7 replies to this topic

[Maju]

Reference: Mark Collard et al., Radiocarbon evidence indicates that migrants introduced farming to Britain. Antiquity, 2009 (behind paywall, I got a copy thanks to a blog reader, PM with email adress if you want it).

I just wrote an extensive entry at my blog that, for my commodity, I will just copy-paste here, with some extension on the Megalithic details.

Quote

I wrote yesterday on the new research by Collard et al. that suggests that Britain experimented a rapid population increase in the few centuries that followed the arrival of farming to the island. Afterwards a reader has sent me a copy of the paper (a million thanks again) and I can now comment a bit further with better knowledge of the matter.

But first of all the sequence:

Britain Neolithic population.png

This graph, which is central to the research, represents the archaeological findings with a C14 date for the whole island of Great Britain (I understand). As you can see the population explodes after c. 6000 calBP (calibrated C14 dates, our best equivalent to "years ago" since 1950 - equivalent to c. 3950 BCE in this case), even if we discard the monuments. The demic growth was some 400% in four centuries, maybe more.

Later, by the second half of the millennium, the population decreased very sharply again but, thanks to agriculture surely, remained higher than in the Epipaleolithic (250%?). Since then it remained stable, although it is difficult to interpret the growth in monumental sites in the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE in terms of demography.

As the authors argue this explosion is difficult to conciliate with a process of gradual incorporation of farming by the natives and fits best with the model of colonization from the mainland.


Regional differences

Most of the Neolithic colonization (or demic explosion) process happened in two specific areas: SW England and central Scotland. The rest of the island was unaffected or only affected in a secondary and less intense manner. Naturally (climate) SW England experienced a much more intense demic explosion than Scotland, which began slightly before and ended also somewhat later.

This is the situation at the apogee of SW English Neolithic, 5600-5700 calBP ("hotter" colors like white imply greater density, black implies same density as in Epipaleolithic):

Britain Neolithic apogee (5500-5600 calBP).png

The Scottish Neolithic apogee was apparently some 100 years early and here is shown already receding (but was not much more extense nor intense anyhow).


Armorican ('French') origins

The authors argue that the migrations were two, both originated in NW France but in different subregions.

The first wave was that affecting SW England and seems to have originated in the Megalithic area of Lower Normandy, with some elements also from the (non-Megalithic) Neolithic of Nord-Pas-de-Calais.

One hundred years later more or less, a second wave original from Brittany (also within the Dolmenic Megalithism cultural area) touched in coastal Wales and reached Scotland. There are no traces of any other migration.

Both Lower Normandy and Brittany, as well as the inland areas between the Seine and the Loire rivers, were a homogeneous cultural region that is only second in Europe to develop the Dolmenic Megalithic cultural set (earliest known are in Southern Portugal and nearby districts of Spain, soon after Neolithization, c. 7000 BP). In Celtic and Roman times it was known as Armorica, meaning the Sea Country, as a whole it has no other collective name so guess that talking of Armorican Neolithic or Armorican Megalithism makes full sense.

This ancient country would be in any case the main source of the Neolithic colonists that this paper suggests.


Questions

Why did the population decline so sharply after the initial explosion? Did they over-exploit their environment? Is the initial abrupt growth an artifact of archaeological research?

If the arrival of Neolithic to Great Britain (and NW Iberia at least) is product of the spread of Dolmenic Megalithism, does this imply that we should begin to consider Megalithic expansion as a demic phenomenon in general, with all the implications it would have in population genetics? I find this hard to believe but I am not totally sure. If so, should we consider Portugal as the origin?

What happened in the "black" (or even dark red) areas that are about half of the island? It does not look like there was any colonization there. How did they become Megalithic then?

Why did the people of Great Britain began building so many monuments since 2500 BCE? This is precisely a very hot period in Europe, when Indoeuropeans (Kurgan) took over West Germany and Scandinavia, but also just after the formation of the first West European civilizations in southern Iberia (VNSP and Los Millares) and not long before the increase in trade associated to the Bell-Beaker phenomenon. Does all this imply some sort of increase in political organization?

The Megalithic trail

As mentioned above, the authors argue for a mostly Armorican origin of these colonists, the SW English from Lower Normandy (and Nord) and the Scottish ones from Brittany:

Quote

One of these introductions is conjectured to have occurred along the coast of Wales and the west coast of Scotland between 6150 and 5850 calBP, and to have been carried out by farmers from Brittany. This migration is hypothesized on the basis of the discovery at Achnacreebeag, Argyll, and a number of other western Scottish sites of pottery that is similar to the distinctive Breton Neolithic pottery known as Late Castellic Ware, and the presence in Wales and western Scotland of two types of tomb that are common in the Neolithic of Brittany, small closed polygonal megalithic chambered tombs and small simple passage tombs.Another introduction is posited to have occurred in southwest England between 5950 and 5700 calBP and to have been mediated by farmers from Basse-Normandy and/or the Channel Islands. This migration is hypothesized on the basis of similarities between the simple passage tomb at Broadsands, Devon, and a number of such tombs in Basse-Normandy and the Channel Islands, and similarities between the trapezial long mound at Beckhampton Road, Wiltshire, and the one at Colombiers-sur-Seulles, Basse-Normandy. The third introduction is proposed to have occurred between 5900 and 5650 calBP, and to have been carried out by farmers from Nord-Pas-de-Calais and/or Picardie. This migration is hypothesized on the basis of the presence in southern England of pottery that is similar to Carinated Bowl Ware from the Nord-Pas-de-Calais/Picardie region, and of styles of non-megalithic funerary practises and timber houses that are found in the Neolithic of Nord-Pas-de-Calais/Picardie but not in the Mesolithic of southern England.

