Human-Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age: A paleodemographic model 9781407357980, 9781407357997

Citation preview

210mm WIDTH

2021

The book is the result of a three-year investigation on the Aeolian Islands, a volcanic archipelago consisting of seven islands in north-eastern Sicily, Italy. The author provides new information on the use of vegetal resources and exploitation of the insular landscape by human communities between the end of the third and the end of the second millennium BC. Archaeological data from the widely explored Bronze Age hut villages of Filo Braccio, Filicudi and Acropolis, Lipari are examined through the lens of archaeobotanical and paleoenvironmental data, to produce carrying capacity evaluation and propose new paleodemographic estimations. In particular, the diachronic analysis of wood architectural features and agricultural techniques highlights the possible reliance of the archipelago on external resources during some chronological phases. This monograph adds to our broader understanding of island archaeology and demographics of prehistoric communities, offering a new method for interpreting and using archaeobotanical data.

Claudia Speciale is an archaeobotanist with a particular interest in island archaeology and paleoecological studies. Her research focuses on prehistoric Sicily and the surrounding small volcanic islands. During her post-doctoral research she developed a new investigation of Ustica island and its early human colonization.

210mm WIDTH

Human-Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age A paleodemographic model

Claudia Speciale B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 5 2

2021 297mm HIGH

‘All scholars studying Mediterranean prehistory and ancient civilizations in general will be interested in this research.’ Dr Assunta Florenzano, Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia

BAR  S3052  2021   SPECIALE   Human-Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age

B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 5 2

11mm

Printed in England

210 x 297mm_BAR Speciale 11mm CPI ARTWORK.indd 2-3

14/10/2021 10:28

210mm WIDTH

Human-Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age A paleodemographic model

Claudia Speciale B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 5 2

2021 297mm HIGH

210 x 297mm_BAR Speciale TITLE ARTWORK.indd 1

05/10/2021 18:40

Published in 2021 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 3052 Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age ISBN  978 1 4073 5798 0 paperback ISBN  978 1 4073 5799 7 e-format doi  https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407357980 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library © Claudia Speciale 2021 Cover image  Filicudi, Filo Braccio. Hut F. Picture by C. Speciale The Author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in  any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. Links to third party websites are provided by BAR Publishing in good faith and for information only. BAR Publishing disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

BAR titles are available from: Email Phone Fax

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, ox2 7bp, uk [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Of Related Interest

Archaeobotanical investigations of plant cultivation and husbandry practices at the Early Bronze Age settlement Küllüoba in West-Central Turkey: Considerations on environment, climate and economy Özgür Çizer Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2015

BAR International Series 2766

Millets, Rice and Farmers Phytoliths as indicators of agricultural, social and ecological change in Neolithic and Bronze Age Central China Alison Ruth Weisskopf Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2014

BAR International Series 2589

Plant Environment of Man between 6000 and 2000 B.C. in Bulgaria Tzvetana Popova Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2010

BAR International Series 2064

The Aeolian Islands: Crossroads of Mediterranean Maritime Routes A survey on their maritime archaeology and topography from the prehistoric to the Roman periods Elena Flavia Castagnino Berlinghieri Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2003

For more information, or to purchase these titles, please visit www.barpublishing.com

BAR International Series 1181

Acknowledgements Thanks to Maurizio Cattani and Marco Madella for the precious revisions. Thanks to Cosimo D’Oronzo and Angela Stellati for teaching me a thousand things. Thanks to Maria Clara Martinelli and Girolamo Fiorentino for their scientific support. Thanks to Alessandro Guidi for believing in me. Thanks to Federico Nomi for many islands’ and mental tours. Thanks to Alice Rossi and Antonella Saponara for making these years lighter. Thanks to Yildiz Aumeeruddy-Thomas and all BIODIVMEX colleagues for their collaboration. Thanks to Valentina Caracuta for her timely advice. Thanks to Maria Amalia Mastelloni for opening the doors of the Museum. Thanks to Rosario Vilardo for supporting the publication of this book. Thanks to Pietro Lo Cascio and Flavia Grita for always showing me new Aeolian horizons. Thanks to Nunzia Larosa for being a precious friend and colleague. Thanks to Mom and Dad for giving me a thinking head and being of inspiration with their strength and love for life.

Contents Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................................................................v List of Figures.................................................................................................................................................................... ix List of Tables..................................................................................................................................................................... xii Riassunto.......................................................................................................................................................................... xiii 1. Introduction and aims....................................................................................................................................................1 2. Islands and human settlements: a state-of-the-art theoretical approach..................................................................3 2.1. Island archaeology.........................................................................................................................................................3 2.2. Island archaeobotany.....................................................................................................................................................8 2.3. Palaeodemography in archaeology..............................................................................................................................11 2.3.1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................11 2.3.2. Artefact assemblages............................................................................................................................................14 2.3.3. Food remains........................................................................................................................................................15 2.3.4. Carrying capacity and resource potential model or production system...............................................................15 2.3.5. Architectural features such as roofed-over space.................................................................................................18 2.3.6. Calculations of mean family size.........................................................................................................................18 2.3.7. Areas of the settlements and regional occupation................................................................................................20 2.3.8. Specific features of island palaeodemography.....................................................................................................23 2.4. For an integrated approach to the Aeolian Islands: methodology................................................................................24 3. Contextual framework..................................................................................................................................................29 3.1. The regional setting: a brief synopsis of the physical, geological and historical framework......................................29 3.2. The local ecological setting.........................................................................................................................................29 3.3. The archaeological framework....................................................................................................................................34 3.3.1. The Bronze Age in the Aeolian Islands................................................................................................................34 3.3.2. The villages of Filo Braccio and Montagnola......................................................................................................39 3.3.3. The sites of Lipari, Acropolis and Contrada Diana..............................................................................................45 3.4. The archaeobotanical dataset.......................................................................................................................................55 4. Case study and results: Filicudi...................................................................................................................................57 4.1. Archaeobotanical data from Filo Braccio village (tabs 4.1 and 4.2)...........................................................................57 4.1.1. Wood charcoals (fig. 4.1).....................................................................................................................................57 4.1.2. Seeds/fruits...........................................................................................................................................................63 4.1.3. Spatial distribution...............................................................................................................................................66 4.2. Functional analysis: the case study of Hut F (fig. 4.18)...............................................................................................69 4.3. Other analyses..............................................................................................................................................................71 4.3.1. Soil properties and geomorphological features....................................................................................................71 4.3.2. Isotope analysis....................................................................................................................................................72 4.3.3. Archaeozoological analyses.................................................................................................................................74 4.3.4. Archaeometric analyses........................................................................................................................................75 4.4. Palaeodemographic models.........................................................................................................................................76 4.4.1. The settlements and the archaeological data........................................................................................................76 4.4.2. Local resources and carrying capacity.................................................................................................................78 5. Case study and results: Lipari.....................................................................................................................................83 5.1. Archaeobotanical data from Lipari (tabs 5.1 and 5.2).................................................................................................83 5.1.1. Wood charcoals (figs 5.1 and 5.2)........................................................................................................................83 5.1.2. Seeds and fruits....................................................................................................................................................90 5.1.3. Reconstruction of the distribution (figs 5.3–5.6).................................................................................................90 5.2. Distribution of the samples and interpretation: the case study of Acropolis (tab. 5.3, fig. 5.15).................................94

vii

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age 5.3. Other analyses..............................................................................................................................................................97 5.3.1. Soil properties and geomorphological features....................................................................................................97 5.3.2. Isotope analysis....................................................................................................................................................99 5.3.3. Archaeozoological analysis..................................................................................................................................99 5.3.4. Archaeometric analysis......................................................................................................................................100 5.4. Palaeodemographic models.......................................................................................................................................101 5.4.1. The settlements and the archaeological data......................................................................................................101 5.4.2. Local resources and carrying capacity...............................................................................................................103 6. Discussion: towards a palaeodemographic model...................................................................................................107 6.1. Some remarks on methodology.................................................................................................................................107 6.2. Areas of the settlements and regional occupation......................................................................................................107 6.3. Human impact on the landscape and use of the local resources................................................................................113 6.4. Use of wooden resources and architectural techniques.............................................................................................118 6.5. Food production and carrying capacity......................................................................................................................122 6.6. Diachronic perspective on the occupation of the archipelago and the use of resources............................................126 7. Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................................129 7.1. A global evaluation of the human–environmental data on the archipelago...............................................................129 7.2. Human dynamics and use of the resources: some forethoughts in the comparison with Southern Italy during the Bronze Age......................................................................................................................................................130 7.3. A comprehensive reconstruction for the Bronze Age: the palaeodemographic model..............................................132 References........................................................................................................................................................................137

viii

List of Figures Fig. 2.1. Map of the Mediterranean Sea with the position of Aeolian Islands and the areas with a high presence of small islands (629 people

160 people

Poulsen’s method

>56 families (>300 people)

12 families (60/70 people)

members (three adults and three children) to be 11,551 cal/day (Bronze Age Sardinia, Murgia et al. 2015), we can say that a family had a need of 5775 cal/day of cereals (50% of the diet). The assessment by Poulsen— that the basic calorific requirement for a reference family of two adults and four children would be 14,000 calories a day or five million calories per year—seems a slight overestimate, but we can consider it to be the upper limit of the range of calories necessary for the average diet. Poulsen also estimated that about half of the diet is provided by cereals. Hence, the calorific needs of the family to be covered by cereals would be 7000 calories, or two kilograms of flour products daily. For their preparation, about 3 kg daily of bread grain, or 1100 kg per year, is required, so for the Aeolian Islands, based on the local soil productivity, almost 2 ha of barley cultivation per family per year would be necessary. In addition, an annual quantity of 200 kg of grain per hectare for sowing has to be considered, but the production from that can be 3–5 times the amount. According to this estimation methodology, Filicudi could sustainably support a maximum of 12 families (about 60/70 people), considering the maximum use of the territory (long radius with terraces). Finally, another issue to explore that was not considered for the estimations in this book is the average consumption of water resources. The estimated water necessary on a daily basis, like the total calories, varies greatly according to the reference model (both physiological and ethnographic) used. In this case, an estimate of 1.5 litres of water per person per day has been used, so we should consider at least 100 litres a day for humans and at least 40 litres a day per head of cattle, 3 litres a day per goat/sheep and 5 litres a day per pig. This means that several hundred litres of water would be necessary to maintain the presence of cattle.

82

5 Case study and results: Lipari 5.1. Archaeobotanical data from Lipari (tabs 5.1 and 5.2)

The preservation conditions are always quite good, and charcoal dimensions range from a few millimetres up to 7–8 cm.

5.1.1. Wood charcoals (figs 5.1 and 5.2)

According to the identification of charcoals from the Capo Graziano phase (unfortunately only relevant to Hut δXII) (fig. 5.3), there is only one species of Pinus, tentatively identified as type nigra. Very few conifers have been recorded in the samples analysed so far from Filo Braccio (see above). It is interesting to note that this is a sample from a hearth and it measured 17 × 6 cm at the time of the excavation.

Contrary to the building techniques of the oldest villages of Filo Braccio and Montagnola on Filicudi, Portella on Salina or Punta Milazzese on Panarea, on the Acropolis of Lipari wooden poles were used in huts, embedded in the drystone walls, as is well evident in many of the huts (see section 5.3). Samples from the village were collected with the naked eye, with the exception of samples 1, 9 and 18, which are small soil samples (for the provenance, see section 2).

Regarding the Milazzese phase (Hut γVIII) (fig. 5.4), the samples available made it possible to identify only

Tab. 5.1. Wood charcoals from Acropolis, total amount of specimens per phase Taxon

Capo Graziano Milazzese

Ausonio I

Ausonio II

Total no.

Pistacia sp.

0

5

0

5

0

Olea europaea

0

66

8

32

106

Rhamnus/Phillyrea

0

0

2

3

5

Cistus sp.

0

0

2

6

8

Arbutus unedo

0

0

10

2

12

Erica sp.

0

0

168

162

330

Erica arborea

0

0

48

23

71

Erica multiflora

0

0

0

14

14

Artemisia arborescens

0

0

5

0

5

Rosaceae/Maloideae

0

0

2

2

4

Rosaceae/Prunoideae

0

0

15

0

15

Prunus cf. avium

0

0

1

0

1

Quercus cf. pubescens

0

0

0

23

23

Quercus sez. robur

0

0

2

17

19

Quercus sp.

0

0

21

9

30

Leguminosae

0

0

30

83

113

cf. Spartium junceum

0

0

4

9

13

cf. Genista

0

0

13

38

51

cf. Cytisus

0

0

5

4

9

Ulmus sp.

0

0

0

25

25

Populus sp.

0

0

16

9

25

Populus/Salix

0

0

3

18

21

Pinus pinea/halepensis

0

0

73

14

87

Pinus cf. nigra

7

0

0

0

7

Juniperus sp.

0

0

12

35

47

Undetermined

2

2

13

30

47

83

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age located, and finally just a few charcoals from the Ausonio II phase inside Hut βIV.

Olea europaea. Some other samples from the hut are not definitely attributable to this phase, so they were not considered.

The record from Hut αVII (a total of 225 wood charcoals, 2% undetermined) is characterized mainly by Ericaceae (38%). Other high percentages are of Quercus sp. (a total of 16%, type pubescens 10% and type robur 3%), Juniperus sp. (12%) and Populus/Salix (12%). Leguminosae are represented with by 8% of the wood charcoals, the same percentage as Olea europaea. Finally, Pinus type pinea/ halepensis accounts for 4% of the samples (fig. 5.10).

For Ausonio I (the only context is Hut βIV) (fig. 5.5), the record varies more than for the previous phases. The most represented species are from the genus Erica (more than 50%), but the Leguminosae are always well represented, at almost 10% (Genista sp., Cytisus sp. and Spartium cf. junceum), together with Pinus type pinea/halepaensis (17%) and other taxa like Prunoideae (4%), Quercus sp. (4%) and Populus sp. (4%). Olea europaea (2%), Pistacia sp. (1%) and Artemisia arborescens (1%) are scarcely present (figs 5.7 and 5.8).

Hut αII is quite different in terms of species and relative percentages (a total of 123 wood charcoals, 7% undetermined species): variability is noticeably lower, with 60% of Ericaceae, followed by 24% of Leguminosae (10% of Genista sp.) and then 7% of Quercus type robur, followed by a scattered presence of Rosaceae/Maloideae and Rhamnus/Phillyrea (1%) (fig. 5.11, top).

For Ausonio II, the disposable data are more diverse (fig. 5.9). At least 13 of the samples belong to this phase (with a total of 558 wood charcoals). The contexts are different, but not always identifiable: Hut αVII, Hut αII, some external areas of Huts αII and αX, some other inside or outside areas that were not precisely

The external areas of the hut have a different representation of species (for a total of 52 wood charcoals and 6% of undetermined species). Here, the highest percentage is represented by Olea europaea (27%), followed by Leguminosae (24%, with 12% of Genista sp.); Erica sp. is at 22% (considering Erica multiflora and Arbutus unedo), while the presence of Juniperus sp. is also quite high (13%); Ulmus sp. and Quercus sp. are at 4%, and there is a small percentage of Rhamnus/Phillyrea present as well (2%) (fig. 5.11, bottom).

Tab. 5.2. Fruits and seeds, total amount for Ausonio II phase Taxon

Ausonio II

Cerealia

13

Triticum/Hordeum

3

Hordeum sp.

3

Hordeum vulgare

2

Triticum sp.

2

Triticum monococcum

9

Triticum dicoccum

3

Triticum monococcum/dicoccum

6

Vitis vinifera

4

Among the 23 wood charcoals that were collected from the area of Hut αX, only Leguminosae and Erica sp. were identified. For all the other wood charcoals (123 remains), the attribution of their archaeological context was not possible, so they could only be placed as during the Ausonio II phase, with no information on the hut or area of provenance (fig. 5.12). Beyond the usual recovery

Fig. 5.1. Lipari, Acropolis—no. of samples per phase.

84

Case study and results: Lipari

Fig. 5.2. Lipari, Acropolis—reconstruction of the distribution of the samples; Capo Graziano phase is pink; Milazzese phase is green; Ausonio I phase is light bue; Ausonio II phase is light blue.

85

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age

Fig. 5.3. Lipari, Acropolis—samples from Capo Graziano phase.

Fig. 5.4. Lipari, Acropolis—samples from Milazzese phase.

Fig. 5.5. Lipari, Acropolis—samples from Ausonio I phase.

Fig. 5.6. Lipari, Acropolis—samples from Ausonio II phase.

86

Case study and results: Lipari

Fig. 5.7. Lipari, Acropolis, Ausonio I—total amount of wood charcoals.

Fig. 5.8. Lipari, Acropolis, Hut βIV—wood charcoals; when the percentage is not indicated, it means that it does not reach 1%.

87

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age

Fig. 5.9. Lipari, Acropolis, Ausonio II—total amount of wood charcoals.

Fig. 5.10. Lipari, Acropolis, Hut αVII– wood charcoals; when the percentage is not indicated, it means that it does not reach 1%.

88

Case study and results: Lipari

Fig. 5.11. Lipari, Acropolis, Hut αII, top: internal area, wood charcoals; bottom: external areas, wood charcoals; when the percentage is not indicated, it means that it does not reach 1%.

89

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age

Fig. 5.12. Lipari, Acropolis, Ausonio II hearth—Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980.

of Ericaceae and Leguminosae, there is a high presence of Ulmus sp. and a sporadic presence of Cistus sp.

carica was collected and published in Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980 (fig. 5.13).

During the excavations of Contrada Diana Bellino in 2013, a number of huts of the Capo Graziano phase were identified as probably a productive area for pottery in trench L (Mastelloni, Martinelli 2016; Martinelli, Giordano 2017).

The other remains belong to sample 18, a soil sample collected from Hut αVII (Ausonio II phase). In total, 48 remains of caryopses, forks, glumes and internodes were identified. Despite the high percentage of unidentified Cerealia fragments or Triticum/Hordeum ones, a good amount of Triticum sp. (Triticum monococcum, dicoccum or monococcum/dicoccum) was identified. Hordeum sp., Hordeum vulgare (one subsp. vulgare and one maybe polistic) and Vitis vinifera are recorded too (fig. 5.14).

Only 25 wood charcoals were identified as pertaining to the Capo Graziano phase, and nearly all of them were positively identified as Pinus type nigra species, the except being one uncertain charcoal of Prunoideae. 5.1.2. Seeds and fruits

5.1.3. Reconstruction of the distribution (figs 5.3–5.6)

Due to the samples being collected mainly with the naked eye, seeds and fruit remains are very rare in the archaeobotanical record from Acropolis. Many caryopses were known from one of the Lipari Museum’s showcases. It is a broken Capo Graziano cup coming from Hut δXII (trench BC–CA), where a subsample of four caryopses was collected. All the remains belong to Hordeum vulgare subsp. vulgare. From the same area, a syconium of Ficus

The analyses of the vegetal macroremains found during excavations of the Acropolis led by Luigi Bernabò Brea and Madeleine Cavalier are relevant to all the phases of occupation of the village, in particular to the hearths and building collapse of Ausonio II, phases not hitherto available for archaeobotanical analysis or absolute dating; the ongoing acquisition of AMS dating is helping to 90

Case study and results: Lipari

Fig. 5.13. Lipari, Acropolis, barley from hut δXII—Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980.

the samples properly in physical location and in the stratigraphic sequence.

achieve the only complete sequence on the same island of the archipelago from Early Bronze Age to Final Bronze Age.

Only rarely, and with little precision, was it possible to reconstruct the area of the samples inside the hut (‘Southern Zone’, ‘Northern zone’). Most of the samples are labelled ‘ground fire’, and can therefore be considered part of the structural poles. The tag on one of the samples declares that the origin is from ‘a large fire’ (sample 26, Capo Graziano phase). Sometimes, the year of excavation on the tag does not match with the one that we find in the description in the reports, or the information has some contradiction or uncertainty that allows two different possibilities in the interpretation of the original context.

Samples were kept in the storehouses of the Museo Regionale Archaeologico Luigi Bernabò Brea on Lipari, before being transported to the Università del Salento on 11 June 2010 by G. Fiorentino and M. C. Martinelli. The samples were collected during the excavations of the 1950s and 1960s campaigns. Only two of the samples (nos 24 and 25) were not identifiable for their layer or phase. Therefore, we can say that, except for these two samples, whose original location is undetermined, two samples belong to the Capo Graziano phase (one of which is cereals contained within a vessel, fig. 5.13), two are from the Milazzese phase, five are from Ausonio I and 13 are from Ausonio II (plus three others tentatively attributed to the latter phase) (fig. 5.2). In addition to these remains, soil was sampled and stored from Hut αVII of the Ausonio II phase.

Samples from Capo Graziano phase (nos 26 and 27) were collected during the excavation of Hut δXII. The charcoals collected pertain to a thick fire layer; it is linked to the presence of a furnace dump (interpreted thus because of the presence of pottery discards) and probably other artisanal activities. The presence of a Ficus carica syconium is reported by the authors, together with the presence of a single large fragment of wood charcoal (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980, p. 244).

The extremely complex stratigraphic sequence among all the phases of occupation and rebuilding of the huts makes the identification of the provenance sometimes only indicative, and that is why some of hypothetical provenances of the samples were not considered reliable.

Samples 2 and 4 probably pertain to Hut γVIII: the hut is only marginally inside the BF trench, but this is the most likely interpretation as it goes under the Capo Graziano layer (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980, pp. 188–89). Wood charcoals would pertain to a pit from the Milazzese phase. The hut is preserved only for some parts of the wall that

Furthermore, the notes of their origin from the trenches (the original subdivision of the archaeological area) and some approximate data (‘Casa Filippo’) required a preliminary accurate bibliographic analysis to be undertaken to replace 91

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age

Fig. 5.14. Lipari, Acropolis, Ausonio II—total amount of carpo-remains.

are superimposed on the Capo Graziano ones, so the reliability in terms of stratigraphy is not necessarily good. Charcoals could then be part of the filling of this pit, rather than being part of the structure of the hut.

The set of hearths is organized in different fireplaces, some with a U-shape and with pottery still in place, together with firedogs and other fire clay furniture objects. Charcoals were sampled from outside the hut, in the south area (sample no. 3), probably from the BA or BB trench (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980, pp.  56–57), where two situlae inside some stones as repositories were found.

Five samples are attributed to phase β (Ausonio I). According to the label, sample 19 is attributable to the Ausonio I phase of Hut γXII, perhaps corresponding to the dromos of Hut βIV (the description of the layer is in the excavation report of Hut γXII, Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980, pp. 201–04). Sample activities during the excavation are not cited in the description, so it is not possible to identify the area where the charcoals were collected; it is possible to say that their provenance is from the fire layer, but not to reconnect it to the structure frame or a hearth.

Sample 6 is from the Ausonio II phase, in an area full of pottery, but the context is not clear: it is just defined as the third soil layer to cover the destruction of Hut αII, but no mention of charcoal sampling is made (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980, p. 43). Sample 8 is clearly attributable to the Ausonio II phase, but it is not possible to say if the original context was Hut βIV or Hut βV, which were both partially investigated in 1965 and in use during the Ausonio II phase, though it is probably βIV (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980, p. 125).

Samples 14, 20, 21 and 22 are attributed to the inner space of Hut βIV. They are the wood charcoals tagged from the so-called ‘Capanna Filippo’, where layers 13 and 14 are nevertheless chronologically referred to Ausonio I, whereas layer 12 is an Ausonio II phase (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980, pp. 125–26). This big, oval-shaped hut is different from the other huts in the structure of its walls: the preservation of almost 2 m in height suggests that a tholos-shaped roof (a particular architectural expedient) was present.

The four samples 15, 16, 17 and 18 belong to Hut αVII and to the fire phases from Ausonio II (the Ausonio I on the sample 16 tag could be an error). Unfortunately, some of the samples are less easily attributable.

The Ausonio II phase is the most represented one, with 14 definite samples and another two that are probably attributable to it.

Sample 7 (a soil sample that has no botanical macroremains) was collected inside Hut βIV, layer BR15: the structure is from Ausonio I and the layer should be of the same phase. However, the description on the tag connects it to Ausonio II structures, so it is not clear how to locate it chronologically more precisely. In Hut βIV there is a thick fire layer where it could belong (Ausonio II), but the BR trench is on a layer from Ausonio I where one situla was found.

Samples 1, 5, 9, 12 and 13 are from the BR trench. Samples 1 and 9 are soil samples that were dry-sieved but no macroremains were recorded. BR6 is the last fire soil external to Hut αII, but in the case of sample 13 only, they tag it as internal to Hut αII. The hut was partially destroyed by the installation of a Greek bothros. In the area, stones and stone slabs, vases and some hearths were identified, where some of the wood charcoals were probably collected.

Sample 10 is from the ‘BH–CH trench’. However, BH and CH are not contiguous, and CH trench was enlarged 92

Case study and results: Lipari Tab. 5.3. Lipari, Acropolis—distribution of taxa per phase Taxon

Hearth Capo Graziano

Olea europaea

Pit (?) Milazzese Hut Ausonio I

Hut Ausonio II

Hearths Ausonio II

X

X

X

X

X

X

Pistacia sp.

X

Rhamnus/Phillyrea

X

Cistus sp.

X

Arbutus unedo

X

Erica sp.

X

Erica arborea

X

X

X

X

X

Erica multiflora Artemisia arborescens

X

Rosaceae/Maloideae

X

Rosaceae/Prunoideae

X

Quercus cf. pubescens

X X

Quercus sez. robur

X

Quercus sp.

X

X

Cf. Spartium junceum

X

X

Cf. Genista

X

X

Cf. Cytisus

X

X

Leguminosae

X

X

Populus sp.

X

X

Ulmus sp.

X X X

Juniperus sp.

X X

Pinus pinea/halepensis Pinus cf. nigra

X

X

Fig. 5.15. Lipari, Acropolis—view of excavations—Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980.

93

X

X

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age in two steps, so the interpretation is extremely uncertain; nevertheless, the only hut of the Ausonio I phase in BH trench is αIV; more doubtfully, we could attribute it to βIV or βV.

Analysing the archaeobotanical data, no wood charcoals are clearly available for the oldest phases of the architectural elements of the Acropolis village (Capo Graziano and Milazzese). Samples can, however, provide us with some information on the Ausonio I architectural techniques and more diffusely on the Ausonio II ones.

Sample 11 is from the 1965 campaign in the BV trench, where the only phase of Ausonio II (as labelled on the tag) is from the destruction of Hut αX, which is not well preserved and has a structure that is not very clear (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980, pp. 106–07).

The wooden parts have, of course, been almost completely destroyed over the centuries. Only in a few areas, and more precisely in trench AG, did the excavators find some traces of wood charcoals still in place. However, the locations of these poles are shown with precision from their housings, which are still perfectly recognizable in the wall structure (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980, plates XX, 3 and XXIV, 1).

5.2. Distribution of the samples and interpretation: the case study of Acropolis (tab. 5.3, fig. 5.15) With regard to the site of the Acropolis of Lipari, the destructive fires that affected the villages allowed the preservation of many of the wooden parts of the huts that were collected during the excavation. In the evaluation of the archaeobotanical record, it should not be forgotten that burnt constructions of timber and/or wooden elements result into fragmented shapeless charcoal fragments, sometimes difficult to distinguish from those generated from firewood consumed as an energy resource, unless specific factors are identified (see e.g. Marguerie, Hunot 2007). In contrast, in the occupation layers abandoned deliberately, timber and/or wooden objects that could have been left after the abandonment of the site (and therefore unburned) may have disappeared and are therefore not always visible in the charcoal assemblages. According to the excavators, while there is no trace of violent destruction between the Capo Graziano and Milazzese phases, the Milazzese village was suddenly destroyed by fire; this allowed good preservation of the huts and the archaeological layers (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980, p.  546). The same violent events are supposed to seal the villages of the two phases Ausonio I and II, but the Ausonio I phase is not so consistent in the preservation of the stone part of the buildings (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980, pp. 560, 589).

The bearing structure of all the huts of the Ausonio II phase is mainly of wood (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1991, p. 591) (fig. 5.16). Pairs of posts, at a distance of 40–60 cm, were used to support the transverse beams of the roof. According to the authors, this specific expedient would have been useful to balance the use of ‘weak’ wooden species as poles. Nevertheless, the load-bearing function would be their sole charge, while the wall that encapsulates the poles would have only a protection function. This justifies the irregular inner surface of many of the walls, which, once the poles disappeared, were an untidy succession of the ‘pilasters’ of small stones that wrapped them. The number of poles that would have located in each wall (that is, each of the pairs of poles supporting a beam) had to be 20, as visible on the northern side. On the short sides of the hut, specifically on the Western wall, only one pole was present, presumably to support the ridge of the roof; a curved inner face of the unitary structure was identifiable. It seems possible to recognize in it the single housing of an almost vertical pole on the axis of the hut. That is why the hypothesis is that a gable or hip roof was present (fig. 3.19). The other hypothesis is that wooden

Fig. 5.16. Lipari, Acropolis—Hut αII—Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980.

94

Case study and results: Lipari poles were just used to connect the walls, so the pilasters inside and outside were only functional to Hut αII itself.

their plan is oval or round, with an average diameter of 4.5 m. Round huts are prevalent, despite the inner areas being similar to those of Filo Braccio. No particular architectural strategy is adopted: huts are juxtaposed, and roofs were probably placed on the walls as in Filo Braccio village.

The building process probably followed this sequence: the basement of the huts was excavated to the soil level, then the poles were fixed in the ground and the structure of the drystone wall was built up, starting from the lower, single-faced row up to the double-faced upper part of the wall.

Portella village is on the ridge of one slope of the island of Salina. Huts are round-shaped and they use the side of the hill as a supporting wall for the structures. In this case too, no wooden poles were used for the roofs, which were probably conical and self-bearing.

Considering the other functional structures and areas close to Hut αII, we can hypothesize a complex covering system, with the sharing of the roofs.

In Punta Milazzese on Panarea island, the area is quite suitable for a settlement, but the surface is only 0.2 ha today, so—even if natural erosion has probably destroyed a meaningful part of the headland—the village is nevertheless extremely concentrated because of defensive issues. Huts are quite small (sometimes less than 5 m in diameter), with an oval/round shape, and some of them show the presence of square enclosures. The building techniques used are the same as on Filicudi. Finally, huts of the previous phases on the Acropolis itself are different in terms of plan and techniques and very similar to Filo Braccio and Montagnola huts, with the sole exception of Hut δIV, whose plan (oval with a rectangular enclosure) and dimensions (it is long, at 10  × 5.50 m, like the superimposed hut of the Ausonio II phase) are quite different from the others of the same phase, even if no wooden poles were apparently present.

The use of wooden poles within the structure of the walls was also identified in other huts found in trenches D, G, F, AF, AH and AHI. Unfortunately, no wood charcoal samples were collected from these areas. Considering the poor preservation of many of the huts of this phase— with the exception of Hut αII—we could say that most of the dwellings of Ausonio II phase were made using this technique of wooden poles and pilasters. Furthermore, especially in the main excavation area, it is interesting to note that when it is possible to identify two different building phases of the same hut, the oldest phase usually does not show any use of the pilaster system (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980, p. 595). In Hut αVII, layer 3 was in the Ausonio II deposit, namely the layer of fire that was even more evident here than anywhere else, and in which traces of charred wooden poles are visible (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980, p. 97).

Unlike the situation on Stromboli, where the village of San Vincenzo is settled on a slope (with a difference in altitude of about 10 m), which led the population to build some drystone terraces to regularize the area (one wall is up to 15 m), huts are quite similar to the ones of the Capo Graziano phase (round or oval plan, about 3.5–4 m in diameter, double-faced walls with small stones on the inner face). Also in this village are found rectangular enclosures connected to the huts. According to the excavators, after the first phase with oval huts and rectangular enclosures, the second phase is characterized only by large, rectangular structures.

Differently from the building techniques of the oldest villages of Filo Braccio and Montagnola on Filicudi, Portella on Salina and Milazzese on Panarea, on the Acropolis huts wooden poles were used, embedded in the drystone walls, as is clearly evident in many of the huts (see section 6.2). These differences may be accounted for by one or more factors: 1. the diversity of oro-topographic conditions of the site 2. the difference in the availability of the raw materials from one island to another 3. the technological changes of the walls in time and/or the modification of the roofing systems 4. a greater range of structures within the same village

All of these cases on the other islands—despite the different positions of the settlements—and the most ancient huts on the Acropolis show that the technological changes on the Acropolis from the Early Bronze Age to the end of the Bronze Age are probably not principally due to the geomorphological conditions (presence of plain areas), as, since the Early Bronze Age, the Acropolis is an area where a big oval hut with the enclosure, such as δIV, is present.

