Trans-Adriatic Contacts and The Transition of Farming
Trans-Adriatic Contacts and The Transition of Farming
Institute for Anthropological Research, Ljudevita Gaja street 32, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia;
[email protected]
Abstract
This contribution discusses the evidence of trans-Adriatic contacts that was recovered from remote Adriatic islands, as well as the
origin of extraneous lithic raw materials from those islands and from other eastern Adriatic sites, while drawing on the currently
available radiocarbon-dated sequences and paleogeographic reconstructions. Since the Last Glacial Maximum, trans-Adriatic
connectivity passed through three major phases that are separated by two key transitional events: the rapid expansion of the
by land across the exposed Adriatic Plain, there is evidence of fairly regular contacts. During the second phase, contacts between
the opposing shores of a much expanded Adriatic Sea were minimal or nonexistent. After the arrival of farming, there is abundant
and varied evidence of regular trans-Adriatic contact. This suggests that the connectivity of the Adriatic Late Pleistocene and
Early Holocene hunter-gatherers was mostly land-based. The onset of full-time maritime connectivity coincided with the arrival
of farming.
Keywords: Adriatic, connectivity, Pleistocene, Holocene, navigation, early farming
Table 1. Vlakno: frequency of raw material categories by phase (based on data from Vukosavljević et al.,
2014:tables 9, 16, 23, 30, 37 and 44)
Table 2. Kopačina: frequency of raw material categories by phase (based on data from Vukosavljević and Perhoč,
2017:table 5)
Islands are obvious places to look for evidence While personal ornaments made of Columbella
of maritime mobility. Most of the Adriatic islands shells were commonly used by Late Upper
were part of the mainland at the time of the Last Paleolithic and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in the
Glacial Maximum, and only became detached wider region (Komšo and Vukosavljević, 2011;
during the Early Holocene (Forenbaher, 2002:362- Vujević and Bodružić, 2013; Cristiani et al.,
365). They still lie close to the mainland, separated 2014; Vukosavljević and Karavanić, 2015), they
from it by channels just a few kilometers wide also have been recovered from later prehistoric
that can be crossed without advanced maritime contexts in Dalmatia (Kukoč, 2012:182-183,
technology or extensive navigational knowledge.
The Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic (Perlès, 2016). A single pierced Columbella
remains recovered from those islands therefore rustica therefore cannot be regarded as conclusive
do not imply that the people who left them behind proof of Late Pleistocene or Early Holocene visits
possessed major seafaring capabilities. to that remote island.
Of more interest for our discussion are less Archaeological evidence of marine food re-
than a dozen relatively small and remote islands sources exploitation represents another potential
that became islands early on and were harder to source of information about maritime mobility. It
reach. The timing of their separation from the should be noted, however, that while the neces-
Trans-Adriatic contacts and the transition to farming 31
and maritime travel partially overlap, their social and sea mammals that may have washed up on
context and motivation for their practice are very the shore (Čečuk and Radić, 2005:53). Since
different. Fishing therefore does not necessarily mackerel schools sometimes move near to the
lead to development of seafaring, nor vice versa shore, where they can be netted from small boats,
(Rainsford et al., 2014:317-319). neither of these seems to indicate systematic
Most of the Impressed Ware sites are Dalmatia. Another century later, after Impressed
located on Adriatic islands, along the coasts, Ware had been replaced by Danilo-style pottery
or within a narrow strip of hinterland. Their around 5,600 BC (Forenbaher and Miracle, 2006),
distribution suggests that, like elsewhere in the farming spread across the Friuli Plain to the Alpine
Mediterranean, the sea was the main avenue foothills (Ferrari and Pessina, 1999).
along which immigrants, domesticates, sedentary Archaeozoological and archaeobotanical
lifestyles, and other innovations were dispersed studies suggest a fairly common scenario
(Broodbank, 2006:214; Forenbaher and Kaiser, for those early farming communities. Faunal
assemblages are dominated by ovicaprids, with
Adriatic farming villages were founded at the
very end of the seventh millennium BC in milk-meat husbandry (Miracle and Pugsley,
southern Italy (Skeates 2003:169), where the large 2006; Legge and Moore, 2011; Radović, 2011),
Tavoliere Plain provided an unusually favorable which is further supported by residue analyses
natural setting for early agriculture. Initial of ceramic vessels (Debono Spiteri et al., 2016;
leapfrogging of the less attractive southeastern McClure et al., 2018). Cattle and pigs are
end of the Italian Peninsula may be seen as an present but relatively infrequent, while hunting
expected consequence of maritime colonization
(Zvelebil and Lillie, 2000:62). to the diet. Domesticated plants dominate the
Around 6,000 BC, domesticates and other archaeobotanical record, with an emphasis on
innovations spread across much of the Adriatic wheat and barley (Pessina and Rottoli, 2007:
McClure and Podrug, 2016; Reed and College,
(Forenbaher and Miracle, 2014:238). That initial 2016). It remains to be seen whether these early
farming period would have been marked by farmers practiced a fully sedentary lifestyle,
mobility and exploration, since any migration as the relatively substantial remains of some of
must have been preceded by information the northern Dalmatian villages may suggest
gathering about destinations of potential interest (Batović, 1961; Chapman et al., 1996; Brusić,
(Anthony, 1990:899-901; 1997:23-24; Rockman, 2008; Marijanović, 2009; Legge and Moore,
2003). The incoming farmers in search of new 2011; McClure and Podrug, 2016). Presence of
land may have negotiated with autochthonous herders on high coastal mountain ranges suggests
hunter-gatherers while bringing only selective that at least a part of the population practiced
elements of the new subsistence strategy. At seasonal mobility (Forenbaher, 2011).
some point in time, almost the entire Adriatic
may have become an agricultural frontier zone
(sensu Zvelebil and Lillie, 2000:64-67) within TRANS-ADRIATIC INTERACTION
which new domesticates, technologies, practices, DURING AND AFTER TRANSITION
and knowledge were embraced selectively by the TO FARMING
autochthonous communities before their eventual
full transition to farming. Various scenarios Like elsewhere in the Mediterranean (Broodbank,
probably played out simultaneously. 2013), maritime travel takes off in the Adriatic at
At the beginning of the sixth millennium BC, the time of transition to farming. From that time
onwards, the evidence of trans-Adriatic contacts
becomes abundant and diverse.
