A Connecting Sea: Maritime Interaction in Adriatic Prehistory 9781407306148, 9781407335650

Citation preview

BAR S2037 2009

A Connecting Sea: Maritime Interaction in Adriatic Prehistory

FORENBAHER (Ed)

Edited by

Stašo Forenbaher

A CONNECTING SEA

B A R

BAR International Series 2037 2009

A Connecting Sea: Maritime Interaction in Adriatic Prehistory Edited by

Stašo Forenbaher

BAR International Series 2037 2009

ISBN 9781407306148 paperback ISBN 9781407335650 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407306148 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Table of Contents Contributors Preface Acknowledgment 1 The Relationship Between the Middle Palaeolithic Sites in the Zadar Hinterland and the Zadar Islands Dario Vujević

ii iii vi 1

2

The Beginnings of Trans-Adriatic Navigation: A View from Vela Spila Cave (Korčula Island) Dinko Radić

13

3

Sources of Chert in Middle Dalmatia: Supplying Raw Material to Prehistoric Lithic Industries Zlatko Perhoč

25

4

Prehistoric Cultural Connections in Northeastern Adriatic Regions Identified by Archaeometric Analyses of Stone Axes Federico Bernardini, Emanuela Montagnari Kokelj and Anton Velušček

47

5

The First Specialised Potters of the Adriatic Region: The Makers of Neolithic Figulina Ware Michela Spataro

59

6

Adriatic Offshore Islands and Long-Distance Interaction in Prehistory Stašo Forenbaher

73

7

Seafarers and Land-Travellers in the Bronze Age of the Northern Adriatic Elisabetta Borgna and Paola Càssola Guida

89

8

Albanian Coastal Settlement from Prehistory to the Iron Age Ols Lafe and Michael L. Galaty

105

9

An Overview of Prehistoric and Early Historic Settlement, Topography, and Maritime Connections on Lastovo Island, Croatia Philippe Della Casa, Bryon Bass, Tea Katunarić, Branko Kirigin and Dinko Radić

113

10

Palagruža - The Island of Diomedes - and Notes on Ancient Greek Navigation in the Adriatic Branko Kirigin, Alan Johnston, Marko Vučetić and Zvonimir Lušić

137

i

Contributors Bryon Bass, Department of Prehistory, University of Zürich, Karl-Schmid-Str. 4, 8006 Zürich, Switzerland ([email protected]) Federico Bernardini, Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità dell’Università degli Studi di Trieste, Via del Lazzaretto Vecchio 6, 34123 Trieste, Italy ([email protected]) Elisabetta Borgna, Dipartimento di Storia e Tutela dei Beni Culturali, Università di Udine, Vicolo Florio 2, 33100 Udine, Italy ([email protected]) Paola Càssola Guida, Dipartimento di Storia e Tutela dei Beni Culturali, Università di Udine, Vicolo Florio 2, 33100 Udine, Italy ([email protected]) Philippe Della Casa, Department of Prehistory, University of Zürich, Karl-Schmid-Str. 4, 8006 Zürich, Switzerland ([email protected]) Stašo Forenbaher, Institute for Anthropological Research, Gajeva 32, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia (staso. [email protected]) Michael L. Galaty, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Millsaps College, 1701 North State Street, Jackson, Mississippi, 39210, United States of America ([email protected]) Alan Johnston, Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY, United Kingdom ([email protected]) Tea Katunarić, Department of Ancient History of Art, University of Split, 21000 Split, Croatia (tea@umas. hr) Branko Kirigin, Archaeological Museum Split, Zrinsko-Frankopanska 25, 21000 Split, Croatia (branko. [email protected]) Ols Lafe, Albanian Ministry of Tourism, Culture, Youth and Sports, Directorate of Tourism and National Culture, Coordination Unit of Tourism and National Culture, Rruga e Kavajës, Tirana 1000, Albania ([email protected]) Zvonimir Lušić, Faculty of Maritime Studies, Zrinsko-Franskopanska 38, 21000 Split, Croatia (zlusic@ pfst.hr) Emanuela Montagnari Kokelj, Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità dell’Università degli Studi di Trieste, Via del Lazzaretto Vecchio 6, 34123 Trieste, Italy ([email protected]) Zlatko Perhoč, Hans-Sachs-Ring 128, 68199 Mannheim, Germany ([email protected]) Dinko Radić, Centar za kulturu Vela Luka, Arheološka zbirka, 20270 Vela Luka, Croatia ([email protected]) Michela Spataro, Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY, United Kingdom (e-mail: [email protected]) Anton Velušček, Inštitut za arheologijo Znanstvenoraziskovalnega centra SAZU, Novi Trg 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia ([email protected]) Marko Vučetić, Meteorological and Hydrological Service, Grič 3, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia (mvucetic@ cirus.dhz.hr) Dario Vujević, Department of Archaeology, University of Zadar, Obala kralja Petra Krešimira IV 2, 23000 Zadar, Croatia ([email protected])

ii

Preface The Adriatic is something of a stepchild of Mediterranean archaeology. General discussions of either the ‘eastern Mediterranean’ or the ‘western Mediterranean’ often neglect it, even though it is located right between those two regions. One can think of several reasons for this state of affairs. For many decades, the Adriatic has been relatively under-represented in international professional literature, while much about it has been written in local languages that few other people could read. This easily leads to fragmented or even parochial views. To take an example, we tend to think of ‘Italian prehistory’ or ‘Balkans prehistory’, in the teeth of the evidence clearly showing that the Adriatic Sea connected, rather than divided. Without discarding the previous two terms, we also should be talking about ‘Adriatic prehistory’, but that is more easily said then done, given the modern-day national borders. The Adriatic is sometimes considered as a less interesting back alley of the main Mediterranean east-to-west thoroughfare, destined to play a secondary role in Mediterranean prehistory. One can easily argue, however, for its extraordinary strategic importance. The Adriatic Sea is the northernmost arm of the Mediterranean, a large, elongated gulf extending deep towards the heartland of Europe. From the straits of Otranto, it stretches for 800km to Venice, reaching the latitude of almost 46°N in the Gulf of Trieste. Hemmed in between the Balkans and peninsular Italy, with its head in the Alpine foothills and its foot pointing towards the Aegean, the Adriatic touches different worlds. Researchers of the Adriatic prehistory have long realized that the Adriatic Sea was a medium of communication rather than a barrier. The archaeological record indicates that the coastal regions on opposite sides of the Adriatic often had more in common with each other than with their hinterlands. Whilst the Adriatic is a relatively small and enclosed sea, travelling across its waters still presented serious hazards. Complex skills and technologies, as well as extensive knowledge, were essential for safe and successful passages. Some of these issues have been addressed anew by recent work, both above and below the waterline, challenging our time-honoured notions of when, how and why the people living on the Adriatic shores took to the sea. Six countries (Croatia, Italy, Albania, Montenegro, Slovenia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina) control various lengths of the Adriatic coastline. Most of us know much about ‘our own’ part of the Adriatic, but not enough about the other parts. Wishing to transcend the modern barriers and bring the Adriatic specialists from different countries together, we organized a symposium entitled ‘A Connecting Sea: Maritime Interaction in Adriatic Prehistory’ at the 13th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists, held at Zadar, Croatia, on September 18th-23rd, 2007. This volume is the immediate result of that symposium. Eight of its ten chapters are based on oral presentations given at the EAA meetings in Zadar. Exceptions are contributions that make up Chapters 5 and 10, which were not delivered as talks at Zadar, but were later written specifically for this book. The topics cover the period from the Middle Palaeolithic to the end of prehistory as signalled by Greek colonization. During this period, the Adriatic region witnessed several episodes of radical transformation, including the Holocene transgression, which effectively created the Adriatic Sea as we know it today, the transition from foraging to farming, and the emergence of social elites. The central underlying issue, addressed by most of the authors, is the role that maritime communication played in those momentous events. The opening contribution by Vujević is something of an exception, since it discusses the times when the northern half of the Adriatic Basin was dry land. It presents some of the earliest evidence of human presence in the region, attributable to the Middle Palaeolithic, and investigates the relationship between the open-air sites on what is today mainland and those on present-day islands. The evidence suggests that highly mobile Neanderthal groups utilized large, contiguous areas of land that existed during periods of depressed sea levels. Radić discusses long-term trends in intensity of maritime interaction. He begins by presenting the earliest evidence of open-sea navigation in the Adriatic, attributable to the Mesolithic. Setting out from his own recent research at Vela Spila Cave, he touches upon a series of hot topics of Adriatic prehistory, such as the transition to farming, the Neolithic polychrome painted wares, and the transformations that marked the

iii

transition from the Copper Age to the Bronze Age. His diachronic overview of trans-Adriatic contacts is spiced by a number of provocative hypotheses and interpretations. Perhoč presents partial results of his long-term field project of locating and characterizing chert outcrops in the eastern Adriatic, which eventually will provide much-needed information about availability, variability and distribution of that important prehistoric raw material. For the moment, he does not attempt to link chert artefacts to specific sources of lithic raw material, which should inform us directly about long-distance conacts. It is already clear, however, that cherts of workable quality were widely available almost throughout the region. Bernardini, Montagnari Kokelj and Velušček investigate how distribution of ground stone artefacts made of metamorphic and igneous rocks may inform us about long-distance connections. Based on the archaeometric data on stone axes, they argue that, during the earlier part of the Neolithic, the northeastern Adriatic was integrated into long-distance exchange systems that used mainly the eastern Adriatic coastal route. From the 4th millennium BC onwards, a more complex exchange network emerged, which now embraced the Eastern Alps and the Northern Balkans. Spataro discusses results of compositional analyses of Neolithic pottery from both sides of the Adriatic. Comparisons between the everyday pottery and the fine figulina wares, and among figulina shards from different regions, suggest that these fine wares were produced by specialised artisans and distributed on a regional scale, rather then across the entire Adriatic basin. This would imply an economic and social shift taking place at the time of transition from the Early to the Middle Neolithic. Forenbaher explores the role of small, remote islands in long-distance maritime communication. He argues that the prehistoric record of such islands may be used as a proxy measure of long-distance interaction. A survey of the available evidence suggests that the most isolated Adriatic islands were frequently visited and intensively used during the Early Neolithic and the final Copper Age. We know from other sources that migration and/or intensive long-distance interaction characterized those periods. Borgna and Càssola Guida analyse the evidence for sea travelling during the final Copper Age and the Early Bronze Age. In particular, they discuss the function of northern Adriatic monumental architecture in the making of coastal landscapes, and its possible role in change and innovation in seafaring. The 3rd millennium BC exchange network, which reached to the southern Adriatic and Greece, may have been based on a directional pattern and controlled by individual agents. By the early 2nd millennium, a network of maritime mobility was in place that involved large-scale enterprises at a community level, enhanced by a public ideology supporting large labour-expenditure and communal participation. Lafe and Galaty argue that cultural change in Albania implicates coastal settlement and access to Adriatic trade in all periods of prehistory leading up to the Iron Age. They offer a diachronic overview of coastal settlement and trade, and track trade connections between coastal and interior regions. Those connections initially were forged for social and economic reasons, but by the Iron Age, access to foreign goods gained great political importance. Della Casa, Bass, Katunarić, Kirigin and Radić report results of their recent field survey and subsurface archaeological testing on the island of Lastovo in southern Dalmatia. Their research represents the initial effort to compile a multi-period archaeological and geographical data base for the island, which is then used to detect settlement patterns, illustrate settlement trends from prehistory through Roman times, carry out viewshed analysis, analyze inter-site visibility, define dominant site positions on the island, and explore the relationships between sites and sea routes, cultivable land, or other contemporaneous sites. Finally, setting out from the tiny offshore islet of Palagruža, Kirigin, Johnston, Vučetić and Lušić investigate how geography, sea currents and weather patterns constrained the Adriatic navigation at the dawn of history. They discuss social, economic and technological underpinnings of Ancient Greek maritime travel, as well as the knowledge that must have been involved. While this contribution deals primarily with the early historic times, much of its content is clearly pertinent to our thinking about prehistoric navigation in the Adriatic. In order to avoid misunderstandings, a formal detail remains to be clarified. Several contributors to this volume refer to ‘Cetina style’, ‘Cetina pottery’ or ‘Cetina Culture’, a phenomenon roughly contemporary with, and related to, the Bell Beakers of central and western Europe. Clearly important, but still poorly

iv

understood and only fuzzily dated, ‘Cetina’ apparently marked the second half of the 3rd and the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC in the eastern Adriatic, with extensions into some of its neighbouring regions. There is no consensus among different scholars whether those times should be considered as the Late Copper Age (Late Eneolithic) or the Early Bronze Age (e.g., Marović and Čović 1983; Govedarica 1989; Della Casa 1995; Marijanović 1997; Nicolis 1998; Kaiser and Forenbaher 1999). In order to avoid what, in my view, is a rather barren controversy, terminological consistency was not insisted upon in this instance. Consequently, in some contributions the reader will encounter the ‘Late Copper Age Cetina’ and in others the ‘Early Bronze Age Cetina’; she should bear in mind that they are one and the same. Two years ago, when we convened at Zadar for our symposium, our intention was to bring into focus the oft-neglected Adriatic archaeology, to propose and discuss new ideas about its place in European prehistory, and to present some of the recently recovered data. Unsurprisingly, authors of different chapters within this volume disagree about details and sometimes offer mutually incompatible interpretations. In consequence, this book opens more questions then it provides answers, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. I hope that discordant views and unresolved issues will lead to a continuing discussion and maybe a sequel not too far in the future. Stašo Forenbaher Zagreb, September 2009 References Della Casa, Ph. 1995. The Cetina Group and the Transition from Copper to Bronze Age in Dalmatia. Antiquity 69, 565-576. Govedarica, B. 1989. Rano bronzano doba na području istočnog Jadrana. Sarajevo: Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja. Kaiser, T. and Forenbaher, S. 1999. Adriatic Sailors and Stone Knappers: Palagruža in the 3rd Millenium B.C. Antiquity 73, 313-324. Marijanović, B. 1997. Cetinska kultura - rana faza, samostalna kultura ili integralni dio eneolitika. Radovi, Filozofski fakultet u Zadru, Razdio povijesnih znanosti 36(23), 1-8. Marović, I. and Čović, B. 1983. Cetinska kultura. In Čović, B. (ed.), Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja, Vol.4. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetosti Bosne i Hercegovine, 191-231. Nicolis, F. 1998. Un nuovo aspetto ceramico tra età del Rame e età del Bronzo nell’Italia settentrionale. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 49, 447-468.

v

Acknowledgment Editorial work on this volume was supported by the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports of the Republic of Croatia, project # 196-1962766-2740.

vi

1 The Relationship Between the Middle Palaeolithic Sites in the Zadar Hinterland and the Zadar Islands

Dario Vujević This paper explores possible connections between the Middle Palaeolithic open air sites in the Zadar hinterland, which have been referred to in the literature by the general term ‘Ražanac’, and the sites on the islands of Dugi Otok and Molat. These sites correspond closely according to raw material choice, as well as typological and technological characteristics. All of them are open-air sites near raw material sources. Relations among the sites indicate a wide area of mobility, with findspots that should not be studied as a series of separate sites, but as a system (or several systems) of interrelated sites, consisting of hunting camps, raw material procurement camps and base camps. Keywords: Middle Paleolithic, Mousterian, open air sites, Ražanac, Veli rat, Zadar

Introduction

deposits extending in the direction of the Dinaric strike (NW‑SE), with a general decline towards the north-west (Magaš 1999: 19). Ridges are usually low, with only a few peaks rising above 200m, though their width is relatively small.

The Zadar region, which provides geographical framework for this paper, is situated in the center of the Croatian coast. Its southern boundary consists of an archipelago of islands, while the plains of Ravni Kotari and a number of ridges arranged within a relatively small area between Ražanac, Ljubač, Poljica and Slivnica constitute its hinterland.

Islands have similar geological structure as the mainland. Limestone and dolomites have been shaped into different relief forms by karstification processes and sea abrasion. Just like the mainland, they extend in the direction of the Dinaric strike (NW‑SE). Channels and straits were formed by post-Pleistocene sea transgression, so that the islands stand out as series of parallel ridges forming a unified region (Džaja 2003: 7).

This region is exceptionally rich in Middle Palaeolithic finds, which have been recovered from the area between Ražanac, Nin and the Zadar islands (Dugi otok, Molat and Pag). Field surveys were carried out more than once, revealing many open-air sites, none of which were excavated systematically. Finds from the Zadar hinterland were published on several occasions, grouped under the general term ‘Ražanac’, but without comprehensive analyses results (Batović 1965, 1973, 1988; Malez 1967; Chapman et al. 1996). Finds from the island of Dugi otok are much better known, as Šime Batović and Mirko Malez wrote several articles about them (Batović 1973, 1988, 1993; Malez 1967, 1975). A number of new sites have been discovered recently, mainly thanks to amateur archaeologists who have been systematically collecting material from those sites for years. Because of that situation, sites were surveyed on several occasions and amateur collections were analysed (Martinov 2006; Vujević 2007).

The island of Dugi otok is the largest of the Zadar islands and the richest in archaeological sites. Its backbone is a characteristic longitudinal spur, with the highest peak at Vela straža (338m a.s.l.). It forks and bifurcates into several parallel spurs, valleys and peninsulas, especially at its south-eastern end. At both ends, there are deep bays between these spurs (Batović 1993: 93-94; Džaja 2003: 13). The island’s flanks are quite steep, and the sea is relatively deep around almost the entire island. Exact information about this region’s climate during the Middle Palaeolithic is not available, but the existing research indicates that climatic conditions were favourable even during the coldest periods. One of the indicators supporting such an assumption is an uninterrupted formation of dripstones, which depends upon the existence of running water and corresponding plants on the surface (Surić 2006: 171-172). Such climatic conditions would

Like the rest of the eastern Adriatic coast, in geological terms, the Zadar hinterland consists mainly of limestone rock and different flysch deposits (Roglić 1962: 5). It comprises an interchange of parallel synclines and anticlines, as a part of the regional complex of IstrianDalmatian folds, consisting of a series of gently undulated 1

Dario Vujević

Figure 1. Middle Palaeolithic sites.

have made this region habitable for human populations throughout the Middle Palaeolithic.

So far, only open-air sites are known. Not a single cave has yielded Middle Palaeolithic finds, but we expect that to change in the future. The nearest cave with Middle Palaeolithic finds is Velika pećina in Kličevica near Benkovac, the excavation of which has started only recently (Karavanić and Ćondić 2006). Mala pećina, situated next to it, has not been excavated, but surface finds suggest that it may have been used during the Palaeolithic. Finds from the cave Vlakno on the island of Dugi otok are also promising. Recent excavations revealed Upper Palaeolithic tools dated to 20,000 years BP, but according to Zdenko Brusić, lower layers may yield Middle Palaeolithic findings (Brusić 2005). If it reveals Middle Palaeolithic finds, it may provide answers to many questions about relations among sites on the Zadar islands. Besides this one, there are several other caves on the islands that may have been visited by humans (Batović 1973: 8).

Currently, about thirty Middle Palaeolithic sites are known in the Zadar region, most of them located in the wider area of Radovin, Ljubač and Nin (Figure 1). I believe that these sites are not unrelated. Rather, they are parts of one or several mobility systems of the Middle Palaeolithic huntergatherer groups, extending from the Velebit Mountain to the islands. Some of them were campsites, others were temporary hunting camps, and still others were located at the sources of raw material where some of the tools were made, which is attested by flint knapping waste. Mainly, these are open-air sites, situated close to raw material sources, and containing artefacts that are typologically and technologically similar. Distances between them are not great and they correspond to distances related to local material procurement in other European regions. That suggests even more strongly the possibility of their being a part of a single mobility system.

The Zadar hinterland Chert is the type of raw material that was used most often 2

The Middle Palaeolithic Sites in the Zadar Hinterland at all sites. Considerable part of the artefacts were made of chert pebbles that can be found in conglomerates of the Promina deposits, which are easily observable in the region between Posedarje and Slivnica, and also can be found in numerous gullies. Groups that inhabited the region preferred small pebbles, although bigger packages of chert and limestone were used as well. The rest of the artefacts were made of low-quality raw materials, such as inferior kinds of chert or chert replacements, characterized by light yellow colour, sometimes with visible fossil foraminifera.

were made on flakes, almost half of them being cortical, which is a consequence of accessible raw material. Tools were regularly retouched on dorsal side, usually only along the edges, but there are some examples with retouch covering the entire dorsal side. Most of those can be classified as limaces or bifacial foliates. All usual platform types are represented: flat, dihedral, cortical and facetted. Flat platforms are the most numerous, and presence of cortical platforms depends on usage of small pebbles on specific sites. The percentage of facetted platforms is usually small. Typical types of Mousterian retouch, stepped and scaled, are both represented.

Besides the source of raw material at Mataci, discovered by the Neothermal Dalmatia Project (Chapman et al. 1996: 18), most of the sites are situated in areas with great concentration of raw material. They include Radovin – Debelo brdo, Radovin – Trodrage, Podvršje – Šibenička glava, Kneževići – Bojana, Veršići, Visočane – Vlačine and Pajići – Krug (Vujević 2007: 44). Some of them were recognized as prehistoric sites because they yielded some retouched flakes in addition to the raw material, although the amount of raw material is always much greater than the number of obvious artefacts.

Four sites yielded micro-Levallois cores, which shows that Neanderthal groups were able to adjust and apply a complex technique to low-quality raw materials of small dimensions. Such cores were found at the sites of Veršići, Kneževići, Grgurice, and Visočane-Vlačine. Other information on Levallois industry is scarce, in my opinion, due to the selective way of collecting artefacts, rather than the actual situation at the sites (Vujević 2007: 80). Small micro-Mousterian artefacts represent the main technological characteristic of the assemblages. This corresponds to the general situation known from Middle Palaeolithic sites of the eastern Adriatic coast (Malez 1979a; Basler 1983; Karavanić 2000, 2003, 2004; Vujević 2007) (Figure 2). This phenomenon is somewhat less emphasized at the sites of Podvršje, Beretini, Veršići and Kneževići, where bigger tools were more numerous, more carefully retouched, and made of better quality raw material (Figure 3).

A high percentage of raw material used is of poor quality, but that did not prevent production of almost all types of tools, although simpler tool types predominate. Package size of the raw material, including that of good quality, limits the size of the object, so that only a small number of tools exceed 5 centimetres in length. Only sites of Veršići, Kneževići, Beretini and Podvršje-Šibenička glava yielded some larger finds (Vujević 2007). Finds from other European regions show that local lowquality raw material, which is usually represented by a great number of cores and cortical flakes, was usually used for denticulate tools. Better quality imported material was transported in the form of Levallois flakes and usually shaped into different types of scrapers. Larger, uniform flakes were usually used for making scrapers whereas smaller flakes were not retouched (Dibble 1991: 34). Denticulates and notches are usually of the same size as unretouched flakes and, as previously mentioned, they were made of low-quality or waste material.

Many authors place the micro-Mousterian at the end of the Middle Palaeolithic and the beginning of the Late Palaeolithic. There are different theories about the microMousterian (Basler 1983: 25; Kuhn 1995; KujundžićVejzagić 2001: 49), but regarding Dalmatia, I would agree with Karavanić (2000: 777-778), who believes that it is a consequence of the characteristics of the locally accessible raw materials – small pebbles in the first place, but also their poor quality. Consequently, even the larger pieces of chert rarely could be worked into large tools, and even if they could, retouching the edge would usually break the tool in two or more pieces. Cores show that pebbles were sometimes so small that it was impossible to remove their cortex. Tools were made by splitting pebbles in two or three smaller flakes, the edges of which were then retouched with several blows.

When better quality raw material was not accessible, scrapers were made of material of smaller dimensions (Dibble 1991: 34; Dibble and Rolland 1992: 11). That is exactly the case in the region of Zadar, where scrapers made of local raw material absolutely dominate at most of the sites. Side scrapers and transverse scrapers are the most common, while other subtypes appear less often (Vujević 2007). Raw material was easily accessible and was used it in great quantities, which is obvious from the waste material consisting of cores and numerous flakes. Cores were discarded at an early stage of knapping.

Scrapers and denticulate tools dominate at all sites. The former are dominant at most sites and their percentage reaches up to 75 %. Notches and denticulates are numerous at some sites (Podvršje and Visočane), although some of the denticulates probably are accidental results of the applied technology and the poor quality of raw material, rather than intentional products (Vujević 2007: 140). The resulting cumulative diagrams for sites with adequate number of

Lithic assemblages from the Zadar hinterland sites share very similar technological characteristics. Almost all tools 3

Dario Vujević

Figure 2. A selection of tools from Pajići-Krug (top), Radovin-Debelo brdo (middle) and Radovin-Trodrage (bottom).

finds show correspondence with Charentien Mousterian in France, primarily its Quina subtype, or typical Mousterian (Bordes 1961; Debénath and Dibble 1994: 175) (Figure 4). I would like to emphasize once again that these diagrams may reflect selective collection of finds, through which large and more characteristic types (primarily scrapers) are overrepresented, while small notches and denticulates are underrepresented.

(Batović 1990: 29), and another one was recovered from Stara Povljana (Z. Brusić, pers. comm.). Two of the sites on islands are situated at raw material sources and both were used during the Middle Palaeolithic. A lithic workshop from Mousterian and Aurignacian periods was discovered in the area of Veli rat (Panđerovica) (Figure 5). Another similar workshop was situated in the area of Zapuntela field on the island of Molat, although most of the material from Molat shows Upper Palaeolithic characteristics. Malez (1967: 282) mentions that he collected several dozen tools and hundreds of unretouched flakes at Veli rat on the island of Dugi otok. Batović (1973: 52) states that on the island of Molat one can find ‘...mostly

The Zadar Islands Finds from the Zadar islands were recovered from seven sites on the islands of Dugi otok and Molat. A scraper was also found at the seabed near Povljana on the island of Pag 4

The Middle Palaeolithic Sites in the Zadar Hinterland

Figure 3. A selection of tools from Beretini (top), Veršići (middle) and Kneževići (bottom).

