(PDF) The first agricultural groups in the Iberian Peninsula

The earliest dates for the West Mediterranean Neolithic indicate that it expanded across 2,500 km in about 300 y. Such a fast spread is held to be mainly due to a demic process driven by dispersal along coastal routes. Here, we model the Neolithic spread in the region by focusing on the role of voyaging to understand better the core elements that produced the observed pattern of dates. We also explore the effect of cultural interaction with Mesolithic populations living along the coast. The simulation study shows that (i) sea travel is required to obtain reasonable predictions, with a minimum sea-travel range of 300 km per generation; (ii) leapfrog coastal dispersals yield the best results (quantitatively and qualitatively); and (iii) interaction with Mesolithic people can assist the spread, but long-range voyaging is still needed to explain the archaeological pattern. Neolithic | coastal spread | computational model | voyaging | cultural transmission T he Neolithic transition in Europe spread at an average rate of about 1 km·y −1 (1, 2). This process can be modeled by the so-called wave-of-advance model, which describes a progressive land-based expansion due to population growth and short-range migratory activity (3). Ancient DNA studies provide support for a mainly demic expansion in many parts of Europe (4), involving two main pathways: one up the Danube, connected with the spread of the Linearbandkeramic (LBK) culture (5, 6), and the other along the Mediterranean shores (7). Current radiocarbon dates indicate a coastal spread in West Mediterranean Europe taking place at a much faster rate (above 5 km·y −1) than one would expect on the basis of the classical wave-of-advance model. An alternative approach is needed to explain this process. The maritime pioneer colonization model (8, also refs. 9, 10) postulates a sea-based expansion that involves voyaging along the coast in the form of cabotage (with the possibility of making a short stop here and there along the way). This model drew upon new and more reliable carbon-14 dates [including accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) determina-tions on short-lived samples to avoid the old wood effect], and is consistent with a demic expansion and the observed pattern (alternative approaches to the West Mediterranean spread are discussed in ref. 11). During the past 15 y, quality dates for the Early Neolithic in the West Mediterranean have continued to come in. As a result, the overall pattern is now more refined but remains consistent with the maritime pioneer model. Voyaging during the Early Neolithic is well documented in the Eastern Mediterranean (e.g., refs. 12–14). From the distribution of obsidian artifacts in the Cyprus, Aegean, and Tyrrhenian basins , we know that its quantity tends to fall off with distance from a given source and that long-distance crossing of the open sea between these three basins is extremely rare (15). In short, it is fair to say that early voyaging in the eastern and central parts of the Mediterranean was kept on a comparatively short leash. In the West Mediterranean, obsidian is far less common at Early Neolithic sites; it occurs in small numbers at the sites of this age in southern France (16), and it has yet to be documented in the case of the Iberian Peninsula (17). In other words, obsidian from the island of Sardinia did not reach the east coast of Spain. Accordingly, it is reasonable to think that the initial spread of the Neolithic in the west took place along coastal routes by first farmers ultimately coming from northwest Italy (proposed alternative routes, which are not supported by reliable evidence, are discussed in ref. 18). The purpose of this article is to put forward a new and more quantitative approach to the question of the exceptionally fast spread of the Neolithic in the west, one that focuses on the role of voyaging. We perform computational simulations to identify the underlying mechanisms of voyaging and estimate the associated parameters that can account for the archaeological pattern. Previous computational approaches that included sea travel only analyzed its average effect on a continental scale (19). Thus, this modeling exercise is needed to understand better the processes at work in the coastal spread of first farmers in the West Mediterranean. Although the models considered here are principally demic in character, such a fast coastal spread may well have entailed some interactions with local Mesolithic populations. Interaction can take place in a range of different forms, from exchanges of information and material culture to the adoption of farming as a way of life by a Mesolithic community. As a first step, we explore briefly two aspects of population interaction: cross-mating and acculturation [also called vertical and oblique/horizontal cultural transmission, respectively (20)]. Methods Neolithic Chronology. The database used in this study (available as Dataset S1) contains high-quality dates from 42 Early Neolithic sites of the West Medi-terranean, including northwest Italy, southern France, Spain, Portugal, and northern Morocco, most of which have a coastal location. For each site, the earliest date has been selected to estimate the time when the Neolithic first arrived in a given area. The sites are represented in Fig. 1A as circles, colored according to their calibrated dates. We analyze the dates by applying natural neighbor Significance The Neolithic expansion in Europe took place at an average rate of 1 km·y −1. In the West Mediterranean, the archaeological record yields a much faster rate of spread, one that cannot be explained by classical overland models. Voyaging has been put forward as an alternative line of explanation. Here, we develop a computational model to identify the key elements and mechanisms and to estimate the values that yield outcomes that fit the observations. The results show that voyaging is indeed required to explain the pattern. We have also found that interactions with local hunter-gatherers played a lesser part in the fast rate of spread. Author contributions: J.Z., J.F., and A.J.A. designed research; N.I. performed research; N.I. and J.F. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; J.Z. prepared the database; N.I. and J.F. analyzed data; and N.I., J.Z., J.F., and A.J.A. wrote the paper. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

The first use of domestic plants and animals in the Western Mediterranean has been a matter of debate, since there are no native ancestors for these elements. The current paradigmatic position favors an introduction by human migrants who reached southern France and the Iberian Peninsula through seafaring. The settlers would have introduced the whole economic and cultural Neolithic background. This paper reviews some of the available archaeological, paleobiological and chronological evidence for the Early Neolithic in the Western Mediterranean, and specifically the Iberian Peninsula, and its use by those who support migration.

The temporal span of the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age (1300-550) saw the emergence of intense interconnectivity in the Mediterranean sea. The development of colonial trade dramatically increased cultural exchange along its coasts as can be observed in archaeological evidence. These large scale processes had an impact at all scales and territories close to the main trade routes. However, the process was extremely diverse in its forms. This work presents a case study focused on two adjacent areas in the coast of the NE Iberian Peninsula. Spatial analysis has been carried out to explore the trajectories of settlement location dynamics during the whole period. Basic geographic variables, mobility and distance to trade routes have been explored to identify key differences over periods and areas. Results indicate that the factors guiding settlements location varied between the two zones. Moreover, one of the areas was radically influenced by trade routes in the Early Iron Age while the other did not seem to be affected by this external factor. The interpretation of these analyses suggests that the rise in connectivity was not homogeneous over the Western Mediterranean, but in the regions where it took place this factor was decisive to explain their historical trajectories.

MANEN C., PERRIN T., GUILAINE J. (eds) 2014 – La transition néolithique en Méditerranée. The Neolithic transition in the Mediterranean. Errance – AEP, 464 p. La Méditerranée constitue un espace privilégié pour étudier la mutation qui fit basculer les anciennes sociétés de chasseurs‐collecteurs dans la sphère des producteurs de nourriture, agriculteurs et éleveurs néolithiques, car fut à la fois un foyer de transition entre ces deux états et, parallèlement, un espace de diffusion de l’économie nouvelle : deux mécanismes clés pour comprendre le processus d’émergence du monde paysan. C’est d’abord sur les terres de la Méditerranée orientale et sur ses prolongements, depuis le Levant Sud jusqu’à à la Haute Mésopotamie et au Zagros, que des communautés ont progressivement modifié leur organisation sociale, leur cadre symbolique, leur mode de vie pour devenir des sociétés sédentaires et productrices, inaugurant ainsi une ère nouvelle, annonciatrice des temps historiques. Puis ce nouveau système s’est propagé en Méditerranée, favorisant ainsi la conversion à l’économie agricole et pastorale de l’Europe et d’une partie de l’Asie et de l’Afrique. Les mécanismes de cette diffusion furent complexes, entrainant de fréquentes recompositions culturelles et donnant lieu à processus adaptatifs commandés par le double jeu des contraintes environnementales et de la créativité humaine. Cet ouvrage constitue la publication d’un colloque international organisé en avril 2011 au Muséum de Toulouse. Il réunit vingt‐six contributions qui dressent le panorama de la recherche actuelle en trois principaux domaines géographiques : le Proche‐Orient, les îles de la Méditerranée orientale et la Méditerranée occidentale. The Mediterranean represents an ideal space for studying the transition from the last hunters‐gatherers to the first farmers. It was both a primal place of transition between these two steps and a space of diffusion of the new economy, two key mechanisms for understanding the process of the emergence of farming. It was first in the eastern Mediterranean, from the southern Levant to upper Mesopotamia and the Zagros, that some communities progressively modified their social organization, their symbolic framework, their way of life to become sedentary and food‐producing societies, thus opening a new era that set the pattern for historical times. Latter on, this new economic system progressively expanded, promoting the farming economy in Europe and in some part of Asia and Africa. The mechanisms of this diffusion were complex and they produced frequent cultural transformations and adaptive processes, both determined by environmental constraints and by human creativity. This book constitutes the proceedings of an international conference held in April 2011 in the Museum of Toulouse. It gathers twenty‐six papers offering an overview of the current research in three main geographical areas: the Near‐East, the eastern Mediterranean islands and the western Mediterranean. http://www.librairie‐epona.fr/la‐transition‐neolithique‐en‐mediterranee.html SOMMAIRE TRANSITIONS EN MÉDITERRANÉE - OU COMMENT DES CHASSEURS DEVINRENT AGRICULTEURS JEAN GUILAINE ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 Un colloque pour en débattre LA MUTATION PROCHE - ORIENTALE - THE NEAR - EAST CHANGE FRÉDÉRIC ABBÈS.................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Bal’as : un autre scénario de la néolithisation du Proche-Orient The Bal’as Mountains: a different scenario of the Near Eastern neolithization DANIELLE STORDEUR ............................................................................................................................................................. 