Content uploaded by Preston Miracle
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Preston Miracle on Sep 11, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-SA 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
89
UDK 903'12\'15(450.36+497.5''633\634''>325
Documenta Praehistorica XXXIII (2006)
The spread of farming
in the Eastern Adriatic
Sta[o Forenbaher1, Preston T. Miracle2
1
Institute for Anthropological Research, Zagreb, Croatia
staso.forenbaher@zg.htnet.hr
2
Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, UK
ptm21@cam.ac.uk
Introduction
Recent years have witnessed major advances in our
understanding of the spread of farming in Europe,
through the refinement of theoretical models (e.g.
Price 2000; Thomas 1999; Whittle 1996; 2003),
through the integration and comparison of archaeo-
logical, linguistic, and genetic evidence (e.g. Bellwood
& Renfrew 2002; Ammerman & Biagi 2003), and
through the characterisation of human diets and po-
pulation movements by studying stable isotopes in
human bones (e.g. Milner et al. 2004; Richards et
al. 2003; Price et al. 2002). The eastern Adriatic
coast lies along a major route into Central Europe
from the southeast, but our state of knowledge about
the spread of farming in the region remains relati-
vely undeveloped. Maps offering sophisticated mo-
dels for the spread of farming into Europe can leave
the eastern Adriatic region blank (Barker 1985.Fig.
21; Renfrew 1987; Tringham 2000.Fig. 2.1; Whittle
1996.Fig. 8.2; Zvelebil & Lillie 2000.Fig. 3.1) or
merge it with one of the neighbouring regions (e.g.
Zvelebil & Lillie 2000.Fig. 3.4). In this brief paper
we hope to put the eastern Adriatic region ‘on the
map’ through a summarized review of the available
evidence and the presentation of a new model of
the spread of farming in the region (Fig. 1).
Models for the transition to farming
The transition to farming in Europe has been explai-
ned by a wide variety of models, ranging from a com-
ABSTRACT – The beginning of farming in the Adriatic is a topic ripe for a new discussion and syn-
thesis. Several lines of evidence suggest that immigration played a major role in the process. It invol-
ved, however, both the actual movement of people and the active participation of the local popula-
tion, and probably unfolded somewhat differently in different parts of the region. There is provocative
evidence that the transition to farming occurred in a two-stage process. There was an initial stage of
very rapid dispersal, perhaps by exploratory parties along the coast in the southern Adriatic. During
the second stage, the eastern Adriatic littoral was probably colonized by farming communities, while
the hinterland remained an agricultural frontier zone.
IZVLE∞EK – Za≠etek poljedelstva na podro≠ju Jadrana je tema, ki omogo≠a diskusije in nove sinteze.
Predstavljamo dokaze, da je glavno vlogo pri procesu igralo priseljevanje. V regiji se je proces odvi-
jal razli≠no, vklju≠eval je tako selitve ljudi, kot tudi aktivno udele∫bo lokalnega prebivalstva. Doka-
zujemo, da se je prehod h kmetovanju odvijal v dvostopenjskem procesu. V prvi stopnji je pri∏lo do
hitre razpr∏itve, morda izvidnikov, vzdol∫ obale ju∫nega Jadrana. V drugi stopnji so skupine kmeto-
valcev verjetno kolonizirale obalne predele vzhodnega Jadrana, medtem ko je zaledje ostalo mejno
podro≠je kmetovanja.
KEY WORDS – Neolithic; farming; Croatia; Adriatic; colonization
© 2006 Oddelek za arheologijo, Filozofska fakulteta - Univerza v Ljubljani, SI
Sta[o Forenbaher, Preston T. Miracle
90
pletely autochthonous process where local foragers
turn to farming, to a completely exogenous process
where foreign farmers migrate into Europe and re-
place the indigenous population (Barker 1985; Per-
lès 2001; Price 2000). Claims for a completely inde-
pendent domestication of plants and animals in Early
Neolithic Europe have been thoroughly refuted on
genetic (Jones 2002.94, 107, 130), morphological
(Rowley-Conwy 1995; Zohary 1996.143–144) and
taphonomic grounds (Zilhão 1993), while models
that rely primarily on migrating farmers (e.g. Am-
merman & Cavalli-Sforza 1973; 1984) are now
thought to underestimate the contribution of Meso-
lithic foragers to the process, whether considered in
terms of the modern-day gene pool (e.g. Richards et
al. 1996; Richards et al. 2002; Jones 2002.160–161)
or the indigenous adoption and transmission of parts
of the ‘Neolithic package’ (e.g. Price 2000; Tringham
2000; Zilhão 2000; Zvelebil 1986; 2002). The Meso-
lithic-Neolithic transition can
no longer be considered in
terms of a simple dichotomy
between indigenous adoption
and foreign migration.
The major early domesticates
were introduced into Europe
at the start of the Neolithic.
Since the crops could not
have spread naturally into
Europe, and domestic ani-
mals are very unlikely to have
done so, we must consider at
least some form of population
transfer. Zvelebil and Lillie
(2000.62) have recently listed
six different forms of popula-
tion transfer that may have
been important in the transi-
tion to agriculture in Europe.
We use these processes to
frame our discussion of the
transition to farming in the
Eastern Adriatic; their defini-
tion and archaeological signa-
tures are listed in Table 1.
Much of the Adriatic literature
still tends to see population
change – that is, migration –
lurking behind every major
change in pottery style, let
alone the introduction of the
earliest pottery (e.g. Benac
1979–1987; Dimitrijevi≤ et al. 1998). The migra-
tionist view is echoed in syntheses by Chapman et
al. (1996.259) and Biagi & Starnini (1999), who
note the rarity of Late Mesolithic occupation in the
region and an abrupt shift from wild to domestic
animals at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. Others
have undermined the unity of the ‘Neolithic package’
in the region, arguing that there is no necessary asso-
ciation between the appearance of ceramics and do-
mestic plants and animals (Tringham 1971; Trump
1980). Tringham (1971) makes the strongest case
for continuity of economic practices and lithic use
from Late Mesolithic to Impressed Ware, citing evi-
dence of wild fauna associated with impressed cera-
mics. More recently, Budja has proposed a model of
‘Neolithisation’ in the region that acknowledges the
acceptance by the autochthonous population of a li-
mited number of innovations, while rejecting any
form of migration (Budja 1993.177; 1996.69; 1999).