5

Dario Vujević

Figure 4. Cumulative diagrams.

flakes and scarce cores, and only rarely retouched objects’. Besides Veli rat, Batović also gathered a small number of Middle Palaeolithic finds from Krševanje polje, a site near the village of Sali, situated at the ideal communication line along the island of Dugi otok. These finds show the same characteristics as the ones from Veli rat, and although Krševanje polje is not located at a raw material source, numerous flakes testify of knapping at this location (Batović 1973: 45-50). In addition to these, Batović mentions that Mousterian artefacts were found at four other sites on the island of Dugi otok (Staro selo, Okljug, the area from the Bay of Darstalo to Meje, and the area from Vrh kosa to Kuk and Martinova glava) (Batović 1988: 11).

retouched as little as possible in order to be made suitable for the simplest activities. Most of the tools can be classified as scrapers, with the dominance of side-scrapers. The rest of the tools (approximately one quarter of all tools) are denticulates. Unfortunately, cumulative diagrams for the island sites are not available, but it is more than likely that they would be very similar to those from the sites in the Zadar hinterland. Discussion The arising questions are whether it is possible to find relations among the sites in this spacious region, and is possible that they were formed during approximately the same period, which would suggest that they were created by only a few human groups.

The raw material that was used for making tools is almost identical to the one from the Zadar hinterland. Tools were made of white, grey, and yellow chert that is present in the form of concretions in the Upper Cretaceous deposits of the islands (Malez 1967: 282; Batović 1983: 44). Small pebbles were usually used, which affected the size of the objects that usually are 3 to 5 centimetres long and identifiable as micro-Mousterian. Raw material of better quality is somewhat more frequently represented on the islands then in the hinterland, but despite that fact, retouch is poor. It is usually stepped or scaled, quite sloppy, and a great number of tools have denticulate edges. Tools were

Distances between the sites are the first thing to consider. Judging by the analysis of raw material procurement at other European Mousterian sites, most connections suggest regular seasonal trips between different points of territories with areas of about 10,000km2 on the average, for the purpose of exploiting different resources available at different times of the year (Feblot-Augustins 1993: 248). It seems unlikely that a group would travel across such distances only because of flint. The observed patterns 6

The Middle Palaeolithic Sites in the Zadar Hinterland

Figure 5. A selection of tools from Veli rat (after Malez 1979b: Plate 21).

should be seen as a result of constant mobility of groups that included individuals who carried with them the best quality raw material or finished products. If we consider that these groups were capable of crossing such great distances, then the relations between the islands and the Zadar hinterland become more convincing, because the distances rarely exceed 50km. Considering the characteristics of the terrain, those distances could have been crossed in several days by Middle Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers. This also applies to the area of today’s archipelago, which was connected to the mainland during the time of the formation of the above mentioned sites, and there were no obstacles for travel.

larger area. Mobility within a smaller area would mean that this region was a territory shared by several groups within which they circulated, returning to familiar spots after a certain period of time. Mobility within a much larger area is also plausible. In his articles, Gamble (1986: 374-381; 1999: 229) pointed out that unfavourable climate influences group mobility. According to his ebb and flow model, during periods of difficult climatic conditions, Middle Palaeolithic groups deserted certain regions and searched other regions with more favourable climate. Szmidt (2003: 47) supports this opinion and believes that Neanderthals abandoned parts of Central Europe because of unfavourable conditions and moved to southern France because of its more favourable and diverse environment and climate, but she also believes that they returned when circumstances changed.

There are numerous reasons for group mobility. Sally and Lewis Binford argued that mobility was crucial for the survival of Middle Palaeolithic populations. Mobility is important because it allows sustainable exploitation of natural resources, allowing a region to regenerate before people return to it after a certain period of time (Binford and Binford 1966; 1969). Mobility through different regions at different times of the year provides an opportunity to exploit seasonal environmental variability to a maximum degree.

In our region, Middle Palaeolithic groups could have crossed the Velebit Mountain, the only natural barrier, over the relatively low passes such as Mali Halan, and arrive to a region with a milder climate and a more diverse and favourable environment. From this region, they could have moved further in different directions. When circumstances allowed, they could have continued to the region of what is today the Apennine peninsula. I do not claim that such mobility was related only to climate, because Neanderthals adjusted successfully to many different climates, nor do

Two models of mobility seem to be plausible for the Zadar hinterland region, one based on a smaller area, the other on a 7

Dario Vujević referred to under the name Pontinien. In that region as well, the only stones suitable for knapping within a 50km radius are small pebbles (generally, smaller than 10 centimetres), which can be found in scattered deposits along the coast. Small package size and scattered distribution of raw material sources made Neanderthal groups develop techniques that maximize tool size and optimize their efficiency (Stiner and Kuhn 1992: 316; Kuhn 1995). In both regions, similar raw material choice led to similar tools and corresponding typological characteristics. Like in Pontinien culture sites, at the sites in the Zadar region the raw material packages were so small that cortex was not removed from the pebble. Flakes retained more or less of the cortex, and were shaped into tools. Small dimensions of raw material package resulted in small tools. In both cases, scrapers are the dominant tool type (over 60%). All of the mentioned characteristics could have appeared independently in different regions, but considering the relatively small distance between the two Adriatic coasts, and the aforementioned mobility of the groups across large areas, these common characteristics may serve as a general chronological indicator, pointing to the final phases of the Mousterian culture, i.e. the period after 60,000 years before present, which coincides with dates from Velika pećina i Mujina pećina (Karavanić et al. 2006: 347; Rink et al. 2002: 949).

I believe that Middle Palaeolithic groups moved only towards the Apennine peninsula. However, it is reasonable to suppose that the Zadar region had a transit character in wider movements of Middle Palaeolithic groups. During the Pleistocene, river Zrmanja streamed southward and joined river Krka (Fritz, 1972). About 40,000 years ago, the amount of Late Pleistocene uplift increased inland, eventually causing Zrmanja to change its course toward west and flow through what today is Novigrad Sea and the narrows of Maslenica, entering the Velebit Channel near the region where our sites are located (Roglić 1962: 7, Fritz 1972; Surić 2006: 177; Marjanac and Marjanac 2000: 78). Velebit Channel thus became a valley of Zrmanja, irrigated with abundant water from the icebound Velebit. Such a big river would have had many tributaries, which would have run through the Zadar hinterland. Judging by the distribution of sites in other regions, water was an important factor for the Neanderthals. Regions with abundant water resources revealed more sites (Szmidt 2003; Papagianni 2000). Abundant water is another aspect that would make the Zadar hinterland a very favourable place for Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers. Some of the Zrmanja’s tributaries probably ran between the ridges on which the Neanderthal groups created campsites, but all that is left today are small creeks and water-worn ravines. One such streambed, which is occasionally still active, passes between the two ridges on which most of the sites are situated. Probably, the stream existed during the Middle Palaeolithic, providing a natural formation around which the Neanderthal campsites were formed.

Relations between the sites on the islands and the sites on the mainland open the question of geographical connections within the territory that would have ensured group mobility across the entire region. There is no evidence for navigation during the Mousterian, although there are some indications for it, related primarily to the finds from Cephalonia (Bednarik 2003). Unfortunately, as these finds are not related to a chronologically determined context, they need further scientific evaluation (Broodbank 2006: 205). On the other hand, even if Neanderthals were capable of a short crossing to the islands, the sea would be an obstacle for animal herds. On the other hand, the wide region of the Zadar hinterland made transfer to the islands unnecessary. The islands were relatively small and isolated, and they could not provide adequate resources for Neanderthal groups. All of the discussed information points to the conclusion that the sites on the islands could not have been formed during periods when the islands were separated from the mainland. Rather, that must have happened when the Zadar archipelago formed a compact whole with the mainland. Since we know that the sea level changed over the course of time, that provides us with chronological limits for the formation of the island sites.

If we look at the distribution of the sites, and compare technological and typological characteristics of the finds, we can conclude that the wider area of Zadar was a unified territory within which Middle Palaeolithic groups moved freely, with relatively short-term stays that probably were seasonal, at specific locations where food and raw materials were obtained. Another important question regarding the relations between various regions is chronology. Unfortunately, as none of the open-air sites in the Zadar region have been excavated, they cannot be firmly dated. The only dated sites on the eastern Adriatic coast are Velika pećina near Benkovac (Beta-228733: 39,240 ± 740 BP [Karavanić et al. 2006: 347]) and Mujina pećina near Trogir (five radiocarbon dates from GrA-9635: 45,170 ± 2780/2060 BP to GrA-9633: 39,200 ± 1230/1060 BP [Rink et al. 2002: 949]). There are some elements, however, that may provide general chronological framework for Zadar region. Typological and technological characteristics offer important information, although they cannot provide the final answer to the complex question of chronology. Both the island and the hinterland sites show almost identical typological and technological characteristics. This situation can be related to the west-central Italy in the Middle Palaeolithic, where assemblages with a series of specific characteristics are

In the last Riss/Würm interglacial, the global sea level was several meters higher than today (Šegota 1982: 100). With the beginning of the last glacial, the sea level began to fall. Analyses have shown that it was not falling continuously, but was oscillating. During the initial cold periods (OIS-5d i OIS-5b), the sea level would have fallen on the average some 50-60 m below the current level, and it would have 8

The Middle Palaeolithic Sites in the Zadar Hinterland on Mousterian points and convergent scrapers. Cores were recovered confirming knapping at these sites, but raw material is not as abundant as at other sites, which may suggest that these were food procurement camps or, possibly, base camps. On the other hand, the other sites abound in raw material, i.e. small pebbles and larger chert pieces. Their assemblages consist of a small number of retouched tools and many flakes, which shows that knapping took place at those sites. All of the tools have similar characteristics: they are simple, with high percentage of tools on corticated flakes. Scrapers are the dominant tool type, but denticulate tools are also worth mentioning, although it seems that denticulation is more a consequence of raw material characteristics and technology than of actual intention to make denticulate tools. Taking into consideration that the entire reduction sequence is present at specific sites, together with the small number of retouched tools, we can conclude that these sites served mostly for raw material procurement, together with in situ lithic production activities.

Figure 6. Sea level curves (after Surić 2006).

risen to 10-20 m below the current level in warmer periods. During the OIS-4, the sea level fell to 60-80 m below the current level, and during OIS-3 there were several minor oscillations (Mellars 1996: 29-30).

Distances between the sites are small and correspond to other European regions where Neanderthal groups moved over distances of about 50km, which in turn was related to herd movements (Feblot-Augustins 1992: 243-248.). It is not likely that those groups used the entire area at once. They probably preferred to stay at one place for a certain period of time and moved radially, crossing smaller distances in order to get back to the camp within the same day. For that reason, we can consider that groups of sites clustering in certain areas reflect mobility patterns, e.g. movement from the Posedarje area over the wider areas of Radovin and Ljubač to the wider area of Nin and from there to the Zadar islands, with seasonal stays at specific sites or caves that were used as base camps.

Recent research in the Adriatic region corrected this global sea level curve locally, so that we now have more accurate information for our region (Surić 2006). Sites from the island of Dugi otok are of exceptional importance, because the sea level had to fall for at least 60m to make this island connected with the other islands and the current mainland. As the curve indicates (Figure 6), that happened on several occasions. Shorter periods of low sea level occurred between 120,000 and 100,000 years BP, but a longer period of low sea level started only 60,000 years BP. This is not sufficient for firm chronological determination, and it remains only a hypothesis, but it corresponds well with the general impression that the sites were formed in the final phases of Mousterian, as the technological and typological characteristics of the finds already have suggested.

References Basler, Đ. 1983. Paleolitske kulture u jadranskoj regiji. Glasnik zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu (new series) 38, 1-63. Batović, Š. 1965. Prvi paleolitski nalazi u Srednjoj Dalmaciji. Diadora 3, 205-209. 1973. Prapovijesni ostaci na zadarskom otočju. Diadora 6, 5-165. 1988. Paleolitički i mezolitički ostaci s Dugog otoka. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 16, 7-53. 1990. Rekognosciranje otoka Paga u 1989. godini. Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 22(1), 26-32. 1993. O prapovijesti Dugog otoka. In Š. Batović, S. Obad and I. Petricioli (eds), Dugi otok, zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa ‘Dugi otok – prošlost i kulturna baština’. Zadar: Matica hrvatska, 99-125.

Conclusion We have seen that, during the Middle Palaeolithic, the regions of Zadar hinterland and the Zadar islands should not be observed separately. They functioned as a whole during much of the Pleistocene, which becomes obvious when geographic characteristics of the region are considered. Even superficial look will detect resemblances in the usage of raw material, as well as in the typological and technological variation of the finds. Minor variations noticeable at certain sites are a consequence of different character of those sites, rather than different chronological determination. The sites at Veršići, Kneževići, Beretini and Podvršje yielded artefacts of somewhat larger dimensions, i.e. microlithism is less emphasized compared to other sites. Retouch is deeper and finer, which is most noticeable 9

Dario Vujević 2003. Mujina pećina, tragovi života dalmatinskog pračovjeka. Kaštel Lukšić: Muzej grada Kaštela. 2004. The Middle Palaeolithic Settlement of Croatia. In N. J. Conard (ed.), Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Palaeolithic and Middle Stone Age, Vol. II. Tübingen: Kerns, 251-267. Karavanić, I. and Ćondić, N. 2006. Probno sondiranje Velike pećine u Kličevici kod Benkovca. Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 38(2), 45-51. Karavanić, I., Ćondić, N. and Vukosavljević, N. 2006. Velika pećina u Kličevici. Hrvatski arheološki godišnjak 3, 345-347. Kuhn, S. L. 1995. Mousterian Lithic Technology: An Ecological Perspective. Princeton: Princeton University press. Kujundžić-Vejzagić, Z. 2001. Pećina pod Lipom – Paleolitsko stanište na glasinačkoj visoravni. Glasnik zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu (new series) 48/49, 33-89. Magaš, D. 1999. Vinjerac. Zadar: Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. Malez, M. 1967. Paleolitska nalazišta Hrvatske. Arheološki vestnik 18, 255-285. 1975. Neki problemi paleolitika na istočnoj obali Jadrana. Rad Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 371, 121-153. 1979a. Paleolitske i mezolitske regije i kulture u Hrvatskoj. In Đ. Basler (ed.), Praistorija Jugoslavenskih zemalja, Vol. 1: Paleolitik i mezolitik. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, 277-295. 1979b. Nalazišta paleolitskog i mezolitskog doba u Hrvatskoj. In Đ. Basler (ed.), Praistorija Jugoslavenskih zemalja, Vol. 1: Paleolitik i mezolitik. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, 227-276. Marjanac, T. and Marjanac, Lj. 2000. Glacioistostatic Rebound of External Dinarides, Pancardi 2000 abstracts. Vijesti Hrvatskog geološkog društva 37(3), 77-78. Martinov, D. 2006. Musterijenska nalazišta zadarskog zaleđa. Unpublished B.A. thesis. Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru. Mellars, P. 1996. The Neanderthal Legacy: An Archaeological Perspective from Western Europe. Princeton: Princeton University press. Papagianni, D. 2000. Middle Palaeolithic Occupation and Technology in N. W. Greece. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 882. Rink, W. J., Karavanić, I., Pettitt, P. B., van der Plicht, J., Smith, F. H. and Bartoll, J. 2002. ESR and AMS-base 14C dating of Mousterian

Bednarik, R. G. 2003. Seafaring in the Pleistocene. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13, 41-66. Binford, L. and Binford, S. 1966. A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in the Mousterian of Levallois Facies. American Anthropologist 68(2), 238-295. 1969. Stone Tools and Human Behaviour. Scientific American 220(4), 70-84. Bordes, F. 1961. Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Bordeaux: Delmas. Broodbank, C. 2006. The Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activity. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 19(2), 199-230. Brusić, Z. 2005. Pećina Vlakno. Hrvatski arheološki godišnjak 1 (2004), 197-199. Chapman, J., Shiel, R. and Batović Š. 1996. The Changing Face of Dalmatia. London: The Society of Antiquaries. Debénath, A. and Dibble, H. L. 1994. Handbook of paleolithic typology. Vol 1: The Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. Dibble, H. L. 1991. Local Raw Material Exploatation and Its Effects on Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Assemblage Variability. In A. Montet-White and S. Holen (eds), Raw Material Economies among Prehistoric HunterGatherers. Lawrence: University of Kansas, 33.-47. Dibble, H. L. and Rolland, N. 1992. On Assemblage Variability in the Middle Palaeolithic of Western Europe: History, Perspectives, and a New Synthesis. In H. L. Dibble and P. Mellars (eds), The Middle Palaeolithic: Adaptation, Behaviour and Variability. Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania, 1-29. Džaja, K. 2003. Geomorfološke odlike Dugog otoka. Geoadria 8(2), 5-44. Feblot-Augustins, J. 1993. Mobility Strategies in the Late Middle Palaeolithic of Central Europe and Western Europe: Elements of Stability and Variability. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 12, 211-265. Fritz F. 1972. Razvitak gornjeg toka rijeke Zrmanje. Krš Jugoslavije 8(1), 1-16. Gamble, C. 1986. The Palaeolithic Settlement of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. 1999. The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. Karavanić, I. 2000. Research on the Middle Palaeolithic in Dalmatia, Croatia. Antiquity 74, 777-778. 10

The Middle Palaeolithic Sites in the Zadar Hinterland levels at Mujina pećina, Dalmatia, Croatia. Journal of archaeological science 29, 943-952. Roglić, J. 1962. Reljef naše obale. Pomorski zbornik 1, 3-16. Stiner, M. C. and Kuhn, S. L. 1992. Subsistence, Technology and Adaptive Variation in Middle Palaeolithic Italy. American Anthropologist 94, 306.-339. Surić, M. 2006. Promjene u okolišu tijekom mlađeg pleistocena i holocena: zapisi iz morem potopljenih siga istočnog Jadrana. Unublished Ph. D. thesis. Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru.

Szmidt, C. 2003. The Mousterian in Mediterranean France: A Regional, Integrative and Comparative Perscpective. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 1147. Šegota T. 1982. Razina mora i vertikalno gibanje dna Jadranskog mora od ris-virmskog interglacijala do danas. Geološki vjesnik 35, 93-109. Vujević, D. 2007. Srednji paleolitik na području južno od Ražanca. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru.

11

2 The Beginnings of Trans-Adriatic Navigation: A View from Vela Spila Cave (Korčula Island)

Dinko Radić The earliest material evidence of navigation across the open sea in the Adriatic is an artifact made of gabrodiorite from the islet of Palagruža, recovered from the Mesolithic levels of Vela spila and attributable to the transition from the eighth to the seventh millennium BC. About a thousand years later, during the last centuries of the seventh millennium BC, isolated shards of pottery, prismatic blades, as well as sheep and goat bones begin to appear in Mesolithic contexts. These remains testify of a long-lasting process of acceptance of Neolithic elements that arrived by the sea. After an initial phase of Neolithic, full neolithisation takes place at the beginning of the sixth millennium, marked by a decorative style typical of the Impressed Ware culture. Trans-Adriatic contacts continue during the Middle Neolithic, as attested by painted pottery from southern Italy and Liparan obsidian, which also appears at that time. There is very little evidence for navigation during the Late Neolithic and most of the Copper Age. Connections are renewed only at the beginning of the Bronze Age, as attested by a substantial quantity of decorated Cetina culture pottery and numerous arrow points form the navigationally important islet of Palagruža. Keywords: Adriatic, Mesolithic, navigation, Neolithic, Neolithisation, Palagruža, Sušac, Vela spila

Introduction

Kopačina, or Vlakno caves), the warming and the rise of sea level changed the natural environment, as well as the economic basis. The sea, which rose about 100 meters at the end of Pleistocene / beginning of Holocene (Lambeck et. al 2004; Surić et al. 2005; Radić et al. 2007), inundated the former ‘Adriatic Plain’, as well as the valleys between the present middle Dalmatian islands. A region that used to support big game disappeared completely. Raising temperatures led to changes in vegetation, bringing about Mediterranean climate and landscape. Archaeological deposits of Vela spila contain material evidence of some of the aspects of those changes. Their detailed exploration is in progress.

Due to globally depressed sea levels during the Late Pleistocene, the Adriatic Sea covered just slightly more than a half of its present area. The northern part of the Adriatic basin was a steppe, while the river valleys that separated the present-day islands were inhabited by large animals, primarily deer, horses and cattle. Subsistence strategies of the human inhabitants were based on hunting and gathering (Čečuk and Radić 2005: 29-30), while a complete absence of marine foods in Late Pleistocene levels of the few explored sites testifies of their orientation towards land resources. All of the known Upper Paleolithic sites are relatively far away (about 25km) from the Late Pleistocene coastline. Nothing in the Late Pleistocene geography, climate, flora and fauna, and the related human subsistence strategies, suggests that people practiced any kind of sea navigation. One should note, however, that this issue may be resolved only by future investigation of sites located closer to the Late Pleistocene coastline, now drowned by the Adriatic Sea.

Preconditions for trans-Adriatic (or, more generally, offshore) navigation were created at the beginning of Holocene, with the formation of the present Adriatic Sea. The earliest evidence for such navigation was recovered from Burial # 2 in Vela spila, (Čečuk and Radić 2005: 54-55, figure 9). The burial contained an artifact made of igneous rock gabrodiorite (Figure 2) (Čečuk and Radić 2005: 55, figure 9, near the right lower corner of the illustration, Radić and Lugović 2004: 8-9, figure 1-2). Based on their stratigraphic positions, Burial # 2, the three child burials related to it, as well as another adult burial some 15 meters away, unquestionably belong to the Mesolithic. This is supported by a radiocarbon determination of a sample taken from the skeleton of Burial # 2 (Wk-24217, 8004 ± 41 BP, 7070 – 6760 BC Cal. 2SD range) (Table 1).

Evidence for Mesolithic navigation The eastern Adriatic coastal and island Mesolithic (Figure 1) has become somewhat better known only recently (Čečuk and Radić 2005: 49-68; Komšo 2006). We stress the ‘coastal and island’, because the change in lifestyle between Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods was not particularly great on sites farther away from the sea. Red deer, wild boar and fallow deer dominate the structure of hunted animals At Šebrn Rock Shelter in Istria, a Mesolithic site that in a sense may be regarded as continental (Miracle et al. 2000). On sites closer to the coast (e.g., Vela spila,

Several new radiocarbon dates from Mesolithic deposits of Vela spila, from approximately the same depth and context in which Burial # 2 was found (Table 1), as well as a recently obtained and as yet unpublished direct date 13

Dinko Radić

Figure 2. An artifact made of igneous rock (gabrodiorite) from Vela spila (photo: B. Lugović).

the island of Vis. In addition to those, submerged igneous rock reefs and shelves exist in the area. For instance, a gabrodioritic reef 180 meters long was located at a depth of 6 meters near the rock of Jabuka (Juračić et al. 2004). According to Prelogović (pers. comm., cited in Radić and Lugović 2004: 11), similar submerged reefs, as well as rocks torn away from them, may be expected elsewhere in their wider neighborhood. Occasional gabrodioritic pebbles also appear in a secondary context on the beach of the calcareous islet of Palagruža. One can only surmise about the origin of those pebbles. They might be coming from some nearby underwater reef, although, gabrodioritic reefs have not been identified yet in Palagruža’s vicinity. Geochemical analysis of samples from Jabuka, Brusnik, Vis, Palagruža, and the artifact from Vela spila Burial # 2 has shown that their geological make-up is very similar. The closest similarity of the artifact from Vela spila is with the pebble collected from the beach on the 42 nautical miles (78km) distant Palagruža. Petrographic analysis of the samples produced similar results (Radić and Lugović 2004). Based on this, we can presume that the artifact from Burial # 2, or the raw material for its production, was brought from one of the aforementioned offshore islands. In other words, for the moment this artifact provides the only secure evidence of pre-Neolithic open sea navigation in the Adriatic.

Figure 1. Igneous rock sources and Mesolithic sites on middle Adriatic islands: 1 Komiža, 2 Jabuka, 3 Brusnik, 4 Palagruža, 5 Kopačina Cave, 6 Vela spila Cave.

from a skeleton excavated in year 2004 (Radić 2005), all converge around the end of the eighth millennium BC. Igneous rocks similar to the raw material for the artifact from Vela Cave can be found only at three primary outcrops in the Adriatic (Figure 1). All three of them are on islands that are about 40 nautical miles (75km) distant from Korčula: the islet of Brusnik, the rock Jabuka, and the location known as Mušter in the bay of Komiža on

Table 1. Radiocarbon dates from Mesolithic contexts of Vela Spila. Lab. no.

Context

Sample material

BP

BC cal. 2 SD range

Attribution

VERA-2343

Layer 7/2 (excavation season 2001)

animal bone

8290 ± 35

7520 – 7180

Mesolithic

VERA-2344

Layer 7/2 (excavation season 2001)

wood charcoal

8230 ± 35

7460 – 7080

Mesolithic

VERA-2341

Layer 7/3 (bottom) (excavation season 2001)

wood charcoal

8200 ± 30

7330 – 7080

Mesolithic

Wk-24217

Layer 7 Trench b-c/20-24, Burial # 2 (excavation season 1986)

human bone

8004 ± 41

7070 – 6760

Mesolithic

14

The Beginnings of Trans-Adriatic Navigation and underlie the levels that belong to the Impressed Ware culture. The study of this transition is made easier by the possibility of comparison among radiocarbon dates from Vela spila and its neighborhood with numerous other radiocarbon dates, including those from the western Adriatic coast (Sargent 1985: 31- 40; Chapman and Müller 1990: 127-134; Müller 1994: 346-349; Skeates 2003: 157-187; Miracle and Forenbaher 2006: 497-508). A convincing analysis of the transitional period cannot be undertaken, however, unless we first determine the precise characteristics of accumulations with exclusively Mesolithic material, of those with transitional features, and of those with clearly Neolithic characteristics. That work is still ahead of us, but the existing information, imperfect as it might be, and based on the single example of Vela spila, tells us the following:

Figure 3. A Columbella rustica from Palagruža.

