Contrary to the mortuary practices of the Final Neolithic, which are well documented throughout the PACA region (except in mountainous areas), the small number of sites, structures and individuals dated to the Early and Middle Neolithic raises questions. This contribution proposes to discuss this issue by integrating, for comparison purposes, both domestic sites and the chronological data linked to them, and mortuary data from the entire Neolithic period. Two types of sites deliver human remains. On one hand, domestic occupations qualified as “mixed” and strictly mortuary occupations. According to the archaeological map, there are a total of 1106 sites (settlement, mortuary, mixed), 271 of which are related to the Neolithic in the broadest sense. These sites have been excluded because their exact chronology cannot be determined. Figure 1 presents the chronological distribution of the other 835 sites. The Early and Middle Neolithic has very few sites that yielded human remains, only 14% and 11% respectively. The count of individuals amounts to 180 for burials and cremations (appendix 1). The spaces dedicated strictly to the deceased are rare and mostly in natural cavities. The number of structures that yielded human remains on open-air sites varies from one site to another and does not depend on the area excavated or on the duration of occupation. Overall, they represent only 3% of the features for sites larger than one hectare. In comparison, for the Final Neolithic, 47% of sites are mixed or mortuary (Figure 1) and delivered at least 2405 individuals (appendix 1). As far as the radiocarbone dates are concerned, 346 dates with low standard deviation were listed: 240 features or SU from settlement for 87 sites and 112 features with human remains for 45 sites. The BP dates of the two types of contexts are almost equally distributed on the chronological scale (figure 6). The sum of the calibrated dates does not reveal any hiatus. However, disregarding the usual attraction of the plateaus, the distribution of dates on the calibration curve clearly shows a deficit of dates for mortuary contexts between 3900 and 3400 cal. BC, a period that is defined by only a few sites. Funerary practices throughout the Neolithic period are generally characterized by three types of treatment. (1) Burials in a pit at the size of the deceased or with a circular plan. In both types of tomb, the majority of the deceased are deposited with their lower limbs more or less flexed, mainly on the left side (Schmitt et al., 2021). Both sexes are represented. In contrast, children are deficient, especially those who died between birth and one year of age. Associated object is very rare. (2) Cremation constitutes a funerary practice documented from the second half of the 5th millenium (Schmitt and van Willigen, 2020). The deceased is represented by only a portion of his or her bones, often very fragmented, which may be deposited in a pit or in a buried ossuary vase. The tombs are individuals and dedicated rather to adults. They are characterized by the presence of arrowheads, axe blades, grinding elements, flint blades, and objects made of bone animal. The transformation of the corpse by cremation and the deposit of all or part of its remains in the burial site is known in the Late Neolithic in collective burials, mainly in the dolmens of the Var (Chambon, 2003). (3) Collective burials in southern France were long considered specific to the Final Neolithic (Leclerc and Tarrête, 1988; Chambon, 2003). Their number actually exploded during this period. However, as in neighboring regions, several sites have yielded bone assemblages that fall within the definition of collective burials dating from the Early and Middle Neolithic periods. Between 4400 cal. BC and 3500 cal. BC, we observe both the abandonment of natural cavities to deposit or bury the dead and the practice of collective burial. From 3300 cal. BC onwards, collective burials are numerous and present a varied typology (dolmens, hypogea, tumulus, natural cavities, etc.) and deliver a variety of objects: ceramic vases, blades, arrowheads, flint daggers as well as ornaments (Sauzade, 2021). In opposition to these funeral practices, we also observe treatments which are not honorific. Some individuals had neither the right to a funeral, nor to a tomb. It is commonly accepted that funerary practices that have left archaeological evidence are representative of a whole, but is this really the case? The lack of documentation in the mortuary sphere compared to other types of occupation is not related to a lack of prospecting or excavation of natural cavities. On the other hand, it is possible that certain associations of objects and human remains must be questioned and that human deposits in natural cavities are older than expected. It is also necessary to consider funerary treatments that do not always involve burials, as well as practices whose manifestation cannot be preserved through the ages. Besides, deceased were deprived of funerals and tombs. Therefore, the archaeological discoveries are not representative as a whole, but rather exceptional cases that primarily question the status of these deceased.