Fig. 1. Some of the sites discussed in the text. Black number on white:
open-air sites; white number on black: cave sites. 1. Piancada 2. Sammar-
denchia 3. Selected caves of the Triestine Karst (Edera, Mitreo, Benussi,
Ciclami, Vla∏ka) 4. Pupi≤ina 5. Vi∫ula 6. Jami na Sredi 7. Vela spilja (Lo-
∏inj) 8. Tinj 9. Smil≠i≤ 10. Pokrovnik 11. πkarin Samograd 12. Danilo
13. Gospodska 14. Grap≠eva 15. Vela Spila (Kor≠ula) 16. Gudnja 17. Ze-
lena pe≤ina 18. Crvena Stijena 19. Odmut 20. Selected open-air sites of
the Tavoliere (Masseria Giufredda, Scramella San Vito, Ripa Tetta, Coppa
Nevigata, Lagnano da Piede, Villa Comunale, Masseria Candelaro, Mas-
seria Santa Tecchia, Masseria Fontanella Ulivetto) 21. Konispol 22. Sidari.
The spread of farming in the Eastern Adriatic
91
Zvelebil and Lillie (2000.68–71) have recently sug-
gested that ‘Neolithisation’ in Dalmatia involved the
introduction of pottery into local forager communi-
ties during an ‘availability phase’ along the agricul-
tural frontier. Similar models have been proposed
by others, although each puts a different degree of
emphasis on population movement and local adop-
tion (Barfield 1972.204; Skeates 2000.171–172;
Zvelebil 2001.2–6). Zvelebil’s ‘integrationist’ model
remains the most elaborate, taking into account so-
cial contexts of exchange (subsistence and other-
wise) and intermarriage, and their effects on the mo-
vement of populations across agricultural frontiers.
Before developing a new model for the ‘Neolithisa-
tion’ process in the eastern Adriatic, we summarize
evidence about the pattern of change in the region.
Farming and pottery in the eastern Adriatic
The recognition of prehistoric farming sites in the
eastern Adriatic region traditionally relies on the
presence of pottery (e.g. Bagolini & von Eles 1978.
46; Batovi≤ 1979; Chapman & Müller 1990.128,
132; Müller 1994; Skeates 2000.171; Sordinas 1969.
407), although such a simplified approach overlooks
the possibility of hunter-gatherer groups obtaining
pottery through exchange or adoption (Budja 2001.
40, 41). Over a decade ago, Chapman and Müller
(1990.132) concluded that in Dalmatia, an integra-
ted Neolithic ‘package’ consisting of four critical in-
novations – domesticated plants and animals, cera-
mics, and polished stone – was identifiable only at
lowland open air sites. However, a reduced version
of the Neolithic ‘package’ – domesticated animals,
pottery and prismatic blade technology – is well at-
tested at a much larger number of sites, many of
which are caves, throughout the eastern Adriatic re-
gion. By contrast, convincing evidence of domesti-
cated animals or pottery in Mesolithic contexts is
extremely rare. It follows that, although far from
perfect, pottery is still the most useful ‘proxy mea-
sure’ for exploring the spatial and temporal spread
of farming in the eastern Adriatic.
Recent work in caves shows some variety in the type
of contact. The appearance of pottery may be asso-
ciated with assemblages dominated by wild taxa (Cr-
vena Stijena, Odmut, Zelena pe≤ina, Mala Triglavca);
in other caves there is a fairly even representation
of wild and domestic taxa (Edera, Konispol, Azzura,
Zingari), while domestic animals dominate the as-
semblages in a third group of caves (Pupi≤ina, Mi-
treo, Podmol, Vela spila, Spila Nakovana; for refer-
ences and detailed discussion, see Forenbaher & Mi-
racle 2006; Miracle & Pugsley 2006). Seeds of do-
mesticated plants have not been reported from any
of the recently excavated caves where the use of flo-
tation to recover plant remains was standard prac-
Process Description Archaeological expectations
Demic diffusion Demographic expansion of farming population leads Full Neolithic package moves<
to daughter groups budding off and colonizing new abrupt change< slow spread (1 km\year)
areas. Migration not directional< slow rate of migration.
Folk migration Directional movement of population from old area Full Neolithic package moves< abrupt
to new. Not necessarily driven by demographic change< rapid spread
expansion. Similar to leapfrog colonization.
Elite dominance Penetration of area by numerical minority who Piecemeal adoption of Neolithic
subsequently seize control and impose package by socially central individuals,
culture\language on indigenous majority. perhaps through feasting< gradual change
Infiltration Gradual penetration of new area by small Piecemeal adoption of Neolithic package
groups\individuals who are subordinate or perform by socially peripheral individuals.
specialist tasks for majority.
Leapfrog Selective colonization of areas only marginally exploited Full Neolithic package moves< new
colonization by indigenous foragers, creating enclave settlements settlements separate from Mesolithic<
from which further dispersal of farming proceeds. little interaction with indigenous people<
Often movement by seafaring. abrput change< rapid spread
Individual Individuals or small groups linked in social\economic Piecemeal adoption of Neolithic package<
frontier mobility exchanges between forager and farming communities. innovations adopted within existing
Direction and pace of change depends on existing social Mesolithic settlements< much interaction
frameworks and communication routes and\or those between indigenous and colonizing
established between forager and farming communities. peoples
Tab. 1. Expectations of different models of the Neolithization Process. Descriptions and expectations
based on Barnett (2000); Zvelebil and Lillie (2000).
Sta[o Forenbaher, Preston T. Miracle
92
tice. This holds true not only for Early Neolithic le-
vels of those sites, but also for all later periods, when
the cultivation of domesticated plants is not in doubt.
Caves are rarely located near major tracts of arable
land, but are often conveniently positioned for her-
ders – either at, or on the way to, seasonal pastures.
Such a contrast between open-air and cave sites has
important implications for the process of ‘Neolithisa-
tion’ in the region.
The Mesolithic/Neolithic ‘gap’
A number of well-documented and dated northern
Mediterranean sequences show a hiatus between the
Mesolithic and Neolithic occupations of at least seve-
ral centuries, if not several millennia (Biagi and Spa-
taro 2000.48; Pluciennik 1997). The timing and
duration of this Mesolithic-Neolithic gap is not syn-
chronous, but varies widely from site to site. To exa-
mine this pattern in greater detail, we briefly discuss
sequences from six sites in the Eastern Adriatic (Fig.
2, Tab. 2).
In the Triestine Karst and Istria, the age difference
between the youngest Mesolithic and oldest Neoli-
thic dates at Pupi≤ina Cave, Edera, and Ciclami is
from 1100 to 1800 years. The similarity in timing
and duration of the stratigraphic gaps is striking, at
first glance suggesting that caves were not being vi-
sited by Late Mesolithic bands in this area, because
of a change in settlement pattern, depopulation, or
both. Other evidence, however, argues against a sim-
ple demographic expla-
nation. Nine sites from
the Triestine Karst are
reported to contain evi-
dence of Late Mesolithic
occupation (Montagnari
Kokelj 1993.74). Fur-
thermore, at Benussi,
there is a sequence of
three radiocarbon dates
associated with Late Me-
solithic assemblages
(Montagnari Kokelj
1993.70), the youngest
of which overlaps the ol-
dest Neolithic dates from
Edera and Pupi≤ina at 2
s.d. Late Mesolithic peo-
ple were clearly in the
region immediately prior
to the first appearance
of Neolithic pottery.