Trench b-f/20-24

Palagruža yielded another possible piece of evidence for Mesolithic navigation. A modified sea mollusk Columbella rustica, pierced near its tip to be carried as a part of a necklace (Figure 3), was found at the site of Salamandrija in a disturbed layer that contained finds from various prehistoric and historic periods (Dino Cetinić and Branko Kirigin, pers. comm.). Jewelry made of pierced Columbella rustica shells is among the most readily recognizable features of the Mesolithic in the wider Adriatic region. Apparently, such jewelry was not used in the eastern Adriatic area during later periods (Komšo 2006: 79-80, figure 13).

This trench provided a simple stratigraphy, clearly observable in section f/23-24 (Figure 4). Analyses of finds recovered in 1985 and 1986 indicated that layers from 1 to 3 (i.e., relative depth from 0.00 to 0.70m) contained Late Neolithic and Middle Neolithic materials, while the deeper deposits (layers from 4 to 6) contained exclusively Impressed Ware pottery. Layer 4 (relative depth from 0.70 to 0.85m) – Pottery from this layer fully corresponds to the well-known Impressed Ware, as described on numerous Adriatic sites. A quarter of the potsherds are decorated by a tremolo impressions, while a few are marked by simple linear incisions. A number of shards stands out by their superior quality, uniform firing, thin and very smooth walls, comparable to Guadone style pottery (Tiné 2002: 139-143; Petrić 2004: 200) from southern Italy (Čečuk and Radić 2005: 84, 86-87, #2023, #2042, #2069, plates 19:3, 21:4, 22:5). Layer 4 accordingly should be ascribed to the latest stage of development of the Early Neolithic. It also contained several prismatic blades and unmodified flakes.

Another indirect indication of developed navigation is excellent representation of marine food remains, primarily of smaller fishes, but occasionally also of large fishes and dolphins, at Vela spila (Kužir et al. 2005: 293, table 2; Čečuk and Radić 2005: 30, table 6, 53), Vlakno Cave on the island of Dugi otok (Brusić 2005: 197-199) and, to a smaller extent, at Kopačina Cave on the island of Brač (Čečuk 1996). Transitional period between Mesolithic and Neolithic (Initial Neolithic)

Layer 5 (relative depth from 0.85 to 1.12m) – Impressed Ware pottery predominates, decorated by short, vertical impressions organized into series of horizontal bands, as well as by disorganized impressions and wide zigzag incision (Čečuk and Radić 2005: 83, 86-88, #2010, #2041, #2062, #2083, #2101, #2108, plates 16:2,3, 18:2, 19:4, 21:7, 25:7).

The following discussion of the process of transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic on the island of Korčula (and applicable more generally to the ‘island bridge’ consisting of a series of peninsulas, islands and islets that link Apulia with Dalmatia) is based exclusively on the stratigraphy of Vela spila. Specifically, it is based on its deposits that accumulated during the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic.

Layer 6 (relative depth from 1.12 to 1.64m) – This layer contained several very thick, simply decorated shards (Čečuk and Radić 2005: 83, #2003, #2005, plate 13:2,5). According to their stratigraphic position, and judging by their stylistic traits, those shards represent the earliest stage of development of Impressed Ware pottery in Vela spila. Due to the sloping layers, in some of the excavated squares pottery does not appear below the relative depth of

Certain characteristic Neolithic elements (such as prismatic blades, pottery, or bones of domesticated animals) begin to turn up in deposits of Vela spila that are otherwise marked by Mesolithic archaeological assemblages. Those deposits overlay the youngest ‘clean’ Mesolithic accumulations

15

Dinko Radić Layer 7 – The layer that lies below the relative depth of 1.64m contains relatively many stones of various sizes (from a few centimeters across to boulder-size) and scarce evidence of human presence. Only marine faunal remains are well represented, primarily snails and bivalves. Four child burials were discovered at the relative depth of about 2.00m. All of the bodies have been deposited within Layer 7, at least 0.60m below its top surface (since the layers are inclined towards the center of the cave, the top surface of Layer 7 lies at the relative depth of about 1.40m in the area of the burials). Physical characteristics of Layer 7 differ distinctly from the overlying layers, preventing any possibility of error (Čečuk and Radić 2005: 54, figure 7; for a photo of the section, see Radić and Lugović 2004: 8, figure 1). Compact rock (probably, bedrock) was reached at the relative depth of about 2.40m. Two charcoal samples were collected in 1986 from the trench b-f/20-24 and radiocarbon dated (Table 2). The first one (z-1968: 7000 ± 120 BP) was collected from a level immediately above the relative depth of 1.12m, that is, from the deepest part of Layer 5, which has been attributed to the middle stage of the Early Neolithic, based on pottery that it contained. The other sample (z 1967: 7300 ± 120 BP) was collected from the relative depth of 1.64m, that is, from the base of the lower part of Layer 6, which contained only a few potsherds. In accordance with what was known at the time about the earliest phase of Neolithic development, that layer and the associated radiocarbon date were attributed originally to the earliest Neolithic (Impressed Ware) (Čečuk and Radić 2001: 102). Discussion of stratigraphy presented above implies, however, that the lower part of Layer 6 is a deposit with predominantly Mesolithic characteristics that contains, as a minor component, a very small quantity of simple, well-made, plain pottery of uniform color, made of fairly well-refined clay. This pottery most likely can not be directly linked to the Impressed Ware. Rather, we believe that it testifies of contacts between the late Mesolithic inhabitants of Vela spila with some of the ‘neolithicised’ groups, possibly from the western Adriatic coast. Trench f-g/5

Figure 4. Section f/23-24 (excavation seasons 1986/87).

A charcoal sample from Layer 7/4 and an animal bone from the top of Layer 7/3 were collected from the upper Mesolithic levels in trench f-g/5 (Figure 5) and submitted for radiocarbon dating. The deposits from which these samples were taken lie immediately beneath Layer 6 (Impressed Ware) and overlie typical Mesolithic deposits that constitute the lower part of Layer 7/3 and the layers below it (Čečuk and Radić 2005: 25 i 51). In these layers (7/4 and top of 7/3), the dominant Mesolithic materials mix with certain Neolithic elements. The two radiocarbon determinations (VERA 2340 and VERA 2342) produced almost identical dates around 7200 BP, while their 2 SD

1.20m, while only one or two shards were recovered from relative depths below 1.30m. Study of profiles and analyses of finds, carried out two decades after the excavation, led to the conclusion that Layer 6, which in places is more than half a meter thick, may be divided into an upper and a lower part. Intensity o occupation is similar in both parts, the main difference being the quantity of recovered pottery. Almost all of the potsherds were recovered from the upper part of Layer 6, while the lower part contains almost none. Unfortunately, analyses of other classes of finds (in particular, faunal remains) have not been completed. 16

The Beginnings of Trans-Adriatic Navigation Table 2. Radiocarbon dates for the end of Mesolithic, the transitional period, and the beginning of the Neolithic. Site

Lab. no.

Vela spila

z-1967

Vela spila

VERA2340

Vela spila

VERA2342

Vela spila

z-1968

Sušac

ETH22912

Context Layer 6 (lower part) Trench b-c/20-24 (excavation season 1986) Layer 7/4 (excavation season 2001) Layer 7/3 (top) (excavation season 2001) Layer 5 Trench b-c/20-24 (excavation season 1986) SU 002, Duga Cove

Sample material

BP

BC cal. 2 SD range

Attribution

wood charcoal

7300 ± 120

6420 – 5900 BC

Mesolithic / Neolithic

wood charcoal

7200 ± 30

6170 – 5990 BC

Mesolithic / Neolithic

animal bone

7175 ± 35

6160 – 5920 BC

Mesolithic / Neolithic

wood charcoal

7000 ± 120

6200 – 5600 BC

Impressed Ware B

wood charcoal

6925 ± 65

5980 – 5660 BC

Impressed Ware A

calibrated ranges cover the transition from the seventh to the sixth millennium BC (Table 2). Trench h/5-7 Trench h/5-7 was excavated in 2004 (Radić 2005) and comprehensive analyses of the recovered materials have not been completed. Preliminary results indicate that, most likely, it will be possible to distinguish several groups of deposits. Layers 15 to 9 contain typical Mesolithic food remains and artifacts, as represented elsewhere in Vela spila (substantial amount of fish bones, plenty of sea snails and bivalves, frequent bones of small land animals such as small carnivores, bird bones, etc.) (Radić 2005: 343, table 2; Čečuk and Radić 2005: 49-68). Layers 8 and 7 belong to the transitional period with a clear Mesolithic flaked stone tradition, but they also contain at least one typical Neolithic prismatic blade (Radić 2005: 336, plate 2/12). Layers 6 to 4 contain typical Impressed Ware pottery, bones of domestic animals, long blades, and a polished stone artifact. Based on stratigraphy and typology, the Impressed Ware pottery from layers 6 to 4 can be classified into three well-known stages of development (Radić 2005: 340-341, plate 1). The earliest pottery in this trench was recovered from layer 7. Of the two potsherds that were recovered, one is a typical Impressed Ware shard, while the other clearly differs from it. Its body is homogenous and compact, consisting of well-refined clay with a low content of fine-grained aplastic inclusions; the shard is hard; its surfaces are flat and smooth. Very rare similar finds were recovered at the same depth during previous excavation seasons (Čečuk and Radić 2005: 21). Due to the quality of manufacture, the absence of decoration, as well as the fact that it was found below the Impressed Ware layer, we presume this to be a fragment of ‘monochrome ware’ similar to that which characterizes the

Figure 5. Section f-g/5 (excavation season 2001) with marked positions where radiocarbon samples were collected (drawn by M. Šunjić).

17

Dinko Radić earliest pottery production in Greece (Müller 1988: 220; Perlès 2001: 84-97; Radić 2005: 327, figure 3).

that precedes the Impressed Ware Neolithic. The date from Gudnja comes from a sample lacking a clear stratigraphic position (Marijanović 2005: 32, footnote 23). Likewise, the sample from Gospodska Cave can not be reliably linked to a clear archaeological context (Marijanović 2007: 29). The sample from Grapčeva comes from a level without clear material culture characteristics (Forenbaher and Kaiser 2000: 16). In addition to these, a couple of dates related to Impressed Ware contexts that are earlier than 7000 BP have been obtained recently from Nakovana Cave (Pelješac) and Vela Cave (Lošinj), but have not yet been published (Forenbaher, pers. comm.).

Characteristics of deposits immediately underlying Impressed Ware levels in three trenches, briefly described above, indicate their transitional character. All are marked by food remains that testify of Mesolithic subsistence strategies (fishing, hunting, gathering of snails and bivalves) and a lithic industry that has Mesolithic characteristics. At the same time, however, isolated bones of domestic animals appear (Kužir et al. 2005: 297), as well as a small number of prismatic blades, and only a very few shards of Impressed Ware or pre-Impressed Ware pottery.

The earliest published dates from unquestionable Neolithic contexts in the middle Dalmatian islands, z-1968 from Vela spila and ETH-22912 from Sušac (Table 2), suggest that the Impressed Ware appeared in this region at the very beginning of the sixth millennium BC, or maybe a few decades earlier. At that time, the arrival of Impressed Ware carriers accelerated and completed the Neolithic transition in the eastern Adriatic, although the direct evidence that plants (primarily, cereals) were cultivated at the beginning (or during) the Impressed Ware phase is still lacking; judging by the available evidence, subsistence was based on sheep and goat herding.

We may explain this evidence as reflecting the incipient process of neolithisation, which came as a consequence of trans-Adriatic contact, although navigation along the coast can not be excluded either. One way or another, it is a consequence of contacts, inherited from previous centuries, between the eastern Adriatic Mesolithic population and the coastal groups located farther to the east and south, which adopted at least a part of the ‘Neolithic package’ probably just a few decades earlier. It seems that the carriers of the Impressed Ware culture spread fairly rapidly throughout the Adriatic (Figure 6). It is not impossible, however, that the process of neolithisation (or, at least, the contacts between local populations and the ‘partially neolithicised’ groups) began at certain locations even before the appearance of the Impressed Ware Neolithic. The situations in Vela spila, as well as at the site of Sidari (Sordinas 1969: 401-407; Benvenuti and Metallinou 2002: 23-28), the deepest levels of which contain pottery that is very different from the Impressed Ware, support such an interpretation.

A unified facies within the wider Impressed Ware pottery complex forms at that time along the eastern, western and southern Adriatic coasts. Its development can be followed in three stages. The early stage, known as Impressa di tipo arcaico (Tiné 1983: 55), Impresso A (Müller 1988: 106, 117, fig 12; 1994: 152-153), or the early stage of development of the Impressed Ware culture (Čečuk and Radić 2005: 74.) is known from Apulia, Tremiti, and Dalmatia. It is characterized by coarse, thick-walled vessels of simple shapes, decorated by impression, pricking, pinching and incision. On middle Dalmatian islands, a large quantity of such pottery was recovered from the island of Sušac (Bass 1998; 2004), while over the last few years, evidence has been accumulating from Palagruža (Forenbaher and Kaiser 2005: 15-20, figure 4), Korčula (Čečuk and Radić 2005: 74, Tab 13-14) and Pelješac (Fornbaher and Kaiser, pers. comm.). The island location of those sites implies navigation as the only possible means of communication, while similar material cultures of the eastern and the western coasts (in particular, an almost identical decorative system applied to pottery) indicate fairly frequent navigation and probably also a well-developed social interaction network. (Zorzi 1954; Puglisi 1955; Palma di Cesnola 1967).

Returning to the topic of trans-Adriatic navigation, what interest us is the direction and the means by which specific Neolithic innovations reached the islands and the mainland. Since this issue has been discussed recently (Forenbaher and Miracle 2006: 513-518), we can only repeat the wellknown conclusion about maritime routes as the dominant ways of expansion, and the generally accepted fact that Neolithic spreads from regions farther to the east. The Early Neolithic Most of the eastern Adriatic radiocarbon dates for Neolithic are later than 7000 BP and, when calibrated, they refer to the beginning of the sixth millennium BC. The few dates that pre-date 7000 BP include the above mentioned date from Vela spila (z-1967: 7300 ± 120 BP, 6420-5910 BC cal.2SD range), a date from Gudnja Cave (GrN-10315: 7170 ± 70 BP, 6220-5880 BC cal.2SD range), a date from Gospodska Cave (z-597: 7010 ± 90 BP, 6030-5710 BC cal.2SD range), a date from Grapčeva Cave (Beta-103488: 7030±60 BP, 6020-5740 BC cal. 2SD range). As was already discussed, the date from Vela spila refers to a period

Wide zigzag impressions produced by an edge of a shell (most often, a straight-edged shell) are frequent on both Adriatic coasts and are particularly common in the eastern Adriatic. This kind of decoration characterizes the middle stage, but also to the late stage, of the Impressed Ware culture (Müller 1991: 321; 1994: 152-153). Most of the motifs and techniques of the early stage continue to appear in later phases. 18

The Beginnings of Trans-Adriatic Navigation

Figure 6. Distribution of the Impressed Ware and the Middle Neolithic painted pottery: 1 Danilo, 2 Markova Cave, 3 Grapčeva Cave, 4 Gudnja Cave, 5 Nakovana Cave, 6 Žukovica Cave, 7 Jakasova Cave, 8 Vela spila Cave, 9 Sušac, 10 Palagruža, 11 Tremiti, 12 Coppa Nevigata, 13 Passo di Corvo, 14 Guadone, 15 Scaloria Cave, 16 Serra d’Alto.

19

Dinko Radić A group of well-made vessels, decorated by tiny, narrow, zigzag impressions forming bands that are usually less than 5mm wide, belongs to the stratigraphically and chronologically youngest phase known as Impressa evoluta – Guadone style (Tiné 1983: 55), Impresso C (Müller 1994: 153), La fase evoluta (facies Guadone – Rendina II) (Tiné 2002: 139-143) or the late stage of development of the Impressed Ware culture (Čečuk and Radić 2005: 76). This type of pottery is always of superior quality than the standard Impressed Ware pottery. Most of the shards have thin walls, and smooth and relatively well polished (for Impressed Ware standards) surfaces. The bands formed by zigzag impressions are often organized in triangular interlinking shapes and sometimes enclosed by incised lines. Other decoration includes series of straight parallel bands and classic a tremolo technique. Fragments described above appear in late Impressed Ware deposits in the area that stretches from central Bosnia to Apulia, on sites like Guadone (Tiné 1983: plates 12:3, 126:5,6), Vela spila (Čečuk and Radić 2005: plate 23:1,5), Pokrovnik (Müller 1994: plates 5:4, 9:1,2), Obre I (Benac 1973: plates 15:2, 20:1, 24:7-12, 25:1,6), Mastrodonato Cave (Todisco 1980: 254, plates 14:132,133, 25:251), or Hateljska pećina (Marijanović 2000: plate 13:3).

cultural complex, have not been found so far in the eastern Adriatic Early Neolithic deposits. A number of flaked stone artifacts produced by Campignian technology, recovered from sites in the eastern Adriatic, provide another obvious trans-Adriatic link. Campignian technology is well-attested on the western coast, especially in Monte Gargano Peninsula, which lies close to the middle Dalmatian region. On the eastern coast, Campignian axes are known from Early Neolithic and Middle Neolithic deposits of Markova Cave (Čečuk 1970; Novak and Čečuk 1974: 235) and Sušac (Radić et al. 2000: plate 1:1), while elements of Campignian stone working can be observed on several artifacts from Vela spila. Tools produced by Campignian technology are not numerous, but their number is growing with new research. It is becoming clear that the products of this flint knapping technology represented another item of exchange between the opposite Adriatic coasts. Similarity of flint industries from both sides of the Adriatic is further indicated by artifacts of Sipontiano type, that is, blades with continuous steep lateral retouch, pointed at the end. At Coppa Nevigata, these were presumably related to exploitation of large amounts of Cardium shells (Puglisi 1955: 26-31). Closely similar tools were recovered from Early Neolithic deposits of Vela spila (Radić 2005: 341342, plate 2:5-8). Blades with steep lateral retouch appear among the Early Neolithic tools from Sušac (Bass 1998: 171, figure 4).

Of particular interest within this sub-type of pottery is a group of fine, evenly fired vessels of uniform color, made of highly refined clay. Quality of their manufacture is considerably superior to that of the standard Impressed Ware pottery. Smooth and often shiny surface is decorated by a specific variant of narrow zigzag bands produced by impressing or scratching on partially dried vessel walls. This technique is similar to a tremolo decoration. Bands are organized into series that form several square spaces delimited by thin incised lines (Figure 7). Other, simpler motifs are also present, as well as a somewhat less wellmade variant of this kind of pottery (Petrić 2004: plate 4:1; Radić 2005: plate 1:2). This technologically superior pottery exhibits a mixture of Impressed Ware decorative techniques and the improved potting technology of the late Early Neolithic with at least a hint of Middle Neolithic shapes and decorative motifs.

The Middle Neolithic The next change in content of cultural deposits arrives to the middle Dalmatian islands with the establishment of the Middle Neolithic traits. The Impressed Ware complex is replaced by an eastern Mediterranean complex, which is marked by the appearance of technologically superior pottery and new decorative techniques, such as polishing and painting. This is accompanied by the appearance of previously unknown vessel shapes (carinated vessels and vessels on elevated or high pedestals), as well as the appearance of new raw materials, primarily obsidian. The island of Sušac, especially the site SU 027, has provided key information about connections between the two Adriatic coasts during the Middle Neolithic (Radić et al. 2000: 60).

Artifacts with the above described characteristics belong to (and define) the Guadone sub-phase of the Apulian Impressed Ware Neolithic. Presence of such pottery in Apulia marks Phase C of the Impressed Ware, which appears in association with red-painted pottery (Müller 1988: 118, fig 14). Identical Guadone style shards define the late phase of Impressed Ware culture in the eastern Adriatic, although they make up only a small part of the pottery assemblage, conspicuous by quality of manufacture, regularity, and complexity of decoration. Most of the potsherds retain shapes and decorative elements inherited from earlier Impressed Ware stages (wide zigzag impression, linear incision, and series of small impressions). Painted shards, which by their manufacturing technologically and decoration belong to a different, eastern Mediterranean

Vela spila, Gudnja Cave, Markova Cave, and (to a lesser extent) several other sites provide abundant evidence of connections between the opposite Adriatic coasts during the Middle Neolithic. It seems that most, if not all, of the painted pottery vessels that were recovered from the eastern Adriatic coastal and hinterland sites, from central Bosnia to northern Dalmatia (Figure 6), are direct imports from southern or central Italy. Future research may show whether the inhabitants of the eastern Adriatic have mastered the technology of painted pottery production and have been making their own painted pots during the Middle Neolithic. 20

The Beginnings of Trans-Adriatic Navigation

Figure 7. Guadone type potsherds from Vela spila (drawn by Dino Cetinić).

addressing, among other, the issue of the expansion of southern Italian decorative styles to the eastern Adriatic coast.

Since rather few radiocarbon dates are available, and even fewer analyses of technology and raw material provenience have been published (Spataro 2002), we must resort to the rather imperfect method of comparative typological analysis. By attributing specific potsherds (those for which at least a general stratigraphic context is known) to a particular decorative style, a rough contemporaniety can be established between deposits, and their contents, on both sides of the Adriatic.

Aside from the painted pottery, we should be looking at the western Adriatic coast for the source of some other kinds of pottery, first of all, the specific kind of polished pottery that appears during the Middle Neolithic (Čečuk and Radić 2005: T. 37:1,8) and the band-decorated pottery (ceramiche decorate con la tecnica pointillé) (Tinè 1983: 89-90). Furthermore, it is well known that all of the obsidian artifacts recovered from Dalmatian island sites that have been chemically analyzed came from Lipari (Tycot 2002).

A large number of shards from northern Dalmatian sites, a much smaller number from Markova Cave and Vela spila, as well as a few shards from the central Bosnian site of Obre II, belong to the middle Apennine Ripoli style (Cremonesi 1965). Vessels painted with wide bands, but also those with simple linear geometric motifs, are related to similar examples from the Apulian site of Passo di Corvo (Tine 1983: 162-163; Trump 1987: 162-164, figure 97 i T. LII b). Scaloria Alta decorative style (Whitehouse 1969: 281284; Čečuk and Radić 2005: 119-120) is the most widely distributed painted pottery style in the eastern Adriatic, and is best represented in middle Dalmatia, in caves like Vela spila, Gudnja or Jakasova. Vessels of Serra d’Alto style (Whitehouse 1969: 286-293: Marijanović 2005: 53), also well represented in Vela spila and Gudnja Cave, stand out by their superior quality of manufacture and complexity of decorative motifs.

The discussed evidence of mostly one-way maritime contacts indicate that an expansion of originally eastern Mediterranean decorative styles and techniques took place during the last phase of the Early Neolithic. This expansion grew stronger with time, and is attested primarily by painted and polished potsherds of superior quality, and by obsidian. Some of the finds from the acropolis of Lipari are considered to be imports from the core area of Danilo culture (Bray 1966: plate 26:1,3,5-7, plate 27). This would indicate two-way exchange, a possibility that mariners from the eastern Adriatic coast played a role in the obsidian exchange. For the moment, one can not say whether migration is lurking behind this expansion. Coarse ware potsherds, which constitute the majority of pottery assemblages, do not differ much technologically from the earlier coarse pottery associated with the Impressed Ware complex. Acceptance of specific Middle Neolithic decorative elements, such as hanging triangles, areas filled with diamond lattice, diamond-shaped decoration, is only an adaptation to new times, and is just one among the general characteristics of the new period.

It should be noted that the attribution of a potsherd to a specific style does not necessarily imply a precise chronological determination. Decorative styles mentioned above span a large part of the Middle Neolithic, especially its middle stage, but also its final stage, appearing as well in contexts that are in contact with, or mixed with, the Late Neolithic Hvar culture deposits. Detailed analysis of specific decorative styles is beyond the scope of this paper. The topic already has been discussed in considerable detail by Čečuk and Radić (2005) and Marijanović (2005). The author of this paper is preparing an extensive study

The Early Bronze Age and the role of Palagruža Archaeological evidence from cave sites such as Grapčeva, 21

Dinko Radić Markova, Vela spila, Gudnja, Rača, and others, suggests that middle Dalmatian islands were relatively well-populated during the period from the Late Neolithic to the end of the Late Bronze Age. Judging by the available evidence, frequency of trans-Adriatic navigation began to decrease with the beginning of the Late Neolithic. Nikša Petrić and Michela Spataro mention typical Hvar pottery shards on the west coast of the Adriatic, but according to the available information, only a small number of fragments appear to be present, indicating a low intensity of navigation (Petrić 2004: 200, plate 4:4; Spataro 2002: 31).

Figure 8. An Early Bronze Age potsherd from Sušac (drawn by Dino Cetinić).

Currently, there is no evidence that would testify of ancient mariners crossing the Adriatic during the final Late Neolithic and the Early Copper Age (Nakovana culture). Contacts were reestablished only at the very beginning of the Bronze Age. The evidence for this reestablishment of contacts was obtained from isolated off-shore islands. Fieldwork carried out on Palagruža (Forenbaher and Kaiser 1997) yielded a large pottery assemblage that contains many fine potsherds, decorated by comb impression and other related decorative techniques. Those techniques, as well as the complex geometric ornamental motifs and characteristic vessels shapes allow the shards to be recognized as a component of Cetina culture. A chert source exists at the near-by islet of Mala Palagruža, which might be a part of the explanation for the multitude of stone artifacts (some 1500 pieces were recovered during a single field season [Forenbaher and Kaiser 1997: 20-24, table 1, figures 4 and 5]).

