¡Descarga prehistoria y más Apuntes en PDF de Prehistoria solo en Docsity!
ISSN: 0514-
THE NEOLITHIC IN THE IBERIAN PENINSULA:
AN EXPLANATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE
PARTICIPATION OF MESOLITHIC COMMUNITIES
El Neolítico en la Península Ibérica: una explicación desde la
perspectiva participativa de las comunidades mesolíticas
Alfonso ALDAY RUIZ
Departamento de Prehistoria de la Universidad del País Vasco. Tomás y Valiente , s/n. 01006. Vitoria. Grupo de
Investigación IT-288-07 Gobierno Vasco. Correo-e: [email protected]
Recepción: 2011-12-02; Revisión: 2012-02-09; Aceptación: 2012-02-
BIBLID [0514-7336 (2012) LXIX, enero-junio; 75-94]
A BSTRACT: An analysis of the documents on the late Mesolithic and early Neolithic groups would seem to confirm that the participation of the former was decisive in the formation of the Neolithic. The influence of the East on the Neolithisation of the Iberian Peninsula is plainly essential, as all that was necessary to set up a production economy originated there, including population. However, the very characteristics of the documentation (geographical and geological location of the sites), radio-chronological dating (showing a speedy arrival of Neolithic elements on the coast and inland) or the Mesolithic organization of the territory into networks, also active in the Neolithic, make sense of the thesis of participation that we put forward. Key words : Mesolithic. Neolithic. Iberian Peninsula. Agriculture. Farming. Prehistoric Navigation. Radiochronology.
R ESUMEN : El análisis de la documentación de los grupos del Mesolítico final y del Neolítico antiguo de la Península Ibérica parece confirmar que la participación de los primeros fue decisiva en la formación del Neolítico. Obviamente esencial es la influencia oriental en la Neolitización ibérica, de donde llega todo lo necesario para poner en marcha la economía de producción, incluyendo contribuciones endémicas. Sin embargo las propias características de la documentación (ubicación geográfica y geológica de los yacimien- tos), las dataciones radiocronológicas (demostrando una rápida llegada de los elementos neolíticos a la costa y al interior) o la articulación territorial mesolítica en redes, activas también en el Neolítico, dan sen- tido a la tesis participativa que proponemos. Palabras clave : Mesolítico. Neolítico. Península Ibérica. Agricultura. Ganadería. Navegación prehistórica. Radiocronología.
Introduction
There is no doubt that Neolithic culture began
in the Middle East, when the first domestication
experiments began approximately 10.000 years
ago, and spread to Europe via the Anatolia bridge.
Scientific debates focus on the mechanisms involved
in this expansion: population and cultural move-
ment, with the transfer of animals, plants, materials
and, perhaps, genes and languages (Diamond and
Bellwood, 2003; Jobling, Hurles and Tyler-
Smith, 2004; Pinhasi, Fort and Ammerman, 2005;
Price, 2000).
The LBK culture in Central Europe includes
the first Neolithic era, originating in western
Hungary around 5550-5400 BC (Bánffy, 2004;
Pavúk, 2004; Price, 2000; Price et al ., 2001;
Zvelebil, 2004), and quickly moving to the Paris
Basin. The high mobility of people has sometimes
been used to explain this rapid propagation
(Oelze et al ., 2011), though other authors rein-
force the role of local populations (Jeunesse,
2002; Amkreutz, 2010; Amkreutz, Vanmontfort
and Verhart, 2008).
In the Mediterranean, Neolithic expansion
affected both shores, creating distinct cultural
units with differentiated ceramics as elements of
identity. One is surprised by the following: a) the
rapid rate of its incorporation (derailing the figure
of 1 km per year calculated by Ammeman and
Cavalli-Sforza, 1973, 1979; Bocquet-Appel et al .,
2009, 2011; Lemmen et al ., 2011; Isern and Fort,
2010, 2011), b) the presence of ceramic compo-
nents earlier than expected and c) the discovery of
Neolithic production elements among Mesolithic
groups (Oversteegen et al ., 2001; Raemaekers,
1999; Woodman and McCarthy, 2003).
Within the Neolithic debate, great interest lies
in recognizing population continuity or rupture;
DNA tests are very powerful tools for this, but
their results are far from conclusive. The samples
used depend on the archaeological record: if it
is insufficient or not well-defined (e.g., if there
are doubts about cultural consideration), the
DNA results do not provide a clear historical
answer. Different approaches –the study of the
Y chromosome versus mtDNA– provide differ-
ent answers. The contradictory theses of geneti-
cists likely reflect, at least in part, the variability
of the Neolithic dynamics, which do not conform
to a single model. References on these controver-
sies are Barbujani and Goldstein (2004), Chikhi
et al. (1998, 2002), Dupanloup et al. (2004),
Richards et al. (2000), Semino et al. (2000) and
Simoni et al. (2000). Take for example Malm-
ström et al. (2009): in Scandinavian countries,
there is no continuity between Mesolithic
groups and current populations, except in the
Western Baltic; the Neolithic process is only
formalized when new populations enter on the
scene. The interpretative line of Balaresque et al.
(2010) is similar but it fails to demonstrate that
the distances between the Mesolithic groups
and current populations are the result of the
Neolithic process: they could respond to other his-
torical causes. The opposite position is evident in
the work of Haak et al. (2005) who, after review-
ing central European Neolithic tombs, believe
that Palaeolithic groups had a significant effect on
present-day Europeans and that Neolithic groups
had hardly any or none. The theoretical work of
Currat and Excoffier (2005) follows this interpre-
tation. According to this point of view, small
groups brought production techniques to Europe,
but, once assimilated, the ancient hunter-gatherers
were the ones who were really responsible for
its expansion. The diverging results reached by
studies of ancient DNA in relation to Neolithic
demography are directly related to the complexity
of the Neolithisation phenomenon: they show the
multiplicity of interacting factors and the impos-
sibility of offering a single discourse (Regueiro
et al ., 2012).
