irish context and some North European perspectives,
16784. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
MILNER, N. 2003. Pitfalls and problems in analysing and interpreting the seasonality of
faunal remains. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 16, 5065.
MILNER, N. 2005a. Seasonal consumption practices in the Mesolithic: economic, environmental, social or ritual? In N. Milner & P. C. Woodman (eds), Mesolithic studies at the beginning
of 21st Century, 5668. Oxford: Oxbow.
MILNER, N. 2005b. Can seasonality studies be used to identify sedentism in the past? In
D. Bailey, A. Whittle & V. Cummings (eds), (un)settling the Neolithic, 327. Oxford: Oxbow.
MILNER, N. 2006. Subsistence. In C. Conneller & G. Warren (eds), Mesolithic Britain and
Ireland: new approaches, 6182. Stroud: Tempus.
MITHEN, S. J. (ed.) 2000. Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology. The southern Hebrides
Mesolithic Project 198898. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.
MESOLITHIC MYTHS
327
PAUL, C. R. C. 1987. Land-snail assemblages from the shell-midden sites. In P. A. Mellars,

Excavations on Oronsay. Prehistoric human ecology on a small island, 91106. Edinburgh:
PHILLIPS, T. 2003. Seascapes and landscapes in Orkney and northern Scotland. World
POLLARD, A. 1990. Down through the ages: a reconsideration of the Oban cave sites. Scottish
Archaeological Review 7, 5784.
POLLARD, A. 1996. Time and tide: coastal environments, cosmology and ritual practice in
early Prehistoric Scotland. In A. Pollard & A. Morrison (eds), The early prehistory of
Scotland, 198210. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
PRICE, T. D. 1985. Affluent foragers of Mesolithic Southern Scandinavia. In T. D. Price & J. A.
Brown (eds), Prehistoric hunter-gatherers: the emergence of cultural complexity, 34163.
London: Academic Press.
PRICE, T. D., BENTLEY, A., LNING, J., GRONENBORN, D. & WAHL, J. 2001.
Prehistoric human migration in the Linearbandkeramik of central Europe. Antiquity 75,
593603.
PRICE, T. D. & BROWN, J. A. (eds) 1985. Prehistoric hunter-gatherers: the emergence of cultural
complexity. London: Academic Press.
RICHARDS, M. P. 2003. Explaining the dietary isotope evidence for the rapid adoption of the
Neolithic in Britain. In M. Parker Pearson (ed.), Food, culture and identity in the Neolithic and
Early Bronze Age, 316. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
RICHARDS, M. P. & HEDGES, R. E. M. 1999a. Stable isotope evidence for similarities in the
types of marine foods used by late Mesolithic humans on the Atlantic coast of Europe.
Journal of Archaeological Science 26, 71722.
RICHARDS, M. P. & HEDGES, R. E. M. 1999b. A Neolithic revolution? New evidence of diet
in the British Neolithic. Antiquity 73, 8917.
RICHARDS, M. P. & MELLARS, P. A. 1998. Stable isotopes and the seasonality of the
Oronsay middens. Antiquity 72, 17884.
ROWLEY-CONWY, P. 1983 Sedentary hunters: the Erteblle example. In G. Bailey (ed.),
Hunter-gatherer economy in prehistory: a European perspective, 11126. Cambridge:
ROWLEY-CONWY, P. 1998 Cemeteries, seasonality and complexity in the Erteblle of
Southern Scandinavia. In M. Zvelebil, R. Dennell & L. Domanska (eds), Harvesting the sea,
farming the forest: the emergence of Neolithic societies in the Baltic region, 193202. Sheffield:
Britain, Ireland, and southern Scandinavia. Current Anthropology 45, S83113.
SAHLINS, M. 2004. Apologies to Thucydides: understanding history as culture and vice versa.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
SAVILLE, A. & HALLEN, Y. 1994. The Obanian Iron Age: human remains from the Oban
cave sites, Argyll, Scotland. Antiquity 68, 71523.
SCHULTING, R. J. & RICHARDS, M. P. 2000. The use of stable isotopes in studies of subsistence and seasonality in the British Mesolithic. In R. Young (ed.), Mesolithic lifeways: current
research from Britain and Ireland, 5565. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
Britain: AMS dates and stable isotope results on human remains from Caldey Island,
Pembrokeshire, south Wales. Antiquity 76, 101125.
328
Graeme Warren
SCHULTING, R. J. & RICHARDS, M. P. 2003. Characterising subsistence in Mesolithic

Britain using stable isotope analysis. In L. Bevan & J. Moore (eds), Peopling the Mesolithic in
a northern environment, 11928. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
SLOAN, D. 1993. Sample, site and system: shell midden economies in Scotland 60004000 BP.
Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.
SPIKINS, P. A. 1999. Mesolithic northern England: environment, population and settlement.
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
SPIKINS, P. A. 2000. Ethno-facts or ethno-fiction? Searching for the structure of settlement
patterns. In R. Young (ed.), Mesolithic lifeways: current research from Britain and Ireland,
10518. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
VERHART, L. B. M. 2000. Times fade away: the Neolithization of the southern Netherlands in an
anthropological and geographical perspective. Leiden: Faculty of Archaeology.
WADDINGTON, C., BAILEY, G., BOOMER, I., MILNER, N., PEDERSON, K., SHIEL, R.
& STEVENSON, T. 2003. A Mesolithic settlement at Howick, Northumberland. Antiquity
77. http://antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/Waddington/waddington.html.
WARREN, G. M. 2000. Seascapes: peoples, boats and inhabiting the later Mesolithic in western
Scotland. In R. Young (ed.), Mesolithic lifeways: current research from Britain and Ireland,
WARREN, G. M. 2001. Marking space? Stone tool deposition in Mesolithic and early Neolithic
Eastern Scotland. In M. Zvelebil & K. Fewster (eds), Ethnoarchaeology and hunter-gatherers:
pictures at an exhibition, 91100. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
WARREN, G. M. 2004. The start of the Neolithic in Scotland. In I. A. G. Shepherd & G. J.
Barclay (eds), Scotland in ancient Europe. The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Scotland in
their European context, 91102. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
WARREN, G. M. 2005. Complex arguments. . . In N. Milner & P. C. Woodman (eds), Mesolithic
studies at the beginning of 21st Century, 6980. Oxford: Oxbow.
WICKHAM-JONES, C. R. 1990. Rhum: Mesolithic and later sites at Kinloch. Excavations
WOODMAN, P. C. 2001. Mesolithic middens: from famine to feasting. Archaeology Ireland 57,
325.
WOODMAN, P. C. 2004. The exploitation of Irelands coastal resources a marginal resource
through time? In M. G. Morales & G. A. Clark (eds), The Mesolithic of the Atlantic faade:
Proceedings of the Santander symposium, 3756. Tempe: Arizona State University.
WOODMAN, P. C., ANDERSON, E. & FINLAY, N. 1999. Excavations at Ferriters Cove
19831995: last foragers, first farmers in the Dingle Peninsula. Bray, Co. Wicklow: Wordwell.
WYMER, J. 1962. Excavations at the Maglemosian sites at Thatcham, Berkshire, England.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 28, 32961.
WYSOCKI, M. & WHITTLE, A. 2000. Diversity, lifestyles and rites: new biological and
archaeological evidence from British Earlier Neolithic assemblages. Antiquity 74, 591601.
YOUNG, R. (ed.) 2000. Mesolithic lifeways: current research from Britain and Ireland. University
of Leicester: Leicester Archaeology Monographs 7.
The Neolithic sensory revolution:

monumentality and the experience
of landscape
CHRIS TILLEY
RECENT RESEARCH HAS STRESSED the fundamental role of monuments and

material culture as objectifications of new modes of thought and the changing character of social relations during the Neolithic. The Mesolithic/
Neolithic transition in Europe has been argued to have been primarily
neither technological or economic in character but a matter of changing ideologies or modes of thought mediated through material forms (e.g. Hodder
1990; J. Thomas 1991; 1996; Tilley 1996a). Thus if we are to talk about
causality the Neolithic was a matter of mind, a triumph of the will, a new set
of ideas, over matter and circumstances, a new way of organising social
labour and expressing relationships to others through monument construction, the symbolism of pottery and polished stone axes, and herding domesticates and tilling the soil. In north-west Europe the debate has focused on
whether a Neolithic way of life was adopted as a kind of package by final
Mesolithic hunter-fisher-gatherers, inspired from the outside through the
expansion of farming populations across Europe, or whether the adoption of
Neolithic elements was a highly localised, selective, differential and indigenous development, which is my own view (Tilley 1996a). Looked at on a
broad scale there were multiple transitions taking place at different times and
in different places, so much so that the very conceptual veracity of the terms
Mesolithic and Neolithic may inevitably be questioned. What we term the
Mesolithic and the Neolithic had hundreds, if not thousands, of different
manifestations. Are there any common themes?
If Neolithic communities did feel and think differently about the world
from those in the Mesolithic what caused the change? In this paper I want to
argue that a fundamental part of a new Neolithic mode of thought was
directly stimulated by fresh forms of sensory experience of place and landscape. If there was a Neolithic revolution, it entailed a sensory revolution in
which through altering the earth people transformed their own experiential
Chris Tilley
330
conditions of existence in a fundamental way. A new sensory experience of

place and landscape and new modes of dwelling led directly to new ways of
thinking and new sets of cosmological ideas explaining the place of people in
the world.
FOREST CLEARANCE AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE

A fundamental feature of the Neolithic everywhere is woodland clearance,
whether this was to construct monuments, clear the land for settlements
and fields, provide grazing for animals, quarry flint or stone, or obtain
other raw materials. The character and extent of the forests that clothed
much of lowland Europe at the time of the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition
have been the subject of much debate. Rackham (1986) argues that the forest was virtually continuous, dark and dense, while others such as Moore
(2003) suggest that this is an exaggeration, with much local variation in the
character of woodland stands from those that were more dense and clothed
to those that were more light and open with glades and clear patches in
association with the varying character of soils, rocky areas, streams and
marshes, and so on. Woodland clearance, like most Neolithic traits, was
itself nothing new but was a tradition going back to the late Mesolithic
where areas might be burnt off and opened out to manipulate the forest
flora and fauna and stimulate browse for ungulates (Mellars 1976; Moore
1996; 2003; Simmons 1975). The primary difference appears to be the extent
of this woodland clearancefar greater and more extensive during the
Neolithicand its far more permanent character with many of these
woodland clearances being variously maintained by grazing domesticates,
the presence of permanent settlements, and marked by monuments.
Irrespective of whether or not the forested world of the Mesolithic was uniformly dense and dark, or more open and light, woodland clearance on a
fairly massive scale in some areas during the early Neolithic irrevocably
altered the environment and with this event new conditions for sensory
perception were created.
Let us try to imagine, for a moment, the great climax deciduous forests in
which the final Mesolithic hunter-gatherer communities of north-west
Europe lived: a network of tracks, of small clearings, fire-burnt areas, streams
and river valleys, lakes and marshy areas, deep layers of leaf mould in places,
different hues of green, fallen trees and tree holes, strong contrasts between
shadows and bright shafts of sunlight penetrating the denser areas of the forest canopy, and huge, sometimes monumental, trees of individual character
that might be named and significant in themselves. Even if this was a landscape in which open areas existed, it was still one in which people were pri-
THE NEOLITHIC SENSORY REVOLUTION
331
marily forest dwellers: people who lived with trees and understood them, the
manner in which they grew and the resources which they could provide. The
collective use and management of trees was probably central to sustenance,
cosmologies, and the ordering of social life. Activities such as fire clearance
thus carried a heavy symbolic load during the Mesolithic and was not just
simply a matter of economic manipulation (Brown 2000; Edmonds 1999;
Moore 2003). For the late Mesolithic forest people, social relations were
structured in relation to the complex woodland mosaic itself, connecting
together social groups, game, the individual trees, grassland and clearances.
The forest constituted an entire field of meaning wrapped around old trees,
fallen trees and tree holes, clearings, regenerating areas, trees connected in
memory with specific events, trees providing shelter, firewood, a safe place to
sleep and a sense of home. Trees were intimately connected with the passage
of the seasons, the reckoning of time and human lifecycles: an extension of
the lives of those who lived among them. Some forest areas would be drier
and lighter and more open, others wetter and more impenetrable. A great
cosmic web would probably link persons and animals, trees and water, fish
and birds (for ethnographic examples see Garner 2004; Jones & Cloke 2002;
Rival 1998). These people were of and in the forest in just the same sense as
fish are immersed in the sea.
For the most part living in such a forest world meant that vision would be
subdued and limited to tens of metres or so, varying somewhat with the seasons (Fig. 1). Even being able to see as far as 50 m would, for the most part,
have been a long distance. The only long vistas that might be obtained would
be either from forest edge areas or from the tops of high hills across the forest canopy to the tops of other high hills, or, alternatively, looking out from
the coast across the sea or from the shore across inland lake and marsh areas,
or paddling along straight stretches of river and stream channels. It is precisely in such locations that we tend to find later Mesolithic settlements
throughout lowland north-west Europe: on the tops of high hills, on coastal
cliffs and by lakes and rivers.
For the most part, however, while moving through the forest, vision was
drastically curtailed. To the Mesolithic hunter-fisher-gatherers, sound and
smell and touch would have been as important, if not more important, than
vision in obtaining food and orientating themselves and symbolically relating
to the forest world. To hunt and gather food in such a world required the
fusion of all the senses, a co-mingling of the audible, the tangible, the visual,
and the olfactory. The experience of the world was thus in a primary sense
synaesthethic, for ones very survival might depend as much on sound or
smell as sight. Being able to hear a waterfall in the distance, or bird song, or
smell the presence of an animal would be fundamental. In many ways this
could be characterised as an intimate world in that most of that which could
332
Chris Tilley
Figure 1. A Mesolithic pathway through the forest.
be experienced always had to be, quite literally, close to hand. The forest
world was a place of sensuous embodied intimacy.
If we consider the human senses in terms of their perceptive possibilities,
vision provides the greatest spatial reach; one can see much further than one
can hear or smell. To be able to touch requires things to be in reach of the
333
body. What might be heard or smelt might often not be visible. To the
Mesolithic hunter an animal that could be heard or smelt would not be hidden. This contrasts with our modernist sensibilities in which a hidden thing
is almost always associated with that which we cannot see. In the forest world
sight could rarely be a distanciated gaze. The sense of vision would be associated with things that were close to the body and in many cases needed to be
closer than things that could be heard such as the sound of water, of bird
song, of people chopping wood.
The perceptive possibilities for experiencing the forest would have had
important consequences for cognition, for the way people dwelled and thought
about their world and their place in it. The forest would have been a smellscape,
a soundscape, a visionscape, and the tactile qualities of the vegetation would be
fundamental. Landscapes formed from sounds and smells and touch would
always have a sense of dynamism and movement: transitory and always changing but linked to memory and meaning. Only a more distanciated spatial gaze
from a hilltop across the trees might momentarily freeze such a world below
and make it appear static.
In a forested landscape the forms and shapes of hills, ridges, spurs,
escarpment edges, valleys and coombes can hardly be perceived (Figs 2 and
3). In southern England, for example, the presence of steep escarpment edges
in the chalk downlands so visually powerful today in the landscape would be
lost (Fig. 4). In the upland areas of south-west England such as Dartmoor or
Figure 2.
land.
A deforested area of the East Hill ridge, east Devon revealing the contours of the
334
Chris Tilley
Figure 3. Forested area of the East Hill ridge, east Devon. Note how the form of the ridge is
completely obscured.
Figure 4. View across the northern edge of the chalk downlands of Cranborne Chase, southwest Wiltshire. Note the contrast between the form of the spur without trees in the foreground
and the tree-clothed escarpment edge in the background concealing its form.
335
Bodmin Moor only the tips of the granite tors would be exposed amongst the
trees, invisible from below. Trees camouflage and reduce the sense of scale
and visual character of the landscape. From a boat one might see the shape
of a lake, but in the forest there would be no such equivalent experience of
the contours of the land; the shapes of the hills could not be seen.
Neolithic forest clearance on a large scale, in some areas, such as on the
chalk downlands of southern England (Allen 1995; 1997) permitted vision to
become, for the first time, the dominant sense in terms of spatial orientation.
The Neolithic ushered in a culture in which the visual became more and more
important in relation to the perception of the environment and, in particular,
the contours and forms of the land. This is not to suggest that Neolithic sensory experience was not equally synaesthetic at the hearth and in the home,
but that visual experience became dominant over all the other senses for the
first time in relation to what we can call landscape or the wider environment.
Let us consider this further.
Clearing the land of trees allowed its profiles and contours to be revealed
and in the process permitted a new visual perception of landscape which was
simply not possible before. Thus forest clearance, whatever the intention, had
the unintended effect of creating a new perceptual experience of the world. It
permitted for the first time the spatial fixity of the distanciated gaze over
greater and greater areas.
A characteristic feature of the early Neolithic in southern England is the
construction of monumental enclosures on hilltops: causewayed enclosures
such as Windmill Hill (Smith 1965; Whittle et al. 1999), Robin Hoods Ball
(N. Thomas 1964), Hambledon Hill (Mercer 1980), Hembury (Liddell 1936;
Todd 1984), Maiden Castle (Sharples 1991; and see Edmonds 1993 for a general review) and stone enclosures such as Carn Brea and Helman Tor (Mercer
1981; 1986) in the far south-west. The causewayed enclosures required the
hilltops both to be cleared of trees and extensive digging into the earth to
form the banks and ditches. The stone hilltop enclosures of the south-west
needed both tree clearance and the construction of encircling stone walls. In
both cases the processes involved were dual: removing the mantle of surface
vegetation and altering the surface of the earth through moving and accumulating materials. From the cleared high hill tops with enclosures it was
often possible to see other such enclosures. It was not just the enclosure
banks or walls that became visible in the surrounding landscape but the form,
contours and topographic character of the hills on which they were constructed. Building these enclosures thus revealed not just the monument itself
but also the form of the hills and landscape in which they were constructed.
The experience of the hill, cleared of trees, was as fundamental as the experience of the monument itself. Each complemented the other in a dialectical
relationship. Indeed, it can be suggested that hill and monument were each
336
Chris Tilley
other in a relationship of mimesis. The experience of the monument was

simultaneously the experience of the hill and vice versa. For example,
Hembury (Fig. 5) was revealed as a dramatic spur of the Blackdown Hills in
Devon, Hambledon Hill was revealed as a clover-shaped hill island separated
from chalk downlands of Cranborne Chase to the east, Maiden Castle, in
south Dorset, as another hill island and so on.
A visual widening and opening out of the world thus went in tandem with
monument construction during the early Neolithic. We know that many early
Neolithic long barrows were constructed on grassland that had already been
cleared of trees before these monuments were constructed (e.g. Allen 1995,
56; J. Thomas 1991; Whittle 1993). Many, situated high up on ridge tops, were
meant to be seen from considerable distances away. That they should be intervisible was an important factor in their location and cannot purely be a
matter of coincidence (Griffith 2001; Tilley 1994). During the Mesolithic the
same hill tops were undoubtedly significant. Rather predictably flint scatters
are frequently found in these locations but monuments were not constructed
and forest clearance still remained limited or insignificant.
During the Mesolithic the landscape and its elementshuge trees, rocks,
waterfalls, caves, lakes and valleyswere in effect the monument. By con-
Figure 5. Hembury Hill, east Devon seen from the south. Trees now obscure the upper slopes
of the end of a dramatic spur on which the early Neolithic causewayed enclosure is situated.
337
trast, during the Neolithic the monument became part and parcel of the visible landscape and this could only happen in a culture in which visual perception had become extended and widened. For example early Neolithic long
barrows and cursus monuments are often deliberately built in places so as to
appear to be skylined from other barrows on Salisbury Plain and elsewhere
(Tilley, fieldwork in progress). This would make no sense if such monuments
were constructed in small and limited woodland clearances. During the
earlier Neolithic the landscape itself, now at least partially cleared of trees, was
no longer enough. It had to be permanently altered and marked by the presence of monuments. This was accomplished in two main ways. By mimetic
relationships the monument was designed to draw out and emphasise fundamental features of the contours of the land which had been revealed through
forest clearance. This is why, for example, long barrows characteristically run
along, rather than across, the spines of ridges, and megalithic tombs visually
reference and/or mimic the forms of nearby rock outcrops (Tilley 1994;
1996b). Pre-existing and enduring templates of experience are thus incorporated into the temporal event of monument construction which through time
becomes part of a durable, unchanging and timeless world. By marking relationships the monument, rather than directly referencing pre-existing features
of significance in the landscape, creates its own place as a symbolic reference
point. This appears to be the case for many of the smalland significantly
not very monumental or largelong barrows in southern England which frequently occur in landscapes which are not dramatically defined by striking
hills, ridges, rock outcrops, and so on. These monuments created a new set of
cultural reference points in the landscape adding to what was already there.
Monuments became the new vivid symbols of cosmic order and the landscape became structured and perceived in relation to them: cultural representations of order.
Whether the monument bears a mimetic or a marking relationship to landscape, its construction always involves the creation of a new sense of place that
later may provide a reference point for the construction of others. So in some
cases the primary relationship of the monument will be to pre-existing landscape features. In others the primary relationship will be to other pre-existing
monuments. Overall in the Neolithic there appears to be no grand scheme or
set of invariant principles at work. The significance of individual monuments
was localised, improvised and site-specific.
The act of constructing monuments was, however, clearly an attempt to
integrate and incorporate the world and to transcend the fragility of corporeal existence into an enduring form that became as much an embedded part
of the landscape as the hills and rocks and valleys themselves. In the
Mesolithic the relationship of people to landscape was generalised and knowledge was acquired through movement and drawing together knowledges of
338
Chris Tilley
what one experienced as one moved around: rocks, trees, hills, and so on. In
the Neolithic this knowledge of landscape became much more site-specific
and embodied in monuments which gathered these experiences together (see
below). During the Mesolithic social identities were embodied in landscapes
as a whole, rather than in terms of particular constructed monuments within
those landscapes: generalised rather than specific.
Forest clearance and monument construction resulted in both a different
experience of the world and a different kind of knowledge of that world. This
different kind of knowledge and experience went hand in hand with an
increasing social and material interconnectivity: exchanges of ideas, stone
and flint axes (themselves iconic of forest clearance), pots and other raw
materials from numerous sources on a diversity and material scale in the
Neolithic which represents a quantum leap compared with the Mesolithic. A
world that was visually opening out became a world that was increasingly
interconnected.
It is worth pointing out that from the Hembury Hill causewayed enclosure in south-east Devon it would have been possible to see another such
enclosure on the Raddon hills to the west. From the Raddon Hill causewayed
enclosure both the enclosures on Hembury Hill and High Peak and another
hilltop settlement and probable enclosure at Haldon Belvedere were visible.
Looking further afield from Hembury you can see to Dartmoor and Exmoor.
From Exmoor you can see South Wales, the Mendip Hills and Dartmoor.
From Dartmoor you can see Bodmin Moor with its probable Neolithic hilltop enclosures of Rough Tor and Stowes Pound. From these hills you can see
to Carn Brea, and from there to West Penwith and Lands End. Vision is the
only one of the senses capable of directly connecting together distant places,
and my suggestion is that as the experiential importance of the visual
increased in relation to the perception and understanding of the landscape,
so did flows of people, ideas and raw materials in the Neolithic world.
In the final Mesolithic populations lived in and were part of a forest world
which was not substantially altered. The Neolithic ushers in a new era in
which the world becomes substantially altered and controlled through forest
clearance and monument construction, as discussed above. Monument construction, quarrying activities, flint mining, pottery making and a host of
other projects all involved digging into the earth. This involved, probably
unintentionally, a process of discovery. The large scale construction of monuments during the Neolithic provided new ways to answer a basic set of questions. What is underneath our feet? How do we find out about that which lies
beneath the mantle of soil and vegetation that covers the earth? How can we
understand distinctive changes in the patterns of plant life that we see around
us as we move around? Why do oak and lime and ash grow here? Why does
pine and birch and gorse grow there? What happens to the rain when it falls
339
from the sky? Why do bogs and springs occur and where does the water flow
to? Why are the hills and the ridges situated where they are in the landscape?
Why the flat landscapes, why the valleys? What might the different rocks and
stones in the landscape that we encounter mean? In the Mesolithic world the
only places that rocks (what we call geological features) would be revealed
would be: along coastal cliffs; inland on exposed points: cliffs along river valleys and high up in areas without trees, soil and vegetation, such as the tors
of south-west England or mountains or hilltops elsewhere. Across vast
swathes of lowland England, or Europe, there would be no rock exposures
whatsoever. By digging, quarrying, mining, and revealing a hidden landscape
through forest clearance, Neolithic populations importantly discovered the
rocks beneath their feet and the morphologies of the land across which they
moved. Tree clearance also had the effect of intensifying surface water runoff exposing rocks, particularly on hilltops. Herding cattle similarly disturbed
the ground, creating exposed hollow ways across areas such as the chalk
downlands. Tilling the soil brought to the surface stones hidden in it. All
these processes and activities created new sensory experiences of place that
were not just visual but also tactile and embodied through all the other
senses. As an example I will consider flint.
THE SYMBOLISM OF FLINT

The presence of fertility symbols in the Neolithic has long been recognised in
the form of flint phalluses and rounded chalk and flint balls which have been
recovered and recorded in excavations. But these represent only one small part
of a whole repertoire of naturally occurring flint forms which occur on the
chalk downlands. In ploughed fields, on areas of disturbed ground and other
exposures there is an extraordinary variety of naturally occurring forms of
flint. These vary locally and between different areas of the chalk downland.
Some of these bear an uncanny resemblance to human bones in their shape,
colour and texture. The outer cortex is the off-white colour of old bone and
these flints may almost perfectly resemble bone in their form and size. These
include flints which resemble human long bones with the ball joint attached,
thin curved pieces resembling ribs, and flat and curved bits looking like skull
or scapula fragments. Others resemble vertebrae or broken pieces of long
bones (Figs 6 and 7). Some flints in size and dimensions look extraordinarily
like fleshy fingers. There also occur a wide variety of other sculptural forms
which in their shape and profile are suggestive of birds and animals.
Today these flints are invariably found in ploughed fields or they are
thrown up from rabbit and badger holes dug into Neolithic and Bronze Age
barrows. Flints of these forms are far rarer or absent from the only naturally
340
Chris Tilley
Figure 6. Flint femur end found in a rabbit hole in a long barrow on Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire.
occurring flint exposures which occur on the river beds. Such material is also
found in the topmost layers of tree holes revealed when trees have blown over.
Now the Neolithic involved an opening up of the land and its first cultivation. Such flints would be revealed in the normal course of digging ditches
and constructing monuments and tilling the fields. The strong resemblance of
these flints to the bones and some of the fleshy parts of the human body
would not have gone unnoticed. Such stones that looked like bones would
have had to be incorporated into a social and cosmological understanding of
the earth, its contents, its fecundicity and the landscape. Constructing new
monuments in the early Neolithic would constantly reveal old bones thrown
up, having been concealed in the ground. Tilling the ground would also
constantly reveal these stone bones.
341
Figure 7. A collection of broken and disarticulated flint bones from a ploughed field at
Lyscombe Bottom, central south Dorset.
We know that early Neolithic mortuary practices involved the disarticulation and rearrangement of bones within monuments (Shanks & Tilley
1982; J. Thomas 1998; Thomas & Whittle 1986). This had its counterpart in
the fragmentary and scattered bones found while constructing these very
monuments and dispersed across cultivated areas. If the bones being manipulated within the monuments represented the human ancestors of local social
groups, then the stone bones may well have represented the fragmentary
remains of pre-ancestral beings who lived before people occupied the earth.
Thus the activity of transforming the earth had its unintended outcome
in revealing the bones of beings who had come before. In field survey work
on barrows within the landscape around Stonehenge the frequency with
which these bones are thrown up from animal burrows and scrapes is quite
striking. Some of these bones might very well have been deliberately incorporated or deposited within barrows which would therefore contain both
human ancestral bones and stone bones from pre-ancestral beings. However,
we do not know this from excavations because such stones, apart from the
obvious phalluses, have rarely been recorded or mentioned by archaeologists.
Being natural rather than fashioned artefacts they have ended up discarded
on excavation spoil heaps.
Chris Tilley
342
It is worth noting that these quite extraordinary bones and sculptural

forms are unique to the chalk and occur nowhere else in southern Britain.
Where the chalk occurs the stone bones are found. This surely made this
chalk downland landscape and the monuments erected within it of great significance. The concentration of early Neolithic causewayed enclosures and
long barrows on the chalk downlands of southern England has long been
noted by archaeologists and it is from this area that we have the earliest radiocarbon dates (see Whittle, this volume). Perhaps it is no coincidence that the
earliest monuments were erected in areas containing old bones. Neolithic
flint mining is an activity that has been almost universally regarded as a
search for fine material for making tools that began in the Neolithic. Such an
activity may in part have also been motivated by a desire to explore what lay
beneath the surface of the ground, and it too would reveal extraordinary flint
material of the same character as discussed above.
GATHERING AND INCORPORATING

Two general processes seem to be fundamental in the Neolithic in a way not
apparent in the Mesolithic: integrating or gathering processes, and incorporating processes. Both brought together people, ideas, raw materials, places
and landscapes and provided the foundations for cosmological systems.
Monuments such as causewayed enclosures, long barrows and chambered
tombs provided focal points for integrative and incorporative processes. At
these places raw materials and discrete sensory experiences of other places in
surrounding or more distant landscape were brought together through the
collection, exchange and deposition of artefacts: stone axes from far away
places, pottery such as Hembury Ware incorporating distinctive stone as
temper from the Lizard, flints from various local and more distant sources
with different qualities of colour, patina, texture, and so on. In other words
monuments gathered together places and landscape. Often in the case of
stone-built monuments an extraordinary range of stones are used from more
distant and localised places in the landscape. The megalithic tombs of the
Boyne valley, eastern Ireland, are an excellent example of this, incorporating
a wide variety of local rockssandstones, schists, limestones in their kerb
stones and rocks from far more distant sources: quartz from the Wicklow
mountains, mudstones from the Carlingford mountains to the north (Cooney
2000; Mitchell 1992). We might surmise that the wood used to construct
the mortuary chambers of earthen long barrows of southern England or
Neolithic timber circles might well have come from forest trees with more than
localised origins. Monuments integrated and, through their very construction,
343
incorporated the world surrounding them. They themselves created new

types of sensory experience through these processes.
ANIMALS
Acts of monument construction and raw material extraction and processes
changed the Neolithic sensory world. There was also a fundamental change
in the relationship between people and animals. In the Mesolithic while the
relationship between people and animals was interdependent it always, to a
certain extent, involved a relationship of distance. Apart from the domestic
dog, people did not live with animals. During the Neolithic people did live
with their stock and, in particular, with cattle. Living with animals, identifying with animals and their welfare, created a very different, more intimate
and enduring, and personalised set of relationships than one can ever imagine having existed between Mesolithic populations and red deer. The cattle
keeper would identify his or her life with the animals that she or he kept.
Individual animals would become objectifications of human beings in a way
that was not possible in relation to game animals that look after themselves.
I have already argued that the relationship between people and landscape
changed from being generalised (or smooth) to much more differentiated (or
broken) and site-specific between the Mesolithic and Neolithic. This is
directly paralleled by a change in the relationship between people and animals:
generalised and more distant in the Mesolithic, individual and personalised in
the Neolithic. During the Neolithic social identities became attached to particular monuments and particular domestic animals. The burial of the bones
of domestic cattle in monuments together with people effectively incorporates
these things together.
CONCLUSIONS
My argument in this paper has been that cosmologies explaining the origins
and the place of people in the world are ultimately derived from the embodied sensory exploration of that world. Cosmologies make sense and bring
order to the minutiae of similarities and differences observed and encountered through dwelling and movement through landscapes. As such, cosmological thought is metaphorical in nature, a primary and originary mode of
human reasoning, whose basis is connecting together often disparate experiences through chains of resemblances (Tilley 1999). The Neolithic ushered in
a sensory revolution that became integrated into cosmologies that were in
turn objectified in monuments and material culture. The Neolithic is all about
344
Chris Tilley
the attempt to incorporate the wild into a cultural frame. This is not a significant break from the Mesolithic in that we can always identify a number of
Neolithic trends already present: limited forest clearance, limited exchange,
and a close relationship with some animals such as the dog.
The Mesolithic/Neolithic transition is best expressed as a negotiation of
long-term cultural trends that become crystallised in what we term the
Neolithic, where they become clearly articulated and durably expressed.
Perhaps the key to understanding the Neolithic is that it was the first attempt
to totalise disparate sensory experiences, some new, some old, into a coherent cosmological model of the world, objectified in monuments and artefacts, rather than accepting its inherent diversity and fragmentation.
Neolithic thought was grounded in new sensory experiences of landscapes
and monuments, rocks and stones, animals and plants. The world became
much more human-centred and personalised: situated, controlled, constructed, transformed, integrated, incorporated, and connected in relation to
place, time and landscape. Through fundamentally altering the earth, clearing trees and constructing monuments, the bones of the land were revealed
in a double sense. First, its contours and forms previously masked and hidden by surface vegetation were revealed. Clearing a hill or a spur was simultaneously revealing its form in the landscape. Second, digging into the earth
threw up new materials for experience such as flint bones. These double
processes of revelation created new sensory experiences which led to a revolution in thought. People created new sensory experiences of the earth and
through this process altered themselves. By altering the land, people created
new conditions for experiencing it and new materials providing food for
thought. Activities such as forest clearance or flint mining or keeping
domesticates were far from being just economic transformations for they
had profound social and ideological consequences.
REFERENCES
ALLEN, M. 1995. Before Stonehenge. In R. Cleal, K. Walker & R. Montague (eds), Stonehenge
in its landscape. Twentieth century investigations, 4156. London: English Heritage.
ALLEN, M. 1997. Environment and land-use: the economic development of the communities
who built Stonehenge (an economy to support the stones). In B. Cunliffe & C. Renfrew (eds),
Science and Stonehenge, 11544. Oxford: British Academy.
BROWN, A. 2000. Floodplain vegetation history: clearings as potential ritual spaces? In
A. Fairbairn (ed.), Plants in Neolithic Britain and beyond, 4962. Oxford: Oxbow.
COONEY, G. 2000. Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland. London: Routledge.
EDMONDS, M. 1993. Interpreting causewayed enclosures in the past and in the present. In
C. Tilley (ed.), Interpretative archaeology, 99142. Oxford: Berg.
EDMONDS, M. 1999. Ancestral geographies of the Neolithic. London: Routledge.
GARNER, A. 2004. Living history: trees and metaphors of identity in an English forest. Journal
of Material Culture 9, 87100.
345
GRIFFITH, F. 2001. Recent work on Neolithic enclosures in Devon. In T. Darvill & J. Thomas
(eds), Neolithic enclosures in Atlantic northwest Europe, 6677. Oxford: Oxbow.
HODDER, I. 1990. The domestication of Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.
JONES, O. & CLOKE, P. (eds) 2002. Tree cultures. Oxford: Berg.
LIDDELL, D. 1936. Report on the excavations at Hembury Fort (1934 and 1935). Proceedings
of the Devon Archaeological Exploration Society 2, 13576.
MELLARS, P. 1976. Fire ecology, animal populations and man: a study of some ecological
relationships in prehistory. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 42, 1545.
MERCER, R. 1980. Hambledon Hill: a Neolithic landscape. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
MERCER, R. 1981. Excavations at Carn Brea, Illogan, Cornwall, 19703. A Neolithic fortified
complex of the third millennium BC. Cornish Archaeology 20, 1204.
MERCER, R. 1986. Excavation of a Neolithic enclosure at Helman Tor. Lanlivery, Cornwall,
1986. Edinburgh: Department of Archaeology Project Paper No 4.
MITCHELL, G. 1992. Notes on some non-local cobbles at the entrances to the passage-graves
at Newgrange and Knowth, County Meath. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of
Ireland 122, 12845.
MOORE, J. 1996. Damp squib: how to fire a major deciduous forest in an inclement climate. In
T. Pollard & A. Morrison (eds), The early prehistory of Scotland, 6273. Edinburgh:
MOORE, J. 2003. Enculturation through fire: beyond hazelnuts and into the forest. In
L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Loeffler & A. kerlund (eds), Mesolithic on the
move, 13944. Oxford: Oxbow.
RACKHAM, O. 1986. The history of the countryside. London: Dent.
RIVAL, L. (ed.) 1998. The social life of trees. Oxford: Berg.
SHANKS, M. & TILLEY, C. 1982. Ideology, symbolic power and ritual communication: a reinterpretation of Neolithic mortuary practices. In I. Hodder (ed.), Symbolic and structural
archaeology, 12954. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SHARPLES, N. 1991. Maiden Castle: excavations and field survey 19851986. London: English
Heritage.
SIMMONS, I. 1975. Towards an ecology of Mesolithic man in the uplands of Great Britain.
Journal of Archaeological Science 2, 115.
SMITH, I. 1965. Windmill Hill and Avebury. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
THOMAS, J. 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
THOMAS, J. 1996. Time, culture and identity. London: Routledge.
THOMAS, J. 1998. The social significance of Cotswold-Severn burial practices. Man 23, 54059.
THOMAS, J. & WHITTLE, A. 1986. Anatomy of a tomb West Kennet revisited. Oxford
Journal of Archaeology 5, 12956.
THOMAS, N. 1964. The Neolithic causewayed camp at Robin Hoods Ball, Shrewton. Wiltshire
Archaeological Magazine 59, 125.
TILLEY, C. 1994. A phenomenology of landscape. Oxford: Berg.
TILLEY, C. 1996a. An ethnography of the Neolithic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
TILLEY, C. 1996b. The powers of rocks: topography and monument construction on Bodmin
Moor. World Archaeology 28, 16176.
TILLEY, C. 1999. Metaphor and material culture. Oxford: Blackwell.
TODD, M. 1984. Excavations at Hembury, Devon, 19803: a summary report. Antiquaries
Journal 64, 25168.
WHITTLE, A. 1993. The Neolithic of the Avebury area: sequence, environment, settlement and
monuments. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 12, 2953.
WHITTLE, A., POLLARD, J. & GRIGSON, C. 1999. The harmony of symbols: the Windmill
Hill causewayed enclosure, Wiltshire. Oxford: Oxbow.
Houses, bodies and tombs

RICHARD BRADLEY
THE PROBLEM WITH HOUSES

IN MY DICTIONARY the English language word house has seventeen different
definitions, at least six of which are in common use today. The French maison also has six and the German Haus has five. The meanings of these
words are much the same in all three languages, and can be identified by the
contexts in which they are used.
Archaeologists follow a different procedure. Rather than studying the
contexts of Neolithic houses, they consider a single interpretation. Nowhere
is this more apparent than in accounts of Britain and Ireland, and here this
narrow approach has led to difficulties. The house is among the features that
are supposed to characterise early farming. Its presence implies sedentism,
while its absence suggests a mobile pattern of settlement. That idea raises
many problems.
What applies to individual houses applies to settlements, too. British
archaeologists have been frustrated by their inability to locate what they had
expected to find. If people were growing crops and raising livestock, then
surely they must have occupied more substantial shelters than mobile huntergatherers, and their living sites ought to be easier to identify. That has been
difficult to demonstrate, with the result that at different times a wide variety
of earthwork enclosures have been claimed as permanent settlements; ditches
and pits have been recruited as subterranean dwellings; and even mortuary
monuments have been assigned to the living rather than the dead. That is
because it seemed hard to conceive of Neolithic societies who did not construct substantial domestic buildings. Even now there are claims for the existence of Neolithic longhouses in southern England which are all too easily
compared with dwellings in mainland Europe. Not only are the English
buildings much smaller than their counterparts, they originated many years
after those structures had gone out of use and during a period in which
Continental houses are actually quite rare.
Now the problem has reappeared in a new guise. It is accepted that
substantial Neolithic dwellings are uncommon in most parts of Britain and
348
Richard Bradley
especially in lowland England, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to

argue that they are under-represented because of taphonomic factors. That is
because such structures are frequently discovered in Ireland. They are also
found (although less often) in both Scotland and Wales. Since the Irish
houses are substantial and often well preserved, the English evidence is
treated in a different way. Although some examples have been identified, they
are so unusual that they have been interpreted as public buildings (Thomas
1996; Topping 1996). Moreover, since there are so few counterparts to the
dwellings identified in Ireland, prehistorians have suggested that the character of Neolithic activity was different in each country. The Irish model
might suggest a pattern of sedentary settlement associated with crop cultivation, whilst an English model has been postulated in which settlement was
more mobile and stock raising was important (Cooney 2003; Thomas 1999,
chapter 2). The archaeology of other regions can be arranged along a continuum extending between these two extremes, but I shall concentrate on
these two models here. The survival of houses has been given an importance
which it cannot support.
I began by saying that the very word house carries a wide variety of connotations, but archaeologists have usually limited themselves to its role as a
permanent shelter. That seems strange, for existing work on the Continental
Neolithic already suggests some other issues which are rarely considered in
these islands.
The first point to make is that there were unusual features in the development of individual settlements. During the Linearbandkeramik, for example,
houses may have been abandoned before they had undergone much maintenance, and were replaced in different positions, so that any one settlement
might include a series of standing buildings which shared the same orientations as the abandoned dwellings of the past. It seems as if the sites of older
longhouses were avoided when new ones were constructed (Bradley 1998,
chapter 3).
It is obviously difficult to decide why they were abandoned. It may have
happened for purely practical reasons, as individual dwellings became
infested by rodents, but it might also have happened for social reasons; perhaps these buildings were polluted because one of the occupants had died. It
is becoming apparent that in other regions dwellings were burnt together
with their contents and then replaced on the same sites. This practice is well
known in the Neolithic archaeology of the Balkans (Stepanovic 1997), but
it has also been postulated in southern Scandinavia (Apel et al. 1997).
That is particularly revealing as so many of the artefacts found in the local
settlements, burials and votive deposits also seem to have been burnt.
Another feature that has long been apparent is the use of domestic buildings as a prototype for more monumental structures. This was expressed in
HOUSES, BODIES AND TOMBS
349
two very different ways. The first was where the form of a domestic dwelling
was reproduced on an extravagant scale. That happened at several different
places in the Neolithic and the Copper Age. Obvious examples include the
outsize timber buildings associated with the Neolithic enclosure at Hautes
Chanvires in the Ardennes (Marolle 1989), or those at Antran or PlchtelLa-Hersonnais in western France (Pautreau 1994; Tinvez 2002). Such
structures were perhaps the great houses of an entire community.
A better known alternative is for the outline of the Neolithic house to
provide the prototype for a stone or earthwork monument. Many people
have considered the relationship between Neolithic longhouses and long
barrows in Poland, and Laporte and Tinvez (2004) have recently taken the
same approach to a number of circular cairns and mounds extending along
the Atlantic coastline of western Europe. Perhaps the most obvious example of this relationship is found at Balloy where a number of elongated
mounds or enclosures associated with human burials overlie older dwellings
(Mordant 1998).
Of course, these examples come from quite different contexts. What they
show is that any analysis which confines itself to practical considerations will
fail to engage with some of the archaeological evidence. Neolithic houses
raise more questions than those considered by British researchers.
That should have been obvious from the ethnographic literature, but it
has not had the influence that it deserves. One starting point is the work of
Lvi-Strauss (1979) on what he calls house societies. He was most concerned
with kinship organisation and the emergence of political hierarchies, but his
work is particularly important because it reminds us of the other meanings
of the word house. It can stand for the occupants for the buildingthe
householdand even for a line of descent, as in the House of Hapsburg or
the House of Bourbon. It can also relate to a wider community, as it does
when it applies to the audience in a theatre or the occupants of an Oxbridge
college. Gabriel Cooney (2003, 52) sums up the issues in this way: Houses are
not only material, but. . .stand for social groups, for continuity.
It is in this broader sense that the term house is used in a recent paper by
Mary Helms (2004) who discusses the different worldviews of mobile huntergatherers and the first farmers. One might almost say that it is by the construction of houses, both real and metaphorical, that particular groups define
their membership and distinguish themselves from others. Their composition
is less fluid than that of hunter-gatherer communities and it is maintained
over a longer period of time. Such concerns are particularly relevant when
people are exploiting an unfamiliar environment, and the new arrangement
may also reflect the labour requirements of early agriculture. Perhaps it is one
reason why houses are such a conspicuous feature towards the beginning of
the Neolithic period.
Richard Bradley
350
A pertinent observation comes from a paper by Janet Carsten and

Stephen Hugh-Jones introducing an edited volume devoted to Lvi-Strausss
ideas. They observe how common it is for houses to be regarded as living
creatures and to be thought of in the same terms as human beings, who are
born, grow old and die. Like people, houses have biographies of their own:
Houses are far from being static material structures. They have animate qualities; they are endowed with spirits or souls, and are imagined in terms of the
human body. . . We would place these qualities at the centre of an anthropology of the house which considers houses and their inhabitants as part of one
process of living. . .. In certain contexts at least. . .. houses are spoken about as
if they were people and people are likened to houses. . .. Given its living qualities and close association with the body, it comes as no surprise that natural
processes associated with people, animals or plants may also apply to the house.
(Carsten & Hugh-Jones 1995, 37)
BODIES, HOUSES AND TOMBS

How does this approach illuminate the contrasts between English and Irish
archaeology? It is by no means new to argue that the long mounds and cairns
associated with the dead were conceived in the image of the house, although
their ultimate prototypes might have been the dwellings of the past. I would
like to suggest a closer identification. Perhaps the reason why the field evidence poses so many problems is that the histories of the buildings in which
people had lived were reflected by the ways in which their bodies were treated
when they died.
Here I must outline some regional patterns. At the risk of oversimplification, the remains of houses are found throughout Ireland and are
more common in northern and western Scotland (and possibly in Wales) than
in other parts of Britain. That statement needs some qualification for there
have been fewer excavations in the west than there have in the south and east.
It is also important to acknowledge that some of the houses in northern and
western Scotland survive because they were built of stone. I shall confine my
discussion to the period which saw the construction of rectangular houses
and mortuary monuments. It included the construction of causewayed
enclosures but perhaps not that of circular buildings.
There are other sources of evidence for domestic activity. In lowland
Britain most of the relevant evidence comes from pits. They contain a variety
of artefacts and animal bones which sometimes exhibit evidence of formal
deposition (Thomas 1999, chapter 4; Pollard 2001; Garrow et al. 2005). This
material seems to have been selected and there can even be striking differences between the contents of adjacent features. They could have been taken
351
from a midden when a living site was abandoned. Little of the assemblage
must have remained on the surface as few of these locations can be identified
by fieldwalking (Healy 1987). Pit deposits are widely distributed, but are
mainly found in lowland Britain, with particularly large concentrations in
eastern England. The same practices are evidenced at causewayed enclosures
where there is greater evidence of formal deposits. The few excavated houses
have not been as productive. By contrast, the buildings in northern and western Britain, and especially those in Ireland, can be associated with larger
assemblages, and here there is less evidence for the burial of cultural material in ditches and pits. Instead the houses themselves are dispersed across the
landscape, singly or in small groups, and the associated artefacts could be left
where they had accumulated.
Of course such contrasts do not extend to every site and what I have
described are the extremes in a continuous range of variation, but both those
patterns are well represented among the results of fieldwork. There is a further contrast that may be relevant here. In lowland Britain where pits deposits
are common and houses are rather rare, the artefact assemblage occasionally
contains human bones. It is a trend that became much more obvious with the
development of causewayed enclosures. That is consistent with the evidence
from mortuary monuments which not only include the remains of complete
corpses but can also feature certain body parts to the exclusion of others. It
seems as if the dead were reduced to disarticulated bones and that some of
their remains may have circulated in the same way as portable artefacts
(Whittle & Wysocki 1998, 1736). By contrast, most of the excavated monuments in the south, whether long barrows or megalithic tombs, provide little
evidence of ceramics or stone tools.
Again it is helpful to contrast this evidence with the situation in Ireland
where houses are much more common and isolated pit deposits are unusual.
Here substantial numbers of artefacts are associated with court tombs, which
probably represent the closest equivalent to the mounds and cairns in Britain.
The finds from these sites include substantial collections of pottery and lithic
artefacts as well as animal bones, and are often associated with charcoal-rich
soil similar to that found in settlements. A number of monuments had been
built over living sites, but Humphrey Case (1973) has shown that these
deposits were usually placed on top of a deliberately laid floor, meaning that
such material must have been introduced after these tombs had been built.
Not surprisingly, such deposits are associated with human remains. Other
regions in which stone-built tombs are associated with significant quantities
of artefacts, especially pottery, include the north and west of Scotland, both
of them regions where the remains of houses have been found.
That contrast is interesting, but it says little about the treatment of the
dead. Although many of the monuments took the form of elongated mounds
352
Richard Bradley
or cairns, there is an important difference in the mortuary rite. Here it is

necessary to simplify a complicated picture, but again there are two obvious
extremes in a wider range of variation. In some regions bodies were cremated
and in others they were allowed to decay. Certain of the burnt bones might
result from the combustion of an entire body; others might have been placed
in a fire after they had lost their flesh (Henshall & Ritchie 1995, chapter 6).
There is little evidence of pyres and what seemed to be a formal cremation
rite was often a consequence of burning down the monument itself. What
may be most significant is that unburnt bones could circulate as relics in the
same manner as portable artefacts. That would be less likely in the case of
cremations.
The distributions of these two ways of treating the body are rather revealing. The burial of intact corpses is most often found in Britain, where it is
commonest in the southern half of the country. That is also where unburnt
bones occur at other kinds of site. There is evidence for the burning of
wooden mortuary structures along the North Sea coast, and in the megalithic
tombs of northern Scotland human bones were exposed to fire but were not
reduced to ashes (Kinnes 1992). Along the west coast of Scotland, on the
other hand, cremation was often employed. That is not surprising as it was
the main way of treating the body in Irish court tombs. Cremation was the
dominant rite throughout the distribution of this kind of monument,
although I must emphasise that such structures do not extend across the
whole of the Neolithic landscape (Cooney 2000, chapter 4).
Despite some regional variation, the preservation and circulation of
human bones was a particular feature of southern England, but seems to
have been practised across a wider area. The use of cremation characterises
the Irish sites, but it also extended to parts of northern Britain, where it is
more difficult to identify one prevailing rite. That is not to deny that some
monuments are associated with both ways of treating the body. There are a
few cremations on southern English sites, but these are generally secondary
to deposits of unburnt bone (Darvill 2004, 14057). Similarly, Irish court
tombs show evidence for both ways of treating the body, but in this case cremations predominate (Cooney & Grogan 1994, fig. 4.14). A broader distinction applies to mortuary monuments that were burnt down. They are not
entirely absent from southern England, but the main group extends northwards from the Yorkshire Wolds into Scotland and, again, occasional
examples have been identified in Ireland (Kinnes 1992). Recent work has
also shown that in Scotland a number of other structures were set on fire,
including massive wooden halls and timber cursus monuments.
The most striking contrast in ways of treating the body is between the
very areas that show the greatest divergence in the evidence for settlement
sites. In southern England houses are rare and pit deposits are more com-
353
mon. It is here that there is most evidence for the deployment of unburnt
corpses in long barrows and megalithic tombs. Artefacts are not particularly
common at these monuments and it seems possible that the residues of older
settlements were allowed to decay, and may have been dispersed in the same
manner as the remains of the dead (Pollard 2004). In Ireland, on the other
hand, houses are commonly found and isolated pit deposits are unusual. The
residues of domestic occupation might have been deposited in tombs
together with human bones. In this case the bodies were often burnt and there
is little to suggest the circulation of relics.
One last contrast is important. Dermot Moore (2004) has shown that a
high proportion of the Irish houses had been destroyed by fire, whereas there
is little to suggest that the settlements in England were burnt down. Although
this has been claimed as evidence of warfare, the evidence is actually rather
ambiguous, and it seems much more than a coincidence that human corpses
should have been treated in exactly the same way as these buildings. Perhaps
that is because the careers of particular people and the histories of their houses
were in one sense the same. The house was a living creature and its life had to
be extinguished in a similar manner to the human body. That may be why, in
Ireland, what are apparently domestic assemblages accompanied the dead
person to the tomb; they might even have been the contents of a dwelling. By
contrast, in southern England, the remains of settlement sites were dispersed
in a similar fashion to human bones, some of which were eventually deposited
in tombs where finds of artefacts are uncommon (Fig. 1).
Irish houses were constructed in a distinctive manner. That may be
because they were to play a spectacular role at the end of their lives and those
of their occupants. By contrast, the dwellings inhabited in England did not
need to do this and might usually have been less substantial. That could be
why they have been difficult to find by excavation. These buildings were more
than shelters from the elements. They were animated by their involvement in
human lives, and when their inhabitants died their treatment followed the
same principles as that of human bodies. In England, they decayed and their
contents were dispersed. In Ireland, they were burnt down and their contents
Figure 1. The contrasting processes connecting houses, bodies and tombs on either side of the
Irish Sea.
354
Richard Bradley
were concentrated in tombs. It is another question why communities chose to

follow such different practices, and this needs more research, but it might be
wrong to place too much weight on purely practical considerations. The
house is a difficult concept and we have only begun to appreciate its full range
of meanings.
Note. In its original form this paper provoked a lively discussion and I am grateful
to the participants for raising a number of issues which I have considered in this
version. I must also thank Aaron Watson for producing the figure drawing.
REFERENCES
APEL, J., HADEVIK, C. & SUNDSTRM, L. 1997. Burning down the house. The transformational use of fire and other aspects of an Early Neolithic TRB site in eastern central
Sweden. Tor 29, 547.
BRADLEY, R. 1998. The significance of monuments. London: Routledge.
CARSTEN, J. & HUGH-JONES, S. 1995. Introduction. In J. Carsten & S. Hugh-Jones (eds),
About the house: Lvi-Strauss and beyond, 146. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CASE, H. 1973. A ritual site in north-east Ireland. In G. Daniel & P. Kjaerum (eds), Megalithic
graves and ritual, 17396. Moesgrd: Jutland Archaeological Society.
COONEY, G. 2003. Rooted or routed? Landscapes of Neolithic settlement in Ireland. In
I. Armit, E. Murphy, E. Nelis & D. Simpson (eds), Neolithic settlement in Ireland and western
Britain, 4755. Oxford: Oxbow.
COONEY, G. & GROGAN, E. 1994. Irish prehistory a social perspective. Bray: Wordwell.
DARVILL, T. 2004. Long barrows of the Cotswolds and surrounding areas. Stroud: Tempus.
GARROW, D., BEADSMORE, E. & KNIGHT, M. 2005. Pit clusters and the temporality of
occupation: an Earlier Neolithic site at Kilverstone, Thetford, Norfolk. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 71, 13957.
HEALY, F. 1987. Prediction or prejudice? The relationship between field survey and excavation.
In A. Brown & M. Edmonds (eds), Lithic analysis and later British prehistory, 918. Oxford:
HELMS, M. 2004. Tangible materiality and cosmological others in the development of sedentism. In E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden & C. Renfrew (eds), Rethinking materiality. The
engagement of mind with the material world, 11727. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research.
HENSHALL, A. & RITCHIE, J. N. G. 1995. The chambered cairns of Sutherland. Edinburgh:
KINNES, I. 1992. Non-megalithic long barrows and allied structures in the British Neolithic.
London: British Museum.
LAPORTE, L. & TINVEZ, J-Y. 2004. Neolithic houses and chambered tombs of western
France. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14, 21734.
LVI-STRAUSS, C. 1979. La voie des masques. Paris: Plon.
MAROLLE, C. 1989. Le village Michelsberg des Hautes Chanvires Mairy (Ardennes). Gallia
MOORE, D. 2004. Hostilities in Early Neolithic Ireland: trouble with the new neighbours the
evidence from Ballyharry, County Antrim. In A. Gibson & A. Sheridan (eds), From sickles
to circles. Britain and Ireland at the time of Stonehenge, 14254. Stroud: Tempus.
355
MORDANT, C. 1998. Emergence dune architecture funraire monumentale (valles de la Seine

et de lYonne). In J. Guilaine (ed.), Spultures dOccident et genses des mgalithismes, 7388.
Paris: Errance.
PAUTREAU, J-P. 1994. Le grand btiment dAntran (Vienne): une nouvelle attribution
chronologique. Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise 91, 41819.
POLLARD, J. 2001. The aesthetics of depositional practice. World Archaeology 33, 31533.
POLLARD, J. 2004. The art of decay and the transformation of substance. In C. Renfrew,
C. Gosden & E. DeMarrais (eds), Substance, memory, display. Archaeology and art, 4762.
STEPANOVIC, M. 1997. The age of clay. The social dynamics of house destruction. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 16, 33495.
THOMAS, J. 1996. Neolithic houses in mainland Britain and Ireland a sceptical view. In
T. Darvill & J. Thomas (eds), Neolithic houses in northwest Europe and beyond, 112. Oxford:
Oxbow.
TINVEZ, J-Y. 2002. The Late Neolithic settlement of La Hersonnais, Plchatel, in its regional
context. In G. Varndell & P. Topping (eds), Enclosures in Neolithic Europe, 3750. Oxford:
Oxbow.
TOPPING, P. 1996. Structure and ritual in the Neolithic house. In T. Darvill & J. Thomas (eds),
Neolithic houses in northwest Europe and beyond, 112. Oxford: Oxbow.
WHITTLE, A. & WYSOCKI, M. 1998. Parc le Breos Cwm transepted long cairn, Gower, West
Glamorgan: date, contents and context. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 64, 13982.
Neolithic farming in Britain and central

Europe: contrast or continuity?
AMY BOGAARD & GLYNIS JONES
INTRODUCTION
FARMING IN BRITAIN has been characterised by some authors as transient
and sporadic cultivation of food that had a limited economic importance
(Edmonds 1999, 16; Entwhistle & Grant 1989; Moffett et al. 1989; Thomas
1999, 2332; Whittle 2003, 157), and more specifically as production of
special or symbolic foods consumed in ritual contexts (Richmond 1999, 34;
Thomas 1993; 1999, 2332; 2003; 2004). Farming in central Europe, by contrast, has been characterised as subsistence cultivation of staple crops
(Bogucki 1988, 912; Gregg 1988; Gross et al. 1990; Lning 2000, 179).
Much of the literature on Neolithic farming in Britain and central Europe,
therefore, suggests a sharp contrast in the nature and purpose of cultivation.
It is as though the well established analogy between the central European
longhouse and the north-west European long mound (e.g. Hodder 1990,
14256) implies a transformation in the nature of farming as well: a shift
from cultivation for the living in central Europe to cultivation for the ancestors in Britain. Other authors working on Neolithic farming in Britain, however, have maintained that crops provided a major component of daily
subsistence, as in central Europe (Jones 2000; Jones & Rowley-Conwy in
press; Monk 2000; Rowley-Conwy 2000).
There is an immediate problem with polarised views of farming as primarily a ritual or subsistence activity. As ethnographic accounts have repeatedly shown, ritual is superimposed on, or interdigitated with, productive
routines, not divorced from them (e.g. Forbes in press; Gudeman 1996;
Malinowski 1935; Sahlins 1972). Though various archaeologists have alluded
to this complexityfor example, by referring to close links between foodgetting, social image and ideology (e.g. Sherratt 1999, 14), or between ritual
and economic activities (e.g. Thomas 1999, 26)a tendency to treat ritual and
subsistence as distinct alternative readings of prehistoric farming is broadly
evident in the literature (Bradley 2004). Contrasting views of Neolithic
358
farming in Britain and central Europe offer a particularly clear example of

this tendency.
Beyond this theoretical problem, there are also issues relating to interpretation of the primary archaeobotanical evidence for cultivation. The general
perception is that evidence for cereal use is rich in central Europe and poor
in Britain (e.g. Entwhistle & Grant 1989; Moffett et al. 1989; Thomas 2004).
Evidence for plant use in Britain has increased steadily (Jones & RowleyConwy in press), however, and the data currently available warrant systematic
comparison with those from central Europe.
The aim of this paper, therefore, is to compare archaeobotanical data
from the two regions directly, to see how they differ and where (or whether)
they appear to converge. We will focus on three aspects of the archaeobotanical evidence: the occurrence of cereal grain; the occurrence of cereal chaff;
and the evidence of arable weed assemblages, which can shed light on growing conditions and crop husbandry practices. For these purposes, we will
concentrate on charred (carbonised) material, since this type of preservation
is widespread and most relevant to issues surrounding crops and associated
weeds (e.g. Green 1982; Jacomet et al. 1989, 1324). In Britain, we will
consider the available evidence from England, Wales and Scotland; in central
Europe, we will consider evidence mainly from the western loess belt, though
reference will also be made to evidence from the Alpine Foreland. Figure 1
shows the location of sites mentioned in the text.
Table 1 provides an overview of the chronology, numbers of sites with
archaeobotanical data, and crop spectra for Neolithic Britain and central
Europe. Clearly, we are dealing with a longer Neolithic in central Europe, and
more sites, but the number of sites in Britain is of a similar order of magnitude; over 100 British sites with archaeobotanical data are now known (Jones
& Rowley-Conwy in press, table 1), compared with the 26 included in the last
major synthesis by Moffett et al. (1989). The crop spectrum in Britain is narrower than in central Europe, though free-threshing wheat and barley were
not in widespread use in the western loess belt until the Middle Neolithic (c.
49004400 cal BC) (e.g. Bakels 1991a; Knrzer 1997; Maier 1996). At most
sites of the central European Early Neolithic or LBK (Linearbandkeramik, c.
55004900 cal BC), a relatively narrow range of crops is attested (einkorn and
emmer, pea, lentil, and flax: Kreuz et al. 2005). In Britain, emmer and barley
(both naked and hulled) appear to have been the major cereal crops, and flax
is attested at some sites (Campbell & Straker 2003; Fairbairn 2000; Jones
forthcoming). There is no definite evidence for pulse crops, though largeseeded legumes identified to general categories are quite common and may
represent cultivars. There is also recent evidence for opium poppy seeds, from
Early Neolithic Raunds (Healy & Harding 2003).
NEOLITHIC FARMING IN BRITAIN AND CENTRAL EUROPE
Figure 1.
Table 1.
359
Map showing sites mentioned in the text.
Overview of Neolithic chronology and archaeobotany for Britain and central Europe.
Britain
Central Europe
Dates cal BC
400025/2200
55002300
No. sites sampled
100
300
Crop spectrum
Einkorn, Emmer
Naked wheat, Barley
Flax, (Opium poppy)
Pulses?
Einkorn, Emmer
[Naked wheat, Barley]
Flax, Opium poppy
Pea, Lentil
( ) evidence from one site (Raunds)

[ ] sporadic in the western loess belt prior to the Middle Neolithic (c. 49004400 cal BC)
METHODS
For Britain, the list of Early through Late Neolithic archaeobotanical assemblages collated by Jones and Rowley-Conwy (in press, table 1) was used in
order to compile sample by sample data on charred crop, chaff and potential
weed material. The references for all of these sites are given in Jones and
360
Rowley-Conwy (in press, table 1). For central Europe, two major assemblages
from extensively sampled sites of the LBK the best investigated phase of
the Neolithic as far as charred plant remains are concernedwere used to
characterise the occurrence of cereal grain and chaff remains on sites in
central Europe. The first site is Vaihingen/Enz, Baden-Wrttemberg, a well
preserved and completely excavated Early Neolithic village (Krause 2000;
Bogaard in prep.; see also Bogaard 2004). This site was occupied for several
centuries in the second half of the sixth millennium cal BC (see Strien &
Gronenborn 2005). Around 650 samples, from a total of 232 separate
deposits or features, have been analysed. The second site, also in south-west
Germany and dating to the later sixth millennium cal BC, is Ulm-Eggingen
(Gregg 1989), where 230 samples containing charred plant remains were
recovered from 151 features. Both of these sites were sampled systematically
and extensively, providing a good overall picture of the deposition of charred
cereal remains. In terms of potential weed data from central Europe, a synthesis of weed-rich samples from Neolithic sites across the western loess belt
(Bogaard 2002) was used as a basis on which to characterise assemblages from
the area. Though not a complete list of all potential weed taxa recovered from
all sites, this dataset provides a good representation of the range of potential
weed taxa known from Neolithic sites in the loess belt.
In order to compare the occurrence of cereal grain and chaff in the two
areas, absolute densities of these items per litre of soil were used. Wherever
possible, the unit of analysis for the calculation of densities approximated
independent behavioural events (Jones 1991): that is, separate depositional
contexts.1
In order to compare the two regions in terms of their potential arable
weed assemblages, ecological characteristics particularly relevant to the permanence of cultivation plots were selected. The relevant characteristics have
been identified on the basis of data gathered during the Hambach Forest
experiment (Lning & Meurers-Balke 1980; 1986; Meurers-Balke 1985;
Meurers-Balke & Lning 1990), in which experimental plots cleared of longlived deciduous woodland were cultivated over a six-year period and surveyed immediately prior to harvest time in order to document the weed flora.
General habitat association (e.g. woodland, disturbed ground, and so on) and
life cycle (annual versus perennial) were used to characterise plots managed
as they would be in a shifting cultivation regime (Bogaard 2002). Information
It should be noted that, for a few British sites, individual sample data were not available;
instead, average densities of items for the whole site were used. For one major British site, The
Stumble (Murphy 1988, in press), the amount of soil processed per sample was quantified by
weight rather than volume; soil weights were converted to approximate volumes by assuming
that 1 kg of soil 1 litre of soil.
361
on these characteristics for potential weeds in Britain was extracted from

Ellenberg et al. (1992), as previously carried out for weeds in central Europe
(Bogaard 2002). Potential weeds encompass those taxa considered to be
arable species today, as well as a broad range of other herbaceous annuals
and perennials that may have grown as weeds in the past. Only those identified to species level were considered. As in the analysis of the Hambach weed
survey data, trees and shrubs were excluded as they are unlikely to set seed
when growing with annual crops (Bogaard 2002).
RESULTS
The occurrence of cereal grain
The density of cereal remains per litre of soil on British Neolithic sites is
often low (Moffett et al. 1989), and this has been interpreted as evidence that
cereals played a minor economic role (Entwhistle & Grant 1989; Hey et al.
2003; Thomas 2004). Figure 2a summarises numbers of contexts from British
Neolithic sites with cereal grain densities ranging from less than one grain per
litre to more than 50 grains per litre. Clearly, most contexts containing any
cereal grain tend to be in the lowest density category. It is important to bear
in mind, however, that preservation of plant remains by charring depends on
contact with fire and is episodic or discontinuous. The result is that many
contexts may contain very few or no charred cereals, regardless of their
economic importance. Moreover, extensive sampling and flotation tend to
produce an abundance of low density samples (Dennell 1976; Jones &
Rowley-Conwy in press).
Large-scale sampling and wet sieving have been routine components of
western LBK excavations for several decades, and have been reported to produce an abundance of low density samples (Bakels 1978; 1991b; Bakels &
Rouselle 1985; Jacomet & Kreuz 1999, 294; Kreuz 1990; Kreuz et al. 2005).
The largest assemblage available from any single LBK site is that recovered
from Vaihingen/Enz (Bogaard 2004; in prep). Grain densities from this site
are summarised in Fig. 2b, which shows that at Vaihingen, as in Britain, most
contexts with any cereal grain tend to contain less than one grain per litre.
High-density grain-rich deposits do occur at some LBK sites (e.g. DresdenNickern, Westeregeln/Stafurt: Willerding 1980; Lning 2000, 81; BietigheimBissingen: Piening 1989; Hilzingen: Stika 1991), as in Britain (e.g. Balbridie:
Fairweather & Ralston 1993; Building 1 at Lismore Fields: Jones forthcoming;
Hambledon Hill: Jones & Legge in press), but the deposits routinely
encountered contain very low densities of cereal grain.
362
Figure 2. Densities of cereal grains per litre of soil in contexts containing some cereal grain
from a. British Neolithic sites (n511), and b. LBK (Early Neolithic) Vaihingen (n211); n
number of contexts.
It is also worth comparing the presence or absence of cereal grain in close

association with buildings in Britain and central Europe. As more buildings
have emerged in Britain, it has been noted that grain is sometimes rare or
absent in post-holes: the features most closely associated with these structures. For example, the post-holes of the Neolithic structure at Yarnton,
Oxfordshire, lacked any cereal grain, though the same was true for the Bronze
Age structures on the site (Hey et al. 2003; Robinson 2000). Similarly, the
Neolithic Building 2 at Lismore Fields, Derbyshire, was associated with very
little cereal grain (Jones forthcoming), while flotation of post-hole fills from
the structure at White Horse Stone, Kent (Oxford Archaeology Unit 2000),
yielded very little evidence of plant foods (Hey et al. 2003, 84). Rarity or
absence of cereal grains in post-holes has been used to question the importance of cereals in the domestic economy (Campbell & Straker 2003; Hey
et al. 2003; Robinson 2000).
363
Post-holes on LBK sites, however, also tend to yield little in the way of
cereal grain (Gregg 1989; Kreuz 1990, 134; Kreuz et al. 2005); indeed, partly
for this reason, they tend to be sampled less thoroughly than pits. At
Ulm-Eggingen, however, numerous post-holes were sampled, along with other
settlement features, mainly pits (Gregg 1989). Table 2 summarises the proportions of investigated post-holes and pits that contained cereal grain at
Ulm-Eggingen. The clear majority of post-holes (75%) lacked cereal grain
altogether, compared with around half of the pits.
It appears, therefore, that the occurrence of cereal grain on Neolithic sites
in Britain and LBK sites in central Europe is rather similar. Low-density
deposits are common, high-density deposits are occasional, and post-holes
often lack grain in both areas.
The occurrence of cereal chaff
In order to consider the occurrence of cereal chaff, it is necessary to review
the forms in which it occurs. Threshing of free-threshing wheat and barley
immediately releases grain from surrounding chaff, and the chaff element
that is most likely to be preserved by charring is the rachis (the central stalk
within the cereal ear). Since rachis is separated off from the grain by early
processing stages (winnowing, raking, and coarse sieving), which usually take
place immediately after threshing, often outside settlements, it may be underrepresented archaeobotanically (Jones 1987). For the glume wheats (einkorn,
emmer, spelt), threshing breaks ears into spikelets (with grain still enclosed by
glumes); a further dehusking process (e.g. pounding in a deep mortar)
releases the grain from the chaff, and glume bases constitute the characteristic chaff element that survives charring. Glume bases are often better represented archaeologically than free-threshing cereal rachis, at least partly
because they are generated by a late stage of processing that may take place
within settlements on a frequent basis, if glume wheats are stored in the form
of spikelets (Hillman 1984; Jones 1987). Despite the common occurrence of
free-threshing cereal grain (barley, free-threshing wheat) at some sites, glume
wheat glume bases generally constitute the predominant form of chaff on
Neolithic sites in both Britain and central Europe (e.g. Bogaard 2004, 68;
Brombacher & Jacomet 1997, 240; Jones & Rowley-Conwy in press, table 1;
Table 2. The occurrence of cereal grains in pits and post-holes at LBK (Early Neolithic)
Ulm-Eggingen.
Feature type
Total contexts
% with grain
Pits
Post-holes
87
58
45%
22%
364
Maier 2001, 58; Moffett et al. 1989) and hence will be the focus of the
following discussion.
Cereal chaff is widely perceived as lacking in the British Neolithic record
(e.g. Richmond 1999, 33; Robinson 2000, 87), and this was certainly the case
when Moffett et al. (1989) published their synthesis. On the other hand,
archaeobotanical investigations at The Stumble (Murphy 1988; in press) have
recovered high frequencies of glume bases. Abundant glume bases were
also recovered from Lismore Fields, where some samples were dominated by
them (Jones forthcoming), and at Hambledon Hill, where a concentration of
probable spikelets of emmer was found (Jones & Legge in press).
Densities of glume bases on British Neolithic sites are summarised in Fig.
3a. It is clear that most contexts contain a low density of this material (less
than 10 items per litre). The situation at an Early Neolithic site in central
Europe such as Vaihingen provides a sharp contrast (Fig. 3b); samples with
higher densities of glume bases per litre of soil are abundant. Vaihingen is
entirely typical of LBK sites in central Europe, where glume bases are commonly found at a range of low to high densities and often with little or no
grain (e.g. Bakels 1991b; Knrzer 1988; Kreuz et al. 2005).
Why is charred chaff so much more abundant in central Europe? One
common explanation for charring of glume wheat material is that it resulted
from accidents during the parching of spikelets to make glumes brittle and
ease dehusking (see references summarised by Lning 2000, 77). Is it possible
to argue that accidents during parching were more common in central
Europe, resulting in more charred chaff ? The problem with this argument is
that parching accidents would result in charred grain and chaff (MeurersBalke & Lning 1992, 358; Nesbitt & Samuel 1996, 45) whereas, at LBK sites
such as Vaihingen, chaff is far more abundant than grain.
Moreover, experimental work has shown that parching is not essential for
efficient dehusking (Kreuz & Baatz 2003; Lning 2000, 77; Meurers-Balke &
Lning 1992). In fact, some experimental results suggest that moistening of
spikelets makes pounding/dehusking easier (Nesbitt & Samuel 1996). Thus,
the frequency of charred chaff cannot be regarded as a simple reflection of
the frequency of processing per se.
Clearly, therefore, explanations for charred chaff other than spikelet
parching must be considered. There are a number of possibilities. One type
of explanation is that different optional forms of processing and storage,
which could affect the frequency of chaff charring, were practised in Britain
and central Europe. For example, the practice of ear singeing to remove awns
prior to dehusking is known from recent times in Asturias, Spain, and could
potentially lead to some charring of the outer glumes without damaging the
inner grain (Pea-Chocarro 1999, 47; pers. comm.; Pea-Chocarro & Zapata
2003). Another possibility is that glume wheats tended to be stored in the
365
a.
% contexts
British Neolithic sites
100
80
60
40
20
0
<10
10-50
50-100
>100
Glume bases per litre soil
b.
% contexts
Vaihingen (LBK)
100
80
60
40
20
0
<10
10-50
50-100
>100
Glume bases per litre soil