.

Attached Files

•  Britain Neolithic population.png   46.71K   7 downloads
•  Britain Neolithic apogee (5500-5600 calBP).png   73.77K   5 downloads

[harry sivertsen]

Genetic studies are very useful in these studies...it is pity that archaeologists have not as yet generally take the results of such work on board. Two of the most accessible and historically illuminating are Out of Eden and The Origins of The British by Steven Oppenheimer and are thoroughly recommended...the books clarify much regarding the movements of peoples during the periods under discussion here.

Cheers

[Maju]

However genetics have its own issues. I think that both archaeologists and geneticists realize that it is interdisciplinary dialogue what can actually produce the best results. When genetics is taken alone (and it is a very young science) sometimes you get results (specially the very doubtful age estimates) that make no or little sense from an archaeological perspective, so I strongly recommend to contrast both actively.

I often find myself arguing with other people who has only knowledge of genetics (but not of archaeology) for that reason: because they take some genetic speculations at face value, without contrasting these with the more consolidated archaeological discipline (this is particularly true for Europe, in other regions sometimes it is archaeology which is lacking). However a big problem with archaeology and prehistory is that, until recently, they had essentially a local (nation-state or smaller) scope, which is obviously not good enough to understand the processes of a time when such state borders did not exist - and anyhow these processes often have wide, continental or subcontinental implications and interactions.

...

Anyhow, I have been yesterday and today dealing with another older paper on Germany, Poland and Denmark (roughly same period, similar type of analysis) and I have posted at my blog on it, comparing with what happened in Britain. It is very noticeable that the Lineal Pottery culture of Central Europe, also immigrant early farmers (though different origin and essentially unrelated to those of Britain), also experienced a similar rise and fall peak (though 2000 years earlier). I speculate that it may have to do with economic and ecological problems caused by over-exploitation, maybe with the rough slash-and-burn technique, still used in many places.

From the viewpoint of Megalithism, I find interesting that Megalithic Denmark experienced instead sustained high population levels, unlike what we find in early Neolithic Britain, but they had a long experience of farming locally by then. Parts of Germany (NW and South) also experienced Megalithism but I could not discern any effect and all the period appears to be one of low population levels, with a very moderate improvement at best.

[tiompan]

Eventually we will get incredibly imformative  data from genetics , we already have some , but RC dating in the early days provided quite a few hiccups and it is only latterly that we are achieving far more accurate info .Early days yet .
What puzzles me about the the Collard paper is not the science but the initial dataset.
The data they have to work from is incredibly limited and no Bayesian stats and ultra efficent formulae will compensate for that . Whatever the population at the meso - neo transition and after , the few scraps of bone we have is hardly representative ,they are mostly derived from monuments which generally have a greater number of male deposits ,as opposed to female and children and could well be chosen because they were special e.g. high ranking , deformed , enemies etc The bulk of the population we just don't know about , either where they lived (settlement is almost non existent in the current record) or where they were disposed of .
Central Scotland seems an odd choice for a spike when Orkney had very early examples of monument and material culture e.g. henges ,Grooved Ware and central Scotland had relatively little in comparison .

George

[Maju]

Correcting myself:

Maju, on 9 December 2009 - 11:20, said:

It is very noticeable that the Lineal Pottery culture of Central Europe, also immigrant early farmers (though different origin and essentially unrelated to those of Britain)...

Actually, on second read, the wave said to have originated in Nord-Pas-de-Calais, near Belgium, that affected South England, must have been by then of Danubian culture. The fact that they used wooden longhouses rather confirms this. This may imply some distant genetic connections to the origins of this culture in the Middle Danube (West Hungary, Austria, Moravia) and maybe to even more remote Balcanic and West Asian sources. However the actual impact of such hypothetical demic flows along such a long distance and with so many cultural transformations is hard to evaluate.

But I do find important to realize that the original South English Neolithic was somewhat of a blend between two different farmer cultures: Armorican Megalithism and "Belgic" LBK variants (using here "Belgic" in a Celto-Roman historical sense: from the Rhine to the Seine, not in the restricted sense of modern Belgium).

[Maju]

tiompan, on 9 December 2009 - 12:36, said:

Eventually we will get incredibly imformative  data from genetics , we already have some , but RC dating in the early days provided quite a few hiccups and it is only latterly that we are achieving far more accurate info .Early days yet .