The paleodiet study, which compares the diets
of Mesolithic and Neolithic groups, is also part of
the Neolithic debate. In evaluating this area, we
are faced with the same situation as with genetic
studies: a) dependence on the archaeological
record and, therefore, what is defined as the
Mesolithic or Neolithic, and b) inconclusive
results, reflecting situations that cannot be genera-
lized. For example, in the case of the Iberian
Peninsula, Muge yields an estimate of 40-50%
contribution of seafood protein (Lubell et al .,
1994), but the pattern is actually more complex
(Fernández and Gómez, 2009): Jackes and Meik-
lejohn (2004) suggest that during the Mesolithic,
diets tended to be land-based, perhaps deriving
from ecological phenomena that affected the
Tagus estuary; in other words, it was not a phe-
nomenon of cultural opposition. Similarly, at the
Late Mesolithic burial of the El Collado coastal
site, the paleodiet surprisingly reveals a low
dependence on marine resources (García Guixé et
al ., 2006). With respect to diet, diversity is the
norm at the peninsular and European level.
Claiming that some groups demand marine pro-
ducts and some do not is simplistic (Lightfoot,
population derives (Utrilla and Montes, 2009), this
was not the situation. Quite to the contrary,
the groups were self-sufficient in matters pertaining
to techniques: food and raw materials. They were
well-organized, as they took advantage of the
resources in each region and maintained fluid
contact with remote communities without losing
their own character. Mesolithic stability contrasts
with archaeological data: there were no compensatory
mechanisms to enable alleged crises, nor were there
intensified actions on specific resources; groups did
not expand their alimentary range to include foods
of lower quality or productivity, nor were there splits
among groups seeking new opportunities.
How should one view the first Neolithic groups
on the peninsula? If the process involved a significant
displacement of people, they became communities
that, by land and sea, erratically conquered new te-
rritories. We say “Erratic” because, from their distant
origins, they would have known neither the routes
nor their destination (in the same way that Columbus
did not know that a new continent would interrupt
his proposed journey). It is difficult to imagine,
from the standpoint of prehistory, and with few
early Neolithic traces, that this rudimentary naval
technology was available so that men, women, and
children, along with plants, animals and supplies,
could undertake long expeditions. Were these not
trips with unknown destinations? These voyages
are presented as successful,
though unlikely to be free
of many vicissitudes: with
equipment such as the
kayak of La Marmotta
(Fugazzola and Mineo,
1995). Moreover, if we take
into account the Mediterra-
nean currents, navigation
must have been very diffi-
cult. Undoubtedly, there
were multiple maritime
routes that connected the
Mediterranean islands, Eu-
rope and Africa: some au-
thors have pointed out the
connections between both
shores of the Strait of
Gibraltar; the circulation
of obsidian is also a well
known phenomenon; and the relationship between
some pottery productions in Italy, France and the
Iberian Peninsula has also been stressed (Gibaja and
Carvalho, 2010; Carvalho, 2010; García Borja, 2010).
The problem lies in the need for knowledge and in-
frastructure deriving from an exclusively colonizing
approach.
A great deal of time must have passed (how
many generations?) before the conquered landscape
would be filled with large extensions of legume and
cereal fields, as well as herds of goats, pigs and
cattle, and flocks of sheep, at the expense of forests
and native fauna. The picture of the first farmers
who came to our shores or crossed the Pyrenees to
venture into foreign lands is very different from the
image recreated when conceptualizing a developed
Neolithic way of life.
These considerations require a position other than
the habitual one, one that accepts that the Mesolithic
peoples did not live in a state of decline and that the
Early Neolithic peoples were far from thriving
societies, thus blurring boundaries. Would the
balance of power between residents and Neolithic
immigrants have been unbalanced? To which side
did it tilt? New models must have had attractive
properties for them be assimilated so quickly (and
given that the economics were determined, would
the power generated by product accumulation
explain the process compellingly?).
F IG. 1. Maritime colonisation must take into account the naval technology of the time and the sea currents, which are against in the Tunisia-Morocco crossing and the Gibraltar Straits ( vid_. Callaghan and Scarre_ , 2009).
2. A reflection on
documentation value
Reflecting on Neo -
lithisation dynamics, one
must consider the charac-
teristics and significan-
ce of the archaeological
record. It is important to
know both the value of the
documentation and the rea-
son for the gaps. Two exam-
ples illustrate the qualities
of Iberian Peninsula ar-
chaeological repertoire: one
from the world of hunters
and another from that of
farmers.
The most important re-
ferences for the later Meso-
lithic period in the Iberian
Peninsula are the following:
a) Portuguese shell mid-
dens, with abundant ves-
tiges and many burials; b)
the Ebro Basin, with over
two dozen levels with clear
Neolithic continuity, for a
settlement apparently con-
centrated at its edges, and c) the Valencia region,
with significant historiographical importance in the
organization of industrial evolution and its temporal
correlation (Fortea, 1973). In other areas, the findings
are more discreet, suggesting an image of a peninsular
interior void of people.
The apparently valid interpretation suggested
by the data is the depopulation of much of the
territory. This is defended by Zilhão (2000), and
reasoned by Guilaine (2003) who attributes it to
demographic failure or taphonomic problems.
However, careful analysis of the record reveals an
alternative perspective. For example, in the Ebro
Basin, Mesolithic evidence is concentrated in the
west (Araba-Navarre), east (Lower Aragon) and north
(Pyrenees). In between, in sedimentary strata, data
are scarce or absent. This is a 250 km linear axis with
no findings, though it is habitually travelled for
distribution purposes, and symbolic elements, such
as sea-shells, hold social meaning. The regions with
the highest documentation density do not appear
to have more attractive environmental-landscape
characteristics. Intermediate areas are left empty
because in theory they offer fewer possibilities. There
must be another explanation for the polarization of
the record: it can be found in the lithological features
of the region. The sites known to us are under rock
shelters that are logically located in limestone areas
or in such areas as whose morphological structure
enables their development. Outside these areas,
thick sedimentary layers hide archaeological evidence
and only occasionally, when dismantled by
contemporary agricultural or infrastructure activities,
are exposed.