Figure 3. Densities of glume bases per litre of soil in contexts containing some glume material
from a. British Neolithic sites (n184), and b. LBK (Early Neolithic) Vaihingen (n232); n
number of contexts.
366
spikelet in central Europe, leading to frequent dehusking on site, as opposed

to storage of cleaned grain in Britain. Though the storage of spikelets would
not explain charring per se, it might influence the proximity of dehusking
activity to household fires.
Another type of explanation has to do with the many possible uses of chaff
that could affect the frequency of charring (cf. Campbell & Straker 2003, 18;
Jones 2000, 80). For example, if chaff by-products from crop processing were
routinely fed to livestock in Britain, this fodder material would tend not to
become charred (cf. Campbell 2000). Another possibility is that chaff was
used as kindling or fuel in central Europe, and/or became charred as the result
of some habitual action (e.g. sweeping of refuse into the hearth).
There is direct evidence for the charring of chaff in domestic hearths at
the early fourth millennium BC lakeshore site of Hornstaad-Hrnle in southwest Germany. Here, a major horizon of waterlogged occupation detritus
was found to contain numerous discrete concentrations of charred cereal
material (mainly glume wheat chaff) mixed with wood charcoal (Maier 2001,
579, fig. 45). These concentrations were sometimes found adjacent to clay
lenses interpreted as hearths (Maier 2001, 58). It seems plausible, therefore,
that these concentrations represent hearth cleanings and that chaff was not
charred as part of processing (Maier 2001, 58), but rather as kindling, fuel,
sweepings, and so on. Chaff charring in hearths has also been suggested for
the LBK (Meurers-Balke & Lning 1992), though the association with
wood charcoal is often less evident. Charcoal is widespread in LBK pit
fills but tends to occur at low levels (e.g. Gregg 1991, 212; Knrzer 1988,
835), perhaps as a result of fragmentation resulting from re-deposition and
re-working of deposits.
To summarise, charred cereal chaff appears to be more common in central Europe than Britain. There are a number of possible explanations for this
contrast, including different forms of processing and storage, the use of chaff
as fodder in Britain, and the use of chaff as fuel or kindling in central
Europe. Perhaps, as Gregg (1991) has suggested, chaff was used as fuel in
some form of manufacturing activity in the LBK such as ceramic production
(though she stresses the role of straw, which is virtually unknown in the
archaeobotanical record for the LBK: Lning 2000, 83). A further possibility is that chaff charring reflects a habitual actioneven a ritualised one
that was widespread in central Europe. If a handful of chaff (the by-product
of frequent spikelet dehusking) were tossed or swept on to the domestic
hearth each morning, for example, the archaeobotanical effect would be an
abundance of charred glume bases.
The one explanation for charred chaff that would relate to scale of cereal
productionthe routine parching of spikelets as part of the dehusking
processcan be excluded. It appears, therefore, that it was the differential
367
uses and treatment of chaff in Britain and central Europe that resulted in contrasting abundances of charred glume bases in archaeological deposits, rather
than the contribution of cereals to the economy.
Weed assemblages
The third topic to be considered is the nature of crop growing in Britain and
central Europe, and in particular the extent to which cultivation plots can be
characterised as transient or permanent. Arguments against shifting cultivation in north-west Europe have tended to emphasise that it was ecologically
unnecessary or even implausible (Barker 1985, 1413; Jarman & BayPetersen 1976; Lning 1980; Modderman 1971; Rowley-Conwy 1981), but
this argument does not exclude the practice from consideration, and recent
accounts have continued to incorporate such a model (Barrett 1994; Thomas
1999, 2332; Whittle 1996a; 1996b; 1997). The key question is, were Neolithic
farmers perpetuating earlier patterns of mobility and circulation in their
cultivation practices, or were people creating new senses of place through
investment in particular patches of land?
Information on crop growing conditions can be inferred from assemblages of arable weed seeds that occur in charred form along with crop
remains (e.g. Jones 1992; 2002; Knrzer 1971; Wasylikowa 1981). The ecology of weeds growing in cultivation plots and harvested with the crops can
be used to reconstruct the way in which plots were managed. An experiment
conducted in the Hambach Forest near Cologne in the 1970s provides data
on the sort of weed flora that is associated with short-term cultivation
following forest clearance (see above). Analysis of these weed survey data
suggests that woodland species are characteristic of recently cleared plots
managed with little or no tillage and weeding (as in a shifting cultivation
regime) and that the weed flora is dominated by perennials (Bogaard 2002).
Figure 4a summarises the predominant habitats of potential weed taxa
from British Neolithic sites. It is evident that the potential weed spectrum is
dominated by species of disturbed places; the woodland category is represented by a single taxon, the annual Three-Veined Sandwort (Moehringia
trinervia (L.) Clairv.), which occurs in three samples from The Stumble in
Essex (Murphy 1988; in press). The weed spectrum in central Europe (Fig.
4b) is very similar, containing mostly species of disturbed habitats and few
woodland taxa.
Turning to the life cycle of weeds, the proportions of annual and perennial
taxa in the British Neolithic (Fig. 5a) show a roughly even split. In central
Europe (Fig. 5b), the proportions are similar; if anything, annual taxa are more
frequent in Britain. In neither case do these proportions resemble the picture
368
Figure 4. Major habitat associations of potential weed taxa from a. British Neolithic sites
(n45), and b. Neolithic sites across the western loess belt of central Europe (n109); n
number of potential weed taxa.
expected for the newly cleared plots of a shifting cultivation regime (c. 72 %
perennial taxa in the Hambach experiment: Bogaard 2002, appendix 1).
The proportions of annual and perennial weeds can also be evaluated on
a sample by sample basis, using the proportions of seeds of each type.
Proportions of seeds can be reliably calculated for individual samples that are
reasonably rich in potential weed species (e.g. containing at least 30 seeds).
This approach was previously applied in central Europe (Bogaard 2002, fig.
6), demonstrating the predominance of annuals on a sample by sample basis.
The scope for such an approach in Britain is limited by the small number of
weed-rich samples available, but it can be noted that annuals are dominant in
six of the seven samples with more than 30 potential weed seeds (Table 3).
In conclusion, the weed data do not support the model of shifting cultivation in Britain or in central Europe. Rather than transient plots that were
cultivated for a few years only, it appears that the cultivation plots of
Neolithic farmers in both areas were maintained for extended periods of
369
a.
British Neolithic sites
44
perennial taxa
56
annual taxa
b.
Neolithic sites in the loess belt
48
52
perennial taxa
annual taxa
Figure 5. Proportions of annual and perennial potential weed taxa from a. British Neolithic
sites (n54), and b. Neolithic sites across the western loess belt of central Europe (n126);
n number of potential weed taxa.
370
Table 3. Proportions of annual potential weed species in seven weed-rich samples (containing
at least 30 potential weed seeds) from Neolithic sites in Britain.
Site
Boghead
Isbister
Windmill Hill (inner)
Beehive
Field Farm
The Stumble, site B
Scord of Brouster 1
Context/sample
168 (L4)
628
pit 502 (fill 503)
203
samples 4041
Period
No. seeds of potential

weed species
% annuals
EN
EN
EN
E/LN
E/LN
E/LN
LN
102
184
44
35
36
31
40
100
69
100
100
36
100
100
time. It is difficult to be precise about the minimum period of time required

for the observed Neolithic weed floras to develop, but it can be estimated as
at least ten years or more, given that the six-year old plots of the Hambach
experiment were still dominated by perennials, despite increasingly intensive
tillage measures (Bogaard 2002).
CONCLUSIONS
In terms of the scale of cereal production and the permanence of cultivation
plots, farming practices in Neolithic Britain and central Europe appear rather
similar. What has sometimes been interpreted as ritual practice in one area
and subsistence in the other probably represents the same activity.
Interpretations of Neolithic farming appear to owe more to preconceived
ideas of individual authors (whether oriented towards subsistence or ritual)
than to the primary archaeobotanical evidence. The only major difference
that has emerged from this comparative study is a contrasting frequency of
charred glume wheat glume bases, for which various alternative explanations,
both functional and ritual, have been suggested. Whatever the precise causes
of this contrast, however, it appears that it is not related to the scale of
agricultural production.
As ethnographic accounts have demonstrated, farming activities have
both productive and socialising/ritualised dimensions. A challenge that
remains in both Britain and central Europe is to construct balanced accounts
of Neolithic cultivation that combine practical routines and ritualised
aspects.
Note. We would like to thank Alasdair Whittle for the invitation to speak at the
Going Over conference; Peter Murphy for allowing us to include his important
unpublished dataset from The Stumble; and Peter Rowley-Conwy for jointly assem-
371
bling the list of British sites (with Jones). We also thank David Taylor for drawing
Figure 1. This paper was presented and written during a period of research leave (for
Bogaard) funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council.
REFERENCES
BAKELS, C. C. 1978. Four Linearbandkeramik settlements and their environment: a palaeoecological study of Sittard, Stein, Elsloo and Hienheim. Leiden: Analecta Praehistorica
Leidensia 11.
BAKELS, C. C. 1991a. The crops of the Rssen culture. In S. Vytlacok (ed.), Palaeoethnobotany
and archaeology: international work-group for palaeoethnobotany 8th symposium Nitra-Nove
Vozokany 1989, 237. Nitra: Archaeological Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences.
BAKELS, C. C. 1991b. Tracing crop processing in the Bandkeramik culture. In J. Renfrew (ed.),
New light on early farming, 2818. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
BAKELS, C. C. & ROUSELLE, R. 1985. Restes botaniques et agriculture de nolitique ancien
en Belgique at aux Pays-Bas. Helinium 25, 3755.
BARKER, G. 1985. Prehistoric farming in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BARRETT, J. C. 1994. Fragments from antiquity: an archaeology of social life in Britain
(29001200 BC). Oxford: Blackwell.
BOGAARD, A. 2002. Questioning the relevance of shifting cultivation to Neolithic farming in
the loess belt of western-central Europe: evidence from the Hambach Forest experiment.
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 11, 15568.
BOGAARD, A. 2004. Neolithic farming in central Europe. London: Routledge.
BOGAARD, A. in preparation. The archaeobotany of LBK Vaihingen an der Enz, Kreis
Ludwigsburg. Stuttgart: Landesdenkmalamt Baden-Wrttemberg.
BOGUCKI, P. 1988. Forest farmers and stockherders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BRADLEY, R. 2004. Ritual and domestic life in prehistoric Europe. London: Routledge.
BROMBACHER, C. & JACOMET, S. 1997. Ackerbau, Sammelwirtschaft und Umwelt:
Ergebnisse archobotanischer Untersuchungen. In J. Schibler, H. Hster-Plogmann,
S. Jacomet, C. Brombacher, E. Gross-Klee & A. Rast-Eicher (eds), konomie und kologie
neolithischer und bronzezeitlicher Ufersiedlungen am Zrichsee, 22091. Zrich: Zrich und
Egg.
CAMPBELL, G. 2000. Plant utilization: the evidence from charred plant remains. In B. Cunliffe
(ed.), The Danebury environs programme. The prehistory of a Wessex landscape. Vol I: introduction, 4559. London: English Heritage and Oxford University Committee for
Archaeology, Monograph 48.
CAMPBELL, G. & STRAKER, V. 2003. Prehistoric crop husbandry and plant use in southern
England: development and regionality. In K. A. Robson Brown (ed.), Archaeological sciences
1999: proceedings of the archaeological sciences conference, University of Bristol, 1999, 1430.
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 1111.
DENNELL, R. 1976. The economic importance of plant resources represented on archaeological sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 3, 22947.
EDMONDS, M. 1999. Ancestral geographies of the Neolithic: landscape, monuments and
memory. London: Routledge.
ELLENBERG, H., WEBER, H. E., DLL, R., WIRTH, V., WERNER, W. & PAULISSEN, D.
1992. Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. Scripta Geobotanica 18.
ENTWHISTLE, R. & GRANT, A. 1989. The evidence for cereal cultivation and animal husbandry in the southern British Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. In A. Milles, D. Williams &
N. Gardner (eds), The beginnings of agriculture, 20315. Oxford: British Archaeological
372
FAIRBAIRN, A. S. 2000. On the spread of crops across Neolithic Britain, with special reference
to southern England. In A. S. Fairbairn (ed.), Plants in Neolithic Britain and beyond, 10721.
Oxford: Oxbow.
FAIRWEATHER, A. D. & RALSTON, I. B. M. 1993. The Neolithic timber hall at Balbridie,
Grampian region, Scotland: the building, the date, the plant macrofossils. Antiquity 67,
31323.
FORBES, H. A. F. in press. Meaning and identity in a Greek landscape: an archaeological ethnography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
GREEN, F. J. 1982. Problems of interpreting differentially preserved plant remains from excavations of Medieval urban sites. In A. Hall & H. Kenward (eds), Environmental archaeology
in an urban context, 406. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 23.
GREGG, S. A. 1988. Foragers and farmers: population interaction and agricultural expansion in
prehistoric Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
GREGG, S. A. 1989. Paleo-ethnobotany of the Bandkeramik phases. In C.-J. Kind (ed.),
Ulm-Eggingen: Die Ausgrabungen 1982 bis 1985 in der bandkeramischen Siedlung und der
mittelalterlichen Wstung, 36799. Stuttgart: Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und
Frhgeschichte in Baden-Wrttemberg 34.
GREGG, S. A. 1991. Indirect food production: mutualism and the archaeological visibility of
cultivation. In S. A. Gregg (ed.), Between bands and states, 20315. Southern Illinois
University: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper 9.
GROSS, E., JACOMET, S. & SCHIBLER, J. 1990. Stand und Ziele der wirtschaftsarchologischen Forschung an neolithischen Ufer- und Inselsiedlungen im unteren Zrichseeraum (Kt.
Zrich, Schweiz). In J. Schibler, J. Sedlmeier & H. Spycher (eds), Beitrge zur Archozoologie,
Archologie, Anthropologie, Geologie und Palotologie (Festschrift H. R. Stampfli), 77100.
Basel: Helbig und Lichtenhahn.
GUDEMAN, S. 1996. Economic anthropology. In A. Barnard & J. Spencer (eds), Encyclopedia
of social and cultural anthropology, 1728. London: Routledge.
HEALY, F. & HARDING, J. 2003. Raunds: from hunters to farmers. British Archaeology 73,
1621.
HEY, G., MULVILLE, J. & ROBINSON, M. 2003. Diet and culture in southern Britain: the evidence from Yarnton. In M. Parker-Pearson (ed.), Food culture and identity in the Neolithic
and Early Bronze Age, 7988. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series
1117.
HILLMAN, G. C. 1984. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: the application of
ethnographic models from Turkey. In W. van Zeist & W. A. Casparie (eds), Plants and ancient
man, 142. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema.
JACOMET, S., BROMBACHER, C. & DICK, M. 1989. Archobotanik am Zrichsee. Ackerbau,
Sammelwirtschaft und Umwelt von neolithischen und bronzezeitlichen Seeufersiedlungen im
Raum Zrich. Zurich: Orell Fssli Verlag.
JACOMET, S. & KREUZ, A. 1999. Archobotanik. Stuttgart: Eugen Ulmer.
JARMAN, H. N. & BAY-PETERSEN, J. L. 1976. Agriculture in prehistoric Europe the
lowlands. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B 275, 17586.
JONES, G. 1987. A statistical approach to the identification of crop processing. Journal of
JONES, G. 1991. Numerical analysis in archaeobotany. In W. van Zeist, K. Wasylikowa & K.-E.
Behre (eds), Progress in Old World palaeoethnobotany, 6380. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema.
JONES, G. 1992. Weed phytosociology and crop husbandry: identifying a contrast between
ancient and modern practice. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73, 13343.
JONES, G. 2000. Evaluating the importance of cultivation and collecting in Neolithic Britain.
In A. S. Fairbairn (ed.), Plants in Neolithic Britain and beyond, 7984. Oxford: Oxbow.
373
JONES, G. 2002. Weed ecology as a method for the archaeobotanical recognition of crop
husbandry practices. Acta Palaeobotanica 42, 18593.
JONES, G. forthcoming. Evidence for the importance of cereals in the Neolithic: charred plant
remains from the Neolithic settlement at Lismore Fields, Buxton.
JONES, G. & LEGGE, A. J. in press. Evaluating the role of cereal cultivation in the Neolithic:
charred plant remains from Hambledon Hill, Dorset. In R. Mercer & F. Healy (eds),
Hambledon Hill, Dorset. Excavation and survey of a Neolithic monument complex and its
surrounding landscape. Swindon: English Heritage Monograph.
JONES, G. & ROWLEY-CONWY, P. in press. On the importance of cereal cultivation in the
British Neolithic. In S. Colledge & J. Conolly (eds), Archaeobotanical perspectives on the
origin and spread of agriculture in southwest Asia and Europe. London: UCL Press.
KNRZER, K.-H. 1971. Urgeschichtliche Unkruter im Rheinland: ein Beitrag zur
Entstehungsgeschichte der Segetalgesellschaften. Vegetatio 23, 89111.
KNRZER, K.-H. 1988. Untersuchungen der Frchte und Samen. In U. Boelicke, D. von
Brandt, J. Lning, P. Stehli & A. Zimmerman (eds), Der bandkeramische Siedlungsplatz
Langweiler 8, Gemeinde Aldenhoven, Kreis Dren, 81352. Cologne: Rheinland-Verlag
GmbH.
KNRZER, K.-H. 1997. Botanische Untersuchung von 16 neolithischen Siedlungspltzen im
Bereich der Aldenhovener Platte, Kr. Dren und Aachen. In J. Lning (ed.), Studien zur
neolithischen Besiedlung der Aldenhovener Platte und ihrer Umgebung, 64784. Cologne:
Rheinland-Verlag GmbH.
KRAUSE, R. 2000. Die bandkeramische Siedlung bei Vaihingen. Bericht der RmischGermanischen Kommission 79, 732.
KREUZ, A. 1990. Die ersten Bauern Mitteleuropas eine archobotanische Untersuchung zur
Umwelt und Landwirtschaft der ltesten Bandkeramik. Leiden: Analecta Praehistorica
Leidensia 23.
KREUZ, A. & BAATZ, D. 2003. Try and error. Gedanken und Erfahrungen zum Darren und
Entspelzen von Getreide in den Jahrhunderten um Christi Geburt. Denkmalpflege und
Kulturgeschichte 1, 205.
KREUZ, A., MARINOVA, E., SCHFER, E. & WIETHOLD, J. 2005. A comparison of early
Neolithic crop and weed assemblages from the Linearbandkeramik and the Bulgarian
Neolithic cultures: differences and similarities. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 14,
23758.
LNING, J. 1980. Getreideanbau ohne Dngung. Archologisches Korrespondenzblatt 10,
11722.
LNING, J. 2000. Steinzeitliche Bauern in Deutschland die Landwirtschaft im Neolithikum.
Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.
LNING, J. & MEURERS-BALKE, J. 1980. Experimenteller Getreideanbau im Hambacher
Forst, Gemeinde Elsdorf, Kr. Bergheim/Rheinland. Bonner Jahrbcher 180, 30544.
LNING, J. & MEURERS-BALKE, J. 1986. Archologie im Experiment. Archologie in
Deutschland 1, 47.
MAIER, U. 1996. Morphological studies of free-threshing wheat ears from a Neolithic site in
southwest Germany, and the history of the naked wheats. Vegetation History and
Archaeobotany 5, 3955.
MAIER, U. 2001. Botanische und pedologische Untersuchungen zur Ufersiedlung HornstaadHrnle IA. Stuttgart: Siedlungsarchologie in Alpenvorland 6.
MALINOWSKI, B. 1935. Coral gardens and their magic: a study of the methods of tilling the soil
and of agricultural rites in the Trobriand Islands. London: Allen and Unwin.
MEURERS-BALKE, J. 1985. Experimente zum Anbau und zur Verarbeitung prhistorischer
Getreidearten. Archologische Informationen 8, 817.
MEURERS-BALKE, J. & LNING, J. 1990. Experimente zur frhen Landwirtschaft.
Experimentelle Archologie in Deutschland 4, 8292.
374
MEURERS-BALKE, J. & LNING, J. 1992. Some aspects and experiments concerning the
processing of glume wheats. In P. C. Anderson (ed.), Prhistoire de lagriculture: nouvelles
approches exprimentales et ethnographiques, 34162. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique.
MODDERMAN, P. J. R. 1971. Bandkeramiker und Wanderbauertum. Archologisches
Korrespondenzblatt 1, 79.
MOFFETT, L., ROBINSON, M. A. & STRAKER, V. 1989. Cereals, fruits and nuts: charred
plant remains from Neolithic sites in England and Wales. In A. Milles, D. Williams &
N. Gardner (eds), The beginnings of agriculture, 24361. Oxford: British Archaeological
MONK, M. 2000. Seeds and soils of discontent: an environmental archaeological contribution
to the nature of the early Neolithic. In A. Desmond, G. Johnson, M. McCarthy, J. Sheehan
& E. Shee Twohig (eds), New agendas in Irish prehistory: papers in commemoration of Liz
Anderson, 6787. Bray: Wordwell.
MURPHY, P. 1988. Carbonised Neolithic plant remains from The Stumble, an intertidal site in
the Blackwater estuary, Essex, England. Circaea 6, 2138.
MURPHY, P. in press. The Stumble (Blackwater Site 28). Charred plant remains and palaeoeconomy. East Anglian Archaeology.
NESBITT, M. & SAMUEL, D. 1996. From staple crop to extinction? The archaeology and
history of the hulled wheats. In S. Padulosi, K. Hammer & J. Heller (eds), Hulled wheats:
promoting the conservation and use of underutilized and neglected crops 4, 41100. Rome:
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute.
OXFORD ARCHAEOLOGICAL UNIT 2000. White Horse Stone: A Neolithic longhouse.
Current Archaeology 168, 45053.
PEA-CHOCARRO, L. 1999. Prehistoric agriculture in southern Spain during the Neolithic and
the Bronze Age: the application of ethnographic models. Oxford: British Archaeological
PEA-CHOCARRO, L. & ZAPATA, L. 2003. Post-harvesting processing of hulled wheats: an
ethnoarchaeological approach. In P. C. Anderson, L. S. Cummings, T. K. Schippers &
B. Simonel (eds), Le traitement des rcoltes. Un regard sur la diversit du Nolithique au
present. Actes des XXIIIe Rencontres Internationales dArchologie et dHistoire dAntibes,
1710 octobre 2002. Antibes: Editions APDCA.
PIENING, U. 1989. Pflanzenreste aus der bandkeramischen Siedlung von Bietigheim-Bissingen,
Kreis Ludwigsburg. Fundberichte aus Baden-Wrttemberg 14, 11940.
RICHMOND, A. 1999. Preferred economies. The nature of the subsistence base throughout mainland Britain during prehistory. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 290.
ROBINSON, M. 2000. Further considerations of Neolithic charred cereals, fruit and nuts. In
ROWLEY-CONWY, P. 1981. Slash and burn in the temperate European Neolithic. In R. Mercer
(ed.), Farming practice in British prehistory, 8596. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
ROWLEY-CONWY, P. 2000. Through a taphonomic glass, darkly: the importance of cereal
cultivation in prehistoric Britain. In J. P. Huntley & S. Stallibrass (eds), Taphonomy and
interpretation, 4353. Oxford: Oxbow.
SAHLINS, M. 1972. Stone age economics. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
SHERRATT, A. 1999. Cash-crops before cash: organic consumables and trade. In C. Gosden &
J. Hather (eds), Prehistory of food: appetites for change, 1334. London: Routledge.
STIKA, H.-P. 1991. Die paloethnobotanische Untersuchung der linearbandkeramischen
Siedlung Hilzingen, Kreis Konstanz. Fundberichte aus Baden-Wrttemberg 16, 63104.
STRIEN, H.-C. & GRONENBORN, D. 2005. Klima- und Kulturwandel whrend des
mitteleuropischen Altneolithikums (58./57.51./50. Jh. v. Chr.). In D. Gronenborn (ed.),
Klimavernderung und Kulturwandel in neolithischen Gesellschaften Mitteleuropas, 67002200
v. Chr., 13149. Mainz: Verlag des Rmisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums.
375
THOMAS, J. 1993. Discourse, totalization and the Neolithic. In C. Tilley (ed.), Interpretative
archaeology, 35794. Oxford: Berg.
THOMAS, J. 2004. Current debates on the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Britain and
Ireland. Documenta Praehistorica 31, 11330.
WASYLIKOWA, K. 1981. The role of fossil weeds for the study of former agriculture.
Zeitschrift fr Archologie 15, 1123.
WHITTLE, A. 1996a. Europe in the Neolithic: the creation of new worlds. Cambridge:
WHITTLE, A. 1996b. Houses in context: buildings as process. In T. Darvill & J. Thomas (eds),
Neolithic houses in northwest Europe and beyond, 1326. Oxford: Oxbow.
WHITTLE, A. 1997. Moving on and moving around: Neolithic settlement mobility. In
P. Topping (ed.), Neolithic landscapes, 1522. Oxford: Oxbow.
WILLERDING, U. 1980. Zum Ackerbau der Bandkeramiker. Materialhefte zur Ur- und
Frhgeschichte Niedersachsens 16, 42156.
The temporality of transformation:

dating the early development of
the southern British Neolithic
ALASDAIR WHITTLE
CHRONOLOGY AND TEMPORALITY

IF WE WANT TO MOVE from general to specific models of sequences of transformation, if we want to understand the interrelationships, tensions and reactions among and between different agents, if we want to recover something
of what made the difference between one way of thinking about the world
and another or between this way of doing things and that, then we need far
better chronologies than the ones to which we have been accustomed and to
which we have, through complacency or lack of imagination, resigned ourselves. Despite the strictures of pioneers like Hans Waterbolk (1971) and Ian
Kinnes (1985), we have been rather careless for too long about the selection
and evaluation of radiocarbon dating samples, and despite the attempts of
material culture specialists (e.g. Cleal 2004; Herne 1988; Kinnes 1979; 1992)
to achieve more refined sequences with the, in this regard, rather intractable
material of Britain, we have been content, in trying to think about the
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Britain, to operate within the parameters
of very coarse divisions of time: Later Mesolithic, Earlier Neolithic, and so on.
In part, this may have been due to a lingering sense of success created by
that radiocarbon revolution which began to see the emergence of calibrated
dates, from the early 1970s onwards, and which fostered perhaps a sense that
the main business remaining to be done was that of good explanation (e.g.
Renfrew 1973). In part also, for many British prehistorians at least, there may
have been a sense in which chronology was not given its proper due (an
understandable reaction to the days of culture history when so much effort
was expended, in the end to little effect, on the ABC of this and that). One
can find this attitude, perhaps unconsciously expressed, in the distinctions
made by Tim Ingold in his well known paper on the temporality of the landscape (1993). There, Ingold distinguishes between chronology, history and
Alasdair Whittle
378
temporality. Chronology for him is any regular system of dated time intervals, in which events are said to have taken place. History is any series of
events which may be dated in time. To introduce the uniting concept of temporality, Ingold makes reference to the McTaggart distinction between Aseries and B-series time, also explored by Gell (1992). In Ingolds account
(1993, 157), Whereas in the B-series, events are treated as isolated happenings, succeeding one another frame by frame, each event in the A-series is
seen to encompass a pattern of retensions from the past and protentions for
the future. Another version of this distinction was between abstract and substantial time (Shanks & Tilley 1987, 128). Going on to discuss the flow of life,
Ingold argues that we can move from one present to another without having
to break through any chronological barrier that might be supposed to separate each present from the next in line (Ingold 1993, 159). But this treatment
only allows one kind of temporality in human existence, which I would argue
is insufficientof which more belowand it has already begun to consign
the construction of chronology, whether intentionally or not, to a second and
rather mundane class of activity.
This paper therefore has three aims: first, to draw attention to now routine
methods of refining radiocarbon chronologies; second, to sketch some of the
first results from the application of such methods to early (but not yet really the
earliest) parts of the southern British Neolithic sequence; and third, to discuss
on a provisional basis the implications of a more refined sequence for our
understanding of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition and the very early
development of the southern British Neolithic. In so doing, the distinctions
between chronology, history and temporality become harder to sustain.
TOWARDS BETTER CHRONOLOGIES

When did the southern British Neolithic, or indeed the British Neolithic as a
whole, begin? Once upon a time, when apparently early dates from sites like
Ballynagilly and pre-elm decline clearances and cereal pollen were talked
about, it was possible to entertain the possibility of what would now be a
horizon in the mid-fifth millennium cal BC or even earlier. I argued at one
stage that such an early start might favour the colonisation hypothesis, but
that a later start, at the end of the fifth millennium, would favour the acculturation hypothesis (Whittle 1990). Now, after several critical reviews of the
available dates (e.g. Kenney 1993; Kinnes 1985; Schulting 2000; Williams
1989), no one would support such an early horizon as the mid-fifth millennium cal BC, and most accounts have settled for a central figure of around
4000 cal BC. But how reliable is this, how can we look forward to refining it
in the future, and what implications do changes in chronology still have?
EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE BRITISH NEOLITHIC
379
I must stress that this is primarily a discussion of things as it were from

the Neolithic side, a perspective of having gone over as Graeme Warren put
it in discussion at the Going Over conference, and it remains a considerable
weakness that we still have so little detailed information about the sequence
of development in the Late Mesolithic in southern Britain. That said, there
are rather few fixed points in time. We can anchor the Sweet Track in the
Somerset Levels (Coles & Coles 1986; 1992), plus the attendant jadeite and
flint axes and carinated bowls, with its dendrochronological date of 3807/6 BC
(Hillam et al. 1990), and both tree ring growth studies and pollen analyses
suggest that the track itself had been preceded by a century or more of woodland disturbance or active management (Coles & Coles 1986; 1992; Hillam
et al. 1990). Pottery specialists, following Herne (1988), see carinated bowls as
the earliest ceramic, but whether this is a single typological class and whether
it is all of the same date is an open question (Cleal 2004). Gabriel Cooney
(this volume) has suggested of the character of the offshore Early Neolithic
as a whole that in broader terms for Britain and Ireland it can be summarised as composed of a similar range of lithic artefacts, carinated bowl
pottery, enclosures, wooden mortuary structures under long and round
mounds and various types of megalithic tombs, including simple passage
tombs/graves, portal tombs/dolmens and varieties of megalithic long cairns,
to be found between 4000 and 3600 cal BC. To that list one could add southern flint mines and western stone axe sources. Much of the dating for all this
remains based on small numbers of samples, some of them patently too old
(long-lived wood or potentially residual disarticulated bones, for example).
Even within that constraint, it has been becoming clearer that not all the
elements listed by Cooney need be of exactly the same date. In southern
Britainand also in Ireland as he notes elsewhere in his paperit is likely
that timber structures/houses/halls, such as at Yarnton and White Horse
Stone, belong early in the fourth millennium cal BC, perhaps between 3900
and 3700 cal BC (Barclay 2006; Hey & Barclay, this volume). Southern long
barrows and causewayed enclosures, for reasons that I will set out below,
appear to start at slightly later dates.
None of the earliest features are very well established, and I will come
back to them in a later part of the paper. For the present, we can note that a
further problem for establishing the date of the start of the southern British
Neolithic rests in the current practice of simplistic visual inspection and
interpretation (eyeballing) of numbers of single dates (Bayliss, Bronk
Ramsey et al. 2007). By their very nature, there is likely to be a scatter of
dates beyond the actual chronological limits of a given phenomenon, and
when we are dealing with single dates or small numbers of dates only, it is
very difficultif not impossibleto determine the real boundaries of events
or phenomena without more sophisticated modelling (Bronk Ramsey 2000;
Alasdair Whittle
380
Steir & Rom 2000). This will continue to afflict those studies based on simple
listings of such dates. How then can we do things better?
The combination of strictly selected samples of short life and known
taphonomy from well known contexts, sufficient numbers of dates, and their
interrogation and interpretation within a Bayesian statistical framework, has
been applied since the re-dating of Stonehenge (Bayliss et al. 1997; Bayliss,
Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, with references to Bayesian methodology; for the
first case study, on Skara Brae, see Buck et al. 1991). It has been extended,
with stunning success, to the dating of the causewayed enclosure of
Hambledon Hill, Dorset (Healy 2004; Mercer 2004).1 It has since become
routine practice within projects supported directly by English Heritage
(Bayliss & Bronk Ramsey 2004), is beginning to be adopted more often in
some sectors of commercial archaeology, and needs now to be emulated
through prehistoric studies everywhere. With these methods, radiocarbon
dates from defined contexts, phases and stratigraphic relationships, are
assessed against that framework of prior knowledge. The results are interpretative, giving in the technical language of Bayesian statistics posterior density estimates,2 and more than one model can be produced for each site, with
differing posterior density estimates. No one model is necessarily true, but it
is possible to demonstrate which models are statistically invalid, and the
exercise of archaeological judgment remains of paramount importance.
Following the establishment of this methodology (Bayliss, Bronk Ramsey
et al. 2007) and the success of the Hambledon Hill dating project, it was possible to initiate further projects on the radiocarbon dating of southern British
long barrows (Bayliss, Benson et al. 2007; Bayliss, Whittle & Wysocki 2007;
Whittle, Bayliss & Wysocki 2007; Whittle, Barclay et al. 2007; Wysocki et al.
2007; see also Meadows et al. 2007) and causewayed enclosures (Whittle,
Healy & Bayliss in prep.). I will take these in reverse chronological order.
FROM THE KNOWN TO THE UNKNOWN

Causewayed enclosures in southern Britain
Within a Bayesian statistical framework, the initiation of the Hambledon
Hill causewayed enclosure can be set at around 3650 cal BC or a very little
earlier, perhaps at 3670 cal BC (Healy 2004). After this beginning in the thirtyseventh century cal BC, there followed a series of further episodes of con-
1
2
The final report by Roger Mercer and Frances Healy is now in press.
By convention presented in italics.
381
struction and modification; the great complex was not built in one go, and the
Stepleton enclosure, for example, was itself initiated in what is defined as
Phase 1b, just before 3600 cal BC, perhaps two generations or so after the first
layout of the main enclosure (Healy 2004). The later history of the complex
extends down to c. 3300 cal BC.
Following the inspiration of this work, a further project was initiated to
extend the methodology to other southern British causewayed enclosures. By
the time of its completion in late 2007, the project will have achieved well over
400 new radiocarbon dates from up to 30 of the presently known number of
around 80 or more such monuments. It is premature to present detailed
results as final modelling is only just beginning at the time of writing this
paper. It is appropriate to note, however, that it appears very likely that the
pattern established for Hambledon Hill is to be found very widely elsewhere
in southern Britain. Whatever the date of the start of the southern British
Neolithic may be, the thirty-seventh century cal BC horizon of enclosures is
comfortably separate from it. Further, it is likely that we will see a rapid establishment across southern Britain of this phenomenon, and that we will detect
differences between site histories: some long and episodic like that of
Hambledon Hill, but others strikingly short.
The already quoted view that we can move from one present to another
without having to break through any chronological barrier that might be
supposed to separate each present from the next in line (Ingold 1993, 159)
begins to look implausibly general. There may be a rapid, striking development here. The concentrations of labour and the intense socialities that
causewayed enclosures can be seen to invoke do not belong to the very first
generations of Neolithic existence in southern Britain. We will discuss again
elsewhere, with our final results, the genealogy of the enclosure idea. Did it
come from contemporary practice in woodland and settlement (Evans
1988), or did it derive from continental inspiration? In the latter case, we can
see broadly comparable interrupted ditched enclosures on the adjacent continent probably from the later fifth millennium cal BC, in northern Chasseen
and western Michelsberg contexts, for example at Boury-en-Vexin in the
Oise valley (Martinez et al. 1984) or Spiere-de Hel in the middle Scheldt
valley (Vanmontfort et al. 2001/2). That leaves a gap of at least at least three
centuries before this kind of practice was adopted by southern British communities (interestingly and perhaps significantly, at about the same time as
in Denmark, there from c. 3500 cal BC: Andersen 1993; 1997). There are thus
many issues for discussion elsewhere, but we can underline for the present
purpose that enclosure results so far support a gradualist model for the
development of the southern British Neolithic.
382
Alasdair Whittle
Long barrows in southern Britain

A gradualist model is also supported by emerging results for another form of
monumentality in southern Britain: that of long barrows. Five important
southern long barrows have been dated: West Kennet (Bayliss, Whittle &
Wysocki 2007); Waylands Smithy (Whittle, Bayliss & Wysocki 2007);
Fussells Lodge (Wysocki et al. 2007); Ascott-under-Wychwood (Bayliss,
Benson et al. 2007; Benson & Whittle 2006); and the Hazleton long cairn
(Meadows et al. 2007). Other results are pending from Coldrum, Kent (with
the cooperation of Michael Wysocki, Robert Hedges, Tom Higham and
Seren Griffiths), and from several monuments in south Wales including Ty
Isaf, Pipton, Penywyrlod (Talgarth), and Tinkinswood (with the co-operation
of Michael Wysocki).
Concentrating on the southern English sites, the emerging pattern is for
the first constructions of this kind to appear in the thirty-eighth century cal
BC, perhaps after 3800 cal BC or around 3750 cal BC: up to a century or so
before causewayed enclosures but still at some interval after the probable start
of the southern British Neolithic, depending of course on how that is defined
(Whittle, Barclay et al. 2007). It is important to stress the obvious point that
our sample of robustly investigated monuments is still very small, but preliminary critical investigation of other comparable dated sites, using the date
lists given by Kinnes (1992) and Darvill (2004), does not show any convincing exceptions, though these cannot of course be absolutely excluded yet
(Whittle, Barclay et al. 2007). Thus, radiocarbon dates from Burn Ground,
also in the Cotswolds, might suggest slightly earlier beginnings (Smith &
Brickley 2006), but modelling, further assessment of the taphonomy of
samples and more dating are all required. The Long Mound at Raunds,
Northamptonshire, has been modelled as belonging to the period between
39403780 cal BC by samples preceding and following its construction,
although this monument cannot be regarded as precisely dated (Harding &
Healy forthcoming; Frances Healy, pers. comm.). Coldrum in Kent (Jessup
1970, with references) has radiocarbon dates on human bone samples going
back to the thirty-ninth century cal BC or possibly the fortieth century cal BC
but it is unclear whether these date the construction of the small, stonechambered, monument.3 Within the Cotswolds, rotundae and portal dolmens
have been suggested as belonging earlier than Cotswold long cairns and
barrows as a whole (most recently by Darvill 2004, chapter 2), but there is no
certainty at present that this was so (cf. Smith & Brickley 2006). Rotundae (in
the case of Sales Lot underlain by a timber structure: Barclay 2000) underlie
To be published by Alasdair Whittle, Mick Wysocki, Robert Hedges, Tom Higham and Seren
Griffiths.
383
transepted or other terminal chambered monuments which may themselves

not be the earliest form of Cotswold monument (and see below), and could
be seen as some kind of monumentalisation of those middens which underlie some lateral chambered Cotswold monuments, including Ascott-underWychwood and Hazleton. While it has been suggested that some portal
dolmens in the west and in Ireland may be early (Cummings & Whittle 2004;
Cooney 2000), it is far from clear that all or indeed any are very early; and
while some of the west Welsh examples do have finds of carinated bowl pottery, we cannot yet say definitely in any one case whether the monument predates c. 3750 cal BC. Finally, we can note that the Whitwell long cairn in the
Peak district of Derbyshire was first published with dates going as far back
as the late fifth or very early fourth millennium cal BC (Schulting 2000, 30),
but has now been dated on fresh samples to a rather later phase.4
In broad terms, of our closely dated monuments Ascott-underWychwood is the earliest, beginning in the mid-thirty-eighth century cal BC,
to be followed after two or three generations or so (at 25 years per generation)
by Hazleton. Both these two Cotswold monuments have lateral cists or chambers. They go out of use probably in the 3640s or 3630s cal BC and the 3630s
or 3620s cal BC respectively. Use of the primary, pre-barrow structure at
Fussells Lodge long barrow also begins in the thirty-eighth century cal BC,
but the long barrow was not constructed until the mid-thirty-seventh century
cal BC. The transepted chambers of the West Kennet long barrow probably
began to be used for deposition of human remains in the mid-thirty-seventh
century cal BC. Waylands Smithy I, despite often being seen as an early type
of monument (Darvill 2004, 526), was not started till the early thirty-sixth
century; its transepted phase (II) probably belongs to the thirty-fifth century
cal BC. Other well known or more reliably dated monuments such as
Hambledon, Haddenham, Lambourn, Nutbane and others fit in around this
sort of pattern. It would be unwise to exclude the possibility of similar
constructions earlier than the mid-thirty-eighth century cal BC in southern
Britain, but at present there is no clear evidence for this.
Full details are given elsewhere (Whittle, Barclay et al. 2007) but it is
worth stressing the explicit, quantified, probabilistic basis on which much
more precise estimates of sequence and duration can be made than have been
available for the study of this period so far. We claim that it is possible to
offer a sense of events not only to the century but on occasion to a scale of
generations. Thus, it is very likely that Ascott-under-Wychwood was the first
to be built (80% probable),5 with only a small uncertainty (19.9%) as to
4
I am very grateful to Ian Wall for permission to refer to this re-dating.

These estimates and the shorthand names for relationships or events are also by convention
given in italics.
5
384
Alasdair Whittle
whether the Fussells Lodge mortuary structure was built slightly earlier.
After the initiation of these two sites, Hazleton was constructed (85.7% probable). This occurred 2095 years after the initial construction of the Ascottunder-Wychwood long barrow (95% probability; Ascott/Haz; Whittle, Barclay
et al. 2007, fig. 4), probably 3575 years later (68% probability). Probably only
a generation or two after the construction of Hazleton, West Kennet was built
(although this estimate is based only on primary human remains in the chambers). This was 155 years later (91% probability) or 11035 years later (4%
probability); const WK/Haz; Whittle, Barclay et al. 2007, fig. 4), or 1545 years
later (68% probability). It is very likely (93.9% probable) that the first phase of
Waylands Smithy (the mortuary structure) was then constructed, and certain
that Waylands Smithy II was the last of these monuments to have been constructed (100% probable). Some of these events are modelled in Fig. 1 (after
Figure 1. Probability distributions of dates of major archaeological events at the sites studied
in detail in Whittle, Barclay et al. 2007 and related papers (note that some of the tails of these
distributions have been truncated to enable detailed examination of the highest areas of probability). The estimates are based on the preferred chronological models defined by Bayliss, Benson
et al. (2007, figs 3 and 57), Meadows et al. (2007, figs 59), Wysocki et al. (2007, figs 1011),
Bayliss, Whittle and Wysocki (2007, figs 47) and Whittle, Bayliss, and Wysocki (2007, figs 45).
385
Whittle, Barclay et al. 2007), and a summary of our preferred model for
Ascott-under-Wychwood is given as Fig. 2.
This chronology has many implications. Monuments of this kind do not
appear to belong to the beginning of the Neolithic, always assuming that
there was everywhere a pre-monument phase of some 150 years or more (of
which more below). This gradualist development requires a fresh look at the
emergence of this kind of practice, which signifies place through construction
and commemorates the selected dead through deposition and manipulation.
While it has been commonplace to link the idea of long mounds to the much
earlier LBK and post-LBK longhouses (Darvill 2004, 7380, with references), the latter had probably ended in the mid-fifth millennium cal BC, and
the widening gap calls into question the chains of memory that would have
been required. We might look instead to a broad tradition of comparable
constructions on the adjacent continent, from Brittany and Normandy up to
southern Scandinavia, the beginnings of which appear to go back to the
second half of the fifth millennium cal BC (Midgley 2005), even if particular
dates such as those under the Sarnowo mounds appear in need of critical
reevaluation. We can also consider a possible link with contemporary or
slightly earlier houses/structures/halls in southern Britain itself (a point
noted also by Darvill 2004; see also Bradley, this volume).
Figure 2. Overall structure for the main model for the chronology of Ascott-under-Wychwood
long barrow (after Bayliss, Benson et al. 2007). The component sections of this model are shown
in detail in Bayliss, Benson et al. 2007, figs 57. The large square brackets down the left hand side
of the figure, along with the OxCal keywords, define the overall model exactly.
386
Alasdair Whittle
The southern British and Danish sequences (Larsson, this volume;

Madsen 1993) appear in this respect, too, to run uncannily in tandem. We
should consider afresh, alongside the older models of derivation from deep
memory and myth, the contemporary conditions in which people began to
give attention in this way to place and the dead. After earlier Mesolithic
human depositions in Avelines Hole (Schulting & Wysocki 2002), there is
nothing visible in Late Mesolithic practice in southern Britain to prepare one
for the concentrated depositions of the thirty-eighth century cal BC, though
the situation in Denmark is evidently rather more complex (see Larsson, this
volume). It can be argued that people began to take stock of new identities
and practices by the thirty-eighth century cal BC (Benson & Whittle 2006).
Judging by Ascott-under-Wychwood, Fussells Lodge and Hazleton, the
scale of sociality may have been quite restricted; equally, at least to begin
with, new constructions, though possibly appearing quite swiftly, may have
been relatively few and far between, and the initial picture at least need not
be one of land hunger or overt competition (see also Hey & Barclay, this volume). Part of this trend of making sense of a changing world may have
involved ideas circulating very widely in north-west Europe. We have been
accustomed to think of contact with the continent only in a narrow pinchpoint of transition, but this is unduly restrictive, and the continental jadeite
axe6 deposited beside the Sweet Track, within the 30 years or so after its construction in 3807/6 BC during which it would have been visible (Coles & Coles
1986), is a vivid demonstration of the reality of such continuing connections.
Before the monuments
Chris Tilley (this volume) has argued that in the Mesolithic the natural setting, including the forest, was the monument in peoples lives. Following the
emergent chronology reported here, and persisting with these terms just for
the moment (see below), this may have continued into the first part of the
Neolithic. We could see the Sweet Track not only as a practical and useful
walkway across periodically flooded ground, a route to useful places, but also
as a reassembly of the woodland, a monument to knowledge of and familiarity with it, symbolising the importance of being connected and on the
move. Many others have noted the symbolic import of very substantial posts
in long barrows and similar monuments, and the split trees used in the
primary mortuary structure at Waylands Smithy suggest, in the chronology
presented here, that this was a long-lived and persistent idea.
On grounds of appearance and shape, there is no doubt that this is an Alpine import: Alison
Sheridan, pers. comm.
387
It is easy to assume, as noted earlier in this paper, that new practices

perhaps definable as the use of bowl pottery, an increased production, circulation and use of stone and flint axes, the herding of domesticated animals
and cultivation of cereals, and the construction of not insubstantial buildingsbegan everywhere c. 4000 cal BC. That remains to be demonstrated. It
is not to be excluded that in some parts of southern Britain new practices
could have gone back to the late fifth millennium cal BC, while in others they
might be as late as c. 3900 cal BC or even c. 3800 cal BC, just preceding, say,
the initiation of a given local long barrow or cairn or other related monument. There is no obvious sign of pre-mortuary structure activity at Fussells
Lodge, for example (Ashbee 1966). The difference in date makes a difference
to our interpretations of process.
There are, however, some reliable indications of Neolithic activity going
back to the fortieth century cal BC. The Sweet Track evidence already cited
strongly suggests this, though the identity of those responsible for clearance
and woodland management is an open issue. The two lateral Cotswold monuments of Ascott-under-Wychwood and Hazleton point in the same direction. Under the long barrow of Ascott-under-Wychwood was a buried soil
with quite abundant earlier and sparse later Mesolithic finds, and abundant
Neolithic occupation including a concentrated midden (Benson & Whittle
2006; Bayliss, Benson et al. 2007). Two bone samples from the midden, presumably redeposited, gave dates of around 5000 cal BC, and two from a small
posthole suggested activity in the last quarter of the fifth millennium cal BC.
The pre-barrow Neolithic occupation appears to consist of several discrete
episodes of activity occurring during the first quarter of the fourth millennium cal BC. The results suggest that the midden represents a relatively short
period of activity, conceivably a single event or a short series of closely connected events. The midden was formed during the second half of the fortieth
century cal BC or the thirty-ninth century cal BC. Locally in the area under the
primary barrow the occupation ended in 39403765 cal BC (95% probability),
most probably between 38703775 cal BC (68% probability; end_occupation:
Bayliss, Benson et al. 2007, fig. 5; Fig. 3 here). In the preferred model, a gap
of at least 50 years followed before the initiation of the barrow and its cists
(Bayliss, Benson et al. 2007; Benson & Whittle 2006).
The construction of the Hazleton North long cairn perhaps followed that
of Ascott-under-Wychwood by a couple of generations (Meadows et al.
2007; Whittle, Barclay et al. 2007), again after an interval following pre-cairn
Mesolithic and Neolithic activity (Saville 1990), the latter including occupation, a concentrated midden and the building of some kind of small wooden
structure. Fewer samples were dated from the Hazleton midden than at
Ascott-under-Wychwood, but suggest activity and occupation as far back as
the thirty-ninth century cal BC at least (Meadows et al. 2007).
388
Alasdair Whittle
Figure 3. Probability distributions of dates from the Neolithic pre-barrow occupation at

Ascott-under-Wychwood (after Bayliss, Benson et al. 2007). Each distribution represents the relative probability that an event occurs at a particular time. For each of the dates two distributions
have been plotted: one in outline, which is the result of simple radiocarbon calibration, and a
solid one, based on the chronological model used; the event associated with, for example, GrA23933, is the growth of the dated wild boar. Distributions other than those relating to particular
samples, correspond to aspects of the model. For example, the distribution end_occupation is
the posterior density estimate of when the Neolithic occupation beneath the primary barrow
ceased. Measurements followed by a question mark have been excluded from the model for reasons explained in Bayliss, Benson et al. 2007, and are simple calibrated dates (Stuiver & Reimer
1993). The large square brackets down the left-hand side along with the OxCal keywords define
the overall model exactly.
Further to the west, on the Cotswold edge, pre-enclosure features at

Crickley Hill could also be candidates for an early date (Dixon 1988), though
work on this is still in progress through the enclosures dating project (Whittle,
Healy & Bayliss in prep.). To the south in the upper Thames valley, the occupation at Yarnton may go back to the very early fourth millennium cal BC,
and the substantial timber structure there may date on the basis of four
radiocarbon dates to c. 3800 cal BC (Hey & Barclay, this volume). Further
afield, as reported by Hey and Barclay (this volume, with references), charred
cereal remains from the Area 6 midden at Eton, from Woolwich, and from
389
the longhouse or structure at White Horse Stone in the Medway Valley, Kent,
may also date to the early fourth millennium cal BC. Human bones from the
monument at Coldrum, on the other side of the Medway opposite the White
Horse Stone timber structure, have also been dated to at least the thirty-ninth
century cal BC, and possibly the fortieth century cal BC (see footnote 3), but it
is uncertain whether these date the monument itself, and the identity of the
people concerned is again an open question. These new data are valuable, but
we should note that we cannot yet offer more precise models for these various
sites, of the complexity possible at Ascott-under-Wychwood and Hazleton. In
the essentialist language of Mesolithic and Neolithic and in the generalising
terms of debate so fara processual legacy?we have been accustomed to
thinking of a single, brief horizon of change, whereas the present data from
the Thames valley and its catchment as a whole might just as well speak for
a gradual and spatially patchy series of transformations.
One other site also gives confidence that Neolithic activity could go back
to the earliest fourth millennium cal BC. The natural shaft at Fir Tree Field in
Cranborne Chase, Dorset, was infilling from the Mesolithic into the
Neolithic (Allen & Green 1998). A Bayesian model (kindly constructed by
Derek Hamilton) suggests that the interval between layer 7, with late
Mesolithic finds, and layer 6a, with bowl pottery (in turn above 6b, described
as Neolithic but without bowl pottery), fell between 41203870 cal BC (95%
probability: Fig. 4).
There is not space here to discuss all relevant dates from southern Britain
exhaustively (cf. Griffiths 2003), and anyway the time is ripe for yet another
critical evaluation of these. We can note again, first, that claims for very early
dates for both long barrows and causewayed enclosures do not stand up to
scrutiny, as discussed above. Thus simply listing dates from causewayed enclosures (Cleal 2004, figs 12) or from Cotswold long barrows and cairns (Darvill
2004, fig. 32) and simple visual inspection of the results is no longer sufficient
(Bayliss, Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007). Ros Cleal has suggested that most enclosures do not date before c. 3650 cal BC (Cleal 2004, 166); she is rightly sceptical of Hembury and indeed Maiden Castle belonging any earlier (Cleal 2004,
169), and both these sites have been included in the current enclosures dating
project. Dates from other sites recently discussed in the literature are also
open to reassessment. As Cleal (2004, 186) notes, the single date from the
Coneybury Anomaly near Stonehenge could be on residual animal bone,
while the charcoal used for the dates from Rowden, Dorset, was from oak
(Cleal 2004, 173 and 187), and the latest date (Cleal 2004, fig. 3) need suggest
only a mid-fourth millennium cal BC date for the carinated bowl assemblage in
question. The single date from Flagstones was also on oak (Cleal 2004, 173).
On the basis of her critical review, Cleal (2004, 181) perceptively suggests that
there could have been a virtually aceramic earliest Neolithic down to c. 3850
Alasdair Whittle
390
Figure 4. Probability distributions of dates from the stratified sequence in the Fir Tree Field
shaft, using data published by Allen and Green (1998). Each distribution represents the relative
probability that an event occurs at a particular time. For each of the dates two distributions have
been plotted: one in outline, which is the result of simple radiocarbon calibration, and a solid
one, based on the chronological model used. OxA-7981 has been excluded from the model (indicated by the ? next to the laboratory ID), and is likely to be a residual pig femur that eroded
into the shaft during the silting in process. The model gives a calculated event transition probability between layers 7 and 6b of 41203870 cal BC (95% probability). The large square brackets
down the left hand side of the figure, along with the OxCal keywords, define the overall model
exactly.
cal BC. That need not apply to Ascott-under-Wychwood, but it could have
been the pattern in many other parts of southern Britain. The uncertainties
underline how urgently we need fresh results in this field.
FURTHER IMPLICATIONS
The account of southern British early Neolithic chronology sketched here
has been intended to serve two purposes: to demonstrate how we can confidently begin to separate events into different horizons and centuries in the first
half of the fourth millennium cal BC; and to suggest that this emerging but still
uncertain sequence calls existing models for the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in southern Britain into question. Recent debate has had three recurrent
characteristics. We have been content to use very crude chronologies, and to
think within simple, essentialist terms like late Mesolithic and early Neolithic,
and we have debated two opposed models, of colonisation and acculturation.
391
If the fourth millennium cal BC chronology is beginning to improve, we cannot yet say the same of the fifth millennium cal BC, with the possible exception
of regions further north, such as northern England (e.g. Spikins 2002) and
perhaps parts of western Scotland (Mithen et al., this volume). It is time to
think in terms of more complicated processes, possibly over extended
timescales, and in so doing it is time to challenge the essentialist vocabulary
which has dominated debate for too long.
I have already suggested elsewhere that we should consider a combination
of small-scale, filtered colonisation from the adjacent continent and change
among indigenous people in southern and other parts of Britain (Whittle
1999; 2003, 150). Cleal (2004, 181) has talked of a contact Neolithic, dating
to c. ?41003850 cal BC. A variation is to suggest regional differences: crudely,
more emphasis in central southern Britain on possible colonisation, and more
in western Britain on indigenous change (Cummings & Whittle 2004, 8891).
A more radical move is to begin to think now of a whole range of ways in
which the identities of all the actors and agents involved were negotiated and
recast through changing conditions.
There remains little good evidence for the wholesale transference of continental cultural practices. If we look to the Michelsberg culture, for example,
we only see partial overlap in the material repertoires (Thomas, this volume).
The enclosure site of Spiere-de Hel in the middle Scheldt valley in Flanders
only a little over 100 km from the Kent coastis a good example. It dates to
c. 4000 cal BC (Vanmontfort et al. 2001/2). Its pottery and flint assemblages
include deep necked jars and shouldered and even carinated bowls, and polished axes, scrapers and leaf-shaped arrowheads (e.g. Vanmontfort et al.
2001/2, figs 257 and 325), which would not look out of place in southern
and eastern British assemblages of the earlier fourth millennium cal BC, but
they also include other jar and bowl forms, and triangular points and long
edge-retouched pieces, which certainly would.
Equally, there is still no compelling evidence for unmanageably populous
landscapes along the breadth of the continent facing Britain, which might
have generated large-scale population movement. Southern Scandinavia has
a gradualist sequence itself, very like that argued here for southern Britain
(Larsson, this volume), while the Dutch estuaries and coast also follow a trajectory of step-by-step change (Louwe Kooijmans, this volume). Neolithic
axes and adzes had been moved in numbers into the sandy lowlands of
Belgiumreally not far from the south-east coast of Englandfrom the
sixth into the fifth millennia cal BC (Verhart 2000, figs 34), but none of LBK
style have so far ever turned up in southern Britain. The process of change was
also gradual in western loess areas of Belgium (Cromb & Vanmontfort, this
volume). The enclosure at Spiere-de Hel is again a good example. The construction of an enclosure is presumably a significant development in terms of
392
Alasdair Whittle
local settlement dynamics, but the pollen evidence does not suggest extensive
open ground (Vanmontfort et al. 2001/2, fig. 38) and there were few axes. The
subsistence evidence suggests some cultivation, gathering and husbandry,
especially of pig. The primary fill of the ditch suggests bank collapse, followed by recuts and gradual accumulation of material. We can note also the
20 m-longhouse at Dele-Escaut, in west Flanders: seemingly on its own (in
amongst more extensive Bronze Age features), quite late in date, perhaps c.
3000 cal BC, and the first of its kind to be found in the sandy lowlands
(Demeyere et al. 2004; see also Cromb & Vanmontfort this volume).
Other regions not far away do have more dense distributions of enclosures
belonging to the northern Chasseen-Michelsberg cultural complex, such as
the Oise, petite Seine, lower Marne and Yonne (e.g. Dubouloz et al. 1991;
Martinez et al. 1984). These may well comfortably predate southern British
enclosures, but their radiocarbon chronology has not so far been established
with any reliability or precision. Some sites, on the basis of scattered or individual samples, may not date much before c. 4000 cal BC (Martinez et al. 1984).
Another context from slightly further west in northern France, in the lower
Eure close to the Seine near Rouen, also suggests a landscape c. 4000 cal BC
that was far from over-crowded. Occupation in the vicinity of the site of
Louviers (Giligny 2005) probably goes back to the early fifth millennium cal
BC Villeneuve-Saint-Germain group, but use of the marshy location itself
dates to c. 44004300 cal BC and is associated with the Cerny group. More
frequent occupation, of northern Chasseen cultural affiliation, dates to
c. 40003800 cal BC. This was use of wet ground, for passage and discard, and
perhaps not principally a settlement in its own right, but the pollen evidence
again shows a still well wooded setting (Reckinger 2005), and the animal
bones suggest a principal concern with cattle, but also some hunting (Tresset
2005).
On the other hand, there is no reason to exclude small-scale, piecemeal
and perhaps episodic fissioning from continental communities. This may have
been one of the vectors of change in the late fifth and early fourth millennia
cal BC. Michelsberg culture chronology as a whole is far from precisely established, though a combination of typological studies and the anchor of north
Swiss-south German dendrochronologies strongly suggests that it must date
from at least c. 4300 cal BC. Jeunesse (1998; Jeunesse et al. 2004; cf. Dubouloz
1998) has argued for slightly earlier beginnings in northern France. In any
event, it is likely that the northern Chasseen-Michelsberg cultural complex
had already emerged at some point in the latter part of the fifth millennium
cal BC, and thus the likely source of material borrowings and imitations was
in place in time for related developments in southern Britain.
Although not in southern Britain, the evidence of cattle bone at Ferriters
Cove on the Dingle peninsula in south-west Ireland in a mid-fifth millennium
393
cal BC context (Tresset 2003; Woodman et al. 1999) shows the absence of
insular isolation. We cannot definitively establish whether the cattle in question were domesticated or wild, and thus from, say, north-west France or
from, say, western Britain, nor can we necessarily suppose that the same conditions of contact obtained for southern Britain as for south-west Ireland
with its distinctive history and post-glacial fauna, but it seems extremely
unlikely that Ferriters Cove was an isolated moment of contact. By the very
early fourth millennium BC, there were Atlantic seashells on the shores of the
Bodensee (Dieckmann et al. 1997, fig. 22), and Alpine jadeite by the Sweet
Track at or immediately after the end of the thirty-ninth century cal BC.
Generalising from these sorts of examples, we have every reason to expect
widespread and long-range movements by people across landmasses and sea
in the late fifth millennium cal BC.
So I believe that we can legitimately invoke circumstantial evidence for
both processes of small-scale colonisation and indigenous acculturation.
Other arguments can also be invoked, but with ambiguous results. One recent
line of enquiry has been through isotopic analyses, the general thrust being
that radical changes in human diet in coastal areas in Britain must speak for
the rapid introduction of new subsistence practices by incoming people (e.g.
Schulting 1998; Schulting & Richards 2002). It is not my intention to comment here on the ongoing debate (e.g. Milner et al. 2004; Thomas 2003),
except to stress that the date of most of the humans sampled so far is no earlier than the thirty-eighth century cal BC (e.g. from Ascott-under-Wychwood
onwards, as set out earlier in this paper), and thus most of the humans sampled so far did not belong to the circumstances perhaps more immediately
relevant to the initiation or introduction of new practices. A gradualist perspective can again be suggested. A stronger argument may emerge through
genetic studies of cattle. If Neolithic cattle in Britain prove not to be
descended from native aurochs, as is being shown elsewhere (Bollongino &
Burger, this volume), then there is the interesting question of who might have
been more likely to have transported them across the Channel.
From an indigenous point of view, there are many continuities that can be
invoked. I have already discussed middens, and noted that at Ascott-underWychwood (as elsewhere: see also Hey & Barclay, this volume) the Neolithic
occupation and midden were placed where there had been activity in the fifth
millennium cal BC and earlier. The Fir Tree Field shaft is also a prime candidate for a place of local interest, episodic activity and deposition continuing
from the late fifth into the early fourth millennium cal BC, and might be
thought of as an unlikely locale for incoming colonisers to recognise.
Importantly, beyond even these arguments, there is a strong case for thinking now of more complex recastings of identities. Humphrey Case, in his
celebrated paper (Case 1969), long ago suggested something of the conditions
394
Alasdair Whittle
of small-scale pioneer colonisation: the initial explorations by individuals,

followed by the difficult initial establishment of new practices. Marek
Zvelebil and Peter Rowley-Conwy (1986; cf. Zvelebil & Lillie 2000) then
offered the indigenous perspective through the availability-substitution
model. We need to take both these models further. Cases scenario lacked any
indigenous people, and the availability-substitution model invokes increasingly intense contact between farmers and hunters, but still the maintenance
of separate identities. Fissioning from continental communities would have
involved renegotiation of identity and reassessment of habitual ontological
security, as both Kostas Kotsakis (2005) and Du8an Boric (2005) have suggested recently with reference to notions of frontier existence. Adoption of
new practices among indigenous people may also have involved considerable
shifts in identity, with the important caveat, following Barnard (this volume),
that a hunter-gatherer mode of thought could have persisted for long periods
of time alongside other changes. The gradual developments suggested here
would be compatible with that possibility.
As others have commented (e.g. Robb & Miracle, this volume), in the end
it may be far more profitable to think of the outcome of such fusions rather
than try to track two rigidly defined groups, one Mesolithic and the other
Neolithic. Everyone involved in processes of transformation is likely to have
been changed by them. There may have been multiple triggers and motives,
rather than simply single causes, and new practices may have spread rapidlythough not yet certainly simultaneouslyas much because of existing, indigenous networks as through the energy of new arrivals. We need to
continue to gather information about continental communities, and we need
far more information on indigenous communities in the second half of the
fifth millennium cal BC. We need above all a more precise chronology for
regional British sequences from the fifth into the fourth millennia cal BC,
which will be one of the ways in which we can finally make the old terms
Mesolithic and Neolithic redundant.
Note. I must acknowledge especially the cooperation and guidance of Alex Bayliss
across all the dating projects reported here. For his work on long barrows I am very
grateful to Michael Wysocki, and for her ongoing work on causewayed enclosures we
are indebted to Frances Healy. Grateful thanks for their cooperation are also due to
Alistair Barclay, Don Benson and Lesley McFadyen, as well as to Michael Allen,
Philip Dixon, Francis Pryor, Miles Russell, Niall Sharples and other excavators of
causewayed enclosures, as well as museum curators too numerous to list here in detail.
Derek Hamilton constructed Fig. 4. I also thank Philippe Cromb, Seren Griffiths,
Michael Ilett and Alison Sheridan for information. The long barrows datings have
been variously supported by English Heritage, the Oxford Research Laboratory,
Cadw and the Board of Celtic Studies, and the causewayed enclosures project is
funded jointly by English Heritage and the Arts and Humanities Research Council.
395
REFERENCES
ALLEN, M. & GREEN, M. 1998. The Fir Tree Field shaft: the date and archaeological and
palaeoenvironmental potential of a chalk swallowhole feature. Proceedings of the Dorset
Natural History and Archaeological Society 120, 2538.
ANDERSEN, N. H. 1993. Causewayed camps of the Funnel Beaker culture. In S. Hvass &
B. Storgaard (eds), Digging into the past: 25 years of archaeology in Denmark, 1003. Aarhus:
Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries/Jutland Archaeological Society.
ANDERSEN, N. H. 1997. The Sarup enclosures. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
ASHBEE, P. 1966. Fussells Lodge long barrow excavations, 1957. Archaeologia 100, 180.
BARCLAY, A. 2000. Spatial histories of the Neolithic: a study of the monuments and material
culture of central southern England. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Archaeology,
University of Reading.
BARCLAY, A. 2006. Connections and networks: a wider world and other places. In D. Benson
& A. Whittle (eds), Building memories: the Neolithic Cotswold long barrow at Ascott-underWychwood, Oxfordshire, 33144. Oxford: Oxbow.
BAYLISS, A., BENSON, D., GALER, D., HUMPHREY, L., MCFADYEN, F. & WHITTLE, A.
2007. One thing after another: the date of the Ascott-under-Wychwood long barrow.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17.1, supplement, 2944.
BAYLISS, A. & BRONK RAMSEY, C. 2004. Pragmatic Bayesians: a decade integrating radiocarbon dates into chronological models. In C. E. Buck & A. R. Millard (eds), Tools for
constructing chronologies: tools for crossing disciplinary boundaries, 2541. London: Springer.
BAYLISS, A., BRONK RAMSEY, C. & MCCORMAC, F. G. 1997. Dating Stonehenge. In
B. Cunliffe & C. Renfrew (eds), Science and Stonehenge, 3959. Oxford: British Academy.
BAYLISS, A., BRONK RAMSEY, C., MEADOWS, J., VAN DER PLICHT, J. & WHITTLE, A.
2007. Bradshaw and Bayes: towards a timetable for the Neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal 17.1, supplement, 128.
BAYLISS, A., WHITTLE, A. & WYSOCKI, M. 2007. Talking about my generation: the date of
the West Kennet long barrow. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17.1, supplement, 85101.
BENSON, D. & WHITTLE, A. (eds) 2006. Building memories: the Neolithic Cotswold long
barrow at Ascott-under-Wychwood, Oxfordshire. Oxford: Oxbow.
BORIC, D. 2005. Deconstructing essentialisms: unsettling frontiers of the Mesolithic-Neolithic
Balkans. In D. Bailey, A. Whittle & V. Cummings (eds), (un)settling the Neolithic, 1631.
Oxford: Oxbow.
BRONK RAMSEY, C. 2000. Comment on The use of Bayesian statistics for 14C dates of
chronologically ordered samples: a critical analysis. Radiocarbon 42, 199202.
BUCK, C. E., KENWORTHY, J. B., LITTON, C. D. & SMITH, A. F. M. 1991. Combining
archaeological and radiocarbon information: a Bayesian approach to calibration. Antiquity
65, 80821.
CASE, H. J. 1969. Neolithic explanations. Antiquity 43, 17686.
CLEAL, R. 2004. The dating and diversity of the earliest ceramics of Wessex and south-west
England. In R. Cleal & J. Pollard (eds), Monuments and material culture. Papers in honour of
an Avebury archaeologist: Isobel Smith, 16492. East Knoyle: Hobnob Press.
COLES, B. J. & COLES, J. M. 1986. Sweet Track to Glastonbury. London: Thames and Hudson.
COLES, B. J. & COLES, J. M. 1992. Passages of time. Archologische Mitteilungen aus
Nordwestdeutschland 15, 2944.
CUMMINGS, V. & WHITTLE, A. 2004. Places of special virtue: megaliths in the Neolithic
landscapes of Wales. Oxford: Oxbow.
396
Alasdair Whittle
DEMEYERE, F., BOURGEOIS, J. & CROMB, P. 2004. Plan dune maison du groupe de
Dele-Escaut Waardamme (Oostkamp, Flandre occidentale). Notae Praehistoricae 24,
16773.
DIECKMANN, B., MAIER, U. & VOGT, R. 1997. Hornstaad-Hrnle, eine der ltesten
junsteinzeitlichen Ufersiedlungen am Bodensee. In H. Schlichtherle (ed.), Pfahlbauten rund
um die Alpen, 1521. Stuttgart: Theiss.
DIXON, P. 1988. The Neolithic settlements on Crickley Hill. In C. Burgess, P. Topping,
C. Mordant & M. Maddison (eds), Enclosures and defences in the Neolithic of western Europe,
7587. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
DUBOULOZ, J. 1998. Rflexions sur le Michelsberg ancien en Bassin Parisien. In J. Biel,
H. Schlichtherle, M. Strobel & A. Zee (eds), Die Michelsberger Kultur und ihre Randgebiete:
Probleme der Entstehung, Chronologie und des Siedlungswesens, 920. Stuttgart: Theiss.
DUBOULOZ, J., MORDANT, D. & PRESTREAU, M. 1991. Les enceintes nolithiques du
Bassin parisien. In A. Beeching, D. Binder, J.-C. Blanchet, C. Constantin, J. Dubouloz,
R. Martinez, D. Mordant, J.-P. Thvenot & J. Vaquer (eds), Identit du Chassen, 21129.
Nemours: Mmoires du Muse de Prhistoire de lIle de France 4.
EVANS, C. 1988. Acts of enclosure: a consideration of concentrically-organised causewayed
enclosures. In J. Barrett & I. Kinnes (eds), The archaeology of context in the Neolithic and
Bronze Age: recent trends, 8595. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology and Prehistory,
Sheffield University.
GELL, A. 1992. The anthropology of time: cultural constructions of temporal maps and images.
Oxford: Berg.
GILIGNY, F. (ed.) 2005. Un site Nolithique Moyen en zone humide: Louviers La Villette
(Eure). Rennes: Documents Archologiques de lOuest.
GRIFFITHS, S. 2003. AMS radiocarbon determinations and stable isotopes from Coldrum
Neolithic barrow, Kent. Or, a cow too soon: discussion of Neolithic subsistence and cultural
practices in the light of radiocarbon evidence. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Oxford.
HARDING, J. & HEALY, F. forthcoming. Raunds area project. The Neolithic and Bronze Age
landscapes of West Cotton, Stanwick and Irthlingborough, Northamptonshire. London:
English Heritage.
HEALY, F. 2004. Hambledon Hill and its implications. In R. Cleal & J. Pollard (eds), Monuments
and material culture. Papers in honour of an Avebury archaeologist: Isobel Smith, 1538. East
Knoyle: Hobnob Press.
HERNE, A. 1988. A time and a place for the Grimston Bowl. In J. Barrett & I. A. Kinnes (eds),
The archaeology of context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: recent trends, 229. Sheffield:
University of Sheffield, Department of Prehistory.
HILLAM, J., GROVES, C. M., BROWN, D. M., BAILLIE, M. G. L., COLES, J. M. & COLES,
B. J. 1990. Dendrochronology of the English Neolithic. Antiquity 64, 21020.
INGOLD, T. 1993. The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeology 25, 15273.
JESSUP, R. F. 1970. South east England. London: Thames and Hudson.
H. Schlichtherle, M. Strobel & A. Zeeb (eds), Die Michelsberger Kultur und ihre
Randgebiete Probleme der Entstehung, Chronologie und des Siedlungswesens. Kolloquium
Hemmenhofen, 2123.2.1997, 2946. Stuttgart: Theiss.
JEUNESSE, C., LEFRANC, P. & DENAIRE, A. 2004. Groupe de Bischheim, origine du
Michelsberg, gense du groupe dEntzheim. Zimmersheim: Cahiers de lAssociation pour la
Promotion de la Recherche Archologique en Alsace.
KENNEY, J. 1993. The beginnings of agriculture in Great Britain. Unpublished PhD thesis,
University of Edinburgh.
KINNES, I. 1979. Round barrows and ring-ditches in the British Neolithic. London: British
Museum.
397
KINNES, I. 1985. Circumstance not context: the Neolithic of Scotland as seen from the outside.
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 115, 1557.
KINNES, I. 1992. Non-megalithic long barrows and allied structures in the British Neolithic.
London: British Museum.
KOTSAKIS, K. 2005. Unsettling the Neolithic: breaking down concepts, boundaries and origins.
In D. Bailey, A. Whittle & V. Cummings (eds), (un)settling the Neolithic, 815. Oxford:
Oxbow.
MADSEN, T. 1993. Barrows with timber-built structures. In S. Hvass & B. Storgaard (eds),
Digging into the past: 25 years of archaeology in Denmark, 969. Aarhus: Royal Society of
Northern Antiquaries/Jutland Archaeological Society.
MARTINEZ, R., LOMBARDO, J. L. & VERRET, J. 1984. Le site chassen du Cul-froid
Boury-en-Vexin dans son contexte historique et les apports de la stratigraphie de son foss.
Revue Archologique de Picardie 12 (1984), 26984.
MEADOWS, J., BARCLAY, A. & BAYLISS, A. 2007. A short passage of time: the dating of the
Hazleton long cairn revisited. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17.1, supplement, 4564.
MERCER, R. 2004. Enclosure and monumentality, and the Mesolithic-Neolithic continuum. In
R. Cleal & J. Pollard (eds), Monuments and material culture. Papers in honour of an Avebury
archaeologist: Isobel Smith, 3946. East Knoyle: Hobnob Press.
MIDGLEY, M. 2005. The monumental cemeteries of prehistoric Europe. Stroud: Tempus.
RECKINGER, F. 2005. La sequence palynologique. In F. Giligny (ed.), Un site Nolithique
Moyen en zone humide: Louviers La Villette (Eure), 2933. Rennes: Documents
Archologiques de lOuest.
RENFREW, C. 1973. Before civilization: the radiocarbon revolution and prehistoric Europe.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
SAVILLE, A. 1990. Hazleton North: the excavation of a Neolithic long cairn of the CotswoldSevern group. London: English Heritage.
SCHULTING, R. J. 1998. Slighting the sea: the transition to farming in northwest Europe.
SCHULTING, R. J. 2000. New AMS dates from the Lambourn long barrow and the question
of the earliest Neolithic in southern England: repacking the Neolithic package? Oxford
SCHULTING, R. J. & RICHARDS, M. P. 2002. The wet, the wild and the domesticated: the
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition on the west coast of Scotland. Journal of European
SCHULTING, R. J. & WYSOCKI, M. 2002. The Mesolithic human skeletal collection from
Avelines Hole: a preliminary report. Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological
Society 22, 25568.
SHANKS, M. & TILLEY, C. 1987. Social theory and archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
SMITH, M. & BRICKLEY, M. 2006. The date and sequence of use of Neolithic funerary
monuments: new AMS dating evidence from the Cotswold-Severn region. Oxford Journal of
SPIKINS, P. A. 2002. Prehistoric people of the Pennines. Reconstructing the lifestyles of
Mesolithic hunter-gatherers on Marsden Moor. Leeds: West Yorkshire Archaeology Service.
STEIER, P. & ROM, W. 2000. The use of Bayesian statistics for 14C dates of chronologically
ordered samples: a critical analysis. Radiocarbon 42, 18398.
STUIVER, M. & REIMER, P. J. 1993. Extended 14C data base and revised CALIB 3.0 14C age
calibration program. Radiocarbon 35, 21530.
398
Alasdair Whittle
Oxbow.
TRESSET, A. 2005. Elevage, chasse et alimentation carne. In F. Giligny (ed.), Un site
Nolithique Moyen en zone humide: Louviers La Villette (Eure), 24962. Rennes:
Documents Archologiques de lOuest.
VANMONTFORT, B., GEERTS, A.-I., CASSEYAS, C., BAKELS, C. C., BUYDENS, C.,
DAMBLON, F., LANGOHR, R., VAN NEER, W. & VERMEERSCH, P. M. 2001/2. De
Hel in de tweede helft van het 5de millenium v.Chr. Een midden-Neolithische enclosure te
Spiere (prov. West-Vlaanderen). Archeologie in Vlaanderen 8 (2004), 977.
VERHART, L. 2000. The transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic in a Dutch perspective. Notae
Praehistoricae 20, 12732.
WATERBOLK, H. T. 1971. Working with radiocarbon dates. Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society 37 (2), 1533.
WHITTLE, A. 1990. Prolegomena to the study of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Britain
and Ireland. In D. Cahen & M. Otte (eds), Ruban et Cardial, 20927. Lige: Etudes et
Recherches Archologiques de lUniversit de Lige 39.
WHITTLE, A. 1999. The Neolithic period, c. 40002500/2200 BC: changing the world. In
J. Hunter & I. Ralston (eds), The archaeology of Britain, 5876. London: Routledge.
WHITTLE, A., BARCLAY, A., BAYLISS, A., MCFADYEN, L., SCHULTING, R. &
WYSOCKI, M. 2007. Building for the dead: events, processes and changing worldviews from
the 38th to the 34th centuries cal BC in southern Britain. Cambridge Archaeological Journal
17.1, supplement, 12347.
WHITTLE, A., BAYLISS, A. & WYSOCKI, M. 2007. Once in a lifetime: the date of the
Waylands Smithy long barrow. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17.1, supplement, 10321.
WHITTLE, A., HEALY, F. & BAYLISS, A. in preparation. Gathering time: dating the early
Neolithic enclosures of southern Britain and Ireland.
WILLIAMS, E. 1989. Dating the introduction of food production into Britain and Ireland.
Antiquity 63, 5121.
WOODMAN, P. C., ANDERSON, E. & FINLEY, N. 1999. Excavations at Ferriters Cove
WYSOCKI, M., BAYLISS, A. & WHITTLE, A. 2007. Serious mortality: the date of the
Fussells Lodge long barrow. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17.1, supplement, 6584.
The Thames Valley in the late fifth and

early fourth millennium cal BC:
the appearance of domestication
and the evidence for change
GILL HEY & ALISTAIR BARCLAY
INTRODUCTION
IN THIS PAPER, we review the evidence for the late fifth and early fourth millennia cal BC in the Thames Valley, a time of profound change which is traditionally studied by specialists from two very different schools of research.
Our task is made more challenging because many sites of this period tend to
be small and appear to have been short-lived. As a result, there are few stratigraphic sequences present which would lend themselves to more precise statistical analyses of radiocarbon measurements. In addition, sites with fifth
millennium cal BC assemblages are not common and are not easy to interpret.
Nevertheless, our interpretation of this period in the region has altered
dramatically over the last 15 years. This has come about largely as the result
of development-led archaeology and the resulting shift in focus of investigations from areas with well preserved monuments such as Avebury and the
Cotswolds to the now well populated river terraces and floodplain (Allen
et al. 1997; Cotton & Field 2004; Holgate 1988). Extensive area excavations
have taken place on the gravel terraces, for example around Heathrow, Eton
and Maidenhead in the Middle Thames (Allen et al. 2004; Ford et al. 2003;
Lewis & Welsh 2004) and Yarnton and Shorncote in the Upper Thames
(Barclay et al. 1995; Hey in prep.; Laws 2004). These have been supplemented
by hundreds of small- and medium-sized investigations and evaluations.
While this has resulted in an explosion of new information about site types
and distributions, and a greater understanding of the wide range of activities
in which people were engaged in the past, the sites have largely been of fourth
millennium cal BC date with relatively few sites of the fifth millennium cal BC.
Our understanding has also been greatly enhanced by the development of
palaeoenvironmental techniques and better radiocarbon dating using a more
400
critical, integrated approach based on Bayesian modelling (e.g. Bayliss et al.