I will discuss the four points in turn: 1. The Acropolis is quite big and plain compared to the areas chosen for most of the other villages of the Middle Bronze Age on the archipelago. Montagnola village on Filicudi occupies at least two different terraces, but its surface is not very extended: the first terrace occupies about 0.2 ha, which is more or less the same as the highest terrace close to the top of the hill, whose perimeter is less clear. Huts are spread on the flattest areas of the slope and

2. The stone blocks used for the walls are always from local materials. For Filo Braccio village, many large pebbles, easily collectable from the coastline, are used as main elements for the structures. Stone slabs coming from the substratum are used too, often as the elements for the hearths or other installations. In the Acropolis, building materials are mainly small stones, often shaped as small 95

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age 3. Compared to all of the huts of all the phases of the whole archipelago and the huts from the first phases of the Acropolis, as written before, Hut αII and the huts from trenches D, F, G, AG, AH and AHI are the only ones with wooden poles in the walls, elongated rectangular plans with rounded corners, and a hip or gamble roof. The hut found in Contrada Diana pertains to the Capo Graziano phase, has a rectangular plan with blunt corners (6.80  × 8.90 m) and is divided into two rooms by a transverse wall; the plan recalls the Piano Quartara ones and could be linked to more ancient architectural technical choices.

isodomic cubes or parallelepipeds. Building materials from the Capo Graziano phase are generally more irregular than the ones from the Milazzese phase. Local volcanic stones and slabs are used in the walls of the huts and of the terraces of San Vincenzo on Stromboli (Bettelli et al. 2016). No specific building materials are employed in the different settlements to justify dissimilar architectural choices. The vegetal species used for Ausonio I are heather (more than 50%), but the Leguminosae are always well represented, at almost 10%, as is Pinus type pinea (17%), with some small percentages of plum, oak, poplar and olive trees.

The choice of the lower floor layer is wide in Filo Braccio and also for some the Capo Graziano huts of the Acropolis, while huts built during Milazzese phase usually have an inner floor at the same level as the outer areas. The lower floor layer is quite helpful in supporting the walls and contain the load of the roof, especially if there is an absence of wooden poles. In San Vincenzo village, no trace of the use of wooden poles is recorded. Therefore, the use of the wooden poles inside the structures could be influenced by the adoption of new roofing techniques—for example, in the interjoining system between the roof beams and the walls. Nevertheless, the aesthetical function should not be excluded as an architectural choice.

The record from the Ausonio II phase is richer: αVII has recorded heather (38%), oaks (16%), juniper (12%), poplar (12%), Leguminosae (8%), olive trees (8%) and Pinus type pinea (4%). Hut αII is quite different in terms of species and relative percentages: heather (60%), Leguminosae (24%), oaks (7%). The external areas of the huts also have a different representation of the species: outside Hut αII were found olive trees (27%), Leguminosae (24%), heather (22%) juniper (13%), elm trees (4%) and oaks (4%). From the area of Hut αX, only Leguminosae and heather were identified.

The use of the tholos structure to build the walls and the roofs of the huts is just sporadically hypothesized for Capo Graziano phase huts, while it becomes more common for the latest phases of the Acropolis (e.g. Hut βIV). This shift indicates that technological changes are probably quite intense, especially starting from the end of the Bronze Age. Many of the Ausonio II buildings were built adopting new techniques, some of the old ones were rebuilt using wooden poles and only a few of the old ones (as Hut αIV) kept the architectural techniques of the hut on which they were superimposed.

These percentages are only partially similar to those of Filicudi, for example the high percentage of heather in the record of some huts, probably due to their wide presence on Lipari as well and their good features as roofing elements. The appearance of other species, absent or very poorly represented in the Salina or Filicudi record, such as Pinus type pinea, juniper, olive trees, poplar and oaks, is definitely due to their presence on Lipari, whereas they have not been found on the other islands so far—or, at least, there is no record of their use as architectural elements of huts or as fuel for the hearths. Conversely, the percentage of heather, despite being high, is quite low compared to Filo Braccio, and the same is true for the presence of plum trees, which is recorded here mainly as fuel. One can thus say that many differences are due to the singular ecophysiological features of the islands and that many of the species used for poles in the Acropolis settlement are probably not present or not very common in the vegetation of the other islands. No archaeobotanical data are available for the Stromboli village of San Vincenzo, so we do not possess any direct record of the plants used as architectural elements. Nevertheless, the presence of large structures in the village, both for huts and for terraces, confirms the technical skills in the making of self-bearing roofs since the Capo Graziano phase. Nevertheless, according to the pollen analyses, ligneous species were not very widespread on Stromboli (Rattighieri et al. 2010), so the available wood was probably very limited.

4. Huts are generally small and with similar plans in all the villages of the Capo Graziano and Milazzese phases. The presence of some larger structures with wider areas or different plans is documented on Lipari, Stromboli and Milazzo from the Capo Graziano phase (Contrada Diana area, Acropolis δIV, San Vincenzo, Viale dei Cipressi). These structures are often interpreted as spaces for the consumption of common meals and are central places of the villages (see e.g. Albore Livadie et al. 2003). Wide variability both in technical choices and in the width of the structures is detected for the first time on the archipelago for the Ausonio II phase on the Acropolis. The absence of other traces—except on the Acropolis of Lipari—of the occupation of the archipelago between the Final Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age prevent any wider framework for architectural choices from being defined. Despite the changes in the technological choices, the topographic pattern of the settlement—that is, the distribution and general features of the huts—is only partially affected by the advent of the Ausonian phases. 96

Case study and results: Lipari The presence of huts that are generally bigger than the ones from the previous phases demonstrate a different use of the households and of the internal spaces, while the absence of significant differentiation in plan and width of the structures is more difficult to interpret due to the lack of data, but it could reflect a difference in the management and organization of socio-economic activities.

period occurred from about 223 to about 150 Ka BP, along the tectonic alignment NW–SE (Aeolian Islands–Tindari– Giardini). The second evolutionary period originated about 150 Ka BP, and is linked to the activities of the strato-volcanoes ‘Monte Chiara and Monte Sant’Angelo’, which lasted up to about 127 Giardini. Then there was an erosive stage (124–81 Ka BP), which covers the centres of Monte Sant’Angelo and Monte Chirica, with palaeosurfaces formed by marine abrasion and related conglomerate deposits. The third stage of evolution of the island is characterized by a change in eruptive style, with the issuance of magmas (type ‘rhyolite’) that gave rise to lava ‘domes’ and large pyroclastic deposits (pumice deposits).

Analysing another class of contexts, hearths in the Acropolis village are distributed both inside and outside the huts. During the Capo Graziano phase, their structure is very simple (e.g. Hut δIII, a circle of stones with a layer of burnt soils; maybe Hut δVII). Hut δXII has a large number of burnt layers, probably because the structure was used as furnace for pottery production.

After about 3000 years of volcanic inactivity, there was a resurgence in the proximity of Mount Pelato, of an eruption-explosive type that leads to the formation of rhyolitic pumice cones; there was then a large flow of obsidian and riolithic materials coming down to the sea in Acquacalda area. The last volcanic activity dates back to about 1400 years ago in Forgia Vecchia.

During the Ausonio II phase, there are some round plate hearths (diameter 70 cm) made from pottery sherds and small stone slabs (e.g. in trench AG) (‘potsherd pavements’). According to identifications of charcoals from the Capo Graziano phase (unfortunately only relevant to Hut δXII), there is only a species of Pinus, tentatively identifiable as type nigra. Conifers have rarely been identified in the samples from Filo Braccio analysed so far (see above). Regarding the Milazzese phase (Hut γVIII), the samples available made it possible to identify only olive trees. Some other samples from the hut are not definitely attributable to this phase, so were not considered.

The island of Lipari offers more in terms of biotopes and the morphology of its territories than the other six islands of the archipelago. Terraces are used, but compared to the percentage of terraced landscape on the other islands, we could say that Lipari is more exploited for the presence of plains, such as the widest one in Castellaro (almost 80 ha) (fig. 5.17), but also the areas of Contrada Diana (more than 30 ha) and Piano Conte (about 40 ha) (fig. 5.18), not counting all the small, flattish areas in other parts of the island, such as Capistello, Canneto, Forgia Vecchia, Lami and Quattropani. The area close to the main Bronze Age village (the Acropolis and all the lands on the northern, western and southern parts of this hill, with a radius of about 2 km) cover a broad plain of about 30 ha that can be considered farmland (almost triple if we imagine the use of terraces on the slopes of the area of Contrada Santa Lucia).

With regard to seeds and/or fruits, during the excavation of Hut δXII (Capo Graziano phase), in the most eastern part, where the deformed vessels were not present, a black fire area with red patches was isolated, where a significant amount of burnt caryopses were found; at least some of them were contained within a small vessel decorated with semicircular reliefs, the rest being scattered throughout the layer. There was also a dried fig and a large piece of wood charcoal (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980, p. 244).

As a result of their genesis, the volcanic soils are particularly rich in elements in mineral form, in particular phosphorus and potassium among the macro-elements, and iron, magnesium, calcium, manganese and molybdenum in the micro-elements (Dahlgren et al. 2004). The structure, gross and devoid of colloids, allows very good drainage but shows poor organicity.

5.3. Other analyses 5.3.1. Soil properties and geomorphological features Lipari is the largest of the Aeolian Islands and is the top of a composite volcano, starting from about 1000 m below the sea level and reaching an altitude of 602 m above sea level. The last eruption occurred in the early medieval period (about 1400 years ago). From the point of view of the life of a volcano, the time elapsed since then is very short, and is not enough to consider that volcanic activity is extinct on the island of Lipari. There is evidence of volcanic activity, in the form of fumaroles and hot springs, particularly in the western area, where there was a wide claying process (kaolin quarries).

Probably due to the size of the island, you can find different levels of evolution of the vegetation here today. In addition to spot formations, which are always the most frequent, there are woodlands resulting from modern afforestation, and some areas of natural forest, with the presence of oaks. The main agricultural activities present, which are typical of the Aeolian Islands, are olive trees and vineyards (fig. 5.19), significant today in the constitution of the landscape.

Lipari originated in two different phases, divided by a long period of regional erosive events. The first evolutionary 97

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age

Fig. 5.17. Lipari, Castellaro area—picture by the author.

Fig. 5.18. Lipari, landscape—picture by the author.

98

Case study and results: Lipari

Fig. 5.19. Lipari, Monte Giardina—picture by the author.

5.3.2. Isotope analysis

data, providing the first local palaeoclimatic signal for the end of the Bronze Age (meaning 1350–950 BC) (fig. 4.22).

A new series of stable isotope analyses (δ13C–δ15N) on charcoals and seeds recovered from the Acropolis of Lipari were performed and are being studied by Dr Angela Stellati. Caryopses of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and shrubs or small branches of wooden taxa (Erica arborea, Prunoideae, Cupressaceae) were chosen to avoid the old wood effect of long-living plants. All specimens—nine specimens from the Ausonio I and II layers of Lipari (Speciale et al. 2016)—were analysed by IRMS at the Laboratory of Chemistry, University of Bari. Samples analysed by IRMS do not have an absolute dating but only an archaeological and cultural attribution according to stratigraphic data.

The comparison between the isotopic data and the charcoal analysis is an integral part of the evaluation of the vegetation trends and the response from the local vegetation to climate changes or catchment patterns of the insular population. Anthracological analysis highlights that garrigue taxa seem to respond to short-term climate changes, especially during the Late Bronze Age. Focusing on the IRMS values, the charcoals seem to follow the same trend. However, the charcoals also reveal the presence of local insular peculiarities linked to geomorphological features: for example, the greater incidence on Lipari of riparian forest taxa (fig. 5.9).

The lowest δ13C values were recorded during the Capo Graziano I phase, and especially in the samples dated to Capo Graziano II, and indicate moister environmental conditions (see section 3.4.2). IRMS data from the Capo Graziano I cultural phase show a drier signal, which can be matched to one of the driest points of Capo Graziano I on the AMS curve. Besides, both the AMS and IRMS data show the establishment of the driest conditions during the Ausonio I phase. This arid trend probably continued during the Ausonio II phase, as can be seen from the IRMS

5.3.3. Archaeozoological analysis The faunal remains from the Acropolis of Lipari gave data from the trichrome ware phase of the Neolithic to Ausonio II (end of the Bronze Age/beginning of the Iron Age) (tab. 5.4) (Villari 1995). The faunal remains from the Neolithic trichrome ware phase (about 268 items) were identified as containing high percentages of Ovis vel Capra (59%) and Pisces (7%)— 99

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age Tab. 5.4. Archaeozoological analyses on Aeolian archipelago, re-edited by Villari 1991, 1995; Martinelli et al. 2009 Bos taurus

Cervus elaphus

Ovis vel Capra

Sus scrofa Canis Aves ssp. familiaris

Pisces

Shellfish

Mammals nd.

Tricromica Acropoli

39

 

168

2

 

19

 

59

Capo Graziano Montagnola

48

1

133

31

2

1

566

255

22

13

Capo Graziano Acropoli 55

 

47

Milazzese Montagnola

7

21

8

72

Milazzese Acropoli

39

32

20

190

Ausonio I Acropoli

22

26

25

Ausonio II Acropoli

158

?

58

1

1 1

184 197

discovery of a reservoir containing a large mass of clay ready for processing (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980, pp. 517–18, figs 90 and 91), but also from the identification (in the Q and R Acropolis trenches) of two large banks of clay; according to Bernabò Brea and Cavalier, the raw material imported from an extra-insular context would have been placed in the tanks to maintain the right plasticity for longer. However, both the interpretation and the chronological attribution are uncertain between Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980, pp.  513–14); the import of clay from Sicily in fact seems to characterize the later phases (Levi, Williams 2003, p. 987).

this last one is very high too, in comparison to the standard of less than 1% in the other phases—while Bos taurus is less than 14%. There were fewer faunal remains for the other phases of the Neolithic than for the Early Neolithic. Capo Graziano II faunal remains (127 specimens) were identified as Bos taurus (43%), Ovis vel Capra (17%) and Sus scrofa (11%). For the Milazzese phase, 281 specimens were collected, but more than 67% was not identified. If we evaluate only the identified species (91 specimens), about 43% were identified as Bos taurus and 40% as Ovis vel Capra, with the other 16% being Sus scrofa.

On Lipari, pottery is almost exclusively made of clays from the island or imported, while imported vases from other islands are lacking for the most ancient phases (Levi, Williams 2001, p.  273; Levi et al. 2020); Lipari was probably exporting pottery, especially decorated items, to the other islands of the archipelago on the northern coast of Sicily and Vivara (Cazzella et al. 1997): see e.g. the bowl with carved decoration from Is. 158 via La Farina Messina (Bacci Spigo, Martinelli 2000).

During Ausonio I phase, 260 bone remains were found, of which only 76 were identified. Of these, 26% were identified as Bos taurus, 34% Ovis vel Capra and 34% Sus scrofa. At least 634 bone remains are from the Ausonio II phase. Most of them were analysed by Cardini during the 1960s. No Ovis vel Capra remains were found when P.  Villari studied the faunal remains from the Acropolis again and published the results (Villari 1995).

In the investigation of the village of San Vincenzo, for example, as for the Capo Graziano Aeolian production of pottery, microanalysis and petrological investigations have identified the existence of production centres on various islands, including Stromboli, and a certain degree of displacement of finished products (Brunelli et al. 2013).

It is interesting to note that the Capo Graziano phase is the only layer where the remains of Bos taurus clearly exceed the percentage remains of goat/sheep, although the percentage of Bos remains is also very high for the Milazzese phase. In general, pig remains account for a low percentage for all the phases, while the presence of sheep is always at a high level. Compared to the mainland, however, the presence of Bos remains consistently high, a phenomenon interpreted by the authors as the maintenance of the same breeding traditions since Neolithic times. However, due to the discontinuity in the occupation of the archipelago from the end of the Neolithic to the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, this interpretation is not very reliable.

It is highlighted that a small percentage of Capo Graziano pottery is not of Aeolian production but is imported from Southern Thirrenyan (Cannavò et al. 2017). The examination of styles and motifs reinforces the idea of​​ specific features on each island and a certain chronological differentiation. Furthermore, the wreck of Pignataro di Fuori, in the bay of Lipari in the area in front of Monte Rosa, was attributed to the early phases of Capo Graziano; the excavations were carried out between 1975 and 1977 and allowed the recovery of 77 vessels (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1985, pp. 48–50).

5.3.4. Archaeometric analysis Local pottery production is confirmed not only by the presence of much kiln waste from Hut δ XII and by the 100

Case study and results: Lipari Besides some spherical and biconical urns, the cargo was mainly composed of hemispherical cups, jars and ‘kyathoi’; these vessels are often characterized by semi-circular relief decorations. There were also some large hemispherical bowls with an everted rim, a fragment of a footed bowl and some ovoid or truncated-cone jars. According to the scholars, it is the vessels themselves, rather than their contents, that constitute the real commodity exchange; indeed, we know that pottery was not produced on every single island (although it was sometimes produced from clay imported from the Tyrrhenian coast of Sicily), but was exchanged within the archipelago.

two slopes). The density is not very clear because of the preservation conditions. According to the distribution of the identified huts, the density was probably lower during the Capo Graziano phase (despite a conspicuous number of huts being identified), slightly higher for Milazzese, less clear for Ausonio I and higher again during the Ausonio II phase, though this was probably lower than during the Capo Graziano phase and with a major occupation only of the main hill (fig. 5.20). During the Milazzese occupation, the village was apparently mostly on the main hill of the Acropolis, despite some huts also being found on the northern plain (fig. 5.20B), while for the Ausonio I phase all the huts were on the hill. It is quite difficult to disentangle the settlement pattern during the Ausonio II phase because it is the most superficial layer and was greatly affected by the modern restructuring of the area. The density and distribution of the huts is different from the Capo Graziano phase. Instead of small groups of huts, big oval structures are spread all over the hill, as the archaeological trenches showed. Hut αII has an area of 25 m2, which is probably the average for many of the huts of this phase, despite them all only being partially detected. Considering also Piazza Mazzini, on the northern side of the Acropolis, the area could be up to 3 ha (fig. 5.21). Furthermore, in the evaluation of the impact and number of people occupying the island, it should not be forgotten that the Diana area and the Castellaro plain were also associated with the Capo Graziano II villages (figs 5.17–5.19). For the following results, all the data are compiled in the tables. In this section, case ‘A’ is the village of the Acropolis during Capo Graziano II phase, case ‘B’ is the Milazzese phase, case ‘C’ is Ausonio I and case ‘D’ is Ausonio II.

Bernabò Brea believes that the cargo is not only older than the phases of settlement in the Lipari Acropolis area, but also older than those of the necropolis in Contrada Diana. The context, while being of great interest for certain information that it provides on the strict contemporaneity of the types, is an ‘anomaly’ compared to the assemblages from the settlements because of its uniqueness. It cannot be determined whether the transported vessels had been specifically selected: the absence of incised decoration cannot be considered a chronological factor (as was indicated in the original publication, Ciabatti 1978, and later confirmed in Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1985), while the lack of carinated bowls and cups or globular jars may reflect a choice in the types to be imported between Lipari and, perhaps, Filicudi. In fact, there are several parameters for a comparison between the vessels of the wreck and the record from Filo Braccio (see Speciale, Martinelli 2017). 5.4. Palaeodemographic models

• According to estimates made only from the archaeological levels in the papers of the excavators, it was thought that the whole surface of the Acropolis could be occupied by huts and that the population could vary by hundreds of people. If we consider the density of 20 huts occupying the Acropolis, we can suppose that about 200–300 huts could occupy the whole area; but it was not probably so densely occupied, so it is possible to hypothesize that the excavated area is on a favourable part of the hill, protected by the winds (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980). Some of the archaeological trenches were negative, and did not record any trace of occupation in many areas. • A) The total roofed area for the Capo Graziano phase is 91  m2; imagining a pattern of huts similar to the one on the Acropolis, we can extend this grid all over that area and also over the northern plain to get to an average density. We get a hypothethical 2730  m2 of roofed areas, which, applying the Naroll formula, equates to 273 units of people. B) For the Milazzese phase, applying the same formula gives a hypothethical 4080  m2 of roofed areas that equates to 408 units of people. C) Village would probably be smaller during the Ausonio I phase, with a hypothethical population of 160 people (1605 m2), while D) during the Ausonio II phase the village spread again onto the plain on the

5.4.1. The settlements and the archaeological data The demographic evaluations for the Acropolis were developed through two different approaches. One is more specifically ‘archaeological intrasite’, and is based mainly on the traditional methods used for settlement contexts: the total surface areas of villages, the use of huts and their internal subdivision for activities, and ethnographical comparisons. The second approach is based on the use of the territory, its resources and its carrying capacity. Although the investigation of the Acropolis can be developed further, the opening up of several excavation trenches (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980) all over the hill and on the plain area on the northern side of the hill shows that, compared to the ones identified in Insulae II, III and IV, especially for the Ausonio II phase, the number of huts could increase dramatically. Starting from the evaluation based on the surfaces of the villages and the huts, the village of the Acropolis in the Capo Graziano phase is composed of small groups of huts spread over about 1.5 ha (on the hill itself and on the northern plain, giving a topographical distribution somewhat similar to the village of Capo Graziano on 101

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age

Fig. 5.20. Lipari, Acropolis—A. Distribution of huts of Capo Graziano phase; B. Distribution of huts of Milazzese phase; C. Distribution of huts of Ausonio I phase; D. Distribution of huts of Ausonio II phase.

102

Case study and results: Lipari

Fig. 5.21. Lipari, Acropolis—area of the village in grey.

Acropolis was at least twice that in Filo Braccio, we get 15 or 16 groups of huts per hectare and thus 45/50 groups of huts in total; the number of people for the Capo Graziano II phase could then be estimated to be 270–300.

northern side of the hill, with an estimation of 312 units (3120 m2) (tab. 4.7). • We do not have a definite idea of how a group of huts is composed for any of the phases, so it is difficult to make estimations based on this parameter. • Application of the Hassan formula, giving a lower ratio of 1 person per 2.2 m2, results in A) 1177 people for the Capo Graziano II phase, which is probably an overestimation due to the higher density parameter chosen; B) for the Milazzese phase, the estimated population number increases to 1758, while during C) the Ausonio I phase, the number estimated is 692 units; finally, D) for the Ausonio II phase, the number increases again, to 1345 people (tab. 4.8). • The formula by De Roche, expressed as E = B * G/F, starting from the ethnographic data, envisages the division of the number of buildings (G) per unit area (F) multiplied by the number of inhabitants per building (Bx, By), giving upper and lower ‘benchmarks’ (Ex, Ey = population per unit area). However, it cannot be applied to the Acropolis, as we do not have a clear definition of what a group of huts could be composed of (differently from Filo Braccio) (results not reported in the tables). A) If we want to consider the same parameters for the Acropolis as for Filo Braccio, despite the difference in density due to the different oro-topographic conditions, hypothesizing a system of occupation with 7 or 8 groups of huts per hectare, then 3 ha would result in at least 24 groups of huts; if every group is to be considered as comprising 6 people, we get to a possible estimation of about 144 people. If we hypothesize that the density of the huts on the

5.4.2. Local resources and carrying capacity With regard to the resources and subsistence systems, we considered for the economic strategy here only the dry farming strategies that we know for the Aeolian Islands and only two different parameters: a short or long radius (1.5 or 4  km) and the use of at least partially terraced techniques or not. Even though a 4-km radius from the Acropolis does not cover the whole surface of the island, the presence of the other two villages of Contrada Diana and Castellato implies a more widespread and complex exploitation of the insular territory during the Capo Graziano II phase (fig. 5.22). Regarding Filicudi island, four different scenarios were hypothesized (short radius with and without terraces, long radius with and without terraces) and then 8 ha were subtracted because not all of the available arable land was used for cultivation (at least 3 ha are occupied by villages) and some of the land was undoubtedly used for the cultivation of pulses and the foraging of the animals (15 ha were considered); so, with a short radius, about 50  ha of arable land were usable without terraces or 77 with terraces (fig. 5.23). More than 110 ha were available for the long radius without the use of terraces and almost 200 ha with the use of terraces (fig. 5.24). 103

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age

Fig. 5.22. Lipari, Catchment radius.

Fig. 5.23. Lipari, Catchment short radius; plain areas (black) and potentially terraced areas (dark grey).

The evaluation of productivity was obtained by subtracting to the total the barley production of the grain needed for sowing the following year (10–15%). In the case of the Aeolian Islands, the value of the minimum net yield (usable by the community in one year) is 5.4 q/ha and maximum net yield is 7.1 q/ha. The total energy used per person (the sum of the basal metabolism, metabolic response to food, physical activities and growth), calculated by averaging

the values of the various categories of a population that undertake physical activities during the day, is about 3000 cal/day. Such caloric intake can be achieved through the consumption of foods of a different nature (animals and plants), and in the case of the Aeolian Islands it is assumed that half of the caloric intake (1500 cal) comes from cultivated plants such as barley; Hordeum vulgare has a potential of 350 cal per 100 grams of intake, which 104

Case study and results: Lipari

Fig. 5.24. Lipari, Catchment long radius; plain areas (black) and potentially terraced areas (dark grey).

is similar to wheat, both of which are also identified in the archaeobotanical record of Filo Braccio.

the other resources and the productivity for each of the parameters identified (50% cereals, 30% pulses and 20% meat, considering the different supplies of calories from sheep/goats, cows, pigs, fish), we get a scenario of sustainability for a maximum of about 300 people. • On the same basis, but taking into account only the cereal resources, from Hassan’s model—which was developed from data for hunter-gatherer societies— we obtain for the island of Lipari about 80,000 kg (maximum yield per year) × 3500 (calories per kg of barley)/445,300 (calories per year per person at 50% of the diet), i.e. a population, based on the maximum yield, of about 620 people could be fed every year. • To evaluate the daily calorific need, some scholars prefer to calculate the requirements per family rather than per individual, calibrating it according to each member. So, if we consider the need for a family of six members (three adults and three children) to be 11,551 cal/day (Bronze Age Sardinia, Murgia et al. 2015), we can say that a family had a need of 5775 cal/day of cereals (50% of the diet). The assessment by Poulsen— that the basic calorific requirement for a reference family of two adults and four children would be 14,000 calories a day or five million calories per year—seems a slight overestimate, but we can consider it to be the upper limit of the range of calories necessary for the average diet. Poulsen also estimated that about half of the diet is provided by cereals. Hence, the calorific needs of the family to be covered by cereals would be 7000 calories, or two kilograms of flour products daily. For their preparation, about 3 kg daily of bread grain, or 1100 kg per year, is required, so for the Aeolian Islands, based on the local soil productivity, almost 2

In the evaluation of the subsistence systems and the use of the territory, the reliance on faunal resources must be considered. Livestock are recorded on the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age. Their presence was probably linked to a production system, which would have had some level of impact on the territory. All the results for the so-called resource productivity of Filicudi are presented in fig. 4.27 (data from the OECD and notes) and described in section 4.4.2. Basically, about 730,000 calories are considered to have been derived from cereals per year per person. Moreover, according to the data collected by the archaeological site and the comparison with the system of the same phase on Filicudi, 50–60% of the diet would be represented by cereals, 25–30% by pulses and fruits and 10–15% by meat and/or milk products. • We applied the determination of strategy cost curves (Hastorf 1980)—re-edited according the different catchment areas in ha. All the results are presented in the tables of fig. 5.25. • Using the average of 2440 cal/day per person, assuming a cereal-based diet in which cereals provide 50% of the diet (about 1220 calories), we get to 445,300 calories per year per person. If we consider the average yield for 1 hectare in the Aeolian Islands (about 600 kg per year), we can then subtract the 20% for sowing the next year to get a yield of 480 kg per hectare. This equates to 1,680,000 calories per hectare for cereals; if we add 105

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age

Fig. 5.25. Lipari, Determination of strategy cost curves: A, B. Catchment areas in hectares; C, D, E. Maximum potential strategy yields; F. Potential of calories producible in the territory according to the economic reconstruction, catchment radius and presence of terraces; G. Sustainable number of people according to the economic reconstruction, catchment radius and presence of terraces.

ha of barley cultivation per family per year would be necessary. In addition, an annual quantity of 200 kg of grain per hectare for sowing has to be considered, but the production from that can be 3–5 times the amount. According to this estimation methodology, Acropolis and its environment could be sustainable for at least 56 families (more than 300 people), based on the maximum use of the territory.

106

6 Discussion: towards a palaeodemographic model 6.1. Some remarks on methodology

so far, the islands experienced a long palaeodemographic decline after the Diana phase during the Copper Age— especially in the early- to mid-phases, because of the progressive abandonment of lithic technologies based on obsidian (Bernabò Brea 1988; Tusa 1999). As the archipelago is located in a strategic position in the southern Tyrrhenian Sea that would allow control of the maritime circulation between the Aegean, the Eastern and Western Mediterranean, Sicily and the Italian peninsula, new settlements appeared on the islands at the onset of the Bronze Age, during the long-lasting Capo Graziano culture (Early to Middle Bronze Age 2; ~2200–1450 BC).

In a first attempt to test the palaeodemographic models based mainly or exclusively on archaeological and geomorphological data or on traditional methodology (see e.g. Cook 1972), results were very different (Speciale, Fiorentino 2014; see also chapters 4 and 5). Archaeological, geomorphological, archaeobotanical, archaeozoological and archaeometrical data (sections 4.1, 2 and 3 and 5.1, 2 and 3) were then developed for the palaeodemographic models, but also for the discussion of other elements in the human–environment relationship during the Bronze Age within the archipelago.

The traditional interpretation of the beginning of the Bronze Age as coinciding with the arrival of new human communities on the archipelago from the Aegean area, proposed by Luigi Bernabò Brea, which partially follows the historic and literary sources, is today interpreted more broadly (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980; Martinelli 2009; Tusa 1999, 2000). The first hypothesis by Bernabò Brea identified a flow of people coming from continental Greece to the Aeolian Islands and the Maltese archipelago—notably the Tarxien Cemetery culture—at the end of the third millennium BC. This colonization process would be recognizable in several aspects of the local architectural and pottery culture (Bernabò Brea 1980, pp. 119–22).

Some estimations on the selected models were elaborated (sections 4.4.1 and 2 and 5.4.1 and 2). Calculations made on archaeological data have reliability issues; generally, estimations made by archaeologists after the investigations give high estimations of numbers; the Naroll formula and Hassan’s ratio give low estimations, while application of the De Roche model gives higher estimations. The data obtained are of great importance for comparisons with the results of carrying capacity on the territories analysed (Hassan model, Poulsen model, Hastorf model). This discussion can help in the evaluation of the use of the resources of these territories for population subsistence throughout the second millennium BC. • In section 6.2, the archaeological data from the settlements are evaluated to obtain some referral values for the population of the islands. • In section 6.3, archaeobotanical data are used to estimate the use of vegetal resources within the huts and the villages. • Section 6.4 is a reconstruction of the use of plants in the building techniques, starting from the archaeobotanical, environmental and archaeological data. • Section 6.5 is an evaluation of carrying capacity for the Aeolian territories thanks to the use of catchment analysis, diet needs and yield on the archipelago. • Finally, in section 6.6, all the data from the previous discussion on the archipelago are compared diachronically.

The re-evaluation of many elements of the material culture with respect to Southern Italy, Sicily and the cultures at the end of the Copper Age in the archipelago make the origin of Capo Graziano more heterogeneous and manysided than before (Martinelli, Speciale 2017). S. Tusa shed new light on the existence of a deep influence and possibly the presence of different people pertaining to protoappenninic facies and Sardinian cultures (Tusa 1999, 2000). Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the beginning of the Capo Graziano culture represents a broken point—in many respects very abrupt—with a past where the islands were culturally marginal (Martinelli et al. 2009). Considering the first phase of Capo Graziano culture (Capo Graziano I, 2200–1800 BC), we can delineate the occupation of the archipelago (fig. 6.1) as follows:

In chapter 7, conclusions are drawn on all the methods and data discussed in this chapter and the model is elaborated on.