This reality implies two situations that affect
our view of the Mesolithic:
a) A false image of small hunter-gatherer groups
who only lived under rock shelters. This
image derives both from the perspective of
exploration and visibility of these records;
FIG. 2. Basic units of peninsular lithology: dark grey limestone soils; light grey siliceous and clay soils. The concentration of final Mesolithic and late Neolithic sites coin- cide with the limestone area. The map can be further refined by comparing it with a speleological map and a geomorphologic map (making sense of the concen- tration in lower Aragón –predominance of clay). Surface finds in Extremadura, in siliceous dominance, are the result of prospecting campaigns in eroded soils.
but its fragments, when read within a broader context,
fill gaps in our knowledge. Instead of considering
the data in isolation, we can obtain a comprehensive
understanding of the Neolithic.
We must therefore seek a balance between
the two extremes: between the Mesolithic and
Neolithic depopulation of the interior of the
Iberian Peninsula (what reasons could explain this?)
and a landscape fully domesticated by Neolithic
groups (which had probably neither the capacity
nor intention do so).
The Late Neolithic-Chalcolithic offers a clear
example of unbalanced documentation. Much of
its information comes from its rich funerary evidence.
With data only from inhabited sites, reconstructing
the period is impossible: in many areas, only burial
caves and megalithic monuments exist. Again, as
before, the record shows only a very small part of
the reality: the documentation of the settlement
remains opaque.
In summary, the reflection on the value of
documentation underlines the following:
FIG. 3. Left, Neolithic sites at the beginning of 1990; right, a decade later. Archaeological work is multiplying the amount of information available. Soria offers interesting Neolithic record as a result of work by Rojo. In the Atapuerca range, two complexes are added to the inventory. In the upper Ebro valley, new rock shelters and open-air settle- ments complete the information.
- The Meso-Neolithic database is partial,
hiding a substantial part of the past and
making explanations conditional.
- This bias generates an image of apparent de-
population of the interior and some coastal
areas in the north and west. This situation is
incomprehensible from the point of view
of climate and landscape as well as history:
its explanation resides in the lithological character
of the territories and the nature of the sites.
- Overcoming these limitations requires a
global interpretation, where each site is an
element of a larger pattern.
3. An overview: networks
In reviewing all documentation, the sites themselves
are interesting, but how they form part of an ex-
planatory organisation (a context) is even more
so. This approach offers the following advantages:
a) it resolves problems associated with irregular
data , and b) it describes networks of sites that are in-
tegrated, providing a richer view of the past.
An example of a Neolithic network comes from
information on its early stages in the Basque region.
Focusing one by one on the sites provides the
following data:
- Small-scale camps, where at least one Neolithic
ingredient is usually missing (ceramic,
polishing, agricultural/animal domestication);
- An industrial catalogue, heavily composed of
lithic components in some cases and ceramics
in others, as part of incomplete and conflicting
realities;
- Points of geographic concentration (noting a
contrast in the types of deposits according to
zones) and areas with little documentation;
- Mesolithic traces in shelters and ex novo
foundations from others.
A classic reconstruction of the Neolithic era will
view this irregular documentation as a result of the
coexistence of colonizing groups (with their
Neolithic amendments) and soon to be extinct
indigenous Mesolithic peoples (clinging to their
old ways and only partially accommodating new
developments). Ceramics with few lithic tools
correspond to the former, who are responsible for
the new establishments, while the latter keep their
camps and only accept some new crafts.
Conversely, the holistic overview, where the lack
of elements within a site is remedied with their
presence in another, describes “a network of
networks”, adapted to take full advantage of the new
ways:
— Along the Bay of Biscay, information is sup-
plied by Arenaza, Herriko Barra, Kobaederra,
Kobeaga, Linatzeta, Marizulo, Pico Ramos
and Santimamiñe. Except for the first, these
sites exploit coastal and tidal resources during
occasional visits, according to a strategy ope-
rating from the Mesolithic. It is therefore a
network that does not meet the needs of the
community and is necessarily complementary
to other activities that are archaeologically
opaque in that environment.
— In the interior, the rock shelters specialize in
hunting: Atxoste, Fuente Hoz, Kanpanoste
Goikoa, Mendandia, Montico de Charratu
and Peña de Marañón. A hunting network is
inherited from the Mesolithic but renewed in
its material apparatus, and tasks relating to
domestication (direct and indirect evidence of
agriculture and livestock) are performed. Again,
it is insufficient to guarantee a complete way
of life.
— Further south, large caves and shelters serve as
pens for livestock, forming a cattle network
with minor hunting and agricultural activities:
Los Husos I and II, Cueva Lóbrega, El Mi-
rador, Peña Larga, and El Portalón de Cueva
Mayor de Atapuerca. Logically, it is a new
kind of structure, which is not viable on its
own because a developed livestock system is
understood in conjunction with agriculture.
— The interior also contains open-air settlements
that are suitable, because of their location, for
farm husbandry: Los Cascajos, Paternanbidea,
Larrenke Norte (later Neolithic), the Urbasa
Range. The Cascajos provide a good example
(Sesma, 2007; García and Sesma, 2001):
industrial exploitation of gravel revealed
an organized town with a necropolis and
the material and financial elements of the
Neolithic. This is an isolated piece that forms
part of a larger network.
4. Neolithic speed and Mesolithic attitudes
Put this way, the Neolithic transition process
appears to have been swift: reality contradicts the idea
that a production economy needs experimentation
and stabilisation over time. This is probably so, but
here one must distinguish between:
a) Archaeological Neolithic, defined by the presence
of material items and evidence of domestication and
b) the Neolithic as a mode of production, the
implementation of which requires time.
Discussions among Neolithic experts do not
reflect on this subtle and interesting nuance, which
can be instantiated with a contemporary metaphor
that affects all: computers came into our homes and
jobs two or three decades ago, but the technological
revolution only now socially affects the younger
generation more than the original adoptees’. In this
case, too, there are two areas: material (computer
resources in the material register) and behavioural
(reorganisation of tasks and ways of relating with
new tools). The distinction between these two
versions of the Neolithic does not differ from that
indicated by Juan-Cabanilles and Martí (2002).
The corpus of C14 dates from the Peninsula
confirms the speed of this mechanism. Validating
those taken from short-lived samples with variances
of less than a century, the harmonisation of the
results from the Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic
provide the date, c. 5700-5600 cal BC (Alday,
2009). Two or three Mesolithic cases that cross the
chronological barrier could be queried regarding the
question of samples or the cultural framework
ascribed to the site. Apart from these situations, this
time frame is common to the whole Peninsula, as a
greater number of Neolithic radiometric values are
found in that century (and in an earlier one, herein
described as that of Neolithic pioneers ).
