You are on page 1of 15

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

75014 Paris. Neolithic expansion at its onset. but proceeded in leaps.bocquet-appel@evolhum. is demonstrated by a linear rela. whether biological and / or tionship between the tempo of early farming in different parts of cultural. was not uniform and regular across Europe as a whole. UK c Institute of Archaeology.. University of Leicester. The data are considered as representing mixed results (for the genetic data see: Achilli et al. presence or absence of geographical barriers. with considered as a continuum. 1998).. 2004. representing the gradient. Where. geostatistical techniques are purely 1988) and crop plants (Coward et al. favourable to agriculture or native Mesolithic population groups? tively regular pace of the local introduction of agriculture on The data representing the geographical expansion of an infor- a continental geographic scale. Kozlowski c a CNRS. France b School of Archaeology and Ancient History. as originally detected by Gordon We know that this expansion was not geographically uniform. 6700–6100 calBC crossing the southern Adriatic Expansion of early farming Early Neolithic Europe barrier. 10 points of renewed expansion and nine 14C dates contact zones. Renewed expansion approximately steady. All rights reserved. 2007) were superimposed formal. Contact zones Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. Author's personal copy Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 807–820 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Archaeological Science journal homepage: http://www. This approach was initiated with the formalisation of the model of expansion/ * Corresponding author.fr (J.. Unlike other (Pinhasi et al. can be modelled via a geostatistical technique known as Europe and its geographic distance from the Levantine source kriging (Chile`s and Delfiner. 2005. Clark (1965) using markers represented by 14C dates and for. when and how? To what do these variations correspond? malised in population terms by Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza’s What constraints might they be connected with.. Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza. Rootsi a random sampling of space-time archaeological markers of the et al. were detected. Janusz K. Using a vector map. 31007 Krakow. Marc Vander Linden b. explicit generating mechanics. (2003) themselves. 0305-4403/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. The surface expansion of early Neolithic has been reconstituted Received in revised form using the kriging technique of spatial interpolation. 1984).004 . 1925). Centres of renewed expansion. Wackernagel. Poland a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: The spread of early farming in Europe is revisited using a sample of 3072 audited 14C calBC dates from Received 9 September 2008 940 georeferenced early Neolithic sites. This is made possible by a 30-fold increase in the 14C dates published since then. the kriging technique will help to as envisaged by Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (1984) see also produce an estimate of its demographic intensity. 2004. 1973. Bocquet-Appel).11. rue de l’Amiral Mouchez.elsevier. techniques. Arrhythmic model 1. An approach in this We know that the European Neolithic gradient that spread from direction has already been made (Gkiasta et al. contraction in modern humans/Neanderthals (Bocquet-Appel and E-mail address: jean-pierre. and 4 November 2008 the main routes of expansion have been highlighted by means of a vector map. All rights reserved. we therefore farming system.cnrs. doi:10. They describe the space-time morphology of the data onto this longitudinal gradient of cultural Neolithic items.com/locate/jas Detection of diffusion and contact zones of early farming in Europe from the space-time distribution of 14C dates Jean-Pierre Bocquet-Appel a.. UPR2147. 6100–5600 calBC crossing the Central European agro-ecological barrier and 5000–4000 calBC Vector map expanding on the other. direction and intensity varied from region to region. Leicester LE1 7RH. The whole does not correspond to a process of homogeneous diffusion. of contact zones. zones ecologically 1979). With the scale of detection of the 500-year isochrones. the rela. To gain further insight.1016/j. for example the model of demic expansion (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza. 2003). was dated in absolute terms by Its speed. such as diffusion equations that connect data to an Frequencies of conventional genetic markers (Cavalli-Sforza et al. mational innovation of any kind. 2000).. the Levant in a SE–NW direction. 11 street Golebia. 1999. University of Krakow. The existence of this European Neolithic gradient. Introduction Bentley et al. Demars. several leaps are Keywords: identifiable: at 8000 calBC crossing the Taurus barrier. Accepted 11 November 2008 The expansion of the agricultural system on the map..-P. Haak et al. University Road. but a process marked by phases of geographical expansion and stasis. Childe with ceramics (Childe. 44.2008. *. marginal zones.jas. Stephan Naji a. 2005). Besides the speed and direction of the European need to move from a continental to a more local geographical scale.

in the same grid squares (35 km  35 km). Amongst these. Data and techniques The data are represented by 3027 audited 14C dates of 940 sites extracted (see below) from a large dataset of 5945 dates of 1985 georeferenced early Neolithic sites (see Appendix A). instead of taking only the The distribution of 14C dates in space and time can be consid- date of the outermost ring. / Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 807–820 2. Auditing the database Any creation of data. 2000). i. If AMS dates could be considerably different from the real age of the cultural layer. i. Initial filtering consisted of simply eliminating the dates from We therefore decided to keep them. kriging butions of dates not being strictly identical. previous anthracological determination can help to avoid the later or earlier admixtures. Conventional the conventional dates. although imperfect. our preferred technique is geostatistical niques. the mass of current data. 1987). As usual (Bocquet-Appel and Demars. radiocarbon dates are made up of 72% of charcoal. We then checked whether the reconstitute (estimate) this continuum.-P. below. using Calpal (Weninger and Jo¨ris. . showing evidence of early farming.e. in terms of standard error and archaeo- logical proxies for items whose date is actually sought.1. 1 and 2 show the chronological trends of the two date categories.2. 1955). the database has Fig. A second (see below). Charcoal identified the introduction of the agricultural system at the locality. see Pettit et al. is contingent upon the issues it raises and the techniques available at the time of their creation. There is no doubt that the apparent inaccuracy of yesterday’s data. There are clear differences in the estimates on the periphery of the graphs. and (ii) the possible contamination of these charcoals by postdepositional factors (dessication cracks. where the conventional charcoal dates are. in the more or less long term. The kriging interpolation technique 1986. To as made of oak was eliminated. by about 500 years at the western maximum of a band covering Spain. on average. which produces an earlier chronology for the early possible filtering was based on searching for a systematic bias Neolithic in the geographical zones indicated above. on the latitude. Bocquet-Appel et al. 2. Longitude deviation between conventional charcoal and AMS dates (solid line) been filtered by eliminating dates according to the criteria given in the same grid squares (35 km  35 km). This effect consists of averaging the continuum of tree ring dates in a solid wood sample. Taylor. Ireland and UK. will be just the same tomorrow. Libby’s dates from the 1950’s seemed extraordinary (Libby. 2003). respectively by longitude and latitude. Latitude deviations between conventional charcoal and AMS dates (solid line) audit them thoroughly from the information in the database alone.) is frequent. an interpolation technique trends in the dates differed significantly between the two tech- is used. in the sceptical eyes of today. which amounts in practice to materials (humic earth and peat) where information on the accepting these relatively earlier AMS dates in the informed grid connection with the archaeological target was missing. cannot easily be replaced (see also Gkiasta et al. We do not have a ‘‘technical’’ explanation for this difference at the periphery of the graph (but not of Europe) – which would have allowed correction of a systematic bias – other than: (i) an ‘‘archaeological’’ explanation. The n 1 suspect cause of possible bias is the so-called ‘‘old wood’’ effect (Schiffer. providing 82 common 2n informed squares. 2. 2. In this latter case. and by about 550 years at the eastern maximum of a band covering central Europe.. 1. biotrubations. etc. but not in the centre.. Unlike other local adjustment techniques. of whatever nature. of obtaining an earlier ered as a random sampling of a continuum of dates representing date/moment than that which is really sought. in other words. Short of starting again from scratch and awaiting. All the dates are calibrated BC. Should we keep or eliminate these AMS dates? It is not possible to Fig. the latent tendency in archaeology to seek early or late dates in transition issues. 2003). Author's personal copy 808 J. compared to between maximum conventional and AMS dates. new data along with the necessary financial and human means. Figs. by about 600 years at the southern maximum of a band starting below the Nantes– Budapest line. 2008).e. To avoid any effect due to the geography of the two distri- kriging. two grids with the same mesh size (30 km  30 km) were made up for the conven- tional and AMS dates separately. the traditional dates have a tendency to correspond to the average date. later than the AMS dates: on the longitude. The database consists of dates obtained with the conven- tional technique (63%) and the AMS (31%) radiocarbon technique. a common device was built to allow bias-free comparisons. To do so. compared to today’s contingent demands for rigour (contra.