villages were founded on the eastern Adriatic coast One may begin with pottery, a time-honored
(Legge and Moore, 2011; McClure and Podrug, category of archaeological evidence that has
2016). They appeared in northern Dalmatia, been intensely studied for many decades. The
a region that, after Tavoliere, is best suited for characteristically decorated Impressed Ware
agriculture. From there, the next area towards the (Fig.5) is almost universally regarded as the
northwest with substantial agricultural potential signature style of the Adriatic Early Neolithic
is Istria. Farming villages were founded in (Batović, 1979; Müller, 1994; Fugazzola Delpino
southern Istria a couple of centuries after those in et al., 2002). While the Impressed Ware style is
34 Stašo Forenbaher
Fig. 5. Characteristically decorated Impressed Ware potsherds: 1-4 early Impressed Ware; 5-7 later Impressed
Ware; 8, 9 ‘Guadone style’ sherds (1, 2 Palagruža; 3, 5, 6, 9 Nakovana; 4 Žukovica; 7, 8 Vela)
quite homogeneous across the region, it is not pottery technology arrived from the southern
uniform. Variability ranges from the uniqueness
of each vessel to the family resemblance of widely use a few centuries earlier (Perlès, 2001:99, 210-
separated assemblages (Robb, 2007:181). Isolated 20). There is no indication, however, that a well-
potsherds from the opposite sides of the Adriatic
can be indistinguishable, even though chemical with the pottery technology. Until recently, a
and petrographic characterization has indicated group of potsherds from Sidari, an open-air site
that they were produced and consumed locally located just south of the Strait of Otranto on
(Spataro, 2002). Shapes and sizes of individual the island of Corfu, was considered the earliest
impressions and the ways they are combined into
motifs and designs are often identical. Certain on a single radiocarbon date (Sordinas, 1967;
1969), was brought into doubt by reinvestigation
with microrocker design known as ‘Guadone
style’ (Tinè, 2002:139-144; Radić, 2012:183- dated layer was created by a series of erosional
185), appear simultaneously in places that are and depositional events. A new radiocarbon date
wide apart. This pan-Adriatic stylistic unity from an undisturbed Impressed Ware context
cannot be explained away as unrelated accidental (Berger et al., 2014) is roughly contemporary
with the earliest dates from the farming villages
continuing contacts among the potters from the of southern Italy. The concentration of early
opposing Adriatic shores. Impressed Ware sites in the Tavoliere Plain points
The earliest Impressed Ware vessels do not to that region as the most likely place of its origin.
look like products of experimenting beginners. Impressed Ware pottery could have spread
Rather, they suggest that an already perfected from southern Italy to the eastern Adriatic
Trans-Adriatic contacts and the transition to farming 35
shore by the way of Otranto, western Albania the loess-covered Tremiti offered relatively
and southern Montenegro, but the supporting good opportunities for continuous agricultural
evidence is absent. Radiocarbon dates from
southeastern end of Italy are younger than those and Tremiti include evidence of herding (sheep
from the Tavoliere (Skeates, 2003), and not a and goat bones), agriculture (blades with sickle
single radiocarbon date is available from the few gloss, broken ground stone axes), exploitation
Impressed Ware sites located in the coastal zone of marine resources (mollusk shells, bones of
between northern Greece and southern Dalmatia
(Marković, 1985; Bunguri, 2014; Allen and activities, building of drystone structures (Sušac),
Gjipali, 2014:108). Another route would have and burial of the deceased (Tremiti), suggesting
led from Gargano via the mid-Adriatic ‘island permanent or semi-permanent settlement.
bridge’ (Bass, 1998; Forenbaher, 2009; Kaiser The recently completed petrographic analyses
and Forenbaher, 2016) to the islands of middle of the lithic artifacts from Palagruža and Sušac
and southern Dalmatia. The earliest radiocarbon have shown that most of them were not made
dates, which are slightly earlier in Apulia than in of the locally available cherts (Kaiser and
Dalmatia, are in agreement with that proposition. Forenbaher, 1999:316; Perhoč and Altherr, 2011),
This brings us to the archaeological record but almost exclusively of Gargano cherts (Perhoč,
of the few small and remote Adriatic islands. We 2018). Furthermore, the current analyses of more
have seen that none of those islands have yielded than two dozen Dalmatian Neolithic assemblages,
conclusive evidence of Late Upper Paleolithic or including substantial ones from well-known
Mesolithic visitors. This changes abruptly around sites such as Danilo (Korošec, 1958; Moore et
year 6,000 cal BC, when many of them are al., 2007a), Smilčić (Batović, 1961), Pokrovnik
visited or colonized by early farmers (Bass, 1998; (Moore et al., 2007b; Brusić, 2008), Crno Vrilo
Kaiser and Forenbaher, 2002:103; Forenbaher, (Marijanović, 2009), Velištak (Podrug, 2010),
2009). The evidence from three key islands and Rašinovac (McClure and Podrug et al., 2016),
of the mid-Adriatic island bridge is especially point to an abrupt and decisive shift from eastern
suggestive. The relatively fertile miniature Adriatic to western Adriatic lithic raw materials
archipelago of Tremiti (Fusco, 1965; Cornaggia (Perhoč, pers. comm.). Raw materials for most of
Castiglioni, 1968; Fumo, 1980), the marginally the lithic artifacts from those sites were imported
inhabitable Sušac (Bass, 1998:168-171), and from Gargano. An extreme example is Nakovana
the islet of Palagruža, which is too small and
remote for settlement (Forenbaher and Kaiser, site with a sequence that begins with the Early
2011; Forenbaher, 2018), yielded Early Neolithic Neolithic and ends with the arrival of the Romans.