27 Jerf el Ahmar entre 9500 et 8700 cal. BC. Un village des débuts de l’agriculture. Une société complexe Jerf el Ahmar between 9500 and 8700 cal. BC. A village at the outset of farming. A complex society GEORGE WILLCOX ................................................................................................................................................................. 47 Les premiers indices de la culture des céréales au Proche-Orient The beginnings of cereal cultivation in the Near East ADRIAN NIGEL GORING-MORRIS, ANNA BELFER-COHEN .......................................................................................................... 59 The Neolithic in the southern Levant: yet another ‘unique’ phenomenon… Le Néolithique dans le sud du Levant : un autre phénomène « singulier »… MEHMET ÖZDOğAN ............................................................................................................................................................... 74 The Quest for New Criteria in Defining the Emergence and the Dispersal of Neolithic Way of Life À la recherche de nouveaux critères pour définir l’émergence et la diffusion du mode de vie néolithique ÉRIC COQUEUGNIOT ............................................................................................................................................................... 91 Dja‘de (Syrie) et les représentations symboliques au IXe millénaire cal. BC Dja’de (Syria) and the symbolic representations during the 9th millennium cal. BC MIQUEL MOLIST .................................................................................................................................................. 109 Le processus de consolidation de la néolithisation au Proche-Orient : Apports de l’étude du site de Tell Halula (vallée de l’Euphrate, Syrie) The process of consolidation of the neolithization in the Near East: evidence from the site of Tell Halula (Euphrates valley, Syria) LA DIFFUSION PAR CHYPRE, L’ÉGÉE ET L’ADRIATIQUE - THE DIFFUSION BY CYPRUS, EAGEAN AND ADRIATIC JEAN-DENIS VIGNE ............................................................................................................................................... 125 Nouveaux éclairages chypriotes sur les débuts de la domestication des animaux et sur la néolithisation au Proche-Orient New insights from Cyprus on the beginning of animal domestication and on the neolithisation in the Near East KATERINA TRANTALIDOU ....................................................................................................................................... 141 L’exploitation des ressources animales pendant le 9e millénaire en Égée et le statut ambigu des suidés Trends in faunal taxonomic representation during the 9th millennium in the Aegean and the ambiguous status of suids AMELIE SCHEU, RUTH BOLLONGINO, JEAN-DENIS VIGNE, ANNE TRESSET, NORBERT BENECKE, JOACHIM BURGER ................ 165 The spread of domesticated cattle in the Neolithic transition La diffusion du bœuf domestique durant la transition néolithique NIKOS EFSTRATIOU ............................................................................................................................................... 173 “MICROHISTORIES” of transition in the Aegean islands.The cases of Cyprus and Crete « MICRO-HISTOIRES » de la transition dans les îles Égéennes. Les cas de Chypre et de la Crète ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON ......................................................................................................................................... 193 The Mesolithic of the Aegean basin Le Mésolithique du bassin Égéén JEAN-FRANÇOIS BERGER, GARYFALIA METALLINOU, JEAN GUILAINE ........................................................................................ 213 Vers une révision de la transition méso-néolithique sur le site de Sidari (Corfou, Grèce). Nouvelles données géoarchéologiques et radiocarbone, évaluation des processus post-dépositionnels Reconsidering the mesolithic-neolithic transition at the site of Sidari (Corfu, Greece). New geoarchaeological and radiocarbon data, evaluation of the post-depositional processes STAŠO FORENBAHER, PRESTON MIRACLE .............................................................................................................................. 233 Transition to Farming in the Adriatic: a View from the Eastern Shore La transition vers l’agriculture et l’élevage en Adriatique: une vue des côtes orientales RENATA GRIFONI CREMONESI, GIOVANNA RADI ..................................................................................................................... 243 Du Mésolithique au Néolithique ancien en Italie centrale et méridionale From the Mesolithic to the Early Neolithic in central and southern Italy LA NÉOLITHISATION DE L’OUEST MÉDITERRANÉEN - THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN NEOLITHIZATION THOMAS PERRIN, DIDIER BINDER ......................................................................................................................................... 271 Le Mésolithique à trapèzes et la néolithisation de l’Europe sud-occidentale Late Mesolithic trapeze assemblages and the Neolithization of the South-Western Europe JOSEPH CESARI, PATRICE COURTAUD, FRANCK LEANDRI, THOMAS PERRIN, CLAIRE MANEN ................................................... 283 Le site de Campu Stefanu (Sollacaro, Corse-du-Sud) : une occupation du Mésolithique et du Néolithique ancien dans le contexte corso-sarde Campu Stefanu (Sollacaro, Sourthern Corsica) : a Mesolithic and Early Neolithic settlement in the Corso-sardinian context CARLO LUGLIÈ .................................................................................................................................................... 307 The Su Carroppu rockshelter within the process of neolithization of Sardinia L’abri sous roche de Su Carroppu et le processus de néolithisation de la Sardaigne PILAR UTRILLA, RAFAEL DOMINGO.......................................................................................................................... 327 La transition Mésolithique-Néolithique dans la vallée de l’Èbre The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Ebro valley CARMEN OLARIA.................................................................................................................................................. 359 The Mesolithic collective burial of Cingle del Mas Nou (Ares del Maestre, Castellón, Spain) L’inhumation collective mésolithique du Cingle del Mas Nou (Ares del Maestre, Castellón, Espagne) JAVIER FERNÁNDEZ-LÓPEZ DE PABLO ....................................................................................................................... 371 Art traditions, cultural interactions and symbolic contexts during the Neolithic transition in the Eastern Iberian Peninsula Traditions artistiques, interactions culturelles et contextes symboliques de la transition néolithique dans la région méditerranéenne espagnole CLAIRE MANEN ................................................................................................................................................... 405 Dynamiques spatio-temporelles et culturelles de la néolithisation ouest-méditerranéenne Spatial, chronological and cultural dynamics of the neolithization in the western Mediterranean JOAN BERNABEU AUBÁN, BERNAT MARTÍ OLIVER ..................................................................................................... 419 The First Agricultural Groups in the Iberian Peninsula Les premiers groupes agropastoraux de la péninsule Ibérique MARIE LACAN, FRANÇOIS-XAVIER RICAUT, BERTRAND LUDES, ÉRIC CRUBÉZY, JEAN GUILAINE .......................................... 439 La néolithisation de l’Europe : apports de l’ADN ancien The neolithization of Europe: evidence from ancient DNA SIMONE MULAZZANI ............................................................................................................................................. 453 Le site de SHM-1 (Tunisie) entre le VIIe et le VIe mill. cal. BC. Prémices d’une transition du Capsien supérieur vers le Néolithique The site of SHM-1 (Tunisia) between the 7th and the 6th mill. cal. BC. Evidence of Upper Capsian – Neolithic transition LISTE DES AUTEURS .............................................................................................................................................. 463 LES PREMIERS GROUPES AGROPASTORAUX DE LA PÉNINSULE IBÉRIQUE LA NÉOLITHISATION DE L’OUEST MÉDITERRANÉEN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN NEOLITHIZATION THE FIRST AGRICULTURAL GROUPS IN THE IBERIAN PENINSULA LES PREMIERS GROUPES AGROPASTORAUX DE LA PÉNINSULE IBÉRIQUE JOAN BERNABEU AUBÁN, BERNAT MARTÍ OLIVER ABSTRACT Over the last decade, the documentation on the first Neolithic of the Iberian Peninsula has significantly increased, more particularly through the discovery of open-air settlements that complement the vision provided by the cave settlements. La Draga, Sant Pau del Campo or Mas d’Is on the Western Mediterranean coast, Ambrona, Los Cascajos or La Paleta in the hinterlands, Valado do Mato, Castelo Belinho on the Atlantic coast delimit an area progressively occupied by settlements on which the territorial organization is founded: cave-settlements, shepherd-caves, burial caves and shelters with rock art. Radiocarbon dating, material culture and more particularly the pottery decorations as well as the datasets concerning food production, plant species and domesticated animals, show close connections between the Neolithic communities of the Iberian Peninsula and those of the Western Mediterranean. Although the Cardial Neolithic represents the perfect example of the first Neolithic culture of Mediterranean origin which spreads over a large part of the Peninsula, the existence of earlier initial facies or pioneers with Impressed Pottery is assumed. Dating performed on short-lived materials suggest that these pioneer groups have reached different locations on the Mediterranean coast (Nerja at Malaga, Barranquet, Mas d’Is at Valencia) and in the hinterland (Peña Larga in Alava). Radiocarbon dates stemming from these sites suggest a rapid process and the pottery decorations indicate some diversity, to such an extent that the reconstructed filiations are multiple, involving the possibility of distinct migration and/or diffusion routes. This matches the diffusion model and more precisely the model of maritime colonization. The model evidences a process expanding along the Mediterranean Sea: southern Italy, the coast and the larger islands of the Tyrrhenian Sea, Liguria and the coasts of Southern France before reaching the Iberian Peninsula. In addition, fluvial axes are used for rapid migration to the hinterland. These data allow proposing new scenarios aiming at the understanding of the neolithization of the Iberian Peninsula. Within the distribution area of the Cardial Culture, this first stage of Mediterranean origin has been identified at the site of Barranquet based on a small assemblage of potteries with impressed decoration similar to the “sillon d’impressions” (grooved impressions), associated with impressed decorations amongst which Cardial impressions are also found. This stage is also present at Mas d’Is and at Cova d’en Prado, if we take distinct radiocarbon dates and materials into account. Parallels can be drawn with the sites of Peiro Signado and Pont de Roque-Haute in Southern France and furthermore with the Ligurian sites they are linked to, in particular the one of Arene Candide, where a first Impressa layer is succeeded by a second, characterised by Cardial impressions. The radiocarbon dates indicate that this stage was of short duration. From this perspective, the Cardial complex thus would represent the consolidation stage of the Neolithic communities in the Western Mediterranean. With regard to maritime and/or terrestrial colonization, exclusivity given to the northern route has to be revisited. During the initial stage at Cendres, the presence of a vessel with red-painted pattern has been considered as an indicator for relationships with Central-Southern Italy. Several impressed potteries, decorated with pivoting technique or rocker (non cardial), present in the lower levels of