3: represented nearly 25 years ago by (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza. called the grid mesh. . standard- measured via a variogram. These asperities are considered as local anom- represented by the area of kriged variable.-P. i.000 years). whatever the number of source sites contained in the same square. 2000 for its use in palae. aging) may obscure the fine grain resolution of the transition. / Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 807–820 809 integrates the structure of information redundancy on the map. after which rated by Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (1984). 2003). An optimum mesh size is sought so that it produces the greatest number of 2n informed Fig. Here. can be expressed by the to another on the map as a whole.000 m (2000 km).e. error: 444. The picture of a subdivision into 500-year isochrones is optimum grid). Author's personal copy J. The optimum grid. 1999. It is this modelling of the stand this rate of expansion in demographic terms. t2) of a cultural or two oldest dates) that can be relatively dissimilar from one square population area..5. slope ¼ 0.1. The grid is then called an optimum informed grid (or isochrones. t2). the distance between pairs of squares (in meter) is shown on the horizontal axis. squares and their values estimated by kriging. Any size of square. regardless of the causes of these errors. is possible up 3. on the map. also called nugget ¼ 220. it may be thought that the nature of this heterogeneity stems mainly from the difficulty of accurately 3. with a subdivision scale of 35 km. provides dates (average of the The rate of expansion between two dates (t1.. All the all interpolation techniques. is relatively high axis becomes stressed (see also Davison et al.6 years) between the average dates in the 2n informed tion procedure (see Wackernagel. which is specific discontinuities or asperities were smoothed by the geo- usually the case).000. after which redundancy decays exponentially (function parameters: power ¼ 1. the farming system on the map. This average is positioned to the geographical co-ordinates of the at the size level of the informed squares. the diffusion tendency on the Danube the pairs of 2n informed first-neighbour squares. Archaeological density in the expansion areas dating the time of introduction to the locality. 4 shows the correlation (cross-validation: r ¼ 0. If the general pattern of the squares of 35 km  35 km. This information redundancy is Fig. 2003).000 m (2000 km). the expansion degradation of information redundancy with the distance between area needs to be associated with an estimate of the demographic Fig. most often errors in dating the introduction of the farming The interpolation area is subdivided into grid squares. If the standard deviations of 14C dates are random procedure is thus an average modelled surface. 3. The expansion of early farming revisited to the entire surface area of the grid. a choice must be made between the advantage of gaining a repre- The average of the two earliest dates in this distribution is taken as sentation of the diffusion at the global continental scale and the an estimate of the date of the onset of the Neolithic in the square. Soon after the origin. then the spatial trend of the data is correctly statistic procedure. Soon after the origin. 2006) and a source of (220. as in the well-known example inaugu- to a distance of approximately 2. up the expansion area (St1. Excluding the hypothesis of an erratic introduction of peninsula. The square is then called ‘‘2n informed’’ (Bose et al. a slow linear degradation of the information redundancy can be seen up to a distance of approximately 2. Semi-variance (in years) is shown on the vertical axis. which is then injected into the estima. alies. Semi-variogram representing information redundancy between the 399 2n informed squares of the optimum grid (35 km  35 km). centre of the square. between 1984. Our optimum grid was made up of 399 2n informed obtained by skipping one isochrone. Fig. indicating heterogeneous within-square source diffusion appears from the Mediterranean side of the Iberian information. Bocquet-Appel et al. adjusted by a power function (black line). whatever the geographical scale. expansion of the earlier Neolithic obtained with the kriging odemography).000. a slow surface bounded by the two corresponding isochrones indicating linear degradation of the information redundancy may be seen. To system at the locality.865. Chile`s and Delfiner. in 250-year squares. or both. The surface of see Bocquet-Appel and Demars. 1998. 3 shows the semi-variogram of diffusion gradient in a SE–NW direction is the same as that already average dates of the 2n informed squares. 5 shows the expansion of early farming.000 years). Gkiastra et al. average semi-variance at the origin. The semi-variance (Fig. In order to under- redundancy decays exponentially. disadvantage of these techniques which is to ‘‘ smooth the edges’’ . on which any from place to place (i.e. 2n informed squares that is introduced into the kriging procedure.. As for preserve the distance the map is Lambert conical conform. no systematic directional bias. vertical axis) at the origin (also called ‘‘nugget effect’’). the smoothing aspect (spatial aver- 14C dates contained in a grid square form a distribution of dates.

t2 / St1. They represent density on the expansion front. Distribution of 940 archaeological sites of the early Neolithic over the expansion areas. Nt1. for the same density in a small or large area does not indicate the same force of attraction. there Fig. respectively at 7750. the validity of the technique was still disputed in central Europe until recently. but it is not known It is well-known that there are discrepancies in the number of what becomes of it behind the front. Cross-validation between true and kriged values (r ¼ 0. However.40. 5000 compared to a high-density expansion area. have greatly modified the state of the documentation.58 demographic pressure could be the density of archaeological sites (1000 km2). several recent dating programmes. the density of archaeological sites in an expansion area is an overall rather than local measurement. used in the database (see Appendix A). which is greater in the latter than in the former. it is also necessary to take the size of the expansion area itself into account. Bocquet-Appel et al. 5000. mountains. Table 1 shows the values making it possible to obtain densities in various expansion areas. . then the observed density of archaeological sites is a non- biased estimation of the unknown original density. for the 500-year isochrones. A measurement of the and 4000 calBC with the corresponding area sizes of 33. / Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 807–820 This is especially true for the amount of radiocarbon dates.865. t2. From the Fig.-P. The relief areas located above 500 m were isochrones. from the intro- duction of the 14C technique until the completion of the database used here. 1660 (1000 km2) and 530 (1000 km2). temperature or precipitation variations during the Holocene. However. 4. t2. standard error of source considered to start in Turkey.or 500-year size: A ¼ Nt1. An expansion area with low demographic tively. by its area demographic ‘‘moments’’. It must not (A) in the expansion area. 5. for example. This is obtained by simply dividing the be forgotten that these densities in the expansion areas represent number of archaeological sites located in this area. 6 and 7 show the histograms of the expansion areas and the corresponding archae- ological densities at the 250. respectively at 8000. As expansion areas can cover several regions. bounded by the 250-year isochrones. If these successive densities of archaeological sites known from one region to the next. On basis of this hypothesis of uniform archaeological pressure. subtracted. These are successive and not contemporaneous images. besides archaeological density. 5250.6 years). determined by the 250. for the 250 years isochrones six appreciable increases in archaeological density can be noted equals or above of 0. One of the archaeological sites on the expansion front are compared to main reasons for this situation is the national tradition of research. 500-year isochrones can be obtained by skipping one isochrone. 4250 and 4000 BC respec- pressure within it. Author's personal copy 810 J. after the Taurus/Porus the estimate: 444.and 500-year isochrones. at 8000 BC. as. three archaeological appre- density will indicate a relatively unfavourable settlement zone ciable increases equals or above 0.20. which is now more even across the continent. This allows us to make the hypothesis that there was a cumulative archaeological pressure (the excavations carried out) which was approximately uniform across Europe. Figs.