• The first consideration that has emerged since the resumption of the investigation in the village of Filo Braccio is that the island of Filicudi was the first place where Capo Graziano people would have ‘landed’ (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1991; Martinelli et al. 2009). Despite the other settlements in the archipelago known so far and the distinctive characteristic

6.2. Areas of the settlements and regional occupation The beginning of the Bronze Age marks the ‘renaissance’ of the Aeolian Islands. According to the archaeological data 107

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age

Fig. 6.1. Occupation of the archipelago during Capo Graziano I phase.

changes in this culture from one island to another, no other settlement similar to Filo Braccio is known. The location on the coast, the long duration of the occupation (Martinelli et al. 2009), from ~2200 to ~1700 BC, the absence of decoration in the typical style of pottery, the hut distribution within the site on the only plan of Filicudi all makes it a ‘unique’ settlement (Martinelli, Speciale 2017). The lifespan of the settlement of Filo Braccio extends for about 500 years, according to a sequence outlined through cultural material and a strong absolute dating dataset (see section 3.3.2). • The village of Serro Brigadiere on Salina is attributable to an initial phase of Capo Graziano culture, as perhaps is the village of Serro dell’Acqua on the same island (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1995). • On the island of Stromboli, the site of San Vincenzo seems to have been inhabited for a longer period before 1700 BC, probably since the end of the third millennium BC (Levi et al. 2011; Bettelli et al. 2016). • The use of the thermal wells at Calcara di Panarea dates back to Capo Graziano according to the authors (Bernabò Brea 1985, p, 39) and maybe the same initial phase for Piano Quartara settlement on the same island (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1968, pp. 43–44, tabs VIII–IX).

the Middle Bronze Age 1–2, can be synthesized as follows (fig. 6.2): • On the island of Filicudi, there is a substantial change that leads to the abandonment of the coastal site and the occupation of a new site, in a controlling position over the village of Montagnola in the Capo Graziano phase (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1991). Part of this new village was discovered on a narrow plateau, but it also extends on the top of Montagnola. • From 1700 to 1500 BC, a village was built on the naturally defended hill of Lipari, in the place that became the centre of a Greek city and is today called Acropolis or Castello. • The remains of a large village on the Contrada Diana plain on the island of Lipari are also known; they could represent another evolutionary phase of the culture of Capo Graziano or a specific aspect of the island of Lipari (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980; Martinelli, Giordano 2017). At the same location, two areas were discovered that had been occupied by incineration burials (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980, pp.  723–31; Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1994, pp.  177–86). On the Castellaro plain, the richest area of the island of Lipari in terms of arable land and quality of soils, there was a village that today is severely compromised by modern agricultural activities (Cavalier 1981; Nomi, Speciale 2017). Some archaeological records from the Capo Graziano phase were even found in the necropolis from

The pattern of occupation for the second phase of Capo Graziano (Capo Graziano II, 1700–1450 BC), i.e. during 108

Discussion: towards a palaeodemographic model

Fig. 6.2. Occupation of the archipelago during Capo Graziano II phase.

• •

• •

• •

All of this shows a scattered presence of the Capo Graziano people all over the islands.

the end of the Bronze Age (Piazza Monfalcone, today Piazza Luigi Salvatore d’Austria) (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1960, p.  103). Other pieces of evidence are from the area of the tholos of San Calogero (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 2003, tav. X) and Contrada Monte (Cavalier 1985–86, p. 99). The settlement on the island of Salina at Punta Megna probably followed Capo Graziano I (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1995). An area with cultural deposits was discovered at the top of the volcanic ridge of Portella village (Martinelli 2010, pp.  285–98) and the pottery dump of Serro dei Cianfi on Salina belongs to a latter phase (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1968). On the small island of Alicudi, in the Contrada Fucile area, were recorded some pieces of evidence from Capo Graziano phase (Cavalier 1981). According to the archaeological remains and the absolute datings, the village of San Vincenzo on Stromboli also covers the second phase of Capo Graziano (Bettelli et al. 2016). The outpost of Milazzo Viale dei Cipressi is a village that can mostly be considered Capo Graziano II in terms of cultural features (Tigano 2009). Furthermore, Aeolian pottery is documented in maritime exchanges, such as the finding of the shipwreck of Pignataro di Fuori near the Lipari coasts and several occurrences of pottery in the peculiar Capo Graziano II style on Sicily and mainland Italy.

Mariners from the Aegean Sea interacted more and more with local populations when the villages were moved to defensive positions (Capo Graziano II), as evidenced by the presence of painted LH I/II pottery (Vagnetti 1991, pp.  262–305; Jones et al. 2014) and probably also the transmission of building models (e.g. the tholos of San Calogero on Lipari, Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1990). Moreover, the presence of faience beads in Filo Braccio is a sign of early relations with the Aegean (Martinelli 2016). The Mycenaeans used the Aeolian Islands to establish alliances with small human insular groups as a means of gaining access to larger networks of contacts (Patton 1996, p. 172). The framework we obtain, starting from the first occupation of the island of Filicudi, is a progressively denser occupation of the archipelago throughout the Capo Graziano phases (the villages on Salina, the settlement on Montagnola and the small villages spread all over the island of Lipari, together with all the archaeological records from the other islands). Probably due to the settlement choices, many of the settlements of the ‘evolved’ phase of Capo Graziano were already occupied during the first phase and many of the Milazzese villages have an archaeological record of the Capo Graziano phases. The occupation of the archipelago, in terms of spread on the islands, can be 109

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age Based on actual knowledge of the archaeological evidence, one can hypothesize that there was an initial—from the last two centuries of the third millennium BC to about the beginning of the second millennium BC—medium demographic impact on the archipelago compared to the one of the end of the Copper Age, based on the occupation of Filo Braccio, Salina and perhaps Lipari, and the temporary/short-term occupation of all the other islands (Alicudi, Stromboli and Panarea). Application of the Naroll, Hassan and De Roche models on the village of Filo Braccio give us an estimate from about 80 to 500 people. The approximate number of people on the islands during the Capo Graziano I phase, keeping in mind the scarcity of reliable archaeological data for many of the known sites, can be estimated at 120–600 units (tabs 4.8 and 4.9).

compared to that from the Diana phase (Late Neolithic) (Leighton 1999), despite the archaeological evidence for the settlements for the Capo Graziano phase being more preserved and clearer to read. Filicudi is the first island to be settled permanently, and most of the archaeological remains are on the Filo Braccio plain, which is also the most suitable place for the settlement in terms of geomorphology and the availability and properties of the soils. The island is less than 10 km2 (chapter 3), but the occupation of the village is to be considered self-sufficient with the exploitation of the insular resources, as hypothesized in both scenarios in section 4.4.2 (short or long radius, 1.5 or 4 km). The occupation of the island of Lipari is less clear for Capo Graziano I, while the occupation of the island during Capo Graziano II shows the settling of more than one village. The Acropolis is the most important settlement at this time; nevertheless, the occupation of other strategic places in Contrada Diana, Piano Conte and Castellaro show a spread within the insular territory for a better control of it and probably for greater use of the resources. In fact, the long catchment radius for the village of the Acropolis reaches the area of the Castellaro plain (fig. 5.17). A further analysis of the occupation of Lipari’s territory and the sequence of Capo Graziano pottery would help provide the most detailed outline of the development of the occupation from 2200 to 1500 BC on Lipari.

After some centuries, at the beginning of the second millennium BC, the settlement pattern changes (Capo Graziano II phase). The occupation of the island of Filicudi is concentrated mainly on the two terraces of the hill of Montagnola, but the area of Filo Braccio is still occupied. The island of Lipari is densely inhabited and probably occupied by small groups of settlements. The village on the Acropolis of Lipari is quite densely built both on the top of the hill and on the northern plain area. We can hypothesize that between 300 and 1400 people were living on the Aeolian Islands during the Capo Graziano II phase, according to the settlement data (this is the minimum number evaluated mainly on the basis of Acropolis and Diana areas) (section 5.4.1). On the island of Stromboli there is a structured village with several huts and terraces; it is quite evident that this village was probably quite extensive and meant for a stable occupation of the island. Despite the preservation conditions not being very good, Salina had to be quite densely occupied, as indicated by the remains of huts. Total roofed areas across all islands increased from 1100 to 3345 m2 during the Capo Graziano II phase (tab. 4.6).

Occupation of the other islands at this time does not seem ‘structured’ in terms of settlements, but could be read as temporary occupation, with an increase in the population despite the scattered distribution all over the islands of the archipelago. It is not possible to identify any real hierarchy between the village of Filo Braccio and the other areas of settlement within the archipelago; nevertheless, the extremely fortunate circumstances for the preservation of the village on Filicudi—occupying a plain area that was not settled again in the following phases and with a high level of preservation probably also due to the quality of soils—together with the fact that many of the Capo Graziano II and Milazzese villages occupy the areas where some of the Capo Graziano I findings were recorded, make it very difficult to have a precise idea of what the impact of the first Aeolian communities was at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age in terms of structures of the villages beyond Filo Braccio.

An interesting suggestion is given on the capacity of the main hut of the village of the Acropolis of Lipari, δIV: some authors calculated that it could contain up to 40 people sitting in circle or up to 200 standing people (Albore Livadie et al. 2003, p.  117, n. 10), considering it as a common area for the meetings of the village; nonetheless, not all the people in the village were supposed to attend the meetings. Finally, the village of Viale dei Cipressi can be added for a global evaluation of the demographic density of the area during Capo Graziano phase, despite its incidence not being relevant to the impact on the archipelago itself. The area was occupied for the whole of the Bronze Age and its presence testifies the stable occupation of the coast with a strong insular component (Tigano 2009).

From a topographical point of view, some differences can be detected over time. In Filo Braccio, no big changes in the size of the structures have been identified so far. The village is spread out, with different groups of huts occupying a good portion of the plain and perhaps some areas of the later village on the Montagnola hill. Huts are considered mainly households for singular family units (Livadie et al. 2003, pp.  114–15). Common areas are used for the collective production and conservation of staple foods (Area L and the silo). Within the village, no apparent signs of social differentiation are detectable.

Overall, on an archaeological basis, we can evaluate the impact for Capo Graziano phases in terms of several hundreds of people (up to about 1500 units), with the main villages on Filicudi, Lipari, Salina, Stromboli and Milazzo 110

Discussion: towards a palaeodemographic model

Fig. 6.3. Occupation of the archipelago during Milazzese phase.

that the population is about one-tenth of the living area; given that the total area estimated for Portella is 212 m2, a total population of 21 (and thus one-fifth of the estimation already made) could be hypothesized, or 42 if the author’s calculation of the percentage of preserved huts is accepted. Among the various case studies of palaeodemography reported by Hassan, one in particular can be considered as the model for the highest possible density (1 person per 2.32 m2) in situations of poor availability of space (which could be the case of the crest of Portella). Then in total, for the surface of the huts, 212 m2/2.32 would amount to a maximum of 91 people—which, doubled per the loss of huts, is about 200 people.

and the occupation of the islands of Panarea and Alicudi increasing during Capo Graziano II, when settlements became stable and occupation of the villages became more structured. If we consider density (the ratio between the area of the settlements and the total roofed areas), we can isolate a trend to higher values from Capo Graziano I to Capo Graziano II (fig. 6.5). Disentangling the existence of a network of displacement between one island to another (see section 6.6), the mobility or the seasonal occupation of some of the settlements or of some of the areas within the settlements and a definite internal chronological sequence should be considered. During the Milazzese phase, considering the villages of Filicudi, Lipari, Salina and Panarea, the demographic framework seems different (fig. 6.3). In a first analysis of the island of Salina (total area of 26.76  km2, plain area about 5  km2, or 500 ha, surface area of the village of Portella about 1 hectare), some demographic evaluations were made (D’oronzo et al. in press; Fiorentino, Speciale 2015).

However, if we analyse those that are considered ‘living households’, i.e. the Q–Q2, R–R2 group (33.5  m2), assuming they were each occupied by 4–6 people, the estimate is lower (about 7  m2 per person, which is 30 people, or 60 if we double the numbers to account for the possible loss of half of the village structures). As is evident, estimates vary considerably depending on the method applied (from 40 to 200 individuals). Finally, for the Milazzese phase, basing the estimations mainly on the calculation of the roofed areas, the village of Milazzese on Panarea was occupied by about 150 inhabitants (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1968)(tab. 4.6). On the island of Filicudi, occupation seems limited only to the Montagnola hill, with a total of 815 m2 of roofed areas and a higher density. The same pattern of ‘building-

In a chapter of the last volume on Portella village, it is estimated that around 200 people lived in the village, because the 25 huts are assumed to be occupied by 5 or 6 family groups (about 100 people) and about half of the huts are preserved (Martinelli 2010, p. 212; Martinelli et al. 2004). Applying the Naroll formula, it can be calculated 111

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age

Fig. 6.4. Occupation of the archipelago during Ausonio I/II phase.

Fig. 6.5. Application of Hassan model for the whole archipelago.

up’ and abandonment of most of the territory in terms of occupation is detectable also on Lipari, where the only structured village is the one on the Acropolis, with a total of more than 4000 m2 of roofed areas. This concentration into one main village reflects a possible change in the

management of the territory and thus of its resources (see section 6.3). Analysing the other villages of the same phase (even considering the village of Milazzo), what is quite clear 112

Discussion: towards a palaeodemographic model

Fig. 6.6. Demographic density factor per phase.

depositional destructive processes, the population seems even more limited during the Ausonio I phase (about 160– 700 people), while during the Ausonio II phase the village seems to be greatly extended (a maximum of 1300 people), before the last phase of destruction at the beginning of the Iron Age and the abandonment of the Aeolian Archipelago for several centuries (Bietti Sestieri 2009). The density during the Ausonio I phase is almost the same as in the Milazzese phase, while it is consistently higher than during the Capo Graziano phases; nevertheless, numbers in terms of estimated people are only slightly higher than for the Capo Graziano phases. This clearly indicates an intensification in the settlement pattern from the beginning to the end of the Bronze Age and a crucial difference in the use of the structures and spaces within the villages, as further described in section 6.4.

is that the concentration of the settlements in some of the defended areas of the archipelago (fig. 6.3), an abandonment of many of the areas where Capo Graziano findings were recorded and a general increase in terms of roofed areas and demographic presence occurred (tabs 4.7 and 4.8): a total of 5652 m2 of roofed areas for the villages was evaluated (about five times the estimate for the Capo Graziano I phase) and the demographic presence was estimated to be between 500 and 2500 people (fig. 6.5). The density is the highest for the whole Bronze Age (fig. 6.6), as are the absolute demographic estimations (tabs 4.9 and 4.10). It is traditionally accepted that the level of human presence on the archipelago at the end of the Bronze Age/beginning of the Iron Age underwent a sudden change, due to the invasion of the ‘Ausonian people’ coming from Southern Italy and probably also from other regions at the end of the Bronze Age (Zanini 2012). The role of the archipelago, so important during the Early and Middle Bronze Age in the West–East Mediterranean dynamics, starting from the Late Bronze Age switches to a system of close relations with the Italian peninsula, notably with the Calabria area (Bietti Sestieri 2009). The occupation of the islands, according to the archaeological record, is limited to Lipari and only the area of the Acropolis (Albanese Procelli et al. 2004) (fig. 6.4). The only other area that was settled in these phases is the village of Viale dei Cipressi in Milazzo, where the remains are very compromised and difficult to interpret (Tigano 2009). This results in a severe decrease in the number of individuals that can be evaluated in the whole archipelago, probably limited only to the hundreds that the village could lodge (fig. 6.6).

6.3. Human impact on the landscape and use of the local resources Economic behavioural adaptations to ecological conditions can be defined by changes and particularities in both local and exogenous resource exploitation compared to economic strategies developed by contemporaneous societies from other areas. The use of written (graphic and literary) sources was of extreme interest in the interpretation and reconstruction of the archaeological landscape. Representations and descriptions of the archipelago go back to the 18th century, before industrialization, when the islands had a multilayered and diffuse human occupation. In Prague, between 1893 and 1896, eight large volumes were published on the Aeolian Islands—one for each island and one for the archipelago—by Archduke Luigi Salvatore of Austria (translated into Italian by Paino 1979). Descriptions and several illustrations of the territory

According to the few remains of the huts from the Acropolis of Lipari that belong to the most superficial layers of the sequence and are therefore more exposed to post113

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age represent evidence for the use of the landscape before industrialization; they are an important comparison for the subsistence economy systems, the estimations we made for the prehistoric contexts and the relations that humans set up in that context with the natural resources (see e.g. Butzer 2005).

their relevant presence in the archaeological record may indicate an anthropized environment that was frequently exposed to fire and grazing. Archaeobotanical samples, sometimes characterized by vitrification and radial cracking, show that most of the plant was probably used when the wood was green—the record is composed by parts of stems, twigs, branches and maybe roots. Its distribution and all the other data support its use both as wood fuel and architectural materials (see section 6.3; Martinelli, Fiorentino 2005).

Another point to emphasize is that over longer periods of abandonment, reusable landscape capital (e.g. traces of walled fields, stone clearance) persisted as a set of potential attractors for subsequent visitors and eventually renewed settlement and agricultural investment (Bevan, Conolly 2013). This relation with the past can help when reading the multilayered sequence of the integration of human communities with their use of the environment (Barbera et al. 2014).

Moreover, the record on Filicudi is composed of a high number of Leguminosae, whose identification in terms of genus is often very challenging; its presence is mostly attributable to its use as parts of the roofs of huts, as already known in Portella village and in the ethnographical comparisons (Martinelli 2008). Even today, this plant family is highly diffused across the territory, and there are several endemic species (Lo Cascio, Pasta 2004). Nevertheless, its presence on the island’s record is much smaller than on Salina (Portella village), where huts were probably built mainly with these species; on the other hand, heather is not highly represented in the Portella record (5%).

Due to the challenging situation of the intrinsic ecological and geographical context, evaluations on the palaeoenvironment of the Aeolian Archipelago starting from the archaeobotanical dataset are difficult to produce; the heterogeneous chronological and topographical features of the record also provide a challenge here. For example, on Lipari, the differences identified between the Late and Final Bronze Age are remarkable but not necessarily significant, and may be affected by human selection for different architectural issues or sampling strategies for the archaeological layers (section 5.2).

The presence of Rosaceae, Maloideae and Prunoideae— together with the low presence of remains of tree fruits among the carpological remains of the whole village— is still probably too early to attribute to arboriculture practices, which were developed during the Middle Bronze Age on the peninsula (Fiorentino 1998; Primavera et al. 2017); nevertheless, they represent one of the main vegetal resources for the human community of Filo Braccio. The exploitation of the wild fruits or some pruning practices cannot be excluded (Fiorentino, Primavera 2015). Even for the more recent context of Portella village during the Middle Bronze Age, the presence of plum trees is recorded only at 5% and the trees’ exploitation is difficult to hypothesize (Fiorentino 2008).

Natural pollen sequences, which could give another perspective to the varied and peculiar Aeolian environment, are missing. Data from the archaeological layers of San Vincenzo village on Stromboli are very similar to each other and indicate some uniformity in plant cover around the site during the Bronze Age. However, they have meaningful differences with the latest samples from contemporary layers, indicating changes to the modern vegetation among the chronological phases studied (Rattighieri et al. 2012). The landscape had to be exploited in different ways, mainly for the villages, agricultural activities, husbandry and forestry. In terms of the percentage evaluation of land use, for example, for the Terramare area, only 30% of the landscape is hypothesized to have been used as an agricultural background (Carra et al. 2012). This means that only one small portion of the available territory around the village was effectively employed for cultivation purposes.

It is the same for Olea europaea, whose exploitation as a fruit tree cannot be excluded, though is not very plausible (see section 6.5), while its use as fuel is documented throughout the entire Bronze Age (Primavera, Fiorentino 2015; Primavera et al. 2017). It is nevertheless good to keep in mind that, according to some authors, calorific values vary little from one species to another (from 4000 to 4500 kcal/kg, Théry-Parisot et al. 2010, fig. 46, p. 157), but fluctuate significantly according to the water content; combustible properties depend also on the calibre, the rate of humidity and/or the physiological state of the wood. These parameters can crucially affect the choice in plant selection and its use for different purposes (Marston 2009). Olea europaea is almost absent from the pollen sequence of San Vincenzo village on Stromboli, while in Portella village on Salina, it is quite well represented (17%), even if not always clearly differentiated between olive trees and oleasters.

Mediterranean maquis is predominant in the archaeobotanical record of Filicudi. The new data strengthen a result already obtained by the first analyses: the remarkable reliance on the main family Ericaceae, whose presence in each context (huts and open areas) varies between 50% and 80% of the record. Even today, heather represents one of the most common species on the island (fig. 6.7), probably due to its adaptability to rocky substrates and the remarkable pyrophyte properties of Erica arborea and Arbutus unedo (Pignatti 1982); 114

Discussion: towards a palaeodemographic model

Fig. 6.7. Filicudi island, heather—picture by the author.

The archaeobotanical record from Lipari is very different in terms of species. Heather maintains its main role as building material in the Acropolis village. Leguminosae and Olea europaea are also recorded here, the last one most likely serving as wood fuel.

The environmental framework that we evaluated from the Filo Braccio record, which was low in terms of taxonomic variability (18 different taxa, but 12 of them are quite rarely represented, with a percentage between 1% and 3%), is either that vegetation was limited in species or it shows a high selection of the vegetal resources, restricted mainly to heather because of its heterogeneous properties, together with some of the main shrubs and arboreal trees present in the local vegetation. This potential limited presence of several species, even in the past, could be linked not only to insular conditions, but also to soil properties (see e.g. Tzanoudakis et al. 2006); about 900 taxa of vascular flora are present today, even if the woody species are very limited (fig. 3.12; Lo Cascio 2017, pp.  211–12). Variability is similar to Portella village on Salina, where 11 taxa were identified, with a substantial prevalence of 5 or 6 species (Olea sp., Phillyrea/Rhamnus sp., Erica sp., Genista sp. and Leguminosae more in general, Cistus sp.) (Fiorentino 2008).

The record of pine is quite relevant; its presence within the insular volcanic contexts is also because of its resistance to fires and the high reproductive capacity of its seeds (Nùñez, Calvo 2000). Pinus type nigra was used as fuel during the Capo Graziano phase—both in the Acropolis village and then in Contrada Diana—while Pinus type pinea/halepensis has been recorded during the latest phases of the village of the Acropolis in several huts, probably used as fuel or for furniture purposes. This last type of pine was detected for the first time on the Aeolian Islands during the last phase of the Bronze Age. These differences could indicate a very heterogeneous catchment environment on the island itself or the provenance of some of the species from external territories, but nevertheless, there was a specific choice of this species for fuel purposes. The use of conifers as fuels is not very common, even if not unknown in prehistoric sites (see e.g. PicornellGelabert, Servera 2016).

The records of oaks, riparian species and pines are extremely low and more difficult to interpret (section 5.1.1). Their absence in the first analyses (Martinelli et al. 2009) is probably because of the difficulty in identifying the poorly preserved samples, but also because of their scarcity in the record (especially for Ostrya carpinifolia and Populus sp.).

The Acropolis is the first context of the Aeolian Archipelago where we find oaks in substantial amounts. 115

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age

Fig. 6.8. Lipari island, differences between the wood charcoals for the two phases Ausonio I/Ausonio II.

Today, oaks are present in the local vegetation on most of the islands (mainly Quercus ilex and Quercus pubescens). Quercus ilex is also present on Volcano Island’s fossil dataset (15,000–8000 BP) (De Astis et al. 2013).

protohistoric Aeolian Archipelago (Lo Cascio, Navarra 2003; Lo Cascio 2017). If we compare the three islands for which archaeobotanical data are available, garrigue and maquis are always the major ecoregions, even on the island of Salina, where large wooded areas were probably present.

Other species were detected for the first time in the Aeolian archaeobotanical record in the Lipari dataset: Juniperus sp. and some other Cupressaceae are observed mainly from inside the huts, along with a high presence of Populus sp. Today, Lipari represents the biggest and most diverse island in terms of ecological niches (Lo Jacono Pojero 1878).

We detect a predominance of Erica sp. and Leguminosae everywhere, but Rosaceae, Maloideae and Prunoideae are very common on the island of Filicudi, while they are scarcely represented in the villages of Salina and are almost absent on Lipari (Martinelli 2008 and sections 4.1.1 and 5.1.1). Prunoideae have a key role in the hearths and burning structures of Filo Braccio village. It is interesting to note that both pines and olive trees are not very often found in the huts of the Acropolis, but rather in the contexts of the hearths; this could indicate a specific choice for these species and their possible use as fuel resources. The absence of oaks in most of the archaeobotanical records of Filicudi and Salina could be linked both to their scarcity in the local environment and to the architectural techniques used by the villagers, techniques that are based mainly on roof structures loaded directly onto the walls without the use of wooden poles.

From a diachronic perspective, some differences between the Ausonio I and Ausonio II phases can be noted on Lipari (fig. 6.8). Leguminosae and Prunoideae keep the same percentage—about the same that we also find on the Filo Braccio record (8–10%). Poplar, oaks and Leguminosae tend to be more represented in the latter phase, especially as architectural elements (see section 5.3). Likewise, during this process from the Early to the Final Bronze Age, according to the archaeobotanical data we retain, no relevant transformation of the floristic composition of the vegetation—neither taxa disappearance nor vegetal communities’ substitutions—has been documented so far. However, we can say that the span covered by the Bronze Age occupation of the Acropolis is limited to about one millennium.

Pinus type nigra was found on the Aeolian Islands in Portella village on Salina, but its presence is also detected during the Capo Graziano phase on Lipari. Its need for specific ecological conditions and its severely reduced presence in the record makes a provenance from the Calabrian coast or the Nebrodi mountains of Sicily more likely; its potential use as firewood, according to archaeological identification, needs further analysis and comparisons.

Differences among the islands, despite a general common vegetation, are quite evident, especially for Lipari. On the other hand, the village of the Acropolis is on an island from which no other anthracological data have been recovered to date. The island used to present a very distinct landscape with different kinds of forests and nonwooded areas, both of which have notable man-made features. The vegetation shown in the anthracological diagram is different from the trends seen in other palaeoenvironmental studies, so it complements and creates a more complex picture of the ancient vegetation dynamics and landscape shaping the prehistoric and

The presence of many mesophilous species in the archaeobotanical record of Lipari at the end of the Bronze Age cannot be interpreted as a change in the climatic conditions in the area because isotope analyses (notably δ13C variations) stress a general tendency towards 116

Discussion: towards a palaeodemographic model aridification starting from the end of the Middle Bronze Age (Caracuta et al. 2012, Speciale et al. 2016). Analyses from the Maltese Archipelago over the same period, which the authors compared with the pollen sequence of Gorgo Basso, show the same tendency for the first half of the second millennium BC (Recchia, Fiorentino 2015). Pollen analyses from the Stromboli archaeological layers show that in the spectra there are grazing indicators, such as Trifolium sp. and sprouts of coprofil mushrooms; but also, as hypothesized by the authors, at the end of the Early Bronze Age, most likely there were some climatic conditions different from the actual ones (Rattighieri 2012). So, even if we do not have archaeobotanical data from the site, Rattighieri and the other authors believe that Stromboli during the Bronze Age had different ecological and vegetational features than today (see chapter 3.2).

environmental and climatological prerequisites result in a variety of subsistence strategies and organization outcomes (Bartosiewicz, Lillie 2015). Animal husbandry on the archipelago was practised since the Neolithic period, as highlighted by archaeozoological research (Villari 1991, 1995; Martinelli et al. 2012). The presence of an elevated number of animals on the limited territories of the archipelago implies a reliance on local resources that can have a strong incidence in their economic management (David, Thomas 2016). Their record on the islands implies the ‘saving’ of part of the territory for the animals’ needs: animals can require up to several ha per head; although goats, sheep and cattle need to graze, pigs usually need some woodland to pasture; cattle can also be fed on leaves, though this is usually a technique only used on mountains (see e.g. Thiebault 2005). Considering that Filicudi is only 1000 ha, the presence of several head of cattle can effectively influence the land’s management.

Overall, it is not possible to isolate the systematic management strategies for the Bronze Age, despite a selection of different species being detected on the islands; some specific purposes have been hypothesized, probably due to the absence of some of these species from the vegetation of individual islands or the wider availability of some of them on one island or in specific areas on one of the islands. For example, despite its presence in the record of all the islands studied so far, the massive use of Erica sp. in Filo Braccio village is undoubtedly because of its spreading presence in the local environment and its morphophysiological features, as indicated also by the present vegetation (fig. 6.7).

Taphonomic problems of conservation for bones must be considered in the evaluation of the data (Martinelli et al. 2009). Nevertheless, both Lipari and Filicudi have shown generally good conditions when compared to Salina and Stromboli, where biological remains are not as highly recorded. During the Bronze Age, starting from the Capo Graziano phase, an elevated percentage of Ovis vel Capra, especially on Filicudi, is detected; the making of milk products could be linked to this presence too (De Grossi Mazzorin, Guidi 2015; Martinelli et al. 2009; Sherratt 1981). Since the Early Bronze Age, on Lipari, the presence of Bos taurus is proportionally higher than on Filicudi, and this number rises during the Milazzese and Ausonian phases (Villari 1991). Despite the low level of wild mammal species and maritime fauna in the whole record for the Aeolian Archipelago, the Milazzese phase is the only one with an evident absence. A quite drastic change is detected from the Ausonio I phase to Ausonio II, when faunal remains are almost exclusively constituted by cattle and pigs on the Acropolis; Canis familiaris is recorded only once in the whole sequence (fig. 6.9).

Another important query in the investigation of the exploitation of the territory is the use of terraces, which are ubiquitous today and are even a defining feature of Mediterranean environments (Walsh 2013). Nevertheless, their long‐term history and relationship with human populations and food economies are not well understood, especially in prehistory (e.g. Frederick, Krahtopoulou 2000; Hastorf 2016). For example, in Anthikythera, there is no abrupt separation between enclosed flat fields and terraced hill slopes (Bevan, Conolly 2013), so the land area to farm is quite continuous. The Aeolian Islands today have 20–30% terraced land, a value that is higher than the average for Sicily (Barbera et al. 2009). Most of the terraces are nevertheless abandoned, as their massive use ended about a century ago (Lo Cascio 2017). For the demographic estimations, we hypothesized the possibility of the use of terraces on the islands of Filicudi and Lipari to assume a more intensive exploitation of the farmlands. The only island where we have definite archaeological evidence in this sense is Stromboli. In San Vincenzo village, there are impressive masonry structures that can be interpreted as terrace walls supporting flat areas, partly artificially built, where the huts are spread (Bettelli et al. 2016).

It is so far proved difficult to evaluate a potential system of displacement of animals from one island to another or from the archipelago to the mainland regarding the management of the animals’ growth, reproduction and use according to a complex shared network or some sort of seasonal transhumance. If we analyse the data for the preindustrialized economic system of the Aeolian Archipelago, breeding techniques show a complex relationship between the islands and the mainland; for example, calves for veal were only raised for a few months on Filicudi and then moved to Lipari to fatten and be killed, while pigs were predominantly raised on Filicudi and Salina (D’Oronzo et al. in press).

Animal resources are of fundamental importance in the evaluation of the economic strategies of the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age. Different natural geographic,

Furthermore, the use of cattle for agricultural use can change the labour and the exploitation of the territory. Although ploughing by hand means an average of 0.02– 117

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age

Fig. 6.9. Archaeozoological record per archaeological site per phase.

0.05 ha per person per day, the use of two cows allows the work to be at least 0.1 ha per day (Danckers 2015). It is important to note that the specialized use of animal labour requires the constant maintenance of the animals (Halstead 2014). Furthermore, in the schematic view of Esther Boserup, there are five stages in the sequence towards production intensification. Starting from the most basic production system of the ‘forest fallow cultivation’ (better known as ‘slash-and-burn’), there are then a series of different stages before reaching the ‘short fallow cultivation’, which is based on alternating land use every 1–3 years, leading up to the final stage of multicropping, which allows cultivation for almost the whole year by using a rotation strategy (Boserup 1965).

from marine origins, on Filicudi (Villari 1991). Marine animals, especially molluscs, were probably important sources of protein for these first settlers (Martinelli et al. 2009). This subsistence pattern, which partially differs from the mainland coastal contexts, thus relies on maritime resources as well, and these have no or very little impact on the landscape. The last proxy in the evaluation of the exploitation of local resources are the archaeometric data. In the image that presents the framework of production and exchange (fig. 6.10), no significant differences are shown in terms of chronology within the Capo Graziano phases. As probably expected, Lipari and Filicudi were the main production sites for the local pottery vessels, but pottery was also exported both to the other islands and to the northern coast of Sicily. Exchanges from Lipari to Filicudi are documented, though the opposite dynamic is less certain. Stromboli was another centre of pottery production, but was also a centre of imports from Lipari and from the coasts of Sicily and Southern Italy, although no exports of its production have been identified elsewhere so far. All the data converge into the hypotheses highlighted in Brunelli et al. 2013 (the presence of a network among the islands, together with a small local production for domestic vessels).

For the Aeolian Islands, hypothesizing a complex specific system for the beginning of the Bronze Age from the available data is still quite uncertain. We do not possess any data about the use of the plough or the adoption of animal labour for it. The only data that can support this hypothesis are the faunal remains: a late age of animal culling is usually interpreted as an exploitation of their labour. Furthermore, the change in crop production and diversification in the choice of species may reflect some change of agricultural strategies that cannot be isolated at this stage of the research. Finally, we are still not capable of evaluating the change in the impact of human communities from the beginning to the end of the Bronze Age for agricultural purposes, despite some of the economic changes being quite evident (see section 6.4).

6.4. Use of wooden resources and architectural techniques The geomorphological conditions of the islands and the presence of different plant species are considered the primary variables in the choice of raw materials and technological features for the huts (see e.g. Butzer 1982; Hodder 1987).

In conclusion, in addition to an economy based on agriculture and animal husbandry, the human diet was complemented with other wild resources, especially 118

Discussion: towards a palaeodemographic model

Fig. 6.10. Connectivity system during Capo Graziano phases through archaeometric analyses.

beach east of the inhabited area; these cobblestones would perhaps be partially reinforced by earthen mortar. These structural components therefore also affect the remarkable thickness of the walls and the size of the huts.

