1 Introduction

When the Neolithic system reaches the Western Mediterranean region, it has already enjoyed a long history. In fact, if we consider that the first movements through the Strait of Otranto , from Greece or Albania to Southern Italy, occurred around 6000 cal BC, we can assume that the Neolithic emerges in the Eastern Mediterranean area two to three millennia prior to that. In this introductory paper we will review, first of all, the main traits of the Neolithic appearance in the driving zone of the Near East. It is a gradual phenomenon of mutation from the local epipaleolithic societies towards a production economy. Secondly, we will consider the problems linked to the diffusion of a new way of life into the Aegean region and the Italian peninsula, considering in particular Mediterranean Europe and the islands. We will omit the North African areas due to the incomplete nature of the documentation, except with regard to the western extremity, Morocco. In each area we will focus on the time of arrival, this being the main theme of the present work.

The Levantine Middle East with Southeast Anatolia is now the oldest epicenter of the “Neolithic Revolution .” The Chinese focus seems to be independent and probably in a similar chronological framework with the Middle East, although the dates there are a little more recent. Although the first manipulation of plants in the Mexican area is equally early, their successful domestication does not present the same antiquity as in Southwest Asia.

2 The Levantine Middle East and the Southeast Anatolia

Middle East neolithization is a gradual process. It is considered that the first step consists of the sedentism or (sub-sedentism) of the epipaleolithic Natufian people, which commences around 12,000 cal BC. This settling is relative because mobility also persists among the Natufians. The more stable dwellings are circular or semicircular and partially subterranean, with stone foundations and a structure of wood or lighter materials. The average diameter of the most ancient Mallaha houses is between 5 and 7 m (Valla 2000). A wide range of animals are hunted: gazelles, fallow deer, roe deer, aurochs, hares, reptiles, turtles, and fish. Cereals, legumes, and fruits are gathered, and there is evidence of the presence of domestic dogs. Another important factor of these early settlements is the presence of individual or collective graves in or near the dwellings, indicating a desire to keep their dead close to them.

A cooler climate resulting from the Younger Dryas (ca. 10,800/10,000 cal BC) may have generated a return to mobility, including the first dispersion of human groups by sea. Nonetheless this possible destabilization does not seem to have put an end to the settling process in motion since the Khiamian phase (towards 10,000/9500 cal BC), a period characterized by the development of projectile points with lateral notches, the El Khiam points, which persist throughout the pre-pottery “Neolithic A” phase (PPNA) (9500/8500 cal BC) .

During this period round houses can be identified in the larger valleys: the Jordan (Jéricho, Netiv Hagdud, Gilgal I) and the Euphrates (Çayönü, Mureybet, Jerf el Ahmar). Their presence is also recognized in the more desert inland territories (Wadi Tumbaq 3 in the Ba’las) (Abbes 2014). We find them in Eastern Jezirah (Nemrik) and in the Zagros (Aurenche and Kozlowski 1999). Brick and mud are sometimes combined with stone in construction, and barns and silos are apparent. The first attempts at cultivation of wheat and barley are observable around 9000 cal BC, although it is not usual to see clear modifications in the seed morphology, leading botanists to speak of “pre-domestic” agriculture (Tanno and Willcox 2012). The meat diet is still based on hunting activities, and these newly settled peoples are sometimes called “cultivator-hunters .” After this “public” buildings—often very large—begin to be used, with varying functions: economic (barns), social (places for meetings and decision-making), or ceremonial (for rituals). They are referred to as “collective” or “community” buildings to emphasize the unifying role they could play on a village level. Some of the best examples are Jericho’s tower, the Jerf el Ahmar “pit” buildings, the frescoes building in Djadé or the Gobekli hill “sanctuaries,” which are characterized by megalithic carved stelae in their walls or centers with an iconography clearly evocative of wild or dangerous animals (Stordeur 2014; Coqueugniot 2014; Schmidt 2006).