certain sites point to the same direction. Consequently, the whole of the material assigned to this first stage does not exclusively stem from Liguria. The model of colonization of the Iberian Peninsula by small groups expanding along the coasts and on the islands of the Mediterranean Sea involves connections established over long distances and also includes the possibility of unsettled intermediate areas and multiple directed displacements both to the south and to the north. As a matter of fact, several radiocarbon dates are attributed to these early Neolithic layers in the eastern and southern part of the peninsula, as it is the case for the Nerja cave. Thus, the multitude of possible relations and consequently of early facies is put forward for the entire Iberian Peninsula including the possibility that the initial impetus of neolithization is linked to the colonization of distinct, not only coastal, areas by groups related to different facies of Mediterranean Impressed Ware. With regard to these mechanisms of neolithization, the Atlantic coast of the Peninsula has been considered only recently. In Central and Southern Portugal (Estrémadure and Algarve), Andalusia (up to Málaga) and Northern Morocco (peninsula of Tanger, though information is restricted concerning the regions of North Africa), the first food producing communities may have established at different moments from 5500 cal. BC on. The geographical distribution of these first Neolithic groups reveals 419 JOAN BERNABEU AUBÁN BERNAT MARTÍ OLIVER THE FIRST AGRICULTURAL GROUPS IN THE IBERIAN PENINSULA that they established preferentially in coastal areas as well as in areas unsettled or almost unsettled by Mesolithic groups. The origin of these Neolithic groups is the Western Mediteranean and more precisely the Franco-Iberian Cardial. With regard to the different stylistical aspects of their material culture as for example the use of Cardial decoration and of distinct ornaments, it can be assumed that these groups result from migration processes by Cardial groups stemming from the Mediterranean. Nonetheless, the pottery assemblage of Nerja (Málaga) matches this interpretation only little and a different scenario has to be imagined. The Epicardial Neolithic contexts in the interior of the peninsula form the second stage with pottery in the areas with Cardial occupation and the earliest stage in the regions in which Cardial tradition is absent, as at Ambrona and at Vaquera. In the Mediterranean and Atlantic areas, the average date of 5050 cal. BC corresponds to the end of the Cardial horizon. From 5400-5300 cal. BC, clear evidence of neolithic occupation is recovered from the interior basins of the Ebro, Quadalquivir, Tagus and Duero rivers. At this date, traces revealing the presence of domesticates are also found in the Cantabrian regions. The earliest dates obtained at la Vaquera and at Ambrona attest that the Epicardial stage of the interior can be placed around 5400-5300 cal. BC. Thus, Epicardial contexts of the interior regions tend to be earlier than those in the regions with Cardial tradition. Or, amounting to the same thing, these pottery productions – Epicardial and Cardial – seem to coexist during some time, however, according to a different spatial pattern. From this perspective, is difficult to derive this “Epicardial” from the coastal franco-iberian Cardial. What is its origin? It is difficult to answer this question but it clearly appears that these groups were not the first Neolithic people in the interior. The date of Peña Larga, made from a Ovis/capra bone permits to propose an alternative explication, probably related to northsouth diffusion. During the second half of the 6th millennium cal. BC, the large cultural areas of the first Neolithic of the peninsula establish: the Cardial on the coast, the “Cultura de la cuevas” in the south, with its red-slipped ware together with a rich incised and impressed decoration, and the Epicardial in the interior around the Ebro and Duero valleys, with similar decoration patterns but lacking ochre. They do not all show the same state of documentation, however, the villages constitues the base of settlement constitutes the base of territorial organization. 420 Settlements are built by a small number of houses with rectangular or apsidal plan, storage pits, pits, circular stonelined fireplaces. Some caves are intensively occupied, used as stations for shepherds or hunters. Inhumations are deposited in pits near to the settlements or in caves… The domestic material is comprised of pottery vessels, spatula and spoons that inform us about the new diet as well as flint sickles or polished stone axes destined for the new food producing activities. All this is consistent with a farming lifestyle and slow anthropisation of the environment. An important place is given to the religious domain according to the symbolism attributed to pottery decorations and the presence of painted rock shelters that reproduce the same patterns. On the Mediterranean coast these shelters in which Neolithic art develops, depicting adorant figurines and curvilinear lines outlining hand imprints, are thought to be sanctuaries or ceremonial centres frequented by several human groups. In some shelters, as it is the case at La Sarga or at La Araña, the characteristic scenes of Levantine rock art are superimposed with this Neolithic art known as « marcoschematic » or « early schematic ». This is an important topic concerning the late Prehistory of the Mediterranean coast of the peninsula. The second actor in the process of neolithisation is the Mesolithic. Since the 1970s, the first Neolithic of the peninsula was incorporated into the so-called dual model: the neolithic groups of Mediterranean origin are supposed to have been in contact with mesolithic communities during their evolution stage B. Examples are found at La Cocina, at Costalena or in the shell middens in Portugal. Actually, this model serves as a basis for the propositions that interpret the aforementioned diversity of pottery assemblages in the second half of the 6th millennium cal. BC. These pottery assemblages may result from some combination of the different actors present during this stage of formation. The problem lies in recent studies that challenge the existence of the geometric Mesolithic corresponding to the phase of neolithisation of the Mesolithic substratum. In the case of the Mediterranean coast, the sequence of La Cocina has been revisited and the data are now restricted to the debatable data yielded by Costalena. Concerning Portugal, the assumption of the persistence of Mesolithic groups during some more time is accepted but the question is whether they occupied the same space as the Neolithic people. LES PREMIERS GROUPES AGROPASTORAUX DE LA PÉNINSULE IBÉRIQUE LA NÉOLITHISATION DE L’OUEST MÉDITERRANÉEN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN NEOLITHIZATION RÉSUMÉ Ces dernières années ont vu l’augmentation notable de la documentation sur le premier Néolithique de la péninsule Ibérique, avec plus particulièrement la découverte de villages de plein air qui complètent l’image apportée par les grottes. La Draga, Sant Pau del Campo ou Mas d’Is sur la façade méditerranéenne, Ambrona, Los Cascajos ou La Paleta à l’intérieur des terres, Valado do Mato, Castelo Belinho sur la partie atlantique, dessinent un espace progressivement occupé par des habitats de plein air qui structurent le territoire, des grottes-habitats, des grottes-bergeries, des grottes sépulcrales et des abris avec de l’art rupestre. Les datations absolues, la culture matérielle, plus particulièrement les décorations des céramiques et les données de l’économie de production, espèces végétales et animaux domestiques, montrent les connexions étroites entre les communautés néolithiques de la péninsule et la Méditerranée occidentale. Bien que le Néolithique cardial représente le paradigme de la première culture néolithique d’origine méditerranéenne, qui se généralise dans une grande partie de la péninsule, on envisage maintenant l’hypothèse de l’existence de faciès antérieurs initiaux ou pionniers à céramiques imprimées. Les datations réalisées sur matériaux à durée de vie courte suggèrent que ces groupes pionniers aient atteint divers points des côtes méditerranéennes (Nerja à Malaga, Barranquet et Mas d’Is à Valence) et de l’intérieur (Peña Larga en Alava). Les dates de ces trois exemples suggèrent que ce processus fut rapide et les décorations céramiques indiquent une certaine diversité, de sorte que les filiations qu’il est possible de reconstituer ne sont pas uniques, ouvrant la porte à différentes voies de pénétration et/ou de diffusion. Ceci est en accord avec le modèle de diffusion et plus précisément avec le modèle de la colonisation maritime. Ce modèle montre un processus qui s’étend le long de la mer Méditerranée : sud de l’Italie, côte tyrrhénienne et ses grandes îles, Ligurie et les côtes méridionales françaises, pour atteindre la péninsule Ibérique. À cela il faut ajouter l’utilisation des voies fluviales comme chemins de pénétration rapide vers l’intérieur des terres. Ces données permettent de proposer de nouveaux scénarios pour comprendre la néolithisation de la péninsule Ibérique. Dans la région d’extension de la culture cardiale, cette première phase d’origine méditerranéenne est identifiée sur le gisement du Barranquet, à partir d’un petit lot de céramiques portant un décor d’impressions similaire au sillon d’impressions, associé à des décors imprimés parmi lesquels on trouve les impressions réalisées au Cardium. Cette phase est également présente au Mas d’Is et à en juger par les datations et par certains matériaux à la Cova d’en Prado. On retrouve des parallèles avec les sites de Peiro Signado et Pont de Roque-Haute dans le sud de la France qui nous conduisent aux gisements ligures, particulièrement celui des Arene Candide, où a été défini un premier horizon Impressa suivi par un second, caractérisé par des impressions réalisées au Cardium. Les datations indiquent que cette phase a été brève. Dans cette perspective, le complexe cardial constituerait l’étape de consolidation des communautés néolithiques en Méditerranée de l’Ouest. L’exclusivité de la voie septentrionale pour la colonisation maritime et/ou terrestre doit être reconsidérée. La présence, dans la phase initiale de Cendres, d’un vase à motif peint en rouge a été considérée comme un indice de relation avec la zone centrale et méridionale de l’Italie, direction que pointent également quelques céramiques décorées par impression pivotante ou rocker (non cardial), présentes dans les niveaux inférieurs de certains gisements. Ainsi, l’ensemble du matériel attribuable à cette première phase ne semble pas concerner uniquement le monde ligure. Le modèle de colonisation de la péninsule par de petits groupes le long des côtes et à travers les îles de la Méditerranée signifie que les connexions peuvent s’établir sur de longues distances, ce qui implique tout autant l’existence de zones vierges intermédiaires et des déplacements dans plusieurs directions, en incluant le sud et le nord. De fait, quelques dates concernent ces horizons anciens du Néolithique dans l’est et dans le sud de la péninsule, comme dans le cas de la grotte de Nerja. On propose donc une multiplicité de relations potentielles et en conséquence, de faciès anciens, pour l’ensemble de la péninsule Ibérique, avec la possibilité que l’impulsion initiale de la néolithisation soit liée à la colonisation de certaines régions, pas seulement côtières, par des groupes liés à l’Impressa méditerranéenne, quel qu’en soit le faciès. En relation avec ces mécanismes de néolithisation, la côte atlantique de la péninsule a été depuis peu individualisée. Dans le centre et le sud du Portugal (Estrémadure et Algarve), l’Andalousie (jusqu’à Málaga) et le nord du Maroc (péninsule de Tanger, bien que les informations soient peu nombreuses pour les régions nord-africaines), les premières communautés productrices se seraient établies en différents moments, à partir de 5500 cal. BC. La distribution géographique de ces premiers groupes néolithiques montre une prédilection pour les territoires côtiers, s’installant dans des régions dépourvues, ou quasiment, de peuplements mésolithiques. L’origine de ces groupes néolithiques est la Méditerranée occidentale et, précisément, la sphère du Cardial franco-ibérique. En tenant compte des divers aspects stylistiques de leur culture matérielle, comme l’emploi de la décoration au Cardium et de quelques types de parure, on peut penser qu’ils résultent d’un processus migratoire des groupes cardiaux méditerranéens. Malgré tout, l’ensemble céramique de Nerja (Málaga) s’intègre mal dans cette interprétation et il faut imaginer un scénario différent. Les contextes néolithiques épicardiaux de l’intérieur de la péninsule constituent le second horizon céramique dans les régions cardiales et l’horizon le plus ancien dans les régions où la tradition cardiale est absente, comme à Ambrona et à Vaquera. Dans les zones méditerranéenne et atlantique, la date moyenne de 5050 cal. BC, correspond à la fin de l’horizon cardial. 