2007; see also Whittle, this volume). The results of this work are likely to have
a profound impact on our understanding of the period under discussion here
and will allow for a more precise chronology, perhaps based on timescales as
exact as human generations.
TIME AND SEQUENCE

There are few late fifth millennium cal BC radiocarbon dates from the Thames
Valley, and most of these are single dates or assays on poor sample material
(Barton & Roberts 2004, 3457; Schulting 2000; Williams 1989), for example
the date on charcoal from a hearth at Wawcott Site I in the Kennet Valley
(BM-449: 5260130 BP, 43503750 cal BC; Froom 19712, 27). There are
many new dates from the Lower Thames and Thames Estuary on peat and
organic-rich deposits (Bates & Whittaker 2004, table 6.2 and appendix I) and
some dates are beginning to be acquired during work in the London area
(Sidell & Wilkinson 2004), but few of these can be directly associated with
human activity. It is possible to say that, at present, there are no well dated
hunter-gatherer sites of the late fifth millennium cal BC, and no evidence for
domesticates, pottery or monuments before 4000, possibly even 3900 cal BC
(Barclay 2006; Whittle et al. 2007).
Charred cereal remains of early fourth millennium cal BC date have been
recorded beneath the Hazleton North long cairn, from the Area 6 midden at
Eton, a pit deposit at Yarnton, from Woolwich, and from the longhouse at
White Horse Stone in the Medway Valley, Kent (Allen et al. 2004, 91; Bates
& Whittaker 2004, 67; Bayliss & Hey in prep.; Hayden forthcoming; Meadows
et al. 2007). Some cereal pollen was also recorded from a basal clay deposit
at Daisy Banks, just outside the Abingdon causewayed enclosure. A radiocarbon date of 43503750 cal BC (OxA-4559: 5240110 BP; Parker 1999, 260)
was obtained on charcoal and seeds from the bottom of this sequence.
Immediately above this layer, there was evidence for major cereal cultivation
which may be contemporary with the use of the causewayed enclosure
(Adrian Parker, pers. comm.).
Occupation sites and middens with pottery, domesticates, polished stone
tools and buildings appear between 40003800 cal BC; monuments are also
constructed at this date but only in a few restricted areas, such as the
Cotswolds and the Medway Valley. The greatest phase of monument building
(long barrows, causewayed enclosures, mortuary enclosures and cursus monuments) appears to belong to the mid fourth millennium cal BC, c. 36503350
cal BC (Barclay 2006; Whittle et al. 2007).
DOMESTICATION AND EVIDENCE FOR CHANGE
401
THE THAMES VALLEY LANDSCAPE

The Thames Valley is one of the great river systems of Britain. It extends over
150 km across southern England, and its mouth opens out on to the North
Sea and the lowlands of Western Europe, while its headwaters reach into the
Cotswold Hills, the Chalk Downs and the Avebury area. It contains a number of diverse and well known areas, including the Thames Estuary and its
foreshore, Avebury and the Kennet valley, the Upper and Middle Thames
gravels, the Berkshire Downs and the Cotswolds (Fig. 1; Holgate 1988).
In the fifth millennium and at the start of the fourth millennium cal BC, a
number of significant palaeoenvironmental changes occurred in this area. A
marine transgression around the Thames Estuary was followed by a drop in
sea level from around 4500 cal BC, allowing the formation of peat and eyots
within the river channel (Bates & Whittaker 2004; Siddell & Wilkinson 2004).
A fluctuating fluvial regime in the Lower Thames may have made the floodplain less attractive for permanent settlement (Siddell & Wilkinson 2004,
401).
The elm decline is also evidenced at a number of sites at around 4000 cal
BC (Robinson 1999, 26970; 2000a, 302), although it is not always apparent
in sequences spanning this period, for example at Runnymede or in parts
of central London (Robinson 2000a; Siddell & Wilkinson 2004, 413).
Sometimes this event seems to be coincident with woodland clearance, as at
Daisy Banks, Abingdon (Parker 1995), but it is also apparent in places
where clearance did not take place until the late Neolithic/early Bronze Age,
for example at Sidlings Copse, north-east of Oxford (Day 1991, 4657). The
link between the elm decline and human activity, in particular clearance for
agriculture, remains unproved.
WOODLAND
Trees
Evidence from the length of the Thames Valley shows that, by the fifth millennium cal BC, the area was covered by mixed deciduous woodland, with
alder growing in the valley bottoms and lime, oak, hazel, ash and elm on
better-drained soils of the gravel terraces and higher slopes (Day 1991;
Robinson 1992, 4950). Forest cover had become more dense over the course
of the previous 3000 years. This picture emerges from a range of pollen and
macrobotanical studies stretching from the Cotswolds to the Thames Estuary
(Bates & Whittaker 2004; J. Evans et al. 2006; Robinson 1993, 1214; 2000a;
Siddell & Wilkinson 2004).
Figure 1. Map of the Thames Valley and sites mentioned in the text. Based on Holgate 1988, map 2.
402
403
Tree clearance
At Runnymede, environmental evidence indicates some clearings in the fifthmillennium forest in the form of open woodland within more dense alder carr
(Needham 2000, 1935), and a similar pattern is suggested at Thatcham
(Healy et al. 1992, 702). The extent to which hunter-gatherer populations
either took advantage of natural clearings where a wider range of plant foods
would be available, or created and maintained these deliberately has been
widely discussed (e.g. Tipping 2004), but the close association between such
environments and hunter-gatherer sites seems inescapable (Bell & Walker
1992, 1568; Zvelebil 1994).
Human interference in this forested landscape is clearly demonstrable from
the beginning of the fourth millennium cal BC. Where the evidence exists, however, sites of this date are almost always in small woodland clearings, for
example Ascott-under-Wychwood and Hazleton North long cairns (Benson
& Whittle 2006; Saville 1990). Woodland recolonisation subsequently
occurred on both sites. An early Neolithic long enclosure of arguably slightly
later date at Yarnton appears to have had a similar history of clearance in
advance of construction followed by woodland regeneration. The general vegetation model for this area in the Upper Thames is one of shifting clearings
in woodland against the background of the gradual opening out of the
canopy (Hey & Robinson in prep.). A little further downstream, the Drayton
Cursus was constructed in a cleared landscape where earlier monuments were
present, but there were several phases of regeneration and clearance in the
middle and late Neolithic (Barclay et al. 2003).
At Eton in the Middle Thames, there is no evidence for widespread clearance in the early fourth millennium cal BC, despite the presence of middens
and other contemporary activity nearby (Tim Allen, pers. comm.). A similar
picture emerges at Runnymede, where pollen dating to the early fourth
millennium cal BC indicates deliberate interference in tree canopy, although
plant macrofossils continue to show dense alder woodland (Needham 2000,
1935; Robinson 2000a, 312). In the London area, land clearance is associated with cereal cultivation on some sites in the early fourth millennium cal
BC, although adjacent areas appear to have remained wooded (Siddell &
Wilkinson 2004, 42).
Woodland clearings evidently were important to populations of the fifth
millennium cal BC in the Thames Valley, and may have been augmented and
maintained by local groups to maximise resource aggregation. This would
have provided opportunities for larger-scale gatherings of what may, on a
day-to-day basis, have been small groups of people. The extent of clearance
increased visibly in the early fourth millennium cal BC, and the scale and
404
character of this activity show that this was deliberately undertaken and
maintained. Nevertheless, few clearings were long-lasting; rather they shifted
across the landscape. The overall impression of the landscape of the mid
fourth millennium cal BC is of a mosaic of woodland and clearings (Robinson
2000a, 33), but with few permanently open areas. Where more extensive
grassland existed this lay next to monuments which were the scenes of largescale gatherings, such as causewayed enclosures and cursuses (Barclay & Hey
1999).
Settlement in woodland
Within this forested environment, evidence of fifth and fourth millennium cal
BC activity is surprisingly widespread in the Thames Valley and its catchment
(Holgate 1988). Sites of this date, however, are often found as artefact scatters and are difficult to interpret as they are without a precise context and
rarely associated with environmental evidence.
In 1988, Robin Holgate suggested that activity dating to the end of the
fifth millennium cal BC tends to be found on higher ground away from the
valley floors where the earlier sites were often situated. More recent work in
river valleys has shown that there are many more sites in lower topographies
than he predicted (see below), but does indicate that later hunter-gatherer
sites in these environments are smaller in size, suggesting that people moved
in smaller groups or stayed in one place for shorter lengths of time.
Increasingly dense forest cover, as witnessed for example at Eton (see below),
may have reduced the number of locales with large concentrations of plants
and animals and may have made smaller groups more effective at resource
maximisation, as suggested for other valley systems in Europe (Whittle
1996, 153).
Many sites on higher ground are also small, and Holgate has argued that
the restricted range of implements present and the high proportion of
microliths (with few or no tranchet axes or axe-sharpening flakes) indicate that
these represent seasonally occupied hunting camps (Holgate 1988, 746).
Based on both ethnographic and archaeological studies, Spikins (2000) has
been critical of very simplistic models of Mesolithic land use. She points out
the wide variety of potential uses of sites, and the adaptability and flexibility
of hunter-gatherer groups in their use of the landscape. Additionally, use-wear
analysis has shown that microliths were used for various tasks, not just hunting (Grace 1992, 602). Recent work in the region has demonstrated that, away
from valley bottoms, sites of varying sizes existed on which a range of activities seem to have taken place, and the site at Windmill Hill near Nettlebed is a
good example of this (Boismier & Mepham 1995). It may be better to think of
Mesolithic groups as highly knowledgeable exploiters of their environment,
405
moving across the landscape according to tradition, taking advantage of seasonal and other natural resources but also of more occasional fluctuations in
the availability of different foods. Occasional abundance may have provided
opportunities for gatherings of larger numbers of people. In the light of these
new ideas, a review of fifth millennium settlement is overdue.
Settlement of the early fourth millennium cal BC is also widespread and,
although the pattern is more dense than in the fifth millennium, sites are similarly small and appear to have been short-lived. There is remarkably little
evidence for occupation of any great duration and certainly little to suggest
that individual settlement events lasted for more than a few months except in
rare instances. On the other hand, evidence for the reuse of the same site on
an episodic basis is rather common. Small discrete groups of features at
Yarnton provide good examples of repeated, but short-lived visits to one
place (Hey 1997, 1068).
Fifth and fourth millennium cal BC sites also share a similar distribution.
Thrupp, Corporation Farm and Gravelly Guy are examples of sites with
evidence of fourth millennium use where there had previously been huntergatherer encampments at the forest margin overlooking the floodplain
(Holgate 1988, 87; 2004a). At Hazleton and Rollright, fourth millennium
activity was preceded by smaller-scale episodes of use, perhaps for hunting
(Lambrick 1988, 11112; Saville 1990, 240), and a similar pattern is present
in the Upper Kennet Valley (Pollard 2005; Whittle 1990). The juxtaposition
of Mesolithic and early Neolithic sites has also been noted by Field for the
Thames further downstream and on the Greensand of the Weald to the south
(Field 2004, 156).
RIVERS
The river and the riverbank
At a time of dense woodland, the Thames and its tributaries would have been
major routeways, as well as environments which provided a rich and varied
plant and animal food resource (Clarke 1976, 4645). The importance of
these waterways is symbolised by finds of these periods which have been
recovered from the river, for example Mesolithic picks and axes downstream
of Goring and similar finds from London, including two bone harpoons
(T. G. Allen 1995, 11718; Field 1989; Haughey 2000, 2258). An important
collection of polished stone axes and some early Neolithic pottery have also
been found for which a votive interpretation is probable (Bradley 1990, 667;
Holgate 1988, 2834 and 31135). There is slight evidence that the practice of
406
depositing human remains in rivers began during the early Neolithic (Allen
et al. 2004, 97; Bradley & Gordon 1988, 508).
It is noteworthy that many fourth millennium cal BC sites in the area lie
close to the river. This is particularly marked along the Middle Thames at
Eton, Cippenham, Bray Weir Bank Stud Farm, Bray Marina, Cannon Hill
and the Maidenhead Flood Alleviation Scheme, where sites cluster in an area
of 6 by 4.5 km near to the river (Fig. 2; Allen et al. 2004; Barnes & Cleal 1995;
Bradley et al. 1981; Ford & Taylor 2004; Holgate 1988, 278). In contrast,
little has been found in survey on the brickearths to the west of Slough (Ford
1987; Ford & Taylor 2004, 99).
At Yarnton in the Upper Thames, early fourth millennium cal BC sites
were situated less than 0.5 km from the river on gravel islands in the floodplain, and early sites on the Cotswolds are often at the heads of tributary
valleys, for example Ascott-under-Wychwood and Rollright. The continuing
importance of these arteries can be seen in the positioning near river confluences of causewayed enclosures and cursuses in the middle and late fourth
millennium cal BC respectively (Barclay & Hey 1999, 6870).
Riv
er
Th
am
es
2 km
Figure 2.
Early Neolithic sites in the Eton and Dorney area. Based on Allen et al. 2004, fig. 9.2.
407
Fifth millennium cal BC sites are often found in similar locations. In the
Kennet, major sites have been found on or near the valley floor, including
Wawcott and Thatcham, where the range of implements suggests either permanent occupation or seasonal use with a range of tasks being performed
(Holgate 1988, 98). At Eton, by 5000 cal BC, lakes and reed fen on the floodplain had silted up and a series of channels flowed through the area on the
banks of which leves had formed. Alder carr developed over the backswamps (Allen et al. 2004). Fifth millennium flint scatters have been discovered which, although not dense, were widespread and were mainly found on
the leves close to the channel, but sometimes stretching back on to the floodplain perhaps indicating trails leading through the forest (Tim Allen, pers.
comm.). In the early fourth millennium cal BC, activity was more widespread
than previously but still mainly followed the channel edge, and exhibited a
similar pattern of land use (Allen et al. 2004, 85).
Although few sites have been investigated over such a scale as Eton, continuity in the location of settlement in riverside locations is apparent elsewhere, for example along the Maidenhead Flood Alleviation Scheme (Allen
et al. forthcoming). At Runnymede, traces of late Mesolithic and early
Neolithic activity were present on a silt island between two river channels, on
an area later covered by middle Neolithic features and in situ refuse
(Needham 2000). Although the earlier material remains were not dense, the
evidence suggests repeated use of the site throughout this period of time
(Needham 2000, 71 and 240). The proximity of early Neolithic to Mesolithic
sites has also been noted further down the Thames in the Estuary (Bates &
Whittaker 2004, 59; Field 2004, 156).
At Yarnton, the picture is more ambiguous. Later Mesolithic flint was
recovered during fieldwalking over the central gravel island on which early
fourth millennium cal BC features were present from a range of activities. It
was found in very small quantities, but its correlation with areas of early
Neolithic activity is marked.
FOOD
Zvelebil drew attention to the sophisticated use of wild plant resources by
hunter-gatherer groups, ranging from opportunistic and incidental plant use
to tending and managing wild resources, including burning the woodland
(Zvelebil 1994, 3740). Plant acquisition could have been one of the factors
which influenced settlement strategies. There is, however, very limited evidence of plant use in the Thames Valley by hunter-gatherer communities in
the fifth millennium cal BC, except for the ubiquitous presence of hazelnut
shells on sites with suitable preservation such as Thatcham (Scaife 1992).
408
The Neolithic is often taken to be synonymous with cereal cultivation

and, as discussed above, cereals appear in the earliest dated fourth millennium cal BC contexts in this region. Intriguingly, most of the evidence for
Neolithic cereals comes from contexts of the first half of the fourth millennium cal BC; later Neolithic cereal remains are sparse. At Yarnton, cereals
formed around a third of early fourth millennium charred plant foods,
whereas in middle and late Neolithic contexts approximately 1% of charred
foods retrieved were cereals, the vast majority being gathered wild foods, as is
typical of pit deposits in the area (Moffett et al. 1989; see also Bogaard &
Jones, this volume). A similar pattern is mirrored at Eton and other sites in
the region (Pelling forthcoming; Robinson 2000b, 207).
The wide range of edible plants in river valleys and estuaries would have
attracted wild animals (Clarke 1976, 4645). Holgate thought that a shift in
the fifth millennium away from marsh and riverside locations in favour of
deciduous forest on upper slopes suggested a decrease in fishing and fowling
and increased dependence on ungulates. Certainly at Stratfords Yard,
Chesham, all animal bone recovered was of ungulates (wild cattle, red deer,
roe deer and wild boar; Grigson 1989) and a similar assemblage was present
at Wawcott IV and XXIII (Holgate 1988, 98). However, fishing and fowling
are notoriously difficult to detect in the archaeological record, and the
absence of fifth millennium cal BC sites in low-lying areas is, as we have seen,
not borne out by recent evidence.
Domesticated animalscattle, sheep and pigsare present in all kinds
of deposits of the early fourth millennium cal BC, along with deer and other
hunted animals (Serjeantson 2003). Lipids on pots from Ascott-underWychwood, Yarnton, Eton and the Maidenhead Flood Alleviation Scheme
show the presence of animal fats from both ruminants and pigs, and also the
residues of dairy produce (Copley et al. 2003).
At Runnymede, although the alder woodland canopy was largely intact
in the early fourth millennium, there was a sharp rise in the number of dung
beetles showing concentrations of large domesticated herbivores, probably
cattle and pig, grazing in the forest (Robinson 2000a). The evidence for
herding as an important activity increases through time, and woodland
clearance may have been as much, or more, to do with creating browse as
plots for cereal cultivation. If early communities were small in size, turning
the wooded environments into open grassland may have been a gradual
process.
409
ACTS OF DEPOSITION
Tree-throw holes
In this woodland environment, tree-throw holes are frequently present on
sites, and it is not uncommon to find pre-fourth millennium material within
them. Tree-throw holes at Gatehampton Farm, Goring, yielded almost
entirely Mesolithic flintwork and, on some parts of the site, exclusively later
Mesolithic material, even though activity from the early fourth millennium
cal BC onwards was present (Brown 1995, 801). Substantial assemblages
from features at Charlwood in Surrey were probably also mainly from treethrow holes (Ellaby 2004, 1516 and see sections on fig. 2.3), as were those
from Farnham, Surrey (Clark & Rankine 1939). Additionally, some pre-fourth
millennium tree-throw holes contain material that appears to have been
deliberately placed there, for example those at Eton (Allen et al. 2004, 91).
The majority of sites at Eton and on the Maidenhead Flood Alleviation
Scheme had evidence for the discard of early fourth millennium material in
tree-throw holes (Allen et al. 2004, fig. 9.2 and 91; Allen et al. forthcoming).
At Eton, middened material was found that is indistinguishable in character
to that found in hollows on the adjacent ground surface. Excavation of the
Drayton Cursus revealed a number of tree-throw holes that were filled with
burnt and redeposited material which appears to derive from the household,
but with some placed deposits representing more special activity (Barclay
et al. 2003, 607). Deliberate use of tree-throw holes has been proposed for
other parts of southern England, as a means by which people registered occupation events within a natural forest environment and in the context of shifting settlement (C. Evans et al. 1999). At Eton and Maidenhead it is possible
to interpret a number of these deposits in the same way, perhaps marking the
temporary abandonment of an occupation site.
Thus, deposition within tree-throw holes appears to be current before the
fourth millennium cal BC and continues into the later Neolithic period.
However, as pit deposits become more common through the fourth millennium cal BC, the use of tree-throw holes for the discard of material starts to
diminish.
Middens
One activity which persisted in the Thames valley throughout the period
under study was the creation of middens. Middens are a well-known phenomenon of the Mesolithic period and are found in Thames Valley contexts,
mainly in low-lying elevations where there has been better preservation, for
example Wawcott and elsewhere in the Kennet Valley (Holgate 1988, 4).
410
Early fourth millennium cal BC middens are also present and the spreads
discovered at Eton, in an area where no contemporary structures have been
found, are of particular interest. They had their origin in the early fourth
millennium cal BC and seem to have had a main period of use of around
200300 years (c. 38003500 cal BC), although they may have lasted for as
long as 600 years. The generally highly fragmented pottery, struck flint
which had been much reused and soil micromorphology indicating considerable trampling over the midden areas, suggest frequent visits to these sites
which may have been areas of provisional discard (Allen et al. 2004, 8591).
This does not seem to be casually deposited material. Items had been
collected and brought to these places, perhaps from temporary middens,
though whether this was the residue of special events or everyday life is
uncertain.
There were three middens at Eton, one up to 80 m long, lying within 3 km
and all close to the river, in an area with much other contemporary activity
(see above). The middens seem to represent episodic but repeated use,
perhaps 60 or so individual episodes of deposition over up to 600 years. A
similar pattern of periodic use has been suggested for the Mesolithic and
early fourth millennium activity at Runnymede (Needham 2000, 240).
The middens encountered beneath the long cairns of Ascott-underWychwood and Hazleton North, in the entirely different geographical
location of the Cotswold headwaters of the Thames, were situated in places
that had been visited by hunter-gatherer groups and were later used for
funerary/ceremonial activity.
At Hazleton, the abraded and fragmentary character of the finds and the
occasional refits scattered over the area of the midden suggested redeposition
of rubbish accumulated elsewhere (Saville 1990, 2401). Material included a
wide range of pottery vessels indicating drinking, cooking and storage, cultivated cereals, many hazelnut shells and evidence for the slaughter and consumption of sheep, cattle and pigs nearby. Some human bone was also
present. The site then appeared to have been ploughed. It was suggested that
this material represented domestic activity overlain after a period of time by
the construction of the cairn; whether deliberately or because the area was
still relatively clear of trees was uncertain (Saville 1990, 254).
Recent post-excavation work on the Ascott-under-Wychwood long barrow suggests that the creation of the midden there was very similar. After a
short interval, the midden seems to have been linked in deliberately to the
construction of the monument and to the activities that accompanied the
foundation of the monument (Benson & Whittle 2006). Analysis of the finds
suggests that the midden represents the remains of gatherings of people
from a wide area, at which the presentation and sharing of food was an
important act. The physical traces of the midden would have been a
411
mnemonic of these events. Links between deposits of curated material and

later monuments have also been noted in the Avebury area (Pollard 2005,
10911; Whittle 1990, 107).
Pollard has suggested that such sites were projects of accumulation. They
would have acted as visible markers of past occupation events and, as they
grew in size and age, they would have gained traditional significance (Pollard
1999; 2005; Saville 1990, 2545). Additionally, they would have been highly
fertile places which would have encouraged good plant growth, including
plants grown from seeds that had been selected and then discarded on the
midden. This may have enhanced their symbolic significance, perhaps conveying notions of fertility and regeneration, as well as making them more
distinctive features in the landscape (Bell & Walker 1992, 112; Whittle 1990,
107). Apparent cultivation over the midden at Hazleton North shows that
this characteristic was recognised by early populations.
The creation of middens, their augmentation through time, their representation of the past and connotations of abundance and fecundity seem to
have been features of both fifth and early fourth millennium cal BC populations in the Thames Valley, although this activity diminishes through the
fourth millennium. They demonstrate that people made repeated visits to
particular locales, probably not on an annual cycle but as part of a traditional
routine, and that these patterns of activity were as important to early farmers
as to earlier hunter-gatherer groups.
Pits
Another indicator of the persistent use of particular places in the landscape
through this period of time is the presence of pits. Pits have been found on a
number of fifth millennium and earlier sites (Mithen 1999, 43). In the
Thames Valley, four possible small pits or postholes were found at Stratfords
Yard, Chesham, associated with layers containing struck flint including
microliths and microburins and animal bones (Stainton 1989). A possible
marker post, 0.85 m deep, was found at Runnymede which was reminiscent
of the eighth millennium cal BC post pits found in the Stonehenge car park
(M. Allen 1995, 437; Needham 2000, 193), and pits or tree-throw holes were
also found at Charlwood, Surrey (Ellaby 2004).
Nevertheless, pit digging becomes a much more common practice in the
fourth millennium cal BC and, in contrast to the formation of middens and
deposition in tree-throw holes, it becomes more frequent through time. The
extent of pit groups in the area has become more apparent over the last 20
years, as the number and scale of excavations have increased. In 1988,
Holgate was able to list 60 Neolithic pits in Oxfordshire, but since that time
hundreds have been excavated: over 200 at Yarnton alone.
412
Pits sometimes cover extensive areas as at Yarnton, Lake End Road on

the Maidenhead Flood Alleviation Scheme, Drayton and Gravelly Guy, and
their date ranges indicate repeated use of individual areas over long periods
of time (Allen et al. forthcoming; Barclay et al. 2003; Hey in prep.; Lambrick
& Allen 2004). Such sites tend to be in river valleys, often quite close to the
Thames or its major tributaries. Elsewhere, pits are found as tightly defined
clusters, for example at Benson in South Oxfordshire (Pine & Ford 2003) and
South Stoke (Timby et al. 2005), perhaps indicating more intensive but less
long-lived use of single sites. Very often, however, they are recovered as isolated features or in pairs, perhaps indicating a single visit, and the geographical distribution of these is widespread (e.g. Booth & Simmonds forthcoming;
Brady & Lamdin-Whymark forthcoming). It is rare to find the dense clusters
of pits that are a feature of early fourth millennium sites of eastern England,
such as those investigated at Spong Hill (Healy 1988).
Excavation at Yarnton indicates the huge variation in the character of the
deposits found within these features; they all have their own individual
signature. Many pits contained deposits resembling middened material, with
characteristically burnt or blackened soils, highly fragmented and abraded
pottery with few refits, flint (usually in much fresher condition) and food
remains. Other pits have more highly structured contents, including deposits
with very large pieces of pottery from decorated vessels in a wide range of
shapes possibly representing feasting sets or pits with fine flint objects (Hey
in prep.).
In general terms, the pattern of deposition within pits is not one of mundane rubbish disposal, but neither are these features suggestive of large-scale
ceremonial events. Most are probably the result of small-scale household rituals commemorated by deposition in the ground, the lasting symbol of individual and personal events (Hey et al. 2003). They could represent the end of
individual phases of settlement on particular sites, as suggested for deposits
in tree-throw holes in Eastern England (C. Evans et al. 1999). The very careful way in which small amounts of material were selected for use in many pits
raises the possibility that these were token deposits, representations of pots,
for example, rather than the whole pot itself. Cremated human bone is also
found in small quantity, sometimes only around 10 g, and this too could be
symbolic.
The dead
In common with much of the British Isles, no fifth millennium cal BC human
remains are known from this area (Schulting 2000). Formal deposits of
human bone have been found in early fourth millennium contexts, however,
although these are only rarely associated with monuments. One of the most
413
striking recent discoveries has been that of a single burial found on the sandy
banks of the river Thames at Blackwall, Greater London, within an oaklined grave from the charcoal of which an early date has been obtained,
though this gives only a terminus post quem for the context (KIA-20157: 5252
28 BP; 42303970 cal BC; GLAAS 2004). A large part of a Carinated Bowl
had been placed over the head and another Carinated Bowl was recovered
from a nearby pit.
Human bone was included as part of a foundation deposit in the Yarnton
longhouse (Hey in prep.). Burial within the Cotswold Severn long cairns, and
possibly the Medway megalithic burial chambers, also began in the early
fourth millennium, but most funerary monuments belong to a slightly later
date (Whittle et al. 2007). The early dates suggested for portal dolmens in this
area have not yet been confirmed by scientific dating (Darvill 2004, 50).
ABOUT THE HOUSE
Another new feature of fourth millennium cal BC activity in the area is the
presence of houses. There are rare examples of dwellings in Britain predating
the fourth millennium, including one that has been claimed at Broom Hill,
Hampshire (OMalley & Jacobi 1978), but no such structures have been
recognised in the Thames Valley.
One of the exciting developments of the last ten years has been the discovery of early Neolithic buildings in the Thames and Medway valleys. Structures
of this date were already known from Gorhambury, Hertfordshire, and Sales
Lot, Gloucestershire (Holgate 1988, 11113; Neal et al. 1990; ONeal 1966),
but the new discoveries still only bring the number of substantial houses found
in lowland England to around eight. Radiocarbon dates for the houses at
Yarnton and White Horse Stone indicate that both were built and used
between 39003700 cal BC and the same appears to be true of Sales Lot.
Both the Yarnton and White Horse Stone structures were set in small
woodland clearings in areas with only slight evidence for pre-fourth millennium activity (Hayden forthcoming; Hey in prep.). The White Horse Stone
and Pilgrims Way buildings lay in the same dry valley and may have been
intervisible. The Yarnton house, on the other hand, stood in relative isolation
as shown by widespread stripping of the surrounding gravel terrace (Hey &
Bell 1997, fig. 8).
The sizes, shapes and designs of these buildings vary greatly (Fig. 3). The
longhouse at Yarnton, was made up of a basic rectangle, 21 by 11 m, divided
into two modules with some substantial post-pits which presumably supported the roof. It also had outer lines of smaller posts which may suggest a
trapezoidal outer shape and a maximum width of 15 m (Hey in prep.; Hey &
414
Figure 3. Early Neolithic houses in south-east England. 1 Yarnton; 2 Lismore Fields;

3 White Horse Stone, 4 Fengate; 5 Sales Lot; 6 Gorehambury.
415
Bell 1997, fig. 9). The aisled building at White Horse Stone in the Medway
Valley was more clearly rectangular in shape and slightly narrower, being
some 8 m wide and 20 m long; parts of its outer long walls were defined by
slots (Hayden forthcoming). A smaller structure found nearby at Pilgrims
Way was less well preserved with only postholes surviving, but its similarity
to the deeper posthole arrangements of the White Horse Stone house is striking. Several interpretations have been attempted of the possible building
beneath the Sales Lot long cairn (Darvill 1996, fig. 6.5; Holgate 1988, fig.
6.19), but it is possible to see the gullies, hearth and postholes as belonging
to a building like those at Yarnton or White Horse Stone (Barclay 2000). All
these houses belong to a common architectural theme of large rectangular
roofed timber structures (Darvill & Thomas 1996).
The structure at Gorhambury, Hertfordshire was smaller, although it too
was rectilinear (Neal et al. 1990, 89). It was defined by gullies and was constructed in separate square modules, having parallels with the house discovered at Fengate (Pryor 1974) and some Irish examples (e.g. Logue 2003). The
range of early Neolithic buildings types is expanded by a circular structure
at Yarnton which has recently been radiocarbon dated to the second quarter of the fourth millennium cal BC (c. 3600 cal BC; Bayliss & Hey in prep.).
Other structures at Windmill Hill, Ascott-under-Wychwood and Hazleton
North (Benson & Whittle 2006; Saville 1990; Whittle et al. 1999) are less
recognisable as buildings and can be interpreted as faades, fences and
screens.
Whether all these buildings had a common function and were used
throughout the year is uncertain, as their large size should not necessarily be
taken to indicate permanent settlement (Whittle 2003, 404; see also Bradley,
this volume). Consideration of the finds from them is not obviously helpful.
With the exception of deliberate packing material in one post pit, the Yarnton
building was virtually clean of material, even though the soil from all the postholes was sieved. At White Horse Stone, the postholes were found to contain
fragmentary material: charred plant remains, charcoal flecks, flint chips and
small fragments of animal bone and pottery. Sales Lot and Gorhambury
yielded similar finds, and all these latter structures appear to be buildings in
which small quantities of material accumulated and/or were discarded and
were swept into postholes. The general absence of material remains around
structures may be explained by careful collection and deposition elsewhere, for
example in middens, although these have not yet been found close to houses.
Traces of middens at Yarnton were around 450 m from the house, and no
midden deposits were found near the White Horse Stone and Pilgrims Way
structures despite extensive stripping of the surrounding areas.
It has been argued that these large structures were not domestic dwellings,
but were cult houses or halls for feasting (Thomas 1996). Their size alone,
416
perhaps, hints that they were communal buildings able to accommodate more
than a single family group. Nevertheless, the structures excavated so far in
this area have yielded no obvious feasting debris. Human remains were found
associated with the Yarnton structure, however, and a link with mortuary
and/or cult activity is possible, although human bone might not have been
out of place in any dwelling of this period. Given the range of evidence, it
may be more appropriate to think of these buildings as serving more than one
purpose and being the locales of formal activities within the domestic sphere
(Bradley 2003; this volume).
FINAL THOUGHTS
Throughout the period under study, there are strong strands of continuity.
The utilisation of tree-throw holes, the small-scale digging of pits, the
creation and abandonment of occupation spreads, and the accumulation of
occupation material into middens are common to both periods. Holgate
(2004b) has noted that the method of working flint is virtually indistinguishable throughout except that, at some point, microliths were no longer
produced and new tools such as polished axes and leaf-shaped arrowheads
appeared. There is a pattern of the recurrent use of particular places in the
landscape throughout. The evidence does not seem to be of continuous activity, not even annual events, but seems to represent episodic, repeated visits to
sites which had been cleared in the past, may have been marked in some physical way by middens or posts, and which had special significance to communities who lived in the area. People throughout this period shared a common
landscape experience of a largely wooded environment in which the river was
a dominant feature. They inhabited woodland clearings which were often
close to the river or its tributaries.
However, in the fourth millennium cal BC, communities began to alter
their landscape through increasingly substantial building projects: first
houses and then monuments. There was more visible treatment of the dead
and deposition of human remains. Clearings became more extensive, perhaps
largely for pasture, and small cultivation plots were created.
Cereals and domesticated animals, new flint tools and Carinated Bowl are
found on all sites from the beginning of the fourth millennium cal BC. Such
material is encountered on what can be regarded as traditional sites, for
example in midden deposits, and in new constructions such as houses and
monuments.
It is tempting to try to rationalise this evidence into explanations of either
indigenous populations adopting a new way of life, using the evidence of
417
continuity (which is strong); or incomers, pioneer farmers, bringing their own

material culture and different social practices, as witnessed by the new
elements in the archaeological record (which are striking). But perhaps we
should not be thinking in terms of either/or but, rather, both. Is it not possible that sites such as White Horse Stone and Yarnton represent the settlements of new people moving into a landscape that is lightly populated by
small hunter-gatherer groups? In the case of Yarnton, they may have used
land that had been cleared previously, but which was not frequently used,
whereas at White Horse Stone new clearings seem to have been created in virgin forest. Existing communities, for example those around Eton, may have
continued to inhabit the area following traditional land-use practices. In this
context, newcomers may have been few but have had a profound impact on
local groups, both physically and socially, leading them to reconsider their
identity and social values and, ultimately, to change at least the ways in which
traditional values were expressed in the material world.
Note. We would like to acknowledge the considerable help of Tim Allen and Chris
Hayden of Oxford Archaeology, Mark Robinson of Oxford University, Adrian
Parker of Oxford Brookes University and Helen Glass of Rail Link Engineering, in
providing information and discussing ideas. We are also grateful to Alasdair Whittle
and Vicki Cummings for their encouragement and patience during the production of
this paper.
REFERENCES
ALLEN, M. 1995. Before Stonehenge. In R. M. J. Cleal, K. E. Walker & R. Montague,
Stonehenge in its landscape: twentieth-century excavations, 4162. London: English Heritage.
ALLEN, T. G. 1995. Lithics and landscape: archaeological discoveries on the Thames Water
pipeline at Gatehampton Farm, Goring, Oxfordshire 198592. Oxford: Thames Valley
Landscapes Monograph 7.
ALLEN, T., BARCLAY, A. & CROMARTY, A.-M. forthcoming. Opening the wood, making the
land. The archaeology of a Middle Thames landscape: Mesolithic to earlier Bronze Age.
Oxford: Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph.
ALLEN, T., BARCLAY, A. & LAMDIN-WHYMARK, H. 2004. Opening the wood, making
the land: landscape in the Dorney area of the Middle Thames Valley. In J. Cotton & D. Field
(eds), Towards a new stone age: aspects of the Neolithic in south-east England, 8298. York:
Council for British Archaeology Research Report 137.
ALLEN, T., HEY, G. & MILES, D. 1997. A line of time: approaches to the archaeology of the
Upper and Middle Thames Valley, England. World Archaeology 29, 11429.
BARCLAY, A. 2000. Spatial histories of the Neolithic: a study of the monuments and material
culture of central southern England. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Archaeology,
University of Reading.
418
BARCLAY, A. & GLASS, H. with PARRY, C. 1995. Excavation of Neolithic and Bronze Age
ring-ditches, Shorncote Quarry, Somerford Keynes, Gloucestershire. Transactions of the
Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 113, 2160.
BARCLAY, A. & HEY, G. 1999. Cattle, cursus monuments and the river: the development of
ritual and domestic landscapes in the Upper Thames Valley. In A. Barclay & J. Harding (eds),
Pathways and ceremonies: the cursus monuments of Britain and Ireland, 6776. Oxford:
Oxbow.
BARCLAY, A., LAMBRICK, G., MOORE, J. & ROBINSON, M. 2003. Lines in the landscape:
cursus monuments in the Upper Thames Valley. Oxford: Thames Valley Landscapes
Monograph 15.
BARNES, I. & CLEAL, R. M. J. 1995. Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement at Weir Bank
Stud Farm, Bray. In I. Barnes, W. A. Boismier, R. M. J. Cleal & M. R. Roberts (eds), Early
settlement in Berkshire, 151. Salisbury: Trust for Wessex Archaeology, Report 6.
BARTON, N. & ROBERTS, A. 2004. The Mesolithic period in England: current perspectives
and new research. In A. Saville (ed.), Mesolithic Scotland and its neighbours, 33958.
Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
BATES, M. R. & WHITTAKER, K. 2004. Landscape evolution in the Lower Thames Valley:
implications for the archaeology of the earlier Holocene period. In J. Cotton & D. Field
(eds), Towards a new stone age: aspects of the Neolithic in south-east England, 5070. York:
Council for British Archaeology Research Report 137.
BAYLISS, A., BRONK RAMSEY, C., VAN DER PLICHT, J. & WHITTLE, A. 2007.
Bradshaw and Bayes: towards a timetable for the British Neolithic. Cambridge Journal of
Archaeology 17.1, supplement, 128.
BAYLISS, A. & HEY, G. in preparation. The scientific dating. In G. Hey (ed.), Yarnton Neolithic
and Bronze Age settlement and landscape. Oxford: Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph.
BELL, M. & Walker, M. J. C. 1992. Late Quaternary environmental change: physical and human
perspectives. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
BENSON, D. & WHITTLE, A. (eds) 2006. Building memories: the Neolithic Cotswold long
barrow at Ascott-under-Wychwood, Oxfordshire. Oxford: Oxbow.
BOISMIER, W. A. & MEPHAM, L. N. 1995. Excavation of a Mesolithic site at Windmill Hill,
Nettlebed, Oxon. Oxoniensia 60, 119.
BOOTH, P. & SIMMONDS, A. forthcoming. Applefords earliest farmers: archaeology at
Appleford Sidings, Oxon, 19932000. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology Occasional Paper.
BRADLEY, R. 1990. The passage of arms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BRADLEY, R. 2003. Neolithic expectations. In I. Armit, E. Murphy, E. Nelis & D. Simpson
(eds), Neolithic settlement in Ireland and western Britain, 21822. Oxford: Oxbow.
BRADLEY, R. & GORDON, K. 1988. Human skulls from the River Thames: their dating and
significance. Antiquity 62, 27189.
BRADLEY, R., OVER, L., STARTIN, D. W. A. & WENG, R. 1981. The excavation of a
Neolithic site at Cannon Hill, Maidenhead, Berkshire. Berkshire Archaeological Journal 68,
519.
BRADY, K. & LAMDIN-WHYMARK, H. forthcoming. Excavation of a Neolithic to Roman
landscape at Horcott Pit, near Fairford, Gloucestershire, 2003. Transactions of the Bristol and
Gloucestershire Archaeological Society.
BROWN, A. 1995. The Mesolithic and later flint artefacts. In T. G. Allen (ed.), Lithics and landscape: archaeological discoveries on the Thames Water pipeline at Gatehampton Farm, Goring,
Oxfordshire 198592, 6584. Oxford: Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph 7.
CLARK, J. G. D. & RANKINE, W. F. 1939. Excavations at Farnham, Surrey (193738).
CLARKE, D. L. 1976. Mesolithic Europe: the economic basis. In G. de G. Sievking, I. H.
Longworth & K. E. Wilson (eds), Problems in economic and social archaeology, 44981.
London: Duckworth.
419
COPLEY, M. S., BERSTAN, R., DUDD, S. N., DOCHERTY, G., MUKHERJEE, A. J.,
STRAKER, V., PAYNE, S. & EVERSHED, R. P. 2003. Direct chemical evidence for widespread dairying in prehistoric Britain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 100, 15249.
COTTON, J. & FIELD, D. (eds) 2004. Towards a new stone age: aspects of the Neolithic in southeast England. York: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 137.
DARVILL, T. 1996. Neolithic buildings in England, Wales and the Isle of Man. In T. Darvill &
J. Thomas (eds), Neolithic houses in northwest Europe and beyond, 77112. Oxford: Oxbow.
DARVILL, T. & THOMAS, J. 1996. Neolithic houses in northwest Europe and beyond. Oxford:
Oxbow.
DAY, S. P. 1991. Post-glacial vegetational history of the Oxford region. New Phytologist. 119,
44570.
ELLABY, R. 2004. Food for thought: a late Mesolithic site at Charlwood, Surrey. In J. Cotton
& D. Field (eds), Towards a new stone age: aspects of the Neolithic in south-east England,
1223. York: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 137.
EVANS, C., POLLARD, P. & KNIGHT, M. 1999. Life in woods: tree-throws, settlement and
forest cognition. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18, 24154.
EVANS, J. G., LIMBREY, S. & MACPHAIL, R. 2006. The environmental setting. In D. Benson
& A. Whittle (eds), Building memories: the Neolithic Cotswold long barrow at Ascott-underWychwood, Oxfordshire, 5577 Oxford: Oxbow.
FIELD, D. 1989. Tranchet tools and Thames picks: Mesolithic core tools from the west London
Thames. Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society 40, 125.
FIELD, D. 2004. Sacred geographies in the Neolithic of south-east England. In J. Cotton &
D. Field (eds), Towards a new stone age: aspects of the Neolithic in south-east England,
15463. York: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 137.
FORD, S. 1987. East Berkshire archaeological survey. Reading: Berkshire County Council
Department of Highways and Planning Occasional Paper 1.
FORD, S. with ENTWISTLE, R. & TAYLOR, K. 2003. Excavations at Cippenham, Slough,
Berkshire, 19957. Reading: Thames Valley Archaeological Services Monograph 3.
FORD, S. & TAYLOR, K. 2004. Neolithic occupation at Cippenham, Slough, Berkshire. In
J. Cotton & D. Field (eds), Towards a new stone age: aspects of the Neolithic in south-east
England, 99104. York: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 137.
FROOM, F. R. 19712. A Mesolithic site at Wawcott, Kintbury. Berkshire Archaeological
Journal 66, 2344.
GLAAS 2004. Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service Annual Review April 2003March
2004, 7. London: English Heritage.
GRACE, R. 1992. Use wear analysis. In F. Healy, M. Heaton & S. J. Lobb, Excavations of a
Mesolithic site at Thatcham, Berkshire, 5363. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58,
4176.
GRIGSON, C. 1989. The animal remains. In B. Stainton, Excavation of an early prehistoric site
at Stratfords Yard, Chesham. Records of Buckinghamshire 31, 4974.
HAUGHEY, F. 2000. The Mesolithic on the tidal Thames a proleptic viewpoint. In R. Young
(ed.), Mesolithic lifeways: current research in Britain and Ireland, 22131. Leicester: Leicester
Archaeology Monographs 7.
HAYDEN, C. forthcoming. The prehistoric landscape at White Horse Stone, Boxley, Kent. CTRL
Integrated Site Report Series, Archaeology Data Service, http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/
projArch.
HEALY, F. 1988. The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Spong Hill, North Elmham, part VI: occupation
during the seventh to second millennia BC. Gressenhall: East Anglian Archaeology 39.
HEALY, F., HEATON, M. & LOBB, S. J. 1992. Excavations of a Mesolithic site at Thatcham,
Berkshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58, 4176.
420
HEY, G. 1997. Neolithic settlement at Yarnton, Oxfordshire. In P. Topping (ed.), Neolithic

landscapes, 99111. Oxford: Oxbow.
HEY, G. (ed.) in preparation. Yarnton Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement and landscape.
Oxford: Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph.
HEY, G. & BELL, C. 1997. Yarnton floodplain 1996. South Midlands Archaeology 27, 624.
HEY, G., MULVILLE, J. & ROBINSON, M. 2003. Diet and culture in southern Britain: the evidence from Yarnton. In M. Parker Pearson (ed.), Food, culture and identity in the Neolithic
and early Bronze Age, 7988. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series
1117.
HEY, G. & ROBINSON, M. in preparation. The landscape overview. In G. Hey (ed.), Yarnton
Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement and landscape. Oxford: Thames Valley Landscapes
Monograph.
HOLGATE, R. 1988. Neolithic settlement of the Thames basin. Oxford: British Archaeological
Reports British Series 194.
HOLGATE, R. 2004a. Flintwork. In G. Lambrick & T. Allen (eds), Gravelly Guy, Stanton
Harcourt, Oxfordshire: the development of a prehistoric and Romano-British community, 939.
Oxford: Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph 21.
HOLGATE, R. 2004b. Managing change: the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in south-east
England. In J. Cotton & D. Field (eds), Towards a new stone age: aspects of the Neolithic in
south-east England, 248. York: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 137.
LAMBRICK, G. 1988. The Rollright Stones: megaliths, monuments and settlement in the
prehistoric landscape. London: English Heritage.
LAMBRICK, G. & ALLEN, T. 2004. Gravelly Guy, Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire: the development of a prehistoric and Romano-British community. Oxford: Thames Valley Landscapes
Monograph 21.
LAWS, G. 2004. Cotswold community, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire: interim report. Oxford:
Oxford Archaeology client report.
LEWIS, J. S. C. & WELSH, K. 2004. Perry Oaks Neolithic inhabitation of a west London
landscape. In J. Cotton & D. Field (eds), Towards a new stone age: aspects of the Neolithic in
south-east England, 1059. York: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 137.
LOGUE, P. 2003. Excavations at Thornhill, Co. Londonderry. In I. Armit, E. Murphy, E. Nelis
Oxbow.
MEADOWS, J., BARCLAY, A. & BAYLISS, A. 2007. A short passage of time: the dating of
the Hazleton long cairn revisited. Cambridge Journal of Archaeology 17.1, supplement, 4564.
MITHEN, S. 1999. Hunter-gatherers of the Mesolithic. In J. Hunter & I. Ralston (eds), The
archaeology of Britain, 3557. London: Routledge.
MOFFETT, L., ROBINSON, M. A. & STRAKER, V. 1989. Cereals, fruit and nuts: charred
plant remains from Neolithic sites in England and Wales and the Neolithic economy. In
A. Milles, D. Williams & N. Gardner (eds), The beginnings of agriculture, 24361. Oxford:
NEAL, D., WARDLE, A. & HUNN J. 1990. Excavation of the Iron Age, Roman and medieval
settlement at Gorhambury, St Albans. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report 14.
NEEDHAM, S. P. 2000. The passage of the Thames: Holocene environment and settlement at
Runnymede. London: British Museum Press.
OMALLEY, M. & JACOBI, R. M. 1978. The excavation of a Mesolithic occupation site at
Broom Hill, Braishfield, Hampshire 19711973. Rescue Archaeology in Hampshire 4, 1638.
ONEAL, H. 1966. Sales Lot Long Barrow, Withington, Gloucestershire 196265. Transactions
of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 85, 535.
PARKER, A. G. 1995. Late Quaternary environmental change in the upper Thames basin, centralsouthern England. Unpublished DPhil thesis, University of Oxford.
421
PARKER, A. 1999. Pollen and sediments of Daisy Banks Fen. In A. Barclay & C. Halpin (eds),
Excavations at Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire, Volume 1: the Neolithic and Bronze Age
monument complex, 25467. Oxford: Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph 11.
PELLING, R. forthcoming. The Neolithic and Bronze Age charred plant remains. In T. Allen,
A. Barclay & A-M. Cromarty (eds), Opening the wood, making the land. The archaeology of
a Middle Thames landscape: Mesolithic to earlier Bronze Age. Oxford: Thames Valley
Landscapes Monograph.
PINE, J. & FORD, S. 2003. Excavation of Neolithic, Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age and Early
Saxon features at St Helens Avenue, Benson, Oxfordshire. Oxoniensia 68, 13178.
POLLARD, J. 1999. These places have their moments: thoughts on settlement practices in the
British Neolithic. In J. Brck & M. Goodman (eds), Making places in the prehistoric world:
themes in settlement archaeology, 7693. London: UCL Press.
POLLARD, J. 2005. Memory, monuments and middens in the Neolithic landscape. In G. Brown,
D. Field & D. McOmish (eds), The Avebury landscape: aspects of the field archaeology of the
Marlborough Downs, 10314. Oxford: Oxbow.
PRYOR, F. 1974. Excavations at Fengate, Peterborough, England: the first report. Toronto: Royal
Ontario Museum Archaeology Monograph 3.
ROBINSON, M. 1992. Environmental archaeology of the river gravels: past achievements and
future directions. In M. Fulford & E. Nichols (eds), Developing landscapes of lowland Britain:
the archaeology of the British gravels, a review, 4762. London: Society of Antiquaries
Occasional Papers 14.
ROBINSON, M. 1993. The pre-Iron Age environment and finds. In T. G. Allen & M. A.
Robinson (eds), Mingies Ditch, Hardwick-with-Yelford, Oxon, 719. Oxford: Thames Valley
Landscapes Monograph 2.
ROBINSON, M. 1999. The prehistoric environmental sequence of the Barrows Hill area. In
A. Barclay & C. Halpin (eds), Excavations at Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire, Volume 1:
the Neolithic and Bronze Age monument complex, 26974. Oxford: Thames Valley Landscapes
Monograph 11.
ROBINSON, M. A. 2000a. Coleopteran evidence for the Elm Decline, Neolithic activity in
woodland, clearance and use of the landscape. In A. S. Fairbairn (ed.), Plants in Neolithic
Britain and beyond, 2736. Oxford: Oxbow.
ROBINSON, M. A. 2000b. Further consideration of Neolithic charred cereals, fruit and nuts. In
SCAIFE, R. 1992. Plant macrofossils. In F. Healy, M. Heaton & S. J. Lobb, Excavations of a
Mesolithic site at Thatcham, Berkshire, 647. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58,
4176.
of the earliest Neolithic in southern England: repacking the Neolithic package. Oxford
SERJEANTSON, D. 2003. Review of environmental archaeology in southern Britain. Animal
bones. Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (4000 BC1500 BC): the development of agriculture and
animal husbandry. University of Southampton and English Heritage Centre for Archaeology,
Unpublished report.
SIDDELL, J. & WILKINSON, K. 2004. The central London Thames: Neolithic river development and floodplain archaeology. In J. Cotton & D. Field (eds), Towards a new stone age:
aspects of the Neolithic in south-east England, 3849. York: Council for British Archaeology
Research Report 137.
SPIKINS, P. 2000. Ethno-facts or ethno-fiction? Searching for the structure of settlement
patterns. In R. Young (ed.), Mesolithic lifeways: current research in Britain and Ireland,
10518. Leicester: Leicester Archaeology Monographs 7.
422
STAINTON, B. 1989. Excavation of an early prehistoric site at Stratfords Yard, Chesham.

Records of Buckinghamshire 31, 4974.
THOMAS, J. 1996. Neolithic houses in mainland Britain and Ireland a sceptical view. In
T. Darvill & J. Thomas (eds), Neolithic houses in northwest Europe and beyond, 112. Oxford:
Oxbow.
TIMBY, J., STANSBIE, D., NORTON, A. & WELSH, K. 2005. Excavations along the Newbury
Reinforcement Pipeline: Iron Age-Roman activity and a Neolithic pit group. Oxoniensia 70,
203307.
TIPPING, R. 2004. Interpretative issues concerning the driving forces of vegetation change
in the Early Holocene of the British Isles. In A. Saville (ed.), Mesolithic Scotland and its
neighbours, 4553. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
WHITTLE, A. 1990. A model for the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the upper Kennet
valley, north Wiltshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 56, 10110.
WHITTLE, A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
WHITTLE, A., BARCLAY, A., BAYLISS, A., MCFADYEN, L., SCHULTING, R. &
WYSOCKI, M. 2007. Building for the dead: events, processes and changing worldviews from
the 38th to the 34th centuries cal BC in southern Britain. Cambridge Archaeological Journal
17.1, supplement, 12347.
WHITTLE, A., POLLARD, J. & GRIGSON, C. 1999. The harmony of symbols: the Windmill
Hill causewayed enclosure, Wiltshire. Oxford: Oxbow.
WILLIAMS, E. 1989. Dating the introduction of food production into Britain and Ireland.
ZVELEBIL, M. 1994. Plant use in the Mesolithic and its role in the transition to farming.
Mesolithic-Neolithic transitions in
Britain: from essence to inhabitation
JULIAN THOMAS
INTRODUCTION: ESSENTIALISING THE NEOLITHIC

HOW DO WE IDENTIFY the point at which a Mesolithic society becomes a
Neolithic one? For the culture-historic archaeology of the earlier twentieth
century, this question was relatively straightforward; since a given communitys culture was composed of a series of traits, the presence or absence of
polished stone tools, ceramics, or domesticated plants and animals could be
taken as diagnostic. Yet the recognition of a pre-pottery Neolithic in the
Near East complicated matters (Childe 1957, 105). If the Neolithic were to be
composed of different elements in different places, it would be more difficult
to seek a universal explanation for it. This may be one of the reasons why, as
the twentieth century progressed, there was an increasing tendency in the
literature to emphasise the place of agriculture as the fundamental core of a
Neolithic way of life. That is to say, the Neolithic was progressively essentialised, and presented less as the equipment and practices of a specific social
group than as the manifestation of a characteristic stage of economic and
technological development. As a result, the existence in north-west Europe of
elements such as megalithic tombs, flint mines and earthwork enclosures,
which had not been present in the Near East, came to be understood as a
different expression of the same essential core. The Neolithic was ultimately
the same thing throughout Eurasia.
Now, of course, as soon as we define the Neolithic in terms of a particular mode of subsistence, the question of whether the economy is in all cases
the base on to which other elements are built is placed beyond the scope of
investigation. Material culture and monuments are by definition epiphenomenal. This view is clearly expressed in Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforzas
account of the spread of agriculture into Europe (1971). Their intention was
to plot the dispersal of cereals across the continent, but in practice they used
radiocarbon determinations from the earliest Neolithic layers in a given
region, on the grounds that had proper recovery methods been used in all
424
Julian Thomas
cases, cereals would have been found. At some of the Neolithic sites used in
the measurement, they state, the presence of cereals is today only inferred
and not yet demonstrated directly (Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza 1971, 675).
So here, the Neolithic and horticulture had become synonymous, to the
point that in fact, early farming and Neolithic are virtually equivalent, if
we apply an economic definition of the term (Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza
1971, 674).
More seriously, Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforzas approach retained an
emphasis on the mere presence of particular traits, rather than the degree to
which innovations might have affected the lives of those who used them. It
was the recognition that individual elements of the Neolithic package might
have been adopted separately by indigenous hunter-gatherers that occasioned
an important re-evaluation of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Europe.
Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwys (1984; 1986) three-stage model for the adoption of agriculture was considerably more sophisticated than previous views,
because it recognised that simply having access to domesticated resources is
not the same thing as being dependent upon them. Their argument was that
in order to progress from availability to substitution and consolidation
there must be a perceived advantage to using cultivated resources, or a crisis
in the availability of wild ones. Simply owning a pig or a handful of grain
would not make a community Neolithic, and by implication different kinds
of relationships prevailed between people and resources at different stages in
the process of transition. Interpolating from Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwys
argument, we could come up with a quasi-Marxist formulation which says
that a society becomes Neolithic at that point where it becomes dependent
on domesticated resources for its biological and social reproduction.
None the less, this definition also is unsatisfactory, because it still implies
an invariant relationship between subsistence practices and other aspects of
culture. The opening of the Neolithic involved some kind of significant
change in most regions, but its causes should surely be the object of investigation, and not taken for granted. We should be suspicious of attempts to
identify a single, pan-European causal motor, and recognise the possibility
that the Neolithic might be quite different in its composition at different
times and in different places. However, this need not preclude a systematic
approach, even if it is one that has to attend to the fine grain of local
sequences. What I want to propose is that the critical changes that we can
identify across what we call the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition are not
limited to the presence or absence of particular resources or artefact types, or
even their contribution to the overall diet of a community. Instead, we should
address the way that people inhabit a landscape, and the extent to which new
material and symbolic media transformed their existence, at the level of
everyday tasks, routine movements, and habitual activities. Importantly,
MESOLITHIC-NEOLITHIC TRANSITIONS IN BRITAIN
425
different facets of this transformation might not all have proceeded at the
same rate, and this suggests that the phenomenon is best investigated at the
regional scale.
EXPANSION AND STASIS

Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforzas wave of advance model proposed that
agriculture had spread through a process of demic diffusion, in which slow,
continuous expansion was fuelled by population rise, itself the consequence
of the greater reliability of cultivated foods as well as the sedentary way of
life that they promoted. Yet they noted that the rate of diffusion that they had
identified for the Linearbandkeramik was probably too high due to less
complete documentation in central than in western Europe (Ammerman &
Cavalli-Sforza 1971, 684). Subsequent work has demonstrated that the
expansion of the Neolithic was not continuous, and that the very rapid dispersal of the Bandkeramik was sandwiched between two phases of comparative standstill. It is arguable that the Bandkeramik initially emerged from a
complex pattern of interactions between communities practising a variety of
economic regimes, both indigenous and incomers, around the fringes of the
Balkan Neolithic during the first half of the sixth millennium cal BC (Bailey
2000, 138; Bnffy 2000; 2004; Whittle 2005; Zvelebil 2004, 48). So we might
argue that rather than the LBK representing a seamless continuation of the
inexorable expansion of the Neolithic out of the Near East, the colonisation
of the loess country of central Europe was underwritten by a prolonged
cultural negotiation involving semi-mobile Starcevo farmers, waterside Krs
sheep-herders, and indigenous hunter-fisher-gatherers.
Zvelebil (2004, 45) has recently drawn attention to the importance of
frontier zones between Mesolithic and Neolithic societies, developing
wherever the spread of the Neolithic temporarily halted. We might add that
wherever such frontiers existed the interchanges that took place between
communities with different traditions and social practices would have constituted a crucible of cultural innovation. Such a pattern was also established
during the fifth millennium cal BC, following the Bandkeramik expansion.
During late LBK, post-LBK and Rssen/Lengyel phases, contact between
agricultural and hunter-gatherer groups is documented by the occurrence of
pottery, stone points, shaft-hole adzes and bones of domesticated animals in
locations increasingly distant from the loess country, in the lower Rhine
Basin, in Denmark, and in Poland (Domanska 2003, 97; Fischer 1982;
Nowak 2001, 582; Raemaekers 1999, 1389; Verhart & Wansleeben 1997, 69;
Zvelebil 2004, 47). I have argued elsewhere that it was out of this interaction
between farmers and hunters that a distinct and different kind of Neolithic
426
Julian Thomas
developed, initially through the incorporation of new resources and artefacts

into indigenous ways of life, and later in the emergence of a distinctively
north-west European Neolithic (Thomas 1996, 135). Taken together, the
European sequence suggests an alternation between phases of rapid
Neolithic expansion, and episodes of stasis and innovation. While stasis or
inertia might carry a pejorative implication, it is emphasised that periods
during which the Neolithic way of life ceased to expand were ones of cultural
hybridisation and creativity, emerging out of the dialogue between farming
and hunting societies.
The beginning of the Neolithic in Britain can undoubtedly be attributed
to an episode during which the Neolithic expanded rapidly, following a
period of contact and innovation. The cultural change that took place
around 4000 cal BC was apparently both swift and thorough, there being no
mixed assemblages combining pottery with microliths, for instance
(Schulting 2000, 32). While the abruptness of the establishment of Neolithic
material culture in Britain has often been commented upon, it is the concomitant disappearance of Mesolithic assemblages that is the more remarkable. For in areas of Europe where an influx of farming people into a zone
occupied by hunter-gatherers has been demonstrated, the former appear to
have initially occupied enclaves on easily worked soils, surrounded by still
operative Mesolithic groups: small islands of farmers in the immense sea of
foragers (Nowak 2001, 590). This pattern is clear in the case of the LBK
occupation of Little Poland and Kujavia (Domanska 2003; Nowak 2001),
while Chris Scarre has recently suggested something rather similar in the case
of Villeneuve-Saint-Germain incursions into Normandy and the Loire (2002,
400; this volume). If the Neolithic were brought to the British and Irish
islands by continental migrants, they must have either overwhelmed the
native population by violence and force of numbers, brought about their
decimation by the introduction of new diseases, or incorporated and
acculturated them from bridgeheads established on the coast.
The view taken here is that each of these scenarios is inherently unlikely,
and none adequately explains the available evidence. In the first place, it
should be noted that the range of portable artefacts and architectural forms
that characterised the earliest Neolithic in Britain cannot all be identified
together in a single region of continental Europe. Moreover, it is arguable
that British Neolithic assemblages drew selectively on continental ones. The
earliest ceramics in Britain show a preference for fine carinated bowls,
together with a variety of s-profiled, neutral and inflected forms (Cleal 2004,
165). Plain carinated and pseudo-carinated bowls are found in Michelsberg,
Chasso-Michelsberg and Chassen contexts across north-west Europe,
427
but always as a relatively minor element alongside a much wider range of

vessel forms, whether tulip-beakers, open-necked globular vessels and lugged
flasks, or bag-shaped pots and vase-supports (Boujot & Cassen 1992, 204;
Dubouloz 1998, 11; Jeunesse 1998, 35; Louwe Kooijmans 1980). Similarly,
leaf-shaped arrowheads are present in the Belgian Michelsberg, but are found
there alongside transverse and triangular forms (Raemaekers 1999, 142). The
range of artefacts found in the earliest British Neolithic is thus restricted, and
does not reflect the wholesale transfer of a continental assemblage across the
Channel.
Proponents of an externally introduced Neolithic are therefore more
likely to argue for a series of independent arrivals of small migrant groups,
embarking from different areas and following different routes (Sheridan
2000; 2004). This argument runs up against a further series of difficulties.
Why should such modest incursions bring about the sudden extinction (in
cultural or biological terms) of the British Mesolithic? If this were to be
achieved by ruthless warfare, a massive influx of population would be
required, involving a co-ordinated sea-born invasion by groups from across
the seaboard of north-west Europe. This sits uneasily with our general understanding of social organisation and decision-making in the European
Neolithic, which were anything but state-level polities with centralised
authorities presiding over large geographical areas. The possibility of indigenous depopulation being brought about by epidemics of Neolithic diseases
is equally unlikely. The comparable case of the New World involved much
longer periods of biological isolation, and did not result in so thorough a
destruction of native American groups that they disappeared from the
archaeological record. Even leaving aside these objections, exogamousintroduction arguments cannot explain why, if Neolithic communities had
been established on the northern coasts of continental Europe for a number
of centuries, they should all have decided simultaneously to migrate to
Britain in the period around 4000 cal BC.
The only way in which we can make sense of the evidence is by assuming
that indigenous Mesolithic populations had a dynamic role in the formation
of the British Neolithic, just as hunter-fisher-gatherer groups in the north
Balkans had been implicated in the emergence of the Bandkeramik more than
a millennium earlier. In both cases, the introduction of the Neolithic into a
new set of social and ecological conditions required that it should be reconstituted, and this reconstitution involved an interaction between Mesolithic
and Neolithic communities. The sudden appearance of the Neolithic in
Britain was a consequence of its having taken on a character that could be
readily assimilated by local groups.
Julian Thomas
428
BECOMING NEOLITHIC
This raises the interesting question of how the process of becoming
Neolithic was understood by prehistoric people. We have suggested that the
most important level of change lies in peoples unconsidered, habitual,
routine activities, which might be described as practices of inhabitation or
dwelling. Such a definition deliberately cuts across any distinction between
subsistence and technology on the one hand and ritual and symbolism on the
other, as both are fundamentally involved in the way that human beings make
themselves at home in the world. In this context it is worth considering the
significance of recent studies of prehistoric diet based upon stable isotopes in
human bones (Richards 2003; Richards & Hedges 1999; Schulting 1998). In
coastal areas at least, these seem to indicate an abrupt change from diets with
a major marine element to almost exclusive concentration on terrestrial protein. While some have claimed that this is a signature for the universal adoption of domesticated resources, the method alone cannot sustain such an
argument, since it cannot discriminate between wild and domesticated foods
(Thomas 2003). Contrary to Peter Rowley-Conwys assertions (2004, 91), it is
equally possible that the observed pattern documents a cultural repudiation
of foods that were positively associated with the Mesolithic. In other words,
ceasing to eat sea fish, marine mammals and shellfish might represent an
aspect of taking on a new Neolithic identity. As Schulting (2004, 23) argues,
such a new identity might have been anchored in the everyday practicalities
of keeping cattle, but if the lack of a marine component in British Neolithic
diets was as profound as has been implied it seems that there must have been
a positive avoidance of forms of nutrition that were readily available. While
arguments concerning the dietary incompatibility of fish and cattle meat have
been raised, it is to be remembered that such combinations have been
common amongst European populations throughout the historical periods.
Milner et al. (2004) have provided a series of good reasons for caution
over the isotopic results. In particular, the existence of archaeological
remains suggesting the continued acquisition of fish and shellfish into the
Neolithic period in several parts of Europe (seen in the presence of shell middens and fish bones) demands explanation. However, it is unclear how their
suggestion that the shift from marine to terrestrial diets at the start of the
Neolithic may have been exaggerated by the introduction of cereal agriculture connects with some other aspects of the isotopic evidence. For Neolithic
diets in Britain appear to have been quite diverse. Not only is it unclear that
large quantities of cereals were regularly consumed by all Neolithic people, it
seems also that a minority of people had a diet that must have contained a
very high proportion of meat, without there being any indication that they
were also eating marine foods (Richards 2000). Evidently, there is a great deal
429
of work still to be done on elucidating the findings of stable isotope studies,

and the culinary practices that they reflect may have been more complicated
than some commentators have been willing to allow for. If future work does
substantiate a rejection of marine foods, this might combine with the scarcity
of deer bones at most Neolithic sitesdespite the ubiquity of antler picks,
and the presence of deer butchery sites remote from settlements in later
Neolithic Orkneyto indicate that being Neolithic involved explicitly not
being Mesolithic (Sharples 2000, 114). That is to say, becoming Neolithic
would involve an identity process, working on the same level as, say, ethnicity. Importantly, while this kind of phenomenon may involve moments of
explicit choice and identification, it is also carried forward through everyday
practices which are unconsidered and habitual (S. Jones 1997, 87). Dietary
prohibitions, like modes of dress, gesture and speech, become part of the
instinctual way that people conduct their lives.
We have already discussed the argument that the process of
Neolithisation could have been initiated in Britain by small groups of
colonists arriving by boat, bringing artefacts, livestock and ideas with them
(the practicalities of which were admirably mapped out by Humphrey Case
in 1969). As we have seen, when compared with either a co-ordinated, largescale invasion or the adoption of Neolithic innovations by indigenous communities, this scenario is least able to account for the vanishing of Mesolithic
material culture from the archaeological record. Implicitly or explicitly, the
argument proposes that the native population of Britain would have been
unfamiliar with domesticates, ceramics, public architecture and polished
stone tools, and that it took the arrival of new people to introduce them. In
turn, this relies on the long-established idea that Britain and Ireland were culturally isolated from the continent in the later Mesolithic. We can attribute
this notion to Roger Jacobis studies of the microlithic style-zones which
developed during the later Mesolithic (1976, 78). According to Jacobi, there
was no evidence of contact between Britain and the continent from the middle of the Mesolithic onwards, when the land-bridge was lost to the rising
English Channel. However, Peter Gendel (1984) has demonstrated that
similar lithic style-zones emerged in north-east France, Belgium, western
Germany and Holland at the same time, without any indication of a lack of
contact between communities. Indeed, much recent ethnography has shown
that material culture similarity is not an index of social interaction, and that
people can readily move from one community to another, in the process discarding one material assemblage and adopting another. Moreover, estimates
for the establishment of open water in the Straits of Dover vary from 5800
cal BC down to 3800 cal BC, after the Neolithic had actually begun (Barton &
Roberts 2004, 345; Coles 1998, 76). So the temporal coincidence with the
foundation of style zones is not proven.
Julian Thomas
430
If lithic style zones were actually a consequence of the emergence of more

closely defined social identities in the later Mesolithic, it is highly likely that
Mesolithic people in Britain were familiar with developments on the continent, and even that there was a continuous movement and exchange of personnel across the English Channelwhich may or may not have existed as a
substantial body of water at this timethroughout the Mesolithic and into
the Neolithic. In the case of Ireland, contact with the continent is suggested
by the presence of domesticated animal bones in Mesolithic contexts at
Dalkey Island, Sutton, Kilgreany Cave and Ferriters Cove (Woodman &
OBrien 1993). So as Woodman and McCarthy (2003, 36) concede, human
movement in either direction need not always be marked by the transfer of
stone tools. That people were moving considerable distances during the fifth
millennium cal BC is not in doubt, but this was not necessarily the exclusive
prerogative of the members of Neolithic communities.
We should remember that Mesolithic people in north-west Europe were
accustomed to travelling around the coasts by boat, probably to a greater
extent than Neolithic communities who apparently showed less interest in
marine foods (Warren 2000). Prolonged contact between British and continental communities would have been important if Neolithic innovations were
to be established amongst formerly Mesolithic societies. For while domesticated resources and artefacts could be passed from hand to hand, the skills
of nurture and manufacture required to use and reproduce them would have
had to be learned. While new types of stone tools could readily have been
made by people already versed in flint knapping and pressure-flaking, and the
herding of cattle might not have been beyond the abilities of former hunters
familiar with the habits of large mammals, both potting and cultivating cereals would have required entirely new skills. These might have been learned
through extended visiting or apprenticeship relationships, or acquired
through the exchange of marriage partners. Completely new sets of skills,
which enabled the production of ceramic vessels and new types of food, are
likely to have been understood as magical, and the persons versed in them
would have stood out as very special indeed. It is interesting to speculate as
to the implications of such special knowledge for gender relations in the
earliest Neolithic societies in Britain. Might both potting and the cultivation
of cereals have been the prerogative of women?
INHABITING MESOLITHIC AND

NEOLITHIC LANDSCAPES IN BRITAIN
Accepting that Mesolithic groups in Britain may have been aware (in general
terms) both of the existence and the potential of Neolithic ways of life for
431
centuries before 4000 cal BC, we need to consider how and why the landscapes
of Britain came to be inhabited in new ways. A good place to begin is with
the character of the Mesolithic landscape. Tim Ingold (2000, 44) has maintained that hunting and gathering are never merely the acquisition of foodstuffs, but are always embedded in social relationships and an experience and
understanding of landscape. Most hunter-gatherers consider that the landscape embodies vital forces and energies, which flow through patterns of
reciprocity that link humans, animals, supernatural beings and places. Rather
than a hostile environment, the landscape is one that provides for humans,
within which animals are a kind of person who give up their flesh and energy,
provided that they are treated with respect (Zvelebil 2003, 6).
There is every reason to suspect that in general terms the Mesolithic landscape was perceived in these terms, in which material and metaphysical
processes were thoroughly bound up with one another (see also Tilley, this
volume). Recently, a number of scholars have become sceptical of the traditional view that many of the best known Mesolithic sites were base-camps,
occupied by aggregated communities for part of the year, and from which a
variety of logistic tasks were planned and co-ordinated. Instead, we may have
a dispersal of tasks across the landscape (Conneller 2000, 1404; Conneller
& Schadla-Hall 2003; Finlayson 2004, 226; Spikins 2000, 111). Star Carr, for
instance, has been reinterpreted as a hunting camp. And yet, while many
Mesolithic sites were short-lived, and actually avoided after their principal
occupation, this was one of a number of places that was returned to repeatedly over many decades. These persistent places were set apart not simply
because of their subsistence functions, but also because they were sanctioned
as locations where a series of critical transformative activities could be performed. In the case of Star Carr, Chantal Conneller (2004, 41) has argued
that it was the transformation of animal bodies into artefacts that could
extend human agency, like barbed points or antler frontlets, and the later
deposition of these items, that was at stake (see also Warren, this volume).
Similarly, some of the shell middens of western Scotland were places to
which animal bones and antler were taken for the manufacture of tools, and
where in some cases complex treatment was afforded to human corpses
(Kitchener et al. 2004, 80; J. Pollard 2000, 131; T. Pollard 1996, 204).
Arguably, then, Mesolithic landscapes were ones in which human and animal, culture and nature, spiritual and material, were not separated, but which
contained special places in which entities and the relationships connecting
them could be transformed.
My argument is that the beginning of the Neolithic in mainland Britain
saw the introduction of domesticates and new forms of material culture into
a landscape which otherwise maintained much of its Mesolithic character. In
the process, a series of substitutions took place. Many people, not all,
432
Julian Thomas
continued to have a mobile way of life, but herding cattle rather than hunting
deer and aurochs (Ray & Thomas 2003). Certain places continued to be
important locations to return to, but the critical relationships that were negotiated there were no longer just between humans and animals, but also
between the living and the dead. The earliest monuments of the Neolithic
were generally small and architecturally unelaborated, at least by comparison
with the causewayed enclosures, long mounds, large passage tombs and
earthwork cursus monuments which began to be constructed some centuries
into the period. The precise chronology awaits refinement (see Whittle, this
volume), but these may include simple passage tombs, portal dolmens, postdefined avenues and cursus monuments, large timber halls, and some of the
linear timber mortuary structures that would later be incorporated into various barrows and cairns (Darvill 2004, 57; Scarre et al. 2003; Schulting 2000,
28; Thomas 2006; Whittle 2004). Indeed, it might be better to reserve the
term monuments for those later developments, and describe these early
structures instead as public architecture.
Some of these were places at which transformative processes overtook the
bodies of the dead (Lucas 1996, 102; Thomas 2000, 660). Yet those dead were
not confined to the tombs that were being built, and de-fleshed body parts
were curated and circulated between sites of various kinds. This may indicate
a degree of continuity with Mesolithic attitudes to the dead. Similarly, at the
timber cursus monument at Holm near Dumfries, which dates to the very
earliest part of the Neolithic (40003900 cal BC), the structure was burned down
and rebuilt as many as eight times (Thomas 2004a). Both in the use of the site
for processional practices which were essentially rites of passage, and in these
repeated events of burning, we can identify a theme of transformation, which
was combined with the periodic return to a specific location. Again, this suggests an attitude to place and landscape that had Mesolithic antecedents. In
addition, we could point to a series of radiocarbon determinations which
suggest that the flint mines of Sussex were already in operation within the
opening centuries of the British Neolithic (Ambers & Bowman 2003, 533).
As in the Mesolithic, this indicates the elaboration of locations in which
materials were transformed into artefacts that could be used to enhance the
capabilities of human bodies (Edmonds 1995, 63).
Very often, the places to which people returned during the earlier
Neolithic were ones that had been occupied during the Mesolithic, although
in some cases this may have been many decades earlier. At Hazleton North
and Ascott-under-Wychwood, long cairns were built over scatters of
Mesolithic artefacts, while at Crarae and Glecknabae, chambered tombs were
constructed on top of shell middens (Bryce 1903, 42; Case 1986, 24; Saville
1990, 14; Scott 1961, 7). Similarly, at Fir Tree Field on Down Farm, in northern Dorset, a large natural shaft received deposits of Mesolithic microliths
433
and Neolithic bowl sherds at times which may not have been separated by
more than a few decades (Allen & Green 1998; see also Whittle, this volume).
These spatial associations might be put down to coincidence, but it is notable
how much more frequent the presence of both Mesolithic and Neolithic
material on the same site is in Britain than in Ireland, a point to which we will
return (see Sheridan 2004, 12).
It seems likely that for the first four or five centuries of the Neolithic,
British landscapes remained ones in which spiritual or metaphysical processes
were thoroughly integrated with economic ones, and in which patterns of
movement echoed those of the Mesolithic. However, over time, we can identify a process of segmentation and enclosure, in which the sacred or the otherworldly was increasingly separated from everyday life. First, the construction
of causewayed enclosures provided a series of arenas within which practices
of exchange, the treatment of the dead, and calendrical gatherings could be
contained (Oswald et al. 2001; see also Tilley, this volume). Secondly, as
Robert Johnston has argued for the Dorset Cursus, the construction of linear
enclosures at once sanctified particular ancestral trackways, and rendered
them inaccessible (1999, 44). Finally, the closure and blocking of chambered
tombs and long barrows brought the circulation of the remains of the dead to
an end, and established a new distance between the living and the dead
(Thomas 2000). Taken together, we might say that these processes brought
about a disenchantment of the landscape, in which the magical or the
uncanny came to be restricted to particular places (Thomas 2006). This
marked a definitive break with Mesolithic patterns of inhabitation.
As we have mentioned, this is a sequence that may apply to the British
mainland, but not to Ireland. Peter Woodman (2000, 247) has pointed to the
fundamental difference between the Mesolithic of Britain and Ireland, arising from the absence of large wild mammals like deer, elk and aurochs in the
latter. While the British Mesolithic was regionally diverse and in some places
highly mobile, that in Ireland was more specialised and focused on the use of
marine, riverine and estuarine environments. Thus the contexts into which
Neolithic resources and artefacts were introduced were quite different: something that a check-list approach is bound to overlook (Thomas 2004b). In
Ireland, some of the kinds of substitution that took place in Britain were not
possible, and it may be that the transition to a landscape organised around the
rhythms of agricultural production was swifter, with a consequent dislocation
of settlement patterns, resulting in a lack of continuity of occupation
(Cooney 2000, 22).
The implication of the different pathways followed in Britain and Ireland
is that formally similar cultural traits might have an entirely different significance in the two contextsand indeed, are likely to have varied in more
subtle ways from region to region. A case in point is the concept of the house,
434
Julian Thomas
a continental European notion which was deployed in rather different ways

on the two islands. In Ireland, timber buildings are very numerous, and while
Sarah Cross (2003) has produced convincing arguments that some of these
may have had a ceremonial role as feasting halls, it is probable that many were
the dwellings of domestic communities (Cooney 2000, 66). Those in Britain,
and particularly Scotland, are fewer in number, and considerably more monumental in scale, suggesting that they relate to the activities of a larger, and
perhaps more dispersed community. Those in the north have all been burnt
down, and the comparison with Bandkeramik houses on the continent (which
rarely burned at all) and experimental house burnings (which suggest that
thorough burning requires the fire to be tended: Bankoff & Winter 1979), as
well as the fact that the Claish structure was burned on two occasions
(Barclay et al. 2002, 102), indicate that this was deliberate. As such, the practice fits into a broader pattern of the firing of monumental structures in
northern Britain, including timber cursuses, the faades of earthern long barrows, and palisaded enclosures. This implies that the large assemblages of
cereals discovered at Balbridie, Lismore Fields, Crathes and Claish, but not
at the unburned southern sites of Yarnton and White Horse Stone (Fraser &
Murray 2005, 1; Garton 1991, 13; Hey et al. 2003, 81; Ralston 1982, 244),
were deliberately destroyed as a form of conspicuous consumption, of a valued foodstuff, and thus that their representativeness of broader economic
patterns needs to be considered with caution (compare G. Jones 2000, 81).
Of course, someone in early Neolithic Britain must have been growing
cereals (cf. Bogaard & Jones, this volume), and the probability is that they
were at least semi-sedentary. The large timber buildings may have had a role
in storage and redistribution, but their scarcity implies that they may have
been connected with the activities of one element of a complex society, which
also contained more mobile groups engaged in herding and gathering, all
linked by bonds of reciprocity and shared ceremonial activities. This would
make sense of the evidence for the intensive processing of wild plants at The
Stumble in Essex (Murphy 1990), the presence of wild plant remains at many
sites (Robinson 2000) (notwithstanding the potential for cereals to be systematically underrepresented: Rowley-Conwy 2000), and the wide diversities
in diet that are suggested by the isotopic evidence (Richards 2000). What is
more confusing is that the large timber halls in Britain were restricted to the
first 400 years of the period, and that similar evidence is comparatively lacking for the following 1200 years. Their construction and use coincide precisely
with the period that we have suggested precedes the emergence of a fully
Neolithic landscape. It may be that in the first phase of the period the introduction of new resources, which were transformed into foods in new ways,
required a new kind of special place within an otherwise mobile and animate
landscape.
435
This contribution has hoped to argue that our assessment of the impact
of the domesticated species and innovative forms of material culture that
made up the Eurasian Neolithic is best achieved at the level of the landscape.
Neither a list of traits nor an exclusive focus on subsistence economics can
give us an appreciation of the extent to which the rhythm and grain of everyday lives were transformed. Ostensibly similar patterns can conceal variable
realities, and these need to be addressed at the level through which they were
lived.
REFERENCES
ALLEN, M. J. & GREEN, M. 1998. The Fir Tree Field shaft: the date and archaeological and
palaeoenvironmental potential of a chalk swallowhole feature. Proceedings of the Dorset
Natural History and Archaeology Society 120, 2537.
AMBERS, J. & BOWMAN, S. 2003. Radiocarbon measurements from the British Museum:
datelist xxvi. Archaeometry 45, 53140.
AMMERMAN, A. J. & CAVALLI-SFORZA, L. L. 1971. Measuring the rate of spread of early
farming in Europe. Man 6, 67488.
BAILEY, D. 2000. Balkan prehistory: exclusion, incorporation and identity. London: Routledge.
BNFFY, E. 2000. The late Starcevo and the earliest Linear Pottery groups in western
Transdanubia. Documenta Praehistorica 27, 17386.
BNFFY, E. 2004. Advances in the research of the Neolithic transition in the Carpathian Basin.
In A. Lukes & M. Zvelebil (eds), LBK dialogues. Studies in the formation of the Linear Pottery
culture, 4970. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
BANKOFF, H. A. & WINTER, F. A. 1979. A house-burning in Serbia. What do burned
remains tell an archaeologist? Archaeology 32, 814.
BARCLAY, G. J., BROPHY, K. & MCGREGOR, G. 2002. Claish, Stirling: an early Neolithic
structure in its context. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 132, 65137.
BARTON, R. N. E. & ROBERTS, A. 2004. The Mesolithic period in England: current perspectives and new research. In A. Saville (ed.), Mesolithic Scotland and its neighbours, 33959.
BOUJOT, C. & CASSEN, S. 1992. Le dveloppement des premieres architectures funraires
monumentales en France occidentale. In C. T. Le Roux (ed.), Paysans et btisseurs: lemergence du Nolithique Atlantique et les origines du mgalithisme, 195211. Vannes: Revue
Archologique de lOuest, Supplment 5.
BRYCE, T. H. 1903. On the cairns and tumuli on the island of Bute. A record of explorations
during the season of 1903. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 38, 1781.
CASE, H. J. 1986. The Mesolithic and Neolithic in the Oxford region. In G. Briggs, J. Cook &
T. Rowley (eds), The archaeology of the Oxford region, 1837. Oxford: Oxford University
Department of External Studies.
CHILDE, V. G. 1957. New light on the Most Ancient East. New York: Grove Press.
CLEAL, R. 2004. The dating and diversity of the earliest ceramics in Wessex and south-west
England. In R. Cleal & J. Pollard (eds), Monuments and material culture: papers on Neolithic
and Bronze Age Britain in honour of Isobel Smith, 16492. East Knoyle: Hobnob Press.
COLES, B. J. 1998. Doggerland: a speculative survey. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 64,
4581.
CONNELLER, C. 2000. Fragmented space? Hunter-gatherer landscapes of the Vale of
Pickering. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 17, 13950.
436
Julian Thomas
CONNELLER, C. 2004. Becoming deer: corporeal transformations at Star Carr. Archaeological

