M. Spataro 2002 - The First Farming Communities of the Adriatic: Pottery Production and Circulation...

SOCIETÀ PER LA PREISTORIA E PROTOSTORIADELLA REGIONE FRIULI-VENEZIA GIULIA

QUADERNO - 9

M ICHELA SPATARO

THE FIRST FARMING COMMUNITIES OF THE ADRIATIC:POTTERY PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION

IN THE EARLY AND MIDDLE NEOLITHIC

Edizioni Svevo Trieste2002

ISSN 1124-156X

SOCI

ETÀ

PER

LA P

REIS

TORI

A E

PROT

OSTO

RIA

DELL

A RE

GION

E FR

IULI-

VENE

ZIA

GIUL

IA

Q

UADE

RNO

9 -2

002

¯ 1

To Paolo, my parents and Davide

2

Il presente volume è stato stampatocon il contributo delle

¯ 3


QUADERNO - 9

M ICHELA SPATARO

THE FIRST FARMING COMMUNITIES OF THE ADRIATIC:POTTERY PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION

IN THE EARLY AND MIDDLE NEOLITHIC

Edizioni Svevo Trieste2002

ISSN 1124-156X


QUADERNO 9 - 2002

c/o Museo Civico di Storia Naturale

Piazza Hortis 4 - 34123 Trieste (Italia)

REDATTORE

Paolo Biagi

CONTENTS

List of abbreviation of sites names........................................................................................................................ page 6Legend for thin section and SEM-EDS tables........................................................................................................ » 6Aknowledgements................................................................................................................................................... » 7

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... » 9

1. Preface................................................................................................................................................................. » 92. Scope of the research.......................................................................................................................................... » 103. Trade and exchange in the Adriatic Neolithic .................................................................................................... » 114. The models: current views of how the Neolithic spread in the Mediterranean................................................. » 135. The Mesolithic background................................................................................................................................ » 156. The Holocene sea-level rise................................................................................................................................ » 247. The Impressed Ware Culture............................................................................................................................... » 248. The Danilo and Hvar Cultures............................................................................................................................ » 309. Discussion........................................................................................................................................................... » 33

CHAPTER 2 - METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................... » 35

1. Preface................................................................................................................................................................. » 352. Sampling............................................................................................................................................................. » 363. Methodological approach................................................................................................................................... » 364. Fabric................................................................................................................................................................... » 375. Analytical approach............................................................................................................................................ » 376. X-Ray Diffraction (XRD)................................................................................................................................... » 417. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)............................................................................................................... » 41

CHAPTER 3 - THE ISTRIAN AND DALMATIAN SITES: ANALYSES AND RESULTS.................................................................... » 43

1. Viùla (Pula).......................................................................................................................................................... » 432. Jami na Sredi (Cres Island ..................................................................................................................................... » 503. Vela Jama (Lošinj Island)....................................................................................................................................... » 604. Tini-Podlivade (Zadar).......................................................................................................................................... » 685. Smilčić (Zadar)....................................................................................................................................................... » 736. Vrbica (Šibenik)..................................................................................................................................................... » 937. Konjevrate (Šibenik)............................................................................................................................................. » 1038. Danilo Bitinj (Šibenik)........................................................................................................................................... » 1139. Vela špilja (Korčula Island) ................................................................................................................................... » 125

CHAPTER 4 - THE ITALIAN SITES: ANALYSES AND RESULTS ............................................................................................. » 137

1. Fornace Cappuccini (Faenza)............................................................................................................................. » 1372. Maddalena di Muccia (Macerata)........................................................................................................................ » 1423. Ripabianca di Monterado (Ancona)................................................................................................................... » 1514. Scamuso (Torre a Mare, Bari)............................................................................................................................. » 1635. Correlation between the fabrics of the soil samples analysed in thin section................................................... » 175

CHAPTER 5 - THE FIGULINA POTTERY: ITS PRODUCTION AND TRADE ................................................................................. » 179

1. Preface................................................................................................................................................................. » 1792. Analyses.............................................................................................................................................................. » 1803. The Italian sites................................................................................................................................................... » 1804. The Dalmatian sites............................................................................................................................................. » 1875. Typological comparisons.................................................................................................................................... » 1896. Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................... » 1907. Figulina production technology......................................................................................................................... » 1908. Trade and exchange network................................................................................................................................ » 191

6

List of abbreviations of site names

Danilo Bitinj .......................................................... DBFagnigola .................................................................. FGFiorano Modenese ............................................. FMDFornace Cappuccini ............................................... FCGravina ................................................................. GRVGrotta delle Mura ............................................ GDMJami na Sredi ....................................................... JNSKonjevrate ............................................................ KNVMaddalena di Muccia ......................................MDMMalo Korenovo......................................................MKRipabianca di Monterado ............................... RDMScamuso ................................................................. SCASmil~i} Impressed Ware phase ....................... SMLSmil~i} Danilo phase ........................................ SMDSmil~i} Hvar phase ........................................... SMHTinj-Podlivade .......................................................... TNVela Jama.................................................................VJVela {pilja ................................................................ VSViùla ........................................................................VZVrbica ....................................................................VRB

Legend for thin section and SEM-EDS tables

A ..................................................................... abundantP .......................................................................... presentR .............................................................................. rareVA ......................................................... very abundantn/d ............................................................. not detecteds.d .................................................. standard deviation

CHAPTER 6 - COMPARISONS AND DISCUSSION................................................................................................................. » 193

1. Relationships between the IW sites.................................................................................................................... » 1932. Relationships between the Danilo Culture sites................................................................................................. » 1953. Relationships between the Hvar Culture sites.................................................................................................... » 1964. Changes in the pottery technology/production?................................................................................................. » 1965. Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................... » 1976. Figulina ware in its context................................................................................................................................ » 1987. Later changes in pottery typology due to exchanges between the two Adriatic coastlines.............................. » 198

CHAPTER 7 - CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................ » 199

1. Impressed Wares and obsidian in the Adriatic: Early Neolithic trade and exchange........................................ » 2012. Figulina ware in the Adriatic - mid seventh millennium BP............................................................................ » 2023. Old models and new proposals for further studies............................................................................................. » 202

APPENDIX 1 ............................................................................................................................................................... » 205APPENDIX 2 ............................................................................................................................................................... » 209APPENDIX 3 ............................................................................................................................................................... » 213APPENDIX 4 ............................................................................................................................................................... » 213

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................................... » 241

¯ 7

Acknowledgements

For the writing of this volume, I have taken into account the materials stored in the collections of variousMuseums, Universities and Archaeological Superintendences of both the Dalmatian and Italian Adriatic coa-sts. For the ceramic samples kindly provided, for their help in the location of the sites and the collection of thesoil samples, I wish to thank Prof. [. Batovi} (Zadar University - HR), Prof. G. Bermond Montanari (BolognaUniversity - I), Dr. M. Calattini (Siena University - I), Prof. B. ê~uk (Croatian Archaeological Society,Zagreb - HR), Dr. D. Coppola (Rome “Tor Vergata” University - I), Dr. M. Mendu{i} ([ibenik Museum - HR),Dr. K. Mihovili} (Pula Museum - HR), Dr. A.N. Rigoni (Pordenone Museum - I), Dr. M. Silvestrini (Soprin-tendenza Archeologica delle Marche, Ancona - I), and Prof. T. Teàk-Gregl (Zagreb University - HR).

Special thanks are due to those scholars who helped me in the interpretation of my analyses and for theiranalytical work, for providing help and donation of off-prints, volumes and geological maps of the investiga-ted areas: Prof. I. Freestone (British Museum, London - UK), who also revised the final draft of my analyses,Prof. Y. Goren (Tel Aviv University - Israel), Prof. M. Maggetti (Freiburg University - CH), Dr. R. Macphail(Institute of Archaeology, UCL - UK), Prof. T. Mannoni and Dr. A. Capelli (Genoa University - I), Dr. J.Müller (Otto-Friedrich University, Bamberg - D), Mr. A. Beer (Department of Geology, UCL - UK), Prof. C.Orton (Institute of Archaeology, UCL - UK), Mr. K. Reeves (Institute of Archaeology, UCL - UK), Mr. I. Turk(Slovenian Academy of Sciences, Ljubljana - SLO), Mr. S. Hirons (Birkbeck College - UK), and Mr. S.Laidlaw (Institute of Archaeology, UCL - UK).

A. and M. Mac Gregor and their family provided me with much help during my stay in London in the lasttwo years. I want to express my gratitude to all of them for their kindness and support.

Special thanks are also due to Prof. K. Thomas (Institute of Archaeology, UCL - UK), for the criticalreading of the scientific chapters, to Dr. B.A. Voytek (Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley University- USA), who accurately checked the English of the original manuscript and for her useful criticism, as well asto my friend and colleague Mr. S. Nishiyama, for his help and the computer work.

Finally I want to thank Prof. S. Shennan, Prof. R. Whitehouse and Prof. T. Rehren (Institute of Archaeo-logy, UCL - UK) for discussing the many controversial points of this work. I wish to thank also Prof. M.Cipolloni Sampò (Viterbo University - I), Prof. A. Galiberti (Siena University - I), Dr. L.H. Barfield (Birmin-gham University - UK), and Dr. I.K. Whitbread (Leicester University - UK) for their valuable advice anduseful suggestions.

This work has been possible thanks to the love, encouragement and great patience of my family. I ammost grateful to Prof. P. Biagi (Ca’ Foscari University, Venice - I) who introduced me to this fascinatingsubject and supported this research with his wise, critical and generous advice.

8

¯ 9

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1. PREFACE

This work focuses on the study of pottery production along the coasts of the Adriatic during the Neolithicwhen pottery first appeared within an archaeological context, around the end of the eighth millennium BP. Itwill contribute to the debate of when and how it emerged, and to the knowledge of its manufacture systems,production centres and circulation in the basin of the Adriatic.

To reach this goal ceramic samples from thirteen sites located along both Adriatic coastlines have beentaken into consideration. Following the order in which they are presented in Chapters 3 and 4, they arethose of Vi ula near Medulin (HR), Jami na Sredi on the Island of Cres (HR), Vela Jama on Island of Lo{inj(HR), Tinj and Smil~i} near Zadar (HR), Vrbica, Konjevrate and Danilo Bitinj near [ibenik (HR), Vela

{pilja on the Island of Kor-~ula (HR), Fornace Cappuc-cini near Faenza (I), Mad-dalena di Muccia and Ripa-bianca di Monterado in theMarche (I), and Scamusonear Bari (I) (fig. 1).

The three differentscientific analyses (thin sec-tion, XRD and SEM-EDS:see Chapter 2, 5.) undertakenon the pottery from these si-tes are expected 1) to provi-de a concrete contribution tothe knowledge of the Neoli-thic in the study region, 2)to define whether Neolithicpottery production was localor non-local, 3) to identifyraw material sources em-ployed in the manufacturingprocess, and 4) to contribu-te to the understanding of themovement, exchange or tra-de of materials between thefirst farmers.

It is well known thatamong the many differenttypes of artefacts in archae-ology, two come to the foredue to their durability: sto-ne and ceramics “which aremerely the skeletal traces ofa much more comprehensi-ve range of both staples andvaluables” (CLARKE, 1976a).

Fig. 1 - Distribution map of the Neolithic sites from which ceramics have been analised:Grotta delle Mura (1), Scamuso (2), Gravina di Puglia (3), Maddalena di Muccia (4),Ripabianca di Monterado (5), Fornace Cappuccini (6), Fiorano Modenese (7), Fagnigola (8),Viùla (9), Vela Jama (10), Jami na Sredi (11), Tinj (12), Smil~i} (13), Vrbica (14),Konjevrate (15), Danilo Bitinj (16), Vela {pilja (17).

10

2. SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH

The scope of the research is connected with a series of changes that took place in the Adriatic between theeighth and the sixth millennia BP.

The aims to define are the following:a) the relationships among sites located along the coastlines of the Adriatic during the Neolithic. It has been

postulated that permanent settlements “permit people to accumulate possessions, to make a new range ofartifacts, and to be predictably present in one place for exchange” (H IGHAM and MALONEY, 1989: 662).The relationships among these Adriatic coastal sites are more difficult to determine. High concentrationsof settlements are known in the Tavoliere Foggiano (BRADFORD, 1949), where at least 1000 Neolithic sitesare supposed to exist (DELANO SMITH, 1978: 101), the Materano, along the eastern coast of the SalentinaPeninsula, in southeastern Italy (CIPOLLONI SAMPÒ et al., 1999: 14), and to a lesser extent, in the interior of[ibenik in Dalmatia (MÜLLER, 1994). The only area in which intensive surveys and excavations have beencarried out is that surrounding the Manfredonia Gulf, in Apulia. Here, all the Early Neolithic sites aredistributed along the edge of the river terraces, at an almost regular distance of some 2 km from eachother. For these villages, MANFREDINI (1987: 45) has hypothesized an egalitarian subdivision in the exploi-tation of the surrounding territories by the contemporary communities. Even though most of the Tavolieresites consist of large settlements surrounded by ring-shaped ditches, other types of settlements are alsorepresented. For example the site of Coppa Nevigata, which seems to have been inhabited mainly for theexploitation of marine resources, namely the collection of Cardium edule1 shellfish, even though cerealcultivation and other agricultural activities are represented by both archaeobotanical and material cultureimplements.Obsidian and figulina wares are considered to have been prestige items that had been exchanged or tradedfor other goods, such as salt or tools made of perishable materials that left no trace in the archaeologicalrecord. It is well known that obsidian was traded mainly in the shape of bladelets, that is of finished tools(AMMERMAN et al., 1978), whilst figulina wares, mainly four-handled flasks and open bowls, as suggestedby BARFIELD (1981: 32) for northern Italy. The models of circulation of these goods are still almost unk-nown to us (TITE, 1999: 202). This research will help clarify some aspects of the transportation andexchange or trade networks that existed in the Adriatic during the Neolithic and address the relationshipsbetween sites. These include, to a certain extent, the movement, not only of sophisticated types of vesselsof so-called figulina ware, but mainly of those that characterise the ordinary, everyday ceramic record ofthe Impressed Ware and the other Neolithic cultures of the Adriatic Sea;

b) the provenance of the raw materials as possible indicators of local manufacture or importation of thevessels. This information is of particular importance in the study of the transitional period between theMesolithic and the Neolithic in the whole region. The basic assumption is that the frequency of itemsobtained from a production centre should diminish in number and percentage according to their distancefrom the production centre itself (HODDER, 1978: 158);

c) the nature of the so-called figulina pottery. This concerns the location of manufacture centres of thevessels as well as the relationships between different sites, with evidence of such products as indicators oftrade or exchange of specific goods. It is important to apply thin section analysis to the figulina potterybecause this is perhaps one of the few methods of analysis that can provide a good set of informationabout the method of manufacture of a variety of wares, to which the generic term “figulina” has beenapplied simply because of its colour (buff or cream or whitish) and the “powdered” aspect of its surface.The term “figulina” as such has no real meaning; in Italian “figulo” means potter and “figulina” simplymeans made by the potter!

This research fits into the picture of the Early and Middle Atlantic climatic periods during which thetransition from the Late Mesolithic to the Neolithic took place. The data presently available for this period arenot uniform. Their variability depends mainly on the quality of the archaeological research carried out in thedifferent countries. The following topics have been developed: 1) the trade/exchange network between thetwo Adriatic shores, 2) the approaches and theoretical models that have been put forward in order to explain

1 This species has recently been renamed Cerastoderma edule (K. THOMAS, pers. comm. 2001).

¯ 11

the Neolithisation process, 3) the scarcity of data on the settlement patterns of the last hunter-foragers and thefirst farmers of the Early and Middle Atlantic period, and 4) the importance of the early Holocene sea-levelrise in relation to the presently available distribution map of the sites.

3. TRADE AND EXCHANGE IN THE ADRIATIC NEOLITHIC

3.1. FLINT

The general problems related to trade and exchange in prehistoric Europe, including those of the lasthunter-gatherers and the first farmers, have already been pointed out by CLARKE (1969: 286), who also treatedthe procurement and distribution of flint and obsidian in the Mediterranean basin. In the 1950s the exchangepatterns of lithic material in the study region were considered of particular importance since “in the Mediter-ranean too, flint was mined from deep tunnels……at the mainland sites of Apulia; these supplies were alsosupplemented by limited exchange networks circulating the highly prized obsidian from Lipari, Italy and theAegean Islands” (CLARK , 1952: 174).

The information currently available for the sources of flint and the exploitation and distribution of arte-facts is rather good. An abundance of excellent quality flint outcrops is well documented in the Pre-Alps ofnorthern Italy (BARFIELD, 1987: 231). The models of exploitation of one of these regional sources, that of theMonti Lessini in western Veneto, throughout the Mesolithic-Chalcolithic periods, are equally well known(BARFIELD, 1994).

A complex exchange pattern of flint material, especially in the shape of nodules, has been accuratelystudied along the northwestern coast of the Adriatic; it involves both Lessinian and Marche flint. An accurateexamination of the flint assemblages from the Impressed Ware sites of Miramare di Rimini and FornaceCappuccini in Romagna and from the Fiorano and Friuli sites of northern Italy, has shown that Lessinian flintwas employed in the manufacture of artefacts at all the Early Neolithic sites of Friuli, including Fagnigola andSammardenchia around, or slightly later than the mid-seventh millennium BP (FERRARI and MAZZIERI, 1998).

On the contrary, the easily distinguishable flint of the Marche Apennine chain, north of Ancona, wastraded northwards and largely utilized for making tools at the Impressed Ware coastal sites of Romagna. Adown-the-line transmission (RENFREW, 1975) of flint nodules for chipping artefacts is attested along the coastof north-eastern Italy in the same period when obsidian was traded throughout the entire Mediterranean (TYKOT,1996). According to BASS (1998), this is the period when sea-faring movements are undoubtedly documentedacross the Adriatic.

Another important source is that of the Gargano Promontory in Apulia. Here, at least twenty-six flint mineshave been discovered to date (BASILI et al., 1995). Of these, the only excavated one is that of Defensola that isconsidered to be amongst the earliest Neolithic flint mines of Europe. Its exploitation took place between the startand the middle of the seventh millennium BP (GALIBERTI et al., 2001: 95), as indicated by both the radiocarbon datesand the pottery assemblage recovered in situ in the underground passages of the mine (DI LERNIA, 1993).

Regarding the exportation of flint between south-eastern Italy and the Dalmatian coast, it is important tostress that characteristic, bifacial tranchets, most probably obtained from Gargano Promontory flint, havebeen found at Markova {pilja on the Island of Hvar (E~UK, 1970), and that a flint outcrop has recently beendiscovered on the Mala Palagru•a Island, midway between Apulia and Dalmatia (FORENBAHER and KAISER,1997), and Su{ac (BASS, 1998).

At present, a few flint sources are known along the coast of Dalmatia. The raw materials from theseoutcrops are easy to recognise. They do not yield any good quality flint, but a light grey-bluish, highly calca-reous, opaque variety. They have been identified in southern Istria, near Medulin and along the PromotorePromontory (CODACCI, 2000-2001) as well as Ravni Kotari and Bukovica (CHAPMAN et al., 1996: 192).

The Impressed Ware flint industry of Viùla (Medulin) in Istria represents a unique case. The site is mostprobably related to the exploitation of a local flint source. It yielded a great number of cores, unretouchedartefacts and unworked raw material pieces, while tools are much less numerous (CODACCI, 2000-2001). Theselatter are represented by retouched flakes and blades and by some perforators on thick flake, with very worn,rounded, broken points (see Chapter 3,1.). A smaller collection of flint artefacts from the same site, analysedby J.K. KOZŁOWSKI (1990), is represented by a few atypical tools, among which are side scrapers and oneprobable tranchet.

12

3.2. OBSIDIAN

The occurrence of obsidian bladelets (TYKOT, 1996) and flint artefacts (STAN~I} et al., 2000; BARFIELD,pers. comm. 1998) of south Italian provenance, at a few Neolithic Dalmatian sites, would suggest the idea ofpossible trade of pottery between the two coasts of the Adriatic, as the results of the excavations carried out byBENAC (1975) in Bosnia, and other archaeologists in southern Italy indicate (RADINA , 1981).

The research of A.J. AMMERMAN (1985: 111) has proved that Liparian obsidian from the two sourcesavailable in Neolithic times, those of Acqua Calda and Gabellotto, was traded to the Stentinello settlements ofboth the Tyrrhenian and the Ionian coastal sites of Calabria, around the beginning of the seventh millenniumBP, most probably following a down-the-line distribution model (RENFREW, 1977). Obsidian, together withflint and greenstone, is amongst the few raw materials of long distance provenance, discovered in the Neoli-thic settlements of the Acconia Plain. Pottery, on the contrary, is most probably of local production as thepresence of both good sources of clay and riverine sand would suggest (AMMERMAN and ANDREFSKY, 1982:168).

At about the same time Sardinian, Mt. Arci and Palmarolan obsidians were utilised by the ImpressedWare communities settled at the Arene Candide and other western Liguria caves (AMMERMAN and POLGLASE,1993). A few centuries later, obsidian “emporia”, such as that of Pescale, from which come at least 950 pieces,are known in the Tusco-Emilian Apennines (see Chapter 5,8.). They most probably acted as distribution cen-tres of obsidian bladelets of Sardinian provenance, to the Neolithic villages of the Po Valley (MALAVOLTI ,1951-1952a).

Along the eastern coast of the Italian Peninsula, Liparian and Palmarolan obsidians are reported from theImpressed Ware sites of the Marche (BARKER, 1981: 62), from Fornace Cappuccini near Ravenna (BERMOND

MONTANARI et al., 1991: 182; AMMERMAN and POLGLASE, 1998), Sammardenchia in Friuli (FERRARI and MAZZIE-RI, 1998: 170), and two Trieste Karst caves (WILLIAMS THORPE et al., 1979; TYKOT, 1996). Obsidian bladelets ofCarpathian provenance are also recorded from the two latter regions (RANDLE et al., 1993).

The presence of obsidian artefacts in the Neolithic sites of the Dalmatian coast is documented from theDanilo habitation layers of Smil~i}, Danilo itself, and Vela {pilja (MARTINELLI , 1990: 148; E~UK, pers. comm.2002). Even though no scientific analysis has ever been made on these artefacts, their colour and transparencywould indicate that they are of Liparian origin (BIAGI , pers. comm. 2000).

Since much work has been done on the trade of obsidian across the Mediterranean, and particularly theAdriatic Sea (TYKOT, 1996: 69), and, according to the available literature, some authors suggest that Neolithicpottery was exchanged between the two coasts (BENAC, 1975; CHAPMAN, 1988: 12), it is now necessary to tryto define the location of the pottery production centres.

3.3. POTTERY

Pottery, like any other artefact, can be connected in space and time to different periods of its existence.The archaeological method implicitly supposes that Early Neolithic pottery was produced and used in theplace were its waste was found, whilst “the model of craft specialization and trade suggests a complex struc-ture, with defined roles for potter, trader and customer, and a particular, limited, and formal set of interac-tions between settlements largely maintained by professional travellers“ (CHAPMAN, 1988: 32).