421 JOAN BERNABEU AUBÁN BERNAT MARTÍ OLIVER THE FIRST AGRICULTURAL GROUPS IN THE IBERIAN PENINSULA Dès 5400-5300 cal. BC, les bassins intérieurs de l’Èbre, du Quadalquivir, du Tage et du Duero présentent des traces évidentes d’occupation néolithique. Dans les régions de la Cantabrie, on trouve également à cette date des indices de présence d’espèces domestiques. Les dates plus anciennes obtenues à la Vaquera et à Ambrona confirment que l’horizon épicardial de l’intérieur peut se situer autour de 5400-5300 cal. BC. Ainsi, les contextes épicardiaux de ces régions intérieures tendent à être plus anciens que ceux des régions à tradition cardiale. Ou, ce qui revient au même, que ces productions céramiques, épicardiales et cardiales, paraissent cohabiter durant un certain temps, bien que selon un schéma spatial différencié. De ce point de vue, il est difficile de faire dériver cet « Épicardial » du Cardial franco-ibérique côtier. Alors, quelle est son origine ? Il est difficile de se prononcer sur cette question, mais il apparaît clairement que ces groupes n’ont pas été les premiers néolithiques de l’intérieur. La date de Peña Larga, obtenue sur un os d’ovicapriné domestique, permet de proposer un schéma alternatif, probablement lié à la diffusion nord-sud. Dans la seconde moitié du VIe millénaire cal. BC, les grandes régions culturelles du premier Néolithique péninsulaire se mettent en place : le Cardial sur la côte, la « Cultura de las cuevas » au sud, avec ses céramiques à engobe rouge (avec une profusion de décorations incisées et imprimées), l’Épicardial de l’intérieur autour des vallées de l’Èbre et du Duero, avec des décorations similaires mais sans ocre ; toutes ne jouissent pas du même niveau d’information, mais l’espace habité constitue la base de la structuration territoriale. Les habitats sont formés par un petit nombre de maisons de plan rectangulaire ou en abside, de silos, de fosses et de foyers circulaires à empierrements. Quelques grottes sont intensément occupées, utilisées comme bergerie ou par des chasseurs. Les sépultures sont en fosses, situées près de l’habitat ou à l’intérieur des cavités… Le matériel domestique comprend des céramiques, des spatules et des cuillères qui renseignent sur la nouvelle diète alimentaire, ainsi que des faucilles de silex ou des haches de pierre polie, destinées aux nouvelles activités productrices. Tout cela est 422 en accord avec un mode de vie agricole et avec une lente anthropisation du milieu. Une part importante est donnée au domaine religieux, en accord avec le symbolisme que nous attribuons aux décors céramiques et à l’existence d’abris à peintures rupestres qui reproduisent des motifs identiques. Sur la façade méditerranéenne, ces abris où se développe l’art néolithique, parmi lesquels se distinguent les figures en orant et les lignes sinueuses en forme de mains, devaient être des sanctuaires ou des centres cérémoniels fréquentés par plusieurs groupes humains. Dans quelques abris, comme à la Sarga ou à l’Araña, les scènes caractéristiques de l’art rupestre du Levant se superposent à cet art néolithique connu comme « macro schématique » ou « schématique ancien ». C’est une question importante pour la Préhistoire récente de la façade méditerranéenne de la péninsule. Le second invité dans le processus de néolithisation est le Mésolithique. Depuis les années 1970, le premier Néolithique péninsulaire faisait partie de ce qui a été nommé le modèle dual : les groupes néolithiques d’origine méditerranéenne et les communautés mésolithiques auraient été en contact durant la phase B du développement de ces derniers. On en trouve des exemples à la Cocina, à Costalena ou dans les amas coquilliers du Portugal. Ce modèle est la base des propositions actuelles sur l’interprétation de la diversité des ensembles céramiques de la seconde moitié du VIe millénaire cal. BC, dont nous avons parlé plus haut. Ces ensembles céramiques seraient le résultat de la combinaison des différents acteurs présents lors de cette phase de formation. Mais les études récentes questionnent la réalité de la phase du Mésolithique géométrique, correspondant à la phase de néolithisation du substrat mésolithique. Dans le cas de la façade méditerranéenne, la séquence de la Cocina a été révisée et les données se réduisent finalement à celles livrées par Costalena, qui ne sont pas sans poser problème. Pour le Portugal, on accepte l’hypothèse de la persistance des groupes mésolithiques pendant quelque temps, mais on s’interroge sur le fait de savoir s’ils occupaient les mêmes espaces que les néolithiques. LES PREMIERS GROUPES AGROPASTORAUX DE LA PÉNINSULE IBÉRIQUE LA NÉOLITHISATION DE L’OUEST MÉDITERRANÉEN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN NEOLITHIZATION INTRODUCTION The transformation of subsistence systems from hunting and gathering to farming involved a crucial change in the relationships between humans and the environment affecting all levels of human society. The consequences of this transformation extend to the present day and, perhaps for this reason, the issue of the origin and expansion of Neolithic economies remains a major topic in the archaeological and anthropological literature. This is certainly the case for Europe, where the origin of farming societies is closely related to the nature of its spread. Material culture, chronology, the absence of wild ancestors of the domestic species may have been exogenous and recent DNA analyses performed on domestic animals confirm that agriculture and animal husbandry have been introduced to Europe from the Near East. There is, however, considerable debate about the mechanisms through which this transition occurred. Did these changes involve movements of people, i. e. migrations or merging with hunter-gatherer groups? Did only materials and information spread, such as domesticated animals, knowledge and material culture including pottery (the so-called “neolithic package”)? The latter process is commonly referred to as cultural diffusion and the former as demic diffusion. Despite continuous and partially combined efforts by many scholars, a final solution to the debate about the relative importance of demic versus cultural diffusion has not yet been found. The Iberian Peninsula, and on a broader scale the Western Mediterranean, provides a privileged scenario for this debate. The Western Mediterranean, spanning from southern Italy to Portugal and North Africa, can be considered as a single archaeological unit wherein diagnostic features of Early Neolithic contexts share distinct common elements, summarized in the spread of Cardium-Impressed Ware groups. Some consensus exists as to the origin of these wares in southern Italy, but the debate about its process of expansion to the west, most particularly to the Iberian Peninsula, remains open. As it has already been pointed out, the Iberian Peninsula is a privileged region for the analysis of the process of expansion undergone by agricultural groups (Zilhão, 2003), due to its geographic location and to the presence of important groups during the Final Mesolithic (after 6000 cal. BC). To this, further elements have to be added, which are currently used to support either of the two main hypotheses (Bernabeu et al., 2009 ; Bernabeu and Molina dir., 2009; Zilhão, 2011; Díaz del Río, 2010), such as the recent evidence for a peripheral Early Neolithic horizon at an early date (Rojo et al., 2008), the possible existence of an early stage connected to the Italian Impressed Wares and, as pointed out recently (Bernabeu et al., 2009; Cortes et al., 2012; Lindstaedter et al., 2012), the possibility of a double expansion: to the northern part of the peninsula via southern France, and to the southern part by crossing North Africa. Our contribution to the present conference aims at presenting and evaluating the impact of this new evidence in the broader context of neolithization. Our discussion will exclude the Cantabrian region in northern Spain in that the process of neolithization of this region occurred as late as the 5th millennium cal. BC and therefore was not connected with the Mediterranean Cardial culture. The text is organized into five sections. In the first the reliability of some of the relevant evidence – most particularly radiocarbon dating, upon which the other sections are based – will be evaluated and the use made of this evidence in the remaining text explained. In the following three sections the situation in the Iberian Peninsula at three specific periods of time will be presented: the Final Mesolithic (5950-5700 cal. BC), the Neolithic expansion (c. 5650-5450 BC) and the Neolithic consolidation (5450-5050 cal. BC). The final section will discuss some of the demographic, economic and social dynamics behind the processes hitherto described. TIME: THE USE OF RADIOCARBON DATES It will be readily understandable, that the evaluation of available dates and the contexts they are associated with will carry significant weight in the discussion. This is important both at the cultural (pottery styles, stone tool typologies, etc.) and the economic (practice of agriculture and stockbreeding) level.The geography of the Neolithic expansion is also crucial in order to evaluate the respective merits of the demic and demographic diffusion hypotheses. Any evaluation of the data available for the latest Mesolithic and the earliest Neolithic must rely on dates obtained from shortlived individual samples, thus avoiding problems connected with the use of old wood and those related to post-depositional processes (Zilhão, 2001; Bernabeu et al., 2001). Some level of agreement has currently been reached regarding the use of radiocarbon-based data, which involves the evaluation of dates according to case-specific criteria. Other studies have already suggested the qualification of dates in relation to a range developed from other samples of the same kind and from relevant contexts, in our case the transition between the Mesolithic and the Neolithic (Bernabeu, 2006; Zilhão, 2011). In this instance the available dates have been obtained from the following sample types: 1. Single samples of short-lived items corresponding to domesticated species. 2. Multiple samples of short-lived items corresponding to domesticated species found in closed contexts (stored grains). 423 JOAN BERNABEU AUBÁN BERNAT MARTÍ OLIVER THE FIRST AGRICULTURAL GROUPS IN THE IBERIAN PENINSULA 3. Single samples of short-lived items indicative of Neolithic or Mesolithic activity (human burials; bone artefacts). 4. Multiple samples from the same kind of short-lived items described under type 3. 5. Single samples from short-lived items in clear association with Neolithic or Mesolithic layers (worked bone, even if unclassified, marine mollusc shells and wood charcoal from shrubs or tree branches). 6. Multiple samples from the same sort of short-lived items described under type 5. 7. Single samples from tree wood charcoal. 