Focusing on the reason for the speed and
knowledge of the mechanism, it must be pointed
out that Mesolithic communities played a key role
in successfully installing farming economy (in the
same way that people who knew how to grow
food were essential and irreplaceable). Logic dictates
that where agricultural methods are indicated,
communities were forced to rediscover Mesolithic
secrets to avail of them. Climate, landscape and soil
conditions are clearly different on the east coast in
a Mediterranean environment to those in the
estuary of the Tagus, with an Atlantic influence. The
Neolithic transmission from one point to another
thus requires an adaptation phase. Indeed, examples
of the failure to introduce animal and plant species
with certain characteristics from the twentieth
century in the Iberian Peninsula only go to verify
that the process is neither automatic nor guaranteed.
It hardly could have been so with the technological
level of prehistoric societies. Mesolithic groups were
well-acquainted with the topography of each
environment, flood areas, unproductive land,
seasonality, weather, frost, the cycle of natural crops ,
soil properties, pasture locations and forest density,
all of which were required to favour the germination
of the Neolithic seed. If the introduction mechanism
only involved migrant populations, the slow
reconnaissance of the environmental characters in
each area would have delayed the process more
than the available dates suggest. The Mesolithic
communities would have known the most suitable
sites for new towns, places with abundant
raw materials. The Neolithic people contributed
technical expertise to develop the production
economy, but the potential of each region worked
in favour of those who had lived there for many
generations. Both ingredients were necessary and
complementary.
The last Mesolithic groups were not only active
participants in the Neolithic process, but also the
necessary agents for it to be understood within the
framework indicated by the archaeological finds. In
the documented regions, coastal or inland, there is
no staggered Neolithic drift : in contrast, the
synchronisation of radio chronological values is
revealing. If one or several maritime transmissions
and another or others by land complemented each
other, the speed was identical in the Iberian
Peninsula: therefore, the former support the role of
the latter, where the participation of indigenous
peoples is more decisive.
Mesolithic pathways allowed the transfer of
new developments and a certain number of people,
and the knowledge they had of the environment
facilitated the implementation of the new cultural
coordinates. This perspective helps us deal with
an unavoidable issue, rarely given a proper answer
with the arguments of those who defend a purely
colonising model: the cause of migratory move-
ment. In this approach, the adoption of the
Neolithic followed the dynamics that guaranteed
access to new technology, raw materials or finished
products. There was no need to refer to unproven
social, demographic or environmental pressures as
engines of historical dynamics (Zilhão, 2001;
Soares and Tavares da Silva, 2003).
Furthermore, what other alternative is viable re-
garding what happened to Mesolithic groups?
— Direct confrontation with Neolithic migrants:
there is no archaeological evidence to indicate
that this was the case (nor would it be easy to
find);
— Withdrawal from Neolithic domains, creating
a system of boundaries, as in northern
Europe. The argument is not sustainable, as
the regions with more dense Mesolithic
information are precisely those that provide
the bulk of the Neolithic documentation;
— A slow dissolution, an alternative that does
not conform to radio chronological values
that point to an end without extensions for
hunter-gatherers (Alday, 2009).
Only in Catalonia and the Soria region, where
previous Mesolithic events have not been found, can
it be argued that the Neolithic people avoided
contact with the last of the Mesolithic people.
The Catalan situation is puzzling for pre-historians:
the region was densely occupied in the Late Palaeolithic
and the Early and Middle stages of the Mesolithic,
but it lacks data for Mesolithic geometrics. What
could have happened? Could the region have been
abandoned due to a catastrophic event or epidemic?
(Biaggi, 2003). Was there a change in settlement
norms leading to the abandonment of the traditional
cave enclosures? Was it taphonomic problems that
undermined the record? Severe erosions are observed
in the sedimentological and radio chronological data
in several stratigraphic layers of the Mediterranean
shores of the Iberian Peninsula: Pardo (Soler et al .,
2008), Balma Margineda (Brochier, 1995), Mas
Martí (Fernández et al ., 2005), La Falguera (García
and Aura, 2006), Cendres (Bernabeu and Molina,
2009) or Tossal de la Roca (Cacho et al ., 1995).
For their part, the settlements in Soria, 300 km
from the coast, must have left intermediate traces
that also cannot be found. They are fragments of
partial information that lead us back to reflections
resulting from the map.
Ultimately, the participatory model tallies best
with all the archaeological data and shares a
historical logic repeated in other more recent
circumstances.
5. Comprehensive Neolithic dynamics and local
reflections
The Neolithic process had a comprehensive
mission, regardless of access mechanisms: the
Iberian Peninsula by sea and land and participation
from North Africa. Because it is a continent-wide
phenomenon with reflections and versions at a
regional scale, a comprehensive explanation is
required, and within this, regional nuances.
The Neolithic dynamics were not homoge-
nous, with only one particular east-west course:
Columbus needed to make several trips and follow
several routes before being fully aware of the sig-
nificance of his discovery, and for both himself
and the Castilian kingdom to adopt a position on
it. The different Neolithic paths and the different
times at which they were used explain Neolithic
variants. The role played by the resident popula-
tions and receivers of the Neolithic, combined
with the origins of the influence, had an impact
on the choice of method used to craft ceramic (as
regard shape and decoration) or lithic crafts.
The Mesolithic unit does not exclude regional
particularities: it occurs in lithic industries (Alday and
Cava, 2009). The apparent uniformity of geometric
armour breaks with the regional exclusivity of some
models; the prototypes of each region have a social,
but not functional, interpretation. The unit, the
worldview and the operating modes are Mesolithic in
nature, but there is room for the development of
social group identities.
These lithic industry features survive into the
Neolithic and are reinforced in other elements. In
the Iberian Peninsula, decorative varieties of Neolithic
ceramics are linked to different geographical areas:
the cardial, in coastal areas, the boquique , inland and
ochre, in Andalusia. The Mesolithic forces that
parcelled different material characteristics continued
to act in a similar fashion during the Early
et al ., 2003; García and Aura, 2006; Alday,
Castaños and Perales, to be published): they are
open-air settlements and rock shelters with or
without a Mesolithic past; of fauna in Peña Larga,
Nerja, El Barranquet, and La Revilla –plus level
I in Mendandia with domestic auroch, although
the date is given by a fragment non-identified
at the species level (Esquembre et al ., 2008;
Bernabeu, 2006; Rojo et al ., 2008; Alday, 2006).