Several ground stone wrist guards were found in addition to the arrow points (Forenbaher, pers. comm.). One should remember that, some 1500 years later, a sanctuary was active at the same location in which mariners paid homage to the Greek hero Diomedes (Kirigin et al. 2004). One of Diomedes’ attributes is the arrow with which he wounded Aphrodite under Troy. We may presume that Palagruža was, among other things, a cult location with an unusually long continuity of use. Numerous decorated Early Bronze Age potsherds and arrow point tips may have been votive offerings to a hero, or had some other role in his cult that is unknown to us today. For the moment, the answers to that and many other questions must remain unanswered.

During a comprehensive multi-season surface survey of the island of Sušac, some thirty archaeological sites were recorded, but none of them belongs to the period between the Middle Neolithic and the early Classical Period. Although representative material comparable to that from Palagruža had not been found, that does not necessarily mean that the island was not visited. Recently, a number of non-diagnostic prehistoric potsherds were recovered from a location high in the hills, where traces of human presence hardly were expected. The location near a series of natural water holes is not related to navigation, but suggests a hunting camp or a temporary shelter for a group of shepherds. Among them was a plain fragment of a conical or slightly spherically rounded bowl, with a wide rim sloping towards the interior (Figure 8), and a fragment of a vessel with an appliqué rib carrying finger impressions. The bowl with wide rim is similar to those from Palagruža, and both shards are attributable to Cetina culture. Clearly, Sušac during the Early Bronze Age was just one of the waystations on trans-Adriatic navigation, in which Palagruža had an especially prominent role.

References

Acknowledgments I am grateful to Dino Cetinić for his help with the production of illustrations.

Bass, B. 1998. Early Neolithic Offshore Accounts: Remote Islands, Maritime Exploitations, and the Trans-Adriatic Cultural Network. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 11(2), 165-190. 2004. The Maritime Expansion of Early Neolithic Agro-Pastoralism in the Eastern Adriatic Sea. Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della regione Friuli – Venezia Giulia 14, 45-60. Benac, A. 1973 Obre I - Neolitsko naselje starčevačko-impresso i kakanjske kulture na Raskršću, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu (new series) 27-28: 5-103. Benvenuti. A. G. and Metallinou, L. 2002. La ceramica impressa della Grecia. In M. A. Fugazzole Delpino, A. Pessina and V. Tine (eds), Le ceramiche impresse nel Neolitico Antico: Italia e Mediterraneo. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 17-28. Bray, W. 1966. Neolithic Painted Ware in the Adriatic. Antiquity 40, 100-106. Brusić, Z. 2005. Pećina Vlakno. Hrvatski arheološki godišnjak 1(2004), 197-199.

The obvious question to ask is why there are so many flaked stone arrow points on Palagruža, and why is decorated pottery much more frequent than it should be on a location that, judging by its geographical position and size, should represent only a resting spot on trans-Adriatic navigation. 22

The Beginnings of Trans-Adriatic Navigation Chapman, J. and J. Müller. 1990. Early Farmers in the Mediterranean Basin: the Dalmatian Evidence. Antiquity 64, 127-134. Cremonesi, G. 1965. Il villaggio di Ripoli alla luce dei recenti scavi. Rivista di Science Preistoriche, 20(1), 85-155. Čečuk, B. 1996. Špilja Kopačina pored Donjeg Humca na otoku Braču. Arheološki radovi i rasprave 12, 13-30. 1970. Kampinijen na istočnoj jadranskoj obali. In v. Mirosavljević, D. Rendić-Miočević and M. Suić (eds), Adriatica Praehistorica et Antiqua. Zagreb: Sveučilište u Zagrebu, 87-104. Čečuk, B. and Radić, D. 2001. Vela špilja – preliminarni rezultati dosadašnjih istraživanja. In B. Čečuk (ed.), Arheološka istraživanja na području otoka Korčule i Lastova. Zagreb: Hrvatsko arheološko društvo, 75-118. 2005. Vela spila, višeslojno pretpovijesno nalazište - Vela Luka, otok Korčula. Vela Luka: Centar za kulturu. Forenbaher, S. and Kaiser, T. 1997. Palagruža, jadranski moreplovci i njihova kamena industrija na prijelazu bakrenog u brončano doba. Opuscula archaeologica 21, 15-28. 2000. Grapčeva spilja i apsolutno datiranje istočnojadranskog neolitika. Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 92 (1999), 9-34. 2005. Palagruža i širenje zemljoradnje na Jadranu. Opuscula archaeologica 29, 7-23. Juračić, M., Novosel, A., Tibljaš, D. and Balen, D. 2004. Jabuka Shoal, a New Location with Igneous Rocks in the Adriatic Sea. Geologia Croatica 57(1), 81-85. Kirigin, B, Katunarić, T. and Skelac, G. 2004. Palagruža 2003: Preliminary Report on Archeological Excavation. Opuscula archaeologica 28, 207- 220. Komšo, D. 2006. Mezolitik u Hrvatskoj. Opuscula archaeologica 30, 55-91. Kužir, S., Babić, K. and Z. Kozarić, Z. 2005. Životinjske kosti iz Vele spile na otoku Korčuli. In Čečuk, B. and Radić, D. (eds), Vela spila, Višeslojno pretpovijesno nalazište - Vela Luka. Vela Luka: Centar za kulturu, 291-299. Lambeck, K., Antonioli. F., Purcell, A. and Silenci, S. 2004. Sea-level change along the Italian coast for the past 10,000 yr. Quaternary Science Reviews 23, 1567-1598. Marijanović B. 2000. Prilozi za prapovijest u zaleđu Jadranske obale. Zadar: Filozofski fakultet. 2005. Gudnja, višeslojno prapovijesno nalazište. Dubrovnik: Dubrovački muzeji. 2007. Neka pitanja ranog neolitika istočnog Jadrana. Archaeologia Adriatica 1, 7-54.

Miracle, P. T., Galanidou, N. and Forenbaher, S. 2000. Pioneers in the Hills: Early Mesolithic foragers at Šebrn Abri (Istra, Croatia), European Journal of Archaeology 3(3), 293-329. Miracle, P. T. and Forenbaher, S. 2006. Neolithic and Bronze-Age Herders of Pupićina Cave, Croatia. Journal of Field Archaeology 30, 255-281. Müller, J. 1988. Škarin Samograd - eine frühneolithische Station mit monochromer Ware und Impresso-Keramik an der Ostadria. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 18(3), 219-235. 1991. Die ostadriatische Impresso-Kultur: Zeitliche Gliederung und kulturelle Einbindung, Germania 69, 311-358. 1994. Das Ostadriatische Frühneolithikum. Die Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adriaraumes. Berlin: Volker Spiess. Novak, G. and Čečuk, B. 1974. Kamene i koštane rukotvorine Markove spilje II. Arheološki radovi i rasprave 7, 221-258. Palma di Cesnola, A. 1967. Il Neolitico medio e superiore di San Domino (Arcipelago di Tremiti). Rivista di Scienze Prehistoriche 22, 349-391. Perlès, C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Petrić, N. 2004. Kultura Gudnja i primjeri importa u neolitiku Dalmacije. Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu 21, 197-207. Puglisi, S. M. 1955. Industria microlitica nei livelli a ceramica impressa di Coppa Nevigata. Rivista di Scienze Prehistoriche 10, 19-37. Radić, D. 2005. Vela spila: preliminarna analiza starijeneolitičkih i mezolitičkih naslaga iz sonde istražene 2004. godine. Opuscula archaeologica 29, 323-348. Radić, D., Bass, B. and Della Casa, Ph. 2000. Arheološka istraživanja na otoku Sušcu: sezona 2000. Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 32(3), 59-62. Radić, D. and Lugović, B. 2004. Petrographic and Geochemical Correlation between Artifacts from the Mesolithic Layers of Vela Spila and Magmatic Rocks of Central Dalmatian Islands. Opuscula archaeologica 28, 7-18. Radić, D., Lugović, B. and Marjanac. Lj. 2007. Napolitan Yellow Tuff (NYT) from the Pleistocene Sediments in Vela Spila on the Island of Korčula: a Valuable Chronostratigraphic Marker of the Transition from the Paleolithic to the Mesolithic. Opuscula archaeologica 31, 7-26. Sargent, A. 1985. The Carbon-14 Chronology of the Early and 23

Dinko Radić Middle Neolithic of Southern Italy. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 51, 31-40. Skeates, R. 2003. Radiocarbon Dating and Interpretations of the Mesolitic-Neolitic Transition in Italy. In A. J. Ammerman and P. Biagi (eds), The Widening Hardvest: The Neolithic Transition in Europe: Looking Back, Looking Forward. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America, 157-187. Sordinas, A. 1969. Investigations of the Prehistory of Corfu during 1964-1966. Balkan Studies 10(2), 393-424. Spataro, M. 2002. The First Farming Communities of the Adriatic: Pottery Production and Circulation in the Early and Middle Neolithic. Trieste: Edizioni Svevo. Surić, M., Juračić, M., Horvatinčić, N. and Krajcar Bronić, I. 2005. Late Pleistocene-Holocene Sea-Level Rise and the Pattern of Coastal Karst Inundation: Records from Submerged Speleothems along the Eastern Adriatic Coast (Croatia). Marine Geology 214, 163–175. Tiné, S. 1983. Passo di Corvo e la civiltà neolitica del Tavoliere. Genova: Sagep Editrice.

Tiné, V. 2002. Le facies a ceramica impressa dell’Italia meridionale e della Sicilia. In M. A. Fugazzole Delpino, A. Pessina and V. Tine (eds), Le ceramiche impresse nel Neolitico Antico: Italia e Mediterraneo. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 132165. Tycot, R. H. 2002. Chemical Fingerprinting and Source Trading of Obsidian: The Central Mediterranean Trade in Black Gold. Accounts of Chemical Research 35, 618-627. Todisco, L. 1980. Ceramica neolitica nel Museo di Bisceglie. Bari: Dedalo. Trump, D. H. 1987. Excavation in 1949-63. In G. D. B. Jones (ed.), Apulia. Vol. 1: Neolithic Settlement in the Tavoliere, Report of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London, Vol. XLIV. Whitehouse, R. 1969. The Neolithic Pottery Sequence in South Italy. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 25, 267-310 . Zorzi, F. 1954. Ricerche paletnologiche effettuate nel Gargano e alle Tremiti durante il 1954. Verona: Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, 231-242.

24

3 Sources of Chert in Middle Dalmatia: Supplying Raw Material to Prehistoric Lithic Industries

Zlatko Perhoč This contribution presents an overview of chert outcrops in Middle Dalmatia. It is a result of outcrop prospection and macroscopic analysis of cherts from the region, in the course of which a comparative collection of geological samples and a respective data base were formed. Middle Dalmatia is a part of the outer Dinaric Range, finally shaped by orogenesis during the Neogene, and acquiring maritime character since the end of Pleistocene. Lithologically, the region is built of carbonate rocks that were deposited continuously from Jurassic until Paleogene. Primary chert outcrops that appear within those rocks throughout the region are from Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and (most often) Paleogene, with secondary accumulations formed during the Quaternary Period. This overview presents results of the first phase of long-term research, aimed at correlating archaeological lithic inventories to regional sources of lithic raw material. Keywords: chert, Dalmatia, geoarchaeology, lithic artifacts

Introduction

Geoarchaeology of chert began in Europe during the first half of 19th century. By mid-20th century it became an unavoidable part of prehistoric archaeology (Gayck 2000) and recently it is developing as one of the interdisciplinary areas of archaeometry. Over the last few decades in particular, geoarchaeological exploration is marked by application of new research methods and techniques (Shackley 2008).

recognition and determination of stone artifacts (Hahn 1991), Paleolithic archaeologist Joachim Hahn formed a comparative collection of geological samples and corresponding archaeological artifacts at the University of Tübingen. Harald Floss founded a comprehensive collection of rock samples and put together a corresponding data base for the Paleolithic of the middle Rhine region at the Museum für die Archäologie des Eiszeitalters Schloss Monrepos, Neuwied, Römisch-Germanische Zentralmuseum Mainz (Floss 1994). An exhibition presenting five thousand years of chert mining in Europe was opened in 1980 in German Mining Museum in Bochum (Weisberger 1999). Rolf C. A. Rottländer (1989) studied the weathering of cherts. Eight symposia on flint were held between 1969 and 1999 (Engelen 1976). The most accessible source of information on geoarchaeological aspects of silica rocks may be the web page http://www.flintsource.net, created at the initiative of Rengert Elburg and Paul van der Kroft (2008); it includes Europe from southern Scandinavia to the Alps and the Iberian Peninsula in the south. Jehanne Affolter (2002) stands out among the relatively few researchers specializing in correlation between lithic artifacts and raw material sources.

Several works of prominent methodological value for exploring archaeological lithics influenced my research. In early 20th century, W. Deecke began geoarchaeological studies of siliceous rock deposits and their correlation to relevant lithic artifacts in Central Europe, and published his research in a work entitled ‘Central European silex by its occurrence, traits and prehistoric use’ (Deecke 1933). Walther Adrian and Martin Büchner (1981) studied glacial chert detritus and other rocks as raw materials in prehistory of eastern Westphalia. Aside from his work on

Until now, this kind of systematic research has not been carried out in Croatian archaeology. The issue of lithic raw material provenience was either skipped, or approached sporadically and in general terms (Malez 1979a). Relation between lithic finds and possible raw material sources was based on general geological information rather than focused research. Although rare, the published Croatian archaeological papers, in which material analyses of lithics and questions of raw material provenience are central to the topic and represent a crucial component of archaeological

The aim of this contribution is to present the chert outcrops of Middle Dalmatia. The report is based on finds made in the course of geoarchaeological prospection of outcrops, macroscopic analyses of cherts from the outcrops, and classification of chert types. A comparative collection of chert samples from the region was formed in the course of prospection. This work represents an initial phase of a long-term geoarchaeological research, aimed at correlating lithic raw materials to lithic artifacts from the region. The ultimate aim of this research is to contribute to the reconstruction of lithic industry, one of the crucial elements of prehistoric economy in Dalmatia.

25

Zlatko Perhoč interpretation, indicate the need and the interest of archaeologists and geologists for such research (Karavanić et al. 2008; Radić and Lugović 2004).

about cherts in Croatian geological literature (Tišljar 2004), those focused specifically on cherts are rare (Halamić and Goričan 1995), and none of them focuses specifically on the region in question. Basic geological maps with their explanatory notes are the initial source of information about chert outcrops, but they are not directly applicable to geological prospection. A field archaeologist in search of chert, equipped only with a geological map, must face numerous obstacles, the greatest of which is the huge difference between the size and visibility of a chert outcrop relative to the size of its host rock formation. Chert outcrops are not mapped individually on rock formations in which they occur, but are listed in explanatory notes next to the corresponding units. More helpful than general guidelines (Luedtke 1992), or geological maps, was practical advice and instructions provided by the old hands at Dalmatian geology, listed by name in the acknowledgments at the end of this paper.

The purpose of this paper is to expand our knowledge about cherts in Middle Dalmatia and to remove misconceptions about insufficient local chert sources. It should provide a sound base for rejection of the assumption about absence of such sources, and exclusively extra-regional acquisition of good quality chert raw materials required by local Dalmatian lithic industries (Robb and Farr 2005). It is limited to preliminary overview of chert outcrops, summary information about their location in Dalmatia, quantity, type, and quality of the chert, and evaluation of suitability of the outcrop to satisfy the needs of prehistoric flint knappers. The paper contains a brief description of each chert outcrop with elements of morphology, topography (Figure 2), and geology of the location (Table 1), a corresponding tabulation of basic information about outcrops selected for this occasion (Table 2), and a table that provides information about representative types of chert (Table 3).

Methods Primary tasks of the research program presented in this paper are: geoarchaeological field prospection, mapping of chert outcrops, documenting of outcrops and rocks at the outcrop, rock sampling, material analysis of lithic artifacts and geological samples, creation of a comparative collection of geological samples and petrographic types of lithic artifacts, as well as a corresponding data base. Purpose of this research is to correlate geological lithics to lithic artifacts from Paleolithic and Neolithic sites within the region, using archaeometric methodology. The ultimate aim is to contribute to the reconstruction of prehistoric economy of Middle Dalmatia, from the aspect of lithic industry raw material provenance. The following Stone Age sites currently are included in the research program, in collaboration with their respective investigators (Figure 2): Mujina Cave near Labin Dalmatinski and Resnik (Mousterian), Kopačina Cave near Donji Humac on the island of Brač (Epigravettian and Mesolithic), Vela Cave in Vela Luka on the island of Korčula (Epigravettian, Mesolithic, Neolithic), as well as open air sites on the islands of Palagruža (Neolithic, Copper Age) and Sušac (Early Neolithic).

The rock under discussion is chert, and its variety known as radiolarite. Chert is a solid monomineral silica sedimentary rock, of chemical and biogenetic origin, built of microcrystalline, cryptocrystalline or fibrous chalcedony (Fürchtbauer 1988). German geological texts refer to it as Hornstein and French as silex. Specific varieties of chert are known as radiolarite and lydite (Tišljar 2004). Based on the current insight into the archaeological collections from the region, those rocks are the best represented in Middle Dalmatian prehistoric lithic inventories since the beginning of Neolithic. The coastal region of Republic of Croatia, Dalmatia was chosen as research area during the initial analyses of archaeological lithic materials, the first reconnaissance of known chert outcrops, and the early search for the unknown outcrops within that region. It goes without saying that the need for interregional comparison necessarily calls for transcending the regional borders, according to the dynamics and the level of development of a given site’s prehistoric economy. The role that Middle Dalmatia plays in communication between the western and the eastern Adriatic shores (Radić 2003) certainly influenced my choice of the research region, as did the connectedness of chertbearing Dalmatia with chert-and-radiolarite-bearing Bosnia. Geomorphologic changes of the environment caused by the raising sea levels presented another challenge to this research.

A set of archaeometric methods have been applied. Macroscopic analyses mainly have been related to fieldwork and cabinet work, while application of microfacial methods of material investigation has been initiated using several laboratory techniques. Since the beginning of investigation in the fall of 2005 until the summer of 2009, numerous repeated prospections have been carried out at the mentioned locations within the region. Preparations included a study of topography and geology of the terrain, and collecting information about possible chert outcrops. This was augmented by study visits to chert deposits and prehistoric chert mines in Europe. Prospections consisted of field survey, aimed at locating primary and secondary chert outcrops. Aside from systematic collecting of rock

In 18th century, Alberto Fortis was the first to mention chert in Dalmatia (Bratulić 1984.). Modern Croatian geosciences are well aware of the existence of chert, which was not neglected during the geological mapping of the region. The work of Milan Herak (1990) summarizes notions about frequency of chert occurrence in Dinaric Ranges and the wider geological region. While there are general works 26

Sources of Chert in Middle Dalmatia samples, fieldwork included extensive and standardized documentation of outcrops. Cabinet work followed, consisting of processing of collected samples and data. A result of this work is a data base of chert raw materials (Tables 1-3) and a sample collection of all regional rock varieties and types. Due to its extent, the complete outcrops and rock types data base will be presented elsewhere, together with the details of the applied methods. The purpose of microfacial analysis of geologic samples is their characterization and description of comparative types. Rock characterization is carried out by petrographic, mineralogical, chemical, paleontological and structural analysis of the samples. Petrographic and mineralogical analysis is done macroscopically and checked by microscopic analysis of thin-sections under polarized light (Figure 1). Investigation of chert is difficult due to monomineral rock composition and microcrystalline/ criptocrystalline texture. It requires use of scanning electron microscope (SEM) (Figures 13 and 14), which allows differentiation among inclusions on micrometer scale. That part of the analysis was carried out in 2006, the expert support being provided by Hans-Peter Meyer, Institute of Earth Sciences, Heidelberg University. Furthermore, comparative analysis was initiated of chert’s mineral structure by SEM (Rottländer 1989) on fresh break section (Figures 15 and 16). Analysis of concentration of chemical elements by x-ray fluorescence spectrometry has been planned. Feasibility of prompt gamma activation analysis (a nondestructive technique of rock analysis) will be investigated as a part of a Hungarian – Croatian archaeometric bilateral collaboration project (2008-2009).

Figure 1. Microscopic thin-section of a radiolarite pebble with preserved radiolaria skeletons. Velo Polje outcrop, island of Sušac. Polarizing microscope, figure width c. 1mm (photo: Z. Perhoč).

characterize precisely, due to small quantity of extraneous inclusions in the homogenous mass of quartz. Choice and application of analytical methods and techniques that are used for determining provenance of sedimentary rocks are frequent topics of discussion (Mommsen 1986). By combining complementary methods, it is possible to link lithics from archaeological sites to raw material sources. Those links are credible enough for general interpretation, provided that this is not done in isolation from other archaeological interpretive work.

A material typology of cherts is constructed by combining the results of macroscopic classification and microfacial characterization, with the aim of relating the artifacts from archaeological sites to possible outcrops of chert. In spite of numerous sophisticated techniques of material characterization, a universal method that would guarantee reliable correlation between artifacts and raw material sources does not exist. That is a consequence of nonhomogenous structure and texture of sedimentary rocks, including cherts, which during their genesis partially acquire a complex of the host rock’s characteristics (Tišljar 2004). In theory, several types of chert may appear at a single outcrop, some (or all) of which may be macroscopically and/or microfacially identical to cherts from other local, regional, or extra-regional outcrops.

Overview of chert outcrops The order of description follows geographic logic. The overview is divided into mainland and island parts, and each of the parts respects the chronostratigraphy of rocks (Figure 2). Middle Dalmatian coast and hinterland up to Dinara Mountain Chert in Triassic deposits in the area of Muć According to notes that accompany geological maps, restricted zones of Middle Triassic deposits in which volcanism caused increased precipitation of quartz exist to the north of Muć and Sinj, as well as in Popina and Vrličko Polje along the upper Cetina River. Lenses of finegrained siliceous tuffs, as well as grayish brown and reddish brown dolomitized cherts appear in tuffic deposits aside from carbonates, limestones and dolomites. Siliceous finegrained tuffs contain radiolaria skeletons in which chert has been replaced in part by dolomite (Ivanović et al. 1978b).

For example, a trial microfacial analysis established a correlation between at least two types of chert artifacts from Vela Cave to cherts from a nearby outcrop. Another two local outcrops that corresponds macroscopically to the correlated types were found later under the sea level, with a clastic accumulation on the shore. At least one more material type of artifacts from Vela Cave occurs at several outcrops throughout the region and is virtually impossible to

27

Zlatko Perhoč

Figure 2. Topography of chert outcrops in Middle Dalmatia (Croatia). Outcrops are marked by numbers that correspond to numbers in text and tables. Base map by Tomislav Kaniški.

28

Sources of Chert in Middle Dalmatia Table 1. Chronostratigraphy of chert outcrops in Middle Dalmatia. Chronostratigraphic determination of outcrops according to geological maps cited in text. (T2 Middle Triassic; J1,2,3 Lower, Middle, Upper Jurassic; K1,2 Lower, Upper Cretaceous; Pc Paleocene; E Eocene; Ol Oligocene; M Miocene; Pli Pliocene; Ple Pleistocene; Ho Holocene).   #

  Outcrop

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 20 33 34 26 24 35 22 13 15 14 27 28 29 18 19 25 30 31 23 21 16 32 17 43 42 41 36 37 38 39 40

Muć, Jazinka Muć, Zelevske Staje Muć, Suvaja Muć, Visovac Svilaja, Lemeš Matokit, Vrgorac Biokovo, Makar Seget Gornji, Vlaška Vilaja, Gradac Vilaja, Sirištak Labinštica Labinštica, Labinska Draga Biokovo, Baška Voda Brač, Dol Brač, Pučišća, Mala Bračuta Čiovo, Saldun Cetina, Jare, Muša Hvar Island, Katolić Cove Kamešnica, Poljane Kozjak, Malačka Kozjak, Matetina Peć Kozjak, Starosevski Gaj Lastovo Archipelago, Kopište Lastovo Archipelago, Mrčara Lastovo Island, St. Mihovil Cove Marjan Mosor, Sitno Neretva, Čeljevo Mala Palagruža, Medvidina Cove Vela Palagruža, Pod Forane Peruča Reservoir Primošten, Kremik Resnik, Beach of Resnik Šolta, Grohote Solin, Kroz Smiljanovac Sušac, Velo polje, Manćina Cove Vis Town, Gradina Vis Island, Komiža, Barjaška Cove Vela Luka, Stračinčica Vela Luka, Bradat Prid Bandon Vela Luka, Lozica Vela Luka, Moćni Laz Vela Luka, Kremenjača Cove

Tri. Jurassic Cretaceous Paleogene Neogene Quaternary J1 J2 J3 K1 K2 Pc E Ol M Pli Ple Ho T2                                                                                      

29

Zlatko Perhoč Red radiolarian chert, investigated at Jazinka (1) outcrop,1 appears as kidney-shaped loaves with thick, green patinated crust (Figure 3). Layers with a thickness of a decimeter or more are covered by humic soil that prevents the assessment of fresh layers, while the exposed layers are mostly friable and only in places are they sturdy. Currently, this is the only known radiolarite outcrop in Dalmatian hinterland. Siliceous tuff is present at Zalevske Staje (2). Aside from the mentioned rocks, abundant black-and-white chert fragments, as well as occasional agates and greenish gray chert, can be found in the Suvaja (3) torrent bed, especially in the upper gorge (Šćavničar et al. 1984). Primary deposit of the greenish gray chert debris from Suvaja has not been located.