8. Multiple samples from the same sort of items described under type 6. In our specific case, aiming at the comparison of Mesolithic and Neolithic sites and dates, it seems reasonable to use data from ranks 1 to 6, although certain qualifications must be observed. A brief overview of available dates for the Neolithic (6th millennium cal. BC), obtained from different types of samples but in all cases associated with contexts related to domestication and with a standard deviation of less than 100 years (fig. 1) shows that: a) Dates obtained from charcoal samples tend to be too old, and will therefore not be used here. b) Samples from ranks 3 to 6 initially showed no substantial difference compared to domestic samples (ranks 1 and 2). When more detail is required, however, some differences arise and some specific dates thus remain open to discussion. When these data contradict the evidence offered by direct domestic evidence (ranks 1 and 2) they will not be used. Moreover, as mentioned above, no dating with standard deviations of over 100 years will be used. Nonetheless after calibration most of these tests show intervals exceeding 150/200 years. As far as possible they have been corrected by calculating the average result of two or more statistically comparable dates stemming from the same sites and contexts. Finally, in order to make it easier for the reader, it must be understood that the use of the expression ‘BC’ refers to calibrated dates. Fig. 1: Cumulative distribution curve of radiocarbon calibrated dates ordered by intervals of 50 years; dates measured on wood charcoal (rank>6), short-lived samples, both singular / composite (ranks 3 to 6) and direct (domestic) samples (ranks 1 and 2); n= number of dates; N= number of dated sites. Courbe de distribution cumulative des datations radiocarbone calibrées regroupées par intervalles de 50 ans ; les dates sont mesurées sur des charbons de bois (rang >6), échantillons à durée de vie courte isolés / composites (rangs 3 à 6) et directs (ossements d’animaux domestiques ; rangs 1 et 2) ; n= nombre de datations; N= nombre de sites datés. 424 LES PREMIERS GROUPES AGROPASTORAUX DE LA PÉNINSULE IBÉRIQUE LA NÉOLITHISATION DE L’OUEST MÉDITERRANÉEN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN NEOLITHIZATION THE LAST HUNTER-GATHERERS With the exception of the Cantabrian region the Final Mesolithic in the Iberian Peninsula is characterized by geometric lithic industries. Two main phases can be defined on the basis of lithic typology: phase A, with a predominance of trapezes, is dated to the 7th millennium cal. BC, and phase B, dominated by triangular shapes, is dated after 6000 cal. BC. Only the sites corresponding to the latter phase – found in coastal areas on the shores of the Atlantic and the Mediterranean as well as in the Ebro valley and starting from about 5700/5550 cal. BC – could establish contact with the Neolithic. We will therefore focus on this second stage, of which the duration varies according to the different areas. The site of Retamar, in Cádiz (Ramos and Lazarich dir., 2002), which used to be considered as being representative of the transition between Mesolithic and Neolithic,will also be excluded from our analysis because it shows intermittent occupation stages dated to phase A of the Mesolithic and to the Neolithic, with an occupational gap of about half a millennium in between (Marchand, 2005; Zilhão, 2011); the recently published site of Benàmer, in Alicante, presents an analogous case (Torregrosa et al. dir., 2011). Yet another similar case, although in this instance concerning a cave site, is Mendandia, in Álava (Alday dir., 2006), where the main difficulty remains in the associations of pottery finds dated back to 6000 cal. BC. It has been pointed out that the presence of these wares in Mendandia and their absence from nearby contemporaneous and later sites is somewhat incongruous (Bernabeu, 2006), and may be explained by the presence of post-depositional processes (Zilhão, 2011). The available evidence suggests the presence of several Mesolithic groups in the Mediterranean areas and along the southern half of the Atlantic coastline at about 5950-5700 cal. BC (Martí and Juan-Cabanilles, 1997; Juan-Cabanilles and Martí, 2007-2008; Utrilla and Montes dir., 2009). As recently pointed out, the climatic event 8.2 BP could have had consequences for these groups (Berger and Guilaine, 2009; Fernández López de Pablo and Gómez, 2009; González-Sanperiz et al., 2009), but these effects would vary from region to region, being in fact limited to a minor relocation of settlements. In this sense, the comparison between the points on the map shown in figure 2 and those presented by J. Juan-Cabanilles and B. Martí (Juan-Cabanilles and Martí, 2002), dated to the preceding phase (second half of the 6th millennium), is revealing. In both phases occupation is attested in the same regions, with the exception of the coastal area around the Cabo de la Nao in Alicante, where no occupation has been ascertained for the latter phase. As a result, it seems likely that the effects of this climatic event were insufficient to threaten Mesolithic populations in hitherto occupied areas. Similarly, it does not seem to be the plausible cause of its interruption in the newly unoccupied regions. Figure 2 shows the latest Mesolithic settlements, dating to after 6000 cal. BC. Apart from the well-known Portuguese shellmiddens, Mesolithic groups have been attested in the upper and lower Ebro valley, extending along the Iberian System to expand across the central Mediterranean coast of Spain. Wide areas, including the central regions, Catalonia and most of Andalusia, remained unoccupied during this phase. The most perdurable Mesolithic populations are attested in the Cantabrian region, with sites such as Herriko Barra in Guipúzcoa (Alday and Mújica, 1999), which as late as 5000 cal. BC still retained Mesolithic features and where no traces of pottery or domestication have been found. This tallies with the highest dates for domesticated samples (rank 1) known to date, which give the earliest Cantabrian Neolithic a chronology running from approximately 5000 to 4500 cal. BC (Peña et al., 2005).The ecological boundary which separates the Mediterranean and Euro-Siberian climatic regions may explain the considerable hiatus between the beginning of the Neolithic in the Cantabrian region and in the remaining part of the peninsula. Turning back to the issue of Mesolithic occupation in general, if the expansion of the Neolithic followed a process of cultural diffusion, some degree of overlap between the Mesolithic and the earliest Neolithic features is to be expected at the same sites. Furthermore, such an overlap presumably would have enough chronological depth to be archaeologically visible. This would show the progressive acceptance of the various key elements, such as pottery and animal and plant species. The following sections aim at assessing whether this is the case or not. THE EARLIEST NEOLITHIC EVIDENCE: THE CARDIUM-IMPRESSED WARE The period between approximately 5700 and 5550 cal. BC is crucial for understanding the emergence of the Neolithic. The earliest Neolithic evidence is attested during this period, generally in coastal, geographically unconnected sites, whereas the Mesolithic evidence points towards settlement continuity, regarding both, the geographical distribution and the number of sites. This general overview reveals, however, a number of problems which need to be assessed. When? With consideration of the available dates it seems that the most likely time span for the earliest occurrence of Neolithic evidence (domesticated species) is at about 5650-5600 cal. BC (fig. 5a). The initial Neolithic expansion, corresponding to the so called Impresso-Cardial culture (see below), would run from that initial date range until 5500-5450 cal. BC. For a higher degree of precision more extensive data is required, including dates with short standard deviations and 425 THE FIRST AGRICULTURAL GROUPS IN THE IBERIAN PENINSULA JOAN BERNABEU AUBÁN BERNAT MARTÍ OLIVER La Garma A Pico Ramos Los Canes Cofresnedo Braña Urratxa Atxoste Aizpea Forcas II Ebro Duero Boquitería dels Moros Mas Cremat Mas Nou Tajo Forno da Telha Muge Guadiana La Cocina Vale da Fonte Lagrimal Sado Guadalquivir Vidigal Fiais Armaçao Nova R. Gaviotas Mesolithic Fig. 2: Map of the latest Mesolithic sites in the Iberian Peninsula (at about 5950-5700 cal. BC). Only sites dated through samples of ranks 1 to 6 and standard deviations less than 100 years are represented. Carte des sites mésolithiques les plus récents de la péninsule Ibérique (vers 5950-5700 cal. BC). Seuls des sites datés par des échantillons de rang 1 à 6 et avec des marges d’erreur inférieures à 100 ans sont représentés. intervals of less than 100 years after calibration. These are not yet available. The dates obtained for some sites, however, either extend back these chronological limits or present some sort of specific problems (fig. 3a and 3b), which we proceed to analyse forthwith. An Ovis/Capra bone recovered from the rock shelter of Peña Larga, in the Upper Ebro valley, has been recently dated to 5715-5560 cal. BC (95% probability/2σ after calibration) (Fernández Eraso, 2011), which in its lowest range overlaps with another Ovis bone sample found in the cave site of Chaves (5614-5479 cal. BC), in the Pre-Pyrenees of Huesca. It thus seems perfectly plausible to suggest the coincidence of both samples around 5600 cal. BC. With regard to Forcas II, a nearby rock shelter east of Chaves, the situation is quite different. The samples recovered from two superposed levels offered almost identical dates (5724-5614 cal. BC). Material recovered from these levels included Mesolithic 426 Fig. 3: Maps showing the Mesolithic and Neolithic sites at two chronological points. A) at about 5650 cal. BC. B) at about 5500 cal. BC. There is an obvious discontinuity between the regions first occupied by the Early Neolithic groups. Only sites dated with samples of ranks 1 to 6 and standard deviations less than 100 are represented.The unfilled red circle represents Forcas II, a site with Mesolithic industries and pottery, but without domestic remains. Carte illustrant la répartition des sites mésolithiques et néolithiques à deux moments. A) vers 5650 cal. BC. B) vers 5500 cal. BC. La discontinuité avec les régions précocement occupées par les groupes du Néolithique ancien est évidente. Seuls les sites datés par des échantillons de rang 1 à 6 et avec des marges d’erreur inférieures à 100 ans sont représentés. Le cercle rouge indique le site de Forcas II, un site avec une industrie mésolithique et de la céramique, mais sans restes domestiques. LES PREMIERS GROUPES AGROPASTORAUX DE LA PÉNINSULE IBÉRIQUE LA NÉOLITHISATION DE L’OUEST MÉDITERRANÉEN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN NEOLITHIZATION 427 JOAN BERNABEU AUBÁN BERNAT MARTÍ OLIVER THE FIRST AGRICULTURAL GROUPS IN THE IBERIAN PENINSULA Fig. 4: Pottery decoration of the Impressa-Cardial site of El Barranquet,Valencia. Décoration céramique Impressa-Cardial du site d’ El Barranquet,Valencia. industries and Cardium pottery (Utrilla et al., 2009). Although the preliminary nature of the results published so far calls for caution, these dates and the material culture associations, if proved correct, would be the first case for which the adoption of distinct Neolithic technologies (pottery) by Mesolithic groups can be argued. For the time being, however, a date at about 5650/5600 cal. BC seems less speculative. The interior site of La Paleta, located in Toledo, has yielded a date range of almost 200 years (5669-5483 cal. BC), obtained from an assemblage of organic material found inside a ceramic container, which included cereal remains (Jiménez, 2010). Strictly speaking, the sample is not a direct single sample (rank 1), but a miscellaneous bulk of organic material. Whilst this date is confirmed, the most cautious approach is to date the site after c. 5500 cal. BC on the basis of the Cardium wares found. Finally, the site of Retamar, associated with the above mentioned problems, has provided a date obtained from a concentration of shells found in a hearth feature and pointing to Neolithic occupation following the Mesolithic levels dated to the 7th millennium cal. BC. These dates, however, should be confirmed by dates obtained from domestic remains found in 428 the same levels, since shell remains do not constitute valid and truly domestic samples for the Neolithic. The