Fig 1.
Main second Mesolithic and early Neolithic sites.
Distribution maps of the main second Mesolithic (after ~ 6,500 BCE) and early Neolithic sites in the Western Mediterranean (according to the BDA database https://bda.huma-num.fr/ [56]). Countries boundaries are from Natural Earth (free vector and raster map data @ naturalearthdata.com).
Fig 2.
Logicistical diagram for establishing a hypothesis of contact between Mesolithic and Neolithic groups.
Simplified logicistical diagram representing the necessary conditions for establishing a hypothesis (ω) of contact between prehistoric groups, in this case Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic agro-pastoralists, on the basis of archaeological contexts and material productions. This first involves low-level propositions (P0), generally in the form of observations: Their geographical proximity must thus be demonstrated, as well as their contemporaneity (within the limits of accuracy of the absolute data) and the elements for comparison, which are generally material productions, must be analyzed in a coherent manner. Validating these first two conditions makes the hypothesis of contact possible. But it is also necessary that the remains accessible to the archaeologist, which are generally material goods, can attest that such possible contact actually took place. Finally, it is crucial to note that it is only possible to demonstrate that the groups were contemporaneous and exchanged goods or ideas once the independence of the compared samples has been demonstrated and the taphonomic processes controlled.
Table 1.
Criteria for the reliability evaluation of radiocarbon dates.
Fig 3.
Method to situate in time the occupations of a site.
Methodological principles allowing us to situate the occupation(s) of a site over time and to estimate the reliability of the data.
Table 2.
Criteria for assessing the reliability of prehistoric occupations.
Fig 4.
Distribution maps of the main second Mesolithic (after ~6,500 BCE) and early Neolithic occupations in the Western Mediterranean classified according to their reliability.
Countries boundaries are from Natural Earth (free vector and raster map data @ naturalearthdata.com).
Fig 5.
Example of a “no man’s land” scenario.
Example of a “no man’s land” scenario: The last Mesolithic occupations disappeared nearly 200 years before the first Neolithic settlements, precluding any contact between the two groups. Red dots: Neolithic occupations; blue triangles: Mesolithic occupations. Countries boundaries are from Natural Earth (free vector and raster map data @ naturalearthdata.com).
Fig 6.
Example of a “musical chairs” scenario.
Example of a “musical chairs” scenario: The last Mesolithic occupations disappeared less than 100 years before the first Neolithic settlements, or coexisted more than 50 miles (ca. 80 km) from each other, making the hypothesis of regular contact unlikely and suggesting rapid succession. Red dots: Neolithic occupations; blue triangles: Mesolithic occupations. Countries boundaries are from Natural Earth (free vector and raster map data @ naturalearthdata.com).
Table 3.
Main characteristics of the different models of potential contact.
Fig 7.
Different possible interaction scenarios between Mesolithic and Neolithic.
Schematic map of the different possible interaction scenarios between Mesolithic and Neolithic groups during the Neolithization process in the Western Mediterranean, according to the currently available data. Countries boundaries are from Natural Earth (free vector and raster map data @ naturalearthdata.com).