14C dates as demographic proxies in Neolithisation models of northwestern Europe: a critical...

lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science xxx (2014) 1e9

Contents lists avai

Journal of Archaeological Science

journal homepage: http : / /www.elsevier .com/locate/ jas

14C dates as demographic proxies in Neolithisation models ofnorthwestern Europe: a critical assessment using Belgium andnortheast France as a case-study

Philippe Crombé*, Erick RobinsonGhent University, Department of Archaeology, Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 35, B-9000 Gent, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 18 September 2013Received in revised form10 December 2013Accepted 1 February 2014

Keywords:“Dates as data”MesolithicNeolithicNW EuropeTaphonomyBiasesHunter-gatherer mobilityMulti-proxy approach

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ32 9 3310153.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P

UGent.be (E. Robinson).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.02.0010305-4403/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Crombé, P.,critical assessment using Belgium and nortj.jas.2014.02.001

a b s t r a c t

This paper critically assesses the use of radiocarbon dates as demographic proxies for population dy-namics during the MesolithiceNeolithic transition in northwest Europe. Using data from Belgium andnortheast France, the impact of biasing factors such as intersite and interregional differences in researchintensity (frequency and scale of excavations) and focus (dating programs, thematic foci), sitetaphonomy, and feature density are discussed. Although these biases are commonly acknowledged instudies using “dates as data”, this study demonstrates that their impact is generally underestimated andunderlines the importance of a multi-proxy approach to debates surrounding demographic and culturalchanges during the Neolithisation process.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The use of radiocarbon dates as proxies for identifying prehis-toric population dynamics has increased considerably over the lastdecade. In numerous studies summed relative probability calcula-tions of calibrated radiocarbon dates have been used to modelpopulation fluctuations through time (Gamble et al., 2005; Gkiastaet al., 2003; Kuzmin and Keates, 2005; Riede, 2008; Shennan andEdinborough, 2007; Whitehouse et al., in press). Using the ratio-nale that larger populations generate more radiocarbon samples,peaks in the summed probability curves are interpreted as evidencefor population increases while dips correspond with decreasinghuman activity. Some of these studies have focused on the transi-tion between the Mesolithic and Neolithic in NW Europe (Belgium,Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, and the UK), which isknown as the period of Neolithisation (Collard et al., 2010; Gkiastaet al., 2003; Shennan and Edinborough, 2007; Shennan, 2009;Shennan et al., 2013). The main conclusions of these studiesbased solely on radiocarbon evidence are threefold. First, an

. Crombé), erick.robinson@

Robinson, E., 14C dates as demheast France as a case-study

important population decline through the course of the Mesolithicis postulated, which culminated in remarkably low populationdensity among Late Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. The developmentof a dense forest cover resulting in decreased animal populationdensities has been proposed as a possible explanation for this de-mographic pattern (Shennan, 2009, 343). Second, a drastic popu-lation increase is observed at the onset of the (Early) Neolithic,corresponding with the appearance of the Linearbandkeramik (LBKCulture) in Germany, Poland, Belgium, and the Netherlands aroundthe middle of the 6th millennium cal BC, as well as during theTrichterbecherkultur (TRB Culture) in Denmark at the start of the4th millennium cal BC. Finally, a population crash of enormousmagnitude is postulated right after the disappearance of the LBK,leading to low population levels during the Middle Neolithic periodbetween ca. 5000 and 3500 cal BC. Growing intergroup hostilitiesand warfare are suggested as the main causes of this markedpopulation decline (Shennan, 2009, 349).

In this paper we intend to challenge these assumptions using amultiproxy rather than a single proxy approach as suggested byWilliams (2012). This multiproxy approachwill be carried out usingtwo case-study datasets. The first comes from Belgium and iscomprised of 571 critically filtered, reliable radiocarbon dates fromthe Mesolithic and Neolithic periods (Crombé and Van Strydonck,2004). The second case-study comes from the adjacent Moselle

ographic proxies in Neolithisationmodels of northwestern Europe: a, Journal of Archaeological Science (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_surname

mailto:[email protected]



www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.02.001



Fig. 1. Map of NW Europe with indication of Belgium. Detailed soil map of Belgiumwith distribution of sites dating back to the Late and Final Mesolithic (Swifterbant), the LBK, andthe Michelsberg Culture (from Robinson (2007), Fig. 5).

P. Crombé, E. Robinson / Journal of Archaeological Science xxx (2014) 1e92

river valley in northeast France, where extensive rescue excavationshave provided a clear picture of the potential biases encountered byresearch-based approaches to demographic change during theNeolithisation process.

2. Materials and methods

The dataset from Belgium includes all radiocarbon dates closelyassociated with Mesolithic (ca. 9500e6500/5500 14C BP) andNeolithic sites (6500/5500e3700 14C BP), including both settle-ment and burial sites. Most dates have been compiled from existingpublished or online databases, such as the one from the Radio-carbon Laboratories of the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage inBrussels (http://www.kikirpa.be/EN/52/353/DateringþC14.htm)and Louvain-la-Neuve (Gilot, 1997), as well as published cataloguesfor the Mesolithic (Gob, 1990) and the Neolithic (Jadin and Cahen,2003a; Toussaint, 2002), supplemented with recent dates fromprimary sources.

After a critical filtering of over 800 radiocarbon dates, 571 wereretained as sufficiently reliable. Dates performed on materials suchas charcoal not directly associated with anthropogenic features,food crusts, calcined bones, covering sediments (e.g. peat dates),etc. have been omitted from the dataset according to the protocoldeveloped by Crombé et al. (2013b). As a result the vast majority ofselected dates come from samples of short-lived materials (hazel-nut shells, cereal grains), bone collagen (human and animal bones)and charcoal from (Mesolithic) hearths and (Neolithic) settlementfeatures (pits, ditches, etc.).