For the installation of the huts on Filo Braccio, a cut in the rocky conglomerate was made. The absence of pole holes outside and inside the perimeter wall advances some hypotheses about the coverage setting. In circular structures, the construction of the conical roof is made with beams that discharge the weight directly on the wall, in which they are inserted between the stone blocks; in this case, the plan is oval. Therefore, the weight of the cover is discharged differently. However, due to the extremely small surface area of the hut, it is possible to conceive both an almost conical roof or a flat roof covering that utilizes horizontal wood beams (Harris 2006).

For example, the shortage of stone or any good building stone in the context of Serro Brigadiere on Salina has meant that structures made of perishable materials prevailed over stone ones (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1995). The huts in the village are particularly interesting when it comes to the overlapping of Capo Graziano huts with those of Piano Quartara, particularly Hut VI, because the newest structure is adapted to the pre-existing one. It is useful to remember how the similar construction techniques between Piano Quartara (Hut I and Hut VI, first phase) and the following Capo Graziano huts are explained by excavators as just being a persistence of the local traditional architectural method compared to the innovative knowledge of protoHelladic architecture (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1995). The huts have a quadrangular plan, with rounded corners and wooden walls, with stones at the base to create a counterweight; in some cases, structural poles were probably used, as in Milazzo Viale dei Cipressi village; two wooden poles near the apses of Hut 1 for the structure of the roof have been identified.

Another possibility could be the construction of a singlesloped roof, inclined to some degree, that would convey the water to a drainage channel; this system would presuppose a perimeter wall of a different height for setting the beams and the roof rails. A similar system was identified in Portella village (Martinelli 2008). In the reconstruction, it would also be necessary to evaluate the wind dynamics to verify their factual applicability. Finally, the adjacent structures and their proximity to the hut should be considered, assuming that these covering structures may be interlaced in some way. Bernabò Brea and Cavalier emphasize the singularity in the construction of the Filo Braccio huts because of the use of the large, rounded cobblestones coming from the

Ericaceae (mainly Erica arborea, Erica multiflora, Arbutus unedo) represent the most common architectural species 119

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age for the structures of the Filo Braccio site. Despite the fact that the village was probably abandoned for some reason other than fire or an abrupt event and that the area was used for several years after the collapse of the structures, the presence of heather is massive, and its identification as the main element of the roofs is quite unambiguous. Leguminosae could also be linked to architectural elements, but their scarcity in the Filo Braccio record compared to heather is unclear—its scarce presence may be attributable to post-depositional preservation features or to the specific human selection of the species. The evaluation for Portella village on Salina is different, with Genista sp. being attributed with certainty to the roof structure (Martinelli 2008).

On Lipari, some of the identified species, which are characteristic of a mesophilous environment, become prevalent during Ausonio II compared to Ausonio I, while the Leguminosae tend, generally, to decrease in percentage (see section 5.4). Samples from Huts αII, αVII and αIV and from areas near Huts αII and αX returned a very large record of mesophilous species, with significant differences between Huts αII and αVII. On Lipari, the species are identified in the same contexts as with Ausonio I, but there is also what has been identified as Ulmus sp. (not present during the Ausonio I phase), and there is a great increase in the presence of Quercus sp. (notably, cf. pubescens was not recorded in the previous phase), along with Leguminosae, Olea europaea and Populus/Salix sp. On the other hand, Pinus type halepensis, which is highly represented during the Ausonio I phase, is present in a smaller percentage during the Ausonio II phase (section 5.4, fig. 6.8).

The wooden framework in Hut G is mainly represented by heather. The most significant variability in terms of species (11 taxa) is recorded in the area close to the entrance. A higher density of macroremains in the central part of the hut could be linked to the inner use of the structure (hearths, furniture or domestic installations?). The wood charcoals are all of a small size, with the exception of those from one pit (SU 237), where they reach a diameter of up to 3 cm. The pit is not interpreted as a hole for a pole (Martinelli et al. 2009), but the analysis of the hut is still ongoing. Due to the size of the structure, the use of a wooden pole to support the walls in bearing the weight of the roof is possible. Nevertheless, the presence of several different species within the pit makes its interpretation as a pole pit still debatable. The deposit was affected by post-depositional dynamics, making the use of heather for the wooden parts an extremely reliable theory, and heather may have been supported by the use of Rosaceae or Maloideae. All the other species are poorly represented, and their use as architectural elements are less clear.

The bearing structure of all the huts of this phase is mainly wooden. Pairs of posts, 40–60 cm apart, were used to support the transverse timber trusses of the roof. According to Bernabò Brea and Cavalier, this specific expedient would have been useful to counter the use of ‘weak’ wooden species as poles (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980). Nevertheless, the load-bearing function would be performed solely by the wood, while the wall encapsulating the poles would have only a protection function. This justifies the irregular inner surface of many of the walls that, without the poles, are an untidy succession of ‘pillars’ of small stones wrapped around the wooden parts (fig. 5.16). On the short sides of the hut, in the case of Hut αII, only one pole was present, presumably to support the ridge of the roof. That is why the hypotheses rest on it being a gable or hip roof (Harris 2006, p. 511). The other hypothesis is that wooden poles were just used to connect the walls, so the pilasters inside and outside were only functional for Hut αII.

In Hut F, heather is present 67% of the time; other taxa include Maloideae and Prunoideae, at 7% each. The choices of species and techniques could be similar to Hut I, where all the species other than heather have a very low representation (always under 8%).

It is important to note that when it is possible to identify two different building phases of the same hut, the oldest phase usually does not show any use of the pillar system (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980, p. 595).

Within Hut I, the charcoals have a very small size, and their conservation conditions are quite low everywhere. Heather is present 63% of the time. Lentisk and plum trees have an average representation (5–7%), but their presence in the record is not clearly related to architectural choices, whereas their interpretation as fuel is found in many contexts of the village (see e.g. section 4.1.3, Area L), so their concentration in one of the areas of the structure could make this interpretation reliable for Hut I.

The supporting structure of Hut αII was made up of wooden poles, fixed vertically in the ground and encased in lodgements or recesses shaped into the walls (see also section 4.1). The building process probably followed this sequence: the basement of the huts was excavated to the soil level, then the poles were fixed in the ground; next, the structure of the drystone wall was built up, starting from the lower, single-faced row up to the double-faced upper part of the wall. The spaced vertical posts (around 55–60  cm between them) had to hold, in pairs, the roof beams and the main beam (Harris 2006, p. 627).

Among the three huts, the only relevant difference is the presence of a higher percentage of Rosaceae and Maloideae within Hut G compared to Huts F and I. This difference could be linked to some structural choices—because Hut G is longer and wider than the other two huts—or to a different selection for the season or different availability in the area. Also, Hut G is the most recent within the development of the village (fig. 6.11).

The wooden parts have, of course, been partially destroyed over the centuries. Only in one trench, trench AG, did excavators find traces of charred wood that were 120

Discussion: towards a palaeodemographic model

Fig. 6.11. Filicudi, AMS dates from Filo Braccio village—Martinelli et al. 2009.

121

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age still in place. Nevertheless, the locations of the poles are shown with precision from their housings, which are still perfectly recognizable in the stone wall structures. In Hut αII, the poles belonging to each of the long walls (that is, each of the pairs of poles supporting a truss) numbered 20, as recognizable on the northern side. On the other hand, on the short sides of this structure there was no need for wooden pillars, and on the western wall was found a curved inner face of the unitary structure. It possibly shows a single housing for a vertical pole on the axis of the hut (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980).

some of the old ones were rebuilt with the use of wooden poles; only a few of the old buildings (such as Hut αIV) kept the architectural techniques of the hut they were superimposed on. Despite the changes in the technological choices, the topographic pattern of the settlement on the Acropolis, the distribution and the general features of the huts are only partially affected by the advent of the Ausonian phases. This superimposition of the occupation of the Acropolis is already known in the literature. Control of the territory of the archipelago is nevertheless totally different, with the complete abandonment of the settlements on the other islands and concentration in a single village on the island of Lipari. Furthermore, the presence of huts that are generally bigger than the ones from the previous phases demonstrate a different use of the households and of the internal spaces, while the absence of significant differentiations in the plan and width of the structures is more difficult to interpret due to the lack of data, although this could reflect a difference in the management and organization of the village’s socioeconomic activities.

The occurrence of wooden poles in the record from Viale dei Cipressi (Capo Graziano phase, Milazzo) could infer a possible presence of them being used for some of the structures of the oldest phases of the Acropolis of Lipari (see section 5.2), whose sequence in the layers is not always easy to detect and isolate, making the preservation of the pole pits extremely difficult. Otherwise, we should read the absence of the poles from the huts before the Ausonio II phase as a specific Aeolian architectural feature with an extremely conservative aspect. The presence of huts that differ from the average size and plan, as already highlighted in section 5.2, are mainly represented by Hut δIV in the Acropolis village (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980), the hut from Contrada Diana (Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1980), Hut 1 from San Vincenzo (Levi et al. 2009) and Hut 1 from Viale dei Cipressi (Milazzo) (Tigano 2009). Their presence is interpreted in different ways (see also section 6.4). In terms of architectural techniques, their building technology is quite similar to the smaller structures.

Overall, although there has been persistent occupation of the Acropolis of Lipari since the Middle Neolithic, the main differences are detectable from the Ausonio I to Ausonio II phase and indicate a radical change in the pattern of distribution of buildings and the technological choices made. 6.5. Food production and carrying capacity ‘Food is central to the understanding of the dynamics in a society: how was it produced? How was it stored? How was it cooked? How was it eaten?’ (Nilsson 2014, p. 223). This is mainly why archaeobotanical analyses and the evaluation of carrying capacities and food production techniques are of extreme importance in the estimation of human populations and their dynamics.

The topographic distribution of the huts is different between the Capo Graziano phases and the Milazzese phase, indicating a crucial variation in the density ratio not only in the Acropolis village, but also in all the settlements of the same phases in the archipelago (fig. 6.6). All the huts known on Salina and Filicudi—despite the different positions and oro-topographic features of the settlements—and the most ancient huts on the Acropolis show that the technological changes in this last village from the Early Bronze Age to the end of the Bronze Age are not only because of the geomorphological conditions (the presence or absence of planned areas), but also due to specific architectural choices. Since the Early Bronze Age, there was a big oval hut with an enclosure on the Acropolis (Hut δIV), and it was built by different techniques than the ones used at the end of the Bronze Age.

Three main variables were applied in the evaluation of food production on the archipelago during the Bronze Age: 1. Catchment radius and use of the soils (with or without terraces) 2. Dietary needs per person 3. Diet composition Unfortunately, model calculations with many variables must be used carefully (Sokolowski, Banks 2009). The advantage of the carrying capacity estimation in regional terms is that the basic parameters for the upper limit of the population are usually easier to determine than for local estimations, and capacity calculations can sometimes compensate for deficits in physiological archaeological sources, enlarging the perspective of the historical interpretation (see e.g. Currie et al. 2015).

The presence of wooden poles during the Ausonio II phase could be linked to technical choices that were influenced by the environmental conditions for the available materials. This technological shift indicates that the changes are probably quite intense, especially starting from the end of the Bronze Age. Many of the Ausonio II buildings were built by adopting new techniques, and

If we have other information on population pressure, the regional capacity calculation—despite all the 122

Discussion: towards a palaeodemographic model uncertainties of this methodological procedure—becomes of extraordinarily great significance.

but also for its components in terms of nutrients. To obtain this caloric ‘set’, Filo Braccio’s inhabitants’ diets were estimated starting from the archaeobotanical and archaeozoological data, as already detailed in sections 4.4 and 5.4. The diet would be represented by 50–60% cereals, 25–30% pulses and fruits, and 10–15% meat and/or milk products.

1. According to the radius considered and the possible use of terraces, the results can differ greatly (figs 4.27 and 5.25). The use of the territory on Filicudi during the Capo Graziano phases allows for an evaluation of the exploitation of 10–25 ha of productive areas for the villages of Filo Braccio and Montagnola. Lipari has a more complex system and varied territory; the radius and use of terraces can crucially influence the surface of productive areas, between 50 and more than 200 ha, especially considering there was a system of settlements in different parts of the island.

3A. The archaeobotanical data from Filo Braccio village have different degrees of preservation. Unfortunately, for the evaluation of choices for crops, a third of the cereals were not identified. The archaeobotanical data from Huts F, G and I and Area L at Filo Braccio point to a primary economy based on cereal cultivation and the exploitation of pulses and fruit plants (particularly grapevines). Assemblages in the huts show a high presence of cereals (39%) and pulses (43%), followed by 17% of Vitis vinifera (vinegrapes) and a scarce presence of Ficus carica (fig tree), Olea europaea (olive tree), Prunoideae and Maloideae (plum tree). The percentages of seeds could be significantly affected by post-depositional processes, as figs and plums are recorded only in the pit within Hut G, while in the other huts and Area L they are not found at all. Cereals are mainly represented by Hordeum sp./Hordeum vulgare (39%) (barley), while only 13% are identified as Triticum sp. (wheat). Finally, 48% of the record is identified as Cerealia or Triticum/Hordeum sp. Pulses are mainly represented by Vicia sp./Vicia faba var. minor (41%), while 18% are Lens culinaris (lentil), and some very low percentage of carpological remains are recognizable as Pisum sativum (pea) and Lathyrus sp.

Lipari’s potential carrying capacity is higher than Filicudi’s, mostly because of the morphology of the territories: Lipari is not only bigger than Filicudi, but it has also several flat areas, and the widespread occupation of its lands during the Capo Graziano phase supports the idea of a diffuse use of these resources both for agricultural and animal breeding purposes; the villages are spread over the island and can support a wider catchment basin (see also section 6.2). Nevertheless, during the Capo Graziano and Milazzese phases, demographic estimations on the settlements and roofed areas indicate different demographic pressures on the two islands, which on Lipari can be three or four times the population of Filicudi (tabs 4.7 and 4.8). If we want to consider the other islands beyond Lipari and Filicudi, the extension of the village of San Vincenzo on Stromboli is difficult to evaluate. The maximum area of geomorphological formation is approximately 6 ha, and in the Bronze Age the site most likely occupied a smaller area, maybe less than a hectare (Bettelli et al. 2016). For the Bronze Age village, a complex topographic organization emerged, which is so far unique in the protohistoric management of the Aeolian landscape. The area in question is characterized by an irregular and generally sloping surface that strongly influenced the overall organization of the settlement. Pollen analyses from the archaeological layers show that no traces of crops are detected for the Bronze Age phases, while animal breeding practices are hypothesized; furthermore, the landscape was probably very poor in terms of woodland (Rattighieri 2012). Apparently, the village, whose width and economic structure are difficult to hypothesize from a bioarchaeological and topographical point of view, could rely on local resources only for cattle, but the absence of macroremains makes this interpretation very difficult.

Due to its specific use, which has been linked to threshing and toasting procedures, the most represented cereal in Area L is Hordeum vulgare subsp. vulgare (97%) (barley). The assemblage in the silo pit behind Hut I, although not so rich in terms of its concentration, is mixed and closer to the percentage of the huts (Hordeum vulgare and Leguminosae, with lower percentages of Triticum sp. and Vitis vinifera) (see sections 4.1 and 5.1). The structures seem to have been used for about 150– 200 years each, covering a span from the second half of 2100 BC to the beginning of 1700 BC. Area L and Hut F are older than Huts G and I (fig. 6.11). Despite these differences in chronology, there is no apparent variance in the proportions of cereals or pulses linked to the chronology, and—according to the percentage of the carpological remains—the average diet could be the same throughout the village’s existence (about 500 years). The only difference is between Hut I and Hut F/G (fig. 6.12).

2. Evaluation of the daily needs in terms of calories and food properties for every inhabitant can greatly influence the estimations of regional carrying capacity.

What is quite evident is the significant reliance on barley, which is the referral species for diet calculations (one-third of the identified crop remains are barley). Nevertheless, we chose a relatively small percentage of cereals for the estimation of the Filo Braccio’s inhabitants’ diet (50%). Some estimations go up to 70%, e.g. for Neopalatial Crete, ‘we may assume that the dietary regime for ancient farmers

The choice of the value of 2440 cal/day, which we can consider almost an upper limit of the average, gives a reliable estimation for daily needs. This evaluation is difficult to assess not only in terms of absolute values, 123

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age

Fig. 6.12. Filo Braccio, ratio of main carpological remains within the huts.

consisted of 65–70 per cent cereals, 20–5 per cent fruits, pulses and vegetables, 5–15 per cent oils, meat and wine’ (Gallant 1991, p. 68), but also for Bronze Age Sardinia, with a hypothesized diet based on 70% cereals, 20% milk products and 10% pulses and other (Murgia et al. 2015). According to Christakis 2008, 300–400 litres of grain per year per person are necessary. In general, a high variety in the different cereal species and legumes can also be useful for seeding and collection throughout the year (spring, summer and fall).

most exploited cereal on the island was barley (Ucchesu et al. 2015). Triticum monococcum (einkorn) is present, and is in fact found in more records than free-threshing wheat, but always in low numbers; therefore, its status as a commensal or separate crop remains unclear. Marinova, Valamoti (2009), in their study of archaeobotanical material from northern Greece, note its predominance in both the Neolithic and Bronze Age periods, showing parallels to the Balkans, which contrasts with the emphasis on emmer (Triticum dicoccum) elsewhere in Europe and many sites in the Near East.

If we compare the Filicudi agricultural economic choices obtained from these data, showing a diet that is considerably based on the exploitation of different pulses, similar to the one in Crete during the Bronze Age, we find that lentils have the most regular occurrence and are found in reduced amounts in various contexts, which seems to be in accordance with the general picture for the whole of prehistoric Greece (Livarda, Kotsamani 2012).

Because environmental parameters cannot fully explain this pattern, the authors suggest that its dominance might be connected to culturally dictated dietary preferences that are linked to the identity, origins or contacts of the populations inhabiting the area (see also Stika, Heiss 2013). In the case of Filicudi island, both environmental and dietary preferences could explain the agricultural choices. Barley has a high yield and a good resistance in different environments, while legumes play a major role in the nitrogen-fixation processes of the soils. Residual soils (and andosols in the case of volcanic areas) prevail in the Mediterranean area, and these are usually lacking in phosphorus and nitrogen, especially when there is a long history of cropping (Foth, Ellis 1997). The elevated percentage of species (both cereals and pulses) in the archaeobotanical record could also be useful for an integrated crop rotation to stop soil depletion. Moreover,

Hulled barley, emmer and free-threshing wheat are the cereals found to be deliberately cultivated crops. The main cereal during the Early and Middle Bronze Age in Europe was barley (Hordeum vulgare). Most remains have been identified as hulled barley (Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare), with only a few being derived from naked barley (Hordeum vulgare var. nudum) (Stika, Heiss 2013). Without a reliable archaeobotanical dataset for Sicily, one interesting comparison can be made with the Sardinian economy during the Bronze Age, which has been reconstructed from several sites; in the second millennium BC, the 124

Discussion: towards a palaeodemographic model stable isotope analyses validate the idea of a complex and differentiated land use that does not preclude—but does not yet confirm—the presence of allochthonous supplies (see section 4.3).

Furthermore, wild Vitis sp. produces fairly large amounts of pollen, whereas the domesticated one, being selfpollinated, produces very little (Zohary, Hopf 2000). Despite its absence from the Stromboli pollen sequence, the fact that no pollen of this plant was detected does not suggest the local production of cultivated grapes, and no carpological remains were found in the archaeological record of the island.

Finally, pulses have a very high protein content. According to the historical data on Aeolian Archipelago yield, as opposed to Hordeum vulgare, the production of fava beans does not differ between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ yield years, but is constant throughout (VV.AA. 1936).

Data on the vegetal part of the human diet can be integrated with the carnivorous part through analysis of the faunal remains, and these have been published for the village of the Acropolis and Montagnola (Villari 1991; Villari 1995) and been preliminarily analysed for Filo Braccio (Martinelli et al. 2010); the data highlight a wide variety of animal species: the specialized exploitation of Ovis vel Capra and pigs for meat and cattle for the production of milk and workforce, together with shellfish gathering and fishing identified in Filo Braccio, assume a deep knowledge of farming and cattle techniques.

Concerning the other remains of food resources, olive stones are found only rarely in the Filo Braccio record (section 4.1). The direct botanical and archaeological evidence support the idea that the systematic exploitation of olive trees and grapevines started in the Middle Minoan period on Crete, for example (Hamilakis 1996), while it occurred later in Southern Italy (see section 7.2). Finally, the low presence of Olea europaea in the wood charcoal record of Lipari and Filicudi—although slightly more represented in the Salina record, together with the almost non-existent record of olive stones from the archaeological layers—make the exploitation of olive trees for the production of olives and oil unlikely.

The evidence of the production and processing of food resources are testified to by open-air Area L, which implies a technological and social system, one that is wider than already familiar one, even if it is not very complex. The presence of a common productive area such as Area L could indicate the existence of a common productive management of the resources. The use of a silo, with a capacity of more than 500 litres, represents the practice of subterranean crop storage systems, generally understood to be best for long-term storage; this is different from the above-ground grain storage, which is best for short-term storage (Nilsson 2014). Systems for conservation can be used for very different purposes (Cunningham 2011). Storage techniques within the same village can change over time, for example, switching from the familiar collective system to a hierarchical system at the end of the Bronze Age (such as in Coppa Nevigata, Cazzella, Recchia 2012). We do not have any absolute dating of the silo, so only the archaeological sequence indicates a difference in the chronology between this storage structure and Area L (the former is from the latter phases, like Huts G and I, while the latter has mainly layers belonging to the first phase of use of the village, fig. 6.11).

On the other hand, grape pips have the highest representation among the seed and fruit remains (almost 40% in Hut I); grapevines constitute an important resource in the diet of Filo Braccio’s inhabitants, but use of grapes as a basis for fermented drinks similar to wine cannot be sustained by any data yet (Fiorentino 2011; Fiorentino, Primavera 2015). Usually, the relatively low archaeological visibility of grapes, olives and their processing by-products may be an artefact of sampling and taphonomic parameters (see e.g. Valamoti et al. 2015). For instance, unless the crushed olive oil by-products are used as fuel or belong to a destruction level, they will not be preserved. A similar condition applies to winemaking residues. For both plants, the scenario of their post-harvest processing for oil and wine near the fields, which are areas outside the standard focus of archaeological excavation, is also a possibility. Also, containers related to oil/wine production could have been made of perishable materials (e.g. wood, skin), which are not easily preserved and thus not detected archaeologically (Livarda, Kotzamani 2012).

Storage technology enables aggregated sedentary populations to exist in places where the growing season is not year-round. Under these conditions, storage can provide the social and economic means for class differentiation and agricultural intensification (Smyth 1989). Unfortunately, few carpological remains were found inside the silo of Filo Braccio, and their composition is quite mixed, which is different from, for example, Coppa Nevigata (Fiorentino, D’Oronzo 2012), where the preservation conditions gave an understanding of how the structures were used.

The preservation of olive and grape botanical remains is less likely in storage conditions than the preservation of cereals or legumes for two main reasons: (1) most of the known processing stages of the olive and grape do not involve fire, though an exception is the process of boiling olives before crushing, a practice recorded ethnographically in Crete (e.g. Vickery 1936, p.  52); and (2) another issue that complicates the taphonomy of the olive and has implications for the archaeological investigation of the problem is the crushing of olive pits when the fruits are pressed (Hamilakis 1996).

Overall, the economic system and the use of the resources on Filicudi show that the Capo Graziano phase required exploitation of the territory that had a certain impact on the 125

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age resources and provided an autonomous potential carrying capacity of about 100 people (section 4.4).

can help the collection of rainfall water in most of the territories of the archipelago.

3B. The analysis of the data from the Acropolis village on Lipari allows further elaboration of a tentative hypothesis for the subsistence strategies at the end of the Bronze Age. The framework is more uncertain because even if the evaluation of the island’s carrying capacity is only collaterally affected by the archaeological data, the partial unreliability of the data, which were obtained from the old samples (see section 5.1 and 5.2), influences the overall reconstruction.

Archaeological data from the village of Portella allow some estimations of water availability to be made (Martinelli 2005). The containers found on Salina show a capacity of about 500 litres (of course, this is only the pottery present when the village was abandoned). If they were totally full, they could satisfy the needs of 333 people for one day, 48 people per week or 11 for a month. This is likely an extreme underestimation of the amount of water stored, assuming there were other storage systems. The data should also be calibrated using the average annual rainfall and per season. Combining these first data obtained on potential plant food and water resources, it seems difficult to imagine a village of 200 people, as suggested by Martinelli, supporting themselves; instead, we should either revise the estimate of the population or consider the possibility that not all of the resources were local. On Stromboli, some water sources were identified on the north-eastern coast, but their exploitation is still unclear (Bettelli et al. 2016).

The dataset from the Acropolis is composed of a large amount of unidentified Cerealia or Triticum/Hordeum fragments (36%), and a good amount of Triticum sp. (about 45%) was identified. Hordeum sp. and Hordeum vulgare (one subsp. vulgare and one maybe polistic) are at 11%, while the last 8% is Vitis vinifera. The species are the same as those identified for the Filo Braccio economy, although their percentages are different. However, this is a very preliminary evaluation due to the limited size of the sample. It is interesting to note that the Capo Graziano phase is the only layer where the remains of Bos taurus exceed the percentage of the remains of goat or sheep, although the percentage remains very high even in the Milazzese phase. In general, pig remains are low for all phases, while the presence of sheep is always highly represented. Compared to the mainland, however, the presence of Bos remains is consistently high (Villari 1995), while the importance of sheep or goats is the same as in Terramare contexts (De Grossi Mazzorin, Riedel 1997).

The use of the Carneiro/Allan formula is difficult when applied for the evaluation of the fallow period, whereas the Hassan ratio, together with the Hastorf system, adds archaeozoological data to the evaluation (sections 4.4 and 5.4), to give similar results according to the average yield for the current productivity of the soils—but shows a sustainability for 70–100 people on the island of Filicudi and 300–700 people for the island of Lipari. 6.6. Diachronic perspective on the occupation of the archipelago and the use of resources

The tendency in the increase of the presence of Bos taurus is not the same across all sites from the Early to the Final Bronze Age phase (Cazzella, Moscoloni 1992; Villari 1995); for example, in Southern Etruria, the percentage of cattle decreases in the Late Bronze Age while that of pigs remains unchanged (De Grossi Mazzorin, Tagliacozzo 1998). Finally, the dog is present only in the latest phase of the archaeological record (Villari 1991).

If we analyse the settlement dynamics in a diachronic sense, comparing the results of the archaeological analyses and those from the carrying capacity of the territories, we obtain a graphic that describes a trend for the two islands (fig. 6.13). The blue area indicates the range of the carrying capacity of Filicudi, evaluated using the lowest and the highest potential, and the red area indicates the same for Lipari. The light blue line describes the number of people estimated from the surface areas of the villages or the roofed areas of Filo Braccio and Montagnola on Filicudi from the Early to the Middle Bronze Age; the yellow line is the trend of Lipari from the Early to Final Bronze Age. On Filicudi, the Capo Graziano I village of Filo Braccio and the Milazzese village of Montagnola both record a higher number of people than the one sustainable only by local potential, while the Capo Graziano II population in Montagnola is apparently manageable according the average insular resources. In particular, the population for the Milazzese phase is probably about twice the selfsufficient limit of the territory.

Wild animals are extremely low compared to the standards of mainland Italy (mainly, the sporadic presence of deer); for example, in Alessandri 2013, the differences between the beginning and the end of the Bronze Age in Latium Vetus are quite evident, showing a decrease from the most ancient to the more recent phases, while the whole Bronze Age on the Aeolian Islands has the same small percentage (Villari 1991, 1995). Another prominent issue in the use of the primary resources is the capture and management of water, sometimes even considered to be the most important issue because ‘it was the domestication of water that allowed the civilisation to emerge’ (Mithen 2010). Water supplies on Filicudi are very limited, and springs are almost nonexistent (Martinelli et al. 2021); some seasonal streams are present (see section 3.2), which

The trend is the same on the island of Lipari, with a severe increase in terms of both density and absolute numbers from the Capo Graziano II to the Milazzese phase. Nevertheless, the population on Lipari is already on the 126

Discussion: towards a palaeodemographic model

Fig. 6.13. Diachronic perspective on the occupation of the archipelago and use of resources; light blue line is maximum population estimated in Filicudi island; yellow line is maximum population estimated in Lipari island; blue area is the minimum and maximum carrying capacity for Filicudi island; red area is the minimum and maximum carrying capacity for Lipari island.

limits of local resources during the Capo Graziano II phase. Then, during the Milazzese phase, the gap is quite wide, with the population being more than twice the number that the local carrying capacity could account for. The Ausonio I phase and the reconstruction of the occupation on the settlement of the Acropolis is the only time when the population reconstruction seems below the limits of the local resources, while during the Ausonio II phase the demographic pressure was probably higher again and beyond the territorial self-sustainability.

increase in terms of demographic impact and change in the management of the territories within the archipelago corresponds to a change in the environmental conditions, as highlighted by the isotopic data, indicating a trend towards drier conditions after 1500 BC (fig. 4.22). The network for the exchanges in pottery production during the Capo Graziano phases shows Lipari to be an important trade centre: Lipari products are exported to the other islands and mainland, while pottery imports are present only from Filicudi. Stromboli produces pottery, but its role is mainly that of an omporter of non-local products (from Lipari and the mainland), whereas Filicudi has local production of pottery, imports from Lipari and maybe imports from the coast, and exports to Salina as well (see section 6.2). This complex network of goods trade can be related to a possible trade of food resources, as economic independency of the islands of the archipelago is the most unlikely scenario during the Capo Graziano phases.

In terms of the demographic impact on the whole archipelago for the Early to Middle Bronze Age, the occupation of Capo Graziano I seems already to be spread out over all the islands (see section 6.2, fig. 154), but it becomes more stable starting from Capo Graziano II, when the number of villages and the number of people within each village increase (fig. 6.2, tab. 4.8). The village of Filo Braccio on Filicudi represents the main village of the first phase, with a possible reliance also on Salina, while during the development of the Capo Graziano II phase, the importance of the villages on Lipari and Stromboli grows exponentially.

The absence of differences in settlement topography, in the huts’ plans and building techniques (sections 6.3 and 6.4), and the presence of production areas such as Area L and systems of storage (section 6.5) show a collective system of trades, where management of the trades is still not structured. Less detectable is evidence of the displacement of animals from one island to another, or from or to the mainland (see section 6.3), and of animal management— for example, if transport was used for livestock (and, hypothetically, when during the animal’s life) or after butchering activities.

Basing the estimations on the whole archipelago, demographic pressure seems to grow from the Capo Graziano I phase to the Capo Graziano II and then the Milazzese phases. This trend in the demographic occupation, increasing during the Capo Graziano II phase, interestingly corresponds to moister conditions, as recognized by the isotopic data in the archaeobotanical record. More accurate studies on the use of resources for the Milazzese phase should be developed; the 127

7 Conclusions 7.1. A global evaluation of the human–environmental data on the archipelago

faunal, botanical and radiometric analyses. The Capo Graziano internal seriation has created great difficulties since its definition, due to the long chronological excursus that covered several centuries. Nevertheless, this dense and widespread occupation denotes the importance and centrality that the islands reacquired in the Bronze Age, probably from the earliest stages of the Capo Graziano culture.

The archaeological dataset for human occupation of the Aeolian Islands throughout the Bronze Age is quite well documented. Despite the territorial investigations and the need for continuous updates and better analyses, we can say that the pattern of human occupation between the end of the third millennium and the beginning of the first millennium BC is quite well defined.

The analysis of vegetal macroremains from the village of the Acropolis (Lipari) allowed for the first time a dataset of palaeoenvironmental and chronological information from this island during prehistory.

The anthracological analysis carried out provided different outcomes that are relevant for palaeoenvironmental reconstruction and for the investigation of human– landscape relations. The sites present a long sequence of occupation that makes it possible to analyse these aspects from the beginning to the end of the Bronze Age on the Aeolian Islands. The results obtained contribute to the definition of the mosaic-like vegetation that grew on the islands during recent prehistory, enriching the debate arising from previous archaeobotanical and palaeoenvironmental studies.

The framework we obtained on vegetal resources within the settlements, despite being partially incomplete due to the heterogeneity in terms of chronology and sites, is characterized by the presence of acidophilous maquis on both islands, which on Filicudi is complemented by the use of other shrubs such as Leguminosae and the high presence of Rosaceae, most of them identified as being used for fuel.

In this regard, the situation of the two sites on the two different islands (Filo Braccio on Filicudi and the Acropolis on Lipari) is interesting when considering vegetation dynamics in the specific biogeographical area of archipelago. Therefore, the reconstruction of the landscape is also enriched with data from the database on taxa and plant formations.