Impressed Ware pottery and thousands of lithic Gargano cherts were used at Nakovana to the
artifacts. The evidence is abundant and covers exclusion of the locally available cherts from the
longer periods on Tremiti and Sušac, the islands beginning until the time when lithic artifacts went
that, aside from being stepping stones for trans- out of use (Forenbaher and Perhoč, 2017). It is
Adriatic travel, provide a limited possibility of now clear that the lithic raw material procurement
settlement. It is much scarcer and covers a shorter strategies changed dramatically throughout the
period on Palagruža, a strategically located islet region with the arrival of farming, and that those
with severely limited resources. This corresponds new strategies depended on regular trans-Adriatic
well with the situation where travel is undertaken travel.
primarily in search of places to settle. Of particular interest is the reliance on Gargano
The duration of Neolithic ‘settlement’ cherts from the very beginning of the Neolithic.
of the three most remote Adriatic islands This may suggest that the farmers were recent ar-
correlates with the abundance of their terrestrial rivals, not yet possessing the necessary locational
resources (Forenbaher, 2018:111). On the tiny knowledge (Rockman, 2003:4-5, 19). Put simply,
Palagruža, these would have been depleted
almost immediately, on the much larger Sušac their tools. Instead, they brought it with them
they would have lasted somewhat longer, while from the sources with which they were familiar,
36 Stašo Forenbaher
from the outcrops located in the area from which The Gargano Peninsula is one of the few
they came. The earliest Adriatic farming villages well-studied lithic raw material procurement
were located in the Tavoliere, in the close neigh- areas in the central Mediterranean (Tarantini and
borhood of Gargano (Skeates, 2003:169, 184). Galiberti, 2011). Dozens of prehistoric mines
The Tavoliere Neolithic villagers probably were have been recorded in its chert-bearing rock
responsible for the excavation and exploitation formations, most of which are located in the
of the Gargano chert mines (Tarantini, 2011:102- Scaglia, Maiolica, and Peschici formations near
103). The domination of Gargano cherts in the the peninsula’s northeastern coast. Over the last
earliest Dalmatian farming contexts therefore sup- few decades, Defensola and several other mining
ports the hypothesis that migration played an im- sites have been explored extensively. A series of
portant role in the spread of farming from Apulia 27 radiocarbon dates from those sites suggests
to Dalmatia (Forenbaher and Miracle, 2014). that chert mining began soon after 6,000 BC and
On the other hand, the persistent dominant continued over the next four millennia, until the
use of Gargano cherts cannot be explained by a Early Bronze Age (Muntoni and Tarantini, 2011).
lack of knowledge of local sources, because such Relying on the complexity and sophistication
locational knowledge can be gained quickly and of the mining technology, Tarantini (2011:99-
easily (Rockman, 2003:4-5). It might be explained 102) proposed that this activity was carried
in part by their extraordinary technical quality, out intermittently by part-time specialists or
which is of decisive importance in production of specialized communities that controlled access
prismatic blades (Fig.6), a new and likely foreign to the mines. In the decentralized world of
technology (Guilbeau, 2011:96-97) that appeared autonomous farming villages, ‘specialization’ in
in the Adriatic together with farming. To the best production may have been essentially an aspect
of our knowledge, cherts of comparable quality of personal identity (Robb and Farr, 2005:39)
are not available anywhere between Gargano and rather than a formal division of labor.
the Carpathian basin.
Over the next four millennia, prismatic blades an important center of production that provided
and blade segments were widely used as sickle prismatic blades to much of southern Italy
elements (Mazucco et al., 2018), but little is (Guilbeau, 2010:41-116). Dalmatia apparently
known about the geographic location and social belonged to the same production region, but
context of their production. Cores from which comprehensive analyses of at least a few more
such blades are detached tend to be shaped at or large assemblages will have to be completed
near the chert source, in order to avoid transport before that hypothesis can be corroborated.
Again, some degree of craft specialization may
material, while blades may be struck from cores be presumed (Guilbeau, 2012), but the crucial
later and at a different location. There is some parameters needed for its assessment, such as
evidence of the latter in southern Italy, where concentration, scale, intensity, and social context
the lithic assemblage from the Neolithic village of production, as well indirect indicators such as
of Masseria Candelaro contained substantial
amounts of blade extraction debris, but very little and error rates (Costin, 1991; Forenbaher, 1999:
evidence of initial core shaping (Tarantini, 2011: 11-19) remain largely unknown.
104). In contrast, characteristic waste produced The extraordinary quality of Gargano
during blade extraction, such as exhausted cherts, however, does not explain why the
or mangled cores, overshot blades, and core simple expedient tools were rarely made from
rejuvenation elements, are exceptionally rare at the serviceable local cherts. On the contrary,
Dalmatian sites (Forenbaher, 2006:107; 2018:71- at many Dalmatian sites, ad hoc production of
73; Korona, 2009:150; Forenbaher and Perhoč,
2017:200), and the waste from initial shaping relied on Gargano cherts. At this point, one
of such cores is even less common. It seems, should remember that satisfying utilitarian needs
therefore, that most of the prismatic blades is just one reason for the existence of trade
and exchange. The practical value of objects
Trans-Adriatic contacts and the transition to farming 37
Fig. 6. Prismatic blades and blade segments made of Gargano cherts, recovered from Palagruža
38 Stašo Forenbaher
exchanged over great distances is not always 96). In many traditional forms of exchange, the
obvious. For instance, bladelets made of Liparian object itself was less important than the social
obsidian (Fig.7) that appear in low frequencies relationships that it created or symbolized. In
in many eastern Adriatic Middle Neolithic sites such circumstances, the main promoter of trade
(Tykot, 2011; 2017a) travelled at least 500 km was the need for social communication (Robb and
(or 800 km, if they arrived by sea). They had a Farr, 2005:24; Farr, 2006:96). Perhaps the true
very short use-life, limited by the brittleness of value and purpose of the persistent trans-Adriatic
their unusually sharp edges, which dulled much exchange of Gargano cherts was to maintain
more quickly than the tough edges of chert social networks that linked the small farming
blades. Rather than being valued as practical communities scattered around the Adriatic shores
implements, obsidian bladelets may have been and islands. Its importance is proclaimed by the
appreciated primarily as symbols of the journey, fact that it continued over a very long period,
the knowledge, skill, and risk that had been despite major changes in prehistoric societies,
undertaken (Farr, 2006:89, 96). which in the meantime were transformed from
This brings us to another, equally important autonomous, unranked villages to a mosaic of
role of exchange, which is the creation and competing polities led by rival elites.