3.3.1. The “ordinary” potteryIn order to study the three main research issues, as outlined above, and to achieve a more complete picture

of the trade/exchange activities concerning the Adriatic Sea in the above-mentioned time-span, an averagenumber of 20-30 potsherds from each of the key sites attributed to the Early Neolithic Impressed Ware and tothe Middle Neolithic Danilo and Hvar Cultures, has been sampled for thin section analysis (Chapter 1, 1.).

To my knowledge, the only Adriatic sites from which scientific analysis on pottery (TITE, 1999) has beenconducted are those of the Defensola Impressed Ware flint mine (10 samples), the Arciprete open-air site (3samples) (DI LERNIA et al., 1993), the Tavoliere villages of Passo di Corvo (MANNONI, 1983: 22 samples),Guadone (BERNABÒ BREA and TINÉ, 1980: 20 samples), and Amendola (MANNONI, 1983: 16 samples), the openair, coastal site of Scamuso (CREMANTE and STORTI, 1997: 5 samples), the Scaloria Cave (TINÉ and ISETTI, 1980:3 samples), and La Quercia (KNOWLES and SKEATES, 1995-1996: 20 samples). These results have demonstratedthe local manufacture of the vessels that, in the case of the Defensola mine, were most probably produced by“one single human group/single settlement” (D I LERNIA et al., 1993).

¯ 13

Apart from Greece, where the pottery assemblages from the Neolithic sites of Nea Nikomedia (YOUNI,1996) and Achilleion (BJÖRK, 1995) have been analysed with the thin section technique, the only north Medi-terranean region where Early Neolithic pottery has been systematically studied in detail from a scientific pointof view, is southern France. The results obtained by BARNETT (1990: 863) indicate that, according to thisauthor, in this region, pottery may be used to interpret the way material goods moved between the first farmersand the last hunter-foragers. The same author, focusing on the specific case of the Impressed Ware Culture,suggests that Cardium decorated ceramics were “more commonly transported than other Impressed Wares”.

3.3.2. The figulina potteryAnother aspect to be developed is that of the figulina pottery. It has been described by MALONE (1985:

120) as “the most readily defined of the finewares that is characterised by a pale buff-yellow untempered,polished, evenly fired material”. Its distribution covers various regions of the Italian Peninsula during theEarly and Middle Neolithic. It is thought to be characteristic of the Ripoli Culture in central Italy, and of theDanilo Culture along the Dalmatian coast. One of the main production centres has always been considered theMiddle Neolithic open-air site of Ripoli in the Vibrata Valley of the Abruzzi (CREMONESI, 1965). This is a deep-rooted assumption (MALAVOLTI , 1940) of the Italian and Dalmatian archaeologists that is still awaiting confir-mation. This suggestion is based on observations made by RELLINI (1934) in his volume on the Ripoli village.According to CREMONESI (1965: 88) “l’opinione del Rellini che più ha avuto influenza sugli studi successivi èquella che fa della ceramica figulina il fossile guida della cultura di Ripoli, alla quale venivano in tal modoassegnate molte stazioni, specialmente marchigiane, in cui mancavano la ceramica dipinta e tipi altrettantorappresentativi”; Rellini’s view was accepted and even reinforced by BAROCELLI (1934) in the same year.

The importance of the figulina wares in the Italian and Dalmatian prehistory has been pointed out byvarious authors (MALAVOLTI , 1940; BATOVI}, 1975a; BARFIELD, 1981). Figulina painted and unpainted vesselshave been found at several Early and Middle Neolithic sites of northern Italy, such as the Ligurian caves,including that of the Arene Candide (MANNONI, 1999: 215), and many Fiorano, Vhò, Fagnigola, and SquareMouthed Pottery Culture sites (BARFIELD, 1981: 32). The commonest shapes are those of typical Ripoli flasksand hemispherical bowls, while Serra d’Alto handles and vessels are known from many Square MouthedPottery sites (MOTTES, 1997).

The problem of the figulina ware in northern Italy has been treated by BARFIELD (1981: 32) who observedthat “the predominant vessel shapes represented among the trade pieces are narrow necked jars, often withrim lugs to facilitate sealing. This might suggest that some valuable liquid was traded in them……This cera-mic trade towards northern Italy might well be expected to be linked with the trade of obsidian”.

Figulina potsherds from several sites have been analysed in thin section, by XRD and SEM-EDS in orderto define their origin and their possible socio-economic and cultural role. The question of their provenance isparticularly important because they have often been considered containers of specific goods. As suggested byMALONE (1985: 139), its “production may have been on a restricted local scale, as specialist craft production,with exchange networks carrying the pottery to a number of secondary and tertiary destinations. Unfortuna-tely, little research has yet been carried out on clay sources, so centres have not yet been identified”.

4. THE MODELS: CURRENT VIEWS OF HOW THE NEOLITHIC SPREAD IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

One of the main problems in the study of the first food-producing cultures is whether their origin is to besought from a local background or they diffused from elsewhere. As reported by AMMERMAN (2002) “thespread of farming in Europe is a subject of interest to a number of disciplines ranging from archaeology andanthropology to human genetics and linguistics”. At present the debate is substantially divided between twoschools of thought, that of AMMERMAN and CAVALLI -SFORZA (1971; 1973) with their “wave of advance model”,and that of M. ZVELEBIL and P. ROWLEY-CONWY (1984) who put forward their “availability model”, developedfrom the experience of the two authors in northern Europe, especially in the Baltic countries and in Denmark.

According to the demic diffusion model proposed by AMMERMAN and CAVALLI -SFORZA (1984), the spreadof farming through Europe is to be seen as the result of two different processes: “1) the first involves culturaldiffusion that is the passage of cereals and farming techniques from one local group to the next withoutgeographic displacement of the respective groups; 2) the second is…demic diffusion, where the spread is due

14

to the movement of the early farmers themselves. This movement in the case of the “wave of advance model”may be due to the frequent re-location of Neolithic settlements over short distances” (AMMERMAN , 2002).

These authors clearly define the meaning of the term “demic diffusion” to be distinguished from that ofcolonisation. The latter refers to groups of people who intentionally move to settle in distant lands, while“demic diffusion” is to be seen as a slow and continuous dispersal of populations in a defined space. Theeventual contact of the incomers with local bands of the last hunter-foragers is also taken into considerationimplying the adoption (as possible exchange goods) of domesticated animals and cereals and (isolated) mate-rial culture objects.

The “availability model” suggests that “the adoption of farming passes through several forms of frontiersituations which can occur simultaneously in geographical space…the transition to farming, when viewed interms of replacement of hunting-gathering adaptations by farming as a way of life, rather than as an introduc-tion of element of farming economy, is likely to have taken much longer to complete than is usually supposed”(ZVELEBIL , 1986: 11).

One of the basic assumptions of the indigenist model is that of “continuity” between the Late Mesolithicand the Early Neolithic in a defined region. This assumption presupposes an almost identical settlement distri-bution and population density throughout the “transitional” period. According to the available evidence, thenumber of Late Mesolithic camps or occupational layers in rock-shelters and caves in the entire study regionis very low, which makes the reliability of Zvelebil’s model for the central Mediterranean area, questionable.One point worth stressing is the distribution of the Late Mesolithic sites (ZILHÃO, 1997; BIAGI , 2002; GUILAINE ,2002; SKEATES, 2002) and their chronology that covers some 1000-1500 radiocarbon years, according to thedifferent regions. The picture currently available for both the Adriatic basin and the western Italian coastlineis quite different from that provided by ZVELEBIL (1995: 118). A proposal for the application of Zvelebil’smodel to Italian prehistory was made by LEWTHWAITE (1987). According to this author it is inevitable that thismodel passes through a number of changes in order to be applicable to a Mediterranean context. FollowingCLARKE (1976: 21) he stresses “la premessa di una intensificazione costiera che permetta ai raccoglitori diraggiungere livelli di densità, complessità e sedentarismo paragonabili a quelli dei coltivatori presupponeuna scala di produttività del mare propria del Baltico o del Mare del Nord…and…La premessa della pro-grammazione stagionale in contrasto con, da una parte, la raccolta autunnale di piante selvatiche e, dall’al-tra, con lo sfruttamento delle ghiande e degli ungulati…non è applicabile al Mediterraneo”. The major weak-ness of this model is represented not only by the “riluttanza a dare il giusto peso ai fattori sociali invece chea quelli ecologici o ergologici come stimolo al cambiamento economico” but by the low number of LateMesolithic camps in northern Italy, where most sites are represented by flint scatters of typologically characte-ristic types, or by sites attributable to the transition between the Boreal and the Early Atlantic (BIAGI , 2002).

The distribution of the Late Mesolithic sites of northern Italy does not coincide with that of the EarlyNeolithic settlements. Even though the horizontal distribution of the sites of the two periods (Late Mesolithicand Early Neolithic) is rather similar, the vertical, that is altitudinal, pattern does not coincide at all (BIAGI ,2001: 80). Little can be said of the distribution of the Mesolithic sites along the Italian Peninsula because ofthe scarcity of sites of this period.

Another model has recently been proposed by J. ZILHÃO (1997). It is primarily based on his experience atPortuguese Mesolithic shell-middens and Early Neolithic sites. Portugal is mainly an Atlantic-oriented coun-try, both from a geographical and a historical point of view. All the sites mentioned by ZILHÃO (1992; 1993) arestrictly related to the sea-level rise of the tidal Atlantic Ocean. All the sites mapped in his paper are connectedwith the Ocean and not with the Mediterranean Sea. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that his re-assess-ment of the archaeological materials uncovered from the shell-midden and the Impressed Ware sites of theregion and the results of his excavations at the Caldeirão Cave (ZILHÃO, 1992) “show an overwhelming sup-port for the pioneer colonisation model” (Z ILHÃO, 1997: 38). His considerations are based on the study of thematerial culture assemblages, on the re-evaluation of the radiocarbon dates and on his personal excavationexperience. His colonisation model is based on the fact that, apart from some very old absolute dates of thePortuguese and Andorran Cardium Impressed Wares (Caldeirão Cave: 6870±210 BP: ICEN-296; Balma Mar-gineda: 6850±150 BP: Ly-3289 and 6670±120 BP: Ly-2839) (ZILHÃO, 2002), most of them are slightly morerecent than those of both Mediterranean France (MILLS, 1983: 140; GUILAINE , 2002), and Spain (BERNABEU

AUBAN, 1997). According to ZILHÃO the spread of farming from the southeast to northwest Mediterranean tookplace quite rapidly, that is at a rate of some 5 km per year, as the radiocarbon dates from the Arene Candide

¯ 15

Cave in Liguria (MAGGI and CHELLA, 1999), would suggest. Furthermore, the oldest of these latter dates arerather similar to those of Apulia (VARTANIAN et al., 2000) and the Dalmatian coast (MÜLLER, 1994). Accordingto ZILHÃO (1997: 21) “at a level of resolution allowed by radiocarbon dating, this spread of Cardial farmersand shepherds could be described as a punctuated event, not the outcome of a slow, regular, east-west spreadfrom one contiguous area to the next”.

In a more recent article ZVELEBIL (2000: 57) proposes a new Neolithisation model assuming that “neitherthe introduction of farming through contact, nor by migration can alone explain the establishment of theNeolithic”. He reutilises the concept of “leapfrog colonisation” introduced by ZILHÃO (1997) that implies the“ forming an enclave settlement among native inhabitants”. ZVELEBIL (2000: 61) applies the hypothesis of“agriculture frontier” to the Dalmatian coast that presupposes “small scale movement of population withincontact zones between foragers and farmers, occurring along the established social networks, such as tra-ding partnership, kinship lines…” (ZVELEBIL, 2000: 58). Nevertheless the simplest, or may be the most diffi-cult question to answer is: where were the last Mesolithic hunter-foragers around the first half of the seventhmillennium BP (BIAGI, 2002)?

5. THE MESOLITHIC BACKGROUND

The terms Sauveterrian and Castelnovian Culture that are employed in this volume are those generallyaccepted for the Mesolithic of the study region2. The number of Mesolithic sites so far known in the Adriatic

Fig. 2 - Distribution map of the Early, Pre-boreal and Boreal (circles) and Late, Atlan-tic (dots) Mesolithic sites mentioned in thetext: Tourkovouni (1), Preveza (2), Loutsa(3), Ammoudia (4), Konispol Cave (5), Sida-ri (6), Traba~ki Kr{š(7), Medena Stijena (8),Malisina Stijena (9), Odmut (10), CrvenaStijena (11), Vela {pilja (12), Kopa~ina {pilja(13), Gopodska pe}ina (14), Pupi}ina pe},and other caves (15), Nugljanska pe} (16),Podosojna (17), Pod ^rmukljo and DedkovTrebe`ž (18), Breg and Ljubljana marsh sites(19), Trieste and Slovene Karst caves (20),Grotta del Prete 21), Pievetorina (22), Ripoli(23), Ortucchio (24), Grotta Continenza (25),Grotta di Pozzo (26), Grotta Latronico (27),Grotta delle Mura (28), Torre Testa (29),Oria (30), Terragne (31), San Foca (32),Alimini Lakes (33) and Grotta Marisa (34)(after BIAGI and SPATARO, 2002, with modifi-cations).

2 They follow the terminology partly introduced by KOZŁOWSKI and KOZŁOWSKI (1979) and later applied to the Adige Valley Mesolithic sequences thatare among the most complete of southern Europe (BROGLIO and KOZŁOWSKI, 1983; CLARK , 2000). According to this cultural sequence, the time-spanof the Sauveterrian Culture covers the entire Pre-boreal and Boreal climatic phases, and is characterised by triangular (hyper)microliths of isoscelesshape. The latter often obtained with the microburin technique, during the Preboreal and of scalene, elongate form, during the Boreal. According tomost authors, the Sauveterrian derives from the Final Epigravettian Culture (GUERRESCHI, 1983; MARTINI , 2000), while BROGLIO (1973) is moresceptical due to the different typology of the cores yielded by Final Palaeolithic and Early Mesolithic assemblages. The beginning of the Atlantic ismarked by the appearance of the Castelnovian Culture (KOZŁOWSKI and KOZŁOWSKI, 1979: 159) that derives its name from the rock-shelter site ofChâteuneuf-les-Martigues, in Provence. The flint industry is characterised by various types of (piquant trièdre) trapezes (scalene, isosceles andrectangular) obtained from bladelets with the microburin technique. Other typical tools are long end scrapers and denticulated blades and bladelets.All the instruments are obtained from subconical blade or, more often, bladelet cores. Industries similar to this characterise the new period all overEurope (KOZŁOWSKI, 1987).

16

region is very scarce (BIAGI and SPATARO, 2001) (fig. 2). This might be due to different factors, which havealready been taken into consideration by various authors and that will be discussed at the end of this chapter.It is well known that Mesolithic sites are extremely rare in the Balkan Peninsula (BAILEY , 2000: 32). This is thecase also for Turkish (ÖZDOGAN, 1997; 1998) and Greek Thrace (AMMERMAN, pers. comm. 1999), where inten-sive surveys and the excavation of a series of cave sites have revealed the first traces of Mesolithic camps.

5.1. GREECE

In Greece, the distribution pattern of the Mesolithic open-air stations is limited to the coast of Epirus,where RUNNELS (1995) discovered only four sites buried by coastal dunes. They consist of scatters of flintartefacts, among which are trapezoidal, geometric microliths. Three of these have been mapped by VAN ANDEL

and RUNNELS (1995: 482). Another Ionian site is known along the northern coast of the Island of Corfu (SOR-DINAS, 1969). The best-known cave site is that of the Franchthi Cave in the eastern Peloponnese (VAN ANDEL

and RUNNELS, 1995: 482). Others have been discovered in Argolis (Klisoura Cave) (KOUMOUZELIS et al., 1996),in Thessaly (Theopetra Cave), and in the Youra Island (Cyclope Cave) (SAMPSON et al., 1998). This distribu-tion pattern strongly contrasts with that of the Early Neolithic settlements, which are particularly numerous,especially in the Thessalian Plain, where at least 275 Neolithic open-air sites are known to date (KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA, 1998: 241).

The only Mesolithic site of this region is the Theopetra Cave, whose stratigraphy produced evidence ofPalaeolithic, Mesolithic and Early Neolithic occupation layers. According to KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA (1999:234) “the appearance of an intervening sandy layer (90 cm thick) between the Palaeolithic and the Neolithic,with distinguishing characteristics not related to any of these two periods, sets the problem of the existence ofthe Mesolithic in the deposit of the cave”. A radiocarbon date of 9275±75 BP (DEM-315) attributes this layerto the Boreal climatic period (KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA, 1998: 249). No typical Mesolithic tools, such as geome-tric microliths or backed microbladelets and microburins, have been recovered from this layer (ADAM, 1999).The radiocarbon dates available from this cave show a gap of some 1000 years between the Mesolithic and theNeolithic occupation layers (BIAGI and SPATARO, 1999-2000: 21; KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA, 2000: 136; THISSEN,2000: 142).

A more reliable, but still problematic sequence for the understanding of the Mesolithic/Neolithic transi-tion in Greece, is that of the Cyclope Cave in the northern Sporades. From this site the radiocarbon chronologyshows an almost continuous sequence with a gap of only some 300 years between the “aceramic” Mesolithiclevels, and the Neolithic ones (BIAGI and SPATARO, 1999-2000: 18), which is characterised by the appearance ofmonochrome and red painted wares similar to those of Sesklo (SAMPSON et al., 1998).

Of major importance are the deposits of the Franchthi Cave in Argolis. Here the excavations brought tolight an almost “continuous” sequence that covers the entire Mesolithic and Early Neolithic periods. Thestratigraphy of this cave is rightly considered one of the most important of the central Mediterranean basin.The accurate study of the flint assemblages carried out by PERLÈS (1987) has shown the peculiarity of theFranchthi Mesolithic assemblages that are characterised by the scarcity of geometrical tools since the begin-ning of the period, radiocarbon dated between the middle (P-2227: 9430±160 BP) and the end (P-2228:9060±110 BP) of the tenth millennium BP (PERLÈS, 1999: 316). Microlithic, trapezoidal and triangular tools,sometimes obtained from bladelets, make their appearance during the Late Mesolithic phase, dated between8940±120 BP (P-1664) and 8530±90 BP (P-2107). The levels above, very poor in lithic artefacts, are attribu-ted by PERLÈS (2001: 26) to the Final Mesolithic (?). Various authors have supported the archaeological “con-tinuity” of the Mesolithic layers into the Early Neolithic ones, up to recent times (see for instance BUDJA,1999: 129), in order to demonstrate the local origin of the Neolithic in the Peloponnese3. According to THISSEN

(2000: 144) the discontinuity between the end of the Mesolithic and the Early Neolithic occupation of thecave is also demonstrated by the radiocarbon evidence.

Another Mesolithic sequence, covering the Early and Late Mesolithic period, but missing any evidence

3 This view has been firmly rejected by PERLÈS (1999: 317) who, discussing the problem of the Neolithisation in the area on the basis of the finds fromthe Franchthi Cave, observes that although at the beginning of the Early Neolithic “the basic tool kit maintained the traditions of the Mesolithic…..a few pieces, such as pressure-flaked blades and trapezes……clearly belonged to a different, Neolithic tradition”. Furthermore, she also points outthat “whether pottery was in use during the Initial Neolithic is still debated, even amongst Franchthi experts”, and concludes that “suddenly (andprobably after a break in occupation), one witnesses a fully developed Early Neolithic, with the complete range of domesticated species found inGreece, a different lithic assemblage, pottery, bone tools, grinding implements, celts, ornaments, etc.”.

¯ 17

of Early Neolithic occupation, is that of Klisoura Cave, in Argolis, where excavations are currently in progress(KOUMOUZELIS et al., 1996).

The survey carried out by C. RUNNELS (2002) in Thessaly, which is the core of Early Neolithic Greece,even though mainly oriented towards the discovery of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites, failed to discoversites of these periods. By contrast, a few Mesolithic flint scatters were found in Epirus and Argolis (KARDULIAS

and RUNNELS, 1995: 88).The Impressed Ware sites in these regions are extremely poorly documented. Sidari is a mound located in

northwestern Corfu, with stratigraphy producing evidence of both Mesolithic and Early Neolithic occupation.According to SORDINAS (1969: 26) the Mesolithic “cigar-shaped”, shell-mound (level D) had a maximumthickness of 90 cm, while the overlying Neolithic layer (C, base) had a thickness of some 50-60 cm. This layeryielded the earliest Neolithic pottery. This is followed by a sterile layer, some 70-80 cm thick (C, middle),which separates it from the Impressed Ware pottery layer (C, top) which was radiocarbon dated to 7340±180BP (GXO-772). Other sites are those of Kastritsa Cave in the Pindus Mountains (HIGGS et al., 1967), whosetopmost, disturbed layers yielded a few Impressed Ware potsherds, some pluri-stratified mounds of the Thes-salian Plain and its adjacent regions, such as Tsani, Prodromos, Achilleion, Sesklo, Gendiki, Nesonis, Karaga-ts and Soufli (HAMEAU, 1987: 330; PAPATHANASSOPOULOS, 1996: 198) as well as the mound village of NeaNikomedia in Macedonia, along the left bank of the Haliakmon River, from which 9% of the analysed potteryhas impressed decorative patterns (RODDEN and WARDLE, 1996: 89).

The excavations carried out by SORDINAS (1969: 401) at Sidari produced evidence of Mesolithic occupa-tion, dated to 7770±340 BP (GXO-770). This layer yielded an assemblage mainly chipped from non-local flint“dominated by flakes followed, in decreasing order, by debris, chips, cores and technical pieces, tools, blade-lets and a single blade” (A DAM, 1999: 269). The picture given by this latter author, who has recently re-examined this assemblage, is quite different from that furnished by SORDINAS (1970) who describes it as pro-duced on local flint pebbles, including a few very atypical geometrics among which are rectangles, trapezesand triangles as well as a few microlithic backed points. The Early Neolithic level above, containing flints anda few fragments of pottery, has been dated to 7670±120 BP (GXO-771). According to the radiocarbon datesthe Late Mesolithic shell-midden site was abandoned slightly before the advent of the first Neolithic commu-nity that settled in the area.

5.2. ALBANIA

Moving northwards, the Konispol Cave that opens at 400 m of altitude, is located in the Sarandë district,close to the Greek border (SCHULDENREIN, 1998), some 7 km from the present Strait of Corfu. A good set ofradiocarbon dates is currently available for both the Late Mesolithic and the Early Neolithic periods of thiscave (fig. 3) (HARROLD et al., 1999: 367). The Late Mesolithic dates fall between 7630±140 BP (Beta-67804)and 7410±80 BP (Beta-79999), while the Early Neolithic ones occur between 7060±110 BP (Beta-56415) and6470±70 BP (Beta-80002). The Mesolithic horizons yielded a typical Late Mesolithic assemblage characteri-sed by a bladelet industry, produced from subconical bladelet cores, with isosceles trapezes obtained withoutthe microburin technique, and notched bladelets (HARROLD et al., 2002).

