Igen régi vita a témával foglalkozó történészek és régészek között, hogy a neolitikus életmód és kultúra megjelenése Dél-Skandináviában új népcsoport (népcsoportok) bevándorlásának vagy az őslakos mezolit népesség kulturális adaptációjának köszönhető.

 

Mindkettő mellett szólnak érvek és ellenérvek, ugyanakkor Douglas T. Price kiemeli, hogy a kora neolitikus TRB (tölcséres szájú edények) kerámiák viszonylag gyors és tömeges megjelenése mögött délről érkező új csoportok állhatnak.

 

Mindez viszont lehet kulturális és technológiai átvétel vagy csere eredménye is.

 

Ugyanakkor az antropológiai és a modern archeogenetikai vizsgálatok eredményei inkább új embercsoportok megjelenéséről vallanak, de az eredmények még itt sem egyértelműen bizonyító erejűek.

 

Douglas ezt írja:

 

"The question of how agriculture was introduced in southern Scandinavia is a difficult one. There are three major hypotheses: (1) the Early Neolithic was intrusive, brought by colonists; (2) the Early Neolithic developed from the local Mesolithic, under the influence of various Danubian cultures to the south; or (3) some combination of the two, e.g., small groups of immigrants brought the basic Neolithic package into Scandinavia, where it was adopted by local inhabitants.

 

As noted, there was contact between late Danubian farming groups in Central Europe and Mesolithic groups in southern Scandinavia, given the evidence of imports into the Ertebolle culture. The only reasonable explanation for the delay is the presence in northern Europe of these successful fishing-hunting peoples who had little immediate use for other aspects of the Neolithic. The question, then, is not one of interaction, which is evident, but rather of colonization versus indigenous adoption.

 

The evidence for and against colonization comes largely from material culture.

Arguments in favor of colonization cite the simultaneous introduction of a variety of new materials, such as TRB pottery and polished flint axes, and new practices involving domestic plants and animals and monumental tombs (e.g., Solberg 1989). However, a number of similar lines of evidence—similarities between the Mesolithic and Neolithic in stone tool and ceramic technology, settlement location, and burial practice—support an argument for indigenous adoption (Nielsen 1985).

 

The physical anthropology of Neolithic individuals differs only slightly from that of their Mesolithic predecessors (Bennike 1993). Several minor changes are seen in the Early Neolithic skeleton; bones and skulls are less robust, and teeth are smaller. There are also minor changes in stature; Mesolithic males and females are 1 cm taller than their Early Neolithic counterparts. Interpretation of these differences is ambiguous, however, with regard to the question of colonization versus adoption, as these differences may also be related to diet or activity.

 

There is also some limited information from ancient DNA in the bones and teeth of Mesolithic and Neolithic individuals. These data are problematic, because there are very few samples from the actual transition period, between 4500 and 3500 BC, due to a paucity of burials during this time, problems of protein preservation and contamination in many samples, and because the study of aDNA is still in an experimental stage.

 

Current studies suggest that there are genetic differences between Mesolithic and Neolithic populations in central and northern Europe, but much more work needs to be done (e.g., Bramanti et al. 2009, Brotherton et al. 2013, Skoglund et al. 2012).

In sum, while there was a rapid influx of new kinds of pottery and decoration, burial rites, house forms, and domesticated plants and animals, several basic aspects of life did not change substantially at first.

 

At the same time, it is important to remember the very explosive initial spread of the TRB into Scandinavia, which does suggest the arrival of new people. Although there is no substantive evidence to indicate the movement of agriculturalists from the south, the possibility that small groups of immigrants came into the region and introduced local inhabitants to the Neolithic seems very likely."