Here too, there are rock shelters or open-air
settlements. In both cases, be they farming or
livestock, the references affect coastal and inland
deposits, thus confirming that there was no
staggered progression of the Neolithic in the
Iberian Peninsula. It is too soon to specify the
economic management models: we have evidence
of domestication but we do not know the real
significance of the domesticated products in the
diet of the populations. Their presence points to
the fact that certain production practices gradually
alter former economic proposals, but we cannot
know the extent to which they affected the
administration of the environment, and social
organisation in the first stages.
6. We believe that the Iberian Neolithisation
process is only understandable with the active
participation of Mesolithic populations. Only thus
can the geographic cohabitation of most of the
ancient information from the Neolithic and the late
Mesolithic be understood –this coincidence does
not occur in places where Mesolithic depopulation
may have resulted from problems relating to
archaeological documentation, not to the reality of
the prehistoric past. It explains the speed of the
phenomenon, as it has been a surprise to find
Neolithic archaeological record in ancient dates and
in areas which are theoretically marginal. The
exploitation of Mesolithic networks must be behind
this process. The proposal, classified as an indigenist
model , fails to satisfy us because the meaning given
to the term (it is difficult to sustain indigenism at
all costs; Barandiarán and Cava, 2000) could be
branded as a participatory model. As such:
a) It accepts different, non-contradictory me-
chanisms (routes, addresses and a variety of
impulses);
b) It does not need to question the controversial
and unsatisfactorily solved reason for the
colonising movements , because it contemplates
the phenomenon from a more natural per-
spective, from the dynamics of the Mesolithic;
c) It solves the frequently unasked question of
the process of liquidation or dissolution
of the hunter-gatherer communities, so
highly consolidated in several regions;
d) It assumes that the knowledge of land-
scapes, climates, raw materials, etc. on the
part of Mesolithic societies, as opposed to
the ignorance on the part of the Neolithic
societies, facilitates the success of the new
proposals;
e) It does not forget that, behind this general
process, there are interesting nuances to
explain Neolithic variants: in the material,
funerary and artistic record, variants deriving
from Mesolithic social fragmentation and
from the different Neolithic impulses.
We have not entered into a discussion of the
role of foreign populations. Just as we afford an
essential prominence to autochthonous groups,
we acknowledge the fact that products and ideas
do not emerge on their own. Nevertheless, we are
incapable of calculating the extent of said partici-
pation: transmitting knowledge required direct
contact with the experienced communities, but, if
it implied small or large-scale demic movements, it
can still not be reliably measured nor can the pro-
cedure of the odyssey be described.
7. From 5500-5400 cal BP onwards, the
intensity of the Neolithic population appears to
have increased: the number of dated sites is not
greater but the geographical range is wider. There
may have been an increase in population though
this is a mere hypothesis: it seems to be a phe-
nomenon that goes hand in hand with the
development of a productive economy, or rather
with the sedentarisation process, though there
is not enough evidence. We believe that the
Neolithic way of life was consolidated then, with
the network of open-air sites being favoured,
though complementary networks for exploiting
the coast, hunting, stabling livestock and exploi-
ting raw materials were not abandoned. It is then
when ceramic circles were built and had meaning:
cardial, boquique and red oxide clay. According to
our interpretation, they are part (together with
variants of the lithic models) of that shared social
identity, already seen in the Mesolithic. It is easy
to associate cardial predominance with expres-
sions from the western Mediterranean. It is more
complicated to link boquique with other decora-
tive techniques or formulas: its connection with
sillon d’impression has not been proven, either geo-
graphically or technically; moreover, these con-
nections need not be sought, as it could have
been a particular recreation which was conceived
and developed here.
8. When Mesolithic groups, in a natural way,
took on and experienced Neolithic developments,
they could not see the consequences. It would have
been hard for them to imagine that their world was
about to crumble: social relations changed at an
unstoppable pace, observation, control and attitude
to the environment took a different course, material
culture adapted to the new circumstances, the
settlement followed other guidelines, economic
rules (and ones concerning food) followed a new
system, and the ideological foundation was
restructured. It is possible that the most reliable
proof of these dynamics in archaeology is to be
found in the reclassification of traditional settlement
networks, which, at the beginning of the fifth
millennium focused on other interests: the
intensification of the open-air settlement, the use
of shelter-stables, but the dismantling of the hunting
camps and those for exploiting the coast except for
infrequent visits. From then on and until the
funerary world came into play, Iberian Peninsula
documentation shrank considerably: the effects of
Neolithic acceptance were greatly felt. Such Mesolithic
communities as had taken part in the project are
totally integrated in Neolithic trap.
FIG. 4. Radiochronology of early Neolithic (signs of a short life): the process began towards 5700 cal BP, and accelerated towards 5500. Background: Neolithic pioneers with ceramics, silex tools and domesticated auroch? (Anderug et al., 2008).