5.3. MONTENEGRO

The most important Mesolithic sites of Montenegro (Crna Gora) (MARKOVI}, 1985) are the caves of Od-mut (SREJOVI}, 1974), Crvena Stijena (BENAC and BRODAR, 1958), Malisina Stijena (MIHAILOVI } and DIMI -TRIJEVI}, 1999), Medena Stijena (MIHAILOVI }, 1996), and Treba}ki Kr{ (DURI~I}, 1996).

The only site of this region from which are known Late Mesolithic occupation layers is that of Odmut,whose cultural sequence has recently been re-published by KOZŁOWSKI et al. (1994: 61). According to theseauthors the Mesolithic lithic industry from this cave “is striking for its surprising stability, over the time-spanof ca 1500 radiocarbon years”. The assemblages from the different layers are all characterised by a bladetechnology. The most typical tools are isosceles trapezes obtained without the microburin technique, verysimilar to those recovered from the Albanian Cave of Konispol, notched bladelets and short end-scrapers.

The occurrence of this peculiar industry has led KOZŁOWSKI et al. (1994: 67) to locate the boundarybetween the Late Mesolithic Castelnovian Culture and the Odmut Culture in Montenegro, even though in aprevious paper KOZŁOWSKI and KOZŁOWSKI (1983) had attributed this latter assemblage to the CastelnovianCulture. Following KOZŁOWSKI et al. (1994: 67, 68) “it should be noted that the Castelnovian commonly

18

Fig. 3 - Konispol Cave (AL):graph of the radiocarbon da-tes calibrated using OxCal(version 2.18 calibration pro-gramme). Source: SCHULDEN-REIN, 1998.

employed the microburin technique to produce trapezes, while this method - utilized at the neighbouring cavesite of Crvena Stijena, attributed to the Castelnovian, Late Mesolithic - was not used at Odmut. Differencesare also found in the end scrapers group. The Castelnovian industry contains a rich group of blade forms(more numerous that at Odmut) with a number of specimens with angulated fronts and lateral retouch. Thesetypes are not found in the Odmut industry. Moreover blades at Castelnovian comprise a larger proportion ofnotched forms”.

Eleven radiocarbon dates have been obtained from this sequence. Nine of them fall between 7790±70 BP(Si-2226) and 6736±130 BP (Z-142); two more, which are considered to be too old, yielded the followingresults: 9135±80 BP (Si-2228) and 8590±100 BP (Si-2224) (KOZŁOWSKI et al., 1994: 54) (fig. 4).

5.4. DALMATIA AND ISTRIA

No Mesolithic site is known along the Dalmatian coast as far as Vela {pilja on the Kor~ula Island ( E~UK

and RADI}, 2000) and Kopa~ina {pilja on the Bra~ Island ( E~UK, 1996: 18).Even the accurate survey carried out in the Province of Zadar (BATOVI} and CHAPMAN, 1985) did not yield

¯ 19

Fig. 4 - Odmut Cave (YU):graph of the radiocarbondates calibrated using OxCal(version 2.18 calibration pro-gramme). Source: KOZŁOWSKI

et al., 1994.

any Mesolithic find against a relative high number of Palaeolithic (42) and Neolithic (44) findspots in theterritory. This fact is explained by CHAPMAN et al. (1996: 61) as caused by the “large-scale sea-level changesthat affected the Adriatic Sea between 10,000 and 5000 Cal. BC, flooding many coastal sites. Secondly, post-Neolithic deposition of >1m of sediments has covered areas of bottomland in the valleys, a zone potentiallyattractive to foraging groups. Thirdly, the absence of retouched artefacts diagnostic of the Mesolithic periodinhibits the identification of dated sites”.

Another Croatian site, in the Istria region, is that of the Podosojna Cave, whose stratigraphy covers bothSauveterrian and Castelnovian periods (MALEZ, 1979). A charcoal sample from this latter horizon has been

20

dated to 6460±90 BP (Z-198). Another Istrian cave, is that of Pupi}ina pe} (MIRACLE, 1997), which producedevidence of Final Pleistocene and Early Holocene occupations, even though the flint assemblages from theselatter levels are so poor that they do not allow any consideration on the cultural aspect they represent. Here theearliest Holocene occupation has been radiocarbon dated to 9590±180 BP (Z-2572) and 8770±310 BP (Z-2577), levels 26-25, and to 9200±170 BP (Z-2643) and 8708±170 BP (Z-2635), level 24. The Late Mesolithicis totally missing from the stratigraphy of this site.

A few more Mesolithic cave sites have recently been discovered near Pupi}ina, those of [ebrn Abri,Nugljanska pe} and Klanj~eva pe} (MIRACLE and FORENBAHER, 1998). All this caves showed traces of Borealoccupation. The richest finds come from [ebrn Abri. The Mesolithic layers of this cave yielded a poor assem-blage, represented by very typical microlithic tools such as elongated, scalene triangles obtained with themicroburin technique. Three radiocarbon dates have been obtained from the Boreal levels, ranging from 9280±40BP (Beta-120272) to 8810±80 BP (Beta-127707) (MIRACLE et al., 2000) (fig. 5).

Fig. 5 - Adriatic Mesolithic: graph of the radiocarbon dates calibrated using OxCal (version 2.18 calibration programme) (afterBIAGI and SPATARO, 2002: 169).

5.5. THE SLOVENE AND TRIESTE KARST

Apart from these sparse Croatian sites, the densest Mesolithic concentrations are those of the Trieste andSlovene Karst. In Slovenia many sites are known around the Ljubljana marsh (Ljubljansko Barje) (MLEKU`,2001), although only one has been published in detail. The open-air site of Breg (FRELIH, 1987), attributed tothe Castelnovian Culture on the basis of the characteristic flint assemblage, has been radiocarbon dated to6630±150 BP (Z-1421). Nevertheless, a more recent excavation revealed an older Mesolithic occupation layerwith a stone structure radiocarbon dated to the Boreal climatic period (MLEKU`, 2001: 47). Other sites are

¯ 21

known at the rock shelter of Pod ^rmukljo (BRODAR, 1992) and in the lowest layers of the cave Mala Triglavca(LEBEN, 1988), not far from the Italian border, which both yielded typical Castelnovian assemblages. AnotherBoreal rock-shelter has recently been discovered at Famlja, very close to the left bank of the Reka (Timavo)River (TURK, pers. comm. 2000).

The situation in the Trieste Karst is rather different. There are at least fourteen caves, which have sofar produced evidence of Mesolithic occupation (MONTAGNARI KOKELJ, 1993). The last Castelnovian hun-ter-foragers inhabited just a few of these, while most of them show the presence of Boreal, Sauveterrianoccupation.

The radiocarbon dates so far available for the Mesolithic of the Trieste Karst are those of Benussi (BRO-GLIO, 1971), Ciclami (CICCONE, 1993), Zingari and Edera caves (BIAGI et al., 1993). The best-dated sequence isthat of Grotta Benussi from which five radiocarbon dates have been obtained. They are: 8380±60 BP (R-1045)and 8650±60 BP (R-1045a) for the Sauveterrian occupation, 7620±150 BP (R-1044), 7230±140 BP (R-1042)and 7050±60 BP (R-1043) for the Castelnovian levels. The Boreal Sauveterrian of Ciclami Cave has beendated to 8260±70 BP (R-1041); while the Sauveterrian horizon of Zingari Cave has produced a result of9570±80 BP (R-971a). Of great interest are the dates recently obtained for the Preboreal, Boreal and EarlyCastelnovian Mesolithic layers of Edera Cave (BIAGI and SPATARO, 1999-2000: 36). The radiocarbon datesfrom this cave are in accordance with the flint assemblages and the bioarchaeological material collectedduring the excavations. Regarding the Mesolithic/Early Neolithic sequence, three main distinct anthropoge-nic phases can be recognised, the first belonging to the Preboreal (Sauveterrian), the second to the (Middle)Boreal (Sauveterrian) and the third to the (Early and Middle) Atlantic (Late Castelnovian and Early NeolithicVlaška Culture).

The systematic analysis of some of these Mesolithic assemblages (BROGLIO, 1971; CREMONESI, 1984;BOSCHIAN and PITTI, 1984; CICCONE, 1993) have demonstrated that most of the Trieste Karst caves were inha-bited during the Boreal, Middle Sauveterrian period. Most sequences are truncated at the beginning of theAtlantic phase when, in the material culture flint assemblage, the first trapezoidal arrowheads make theirappearance. This fact, which has been recorded from most of the Mesolithic sequences of the Trieste Karst aswell as from the excavations in progress at Edera Cave (BIAGI , 2001) occurs at most of the Mesolithic strati-graphical sequences so far known in northern Italy (BOSCHIAN, pers. comm. 2000), such as those of Trentino(BROGLIO, 1992; CLARK, 2000) and of the Tuscan-Emilian Apennines (CASTELLETTI et al., 1994). The occurren-ce of pure, Late Mesolithic Castelnovian layers is far more rare, and is restricted to Grotta Benussi (BROGLIO,1971), Cavernetta della Trincea (ANDREOLOTTI and STRADI, 1963) and to hearth 3a of Edera Cave (BIAGI et al.,1993).

5.6. THE NORTHERN AND CENTRAL WESTERN ADRIATIC COAST

West of the Trieste Karst no Mesolithic site has been recovered along the Marano Lagoon. All the Friulistations are distributed further inland, along fluvial morainic amphitheatres (CANDUSSIO et al., 1991), while afew sites exist rather close to the present coastline of the Venetian Lagoon (BROGLIO et al., 1987).

Along the Italian Adriatic coastline, south of the Veneto, no Mesolithic site is known as far as theMarche (PLUCIENNIK , 1994: 54). From this region, SKEATES (1999) lists six sites, none of which belongs tothe Late Mesolithic. The only dated site is that of Grotta del Prete. Here, above the Final Epigravettianlevels, traces of Preboreal occupation have been found, radiocarbon dated to 9990±190 BP (R-645). A poorflint industry recovered from the valley bottom, open-air site of Pieve Torina, along the Chienti River isattributed to the Boreal, Sauveterrian Culture (BROGLIO and LOLLINI , 1982: 56). The finds from the open-airsites of Ortucchio and Ripoli in the Abruzzi, are of uncertain stratigraphic position (RADMILLI , 1997), whilethose of the Mesolithic sequence (spits 28-25) of Grotta Continenza (BEVILACQUA , 1994) are typically Sau-veterrian. They are dated to 9680±100 BP (R-557: spit 28), 9650±100 BP (R-555: spit 27), 9330±100 BP(R-554: spit 27), 9100±100 BP (R-553: spit 26) and 9490±100 BP (R-552: spit 25). The poor assemblagefrom Grotta di Pozzo in the Province of Potenza has yielded dates falling between 8110±90 BP (TO-3420)and 9370±80 BP (TO-3422). It is attributable to a slightly later period in the development of the Sauveter-rian Culture (MUSSI et al., 2000: 279).

Even the accurate survey carried out in the Biferno Valley of Molise, failed in recovering Mesolithic sites.Despite the abundance of Epigravettian and Early Neolithic Impressed Ware settlements, no Mesolithic hasever been discovered in this region (BARKER, 1995: 97).

22

5.7. THE SOUTH WESTERN ADRIATIC COAST

Apulia is most probably the region of southern Italy from which we have the best information regardingthe Mesolithic period. Although most of the finds are from surface collections, some cave sequences haveyielded Mesolithic habitation levels. This is the case for Grotta delle Mura near Monopoli in the province ofBari. Layer 2 of this cave sequence gave a Boreal Mesolithic assemblage dated to 8290±50 BP (Utc-1417) andto 8240±120 BP (Utc-780) (CALATTINI , 1996), above a Romanellian, Final Palaeolithic layer dated to 10,850±100BP (Utc-1462). Late Castelnovian assemblages, on the contrary are known from the open-air sites of theSalento Peninsula (MILLIKEN and SKEATES, 1990), such as those of Torre Testa (CREMONESI, 1978), S. Foca(INGRAVALLO, 1980), Terragne (GORGOGLIONE et al., 1995), most probably in the surroundings of Oria (INGRA-VALLO , 1977), and around the Alimini lakes (MILLIKEN and SKEATES, 1990). In south-east Italy the Sauveterrian-Castelnovian sequence seems to be documented at only two caves, both still unpublished: Grotta Marisa in theSalento Peninsula (GRIXONI, 1997) and Grotta Latronico in Basilicata (PLUCIENNIK , 2000). The Castelnovianlevels of this latter site have recently been dated between 7800±90 BP (R-449), and 7400±90 BP (R-447)(GRIFONI CREMONESI, 1996; CIPOLLONI SAMPÒ et al., 1999: 20).

5.8. DISCUSSION

The importance of the Mesolithic background in the study of the Neolithisation has been pointed out byseveral scholars (see for instance KOZŁOWSKI and KOZŁOWSKI, 1983; LEWTHWAITE, 1986; ZVELEBIL and LILLIE ,2000). Nevertheless, a detailed map of the Mesolithic sites which might have been involved in the process hasnever been drawn by any of the above-mentioned authors.

At this stage of the research, it is necessary to point out that only the Late Mesolithic CastelnovianCulture might have been involved, to some extent, in the Neolithisation process, and not the preceding Sauve-terrian one, which disappeared at the beginning of the Atlantic period (BINDER, 2000: 121; BIAGI , 2002).

According to the available data, our knowledge of the Mesolithic along the south Adriatic coastlines andthe adjacent regions is very scarce. Most of the data come from Preboreal and Boreal sites, while EarlyAtlantic, Castelnovian ones are extremely rare. At some of the above-mentioned cave sites, the Boreal Sauve-terrian occupation lies beneath the Early Neolithic Impressed Ware one. This fact has already been noticed byseveral authors, such as GRIFONI CREMONESI (1996), CREMONESI and GUILAINE (1987) and GUILAINE and CREMO-NESI (1987), who also noted the occurrence of trapezoidal microliths of “Castelnovian tradition” at some of theoldest Impressed Ware sites of the Apulian coast.

The general impression is that the evidence for Mesolithic occupation is very poor also in the territorieswhere accurate surveys have been carried out (BIAGI and SPATARO, 2002: 174). The available evidence comesfrom cave sites and scatters of surface artefacts from which a limited amount of information can be obtainedapart from the typological characteristics of the lithic assemblages. Furthermore, the occurrence of Late Me-solithic Castelnovian sites is even less documented. This highly contrasts with the following Early Neolithicdistribution pattern, which indicates the presence of numerous settlements, distributed over large areas. Thesedata do not favour the view of a balanced population density during the “transitional” period between the LateMesolithic and the Early Neolithic.

Along the Italian Tyrrhenian coast, the evidence for Mesolithic occupation is even scarcer. The chronolo-gy and the typological characteristics of the chipped stone assemblages are more difficult to interpret. The bestMesolithic/Neolithic sequence of Sicily is that of Grotta dell’Uzzo in the Province of Trapani (TAGLIACOZZO,1993). Apart from several claims to the continuity of this stratigraphy, the radiocarbon chronology shows agap of more than 1000 years between the so-called Mesolithic/Neolithic transition layer and the first EarlyNeolithic occupation of the cave (BIAGI and SPATARO, 1999-2000: 25)4.

4 Another problematic site is that of Perriere Sottano in the Catania Plain. The pedology of the deposit is very homogeneous. It is composed of only one layerproduced by the dissolution of the sandstone that characterises the bedrock. The subdivision of this deposit made by the excavators (ARANGUREN andREVEDIN, 1989-1990) is based on the presence of a supposed hardened “walking floor” discovered 50 cm below the surface. The upper “level” is richer inflint chipped stone artifacts and faunal remains than the lower “level”, some 60 cm thick down to the bedrock. Spit 54 of the upper level has been dated to8700±150 BP (UtC-1424), while the lower-lying spit 60 of the same level has produced a result of 8460±70 BP (UtC-1355). The chipped stone assemblagefrom the two horizons, composed of both flint and quartzite artifacts, is unique. Macrolithic tools and two atypical microliths, one abrupt retouched pointand one flakelet represent the assemblage from the upper level; while the lower one is rich in macrolithic and hypermacrolithic tools as well as in microliths.The latter include types never recorded at any other Italian Mesolithic sites, such as leaf-shaped, hypermicrolithic, double points and large, bilateral, abrupt-retouched points (ARANGUREN and REVEDIN, 1998). A fragment of Liparian obsidian comes from the spit just below the radiocarbon date UtC-1424. Thechipped stone assemblage from this site is very different both from those of the Final Epigravettian sites known in the island and from those of the otherMesolithic sites such as the Uzzo Cave and the Cala dei Genovesi where the upper layers are dated to the beginning of the Holocene (LEIGHTON, 1999: 271).

¯ 23

The presence of peculiar Mesolithic assemblages, without (or with few) microlithic tools along the Tyr-rhenian coast has led MARTINI (2000) to adopt the term “undifferentiated Epipalaeolithic” for these assembla-ges. This idea derives from the discovery of a Mesolithic assemblage, dated to the beginning of the Holocene,in the stratigraphic sequence of the Serratura Cave in Campania (MARTINI , 1993).

A few lithic industries, chronologically attributed to the beginning of the Holocene should be referred tothis aspect. They are characterised by assemblages without (or with very few) microlithic geometrics, such asthose of Riparo Blanc in Latium (TASCHINI, 1964), dated to 8565±80 BP (R-341), possibly the cave of La Portadi Positano in Campania, dated to 8619±200 BP (Pi-10) (FERRARA et al., 1959), and the Mesolithic levels ofGrotta del Santuario della Madonna near Praia a Mare along the north Calabrian coast (CARDINI , 1970). Thestratigraphy of this cave spans from the end of the Final Epigravettian to the Middle Bronze Age (Cardini,1970; Bernabò Brea and Cavalier, 2000). In addition the radiocarbon sequence shows a gap of some 1000years between the Mesolithic and the Early Neolithic occupation levels (Biagi and Spataro, 1999-2000: 30).

P. BIAGI (2001; 2002) has recently rediscussed the problem of the distribution of the Late Mesolithic sitesof northern Italy in relation to the Early Neolithic ones. According to this author the two distributions do notcoincide other than in two well-defined regions, the Trieste Karst and the Adige Valley rock-shelters of theTrento Basin. The occurrence of non-local pottery in the Late Castelnovian hearth of layer 3a of Grottadell’Edera, in the Trieste Karst (SPATARO, 2001), is so far a unique case for this area.

The complexity of the archaeology of the upper Adriatic Basin around the middle of the seventh millen-nium BP, or slightly earlier, has been recently reconsidered by BIAGI (2003a) who suggested that three culturalaspects, one Late Mesolithic (the Castelnovian) and two Neolithic (the Impressed Ware and Danilo/Vla{ka)were active in the region between the Karst and the Istrian Peninsula roughly at the same time.

Given the difficulty (or the impossibility) of establishing a very detailed seriation of the events thattook place in the area, it is also problematic to define whether the first Impressed Ware farmers were presentin the whole region when the last hunter-gatherers settled in the Trieste and in the Slovene Karst, andwhether or not the Impressed Ware and the first Danilo communities coexisted at roughly the same time(SPATARO, 2001: 98).

The current archaeological evidence can be summarized as follows: 1) the distribution of the Impres-sed Ware and Danilo sites seem to be complementary; 2) the Impressed Ware is poorly represented in theTrieste Karst caves, the sequences of which never show any defined Impressed Ware horizon; 3) apart fromEdera Cave and Pupi}ina pe} (MIRACLE, 1997), most of the other sites of this period are undated; 4) apartfrom the two above-mentioned ones, all the other cave and open-air sites were excavated with out-of-dateretrieval methods.

The evidence from Edera Cave, layer 3a, might represent the only indisputable example of relationshipsbetween the last hunter-gatherers and the first farmers of the region. In ZVELEBIL ’s (1986) terminology thismight represent the only evidence of an “availability” phase where contacts between the two populations areattested by the exchange of goods, in this case of pottery as isolated items. Contrary to this author (ZVELEBIL

and LILLIE , 2001), the area where pottery is represented in hunter-gatherer contexts is known only from EderaCave and not all along the Dalmatian coast and the Italian Peninsula where (Late) Mesolithic traces of occu-pation are very scarce (BIAGI , 2002; BIAGI and SPATARO, 2002).

There is no doubt that the “availability” and the “demic diffusion” models (ZVELEBIL , 2000) are reflectedin different ways in the ceramic contexts. The only evidence so far known for the first model comes fromEdera Cave, while the second seems to find better confirmation in the Adriatic basin. Thus, the supposedbalanced number of Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic which is supposed to be necessary during the availa-bility phase is not confirmed by the archaeological data. Whether a “demic diffusion” or a “leapfrog” modelmight help explain the spread of the Neolithic in the Adriatic region is still disputable. The distribution of theImpressed Ware (and also of the Danilo) pottery would support the idea of some kind of population movementfrom south-east to north-west. Their rate of advance, can be hardly defined because of the very limited numberof radiocarbon dates, although that of the Danilo Culture might have been rather rapid, as confirmed by thestrong similarities between the Gudnja pe}ina and the Trieste Karst radiocarbon dates, all falling around themiddle of the seventh millennium BP. The only evidence of a “Mesolithic background” in the Impressed Warematerial culture assemblages of the first farmers might be represented by trapezoidal geometrics in the chip-ped stone industries, although this is a phenomenon that occurs almost all over Europe around the beginningof the Neolithic.

24

6. THE HOLOCENE SEA-LEVEL RISE

Another point of this research is to define whether the scarcity of Mesolithic sites along the Adriaticcoastline is due to the post-Pleistocene sea-level rise, which undoubtedly submerged part of the plain thatmight have constituted suitable land for the settlement at least of the Pre-boreal and Boreal Mesolithiccommunities of the upper Adriatic (GEDDES et al., 1983; MILLS, 1983: 103; SHACKLETON and VAN ANDEL,1986). There is little doubt that the scarcity of Mesolithic sites in this region can be linked to the sea-levelrise, as demonstrated by the marine shellfish remains, of the Trieste Karst Azzurra (CANNARELLA and CRE-MONESI, 1967) and Edera Caves, around the middle of the seventh millennium BP. The Early Atlantic Meso-lithic hunter-gatherers of these two caves exploited the marine resources of a rocky coastline, as demonstra-ted by the great amount of Patella caerulea and Monodonta turbinata shellfish, while their Boreal Sauve-terrian predecessors do not show any familiarity with the marine resources. This indicates that the Borealsea-shore was too far for their gathering radius. The geography of the upper Adriatic basin between the lastglacial maximum and the beginning of the Boreal has been summarized by VAN ANDEL and SHACKLETON

(1984: 310). Following these authors a high number of Late Palaeolithic to Boreal sites were undoubtedlylost between 18,000 and 9000 BP, assuming that the sea-shoreline at this latter time was some –35 m lowerthan the present one. Research in the Venetian Lagoon still in progress by A.J. AMMERMAN (pers. comm.1999), however, has not yet revealed any trace of Mesolithic and Neolithic submerged sites.

In contrast, little is known of the location of the Early Atlantic sea-shore of most of Greece, Dalmatia andsouth Adriatic region with the only exception of the fluctuation of the coastline in front of the Franchthi Cavein the Peloponnese (SHACKLETON and VAN ANDEL, 1986).

A number of studies on the post-Glacial sea-level rise along the coasts of the Greek Peninsula have beenwritten in the recent past. Starting from SORDINAS (1969), who attempted to reconstruct the Early Holocenecoastlines of the Island of Corfu, to VAN ANDEL and SHACKLETON (1982), and more recently PSYCHOYOS (1988)and LAMBECK (1996), the bibliography on the subject has steadily increased. The recent discovery of Mesoli-thic sites with trapezoidal microliths along the Ionian littoral of northern Epirus is of great importance for thedefinition of the shoreline of this region at the beginning of the Atlantic. The six sites consist of dense flintscatters, located on fossil dunes distributed on the present shoreline between the town of Preveza and themouth of the Acheron River (RUNNELS, 1995: 724).

Following MÜLLER (1994: 279), whose view of the problem regards the Early and Middle Atlantic periodsalong the Dalmatian coast, the “loss of land as a product of the rising sea-level was minimal, thus it mainly happe-ned about 1000 14C-years earlier than the appearance of first Impresso communities at the East Adriatic region”.

According to the current knowledge, there is little reason to support the disappearance of Late MesolithicCastelnovian sites, due to sea-level rise along the south Adriatic coastline, while Early Neolithic, ImpressedWare sites still exist close to the present coastline (see for example Scamuso: BIANCOFIORE and COPPOLA, 1997,and Torre Sabea: CREMONESI and GUILAINE , 1987).

The evidence of submerged Early Neolithic sites, along the north Mediterranean coast, is so far limited tothe Impressed Ware ones of Cap Ragnon, in the Marseille Bay (COURTIN et al., 1970-1972) and of Leucate-Corrège, north of Perpignan (GUILAINE et al., 1984), where systematic studies on this subject were carried outin the 1970’s (DE LUMLEY, 1976).

7. THE IMPRESSED WARE CULTURE

The appearance of the early farming communities along the coasts of the Mediterranean is marked by theoccurrence of large settlements characterised by an abundance of pottery with impressed decorations obtainedby finger, fingernail, marine shell (Cardium or more rarely Pectunculus), and various instruments. Even thou-gh these patterns vary region by region, the common characteristic is the technique adopted to decorate thevessels, which is in most cases impressed. This technique gives the name to this widely spread aspect, whichis generically called Impressed Ware (IW).

7.1. TERMINOLOGY

A discussion on the meaning of this term at the last Round Table on the “Impressed Ware of the Western

¯ 25

Mediterranean” held in Nice in June 1999, failed to develop a better terminology or to define the “Culture” asa whole. Nevertheless, it has been decided to adopt this term mainly because all the Early Neolithic potsherdscollected from both the Italian and Dalmatian sites have been described in the literature as belonging to theImpressed Ware (or Ceramica Impressa or Céramique Imprimée or Abdruckkeramik-Kultur or Impresso-Kul-tur). It is well known that Impressed Wares throughout the Mediterranean basin5 are differentiated group-by-group and region-by-region and that their chronology covers at least 1000 years.

BERNABÒ BREA (1946; 1956) is one of the first scholars who described the main characteristics of thiscultural aspect in the publication of the results of his excavations at the Arene Candide Cave in Liguria.Thanks to this scholar the chrono-typological seriation of the Neolithic cultures that characterise part of thenorthwest Mediterranean coast was first established.

7.2. DISTRIBUTION

The distribution of the settlements of this Culture covers most of the coasts and some internal regions ofthe Mediterranean Basin. It has been subdivided into many distinct, regional groups, mainly on the basis ofthe pottery shapes and their decorative patterns. Apart from the material culture assemblage (mainly the pot-tery and, to a certain extent, the chipped stone industry), many of the most important characteristics of thisculture, such as the subsistence economy, and the structure and the distribution of the villages, are poorlyknown because of the limited number of surveys and excavations carried out in some regions where theImpressed Ware Culture is distributed. For instance, while some of these aspects are well known to south-eastern Italy (BARKER, 1975; 1995; BÖKÖNYI, 1991), Liguria (ROWLEY-CONWY, 1997), and southern France(GEDDES, 1980; ROWLEY-CONWY, 1995), very little is known along the eastern Adriatic coast (MALEZ, 1975) andGreece (BARKER, 1985: 64).

7.3. CHRONOLOGY

The problem of the chronology and of the distribution of this cultural aspect has been discussed in severalpapers and is still a subject of controversial debate (PLUCIENNIK, 1997). In effect the first Impressed Waresettlements seem to have been established in south-eastern Italy around the last two centuries of the eighthmillennium BP. Rather similar dates are known from the Cardium sites of the same culture along the coast ofCroatia. In contrast, the Impressed Ware Culture took some 1000 radiocarbon years to spread along the ItalianAdriatic littoral (SKEATES, 1994: 65) as far as Romagna where the sites of Fornace Cappuccini (ANTONIAZZI etal., 1985) and Rimini (BAGOLINI et al., 1989) are known.

Quite a different situation is documented along the Tyrrhenian coast of the Italian Peninsula. According tothe radiocarbon chronology, the Stentinello sites of Calabria (AMMERMAN , 1985) are more or less contempora-neous to the first Impressed Wares of the Ligurian caves (MAGGI and CHELLA, 1999). This implies quite a rapidspread of the first Early Neolithic farmers along this coast. Furthermore, while the Cardium decorated waresare considered to be typical of the south-eastern Italian and Dalmatian coastline, they are not represented incentral Italy, north of the Pescaro River (MÜLLER, 1994). Farther north they re-appear in Liguria and Provenceboth in the “Cardial” and “Ligurian” facies of the Culture (GUILAINE , 2002).

7.4. THE SOUTH WESTERN ADRIATIC COAST

At least two hundred Early Neolithic sites are known to date in Apulia. This picture strongly contrastswith the very low density of last hunter-gatherer sites of the Castelnovian Culture. These Impressed Ware sitesshow thick concentrations in the Tavoliere Foggiano (ODETTI, 1975: T. 33), along both the Adriatic and Ioniancoastline of the Salentina Peninsula and in the Materano (Basilicata). The excavations carried out with inter-disciplinary methods at some key sites, such as Trasano (GUILAINE and CREMONESI, 1987), Ripa Tetta (TOZZI,1988), Torre Sabea (CREMONESI and GUILAINE , 1987), Scamuso (BIANCOFIORE and COPPOLA, 1997), and Rendina(CIPOLLONI SAMPÒ, 1977-82), yielded results of great importance for the neolithisation of the Adriatic region.From these sites all the bioarchaeological materials have been collected and the habitation structures havebeen brought to light for the first time.

According to most of the recent authors (WHITEHOUSE, 1986; CIPOLLONI SAMPÒ et al., 1999), the oldestaspect of the Apulian Impressed Ware is the so-called Prato Don Michele, Cardial facies that takes its name

5 It must be remembered that “impressed wares” were in use in northern Africa up to recent times.

26

from the homonymous site on the Tremiti Islands (FUSCO, 1965). Some of the recently excavated Apulian sitesare to be attributed to this facies, from which are known the oldest radiocarbon dates of this Culture. They arefrom Trasano (7030±160 BP: Ly-5297; 6980±130 BP: TAN-88248; 6950±130 BP: TAN-88067; 6950±140BP: TAN-88056; 6950±150 BP: Ly-5296; 6830±190 BP: Ly-4410; and 6790±120 BP: TAN-88313), Scamuso(7290±110 BP: Gif-6339), and Torre Sabea (6960±130 BP (?)). The site of Masseria Giuffreda has been datedto 7125±200 BP (MC-2292) (WHITEHOUSE, 1987: 96) from a context that many authors consider “unclear”(GUILAINE et al., 1981). Many authors (GRIFONI CREMONESI, 1996: 70; PLUCIENNIK, 1997: 119) agree on rejec-ting the far too early dates from Coppa Nevigata and Casa San Paolo which yielded results between the end ofthe ninth and the beginning of the eight millennia BP (MÜLLER, 1994: 355) (fig. 6).

Fig. 6 - Impressed Ware of south-eastern Italy: graph of the radiocarbon dates calibrated using OxCal (version 2.18 calibration programme).Source: BIAGI and SPATARO, 2002:171, with modifications.

7.5. THE DALMATIAN COAST

Almost identical dates are reported from the Cardial sites of the Dalmatian coast. Recent investigationscarried out between the Gargano Promontory and the Islands of Mjlet, Kor~ula and Hvar, have produced early,Cardium Impressed Ware sites at both Palagruà (FORENBAHER and KAISER, 1997) and Su{ac Islands (BASS,1998). These discoveries reinforce the idea that trans-Adriatic connections were already established by thebeginning of the Neolithic as they already were in other areas of the Mediterranean (CHERRY, 1990; MALONE,1997-98; MARTINI, 2000). The radiocarbon dates obtained from some of the Dalmatian Cardial ImpressedWare sites are almost identical to those already mentioned for Apulia. This suggests that the spread of theEarly Neolithic along both sides of the Adriatic took place quite rapidly.

Other indicators of trans-Adriatic connections come from the open-air settlement of Obre I, in Bosnia(BENAC, 1971: 106; 1973: 387; 1975: 147), which yielded both Star~evo and Guadone style Impressed Wares

¯ 27

(Chapter 6, 7.). Recent surveys carried out in the islands of the north Dalmatian archipelago by the Universityof Birmingham have led to the recovery of Gargano Promontory flint artefacts (BARFIELD, pers. comm. 1999).In fact, the Impressed Ware flint mines of Defensola started to be exploited around the beginning of theseventh millennium BP (GALIBERTI et al., 2001: 95).

From the distribution map of the Adriatic Cardial sites developed by MÜLLER (1988: 121) one can note that, insouth-eastern Italy the Cardium Impressed Ware sites are restricted to a territory that covers Apulia and the Abruzzi,with a boundary that does not extend farther then the Pescaro River. Along the east Adriatic coast, the CardiumImpressed Ware extends from Albania and Montenegro, where are known the sequences of Crvena Stijena, Odmutand Spila (MARKOVI}, 1985), to Istria (LEBEN, 1978-79) and, perhaps (?), the Trieste Karst, although the finds fromVla{ka Jama (or Pejca v La{ci or Grotta del Pettirosso) (BATOVI}, 1975: 65) are of uncertain provenance6.

The Cardium Dalmatian sites from which have been obtained radiocarbon dates comparable to thosefrom the Apulian Prato Don Michele aspect, are those of Vela {pilja on the Island of Kor~ula (7300±120 BP:Z-1967 and 7000±120 BP: Z-1968) (BASS, 1998: 173), Gopodska pe}ina (7010±90 BP: Z-579), Gudnja pe}ina(7170±70 BP: GrN-10315 and 6935±50 BP: GrN-10314) (CHAPMAN and MÜLLER, 1990: 129) and Tinj-Podli-vade (6980±160 BP: GrN-15236) (CHAPMAN et al., 1990: 32) (fig. 7).

6 BARFIELD (pers. comm. 1999), who reanalysed the Moser collection (LEBEN, 1967: 66; BARFIELD, 1999) now in the stores of the Postojna Museum(SLO), suggests that they are not from the Karst caves, but from one of the many Impressed Ware sites of the Dalmatian coast. The potsherds arelabelled with “Vla{ki” (Italy) and not Vla{ka Jama, which might be a consequence of the fact that Postojna (Postumia) was in Italy until the end ofWorld War Two (BIAGI, 2003a).

Fig. 7 - Impressed Ware of the Dalmatian coast:graph of the radiocarbon dates calibrated using OxCal(version 2.18 calibration programme). Source: MÜL-LER, 1994.

28

The concentration of open-air settlements in the Istria, Zagora and Ravni Kotari allowed BATOVI}(1966) to define three phases in the development of the Dalmatian Impressed Ware Culture: those of 1)Crvena Stijena, 2) Smil~i}, and 3) Gudnja. According to his subdivision, the Crvena Stijena style (BENAC,1957; BENAC and BRODAR, 1958) is characterised by Cardium and simple, instrumental impressed patter-ns. Its distribution is restricted to the caves of Montenegro, Bosnia, and to the Kvarnar Islands. TheSmil~i} style (BATOVI}, 1966) is characterised by the appearance of various, impressed decorations, amongwhich are geometric, triangular motifs, and by the first incised patterns. The distribution of this stylecovers the entire Dalmatian coast as far as Istria and, according to some authors, it reaches the TriesteKarst. The Gudnja style is characterised by the disappearance of the Cardium decoration, while scra-tched and incised patterns are rather common. This style is mainly distributed along the coasts of centraland southern Dalmatia.

More recently, MÜLLER (1988: 106) proposed a more detailed subdivision of the Dalmatian ImpressedWare. According to this author, the “Impresso A is primarily simple unconnected impressions or incisions,covering the entire surface (Design I, II, III, IV). These are the basic decoration patterns for Impresso Pottery,which survives throughout later Early Neolithic. Impresso B motives are the zig-zag design groups (DesignV), which are added to Impresso A motives. Impresso C is characterised by fine tremolo decoration andgeometric incisions, added to Impresso A and B motives”.

Following MÜLLER’s (1994) detailed study, the distribution of the Impressed Ware sites seems to be clo-sely related to the soil characteristics, geomorphology, and annual temperature. Furthermore, the area forsettlement was selected because of the fertility of the territory. The subsistence economy of the sites is mixed,based on agriculture (cereal cropping), herding, and hunting. The collection of marine shellfish (Mytilus,Ostrea, Venus, Cardium, and Spondylus) also played an important role at the sites close to the seashore, as inthe case of Viula, Smil~i}, Nin, etc. “Agriculturally exploited “nuclear zones” were surrounded by areas forherding” (M ÜLLER, 1988: 106).

In this region, the Impressed Ware Culture is known from 44 sites located along the coast and in thewestern Dinaric Alps. 18 of these are open-air settlements and 26 are caves. 70% of the ceramics come fromopen-air sites (MÜLLER, 1988: 102).

7.6. THE CENTRAL AND NORTH WESTERN ADRIATIC COAST

The Impressed Ware villages of the central and north Italian Adriatic coast are characterised by ceramicassemblages decorated with finger, fingernail and instrumental (but not Cardium) impressions. They are gene-rically defined as belonging to the so-called “Middle Adriatic Impressed Ware Culture” (CIPOLLONI SAMPÒ etal., 1999: 20). As already mentioned, the Cardium decorated wares did not cross the Pescaro River, althoughmany Impressed Ware open-air and cave sites are known from here northwards. Their ceramics are decoratedwith fingernail, finger, and instrumental impressions. The earliest radiocarbon dates of these sites fall aroundthe middle of the seventh millennium BP (Grotta Continenza: 6590±75 BP: R-1411; Maddalena di Muccia:6580±75 BP: R-463a; Villaggio Leopardi: 6578±135 BP: Pi-101; S. Stefano di Ortucchio: 6575±80 BP: R-468) (fig. 8). They are comparable with those of the Apulian Scratched (“Graffite”) Wares. The most recentaspects of the Impressed Ware Culture in the Marche and Romagna regions (BAGOLINI et al., 1989) haveyielded more recent dates, which range around the last two centuries of the seventh millennium BP (IMPROTA

and PESSINA, 1998: 111). The pottery from these sites includes also linear, grooved decorations, which findsome parallels with those of the more or less contemporaneous north Italian Po Valley aspects of Fiorano andVhò (BAGOLINI and BIAGI , 1980; 1987).

7.7. THE CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGES

Regarding the flint industries, the tool inventory is characterised by a greater variety compared to that ofthe Castelnovian Late Mesolithic. Among the new types are different burins and end-scrapers, straight perfo-rators obtained with abrupt, alternate retouch, which are a typical characteristic of the north Italian borers,sickle blades and, at some of the Apulian sites, bifacial tranchets. The chipped stone assemblage from TorreSabea includes some types, such as isosceles trapezes, obtained with the microburin technique (CREMONESI

and GUILAINE , 1987: 381). Trapezoidal piquant trièdre armatures obtained with the microburin technique arealso known from Fornace Cappuccini near Ravenna, as well as from many other central Italian, ImpressedWare sites of the Abruzzi and Marche regions (RADI , 1995).

¯ 29

Fig. 8 - Impressed Ware of central and north-eastern Italy: graph of the radiocarbon dates calibrated using OxCal (version 2.18 calibrationprogramme). Source: SKEATES, 1994a; RADI, 1995.

7.8. THE STRUCTURAL REMAINS

One of the main problems to face in the study of the Impressed Ware Culture is the rarity of habitationstructures. One of the few exceptions is the Stentinello open-air settlement of the Piana di Curinga in Calabria.Here, in the interior of the Sant’Eufemia Gulf, AMMERMAN (1985) excavated a probable trapezoidal house, theonly indicators of which consisted of thousands of daub pieces.

The only hut-foundation structure so far excavated from an Apulian site is that of Ripa Tetta (CIPOLLONI

SAMPÒ et al., 1999: 23). This consists of a rectangular structure with narrow foundation ditches and postholes.At Rendina, in Basilicata, CIPOLLONI SAMPÒ (1977-1982) excavated the remains of a rectangular house delimi-ted by postholes, while MANFREDINI (1972) reports the existence of rectangular habitation structures at MonteAquilone, which consist in remains of dry walls.

A long, semi-circular stonewall is known at Trasano (GUILAINE and CREMONESI, 1987), and at theentrance of the Uzzo Cave in the Province of Trapani (Sicily) (COSTANTINI et al., 1987). Here earliestImpressed Ware occupation is represented by a few potsherds of Cardium decorated. This is later fol-lowed by a local aspect of the Stentinello Culture (TUSA, 1976-1977), defined as Kronio style by TINÉ

(1971).Other houses are supposed to exist at Bribir (BRUSI}, 1994-1995) and Smil~i} (BATOVI}, 1966), in the

district of [ibenik (HR), and Crno vrilo near Zadar (HR) (MARIJANOVI}, 2002). The dry-stone foundation of ahouse was discovered at Pokrovnik (MÜLLER, 1988: 114), while masses of daub fragments might indicate theremains of hut-foundations at Viùla (Medulin), in south Istria (BA}I}, 1969).

30

7.9. SUBSISTENCE ECONOMY

The best data come from the Apulian and central Italian Adriatic sites. In examining the faunal remains fromseven Impressed Ware sites of Apulia, BÖKÖNYI (1991: 32) points out the predominance of domestic species -mainly sheep and goats, followed by cattle and pig. A rather different situation is known from the Marche in east-central Italy. The bone remains come from the two settlements of Maddalena di Muccia and Ripabianca diMonterado, which show quite a different location and chronology. The fauna from Maddalena di Muccia anopen-air site located in the hilly countryside of the interior, is composed of pig (50%), red deer (25%), caprines(15%) and cattle (8%) (BARKER, 1975: 133) (see Chapter 4,2.). At Ripabianca di Monterado, a village rather closeto the Adriatic coast, 40 m above the sea level, pig was much less important (19%), while caprines rise to 64%,cattle maintained a stable frequency and deer and other game species are almost irrelevant (see Chapter 4,3.).

8. THE DANILO AND HVAR CULTURES

8.1. PREFACE

The reason why the Danilo and Hvar Cultures have been included in this research is that the first develo-ped during the second half of the seventh millennium BP, which means that it is contemporaneous to the northItalian Early Neolithic sites and to the Impressed Ware sites of the northwestern Adriatic coast. In Dalmatia,the Danilo Culture (KORO{EC, 1958; 1959; 1964), is referred to the Middle Neolithic, because its radiocarbonchronology follows that of the Early Neolithic Impressed Ware Culture. The Hvar Culture (NOVAK , 1955) ismost probably derived from that of Danilo. This assumption is based on three factors: 1) the similaritiesbetween some ceramic forms, 2) the almost identical distribution of the sites, and 3) the subsequent absolutechronology of the two cultures (FORENBAHER and KAISER, 2000).

In northern Italy, where the first Neolithic communities make their appearance around (or slightly laterthan) the middle of the seventh millennium BP, the Vla{ka Group (BARFIELD, 1972) and the other Friuli Plainsites that yielded typical Danilo material, are attributed to the Early Neolithic (FERRARI and PESSINA, 2000).

Some of the most important Neolithic settlements of the Dalmatian coast are multistratified, as, for in-stance those of Smil~i} and Danilo Bitinj. I have decided to analyse the ceramics from the three Neolithichabitation layers (Impressed Ware, Danilo and Hvar) to check the eventual continuity in the pottery produc-tion systems. These analyses have been particularly successful in the case of the site of Smil~i}, where thiscontinuity has been demonstrated for the first time (Chapter 3, 5.5.).

8.2. THE DANILO CULTURE

The distribution of the Danilo and Hvar Culture covers the coastal area and the islands of Dalmatia. Asmentioned above, a local, impoverished aspect of Danilo, called Vla{ka by L.H. BARFIELD (1972) is known fromthe caves of the Trieste and Slovene Karst. Characteristic Danilo ceramics, such as fragments of rhyta, and other“cult” objects, e.g. a clay phallus (BATOVI}, 1968) and female figurines, have recently been brought to light fromthe open-air settlement of Sammardenchia di Pozzuolo near Udine in the Friuli Plain (FERRARI and PESSINA,1996). According to the Dalmatian authors, the origins of the Danilo Culture are to be sought in the ImpressedWare, as the results obtained from the study of the materials from Smil~i} would suggest (BATOVI}, 1975a). Aradiocarbon date from a charcoal sample collected at a depth of 4.6 m in a “transitional Impressed-Danilo” layerof Gudnja Cave sequence, near Dubrovnik yielded the result of 6560±40 BP (GrN-10311) (CHAPMAN, 1988: 7).

8.2.1. The radiocarbon chronologyTwo radiocarbon dates have been obtained for the Danilo Culture from the cave site of Gudnja pe}ina, near

Dubrovnik. They are 6415±40 BP (GrN-10312) and 6520±40 BP (GrN-10313) (CHAPMAN, 1988: 7), while anothertwo were already available from the open site of Pokrovnik: 6300±150 BP (Z-859) (CHAPMAN and MÜLLER, 1990:130) and 6290±65 BP (HD-13262/12842) (MÜLLER, 1988: 350) (fig. 9). These dates are similar to those obtainedfrom the Vla{ka hearths of Edera Cave in the Trieste Karst, where Danilo type, black burnished wares andfragments of one typical Kakanj rhyton (BIAGI and SPATARO, 2001), identical to those known along the Dalmatiancoast and Bosnia (MONTAGNARI KOKELJ and CRISMANI, 1993), have been brought to light. These vessels, thatCHAPMAN (1988: 13) has interpreted as “salt-pots”, are characterised by an open round or oval mouth, a large ringhandle and two or four legs resembling animal or human figures (PERI}, 1996).

¯ 31

The radiocarbon chronology of the Danilo Culture is partly contemporaneous with that of the ImpressedWare Culture of both sides of the Adriatic. This fact has posed some problems in the terminology employed bythe Croatian and Italian prehistorians. According to the first, the term Early Neolithic is always referred to theImpressed Ware Culture, while the Danilo Culture represents the Middle Neolithic of the Dalmatian Coast(and that of Hvar the end of the Middle Neolithic). The Italian archaeologists, on the contrary, have alwaysconsidered the Impressed Ware as representative of the Early Neolithic as well as that Vla{ka Group simplybecause they both flourished during the seventh millennium BP. The start of the Middle Neolithic, in northernItaly is marked by the appearance of the Square-mouthed Pottery Culture, around the beginning of the sixthmillennium BP (BAGOLINI and BIAGI , 1990).

8.2.2. The potteryThe Danilo Culture sites from which we have the highest amount of data, are those of Danilo Bitinj

(KORO{EC, 1956; 1958; 1964), Smil~i} (BATOVI}, 1966), Jami na Sredi (Ê~UK, 1982) and Vela {pilja on theLo{inj (Ê~UK, 1982) and Kor~ula Islands ( E~UK, 1978), [karin Samograd (MÜLLER, 1988a), Bribir (KORO{EC

and KORO{EC, 1974; 1980), Zelena pe}ina (BENAC, 1957a), Crvena Stijena (BENAC and BRODAR, 1958), andGudnja pe}ina (BATOVI}, 1970).

According to CHAPMAN (1988: 11) “the Danilo ceramic assemblage comprises four main fabric groups;bichrome painted wares, dark burnished wares with or without incised decoration, a red or buff monochromeware, and coarse wares in varying colours”. The pottery assemblage has been subdivided by KORO{EC (1956)into two main classes: the ordinary, decorated or undecorated, and the painted, figulina pottery. The commo-nest ceramic shapes of the first class consist of different varieties of carinated and hemispherical bowls,pedestalled vessels and vases with restricted mouth. Cylindrical pedestals are also typical as are the rhyta andthe phallus “cult” objects. The decorative patterns are mainly dynamic with incised and grooved recurrentspirals, meanders and linear geometric motifs (BENAC and MARIJANOVI}, 1993; BREGANT, 1968). FollowingKORO{EC (1956: 299) the ordinary pottery had been manufactured with local clay. The second class is repre-sented by red, or brown and red, painted figulina wares, whose. internal surface is sometimes painted. Thisclass of pottery includes shapes that are not represented among the ordinary forms. They are jars, deep cylin-drical cups, large carinated, hemispherical bowls decorated with linear geometric patterns of recurrent trian-gles, zigzags, squares and net motifs. KORO{EC (1956: 304) suggested a non-local provenance of the clayemployed in the production of these ceramics (Chapter 5,5.).

8.2.3. The chipped stone assemblagesThe flint industry from the Danilo Culture sites is poorly known. Only one paper has been devoted to the

typological analysis of the chipped stone assemblages of Danilo, Smil~i} and [karin Samograd (MARTINELLI ,1990). They are represented by a few characteristic types such as flat retouched instruments, a few geometricsand a relatively high number of sickle blades. The presence of obsidian bladelets is of great importance,although their source of provenance is still undefined.

8.3. THE HVAR CULTURE

At some of the multistratified Dalmatian sites, the Danilo and Hvar Culture layers lie above those of theImpressed Ware (BATOVI}, pers. comm. 1999). This is clearly documented at Smil~i} (BATOVI}, 1966), DaniloBitinj (K ORO{EC, 1958), Bribir (KORO{EC and KORO{EC, 1974), and Vrbica (BATOVI}, pers. comm. 1998), asobserved by E~UK and DRECHSLER-BI~I} (1984). Here, the Danilo and Hvar Cultures present a distributionand a pottery assemblage which are very similar to each other. As reported by many authors authors (BATOVI},1975a: 156; 1984: 27; BAGOLINI, 1984: 135; BENAC and MARIJANOVI}, 1993), the general impression is that thesecond is the natural continuation of the first (BATOVI}, 1975a: 155), as some of the pottery shapes and deco-rations would indicate (BREGANT, 1968). This is also the case for the Gudnja Cave in the Pelje{ac Peninsula,near Dubrovnik (BATOVI}, 1970), where the three periods of Neolithic occupation are attested. Even thoughthe distribution of these two cultures is restricted to the Dalmatian coast and its related regions, typical potsherdshave been collected from a few Apulian (Tavoliere) sites (CIPOLLONI, pers. comm. 1999).

The absolute chronology of the Hvar Culture attributes this aspect to the first half of the sixth millenniumBP thanks to a new set of radiocarbon dates obtained from the cave of Grap~eva spilja (FORENBACHER andKAISER, 2000) (fig. 9).

32

8.3.1. The potteryThe pottery shapes and decorations of the Hvar Culture are sometimes similar to those of the Danilo

Culture (figs. 35-37, 39, 40, 57-59, and 65-68) (BATOVI}, 1978; BENAC and MARIJANOVI}, 1993: 138). Theshapes include hemispheric and carinated bowls, dishes, pedestal bowls and flasks, while also rhyta are rathercommon. The most distinctive decorative patterns are the spiral motifs, very often obtained with the comb-grooving technique. The painted wares are also common, characterised by bands of reddish paint on a blackburnished slip as well as on light buff figulina pottery. Apart from Grap~eva Spilja, other important cave sitesare those of Vela {pilja and Jakova špilja on the Kor~ula Island ( E~UK, 1978). Typical fragments of Hvarhemispheric bowls are commonly found in the assemblages from the old excavations carried out in TriesteKarst caves such as Jama na Dolech and Teresiana (BARFIELD, 1999).

The relationships between the Danilo and Hvar Cultures and the contemporary traditions of theItalian coast of the Adriatic have been discussed by BATOVI} (1975a: 156). This author considers Danilocontemporary with Ripoli and Scaloria Bassa, and Hvar to Serra d’Alto and Diana. These parallels arebased not only on the pottery characteristics, but also on the presence of imported vessels from southernItaly, and of scratched ware fragments and typical Serra d’Alto figulina vessels at Obre, in Bosnia (BE-NAC, 1975: 212).

The figulina vessels are also very common to the Danilo and Hvar Cultures. Even though their productioncentres have never been identified, BATOVI} (1975a: 155) suggests that they were not located in central Italybecause their decorative patterns (mainly dynamic and spiral-meander) are typically Dalmatian and do notbelong to the Ripoli and the south Italian painted ware traditions.

Fig. 9 - Danilo and HvarCultures: graph of the ra-diocarbon dates calibratedusing OxCal (version 2.18calibration programme)(after BIAGI and SPATARO,2002: 172).

¯ 33

9. DISCUSSION

Several models have been developed to explain the way the Neolithisation of the area took place aroundthe beginning of the seventh millennium BP.

At those sites where excavations have been carried out in a scientific way by recovering bioarchaeologi-cal materials, a Neolithic “complete package” is attested with appearance of the Impressed Ware Culturesettlements. Following the models proposed by different researchers, this culture spread north-westwardsfollowing either a “demic diffusion” (AMMERMAN and CAVALLI -SFORZA, 1971), or a “colonisation”, mainlyapplicable to the west Mediterranean (ZILHÃO, 1997), or through an “availability model” subdivided into threedistict phases: availability, substitution and consolidation (LEWTHWAITE, 1986: 96).

Even though it is widely accepted that “navigation7, ceramics and cereal cultivation do not (necessarily)coincide” (L EWTHWAITE, 1981: 293) and that there is no proof of the existence of an Impressed Ware Culture ina polythetic sense, as proposed by CLARKE (1978), it is to be stressed that most of the premises of the “availa-bility model” are still to be proved.

The first point deals with the limited number (or the absence) of Late Mesolithic sites even in those areaswhere research has been carried out for many years, such as western Liguria (BIAGI , 1987) or central easternItaly (BARKER, 1995) or the province of Zadar (CHAPMAN et al., 1996).

The second relates to the importance given to the Mesolithic domestication of the “mouton” at a numberof French Early Neolithic, sites (LEWTHWAITE, 1987a), an idea that has later been deprived of any archaeozoo-logical, scientific basis (ROWLEY-CONWY, 1995).

In the Adriatic basin, which is characterised by highly differentiated environmental, microclimatic andgeographic regions, the situation is very problematic. An example of the difficulties that have been encounte-red is that of Edera Cave, in the Trieste Karst, a region characterised by a continental climate, 3 km from theAdriatic Sea. At present we known that three different cultures were present in the area around the middle ofthe seventh millennium BP.

They are: the Castelnovian Late Mesolithic, and the Impressed Ware and Danilo Neolithic Cultures. Thescientific analysis of the ceramics from the Early Holocene sequence of this cave (SPATARO, 2001) has helpedunderstand the interaction between these three cultural aspects.

In 1981 J. LEWTHWAITE suggested that 1) long-distance exchange of highly uniform wares, such as theCardium Impressed Wares, if proved on a scientific basis, might suggest an inter-group prestige network, andthat 2) strong similarities between the Cardium Impressed Wares along the two coasts of the Adriatic wouldsupport hypotheses for a connected trade network, which would provide a mechanism for the acculturation oflocal Mesolithic populations.

As we have seen, there is little evidence of Late Mesolithic populations in the Adriatic region and theresults obtained from the scientific analyses of the Cardium Impressed Wares do not seem to support thetheoretical premises put forward some twenty years ago.

7 Seashore navigation was, undoubtedly, the most important way of long-distance communication in the Adriatic and in the entire Mediterranean. Itallows to «constater la supériorité de la navigation sur d’autres modes de désplacement, même avec des techniques peu évoluées. Pour aller de l‘Epire dans les Pouilles, ou Golfe de Genes en Camargue, il est facile de mettre en balance le tour de l’Adriatique à pied ou la traversée du sud desAlpes avec un trajet maritime que pouvrat rendre très facile un vent favorable» (ROUDIL, 1990: 389). Navigation must have been very important inthe Adriatic during the Neolithic. In effect, the crossing of this basin must have been facilitated by the presence of small islands located midwaybetween Apulia and the Dalmatian coast (BASS, 1998).

34

¯ 35

CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY

1. PREFACE

The question of local ceramic production versus transport on a regional scale is central in this research.Thus, it is worth mentioning that according to the studies of ARNOLD (1985: 50), based on ethnological data,the clay and the temper utilised in ceramics are to be sought within a radius of some 5 km from the productionpoint, while a vessel found farther than 10 km means that it has been transported for some reasons that do notdepend strictly on its manufacture.

In their efforts to interpret the economic and social foundations of past societies, scientists and archaeo-logists, since the late 1950s, have increasingly recognized the need to understand the production processitself. “Production forms a central and universal focus for the study of world traditions. It not only incorpora-tes technology- that is how the object was made, including each step in the building or fabrication process, theraw-materials- but includes supply and demand, the organisation of the workforce and the relationshipsbetween the producers and other groups in society. It is affected by natural factors such as climate andtopography as well as artificial ones such as the proximity of roads and cities” (FREESTONE and GAIMSTER,1997: 11).

The state of fragmentation of prehistoric pottery (CHAPMAN, 2000), especially from Neolithic contexts, ishigh and potsherds of the same vessels are often distributed all over the site (BARTHÉS, 1994). In a few casespotsherds have been re-conjoined, lying at dozens of metres of distance from each other, indicating tramplingor post-depositional movements that took place after the site had been abandoned (GRYGIEL, 1986). In the caseof the Impressed Ware sites of the Adriatic coast, the fragmentary condition of the vessels is generally veryhigh. This fact follows the available ethno-archaeological data, which indicate that broken pottery is discar-ded in different ways, and that potsherds are never dispersed equally on a site (LONGACRE, 1981). Thus, anddue to the lack of large-scale excavations, the available body of sherd fragments is neither complete, nornecessarily representative of the whole surviving material. This has to be kept in mind when sampling foranalyses, and interpreting the data.

Further problems that are connected with the methodology of this research regard the following:a) the excavations of Early Neolithic sites of the study area that have yielded very little evidence of kilns

(Chapter 5, 1.). Given the scarcity of kiln refuse, in most cases, it is extremely difficult to define theproduction area for any type of pottery;

b) the very homogeneous geology of the eastern coast of the Adriatic (from Istria, in the north, to Albania, inthe south). It consists almost exclusively of limestone and karstic formations. Thus, the chance to definethe exact provenance of specific ceramics is often problematic;

c) the fact that many prehistoric archaeologists, in most of the north-eastern Mediterranean countries, havenot yet shown much interest in broad-scale scientific analyses. The only exception is that of Tuscanywhere such analyses have mainly been centred on vessels attributed to the Bronze and Iron Ages (MARTINI

et al., 1995). Thus, little comparative data are available.According to BLAKELY and BENNETT (1989: 8) direct observations about ceramics within the archaeologi-

cal record can be subdivided into several categories: findspot (stratigraphy), morphology - among which arerepresented decorative styles (HAALAND , 1978) and typology - and fabric (including firing condition and for-mation process). Regarding the first, one single archaeological layer characterises most of the Impressed Waresites; the second, the morphology of the vessels, is often difficult to reconstruct because of their fragmentarystatus.

For these reasons, the research concentrates on the analysis of the ceramic fabric. The study of the pro-duction of pottery from different sites should shed some light on the variability of the raw material sources, theaffirmation of local traditions, according to specific areas of diffusion, and the similarities/dissimilarities

36

among the various pottery production techniques. Furthermore, it might help understand the relationshipsbetween different communities inhabiting the same territory.

2. SAMPLING

Thanks to the kind co-operation of many Croatian and Italian colleagues, I had direct access to manyNeolithic collections stored in various Institutions.

The potsherds have been collected from sites of known relevance. In one case, that of Danilo Bitinj, thesite is eponymous of the Middle Neolithic “Danilo” Culture. In another, I have selected a site whose strati-graphy covers different Neolithic occupation phases. This is the case of Smil~i}, that is one of the few open-airsites of the Dalmatian coasts where Early, Middle and Late Middle Neolithic horizons are in stratigraphicsequence. I have preferentially chosen sites whose contexts are undisturbed or where excavations have beencarried out recently, or whose excavation reports have been published in detail.

When possible, typical potsherds were chosen according to stratigraphic parameters (also in the caseof the Impressed Ware Culture sites that, as mentioned above, are characterised by one single occupationlayer)7. Twenty to thirty potsherds from each site were selected for thin section analysis. This is theaverage amount of material generally considered necessary to obtain reliable results (LAZZARINI , pers.comm. 1998).

One or two soil samples suitable for pot making were taken for thin section and XRD analyses at adistance of some 0.5 - 1 km from the Neolithic site. Most of the sampled clay deposits consist of Pleistoceneterra rossa soils (calcic luvisol, R. MACPHAIL, pers. comm. 2001). They are typical of limestone, karstic envi-ronments. In thin section, terra rossa shows a dark red colour, very pure red clay, iron-rich and does notcontain inclusions, with an exception of, sometimes, very rare quartz grains (fig. 69f).

Regarding the pottery, care was taken in sampling, “to ensure that the full range of stylistic features wasrepresented” following macroscopic examination (surface treatments, finishing, fracture and compaction ofthe fabric, and nature of inclusions) (BARNETT, 1991: 177).

The ceramic groups were defined on the basis of potsherd typology and style and of recurrent fabriccharacters, such as thickness, colour, surface treatment (including impressed, incised or painted patterns,plastic decoration, burnishing, slip and/or mineral pigments) (PLOG, 1980). Shapes have only occasionallybeen included in the sampling parameters because of the high fragmentation of the potsherds. Thus, all theclasses macroscopically defined were sampled8.

3. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

SHEPARD (1956) and MATSON (1969) were the first to develop new types of scientific approaches andtechniques, while chemical analyses, including X-Ray fluorescence (XRF) and neutron activation (NAA)were introduced around the middle of the eighteenth century (RICE, 1987; MAGGETTI, 1990). These methodswere first applied to the study of pottery from Near Eastern sites. Their scope was to define the ceramicmanufacture centres in order to understand the trade/exchange activities, the economy of the individual sitesand their social network. Thanks to their results important aspects of the social relationships were revealed forthe first time (RILEY , 1975; 1976; 1981).

From an analytical point of view, the minero-petrographic characterisation of fabrics will allow 1) thedefinition of different pottery groups to be compared with the vessels typology (which is the method of clas-sification more commonly employed by the archaeologists) and, 2) the interpretation of the probable rawmaterial sources. In this connection “petrology can often provide a quick means of defining origin, compara-bility with similar material of known provenance and the technology involved” (W ILLIAMS , 1983: 301). In thecase of the Impressed Wares, however, the strong macroscopic similarities and the state of fragmentation ofthe vessels do not help subdivide different pottery groups and define the provenance of the fabric.

7 For the tables of provenance, see Appendix 1.8 “ It is impossible to know if the sample selected from the collection is proportional to any existing reality in prehistoric times” (RICE, 1987: 315).

¯ 37

4. FABRIC

A sherd is characterised by the “fabric”. It concerns “the arrangement, size, shape, frequency and compo-sition of components of the ceramic material” (WHITBREAD, 1995: 368). The fabric of a sherd can be composedof matrix and temper. “Matrix” is the material that constitutes “a more or less continuous phase and enclosescoarse material, concretions, etc....and generally it refers to material <2 mm, though fractions can be muchlarger” (FITZPATRICK, 1984: 135)9. “Temper” refers to inclusions that have been artificially added to the clay(RICE, 1987: 406-413).

The parameters of RICE (1987: 410) and MAGGETTI (1982)10 have been followed in the identification ofpurposely-added temper. They are principally based on the “careful observation of size, shape and quantity”.The latter author points out four features, which I used for identification of artificially added temper: 1)bimodal distribution of the temper grains (“hiatal structure”), 2) angular outlines of the temper grains (modi-fied temper is usually much more angular than naturally occurring alluvial sand temper), 3) organic materialand 4) grog11.

In this work, the inclusion have been identified as temper of 1) organic materials, on the basis of theabundance of voids in the fabric (RICE, 1987: 350-354), 2) rock (and flint) fragments, thanks mainly to theirbimodal distribution, 3) limestone, mainly on the angularity of the fragments, 4) calcite, because of the bimo-dal distribution and the rhombohedric shape of the inclusions, and 5) quartz sand, according to the parametersused by RICE (1987: 410). This author stresses the importance of the typical “pronounced angularity” of thegrains, though difficulties might occur due to the presence of angular particles in the primary clay; therefore adetermination of the size distribution can help identify the addition of temper (BARNETT, 1991).

5. ANALYTICAL APPROACH

The methods, which have been employed for the analyses, are those of optical microscopy of thin-sectionanalysis, SEM-EDS and XRD. While thin section has demonstrated to be the more efficient in the study of thecoarse pottery, SEM-EDS and XRD have been used to test the microscopic groupings. In this work, thin sectionanalysis is used as the primary means of investigation, because chemical analyses cannot answer some importantquestions that can be explained by simple microscopic analysis. Chemical analyses have not been made becausethe coarse pottery I have analysed is low-fired and porous: these two pottery characteristics advise against theuse of chemical analyses. Low-fired pottery is very susceptible to post-depositional alteration. Soil solutions(calcium and phosphorous oxides) “may deposit new minerals internally in the pores…...calcite and materialprecipitated on a very fine scale in the matrix of the ceramic, or possibly absorbed on the mineral phases in thematrix” (FREESTONE, 2001: 621). Another reason why chemical analyses were not undertaken is that they arecommonly employed to compare large compositional groups and are considered to be useful in the case ofproduction centres (FREESTONE, pers. comm. 2001). The scale of manufacture of the prehistoric pottery, which hasbeen examined, is small, as demonstrated by the large number of different groups and subgroups. Furthermore,the thin section method is the most suitable tool for the identification of added inclusions on the basis of theirsize, shape and distribution (Chapter 2, 5.2.), whereas chemical analyses can only indicate the amount of theirpresence. Besides this, petrological methods show the great advantage, for instance over the chemical ones, thatany compositional change that might have occurred after burial in an archaeological layer is immediately evi-dent. For example, thin sections show whether the primary calcite found in the matrix is fixed entirely in thetemper or both in the temper and in the matrix. They can also reveal whether the firing phases contain CaO andconsequently inform us about the firing temperature, whether it is secondary calcite which has formed throughretrograde processes from CaO (MAGGETTI, 1982: 129) (fig. 38f).

9 The size limit between the coarse and the fine fractions is not fixed. It varies (commonly between 2 and 10 mm) according to the type of materialstudied (BARNETT, 1991).10 Following MAGGETTI (1982: 123), temper is composed of all the solid phases with a diameter wider than 0.015 mm. This author makes a distinctionbetween natural temper (if naturally present in the fabric) and artificial temper (if artificially added). In this work, temper is used only with themeaning of artificially added inclusions.11 The identification of this particular kind of recycling is, not always unambiguous, as WHITBREAD (1986) has stressed. The raw clay often containsclay pellets which, strongly resemble grog, after firing.

38

5.1. MINERO-PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

Although the thin section method is always subjective, it allows the classification of pottery fabrics.Classification is based on the variety of minerals that normally occur in pottery (Chapter 2, 5.2., m). Thinsectioning is limited, since it does not fully allow the identification of the mineralogical composition of theclay, due to the microscopic size of the particles. According to WILLIAMS (1983), in most studies this handicapis minimised by the identification of the various temper constituents; each category of inclusions defines aparticular fabric type.

Following PIERRET (1994), petrography is just one of the many scientific techniques that archaeometristsemploy in pottery characterisation which help establish the location of provenance source. There is no onesingle method of analysis which is suitable for every kind of pottery fabric (WILLIAMS , 1983: 323). In the studyof early ceramics that have been produced with non-standardised raw materials and heterogeneous clay sour-ces (including insufficient homogenisation of clays during preparation), quantitative results reflect only thelimited volume of the area analysed, not the entire vessel, or the vessel category as a whole. In order to avoidpitfalls caused by insubstantial quantifications produced by the method employed, it has been decided toconcentrate on qualitative microscopy, or “qualitative analysis” (DURRENMATH, 1996) that is to identify theclay/matrix types and the inclusion/temper characteristics, including significant ‘trace species’ such as, forinstance, microfossils, as well as to furnish an only broad estimation of quantities of inclusions. This metho-dological approach has been established in the course of the research because of the heterogeneity of inclusiondensities shown by a number of sherds even within one thin section obtained from one single potsherd.

Another method of quantifying the mineralogical composition, is the so-called “point counting”. It con-sists of scanning a thin section at regular intervals and counting the number of mineral inclusions. It is,however, only feasible if the material analysed is homogeneous enough within each sample and within eachgroup of samples to be meaningful. In other words, in order to be significant the results have to be fromstandardised material with clear differences in inclusion quantities and mineral varieties, which are not pre-sent in this assemblage.

5.2. PARAMETERS ADOPTED FOR THIN SECTION DESCRIPTION

One of the main problems in the description of the thin sections is trying to use objective parameters. Thisis important for a better evaluation of the analysis within the same assemblage and for the study of comparableceramic assemblages from elsewhere (COURTY et al., 1989; ORTON et al., 1993).