maintenance of social relationships that rely on
exchange mechanisms (Mauss, 2002 [1925]:91-
TECHNOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL
UNDERPINNINGS OF MARITIME
CONNECTIVITY
Who were the early Adriatic seafarers? Were who, to take. Knowledge of the communities
the incoming farmers introducing the navigational living along the way and communication with
knowledge, skills and technology together with those communities in order to secure drinking
the other elements of the ‘Neolithic package’? water, food and shelter must have been of crucial
Or, did the autochthonous hunter-gatherers importance for the successful completion of a
already possess all of those prerequisites, plus long sea journey. Travelling season was limited
the knowledge of local geography and weather by weather conditions and probably also by the
conditions? freedom to leave one’s home, since the extended
As we have seen, the evidence in support of absences of seafarers had to be reconciled with
the schedule of farming activities (Robb and Farr,
regularly plied the coastal waters in pursuit of 2005:26, 27; Farr, 2006:93-96).
mackerel, but they rarely ventured upon long- To which extent might Mesolithic seafaring
distance maritime journeys. A certain extent have assisted the spread of farming into the
of individual and small-group mobility would Adriatic? Due to the scarcity of evidence for
have existed among hunter-gatherers and Mesolithic long-distance maritime travel and
among farmers as a part of the normal social interaction networks, it would be hard to argue
process (Robb and Miracle, 2007:106-107), that diffusion through such networks led to the
but their motives for travel would have been acculturation of hunter-gatherers. While one
different. Mobility of Holocene hunter-gatherer should expect some autochthonous contribution
bands would have been seasonal, cyclical, and to the local navigational knowledge, the
logistically organized, whereas groups of farmers maritime mode of dispersion indicates that the
would have traveled with the aim of permanent arrival of farming and the upswing of seafaring
resettlement (Broodbank and Strasser, 1991:239- were simultaneous and combined (Broodbank,
242; Broodbank, 2006:217). Everything we know 2006:215, 217).
about the early Adriatic farmers suggests that they
lived in small communities, usually consisting
of several dozen people (Robb, 2007:40-42). CONCLUSION
The economic resources and organizational
capabilities of such communities would have Since the Last Glacial Maximum, trans-Adriatic
allowed them to build and muster a miniature connectivity passed through three major phases
that are separated by two key transitional events:
animals and pots full of seeds, and, relying on the rapid expansion of the Adriatic Sea, and the
the knowledge acquired during reconnaissance, transition to farming.
launch into the adventure of farming colonization.
In contrast to the lightly equipped hunter- Bølling-Allerød warm period (c. 12,000 cal BC),
gatherers who could have achieved maritime at which time the Adriatic Sea began to expand
mobility fairly easily, farmers faced much greater rapidly northwestwards. During that phase, the
risks, since they had to transport domestic animals opposite sides of the Adriatic Basin would have
and enough grain to last them until the next been connected by land across the exposed
harvest (Broodbank and Strasser, 1991:239-242). Adriatic Plain. Raw material composition of the
Their potentially dangerous journeys required earliest analyzed lithic assemblages suggests
skillful boat handling in various conditions and fairly regular contacts during the late part of that
over extended periods, and sound knowledge phase. The evidence is still unavailable for earlier
of winds, currents, and marine and land-based times, but that should change as the current
landmarks (Broodbank, 2006:210, 216). In petrographic research is brought to fruition.
addition to this knowledge, which was essential The second phase lasted roughly from the
for orientation and for following the course Bølling-Allerød warm period (c. 12,000 cal BC)
during navigation, preparatory knowledge had to until the arrival of farming (c. 6,000 cal BC),
be obtained about desirable destinations, about covering the end of the Late Upper Paleolithic
when to go and how to go, and what, and possibly and the entire Mesolithic. The available evidence
40 Stašo Forenbaher
REFERENCES
by lithic raw material composition, is slight and
often unreliable. At best, it hints at minimal ALLEN S.E. and GJIPALI I. 2014. New Light
contacts between the opposing shores of a much on the Early Neolithic Period in Albania: The
expanded Adriatic Sea. Southern Albania Neolithic Archaeological Project
The third phase begins with the arrival (SANAP), 2006-2013. In: L. Perzhita, I. Gjipali,
of farming (c. 6,000 cal BC). From that time G. Hoxha, and B. Muka (eds.) Proceedings of the
onwards, there is abundant and varied evidence International Congress of Albanian Archaeological
of regular trans-Adriatic contact. Aside from the Studies, 107-119. Center for Albanian Studies,
Impressed Ware pottery and the Gargano cherts, Institute of Archaeology, Tirana:
which represent the mainstay of Dalmatian AMMERMAN A.J. and CAVALLI-SFORZA L.L.
Neolithic and Copper Age lithic industries, the 1984. The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of
small quantities of Liparian obsidian that appear Populations in Europe. Princeton University Press,
in many eastern Adriatic Neolithic sites also Princeton.
would have arrived across the Adriatic. A variety ANTHONY D.W. 1990. Migration in Archaeology: The
pottery styles Baby and the Bathwater. American Anthropologist
that span the Adriatic testify of further interaction 92, 895–914.
networks. While pottery styles diverge, and ANTHONY D.W. 1997. Prehistoric Migration as a
obsidian imports cease soon after year 5,000 BC, Social Process. In: J.C. Chapman and H. Hamerow
Gargano cherts continue to arrive at least until the (eds.) Migrations and Invasions in Archaeological
end of the third millennium BC. Explanation. BAR International Series 664, 21–32.
In conclusion, the connectivity of the Adriatic British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.
Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene hunter- BASS B. 1998. Early Neolithic Offshore Accounts:
gatherers seems to have been mostly land-based. Remote Islands, Maritime Exploitations, and
There is only sporadic evidence of their venturing the Trans-Adriatic Cultural Network. Journal of
across the open sea. In this region, like elsewhere Mediterranean Archaeology 11(2), 165–190.
in the Mediterranean, the onset of full-time BASS B. 2004. The Maritime Expansion of Early
maritime connectivity coincided with the arrival Neolithic Agro-pastoralism in the Eastern Adriatic
of farming. During the millennia that followed, Sea. Ati della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria
both means and motives for trans-Adriatic della regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 14, 45–60.
maritime travel changed, as paddle-propelled BASS B. 2008. Early Neolithic Communities in South-
boats gave way to sailing ships, while the aims ern Dalmatia: Farming Seafarers or Seafaring
shifted from colonization to maintenance of social Farmers? European Journal of Archaeology 11,
networks to elite legitimization and, eventually, 245–265.
to integration of early historic empires. Intensity BATOVIĆ Š. 1961. Neolitsko nalazište u Smilčiću.
of contact surely was not always the same, but Diadora 2, 31–116.
there is evidence for it is from all post-Mesolithic BATOVIĆ Š. 1975. Le relazioni tra la Daunia e la
periods, up to and continuing into the modern age. sponda orientale dell'Adriatico nell'eta del ferro.
In: Civilta' preistoriche e protostoriche della
Daunia, Atti del Colloquio Internazionale (Foggia
Acknowledgments 1973), Istituto italiano di preistoria e protostoria,
Firenze, 149–157.
Research for this paper was supported in part by BATOVIĆ Š. 1979. Jadranska zona. In: A. Benac (ed.),
the Ministry of Science and Education, Republic Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja II. Neolitska
of Croatia, project #196-1962766-2740, ‘Culture doba. Akademija Nauka i Umjetnosti Bosne i Her-
Change and Dynamics of Archaeological cegovine, Sarajevo, 473–635.
Populations in the Eastern Adriatic’. BATOVIĆ Š. 1984. Le relazioni tra i Balcani e l'Italia
meridionale in Eta' Neolitica. In: P. Graziosi (ed.)
Rapporti tra i Balcani e l'Italia meridionalenell'Eta'
Neolitica. Academia dei Lincei, Roma, 5–27.
Trans-Adriatic contacts and the transition to farming 41
FORENBAHER S. 2006. Neolithic Flaked Stone In- FUSCO V. 1965. Resti di un insedimento neolitico
dustries of the Eastern Adriatic: the Assemblages nell'isola di S. Domino alle Tremiti. Atti della X
from Pupićina and Grapčeva Caves. Atti della So- -
cietà per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione storia e Protostoria, Verona 21-23 novembre 1965,
Friuli-Venezia Giulia 15, 81–116. Verona, 71–90.
FORENBAHER S. 2009. Archaeological Record of GAFFNEY V. and KIRIGIN B. 2006. The Archaeo-
the Adriatic Offshore Islands as an Indicator of logical Heritage of Vis, Biševo, Svetac, Palagruža
Long-Distance Interaction in Prehistory. European and Šolta. BAR International Series 1492, Ar-
Journal of Archaeology 11, 223–244. chaeopress, Oxford.
FORENBAHER S. 2011. Shepherds of a Coastal GUILBEAU D. 2010. Les grandes lames et les lames
Range: the Archaeological Potential of the Vel- par pression au levier du Néolithique et de l’Énéo-
ebit Mountain Range (Eastern Adriatic). In: M. lithique en Italie. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Uni-
van Leusen, G. Pizziolo, and L. Sarti (eds.) Hid- versité Paris Ouest, Paris.
den Landscapes of Mediterranean Europe. BAR GUILBEAU D. 2011. Le début du néolithique en Italie
International Series 2320. Archaeopress, Oxford, méridionale: ce que nous disent les productions en
113–121. silex du Gargano. Origini 33, 83–106.
FORENBAHER S. 2018. Special Place, Interesting GUILBEAU D. 2012. Distribution du silex du Garga-
Times: The island of Palagruža and transitional pe- no (sud-est de l’Italie) entre 5600 et 4500 bc: des
riods in Adriatic prehistory. Archaeopress, Oxford. productions spécialisées dans un environnement
FORENBAHER S. and KAISER T. 2005. Palagruža contrasté. Rubricatum 5, 111–117.
and the spread of farming in the Adriatic. In N. JURAČIĆ M., NOVOSEL A., TIBLJAŠ D. and
Phoca-Cosmetatou (ed.) BALEN D. 2004. Jabuka Shoal, a New Location
islanders: initial occupation and survival strate- with Igneous Rocks in the Adriatic Sea. Geologia
gies. University of Oxford School of Archaeology, Croatica 57, 81–85.
Oxford, 99–113. KAISER T. and FORENBAHER.S. 1999. Adriatic
FORENBAHER S. and MIRACLE P.T. 2005. The Sailors and Stone Knappers: Palagruža in the 3rd
Spread of Farming in the Eastern Adriatic. Millennium B.C. Antiquity 73, 313–324.
Antiquity 79, 514–528. KAISER T. and FORENBAHER.S.2002. Krajicina
FORENBAHER S. and MIRACLE P.T. 2006. Pupići- spilja i brončano doba otoka Visa. Opuscula
na Cave and the Spread of Farming in the East- archaeologica 26, 99–110.
ern Adriatic. In: P.T. Miracle and S. Forenbaher KAISER T. and FORENBAHER.S.2016. Navigating
(eds.) Prehistoric Herders of Northern Istria: The the Neolithic Adriatic. In: K. Lillios and M. Chaz-
Archaeology of Pupićina Cave, Vol. 1. Arheološki an (eds.) Fresh Fields and Pastures New: Papers
muzej Istre, Pula, 483–519. presented in honor of Andrew T. Moore. Sidestone
FORENBAHER S. and MIRACLE P.T. 2014. Transi- Press, Leiden, 145–164.
tion to Farming in the Adriatic: a View from the KOMŠO D. 2008. The Mesolithic in Croatia. Opuscula
Eastern Shore. In: C. Manen, T. Perrin and T.J. archaeologica 30, 5–91.
