Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T15:47:09.903Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Neolithic in Northeast Iberia: Chronocultural Phases and 14C

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2016

F Xavier Oms ,
Araceli Martín ,
Xavier Esteve ,
Josep Mestres ,
Berta Morell ,
M Eulàlia Subirà  and
Juan F Gibaja
F Xavier Oms*
Affiliation:
Seminari d’Estudis i Recerques Prehistòriques University of Barcelona.
Araceli Martín
Affiliation:
Servei d’Arqueologia i Paleontologia, Generalitat de Catalunya.
Xavier Esteve
Affiliation:
Tríade Serveis Culturals.
Josep Mestres
Affiliation:
Vinseum Museu de les Cultures del Vi, Vilafranca del Penedès.
Berta Morell
Affiliation:
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Dept. Prehistoria.
M Eulàlia Subirà
Affiliation:
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Unitat d’Antropologia.
Juan F Gibaja
Affiliation:
Institució Milà i Fontanals-Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Associated to Agrest and Icarheb.
*
*Corresponding author. Email: xavieroms@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As in many other regions, the periodization of the Neolithic in the northeastern Iberian Peninsula was based upon relative dating obtained through ceramic typologies. Moreover, this prehistoric period was structured using nomenclature borrowed from the Neolithization of southern France. A total of 37 new radiocarbon dates for NE Iberia have been recently obtained with appropriate sampling criteria. These results have been used in conjunction with other reliable 14C dates in order to assess the validity of traditional classifications established through the study of ceramic typologies. The gradual improvement in the quality of sample choice and the available archaeological records allowed the selection of 187 dates obtained mostly from short-lived taxa. This has enabled the chronological boundaries to be adjusted as precisely as possible.

Keywords

pottery culture14CNeolithicIberian Peninsula
Type
Research Article
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 58 , Supplement 2 , June 2016 , pp. 291 - 309
Copyright
© 2016 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

INTRODUCTION

The earliest evidence available for the Neolithic in northeast Iberia dates back to the mid-6th millennium cal BC. Until then, this region was occupied by Mesolithic hunter-gatherer communities living in the lowlands and the mountains of the Pyrenees/Pre-Pyrenees, and the Pre-littoral ranges. Examples of Mesolithic sites are Cova del Parco, Cova de Can Sadurní, Cova del Vidre, Font del Ros, Balma Margineda, and Bauma del Serrat del Pont (Guilaine Reference Guilaine1976; Guilaine and Martzluff Reference Guilaine and Martzluff1995; Pallarés et al. Reference Pallarés, Bordas and Mora1997; Bosch Reference Bosch2001; Alcalde et al. Reference Alcalde, Colominas, Haro, Lladó, Saña and Tornero2008; Blasco et al. Reference Blasco, Edo, Villalba and Saña2005; Fullola and García-Argüelles Reference Fullola and García-Argüelles2006).

The first Neolithic societies in southwest Europe were mainly characterized by agriculture and animal husbandry. Neolithic sites show evidence cultivation of wheat, barley (Triticum aestivum t. compactum, Triticum aestivum/durum, Triticum dicoccum, Hordeum vulgare nudum, and Hordeum vulgare), and legumes (white beans, Vicia fava, and peas, Pisum sativum) (Zapata et al. Reference Zapata, Peña-Chocarro, Pérez-Jordà and Stika2004; Gassin et al. Reference Gassin, Bicho, Bouby, Buxó, Carvalho, Clemente, Gibaja, González, Ibáñez, Linton, Marinval, Márquez, Peña-Chocarro, Pérez, Philibert, Rodríguez and Zapata2010; Antolín and Buxó Reference Antolín and Buxó2012). Neolithic groups also kept several domestic animal species (sheep, Ovis aries; goats, Capra hircus; cattle, Bos taurus; and swine, Sus domesticus) (Tresset and Vigne Reference Tresset and Vigne2007; Vigne Reference Vigne2007). In addition, these groups had mastered pottery-making techniques and produced lithic industries consisting both of knapped artifacts (blades and flakes used to make a wide range of tools) and ground stone implements (axes, adzes, and querns).

A large number of radiocarbon determinations are assessed here to examine the validity of the Neolithic phases that have been determined in the northeastern Iberian Peninsula. These have mainly been established on the basis of pottery morphology and decoration, although other elements have also been used to define chronocultural phases, e.g. lithic technologies, patterns observed in the selection of raw materials used in the production of tools and ornaments, peculiarities observed in bone implements, and burial evidence. Based on these parameters, five periods have been defined: Cardial Early Neolithic, Epicardial Early Neolithic, Postcardial Neolithic, Middle Neolithic, and Final Neolithic–Chalcolithic (Tarrús Reference Tarrús1985; Mestres Reference Mestres1992; Martín Reference Martín1993; Miró Reference Miró1994; Martín et al. Reference Martín, Petit and Maya2002, Reference Martín, Edo, Tarrús and Clop2010; Molist et al. Reference Molist, Saña and Buxó2003; Gibaja Reference Gibaja2003) (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Typical pottery forms and decorations in the different Neolithic phases. Late Neolithic–Chalcolithic: 1 Cova de Can Sadurní; 2 Les Roquestes; 3 Bòbila Palazón; 4 Cova Joan d’Os; 5 Cova Verda. Middle Neolithic: 6 La Serreta E10; 7 Bòbila Madurell; 8 and 10 Pla del Riu de les Marcetes; 9 Can Tintorer; 11 Garrofers Torrent de Santa Maria. Postcardial Neolithic, 12, 13, and 15 La Serreta E32 and E37; 14 Mas d’en Boixos; Epicardial Early Neolithic: 17 and 18 Cova del Frare c5; 19 Timba de Barenys; 20 Cova de l’Avellaner; 21 Plansallosa PSL-II. Cardial Early Neolithic: 22 Can Sadurní c18; 23 La Serreta E61; 24 Cova del Toll IIb; 25 Guixeres de Vilobí A; 26 La Draga.

In the last decade, the number of 14C dates obtained for the Neolithic in northeast Iberia has increased significantly. However, the quality of the data still varies. In many cases, inappropriate samples have been taken from mixed deposits and, in others, the exact location of samples is not specified. Therefore, it can be difficult to make a precise interpretation of the dates. The very nature of 14C determinations, with their statistical and probability aspects and standard deviations (variations smaller than ±30 yr are still quite rare) means that the chronological periods traditionally established by pottery morphology and decoration overlap slightly. Indeed, this overlapping requires further reflection and investigation and will be discussed towards the end of this paper.

The aim of this paper is to present the determinations currently available from Neolithic sites of northeast Iberia, analyze their validity according to a number of defined parameters, and compare the results of these determinations with existing relative chronologies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The initial phase of this investigation involved gathering all the published dates in addition to those obtained by the authors through their own research projects.Footnote 1 This paper presents a total of 37 new dates that are published here for the first time.

The known and new dates total 299 14C determinations (Mestres and Martín Reference Mestres and Martín1996; Manen and Sabatier Reference Manen and Sabatier2003; Morales et al. Reference Morales, Fontanals, Oms and Vergès2010; Martín et al. Reference Martín, Edo, Tarrús and Clop2010). An initial critical analysis of these dates led to the elimination of all those results with a standard deviation of over ±100 yr, which meant that a total of 112 dates were discarded. These dates were disregarded as they were obtained by mixing materials (normally pieces of charcoal), a common practice among archaeologists until quite recently. This practice may have resulted in a mixture from different cultural levels and therefore a lack of archaeological representativeness (Zilhão Reference Zilhão2001; Morales et al. Reference Morales, Fontanals, Oms and Vergès2010).