In the south, only three sites have dated Late Meso-
lithic and Early Neolithic components. Taken at face
value, dates from Odmut Cave (Markovi≤ 1985; Sre-
jovi≤ 1974) show a continuity of occupation from
the latest Mesolithic to the earliest Neolithic. There
are, however, problems with both the dates and the
stratigraphy of Odmut (Forenbaher & Miracle 2006),
and there may, in fact, be a gap between those lay-
ers with pottery and those without pottery of at least
300 years. At Konispol Cave, the dates suggest a gap
of some 130 years between the latest Mesolithic and
earliest Neolithic dates (Harrold et al. 1999), but the
stratigraphy and fauna fill this gap (Russell 1998;
Schuldenrein 1998). The open air site of Sidari pro-
vides provocative evidence of an in situ adoption of
ceramics by indigenous Mesolithic people (Perlès
2001). There is no stratigraphic break between the
latest Mesolithic and the earliest Neolithic horizon,
and the latter contains abundant plain ceramics,
stone tools made using a ‘Mesolithic’ technology,
and some sheep/goat. There is, however, a signifi-
cant sterile layer between this ‘earliest Neolithic’
and ‘Early Neolithic’ (Impressed Ware) occupation of
the site (Sordinas 1969).
To summarize, three of six sites with dated sequen-
ces (Ciclami, Pupi≤ina, and Odmut) show a stratigra-
phic break and temporal gap between the Mesolithic
and Neolithic. At Edera there is a temporal gap of
about 1100 years, but not a stratigraphic break. The
two sites (Konispol and Sidari) with dated stratigra-
phic evidence of continuity come from the southern
Fig. 2. Calibrated radiocarbon dates from sites with Late Mesolithic (Benussi)
or Mesolithic and Neolithic assemblages in the Triestine Karst, Istria, Montene-
gro, Albania, and Corfu. Black symbols: Mesolithic; grey symbols: uncertain as-
sociation; white symbols: Neolithic pottery.
The spread of farming in the Eastern Adriatic
93
edge of the Adriatic. How might we explain the re-
current gap in cave stratigraphies? Its time-transgres-
sive nature, as well as the thick Late Mesolithic levels
at several sites in both the northern and southern
Adriatic, argue against a climatic cause of region-wide
reduced sedimentation or erosion. In the Northern
Adriatic the first pottery users visited caves that had
long been abandoned. This abandonment more like-
ly reflects a shift in settlement pattern (from caves
to open air sites) than a decrease in population du-
ring the Late Mesolithic. In the two dated sequences
from the south, in contrast, there appears to be a
continuity of occupation from the Mesolithic to Neo-
lithic; and pottery use appears to have been incorpo-
rated into a pre-existing strategy. We suspect that this
geographic contrast in the continuity of occupation
from the Mesolithic to Neolithic may correlate with
a contrast in the processes involved in the adoption
of pottery and farming in the two regions.
The introduction of pottery into the Adriatic
Since Chapman and Müller’s (1990) discussion of the
pattern of radiocarbon dates for the Eastern Adriatic
Neolithic, there has been a slow but steady accumu-
lation of radiometric dates from secure contexts
(Fig. 3, Tab. 3). The basic pattern that they identified
still holds; after the initial appearance of pottery on
Corfu at the mouth of the Adriatic at ca. 6500 Cal BC,
dates become progressively younger as one moves
up the coast towards the northeast to the head of
the Adriatic, where pottery makes its first appear-
ance 1000 years later at about 5500 Cal BC.
Poorly fired, mostly plain pottery appears just south
of the Straits of Otranto around 6500 BC (Sordinas
1969. 401, 406, note 14). It is roughly contempora-
neous with, or only slightly later than, the earliest
pottery found elsewhere in Greece (Perlès 2001.94–
95). Around (or soon after) 6200 BC, a characteris-
tic pottery style known as Impressed Ware emerges
somewhere on the northern Ionian coast (possibly,
on Corfu), and then spreads rapidly into the imme-
diate hinterland (Albania), up the Adriatic to south-
ern Dalmatia, and to southeastern Italy (Sordinas
1969; Skeates 2000). Over the next few centuries,
Impressed Ware spreads deeper into the Adriatic,
reaching northern Dalmatia by around 5900 BC,
Site and context Lab no. bp s.d. Cal BC 1 s.d. range Cal BC 2 s.d. range Attribution Ref.
Benussi 5–6 R–1045A 8650 70 7750 7580 7950 7570 Mesolithic 1
Benussi 5 R–1045 8380 60 7540 7350 7580 7200 Mesolithic 1
Benussi 4 R–1044 7620 150 6640 6250 7050 6050 Mesolithic 1
Benussi 3–4 R–1042 7230 140 6240 5920 6400 5800 Mesolithic 1
Benussi 3 R–1043 7050 60 5990 5840 6030 5770 Mesolithic 1
Edera 3B GrN–25139 8350 120 7550 7180 7600 7050 Mesolithic 2
Edera 3B GrA–11818 8250 50 7450 7140 7480 7080 Mesolithic 2
Edera 3B GrN–25138 8110 90 7310 6830 7450 6700 Mesolithic 2
Edera 3B GrN–25137 8060 70 7180 6820 7350 6650 Mesolithic 2
Edera 3B GrA–14106 8045 40 7080 6830 7200 6750 Mesolithic 2
Ciclami 9 R–1041 8260 60 7460 7140 7520 7080 Mesolithic 3
Pupic´ ina M3 z–2635 8710 170 8200 7550 8300 7450 Mesolithic 4
Odmut IB SI–2221 7720 85 6640 6460 6800 6350 Mesolithic 5
Odmut IA SI–2226 7790 70 6690 6500 7000 6450 Mesolithic 5
Odmut IB SI–2220 7150 100 6160 5890 6230 5800 Mesolithic| 5
Odmut IA SI–2227 7080 85 6020 5840 6160 5740 Mesolithic| 5
Konispol Beta–67804 7630 140 6650 6260 7000 6100 Mesolithic 6
Konispol Beta–80000 7550 80 6470 6250 6510 6220 Mesolithic 6
Konispol Beta–67803 7510 90 6440 6250 6510 6100 Mesolithic 6
Konispol Beta–79999 7410 80 6390 6160 6430 6080 Mesolithic 6
Sidari D 7770 340 7100 6250 7600 6000 Mesolithic 7
References> 1.
Montagnari Kokelj 1993
< 2.
Biagi & Spataro 2000
< 3.