Summed probability calculationwas performed using the OxCalprogam v3.10 (Bronk Ramsey, 1995, 2001) and the IntCal09 cali-bration curve (Reimer et al., 2009). We decided not to combinedates from the same sitedas proposed by Shennan andEdinborough (2007)din order to eliminate biases created by sitesor site-phases with numerous radiocarbon dates. The main argu-ment is that most sites do not lend themselves to a straightforwarddivision into site-phases. As a matter of fact the vast majority of

Please cite this article in press as: Crombé, P., Robinson, E., 14C dates as demcritical assessment using Belgium and northeast France as a case-studyj.jas.2014.02.001

Belgian Mesolithic and Neolithic sites are unstratified open-airsites, the internal chronology of which is difficult to model (the‘palimpsest problem’: Bailey, 2007). In the case of Mesolithic siteswith numerous spatially distinct artifacts loci, e.g. Verrebroek (cf 3),extensive interlocus refitting is essential before an attempt tocombine dates can be performed. Currently however none of theBelgian sites has been the subject of intensive refitting, hence atpresent it remains unfeasible to generate pooled mean dates.

3. Results

At face value the obtained summed probability distribution ofradiocarbon dates from the BelgianMesolithic and Neolithic (Fig. 2)presents the same general trends as for Germany, Poland and theNetherlands. The curve starts with a sharp drop in radiocarbondates from the Early (9th millennium cal BC) to the Late Mesolithic(7the6th millennium cal BC). However, this is partly distorted dueto intense dating of one specific site, the Early Mesolithic site ofVerrebroek “Dok” (Crombé et al., 2006, 2009, 2013a). This exten-sively excavated site (ca. 6200 m2) yielded at least 55 differentartifact loci, all of which were radiocarbon dated (N dates ¼ 57).Even if this bias is taken into account, significant differences in thefrequencies of dates between the beginning and the end of theMesolithic still exist. Clearly the lowest number of dates is attestedfor the second half of the 7th and the start of the6thmillennium cal BC. This contrasts sharplywith the steep peak indates around 5300 cal BC, coinciding with the introduction of thefirst LBK farming communities in the loess area of Middle Belgium(Jadin and Cahen, 2003a). This pronounced peak is followed by asharp decrease of dates in the first half of the 5thmillennium cal BC,when the LBK and the related Groupe de Blicquy (BQY) had dis-appeared from the archaeological record of the region. Around themiddle of the 5th millennium a renewed, albeit slightly less intensepeak is testified which persists during the first quarter of the 4thmillennium. This peak corresponds to occupations of the Michels-berg Culture (Vanmontfort, 2004; Crombé and Sergant, 2008) and


http://www.kikirpa.be/EN/52/353/Datering+C14.htm

http://www.kikirpa.be/EN/52/353/Datering+C14.htm

10000BC 8000BC 6000BC 4000BC 2000BC

Calendar date

Sum Belgium 68.2% probability 9000BC (13.4%) 7500BC 6500BC (54.8%) 2500BC 95.4% probability 9500BC (95.4%) 2000BC

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

10000BC 8000BC 6000BC 4000BC 2000BC

Calendar date

Sum Belgium (without burials) 68.2% probability 8600BC (19.2%) 7500BC 5600BC (49.0%) 3700BC 95.4% probability 9000BC (95.4%) 2000BC

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Fig. 2. Summed probability distribution of Belgian radiocarbon dates belonging to theMesolithic and Neolithic. Top: all dates (N ¼ 571); Bottom: burial dates excluded.

P. Crombé, E. Robinson / Journal of Archaeological Science xxx (2014) 1e9 3

Swifterbant Culture (Crombé and Sergant, 2008; Crombé et al.,2011a), respectively in the loess and sandy regions of Belgium. Amajor gap in the chronology covers a large part of the 4th millen-nium, followed by a last peak during the first half of the 3rd mil-lennium. The latter coincides with the presence of the Seine-Oise-Marne Culture (SOM; Toussaint, 2002) and the Bell Beaker Culture(Cauwe, 1988; Crombé et al., 2011b), right before the start of theBronze Age.

Below it will be argued that several of these fluctuations in theradiocarbon evidence do not really reflect population shifts butrather are due to biases in the radiocarbon database created by adiversity of factors. The argumentation will be built around thethree main statements of Shennan and Edinborough (2007),Shennan (2009) with respect to the Neolithisation process (cfintroduction).

4. Discussion

4.1. Population decline during the Mesolithic?

TheMesolithic is particularly well studied in Belgium, especiallyin the sandy lowlands (Crombé, 1998; Gob, 1981; Vermeersch,


1990). More than a century of research, including field-walking ofarable grounds, corings in sealed areas (river floodplains, coastalareas) and excavations has led to the discovery of many hundreds ofMesolithic settlement sites. The data from a ca. 3300 km2 areasituated in the northwestern part of Belgium, known as the lowlandregion of Sandy Flanders, has recently been studied in detailallowing for the diachronic investigation of Mesolithic land-use(Crombé et al., 2011c). One of the main conclusions of this studywas the gradual reduction in sites from the Early to the Late/FinalMesolithic (Fig. 3), confirming at first sight Shennan and Edin-borough’s statement of a population decline. However, the samestudy also revealed that the decrease of sites was also accompaniedby other changes, such as a shift in settlement locations and sub-sistence. From theMiddleMesolithic onwards (ca. 7400 cal BC) sitestend to be located on lower and wetter grounds, most likely indi-cating increased wetland exploitation (Crombé et al., 2011a,c;Deforce et al., 2014; Robinson, 2007; Robinson and Crombé, inpress). In addition, faunal remains suggest an increased relianceon fishing towards the end of the Mesolithic (Van Neer et al., 2013).Based on this evidence it has been proposed that the reduction ofMesolithic hunter-gatherer sites has little to do with decreasingpopulation but rather results from a gradual reduction in mobility.From ethnography it is well known that residential mobility grad-ually reduces when dependence on aquatic resources is increasing(Houtsma et al., 1996; Kelly, 1995). Also the ecological value ofwetland environments is usually so high that it allows the reduc-tion of mobility (Nicholas, 1998). This decreased mobility is alsoreflected by the settlement distribution, which indicates a shiftfrom extensive site complexes resulting from repeated short-termre-use of specific locations over many centuries or even millenniaduring the Early (Boreal) Mesolithic towards more centrally locatedsettlements with longer periods of habitation in the LateMesolithic(Crombé et al., 2011c, 2013; Robinson and Crombé, in press). In NWBelgium, for example, Late Mesolithic sites are on average larger,yield more tools, and are located at important positions betweenthe most dominant landscape features (mires, rivers) compared toEarly Mesolithic ones. High residential mobility during the EarlyMesolithic is also supported by recent microwear evidence(Crombé and Beugnier, 2013), which demonstrates limited andfragmented activities on these sites.