B ICHO , N. F.; S TINER , M.; L INDLY, J. and F ERRING , C. R. (2000): “O processo de neolitização na costa sudoeste”. In III Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsu- lar , 3, pp. 11-22. B OCQUET-A PPEL , J. P.; N AJI , S.; VANDER , M. and KOZLOOWSKI , J. (2009): “Detection of diffusion and contact zones of early farming in Europe from the space-time distribution of 14C dates”, Journal of Archaeological Science , 36, pp. 807-820. — (2011): “Understanding the rates of expansion of the farming system in Europe”, Journal of Archaeo- logical Science , 39 (2), pp. 531-546. B ROICHIER , J. E. (1995): “Estudi geoarqueologic dels deposits holocens de la Balma de la Margineda, capes de 1 a la 6”. In G UILAINE, J. and MARTZLUFF, M. (eds.): Les excavacions a la Balma de la Margi- neda (1979-1991) , tome 1. Principat d’Andorre: Ministeri d’Afers Socials i Cultura. CACHO, C.; FUMANAL, M. P.; LÓPEZ, P.; LÓPEZ, J. A.; PÉREZ R IPOLL , M.; M ARTÍNEZ VALLE , R.; U ZQUIA - NO, P.; A RNANZ, A.; S ÁNCHEZ MARCO, A.; S EVILLA, P.; M ORALES, A.; ROSELLÓ, E.; G ARRALDA, M. D. y G ARCÍA -C ARRILLO , M. (1995): “El Tossal de la Roca (Vall d’Alcalá, Alicante)”, Recerques del Museu d’Alcoi , 4, pp. 11-101. C ALLAGHAN , R. and S CARRE , Ch. (2009): “Simulating the western seaways”, Oxford Journal of Archaeolog , 20 (4), pp. 357-372. CARVALHO, A. F. (2002): “Current perspectives on the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in Portugal”. In B ADAL, E.; B ERNABEU, J. and M ARTÍ, B. (eds.): El paisaje en el Neolítico mediterráneo. València: Universitat de València, pp. 135-250. — (2003): “A emergência do Neolítico no actual terri- tório português: pressupostos teóricos, modelos interpretativos e a evidência empírica”, O Arqueólo- go Português , 21, pp. 65-150. — (2008): A Neolitização do Portugal Meridional. Os exemplos do Maciço Calcário Estremenho e do Algarve Ocidental. Promotoria Monográfica, 12. Centro de Estudio de Patrimonio. Universidad de Algarve. — (2010): “Le passage vers l’Atlantique: le processus de néolithisation en Algarve (sud du Portugal)”, L’Anthropologie , 114 (2), pp. 141-178. CERRILLO, E. and GONZÁLEZ , A. (2006): “El Neolítico antiguo en la Cuenca media del Tajo: estado actual de los conocimientos”. In Actas del IV Congreso de Arqueología Peninsular. Promotoria Monográfica, 04. Centro de Estudio de Patrimonio. Universidad de Algarve, pp. 183-195. C HANDLER , H.; S YKES , B. and Z ILHÃO , J. (2005): “Using ancient DNA to examine genetic conti- nuity at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Por- tugal”. In A RIAS , P.; O NTAÑÓN , R. and G ARCÍA -
M ONCÓ , C. (eds.): Actas del III Congreso sobre el Neolítico en la Península Ibérica. Santander: Institu- to Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistóricas de Cantabria, pp. 781-786. C HIKHI , L.; D ESTRO -B ISOL , G.; B ERTORELLE , G.; PAS - CALI , V. and B ARBUJABI , G. (1998): “Clines of nuclear DNA markers suggest a largely neolithic ancestry of the European gene pool”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA , 95, pp. 9053-9058. CHIKHI , L.; N ICHOLS, R. A.; B ARBUJABI , G. and B EAU- MONT, M. A. (2002): “Y genetic data support the Neolithic Demic Diffusion Model”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA , 99, pp. 10008-10013. C OQUEUGNIOT, E. (2000): “Dja’de (Syrie), un village à la veille de la domestication”. In G UILAINE , J. (ed.): Premiers paysans du monde. Naissance des agri- cultures, pp. 55-71. CURRAT , M_._ and E XCOFFIER, L. (2005): “The effect of the Neolithic expansion on European molecular diversity”, Proceedings of the Royal Society Lon- don , 272, pp. 679-688. D IAMOND, J. and BELTWOOD, P. (2003): “Farmers and their languages: the first expansions”, Science , 300, pp. 597-603. D INIZ , M. (2007): O sítio da Valada do Mato (Évora): aspectos da neolitização no Interior/ Sul de Portugal. Instituto Português de Arqueologia. DUPANLOUP, I.; B ERTORELLS , G.; C HIKHI , L. and B AR- BUJABI, G. (2004): “Estimating the impact of prehistoric admixture on the Europeans genome”, Molecular Bio- logy and Evolution , 21, pp. 1361-1372. ESQUEMBRE, M. A.; BORONAT, J.; JOVER, F. J.; MOLINA , F. J.; LUJÁN , A.; F ERNÁNDEZ L ÓPEZ DE PABLO , J.; M ARTÍNEZ VALLE , R.; I BORRA , M. P.; F ERRER , C.; R UIZ PASTOR , R. and O RTEGA , J. R. (2008): “El yacimiento neolítico del Barranquet de Oliva (Valencia)”. In IV Congreso del Neolítico Peninsular , 1, pp. 183-190. E STREMERA , M. S. (2003): Primeros agricultores y gana- deros en la Meseta norte: El Neolítico de la Cueva de la Vaquera (Torreiglesias, Segovia). Junta de Castilla y León. Memorias, 11. FERNÁNDEZ ERASO, J. and P OLO, A. (2009): “Establos en abrigos bajo roca de la prehistoria reciente: su formación, caracterización y proceso de estudio. Los casos de Los Husos y de San Cristóbal”, Krei , 10, pp. 39-51. F ERNÁNDEZ L ÓPEZ DE PABLO , J. and G ÓMEZ P UCHE , M. (2009): “Climate change and population dynamics during the Late Mesolithic and the Neolithic transition in Iberia”, Documenta Praehis- torica , XXXVI, pp. 67-96. doi:10.4312/dp.36.