Biagi & Voytek 1994
< 4.
Miracle 2001
< 5.
Srejovic´
1974<
6.
Harrold et al. 1999
< 7.
Sordinas 1969
.
Tab. 2. Radiocarbon dates associated with Mesolithic assemblages from the Triestine Karst, Istria, Mon-
tenegro, Albania, and Corfu.
Sta[o Forenbaher, Preston T. Miracle
94
and southern Istria by
around 5750 BC. By that
time it also reaches the
deep hinterland of the
eastern Adriatic (Marko-
vi≤ 1985). On the Italian
side of the Adriatic its
spread is somewhat dela-
yed, reaching Abruzzo by
5750/5650 BC and East-
ern Romagna by 5300 BC
(Skeates 1994).
Impressed Ware was the
earliest pottery to appear
almost throughout the
length of the eastern Adri-
atic (Batovi≤ 1979; Müller
1994). It seems, however,
that it never reached the
extreme north-western
part of that region – north-
ern Istria and the Triestine
Karst (Forenbaher et al.
2004; Velu∏≠ek 1997). Some time around 5600 BC,
a new style known as Danilo (or Danilo/Vla∏ka)
emerges in the eastern Adriatic, where it soon re-
places the Impressed Ware. Only at that point does
Danilo-like pottery reach the interior of Istria and
the Triestine Karst, and as far to the northwest as
Sammardenchia in Friuli (Pessina & Rottioli 1996.
85, Fig. 6), where it merges with pottery styles deri-
ved from western Adriatic traditions.
Calibrated radiocarbon dates allow us to consider
the rates at which the pottery was spreading (Fig. 4).
It took about 1000 years for pottery technology to
move from Corfu to the Triestine Karst, a straight-
line distance of roughly 875 km. This gives a rate of
spread of about 0.9 km/year, which is close to the
1 km/year rate of the ‘wave of advance’ proposed by
Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (1973). If, however,
these were sea-faring people, for whom there is good
evidence (Bass 1998; Forenbaher 1999), 1 km/year
seems like a fairly leisurely pace.
If, on the other hand, we consider the spread of Im-
pressed Ware in some detail, a somewhat different
pattern emerges. It took only about a century for
Impressed Ware to move from Corfu to Kor≠ula, a
straight-line distance of roughly 460 km. This gives
a considerably quicker rate of spread of about 4.5
km/year. Moving further to the north, it took about
300 years for Impressed Ware to move from Kor≠u-
la to Istria, a the straight-line distance of roughly 300
km. The rate of spread has fallen to only 1 km/year.
Furthermore, the early dates from southern Dalma-
tia come from caves only, while those from northern
Dalmatia and Istria come from both caves and open-
air sites. From these admittedly scanty data, we sug-
gest that the spread of the Neolithic along the east-
ern Adriatic was not a smooth and continuous pro-
cess. There may also have been a shift in settlement
from short-term visits to caves in the very earliest
phase to the longer-term occupation of open-air sites
in the later phase.
The processes of change
The archaeological record thus testifies to temporal
and spatial variability in the cultural practices asso-
ciated with the first pottery and the apparent speed
with which it moved up the Adriatic, whether piece-
meal or as part of a package. It suggests that several
different processes were important across the Meso-
lithic-Neolithic transition along the eastern Adriatic.
Beginning with the southern edge of the Adriatic, Si-
dari and Konispol provide the most compelling evi-
dence of the adoption of pottery and domestic ani-
mals by small groups of seasonally mobile ‘Mesoli-
thic’ hunter-gatherers. The first pottery found at Si-
dari in Layer C base at about 6500 BC is apparently
Fig. 3. Calibrated radiocarbon dates associated with Early and/or Middle
Neolithic pottery from sites from Corfu, the Tavoliere, Albania, Montenegro,
Dalmatia, Istria, and the Triestine Karst. Black symbols: Impressed Ware;
grey symbols: plain pottery; white symbols: Danilo/Vla∏ka pottery; striped
symbols: other Neolithic pottery.
The spread of farming in the Eastern Adriatic
95
Site and context Lab no. bp s.d. Cal BC 1 s.d. range Cal BC 2 s.d. range Attribution Ref.
CORFU
Sidari C bottom GXO-771 7670 120 6650 6400 6900 6200 Plain ware 1,2
Sidari C top GXO-772 7340 180 6390 6020 6550 5800 Impressed Ware 1,2
TAVOLIERE
Masseria Giufredda MC-2292 7125 200 6220 5790 6400 5600 Impressed Ware 3
Scramella S. Vito R-350 7000 100 5990 5770 6060 5660 Impressed Ware 3
Scramella S. Vito R-351 6540 65 5610 5390 5620 5360 Impressed Ware 3
Ripa Tetta Beta-47808 6890 60 5840 5710 5890 5640 Impressed Ware 3
Coppa Nevigata OxA-1475 6880 90 5850 5660 5980 5620 Impressed Ware 3
Coppa Nevigata OxA-1474 6850 80 5800 5640 5900 5560 Impressed Ware 3
Lagnano da Piede UB-2271 6790 255 5980 5470 6300 5200 Impressed Ware 3
Lagnano da Piede UCLA-2148 6700 100 5720 5530 5790 5470 Impressed Ware 3
Villa Comunale MC-2291 6750 220 5880 5470 6200 5250 Impressed Ware 3
Masseria Candelaro OxA-3684 6640 95 5630 5480 5730 5380 Impressed Ware 3
Masseria Candelaro OxA-3685 6510 95 5610 5360 5630 5300 Impressed Ware 3
Masseria S. Tecchia BM-2414 6520 70 5610 5370 5620 5320 Impressed Ware 3
Mass. Font. Ulivetto BM-2415 6490 150 5620 5310 5750 5050 Impressed Ware 3
ALBANIA
Konispol Beta-56415 7060 110 6030 5710 6170 5800 Impressed Ware 10
Konispol Beta-67802 6830 80 5790 5560 5890 5630 Early\Middle 10
Neolithic
Konispol Beta-56416 6800 140 5840 5450 6000 5550 Impressed Ware 10
MONTENEGRO (SOUTHERN HINTERLAND)
Odmut IIA SI-2217 6985 100 5980 5660 6030 5740 Star;evo 9
Odmut IIA SI-2219 6955 100 5970 5660 6010 5730 Star;evo 9
Odmut IIB SI-2222 6900 100 5890 5620 5990 5660 Impressed Ware 9
Odmut IIB z-412 6740 130 5740 5510 5900 5350 Impressed Ware 9