Hence it seems that the decrease of radiocarbon dates towardsthe end of the Mesolithic has more to do with reduced mobility,generating fewer sites (and hence fewer) dates, than with a pop-ulation decline. Chronological patterns derived from summedprobability calculations have therefore blurred importantdiachronic changes in Mesolithic behavior that precede the intro-duction of agriculture and commencement of the Neolithisationprocess.

4.2. Rapid and marked population growth with the appearance ofthe LBK?

The claimed population boost at the onset of the Neolithic alsoneeds to be critically assessed, since factors such as differences inresearch intensity and dating opportunities between theMesolithicand Neolithic can cause serious biases. Research into the LBK/BQYin Belgium has a long tradition of research comprised of regionallandscape surveys and very large-scale excavations. LBK researchstarted in the late 19th century (with thework led by De Puydt) andcontinued almost uninterrupted until now. Research initially star-ted on a small scale but from the 1970s changed into bigger exca-vations conducted in the framework of large research projectsinitiated by scientific institutes, e.g. the Royal Belgian Institute forNatural Sciences (Cahen et al., 1990; Jadin and Cahen, 2003b; Jadinand Hauzeur, 2003) and University of Paris X-Nanterre (Constantin,


Fig. 3. Chronological distribution of Final Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites in NW Belgium Top: in real numbers; Bottom: in corrected numbers (Crombé et al., 2011c).


1985; Constantin and Burnez-Lanotte, 2008). Within these projectsLBK/BQY settlements (Aubechies-‘Coron Maton’, Awans, Blicquy,Darion-‘Colia’, Oleye-‘Al Zèpe’, Waremme-‘Longchamp’) wereinvestigated over surfaces covering many 1000 m2 or even severalhectares. In some cases sites (e.g. Darion) were almost entirelyexcavated, revealing numerous long timber houses and deepextraction and refuse pits (Fig. 4B,C). Later, similar large-scale ex-cavations were conducted in the context of salvage operations(Fexhe-le-Haut-Clocher, Rémicourt), such as the construction of theTGV railway in 1996e1999 (Bosquet et al., 2004, 2008). As a resultof this long-term focused research on the Early Neolithic, around156 sites from a total of 240 reported LBK/BQY sites have beenexcavated, at least 26 extensively (Jadin and Hauzeur, 2003;Fig. 1.1e8). In contrast, research into the Late Mesolithic (7the6th millennium cal BC), albeit also counting over 200 sites, led tothe excavation of hardly 21 sites (Table 1). In addition, the latter aregenerally much less extensive (100e500 m2) compared to the LBK/BQY excavations. So on a total of 177 excavated sites, 88% belong tothe LBK/BQYand just 12% to the LateMesolithic. As can be expected,this marked difference in excavation intensity has impactedconsiderably the dating process: on a total of 125 radiocarbondates, 85% belong to the LBK/BQY, while hardly 15% are Late


Mesolithic. Thus the peak in the summed probability curve duringthe LBK/BQY occupation has little to do with a population increasebut rather reflects a major bias due to differences in research ac-tivities between the Late Mesolithic and the Early Neolithic.

Another biasing factor is differential site taphonomy. It is wellknown that Mesolithic open-air sites are extremely difficult to dateaccurately (Crombé et al., 2009, 2013b; Lanting and van der Plicht,1997/1998). This has mainly to do with the lack of secure contextsfrom which reliable dating samples can be selected. Mesolithicopen-air sites in Belgium and the whole of the NW European Plainsuffer from severe bioturbation, which induces migration and po-tential mixing of artefacts and ecofacts, the latter affecting dating.Furthermore, there is an almost total lack of structural features ofclear anthropogenic origin, such as structured hearths, pits, ditchesand post-holes, which usually provide better associated and thusmore secure dating samples. For all these reasons Mesolithic re-searchers are generally reluctant to submit samples for radiocarbondating; in some areas of Belgium researchers even decided not todate Mesolithic sites any longer, because only badly associatedsamples of scattered charcoal are available (Van Gils et al., 2009).Neolithic settlement sites, in particular LBK/BQY sites (cf. 4.3), onthe other hand, generally offer much better dating contexts, as


Fig. 4. Varying extent of Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic LBK excavations in the study region. A: Late Mesolithic at Verrebroek-‘Aven Ackers’ (from Robinson et al. (2011), Fig. 3).B: LBK houses at Oleye-‘Al Zèpe’ (from Jadin and Cahen (2003b), Fig. 2.32). C: Plan of LBK site at Darion-‘Colia’ (from Jadin and Cahen (2003b), Fig. 2.5).


settlement features are nearly always present on these sites.Although these contexts can also generate problems, e.g. connectedwith old wood effect of charcoal samples, dating residual material,etc., they generally provide better dating results. As a consequenceLBK/BQY sites are often dated bymultiple samples; the radiocarbondataset provides a mean of almost 4 dates per individual LBK/BQYsite against just 2.7 for the LateMesolithic. Thus, the combination oflesser and smaller excavations and severe sampling problems on(Late) Mesolithic sites in contrast to the Early Neolithic has a majorimpact on the 14C summed probability curve. The peak in radio-carbon dates between ca. 5500 and 5000 cal BC cannot, therefore,be simply interpreted as reflecting a sudden and drastic populationgrowth resulting from incoming farming communities in the loessregion of Belgium. Similarly, we should be careful when inter-preting the high settlement density of the LBK/BQY in terms ofdense populations, as it could result from a semi-permanent orsemi-sedentary settlement system. The latter implies a residentialmobility of shifting, shorter-term habitations induced for exampleby environmental conditions which in the Belgian loess area were


fundamentally different from the Central European Chernozemsoils. According to pedological analyses (Langohr, 1990) the decal-cified Belgian loess soils at the time of the LBK/BQY had a very lowchemical and physical fertility. As amatter of fact, they certainly didnot allow permanent crop growing and probably neither shiftingcultivation over several decades. Hence, LBK/BQY settlers probablyhad to shift their settlements regularly within their territories,albeit within territories concentrated in fairly restricted number ofareas with low diversity (Jadin and Hauzeur, 2003).