75 125 270. In the Lake District and in the region of on the date surface.75–8 4 25. Bocquet-Appel et al. When the vector is short the slope is steep 3. these densities indicate that diffusion was fast to begin with and did not proceed regularly on the map but rather in leaps. The length of Isochrone Site number Expansion area Site density theses vectors represent the slopes (the magnitude) for the (1000 km2) (1000 km2) diminishing dates and their arrows their directions pointing 3. border line A. 10.253 5.00 0. indicated by their arrows.85 0. Author's personal copy J. or also by enlarging the mesh of the grid on which the 7–7. eventually.75 4 8. Moving from east to west.2.00 0.00 0. represent the slopes for the 4.000 map. 70 and 140 km.55 0.25 30 260.00 0.220 gradients are obtained. On our kriged map. the trend of the local relief then disappears to be replaced by a rough trend at large geographical distance. which westernmost areas of distribution of the Preceramic Neolithic remain as obstacles on the expansion front.75–7 0 8.25–7. because the generally positive deviations between these dates and the of multiple obstacles of all kinds (geographical and/or ecological upper limits of the corresponding isochrones (see Fig. vectors are named the gradients in analytic geometry. Interpreted in demographic terms. appears in hollow relief (PPNB – 9000–7500 BC). like a small mount on a surface. into Table 2).108 difficult to read the vector map.492 4–4. onto the kriged map.109 to understand the figure at the normal size of publication. but connected to one or two earlier source south-eastern Anatolian coast and the Konya Plain are the dates. 12 110.463 and the speed of the spread is low.00 0. When the degree of definition of the data is 4.1.00 0. are given in Table 2.5 64 510.024 for instance by uniformly diminishing the density of vectors on the 6.108 diminishing dates.5 4 46. The the main routes of expansion can be highlighted by means of a so. The surrounding them.75–4 128 260. Early Neolithic discovered in north-western Anatolia (Fikirtepe called vector map.25 13 98. westernmost limit of the PPN and Aceramic These centres of renewed expansion.00 0.00 0.65 0.15 0. 8640 vectors are obtained.5 0 6.115 slope is nearly flat and the speed is rapid. represented on the Culture – after 6400 BC?) belong to the different cultural Fig. These Pre-Pottery units are zones. . located isolated mounts or plateaux of dates that are earlier than those at the centres of renewed extension.00 0.000 doubled by successively taking values of 35. one would not expect diffusion to on which they lie. partially corresponding to the Taurus Mountains). 3. the persistence of non-colonised zones. Over the extension are detectable.25–5. these accretion zones. The sites and their dates.5–7.361 relatively precise on a map at the continental scale.5–5.039 6.25 1 4. 10 centres of renewed centres of stasis and further geographical extension.25–4. but 7.75–5 267 740. Vector map by one or two arrival points. as indicated by remain steady along a continuous linear front. when the vector is long the 3. which makes it difficult 5. but rather.132 several solutions in order to make the vector map more readable.25–3.00 0. Distribution of the areas of expansion zones by 250-year isochrones below 500 m (top: 250 years. the multiple directions of the diffusion fronts are unknown in south-western and north-western Anatolia (Fig. and Neolithic.2.5 27 250.65 0. These funnels create accretion from the local Epipaleolithic. connected 3. the 7. Fig.75 99 920. The directions of these 4. Conversely. bottom: 500 years). 6.75 1 25. these centres appear as south eastern Turkey (point 0). There are 6–6. like funnels towards which the more recent Antalya in the Pre-Pottery Phase existed some units deriving surrounding 14C dates converge. This represents a geographical group of dates which are almost always older than the isochrone In an area of continental size.5–3. With a mesh size of 5.125 vectors. The origins of the vectors.25–6. 6.5–4.55 0.75–6. 8 and and/or population and/or cultural) to fragment.5–6. Centre of renewed expansion A centre of renewed expansion can be identified by the outward radial pattern of the vectors surrounding it.00 0. Those 500 m). then it is 5–5.00 0. when the mesh size is 7.475 same directional geographical structure is still recognisable.25 114 450.087 towards younger dates.178 35 km  35 km. represented by directional slopes on the date surface. Finally. 8 shows the vector map with a mesh size of 70 km superimposed is apparently no correlation. starting from a source point located in surface area of the continuum of 14C dates.-P. / Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 807–820 811 Table 1 initial map (with their directions and magnitudes) are located at Density of the archaeological sites within the 250 year isochrones (sea level below each centre of a grid superimposed onto a kriged surface.5 1 42.75 41 230.159 from 280 km onwards.43 0.

corresponding to tions. important role in the formation of this ecological barrier.e. connected by one or two arrival points. Of course. bottom: 500 years). Vector map of the spread of the early Neolithic. via Cyprus(?) and ments decreased from the south to the north of the Carpathian Aegean islands (Fig. 2001: 407).. between 6000 and et al. 8. Culturally this barrier (so-called Central European ecological barrier in the Upper Tisza basin and in northern agro-ecological barrier – see Fig. / Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 807–820 Fig. below 500 m (top: 250 years. Neolithic to point 1 (western coast of Greece) followed the As a consequence. Water conditions during the Atlantic period also 5800 BC. other factors played an point to the quick spread of First Neolithic to northern Balkans. This climate expressed by differences in both temperatures and corresponds to one stop in the so-called Guilaine’s arrhythmic Fig. Density of the early Neolithic archaeological sites in expansion areas bounded by two isochrones. like a mound on the surface variable. Ten centres of renewed expansion are indicated. Author's personal copy 812 J. tradition not rooted in PPNB.-P. 10.. In this situation the spread of first duration of the growing season (Sumegi and Kertesz. The expansion of the Ko¨ro¨s–Starcˇevo to the least 300–400 years (between isochrones 6000/5800 and northern part of the Carpathian basin was constrained by an 5600 BC). This barrier corresponds to the influence of transition between Ko¨ro¨s and Linear Pottery Culture. identified by the outward radial pattern of the vectors surrounding it. The adaptation to the new ecological conditions took at Ko¨ro¨s–Starcˇevo). 7. line B) corresponds to the Transdanubia. This earliest spread of the Neolithic formed a base for played an important role in limiting the Balkan traditional agri- point 2 (Fig. i. Bocquet-Appel et al. . probably through three different routes via river valleys: Vardar– differences in base rock soils (loess and alluvial soils in the Morava. Continental Eastern Greece was a starting basin (Zolyomi et al. meta- routes conducted to the Danube valley which was crossed in the morphic) in the northern part of the Carpathian basin (Haase White Pottery Phase of the Starcˇevo Culture. 1992). the frequency of submediterranean environ- maritime route from southern Anatolian coast. These three southern part) and solid rocky sediments (volcanic. 2007). 8) in the eastern part of the Carpathian basin (north cultural practices and demanding adaptation to the new condi- eastern Hungary at the 6000–5500 isochrones. 9). Styrmen–Struma and Thracian Plain – Osam.

This was a double ecological barrier: firstly the main Leiria (at the 5000–4750 isochrone) (for recent discussions see ridges of the Carpathians and the Sudetes and the soil/phyto. Fig. 8) geographical frontier between the Central European loess zone correspond respectively to the onset of the Neolithic in Ireland. eastern Spain towards Alicante (point 7. / Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 807–820 813 Table 2 2n site distribution in the centres of renewed expansion. especially the tradition of carinated bowls (Sheridan. Author's personal copy J. 2007 chap. de l’Aigle France 5130 260 0 4 5 4275 La Chauve Souris France 5680 100 430 12 5 4275 Baume d’Oullins France 5560 160 410 12 6 4127 Gr. the difference between the 14Cdates and the lower limit of the isochrone bound if the date is more recent than the lower limit. with the mixed oak forest. 2007). Moravia and 5. 8). 8). Scotland. Guilaine and Manen. created a centre in the Paris basin (point 4. Fig. The the Ligurian coast (point 6. Accretion zone and Atlantic France. finally Portugal towards Sudetes. 2000. 8). Polera Italy 5840 200 5250–5500 340 20 6 4127 C. Guilaine and Manen. model (Guilaine. Fig. 2003). Bohemia conduct to the point 3 in east central Germany (at the The further expansion in the western Mediterranean attend Cata- 5500–5000 isochrones. Provence and Rhone valley (point western expansion of the LBK from Lower Austria. Fig. Bocquet-Appel et al.2. The western spread of LBK attended north-east France and 2007). a zone can also be identified with vectors pointing towards the . 2003. 2). at the 5500–5000 crossing the next ecological barrier of the Carpathians and isochrone. Spanish Levant Cardial). Fig. Zilha˜o. delle Arena Candide Italy 5770 180 270 20 7 1749 Cova de l’or Spain 5260 200 5000–5250 10 3 7 1749 Cova de l’or Spain 5210 200 0 3 8 3617 Cha de carvhalal Portugal 5890 240 4750–5000 890 7 8 3617 Cha de carvhalal Portugal 5310 220 310 7 8 3619 Buraco da pala Portugal 4730 340 20 2 8 3619 Buraco da pala Portugal 4730 80 20 2 9 9911 Ballynagilly Ireland 4590 200 3750–4000 590 8 9 9911 Ballynagilly Ireland 4490 200 490 8 10 10705 Balbridie Scotland 3930 180 0 15 10 10705 Crathes Scotland 3830 160 0 15 10 10862 Forest Road Scotland 4090 180 90 14 10 10862 Forest Road Scotland 3870 120 0 14 a ‘‘Deviation’’ is the difference between the 14C date and the upper limit of the isochrone bound if the date is older than the upper limit or.-P. which will exert a profound influence on the subsequent neolithisation of western 3. 8) and south- horizon we observe also the diffusion of LBK to the north. and in (Ammerman & Biagi. and. Centre number Square grid number Site Country 14C date Standard deviation Isochrone Deviationa Number of datesb 1 1804 Achilleion Greece 6370 140 6250–6500 0 15 1 1804 Achilleion Greece 6320 160 0 15 1 1805 Sesklo Greece 6620 240 120 11 1 1805 Sesklo Greece 6460 180 0 11 1 1962 Argissa Magoula Greece 7120 360 620 4 1 1962 Argissa Magoula Greece 6910 320 410 4 2 5094 Ro¨szke–Lu´dva´r Hungary 5850 160 5500–5750 100 4 2 5094 O´szentiva´n Hungary 5210 220 290 4 2 5095 Maroslele–Pana Hungary 6570 120 820 18 2 5095 Maroslele–Pana Hungary 6520 140 770 18 2 5409 Szarvas 23 Hungary 5740 120 0 8 2 5409 Szarvas 24 Hungary 5680 200 0 8 2 5567 Ecsegfalva Hungary 6870 260 1120 37 2 5567 Ecsegfalva Hungary 5820 120 70 37 3 6019 Wang Germany 5350 200 5000–5250 100 6 3 6019 Wang Germany 5250 200 0 6 3 6173 Enkingen Germany 5420 140 170 2 3 6173 Enkingen Germany 5270 260 20 2 3 6332 Straubing Germany 5290 140 40 8 3 6332 Hienheim Germany 5180 160 0 8 3 6334 Meindling Germany 5310 300 60 5 3 6334 Meindling Germany 5120 260 0 5 4 6635 Alzingen Luxembourg 5450 180 4750–5000 450 10 4 6635 Weiller-la-Tour Luxembourg 5390 180 390 10 4 6636 Remerschen Luxembourg 5160 180 5000–5250 0 4 4 6636 Remerschen Luxembourg 5160 180 0 4 5 4118 Baume de montclus France 5230 340 5000–5250 0 4 5 4118 Gr. Points 9 and 10 (Fig. 8). Culturally this spread corresponds to the Cardial Culture. The different migration route followed the Contrary to the outwardly radiating centre of renewed expan- northern Mediterranean (at the 5500–5000 isochrones) attending sion. b ‘‘Number of dates’’ is the total number of 14C dates in each grid square from which the two earliest 14C dates (2n) are chosen. parallels – in the same time lonia (at the 5500–5000 isochrone – point 7.2. and secondly the Central–West where recent work has demonstrated the existence of an early European lowland sands with coniferous/beech/willow forest phase of intensive agriculture (Bradley. 2001. 2007).