Cretaceous chert were discovered farther west, to the north of Trogir. In this area, Cenomanian dolomites are followed by Turonian bedded, massive and banded limestones with occasional thin layers of chert (Marinčić et al. 1973b). Three outcrops have been discovered. The most modest one is on the southern slope of a hill called Vlaška (8) (444m a.s.l.), with rare, highly indented, thin lenses of chert within the host rock, while a few archaeologically relevant pieces were found among limestone boulders of a drystone wall and in the talus deposit. Chert is not easily spotted on a hill called Labištica (11) (701m a.s.l.), but the eroded nodules are very large and resilient (Figure 5). The best outcrop in this area is located in the area of Vilaja Mountain, at the southern foot of a hill called Sirištak (10) (705m a.s.l.). In and around Seline, there are numerous large nodules of very good quality chert in a field covered with olive groves and vineyards. In Prgomet, on the eastern slope of a hill called Gradac (9) (496m a.s.l.), small chert debris can be found, while the host rock in the cut of the new approach road to the motorway contained large, decimeter-size nodules, some petrographically immature nodules, lenses and thin layers.

Chert in Jurassic deposits in Svilaja Mountain Deposits of Svilaja were formed during the Upper Jurassic, which is characterized by stable, shallow sea sediment deposition of dolomites and limestones; thin layers and lenses of chert crystallize within them (Ivanović et al. 1972a). In the northwestern part of Svilaja Mountain (1206m a.s.l.), prospection was carried out at Lemeš Pass (5), where continuous series of elongated lenses of chert, some of them decimeter-sized, were recorded in a road cut on a mountain plateau (858m a.s.l.), while numerous thin layers of chert lay parallel to the limestone layers (Figure 4). The quantity of chert is impressive, but the rock is rather friable. Smaller debris is present at the surface of the outcrop, but it cannot be properly surveyed, because the area has been strewn by land mines. This is the locus tipicus of the so-called ‘Lemeš deposits’ (Tišljar et al. 2002), which are present also in southern and northern slopes of Svilaja and Kozjak. Chert is present to the north of Muć in Jurassic deposits (Ivanović et al. 1978a), where a small concentration of nodules and lenses was observed in the area of Visovac (4).

Chert in Paleogene deposits of the Middle Dalmatian coastal strip From Donji Seget to Drvenik, with a small discontinuity at Brela, the entire coastal strip of Middle Dalmatia is built of Paleogene deposits. Among them is Eocene flysch (Marjanac 1987), which contains the most numerous and opulent chert outcrops in the entire region under study. The flaked structure of coastal Dalmatia was created during the Alpine orogenesis, at the end of Cretaceous and the beginning of Paleogene. The Paleogene sea transgressed upon the eroded cretaceous surface, depositing breccias and limestones. During the Eocene, limestones and marly limestones were deposited within the basin, followed by Tertiary flysch in the area of Trogir, Kaštela, Split, and the southern slopes of Kozjak (Marinčić et al. 1973b). These deposits abound with cherts, especially within the limestone part of the flysch sequence. During repeated field prospections, the following chert outcrops were documented: Labinska Draga on Labinštica, Kaštelica on Opor, Malačka, Starosevski Gaj and Matetina Peć on Kozjak, and at the base of Vlaška Mountain near Seget Donji. Chert is present sporadically on the shore of Kaštelanski Bay, e.g., in boulders at Resnik and in unconsolidated flysch sediments at Solin, abundantly on Marijan Hill in Split, as well as in the area of Sitno on Mosor Mountain. A particularly rich outcrop of large, resilient nodules of several types of chert is located at Labinska Draga (12) on Labinštica’s eastern slope, and on the nearby hill of Kaštelica (461m a.s.l.). Several locations with cherts of admirable quality, including the one at Malačka (13), were documented on Kozjak Mountain (779m a.s.l.) above Kaštelanski Bay between Trogir and Split. The most abundant of all outcrops in this study is the one at Starosevski Gaj (14). More than eighty chert

Chert in Cretaceous deposits of Middle Dalmatian hinterland While Cretaceous deposits of the Middle Dalmatian part of the outer Dinaric Mountains (Marinčić et al. 1973b) occupy the largest part of the region under study, relatively few chert outcrops have been documented, and their quality and quantity is lower than elsewhere in Dalmatia. Biokovo (1762m a.s.l.) and Matokit (1063m a.s.l.) mountains are built Cretaceous limestones, breccias and dolomites. Bedded limestones occasionally contain chert nodules (Magaš et al. 1979), observed on the eastern slope of Matokit near Vrgorac (6). The outcrop is modest and its chert quality is low. Archaeologists report a chert outcrop on the south slope of Biokovo near Makarska (Hristić and Vujnović 2003). In the course of this investigation, traces of chert were found in rocks near the village of Makar (7) above Makarska. Greater quantities of better quality Numbering of outcrops in the text corresponds to numbering of outcrops on the map and in all tables 1

30

Sources of Chert in Middle Dalmatia

Figure 3. A layer of red radiolarian chert – Jazinka outcrop near Muć in the Dalmatian hinterland (photo: Z. Perhoč, 2008).

Figure 4. Sections of chert nodules and lenses within the rock – Lemeš outcrop in Svilaja Mountain (photo: Z. Perhoč, 2007)

Figure 5. Fragment of an eroded chert nodule – Labinštica outcrop (photo: Z. Perhoč, 2006)

31

Zlatko Perhoč

Figure 6. Chert nodules in rock of a road cut – Starosevski Gaj outcrop on Kozjak Mountain (photo: Z. Perhoč, 2008)

nodules 10-90cm long (over half of them 15-30cm long) were counted along a 30 paces long stretch of a road cut (Figure 6). A few hundred meters below, near Matetina Peć (15), a large quantity of redeposited whole nodules mixed with debris, forming a loosely cemented breccia or debris deposit (Figure 7), can be observed in the cut of a fire access road and on the surface of the slope. Slightly rounded chert debris, originating from boulders along the shore or submarine deposits, appear on the beach in Resnik (16). High quality chert was documented in unconsolidated marly layer of Eocene flysch in Solin (17). Chert nodules on northern and eastern slopes of Marjan Hill (18) (175m a.s.l.) in Split are rare and friable. Abundant, good quality chert, protected from weathering, is observable on Marjan’s southern slope, close to its summit, due to recent construction excavation. On the southern slope of Mosor Mountain near the village of Sitno (19), and at the foot of Biokovo near Baška Voda (20), numerous large chert nodules appear in great boulders of tectonically disintegrated rocks, and in erosional cracks, mixed with loose sediment. The Primošten outcrop (Podrug pers. comm. 2008) of a very high quality chert located on the suggestively named peninsula of Kremik (21) lies within an Eocene band of foraminifera limestones, in immediate vicinity of Upper Cretaceous layers (Marinčić et al. 1973a).

as decimeter-size nodular chert cobbles contained in large blocks of conglomerate, were observed during a single prospection of a small part of Kamešnica Mountain in the area of Poljane (22) (1650m a.s.l.). With the increased fluvioglacial activity during the Upper Pleistocene (during Würm), chert arrives into the Cetina valley together with carbonate material (Ivanović et al. 1978b). Cetinsko Polje, Paško Polje and Vrličko Polje farther upstream, as well as Petrovo Polje south of Moseć Mountain are areas of Quaternary glacial and fluvio-glacial sediments with Würm gravels, fluvio-glacial conglomerates of Riss age, proluvial breccias and alluvial deposits (Ivanović et al. 1978b; Papeš et al. 1984a, 1984b), which must contain cherts in addition to the dominant limestone and dolomite material. For example, in addition to limestone and dolomite pebbles, sub-angular brown and gray chert fragments have been reported in fluvio-glacial terraces to the west of the source of Kosovčica (Ivanović et al. 1978b). Since lydite is not well represented among Middle Dalmatian archaeological lithics, one should only note a find of small debris on the shore of the Peruča Reservoire (23) as a pointer for future research. Neretva takes into its river bed the radiolarite from its tributary Drežanka (Hrvatović i Papeš 2000). According to mineralogical and petrographic analyses of stone aggregate, carried out for construction engineereing purposes, chert makes up 2-3% of the gravel (IGH 2008). Investigation of recent deposits and Neretva’s terraces at Čeljevo (25), and at other locations up to Mostar in Bosnia and Hercegovina, indicated that the gravel contained highly translucent light grayish green cherts, red radiolarite, lydite, as well as extremely rare black nodular chert of very high quality. Many of the cobbles, including large chert pebbles, were not included in the aggregate analysis mentioned above at least up to Metković, which means that this raw material was easily accessible.

Chert in Quaternary deposits of Cetina and Neretva Chert pebbles and cores found in the Cetina (24) river bed (Kliškić pers. comm. 2007) indicate that Cetina gravel was one of the raw material sources for lithic artifacts from Muša field at Košuta near Trilj (Babić 2006). One should look for the origin of Cetina chert pebbles in conglomerates through which Cetina flows in its upper reaches, as well as in Eocene and Oligocene conglomerates with chert and radiolarite pebbles that are present in the neighboring Kamešnica. Small radiolarite and lydite pebbles, as well 32

Sources of Chert in Middle Dalmatia Middle Dalmatian islands Jurassic deposits with cherts Jurassic deposits on Lastovo, Sušac, Kopište and Potkopište are built of dolomites, limestones alternating with dolomites, dolomites with cherts, and limestones with cherts (Karolija et al. 1977b). Structure of slightly rounded chert pebbles observed in St. Mihovil Cove (27) is very similar to those from Mrčara; probably, these are clasts of Jurassic age rocks, eroded and relocated over the Cretaceous zone that constitutes almost the entire northern side of Lastovo. Low quality cherts that appear in elongated, indented lenses interbedded with dolomites were found in Uvala pod Mrčarom (28) on the western shore of Mrčara Island. They are archaeologically interesting, nevertheless, because their white-and-gray spotty and banded structure resembles one of the types of geologically akin chert from Palagruža. Tišljar (2004) noted the presence of nodular chert on Kopište Island (27). Geological sources mention Jurassic cherts on Palagruža (Karolija 1977b), which are present all over Mala Palagruža and Vela Palagruža in dolomites, dolomite breccias and many talus deposits. On Vela Palagruža (31), the most relevant chert (archaeologically), easily accessible and of good quality, although coarse-grained, is to be found to the east of the location Pod Forane, while it makes up less than 5% of the recent deposit of Velo Žalo. Cherts are more abundant on Mala Palagruža (30). Lenses and nodules follow carbonate layers in closely woven, continuous rows that structurally resemble bedded cherts (Figure 8). Many well-rounded, resilient chert pebbles lie on the beach of Medvidina Cove. There are intact nodules in rocks and large boulders, while the breccia that dominates the island’s geological structure, and which in places is weakly cemented, provides a talus deposit that contains small, hard chert debris and numerous large chunks up to block size. Cretaceous deposits with cherts Chert appears on the island of Šolta in the area of Grohote (32) (Kliškić pers. comm. 2007). On the island of Brač, chert outcrops at Dol and Pučišće are located on the northern side of the island, in an Upper Cretaceous zone of limestones with lenses, inserts, or thin layers of dolomite. The eastern slope of Mala Bračuta Hill (140m a.s.l.) and the northern slope of Mladinje Hill (121m a.s.l.) were prospected at Pučišće (34). At both locations, a few in situ chert lenses and more numerous fragments of chert nodules were found mixed with debris from the surrounding calcareous rocks. The outcrop near Dol (33) is more abundant, of a better quality and therefore more interesting from archaeological aspect. Nodule fragments are present in torrent deposits in Dunaj Field and in talus deposits of the surrounding hills, especially on the western slope of Velo Hill (338m a.s.l.), where it can be observed within its host rock. On the island of Hvar, low quality chert was found in Katolić Cove (35),

Figure 7. Fire access road cut section with eroded chert nodules and fragments in loose sediment – Matetina Peć outcrop on Kozjak Mountain (photo: Z. Perhoč, 2008).

33

Zlatko Perhoč

Figure 8. Rows of chert nodules and lenses parallel to the layers of the host rock – Mala Palagruža (photo: Z. Perhoč, 2008)

within the zone of Upper Cretaceous limestone that extends from the town of Hvar to Milna (Marinčić et al. 1977).

nodules are of excellent quality. An archaeologically relevant concentration of very good quality chert pebbles was found on the beach in Kremenjača Cove (40) and the nearby Cove of Perna privale on Privala Peninsula, which is built of layered Upper Cretaceous limestones with dolomite inserts. Since in situ chert was not observed in the coastal rocks, the source of this chert must be an underwater outcrop. The straight-line distance between the outcrops around Vela Luka and the prehistoric site of Vela Cave is from 1.5 to 8km.

According to geological sources (Karolija et al. 1977b), the predominantly Cretaceous sediments of the island of Korčula consist of Lower Cretaceous dolomites. They build the middle part of the island almost throughout its length and contain rare chert nodules. The five chert outcrops around Vela Luka that were explored in the course of this project are located in Upper Cretaceous limestones. At the southeastern edge of the town of Vela Luka, in the cut made for the ship yard at Moćni Laz (39), elongated lenses of petrographically immature chert overlie banded limestone. The other five chert outcrops are located at the northern end of Vela Luka Bay, including the island of Privala and the islet of Proizd. Today, the plateau and the gentle slopes of the low hills are covered by olive groves, gardens and clusters of trees, by vineyards in the karstic field of Bradat, and by maquis and low bushes towards Privala. Numerous eroded fragments and a few whole nodules of low quality chert can be found on drystone walls of Lozica olive grove (38) to the east of Bradat Field, while chert in the host rock is seldom seen, since terra rossa covers the ground. There are larger quantities of eroded chert in olive groves on gentle slopes above the eastern side of the karstic field at Bradat Prid Bandon (37). Decimeter-size nodule fragments and lenses are common, often in boulders of drystone walls, and occasionally in the rock. A recent excavation for construction exposed a sizable concentration of very good quality chert nodules, which indicates the true potential of the outcrop. A fine zonal structure marks this chert. The best quality outcrop documented so far in Middle Dalmatia (Figure 9) is located on another small estate, in an olive grove and garden at Stračinčica (36) above the cove of the same name. It contains several types of chert. Most of appears in compact, spheroid nodules, measuring from small ones to those of decimeter size. Even the smallest

So far, only a single primary outcrop of chert has been located on the island of Vis, at the Barjaška Cove (41). Decimeter-size nodules and elongated lenses are present in rocks all the way to the sea, and there are pebbles on the beach. Chert in Paleogene deposits Within the island part of the region, the chert outcrop in the area of Saldun and Balan (26) on the island of Čiovo stands out by the frequency, size, homogeneity and compactness of the nodules (Figure 10). Chert appears in Eocene deposits and geologically it belongs to the shallow flysch complex (Marjanac 1987). Just as the proximity of the Mousterian site of Mujina Pećina increases the importance of Labin and Kozjak outcrops, so does the proximity of Mousterian-age finds at Resnik increase the importance of the Čiovo outcrop (Karavanić pers. comm. 2008). The Eocene deposits in the central part of the island of Biševo, next to Vis, were not explored. Quaternary deposits with cherts The island of Sušac (43) is built of deposits of Upper Jurassic reef limestones. Geological sources do not mention primary outcrops of chert on the island. On the saddle of the 34

Sources of Chert in Middle Dalmatia

Figure 9. Small chert nodules on a washed-out limestone boulder – Stračinčica outcrop near Vela Luka on the island of Korčula (photo: Z. Perhoč, 2008).

Figure 10. Limestone host rock (A) with chert nodules (B) in partially washed-out deposits (C) – Saldun outcrop on the island of Čiovo (photo: Z. Perhoč, 2008).

island, however, near the little Byzantine church, there are several shallow, small dolines, filled with terra rossa under cultivation. An Early Neolithic site was explored at Velo and Malo Polje (Radić et al. 2000). During investigation of the area, many complete chert and radiolarite pebbles and cobbles were found on the rain-washed surface of the field among numerous chert artifacts and pottery fragments, as well as fairly frequent obsidian artifacts (Figure 11). Analysis of the pebbles and artifacts indicated that this was a Pleistocene terrace, upon which lithic production activities were taking place.

Graeco-Roman Issa (Čargo pers. comm. 2007), induced an investigation of the location. Numerous pebbles that were collected in the wider area of Gradina confirmed the presumed existence of a Pleistocene terrace similar to the one on Sušac. Discussion Chert deposits and chert types In Middle Dalmatia, cherts appear in association with limestones and, less frequently, with dolomites, from Triassic to Paleogene. They are most common in Eocene flysch, while in Quaternary deposits they appear in loose sediments. The greatest concentration of cherts is located

Several chert pebbles and a chert core preform with pebble cortex and evident percussion marks on weathering rind, found in the town of Vis at Gradina (42), the site of the 35

Zlatko Perhoč

Figure 11. Chert pebbles with percussion marks on weathering rind – Velo Polje outcrop on the island of Sušac (photo: Z. Perhoč, 2008).

within the Eocene zone that stretches from Trogir to Drvenik, with a series of outcrops at Solin, Marjan, Mosor, Kozjak, Opor, Čiovo and at the base of Vlaška Mountain near Seget Donji. Due to their abundance, here one can talk about chert deposits. Elsewhere, chert outcrops represent silica islands within a carbonate sea. Small outcrops that stand out by their concentration of nodules and high quality of the rock are the Upper Cretaceous Stračinčica near Vela Luka and the Jurassic Mala Palagruža. Diagenetic cherts in nodular form dominate in Dalmatia, except in the Triassic zone near Muć, where radiolarite chert appears as well.

Draga, as well as the types Mosor-Sitno and KozjakStarosevski Gaj. The individual traits, similarities, and differences among the types have been described following a standard procedure, illustrated here by the examples of Palagruža Jurassic chert, Vela Luka Upper Cretaceous chert, and the Eocene chert from Starosevski Gaj. Based on those macroscopic characteristics, it is possible (with some caution) to define hypothetical chronostratigraphic types (Table 3). A comprehensive data base of chert outcrops and types mentioned in this work will be published elsewhere. Chert outcrops and their usability

The collection of samples from chert outcrops discussed in this work testifies clearly of the variability of types according to their geostratigraphic origin, but also of variability among outcrops of the same geological age, as well as the variability of types within a single outcrop. Since cherts of a common geochronology in Dalmatia are characterized by a certain degree of similarity, one or more common types can be defined that appear across several chronostratigraphically equivalent outcrops. Within the Jurassic group, Vela Palagruža and Mala Palagruža represent one pair of similar types, while Lastovo and Mrčara represent another such pair, to which one may add SvilajaLemeš type. Their common feature is a bedded, grainy structure, and light gray to yellowish gray color. Among the Cretaceous cherts one may distinguish between the types of dark brown, brown and reddish brown fine-grained, glossy stone, and the black, very fine-grained, glossy chert from outcrops at Vela Luka-Stratinčica, Kremenjača Cove, and Komiža-Barjaška Cove, as well as the grayish fine-grained chert from outcrops at Vela Luka-Bradat Prid Bandon, Lozice and Močni Laz, Brač-Pučišća and Dol, Labinščica, Seget Gornji-Vlaška, Vilaja-Sirištak and Gradac, MatokitVrgorac and Šolta-Grohote. Mutual similarity is the greatest among the Eocene cherts of the types Primošten-Kremik, Biokovo-Baška Voda, Čiovo, Marjan, Resnik, Labinska

Quality of the stone was checked in the field by breakage. One should note that, aside from the undeniable quality of chert from fresh, resilient nodules, often it was possible to produce a reasonably good core out of nodules with relatively friable exterior. Even quite fractured and weathered fragments of eroded nodules may yield a solid core and homogenous flakes of desirable flatness and elongation, with smooth surfaces and sharp edges (e.g., Labinska Draga, 12). Markedly superior specimens may be found on outcrops dominated by mediocre chert (e.g., Dol on the island of Brač, 33 [Gušić and Jelaska 1990]). When one considers sources of relatively low quality stone, one should remember that the estimate of their potential usefulness in prehistory must take into account technological demands implied by the form of artifacts in question. Regarding the accessibility and usefulness of cherts within the region, over half of all the outcrops offer very good quality or medium quality raw materials, while a quarter of the outcrops are inferior. At primary outcrops, where nodules, indented lenses and thin layers of chert are embedded in host rock, partly loosened and easily accessible batches of chert and eroded clasts are always 36

rock on plateau

0.5 km

rock layers, debris

decimeters thick

medium, high

9. Vilaja, Gradac

Upper Cretaceous: Turonian

Outcrop type

Outcrop size**

Rock form

Rock size

Outcrop usability

Outcrop

Chronostratigraphy

37 nodules, indented lenses up to 70 cm

1,5 km / 0.1 km

lenses

Outcrop type

Outcrop size**

Rock form

debris deposit, road cut

up to 3 m high

nodules, rubble

10-80 cm

high

Outcrop type

Outcrop size**

Rock form

Rock size

Outcrop usability low

50-100 cm

pebbles

blocks on shore, beach

43° 32´ 479´´ N 16° 19´ 066´´ E / 2 m

43° 34´ 580´´ N 16° 19´ 405´´ E / 255 m

Coordinates*

Paleogene: Eocene; Quaternary chert

Paleogene: Eocene; Quaternary

chert

16. Resnik

Kind of rock

15. Kozjak, Matetina Peć

Outcrop

high

Chronostratigraphy

50-100 cm

low, medium

Rock size

Outcrop usability

5 km / 0.2 km 2

hill slope and foot of the hill

road cut in hill slope

Coordinates*

2

chert 43° 34´ 589´´ N 16° 11´ 258´´ E / 356 m

chert

43° 36´ 541´´ N 16° 19´ 405´´ E / 255 m

Kind of rock

Upper Creta.: Cenomanian

10. Vilaja, Sirištak

medium, high

5-50 cm

pebbles, debris

2 km

torrent bed

medium

up to 70 cm

pebbles, cobbles

0.0002 km 2

road cut in flysch

43° 31´ 876´´ N 16° 29´ 300´´ E / 22 m

chert

Paleogene: Eocene

17. Solin, Smiljanovac

high, very high

up to 40 cm

nodules, lenses, debris

rocks in hill slope

43° 34´ 745´´ N 16° 13´ 450´´ E / 510 m

chert

Upper Creta.: Cenomanian

11. Labinštica

medium

100 cm

thin layers, lenses

2 km

road cut in hill slope

43° 53´ 373´´ N 16° 20´ 201´´ E / 858 m

43° 42´ 492´´ N 16° 28´ 224´´ E / 484 m

43° 42´ 584´´ N 16° 31´ 926´´ E / 782 m

Coordinates*

Uper Jurassic: Malm chert

Quaternary: Holocene

Middle Triassic

radiolarite, dolomitized chert diabase, chert

5. Svilaja, Lemeš

Chronostratigraphy

3. Muć, Suvaja

Kind of rock

1. Muć, Jazinka

Outcrop

0.3 km

high

10-100 cm

nodules, lenses, debris

0.05 km

5.5 km / 1 km

high, very high

5-25 cm

nodules, debris

2

rocks in hill slope

43° 30´ 211´´ N 16° 36´ 323´´ E / 431 m

chert

Paleogene: Eocene

19. Mosor, Sitno

low

up to 10 cm

nodules, lenses, debris

0.4 km

rocks in hill slope

43° 34 ´ 808´´N 16° 19´ 252´´ E / 504 m

chert

Paleogene: Eocene

rocks on hill 2

43° 30´ 526´´ N 16° 25´ 327´´ E / 133 m

chert

Paleogene: Eocene

18. Marjan

high, very high

up to 70 cm

nodules, lenses, debris

2

rocks in hill slope

43° 34´ 618´´ N 16° 13´ 885´´ E / 396 m

chert

Paleogene: Eocene

13. Kozjak, Malačka

12. Labinštica, Labin. Draga

high

nodules 30 cm, lenses 100 cm

lenses, nodules, debris

0.2 km

hill slope, debris deposit

43° 21´ 730´´ N 16° 56´ 766´´ E / 66 m

chert

Paleogene: Eocene; Quaternary

20. Biokovo, Baška Voda

high

20-100 cm

nodules, lenses

0.22 km

road cut in hill slope

43° 34´ 636´´ N 16° 20´ 344´´ E / 379 m

chert

Paleogene: Eocene

14. Kozjak, Starosevski Gaj

low

up to 20 cm

nodules 20 cm, lenses 100 cm low

nodules, debris

1.6 km / 0,06 km2

hill slope, talus slope

43° 31´ 389´´ N 16° 12´ 639´´ E / 304 m

chert

Upper Cretaceous: Turonian

8. Seget Gornji, Vlaška

nodules, lenses

sporadic nodules

rocks in hill slope

43° 18´ 096´´ N 17° 01´ 918´´ E / 268 m

chert

Upper Creta.: Cenomanian

7. Biokovo, Makar

very low

do 10 cm

nodules, lenses

0.02 km

road cut in hill slope

43° 13´ 044´´ N 17° 22´ 042´´ E / 159 m

chert

Upper Creta.: Cenomanian

6. Matokit, Vrgorac

Table 2. Description of selected chert outcrops in Middle Dalmatia. *WGS 84; **prospected length and/or area