4.3. A population crash of enormous magnitude after the LBK?

As for all other LBK occupied regions in NWEurope, the summedprobability curve for Belgium also displays many fluctuations be-tween ca. 5000 and 2000 cal BC, the abrupt trough immediatelyafter the disappearance of the LBK/BQY being the most remarkableone. However, it is questionable whether all these fluctuationsreally indicate changes in population dynamics, as stated byShennan and Edinborough (2007), Shennan (2009). A first


Table 1Overview of excavated and radiocarbon dated sites belonging to the Late Mesolithicand Early Neolithic in Belgium.

N sites N excavated sites N dated sites N dates

Late Mesolithic >200 21 12% 7 21% 19 15%LBK/BQY 240 156 88% 27 78% 106 85%Total 177 34 125

Table 3Frequency of features per Neolithic site and culture in the Lorraine region innortheast France (data from Blouet (2006)).

Culture Mean housesper site

Mean pitsper site

Mean dumpsper site

Mean burials per site

LBK 2.27 24.68 0.14 0.22(Epi)Roessen 0.09 1.36 0.36 0Michelsberg 0 0 1 0SOM 0 0 1 0Cordé 0 0 0.5 0.5Bell Beaker 0 0 0.25 1.25


important biasing factor is the overall significant lower density ofsettlement features on post-LBK/BQY sites compared to the LBK/BQY. To demonstrate this we turn to the Lorraine region in NEFrance, which provides reliable quantified data (Blouet, 2006). Thisregion is also interesting because, contrary to Belgium (cf above),Neolithic research is not profoundly affected by research choicesand foci. Between 1995 and 2005 large-scale trial-trenching andsalvage excavations covering an area of ca. 10.000 ha have beenconducted in the framework of large construction works, whileonly very limited programmed research from scientific institutes isknown in this area. Hence the Lorraine area provides us withrelatively less biased, objective data with respect to the Neolithicoccupation of a loamy region very similar to the Belgian loess area.

The Lorraine excavation evidence (Tables 2 and 3) demonstratesclearly the contrast between the LBK and post-LBK in terms ofdensity of settlements and settlement features, something whichundoubtedly affects the dating possibilities. While the excavation ofa LBK settlement yields on average 2.27 houses and 24.68 pits, thisdrops to respectively just 0.09 and 1.36 for the (Epi)Roessen Cul-ture, the direct successor of the LBK (Table 3). Hereafter, i.e. fromthe Michelsberg Culture onwards, no houses or pits are foundanymore; in the best case some dumps and graves are discovered.Towards the Beaker traditions of the 3rd millennium (Cordé andBell Beaker Cultures) there is an increasing amount of burials found,while settlement remains are lacking completely. These differencesare probably partly related to changes in building traditions, e.g.from solid, deeply founded houses in the LBK to superficially builthouses later in the Neolithic. Also large and deep loam extractionpits along the long sides of houses, very typical of the LBK, disap-pear completely in later Neolithic Cultures. Additionally, differen-tial erosion may have played a role. LBK sites are generally situatedon river terraces or weak hill slopes while Michelsberg sites areoften located on hilltops and plateaus surrounded by steep flanks.In terms of erosion the latter position is muchmore vulnerable thanthe former. Furthermore, erosion will have a bigger impact onshallow features (e.g. post-holes) than on deeper ones (e.g. loamextraction pits, ditches, etc.).

From the Lorraine data two important conclusions can bedrawn, which are also relevant for other study-areas within (theloess region of) NW Europe. First, the scarcity of structural featureson post-LBK sites reduces considerably the archaeological visibilityof these sites compared to the LBK. Although post-LBK occupationand exploitation is well established in the Lorraine loess areathrough numerous surface finds and pollen data, the latter pointingto increased deforestation and cultivation (cereals, ruderal species),

Table 2Number of sites and features per Neolithic culture excavated in the Lorraine regionin northeast France (data from Blouet (2006)).

Culture Duration N sites N houses N pits N silos N dumps N graves

LBK 400 22 50 543 0 3 4(Epi)Roessen 700 11 1 15 4 4 0Michelsberg 800 1 0 0 0 1 0SOM/Horgen 600 2 0 0 0 2 0Cordé 400 6 0 0 1 3 3Bell Beaker 300 4 0 0 1 1 5


the chance of discovering (and subsequently dating) such sitesduring excavations is very limited (Blouet, 2006). Salvage excava-tions yielded 22 settlements for the LBK, spanning less than half amillennium, while for the remaining almost 3 millennia of theNeolithic just 24 sites were discovered (Table 2). Second, if one isfortunate to discover a post-LBK site during trial-trenching orsalvage excavations the low density of features will further reducethe dating possibilities.

Similar problems have been reported within Neolithic researchin other parts of NW Europe, such as Belgium (Demeyere et al.,2006; Vanmontfort, 2004; Vermeersch, 1987/88), and theNetherlands (Verhart, 2000). In Belgium too hardly any settlementremains are known from the post-LBK/BQY, while numeroushouse-plans and pits have been reported on LBK/BQY sites. Exca-vations in loamy Belgium have revealed at least 95 LBK/BQY housesspread over 24 sites (Jadin and Cahen, 2003b), which correspondswith a mean of 3.96 houses per site. In contrast 49 excavatedMichelsberg settlements (Vanmontfort, 2004) yielded just one or atbest two house-plans (Marchal et al., 2004) which gives a mean ofmaximum 0.04 houses per site. Even if only the extensively exca-vated Michelsberg sites (N ¼ 14) are taken into account a mean ofmaximum 0.14 is obtained. For the Final Neolithic just one timberbuilding is currently known within Belgium (Demeyere et al.,2006).