Guilaine (eds.) La transition néolithique en Médi- KOMŠO D. 2016. The Mesolithic in Croatia. In: D.
terranée. Editions Errance, Arles, 233–240. Davison, V. Gaffney, P.T. Miracle and J. Soafer
FORENBAHER S. and PERHOČ Z. 2017. Lithic As- (eds.) Croatia at the Crossroads: A consideration
semblages from Nakovana (Croatia): Raw Material of archaeological and historical connectivity.
Procurement and Reduction Technology from Ear- Archaeopress, Oxford, 33–57
ly Neolithic until the End of Prehistory. Journal of KOMŠO D. and VUKSAVLJEVIĆ N. 2011. Connect-
Mediterranean Archaeology 30, 189–211. ing coast and inland: Perforated marine and fresh-
FUGAZZOLA DELPINO M.A., PESSINA A. and water snail shells in the Croatian Mesolithic. Qua-
TINÉ V. 2002. Le ceramice impresse nel Neolitico ternary International 244: 117–125.
antico: Italia e Mediterraneo. KORBAR T. 2013. Palagruža – Diomedov otok za-
Zeca dello Stato, Roma. gonetne geološke prošlosti. Available at: http://
FUMO P. 1980. La Preistoria delle Isole Tremiti. Enne, astrogeo.geoinfo.geof.hr/pelagosa_arhipelag/?pa-
Campobasso. ge_id=53/ [Accessed 7 April 2019].
Trans-Adriatic contacts and the transition to farming 43
KORBAR T., MONTANARI A., KOCH G., MARIA- (6th millennium cal BC). Journal of Anthropologi-
NI S., DEPAOLO D.,TURCHYN A.V., MIKINIĆ cal Archaeology 51, 88–103.
M. and TARI V. 2009. Geologic reconnaissance MCCLURE S.B. and PODRUG E.. 2016. Villages,
of the island of Velika Palagruža (central Adriatic, Landscapes, and Early Farming in Northern Dal-
Croatia). Geologia Croatica 62(2), 75–94. matia. In: K. Lillios and M. Chazan (eds.) Fresh
KORONA M. 2009. Kremeni artefakti/Flint artifacts. Fields and Pastures New: Papers presented in hon-
In: B. Marijanović (ed.), Crno Vrilo 2. Sveučilište u or of Andrew T. Moore. Sidestone Press, Leiden,
Zadru, Odjel za Arheologiju, Zadar, 145–218. 117–144.
KOROŠEC J. 1958. Neolitska naseobina u Danilu MCCLURE S.B., MAGILL C., PODRUG E., MOORE
Bitinju. Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjet- A.M.T, HARPER T.K., CULLETON B.J., KEN-
nosti, Zagreb. NETT D.J. and FREEMAN K.H. 2018. Fatty acid
KUKOČ S. 2012. Spondylus gaederopus u neolitičkim
kulturama na istočnom Jadranu. Histria Antiqua cheese production 7,200 years ago. PLoS ONE
21, 177–202. 13(9), 1–15.
LAMBECK K., ANTONIOLI F., PURCELL A. and MIRACLE P.T. 2007. The Late Glacial 'Great Adriatic
SILENZI S. 2004. Sea-Level Change along the Plain': 'Garden of Eden' or 'No Man's Land' during
Italian Coast for the Past 10,000 yr. Quaternary the Epipaleolithic? A View from Istria. In R. Whal-
Science Reviews 23, 1567–1598. lon (ed.), Late Paleolithic Environments and Cul-
LAMBECK K., ROUBY H., PURCELL A., SUN Y. tural Relations around the Adriatic. BAR Interrna-
and SAMBRIDGE M. 2014. Sea level and global tional Series 1716, Archaeopress, Oxford, 41–51.
ice volumes from the Last Glacial Maximum to the MIRACLE P.T. and O'BRIEN C.J. 1998. Seasonality
Holocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of of Resource Use and Site Occupation at Badanj,
Science 111(43), 15296–15303. Bosnia-Herzegovina: Subsistence Stress in an
LEGGE T. and MOORE A. 2011. Clutching at Straw: Increasingly Seasonal Environment? In: T.R.
the Early Neolithic of Croatia. In: A. Hadjikoumis, Rocek and O. Bar-Yosef (eds.) Seasonality and
E. Robinson and S. Viner (eds.) The Dynamics Sedentism: Archaeological Perspectives from Old
of Neolithisation in Europe: Studies in Honour and New World Sites. Peabody Museum, Harvard,
of Andrew Sherratt. Oxbow Books, Oakville, 41–74.
176–195. MIRACLE P.T. and PUGSLEY L. 2006. Vertebrate
MARIJANOVIĆ B. 2004. Transjadranska trgovina u Faunal Remains from Pupićina Cave. In: P.T. Mir-
neolitiku. Histria Antiqua 12, 103–107. acle and S. Forenbaher (eds.) Prehistoric Herders
MARIJANOVIĆ B. 2009. Crno vrilo 1. Sveučilište u of Northern Istria: The Archaeology of Pupićina
Zadru, Odjel za Arheologiju, Zadar. Cave, Vol. 1. Arheološki muzej Istre, Pula, 259–399.