Secondly, a simple process has been followed to determine the quality and validity of the results. Validity is understood in terms of the reliable archaeological information that can be drawn from them (Van Strydonck et al. Reference Van Strydonck, Nelson, Crombé, Bronk Ramsey, Scott, van der Plicht and Hedges1998; Bernabéu Reference Bernabéu2006; Rojo et al. Reference Rojo, Kunst, Garrido and García2006:98; Morales et al. Reference Morales, Fontanals, Oms and Vergès2010; Zilhão Reference Zilhão2011). Thus, the nature of the samples has been considered above all: whether they come from reliable archaeological contexts (i.e. from hearths or burial deposits, animal pen levels or fumiers, in a primary position or from levels that were sealed rapidly) and whose standard deviation is less than ±100 BP. This strategy has allowed the classification of chronological determinations into three classes:

  • • High confidence: Short-life domestic samples (seeds and domestic animals), charcoal identified as coming from short-life taxa or twigs, and human remains from primary burials found in graves dug ex profeso or secondary interments in collective deposits.Footnote 2

  • • Medium confidence: Short-life samples not identified taxonomically or wild species recovered from well-determined archaeological contexts. Unlike the previous class, these samples were taken from archaeological levels or domestic structures such as storage pits, which are able to define a relative chronology.

  • • Rejected: This class includes determinations with a standard deviation greater than ±100 BP and samples from unclear contexts or with dubious associations between radiocarbon results (absolute dates) and contexts (material culture).

With these filters, the total number of dates that can be considered reliable was reduced to 187. This is the data set used to obtain the results and conclusions given in the final part of the paper. Table 1 summarizes the results obtained after assessing the dates according to the criteria for their reliability described above. In this paper, only calibrations to 2σ (95% probability) are presented, with cumulative graphs being generated with the software OxCal v 4.2 (Bronk Ramsey Reference Bronk Ramsey2009) and IntCal13 curve (Reimer et al. Reference Reimer, Bard, Bayliss, Beck, Blackwell, Bronk Ramsey, Buck, Cheng, Edwards, Friedrich, Grootes, Guilderson, Haflidason, Hajdas, Hatté, Heaton, Hoffman, Hogg, Hughen, Kaiser, Kromer, Manning, Niu, Reimer, Richards, Scott, Southon, Staff, CSM and van der Plicht2013). It can be seen that the Cardial Early Neolithic phase is the one with the closest relationship between the total number of dates and the number of accepted dates (~70%). This may due to the researchers who studied those sites taking greater care in taking the best samples from the clearest deposits. It may also be the result of a wish to minimize issues associated with the transition between Mesolithic hunter-gatherer levels and those of the first Neolithic farming communities. Thus, special care was taken in selecting short-life domestic samples for the first theoretically Neolithic levels and in discarding those that might distort the information obtained with dates older than their real age, if samples of wild fauna or charcoal were selected and dated.

Table 1 Classification of the dating results: A. Cultural phase; B. Number of sites with 14C dates; C. Number of sites with high-confidence dates; D. Total number of dates available; E. Total number of high-confidence dates. F. % of the reliable dates.

In the other chronological phases, the number of valid dates is around 68–55%. In more recent phases, the number of samples from human remains increases considerably, above all in the phases termed Middle Neolithic and Final Neolithic–Chalcolithic. This is because of the high frequency of funerary sites in those periods.

At the same time, it should be noted that the calibration curve (Figure 2) indicates certain times that are unfavorable for calibration. These moments are seen as a steep fall in the curve followed by an artificial plateau or even a peak, called wiggles (Reimer et al. Reference Reimer, Bard, Bayliss, Beck, Blackwell, Bronk Ramsey, Buck, Cheng, Edwards, Friedrich, Grootes, Guilderson, Haflidason, Hajdas, Hatté, Heaton, Hoffman, Hogg, Hughen, Kaiser, Kromer, Manning, Niu, Reimer, Richards, Scott, Southon, Staff, CSM and van der Plicht2013). The most important of these times, in connection with the chronological phases established by pottery types, are

Figure 2 Radiocarbon diagram for the Neolithic of northeast Iberia with the dates accepted for this study. The steep slopes (vertical red) are highlighted in the calibration curve (OxCal v 4.2 and IntCal13).

  • • 5300–5000 cal BC, at the end of the Cardial Early Neolithic.

  • • 4300–4000 cal BC, in the transition from the Postcardial Neolithic to the start of the Middle Neolithic.

  • • 3600–3200 cal BC, a time traditionally regarded as falling between the Middle Neolithic and Final Neolithic.

  • • 3000–2400 cal BC, during the Late Neolithic–Chalcolithic phase.

RESULTS

The 14C determinations obtained from different kinds of samples will be presented in connection with the relative chronology of the sites and their position in the different phases traditionally accepted for the Neolithic in the northeastern Iberian Peninsula.

Cardial Early Neolithic

The first Neolithic phase has been traditionally characterized by Cardial Ware, a particular type of pottery decorated with impressions of Cerastoderma edule and Cerastoderma glacum. However, current research has demonstrated that other sites belonging to the same phase yielded decoration based on impressions made with other techniques and implements such punches and combs (Oms et al. Reference Oms, Petit, Morales and García2012; Oms Reference Oms2014).

Most of the samples dated belonging to this period come from open-air and cave habitation sites located near the Mediterranean coast, and in precoastal and inland territories (Figure 3). This follows a pattern already observed at the first Neolithic settlements in the western Mediterranean: these early settlements are located near the shore. A number of scholars believe that this is because the first Neolithic societies traveled by sea, following the coast (Zilhão Reference Zilhão2001). In contrast, few samples were taken from human remains, as little is known about the funerary practices of these first Neolithic populations.

Figure 3 Location of the Cardial Early Neolithic sites with high-confidence dates and the type of material sampled (the complete reference of the determinations is in the online Appendix).

After critically assessing the known determinations for this phase, a total of 46 dates have been considered valid. Most of them (44) were analyzed by the accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) method and only two of the dates were obtained by beta-counting 14C dating.

Most of the samples were taken from carbonized domestic cereal grains (Triticum aestivum/durum, Triticum dicoccum, and Triticum sp.) and domestic fauna (Ovis aries, Bos taurus), with 19 and 14 determinations, respectively. These two types of short-life samples are the best for dating, according to the quality criteria proposed by many researchers (e.g. Bernabéu Reference Bernabéu2006; Zilhão Reference Zilhão2011) (Figure 3). In addition, at two sites, dates were obtained for human remains (Plaza Vila de Madrid and Cova Foradada). Finally, three dates were obtained from wild taxa: an acorn in Structure E-9 at Cova Gran de Santa Linya, a seed coat of Corylus avellana from Level 3b at Balma Margineda, and a Sus scropha bone from Level III.4 at La Balma del Serrat del Pont. These determinations are perfectly valid bearing in mind the level in which the samples were located and their relationship with the archaeological record with which they are associated.

A further 11 determinations were based on charcoal samples (Figure 3). In this case, they were regarded as acceptable as they came from species with a potential short life or were taken in certain structures, like a hearth, fumier, or silo. Some examples are the charcoal from the fumier and the combustion structure EC1 at Cova Colomera, the hearth in Level II at Cova del Vidre, the hearth E3 at the settlement of La Draga, and the silos E61 and E79 at La Serreta.

The calibration of the 46 dates and the graphs produced show that they correspond to the period between ~5500–4850 cal BC (2σ, 95% probability). The graph (Figure 9) reveals other aspects requiring explanation. Above all, two clear groupings can be seen, one around 5400 cal BC and the other around 5150 cal BC. This may be because of a taphonomic problem with the conservation of sites dated between 5350 and 5250 cal BC (Berger Reference Berger2005) or due of the existence of a wiggle-match in the calibration curve (as suggested above and in Figure 2).