Odmut IIB SI-2223 6530 80 5610 5380 5630 5320 Impressed Ware 9
SOUTHERN DALMATIA
Gudnja I GrN-10315 7170 70 6160 5920 6220 5880 Impressed Ware 4
Gudnja I GrN-10314 6935 50 5850 5730 5980 5710 Impressed Ware 4
Gudnja II GrN-10311 6560 40 5610 5470 5620 5420 Impressed Ware– 4
Danilo
Gudnja III GrN-10313 6520 40 5530 5380 5610 5370 Danilo 4
Gudnja III GrN-10312 6415 40 5470 5320 5480 5310 Danilo 4
Vela Spila VI bottom z-1967 7300 120 6330 6010 6420 5910 Impressed Ware 5
Vela Spila VI middle z-1968 7000 120 5990 5740 6200 5600 Impressed Ware 5
Grap;eva 1400 Beta-103488 7030 60 5990 5840 6020 5740 Impressed Ware 6
NORTHERN DALMATIA
Gospodska C z-579 7010 90 5990 5790 6030 5710 Impressed Ware 7
{karin Samograd I HD-12094 6750 60 5715 5620 5740 5530 Plain ware 7
{karin Samograd I HD-11773 6740 50 5720 5560 5730 5550 Plain ware 7
{karin Samograd II HD-11950 6780 50 5720 5635 5750 5560 Impressed Ware 7
{karin Samograd II HD-11952 6600 100 5630 5470 5720 5360 Impressed Ware 7
Pokrovnik I | 7000 100 5990 5770 6060 5660 Impressed Ware 7
Pokrovnik II z-895 6300 150 5470 5060 5550 4850 Danilo 7
Pokrovnik II HD-12842 6290 65 5360 5080 5470 5050 Danilo 8
Tinj I GrN-15236 6980 160 6000 5710 6250 5550 Impressed Ware 7
Tinj I GrN-15237 6670 260 5850 5300 6200 5000 Impressed Ware 7
Tinj I GrN-15238 6280 210 5480 4990 5650 4700 Impressed Ware 7
ISTRIA AND THE TRIESTINE KARST
Vi/ula HD-12093 6850 180 5970 5560 6200 5400 Impressed Ware 7
Vi/ula HD-11733 6140 70 5210 4950 5300 4850 Impressed Ware 7
Ciclami Layer 8 R-1040A 6300 50 5340 5140 5420 5070 Danilo\Vla[ka 11
Edera Level 3a GX-19569 6700 130 5720 5480 5850 5370 Plain ware 12
Edera Level 2a GX-19568 6615 390 6000 5050 6400 4600 Danilo\Vla[ka 12
Edera Level 2a GrN-23129 6590 100 5630 5470 5710 5360 Danilo\Vla[ka 13
Edera Level 2a GrN-25474 6480 40 5480 5370 5520 5320 Danilo\Vla[ka 13
Edera Level 2a GX-19567 6445 210 5650 5050 5750 4850 Danilo\Vla[ka 12
Edera Level 2a GX-19022 6305 285 5550 4850 5800 4500 Danilo\Vla[ka 12
Pupic´ ina Horizon I z-2575 6600 240 5740 5300 6000 4950 Danilo\Vla[ka 14
Pupic´ ina Horizon I OxA-8471 6495 60 5520 5360 5610 5320 Danilo\Vla[ka 15
Pupic´ ina Horizon H Beta-131625 6680 100 5670 5480 5780 5460 Danilo\Vla[ka 15
Pupic´ ina Horizon H Beta-131624 6270 120 5370 5050 5500 4850 Danilo\Vla[ka 15
References> 1.
Sordinas 1967
< 2.
Sordinas 1969
< 3.
Skeates 2000
< 4.
Chapman 1988
< 5.
:e;uk & Radic´ 2001
< 6.
Forenbaher & Kaiser 1999
<
7.
Chapman & Muller 1990
< 8.
Biagi & Voytek 1994
< 9.
Markovic´ 1985
< 10.
Harrold et al. 1999
< 11.
Gilli & Montagnari Kokelj
1992
< 12.
Biagi 1995
< 13.
Biagi & Spataro 2000
< 14.
Miracle 1997
< 15.
Miracle & Forenbaher 2006
.
Tab. 3. Radiocarbon dates associated with Neolithic pottery assemblages from Corfu, the Tavoliere, Alba-
nia, Montenegro, Dalmatia, Istria, and the Triestine Karst.
Sta[o Forenbaher, Preston T. Miracle
96
unique to the region. The pre-
sence of only parts of the ‘Neo-
lithic package’ and their appea-
rance within an existing Meso-
lithic site suggests adoption
through social interaction and
exchange – probably ‘individu-
al frontier mobility’ (Tab. 1).
These cultural novelties were
not moving between Mesolithic
populations. Neither pottery
nor domestic animals are pre-
sent only 35 km away across
the Strait of Corfu in Late Meso-
lithic layers dating to ca. 6500–
6200 BC at Konispol Cave. It is
only with the appearance of Im-
pressed Ware that the Neolithic
starts to move in the region.
The earliest radiometrically da-
ted Impressed Ware appears at
Sidari Layer C top at about
6200 BC. There is little indica-
tion, however, of cultural conti-
nuity between this and the un-
derlying Layer C base; there is
a major stratigraphic and chro-
nological gap (ca. 300 years) be-
tween them. Impressed Ware at
Sidari is associated with the full
suite of domestic animals and
other changes in lithic techno-
logy and typology (Perlès 2001.49–50). The identity
of the inventors of Impressed Ware style remains elu-
sive. Were they from the indigenous population, who
perhaps acquired or invented new pottery making
techniques during the several centuries when they
were not occupying the site, or were these new immi-
grant agropastoralists from the southeast, who bro-
ught pottery with them? We doubt that there will be
a satisfactory answer to this question any time soon.
Rather, we think it is more productive to try to under-
stand how and why Impressed Ware started to move.
The coastal distribution of Impressed Ware sites and
their presence on most of the eastern Adriatic is-
lands, including a number of isolated islets far from
the mainland (Bass 1998; Forenbaher 1999), indi-
cates clearly that maritime communication was the
key ingredient of its dispersion. Seafaring was not
necessarily a Neolithic invention. There is indirect
evidence of pre-Neolithic (11th Millennium BC) sea-
faring from Franchthi Cave (Perlès 2001.28, 35), as
well as the Mesolithic colonisation of Corsica and
other Mediterranean islands during the early Holo-
cene (Costa et al. 2003).
The radiocarbon dates indicate that Impressed Ware
and domestic animals took less time to move almost
500 km up the Adriatic to the Middle Dalmatian is-
lands than they took to move 35 km across the Strait
of Corfu to Konispol Cave. The former pattern is
compatible with the model of ‘leapfrog maritime co-
lonisation’ by small seafaring communities (Zilhão
1993.37, 50; Zvelebil 2001.5), although the lack of
dated open-air sites (permanent villages) associated
with the earliest Impressed Ware in the southern
Adriatic undermines the fit. We may have early Neo-
lithic ‘colonists’ without evidence of their colonies.