same applies to the Portuguese sites of Padrao and Cabranosa in the Algarve. Where? Figure 3 shows settlement distribution changes between 5650 cal. BC and 5550 cal. BC. It seems that the earliest Neolithic groups tended to occupy coastal locations on the Mediterranean and the Atlantic shores, although it can be assumed that large rivers, such as the Ebro, also were preferential routes for first inland penetration as suggested by the site of Peña Larga. The maps shown in figure 3 reflect a highly discontinuous settlement history, almost exclusively restricted to the coast during this earliest stage of the Neolithic. Comparing the maps for 5650 cal. BC and 5550 cal. BC a northsouth oriented chronology can be argued, but this remains an open question. The case of La Paleta, potentially the earliest interior settlement, is as we have seen problematic and still lacking confirmation. The evidence thus suggests a model of rapid expansion which left large unoccupied areas and which seems to confirm the so-called ‘maritime colonisation’ model (Zilhão, 2001) and the role played by rivers as early penetration routes (Davison et al., 2006). LES PREMIERS GROUPES AGROPASTORAUX DE LA PÉNINSULE IBÉRIQUE LA NÉOLITHISATION DE L’OUEST MÉDITERRANÉEN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN NEOLITHIZATION Fig. 5: Cumulative distribution curves of radiocarbon calibrated dates for the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods, ordered by 50 years. A) the entire Iberian Peninsula. B) Portugal. C) Mediterranean coast); n= number of dates; N= number of dated sites. Courbes de distribution cumulatives des datations radiocarbone calibrées du Mésolithique et du Néolithique, regroupées par intervalles de 50 ans. A) l’ensemble de la péninsule Ibérique. B) Portugal. C) côte méditerranéenne ; n= nombre de datations; N= nombre de sites datés. Who? In general, pottery assemblages associated with these dates are rather non-diagnostic, but can in all cases be more or less definitely linked to the so called Cardial-Impressed culture (Bernabeu et al., 2009; Bernabeu and Molina dir., 2009), a formative stage of the subsequent classic Cardial period. These assemblages feature a wide diversity of impressions made with Cardium shells and other objects (fig. 4). In some cases ‘line-and-dot’ decorative patterns executed with a simple pointed tool (‘sillon d’impressions’ or “boquique”) establish links with Ligurian Impressed wares (Guilaine and Manen, 2007); in some cases, however, these links are not so apparent, for example with the cave site in Nerja, Málaga (García Borja et al., 2010). On the basis of these assemblages two routes have been suggested for the arrival of the Neolithic in the Iberian Peninsula: the European route, from southern France; and the North-African route. This idea, however, remains largely unclear. A comprehensive analysis of the ceramic series of the early Neolithic, including Southern Italian and African assemblages (seen as potential cultural sources for the Iberian Neolithic) and applying the phylogenetic methods used to trace the trajectory of cultural evolution could help to clarify this matter (Jordan and Shenan, 2009).These early ceramic horizons persist until about 5500/5450 cal. BC, the starting point for the classic Cardial culture. 429 JOAN BERNABEU AUBÁN BERNAT MARTÍ OLIVER THE FIRST AGRICULTURAL GROUPS IN THE IBERIAN PENINSULA What happened to the Mesolithic groups? The emergence of the Neolithic progressively brought Mesolithic groups to extinction. Although (fig. 5a) a uniform model of Mesolithic settlement continuity until 5530/5300 cal. BC seems apparent at the peninsular level, a wider variety emerges when the regional level is approached. In this sense, the comparison between Portugal (fig. 5b) and eastern Spain (fig. 5c) is very revealing: whereas in Portugal the Mesolithic continues for a minimum of 300 years (c. 5300 cal. BC) – and even 500 could be plausibly argued for – in the east of the Iberian Peninsula the Mesolithic lasts no more than 100 years after the arrival of the Neolithic (c. 5550-5500 cal. BC). Should these dates receive confirmation, the application of very different interaction processes must be advocated. For the Portuguese case, the idea of coexistence without exchange of Mesolithic and Neolithic groups for around 500 years has been set forth (Zilhão, 2001; but also Bicho et al., 2011 who shorten this coexistence period). At any rate, if any cultural exchange occurred archaeology has so far failed to identify it. On the other hand, evidence from the eastern regions of the Iberian Peninsula points to a prompt incorporation of Mesolithic groups into the process of neolithization. The record and the available dates, however, do not support the idea of acculturation. Regarding other areas, such as Catalonia or the central plateau, no final Mesolithic populations have been attested despite the numerous research projects and excavations carried out over the past two decades. Subsequently, in these cases Neolithic expansion can only be analysed as a colonization process. This overview leaves little room for consideration that the change was triggered by a process of acculturation. In all instances where this was possible (Portugal, upper Ebro valley and the Cantabrian shore) the evidence is elusive and, in any case, seems to point rather towards the arrival of early Neolithic groups. FROM CARDIAL TO EPICARDIAL: THE IBERIAN PENINSULA BETWEEN 5550 AND 5050 CAL. BC The arrival of the earliest Neolithic groups was followed in the Iberian Peninsula by considerable transformations extending over the second half of the 6th millennium cal. BC. In the last decade the amount of information available for this period has significantly increased.The multiplication of research projects and rescue excavations has affected all regions within the Iberian Peninsula, from the coastal areas to the interior. Recently published monographs (Bernabeu and Molina dir., 2009; Bosch et al. dir., 2000 and 2006; Diniz, 2007; García Atienzar, 2009; García Puchol, 2005; Jiménez, 2010; Torregrosa et al. dir., 2011) and the conclusions reached at scientific meetings (Arias et al. dir., 2005; Badal et al. dir., 2002; Bernabeu et al., 2011; Gibaja and Carvalho, 2010; Hernández et al. dir., 2008) agree about the fact that the Neolithic populations expanded to hitherto unoccupied regions. This has modified the traditional views on the Early Neolithic of the Iberian Peninsula. In total, three pottery horizons are known in the 6th millennium: Cardium-Impressed Ware which, having begun in the previous stage, persisted up to c. 5450 cal. BC in some regions; classic Cardial, originating in the former and limited to coastal areas; and Epicardial, the beginning of which may be dated to 5400/5350 cal. BC and which is particularly common in the interior. The chronological succession of these three horizons is reasonably well established thanks to the dates obtained from short-lived samples (fig. 6). On this basis, the most likely interval for the Cardium-Impressed stage lies between 5650/5600 and 5500/5450 cal. BC. Cardial and Epicardial groups evolve almost in parallel, although the former emerges approximately one century earlier (5500/5450 cal. BC) than the latter (5400/5350 cal. BC). In any case, this is based on large time intervals, a more accurate cannot be easily achieved. 430 The differences between the two later horizons are mainly recognised through pottery decoration and design. Cardium impressions define the classic Cardial (fig. 7) whilst horizontal incisions and grooves accompanied by series of points (fig. 8) are the most significant features of Epicardial decoration. Interesting regional and chronological variations can be detected in both horizons. At the peninsular scale the available dates support the traditional view – evolution from Cardial to Epicardial – but with an important overlap of both horizons at about 5350/5100 cal. BC. As we shall see presently, important variations can be detected at the regional level. Epicardial assemblages, local variations set aside, are characterised by the combination of incised and impressed decoration to form a diversity of motifs, and by the absence of Cardium-impressed decoration. In some Cardial assemblages, on the other hand, Cardium impressions predominate, though in others these appear in combination with other motifs typical for the Epicardial style. The temporal and spatial relationship between these two horizons has been defined as follows: Cardial assemblages, are mostly located in coastal areas, from Catalonia to Portugal, and show regional variations which are not always easy to outline with some degree of accuracy (Carvalho, 2010). The chronology spans from 5500/5450 cal. BC to 5100 cal. BC. At around 5250 cal. BC Cardial assemblages incorporate new technologies (including Red Slip ‘Almagra’ wares in central and southern Iberia and incise-impressed Epicardial-style decorations elsewere). - The Epicardial is fully developed by 5350 cal. BC, and during an initial stage extending to 5150/5100 cal. BC, it is exclusively found in interior areas, including the Ebro valley. After this date Cardial assemblages disappear to be replaced LES PREMIERS GROUPES AGROPASTORAUX DE LA PÉNINSULE IBÉRIQUE LA NÉOLITHISATION DE L’OUEST MÉDITERRANÉEN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN NEOLITHIZATION 60 50 Impresso-Cardial Cardial Epicardial 40 30 20 10 4950-4900 5000-4951 5050-5001 5100-5051 5150-5101 5200-5101 5250-5201 5300-5251 5350-5301 5400-5351 5450-5401 5500-5451 5555-5501 5600-5551 5650-5601 5700-5651 5750-5701 5800-5751 5850-5851 5900-5851 5950-5901 6000-5951 0 Fig. 6: Cumulative distribution histograms and curves of radiocarbon calibrated dates comparing the three main ceramic styles of the sixth millennium BC.The overlap between Cardial and Epicardial is clearly visible. Dates are from ranks 1 to 6. Histogrammes cumulatifs et courbes de datations radiocarbone calibrées comparant les trois principaux styles de céramique du VIe millénaire cal. BC. Le chevauchement entre les dates du Cardial et de l’Épicardial apparaît clairement. Dates de rang 1 à 6. by Epicardial, thus at about 5050 cal. BC Epicardial assemblages cover the entire Iberian Peninsula. This chronological and spatial dynamic is clearly reflected in the maps shown in figures 9 and 10. The traditional idea assumed that the Cardial was an earlier stage, mainly established in coastal areas with occasional penetrations to the interior. The occupation of wider interior regions was thought to effectively take place only after the development of the Epicardial. This later horizon would show far greater variety and would be ultimately responsible for the effective expansion of the Neolithic towards the interior of the peninsula. With this new information available, summarised above, this traditional view needs to be challenged. The Cardial indeed emerges earlier in coastal areas, and has been ascertained to penetrate to the interior towards the upper Ebro valley, the central plateau and other important stopover sites, such as the Chaves cave site. On the other hand, the Epicardial culture is clearly ultimately responsible for the effective neolithization of extensive areas in the interior. The question resides in whether this later style can be believed to invariably stem from the Cardial, or if some alternative origin can be suggested. In our opinion, there are two possible scenarios: - A. We can advance the hypothesis of the existence of groups in the interior (essentially middle and upper Ebro and Tagus valleys) prior to about 5350 cal. BC. Their material culture allows to establish links with the classic Cardial or alternatively with the Cardium-Impressed cultures, depending on the chronology of the earliest interior Neolithic settlements. These groups would evolve towards the Epicardial culture, playing a similar role to that played by Impressed Ware horizons predating the Cardial in coastal areas (see above). Evolution mechanisms such as drift could explain the disappearance of Cardial decoration in later assemblages, as with the case represented by the grooved impressions (“sillon d’impressions”) in