Epicardial Early Neolithic

In this phase, Neolithic populations continued to occupy sites both in caves and in the open air (Martín et al. Reference Martín, Edo, Tarrús and Clop2010). Two different decorative traditions appear to exist. Whereas in the eastern sector of the northern area the diagnostic decorative element is a smooth orthogonal cordon, in the rest of the area the decorations include motifs combining incisions and impressions (Miró Reference Miró1994; Oms et al. Reference Oms, Petit, Morales and García2012). Although burials are still scarce, they are more common than in the previous phase. Both individual interments and collective burials in caves have been documented.

The number of available dates decreases noticeably, as there are fewer sites corresponding to the phase (Martín and Vaquer Reference Martín and Vaquer1995). Only 16 14C determinations (Figure 4) meet the quality parameters outlined above. Of these, 13 were dated by the AMS method and the other three by beta-counting 14C dating.

Figure 4 Location of the Epicardial Early Neolithic sites with high-confidence dates and the type of material sampled (the complete reference of the determinations is in the online Appendix).

Eight of the dates were obtained from bone remains of Ovis aries (Structure UE120 at Reina Amàlia, La Codella, Level 3 at Cova de Sant Llorenç, Level c5 at Cova del Frare, and the silos E3 and E13 at Pou Nou). A further three determinations dated human remains (grave UF1 at Reina Amàlia, an individual in the collective burial at Cova de l’Avallaner, and grave SF501 at Ca l’Estrada). The other dates come from charcoal samples. One of these was for an accumulation of charcoal found in the habitat at Plansallosa II, and three samples came from silos (Pla del Serrador, Sanavastre, and Molins de la Vila) with a close relationship between the 14C result and the material culture. We must be wary of the latter samples as examples from similar structures have given a dissonant relationship (Rojo et al. Reference Rojo, Kunst, Garrido and García2006)

The calibrations of these 16 dates fall in the period between 4930 and 4420 cal BC. Although the small number of results available does not allow a more precise interpretation, concentrations of dates around 4800 and 4560 cal BC can be perceived.

Postcardial Neolithic: Molinot and Montboló Groups

Neolithic populations are seen to occupy the valleys and lowlands more intensely during this phase. At the same time, the number of burials located near the sites or inside them gradually increases. These no longer tend to be collective, but contain one or occasionally two individuals. The deceased are accompanied by various kinds of grave goods, such as lithic or osseous implements, pottery, and ornaments. The pottery found at the archaeological sites belonging to the so-called Molinot Group display combed surfaces with triangular cross-section cordons. In contrast, the Montboló Group is characterized by burnished finishes, carenated profiles, and vertical tubular handles (Mestres Reference Mestres1992; Molist et al. Reference Molist, Ribé and Saña1996).

A total of 40 dates are available for reliable archaeological sites and with a standard deviation less than ±100 yr BP. The larger number of burials results in a large proportion of the samples for this phase coming from human remains: 20 in total. The others include four determinations for seeds and domestic fauna in Levels 10 and 11 at Can Sadurní and 13 for charcoal samples (some of which were identified taxonomically as Rhamnus alaternus, like the samples in Silos E17 and E26 at Mas Pujó). The others were deemed valid because of the place where the charcoal was collected: the fumier in Level II at Cova de la Guineu and the combustion structures in Level 7 at Cova de les Grioteres and the Liceu Conservatory (E10, Tamarix sp., and E14, Pistacia lentiscus) and H1 at Cova Gran. Owing to the correct association between the 14C results and the material culture, the dates for Silos E17 and E8 at Hort d’en Grimau and E10 at Font del Roure have also been accepted as probably valid (Figure 5). In addition, the silos at Camp del Colomer have yielded two determinations for seeds (Hordeum vulgare) and one for a Corylus avellana seed coat.

Figure 5 Location of the Postcardial Neolithic sites with high-confidence dates and the type of material sampled (the complete reference of the determinations is in the online Appendix).

After calibrating the results and generating the graphs (Figure 9), it has been seen that the dates are clustered between 4690 and 3800 cal BC. When the domestic and funerary sites are analyzed separately, it can be appreciated that the former are dated between 4690 and 3790 cal BC while the latter are relatively younger, between 4320 and 3850 cal BC (Figure 9). Indeed, the results show that whereas the dates for human remains are in the later part of the phase (as at the sites of La Serreta and Can Roqueta II), those for domestic sites are in the earliest part (as at Cova Can Sadurní, Liceu Conservatory, and Cova de la Guineu). It is therefore necessary to obtain more high-quality 14C dates for domestic sites to confirm or discard this situation. It is equally necessary to obtain further dates for the first part of the phase (~4800–4400 cal BC) as only nine dates are currently available for that time (Figures 5 and 9).

Middle Neolithic

During this phase, the funerary practices initiated in the previous phases become fully consolidated. The importance of the number of burials discovered since the early 20th century is such that this phase is known as the Pit Burial culture (Llongueras et al. Reference Llongueras, Marcet and Petit1986; Martín and Villalba Reference Martín and Villalba1999; Martín Reference Martín2009). Although the communities who carried out those burials lived mainly in plains and valleys, very little is known about their dwellings, of which very few have been discovered (Mestres and Tarrús Reference Mestres and Tarrús2009; Esteve et al. Reference Esteve, Martín, Oms, Jornet and López2012). One of the factors explaining this absence is that they were made mostly with perishable materials, lowering the ground level very little or not at all. The repeated disturbance of these areas by later human occupations throughout history, as well as by farm work and the recent proliferation of various kinds of buildings and industries, have caused the disappearance of any trace of those dwellings. This explains why the only evidence of this phase consists basically of structures dug more deeply in the ground, such as the burials and silos.

During this phase, the pottery is generally smooth, with careful finishes and composite profiles, usually carenated. The few decorations that have been documented (scratched geometric-linear motifs) are associated with the Chasséen types in southern France (Martín and Villalba Reference Martín and Villalba1999).

The frequency of the funerary structures is the reason for the large number of human bone samples that have been dated. Until recently, very few dates had been obtained for domestic structures, likes hearths, huts, silos, or waste pits. However, this problem is slowly being solved.

A total of 38 14C dates are known for the phase, 20 of them analyzed by the AMS method. Of particular interest are the 28 dates for human remains documented in the necropolises of Camí de Can Grau, Mines de Gavà, Plà del Riu de les Marcetes, Bòbila Madurell, and Can Gambús (14 by AMS). The other 10 were obtained from samples of charcoal, seeds, and fauna from domestic structures like the silos and pits at La Serreta (E10, E12, and E46), Bòbila Madurell (Habitat 1), and Can Roqueta/Torre Romeu (E145 and E195); and the combustion structure E2 at the site of Ca n’Isach and H6 at Cova Gran (Figure 6).

Figure 6 Location of the Middle Neolithic sites with high-confidence dates and the type of material sampled (the complete reference of the determinations is in the online Appendix).

The results again reveal a certain difference between the dates for domestic sites and those for funerary contexts (Figure 7). After calibration (Figure 9), the dates obtained at domestic sites are grouped in the time from 4150 to 3680 cal BC, with a tight clustering around 3900 cal BC, except for the determination for Structure E145 at Can Roqueta/Mas Romeu (dated to 4100 cal BC). In turn, the dates for burials are grouped between 4170 and 3150 cal BC, especially around 3600 cal BC (Figure 9). This implies that although the dates for domestic and funerary sites start at a statistically similar time, the latter continue over a longer span of time. This may be due to a sampling problem.