Sources of Chert in Middle Dalmatia

43° 42´ 671´´ N 16° 54´ 846´´ E /1674 m

43° 34´ 247´´ N 15° 55´ 709´´ E

rocks in hill slope

Coordinates*

Outcrop type

chert 43° 20´ 657´´ N 16° 37´ 116´´ E / 93 m

up to 20 cm

medium

31. Vela Palagruža

Uper Jurassic: Malm

chert

42° 23´ 537´´ N 16° 15´ 567´´ E / 66 m cliff, debris deposit, talus slope

Rock size

Outcrop usability

Outcrop

Chronostratigraphy

Kind of rock

38 indented lenses, noduls, debris up to 15 cm

nodules, rubble, pebbles, cobbles

about 50 cm

high

Rock form

Rock size

Outcrop usability low, medium

0.5 km

0.05 km 2

hill slope, talus slope

Upper Creta.: Cenomanian

33. Brač, Dol

Outcrop size**

Outcrop type

Coordinates*

conglomerate

nodules, debris

Rock form 5-15 cm

4 km

Outcrop size**

mountain plateau

chert, radiolarite, lydite

chert

Kind of rock

low

up to 10 cm

lenses, debris

very low

up to 10 cm

lenses

sporadic lenses

0.5 km 2

rocks on shore

43° 09´ 479´´ N 16° 28´ 123´´ E / 9 m

chert

Upper Creta.: Cenomanian

35. Hvar, Katolić Cove

very high

5-100 cm

nodules, lenses, debris

2,5 km / 0,73 km2

shore, hill slope, sinkholes

43° 30´ 601´´ N 16° 15´ 311´´ E / 30 m

chert

Paleogene: Eocene; Quaternary

26. Čiovo, Saldun

rocks in hill slope

43° 21´ 109´´ N 16° 44´ 019´´ E / 112 m

chert

Upper Creta.: Cenomanian

34. Brač, Pučišća

very high

pebbles up to 15 cm

pebbles, cobbles

middle & lower course, delta

43° 05´ 514´´ N 17° 42´ 538´´ E / 7 m river shore, sandbank, terrace

chert, radiolarite, lydite

Quaternary : Alluvium

Paleogene: Eocene

Chronostratigraphy

25. Neretva, Čeljevo

22. Kamešnica, Poljane Paleogene: Eocene, Oligocene

21. Primošten, Kremik

Outcrop

high, very high

5-25 cm

nodules, debris

0.05 km

2

olive grove, hill slope

42° 58´ 813´´ N 16° 40´ 265´´ E / 30 m

chert

36. Vela Luka, Stračinčica Up. Creta.: Cenomanian, Turonian

very low

50-100 cm

thin layers, lenses, pebbles

shore, beach

42° 46´ 269´´ N 16° 47´ 153´´ E / 2 m

chert

Uper Jurassic: Malm

28. Lastovo, Mrčara

medium, high

10-20 cm

nodules, lenses, debris

2.3 km / 0,1 km2

olive grove, hill slope

42° 58´ 858´´ N 16° 41´ 554´´ E / 76 m

chert

Upper Cretaceous: Turonian

37. Vela Luka, Bradat P. B.

very high

5-50 cm

nodules, pebbles, debris

42° 23´ 003´´ N 16° 16´ 003´´ E / 3 m cliff, rockfall breccia, talus slope

chert

Uper Jurassic: Malm ; Quaternary

30. Mala Palag., Medvidina

Zlatko Perhoč

up to 50 cm

42° 58´ 697´´ N 16° 41´ 717´´ E / 95 m

olive grove, vineyard

1.2 km / 0.5 km2

nodules, debris

5-20 cm

medium

Coordinates*

Outcrop type

Outcrop size**

Rock form

Rock size

Outcrop usability

Despite over forty located and surveyed locations, comprehensiveness of this report may be questioned due to possible existence of unknown outcrops within the region. Experience that was gained during multiple prospecting of areas that presumably contained chert sources, unexpected finds of chert at places that were not located precisely by geological sources, or that were completely absent from them, and are unknown even to those familiar with the area, testify that all of the existing chert outcrops certainly have not been included in this study. The same experience warns us against premature conclusions about imported raw materials at archaeological sites with attested lithic artifact production where local cherts remain unknown. At the same time, given the connections between the opposite Adriatic coasts and the existence of chert mines in the Apennine Peninsula (Boschian 1995), chert raw material imports from the western to the eastern Adriatic coast cannot be ruled out! For a number of reasons, an overview of all chert sources is not possible today, and their potential (abundance and accessibility) during prehistory is hard to assess. Among those reasons are redeposition of primary sources (Starosevski Gaj, 14; Matetina Peć on Kozjak, 15), redeposition of secondary sources (outcrops in olive groves and vineyards around Vela Luka), overgrown terrain (Sveti Duh formation on Brač), construction at an outcrop (Saldun on Čiovo, 26), or drowning of outcrops by the rising sea levels (Kremenjača Cove near Vela Luka, 40). There are hints of outcrops whose location remains unknown. On the island of Vis, in towns of Komiža and Vis, chert nodules were observed in masonry blocks used in construction; their structure may be related to a chert blade from a collection housed in the town of Vis. This find suggests that one should look for chert at the island’s quarries. Geological information about Sveti Duh formation with Turonian and Upper Cretaceous limestones and dolomites, which contains lumps of chert in the area between Vidova Gora and Gornji Humac (Marinković 1984), as well as a secondary find of small debris of non-artifactual fossiliferous cherts at

low

lenses, thin layers

chert Kind of rock

0.0004 km2

Upper Cretaceous: Turonian Chronostratigraphy

cut in hill slope

present in the immediate vicinity (Figure 5) or adjacent talus slopes. Abraded chert nodules and clasts on the shore point to underwater primary deposits and notify of chert sources that were accessible to prehistoric stone collectors during periods with lower sea levels. Secondary accumulations of cherts, which are present at all primary outcrops – such as talus slopes, accumulations of debris, beaches, alluvial accumulations of rivers and streams, riverine terraces, flysch, or chert in sinkholes filled with terra rossa – represent easily accessible sources of raw material. Adriatic terraces with chert pebbles are a specific type of lithic raw material sources that were used in prehistory (Figure 11). Anthropogenic outcrops, i.e., excavations on construction sites, are nowadays helpful because they allow assessment of potential of chert deposits that used to be accessible in prehistory, but today are on cultivated land, inaccessible, or even unknown.

medium

up to 70 cm up to 60 cm lenses up to 100 cm

medium

up to 100 cm

medium

pebbles, cobbles pebbles nodules, lenses pebbles

0.0002 km2 0.1 km / 0.0001 km2 0.02 km

1.5 km / 0.65 km2

rocks on shore, beach beach

42° 45´ 739´´ N 16° 29´ 949´´ E / 26 m marine terrace / transgresive deposit 43° 07´ 389´´ N 16° 11´ 074´´ E / 18 m marine terrace / transgresive deposit 43° 03´ 051´´ N 16° 03´ 320´´ E / 5 m 42° 58´ 953´´ N 16° 37´ 075´´ E / 1 m 42° 57´ 287´´ N 16° 42´ 801´´ E / 13 m

chert, radiolarite chert chert chert chert

Quaternary: Pleistocene Quaternary: Pleistocene Lower Cretaceous: Neocom Up. Creta.: Turonian; Quaternary Lower Creta.: BarremianAlbian

43. Sušac, Velo Polje

38. Vela Luka, Lozica Outcrop

41. Komiža, Barjaška Cove 40. Vela Luka, Kremenjača C. 39. Vela Luka, Moćni Laz

42. Vis, Gradina

Sources of Chert in Middle Dalmatia

39

40

ROCK

GENETIC CRUST

WEATHERING

Vela Palagruža

Outcrop

bad /

good to excellent

Technical quality

7

marine

N8-9

< 1mm

smooth

Appearance

Type

Colour

Thickness

Appearance

Weathering

hard / homog., impact fractures / 1-10 mm friable /

Hardness

disintegrated

/

/

atmospheric

/

N8,9

< 5 mm

Colour

Thickness

conchoidal irregular

7

conchoidal regular

Hardness

Break

Fossils

Appearance

fine cracks, fissures, veins, geodes, druse /

waxy

porcelain

middle to coarse homog., convol. laminat. (N3, 5YR 7/2) /

Gloss

Grain

opaque

N5-5, 5YR /1, 10YR 4/2

lenses, thin layers

chert

LE 1

SV-LE T1

Upper Jurassic: Malm

Svilaja-Lemeš

5

opaque

N6-9

Colour

Translucence

chert

nodules, pebbles

Kind of rock

Shape

VPA T1

VPA 23

Type

Sample

Chronostratigraphy Upper Jurassic: Malm

31

#

coarse, homogeneous

< 1 mm

5YR 5/6, 10 YR 7/4

atmospheric

friable

homogeneous

hard

2-5 mm

5YR 7/2, 10 YR 7/4

excellent

conchoidal regular

7

very fine homogeneous, mottled (dots, ovals) /

resinous

translucent edge

N1

nodules

chert

VL 40

Upper Cretaceous: Cenomanian, Turonian VL T3

Vela Luka-Stračinčica

14

homogeneous

5-10 mm

5Y 8/1, N8-9

atmospheric

friable

coarse, chalky

hard

< 5 mm

N9

excellent

conchoidal regular

7

fine homog., mottled, marmorated /

opaque, barely translucent edge porcelain

N7-8

nodules

chert

LAB 9

LAB T1

Upper Cretaceous

Labinštica

11

Table 3. Macroscopic description of selected chert types in Middle Dalmatia

/

hard

< 2 mm

N9

good to excellent

conchoidal regular

7

fine homog., mottled, fissured fossils

resinous

translucent edge

nodules 10 YR 4/2- 8/2, 5YR 2/1

chert

CI 1, CI 9

CI-SALD T1

Paleogene: Eocene

Čiovo-Saldun

26

friable sedimentary, / atmospheric 10R 7/4, 5YR 5/6, / 5R 4/6 / 2 mm fossils, coarse, homogeneous, smooth pitted

friable

coarse, pitted, caverns

hard

< 5mm

10YR 6/2, 7/4

good to excellent

conchoidal regular

7

fine homog., speckled (5 mm, 1%) calcareous fossils

dull, porcelain

opaque

5YR 4/1, 6/1

nodules

chert

KO-STG 1

KO-STG T1

Paleogene: Eocene

14 Kozjak-Starosevski Gaj

Zlatko Perhoč

Sources of Chert in Middle Dalmatia it had been collected. Radiolarite artifacts from Vela Cave and Kopačina Cave often preserve a well-rounded pebble weathering rind with percussion marks, typical indicators of transport of predominantly microcrystalline and cryptocrystalline quartz rock clasts by high-energy watercourse (Müller pers. comm. 2007). These pebbles of fluvioglacial origin (Roglić 1955) may have been transported by Cetina or Neretva rivers, or they may be aggregats of gravels of similar origin, deposited on Adriatic terraces during Pleistocene transgressions (Malez 1979b). Drežanka River takes in the chert and radiolarite components in the mountains of Čvrsnica and Čabulja, which constitute the upper part of its drainage basin, and introduces them into the Neretva River (Hrvatović i Papeš 2000).

Trolokve (Forenbaher pers. comm. 2005), suggests that an unknown outcrop exists on Brač. Possible ways of chert collection in Middle Dalmatia The host rock to chert in Dalmatia is hard limestone. Extracting chert nodules, therefore, cannot be compared with extraction from chalkstone and marl deposits, which are the most common in Central and Northern Europe. For the time being, a mine like the one in Kleinkems in southern Germany, where chert was extracted from hard limestone after heat treatment of the rock (Fober and Weisgerber 1999), remains unknown in Dalmatia. Nevertheless, chert is fairly easily accessible. Given the nature of Dalmatian outcrops, one may presume that, during prehistory, it was collected in one of the following ways: by pick-up, by breaking and extracting the nodules from the host rock, and by digging.

If radiolarite (and chert sensu stricto) was collected from Neretva River in prehistory, that may have been done in any part of its course where there are gravel aggregats along the shores, on sandbars, on riverine terraces, or in the delta. Together with Neretva gravels, radiolarite may have accumulated during the Quaternary along the recently formed island shores. Geomorphology of Neretva is dynamic, especially with regard to the location of its delta, due to the raising level of the Adriatic Sea during the Upper Pleistocene to Holocene transition (Šegota 1968). During the Last Glacial Maximum, the delta of Neretva was located in Korčula Channel, probably near the modern island of Šćedro next to Hvar, while the river was depositing huge amounts of gravel into the islandless Dalmatian Basin.

One can pick up eroded nodules and debris around many primary outcrops, chert debris on talus slopes near the bedrock (Dol on the island of Brač, 33), nodular pebbles and pebbles produced by rounding of chert debris during water transport at river shores and sandbanks (Neretva, 25), on Adriatic terraces (Sušac, 43; Vis, 42), on beaches next to talus slopes (Medvidina Cove at Mala Palagruža, 30; Saldun Bay at Čiovo, 26), and on beaches with underwater outcrops (Kremenjača Cove at Privala near Vela Luka, 40; Resnik, 16). Breaking off nodules that protrude from the host rock is possible if the overlying layers have been washed away. Extraction of complete nodules from the rock is possible if mutual bonds between the layers have been weakened by weathering or tectonic disturbance, or where nodule beds have been washed out (Starosevski Gaj at Kozjak, 14; Čiovo, 26), or from weakly cemented breccias (Mala Palagruža and Vela Palagruža, 30-31; Marjan, 18). At Čiovo, Marjan, Matetina Peć on Kozjak, Sušac, and Biokovo-Baška Voda, it would have been possible to obtain chert in prehistory by excavation of simple pits (Fober and Weisgerber 1999). Since prehistoric stone knappers valued fresh chert that had not been exposed to weathering, and given the geological and morphological characteristics of Dalmatian outcrops, there is some justification to speculate that quarries and mines of the simplest kind would have existed.

The northernmost outcrops of the Mesosoic deep-sea sediments with radiolarites in the eastern Adriatic appear on the mountain slopes of Montenegro, descend to the very coast, enter the sea and continue to the nearby islands (Goričan 1994). The origin of copious gravels with a high concentration of red radiolarite, nodular and bedded chert, found on the coast at Kamenari in Boka Kotorska, therefore is not in question. Prospection of Montenegrine coast was carried out just before this paper was completed. The upcoming laboratory analyses will either support or reject the notable macroscopic similarity of those materials with radiolarite artefacts from Vela Cave and Kopačina Cave. These finds might yet provide an important contribution to the study of the long-distance mobility of the people who inhabited the eastern Adriatic coast during prehistory.

Radiolarite and glaciofluvial gravel chert in archaeological lithic assemblages from Middle Dalmatian islands

It is not impossible that radiolarite and chert pebbles for lithic production on Korčula and Brač were collected at some Adriatic terrace. In the course of this research, one of those terraces, a transgresive deposit of chert and radiolarite pebbles in terra rossa sediment, was discovered on the island of Sušac (43), and another one on the island of Vis (41). On Sušac, correlation with lithic artifacts from Early Neolithic sites indicates use of those pebbles in situ (Figure 12). On the surface of Velo Polje, a sizeable plateau covered by 60 centimeters of terra rossa sediment, pebbles of several types of chert, quartzite, chert conglomerate,

Analysis of lithic raw materials from Epigravettian and Mesolithic assemblages from Kopačina Cave on the island of Brač (Karavanić and Janković 2008) and Vela Cave on the island of Korčula (Čečuk and Radić 2005) indicated that, aside from several types of chert, red radiolarite were used in production activity areas within those sites. Since primary deposits of radiolarite are absent from Middle Dalmatian islands and coast, the question arises about its origin, and the location of the secondary outcrop at which 41

Zlatko Perhoč breccia, and radiolarite may be observed among numerous chert flakes, and occasional tools and obsidian flakes (Figure 2). Very small pebbles are included in the gravel, indicating that procurement of this raw material from some other source by the local stone knappers is out of the question. Sušac provides a well-documented example of lithic production at the very source of a raw material that is rare in Dalmatia. Similar pebbles have been reported from the island of Brač (Barbarić pers. comm. 2007), and from the island of Vis (Radić pers. com. 2007), presently without a clear archaeological context. A glaciofluvial pebble with traces of processing, which we found at Divjeni doci near

Figure 14. Spectrum of a micro-inclusion (pyrite) within the quartz mass of chert. Artifact from Vela Cave near Vela Luka on the island of Korčula

Figure 12. Artifacts made of chert pebbles from Velo Polje on the island of Sušac. Remnant weathering rind with percussions marks (A); ground pebble surfaces (B) (photo: Z. Perhoč)

Figure 15. SEM microphotograph of chert structure. Geological sample from Stračinčica near Vela Luka on the island of Korčula (photo: Z. Perhoč)

Sućuraj on the island of Hvar, among numerous surface finds of chert artifacts probably attributable to the Early Bronze Age (Vujnović 2002), testifies of in situ lithic production. Conclusion Chert of diagenetic origin and nodular form appears in Middle Dalmatia, while radiolarite appears sporadically in its hinterland. Cherts appear in Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous

Figure 13. Spectrum of a micro-inclusion (pyrite) within the quartz mass of chert. Geological sample from Stračinčica near Vela Luka on the island of Korčula

42

Sources of Chert in Middle Dalmatia Prof. Dr Boško Lugović, Prof. Dr Josip Tišljar, Dr Uroš Barudžija, Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering Zagreb; Dr Stašo Forenbaher, Institute for Anthropological Research, Zagreb; Prof. Dr Ivor Karavanić, Faculty of Philosophy, Zagreb; Prof. Dr Ivo Velić, Croatian Geological Institute, Zagreb; Tomislav Kaniški, Lexicographical Institute Miroslav Krleža, Zagreb; Ivan Landek, b. s., State Geodetic Administration, Zagreb; Prof. Dr Vladimir Jelaska, Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb; Goran Rakić, Port Authority Ubli-Lastovo; Ivan Šuta, Municipal Museum of Kaštela. I am especially indebted to Prof. Dr Reiner Altherr, Institute of Earth Sciences, Heidelberg University, and Prof. Dr Josip Halamić, Croatian Geological Institute in Zagreb. This research would not be complete without the laboratory work that they made possible. References

Figure 16. SEM microphotograph of chert structure. Artifact from Vela Cave near Vela Luka on the island of Korčula (photo: Z. Perhoč)

Adrian, W. and Büchner, M. 1981. Eiszeitliche Geschiebe und andere Gesteine als Rohstoffe für paläolithische Artefakte im östlichen Westfalen, Teil II: Biogene Kieselgesteine, Feuerstein und die andere Gesteine. Bericht des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins für Bielefeld und Umgegend e. V. 25, 281-362. Affolter, J. 2002. Provenance des silex préhistoriques du Jura et des régions limitrophes. Archéologie Neuchâteloise 28. Université de Neuchâtel. Babić, A. 2006. Novo neolitičko naselje u Sinjskom polju. Obavijesti 38(2), 19. Boschian G. 1995. The ‘San Bartolomeo’ shelter: a flint exploitation site in Central Italy. Archaeologija Polona 33, 3140. Bratulić, J. 1984. Alberto Fortis i njegov Put po Dalmaciji. In Fortis, A., Put po Dalmaciji. Zagreb: Globus, pp. v-xxiv Čečuk, B. and Radić, D. 2005. Vela spila, višeslojno pretpovijesno nalazište. Vela Luka: Centar za kulturu. Deecke, W. 1933. Die mitteleuropäischen Silices nach Vorkommen, Eigenschaften und Verwendung in der Prähistorie. Jena: Fischer. Elburg, R. and van der Kroft, P. 2008. FlintSource.net. Available at: http://www. flintsource.net [Accessed 1. October 2008]. Engelen, F. H. G. (ed.) 1976. Second International Symposium on Flint. Maastricht: Nederlandse Geologische Vereiniging. Floss, H. 1994. Rohmaterialversorgung im Paläolithikum des

and Paleogene limestones. Chert outcrops, most of them not very extensive, are scattered throughout the region. The Eocene zone stands out by frequency and abundance of outcrops, especially within the Split-Kaštela Basin. All prehistoric lithic production activities within the region could have been supplied with chert raw material from the explored network of outcrops. Diversity of petrographic types in lithic artifacts, not all of which are present in local chert outcrops, suggests that raw material was procured from relatively wide regional surroundings. In a maritime environment, that implies navigation. Other archaeological finds, such as the obsidian from Sušac that undoubtedly is of overseas provenience, as well as an igneous rock from Vela Cave on the island of Korčula (Radić and Lugović 2004), or the site of Palagruža (Forenbaher 2005), testify of interregional and long-distance traffic. Future investigations will show how much of that traffic may have been motivated by chert. Acknowledgments In the background of this dry text, there are several months of intensive cabinet and laboratory work, as well as three years of intensive fieldwork during which I was meeting you, esteemed colleagues. For kindness, collaboration, expert help, and useful information, I am grateful to Dr Jehanne Affolter, Neuchâtel; Dr Rer. Nat. Hans-Peter Meyer, Dr Oleksandr Varychev, Institute of Earth Sciences, Heidelberg University; Prof. Dr Alfred Wietscoreck, Dr Klaus Wirth, Prof. Dr Peter Rotte, Reiss-Engelhorn Museen Mannheim; Boris Čargo m. a., Dr Branko Kirigin, Damir Kliškić m. a., Archaeological Museum Split; Dinko Radić, Cultural Center ‘Vela Luka’, Korčula; Andreis Jerko, Marica and Nenad Stipković, Vela Luka; Emil Podrug, Municipal Museum of Šibenik, Prof. Dr Maja Vrkljan, 43

Mittelrheingebietes. Bonn: Römisch-germanisches Zentralmuseum, Habelt Verlag. Fober, L. and Weisgerber, G. 1999. Feuersteinbergbau-Typen und Techniken. In G. Weisberger (ed.), 5000 Jahre Feuersteinbergbau: Die Suche nach dem Stahl der Steizeit (3rd ed.). Bochum: Deutshes Bergbau-Museum, 32-47. Forenbaher, S. 2005. Palagruža and the spread of farming in the Adriatic. Opuscula Archaeologica 29, 7-23. Fürchtbauer, H. (ed.) 1988. Sediment-Petrologie Teil II: Sedimente und Sedimentgesteine. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart‘sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Gayck, S. 2000. Urgeschichtlicher Silexbergbau in Europa. Weissbach: Beier & Beran. Goričan, S. 1994. Jurassic and Cretaceous radiolarian biostratigraphy and sedimentary evolution of the Budva Zone (Dinarides, Montenegro). Mémoires de Géologie (Lausanne) 18: 1-177. Gušić I. and Jelaska, V. 1990. Stratigrafija gornjokrednih naslaga otoka Brača. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti and Institut za geološka istraživanja. Hahn, J. 1991. Erkennen und Bestimmen von Steinund Knochenartefakten: Einführng in die Artefaktmorphologie. Tübingen: Verlag Archaeologica Venatoria, Institut für Urgeschichte der Universität Tübingen. Halamić, J. and Goričan, S. 1995. Triassic Radiolarites from Mts. Kalnik and Medvednica (NW Croatia). Geologica Croatica 48(2), 129-146. Herak, M. 1990. Geologija (5th ed.). Zagreb: Školska knjiga. Hrstić, I. and Vujnović, N. 2003. Arheološka topografija šireg područja Makarske. Makarsko primorje 6, 11-63. Hrvatović, H. and Papeš, J. 2000. Adriatic-Dinaridic Carbonate Platform (External Dinarides). The River Neretva Canyon from Jablanica to Mostar. Vijesti Hrvatskoga geološkoga društva 37/2, 81-83. Hungarian – croatian bilateral collaboration project 20082009. Archaeometrical research of lithic raw materials for Early Neolithic prehistoric communities with the help of Prompt gamma activation analysis, with special regard to radiolarites and obsidian. Available at: http://www.ace.hu/tet/english.html [Accessed 1. December 2008]. Ivanović, A., Sikirica, V., Marković, S. and Sakač, K. 1978a. Osnovna geološka karta SFRJ, list Drniš, 1:100.000, K 33-9. Zagreb: Institut za geološka

istraživanja (1972). Beograd: Savezni geološki zavod. 1978b. Osnovna geološka karta SFRJ, tumač za list Drniš, 1:100.000. Zagreb: Institut za geološka istraživanja (1972). Beograd: Savezni geološki zavod. Karavanić, I. and Janković, I. 2008. The Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic in Croatia. Opuscula Archaeologica 30, 21-54. Ivor Karavanić, I., Golubić, V., Kurtanjek, D., Šošić, R. and Zupanič, J. 2008. The Middle Paleolithic from Mujina Pećina, Dalmatia, Croatia. Journal of Field Archaeology 33, 259-277. Karolija, B., Borović, I., Grimani, I. and Marinčić S. 1977a. Osnovna geološka karta SFRJ, list Korčula i Lastovo, 1:100.000, K 33-47, K 33-46. Zagreb: Institut za geološka istraživanja. Beograd: Savezni geološki zavod. 1977b. Osnovna geološka karta SFRJ, tumač za list Korčula i Lastovo, 1:100.000. Zagreb: Institut za geološka istraživanja. Beograd: Savezni geološki zavod. Luedtke, B. E. 1992. An Archaeologist´s Guide to Cher and Flint. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California. Magaš, N., Marinčić, S. and Benček, D. 1979. Osnovna geološka karta SFRJ, tumač za list Ploče, 1:100.000. Zagreb: Institut za geološka istraživanja (1972). Beograd: Savezni geološki zavod. Malez, M. 1979a. Nalazišta paleolitskog i mezolitskog doba u Hrvatskoj. In Benac, A. (ed.), Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja I. Paleolitsko i mezolitsko doba. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, 195-219. 1979b. Paleolitsko i mezolitsko doba u Hrvatskoj. Prirodni okviri. In Benac, A. (ed.), Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja I. Paleolitsko i mezolitsko doba, Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, 227-225. Marjanac, T. 1987. Sedimentacija Kernerove ‘srednje fliške zone’ (paleogen, okolica Splita). Geološki vjesnik 40, 177-194. Marinčić S. Korolija, B. and Majcen, Ž. 1977. Osnovna geološka karta SFRJ, list Omiš, 1:100.000, K 33-22. Zagreb: Institut za geološka istraživanja (1969). Beograd: Savezni geološki zavod. Marinčić, S., Magaš, N. and Borović, I. 1973a. Osnovna geološka karta SFRJ, list Split i Primošten, 1:100.000, K 33-20, K 33-21. Zagreb:

Sources of Chert in Middle Dalmatia ‘Trade’. In E. Blake and B. Knapp (eds), The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory. Oxford: Blachwell Publishing, 24-45. Roglić, J. 1955. Geomorfološka istraživanja polja istočne Hercegovine u god. 1951. Ljetopis Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 60, 107-109. Rottländer, R. C. A. 1989. Verwitterungserscheinungen an Silices und Knochen. Tübingen: Verlag Archaeologica Venatoria, Institut für Urgeschichte der Universität Tübingen. Šćavničar, B., Šćavničar, S. and Šušanjara, A. 1984. The Volcanic-Sedimentary Middle Triassic in the Suvaja Brook area (Mt. Svilaja, outer Dinarides). Acta Geologica 14(2), 1-48. Šegota, T. 1968. Morska razina u holocenu i mlađem djelu würma. Geografski glasnik 30, 16-39. Shackley, M. S. 2008. Archaeological Petrology and the Archaeometry of Lithic Materials. Archaeometry 50(2), 194-215. Tišljar, J. 2004. Sedimentologija klastičnih i silicijskih taložina. Zagreb: Institut za geološka istraživanja. Tišljar, J., Vlahović, I., Velić, I. and Sokač, B. 2002. Carbonate Platform Megafacies of the Jurassic and Cretaeous Deposits of the Karst Dinarides. Geologica Croatica 55(2), 139-170. Vujnović, N. 2002. Prethistorijsko i antičko razdoblje na području naselja Sućuraj. Prilozi povijesti otoka Hvara 11, 45-79. Weisberger, G. (ed.) 1999. 5000 Jahre Feuersteinbergbau: Die Suche nach dem Stahl der Steinzeit (3rd ed.). Bochum: Deutshes Bergbau-Museum.