Without more information about the Late Mesolithic
in the coastal region it is difficult to exclude an alter-
native hypothesis: that local Mesolithic foragers ac-
quired pottery and other innovations, and then dis-
persed them by sailing up and down the Adriatic.
Fig. 4. Model of the spread of farming and herding in the Eastern Ad-
riatic region. Black, solid lines: first phase of rapid ‘leapfrog coloniza-
tion’ associated with Impressed Wares. Grey lines: second phase of slow
‘agropastoral expansion’ associated with Impressed Wares. White lines:
third phase of ‘agropastoral expansion’ associated with Danilo/Vla∏ka
pottery. Black, dashed lines: adoption of herding and farming through
‘individual frontier mobility’.
The spread of farming in the Eastern Adriatic
97
Beyond the coastal strip in the southern Adriatic and
Albania, Impressed Ware and other innovations
were introduced through contact between agricultu-
ral and hunter-gatherer groups. Radiocarbon dates
suggest a piecemeal adoption of parts of the ‘Neo-
lithic package’ at Konispol, Odmut, Crvena Stijena,
and Zelena pe≤ina, slightly after the initial spread
of Impressed Ware up the Adriatic. Some of these
sites are located in areas unsuitable for agriculture,
in remote parts of the hinterland separated from the
coast by high mountain ranges; others overlook val-
leys with good agricultural potential. Only at Konis-
pol do we have detailed enough data to discuss the
process of adoption of pottery and domestic ani-
mals. Russell (1998.149) suggests that cattle were
relatively important in the transitional assemblages
at Konispol and that these animals may have been
provided to the hunter-gatherer inhabitants as bride-
wealth. Cattle and other domestic animals may have
also been important in feasts. Without further infor-
mation about the social contexts of consumption
and use of food and pottery, the process by which
these novel resources were adopted by the Mesoli-
thic hunter-gatherers remains vague. For the time
being, a variant of Individual Frontier Mobility would
appear to be the most likely process.
After 6000 BC, Impressed Ware made its way up the
northern Adriatic, reaching southern Istria by ca.
5750 BC. Along the way, our Impressed Ware pot-
ters started to live in open-air sites that look like
more permanent villages. Faunal assemblages, whe-
ther from caves or open-air sites, are dominated by
domestic animals. Direct evidence about plant foods
is scarce, although site locations show a preference
for land suitable for agriculture. Although the evi-
dence is patchy at best, we suggest that it is only at
this time that we have the assembly of the entire
‘Neolithic package’.
Why did the pace of pottery adoption change after
6000 BC? The northern Adriatic may have suppor-
ted larger and more successful groups of native hun-
ter-gatherers, who resisted the immigration of far-
mers. Some evidence for this model comes from the
large number of Mesolithic sites at the head of the
Adriatic, and the delay in the appearance of agricul-
ture in the region. On the other hand, the relative
population densities might have been reversed (re-
latively lower in the north and higher in the south),
suggesting that social leveling mechanisms in rela-
tively small indigenous populations in the northern
Adriatic undermined the acquisition and spread of
prestige items like pottery and domestic animals. Re-
gardless of whether Impressed Ware was carried by
migrating farmers or passed among resident hunter-
gatherers, the density and social organization of Late
Mesolithic people is key to our understanding of the
process.
A two-stage model of dispersal
We are thus proposing a two-stage model for the dis-
persal of Impressed Ware, in which there is an initial
stage of pioneer exploration followed by a later stage
of colonization (Fiedel & Anthony 2003). The first
stage occurs rapidly and is limited to the islands and
the coastal strip of the southern Adriatic. Rather than
establishing permanent settlements, these people
may have made short-term, seasonal camps in caves
and the open-air. They apparently brought domestic
animals with them, and may have seeded islands
with flocks in anticipation of future visits. The Im-
pressed Ware ‘pioneers’ rapidly explored the south-
ern Adriatic, establishing contacts with indigenous
hunter-gatherer groups in the hinterland, and pro-
bably relying on these native groups as a source of
information and perhaps marriage partners. The ini-
tial Impressed Ware occupations at Vela Spila and
Gudnja may be evidence of these first ‘scouts’.
During the second phase of Impressed Ware expan-
sion, settled farmers became established. There was
less reliance on native hunter-gatherers for informa-
tion and other resources, and in any case, those that
held on in the region had probably been decimated
by the loss of personnel to farming, disease, through
marriage, or conflict. Exceptions might have been
the hinterland of Montenegro, where important ele-
ments of the foraging lifestyle continued into the
Middle Neolithic (Crvena Stijena) or even Late Neo-
lithic (Odmut). Farming eventually reached the head
of the Adriatic about 5600 BC, now associated with
Middle Neolithic Danilo/Vla∏ka pottery.
Conclusion
Archaeological evidence suggests that immigration
played a major role in the introduction of farming
into the eastern Adriatic. This is not to say that this
was a one-sided affair in which indigenous foragers
were passive recipients. It must have been a com-
plex process that involved both the actual move-
ment of people and the active participation of the
local population. There is no reason to believe that
this process unfolded along identical lines through-
out the region. There is provocative evidence that
the transition to farming occurred in a two-stage pro-
Sta[o Forenbaher, Preston T. Miracle
98
cess. An initial stage of very rapid dispersal, perhaps
by exploratory parties along the coast in the south-
ern Adriatic, was followed by a second stage, dur-
ing which the eastern Adriatic littoral was probably
colonized by enclave-forming farming communities.
The hinterland, and perhaps also parts of the coast,
remained an agricultural frontier zone for a while.
This research was supported in part by the Ministry of
Science and Technology of the Republic of Croatia,
project MZT–0196004.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
AMMERMAN A. J., & BIAGI P. (eds.) 2003. The Widening
Harvest. The Neolithic Transition in Europe: Looking
Back, Looking Forward. Archaeological Institute of Ame-
rica, Boston.
AMMERMAN A. J., & CAVALLI-SFORZA L. L. 1973. A popu-
lation model for the diffusion of early farming in Europe.
In C. Renfrew (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change:
Models in Prehistory. Duckworth, London: 335–358.
1984. The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of
Populations in Europe. Princeton University Press.
Princeton.
BAGOLINI B. & VON ELES P. 1978. L’insedimento neoli-
tico di Imola e la corrente culturale ella ceramica impres-
sa nel medio e alto Adriatico. Preistoria Alpina 14: 33–63.
BARFIELD L. H. 1972. The first Neolithic cultures of North
Eastern Italy. In H. Schwabedissen (ed.), Die Anfänge des
Neolithikums vom Orient bis Nordeuropa. Teil VII: West-
liches Mittelmeergebiet und Britische Inseln. Böhlau
Verlag, Köln-Wien: 182–217.
