Neolithization and Population Replacement in Britain: An Alternative View

Abstract

Investigation of British Mesolithic and Neolithic genomes suggests discontinuity between the two and has been interpreted as indicating a significant migration of continental farmers, displacing the indigenous population. These incomers had already acquired some hunter-gatherer genetic heritage before their arrival, and this increased little in Britain. However, the proportion of hunter-gatherer genetic ancestry in British Neolithic genomes is generally greater than for most contemporary examples on the continent, particularly in emerging evidence from northern France, while the ultimate origin of British Neolithic populations in Iberia is open to question. Both the date calculated for the arrival of new people in Britain and their westerly origin are at odds with other aspects of the existing evidence. Here, a two-phase model of Neolithization is proposed. The first appearance of Neolithic things and practices significantly predated a more substantial transfer of population, creating the conditions under which new communities could be brought into being. The rather later establishment of a major migration stream coincided with an acceleration in the spread of Neolithic artefacts and activities, as well as an enrichment of the Neolithic material assemblage.

Muddying the Waters

“…It is also interesting to note that Britain and Ireland buck the wider European trend of a WHG 'resurgence'. This could either be because Neolithisation processes were more disruptive in these island settings than elsewhere, or because such admixture had taken place during an archaeologically quite poorly documented pioneer phase, as recently argued by Julian Thomas (2022). This is a question that can only be solved through further targeted archaeological work, including the precise dating of any overlap between huntergatherer and farmer lifeways (e.g.…”

“…As has repeatedly been criticised (e.g. Frieman and Hofmann 2019;Furholt 2021;Hofmann 2015;Thomas 2022) we are being presented with models of single, directed and large-scale migrations involving the meeting of two previously separate populations -but each link in this chain can be questioned. Settling not just the 'what' happened (people moved), but also the 'why, how and when' questions, requires substantial amounts of data -isotopic, chronological, archaeological and more -and the testing out of different models and scenarios.…”

“…It is entirely possible that migration proceeded in multiple stages, each with their own respective dynamics. For instance, for Britain Thomas (2022) proposes an early pioneer movement with very few individuals introducing new ideas, which in turn opened up the possibility for later, larger-scale streams aimed primarily at settlement. Depending on the situation in source and destination areas, migrations could have proceeded at a steady pace, or numbers and speed could have fluctuated.…”

How Long was the Mesolithic–Neolithic Overlap in Western Scotland? Evidence from the 4th Millenniumbcon the Isle of Islay and the Evaluation of Three Scenarios for Mesolithic–Neolithic Interaction

“…

I dedicate this article to the memory of Caroline Wickham-Jones (1955-2022, an outstanding archaeologist and inspiration to Mesolithic studies and to me personally for more than 30 years.Ancient DNA studies have identified western Scotland as the only known region in Britain where inter-breeding occurred between early 4th millennium BC Neolithic migrants and the indigenous Mesolithic population. By drawing on excavations at Mesolithic and Neolithic sites on the Isle of Islay, I identify a period of population overlap and suggest three scenarios for Mesolithic-Neolithic interaction: swift succession, dual population, and biocultural merger.

…”

“…I dedicate this article to the memory of Caroline Wickham-Jones (1955-2022, an outstanding archaeologist and inspiration to Mesolithic studies and to me personally for more than 30 years.…”