An Iberian criticism to 'Westward Ho!'

The paper of Peter Rowley-Conwy, Westward Ho!, (Current Anthropology 2011, open access) has become somewhat of a reference when discussing the Neolithic in Europe. It has some good points and very nice looking maps but it takes a radically one-sided bias in favor of the migrationist hypothesis, not just for this or that region but for all the European continent without almost exception. 

This has raised more than one eyebrow. 

The latest have been the authors of Neolítico de la Península Ibérica, a group of academics who sign collectively as Homo neolithicus, and who have extended their criticism of the discussed paper much longer than usual, making in the end a whole article that, because of its interest, I have translated to English as faithfully as possible (with some automaton's help). Here you have it:

Criticism: The starting point, the Near Eastern origin of the Neolithic elements is correct, as actually shown by DNA analysis of animals and cultivated plants. In contrast the issue is not so clear regarding the human DNA (for both cases see other entries in this blog). Therefore the debate on what or who traveled with the agricultural expansion makes good sense. This work favors the migrationist hypothesis in nearly every corner of Europe. Without a thorough understanding of the prehistoric dynamics in each each of the areas studied, we do not dare to make a rational criticism. However we are surprised, of the use of repeated arguments, as if these were universal, for each region. It is striking the case of milk: the research of lipids has indicated the presence of dairy products -not necessarily milk- in several Neolithic pots (see this blog's entry "Consumo de leche. ¿Qué queda de la revolución de los productos secundarios?"): The author considers this fact very much revealing because, with the milk, the stress of the first year of settlement in a new place would be avoided. Actually there is not yet enough knowledge of what these dairies meant in the diet of the Neolithic peoples, and its generalization as an argument can not be demonstrated (e.g., for the Iberian Peninsula there are still no studies in this regard).

The text points out the cases of presence of Neolithic elements at an earlier dates than expected -or in Mesolithic contexts- to mostly just discard them. We certainly believe that the cases that triggered the debate in France over the 1970s can hardly be taken into account, but the new ones -which come from safer field work often supplemented with laboratory research- must not be judged with the same criteria. And when the evidence appears most solid it is argued that instead of actual cattle they would be beef imports (a valid argument  for the Netherlands -where the documentation seems important- or for the British Isles). Again this is a hypothetical universal reasoning.

Other reasonings are arguable: a change of diet between the Mesolithic and Neolithic sites only indicates an economic reorientation, but not that it is caused by a migration process.

As for the pottery of La Hoguette, it has been noted its presence in areas free of LBK and at dates prior to this culture. Here the meaning of this pottery style and that of Limbourg have been simplified.

The case of Cardial, as it affects the focus of this blog, deserves a more detailed commentary. The text assumes as oldest dates of Peninsular Neolithic those of Cisterna and Calderao: not just there are older ones -as noted in this blog- but those listed belong to deposits with serious stratigraphic problems -especially Calderao-. On the other hand, the criticisms of Zilhao to Mendandia and La Lámpara appear to us as completely unjustified: actually Zilhao's text is an anthology of nonsense, offensive for Iberian prehistorians (we do not consider worth even discussing it). Let us recall also that neither the Upper Ebro, where Mendandia lays, nor the Plateau lands, which host La Lámpara, belong to the Cardial domain, nor does the Cantabrian region, whose alleged underdevelopment is more historiographical than real. Indeed the cases of Pendimoun, Arene Candide, Pont de Roque-Haute and Peiró Signado point to maritime movements, but we need to improve the information in order to obtain a more precise picture. For instance, the oldest date of Pont de Roque-Haute comes from a landfill that has other more recent datings (which of them should be associated with their wares? The oldest, the most modern or the one in between?). The case of El Barranquet seems absurd to us: how can a such a convoluted site, lacking a detailed publication and where has not been indicated the relation of date with content, be taken as paradigmatic? Does the work indicate a gap between the Iberian Mesolithic and Neolithic C-14? The entry in this blog "La transición Mesolítica - Neolítica según los datos de C14" seems to suggest otherwise.

In our opinion, the entry of migrants is plausible, but only as one of the tractor elements of the overall process.

Link to original source in Spanish (browse down to "Crítica" in golden type, first comes the exposition of the paper as-it-is in black type).