the eastern coastal regions (Bernabeu and Molina dir., 2009). - B. The second scenario assumes differences between the Tagus and Ebro valleys.As already pointed out, an important core area of Late Mesolithic occupation dated to the second half of the 6th millennium has been identified in the upper Ebro valley. In this area, Mesolithic sequences seem to end up by potterybearing levels, although continuity with the preceding layers is not proven (e.g. Mendandia, see above) and neither is their chronology. Most of the few dates available for the region have been obtained from concentrations of bones, and are therefore not entirely reliable. Even if we assume that they are consistent we cannot go further than dating the earliest emergence of pottery horizons to sometime between 5500 and 5300 cal. BC. At the same time, the nearby settlements of Los Cascajos and Valle de Ambrona (Rojo et al., 2008) already show the whole range of Neolithic features associated with Epicardial horizons 431 JOAN BERNABEU AUBÁN BERNAT MARTÍ OLIVER THE FIRST AGRICULTURAL GROUPS IN THE IBERIAN PENINSULA (see above). This may suggest that the Epicardial emerges as a result of an acculturation process affecting Mesolithic groups in the upper Ebro valley. It is not possible to answer this question for the moment. This is, in any case, not the correct scenario for the Tagus, given the absence of preceding Mesolithic settlement. Both scenarios are in any case speculative, because available information remains insufficient and ambiguous. We need not only reliable dating to relate these pottery levels to the chronological gap between the Cardial or Cardium-Impressed Ware found in the lowermost layers of Chaves and Peña Larga and the earliest Epicardial dates (5350 cal. BC), but also to gather more information on the Neolithic sites that can be dated to this period. Fig. 7 : Cardial bowl from Cova de la Sarsa,Valencia. Photograph: SIP. Bol cardial de la Cova de la Sarsa,Valencia. Photographie : SIP. Fig. 8 : Epicardial bowl from La Lámpara, Soria (Photograph with the courtesy of M. Rojo). Bol épicardial de La Lámpara, Soria (Photographie avec l’aimable autorisation de M. Rojo). Fig. 9: Maps showing the Neolithic sites at two time points. A) at about 5450 cal. BC, Cardial sites dominate in coastal areas and the interior regions remain unoccupied. B) at about 5350 cal. BC.The first Epicardial sites appear in the interior regions, whilst the Cardial continues to dominate on the coast. Unfilled symbols indicate probable, but undated sites of these periods. Cartes illustrant la répartition des sites néolithiques à deux moments. A) vers 5450 cal. BC, les sites du Cardial dominent dans les régions côtières tandis que les régions intérieures demeurent inoccupées. B) vers 5350 cal. BC, les premiers sites de l’Épicardial apparaissent dans les régions intérieures, tandis que le Cardial continue à occuper principalement le littoral. Les cercles indiquent des sites probable de ces périodes mais non datés. 432 LES PREMIERS GROUPES AGROPASTORAUX DE LA PÉNINSULE IBÉRIQUE LA NÉOLITHISATION DE L’OUEST MÉDITERRANÉEN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN NEOLITHIZATION 433 JOAN BERNABEU AUBÁN BERNAT MARTÍ OLIVER 434 THE FIRST AGRICULTURAL GROUPS IN THE IBERIAN PENINSULA LES PREMIERS GROUPES AGROPASTORAUX DE LA PÉNINSULE IBÉRIQUE LA NÉOLITHISATION DE L’OUEST MÉDITERRANÉEN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN NEOLITHIZATION Fig. 10: Maps showing the Neolithic sites at two time points. A) at about 5250 cal. BC, the rupture between Cardial and Epicardial sites seems more evident. B) at about 5350 cal. BC, most of the coastal Cardial sites have disappeared. Unfilled symbols indicate probable, but undated sites of these periods. Cartes illustrant la répartition des sites néolithiques à deux moments. A) vers 5250 cal. BC, la répartition différenciée des sites du Cardial et de l’Épicardial apparaît plus clairement ; B) vers 5350 cal. BC, la plupart des sites côtiers du Cardial ont disparus. Les cercles indiquent des sites probable de ces périodes mais non datés. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION To summarize, it may be argued that the consolidation of the earliest farming economies in the Iberian Peninsula involved two different stages: The arrival of the first pioneering Neolithic groups may be dated to 5650-5600 cal. BC at the earliest. Their territorial expansion was discontinuous, extending over coastal regions and some interior areas following the course of the Ebro and Tagus rivers. According to the available direct dating, this initial expansion occurred between 5650-5600 cal. BC and 5500-5450 cal. BC; this time span of 150-200 years, leaves room to speculate on different regional and chronological distributions, but no more precision is possible with the resolution offered by the radiocarbon dates. If we assume that this scenario, developed from a relatively poor set of dates, reflects a real archaeological pattern, we must conclude that the earliest expansion of the Neolithic follows the maritime expansion model, in which small groups occupy areas which are relatively distant from one another. Although free from Mesolithic population, these newly colonised areas tend to be close to Mesolithic groups, as for example in Portugal. Despite this, the evidence pointing towards acculturation processes is, as we have already stressed, very scarce or even non-existent. The mechanisms governing this rapid and discontinuous expansion are not well understood. It is generally assumed that the process would be encouraged by demographic growth associated with the practice of agriculture, the overall availability of agricultural lands due to the low population density and the high ‘portability’ of an economic system which combined farming and stock rearing. Expansion would thus be determined by the carrying capacity of each territory. The speed and discontinuity recognised, however, does not match with this kind of process. With regard to other regions where the earliest neolithisation could follow similar patterns, for example Central Europe, It has been pointed out that the expansion process could be conditioned by the ways households access resources, and fundamentally land. The keys to the process would thus remain in the governing principles of territorial behaviour defined by population ecology. In this regard, if we assume behaviour guided by the principles of the Ideal Despotic Distribution model, instead of the “Ideal Free Distribution model”, the speed of the expansion and the relocation preference for areas far away from the original location are more easily explained (Shenan, 2007). Could this provide an answer to the question of Neolithic expansion in the western Mediterranean and the Iberian Peninsula? Yet it is impossible to answer this question, but the plausibility of the model seems to be beyond doubt. A deeper analysis of spatial behaviour might provide the key to confirm whether the earliest agricultural groups followed the principles outlined in the “Ideal Despotic Distribution model”. On the other hand, these groups do not seem to have developed independently from one another. In fact, the wide distribution of ceramic styles over entire regions seems to suggest a significant degree of interaction soon thereafter. The definition of Cardial horizons in the coastal regions (from 5500 cal.BC) and of Epicardial horizons inland from about 5350 cal.BC on points to the existence of interrelated networks connecting nearby and more distant groups in different ways. Indeed, pottery decoration styles, perhaps not always sufficiently known, suggest the circulation of information, although its internal mechanisms are to date not fully understood. Other materials, such as the schist bracelets common in Mediterranean regions (Orozco, 2000), seem to confirm the existence of these networks and the exchange of manufactured goods or raw materials. This unity in material culture does not support recent acculturationist ideas which attribute a wide diversity of material culture to the early Neolithic (Díaz del Río, 2010), and see neolithization mostly as an acculturation process affecting Mesolithic groups. These dynamics are associated with a demographic growth which, although difficult to quantify, seems apparent from the increase in the number of sites in certain regions and the colonisation of hitherto unoccupied regions throughout the 6th millennium cal. BC. The latest dates indicate that this cultural unity is broken at the beginning of the 5th millennium cal. BC. The reasons behind this later transformation remain largely unknown and are at any rate beyond the chronological limits set for this paper. This approximation to the earliest Neolithic in the Iberian Peninsula has given special weight to radiocarbon dating, pottery decoration and compared stratigraphy. Naturally, the whole body of data is far wider and the number of Mesolithic and early Neolithic sites much higher than those mentioned here (see the detailed mapping offered by García-Puchol and Aura, 2006; and Juan-Cabanilles and Martí, 2002). This ample evidence, not always adequately dated, offers significant information on technology, economy, settlement patterns and certain ideological aspects, such as cave painting (e.g. rock 435 JOAN BERNABEU AUBÁN BERNAT MARTÍ OLIVER THE FIRST AGRICULTURAL GROUPS IN THE IBERIAN PENINSULA art from La Sarga: Hernández and Segura dir., 2002; or lithic industry: Juan-Cabanilles, 2009). The present synthesis has taken all these factors into account. The evidence seems to point towards the coexistence of Mesolithic and Neolithic groups in different regions and for different periods of time. The earliest Neolithic groups, responsible for the introduction of the new technological and economic system, are linked to the European Impressed Ware Culture. These early settlements are located in coastal regions and soon after are also found in the interior, following the routes offered by river valleys, for example the Tagus and the Ebro. Throughout the second half of the 6th millennium Neolithic populations underwent a process of consolidation while Mesolithic groups responded differently to the arrival of the new lifestyle, depending on the date and the scale of this arrival. Their incorporation into the Neolithic was immediate in the lower Ebro valley and in Valencia, whereas in Portugal both systems coexisted in separate areas for a longer time. In the Cantabrian region the change to the new system was more progressive. Other controversies appear less significant when set against this backdrop, for example the possible relationship between some Neolithic elements, such as pottery, and Mesolithic geometric stone industries in Aragon and the Upper Ebro valley prior to 5650-5600 cal. BC. Once again, we must stress the qualitative differences shown by radiocarbon dates and, most particularly, the key role played by dates obtained from the remains of domesticated animals and cereals. A close scrutiny of decorative techniques and ceramic styles has encouraged attempts to further precise chronologies and relationships between Western Mediterranean sites, resulting in new interpretative approaches such as those outlined here, postulating the existence of a pioneering stage or even an additional southern route for neolithisation (Bernabeu et al., 2009) We have to keep in mind that the process of neolithisation in the Iberian Peninsula was carried out by small agricultural groups consisting of a few households. These showed well developed identities, perhaps because interaction with other groups was essential for survival. Each of these groups had practiced a Neolithic way of life for generations, as shown by the Southern Italian agricultural villages that we have taken as a reference. Their territorial patterns include the occupation of small villages and caves, also incorporating animal pens (corral), hunting grounds, cave sanctuaries and mines (Martí, 2008). Pottery decoration, lithic technology and other singular items, such as the aforementioned stone bracelets, among many other elements, point towards complex relationships between groups and changing identities in a context of demographic growth and the colonisation of new territories which, from perhaps the mid-6th millennium on, may reflect the development of supralocal social structures. The wave of advance model introduced new variables, in particular demography, for understanding the agricultural spread. Seaborne colonisation emphasizes territorial discontinuity of this movement. Now, the importance of domestic units as decision-making centres for the expansion of agricultural and stock breeding economies must be taken into account, along with a territorial behaviour determined by access to resources. Note. This work have been supported by the grant HAR2009-14360-C03-01, “Análisis comparativo de las dinámicas socioeconómicas en la Prehistoria Reciente peninsular (VI-II milenio aC)”, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science. BIBLIOGRAPHY ALDAY A. dir. (2006) - El campamento prehistórico de Mendandia: ocupaciones mesolíticas y calcolíticas entre el 8500 y el 6500 B.P, Ataun, Fundación José Miguel de Barandiarán, 660 p. ALDAY A., MUJIKA J.A. (1999) - Nuevos datos de cronología absoluta concerniente al Holoceno medio en el área vasca. El mundo indígena, Actas del XXIV Congreso Nacional de Arqueología, Cartagena, 1997, Murcia, Instituto del Patrimonio Histórico, vol. 2, p. 95-106. ARIAS P., ONTAÑÓN R., GARCÍA-MONCÓ C. dir. (2005) III Congreso del Neolítico en la Península Ibérica, Santander, 2003, Santander, Universidad de Cantabria, 1056 p. BADAL E., BERNABEU J., MARTÍ B. dir. (2002) - El paisaje en el Neolítico mediterráneo, Valencia, Universitat de València (SaguntumPapeles del Laboratorio de Arqueología, extra 5), 250 p. BERGER J.