Towards 8500 cal BC, several sites progressively show the presence of domestic cereals. At the same time the domestication of ungulate animals commences—goats, sheep, cattle, and pigs—as these are subjected to an increasing human control. The ninth millennium cal BC also turns out to be the key period for mutations to a full Neolithic. Towards the end of the PPNA , there are architectural transformations, as can be seen in Jerf el Ahmar: the houses increasingly show oval, apsidal, or quadrangular designs. They are built on ground level and sometimes benefit from internal divisions, although some “community” buildings continued to be built in “pits,” using the traditional circular design (Stordeur 2014). Rectangular structures will eventually predominate and become one of the cultural traits of the PPNB (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B: 8500/7000 cal BC) , although traditional round buildings do not completely disappear. Çayönü (Turkey) has a number of buildings distributed through time that show successive adaptations to ensure greater comfort for the occupants: raised floors, “caves” or storage rooms, independent rooms, etc. In these villages, the original public buildings continue to assume ceremonial or cultic functions, such as the “Cult Building” of Nevali Çori or the “Skull Building” of Çayönü (Özdoğan and Başgelen 1999). The development of a particular sculpture (cf. Yeni Mahalle, Turkey), using male and female figurines and a variety of “signs,” becomes part of a symbolic system related to social activity.

Throughout the eighth millennium cal BC large agricultural villages begin to appear, some even exceeding ten hectares (Abu Hureyra, Syria). The hierarchical connection between settlements increases, from larger settlements down to minor sites. In the arid zones on the outskirts of cultivated areas, a more mobile lifestyle continues with pastoral camps (late PPNB) . Despite regional variations, a vast cultural sphere arises, dubbed “PPNB Koiné” by O. Bar Yosef, stretching from the Neguev to the Anatolian plateau and to Southern Iran (Bar Yosef 2006). The PPNB points out a wide use of certain techniques, such as blades created by bipolar reduction on naviform cores. Some specialized knappers demonstrate high-level skills in this field, such as the obtention of obsidian blades from bipolar cores, in the style of Kaletepe, Anatolian plateau. These artifacts of Cappadocian origin are then exported over more or less long distances, helping to strengthen liaisons within the PPNB sphere. The cultural coherence of this sphere is strengthened by an extensive use of various objects (bracelets, stone dishes, shells), as also occurs through the development of certain varieties of arrowheads.

The internal organization of this society is still under debate. Key families could be responsible for the administration and hierarchical organization of particular sites, and their authority denoted by the possession/distribution of valued articles. They might also assume responsibility for the rituals carried out in the ceremonial centers, thus wielding a form of “intellectual” power and promoting social integration. Individuals in possession of certain strange distinguishing objects have been identified, such as those possessing copper necklaces in Halula (Syria) in the eighth millennium, this being a metal employed at the time for making ornaments or rudimentary instruments. Some of these are children, presumably from notable families; but there is also a man wearing a copper pendant decorated with Anatolian chalcedony beads, turquoise, and quartz, who could have been an important personality (Molist et al. 2009). These considerations are still speculative.

Towards 7000 cal BC, the “PPNB koiné” breaks down into regional units of more limited extension. This trend is perceived by some authors to be gradual, but considered sudden by others. In addition to the previously used basketry, ceramics appear both on the coast (several facies of pottery decorated with impressions develop from Cilicia to the Lebanon) and in the Euphrates and Tigris valleys. The tendency is apparent a little later in the south of the Levant, with the advent of the Yarmoukien towards 6500 cal BC. The seventh millennium cal BC will be that of the exodus towards the Mediterranean, in particular towards the Aegean Sea and islands, although the Neolithic had already been present in Cyprus for several centuries.

3 The Cypriot Neolithic : A History in Stages

In the maritime Neolithic diffusion from the Middle East towards the West, Cyprus is indeed a special case. The proximity of the island to the mainland (±80 km) made it quite accessible, and early epipaleolithic continental explorers would soon become aware of the island’s potential for food production and raw materials . Some place these early incursions in the Younger Dryas, when the cold and arid climate could have spurred the search for new territories to exploit. The earliest testimony to these visits is found in the second layer of the Aetokremnos rockshelter, in the southern part of the Akrotiri peninsula. It is dated back to 10,000–9500 cal BC. Two other coastal sites (Aspros and Nissia Beach) are often considered the oldest on the basis of their lithic industry, but in the absence of faunal remains and conclusive dating their chronology needs to be clarified. The idea that these early visitors contributed to the extinction of the relict fauna of dwarf hippos and elephants is supported by A. Simmons, excavator of Aetokremnos , but rejected by others who feel that this disappearance is older and due to natural causes (Simmons 1999). On the contrary, these newcomers introduced a continental species, a small pig, that became during the subsequent centuries the island’s only hunted mammal. Other observable fauna are birds, mollusks, amphibians, and reptiles.