Figure 7 Location of the Late Neolithic–Chalcolithic sites with high-confidence dates and the type of material sampled (the complete reference of the determinations is in the online Appendix).

Late Neolithic–Chalcolithic

In this phase, the exchange networks established between groups in the western Mediterranean in the Middle Neolithic (reflected by the presence of raw materials from the Alps, Italy, and southern France) disappear almost completely. At the same time, the burials are collective and generally in small caves. Many caves that had been abandoned after the Postcardial Neolithic are reused in this phase (Martín et al. Reference Martín, Petit and Maya2002).

The pottery types associated with this period are characterized by large sack-shaped recipients with lugs added to the outer surface and smooth parallel cordons. These vessels, typical of the Veraza group in southern France, are complemented by other recipients decorated with triangles, belonging to the Ferrières and Treilles groups, typical of southern France (Martín Reference Martín2003). The pottery associated with burials is not usually decorated until the arrival of Bell Beaker influences.

A total of 46 14C dates have been deemed valid (37 analyzed with the AMS method). Of these, 20 were obtained from human bones found in burial sites in caves and rockshelters. Two dates were obtained from cereal grains (Triticum aestivum durum in the fumier levels CE8 and CE9 at Cova Colomera) and three from domestic faunal remains at the sites of Camp del Rector, Espina C, and Santa Maria dels Horts. The remaining 21 dates come from charcoal samples collected in combustion structures (E33 and E31 at Riereta, E27 and E409 at Ca l’Estrada, EC1 and EC2 at Serrat del Pont, and E19 at Ca n’Isach), from a fumier (Cova Gran), and from a furnace (E56 at Cinc Ponts).

As in the previous two phases, the dates obtained at domestic and funerary sites are slightly different. Whereas the former are situated between 3560 and 2590 cal BC, with a main grouping from 3300 to 3100 cal BC, the dates of burials are situated between 3370 and 2310 cal BC, with a grouping in the period 3000–2700 cal BC (Figure 9).

DISCUSSION

The critical appraisal of the 187 14C dates considered valid after applying the filter described in the Methods section has been able to define with a certain exactness the different Neolithic phases established mainly through pottery decoration typologies. The number of dates is larger than 30 in all the phases, except for the Epicardial Early Neolithic, for which only 16 dates are available (compared with 46 for the Cardial Early Neolithic, 40 for the Postcardial Neolithic, 38 for the Middle Neolithic, and 46 for the Late Neolithic–Chalcolithic).

The best documented times in these phases are 5500–5100 cal BC in the Cardial phase, 4200–3850 cal BC in the later part of the Postcardial, ~3700–3600 cal BC at the end of the Middle Neolithic, and ~2800–2600 cal BC at the start of the Final Neolithic. At other times, not only is there a low density of dates, but occasional gaps. Clear examples are the Epicardial (because of a lack of dates), the start of the Postcardial, around 4690–4300 cal BC, the end of the Middle Neolithic around 3500–3200 cal BC, and the end of the Final Neolithic, which is very vague owing to the low density of dates. When analyzing the dates from a technical point of view, at least three issues must be addressed:

  1. 1. Do charcoal samples produce older dates?

    It is noticeable that 49 of the dates from domestic sites belonging to different phases come from charcoal samples. These have been identified taxonomically in only 12 cases and can be defined as coming from “short-lived” species (Pistacia lentiscus and Arbutus unedo at La Serreta, Rhamnus alaternus at Mas Pujó, Tamarix sp. and Pistacia lentiscus at the Liceu Conservatory, and Buxus sempervirens at Cova Colomera). However, in most cases the charcoal has not been identified (Guineu, Grioteres, Ca n’Isach, and Bòbila Madurell, among others), and the material selected for dating is unknown. However, the graph generated with the charcoal samples excluded (Figure 8) shows that the information does not vary substantially and only the density of dates per phase is altered and not the chronological length of the phases. Selecting only those 14C samples recovered from well-defined anthropic structures (quickly sealed), the old-wood effect has been minimized.

  2. 2. Are the human remains affected by the reservoir effect?

    Another issue, mentioned in the Introduction, is the high number of dates obtained from human remains, 73 in total. If these individuals’ diet had been rich in marine resources, this might alter the date of the osseous remains and corrections for the reservoir effect would have to be applied. However, the research being carried out within the framework of the project “Approach to the first Neolithic communities in north-east Iberia through their funerary practices” suggests that this effect is insignificant (Fontanals-Coll et al. Reference Fontanals-Coll, Subirà, Díaz-Zorita, Duboscq and Gibaja2015). Therefore, no reservoir effect corrections have been applied. Although the dating of human bones has provided more recent data (Figure 9), the problem is thought to lie in the imbalance caused by favoring funerary clusters to date horizons.

  3. 3. Do the unfavorable periods for calibration alter the “cultural phases”?

Figure 8 Graph with all dates versus only short-lived dates (generated with OxCal v 4.2 and calibrations with the IntCal13 curve).

Figure 9 Cumulative curve for the whole Neolithic in the northeastern Iberian Peninsula (calibration using OxCal v 4.2 and IntCal13).

The existence of times that are unfavorable for calibration creates the problem of accumulations of data in certain parts of the curve (Figure 2), for example, at the start and end of the Cardial Neolithic, the time of 4300–4100 cal BC in the transition from the Postcardial Neolithic to the Middle Neolithic, the end of the Middle Neolithic and the start of the Late Neolithic ~3600–3400 cal BC, and during the second half of the Late Neolithic.

These phenomena, coupled with the development of the different prehistoric cultural phases, trace a continuous cumulative curve, with few areas of low density, always associated with times when few dates are available (see Figure 2). Nonetheless, if the data are analyzed from the cultural point of view, at least two issues need to be addressed:

  1. (a) The statistical nature of the dates means that certain chronological overlapping occurs between the historical phases represented by certain types of pottery forms and decorations. It is clear that the relative chronologies traditionally based on the pottery types do not possess such clear chronological boundaries. The dates studied here show that the chronologies of different phases overlap as a consequence of several possible factors: continuance of certain pottery traditions, the type of samples dated, the quality of the samples in relation to the place where they were taken, etc. In Figure 9, some of these overlaps can be seen, between the end of the Cardial Early Neolithic and the Epicardial, and between the Epicardial and the start of the Postcardial Neolithic.

  2. (b) Another point to be considered is the rather later age of the funerary dates within each phase. This cannot be investigated only by studying the 14C dates, but by analyzing the archaeological record in each phase. However, it seems that certain funerary practices continued over a slightly different length of time to the domestic sites classified according to the pottery record. The new determinations now being carried out at other burial sites will be able to shed light on this issue and define more clearly the chronological framework in which they are situated.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent years have undoubtedly been very productive in the selection and analysis of 14C determinations at Neolithic sites in northeast Iberia. This is the result of the scientific community’s interest in understanding more exactly the age of the sites they were excavating. Indeed, a large part of the excavations’ funding has been used to carry out a wide series of 14C determinations. It is because of this attitude that many of the sites listed in the tables and figures in this paper are not represented by just one or two dates, but by several (e.g. La Draga, Cova de Can Sadurní, Cova Colomera, Bòbila Madurell, Minas de Gavà, and Can Gambús 1).

The importance of dating for researchers working at Neolithic sites in northeast Iberia has made it currently one of the areas in the European Mediterranean basin with the largest number of dates and therefore where the chronological framework is most accurately defined. However, much remains to be done, and dated, but the prospects for the coming years are extremely promising because of all the research projects currently being undertaken and for which 14C dating is an essential part.