Dialogues 11, 3756.
CONNELLER, C. & SCHADLA-HALL, T. 2003. Beyond Star Carr: the Vale of Pickering in
the 10th millennium BP. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 69, 85105.
CROSS, S. 2003. Irish Neolithic settlement architecture a reappraisal. In I. Armit, E. Murphy,
E. Nelis & D. Simpson (eds), Neolithic settlement in Ireland and Western Britain, 195202.
Oxford: Oxbow.
DOMAN SKA, L. 2003. Hunter-gatherers and farmers: neighbours in north-eastern Kuiavia,
Poland. Documenta Praehistorica 30, 938.
DUBOULOZ, J. 1998. Rflexions sur le Michelsberg ancien en Bassin Parisien. In J. Biel,
EDMONDS, M. 1995. Stone tools and society: working stone in Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain.
London: Batsford.
FINLAYSON, B. 2004. The use of stone tools in Mesolithic Scotland: function, value, decisionmaking and landscapes. In A. Saville (ed.), Mesolithic Scotland and its neighbours, 2218.
FISCHER, A. 1982. Trade in Danubian shaft-hole axes and the introduction of Neolithic
economy in Denmark. Journal of Danish Archaeology 1, 712.
FRASER, S. & MURRAY, H. 2005. New light on the earliest Neolithic in the Dee Valley,
Aberdeenshire. Past 50, 1.
GARTON, D. 1991. Neolithic settlement in the Peak District: perspective and prospects. In
R. Hodges & K. Smith (eds), Recent developments in the archaeology of the Peak District,
322. Sheffield: J. R. Collis.
GENDEL, P. A. 1984. Mesolithic social territories in northwestern Europe. Oxford: British
HEY, G., MULVILLE, J. & ROBINSON, M. 2003. Diet and culture in southern Britain: the evidence from Yarnton. In M. Parker Pearson (ed.), Food, culture and identity in the Neolithic
and Early Bronze Age, 7988. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
INGOLD, T. 2000. The perception of the environment. London: Routledge.
JACOBI, R. M. 1976. Britain inside and outside Mesolithic Europe. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 42, 6784.
JOHNSTON, R. 1999. An empty path? Processions, memories and the Dorset Cursus. In
A. Barclay & J. Harding (eds), Pathways and ceremonies: the cursus monuments of Neolithic
Britain and Ireland, 3948. Oxford: Oxbow.
JONES, S. 1997. The archaeology of ethnicity. London: Routledge.
KITCHENER, A. C., BONSALL, C. & BARTOSIEWICZ, L. 2004. Missing mammals from
Mesolithic middens: a comparison of the fossil and archaeological records from Scotland. In
A. Saville (ed.), Mesolithic Scotland and its neighbours, 7382. Edinburgh: Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland.
LOUWE KOOIJMANS, L. P. 1980. De midden-Neolitische vondstgroep van Het Vormer bij
Wijchen en het cultuurpatroon rond de zuidelijke Noordzee circa 3000 v. Chr.
Oudheidkundinge Mededelingen 61, 116208.
LUCAS, G. M. 1996. Of death and debt: a history of the body in Neolithic and Early Bronze
Age Yorkshire. Journal of European Archaeology 4, 99118.
437
MURPHY, P. 1990. The Stumble, Essex (Blackwater Site 28): carbonised Neolithic plant remains.
London: Ancient Monuments Laboratory Report 126/90.
NOWAK, M. 2001. The second phase of Neolithization in east-central Europe. Antiquity 75,
58292.
OSWALD, A., DYER, C. & BARBER, M. 2001. The creation of monuments: Neolithic causewayed enclosures in the British Isles. London: English Heritage.
POLLARD, J. 2000. Ancestral places in the Mesolithic landscape. Archaeological Review from
Cambridge 17, 12338.
POLLARD, T. 1996. Time and tide: coastal environments, cosmology and ritual. In T. Pollard
& A. Morrison (eds), The early prehistory of Scotland, 198210. Glasgow: Glasgow
University Press.
RAEMAEKERS, D. C. M. 1999. The articulation of a new Neolithic. Leiden: University of
Leiden.
RALSTON, I. M. B. 1982. A timber hall at Balbridie Farm. Aberdeen University Review 168,
23849.
RAY, K. & THOMAS, J. S. 2003. In the kinship of cows: the social centrality of cattle in the
earlier Neolithic of Southern Britain. In M. Parker Pearson (ed.), Food, culture and identity
in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, 3744. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
RICHARDS, M. P. 2000. Human consumption of plant foods in the British Neolithic: direct
evidence from bone stable isotopes. In A. S. Fairbairn (ed.), Plants in Neolithic Britain and
beyond, 12335. Oxford: Oxbow.
RICHARDS, M. P. 2003. Explaining the dietary isotope evidence for the rapid adoption of the
Neolithic in Britain. In M. Parker Pearson (ed.), Food, culture and identity in the Neolithic and
Early Bronze Age, 316. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
RICHARDS, M. P. & HEDGES, R. E. M. 1999. A Neolithic revolution? New evidence of diet
in the British Neolithic. Antiquity 73, 8917.
ROBINSON, M. A. 2000. Further consideration of Neolithic charred cereals, fruit and nuts. In
ROWLEY-CONWY, P. 2000. Through a taphonomic glass, darkly: the importance of cereal
cultivation in prehistoric Britain. In S. Stallibrass & J. Huntley (eds), Taphonomy and
interpretation, 4353. Oxford: Oxbow.
Britain, Ireland, and southern Scandinavia. Current Anthropology 45 Supplement AugustOctober 2004, 83113.
SCARRE, C. 2002. Pioneer farmers? The Neolithic transition in western Europe. In P. Bellwood
& C. Renfrew (eds), Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis, 395407.
Cambridge: McDonald Institute.
SCARRE, C., ARIAS, P., BURENHULT, G., FANO, M., OOSTERBEEK, L., SCHULTING,
R. J., SHERIDAN, A. & WHITTLE, A. 2003. Megalithic chronologies. In G. Burenhult &
S. Westergaard (eds), Stone and bones. Formal disposal of the dead in Atlantic Europe during
the Mesolithic-Neolithic interface 60003000 cal BC, 65111. Oxford: British Archaeological
Reports.
SCHULTING, R. J. 1998. Slighting the sea: the transition to farming in northwest Europe.
438
Julian Thomas
SCHULTING, R. J. 2004. An Irish Sea change: some implications for the Mesolithic-Neolithic
transition. In V. Cummings & C. Fowler (eds), The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: materiality and
traditions of practice, 228. Oxford: Oxbow.
SCOTT, J. G. 1961. The excavation of the chambered cairn at Crarae, Loch Fyneside, Mid
Argyll. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 94, 127.
SHARPLES, N. 2000. Antlers and Orcadian rituals: an ambiguous role for red deer in the
Neolithic. In A. Ritchie (ed.), Neolithic Orkney in its European context, 10716. Cambridge:
SHERIDAN, A. 2000. Achnacreebeag and its French connections: vive the auld alliance. In
J. C. Henderson (ed.), The prehistory and early history of Atlantic Europe, 116. Oxford:
SHERIDAN, A. 2004. Neolithic connections along and across the Irish Sea. In V. Cummings &
C. Fowler (eds), The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: materiality and traditions of practice, 921.
Oxford: Oxbow.
SPIKINS, P. 2000. Go forth and multiply? Gradual population growth re-assessed a case study
from Mesolithic Northern England. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 17, 99121.
THOMAS, J. S. 1996. Time, culture and identity. London: Routledge.
THOMAS, J. S. 2000. Death, identity and the body in Neolithic Britain. Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute 6, 60317.
THOMAS, J. S. 2003. Thoughts on the repacked Neolithic revolution. Antiquity 77, 6774.
THOMAS, J. S. 2004a. Materiality and traditions of practice in Neolithic south-west Scotland.
In V. Cummings & C. Fowler (eds), The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: materiality and traditions
of practice, 17484. Oxford: Oxbow.
THOMAS, J. S. 2004b. Recent debates on the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Britain and
Ireland. Documenta Praehistorica 31, 11330.
THOMAS, J. S. 2006. On the origins and development of cursus monuments in Britain.
VERHART, L. & WANSLEEBEN, M. 1997. Waste and prestige: the Mesolithic-Neolithic
transition in the Netherlands from a social perspective. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 29,
6573.
WARREN, G. M. 2000. Seascapes: boats and inhabitation in the later Mesolithic of western
Scotland. In R. Young (ed.), Mesolithic lifeways: current research in Britain and Ireland,
WHITTLE, A. 2004. Stones that float to the sky: portal dolmens and their landscapes of memory and myth. In V. Cummings & C. Fowler (eds), The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: materiality
and traditions of practice, 8190. Oxford: Oxbow.
WHITTLE, A. 2005. Lived experience in the Early Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain. In
D. Bailey, A. Whittle & V. Cummings (eds), (un)settling the Neolithic, 6471. Oxford:
Oxbow.
WOODMAN, P. 2000. Getting back to basics: transitions to farming in Ireland and Britain. In
T. D. Price (ed.), Europes first farmers, 21959. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
WOODMAN, P. C. & MCCARTHY, M. 2003. Contemplating some awful(ly interesting) vistas:
importing cattle and red deer into prehistoric Ireland. In I. Armit, E. Murphy, E. Nelis &
WOODMAN, P. C. & OBRIEN, M. 1993. Excavations at Ferriters Cove, Co. Kerry: an interim
statement. In E. Shee Twohig & M. Ronayne (eds), Past perceptions: the prehistoric archaeology
of south-west Ireland, 2534. Cork: Cork University Press.
ZVELEBIL, M. 2003. People behind the lithics: on social structure and ideology of Mesolithic
hunter-gatherers in Europe. In L. Bevan & J. Moore (eds), Peopling the Mesolithic in a northern
environment, 126. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
439
ZVELEBIL, M. 2004. Who were we 6000 years ago? In search of prehistoric identities. In
M. Jones (ed.), Traces of ancestry: studies in honour of Colin Renfrew, 4160. Cambridge:
McDonald Institute.
ZVELEBIL, M. & ROWLEY-CONWY, P. 1984. Transition to farming in northern Europe: a
gatherer-hunter perspective. Norwegian Archaeological Review 17, 10427.
M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in transition, 6793. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
From Picardie to Pickering and Pencraig

Hill? New information on the Carinated
Bowl Neolithic in northern Britain
ALISON SHERIDAN
INTRODUCTION
ALASDAIR WHITTLE HAS RECENTLY, and pertinently, made a plea for archaeologists in Britain to define very specifically what was going on between 4000
and 3700 cal BC the crucial period when the traits that we conventionally
describe as Neolithic (primarily food production, novel toolkits and technologies, and a new or changed world view reflected, for example, in the construction of funerary monuments) appeared over much of Britain and
Ireland (Whittle 2003; this volume). He has lamented that what was going on
around 4000 BC remains stubbornly and frustratingly unclear and certainly
varied (Whittle 2003, 150). This view has been informed by the realisation
thanks to his (and others) radiocarbon dating of key southern British
material (e.g. Healy 2004)that many of the iconic types of Early Neolithic
site such as causewayed enclosures and megalithic tombs do not, by and
large, date to the first few centuries of the fourth millennium (Ambers &
Housley 1999; Schulting 2000; Whittle & Wysocki 1998). The clearest
exception to this might be the Carinated Bowl-associated causewayed
enclosure at Magheraboy, Co. Sligo, in north-west Ireland, where seven
dates from short-lived species suggest its construction between 4000 and 3700
cal BC: www.nra.ie/Archaeology/ArchaeologyonRoadSchemes/file,808,en.pdf;
Ed Danaher, pers. comm. (further dates, and Bayesian modelling, are in hand:
Alex Bayliss, pers. comm.).
The purpose of this contribution is to highlight the considerable and
growing body of evidence for Neolithic activity, reliably dated to between c.
3950/3900 and 3700 cal BC in northern Britain (especially Scotland), that is
associated with the use of pottery in the Carinated Bowl ceramic tradition
(see below for definition). The distribution of this type of pottery extends far
beyond the area under review, to encompass much of Britain and much of
442
Alison Sheridan
Ireland. The Carinated Bowl-associated Neolithic is one of at least three distinct strands of the earliest Neolithic activity in Britain and Ireland, the others
being i) a strand linking north-west France (probably Normandy) with southwest England during the first quarter of the fourth millennium cal BC, and
expressed in terms of ceramics and funerary monuments such as the simple
passage tomb at Broadsands, Devon (Pailler & Sheridan in press); and ii) a
Breton strand, which is found along the Atlantic/Irish Sea faade and seems
to have appeared marginally earlier than the Carinated Bowl tradition,
between c. 4200 and 3900 cal BC. This is associated with Breton-style pottery
and simple megalithic tombsnamely polygonal chambers and simple passage tombsand has been dealt with in detail elsewhere (e.g. Sheridan
2003a; 2004; 2005; see also Woodman & McCarthy 2003 for an even earlier,
short-lived episode of Neolithisation c. 4300 cal BC or earlier, its dating
being open to debate, linking the west of France and south-west Ireland). All
that remains to be added regarding the Breton strand is that the current
authors suspicion that the deep, uncarinated, undecorated bowl from the
simple passage tomb at Carreg Samson in south-west Wales (Lynch 1975, fig.
5) should be added to the list of Breton-style pottery, has been confirmed by
Breton colleagues (Yvan Pailler and Serge Cassen, pers. comm.).
The position taken by this author (contra Thomas 1998; 1999) is that the
appearance of the Carinated Bowl-associated Neolithic package (and indeed
that of other strands of Neolithisation) is best explained, albeit unfashionably in some quarters, in terms of the arrival of small farming groups from
the Continent. An acculturationist, gradualist position on the MesolithicNeolithic transition, as typified by the work of Julian Thomas, simply fails to
account for the evidence to hand, as others (e.g. Monk 2000; Cooney 2000;
2001; Rowley-Conwy 2004; Warren 2005) have pointed out. And even though
many writers have highlighted the difficulties of pinpointing an area of origin
for our hypothetical Continental Carinated Bowl settlers (e.g. Kinnes 1988),
it will be argued in the final section of this paper that the search is neither
fruitless nor hopeless.
Wherever calibrated radiocarbon dates are cited, they have been calibrated using OxCal v.3.10, with atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. 1998,
and are cited at the two sigma date range.
THE CARINATED BOWL NEOLITHIC IN NORTHERN BRITAIN:

THE PICTURE IN 2006
Although there have been fewer developer-funded excavations in northern
Britain than in southern England or Ireland, they have, nevertheless,
THE CARINATED BOWL NEOLITHIC IN NORTHERN BRITAIN 443
produced a significant number of Early Neolithic finds in the 21 years since

Ian Kinnes published his review of the Scottish Neolithic (Kinnes 1985).
Together with chance finds and the results of research-based excavations,
over 40 new sites yielding early Carinated Bowl pottery and/or material
radiocarbon dated to the first three centuries of the fourth millennium cal BC
are known from Scotland alone (Fig. 1; Appendix; and see below for discussion of the dates). These substantially reinforce the previously-known
distribution pattern of the Carinated Bowl Neolithic in Scotland. Elsewhere
in northern Britain, discoveries include settlement evidence excavated by
Clive Waddington at various sites in Northumberland, particularly in and
around the Milfield Basin (Waddington 1999; 2000; 2001; pers. comm.;
Waddington & Passmore 2004, 418; www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/
show/ConWebDoc.5819 (but note: the Early Neolithic activity at the Cheviot
Quarry is now known to comprise pits, not houses); Waddington & Davies
2002; cf. Miket 1987). And in Wales, the newly discovered second rectangular house at Llandygai, Gwynedd, adds to the small amount of Carinated
Bowl Neolithic evidence in western Britain (Kenney & Davidson 2006).
Some of the recent discoveries have already been published fully (e.g. the
hall at Claish, Stirling: Barclay et al. 2002). Some have so far only appeared
in note form (e.g. in Discovery and Excavation in Scotland), in regional
reviews (e.g. Manby et al. 2003, 429; Waddington 2000; Waddington &
Passmore 2004; Warren 2004) or on websites; and others are yet to be reported
on publicly. The brief review presented here (with the kind permission of the
excavators) is intended to highlight the amount, range and quality of new
evidence at our disposal.
The first part of this paper will outline the range of contexts which have
produced material radiocarbon dated to the early fourth millennium cal BC
and/or early forms of Carinated Bowl pottery over the last 21 years; following sections will discuss the dating evidence, the pottery and other aspects of
material culture; a penultimate section will aim to integrate this information
within a model of Early Neolithic society; and the final section will address
the hypothetical Continental origin of the Carinated Bowl Neolithic. The
main focus of attention will be Scotland, and the paper does not purport to
provide an exhaustive corpus of information for northern Britain; nor does it
provide a much needed overall distribution map for Carinated Bowl pottery.
Such tasks remain to be completed by others; suffice it to say at this point
that Rosamund Cleals recent review of the earliest Neolithic pottery in
Wessex and south-west England (2004) has usefully highlighted the relatively
sparse distribution of classic traditional Carinated Bowl pottery in that part
of Britain.
444
Alison Sheridan
Figure 1. Scottish finds, mostly since 1985, of: i) traditional Carinated Bowl pottery (circles);
ii) definite and possible examples of North-East style CB pottery (squares); iii) other modified CB pottery probably of early fourth millennium date (triangles); and iv) other evidence
relating to the Carinated Bowl Neolithic in Scotland, as discussed in the paper. For key to
numbering, and for further details, see Appendix. Un-numbered symbols indicate previous finds
of the same kinds of CB pottery, to indicate the overall distribution of this tradition.
TYPES OF FINDSPOT
Halls, houses and settlement evidence in general
The recent discoveries confirm and extend the previously known range of evidence for halls, houses and general settlement evidence (see Barclay 2003 for
a recent review of the lowland Scottish evidence; Waddington & Davies 2002
and Waddington & Passmore 2004 for a review of the evidence from
Northumberland; and Manby et al. 2003 for a review of the Yorkshire
evidence). For the Scottish sites, details of associated pottery and dates are
summarised in the Appendix. Space does not permit a discussion about the
function of halls or houses; suffice it to say that the views expressed by
Thomas in his 1996 review of Neolithic houses are not shared by this author.
Two new large halls have been excavated, at Claish (24 by c. 8.5 m) and
at Warren Field, Crathes, Aberdeenshire (c. 20 by 9 m, Fig. 2: Fraser 2005;
Murray 2004; 2005a; Murray & Fraser 2005; Murray & Murray 2004). Both
are rectangular, internally-partitioned, post-built structures with gently
bowed ends, and the discovery of daub at Claish may indicate the former
coating of the substantial timber wall uprights. The Claish hall, and its
Scottish and Continental comparanda, have already been discussed at length
by Barclay et al. (2002). The Crathes site, excavated in 20045, constitutes the
Figure 2. The hall at Warren Field, Crathes, Aberdeenshire: aerial photograph by Moira
Greig, 2005. Copyright Aberdeenshire Archaeology Service.
446
Alison Sheridan
third excavated Early Neolithic hall in Scotland, with Balbridie,

Aberdeenshire, being the first (Ralston 1982; 1984; Fairweather & Ralston
1993; see also Postscript). All three had been burnt down. Other possible, but
unexcavated, parallelsall from the east of Scotlandare known, although
the similarity of this structural format to that of British halls of the sixth century AD (Ian Ralston, pers. comm.) means that only excavation can resolve the
matter (see Barclay et al. 2002, 10810 for discussion). A later fourth millennium revival of the hall-building tradition is suggested by four sites in eastern and east-central Scotland, at Littleour and Carsie Mains, Perth and
Kinross (Barclay & Maxwell 1998; Brophy & Barclay 2004) and at Balfarg
Riding School 1 and 2, Fife (Barclay & Russell-White 1993; although see
Barclay et al. 2002, 110 for a discussion of the Balfarg dating evidence in
which the possibility of an Earlier Neolithic date is admitted).
The Crathes hall is of particular interest as it lies just across the River
Dee from Balbridie. While the size, mode of construction and general shape
of the hall closely echo those of Balbridie and Claish, there are subtle differences between all three structures. There are also signs that structural
modifications took place over the life of the Crathes building (Murray
2005a, 12).
Some of the smaller Early Neolithic houses in northern Britain are closely
comparable, in shape and construction, to those associated with Carinated
Bowl pottery and/or early fourth millennium dates elsewhere in Britain and
Ireland (e.g. White Horse Stone, Kent: Selkirk 2000; Yarnton, Oxfordshire:
Hey 2001; Hey & Barclay, this volume; and many localities in Ireland, as
recently discussed by Grogan 2004). Where ground plans can be made out,
these tend to be rectangular, the walls being constructed using either the post
and panel technique (as in the aforementioned, c. 12 by 7 m, rectangular
house at Llandygai), or with posts and/or planks set in slot trenches (as at
Lismore Fields, Buxton, Derbyshire: Garton 1991). One or two possible, but
very fragmentary, examples of the latter were found at Wardend of Durris,
Aberdeenshire, just 3.5 km from the Balbridie hall (Russell-White 1995; see
Appendix for discussion of the dates).
There is some variation in the form, size and construction of residential
structures. A small, subrectangular, plough-truncated structure that may have
been a house was found at Pitlethie Road, Fife, in 2004 (Martin Cook, pers.
comm.): here, an area of discoloured soil c. 6 by 3 m in extent was bounded on
one side by a line of closely-set posts, c. 20 cm wide, and towards one end of it
was a large pit containing a stone axehead and a large elliptical bead of cannel
coal or shale (see Sheridan forthcoming a for a discussion of the latter).
Further north, at Garthdee Road, Aberdeen, a post-built house of oval shape,
c. 11 by 8 m, was excavated in 2005 (Fig. 3: Murray 2005b; Murray & Murray
2005); and further south, near Bolam Lake in Northumberland, a relatively
Figure 3.
The house at Garthdee Road, Aberdeenshire, 2005. Image courtesy of Hilary Murray.
insubstantial post-built rectangular structure, c. 10 by 3.5 m, was interpreted

as a temporary residence for transhumant pastoralists (Waddington &
Davies 2002).
Identification of house structures in northern Britain (as indeed elsewhere
in Britain: see for example Clay 2006 on the East Midlands) is hampered by
plough-truncation; often all that is left to suggest the former presence of a
settlement is a set of pits and/or post- and stake-holes and/or spreads of
burnt material (as, for example, at Biggar Common, South Lanarkshire:
Johnston 1997; Lesmurdie Road, Elgin: Ian Suddaby, pers. comm.; Picts
Knowe, Dumfries and Galloway: Thomas 2007; Coupland, Northumberland:
Waddington 1999; 2001; pers. comm.; Leven, East Riding of Yorkshire and
Marton-le-Moor, North Yorkshire: Manby et al. 2003, 47). Sometimes only
a single pit is found (as at Carzield, Dumfries and Galloway: Maynard 1993);
and, of course, not all pits need signify domestic activity. A further problem affecting the identification of Early Neolithic house structures is the
frequent reuse of sites at later periods. Thus a rectangular house-like structure at Ratho, Midlothian, could be contemporary with the Carinated
Bowl pottery found in the vicinity, or with the Northumbrian settlement on
the same site (Smith 1995).
448
Alison Sheridan
Non-megalithic (NM) long barrows, long mortuary enclosures and cursus

monuments
Five NM long barrows have been excavated, all producing both Carinated
Bowl pottery and radiocarbon dates early in the fourth millennium cal BC
(Fig. 4). Four are in eastern Scotland (at Kintore, Aberdeenshire; Fordhouse
Barrow, Angus; and Eweford and Pencraig Hill, East Lothian); the fifth, at
Biggar Common, in the south. The latter has already been published fully
(Johnston 1997); as regards the Kintore monument, only interim results
are available but it is clear that both Carinated Bowl pottery and early fourth
millennium dates (see Appendix) have been obtained (Cook 2001; Ann
MacSween, pers. comm.).
The example at Fordhouse Barrow, at the House of Dun, Angus, was not
recognised as such at the time of its excavation (due largely to the extent and
complexity of subsequent reuse of the site), and only the front part was excavated. However, it is clear from interim reports (Peterson et al. 1996, 6 and
fig. 6.1; 1997, especially figs 2 and 3) that activity here had involved the construction of a rectangular timber mortuary structure (cf. Kinnes 1992a), set
at roughly right-angles to a slightly concave timber faade, the latter forming
part of a long, trapezoidal, timber-defined enclosure. This had all been deliberately burnt down and subsequently covered by an earth and stone mound
that had probably followed the shape of the enclosure.
On the crest of a hill at Eweford, East Lothian, two probably successive
timber mortuary structures, set close behind, and running roughly parallel to,
a timber faade, form part of a complex sequence of activities that ended
in the construction of a long barrow (www.a1archaeology.com/Sites/
EwefordA5.htm; Lelong & MacGregor in press; MacGregor 2005; MacGregor
& Shearer 2002). An initial, roughly oval, mound (devoid of human remains)
was cut into by a large cooking pit, suggesting feasting preparatory to the
next stage of funerary activities. This was then backfilled and the area covered by a low platform of earth and turf, upon which a timber mortuary
structure and faade was constructed. These were burnt down and a second
mortuary structure and faade were built and also burnt down. Finally the
remains of the mortuary structures were covered by a long, roughly rectangular mound, revetted on one side by drystone walling. Three pits in the
vicinity, each containing pottery, suggest monument-related feasting at various times during the fourth and third millennia. A similar, contemporary
monument, which also featured the construction and burning of a timber
mortuary structure on probably more than one occasion, was found just 10
km away on Pencraig Hill (www.a1archaeology.com/Sites/PenHill.htm;
Lelong & MacGregor in press; McLellan 2002; 2005). The presence of the
initial oval mound at Eweford, and its replacement by a long cairn, echoes the
Figure 4. Radiocarbon dates (normalised) relating to Scottish non-megalithic long barrows as

discussed in the text. All are from single entity samples, reliably associated with their contexts;
all except the Fordhouse dates (from oak charcoal) are from short-lived material. Fordhouse
OxA-82223 are from the outer rings of oak. Most relate to the burning of wooden mortuary
structures prior to mound construction. For further details, see datelists in Discovery &
Excavation in Scotland 4 (2003), 5 (2004) and 6 (2005) and Appendix.
450
Alison Sheridan
structural sequence at Whitwell, Derbyshire (Schulting 2000; and see below

on the re-dating of Whitwell, but there the oval mound, like the long cairn,
was associated with a mortuary structure).
These recently excavated sites are consistent (in construction, distribution, associated material culture and monumental practice) with the wider
picture for Early Neolithic non-megalithic long barrows, even though it is
becoming increasingly clear, as discussed below, that this tradition was
long-lived (Evans & Hodder 2006; Kinnes 1985; 1992a; 1992b; Schulting
2000; Whittle & Wysocki 1998; see also Kinnes 1979 and 2004a on NM
round barrows). The dating of these newly excavated sites is discussed below;
in the case of Fordhouse Barrow, the dated material consisted of oak charcoal (albeit from the outer rings of a plank in one case), while at the East
Lothian sites, short-lived species material was dated.
Another aspect of this monument-building traditionthe construction
and burning down of roughly rectangular freestanding timber mortuary
enclosures, seemingly lacking a subsequent mound (Kinnes 1992a)is represented among recent discoveries by the long post-built structure with concave faade at Castle Menzies, Perth and Kinross (Halliday 2002). No pottery
was found at this site. Other variant forms had previously been excavated at
Douglasmuir, Angus (Kendrick 1995; see Cowie 1993 on the pottery),
Bannockburn, Stirling (Rideout 1997; with traditional Carinated Bowl
pottery) and Inchtuthil, Perth and Kinross (Barclay & Maxwell 1991; with no
pottery); virtually all the radiocarbon dates for such sites derive from oak
charcoal. The close relationship between long mortuary enclosures and
pit- and ditch-defined cursus monuments in Scotland has been discussed by
Gordon Barclay (in Kendrick 1995, 389), and the relationship between these
kinds of monument and bank barrows has been discussed by Kenny Brophy
(1998).
Cursus monumentswhose numbers in Scotland have increased dramatically, thanks largely to Brophys work on the aerial photographic archive
(Brophy 1998; 1999; 2005)are also represented among the sites to produce
radiocarbon dates early in the fourth millennium cal BC, although here again
the dating evidence derives almost exclusively from oak charcoal samples (see
below). Julian Thomas has recently excavated parts of four in Dumfries and
Galloway, at Holywood (North and Southof which the latter produced no
suitable date samples), Holm, and Dunragit (Thomas et al. 1999; Thomas
2004a; 2004b; 2004c; 2004d), while a fifth was excavated at Upper Largie,
Argyll and Bute (Radley 1993; Terry 1997; Ellis 2000). As with the nonmegalithic long barrows, construction followed by burning (or dismantling)
and re-building is a key feature of these monuments, and it has been argued
that the post-built versions may not have stood for very long (Thomas
2004a). At Holywood North, the erection of the post-built cursus was pre-
ceded by the erection, toppling and burning of an enormous wooden upright.

The cursus was then dismantled, re-erected, dismantled, re-erected, burnt
and finally enclosed by a ditch (Julian Thomas, pers. comm.; Thomas 2007).
Carinated Bowl pottery is associated with the first phase of cursus construction. At Holywood South, activity resulting in the deposition of
Carinated Bowl pottery in pits preceded the erection of the bank-and-ditch
cursus.
A hunting site
A chance find of a broken flatbow (Fig. 5), discovered in 1990 high in the
Tweedsmuir Hills near Moffat, Dumfries and Galloway, at the appropriately
named Rotten Bottom, falls within the time frame in question and offers
insights into the interconnectedness of communities at the time (Sheridan
1996; 1999). Its findspot, close to the end of a hanging valley, suggests that
the bow broke as its owner (and other archers) took aim at deer that had been
driven towards the precipice. Its date of 40403640 cal BC (OxA-3540:
5040100 BP) makes this the earliest bow in Britain and Ireland.
Palynological evidence (including that obtained from the vicinity of the findspot by Richard Tipping) has demonstrated that yew did not grow in most of
Scotland at that time, so the bow (or its raw material) must have been
importedeither from across the Solway Firth in Cumbria, or across the
North Channel in Ireland. While there is no unequivocal evidence for prior
interaction by Mesolithic foragers with either of these areas, it is clear that
early farming communities in this part of Scotland were already importing
Cumbrian stone axeheads as early as the thirty-ninth or thirty-eighth century
cal BC (as indicated, for example, at the aforementioned Carzield site:
Maynard 1993). Axeheads of Irish porcellanite may also have been imported
to Scotland as early as this; it is known, from examples found in recently
excavated Early Neolithic houses, that they were circulating around Ireland
from early in the fourth millennium cal BC. Thus, while one cannot prove that
this bow had been the possession of a farmer who was augmenting the food
supply by hunting, this remains an intriguing possibility.
THE RADIOCARBON DATING EVIDENCE

Developments over the past 21 years have meant that the number of radiocarbon dates from northern Britain that fulfil current criteria of acceptability (e.g. from single entity samples, of short-lived material, definitely
associated with the activity of interest), and that relate to the first few
centuries of the fourth millennium cal BC, now stands at well over 150. In
452
Alison Sheridan
Figure 5. The Rotten Bottom bow fragment (length: 136 cm). Drawing by Marion ONeil.
Scotland, this state of affairs is thanks largely to the efforts of Historic

Scotlands Patrick Ashmore, as commissioner of many dates and champion
of rigour in the selection of samples and interpretation of results (see, for
example, Ashmore 1999; 2004; and the Historic Scotland Datelists in
Discovery and Excavation in Scotland since 1996). Such is the pace of developments that over 70 new early fourth millennium Scottish dates have been
produced since Ashmores recent critical review of Scottish Neolithic dates
obtained to 2002 (Ashmore 2004). Some of these dates, obtained as series
relating to the history of activities at individual sites (e.g. at Garthdee Road,
Aberdeenshire), are ripe for the kind of chronological modelling using
Bayesian statistics that is currently being used to such impressive effect in
southern Britain (cf. Whittle, this volume). Elsewhere, Clive Waddingtons
excavations have been addressing the dearth of dating evidence in
Northumberland (Waddington & Davies 2002; Waddington 2001); a few new
dates have emerged from Yorkshire (Manby et al. 2003); and in Derbyshire, a
new programme of radiocarbon dating of the remains from the Whitwell
cairnundertaken to check the validity of the human bone dates obtained
in 1994 (as discussed by Schulting 2000)has revealed that activities there
started after 4000 cal BC (more specifically, during the first half of the thirtyeighth century cal BC, according to statistical modelling), not before that
date, and are more in line with the newly-obtained Scottish dates for
non-megalithic long barrows (Ian Wall and Peter Marshall, pers. comm.).
Some of the recently obtained dates, all from short-lived species, most
from single entity samples and all reliably associated with Carinated Bowl
(CB) pottery, are shown in Fig. 6 (cf. Figs 4 and 7: see also the Appendix for
an assessment of the reliability of all the recently-obtained dates). The clear
message to emerge from this burgeoning dataset (not just in northern Britain,
but also in Ireland) is that CB pottery, and the lifestyle and monuments with
which it is associated, is unlikely to have been in use before 4000 cal BC, and
is likely to have appeared over large parts of Britain and Ireland between
c. 3950/3900 and 3800 cal BC (cf. Ashmore 2004; Warren 2004). Dates that
suggest otherwise are either from oak, or from mixed-species samples including charcoal from long-lived species, with a probable old wood effect (e.g.
at Biggar Common: Ashmore 2004, fig. 11.9). (The old wood effect can
most clearly be seen in the suites of dates obtained for the Scottish halls,
where those deriving from oak charcoal from structural timbers consistently
tend to be earlier than those derived from short-lived species such as cereal
grains, relating to the use of the structures: Fig. 7.) The earliest Carinated
Bowl-associated date not to have come from oak charcoal or a mixed-species
sample from a pit at Deskford, Moray (AA-42986, 527550 BP, 42403970
cal BC)now looks anomalously early when compared with the overall pattern of dates, even though it was obtained from securely stratified charcoal
454
Alison Sheridan
Figure 6. Radiocarbon dates (normalised) associated with the use of Carinated Bowl pottery
from Scotland and northern England, as discussed in the text; all are from short-lived material
and most are from single-entity samples, securely associated with their contexts. For further
details, see Appendix.
Figure 7. Radiocarbon dates (normalised) from halls. Those obtained from oak charcoal are
indicated by asterisks; all others are from short-lived material. All are from single-entity samples,
securely associated with their contexts. Note: SUERC-4031 is from the upper fill of a pit in an
alignment near Crathes hall, for comparison. For further details, see Discovery & Excavation in
Scotland 5 (2004, for Crathes); Fairweather & Ralston 1993 (for Balbridie) and Barclay et al.
2002 (for Claish), and Appendix.
456
Alison Sheridan
from a short-lived tree species (alder). According to the excavator, one cannot rule out the possibility that this is residual material (Fraser Hunter, pers.
comm.; see Appendix, entry 3, for more information on this site).
As regards the pottery, the dating evidence confirms that the strikingly
homogeneous traditional CB pottery (as defined below) was in widespread
contemporaneous use from the fortieth or thirty-ninth century cal BC. In
Scotland, the evidence from Garthdee Road, Aberdeenshire, indicates that
this type of pottery was still in use at least as late as c. 3700 cal BC (Murray
& Murray 2005). Meanwhile, regional variants of CB potterymost notably
Henshalls North-Eastern style in north-east Scotlandseem to have developed relatively quickly, with the dates from the Balbridie hall being nearindistinguishable from those for traditional CB pottery (including that
found just across the river at Crathes). That a similar process of style drift
was also occurring at an early date elsewhere is indicated by a date, from
hazel charcoal, of 39563714 cal BC (UB-6633: 504639 BP) for modified
CB pottery in south-east Ireland (Granny, Co. Waterford: James Eogan,
pers. comm.). Continuing use of North-Eastern style CB pottery until at
least c. 3600 cal BC may be suggested by a radiocarbon date of 481545 BP
(GrA-23971, 37003380 cal BC: Sheridan 2003b), recently obtained from cremated bone from one of the Cairns of Atherb in Aberdeenshire (Milne 1892,
97105; Henshall 1983). This is believed to have come from a non-megalithic
long barrow (Cairn 1), with a mortuary structure that was burnt, leaving a
vast quantity of cremated bones, burnt arrowheads, along with this type of
pottery, securely stratified below the barrow; but because there remains a
very slight possibility that the dated bone could have come from the nearby
non-megalithic round cairn (No. 2), the association between the date and the
pottery is not wholly secure.
Regarding non-megalithic funerary monuments, the newly-obtained
short-lived species dates obtained for Eweford and Pencraig Hill are particularly important as they confirm that NM long barrows were being constructed as early as around the thirty-ninth century cal BC. The relevant dates,
along with those obtained for the NM long barrows at Kintore and
Fordhouse, are presented in Fig. 4; of these, the only dates that could be construed as termini post quos for the construction and use of the funerary monuments are SUERC-1367 (525060 BP) for Kintore, and SUERC-5280
(506535 BP) for Eweford, with the latter apparently dating feasting activities
that initiated the funerary activities at this monument. (The Fordhouse
barrow may also have been constructed as early as the thirty-ninth century
cal BC, but since the relevant dates are from oak charcoal, the possibility of
their relating to old wood cannot be ruled out.) This finding is significant for
two reasons. First, it lends support to the long-held view that the so-called
protomegaliths of south-west Scotland, such as at Cairnholy, Dumfries and
Galloway (Piggott & Powell 1949; Scott 1969), and the Clyde cairns of southwest Scotland and their Irish congeners, court tombs (Henshall 1972), represent translations into stone of this non-megalithic monumental tradition.
The increasing number of radiocarbon dates relating to the use of Clyde
cairns (Schulting 2004; pers. comm.) is consistent with this view. Second, this
evidence (along with the evidence from Whitwellsee below) suggests that
the practice of constructing NM long barrows may have begun in northern
Britain slightly earlier than in southern Britain, where the earliest dated
examples are apparently no earlier than c. 3750 cal BC (Whittle, this volume)
and where a number seem to have been constructed within the second quarter of the fourth millennium (e.g. at Lambourn, Berkshire and Haddenham,
Cambridgeshire: Schulting 2000; Evans & Hodder 2006; Whittle, this volume). The tradition of constructing non-megalithic long barrows in Britain
overall would therefore appear to span several centuries. In Scotland, the
long-lasting popularity of the long mound format is indicated by monuments
such as Camster Long in Caithness (Masters 1997), where a massive trapezoidal horned long cairn was superimposed on two passage tombs at some
point after c. 3700 cal BC, and by the Point of Cott in Orkney, where a similar but slightly smaller cairn may well have been constructed around 3600
cal BC (see Barber 1997, 5860 for a discussion of the radiocarbon dates).
It would also appear that the tradition of constructing non-megalithic
oval or round mounds in northern Britain (with or without mortuary structures) started early: the recent re-dating of the monument at Whitwell indicates that activities there (including the construction of the oval mound)
began in the first half of the thirty-eighth century cal BC (Ian Wall and Peter
Marshall, pers. comm.; the new dates relating to the long cairn suggest that its
date of construction may be indistinguishable, in radiocarbon terms, from
that of the oval mound). Ian Kinnes has suggested (2004b, 142) that the
pyre-plus-round mound sites at Boghead and Midtown of Pitglassie,
Aberdeenshire, may represent a distinct, possibly regional variant (thereby
according with the presence of the regionally-specific North-Eastern style of
CB pottery at each of these sites). Unfortunately here, as at Pitnacree (where
traditional CB and a mortuary structure were found under a round mound),
the relevant radiocarbon dates were obtained some time ago and most do not
meet current criteria for acceptability. (See the Historic Scotland radiocarbon
datelistunder www.historic.scotland.gov.ukfor comments on the dates in
question.)
As regards rectangular mortuary enclosures and cursus monuments,
interpretation of the dating evidence is complicated by the fact that virtually
all of the extant dates are from oak charcoal, with its possibility of old
wood effects. Space precludes a detailed discussion here, but the issue is
authoritatively dealt with by Patrick Ashmore (in press) who concludes that
Alison Sheridan
458
some, at least, of these structures (e.g. Nether Largie) may well have been
built between c. 3800 and 3650 cal BC. (At Holywood North, it now seems
likely that the first construction of the post-built cursus dates to 38903650
cal BC (SUERC-2115: 496035 BP; Julian Thomas, pers. comm.) It is too early
to propose a firm model of developments, but it seems at least possible that
post-built cursus monuments developed from the long mortuary enclosure
tradition, and that bank-and-ditch-built cursus monuments (and indeed
bank barrows) started to be built slightly later than the post-built structures
(cf. Kinnes 1985, 39; and see Barclay & Maxwell 1998 for a discussion of the
dating of the Cleaven Dyke bank barrow, Perth and Kinross). The cursus and
bank barrow monuments both seem to represent an exaggerated aggrandisement of existing monument forms (namely mortuary enclosures and long
barrows respectively). The accumulating evidence confirms the suspicion that
Scottish cursus monuments pre-date their southern British counterparts,
which mostly seem to belong to the second half of the fourth millennium
(Barclay & Bayliss 1999), and raises the possibility that this type of monument originated in Scotland.
THE MATERIAL CULTURE OF THE EARLY FOURTH

MILLENNIUM CAL BC IN NORTHERN BRITAIN
Pottery
The principal characteristics of traditional CB pottery (formerly known by
various labels, including Grimston ware) and of modified CB pottery have
already been presented elsewhere (Sheridan 1995; 2002; cf. Herne 1988), and
so will only be summarised here. The traditional CB repertoire comprises
the following range of vessel forms, all round-based, and not all carinated:
Carinated and S-profiled bowls (Fig. 8). These are mostly open (i.e. with
gently or more markedly splaying necks) or neutral (i.e. with upright necks),
and are found in a variety of sizes including some very large ( 300 mm
in rim diameter). Rims are simple, usually rounded, often gently everted
and sometimes rolled over; necks vary from straight to gently curving; carinations are usually gentle and sometimes almost imperceptible, although
occasional, more sharply-defined examples have been found in association
with gentler varieties; and bellies range from shallow to deep (the latter
exemplified among the vessels from Newbridge, City of Edinburgh, and
Carzield, Dumfries and Galloway: Fig. 8.34). Some of these bowls had
been used for cooking; others for serving, and some probably for storage.
Incidentally, the ideafirst aired by Herne (1988, 26) and enthusiastically
adopted by others (e.g. Thomas 1999, 99)that carinated bowls were
Figure 8. Examples of traditional Carinated Bowl pottery: carinated and S-profiled bowls. 1. Claish; 2. Biggar Common; 3. Newbridge;
4. Carzield; 5. Auchategan. All illustrations except 5 by Marion ONeil. Sources: Sheridan 2002; Sheridan in Johnston 1997; courtesy
F. Hunter; Sheridan in Maynard 1993; PSAS 109 (19778; Marshall).
460
Alison Sheridan
prestigious, special-purpose artefacts, not used for utilitarian purposes, is

not supported by the evidence.
Uncarinated, globular bowls and cups (Fig. 9.1). These are less frequent
than carinated and sinuous bowls, and the smaller examples tend to have
been made as pinch pots, rather than being coil-built. Rims are gently
rounded to pointed, and upright or slightly turned in.
Collared jars (Fig. 9.2). These deep vessels with a sinuous, ovoid or globular profile and a short, upright or slightly splaying collar, occur as a rare element. Ceramic spoons have not yet been found in northern Britain, but one
fragmentary example is known from Northern Ireland (at Ballymarlagh, Co.
Antrim: Davies 1949).
Decoration is absent, except for the very occasional use of fingertip
fluting (made by running a fingertip across a rim-top or vertically down the
Figure 9. Examples of traditional Carinated Bowl pottery: 1. uncarinated bowls and cups; 2.
collared jars. Examples with blacked-in sections are from Claish; all others are from Biggar
Common. Illustrations by Marion ONeil. Sources: Sheridan 2002; Sheridan in Johnston 1997.
body while the pot is still wet). This feature can be found on pottery as widelyseparated as in Yorkshire (e.g. Weaverthorpe XLII and Rudston LXI:
Newbigin 1937) and Northern Ireland (e.g. Shanes Castle, Co. Antrim:
Sheridan 1985, fig. 5.12), as well as in Scotland (e.g. at the Crathes hall:
Sheridan forthcoming b).
Lugs also appear to be absent, with the exception of a vertically-perforated
example from the NM round barrow at Pitnacree, Perth and Kinross (Coles
& Simpson 1965, fig. 4.2).
Although there is some variability in wall thickness and fineness of fabric, a striking feature of traditional CB pottery is the high incidence of
remarkably thin-walled (c. 410 mm) vessels of very fine fabric (i.e. with small
and relatively infrequent lithic inclusions); and also striking is the care taken
to smooth the vessel surfaces, with some vessels having been burnished.
Considerable skill would have been required to construct a large, open bowl
with walls this thin and fabric so fine. The remarkable consistency in the quality of manufacture (as well as in vessel form) between widely separated examples in Britain and Ireland demonstrates that these vessels are the product of
a well-established potting tradition, involving norms relating to vessel manufacture. Such norms may have extended to the choice of crushed stone used
as a filler, to open the pot to protect from thermal shock: within Scotland,
for example, crushed quartz and a crushed granitic stone recur in widely
separated assemblages, from Aberdeenshire to East Lothian.
In Scotland, the distinctive early variant of modified CB pottery known
as Henshalls North-Eastern style (Fig. 10; Henshall 1983; 1984; 1997) constitutes a slight modification of the traditional CB repertoire, the key differences being the more frequent use of fingertip fluting, plus ripple burnishing
(to produce a similar, but more glossy effect, using a burnisher rather than a
finger) and occasional incised linear decoration; the modification of existing
vessel forms (e.g. by the occasional addition of lugs, or by modifying rim and
neck form); and the introduction of new vessel forms. The latter include bagshaped bowls with lugs spaced around the circumference, a short distance
below the rim, and also the two decorated collared bipartite vessels from
Balbridie, which may yet prove to be the ultimate forerunners of Unstan
bowls (Ralston 1982, fig. 1).
Examples of this kind of pottery (whose distribution is indicated in Fig.
1) include the assemblages from the NM round mounds at Boghead, Moray
(Burl 1984), and at Midtown of Pitglassie, and the NM long barrow at the
Cairns of Atherb, Aberdeenshire (Shepherd 1996; Henshall 1983); and, elsewhere in Aberdeenshire, the hall at Balbridie and the settlement at Deers
Den (Alexander 2000; see also Sheridan 2002, table 3 for other examples).
Pottery sharing some features in common with North-Eastern style CB is
known from elsewhere in Scotland (e.g. at The Hirsel, Scottish Borders:
Figure 10. Examples of modified Carinated Bowl pottery in the North-East style: 1. Easterton of Roseisle; 2. Balbridie; 3. Deers Den, Kintore;
4. Boghead; 5. Leggatsden Quarry. Sources: 1, 4, 5: Henshall 1983; 2: courtesy of Ian Ralston; 3: Alexander 2000.
462
Alison Sheridan
unpublished; and from Clyde cairns in south-west Scotland and from a

related type of monument at Cultoquhey, Perth and Kinross (Henshall 1972,
306). There is also a generalised similarity with the modified CB pottery of
north-east Ireland (e.g. at Lyles Hill, Co. Antrim: Evans 1953), and this was
responsible for the coining of the misleading term Grimston-Lyles Hill ware
in the past. The resemblance may not be coincidental, but may well be due to
the existence of contacts between north-east Scotland and north-east Ireland
during the first half of the fourth millennium cal BC.
Much more could be added about the evolution of the Carinated Bowl
tradition, both in Scotland and elsewhere, but space precludes its discussion
here (see, for example, Manby et al. 2003, 4951 on Yorkshire developments,
and Sheridan 1995 on Irish developments).
Lithics
In the east of Scotland, the small lithic tools in use during the first few centuries of the fourth millennium cal BC have been the subject of detailed study
by Graeme Warren (2004; 2005). He concludes that there are significant
differences between fourth millennium traditions and those of preceding
millennia in Scotland, not just in the presence of novel artefact forms (e.g.
leaf-shaped arrowheads and plano-convex knives), but also in patterns of
procurement, working and deposition. The novel elements include the curation of platform cores; the bipolar working of local materials; the production
of finely-flaked artefacts; and an interest in materials obtained from nonlocal sources, sometimes from a considerable distancesuch as the Arran
pitchstone as found, for example, at Deers Den or the Yorkshire flint found
at the Dalladies long barrow, both Aberdeenshire. This latter phenomenon
echoes the aforementioned use of an imported yew bow at Rotten Bottom,
Dumfries and Galloway; and it is also echoed in the transportation of axeheads (and/or roughouts) over long distances, with fragments of axeheads
from Great Langdale in north-west England being found in early fourth millennium contexts at, for example, Carzield in south-west Scotland and
Eweford in south-east Scotland. Such evidence indicates that links between
different parts of the CB world were established at an early date. A similar
picture is emerging for the CB Neolithic elsewhere. In Ireland, imported
Scottish pitchstone was used; axeheads travelled long distances; and distinctive flat green beads made from serpentine pebbles were circulating from one
end of the island to the other around 38003600 cal BC. In Northumberland,
Clive Waddington has noted that non-local flint and stone were being used
for the first time, along with novel artefact shapes and manufacturing techniques (Clive Waddington, pers. comm.; Waddington & Passmore 2004, 49).
And in the south of England, the discovery of a mint condition axehead,
464
Alison Sheridan
made from mined flint believed to have come from one of the southern
English mines, beside the Sweet Track, indicates that flint was already being
systematically exploited and moved around as early as c. 3800 (see below;
Coles et al. 1973). This establishment and maintenance of inter-group contacts is a characteristic that has also been noted among farming communities across the Channel, and it would arguably have served to nurture
community identity and co-operation.
An even more striking example of the importance of the exotic at this
time is provided by the axeheads (and fragments thereof) made from jadeite
and related types of Alpine rock that have been found at various localities in
Britain and Ireland. Here, however, the significance of these artefacts lay not
so much in their role in establishing and maintaining contacts between CBusing communities (although the axeheads could indeed have circulated
within Britain and Ireland), as in their power to evoke distant ancestral roots.
Although most of the axeheads in question have been stray finds, and none
has been discovered during recent excavations, two key pieces of contextual
information point towards their association with CB pottery and their use
and deposition early in the fourth millennium. The first is the well-known
case of the Sweet Track in Somerset, where an axehead was deposited beside
a trackway dendro-dated to 3807/3806 BC, not far from finds of CB pottery
(Coles & Coles 1986, 5960, plate VIII; Cleal 2004). The second is the small
fragment found in the outer compartment of the Clyde cairn-related protomegalith at Cairnholy I, Dumfries and Galloway (Piggott & Powell 1949,
fig. 9.1); sherds of a traditional CB bowl were found under blocking in the
forecourt nearby. The results of a major current international research project into the manufacture, circulation and use of prestige axeheads made of
Alpine rock, led by Dr Pierre Ptrequin, reveal that the axeheads found in
Britain and Ireland are likely to have been up to several centuries old when
deposited here (see, for example, Ptrequin et al. 2002 for a Europe-wide
typochronology of Alpine axeheads), and as such they are likely to have had
significant biographies. Furthermore, the fragmentary examples seem to have
resulted from deliberate fracture, rather than accidental breakage. The presence of these old, carefully-curated and very far-travelled objectsfrom up
to 1800 km away as the crow fliescould be taken to indicate that these are
the treasured ancestral relics of early fourth millennium communities,
acquired (and circulated) on the Continent and brought to Britain and
Ireland as part of the CB Neolithic package. Their green colour, rarity,
longevity and ultimate origin in remote mountain locations could all contribute to their symbolic significance as tokens of group identity. They might
also have been accorded talismanic status as the embodiment of the supernatural power of the magic mountain from which they originatedwith the
ability to safeguard the well-being of the community.
NEW LIFEWAYS, NEW TASKSCAPES, NEW PRACTICES,

NEW COSMOLOGY . . . NEW PEOPLE
The elements described abovetogether with the evidence for the use of
domesticated plants and animals imported from the Continent (as discussed,
for example, by Barclay et al. 2002, 958), and for a diet emphatically focused
on terrestrial resources, even in coastal areas (Schulting & Richards 2002;
Richards 2004; pace Milner et al. 2004 and Evershed, this volume)constitute striking novelties in every aspect of life. This is as true of CB-associated
material outside of northern Britain as it is of the evidence reviewed here.
Attempts to interpret the evidence in terms of agency have resulted in a
long-standing debate between those who favour acculturation by indigenous
communities and those who favour the idea of colonisation by Continental
farming groups. Space precludes a lengthy rehearsal of the arguments here;
essentially, the main elements of the acculturationist position were set out
by Julian Thomas in his hugely influential Rethinking the Neolithic in 1991
(cf. Thomas 1996; 1998). Rejecting the idea of colonisation as a throwback to
the culture-historical approach of Piggott and others, and struck by the
paucity of evidence for house structures in southern England, Thomas
argued that the transition to a sedentary, agro-pastoral lifestyle was a slow,
gradual process, whereby indigenous forager communities adopted novel
resources and practices from the Continent, while accommodating them
within a traditional forager world-view. The outcome, according to this view,
was a semi-nomadic pastoralist Neolithic in which arable agriculture played
a minor role; foraging for wild foodstuffs played a major role; and
Mesolithic traditions with regard to visiting specific locales continued.
Although originally developed as a model for southern Britain, this idea was
subsequently and uncritically applied (by Thomas and others, e.g. Edmonds
1999, 678) to the whole of Britain and Ireland, and continues to be aired in
some quarters.
The last decade has seen a robust rebuttal of the acculturationist model,
by among others Gabriel Cooney (regarding the Irish evidence: e.g. Cooney
2001); Gordon Barclay (on house structures and material culture: e.g. Barclay
2004; Barclay et al. 2002); Peter Rowley-Conwy and Mick Monk (on economy and mobility: Monk 2000; Rowley-Conwy 2004); Rick Schulting and
Mike Richards (on diet: e.g. Schulting & Richards 2002; Richards 2004;
Schulting 2004; cf. Milner et al. 2004); Graeme Warren (on lithics: Warren
2004; 2005); and by the present author (on ceramics and on the speed and
extent of the appearance of the CB Neolithic: e.g. Sheridan 2004). It
appears that a significant body of opinion is now swinging away from the
acculturationist view towards a qualified acceptance that the CB Neolithic
appeared relatively rapidly over a wide area, involved a settled agro-pastoral
466
Alison Sheridan
lifestyle, and involved some arrival of people from Continental Europe (e.g.
Kinnes 2004c; cf. Ashmore 1996, 234)even though some commentators
are now attempting to characterise this as an east British phenomenon, arguing that different processes were at work in western Britain and Ireland (e.g.
Whittle 2004, 87: It is still legitimate to see major influences from the world
of northern France, the Low Countries and the Rhineland and beyond on the
formation of the Neolithic of the whole of eastern Britain. . .There may be a
case for seeing more colonisation there..; see also Noble 2006).
Without wishing unduly to extend the debate, the key points that convince the present author that we are dealing with a widespread, relatively
rapid, diaspora-like colonisation, shortly after 4000 cal BC, by small, CBusing groups of farmers from the Continent are as follows:
1 The broadly contemporary (in radiocarbon terms) appearance, over a
very wide area (and not just eastern Britain), of a genuine package of
novelties, relating to every aspect of life and contrasting with Mesolithic
practices and lifestyle;
2 The consistency of the material culture and of practices of procurement and manufacture over this wide area. Taking the ceramic evidence, for
example, the formal homogeneity and consistently high quality of manufacture attest the existence of a well established tradition: we are clearly not dealing with a new technology that was being learned, in identical ways, by widely
disparate Mesolithic communities;
3 Contrasts in the distribution of Early Neolithic settlements (which, by
and large, focus on prime agricultural land) and Mesolithic activity areas;
and where there is co-location of Mesolithic and Neolithic activity (as at
Garthdee Road, Aberdeenshire), there is a clear chronological separation by
several centuries, sometimes millennia, so no continuity of tradition need be
invoked;
4 The absence of evidence for any contacts between Mesolithic communities in Britain and Ireland (other than the aforementioned, short-lived
southern Irish episode c. 4300 cal BC) and their Continental neighbours; and
the absence of a convincing explanation, by acculturationists, as to why
widely dispersed and disparate foraging communities should all seek to transform their lives, in the same way, around the same time. (Statements such as
This sudden transformation over a very wide area is more easily comprehensible in terms of the adoption of a new repertoire of cultural resources by
native communities than of migration or invasion (Thomas 1999, 16) are
merely bald and unsubstantiated assertions.);
5 The absence of evidence for the kind of gradual transition from foraging to farming as seen, for example, in the Rhine delta (and described by
Louwe Kooijmans, this volume).
The description of structures and material culture presented in this paper

offers further insights into the nature of our hypothetical colonists. The
evidence from settlement structures, cereal remains and monuments is consistent with essentially sedentary communities, concerned with marking and
maintaining group identityand with making and maintaining inter-group
connections, probably through individual mobilityin areas rich in agricultural potential. Within this framework there may well have been some transhumance (as suggested by Waddingtons findings in Northumberland), and
the use of wild foodstuffsgathered plants, the Rotten Bottom deer
would have been part of a strategy to optimise the use of available resources.
Neither of these activities necessarily indicates a connection with, or derivation from, the indigenous foraging communities. (See Bamforth & Woodman
2004 for a similar reading of the north-east Irish evidence relating to Early
Neolithic tool hoard deposition.) The variability of the structural evidence,
and in particular the east Scottish hall phenomenon, could represent varying responses to the colonists circumstances. It may be that in this part of
Britain, the size of the incoming groups was sufficiently large to allow the
investment of communal labour in large building ventures of this kind (irrespective of how, precisely, the halls were then used). This kind of project,
like the construction of large funerary monuments (with the iterated performance of construction, destruction and construction) and the construction, deconstruction and (sometimes) reconstruction of other ceremonial
monuments, would all serve to cement a sense of community identity. Space
does not permit speculation on the question of whether the construction of
large enclosures (causewayed or otherwise) was also an option for these
communities, contingent on appropriate circumstances. Suffice it to say that
the evidence from Ireland (at Magheraboy, and probably slightly later at
Donegore Hill, Co. Antrim and Thornhill, Co. Derry: Sheridan 2001; Logue
2003) indicates that it may well have been; and at least one candidate site is
known from Scotland, at Leadketty, Perth and Kinross (Brophy 2004; for
other candidates in northern Britain, see Barclay 2001, 149 and figs 11.67;
and Waddington 2001).
Finally, the role of jadeite and other Alpine axeheads may well have been
to remind these initial settlers of their Continental roots, and to provide them
with supernatural protection in their new land. Indeed, they may have
instilled in our settlers a desire to recreate the mythically remote magic green
mountains of their source areas: hence the seeking out and exploitation of
mountain sources of axehead stone, such as at Great Langdale. But where on
the Continent should we look for the hypothetical place of origin of our CB
Neolithic?
Alison Sheridan
468
GOING OVERFROM PICARDIE (OR PAS DE CALAIS)?

Attempts to identify the origin of CB pottery and its associated package of
novelties have been made for the best part of a century (e.g. Kendrick 1925),
with some commentators (e.g. Whittle 1977; Kinnes 2004c; Barclay et al.
2002) making greater efforts than others to familiarise themselves with the
relevant Continental material. The failure to pinpoint a specific candidate
area of origin has regularly been remarked upon (e.g. Kinnes 1988; 2004b;
2004c); as has the cousinly, rather than parental, relationship between
British and Irish carinated bowls and contemporary examples belonging to
the Northwest Michelsberg group in the sandy areas of the southern
Netherlands (e.g. Louwe Kooijmans 2005).
It has to be admitted that it is still not possible to identify a specific area
where all the elements of the CB package have been found. However, that is
not to say that no such area exists; and, thanks to developments in the
detailed understanding of late fifth and early fourth millennium archaeology
in adjacent parts of the Continent (e.g. thanks to research by Louwe
Kooijmans in the Netherlands; by Bart Vanmontfort (2004) and Philippe
Cromb (this volume) in Belgium; by Jeunesse et al. (2004) in north-east
France; by Martinez and David (1991) on the Northern Chassey (Chassen
septentrional); and by Guy Verron and colleagues in Normandy and
Brittany), it is now far easier to narrow down the target area. It is also easier
to appreciate the dynamics of cross-Channel social and economic change,
and thereby to understand how the spread of agriculture to Britain and
Ireland (and indeed also to southern Scandinavia) just after 4000 cal BC fits
in with this broader picture.
To cut a long story short, the most likely candidate areaas Stuart
Piggott had proposed over half a century ago (Piggott 1954, 99)are the
rgions of Nord-Pas de Calais and northern Picardie in the north-east of
France. Unfortunately, these are the very parts of France where late fifth- and
early fourth-millennium developments are the least well documented, in
comparison with neighbouring parts of France and the Low Countries. In
the latter areas (and in parts of Picardie), the Middle Neolithic ceramic traditionsi.e. the Northern Chassey, the Belgian and Northwest Michelsberg,
and Michelsberg-affiliated traditions in the Scheldt Basinoffer some parallels with the CB tradition. (The particularly close parallels of the
Northwest Michelsberg in the southern Netherlands have already been
noted.) In addition to similarities in the thinness of walls, the general fineness
of fabric, the lack of decoration and the care with which surfaces were
smoothed, there are parallels for specific vessel forms. Close comparanda for
various carinated and S-profiled CB vessels can be found, for example,
among Martinez and Davids categories B1, B2, C1, D1 and D2 of Northern
Chassey pottery (1991, figs 7.2 (left), 17 and 18), among Belgian Michelsbergaffiliated pottery from the causewayed enclosure at Spiere-de Hel, in the
Scheldt Basin (Vanmontfort 2004, figs 11.5861); and from other Scheldt
Basin findspots such as Lommel-Kattenbos (Vanmontfort 2004, fig.
111.52.2). Collared jars are also an element of these traditions (e.g. Martinez
& David 1991, figs 1214; Vanmontfort 2004, fig. 11.57). Furthermore, the
deep, sinuous-profiled bowl from Auchategan, Argyll and Bute (Fig. 8.5)
could be lost among the tulip-shaped vessels (Tulpenbecher) of the
Michelsberg and Michelsberg-affiliated tradition in general (e.g. at Boitsfort:
Vanmontfort 2004, fig. 111.37). However, despite these and other similarities
(e.g. in the use of leaf-shaped flint arrowheads over much of the area of interest; in the apparent interconnectedness of communities (Martinez & David
1991, 1967); in the presence of flint mines, enclosures and even a possible
long barrow (at Ottenburg: Vanmontfort 2004, 243)), neither the Northern
Chassey nor the Northwest Michelsberg and its affiliated culture/s, as currently known, offers an exact parallel for the CB Neolithic.
Despite the current absence of proof, it remains a reasonable possibility
that ceramic assemblages that more closely match CB pottery (and the
accompanying elements of the CB Neolithic package) remain to be found in
Picardie and/or Nord-Pas de Calais. We know, from Vanmontforts work on
the western and central Scheldt Basin in Belgium, that the ceramic repertoire
varied within a single region (Vanmontfort 2004, 3369); and the apparent
absence of long mounds, long mortuary enclosures and halls in this part of
France can be set against the facts that more research needs to be done on the
aerial photographic archive; that the area has seen extensive destruction of
archaeology through wars, agriculture and infrastructural development; and
that there continue to be very few active researchers on the Neolithic working in these regions. (Compare Piggotts observation (1954, 99) that there are
frequent, if vague, references in French archaeological literature to buttes
allonges and similar types of barrows along the northern littoral; the
evidence to which he alluded needs to be investigated.) Recent discoveries
elsewhere in northern France have revealed hitherto unsuspected types
of structure, such as an early Michelsberg long mortuary enclosure with pit
grave, dating to c. 4200 cal BC, at Beaurieux la Plaine in the Aisne Valley
(Farruggia 2006; Colas et al. in press); and so there may well be similar
revelations to come from the north-east of France.
In the meantime, it is clear that the end of the fifth millennium cal BC
was a time of agricultural expansion after a period of stasis, when huntergatherer communities in the Netherlands finally switched to farming (Louwe
Kooijmans 2005)most likely thanks to influences from the south-west
and when farming groups, ultimately deriving from the north-east of the
Paris Basin, are suspected to have moved north and eastwards (e.g. into the
Alison Sheridan
470
Scheldt Basin; cf. Jeunesse 1998; Jeunesse et al. 2004 on population movements). It is also a time when the distribution of jadeite axeheads in northwest Europe expanded, again after an apparent standstill (Ptrequin et al.
2002). Louwe Kooijmans (2005, 269) has characterised this period thus:
Major social changes were. . .also taking place among the agricultural communities on the other side of the [farming vs foraging] frontier. These changes
were not gradual developments but crises, involving drastic transformations in
the communities culture. It is tempting to associate some, if not all, of these
changes with the confrontation, contacts and exchange of knowledge with the
northern native population, although we cannot specify these contacts in any
greater detail. The outcome was a Neolithic that was apparently acceptable to
the native population of large parts of Northern Europe. . .
It seems likely that the colonisation of large parts of Britain and Ireland (and
of southern Scandinavia) took place during this turbulent time. A common
cultural parentage/area of ultimate origin for the fully agricultural, early
fourth millennium Neolithic of Britain and Ireland, of parts of Belgium and
the Netherlands, and of southern Scandinavia, would account for both the
long-acknowledged points of similarity between the Neolithic in these areas
(e.g. between British and Danish NM funerary monuments: Kinnes 2004b,
140). And if the process of expansion took place over several decades, with
localisation occurring rapidly, this would account for the differences between
the Neolithics in these areas.
Such is the proposed explanation for the CB Neolithic. What happened
elsewhere in Britain between 4000 and 3700 cal BC is another story.
Postscript
Just as this paper was being finished, news arrived of another new hall structure, c. 8 by 22 m, associated with non-residual CB pottery, but this time from
the south-west of Scotland, at Lockerbie (Mel Johnson and Magnus Kirby,
pers. comm.). It is rectangular with gently rounded ends and with internal
partitions. The site has just been excavated by CFA Archaeology, February to
April 2006, and the work of dating and assessing this important new discovery remains to be done; the current author has seen the pottery and
confirmed its identification.
Note. Many of the recently discovered sites have not yet been published fully, and
the various excavators (in particular Hilary and Charlie Murray, Gavin MacGregor,
Ian Ralston, Tam Ward, Magnus Kirby, Fraser Hunter, Julian Thomas, Clive
Waddington and Ian Wall), are warmly thanked for permission to cite information,
and to reproduce illustrations. Patrick Ashmore, Roger Mercer and Clive Waddington
are thanked for their comments and advice. Robin Turner is thanked for a pre-

publication view of Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 6 (additional references for
site and/or date reports published in Discovery and Excavation in Scotland are given in
the Appendix). The Society of Antiquaries of Scotland is also thanked for granting
permission to reproduce pottery drawings, and Moira Greig is thanked for providing
an aerial photo of the Crathes hall. Bart Vanmontfort, Philippe Cromb, Christian
Jeunesse and Leendert Louwe Kooijmans are thanked for discussing the Continental
evidence, and Renate Ebersbach for providing useful information on the Michelsberg
Culture. My old friend and sparring partner Julian Thomas is thanked for discussing
cursus dating. Above all, the editors are thanked for their patience and generosity.
REFERENCES
ALEXANDER, D. 2000. Excavation of Neolithic pits, later prehistoric structures and a Roman
temporary camp along the line of the A96 Kintore and Blackburn Bypass, Aberdeenshire.
AMBERS, J. & HOUSLEY, R. 1999. Radiocarbon dating. In A. Whittle, J. Pollard &
C. Grigson, The harmony of symbols: the Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure, Wiltshire,
11620. Oxford: Oxbow.
ASHMORE, P. J. 1996. Neolithic and Bronze Age Scotland. London: Batsford.
ASHMORE, P. J. 1999. Radiocarbon dating: avoiding errors in dating by avoiding mixed
samples. Antiquity 73, 12430.
ASHMORE, P. J. 2004. Absolute chronology. In I. A. G. Shepherd & G. J. Barclay (eds),
Scotland in Ancient Europe: the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Scotland in their European
context, 12536. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
ASHMORE, P. J. in press. The radiocarbon dates. In J. S. Thomas, Place and memory: excavations at the Picts Knowe, Holywood and Holm Farm, Dumfries and Galloway, 19948.
Oxford: Oxbow.
BAMFORTH, D. & WOODMAN, P. C. 2004. Tool hoards and Neolithic use of the landscape
in north-eastern Ireland. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 23(1), 2144.
BARBER, J. 1997. The excavation of a stalled cairn at the Point of Cott, Westray, Orkney.
Edinburgh: Scottish Trust for Archaeological Research (Monograph 1).
BARCLAY, A. & BAYLISS, A. 1999. Cursus monuments and the radiocarbon problem. In
A. Barclay & J. Harding (eds), Pathways and ceremonies: the cursus monuments of Britain and
Ireland, 1129. Oxford: Oxbow.
BARCLAY, G. J. 2001. Neolithic enclosures in Scotland. In T. Darvill & J. S. Thomas (eds),
Neolithic enclosures in Atlantic Northwest Europe, 14454. Oxford: Oxbow.
BARCLAY, G. J. 2003. Neolithic settlement in the lowlands of Scotland: a preliminary survey.
In I. Armit, E. Murphy, E. Nelis & D. D. A. Simpson (eds), Neolithic settlement in Ireland
and Western Britain, 7183. Oxford: Oxbow.
BARCLAY, G. J. 2004. . . .Scotland cannot have been an inviting country for agricultural settlement: a history of the Neolithic of Scotland. In I. A. G. Shepherd & G. J. Barclay (eds),
Scotland in Ancient Europe: the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Scotland in their European
context, 3144. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
BARCLAY, G. J., BROPHY, K. & MACGREGOR, G. 2002. Claish, Stirling: an early Neolithic
BARCLAY, G. J. & MAXWELL, G. S. 1991. Excavation of a Neolithic long mortuary enclosure
within the Roman legionary fortress at Inchtuthil, Perthshire. Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland 121, 2744.
472
Alison Sheridan
BARCLAY, G. J. & MAXWELL, G. S. 1998. The Cleaven Dyke and Littleour: monuments of the
Neolithic in Tayside. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (Monograph 13).
BARCLAY, G. J. & RUSSELL-WHITE, C. J. 1993. Excavations in the ceremonial complex of
the fourth to the second millennium BC at Balfarg/Balbirnie, Glenrothes, Fife. Proceedings of
the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 123, 43210.
BRONK RAMSEY, C. 2005. OxCal Program v3.10, http://www.rlaha.ox.ac.uk/oxcal/oxcal.htm.
BROPHY, K. 1998. Cursus monuments and bank barrows of Tayside and Fife. In G. J. Barclay
& G. S. Maxwell, The Cleaven Dyke and Littleour: monuments of the Neolithic in Tayside,
92108. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (Monograph 13).
BROPHY, K. 1999. The cursus monuments of Scotland. In A. Barclay & J. Harding (eds),
Pathways and ceremonies: the cursus monuments of Britain and Ireland, 11929. Oxford:
Oxbow.
BROPHY, K. 2004. The searchers: the quest for causewayed enclosures in the Irish Sea. In
V. Cummings & C. Fowler (eds), The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: materiality and traditions of
practice, 3745. Oxford: Oxbow.
BROPHY, K. 2005. Not my type. Discourses in monumentality. In V. Cummings & A. Pannett,
Set in stone: new approaches to Neolithic monuments in Scotland, 113. Oxford: Oxbow.
BROPHY, K. & BARCLAY, G. J. 2004. A rectilinear timber structure and post-ring at Carsie
Mains, Meikleour, Perthshire. Tayside and Fife Archaeological Journal 10, 122.
BURL, H. A. W. 1984. Report on the excavation of a Neolithic mound at Boghead, Speymouth
Forest, Fochabers, Moray, 1972 and 1974. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland 114, 3573, fiche 1: A2C10.
CLAY, P. 2006. The Neolithic and Bronze Age. In N. Cooper (ed.), The archaeology of the East
Midlands. A resource assessment and research agenda, 6988. Leicester: Leicester University
(Monograph 13).
CLEAL, R. 2004. The dating and diversity of the earliest ceramics of Wessex and south-west
England. In R. Cleal & J. Pollard (eds), Monuments and material culture. Papers in honour of
an Avebury archaeologist: Isobel Smith, 16492. East Knoyle: Hobnob Press.
COLAS, C., MANOLAKAKIS, L. & THEVENET, C. in press. Le monument funraire
Michelsberg ancien de Beaurieux la Plaine (Aisne, France).
COLES, B. J. & COLES, J. M. 1986. Sweet Track to Glastonbury: the Somerset Levels in prehistory.
London: Thames and Hudson.
COLES, B. J. & COLES, J. M. 1990. Part II: the Sweet Track date. In J. Hillman, C. Groves,
D. Brown, M. Baillie, J. M. Coles & B. J. Coles, Dendrochronology of the English Neolithic,
2169. Antiquity 64, 21020.
COLES, J. M., HIBBERT, F. A. & ORME, B. J. 1973. Prehistoric roads and tracks in Somerset,
England: 3. The Sweet Track. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 39, 25693.
COLES, J. M. & SIMPSON, D. D. A. 1965. The excavation of a Neolithic round barrow at
Pitnacree, Perthshire, Scotland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 31, 3457.
COOK, M. 2001. The Big Picture: excavations at Forest Road Kintore, Aberdeenshire. PAST
37, 45.
COONEY, G. 2000. Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland. London and New York: Routlege.
COONEY, G. 2001. Bringing contemporary baggage to Neolithic landscapes. In B. Bender &
M. Wine (eds), Contested landscapes: movement, exile and place, 16580. Oxford: Berg
Publications Ltd.
COWIE, T. G. 1993. A survey of the Neolithic pottery of eastern and central Scotland.
DAVIES, O. 1949. Excavations at the horned cairn of Ballymarlagh, Co. Antrim. Ulster Journal
of Archaeology 12, 2642.
EDMONDS, M. 1999. Ancestral geographies of the Neolithic: landscapes, monuments and
memory. London: Routledge
ELLIS, C. 2000. Upper Largie (Kilmartin parish). Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 1, 16.

EVANS, E. E. 1953. Lyles Hill. A Late Neolithic site in Co. Antrim. Belfast: Her Majestys
Stationery Office.
EVANS, C. & HODDER, I. 2006. A woodland archaeology: the Haddenham project. Volume 1.
FAIRWEATHER, A. D. & RALSTON, I. B. M. 1993. The Neolithic timber hall at Balbridie,
Grampian Region, Scotland: the building, the date, the plant macrofossils. Antiquity 67,
31323.
FARRUGGIA, J.-P. 2006. Beaurieux la Plaine. Rapport de fouille 2005. Amiens: Service
Rgional dArchologie de Picardie.
FRASER, S. 2005. New light on the earliest Neolithic in the Dee Valley, Aberdeenshire. PAST
50, 1.
GARTON, D. 1991. Neolithic settlement in the Peak District: perspectives and proposals. In
R. Hodges & K. Smith (eds), Recent developments in the archaeology of the Peak District,
322. Sheffield: John Collis.
GROGAN, E. 2004. The implications of Irish Neolithic houses. In I. A. G. Shepherd &
G. J. Barclay (eds), Scotland in Ancient Europe: the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of
Scotland in their European context, 10314. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland.
HALLIDAY, S. 2002. Excavations at a Neolithic enclosure at Castle Menzies, Aberfeldy,
Perthshire. Tayside and Fife Archaeological Journal 8, 1118.
HEALY, F. 2004. Hambledon Hill and its implications. In R. Cleal & J. Pollard (eds), Monuments
and material culture. Papers in honour of an Avebury archaeologist: Isobel Smith, 1538. East
Knoyle: Hobnob Press.
HENSHALL, A. S. 1972. The chambered tombs of Scotland. Volume 2. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
HENSHALL, A. S. 1983. The Neolithic pottery from Easterton of Roseisle, Moray. In
A. OConnor & D. V. Clarke (eds), From the Stone Age to the Forty-five: studies presented
to R. B. K. Stevenson, 1944. Edinburgh: John Donald.
HENSHALL, A. S. 1984. Appendix 1. The pottery from Boghead, Fochabers, Moray. In H. A. W.
Burl, Report on the excavation of a Neolithic mound at Boghead, Speymouth Forest,
Fochabers, Moray, 1972 and 1974. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 114,
3573, fiche 1: A2C10.
HENSHALL, A. S. 1997. The pottery. In L. Masters, The excavation and restoration of the
Camster Long chambered cairn, Caithness, Highland, 196780. Proceedings of the Society
of Antiquaries of Scotland 127, 15560.
HERNE, A. 1988. A time and a place for the Grimston Bowl. In J. C. Barrett & I. A. Kinnes
(eds), The archaeology of context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: recent trends, 929.
Sheffield: Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield.
HEY, G. 2001. Yarnton. Current Archaeology 173, 21625.
JEUNESSE, C. 1998 Pour une origine occidentale de la culture de Michelsberg? In J. Biel,
H. Schlichtherle, M. Strobel & A. Zeeb (eds), Die Michelsberger Kultur und ihre
RandgebieteProbleme der Entstehung, Chronologie und des Siedlungswesens, 2945.
Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss.
JEUNESSE, C., LEFRANC, P. & DENAIRE, A 2004. Groupe de Bischheim, origine du
Michelsberg, gense du groupe dEntzheim. La transition entre le Nolithique moyen et le
Nolithique rcent dans les rgions rhnanes. Zimmersheim: Association pour la Promotion
de la Recherche Archologique en Alsace.
JOHNSTON, D. A. 1997. Biggar Common, 198793: an early prehistoric funerary and domestic landscape in Clydesdale, South Lanarkshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland 127, 185253.
KENDRICK, J. 1995. Excavation of a Neolithic enclosure and an Iron Age settlement at
Douglasmuir, Angus. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 125, 2967.
474
Alison Sheridan
KENDRICK, T. D. 1925. The Axe Age. London: Methuen.