During the later phase of the continental PPNA—between the end of the tenth millennium and 8600 cal BC—the first real sedentary settlement of the island was established, taking the form, as on the mainland, of “cultivator-hunter” sites. Emmer is introduced and cultivated while protein largely proceeds from the wild pigs. The two sites known to date (Asprokremnos-Agia Varvara and Klimonas-Ayios Tychonas) have circular houses delimited by a foundation trench or excavated in the substratum; at Klimonas their diameters vary between 3.1 and 7.3 m. At the center of this site there is also a larger circular construction of 10 m in diameter, housed in a large pit and surrounded by a mud clay wall. This is clearly a “community” building of a type known in the Euphrates PPNA and its function could be multiple: economic, social, and ceremonial (Vigne et al. 2012). This combination of central building surrounded by detached houses is not an autochthonous invention, but a model designed on the continent and transferred to the island by immigrants from the mainland. Similarly, the lithic techniques used for knapping high-quality local flint resemble Levantine examples: unipolar cores from which blades, sometimes used as sickles, are carved. The weapons are original: they are sharp and often present a short tang, whereas the Asprokremnos models have a bifurcated basis. The abundance of projectile points indicates regular hunting, and perhaps also conflicts inherent to the first territorial delimitations. Picrolite, a local green stone, is used for making ornaments.

Towards 8500/8400 cal BC, in the early PPNB , the neighboring site of Shillourokambos in Parekklisha was founded, either by descendants of the first immigrants or by the arrival of a new wave. The period through to 8000 cal BC boasts an architecture which combines wooden poles with clay (Shillourokambos, Tenta V). There are circular houses and palisade enclosures, the latter no doubt pens for the animals lately introduced: cattle and goats , species already domesticated on the mainland (Guilaine et al. 2011). Some of these goats possibly returned to the wild, giving rise to a later autochthonous re-domestication (Vigne 2014). Some domestic pigs could also have been introduced to the island, as well as cats and “domestic” mice. Wells for obtaining water are dug down to the phreatic levels (Mylouthkia, well 116, Shillourokambos, well 2, 66, 310, 431). The lithic industry sees the introduction of bipolar reductions on naviform cores, and the blades thus obtained are often used to make good sized projectile points. However, there are fewer of these than in the previous period: less hunting and a higher proportion of the meat intake now provided by herding? Obsidian from Cappadocia is imported in the form of blades knapped by pressure, and stone dishes are developed from limestone or hard rocks. Agriculture is still based on emmer, but a form of wild barley is also harvested.

Towards 8000 cal BC, stone houses appear at Shillourokambos, and some kind of “proto-bricks” are involved in their construction. The house floors are hardened, and a large flattened area is noted (a plaza?). At this point domestic sheep are introduced, as well as a wild species, the Mesopotamian fallow deer, which will be actively hunted for centuries. From now on barley is cultivated along with wheat, and grinding objects are more and more numerous. Changes appear in the lithic tools: sickles are now composed of segments showing the gloss characteristic of grain harvesting. Small at first, these segments become bigger as time goes on. Obsidian imports are at their maximum between 8000 and 7500 cal BC. More wells are dug. This phase is contemporary with the middle PPNB in the Middle East.

A marked turning point is apparent at Shillourokambos around 7500 cal BC (late PPNB). First in lithic tools: the beautiful translucent flint used since the PPNA (Klimonas) is somewhat neglected in favor of a lower quality opaque chert whose sources are located closer to the site. More robust tools are created with this new raw material : picks, scrapers, and (at best) elongated and broad blades. Bipolar core reduction declines and disappears. Obsidian imports from the mainland drop abruptly, but stone vessels experience a greater diversification, and a varied artisan craftsmanship appears using picrolite: micro-bowls and pots, and pieces of diverse shape decorated with fine striped patterns, or with anthropomorphic or animal motifs. The settlement is now a hamlet of a dozen or so small, circular houses built on flattened earth. These will be replaced, after 7200 cal BC, by larger circular buildings with stone foundations. The activity areas—flag stone work tables, hard threshing floors, hearths—are located outdoors, indicating a communal rather than private nature. Following a decrease in ovine breeding , new sheep species are introduced. One particular tomb holds a man surrounded by some singular objects: polished axes, ochre balls, blades, marine shells, and a (probably domestic) cat.