The methodology used in this volume partly follows the recording system proposed by ORTON et al.(1993) and COURTY et al. (1989: 64-68); it concentrates primarily on the detrital fraction of the fabric. Thefollowing attributes are recorded:a) Colour: colours are estimated by looking at the slide in Crossed Polarised Light (XPL). The colour of a

fabric might be due to various factors as the iron compounds and the organic matter (humus, rootlets,fibres) present in the clay, and to the firing atmosphere (RICE, 1987: 334-335). The colour is influenced bythe thickness and density or porosity of the section;

b) Identity/Composition of the mineral fraction (COURTY et al., 1989: 64-68):1) single mineral grains (e.g. quartz, calcite, micas and opaque iron minerals);2) compound mineral grains (e.g. soil, rock, clayey soil fragments);3) inorganic residues of biological origin (e.g. bones, phytoliths, fossils). The microfossils included in

the thin sections of the samples I have analysed have not been identified because they all belong to thesame species of the order Foraminifera that are extremely common to the limestone formations of Dal-matia and of the south Italian coast (K. THOMAS, pers. comm. 2001);

4) fragments of human materials (e.g. grog-recycled pottery, and organic materials);c) Grain-size: the subdivision of the fabric into very fine, coarse, etc. depends on the grain-size of the

inclusions. In this work, I have always specified the grain-size of the inclusions contained in the fabrics ofthe potsherds I have analysed. Some basic concepts have been adopted in the description of the fabrics.For example “typical size” that indicates the median size of most of the grain minerals (length by width)included in the fabric, or “size range between...and…” that indicates the size of the larger and smallergrains (length by width) identified in the fabric;

d) Frequency/Abundance: estimation of the abundance of a particular component contained in the fabricwas carried out “by comparing the objects in the microscopic field with patterns in abundance charts”

¯ 39

(COURTY et al., 1989: 68). It was decided to use the comparison charts for the estimation of mineralcontent by MATTHEW et al. (1991). The terms rare, present, abundant and very abundant, employed in thedescription of the percentage of the inclusions in the fabrics, have been utilised in relation to the differentvarieties of minerals. For instance, minerals such as mica, pyroxene, feldspar, opaques and iron oxides arerare when their presence in the fabric is of about 1%, whereas other inclusions such as limestone andcalcite are rare when their presence is of 5%. Mica, pyroxene, feldspar, opaques and iron oxides areabundant when their percentage is of 5% or more; in contrast, limestone is abundant when it is of some10% (if naturally present) and calcite (that has almost always been artificially added) of about 20%;

e) Roundness: this attribute “concerns the sharpness of the edges and corners of the grain” (COURTY et al.,1989: 69). Any of four classes are usually represented: angular, sub-angular, subrounded and rounded.“The shape of inclusions reflects their erosion history. In general, the longer the history, the more roun-ded the grains will become” (ORTON et al., 1993: 139). Angularity measurements indicate whether thetemper consists of naturally occurring coarse grains or crushed or ground material. Such an addition canonly be demonstrated, however, through comparison among samples;

f) Sorting: this concept expresses the degree of size uniformity (or variability) of the inclusions. Accordingto COURTY et al. (1989: 68), a well-sorted sediment contains an overwhelming abundance (c. 90%) ofmaterial of a given size, whereas a poorly-sorted one consists of a mixture of different sizes. Poorly-sorted deposits contain roughly equal proportions of all grain sizes;

g) Clay pellets: this term concerns argillaceous inclusions, which present the following properties (WHIT-BREAD, 1986): roundness shape, optical density, (red) colour, inclusions. Following WHITBREAD‘s descrip-tion (1986: 22, table 2), the clay pellets contained in the thin section that I have analysed show sharpboundaries, rounded to well-rounded roundness, equal to ovoid shape, high optical density and dark redcolour. The consituents are similar to the inclusions of the matrix; they are mainly composed of quartz;

h) Bohnerz: this term (or Argillaceous Rock Fragments, ARF) indicates some colloidal substances (aggrega-tion of aluminium, iron or magnesium) that are present in the sherd. They are due to the absence ofseasoning, when clay is left in the open-air for one season to eliminate the clots from colloidal substances(L. LAZZARINI , pers. comm. 1997). In thin section they are red and show “sharp to clear boundaries and ahigh degree of angularity” (WHITBREAD, 1986: 22, table 2). Their constituents are mainly quartz and mica;

i) Firing conditions: much work has been done on the two basic kiln and non-kiln firing procedures ofprehistoric ceramics (HEIMANN and FRANKLIN , 1979; TITE, 1995). Regarding kiln firing, a reducing condi-tion can be achieved if a vessel is smudged during additional firing (RICE, 1987: 158; 343). Variousexpedients can be used to proceed from an oxidising to a reducing atmosphere and vice-versa. To producea reducing atmosphere the draught is to be diminished, while smoke-producing substances must be ad-ded. In contrast, to obtain an oxidising atmosphere, it is necessary to increase the percentage of incomingair as well as to utilise a very dry fuel. On the other hand, non-kiln firing can be done either in a pile offuel or in a pit. Temperature is difficult to control and is, in most cases, lower than 900 °C. Also the firingatmosphere can be poorly controlled in terms of oxidising or reducing conditions.In thin section the firing temperature can be hypothesised on the basis of the presence or absence of someminerals or of organic matter. For example, the latter burns off at a temperature of 300-500 °C. Calcite,which is a mineral very common to the thin sections analysed for this research, disappears at temperaturesin excess of 700-750 °C under oxidizing atmosphere; if the conditions are reducing, calcite would decom-pose at temperatures higher than 750 °C. As reported by LETSCH and NOLL (1983: 266), “the system’s CO2partial pressure delays the decomposition of calcium carbonate, which first sets in at about 800 °C……At that temperature, the formation of calcium silicates is able to accelerate quite rapidly”. Calcite isrepresented in most of the potsherds analysed. Given that their firing took place in an oxidizing atmo-sphere I have assumed that the temperature was lower than 750 °C12;

l) Vitrification: in thin section, the high-firing temperature can also be defined on the basis of the vitrifica-tion of the fabric. Vitrification (e.g. figulina, Chapter 5, 7.) can be identified by XPL polarizer, because ofthe milky appearance of the isotropic and non-birefringent characters of the paste (I. FREESTONE, pers.comm. 2001). The vitrification region is around 850 °C (RICE, 1987: 431). When vitrification has not

12 The term banded calcite has been used in this volume to indicate calcite that shows variegations due to iron depositions, possibly caused bystratifications in particular environments such as caves (A. BEER, pers. comm. 2000).

40

been specified in the description of the fabrics, they look anisotropic (non-vitrified) and birefringent;m) Grouping: each assemblage has been subdivided into groups on the basis of the characteristics of the

different fabrics, which very often show strong similarities, even though they are never identical (e.g.differences in quartz size, percentage, different variety of limestone, etc.). Therefore, it is very difficult toestablish fixed parameters for the definition of groups. Most probably this is also due to the fact that weare dealing with pottery that represents the first ceramic production of southeast Mediterranean Europe.The fabrics are always more or less coarse depending on different choices made by (probably more thanone) potter. The subdivisions have been made principally on the matrices differentiations (more or lesscalcareous, iron-rich, etc.), and on the percentages of the type and grain size of the inclusions contained inthe fabrics. When the matrix and the naturally present and artificially added inclusions are similar foridentity, grain size, sorting, roundness, etc., in different samples, they have been attributed to the samegroup. The subgroups have been defined according to the strong similarities between their matrix and thatof their related groups, besides little variations in the percentage and size of some minerals (e.g. quartz);or, in case the subgroup has the same matrix of the group it belongs, it is characterised by the adding oftemper. It is obvious that this method of subdivision is subjective and other possibilities of grouping doexist (MIDDLETON et al., 1991). It is for this reason that the SEM-EDS method has been employed, in orderto test the groups already defined with the minero-petrographic analysis;

n) Correlation between microscopic and macroscopic groups: each group, microscopically defined on thebasis of its fabric, has been compared with the other microscopic groups identified at that site also frommacroscopic, typological and stylistic points of view, to try to define any possible relationship betweenfabric and typology, in order to understand whether each group had been manufactured with clay from aparticular source or a specific filler had been added. It is obvious that the number of specimens taken intoconsideration from each group represents an undoubted limiting factor. Nevertheless, it can be consideredas a useful data-base for future research.

5.3. INTERPRETATION OF PETROGRAPHIC DATA

The scope of the minero-petrographic analysis is the identification of the provenance of the clay andtemper of the samples (RICE, 1987: 413-421; 424-425). The first stage of the process consists in the identifica-tion of the inclusions of the fabric. Once the minerals have been identified, they have been compared with thegeological deposits of the region where the site is located. This stage is particularly delicate since it mustproceed through a program of enquiries that concern the natural inclusions of local clays, the presence orabsence of the inclusions in the sediment, the reliable indicators, etc. The second stage consists of the compa-rison of the fabrics with the thin section (and XRD pattern) of the soil sample(s) collected in the proximity ofthe site (Chapter 2, 2.). The soil thin sections sometimes show fabrics almost identical to those of the potsher-ds (see for instance the case of Vi•ula). Another essential help comes from the cross analyses of the fabricsfrom neighbouring, contemporary sites (see the cases for Smilčić and Tinj Podlivade, Vrbica and Konjevrate,Jami na Sredi and Vela Jama). Sites located close to each other often show similar, or in a few cases, almostidentical, fabrics (e.g. Jami na Sredi and Vela Jama). In case the fabrics match with the geology of the area andwith the analyses of the soil sample, it is agreeable to suggest a local provenance. The term “local source”means that the clay deposit lies some 15-20 km from the site, at a half day’s walk from the site itself.

In case the fabric does match with the local geology, and with the thin section of contemporary andneighbouring sites, it is possible to talk about “regional manufacture”. It means that the materials employed inits manufacture come from a radius wider than 20 km (see, for instance, the cases of Smilčić and Tinj Podliva-de). If the fabric does not match with the area, with the local geology or with the surrounding clay deposits, itis reasonable to suggest a non-local manufacture, that is an allochtonous provenance (see the samples of group3 of Maddalena di Muccia). In this case it would be necessary to compare its fabric with that of already‘known’ sources. This is the only way it can be attributed to a probable production area. Unfortunately thislatter case is very problematic because 1) no data base of the areas under study are presently available, and 2)the research progress would request further analyses such as, perhaps, chemical analyses.

Given the limitations of the study methods and of sampling strategy employed, and given the geologicaluniformity of the Dalmatian coast, the characteristics, which have been considered in the identification of theceramics are: 1) the specificity/uniqueness of the distribution of the inclusions in the various fabrics, 2) thestrong similarities/dissimilarities observable, in most cases, between the fabrics of neighbouring sites (see for

¯ 41

instance Vrbica and Konjevrate, Vela Jama and Jami na Sredi, Tinj and Smilčić, IW phase, Maddalena diMuccia and Ripabianca di Monterado), and 3) the comparison between the fabrics of potsherds that comefrom different Neolithic horizons (i.e. Smilčić).

Since great similarities often occur among fabrics of the same site, the terms “homogeneity” and “simila-rity” have sometimes been used. In this volume these terms are employed to hypothesise the raw materialprovenance from similar, probably neighbouring sources or from different layers of the same deposit. Never-theless, these terms might be employed also over a wider, for instance regional, scale.

6. X-RAY DIFFRACTION (XRD)

The XRD analysis13 has been applied to the soil samples (one or two) collected in the vicinity of thearchaeological sites and to the various (between two and four) ceramic groups identified with the thin section.It has been mainly employed to support the thin section method and to test the groups classified according tothe thin sections. Furthermore, it has been used to compare the soil with the different ceramic groups classifiedaccording to the thin section.

In a few cases the XRD has allowed the identification of minerals too small to be detected in the thinsection. In other cases it has been of great help to define the type of clay characterising both soil and potsherds(e.g. the presence of kaolinite in sherds from Viùla, Konjevrate, Vrbica, Danilo Bitinj and Scamuso; Chapter 2,6.1.).

6.1. KAOLINITE

Kaolinite has been detected by XRD in some sherds. Normally kaolinite disappears at about 500-600 °C.In most cases kaolinite occurs with chlorite (see Vi•ula, Konjevrate, Vrbica, and Scamuso). Even though theyhave different structures, chlorite “has a basal series of diffraction peaks superimpose or nearly superimposeon the members of the kaolinite 00l series” (MOORE and REYNOLDS, 1997: 233-234).

If it is really present, its presence might be due to post-depositional factors (retroformation of metakaoli-nite in the soil), though in the case of my samples it is most probably due to short firing because it can survive“ in the centre of the thick ceramic body. Usually, Neolithic firing took place as “open firing” and the wholefiring cycle was finished in 20-30 minutes, reaching even only 300 °C for some pots parts” (M. M AGGETTI, inlitteris 2001; MAGGETTI and ROSSMANITH, 1981). In a further research, the occurrence of kaolinite might bechecked by IR-Spectrometry analysis.

7. SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY (SEM)

Almost all the potsherds (some were omitted because the samples were too small and consequently utili-sed only for the thin sections) analysed in thin section were also studied with the SEM-EDS (Energy Disper-sive Spectrometry; SEM is used in combination with LINK ISIS - Oxford instruments)14. The SEM-EDS wasused as an accessory technique to test the microscopic groups.

Stoichiometry combined elements have been used: Oxygen and Valency: - 2. The results are normalisedsemi-quantitative, because the ceramics samples show many voids (high porosity). The accuracy of this ma-chine depends on the topography of the samples (porosity, holes, etc.) with a detection limit of some 0.5%.The limit of the topography of the specimens analysed for this research is almost irrelevant since I have triedto obtain a comparative model of the samples.

Five bulk analyses were made on each sample at a magnification of 86X. The average of the bulk analysesis used to define the ceramic groups on the basis of the percentage of elemental composition (SCHNEIDER,

13 The XRD machine utilised for this research is a Philips Pc APD version 3.6. The diffractometer type is a P/W1710 based. The generator tension is40kV, and the generator current is 30 mA. Characteristics of the model: start angle (20°) 2.010; end angle (20°) 69.970; step size (20°) 0.020;maximum intensity 4186.090; time per step 2.000 s; continuous type of scan. The machine is accurate enough to detect compounds present at morethan about 1%. It can identify peaks. They have been checked by Mr. S. Hirons of the Birberck College, Geology Department.

14 The machine employed is a JEOL JSM-35 CF with a standard peak resolution of 138 eV, and Window ATW2.

42

1989). The chemical composition of the fabric was tested with the SEM-EDS, though it was impossible to avoidcalcite (or flint, in the case of Maddalena di Muccia and Ripabianca di Monterado) inclusions. For this reasonit was very difficult to make a clear separation between the matrix and the inclusions. In most cases, the groupsidentified microscopically have been confirmed by the chemical composition of the matrix (e.g. Ripabianca diMonterado, Viula, Smilčić, Vela špilja, etc.). The differentiations on the basis of which the subgroups havebeen identified (for example which are mainly based on the number of inclusions and not on the matrix), are notclearly visible. However, no opposite evidence of groups was found, which would question the accuracy of themicroscopic groupings. Nevertheless, this method was very useful for the definition of the different clay sour-ces exploited for the manufacture of the fine figulina ware, in comparison with those used for the ordinarypottery (see for instance Smilčić, Danilo and Hvar phases).

¯ 43

CHAPTER 3

THE ISTRIAN AND DALMATIAN SITES: ANALYSES AND RESULTS

1. VIÙLA (Pula)

The open-air site of Medulin (Medolino) at Viùla (Isola del Vescovo) (fig. 10), a few kilometres south ofPula (Istria), is located in the northernmost region reached by the spread of Impressed Ware in the east Adria-tic. A few more sites of the same culture are known in the same territory, namely those of Vela Gromača(BA}I}, 1973), Verudella and Punta Rossa, while single potsherds are known from other sites that were reloca-ted during the Iron Age hillfort (Castellieri) period (MIHOVILI }, 1994: 103).

The site of Medulin was discovered in 1969 in an area that is now densely forested, very close to theshoreline of Vi•ula. The archaeologists of the Pula Museum opened a first trial-trench in the spring of the sameyear. It was later enlarged to an extension of 80 square m, in order to excavate the site systematically (BA}I},1969: 23). The largest trench is so-called point 1, covering 6x2 m. The stratigraphy showed that the ImpressedWare layer lay at a depth of 40 cm from the present surface, and that it was some 20 cm thick, just above thelimestone bedrock. Even though the only archaeological structures brought to light are a few pits and onehearth, the presence of daub fragments (more than 1500 pieces) with cane impressions might suggest thathabitation structures might have existed close to the area where the trail trench was opened. The hearth wasfilled with valves of marine shellfish, mainly Cardium edule, Lamarcki, and oysters. According to the obser-vations made by the excavator (BA}I}, 1969) the Impressed Ware horizon was perfectly in situ. Two radiocar-bon dates have been obtained from bone fragments. They are: 6850±180 BP (HD-12093) and 6140±65 BP(HD-11733) (CHAPMAN and MÜLLER, 1990: 130).

Fig. 10 - Vi ula (Medulin): location of the Neolithic site (dot) and of the soil samples (squares). Scale in kilometres.

44

The material culture remainsThe excavation yielded 474 potsherds, 171 of which have impressed decorations, 60 linear and incised

patterns (CODACCI, 2000-2001). They are from characteristic Impressed Ware ceramic vessels, such as shallowand deep open bowls and deep large vessels decorated with “rocker” Cardium Impressed lines, instrumentalimpressions and groups of parallel, incised lines (PETRI}, 1978-1979). The characteristics of the ceramic as-semblage and the comparisons that can be extended to the site of Smil~i} (BATOVI}, 1966), relate the site to anadvanced stage in the development of the IW Culture, phases B and C of MÜLLER’s (1994: 313) subdivision.

The flint assemblage has recently been re-examined by J.K. KOZŁOWSKI (1990: 69) who studied only avery small part of the total assemblage, without analysing the collection of the Pula Museum. In his article, hepointed out the richness of this industry compared with other sites of the IW Culture in Dalmatia. It showsmany peculiarities, such as a very high flake index characterised by the presence of many discoid cores.Instruments are represented by end scrapers, transversal and lateral side scrapers, and denticulated pieces.Other tools include bifacial picks and tranchets.

The flint industry collected by Ba}i} has been recently “rediscovered” in the stores of the Pula Museum(CODACCI, 2000-2001). It is very rich in unretouched artefacts, mainly waste flakes and unretouched blocksobtained from a local source of opaque, light grey material.

According to the results of the measurements of the complete, unretouched artefacts, they are mainly representedby normoliths; the laminarity index is fairly high (36.45%). The numerous cores are represented by many polyhedrical,flakelet and a rare subconical, bladelet specimens. Among the instruments, one can note the presence of severalpeculiar tools, namely of straight, abrupt retouched perforators on thick flakelet, with very worn broken point. Othertools are two short end scrapers with very worn working edge, and several retouched bladelets and flakelets.

The abundance of nodule fragments, waste débitage flakes, and cores might indicate that the site wasstrongly linked with flint extractive activities.

The archaeozoological remainsAlmost nothing is known of the subsistence strategy of this IW Culture site. The only identified bone

remains belong to domestic caprovines (BON, pers. comm. 2001), while masses of Cardium edule shellfishcome from a hearth. “At Smilčić, Nin and Medulin, masses of shells have been excavated. Over all, a mixedsubsistence economy, including foraging and agriculture is suggested by large-scale site catchment, animalbones, and the lone botanical analysis.” (M ÜLLER, 1988: 103-106).

1.1. GEOLOGY OF THE AREA

The area surrounding the site is characterised by an interstratification of layers of limestone, clay, dolomiticlimestone and some strata with fossils of Nerinae and Diceratides (Dignano, Brioni Islands, Pula, Cape Promotore).The site is characterised by lower Turonian formations (white, compact limestones with Radiolites, horizons withChondrodonta Joannae, Neitaea Zitteli, Diceras Pironai, Radiolites macrodon, etc.) and by Upper Cenomaniandeposits with Rudistae (coarse limestone and white, compact limestone, with Radiolites, layers of Ichthyosarculitestriangularis - Sàrici, Monticchio and Medulin) (Foglio XXXVII Pisino della Reale Carta Geologica d‘Italia,1:100000). MÜLLER (1994: Plate 77) shows that the site is surrounded by terra rossa and retzina soils.

1.2. ANALYSES

Nineteen of the 474 Impressed Ware sherds examined were sampled for thin section analysis. Two Romanpotsherds were also analysed in order to compare their results with those obtained from the Neolithic samples(table 1, Appendix 3 and table 1, Appendix 1). The Impressed Ware specimens have been subdivided intothree different groups (G1-G3), while the fourth (G4) belongs to the historical period.

G1 - (4 samples: VZ 28, 29, 32, 35) (fig. 11a)Reddish very silty, iron-rich matrix characterised by sub-parallel orientation of the clay, with poorly-sorted, fine angular and suban-gular quartz (<30%; size range between 0.04 by 0.02 and 0.03 by 0.02 mm), some hornblende, opaques and iron oxides (<10%),muscovite (2%) and biotite (<3%) micas, rare feldspar, heavy minerals (tourmaline and epidote), rare zircon (1%), and some red clayfragments (pedological fragments). VZ 32 includes one fragment of glauconite.

G2 - (5 samples: VZ 1, 2, 27, 33, 34) (fig. 11b)Brown-reddish matrix characterised by poorly-sorted, angular and subangular quartz (<25%; size range between 0.12 by 0.08 and 0.05

¯ 45

a)

c)

e)

g)

b)

d)

f)

h)

Fig. 11 - Vi ula (Medulin): photomicrographs of thin section samples: a) VZ 28, b) VZ 34, c) VZ 11, d) VZ 24, e) VZ 20, f) VZ 37, g) VZ4, h) soil sample Medulin 2 (XPL, X40) (photographs by M. Spataro).

46

by 0.04 mm), some flint (<3%), abundant iron oxides (7%), muscovite (3%) and biotite (5%) micas, some clay pellets, rare pyroxene(1%), and very rare amphibole (<1%). The high percentage (6%) of voids and the black, burnt organic material would suggest the useof organic temper;

sub. a (4 samples: VZ 11, 22, 26, 38) (fig. 11c)Brown-reddish matrix very similar to that of G2, with a lower content of quartz (<20%; same size range as group 2), more organicmaterial (>7%), and iron oxides (>10%);

sub. b (2 samples: VZ 18, 24) (fig. 11d)The matrix is very similar to that of G2 sub. a, although it shows a lower number of voids, caused by the inclusion of organicmaterial, and some added crushed calcite (10%; size range between 1.0 by 0.8 and 0.4 by 0.2 mm). Sample VZ 18 has oneGastropod microfossil.

G3 - (2 samples: VZ 10, 20) (fig. 11e)Reddish fine matrix more calcareous than those of groups 1 and 2, with fine and well-sorted angular and subangular quartz (<15%;typical size range between 0.04 by 0.03 mm), rounded and subrounded fragments of limestone (about 5%; size range between 0.5 by0.3 and 0.2 by 0.2 mm), biotite mica (<5%), opaques and iron oxides (10%), and rare muscovite mica (1%);

sub. a (2 samples: VZ 15, 37) (fig. 11f)Matrix more micritic and richer in rounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone than that of G3 (10%; typical size range 0.6 by 0.4mm), well-sorted, abundant angular and subangular quartz (25%; typical size 0.1 by 0.08 mm), iron oxides (<10%), muscovite andbiotite micas (3%).