Institut za geološka istraživanja (1967). Beograd: Savezni geološki zavod. 1973b. Osnovna geološka karta SFRJ, tumač za list Split i Primošten, 1:100.000, K 33-20, K 33-21. Zagreb: Institut za geološka istraživanja (1967). Beograd: Savezni geološki zavod. Mommsen, H. 1986. Archäometrie: Neuere naturwissenschaftliche Methoden und Erfolge in der Archälogie. Stuttgart: Teuber. Marinković, I. (ed.) 1984. Prirodne osnove otoka Brača. Brački zbornik 14. Papeš J., Magaš, N., Marinković, R., Sikirica, V. and Raić, V. 1984a. Osnovna geološka karta SFRJ, list Sinj, 1:100.000, K 33-10. Zagreb: Institut za geološka istraživanja (1982). Beograd: Savezni geološki zavod. Papeš J., Magaš N., Sikirica, V., i Raić, V. 1984b. Osnovna geološka karta SFRJ, tumač za list Sinj, 1:100.000. Zagreb: Institut za geološka istraživanja (1982). Beograd: Savezni geološki zavod. Radić, D. 2003. Uloga doline Neretve i »otočnog mosta« u povezivanju istočne i zapadne jadranske obale. In E. Marin (ed.), Arheološka istraživanja u Naroni i dolini Neretve. Zagreb: Hrvatsko arheološko društvo, 305-320. Radić, D. and Lugović, B. 2004. Petrografska i geokemijska korelacija artefakata iz mezolitičkih naslaga Vele spile i magmatskih stijena srednjodalmatinskog otočja. Opuscula Arhaeologica 28, 7-18. Radić, D., Bass, B. and Della Casa, Ph. 2000. Arheoloska istraživanja na otoku Sušcu: sezona 2000. Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 32(3), 59-62. Robb, J. E. and Farr, R. H. 2005. Substances in Moton: Neolithic Mediterranean

45

4 Prehistoric Cultural Connections in Northeastern Adriatic Regions Identified by Archaeometric Analyses of Stone Axes

Federico Bernardini, Emanuela Montagnari Kokelj and Anton Velušček The available archaeometric data on stone axes from North-Eastern Adriatic regions are considered in the present article in order to try to identify the main Prehistoric cultural connections. From the development of the Danilo/Vlaška Culture the exchange of several classes of imported lithic artefacts – such as high pressure (HP) metaophiolite axes, Lipari and Carpathian obsidian tools, or silexite chisel axes - testify that this area was fully integrated into long distance exchange systems that, in this period, used mainly the way along the coast. Exceptionally long axe blades from Friuli - Venezia Giulia and the Krk Island, as well as a typical Square Mouthed Pottery Culture chisel made from jade found in the Cres Island, indicate that the exchange of HP metaophiolite artefacts along the Eastern Adriatic continued also in the 5th millennium BC. In contrast, it is only during the following millennia that the exchange network changed from a preferentially coastal to a more complex one, characterized by a new interest for the Eastern Alpine and Northern Balkan world, probably related to the development of copper metallurgy. This process is suggested by the penetration of HP metaophiolite axes into inner Slovenia in the 4th millennium BC, as well as by the geological provenance of shaft-hole axes and the first diffusion of copper axes in the studied zone. Keywords: archaeometry, Copper Age, cultural connections, Neolithic, Northeastern Adriatic, polished stone axes

Introduction

Along the Eastern Adriatic coasts, the Early Neolithic (Impressed Ware Culture) spread from Southern Dalmatia up to Southern Istria between the end of the 7th millennium BC and 5750 BC (Forenbaher and Miracle 2006: 506-507). In the Impressed Ware sites of Dalmatia, Kvarner Bay islands and Istria, mainly local raw material was exploited for the production of chipped stone industries and obsidian artefacts are not recorded, while polished stone axes, at present of unknown origin, were rare (Martinelli 1990: 127; Chapman et al. 1996: 192; Težak-Gregl 2001: 20-21; Codacci 2002: 159; Komšo 2007: 262).

is suggested also by the spread of common imported stone artefacts. Polished stone axes made from high pressure (HP) metaophiolite originating in North-Western Italy, from both primary and secondary deposits (D’Amico et al. 2004; D’Amico and Starnini 2006; Pétrequin et al. 2006), probably made their first appearance in the above mentioned area at this time (Alberti et al. 2007; Bernardini et al. 2008). Archaeometric determinations are abundant for the Friuli plain sites (D’Amico et al. 1997, 2004), while only preliminary studies have been carried out so far on artefacts from the Karst and the Croatian coast (Bernardini et al. 2008). However, recent mineralogical analyses of artefacts from the Trieste Karst, Novigrad in Istria, and the islands of Krk, Cres and Lošinj (Figures 1-2) indicate that HP metaophiolite axes are not plentiful, though quite widespread. Moreover, a large collection of polished stone axes, some of them coming from recent excavations, is kept in the Archaeological Museum of Istria. A preliminary macroscopic analysis has permitted to recognize numerous tools probably made from Italian raw materials. In addition, some fragmented polished stone axes from Kargadur in South-Eastern Istria, found in Danilo layers, are probably made from HP metaophiolite (Komšo 2007: 262).

Probably around 5600 BC the Danilo Culture, defined as Vlaška variant in the Trieste Karst (Barfield 1972), emerged in the Eastern Adriatic (Forenbaher and Miracle 2006: 508), reaching also the Friuli plain where some open-air sites, i.e. Sammardenchia, yielded ‘cult’ objects and Danilo pottery (Cermesoni et al. 1999). All North-Eastern Adriatic regions appeared lively interconnected in this period, as it

During the development of the Danilo Culture, HP metaophiolite artefacts do not seem to cross the coastal belt and penetrate into the present central Slovenia, where a Neolithic Culture was not yet formed (Guštin 2005; Velušček 2006). As opposed to that, contacts would have occurred between Dalmatia and inner Croatia: in fact, Korenovo style pottery was found at Smilčić in Northern

In this paper, the available archaeometric data on prehistoric polished stone artefacts from Caput Adriae (northeastern Italy, western Slovenia and northwestern Croatia) are considered within their archaeological context in order to try to find out the main directions of long and medium distance exchange networks, and their changes during the Neolithic and Eneolithic periods. Neolithic

47

Federico Bernardini, Emanuela Montagnari Kokelj and Anton Velušček phase of the Danilo Culture, together with a wholesale adoption of prismatic blade technology (Forenbaher 2006). Nevertheless, the Alpine provenance of such flint must still be confirmed by archaeometric analyses (Montagnari Kokelj and Piano 2003), not yet carried out. Other lithic artefacts testify to the opposite direction of contacts, moving from the south to the north. The majority of the obsidian artefacts found along the Eastern Adriatic coasts originates from Lipari (Williams-Thorpe et al. 1979; Tykot 1996, 2004, 2007), and recent findings on the islands of Palagruža, Korčula and Sušac (Tykot 2004; 2007) would suggest a route across the Adriatic and then along the Dalmatian coasts up to North-Eastern Italy. A few obsidian tools from Carpathian sources were found in the Friuli Plain at Sammardenchia (Pessina 1999) and in the Trieste Karst in the Tartaruga Cave, possibly associated with Danilo/Vlaška materials (Williams-Thorpe et al. 1979; Cannarella and Redivo 1983: 67). A way crossing the Balkans and reaching Dalmatia, perhaps through the valley of the Una River, and continuing from there up along the North-Eastern Adriatic coasts as far as Friuli - Venezia Giulia, seems to be the most likely. We suggest that the stone chisels discovered at Sammardenchia (made from silexite, Pessina and D’Amico 1999) and in the Tartaruga Cave together with Danilo/ Vlaška materials (Trieste Karst; Cannarella and Redivo 1983, Figure 4) probably followed the same coastal route. These tools, considered by some authors to be of Danubian provenance (D’Amico et al. 1997, Pessina and D’Amico 1999), are common in Dalmatian sites (e.g. Batović 1979, pl. 82, 6; Biagi 2005). Figure 1. Eclogite axe blades from Novigrad (Istria; drawings by A. Fragaicomo). Materials kept in the Natural History Museum of Trieste.

In Dalmatia, Hvar type pottery was introduced at the beginning of the 5th millennium BC (Forenbaher and Kaiser 2000: 20). The site distribution and the pottery assemblage of the Danilo and Hvar Cultures are very similar, suggesting that the latter probably represents the natural continuation of the former (Batović 1975: 155).

Dalmatia, and a small jade trapezoidal axe, at present the only known example of HP metaophiolite artefact from inner Croatia (Burić 2000: 42-43; Težak-Gregl 2001: 22), was found at Staro Čiče near Zagreb. Other classes of lithic artefacts also would document the existence of a prevalent costal exchange system connecting the Friuli - Venezia Giulia coasts, Dalmatia and other regions further to the south (Figure 3).

In Istria, in the Karst and in the Friuli plain, the archaeological frame following the Danilo/Vlaška Culture is not easily definable. Pottery shards ascribable to the Hvar tradition - painted wares, bowls with distinct lip, flattened C decorations or cross-shaped decorations on the bottom of small bowls - were found in a few sites in Friuli, Karst and Istria (Gilli and Montagnari Kokelj 1996; Forenbaher et al. 2004; Pessina 2006), but a pottery assemblage typical of post-Danilo/Vlaška layers has not been recognised, perhaps due to a basic continuation of the previous tradition, with the introduction of only few new vessels (Forenbaher et al. 2004; Forenbaher and Miracle 2006: 496). On the other hand, in Western Friuli, during the second half of the same millennium, the influence of the Northern Italian Square Mouthed Pottery Culture, in its last phase, is documented at Bannia-Palazzine di sopra (Western Friuli; Visentini 2002, 2005).

It is possible, in fact, that the so called Alpine or Lessini flint - originating from the Jurassic-Cretaceous formations of the Southern Alps (Ferrari and Mazzieri 1998; Barfield 2000) - followed the same routes of the polished stone axes during the Danilo Culture, from Friuli, where it was probably distributed from the lagoon zone up to the high plain using the fluvial ways (Pessina 2006), at least to the Southern Istrian Peninsula. Exogenous flint is recorded at Kargadur from Danilo horizons (Komšo 2007); moreover, in the Pupićina cave a clear change from local to nonlocal flint exploitation has been observed during the last 48

Cultural Connections in Northeastern Adriatic

Figure 2. HP metaophiolite artefacts from Loznati, Cres Island (1-2, jades); Veli Lošinj, Lošinj Island (3, jade); and Vrbnik, Krk Island (4-5, eclogites). Drawings by A. Fragaicomo; materials kept in the Natural History Museum of Trieste.

Data about stone industries are lacking in this period. However, it is possible that polished stone axes made from HP metaophiolites continued to reach the Croatian coasts also during the 5th millennium BC. A clue is provided by a small jade chisel with double cutting edge (Alberti et al. 2007; Bernardini et al. 2008), an instrument typical of the Square Mouthed Pottery Culture (Pessina and D’Amico 1999), from Loznati in the Cres Island (Figure 2, 2).

Moreover, an exceptional axe blade was found at Vrbnik (Petrić 1997; 2004), which would be manufactured from nephrite, according to Petrić (1997), or rather from jade or eclogite, based on direct observation by the authors. It is more than 30cm long, and presents a flat elongated triangular body with a conical heel and a curved enlarged cutting edge. All the surfaces are accurately polished except for the edges in the medial and proximal parts, where 49

Federico Bernardini, Emanuela Montagnari Kokelj and Anton Velušček

Figure 3. Distribution of HP metaophiolite artefacts in the North Eastern Adriatic (black circles: scientific determination; grey circles: macroscopic determination) and the main directions of long-distance contacts during the Danilo/Vlaška culture as indicated by lithic artefacts. For the data sources, see Bernardini et al. 2008, except for the artefacts indicated in Southern Istria corresponding to the collection of Archaeological Museum of Istria, including some axes from Kargadur (Komšo 2007).

hammering traces are still visible (Figure 5). The accurate manufacturing, the exceptional size and the particular shape are comparable with those of long ceremonial axes from other parts of Western Europe, and in particular with the Saint Michel type (Patton 1990: 556; Pétrequin et al. 2008: 331). The long axe blade from Vrbnik is not completely isolated in the archaeological context of the North-Eastern Adriatic. Another axe, made from HP metaophiolite (Pessina et al. 2006: 433; Pétrequin pers. comm.), about 32cm long, with a flattened elongated triangular body, was found at Cormòns, Boatina-Bosco di sotto (Figure 5). A general comparison with artefacts found in Brittany, and in particular with the Carnac types, has been suggested for this axe (Pessina et al. 2006: 433), the morphology of which looks very similar to the Chenoise type (Pétrequin et al. 2005; Pétrequin et al. 2008: 331). Moreover, fragments of possible ceremonial axes were found also at Sammardenchia (Pessina and D’Amico 1999). The long axe blades made from North-Western Italian sources found in Western Europe appeared from the 5th millennium BC

Figure 4. Chisel from the Tartaruga Cave (Trieste Karst; drawing by A. Fragaicomo), kept in the Speleological Museum of Grotta Gigante.

50

Cultural Connections in Northeastern Adriatic allowed recognition of at least three main different sources for the production of tools. Serpentinite shaft-hole axes are very common in Friuli Venezia Giulia and Central Slovenia, while their number decreases towards south, in the Istria peninsula (Figure 6). According to recent researches, the most probable source area of serpentinite is to be looked for in the Hohe Tauern area (Central Austria) and in the related secondary deposits (Bernardini et al. 2008). Another group of axes, distributed mainly in the Ljubljansko Barje and in the Trieste Karst (Figure 7), is made from a metaultramafic rock. Its origin has not yet been identified, although a provenance from the Eastern Alps is probable, as suggested by D’Amico et al. (1996; 2001). The typological uniformity of metaultramafite artefacts, and their different distribution in comparison with that of the serpentinite axes, suggest a different source area that might be located more eastwards. A smoothing iron shape, a black-grey granular aspect and concave frontal surfaces characterize this group of artefacts. The oldest metaultramafite axes, characterized by an elegant elongated triangular shape with a rounded heel, appeared in Ljubljansko Barje in the 4th millennium BC - for example, at Stare gmajne and Notranje gorice. A variant of this type, shorter and with a squared heel with blunt angles (Figure 8), spread towards the Karst and the Istrian Peninsula probably during the Ljubljana Culture (Bernardini et al. in press). The presence of an axe of this type in the Deschmann pile dwellings, and the association of both Ljubljana style pottery and metaultramafite shaft-hole axes belonging to this variant in the Cotariova and Ciclami Caves in the province of Trieste (Gilli and Montagnari Kokelj 1993; Montagnari Kokelj et al. 2002), support this hypothesis.

Figure 5. Ceremonial axe blades from Cormòns near Gorizia (left) and Vrbnik on Krk Island (right) (modified from Petrić 1997 and Pessina 2006).

(Pétrequin et al. 2005): if a similar chronological attribution can be assumed also for the axes from Vrbnik and Cormòns, this would imply a much larger diffusion of objects that bear ritual and symbolic meaning, suggesting at the same time a progressive increase in the social complexity of the Eastern Adriatic regions. Eneolithic

The third group of axes, manufactured from partially recrystallized doleritic basalt, attests contacts with the inner Balkans. Recent petrographic and geochemical studies indicate that the most probable provenance area is in the Central Dinaric Ophiolitic Belt (Bernardini et al. accepted). New geochemical data have, in fact, shown that this area is to be preferred as rock source to the Požeška Gora Mountain, as preliminary suggested. This likely provenance is well in accordance with the distribution of this class of artefacts, which are concentrated in Istria and Southern Slovenia (Figure 9).

Although our knowledge of the Late Prehistory in the Caput Adriae is highly deficient, at least until the spread of the Ljubljana Culture in the first half of the 3rd millennium, the study of polished stone artefacts – and in particular of shaft-hole axes, which become very common in this period – highlights the development of new relations with areas that gain importance probably in connection with the diffusion of copper metallurgy (Bernardini et al. accepted). It is not a case that small trapezoidal HP metaophiolite axes penetrated into inner Slovenia during the IVth millennium BC: They were found in the Ljubljanica River next to the Hočevarica site and at Stare gmajne. They are also recorded among the materials from the Deschmann pile dwellings (Bernardini et al. 2008).

If we look at the other side of the Adriatic, the quite high number of shaft-hole axe findings along the Northern Apennine Chain (Carrisi 2003) has been interpreted by some scholars as an indicator of trans-Adriatic contacts (Cazzella 2003). However, at present the available archaeometric studies are not sufficient to make reliable comparisons among the tools of the opposite sides of the Adriatic. In fact, no geochemical data are known for the Italian shaft-hole axes. A group of Eneolithic artefacts from

Moreover, the new opening of the Caput Adriae towards the Eastern Alps and the Balkans is attested also by recent archaeometric studies on shaft-hole axes, which have 51

Federico Bernardini, Emanuela Montagnari Kokelj and Anton Velušček

Figure 6. Serpentinite shaft-hole axes in the Caput Adriae. 1: S. Tomè (PN, Friuli-Venezia Giulia), n. AQ9514; 2: Meduno, (PN, FriuliVenezia Giulia), n. AQ250607; 3: Gradisca di Provesano (PN, Friuli-Venezia Giulia), n. AQ221855; 4: S. Eliseo di Caporiacco (UD, Friuli-Venezia Giulia), n. AQ223078; 5-20: Sammardenchia (UD, Friuli-Venezia Giulia), nn. AQ225152, AQ225170, SAM6, SAM82/1, SAM90, SAM143, SAM148, SAM211-SAM213, SAM216, SAM301, SAM306, SAM315; Pozzuolo del Friuli (UD, Friuli-Venezia Giulia) nn. AQ116005, AQ223080; 21: Pavia di Udine (UD, Friuli-Venezia Giulia), n. AQ225151; 22: Castions di Strada (UD, Friuli-Venezia Giulia), n. AQ232515; 23: S. Stefano Aquileiese (UD, Friuli-Venezia Giulia), n. AQ455715; 24: Novacco (UD, Friuli-Venezia Giulia), n. AQ331243; 25-26: Mossa (GO, Friuli-Venezia Giulia), n. 1325, no number; 27: Nova Gorica (Western Slovenia), no number; 28: Opicina (TS, Friuli-Venezia Giulia), no number; 29: Montedoro (TS, Friuli-Venezia Giulia), n. TS2280; 30: Sottomonte Cave (TS, Friuli-Venezia Giulia), n. TS25785; 31: S. Ivan pod Sterne (Istria, Croatia), n. P-194; 32: Sandaya (Istria, Croatia), P-15059; 33-34: Istria (Croatia), nn. P-12, P-14; 35-38: Ljubljanica (Ljubljansko barje, Slovenia), nn. 8-9, 11-12; 39-48: Deschmann pile-dwellings (Ljubljansko barje, Slovenia), nn. B45, B46, B48, B50, B52, B54, B56, B59, B60, B62. Data sources: Castions di Strada, Sottomonte Cave, Meduno, Montedoro, Pavia di Udine, Pozzuolo del Friuli nn. AQ220591, AQ116005, Sammardenchia n. AQ225152, S. Eliseo di Caporiacco, S. Stefano Aquileiese, S. Tomè (D’Amico et al. 1996); Sammardenchia all the SAM samples (D’Amico et al. 1997; Pessina and D’Amico 1999) except SAM315 (macroscopic determination); Gradisca di Provesano, Novacco, Mossa, Pozzuolo del Friuli n. AQ223080, Sammardenchia nn. AQ223082; AQ225170 (D’Amico unpublished data); Deschmann pile dwellings (Peloi 1996-1997); Istria, Nova Gorica, Opicina, Sandaya, S. Ivan pod Sterne (Alberti et al. 2007).

Emilia Romagna, studied through optical microscopy, is mainly manufactured from basic magmatites (gabbros, dolerites and basalts) from local or Northern Apennine sources (D’Amico et al. 2000). In addition, a small group of axes from the Copper Age ditch of Conelle di Arcevia (Marche, Central-Eastern Italy), analysed in thin section, reveals extensive use of local sedimentary rock sources (Burragato et al. 2003). However, among nine artefacts, the sample COV39 (attributed to the B phase) is obtained from an ophiolitic basic magmatite, which shows strict

petrographic similarities with the Slovenian and Croatian axes manufactured from partially recrystallized doleritic basalt. It is evident that further analyses are necessary to verify if the shaft-hole axes probably originating from the Central Dinaric Ophiolitic Belt crossed the Adriatic and reached the Italian coasts. Conclusions During the Danilo/Vlaška Culture, the North-Eastern 52

Cultural Connections in Northeastern Adriatic

Figure 7. Metaultramafite shaft-hole axes in the Caput Adriae. 1: Torsa di Pocenia (UD, Friuli-Venezia Giulia), n. AQ225172; 2: Vipacco Valley (Western Slovenia), n. 142; 3: Cave near Slivia (TS, Friuli-Venezia Giulia), no number Battaglia collection; 4-5: Cotariova Cave (TS, Friuli-Venezia Giulia), nn. TS20418, TS4232; 6: Ciclami Cave (TS, Friuli-Venezia Giulia), n. TS33965; 7: Tre Querce Cave (TS, Friuli-Venezia Giulia), without number; 8: Pula (Istria, Croatia), without number; 9-10: Stare gmajne (Ljubljansko barje, Slovenia), nn. sgn-02-ik3, sgn-04-12/24 ; 11: Notranje gorice (Ljubljansko barje, Slovenia), n. B53b; 12: Deschmann pile dwellings (Ljubljansko barje, Slovenia), n. B61. Data sources: Ciclami Cave, Cotariova Cave n. TS20418, Torsa di Pocenia (D’Amico et al. 1996); Pula, Vipacco Valley (Alberti et al. 2007); Notranje gorice, Deschmann pile dwellings (Peloi 1996-1997); Cotariova Cave n. TS4232 (D’Amico unpublished data); Cave near Slivia, Tre Querce Cave, Stare gmajne (Bernardini et al. in press).

Adriatic is involved in a net of long distance exchange systems, which - using mainly the route along the coast - are responsible for the procurement of HP metaophiolite axes and, possibly, Lessini flint from Northern Italy, as well as of the obsidian from Lipari, mediated by Southern Dalmatia, but also of rare obsidian from the Carpathian basin. The small chisel from the Cres Island and the two exceptionally long and accurately shaped axe blades from Còrmons and Vrbnik, which find strict comparisons with artefacts found to the north of the Alps, would attest the continuation of the HP metaophiolite axe exchange also in the 5th millennium BC., and might suggest the emergence of a higher level of social differentiation. In contrast, during the following millennia the exchange network would have changed from a preferential contact system along the coast to a more complex one, characterized by a new interest for the Eastern Alpine and Northern Balkan world, probably in

Figure 8. Metaultramafite shaft-hole axe from Pula, kept in the Trieste Natural History Museum (Drawing by A. Fragiacomo).

53

Federico Bernardini, Emanuela Montagnari Kokelj and Anton Velušček

Figure 9. Doleritic basalt shaft-hole axes in the Caput Adriae. 1: Lozice (Western Slovenia), n. P3022; 2: Sv. Ivan od Sterne (Istria, Croatia), n. P195; 3: Moncodogno (Istria, Croatia), n. 101036; 4: Montursino (Istria, Croatia), n. P15799; 5: Nesazio (Istria, Croatia), n. Nezakcij - 2003; 6: Veruda (Istria, Croatia), n. P1075; 7: Uvala Veruda (Istria, Croatia), n. P26810; 8: Istria (Croatia), n. P13; 9: Deschmann pile dwellings (Ljubljansko barje, Slovenia), n. B57; 10-11: Spaha (Southern Slovenia), nn. Sp2, Sp6; 12: Vrbnik (Krk island, Croatia). Data sources: Bernardini et al. accepted.

connection with the development of copper metallurgy. The penetration of HP metaophiolite axes into inner Slovenia in the 4th millennium BC, the provenance of the shaft-hole axes found in the Caput Adriae, and the first diffusion of copper axes in these areas (Mayer 1977: 53-63; Žeravica 1993; Pászthory and Mayer 1998: 25-7; Velušček 2004: 298-300; Höppner et al. 2005; Kienlin et al. 2006: 455) are a tangible consequence of this process.