In the same period, the neighboring site of Kalavasos-Tenta is a small, hill-top village surrounded by a dry stone wall. It has circular houses built with stone or mud bricks. Throughout the several centuries of site occupation a large community building is in use, following the tradition of PPNA buildings (Todd 1987). At its largest it reaches 12.30 m in diameter. Wells are still in use (Mylouthkia 133), and there are even big tanks (Shillourokambos).

In the seventh millennium cal BC, the Cypriot pre-ceramic Neolithic continues to evolve, the key site being Khirokitia, similarly protected by a wall which, at a later date, is moved and realigned. The circular houses are always of stone and mud-brick, with walls reinforced by outer rings and flat roofs. The absence of internal space divisions suggests a complementary operation between several of these buildings, often grouped into nuclei. Some are of considerable duration, probably in connection with the history of important families, and are the object of frequent alterations. Graves located under the floors of houses strengthen the notion of identity and permanent family residence (Dikaios 1953; Le Brun 2002).

This Neolithic, still without ceramics, may have lasted to the beginning of the sixth millennium before completely disappearing for unknown reasons, after which a documentary hiatus occurs. A new agricultural settlement on the island emerges around 4800/4500 cal BC linked to a new Neolithic culture, the Sotira, this time with ceramics.

It is therefore apparent that the Cyprus Neolithic is a very long process that lasts throughout the history of the Middle East pre-pottery Neolithic (Guilaine and Le Brun 2003; Peltenburg 2003). It ranges from the introduction of pigs in the Epipaleolithic, and the early appearance of agriculture in the PPNA (circa 9000 cal BC). Then, throughout the whole PPNB (8500/7000 cal BC), we witness successive arrivals of continental waves bringing, at one time or another, oxen and goats (around 8500 cal BC) and then sheep and fallow deer (about 8000). The island seems then to show some rejection of the mainland experiences. Houses remain circular, following the PPNA tradition. Ceramics only appear much later, into the fifth millennium cal BC, considerably after Greece or Italy. It is therefore difficult to regard the island as a transferal point in the geographical distribution of the Neolithic towards the West. Its story is unique.

4 The Anatolian Diffusion

Having described the Cypriot parenthesis, we need to return to the Middle East to better understand the Neolithic diffusion process towards the Central Mediterranean. In the eighth millennium cal BC, the Neolithic, although still at a pre-ceramic stage, had already reached its culmination: villages, agriculture, and livestock formed a coherent system. The appearance of pottery in the northern Levant and Central Anatolia around or shortly before 7000 cal BC completed the “Neolithic package” that would extend the agricultural way of life towards the West. This diffusion was by land and sea simultaneously. The analysis of the latter route receives the priority in this article, but keeping in mind the parallel terrestrial process.

In the center of Anatolia, the PPNB can be seen in Penarbaşi and Aşikli. At Aşikli, it is characterized by a system of quadrangular houses grouped together and associated with a complex of possibly “public” monuments, but without the architectural and artistic emphasis seen at the Euphrates valley sites. The pre-pottery Neolithic is unknown further west, and it is evident that this area constitutes a cultural frontier at this point in time. The pre-ceramic which will mutate on site into the ceramic phase (Özdoğan and Başgelen 1999; Özdoğan et al. 2013). In this way the model of terraced houses built of brick, with flat roofs, will continue at Çatalhöyük in the Konya plain, a site dated between 7400 cal BC and the end of the seventh millennium cal BC. The decoration of walls with paintings or molded motifs occupies a significant place here, and human remains have been found buried under some of the houses (Mellaart 1967; Hodder 2006).

The question arises to what extent Anatolia was involved in the neolithization of mainland Greece, and by which routes (Halstead 2011). In general, we observe that the transfer to the agricultural way of life occurs in the Mediterranean and Europe in a changeable cultural context. Some objects manufactured in the original areas continue to be produced during the propagation, but others undergo transformation. Still others will be discarded but not necessarily forgotten so that they subsequently reappear further west, with certain alterations, demonstrating the cultural memory of the migrants. But this does not rule out regional creativity, especially when it is revealed by the choice of identities distinct both from the place of origin and from the neighboring areas.