This paper undoubtedly reflects this interest in dating archaeological sites and in considering chronology as one of the fundamental approaches with which to study the sites and the historical conclusions reached through their study. We shall soon not only understand much better when the sites were occupied and when the individuals were buried, but also be able to define more accurately the chronology of the phases traditionally established in the archaeological record. This will allow us to determine whether any correspondence exists between the absolute and relative dates and assess whether it is appropriate to continue using the traditional terminologies based on pottery types.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper is the result of the research project “Aproximación a las primeras comunidades neoliticas del NE peninsular a través de sus prácticas funerarias,” HAR2011-23149. F Xavier Oms’ work is supported by the 2014SGR-108 (Generalitat de Catalunya) and HAR2011-26193 (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación) projects. Berta Morell has been supported by an FI (Generalitat de Catalunya) predoctoral grant.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2015.14

Footnotes

1 These dates come from three research projects: Estudi integral de les recerques arqueològiques al peatges de l’AP-7 (Vilafranca del Penedès), funded by the Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica (ICAC); The Neolithic in the Mediterranean Basin (SFRH/BD/44089/2008), funded by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia de Portugal; and Aproximación a las primeras comunidades neolíticas del NE peninsular a través de sus prácticas funerarias (HAR2011-23149) funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness.

2 It is widely known that determinations using charcoal samples can result in older dates than short-lived samples because of the “old wood effect” (Zilhão Reference Zilhão2001). We have therefore only taken into account samples of charcoal from short-life species or small branches, or those collected from combustion structures or levels of animal pens. It should equally be noted that, as asserted in the discussion, corrections for the “reservoir effect” have not been applied in the case of samples from human remains.