The distribution of the wood charcoals is quite homogeneous within the village of Filo Braccio, with some exception probably arising from their different functions. Heather is widely used, probably for the roofs, because olive trees are found within the hearths of Hut F and plum trees are used as fuel for the hearths of Area L. A selection of the species are hypothesized to also have been used for wood fuel because an elevated percentage of pines in the hearths of Contrada Diana and the Acropolis on Lipari and olive trees and plum trees in the hearths from Filicudi were recorded.

Differences in the sequence could be because of changes in the available resources, rather than major or minor environmental trends drastically transforming the vegetation in a relatively short range of time. In this regard, we tried to use the anthracological dataset to consider the complex nature of such socio-environmental practices and the role of prehistoric cultures in the shaping of the landscape of these islands.

Lipari’s record has a higher variability, with the presence of evergreen and deciduous oaks, poplars, elm trees, junipers and different species of pines. Their use as architectural elements or fuel is not always clearly definable, but the relevancy to the whole sequence of the occupation of the Acropolis showed that despite a basic common use of the species, there was a different catchment strategy over time. The widespread presence of wooden poles in Ausonio II could be linked to specific technical choices, influenced, in turn, by the environmental conditions for the available materials. Despite the changes in the technological choices, the topographic pattern of the settlement and the distribution and the general features of the huts are only partially affected by the advent of the Ausonian phases. The presence of huts that are generally larger than those from the previous phases demonstrates a different use

Furthermore, the results from the carpological remains represent another point of view of the interaction of human communities with their territory and testify to the dynamic relations and choices related to the environmental resources. The investigations in the village of Filo Braccio shed new light on this well-organized settlement regarding the occupation dynamics of the archipelago that took place from the end of the third millennium to midway through the second millennium BC; some of these discoveries were also made possible thanks to systematic archaeometric, 129

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age of the households and of the internal spaces, while the absence of significant differentiation in the plan and width of the structures is more difficult to interpret due to the lack of data, but could reflect a difference in the management and organization of socio-economic activities.

widespread not only on the archipelago, but also on the coasts of Calabria and Sicily (Tusa 1999). Settlement dynamics followed the same pattern, from a first phase of major diffusion in the territories to a progressive concentration in a few villages with a defended position.

Overall, although the persistence on the occupation of the Acropolis of Lipari is continuous almost from the Middle Neolithic, the main differences are detectable from the transition from the Ausonio I phase to the Ausonio II phase and indicate a change in technological choices.

In these dynamics, some authors also identify an internal change in the socio-economic structure, with the development of distinctive roles through the progressive control and management of the resources (Albore Livadie et al. 2003). Some of the coastal settlements appear to have been involved in direct overseas exchanges, testified to mainly by the presence of Mycenean pottery and luxury goods. At the same time, they functioned as centres for the production of valuable goods, such as metal objects. Some evidence of change within the organization of the settlements themselves includes the construction of monumental buildings and the construction or extension of fortifications, which point to an increase in the capacity of garnering labour for large-scale work. The Late Bronze Age in Southern Italy was a period of economic and political development, which entailed an increase in specialized productions and interregional exchanges and the centralization of power, especially within a series of prominent coastal settlements involved in overseas contacts (Peroni 1994; Bietti Sestieri 2010; Cardarelli 2015).

7.2. Human dynamics and use of the resources: some forethoughts in the comparison with Southern Italy during the Bronze Age The present research aims to follow other studies in the evaluation of the subsistence strategies, use of resources and palaeodemography for the prehistoric communities of the Southern Italian peninsula. In Southern Italian protohistory, research on subsistence has focused primarily on the landscape as a determining factor in the spread and development of animal husbandry (transhumant or otherwise), without considering the role of the economic and social factors in the diffusion of pastoralism as a subsistence strategy. A methodological approach that lays too much emphasis on archaeozoological datasets alone will tend to be limited in its interpretative value due to the complex and multidimensional nature of pastoralism. The Italian peninsula’s socio-economical system at the beginning of the Bronze Age was not as complex as the Aegean one, and does not exclude the presence of different centres involved in the exchange of goods (Cazzella, Moscoloni 1992).

If we want to briefly compare the Aeolian area with other proto-historic cases, Coppa Nevigata village (Manfredonia, Foggia) is an important site for the evaluation of subsistence strategies and carrying capacity for the final phase of the Early Bronze Age (late Capo Graziano II). From an archaeobotanical point of view, percentages during the Protoppenninico Recente phase are 86.7% cereals (6.3% of which are hulled wheats, 54.7% free-threshing wheats and 39% barley), 6.1% pulses and 7.2% weeds, with an high average taxonomic variability (Fiorentino, D’Oronzo 2012); the percentages are quite different from the Aeolian Archipelago ones, where pulses are highly represented (see chapter 4).

From the point of view of the pottery style, the Capo Graziano culture is a production characterized by strong Aegean influences, and in many aspects has much in common with the cultures of the Early Bronze Age of the peninsula; the pottery reveals a picture of overall homogeneity with Southern Italy, with some differences (standardized shapes, peculiar decorations) related to the condition of insularity of the context being analysed. The Capo Graziano culture is not a total break with the past then, as is the case for the most recent Ausonian phases, but seems to be a slower, more complex process of demographic, cultural and socio-economic growth, a kind of ‘dotted’ development. It is always possible to read a ‘start’—and the context of Hut F of Filo Braccio is certainly an example in this sense—but the Aegean components are better analysed and evaluated in a later phase within the whole context of the Tyrrhenian regions.

Studies on subsistence strategies have been carried out for the site of Coppa Nevigata since the 1990s. Primary economic activities were identified from the use of vegetal resources and animals. Starting from the data from Near Eastern archaeological sites, the researchers evaluated about 125–150 people per hectare, so the village would be populated by about 200 people, of which about 50 would be male adults (Cazzella, Moscoloni 1992). The two authors hypothesized a system during the Bronze Age for the exchange of goods between the sites and a redistribution network for the primary resources. Several data for the production of primary goods point to a selfsufficiency of production, notably for the crop resources. Cattle were used for labour, as shown by the killing age of the animals being quite high, probably because young animals could be the objects of exchange between the communities (Cazzella, De Grossi Mazzorin 2015). The storage system represents an interesting case study.

Looking at the beginning of the Bronze Age on the Italian peninsula with a wider lens, this general increasing demographic trend from the end of the third millennium BC for the next 500 years is quite widespread (i.e. Bietti Sestieri 2010). Between the end of the peninsular Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age, villages were 130

Conclusions The dynamics of crop storage during the 16th century BC are linked to a collective management system. Conversely, in the following centuries, cereals appear mainly to have been stored in domestic spaces, as proved by the presence of a large amount of burned seeds at two huts. Cazzella and Recchia interpret this shift as a passage to a household system for storage that started from a collective one. This would also be the result of an increasing social division of agricultural work, giving the possibility for some families to attain more than others and thus probably triggering a process of social distinction (Cazzella, Recchia 2012; 2013).

Danckers 2015), and this intensification in the production techniques would have led to a demographic growth. The catchment areas for Terramare are usually evaluated to be about 1500–2500 ha (Carra et al. 2012). Archaeological data from another small island of the Mediterranean Sea, Pantelleria, on which is Mursia village, occupied between the Early and Middle Bronze Age (18th–14th century BC), are giving new light to the settlement and subsistence strategies. New investigations are ongoing on the faunal assemblage and the reliance on some maritime resources (at least five different fish species gathered all over the year and shellfish), but mostly on pastural resources, where 82% of the remains are attributed to Ovis vel Capra; cattle played a minor role in the economic system, while pigs seem not to be significantly present in the record. Cattani hypothesized the semi-wild conditions of the animals, with no or little production of secondary products, and the remains of several young females indicate the consumption of the meat (Wilkens 1987; Tolve, Tusa 2014). This assemblage looks severely influenced by insular features because of the almost exclusive use of caprovines for the meat diet. Nevertheless, preliminary data on archaeobotanical remains reveal a cereal-based economy with a high reliance on grapes. The exploitation of local vegetation is characterized by an elevate percentage of pines (Cattani 2016; Comegna, unpublished thesis of specialization, Suor Orsola Benincasa).

An analysis of the carrying capacity of the area of Sibaritide was developed, comparing three different sites using different data sources. The archaeological sites of Broglio di Trebisacce, Torre Mordillo and Timpone della Motta were settled from the Middle Bronze Age to the end of the Bronze Age. For the first village, about 1000 people were hypothesized to have lived there (Peroni, Trucco 1994). The macrobotanical evidence, available for Broglio di Trebisacce and Torre Mordillo, indicates rain-fed crop cultivation primarily based on barley and emmer, though other grains and legumes are recorded. During the Middle Bronze Age, the subsistence strategies of all three sites relied heavily on the exploitation of ovicaprines for their milk and wool. The authors connect some variations in the subsistence strategies during the Late Bronze Age to changes in the environmental conditions, in particular a reduction in forested areas (see e.g. Vallino 1984). Olive (and perhaps grapevine) cultivation is seen for these sites starting from the Late Bronze Age. The site distribution pattern for this period indicates a growing importance of pastoralism. Broglio and Torre Mordillo relied heavily on pigs for meat (Elevelt 2012). And this is an aspect that we also find during the Ausonio II phase on Lipari, while the exploitation of wild mammals is not noted on the Aeolian Islands.

Analysing the Aeolian carpological assemblage, as previously discussed, the high percentages of Hordeum vulgare, legumes and grapevines from about 2100 to 1700 BC seems to be far different from those of the same phases in Southern Italy, and some of this can be attributed to the insularity and specificity of these territories, mainly for their ecological properties (soils, geomorphological features), but also for cultural choices. If we analyse the record from the Ausonio II phase, the trend seems instead to be the same as on the Italian peninsula at the end of the Bronze Age (Fiorentino et al. 2004; Primavera et al. 2015).

According to the faunal remains of Rocavecchia (Middle Bronze Age to Early Iron Age), throughout the Bronze Age, a strong increase in the presence of ovicaprines is noted, accompanied by a correspondingly strong fall in the presence of pigs (De Grossi, Rugge 2007). Ovicaprines in the archipelago do not increase during the Bronze Age; on the contrary, they register a slight decline.

For the most ‘precious’ products of the agricultural productions in Southern Italy (oil and wine), the Aeolian Islands have different economic strategies. The use of olive trees for the production of olives and oil is widespread, especially between the Middle and Late Bronze Age. Oleiculture is especially attested in the regional centres that were part of larger exchange networks, such as the abovementioned Broglio di Trebisacce, Torre Mordillo and Roca Vecchia, while there are no such data from the Aeolian Islands for the whole sequence. In contrast, cultivated grape remains or other indications of viticulture—which are well known for the whole Bronze Age on the archipelago— have never been found in Late Bronze Age contexts in Southern Italy; evidence of grape cultivation eventually makes its first appearance in the archaeobotanical record in Southern Italy only at the beginning of the Iron Age (Fiorentino 2004). Incidentally, we lack any firm

Despite the ecological and historical conditions being different from the Aoelian Islands, the area of Terramare has been widely studied in terms of the use of the territories for the resources. Notably, a debate about a possible shift in agricultural systems from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age has opened up in the last 20 years. According to Balista and de Guio, only at the end of the Middle Bronze Age was a complex strategy in terms of agricultural strategies adopted (as seen in the use of irrigation systems, ploughing with working animals, crop rotation, etc.) (Balista, de Guio 1997; Balista, Leonardi 2003; Bernabrò Brea et al. 1984). A more intensive system was hypothesized by other authors (see e.g. Cattani, Marchesini 2010; 131

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age evidence of viticulture or wine production in Southern Italy that can be dated to the Late Bronze Age (Lentjes, Saltini Semerari 2016).

groups may carry only a restricted range of artefact types, leading to a cultural tradition that archaeologically looks markedly different from that of the original group (Curet 2005), as can be seen in the Capo Graziano pottery.

On a very preliminary level, comparing the data we have on the storage system on the Aeolian Islands with the other Bronze Age systems, we could imagine the management of any surplus within the household as the basis, even during the Middle Bronze Age, as in Early Helladic II Thebes, where pithoi inside the houses express a multi-centric economy. The resilience of this socio-economic system in time, where staple distribution is managed collectively, could reflect one of the Bronze Age ‘colonizers’ despite its evolution in mainland Greece. A sort of communal form of storage, which is open to the members of the community and not under the control of an authority, is not included, for example, in Smyth’s models (Smyth 1989).

The widespread occupation of the archipelago reveals the new importance of the Aeolian Islands after the Copper Age phase. At the beginning of the Bronze Age and until the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, the culture of Capo Graziano spread all over the archipelago and even further, with the Viale dei Cipressi village in Milazzo as one ‘Aeolian’ enclaves on the mainland (Tigano 2009). The island of Filicudi was permanently occupied for the first time during the first phase of the Capo Graziano culture (Martinelli et al. 2009), and—even if the traditional vision of ‘Aegean colonization’ is today revised—a broken point can undoubtedly be identified. The large and well-organized settlement on the plain of Filo Braccio of Filicudi consisted of elaborate households with specific architectural techniques that require a thorough knowledge of the materials, as demonstrated by the installation of drystone linings with large dimensions using different plans and, consequently, the use of suitable roofing forms. The presence on the other islands does not seem to be as ‘structured’ as this one in terms of settlements, but could be read as temporary occupation, with a scattered distribution all over the islands of the archipelago.

On the whole, the set of documentations for Southern Italy seems to indicate a limited degree of political integration between communities that coexisted in the same territory during the Middle Bronze Age, and this is similar to a general tribal model, in which the aggregation of multiple communities is a temporary condition and is linked to situations of environmental crisis or conflict. A case of this kind, related to the southern Tyrrhenian area, could be documented by the Ausonian invasion of the Aeolian Islands and the north-eastern coast of Sicily at an early stage of the Late Bronze Age (Bietti Sestieri 2009).

To this, we add the shared system that had to exist for the production and preservation of foodstuffs: the presence of the open air Area L (a place for multiple vegetable processing systems) and the silo—surely used for the long-term storage of a large quantity of products and probably used to preserve the seeds for resowing (see e.g. Reynolds 1974)—implies a structured system both from a technological and a social point of view; the remarkable variety of plant and animal species identified, especially considering the numerous remains of cereals and legumes and the large amount of grapes, requires deep knowledge of breeding and cultivation techniques, for which we cannot exclude the use of terraced areas; the existence of vascular and non-vascular pottery that are specific to the preparation and subsequent storage of the substances inside the huts necessitates specialized art-crafting activities. All of this points to an articulated mechanism of resource management by individual housing units or family members of the village of Filo Braccio.

The Final Bronze Age (1200–900 BC) was the background for the diversified developments across Southern Italy. In many areas, the Final Bronze Age exhibited a continuation and intensification of Late Bronze Age trends, with local elites consolidating their power and expanding their productive activities. Evidence of this includes an increase in specialized productions and long-distance exchanges. Large-scale building activities concerning fortifications and public structures also continued. The Final Bronze Age also saw considerable shifts in long-distance exchanges. Contacts with the Mycenaean world gradually decreased, but this process was complex and occurred over a long period of time. 7.3. A comprehensive reconstruction for the Bronze Age: the palaeodemographic model To evaluate the human–environment dynamics during the Bronze Age and create a palaeodemographic model for the Aeolian Islands, we started from the archaeobotanical analysis of seeds and charcoals and the topographic and architectural data from the villages. This approach allowed us to assess the inferences of both the palaeoecological and economic aspects related to subsistence strategies and Bronze Age landscape and resources on an insular context.

For the Aeolian Islands, what can give distorted perspectives or unreliable reconstructions is the extremely strong link that the archipelago today has with the coast (and could have had during the Bronze Age). The seasonal isolation, due to weather conditions and seafaring issues, could have blocked the population on the continental coasts or, vice versa, on the islands for weeks, a picture that is not unusual even today for the inhabitants of the archipelago. This potential seasonal or temporary isolation should be considered in the reconstruction of a shared economic system between the islands or the islands and the coast and in the development of the storage systems.

Since the beginning of the Bronze Age, human communities have tended to occupy these territories quite diffusely. Their arrival on the archipelago is affected by the so-called founder effect, meaning that archaeologically, migrant 132

Conclusions Applying the demographic methods discussed in section 6.1 to the island of Filicudi, it is possible to evaluate a potential for the autonomous management of the resources for about 100 people; for the island of Lipari, it would be for about 400 people (see chapter 6). According to the available data on the prehistoric occupation of the archipelago, the demographic balance has clearly varied over the millennia, from the almost total disappearance of human communities on the minor islands—for example, from the end of the Bronze Age until the Roman times—to registering a higher presence, both on large timescales, as during the Modern era before the great migrations of the twentieth century, and today during the holiday season, when the population, especially on the smallest islands, can jump to five or six times that seen during the winter.

use of resources is apparently more similar to the Italian peninsula (low grapevine representation and higher representation of hulled and free-threshing wheat). The presence of such a wide range of cereals and pulses, which is in part absent from the record known for Italy and Sicily in the previous phases, could be an indication of a very complex and varied system of cultivation, processing and conservation of plant resources; the high number of grape seeds, already present in Sicily and Southern Italy in earlier contexts, is extremely significant and requires further investigations for a more precise interpretation. However, it should be excluded that the differences within the percentages of carpological remains in Filo Braccio village are the result of different practices from one hut to another; Vitis vinifera is probably seen as a ‘normal fruit’, and is found everywhere, but is not yet linked to wine consumption.

Furthermore, we must consider what a stable population means: it would be like considering the number of residents today—many of them, such as students and young workers, live in other cities mainly in Northern Italy—with the real number of people spending most of their lives in the archipelago. Any demographic reconstruction, despite the great differences from the modern system of population displacement today, should consider the possibility of a non-stable (year-round) occupation.

The model derived from socioeconomic surveys at the end of 18th and 19th centuries (Hammer, Laghetti 2006) highlights the tendency to use cereal cultivation (barley and wheat) as representative of collective agricultural systems on one of the islands to integrate the smallscale productions of the other islands; this differentiation does not affect the pulses, which is typical of familiar horticulture, which are present in different amounts on all the islands.

Finally, a short-radius system of mobility among the islands should be taken into account that, just like today, allows people to have several ‘pieds-à-terre’ on more than one island and also on the mainland (especially the Milazzo area). This could result in an overestimate of the number of people based on the occupied or built surface, which would not correspond to the real number of residents.

In addition, the animal breeding system was probably managed according to a communitarian system. The data from the pollen analyses of San Vincenzo also indicate a possible reliance of the village on external sources for crops (see section 6.5). Finally, crossing the archaeological data with the archaeometric data (see sections 4.3.4 and 5.3.4), new light can be shed on the short-range displacements: the analyses of Capo Graziano I pottery from Filo Braccio show that almost all the products were locally made, while, starting from the Capo Graziano II phase, it is more appropriate to see the production and distribution of pottery as a network with several dynamics of interchange. Pottery from Montagnola village is still mainly locally produced, with some imports from Lipari and the northern coast of Sicily. Some of the pottery from San Vincenzo village comes from Southern Italy, and analyses from Salina show that vases are both local and imported (in Contrada Megna, one vase was found that was produced on Lipari, while a Capo Graziano sherd from the top of Portella village is of local production). In the Early Bronze Age site of Messina, there is an imported vase from Filicudi; a pithos from Viale dei Cipressi village is imported from Lipari, while decorated pottery was of local production. Furthermore, the wreck of Pignataro di Fuori near Lipari could indicate a displacement of pottery from Lipari to Filicudi, while the presence of clay banks within the village indicates local production.

Considering the remains of fruits and seeds from Filo Braccio village, pulses have an important role in the diet (20–50%), while cereals (especially barley) are found at a constant level within all the huts (12–17%) and are extremely high in Area L (more than 90%); grape pips are widespread in all the contexts, at around 7–12%. The record for carpological remains is therefore not homogeneous within the village, not only for the differences between the huts and Area L, but also among the huts. Huts F and G are generally similar, while Hut I is markedly different regarding its major presence of Vitis vinifera and lower presence of pulses. Thus, looking at the Filo Braccio village economy, there is a high percentage of barley, pulses and grapevines from about 2100 to 1700 BC; this assemblage seems to be close to the ones of the same phases in Southern Italy, with some differences due to the insularity and specificity of these territories (see e.g. Primavera et al. 2015). The ‘suggestion’ we have from the ancient phase of Lipari’s Acropolis is that economic strategies could be similar on the two islands during the same chronological phase, while in the Late Bronze Age (1200–900 BC), the

The reworking of the published curve on palaeoclimatic variations allows the identification of an undoubtedly local 133

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age signal and defines the Aeolian palaeoclimatic fluctuations throughout the Early and Middle Bronze Age; through the use of this curve, a defined moisture pattern is established as a local framework in the study of palaeoeconomic and human settlement dynamics. The revision of the isotopic data describes and confirms the range already highlighted for the Capo Graziano and Milazzese phases (sections 4.3.2 and 5.3.2).

verify the presence of a network among all the settlements on the archipelago during the same phase; variability and diversity are often evident in the archaeological record. Changes and intensification in the agricultural system are not caused by any single factor, such as population pressure. Instead, they may be influenced by a variety of demographic, social and economic factors (McClatchie 2014).

Points of the old curve, obtained through the δ13C values of caryopses and fruits, represent a wider signal in terms of chronology and distributional area. Changes in the newly edited curve—whose interpretation remains of local significance—involve the first part of the sequence because it starts later during the Capo Graziano I phase (~1950 BC). One of the peaks of more arid conditions at the end of Capo Graziano II (~1750 BC) is not visible, confirming that the trend to moister conditions started slightly before (Speciale et al. 2016).

A primary question on subsistence is difficult to answer: what water supply is needed to support a village inhabited by hundreds of people and animals on an island with few or no autonomous resources such as Filicudi one? The presence of water sources on the island is definitely one interesting debate that is not yet resolved. In the complex deposit layout of the Aeolian volcanic apparatus and of the structural features of the volcanic edifices, where the variations are considerable from place to place, water infiltration permeates easily into the ground, resulting in flow down to lower altitudes that follow very variable directions, finally constituting a freshwater roof of limited thickness that floats above the denser salty seawater.

A significant result coming from the Aeolian sites is the presence of grape pips, recorded all over the archipelago (Portella for the Middle Bronze Age and the Acropolis of Lipari for the Late Bronze Age), but especially in Filo Braccio since the very first phases of Capo Graziano I. Grape pips have been found on small and large islands of the Central Mediterranean—Tas-Silg (Fiorentino et al. 2013) and Muculufa (Costantini 1990) in the Sicilian Channel and Vivara (Costantini et al. 2001) and some coastal Tyrrhenian Sea sites—between the first half of the second millennium and the 14th century BC; by the end of the second millennium, it spreads to the rest of Southern Italy (Fiorentino et al. 2004). This could open new perspectives into the role of Aegean people in the diffusion of fermented drinks in the Central and Western Mediterranean. Nevertheless, even if olives and oil are not a primary resource for these communities, grapevines are definitely important as a daily diet resource.

Therefore, despite being in a very wet environment, particularly in the autumn and winter period, on the Aeolian Islands, freshwater accumulation that may give rise to subterranean aquifers capable of being largely exploited is improbable. The Aeolian Islands are characterized by an endemic shortage of water bodies, as well as hydrogeological resources. Nevertheless, this condition does not prevent the formation of the lush greenery that is found on most of the islands because the frequent rains allow for water to be carried to the superficial part of agricultural soil by capillarity, which manages to retain part of the water needed for the presence of vegetation (reserved flow). Several seasonal flows are present on the territory of the archipelago (which today represent a main problem with the hydrogeological asset).

No specific identification of the socio-economic structures in Aeolian villages can be made before the end of the Bronze Age. The management of the staple resources was probably based on a diffuse system. We can also imagine a collective management of the farmland, which could be a specific distribution of the plots. For the production of extra staple foods, storage has traditionally been viewed from two different perspectives of ‘surpluses’. The first envisions the acquisition of a surplus by overproduction under conditions of subsistence abundance. The second view emphasizes productive ‘stress’, resulting in subsistence shortage brought on by any number of conditions, including overpopulation, warfare and agricultural disaster (Smyth 1989). For example, on an island such as Crete during the Bronze Age, storage was practised, and the management of primary resources was probably one of the vectors of the emergence of social rankings (Halstead, O’Shea 1982).

For the island of Filicudi, areas such as Valle Fontana on the north-eastern coast probably experienced a moderate supply of water. Lipari, with its more varied landscape, has more water sources than Filicudi (Martinelli et al. 2021). Torrential rivers are still very common all over the territory, especially on the northern coast of Quattropani, the whole western coast of the Castellaro plain and the eastern slope of Monte Sant’Angelo. Furthermore, phenomena such as ‘hidden precipitation’ can provide local vegetation with a fundamental supplementary source of water. All these features make the presence of some more mesophilous species sustainable in terms of the ecological conditions. Overall, comparing palaeodemographic data processed through the yield of soils with those estimated through the surface areas of the villages and all the other disposable data led to the first hypothesis on the relationship between

It is clear that the causes and paths of an agricultural system and its changes can be complex, especially if we want to 134

Conclusions soil yield, local resources and the population of the villages.

estimates for this phase are thus four or five times those of the previous phase, and are well beyond the limits of the estimated insular carrying capacity (fig. 6.13). For the end of the Bronze Age, the analysis of the village of the Acropolis opens up new questions regarding the Ausonian I and II occupation.

Filicudi is known for villages that underwent three stages of change in the Capo Graziano I, II and Milazzese phases; the estimated population changed for every phase, with a small reduction during the Capo Graziano II phase. The potential yield of the territory is limited when it comes to self-sustainment because of the maximum yield of the soils, which is largely below the subsistence level in the case of low-yielding years, even taking into account the use of terraces.

The provenance of the ‘invaders’ of the first and second phases is debated, but is probably different: in the first wave of occupation of the archipelago, the invasion of the Aeolian Islands was by peninsular groups from Calabria. However, the following two phases of the Lipari Acropolis may have different meanings: if Ausonian I testifies to a sub-Appenninic peninsular facies that is very poorly articulated and seemingly refractory to inter-regional contacts, then this is not so for the later Ausonian II phase, when the presence of elements from the Adriatic, Nuragic and Peninsular, in addition to those from the Aegean, is known (Zanini 2012). This framework is affected by the picture of regional instability and conflict that involved the Mediterranean at the end of the second millennium BC, a time when even local and regional shifts in the climatic variations—detected on the same archipelago through isotope analysis that generally tended towards more arid conditions—could be considered within the general picture of the Mediterranean area.

If the isotope data are added, the comparison between the values of the caryopses and the wood charcoals— representing the local isotopic imprint—show that the cereals of Huts F and I of Filo Braccio probably increased with the water supply, whether by rain or through irrigation, different from that experienced by the local vegetation. The presence on Filicudi of cereals grown under different ecophysiological conditions therefore supports the idea of a complex and differentiated management of the territory and does not exclude the sporadic use of non-local resources. If we consider the data from the written sources of the 19th century, it is evident that the inter-island economic system within the archipelago and with Southern Italy in the preindustrial age was complex and differentiated.

Both the first wave of invaders and the second chose the sole occupation of Lipari, which is the most suitable in terms of resources and would have had to rely little on the other islands because it was probably capable of sustaining a community, especially for the Ausonian I phase, when the village seems quite limited in terms of surface area. The occupation of a unique island gave no need for maritime frequent displacements, at least in terms of primary resources.

Cereal production in the archipelago was inadequate for the needs of the population, which involved getting resources from Naples and Sicily, although there is a total population of 12,000–14,000 individuals, which is much larger than the one assumed during the Bronze Age. Among the islands, Filicudi, Alicudi, Panarea and Vulcano produced more cereals than grapevines; Filicudi and Alicudi were mainly intended for ‘grains’, while Salina was highly developed for arboriculture. Among the imports, wheat prevailed—locally produced wheat was sufficient for only half a year. Filicudi, Alicudi and Vulcano produced over 100 quintals a year, almost all of which was exported to Lipari, as well as to Salina and Stromboli. Lipari’s territory was employed in the cultivation of several resources, but mainly for the exploitation of fruit trees, grapevines and horticulture, which was the only island exploited for the latter purpose.

Subsistence strategies, recognizable mostly through an analysis of archaeobotanical assemblages from a diachronic perspective, can vary from several causes linked to the environmental, technological, cultural, social and symbolic spheres. An integrated approach in which the shifting assemblages of plant macroremains are considered in light of climatic and environmental variations, as well as sociocultural dynamics, may therefore shed some light on the changes detected in food habits (Primavera et al. 2015). Curet identified five different settings that can define cultural differences: textile manufacture; domestic architecture layout and spatial organization; food preferences; ceramic manufacture; and the construction of domestic installations and wall and roof construction techniques (Curet 2005, p.  59). So the reconstruction of the change hypothesized here in the subsistence and settlement strategies throughout the Bronze Age on the archipelago was not only before and after the arrival of the ‘Ausonian people’, but even more so between the Ausonian I and II phases; the continuity in the occupation of the Acropolis is almost uninterrupted since the Middle Neolithic, but there are several changes in terms of the technological features and aesthetical choices for pottery,

At the end of the Middle Bronze Age (the Milazzese phase), villages are mainly concentrated on the islands of Salina (Portella), Lipari (Acropolis), Panarea (Punta Milazzese) and Filicudi (Montagnola). On first analysis, the demographic impact is higher than during the Capo Graziano phases, with a diminution in terms of number of villages and occupation of the territories; density is consistently higher than during the Capo Graziano phases and—even if the total surface of the villages is only 5 ha— the distribution of the huts is crucially changed from the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, becoming up to four times denser than in the Capo Graziano I phase. Population 135

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age of demographic pressure (total abandonment of the other islands), of economic systems for crops and legumes (if data from the Acropolis can be considered representative), in the use of the wood species, in the building techniques and in the faunal remains assemblages. The use of the territory, especially considering architectural adoptions and breeding choices, with the high and exclusive presence of cattle and pigs, seems completely different when compared to the reconstruction of the management of the resources during the previous phases.

results according to the catchment strategies and human interventions on the landscape.

No specific identification of socio-economic structure in Aeolian villages can be made before the end of the Bronze Age from just an analysis of their production and storage systems. The structure looks quite egalitarian, with a diffuse management of the staple resources. We can imagine also a collective management of the farmland with a specific distribution of the plots.

This hypothesis originates primarily from:

If we consider the data from the written sources of the 19th century, it is evident that the inter-island economic system within the archipelago and with Southern Italy in the preindustrial age was complex and differentiated. We propose the existence of a network for short displacements during the Capo Graziano phases due to the exchange of staple products, one not linked to the network for luxury goods.

• the widespread presence of human communities on all the islands (and spread across most of the territories of the main islands, such as on Salina and Lipari) and on the area of Milazzo; • the demographic pressure on the resources of the single islands, in some cases beyond their carrying capacity considering the economic system; • the existence of a network for pottery, as shown by archaeometric analyses; and • the isotopic analyses of barley and local vegetation that could indicate the existence of a network .

The suggestion we have from the few carpological remains of Lipari Acropolis is that economic strategies could be similar on the two islands during the same chronological phase (Capo Graziano), while in the Late Bronze Age (1200–900 BC) the use of resources is apparently very similar to that of the Italian peninsula (few grapevines, with a higher representation of hulled and free-threshing wheat).

Finally, for the end of the Bronze Age, the analysis of the village of the Acropolis opens new questions regarding the Ausonian I and II occupation. The drastic change was seen not only before and after the arrival of ‘Ausonian people’, but even more so between Ausonian I and II; the continuity in the occupation of the Acropolis is almost uninterrupted since the Middle Neolithic, but there are several changes in terms of the technological features and aesthetical choices for pottery, demographic pressure (total abandonment of the other islands), economic systems for crops and legumes (if data from Acropolis can be considered representative), the use of the wood species, the building techniques and faunal remains assemblages.

The demographic estimations and settlement evaluations for the prehistoric villages of Filo Braccio, the Acropolis and the whole archipelago during the Capo Graziano phase were developed through two different approaches. One was more specifically ‘archaeological intrasite’, and was based mainly on the traditional methods of assessing the settlements’ contexts: total surfaces of villages, the use of the huts and their internal subdivisions for activities. The second one was based on the use of the territory, its resources and its carrying capacity, and three main variables were applied: catchment radius and use of the soils (with or without terraces), dietary needs per person and diet composition.

The elaboration on the new palaeodemographic model for the archipelago, analysed through the use of the available data, is thus obtainable only thanks to the comparison of different proxies (archaeology and demography) from the territorial, topographic and architectural context of the settlements with those from the potential resources of the geographical areas these settlements are located on. For the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age and their reliance on a subsistence economy system, archaeobotanical data represent the bridge between these two macro-subjects and the necessary starting point.

