Symbols in motion: Flexible cultural boundaries and the fast spread of the Neolithic in the western Mediterranean

Abstract

The rapid diffusion of farming technologies in the western Mediterranean raises questions about the mechanisms that drove the development of intensive contact networks and circulation routes between incoming Neolithic communities. Using a statistical method to analyze a brand-new set of cultural and chronological data, we document the large-scale processes that led to variations between Mediterranean archaeological cultures, and micro-scale processes responsible for the transmission of cultural practices within farming communities. The analysis of two symbolic productions, pottery decorations and personal ornaments, shed light on the complex interactions developed by Early Neolithic farmers in the western Mediterranean area. Pottery decoration diversity correlates with local processes of circulation and exchange, resulting in the emergence and the persistence of stylistic and symbolic boundaries between groups, while personal ornaments reflect extensive networks and the high level of mobility of Early Neolithic farmers. The two symbolic productions express different degrees of cultural interaction that may have facilitated the successful and rapid expansion of early farming societies in the western Mediterranean.

'Palaeoshellomics’ reveals the use of freshwater mother-of-pearl in prehistory

“…Unravelling these nuances is especially important in times of lifestyle transformation (e.g. from mobile hunting and gathering to sedentism), when the way people perceived their ‘homeland’ may also have shifted: personal adornments thus help track cultural continuity or discontinuity (Rigaud et al, 2018; Rigaud et al, 2015; Stiner, 2014; Stiner et al, 2013; Taborin, 1974; Vanhaeren and d'Errico, 2006). Exotic marine shells, transported to inland sites, are thought to have acquired special value and are interpreted as a marker of status and a proxy for long-distance exchange and trade (Alarashi et al, 2018; Bajnóczi et al, 2013; Borrello and Micheli, 2011; Taborin, 1974; Trubitt, 2003).…”

Migration, adaptation, innovation: The spread of Neolithic harvesting technologies in the Mediterranean

“…The spread and adoption of harvesting technology can therefore be viewed within a larger process of change. Harvesting tools are only one component of a larger material culture, the Neolithic package [116], whose components change at different rates and time frames [117,118]. For example, the analysis of the stylistic variation in pottery decorative techniques has allowed the expansion of groups bearing different traditions to be traced across the Mediterranean Basin and their fragmentation in regional entities [119].…”

SignBase, a collection of geometric signs on mobile objects in the Paleolithic

“…Apart from insights into the evolution of human cognition, the geographic distribution of geometric signs – and the associated archaeological cultures – is a second major line of research. Geographic analyses promise to shed light on cultural developments and population turn-overs across the Late Pleistocene, as inferred by the archaeological and human fossil record 58 – 61 . As an example of practical applications in this direction, we give a preliminary clustering analysis of the sign types found across Europe in the Aurignacian.…”