BARKER G. 1985. Prehistoric Farming in Europe. Cam-
bridge University Press. Cambridge.
BARNETT W. K. 2000. Cardial pottery and the agricultural
transition in Mediterranean Europe. In T. D. Price (ed.),
Europe’s First Farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge: 93–116.
BASS B. 1998. Early Neolithic offshore accounts: remote
islands, maritime exploitations, and the trans-Adriatic cul-
tural network. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology
11(2): 165–190.
BATOVI≥ π. 1979. Jadranska zona. In M. Gara∏anin (ed.),
Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja, Vol. II: Neolitsko do-
ba. Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine,
Sarajevo: 473–634.
BELLWOOD P. & RENFREW C. (eds.) 2002. Examining
the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis. McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.
BENAC A. (ed.) 1979–1987. Praistorija Jugoslavenskih
Zemalja (5 Volumes). Svjetlost, Sarajevo.
BIAGI P. 1995. North Eastern Italy in the Seventh Mille-
nium BP: a Bridge between the Balkans and the West? In
The Vin≠a Culture, its Role and Cultural Connections.
Museum Banaticum Temesiense, Timisoara: 9–22.
BIAGI P. & SPATARO M. 2000. Plotting the evidence:
some aspects of the radiocarbon chronology of the Meso-
lithic-Neolithic transition in the Mediterranean Basin. Atti
della Societa per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Re-
gione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 12: 15–54.
BIAGI P. & STARNINI E. 1999. Some aspects of the neoli-
thization of the Adriatic region. Atti della Societa per la
Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia
Giulia 11: 7–17.
BIAGI P. & VOYTEK B. 1994. The Neolithisation of the
Trieste Karst in North-Eastern Italy and its neighboring
countries. Josza Andras Muzeum Evkonyve 36: 63–73.
BUDJA M. 1993. The Neolithisation of Europe: Slovenian
aspect. Poro≠ilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in ene-
olita v Sloveniji 21: 163–193.
1996. Neolithization in the Caput Adriae region: be-
tween Herodotus and Cavalli-Sforza. Poro≠ilo o razis-
kovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 23:
61–76.
1999. The transition to farming in Mediterranean Eu-
rope – an indigenous response. In M. Budja (ed.), 6th
Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 26: 119–
141.
2001. The transition to farming in southeast Europe:
perspectives from pottery. In M. Budja (ed.), 8th Neoli-
thic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 28: 27–47.
CHAPMAN J. C. 1988. Ceramic production and social diffe-
rentiation: the Dalmatian Neolithic and the Western Medi-
terranean. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 1/2:
3–25.
REFERENCES
∴∴
The spread of farming in the Eastern Adriatic
99
CHAPMAN J. C. & MÜLLER J. 1990. Early farmers in the
Mediterranean Basin: the Dalmatian evidence. Antiquity
64: 127–134.
CHAPMAN J., SHIEL R. & BATOVI≥ π. 1996. The Changing
Face of Dalmatia. Leicester University Press. London.
COSTA L., VIGNE J.-D., BOCHERENS H., DESSE-BERSET N.,
HEINZ C., DE LANFRANCHI F., MAGDELEINE J., RUAS M.-P.,
THIEBAULT S. & TOZZI C. 2003. Early settlement on Tyr-
rhenian islands (8th millennium cal. BC): Mesolithic adap-
tion to local resources in Corsica and northern Sardinia.
In L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Loeffler & A.
Åkerlund (eds.), Mesolithic on the Move. Papers presented
at the Sixth International Conference on the Mesolithic in
Europe, Stockholm 2000. Oxbow Books, Oxford: 3–10.
∞E∞UK B. & RADI≥ D. 2001. Vela ∏pilja – preliminarni re-
zultati dosada∏njih istra∫ivanja. In B. ∞e≠uk (ed.), Arheo-
lo∏ka istra∫ivanja na podru≠ju otoka Kor≠ule i Lasto-
va. Hrvatsko arheolo∏ko dru∏tvo, Zagreb: 75–118.
DIMITRIJEVI≥ S., MAJNARI≥-PANDΩI≥ N. & TEΩAK-GREGL
T. (eds.) 1998. Prapovijest. Naprijed, Zagreb.
FIEDEL S. J. & ANTHONY D. W. 2003. Deerslayers, path-
finders, and icemen. Origins of the European Neolithic as
seen from the frontier. In M. Rockman & J. Steele (eds.),
Colonization of Unfamiliar Landscapes: The Archaeo-
logy of Adaptation. Routledge, London: 144–168.
FORENBAHER S. 1999. The earliest islanders of the East-
ern Adriatic. Collegium Antropologicum 23: 521–530.
FORENBAHER S. & KAISER T. 1999. Grap≠eva spilja i ap-
solutno datiranje isto≠nojadranskog neolitika. Vjesnik za
arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 92: 9–34.
FORENBAHER S., KAISER T. & MIRACLE P. T. 2004. Pupi-
≤ina Cave pottery and the Neolithic sequence in Northeast-
ern Adriatic. Atti della Società per la preeistoria e proto-
storia della regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 14: 61–102.
FORENBAHER S. & MIRACLE P. T. 2006. Pupi≤ina Cave
and the spread of farming in the Eastern Adriatic. In P. T.
Miracle & S. Forenbaher (eds.), Prehistoric Herders in Is-
tria (Croatia): The Archaeology of Pupi≤ina Cave. Ar-
chaeological Museum of Istria, Pula, Volume 1: 483–530.
GILLI E. & MONTAGNARI KOKELJ E. 1992. La Grotta dei
Ciclami nel Carso Triestino (materiali degli scavi 1959–
1961). Atti della Societa per la Preistoria e Protostoria
della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 7: 65–162.
HARROLD F. B., KORKUTI M. M., ELLWOOD B. B., PETRU-
SO K. M. & SCHULDENREIN J. 1999. The Palaeolithic of
southernmost Albania. In G. N. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Pana-
gopoulou, C. Perlès & K. Zachos (eds.), The Palaeolithic
Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas: 361–372.
Proceedings of the ICOPAG Conference, Ioannina. British
School at Athens Studies 3, London.
JONES M. 2002. The Molecule Hunt. Penguin. London.
MARKOVI≥ ∞. 1985. Neolit Crne Gore. Centar za Arheo-
lo∏ka Istra∫ivanja Filozofskog Fakulteta u Beogradu, Knji-
ga 5, Beograd.
MILNER N., CRAIG O. E., BAILEY G. N., PEDERSEN K. & AN-
DERSEN S. H. 2004. Something fishy in the Neolithic? A
re-evaluation of stable isotope analysis of Mesolithic and
Neolithic coastal populations. Antiquity 78: 9–22.