References

REFERENCES

Alcalde, G, Molist, M, Saña, M. 2002. Procés d’ocupació de la bauma del Serrat del Pont (la Garrotxa) entre 5480 i 2900 cal AC. Olot: Publicacions Eventuals d’Arqueologia de la Garrotxa nº7, Museu Comarcal de la Garrotxa.Google Scholar
Alcalde, G, Colominas, L, Haro, S, Lladó, E, Saña, M, Tornero, C. 2008. Dinámica de asentamiento en la zona volcánica de la Garrotxa (Catalunya) durante el Neolítico antiguo. In: Hernández MS, Soler JA, López JA, editors. IV Congreso del Neolítico Peninsular, t. I, Alicante 2006, Museo Arqueológico de Alicante. p 216–20.Google Scholar
Allué, E. 2005. Aspectos ambientales y económicos durante el Neolítico antiguo a partir de la secuencia antracológica de la Cova de la Guineu (Font Rubí, Barcelona). In: Arias P, Ontañón R, García-Moncó C, editors. III Congreso del Neolítico en la Península Ibérica. Monografías del Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistóricas de Cantabria 1. p 53–61.Google Scholar
Antolín, F, Buxó, R. 2012. Chasing the traces of diffusion of agriculture during the early Neolithic in the western Mediterranean coast. In: Congrés Internacional Xarxes al Neolític. Gavà-Bellaterra 2011. p 95–102.Google Scholar
Balagué, P, Hinojo, J, Oliart, J, Soriano, I. 2011. Dinàmica d’ús de la Cova de la Pesseta (Torrelles de Foix, Alt Penedès) entre el V i el II mil·lenni cal ANE. Primers resultats. In: Blasco A, Edo M, Villalba MJ, editors. La Cova de Can Sadurní i la Prehistòria de Garraf. Recull de 30 anys d’investigació. Milan: Edar Arqueologia y Patrimonio. p 359–365.Google Scholar
Berger, J-F. 2005. Sédiments, dynamique du peuplement et climat au Néolithique ancien. In: Guilaine J, editor. Populations néolithiques et environnements. Paris: Errance. p 155–212.Google Scholar
Bernabéu, J. 2006. Una visión actual sobre el origen y difusión del Neolítico en la Península Ibérica c. 5600–5000 cal. BC. In: García Puchol O, Aura JE, editors. El Abric de la Falguera (Alcoi, Alacant). 8000 años de ocupación humana en la cabecera del río Alcoi. Ajuntament d’Alcoi: Diputació d’Alacant, C.A.M. p 189–211 Google Scholar
Blasco, A, Edo, M, Villalba, M, Saña, M. 2005. Primeros datos sobre la utilización sepulcral de la Cueva de Can Sadurní (Begues, Baix Llobregat) en el Neolítico Cardial. In: Arias P, Ontañón R, García-Moncó C, editors. III Congreso del Neolítico en la Península Ibérica. Monografías del Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistóricas de Cantabria 1. p 625–634.Google Scholar
Bordas, A, Gómez, A, Julià, R, Llergo, Y, Nadal, J, Piqué, R, Riera, S, Ríos, P, Saña, M, Molist, M. 2013. El neolític antic i l’inici de del’edat del bronze a les excavacions del nou Conservatori del Liceu. QUARHIS època II n 9:113–129.Google Scholar
Borrell, F, Bosch, J, Vicente, O. 2010. Datacions per radiocarboni a les mines neolítiques de la serra de Ferreres de Gavà. In: Intervencions arqueològiques a les Mines de Gavà (sector de les Ferreres). Rubricatum 4:241–246.Google Scholar
Borrell, F, Gómez, A, Tornero, C, Molist, M, Vicente, O. 2014. Les ocupacions de la Cova de Sant Llorenç (Sitges, Garraf): noves aportacions al coneixement de la prehistòria del Garraf. Tribuna d’Arqueologia 2011–2012:110–127.Google Scholar
Bosch, J. 2001. Les ocupacions prehistòriques de caçadors-recol·lectors a la Cova del Vidre (Roquetes): assentament i clima. Recerca 5:9–20.Google Scholar
Bosch, A, Tarrús, J. 1990. La cova sepulcral del Neolític antic de l´Avellaner, Cogolls, Les Planes d’Hostoles (La Garrotxa), Sèrie Monogràfica 11. Girona: Centre d’Investigacions Arqueològiques. 142 p.Google Scholar
Bosch, A, Buxó, R, Palomo, A, Buch, M, Mateu, J, Tabernero, E, Casadevall, J. 1998. El poblat neolític de Plansallosa. L’explotació del territori dels primers agricultors-ramaders de l’Alta Garrotxa. Gerona: Museo Comarcal de la Garrotxa.Google Scholar
Bosch, À, Chinchilla, J, Tarrús, J. 2011. El poblat lacustre del neolític antic de la Draga. Excavacions 2000–2005. Monografies del CASC 9, Museu d’Arqueologia de Catalunya. 256 p.Google Scholar
Bravo, P, Garcia, M, Solà, E. 2014. Darreres aportacions al coneixement del Neolític i l’Edat del Bronze al Camp de Tarragona. Intervencions als terrenys de l’Aeroport de Reus i a la partida del Coll Blanc (parcel·la 18.1 del CIM El Camp) (Reus, Baix Camp). Tribuna d’Arqueologia 2011–2012:173–188.Google Scholar
Bravo, P, Hinojo, E, Subrià, ME, Allièse, F, Masclans, A, Santana, J, Santos, FJ, Agulló, L, Gómez-Martínez, I, Remolins, G, Gibaja, JF. 2015. Les sépultures néolithiques de Can Gambús-2 (Sabadell, Espagne): nouvelles données sur les pratiques funéraires de la culture. Sepulcros de Fosa. L’Anthropologie 119(1):38–57.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1):337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlús, X, González, J. 2008. Carrer de la Riereta, 37-37bis: Un nou assentament prehistòric al Pla de Barcelona. Primers resultats. Cypsela 17:91–114.Google Scholar
Castany, J. 1991. L’estació neolítica sepulcral de la Costa dels Garrics del Caballol (Pinell, Solsonès). Tribuna d’Arqueologia 1989–1990:53–64.Google Scholar
Castany, J. 1995. Les coves prehistòriques de Les Grioteres (Vilanova de Sau, Osona). Ed. Patronat d’Estudis Osonencs, Vic. Sèries monografies 16.Google Scholar
Castany, J, Ll, Guerrero, Fabregas, L. 2006. L’hàbitat prehistòric de Les Portes (Lladurs, Solsonès). Tribuna d’Arqueologia 2004–2005:21–43.Google Scholar
Cebrià, A, Fullola, JM, López, D, Mangado, X, Nadal, J, Ollé, A, Oms, FX, Pedro, M, Ruiz, J, Subirà, ME, Torrente, A, Vergès, JM. 2013. La cova sepulcral del pantà de Foix (Castellet i la Gornal). De jaciment arraconat a jaciment modèlic. III Monografies del Foix, Ed. Diputació de Barcelona. p 184–194.Google Scholar
Cebrià, A, Fontanals, M, Martín, P, Morales, JI, Oms, FX, Rodríguez-Hidalgo, A, Soto, M, Vergès, JM. 2014. Nuevos datos para el Neolítico antiguo del NE peninsular procedentes de la Cova del Toll (Moià, Barcelona) y de la Cova de la Font Major (L’Espluga de Francolí, Tarragona). Trabajos de Prehistoria 71(1):137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edo, M, Villalba, MJ, Blasco, A, Alesan, A, Malgosa, A. 2002. El nivell d’enterraments col·lectius de la coveta del Marge del Moro, Begues. In: Actes del XII Col.loqui Internacional d’Arqueologia de Puigcerda, Puigcerda novembre de 2000. p 643–657.Google Scholar
Edo, M, Blasco, A, Villalba, MJ. 2011. Guió sintètic de la prehistòria recent de Garraf. In: Blasco A, Edo M, Villalba MJ, editors. La Cova de Can Sadurní i la prehistòria de Garraf. Recull de 30 anys d’investigació, Ed. EDAR, Begues 2009. p 13–96.Google Scholar
Esteve, X, Martín, P, Oms, FX, Jornet, R, López, D. 2012. Intervencions arqueològiques als enllaços de l’autopista AP-7 de Vilafranca del Penedès: nous assentaments prehistòrics a l’aire lliure al Penedès. Tribuna d’Arqueologia 2010–2011:23–39.Google Scholar
Font, J. 2006. Les estructures del Neolític final-Calcolític i del Bronze mitjà-recent de Can Vinyalets (Santa Perpetua de Mogoda). In: El patrimoni arqueològic del baix Vallès. VIII Jornades de tardor. Notes, Centre d’ Estudis Molletans 21:185–216.Google Scholar
Fontanals-Coll, M, Subirà, ME, Díaz-Zorita, M, Duboscq, S, Gibaja, JF. 2015. Investigating palaeodietary and social differences between two differentiated sectors of a Neolithic community. La Bòbila Madurell-Can Gambús I (NE Iberian Peninsula). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 3:160–170.Google Scholar
Fortó, A, Martínez, P, Muñoz, V. 2006. Ca l’Estrada (Canovelles, Vallès Oriental): un exemple d’ocupació de la plana vallesana des de la prehistòria a l’alta edat mitjana. Tribuna d’Arqueologia 2004–2005:45–70.Google Scholar
Francès, J. 2007. Els Mallols. Un jaciment de la plana del Vallès, entre el neolític i l’antiguitat tardana (Cerdanyola, Vallès occidental), Excavacions arqueològiques a Catalunya 17. Departament de Cultura de la Generalitat de Catalunya.Google Scholar
Fullola, JM, García-Argüelles, P. 2006. La cueva del Parco (Alòs de Balaguer, Lleida) y el abrigo del Filador (Margalef de Montsant, Tarragona) dos secuencias clave para el conocimiento del Epipaleolítico en el Nordeste peninsular. In: Alday A, editor. El mesolítico de muescas y denticulados en la cuenca del Ebro y el litoral mediterráneo peninsular. p 121–133.Google Scholar
Gassin, B, Bicho, NF, Bouby, L, Buxó, R, Carvalho, AF, Clemente, I, Gibaja, JF, González, J, Ibáñez, JJ, Linton, J, Marinval, P, Márquez, B, Peña-Chocarro, L, Pérez, G, Philibert, S, Rodríguez, A, Zapata, L. 2010. Variabilité des techniques de récolte et traitement des céréales dans l’occident méditerranéen au Néolithique ancien et moyen: facteurs environnementaux, économiques et sociaux. In: Beeching A, Thirault E, Vital J, editors. Economie et Société à la fin de la Préhistoire.Actualité de la recherche, (DARA,34). Lyon: ALPARA/Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. p 19–37.Google Scholar
Gibaja, JF. 2003. Comunidades Neolíticas del Noreste de la Península Ibérica. Una aproximación socio-económica a partir del estudio de la función de los útiles líticos, BAR International Series 1140. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Gómez, A, Tornero, C, Saña, M, Molist, M. 2011. La Cova de les Agulles: un espai sepulcral entorn el III mil. Cal ane al Massís de l’Ordal. In: Blasco A, Edo M, Villalba MJ, editors. La Cova de Can Sadurní i la Prehistòria de Garraf. Recull de 30 anys d’investigació. Milan: Edar Arqueologia y Patrimonio. p 421–428.Google Scholar
González, P, García, E, Pizarro, J. 2011a. El Forat de Conqueta, poblament neolític i usos funeraris del 3r i 2n mil·lenni en el Prepirienu de Lleida. Tribuna d’Arqueologia 2009–2010:99–119.Google Scholar
González, J, Hadzerbacher, K, Molist, M. 2011b. Un nou assentament del V millenni a la costa de Barcelona. QUARHIS 7:86–100.Google Scholar
Guilaine, J. 1976. Premiers bergers et paysans de l’Occident méditerranéen. Éditions Mouton et École des hautes études en sciences sociales. Paris: Le Haye.Google Scholar
Guilaine, J, Martzluff, M. 1995. Les excavacions a la Balma de la Margineda (1979–1991) . 3 volumes. Andorra: Sèrie Prehistòria d’Andorra.Google Scholar
Llongueras, M, Marcet, R, Petit, MA. 1986. La cultura catalana de los sepulcros de fosa y su relación con el chassense. In: Le Néolithique de la France, Hommage à G. Bailloud. Paris. p 251–258.Google Scholar
Manen, C, Sabatier, P. 2003. Chronique radiocarbone la néolithisation en Méditerranée nord-occidental. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 100(3):479–504.Google Scholar
Martí, M, Pou, R, Carlús, X. 1997. La necròpolis del neolític mitjà i les restes romanes de Can Grau (la Roca del Vallès, Vallès Oriental). Els jaciments de Cal Jardiner (Granollers, Vallès Oriental). Excavacions arqueològiques a Catalunya volume 14. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya.Google Scholar
Martín, A. 1993. Reflexión sobre el estado de la investigación del neolítico en Catalunya y su reflejo en la cronologia radiométrica. Empuries 48–50(1986–1989):84–102.Google Scholar
Martín, A. 2003. Els grups del neolític final, calcolític i bronze antic. Els inicis de la metallúrgia. Cota Zero 18:76–105.Google Scholar
Martín, A. 2009. Gestion funéraire des sociétés du Neolithique moyen en Catalogne. In: Guilaine J, editor. Sépultures et sociétés. Du Néolithique à l’Histoire. Collection des Hesperides. Paris: Errance. p 45–70.Google Scholar