-F., GUILAINE J. (2009) - The 8200 cal BP abrupt environmental change and the Neolithic transition: A Mediterranean perspective, Quaternary International, 200, 1-2, p. 33-49. 436 BERNABEU J. (2006) - Una visión actual sobre el origen y difusión del Neolítico en la península Ibérica. Ca. 5600-5000 cal. a.C, in O. García, J.E. Aura (dir.), El Abric de la Falguera (Alcoi, Alacant). 8000 años de ocupación humana en la cabecera del río de Alcoi, Alicante, Diputación de Alicante, Ayuntamiento de Alcoy, CAM, p. 189-211. BERNABEU J., BARTON C.M., PÉREZ M. (2001) - A taphonomic perspective on Neolithic beginings; Theory, interpretation and empirical data in the western Mediterranean, Journal of Archaeological Science, 28, p. 597-612. BERNABEU J., MOLINA Ll., ESQUEMBRE M.A., RAMÓN J., BORONAT J.D. (2009) - La cerámica impresa mediterránea en el origen del Neolítico de la península Ibérica, De Méditerranée et d’ailleurs… Mélanges offerts à Jean Guilaine, Toulouse, Archives d’écologie préhistorique, p. 83-95. BERNABEU J., MOLINA Ll. dir. (2009) - La Cova de les Cendres (Moraira-Teulada, Alicante), Alicante, Diputación de Alicante (MARQ, Serie Mayor 6), 194 p. LES PREMIERS GROUPES AGROPASTORAUX DE LA PÉNINSULE IBÉRIQUE LA NÉOLITHISATION DE L’OUEST MÉDITERRANÉEN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN NEOLITHIZATION BERNABEU J., ROJO M., MOLINA Ll. (2011) - Las primeras producciones cerámicas. El VI milneio cal AC en la península Ibérica, Valencia, Universitat de València (Saguntum-Papeles del Laboratorio de Arqueología, extra 12), 277 p. GIBAJA J.F., CARVALHO A.F. (2010) - Os ultimos caçadoresrecolectores e as primeiras comunidades produtoras do sul da Península Ibérica e do norte de Marrocos, Faro, Universidade do Algarve (Promontoria Monografica, 15), 250 p. BICHO N., CASCALHEIRA J., MARREIROS J., PEREIRA T. (2011) - The 2008-2010 excavations of Cabeço da Amoreira, Muge, Portugal, Mesolithic Miscellany, 21, 2, p. 3-13. GONZÁLEZ-SAMPÉRIZ P., UTRILLA P., MAZO C., VALEROGARCÉS B., SOPENA M.C., MORELLÓN M., SEBASTIÁN M., MORENO A., MARTÍNEZ-BEA M. (2009) - Patterns of human occupation during the Early Holocene in the Central Ebro Basin (NE Spain) in response to the 8200-yr climatic event, Quaternary Research, 71, p. 121–132. BOSCH A., CHINCHILLA J., TARRÚS dir. (2000) - El poblat lacustre Neolític de la Draga. Excavacions 1990 a 1998, Girona (Monografies del CASC, 2), 296 p. BOSCH A., CHINCHILLA J., TARRÚS J. dir. (2006) - Els objectes de fusta del poblat neolític de La Draga. Excavacions 1995-2005, Girona (Monografies del CASC, 6), 184 p. CARVALHO A. F. (2010) - Le passage vers l’Atlantique: Le processus de Néolithisation en Algarve (Sud du Portugal), L’Anthropologie, 114, p. 141–178. CORTÉS SÁNCHEZ M., JIMÉNEZ ESPEJO F.J., SIMÓN VALLEJO M.D., GIBAJA BAO J.F., FAUSTINO CARVALHO A. et al. (2012) – The Mesolithic–Neolithic transition in southern Iberia, Quaternary Research, 77, p. 221-234. DAVISON K., DOLUKHANOV P., SARSON G.R., SHUKUROV A. (2006) - The role of waterways in the spread of Neolithic, Journal of Archaeological Science, 33, p. 61-652. DÍAZ DEL RÍO P. (2010) - The neolithic argonauts of the western Mediterranean and other underdetermined hypotheses of colonial encounters, in D.J. Bolender (dir.), Eventful Archaeologies, New York, University of New York, p. 88-99. DINIZ M. (2007) - O sitio da Valada do Mato (Évora): aspectos da neolitizaçao no interior/sul de Portugal, Lisboa, Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia (Trabalhos de Arqueología, 48), 323 p. FERNÁNDEZ ERASO J. (2011) - Las cerámicas neolíticas de la Rioja alavesa en su contexto. Los casos de Peña Larga y Los Husos I y II, in J. Bernabeu, M. Rojo, Ll. Molina (dir.), Las primeras producciones cerámicas. El VI milenio cal AC en la península Ibérica, Valencia, Universitat de València (Saguntum-Papeles del Laboratorio de Arqueología, extra 12), p.117-130. FERNÁNDEZ LÓPEZ DE PABLO J., GÓMEZ M. (2009) Climate change and population dynamics during the Late Mesolithic and the Neolithic transition in Iberia, Documenta Praehistorica, XXXVI, p. 67-96. GARCÍA ATIENZAR G. (2009) - Territorio Neolítico. Las primeras comunidades campesinas en la fachada oriental de la península Ibérica (ca. 5600-2800 cal. BC), Oxford, Archaeopress (BAR International Series, 2021), 279 p. GARCÍA BORJA P., AURA E., BERNABEU J., JORDÁ J.F. (2010) - Nuevas perspectivas sobre la neolitización en la cueva de Nerja (Málaga-España): la cerámica de la Sala del Vestíbulo, Zephyrus, LXVI, p. 109-132. GARCÍA PUCHOL O. (2005) - El proceso de neolitización en la fachada mediterránea de la península Ibérica. Tecnología y tipología de la piedra tallada, Oxford, Archaeopress (BAR International Series, 1430), 393 p. GARCÍA PUCHOL O., AURA J.E. (2006) - La dinámica secuencial del Mesolítico en la fachada mediterránea peninsular, in O. García, J.E. Aura (dir.), El Abric de la Falguera (Alcoi, Alacant). 8000 años de ocupación humana en la cabecera del río de Alcoi, Alicante, Diputación de Alicante, Ayuntamiento de Alcoy, CAM, p. 137-157. GUILAINE J., MANEN C. (2007) - From Mesolithic to Early Neolithic in western Mediterranean, in A. Whittle, V. Cummings (dir.), Going Over: The Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in North-West Europe, Oxford University press (Proceedings of the British Academy, 144), p. 21-51. HERNÁNDEZ M.S., SEGURA J.M. dir. (2002) - La Sarga. Arte Rupestre y Territorio, Alcoy, Ayuntamiento de Alcoy, CAM, 213 p. HERNÁNDEZ M.S., SOLER J.A., LÓPEZ J.A. dir. (2008) - IV Congreso del Neolítico Peninsular, Alicante, Diputación de Alicante, MARQ, 2 vol., 449 et 397 p. JIMÉNEZ J. (2010) - Cazadores y Campesinos. La Neolitización del interior de la peninsula Ibérica, Madrid, Real Academia de la Historia, 664 p. JORDAN P., SHENNAN S. (2009) - Diversity in hunther-gatherer technological traditions: Mapping trajectories of cultural “descent with modification” in northeast California, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 28, p. 342-365. JUAN-CABANILLES J. (2009) - El utillaje de piedra tallada en la Prehistoria reciente valenciana. Aspectos tipológicos, estilísticos y evolutives, Valencia, Diputación de Valencia, Servicio de Investigación Prehistórica, 300 p. JUAN-CABANILLES J., MARTÍ B. (2002) - Poblamiento y procesos culturales en la Península Ibérica del VII al V milenio A.C. (8000-5500 BP). Una cartografía de la neolitización, in E. Badal, J. Bernabeu, B. Martí (dir.), El paisaje en el Neolítico mediterráneo, Valencia, Universitat de València (Saguntum-Papeles del Laboratorio de Arqueología, extra 5), p. 45-87. JUAN-CABANILLES J., MARTÍ B. (2007-2008) - La fase C del Epipaleolítico reciente: lugar de encuentro o línea divisoria. Reflexiones en torno a la neolitización en la fachada mediterránea peninsular, Veleia, 24-25, p. 611-628. LINSTÄDTER J., MEDVED I., SOLICH M., WENIGER G.-C. (2012) – Neolithisation process within the Alboran territory: Models and possible African impact, Quaternary international, 274, p. 219-232. MARCHAND G. (2005) - Contacts, blocages et filiations entre les aires culturelles mésolithiques et néolithiques en Europe atlantique, L’Anthropologie, 109, p. 541-556. MARTÍ B. (2008) - Cuevas, poblados y santuarios neolíticos: una perspectiva mediterránea, in M.S. Hernández, J. Soler, A. López (dir.), IV Congreso del Neolítico Peninsular, Alicante, Diputación de Alicante, MARQ, vol. I, p. 17-27. MARTÍ B., JUAN-CABANILLES J. (1997) - Epipaleolíticos y neolíticos: población y territorio en el proceso de neolitización de la península Ibérica, Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, Serie I, Prehistoria y Arqueología, 10, p. 215-264. OROZCO T. (2000) - Aprovisionamiento e Intercambio. Análisis del utillaje pulimentado en la Prehistoria Reciente del País Valenciano (España), Oxford, Archaeopress (BAR International Series, 867), 219 p. 437 JOAN BERNABEU AUBÁN BERNAT MARTÍ OLIVER THE FIRST AGRICULTURAL GROUPS IN THE IBERIAN PENINSULA PEÑA L., ZAPATA L., IRIARTE M.J., GONZÁLEZ M., STRAUS L.G. (2005) - The oldest agriculture in northern Atlantic Spain: new evidence from El Mirón Cave (Ramales de la Victoria, Cantabria), Journal of Archaeological Science, 32,4, p. 579-587. RAMOS J., LAZARICH M. dir. (2002) - El Asentamiento de “El Retamar” (Puerto Real, Cádiz): contribución al estudio de la formación social tribal y a los inicios de la economía de producción en la Bahía de Cádiz, Cadiz, Universidad de Cádiz, 435 p. ROJO M.A., KUNST M., GARRIDO R., GARCÍA I. (2008) Paisajes de la Memoria. Asentamientos del Neolítico Antiguo en el valle de Ambrona (Soria, España), Valladolid, Universidad de Valladolid, 610 p. SHENAN S. (2007) - The spread of farming into cenral Europe and its consequences, in T.A. Kohler, S. van der Leeuw (dir.), The ModelBased Archaeology of Socionatural Systems, Santa Fe, School for Advanced Reseach Press, p. 141-156. TORREGROSA P., JOVER F.J., LÓPEZ E. dir. (2011) - Benàmer (Muro d’Alcoi, Alicante). Mesolíticos y neolíticos en las tierras meridionales valencianes, Valencia, Diputación de Valencia, Servicio de Investigación Prehistórica, 380 p. UTRILLA P., MONTES L. dir. (2009) - El Mesolítico Geométrico en la Península Ibérica, Zaragoza, Universidad de Zaragoza, 395 p. UTRILLA P., MONTES L., MAZO C, MARTÍNEZ-BEA M., DOMINGO R. (2009) - El Mesolítico Geométrico en Aragón, in P. Utrilla, L. Montes (dir.), El Mesolítico Geométrico en la Península Ibérica, Zaragoza, Universidad de Zaragoza, p. 131-190. ZEDER M. (2008) - Domestication and early Agriculture in the Mediterranean basin: Origins, diffusion, and impact, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, p. 11597-11604. ZILHÃO J. (2001) - Radiocarbon evidence for maritime pioneer colonization at the origins of farming in west Mediterranean Europe, Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 98, p. 14180-14185. ZILHÃO J. (2003) - The Neolithic transition in Portugal and the role of demic diffusion in the spread of agriculture across west Mediterranean Europe, in A.J. Ammerman, P. Biagi P. (dir.), The widening harvest. The Neolithic transition in Europe: looking back, looking forward, Boston, Archaeological Institute of America, p. 207–223. ZILHÃO J. (2011) - Time is on my side… in A. Hadjikoumis, E. Robinson, S. Viner (dir.), The Dynamics of Neolithisation in Europe, Oxford, Oxbow Books, p. 46-65.   438

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

The first agricultural groups in the Iberian Peninsula

The first agricultural groups in the Iberian Peninsula

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS