CHAPTER 8:

EARLY FARMING ADAPTATIONS OF THE NORTHEAST ADRIATIC KARST

CLIVE BONSALL, DIMITRIJ MLEKU!, LÁSZLÓ BARTOSIEWICZ

AND CATRIONA PICKARD

145

INTRODUCTION

Straddling the modern political borders of Italy,Slovenia and Croatia, the region known as the CaputAdriae at the extreme northeastern end of the Adri-atic Sea comprises the narrow coastal plain aroundTrieste Bay, the 300-500 m high plateau of the Tri-este Karst (Slovene ‘Kras’) and the northern part ofthe Istrian peninsula. The Mesolithic-Neolithictransition and early farming adaptations of this re-gion have been intensively debated but poorly re-searched. The Caput Adriae is underlain mainly bycarbonate sedimentary rocks; and the evidence forLate Mesolithic and Early Neolithic settlementcomes predominantly from caves and rock-shelters.This chapter seeks to review that evidence and placeit in the wider regional context.

WHEN DID FARMING REACH THE EASTERN ADRIATIC?

The first farming communities of the eastern Adri-atic made and used pottery decorated with stampedand incised motifs, known as ‘impressed ware’. Sincesites with impressed ware far outnumber those withwell-documented evidence of cultivation and/or an-imal husbandry, this distinctive pottery has tendedto be used as a proxy indicator of the spread of

farming across the region, even though such an ap-proach overlooks the possibility of hunter-gatherersacquiring pots or pottery technology from farmers(cf. Budja 2001).

The distribution of sites with Adriatic im-pressed ware extends from northwest Greece, alongthe eastern Adriatic and as far as southern Istria.Most sites occur within 45 km of the coast (figure8.1), although impressed pottery has occasionallybeen reported from sites much farther inland—forexample, at Odmut in Montenegro and Obre in Ser-bia. Though less well documented in the archaeo-logical literature, inland sites with Adriatic im-pressed ware are known from Albania, Epirus andwestern Macedonia (e.g., Korkuti 1982, 1983, 2003;Prendi 1976; Rodden and Wardle 1996).

Discussions of the the spread of impressed warehave centred on a very limited set of radiocarbondates (table 8.1). Chapman and Müller (1990) ar-gued that the 14C ages show a directional trend, withthe earliest sites in the south and the later sites in thenorth. On that basis, they suggested that the spreadof farming through the eastern Adriatic was a grad-ual process, beginning ca. 6200 cal BC and reachingsouthern Istria ca. 5750 cal BC. Forenbaher andMiracle (2005) proposed a more elaborate, two-phase model for the expansion of the Impressed

The Origins and Spread of Domestic Animals in Southwest Asia and Europe, edited by Sue Colledge et al., 145–160. © 2013 Left CoastPress, Inc. All rights reserved.

Ware Neolithic, comprising an initial ‘pioneercolonisation’ phase lasting a century or less, duringwhich time immigrant farmers made exploratoryvisits and set up short-term seasonal camps at cavesand open-air sites along the coastal strip of southernDalmatia (e.g., Gudnja and Vela !pila), followed by a‘consolidation phase’, when the immigrants estab-lished village settlements in areas of fertile soils (fig-ure 8.2).

Both models assume that impressed ware origi-nated in coastal northern Greece and spread fromsouth to north along the Adriatic rim, with immi-gration playing a dominant role. According toForenbaher and Miracle (2005, 2006), the hilly inte-rior continued to be occupied by hunter-gathererswho adopted pottery before they made the transi-tion to farming. The expansion of agriculture andherding into the hinterland and north of the Istrian

BONSALL ET AL.146

Karta 2.

Karta 3. 768

1014

4

12

3

1112

13

17

1820 19

21

22

2324

2526272829

3031

33 3435

3637

38

39 404142

434445

4647

32

916 15

A d r i a t i c S e a

N

S

W E

Area shownin Figure 3

200 km

100 mi

> 1000 m200 - 1000 m0 - 200 m

open-air sitecave site

Figure 8.1. Distribution of impressed ware sites in the eastern Adriatic region: 1 Konispol, 2 Sidari, 3 Perast (!pila), 4Crvena Stijena, 5 Hateljska pe"ina, 6 Jejinovaca, 7 Zelena pe"ina, 8 Cairi, 9 Gudnja, 10 Odmut Cave, 11 Vukova njive, 12Iliciniva lazina, 13 Zukovicka pe"ina, 14 Ravlica pe"ina, 15 !pila Nakovana, 16 Vela #pilja, 17 Markova #pilja, 18 Zemunica, 19Bisko, 20 Skarin Samograd, 21 Danilo, 22 Pokrovnik, 23 Gospodska pe"ina, 24 Krivace, 25 Vrbica, 26 Tinj (Podlivade), 27Benkovac, 28 Smil$i", 29 Crno vrilo, 30 Vrsi (Jasenice), 31 Vrsi, 32 Nin, 33 Privlaka, 34 Zdrilo, 35 Vaganacka pe"ina, 36 Jami naSredi, 37 Vela jama, 38 Vorganska pe", 39 Debeljak, 40 Vi%ula, 41 Vr$evan, 42 Vela groma$a, 43 Pradelelski, 44 !andalja, 45Verudica, 46 Vr$in, 47 Sveti Mihovil.

Tabl

e 8.1

. Rad

ioca

rbon

dat

es fo

r im

pres

sed

ware

site

s in

the e

aste

rn A

driat

ic pu

blish

ed p

rior t

o 20

07

Bm =

mam

mal

ian

bone

, Cs =

carb

oniz

ed se

eds,

Cw =

woo

d ch

arco

al, I

W =

impr

esse

d w

are.

Site

type

s: C

= ca

ve, O

= o

pen-

air s

ite. C

alib

ratio

ns w

ere p

erfo

rmed

with

CA

LIB

6.0

(Stu

iver

and

Reim

er 1

993;

St

uive

r et a

l. 20

05) u

sing

the I

ntC

al09

dat

aset

(Rei

mer

et al

. 200

9).

Site c

ode

(Fig.

8.1)

Site

type

Site

Cont

ext

Lab.

Code

14C a

ge BP

±2!

cal B

C age

ran

geM

edian

prob

abilit

y(ca

l BC)

1C

Koni

spol

Cav

eIX

/20

CwIW

XBe

ta-5

6415

7060

110

6205

-572

259

30

1C

Koni

spol

Cav

eX

XI/2

9Cw

IWX

Beta

-678

0268

3080

5893

-557

057

23

1C

Koni

spol

Cav

eIX

/18

CwIW

XBe

ta-5

6416

6800

140

5981

-548

457

10

2O

Sida

riC

top

Cw ('

twig

s')IW

XG

xO-7

7273

4018

065

62-5

845

6208

9C

Gud

nja

ICw

IWX

GrN

-103

1571

7070

6216

-590

860

43

9C

Gud

nja

ICw

IWX

GrN

-103

1469

3550

5973

-572

458

16

9C

Gud

nja

IICw

IW–D

anilo

G

rN-1

0311

6560

4056

13-5

473

5516

10C

Odm

ut C

ave

IIB

CwIW

XSi

-222

269

0010

059

84-5

636

5796

10C

Odm

ut C

ave

IIB

CwIW

XZ-

412

6736

130

5970

-539

356

53

10C

Odm

ut C

ave

IIB

Cw–

XSi

-222

365

3010

056

37-5

312

5489

16C

Vela

spila

VI,

botto

mCw

IW

Z-19

6773

0012

064

23-5

932

6172

16C

Vela

Spi

laV

I, m

iddl

eCw

IW

Z-19

6870

0012

060

76-5

646

5879

20C

!kar

in S

amog

rad

IIBm

IWX

HD

-119

5067

8050

5748

-557

556

79

20C

!kar

in S

amog

rad

IIBm

IWX

HD

-119

5266

0010

057

07-5

370

5545

22O

Pokr

ovni

kI

CsIW

X?

7000

100

6058

-570

958

79

23C

Gos

pods

ka

CCw

IWX

Z-57

970

1090

6047

-572

458

89

26O

Tinj

-Pod

livad

eI

CwIW

XG

rN-1

5236

6980

160

6211

-557

458

66

26O

Tinj

-Pod

livad

eI

CwIW

XG

rN-1

5237

6670

260

6068

-503

755

94

26O

Tinj

-Pod

livad

eI

CwIW

XG

rN-1

5238

6280

210

5619

-472

952

09

40O

Med

ulin

-Vi"

ula

ICw

IW

HD

-120

9368

5018

060

78-5

469

5760

40O

Med

ulin

-Vi"

ula

ICw

IW

HD

-117

3361

4070

5294

-485

550

88

Mate

rial

dated

Potte

ryas

socia

tion

Dom

estica

tespr

esen

t

Kart

a 2.

Kart

a 3.

200

km

100

mi

ca. 5

600

BC

A d r i

a t i c

S e

a

ca. 6

100

BC

ca. 6

200

BC

ca. 6

500

BC

> 10

00 m

200

- 100

0 m

0 - 2

00 m

ca. 6

100

BC

Kart

a 2.

Kart

a 3.

7340

±180

7060

±110

6736

±130

7300

±120

7010

±90

7000

±100

6850

±180

6780

±50

6980

±160

7170

±70

A d r i

a t i c

S e

a

N S

WE

N S

WE

200

km

100

mi

> 10

00 m

200

- 100

0 m

0 - 2

00 m

open

-air

site

cave

site

ca. 5

700

BC

ca. 5

750

BC

Figu

re 8

.2.(

a) Th

e ea

rlies

t rad

ioca

rbon

age

s (14

C ye

ars B

P), a

s ava

ilabl

e in

mid

-200

7, fo

r ind

ivid

ual i

mpr

esse

d w

are

sites

in th

e ea

ster

n Ad

riatic

regi

on (f

or d

etai

ls, se

e ta

ble

8.1)

. (b)

Sta!

o Fo

renb

aher

and

Pre

ston

Mira

cle’s

mod

el o

f the

exp

ansio

n of

farm

ing

and

herd

ing

in th

e ea

ster

n Ad

riatic

regi

on. B

lack

, sol

id li

nes:

first

pha

se o

f rap

id ‘le

apfro

g co

loni

satio

n’ as

-so

ciate

d w

ith im

pres

sed

war

es. G

rey l

ines

: sec

ond

phas

e of

slow

er ‘a

gro-

past

oral

exp

ansio

n’ as

socia

ted

with

impr

esse

d w

ares

. Whi

te li

nes:

third

pha

se o

f ‘agr

o-pa

stor

al e

xpan

sion’

as-

socia

ted

with

Dan

ilo/V

la!k

a po

ttery

. Bla

ck, d

ashe

d lin

es: a

dopt

ion

of h

erdi

ng a

nd fa

rmin

g by

indi

geno

us h

unte

r-gat

here

rs (a

fter F

oren

bahe

r and

Mira

cle 2

005,

fig.

4).

All d

ates

are

cal B

C.

peninsula was viewed as a primarily ‘Middle’ Neo -lithic phenomenon involving the active participa-tion of local foragers.

It is important to recognise the shortcomings ofthe radiocarbon record that underpins these inter-pretations. As late as 2007, the published 14C recordfor impressed ware contexts comprised just 21 datesfrom ten sites (table 8.1). Nearly all the dates in table8.1 should be classed as ‘unreliable’ (cf. Bonsall et al.2002; Pettitt et al. 2003; Waterbolk 1971). All are ra-diometric ages on bulk samples; they include no sin-gle-entity accelerator mass spectometry (AMS)dates on short-lived materials. The errors associatedwith the individual measurements are, by currentstandards, very large (AMS laboratories routinelyreport results with one-sigma errors of ± 0.05% ofModern, or lower); six of the 21 dates have associ-ated errors greater than ± 2%, and in a further 11cases the errors are greater than ± 1%. In the major-ity of cases, the material dated was unidentifiedwood charcoal, which raises the possibility that somemeasurements will include an ‘old wood effect’, giv-ing 14C ages that are up to several hundred yearsolder than the human activity that produced thecharcoal. Furthermore, some samples dated werenot from discrete archaeological features (e.g.,hearths or pits), which raises doubts about their as-sociation with impressed ware.

The earliest 14C dates for individual sites are shownon figure 8.2. Adopting a critical view of this evi-dence, the notion that impressed ware originatedalong the Ionian coast of Greece before 6200 cal BC,though plausible, rests on a single unsatisfactorydate from Sidari on Corfu; and the case for a late ar-rival of the Neolithic on the Istrian peninsula relieson an equally unsatisfactory date from Vi!ula.Moreover, the 14C dates from Sidari and Vi!ula atopposite ends of the impressed ware distribution arestatistically indistinguishable and therefore do notdemonstrate a directional trend in neolithisationfrom southeast to northwest. Similarly, the data donot necessarily support a maritime spread, since theearliest dates for sites near the coast are not signifi-cantly older than those farther inland. On the otherhand, the true coastal aspect of the Early Neolithicmay be largely hidden from view. Relative sea levelalong the Dalmatian and Istrian coasts has risen byca. 14 m since 5500 cal BC (Benjamin et al. 2011, fig.16.9; cf. Faivre et al. 2011; Lambeck et al. 2004), and

any low-lying coastal sites that survived the trans-gression would now be underwater.

Arguably the most reliable 14C date in the im-pressed ware series presented in table 8.1 is 7000 ±100 BP (lab code unavailable), on carbonised cerealgrains from Pokrovnik (figure 8.1, site 22), whichhas since been confirmed by a single-entity AMSdate of 6999 ± 37 BP (OxA-17194) from the samesite (Moore et al. in press). These dates stronglyimply that village settlements with a mixed farmingeconomy were established in northern Dalmatia by5900 cal BC. Beyond this, conclusions are difficult todraw. On the available 14C evidence, the neolithisa-tion of the eastern Adriatic as far north as southernIstria either could have occurred very rapidlyaround 6000 cal BC or may have been a more grad-ual pro cess beginning several centuries earlier andlasting for up to half a millennium, as envisaged byChapman and Müller (1990) and Forenbaher andMiracle (2005).

THE LATE ARRIVAL OF FARMINGAT THE HEAD OF THE ADRIATIC?

The northern limit of the impressed ware expansionthrough the eastern Adriatic is usually considered tolie in southern Istria (figure 8.1). No early farmingsites with impressed ware are known from northernIstria or the coastal fringe of Trieste Bay (for a moredetailed discussion, see Rowley-Conwy et al. thisvolume, chapter 9). There are some rare finds ofsherds with impressed decoration from caves on theKarst Plateau above Trieste Bay. However, most ofthese sherds are from unknown or poorly docu-mented contexts, and archaeological opinion is di-vided on whether they represent genuine finds ofEarly Neolithic impressed ware or belong to a laterperiod. Those archaeologists who accept them as‘early’ have usually interpreted them as evidence ofexchange between local foragers and impressedware farmers to the south (e.g., Barfield 1972;Müller 1994).

The conventional explanation for the lack ofimpressed ware settlements beyond Istria is that thearea to the north was a zone of ‘concentrated hunter-gatherer settlement’ (cf. Zvelebil and Lillie 2000, fig.3.4) which farming was slow to penetrate. When theNeolithic was eventually established across the re-gion in the second half of the sixth millennium cal

CHAPTER 8: EARLY FARMING ADAPTATIONS OF THE NORTHEAST ADRIATIC KARST 149

BC, it was assumed to be the result of acculturationof the Final Mesolithic inhabitants through contactwith Middle Neolithic populations to the south(Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1984; Barfield1972; Biagi and Starnini 1999; Chapman and Müller1990; Müller 1994).

While the beginning of the Neolithic in thenorthern Adriatic appears to be significantly laterthan along the Dalmatian coast, there is no hard ev-idence that the Caput Adriae remained a refuge forhunter-gatherers during the first half of the sixthmillennium cal BC. Although Mesolithic sites areknown from northern Istria (Kom!o 2006) and theTrieste Karst (figure 8.3), none of these is securelydated to the period after 6000 cal BC. A radiometric14C date of 7050 ± 60 BP (R-1043) on bulk charcoalfrom ‘Cut 3’ at Grotta Benussi (Alessio et al. 1978) isoften cited as evidence for the survival of Mesolithicforagers on the Karst Plateau after 6000 cal BC.However, like many archaeological caves in theKarst, Benussi was not excavated stratigraphically

but in coarse horizontal spits. Thus, the charcoalthat was dated did not come from a discrete archae-ological feature or horizon and so may not representa single burning event. The resultant 14C age, there-fore, should be regarded as suspect.

Three recently excavated cave sites, Edera (Biagiet al. 2008) and Mala Triglavca (Mleku" et al. 2008)on the Karst Plateau, and Pupi#ina (Miracle andForenbaher 2006) on the Istrian peninsula (figure8.3), have radiocarbon series that potentially aremore reliable, since the deposits were excavatedstratigraphically and/or the 14C measurements wereobtained using a single-entity dating strategy. Inter-estingly, in each of these sites, there is a significantgap in the 14C sequence between the latest Mesolithicand the earliest Neolithic occupations. Although thisgap varies in duration between the sites, each sitelacks 14C dates in the critical period between ca.6000 and 5600 cal BC when, supposedly, the north-ern Adriatic was still an area of concentratedhunter-gatherer settlement. Various hypotheses may

BONSALL ET AL.150

10 km

Benussi

Edera

Mitreo

Ciclami

MalaTriglavca

Trhlovca

AcijevPodmol

Zingari

Italian-Slovenian border

Cave

Mesolithic & Neolithic site

Mesolithi c site

Neolithic site

Land over 200 m

G u l f o f T r i e s t e

V i p a v a V a l l e y

N

S

W E

Tartaruga

30 km

Pupicina

Istria

Figure 8.3. Mesolithic and Neolithic sites (and caves) in the Trieste Karst (after Fabec 2003). Top right: location of Pupi!inaCave in northeastern Istria. Named sites are referred to in the text.

be proposed to account for the Mesolithic/Neolithic14C gap observed in northern Adriatic caves, includ-ing: (1) coincidence; (2) sampling bias; (3) trunca-tion of Mesolithic deposits by later Neolithic occu-pation; and (4) a cessation of, or decline in, cave useacross the region, related to a change in the settle-ment-subsistence system.

Hypothesis 1: This is not a convincing argumentsince Mesolithic/Neolithic gaps in cave sequencesare not unique to the northern Adriatic; they are awidespread phenomenon in inland caves through-out the Balkans (Biagi and Spataro 2001).

Hypothesis 2: A ‘14C gap’ in just one site couldeasily be a function of a sampling bias caused by toofew dated samples and/or inconsistent stratigraphicor spatial sampling. But the absence of 14C datesfrom the same time-range in three caves where dif-ferent excavation and dating strategies were em-ployed is more difficult to explain in these terms.

Hypothesis 3: Although the complete removalof Final Mesolithic deposits from the Karst cavesduring subsequent occupation events is unlikely, it isalso possible that localised disturbance by humanactivity could lead to gaps or inversions in 14C se-quences, as is shown by research at the Mala Tri -glavca rock-shelter (Mleku! et al. 2008). To confirmor exclude this as the cause of the 14C gap between6000 and 5600 cal BC would require more extensiveexcavation and dating strategies than have beenhitherto employed.

Hypothesis 4: Population decline amongst in-digenous hunter-gatherers has been proposed as anexplanation for the ‘14C gap’ (Biagi and Spataro 2001).However, if demographic or cultural explanations arepreferred, then other possibilities also exist. Marineshells are often present in Mesolithic levels of caveson the Karst Plateau; and the vast majority of theknown sites with Mesolithic remains are less than tenkilometres from the sea (figure 8.3). This raises thepossibility that an important use of the caves duringthe Mesolithic was as logistical camps by huntingparties who had residential bases on the coast. Didcultural interaction with farmers to the south after6000 cal BC result in changes in residential mobilityand subsistence patterns among the hunter-gathererswhich, in turn, impacted the scale and frequency oftheir exploitation of the Karst Plateau?

Compared with the situation on the KarstPlateau, the absence of sites around Trieste Bay that

were contemporaneous with the Impressed WareNeolithic of Dalmatia is perhaps easier to explain.Relative sea level in the northeast Adriatic has risenby an estimated 14 m since 6000 cal BC (Benjaminet al. 2011, fig. 16.9; cf. Faivre et al. 2011; Lambeck etal. 2004); and shoreline displacement and valley in-filling have likely been important factors influenc-ing archaeological visibility and preservation.

From the perspective of site discovery, caves arerelatively easy to locate in comparison with open-airsites. In Istria and Croatian Primorje (the mainlandand islands immediately to the east and southeast ofIstria), targeted archaeological surveys since the1990s have led to the discovery of 25 new Mesolithicsites, including open-air sites, which previously wereunder-represented in the archaeological record(Kom"o 2006). Given the lack of equivalent profes-sional surveys farther north, and the small numberof well-dated Mesolithic cave sequences from theKarst Plateau, it would be premature to concludethat hunter-gatherers did not continue to frequentthe Karst after 6000 cal BC. Equally, until Mesolithicsites belonging to the period 6000-5600 cal BC areclearly documented, we should be cautious aboutpromoting hypotheses of the neolithisation of thenortheast Adriatic region that assume a primaryrole for indigenous hunter-gatherers.

EARLY FARMING ADAPTATIONS ON THE TRIESTE KARST

The Trieste Karst is a low, limestone plateau (averagealtitude 340 m) that occupies an area roughly 13 by40 km between the Gulf of Trieste and the Vipava(Vipacco) River valley (figure 8.3). The KarstPlateau is characterised by numerous surface de-pressions, many quite small (dolines), others (poljesand uvalas) much larger; there are also literallythousands of caves and rock-shelters. The Karstcaves have attracted archaeological interest since thesecond half of the 19th century. Prehistoric remainshave been found in over 100 caves, although de-tailed information is available for fewer than 20 sites(Boschian and Montagnari Kokelj 2000). In mostcases, the archaeological excavations were limited inextent. Trenches were dug in horizontal spits whichrarely corresponded with lithological or archaeolog-ical layers (for discussion, see Fabec 2003). There-fore, artefacts and ecofacts from these spits (includ-ing bulk 14C samples) are best regarded as ‘mixed’

CHAPTER 8: EARLY FARMING ADAPTATIONS OF THE NORTHEAST ADRIATIC KARST 151

assemblages, and this has a critical bearing on ar-chaeological interpretations.

In most sites, the earliest Neolithic is repre-sented by pottery of the so-called Vla!ka group(Barfield 1972). Characteristically, this pottery has acrushed calcite temper that suggests it was madewithin the Karst region. Radiocarbon dates for lev-els with Vla!ka pottery range between ca. 6600 and5700 BP (5600-4600 cal BC), although the majorityof dates fall before 6200 BP (5150 cal BC). Vla!kapottery resembles that from sites of the Middle Neo -lithic Danilo culture in Dalmatia, and there has longbeen a debate over whether the two groups shouldbe seen as a single tradition (Batovi" 1973; Forenba-her and Kaiser 2006) or as distinct regional variants(e.g., Barfield 1971; Biagi and Voytek 1994). Vesselshapes are similar, as are decorative techniques andmotifs. The main differences between the twogroups are in the frequency of particular vesselshapes and the near absence of painted pottery inVla!ka assemblages. However, it is worth noting that14C dates for Danilo culture sites where painted pot-tery occurs (e.g., the type site of Danilo) cluster be-tween 6300 and 6100 BP (5300-5000 cal BC) and aretherefore later than the majority of dates for Vla!kasites on the Trieste Karst and the dates for the corre-sponding horizons (I and H) at Pupi"ina Cave in Is-tria.

There is some evidence that the Vla!ka groupmay not be the earliest Neolithic on the TriesteKarst. At Edera Cave, below the lowermost horizon(layer 2a) with Vla!ka pottery, was a layer (layer 3a)containing plain pottery sherds of apparently non-local manufacture, along with the bones of domesticand wild animals, shells of marine molluscs and alithic assemblage that includes trapezes and mi-croburins (Biagi et al. 1993, 2008). The apparentcombination of Mesolithic and Neolithic traits inlayer 3a at Edera Cave raises interesting questions. Itremains, however, an isolated case; and the associ-ated 14C dates are not significantly older than thosefrom the earliest Vla!ka horizon in the site.

CAVES AND HERDERS

All the known Trieste Karst sites with Vla!ka potteryare caves. No open-air sites have been recorded inthe region before the Chalcolithic or Early BronzeAge.

Prevalent among the vertebrate faunal remainsattributed to Vla!ka levels are bones and teeth of do-mestic livestock, principally sheep and/or goats butoccasionally also cattle and pigs. Remains of wild an-imals are invariably present and, in a few cases, dom-inate the assemblages. Zooarchaeological summariesfrequently do not distinguish between sheep andgoat. Where data are available, sheep tend to be atleast three to five times better represented than goatat prehistoric sites in southern Europe (Bartosiewicz1999). At the Karst site of Pupi"ina, for example, theratio of sheep to goat was about 5:1 in the earliestNeo lithic, layers H and I (Miracle and Pugsley 2006,table 7.5). Likewise, at Konispol Cave in Albania (fig-ure 8.1, site 1), sheep were overwhelmingly dominantin Neolithic levels (Russell 2000); and at the EarlyNeo lithic cave site of Grotta Scaloria, across the Adri-atic in southeastern Italy, 86% of the 160 clearly iden-tifiable caprine bones originated from sheep (Bar-tosiewicz and Nyerges 2011). Although proportionsobserved in small subsets cannot be extrapolated tothe entire assemblage, the regional tendency of sheepdominance seems evident at most Neolithic sites.

Micromorphological studies of Neolithic de-posits in three Karst caves (Azzurra, Caterina andEdera) showed that the deposits were made uplargely of burnt animal dung (or the mineral inclu-sions, e.g., faecal spherulites and phytoliths), mostlyof sheep or goat, and exhibited extensive evidence ofreworking and trampling. In places, the dung de-posits took the form of layered heaps of ash, char-coal and partially burnt dung (‘fumiers’) that wereusually poor in artefacts (Boschian and MontagnariKokelj 2000). Similar features have been recorded inother Karst caves, including Mala Triglavca (Mleku#2005; Mleku# et al. 2008). Several lines of evidenceindicate removal of the dung from one part of a caveand its redeposition in another (often near thewalls), in a process that was repeated cyclically overa long period. This in turn suggests an internal or-ganisation of cave space, with areas set aside for thestabling of caprines.

However, the caves were not just used as animalpens but also for human habitation. Zoorchaeologi-cal evidence indicates that caprines were culled,processed and eaten on-site (Miracle and Pugsley2006, 339-341; Mleku# 2005, 38-40). It may be sug-gested, therefore, that pastoralists regularly usedcaves as shelters for themselves and their herds.

BONSALL ET AL.152

The Karst region has very little arable land, andin historical times, cultivation was largely confinedto the bottoms of dolines, where the soils are deeperwith better water storage capacity and where there isgreater protection from the bora wind. Barfield(1972) argued that since Neolithic cave sites oftenopen from the sides of dolines, the inhabitants wouldhave engaged in cultivation of the doline floor.However, no incontrovertible evidence of cultiva-tion in the form of domesticated plant remains hasbeen reported from Vla!ka levels in any cave on theTrieste Karst.

All these lines of evidence point strongly to aNeolithic economy based on livestock herding, withthe emphasis on caprines.

NOMADIC OR TRANSHUMANCE PASTORALISTS?

Mobility is a key feature of traditional herding andserves to prevent local overgrazing. Pastoral mobil-ity can take various forms. One variant may be re-ferred to as ‘nomadic’ pastoralism, characterised bythe movement of entire communities with theirherds and by the lack of permanent base settle-ments. Nomadic movements can be extremely com-plex and variable and involve a strong element ofseasonality. In the absence of core settlements, theyoffer greater flexibility (at least in sparsely inhabitedareas) in opportunistic exploitation of the habitat.

Another form is transhumant pastoralism,which may be defined as the seasonally alternatingmovement of livestock, together with the personswho tend the herds, between two regions. Transhu-mance presumes the existence of permanent ‘emit-ting’ settlements. There may be varying degrees towhich sedentary agriculturalists were separatedfrom specialised herders within the same commu-nity, but a distinction between the two social groupsis the key element in the definition of transhumanceadopted by Khazanov (1994, xxxvii).

These two forms of mobile pastoralism definethe end points of a continuum within which variouscombinations and transitional forms may have ex-isted. As sedentary agriculture expands, so there is atendency towards transhumance proper; but no-madic groups may still move around independently,sharing the same territory.

Distinction between the two forms archaeolog-ically would be important from the viewpoint of

identity. Ethnographic examples have shown thatdiffering degrees, forms and freedom of mobilityshape attitudes towards the landscape as well as so-cial relations within and between groups.

In the northeast Adriatic, transhumant pas-toralism is documented historically since the 15thcentury AD, while in Dalmatia it is recorded as farback as the Roman period ("a!el 1980). However,there is little evidence to indicate when this form ofpastoralism first developed in southeast Europegenerally. A zooarchaeological study by Greenfield(1999) concluded that transhumant pastoralism ap-peared in the central Balkans only at the end of theNeolithic, ca. 3300 cal BC, linked to increased pres-sure on grazing resources, although in a later publi-cation he adopted a more cautious approach in lightof the paucity of data (Greenfield 2008). Did condi-tions in the northeast Adriatic favour an earlierevolution of transhumant pastoralism there? Werethe Neolithic herders of the Trieste Karst movingtheir livestock onto the Karst Plateau in a regularseasonal cycle?

Several authors have attempted to deduce theseason of occupation from the archaeofaunal re-mains in Vla!ka levels of cave sites in the Trieste andIstrian Karsts, principally by assessing eruption andtooth wear in the mandibles of herbivores.

Miracle and Pugsley (2006) considered theevidence from four sites, Pupi#ina (H), Edera (2A),Mitreo (5-6) and Zingari (5), where caprines domi-nate the assemblages (figure 8.4). They found that inall four sites, the majority (60-81%) of animals killedwere neonates and juveniles. Sub-adults (0-10%)were poorly represented. From this, they concludedthat herders used the sites mainly during spring andsummer, a conclusion which would be consistentwith an economic system in which herds were takenup onto the Karst in the warmer months of the year.This interpretation, however, assumes that there wasa single birthing season for Neolithic caprines in theearly spring (e.g., February; cf. Miracle and Pugsley2006, 332) and that tooth eruption/wear rates weresimilar to those recorded for modern caprine popu-lations (cf. Payne 1973).

Mleku$ (2005) also considered caprine toothwear data from the Trieste Karst caves but arrivedat a rather different interpretation. He suggestedthat there might have been no distinct birthing sea-son among Neolithic herds, with lambs being born

CHAPTER 8: EARLY FARMING ADAPTATIONS OF THE NORTHEAST ADRIATIC KARST 153

at different times of the year. He also found morevariability between sites in the representation ofanimals in different age classes (by including sheddeciduous teeth in the calculations). From this, heconcluded that it was not possible to establish aclear pattern of seasonal use of the sites and sug-gested that the Karst caves ‘were not merely outsta-tions of a larger pastoral system, with central siteselsewhere, but … comprised a full yearly cycle ofseasonal mobility’ (Mleku! 2005, 38). Thus, Mleku!envisaged a system of nomadic pastoralism that in-volved the movement of entire households withtheir animals in search of good grazing and water,and one in which individual caves were used simul-taneously as animal pens and for human habita-tion, at different times of the year.

Sample size and collection methods may not besuitable for testing either hypothesis. Only Pupi"inahas a large enough assemblage; and it is also the onlysite where sieving and flotation were undertakensystematically. A further limitation is the lack ofcomparative archaeofaunal data for lowland sites,especially along the coastal fringe. The nearestopen-air settlements with which the cave assem-blages can be compared are sites in Dalmatia andsouthern Istria belonging to the Impressed Ware(Early Neolithic) and Danilo (Middle Neolithic)cultures (table 8.2). Furthermore, nomadic pastoral-ism need not imply that Neolithic people and theirherds were present on the Karst throughout the year.The occurrence of marine shells and/or fish bonesin some sites suggests that the herders’ annualround, at least on occasion, included visits to thecoast or exchange with coastal communities.

As far as pastoralism is concerned, the dataavailable permit the following observations:

1. Caprines were important in the local economy;this makes speculation concerning seasonalcave use justified.

2. Caprines were present in and around the Karstcaves at the time of lambing (more likely to havebeen during spring than autumn) and themonths thereafter; but this does not exclude theuse of the caves at other times of the year.

3. The presence of sub-adults potentially overlapswith the winter season; but the broad age rangemakes precise estimation of season of occupa-tion questionable.

4. The data are not sufficient to support or reject thepossibility of transhumant movements withinthe region. In any case, the relationship betweenpotential ‘core’ settlements, a prerequisite oftranshumance, and the cave sites is unclear.

MEAT OR MILK?

An equally important question is how did the Neo -lithic herders of the Trieste Karst exploit their do-mestic animals? Did they prioritise the productionof meat and other primary products (bone, marrowand hide), or was the emphasis on secondary prod-ucts such as milk and wool?

Based on ethnoarchaeological research byPayne (1973), ‘survivorship graphs’ (in reality, mor-tality profiles) are commonly used to reconstructancient sheep and goat herd maintenance strategies.Payne produced three idealised curves representingdifferent management strategies aimed at maximis-

BONSALL ET AL.154

Zingari 5(N = 16)

Mitreo 5-6(N = 19)

Edera 2A(N = 16)

Pupicina H(N = 80)

% Adult

% Sub-adult

% Juvenile

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

% Neonate

Figure 8.4. Relative age distri-butions of caprine remains inEarly Neolithic (Vla!ka group)sites in the Trieste and Istriankarsts, based on tootheruption/wear characteristics(data from Miracle and Pugsley2006, table 7.32).

ing the yield of meat, milk and wool, respectively,each of which results in a different herd structure. Inan idealised ‘milk strategy’, very young animals(mainly males) are preferentially culled so that themilk they would have received is available forhuman consumption. In a ‘meat strategy’, most sur-plus males are culled when nearly fully grown (twoto three years). In a ‘wool strategy’, there is no age-specific cull and as many animals as possible of bothsexes are kept into adulthood. These idealisedcurves provide a basis for the comparison of zooar-chaeological assemblages.

Given the differences in the quantity and the fatand protein concentration of the milk produced bysheep and goats, the possibility that early goatsprobably did not grow wool and, additionally, theconcomitant differences in the ecological/economic

niches occupied by these two species, such recon-structions should always rely on teeth identified tospecies level (Payne 1985). Payne’s original 1973work, moreover, included a strong ethnographiccomponent, in contrast to most archaeological evi-dence which, with the possible exception of decidu-ous teeth lost in vivo, is relevant to patterns of foodconsumption rather than of herd management. ‘Sur-vivorship curves’ in archaeology are, therefore,based on a correlation between the animals kept andanimals consumed; and such a correlation would bereflected only in very large, statistically representa-tive samples.

Survivorship graphs are available for Vla!kagroup (caprine) assemblages from several cavesites on the Trieste and Istrian Karsts (Miracle andPugsley 2006, fig. 7.27; Mleku" 2005, fig. 15). In all

CHAPTER 8: EARLY FARMING ADAPTATIONS OF THE NORTHEAST ADRIATIC KARST 155

Table 8.2. Summary of the mammalian remains from Early and Middle Neolithic contexts by region and site type

EN = Early Neolithic, MN = Middle Neolithic. ‘EN’ = Early Neolithic of the northeast Adriatic Karst; which is broadly contemporaneous with the Middle Neolithic of Dalmatia. Data are from Mleku! (2005, supplementary material) and Miracle and Pugsley (2006, table 7.6).

Caprine Hunted game

Region Site/layer Site type Period Total NISP NISP % NISP %

1.6421.88743493NEnepOniNaitamlaD

2.91518.210187NEnepOilimS

Tinj-Podlivade Open EN 3209 2933 91.4 71 2.2

1.02964.47652443NEevaCI alip"

000015151NEevaCalips aleV

2.214.469254NEevaCaksdopsoG

1.8226.63001372NMnepOilimS

8.21195.17905217NMevaCII alip"

1.1117.6669NMevaCalips aleV

Karst Pupi#ina, layers I-H Cave ‘EN’ 2873 2453 85.4 113 3.9

Ciclami, layers 7-8 Cave ‘EN’ 82 53 64.6 14 17.1

5.6278.0950017011’NE‘evaCa2 reyal ,aredE

Mala Triglavca, layers 8-9 Cave ‘EN’ 248 27 10.9 207 83.5

Trhlovca, layers G-H Cave ‘EN’ 131 30 22.9 71 54.2

Tartaruga, layer 7 Cave ‘EN’ 257 41 16 129 50.2

Zingari, layer 5 Cave ‘EN’ 228 43 18.9 120 52.6

Podmol, layers K-M Cave ‘EN’ 46 32 69.6 0 0

Acijev spodmol, layer F Cave ‘EN’ 18 11 61.1 4 22.2

Mitreo, layers 8 + AB6 Cave ‘EN’ 139 78 56.1 12 8.6

cases, the curves fall between Payne’s idealisedcurves for meat and milk production strategies.Miracle and Pugsley (2006) suggested that the curvefor horizons H and I at Pupi!ina (figure 8.5), basedon large samples, was closest to a ‘milk’ model, andargued for a milk plus meat strategy. Mleku" (2005)disagreed and, on the basis of the cull profiles of theVla#ka assemblages from Edera 2A, Ciclami 7-8,Mitreo AB6-8 and Zingari 5, argued that the empha-sis in all the sites was on meat production. Probablyno one single site on the Karst represents a fullyearly cycle of occupation. However, Payne’s impor-tant observations concern the entire year; and theybecome less directly relevant if we aim for a seasonalinterpretation. In the case of the Trieste Karst sites,the applicability of Payne’s models is further con-strained by very small sample sizes.

It is unlikely that herders relied exclusively onmilk or meat. A purely meat strategy would requirethe keeping of larger numbers of caprines, whichwould have been more difficult to manage in a heav-ily wooded environment. Analysis of potteryresidues from Mala Triglavca confirmed the pres-ence of milk lipids (Mleku" et al. 2008), proving thata knowledge of milking was in place.

THE ROLE OF HUNTING

The taxonomic richness and evenness of zooarchae-ological assemblages from the eastern Adriatic wereanalysed in detail by Mleku" (2005, 29, fig. 8.5). Inthis section, we assess how total assemblage size is

related to the proportions of caprine bones and theremains of hunted game in order to examine the ex-tent to which opportunistic hunting may have re-duced the need for meat exploitation of caprines.

Table 8.2 shows both the total number of iden-tifiable specimens (NISP) of domesticates plushunted game and the numbers of identifiable speci-mens of caprines and hunted game in 19 Early andMiddle Neolithic contexts from the eastern Adriatic.These data were taken mainly from the largerdataset used by Mleku" (2005) in his synthesis ofNeolithic-Early Bronze Age pastoralism in the re-gion, together with more recently published data onPupi!ina Cave taken from Miracle and Pugsley(2006, 266, table 7.4). The term ‘hunted game’ is usedhere to distinguish mammals of at least the size of ahare or above which were acquired by hunting. Birdsand fish have been excluded not only because theydiffer radically from mammals in terms of the num-ber of bones in their individual skeletons and intheir taphonomic properties (Bartosiewicz and Gál2007) but also because fowling and fishing are activ-ities that differ technically from hunting larger, ter-restrial game. Thus, while birds and fish (like shell-fish) represent wild resources, they should not beused together in calculations under the umbrellaterm ‘wild animals’. Commensal and burrowingsmall mammals, which may represent accidental in-trusions, were likewise left out of our analysis.

When the average NISP values for pooled Im-pressed Ware (ca. 6000-5500 cal BC) and Daniloculture (ca. 5500-5000 cal BC) assemblages (mean

BONSALL ET AL.156

100

80

60

40

20

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10age in years

perc

ent s

urvi

val

Pupi!ina

H (MNE = 80)

I (MNE = 21)

milk

meat

Figure 8.5. Miracle and Pugs-ley’s graphs of percentage survivalof caprines in the earliestNeolithic (horizons H and I) atPupi!ina Cave plotted against the‘milk’ and ‘meat’ survivorshipcurves established by Payne(1973). After Miracle and Pugsley(2006 fig. 7.27a).

value: 564, n = 9) are compared with those fromVla!ka contexts (ca. 5600-5200 cal BC) on the Is-trian and Trieste Karsts (mean value: 513, n = 10),no statistically significant difference can be estab-lished, owing to the extreme dispersal of assemblagesizes that creates a major overlap between the twogroups. The percentage contribution of caprinebones, however, is significantly different (67% and50%, respectively) in formal statistical terms (chi2 =13.2, p = 0.0003, df = 1).

Figure 8.6 shows the relationship between totalNISP and %NISP for caprines in the Early and Mid-dle Neolithic assemblages listed in table 8.2 (siteswith %NISP for hunted game > 25% [n = 4] are in-dicated). Only four sites exceed the NISP = 500value that may be considered the empirical mini-mum for any reasonable conclusion regarding taxo-nomic composition: the open-air site of Tinj-Podli-vade (NISP = 3209, caprine % = 91.4), Pupi"inaCave, horizons I-H (NISP = 2873, caprine % = 85.4),Edera Cave, layer 2a (NISP = 1107, caprine % =90.8) and Middle Neolithic #pila Cave II (NISP =712, caprine % = 71.5). Only at the last mentionedsite is there more than 10% of hunted game.

Early and Middle Neolithic sites in Dalmatia(with the exception of Smil$i" where cattle remains

predominate over those of caprines) broadly fit thistrend.

There is a group of outliers represented by smallcave assemblages from the Trieste Karst, which forma tight cluster and are characterised by minimal con-tribution of caprine remains and a high proportionof game animals: Mala Triglavca, layers 8-9 (NISP =248, game = 83.5%), Trhlovca, layers G–H (NISP =131, game = 54.2%), Zingari, layer 5 (NISP = 228,game = 52.6%) and Tartaruga, layer 7 (NISP = 257,game = 50.2%). The Early and Middle Neo lithic as-semblages from the open-air settlement of Smil$i"show only small percentages of remains from gamemammals. Those caves in which the remains ofhunted game dominate might have served as tempo-rary or occasional hunting camps. However, if thiswere the case, the presence of domestic animal bonesin the same small assemblages remains to be ex-plained. As noted above, given that many cave siteswere not excavated stratigraphically but in coarse,horizontally aligned spits, the high percentage ofwild animals in some Neolithic contexts could be theresult of contamination from earlier, Mesolithic de-posits. This would seem likely given the evidence ofdisturbance of older deposits by Neolithic herders(see above). At Mala Triglavca, for example, most

CHAPTER 8: EARLY FARMING ADAPTATIONS OF THE NORTHEAST ADRIATIC KARST 157

0

25

50

75

100

1 10 100 1000 10000

EN MN 'EN' Game >25%

NISP (domesticates + hunted game)

perc

ent c

aprin

es

Figure 8.6 Caprine percentages plotted against the number of identifiable specimens (NISP) of domesticates and huntedgame (log scale) showing the increasing dominance of sheep/goat bones with assemblage size. The dashed line highlightsthe visual trend.

AMS 14C dates on wild animal bones from the ‘Ne-olithic’ horizon (cf. Leben 1988) fall within theMesolithic time range (Mleku! et al. 2008).

If one disregards those sites where stratigraphicintegrity may be compromised, then the remainingassemblages show a general tendency (table 8.2; fig-ure 8.6, dashed line) for early herders not to rely sys-tematically on hunting for their meat provisions. Forthese sites, there is a high, statistically significantSpearman rank correlation (rs = 0.674; P = 0.019)between assemblage size and the percentage contri-bution of caprine bones.

This pattern corresponds with that observed insoutheast Europe generally. Large Early Neolithicassemblages tend to be dominated by bones ofcaprines, with only small contributions by huntedgame. Boessneck (1956, 1962) demonstrated thisfirst for Thessaly, but the same trend is evidentthroughout the Balkans (e.g., Bla!i" 2005; Bökönyi1988; Russell 2000) and the south of Italy (e.g., Bar-tosiewicz and Nyerges 2011; Cipolloni Sampò 1973;Tagliacozzo 1994, 2006)—and even in the oncemarshy Great Hungarian Plain (Bartosiewicz 2007).

CONCLUSIONS

It will be clear from the foregoing discussion of theearliest Neolithic settlement of the northeast AdriaticKarst that many issues remain to be resolved. Basedon the available archaeological and radiocarbon evi-dence, we offer the following tentative conclusions.

The earliest Neolithic of the northeast AdriaticKarst is dated to ca. 5600-5200 cal BC, following agap in the 14C record of several centuries. All knownsites are caves; Neolithic cave use is not only indi-cated by pottery (Vla#ka-Danilo) but also by thedominance of domestic animals mixed with the re-mains of game in the faunal assemblages.

The evidence points strongly to an economybased on the herding of caprines. Caves appear tohave served simultaneously as animal pens and forhuman habitation. While caprines were evidentlykept for both meat and milk (the latter also identi-fied by lipid analyses), neither form of exploitationseems markedly to have dominated over the other.

Where contamination from earlier, Mesolithicdeposits can be ruled out, the limited evidence ofwild animal remains is indicative of the use of hunt-ing to provide a supplementary meat source and,

possibly, to offer herd protection. Some caves, whennot occupied by herders and their animals, mayhave been used as hunting camps.

What form of mobile pastoralism characterisedthe earliest Neolithic of the northeast Adriatic is stillan open question. Whether they were transhumantor nomadic herders, the first Neolithic inhabitantsof the Karst probably had their origins mainlyamong the early agro-pastoralists of southern Istriaand Dalmatia.

Mobile pastoralism is an efficient way of usingareas with limited soil and water resources. Like theAdriatic Karst, large areas of southeast Europe werebetter suited to herding than to arable farming. Itfollows that the origins and spread of farming in Eu-rope were not simply a matter of the expansion ofsedentary agriculture. In many areas, the first farm-ers may have been mobile herders.

REFERENCES

Alessio, M., Allegri, L., Bella, F., Improta, F., Belluomini,G., Calderoni, G., Cortesi, C., Manfra, L., & Turi, B.1978. University of Rome carbon-14 dates XVI. Ra-diocarbon, 20(1): 79-104.

Ammerman, A., & Cavalli-Sforza, L. 1984. The Neolithictransition and the genetics of population in Europe.Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Barfield, L. 1971. Northern Italy before Rome. London:Thames & Hudson.

——. 1972. The first Neolithic cultures of north easternItaly. Fundamenta, A/3(7): 182-216.

Bartosiewicz, L. 1999. The role of sheep versus goat inmeat consumption at archaeological sites. In L. Bar-tosiewicz & H. Greenfield (eds.), Transhumant pas-toralism in southern Europe: recent perspectives fromarchaeology, history, and ethnography: 47-60. Bu-dapest: Archaeolingua.

——. 2007. Mammalian bone. In A. Whittle (ed.), TheEarly Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: investi-gations of the Körös Culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, Co.Békés: 287-325. Budapest: Institute of Archaeology,Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

Bartosiewicz, L., & Gál, E. 2007. Sample size and taxo-nomic richness in mammalian and avian bone as-semblages from archaeological sites. ArcheometriaiM!hely, 2007(1): 37-44.

Bartosiewicz, L., & Nyerges, É. Á. 2011. Prehistoric animalremains from Grotta Scaloria di Manfredonia – Fog-

BONSALL ET AL.158

gia, Puglia (Italy). Budapest: Manuscript on file, In-stitute of Archaeological Sciences, Loránd EötvösUniversity.

Batovi!, S. 1973. Prapovijesni ostaci na zadarskom oto"ju.Diadora, 6: 5-165.

Benjamin, J., Beki!, L., Kom#o, D., Koncani Uha", I., & Bon-sall, C. 2011. Investigating the submerged prehistory ofthe eastern Adriatic: progress and prospects. In J. Ben-jamin, C. Bonsall, C. Pickard & A. Fischer (eds.), Sub-merged prehistory: 193-206. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Biagi, P., & Spataro, M. 2001. Plotting the evidence: someaspects of radiocarbon chronology of the Meso -lithic-Neolithic transition in the Mediterraneanbasin. Atti della Società per la preistoria e protostoriadella regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 12: 15-54.

Biagi, P., & Starnini, E. 1999. Some aspects of the neo -lithization of the Adriatic region. Atti della Societàper la preistoria e protostoria della regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 11: 7-17.

Biagi, P., Starnini, E., & Voytek, B. 1993. The Late Mesolithicand Early Neolithic settlement of northern Italy:recent considerations. Poro!ilo o raziskovanju paleoli-tika, neolitika in eneolitika v Slovenij 21: 45-67.

——. 2008. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Tri-este Karst (north-eastern Italy) as seen from the ex-cavations at the Edera Cave. In C. Bonsall, V.Boroneant & I. Radovanovi! (eds.), The Iron Gates inprehistory: new perspectives: 250-260. Oxford: Ar-chaeopress BAR International Series 1893.

Biagi, P., & Voytek, B. 1994. The neolithisation of the Tri-este Karst in north-eastern Italy and its neighbouringcountries. Josa Andras Muzeum Evkonyve aNyiregyhazi 36: 63-74.

Bla$i!, S. 2005. The faunal assemblage. In S. Karmanski(ed.), Donja Branjevina: a Neolithic settlement nearDeronje in the Vojvodina (Serbia): 74-76. Trieste: So-cietà per la preistoria e protostoria della regioneFriuli-Venezia Giulia.

Boessneck, J. 1956. Zu den Tierknochen aus neolitischenSiedlungen Thessaliens. Berichte der Römisch-Ger-manischen Kommission 36: 1-51.

——. 1962. Die Tierreste aus der Argissa-Magula vompräkeramischen Neolithikum bis zur mittlerenBronzezeit. In V. Milojci!, J. Boessneck & M. Hopf(eds.), Argissa-Magula 1: das Präkeramische Neo -lithikum sowie die Tier- und Pflanzenreste: 27-99.Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.

Bökönyi, S. 1988. The Neolithic fauna of Divostin. In A.McPherron & D. Srejovi! (eds.), Divostin and the

Neo lithic of central Serbia: 419-446. Pittsburgh: Uni-versity of Pittsburgh, Department of Anthropology.

Bonsall, C., Anderson, D. E., & Macklin, M. G. 2002. TheMesolithic-Neolithic transition in western Scotlandand its European context. Documenta praehistorica29: 1-19.

Boschian, G., & Montagnari-Kokelj, E. 2000. Prehistoricshepherds and caves in the Trieste Karst (northeast-ern Italy). Geoarchaeology, 150(4): 331-371.

Budja, M. 2001. The transition to farming in southeastEurope: perspectives from pottery. Documenta prae-historica 28: 27-47.

Chapman, J. C., & Müller, J. 1990. Early farmers in theMediterranean basin: the Dalmatian evidence. An-tiquity, 64(242): 127-134.

Cipolloni Sampò, M. 1973. Villaggio del Rendina: sco-perta di una nuova facies decorativa del neolitico ita-liano a ceramica impressa. In M. V. Garasanin, A.Benac & N. Tasic (eds.), Actes du VIIIe Congrès inter-national des sciences préhistoriques et protohis-toriques. Beograd, 9–15 septembre 1971, Vol. II: 359-367. Beograd: Union internationale des sciencesprehistoriques et protohistoriques.

Fabec, T. 2003. Neolitizacija Krasa. Arheolo"ki vestnik 54:73-122.

Faivre, S., Fouache, E., Ghilardi, M., Antonioli, F., Furlani,S., & Kova"i!, V. 2011. Relative sea level change inwestern Istria (Croatia) during the last millennium.Quaternary International, 232(1-2): 132-143.

Forenbaher, S., & Kaiser, T. 2006. The pottery of Pupi!inaCave. In P. T. Miracle & S. Forenbaher (eds.), Prehis-toric herders of northern Istria: the archaeology ofPupi#ina Cave, Vol. 1: 163-223. Pula: Arheolo#kiMuzej Istre.

Forenbaher, S., & Miracle, P. T. 2005. The spread of farm-ing in the eastern Adriatic. Antiquity, 79: 514-528.

——. 2006. Pupi!ina Cave and the spread of farming inthe eastern Adriatic. In P. T. Miracle & S. Forenbaher(eds.), Prehistoric herders of northern Istria: thearchaeology of Pupi#ina Cave, Vol. 1: 483-523. Pula:Arheolo#ki Muzej Istre.

Greenfield, H. J. 1999. The origins of transhumant pas-toralism in temperate southeastern Europe. In L.Bartosiewicz & H. Greenfield (eds.), Transhumantpastoralism in southern Europe: recent perspectivesfrom archaeology, history, and ethnography: 15-36.Budapest: Archaeolingua.

——. 2008. Faunal assemblages from the Early Neolithicof the central Balkans: methodological issues in the

CHAPTER 8: EARLY FARMING ADAPTATIONS OF THE NORTHEAST ADRIATIC KARST 159

.

reconstruction of subsistence and land use. In C.Bonsall, V. Boroneant & I. Radovanovi! (eds.), TheIron Gates in prehistory: new perspectives: 103-114.Oxford: Archaeopress BAR International Series1893.

Khazanov, A. M. 1994. Nomads and the outside world. 2ndedition. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Kom"o, D. 2006. The Mesolithic in Croatia. Opuscula ar-chaeologica 30: 55-92.

Korkuti, M. 1982. Vashtëmia – një Vendbanim I Neolitittë Hershëm [Vashtëmia – an Early Neo lithic settle-ment]. Iliria, 12(2): 91-146.

——. 1983. Vendbanimi Neolitik i Kolshit [Early Neolithicat Kolshit]. Iliria, 13(2): 11-75.

——. 2003. Researches and studies of prehistory of Alba-nia. In D. V. Grammenos (ed.), Recent research in theprehistory of the Balkans: 205-256. Thessaloniki: In-stitute of Northern Greece.

Lambeck, K., Antonioli, F., Purcell, A., & Silenzi, S. 2004.Sea-level change along the Italian coast for the past10,000 yr. Quaternary Science Reviews 23: 1567-1598.

Leben, F. 1988. Novoodkrite prazgodovinske plasti vjamah na Krasu. Poro#ilo o Raziskovanju Paleolita.Neolita in Eneolita v Sloveniji 16: 65-76.

Miracle, P. T., & Forenbaher, S. (eds.). 2006. Prehistoricherders of northern Istria: the archaeology of Pupi!inaCave, Vol. 1. Pula: Arheolo"ki Muzej Istre.

Miracle, P. T., & Pugsley, L. 2006. Vertebrate faunalremains from Pupi!ina Cave. In P. T. Miracle & S.Forenbaher (eds.), Prehistoric herders of northernistria: the archaeology of Pupi!ina Cave, Vol. 1: 259-399. Pula: Arheolo"ki Muzej Istre.

Mleku$, D. 2005. The ethnography of the Cyclops: Neo -lithic pastoralists in the eastern Adriatic. DocumentaPraehistorica 32: 15-51.

Mleku$, D., Budja, M., Payton, R., & Bonsall, C. 2008.‘Mind the Gap’: caves, radiocarbon sequences, andthe Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Europe: les-sons from the Mala Triglavca rockshelter site. Geoar-chaeology, 23(3): 398-416.

Moore, A., Men%u"i!, M., Podrug, E., & Zaninovi!, J. inpress. The inception of farming as a transformingprocess: initial results from new excavations atDanilo and Pokrovnik in Dalmatia. In D. Bori! & M.Gurova (eds.), Identities of the Early NeolithicBalkans. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Müller, J. 1994. Das Östadriatische Frühneolithikum: DieImpresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adria-raumes. Berlin: Volker Spiess.

Payne, S. 1973. Kill-off patterns in sheep and goats: themandibles from A&van Kale. Anatolian Studies 23:281-303.

——. 1985. Morphological distinctions between themandibular teeth of young sheep, Ovis, and goats,Capra. Journal of Archaeological Science, 12: 139-147.

Pettitt, P. B., Davies, W., Gamble, C. S., & Richards, M. B.2003. Palaeolithic radiocarbon chronology: quantify-ing our confidence beyond two half-lives. Journal ofArchaeological Science, 30: 1685-1693.

Prendi, F. 1976. Neoliti dhe Eneoliti ne Shgiperi. Iliria, VI:21-99.

Reimer, P. J., Baillie, M. G. L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P. G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C. E.,Burr, G. S., Edwards, R. L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T. P., Hajdas, I., Heaton, T. J., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K. A., Kaiser, K. F., Kromer, B., McCor-mac, F. G., Manning, S. W., Reimer, R. W., Richards, D.A., Southon, J. R., Talamo, S., Turney, C. S. M., van derPlicht, J., & Weyhenmeyer, C. E. 2009. IntCal09 andMarine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0-50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon, 51: 1111-1150.

Rodden, R. J., & Wardle, K. A. (eds.). 1996. Nea NikomediaI: The excavation of an Early Neolithic village innorthern Greece 1961–1964. Oxford: Alden Press.

Russell, N. 2000. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition inthe faunal assemblage from Konispol Cave, Albania.Iliria, 1-2 (1999-2000): 79-95.

'a"el, J. 1980. Pastorizia e transhumanza. Contributo alladiscussione. Rivista Storica dell’Antichita 10: 179-185.

Stuiver, M., & Reimer, P. J. 1993. Extended 14C data baseand revised CALIB 3.0 14C age calibration program.Radiocarbon, 35(1): 215-230.

Stuiver, M., Reimer, P. J., & Reimer, R. 2005. CALIB Radio-carbon Calibration (rev. 5.0.2): On-line manual.http://radiocarbon.pa.qub.ac.uk/calib/manual/.

Tagliacozzo, A. 1994. I dati archeozoologici: economia diallevamento e caccia a Broglio di Trebisacce. In R.Peroni & F. Trucco (eds.), Enotri e Micenei nellaSibaritide: 587-652. Taranto: Istituto per la Storia el’Archeologia della Magna Grecia.

——. 2006. Animal exploitation in the Early Neolithic incentral-southern Italy. Munibe (Antropologia–Arke-ologia) 57 (2005-2006): 429-439.

Waterbolk, H. T. 1971. Working with radiocarbon dates.Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 37: 15-33.

Zvelebil, M., & Lillie, M. 2000. Transition to agriculture ineastern Europe. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe’s firstfarmers: 57-92. Cambridge: University Press.

BONSALL ET AL.160

.