Martín, A, Mestres, JS. 2002. Periodització des de la fí del Neolític fins a l’Edat del Bronze a la Catalunya Sud-Pirinenca. Cronologia relativa i absoluta. Pirineus i veïns al IIIer. milleni AC: Actes del XII Colloqui Internacional d’Arqueologia de Puigcerdà. Puigcerdà 2000. p 77–130.Google Scholar
Martín, A, Vaquer, J. 1995. El poblament dels Pirineus a l’Holocè, del Mesolític a l’edat del Bronze. In: Bertranpetit J, Vives E, editors. Muntanyes i població. El Passat dels Pirineus des d’una perspectiva multidisciplinària. I Simposi de Poblament dels Pirineus. Andorra la Vella, 1992. Andorra: Centre de Trobada de les Cultures Pirinenques, Andorra la Vella. p 35–73.Google Scholar
Martín, A, Villalba, MJ. 1999. Le Néolithique moyen de la Catalogne. In: Vaquer J, editor. Actes XXIV Congrès Préhistorique de France, Le Néolithique du Nord-Ouest méditerranéen. Carcassonne 1994. p 211–24.Google Scholar
Martín, A, Petit, MA, Maya, JL. 2002. Cultura, economia i intercanvis durant el III millenni a Catalunya. Pirineus i veïns al IIIer. mil.leni AC: Actes del XII Col.loqui Internacional d’Arqueologia de Puigcerdà, Puigcerdà 2000. p 295–321.Google Scholar
Martín, A, Martín, J, Villalba, MJ, Juan-Tresserras, J. 2005. Ca l’Oliaire (Berga, Barcelona), un asentamiento neolítico en el umbral del IV milenio con residuos de sal y de productos lácteos. In: Arias P, Ontañón R, García-Moncó C, editors. III Congreso del Neolítico de la Península Ibérica, Santander, 2003 Monografías del Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistóricas de Cantabria 1. p 175–185.Google Scholar
Martín, A, Edo, M, Tarrús, J, Clop, X. 2010. Le Néolithique ancien de Catalogne (VI – première moitié du V millénaire av. J.C.). Les séquences chronoculturels. In: Manen C, Convertini F, Binder D, Sénépart I, editors. Premières societés paysannes de Méditerrannée occidental. Structures des productions céramiques. Toulouse: Mémoire 51 Société Préhistorique Française. p 197–214.Google Scholar
Mercadal, O, Aliaga, S, Esteve, X, Mangado, X, Nadal, J, Cubero, C, Alvarez, R. 2009. L’assentament del neolític antic de les mines de Sanavastre (Sanavastre, Das, La Cerdanya). In: Els Pirineus i les àrees circumdants durant el tardiglaciar. Mutacions i filiacions. Puigcerdà. October 2006. 47 p.Google Scholar
Mestres, J. 1992. Neolitització i territori. In: 9è Colloqui Internacional d’Arqueologia de Puigcerdà. Estat de l’investigació sobre el Neolític a Catalunya. Puigcerdà i Andorra la Vella. p 72–75.Google Scholar
Mestres, JS, Martín, A. 1996. Calibración de las fechas radiocarbónicas y su contribución al estudio del neolítico catalán. I Congrés del Neolític a la Península Ibérica. Rubricatum 1:91–804.Google Scholar
Mestres, J, Tarrús, J. 2009. Hábitats neolíticos al aire libre en Catalunya. In: De Méditerranée et d’ailleurs. Mèlanges offerts à Jean Guilaine. Lyon: Archives d’Ecologie Prehistorique. p 521–532.Google Scholar
Mestres, J, Nadal, J, Senabre, MR, Socias, J, Moragas, N. 1997. El Pujolet de Moja (Olèrdola, Alt Penedès), ocupació d’un territori durant el neolític i la primera edad del ferro. Tribuna d’Arqueologia 1995–1996:121–148.Google Scholar
Miró, JM. 1994. La cronologia dels estils ceràmics neolítics a Catalunya i la datació de C14 de la Timba del Barenys (Riudoms, Tarragona). Saguntum 27:57–66.Google Scholar
Molist, M, Ribé, G, Saña, M. 1996. La transición del V milenio cal BC en Catalunya. In: Formació i implantació de les comunitats agrícoles. I Congrés del Neolític a la Península Ibèrica. Gavà-Bellaterra, 1995, Rubricatum, 1, vol. II. p 781–90.Google Scholar
Molist, M, Saña, M, Buxó, R. 2003. El Neolític a Catalunya: entre la civilització de pastors i agricultors cavernícoles i els primers pagesos del pla. Cota Zero 18:34–53.Google Scholar
Molist, M, Vicente, O, Farré, R. 2008. El jaciment de la Caserna de Sant Pau: aproximació a la caracterització d’un assentament del Neolític antic. QUARHIS, època II 4:14–24.Google Scholar
Mora, R, Benito-Calvo, A, Martínez-Moreno, J, González-Marcén, P, De la Torre, I. 2011. Chrono-stratigraphy of the Upper Pleistocene and Holocene archaeological sequence in Cova Gran (south-eastern Pre-Pyrenees, Iberian Peninsula). Journal of Quaternary Science 26(6):635–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morales, JI, Fontanals, M, Oms, FX, Vergès, JM. 2010. La chronologie du Néolithique ancien cardial du nord-est de la Péninsule Ibèrique. Datations, problématique et méthodologie. L’Anthropologie 114:427–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliva, M, Palomo, A, Terrats, N, Carlús, X, López, X, Rodríguez, A. 2008. Las estructuras neolíticas de Can Roqueta (Sabadell, Barcelona). In: Hernández MS, Soler JA, López JA, editors. Actas del IV Congreso del Neolítico Peninsular. Alicante: Museo Arqueológico de Alicante Volume 1. p 157–167.Google Scholar
Oms, FX. 2008. Caracterització tècnica, tipològica i cronològica de les ceràmiques del Neolític antic de la Cova Colomera (Prepirineu de Lleida). Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina XXVII:51–80.Google Scholar
Oms, FX. 2014. La neolitització del nord-est de la Península Ibèrica a partir de les datacions de 14C i les primeres ceràmiques impreses [PhD thesis]. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. 472 p.Google Scholar
Oms, FX, Pedro, M, Bargalló, A, López, JM, Morales, JI, Solé, A. 2010. El projecte arqueològic a la serra del Montsec (el Pallars Jussà). Noves dades per al coneixement del neolític i l’edat del bronze al Prepirineu de Lleida. In: Home i territori. Darrers investigacions al Prepirineu lleidatà 2006–2008. 2nd Colloqui d’Arqueologia d’Odèn (el Solsonès). April 2009, Museu Diocesà i Comarcal de Solsona. p 39–46.Google Scholar
Oms, FX, Petit, MA, Morales, JI, García, MS. 2012. Le processus de néolithisation dans les Pyrénées orientales. Occupation du milieu, culture matérielle et chronologie. Bulletin de la Societé Préhistorique Française 109(4):651–670.Google Scholar
Oms, FX, Esteve, X, Mestres, J, Martín, P, Martins, H. 2014. La neolitización del nordeste de la Península Ibérica: datos radiocarbónicos y culturales de los asentamientos al aire libre del Penedès. Trabajos de Prehistoria 71(1):43–56.Google Scholar
Pallarés, M, Bordas, A, Mora, R. 1997. El proceso de neolitización en los Pirineos Orientales. Un modelo de continuidad entre los cazadores-recolectores neolíticos y los primeros grupos agropastoriles. Trabajos de Prehistoria 54(1):121–141.Google Scholar
Piera, M, Pla, A, Antolin, F, Alonso, N, Camarós, E, Clop, X, Gibaja, JF, Saña, M, Gallart, J. 2008. El Collet de Puiggròs. Un assentament a l’aire lliure de l’època neolítica. In: Fites en el temps. El Cogul: VI Trobada d’Estudiosos de les Garrigues. p 23–48.Google Scholar
Piera, M, Alonso, N, Antolin, F, Clop, X, Gibaja, JF, Saña, M, Gallart, J. 2009. La intervenció arqueològica al jaciment del neolíic final de l’Espina C (Tàrrega, l’Urgell). Urtx 23:12–49.Google Scholar
Polo, A, Martínez-Moreno, J, Benito-Calvo, A, Mora, R. 2014. Prehistoric herding facilities: site formation and archaeological dynamics in Cova Gran de Santa Linya (Southeastern Prepyrenees, Iberia). Journal of Archaeological Science 41:784–800.Google Scholar
Pou, R, Martí, M, Jordana, X, Malgosa, A, Gibaja, JF. 2010. L’enterrament del Neolític antic de la Plaça Vila de Madrid (Barcelona), una estructura funeraria del VIè millenni aC. QUARHIS 6:94–107.Google Scholar
Reimer, P, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, JW, Blackwell, PG, Bronk Ramsey, C, Buck, CE, Cheng, H, Edwards, RL, Friedrich, M, Grootes, PM, Guilderson, TP, Haflidason, H, Hajdas, I, Hatté, C, Heaton, TJ, Hoffman, DL, Hogg, A, Hughen, KA, Kaiser, KF, Kromer, B, Manning, SW, Niu, M, Reimer, RW, Richards, DA, Scott, EM, Southon, JR, Staff, RA, CSM, Turney, van der Plicht, J. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869–1887.Google Scholar
Roig, J, Coll, JM, Gibaja, JF, Chambon, Ph, Villar, V, Ruiz, J, Terradas, X, Subirà, ME. 2010. La necrópolis de Can Gambús-1 (Sabadell, Barcelona). Nuevos conocimientos sobre prácticas funerarias durante el Neolítico medio en el Noreste de la Península Ibérica. Trabajos de Prehistoria 67(1):59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rojo, MA, Kunst, M, Garrido, R, García, I. 2006. La neolitización de la Meseta Norte a la luz del C-14: análisis de 47 dataciones absolutas inéditas de dos yacimientos domésticos del Valle de Ambrona, Soria, España. Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina 26:39–100.Google Scholar
Soriano, I, Soler, J, Soler, N. 2012. ¿La primera orfebreria del nordeste de la Península Ibérica? Nuevas aportaciones a partir de la cuenta áurea de Cau del Tossal Gros (Torroella del Montgrí, Baix Empordà, Girona). Trabajos de Prehistoria 69(1):149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarrús, J. 1985. Consideracions sobre el Neolític final-calcolític a Catalunya (2500–1800 a C.). Cypsela V 47–57.Google Scholar
Tarrús, J, Chinchilla, J, Mercadal, O, Aliaga, S. 1996. Fases estructurals a l’habitat neolític de Ca n’Isach (Palau-Savardera, Alt Empordà). In: I Congrés del Neolític a la Península Ibèrica. Formació i implantació de les comunitats agrícoles. Gavà-Bellaterra, March 1995. Rubricatum 1:429–38.Google Scholar
Tresset, A, Vigne, J-D. 2007. Subtitution og species, techniques and symbols at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in western Europe. Proceedings of the British Academy 144:189–201.Google Scholar
Van Strydonck, M, Nelson, DE, Crombé, P, Bronk Ramsey, C, Scott, EM, van der Plicht, J, Hedges, REM. 1998. Rapport du Groupe de Travail: les limites de méthode du carbone 14 appliquée à l’archéologie. What’s in a 14C date. Actes du Colloque “C14 & Archeologie.” p 433–448.Google Scholar
Vicente, O. 2008. La vinya del Regalat (Castellar del Vallès, Vallès Occidental). Nuevas aportaciones al estudio del poblamiento de la depresión pre-litoral catalana en el final del 5º milenio BC. In: Hernández MS, Soler JA, Lopez JA, editors. Actas del IV Congreso del Neolítico Peninsular, Alicante, 2006 Museo Arqueológico de Alicante Volume 1. p 191–199.Google Scholar
Vigne, J-D. 2007. Exploitation des animaux et néolithisation en Méditerranée nord-occidentale. In: Guilaine J, Manen C, Vigne J-D, editors. Pont de Roque-Haute. Nouveaux regards sur la néolithisation de la France Méditerranéenne. Toulouse: Archives d’Écologie Préhistorique. p 221–301.Google Scholar
Zapata, L, Peña-Chocarro, L, Pérez-Jordà, G, Stika, H. 2004. Early Neolithic agriculture in the Iberian Peninsula. World Archaeology 18(4):283–325.Google Scholar
Zilhão, J. 2001. Radiocarbon evidence for maritime pioneer colonization at the origins of farming in west Mediterranean Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 98(24):14,180–5.Google Scholar
Zilhão, J. 2011. Time is on my side. In: Hadjikoumis A, Robinson E, Viner S, editors. The Dynamics of Neolithisation in Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books. p 46–65.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1 Typical pottery forms and decorations in the different Neolithic phases. Late Neolithic–Chalcolithic: 1 Cova de Can Sadurní; 2 Les Roquestes; 3 Bòbila Palazón; 4 Cova Joan d’Os; 5 Cova Verda. Middle Neolithic: 6 La Serreta E10; 7 Bòbila Madurell; 8 and 10 Pla del Riu de les Marcetes; 9 Can Tintorer; 11 Garrofers Torrent de Santa Maria. Postcardial Neolithic, 12, 13, and 15 La Serreta E32 and E37; 14 Mas d’en Boixos; Epicardial Early Neolithic: 17 and 18 Cova del Frare c5; 19 Timba de Barenys; 20 Cova de l’Avellaner; 21 Plansallosa PSL-II. Cardial Early Neolithic: 22 Can Sadurní c18; 23 La Serreta E61; 24 Cova del Toll IIb; 25 Guixeres de Vilobí A; 26 La Draga.