KENNEY, J. & DAVIDSON, A. 2006. Neolithic houses and more besides at Llandygai.
Current Archaeology 203, 5927.
KINNES, I. A. 1979. Round barrows and ring-ditches in the British Neolithic. London: British
Museum (Occasional Paper 7).
KINNES, I. A. 1985. Circumstance not context: the Neolithic of Scotland as seen from outside.
KINNES, I. A. 1988. The Cattleship Potemkin: the first Neolithic in Britain. In J. C. Barrett &
I. A. Kinnes (eds), The archaeology of context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: recent trends,
28. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield.
KINNES, I. A. 1992a. Non-megalithic long barrows and allied structures in Britain. London:
British Museum (Occasional Paper 52).
KINNES, I. A. 1992b. Balnagowan and after: the context of non-megalithic mortuary sites in
Scotland. In N. M. Sharples & J. A. Sheridan (eds), Vessels for the ancestors: essays on the
Neolithic of Britain and Ireland in honour of Audrey Henshall, 83103. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
KINNES, I. A. 2004a. A truth universally acknowledged: some more thoughts on Neolithic
round barrows. In A. M. Gibson & J. A. Sheridan (eds), From sickles to circles: Britain and
Ireland at the time of Stonehenge, 10615. Stroud: Tempus.
KINNES, I. A. 2004b. Context not circumstance: a distant view of Scottish monuments in
Europe. In I. A. G. Shepherd & G. J. Barclay (eds), Scotland in Ancient Europe: the Neolithic
and Early Bronze Age of Scotland in their European context, 13942. Edinburgh: Society of
KINNES, I. A. 2004c. Trans-manche: lentente cordiale or vive la diffrence. In J. Cotton &
D. Field (eds), Towards a New Stone Age: aspects of the Neolithic in south-east England,
1915. York: Council for British Archaeology (Research Report 137).
LELONG, O. & MACGREGOR, G. in press. Ancient Lothian landscapes: the archaeology of the
A1. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
& D. D. A. Simpson (eds), Neolithic settlement in Ireland and western Britain, 14955.
Oxford: Oxbow.
LOUWE KOOIJMANS, L. P. 2005. Hunters become farmers. Early Neolithic B and Middle
Neolithic A. In L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, P. W. van den Broeke, H. Fokkens & A. L. van Gijn
(eds), The prehistory of the Netherlands. Volume 1, 24971. Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press.
LYNCH, F. M. 1975. Excavations at Carreg Samson, Mathry, Pembrokeshire. Archaeologia
Cambrensis 124, 1535.
MACGREGOR, G. 2005. Eweford (COT 1975), Dunbar. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland
6, 1689.
MACGREGOR, G. & SHEARER, I. 2002. Eweford (Dunbar parish). Discovery and Excavation
in Scotland 3, 35.
MCLELLAN, K. G. 2002. Pencraig Hill (Prestonkirk parish). Discovery and Excavation in
Scotland 3, 41.
MCLELLAN, K. G. 2005. Pencraig Hill. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 6, 1701.
MANBY, T. G., KING, A. & VYNER, B. E. 2003. The Neolithic and Bronze Ages: a time of
early agriculture. In T. G. Manby, S. Moorhouse & P. Ottaway (eds), The archaeology of
Yorkshire. An assessment at the beginning of the 21st century, 35116. Leeds: Yorkshire
Archaeological Society (Occasional Paper 3).
MARTINEZ, R. & DAVID, E. 1991. Chassen septentrional ou Nolithique moyen rgional:
analyse et rflexion sur la dfinition dune culture. In A. Beeching, D. Binder, J.-C. Blanchet,
C. Constantin, J. Dubouloz, R. Martinez, D. Mordant, J.-P. Thevenet & J. Vaquer (eds),
Identit du Chassen. Actes du Colloque International de Nemours 1989, 17798. Nemours:
Muse de Prhistoire dle-de-France.

MASTERS, L. 1997. The excavation and restoration of the Camster Long chambered cairn,
Caithness, Highland, 196780. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 127,
12383.
MAYNARD, D. 1993. Neolithic pit at Carzield, Kirkton, Dumfriesshire. Transactions of the
Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society 68, 2830.
MIKET, R. 1987. The Milfield Basin, Northumberland 4000 BCAD 800. Unpublished M.Litt.
thesis, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
MILNE, J. 1892. Traces of early man in Buchan. Transactions of the Buchan Field Club 2
(18912), 97108.
to the nature of the Early Neolithic. In A. Desmond, G. Johnson, M. McCarthy, J. Sheehan
& E. Shee Twohig (eds), New agendas in Irish prehistory, 6787. Bray: Wordwell.
MURRAY, H. K. 2004. Crathes Warren Field. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 5, 1556.
MURRAY, H. K. 2005a. Warren Field, Crathes (Banchory-Ternan parish). Discovery and
Excavation in Scotland 6, 1213.
MURRAY, H. K. 2005b. David Lloyd Leisure Centre, Garthdee Road (Aberdeen parish).
Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 6, 89.
MURRAY, H. & FRASER, S. 2005. Ower-by the river: new evidence for the earliest Neolithic
on Deeside. Scottish Archaeological News 47, 12.
MURRAY, H. K. & MURRAY, C. 2004. Warren Field, Crathes (Banchory-Ternan parish):
Neolithic timber structure; pit alignment. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 5, 11.
MURRAY, H. K. & MURRAY, C. 2005. Garthdee Road, Aberdeen. Discovery and Excavation
in Scotland 6, 165.
NEWBIGIN, N. 1937. The Neolithic pottery of Yorkshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
3, 189216.
NOBLE, G. 2006. Neolithic Scotland: timber, stone, earth and fire. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
PAILLER, Y. & SHERIDAN, J. A. in press. Everything you always wanted to know about . . .
la nolithisation de la Corande-Bretagne et de lIrlande. In G Marchand (ed.), La nolithisation de la faade atlantique de lEurope. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International
Series.
PETERSON, R., BROWN, G., LEIVERS, M. & PROUDFOOT, E. 1996. Fordhouse Barrow
excavations. Third Interim Report: the 1996 season. Edinburgh: National Trust for Scotland
(Archaeology Report 7).
PETERSON, R., PROUDFOOT, E., BROWN, G., LEIVERS, M., ROBERTS, J. & ROY, M.
1997. Fordhouse Barrow excavations. Fourth Interim Report: the 1997 season. Edinburgh:
National Trust for Scotland (Archaeology Report 9).
PETREQUIN, P., CASSEN, S., CROUTSCH, C. & ERRERA, M. 2002. La valorisation sociale
des longues haches dans lEurope nolithique. In J. Guilaine (ed.), Matriaux, productions,
circulations du Nolithique lAge du Bronze, 6798. Paris: Editions Errance.
PIGGOTT, S. 1954. Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
PIGGOTT, S. & POWELL, T. G. E. 1949. The excavation of three Neolithic chambered tombs
in Galloway, 1949. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 83 (19489), 10361.
RADLEY, A. 1993. Upper Largie (Kilmartin parish). Discovery and Excavation in Scotland
1993, 75.
RALSTON, I. B. M. 1982. A timber hall at Balbridie Farm and the Neolithic in north-east
Scotland. Aberdeen University Review 168, 23849.
RALSTON, I. B. M. 1984. Notes on the archaeology of Kincardine and Deeside District.
Deeside Field 18, 7383.
476
Alison Sheridan
REIMER, P. J., BAILLIE, M. G. L., BARD, E., BAYLISS, A., BECK, I. W., BERTRAND,
HOGG, A. G., HUGHEN, K. A., KROMER, B., MCCORMAC, G., MANNING, S.,
BRONK RAMSEY, C., REIMER, R. W., REMMELE, S., SOUTHON, J. R., STUIVER,
M., TALAMO, S., TAYLOR, F. W., VAN DER PLICHT, J. & WEYHENMEYER, C. E.
2004. IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0-26 cal kyr BP, Radiocarbon, 46(3),
102958.
RICHARDS, M. P. 2004. The Early Neolithic in Britain: new insights from biomolecular
archaeology. In I. A. G. Shepherd & G. J. Barclay (eds), Scotland in Ancient Europe: the
Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Scotland in their European context, 8390. Edinburgh:
Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
RIDEOUT, J. S. 1997. Excavation of Neolithic enclosures at Cowie Road, Bannockburn,
Stirling, 19845. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 127, 2968.
ROWLEY-CONWY, P. 2004. How the West was lost. A reconsideration of agricultural origins
in Britain, Ireland, and southern Scandinavia. Current Anthropology 45, S83S113.
RUSSELL-WHITE, C. J. 1995. The excavation of a Neolithic and Iron Age settlement at
Wardend of Durris, Aberdeenshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland
125, 927.
SCHULTING, R. J. 2004. An Irish sea change: some implications for the Mesolithic-Neolithic
SCHULTING, R. J. & Richards, M. P. 2002. The wet, the wild and the domesticated: the
Archaeology 5(2), 228.
SCOTT, J. G. 1969. The Clyde cairns of Scotland. In T. G. E. Powell, J. X. W. P. Corcoran,
F. M. Lynch & J. G. Scott, Megalithic enquiries in the west of Britain, 175222. Liverpool:
Liverpool University Press.
SELKIRK, A. 2000. White Horse Stone: a Neolithic longhouse. Current Archaeology 168,
4503.
SHEPHERD, A. N. 1996 A Neolithic ring-mound at Midtown of Pitglassie, Auchterless,
Aberdeenshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 126, 1751.
SHERIDAN, J. A. 1985. The role of exchange studies in social archaeology, with special reference
to the prehistory of Ireland from the fourth to the early second millennium BC. Unpublished
PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.
SHERIDAN, J. A. 1995. Irish Neolithic pottery: the story in 1995. In I. A. Kinnes & G. Varndell
(eds), Unbaked urns of rudely shape: essays on British and Irish pottery for Ian Longworth,
321. Oxford: Oxbow.
SHERIDAN, J. A. 1996. The oldest bow. . .and other objects. Current Archaeology 149, 18890.
SHERIDAN, J. A. 1999 Rotten Bottom the discovery of Britains oldest bow. In
R. M. Tipping (ed.), The Quaternary of Dumfries and Galloway, 16870. London:
Quaternary Research Association.
SHERIDAN, J. A. 2001. Donegore Hill and other Irish Neolithic enclosures: a view from outside. In T. Darvill & J. S. Thomas (eds), Neolithic enclosures in Atlantic Northwest Europe,
SHERIDAN, J. A. 2002. Pottery and other ceramic finds. In G. J. Barclay, K. Brophy &
G. MacGregor, Claish, Stirling: an early Neolithic structure in its context. Proceedings of

SHERIDAN, J. A. 2003a. French Connections I: spreading the marmites thinly. In I. Armit,
E. Murphy, E. Nelis & D. D. A. Simpson (eds), Neolithic settlement in Ireland and western
Britain, 317. Oxford: Oxbow.
SHERIDAN, J. A. 2003b. The National Museums of Scotland Dating Cremated Bones Project:
results obtained during 2002/3. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 4, 1679.
SHERIDAN, J. A. 2004. Neolithic connections along and across the Irish Sea. In V. Cummings
& C. Fowler (eds), The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: materiality and traditions of practice, 921.
Oxford: Oxbow.
SHERIDAN, J. A. 2005. Les lments dorigine bretonne autour de 4000 av. J.-C. en cosse:
tmoignages dalliance, dinfluence, de dplacement, ou quoi dautre? In G. Marchand &
A. Tresset (eds), Unit et diversit des processus de nolithisation sur la faade atlantique de
lEurope (6e4e millnaires avant J.-C.), 2537. Paris: Socit Prhistorique Franaise
(Mmoire 36).
SHERIDAN, J. A. forthcoming a. Fragment of large elliptical Neolithic bead from Structure 3.
In M. Cook, Excavations at Pitlethie Road, Leuchars, Fife.
SHERIDAN, J. A. forthcoming b. The pottery. In H. K. Murray & C. Murray, Excavations at
Warren Field, Crathes, Aberdeenshire.
SMITH, A. 1995. The excavation of Neolithic, Bronae Age and Early Historic features near
Ratho, Edinburgh. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 125, 69138.
STUIVER, M., REIMER, P. J., BARD, E., BECK, J., BURR, G. S., HUGHEN, K. A.,
KROMER, B., MCCORMAC, G., VAN DER PLICHT, J. & SPURK, M. 1998. INTCAL98
radiocarbon age calibration, 240000 cal BP. Radiocarbon 40(3), 104183.
TERRY, J. 1997 Upper Largie (Kilmartin parish). Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 1997,
19, 21.
THOMAS, J. S. 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
THOMAS, J. S. 1996. Neolithic houses in mainland Britain and Ireland a sceptical view. In
T. Darvill & J. S. Thomas (eds), Neolithic houses in northwest Europe and beyond, 112.
Oxford: Oxbow.
THOMAS, J. S. 1998. Review of Neolithic landscapes. Antiquity 72, 4556.
THOMAS, J. S. 1999. Understanding the Neolithic. London and New York: Routledge.
THOMAS, J. S. 2004a. The ritual universe. In I. A. G. Shepherd & G. J. Barclay (eds), Scotland
in Ancient Europe: the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Scotland in their European context,
THOMAS, J. S. 2004b. Holywood Cursus complex. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 5,
1612.
THOMAS, J. S. 2004c. Holm. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 5, 161.
THOMAS, J. S. 2004d. Dunragit. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 5, 1601.
THOMAS, J. S. 2007. Place and memory: excavations at the Picts Knowe, Holywood and Holm
Farm, Dumfries and Galloway, 19948. Oxford: Oxbow.
THOMAS, J. S., BROPHY, K., FOWLER, C., LEIVERS, M., RONAYNE, M. & WOOD, L.
1999. The Holywood Cursus complex, Dumfries: an interim account 1997. In A. Barclay &
J. Harding (eds), Pathways and ceremonies: the cursus monuments of Britain and Ireland,
VANMONTFORT, B. 2004. Converging worlds: the Neolithisation of the Scheldt Basin during
the late fifth and early fourth millennium cal BC. Unpublished PhD thesis, Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven.
WADDINGTON, C. 1999. A landscape archaeological study of the Mesolithic-Neolithic in the
Milfield Basin, Northumberland. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (British Series 291).
WADDINGTON, C. 2000. Neolithic pottery from Woodbridge Farm, the Old Airfield, Milfield.
Archaeologia Aeliana (fifth series) 28, 111.
WADDINGTON, C. 2001. Breaking out of the morphological straightjacket: Early Neolithic
enclosures in northern Britain. Durham Archaeological Journal 16, 114.
478
Alison Sheridan
WADDINGTON, C. & DAVIES, J. 2002. An Early Neolithic settlement and Late Bronze Age
burial cairn near Bolam Lake, Northumberland: fieldwalking, excavation and reconstruction.
Archaeologia Aeliana (fifth series) 30, 147.
WADDINGTON, C. & PASSMORE, D. 2004. Ancient Northumberland. London: English
Heritage.
WARREN, G. 2004. The start of the Neolithic in Scotland. In I. A. G. Shepherd & G. J. Barclay
(eds), Scotland in Ancient Europe: the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Scotland in their
European context, 91102. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
WARREN, G. 2005. Autres temps, autres lieux: la fin du Msolithique et le dbut du Nolithique
dans lEst de lcosse. In G. Marchand & A. Tresset (eds), Unit et diversit des processus de
nolithisation sur la faade atlantique de lEurope (6e4e millnaires avant J.-C.), 1323. Paris:
Socit Prhistorique Franaise (Mmoire 36).
WHITTLE, A. 1977. The Earlier Neolithic of southern England and its continental background.
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (Supplementary Series 35).
WHITTLE, A. 2003. The archaeology of people: dimensions of Neolithic life. London and New
York: Routledge.
WHITTLE, A. 2004. Stones that float to the sky: portal dolmens and their landscapes of memory and myth. In V. Cummings & C. Fowler (eds), The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: materiality
and traditions of practice, 8190. Oxford: Oxbow.
WHITTLE, A. & WYSOCKI, M. 1998. Parc le Breos Cwm transepted long cairn, Gower,
West Glamorgan: date, contents and context. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 64,
13982.
D. D. A. Simpson (eds), Neolithic settlement in Ireland and western Britain, 319. Oxford:
Oxbow.
Findspot, NGR
Balnuaran of Clava
South, Highland
(NH 758 444)
Lesmurdie Road,
Elgin, Moray
(NJ 226 639)
Deskford
(Leitchestown Farm),
Moray
(NJ 210 585)
No
Occupation
Occupation
CB
CB
AA-42986
AA-42989
AA-42987
520050*
498050
Poz-5483
Poz-5482
Lab no
527550
502535*
250030
Pot type2 Relevant C14

dates BP3
Unknown: stray find

CB
of pottery, unconnected
with later monument
Site type1
From pit with pottery;

prob residual
From pit in same
complex (no pottery)
From post-pipe
(no pottery)
Both dates from lower

fill of pit in which CB
pottery had been found
in upper fill. Poz-5482
must represent intrusive
later material
Comments
(Continued)
Dates: DES 5 (2004),

166 (Hunter); Hunter,
pers. comm.
Site report: DES 3

(2002), 834
(Suddaby). Dates: DES
5 (2004), 167
(Suddaby)
Bradley, R. 2000. The

Good Stones, 87 and
illus 87.6. Edinburgh:
Society of Antiquaries
of Scotland
Publication4
Findspot numbers are as given in Fig 1. Radiocarbon dates: all from short-lived material (i.e. charcoal or unburnt wood from hazel, willow etc; carbonised
hazelnut shell or cereal grain; bone, unburnt or burnt), and all single-entity samples, unless specified otherwise; * from, or including, oak charcoal (so
danger of old wood effect). See below for further notes.
Appendix: Discoveries of early Carinated Bowl pottery, and of other material dating to the early fourth millennium cal BC
that may relate to the CB Neolithic as discussed in this paper, since 1985 in Scotland (including also finds omitted from, or
not fully published in, Kinnes 1985).
Findspot, NGR
Deers Den (aka A96

Kintore Bypass and
Henderson Drive),
Kintore, Aberdeenshire
(c. NJ 784 160)
Forest Road, Kintore,

Aberdeenshire
(NJ 787 151)
Garthdee Road,
Aberdeenshire
(NJ 923 032)
No
CB
NE
Occupation (house)
CB
502035
497035
495035
493535
493035
492535,
525060
523050*
519545*
508050*
507545
504050
497040
496540
489545
485540
483540,
478550
494540
494040*
489540

dates BP3
Occupation (including CB NE
a hollow with stakeholes
and a possible floor
surface); NM long
barrow
Occupation
Site type1
SUERC-8617
SUERC-8616
SUERC-8613
SUERC-8607
SUERC-8609
SUERC-8608
SUERC-1367
AA-52419
SUERC-1344
AA-52418
SUERC-1371
AA-52420
SUERC-1384
SUERC-1376
SUERC-1374
SUERC-1323
SUERC-1375
SUERC-1324
OxA-8132
OxA-8131
OxA-8133
Lab no
From hearth, pit and

occupation layer, securely
associated with CB
pottery
First 5 dates from

barrow. First 2: tpq for
construction. No pottery.
Next 2: ditch fill; pottery
in same context;
SUERC-1371: fill of
post-hole under barrow;
pottery present. Others:
features associated with
occupation, all associated
with CB NE pottery
From pit fills, associated

with CB NE pottery.
Comments
Site report: Murray

2005b.
Dates: Murray and
Murray 2005
Site report:
154 (Cook) ; DES 5
(2004), 1567 (Cook).
Not all of the barrow
dates are from contexts
associated with pottery.
See DES date lists for
additional early dates
for other contexts not
associated with pottery.
Full discussion of the
dates awaits final
publication of report
Alexander 2000; DES

3 (2002), 10 (Dunbar);
DES 5 (2004), 16
(Hatherley). Dates:
DES 1999, 110
Alexander)
Publication4
480
Alison Sheridan
Park Quarry, Durris,

Abshire
(NO 802 979)
Crathes, Warren Field,

Abshire
(NO 7393 9670)
Balbridie,
Aberdeenshire
(NO 7335 9590)
Hall
Hall and pit

alignment (the latter
Mesolithic, reused in
the Early Neolithic)
Pit
CB NE
CB
CB
503060*
501090
497060*
497075*
494070
493080*
482080
523535*
520535*,
506535*
502535*
502035
500535
499035
499040
498035
497535
495035
494535
494540
GU-1828
OxA-1769
GU-1832
GU-1830
OxA-1768
GU-1037
OxA-1767
SUERC-4048
SUERC-4044
SUERC-4049
SUERC-4031
SUERC-4042
SUERC-4030
SUERC-4043
SUERC-4032
SUERC-4038
SUERC-4039
SUERC-4033
SUERC-4034
SUERC-4041
All from level relating to Ralston 1982; 1984;

the burning down of the
Fairweather & Ralston
hall (oak charcoal
1993
probably from structural
timbers, other samples
carbonised crab apple,
flax seed and oat grain
respectively). Pottery
securely associated with
this structure . Dates cited
here exclude those with
standard deviations
100 (incl. GU-1038ii,
whose s.d. was adjusted
upwards). Even though this
(Continued)
SUERC-4031 from upper Murray 2004; 2005a;

fill of pit in pit alignment Murray and Murray
near to hall (no pottery); 2004
all others from hall,
some from structural
timbers, others from
material sealed in pits or
post holes. Structure
securely associated with
CB pottery
DES 1991, 35
(Shepherd and Greig)
Findspot, NGR
Wardend of Durris,
Aberdeenshire
(NO 752 928)
Dubton Farm, Brechin,

Angus
(NO 583 604)
Fordhouse Barrow,
Angus
(NO 6658 6053)
Castle Menzies
(Home Farm), Perth
and Kinross
(NN 8305 4940)
No
10
11
12
13
Long mortuary
structure
Non-megalithic long
barrow
Occupation
One or more possible

house structures
Site type1
CB
mod CB
513040*
509339*
503570*
501040*
503540*
496540*
492045*
499045
505050*,

dates BP3
OxA-9813
OxA-9987
OxA-9816
OxA-9814
OxA-8222
OxA-8224
OxA-8223
AA-39951
GU-2958
Lab no
Publication4
Peterson et al. 1996;

1997; DES 1999, 111
(Proudfoot)
Cameron, K. 2002,
TAFAJ 8, 1976
All from posts; OxA-9813 Halliday 2002; DES 2

prob. from most northerly (2001), 126 (Carter)
of 3 alignments; others
from poss. arc
All from structural

timbers from mortuary
structure; CB pottery
associated with funerary
activities linked with this
structure. OxA-82223
from outer rings of oak
From upper fill of large

pit associated with food
processing; CB pottery
from this fill
From Feature 19, a post, Russell-White 1995

associated with smaller
posts; a later date of
436090 (GU-2955) was
obtained from planks
(mixed species charcoal
incl. oak) in a palisade slot
site was mentioned in

Kinnes 1985, the CB NE
pottery was not, and some
of the dates had not yet
been determined
Comments
482
Alison Sheridan
Drumoig (Cowbakie
Hill and Craigie Hill),
Fife
(NO 43 25)
Pitlethie Road,
Leuchars
(NO 4596 2174)
Claish, Stirling
(NN 635 065)
Cowie Road,
Bannockburn,
Stirling
(NS 816 901)
14
15
16
17
Long mortuary
enclosures
Hall
Probable house
Occupation (include
cooking pit and
timber-built structure)
CB
CB
CB
514580*
513060*
513570*
483060
508040*
500050
495050
493540
493040
491540
491045
491050
489540
488550
485570
484540
507540*
499540
497540
487040
485045
483545
477545
498540
483545
483050
480545
AA-20410
AA-20409
AA-20411
AA-20412
AA-49638
AA-49645
AA-49643
AA-49637
AA-49640
AA-49635
AA-49636
AA-49644
AA-49639
AA-49641
AA-49646
AA-49642
SUERC-6928
SUERC-6923
SUERC-1625
SUERC-1624
SUERC-1591
SUERC-1593
SUERC-1592
SUERC-1632
SUERC-1590
SUERC-1611
SUERC-1601
Site report: DES 1995,

28 (James); DES 1996,
49 (Halliday); DES
1997, 389 (Halliday
and Simpson); DES
1998, 43 (Halliday).
164
Barclay et al. 2002
First 3 from lower,

Rideout 1997
charcoal fill of pit in
pit-defined mortuary
enclosure; AA-20412
hazel charcoal from phase
2 fill of another pit in same
enclosure
(Continued)
All securely associated

with the structure (and
with the CB pottery in
the strucutre); many from
layer of in situ burning.
From pit inside probable DES 5 (2004), 634

house; no pottery, but
(Cook); Cook, pers.
fragment of large elliptical comm.
bead of ?cannel coal
First 5 dates from features

associated with CB
pottery (mostly fill of pits,
including prob. cooking
pit, SUERC-1624); others,
from other contemporary
features (pit, stake hole;
SUERC-1601 from
timber-built structure)
Findspot, NGR
Newbridge, City of
Edinburgh
(NT 123 724)
Ratho Quarry,
City of Edinburgh
(NT 1281 7107)
Maybury Business
Park (Areas B and C),
City of Edinburgh
(NT 178 720)
Pencraig Hill,
East Lothian
(NT 568 763)
No
18
19
20
21
Non-megalithic long
barrow
Pit; occupation
Pits and possible

house/s
Pit or post-hole
Site type1
CB
CB
CB
CB
502535
501535
497535
496535
495535
499555,
471055
523555*
501075*

dates BP3
SUERC-7663
SUERC-7657
SUERC-7662
SUERC-7654
SUERC-7656
SUERC-309
SUERC-308
AA-53693
AA-53694
Lab no
Smith 1995
Site report: DES 2

(2001), 445. Dates:
DES 4 (2003), 159
Publication4
All from features securely

activities; CB pottery also
associated with the
funerary activities.
Site report: DES 3

(2002), 41 (McLellan);
Lelong & MacGregor
in press.
1701 (McLellan).
From pit in Area B.

SUERC-309 is a tpq for
159 (Moloney).
the pottery; -308 is
charcoal from same fill as
CB pottery. Sherds from
Area B small and it was
not possible to be certain
whether they represent
traditional CB pottery
(and are thus associated
with the earlier date) or
modified CB (and are thus
probably associated with
the later date. The Area C
pottery is traditional CB.
Oak charcoal possibly

from post; CB pottery
in fill of same post-hole
or pit
Comments
484
Alison Sheridan
Eweford, East Lothian

(NT 666 777)
The Hirsel,
Coldstream, Borders
(NT 830 406)
Wester Yardhouses,
South Lanarkshire
(NT 0042 5079)
Weston, South
Lanarkshire
(c NT 026 465)
22
23
24
25
Occupation
Residual, in Iron Age

souterrain
Occupation
Non-megalithic long
barrow and nearby pit
CB
CB
mod CB
CB
506535
505535
496035
495035
504535
494535
494050
487050
480050
SUERC-5280
SUERC-5290
SUERC-5289
SUERC-5286
SUERC-5298
SUERC-7658
SUERC-7910
SUERC-8001
SUERC-7911
Site report: DES 3
(2002), 35 (MacGregor
and Shearer); Lelong
& MacGregor in press.
1689 (MacGregor)
Known since 1923 but

omitted from Kinnes list
DES 1998, 90 (Ward);

www.biggar
archaeology.org.uk
(interim report as .pdf)
(Continued)
Cowie 1993.
Omitted by Kinnes (1985). DES 1984, 1 (Cramp).

One vessel, with heavy
rim and extensive fingertip
fluting, resembles CB NE
pottery
First 4 dates from barrow;

last from nearby pit.
SUERC-5280 from cattle
bone in cooking pit, no
pottery: prob. dates
initiation of funerary
activities. Next 3 dates
from structural wood
activities; CB pottery
associated with these
activities. SUERC-5298
charcoal from fill of
nearby pit with CB pottery
SUERC-7911 from
cremated human bone
from mortuary structure
Findspot, NGR
Weston, Firpark,
South Lanarkshire
(NT 0276 4659)
Brownsbank Farm,
Biggar
(NT 080 430)
Melbourne Crossroads
(Area 1), South
Lanarkshire
(NT 086 438)
Carwood Hill (aka

Biggar Common East),
South Lanarkshire
(NT 030 395)
No
26
27
28
29
Occupation
Occupation (incl.
pitchstone knapping
area)
Occupation
Occupation
Site type1
CB
CB
CB
CB
See comment
496045,
486545

dates BP3
AA-42172
AA-42173
Lab no
DES 1996, 100 (Ward);

DES 1997, 76 (Ward).
Additional CB sherds
have recently been
found between
Melbourne Crossroads
and Brownsbank Farm
(Ward, pers. comm.)
DES 1 (2000), 84
(Ward); DES 2 (2001),
90, 126 (Ward)
DES 1998, 90 (Ward);

www.biggar
archaeology.org.uk
(interim report on
Weston as .pdf;
mentioned on p. 22)
Publication4
There are 5 dates

Sheridan in Johnston
(including one with a
1997, 220; DES 1996,
standard deviation of
140 (Ward).
100), but it is
uncertain whether the
dated material was directly
associated with the CB
pottery: there seems to be
a palimpsest of activities
Hazel charcoal from 2

pits, each associated with
CB pottery
Comments
486
Alison Sheridan
Nether Hangingshaw
Occupation
Farm, Coulter by Biggar,
South Lanarkshire
(NT 003 331)
31
Occupation and NM
long barrow
Biggar Common (aka

Biggar Common West),
South Lanarkshire
(various, around
NT 005 385390)
30

CB &
mod CB
CB
See comment
525050*
515070*
488050
GU-2985
GU-2986
GU-4276
Only a small amount of

traditional CB was found.
Most of the pottery is
modified CB, and
apparently relates to the
dates of 478040
(SUERC-3555) and
461535 (SUERC-3553)
for two pits. The
traditional CB may relate
to earlier, but undated,
activity
(Continued)
Site report:
www.biggar
archaeology.org.uk.
177 (Ward).
First 2 dates: pre-barrow Johnston 1997

activity. GU-4276:
occupation, Area 5. See
Ashmore 2004, 1301 on
the early dates, obtained
from bulk samples of
mixed-species charcoal
incl. oak; these were from
a bonfire feature,
associated with CB
pottery, sealed under the
barrow. GU-4276 from
bulk sample of mixedspecies charcoal (incl. a
little oak) from a charcoal
spread ?food preparation
area associated with CB
pottery. There are also 2
later dates for Area 2; these
are not necessarily
associated with CB pottery
Rotten Bottom,
Bow
Dumfries and Galloway
(NT 146 144)
Lockerbie Academy,
Hall
(NY 1339 8273)
Carzield, Dumfries and

Galloway
(NX 9703 8212)
Holm, Dumfries and

Galloway
(NX 9596 8038)
33
34
35
36
Cursus
Occupation?
(Single pit)
Occupation
Annieston (Thankerton
Quarry), South
Lanarkshire
(NS 992 375)
32
Site type1
Findspot, NGR
No
CB
CB
CB
509535*
509550*
507540*
502540*
500040*
501070
None yet
obtained
5040100

dates BP3
SUERC-2124
SUERC-2126
SUERC-2131
SUERC-2130
SUERC-2129
Beta-68480
OxA-3540
Lab no
Johnston and Kirby,

pers. comm.
Sheridan 1996; 1999
DES 1988, 25 (Brown);

Sheridan in Johnston
1997, 220
Publication4
Last 3 dates from posts

in post-defined cursus;
first 2 sealed in pits of
pit-defined cursus that
succeeded it
Thomas 2004a; 2004c;

2007
From bulk charcoal

Maynard 1993
samples, mixed species,
but all from short-lived
woods (contra Ashmore
2004). In same pit fill as
CB pottery. There was also
a date of 4920110,
Beta-68481, from similar
material but the standard
deviation is unacceptably
large
Direct date from bow:

yew branch, unburnt
Comments
488
Alison Sheridan
Holywood South,
Activity pre-cursus
(NX 9489 7966)
Picts Knowe, Dumfries

and Galloway
(NX 9538 7213)
Dunragit, Dumfries and Cursus

Galloway
(NX 1497 5745)
Cairnderry, Dumfries
and Galloway
(NX 3159 7993)
38
39
40
41
Activity preBargrennan-type
passage tomb
construction
Pits: probably
occupation
Holywood North,
Cursus
(NX 9502 8012)
37
CB
CB
CB
CB
489035
494535
494535
490035
496035
474035*
472540*
SUERC-2103
SUERC-2093
SUERC-2094
SUERC-2095
SUERC-2115
SUERC-2113
SUERC-2116
Thomas 2007. See

also DES 1998,
2930 (Thomas).
62 (Thomas)
DES 3, 2002, 30
(Cummings and
Fowler);
www.cf.ac.uk/hisar/
people/vc/
cdy/interim.html
(Continued)
Hazel charcoal believed to Thomas 2004a; 2004d;

be associated with burning 2007
of oak post in cursus
Dates from 3 different

pits; SUERC-20934 from
alder charcoal, -2095 from
charred hazelnut shell, all
in fill of pits; CB pottery
present in same fills
Thomas 2004a; 2007;

Thomas et al. 1999
SUERC-2115 (hazelnut
Thomas 2004a; 2004b;
shell) associated with CB 2007; Thomas et al.
pottery in post-hole,
1999
relating to 1st phase of
cursusconstruction. Others:
-2116 probably from large
post allegedly pre-dating
cursus construction; -2113
from cursus post, whose
posthole cuts that for the
large post.
Findspot, NGR
Newton, Islay, Argyll

and Bute
(NR 341 628)
Port Charlotte, Islay,

Argyll and Bute
(NR 2482 5761)
No
42
43
Occupation/
activity pre-Clyde
cairn
Occupation
Site type1
CB
502090
494090
466090
496560*

dates BP3
HAR-3487
HAR-3486
HAR-2836
GU-1952
Lab no
Publication4
All bulk samples of

charcoal from mixed
short-lived species
carbonised hazelnut shells,
from occupation layer
(without pottery) sealed
under Clyde cairn. Sherds
of 5 undecorated pots
were found in the chamber
tomb but the pottery type
remains to be determined;
they are unpublished and
in Port Charlotte Museum,
Islay. Mentioned (as of
unknown affiliation) by
Kinnes 1985.
Harrington, P. &
Pierpoint, S. 1980. Port
Charlotte chambered
cairn, Islay: an interim
note. GAJ 7, 1135
Bulk sample of alder,

McCullagh, R. P. 1989,
hazel & oak charcoal
GAJ 15, 2351
from pit containing CB
pottery; this pit cut by
another, without pottery,
dated to 488060*,
GU-1951. Pottery
mentioned in Kinnes 1985
but as pottery of
unknown affiliation, as
then a new discovery.
Comments
490
Alison Sheridan
Upper Largie, Argyll

and Bute
(NR 8330 9955)
Cursus and avenue
537555*
522050*
517555*
509050*
509075*
502055*
497550*
493550*
484050*
AA-43013
AA-48052
AA-43411
AA-43019
AA-43024
AA-43017
AA-43015
AA-43014
AA-43016
Not stated in DES

whether single-entity
samples. All from posts;
AA-48052 from avenue,
all others from cursus.
Old wood effect probable
Site reports: Radley
1993; Terry 1997; Ellis
2000. Dates: DES 3
(2002), 145 (Ellis)

(Continued)
Noteworthy exclusions:
i) Thomshill, Birnie, Moray: half an uncarinated bowl (DES 2, 2001, 68): more likely to represent modified CB than traditional CB pottery; uncertain whether it pre-dates 3700
BC.
ii) Machrie Moor, Arran (Haggarty 1991, PSAS 121): pottery is of modified CB type and is associated with dates suggesting that it dates to around, or after, 3700 BC
iii) Ulva Cave, Argyll and Bute: charcoal from pit with carbonised cereal grains, burnt bone, shell, dated to 499060 BP (GU-2707), but whether activity was associated with
the CB Neolithic is unknown. Pottery from elsewhere in the cave identified by Ian Armit as Hebridean Neolithic type.
Also excluded: i) other finds of modified CB pottery likely to post-date 3700 BC (e.g. Chapelfield, Cowie, Stirling); ii) dated charcoal, not associated with artefacts, that is likely
to be residual (e.g. old charcoal in the fill of a later pit); iii) dated material where insufficient information is currently available to assess its significance; iv) material dated to
Note: The pottery from Lochhill and Slewcairn NM long mounds, Dumfries and Galloway, listed by Kinnes 1985 as Pottery of unknown affiliation, is almost certain to be of
traditional CB type. Pottery from the old land surface under Camster Long cairn, mentioned in same list, is North-Eastern style CB and may be contemporary with the flecks
of charcoal dating to 495080 (GU-1707), 4920125 (GU-1709) and 491560 (GU-1708) (Masters, L. 1997, The excavation and restoration of the Camster Long chambered
cairn, Caithness, Highland, 196780, PSAS 127, 12383).
Additional possible examples:

i) Grantown Road, Forres (Cook, DES 4 (2003), 96 and 6 (2005), 174): No pottery. Two pieces of oak charcoal each dating to 503035 BP, and the findspot lies within an area
of known CB-related activity, but it is unclear what activity is represented by the dated material.
ii) Greenbogs, Monymusk, Aberdeenshire (Greig, DES 1999, 910): occupation site with Neolithic pottery: definitive identification of the pottery still to be done.
iii) Broomend of Crichie, Aberdeenshire: no pottery, but traces of activity and 2 dates early in 4th millennium (Bradley pers. comm.); more information may emerge from 2006
excavations.
1. Occupation relates to general activity assumed to relate to residence (as represented by pits, artefact scatters etc.although it is acknowledged that some pit-only findspots
may not relate to residence). 2. CB traditional Carinated Bowl as defined in this paper; CB NE modified Carinated Bowl, North-Eastern style; mod CB other
modified Carinated Bowl. 3. Relevant associated, more or less closely, with pottery and/or structure or object in question. 4. Where entries are not already featured in the
main References, the following abbreviations are used here: DES Discovery and Excavation in Scotland; PSAS Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland;
GAJ Glasgow Archaeological Journal; TAFAJ Tayside and Fife Archaeological Journal.
44
Because many finds of Neolithic material have not yet been published fully, and not all ceramic identifications have been checked, this list cannot purport to be exhaustive. The
newly-excavated site at Mid Ross, by Loch Lomond, may for example be associated with CB pottery but this needs to be checked. Further information and comments on the
dates cited here, and on other dates, can be found in Discovery and Excavation in Scotland from 1996, and in the Historic Scotland on-line Datelist (www.historicscotland.gov.uk), which covers dates obtained to c. October 2001. For finds of CB pottery prior to 1985, see Kinnes 1985 (and cf. Cowie 1993 for a discussion of CB pottery
from eastern and central Scotland). For more information on each site, see the Canmore, the on-line National Monuments Record for Scotland facility (www.rcahms.gov.uk).
this time range but where the pottery is not demonstrably part of the CB tradition (i.e. at West Voe, Shetland: Nigel Melton, pers. comm., and see Ashmore forthcoming for
discussion of other dates relating to activity within the first few centuries of the fourth millennium, not associated with CB pottery); v) human skeletal material from the west
of Scotland which was found before 1985 but has produced dates within this time range; whether the individuals concerned (from Raschoille Cave) had been users of CB
pottery is impossible to determine (see Schulting and Richards 2002).
492
Alison Sheridan
From midden to megalith?

in western Britain
VICKI CUMMINGS
INTRODUCTION
THE TRANSITION FROM THE Mesolithic to the Neolithic in Britain and Ireland
remains one of the most debated and contested transitions of prehistory.
Much more complex than a simple transition from hunting and gathering to
farming, the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Britain has been discussed
not only as an economic and technological transformation, but also an ideological one. In western Britain in particular, with its wealth of Neolithic monuments, considerable emphasis has been placed on the role of monumentality
in the transition process. Over the past decade my research has concentrated
on the early Neolithic monumental traditions of western Britain, a deliberate
focus on areas outside the more luminous centres of Wessex, the CotswoldSevern region and Orkney. In this paper I will discuss the transition in western Britain, with an emphasis on the monuments of this region. In particular
I will discuss the areas around the Irish Seawest Wales, the Isle of Man,
south-west and western Scotlandas well as referring to the sequence on the
other side of the Irish Sea, specifically eastern Ireland.
MODELLING TRANSITIONS
Before we look at the evidence from western Britain, some of the theoretical
approaches to the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition will be briefly considered.
This is in order to highlight the ongoing importance of megaliths in understanding the transition process. Older models considered monuments a
crucial part of the Neolithic package, brought into Britain and Ireland by
incoming peoples from Europe (Childe 1940; Hawkes 1940; Piggott 1954). The
study of monuments was considered key for locating continental parallels for
Vicki Cummings
494
British monuments (Daniel 1941; Davis 1945; Piggott 1954). In more recent
decades, models still considered megaliths to be an important part of the
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. From ideas that monuments were instruments of conversion (Sherratt 1995) to the concept that the Neolithic was an
ideological transformation (Thomas 1988), monumentality was considered
the material manifestation of a new ideology and a changed sense of identity,
thus an intrinsic part of becoming Neolithic (Bradley 1993; 1998; Hodder
1990; Thomas 1991). The idea that native hunter-gatherer populations had
an enormous impact on the transition process became popular and it was
suggested that the transition in western Britain was fairly slow, indigenous
and regionally-specific (Armit & Finlayson 1992; Pluciennik 1998; Thomas
1996; Whittle 1990). As part of this general trend, precursors for monumentality were sought in the British late Mesolithic. Of particular relevance to the
sequence in western Britain, and the title of this paper, late Mesolithic shell
middens were seen as part of the inspiration for early Neolithic monument
construction (Cummings 2003; J. Pollard 2000; T. Pollard 1996; Thomas &
Tilley 1993). It has been suggested that middening was in many ways very
similar to building a monument; middens were permanent locations in the
landscape, locations that could be, and were, returned to repeatedly (e.g.
Oronsay: Mellars 1987; but see also Warren, this volume). Furthermore,
landscapes were altered by the construction of middens and these sites also
saw the manipulation of dead bodies, the deposition of material culture and
feasting. All of these are key features of early Neolithic monuments.
The concept of monumentality in western Britain and in the UK as a
whole, then, has been a major part of considerations of the MesolithicNeolithic transition in all theoretical paradigms of the last century. Whether
monuments were simply one part of a Neolithic package brought in by
settlers, or inspired by Mesolithic alterations of place, monuments have
always been at the forefront of discussions of the transition. Let us now turn
to the focus of this paper, the west of Britain.
INTRODUCING WESTERN BRITAIN

To begin, there is a very distinctive late Mesolithic sequence in western
Britain. There are a number of shell middens found on the shores of western
Scotland. The middens on Oronsay (Mellars 1987; Mithen 2000; Mithen et al.,
this volume) are the best known, but other sites are found around Oban, such
as Carding Mill Bay, Ulva Cave and Raschoille (Bonsall 1996). Although
these sites have produced a wealth of evidence, including human remains,
they have skewed our understanding of the later Mesolithic somewhat, giving the impression that the creation of middens may have been the norm, as
MESOLITHIC-NEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN WESTERN BRITAIN 495
opposed to the exception. This in turn has led to western Britain, and western Scotland in particular, being compared with Scandinavia and with complex hunter-gatherers in the ethnographic record. In reality, the vast majority
of the evidence from western Britain is for small-scale and mobile huntergatherers in the late Mesolithic utilising a very rich but densely forested
world. This is not to detract from the potentially complex set of social relations
and identities of these people, but to be wary of applying European or
ethnographic models to this region.
Turning now to the Neolithic, undoubtedly one of the reasons that there
has been such a focus on monumentality in understanding the transition in
western Britain is because megaliths are plentiful and in many cases well preserved. This is in contrast to other evidence which has either not been extensively investigated or is absent. There are, for example, few causewayed
enclosures (see Oswald et al. 2001). The pottery from western Britain is similar
to early Neolithic pottery from the rest of Britain, with Carinated Bowls present within all the local traditions (Sheridan 2004). However, very few Neolithic
houses or settlements have been found in western Britain, which is now in direct
contrast to Ireland, where increasing numbers are appearing (Armit et al. 2003;
Darvill & Thomas 1996). In western Britain there was some continued use of
middens where they are known, but for the most part settlement evidence is
from lithic scatters alone, and even these are scarce in many areas.
The one activity of which we have a much fuller understanding is lithic
extraction and movement. The study area contains a considerable number of
axe factories: Group I in Cornwall, Group VIII in the Preselis in south-west
Wales, Groups VII and XXI from north Wales, Group VI from Langdale in
Cumbria, and Group IX from Tievebulliagh and Rathlin Island in northern
Ireland (Clough & Cummins 1988). The movement and widespread distribution of axes from these factories are well documented (Bradley & Edmonds
1993; Clough & Cummins 1988). Arran pitchstone and Antrim flint are also
found considerable distances from their original source (Saville 1999; Simpson
& Meighan 1999). However, in most cases it seems that much of the axe production was later than the very early Neolithic and this evidence is therefore
limited for furthering our understanding of the transition. In summary, then,
much of the evidence for the early Neolithic in western Britain is from the
megalithic monuments, with the known pottery, lithics and domesticates, as
well as human bone, often coming from monumental contexts.
MEGALITHS
So let us turn now to the megaliths of western Britain. They are plentiful with
nearly 200 documented sites in the region, found distributed along the shores
Vicki Cummings
496
of the Irish Sea (Fig. 1). There are a number of different types of Neolithic
chambered tomb in western Britain. However, not all of these are early
Neolithic in date and therefore some traditions are not of relevance to the
discussion here. Passage graves, for example, are found in western Britain,
with a few examples in Wales (Bryn Celli Ddu and Barclodiad y Gawres) and
a small group in south-west Scotland (the Bargrennan sites: Henshall 1972),
but these are almost certainly not early Neolithic in date. The large passage
graves of Ireland are also later, although there are some small and early
examples in Ireland (Cooney 2000). Portal dolmens on the other hand, found
principally in Cornwall, west Wales and Ireland, and consisting of a simple
chamber made using a large and impressive capstone (Fig. 2), are almost certainly early Neolithic in date (Cummings & Whittle 2004; 2005). The other
main group of early Neolithic monument in western Britain is the chambered
long cairn. There are a few in Wales and on the Isle of Man, but the main
concentration is the old Clyde-Carlingford culture (Piggott 1954), the Clyde
group, found throughout western Scotland (Henshall 1972) and the court
cairns of eastern Ireland (de Valera 1960). Sites consist of divided chambers
with impressive faades which create a court or forecourt area. All are set
within long cairns (Fig. 2).
From all of these different early Neolithic megaliths, finds, where preserved, are much the same and typical for monuments from throughout northwest Europe: human bone, both cremations and inhumations, pottery,
typically early Neolithic bowls, some lithics, for example axes or parts of axes,
and often exotic stone such as Arran pitchstone, and almost without exception, charcoal, indicating the use of fire at these sites. There is also frequently
evidence of early Neolithic activity in the forecourt area and some monuments
have earlier activity beneath the cairn.
MEGALITHS AND LANDSCAPE

In the past, most scholars have studied these megaliths primarily in terms of
their architecture. Similarities and differences in architectural form have
informed discussion on the regional classification of these sites, as well as
broader debates on origins and the transition (Henshall 1972; Lynch 1969;
Scott 1969). Initially inspired by Tilleys (1994) study of monuments and
landscape, my focus on these monuments has been not only in terms of their
architecture, but also in relation to their broader setting in the landscape
(Cummings 2002; forthcoming; Cummings & Whittle 2004). In particular I
have been focusing on the experiences these places can generate for people
building, using and engaging with them. Subsequently I have now visited virtually all of the megaliths around the Irish Sea zone, over 350 monuments in
Figure 1. The distribution of the chambered tombs in western Britain and eastern Ireland.
Figure 2. Early Neolithic chambered tombs in western Britain: dolmens Carreg Coetan (top) and Pentre Ifan (bottom), Clyde tombs East Bennan
(top) and Cairnholy I (bottom).
498
Vicki Cummings
total. The overall aim of this research was to look for small-scale regional
variation in both megalithic architecture and also landscape setting, which
could potentially enhance our understanding of regionally specific transition
processes.
The results of the examination of the landscape settings of all of these
megaliths were both surprising and unexpected. Early Neolithic monuments
throughout western Britain and also in eastern Ireland, the entire Irish Sea
zone in fact, are located in very specific and virtually identical parts of the
landscape. Monuments are repeatedly positioned in relation to specific landscape features, in particular mountains and water. I have discussed in detail
the relationships between the megaliths of western Britain and their broader
landscape settings elsewhere (Cummings 2002; forthcoming; Cummings &
Whittle 2004), and there is not the space here to go into detail about all these
areas, but I want to very briefly summarise some of these relationships.
Monuments and mountains
There is a very clear relationship between megaliths and mountains (also see
Cummings 2004; Cummings & Whittle 2004; Fowler & Cummings 2003).
Megaliths are only found in the areas of western Britain which are mountainous and the flatter areas of the Irish Sea zone have notable blanks in the
distribution. However, the small number of sites that do exist in flatter areas
are very carefully positioned so that distant mountains are actually visible.
Furthermore, the relationship between megaliths and mountains is very
obvious when you are moving around these landscapes. For example, with
the journey up to northern Ireland from Dublin, the landscape is quite flat,
and devoid of early Neolithic megaliths, but as soon as the Mournes and
Carlingford Mountain are visible, there is a profusion of monuments.
However, megaliths are not built in the mountains themselves, but with views
of mountains. Therefore, almost without exception, megaliths are positioned
in the landscape in order to have views of mountains.
In western Scotland, for example, monuments are situated so there are
views of the stunning mountains around Loch Lomond and the visually distinctive mountains of Arran (Fig. 3). It is the Arran mountains, in particular,
which are visible from a remarkable number of sites across western Scotland.
To the north, Ben Cruachan also seems significant (for more details see
Cummings forthcoming). A similar relationship between megaliths and
mountains is found in Wales, where megaliths cluster around the mountains
of north Wales, in particular Snowdonia and the mountains on the Lleyn
Peninsula (Fig. 3). In south-west Wales, views are of the Preselis (Cummings
& Whittle 2004). This relationship is also found on the other side of the Irish
Sea. In north-eastern Ireland, monuments are concentrated in particular
500
Vicki Cummings
Figure 3. Views of mountains from monuments: Auchachenna in western Scotland (top), Hen
Drefor in west Wales (middle) and Goward court cairn in north-east Ireland (bottom).
around the Antrim Hills to the north and the Mournes to the south (Fig. 3).
A number of megaliths are also carefully positioned so that there are views
of Black Mountain, Slieve Gullion and Slemish (Cummings forthcoming).
Overall, then, megaliths are positioned so that there is a view of mountains from the site. Furthermore, it is not necessarily the highest mountains
that are visible from sites, but ones which are visually very distinctive: for
example the mountains of Arran in western Scotland, Slieve Binnian in the

Mournes in northern Ireland, and Carn Meini in south-west Wales.
Views of water
Monuments are not positioned in relation to mountains alone. Many sites
also have views of water, in particular rivers and the sea. In western Scotland
the distribution of megaliths is coastal, and as such virtually all monuments
are positioned with views of the sea or of lochs which are connected to the
sea (Fig. 4). Many sites are also found alongside rivers, those that flow down
to the nearest loch or sea. As their name suggests, many of the Clyde tombs
have views out over the Firth of Clyde. Other sites are located near to streams
and I get the sense that these guided people from the sea to the monument
along a watercourse, marking out a pathway through the landscape. Similarly
the megaliths of west Wales have a coastal distribution and many sites have
clear views of the sea (Cummings & Whittle 2004; Fig. 4). Again, the sites
that are not positioned with a view of the sea overlook rivers. In north-east
Ireland, almost two-thirds of sites have views of the Irish Sea, even though a
considerable number of sites are many miles inland (Fig. 4). Time and again,
then, megaliths are located with views of loch shores, the sea or are next to
rivers.
Views of mountains and water may not seem remarkable, yet when one
contrasts the settings of stone circles in western Britain with their chambered
tomb counterparts, only 7 per cent of stone circles have a view of the sea. It
is also interesting that some areas of the Irish Sea zone have no megaliths at
all, and for the most part these are the areas which afford views of neither
visually striking mountains nor the sea. We know these areas were inhabited
in the Neolithic, as evidenced by lithic scatters, but they did not see the construction of megalithic architecture. This is not due to the poor preservation
of monuments in these areas, as other types of monument survive in the
archaeological record: this is a theme explored in more detail below.
General location
It is not just the location of megaliths in relation to mountains and water that
is repeated throughout the Irish Sea zone. Megaliths are repeatedly positioned
in very similar zones of the landscape. They are never located high in the
mountains or on beaches, although there are views of these areas. Inland and
mountainous areas are avoided. Instead megaliths are positioned on the side
of hills between the mountains and the sea, and this means that in one direction there is a wide view, of mountains and water, and in the other the view is
closed or restricted. Monuments are also carefully orientated in relation to
502
Vicki Cummings
Figure 4. Views of water from monuments: Loch Nell in western Scotland (top), Carreg
Samson in west Wales (middle) and Druids Stone in north-east Ireland (bottom).
these landscape features, often so that there is a view of water behind the
monument as one stands at the entrance, and so that there are views of mountains to one side and a closed view to the other (also see Cummings et al. 2002).
The orientation of the cairn opens up views of specific landscape features on
entry or exit and also places the viewer so that the long cairn orientation
divides the view into two sides. Megaliths are also positioned so that if one
approached from downslope, typically from water such as the sea or a river,
the monument is highly visible in the landscape on approach. If the approach
was from inland, the monument would be virtually invisible until one arrived
at the site.
INTERPRETATIONS
These observations have reinforced the fact that early Neolithic megaliths
across wide areas of Britain share many key features. First, megaliths share
many architectural similarities. Throughout western Britain there are only
two dominant architectural traditions: dolmens and Clyde tombs, with their
court cairn counterparts in northern Ireland. These monuments do exhibit
some small regional differences in architectural form, but considering the distances involved, they remain remarkably similar across such a wide area.
Similarities in monument form across the Irish Sea zone are particularly
noticeable if one engages with the site instead of looking at plans. This is relevant as it seems likely that Neolithic people did not envisage these sites in
plan form. They were almost certainly more concerned with the overall effect
these sites created. The experience of encountering and engaging with a court
cairn in Ireland or a Clyde monument in Scotland is actually very similar,
where people would encounter a stone-built and defined forecourt leading to
divided chambers. It is also of interest that the finds from these sites are also
very similar. Megaliths more or less ubiquitously seem to have been used for
the deposition of human bone and other artefacts including burnt material.
In many cases it is also notable that objects deposited in the megaliths have
come from distant places; Arran pitchstone is found in many of the western
Scottish monuments for example (Henshall 1972). On top of this, as I have
just outlined, the settings of these monuments are also remarkably similar
across massive areas. Sites repeatedly have views of mountains, of water, the
sea, rivers and lochs, and are set on the side of hills. Contra Fleming (2005),
these sets of carefully orchestrated views are not found throughout the area
and sites were clearly very specifically orientated and positioned in the landscape. The experience of the landscape at these sites is therefore very similar
throughout the Irish Sea zone. Using and engaging with these megaliths,
then, in terms of both architecture and the surrounding landscape may well
504
Vicki Cummings
have created remarkably similar engagements with place, whether in western

Scotland, west Wales or north-east Ireland.
The fact that these monuments are architecturally very similar is interesting, but perhaps not exceptional. After all, other forms of early Neolithic
material culture such as Carinated Bowls are found across wide areas of
Britain (see Sheridan, this volume). It is perhaps also not surprising that
monuments seem to have been used in similar ways, hence their broader name
of burial chambers. It is unlikely, however, that these sites were used exclusively for the burial of the dead (Leivers 1999), with other aspects of their use
being equally, if not more, important. These were places for the meeting and
gathering of people, for feasting, for rites perhaps connected with transformations in status or the lifecycle, and for the manipulation of material culture and personal identity (Brck 2001; Fowler & Cummings 2003; Jones
1998). They were also places for the creation of unique and otherworldly
experiences, perhaps for journeying to other realms (Dronfield 1995a; 1995b;
Watson 2001). I would argue that it is more unexpected, however, that megaliths are found in virtually identical parts of the landscape, and it leads to
the possibilities that the precise location of sites was an intrinsic part of
monuments themselves and that these particular places in the landscape were
fundamentally connected to the identity and use of the sites. It seems that these
places, and these places alone, were appropriate for megalithic construction.
So why was the setting of sites between the mountains and sea appropriate? Elsewhere, it has been argued that these places in particular were of
significance in local worldviews (Cummings 2002; Cummings & Whittle
2004; 2005; Fowler & Cummings 2003; Tilley 1994; Whittle 2004). As already
noted, it is the most visually distinctive mountains that are visible from these
megaliths, places that would have been important for moving around the
landscape and also part of creation mythology and cosmology. The sea was
also likely to have been imbued with significances, as both a connecting substance and highly symbolic natural feature (Bradley 2000; Scarre 2002). The
location of megaliths may well have been important nodes in the landscape
long before a monument was constructed. This may also go some way, then,
to explaining why there are blank areas in western Britain, where no megaliths were constructed. These areas did not have the right sets of landscape
features and associated mythologies for the construction of such architecture.
So what we had were people across these massive swathes of western
Britain and eastern Ireland deliberately and knowingly building monuments
in very similar ways and in similar parts of the landscape. They were creating places that enabled people to have very similar encounters with these
monuments even though they were in quite different parts of the Neolithic
world. So how does this inform us about the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition
in the area?
THE IRISH SEA WORLD: A NEW SOCIAL IDENTITY?

One interpretation of the data presented above would be that megaliths share
so many similarities in form and location that they may have been constructed by people who were in contact and aiming to produce similar monuments. Another observation which adds currency to this argument is that
many sites are positioned so that there are views of this wider Irish Sea zone
itself. A number of sites have views of distant landmasses. So, for example,
sites in south-west Scotland have views of the Isle of Man (Cummings 2002),
megaliths in western Scotland have views of Ireland, and sites in Ireland have
views of Scotland (Cummings forthcoming). Many sites seem to have been
very carefully and deliberately positioned so that these views were present. At
Ossians Grave in County Antrim, for example, the monument is built so that
Kintyre is visible on the horizon (Fig. 5). A few metres downslope and this
view would be gone. Another example, Blasthill on Kintyre, is carefully positioned so that Arran is visible in one direction and northern Ireland in the
other (Fig. 5). Elsewhere I have also argued that the views of mountains from
the megaliths also create wider connections across the wider Irish Sea world
(Cummings 2004; and see also Tilley, this volume). From the mountains
which are visible from the megaliths, it is possible to see other parts of the
Irish Sea world which themselves have concentrations of megaliths. The
intervisibility of the mountains of the Irish Sea zone, which are the focus for
megalithic construction, means people could literally see other parts of the
Irish Sea world. And as we have already seen, many monuments have views
over the Irish Sea itself.
Could this mean that these monuments represent a broader sense of identity created and shared across this entire area? Could it be that the beginning
of the Neolithic saw the emergence of a new identity which was focused on
the Irish Sea zone? Could it suggest that the beginning of the Neolithic was,
after all, something that happened around the whole of the Irish Sea area in
a very similar way? Are these megaliths representative perhaps of an incoming population, with a common origin point, which explains why people from
western Scotland to south-west Wales to eastern Ireland knew how and
where to build their megaliths?
This may be one possibility. However, there are a number of arguments
which counter this (see also Mithen et al., this volume). First, the similarity
of setting and form over a massive area does not mean that these people were
part of the same cultural group with a shared cultural identity. It has been
shown that the presence of shared material culture does not necessarily delineate cultural groups (Hodder 1982a; 1982b; Shanks & Tilley 1987; Zvelebil
1996). Secondly, megalithic construction does not happen everywhere within
the study area. It was not ubiquitous and all-embracing. As already noted,
Figure 5. Long distance views from Ossians Grave, County Antrim, towards Kintyre (top) and Blasthill, Kintyre, towards Ireland and Arran
(bottom).
506
Vicki Cummings
there are blanks in the distribution, and as already suggested, it may be that
it was only appropriate to build megaliths in very specific places or nodes
within the landscape which these blank areas do not have.
Finally, a closer examination of the dates of these megaliths reveals that
these monuments probably had very little to do with the Mesolithic-Neolithic
transition, even though they have been considered a fundamental part of the
Neolithic package in the past. The radiocarbon dates from these sites (older
dates as well as more recent dates from a programme by Rick Schulting: pers.
comm.), suggest that these monuments were not constructed right at the
beginning of the Neolithic (and see Whittle, this volume). It is fair to say that
we are still struggling to pinpoint the precise date for the appearance of the
Neolithic in western Britain, with the obvious problem of first identifying
what the earliest Neolithic actually was. There is also the distinct possibility
that the Neolithic may be different in different areas. Nevertheless, it seems
clear that people around the Irish Sea had access to and were using domesticated animals and plants, pottery and other material elements of the
Neolithic for 100, 200, even 300 years before they started building megaliths.
It is only after a few hundred years that we see the explosion of megalithic
construction across a broad area. I suggest, therefore, that the megaliths of
the Irish Sea zone are in actual fact not part of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition but a reaction to a process which had already happened, perhaps as many
as 12 generations before. This transition then, seems to have involved a change
in economy and material culture, but not in its initial stages the widespread
construction of megalithic architecture.
CONCLUSIONS
So where does that leave us? Although considerations of the MesolithicNeolithic transition in Britain have almost always considered monumentality
to be a key element of the transition process, I have suggested this may not
actually be the case. Instead, it seems likely that the megaliths of the Irish Sea
area were built a couple of hundred years after people started using Neolithic
things: cows, pots and axes. In western Britain at least those first few hundred
years when people were first using domesticates and pottery remain frustratingly elusive. Nevertheless, the study of megaliths does seem to suggest that
a few hundred years after the introduction of domesticates and new material
culture there was a reaction which was widespread and dramatic. People
around specific parts of the Irish Sea seem to have deliberately constructed
monuments in very similar ways and in similar parts of the landscape. One
argument might be that whatever the nature of the original transition, the
reaction was shared and repeated across a wide area. Perhaps megaliths were
508
Vicki Cummings
the result of realising that the world had changed and moved on. Perhaps
megaliths were part of a process of creating a new sense of identity, the desire
to feel part of a broader Neolithic community. Perhaps this was particularly
resonant in areas which had a very rich, yet very specific, landscape mythology.
Yet that would be only part of the story. As much as megaliths enabled, they
also constrained. Perhaps megaliths could only be constructed in particular
ways and particular places, and used in particular ways. In this way, megaliths
may simply have fulfilled the diverse needs of many different communities. This
research in the landscape settings of megaliths raises as many questions about
the nature of the early Neolithic as it addresses, and it is clear that other forms
of evidence need to be incorporated into this megalithic picture. But it is clear
that after all the debate, a simple transition from midden to megalith may be
too simplistic.
Note. I would like to thank The Leverhulme Trust, The British Academy, The Board
of Celtic Studies and Cardiff University for funding various elements of the research
presented here. Many thanks also to Chris Fowler and Alasdair Whittle for offering
useful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
REFERENCES
ARMIT, I. & FINLAYSON, B. 1992. Hunter-gatherers transformed: the transition to agriculture
in northern and western Europe. Antiquity 66, 66476.
ARMIT, I., MURPHY, E., NELIS, E. & SIMPSON, D. (eds) 2003. Neolithic settlement in
Ireland and western Britain. Oxford: Oxbow.
BONSALL, C. 1996. The Obanian problem: coastal adaption in the Mesolithic of western
Scotland. In T. Pollard & A. Morrison (eds), The early prehistory of Scotland, 18397.
BRADLEY, R. 1993. Altering the earth. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
BRADLEY, R. 1998. The significance of monuments: on the shaping of human experience in
Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. London: Routledge.
BRADLEY, R. 2000. The archaeology of natural places. London: Routledge.
BRADLEY, R. & EDMONDS, M. 1993. Interpreting the axe trade. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
BRCK, J. 2001. Monuments, power and personhood in the British Neolithic. Journal of the
Royal Anthropological Institute 7, 64967.
CHILDE, V. 1940. Prehistoric communities of the British Isles. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
CLOUGH, T. & CUMMINS, W. (eds) 1988. Stone axe studies: volume two. London: Council for
British Archaeology.
CUMMINGS, V. 2002. Between mountains and sea: a reconsideration of the monuments of
south-west Scotland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 68, 12546.
CUMMINGS, V. 2003. Mesolithic world-views of the landscape in western Britain. In
L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Leoffler & A. kerlund (eds), Mesolithic on the
move: papers presented at the Sixth International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe,
Stockholm 2000, 7481. Oxford: Oxbow.

CUMMINGS, V. 2004. Connecting the mountains and sea: the monuments of the eastern Irish
Sea zone. In V. Cummings & C. Fowler (eds), The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: materiality and
CUMMINGS, V. forthcoming. A view from the west: the Neolithic of the Irish Sea zone. Oxford:
Oxbow.
CUMMINGS, V., JONES, A. & WATSON, A. 2002. In between places: axial symmetry and
divided space in the monuments of the Black Mountains, south-east Wales. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 12, 5770.
CUMMINGS, V. & WHITTLE, A. 2005. Pentre Ifan: east or west? The origins of monumentality in Wales and western Britain. In G. Marchand & A. Tresset (eds), Unit et diversit des
processus de nolithisation sur la faade atlantique de lEurope (7me4me millnaires avant
J.-C.), 24556. Socit Prhistorique Franaise: Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique
Franaise.
DANIEL, G. 1941. The dual nature of the megalithic colonisation of prehistoric Europe.
DARVILL, T. & THOMAS, J. (eds) 1996. Neolithic houses in northwest Europe and beyond.
Oxford: Oxbow.
DAVIS, M. 1945. Types of megalithic monuments of the Irish Sea and north channel coastlands:
a study in distributions. Antiquaries Journal 25, 12544.
DE VALERA, R. 1960. The court cairns of Ireland. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 60,
9140.
DRONFIELD, J. 1995a. Migraine, light and hallucinogens: the neurocognitive basis of Irish
megalithic art. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 14, 26175.
DRONFIELD, J. 1995b. Subjective vision and the source of Irish megalithic art. Antiquity 69,
53949.
FLEMING, A. 2005. Megaliths and post-modernism: the case of Wales. Antiquity 79, 92132.
FOWLER, C. & CUMMINGS, V. 2003. Places of transformation: building monuments from
water and stone in the Neolithic of the Irish Sea. Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute 9, 121.
HAWKES, C. 1940. The prehistoric foundations of Europe to the Mycenean Age. London:
Methuen.
HENSHALL, A. 1972. The chambered tombs of Scotland, volume two. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
HODDER, I. 1982a. Symbols in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HODDER, I. (ed.) 1982b. Symbolic and structural archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
JONES, A. 1998. Where eagles dare: landscape, animals and the Neolithic of Orkney. Journal of
Material Culture 3, 30124.
LEIVERS, M. 1999. The architecture and context of mortuary practice in the Neolithic period of
north Wales. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Southampton.
LYNCH, F. 1969. The megalithic tombs of north Wales. In T. Powell, J. Corcoran, F. Lynch &
J. Scott, Megalithic enquiries in the west of Britain, 10748. Liverpool: Liverpool University
Press.
MELLARS, P. 1987. Excavations on Oronsay. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
MITHEN, S. 2000. Mesolithic sedentism on Oronsay: chronological evidence from adjacent
islands in the southern Hebrides. Antiquity 74, 298304.
OSWALD, A., DYER, C. & BARBER, M. 2001. The creation of monuments: Neolithic
causewayed enclosures in the British Isles. London: English Heritage.
510
Vicki Cummings
PIGGOTT, S. 1954. The Neolithic cultures of the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
POLLARD, J. 2000. Ancestral places in the Mesolithic landscape. Archaeological Review from
Cambridge 17, 12338.
POLLARD, T. 1996. Time and tide: coastal environments, cosmology and ritual practice in early
prehistoric Scotland. In T. Pollard & A. Morrison (eds), The early prehistory of Scotland,
198210. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
SAVILLE, A. 1999. A cache of flint axeheads and other flint artefacts from Auchenhoan, near
Campbeltown, Kintyre, Scotland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65, 83123.
SCARRE, C. 2002. A pattern of islands: the Neolithic monuments of north-west Brittany.
European Journal of Archaeology 5, 2441.
SCOTT, J. 1969. The Clyde cairns of Scotland. In T. Powell, J. Corcoran, F. Lynch & J. Scott,
Megalithic enquiries in the west of Britain, 175222. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
SHANKS, M. & TILLEY, C. 1987. Reconstructing archaeology. London: Routledge.
SHERIDAN, A. 2004. Neolithic connections along and across the Irish Sea. In V. Cummings &
C. Fowler (eds), The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: materiality and traditions of practice, 921.
Oxford: Oxbow.
SHERRATT, A. 1995. Instruments of conversion? The role of megaliths in the MesolithicNeolithic transition in north-west Europe. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 14, 24560.
SIMPSON, D. & MEIGHAN, I. 1999. Pitchstone a new trading material in Neolithic Ireland.
Archaeology Ireland 13, 2630.
Britain and south Scandinavia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54, 5966.
THOMAS, J. 1996. Time, culture and identity. London: Routledge.
THOMAS, J. & TILLEY, C. 1993. The axe and the torso: symbolic structures in the Neolithic
of Brittany. In C. Tilley (ed.), Interpretative archaeology, 225324. Oxford: Berg.
TILLEY, C. 1994. A phenomenology of landscape. Oxford: Berg.
WATSON, A. 2001. The sounds of transformation: acoustics, monuments and ritual in the
British Neolithic. In N. Price (ed.), The archaeology of shamanism, 17892. London:
Routledge.
WHITTLE, A. 1990. A model for the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the upper Kennet valley,
north Wiltshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 56, 10110.
WHITTLE, A. 2004. Stones that float to the sky: portal dolmens and their landscapes of memory
and myth. In V. Cummings & C. Fowler (eds), The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: materiality and
ZVELEBIL, M. 1996. Farmers: our ancestors and the identity of Europe. In P. Graves-Brown,
S. Jones & C. Gamble (eds), Cultural identity and archaeology, 14566. London: Routledge.
The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in

western Scotland: a review and new
evidence from Tiree
STEVEN MITHEN, ANNE PIRIE, SAM SMITH & KAREN WICKS
INTRODUCTION
ALTHOUGH BOTH THE Mesolithic and Neolithic of western Scotland have
been studied since the early twentieth century our knowledge of both periods
remains limited, as does our understanding of the transition between them
whether this is entirely cultural in nature or involves the arrival of new
Neolithic populations and the demise of the indigenous Mesolithic huntergatherers. The existing data provide us with seemingly contradictory evidence, with that from dietary analysis of skeletal remains suggesting
population replacement and that from settlement and technology indicating
continuity. After reviewing this evidence, this contribution briefly describes
ongoing fieldwork in the Inner Hebrides which aims to gain a more complete
understanding of Mesolithic settlement patterns, without which there
can only be limited progress on understanding the Mesolithic-Neolithic
transition.
The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in western Scotland thus provides
archaeologists with a significant challenge. We still need to specify what this
transition involved with regard to changes in settlement, subsistence, society,
ideology and the human population itself, before being able to explain when
and why it occurred. In spite of more than a century of research on the
Mesolithic and Neolithic of western Scotland our knowledge of the
archaeological record remains limited. This partly arises from the nature of
the landscape; Mesolithic and Neolithic sites without standing monuments
are not easily discovered within landscapes that are predominantly laid to
pasture or covered by thick peat and blown sand, and where the coastline has
had a complex geomorphological history. Once sites are found, preservation
is frequently so poor that they provide little more than scatters of chipped
stone that are too easily classified according to preconceived and untested
512
Steven Mithen, Anne Pirie, Sam Smith & Karen Wicks
ideas of culture history. Moreover, Mesolithic communities are likely to have

had spatially extensive patterns of movement, and hence the planning, funding and executing of fieldwork at an appropriate geographical scale in a
region of scattered islands and peninsulas are themselves an immense challenge. Nevertheless, the last decade has seen some progress made on the
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in western Scotland. In this paper we will
initially review and interpret the current evidence, focusing on that from the
Hebridean islands and highlight the issues of on-going debate. We will then
outline some aspects of our ongoing research.
A BRIEF OVERVIEW
One of the earlier known sites in Scotland is located on the island of
Rum, that of Kinloch Fields with radiocarbon dates of 80007350 cal BC
(8590 95 BP) and 82007000 cal BC (8515 190 BP) (Wickham-Jones 1990;
Fig. 1). This has a so-called narrow blade technology involving the production of microliths from blade blanks produced from platform cores, although
other forms of core technology, including bipolar methods, are also present
within the sites chipped stone assemblage. Following c. 8000 cal BC, sites
with narrow blade technology are known throughout the Inner Hebrides and
indicate a substantial Mesolithic presence of mobile hunter-gatherer communities. Such sites have not, as yet, been discovered in the Outer Hebrides,
although a Mesolithic presence may be indicated by vegetation change
(Edwards 1996).
Mesolithic settlement within western Scotland has had a long history of
study, with many areas seeing repeated visits by archaeologists at the end of
the nineteenth and start of the twentieth centuries: for example, Ludovic
Mann and Henderson Bishop on Tiree, Keith MacKewan and Mann again
at Risga, and Henderson as well as William Galloway and Mungo Buchanan
on Oronsay. In more recent times we should note the campaign of excavations by John Mercer (e.g. 1968; 1971; 1974; 1980) on Jura, the excavations
by Paul Mellars (1987) of the Oronsay shell middens, Clive Bonsalls work in
Ulva Cave (Bonsall et al. 1991; 1992), Mull, and Caroline Wickham-Joness
(1990) excavations at Kinloch Fields, Rum, and more recently her work in the
Inner Sound forming the First Settlers Project (Hardy & Wickham-Jones
2003). The Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project between 198898 examined
Mesolithic settlement on Islay and Colonsay (Mithen 2000a), while our ongoing Inner Hebrides Archaeological Project is now undertaking survey and
test excavation for Mesolithic settlement on Tiree, Coll and north-west Mull.
In addition to such fieldwork, studies of the Mesolithic have been pursued by
palaeoenvironmental research (Edwards 2000), computational studies (e.g.
A REVIEW AND NEW EVIDENCE FROM TIREE
Figure 1.
513
Western Scotland, showing sites referred to in the text.
Lake et al. 1998), experimental archaeology (e.g. Barlow & Mithen 2000;
Score & Mithen 2000), theoretical speculation (e.g. Cummings 2003) and a
variety of analytical approaches, involving analysis of bone isotopes
(e.g. Schulting & Richards 2002) and the radiocarbon dating of artefacts
discovered much earlier this century (e.g. Bonsall & Smith 1992).
514
With the risk of gross generalisation, this research has demonstrated that
Mesolithic communities in the Hebrides were mobile hunter-gatherers, most
likely having a diverse economic base involving the use of marine and terrestrial, animal and plant foods. Some have argued that they should be characterised as complex hunter-gatherers equivalent to those of the Erteblle
from Denmark (e.g. Armit & Finlayson 1992). We doubt if this is correct and
suggest that the Mesolithic communities in the southern Hebrides at least
(Islay, Colonsay, Jura and Oronsay) should be considered as generalist
foragers, without substantial, let alone permanent, base camps (see Mithen
2000c, 60020); they were the epitome of what Mithen has termed Thoughtful
Foragers (Mithen 1990).
A concern with the transition to the Neolithic has been implicit within
much of the Mesolithic research referred to above, and has sometimes
become the main focus of concern (e.g. Cummings 2003; Schulting &
Richards 2002). The main problem we face with explaining this transition is
our limited understanding of Neolithic communities. Within Scotland in general, there appears to be a disjuncture in the archaeological record at around
38003700 cal BC with the appearance of farming, pottery-making and the
formal deposition of the dead within stone-built burial tombs (Ashmore
2004). In northern and eastern Scotland this evidence seems to conform to
our traditional ideas of the Neolithic as sedentary, mixed economy farming
communities in terms of stone-built structures forming villages in the Orkney
islands (Richards 2003) and timber-built structures at Balbridie (Fairweather
& Ralston 1993) and Claish Farm (Barclay et al. 2002) in eastern Scotland.
The evidence is less substantial and more ambiguous in western Scotland,
where it is dominated by burial tombs (Ritchie 1997). One of the earliest of
these is the chambered cairn at Port Charlotte, Islay. An assemblage of charcoal fragments, charred hazelnut shell fragments, flint scrapers and animal
bones from an old land surface below this cairn has provided three radiocarbon dates, with the oldest at 39803640 cal BC (5020 90 BP) and a mean of
37793542 cal BC (4890 60 BP) (Harrington & Pierpoint 1980). A date for
the construction of the chambered tomb at Crarae, Loch Fyne, has been proposed on the basis of a cockle shell date from the tomb at 42403780 cal BC
(5545 35 BP), while a human bone from the tomb has been dated to
36403380 cal BC (4735 40 BP) (Scott 1961; Schulting & Richards 2002).
Charcoal from a pit containing Neolithic pottery from Newton, Islay, was
dated to 39403640 cal BC (4965 60 BP) (Connock et al. 1993; McCullagh
1989) and that from a Neolithic hollow at Kinloch, Rum, to 38003000 cal
BC (4725 140 BP). Charcoal from pits with Neolithic pottery at Machrie
Moor, Arran, has been dated to 45004140 cal BC (5500 70 BP) and
37103380 cal BC (4820 50 BP) (Haggerty 1991), with the pollen evidence
suggesting the earliest cereal cultivation occurred prior to 4300 cal BC based
515
on a radiocarbon age estimate (Robinson & Dickson 1988). Charcoal from a

dismantled timber circle at Temple Wood, Kilmartin, has been dated to
43533351 cal BC (5025 190 BP) while that from structures that are most
probably Neolithic houses from Ardnadam and Dunloskin Wood, Argyll,
has been dated to 37103340 cal BC (4740 90 BP) and 39503000 cal BC
(4725 150 BP) respectively (Ashmore 1997), with pollen evidence at
Ardnadam suggesting pastoralism (Rennie 1984).
While the burial tombs, pottery and scant traces of architecture, cereals
and bones from domestic animals, indicate a change of lifestyle from that of
the Mesolithic, the extent and precise nature of this change remain unclear.
One possibility is the arrival of new people herding cattle and sheep, using
pottery and possessing quite different cultural values and ideology to those
of the indigenous Mesolithic people. In this scenario, the latter would have
been entirely replaced, either becoming acculturated or simply dying out.
Another possibility is the piecemeal adoption of various Neolithic cultural
traits by the Mesolithic foragers as these spread from the east and the south,
resulting in a gradual transformation of their lifestyles. To consider some of
the key issues concerning this transition and to decide which of these scenarios is most likely, we must begin with the Mesolithic shell middens on
Oronsay.
THE ORONSAY MIDDENS, OBANIAN CULTURE AND