The evaluation of the resilience capacity of the Aeolian Archipelago during the Bronze Age was considered in relation to a series of environmental and anthropogenic variables. Starting from the archaeological data, a widespread occupation of the archipelago during the Capo Graziano II phase gives an evaluation of the potential human impact in terms of less than 2000 people (basing the estimates on at least 250 people on Filicudi and at least 600 on Lipari). In conclusion, considering the short radius and the absence of terraces, apparently none of the three islands of Lipari, Salina and Filicudi could be self-sufficient in terms of resource availability during the Early and Middle Bronze Age. However, although Filicudi does not seem autonomous even when exploiting the resources of the whole territory, Lipari and Salina give different

136

References Abelli L., Agosto M.V., Casalbore D., Romagnoli C., Bosman A., Antonioli F., Pierdomenico M., Sposato A., Latino Chiocci F. 2014. Marine geological and archaeological evidence of a possible pre-Neolithic site in Pantelleria Island, Central Mediterranean Sea. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 411: 97–110.

Amigues S. 1989. Théophraste. Recherches sur les plantes. Tome I. Livres I-II. L’antiquité classique 58, 1: 288–91. Ammerman A.J. 1975. Late Pleistocene population alternatives. Human Ecology 3, 4: 219–33. Ammerman A.J., Cavalli-Sforza L.L., Wagener D.K. 1976. Toward the estimation of population growth in Old World prehistory. In Zubrow E. (ed.). Demographic Anthropology: Quantitative Approaches. University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque, USA: 27–61.

Acsády G., Nemeskéri J., Balás K. 1970, History of human life span and mortality. Akadémiai Kiadó: Budapest, Hungary.

Anderson A. 2004. Islands of ambivalence, in Fitzpatrick 2004: 251–74.

Agodi S., Mazzoleni P., Procelli E. 2006. Ceramiche di importazione in Sicilia durante l’antico Bronzo: vecchi problemi e nuove proposte. In VV.AA. (eds.). Materie prime e scambi nella preistoria italiana. Atti della Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria 39, II. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria: Firenze, Italy: 1085–91.

Angel J.L. 1969. The bases of paleodemography. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 30: 427–37. Anthony D. 1990. Migration in archaeology: the baby and the bathwater. American Anthropologist 92, 4: 895– 914.

Albanese Procelli R. M., Lo Schiavo F., Martinelli M.C., Vanzetti A. 2004. La Sicilia. Articolazioni cronologiche e differenziazioni locali. In Cocchi Genick D. (ed.). L’età del Bronzo Recente in Italia. Baroni Edizioni: Viareggio, Italy: 313–26.

Antonioli F., D’Orefice M., Ducci S., Firmati M., Foresi L.M., Graciotti R., Pantaloni M., Perazzi P., Principe C. 2011. Palaeogeographic reconstruction of northern Tyrrhenian coast using archaeological and geomorphological markers at Pianosa island (Italy). Quaternary International 232, 1–2: 31–44.

Albore Livadie C., Cazzella A., Marzocchella A., Pacciarelli M. 2003. La struttura degli abitati del Bronzo antico e medio nelle Eolie e nell’Italia meridionale. In VV. AA. (eds.). Le comunità della Preistoria italiana, in memoria di Luigi Bernabo Brea. Atti della Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria 35. Istituto di Preistoria e Protostoria: Firenze, Italy: 113–42.

Anzidei M., Bosman A., Casalbore D., Tusa S., La Rocca R. 2015. New insights on the subsidence of Lipari island (Aeolian Islands, Southern Italy) from the submerged Roman age pier at Marina Lunga. Quaternary International 401: 162–73. Aranguren B., Revedin A. 1998. Il giacimento mesolitico di Perriere Sottano. Bolletttino di Paletnologia Italiana 89, 31: 79.

Alcock S.E., J.F. Cherry (eds.) 2004. Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World. Oxbow Books: Oxford, UK.

Ardesia V., Cattani M., Marazzi M., Nicoletti F., Tusa S. 2006. Gli scavi nell’abitato dell’Età del Bronzo di Mursia, Pantelleria (TP). Relazione preliminare delle campagne 2001–2005. Rivista Scienze Preistoriche 56: 293–367.

Alcover J.A. 2008. The First Mallorcans: Prehistoric Colonization in the Western Mediterranean. Journal of World Prehistory 21: 19–84. Alessandri L. 2013. Latium vetus in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. Il Latium vetus nell’età del Bronzo e nella prima età del Ferro. BAR Publishing: Oxford, UK.

Arnold J., Martin L. 2014. Botanical Evidence of Paleodietary and Environmental Change: Drought on the Channel Islands, California. American Antiquity 2: 227–48.

Allen M.S. 1989. Archaeobotanical assemblages from the Anahulu Rockshelters. In Kirch P. V. (ed.). Prehistoric Hawaiian Occupation in the Anahulu Valley, O`ahu Island: Excavations in Three Inland Rockshelters, Berkeley. Contributions of the University of California, Archaeological Research Facility Report 47: 83–102.

Asch D.L., Farnsworth K. B., Asch N.B. 1979. Woodland subsistence and settlement in West Central Illinois. In Brose D.S., Greber N. (eds.). Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference. Kent State University Press: Kent, UK: 80–85.

137

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age Ascher R. 1959. A Prehistoric Population Estimate Using Midden Analysis and Two Population Models. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 15, 2: 168–78.

International Journal of Research into Island Cultures 4, 1: 16–26. Berman M.J., Pearsall D.M. 2000. Plants, People, and Culture in the Prehistoric Central Bahamas: A View from the Three Dog Site, an Early Lucayan Settlement on San Salvador Island, Bahamas. Latin American Antiquity 11, 3: 219–39.

Athens J.S., Ward J.V. 1992. Environmental Change and Prehistoric Polynesian Settlement in Hawaii. Asian Perspectives 32, 2: 205–23. Bacci Spigo U., Martinelli M.C. 1996. Dieci anni al Museo eoliano, 1987–1996: ricerche e studi. Regione siciliana, Assessorato regionale dei beni culturali, ambientali e della P. I.: Palermo, Italy.

Bernabò Brea L. 1985. Gli Eoli e l’inizio dell’età dei metalli del Bronzo nelle isole Eolie e nell’Italia meridionale. Istituto Universitario Orientale: Napoli, Italy.

Bacci Spigo U., Martinelli M.C. 2000. L’insediamento dell’età del Bronzo in via La Farina Is. 158 a Messina: lo scavo 1992. Origini 22: 195–250.

Bernabò Brea L. 1988. L’età del Rame nell’Italia insulare: la Sicilia e le isole Eolie. Rassegna di Archeologia 7: 469–506.

Bakels C. 2001. Plant remains from Sardinia, Italy with notes on barley and grape. Vegetational History and Archaeobotany 11: 3–8.

Bernabò Brea L., Cavalier M. 1960. La stazione preistorica della contrada Diana e la necropoli prorostorica di Lipari. Meligunìs Lipàra I. Regione siciliana, Flaccovio Editore: Palermo, Italy.

Baker P. T., Sanders W.T. 1972. Demographic Studies in Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology 1: 1–424.

Bernabò Brea L., Cavalier M. 1968. Stazioni preistoriche delle isole Panarea, Salina e Stromboli. Meligunìs Lipára III. Regione Sicilia, Flaccovio Editore: Palermo, Italy.

Balista C., de Guio A. 1997. Ambiente ed insediamenti dell’età del Bronzo nelle grandi valli veronesi. In Bernabò Brea M., Cardarelli A., Cremaschi M. (eds.). Le terramare: la più antica civiltà padana, Catalogo della mostra. Electa: Milano, Italy.

Bernabò Brea L., Cavalier M. 1980. L’acropoli di Lipari nella preistoria. Meligunìs Lipara IV. Regione Siciliana, Flaccovio Editore: Palermo, Italy.

Balista C., Leonardi G. 2003. Le strategie d’insediamento tra II e inizio I millennio a.C. in Italia settentrionale centro-orientale. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria: Firenze, Italy.

Bernabò Brea L., Cavalier M. 1990. La tholos termale di San Calogero nell’isola di Lipari. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 28: 7–84. Bernabò Brea L., Cavalier M. 1991. Filicudi: insediamenti dell’Età del Bronzo, Meligunìs Lipára VI. Regione siciliana, Flaccovio Editore: Palermo, Italy.

Barbera G., Cullotta S., Rossi-Doria I., Rühl J., Rossi-Doria B. 2009. I paesaggi a terrazze in Sicilia: metodologie per l’analisi, la tutela e la valorizzazione. Collana Studi e Ricerche dell’Arpa Sicilia, 7.

Bernabò Brea L., Cavalier M. 1992. Isole Eolie. Vulcanologia e Archeologia. Oreste Ragusi Edizioni, Muggiò: Italia.

Barbera G., Biasi R., Marino D. 2014 (eds.). I paesaggi agrari tradizionali. Un percorso per la conoscenza. Franco Angeli Editore: Milano, Italy.

Bernabò Brea L., Cavalier M. 1995. Salina. Ricerche archeologiche (1989–1993), Meligunìs Lipára VIII. Regione siciliana, Flaccovio Editore: Palermo, Italy.

Bartosiewicz L., Lillie M. 2015, Subsistence Practices in Central and Eastern Europe. In Fowler C., Harding J., Hofmann D. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK: 411–28.

Bernabò Brea M., Cardarelli A., Cremaschi M., 1987. Le Terramare dell’area centropadana: problemi culturali e paleoambientali. In VV. AA. Preistoria e Protostoria nel bacino del basso Po, Atti del Convegno di Ferrara. Belriguardo: Ferrara, Italy: 147–92.

Basile M. 1995. Linee storico-evolutive della consistenza della popolazione nelle isole Eolie. In Todesco S. (ed.), Atlante dei beni etnoantropologici eoliani. EDAS: Messina, Italy: 397–401. Bocquet-Appel J.-P. (ed.) 2008. Recent Advances in Palaeodemography. Data, Techniques, Patterns. Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, Netherlands: 1–8.

Bettelli M., Cannavò V., Di Renzoni A., Ferranti F., Levi S.T. 2016. L’età del Bronzo a Stromboli: il villaggio terrazzato di San Vincenzo come avamposto nordorientale dell’arcipelago eoliano. Scienze dell’Antichità 22.2: 297–313.

Bell A.V., Currie T.E., Irwin G., Bradbury C. 2015. Driving factors in the colonization of Oceania: Developing island-level statistical models to test competing hypotheses. American Antiquity 80, 2: 397–407.

Bevan A., Conolly J. 2011. Terraced fields and Mediterranean landscape structure: an analytical case study from Antikythera, Greece. Ecological Modelling 222: 1303–14.

Berg I. 2010. Re- capturing the Sea. The Past and Future of ‘Island Archaeology’ in Greece. Shima: The

Bevan A., Conolly J. 2013. Mediterranean Fragility and Persistence. Antikythera’s Island Communities. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. 138

References Bietti Sestieri A.M. 1982. Implicazioni del concetto di territorio in situazioni culturali complesse. Le Isole Eolie nell’età del bronzo. Dialoghi di Archeologia 4, 2: 39–59.

Braje T., Leppard T., Fitzpatrick S., Erlandson J. 2017. Archaeology, historical ecology and anthropogenic island ecosystems. Environmental Conservation 44, 3: 286–97.

Bietti Sestieri A.M. 2009. L’età del Bronzo Finale nella penisola italiana. Padusa 44: 7–54.

Broodbank C. 1989. The longboat and society in the Cyclades in the Keros-Syros culture. American Journal of Archaeology 93: 319–37.

Bietti Sestieri A.M. 2010. L’età del Bronzo e del Ferro: dalle palafitte a Romolo (2200–700 a.C.). Carocci Editore: Roma, Italy.

Broodbank C. 1993. Ulysses without sails: trade, distance, knowledge and power in the early Cyclades. World Archaeology 24: 315–31.

Bietti Sestieri A.M., De Santis A., Baroni I., Minniti C., Recchia G. 2002. La struttura dell’età del Ferro di Fidene, in C. Peretto (ed.), Analisi informatizzata e trattamento dati delle strutture di abitato di età preistorica e protostorica in Italia. Origines: Firenze, Italy.

Broodbank C. 1999. The insularity of island archaeologists: comments on Rainbird’s ‘Islands out of time.’ Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12: 235–39. Broodbank C. 2000. An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

Binford L.R. 1972. An archaeological perspective. Seminar Press: New York, USA.

Broodbank C. 2006. The Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activity. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 19, 2: 199–230.

Binford S.R., Binford L.R. 1968. New perspectives in archaeology. American Anthropological Association, Aldine: Chicago, USA.

Broodbank C. 2013. The Making of the Middle Sea: A History of the Mediterranean from the Beginning to the Emergence of the Classical World. Thames and Hudson: London, UK.

Bintliff J.L. 2008. History and Continental Approaches. In Bentley R.A., Maschner H.D. (eds.). Handbook of Archaeological Theories. Altamira Press: Lanham, New York, Toronto, Plymouth, USA, Canada and UK: 147–64.

Brunelli D., Levi S.T., Fragnoli P, Renzulli A., Santi P., Paganelli E., Martinelli M.C. 2013. Bronze Age pottery from the Aeolian Islands: definition of Temper Compositional Reference Units by an integrated mineralogical and microchemical approach. Applied Physics A 113: 855–63.

Birdsell J.B. 1975. A preliminary report on new research on man-land relations in aboriginal Australia. In Swedlund A.C. (ed.). Population Studies in Archaeology and Biological Anthropology: A Symposium. American Antiquity 40, 2: 34–37.

Brush S.B. 1975. The Concept of Carrying Capacity for Systems of Shifting Cultivation. American Anthopologist 77, 4: 799–811.

Blackburn T.M., Cassey P., Duncan R.P., Evans K.L., Gaston K.J. 2004. Avian extinctions and mammalian introductions on oceanic islands. Science 305: 1955– 58.

Burch T.K. 1972. Some demographic determinants of average household size: an analytic approach. Demography 7, 1: 61–69.

Blanton R.E. 1994. Houses and households: a comparative study. Plenum Press: New York, USA.

Burjachs F., Pérez-Obiol R., Picornell-Gelabert L., Revelles J., Servera-Vives G., Expósito I., Yll E.I. 2017. Overview of environmental changes and human colonization in the Balearic Islands (Western Mediterranean) and their impacts on vegetation composition during the Holocene. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 12: 845–59.

Bocquet-Appel J.P. 2008. The Neolithic Demographic Transition, Population Pressure and Cultural Change. Comparative Civilization Review 58, 6. Bocquet-Appel J.P., Masset C.L. 1982. Farewell to paleodemography. Journal of Human Evolution 11: 321–33.

Butzer K.W. 1971. Environment and Archaeology: An Ecological Approach to Prehistory. Aldine-Atherton: Chicago, USA.

Bocquet-Appel J.P., Masset C.L. 1996. Paleodemography: Expectancy and false Hope. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 99: 571–83.

Butzer K.W. 1982. Archaeology as Human Ecology: Method and Theory for a Contextual Approach. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

Bonanno A. 2008. Insularity and isolation: Malta and Sicily in Prehistory. In Bonanno A., Militello P. (eds.). Malta in the Hybleans, the Hybleans in Malta. Malta negli Iblei, gli Iblei a Malta. Officina di Studi Medievali: Catania, Italy: 27–37.

Butzer K.W. 2005. Environmental history in the Mediterranean world: cross-disciplinary investigation of cause-and-effect for degradation and soil erosion. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 1773–800.

Boserup E. 1965. The conditions of agricultural growth: the economics of agrarian change under population pressure. Allen & Unwin: London, UK. 139

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age Byrne C., Dooley T., Manne T., Paterson A., Dotte‐ Sarout E. 2020. Island survival: The anthracological and archaeofaunal evidence for colonial‐era events on Barrow Island, north‐west Australia. Archaeology in Oceania 55: 15–32.

Cavalier M. 1981. Villaggio preistorico di San Vincenzo. Stromboli. Sicilia Archeologica 46–47: 27–54. Cazzella A., Levi S.T., Williams J.L. 1997. The petrographic examination of impasto pottery from Vivara and the Aeolian Islands: a case for inter-island pottery exchange in the Bronze Age of Southern Italy. Origini 21: 187–205.

Calanchi N., Lo Cascio P., Lucchi F., Rossi P. L., Tranne C.A. 2007. Guida ai vulcani e alla natura delle Isole Eolie, LIPARI (ME). Regione Sicilia: Lipari, Italy.

Cazzella A., Recchia G. 2004. Spazi abitativi tradizionali: una riconsiderazione del potenziale informativo per l’interpretazione dei contesti archeologici. In Barogi M., Lugli F. (eds.). Atti del II Convegno Nazionale di Etnoarcheologia, Rimini. BAR Publishing: Oxford, UK: 221–31.

Cannavò V., Photos-Jones E., Levi S. T., Brunelli D., Fragnoli P., Lomarco G., Lugli F., Martinelli M.C., Sforna M.C. 2017. p-XRF analysis of multi-period Impasto and Cooking Pot wares from the excavations at Stromboli-San Vincenzo, Aeolian Islands, Italy. STAR: Science & Technology of Archaeological Research 3, 2: 326–33.

Cazzella A., Recchia G. 2012. Sicilia, Eolie, Malta e le reti di scambio tra gli ultimi secoli del III e gli inizi del I millennio a.C. Atti della XLI Riunione Scientifica. San Cipirello (PA), 16–19 Novembre 2006. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria: Firenze, Italy: 1001–113.

Caracuta V., Fiorentino G., Martinelli M. C. 2012. Plant Remains and AMS: Dating Climate Change in the Aeolian Islands (Northeastern Sicily) during the 2nd Millennium BC. Radiocarbon 54, 3–4: 689–700.

Cazzella A., Recchia G. 2013. The human factor in the transformation of Southern Italian Bronze Age societies: Agency Theory and Marxism reconsidered. Origini 35: 191–210.

Cardarelli A. 2015. Different Forms of Social Inequality in Bronze Age Italy. Origini 38: 151–200. Carra M., Cattani M., Debandi F. 2012. Coltivazioni sperimentali per una valutazione della produttività agricola dell’età del Bronzo nell’area padana. IpoTESI di Preistoria 5, 1: 79–100.

Cazzella A., Recchia G. 2015. The Early Bronze Age in the Maltese Islands. In Tanasi D., Vella N.C. (eds.). The late prehistory of Malta: essays on Borġ in-Nadur and other sites. Archaeopress: Oxford, UK: 139–59.

Carroll F.A., Hunt C.O., Schembri P.J., Bonanno A. 2012. Holocene climate change, vegetation history and human impact in the Central Mediterranean: evidence from the Maltese Islands. Quaternary Science Reviews 52: 24–40.

Cazzella A., Guidi A., Nomi F. 2016 (eds.). Ubi Minor… Le isole minori del Mediterraneo centrale dal Neolitico ai primi contatti coloniali. Scienze dell’Antichità 22.2. Cazzella A., Moscoloni M. 1992. La sequenza cronostratigrafica di Coppa Nevigata fra XVI e XIV secolo a.C. Rassegna di Archeologia 10: 533–43.

Carson M.T. 2014. First Settlement of Remote Oceania. Earliest Sites in the Mariana Islands, vol 1. Springer: Heidelberg, Germany.

Cazzella A., De Grossi Mazzorin J. 2015. Ci fu una rivoluzione dei prodotti derivati dagli animali nell’Europa preistorica? Preistoria del Cibo, Pre-Atti della Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, www.preistoriadelcibo.iipp.it.

Casselberry S.E. 1974. Further refinement of formulae for determining population from floor area. World Archaeology 6,1: 118–22. Castagnino Berlinghieri E.F. 2003. The Aeolian Islands: crossroads of Mediterranean maritime routes. A survey on their maritime archaeology and topography from the Prehistoric to the Roman periods. International Series 1181. BAR Publishing: Oxford, UK.

Chamberlain A. 2006, Demography in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. Charlton T.H. 1972. Population Trends in the Teotihuacan Valley, A.D. 1400–1969. World Archaeology 4: 106– 23.

Cattani M. 2016. Il villaggio dell’età del Bronzo di Mursia (Pantelleria): strategie insediative e aspetti culturali. Scienze dell’Antichità 22.2: 395–410.

Cherry J.F. 1981. Pattern and process in the earliest colonization of the Mediterranean islands. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 47: 41–68.

Cattani M., Marchesini M. 2010. Economia e gestione del territorio nell’età del Bronzo: le radici della civiltà contadina. In Cattani M., Marchesini M., Marvelli S. (eds.). Paesaggio ed economia nell’età del Bronzo, La pianura bolognese tra Samoggia e Panaro. Museo Archeologico Ambientale: San Giovanni in Persiceto, Italy: 232–43.

Cherry J.F. 1990. The first colonization of the Mediterranean islands: a review of recent research. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 3: 145–221. Cherry J.F., Davis J.L., Mantzourani E. 1993. Landscape Archaeology as Long-Term History: Northern Keos in the Cycladic Islands. Journal of Field Archaeology 20, 3: 367–72.

Cavalier M. 1979. Ricerche preistoriche nell’arcipelago eoliano. Rivista di Scienze preistoriche 34, 1–2: 45– 136. 140

References Cherry J.F., Leppard P.T. 2015. Experimental archaeology and the earliest seagoing: the limitations of inference. World Archaeology 47, 5: 740–55.

of radiocarbon dates: A case study on the JomonYayoi transition in Kyushu (Japan). PLoS ONE 16(5): e0251695.

Childe V.G. 1958. The Prehistory of European Society. University of College of London: London, UK.

Crowther A. 2005. Starch residues on undecorated Lapita pottery from Anir, New Ireland. Archaeology in Oceania 40, 2: 62–66.

Chiocci F.L., Romagnoli C. 2004. Terrazzi deposizionali sommersi nelle Isole Eolie (Sicilia). Memorie Descrittive della Carta Geologica d’Italia 58: 81–114.

Crowther A., Lucas L., Helm R., Horton M., Shipton C., Wright H.T., Walshaw S., Pawlowicz M., Radimilahy C., Douka K., Picornell-Gelabert L., Fuller D.Q., Boivin N.L. 2016. Ancient crops provide first archaeological signature of the westward Austronesian expansion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, PNAS 113, 24: 6635–40.

Christakis K.S. 2008. The politics of storage: storage and socio-political complexity in Neopalatial Crete. Prehistory Monographs 25. Academic Press: Philadelphia, USA. Ciabatti E. 1978. Relitto dell’ Età del Bronzo rinvenuto nell’ Isola di Lipari. Sicilia Archeologica 36: 7–35.

Crumley C. 1994. Historical Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscapes. School of American research Press: Santa Fe, USA.

Clark J.T., Kirch P.V. 1983. Archaeological Investigations of the Mudlane-Waimea-Kawaihae Road Corridor, island of Hawaii: An Interdisciplinary Study of an Environmental Transect. Anthropology Dept. Report Series 83-1, B.P. Bishop Museum: Honolulu, USA.

Cunningham P. 2011. Caching your savings: the use of small-scale storage in European prehistory. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30, 2: 135–44. Curet L.A. 1998. New formulae for estimating prehistoric populations for lowland South America and the Caribbean. Antiquity 72, 276: 359–75.

Cook S.F. 1972. Prehistoric demography. Addison-Wesley Module in Anthropology 16. Cook S.F. Heizer R.F. 1968. Relationships Among Houses, Settlement Areas, and Population in Aboriginal California. Settlement Archaeology. In Chang K.C. (ed.). Settlement archaeology. National Press: Palo Alto, USA: 79–116.

Currie T., Bogaard A., Cesaretti R., Edwards N., Francois P., Holden P., Hoyer D., Korotayev A., Manning J., Moreno Garcia J.C., Oyebamiji O.K., Petrie C. Turchin P., Whitehouse H., Williams A. 2015. Agricultural Productivity in Past Societies: Toward an Empirically Informed Model for Testing Cultural Evolutionary Hypotheses. Cliodynamics: The Journal of Quantitative History and Cultural Evolution 6, 1: 24–56.

Copat V., Danesi M., Recchia G. 2010. Isolation and interaction cycles. Small Mediterranean Islands from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age. Shima—The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures 4, 2: 41–64.

Dahlgren R.A., Saigusa M., Ugolini F.C. 2004. The Nature, Properties and Management of Volcanic Soils. Advances in Agronomy 82: 113–82.

Cordain L., Miller J. B., Boyd Eaton S., Mann N., Holt S.H.A., Speth J.D. 2000. Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 71, 3: 682–92.

Danckers J. 2015. Cambiamenti agricoli alla base delle origini delle terramare? Concetti teorici e confronti europei per una problematizzazione del dibattito. Preistoria del Cibo, Pre-Atti della Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, www. preistoriadelcibo.iipp.it.

Corvisier J.-N. 2008. Les Grecs et la mer. Les Belles Lettres: Paris, France. Costantini L. 1990. Report on vegetal remains collected in Castelluccian strata of the village in 1988. In Holloway J., Joukowsky M.S., Lukesh S.S. (eds.). La Muculufa, the Early Bronze Age sanctuary: the Early Bronze Age village. Excavations of 1982 and 1983. Brown University: Rhode Island, USA: 66–67.

David N. 1972. On the lifespan of pottery type frequencies and archaeological inference. American Antiquity 37: 141–42. David B., Thomas J. 2016 (ed.). Handbook of Landscape Archaeology. Rootledge: Walnut Creek, USA. Dawson H. 2010. ‘One, none, and a hundred thousand’: settlements and identities in the prehistoric Mediterranean islands. Shima: The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures 4: 82—98.

Costantini L., Costantini Biasini L., Giorgi J.A. 2001. Archaeobotanical investigation in the Bronze Age site of Vivara (Procida, Naples). In Guarino A. (ed.), Science and technology for the safeguard of cultural Heritage in the Mediterranean Basin, Proceedings 3rd International Congress, 1, Roma. Abaco Editore: Sarzana, Italy: 165–74.

Dawson H. 2012. Archaeology, Aquapelagos and Island Studies. Shima: The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures 6, 1: 17–21.

Crema E.R., Shoda S. 2021. A Bayesian approach for fitting and comparing demographic growth models 141

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age Dawson H. 2014. Mediterranean Voyages: The Archaeology of Island Colonisation and Abandonment. Routledge: London, UK.

Dickinson W. 2003. Impact of Mid-Holocene HydroIsostatic Highstand in Regional Sea Level on Habitability of Islands in Pacific Oceania. Journal of Coastal Research 19, 3: 489–502.

Dawson H. 2019. As Good as It Gets? ‘Optimal’ Marginality in the Longue Durée of the Mediterranean Islands. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology & Heritage Studies 7, 4: 451–65.

DiNapoli R. J., Leppard T. P. 2018. Islands as model environments. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 13:157–60.

De Astis G., Lucchi F., Dellino P., La Volpe L., Tranne C.A., Frezzotti M.L., Peccerillo A. 2013. Geology, volcanic history and petrology of Vulcano (central Aeolian Archipelago). In Lucchi F., Peccerillo A., Keller J., Tranne C.A., Rossi P.L. (eds.). The Aeolian Islands volcanoes. Memoirs of the Geological Society: London, UK: 281–349.

D’Oronzo C., Speciale C., Stellati A., Martinelli M.C., Fiorentino G. in press, Adattamento e resilienza in ambiente insulare: il caso studio delle isole Eolie, Proceedings 50° RScIIPP. D’Oronzo C., Marinò G.P., Solinas F., Fiorentino G. 2011. Archeobotanica ed archeologia sperimentale: bilancio termico, modalità d’uso, tafonomia e visibilità archeologica di un esperimento in margine al workshop di Cavallino. In Giardino C. (ed.). Archeometallurgia: dalla conoscenza alla fruizione. Atti del Workshop, 22–25 Maggio 2006, Cavallino (LE), Convento dei Domenicani, BACT 8. Edipuglia: Bari, Italy: 371–76.

De Grossi Mazzorin J., Guidi A. 2015. Cultura materiale e archeozoologia: dati per la ricostruzione delle attività di sussistenza dell’età del Bronzo Media e Recente nell’Italia centro-meridionale. Preistoria del Cibo, PreAtti della Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, www.preistoriadelcibo.iipp.it.

Dotte-Sarout E. 2017. Evidence of forest management and arboriculture from wood charcoal data: an anthracological case study from two New Caledonia Kanak pre-colonial sites. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 26, 2: 195–211.

De Grossi Mazzorin J., Riedel A. 1997. La fauna delle Terramare. In Bernabò Brea M., Cardarelli A., Cremaschi M. (eds.). Le Terramare. La più antica civiltà padana. Electa: Milano, Italy: 475–80. De Grossi Mazzorin J., Rugge M. 2007. I resti ossei animali provenienti dal Saggio X (Scavi 2005). In Pagliara C. et al. La sequenza cronostratigrafica delle fasi di occupazione dell’insediamento protostorico di Roca (Melendugno, Lecce). Relazione preliminare della campagna di scavo 2005—Saggio X. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 57: 350–51.

Dotte-Sarout E., Kahn J. 2017. Ancient woodlands of Polynesia: A pilot anthracological study on Maupiti Island, French Polynesia. Quaternary International 457: 6–28. Dotte-Sarout E., Carah X., Byrne C. 2015, Not just carbon: assessment and prospects for the application of anthracology in Oceania. Archaeology in Oceania 50: 1–22.

De Grossi Mazzorin J., Tagliacozzo A. 1998. Human Diet of animal origin in Italy between the Paleolithic andthe Metal Age in light of Archaeozoological Data. Rivista di Antropologia 76: 85–93.

Drago A. 2005. Atlante climatologico della Sicilia. Seconda edizione. Rivista Italiana di Agrometeorologia 2: 67–83.

Demeritt D. 1994. Ecology, objectivity and critique in writings on nature and human societies. Journal of Historical Geography 20, 1: 22–37.

Earle T.K., Christenson A.L. 1980. Modeling change in prehistoric subsistence economy. Academic Press: New York, USA.

Denham T.P. 2005. Envisaging early agriculture in the Highlands of New Guinea: landscapes, plants and practices. World Archaeology 37: 290–306.

Earle T., Spriggs M. 2015. Political Economy in Prehistory: A Marxist Approach to Pacific Sequences. Current Anthropology 56, 4: 515–44.

Denham T.P., Haberle S., Lentfer C. 2004. New evidence and revised interpretations of early agriculture in Highland New Guinea. Antiquity 78: 839–57.

Elevelt S.C. 2012. Subsistence and social stratification in Northern Ionic Calabria from the Middle Bronze Age until the Early Iron Age: the archaeozoological evidence. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen.

De Roche C.D. 1983. Population estimates from settlement area and number of residences. Journal of Field Archaeology 10: 187–92.

Ellen R.F. 1982. Environment, Subsistence, and System: The Ecology of Small Scale Social Formations. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

Djamali M., Gambin B., Marriner N., Andrieu-Ponel V., Gambin T., Gandouin E. et al. 2013. Vegetation dynamics during the early to mid-Holocene transition in NW Malta, human impact versus climatic forcing. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 22, 5: 367–80.

Erlandson J.M. 2001. The Archaeology of Aquatic Adaptations: Paradigms for a New Millennium. Journal of Archaeological Research 9: 287–350.

Diamond J.M. 1977. Colonization cycles in man and beasts. World Archaeology 8: 249–61. 142

References Erlandson J.M. 2008. Isolation, Interaction, and Island Archaeology. Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology 3, 1–4: 63.86.

Fiorentino G., D’Oronzo C., Colaianni G. 2012. Humanenvironmental interaction in Malta from the Neolithic to the Roman period: archaeobotanical analyses at TasSilġ, Scienze dell’Antichità 18: 169–84.

Erlandson J.M., Fitzpatrick S.M. 2006. Oceans, islands, and coasts: Current perspectives on the role of the sea in human prehistory. Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology 1: 5–33.

Fiorentino G., Primavera M. 2015. Lo sfruttamento dei frutti arborei spontanei e l’arboricultura in Puglia durante l’età del Bronzo, Pre-Atti della Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto di Preistoria e Protostoria 50, www.preistoriadelcibo.iipp.it.

Evans J. 1973. Islands as laboratories of culture change. In C. Renfrew (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory. Duckworth: London, UK: 517– 20.

Fiorentino G., Solinas F. 2006. Carboni e carporesti dal palazzo di Monastiraki. In Kanta A., Marazzi M. (eds.). Monastiraki I. Missione Monastiraki, campagne 2002/2004. Quaderni della Ricerca Scientifica, Serie Beni Culturali 4: 123–39.

Evans J.D. 1977. Island archaeology in the Mediterranean: problems and opportunities. World Archaeology 9: 12—26.

Fiorentino G., Speciale C. 2014. Aeolian Islands as an observatory for human–environment dynamics: resilience and reliance of prehistoric communities. Frontiers of Biogeography 6, 4: 88.

Evans J.D., Renfrew C. 1968. Excavations at Saliagos near Antiparos, British School of Archaeology at Athens, 5. Thames & Hudson: London, UK. Evans J., O’Connor T. 1999. Environmental Archaeology. Principles and Methods. Stroud: Sutton, UK.

Fisher C.T., Feinman G.M. 2005. Introduction to ‘Landscapes over Time’. American Anthropologist 107: 62–69.

Favalli M., Karátson D., Mazzuoli R., Pareschi M.T., Ventura G. 2005. Volcanic geomorphology and tectonics of the Aeolian Archipelago (Southern Italy) based on integrated DEM data. Bulletin of Volcanology 68: 157–70.