Author's personal copy 814 J. Cris).-P. Nine contact zones are indicated. 9. 10. identified with vectors pointing towards the same accretion zone. 10 – North Adriatic contact zone (Starcevo/LBK. 2 – contact zones. Impresso). Starcevo. 3 – ecological/cultural barriers. 7 – area of the LBK. like a funnel in the surface variable. Mesolithic). Vector map of the spread of the early Neolithic. Mesolithic. Map of the archaeological units of the FTN combined with contact zones and centers of renewed expansion: 1 – centers of renewed expansion. Koros. Cardial. / Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 807–820 Fig. Bocquet-Appel et al. Chavdar–Kremikovci. 8 – limits of the Balkan–Adriatic Impresso Ware units. 9 – limits of the western Cardial units. Fig. . 6 – area of the Eastern Linear Pottery. 11 – Western European contact zone (LBK. Karanovo. 4 – route of the maritime spread of from the Near East. 5 – area of the FTN units with Painted Pottery (Proto–Sesklo.

Ozdo- accretion zones are given in Table 3. Maroulas at Kythnos which are almost always more recent than the isochrone on which island. The process of the Neo- may also help to identify the main routes of expansion: first from lithisation in this case was probably not autochthonous (contrary to south-east Turkey. 2004). of gan (1999) to the Archaic Phase of Fikirtepe Culture. Detecting the main routes of expansion Bug–Dniester Culture (end of VIIth millennium – early VIth The vector map. situated on the intersection of southern. This group represents a contact the Black Sea and along Bulgarian and Romanian Black Sea coast are zone between two diffusion fronts or two zones of the same front. It not confirmed by archaeological data. dei Ciclami Italy 5250 180 250 2 2 4767 Sammardenchia. the difference between the 14Cdates and the lower limit of the isochrone bound if the date is more recent than the lower limit. Udine Italy 5060 220 60 2 3 5738 Scanteia Romania 4250 120 4250–4500 0 2 3 5738 Scanteia Romania 4210 180 40 2 3 6210 Varvarovka Ukraine 3800 180 450 2 3 6210 Varvarovka Ukraine 3730 120 520 2 4 5532 Le trou qui fume France 4290 320 0 3 4 5532 La Molle Pierre France 4060 300 190 3 4 5536 Abri des pre´s mourray France 4160 200 90 2 4 5536 Abri des pre´s mourray France 3840 160 510 2 4 5537 La roche au pe´cheur France 4620 140 120 4 4 5537 La roche au peˆcheur France 4570 160 70 4 4 5380 Delley Switzerland 3580 100 670 3 4 5380 Delley Switzerland 3530 180 720 3 5 3303 Orca do picoto Portugal 3910 160 4750–5000 840 5 5 3303 Chapel of Senhora do Monte England 3900 140 580 5 6 7878 BadShot England 3570 100 3750–4000 180 3 6 7878 Eton Wick England 3510 200 240 3 6 7879 Runnymede England 4630 200 630 20 6 7879 Cannon Hill England 4110 240 110 20 7 Denmark 8 9005 Lancken Germany 2520 380 3250–3500 730 2 8 9005 Lancken Germany 2350 280 900 2 9 9760 Pict’s Knowe England 3720 100 3500–3750 0 5 9 9760 Pict’s Knowe England 3720 100 0 5 a ‘‘Deviation’’ is the difference between the 14C date and the upper limit of the isochrone bound if the date is older than the upper limit or. same accretion zone.-P. Cave of Cyclope at Gioura) and maintained systematic they are located. Dniester–Prut interfluve). b ‘‘Number of dates’’ is the total number of 14C dates in each grid square from which the two earliest 14C dates (2n) are chosen.. 9 and Table 3). where local Mesolithic pop. The Neolithisation of the sponding probably also to contact between Neolithic and Meso. This maritime route conduct to the western (which spread from the Muntenia to the Moldavia through Cyclades and northern Sporades. 1974) related to the diffusion coming from Cris Culture the Aegean Basin. as shown by the generally negative deviation maritime contacts with other islands and mainland Greece (point 1. Zone number Square grid number Site Country Date Standard-deviation Isochrone Deviationa Number of datesb 1 1181 Makri Greece 5540 100 5750–6000 210 2 1 1181 Makri Greece 5530 80 220 2 1 1334 Antre Corycien Greece 5350 200 200 2 1 1334 Antre Corycien Greece 5190 220 460 2 1 1336 Theopatra Greece 5770 80 0 5 1 1336 Theopatra Greece 5520 140 230 5 1 1492 Elaita Greece 6330 140 6000–6250 80 2 1 1492 Elaita Greece 6220 240 0 2 1 1495 Skotini Greece 5190 180 5750–6000 560 9 1 1495 Skotini Greece 5120 160 630 9 2 4764 Bannia Italy 4720 220 4750–5000 30 6 2 4764 Bannia Italy 4480 200 220 6 2 4766 Gr. / Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 807–820 815 Table 3 2n site distribution in the accretion zones. point of view of archaeological taxonomy. approached by M. The sites and their dates located in the chrome Phase in north-eastern Bulgaria. Author's personal copy J. The point 3 the zone cutting across France. for example.3. Bocquet-Appel et al.2. single evidence of this can reveal the geographical persistence of a pre-Neolithic enclave diffusion route could be the hypothetical presence of the Mono- in the diffusion front. This represents a geographical group of dates (even earlier. This is the case. between 9000 and 8000 BC – cf. There are nine accretion zones. del Mitreo Italy 4620 160 130 2 2 4767 Gr. del Mitreo Italy 4620 140 130 2 2 4766 Gr. 9). 9). different influences on the local Mesolithic base. radiating along the southern coast of Anatolia to Markevich. This base is mostly the Grebenikian Culture which played a major role in the origin of 3. between these dates and the lower limits of the corresponding Fig. corresponding to a zone of contact (Fig. some of them corre. using the directions and densities of the vectors millennium BC – Timofeev et al. The origin of Bug–Dnister Culture was ulations received some impacts from the Near East and Cyprus even more complex because the pottery of this unit seems to show . The arrows indicating the N–NW oriented contacts towards isochrones (see Fig. north -western Black Sea area is a result of overlapping of three lithic populations. eastern and between the continental and maritime streams after 5000– western influences (see arrows) is particularly complex from the 4800 BC.