ISSUES OF CHRONOLOGY
The Obanian culture was traditionally characterised as a late phase of the
Mesolithic, constituted by shell midden sites on small islands and inside caves
in Argyllnotably the sites on Oronsay, Risga and in the caves around Oban
(Bonsall 1997). These were characterised as having a distinctive set of artefacts including barbed points, pins, awls, limpet hammers, and a chipped
stone technology dominated by bipolar technology and lacking in blade technology and microliths (Lacaille 1954; Woodman 1989). The last decade has
seen the Obanian culture systematically dismantled as a chronological phase
of the Mesolithic, as its assumed diagnostic traits have been found in sites
throughout the Mesolithic period and associated with a narrow blade
chipped stone industry (Bonsall 1997; Mithen 2000b, 1821). For instance, a
barbed point from Druimvargie Rockshelter has been dated to 75807180 cal
BC (8340 80 BP), while the base of a shell midden in Ulva Cave, Mull, has
been dated to 66406400 cal BC (7660 65 BP). The site of Sand on the
Applecross peninsula, Skye, has shell midden deposits associated with a narrow blade technology (Hardy & Wickham-Jones 2003), and microliths have
been recognised as prevalent within the assemblage from the Obanian site on
516
Risga (Pollard et al. 1996; Pollard 2000). Although the artefactual assemblages from the Oronsay middens have yet to be fully analysed and published,
a recent assessment of a sample of chipped stone from Cnoc Coig has indicated the presence of a blade technology (Pirie et al. in press), contrary to the
assumption that the Oronsay midden artefacts were entirely bipolar in
character.
It is no longer possible to characterise the Obanian as a distinct cultural
or economic phase of the Mesolithic. Equally, it is also not possible to
demonstrate that the Oronsay middens were part of a widespread settlement
subsistence system involving the use of terrestrial as well as marine
resourcesas would be expected for Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. During the
course of the Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project 30 radiocarbon dates
were acquired from five Mesolithic sites on Islay and Colonsay, four of which
also had later prehistoric occupation. The dates evenly spanned the period
73306910 cal BC (8110 60 BP) to 19201450 cal BC (3390 90 BP) except
for a complete absence between c. 58004500 cal BC, and only a single date
(from Staosnaig, Colonsay) between c. 58003800 cal BC. This hiatus of occupation on Islay and Colonsay (and also on Jura) covers the principal occupation period of the Oronsay middens (Mithen 2000d). This period is
unrepresented at all other Mesolithic sites on Islay and Jura, while its
palaeoenvironmental record also lacks signs of anthropogenic activity. The
idea that there was a Mesolithic abandonment of Islay, Jura and Colonsay
for the tiny island of Oronsay between c. 58004500 cal BC seems ecologically
bizarre. It does, however, appear to be supported by the isotopic analysis of
human bone from Cnoc Coig, Oronsay.
Schulting and Richards (2000; 2002) presented the results from studies
13
of C and 15N in samples of human bone from two Oronsay midden sites,
Cnoc Coig (c. 46004300 cal BC) and Caisteal nan Gillean 1 (c. 52004300
cal BC). They also provided evidence from the midden at Cardingmill Bay,
the samples of which were attributed to the Neolithic and from the
Neolithic chambered tomb of Crarae, Loch Fyne. The Oronsay samples,
and especially those from Cnoc Coig, provided very strong marine signals
with 13C and 15N values equivalent to those found from seal and otter, suggesting a diet with 90% reliance on marine resources, specifically fish rather
than sea mammals or shellfish. The Neolithic samples, in contrast, had values indicative of a total reliance on terrestrial resources, suggesting protein
from animal stock. Measurements on sulphur isotopes were used by
Schulting and Richards (2002) to argue that although the Neolithic people
whose bones were deposited in Crarae made no use of marine foods in
their diet, they nevertheless lived by the sea. Similar results indicating an
absence of protein from marine resources have come from Bonsalls (2000)
studies of the human remains from Raschoille Cave, all of which are dated
517
to the Neolithic and appear to have been buried into a Mesolithic shell
midden.
On the basis of this evidence, Schulting and Richards (2002) proposed
that the start of the Neolithic in western Scotland involved a dramatic dietary
switch with the rejection of marine foods, especially fish. They recognised
that the amount of evidence from Scotland was slight, but noted that similar
isotope results have been found in Denmark and suggested that this dietary
change is common throughout Atlantic Europe, as protein from herded
animals replaced that from fish, molluscs and marine mammals.
It remains unclear how this interpretation can be reconciled with the
archaeological evidence for Neolithic exploitation of marine resources in
Scotland and throughout Atlantic Europe (Hedges 2004; Lidn et al. 2004;
Milner et al. 2004). The most problematic evidence in western Scotland is
that from the middens at Cardingmill Bay and An Corran, both of which
have Neolithic dates on shell and artefacts (Bonsall & Smith 1992; Connock
et al. 1993). Schulting and Richards (2002) proposal that marine resources
were being exploited in the Neolithic for oils and raw materials, with a
marginal, if any, use of meat, is not persuasive.
Schulting and Richards results suggested a completely marine-based diet
(with regard to protein) for the final Mesolithic on Oronsay. Had Cnoc Coig
been a site within a subsistence-settlement system that covered not only
Oronsay but also Colonsay, Jura and Islay, one would have expected that protein from terrestrial resources, notably deer, would have also been represented
with the human bone chemistry. The data from a single specimen from
Caisteal nan Gillean, on Oronsay, is more conducive to such an interpretation, as it indicated a balanced marine and terrestrial protein intake.
Nevertheless the absence of evidence for occupation on Islay, Jura and
Colonsay between 58004500 cal BC appears to preclude this possibility.
Existing evidence (Mellars 1987) suggests a series of periods of intensive
occupation and midden deposition associated with, in at least one of the sites
(Cnoc Coig), two hut structures and numerous reused hearths. Mellars (2004)
suggests that prolonged periods of occupation may have occurred in response
to resource stress on neighbouring islands. Preliminary analysis of the
chipped stone assemblage (Pirie et al. in press), that shows signs of typical
bladelet technology, confirms not only that a Mesolithic technology was continuing up to 4300 cal BC but also raises the possibility that groups on
Oronsay were not in any way isolated from more typical Mesolithic technologies, or, perhaps, the activities they represent. However, further analysis
of the relationship of features at Cnoc Coig to midden deposition and to
artefact assemblages is necessary in order to better understand occupation
intensity and duration.
518
SETTLEMENT, TECHNOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC CONTINUITY

The final depositions at the Oronsay middens appear to chronologically overlap with the presence of Neolithic activity within western Scotland. According
to Switsur and Mellars (1987) the middens were still accumulating at
38003700 cal BC, with a date of 43543534 cal BC (5150 380 BP) from
Caisteal nan Gillean II. These overlap with the first traces of Neolithic settlement in western Scotland. Schulting and Richards (2002) have provided four
new AMS dates on human remains from Cnoc Coig and Caisteal nan Gillean
II which, when corrected for the marine reservoir effect, range from 4300 to
3800 cal BC.
One interpretation of this slight overlap is that there were two populations within western Scotland by 40003700 cal BC: indigenous Mesolithic
hunter-gatherers who had become restricted to small islands and entirely
reliant on marine foods, and Neolithic farmers, practising cultivation, herding cattle and building stone tombs, who were now occupying the larger
islands and mainland (Mithen 2000d; Schulting & Richards 2002). Such
Neolithic farmers may have either been new immigrants into the region or
indigenous Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, who had adopted a new lifestyle
following culture contact of various types (e.g. trade, marriage, or oral communication through story-telling) with established Neolithic communities
elsewhere. The latter appears more likely in light of evidence for either settlement continuity, as has been stressed by Armit and Finlayson (1992;
1996), or the reuse of Mesolithic sites by Neolithic (and later) people after a
period of abandonment, as evident on Islay and Colonsay (Mithen 2000b;
2000d). At Kinloch, Rum, for instance, the archaeological remains attributed to the Mesolithic and Neolithic are virtually identical in terms of their
chipped stone technology and types of features, although microliths and
blades are less frequent in the Neolithic component (Wickham-Jones 1990).
As Armit and Finlayson noted (1992), the interpretation of the Mesolithic
remains at Kinloch as the remains of a base camp, and the Neolithic as the
peripheral scatter from a more substantial Neolithic settlement located outside of the excavation area, appears to reflect traditional assumptions about
these periods rather than to constitute an unbiased interpretation of the evidence. Similarly the Neolithic sites of Carinish on North Uist (Crone 1989)
and Alt Chrysal on Barra have no more than pits, ashy spreads, isolated
hearths and stone alignments similar to those features at Kinloch and
Morton. Armit and Finlayson (1992) suggest that the impression of a much
more substantial Neolithic settlement on the small islet of Eilean Domhnuill
in Loch Olabhat, North Uist, occupied between c. 36503500 cal BC, arises
from the superimposition of several occupations within a spatially restricted
area.
519
Mesolithic-Neolithic continuity regarding site location and possibly site

function is also evident from Ulva Cave, where the base of the midden has a
date of 66406400 cal BC (7660 60 BP), while Neolithic pottery was stratified within its upper layers and charcoal from a pit has been dated to
39503650 cal BC (4990 60 BP) (Bonsall et al. 1991; 1992). The midden at
Risga, Loch Sunart, has pottery stratified in the upper layers (Pollard 2000),
while both Mesolithic and Neolithic activity were located at Newton on Islay
(McCullagh 1989).
Bolsay Farm on Islay is perhaps the most significant Mesolithic site with
regard to Neolithic activity. This is the largest Mesolithic site excavated by
the Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project, recovering 329,667 pieces of
chipped stone that included over 7000 microliths (Mithen et al. 2000a;
2000b). This assemblage has been estimated as no more than 20% of that
likely surviving within the soil at this location. The chipped stone assemblage
is a classic example of narrow blade technology and, in comparison with
other assemblages excavated by the SHMP, is relatively specialised in its
range of tools with high frequencies of scalene triangles. It has been interpreted as a hunting camp in a prime location close to a lake and at a break
of woodland, one to which Mesolithic hunters repeatedly returned resulting
in the massive accumulation of debrisit was evidently a persistent place
in the landscape (cf. Barton et al. 1995). The site also contains a substantial
early Bronze Age pottery assemblage, and a fragment of a Neolithic ground
stone axe. Of eight radiocarbon dates, only three fall into the Mesolithic
period, with the remainder being distributed between 36402080 cal BC (4740
50 BP3525 80 BP). Once again, we can note the absence of occupation
between 58004500 cal BC the principal period of occupation of the
Oronsay middens. There are two possible interpretations for the site: the
chipped stone may all derive from the Mesolithic, with the later Neolithic and
Bronze Age activity involving limited, if any, deposition of chipped stone;
alternatively the typical Mesolithic narrow blade technology may have
continued in use during the Neolithic and Bronze Age periods, with the site
continuing in its Mesolithic role as a hunting camp.
We can note here that charcoal from a pit at Staosnaig containing platform
cores, blades and microliths was dated to 43604064 cal BC (5415 60 BP)
(Mithen & Finlay 2000), while a microlithic assemblage at Lussa River, Jura,
is associated with a date of 36502900 cal BC (4620 140 BP) (Mercer 1971).
While Mesolithic technology appears present in contexts with Neolithic
dates, so too are typologically Neolithic artefacts present in Mesolithic contexts. At Kinloch, a bifacially worked leaf point was found within a pit associated with charred hazelnut shell fragments which provided the earliest dates
from the site, 80007350 cal BC (8590 95 BP) and 82007000 cal BC (8515
190 BP) (Wickham-Jones 1990). Further fragments of such artefacts come
520
from the same site, but could not be confidently assigned to either the
Mesolithic or Neolithic phase. Leaf shaped arrowheads were also found associated with microliths at Lealt Bay on Jura (Mercer 1968), while another leafshaped and a chip from a polished stone axe of Antrim porcellanite were
found with the microlith scatter at Lussa Wood 1 (Armit & Finlayson 1996;
Mercer 1968). Similarly, a leaf shaped arrowhead made from Rum bloodstone has been recovered from the Mesolithic midden deposits on Risga
(Pollard 2000).
Raw material distributions appear as widespread in the Neolithic as the
Mesolithic (Armit 1992). Pitchstone from Arran is found within sites in the
Hebrides and north-east Scotland. Baked mudstones from north-east Skye
are found at Northton, Harris, while porcellanite axes deriving from Rathlin
Island, Antrim, are widespread throughout the Hebrides. Consequently, if
raw material distributions reflect the extent of mobility, there appears no
reduction across the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. Indeed, as pitchstone
has the most extensive distribution in the Neolithic, one might argue that
Neolithic people were more mobile than those of the Mesolithic.
A final potential aspect of cultural continuity between the Mesolithic and
Neolithic of western Scotland concerns the creation of monuments for
burial. Archaeologists have traditionally restricted such practices to the
Neolithic, but Pollard (1996; 2000), Cummings (2003) and Mellars (2004)
have suggested that the Oronsay shell middens may have functioned in a similar manner to the Neolithic stone built tombs; they were artificial constructions on the landscape with substantial visibility which were repeatedly
returned to and used for burial. The analogy with Neolithic mounds may
seem tenuous, and the Mesolithic burial practices, if indeed this is what they
were, were evidently quite different in light of the scattered, fragmented and
partial skeletal remains within the middens (see also Warren, this volume).
Nevertheless, speculations about the symbolic significance of not only shell
middens, but also water, and small islands, are useful reminders of how
hunter-gatherers as much as farmers live in culturally created landscapes.
IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Although there are traces of cereal use in the Neolithic, there is limited evidence for substantial clearance of vegetation of the type expected for crop
cultivation; the Neolithic impact on the vegetation appears little different to
that of the Mesolithic. On Islay there is evidence for human disturbance to
vegetation both at and before c. 3750 cal BC (5000 BP) (Edwards 2000;
Sugden & Edwards 2000). Small-scale disturbance is evident at Loch
521
aBhogaidh and Newton as early as c. 64306200 cal BC (75507310 BP).

Further small-scale vegetation disturbance is evident at Loch aBhogaidh
between c. 40201980 cal BC (52303610 BP), while more substantial clearance appears to occur in the Sorn Valley, Islay, at c. 4010 cal BC (5210 BP).
Nevertheless, if these are reflecting clearance, it seems clear that those happening at c. 3750 cal BC (5000 BP) are not substantially different in impact
from those at c. 6400 cal BC (7500 BP). The evidence from Loch aBhogaidh
and Newton shows that only from c. 1830 cal BC (3500 BP) does vegetation
clearance become substantial, apparently reflecting the establishment of fully
agricultural economies.
A similar pattern is evident further north on Rum (Hirons 1990). Between
c. 95204900 cal BC (10,0006000 BP), when the landscape remained relatively open with small copses of birch and hazel, together with scattered pine,
there is evidence for disturbance to the vegetation in the immediate vicinity
of the Mesolithic site. Hirons (1990) suggests that these are likely to have
arisen from natural fires. Between c. 54802525 cal BC (65004000 BP), alder
and hazel/bog myrtle increase markedly and the first evidence for human
impact on the vegetation is apparent in the form of reduced tree and
increased herb frequencies, correlating with charcoal within the sediments.
Each of these periods of small-scale clearance lasted about 250 years with
seemingly minimal long-term effects. At c. 3420 cal BC (4600 BP) a further
impact on the vegetation is seen, with an increase in grass pollen, tree pollen
of species favouring open habitats and increased mineral matter within the
sediments. A few grains of flax pollen suggest local cultivation. But it is not
until c. 2525 cal BC (4000 BP) that there was a major impact on the vegetation. At around this date there was a substantial reduction in tree cover, a
build up of slope wash and, at 25702150 cal BC (3890 65 BP), the deliberate dumping of stoney silt within a water course. A grain of cereal pollen
within the sediment core at this date might suggest that it is only at this time
that we have evidence for clearance for agriculture.
In summary, there is no evidence for large-scale vegetation clearance of
the nature one would expect in cereal-based economies in western Scotland
until the start of the Bronze Age. This only occurs with the spread of Beaker
pottery through western Scotland, when we find settlements with substantial
architecture and extensive field systems. On Islay, for instance, round houses
are found at Ardnave at a date of 22801900 cal BC (3687 60 BP) (Ritchie
& Welfare 1983) while the field systems at An Sithean suggest substantial cultivation (Barber & Brown 1984). Such agricultural activity involving extensive vegetation clearance and causing soil erosion contrasts markedly with
that of the Neolithic, during which cereals appear to be a minor supplement
to the continued use of wild plants.
522
DENSITIES OF CHIPPED STONE AND MOBILITY PATTERNS

While the bone isotope data contrast with the other lines of evidence for the
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition that we have so far covered, there is one
further feature of the archaeological record that appears to show a marked
contrast between the two periods: the quantities of chipped stone. As noted
above, technological changes between the Mesolithic and Neolithic remain
under-determined, most likely involving little more than a shift of emphasis
from blade to flake and platform to bipolar cores. But the quantities of
chipped stone recovered from sites show a significant decline. The amount
recovered from Mesolithic sites in the Hebrides is usually vast: for example,
excavations at Kinloch Fields, Rum produced an assemblage of 138,043
pieces (Wickham-Jones 1990); Newton, Islay, 10,809 pieces (McCullagh
1989); Lealt Bay, Jura at least 50,000 pieces (Mercer 1968); Bolsay Farm,
Islay, 329,667 pieces (Mithen et al. 2000b)and all of these are no more
than samples of the total amount of chipped stone present. In contrast, at
Neolithic sites in western Scotland, the quantities of chipped stone are negligible: Auchategan, Argyll, 125; Balloch Hill, Argyll, 196; Eilean an Tighe,
North Uist, 27 (Sheridan & Sharples 1992). A similar contrast exists in
eastern Scotland (Warren 2004).
Various factors might explain this dramatic contrast. It may relate to differing excavation methods between Mesolithic and Neolithic archaeologists,
with the former being more inclined to wet sieve large quantities of sediment.
Alternatively it may reflect different depositional patterns between the two
periods, with Neolithic stone-knapping and/or dumping of debris taking
place away from domestic settlements. Another possibility is that a switch in
the predominant raw material occurred across the transition from flint to
quartz, with the latter being more difficult to recover and identify as worked.
Even if all of these factors were playing a role, the reduction in chipped stone
is dramatic in light of the evidence that otherwise exists for continuity
between the Mesolithic and Neolithic.
The most likely explanation for the reduction in chipped stone quantities
is that this reflects a change in mobility patterns. If the rate at which chipped
stone was generated was equivalent between Mesolithic and Neolithic
groups, then the Mesolithic sites must derive from repeated occupations at
the same place in the landscape, whereas the rate of Neolithic site reoccupation was minimal. This is likely if the Mesolithic people were reliant on the
use of optimal locations for hunting and gathering, and hence repeatedly
returned to these, whereas the Neolithic people took their resources with
them in the form of herded animals and were far less constrained as to where
they would undertake activities. With particular regard to the Western Isles,
Armit and Finlayson (1996) have speculated that the Neolithic sites in small
523
islets within lochs, such as Eilean Domhnuill and Eilean an Tighe, might
represent permanent bases, while sites now found within the peatlands and
machair, such as Northton and Carinish, might be transient seasonal camps.
Yet Armits own description of the house structures in the islets as insubstantial appears to contradict the idea of permanent settlement, and a
lifestyle involving high mobility appears more likely.
THE ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL DATA

The data we have summarised above provide a rather confused picture of the
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in western Scotland; there are some indications of continuity, suggesting gradual cultural evolution of an indigenous
population, while data from bone isotopes, artefact densities and the absence
of sites contemporary with the Oronsay middens are more suggestive of
major social and economic change, possibly involving the arrival of new
people reliant on domesticated herds.
Further analysis and publication of existing data, most notably that excavated from the Oronsay middens and Ulva Cave, might provide a means to
reconcile such apparently contradictory claims. Similarly, informed theoretical speculation, as undertaken by Pollard (2000) and Cummings (2003) is
important, although that involving the application of optimal foraging theory (e.g. Mithen 1990) would be of far greater value. Ultimately, however, we
need to improve our knowledge of the archaeological record by further survey and excavation for Mesolithic and Neolithic sites. New data are required
for addressing at least four key issues.
First, we need further information about the Mesolithic settlement systems, especially that involving the Oronsay middens. The absence of known
contemporary sites on Islay, Jura and Colonsay may be no more than a factor of discovery; such sites may exist but have not been discovered or dated.
Alternatively, this may be a true reflection of the settlement pattern between
65005000 BP. But such sites may exist elsewhere, notably in those regions of
the Hebrides that have remained relatively unexplored for Mesolithic settlement but are within relatively short distances (for hunter-gatherers) of
Oronsay: Tiree, Coll and Mull. On the basis of ethnographic analogy, looking at, for instance, the foragers of Tierra del Fuego who exploited an island
archipelago with topographic similarities to western Scotland, we should
expect that a single Mesolithic settlement system would have covered the
whole of the west coast of Scotland (Mithen 2000c).
Second, we need to gain further understanding of environmental change,
and especially vegetation history, throughout western Scotland and especially
on those relatively unexplored islands. As may be the case in the Western Isles
524
(Edwards 1996), the first identification of a human presence may come from
the presence of charcoal from human-induced fires in sediment cores or
anthropogenically caused impacts on vegetation. However, Tippings (2004)
caveat, that natural processes are perhaps more likely to drive woodland
disturbance in environments that are inherently unstable, emphasises the
need for multi-working hypotheses in interpretations of landscape and vegetation change. In this regard, new sediment cores ideally covering the late
Pleistocene and early Holocene need to be taken and analysed from suitable
deposits on Tiree, Coll and Mull.
Third, new fieldwork is required to address the issue of dietary change.
While the likelihood of finding new human skeletal remains from either
Mesolithic or Neolithic contexts for isotope studies is limited, survey and
excavation might reveal the presence of Neolithic (i.e. post-3700 cal BC) occupation sites in coastal situations that would imply the utilisation of marine
resources, and ideally provide midden deposits.
Fourth, there is the need to gain an improved understanding of stone tool
technology, and especially its pattern of chronological change. Without this,
we will be unable to draw any inferences regarding settlement patterns
because many Hebridean sites will always remain as scatters of chipped stone
lacking absolute dates. One of the key questions to resolve is whether platform blade technology involving the manufacture of microliths continued
into the Neolithic. Another requirement is to establish the character of the
stone tool technology associated with the Oronsay, Risga and Ulva middens.
This requires a thorough analysis of those assemblages using the methodology devised for the Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project (Finlayson et al.
2000), so that useful inter-site comparisons can be made.
To address these issues, we have initiated new fieldwork on Tiree, Coll and
north-west Mull, and begun analysis of pre-existing museum collections from
these islands, as acquired by various collectors during the twentieth century.
We have also analysed a sample of the Cnoc Coig assemblage and hope to
undertake a complete study of the Oronsay chipped stone, along with
samples of the Risga and Ulva assemblages
This new project is at an early stage, having completed no more than two
weeks of field survey on Tiree, inspection of selected artefact collections in
An Iodhlann (Tiree museum), the Hunterian and Kelvingrove Museums, and
those found by local residents of the islands. This has led to the identification
of potentially important Mesolithic/Neolithic sites at Fiskary Bay and
Caolas an-Eilean on Coll, and at Craet Dubh, Penmore on Mull, each of
which we intend to explore during fieldwork in 2006 (Fig. 2). Here we report
on preliminary results from Tiree.
525
Figure 2.
Tiree, Coll and north-west Mull, showing sites referred to in the text.
526

WAS THERE MESOLITHIC SETTLEMENT ON TIREE?
Tiree is the outer-most island of the Inner Hebrides, c. 17.5 km long and
between 1.5 km and 9.5 km wide, with an area of 60 km sq. It is low-lying,
treeless and flat, with three small hills, Ben Hynish (141 m), Beinn Hough
(119 m) and Beinn Ceann a Mhara (90 m) (Figs 3 and 4). Almost the entire
landscape is covered by either pasture or peat. The coast is characterised by
a rocky shoreline interspersed with sandy beaches; sand dunes are extensive,
almost entirely covered by grass which was deliberately planted in the postwar period as a means to stabilise the sand. Archaeological research on Tiree
has been limited. Beveridge (1903) undertook the first systematic description
of standing monuments and artefact scatters, while Ludovic Mann made five
visits to Tiree and Coll between 1905 and 1921, making substantial collections of chipped stone artefacts which are now located in Kelvingrove
museum. In 1912 a tanged point was found in the sand dune area of
Balevullin (Livens 1956). The precise circumstances of its recovery are
unknown and the point itself can no longer be located, although it is
recorded as being in the Hunterian Museum (Ballin & Saville 2002).
Typologically, this point has been described as an Ahrensburgian point which
would indicate a late glacial presence on the island, between c. 10,5009500
cal BC.
During the second world war, George Holleyman, an RAF Corporal stationed on the island, described a sample of craggans (large pottery vessels)
from Tiree (Holleyman 1947), and made a substantial collection of metal,
pottery and chipped stone artefacts from dune areas, especially Balevullin
and Balephuil, which are now curated in An Iodhlann, the island museum.
At that time the sand dunes lacked any grass cover, which appears to have
exposed numerous scatters of artefacts, all of which are now sealed below a
stable, grass-covered landscape (Figs 5 and 6). Ewan MacKie undertook a
major excavation of Dun Mor, Vaul, between 19624 (Mackie 1974). In 1980
the Royal Commission published their inventory of monuments on Tiree
(RCAHMS 1980). In September 2003, Katinka Stentoft (pers. comm.) undertook a survey on the west coast of Tiree for traces of Norse settlement on
behalf of AOC Scotland.
Our archaeological survey for Mesolithic sites has focused on the dune
areas of Tirees west coast, although it has attempted to cover the whole
island in terms of inspecting any natural or artificial exposure for chipped
stone artefacts. The large unstable dunes are subject to substantial blowouts
during major storms, while the fixed (i.e. grassed) dunes are only occasionally
disturbed, such as by cattle, vehicles and walkers (there are no rabbits on
the island). The fragile mat of surface vegetation can be broken through, and
the thin rendzina soils (typically 1020 cm thick) then become damaged. The
527
Figure 3. View looking north-west across Tiree from Ben Hynish, located at the southern end
of the island.
erosion scars vary in size, but the local farmers tend to repair them by spreading farmyard manure weighted down with beach cobbles, which allow the
scars to regenerate before they grow too large. In some areas, however, the
erosion has accelerated to the point where large areas of underlying sands
have become exposed.
The field survey began in 2004 with an intensive investigation of the area
of dunes between Loch a Phuill, Beinn Ceann a Mhara and the beaches of
Traigh Bhi and Traigh nan Gilean, between around NGR NL 95500/40500
and 93700/42700. The area was intensively covered in order to locate and
examine every erosion scar for potential archaeological material.
Approximately 200 erosion scars were investigated in the Loch a Phuill dune
area. The survey continued by examining the area between Sandaig and Na
Carnain. This area was characterised by large, unstable dunes immediately
along the coastal fringe and smaller, more stable dunes inland. The major
blowout exposures occurred in the unstable dunes along the coast; inland, the
dunes were much lower (c. 13 m high) and exposures were rare. The area
walked was along the coast between NGR NL 94000/44000 and NL
94200/47200, and about 30 exposures were investigated. A further 25 dune
blowouts and exposures were investigated between NM 00000/46900 and
528
Figure 4. View looking north across Balephuil Bay, Tiree, from Ben Hynish, located at the
southern end of the island.
Figure 5. George Holleyman on the sand dunes, most likely at Balevullin, c. 1947 (with thanks
to Ad Iodlhann).
529
Figure 6. Grass covered dunes at Balevullin, August 2005.
NM 01100/47400. There were a number of likely looking major blowouts, but

no artefacts were found in this area. During 2005 all of those localities from
which chipped stone was recovered were revisited, and the remainder of the
island was walked, examining all exposed sediments for chipped stone
artefacts.
The vegetation history of Tiree is effectively unknown, other than with
regard to gross generalisations about western Scotland as a whole. Peat
extraction on Tiree has been substantial; by the early twentieth century Tiree
residents were importing peat from Coll. Today peat deposits are relatively
scarce on Tiree. During 2004, the project test-cored ten locations, of which
only that within the gently sloping reed beds on the western shore of Loch
Bhasapoll (NGR NM 966 466) appears to have potential for reconstructing
a partial vegetation history of the island. The reed beds cover an area of
c. 0.5 ha with a sediment sequence comprising c. 150 cm of humic peaty gleys,
capped by c. 40 cm of medium sand with shell fragments and underlain by
sands and gravels, the latter potentially representing relict raised beach
deposits. In 2004 a Russian peat sampler was used to obtain a sediment core
for pollen and micro-charcoal analysis, and in 2005 an additional core sample
was collected using a percussion-driven corer for plant macro-fossil analysis
530
in order to determine both the local and regional vegetation history for Tiree,
and evaluate the nature and extent of human impact on the landscape
TRACES OF MESOLITHIC SETTLEMENT ON TIREE

The fieldwork and museum studies identified nineteen previously unreported
locations on Tiree from which chipped stone artefacts have been recovered
(Mithen et al. 2004; 2005). The provenance of those identified from the
museum collections made by Holleyman could not be located beyond a
general designation such as Balephuil or Balevullin as this was the only
information present.
The majority of these new sites are evidently later prehistoric in date
owing to the presence of pottery and in some cases metal work and slag, and
will be reported on elsewhere. Some of the artefacts collected by Holleyman
are likely to be Mesolithic in date. His collection from Balephuil Bay (designated as TM3) consisted of 25 retouched tools that included 16 small,
thumbnail scrapers, a borer with abrupt retouch on both lateral edges and
two microliths, a marginally retouched bladelet and a bilaterally retouched
irregular bladelet (Fig. 7). This collection also contained two small bifacial
pieces on flakes, two notches and one retouched irregular blade. Another of
Holleymans collections, now designated as TM5 and which lacks any provenance, contained a platform bladelet core (Fig. 8) and a bladelet. The artefacts most likely came from either Balevullin or Balephuil, as these were his
main collecting areas.
Of the new artefact localities found by our survey, the most likely to be
Mesolithic or Neolithic in date is that designated as T1 (Fig. 9). This site was
located in the base of a large dune blowout in the dunes at Balephuil Bay
(NR NL 94980/40815), and comprised a scatter of worked flint in amongst
the cobbles and pebbles of a buried storm beach. The height of the main
gravel bench is 5.9 m, with the gravel ridge crest at 6.46 m. The scatter was
immediately to the north of a relict beach ridge which was orientated eastwest, parallel to the present day shoreline. The ridge was exposed for c. 21 m,
and continued under the unstable sand dunes to the east and west. The flints
were found in a matrix of blown sand, and all of the visible artefacts were
collected over the course of two visits by members of the team in 2004 and
one visit in 2005. Following discussion with Katinka Stentoft, it transpired
that she had also collected chipped stone from this locality in September
2003, and hence her collection in An Iodhlann was combined with ours to
form a single assemblage of 176 pieces (Table 1).
No prehistoric pottery was observed at this location, although modern
pottery, plastic fragments, asbestos and other modern materials were present.
531
Figure 7. Artefacts collected by Holleyman. (a)(c) scrapers from TM3; (d) broken microlith
from TM3; (e) borer from TM3; (f) worked bone point from TM4; (g) single platform bladelet
core from TM5. Drawing by Sophie Lamb.
532
Figure 8. Single-platform bladelet core collected by Holleyman, probably from Balevullin,

from collection TM5.
Figure 9.
Site of T1, Balephuil, Tiree.
533
Most of the artefacts had been made from small white beach cobbles of
opaque flint, although artefacts made from quartz and marble are also present. These raw materials appear to be naturally present in the beach deposit
at this locality.
The assemblage is flake dominated (64%) with a significant number of
cores (12%) and debris (18%) and few retouched pieces (5%) (Fig. 10). There
is no clear evidence of blade/bladelet technologies with the two bladelets
being irregular and probably fortuitous. The assemblage also contains a single core trimming element (from a small platform core) and a possible anvil.
Analysis of the assemblage reveals two technological traditions, with bipolar
(38%) and platform (48%) core types present. The presence of cores, anvils,
debitage, debris and retouched tools suggests that all stages of knapping were
carried out at this location, using raw material which was immediately
present.
Table 1.
Chipped stone from T1, Balephuil, Tiree.
T1,
Balephuil,
Tiree
Flakes
With platform
W/out platform
Broken
Total
Blades
Blades
Bladelets
Total
0
2
2
Debris
Chips
Chunks
Total
10
22
32
Cores
Platform
Bipolar
Fragment
CTE
Total
10
8
2
1
21
Retouched
Awls
Bifacial
Burin
Notch
Marginal retouch
Scraper
Total
Total
27
53
32
112
1
2
1
1
3
1
9
176
534
Figure 10. Chipped stone artefacts from T1. (a) cortical flake with bipolar battering and
absence of platform; (b) irregular flake with bipolar battering and irregular ventral face; (c)
single-platform, sub-pyramidal, flakelet core; (d) platform core; (e) bipolar core on small pebble;
(f) awl. Drawing by Sophie Lamb.
535
Platform cores include both sub-pyramidal single platform types and

amorphous types, and are generally very small (c. 20 20 20 mm) retaining cortex on at least one surface, confirming that beach cobbles were the raw
material source. Bipolar cores range in shape from half cobbles to more characteristic wedge shaped pieces. These pieces frequently retain a high degree of
cortex and this, allied to their small size, confirms the use of beach cobbles
for this reduction strategy as well. Both bipolar and platform cores show only
flake and chip removals, with no sign of blade technology present. Retouched
pieces comprise 5% of the assemblage and include bifacial pieces (two), marginally retouched pieces (three), a scraper, a notch, a burin and an awl. Both
bifacial pieces are broken and the breaks take the form of burin removals. It
is possible that these represent knapping errors. The single deliberate burin
has at least two burin removals from the platform remnant; crushing at the
distal end suggests the use of an anvil in the manufacture of this piece.
The assemblage has some similarities to that from Cnoc Coig, based on
an initial assessment of a sample of the latter (Pirie et al. in press). Both share
a mixture of bipolar and platform technologies in the exploitation of beach
pebbles of flint and quartz. T1 contains a higher proportion of bipolar technology, and more limited indications of a bladelet industry, containing only
two irregular bladelets. At Cnoc Coig, and as will be reported fully elsewhere,
there are very few actual bladelets, although there are signs of blade-related
products such as pieces with previous bladelet removals, cores with several
bladelet removals, and core trimming elements.
Retouched pieces are very similar between the two assemblages, although
T1 contains a smaller proportion of retouched tools (5%, compared to 10%
at Cnoc Coig). Both sites contain a range of mainly non-formal retouched
tools. However, at Cnoc Coig there are numerous pices esquilles, so far not
present in the T1 assemblage.
In making comparisons between these two sites, it is important to appreciate that Cnoc Coig is a large site with spatial and stratigraphic variation in
assemblage composition, some components of which lack evidence for
bladelet technology. So while the lack of a convincing bladelet industry at T1
makes it difficult to confirm a Mesolithic date for the site, the assemblage is
very similar to the assemblages from some parts of Cnoc Coig where blade
technology was not present. In addition, T1 probably represents a much
briefer occupation, and possibly narrower range of activities, and has no
(identified) shell midden in the vicinity. These factors may account for some
of the differences in technology and tool class of the assemblages.
536

CONCLUSION
Whether or not T1 is contemporary with Cnoc Coig can only be determined

by excavation at the site, which may not be possible simply owing to the lack
of preservation of any deposits other than the scatter of chipped stone on the
raised beach. On-going geophysical survey of the Balephuil dunes by Dr Tim
Astin (University of Reading) may reveal further archaeological deposits at
this locality which are sealed by sand dune.
Some artefacts from the Holleyman collection must surely indicate a
Mesolithic presence on the island, but it seems doubtful that the source of
these artefacts will ever be located owing to their lack of specific provenance
and the almost entire carpet of grass that now covers the sand dunes of
Balevullin and Balephuil, seriously inhibiting field survey. We have yet to
examine the collections made by Beveridge and Ludovic Mann which are
located in the Kelvingrove Museum, and have further fieldwork planned for
Tiree relating to later prehistoric and historic settlement, as well as seeking to
locate Mesolithic sites.
This brief description of results from Tiree exemplifies the initial claim
within this chapter: that archaeologists face an immense challenge when trying to understand the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in western Scotland. Of
the islands we have visited during the course of our current project and the
Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project, Tiree is probably the most difficult of
all to survey for Mesolithic sites owing to the intensity of settlement, agriculture and coverage of the extensive dunes by grass. We may, therefore, have
to rely on palaeoenvironmental indicators for evidence about a human presence in the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods. The situation on Coll and Mull,
where fieldwork of the IHAP will focus in 2006, looks more promising with
substantial assemblages with platform blade core technology known from
three localities, Fiskary Bay, Caolas an-Eilean and Creat Dubh. Although
challenging and often frustrating, new fieldwork and the analysis of previously collected or excavated assemblages are essential for making progress
towards understanding the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in this region. As
described in the first half of this article, the current evidence largely points
towards continuity between these periods with a gradual adoption of
Neolithic traits by an indigenous hunter-gatherer population, and possibly
involving some groups continuing to use Mesolithic technologies while
exploiting coastal resources on Oronsay and perhaps other small islands.
But such is the state of the evidence that numerous scenarios can currently be proposed and we are unlikely to make substantial progress until
further fieldwork has been completed.
537
Note. We are grateful to the Argyll Estates for providing permission to undertake
our work on the island and especially to Mr Ian Gillies, the Tiree Factor. Our ability
to do so was made possible by grants from Historic Scotland and the School of
Human and Environmental Sciences, University of Reading. We are also grateful to
Dr John Holliday for making the initial contact with SJM and his advice and support
during the planning and duration of our work. We also gained very generous help
from Catriona Hunter, the curator of An Iodhlann, and from John Bowler, Alasdair
Sinclair and Robin Cameron regarding potential archaeological sites and work on the
island in general. Following our work Katinka Stentoft of the Kelvingrove Museum
kindly provided useful advice and information regarding her own work on Tiree and
material within the Kelvingrove Museum. Professor Paul Mellars kindly provided
access to the Cnoc Coig assemblage for study. We would also like to thank Alasdair
Whittle and Vicki Cummings for inviting us to contribute to this volume and for the
comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
REFERENCES
ARMIT, I. 1992. The Hebridean Neolithic. In A. Sheridan & N. Sharples (eds), Vessels for the
ancestors, 30721. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
ARMIT, I. & Finlayson, B. 1992. Hunter-gatherers transformed: the transition to agriculture in
northern and western Europe. Antiquity 66, 66476.
ARMIT, I. & FINLAYSON, B. 1996. The transition to agriculture. In T. Pollard & A. Morrison
(eds), The early prehistory of Scotland, 26990. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
ASHMORE, P. 1997. Radiocarbon dates from archaeological sites in Argyll and Arran. In
G. Ritchie (ed.), The archaeology of Argyll, 23683. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Press.
ASHMORE, P. 2004. Absolute chronology. In I. A. Shepherd & G. J. Barclay (eds), Scotland in
Ancient Europe, 91102. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
BALLIN, T. B. & SAVILLE, A. 2002. An Ahrensburgian-type tanged point from Shieldaig,
Wester Ross, Scotland, and its implications. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 22, 11531.
BARBER, J. & BROWN, M. M. 1984. An Sithean, Islay. Proceedings of the Society of
BARCLAY, G., BROPHY, K. & MACGREGOR, G. 2002. Claish, Stirling: an early Neolithic
BARLOW, C. & MITHEN, S. J. 2000. The experimental use of limpet hammers. In S. Mithen
(ed.), Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology, The Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project
19881995. Vol. 2 Archaeological Fieldwork on Colonsay, computer modelling, experimental
archaeology, and final interpretations, 51322. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for
BARTON, R. N. E., BERRIDGE, P. J., WALKER, M. J. C. & BEVINS, R. E. 1995. Persistent
places in the Mesolithic landscape: an example from the Black Mountain uplands of South
Wales. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, 81116.
BEVERIDGE, E. 1903. Coll and Tiree: their prehistoric forts and ecclesiastical antiquities, with
notices of ancient remains in the Treshnish Isles. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
BONSALL, C. 1997. Coastal adaptation in the Mesolithic of Argyll: rethinking the Obanian
problem. In G. Ritchie (ed.), The archaeology of Argyll, 2537. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Press.
BONSALL, C. 2000. Oban Raschoille. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 1999, 112.
BONSALL, C. & SMITH, C. 1992. New AMS 14C dates for antler and bone artefacts from
Great Britain. Mesolithic Miscellany 12, 1823.
538
BONSALL, C., SUTHERLAND, D. G. & LAWSON, T. J. 1991. Excavations in Ulva Cave,

western Scotland 1989: a preliminary report. Mesolithic Miscellany 12, 1823.
BONSALL, C., SUTHERLAND, D. G., LAWSON, T. J. & RUSSELL, N. 1992. Excavations in
Ulva Cave, western Scotland 1990: a preliminary report. Mesolithic Miscellany 13, 713.
CONNOCK, K. D., FINLAYSON, B. & MILLS, C. D. 1993. A shell midden with burials at
Carding Mill Bay, Oban. Glasgow Archaeological Journal 17, 2538.
CRONE, A. 1989. Excavation and survey at Bharpa Carinish, North Uist 1989. Archaeological
Operations and Conservation 1989, 710.
CUMMINGS, V. 2003. The origins of monumentality? Mesolithic world-views of the landscape
in western Britain. In L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Leoffler & A. kerlund
(eds), Mesolithic on the move, 7480. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
EDWARDS, K. 1996. A Mesolithic of the Western and Northern Isles of Scotland? Evidence
from pollen and charcoal. In T. Pollard & A. Morrison (eds), The early prehistory of
Scotland, 2338. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
EDWARDS, K. 2000. Vegetation history of the southern Inner Hebrides during the Mesolithic
period. In S. Mithen (ed.), Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology, The Southern Hebrides
Mesolithic Project 198898. Vol. 1, 11528. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for
FAIRWEATHER, A. D. & RALSTON, I. B. 1993. The Neolithic timber hall at Balbridie,
Grampian region, Scotland: the building, the date and plant macrofossils. Antiquity 67,
31323.
FINLAYSON, B., FINLAY, N. & MITHEN, S. J. 2000. The cataloguing and analysis of the
lithic assemblage. In S. Mithen (ed.), Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology, The Southern
Hebrides Mesolithic Project 19881995. Vol. 1. Project development, palaeoenvironmental
studies and archaeological fieldwork on Islay, 6170. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for
HAGGERTY, A. 1991. Machrie Moor, Arran: recent excavations at two stone circles.
HARDY, K. & WICKHAM-JONES, C. 2003. Scotlands first settlers: an investigation into
settlement, territoriality and mobility during the Mesolithic in the Inner Sound, Scotland.
First results. In L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Leoffler & A. kerlund (eds),
Mesolithic on the move, 36981. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
HEDGES, R. E. M. 2004. Isotopes and red herrings: comments on Milner et al. & Lidn et al.,
Antiquity 78, 347.
HARRINGTON, P. & PIERPOINT, S. 1980. Port Charlotte chambered cairn, Islay: an interim
note. Glasgow Archaeological Journal 7, 11315.
HIRONS, K. R. 1990. The postglacial environment. In C. Wickham-Jones (ed.), Rhum:
Mesolithic and later sites at Kinloch. Excavations 19841986, 13744. Edinburgh: Society of
HOLLEYMAN, G. A. 1947. Tiree Craggans. Antiquity 21, 20511.
LACAILLE, A. D. 1954. The Stone Age of Scotland. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
LAKE, M., WOODMAN, P. E. & MITHEN, S. J. 1998. Tailoring GIS for archaeological applications: an example concerning viewshed analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 25,
2738.
time? Diet in Mesolithic-Neolithic southern Sweden. Antiquity 78, 2333
LIVENS, R. G. 1956. Three tanged flint points from Scotland. Proceedings of the Society of
MCCULLAGH, R. 1989. Excavations at Newton, Islay. Glasgow Archaeological Journal 15,
2351.
539
MACKIE, E. 1974. Dun Mor Vaul. An Iron Age broch on Tiree. Glasgow: Glasgow University
Press.
MELLARS, P. 1987. Excavations on Oronsay. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
MELLARS, P. 2004. Mesolithic Scotland, coastal occupation, and the role of the Oronsay middens. In A. Saville (ed.), Mesolithic Scotland and its neighbours: the early Holocene prehistory
of Scotland, its British and Irish context and some northern European perspectives, 16783.
Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries Scotland.
MERCER, J. 1968. Flint tools from the present tidal zone, Lussa Bay, Isle of Jura, Argyll.
MERCER, J. 1971. A regression time stone workers camp 33ft OD. Lussa River, Isle of Jura.
MERCER, J. 1974. Glenbatrick Waterhole, a microlithic site on the Isle of Jura. Proceedings of
MERCER, J. 1980. Lussa Wood I: the late glacial and early postglacial occupation of Jura.
MITHEN, S. J. 1990. Thoughtful foragers: a study of prehistoric decision making. Cambridge:
MITHEN, S. J. (ed.) 2000a. Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology. The Southern Hebrides
Mesolithic Project 198898 (2 volumes). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research.
MITHEN, S. J. 2000b. The Scottish Mesolithic: problems, prospects and the rationale for the
Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project. In S. Mithen (ed.) Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology. The Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project 19881995. Vol. 1. Project development,
palaeoenvironmental studies and archaeological fieldwork on Islay, 938. Cambridge:
MITHEN, S. J. 2000c. The Mesolithic in the Southern Hebrides: issues of colonisation, settlement and the transitions to the Neolithic and farming. In S. Mithen (ed.), Hunter-gatherer
landscape archaeology. The Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project 19881995. Vol. 2.
Archaeological fieldwork on Colonsay, computer modelling, experimental archaeology, and final
interpretations, 597628. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
MITHEN, S. J. 2000d. Mesolithic sedentism on Oronsay: chronological evidence from adjacent
islands in the southern Hebrides. Antiquity 74, 298304.
MITHEN, S. J., ASTIN, T., GUTTMANN, E., PIRIE, A., SMITH, S. & WICKS, K. 2004.
Inner Hebrides Archaeological Project. Report no. 2. Unpublished Manuscript, School of
Human and Environmental Sciences, University of Reading.
MITHEN, S. J., ASTIN, T., MARICEVIC, D., PIRIE, A., SAYER, D., SMITH, S. & WICKS, K.
2005. Inner Hebrides Archaeological Project. Report no. 3. Unpublished Manuscript, School
of Human and Environmental Sciences, University of Reading.
MITHEN, S. J. & FINLAY, N. (and 12 contributors) 2000. Staosnaig, Colonsay: excavations
19891995. In S. Mithen (ed.), Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology. The Southern Hebrides
Mesolithic Project 198898. Vol. 2, 359441. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for
MITHEN, S. J., LAKE, M. & FINLAY, N. 2000a. Bolsay Farm, Islay: test-pit survey and trial
excavation. In S. Mithen (ed.), Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology. The Southern Hebrides
Mesolithic Project 198898, Vol. 1, 25989. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for
MITHEN, S. J., LAKE, M. & FINLAY, N. 2000b. Bolsay Farm, Islay: area excavation. In
S. Mithen (ed.), Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology. The Southern Hebrides Mesolithic
540
Project 198898, Vol. 1, 291328. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological

Research.
PIRIE, A., MITHEN, S. J. & MELLARS, P. in press. Chipped stone from Cnoc Coig. Lithics.
POLLARD, T. 1996. Coastal environments, cosmology and ritual practice. In T. Pollard &
A. Morrison (eds), The early prehistory of Scotland, 198210. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
POLLARD, T. 2000. Risga and the Mesolithic occupation of Scottish islands. In R. Young (ed.),
Mesolithic lifeways: current research from Britain and Ireland, 14352. Leicester: Leicester
University Press.
POLLARD, T., ATKINSON, J. & BANKS, I. 1996. It is the technical side of my work which
is my stumbling block: a shell midden site on Risga reconsidered. In T. Pollard &
A. Morrison (eds), The early prehistory of Scotland, 16582. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
RENNIE, E. B. 1984. Excavations at Ardnadam, Cowal, Argyll. Glasgow Journal of Archaeology
11, 1339.
RICHARDS, C. (ed.) 2003. Dwelling among the monuments: the Neolithic village of Barnhouse,
Maeshowe passage grave and surrounding monuments at Stenness, Orkney. Cambridge:
MacDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
RITCHIE, G. 1997. Monuments associated with burial and ritual. In G. Ritchie (ed.), The
archaeology of Argyll, 6793. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
RITCHIE, G. & WELFARE, H. 1983. Excavations at Ardnave, Islay. Proceedings of the Society
of Antiquaries of Scotland 113, 30266.
ROBINSON, D. E. & DICKSON, J. H. 1988. Vegetational history and land use: a
radiocarbon-dated pollen diagram from Machrie Moor, Arran, Scotland. New Phytologist
109, 22351.
ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE ANCIENT AND HISTORICAL MONUMENTS OF
SCOTLAND 1980. Volume 3: Mull, Tiree, Coll and Northern Argyll. Edinburgh: RCAHMS.
SCHULTING, R. J. & RICHARDS, M. P. 2000. The use of stable isotopes in studies of
subsistence and seasonality in the British Mesolithic. In R. Young (ed.), Mesolithic lifeways:
current research from Britain and Ireland, 5566. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
SCHULTING, R. J. & RICHARDS, M. P. 2002. The wet, the wild and the domesticated: The
SCORE, D. & MITHEN, S. J. 2000. The experimental roasting of hazelnuts. In S. Mithen (ed.),
Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology. The Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project 19881995.
Vol. 2. Archaeological Fieldwork on Colonsay, computer modelling, experimental archaeology,
and final interpretations, 50712. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research.
SCOTT, J. G. 1961. The excavation of a chambered cairn at Crarae, Loch Fyneside, Mid Argyll.
SHERIDAN, A. & SHARPLES, N. 1992. Introduction: the state of Neolithic studies in
Scotland. In A. Sheridan & N. Sharples (eds), Vessels for the ancestors, 110. Edinburgh:
SUGDEN, H. & EDWARDS, K. 2000. The early Holocene vegetational history of Loch
aBhogaidh, southern Rinns, Islay, with special reference to hazel (Corylus avellana L.). In
S. Mithen (ed.), Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology. The Southern Hebrides Mesolithic
Project 198898. Vol. 1, 12936. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research.
SWITSUR, R. & MELLARS, P. A. 1987. Radiocarbon dating of the shell midden sites. In P. A.
Mellars, Excavations on Oronsay, 13949. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
TIPPING, R. 2004. Interpretative issues concerning the driving forces of vegetation change in
the early Holocene of the British Isles. In A. Saville (ed.), Mesolithic Scotland and its
541
neighbours: the early Holocene prehistory of Scotland, its British and Irish context and some
northern European perspectives, 4553. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
WARREN, G. 2004. The start of the Neolithic in Scotland. In I. A. Shepherd & G. J. Barclay
(eds), Scotland in Ancient Europe, 91102. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
WICKHAM-JONES, C. (ed.) 1990. Rhum: Mesolithic and later sites at Kinloch: excavations
WOODMAN, P. C. 1989. A review of the Scottish Mesolithic: a plea for normality! Proceedings
of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 119, 132.
Parallel worlds or multi-stranded

identities? Considering the process
of going over in Ireland and
the Irish Sea zone
GABRIEL COONEY
INTRODUCTION
THE TOPIC OF THE Mesolithic-Neolithic transition continues to prompt
extensive scholarship, a variety of academic opinions as well as considerable passion, as seen for example in Rowley-Conwys (2004) article in the
recent special issue of Current Anthropology on agricultural origins and dispersal into Europe and the varied responses to it. However, despite the
major research efforts that are being made to understand what going over
meant, much of the work tends to take place within particular disciplinary
fields or research areas with a limited degree of discourse between them, a
point that has been well noted with regard to the relationship between
palaeoenvironmentalists and archaeologists (e.g. Tipping & Tisdall 2004,
71) but could equally well be made in other contexts.
The parallel worlds in the title refer then to the variety of ways in which
research in archaeology and related disciplines currently approaches the
study of the process of going over that is said to mark the MesolithicNeolithic transition. There are a number of reasons for this phenomenon, for
example, the increasing extent to which researchers tend to focus on particular themes and explanatory approaches, the fact that the transition marks the
interface between different traditions of archaeological scholarship, a point
that has been often noted (e.g. Pluciennik 1998; Thomas 1988), and the
increasing focus in archaeological research on coming to grips with the variety, messiness and localness of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in contrast
to the big picture approach taken in other disciplines, for example genetic
studies. Another relevant factor is that there have been significant changes
over the last thirty years in what are regarded as the most relevant and appropriate data sets to inform us about the transition. The cumulative effect is that
544
Gabriel Cooney
approaches to the problem sometimes seem to run on parallel tracks, rather

than informing and being informed by other strands of the discussion. This
has resulted in a fragmentation of the discourse and the presentation of very
different and partial views of the transition, even in the consideration of particular regions or dimensions of the evidence. Added to this is the paucity of
the baseline data on which many of these lines of research actually rely, not
just in archaeology (see Kinnes 1988; Woodman 2000a) but also in other
areas. For example, in genetics DNA sequences that have been given significant explanatory status for prehistoric events and processes are often determined from small samples of living individuals in particular areas (e.g. Hill
et al. 2000; Wilson et al. 2001). While we acknowledge these problems
(although their extent can get lost in the translation between disciplines), the
approaches that are adopted to facilitate academic analysis and discussion
spill over into historical narrative as we still oversimplify the division between
foraging and farming societies (Pluciennik 1998, 61), creating a sense of
parallel worlds in the past.
How then do we progress? What I would like to suggest is that deliberately
seeking to engage with different strands of research is both useful and necessary. An unfortunate aspect of the debate around Rowley-Conwys (2004)
recent valuable review paper is the polarisation of views and approaches as
either processual or post-processual, which seems somewhat anachronistic
and unhelpful at this stage. Consideration of context and agency, grappling
with understanding the messiness and complexity of Neolithic lives (e.g.
Whittle 2003), have to go side by side with understanding the constraints of
the archaeological record. It is not a case of either empathy or the empirical
record, but considering both. This also means that in looking at an area or
region such as Ireland we need to take a multi-scalar approach to consider
the working out of the relationships between larger-scale processes and the
way in which lives were lived out in local contexts and conditions.
Discussing the start of the Neolithic in Scotland, Warren (2004, 91)
begins by considering Ingolds (2000) approach to identity. Ingold argues that
there are two ways of constructing identity: first genealogical, in which origins provide the basis for identity, and second relational, where it is the construction and maintenance of links between persons and things that are at the
heart of who people think they are. These ideas of identity can be regarded
as complementary. Helms (1998, 2354) has pointed out that small-scale societies are always concerned to a greater or lesser extent both with ancestral
origins and how the on-going activities of the living, including their treatment of the dead, fit with the past. This sense of identity encompassing past
and present was also vividly caught by Arthur Miller, writing about his desire
as a playwright to convey a sense of human lives in which past and present
are held concurrently, neither ever coming to a stop (Miller 1987, 131). Jones
PARALLEL WORLDS OR MULTI-STRANDED IDENTITIES?
545
(2005, 216) has argued that in different parts of Europe during the Neolithic
persons were constituted relationally, through specific sets of connections
between people, place(s) and things. In the account below considering the
transition in Ireland, these ideas of identity encompassing places, pasts and
presents, people and things are seen as providing an important reference
point in considering the various strands of evidence and inter-play between
large-scale environmental and social processes and lives lived locally.
THE LATER IRISH MESOLITHIC

To set the chronological and cultural context it seems appropriate to start with
a brief outline of the Irish Later Mesolithic (65004000 cal BC). An up-to-date
summary is provided as part of the discussion in Costa et al. (2005). The later
Mesolithic in Ireland is distinguished by the switch from a composite/
microlith-using tradition to the use of broad blades, and flakes of related
form, which were retouched for use as hand-held tools. The best known of
these are butt-trimmed forms. Ground stone axes also form part of the lithic
assemblage. It has been suggested that many of the stone tools were used for
woodworking (Anderson & Johnson 1993; Costa et al. 2005, 20). Lithic production appears to have taken place near sources and tool blanks were
brought to occupation areas (Woodman 1987). Much of the material is concentrated in low-lying coastal and wetland areas but some material does
occur in more upland areas (Woodman 2003, 1011). While the dominant
view of the Later Mesolithic is a period characterised by low-density, highly
mobile settlement (e.g. Woodman & Anderson 1990) with a heavy reliance on
gathering and fishing, the evidence is open to suggestions of more extensive
activities in some locales (e.g. Cooney & Grogan 1994, 1824; Costa et al.
2005, 30) and the use of places, such as stone platforms at the edge of lakes,
on a persistent, ongoing, renewed basis (e.g. Fredengren 2002, 137). There are
indications of the importance of the symbolic dimension to Mesolithic lives
in patterns of deliberate deposition and the occurrence of material in unusual
contexts, as on the small island of Dalkey off the Dublin coast (see discussion
in Leon forthcoming).
THE EARLY IRISH NEOLITHIC

The summary given here is based on the discussion in Cooney (2000a, 1415
with full references). There the early Neolithic was defined in time terms as
extending from 40003600 cal BC. In material culture terms the period is
marked by the use of carinated bowl pottery and what Woodman (1994) has
Gabriel Cooney
546
identified as a number of key items in the lithic assemblage: leaf-shaped

arrowheads, convex end scrapers and plano-convex knives. Ground and polished stone axes made from a wide variety of sources (Cooney & Mandal
1998) are also a feature. It seems probable that organised axe production was
taking place at specific sources, the significance of which is returned to below.
There is evidence for the use of domesticated animals, especially cattle, and
cereals (McCormick 1986; Monk 2000). A range of site types with a wide geographical spread can be dated to this period (Sheridan 1995). Notably these
include occupation sites, often with rectangular structures or buildings. Large
hill-top enclosures occur (Danaher 2004; Logue 2003; Sheridan 2001) and
concepts of enclosure are used at varying scales and with what appears to be
varying intent (Cooney 2002). A range of mortuary structures were in use,
including megalithic tombs and wooden mortuary structures. The location of
sites and activity areas dating to this period suggests recurring patterns and
traditions of life based on complex and intimate knowledge of the landscape.
It is important to emphasise just how much new data about this period
are coming from the major increase in development-led archaeological work
in Ireland since the mid-1990s (e.g. the suite of papers on Neolithic structures
in Armit et al. 2003). This has the potential to transform our understanding
of this period. For a number of reasons, notably the character of the
archaeological record, its location and visibility, this work has not enhanced
or extended our knowledge of the Later Mesolithic to anything like the same
extent (Woodman 2003, 15). We should of course be careful that this is not
uncritically seen as a direct reflection of a low level of activity during the
Later Mesolithic.
CHANGES IN THIS INSULAR WORLD

The focus of this paper is understanding how the changes that we can document between these two periods happened and their consequences. In
approaching the archaeological record and human context in which changes
occurred we need to understand the multi-stranded nature of identity. It is
also worth remembering that the research framework that we use to interpret
these changes has a historical trajectory, which influences the way we think
about issues. In the late 1960s Case (1969a; 1969b) contributed two papers to
the debate on the transition which are still of value and influence. The notion
of a short, sharp transition around 4000 cal BC, which is currently widely
favoured (e.g. M. P. Richards 2004; Schulting 2000; Schulting & Richards
2002a; 2002b but see Milner et al. 2004), has in effect been mooted in the literature since at least the early 1970s. At that time the basis of change was the
elm decline at 3200 bc (uncalibrated) which was seen as a critical turning
547
point, even by those who were promoting the idea of a preceding, pioneering
phase of the Neolithic (e.g. Edwards & Hirons 1984). But rather than reviewing the course of explanatory discourse over the last few decades, what is
more important to do, in the spirit of the challenge set out in my introduction,
is to chart what are the major strands of change in the period before and
around 4000 cal BC that form the context in which going over occurred.
Climate change
As someone who has been critical in the past (e.g. Cooney 1993; Cooney &
Grogan 1994) about the somewhat simplistic way in which accounts of the
impact of climatic change on the lives of prehistoric people were often given,
it has been salutary to read recent research which is based on very good baseline data and takes a nuanced view of the complexity and diversity of human
response to climate change (e.g. Bonsall et al. 2002; McDermott et al. 2001;
Tipping & Tisdall 2004). From a number of sources of evidence, for example,
changing proportions of ice-rafted detritus in the North Atlantic, lake levels,
high charcoal frequencies and peat humification patterns, a major event can
be identified at the beginning of the Neolithic period. Bonsall et al. (2002, 15)
suggest that the change was associated with drier conditions and an increase
in the annual temperature range. Tipping and Tisdall (2004, 73), arguing for a
cooler climate, suggested that impacts may have been most keenly appreciated
in coastal areas, where a cooling of the seawater may have altered the lifecycle
patterns of fish and brought increased storminess.
Woodland change
In a comprehensive review of the elm decline, Parker et al. (2002) conclude
on the basis of dates from 139 sites that it dates to between 63005300 cal BP
(or broadly 43003300 cal BC), but that the probability distribution of the
dates indicates that it was a uniform phased event across Britain and Ireland.
For Ireland, OConnell and Molloy (2001, 123) consider the elm decline, a
readily identifiable and pronounced feature in most Irish pollen diagrams, as
a near-synchronous feature dating to c. 5800 cal BP (3850 cal BC). Current
interpretations suggest that both the climatic change discussed above and
human activities were involved in the elm decline (e.g. Edwards 2004, 613).
It seems that around the same time oak populations also decreased in many
areas of north-west Europe (Baillie 1995; Leuschner et al. 2002). Now in this
scenario where it is difficult to disentangle climatic change, vegetation change
and human intervention, there is a possibility of circular argument. Brown
(1997) has shown it can be very difficult to know whether early farming
activity created woodland clearings or made use of natural openings. What
548
Gabriel Cooney
Bonsall et al. (2002) suggest is that these changes provided the context for the
adoption of agriculture, the indicators of which appear just after 4000 cal BC.
As OConnell and Molloy (2001, 123) put it, Neolithic landnam, when
present, invariably follows the elm decline (which of course does not exclude
the possibility of farming preceding it).
Agricultural indicators
Monk (2000) has reviewed the evidence of cereal remains from Ireland. There
have been further discoveries since his review (see for example Moore 2003),
backing up the view that cereals were an integral part of the subsistence economy, at least in Ireland (see Cooney 2000a, 401; 2003, 49) from that time.
The occurrence and recognition of cereal-type pollen prior to this date continue to raise debate. The cautious view is that this material cannot be seen as
indicating farming, as this interpretation has been shown to be unsustainable
and that questions remain about the identity and source of the pollen. On the
other hand it is argued that the failure of an early pioneer phase of agriculture to leave archaeological traces might be a reasonable, if awkward,
assumption (see Edwards 2004, 60; OConnell & Molloy 2001, 123). The latter view has been recently sustained by the very early dates for domesticated
cattle bone as a result of the excavations at Ferriters Cove, Co. Kerry
(Woodman et al. 1999) and the project to date the Irish Quaternary fauna
(Milner & Woodman 2005; Woodman et al. 1997; Woodman & McCarthy
2003). These cattle are clearly introduced (Tresset 2000; 2003) and are significantly earlier than the earliest dates for domesticated sheep, pig and goat
after 4000 cal BC. The earlier of two dates from Ferriters Cove implies that
cattle were brought to Ireland around 4600 cal BC (it seems best to exclude
from discussion the very early date from an undiagnostic large bone from
Sutton, Co. Dublin). In terms of who brought them the scenarios either
involve indigenous hunter-gathers travelling by boat or people coming in the
other direction bringing cattle from Brittany, where domesticates appeared
around 5000 cal BC (see Milner & Woodman 2005; Tresset 2003; Woodman
& McCarthy 2003 for a discussion of the cultural context of these contacts
both in Brittany and Ireland).
Material culture changes
Woodman (2000a, 2479) remarked that one of the most overlooked aspects
of the transition is the contrast between the diversity of Mesolithic lifestyles
in Britain and Ireland and the degree of similarity of early Neolithic material culture across the two islands. Now this has to be supplemented by the
comment that these similarities are clearest in material dated to after 3800 cal
549
and transcend what appears to be very considerable regional diversity in

settlement practices. As regards the problem of the period between
40003800 cal BC, as Whittle has recently put it: What was going on around
4000 cal BC remains stubbornly and frustratingly unclear and certainly varied
(Whittle 2003, 150).
The relatively uniform culture package that then emerges has been outlined above for Ireland, but in broader terms for Britain and Ireland it can be
summarised as composed of a similar range of lithic artefacts, carinated bowl
pottery, enclosures, wooden mortuary structures under long and round
mounds and various types of megalithic tombs including simple passage
tombs/graves, portal tombs/dolmens and varieties of megalithic long cairns.
The background to this material is seen as contact with various areas in
north-west Europe (a general point and problem long recognised: see Kinnes
1988; Whittle 1977).
What has undergone considerable review since the 1970s is the mechanisms by which these contacts occurred. To bring the story up to date, what
Whittle (2003, 150) has recently termed filtered, small-scale colonisation and
indigenous acculturation operating in tandem, currently seem to offer the best
human context for understanding how these material culture changes.
Sheridan (2000; 2003a) has suggested that the pottery and megalithic monument at Achnacreebeag near Oban on the west coast of Scotland, with strong
parallels in Brittany around 4000 cal BC, offer an example of the former. She
has argued, furthermore, that this background might also provide a context
for early coastal passage tombs in Wales and Ireland (Sheridan 2003b, 1314).
OSullivan (2001, 8990) in discussing the archaeological and palaeoenvironmental evidence from the Shannon estuary in the early to middle fourth
millennium cal BC suggests that it indicates people who were living a foragerfarmer lifestyle. So whatever their background people here were accommodating life to take account of both new resources and older lifeways. The type
of interaction zone that might have facilitated the inter-operability of both of
these processes has been discussed by Woodman and McCarthy (2003, 324).
BC
Diet. . .and people?

The recent surge of evidence from stable isotope analysis that there was a
dramatic shift in diet around 4000 cal BC with a switch from maritime to
terrestrial resources, as indicated by changes in the sources of protein in
human diets (M. P. Richards et al. 2000; Schulting & Richards 2002a;
2002b), is perhaps the single most influential factor in the major reconsideration of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition that is now taking place. The
wider implications of this shift were set out by Schulting (2000, 323) in the
following manner:
Gabriel Cooney
550
The people of the earliest Neolithic in Britain built monuments for their dead,
used novel resources such as pottery (Herne 1988) and appear to have subsisted
primarily on domesticated resources. This suggests that for the most part the
adoption of Neolithic traits was an all-or-nothing affair in Britain, perhaps
forming part of a sociopolitical and/or economic strategy wherein piecemeal
adoption did not make sense.
Not surprisingly there is continuing debate about the extent, abruptness and
causes of this dietary change (e.g Milner et al. 2004; Lidn et al. 2004;
Thomas 2003). It is appropriate to comment here that the principle of equifinality, which Edwards (1989) and Brown (1997) identified as a major problem in the interpretation of human impact in the pollen record, applies even
more strongly in the context of human dietary choice and constraints.
However, it is widely accepted that at a minimum there is a consistent pattern
of a more dominant terrestrial signal in the diets of people after 4000 cal BC
compared to before. This does not exclude the consumption of marine food
by people during the Neolithic (Hedges 2004, 37; Milner et al. 2004, 18).
It is against this background that we can look at the evidence from Ireland.
Somewhat surprisingly here in the context of the overall model of Later
Mesolithic settlement, the general emphasis on a marine-based diet in the
Mesolithic data set from Britain (M. P. Richards 2004, 87), and the small
number of human bone samples, the individuals dating to the fifth millennium
cal BC from three sites (Ferriters Cove, Rockmarshall, Co. Louth and
Killuragh Cave, Co. Limerick) indicate a range of reliance on marine
resources. This runs from a heavy reliance at Ferriters Cove, a less extensive
reliance at Rockmarshall and what looks like a reliance on terrestrial/freshwater resources at the inland site of Killuragh Cave, Co. Limerick (Woodman &
McCarthy 2003, 334). On the other hand the post-4000 cal BC pattern of an
emphasis on terrestrial resources (Woodman 2000a, 240, citing the evidence
from the skeletal remains in the portal tomb at Poulnabrone, Co. Clare;
Schulting 2004, 23) does seem to apply in Ireland also.
While the isotopic analysis has had a major impact in recent archaeological debate, facilitating discussion of the transition as short and sharp, the
area of biomolecular research where most work is currently being carried out
is in genetics. This has led to the proposal of the term archaeogenetics to
describe the application of genetics to understanding the human past
(Renfrew 2000, 3). Considering the genetic evidence it is important to remember the difficulties of using modern data, the limited data sets that are often
used, the issue of accurately calculating the rate and character of genetic
change over time (the molecular clock) and the consequent problems in tying
genetic patterns to specific time spans, let alone specific processes or events in
the past (M. P. Richards 2004, 845; Zvelebil 2000, 6974). This is clearly a
crucial question in terms of the interpretation of the transition in human
551
terms. From their study of DNA of the paternally inherited Y-chromosome,

Chickhi et al. (2002, 11013) concluded that large numbers of people were
involved in the introduction of farming to Europe. Looking at mtDNA,
which is maternally inherited, M. P. Richards et al. (2000, 1251) suggested
that the immigrant Neolithic population accounted for less than a quarter of
the modern European mtDNA pool. Renfrew (e.g. 1996; 2000, 9) has suggested that the Neolithisation of Europe provides us with a good case study
of the relationship between linguistic origins, farming dispersal and the evidence from molecular genetics. The linguistic introduction of proto-IndoEuropean to central and western Europe is envisaged by Renfrew as a result
of farming dispersal, which in turn is seen as being reflected in the patterning
in the genetic evidence.
Turning in more detail to Ireland, it has been suggested that an east to
west variation in the Y-chromosome pattern within the island reflects a
genetic distinction between people in the west, whose genetic ancestry reflects
the indigenous inhabitants since the time of first settlement at 8000 cal BC,
and those in the east whose genetics indicate a greater influence of subsequent migrants from the Neolithic period onwards (Hill et al. 2000).
Furthermore it has been argued that about 13% of the pattern of mtDNA in
Ireland can be attributed to a putative Neolithic origin (McEvoy et al. 2004).
This would be consistent with the diminution of the genetic impact of
Neolithic migrants towards north-west Europe. McEvoy et al. (2004, 696) go
on to suggest that since there is no distinct geographical pattern to the
mtDNA of putative Neolithic origin within the island this indicates that the
females who arrived after the initial settlement were not restricted to eastfacing regions. . .either they were mobile after arrival in the east or other
regions of the island were in direct contact with the continental source populations. Not surprisingly given the difficulties outlined above, this level of
interpretation of modern genetic data as it pertains to the transition is the
subject of continuing debate (e.g. Hill et al. 2000; Bradley & Hill 2000;
Cooney 2000b; 2001; Donnabhin 2001; Woodman 2000b). It is easier to
concur with the broader view that genetic affinities seen in the Atlantic zone
of Europe are the result of both a shared ancestry that dates back to
recolonisation at the end of the last Ice Age and subsequent contacts
(McEvoy et al. 2004).
CONSEQUENCES:
ON THE GROUND, IN THE LANDSCAPE, AT HOME
The purpose of setting out major strands of change involved in the transition
or going over is to facilitate discussion of the character and consequences of
552
Gabriel Cooney
the transition, both in terms of relational identities how people engaged

with each other and the material worldand genealogical identities how
they constructed a sense of who they were and where they came from (and
were going). I should stress here immediately that while the focus is on
Ireland I do not believe that there was any island-wide sense of identity. As I
have argued previously (e.g. Cooney 2000c), the appropriate scale to look at
these issues is a regional one, recognising diversity within the island of
Ireland and strong linkages between coastal areas that shared the Irish Sea as
a contact zone (e.g. Cooney 2004a; Davey 2004; Sheridan 2004).
What I also wanted to suggest was a sense of the inter-woven nature of
the changes. For example, it might be useful to think in terms of the novel
nature of the new domesticated plants and animals that were introduced not
so much as individual, separate resources but in terms of a transported landscape (Cooney 2000a, 43; Kirch 2000, 109). This significantly increased the
ecological diversity of Ireland given the restricted insular nature of the native
fauna and flora (see relevant discussion in Kimball 2000a). Furthermore it
provided a new setting at a time when the composition of the woodland landscape was also changing (e.g. Tipping & Tisdall 2004). Those new resources
undoubtedly had a special social role as has been argued by a number of
authors (e.g. Cross 2003; Thomas 2003), but the clear shift to terrestrial
resources indicated by isotopic analysis argues that they formed part of a
more fundamental shift in diet and ideas about food. The argument over
whether these terrestrial resources could have been wild (Rowley-Conwy
2004; Thomas 2003) does not apply as strongly in Ireland, where the four
introduced domesticated species provide the first major suite of terrestrial
resources, and where it appears that red deer were introduced at some stage
during the Neolithic (McCormick 1999; Woodman & McCarthy 2003,
367), a pattern that is replicated in some of the Scottish island groups and
is indicative of the complexity of human/animal relationships during the
Neolithic (Cooney 2000a, 43).
On the other hand the shift in diet did not mean any less focus on coastal
zones. This is indicated for example by the concentration of megalithic tombs
in coastal areas and by the results of field-walking surveys in various areas,
such as Ballylough, Co. Waterford (Green & Zvelebil 1990) and Lough
Swilly, Co. Donegal (Kimball 2000b). Because of the character of the evidence such surveys may not be actually very useful in informing us about the
transition itself, but they do indicate a continuity of use of coastal areas.
These continued to be a significant procurement zone for lithics and other
materials (e.g. Hodgers 1994; Woodman 1992). An interesting and potentially
very important juxtaposition of activity in the later Mesolithic and Neolithic
occurs at Belderg Beg, Co. Mayo which is currently being investigated by
Graeme Warren (pers. comm.). All these data make the idea of a turning away
553
or slighting of the sea seem very unlikely, a point demonstrated in discussion of the importance of the Irish Sea as a zone of movement, contact and
communication (Cummings & Fowler 2004). What is clearly the case, however, is that the use of the sea, the coastal zone and their resources now
formed part of a different web of relations. For example, Guttman (2005,
2345) suggests that the fertility of Mesolithic middens may partly explain
why such sites were re-settled and cultivated during the Neolithic, and why
they were seen as appropriate venues for the deliberate deposition of material,
including human bone.
An example of the value of thinking about this issue from different perspectives comes from the detailed archaeological and palaeoenvironmental
regional study of the Oban area, western Scotland (Macklin et al. 2000). Here
Mesolithic settlement in coastal areas does not seem to have resulted in disturbance of the vegetation. This changes around 4000 cal BC with the beginnings of farming, impacting initially in coastal and lowland areas and only
later in the uplands. A few kilometres to the north-east is the site of
Achnacreebeag, discussed by Sheridan (2000; 2003a) as providing good evidence of what might be termed an episode of leap-frog colonisation (Zilho
2000) from Brittany. As well as the change in climate seen by Macklin et al. as
prompting the shift to the new relationship between people and the landscape,
post-4000 cal BC vegetational change may also have been prompted by the
presence of new people, giving the basis for the kind of dialectic between the
immediate and the distant that Warren (2004, 98) has discussed as an integral
part of the formation of identities in the early Neolithic. In terms of the wider
occurrence of early passage tombs in coastal areas noted by Sheridan (2003b)
and the continued use of islands like Dalkey with a strong, prolonged history
of at least periodic use in the Mesolithic (Leon 2005), the coastal zone may
also have become a very important place for the re-negotiation and
re-imagining of genealogical identities (see Schulting 2004, 26).
The consequences of the transition on the inland landscape might also benefit from a sideways look. The issue of the extent to which cereal growing was
practised from early in the Neolithic is one of the central questions in the
debate about the extent of the role of agriculture in Neolithic lives (e.g. see
Rowley-Conwy 2004, 8790). While the number of cereal macrofossil remains
is relatively small, Monk (2000) and Glynis Jones (2000) have argued that they
indicate the persistent presence of cereals (see also Bogaard & Jones, this volume). This is supported by the compilation of pollen data from Ireland presented by OConnell and Molloy (2001, 119; Fig. 1) which is interpreted as
showing that cereal-growing was an integral part of Neolithic economic practice in Ireland, but also that there was no site which indicated that it played a
substantial role. Tipping (1994) also pointed to the high frequency of cereal
pollen in Scotland during the early part of the Neolithic. The concentration
554
Gabriel Cooney
Figure 1. Frequencies with which 34 pollen profiles from Ireland show pre-elm decline (ED)
woodland instability, earlier Neolithic woodland clearance, pastoral activity and cereal growing,
and later Neolithic farming and woodland regeneration (from OConnell & Molloy 2001).
of macrofossil remains of cereals in the centuries after the elm decline (e.g.
Monk 2000), combined with the pollen evidence (OConnell & Molloy 2001,
119; Tipping & Tisdall 2004, 76), raises the question of whether cereal production was in fact particularly concentrated in this part of the Neolithic
period, rather than increasing in importance over the duration of the
Neolithic as models of the gradual development of farming might suggest
(see discussion below).
It might be useful to think more broadly about integrating the narratives
for this period derived from the pollen and archaeological records. The character of what OConnell and Molloy (2001) refer to as woodland dynamics
was clearly very varied in the earlier Neolithic. There were some places, such
as Cide Fields, Co. Mayo, where the impact across much of the period was
sustained (over 300500 years) and substantial, as can be seen in construction
of the co-axial field system (Caulfield et al. 1998). In other cases, as at Lough
Sheeauns in Connemara, Co. Galway, the impact lasted over a period of up
to three centuries, while there are other sites such as Mooghaun Lough, Co.
Clare, where there is little or no sign of human impact (OConnell & Molloy
2001, 119). This backs up the earlier observations by Edwards (1985) regarding a suite of sites investigated in Tyrone. OConnell and Molloy also point
out that there is a corresponding variety in the organisation of earlier
Neolithic landscapes. One interesting contrast that they point to is that
555
between the field system at Cide and the lack of any similar evidence at
Lough Sheeauns where there is, however, a marked concentration of court
tombs and portal tombs (de Valera & Nuallin 1972; Gosling 1993), as in
the Cide area. The question of whether Cide stands as a unique example
of an extensive, well-organised field system in the earlier Neolithic is still an
important one. The pollen analysis carried out by OConnell and Molloy
(2001) at Garrynagran about 16 km to the south of Cide suggests that the
long-term, substantial human impact on the woodland landscape seen at
Cide appears to have been present over a larger area, within which we can
include the field system at Rathlackan to the east (see Byrne 1994; Cooney
2000a, 46). This indicates that we should regard the organisation of the
landscape into fields as a characteristic of a significant grouping of
communities in this region.
It is also clear that the earlier Neolithic represents a very distinct period in
terms of the dynamics between people and woodland settings. Both Molloy
and OConnell (2001, 123) and Tipping and Tisdall (2004, 76) comment on
the evidence for woodland regeneration in the later Neolithic. In the 1970s
this evidence was seen as the basis for defining two very different kinds of
Neolithic (Bradley 1978; Whittle 1978). Molloy and OConnell suggest that
there may have been an abandonment of farming in some parts of the island
of Ireland. Now this is not the place to explore the interesting correlation
between this woodland regeneration and changes in the archaeological record,
but it does support the idea that the earlier Neolithic was a particular period
in terms of human impact on the environment (and environmental change),
rather than being the start of a slow, evolving process of change in subsistence
patterns which culminated in Bronze Age transformations.
The final comment I wanted to make in this section brings us back to the
vexed question of settlement practice. One of the striking features of the explosion of development-led archaeological work in Ireland has been the recognition of the range and extent of Neolithic activity across the landscape.
Dwelling obviously consisted of a range of practices, resulting in a diversity of
archaeological features. One of the recurring features, however, is the discovery
of rectangular buildings and they have become a distinguishing feature of the
archaeological record of this period, recently reviewed in detail by Grogan
(2002; 2004). There are now in the order of 60 of these structures recognised,
on more than 30 sites, right across the island (Smyth, pers. comm.). It is also
clear that more of these structures will be revealed. Among more recent discoveries are the two structures at Granny, Co. Kilkenny (Hughes 2005). The
testing phase along the route of the M3 motorway in Meath has indicated the
presence of Neolithic structures in four different locations (Deevy 2005; pers.
comm.) Rather than going over points already raised in discussion elsewhere
(Cooney 1997; 2000a; 2002; 2003) it might be more useful to look at the role
556
Gabriel Cooney
and function of these buildings using the inter-woven strands of argument set
out above.
The dates of the houses are now well established, starting after 4000 cal
BC, many of them apparently concentrated in the next couple of hundred
years but others, like the second phase of settlement at Knowth in the Boyne
Valley, Co. Meath dating to the period 39003600 cal BC (Grogan 2004, 111).
It does appear that this is an established, repetitive, traditional aspect of life
in the earlier Neolithic (Fig. 2). It is difficult to see this development in terms
of practice or tradition among indigenous Mesolithic communities. Both as
Figure 2. Plan of early Neolithic houses at Corbally, Co. Kildare (from Purcell 2002). Four
other houses were found between 60100 m to the south-west (Tobin 2003).
557
a social construct and context the background of the buildings might be

more appropriately sought in the filtered colonisation or acculturation
referred to above. After all, the clearest links are with the wider rectangular
house tradition in the Neolithic of north-west Europe, which has its ultimate
foundations in the Linearbandkeramik. The buildings need to be acknowledged as part of the wider transformation of that tradition which took a
range of forms, of which the emergence of long barrows and enclosures have
dominated discussion (e.g. Bradley 2002, 2934). The construction materials
were provided by the large-scale use of oak from the surrounding woodland.
In itself this may have been as much a manifestation of a changed set of
relationships between people and the landscape as was the use of the land
for agricultural purposes. In the context of the discussion above, people
using these structures may have utilised a variety of subsistence approaches,
ranging from a reliance on farming to strategies also involving significant reliance on foraging. The structures occur both as apparently isolated buildings
within wider spreads of occupation activity, but also in clusters, for example
at Corbally, Co. Kildare (Purcell 2002; Tobin 2003), and in both open and
enclosed settings, the latter as at Thornhill, Co. Derry (Logue 2003).
Given the association with enclosures such as Thornhill and Magheraboy,
Co. Sligo (Danaher 2004), it is clear that the rectangular structures cannot be
seen just in terms of a complementary distribution with enclosures (Cross
2003, 201). Cross was writing in the context of the role of these structures as
venues for feasting in the same way that enclosures are envisaged as having this
as one of their functions (Thomas 1999, 201), but our discussion should
recognise these buildings as both domestic and special, where it is the different use of space and food in a familiar context that actually makes the occasion special. In this sense there is no contradiction between the living scenarios
and ordinary lives outlined by Grogan (2004, 10510) and the idea that these
were also places of celebration of special times and occasions. The ongoing
accumulation of evidence for the number and widespread distribution of these
structures supports the idea that people in the earlier Neolithic in Ireland
would have perceived them as a key element in the architecture of relational
identities. People were living within a house society (Cooney 2003, 512).
In terms of genealogy, reference has been made to links with enclosures
and there are also clear, overt cross-references between rectangular timber
houses and structures/mounds/cairns for the dead, as for example at
Ballyglass, Co. Mayo ( Nuallin 1972). As noted above, enclosures and long
barrows in Britain and Ireland are frequently evoked as demonstrating links
ultimately back to the Linearbandkeramik and post-LBK traditions (e.g.
Bradley 2003, 221; Whittle 2003, 118). The occurrence of what is the most
potent signifier of the LBK tradition, the rectangular house, as a central
element of relational identity in the many parts of Ireland during the early
Gabriel Cooney
558
Neolithic suggests, contra the tenor of much recent discussion (e.g. Whittle
2003, 153), that a similar reference back to a past distant in time and space,
to a longhouse world, may have been invoked through the construction and
use of these buildings.
MATERIALISING IDENTITIES IN STONE