F ORTEA , J. (1973): Los complejos microlaminares y geométricos del Epipaleolítico mediterráneo español. Salamanca. FUGAZZOLA , M. A. and M INEO, M. (1995): “La piroga neolitica del lago di Bracciano (‘La Marmotta 1’)”, Bulletino di Paletnologia Italiana , 86, pp. 197-266. F UMANAL , P. (1995): “Los depósitos cuaternarios en cuevas y abrigos. Implicaciones sedimentoclimáti- cas”. In ROSELLÓ , V. M. (ed.): El Cuaternario del País Valenciano. València: Universitat de València, pp. 115-124. G ARCÍA B ORJA , P.; A URA , J. E.; B ERNABEU , J. and J ORDÁ PARDÓ , J. F. (2010): “Nuevas perspectivas sobre la neolitización de la Cueva de Nerja (Mála- ga-España): la cerámica de la Sala del Vestíbulo”, Zephyrus , 66, pp. 109-132. G ARCÍA G ÁZOLAZ , J. and S ESMA , J. (2001): “Los Cas- cajos (Los Arcos, Navarra). Intervenciones 1996- 1999”, Trabajos de Prehistoria Navarra , 15, pp. 199-206. G ARCÍA G UIXÉ , E.; R ICHARDS , M. P. and S UBIRÀ , M. E. (2006): “Palaeodiets of Humans and Fauna at the Spanish Mesolithic Site of El Collado”, Current Anthropology , 47 (3), pp. 549-556. GARCÍA P UCHOL, O. and AURA, E. (coords.) (2006): El abric de la Falguera (Alcoy, Alicante). 8000 años de ocupación humana en la cabecera del río Alcoy. Diputación Provincial de Alicante. G IBAJA , J. F. and C ARVALHO , A. F. (eds.) (2010): Os últimos caçadores-recolectores e as primeras comunida- des productoras do sul da Península Ibérica e do norte de Marrocos. Promontoria Monográfica, 15. Uni- versidad do Algarve. G UILAINE , J. (2003): De la vague à la tombe: la conquête néolithique de la Méditerranée (8000- avant J.C.). Seuil. H AAK , W.; F ORSTER , P.; B RAMANTI , B.; M ATSUMURA , S.; B RANDT, B.; TÄNZER , M.; V ILLEMS , R.; R EN - FREW, C.; G RONENBORN , D.; A LT, K.W. and B URGES , J. (2005): “Ancient DNA from the First European Farmers in 7500-Year-Old Neolithic Sites”, Science , 310, pp. 1016-1018. HELMER , D.; G OURICHON, L.; M ONCHOT, H.; PETERS, J. and S AÑA , M. (2005): “Identifying early domes- tic cattle from Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites on the Midddle Euphratesusing sexual dimorphism”. In V IGNE , J. D.; H ELMER , D. and P ETERS , J. (eds.): The first steps of animal domestication: newarchaeo- zoological approaches. Oxford: Oxbow books, pp. 86-95. I RIARTE , M. J. (2006): “El entorno vegetal del abrigo de Mendandia y su depósito arqueológico: análisis
palinológico”. In A LDAY, A. (dir.): El legado arqueo- lógico de Mendandia: los modos de vida de los últimos cazadores en la prehistoria de Treviño , pp. 405-418. I SERN , N. and F ORT, J. (2010): “Anisotropic disper- sion, space competition and the slowdown of the Neolithic transition”, New Journal of Physics , 12. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/12/123002. — (2011): “Cohabitation effect on the slowdown of the Neolithic expansion”, Europhysics Letters , 96 (5), pp. 1-5. J ACKES , M. and M EIKLEJOHN , C. (2004): “Building a method for the study of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Portugal. Budja (ed.), 11th Neolithic Studies”, Documenta Praehistorica , 31, pp. 89-111. J EUNESSE , Ch. (2002): “La coquille et la dent. Parure de coquillage et évolution des systèmes symbo- liques dans le Néolithique danubien (5600-4500)”. In G UILAINE, J. (dir.): Matériaux, productions, circu- lations du Néolithique à l’Age du Bronze. París: éd. Errance, pp. 49-64. J IMÉNEZ G UIJARRO , J. (2010): Cazadores y campesinos: la neolitización del interior de la Península Ibérica. Bibliotheca Archaeologica Hispana, 31. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia. JIMÉNEZ GUIJARRO, J.; ROJAS RODRÍGUEZ-MALO, J. M.; GARRIDO , G. and PERERA, J. (2008): “El yacimien- to del Neolítico inicial de La Paleta (Numancia de la Sagra, Toledo)”. In IV Congreso del Neolítico Peninsular, 1, pp. 126-136. J OBLING , M. A.; H URLES, M. E. and T YLER-S MITH, C. (2004): Human evolutionary genetics: origins, peo- ples, and disease. New York: Ed. Graland. J OLY, C. and V ISSET, L. (2005): “Nouveaux éléments d’anthropisation sur le littoral vendéen dès la fin du Mésolithique”, Palevol , 4 (3), pp. 285-293. J UAN -C ABANILLES , J. and M ARTÍ , B. (2002): “Pobla- miento y procesos culturales en la Península Ibérica del VII al V milenio a. C. (8000-5500 BP). Una car- tografía de la neolitización”. In El paisaje en el Neolí- tico mediterráneo. Saguntum, extra -5, pp. 45-87. L EMMEN , C.; G RONENBORN , D. and W IRTZ , K. W. (2011): “A simulation of the Neolithic transition in Western Eurasia”, Journal of Archaeological Science , 38 (12), pp. 3459-3470. doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2011.08.008. LEROYER , C.; MORDANT, D. and L ANCHON, Y. (2004): “L’anthropisation du Bassin parisien du VII e^ au IV e millénaire d’après les analyses polliniques de fonds de vallées: mise en évidence d’activités agro-pasto- rales très précoces”, Annales Littéraires de l’Univer- sité de Franche-Comté, serie “Environnement, sociétés et archéologique” , 7, pp. 11-27. L IGHTFFOOT, E.; B ONEVA , B.; M IRACLE , P. T.; Š LAUS , M. and O’C ONNELL , T. C. (2011): “Exploring the
ROJO, M. A.; GARRIDO, R.; BELLEVER, J. A.; BRAVO, A.;
GARCÍA , I.; GÁMEZ, S. and T EJEDOR, C. (2010): “Zafrín. Un asentamiento del Neolítico antiguo en las Islas Chafarinas (Norte de África, España)”, Studia Archaeologica , 96. Universidad de Valladolid. ROJO , M. A.; K UNST, M.; G ARRIDO , R.; G ARCÍA , I. and M ORÁN , G. (2008): Paisajes de la memoria: asentamientos del Neolítico antiguo en el Valle de Ambrona (Soria, España). Serie Arte y Arqueología,