Sure. But Radiocarbon had to be demonstrated empirically before it began to be used seriously: they had to date accurately some ancient artifacts of known age. Nothing of this has ever been done with the Molecular Clock hypothesis, of which I'm very critical.

However, genetics provides excellent haploid phylogenetic trees (undated) and some interesting analysis of autosomal (full genome) data.

Quote

What puzzles me about the the Collard paper is not the science but the initial dataset.
The data they have to work from is incredibly limited and no Bayesian stats and ultra efficent formulae will compensate for that . Whatever the population at the meso - neo transition and after , the few scraps of bone we have is hardly representative ,they are mostly derived from monuments which generally have a greater number of male deposits ,as opposed to female and children and could well be chosen because they were special e.g. high ranking , deformed , enemies etc The bulk of the population we just don't know about , either where they lived (settlement is almost non existent in the current record) or where they were disposed of .
Central Scotland seems an odd choice for a spike when Orkney had very early examples of monument and material culture e.g. henges ,Grooved Ware and central Scotland had relatively little in comparison .

Well, Europe is by far the best archaeologically researched area in the World, hence what we know may perfectly be a valid random sample of what really happened. Boucquet-Appel, one of the pioneers of these techniques, already argued that when he made his reconstruction of Paleolithic European demographics. Of course there is lots of uncertainties but, generally speaking, they make some good sense. Take with a pinch of salt, of course, but they do seem to reflect patterns that seem to make sense. We may loose a lot of the fine detail but this kind of data management doesn't care too much about that (and the British study makes a clear difference between monumental and other data, which is relevant, albeit hard to interpret).

Also, regarding the very steeped peaks, I just noticed that they might be coincident with parallel climatic features but otherwise there is little (if any) correlation between climate and demographics.

Btw, does anyone recall any data of British Neolithic showing signs of violence? One of the factors that I'm considering in all this issue is possible warfare - and we know that West Danubians were rather warlike (and even practiced cannibalism and women kidnapping). This is a facet that I would like to explore further because I noticed since my very beginnings of studying European Neolithic/Chalcolithic that there was some issue with West Danubians and maybe also with Armorican Megalithism (more "mega" and probably also more hierarchic than others of its kind). It would "resolve" with Danubians (already split in two main factions), invading Armorica, and soon after being driven back by an Aquitanian culture of bowmen (Artenac, also Megalithic but more "normal"), at about the same time that Indoeuropeans (Corded Ware) took control of Danubian lands east of the Rhin. So I wouldn't mind some feedback on the particular implications at the other side of the Channel (signs of conflict or whatever), as it's an area I know less well (lots of details but lacking in the overall picture).

[tiompan]

Maju, on 10 December 2009 - 01:07, said:

Btw, does anyone recall any data of British Neolithic showing signs of violence? One of the factors that I'm considering in all this issue is possible warfare -

Interpersonal/tribal violence is very difficult to prove, needing skeletal eveidence for trauma ,organised warfare less so but there are strong cases for British Neolithic warfare ,often at causewayed enclosures like Hambledon Hill where the excavator Roger Mercer concluded that the ramparts had been deliberately fired , two skeltons were found underneath the ramparts suggesting this was not some ritual closureas both also had arrow heads and one a child beneath him .Crickley had never been fired but over 400 arrowheads found clusreed at around entrances .Carn Brea had less evidence but large numbers of arrowheads at entrances and burnt buildings were contemporaneous .Windmill Hill was yet another with similar evidence .There is nothing to comapre with places like Lepenski Vir but cranial trauma is also found in chambered tombs.Rick Schulting in particular has been imporatnt in highlighting this ignored area .

George

[tiompan]

[quote name='Maju' date='10 December 2009 - 01:07' timestamp='1260403648' post='9595']

Well, Europe is by far the best archaeologically researched area in the World, hence what we know may perfectly be a valid random sample of what really happened. Boucquet-Appel, one of the pioneers of these techniques, already argued that when he made [url="http://www.ohll.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/pages/documents_Aussois_2005/pdf/Jean-Pierre_Bocquet-Appel.pdf"]his reconstruction of Paleolithic European demographics[/url]. Of course there is lots of uncertainties but, generally speaking, they make some good sense. Take with a pinch of salt, of course, but they do seem to reflect patterns that seem to make sense. We may loose a lot of the fine detail but this kind of data management doesn't care too much about that (and the British study makes a clear difference between monumental and other data, which is relevant, albeit hard to interpret).


Even without the fine detail the record consists of monuments and human remains .The latter is usually confined usually to monuments which are certainly not represenative of the population demographically or numerically .Taphonomy must also be taken into account ,the east of the uk has little in the way of megalithic monuments due mostly to the geology and consequently the organic equivelants have not survived and are far more difficult to find .An area like like Strathtay has a scattering of dateable monuments but there are huge stretches of country side without a dateable monument or evidence of burial yet it was obviously highly populated evidenced by the great number of undateable rock art panels in association with good quality land .This will have a minimum effect on the data set.

George