The changes that happen around 4000 cal BC may be the result of both small
groups of people coming to Ireland and Britain from coastal and inland
areas of north-west Europe (Whittle 2003, 151), and their influence and interaction with indigenous hunter-gatherers (who may well have suffered detrimental health effects: see Doyle & Neill 2003). While there are signs of
continuity across the transition, seen in the continued use of specific places,
both for habitual and sacred purposes, the continued use of wild food
resources and the continued use of particular lithic sources, much is different
and new. In the construction of social identities and use of material culture
there are references to this local background. But if we think of the range of
changes outlined above that were brought into different kinds of lived practice by people living in particular social and geographical settings, it is not
surprising that in the Neolithic we see quite different and new kinds of relationships between people, animals, plants and things. By way of both a concluding comment and example, I would like to suggest that we can see this
clearly in the working of and relationship with stone at a range of different
scales, and for different purposes. This can be woven back into other strands
of change.
In approaching this issue it might be useful to think of Ingolds (2000) discussion of the attitude of hunter-gatherers and agriculturalists to their environments. To the hunter-gatherer the environment is seen as giving; with the
agriculturalist there tends to be a much greater emphasis on acquisition.
Accepting the danger of generalisation and of applying this as a binary
opposition to what are patently complex and varied prehistoric realities, it
does provide an interesting start point to thinking about different attitudes to
working stone before and after 4000 cal BC. In an Irish context it is notable
that stone axes were a part of the Mesolithic tool-kit (e.g Woodman et al.
1999, 7780). It would appear that it was primarily secondary sources that
were utilised, in circumstances where people may have regarded cobbles as
almost ready-made pre-forms (Cooney 2000a, 195). But significant changes
occur around 4000 cal BC. Given the expansion of woodland clearance and
landscape management of different kinds, for example coppicing, it seems
likely that the axe, as in other parts of north-west Europe, came to be associated with agriculture. The increased demand for axes and their extended
559
potential as an object with both functional and symbolic roles can be seen in
the increasing number of axes, the range of lithic sources used for their production (Cooney & Mandal 1998), the occasional occurrence of jadeite and
other axes from the European mainland and the deliberate production of
axes from specific sources that highlighted their special value.
It is in this context that the dates for a phase of quarrying activity on
Lambay, an island in the Irish Sea off the coast of Dublin, where porphyry
(porphyritic andesite) was exploited on a periodic basis over much of the
fourth millennium cal BC (Cooney 2005), are of particular interest. Two AMS
radiocarbon determinations returned dates of 37803640 cal BC (SUERC4129) and 39403660 cal BC (SUERC-4131), associated with undecorated,
carinated bowl pottery. Here it would seem that organised axe production
begins early in the Neolithic. Production at the major sources such as
Tievebulliagh and Brockley (porcellanite) in Co. Antrim, north-east Ireland
and Great Langdale (tuff) in Cumbria, north-west England is perceived as
focused on the mid-fourth millennium cal BC and later (e.g. Malone 2001,
210). However, the occurrence of significant quantities of porcellanite at
some of the early rectangular buildings in Ireland, as at Ballyharry, Co.
Antrim (Moore 2003), suggests that the exploitation of one or both of the
known porcellanite sources began very early in the Neolithic. Similarly the
occurrence of tuff axe fragments from Langdale at the Lismore Fields settlement site in the Peak District (see Hind 2004, 141) raises the same possibility
in relation to the working of the Langdale tuff source. These and other examples suggest that the contrast between axes that would have been perceived in
many parts of Ireland and Britain as being made of non-local sources and
axes of locally available stone was a feature of life from very early in the
Neolithic. This inter-weaving of the local and the distant can be seen in other
aspects of the use of stone, for example in the local exploitation of pitchstone
on the island of Arran in the Clyde estuary in Scotland during the Mesolithic
and its more widespread occurrence, including across the Irish Sea in Ireland,
during the Neolithic (Cooney 2004b, 194).
How are we to interpret these patterns? From the point of view of
changed relationships with the land following the onset of the Neolithic, it
could be argued that what we see in the working of stone at special places is
analogous to the idea of deliberate acquisition of, or harvesting of, the rock.
The potential metaphoric connections would have been made stronger by
the frequent association of axes with activities associated with agriculture.
In terms of the significance of objects coming from beyond the local and
familiar, Hind (2004, 141), citing Helms (1988), has discussed how such artefacts may be considered as having an exceptional potency and symbolic
charge, particularly if they come from special places or sources, such as
islands or mountains. These objects may have been of particular importance
560
Gabriel Cooney
in developing and maintaining relationships within and between communities. Hence the quarrying and procurement of such axes may have defined
from the start what it was to be Neolithic, as opposed to being an aspect of
life that developed over the course of the period.
This argument would be much more familiar if we were discussing the
construction of megalithic monuments. It has been suggested recently that a
useful way of viewing early monumental constructions in the west of Britain
and Ireland is to see them as an assertion of regional indigenous identity at
a time when the world was changing, and when there may have been intrusive
pioneer populations in southern and eastern Britain (Whittle 2003, 153). This
is built on detailed analyses which it is argued show that the siting of many
of these monuments, such as portal dolmens/tombs, make direct reference to
the local landscape (e.g. Cummings & Whittle 2004; 2005). This in turn forms
the basis for interpreting these monuments as concerned with creation myths,
by people long familiar with the regional landscape. Now while this seems
like a plausible explanation, it should be examined in the context of what has
been said above. There is no background in local late Mesolithic funerary
practice for the construction of such monuments, which emerges in the
context of a changed world after 4000 cal BC. The very act of working and
raising stone in this way is a new practice. Looking at the setting of
Achnacreebeag for which a plausible background in north-west France has
been suggested, the same argument about a local referencing (see illustration
of landscape setting in Sheridan 2003b) could be made. If we see portal
tombs or dolmens as having any coherence or meaning as a typological class
then it also has to be relevant to this debate that some of them were erected
within areas cleared and organised into fields, as at Cide or in areas of longterm clearance, as at Lough Sheeauns. It is also worth remembering that in
Ireland portal tombs can be seen as forming part of the long cairn tradition
with its accepted European background. The cultural background to the similarities visible in megalithic monuments is difficult to see solely in a late
Mesolithic background, when there are limited signs of contact between
communities on either side of the Irish Sea. Rather it lies in the web of contacts, travelling between the local, familiar and the distant, exotic, always
defined in immediate, lived terms that is a characteristic feature of the area
after 4000 cal BC. The construction of megalithic monuments was part of how
that world was built. They referred both to local lives and genealogies but also
to ideas, materials and people that may have come from very different places.
Note. My thanks to Aidan OSullivan, Graeme Warren, Peter Woodman, Alison
Sheridan, Barbara Leon and Jessica Smyth for reading an earlier draft of the paper. I
am grateful to Mary Deevy, Conor McDermott and Jessica Smyth for discussion of
aspects of the Neolithic rectangular structures and to Rick Schulting for his
561
comments about the isotopic evidence for Neolithic diet from Ireland. I would also
like to thank Alasdair Whittle and Vicki Cummings for their editorial patience!
REFERENCES
ANDERSON, E. & JOHNSON, G. 1993. A refitting and use-wear analysis of a later Mesolithic
flint assemblage from Bay Farm, County Antrim. Archaeomaterials 7, 83100.
ARMIT, I., MURPHY, E., NELIS, E. & SIMPSON, D. (eds) 2003. Neolithic settlement in
Ireland and western Britain. Oxford: Oxbow.
BAILLIE, M. G. L. 1995. A slice through time: dendrochronology and precision dating. London:
Batsford.
BONSALL, C., MACKLIN, M. G., ANDERSON, D. E. & PAYTON, R. W. 2002. Climate
change and the adoption of agriculture in north-west Europe. European Journal of
Archaeology 5, 923.
BRADLEY, D. & HILL, E. 2000. Whats in a surname? Geneticists reply. Archaeology Ireland
54, 223.
BRADLEY, R. 1978. The prehistoric settlement of Britain. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
BRADLEY, R. 2002. The past in prehistoric societies. London: Routledge.
BRADLEY, R. 2003. Neolithic expectations. In I. Armit, E. Murphy, E. Nelis & D. Simpson
(eds), Neolithic settlement in Ireland and western Britain, 21822. Oxford: Oxbow.
BROWN, T. 1997. Clearances and clearings: deforestation in Mesolithic/Neolithic Britain.
Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16, 13346.
BYRNE, G. 1994. Rathlackan, Co. Mayo. In I. Bennett (ed.), Excavations 1993, 612. Dublin:
Wordwell.
CASE, H. J. 1969a. Settlement patterns in the north Irish Neolithic. Ulster Journal of
CASE, H. J. 1969b. Neolithic explanations. Antiquity 43, 17686.
CAULFIELD, S., ODONNELL, R. G. & MITCHELL, P. I. 1998. Radiocarbon dating of a
Neolithic field system at Cide Fields, County Mayo, Ireland. Radiocarbon 40, 62940.
CHIKHI, L., NICHOLS, R. A., BARBUJANI, G. & BEAUMONT, M. A. 2002. Y genetic data
support the Neolithic demic diffusion model. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Science, USA 99, 1100813.
COONEY, G. 1993. A sense of place in Irish prehistory. Antiquity 67, 63241.
COONEY, G. 1997. Images of settlement and landscape in the Neolithic. In P. Topping (ed.),
Neolithic landscapes, 2331. Oxford: Oxbow
COONEY, G. 2000a. Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland. London: Routledge.
COONEY, G. 2000b. Genes and Irish origins. Archaeology Ireland 52, 29.
COONEY, G. 2000c. Recognising regionality in the Irish Neolithic. In A. Desmond, G. Johnson,
J. Sheehan & E. Shee Twohig (eds), New agendas in Irish prehistory, 4965. Bray: Wordwell.
COONEY, G. 2001. Is it all in the genes? Archaeology Ireland 55, 345.
COONEY, G. 2002. From Lilliput to Brobdingnag: traditions of enclosure in the Irish Neolithic.
In G. Varndell & P. Topping (eds), Enclosures in Neolithic Europe, 6982. Oxford: Oxbow.
COONEY, G. 2003. Rooted or routed? Landscapes of Neolithic settlement in Ireland. In
I. Armit, E. Murphy, E. Nelis & D. Simpson (eds), Neolithic settlement in Ireland and western Britain, 4755. Oxford: Oxbow.
COONEY, G. 2004a. Neolithic worlds; islands in the Irish Sea. In V. Cummings & C. Fowler
(eds), The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: materiality and traditions of practice, 14559. Oxford:
Oxbow.
562
Gabriel Cooney
COONEY, G. 2004b. Neolithic stone axe quarries and production sites in Scotland and Ireland.
In I. A. G. Shepherd & G. Barclay (eds), Scotland in Ancient Europe, 191203. Edinburgh:
Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
COONEY, G. 2005. Stereo Porphyry: quarrying and deposition on Lambay Island, Ireland. In
P. Topping & M. Lynott (eds), The cultual landscape of prehistoric mines, 1429. Oxford:
Oxbow.
COONEY, G. & GROGAN, E. 1994. Irish prehistory: a social perspective. Bray: Wordwell.
COONEY, G. & MANDAL, S. 1998. The Irish stone axe project; monograph 1. Bray: Wordwell.
COSTA, L. J., STERNKE, M. & WOODMAN, P. C. 2005. Microlith to macrolith: the reasons
behind the transformation of production in the Irish Mesolithic. Antiquity 79, 1933.
CROSS, S. 2003. Irish Neolithic settlement architecture a reappraisal. In I. Armit, E. Murphy,
E. Nelis & D. Simpson (eds), Neolithic settlement in Ireland and western Britain, 195202.
Oxford: Oxbow.
CUMMINGS, V. & FOWLER, C. (eds) 2004. The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: materiality and
traditions of practice. Oxford: Oxbow.
CUMMINGS, V. & WHITTLE, A. 2005. Pentre Ifan: east or west? The origins of monumentality in Wales and western Britain. In G. Marchand & A. Tresset (eds), Unit et diversit des
processus de nolithisation sur la faade atlantique de lEurope, 24556. Mmoire 36, Socite
Prhistorique Francaise.
DANAHER, E. 2004. Symbolic enclosure: a tantalising Neolithic space in the north-west.
DAVEY, P. 2004. The Isle of Man: central or marginal in the Neolithic of the northern Irish Sea.
In V. Cummings & C. Fowler (eds), The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: materiality and traditions
of practice, 12944. Oxford: Oxbow.
DEEVY, M. 2005. The M3 Clonee to north of Kells Road Scheme, Co. Meath. In J. OSullivan
& M. Stanley (eds), Recent archaeological discoveries on national road schemes 2004, 8391.
Dublin: National Roads Authority.
DE VALERA, R. & NUALLIN, S. 1972. Survey of the megalithic tombs of Ireland, Volume
3. Dublin: Stationery Office.
DOYLE, L. & NEILL, J. 2003. Foragers, farmers and pathogens. Archaeology Ireland 66,
313.
EDWARDS, K. J. 1985. The anthropogenic factor in vegetational history. In K. J. Edwards &
W. P. Warren (eds), The Quaternary history of Ireland, 187200. London: Academic Press.
EDWARDS, K. J. 1989. The cereal pollen record and early agriculture. In A. Milles, D. Williams
& N. Gardner (eds), The beginnings of agriculture, 11347. Oxford: British Archaeological
EDWARDS, K. J. 2004. People, environmental impacts and the changing landscapes of
Neolithic and Early Bronze Age times. In I. A. G. Shepherd & G. Barclay (eds), Scotland in
Ancient Europe, 5569. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
EDWARDS, K. J. & HIRONS, K. R. 1984. Cereal pollen grains in pre-elm decline deposits:
implications for the earliest agriculture in Britain and Ireland. Journal of Archaeological
Science 11, 7180.
FREDENGREN, C. 2002. Crannogs. Dublin: Wordwell.
GOSLING, P. 1993. Archaeological inventory of County Galway: Volume I West Galway.
Dublin: Stationery Office.
GREEN, S. W. & ZVELEBIL, M. 1990. The Mesolithic colonisation and agricultural transition
of south-east Ireland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 56, 5788.
GROGAN, E. 2002. Neolithic houses in Ireland: a broader perspective. Antiquity 76, 51725.
GROGAN, E. 2004. The implications of Irish Neolithic houses. In I. A. G. Shepherd & G. Barclay
563
GUTTMANN, E. B. A. 2005. Midden cultivation in prehistoric Britain: arable crops in gardens.

World Archaeology 37, 22439.
HEDGES, R. E. M. 2004. Isotopes and red herrings: comments in Milner et al. & Lidn et al.,
Antiquity 78, 348.
HELMS, M. W. 1988. Ulysses sail: an ethnographic odyssey of power, knowledge and geographical
distance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
HELMS, M. W. 1998. Access to origins: affines, ancestors and aristocrats. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
HERNE, A. 1988. A time and a place for the Grimston Bowl. In J. Barrett & I. A. Kinnes (eds),
The archaeology of context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: recent trends: 929. Sheffield:
Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield.
HILL, E. W., JOBLING, M. A. & BRADLEY, D. G. 2000. Y-chromosome variation and Irish
origins. Nature 404, 3512.
HIND, D. 2004. Picking up the trail: people, landscapes and technology in the Peak District of
Derbyshire during the fifth and fourth millennia BC. In A. M. Chadwick (ed.), Stories from
the landscape: archaeologies of inhabitation, 13076. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports
HODGERS, D. 1994. The Salterstown surface collection project. County Louth Archaeological
and Historical Journal 23, 24068.
HUGHES, J. 2005. Two Neolithic structures in Granny townland, County Kilkenny. In
J. OSullivan & M. Stanley (eds), Recent archaeological discoveries on national road schemes
2004, 2535. Dublin: National Roads Authority.
London: Routledge.
JONES, A. 2005. Lives in fragments? Personhood and the European Neolithic. Journal of Social
KIMBALL, M. 2000a. Variation and context: ecology and social evolution in Irelands Later
Mesolithic. In A. Desmond, G. Johnson, M. McCarthy, J. Sheehan & E. Shee Twohig (eds),
New agendas in Irish prehistory, 3147. Bray: Wordwell.
KIMBALL, M. 2000b. Human ecology and Neolithic transition in eastern County Donegal,
Ireland. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 300.
KINNES, I. 1988. The cattleship Potemkin: the first Neolithic in Britain. In J. Barrett & I. A.
Kinnes (eds), The archaeology of context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: recent trends, 28.
Sheffield: Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield.
KIRCH, P. V. 2000. On the road of the winds: an archaeological history of the Pacific Islands
before European contact. Berkeley: University of California Press.
LEON, B. 2005. A reassessment of Dalkey Island. Journal of Irish Archaeology 14, 121.
LEUSCHNER, H. H., SASS-KLAASSEN, U., JANSMA, E., BAILLIE, M. G. L. & SPURK, M.
2002. Subfossil European bog oaks: population dynamics and long-term growth depressions
as indicators of the Holocene hydro-regime and climate. Holocene 12, 695706.
time? Diet in MesolithicNeolithic southern Sweden. Antiquity 78, 2333.
Oxbow.
MACKLIN, M. G., BONSALL, C., DAVIES, F. M., & ROBINSON, M. R. 2000. Humanenvironment interactions during the Holocene: new data and interpretations from the Oban
area, Argyll, Scotland. Holocene 10, 10921.
MALONE, C. 2001. Neolithic Britain and Ireland. Stroud: Tempus.
564
Gabriel Cooney
MCCORMICK, F. 1986. Animal bones from prehistoric Irish burials. Journal of Irish
MCCORMICK, F. 1999. Early evidence for wild animals in Ireland in the Holocene. In
N. Benecke (ed.), History of the European vertebrate fauna, 35571. Rahden/Westfallen:
Deutsches Archaologisches Institut Eurasian Abteilung.
MCDERMOTT, F., MATTEY, D. P. & HAWKESWORTH, C. 2001. Centennial-scale Holocene
climate variability revealed by high-resolution speleothem d18O record from SW Ireland.
Science 294, 132831.
MCEVOY, B., RICHARDS, M. B., FORSTER, P. & BRADLEY, D. G. 2004. The Longue
Dure of genetic ancestry: Multiple genetic marker systems and Celtic origins on the Atlantic
Faade of Europe. American Journal of Human Genetics 75, 693702.
MILLER, A. 1987. Timbends: a life. London: Methuen.
MILNER, N. J. & WOODMAN, P. C. 2005. Combler les lacunes. . . Lvnement le plus tudi,
le mieux dat et le moins compris du Flandrien. In G. Marchand & A. Tresset (eds), Unit et
diversit des processus de nolithisation sur la faade atlantique de lEurope, 3946. Mmoire
36, Socite Prhistorique Franaise.
to the nature of the Early Neolithic. In A. Desmond, G. Johnson, M. McCarthy, J. Sheehan
& E. Shee Twohig (eds), New agendas in Irish prehistory, 6787. Bray: Wordwell.
MOORE, D.G. 2003. Neolithic houses in Ballyharry townland, Islandmagee, Co. Antrim. In
I. Armit, E. Murphy, E. Nelis & D. Simpson (eds), Neolithic settlement in Ireland and western Britain, 15663. Oxford: Oxbow.
OCONNELL, M. & MOLLOY, K. 2001. Farming and woodland dynamics in Ireland during
the Neolithic. Biology and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 101B,
99128.
DONNABHIN, B. 2001. aDNA and aRCHAEOLOGY. Archaeology Ireland 56, 345.
NUALLIN, S. 1972. A Neolithic house at Ballyglass near Ballycastle, Co. Mayo. Journal of
the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 102, 4957.
OSULLIVAN, A. 2001. Foragers, farmers and fishers in a coastal landscape: an intertidal
archaeological survey of the Shannon estuary. Dublin: Discovery Programme/Royal Irish
Academy.
PARKER, A. G., GOUDIE, A. S., ANDERSON, D. E., ROBINSON, M. A. & BONSALL, C.
2002. A review of the mid-Holocene elm decline in the British Isles. Progress in Physical
Geography 26, 145.
PURCELL, A. 2002. Excavation of three Neolithic houses at Corbally, Kilcullen, C. Kildare.
Journal of Irish Archaeology 11, 3175.
RENFREW, C. 1996. Language families and the spread of farming. In D. Harris (ed.), The
origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia, 7092. London: UCL Press.
RENFREW, C. 2000. Archaeogenetics: Towards a population prehistory of Europe. In
C. Renfrew & K. Boyle (eds), Archaeogenetics: DNA and the population prehistory of Europe,
RICHARDS, M. P. 2004. The Early Neolithic in Britain: new insights from biomolecular
archaeology. In I. A. G. Shepherd & G. Barclay (eds), Scotland in Ancient Europe, 8390.
RICHARDS, M. P., MACAULAY, V., HICKEY, E., VEGA, E., SYKES, B., GUIDA, V.,
RENGO, C., SELLITTO, D., CRUCIANI, F., KIVISILD, T., VILLEMS, R., THOMAS, M.,
565
RYCHKOV, S., RYCHKOV, O., RYCHKOV, Y., GOLGE, M., DIMITROV, D., HILL, E.,
BRADLEY, D., ROMANO, V., CALI, F., VONA, G., DEMAINE, A., PAPIHA, S.,
TRIANTAPHYLLIDIS, C., STEFANESCU, G., HATINA, J., BELLEDI, M., DI
RIENZO, A., NOVELLETTO, A., OPPENHEIM, A., NORBY, S., AL-ZAHERI, N.,
SANTACHIARA-BENERECETTI, S., SCOZZARI, R., TORRONI, A. & BANDELT, H.-J.
2000. Tracing European founder lineages in the Near Eastern mtDNA Pool. American
Journal of Human Genetics 67, 125176.
Britain, Ireland and Southern Scandinavia. Current Anthropology 45, Supplement, S83113.
SCHULTING, R. J. 2004. An Irish sea change: some implications for the Mesolithic-Neolithic
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition on the West Coast of Scotland. Journal of European
Britain: AMS dates and stable isotope results on human remains from Caldey Island, South
Wales. Antiquity 76, 101125.
SHERIDAN, J. A. 1995. Irish Neolithic pottery: the story in 1995. In I. A. Kinnes & G. Varndell
(eds), Unbaked urns of rudely shape, 322. Oxford: Oxbow.
SHERIDAN, J. A. 2000. Achnacreebeag and its French connections: vive the Auld Alliance. In
J. C. Henderson (ed.), The prehistory and early history of Atlantic Europe, 115. Oxford:
SHERIDAN, J. A. 2001. Donegore Hill and other Irish Neolithic enclosures: a view from outside. In T. Darvill & J. Thomas (eds), Neolithic enclosures in Atlantic northwest Europe,
SHERIDAN, J. A. 2003a. French connections I: spreading the marmites thinly. In I. Armit,
E. Murphy, E. Nelis & D. Simpson (eds), Neolithic settlement in Ireland and western Britain,
317. Oxford: Oxbow.
SHERIDAN, J. A. 2003b. Irelands earliest passage tombs: a French connection. In
G. Burenhult (ed.), Stones and bones: formal disposal of the dead in Atlantic Europe during the
Mesolithic-Neolithic interface, 60003000 BC, 925. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports
SHERIDAN, J. A. 2004. Neolithic connections along and across the Irish Sea. In V. Cummings
& C. Fowler (eds), The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: materiality and traditions of practice, 921.
Oxford: Oxbow.
Britain and South Scandinavia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54, 5966.
THOMAS, J. 2003. Thoughts on the repacked Neolithic Revolution. Antiquity 77, 6775.
TIPPING, R. 1994. The form and fate of Scottish woodlands. Proceedings of the Society of
TIPPING, R. & TISDALL, E. 2004. Continuity, crisis and climate change in the Neolithic and
Early Bronze Age periods of north-west Europe. In I. A. G. Shepherd & G. Barclay (eds),
Scotland in Ancient Europe, 7181. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
TOBIN, R. 2003 Houses, enclosures and kilns excavations at Corbally, Co. Kildare.
TRESSET, A. 2000. Early husbandry in Atlantic areas. Animal introductions, diffusions of techniques and native acculturation at the north-western fringe of Europe. In J. C. Henderson
566
Gabriel Cooney
(ed.), The prehistory and early history of Atlantic Europe, 1731. Oxford: British
Oxbow.
WARREN, G. 2004. The start of the Neolithic in Scotland. In I. A. G. Shepherd & G. Barclay
WHITTLE, A. 1977. The Earlier Neolithic of southern England and its continental background.
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
WHITTLE, A. 1978. Resources and population in the British Neolithic. Antiquity 52, 3442.
WILSON, J. F., WEISS, J. A., RICHARDS, M. B., THOMAS, M. G., BRADMAN, N. &
GOLDSTEIN, D. B. 2001. Genetic evidence for different male and female roles during
cultural transitions in the British Isles. Proceedings of the National Academy Science USA 98,
507883.
WOODMAN, P. C. 1987. The impact of resource availability on lithic industrial traditions in
prehistoric Ireland. In P. Rowley-Conwy, M. Zvelebil & H. P. Blankholm (eds), Mesolithic
northwest Europe: recent trends, 13846. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology and
Prehistory, University of Sheffield.
WOODMAN, P. C. 1992. Excavations at Mad Mans Window, Glenarm, Co. Antrim: problems
of flint exploitation in east Antrim. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58, 77106.
WOODMAN, P. C. 1994. Towards a definition of Irish Early Neolithic lithic assemblages. In
N. Ashton & A. David (eds), Stories in stone, 21318. London: Lithic Studies Society,
Occasional Paper 4.
WOODMAN, P. C. 2000a. Getting back to basics: transitions to farming in Ireland and Britain.
In T. D. Price (ed.), Europes first farmers, 21959. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
WOODMAN, P. C. 2000b. Ancient DNA dont panic. Archaeology Ireland 54, 202.
WOODMAN, P. C. 2003. Pushing back the boundaries. Dublin: Royal Dublin Society.
Occasional Papers in Irish Science and Technology 27.
WOODMAN, P. C. & ANDERSON, E. 1990. The Irish Later Mesolithic: a partial picture. In
P. M. Vermeersch & P. Van Peer (eds), Contributions to the Mesolithic in Europe, 37787.
Leuven: Leuven University Press.
WOODMAN, P. C., ANDERSON, E. & FINLEY, N. 1999. Excavations at Ferriters Cove
WOODMAN, P. C., MCCARTHY, M. & MONAGHAN, N. 1997. The Irish Quaternary Fauna
Project. Quaternary Science Reviews 16, 12059.
ZILHO, J. 2000. From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in the Iberian peninsula. In T. D. Price
ZVELEBIL, M. 2000. Archaeogenetics: the social context of the agricultural transition in
Europe. In C. Renfrew & K. Boyle (eds), Archaeogenetics: DNA and the population prehistory
of Europe, 5779. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
From fish and seal to sheep and cattle:

new research into the process of
neolithisation in northern Germany
SNKE HARTZ, HARALD LBKE & THOMAS TERBERGER
THE BORDER BETWEEN THE Mesolithic and the Neolithic in Central Europe is
traditionally defined on the basis of subsistence strategy. It is the development from hunter-gatherer groups in the forests of the early Holocene to the
first farmers. The debate on the character of this process has been going on
now for over a hundred years. Here we present results of some new research
on this subject with an emphasis on northern Germany.1
FROM A COLONISATION MODEL TO

A MODEL OF INTERACTION?
There is general consensus that the neolithisation of Central Europe was
influenced from the Near East, where early farming communities had been
established in the ninth millennium cal BC (Fig. 1.AB). The innovations
expanded into the Mediterranean and later to Central Europe (see for example Zimmermann 2002), where early farming settlements can be found in the
areas with fertile loess and black earth soils. The introduction of farming in
the early Linienbandkeramik in Central Europe (Fig. 1.I) was traditionally
explained by colonising farmers from south-eastern Europe. Arguments for
this idea were the earlier evidence for farming in the Balkan area, common
elements in the material culture and the new common cultivated plants like
emmer and one-grained wheat (einkorn).
During the last 20 years these ideas could be modified in some aspects.
First of all the progress of radiocarbon dating and the calibration possibilities enabled scholars to date the beginning of the Linienbandkeramik
to c. 5500 cal BC (Lning 2002). The following period saw an increasing
1
Dates are calibrated, references are given in a limited number of cases.
568
Snke Hartz, Harald Lbke & Thomas Terberger
Figure 1. The Neolithic expansion from the Near East to Central Europe in calibrated time
scale. The phases in the Near East are given in generalised form (A-B: PPNA-B, c. 90007500 cal
BC, C: late PPNB/early PN, c. 75006900 cal BC). In Central Europe the early (I) and the younger
Linienbandkeramik (J) are mapped. Symbol L (c. 66006250 cal BC) marks possible earliest
(Mesolithic) cereal use in central Switzerland and symbol K (c. 57005200 cal BC) indicates the
area of western influence (La Hoguette pottery group). Figure after Lning 2002.
number of Linienbandkeramik sites in the loess areas, and a further clear

expansion was connected with the younger Linienbandkeramik (Fig. 1.J). The
detection of a wooden well at the younger Linienbandkeramik site ErkelenzKckhoven, constructed at the dendrochronological date of 5090 BC, provided new information on the technology and the absolute chronology of
that period (Stuble 2002).
The traditional concept of colonists invading Central Europe in a more
or less abandoned area between the Alps and the north European Plain is
proposed by some colleagues today. But this scenario cannot be supported by
anthropological analyses. Some time ago it was noticed that poppy, one of
the plants used by the Linienbandkeramik people, was of western European
origin (Lning 2000). This was a first indication for western influences during the earliest Neolithic which could be confirmed by further archaeological
evidence. At the same time new research from a Mesolithic perspective stimulated the discussion. Important new aspects can be summarised as follows:
THE PROCESS OF NEOLITHISATION
569
1 Pollen analyses in Central Switzerland suggest the first small-scale

cereal cultivation at c. 6500 cal BC, and it could be possible that late
Mesolithic people (in that area) used cereals much earlier than expected
(Fig. 1.L) (Erny-Rodmann et al. 1997).2
2 Besides the south-eastern roots of the Central European Neolithic
there is evidence for western neighbours of the earliest Linienbandkeramik
represented by the La Hoguette (and Limburg) pottery. The La Hoguette
pottery finds parallels in France and is influenced by the western
Mediterranean early Neolithic (Cardial Ceramic). The La Hoguette neighbours were probably nomadic people keeping sheep and goats, who might
have been present up to the river Rhine area some time before the earliest
Linienbandkeramik was established (Fig. 1.K) (Lning 2000; 2002;
Zimmermann 2002).
3 Finally, new late Mesolithic sites and elements of continuity in the
technology found by the analyses of late Mesolithic and early Neolithic lithic
assemblages (Gronenborn 1997; Kind 1998; 2003; Tillmann 1993) indicate a
more important role for Late Mesolithic people in the neolithisation process.
In conclusion the introduction of the new economy with a package of
innovations (sedentary way of life, massive house constructions, pottery, and
so on) is here explained by an interactive process between a few people coming in from south-eastern Europe, Mediterranean-influenced groups in the
West and the native late Mesolithic people.3 New methods like strontium
isotope analyses add some additional information on this process (Price et al.
2001; Bentley, this volume).
From the beginning, the expansion of the Linienbandkeramik was
dynamic, and within a short period of time islands of early Neolithic settlement were established up to the northern margins of the loess zone near
Magdeburg. But how did this process influence the north European Plain?
THE NORTH EUROPEAN PLAIN: DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT

AND DIFFERENT SUBSISTENCE STRATEGY
The northern German landscape was formed by glaciation processes. The
maximum extent of the last glaciation divides the plain from north-west to
It has to be mentioned that the idea of earliest small-scale farming before the
Linienbandkeramik is not shared by all botanists (A. Kreuz, pers. comm.).
3
At the conference The Spread of the Neolithic in Europe held at Mainz in June 2005 the idea
that Mesolithic people had an important role in the Neolithisation process in Central Europe
was accepted by most colleagues.
570
south-east into an old morainic and a north-eastern young morainic part

(Fig. 3). Typical elements of the landscape are the end and ground moraines,
the late glacial tunnel valleys and numerous lakes and kettle holes in the
young morainic area. Sandy soils and heavy clay soils were widespread that
were not suitable for early farming, and so the northern border of the
Linienbandkeramik was caused by the different natural settings. This view
is supported by the situation in the lower Oder area. Here on both sides of
the river we find the northernmost settlements of the (younger)
Linienbandkeramik at a distance of c. 120 km from the island of Rgen with
some terminal Mesolithic sites (Fig. 2). They were established at c. 5100 cal
BC (Heuner 1988) and are limited to an area with fertile (black) soils that are
now largely eroded (Fischer-Zujkov 2000).
As a conclusion, soil quality was of significance, and secondly, the
climatic conditions have to be seen as limiting factors for the (younger)
Linienbandkeramik expansion at the time of the Atlantic optimum. The
natural environment caused a very different development of the economic
system and way of life in northern Germany for about 1500 years.
Figure 2. Northern Central Europe and southern Scandinavia with extension of the
Linienbandkeramik (LBK) and the Erteblle Culture (partly after Czerniak & Kabacinski 1997).
571
RESEARCH ON THE TERMINAL MESOLITHIC IN THE NORTH

Important research on the terminal Mesolithic and early Neolithic in northwestern Germany was conducted by Schwabedissen in the 1950s at
Satrupholmer Moor and at the inland site of Trave valley, but only on a small
scale. Later in the 1970s he organised large-scale excavations at the coastal
site of Grube-Rosenhof (Fig. 3). With extensive use of conventional radiocarbon dates he developed concepts of the process of neolithisation (e.g.
Schwabedissen 1979; 1994). According to his results the early Neolithic was
already established on the southern Baltic coast at c. 4400 cal BC. But his
results are questioned today.
The work of Schwabedissen has to be seen against the background of the
more generally known southern Scandinavian research. Denmark has a long
tradition of research on the late hunter-gatherer-fishers of the Erteblle
culture (Fig. 2) and on the early farming communities of the early Funnel
Beaker culture (e.g. Fischer & Kristiansen 2002; and see Larsson, this volume). So there is a reliable and detailed chrono-stratigraphic framework for
cultural development available for that area (Andersen 1995; Vang Petersen
Figure 3. Distribution of important Erteblle sites in Northern Germany with ice sheet extension of the Last Glacial Maximum and recent coastal sinking values (in mm; values after
Dietrich & Liebsch 2000). 1. Travenbrck LA 5. 2. Wangels LA 505. 3. Rosenhof LA 58. 4.
Rosenfelde LA 83. 5. Siggeneben-Sd LA 12. 6. Neustadt LA 156. 7. Jckelberg-Huk (Neuburg/
Poel Fp. 45). 8. Jckelgrund-Orth (Neuburg/ Poel Fp. 42). 9. Jckelberg-Nord (Neuburg/ Poel
Fp. 16). 10. Timmendorf I and II (Neuburg/Poel Fp. 47/ 12). 11. Parow (Fp. 4). 12. Hansestadt
Stralsund (Fp. 225). 13. Drigge (Fp. 7001). 14. Ralswiek-Augustenhof. 15. Lietzow-Buddelin
(Saiser Fp. 1).
572
1984). Andersen has organised several large-scale excavations of shell middens in northern and north-eastern Jutland on sites like Erteblle,
Bjrnsholm and Norsminde and at inland sites like Ringkloster, while
Fischer investigated some inland sites in the famous Amose area on Zealand.
They both contributed to a better understanding of all aspects of the
terminal Mesolithic and early Neolithic (Andersen 1995; 2000; Fischer 2003).
Important information on that period was provided by excavations of
graves and cemeteries with some information on the population, mortuary
practices and social aspects (Brinch Petersen 1988; Kannegard Nielsen &
Brinch Petersen 1993). Underwater excavations, especially at Tybrind Vig and
Mllegabet, gave insights into terminal Mesolithic sites (Andersen 1985;
Skaarup & Grn 2004). In conclusion a relatively detailed picture of the terminal Mesolithic period in southern Scandinavia can be presented (Andersen
1995; 2000; Price 2000; and see Larsson, this volume).
Research in Denmark was favoured by the natural conditions. As a consequence of the last glaciation Scandinavia is rising and the southern Baltic
coast is slightly sinking. Since the Danish islands are close to the zero line,
they are only slightly affected by this eustatic process. Because of a rising sea
level parallel to the sinking coast, the development of the southern Baltic
coast was a relatively complicated process caused by eustatic and isostatic
factors. In the late Atlantic and Subboreal period the coast was more like
the modern situation (see Janke & Lampe 2000; Lemke 2005). Because of
increasing sinking values of the coast towards the west (Fig. 3), we find
marked regional differences along the coast. According to new information
the coastline of the final Atlantic at c. 4000 cal BC is located c. 3.5 m below
sea level in Wismar Bay (Fig. 3), but in the Rgen area to the east, the coast
line of that time could be identified at c. 1.7 m below sea level. So we have a
difference of almost 2 m within a distance of about 100 km (Lampe et al.
2005).
The more difficult access to these sources hampered archaeological
research in the southern Baltic. New systematic field work funded by the
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft was started in 2002 by the interdisciplinary research group Sincos (Sinking Coasts).4 Sincos demonstrated the
unexpected potential of sites on land and underwater, in some cases with
excellently preserved cultural layers of the period from c. 6000 to 3000 cal BC
(Figs 3 and 4). Research was concentrated on the area of eastern Holstein
(Oldenburger Graben), the Wismar Bay and on the island of Rgen (Fig. 3).
4
The research group consists of the Baltic Sea Research Centre Warnemnde, the
Archaeological State Museum and State Agency for Archaeological Heritage MecklenburgVorpommern, the University of Greifswald with different disciplines and some other institutions (representatives: Prof. Dr Jan Harff and Dr F. Lth; see www.sincos.org).
573
The archaeological part of the project has aimed to provide new and reliable
data for the reconstruction of the sea level development, the natural environment and peoples reactions to the changing coastal landscape. Besides the
excavation of prehistoric coastal settlements, sea level measurements of the
last 150 years were analysed (Fig. 3). With the help of all the new data it will
be possible to improve climate models of the past and for the future (Harff
et al. 2005a; 2005b).
THE TERMINAL MESOLITHIC ON THE SOUTHERN BALTIC

COAST: NEW RESULTS
Towards the early Erteblle culture
During the older Mesolithic (Maglemose culture, c. 9500 to 6500 cal BC),
northern Germany and the Danish islands were connected by a broad land
bridge for long periods of time and archaeological finds show a lot of similarities. With the beginning of the Atlantic period we recognise the rapid sea
level rise of the Litorina-transgression with up to c. 2.5 cm per year. This
period of dramatically changing landscapes sees the start of the younger
Mesolithic, with trapezes as a new projectile form: the Kongemose culture of
southern Scandinavia. Coastal settlement sites of that time were not known
in the southern Baltic, and this phase is still badly defined in northern
Germany. Recent underwater explorations in Wismar Bay have been able
to identify younger Mesolithic sites dating before 6000 cal BC at 11 m
(Jckelberg-NNW) and 8.5 m (Jckelberg-Huk) below present sea level (Figs
3 and 4). The find material shows typical elements of an Early Kongemose
phase with trapezes, regular soft-hammer blades and special microblade
cores (Lbke 2005a). Further investigations of these sites are necessary to
see if marine resources were already available and of importance on the
southern Baltic coast at the time of the Kongemose culture.
According to new information, the phase of the last hunter-gathererfishers in the Western Balticthe Erteblle culturestarted in northern
Germany, comparable to the Danish area, at c. 5400 cal BC (Fig. 4). Erteblle
sites were in most cases located on shores of protected bights or fjords, but
we also know of some inland sites on larger lakes or streams.
An early Erteblle culture inland site dated to c. 5400 to 5200 cal BC has
been excavated by S. Hartz (1997) at Travenbrck in Schleswig-Holstein (Fig.
3). The site was situated on a former lake shore, and fish bones demonstrate
that fishing was of importance here (Heinrich 1993). In addition, terrestrial
animals like red deer, roe deer and wild boar were hunted. An isolated date
of c. 5200 cal BC (Hedges et al. 1995) for a fragment of thin-walled pottery
Figure 4. Chronological framework of the Mesolithic and Neolithic in northern Germany and settlement phases of important Erteblle sites
(absolute dating: black; typological dating: grey).
574
575
from the Travenbrck site is questionable, and so the coastal early Erteblle
culture in northern Germany is characterised by the lack of pottery.
In Wismar Bay a group of marine geologists from the Baltic Sea Research
Centre Warnemnde and archaeologists from the State Agency for
Archaeological Heritage in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern detected a submerged settlement site of the early Erteblle culture (Jckelberg-Nord) at 6.5
to 7 m below present sea levels. According to the stratigraphy the site was
used for a long period of time. Absolute dating confirms this and places the
cultural layer in the last centuries before 5000 cal BC (Fig. 4; Lbke 2005a).
Fish remains show the presence of brackish and marine species and reflect
the changing landscape due to the Litorina transgression (Schmlcke 2005);
there is no evidence for seal hunting in this case. Terrestrial hunting is mainly
demonstrated by remains of red deer, roe deer and wild boar. Typical lithic
elements are core axes, truncated blades, burins and transverse arrowheads
(Fig. 5). A part of a wooden shaft proves the hafting of core axes (Fig. 6.3).
Further to the east, close to the Hanseatic town of Stralsund, rescue excavations revealed another new Stone Age site (Fig. 3; Kaute et al. 2005). The
site is situated in a typical position at the mouth of a small fjord flowing into
the Strelasund between the island of Rgen and the mainland. The excavation documented parts of two successive refuse layers. The lower peaty cultural layer was characterised by some Mesolithic finds, and two dugout
canoes were detected parallel to the coast line. They are the first well preserved Mesolithic water craft from the southern Baltic coast.5 The 8 m- and
9 m-long lime wood canoes were flattened by the overlying sediments. Burnt
spots indicate the position of a fire place in both dugouts. Oak trees found in
the peat layer (with dendrochronological dates of 51284888 BC) and radiocarbon results date the craft to c. 48004700 cal BC (Lbke 2005c). Red deer
antler was an important raw material at that time and we find early evidence
of the production of T-shaped antler axes in Stralsund. One axe (Fig. 6.4)
was directly dated by radiocarbon analysis to c. 4900 cal BC and is the earliest evidence of this type in northern Germany up to now. T-shaped axes are
a typical form of the Erteblle culture with parallels in southern Neolithic
contexts. They appear to be present in the southern Baltic somewhat earlier
than in western Denmark; on the eastern Danish islands this axe type is only
present in small numbers because of raw material shortages.
A short distance away from the Stralsund site in the 1930s, sand dredging
in the Strelasund near Drigge yielded 55 bones and antlers (Terberger 1999);
small finds and lithics were not collected. The finds are characterised by
5
The earliest proof of a dug-out north of the Alps was found in 1955 at Pesse in the Netherlands
and is dated to the Boreal (GrN-486: 8270 275 BP; GrN-6257: 8825 100 BP: Lanting & van der
Plicht 1997/8).
576
Figure 5. Stone artefacts of the early Erteblle culture from Timmendorf-Nordmole II. 13.
Truncated blades. 47. Arrow heads. 810. Core axes. Scale 1:2 (after Lbke 2005a).
several red deer antler fragments from the production of T-shaped axes, and
three finds represent used tools of that type. Red deer is the most frequent
hunted game, but a seal bone indicates the expected use of marine resources.
A single whale bone cannot be taken as a proof that this species was hunted.
There are no indications that whales were of relevance for the subsistence
strategy on the southern Baltic coast. From Denmark there are some examples of hunted whales, which is probably a consequence of more suitable conditions for whales there. Of more relevance at the Drigge site is a human skull
fragment from a very robust male individual dated to c. 5150 cal BC (Fig. 7).
577
Figure 6. Organic artefacts of the early Erteblle culture from Travenbrck (12), JckelbergNord (3) and Stralsund (4). 1. 4 T-shaped antler axe. 2. Antler harpoon. 3. Part of a wooden
shaft. 1 and 4: Scale 1:3; 23: Scale 1:2 (1 and 2 after Hartz 1997; 3 after Lbke 2005a; 4 after
Kaute et al. 2005).
Several cutmarks running across the skull demonstrate that the man had been
scalped. The scalping probably reflects special mortuary practices of that
time; cemeteries of the Erteblle culture were until recently missing in the
southern Baltic.
From c. 5000 cal BC onwards sites become more numerous. Several new
sites with excellent preservation of organic remains were found during underwater archaeological explorations in the Northern Bodden waters off the
island of Rgen, which will be further investigated in the near future (Fig. 3;
Lbke 2005b). The period until 4750 cal BC is best represented by the sites of
Timmendorf-Nordmole II in Wismar Bay and Rosenfelde in the Oldenburger
578
Figure 7.
Skull with cut marks from the site of Drigge (after Terberger 1999).
Graben (Fig. 4; Hartz & Lbke 2005). The lithic finds are now characterised
by core axes with rhombic cross-sections (Fig. 5.810), and at TimmendorfNordmole II some small flake axes are found. Blades were produced by the
soft-hammer technique, and blade tools were formed by large truncated
blades (Fig. 5.13) and burins; borers were made of thick flakes in most cases.
The typical projectile point was the transverse arrow head (Fig. 5.47). On
some sites we found wooden leister prongs. These composite hunting
weapons were used until recently in more or less the same way for eel hunting in muddy ground. Eel was of high economic significance in the period
under consideration.
Contacts with Neolithic communities in more southern areas were
already documented for the early Erteblle culture.6 A stone axe of a raw
material (Wiedaer Schiefer) originating in the Central German upland zone
was found at Travenbrck (Hartz 1997), and on the Parow site close to the
Long distance contacts are certainly established for the Mesolithic in general and before the
Erteblle culture (for example Fischer 2003). Recently Gronenborn (2005) discussed a transverse
arrowhead found in a pit at the earliest Linienbandkeramik site of Friedberg-Bruchenbrcken,
Hesse, probably imported from a late Kongemose context.
579
island of Rgen a fragment of younger Linienbandkeramik pottery was collected (c. 5000 cal BC) (Mertens & Schirren 2000; Terberger & Seiler 2005).
The decoration indicates that this pot was probably produced far away in the
Rhineland (Fig. 15).
After 5000 cal BC flat axes and drilled adzes of solid amphibolite
(Danubian types) were exchanged from Neolithic communities
(Linienbandkeramik, Stichbandkeramik, Rssen) (Klassen 2004). At the
Rosenhof site, Hartz (2005) recently found a large drilled amphibolite adze
with parts of the wooden shaft in their original position, which has been
directly dated to c. 49004780 cal BC (Fig. 8.1).
It is very probable that the hunter-gatherer-fisher groups of the early
Erteblle culture were aware of the new ideas of Neolithic economy. Jennbert
(1994) has suggested that foreign pots probably contained interesting new
food types and drinks that were exchanged as gifts with the Erteblle people.
Younger Erteblle culture (c. 47504100 cal BC)
At c. 4750 cal BC changes can be detected, but without a major impact on the
way of life of the Erteblle culture.
The first part of the younger Erteblle culture (c. 4750 to 4450 cal BC) is
best represented at the Grube-Rosenhof site in the Oldenburger Graben (Figs
3 and 4) (Hartz & Lbke 2005). The first excavations were conducted by
Schwabedissen but new field work by Hartz has clarified the stratigraphical
situation and the dating of the find layers (Hartz 2005). He excavated about
60 square m of the refuse layers, where c. 4000 fish bones of marine species
were identified. They demonstrate, together with seal bones and many eel
bones, that marine resources were still of high importance at that time.
Terrestrial hunting is documented as well, although some bones at GrubeRosenhof were identified as domesticated cattle. They are AMS-dated to
c. 4600 cal BC and could represent the earliest animal husbandry on an
Erteblle site (Hartz et al. 2000; 2002; Schmlcke 2005). There are so far no
reliable parallels to that find known from the southern Baltic Erteblle sites.7
Research is in progress to analyse the genetic pattern of these cattle bones
and we will have to see whether the interpretation of early cattle use can be
confirmed.8 Recent results of stable isotope analyses on aurochs and early
A recently detected find of a cattle tooth from a site on Zealand suggests that domesticated animals were perhaps more widespread at that time in the Erteblle culture than expected (Srensen
2005).
8
Genetic analyses could recently demonstrate that the Middle East is the source of Europes first
domesticated cattle (talk by R. Bollongino, C. J. Edwards, D. Bradley, K. W. Alt, and J. Burger
at the conference in Mainz, June 2005).
580
Figure 8. Imported rock artefacts (Danubian types). 1. Drilled amphibolite adze with fragment of the wooden shaft from Rosenhof. 2. Drilled amphibolite adze from Neustadt. 3. Flat axe
from Lietzw-Buddelin. Scale 1:2 (1 and 2 after Hartz 2005; 3 after Terberger & Seiler 2005).
cattle from southern Scandinavia raise doubts about the identification of the
Grube-Rosenhof bones as cattle (Noe-Nygard et al. 2005).
The material culture shows changes as well at this time (Hartz & Lbke
2005). A new element was the locally made pottery. This was a thick-walled
and pointed-base pottery type with only sparse decoration (Fig. 9.1, and
581
Figure 9. Pottery of the younger Erteblle culture. 1. Pointed-base vessel (Wangels). 2. Lamp
(Wangels). 34. Decorated fragments of pointed-base vessels (Timmendorf-Nordmole I). 1:
Scale 1:5; 24: Scale 1:3 (1 and 2 after Hartz 1997/8; 3 and 4 after Lbke 2005a).
34). This pottery is widespread in the younger Erteblle culture, and lamps
are another typical element (Fig. 9.2). The core axes of this period have an
oval cross-section and flake axes are of trapezoidal shape (Fig. 10). The other
flint tools such as burins, scrapers, truncated blades and rough borers show
no difference. A new element was locally produced: rounded shaped and
edge-polished axes (Walzenbeile; Fig. 11). There was a greater variability
of organic tools represented; wooden prongs and bone points of eel spears,
bone and antler harpoons, bone daggers and T-shaped antler axes were
typical (Fig. 12). Water craft are indicated by paddle fragments (Hartz and
Lbke 2000). Imported finds are represented by amphibolite tools of
Danubian type. On sites in the Rgen area we find single fragments of
Stichbandkeramik pottery originating from south-eastern Neolithic communities (Fig. 15). They probably reached the coast around 4500 cal BC (Mertens
& Schirren 2000; Terberger & Seiler 2005).
582
Figure 10. Stone artefacts of the younger Erteblle culture from Timmendorf-Nordmole I
(111) and Lietzow-Buddelin (1213). 16. Arrow heads. 7. Hafted truncated blade. 8. Burin. 9.
Truncated blade. 10. Endscraper. 11 and 13. Flake axe. 12. Core axe. Scale 1:2 (111 after Lbke
2005a; 12 and 13 after Terberger & Seiler 2005).
583
Figure 11. Locally produced rock stone axe (Walzenbeil) of the younger Erteblle culture.
Scale: 1:2 (after Hartz 1997/8).
The final Erteblle phase from c. 4450 to 4100 cal BC is represented by an

increasing number of sites along the southern Baltic Sea coast. The most
important sites are Neustadt and Wangels in Eastern Holstein, TimmendorfNordmole I in the Wismar Bay (c. 3.5 m below sea level) and the sites
Lietzow-Buddelin and Ralswiek-Augustenhof on the island of Rgen (Fig. 4).
The settlement areas were often destroyed by the transgressing sea and so
information on that period normally comes from the refuse layers. At
Timmendorf-Nordmole I it was possible to excavate a large (2.1 by 0.8 m)
submerged pit with a wooden roof construction fallen into it. The pit was
probably used for storage purposes.
584
Figure 12. Organic finds of the younger Erteblle culture from Timmendorf-Nordmole I (12),
Neustadt (3), Wangels (4), Lietzow-Buddelin (5, 89) and Ralswiek-Augustenhof (67). 1 and 2.
Leister prongs. 3. Antler harpoon. 4. T-shaped antler axe. 5. Bone with groove and splinter technique. 6. Bone harpoon. 7. Bone dagger. 8 and 9. Bone points. 13, 59: Scale 1:2; 4: Scale 1:3
(1 and 2 after Lbke 2005a; 5,8,9 after Terberger & Seiler 2005).
The sites of this phase show continuity in the use of marine resources.
Leister prongs are well represented (Fig. 12.12), and there is repeated evidence for stationary fishing constructions at the coast line and fish baskets;
harpoons were used for the hunting of seals (Fig. 12.3 and 6) which are
585
frequently represented in the faunal record. Hunting of terrestrial game such

as red deer, roe deer and wild pig was of additional importance.
Besides the typical Erteblle pottery at Wangels (Hartz 1997/8), a new
thin-walled and undecorated type is recorded for this phase. On the western
sites flake axes were typical (Fig. 10.11), whereas core axes were still frequent
on the Rgen sites (Fig. 10.12), sometimes with trimming of the working
edge. The Rgen core axes can be longer than 20 cm and their dimensions
come close to polished flint axes (Terberger & Seiler 2005). The good raw
material availability with primary flint sources on the north-eastern part of
the island favoured the production of such large core axes. Transverse
arrowheads with slightly inverse-retouched edges represent the typical projectile form (Fig. 10.16). Truncated blades form another element of continuity (Fig. 10.9). At Timmendorf-Nordmole I, a hafted truncated blade with
hollow retouch was for the first time detected in the storage pit (Fig. 10.7);
the blade was hafted by two halves of a small hazelstick with skilful bast
binding (Lbke 2005a). The organic tools were similar to the preceding
phase. In a few cases, perforated polished antlers are reported. A piece from
the new excavations at Grube Rosenhof shows a simple geometric ornamentation (Hartz 2005). A few bone daggers from Ralswiek-Augustenhof
show geometric decoration as well (Fig. 12.7; Klinghardt 1924). The wooden
repertoire was variable with, for example, fragments of paddles and dugouts,
arrows and bows (Hartz 2005; Labes 2005; Lbke 2003; 2005a).
Walzenbeile (Fig. 11) do occur and the imported flat and perforated
Danubian amphibolite tools are still represented, for example from Neustadt
(Fig. 8.2) and Lietzow-Buddelin (Fig. 8.3). A special imported find had
already been detected in the 1920s. This is a bone plate with a geometric
decoration from Ralswiek-Augustenhof on Rgen, with close parallels in the
Brzesc Kujawski culture in the area of the middle Vistula (Weichsel) river, a
distance of c. 500 km to the east (Petzsch 1925; Fig. 15). In the second half
of the fifth millennium cal BC this area was influenced by early copper-using
cultures in the Balkans and so the first copper objects were imported to more
northern areas. It is not impossible that people of the final Erteblle phase
got their hands on the first copper objects (Klassen 2004; Lutz et al. 1998),
but until now no such object has been detected on a coastal site.
THE BEGINNING OF THE FUNNEL BEAKER CULTURE:

NEW SUBSISTENCE STRATEGY AND NEW POTTERY
At 4100 cal BC radical changes of economy and material culture become
apparent (Hartz et al. 2000; Hartz & Lbke 2005). The developments of that
time can best be explained at the Wangels site in the Oldenburger Graben
586
(Hartz 1997/8; Hartz and Lbke 2005). Now bones of sheep and goat and
domesticated cattle are represented in larger numbers (Heinrich 1997/8), and
use of cereals is indicated by pollen diagrams as well as by grains in pottery.
Marine resources and terrestrial game are still represented but were of less
importance. Pottery has a higher quality and shows a variety of new types9
such as funnel beakers and bowls, amphorae and bottles (Fig. 13). At the
same time flake and core axes with special trimmed edges continue to exist
and demonstrate, together with the organic tools, elements of continuity.
Early funnel beakers with simple decoration under the rim were also collected in Parow at the Strelasund. They were AMS-dated to c. 3900 cal BC and
represent the earliest Neolithic pottery in the Rgen area. They suggest a
comparable development towards the Neolithic in this area. Early Neolithic
finds from the nearby Stralsund site show that coastal sites were not abandoned in the early fourth millennium cal BC. Fishing and seal hunting were
additional components of the diet, but these sites were probably used only
seasonally. In the early Neolithic layer of the Stralsund site, a 12 m-long
dugout canoe was documented, representing the longest Stone Age craft of
the south-western Baltic (Lbke & Terberger 2005).
The most important coastal site of the early Neolithic is Siggeneben-Sd
in Schleswig-Holstein, excavated by Meurers-Balke (1983) more than 20
years ago. The site yields early Neolithic material of the period from c. 3800
cal BC onwards. The pottery of funnel beaker type became more variable in
form and decoration. Polished flint axes formed a new element, but small
flake axes, blade tools and transverse arrow heads were still in use. The new
economy further developed towards the middle of the fourth millennium cal
BC and coastal sites were of minor relevance. At the same time the development of monumental grave architecture and enclosed sites indicates general
changes in northern early Neolithic society.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
The new research results can be summarised as follows:
1 The development from the last hunter-gatherer-fishers to the early
farming communities seems to be relatively uniform on the southern Baltic
coast.
9
Recently AMS dates of food crusts from pottery have been criticised by Fischer and
Heinemeier (2003), because reservoir effects caused by marine food may be expected. A careful
analysis of the datings of the pottery from Wangels confirms the dating of the beginning of the
early Neolithic reported here (Hartz & Lbke 2005).
587
Figure 13. Pottery of the early Funnel Beaker culture from Wangels (1, 24) and Rosenhof (3).
1. Funnel beaker. 2. and 3. Amphora. 4. Bowl. 1, 4: Scale 1:3; 23: Scale 1:4 (after Hartz 1997/8;
3 after Schwabedissen 1979).
2 Until c. 4100 cal BC the economy was regularly based on aquatic/

marine resources (fish and seals) and on terrestrial hunted game. Gathering
of plant food such as hazelnuts can often be proved and contributed to a
stable economic situation in Mesolithic tradition (Fig. 14).
3 The Erteblle people had (exchange) contacts with early farming
communities in southern areas for more than 1000 years (Fig. 15). The cattle
bones dated to c. 4600 cal BC from the site Grube-Rosenhof might document
isolated imports of domesticated animals, which had no traceable influence
on the economic system.
4 From 4100 cal BC onwards we see a change in the economy to domesticated animals and the use of cereals, but the latter were of limited relevance
(Fig. 14). Hunting, fishing and gathering were still of some importance.
Although we see a marked change at this time, new elements of the economy
and material culture such as pottery or polished axes were not introduced as
588
Figure 14.
Economic development at the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic.
a package, but in steps. In the beginning sheep and goat were important, but
in the early Funnel Beaker culture cattle were used as well (Hartz et al. 2000).
5 This process corresponds quite well with the model of an availability phase (until 4100 cal BC), an adaptation or substitution phase (until c.
3500 cal BC) and a consolidation phase (after c. 3500 cal BC) (following
Zvelebil 1998).
6 Imported finds mainly demonstrate contacts with early farming communities to the south, but there is also evidence for contacts to the east.
Influence on the Erteblle culture from that area needs further analysis.
According to radiocarbon dates, the production of pointed-base pottery
started on the south-western Baltic coast at c. 4700 cal BC and was probably
introduced from the eastern Baltic (Gronenborn 2003; Hartz 1999; Timofeev
1998; see also Gronenborn, this volume).
7 There are a lot of arguments that the process of neolithisation around
4100 cal BC in northern Germany was an autochthonous development. The
economic change took place in the late Atlantic period c. 300 years before the
start of the Subboreal, which is connected with a phase of some climatic
decline. We propose that the expansion of southern Neolithic societies (the
Michelsberg culture) with increasing influence on the coastal areas was of
589
Figure 15. Sources of imported finds on sites of the final Mesolithic on the southern Baltic
coast. 1. Fragment of Linienbandkeramik pottery probably from the Rhineland (site: Parow). 2.
Axe of Wiedaer Schiefer (sites: Travenbrck and Wangels). 3. Adzes of Danubian type (sites:
Rosenhof, 2x Neustadt, Prohn, Parow and Lietzow-Buddelin). 4. Fragment of
Stichbandkeramik pottery (site: Lietzow-Buddelin). 5. Decorated bone plate (site: RalswiekAugustenhof). No scale for finds.
major importance for changes in the subsistence strategy of the Erteblle culture. The continuity of sites to the earliest Funnel Beaker culture does not
support the idea of a severe economic crisis. At the same time the society may
have developed towards a better acceptance of new economic elements.
8 Systematic surveys in Wismar Bay demonstrate that such a microregion was continuously used, and in some cases Erteblle people settled on
coastal sites over hundreds of years.
9 Because only limited investigations of settlement areas have taken
place and no cemeteries have been detected until now, the basis for a discussion of social aspects is difficult. In several cases the sites are more than 1000
m2 in extent. Such larger sites were probably used all year round by local
groups. On the island of Rgen two larger sites within a distance of c. 2 km
probably both date to the late phase of the Erteblle culture, and give a
possible indication for settlement density.
590
10 In northern Germany Neolithic economy was introduced slightly

earlier than in southern Scandinavia (see Fischer & Kristiansen 2002).
Because of stronger influences from the south this is not surprising. The
southern Baltic coast had a bridge function for its northern neighbours, and
this is reflected in a good number of imported amphibolite tools in Denmark
(Klassen 2000; 2004). The main route ran across the river Elbe in the west,
but influences from the lower Oder across the Rgen-Darss area in the east
were probably underestimated in the past. Visits, transports and exchange of
goods were organised with dugout canoes along the coast, but we are quite
sure that crossing the sea to visit the Danish neighbours sometimes took
place as well.
Note. We would like to thank G. Lidke, Greifswald, and the editors for corrections
of the English text. Drawings of the finds were made by J. Freigang (Wismar Bay
sites) and J. Vogt/M. Wieczorek (Rgen sites).
REFERENCES
ANDERSEN, S. H. 1985. Tybrind Vig. A preliminary report on a submerged Erteblle
settlement on the west coast of Fyn. Journal of Danish Archaeology 4, 529.
ANDERSEN, S. H. 1995. Coastal adaptation and marine exploitation in Late Mesolithic
Denmarkwith special emphasis on the Limfjord region. In A. Fischer (ed.), Man and Sea
in the Mesolithic. Coastal settlement above and below present sea level, 4166. Oxford: Oxbow.
ANDERSEN, S. H. 2000. Kkkenmddinger (shell middens) in Denmark: a survey. Proceedings
BRINCH PETERSEN, E. 1988. Ein mesolithisches Grab mit acht Personen von Strby Egede,
Seeland. Archologisches Korrespondenzblatt 18, 1215.
CZERNIAK, L. & KABACINSKI, J. 1997. The Erteblle culture in the Southern Baltic Coast.
In D. Krl (ed.), The built environment of coastal areas during the Stone Age, 709. Gdan sk:
The Baltic Sea-Coast Landscapes Seminar 1.
DIETRICH, R. & LIEBSCH, G. 2000. Zur Variabilitt des Meeresspiegels an der Kste von
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Zeitschrift fr Geologische Wissenschaften 28, 61524.
1997. Frher human impact und Ackerbau im bergangsbereich SptmesolithikumFrhneolithikum im schweizerischen Mittelland. Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft
FISCHER, A. 2003. Exchange: artefacts, people and ideas on the move in Mesolithic Europe. In
Move. Papers presented at the Sixth International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe,
debate. Sheffield: Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 12.
FISCHER, A. & HEINEMEIER, J. 2003. Freshwater reservoir effect in 14C-dates of food
residue on pottery. Radiocarbon 45, 44966.
FISCHER-ZUJKOV, U. 2000. Die Schwarzerden Nordostdeutschlands ihre Stellung und
Entwicklung im holoznen Landschaftswandel. Dissertation, Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin
(see http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/dissertationen/fischer-zujkov-ute-20001205/HTML).
591
GRONENBORN, D. 1997. Silexartefakte der ltestbandkeramischen Kultur. Bonn:

Universittsforschungen zur prhistorischen Archologie 37.
GRONENBORN, D. 2003. Migration, acculturation and culture change in western temperate
Eurasia, 65005000 cal BC. Documenta Praehistorica 30, 7991.
HARFF, J., JNS, H. & LTH, F. 2005a. Die DFG-Forschergruppe Sinking Coasts (SINCOS).
Jahrbuch Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 52, 3542.
HARFF, J., LAMPE, R., LEMKE, W. (), LBKE, H., LTH, F., MEYER, M. & TAUBER, F.
2005b. The Baltic Sea a model ocean to study interrelations of geosphere, ecosphere and
anthroposphere in the coastal zone. Journal of Coastal Research, SI 39, 44146.
HARTZ, S. 1997. Ertebllekultur im Travetal. Ausgrabungen auf dem Fundplatz Travenbrck
LA 5 (Gemarkung Schlamersdorf), Kreis Stormarn. Ein Vorbericht. Denkmalpflege im
Kreis Stormarn III. Stormarner Hefte 20, 17186.
HARTZ, S. 1997/8. Frhbuerliche Kstensiedlung im westlichen Teil der Oldenburger
Grabenniederung (Wangels LA 505). Ein Vorbericht. Offa 54/55, 1941.
HARTZ, S. 1999. Die Steinartefakte des endmesolithischen Fundplatzes Grube-Rosenhof.
Schleswig: Untersuchungen und Materialien zur Steinzeit in Schleswig-Holstein aus dem
Archologischen Landesmuseum 2.
HARTZ, S. 2005. Aktuelle Forschungen zur Chronologie und Siedlunsgweise der Erteblle- und
frhesten Trichterbecherkultur in Schleswig-Holstein. Bodendenkmalpflege in MecklenburgVorpommern 52, 6182.
HARTZ, S. & LBKE, H. 2000. Stone Age paddles from Northern Germany. Basic implements
of waterborne subsistence and trade. In Schutz des Kulturerbes unter Wasser. Vernderungen
europischer Lebenskultur durch Flu- und Seehandel. Beitrge zum Internationalen Kongre
fr Unterwasserarchologie (IKUWA 99) 18.21. Februar 1999 in Sassnitz auf Rgen.
Beitrge zur Ur- und Frhgeschichte Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 35, 37787. Lbstorf:
Landesamt fr Bodendenkmalpflege Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.
HARTZ, S. & LBKE, H. 2005. Zur chronostratigraphischen Gliederung der Erteblle- und
frhesten Trichterbecherkultur in der sdlichen Mecklenburger Bucht. Bodendenkmalpflege
in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 52, 11944.
HARTZ, S., LBKE, H. & HEINRICH, D. 2000. Frhe Bauern an der Kste. Neue 14C-Daten
und aktuelle Aspekte zum Neolithisierungsproze im norddeutschen Ostseekstengebiet.
HARTZ, S., HEINRICH, D. & LBKE, H. 2002. Coastal farmers the neolithisation of
northern-most Germany. In A. Fischer & K. Kristiansen (eds), The Neolithisation of
HEDGES, R. E. M., HOUSLEY R. A., BRONK RAMSEY, C. & VAN KLINKEN, G. J. 1995.
Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: archaeometry datelist 19. Archaeometry
37, 195214.
HEINRICH, D. 1993. Die Wirbeltierreste vom ellerbekzeitlichen Siedlungsplatz Schlamersdorf
LA 5, Kreis Stormarn. Zeitschrift fr Archologie 27, 6789.
HEINRICH, D. 1997/8. Die Tierknochenfunde des frhneolithischen Wohnplatzes Wangels LA
505. Ein Vorbericht. Offa 54/55, 438.
HEUNER, K.-U. 1988. Bandkeramische Funde von Zollchow, Kreis Prenzlau.
Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg 36, 724.
JANKE, W. & LAMPE, R. 2000. The sea-level rise on the south Baltic coast over the past 8000
yearsnew results and new questions. In Schutz des Kulturerbes unter Wasser.
Vernderungen europischer Lebenskultur durch Flu- und Seehandel. Kongre fr
Unterwasserarchologie Sassnitz 1999. Beitrge zur Ur- und Frhgeschichte MecklenburgVorpommerns 35, 3938. Lbstorf: Landesamt fr Bodendenkmalpflege MecklenburgVorpommern.
JENNBERT, K. 1994. Getreide als Geschenk. Ertebllekultur und frhneolithische
Trichterbecherkultur. In J. Hoika & J. Meurers-Balke (eds), Beitrge zur frhneolithischen
592
Trichterbecherkultur im westlichen Ostseegebiet. Untersuchungen und Materialien zur Steinzeit

in Schleswig-Holstein 1, 15564. Schleswig: Wachholtz Verlag.
KANNEGARD NIESLEN, E. & BRINCH PETERSEN, E. 1993. Burials, people and dogs. In
St. Hvass & B. Sjorgaard (eds), Digging into the past. 25 years of research in Denmark, 7680.
Aarhus: Jutland Archaeological Society.
KAUTE, P., SCHINDLER, G. & LBKE, H. 2005. Der endmesolithisch/frhneolithische
Fundplatz Stralsund-Mischwasserspeicher Zeugnisse frher Bootsbautechnologie an der
Ostseekste Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns. Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
52, 22141.
KIND, C.-J. 1998. Komplexe Wildbeuter und frhe Ackerbauern. Germania 76, 124.
KIND, C.-J. 2003. Das Mesolithikum in der Talaue des Neckars. Stuttgart: Forschungen und
Berichte zur Vor- und Frhgeschichte in Baden-Wrttemberg 88.
KLASSEN, L. 2000. Waterborne exchange and late Erteblle social structure. In Schutz des
Kulturerbes unter Wasser. Vernderungen europischer Lebenskultur durch Flu- und
Seehandel. Kongre fr Unterwasserarchologie Sassnitz 1999. Beitrge zur Ur- und
Frhgeschichte Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns 35, 4354. Lbstorf: Landesamt fr
Bodendenkmalpflege Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.
KLASSEN, L. 2004. Jade und Kupfer: Untersuchungen zum Neolithisierungsprozess im westlichen
Ostseeraum unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der Kulturentwicklung Europas 55003500 BC.
Aarhus: Jutland Archaeological Society Publications 47.
KLINGHARDT, F. 1924. Die steinzeitliche Kultur von Lietzow auf Rgen. Mitteilungen aus der
Sammlung vaterlndischer Altertmer der Universitt Greifswald 1, 543.
LABES, S. 2005. Endmesolithische Holzfunde von dem submarinen Fundplatz TimmendorfNordmole I. Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 52, 11118.
LAMPE, R., ENDTMANN, E., JANKE, W., MEYER, H., LBKE, H., HARFF, J. &
LEMKE, W. () 2005. A new relative sea-level curve for the Wismar Bay, N-German Baltic
coast. Meyniana 57, 535.
LANTING, J. N. & VAN DER PLICHT, J. 1997/8. De 14C-Chronologie van de Nederlandse
Pre- en Protohistorie II: Mesolithicum. Palaeohistoria 39/40, 99162.
LEMKE, W. 2005. Die kurze und wechselvolle Entwicklungsgeschichte der Ostsee Aktuelle
meeresgeologische Forschungen zum Verlauf der Litorina-Transgression. Bodendenkmalpflege
in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 52, 4354.
LBKE, H. 2003. New investigations on submarine Stone Age settlements in the Wismar Bay
area. In L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Loeffler & A. kerlund (eds), Mesolithic
on the move. Papers presented at the Sixth International Conference on The Mesolithic in Europe,
Stockholm 2000, 63342. Oxford: Oxbow.
LBKE, H. 2005a. Spt- und endmesolithische Kstensiedlungspltze in der Wismarbucht
Neue Grabungsergebnisse zur Chronologie und Siedlungsweise. Bodendenkmalpflege in
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 52, 83110.
LBKE, H. 2005b. Vorbericht zu den Sondierungen submariner steinzeitlicher Fundstellen in
den nrdlichen Boddengewssern Rgens. Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
52, 21120.
LBKE, H. 2005c. Ergnzende Anmerkungen zur Datierung der Einbume des endmesolithisch/
frhneolithischen Fundplatzes Stralsund-Mischwasserspeicher. Bodendenkmalpflege in
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 52, 25762.
LBKE, H. & TERBERGER, T. 2005. Das Endmesolithikum in Vorpommern und auf Rgen
im Lichte neuer Daten. Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 52, 24355.
LNING, J. 2000. Steinzeitliche Bauern in Deutschland: die Landwirtschaft im Neolithikum.
Bonn: Universittsforschungen zur prhistorischen Archologie 58.
593
LNING, J. 2002. Grundlagen sesshaften Lebens. In U. von Freeden & S. von Schnurbein (eds),
Spuren der Jahrtausende. Archologie und Geschichte in Deutschland, 11039. Stuttgart:
Theiss Verlag.
LUTZ, J., MATUSCHIK, I., PERNICKA, E. & RASSMANN, K. 1998. Die frhesten
Metallfunde in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern im Lichte neuer Analysen. Vom
Endmesolithikum bis zur frhen Bronzezeit. Jahrbuch Bodendenkmalpflege in MecklenburgVorpommern 46, 4168.
MERTENS, E.-M. & SCHIRREN, C. M. 2000. Bandkeramik und Stichbandkeramik an der
Kste Vorpommerns. In Schutz des Kulturerbes unter Wasser. Vernderungen europischer
Lebenskultur durch Flu- und Seehandel. Kongre fr Unterwasserarchologie Sassnitz 1999.
Beitrge zur Ur- und Frhgeschichte Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns 35, 4516.
MEURERS-BALKE, J. 1983. Siggeneben-Sd: ein Fundplatz der frhen Trichterbecherkultur an
der holsteinischen Ostseekste. Neumnster: Offa-Bcher 50.
NOE-NYGRAD, N., PRICE, T. D. & HEDE, S. U. 2005. Diet of aurochs and early cattle in
southern Scandinavia: evidence of 15N and 13C stable isotopes. Journal of Archaeological
Science 32, 85571.
PETZSCH, W. 1925. Eine ornamentierte Knochenplatte aus dem rgenschen Mesolithikum.
PRICE, D., BENTLEY, R. A., LNING, J., GRONENBORN, D. & WAHL, J. 2001. Prehistoric
human migration in the Linienbandkeramik of Central Europe. Antiquity 75, 593603.
SCHMLCKE, U. 2005. Neue archozoologische Untersuchungen zur Mecklenburger Bucht
und zum Jasmunder Bodden. Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 52, 14553.
SCHWABEDISSEN, H. 1979. Die Rosenhof-Gruppe. Ein neuer Fundkomplex des
Frhneolithikums aus Schleswig-Holstein. Archologisches Korrespondenzblatt 9, 16772.
SCHWABEDISSEN, H. 1994. Die Ellerbek-Kultur in Schleswig-Holstein und das Vordringen
des Neolithikums ber die Elbe nach Norden. In J. Hoika & J. Meurers-Balke (eds), Beitrge
zur frhneolithischen Trichterbecherkultur im westlichen Ostseegebiet. 1. Internationales
Trichterbechersymposium in Schleswig 1985. Untersuchungen und Materialien zur Steinzeit in
Schleswig-Holstein 1, 361401. Schleswig: Wachholtz Verlag.
SKAARUP, J. & GRN, O. 2004. Mllegabet II. A submerged Mesolithic settlement in southern
Denmark. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 1328.
SRENSEN, S. A. 2005. Fra jgere til bnde. Arkeologi och naturvetenskap. Lund:
Gyllenstiernska Krapperupstiftelsens Symposium Nr 6.
STUBLE, H. 2002. Brunnen der Linienbandkeramik. In Menschen Zeiten Rume.
Archologie in Deutschland. Ausstellungskatalog Berlin Bonn, 13941. Stuttgart: Theiss
Verlag.
TERBERGER, T. 1999. Endmesolithische Funde von Drigge, Lkr. Rgen Kannibalen auf
Rgen. Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 46, 739.
TERBERGER, T. & SEILER, M. 2005. Flintschlger und Fischer Neue interdisziplinre
Forschungen zu steinzeitlichen Siedlungspltzen auf Rgen und dem angrenzenden
Festland. Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 52, 15583.
TIMOFEEV, V. I. 1997. The beginning of the Neolithic in the Eastern Baltic. In M. Zvelebil,
R. Dennell. & L. Domanska (eds), Harvesting the sea, farming the forest. The emergence of
Neolithic societies in the Baltic region, 22536. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
VANG PETERSEN, P. 1984. Chronological and regional variation in the late Mesolithic of
Eastern Denmark. Journal of Danish Archaeology 3, 718.
594
ZIMMERMANN, A. 2002. Der Beginn der Landwirtschaft in Mitteleuropa. In Menschen

ZeitenRume. Archologie in Deutschland. Ausstellungskatalog Berlin Bonn, 1334.
Stuttgart: Theiss Verlag.
ZVELEBIL, M. 1998. Agricultural frontiers, Neolithic origins, and the transition to farming in
the Baltic Basin. In M. Zvelebil, R. Dennell & L. Domanska (eds), Harvesting the sea,
farming the forest: the emergence of Neolithic societies in the Baltic region, 928. Sheffield:
Mistrust traditions, consider innovations?

in southern Scandinavia
LARS LARSSON
INTRODUCTION
THE DISCUSSION INVOLVING the introduction of farming in southern
Scandinavia has a tradition of more than 150 years (Fischer & Kristiansen
2002). The relation between continental Europe and southern Scandinavia has
been of main interest, especially concerning the transition from the Mesolithic
to the Neolithic. A qualified knowledge about the archaeological situation, as
well as the tools for interpretation, is of critical importance. This means not
only mastering increasing information about the finds and features. Of equal
importance is acknowledging the diverse theoretical bases for dealing with the
actual material, with contrasting research traditions ranging from Continental
positivism to Anglo-Saxon postmodernism. With diverging attitudes and
theoretical interests, different categories of finds and features are achieving
priority in the interpretations. How different scholars view the relation
between wild and domestic as well as nature and culture is of importance for
the interpretation of neolithisation (Rudebeck 2000). However, the material
on which the interpretations are based remains the common base.
Few regions have been so well scrutinised as southern Scandinavia, when
considering the process of neolithisation. The primary reason is the good
sometimes exceptionalpreservation of sites, in which the variety of
archaeological expressions of the societies are so well represented. For scholars working on neolithisation, it might seem that the field of research has
been thoroughly ploughed. But from time to time, new aspects are presented
and the debate is revitalised.
One must also reflect on what we mean by the transition from the
Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Two main factors are included: the change in
material culture and the change in economic base. It is often postulated that
these changes were simultaneous. However, this view should be seen critically.
Lars Larsson
596
As the situation in the Baltic area has been presented (Zvelebil & RowleyConwy 1984), farming was adopted at a varying tempo in different areas. In
certain cases we see a rapid change involving both material culture and the
economic base, as the acceptance of a new concept of living and thinking
occurred. In other regional situations one sees a change involving a longer
interval in time, with gradual influences of new economies and a new material culture. In general, this covers two basic models of neolithisation. The first
model includes a marked change within the existing societies, and perhaps
also involves immigration. In the second model, successional changes of the
existing society occurred through exchange of items and information from
outside. Generally speaking, one can view these models as two opinions
about how societies structures and their members worldviews are reproduced or changed over time. In general, scholars with a post-processual perspective are attracted to gradual-process models, whereas those more critical
of post-processualism are more likely to accept rapid-transformation scenarios (Rowley-Conwy 2004). However, the information points very much in
favour of a rapid change which does not mean that the social sphere should
be of less importance.
TWO CONTRASTING MODELS OF NEOLITHISATION

Two new contributions to the discussion about neolithisation in southern
Scandinavia present rather diverging perspectives on the prehistoric introduction of farming. One is the book by Lutz Klassen, who bases a major part
of his study on the objects made of raw materials exotic to Scandinavia and
the north-western part of Germany (Klassen 2004; see also Klassen 2000).
From the dating of these objects in continental Europe as a whole, Klassen
recognises seven important phases. The earliest artefacts of non-local raw
materials are dated to the middle part of the Erteblle culture, but the largest
number are found in the phase 43004000 cal BC, comprising the latest part
of the Erteblle culture (Klassen 2004, Abb. 71). Already during the Late
Mesolithic there were ranked societies in south-western Scandinavia, in
which the imported objects had loaded symbolic value, just as they did in the
farming societies in continental Europe. Through contacts with societies to
the south, knowledge about farming was introduced in its totality, although
Klassen suggests that it might also have involved movements of a small
number of people emigrating from the Michelsberg culture area.
The earliest stage of the Funnel Beaker culture emerged on the southwestern coast of the Baltic Sea, with not only a new type of pottery but also
with a changed flint technology (Hartz et al. 2002, 324; see also Hartz et al.,
this volume) (Fig. 1a). The traditional elements from the Erteblle culture
THE MESOLITHIC-NEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN SCANDINAVIA 597
had, according to Klassen, a much subordinated role in the new societies.