- Instituto Arqueológico Alemán y Universidad de Valladolid. R UFFALDI , P. (1996): “L’hypothèse du déterminisme climatique des premières traces polliniques de néo- lithisation sur le Massif jurassien (France)”, Acadé- mie Sciences , 322, Série IIIIa, pp. 77-83. SEMINO, O.; M AGRI, C.; B ENUZZI, G.; L IN, A. A. and AL -Z AHERY, N. (2004): “Origin, diffusion, and di - fferentiation of Y-chromosome haplogroups E and J: inferences on the neolithization of Europe and later migratory events in the Mediterranean area”, American Journal of Human Genetics , 74, pp. 1023-1034. SESMA, J. (2007): “Enterramientos en el poblado neolí- tico de Los Cascajos (Los Arcos)”. In La tierra te sea leve. Arqueología de la muerte en Navarra. Pam- plona: Gobierno de Navarra, pp. 52-58. SILVA, C. T. and SOARES, J. (1987): “Les communautés du Néolithique ancien dans le Sud du Portugal”. In G UILAINE , J.; ROUDIL, J.-L. and V ERNET, J.-L. (eds.): Premières communautés paysannes en Méditerranée occidentale. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientique, pp. 663-671. SIMONI, L.; CALAFELL, F.; PETTENER, D.; BERTRANPETIT, J. and BARBUJABI, G. (2000): “Reconstruction of prehistory on the basis of genetic data”, American Journal of Human Genetics , 66, pp. 1177-1179. S OARES, J. and TAVARES DA S ILVA , C. (2003): “A transi- ção para o Neolítico na costa sudoeste portuguesa”. In Muita gente, poucas antas? Origens, espaços e contextos do megalitismo. II Coloquio Internacional sobre megalitismo, Trabalhos de Arqueologia , 25, pp. 45-56. — (2004): “Alterações ambientais e povoamento na transição Mesolítico-Neolítico na Costa Sudoeste”. In TAVARES , A.; TAVARES , M. J. F. and C ARDOSO, J. L. (eds.): Evolução geohistórica do litoral português e fenómenos correlativos. Geologia, História, Arqueolo- gia e Climatologia. Lisboa: Universidade Aberta, pp. 397-424. T INNER , W.; N IELSEN , E. H. and LOTTER , A. (2007): “Mesolithic agriculture in Switzerland? A critical review of the evidence”, Quaternary Science Reviews , 26, pp. 1416-1431. U TRILLA , P. and M ONTES , L. (coords.) (2009): El Mesolítico geométrico en la Península Ibérica. Mono-
grafías Arqueológicas. Prehistoria, 44. Universidad de Zaragoza. V ERGÉS , J. M.; A LLUÉ , E.; A NGELUCCII , D. E.; B UR - JACHS , F.; C ARRANCHO , A.; C EBRIÁ , A.; E XPÓSITO , I.; F ONTANALS , M.; M ORAL , S.; RODRÍGUEZ , A. and VAQUERO , M. (2008): “Los niveles neolíticos de la cueva de El Mirador (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos): Nuevos datos sobre la implantación y el desarrollo de la economía agropecuaria en la Sub- meseta Norte”. In IV Congreso del Neolítico Penin- sular , 1, pp. 418-427. V IGNE , J.-D.; C ARRÈRE , I.; S ALIÈGE , J.-F.; PERSON , A.; BOCHERENS, H.; GUILAINE, J. and BRIOIS, F. (2000): “Predomestic cattle, sheep, goat and pig during the late 9th and the 8th millennium cal. BC on Cyprus: Preliminary results of Shillourokambos (Parekklisha, Limassol)”. In BUITENHUIS, H.; MASHKOUR, M. and POPLIN, F. (eds.): Archaeozoology of the Near East IV , Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas , 32, pp. 73-106. V ISSET, L.; C YPRIEN , A. L.; C ARCAUD , N.; O UGUER - RAM , A.; B ARBIER , D. and B ERNARD , J. (2002): “Les prémices d’une agriculture diversifiée à la fin du Mésolithique dans le Val de Loire (Loire armo- ricaine, France)”, Palevol , 1, pp. 51-58. V ISSET, L.; C YPRIEN , A. L.; O UGUERRAM , A.; B ARBIER , D. and B ERNARD , J. (2004): “Les indices polliniques d’Anhropisation précoce dans l’ouest de la France. Les cas de Cerealia, Fagopyrum y Junglans ”. In R ICHARD , H. (dir.): Néolithisation précoce. Premières traces d’anthropisation du couvert vegetal à partir des dones polliniques. Annales Literales , 777, serie Environnement, Sociétés et Archéologie, 7, pp. 69-79. W ELLS , S. (2007): Deep ancestry. Inside the genographic project. Washington DC: National Geographic. WOODMAN , P. and M CC ARTHY, M. (2003): “Contem- plating some awful(ly interesting) vistas: importing cattle and red deer into prehistoric Ireland”. In A RMT, I.; M URPHY, E.; N ELIS, E.; and S IMPSON, E. (eds.): Neolithic settlement in Ireland and western Britain. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 31-39. Z APATA , L. (2007): “Pico Ramos cave shell midden: Mesolithic-Neolithic transition by the Bay of Biscay”. In M ILNER , N.; C RAIG , O. E. and B AILEY, G. N. (eds.): Shell middens in Atlantic Europe , pp. 28-36. Z APATA , L.; P EÑA -C HOCARRO , L.; P ÉREZ -J ORDÁ , G. and S TIKA , H. P. (2004): “Early Neolithic agricul- ture in the Iberian Peninsula”, Journal of world Pre- history , 18 (4), pp. 283-325. Z ILHÃO , J. (2000): “From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in the Iberian Peninsula”. In P RICE , T. (ed.): Europe first farmer , pp. 144-182.
— (2001): “Radiocarbon evidence for maritime pioneer colonisation at the origins of farming in the west Mediterranean Europe”, Proceedings of The Nacional Academy of Sciences , 98 (24), pp. 14180-14185. — (2003): “The Neolithic transition in Portugal and the role of Demic Diffusion in the Spread of agriculture across west Mediterranean Europe”. In A MMERMAN , A. J. and GUILAINE , P. (eds.): The Widening Hasvest.
The Neolithic transition in Europe. Looking Back, Looking Forward. Archaeological Institute of America, pp. 207-233. Z VELEBIL , M. (2004): “Conclusion: The many origins of the LBK”. In L UKES , A. and Z VELEBIL , M. (eds.): LBK Dialogues. Studies in the Formation of the Linear Pottery Culture. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 183-205.