(UD), 15-16 September 2006. Pasian di Prato (UD): Edizioni Quasar, 189-208. Barfield, L.H. 1972. The First Neolithic Cultures of North-Eastern Italy. In Schwabedissen, H. ed. Die Anfänge des Neolithikums vom Orient bis Nordeuropa, Teil VII: Westliches Mittelmeergebiet und Britische Inseln. Köln-Wien: Böhlau Verlag, 182-216. 2000. Commercio e scambio nel Neolitico dell’Italia settentrionale. In A. Pessina and G. Muscio (eds), La neolitizzazione tra oriente e occidente. Udine: Edizioni del Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale, 55-66. Batović, Š. 1975. Le relazioni tra la Daunia e la sponda orientale dell’Adriatico. In Civiltà Preistoriche e Protostoriche della Daunia. Firenze: Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, 149-157. 1979, Jadranska zona. In A. Benac (ed.), Praistorija

References Alberti, A., Bernardini, F., Burelli, G., Cucchi, F., Demarchi, G., Montagnari Kokelj, E., Piano, C., Princivalle, F. and Velušček, A. 2007. Le materie prime litiche nelle Valli del Natisone e nelle aree limitrofe. In M. Chiabà, P. Maggi and C. Magrini (eds), Le valli del Natisone e dell’Isonzo tra Centroeuropa e Adriatico. San Pietro al Natisone

54

Cultural Connections in Northeastern Adriatic Jugoslavenskih Zemalja 2. Sarajevo: Akademija Nauka i Umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, 473-634. Bernardini, F., Alberti, A., Demarchi, G., Montagnari Kokelj, E., Princivalle, F. and Velušček, A. 2008. An archaeometric study of the prehistoric polished stone tools from Ljubljanica river (Slovenia). Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 16, 53-70. Bernardini, F., Montagnari Kokelj, E., Demarchi G. and Alberti, A. in press. Scambi e strategie di approvvigionamento nel Ljubljansko barje del IV millennio a.C. dedotti dallo studio archeometrico di manufatti in pietra. In A. Velušček (ed.), Koliščarska naselbina Stare gmajne in njen čas - Ljubljansko barje v 2. polovici 4. tisočletja pr. Kr. Bernardini, F., De Min, A., Demarchi, G., Montagnari Kokelj, E., Velušček, A. and Darko, K. accepted. Shaft-hole axes from Slovenia and north western Croatia: a first archaeometric study on artefacts manufactured from meta-dolerites. Archaeometry. Biagi, P. 2005. Updating old concepts on the relationships between the Balkans and Northern Italy during the Neolithic. Acta Terrae Septemcastrensiis 4, 11-21. Burić, M. 2000, Finding of Nephrite and Jade Axes on the Territory of Croatia. Krystalinikum 26, 39-43. Burragato, F., Bellatreccia, F. and Pignatti, J. 2003. Sulle asce e macine di Conelle di Arcevia: alcune considerazioni sul materiale litico utilizzato e sulle provenienze. In A. Cazzella, M. Moscoloni and G. Recchia (eds), Conelle di Arcevia, II. I manufatti in pietra scheggiata e levigata, in materia dura di origine animale, in ceramica non vascolari; il concotto. Roma, Soveria Mannelli (CZ): Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza, Rubbettino Editore Srl, 405-421. Cannarella, D. and Redivo, B. 1983. La grotta della Tartaruga. Livelli a ceramica. Nota preliminare. Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 4 (1978-1981), 45-71. Carrisi, E. 2003. I manufatti in pietra levigata. In A. Cazzella, M. Moscoloni and G. Recchia (eds), Conelle di Arcevia, II. I manufatti in pietra scheggiata e levigata, in materia dura di origine animale, in ceramica non vascolari; il concotto. Roma, Soveria Mannelli (CZ): Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza, Rubbettino Editore Srl, 355-404. Cazzella, A. 2003. Conelle di Arcevia nel panorama culturale della preistoria del Mediterraneo centro-orientale e della penisola balcanica tra quarto e terzo millennio. In A. Cazzella, M. Moscoloni and G. Recchia

(eds), Conelle di Arcevia, II. I manufatti in pietra scheggiata e levigata, in materia dura di origine animale, in ceramica non vascolari; il concotto. Roma, Soveria Mannelli (CZ): Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza, Rubbettino Editore Srl, 541-568. Cermesoni, B., Ferrari, A., Mazzieri, F., Pessina, A. and Taini, D. 1999. Le strutture e la documentazione culturale. Il catalogo. In A. Ferrari and A. Pessina (eds), Sammardenchia-Cûeis. Contributi per la conoscenza di una comunità del primo neolitico. Tavagnacco (UD): Edizioni del Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale, 93-230. Chapman, J.C., Shiel, R.S. and Batović, Š. 1996. The Changing Face of Dalmatia. London: Leicester University Press. Codacci, G. 2002. Il sito neolitico di Vižula: analisi tipologica dell’industria litica. Histria Archeologica 33, 143193. D’Amico, C., Felice, G., Gasparotto, G., Ghedini, M., Nannetti, M.C. and Trentini, P. 1997. La pietra levigata neolitica di Sammardenchia (Friuli). Mineralogica et Petrographica Acta 40, 385-426. D’Amico, C., Gasparotto, G., Ghedini, M. and Sabetta, T. 2001. Serpentiniti e metaultramafiti ad anfiboli e cloriti in asce-martello eneolitiche del NE Italiano. In GeoItalia, 3rd forum, section n. 21, riassunti. Chieti, 5-8 September 2001. Livorno: Media Print, 631-632. D’Amico, C., Ghedini, M., Micheli, R. and Montagnari Kokelj, E. 1996. Le asce forate del Friuli Venezia Giulia. In M. Venturino Gambari (ed.), Le vie della pietra verde, l’industria litica levigata nella preistoria dell’Italia settentrionale. Torino: Omega Edizioni, 229-238. D’Amico, C., Lenzi, F., Margutti, S. and Nenzioni, G. 2000. Témoignages de la pierre polie du Chacolithique a l’est de Bologne: analyses quantitatives, qualitative set typologiques. In Science and technology for the safeguard of cultural heritage in the Mediterranean basin, II International Congress. Paris, 5-9 July 1999. Paris: CNRS-CNR, 271-278. D’Amico, C. and Starnini, E. 2006. L’atelier di Rivanazzano (PV): un’associazione litologica insolita nel quadro della ‘pietra verde’ levigata in Italia settentrionale. In A. Pessina and P. Visentini (eds), Preistoria dell’Italia settentrionale. Studi in ricordo di Bernardino Bagolini, International Congress Proceedings. Udine,23-24 September 2005. Tavagnacco (UD): Edizioni del Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale, 59-76. D’Amico, C., Starnini, E., Gasparotto, G. and Ghedini, M. 2004. Eclogite, Jades and other HP-metaophiolites employed for prehistoric polished stone implements in Italy and Europe. Periodico di Mineralogia 73, Special Issue 3, 17-42. 55

Federico Bernardini, Emanuela Montagnari Kokelj and Anton Velušček Ferrari, A. and Mazzieri, P. 1998. Fonti e processi di scambio di rocce silicee scheggiabili. In A. Pessina and G. Muscio (eds), Settemila anni fa il primo pane: ambienti e culture delle società neolitiche. Tavagnacco (UD): Edizioni del Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale, 165-170. Forenbaher, S. 2006. Neolithic flaked stone industries of Eastern Adriatic: the assemblages from Pupićina and Grapčeva Caves. Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 15 (2004-2005), 81-116. Forenbaher, S. and Kaiser, T. 2000. Grapčeva spilja i absolutno datiranje istočnojadranskog neolitica. Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 92, 9-34. Forenbaher, S., Kaiser, T. and Miracle, P. 2004. Pupićina cave pottery and the Neolithic sequence in Northeastern Adriatic. Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione FriuliVenezia Giulia 14 (2003), 61-102. Forenbaher, S. and Miracle, P. 2006. Pupićina Cave and the Spread of Farming in the Eastern Adriatic. In P. Miracle and S. Forenbaher (eds), Prehistoric Herders of Northern Istria. The Archaeology of Pupićina Cave, Volume 1. Pula: Arheološki Muzej Istre, 483-519. Gilli, E. and Montagnari Kokelj, E. 1993. La Grotta dei Ciclami nel Carso Triestino (materiali degli scavi 1959-1961). Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione FriuliVenezia Giulia 7 (1992-1993), 65-162. 1996, La grotta degli Zingari nel Carso triestino (materiali degli scavi 1961-1965). Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione FriuliVenezia Giulia 9 (1994-1995), 63-126. Guštin, M. ed. 2005. Prvi poljedelci, Savska skupina lengyelske kulture / First Farmers, the Sava group of the Lengyel Culture. Koper: Annales Mediterranea. Höppner, B., Bartelheim, M., Huijsmans, M., Krauss, R., Martinek, K.-P., Pernicka, E. and Schwab, R. 2005. Prehistoric copper production in the Inn valley (Austria), and the earliest copper in Central Europe. Archaeometry 47(2), 293-315. Kienlin, T. L., Bischoff, E. and Opielka, H. 2006. Copper and bronze during the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age: a metallographic examination of axes from the Northalpine region. Archaeometry 48(3), 453-468. Komšo, D. 2007. Changes in seafaring and use of the sea during Neolithic: a view from Istria. In A. Uglešić (ed.), Abstracts Book, 13th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists. Zadar: University of Zadar, 262. Martinelli, M.C. 1990. Industrie litiche di alcuni siti neolitici della

Dalmazia e loro raffronti con contemporanee industrie dall’Italia sud-adriatica e dalle isole Eolie. Rassegna di Archeologia 9, 125-151. Mayer, E. F. 1977. Die Äxte und Beile in Österreich. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX, 9. München: C. H. Beck Montagnari Kokelj, E., Greif, T. and Presello, E. 2002. La Grotta Cotariova nel Carso triestino (Italia nord-orientale), materiali ceramici degli scavi 19501970. Aquileia Nostra LXXVIII 2002, 38-190. Montagnari Kokelj, E. and Piano, C. 2003. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Trieste Karst (north-eastern Italy): possible clues from the analysis of local versus exotic lithic industries. In T. Tsonev and E. Montagnari Kokelj (eds), The humanized mineral world: towards social and symbolic evaluation of prehistoric technologies in South Eastern Europe, ERAUL 103. Liège-Sofia, 89-97. Pászthory, K. and Mayer, E. F. 1998. Die Äxte und Beile in Bayern. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX, 20. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Patton, M. 1990. On Entoptic Images in Context: Art, Monument, and Society in Neolithic Brittany. Current Anthropology 31(5), 554-558. Peloi, D. 1996-1997. Le asce-martello in pietra levigata: proposta di lettura analitica ed esempi applicativi a contesti del Friuli Venezia Giulia e della Slovenia. Unpublished B.Sc. thesis, Università degli Studi di Trieste. Pessina, A. 1999. Manufatti in ossidiana dal sito di Sammardenchia-Cûeis. In A. Ferrari and A. Pessina (eds), Sammardenchia-Cûeis. Contributi per la conoscenza di una comunità del primo neolitico. Tavagnacco (UD): Edizioni del Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale, 287-290 2006. Nuovi dati sugli aspetti culturali del primo Neolitico in Friuli e sui rapporti con l’Adriatico orientale. In A. Pessina and P. Visentini (eds), Preistoria dell’Italia settentrionale. Studi in ricordo di Bernardino Bagolini, International Congress Proceedings. Udine, 23-24 September 2005. Tavagnacco (UD): Edizioni del Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale, 279-301. Pessina, A., Bastiani, G., Della Bianca, B. and Tondella, L. 2006. Nuove segnalazioni di industrie in pietra levigata dal Friuli. In A. Pessina and P. Visentini (eds), Preistoria dell’Italia settentrionale. Studi in ricordo di Bernardino Bagolini, International Congress Proceedings. Udine, 23-24 September 2005. Tavagnacco (UD): Edizioni del Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale, 429-436. Pessina, A. and D’Amico, C. 1999. L’industria in pietra levigata del sito neolitico 56

Cultural Connections in Northeastern Adriatic Implications for Cultural Interaction. In The Neolithic in the Near East and Europe, Acts of the XIVth UISPP Congress, University of Liège, Section 9. Belgium, 2-8 September 2001, BAR International Series 1303. Oxford: Archaeopres, 25-35. 2007. Around and across the Adriatic: obsidian trade from the Tyrrhenian to Trieste. In A. Uglešić (ed.), Abstracts Book, 13th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists. Zadar: University of Zadar, 263. Velušček, A. ed. 2004. Hočevarica, eneolitsko kolišče na Ljubljanskem barju / Hočevarica, an eneolithic pile dwelling in the Ljubljana moor. Ljubljana: Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae, 8. 2006. Resnikov prekop, najstarejša koliščarska naselbina na Lljubljanskem barju / Resnikov prekop, the oldest Pile-dwelling Settlement in the Ljubljansko barje. Ljubljana: Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae, 10. Visentini, P. 2002. I siti di Bannia-Palazzine di Sopra e Palù di Livenza nel quadro neolitico recente e tardo del Friuli. In A. Ferrari and P. Visentini (eds), Il Declino del mondo neolitico. Ricerche in Italia centrosettentrionale fra aspetti peninsulari e nord-alpini, International Congress Proceedings. Pordenone, 5-7 aprile 2001. Pordenone: Quaderni del Museo Archeologico del Friuli Occidentali, 199-211. Visentini, P. ed. 2005. Bannia-Palazzine di Sopra, una comunità preistorica del V millennio a.C.. Pordenone: Museo Archeologico del Friuli Occidentale. Williams-Thorpe, O., Warren, S.E. and Barfield, L.H. 1979. The sources and distribution of archaeological obsidian in northern Italy. Preistoria Alpina 15, 7392. Žeravica, Z. 1993. Die Äxte und Beile aus Dalmatien und anderen Teilen Kroatiens, Montenegro, Bosnien, und Herzegowina. Stuttgart: Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX/18. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner

di Sammardenchia (Pozzuolo del Friuli, Udine). Aspetti archeologici e petroarcheometrici. In A. Ferrari and A. Pessina (eds), Sammardenchia-Cûeis. Contributi per la conoscenza di una comunità del primo neolitico. Tavagnacco (UD): Edizioni del Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale, 23-92. Pétrequin, P., Errera, M., Cassen, S., Billand, G., Colas, C., Maréchal D., Prodeo, F. and Vangle, F. 2005. Des Alpes italiennes à l’Altlantique au Ve millénaire: les quatre grandes haches polies de Vendeuil et Maizy (Aisne), Brenouille (Oise). In G. Auxiette and F. Malrain (eds), Hommages à Claudine Pommepuy. Amiens: Revue Archéologique de Picardie numéro spécial 22, 75-104. Pétrequin, P., Errera, M., Pétrequin, A. M. and Allard, P. 2006. The Neolithic quarries of Mont Viso, Piedmont, Italy: initial radiocarbon dates. European Journal of Archaeology 9(1), 7-30. Pétrequin, P., Pétrequin, A.-M., Errera, M., Jaime Riveron, O., Bailly, M., Gauthier, E. and Rossi, G. 2008. Premiers épisodes del la fabrication des longues haches alpines: ramassage de galets ou choc thermique sur des blocs?. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 105(2), 309-334. Petrić, N. 1997. Jade and Nephrite axes in Croatian Prehistory. Histria Archaeologica 26 (1995), 15-27. 2004. Kultura Gudnja i primjeri importa u neolitiku Dalmacije / The Gudnja Culture and Examples of Imports in Neolithic Dalmatia. Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu 21, 197-207. Težak Gregl, T. 2001. Glačame kemene rukotvorine neolitičkog i eneolitičkog razdoblje u Hrvatskoj / Polished stone artifacts from the Neolithic and Eneolithic periods in Croatia. Opuscula Archaeologica 25, 7-27. Tykot, R.H. 1996. Obsidian Procurement and Distribution in the Central and Western Mediterranean. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 9(1), 39-82. 2004. Neolithic Exploitation and Trade of Obsidian in the Central Mediterranean: New Results and

57

5 The First Specialised Potters of the Adriatic Region: The Makers of Neolithic Figulina Ware

Michela Spataro Figulina ware is widely distributed in different Early and Middle Neolithic material cultural assemblages along the eastern and western Adriatic coastlines. Scientific analyses in thin section and by Scanning Electron Microscopy, used in combination with Energy Dispersive Spectrometry (SEM-EDS), show that this type of pottery was probably produced on a regional scale, in contrast to everyday pottery types, which were produced for local needs only. Figulina ware was manufactured through a specific process with a well-defined choice of raw material, and fired at temperatures which required the use of kilns, whereas everyday ceramics were fired at lower temperatures and may have been produced at a household level. This suggests that specialised artisans produced the figulina ware, which implies that an economic and social shift took place at the end of the Early and at the beginning of the Middle Neolithic. Keywords: Adriatic coastlines, Danilo, figulina, Hvar, Impressed Ware, Neolithic, petrography, SEM/EDS, Square-Mouthed Pottery culture

Introduction

The situation in Central Italy is more complicated. Here both Early Neolithic sites of the middle sixth millennium cal. BC, such as Catignano in the Abruzzi (Tozzi and Zamagni 2003), and Middle Neolithic sites of the Ripoli Culture (Cremonesi 1965) made abundant use of figulina pottery, even though both the vessel shapes and painted patterns strongly differ according to their cultural and chronological attribution.

The aim of this paper is to discuss the role of figulina ware in the Early and Middle Neolithic of the Adriatic region, on the basis of the results of scientific analyses carried out by the author in the last few years. These analyses considered 59 samples from 10 sites distributed along the eastern and western Adriatic coastlines and attributed to different archaeological cultures, such as the Impressed Ware (IW), the Square-Mouthed Pottery (SMP), the Serra d’Alto, the Danilo, and the Hvar cultures (Figure 1, Table 1).

The term figulina is sometimes utilised inappropriately by archaeologists. Whereas real figulina pottery has the

Research context The term ‘figulina ware’ was introduced in 1934 by U. Rellini, when he excavated the Middle Neolithic site of Ripoli in Val Vibrata in central-eastern Italy (Teramo province, in Abruzzo) (Rellini 1934). Today, this term is commonly used to indicate a class of painted or unpainted yellowish, whitish, light buff, light greyish or pinkish pottery, mainly powdery in texture, and with almost invisible inclusions. Painted examples are decorated with red, brown, and dark linear and dynamic geometric motifs. This type of pottery is widespread along the Adriatic coastlines, where it appeared around the middle of the sixth millennium cal. BC, in the Early Neolithic Impressed Ware Culture, until the late fifth millennium cal. BC in the Middle Neolithic Serra d’Alto Culture (Whitehouse 1969; Malone 1985), whose vessels are almost exclusively made of figulina pottery. It is distributed also along the eastern Adriatic coastline in assemblages of the Middle Neolithic Danilo and Hvar cultures (Batović 1960; Korošec 1964).

Figure 1. Sites from which figulina ware was analysed by the author. Key: CEL = Caverna Elia, SPL = Spilamberto, RDM = Ripabianca di Monterado, SCA = Scamuso, DB = Danilo Bitinj, SML = Smilčić, FM = Fiorano Modenese, FG = Fagnigola, GDM = Grotta delle Mura, GRV = Gravina.

59

Michela Spataro Table 1. List of the sites from which figulina samples were analysed. Site

Location

Culture

Sample(s) analysed

Technique(s) of analysis

Fagnigola

Italy

Fagnigola Group

1

Thin section

Fiorano Modenese

Italy

Square-Mouthed Pottery

1

Thin section

Ripabianca di Monterado

Italy

Middle Adriatic Impressed Ware

11

Thin section; SEM-EDS

Gravina di Puglia

Italy

3

Thin section

Grotta delle Mura

Italy

Impressed Ware

7

Thin section

Smilčić

Croatia

Danilo

4

Thin section; SEM-EDS

Smilčić

Croatia

Hvar

2

Thin section; SEM-EDS

Danilo Bitinj

Croatia

Danilo

6

Thin section; SEM-EDS

Caverna Elia

Italy

Serra d’Alto

2

Thin section; SEM-EDS

Scamuso

Italy

Serra d’Alto

4

Thin section; SEM-EDS

Spilamberto

Italy

Square-Mouthed Pottery

18

Thin section; SEM-EDS

di Trento and others) (Barfield 1981; Bernabò Brea et al. 1990) have demonstrated that the SMP culture maintained strong relationships with that of Serra d’Alto in Apulia and Basilicata (Lo Porto 1989). Typical Serra d’Alto figulina handles often recur, although as isolated finds, at some SMP Culture complexes. For example, a typical, small Serra d’Alto flask was placed in a fifth millennium cal. BC grave at La Vela di Trento, in the Adige Valley. The Serra d’Alto flask is supposed to be a local imitation of the typical Apulian prototypes (Mottes 1997). Spondylus beads and shoe-last greenstone chisels of Central European type also appear at the same cemetery, indicating the importance of the Adige Valley axis in the commercial routes established between south and central Europe and vice-versa (Mottes et al. 2002). Other important SMP sites are Campegine and Chiozza di Scandiano in Emilia (Bagolini and Barfield 1971), which have been known since the end of the nineteenth century. At Chiozza, an important cemetery of the same period was also found, with burials of individuals crouched on their left side (Laviosa Zambotti and Messerschmidt 1941-1942).

characteristic traits described above, other ceramics, rich in visible filler, with a hard outer surface of buff colour, or whitish, rough pottery, are often attributed to this class, although they are also referred to as pseudofigulina. In northern Italy figulina flasks painted with typical red and black, Ripoli geometric patterns, occur in the Early Neolithic layers of the Caverna delle Arene Candide in Liguria (Bernabò Brea 1946) while the finds from the Fiorano and Vhò group settlements of the Po Valley (Bagolini and Barfield 1991) are almost contemporary or slightly older. A similar phenomenon can be observed in the Friuli Plain, where the middle sixth millennium cal. BC sites of Fagnigola and Sammardenchia di Pozzuolo yielded a few fragments of unpainted figulina ware (Biagi 1975; Ferrari and Pessina 1996). There is no doubt that these figulina potsherds indicate that trade activities had already been established with some central Italian production centres: the problem, in most cases, is to define where these centres were located. The general impression is that the trade and circulation of figulina vessels was already active during the second half of the sixth millennium cal. BC. It involved the export of two well-defined vessel types: four-handled flasks with four small pierced bosses on the upper neck, just below the rim, and open, hemispherical bowls, most probably with one handle. In any case, it seems that pseudofigulina wares were also produced, most probably locally, as some of the finds from the Early Neolithic settlements of the eastern Po Plain Vhò Culture indicate (Bagolini and Biagi 1975).

It is difficult to understand why the production of figulina wares ceased in the second half of the fifth millennium cal. BC both in central and southern Italy, but the characteristic ceramics of the later cultures throughout the peninsula were quite different: the Diana culture, red-polished, undecorated wares in the south (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1956) and the black-burnished, also undecorated fine ceramics of the Chassey and Lagozza cultures in the north (Guerreschi 1967), which clearly indicate a radical change in the manufacturing technique, function and fashion.

The picture seems to be rather similar during the Middle Neolithic (fifth millennium cal. BC), when the SMP culture flourished in northern Italy (Barfield 1972). In this culture, figulina vessels seem to have been in use only during the first half of the millennium. Many discoveries made in north-eastern Italy (Rocca di Manerba, Gaione, Quinzano Veronese, Fimon Molino Casarotto, La Vela

Previous analyses of figulina fom the Italian and Croatian coastlines As part of the author’s PhD (1998-2001), 35 figulina 60

The First Specialised Potters of the Adriatic Region potsherds from both Adriatic coastlines were analysed using minero-petrographic and chemical analyses. The mineropetrographic work focused on the study of thin sections, in order to identify the minerals contained in the pottery fabric (Maggetti 1982), whereas Scanning-Electron Microscopy, used in combination with Energy Dispersive Spectrometry, (SEM-EDS) was employed to measure the concentration of major and minor elements in the clay (Spataro 2002, chapter 2). The SEM-EDS analysis was carried out at the Institute of Archaeology (UCL, London) with a JEOL JSM-35 CF with a standard peak resolution of 138 eV, and Window ATW2.

well-sorted quartz, abundant microfossils, fine muscovite mica, iron oxides, rare feldspar, and pyroxene. The main difference between the two groups is in the occasional flint present in the samples from Grotta delle Mura and absent in those from Gravina. In particular, their pastes contain the same species of foraminifera (possible sea-urchin and Nummulites; Y. Goren, pers. comm. 2001). On the basis of these observations, it is possible to suggest that the samples analysed from these two sites come from very similar clay sources: calcareous, fossiliferous, with fine quartz and flint inclusions. The samples from the northern Italian sites show much finer fabrics than those from central-eastern and south-eastern Italy. The latter all show calcareous and fossiliferous fabrics with much coarser and more abundant inclusions, though those from Ripabianca di Monterado contain radiolarian chert (absent in the southern Italian sites), more abundant flint and fewer microfossils. On the basis of the soil sample from Ripabianca, and the comparisons of the pottery fabrics, it is possible to suggest local production for the central Italian site and a possible regional manufacture for the Apulian sites (Spataro 2002, 162,190).

The samples analysed in thin section are from northern Italy (Fagnigola), central and central-eastern Italy (Fiorano Modenese and Ripabianca di Monterado), southern Italy (Gravina and Grotta delle Mura), and from the Croatian coastline (Smilčić and Danilo Bitinj) (Table 1; Figure 1). The SEM-EDS quantitative results were based on five bulk analyses on each sample at a magnification of x86 (each analysis representing a cross-sectional area of ca. 2 x 3mm). Both the results of individual bulk analyses and the average elemental concentrations (Schneider 1989) in each sherd were compared to the ceramic groups defined by mineropetrographic analysis.

The Dalmatian sites

Thin section analysis

Six figulina samples were analysed from the Dalmatian site of Smilčić, near the city of Zadar, along the Adriatic coastline (Batović 1962; 1966). In addition to the figulina ware, the everyday pottery from this site was also analysed. The latter comes from three different occupation layers: Impressed Ware, Danilo, and Hvar Cultures (Spataro 2002, 75-93). A total of 63 potsherds were analysed in thin section and by SEM-EDS from the three cultural phases.

The Italian sites The results of the analyses in thin section show an articulated and varied picture. The fabrics of samples from the northern Italian sites of Fagnigola and Fiorano Modenese are rather similar, with a reddish, very finegrained, slightly calcareous, vitrified, silty paste, with very rare inclusions, such as fine and well-sorted quartz (