MARKOVIĆ Č. 1985. Neolit Crne Gore. Filozofski MOORE A., MENĐUŠIĆ M., SMITH J. and PODRUG
fakultet, Beograd. E.. 2007a. Project "Early Farming in Dalmatia":
MAROVIĆ I. 1975. I tumuli di Bajagić (Dalmazia). Danilo Bitinj 2004-2005. Vjesnik Arheološkog
In: Civiltà preistoriche e protostoriche della Dau- muzeja u Zagrebu 40, 3rd series, 15–24.
nia, Atti del Colloquio Internazionale, Foggia MOORE, A., MENĐUŠIĆ M., SMITH J., ZANI-
1973. Istituto italiano di preistoria e protostoria, NOVIĆ J. and PODRUG E. 2007b. Project "Early
Firenze, 245–246. Farming in Dalmatia": Pokrovnik 2006. Vjesnik ar-
MATHIESON I., REICH D., and 115 others. 2018. The heološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 40, 3rd series, 25–34.
genomic history of southeastern Europe. Nature MOSCOLONI M. 1991. Conelle di Arcevia e i suoi
555, 197–203. rapporti con la penisola Balcanica. Origini 15,
MAUSS M. 2002. The Gift: The Form and Reason for 255–266.
Exchange in Archaic Societies. Routledge, London. MÜLLER J. 1994. Das Ostadriatische Frühneolithi-
MAZZUCCO, N., GUILBEAU D., KAČAR S., PO- kum: Die Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung
DRUG E., FORENBAHER S., RADIĆ D. and des Adriaraumes. Volker Spiess, Berlin.
MOORE A.M.T. 2018. The time is ripe for a MUNTONI I. and TARANTINI M. 2011. La
change: The evolution of harvesting technologies cronologia delle miniere di selce del Gargano nel
in Central Dalmatia during the Neolithic period quadro della Preistoria recente dell’Italia sud-
44 Stašo Forenbaher
orientale. In: M. Tarantini and A. Galiberti (eds.) International Series 2037, Archaeopress, Oxford,
Le miniere di selce del Gargano, VI-III millennio 13–24.
a.C. Alle origini della storia mineraria europea. RADIĆ D. 2012. Materijalna kultura srednjeg
Rassegna di archeologia, preistorica a protostorica neolitika na otocima srednjeg i južnog Jadrana.
24/A(2009-2011). All’Insegna del Giglio, Borgo Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Sveučilište u Zagrebu,
San Lorenzo, 41–49. Zagreb.
PERHOČ Z. 2009. Sources of Chert in Middle RADIĆ D. and LUGOVIĆ B. 2004. Petrographic
Dalmatia: Supplying Raw Material to Prehistoric and Geochemical Correlation between Artifacts
Lithic Industries. In: S. Forenbaher (ed.) A from the Mesolithic Layers of Vela Spila and the
Connecting Sea: Maritime Interaction in Adriatic Magmatic Rocks of Central Dalmatian Islands.
Prehistory. BAR International Series 2037, Opuscula archaeologica 28, 7–17.
Archaeopress, Oxford, 25–45. RADOVIĆ S. 2011. Ekonomija prvih stočara na istoč-
PERHOČ Z. 2018. Origin of the raw material for nom Jadranu: Značenje lova i stočarstva u preh-
Special rani neolitičkih ljudi. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,
Place, Interesting Times: The island of Palagruža Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Zagreb.
and transitional periods in Adriatic prehistory, Ar- RAINSFORD C., O’CONNOR T. and MIRACLE
chaeopress, Oxford, 55–71. P.T. 2014. Fishing in the Adriatic at the Meso-
PERHOČ Z. and ALTHERR R. 2011. Litički nalazi s lithic–Neolithic transition: Evidence from Vela
toka Sušca. Opuscula archaeologica 35, 7–39. Spila, Croatia. Environmental Archaeology 19,
PERHOČ Z. and RUKA R. 2017. Potential Prehistoric 211–320.
Sources of Chert in the Western Lowland of RECCHIA G. 2002. I siti costieri garganici e i loro rap-
Albania. In: L. Përzhita, I. Gjipali, G. Hoxha, and B. porti transmarini nell'età del Bronzo. In N. Negroni
Muka (eds.) New Archaeological Discoveries in the (ed.), Paesaggi d'acque, Atti del V Incontro di Studi
Albanian Regions, Vol. 1. Botimet Albanologjike, "Preistoria e Protostoria in Etruria", Sorano-Piti-
Tirana, 33–65. gliano-Farnese 2000, 331–342. Milano.
PERLÈS C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece: The REED K. and COLLEDGE S. 2016. Plant Economies
First Farming Communities in Europe. Cambridge in the Neolithic Eastern Adriatic: Archaeobotani-
University Press, Cambridge. cal Results from Danilo and Pokrovnik. Vjesnik za
PERLÈS C. 2016. Modern reference collections of arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 109, 9–23.
Columbella rustica from Greece. The Arkeotek RICHARDS M R., MACAULAY V. and BANDELT
Journal 1. Available at: http://www.thearkeotek- H.-J. 2002. Analyzing genetic data in a model-
journal.org/tdm/Arkeotek/fr/articles_originaux based framework: inferences about European
/4Perles.xml [Accessed 7 April 2019]. prehistory. In: P. Bellwood and C. Renfrew (eds.)
PESSINA A. and M. ROTTOLI. 2007. Neolithic Agri- Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal
culture in Italy: an update of archaebotanical data Hypothesis. McDonald Institute for Archaeological
with particular emphasis on northern settlements. Research, Cambridge, 459–466.
In: S. Colledge and J. Connoly (eds.) The origins ROBB J. 2007. The Early Mediterranean Village:
and spread of domestic plants in Southwest Asia Agency, material culture, and social change in
and Europe. University College of London Press, Neolithic Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University
London, 1411–1454. Press.
PETRIĆ N. 1980. Komunikacije u prethistoriji Jadra- ROBB J. and FARR R.H. 2005. Substances in Motion:
na. Materijali Saveza arheoloških društava Ju- Neolithic Mediterranean "Trade". In: E. Blake and
goslavije 16, 21–42. A. B. Knapp (eds.) The Archaeology of Mediterra-
PODRUG E. 2010. Čista mala – Velištak: the First nean Prehistory. Blackwell, Oxford, 24–45.
Three Excavation Campaigns at a Hvar Culture ROBB J. and MIRACLE P.T. 2007. Beyond 'Migration'
Site. Diadora 24, 7–25. Versus 'Acculturation': New Models for the Spread
RADIĆ D. 2009. The Beginnings of Trans-Adriatic of Agriculture. Proceedings of the British Academy
Navigation: A View from Vela Spila Cave (Korčula 144, 99–115.
