Territoriality and Settlement in Southern France in the Early Neolithic: Diversity as a Strategy?

1 The Early Neolithic Context in the Western Mediterranean

In the western Mediterranean, agro-pastoral techniques first arose among communities whose economic and cultural expressions can be grouped under the term “Impressed Ware complex”. Frequently compared with the LBK or “Linearbandkeramik” complex – the other major current of neolithization in Western Europe, characterized by hundreds of well-documented villages – the settlement patterns of the communities of the Impressed Ware complex appear very diverse and poorly characterized. Cases of agglomeration of domestic units into “villages” are indeed relatively rare throughout the northwestern Mediterranean. In southeast Italy, where the earliest Impressa facies have been documented, particularly in the Ofanto valley and Tavoliere, the communities based their subsistence on a highly technical agro-pastoral economy (Vigne, 1998). Settlement model is based on the preferential occupation of coastal and sub-coastal areas, but also of the terraces of inner river valleys (Natali & Forgia, 2018). Vast domestic sites have been identified, and their land use strategy clearly involves perennial and sedentary lifestyles. This is demonstrated, for example, by the ditches of varying size that have been dug (enclosing areas ranging from 15 to 40 m in diameter for the smaller ones to several hundred metres in diameter for the large ones), the function of which remains ambiguous (extracting raw materials, preparing the daub, defence, draining rainwater, etc.; Guilaine, Radi, & Angeli, 2019). But no clearly homogeneous structuring of the areas within these ditched enclosures has been demonstrated (Radina & Sarti, 2002). At the site of Ripa Tetta (Lucera, Puglia), for example, the hypothesis has been put forward of a ditch marking out a much larger area than that strictly reserved for the domestic structures, which could also have been used for keeping animals and the most sensitive crops (Cipolloni Sampò, Tozzi, & Verola, 1999). In Pulo di Molfetta (Puglia, Muntoni, 2003), the remains of a large stone construction have been documented in Sector 3 – a sort of wall that may have served to protect the village. Plans of houses have been established in Rendina (Potenza, Basilicata) based on rows of post holes and the presence of internal hearths. Rectangular structures and cobble paving have been observed in Balsignano (Bari, Puglia; Grifoni Cremonesi & Radi, 2014). The structures that characterize the villages include various types. These show the ability to adapt to different contexts and resources offered by the territory (Natali & Forgia, 2018). Further north, the exceptional site of La Marmotta (Anguillara Sabazia, Lazio; Fugazzola Delpino, 2002), discovered at the bottom of Lake Bracciano, has revealed rectangular housing units, about 6–8 m in length, built from oak wood and mud architecture on stone bases. This offers a very heterogeneous set of data, both in terms of the building plans and the materials used (Figure 1). Different site categories have been defined (Fugazzola Delpino et al., 2002): greater than 3 ha, between 1 and 3 ha (“villages”, which represent the majority of sites), and less than 1 ha (“farms or hamlets”), but these categories tell us very little about the population networks and general settlement dynamics themselves. These ditched enclosures, which developed widely over time in southern Italy, have no equivalents further north on the Tuscan, Ligurian, or French coasts. In Spain, as in Southern France, the occupation and use of caves are well-documented and few open-air sites provide clear indications as to the structuring of the sites. In Catalonia, at the site of Guixeres de Vilobi (Mestres Mercadé, 1982), complex stone constructions have been documented, together with pits and some post holes, but without any clearly identifiable organization. Near Valencia, at the site of Mas d´Is (Bernabeu Aubán, Hernández, Köhler, Castillo, & Puche, 2003), a ditched enclosure has been documented, within which the remains of a house with a timber framed apse have been found. More generally, the open-air sites and cave dwellings only provide information about simple domestic arrangements such as hearths, cobble paving, silos, and so forth. The lakeside site of La Draga, where hundreds of posts have been found driven into the ground, seems to have been divided into two areas: an area dedicated to economic and artisanal activities and an area used as a domestic space containing several rectangular dwellings (between 10 and 12; Bosch Lloret, Chinchilla Sánchez, & Tarrus Galter, 2011). Once again, it is the polymorphous nature of the settlements (Figure 2) that emerges from the research on this subject (Gómez Puche, 2008; Mestres Mercadé & Tarrús Galter, 2009). This brief overview shows us that the available data present a wide variety of situations (whether at the scale of the strictly domestic unit or that of the network of settlements; ranging from the large sites of La Marmotta and La Draga to rock shelters in karst cliffs). While this may simply be a reflection of the current state of research, in our view, it denotes a certain archaeological reality regarding the economic, social, and structural dimensions of Neolithic groups. To examine this question in more detail, we will consider the specific case of the south of France, where the development of the first farming communities took place in two stages involving an initial pioneering coastal process followed by a large geographical expansion of the Neolithic economy.