However the situation in Belgium is somewhat different fromthe Lorraine, explaining the presence of two clear peaks in thesummed probability distribution, one covering the 2nd half of the5th millennium and the 1st quarter of the 4th millennium and asecond one corresponding with the transition from the 4th to the3rd millennium cal BC. The first peak can be linked with thefrequent occurrence of large enclosures, consisting of one ornumerous deep ditches and palisades, as well as flint mines asso-ciated both mainly with the Michelsberg Culture (Vermeersch,1987/88; Vanmontfort et al., 2008). These impressive structuralfeatures are up to now totally missing in the Lorraine. Yet, theyprovide good contexts for radiocarbon sampling and thus aregenerally intensively datedwithin Belgium;with amean number ofdates per site of 4, the dating frequency of Michelsberg sites issimilar to that of the LBK/BQY. The famous flint mines of (Petit-)Spiennes, for example, have been dated on 30 different samplesconsisting of human and animal bones, antler tools and charcoal(Toussaint et al., 2010). Additionally, the radiocarbon peak of the2nd half of the 5th millennium is reinforced by an intensive datingprogram (N ¼ 18 dates) conducted on two wetland sites in theScheldt valley attributed to the Final Mesolithic/Early NeolithicSwifterbant Culture (Crombé and Sergant, 2008; Crombé et al.,2011a). Although no structural features, such as post-holes andditches, have been reported on these sites, the fact that these sitesare sealed by peat and perimarine clay immediately after theiroccupation offers better guarantees for reliable dating compared todryland contexts (Crombé et al., 2013a,b).

The gap in the summed probability range between the LBK/BQYand the Michelsberg/Swifterbant Cultures, corresponding largely



with the 1st half of the 5th millennium, so far remains difficult toexplain as hardly any sites belonging to the (Epi)Roessen/CernyCultures or even the Early Swifterbant Culture, are known inBelgium (Constantin and Burnez-Lanotte, 2008). However, thisdoes not necessarily point to a major population decline right afterthe disappearance of the LBK, as claimed by Shennan andEdinborough (2007), Shennan (2009). The dip in the radiocarboncurve partly can be explained by the complete absence of bothenclosures and flint mine sites early in the 5th millennium. Thestart of flint mining in Belgium is currently dated around4500 cal BC and continued till at least 2600 cal BC (Toussaint et al.,2010; Vanmontfort et al., 2008). Furthermore, the lack of settle-ment sites may be biased due to identification problems (Crombéand Vanmontfort, 2007) caused by the impossibility to discrimi-nate archaeological remains, especially lithic artefacts, of the (Epi)Roessen/Cerny Cultures from those of the later Michelsberg Cul-ture. Indeed the lithic toolkit from both succeeding traditions arevery comparable and when found in surface-collections (i.e.without ceramics) cannot be distinguished. Hence, this might makethe (Epi)Roessen/Cerny Cultures archaeologically invisible thus farin Belgium. Alternatively it might be considered that all farmers-herders, as a result of conflicts, diseases and/or catastrophes, haddisappeared from Belgium after the LBK/BQY, leaving the indige-nous hunter-gatherers as only occupants eventually recolonizingformer LBK/BQY territories. However, this hypothesis seems highlyunlikely as it conflicts too sharply with the evidence from sur-rounding study-areas, such as the Paris basin (Constantin andBurnez-Lanotte, 2008) and the German Rhineland, which demon-strates that post-LBK farming communities from the early5th millennium cal BC further colonized the loess area as far as theAtlantic coast and the limits of the sandy lowlands. Furthermore,the enormous difference in the geographical extent/distribution ofthe LBK/BQYandMichelsberg Cultures (Fig.1) supports a continuityrather than discontinuity in the Neolithic occupation of Belgium.Whereas the LBK/BQY was confined to specific settlement clusterse so called Siedlungskammer e limited in surface between ca.30 km2 (Hainault) and 320 km2 (Hesbaye), the Michelsberg Cultureoccupied the entire loess region (ca. 7500 km2) and from ca.4000 cal BC even part of the coversand region (Vanmontfort, 2004;Crombé and Vanmontfort, 2007). This massive expansion is diffi-cult to explain if farmer communities would have disappeared fromthe Belgian loess area during the first half of the5th millennium cal BC.

The radiocarbon peak corresponding with the first half of the3rd millennium cal BC, on the other hand, is seriously biased byfocused research on burial contexts, especially from caves and rock-shelters in the Meuse valley of southern Belgium (Cauwe et al.,2000; Toussaint, 2002). In this region over 220 mostly multiplesburial sites are known, themajority excavated at the end of the 19thand the start of the 20th century. In the absence of diagnostic burialgifts, the chronology of cave burials long remained hypothetical.From the 1990s onwards several extensive dating programs havebeen conducted in order to directly date these burials using bonesamples. Today over 80 burial sites are dated yielding over 120,mostly AMS dates. Almost 80% of these dates belong to theNeolithic, particularly to the end of the 4th millennium and 1st halfof the 3rd millennium cal BC. The remaining dates belong to theEarly Mesolithic and to a much lesser extent the Michelsberg Cul-ture. Clearly these dates produce an important bias as they focus onone specific type of burial (cave burials) in a specific region (Meusevalley), while hardly any Neolithic (nor Mesolithic) burials areknown (or dated) from open-air contexts due to taphonomicproblems. If these dates are omitted from the calculation, the peakin the summed probability distribution vanishes completely(Fig. 2).


5. Conclusions

Although fluctuations in human population must haveoccurred in the Mesolithic and Neolithic, e.g. in response tochanging climate and environment or as a result of conflict,diseases or catastrophic events (eruptions, tsunami, earthquakesetc), we do not believe that these can be deduced from theradiocarbon evidence just by summing all dates and looking atits distribution. Following Williams (2012) we are convinced thata single proxy approach like this is not recommendable; insteadradiocarbon dates should be confronted with other archaeolog-ical data in a multi-proxy approach. Therefore we propose thatat least the following parameters are considered whencomparing the frequencies of 14C dates on an inter-regional anddiachronic level to assess Neolithisation processes in (north-west) Europe:

e The frequency of excavations: this might reflect differences inresearch intensity between different archaeological periods andstudy-areas;

e The scale of excavations (small versus large-scale research): thefrequencies of 14C dates should be compared to the surface thathas been excavated for each period, expressed in number ofdates per excavated ha;

e The density of archaeological features: the success of radio-carbon dating is largely dependent on the occurrenceof secure contexts, which provide minimal risks of contami-nation. Deep features of clear anthropogenic origin, suchas (loam and flint) extraction pits, silo’s, ditches and wells,offer the best opportunities, hence the frequency inwhich these features are present on the sites is an importantfactor;

e Site taphonomy: especially when archaeological features aremissing, which is mainly the case for Mesolithic sites, acritical assessment of the site taphonomy is obligatory inorder to evaluate the reliability of the radiocarbon datesobtained.