This view is based not only on the material culture but also on the regional
division of the early Neolithic that is divergent from the structure of the late
Erteblle culture. The closest contacts in the transition from Mesolithic to
Neolithic are linked to the Michelsberg culture, which emerged in Lower
Saxony. However, Klassen identifies contacts with Chassen and the English
Neolithic in the development of the Funnel Beaker culture on Jutland (Fig. 1c).
In the second example, Anders Fischer has made a detailed presentation
and analysis of the categories that have been used in the debate for the last
decades concerning the introduction of farming (Fischer 2002). He takes
advantage of Kochs typology by avoiding the traditional regional subdivision
in groups (Fischer 2002, 360). In the study of Funnel Beaker pottery, Koch
presents a typological sequence of vessel types (Koch 1998). Generally speaking, the elements detected are seen in the outer shape of the vessel, along with
an increasing intensity of decoration. However, when residue samples are
dated, they do not show an acceptable argument for a chronological
sequence, a result that might be explained by the reservoir effect (Fischer
2002, 357).
Sites with type 0 vessels date to c. 3950 cal BC, and they include bones from
cattle and possibly domestic pig. No polished flint axes are present, but probably stone axes of Erteblle tradition. Graves are almost completely absent,
but some indications point to mortuary practices similar to those of the
Mesolithic. Votive finds are few. Sites including vessels of type I (c. 3700 cal
BC) are usually referred to as the Oxie-group (Fig. 1b), and they include bones
from domesticated animals, cattle, pig and goat/sheep. The location of the
sites expanded to inland areas, indicating that farming became a more important part of the economy (L. Larsson 1988). Still, the number of sacrificial
deposits were few, even when point-butted, polished flint axes are included.
The phase with type II pottery (c. 3600 cal BC) includes sites referred to as the
Svaleklint group, in which ritual deposits are more numerous. Type III pottery
seems to appear at the same time, is common in votive deposits and appears
in earthen long barrows as well.
Fischer scrutinises critically the idea that the Neolithic was introduced as
an integrated package. If it were, he argues, then it could only have occurred
due to migration. The social and ideological structures integral to Neolithic
food-producing economies would have been too different to be adopted
quickly and cleanly by the in situ Mesolithic societies (Fischer 2002, 3612).
Unfortunately, due to limited available information, the migration hypothesis
cannot yet be thoroughly evaluated. There are rather few skeletons dating to
the early Neolithic. They present a considerable variation in characteristics,
because they represent single finds from separate regions and from a broad
time span (Bennike & Alexandersen 2002, 296). The population of humans
598
Lars Larsson
Figure 1a. The different Mesolithic and Neolithic groups in northern continental Europe and
Scandinavia during the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic. The Siggeneben Sd Stengade II
group. From Klassen 2004.
represented in the cemeteries from the Middle and Late Mesolithic has not
yielded information about migration and biological diversity, due in part to
fragmentary preservation of the skeletal material. Some earthen long barrows graves hold up to four individuals, but they are located on sandy soils
where the bone preservation is very poor and the interred are marked by only
dark organic stains (Rudebeck 2002).
Figure 1b. The Oxie group.
A food crisis has been suggested as an important factor in triggering the

introduction of the new economy, but this is not accepted by Fischer.
Evidence for an increasing population is based upon the assumption that the
large base camps belong to the late part of the Mesolithic. Yet large base
camps are known since the middle part of the Mesolithic during the
Kongemose culture (L. Larsson 1980; 1982). Such settlements might have
600
Lars Larsson
Figure 1c. The Volling group.
existed even earlier, from the late part of the Maglemose culture. However,
these coastal sites are submerged and badly destroyed by waves and currents
(L. Larsson 1999). Nevertheless, intensive occupation in the coastal area was
already well established several millennia before the Mesolithic-Neolithic
transition.
Fischer thus favours a more gradualist model, explaining the introduction
of animal husbandry and cereal cultivation as elements incorporated during
a long-term process of socio-economic transformation. According to Fischer

the importation of prestige objectsmade with exotic raw materialsprobably triggered an inflationary process in which it gradually became more difficult to obtain material symbols of power in the form of portable artefacts
alone. Socially ambitious groups became engaged in the new economies,
driven in significant part by social and ceremonial feasting.
Based upon finds from the Early Funnel Beaker culture sites, Fischer
points to the marked similarities in flint and ceramic artefacts with the Late
Erteblle culture (Fischer 2002, 3515). While the cooking vessels of the
Erteblle culture and the Funnel Beaker culture share similarities in shape and
manufacturing technique, the typical Funnel Beaker types might have had
new functions. Fischer regards the introduction of the new shapes of pottery
in the Funnel Beaker culture as linked with new ceremonial behaviour, in
which a drinking ritual associated with votive practice played a central role
(Fischer 2002, 377).
Klassens argument contrasts in part with Fischers. The two scholars
agree that the Scandinavian Mesolithic societies during the late Erteblle culture had a social structure on par with the Neolithic societies to the south.
They were incorporated in a widespread interregional network, with the
exchange of exotic objects as symbols of social prestige within ranked societies. However, Klassen does not regard the existing worldview of the members of the Erteblle culture to be of substantial importance. In Klassens
model the old Mesolithic traditions were abandoned and the Neolithic package was accepted by Late Erteblle societies, without any reservations. The
difference between Klassen and Fischers explanations reflects contrasting
paradigms about how prehistoric social structures and worldviews changed
through time.
TERRESTRIAL OR MARINE?
The environmental impact of shoreline displacement has been suggested as
the decisive factor for the introduction of agriculture in southern Scandinavia
(Zvelebil & Rowley-Conwy 1986). Post-glacial shoreline displacements most
certainly explain why, in the Mesolithic sequence, oysters declined in frequency while cockle shells increased (Andersen 1995). An associated decline
in fish bone frequencies has also been taken as an indication for a significant
change in diet with the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. New analyses of the
graves from Dragsholm, north-western Zealand, have raised new questions
about dietary variability and its socio-economic underpinnings. Two females
with typical Mesolithic grave goods were found in close association with a
male with Funnel Beaker culture grave goods (Brinch Petersen 1974). The 13C
602
Lars Larsson
content of one of the womens bones reflects a marine-dominated diet, while

the man had lived on terrestrial foods. Some scholars regard the values as
marking a diachronic change from a marine to terrestrial diet (Richards et al.
2003; Tauber 1981). Others interpret the differences as reflecting gender distinctions in the same society (Fischer 2002; Milner et al. 2004). The diverging
opinions arise from how the radiocarbon dates from the graves are treated. In
the radiocarbon dating of human bones and organic residues from ceramics,
the marine reservoir effect might be an error of importance (Fischer 2002,
356; Persson 1999, 323). Even for the dating of pottery residues from inland
sites, there may be an age difference between samples from the inside and outside of the vessel (Fischer 2002, 356). This is one of several examples of the
problems in using radiocarbon dates for a detailed chronology of the late
Erteblle culture and the early Funnel Beaker culture. The variations we see
in the human bone 13C values are substantial, but we must consider that few
individuals from the very late Mesolithic and the earliest Neolithic have been
sampled (Fischer 2002, fig. 22.4; 2003; 2005). In the Dragsholm case, individuals that were previously dated to the Late Mesolithic achieve a later
Neolithic age, when the marine reservoir effect is taken into account. Thus, it
appears that there are individuals of contemporaneous age with high as well
as low marine dietary components. Yet, in order to clarify the suggestive patterns, radiocarbon assays should be made on different material from well
stratified sites before more precise 14C-based models based can be presented.
The variation in the standard error provides even less reliability than a
calibrated interval of 41003800 cal BC.
In south-western Scandinavia a shift from marine to terrestrial diet is
obvious, when we view developments from a coarse, long-term time perspectiveand if we consider the entire Late Erteblle and Early Neolithic. In
certain parts of southern Scandinavia, the contrast between Mesolithic and
Neolithic 13C values is less pronounced (Lidn et al. 2004). When it comes to
characterising the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic diets, the significance of these values can be questioned, as they derive from an even larger
chronological interval and a wide geographical area. Still, the values indicate
that there was not one but several processes operating under neolithisation.
The question remains what kind of farming and herding techniques were
introduced and practised in the Early Neolithic. From the stable isotopes
analyses, it looks as if the transition led to a marked change in diet, although
there may have been groups that maintained a more traditional subsistence
economy for some time.
THE FIRST INDICATIONS OF FARMING

The traces of the Late Erteblle culture in north-western Germany are associated with cereal pollen and domesticated animal bones. The introduction of
these domesticates occurred several centuries earlier than in Denmark to the
north (Hartz el al. 2002, 3356; see also Hartz et al., this volume). However,
no influences from farming societies can be seen in flint artefact technology
or form. This is generally interpreted as the earliest phase of the neolithisation. The second phase (c. 41004000 cal BC) involves the adoption of new
vessel types. In the ceramic assemblage only the oval lamps seem to have
remained unchanged as a classical element. The flint and stone tools
remained in the Erteblle tradition. At the same time the large settlements
were deserted. Small units that raised livestock became predominant. During
the third phase (c. 39003800 cal BC), polished flint axes were introduced, and
other changes within the flint technology become archaeologically evident.
In the late Atlantic settlement of northernmost Germany, there are obvious differences in indications for farming from the inland and coastal environments, respectively (Hartz el al. 2002, 3248). In the former area no pollen
indicating agriculture has been detected. No finds of domesticated animals
are present at the sites. In the coastal sites Cerealia pollen has been identified,
although we should cautiously recognise that certain grass taxa could be
mistaken for Cerealia. Large coastal sites include some bones from cattle.
Some knowledge about farming probably reached the Mesolithic societies
already during the earlier part of the fifth millennium cal BC. However, no
major changes took place until several centuries later. The earliest dates for
cattle in the northernmost part of Germany and Denmark seem to cluster
around about 4700 cal BC. Why did domesticated animals appear at this
stage? This is also the date of the earliest pottery. In contrast to stone axes
that had an exotic origin, early pottery was fabricated in southern
Scandinavia. However, while the knowledge for making stone axes was well
established in the Erteblle tradition, pottery production involved a quite
new technique, demanding new social patterns of transmission of knowledge
(Jennbert 1984). What is striking is that the special knowledge involved did
not imbue pots with a prestigious social value that we can recognise archaeologically. Pots do not appear in Late Mesolithic graves, and their appearance
in votive depositions is meagre (Koch 1998, 157). The introduction of a small
number of domestic animals might be viewed in the same context as the pottery. The Erteblle societies simply had an interest in holding some animals
in captivity: not only dogs but other species, as well exemplified by finds of
foxes (Jonsson 1988, 67). That dogs are included in the Late Mesolithic mortuary practices as single individuals (L. Larsson 1995; 2004) suggests that
other non-human species could have held a special position in the societies.
Lars Larsson
604
For example, animals transported over long distances might have been
regarded as prestige objects, well integrated in the worldview of the locals.
NATURAL CHANGES AND SOCIAL EFFECTS

The most important question is, therefore, why the north-western European
population adopted the Neolithic economic elements. Today, the debate
focuses on the significance of various factors and their interactions. How did
the social environment change? What was the role of over-population? Did
increased contact with societies in central Europe influence transformations
in the Mesolithic worldview? And considering the importance of these demographic, social and ideological factors, what was the influence of the changing post-glacial physical environment? It should be emphasised that there
is no solid evidence that natural factors principally caused the abandonment
of the fisher-gatherer-hunter lifeway and the adoption of agriculture. But this
is not to say that natural changes did not influence the economic conditions,
social life and worldview of Late Mesolithic people.
In many presentations of the Mesolithic of northern Europe, one finds a
teleological description of the impact of climate change; the climatic shifted
progressively from colder conditions during the early part of the Mesolithic
to a climatic climax during the later part. Yet studies of ice cores from
Greenland give a different picture of the Mesolithic climate. From the onset
of the Holocene (c. 9500 cal BC) to 7000 cal BC, temperature rose markedly.
In the following millennia, with the exception of the brief, drastic cold
episode at about 6200 cal BC (Alley & gstdttir 2005), the general temperature remained constant or even declined somewhat during the rest of the
Mesolithic. There is no support for the explanation of the Atlantic flora
expansion because of a long-term temperature increase. Nor can shore
displacements be linked to changes in global or hemispheric temperature
trends.
Yet, climate may have played a contributing role right around the
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. According to the indications provided by
fluctuations in tree line elevation in the Fenno-Scandian mountains, the
AtlanticSubboreal transition was marked by an increase in temperature
(Karln & Kuylenstierna 1996, fig. 2; Karln & Larsson forthcoming). If
this is true, then another important natural change facilitated the introduction of agriculture. With a change of a couple of degrees, the growing season would have been extended by half a month or a full month. Cereals used
to growing in a warmer environment would have yielded better harvests than
before.
Land and water

Shoreline transgressions were factors of importance for Mesolithic
Scandinavian societies. A large amount of land was submerged during the
Atlantic period. Especially in eastern Denmark, the shoreline displacements
caused marked changes in the landscape, creating narrow and deep lagoons.
In most cases the post-Pleistocene rising sea levels formed new attractive
waters for different fish species, establishing a suitable base for a fishing
economy. The human population increased at this time, but it did not appear
to create significant pressure on aquatic resources. The introduction of
prehistoric farming in Denmark appears to be associated with a marked fall
in the tidal amplitude in inland waters, an environmental shift that is sedimentologically recognisable (Strand Petersen 1993). This was caused by the
final submergence of the land in the North Sea, creating conditions for a
moderate tidal range (Coles 1999).
The results of both archaeological inventory studies and excavations
show that the settlement pattern shifted significantly across the MesolithicNeolithic transition (L. Larsson 1987; 1988; M. Larsson 1992). We can
observe a reduction in the size of the sites. Another difference is in the locational distribution, as sites seem to have spread inland. Much has been written about the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic period, but the
cause and effect of the altered landscape have perhaps not received due attention. The concentration and geographical continuity of settlement, which are
so characteristic of Late Mesolithic habitation, were based in significant part
on the high production of flora and fauna in streams and lagoons. This
ensured that a high level of production could be maintained, in spite of an
increased exploitation of the environment. But increased sea levels also
meant changes in the directions of sea currents, which in turn may have
altered the conditions for the formation of beach spurs and sand walls. In
certain places, this resulted in an ever more extensive building up, while in
others it meant that older sand walls, which protected the high-productive
lagoon or delta, were in time washed away.
It is during the very late part of the Mesolithic period that sea levels in the
central part of the area related to the Erteblle culture were at their highest.
In some places, the lagoons thus came to be cut off from the sea, while other
lagoons and deltas became exposed to the full force of the ocean. In both
cases, the results were equally dramatic for Mesolithic society. In those
lagoons cut off by sand dunes, the exchange of water effectively ceased. A
process of re-growth started, and fish production declined drastically. In
unprotected lagoons, the islands and shorelines lay open to the immediate
onslaught of the sea, and thus the delicate balance between fresh, brackish
and sea water was seriously affected. The important transition zone effect
606
Lars Larsson
disappeared. Here, too, the diversity and abundance of fish would have been
altered dramatically. All of this came to affect the human settlements, but the
effects were not so drastic as to have caused anything in the way of regional
famine. Still, the dynamic coastal environment must have caused stress for
societies that depended on high productivity of predictable resources near
their settlement sites.
During the later part of the Atlantic, the intensity of human settlement
along lakes and rivers rose notably. This may be explained by a rise in the
groundwater level (Noe-Nygaard 1995, 280), but settlement sites in Scania
have been found in shore deposits below present lake levels, indicating a low
lake surface. Moreover, the present lake levels are the result of intensive
levelling, and this might mean that some lakes would have lost their outlets,
thereby becoming much less attractive for settlement (L. Larsson 2003a;
2003b). Lake level changes depend in large part on the hydrology of water
flow, which could create highly dynamic changes in the lakes morphology
and its ecological productivity.
It is notable that the region of apparent origin for the early Neolithic
Funnel Beaker culturenorth-western coastal Germany and southernmost
eastern Denmarkwas also particularly subject to isostatic and eustatic
shifts in the landmass. The isostatic changes involved a tilting of the entire
area south of a diagonal from north-west to south-east through Denmark. On
the south-western coast of the Baltic, as much as 6 m has been submerged
(Hartz & Lbke 2004, 1238). Some of the isostatic depression occurred
during the Sub-Boreal period, but the most rapid changes occurred in the Late
Atlantic. These geological processes probably increased the amount of shoreline environment and favoured an increase in the fish population, but a gradually changing geographic position of settlement sites could have caused
intensified stress for the social systems.
Elm disease plays an important part in the discussion of the introduction
of agriculture. Today, the elm decline is interpreted as a result of elm disease.
This phenomenon can be detected all over northern Europe (Friman 1997).
According to detailed studies of annually laminated sediments from a mere in
south-eastern England, half of the local elm population disappeared within
five years (Peglar 1993; Peglar & Birks 1993). In central Scania the elm decline
took at most 40 years (Skog & Regnll 1995). At the present time, southern
Sweden is suffering from elm disease; thus it is possible to follow its effects,
which in some places are very obvious. Today, a similar elm-specific disease
has caused an almost total extinction of elm within about ten years in southern Sweden. The effect is that within a few years, a forest afflicted by elm
disease will be transformed into an area of dead tree trunks with rapidly
flourishing bushes and other undergrowth. Burning the dead trees would have
been a labour-saving way to acquire large areas for cultivation and pasture.
Moreover, a thunderstorm in areas with large amounts of dry wood might

have had tremendous consequences for the regional landscape. In southern
Scandinavia the elm decline cannot be precisely dated, but it occurred in the
early part of the fourth millennium cal BC (Andersen & Lund Rasmussen
1993; Skog & Regnll 1995). This is contemporaneous with the earliest dating
for domesticated livestock (Fischer 2003, table 22:1). The introduction of
farming has not been precisely dated; pollen analyses are ambiguous, with
some results suggesting the appearance of cereal pollen just before (Granson
1988; Kostrup 1988), and others just after, the elm decline (Rasmussen 1998).
In most cultures signs from supernatural agents are accepted as being of
great or even decisive importance for making difficult decisions. It may affect
the faith of a single person or the society as a whole. The ravages of elm disease may have seemed like the interference of supernatural forces, probably as
a message from the gods that the people should strictly intensify existing practices or shift to a new social order and accept a new relationship between society and nature. This might be the most important aspect of the elm disease for
the spread of the Neolithic in large parts of northern and north-western
Europe. Who could ignore the signs of the gods?
All of these changes in the natural environment did not decisively affect
the existence of the human population. However, these changes might have
become forces or symbols that influenced the way people acted in Late
Mesolithic societies, as they simultaneously maintained contacts with
Neolithic societies to the south. Did members of the Mesolithic societies continue to trust traditions, and thereby continue to accept the way of thinking
and living as former generations did? Or did natural eventsand their perceived supernatural significance and their consequences for creating social
stressmake people mistrust the old ways of living and begin to consider
accepting innovations?
We have meagre knowledge of the mortuary practices during the latest
part of the Erteblle culture and the earliest Neolithic. We do not know when
large cemeteries as a phenomenon disappear and individual graves come to
be preferred. Most scholars see the change as occurring with the introduction
of farming. During a somewhat later part of the Early Neolithic, the earthen
long barrow is introduced as a new practice, likely representing a new way of
relating to the dead through monumentality. Just a few years ago, these monuments were viewed as a feature found only in western Denmark (Rudebeck
2002). But our knowledge of the situation has changed radically with new
excavations, which have proved this type of grave to be rather frequent in
other regions (L. Larsson 2002a; 2002b). The first earthen long barrows in
Sweden were found under problem-oriented projects, and more were soon
identified during rescue excavations (Gidlf & Johansson 2003; Lindahl
Jensen 2002).
Lars Larsson
608
THE NORTHERN PART OF SOUTHERN SCANDINAVIA

Although our knowledge about the Late Mesolithic in Europe is certainly
rich, we should remember that it is based on a rather small number of sites.
Most of them have been identified and excavated under projects with particular research aims. However, in southern Scandinavia rescue excavations have
recovered material from a few sites that have proven to be very important for
our knowledge of the Late Mesolithic (Albrethsen & Brinch Petersen 1977;
Karsten & Knarrstrm 2003). The salvage excavations at Bkkebacken
revealed the first known Mesolithic cemetery in the region, and subsequent
work has since shown that burial grounds were hardly an uncommon feature of the Late Mesolithic landscape (Albrethsen & Brinch Petersen 1977;
L. Larsson 2004). The cemetery sites have helped to illuminate Mesolithic
mortuary practices, and in doing so, they also pointed the way to a new theoretical conception about these prehistoric foraging societies, which were
soon seen as having a more complex social organisation than previously
recognised, more on par with the contemporaneous farming communities in
continental Europe (Chapman 1981). For some scholars the transition from
fishing-hunting-gathering to farming became almost self-evident.
Of course, the detailed information we can glean from what we often perceive as spectacular material has sometimes created a glare that hides a representativity bias. And the focus on the more attention-grabbing finds from
Scania, Sweden, and Zealand, Denmark, may have led to a substantially
lesser interest in Mesolithic/Neolithic transformation of the northern part of
southern Scandinavia. It may also be that research in the northern area has
been virtually restricted to salvage excavations that have not received much
wider attention. Still, excavations of new sites can always provide arenas for
questioning existing archaeological prejudices. For example, a settlement site
of considerable size has been found at Motala, on the eastern side of the large
lake Vttern, near its most important outlet (Gruber 2005). Because of
exceptional preservation, house and fishing platform features were uncovered, along with a considerable faunal assemblage. The site parallels the base
camps found in south-western Scandinavia, although graves are missing at
the Motala site. This may be due to the limited extent of the rescue excavation. However, human skeleton parts were recovered in the occupation
deposits, suggesting indirectly that the inhabitants were ritually handling
their dead on the settlement site. Once such sites are found, it seems obvious
that we should have expected their occurrence. But mental obstacles can limit
our view of the Mesolithic. Thus, in recent decades, scholars working in the
northern part of southern Scandinavia have (either implicitly or explicitly)
regarded the introduction of Neolithic economies as involving a much
sharper break with the Mesolithic social traditions. The new discovery of
Mesolithic base camp sitesor central places (L. Larsson 2005)in the
northern area should lead us to question old assumptions. Here, the
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition may have had rather similar social dimensions
to those suggested for south-western Scandinavia.
We can also observe important regional cultural changes that occurred
during the Late Mesolithic in different parts of Scandinavia. These dynamics
appear to involve both the emergence of sub-regional social boundaries/
ethnic group definition and also reorientation of long-distance exchange
networks. For example, there appears to be a notable archaeological change
in the Mesolithic of western as well as eastern Sweden around 4500 cal BC,
when the micro-blade technique disappears, and distinctive subregional traditions emerge. The latest Mesolithic in the West Coast region of Sweden
(Andersson & Wigfors 2004) differs markedly with the contemporaneous
material culture of eastern central Sweden, especially seen from the perspective of quartz technology (Lindgren 2004). At the same time a shift in symbolic communication and possibly ethnic distinction might be observed with
links between eastern central Sweden and northern Sweden (Knutsson 2004).
In the West Coast area artefacts such as transverse arrowheads suggest a link
with the Erteblle culture to the south. However, pottery is not found in this
region; nor are stone axe types with a continental European origin.
According to the radiocarbon dates from sites with typical Neolithic
inventories, the introduction of farming occurred at virtually the same time
in central and southern Sweden (Ahlfont et al. 1995; Segerberg 1999;
Welinder 1998b) (Fig. 2). However, there is little available supporting evidence in the form of ceramic chronologies. The finds of pottery are so few
and badly crushed that a comparison with the pottery types of southern
Scandinavia is not currently possible. At sites with better preservation of pottery the form can be comparable to type III of Kochs typology (Apel et al.
1995, fig. 28). Recent analysis has found no substantial support for arguments that farming was introduced earlier than the transition from the fifth
to the fourth millennium cal BC in the west coast and central Swedish areas
(Welinder 1998a). The differences between the Mesolithic material culture
and that of the new Neolithic are so great that one can certainly talk about
the Neolithic being introduced as a package. We also observe a significant
shift in site structure. Due to the absence of human remains from these
regions, we have no basis for addressing how immigration from the south
might have played a role in the transition.
The study of the introduction of farming has been linked to discussions
about anthropological theoretical models much more than on finds and sites.
For example, marriage networks between different exogamous bands have
been suggested as a medium for the spread of the knowledge and new ways
of life (Jennbert 1984). Marriage alliance relationships are also suggested to
610
Lars Larsson
Figure 2. The distribution of agriculture in Scandinavia during the Early Neolithic.
Figure 3. Major innovations in economy and material culture in Denmark and the southernmost part of Sweden during the Erteblle Culture and the
Early Funnel Beaker Culture. From Fischer 2002 and Srensen 2005.
612
Lars Larsson
be an important mechanism for agricultures further spread to the north

(Hallgren 2004). Here, the society in transition is assumed to be based upon
non-hierarchical segmentary principles. This approach has been carried out
further with stone axe production studies, where raw material was found to
be specific for each site. The deposition of thin-butted stone axes at other
sites distant from the production source is regarded as the result of periodic
movements along generation lines (Sundstrm 2004). Overall, the Funnel
Beaker culture is seen not only as a new economy, but also a material
manifestation of the egalitarian ideology put under pressure (Sundstrm
2004).
CONCLUSION
For the individuals participating in the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition, one
question must have recurrently emerged as a prime concern: Should I mistrust traditions and consider innovations? This concern encompassed the
introduction of new material culture and new techniques of obtaining food.
It also involved new ways of conceiving the world and peoples place in it.
And it was affected by importantsometimes catastrophicchanges in the
physical environment. In the heat of debate or the detail of daily research, it
is perhaps surprisingly easy for academics, regardless of the theoretical
stripes they bear, to forget that the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition was
brought about by the actions of real human beings. How did this transition
come about? We can consider some key questions that can help us think
about the problem. Were individuals convinced that they were entering into a
better way of life? To what extent were people coerced, and how were instruments of power wielded? And as discussed above, how were profound
changes in the physical environment seen as messages sent to people from
supernatural beings/forces?
It must be emphasised that the question of whether to mistrust traditions
and consider innovations is not only a matter of concern for prehistoric
actors. It is also important for those who are making prehistory today. As has
been presented in this chapter, the facts presented for south Scandinavia have
been variously interpreted as indicating a rapid introduction of a Neolithic
package with new ways of thinking and acting, as well as reflecting a mixture
of traditions and gradually incorporated innovations. Future research into
the transition should focus on combining new problem-oriented excavation
with fresh ideas about how the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic
occurred. In this project, we should increase our awareness that the transition
might show substantial regional variation in how the new way of life was
accepted or rejected.
REFERENCES
AHLFONT, K., GUINARS, M., GUSTAFSSON, E., OLSON, C. & WELINDER, S. 1995.
Patterns of Neolithic farming in Sweden. Tor 27, 13384.
ALBRETHSEN, S. E. & BRINCH PETERSEN, E. 1977. Excavations of a Mesolithic cemetery
at Vedbk, Denmark. Acta Archaeologica 47, 128.
ALLEY, R. B. & GSTDTTIR, A. M. 2005. The 8k event: cause and consequences of a
major Holocene abrupt climate change. Quaternary Science Review 24, 112349.
ANDERSEN, S. H. 1995. Coastal adoptation and marine exploitation in late Mesolithic
Denmarkwith special emphasis on the Limfjord region. In A. Fischer (ed.), Man and sea
in the Mesolithic. Coastal settlement above and below present sea level, 4166. Oxford: Oxbow.
ANDERSEN, S. T. & LUND RASMUSSEN, K. 1993. Radiocarbon wiggle-dating of elm
declines in north-west Denmark and their significance. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
1993, 12535.
ANDERSSON, S. & WIGFORSS, J. 2004. The Late Mesolithic in the Gothenburg and Alingss
area: the project and its aims. In H. Knutsson (ed.), Coast to coast arrival. Proceedings of
the Final Coast to Coast Conference 15 October 2002 in Falkping, Sweden. Coast to Coastbook 10, 85104. Uppsala: Coast to Coast Project.
APEL, J.-E., BCKSTRM, Y., HALLGREN, F., KUTSSON, K., LEKBERG, P., OLSSON, E.,
STEINEKE, M. & SUNDSTRM, L. 1995. Fgelbacken och trattbgarsamhllet.
Samhllsorganisation och rituella samlingsplatser vid vergnmgen till bofast tillvaro I stra
Mellansverige. Tor 27, 47132.
BENNIKE, P. & ALEXANDERSEN, V. 2002. Population plasticity in Stone Age Denmark. In
A. Fischer & K. Kristiansen (eds), The Neolithisation of Denmark. 150 years of debate,
291301. Sheffield: J. R. Collis Publications.
BRINCH PETERSEN, E. 1974. Gravene ved Dragsholm. Fra jgere til bnder for 6000 r
siden. Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark 1974, 11220.
CHAPMAN, R. 1981. The emergence of formal disposal areas and the problem of megalithic
tombs in prehistoric Europe. In R. Chapman, I. Kinnes & K. Randsborg (eds), The
archaeology of death, 7181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
COLES, B. 1999. Doggerlands loss and the Neolithic. In B. Coles, J. Coles & M. Schou
Jrgensen (eds), Bog bodies, sacred sites and wetland archaeology, 517. Exeter: Department
of Archaeology, University of Exeter.
FISCHER, A. 2002. Food for feasting? An evaluation of explanations of the neolithisation of
Denmark and southern Sweden. In A. Fischer & K. Kristiansen (eds), The Neolithisation of
FISCHER, A. 2003. Trapping up the rivers and trading across the sea steps towards the
neolithisation of Denmark. In L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Loeffler &
A. kerlund (eds), Mesolithic on the move. Papers presented at the Sixth International
Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000, 40513. Oxbow: Oxbow Books.
FISCHER, A. 2005. Mennesket og havet i ldre stenalder. In C. Bunte, B. Berglund &
L. Larsson (eds), Arkeologi och naturvetenskap. Gyllenstiernska Krapperupsstiftelsens
symposium nr. 6 r 2003, 27797. Lund: Gyllenstiernska Krapperupstiftelsen.
FRIMAN, B. 1997. Neolithization and classical elm decline. A synthesis of two debates. Lund
Archaeological Review 1996, 516.
GIDLF, K. & JOHANSSON, T. 2003. Delomrde 1 och Bunkeflostrand (Almhov) MHM
12875 och MK85, Bunkeflo och Hyllie sn. Sammanfattning av slutunderskniungarna
20012002. Citytunnelprojektet. Sammanfattningar av underskningarna 20002002, 1117.
Malm: Malm Kulturfrvaltning.
614
Lars Larsson
GRANSSON, H. 1988. Pollen analytical investigation at Skateholm, southern Sweden. In

L. Larsson (ed.), The Skateholm project. I. Man and environment, 2733. Stockholm:
Almqvist and Wiksell International.
GRUBER, G. (ed.) 2005. Identities in transition. Mesolithic strategies in the Swedish province of
stergtland. Stockholm: Riksantikvariembetet.
HALLGREN, F. 2004. The introduction of ceramic technology around the Baltic Sea in the 6th
millennium. In H. Knutsson (ed.), Coast to coast arrival. Proceedings of the Final Coast to
Coast Conference 15 October 2002 in Falkping, Sweden. Coast to Coast-book 10, 12342.
Uppsala: Coast to Coast Project.
HARTZ, S., HEINRICH, D. & LBKE, H. 2002. Coastal farmers the neolithisation of
HARTZ, S. & LBKE, H. 2004. Zur chronostratigraphischen Gliederung det Erteblle-Kultur
und frhesten Trichterbecherkultur in der sdlichen Mecklenburger Bucht. In H. Lbke,
F. Lth & T. Terberger (eds), Neue Forschungen zur Steinzeit im sdlichen Ostseegebiet,
11935. Lbstorf: Bodendenkmalplege in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 52.
JENNBERT, K. 1984. Den produktiva gvan. Tradition och innovation i Sydskandinavien fr
omkring 5300 r sedan. Lund: Gleerup.
JONSSON, L. 1988. The vertebrate faunal remains from the Late Atlantic settlement Skateholm
in Scania, South Sweden. In L. Larsson (ed.), The Skateholm project. I. Man and environment,
5688. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International.
KARLN, W. & KUYLENSTIERNA, J. 1996. On solar forcing of Holocene climate: evidence
from Scandinavia. The Holocene 6, 35965.
KARLN, W. & LARSSON, L. forthcoming. Mid-Holocene climatic and cultural dynamics in
Northern Europe. In D. Sandweiss & K. A. Maasch (eds), Climate change and cultural
dynamics: a global perspective on Holocene transitions. San Diego: Academic Press.
KARSTEN, P. & KNARRSTRM, B. 2003. The Tgerup excavations. Stockholm:
Riksantikvariembetet.
KLASSEN, L. 2000. Frhes Kupfer in Norden. Untersuchungen zu Chronologie, Herkunft und
Bedeuterung der Kupferfunde der Nordgruppe der Trichterbecherkultur. rhus: Aarhus
University Press.
KLASSEN, L. 2004. Jade und Kupfer. Untersuchungen zum Neolithisierungsprozess im westlichen
Ostseeraum unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der Kulturenentwicklung Europas 55003500
BC. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
KNUTSSON, K. 2004. The historical construction of Norrland. In H. Knutsson (ed.), Coast
to coastarrival. Proceedings of the Final Coast to Coast Conference 15 October 2002 in
Falkping, Sweden. Coast to Coast-book 10, 4571. Uppsala: Coast to Coast Project.
KOCH, E. 1998. Neolithic bog pots from Zealand, Mn, Lolland and Falster. Kbenhavn: Lyng
and Sn.
KOSTRUP, E. 1988. Late Atlantic and Early Subboreal vegetational development at
Trundholm, Denmark. Journal of Archaeological Science 15, 50313.
LARSSON, L. 1980. Some aspects of the Kongemose culture of Southern Sweden. Papers of the
Archaeological Institute University of Lund 197980, 522.
LARSSON, L. 1982. Segebro. En tidigatlantisk boplats vid Sege s mynning. Malm: Malm
Museum.
LARSSON, L. 1987. Some aspects of cultural relationship and ecological conditions during the
late Mesolithic and early Neolithic. In G. Burenhult, A. Carlsson, . Hyenstrand &
T. Sjvold (eds), Theoretical approaches to artefacts, settlement and society, 16576. Oxford:
LARSSON, L. 1988. The use of the landscape during the Mesolithic and Neolithic in southern
Sweden. Archeologie en Landschap. Bijdragen aan het gelijknamige symposium gehouden op 19

en 20 oktober 1987, ter gelegenheid van het afscheid van H. T. Waterbolk, 3148. Groningen:
Biologisch-Archaeologisch Instituut.
LARSSON, L. 1995. Pratiques mortuaires et spultures de chiens dans les socits msolithiques
de Scandinavie mridionale. LAnthropologie 98, 56275.
LARSSON, L. 1999. Submarine settlement remains on the bottom of the resund Strait,
Southern Scandinavia. In A. Thevnin (ed.), Lurope des derniers chasseurs. pipalolithique
et Msolithique. Peuplement et paloenvironnement de lpipalolithique et du Msolithique,
32734. Grenoble: CTHS.
LARSSON, L. 2002a. Lnghgar i samhllsperspektiv. In L. Larsson (ed.), Monumentala gravformer ai det ldsta bondesamhllet, 14771. Lund: Department of Archaeology and Ancient
History, Lund University.
LARSSON, L. 2002b. Lnghgar i Sydsverige: ? ! In L. Larsson (ed.), Monumentala gravformer i det ldsta bondesamhllet, 35. Lund: Department of Archaeology and Ancient
LARSSON, L. 2003a. Land, water and the symbolic aspects of the Mesolithic in southern
Scandinavia. Before Farming 2003 no. 4, 21526.
LARSSON, L. 2003b. The Mesolithic of Sweden in retrospective and progressive perspective. In
move. Papers presented at the Sixth International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe,
Stockholm 2000, XXIIXXXII. Oxbow: Oxbow.
LARSSON, L. 2004. The Mesolithic period in southern Scandinavia: with special reference to
burials and cemeteries. In A. Saville (ed.), Mesolithic Scotland and its neighbours. The early
Holocene prehistory of Scotland and its British and Irish context and some northern European
perspectives, 37192. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
LARSSON, L. 2005. From blank spot to focal point. An eastern Swedish site from a south
Scandinavian perspective. In G. Gruber (ed.), Identities in transition. Mesolithic strategies in
the Swedish province of stergtland, 2435. Stockholm: Riksantikvariembetet.
LARSSON, M. 1992. The Early and Middle Neolithic Funnel Beaker Culture in the Ystad area
(Southern Scania). Economic and social change, 31002300 BC. In L. Larsson, J. Callmer &
B. Stjernquist (eds), The archaeology of the cultural landscape. Field work and research in a
South Swedish rural region, 1790. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International.
time? Diet in MesolithicNeolithic southern Sweden. Antiquity 78, 2333.
LINDAHL JENSEN, B. 2002. Sten vid sten vid sten i Krngeltofta. En preliminr redogrelse
fr underskningarna en en tidneolitisk lnghg. In L. Larsson (ed.), Monumentala gravformer i det ldsta bondesamhllet, 77109. Lund: Department of Archaeology and Ancient
LINDGREN, C. 2004. Mnniskor och kvarts. Sociala och teknologiska strategier under
mesolitkum i stra Mellansverige. Stockholm: Coast to Coast Project.
Something fishy in the Neolithic? A re-evaluation of stable isotope analysis of Mesolithic
coastal populations. Antiquity 78, 922.
NOE-NYGARD, N. 1995. Ecological, sedimentary, and geochemical evolution of the late-glacial
to postglacial mose lacustrine basin, Denmark. Copenhagen: Scandinavian University Press.
PEGLAR, S. M. 1993. The mid-Holocene Ulmus decline at Diss Mere, Norfolk, UK: a year-byyear pollen stratigraphy from annual laminations. The Holocene 3, 113.
PEGLAR, S. M. & BIRKS, H. J. B. 1995. The mid-Holocene Ulmus fall at Diss Mere, southeast Englanddisease and human impact? Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 2, 618.
PERSSON, P. 1999. Neolitikums brjan. Underskningar kring jordbrukets introduktion i
Nordeuropa. Coast to Coast-books 1. Gteborg: Arkeologiska institutionen, Gteborgs
Universitet.
616
Lars Larsson
RASMUSSEN, P. 1998. Mid-Holocene vegetation development at the inland Erteblle

settlement at Ringkloster, Eastern Jutland. Journal of Danish Archaeology 12, 6586.
RICHARDS, M. P., PRICE, T. D. & KOCH, E. 2003. The Mesolithic/Neolithic transition in
Denmark: new stable isotope data. Current Anthropology 44, 28894.
in Britain, Ireland, and Southern Scandinavia. Current Anthropology 45, Supplement,
S83S113.
RUDEBECK, E. 2000. Tilling nature harvesting culture. Exploring images of human being in
the transition to agriculture. Lund: Amqvist and Wiksell International.
RUDEBECK, E. 2002. Likt och olikt i de sydskandinaviska lnghgarna. In L. Larsson (ed.),
Monumentala gravformer i det ldsta bondesamhllet, 11946. Lund: Department of
Archaeology and Ancient History, Lund University.
SEGERBERG, A. 1999. Blinge mossar. Kustbor i uppland under yngre stenlder. Uppsala:
Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University.
SKOG, G. & REGNLL, J. 1995. Precision calendar-year dating of the elm decline in a
sphagnum-peat bog in southern Sweden. Radiocarbon 37, 197202.
SRENSEN, S. 2005. Fra jger til bonde. In C. Bunte, B. Berglund & L. Larsson (eds),
Arkeologi och naturvetenskap, 298309. Lund: Gyllenstiernska Krapperupsstiftelsen.
STRAND PETERSEN, K. 1993. Environmental changes recorded in the Holocene molluscan
faunas from Djursland, Denmark. Scripta Geologica, Special issue 2, 35969.
SUNDSTRM, L. 2004. A collective in peril. The process of Neolithisation from an eastern
central Swedish perspective. In H. Knutsson (ed.), Coast to coast arrival. Proceedings of the
Final Coast to Coast Conference 15 October 2002 in Falkping, Sweden. Coast to Coast-book
10, 18397. Uppsala: Coast to Coast Project.
TAUBER, H. 1981. 13C evidence for dietary habits of prehistoric man in Denmark. Nature 292,
3323.
WELINDER, S. 1998a. Neoliticum Bronslder 3 900500 F. Kr. Jordbrukets frsta femtusen
r, 13236. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
WELINDER, S. 1998b. Pre-Neolithic farming in the Scandinavan peninsula. In M. Zvelebil,
R. Dennell & L. Domanska (eds), Harvesting the sea, farming the forest. The emergence of
Neolithic societies in the Baltic region, 16573. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
ZVELEBIL, M. & ROWLEY-CONWY, P. 1984. Transition to farmer in northern Europe: a
hunter-gatherer perspective. Norwegian Archaeological Review 17, 10428.
M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in transition, 6793. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Going over: people and their times

ALASDAIR WHITTLE
MY SHORT CONCLUDING PAPER in this volume does not aim to be a magisterial overview or a comprehensive summary. The papers presented here
and we could easily have added many more, had there been more time in the
conference and more space in this publicationshould really speak for
themselves of the range and quality of research currently being carried out
across north-west Europe relevant to the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. By
way of conclusion, however, I would like to add some brief, personal, reflections on what we are doing well and what we could still do better, and
thus try to define some of the continuing challenges for future research.
There is now a very long history of research on the Mesolithic-Neolithic
transition, going right back to the Enlightenment philosophers and historians of the eighteenth century. A recent review of the neolithisation of
Denmark was rightly subtitled 150 Years of Debate (Fischer & Kristiansen
2002). There have been other regional reviews of some of the evidence in
recent years (e.g. Ammerman & Biagi 2003; Price 2000; Zvelebil et al. 1998).
What do these, and in particular the regionally concentrated set of papers
presented here on north-west Europefrom northern Spain to southern
Scandinaviatell us about recent progress in thinking about the MesolithicNeolithic transition?
We can take the empirical side of things first. Because of the intensity and
variety of both research and development-led investigations, we have now
achieved a good working knowledge of the sequences of most regions within
the area covered by this volume. In some cases, the bulk of this knowledge
has come comparatively recently, though in every instance there is of course
a history of earlier research. As examples of this, we could pick out northern
Spain, the Rhine-Meuse estuaries, the sandy lowlands of Belgium beyond the
loess, or the southern Baltic coast in northern Germany (Arias, this volume;
Louwe Kooijmans, this volume; Cromb & Vanmontfort, this volume; Hartz
et al., this volume). Naturally the process is continuous, and eastern Scotland,
for example (Sheridan, this volume), shows a situation where new informationon the early Neolithic at leastis still rapidly accumulating. In other
cases, ongoing research continues to build on existing knowledge, for
618
Alasdair Whittle
example of the broad orbit of the LBK, as far west as and including the
Ruban Rcent of the Paris Basin. In these instances, we can point to important new awareness of the steps of regional sequences (e.g. Gronenborn,
this volume; and see already Gronenborn 1999), including pre-Neolithic
change and experimentation, and of variation within LBK/Ruban Rcent
communities, especially viewed as multi-tradition entities (Gronenborn, this
volume; cf. Hachem 1995; 1997; 2000).
As research has extended, we have become better too at data recovery,
with more areas surveyed (though there is still much to do in this regard),
larger excavations opened in many instances, and ever finer methods of
retrieval more routinely in operation. The comparison between LBK and
British early Neolithic cereal and weed assemblages (Bogaard & Jones, this
volume) would hardly have been possible a generation ago, even if we could
do with still more high-quality data: certainly from early situations on the
British side. The range and scope of analysis have extended in other ways too.
The addition of strontium isotope analysis to that of C13 and N15 begins to
open up further ways to investigate diet and movement of both animals and
people (Bentley, this volume), even if there may be important scientific questions still to answer about the assumptions behind strontium analysis (and cf.
Milner et al. 2004, for carbon and nitrogen analysis). Taking interpretation
as it stands, this analysis offers further support for the multiple constitution
of what have been perceived until really quite recently as both closed and
static LBK communities. The paper by Richard Evershed (this volume) on
compound-specific isotope analysis, including the possibilities for investigating marine resources as well as dairy and meat consumption, reports on
another highly significant analytical contribution, which may serve to refine
and change how we use such investigations.
Two other kinds of analysis are relevant, though their value in detail
remains unproven. Inferences from modern genetic data, both Y-chromosomal and mitochrondrial, have been in the literature for a while (e.g. Richards
et al. 1996; King & Underhill 2002), and have suggested a picture of populations of mixed descents, of both external and indigenous European descent.
Since the timescales are so uncertain in this work, we cannot be sure that the
generalised, summary picture derived from it need apply to the band of time
that Mesolithic-Neolithic transitions in central and western Europe occupy.
Analytically and procedurally, it remains very difficult to get uncontaminated
ancient DNA from human remains from this period, though this may be far
from impossible (Joachim Burger, pers. comm., Haak et al. 2005); certainly
any meaningful larger body of human aDNA data relevant to the MesolithicNeolithic transition looks likely to be available only at some point in the
future, if ever. There is a related interpretive point of massive importance,
which I will note here and return to below: the relation between genetic
GOING OVER: PEOPLE AND THEIR TIMES
619
inheritance and lived identity. Many papers so far appear to assume a simple
congruence between the two (e.g. King & Underhill 2002), whereas what was
in peoples genes may have had little to do with what they decided and chose,
particularly over short timescales of rapid change. By contrast, what is
emerging as both attainable and of profound significance, is a detailed
knowledge of the genetic descent of the key animal species (Bollongino &
Burger, this volume). At least in continental Europe, preservation of ancient
DNA appears sufficiently good for meaningful bodies of data to be built
up, and the emerging story of the introduction of domestic cattle over
very broad regions, without any sign of the local domestications that have
often been predicted, is a highly significant new perspective to take into
account.
The second feature to be highlighted by the conference is that of climate.
Its relevance to thinking about the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition is not new:
witness the models of Troels-Smith (1960). Its importance has been highlighted elsewhere, both with reference to the Danube Gorges and to Britain
(Bonsall et al. 2002; Bonsall et al. 2002/3), in the latter case with the suggestion that climatic amelioration could have enabled the spread of agricultural
practices into Britain around 4000 cal BC, previously made difficult by colder
winters and cooler, wetter summers. We should not dismiss the relevance of
new climatic data (e.g. as reported by Gronenborn, this volume; cf. Strien &
Gronenborn 2005) simply as fostering a model of climatic determinism. If the
landscape is thought of as offering a set of affordances for human use (Ingold
2000), then basic parameters of climate and weather must always have been
of central importance, both for the flow and practices of daily life and for
longer-term decision making (see also Larsson, this volume). The challenges,
however, must be to identify the key features within patterns of climatic fluctuation, and to relate these in detail and with precision to significant and
demonstrable patterns of change in human practice. At present, we need to
know more (and this looks likely to fuel more research). In some cases, it looks
as though it is being suggested that both further adoptions of agriculture and
significant horizons of cultural change (for example at the end of the LBK)
followed cold phases, whereas in others, as already noted, the model is of climatic amelioration enabling agricultural adoption. If agricultural practice was
stimulated by both cold and warm conditions, was it so sensitive to climatic
conditions in the first place? Do climatic conditions affect animal keeping as
much as cereal cultivation? And is there not an assumption here, which needs
testing in each and every case, that cereal cultivation was from the onset a key
feature of new subsistence practices? One way to read the analysis provided by
Amy Bogaard and Glynis Jones (this volume), though that would not be their
own view, is that cereal cultivation was comparatively muted in both the early
Neolithic of Britain and the LBK.
620
Alasdair Whittle
On the debit side, significant gaps in our knowledge still remain. In many
instances, we still know far more about the Neolithic part of regional
sequences than the preceding Mesolithic part, though that situation is far
from uniform and also far from static. Surveys in Brittany, for example
(Gouletquer et al. 1996), or serendipitous further discovery of older deposits
in Neolithic excavation at Noyen-sur-Seine in the Paris Basin (Mordant &
Mordant 1992), or pollen analyses suggesting possible pre-Neolithic experimentation with cereals in both the Alpine foreland (Erny-Rodmann et al.
1997) and the middle Rhineland (Schweizer 2001), all do much to vary and
deepen our knowledge of Mesolithic practices and presences in parts of continental Europeas opposed to the rich evidence of the Baltic coasts
where detailed evidence has traditionally been scarce. But lacunae remain.
While there is obviously a broad understanding of what constitutes or should
constitute a late Mesolithic in Britain, our detailed knowledge of fifth millennium cal BC life is painfully thin. In some regions, such as eastern
Scotland, it may be legitimate to model a very sparse late Mesolithic presence, succeeded by a much denser and archaeologically more obvious and visible early Neolithic presence (Warren 2001; 2004; Sheridan, this volume). In
other regions, such as central-southern England, there are hints of geographically complementary areas of Mesolithic and early Neolithic presence
(Barclay 2006). We can make inferences from these patterns according to our
preferences and prejudices, but the basic database is very patchy.
That observation extends to the potentially highly significant phenomena
of La Hoguette and Limburg. Are these just ceramic styles? Can we give
them an existence beyond the LBK contexts where they principally occur?
Can we see them as some kind of transitional hunter-gatherer-herder group
(see Gronenborn, this volume) on the fringes of the LBK and even preceding
the LBK? Given the way in which the earliest LBK may have spread through
pre-existing networks in central Europe (e.g. Mateiciucov 2004), these are
questions we badly need to address with more concerted and directed
research.
I have indicated in my other paper in this volume that we are far from
being able to offer a reliably precise chronology for the beginning of the
Neolithic in southern Britain. That observation certainly extends to the rest
of Britain and Ireland. We should now begin to worry about the difference
between 4100, 4000 or 3900 cal BC. With the steady increase in regional coverage noted above, we could also claim that our knowledge of regional
chronologies has vastly improved. That may be generally so, though one can
note challenges to the sequence in the Paris Basin (e.g. Jeunesse 19989; not,
I believe, generally accepted: see for example Dubouloz 2003). But precision
is generally lacking. If dates are presented through summing methods, then
phenomena may appear to start earlier than they really do (Bayliss et al.
621
2007). Is the earliest LBK to be dated earlier than 5500 cal BC, and when did
the earliest phase end: at 5400 or 5300 cal BC? When were menhirs first put
up in Brittany, the first pots made, and the last depositions put into the graves
of Hodic and Tviec? Should we date the end of the Erteblle culture to
4100 cal BC or to slightly later? All these uncertainties and others must affect
our understanding of the processes of change involved, particularly if we
want to take that understanding to the level of particular groups, generations
and even individuals whose specific decisions and choices may have helped to
generate large-scale processes, and we need now to give renewed attention to
chronological precision.
All these advances in knowledge have fuelled debate, but do they also
change the nature and terms of the debate? There are three ways of looking
at this. First, we could use the steadily increasing and improving data to support one or other of the main models now conventionally and regularly used
to explain the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition across central and western
Europe: colonisation and acculturation. The data could be used to flesh out
early claims (e.g. Case 1969; Modderman 1988) for important indigenous
involvement in transitions, since taken further in the availability-substitution
model (Zvelebil & Lillie 2000; Zvelebil & Rowley-Conwy 1986), widely
applied in areas of secondary Neolithic expansion (Southern Scandinavia,
the Dutch estuaries, north-west France, and Britain), and even tried on the
broad phenomenon of the LBK itself (Kind 1998; Lukes & Zvelebil 2004;
Tillmann 1993; Whittle 1996). Without needing to go into detail in the context of this particular concluding paper, the essence of the argument would
be to assert the agency of indigenous people, to deconstruct the notion of a
unified and uniform Neolithic package, and to read the evidence as it now
stands as insufficient to document a sustained demographic expansion of
incomers. There were existing networks of lithic exchange in central Europe,
and new fieldwork both in Transdanubia, west of the Danube and east of the
Alps (Bnffy 2004), and on the Great Hungarian Plain (Whittle 2005) does
not suggest a significant build-up of population in the first half of the sixth
millennium cal BC, which in itself might have triggered the LBK phenomenon
(Whittle 1996; 2003, 1346). This view does not need to deny the introduction, sometimes rapid, sometimes slower, of new practices, including in the
sphere of subsistence, but it would want to discriminate among new practices,
depending on context, and to assert that the whole phenomenon of farmer
society was not necessarily created in one go. What it became in the longer
term is not automatically a guide to its shifting character in earlier stages.
Within this either/or kind of debate, others will wish to use revisions of
and additions to the data as support for the older model of colonisation, and
a forceful version of that has been presented recently, for southern
Scandinavia, Britain and Ireland, by Peter Rowley-Conwy (2004). Here the
622
Alasdair Whittle
essence of the argument rests on a view of the apparent totality and rapidity
of change, which leads then to the inescapable view that that could only have
been created by incomers, possessors and inheritors of a cultural tradition
already long established behind them as it were, stretching back into southeast Europe and beyond. Whereas the conditions for demographic lift-off
might be still obscure in particular situations, alternative models of, for example, leap-frogging are available, and new evidence for radical dietary shifts
and changes in residence patterns, seen for example in the stable isotope
analyses or in the re-evaluation of fixed-plot, intensive, garden cultivation in
the LBK and elsewhere (e.g. Bogaard 2004; 2005; Bogaard & Jones, this volume; Jones 2005), combined with what is read as evidence for rapid change,
is taken to underscore the reality of new people doing new things: cultivators
establishing themselves, generations at a time, in one place.
A second response could be to seek compromises between these
entrenched positions. As regional coverage expands and deepens, the sheer
diversity of the phenomenon of transition as a whole becomes ever more
striking. What went on around the bend of the Danube, say, need not have
been the same as or have determined events on the north European plain
and the Baltic coasts and islands. A much more complicated view would
result in a mosaic of kinds of transition: a major demographic incursion
here, something more filtered and piecemeal there, and a case or two perhaps of leap-frogging, to be set alongside and integrated with transfers and
adoptions of practice through existing networks and among existing populations, rapid changes as the outcome of welcomed change in one area, and
slow alterations as the result of prolonged resistance or indifference in
another. Sketching the whole of this mosaic would take much more space
than I have available here, but diversity could be sought from the beginning
of the LBK onwards, within the LBK, a view latent in the literature (though
far from explicit or dominant) perhaps as far back as Quittas work on
lteste LBK pottery (Gronenborn, this volume; cf. Zvelebil 2004). The
resultant mixture of actors, traditions and practices could serve to characterise processes of change nearly everywhere; few situations might on this
perspective turn out to be wholly the result of the agency of incomers, or
few wholly the result of the agency of local people. One might argue, for
example, that the people who inhabited the Dutch estuaries and peatlands
were an instance of the latter kind of scenario, very gradually, and at their
own pace, picking up acquaintance with and use of pottery, pigs, cows and
finally cereals (Louwe Kooijmans, this volume). Vicki Cummings and I have
suggested elsewhere that we might consider regional variation in processes
across southern Britain, with more indigenous contributions to the west,
and at least some filtered colonisation in southern England (Cummings &
Whittle 2004, 8891).
623
This is challenging enough, and to work though that kind of perspective

would be a significant sign, I believe, of maturity and sophistication of interpretation. There is also a third option, more radical still, which I would like to
advocate alongside and beyond the mosaic model. This has already been
anticipated in various ways (e.g. Whittle 2003, 136; Bailey & Whittle 2005;
Boric 2005; Kotsakis 2005; Robb & Miracle, this volume; Thomas, this volume), but it deserves our full attention. Its essence is as follows. What should
concern us is not so much the data alone, though they remain of central
importance, but how we think about them. Because the debate on the
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition is a very old one, it has accumulated a set of
established terms and dichotomies, which it is probably now time to abandon.
Certainly we should question whether familiar dichotomies such as settled
versus mobile, permanent versus seasonal, farmer versus hunter, or complex
versus simple, retain any useful analytical charge, without further massive
qualification and tighter definition. How do we cope with the diversity that the
data increasingly suggest? What about people who move around as well as
having bases in longhousesor indeed in coastal estuaries? What about ways
of inhabiting landscapes that shift from generation to generation or even year
to year, with the significance of some places retained but that of others coming in and out of focus? What of cultivators who hunt? Hunters who also
cultivate? Herders who hunt and cultivate? And what of people whose technology and lifestyle might appear simple, but whose view of themselves and
their place in the cosmos was every bit as complicated as that of others? What
of those who had adopted new material practices, but still thought about and
valued things in older ways (Barnard, this volume)? It seems increasingly
unlikely that we can catch the complicated diversity of transformations while
still retaining the old labels of Mesolithic and Neolithic. There were simply
too many Mesolithics and Neolithics in question.
What then are the alternatives, within which future research questions can
be framed? Apart from stressing diversity, we need, I suggest, to avoid the
temptations of teleology and essentialism. In the long run, what we can
crudely call farming societies became dominant (and that can be lamented as
a kind of moral fall: Brody 2001) and acquired certain recurrent forms, tendencies and institutions. But that does not reveal what things were like at the
beginning or indeed through a series of early transformations, since we cannot apply an essentialist model of a single kind of Neolithic society in view
of the diversity which I have been stressing.
Alongside and beyond the possibilities of parallel processes of colonisation and acculturation in all their diversity, there is another possibility, of a
spectrum of fusions. If we change the scales of analysis from the broad sweep
and the long-term view to what was happening on the ground at any one
time, then we could see developments and events as much more contingent;
624
Alasdair Whittle
because of other histories, at given times and places, new ways of thinking
about the world and new resources became availableand could be rejected,
resisted, altered or adopted. If we look through overall pattern and final outcomes to the agency of people on the ground, if we introduce a sense of the
goals, values, emotions and memory that could have constituted identity, and
if we allow identity not to be always immutably fixed, then we can think of
varied fusions, rather than simply the playing out of the rigidly separate
histories of the incomers and the indigenous.
The LBK might be such a fusion from its outset (Whittle 2003, 136), the
coming together of networks of indigenous people and Starcevo-Krs populations, which themselves may have been a fusion of identities rather than
some kind of pure southern stock. The LBK may then have spread by a combination of linkage through existing networks and by leap-frog colonisation,
carried out by people themselves in the process of transforming their identities and practices. This may have continued through to the westward extension of the LBK into the Paris Basin. The LBK was an incorporation of
many different people, as papers in this volume have shown. It was not static,
and changed considerably through its history, and a reality of porosity and
fluidity (as opposed to our frequent perception of uniformity) might have
been responsible for the LBK and successors existing alongside other people
for long periods of time from the sixth down to the mid and late fifth
millennium cal BC. We can think of convergence (Whittle 1996, 20810) and
contact as well as dominance.
When further change came in the mid and late fifth millennium cal BC, it
is hard to see this as the simple outcome of processes of demographic
increase, climatic change or indigenous resource collapse. If we set aside
large-scale colonisation now, there may still be a good case in some instances
for small-scale, filtered movements, but those may have been conditioned or
enabled in the first place by changes among indigenous populations. There
may again be much more contingency in the situation than we have allowed
for. The world of the LBK longhouse came to an end, perhaps either because
it became too socially expensive (Bogucki 1996) or because it absorbed something of the worldview and values of the surrounding indigenous populations
(Thomas 1996; Sidra 2000). While there was perhaps a combination of contact and stasis on the north European Plain in the fifth millennium cal BC,
westward expansion into inland Brittany and down the Loire had brought
VSG communities close to coastal indigenous people before the mid fifth millennium cal BC, while the longhouse world was still in existence. Some
changes were already afoot in the Dutch estuaries after 5000 cal BC (Louwe
Kooijmans, this volume). Perhaps, however, it was indigenous people in
north-west France who first went over, and alongside continuing gradual
changes in the Dutch estuaries the next to go over were probably people in
625
the Alpine foreland (Whittle 2003, 1435), an area generally neglected in discussions of these processes. That change in the Alpine foreland, which I have
argued is probably led by indigenous people and produces a very diverse early
Neolithic (Whittle 2003, 14550), can be dated from about 4300 cal BC
onwards. It is hard in this case too to specify why things began to change
when they did, but it is difficult to resist the circumstantial link between the
end of the longhouse world and the beginnings of the Alpine foreland
Neolithic. By 4300 cal BC or before, there were probably contacts between
north-west France and south-west Ireland, as seen in the Ferriters Cove cattle bone, and contacts continued across the north European plain with late
Erteblle communities. Given that this was a connected world, then people
in Britain, Ireland and southern Scandinavia could have followed suit,
and begun to adopt the practices that were by now becoming widespread
everywhere.
In this diverse, contingent setting, few identities need have been fixed.
Indigenous people were adopting new practices at varying rates, though elements of their thinking may have changed rather more slowly. Small groups
of incomers and individual incomers may also have had fluid identities in
the circumstances of new surroundings and neighbours (Boric 2005;
Kotsakis 2005; cf. Case 1969). This too, in its different way, was a world of
incorporation, and multiple fusions may have been at least as characteristic
as the maintenance of separate, former identities. This could be seen
through the spectrum of early practices in north-west Europe, which could
all be seen as instruments of incorporation, to adapt Andrew Sherratts
phrase (1995). Tasks of clearance in landscapes best known by local people,
the tending of gardens for the cultivation of cereals, perhaps best understood at first by incomers but valued by all for their reproducibility, and the
herding of animals, introduced from the outside, down paths and around
woodland best known to local people, all take on a different significance
from this perspective. The new materialities of pottery and polished stone
could also be seen as essentially to do with being connected, in sharing style
and food in the one case, and being in exchange with the earth and other
people in the other case. I have suggested in my other paper here (Whittle,
this volume; cf. Cummings, this volume) that in southern Britain long barrows and long cairns were not built before c. 3800 cal BC and causewayed
enclosures not before the thirty-seventh century cal BC. A wider range of
monumentality was also probably not constructed in other regions of northwest Europe, such as Brittany and southern Scandinavia, until some time
after the first, marked changes in practice. The elaborate public architectures that result may equally be seen as the result of fusions of identity and
worldview, the outcome of negotiation and discussion between all the actors
involved (see also Cooney, this volume).
626
Alasdair Whittle
I am not advocating this kind of fusion model as a complete answer

for every situation but as the diversity of the evidence increases, it offers a
new way of thinking about transformations across the so-called
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. We need now above all to think of broader
approaches and to exploit the opportunities for writing much more varied
and particularising histories of change.
REFERENCES
AMMERMAN, A. J. & BIAGI, P. (eds) 2003. The widening harvest. The Neolithic transition in
Europe: looking back, looking forward. Boston: American Institute of Archaeology.
BAILEY, D. & WHITTLE, A. 2005. Unsettling the Neolithic: breaking down concepts, boundaries and origins. In D. Bailey, A. Whittle & V. Cummings (eds), (un)settling the Neolithic,
17. Oxford: Oxbow.
BNFFY, E. 2004. The 6th millennium BC boundary in western Transdanubia and its role in the
Central European Neolithic transition (the Szentgyrgyvlgy-Pityerdomb settlement).
Budapest: Institute of Archaeology, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
BAYLISS, A., BRONK RAMSEY, C., VAN DER PLICHT, J. & WHITTLE, A. 2007.
Bradshaw and Bayes: towards a timetable for the Neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal 17.1, supplement, 128.
BOGAARD, A. 2004. Neolithic farming in central Europe. London: Routledge.
BOGAARD, A. 2005. Garden agriculture and the nature of early farming in Europe and the
Near East. World Archaeology 37, 17796.
BOGUCKI, P. 1996. Sustainable and unsustainable adaptations by early farming communities
of northern Poland. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15, 289311.
BONSALL, C., MACKLIN, M., ANDERSON, D. & PAYTON, R. 2002. Climate change and
the adoption of agriculture in north-west Europe. European Journal of Archaeology 5, 923.
BONSALL, C., MACKLIN, M. G., PAYTON, R. W. & BORONEANT, , A. 2002/3. Climate,
floods and river gods: environmental change and the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in
southeast Europe. Before Farming 4 (2), 115.
D. 2005. Deconstructing essentialisms: unsettling frontiers of the Mesolithic-Neolithic
BORI C,
Balkans. In D. Bailey, A. Whittle & V. Cummings (eds), (un)settling the Neolithic, 1631.
Oxford: Oxbow.
BRODY, H. 2001. The other side of Eden: hunter-gatherers, farmers and the shaping of the world.
London: Faber and Faber.
DUBOULOZ, J. 2003. Datation absolue du premier Nolithique du Bassin parisien: complment et relecture des donnes RRBP et VSG. Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise
100, 67189.
1997. Frher human impact und Ackerbau im bergangsbereich SptmesolithikumFrhneolithikum im schweizerischen Mitteland. Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft
627
GOULETQUER, P., KAYSER, O., LE GOFFIC, M., LEOPOLD, P., MARCHAND, G. &
MOULLEC, J.-M. 1996. O sont passs les Msolithiques ctiers bretons? Bilan 19851995
des prospections de surface dans le Finistre. Revue Archologique de lOuest 13, 530.
GRONENBORN, D. 1999. A variation on a basic theme: the transition to farming in southern
HAAK, W., FORSTER, P., BRAMANTI, B., MATSUMURA, S., BRANDT, G., TNZER, M.,
VILLEMS, R., RENFREW, C., GRONENBORN, G., ALT, K. W. & BURGER, J. 2005.
Ancient DNA from the first European farmers in 7500year-old Neolithic sites. Science 310,
101618.
HACHEM, L. 1995. La rprsentation de la chasse dans les espaces villageois rubans de la
valle de lAisne (France). Anthropozoologica 21, 197205.
HACHEM, L. 1997. Structuration spatiale dun village du Ruban Rcent, Cuiry-lsChaudardes (Aisne). Analyse dune catgorie de rejets domestiques: la faune. In A. Bocquet
(ed.), Espaces physiques, espaces sociaux dans lanalyse interne des sites du Nolithique lge
du Fer, 24561. Paris: ditions du Comit des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques.
HACHEM, L. 2000. New observations on the Bandkeramik house and social organization.
London: Routledge.
JEUNESSE, C. 19989. La synchronisation des squences culturelles des bassins du Rhin, de la
Meuse et de la Seine et la chronologie du Bassin parisien au Nolithique ancien et moyen
(52004500 av. J.-C.). Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique Luxembourgeoise 201, 33792.
JONES, G. 2005. Garden cultivation of staple crops and its implications for settlement location
and continuity. World Archaeology 37, 16476.
KING, R. & UNDERHILL, P. 2002. Congruent distribution of Neolithic painted pottery and
ceramic figurines with Y-chromosome lineages. Antiquity 76, 70714.
KOTSAKIS, K. 2005. Across the border: unstable dwellings and fluid landscapes in the earliest
Neolithic of Greece. In D. Bailey, A. Whittle & V. Cummings (eds), (un)settling the Neolithic,
816. Oxford: Oxbow.
LUKES, A. & ZVELEBIL, M. (eds) 2004. LBK dialogues: studies in the formation of the Linear
Pottery culture. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 1304.
MATEICIUCOV, I. 2004. Mesolithic traditions and the origin of the Linear Pottery culture
(LBK). In A. Lukes & M. Zvelebil (eds), LBK dialogues: studies in the formation of the Linear
Pottery culture, 91107. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports 1304.
de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 38, 63139.
MORDANT, C. & MORDANT, D. 1992. Noyen-sur-Seine: a Mesolithic waterside settlement.
In B. Coles (ed.), The wetland revolution in prehistory, 5564. Exeter: WARP/The Prehistoric
Society.
RICHARDS, M., CORTE REAL, H., FORSTER, P., MACAULAY, V., WILKINSON
HERBOTS, H., DEMAINE, A., PAPIHA, S., HEDGES, R., BANDELT, H. J. &
SYKES, B. 1996. Paleolithic and Neolithic lineages in the European mitochondrial gene
pool. American Journal of Human Genetics 59, 185203.
628
Alasdair Whittle
Britain, Ireland and southern Scandinavia. Current Anthropology 45, Supplement
AugustOctober 2004, 83113.
SCHWEIZER, A. 2001. Archopalynologische Untersuchungen zur Neolithisierung der nrdlichen
Wetterau/Hessen. Berlin: Cramer.
SHERRATT, A. 1995. Instruments of conversion? The role of megaliths in the Mesolithic/
Neolithic transition in north-west Europe. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 14, 24560.
SIDRA, I. 2000. Animaux domestiques, btes sauvages et objets en matires animals du
Ruban au Michelsberg: de leconomie aux symbols, des techniques la culture. Gallia
STRIEN, H.-C. & GRONENBORN, D. 2005. Klima- und Kulturwandel whrend des mitteleuropischen Altneolithikums (58./57.51./50. Jahrhundert v. Chr.). In D. Gronenborn (ed.),
Climate variability and culture change in Neolithic societies of Central Europe, 13149. RGZM
Tagungen 1. Mainz: Rmisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum.
THOMAS, J. 1996. The cultural context of the first use of domesticates in central and northwest Europe. In D. Harris (ed.), The origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralism in
Eurasia, 31022. London: University College, London.
Landnahme im sdlichen Mitteleuropa. Archologische Informationen 16/2, 15787.
TROELS-SMITH, J. 1960. Ivy, mistletoe and elm. Climate indicators fodder plants: a contribution to the interpretation of the pollen zone VIIVIII. Danmarks Geologiske Undersgelse,
Series 4/4.
WARREN, G. M. 2001. Marking space? Stone tool deposition in Mesolithic and early Neolithic
Eastern Scotland. In M. Zvelebil & K. Fewster (eds), Ethnoarchaeology and hunter-gatherers:
pictures at an exhibition, 91100. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
WARREN, G. M. 2004. The start of the Neolithic in Scotland. In I. A. G. Shepherd & G. J.
Barclay (eds), Scotland in Ancient Europe. The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Scotland in
their European context, 91102. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
University Press.
WHITTLE, A. 2005. Lived experience in the Early Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain. In
D. Bailey, A. Whittle & V. Cummings (eds), (un)settling the Neolithic, 6470. Oxford:
Oxbow.
ZVELEBIL, M. 2004. The many origins of the LBK. In A. Lukes & M. Zvelebil (eds), LBK
dialogues: studies in the formation of the Linear Pottery culture, 183205. Oxford: British
M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in transition: Mesolithic societies in temperate Eurasia and their
ZVELEBIL, M., DENNELL R. & DOMANSKA,

L. (eds) 1998. Harvesting the sea, farming the
forest: the emergence of Neolithic societies in the Baltic region. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press.

2007, Whittle, Cummings (Eds), Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in NW Europe, Book

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2007, Whittle, Cummings (Eds), Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in NW Europe, Book

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Going Over

Proceedings of the British Academy 144, 2007

Alasdair Whittle & Vicki Cummings

Introduction: transitions and transformations

From Mesolithic to Neolithic modes of thought

Jean Guilaine & Claire Manen

From Mesolithic to Early Neolithic in the western Mediterranean

Neighbours but diverse: social change in north-west Iberia during the

Beyond the models: 'Neolithisation' in Central Europe

John Robb & Preston Miracle

Beyond 'migration' versus 'acculturation': new models for the spread of

Mobility, specialisation and community diversity in the Linearbandkeramik:

Exploiting molecular and isotopic signals at the Mesolithic-Neolithic

Ruth Bollongino & Joachim Burger

Neolithic cattle domestication as seen from ancient DNA

Anne Tresset & Jean-Denis Vigne

Substitution of species, techniques and symbols at the Mesolithic-Neolithic

The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Paris Basin: a review

Neolithic fragrances : Mesolithic-Neolithic interactions in western France

Changing places: monuments and the Neolithic transition in western France

Philippe Cromb & Bart Vanmontfort

The neolithisation of the Scheldt basin in western Belgium

Leendert P Louwe Kooijmans

The gradual transition to farming in the Lower Rhine Basin

The Neolithic sensory revolution: monumentality and the experience of

Houses, bodies and tombs

Amy Bogaard & Glynis Jones

Neolithic farming in Britain and central Europe: contrast or continuity?

The temporality of transformation: dating the early development of the

Gill Hey & Alistair Barclay

Mesolithic-Neolithic transitions in Britain: from essence to inhabitation

From Picardie to Pickering and Pencraig Hill? New information on the

From midden to megalith? The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in western

Steven Mithen, Anne Pirie, Sam Smith &

The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in western Scotland: a review and new

Parallel worlds or multi-stranded identities? Considering the process of

Snke Hartz, Harald Lbke & Thomas

Mistrust traditions, consider innovations? The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition 595-616

Going over: people and their times

Copyright British Academy 2007 all rights reserved

Introduction: transitions and

Copyright British Academy 2007 all rights reserved

Alasdair Whittle & Vicki Cummings

colonisation in search of prime conditions for agricultural life, on the one

Copyright British Academy 2007 all rights reserved

Copyright British Academy 2007 all rights reserved

Alasdair Whittle & Vicki Cummings

Copyright British Academy 2007 all rights reserved

From Mesolithic to Neolithic

THIS PAPER HAS ITS ORIGIN in the comparative study of an observed

SOUTHERN AFRICAN/EUROPEAN COMPARISONS

Copyright British Academy 2007 all rights reserved

A word on the history of archaeology in the two regions is worthwhile. In

NEOLITHISATION: MODELS FROM SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY

Copyright British Academy 2007 all rights reserved

FROM MESOLITHIC TO NEOLITHIC MODES OF THOUGHT

Copyright British Academy 2007 all rights reserved

pastoralism or horticulture). The last might include European Mesolithic

MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC MODES OF THOUGHT

Copyright British Academy 2007 all rights reserved

FROM MESOLITHIC TO NEOLITHIC MODES OF THOUGHT

Copyright British Academy 2007 all rights reserved

MESOLITHIC MODE OF THOUGHT

Anti-social (equated with