Fitzhugh B., Gjesfjeld E., Brown W., Hudson M.J., Shaw J.D. 2016. Resilience and the population history of the Kuril Islands, Northwest Pacific: A study in complex human ecodynamics. Quaternary International 419: 165–93.

Fenech K. 2007. Human-induced Changes in the Environment and Landscape of the Maltese Islands from the Neolithic to the 15th Century AD as inferred from a scientific study of sediments from Marsa. International Series 1682. BAR Publishing: Oxford, UK.

Fitzpatrick S.M. 2004 (ed.). Voyages of Discovery: The Archaeology of Islands. Praeger Publishers: Westport, USA. Fitzpatrick S.M., Thompson V.D., Poteate A.S., Napolitano M.F., Erlandson J.M. 2016. Marginalization of the Margins: The Importance of Smaller Islands in Human Prehistory. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 11, 2: 155–70.

Fernandes D.M., Sirak K.A., Ringbauer H., Sedig J. et al. 2021. A genetic history of the pre-contact Caribbean. Nature 590: 103–10. Fernandez P.A., Gornés Hachero J.S., Stika H.P. 2003. Los Hipogeos de S’alblegall (Ferreries) y la Agricultura Cerealística a mediados del Segundo Milenio Cal Ane en Menorca. Trabajos De Prehistoria 60, 2: 117–30.

Fitzpatrick S.M., Erlandson J.M. 2018. Island archaeology, model systems, the Anthropocene, and how the past informs the future. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 13: 283–99.

Fernández-Palacios J.M., Martín J.L. 2001. Naturaleza de las Islas Canarias. Ecología y conservación. Turquesa Ed.: Tenerife, Spain: 39–44.

Fitzpatrick S.M., Keegan W.F. 2007. Human impacts and adaptations in the Caribbean Islands: an historical ecology approach. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 98: 29–45.

Fiorentino G. 2005. Analisi archeobotanica. In Martinelli M.C. (ed.). Il Villaggio dell’età del Bronzo Medio di Portella a Salina nelle Isole Eolie. Origines: Firenze, Italy: 263–73.

Fitzpatrick S.M., Rick T.C., Erlandson J.M. 2015. Recent Progress, Trends, and Developments in Island and Coastal Archaeology. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 10, 1: 3–27.

Fiorentino G. 2011, Viti e vitigni nel mondo antico. In VV. AA. (eds.). La vigna di Dioniso: vite, vino e culti in Magna Grecia. Atti del Quarantanovesimo Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia. Istituto per la Storia e l’Archeologia della Magna Grecia: Taranto, Italy: 9–31.

Flew A. 1970. Introduction. In Flew A. (ed.). An Essay on the Principle of Population. Penguin Books: Harmondsworth, UK: 7–56.

Fiorentino G., Colaianni G., Grasso A.M., Stellati A. 2008. Analisi archeobotanica. In M.C. Martinelli (ed.) 2008: 234–41.

Fischer-Kowalski M. et al. (eds.) 2014. Ester Boserup’s Legacy on Sustainability. Springer: Dordrecht, Netherlands.

143

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age Foley R.A. 2001. Evolutionary perspectives on the origins of human social institutions. Proceedings of the British Academy 110: 171–95.

Glassow M.A. 1978. The concept of carrying capacity in the study of culture process. In Schiffer M. B. (ed.). Advances in archaeological method and theory. Academic Press: New York, USA: 31–48.

Forconi V., Guidi S. (eds.) 2013. Frutti dimenticati e biodiversità recuperata. Il germoplasma frutticolo e viticolo delle agricolture tradizionali italiane. Casi studio: Isole della Sicilia, Lombardia. Quaderni. Natura e Biodiversità. ISPRA: Palermo, Italy.

Golson J., Denham T., Hughes P., Swadling P., Muke J. 2017. Ten Thousand Years of Cultivation at Kuk Swamp in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea. Terra Australis 46, ANU Press: Canberra, Australia.

Forenbaher S., Kaiser T. 2011. Palagruža and the spread of farming in the Adriatic. In Phoca-Cosmetatou N. (ed.). 2011: 99–111.

Goodale N.B. 2009. Convergence in the Neolithic: human population growth at the dawn of agriculture. PhD Dissertation, Washington State University, Department of Anthropology.

Foth H.D., Ellis B.G. 1997. Soil fertility. Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, USA.

Gosden C. 1992. Production systems and the colonization of the Western Pacific. World Archaeology 21, 1: 55– 69.

Frederick C., Krahtopoulou A. 2000. Deconstructing agricultural terraces; examining the influence of construction method on stratigraphy, dating and archaeological visibility. In Halstead P., Frederick C. (eds.). Landscape and Landuse in Postglacial Greece. Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield, UK: 79–94.

Gracia F., Munilla G., García E., Playá R., Muriel S. 1996. Demografía y Superficie de Poblamiento en los Asentamientos Ibéricos del Ne. Peninsular. Complulun Extra 6, 11: 177–91.

French J.C., Riris P., Fernandéz-López de Pablo J., Lozano S., Silva F. 2021. A manifesto for palaeodemography in the twenty-first century. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 18, 376, 20190707.

Greuter W. 1979. The origin and evolution of island floras as exemplified by the Aegean archipelago. In Bramwell D. (ed.). Plants and islands. London Academic Press: London, UK: 87–106.

Gallant T.W. 1991. Risk and Survival in Ancient Greece: Reconstructing the Rural Domestic Economy. Stanford University Press: Stanford, USA.

Grima R. 2008. Landscape, Territories and the Life. History of Monuments in Temple Period Malta. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 21: 35–56.

Garrow D., Sturt F. 2017. The Mesolithic–Neolithic Transition in the Channel Islands: Maritime and Terrestrial Perspectives. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 36: 3–23.

Grove A.T., Rackham O. 2001. The Nature of Mediterranean Europe. An Ecological History. Yale University Press: Yale, USA. Guidi A. 2016. Isole nella corrente dei dati archeologici. L’importanza degli arcipelaghi e delleisole minori per la ricostruzione del popolamento antico del Mediterraneo. Scienze dell’Antichità 22.2: 11–14.

Giannitrapani E., Grillo F., Speciale C. 2014. Household archaeology nella preistoria siciliana. Agathòn, RCAPIA PhD Journal 1, 2014: 3–8. Gill K.M. 2013. Paleoethnobotanical Investigations on the Channel Islands: Current Directions and Theoretical Considerations, in Jazwa C., Perry J. (eds.), California’s Channel Islands: The Archaeology of Human-Environment Interactions. University of Utah Press: Salt Lake City, USA: 113–36.

Haberle S., Lentfer C., O’Donnell S., Denham T. 2012. The palaeoenvironments of Kuk Swamp from the beginnings of agriculture in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. Quaternary International 249: 129–39. Hagenblad J., Morales J. An Evolutionary Approach to the History of Barley (Hordeum vulgare) Cultivation in the Canary Islands. Afr Archaeol Rev 37, 579–595 (2020).

Gill K.M., Erlandson J. 2014. The island Chumash and exchange in the Santa Barbara Channel region. American Antiquity 79, 3: 570–72.

Halstead P. 1987. Traditional and ancient rural economy in Mediterranean Europe: Plus ça change?. Journal of Hellenistic Studies 107: 77–87.

Gill K.M., Hoppa K.M. 2016. Evidence for an Island Chumash Geophyte-Based Subsistence Economy on the Northern Channel Islands. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 36, 1: 51–71.

Halstead P. 2014. Two oxen ahead. Pre-mechanized farming in the Mediterranean. Wiley-Blackwell: New York, USA.

Giustolisi V. 1995. Vulcano. Introduzione alla storia e all’ archeologia dell’antica Hiera. Centro di documentazione e ricerca per la Sicilia antica P. Orsi: Siracusa, Italy.

Halstead P., O’Shea J. 1982. A Friend in Need Is a Friend Indeed: Social Storage and the Origins of Social Ranking. In Renfrew C., Shennan S. (eds.). Ranking, Resource and Exchange: Aspects of the Archaeology of Early European Society, 92-9. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

Gkiasta M. 2008. The Historiography of Landscape Research on Crete. Archaeological Studies Leiden 16. Leiden University Press: Leiden, Netherlands. 144

References Hamilakis Y. 1996. Wine, Oil and the Dialectics of Power in Bronze Age Crete: a Review of the Evidence. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 15, 1: 1–32.

Hole F., Heizer R.F. 1973. An introduction to prehistoric archaeology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York, USA.

Hammer K., Laghetti G. 2006. Small Agricultural Islands and Plant Genetic Resources. Le piccole isole rurali italiane. Istituto di Genetica Vegetale (IGV), Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR): Bari, Italy.

Horden P., Purcell N. 2000. The Corrupting Sea: a study of Mediterranean History. Blackwell: Oxford, UK. Horrocks M., Bedford S., 2005. Microfossil analysis of Lapita deposits in Vanuatu reveals introduced Araceae (aroids). Archaeology in Oceania 40: 67–74.

Harris C.M. 2006 (ed.). Dictionary of Architecture and Construction. McGraw-Hill: New York, USA.

Horrocks M., Nunn P.D. 2007. Evidence for introduced taro (Colocasia esculenta) and lesser yam (Dioscorea esculenta) in Lapita-era (c. 3050–2500 cal yr BP) deposits from Bourewa, southwest Viti Levu Island, Fiji. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 739–48.

Hassan F.A. 1981. Demographic Archaeology. Academic Press: New York and London, USA and UK. Hastorf C.A. 1980. Changing resource use in subsistence agricultural groups of the prehistoric Mimbres River Valley, New Mexico.  In Earle T.K., Christenson A.L. (eds.). Modeling Change in Prehistoric Subsistence Economies. Academic Press: San Diego, USA: 79–120.

Horrocks M., Bedford S., Spriggs, M. 2009. A short note on banana (Musa) phytoliths in Lapita, immediately post-Lapita and modern period archaeological deposits from Vanuatu. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 2048–54.

Hastorf C.A. 2016. The Social Archaeology of Food. Thinking about Eating from Prehistory to the Present. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

Horrocks M., Peterson J., Carson M.T. 2015. Pollen, Starch, and Biosilicate Analysis of Archaeological Deposits on Guam and Saipan, Mariana Islands, Northwest Pacific: Evidence for Chamorro Subsistence Crops and Marine Resources. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 10, 1: 97–110.

Hastorf C.A., Popper V.F. 1988. Current Paleoethnobotany. Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USA. Hather J.G. 1992. The Archaeobotany of Subsistence in the Pacific. World Archaeology 24, 1: 70–81.

Horsburgh K.A., McCoy M.D. 2017. Dispersal, Isolation, and Interaction in the Islands of Polynesia: A Critical Review of Archaeological and Genetic Evidence. Diversity 9, 3: 37.

Hather J.G. 1994. The identification of charred root and tuber crops from archaeological sites in the Pacific. In Hather J.G. (ed.). Tropical Archaeobotany: Applications and New Developments. Routledge: London, UK: 51– 64.

Hunt T.L., Fitzhugh B. 1997. Introduction. Islands as laboratories: archaeological research in comparative perspective. Human Ecology 25: 379–83.

Haviland W.A. 1972. Family size, prehistoric population estimates and the Ancient Maya. American Antiquity 37, 1: 135–39.

Hunt T.L., Lipo C. P. 2006. Late colonization of Easter Island. Science 311: 1603–06. Irwin G. 1999. Commentary on Paul Rainbird, ‘Islands Out of Time: Towards a Critique of Island Archaeology’. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12, 2: 255–58.

Hastorf C.A., Popper V.S. 1988. Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USA.

Izdebski A., Holmgren K., Weiberg E., Stocker S. R., Büntgen U., Florenzano A., Gogou A., Leroy S.A.G., Luterbacher J., Martrat B., Masi A., Mercuri A.M., Montagna P., Sadori L., Schneider A., Sicre M.A., Triantaphyllou M., Xoplaki E. 2015. Realising consilience: How better communication between archaeologists, historians and natural scientists can transform the study of past climate change in the Mediterranean. Quaternary Science Reviews 136: 5–22.

Hayward P. 2012. Aquapelagos and aquapelagic assemblages. Shima: The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures 6, 1: 1–10. Hawks J. 2008. From genes to numbers: effective population sizes in human evolution. In Bocquet-Appel J.-P. (ed.). Recent Advances in Paleodemography: Data, Techniques, Patterns. Springer: New York, USA. Hill J.N. 1970. Broken K Pueblo: prehistoric social organization in the American southwest. Anthropological Papers 18, University of Arizona Press: Tucson, USA.

Javaloyas Molina D., Picornell-Gelabert L., Servera Vives G. 2008. Plantas y Fenomenología de la Muerte durante el Bronce Medio y Final en Menorca. Actas de las I Jornadas de Jóvenes en Investigación Arqueológica: Dialogando con la cultura material: Madrid, 3–5 de septiembre de 2008, 1: Compañia Española de Repografía y Servicios: Madrid, Spain: 207–12.

Hodder I., Orton C. 1976. Spatial analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. Hodder I. 1987. The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

145

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age Jones G. 2005. Garden cultivation of staple crops and its implication for settlement location and continuity. World Archaeology 37, 2: 164–76.

Knapp A.B. 2008. Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus: Identity, Insularity and Connectivity. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

Kahn J.G., Nickelsen C., Stevenson J., Porch N., DotteSarout E., Christensen C.C., May L., Athens J.S., Kirch P.V. 2014. Mid- to late Holocene landscape change and anthropogenic transformations on Mo’orea, Society Islands: A multi-proxy approach. The Holocene 25, 2: 333–47.

Knapp A.B. 2010. Cyprus’s earliest prehistory: seafarers, foragers and settlers. Journal of World Prehistory 23: 79–120. Knapp B. 2013. The Archaeology of Cyprus: From Earliest Prehistory through the Bronze Age. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

Kahn J.G., Dotte-Sarout E., Molle G., Conte E. 2015. Mid- to Late Prehistoric Landscape Change, Settlement Histories, and Agricultural Practices on Maupiti, Society Islands (Central Eastern Polynesia). Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 10, 3: 363–91.

Knappett C., Evans T., Rivers R. 2008. Modelling maritime interaction in the Aegean Bronze Age. Antiquity 82: 1009–24. Kofel D., Bürge T., Fischer P.M. 2021. Crops and food choices at the Late Bronze Age city of Hala Sultan Tekke. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 36, 102827.

Kawashima T. 2016. Food processing and consumption in the Jōmon. Quaternary International 404: 16–24. Keegan W.F., Diamond J.M. 1987. Colonization of islands by humans: A biogeographical perspective. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory: 49–92.

Kohler T.A. 1978. Ceramic breakage rate simulation: population size and the southeastern chiefdom. Newsletter of Computer Archaeology 14: 1–20.

Keegan W.F., Fitzpatrick S.M., Sullivan Sealey K., LeFebvre M.J., Sinelli P.T. 2008. The Role of Small Islands in Marine Subsistence Strategies: Case Studies from the Caribbean. Human Ecology 36: 635–54.

Kolb C.C., Charlton T.H., DeBoer W., Fletcher R., Healy P.F., Janes R.R., Naroll R., Shea D. 1985. Demographic Estimates in Archaeology: Contributions from Ethnoarchaeology on Mesoamerican Peasants. Current Anthropology 26, 5: 581–99.

Kirch P.V. 1977. Valley Agricultural Systems in Prehistoric Hawaii: An Archaeological Consideration. Asian Perspectives 20, 2: 246–80.

Kopaka K., Matzanas C. 2009. Palaeolithic industries from the island of Gavdos, near neighbour to Crete in Greece. Antiquity Project Gallery 83: 321.

Kirch P.V. 1982. The impact of the prehistoric Polynesians of the Hawaiian ecosystem. Pacific Science 36, 1: 1–14.

Kramer C. 1978, Estimating prehistoric population: an ethnoarchaeological approach. In Barrelet M. T. (ed.). L’Archéologie de l’Iraq du début de l’époque néolithique à 333 avant notre ère. Perspectives et limites de l’interprétation anthropologique des documents. Editions CNRS: Paris, France: 315–27.

Kirch P.V. 1988. Long-distance exchange and island colonization: the Lapita case. Norwegian Archaeological Review 21: 103–17. Kirch P.V. 1992. Anahulu: The Anthropology of History in the Kingdom of Hawai’i (with Marshall Sahlins). University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USA.

Kramer C. 1982. Village ethnoarchaeology: rural Iran in archaeological perspective. Academic Press: New York, USA.

Kirch P.V. 1996. Late Holocene human-induced modifications to a central Polynesian island ecosystem. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, PNAS 93, 11: 5296–300.

Ladefoged T.N., Kirch P.V., Gon III S.O., Chadwick O.A., Hartshorn A.S., Vitousek P.M. 2009. Opportunities and constraints for intensive agriculture in the Hawaiian archipelago prior to European contact. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 2374–83.

Kirch P.V. 1997. Microcosmic histories: Island perspectives on’ global’ change. American Anthropologist 99, 1: 30–42.

Ladefoged T.N., McCoyb M.D., Asnerc G.P., Kirch P.V, Pulestonf C.O., Chadwick O.A., Vitousek P.M. 2011. Agricultural potential and actualized development in Hawai’i: an airborne LiDAR survey of the leeward Kohala field system (Hawai’i Island). Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 12: 3605–19.

Kirch P.V. 2007. Hawaii as a Model System for Human Ecodynamics. American Anthropologist 109, 1: 8–26. Kirch P.V. 2009. Island Societies: Archaeological Approaches to Evolution and Transformation. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. Kirch P.V., Molle G., Nickelsen C., Mills P., Dotte-Sarout E., Swift J., Wolfe A., Horrocks M. 2015. Human ecodynamics in the Mangareva Islands: a stratified sequence from Nenega-Iti Rock Shelter (site AGA-3, Agakauitai Island). Archaeology in Oceania 50: 23–42.

Ladefoged T.N., Wallace R. 2010, Excavation of undefended site R10/494 on Motutapu Island, New Zealand. Archaeology in New Zealand 53, 3: 170–84. Laffoon J.E., Leppard T.P. 2019. 87Sr/86Sr data indicate human post-juvenile residence mobility decreases over time-elapsed since initial Holocene island colonization 146

References in the Pacific and Caribbean. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 11: 1757–68.

Regionale Eoliano ‘Luigi Bernabò Brea. Regione Siciliana: Palermo, Italy: 265–75.

Lanz B., Dietz S., Swanson T. 2014. Global population growth, technology, and Malthusian constraints: a quantitative growth theoretic perspective. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, Working Paper No. 161.

Levi S.T., Williams J.L. 2003. 40 anni di analisi petrografiche della ceramica eoliana. In VV. AA. (eds.). Le comunità della preistoria italiana. Studi e ricerche sul neolitico e le età dei metalli. In memoria di Luigi Bernabò Brea. Atti della Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria 35, II. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria: Firenze, Italy: 987–90.

LeBlanc S. 1971. An addition to Naroll’s suggested floor area and settlement population relationship. American Antiquity 36, 2: 210.

Levi S.T., Tigano, G., Vanzetti A., Alessandri L., Barbaro B., Cassetta I., Castagna M.A., Gatti D., Sabatini S., Schiappelli A. 2003. Distribuzione della ceramica e uso degli spazi della Capanna 1 di viale dei Cipressi (facies di Capo Graziano). In VV. AA. (eds.). Le comunità della preistoria italiana. Studi e ricerche sul Neolitico e le Età dei metalli. Atti della Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria 35, II; Firenze, Italy: 895–98.

Leighton R. 1999. Sicily Before History: An Archaeological Survey from the Palaeolithic to the Iron Age. Bristol Classical Press: London, UK. Lentjes D., Saltini Semerari G. 2016. Big Debates over Small Fruits. Wine and Oil Production in Protohistoric Southern Italy (ca 1350–750 BC). BABESCH 91: 1–16. Leonardi G. 1992. Il deposito archeologico: bacini, processi formativi e trasformativi. In Leonardi G. (ed.). Processi formativi della stratificazione archeologica. Università degli Studi di Padova, Saltuarie dal Laboratorio del Piovego 3: 13–47.

Levi S.T., Bettelli M., Di Renzoni A., Ferranti F., Martinelli M.C. 2011. 3500 anni fa sotto il vulcano. La ripresa delle indagini nel villaggio protostorico di San vincenzo a Stromboli. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 51: 157–72.

Lepofsky D., Kirch P.V., Lertzman K. 1996. Stratigraphic and Paleobotanical Evidence for Prehistoric HumanInduced Environmental Disturbance on Mo’orea, French Polynesia. Pacific Science 50, 3: 253–73.

Levi S.T., Martinelli M.C., Vertuani P., Williams J.L. 2014. Old or New Waves in Capo Graziano Decorative Styles? Origini: Preistoria e protostoria delle civiltà antiche, 36: 213–44.

Lepofsky D., Kirch P.V., Lertzman K. 1998. Metric analyses of prehistoric morphological change in cultivated fruit and nuts: an example from Island Melanesia. Journal of Archaeological Science 25: 1001–14.

Levi S.T., Cannavò V., Martinelli M.C., Bettelli M., Brunelli D., Di Renzioni A., Williams J.L. 2020. Tradition and innovation: pre and protohistoric pottery at Lipari in a wider environmental and cultural perspective. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 70: 5–28.

Leppard T.P. 2015a. Passive Dispersal versus Strategic Dispersal in Island Colonization by Hominins. Current Anthropology 4: 590–95.

Levin M. 2016. Food Production, Environment, and Culture in the Tropical Pacific: Evidence for Prehistoric and Historic Plant Cultivation in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oregon.

Leppard T.P. 2015b. Adaptive Responses to Demographic Fragility: Mitigating Stochastic Effects in Early Island Colonization. Human Ecology 43, 5: 721–34. Leppard T.P. 2017. The Biophysical Effects of Neolithic Island Colonization: General Dynamics and Sociocultural Implications. Human Ecology 45: 555– 68.

Lincoln N.K., McCoy M.D., Ladefoged T.N. 2018, Stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes in kukui (Aleurites moluccanus) endocarp along rainfall and elevation gradients: Archaeological implications. PLoS ONE 13(10): e0204654.

Leppard T.P., Runnels C. 2017. Maritime hominin dispersals in the Pleistocene: Advancing the debate. Antiquity 91, 356: 510–19.

Livarda A., Kotzamani G. 2014. The Archaeobotany of Neolithic and Bronze Age Crete: Synthesis and Prospects, The Annual of the British School at Athens, 108, 1: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK: 1–29.

Levi S.T. 2000. Importazioni e produzione locale di ceramica preistorica a Messina: evidenze archeometriche. Origini 22: 237–41. Levi S.T., Fragnoli P. 2011. Le analisi archeometriche delle ceramiche. In Martinelli M.C. (ed.) 2011: 219–32.

Lo Cascio P. 2017. Le Isole Eolie. Luoghi e Natura di Sicilia 1: Palermo, Italy.

Levi S.T., Williams J.L. 2001. Archeometria della ceramica eoliana: nuovi risultati, sintesi e prospettive. Luce attraverso i vasi: risultati di analisi petrografiche della ceramica eoliana. In Martinelli M.C., Spigo U. (eds.). Studi di Preistoria e Protostoria in onore di Luigi Bernabò Brea. Quaderni del Museo Archeologico

Lo Cascio P., Navarra E. 2003. Guida naturalistica alle Isole Eolie. La vita in un arcipelago vulcanico. L’Epos: Palermo, Italy.

147

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age Lo Cascio P., Pasta S. 2004. Il Patrimonio Biologico delle Isole Eolie: dalla conoscenza alla conservazione. Naturalista siciliano 4, 28, 1: 457–76.

Markow T.A., Martin J.F. 1993. Inbreeding and developmental stability in a small human population. Annals of Human Biology 20, 4: 389–94.

Lo Jacono Pojero M. 1878. Le isole Eolie e la loro vegetazione con enumerazione delle piante spontanee vascolari. Lorsnaider: Palermo, Italy.

Marston J.M. 2009. Modeling wood acquisition strategies from archaeological charcoal remains. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 2192–200.

Lo Presti V., Antonioli F., Agnesi V., Biolchi S., Calcagnile L., Di Patti C., Donati S., Furlani S., Merizzi J., Pepe F., Quarta G., Renda P., Sulli A., Tusa S. 2019. Palaeogeographical evolution of the Egadi Islands (western Sicily, Italy). Implications for late Pleistocene and early Holocene Sea crossings by humans and other mammals in the western Mediterranean. Earth-Science Reviews 194: 160–81.

Martin L., Russell N. 2000. Trashing Rubbish. In Hodder I. (ed.). Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük. McDonald Institute Monographs & British Institute of Archaeology: Cambridge, UK: 57–69. Martinelli M.C. (ed.) 2005. Il Villaggio dell’età del Bronzo Medio di Portella a Salina nelle Isole Eolie. Edizioni del Giglio: Firenze, Italy.

Lomolino M.V. 2010. Four Darwinian themes on the origin, evolution and preservation of island life. Journal of Biogeography 37, 6: 985–94.

Martinelli M.C. (ed.) 2010. Archeologia delle Isole Eolie. Il villaggio dell’età del Bronzo Medio di Portella a Salina. Ricerche 2006 e 2008. Rebus Edizioni: Muggiò, Italy.

Lucas L., Colledge S., Simmons A., Fuller D.Q. 2012. Crop introduction and accelerated island evolution: Archaeobotanical evidence from ‘Ais Yiorkis and Pre-Pottery Neolithic Cyprus. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 21, 2: 117–29.

Martinelli M.C. 2016. Updates on the cultural and chronological framework of the prehistory and protohistory of the Aeolian Islands: from the first settlement to the end of the villages. Scienze dell’Antichità 22. 2: 263–79.

Lucas L., Fuller D.Q. 2020. Against the Grain: LongTerm Patterns in Agricultural Production in Prehistoric Cyprus. Journal of World Prehistory 33: 233–66. Malthus T. 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population. J. Johnson, in St. Paul’s Church-Yard: London, UK.

Martinelli M.C. 2018. The tale of the sea. The Bronze Age cup of Filicudi (Aeolian Islands). Mediterranea Itinera, Studies in Honour of Lucia Vagnetti. CNR Istituto Di Sudi Sul Mediterraneo Antico: Roma, Italy: 369–80.

Manni M., Coltelli M., Martinelli M.C. 2019. Volcanic events that have marked the anthropic history of the Aeolian Islands. Annals of Geophysics 62, 1: VO08.

Martinelli M.C. 2020. Isole vicine: l’arcipelago delle Isole Eolie e le comunità umane nella preistoria mediterranea. Edizioni di storia e studi sociali: Ragusa, Italy.

Manning K., Timpson A., Shennan S., Crema E. 2015. Size Reduction in Early European Domestic Cattle Relates to Intensification of Neolithic Herding Strategies. PLoS One 10, 12: 0141873.

Martinelli M.C., Baroni I., Lopes L., Minniti C., Recchia G. 2004. La Portella, analisi funzionale delle strutture L e P. VV. AA. (eds.). Atti della Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria 34. Istituto Italiano di Presitoria e Protostoria: Firenze, Italy: 477–88.

Marazzi M., Tusa S. (eds.) 1994. Vivara. Centro Commerciale mediterraneo dell’età del Bronzo. Vol. II. Le tracce dei contatti con il mondo egeo (scavi 1976– 1982). Bagatto Libri: Roma, Italy.

Martinelli M.C., Fiorentino G., Prosdocimi B., D’oronzo C., Levi S.T., Mangano G., Stellati A., Wolff N. 2009. Nuove ricerche nell’insediamento sull’istmo di Filo Braccio a Filicudi. Nota Preliminare sugli Scavi. Origini 32: 285–314.

Marcus J.H., Posth C., Ringbauer H. et al. 2020. Genetic history from the Middle Neolithic to present on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia. Nature Communications 11, 939.

Martinelli M.C., Procelli E., Pacciarelli M., Cavalier M. 2011. L’età del Bronzo Antica e Media nella Sicilia orientale e nella zona dello stretto di Messina, in VV.AA. (eds.). L’età del Rame in Italia. Atti delle Riunioni Scientifiche dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria 43. Arbor Sapientiae: Roma, Italy: 157– 71.

Marguerie D., Hunot J. 2007. Charcoal analysis and dendrology: data from archaeological sites in northwestern France. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 1417–33. Marinova E., Valamoti S.M. 2014. Crop diversity and choice in prehistoric southeastern Europe: cultural and environmental factors shaping the archaeobotanical record of northern Greece and Bulgaria. In Chevalier A., Marinova E., Peña-Chocarro L. (eds.). Plants and People: Choices and Diversity through Time: 64–74.

Martinelli M.C., Giordano L. 2017. La facies di Capo Graziano nelle Isole Eolie: nuove scoperte in Contrada Diana (Lipari). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 67: 255– 71. Martinelli M.C., Speciale C. 2017. Classificazione della ceramica e analisi dei contesti all’inizio dell’età del 148

References Bronzo: la capanna F del villaggio di Filo Braccio (Filicudi, Isole Eolie). IpoTESI Di Preistoria 9, 1: 1–36.

Meindl R.S., Russell K.F. 1998. Recent advances in method and theory in paleodemography. Annual Review of Anthropology 27: 375–99.

Martinelli M.C., Dawson H., Cascio P. L., Levi S. T., Fiorentino G. 2021. Blowin’ in the Wind: Settlement, Landscape and Network Dynamics in the Prehistory of the Aeolian Islands. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 34, 1: 28–57.

Mercuri A.M., Allevato E., Arobba D., Bandini Mazzanti M., Bosi G., Caramiello R., Castiglioni E., Carra M.L., Celant A., Costantini L., Di Pasquale G., Fiorentino G., Florenzano A., Guido M., Marchesini M., Mariotti Lippi M., Marvelli S., Miola A., Montanari C., Nisbet R., Peña-Chocarro L., Perego R., Ravazzi C., Rottoli M., Sadori L., Ucchesu M., Rinaldi R. 2014. Pollen and macroremains from Holocene archaeological sites: a dataset for the understanding of the biocultural diversity of the Italian landscape. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 8: 250–66.

Martini F., Colonese A.C., di Giuseppe Z., Ghinassi M., Lo Vetro D., Ricciardi S. 2009, Human-environment relationships during the Late Glacial-Early Holocene transition: some examples from Campania, Calabria and Sicily. Méditerranée 1, 112: 89–94. Mastelloni M.A., Martinelli M.C. 2015. Lipari. Archeologia e storia nella Contrada Diana. Regione siciliana, Assessorato dei beni culturali e dell’identità siciliana, Dipartimento dei Beni Culturali e dell’Identità Siciliana: Palermo, Italy.

Mercuri A.M., Cannavò V., Clò E., Di Renzoni A., Florenzano A., Rattighieri E., Yoon D., Levi S.T. 2020. Palynology of San Vincenzo-Stromboli: Interdisciplinary Perspective for the Diachronic Palaeoenvironmental Reconstruction of an island of Sicily. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 30: 102235.

Matsui A., Kanehara M. 2006. The question of prehistoric plant husbandry during the Jomon period in Japan. World Archaeology 38, 2: 259–73. Matthews P.J., Gosden C. 1997, Plant Remains From Waterlogged Sites In The Arawe Islands, West New Britain Province, Papua New Guinea: Implications For The History Of Plant Use And Domestication. Economic Botany 51, 2: 121–33.

Metcalfe C.R. 1966. Appendix V, Report on the botanical determination of charcoal samples. In Trump D. Skorba. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK: 54. Mickleburgh H.L., Pagan-Jimenez J.R. 2012. New insights into the consumption of maize and other food plants in the pre-Columbian Caribbean from starch grains trapped in human dental calculus, Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 7: 2468–2478.

Mazzarella S. 1984, Dell’isola Ferdinandea e di altre cose. Sellerio: Palermo. McArthur R.H., Wilson E.O. 1963. An Equilibrium Theory of Insular Zoogeography. Evolution 17: 373–87.

Mitchell M. 2009. Complexity: A Guided Tour. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

McArthur R.H., Wilson E.O. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press: Princeton, USA.

Mithen S. 2010. The domestication of water: water management in the ancient world and its prehistoric origins in the Jordan Valley. Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society A. Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences 28, 368: 5249–74.

McClatchie M. 2014. Archaeobotany of Agricultural Intensification, in Smith C. (ed.). Encyclopaedia of Global Archaeology. Springer: New York: USA: 310– 18.

Modi A., Tassi F., Susca R. et al. 2017. Complete mitochondrial sequences from Mesolithic Sardinia. Science Reports 7, 42869.

McFadden C. 2021, The past, present and future of skeletal analysis in palaeodemography. Philophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 376, 20190709.

Montenegro A., Callaghan R.T., Fitzpatrick S.M. 2013. From west to east: Environmental influences on the rate and pathways of Polynesian colonization. The Holocene 24: 242–56.

Mead M. 1957. Introduction to Polynesia as a laboratory for the development of models in the study of cultural evolution. Journal of the Polynesian Society 66: 145.