G4 - (2 samples: VZ 4, 25) (fig. 11g)Dark red, very iron-rich, vitrified matrix, poorly-sorted abundant angular and subangular quartz (30%; size range between 0.4 by 0.2and 0.04 by 0.03 mm), muscovite mica (<3%), some biotite larger than that of the preceding groups, rare pyroxene (1%), microcline(1%), abundant opaques and iron oxides (<15%), and some microfossils.

One soil sample collected from the proximity of the site has been analysed in thin section (figs. 10 and 11h). Its red matrix ischaracterised by abundant angular and subangular quartz (35%; typical size 0.03 by 0.02 mm), iron oxides (5%), some biotite andmuscovite (>3%), rare pyroxene (1%), and red clay fragments (pedological fragments which infilled voids in the soil). It is an alfisol(argillic diagnostic horizon), alternatively referred to as a luvisol (R. MACPHAIL, pers. comm. 2001).

1.2.1. Summary of group characteristicsGroup 1 has a silty, iron-rich matrix with sub-parallel orientation of the clay, abundant small-sized quartz,

hornblende, muscovite and biotite micas, rare feldspar, heavy minerals (tourmaline and epidote), zircon, andred clay fragments. Group 2 shows a fabric without orientation, coarser quartz and less heavy minerals thanthat of G1. It is characterised by flint, iron oxides, muscovite and biotite micas, pyroxene, amphibole, claypellets, and voids. G2 sub. a shows less quartz and more voids than G2, whereas the fabric of G2 sub. b issimilar to the preceding subgroup, with sparse fragments of crushed calcite. Group 3 has a micritic fabric,different from those of G1 and G2, with a lower percentage of quartz and some limestone fragments. It hassome biotite, opaques, abundant iron oxides, and rare muscovite. Its subgroup (G3 sub. a) has a very calcare-ous fabric. It shows a higher percentage of coarser quartz and fragments of polycrystalline limestone. Thelimestone is natural to the clay as indicated by its rounded and subrounded shape.

Group 4 shows a very iron-rich matrix with abundant quartz, and muscovite and biotite micas. The biotiteis larger in diameter than that of the preceding groups. The quartz is more angular and there is no evidence ofclay fragments. It also shows pyroxene, microcline, and a few microfossils.

1.2.2. SEM-EDS analysesSeven samples from this site have been analysed by SEM-EDS (table 1, Appendix 4). Groups 1, 2 and 3

have yielded similar results, with rather high aluminia, silica, and iron oxide. G2 sub. a has less abundant silicathan G2 (less quartz, see above) and a higher content of aluminia and iron oxide (as shown by the thin sectionanalysis). G3 sub. a is characterised by a higher quantity of calcium oxide (micritic matrix and presence oflimestone fragments), while the amount of potash is lower than that of groups 1 and 2. G4 has the lowest percen-tage of aluminia and the highest of magnesia and potash, and abundant calcium oxide (this result is curiousbecause no limestone or calcite has been noted in thin section). The similarities between groups 1 and 2 areevident also in thin section (see above), whereas G3 shows a more calcareous fabric. G4 is characterised by verylow aluminia and high potash and magnesia. It comes from a source different from those of the other groups, asconfirmed by the thin section analysis. It is interesting to note the presence of calcium oxide, whereas in thinsection no limestone or calcite were identified (see also the XRD pattern of this sample). These analyses reinfor-ce the idea of a similar provenance for the first three groups (see Chapter 3, 1.3.), and a different one for G4.

¯ 47

1.2.3. XRD analysesTwo soil samples (Medulin 1, Medulin 2) collected from the proximity of the Neolithic site have been

analysed by XRD. The two patterns show the presence of the same minerals (figs. 12, top and 12, bottom):kaolinite, muscovite mica, chlorite, quartz, and hematite.

Three potsherds (VZ 4, G4; VZ 15 and VZ 37, G3 sub. a) already studied in thin section were also

Fig. 12 - Vi ula (Medulin): XRD patterns of soil samples 1 (top) and 2 (bottom).

48

Fig. 13 - Vi ula (Medulin): XRD patterns of potsherds VZ 15 (top), VZ 37 (centre) and VZ 4 (bottom).

¯ 49

analysed by XRD. Both patterns of the samples of group 3 sub. a (VZ 15 and VZ 37) show quartz, chlorite, andhematite (figs. 13, top and 13, centre) that are common to the soil samples, plus some calcite. As already shownby the thin section analyses, both sherds have micritic fabrics rich in polycrystalline limestone. The pattern ofsample VZ 37 (fig. 13, centre) also includes some kaolinite (Chapter 2, 6.1.) and albite. Albite is a commonmineral sometimes disseminated in granular limestone (FORD, 1949: 546) while the kaolinite matches the soilsample.

The Roman sample of group 4 (VZ 4; fig. 13, bottom) shows microcline, quartz, muscovite, hematite,calcite, and gypsum. Gypsum is the most common sulphate and often “forms extensive beds in connectionwith various sedimentary rocks, especially limestone, shales, marls and clay” (FORD, 1949: 759). Most ofthese minerals, as microcline, quartz and muscovite, had already been identified in the thin section of thesherd. Hematite is a very common mineral. It was difficult to identify in thin section because of the veryhomogeneous dark red colour (most probably due to hematite) of the matrix, caused by the high content of thesource. It is interesting to observe that the XRD analysis shows a slightly micritic clay. This contradicts theresults of the thin section analysis because calcite was not observed in the thin section, although according tothe SEM-EDS analyses the percentage of calcium is higher than in other groups: see above. This may becaused by post-depositional factors due to circulation of water after the sherds were buried. The formation anddeposition of secondary calcite is very common in an area characterised by a calcareous environment. Alsothe presence of gypsum is due to post-depositional factors (FREESTONE, pers. comm. 2001). Gypsum is a mine-ral that disappears at very low temperatures, approximately 200 °C, while the vessels have been fired at morethan 850 °C. The presence of microcline recognised by XRD in VZ 4 (its percentage is to be higher than 2%)confirms the results of the thin section analysis, that it is from a different source, and that its formation cannotbe due to firing (I. FREESTONE, pers. comm. 2001).

To conclude, the XRD analysis reinforces the opinion that group 3 comes from a local source (on the basisof the similarities with the soil sample patterns), while group 4 does not.

1.3. DISCUSSION

The fabrics of groups 1 and 2 most probably come from sources located close to each other. Their mineralinclusions are identical, even though the percentage is variable. They show a fine fraction of inclusions rich inquartz, mica, and heavy minerals. The sources of the subgroups most probably derive from different layers ofthe same clay deposit. They are relatively rich in clay minerals and poorer in quartz; therefore they needed theaddition of some temper (organic and/or calcite) in varying proportion. The fabric of group 3 looks similar tothose of groups 1 and 2, although its fabric is richer in calcium carbonate (see SEM-EDS results) and poorerin muscovite mica.

Group 4 is very different from the previous three. Its fabric is more homogeneous, more ferric, betteroxidized, with microcline, and microfossils. The source is very different from the preceding ones, characteri-sed by more angular quartz, without any clay fragment.

The thin section of the soil sample collected from the proximity of the site (sample Medulin 2) is almostidentical to the fabric of group 1. It shows the same reddish, fine silty clay with abundant fine quartz and thesame size of muscovite lamellae (even though the soil sample shows a higher percentage of white mica).

1.4. CONCLUSIONS

The study of the fabrics of the thin sections of groups 1, 2 and 3 indicates that they derive from local claysources. The thin section of the local soil is almost identical to the fabrics of the potsherds of group 1 (the soilis very silty, argillic with clay fragments). The fabrics of the sherds of group 1 show minerals (mainly quartz,muscovite, and biotite micas) characterised by similar grain size of the soil and by identical clay fragments.The XRD analyses of the sherds and soil samples show many similarities. It is reasonable to think that thevessels of these three groups were produced locally.

Group 4 is very different. The XRD analysis shows the presence of microcline and muscovite mica thatare absent in the other samples. The XRD pattern also shows the presence of some microscopically invisiblecalcite and gypsum. As mentioned above, these minerals are due to post-depositional factors.

More suggestions can be put forward about the origin of the second group. Sample VZ 18 of G2 sub. b,shows the presence of one microfossil of Gastropod, typical of muddy environments. It is possible that muddyclay was utilised by the inhabitants of the Neolithic village of Vi•ula for their pottery production. Another

50

sample belonging to group 1, VZ 32, contains glauconite, a mineral related to fossils and to low water, marineenvironments. Since only one small fragment has been identified, we can suppose that it might have beentransported by the tide. No shell fragment, which might indicate the presence of marine or lacustrine sedimen-ts, has been found. Therefore, the minerals and the matrices may point to a clay deposit located further inland.

Some differences have been noted in the technology employed in the pottery production of Vi•ula. Group2 sub. b shows some burnt organic material and some added crushed calcite (the calcareous inclusions arevery large and they are mineralogically distinct from the clay). On the other hand, there is no convincingevidence for the use of temper for the other ceramic groups. The quartz grains of the other groups are poorly-sorted. This suggests that the clay deposit is located near the source of the parental rock, because the quartzinclusions have neither been rounded, nor sorted in size by an extended process of water transport.

All the Neolithic ceramic samples show quite a low firing temperature, never higher than 750 °C, proba-bly about 600-650 °C, on the basis of the very crumbling and soft nature of the pottery and the presence ofintact crystals of calcite. On the other hand, the Roman samples have been highly fired, above 850 °C (becau-se of the vitrification of the fabrics: Chapter 2, 5.2., l).

In conclusion, the clay sources exploited in prehistoric and Roman periods are very different as testifiedby thin section, XRD and SEM-EDS analyses.

2. JAMI NA SREDI (Cres Island)

The cave site of Jami na Sredi lies on the Island of Cres, at an altitude of 34 m on the western slope ofMount St. Bartolomej (ČUS-RUKONIć, 1982), just north-east of Punta Kriza (MIROSAVLJEVIć, 1959), facing theLošinj Canal (figs. 14 and 15). The cave has a wide entrance, 13.3 m high; its main chamber continues forsome 69 m inside the mountain.

Jami na Sredi is one of the most important Neolithic sites so far discovered in the Kvarnar Islands. V.MIROSAVLJEVIć (1959; 1960) excavated it by test-trenches in three campaigns, in 1955, 1957 and 1958. The

excavations revealed a complex and arti-culated sequence that extended to a dep-th of 4.35 m. It produced evidence of dif-ferent phases of Late and Final Palaeoli-thic (so-called “Solutrean”, “Gravettian”and “Mesolithic”) as well as of Early andMiddle Neolithic occupations.

The material culture assemblageThe Early Neolithic layer yielded an

assemblage typical of the Cardium Im-pressed Ware Culture. Following J. MÜL-LER’s (1994: 313) classification, it is tobe attributed to the Impresso B phase.According to the descriptions given byboth the excavator and other authors (BA-TOVIć, 1966; ČEčUK, 1982a; MÜLLER,1994), the ceramic industry is characte-rised by fine and coarse pottery with im-pressed or stamped decorations. The de-corative patterns cover the entire surfaceof the vessel including the handles. Inmost cases they were obtained by pres-sing the perystome of Cardium edulemarine shell on the vessel surface. Sand-glass, linear instrumental, paired finger,and fingernail decorative patterns are also

Fig. 14 - Location of the Neolithic cave sites of Vela Jama (1) and Jami na Sredi (2) and ofthe soil samples (squares). Scale in kilometres.

¯ 51

relatively frequent. The large dimension, coarse pottery vessels are mainly of spherical or oval shape. Only onefragment with impressed motifs filled with white inlay has been found. Evidence from other Neolithic sites in thearea show that this decorative technique is more recent than the typical Jami na Sredi Impressed Ware assembla-ge. As reported by BATOVIć (1975a) the Jami na Sredi aspect of the Impressed Ware Culture has very closeparallels with that of the Prato Don Michele (FUSCO, 1965) in the Tremiti Islands (south-eastern Italy).

Flint and bone tools are very rare (but this might be due to the technique employed by the excavator),while polished stone tools are absent.

According to preliminary observations (ČEčUK, 1982a), the subsistence economy of the Jami na SrediEarly Neolithic community seems to have been based on fishing, the collection of marine molluscs and hun-ting. The excavations produced no evidence of agricultural implements or bones of domesticated animals.


The geology of the territory surrounding the site of Jami na Sredi is characterised by terra rossa soils(MÜLLER, 1994: Plate 77, 3), and by a large outcrop of limestone and some dolomite (Turonian formation)(Lošinj, L 33-125, Osnovna Geološka Karta, 1: 100000).

2.2. ANALYSES

Thirty-two potsherds from the Impressed Ware cave site of Jami na Sredi have been subdivided into fivedifferent groups (figs. 16-20; tables 2a, b, Appendix 3).

G1 - (6 samples: JNS 2, 5, 24, 26, 27, 30) (fig. 21a)Red dark-reddish, very slightly micritic and very iron-rich matrix characterised by well-sorted, abundant angular and subangularquartz (<25%; size range between 0.06 by 0.03 and 0.04 by 0.02 mm), abundant muscovite mica (<4%), clay pellets, opaques andiron oxides (>7%), and rounded and subrounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (<7%; size range between 0.8 by 0.5 and0.15 by 0.1 mm);

sub. a (2 samples: JNS 6, 25) (fig. 21b)Red micritic iron-rich matrix very similar to that of G1, with more abundant subrounded, subangular and rare, angular fragments ofpolycrystalline limestone (15%; size range between 2.5 by 1.5 and 0.07 by 0.05 mm), well-sorted angular and subangular quartz(20%; same size range G1), and occasional sparry calcite (3%);

Fig. 15 - Environmental location of Jami na Sredi (arrow) from the top of Mt. Telegraph (photograph by M. Spataro).

52

Fig. 16 - Jami na Sredi: pottery from the Impressed Ware layer.

¯ 53


54


¯ 55


56


¯ 57

sub. b (5 samples: JNS 4, 21, 100, 101, 102)Red dark red matrix very similar to that of G1, with coarser and poorly-sorted angular and subangular quartz (30%; size rangebetween 0.2 by 0.15 and 0.03 by 0.02 mm), rounded and subrounded fragments of limestone (7%; same size range G1), flint (<2%),and muscovite mica (3%);

sub. c (1 sample: JNS 7)Dark red, iron-rich matrix. The fabric is coarser and has more detrital fraction than that of G1. It is characterised by abundant roundedand subrounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (15%; size range between 1.5 by 1.0 and 0.06 by 0.04 mm), rich in poorly-sorted, angular and subangular quartz (35%; size range between 1.7 by 1.0 and 0.04 by 0.03 mm);

sub. d (1 sample: JNS 28)The fabric is identical to that of G1 sub. c. In addition it contains some added crushed sparry calcite (5%; size range between 3.0 by1.5 and 1.0 by 0.8 mm);

sub. e (3 samples: JNS 8, 18, 19)Brown slightly micritic matrix with poorly-sorted, abundant angular and subangular quartz (up to 30%; size range between 0.1 by0.05 and 0.05 by 0.03 mm), rounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (2%; typical size 0.05 by 0.03 mm), and abundant addedcrushed calcite (up to 30%; size range between 1.5 by 1.0 and 0.05 by 0.02 mm).

G2 - (1 sample: JNS 12) (fig. 21c)Brown micritic matrix with very well-sorted, fine angular and subangular quartz (20%; typical size 0.04 by 0.03 mm), some ironoxides (5%), rare polycrystalline limestone, one angular fragment of fossiliferous limestone (size: 1.5 by 0.75 mm), and muscovitemica (3%);

sub. a (1 sample: JNS 23)Brown matrix similar to that of G2, more calcareous, characterised by subrounded and subangular fragments of polycrystallinelimestone (5%; size range between 3.0 by 2.0 and 0.1 by 0.08), well-sorted angular and subangular quartz (<15%; typical size 0.1 by0.08), muscovite mica (2%), opaques and iron oxides (4%), and few clay pellets;

sub. b (1 sample: JNS 29)Brown-reddish matrix with poorly-sorted angular and subangular quartz (20%; size range between 0.1 by 0.08 and 0.04 by 0.03 mm),rare subrounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (2%), rare muscovite mica (1%), opaques and iron oxides (7%), and addedcrushed calcite (<20%; size range between 1.0 by 0.7 and 0.2 by 0.1 mm);

sub. c (1 sample: JNS 103)Brown-reddish matrix similar to that of G2, with some coarser quartz (20%; size range between 0.1 by 0.08 and 0.03 by 0.02 mm),and rounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (4%; typical size 0.2 by 0.15 mm);

sub. d (2 samples: JNS 3, 22)Dark brown micritic matrix with poorly-sorted abundant angular and subangular quartz (<25%; size range between 0.1 by 0.08 and0.04 by 0.02 mm), abundant rounded and subrounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (7%; typical size 1.2 by 0.8 mm),opaques and iron oxides (4%), few muscovite mica (2%), and some subrounded calcareous sandstone rock fragments (JNS 3).

G3 - (1 sample: JNS 16) (fig. 21d)Brown iron-rich matrix characterised by poorly-sorted angular and subangular quartz (<3%; size range between 0.2 by 0.15 and 0.03by 0.02 mm), abundant rounded and subrounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (20%; size range between 3.0 by 2.5 and 0.2by 0.18 mm), muscovite mica (2%), rare fragments of calcite (1%), and opaques and iron oxides (5%).

G4 - (4 samples: JNS 11, 13, 17, 20) (fig. 21e)Very reddish matrix indicative of the use of terra rossa soil with very abundant added crushed sparry calcite (up to 40%; size rangebetween 2.0 by 1.5 and 0.08 by 0.03 mm).

G5 - (2 samples: JNS 1, 14) (fig. 21f)Brown very clayish matrix characterised by few, fine angular and subangular quartz (2%; typical size 0.03 by 0.02 mm), and veryabundant added crushed sparry calcite as well as banded (40%; size range between 1.0 by 0.5 and 0.05 by 0.03 mm);

sub. a (1 sample: JNS 15) (fig. 21g)Brown-reddish matrix, very similar to that of G5 with some terra rossa soil, rounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (2%;size range 1.0 by 0.08 and 0.05 by 0.03 mm), and very abundant added crushed sparry calcite (40%; size range between 1.3 by 1.0 and0.07 by 0.03 mm).

One soil sample collected in the proximity of the site (some 0.5 km) has been analysed in thin section (figs. 14 and 21h). It is areddish luvisol (terra fusca), part of a palaeosoil, deep subsoil Bt/Ct (R. MACPHAIL, pers. comm. 2001). It shows a very reddish, non-calcareous fabric with well-sorted angular and subangular quartz (25%; typical size 0.05 by 0.03 mm), fine muscovite mica (3%),rare pyroxene (<1%), opaques and iron oxides (3%), and rare clay pellets.

2.2.1. Summary of group characteristicsGroup 1 has a very iron-rich and very slightly micritic fabric with fine quartz, muscovite, iron oxides, and

abundant polycrystalline limestone. Its subgroup a shows the same iron-rich fabric with a higher percentageof limestone. The fragments of limestone are subrounded, subangular and angular. They have been probablyadded as temper because of their angular shape. G1 sub. b is less iron-rich and has coarser quartz; it also shows

58

Fig. 21 - Jami na Sredi: photomicrographs of thin section samples: a) JNS 2, b), JNS 25, c) JNS 12, d) JNS 16, e) JNS 20, f) JNS 1), g) JNS 15, h),soil sample (XPL, X40) (photographs by M. Spataro).

a)

c)

e)

g)

b)

d)

f)

h)

¯ 59

some flint. G1 sub. c shows a much more abundant detrital fraction with poorly-sorted and coarser (than G1sub. a) quartz, limestone, and iron oxides; G1 sub. d is almost identical to G1 sub. c, although the latter showsadded calcite. G1 sub. e shows a slightly micritic fabric with abundant quartz, polycrystalline limestone andadded calcite. Group 2 shows a very fine fabric, very well-sorted fine quartz, muscovite, rare polycrystallinelimestone, one fragment of which is fossiliferous. It is much less rich in iron and in polycrystalline limestonethan that of group 1. G2 sub. a is very similar to G2, with a fabric much richer in limestone fragments, withcoarser and less abundant quartz. G2 sub. b shows the same matrix of G2 sub. a plus added crushed calcite.

The fabric of G2 sub. c is similar to that of G2 with added calcite and quartz more poorly-sorted. Group 2sub. d has a dark brown, calcareous fabric with coarse quartz, occasional muscovite mica, abundant polycry-stalline limestone, and some calcareous sandstone fragments. Group 3 has an iron-rich fabric with very rare,fine quartz, iron oxides and opaques, and abundant rounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone. Group 4shows a very iron-rich terra rossa fabric with very abundant added crushed calcite. Group 5 has a brown veryclayey, non-calcareous fabric, with very low percentage of quartz and very abundant added calcite. Its sub-group (G5 sub. a) shows in addition some terra rossa soil.

The soil sample is very similar to the fabric of G1, although the latter is slightly micritic with limestonefragments. They both show the same iron-rich fabric with abundant quartz, muscovite mica and iron oxides.

2.2.2. SEM-EDS analysesThe results of G1 (table 2, Appendix 4) are of particular interest because they show the highest amount of

phosphorus oxide of the whole assemblage, with an average around 5% and a maximum percentage of 12.44%.This is probably due to post-depositional factors (FREESTONE, 2001). Nevertheless, this is the only group of theJami na Sredi assemblage that produced these results. G1 and its subgroups a, b, and c have much more silicaand aluminia than the other groups.

The quantity of phosphorus oxide is much lower (0.48-4.02%) in the subgroups than in G1. The percen-tage of calcium oxide is generally lower than 22.88% in all the G1 samples, with the exception of JNS 8 and18 (sub. e; CaO 29.30-31.78%), whereas it is much higher in the other groups (because of the very abundantcrushed calcite). The percentages of iron oxide are quite high with the exception of G1 sub. e; the highest peakof 12.50% is reached by JNS 2 (G1).

The quantity of potash is rather homogeneous in G1 and in its subgroups, while it is lower than those ofgroups 2 and 3 (only JNS 21 has a higher percentage of 3.26%). Group 2 shows less aluminia and more potashthan G1.

Group 3 has a percentage of potash and magnesia much higher than that of the other groups. G4 is veryhomogeneous with a percentage of aluminia and silica lower than that of the other groups, and a very highquantity of calcium oxide. G5 shows the lowest percentages of silica and iron oxide and the highest of calciumoxide. Its subgroup (JNS 15) contains more abundant silica and aluminia and less calcium oxide.

To sum up, clear differences can be observed among the groups. G1 shows a high quantity of aluminia,silica, and phosphorus oxide, while groups 3, 4 and 5 have low percentages of these latter. In particular theyare very low in G5 (mainly because of the scarce presence of quartz). Another note regards the presence ofcalcium oxide, which is very high in groups 4 and 5, due to the occurrence of abundant calcite.