Applying these variables to the Belgian and NE French Meso-lithic and Neolithic radiocarbon dates, it quickly turns out thatmuch of the trends identified by Shennan and Edinborough are lesspronounced or most likely even represent artifacts from sampling.The claimed gradual population decrease during the Mesolithic hasbeen countered by a model in which the residential mobility of thelast hunter-gatherers was reduced as a result of changes in sub-sistence linked to environmental changes (wetland exploitationand fishing). The hypothesis of an extremely dense LBK/BQY pop-ulation has been challenged on the basis of major differences in theresearch intensity and dating opportunities between the (Late)Mesolithic and the Early Neolithic as well as between the EarlyNeolithic and later Neolithic stages. In particular the scarcity ofdatable archaeological features, which characterizes both the pre-LBK/BQY and post-LBK/BQY sites, imposes major restrictions onthe radiocarbon dating.

In closing, we understand that summed probability distribu-tions provide greatest potential at large spatial scales (continentalor sub-continental scales) using very large amounts of radiocarbondates and their potential for generating hypotheses that can betested with further research. But, we question the extent withwhich these approaches can yield information on the finer-scaledynamics of Neolithisation processes in particular regions withspecific (pre)histories of cultural and ecological inheritance thatundoubtedly impacted the many unique behavioral, cultural, andecological changes that were the hallmark of Neolithisation inEurope.



Acknowledgment

We are very grateful to Prof. R. Kelly and Dr. N. Naudinot forinviting us to contribute to this special issue. Also we would like tothank Dr. I. Jadin for giving us permission to include Fig. 4B and C inour paper.

References

Bailey, G., 2007. Time perspectives, palimpsests and the archaeology of time.J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 26, 198e223.

Blouet, V., 2006. Du Néolithique au Bronze ancien entre Pont-à-Mousson et Thi-onville. Bilan sommaire de vingt-cinq ans d’archéologie préventive dans unterroir du bassin de la Moselle. In: Brun, P., Marcigny, C., Vanmoerkerke, J. (Eds.),Une archéologie des réseaux locaux. Quelles surfaces étudier pour quelle rep-résentativité ? Actes de la table ronde des 14 et 15 juin 2005 à Châlons-en-Champagne. Editions Errance, Paris, pp. 2e34.

Bosquet, D., Fock, H., Goffioul, C., Marchal, J.-P., Preud’homme, D., 2004. La néo-lithisation en Hesbaye (Belgique): apports des fouilles récentes (1996e1999)sur le tracé oriental du TGV et le site de Ans, à Alleur. In: Sections 9 et 10:Néolithique et age du cuivre. Sessions générales et posters, Actes du XIVèmeCongrès UISPP (Liège, 2e8 septembre 2001). BAR International Series, vol. 1303.Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 81e94.

Bosquet, D., Golitko, M., Salavert, A., 2008. Une phase pionnière à l’origine dupeuplement rubané de la Hesbaye liégeoise (Belgique). In: Burnez-Lanotte, L.,Ilett, M., Allard, P. (Eds.), Fin des traditions danubiennes dans le Néolithique duBassin parisien et de la Belgique (5100e4700 BC); autour des recherches deClaude Constantin, Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française XLIV. SociétéPréhistorique Française, Paris, pp. 302e315.

Bronk Ramsey, C., 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: theOxCal program. Radiocarbon 37 (2), 425e430.

Bronk Ramsey, C., 2001. Development of the radiocarbon program OxCal. Radio-carbon 43 (2A), 355e363.

Cahen, D., Keeley, L.H., Jadin, I., van Berg, P.-L., 1990. Trois villages fortifiés duRubané récent en Hesbaye liégeoise. In: Cahen, D., Otte, M. (Eds.), Rubané etCardial, Actes du Colloque de Liège, novembre 1988. Université de Liège, Liège,pp. 125e146 (ERAUL 39).

Cauwe, N., 1988. Le Néolithique final en Belgique. In: Analyse du matériel lithique.Editions Cedarc, TreigneseViroinval (Artéfacts 6).

Cauwe, N., Polet, C., Orban, R., 2000. Nouvelles datations d’ensembles funéraires duNéolithique moyen du sud de la Belgique. Internéo 3, 29e35.

Collard, M., Edinborough, K., Shennan, S., Thomas, M.G., 2010. Radiocarbon evi-dence indicates that migrants introduced farming to Britain. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37,866e870.

Constantin, Cl., 1985. Fin du Rubané, céramique du Limbourg et post-Rubané. Ox-ford (British Archaeological Reports International Series 273).

Constantin, Cl., Burnez-Lanotte, L., 2008. La mission archéologique du ministère desAffaires étrangères français en Hainaut et en moyenne Belgique: bilan et per-spectives de recherches. In: Burnez-Lanotte, L., Ilett, M., Allard, P. (Eds.), Fin destraditions danubiennes dans le Néolithique du Bassin parisien et de la Belgique(5100e4700 BC); autour des recherches de Claude Constantin, Mémoires de laSociété Préhistorique Française XLIV. Société Préhistorique Française, Paris,pp. 35e56.

Crombé, Ph., 1998. The Mesolithic in Northwestern Belgium, Recent Excavationsand Surveys. Oxford ( British Archaeological Reports, International Series 716).

Crombé, Ph., Beugnier, V., 2013. La fonction des industries en silex et les modalitésd’occupation des territoires au Mésolithique. Le cas des zones sableuses dunord-ouest de la Belgique et des Pays-Bas (8700e5400 cal. BC.). L’An-thropologie 117 (2), 172e194.

Crombé, Ph., Sergant, J., 2008. Tracing the Neolithic in the sandy lowland ofBelgium: the evidence from Sandy Flanders. In: Fokkens, H., Coles, B., vanGijn, A., Kleijne, J., Ponjee, H., Slappendel, C. (Eds.), Between Foraging andFarming. An Extended Broad Spectrum of Papers Presented to Leendert LouweKooijmans. Leiden, Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 40, pp. 75e84.

Crombé, Ph., Vanmontfort, B., 2007. The neolithisation of the Scheldt basin inwestern Belgium. In: Whittle, A., Cummings, V. (Eds.), “Going Over: theMesolithiceNeolithic Transition in North-west Europe”, Cardiff, 16e18 May2005, Proceedings of the British Academy Press 144. Oxford University Press,Oxford, pp. 261e283.