Figure 1

Table 1 Classification of the dating results: A. Cultural phase; B. Number of sites with 14C dates; C. Number of sites with high-confidence dates; D. Total number of dates available; E. Total number of high-confidence dates. F. % of the reliable dates.

Figure 2

Figure 2 Radiocarbon diagram for the Neolithic of northeast Iberia with the dates accepted for this study. The steep slopes (vertical red) are highlighted in the calibration curve (OxCal v 4.2 and IntCal13).

Figure 3

Figure 3 Location of the Cardial Early Neolithic sites with high-confidence dates and the type of material sampled (the complete reference of the determinations is in the online Appendix).

Figure 4

Figure 4 Location of the Epicardial Early Neolithic sites with high-confidence dates and the type of material sampled (the complete reference of the determinations is in the online Appendix).

Figure 5

Figure 5 Location of the Postcardial Neolithic sites with high-confidence dates and the type of material sampled (the complete reference of the determinations is in the online Appendix).

Figure 6

Figure 6 Location of the Middle Neolithic sites with high-confidence dates and the type of material sampled (the complete reference of the determinations is in the online Appendix).

Figure 7

Figure 7 Location of the Late Neolithic–Chalcolithic sites with high-confidence dates and the type of material sampled (the complete reference of the determinations is in the online Appendix).

Figure 8

Figure 8 Graph with all dates versus only short-lived dates (generated with OxCal v 4.2 and calibrations with the IntCal13 curve).

Figure 9

Figure 9 Cumulative curve for the whole Neolithic in the northeastern Iberian Peninsula (calibration using OxCal v 4.2 and IntCal13).

Supplementary material: File

Oms supplementary material

Oms supplementary material 1

Download Oms supplementary material(File)
File 43.8 KB