Estimating the relative importance of demic and cultural diffusion in the spread of the Neolithic in Scandinavia.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Modeling the European Neolithic expansion suggests predominant within-group mating and limited cultural transmission.Nature communications · 2025
   Article
2. Environmental effects on the spread of the Neolithic crop package to South Asia.PloS one · 2022
   Article
3. Reassessing the role of climate change in the Tupi expansion (South America, 5000-500 BP).Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2021
   Article
4. Archaeological expansions in tropical South America during the late Holocene: Assessing the role of demic diffusion.PloS one · 2020
   Article
5. Assessing the importance of cultural diffusion in the Bantu spread into southeastern Africa.PloS one · 2019
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

Indexed as