These variants affect not only the material production but also the village plans, architectural models, funerary practices, and symbolism, so that we cannot speak of a standard model of Mediterranean Neolithic (Guilaine 2003), but of a degree of variability in every major cultural sphere (PPNB zone, Aegean, Western Mediterranean). For this reason, the transmission and remobilization of ideas and techniques respond to complex processes that archaeologists can often barely decipher.

The Anatolia-mainland Greece relationship is a case in point with regard to this kind of problem. The earliest manifestations of the “Neolithic” package as it occurs in eastern Thessaly are mainly concentrated in villages scattered across the plain, indicating a limited and selective colonization (Early Neolithic: 6500/5800 cal BC) (Perlès 2001). The package includes a panoply of grains (einkorn, emmer, barley) and domestic ungulates (goats, sheep, cows, pigs) whose origin is now unanimously regarded as exogenous. Those archaeological records which give some indication of origin point invariably towards Turkey. The first ceramic horizons (Monochrome, Protosesklo), mainly vases with bases, are succeeded in a second phase by more varied ceramic shapes, often with painted sides (Sesklo). This is observable taking an overall view of Anatolia; however, a more detailed study does not readily reveal close similarities. We find similar forms in western Anatolia (Höyücek) or Northwest Turkey (Early Fikirtepe, Hoca Çesme), but it has not been conclusively demonstrated that these sites predate those of the Thessalian villages (Özdoğan et al. 2013). However we now know that a former Neolithic, dated to the second half of the seventh millennium, has been discovered at Dikili Tash, Eastern Macedonia, a region with no previous record of sites from this period (Lespez et al. 2012). This revives the idea of mainland Greece being colonized from Turkish Thrace. In central Greece and the Peloponnese the same monochrome pottery horizons or “Rainbow Ware” are early Neolithic. Similarities with Anatolia of a more general nature could also be found in various other objects: some obese figurines holding their breasts (Höyücek/Sparta, Nea Nicomedia); some conical or sub-rectangular seals (Çatalhöyük/Sesklo, Nea Nicomedia); the “altar tables” (Höyücek/Sesklo); and the use of bone hooks (Çatalhöyük/Soufli Magoula). We know that the use of bricks for building, present in Anatolia, is also confirmed in several Aegean localities alongside wooden and mud houses, although only the latter exist in higher latitudes.

However, there is also no shortage of differences : the absence in Greece of the kind of close-grouped village seen at Çatal, and instead a looser arrangement of houses; the lack of the exuberant wall art characteristic of Central Anatolia; divergences in the shape of some Greek figurines (elongated necks or “coffee bean” eyelids), if contrasted with the Turkish models. Similarly pointed weapons or daggers known in the Anatolian PPNB tradition do not “pass” into Greece, where the ancient Neolithic is characterized by transversal pointed arrows.

5 The Southern Aegean and Crete

Being a world of islands, the southern Aegean could hardly be neolithized by any other via than the sea. Navigation, it is true, was well known since Epipaleolithic times and probably maritime networks were already in place. In the eleventh millennium cal BC, Melos obsidian had been exploited and brought to the continent (Franchthi Cave) (Perlès 2001). Both Epipaleolithic and Mesolithic sites have been reported on various Greek islands (Crete, Gavdos, Lemnos, Corfu). The clearest example is the site of Maroulas on Kythnos, in the Cyclades (Sampson et al. 2010). Thirty-one circular structures, some of them elliptical, 3–4 m in diameter, with pavements and a peripheral edge of standing stones, were identified there: they are interpreted as remains of houses. Twenty-five burials in pits, outside the aforementioned structures or placed under the house floors, have been recorded. Radiocarbon dates place the site between the late ninth and early eighth millennium cal BC. Although local quartz is the dominant raw material (80%), Mélos obsidian is used in 17% of lithic tools. Interestingly, we note the presence of two species whose introduction may be anthropic: domestic dogs and some pigs. So we find here, after a slight time lag, a behavior with regard to the transfer of wild animals (a wild boar) similar to that observed in Cyprus.

The site of the Cyclope cave in Youra, an island of the Sporades, was occupied during two phases of the Mesolithic, first in the ninth millennium cal BC, then in the seventh (Sampson 2008). Although the economy of the populations is largely oriented towards the exploitation of the marine environment (fish, shellfish), the presence of a small swine is also recorded, as is that of a goat of robust constitution . These wild animals could be transferred to the islands under human control.