Figure 1

Few examples of the diversity of settlements in Southern Italy (Ceramica Impressa). (1) Pulo di Molfetta, large stone construction, Muntoni, 2003; (2) Favella, hypothetical reconstitution of a house, Tiné, 2009; (3) Ripa Tetta: quadrangular house delimited by small trenches, Cipolloni Sampò et al., 1999; (4) Rendina, house plan delimited by the alignment of postholes, Grifoni Cremonesi and Radi, 2014; (5) Balsignano, rectangular house with cobble paving, Grifoni Cremonesi and Radi, 2014.

Figure 2

Few examples of the diversity of settlements in Spain (Cardial). (1) Mas d’Is, ditched enclosure and house built on an apsis plan, Bernabeu Aubán et al., 2003; (2) Guixeres de Vilobi: stone constructions and structures, Mestres Mercadé, 1982; (3) Restitution of the buildings of La Draga, Palomo, Huerta, and Batlle, 2017.

2 Neolithization and Settlement Organization in Southern France: Research Overview

On the French Mediterranean coast, the emergence of agro-pastoral societies at the start of the sixth millennium BCE is explained by a colonization model of small groups originating from the Impressa complex on the Italian peninsula, preceding an expansion phase of the Cardial culture lasting several centuries (Guilaine & Manen, 2007). Comparisons are frequently made between research in the south of France, with its strong focus on small-scale excavations of caves, with research in the north of France, which is marked by extensive excavations of open-air sites (Manen & Hamon, 2018). While in the south of France, efforts have indeed been primarily focused on establishing chrono-stratigraphic frameworks based on the stratigraphies of caves or rock shelters, extensive open-air excavations have also occurred over the last 20 years thanks to the impact of major construction work such as high-speed train lines and the expansion of urban centres (Gutherz, 2009). For example, the city of Nîmes, in the Gard, has been subjected to in-depth preventive research for the last 20 years. This currently represents around 300 operations over 450 explored hectares, including 10% that have been excavated (Breuil et al., 2003; Perrin, Manen, & Séjalon, 2014). And yet, the characteristics of the settlement organization of the Early Neolithic communities remain as ill-defined and polymorphous as ever.

For the Impressa stage, few sites have yet been documented over the entire range of Southern France (Figure 3). They present a discontinuous distribution, and it is difficult to identify the natural and cultural factors that determined the settlement patterns. According to pioneering colonization models, in which maritime navigation holds a prominent place, it is customary to ascribe these sites with a preferentially coastal location (leapfrog colonization model; mooring in lagoon areas and estuaries). The recent discovery of several sites (Manen et al., 2019b) has somewhat challenged this model, although work on the location of the coast at the start of the sixth millennium must be undertaken in order for it to be discussed in greater detail. The few recognized sites (principally Pendimoun, Peiro Signado, and Pont de Roque-Haute) present the characteristics of small-scale settlements occupied by small communities whose economies were based on the exploitation of domestic animal and cultivated plants (mainly sheep/goats and wheat). At Pont de Roque-Haute and Peiro Signado, the analysis of the imprints on the wattle and daub demonstrates the use of a cladding made of a mixture of earth, sand, and straw on a wooden frame (Chazelles, 2007). The rock shelter of Pendimoun is considered to have been a seasonal settlement (Delhon et al., 2020).