Island). In: S. Forenbaher (ed.) A Connecting Sea: ROCKMAN M. 2003. Knowledge and Learning in the
Maritime Interaction in Adriatic Prehistory. BAR Archaeology of Colonization. In: M. Rockman and
Trans-Adriatic contacts and the transition to farming 45
J. Steele (eds.) Colonization of Unfamiliar Land- change? In: A. Vianello (ed.) Exotica in the Prehi-
scapes: The archaeology of adaptation. Routledge, storic Mediterranean. Oxbow, Oxford, 33–44.
London, 3–24. TYKOT R.H. 2017. Obsidian Studies in the Prehistoric
ROWLEY-CONWY P. 2003. Early Domestic Animals Central Mediterranean: After 50 Years, What Have
in Europe: Imported or Locally Domesticated? In: We Learned and What Still Needs to Be Done?
A.J. Ammerman and P. Biagi (eds.) The Widening Open Archaeology 3, 264–278.
Harvest. Archaeological Institute of America, Bo- VUJEVIĆ D. and BODRUŽIĆ M. 2013. Mesolithic
ston, 99–117. communities of Vlakno Cave. Diadora 26/27:
SKEATES R. 2003. Radiocarbon Dating and Interpre- 9–30.
tations of the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in VUKOSAVLJEVIĆ N. and KARAVANIĆ I. 2015.
Italy. In A. J. Ammerman and P. Biagi (eds.) The Kasnogornjepaleolitički i mezolitički ukrasi od
Widening Harvest. Archaeological Institute of probušenih morskih i slatkovodnih puževa iz špilje
America, Boston, 157–187. Zale. In: N. Vukosavljević and I. Karavanić (eds.)
SPATARO M. 2002. The First Farming Communities Arheologija špilje Zale: Od paleolitičkih lovaca
of the Adriatic: Pottery production and circulation skupljača do rimskih osvajača. Katedra Čakavskog
in the Early and Midle Neolithic. Edizioni Svevo, sabora Modruše, Modruš, 157–174.
Trieste. VUKOSAVLJEVIĆ N. and Z. PERHOČ. 2017. Lithic
SORDINAS A. 1967. Radiocarbon dates from Corfu, raw material procurement of the Late Epigravettian
Greece. Antiquity 51, 64. hunter-gatherers from Kopačina Cave (island of
SORDINAS A. 1969. Investigations of the Prehisto- Brač, Dalmatia, Croatia). Quaternary International
ry of Corfu during 1964-1966. Balkan Studies 10, 450, 164–185.
393–424. VUKOSAVLJEVIĆ N., PERHOČ Z, ČEČUK B., and
TARANTINI M. 2011. Dinamiche storiche e aspetti KARAVANIĆ I. 2011. Late Glacial knapped stone
socio-economici dell’estrazione mineraria della industry of Kopačina Cave. Vjesnik za arheologiju
selce sul Gargano: dati, ipotesi, questioni. In: M. i povijest dalmatinsku 104, 7–54.
Tarantini and A. Galiberti (eds.) Le miniere di selce VUKOSAVLJEVIĆ N., PERHOČ Z. and ALTHERR
del Gargano, VI-III millennio a.C. Alle origini R. 2014. Pleistocene-Holocene Transition in the
della storia mineraria europea. Rassegna di Vlakno Cave on the Island of Dugi Otok (Dalma-
archeologia, preistorica a protostorica 24/A(2009- tia, Croatia) – Lithic Perspective. Prilozi Instituta
2011). All’Insegna del Giglio, Borgo San Lorenzo, za arheologiju u Zagrebu 31, 5–72.
99–107 ZAMAGNI B. 2006. Gli ornamenti su conchiglia dal
TARANTINI M. and GALIBERTI A. (eds.) 2011. sito neolitico di Ripa Tetta (Foggia). In: Atti della
Le miniere di selce del Gargano, VI-III millennio
a.C. Alle origini della storia mineraria europea. scambi nella preistoria italiana: nel cinquantenario
Rassegna di archeologia, preistorica a protostorica della fondazione dell'Istituto italiano di Preistoria
24/A(2009-2011). All’Insegna del Giglio, Borgo e Protostoria (Firenze 25-27 novembre 2004),
San Lorenzo Vol. 2. Istituto italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria,
TINÈ V. 2002. Le facies a ceramica impressa dell'Italia Firenze, 975–978.
meridionale e della Sicilia. In: M.A. Fugazzola ZEDER M.A. 2008. Domestication and early agricul-
Delpino, A. Pessina, and V. Tiné (eds.) Le ture in the Mediterranean Basin: Origins, diffusion,
ceramiche impresse nel Neolitico Antico: Italia e and impact. Proceedings of the National Academy
Mediterraneo. of Science 105, 11597–11604.
Stato, Roma, 132–165. ZOHARY D. and Hopf M. 1993. Domestication of
TRINGHAM R.E. 2000. Southeastern Europe in the Plants in the Old World: The Origin and Spread
Transition to Agriculture in Europe: Bridge, Buf- of Cultivated Plants in West Asia, Europe, and the
fer, or Mosaic? In: T.D. Price (ed.) Europe’s First Nile Valley (2nd edition), Oxford University Press,
Farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Oxford.
19–56. ZVELEBIL M. 2002. Demography and the Dispersal
TYKOT R.H. 2011. Obsidian Finds on the Fringes of of Early Farming Populations at the Mesolithic-
the Central Mediterranean: Exotic or Eccentric Ex- Neolithic Transition: Linguistic and Genetic
46 Stašo Forenbaher
Implications. In: P. Bellwood and C. Renfrew ZVELEBIL M. and LILLIE M. 2000. Transition to
(eds.) Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Agriculture in Eastern Europe. In: D.T. Price (ed.)
Hypothesis. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Europe’s First Farmers. Cambridge University
Research, Cambridge, 379–394. Press, Cambridge, 57–92.