The Neolithic radiocarbon dates of earliest Neolithic used in this maritime: one towards point 2.arch. Whittle et al. Portugal): a geoarchaeological approach. This process is still criticised for several flaws regarding the use and extent of its little known. numerous traces of interaction with the populations of late foragers The first supplementary resource is the RADON online database. 1997/1998. for instance. 9) are the IPCTE database. Using a scale of 500-year Manen and Sabatier. but proceeded in leaps. 2002a. 2004). the geographical coverage was not Cardial model of the FTN (Fig. western influence of the LBK complex. R. the local central Europe (Furholt et al. living in the north Pontic steppes. Several publications were also used in the elaboration of the database. Sher- idan. inventories of The expansion of the agricultural system on the map. across the whole of Europe. Jadin. Lanting and van der Plicht. Point 4 (Fig. and the LBK. Other online databases used Mesolithic (Castelnovian. Author's personal copy 816 J. Russia. dates for countries (e. 2002b. taken from the database of radiocarbon determination realised in only an analysis of archaeological similarities between attributes the Institute for the History of Material Culture (St Petersburg. with their so-called ‘‘arrhythmic’’ model. This database has also been western Mediterranean coastal environments. 2002.g. Obviously. 2007. approxi- mately steady. several leaps are identifiable: at 8000 crossing the Mediterranean area (Forenbaher and Miracle. 2004). Russell. Point 2 (Fig. Ireland which are associated with the early Neolithic. . 2002). 2007). route. importance of the Irish Sea in the interactions between Britain and Although the practice has unfortunately fallen into desuetude. as repre. continental or/and A. and between Adriatic Impressed Ware and western tion of Stephen Shennan & James Steele (Shennan and Steele. based on 6100–5600 crossing the Central European agro-ecological barrier new excavations or re-examination of older sites. lithisation of the Adriatic Sea. was not uniform and regular across 1999/2000 for the Netherlands) or larger geographical zones (e.g. two anonymous reviewers and the comments of The Bug–Dniester was replaced in the end of VIth millennium BC by the participants of St Petersburg Fepre meeting. In order to culture.. 2007 on carinated bowls in the British Isles). Shukurov and Pavel M. 9) indicates the Cross-Channel interactions responsible radiocarbon determinations for Portugal provided by the Instituto for the onset of the Neolithic in Britain. the whole does not correspond to a process of homogeneous diffusion. from Vistula basin through Dniester valley.ox. coastlines. 10. 9). which marks the eastern most extension of agricultural supplement this major source of information. 2005). This research was funded by the Fepre program of the European Journal of Archaeological Science 34. communication with Gainna Zaitseva).E. Beuronian). 2003) and Guilaine and Manen (2007) for the LBK and the Mediterranean axis. Balkan Starcˇevo Groups. 6700–6100 crossing the southern Adriatic barrier. Jerome Dubouloz. the other towards point 4 (see study Fig. Point 3 (Fig. Belgian Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage). several other communities from the Carpathian plateau and also exhibits resources were used.. Bocquet-Appel et al. which can be generalised Angelucci et al. 2007 Angelucci. 9). corresponds to two different contacts: between the Adriatic Impressed Ware The starting point of the data collection is the database recently and local Late Mesolithic well represented in Istria and on the collated at the University College of London under the joint direc- Alpine foothills. Commission (Nest – 2004 ADV to Jean-Pierre Bocquet-Appel). From point 1 there are two principal routes. 9) corresponds to the Cucuteni–Tripolye documentation (Crombe´ and Van Strydonck. where indeed the Neolithic is delayed because of the The dates for the former countries of the Soviet Union were ecology (sand) and will only be fully present by 2500 BC. We presume that in this strictly identical as.g. It is also datelists are also available online (http://c14. V..php).2.g. D. Neolithic occupation and mid- Holocene soil formation at Encosta Acknowledgement de Sant’Ana (Lisbon.. and temporal patterns of the neolithisation of Europe (Gkiasta et al. These include gazetteers of dates for given archaeological 4. on the neo- Taurus barrier.. Clearly. line B). and a maritime source. from these centres of renewed expansion would help to solve the Russia. but a process marked by phases of geographical A. the seem possible for points 8 and 9 (Fig. A terrestrial a few radiocarbon laboratories still regularly produce datelists (e. Point 5 (Fig. Leita˜o. Europe as a whole. 2000). situated in north Adriatic zone..ac. / Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 807–820 some eastern influences from the northern Black Sea steppe zone. question of their possible filiations.. about 4500 BC. A. perated Neolithic of the Balkan–Anatolian type and the Impresso/ 2003. Keys to references used in the database expansion and stasis. also provided and 5000–4000 BC expanding on the other. there was no systematic recording zone the Impresso/Cardial model formed as an adaptation to the of dates for former Soviet Union. which list radiocarbon datings for the corresponds to the westernmost extension of the Cardial Neolithic. L. Recent dating programmes. via the continent to the east. The scope of this project was very close to the goals of the cent Ionian Sea basin represented a third ecological barrier Formation of Europe project as it aimed at uncovering the spatial between the western Aegean zone penetrated by the First Tem. sented by the earlier Neolithic. Britos. provides a great bulk of the data used here. Dolukhanov organisers) are gratefully western influences from the Boian complex and to the north. all previous from Danubian tradition (Ertebølle–Ellerbeck culture).g. Concluding remarks cultures (e. Of these. The result of this process was. while point 9 recalls the Portugueˆs de Arqueologia (IPA).-P. 1641–1648.uk/ interesting to note the absence of any vectors for the Dutch database/db.. Monge Soares. Using a great amount of generally high quality data (e. Neolithic of eastern Europe. (Anvar M. 9) where already in the Late Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit. accretion or contact zones were detected. However. the Proto–Cucuteni Culture developed due to the new south. Schulting and a vector map build-up. Almeida. 9) corresponds to the which compiles 14C dates for the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of contact zone in Rhone basin between the western Cardial. marginal zones.1. The western part of Greece and the adja. acknowledged. as well as the online inventory of Point 6 (Fig. the most important cultural complex of the western Pontic zone: the Appendix A Cucuteni–Tripolye Culture. 2003) on the neolithisation of the western isochrones. both Oxford. already noted by Guilaine (2000.. 2003 on the Linearbandkeramik culture. 10 points of renewed expansion and nine Richards. based in the University of Mesolithic appeared sedentary way of life and pottery different Oxford.