Crombé, Ph., Van Strydonck, M., 2004. The Neolithic transition and Europeanpopulation history. Antiquity 78, 708e710.

Crombé, Ph., Boudin, M., Van Strydonck, M., 2011a. Swifterbant pottery in theScheldt basin and the emergence of the earliest indigenous pottery in the sandylowlands of Belgium. In: Hartz, S., Lüth, F., Terberger, Th (Eds.), Early Pottery inthe Baltic e Dating, Origin and Social Context, International Workshop atSchleswig on 20e21 October 2006. Frankfurt, Bericht der Römisch-Germani-schen Kommission 89, pp. 465e483.

Crombé, Ph., Perdaen, Y., Sergant, J., 2006. Extensive artefact concentrations: singleoccupations or palimpsests? The evidence from the Early Mesolithic site ofVerrebroek “Dok” (Belgium). In: Kind, C.J. (Ed.), “After the Ice Age” Proceedingsof the International Conference, Rottenburg 9e12 September 2003. K. Theiss,Stuttgart, pp. 237e243.


Crombé, Ph., Sergant, J., De Reu, J., 2013a. La contribution des dates radiocarbonepour démêler les palimpsestes mésolithiques: exemples provenant de la régiondes sables de couverture en Belgique du Nord-Ouest. In: Valentin, B., Souffi, B.,Ducrocq, Th, Fagnart, J.-P., Séara, F., Verjux, Ch. (Eds.), Palethnographie duMésolithique. Recherches sur les habitats de plein air entre Loire et Neckar,Actes de la table ronde internationale de Paris, 26 et 27 novembre 2010, Séancesde la Société préhistorique française 2e1. Société préhistorique française, Paris,pp. 235e249.

Crombé, Ph., Sergant, J., Lombaert, L., 2011b. L’occupation du nord-ouest de laBelgique aux IVe et IIIe millénaires: bilan des recherches récentes en régionsablonneuse. In: Bostyn, F., Martial, E., Praud, I. (Eds.), Actes du congrès « LeNéolithique du Nord de la France dans son contexte européen: habitat etéconomie aux 4ème et 3ème millénaires avant notre ère », Villeneuve d’Ascq,2e3 octobre 2009, Revue Archéologique de Picardie 28, pp. 103e118.

Crombé, Ph., Van Strydonck, M., Boudin, M., 2009. Towards a refinement of theabsolute (Typo)Chronology for the Early Mesolithic in the coversand area ofNorthern Belgium and the Southern Netherlands. In: Crombé, Ph., VanStrydonck, M., Sergant, J., Boudin, M., Bats, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of an Inter-national Meeting, Brussels, May 30theJune 1st 2007 “Chronology and Evolutionwithin the Mesolithic of North-West Europe”. Cambridge Scholars Publishing,Newcastle upon Tyne, pp. 95e112.

Crombé, Ph., Robinson, E., Boudin, M., Van Strydonck, M., 2013b. Radiocarbondating of Mesolithic open-air sites in the coversand area of the NorthwestEuropean Plain: problems and prospects. Archaeometry 55 (3), 545e562.

Crombé, Ph., Sergant, J., Robinson, E., De Reu, J., 2011c. Hunter-gatherer responses toenvironmental change during the PleistoceneeHolocene transition in thesouthern North Sea basin: final Palaeolithicefinal Mesolithic land use innorthwest Belgium. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 30, 454e471.

Deforce, K., Bastiaens, J., Crombé, Ph., 2014. A Reconstruction of Middle HoloceneAlluvial Hardwood Forests (Lower Scheldt River, N-Belgium) and TheirExploitation during the MesolithiceNeolithic Transition Period (Swifterbantculture, c. 4500e4000 BC). Quaternaire 25 (1), 9e21.

Demeyere, F., Bourgeois, J., Crombé, Ph., Van Strydonck, M., 2006. New evidence onthe Final Neolithic occupation of the sandy lowlands of Belgium: the Waar-damme “Vijvers” site, West Flanders. Archäol. Korresp. 16, 179e194.

Gamble, Cl., Davies, W., Pettitt, P., Hazelwood, L., Richards, M., 2005. The archaeo-logical and genetic foundations of the European population during the LateGlacial: implications for “Agricultural Thinking”. Camb. Archaeol. J. 15, 193e223.

Gilot, E., 1997. Index général des dates Lv. In: Studia Praehistorica Belgica 7. Labo-ratoire du carbone 14 de Louvain/Louvain-La-Neuve, Liège.

Gkiasta, M., Russell, Th., Shennan, St., Steele, J., 2003. Neolithic transition in Europe:the radiocarbon record revisited. Antiquity 77, 45e62.

Gob, A., 1981. Le Mésolithique dans le Bassin de l’Ourthe. In: Mémoire de la SociétéWallonne de Palethnologie 3. Presses Universitaires de Liège, Liège.

Gob, A., 1990. Chronologie du Mésolithique en Europe. Atlas des dates 14C. In:Histoire de l’Art et Archéologie 1. Centre Informatique de Philosophie et Lettres,Liège.

Houtsma, P., Kramer, E., Newell, R.R., Smit, J.L., 1996. The Late Palaeolithic Habitationof Haule V: From Excavation Report to the Reconstruction of FedermesserSettlement Patterns and Land-use. Van Gorcum, Assen.

Jadin, I., Cahen, D., 2003a. Datations radiocarbones et Rubané. Pour un mariage deraison. In: Jadin, I. (Ed.), Trois petits tours et puis s’en vont... La fin de la prés-ence danubienne en Moyenne Belgique. Liège, pp. 523e581 (ERAUL 109).

Jadin, I., Cahen, D., 2003b. Sites en pagaille sur le haut Geer. Darion, Oleye,Waremme-Longchamp, Hologne-Douze Bonniers. In: Jadin, I. (Ed.), Trois petitstours et puis s’en vont... La fin de la présence danubienne en Moyenne Belgique.Liège, pp. 191e316 (ERAUL 109).

Jadin, I., Hauzeur, A., 2003. L’habitat danubien en Belgique. Etat des lieux. In:Jadin, I. (Ed.), Trois petits tours et puis s’en vont... La fin de la présence dan-ubienne en Moyenne Belgique. Liège, pp. 25e56 (ERAUL 109).