Crete has recently revealed the presence of a number of Mesolithic sites (Strasser et al. 2010). However, it is around 7000/6800 cal BC that the Neolithic appears there for the first time, a few centuries earlier than in Thessaly. The presence of wheat and peas cultivators and goat, sheep, and oxen farmers is attested at the lowest level of the stratigraphy at Knossos. Curiously pottery is unknown, while the use of mud bricks in construction is a sign of a continental technique introduced into the island. Where did this pre-pottery Neolithic arise? We can hypothesize about an Anatolian origin and a movement via the island “bridge” of Karpathos. However the lithic tools, made of 30% of local rocks and 70% of Melos obsidian, seem to fit into the indigenous Mesolithic tradition (Kaczanowska and Kozlowski 2011). Knowledge borrowed from elsewhere by the indigenous people?

This first colonization of the island did not last long. A chronological gap in the stratigraphy of Knossos shows that the Aegean Early Neolithic period (6500/5800 cal BC) is only represented by occasional occupations. Settlers will not come back here until the Middle Neolithic, halfway through the sixth millennium cal BC (Evans 1964, 1968; Efstratiou et al. 2004). This is why the expressions of “Early Neolithic I and II,” sometimes used to designate the period immediately after the Pre-Pottery Neolithic horizons , are incorrect because it is actually a Middle Neolithic. Admittedly this stratigraphy includes a hiatus of several centuries between the aceramic horizon and subsequent occupations.

6 From the Aegean to the Adriatic

Western Greece is an interesting geographical area for our purpose. It is here that the Aegean Neolithic gives way to the impressed ware groups that will ensure the Neolithization of both sides of the Adriatic and the Western Mediterranean zone, making it a region where a cultural mutation transpires.

A first consideration is the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition. In the Peloponnese , a model was proposed based on the evolution observed in the Franchthi cave. At the end of the eighth millennium cal BC, the final Mesolithic includes an industry using retouched flakes, notches, denticulates, and end-scrapers. To these we can add, as well as some geometric trapezes obtained from flakes, numerous microliths which seem unorthodox when compared with typical Mesolithic “geometrics ” in Europe, being small flakes of diverse forms, locally retouched. These tools would be a continuing tradition in the following horizon known as “initial Neolithic,” dated around 6700/6600 cal BC (Perlès 2001, 2003). As in Knossos, this period here is aceramic, but goats and sheep are well documented alongside cultivation of emmer and couplet barley. These indications of an initial food production do not put an abrupt end to predatory activities: the gathering of shellfish, for example, continues. The real transition will arrive with the implementation of the Early Neolithic which will introduce, in addition to the now essential production economy, a series of new elements: polished axes, grinding stones, ceramics, and spindle whorls.

This constitutes the same type of evolution as has been proposed for the site of Sidari in Corfu. The excavations conducted by A. Sordinas in the 1960s revealed the following sequence (Sordinas 1969, 2003):

  • A “Sidarian” Mesolithic that is especially characterized by non-geometric microliths on small shaped or truncated flakes, geared towards the exploitation of marine resources.

  • An “initial Neolithic” in direct relationship with the previous stratigraphic horizon which continues the lithic tradition. The presence of domestic species (ovine and caprine) are registered and, unlike in the Franchthi cave, ceramics. These appear to be baked insufficiently or at low temperature, poorly elaborated and with original incisions for decoration (Sordinas 1969). The impression given is of an acculturation of the Mesolithic group.

  • An Early Neolithic , clearly defined, characterized by the presence of impressed ware of the Italian-Adriatic type.

In 2004, a new field investigation took place at the site, led by G. Metallinou, giving rise to a new program of studies. The profile of the second investigation was some 15 m behind the first, and the two excavations are not completely comparable; nonetheless as the radiocarbon dates of the early research were prejudiced by excessive standard deviations, they were completely revised in the new analysis program, with the following results (Berger et al. 2014):

  • “Sidarien” Mesolithic in revised position, dated around 7100/6600 cal BC.

  • “Initial” Neolithic , in place, dated at 6450/6220 cal BC.

  • Early Neolithic with ceramica impressa dated at 6050/5960 cal BC.