Whittle. Hall. Bowman. 2006. KIK datelist XVIII Van Strydonck. 2007 Meadows. long barrow.. M.M. M. M.J. Bartosiewicz. I. 965–972. Luca. Meadows et al. 1997. 2002. 1– the British Museum: datelist XXIV.U. Whittle. D. P.en protohistorie. pp. J. J.). M. P. Barclay. Cambridge Radiocarbon dates XVIII. J. Biagi et al. C. Bayliss.N.. A.. Bocquet-Appel et al.. Radiocarbon dates XIX... Royal 2005.E. A Western Europe. J. (Ed. E. R..J. Benson. Nadeau. Organic analysis of absolutchronologischen Datierung ‘‘food crusts’’ from sites in the der europaı¨schen Megalithik. C. Maute. The Mesolithic– 3). Trois petits tours et 2007.. Palaeohistoria 47/48. Sparks. Adriatic.. A. J. Cummings. Cambridge Archaeological Universite´ de Lie`ge (E.E. J. van der Plicht. D. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford Forenbaher and Miracle.. Vol. Miracle. pp. Radiocarbon cultura. 2003. J. Brussels. . C.).).. Journal of Archaeological Science 27.M.ipa. Rahden: Verlag basin in western Belgium. Jadin. Talking about my generation: puis s’en vont... XXI. 2000 Lillie. L. Institute for Cultural Heritage.N. Archa¨ologie Studia Honoraria Band Going Over. S. Eneolithic. 2008. 237–246. Radiocarbon chronology. radiocarbon database.. C. V.. Higgins..T. M. Mu¨ller. B. A. Noi propuneri KIK datelist XIX Van Strydonck. 531–540.pt/ (accessed 11-01-2008).. Perry. Notae und Inoovation.. pp.en protohistorie. Richards. P. Arqueologia. Bronk Ramsey et al. J. R. 1985. P. I.. R..A. 25–120. Boudin. Grootes. C. 2000. Whittle. 1999/ 51. Manen and Sabatier. 43– Lanting and van der Plicht.. in Whittle. L.J. IPA IPA – Instituto Portugueˆs de ORAU datelist 3 Gowlett. L.. la Socie´te´ Pre´historique Française Hedges.A. date of the Ascott-under-Wychwood Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage.. 2005 Forenbaher.. R. Galer.. 1997/1998 Lanting. T.-J. 1997/ in: Nikolova. E. / Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 807–820 817 Bayliss et al. Institute for Cultural Heritage.T. 2000–2001.M. P. Vanmontfort. Pontica M. 2007 Brown.. A... P. (Eds.. Sabatier... Bayliss et al. 1052. J.T.-P. A. M. Hedges.. early phase of the Swifterbant Dubouloz. Keppens... 2001 Mu¨ller. 45–64. M. 173–188.A. A.. Spataro.L. Wysocki. Perry. One thing after another: the M. 514–528. A. Cambridge Archaeological cereal grain. Archaeometry 40(2).. C.. pp. J. S. 413–435.. Grootes.. Lillie and Richards. Archa¨ologie als historische Crombe´ and Vanmontfort. A. Hall. Higham.. 2007.. Nadeau. Palaeohistoria 40/41..M. M.. in: Schelde valley. Festschrrift fu¨r The neolithisation of the Scheldt Christian Strahm. a eneoliticului romaˆnesc. barrow. 2007. 2007 Crombe´. des donne´es RRBP et VSG. Perry.). 2004 Craig. Rapid rivers and slow seas? Institute for Cultural Heritage. Royal 33–34.. Budapestini: Publicationes Me´diterane´e nord-occidentale. 111. Zur Craig. 2000. 2005/2006 Niekus. Wissenschaft. Neolithic Transition in North.. Bowman. A short passage of time: the cereal cultivation in Britain and dating of the Hazleton long cairn Ireland: the evidence from charred revisited.. Instituti Archaeologici Academiae Bulletin de la Socie´te´ Pre´historique Sceintiarum Hungaricae.. in: Marie Gerlof (Internationale Whittle. IPCTE Archaeometry Datelist 3. Antiquity 81.. J. (Eds.. 2007. L. Reports of Prehistoric 40.. chronology of the Balkan peninsula. 2003. De 14C-chronologie van de Prehistoric archaeology & Nederlandse pre.. Niekus..A. E. http://www.). Datation absolue culture in the Northern du premier Ne´olithique du Bassin Netherlands.. 2004.. C. Oxford.. M.. 2003 Jadin. Humphrey. McFayden. Antiquity 79. II: Radiocarbon measurements from Neolithicum.). Research Projects. 479–504. De 14C-chronologie van de BM datelist XXIV Ambers. Française 100(3)..E.. 1986. La fin de la pre´sence the date of the West Kennet long danubienne en Moyenne Belgique. 2003 Dubouloz. 92–162. Journal 17(Suppl.. Archaeometry 28(2).-J. 100(4)... 85–101.. http://arheologie. Dating the onset of 2007.. (Eds.. Belgium: Fritsch. 2007b Bayliss. 206–221. 1999/2000 Lanting.ro/radiocarbon/ dates from the Oxford AMS system: radiocarbon. Archaeometry 45(3). The AMS system: Archaeometry spread of farming in the Eastern Datelist 2. pentru o schitxa  cronologica Boudin. 2003 Manen. J. 2005 Biagi. 2003.. 1042– Journal 17(Suppl. 2007. 116–125.. 1986. Wolf.htm (accessed 11-01.. Archaeometry Datelist 4. M. 109). J. M. C. 2007 Bronk Ramsey. Vol. 1998.. 2003. Anthropological Theory and II: Mesolithicum.. O..min. 2008). Palaeohistoria 39/ Education. Tradition Summary of Methods]. Landrie. 2005/2006. S. R. Radiocarbon ulbsibiu. Author's personal copy J.. dates from the Oxford AMS system: IPCTE Suciu. Lanting and van der Plicht.. Chronique de la ne´olithisation en A. 1998. A.. Archaeometry 27(2). 2007 Bayliss. S. 2005.E. Romania and Archaeometry 28(1). Law.A. I. New data for the radiocarbon Brussels. Bulletin de ORAU datelist 2 Gillespie.A. Neolithic transition in Ukraine. van der Plicht. J. M. B. 263– database for the Mesolithic and 286.L. parisien: comple´ment et relecture 41–100. 2000–2001 Bem.. isotope analysis and dental Radiocarbon measurements from evidence of diet at the Mesolithic– the British Museum: datelist XXVI. 6–7. 63–105. Landrie.M. 209–219. Pra¨historische Praehistoricae 24. 29–44.R. Brown. Nederlandse pre...J. Oxford – The geographically referenced 14C British Academy. Keppens... S. a preliminary evaluation [Appendix: Mu¨ller. Hedges. Stable BM datelist XXVI Ambers.. Bem..). Gowlett. nearby areas from Neolithic to ORAU datelist 4 Gowlett.. Lie`ge. E. 671–690. Royal Archaeological Journal 17(Suppl. Shennan. Matuschik.

Rinne. C. Ramsey. Housley. P.A. 1987. 2002. I. Housley. C. 101–108. Housley. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford 1999.A. Housley. Archaeometry Datelist 10. G. 11. Archaeometry 35(2).. Bronk Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford Ramsey... R..E. Housley. 1998. R. ORAU datelist 17 Hedges. outline of Late Swifterbant pottery ORAU datelist 20 Hedges. C.... 1989. ORAU datelist 27 Bronk Ramsey.E. 2000.. 459–479. the Netherlands) and Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford the chronological development of AMS system: Archaeometry Datelist the pottery of the Swifterbant 20.E. Archaeometry 34(1)..A.A. / Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 807–820 ORAU datelist 6 Hedges. M.A. Radiocarbon 227–239.. G. Radiocarbon dates ORAU datelist 16 Hedges. van Klinken.E. Bronk.J. P. Law. C. Bronk from the Oxford AMS system: Ramsey.M.P. Archaeometry 32(2).C. Bronk I. Pettitt. Archaeometry 35(1). G. R.M..C. van Klinken. AMS system: Archaeometry I.M. C.J. Archaeometry 37(1). jungsteinsite. AMS system: Archaeometry Datelist Raemakers.J.M.. Pettitt.R. http://www. Archaeometry 38(2).. R. 74.. van Klinken.L.B.htm (accessed 11-01-2008). Richards and Hedges. G. R. R.J. R.. M..J. G. R.. C. Bronk. R. M.E. R. AMS system: Archaeometry Datelist Owen.A. R.. Van Klinken. R. G..A.M.M..E.W.-P.. Mu¨ller. Housley.. ORAU datelist 12 Hedges... Bronk in the Noordoostpolder (provincie Ramsey..R.. 417–430. Owen.R. Archaeometry 38(1). ORAU datelist 14 Hedges.E. 181–207. D. C. T. P.J. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford Hedges.J. Hedges. 207–234. 1998... Pettitt.M. Bronk Bronzezeit.A.W. Van Klinken. 1999.. C.. Bronk Archaeometry Datelist 9.M. D. R. dates from the Oxford AMS system: ORAU datelist 26 Hedges. Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford Datelist 27.. 1991.J. 15.. 17. Pettitt. van Klinken. Archaeometry Datelist 31.... C..B. Housley. R. 2000. Housley. G.E. R.. Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford Datelist 32. Archaeometry Datelist 30. 1995. Archaeometry 37(2). 1988. C. Hodgins.W. 1996..A... Law.M.. 1996. AMS system: Archaeometry Datelist ORAU datelist 32 Higham. Housley. Bronk.M. 1994. Perry. 1993. Ramsey. AMS system: Archaeometry ORAU datelist 9 Hedges. G. Radiocarbon dates Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford from the Oxford AMS system: AMS system: Archaeometry Datelist Archaeometry Datelist 28. G. 1999. 147–167.R. 1999 Richards. C.E. R. P. R. of Flevoland..A. Van Klinken. R. Housley. Housley. C. Brock. P. J.E.E... Bronk 36....-P.. Van Klinken. Housley.J.. Bocquet-Appel et al. 1995. C. Archaeometry 33(2). 2003/2004 Raemakers. AMS system: Archaeometry Datelist 197–206... G.. 1990..A. 2000 Richards. Bronk 891–897. D. T. 1990..E. Wotzka H....E.. R.L.R. R. Antiquity 73.R.J..E. R. . R. 1991.. Pettitt. Archaeometry 31(2). Van Klinken.. Hedges. G.J. R. Radiocarbon Datelist 26. C. R.M..J. dates from the Oxford AMS system: 437–455..M. 2003/2004. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford Archaeometry 44(3s). 2002. Radiocarbon dates 14.M. Pettitt.L. van Klinken.... Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford ORAU datelist 31 Bronk Ramsey. R. Archaeometry Datelist 29. 141–159. Archaeometry 40(1).L. D. Baker. Archaeometry 42(1). G... 12. 195–214. das Neolithikum und die fru¨he ORAU datelist 19 Hedges.G. Pettitt. Radiocarbon dates from the C...B.C. culture.. ORAU datelist 24 Hedges.... Ramsey. Author's personal copy 818 J. Datenbank AMS system: Archaeometry Datelist mitteleuropa¨ischer 14C-Daten fu¨r 18. ORAU datelist 30 Bronk Ramsey.A. ORAU datelist 25 Hedges. Richards and Sheridan.. G. C. R. G. Antiquity 22. C. Pike..A. ORAU datelist 22 Hedges. Van Klinken.E. E. Archaeometry 42(2).. 445–471. G. Van Klinken. ORAU datelist 29 Bronk Ramsey. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford Owen.. D. 289–306.de/radon/ Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford radon.E. R. Archaeometry 32(1). Datelist 25. 121–134. R..E.F. RADON Furholt. Datelist 24.M..B.M. British Neolithic. D. C.. Hodgins.. Van Klinken. Bronk. ORAU datelist 13 Hedges. 2000. Pettitt. R. 313–315..M. R... R. Housley.. R.uni-kiel. C. R. Archaeometry 33(1).. 211–237. Housley. RADON – Radikarbondaten Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford online.A. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford ORAU datelist 10 Hedges.A. Raetzel- ORAU datelist 18 Hedges.A.B. Archaeometry 41(1). Gowlett. R. G.C.A.E. from the Oxford AMS system: ORAU datelist 15 Hedges. 421–431. Hendy....A. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry Datelist AMS system: Archaeometry 6. Hedges. Bronk.J.M. Higham.. R. 16.M.E. D. Archaeometry 34(2). Archaeometry 39(2). R. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford New AMS dates on human bone AMS system: Archaeometry Datelist from Mesolithic Oronsay.A. 1997.. AMS system: Archaeometry Datelist Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford 8.. Ramsey.H. G. G.P. van Klinken. J. 11– ORAU datelist 21 Hedges. Radiocarbon dates AMS system: Archaeometry Datelist from the Oxford AMS system: 13. A. J.. C.E.A. Ramsey.M. P. Hodgins.W...M. Bronk Fabian. 243–254. P. Hodgins. An 19. 1– AMS system: Archaeometry Datelist 60.. Archaeometry 30(2). C.. R. G. Palaeohistoria 45/46.E..C. Ramsey. C. Radiocarbon dates from the Ramsey.E..W.M.. Archaeometry 49(S1).. Hedges.A. Ditchfield.G. 1992. P.. A Neolithic revolution? AMS system: Archaeometry Datelist New evidence of diet in the 21..M. 1–149. P. Bronk. C. 291–305. Sheridan.E.J... 1993. C. Housley.. Archaeometry 41(2). 337–357.. ORAU datelist 8 Hedges. Perry. R. AMS system: Archaeometry Datelist Owen.. Hedges.M..M.E. Law. F.. 305–326. 1992.. Bronk.B.B. Law.. Bronk 2007.J. Archaeometry 40(2). 337–374. 391–415.. ORAU datelist 28 Bronk Ramsey. Van Klinken. R. ORAU datelist 11 Hedges.B.J.M.F. Archaeometry 29(2). R..R.M. 279–296. Bronk Ramsey. I. Archaeometry 36(2).. C.. C.E.