Kelly, R.J., 1995. The Foraging Spectrum. Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways.Smithsonian Institution Press, London.

Kuzmin, Y.V., Keates, S.G., 2005. Dates are not just data: Paleolithic settlementpatterns in Siberia derived from radiocarbon records. Am. Antiq. 70 (4), 773e789.

Langohr, R., 1990. The dominant soil types of the Belgian loess belt in the EarlyNeolithic. In: Cahen, D., Otte, M. (Eds.), Rubané et Cardial, Actes du Colloque deLiège, novembre 1988. Univeristé de Liège, Liège, pp. 117e124 (ERAUL 39).

Lanting, J.N., van der Plicht, J., 1997/1998. De 14C-chronologie van de Nederlandsepre-en protohistoire, II: Mesolithicum. Palaeohistoria 39/40, 99e162.

Marchal, J.P., De Beuckeleer, N., Haeck, J., Loicq, S., 2004. Une grande maison de lapremièremoitié du 4èmemillénaire à Lantremange. Notae Praehist. 24,139e150.

Nicholas, G.P., 1998. Wetlands and hunter-gatherers: a global perspective. Curr.Anthropol. 39 (5), 720e731.

Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., BronkRamsey, C., Buck, C.E., Burr, G.S., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M.,Guilderson, T.P., Hajdas, I., Heaton, T.J., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F.,Kromer, B., McCormac, F.G., Manning, S.W., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A.,Southon, J.R., Talamo, S., Turney, C.S.M., van der Plicht, J., Weyhenmeyer, C.E.,2009. INTCAL 09 and MARINE09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0e50,000 years cal bp. Radiocarbon 51 (4), 1111e1150.

Riede, F., 2008. The Laacher See-eruption (12,920 BP) and material culture changeat the end of the Allerød in Northern Europe. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35, 591e599.

Robinson, E., 2007. Cultural landscapes and neolithisation processes: outline of amodel for the southern North Sea basin. Internet Archaeol. 22.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0305-4403(14)00041-7/sref1























































































































































































































Robinson, E., Lombaert, L., Sergant, J., Crombé, P., 2011. Armatures and the questionof forager-farmer contact along the north-western fringe of the LBK. Archäol.Korresp. 41, 473e490.

Robinson E. and Crombé P., Lithic technological organization and Early Holoceneabrupt climate change in northwest Europe, In: Robinson E. and Sellet F., (Eds.),Lithic Technological Organization and Paleoenvironmental Change: Global andDiachronic Perspectives, Studies in Human Ecology and Adaptation. Springer;New York, (in press)

Shennan, St., 2009. Evolutionary demography and the population history of theEuropean early Neolithic. Hum. Biol. 81 (2/3), 339e355.

Shennan, St., Edinborough, K., 2007. Prehistoric population history: from the LateGlacial to the Late Neolithic in Central and Northern Europe. J. Archaeol. Sci. 34,1339e1345.

Shennan, S., Downey, S.S., Timpson, A., Edinborough, K., Colledge, S., Kerig, T.,Manning, K., Thomas, M.G., 2013. Regional population collapse followed initialagriculture booms in mid-Holocene Europe. Nat. Commun. 4, e2486.

Toussaint, M., 2002. Problématique chronologique des sépultures du Mésolithiquemosan en milieu karstique. Notae Praehist. 22, 141e166.

Toussaint, M., Collet, H., Jadin, I., 2010. Datations radiocarbones d’ossementshumains du site minier néolithique de Spiennes (Mons, Hainaut). Premièreapproche. Notae Praehist. 30, 73e80.

Van Gils, M., Vanmontfort, B., De Bie, M., 2009. A history of Mesolithic occupation inthe Belgian Campine region. In: Crombé, Ph., Van Strydonck, M., Sergant, J.,Boudin, M., Bats, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of an International Meeting, Brussels,May 30theJune 1st 2007 “Chronology and Evolution within the Mesolithic ofNorth-West Europe”. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne,pp. 261e276.


Vanmontfort, B., 2004. Converging Worlds, The Neolithisation of the Scheldt basinduring the Late Fifth and Early Fourth Millennium cal BC (Unpublished PhDthesis). Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

Vanmontfort, B., Collet, H., Crombé, Ph., 2008. Les industries lithiques taillées desIVe et IIIe millénaires dans les basins de l’Escaut et de la Meuse (Belgique). In:Dias-Meirinho, M.-H., Léa, V., Gernigon, K., Fouéré, P., Briois, F., Bailly, M. (Eds.),Les industries lithiques taillées des IVe et IIIe millénaires en Europe occidentale,British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1884, pp. 11e39. Oxford.

Van Neer, W., Ervynck, A., Lentacker, A., Bastiaens, J., Deforce, K., Sergant, J.,Crombé, Ph., 2013. Hunting, gathering, fishing and herding: animal exploitationin Sandy Flanders (NW Belgium) during the second half of the fifth millenniumBC. J. Environ. Archaeol. 18 (2), 87e101.

Verhart, L.B.M., 2000. Times Fade Away: the Neolithisation of the SouthernNetherlands in an Anthropological and Geographical Perspective. Archaeolog-ical Studies Leiden University, Leiden.

Vermeersch, P.M., 1987e1988. Le Michelsberg en Belgique. Acta Archaeol. Lovan.26e27, 1e20.

Vermeersch, P.M., 1990. La transition du Mésolithique au Néolithique en Basse etMoyenne Belgique. In: Cahen, D., Otte, M. (Eds.), Rubané and Cardial, Actes duColloque de Liège, nov. 1988. Liège, pp. 95e103 (ERAUL 39).

Whitehouse, N.J., Schulting, R.J., McClatchie, M., Barratt, P., McLaughlin, T.R.,Bogaard, A., Colledge, S., Marchant, R., Gaffrey, J., Bunting, M.J., 2013. Neolithicagriculture on the European western frontier: the boom and bust of earlyfarming in Ireland. J. Archaeol. Sci.. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.08.009(in press). Available online 22 August 2013.

Williams, A.N., 2012. The use of summed radiocarbon probability distributions inarchaeology: a review of methods. J. Archaeol. Sci. 39 (3), 578e589.





























































Date post:	30-Dec-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	erick
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

14C dates as demographic proxies in Neolithisation models of northwestern Europe: a critical...

Documents