With this new timeline, we can conclude that the Corfu “Initial Neolithic” fits well into the Aegean Neolithic (second half of the seventh millennium cal BC). It is characterized, in the recent excavations, by monochrome ceramics. Moreover, the following Neolithic, with the impressed pottery, is in complete chronological agreement within the time frame of the Adriatic-Italian impressed ware archaic phase. The 2004 research did not accept the validity of the famous “underbaked and incised” ceramic of the 1960s “initial Neolithic.” This period is only characterized by undecorated pottery.

In contrast, the revision of the Sordinas materials shows, for this initial Neolithic, that the “coarse” and incised ceramic of this horizon was only one component of the set. It also contains a well baked “monochrome” component, which forms a good match with the contemporary undecorated pottery horizon of mainland Greece. This leads us to the—at least provisional—conclusion that the neolithization of the western coast of Greece first surfaces in the second half of the seventh millennium cal BC, and gives place around 6000 cal BC to the impressed ware horizons that will ensure in their turn the neolithization of the Adriatic coast and the Italian peninsula.

7 The Opening of the Adriatic, Italy and Beyond

In the central Mediterranean, in the last centuries of the seventh millennium cal BC a mutation of “monochrome” into “Impressa” takes place. The impressed ware culture arises in the geographical area of West Greece and Southeast Italy, which is where the oldest well-dated sites have been found. What are the bases of this culture? This is a difficult question, because the potential of the Mesolithic substrata differs from one side of the Adriatic to the other. The “Sidarien” non-geometric microliths (without microburins) and, more generally, the Aegean Late Mesolithic characterized by small flakes contrast with the Castelnovian complex, in southern Italy (Dini et al. 2008). It is not certain that the potential Mesolithic legacies are at the foundation of all the lithic components of the first impressed ware Neolithic. In fact, it includes new elements (long blades of flint, glossed bladelets, polished axes) whose origins are to be found in the full Neolithic horizons of the Aegean area (Guilaine and Cremonesi 2003).

Meanwhile, the question of the genesis of decorated ceramics, which in this region of the Mediterranean replace the monochrome pottery, continues to be controversial. Some see it as the result of population movements from the Middle East, where impressed ware horizons are known (Bernabo Brea 1950). Others believe that its origin is to be found in the Balkan ceramics decorated with impressions. The most logical conclusion is to accept an autochthonous origin, on both sides of the southern Adriatic, followed by a rapid diffusion process along the coast of Dalmatia, Southern Italy, and Sicily. At a time when ideas seem to circulate freely and extensively, we should not underestimate contacts that may have occurred in the southern Balkan area. For example, the practice of “burned houses,” deeply rooted in Balkan Europe, is also found at South Italian Neolithic sites such as Favella (Tiné 2009).

The dynamism of this area will become a new trigger that results in the Neolithic expansion towards the northwestern Mediterranean. We now know that this process was accomplished in two stages:

  • A primary distribution of the “leap frog” type, led by small pioneering units with a well-established agro-pastoral economy, found in several Western Mediterranean sites: Sicily (Kronio), Tuscan Archipelago (Isola del Giglio), Liguria (Arene Candide), Provence (Pendimoun), Languedoc (Pont de Roque Haute, Peiro Seignado), Valencia (El Barranquet). This takes place between 6000 and 5600 cal BC (Guilaine et al. 2007).

  • A secondary phase of generalization and regional settlement that will see the development, in certain geographic areas, of specific Early Neolithic cultures: Stentinello in Sicily and Calabria, Tyrrhenian Cardial in Latium-Tuscany-Sardinia-Corsica, regional groups of the Franco-Iberian Cardial (Provence, Catalonia, Valencia, Andalusia). (Manen et al. 2014)

It is regrettable that the documentation available to date does not allow us to clearly describe the steps and aspects of the Neolithization along the Mediterranean fringe of the African continent. In the Egyptian Delta, the introduction of the agro-pastoral economy from the neighboring Middle East does not really occur until 6000 cal BC, and it is during the course of the sixth millennium that it seems to appear in Libya (Haua Fteah). There is clearly a rapid extension along the coastline, since wheat and sheep, species of oriental origin, are in evidence in this same sixth millennium cal BC at the Cardial site of Kaf That El-Ghar (Morocco) (Ballouche and Marinval 2003). It is as yet impossible to know what interactions took place between the European and African Mediterranean shores . The potential role of the Sicilian Strait, where the two continents are closest, deserves special attention.

