T. Douglas Price pl. így hezitál a skandináviai régészetről és őstörténetről szóló könyvének Colonization versus adoption alfejezetében:

"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 Ertebølle 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)."