Morales J., Rodrıguez A., Alberto V., Machado C., Criado C., Rando J.C. 2009. The impact of human activities on the natural environment of the Canary Islands (Spain) during the pre-Hispanic stage (3rd–2nd Century BC to 15th Century AD): an overview. Environmental Archaeology 14, 1: 27–36.

Médail F. 2013. The unique nature of Mediterranean island floras and the future of plant conservation. In: Cardona Pons E., Estaún Clarisó I., Comas Casademont M., Fraga i Arguimbau P. (eds.). Islands and plants: preservation and understanding of flora on Mediterranean islands. 2nd Botanical Conference in Menorca. Recerca 20. Consell Insular de Menorca. Institut Menorquí d’Estudis: Maó, Menorca, Spain: 325–50.

Morales J., Gil J. 2014. Gathering in a new environment: The use of wild food plants during the first colonisation of the Canary Islands, Spain, in Chevalier, Marinova, Pena-Chocarro (eds.), Plants and People: Choices and Diversity through Time. Oxbow Books: Barnsley, UK: 216–27. 149

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age Morales J., Rodríguez-Rodríguez A., González-Marrero M.d.C., Martín-Rodríguez E., Henríquez-Valido P., delPino-Curbelo M. 2014. The archaeobotany of long-term crop storage in northwest African communal granaries: a case study from pre-Hispanic Gran Canaria (cal. AD 1000–1500). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 23: 789–804.

Odum E.P. 1975. Ecology: The Link Between the Natural and the Social Sciences. Holt, Rinehart & Winston: New York, USA. Oliveira H.R., Civá P., Morales J., Rodríguez-Rodríguez A., Lister D.L., Jones M.K. 2011. Ancient DNA in archaeological wheat grains: preservation conditions and the study of pre-Hispanic agriculture on the island of Gran Canaria (Spain). Journal of Archaeological Sciences 39: 828–35.

Morales J., Vidal-Matutano P., Marrero-Salas E., Henríquez-Valido P., Lacave-Hernández A., GarcíaÁvila J.C., Abreu-Hernandez I., Arnay-de-la-Rosa M. 2021. High-mountain plant use and management: macro-botanical data from the pre-Hispanic sites of Chasogo and Cruz de Tea, 13–17th centuries AD, Tenerife (Canary Islands, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 35: 102730.

Olson S., James H. 1984. The role of Polynesians in the extinction of the avifauna of the Hawaiian Islands. In Martin P.S., Klein R.G. (eds.). Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution. University of Arizona Press, Tucson: USA: 768–80. Ortman S.G. 2019. A new kind of relevance for archaeology. Frontiers in Digital Humanities 6, 16.

Moroni A., Adornato A., Anelli A., Anghinetti W., Rossi O., Soliani L., Siri E. 1973. Ricerche di Ecologia umana nelle isole Eolie. Biogeographia 3: 853–94.

Pacciarelli M., Scarano T., Crispino A. 2015. The transition between the Copper and Bronze Ages in Southern Italy and Sicily. In von Harald Meller H., Wolfgang Arz H., Jung R., Risch R. (eds.). Proceedings of the International Conference ‘2200 BC—A climate breakdown causing the collapse of the old world?’, Halle (Saale, Germany). Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona: Barcelona, Spain: 253–81.

Mudie P.J., Lelièvre M.A. 2013. Palynological study of a Mi’kmaw shell midden, Northeast Nova Scotia, Canada. Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 4: 2161–75. Murgia D.M., Depalmas A., Panizza V. 2015. L’uso del suolo nell’età del Bronzo della Sardegna centroorientale. Lo studio ambientale, l’archeologia sperimentale ed il confronto etnografico quale ipotesi di studio per un calcolo demografico. Pre-Atti della Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto di Preistoria e Protostoria 50, www.preistoriadelcibo.iipp.it

Paine R. (ed.) 1997. Integrating archaeological demography: multidisciplinary approaches to prehistoric population. Center for Archaeological Investigation occasional paper, 24. Southern Illinois University: Carbondale, USA.

Napolitano M.F., Stone J.H., DiNapoli R.J. 2021.  The Archaeology of Island Colonization:  Global Approaches to Initial Human Settlement. University Press of Florida: Gainesville, USA.

Paino P. 1988. Le isole Lipari: riproduzione litografica dall’originale con traduzione in italiano. Luigi Salvatore d’Austria, vol. 8, Lipari. Edinixe: Lipari, Italy.

Naroll R. 1962. Floor Area and Settlement Population. American Antiquity 27: 587–89.

Palmisano A., Bevan A., Shennan S. 2017. Comparing archaeological proxies for long-term population patterns: An example from central Italy. Journal of Archaeological Science 87: 59–72.

Nicoletti F., Tusa S. 2012. L’età del Bronzo nella Sicilia occidentale. In VV. AA. (eds.), Dai Ciclopi agli Ecisti. Società e Territorio nella Sicilia Preistorica e Protostorica, Atti della Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria 41. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria: Firenze, Italy: 105–30.

Parsons J.R., Blanton R.E., Parsons M.H. 1971. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Texcoco Region, Mexico. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, USA. Pasta S., La Mantia T. 2013. Species richness, biogeographic and conservation interest of the vascular flora of the satellite islands of Sicily: patterns, driving forces and threats, in Cardona Pons E. et al. (ed.), Islands and plants: preservation and understanding of flora on Mediterranean islands, 2nd Botanical Conference in Menorca. Proceedings and abstracts. Institut Menorquí d’Estudis: Menorca, Spain: 201–38.

Nikulka F. 2016. Archäologische Demographie Methoden, Daten und Bevölkerung der europäischen Bronze- und Eisenzeiten. Sidestone press: Leiden, Netherlands. Nilsson M. 2014. A note on domestic versus communal grain storage in the Early Helladic period. Opuscula 7: 223–39. Nomi F., Speciale C. 2017. Castellaro, Lipari, Messina. Notiziario dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria 4, 3: 87–90.

Pasta S., Di Maggio C., Di Pasquale G., D’Amore G., Forgia V., Incarbona A., Madonia G., Morales-Molino C., Rotolo S.G., Sineo L., Speciale C., Sulli A., Tinner W., Vacchi M. in press. The impact of climate, resource availability, natural disturbances and human subsistence strategies on the Sicilian landscape dynamics during Holocene. In Polizzi G., Ollivier V., Bouffier S. (eds.).

Nùñez M.R., Calvo L. 2000. Effect of high temperatures on seed germination of Pinus sylvestris and Pinus halepensis. Forest Ecology and Management 131: 183–90. 150

References Actes du Colloque Interdisciplinaire ‘Watertraces: De l’hydrogéologie à l’archéologie hydraulique en Méditerranée antique’. Archaeopress: Oxford, UK.

Prada S., Oliveira da Silva M. 2001. Fog precipitation on the island of Madeira (Portugal). Environmental Geology 41, 3: 384–89.

Patton M. 1996. Islands in time. Island Sociogeography and Mediterranean Prehistory. Routledge: London, UK.

Primavera M., D’Oronzo C., Muntoni I. M., Radina F., Fiorentino G. 2017. Environment, crops and harvesting strategies during the second millennium BC: Resilience and adaptation in socio-economic systems of Bronze Age communities in Apulia (SE Italy). Quaternary International 436: 83–95.

Pearsall D.M. 2015. Paleoethnobotany. A handbook of procedures, Third edition. Routledge: London, UK. Pearsall D.M., Trimbel M.K. 1984. Identifying past agricultural activity through soil phytolith analysis: a case study from the Hawaiian Islands. Journal of Archaeological Science 11, 2: 119–33.

Procelli E., Alberghina F.R. 2006. Ceramiche di importazione nella Sicilia dell’antico Bronzo. In VV.AA. (eds.). Materie prime e scambi nella preistoria italiana. Atti della Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria 39, II. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria: Firenze, Italy: 1236–39.

Peretto C. (ed.) 2002. Analisi informatizzata e trattamento dati delle strutture di abitato di età preistorica e protostorica in Italia. Casalini: Firenze, Italy. Pérez-Jordà G., Hurley J., Ramis D., Van Dommelen P. 2020. Iron Age botanical remains from nuraghe S’Urachi, Sardinia. Antiquity 94, 374: E11.

Quintus S., Allen M.S., Ladefoged T.N. 2016. In surplus and in scarcity: agricultural development, risk management, and political economy on Ofu island, American Samoa. American Antiquity 81, 2: 273–93.

Peroni R. 1994. Introduzione alla protostoria italiana. Laterza: Bari, Italy.

Rainbird P. 1999. Islands Out of Time: Towards a Critique of Island Archaeology. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 99, 12, 2: 216–34.

Peroni R., Trucco F. (eds.) 1994. Enotri e Micenei nella Sibaritide. Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia: Taranto, Italy.

Rainbird P. 2007. The archaeology of islands. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

Petersen N. 1975. A demographers view of prehistoric demography. Current Anthropology 16: 227–46.

Ramis D. 2015. Early Island Exploitations: Productive and Subsistence Strategies on the Prehistoric Balearic Islands. In Knapp A., Van Dommelen P. (Eds.). The Cambridge Prehistory of the Bronze and Iron Age Mediterranean. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK: 40–56.

Phillips P. 1972. Population, economy and society in the Chassey‐Cortaillod‐Lagozza cultures. World Archaeology 4, 1: 41–56. Phoca-Cosmetatou N. 2011 (ed.). The First Mediterranean Islanders: Initial Occupation and Survival Strategies. University of Oxford School of Archaeology, Monograph 74: Oxford, UK.

Ramis D., Alcover J.A., Coll J., Trias M. 2002. The Chronology of the First Settlement of the Balearic Islands. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 15, 1: 3–24.

Picornell-Gelabert L., Servera-Vives G. 2017. Landscape practices and everyday life in domestic spaces in Bronze Age Mallorca (Balearic Islands): Perspectives for and archaeology of fuel and firewood. Quaternary International 431: 73–89.

Rapaport M. 1999. The pacific islands. Environment and Society. Bess Press; Honolulu, USA. Rathje W. 1992. Rubbish!: The Archaeology of Garbage. University of Arizona Press: Tucson, USA.

Pignatti S. 1982. Flora d’Italia. Edagricole: Bologna, Italy.

Rattighieri E., Florenzano A., Mercuri A. M., Levi S.T. 2010. Una ricostruzione archeoambientale del sito di San Vincenzo, villaggio del bronzo a Stromboli. Atti della Società dei Naturalisti e Matematici di Modena 141: 219–30.

Plekhov D., Leppard T.P., Cherry J.F. 2021. Island Colonization and Environmental Sustainability in the Postglacial Mediterranean. Sustainability 13, 6: 3383. Plog F. 1974. The Study of Prehistoric Change. Academic Press: New York, USA.

Rattighieri E., Florenzano A., Mercuri A. M., Levi S.T. 2012. Palinologia applicata al sito di San VincenzoStromboli (Bronzo Medio) per una ricostruzione archeoambientale, AIAr Congress 2012, 22–24 febbraio 2012, Modena. Pàtron Editore: Bologna, Italy: 442–50.

Porčić M., Blagojević T., Pendić J., Stefanović S. 2021. The Neolithic Demographic Transition in the Central Balkans: population dynamics reconstruction based on new radiocarbon evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 376: 20190712.

Ratzel F. 1922. Anthropogeographie. T.2, Die geographische Verbreitung des Menschen. Engelhorn: Stuttgart, Germany.

Poulsen J. 1983. Landwirtschaft und Bevölkerungsverhältnisse in der dänischen Bronzezeit. Zeitschrift für Archäologie 17: 145–58.

Recchia G., Fiorentino G. 2015. Archipelagos adjacent to Sicily around 2200 BC: attractive environments or 151

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age suitable geo-economic locations? In Meller H., Arz W., Jung R. (eds.). 2200 BC—A climatic breakdown as a cause for the collapse of the old world?, 7. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 23. bis 26. Oktober 2o14, Halle. Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle Band 12, 1: 305–19.

Schacht R.M. 1972. Population and economic organization in early historic southwest Iran. PhD thesis, University of Michigan. Schacht R.M. 1981. Estimating past population trends. Annual Review of Anthropology 10: 119–40. Scharf E.A. 2014. Deep time: the emerging role of archaeology in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 29: 563–69.

Reddy S.N., Erlandson J.M. 2012. Macrobotanical food remains from a trans-Holocene sequence at Daisy Cave (CA-SMI-261), San Miguel Island, California. Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 1: 33–40.

Schiffer M.B. 1972. Archaeological context and systemic context. American Antiquity 37, 2: 156–65.

Redman C.L. 2005. Resilience Theory in Archaeology. American Anthropologist 107: 70–77.

Schiffer M.B. 1976. Behavioural Archaeology. Academic Press: New York, USA.

Renfrew C. 1972. The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium BC. Methuen: London, UK.

Schiffer M.B. 1983. Toward the identification of Formation Processes. American Antiquity 48: 675–706.

Renfrew J.M. 1972. Cultivated plants from Tarxien Cemetery. Antiquity 46: 144–45.

Schreiber K.J., Kintigh K.W. 1996. A test of the relationship between site size and population. American Antiquity 61: 573–79.

Renfrew C., Wagstaff 1982. An Island Polity: The Archaeology of Exploitation on Melos. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

Séguy I., Buchet L. 2013. Handbook of Palaeodemography. INED Population Studies 2. Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland.

Reynolds P.J. 1974. Experimental Iron Age storage pits: an interim report. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 40: 118–31.

Servera Vives G., Riera S., Picornell-Gelabert L., MoffaSánchez P., Llergo Y., Garcia A., Maurici M. A., Álvarez S.G., Calvo Trías M. 2018. The onset of islandscapes in the Balearic Islands: A study-case of Addaia (northern Minorca, Spain). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 498: 9.

Rick T.C., Kirch P. V., Erlandson J.M., Fitzpatrick S.M. 2013, Archeology, deep history, and the human transformation of island ecosystems. Anthropocene 4: 33–45.

Shennan S. 2009. Evolutionary Demography and the Population History of the European Early Neolithic. Human Biology 81, 2–3: Article 12.

Rivas-Martínez S. 2008. Global Bioclimatics (Clasificación Bioclimática de la Tierra), Worldwide Bioclimatic Classification System—www.globalbioclimatics.org.

Sheppard P.J., Chiu S., Walter R. 2015. Re-dating Lapita Movement into Remote Oceania. Journal of Pacific Archaeology 6, 1: 26–36.

Rousou M., Parés A., Douché C., Ergun M., Tengberg M. 2021. Identification of archaeobotanical Pistacia L. fruit remains: implications for our knowledge on past distribution and use in prehistoric Cyprus. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 2021: 1–17.

Sherratt A. 1981. Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the secondary products revolution. In Clarke D.L., Hodder I., Llywelyn Isaac G., Hammond N. (ed.). Pattern of the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

Sadori L., Giraudi C., Masi A., Magny M., Ortu E., Zanchetta G., Izdebski A. 2016. Climate, environment and society in southern Italy during the last 2000 years. A review of the environmental, historical and archaeological evidence. Quaternary Science Reviews 136: 173–88.

Shultz J.M., Cohen M.A., Hermosilla S., Espinel Z., McLeane A. 2016. Disaster risk reduction and sustainable development for small island developing states. Disaster Health 3, 1: 32–44.

Santos A.M.C., Field R., Ricklefs R.E. 2016. New directions in island biogeography. Global Ecology and Biogeography 25, 7: 751–68.

Simmons A.H. 1999. Faunal Extinction in an Island Society: Pygmy Hippopotamus Hunters of Cyprus. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press: Dordrecht and Boston, Netherlands and USA.

Sarno S., Boattini A., Pagani L. et al. 2017. Ancient and recent admixture layers in Sicily and Southern Italy trace multiple migration routes along the Mediterranean. Science Reports 7, 1984.

Simmons A.H. 2014 (ed.). Stone Age Sailors: Paleolithic Seafaring in the Mediterranean. Routledge: Abingdon, UK.

Sarpaki A., Jones G. 1990. Ancient and Modern Cultivation of Lathyrus Clymenum L. in the Greek Islands. Annual of the British School at Athens 85: 363–68.

Sineo L., D’Amore G., Modi A., Di Marco S., Caramelli D., Lari M. 2020. Paleogenetic and morphometric analysis of a Mesolithic individual from Grotta d’Oriente: An

152

References oldest genetic legacy for the first modern humans in Sicily. Quaternary Science Reviews 248: 1–9.

Studies on the Mediterranean 3. Accordia Research Institute: London, UK: 137–48.

Smyth M.P. 1989. Domestic storage behavior in Mesoamerica: an ethnoarchaeological approach. Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 89–138.

Strasser T.F., Panagopoulou E., Runnels C.N., Murray P.M., Thompson N., Karkanas P., McCoy F.W., Wegmann K.W. 2010. Stone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean: Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Crete. Hesperia 79: 145–90.

Sokolowski J.A., Banks C.M. 2009. Principles of Modeling and Simulation: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Wiley: New York, USA.

Strasser T.F., Runnels C.N., Wegmann K.W., Panagopoulou E., McCoy F.W., DiGregorio C., Karkanas P., Thompson N. 2011. Dating Palaeolithic sites in southwestern Crete, Greece. Journal of Quaternary Science 26: 553– 60.

Speciale C., D’Oronzo C., Stellati A., Fiorentino G. 2016. Ubi minor… deinde summa? Archaeobotanical data from the prehistoric village of Filo Braccio (Filicudi, Aeolian Archipelago): spatial analysis, crop production and paleoclimate reconstruction. Scienze dell’Antichità 22.2: 281–96.

Sumner W.M. 1989. Population and settlement area: an example from Iran. American Anthropologist 91: 631– 641.

Speciale C., Bentaleb I., Coumbourieu-Nebout N., Iannì F., Di Sansebastiano G.P., Fourier F. Giannitrapani E. 2020. The case study of Case Bastione: first analyses of 3rd millennium Cal BC paleoenvironmental and subsistence systems in central Sicily. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 31: 102332.

Sundaresan J., Sreekesh S., Ramanathan A., Sonnenschein L., Boojh R. 2013, Climate Change and Island and Coastal Vulnerability. Capital Publishing Company: New Delhi, India.

Speciale C., Larosa N., Spatafora F., Calascibetta A.M.G., Di Sansebastiano G.P., Battaglia G., Pasta S. 2021. Archaeobotanical and historical insights on some steps of forest cover disruption at Ustica Island (Sicily, Italy) from prehistory until present day. Environmental Archaeology, DOI: 10.1080/14614103.2021.1962578.

Sureda P., Camarós E., Cueto M., Teira L.C., Aceituno F.J., Albero D., Álvarez-Fernández E., Bofill M., López-Dóriga I., Marín D., Masclans A., Picornell L., Revelles J., Burjachs F. 2017. Surviving on the isle of Formentera (Balearic Islands): Adaptation of economic behaviour by Bronze Age first settlers to an extreme insular environment. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 12: 860–75.

Spengler R.N. III 2021. Paleoethnobotany. In López Varela S.L. (Ed.). The Encyclopedia of Archaeological Sciences. Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA.

Suter P.J., Schibler J. 1996. Ernährung während der Jungsteinzeit am Bielersee: Modelle und Hypothesen. In Beier H.-J. (ed.). Studien zum Siedlungswesen im Jungneolithikum. Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 10 (Weissbach 1996): 23–42.

Spriggs M.G. 1981. Vegetable Kingdoms: taro irrigation and Pacific prehistory. PhD Thesis, Australian National University. Spriggs M.G. 1986. Landscape, land use, and political transformation in southern Melanesia. In Kirch P. V. 1996: 6–19.

Swete Kelly M.C., Winter O. 2020. Complexities in the origins of pottery in the Marianas: A comparison of pottery assemblages from the Northern Philippines and the Mariana Islands. Quaternary International, in press.

Steadman S.R. 2015. Archaeology of Domestic Architecture and the Human Use of Space. Routledge: London, UK.

Takamiya H. 2008. The transition from foragers to farmers on the island of Okinawa. Journal of Indo-Pacific Archaeology 21: 60–67.

Steiner F.R. 2016. Human Ecology: How Nature and Culture Shape Our World. Island Press: Washington, USA.

Tanasi D., Vella N.C. 2014. Islands and mobility: exploring Bronze Age connectivity in the South-central Mediterranean, in Knapp B., van Dommelen P. (eds.). The Cambridge Prehistory of the Bronze and Iron Age Mediterranean. Cambridge University Press: New York, USA: 57–72.

Stephens L., Fuller D., Boivin N., Rick T., …, Ellis E. 2019. Archaeological assessment reveals Earth’s early transformation through land use. Science 365, 6456: 897–902. Stika H.P., Heiss A.G. 2013. Plant Cultivation in the Bronze Age. In Fokkens H., Harding A. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK: 348–69.

Théry-Parisot I., Chabal L., Chrzavzez J. 2010. Anthracology and taphonomy, from wood gathering to charcoal analysis. A review of the taphonomic processes modifying charcoal assemblages in archaeological contexts. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 291, 1–2: 142–53.

Stoddart S. 1999. Long-term dynamics of an island community: Malta 5500 BC–2000 AD. In Tykot R.H., Morter J., Robb J.E. (eds.). Social Dynamics of the Prehistoric Central Mediterranean. Accordia Specialist 153

Human–Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age Thiébault S. 2005. L’apport du fourrage d’arbre dans l’élevage depuis le Néolithique. Anthropozoologica 40, 1: 95–108.

Ziv B. 2012. Climate of the Mediterranean: Synoptic Patterns, Temperature, Precipitation, Winds, and Their Extremes, in Lionello P. (ed.). The Climate of the Mediterranean Region. From the Past to the Future. Elsevier: London, UK: 301–46.

Thouret J.C. 1999. Volcanic geomorphology—an overview. Earth-Science Reviews 47: 95–131.

Vadimovich Gruza G. 2009. Environmental Structure and Function: Climate System part of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, II. Eolss Publishers: Paris, Italy.

Tigano G. 2009 (ed.). Mylai II. Scavi e ricerche nell’area urbana (1996–2005). Sicania: Messina, Italy. Tolve A., Tusa S. 2014. Archeologia dell’insediamento protostorico di Mursia (Pantelleria, Italia). Studio dei reperti di fauna marina. BAR Publishing: Oxford, UK.

Vagnetti L. 1991. Le ceramiche egeo-micenee-. In Bernabò Brea L., Cavalier M. 1991: 263–305. Valamoti S., Darcque P., Koukouli-Chryssanthaki H., Malamidou D., Tsirtsoni Z. 2015. An archaeobotanical investigation of prehistoric grape vine exploitation and wine making in northern Greece: recent finds from Dikili Tash. In Diler A., Senol K., Aidynoglu U. (eds.), Olive Oil and Wine Production in Eastern Mediterranean during Antiquity. Ege Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları: Izmir, Turkey.

Troia A. 2012. Insular endemism in the Mediterranean vascular flora: the case of the Aeolian Islands (Sicily, Italy). Biodiversity Journal 3, 4: 369–74. Turner, C.G., Lofgren L. 1966. Household size of prehistoric Western Pueblo Indians. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 22: 117–32. Tusa S. 1999. La Sicilia nella preistoria, III edizione. Sellerio: Palermo, Italy.

Valentin F., Buckley H.R., Herrscher E., Kinaston R., Bedford S., Spriggs M., Hawkins S., Neal K. 2010. Lapita subsistence strategies and food consumption patterns in the community of Teouma (Efate, Vanuatu). Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 1820–29.

Tusa S. 2000. La societá siciliana e il ‘contatto’ con il Mediterraneo centro-orientale dal II millenio a.C. agli inizi del primo millenio a.C. Sicilia Archeologica 33, 98: 9–40.

Vallino F.O. 1984. Attività agropastorali, basi alimentari ed ipotesi demografiche. In Peroni R. (ed.). Nuove ricerche sulla preistoria della Sibaritide. Paleani Editore: Roma, Italy: 305–16.

Tykot R.H. 1996. Obsidian procurement and distribution in the central and western Mediterranean. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 9, 1: 39–82. Tykot R.H. 2011. Obsidian finds on the fringes of the Central Mediterranean: exotic or eccentric exchange? In Vianello A. (ed.), Exotica in the Prehistoric Mediterranean. Oxbow books: London, UK.

Van der Leeuw S., Redman C. 2002. Placing archaeology at the centre of socio-natural studies. American Antiquity 67, 4: 597–605. van Dommelen P., Knapp A.B. (eds.) 2010. Material Connections in the Ancient Mediterranean: Mobility, Materiality and Mediterranean Identities. Routledge: London, UK: 1–18.

Tykot R.H., Iovino M.R., Martinelli M.C., Beyer L. 2006. Ossidiana da Lipari: le fonti, la distribuzione, la tipologia e le tracce d’usura. In AA.VV. (eds.). Materie prime e scambi nella preistoria italiana. Atti della Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria 39. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria: Firenze, Italy: 592–97.

Vayda A.P., Rappaport R.A. 1968. Ecology, cultural and noncultural. In Clifton J. A. Introduction to Cultural Anthropology. Houghton Mifflin: Boston, USA: 477– 97.

Tzanoudakis D., Panitsa M., Trigas P., Iatrou G. 2006. Floristic and phytosociological investigation of the island Antikythera and nearby islets (SW Aegean, Greece). Willdenovia, 36, 1: 285–301.

Vickery K.F. 1936. Food in Early Greece. Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences 20, 3. Vigne J.D., Briois F., Zazzo A., Willcox G., Cucchi T., Thiébault S., Carrère I., Franel Y., Touquet R., Martin C., Moreau C., Comby C., Guilaine J. 2012. First wave of cultivators spread to Cyprus at least 10,600 y ago. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences U S A 109, 22: 8445–49.

Ucchesu M., Peña-Chocarro L., Sabato D., Tanda G. 2015. Bronze Age subsistence in Sardinia, Italy: cultivated plants and wild resources. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 24, 2: 343–55. Ucchesu M., Sau S., Luglié C. 2017. Crop and wild plant exploitation in Italy during the Neolithic period: New data from Su Mulinu Mannu, Middle Neolithic site of Sardinia. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 14: 1–11.

Villari P. 1991. Le faune del villaggio di Capo Graziano nel contesto archeozoologico eoliano e siciliano dell’età del Bronzo. Appendice V. In Bernabò Brea L., Cavalier M. 1991: 317–30.

Ulbrich U., Lionello P., Belušić D., Jacobeit J., Knippertz P., Kuglitsch F.G., Leckebusch G.C., Luterbacher J., Maugeri M., Maheras P., Nissen K.M., Pavan V., Pinto J.G., Saaroni H., Seubert S., Toreti A., Xoplaki E.,

Villari P. 1995. Le faune della tarda Preistoria nella Sicilia orientale. Zangara Stampa: Palermo, Italy.

154

References Vita-Finzi C., Higgs E.S. 1970. Prehistoric Economy in the Mount Carmel Area of Palestine: Site Catchment Analysis. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36: 1–37.

Wiessner P. 1974. A functional estimator of population from floor area. American Antiquity 39, 2: 343–50. Willcox G. 2003. The origins of Cypriot farming. In Guilaine J., Le Brun A. (eds.), Le Nèolithique de Chypre. Actes du Colloque International Organisation par le Departement des Antiquités de Chypre et l’Ecole Française d’Athènes. Nicosie, 17–19 mai 2001. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellènique Supplement 43: 231–38.

Vitousek P.M. 2002. Oceanic islands as model systems for ecological studies. Journal of Biogeography 29: 573–82. Vitousek P.M., Ladefoged T.N., Kirch P.V., Hartshorn A.S., Graves M.W., Hotchkiss S.C., Tuljapurkar S., Chadwick O.A. 2004. Soils, Agriculture, and Society in Precontact Hawai`i. Science 11: 1665–69.

Williams J.L. 1980. Appendix. In Bernabò Brea L., Cavalier M. 1980 (eds.): 847–68.

Vogiatzakis I.N., Mannion A.M., Sarris D. 2016. Mediterranean Island biodiversity and climate change: the last 10,000 years and the future. Biodiversity Conservation 25: 2597–627.

Williams J.L. 1991. The Petrographic Analysis of Capo Graziano Pottery from Filicudi and Milazzese Pottery from Panarea, in Bernabò Brea, Cavalier 1991: 239–59. Wilkens B. 1987. La fauna dell’età del Bronzo di Mursia. Nota preliminare. Atti della Società Toscana di Scienze Naturali, 94: 215–24.

VV. AA. 1936. Catasto Agrario 1929—VIII. Compartimento Della Sicilia, Provincia Di Messina, Fascicolo 85, Anno 14. Istituto Centrale di Statistica Del Regno d’Italia: Roma, Italy.

Wood J. 1998. A Theory of Preindustrial Population Dynamics Demography, Economy, and Well‐Being in Malthusian Systems. Current Anthropology 39, 1: 99–135.

Yen D.E. 1973. The Origins of Oceanic Agriculture. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 8, 1: 68–85.

Wood J., Alcover J., Blackburn T., Bover P., Duncan R., Hume J.,... Wilmshurst J. 2017. Island extinctions: Processes, patterns, and potential for ecosystem restoration. Environmental Conservation 44, 4: 348–58.

Waldren W.H., Ensenyat J.A. (eds.) 2002. World Islands in Prehistory: International Insular Investigations. V Deia International Conference of Prehistory. International Series 1095. BAR Publishing: Oxford, UK.

Zamel N., McClean P.A., Sandell P.R., Siminovitch K.A., Slutsky A.S. 1996. Asthma on Tristan da Cunha: looking for the genetic link. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 153, 6, 1: 1902–06.

Wallace R. 1976. A dissertation on the numbers of mankind in ancient and modem times. In Appleman P. (ed.). Thomas Robert Malthus: An Essay on the Principle of Population. Norton: New York, USA.

Zanchetta G., Bini M., Cremaschi M., Magny M., Sadori L. 2013. The transition from natural to anthropogenicdominated environmental change in Italy and the surrounding regions since the Neolithic. Quaternary International 303: 1–9.

Walsh K. 1999. Mediterranean Landscape Archaeology and Environmental Reconstruction. Oxbow Books: Barnsley, UK. Warrick G. 1989. A Population History of the HuronPetun, A.D. 500–1650. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

Zanini A. 2012. Contributo alla rilettura della necropoli del Bronzo Finale di Milazzo (ME). In VV. AA. (eds.), Dai Ciclopi agli Ecisti. Società e Territorio nella Sicilia Preistorica e Protostorica, Atti della Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria 41. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria: Firenze, Italy: 895–904.

Weisler M.I., Yamano H., Hua Q. 2012. A Multidisciplinary Approach for Dating Human Colonization of Pacific Atolls. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 7, 1: 102–25. Wheat J.B. 1967. A Paleo-Indian Bison Kill. Scientific American 216, 1: 44–53. Wheeler M. 1954. Archaeology from the Earth. Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK.

Zohary D., Hopf M. 2000. Domestication of plants in the Old World: the origin and spread of cultivated plants in West Asia, Europe and the Nile Valley. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

Whittaker R.J., Fernàndez-Palacios J.M. 2007. Island Biogeography. Ecology, evolution and conservation. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

Zubrow E.B.W. 1971. Carrying capacity and dynamic equilibrium in the Prehistoric Southwest. American Antiquity 36, 2: 127–38.

Whittaker R.J., Fernández-Palácios J.M., Matthews T.J., Borregaard M.K., Triantis K.A. 2017. Island biogeography: taking the long view of nature’s laboratories. Science 357, 6354, 1–7.

155

210mm WIDTH

2021

The book is the result of a three-year investigation on the Aeolian Islands, a volcanic archipelago consisting of seven islands in north-eastern Sicily, Italy. The author provides new information on the use of vegetal resources and exploitation of the insular landscape by human communities between the end of the third and the end of the second millennium BC. Archaeological data from the widely explored Bronze Age hut villages of Filo Braccio, Filicudi and Acropolis, Lipari are examined through the lens of archaeobotanical and paleoenvironmental data, to produce carrying capacity evaluation and propose new paleodemographic estimations. In particular, the diachronic analysis of wood architectural features and agricultural techniques highlights the possible reliance of the archipelago on external resources during some chronological phases. This monograph adds to our broader understanding of island archaeology and demographics of prehistoric communities, offering a new method for interpreting and using archaeobotanical data.

Claudia Speciale is an archaeobotanist with a particular interest in island archaeology and paleoecological studies. Her research focuses on prehistoric Sicily and the surrounding small volcanic islands. During her post-doctoral research she developed a new investigation of Ustica island and its early human colonization.

210mm WIDTH

Human-Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age A paleodemographic model

Claudia Speciale B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 5 2

2021 297mm HIGH

‘All scholars studying Mediterranean prehistory and ancient civilizations in general will be interested in this research.’ Dr Assunta Florenzano, Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia

BAR  S3052  2021   SPECIALE   Human-Environment Dynamics in the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age

B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 5 2

11mm

Printed in England

210 x 297mm_BAR Speciale 11mm CPI ARTWORK.indd 2-3

14/10/2021 10:28