8 A Matter of Timing?

The spread of the Neolithic throughout the Mediterranean is therefore a complex phenomenon that combines rapid movements into isolated and sometimes temporary locations, with a slower but more geographically extensive consolidation process. Also, this neolithization does not generate a standard culture, but a creative process that keeps changing with the passage of time. Despite the variety of Neolithic cultures in place, taking a panoramic view we can consider that there are three major cultural regions in development : (1) the oriental Neolithic pre-pottery region, which is the system’s foundational region; (2) the Aegean-Anatolian region with its diverse cultural variants; and, finally, (3) the region of impressed ware groups in the Western Mediterranean zone. As we have said, the African coasts are insufficiently investigated to know whether or not the spread of the Neolithic there is the result of a single cultural sphere. The information so far available (the first Fayum Neolithic, the Neolithic of Capsian tradition whose revision is necessary, and the Moroccan Cardial) argues for some kind of diversity, but a more accurate analysis of both common traits and differences of identity is needed.

9 A Summary of the Chronological Framework

  1. 1.

    The original period of the Eastern Pre-Ceramic (PPN) takes place from 9500–8500 cal BC (PPNA) (Fig. 2.1) , a millennium that sees the first steps in the domestication of cereals. Then, during the early PPNB (8500/8000 cal BC), the domestication of ungulates takes place, and the impact of these creative spheres extends from the Southern Levant to central Anatolia (Fig. 2.2). This important cultural complex is confined within those boundaries. This is followed by a pause, after which the Neolithic is regenerated by the invention of pottery in the period 7400–7000 cal BC.

    Fig. 2.1
    figure 1

    PPNA sphere (9500–8500 cal BC)

    Full size image
    Fig. 2.2
    figure 2

    Red line: PPNB sphere (circa 7000–6500 cal BC). Green line: Cretan “a-ceramic” (circa 7000–6500 cal BC)

    Full size image
  2. 2.

    The complete “package” of Neolithic elements then conquers the western part of Anatolia and the Greek region , between 7000 and 6400 cal BC (Fig. 2.3). Its presence is noted in Crete around 7000 cal BC (in a-ceramic version), around 6500 cal BC in Thessaly, and around 6400 cal BC in Western Greece, all these dates indicating a fairly rapid diffusion process, after which comes a second pause lasting two to three centuries.

    Fig. 2.3
    figure 3

    Mediterranean in the second half of the seventh millennium cal BC (6500–5600 cal BC). (1) DFBW (dark faced burnished ware) and Proto-Halaf; (2) Proto Hassuna; (3) Yarmoukian; (4) Anatolian Early Neolithic (Catal Huyuk/Hacilar); (5) Khirokitian (a-ceramic); (6) Monochrom Early Neolithic (Hoca Cesme, Proto Sesklo); (7) Kovacevo/Karanovo I. Blue line, last hunter-gatherers: (A) Castelnovian sphere, (B) Capsian sphere, (C) Egypt

    Full size image
  3. 3.

    The “impressed ware” cultures are developed around 6000 cal BC in the Ionian Sea, and constitute the major factor in the Neolithic “package” which moves on to conquer the West (Fig. 2.3). Towards 5700 cal BC Neolithic pioneers are found in Southern France, and by 5600 cal BC in Spain, less than four centuries after their arrival at the Southern Adriatic area. Around 5600/5500 cal BC, Cardial groups gain pride of place in the northwestern frontier areas, and about this time Morocco is taken over, either from Spain or via the African coast.

In conclusion, in no more than 1500 years the Neolithic spreads from central Anatolia to the Iberian Peninsula. Admittedly, if we consider the time span between the first agriculture, around 9000 cal BC, and its appearance in Spain around 5600 cal BC, the delay is more significant (±3500 years).

The neolithization of Mediterranean Africa occurred much later, no earlier than 6000 cal BC in Egypt, but its progress is swifter. In less than a 1000 years, towards the end of the sixth millennium cal BC, wheat and sheep have already reached Morocco. We can therefore measure to what extent the Neolithic diffusion around the Mediterranean experienced a rapid propagation, occasionally halted by regenerative pauses, all of which can be best interpreted using an arrhythmic model (Guilaine 2003, 2013).