Figure 3

Map of Southern France and distribution of the Early Neolithic sites. In white the Impressa sites. BDA Database (https://bda.huma-num.fr/).

The second stage involved the expansion, from 5400 cal. BC, of the Cardial/Epicardial complex which then became a vector for the spreading of technical and economic agricultural innovations over a vast geographical area (Figure 3) (Manen et al., 2019a). Data regarding the settlement dynamics are confusing. As already mentioned, extensive work in the region of Nîmes (Gard) has made it possible to identify a series of open-air settlements (Perrin et al., 2014). But paradoxically, these sites provide little information about the household units themselves. At Mas de Vignoles X, the location of these units can be identified through the analysis of the spatial distribution of the remains and pits, but we do not know how they were built, both due to erosion and difficulties in identifying the shallower pits. The few elements available to us for the sites studied, or that we can infer from them, suggest that they involved oval-shaped buildings, about ten metres long by 5–6 m wide. This is a form that seems to have been recurrent in the early Neolithic settlements of southern France (Sénépart & Beeching, 2009). But while circular or oval plans remain the basic forms of domestic construction, a wide variety of structural organizations can be observed among the archaeological examples documented: oval plans marked out by post holes (Espeluche-Lalo in terms of open-air sites, and Saint-Marcel, Baume de Ronze, and Rochas in terms of caves); circular stonework at open-air sites (Courthézon and Petites Bâties); and a layer of remains, post holes, and various structures, including heated stone pits, at the site of Petites Bâties (Binder & Sénépart, 2004). Excavations at Courthézon also seem to indicate a complex spatial structuring with basal stone foundations (Sénépart, 2009). In general, it should be pointed out that the use of mud as a building material is probably underestimated and this probably contributes to the confusion. Of course, answers to this question of territoriality and settlement patterns largely depend on taphonomic factors. They also depend on the quality of the data available at the archaeological sites, especially the possibility of basing the discussion on multi-proxy studies in order to obtain the most complete picture possible of the domestic and economic organization of the communities. For this reason, we will focus on the region of the lower Rhône valley and its tributaries, which have benefited from recent archaeological excavations and interdisciplinary research programmes.

3 Territoriality and Settlement Patterns in the Lower Rhône Valley

This geographical area shows a great topographical and environmental diversity (Figure 4):

1. a coastal area, characterized by extensive hydromorphy (lagoons and ponds), which was strongly affected by the rise in sea level at the beginning of the Holocene and by modern human developments, and where no sites have yet been documented pertaining to the early Neolithic;

2. various alluvial terraces and plains with thick, well-developed soils offering water reserves favourable to agriculture;

3. and plateaus, offering a landscape alternating between omnipresent limestone outcrops, and depressions of varying expanse where arable land is found. Within these plateaus, the deep gorges of the rivers offer many natural cavities.

Figure 4

(1) Map illustrating the geographical parameters of the lower Rhône valley, and the location of the Early Neolithic sites (5500–4500 cal. BCE). In red, the most reliable sites (new excavations, multi-proxy data, new radiocarbon dating…). (2) Map illustrating the location of the three sites highlighted in the paper. (3) Schematic topographic location of the three sites highlighted in the paper.

The diversity of the landscape is characteristic of the environmental mosaic of the south of France. The map in Figure 4 shows the distribution of the Early Neolithic sites and highlights the most reliable ones; in other words, those which have been recently excavated and for which extensive and diverse documentation is available. Our analysis will be organized around three points: overall spatial distribution, types of settlement (infrastructure, activities carried out, etc.), and social and economic networks.