275–294. H. Torroni.. P.uk/catalogue/resources.A. Davies...J.. C. 2005. Price. King... Achilli. http://www.jungsteinsite. Plos Biology 3 (12). From Picardie to Neolithic plant economies from the Near East to northwest Europe: a phylo- Pickering and Pencraig Hill? New genetic analysis. Kegan Paul. G.. Davison. M.J.S. waterways in the spread of the Neolithic. en Moyenne Belgique.. Cavalli-Sforza.... London. Datenbank mitteleuropa¨ischer 14C-Daten fu¨r das St Petersburg database 14C database managed by the Neolithikum und die fru¨he Bronzezeit. D. American Journal of Human Genetics 75.A. Oefner. 6. Boric´...J. 147–189. K. 2007 Whittle. Wild et al. Achilli.). S.. 2002... skirmishes or general warfare in Libby. 2002 Whittle. Loogva¨li..500. Antaeus Renfrew. 2005. the Fussell’s Lodge long barrow. 2007. N.. Loess in Europedits spatial distribution based on a European Loess Map... The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics domesticated: the Mesolithic– of Population in Europe. 2004. Markevich. New Mediterranean.. British Academy.J... Gamble. De 14C-chronologie van de Nederlandse Neolithic massacres: local pre. Villems. Oxford – The Antiquity 79. pour de larges beginning: new radiocarbon dates espaces.. R. 1965.. 2002a Schulting.).. P. Guilaine. J. (Eds.). 343–358. Forenbaher. in: ulation history.P. The role of Whittle.. G. W. Neanderthal contraction and modern Finding the coastal Mesolithic in human colonization of Europe. J. Phylogeography of a major source for the European gene pool. J. 2005.. A. Wysocki et al. J. for the Early Neolithi in northern html..-P.. 2007 Sheridan. J. J. D.S. A. Archaeological Institute of farmers: new palaeodietary and America Colloquia & Conference Papers. Lanting. Stadler.. 1955. 63–118. 2001. Culture. 1–111. 2006...en protohistorie. P. 1973. Maheshwari. J. http://etudesrurales. K. Science 310.P. 65–84. Rudan. A. P.. Anthropological Archaeology 20.. Beckman. L. J. Chicago.. 2001 Schulting. R..P.. J. Teschler- pre. Ja¨ger. R.. J. Computational Geometry: Theory and Applica- stable isotope results on human tions 25 (1-2).. Editions du Seuil.. P.L.revues. A. 103-112. Cambridge University Press. A. 2002..en protohistorie. Tracing the origin and spread of agriculture in Europe. NJ. Van Strydonck.. U. W. A.. S. Steier. Cambridge Archaeological Journal scale 1:2.de/ Institute for the History of Material radon/radon. Cambon-Thomsen. S. Shennan and Steele. Boston (MA).. 153–154. Altermann. Parik. 1974. 544–552. Raetzel-Fabian. Archaeological Science 30.. Fink. Magri.. the Neolithic Tran- Dating women and becoming sition in Europe: Looking Back.... The molecular dissection of Primorac.. 2003. J. Clark.F.. neolithisation of Europe.... L. P. The Widening Harvest.. 21–51. Kivisild. 2003. Bayliss.. The Dawn of Civilization.P. A. D.. 1301–1312.. M. Transformations: Math- Schulting and Richards..). Semino. A.. 2003. Ancient DNA from the 28. Boric´. Ha¨u¨sser.. Antiquity 77.. Neolithic Transition in North.. From Mesolithic to early Neolithic in the western Pettitt. 441– Furholt.). 21–34. M. A. Collard. 1018.. Windl.P. A. The spread of farming in the Eastern Adriatic. Moral. Zeviani. Roostalu. Palaeohistoria 39/40. Haase. R. P. Cummings. Sabatier. Bandelt. ematical Approaches to Culture Change.. Europe? Radiocarbon 46(1).. 2003. 2007. R. 2007. TD. A. Richards.. Mu¨ller. P. European Journal of comparing broad scale genetic and local scale isotopic evidence. Rengo. 92–162. 377– Manen. 2004. Neolithic transition of the west coast Bentley. V. 347–355.... L.. Cruciani. V. Richard. Princeton University Press. Cinnioglu. A. American Journal of Human Y-chromosome haplogroup I reveals distinct domains of prehistoric gene flow Genetics 75. Geostatistics: Modeling Spatial Uncertainty. Antaeus 25. A.. Guilaine.. Princeton. http://ads. 128–137... occidentale. 708–710. Pe´csi. C. Going Over. A. O. Goncalves. C. L. M. Bulletin de la Socie´te´ Pre´historique Française 100.... The Neolithic transition in Europe: of Scotland. pp. Pettitt.. M. Richards. Chikhi. Ta¨nzer. L. V. References Lovorka Barac. Nicola. van der Plicht. Academic Press.. Simonescu. E´tudes rurales.N.. Benuzzi. A. Steele. A. P.D. 2004. O. in Europe. Antiquity 78. AmmermanAJ. T.. Fu¨redi. Wahl. Scozzari. F.. Burger. Pshenichnov.).. Cooke..... Oxford. R. M. P. Manen. Antiquity 74. the Near East over Europe. E. La fin de la pre´sence danubienne 17(Suppl. Biagi. (Eds.A. M. Whittle et al.. Fort.L. pp. A. Colledge. The Mesolithic- 33. W. Ammerman... Krumina. south-east Hungary: some Haak. 2004. 2002. The Meso- radiocarbon dates for the early lithic–Neolithic Transition in North-West Europe. M.. Benerecetti..L. P.... C. Paris. A population model for the diffusion of early Breton Mesolithic cemeteries of farming in Europe. Whittle.J.. P.-P.I. M. J. II: Neolithicum. Shennan. Journal of Archaeological Science 35. 2002. Balanovska.. Universite´ de Lie`ge. I. Khusnutdinova.. R. Dion.. 2005.. Cambridge. London. first European farmers in 7500-years-old Neolithic sites. 2003.. 910–918.. Rosa. E. Palaeolithic radiocarbon Cambridge Archaeological Journal chronology: quantifying our confidence beyond two half-lives. A. Sarson. 2007. B. 2005 Whittle. C. P. Morin. van der Plicht. La conqueˆte ne´olithique de la Me´di- Serbia and south-east Hungary. V. Magri. 1984. M.). van Kreveld. Conolly. H. Dolukhanov. Wotzka. The Explanation of Culture Change: Te´viec and Hoe¨dic. Demars.. C. K. A.. E. J. Journal of Archaeological Science Going Over. Une hypothe`se arythmique.. Richards. J. 514–528.P. Alt.. The wave of advance model for the spread of 314–344. Richards. Shukurov. pp. Journal of 17(Suppl. Bugo-dniestrovskaya kultura na territorii Moldavii. Bayliss. Gronenborn. 641–652.. south Bradley. Bermisheva.. Grobei. Vol. Shennan. Bocquet-Appel et al. J. RADON – 492.. Palaeohistoria 40/41.. New York.. G. M. Help.. M. W. A. London. A. 2003. 1999.000.R. M.. 45–60. Bramanti. Quaternary Science Reviews 26 (9-10). Underhill. D. 2007 Wysocki. Jadin.J. 2000.. H. L. D. 109). Wales. 103–121.P.. 1016– Whittle et al. agriculture in Europe. the Wayland’s smithy long barrow.htm (accessed 11-01-2008).M. W. A.. The Neolithic transition and European pop- Neolithic’ in northern Britain. R. S.. Steele. A. In: Renfrew. M. terrane´e (La diffusion de l’agriculture en Europe.. 2000 Spatial Chile`s. R. Lie`ge (E.N.. In: Whittle. Pinhasi. 1925... Pericˇic´. 76. Delfiner. P.. Richards. Lanting. Ammerman. Trois petits tours et puis s’en vont. A. P. 2007. J.. M.. Forster. D.R... 479–504. K. P. R. R..J. Al-Zahery.. L.P.B. Bose. Cavalli-Sforza.. pp. Chronique de la ne´olithisation en Me´diterane´e nord- 385. T. P. Author's personal copy J. information on the ‘Carinated Bowl Crombe´.. S. J. Brehm. mtDNA haplogroup H confirms that the Franco–Cantabrian glacial refuge was Santachiara-Benerecetti. Semino. V. C. T. Villems.. Brandt. 2008). M. R.. G.. Kivisild.A. / Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 807–820 819 Schulting and Richards.. 1685–1693. omissions and corrections. P..S. Rinne. Antiquity 77. J. A. 2003..... Cavalli-Sforza. remains from Caldey islands.. Richards.G.org/document1. S. Carelli..... Duckworth..... A.U.-M. the radiocarbon record revisited.. 63–66. The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland. Santachiara Ferak. Matsumura. De 14C-chronologie van de Nederlandse Kutshchera. Torroni. 42–56. Wysocki. 2007. Olivieri. Serious mortality: the date of Stiintsa. E... Richter.. Russell. (Eds. Battaglia. Mikerezi. Childe. D. Scheffrahn. H. Western Europe.ac. Villems. S. H.. the wild and the Ammerman. A.. Morrison.... V. Miracle. M. Bartosiewicz. AMS dating evidence from the Ammerman. 2002b Schulting. 2004 Wild. Balanovsky. R.. M. L.. G. A. Radiocarbon dating and the expansion of farming culture from html?c14_meso (accessed 10-01. C. 57–73. 1999/2000. Coward. Once in a lifetime: the date of Haase. Rootsi. J. J. 2000. 2220–2228. Archaeological Institute of America. Cummings. J. P. C. Radiocarbon Dating. Zhivotovsky..-J. Kishinev. ahds. 1997/1998. C. Kutuev.Y.J. Oxford. I. S.. M. University of Chicago Press. F.-L. Neolithic transition in Europe: Whittle et al.. J. In: Renfrew. Gkiasta. Terzic´... C... Wiley and chronological patterns in the Series in Probability and Statistics.B.. Russia. (Eds. 2000 Shennan. (Ed.. Archaeology 5(2). M. O. In the Guilaine...uni-kiel. The spread of Sheridan.. I. E.. Bocquet-Appel. St Petersburg. M.L. M. 2007. Bartosiewicz. Changeons d’e´chelles: Pour la tre`s longue dure´e...D. . De la vague a` la tombe. II: Mesolithicum. pp.. Translating southwest Britain: AMS dates and a regular grid over a point set. R. British Academy/Oxford Neolithic in northeastern Serbia and University Press. Schulting and Richards. Shen.. Ruske. V..W. Briem. 1979. 1011–1025... 2003. Moisan... Looking Forward.. Pettit. P. Battaglia. Antiquity. M.. The wet. Journal of Models in Prehisotry. Radikarbondaten online. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 31.. Dugoujon.