MIRACLE P. T. 1997. Early Holocene foragers in the karst
of northern Istria. Poro≠ilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neo-
lita in eneolita v Sloveniji 24: 43–61.
2001. Feast or famine? Epipalaeolithic subsistence in
the northern Adriatic basin. In M. Budja (ed.), 8th Neo-
lithic Studies, Documenta Praehistorica 28: 173–196.
MIRACLE P. T. & FORENBAHER S. 2006. Excavations at
Pupi≤ina Cave. In P. T. Miracle & S. Forenbaher (eds.),
Prehistoric Herders in Istria (Croatia): The Archaeology
of Pupi≤ina Cave. Archaeological Museum of Istria, Pula,
Volume 1: 63–122.
MIRACLE P. T. & PUGSLEY L. 2006. Vertebrate faunal re-
mains at Pupi≤ina Cave. In P. T. Miracle & S. Forenbaher
(eds.), Prehistoric Herders in Istria (Croatia): The Ar-
chaeology of Pupi≤ina Cave, Volume 1: 259–400. Archa-
eological Museum of Istria, Pula.
MONTAGNARI KOKELJ E. 1993. The transition from Meso-
lithic to Neolithic in the Trieste karst. Poro≠ilo o razisko-
vanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 21: 69–83.
MÜLLER J. 1994. Das Ostadriatische Frühneolithikum:
Die Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adria-
raumes. Volker Spiess, Berlin.
PERLÈS C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece. Cam-
bridge University Press. Cambridge.
PESSINA A. & ROTTOLI M. 1996. New evidence on the ear-
liest farming cultures in northern Italy: archaeological and
palaeobotanical data. Poro≠ilo o raziskovanju paleolita,
neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 23: 77–103.
PLUCIENNIK M. 1997. Radiocarbon determinations and
the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Southern Italy. Jour-
nal of Mediterranean Archaeology 10: 115–150.
PRICE T. D. 2000. Europe’s first farmers: an introduction.
In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe’s First Farmers. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge: 1–18.
Sta[o Forenbaher, Preston T. Miracle
100
PRICE T. D., BURTON J. H. & BENTLEY R. A. 2002. Charac-
terization of biologically available Strontium isotope ratios
for the study of prehistoric migration. Archaeometry 44:
117–135.
RENFREW C. 1987. Archaeology and Language: The Puz-
zle of Indo-European Origins. Cape. London.
RICHARDS M. R., CORTE-REAL H., FORSTER P., MACAULAY
V., WILKINSON-HERBOTS H., DEMAINE A., PAPIHA S.,
HEDGES R., BANDELT H. -J. & SYKES B. 1996. Paleolithic
and Neolithic lineages in the European mitochondrial gene
pool. American Journal of Human Genetics 59: 186–
203.
RICHARDS M. R., MACAULAY V. & BANDELT H. -J. 2002.
Analyzing genetic data in a model-based framework: infe-
rences about European prehistory. In P. Bellwood & C.
Renfrew (eds.), Examining the Farming/Language Dis-
persal Hypothesis. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cam-
bridge: 459–466.
RICHARDS M. P., SCHULTING R. J. & HEDGES R. E. M.
2003. Sharp shift in diet at onset of Neolithic. Nature
424: 366.
ROWLEY-CONWY P. 1995. Making first farmers younger:
the West European evidence. Current Anthropology 36:
346–353.
RUSSELL N. 1998. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in
the faunal assemblage from Konispol Cave, Albania. In H.
Buitenhuis, L. Bartosiewicz, A. Choyke (eds.), Archaeozo-
ology of the Near East III. Groningen Institute of Archa-
eology, Groningen: 145–159.
SCHULDENREIN J. 1998. Konispol Cave, southern Alba-
nia, and correlations with other Aegean caves occupied in
the Late Quaternary. Geoarchaeology 13: 501–526.
SKEATES R. 1994. Towards an absolute chronology for
the Neolithic in Central Italy. In R. Skeates & R. White-
house (eds.), Radiocarbon Dating and Italian Prehistory.
British School at Rome, London: 61–72.
2000. The Social Dynamics of Enclosure in the neoli-
thic of the Tavoliere, South-east Italy. Journal of Medi-
terranean Archaeology 13(2): 155–188.
SORDINAS A. 1967. Radiocarbon dates from Corfu, Greece.
Antiquity 51: 64.
1969. Investigations of the Prehistory of Corfu during
1964–1966. Balkan Studies 10: 393–424.
SREJOVI≥ D. 1974. The Odmut Cave – a new facet of the
Mesolithic culture of the Balkan Peninsula. Archaeolo-
gia Iugoslavica 15: 3–7.
THOMAS J. 1999. Understanding the Neolithic. Rout-
ledge. London.
TRINGHAM R. 1971. Hunters, Fishers and Farmers of
Eastern Europe 6000–3000 BC. Hutchinson. London.
2000. Southeastern Europe in the transition to agricul-
ture in Europe: bridge, buffer, or mosaic. In T. D. Price
(ed.), Europe’s First Farmers. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge: 19–56.
TRUMP D. H. 1980. The Prehistory of the Mediterranean.
Allen Lane. London.
VELUπ∞EK A. 1997. Impreso keramika iz jame Pejca v La∏-
ci pri Nabre∫ini. Annales 10: 11–18.
WHITTLE A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic: the Creation
of New Worlds. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
2003. The Archaeology of People: Dimensions of
Neolithic Life. Routledge. London.
ZILHÃO J. 1993. The spread of agro-pastoral economies
across Mediterranean Europe: a view from the far west.
Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 6(1): 5–63.
2000. From the Mesolithic to Neolithic in the Iberian
peninsula. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe’s First Farmers:
144–182. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
ZOHARY D. 1996. The mode of domestication of the foun-
der crops of Southwest Asian agriculture. In D. R. Harris
(ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pasto-
ralism in Eurasia. UCL Press, London: 142–158.
ZVELEBIL M. 1986. Mesolithic societies and the transition
to farming: problems of time, scale and organisation. In
M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in Transition, Mesolithic So-
cieties in Temperate Eurasia and Their Transition to
Farming. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 167–
188.
2001. The Agricultural Transition and the Origins of
Neolithic Society in Europe. In M. Budja (ed.), 8th Neo-
lithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 28: 1–26.
2002. Demography and the dispersal of early farming
populations at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition: lin-
guistic and genetic implications. In P. Bellwood & C.
Renfrew (eds.), Examining the Farming/Language
Dispersal Hypothesis. McDonald Institute Monographs,
Cambridge: 379–394.
ZVELEBIL M. & LILLIE M. 2000. Transition to agriculture
in eastern Europe. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe’s First Far-
mers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 57–92.