4 Territoriality and Settlement in Southern France in the Early Neolithic: Diversity as a Strategy?

The characteristics described in the study area of the lower Rhône valley together with those that have been more briefly presented in the northwestern Mediterranean allow us to establish the following points:

1. It is not possible to identify a standard settlement model for the sites of the Cardial/Epicardial complex. On the contrary, our data seem to reflect a converse scenario to the restrictive “best patch” model used to predict the spatial trajectories involved in the expansion of the Neolithic economy of the LKB culture, in which settlers choose the location of their villages based on criteria of optimal agricultural production and accessibility (Bocquet-Appel, Moussa, & Dubouloz, 2014). It should also be noted that this model is mostly valid for central Europe. Indeed, the Paris Basin seems to show that large villages are rather exceptional and that a different colonization model implementing hamlets or farmsteads is at work (Bostyn, Ilett, & Meunier, 2018).

2. The model which prevails in the south of France is that of scattered settlements, based on small housing units with nearby areas for growing crops and grazing, regardless of the topographical environment involved: alluvial plains and terraces, but also limestone plateaus further inland.

3. Of course, our data do not negate the hypothesis of communities organized around a system of seasonal land exploitation and the existence of specialized seasonal sites. This hypothesis has been formulated for both Provence (Binder, 1991) and Languedoc (Guilaine, 1993). But our goal was to show that a binary opposition between open-air sites and cave sites is not a relevant criterion for addressing the question of territorial organization and functional complementarities between sites. It thus seems that if we would like to propose a site “typology” for these first farming communities, one of the most relevant variables to take into account is that of the nature of the surrounding environment and its suitability in offering the communities favourable conditions for carrying out a diverse range of activities, rather than one based on a distinction between caves and open-air sites. The range of activities practiced on the sites and the provenance of raw materials are also important criteria to take into consideration. It is, besides, on this basis that the demonstration of the existence of specialized sites was well-shown in Provence (Lombard cave for instance; Binder, 1991). Similar conclusions have been proposed for different regions of Spain. This is shown, for example, by the work carried out by Mazzucco, Clemente-Conte, Gassiot, and Gibaja Bao (2015) at the cave of Chaves (Bastarás). This cave site, which is emblematic of the Spanish Cardial culture, is located in the north of Aragon in a pre-Pyrenean region at 663 metres altitude. The use-wear analyses of the lithic assemblage in Level 1b indicate the practice of various activities whose “functional spectrum” is comparable to that of various open-air sites in the western Mediterranean, which are considered permanent settlements. Close comparisons have been made between the assemblage from Chaves Ib and three other sites, namely La Draga, La Revilla, and La Lampara. Thus, after studying these sites, the authors have confirmed that “it has been possible to highlight a functional variability between sites that overcomes the traditional dichotomy of open-air vs. cave sites, indicating more subtle variances in the economic patterns from one site to another”. In the same vein, in a recent study of the early Neolithic sequence in the Valencian region, particularly after reviewing the data from the site of Cova de la Sarsa, Garcia Borja (2017) put forward the hypothesis that the cave was a densely occupied, multifunctional site situated at the heart of a wider network of open-air sites, caves, and rock shelters (all in the Valleta d’Agres and visible from the cave).

4. Finally, we have been able to show that these communities were strongly linked to each other despite the variety of environments involved.

Thus, while certain regional recurrences may exist, the main characteristic of the early Neolithic settlements of the northwestern Mediterranean seems to be their lack of standardization. This strong variability may reflect a common nature structuring these groups: rather than reproducing a specific site settlement pattern or organization for the settlements themselves, it seems that these early Neolithic groups sought to pragmatically optimize the location and organization of their settlements according to the specific characteristics of the surrounding environment and available resources (no potential resource was overlooked, especially hunting and gathering). We therefore suggest that the diversity observed in the settlement organization of these first farming communities is a reflection of a social organization well-adapted to the diversity of the ecosystem; in other words, a concrete strategy implemented to minimize risk (Antolín, 2015; Guilaine, 2000). The existence of strong social ties probably contributed to the sustainability of this system. In this context, we can consider that the mosaic environment typical of southern France was probably an active element in the social and economic systems of these first farming communities. With a more systematic application of multi-proxy analyses to the study of these sites, it would be possible to enlarge our scale of observation and deepen our understanding of the economic and territorial organization of these prehistoric societies.