. M. A. 2007. Springer Verlag. <http://ads. 14180–14185. In: Kertesz. Western Europe. Zaitseva. Sheridan. Timofeev.. From Picardie to Pickering and Pencraig Hill? New information Whittle. M. south-east Hungary. 2002. Wysocki.I. D.uk/catalogue/resources.. P. J. L. Richards. J. R. 147–189. A. M. Journal of Archaeological Science 13. M. Berlin. Oxford. St..E. Weninger.. Antaeus 25. R. In: Whittle.html?c14_meso/>.. pp. Journal Human Evolution 55 of Archaeology 5. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17 (Suppl). P. 1998. Antiquity 76. Pettitt.J.. Archaeolingua. Archaeopress (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1294). 2001. Dolukhanov. Bartosiewicz.. (5). R. Boric´. Proceedings of the National Europe. 1011–1025. 2000. the wild and the domesticated: the Greenland-Hulu U/Th time-scale and its impact on understanding the Middle to Mesolithic–Neolithic transition of the west coast of Scotland. pp. / Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 807–820 Russell. Going Over.. H. B. Radiocarbon dating and the ‘‘old wood’’ problem: the case of Wackernagel. Jo¨ris. Zilha˜o. Makkay. Shukurov. Schiffer.. 2002a. Budapest. odnaya khronologia neolita Severnoy Evrazii. A.P.).-P. European Journal Upper Paleolithic transition in Western Eurasia. 2001. Palaeogeographical characteristics of the Carpathian Zolyomi. Wayland’s smithy long barrow. Academy of Sciences 98 (24). Teza. Bocquet-Appel et al. 2007. T. a Karpat-medence klimazonalis novenytarsulasainak osszetetlere. S.. 2002b. V. G. 13–30. Steele. south Wales. 1992.. Kertesz. the Hohokam chronology. 1986. Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective.. P.M... R. Oxford – The British Academy. 2008. 772–781. Richards. Radieugler- Oxford..ac. Author's personal copy 820 J. Sumegi.. B. Debrecen. J. A. (Eds. Orlando... From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic.P.. Spatial and chronological patterns in the neolithisation of origins of farming in west Mediterranean Europe. klimatologus szuletesenek 145.B.. 63–118. Horvath. The wet.. In the Britain: AMS dates and stable isotope results on human remains from Caldey beginning: new radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and islands. Multivariate Geostatistics..P. Press. M. Cummings. 103–121. evforduloja alkalmabol rendezett emlekules 405–416. Radiocarbon evidence for maritime pioneer colonization at the Shennan. Keri.ahds.. Petersourg. The Spatial Analysis of Radiocarbon Databases. 1987. R.. Hegyfoky (Eds... A. . The Mesolithic–Neolithic Transition in North. A szubmediterran eghajlati jelentosege basin – an ecological trap during the Early Neolithic.. pp. Academic First Farmers in Europe and of the Fat-Tailed Sheep in Southern Africa. O. F. Schulting. 60–74. 2004. M.. 441–492.J. The Spread of the Taylor.. 2004. V.I..). A. Finding the coastal Mesolithic in southwest Whittle. Richards.. A 14C-age calibration curve for the last 60 ka: The Schulting. Once in a lifetime: the date of the on the ‘Carinated Bowl Neolithic’ in northern Britain. eloadasai.M. Bayliss.