2.3. DISCUSSION

Groups 1 and 2 most probably come from similar or neighbouring sources, as indicated by the same sizeof quartz and the similar polycrystalline limestone. There are some differences in the percentage of quartz,limestone, and muscovite mica (see differences in Chapter 3, 2.2.1.).

The subgroups (G1 sub. a, b, c, d, e) might come from different layers of the same sediment because theyshow differences only in the percentage of the same type of minerals (quartz, muscovite mica and limestone).The two groups most probably derive from the same geological area. Group 3 comes from a source much moresilty and less micritic than the preceding ones.

The fabric of group 4 is different from that of the other groups. It shows no evidence of micritic matrixand is very rich in terra rossa soil.

The fabric alone was too plastic for pottery manufacture, and required the addition of abundant calcite.Group 5 comes from another different source. It is less micritic than those of groups 1, 2, and 3 and not as richin iron oxides and terra rossa as that of group 4.

60

2.4. CONCLUSION

Most of the fabrics did not need the addition of any temper because the micritic matrix is not very plastic.Some groups, G4 and G5, have been heavily tempered because of their too argillaceous matrices. Also group1 subgroups a, d, e, and G2 sub. b show added temper (always calcite). In G1 sub. a, the fragments of limesto-ne are also subangular and angular. It is possible that the limestone has been added. The firing temperaturewas quite low, never higher than 750 °C, as shown by the perfectly preserved sparry calcite.

At least five sources were utilised for the manufacture of the vessels analysed from Jami na Sredi. Thoseexploited for groups 1 and 2 were most likely located very close to each other because of the very similarfabric, size ranged quartz and polycrystalline limestone. The main differences are in the variability of thepercentage of limestone and iron oxide, and the latter is particularly high in G1. The source for G3 was finerand siltier and less iron-rich than groups 1 and 2 (as confirmed by the SEM-EDS analyses). A more differentsource has been exploited for the production of group 4. It is composed of terra rossa. Group 5 is differentfrom G4, because it has a very argillaceous matrix, although the matrix also shows some quartz. Its subgrouphas some terra rossa, therefore this source might be located close to a terra rossa outcrop. Otherwise it mightindicate that two different soils have been mixed.

The characteristics of the geology of the area and the soil sample analysis might indicate a local pro-duction for the Early Neolithic pottery of this site. Rocks and minerals such as limestone, calcite, mica,quartz and calcareous sandstone are typical of the surrounding geological areas. Terra rossa outcrops arealso located in the vicinity of the cave. A local production is also strongly supported by the similaritiesbetween the fabrics of the pottery from this site and those from the neighbouring, contemporaneous site ofVela Jama (Chapter 3, 3.4.).

2.4.1. Correlation between typology and fabricGroup 1 is composed only of Impressed Ware pottery. Group 1 sub. e (JNS 8 and 18) is represented by two

vessels with identical shapes and very different decorations. From a typological point of view, they could fitinto the category of large deep, oval-shaped vessels of groups 4 and 5. The sherds of group 2 do not share acommon decoration, JNS 23 has an instrumental, impressed motif; JNS 29 has rocker designs and JNS 12 isundecorated. Group 3 (JNS 16) is decorated with one single incised line. It has no parallels from a typologicalpoint of view (fig. 16). Group 4 is characterised by large, deep vessels with two horizontal lines of smallrectangular and oval impressions. The two vessels of group 5 (JNS 1, 14) are typologically identical. They areoval-shaped, large vases with elongated impressions distributed on horizontal lines. They are very similar tothose of group 4 (the shapes and the distribution of the decorative patterns are identical).

It is possible to suggest that, in many cases, there is a good correlation between the macroscopic and themicroscopic groups 1, 3, 4 and 5. Furthermore, it must be pointed out that from a stylistic and typologicalpoint of view, the microscopic groups 1 sub. e, 4, and 5 can be referred to only one group, that of the large,deep, oval-shaped vessels.

To conclude, the pots of each fabric are in most cases (with the exception of G2) stylistically and typolo-gically very homogeneous. It is possible to suggest that the Early Neolithic inhabitants of the cave of Jami naSredi exploited five sources for the manufacture of vessels of similar shape and decoration. It is also importantto consider that 1) more than one potter was probably involved in the vessels manufacture, and that 2) clay/raw material deposits for pottery production are quite abundant in the area surrounding the cave.

It must be suggested that different Impressed Ware people might have settled in the cave seasonally, atdifferent times. If pottery was made locally it is probable that they exploited well-known, local raw materialsources. Therefore, if different human groups inhabited it, various potters might have manufactured the ves-sels found inside the cave. This might help explain why several, different outcrops were exploited apparentlyat the same time.

3. VELA JAMA (Lošinj Island)

The cave site of Vela Jama is located at an altitude of 338 m along the western slope of Mt. Telegraph onthe Island of Lošinj (ĆUS-RUKONIć, 1982: 9) (fig. 14), some 7.5 km from the site of Jami na Sredi. In 1968,M IROSAVLJEVIć opened three trenches at 9, 18 and 22 m from the cave entrance. The last of these covered an

¯ 61

area of 16 square metres. The excavation of this trench revealed a complex stratigraphy, down to 4.12 m fromthe cave floor (the bedrock was never reached).

According to ČEčUK (1982a), the stratigraphy shows different layers of prehistoric occupation. The lower-most one belongs to an advanced period in the development of the Middle Palaeolithic Mousterian Culture.This is most probably followed by the early Late Palaeolithic Aurignacian and by two different stages, evol-ved and final, of the Gravettian Culture. The Impressed Ware Culture assemblages represent the most impor-tant Neolithic assemblages, although few typical sherds of the Danilo and Hvar Cultures have also beenrecovered (MIROSAVLJEVIć, 1968: tables XXIII and XXIV). The excavator reports the presence of microlithictools that he refers to the Mesolithic. Unfortunately, none of these microliths has been illustrated in his report.The backed bladelets and points photographed in his table VIII might be better ascribed to the Final Epigra-vettian Culture, mainly on the basis of their size.

Vela Jama is one of the Dalmatian caves which, even though it is often mentioned in the literature (BENAC,1971; MIROSAVLJEVIć, 1971; MÜLLER, 1994), is almost unknown. The only detailed study so far available is thatwritten by MIROSAVLJEVIć (1968) just after the conclusion of his first season of excavations.

The Impressed Ware AssemblageA preliminary report of the Early Neolithic Impressed Ware assemblages of this cave was written byČEčUK (1982). He subdivided the pottery into three different periods, or phases, of development. The first

phase is characterised by coarse wares mainly decorated with motifs including paired, pinched, finger andsand-glass, instrumental and Cardium impressions. Deep, open, spherical and ovoid pots, sometimes withrestricted mouth, almost exclusively represent the vessel shapes. During the second phase that, according toČEčUK (1982a: 31), is almost exclusive of this cave, the impressed decorations are obtained by the imprintingof Cardium shells and a sharp instrument producing very elongated triangular impressions. The zigzag andCardium “rocker” motifs make their appearance during this second phase. The vessels are different from thoseof the first phase, with more common smaller pots, including plates and bowls. According to MÜLLER (1994:316), this assemblage is attributable to phases A and B of his classification.

No agricultural instruments were found in these first two Impressed Ware phases. The bone assemblageseems to indicate that the subsistence strategy of the Vela Jama inhabitants was still based on hunting and theexploitation of marine resources.

The third phase is characterised by the appearance of plastic cordons decorated with fingernail impres-sions, and of deep oval vessels with two horizontal lines of elongated and oval impressions below the plainrim. The Cardium decorations disappear during this phase. They are substituted by patterns obtained by bone,and wooden stick impressions.ČEčUK (1982) stresses the importance of the impressed horizontal plastic cordons. On this basis he consi-ders this phase contemporaneous to the earliest phase of Obre I (BENAC, 1973), to layers 26-24 of the AreneCandide Cave in Liguria (BERNABÒ BREA, 1946), and to some of the Apulian Impressed Ware sites.


The geology of the area surrounding the site of Vela Jama is almost identical to that of Jami na Sredi, 7.5km to the east. Vela Jama is located on limestone and chalk (Turonian and Senonian formation). Close to thesite there are some narrow limestone beds which contain Foraminifera fossils (Cres, L 33-113, OsnovnaGeološka Karta, 1: 100000).

3.2. ANALYSES

Fourteen ceramic samples of the Impressed Ware site of Vela Jama have been attributed to four differentfabrics (figs. 22-24; table 3, Appendix 3).

G1 - (2 samples: VJ 5, 6) (fig. 25a)Reddish, iron-rich, micritic matrix with abundant, well-sorted, fine angular and subangular quartz (25%; size range between 0.07 by0.05 and 0.03 by 0.02 mm), some rounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (<7%; typical size 0.85 by 0.6 mm), few muscovitemica (<2%), occasional flint, some clay pellets and iron oxides (5%);

sub. a (2 samples: VJ 12, 13) (fig. 25b)Reddish matrix identical to that of G1 with more fragments of limestone (most of them are subangular shaped) (10%; size rangebetween 0.7 by 0.5 and 0.07 by 0.04 mm), and some added sparry calcite (5%; size range between 1.5 by 1.0 and 0.15 by 0.08 mm);

62

Fig. 22 - Vela Jama: pottery from the Impressed Ware layer.

¯ 63


64


¯ 65

sub. b (2 samples: VJ 4, 7) (fig. 25c)Reddish, iron-rich, slightly micritic matrix characterised by a high percentage of poorly-sorted angular and subangular quartz (30%;size range between 0.2 by 0.15 and 0.04 by 0.02 mm), rounded and subrounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (<10%;typical size 1.1 by 0.7 mm), some flint (3%), muscovite mica (<3%), few polycrystalline quartz (<2%), some clay pellets andabundant iron oxides (7%).

G2 - (2 samples: VJ 1, 9) (fig. 25d)Red-brownish, fine, iron-rich matrix with poorly-sorted, abundant, angular and subangular quartz (15%; size range between 0.08 by0.06 and 0.05 by 0.03 mm), iron oxides (<10%), rare rounded and subrounded fragments of fine polycrystalline limestone (typicalsize 0.04 by 0.02 mm), rare muscovite mica (<1%), and some added crushed calcite (<10%; size range between 2.0 by 1.5 and 0.4 by0.2 mm);

sub. a (1 sample: VJ 2)The matrix is the same of that of G2 with more quartz (20%; same size range as G2) and iron.

G3 - (1 sample: VJ 8) (fig. 25e)Brown matrix characterised by a high percentage of poorly-sorted angular and subangular quartz (25%; size range between 0.1 by0.08 and 0.04 by 0.03 mm), some flint (3%), rare pyroxene (<1%), some opaques and iron oxides (5%), fine polycrystalline limestone(3%; same size range as G2), occasional polycrystalline quartz, and some added crushed sparry calcite (5%; size range between 2.0by 1.5 and 0.6 by 0.3 mm);

sub. a (1 sample: VJ 11)Same brown matrix of group 3 with less abundant quartz (20%; same size range of G3), more abundant rounded, subangular andangular shape fragments of polycrystalline limestone (<10%; size range between 2.0 by 1.5 and 0.7 by 0.5 mm), some polycrystallinequartz (2%), flint and muscovite mica (3%), clay pellets and iron oxides (3%). There are no artificially added inclusions.

G4 - (1 sample: VJ 3) (fig. 25f)Brown slightly micritic matrix, very rich in fine angular and subangular quartz (<30%; typical size 0.03 by 0.02 mm), subroundedand subangular fragments of polycrystalline limestone (10%; typical size 2.0 by 1.5 mm), some muscovite mica (3%), rare pyroxene(<1%), and some iron oxides;

sub. a (1 sample: VJ 10) (fig. 25g)Brown matrix coarser than that of G4, with less and coarser quartz (25%; size range between 0.07 by 0.05 and 0.04 by 0.03 mm),some muscovite mica (3%), occasional flint, subrounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (5%; typical size 0.25 by 0.2 mm),iron oxides (3%), and added crushed sparry calcite (10%; typical size 0.3 by 0.2 mm);

sub. b (1 sample: VJ 14)Brown matrix with less quartz than that of G4 (15%; typical size 0.05 by 0.03 mm), subrounded fragments of polycrystalline limesto-ne (5%; size as G4 sub. a), rare muscovite mica (1%), iron oxides (5%), and added crushed calcite (10%; size range between 1.2 by1.0 and 0.2 by 0.1 mm).

One soil sample collected in the proximity of the site has been analysed in thin section (figs. 14 and 25h). It is a mull humus, Ahhorizon (R. MACPHAIL, pers. comm. 2001). Its fabric is brown, iron-rich and non-calcareous with abundant fine and well-sorted quartz(>30%; typical size 0.03 by 0.02 mm), some fragments of calcite (<5%), and some terra rossa (3%).

3.2.1. Summary of group characteristicsGroup 1 shows an iron-rich, micritic fabric with fine, well-sorted quartz, some muscovite, limestone

fragments, occasional flint and iron oxides. The fabric of G1 sub. a is similar to that of G1 with calcite andmore coarse and abundant fragments of limestone mainly of subangular shape, without any flint inclusion. Itis possible to suggest that the limestone fragments have been added as temper besides the calcite. G1 sub. bhas an iron-rich, slightly micritic fabric characterised by quartz more abundant and coarser than that of G1,polycrystalline quartz, muscovite mica, flint, clay pellets, and more abundant limestone than in G1. Group 2shows a silty fabric with small-sized quartz, iron oxides, rare muscovite, polycrystalline quartz, and someartificially added calcite. G2 sub. a is richer in quartz and iron than G2. Group 3 has a brown fabric characte-rised by quartz, flint, occasional polycrystalline quartz, muscovite, limestone, iron oxides, and added calcite.G3 sub. a shows a lower percentage of quartz and more abundant polycrystalline quartz and limestone. Group4 is characterised by a fabric slightly more calcareous than that of the preceding groups, with abundant andvery fine quartz, limestone, muscovite mica, and some iron oxides. The fabric of G4 sub. a is coarser than thatof G4 with a lower percentage of quartz and polycrystalline limestone. It is characterised by flint, rare musco-vite, and added crushed calcite. G4 sub. b is very similar to G4 sub. a with a smaller quantity of quartz and lesspolycrystalline limestone.

The soil sample is very similar to G4 as indicated by the abundant fine and well sorted quartz, althoughG4 is micritic with some limestone fragments, whereas the soil sample is non-calcareous and has some terrarossa. None of the ceramic groups analysed from Vela Jama shows evidence of terra rossa.

66

Fig. 25 - Vela Jama: photomicrographs of thin section samples: a) VJ 5, b) VJ 12, c) VJ 4, d) VJ 1, e) VJ 8, f) VJ 3, g) VJ 10, h) soil sample (XPL,X40) (photographs by M. Spataro).

a)

c)

e)

g)

b)

d)

f)

h)

¯ 67

3.2.2. SEM-EDS analysesThe variability in the calcium oxide percentages is very evident (table 3, Appendix 4). It is mainly due to

the presence/absence of calcite in the analysed areas. G1 and its subgroups (a and b) yielded very similarresults with relatively high amounts of aluminia, silica and iron oxide. Group 2 has a percentage of silica andpotash higher than that of G1 with lower aluminia, iron and calcium oxides, whereas the other results aresimilar to those of G1. G2 sub. a shows higher quantities of aluminia, iron oxide, and lower calcium oxidethan G2. The differences in iron oxide are to be attributed to the iron-rich fabric (see thin section analysis). G3shows very high percentage of silica, and rather low calcium oxide. This is due to the high percentage ofquartz, to the presence of flint, and to the small quantities of limestone. Its subgroup has less silica (lessabundant quartz), and more calcium oxide (as in the thin section the limestone is more abundant than in G3).G4 is slightly different from its subgroups with more silica (abundant quartz), iron oxide and lower calcium(due to the lack of crushed calcite). The SEM-EDS analysis indicates that these samples yielded very similarresults, supporting the idea of their provenance from a very similar geological area (see Chapter 3, 3.4.).

3.3. DISCUSSION

Group 1 comes from a micritic source rich in iron oxides and polycrystalline limestone. Group 2 showsless iron-rich, slightly different fabric, with very few polycrystalline limestone inclusions. Group 3 has afabric similar to that of G2, even though it is less rich in iron and has more abundant quartz. The sourcesexploited for the manufacture of the pottery of groups 2 and 3 were probably located close to each other.Group 4 has a much darker fabric with very abundant, fine quartz compared to that of the other groups.

The inhabitants of Vela Jama exploited four sources, which were most probably located close to eachother. They contain the same varieties of minerals in different percentages. The mineral inclusions are angularand subangular quartz, polycrystalline quartz, muscovite, iron oxides and opaques, flint and polycrystallinelimestone.

3.4. CONCLUSIONS

From a technological point of view the vessels are to be subdivided into two groups: 1) those characteri-sed only by a natural fabric without any artificial addition of aplastic inclusions and 2) those with temper. Thetemper of most of the samples (11 out of 14) consists of crushed calcite and probably crushed limestone (G1sub. a and G4). Calcite is the most common mineral that potters might have obtained in an area characterisedby caves and by micritic soils (Chapter 3, 3.1). The occurrence of intact calcite crystals indicates that the firingtemperature for making pottery was below 750 °C.

The data from the geological map of the area surrounding the site, which is characterised by limestoneand chalk, and the soil thin section sample, suggest a local provenance for the vessels analysed. To discusstheir origin it is necessary to compare the petrographic groups of this site with those of the neighbouringImpressed Ware cave site of Jami na Sredi, located just 7.5 km from Vela Jama. Clear similarities can beobserved between the pottery fabrics of both these sites. The Vela Jama group 1 is very similar to the JaminaSredi group 1. They both show the same fine fabric characterised by quartz, fine polycrystalline limestone,some muscovite and occasional flint (e.g. VJ 5 and JNS 2 and 30). The Vela Jama group 1 sub. a shows strongsimilarities with group 1 sub. a of Jami na Sredi (e.g. VJ 13 and JNS 25). They both have a very iron-richfabric with some added crushed calcite and large fragments of polycrystalline limestone (probably added).

On the basis of these considerations it is reasonable to suggest a local provenance of the pottery of thesetwo “contemporaneous” cave sites.

3.4.1. Correlation between typology and fabricFrom a typological/stylistic point of view, group 1 and its subgroups are characterised only by Cardium

Impressed Wares. One sherd of group 2 is decorated with a “rocker” motif. Its subgroup shows Cardiumimpressed patterns identical to those of group 1. One flask with Cardium impressed motifs represents group 4(VJ 3). The shape of this vessel is less common than those of the other pots. It is impossible to make anycomment on the typology of the sherds of G4 sub. a and sub. b (VJ 10 and 14) because they are just wallfragments.

It is not easy to establish a correlation between fabric and typology, because the only considerations canbe made on the pottery stylistic features. Nevertheless, it is clear that, in some cases, this correlation exists.

68

Therefore the inhabitants of Vela Jama undoubtedly exploited more than one source for the manufacture oftheir Cardium Impressed Wares (see an analogy with site Jami na Sredi in Chapter 3, 2.4.1.).

3.4.2. Macroscopic correlation between the similar fabrics from Vela Jama and Jami na SrediSome fabrics from the two sites show microscopic similarities, although the typological concurrences are

few. The microscopic groups Jami na Sredi G1 and Vela Jama G1 are both characterised by Cardium Impres-sed Wares. Group 1 sub. a from Vela Jama and G1 sub. a from Jami na Sredi are extremely similar, decoratedwith Cardium impressions all over the body.

It seems that the inhabitants of these two islands exploited similar sources for the production of theirpottery, used almost identical technologies and decorated the similar vessels with almost identical patterns.This interpretation, however, raises some questions. The first regards possible exchange/trade activities betweendifferent sites of the same age. Did the potters of these two sites exploit the same raw material sources? Werethe Jami na Sredi inhabitants the same who settled in the cave of Vela Jama? Was the raw material all importedfrom the same external area/source? This is very improbable because all the material analysed from the twosites is very similar to the geology of the area and to the soil sample. Furthermore, it is very difficult toimagine that the same people, who inhabited two neighbouring caves, imported raw material necessary forpottery manufacture exactly from the same outcrops located out of the region. According to the available datait is impossible to say whether the two caves where inhabited by the same population for similar or differentpurposes. The geographic location of the two sites would suggest the opposite. Both caves are oriented in thesame direction, facing west, but, while Jami na Sredi opens rather close to the seashore, just in front of theIsland of Lošinj, the location of Vela Jama is very impressive. It opens at an altitude of 338 m, along thewestern, upper slope of Mt. Telegraph (588 m), facing the open Adriatic Sea. Nevertheless, given the paucityof data collected during the excavations, besides the fact that no radiocarbon date is available from these cavedeposits, little is known of the activities exploited by their inhabitants. Unfortunately the majority of the datathat might have helped us understand whether the two sites were complementary to each other are almosttotally absent.

4. TINJ-PODLIVADE (Zadar)

The Impressed Ware site of Tinj-Podlivade was discovered by K. Tomi} in the late 1970s and accuratelysurveyed in 1982, during a programme of archaeological reconnaissance carried out by the ‘Neothermal Dalma-tia Project’. It is located some 7 km from the present coastline, some 20 km east south east of Zadar (fig. 26). “Itlies in a secondary basin formed on the slopes of the hill between the Vrana depression, to the SW and the Tinjridge, to the north-east” (CHAPMAN et al., 1996: 176). The site is 1 km from the top of the ridge, at an altitude of45-50 m. It is located at the centre of an oval area characterised by high-quality arable and terrace soils surroun-ded by a typical Karst landscape. The site slopes gently from northeast to southwest and from southeast tonorthwest. Palaeopedological analyses have shown the existence of a former marsh or lake at the break of theslopes, along the southwest margins of the site, overlying soft chalk and marls (CHAPMAN et al., 1996).

The site extends over an area of 2.8 ha (280x100 m). It was sounded for the first time in 1984 (BATOVIć,1989). Two trenches were opened covering an extension of 50 square metres. The Impressed Ware layer wasfound in situ between 60 and 110 cm of depth. Four small rubbish pits were discovered, cut into the archaeo-logical layer. Charcoal pieces were collected for radiocarbon dating from pits 1 and 2 in trench 5. The fol-lowing dates were obtained for trench A: 6980±160 BP (GrN-15236); 6670±260 BP (GrN-15237) and 6280±210BP (GrN-15238) (CHAPMAN et al., 1990: 32; CHAPMAN and MÜLLER, 1990: 130). Even though these resultsshow a high standard deviation, they are the first absolute dates so far obtained for the north DalmatianImpressed Ware. However GrN-15238 fits into the range of dates presently known for the Danilo rather thanthe Impressed Ware Culture of the region. Following the excavator “the gap of several centuries between thedates suggests the repeated use of a desirable site, and perhaps the long-term permanent occupation of apreferred location”. In the same report it is pointed out that the settlement had two phases of occupation.According to the illustrations (CHAPMAN et al., 1996: 191), the undecorated pottery of phase 2, strongly resem-bles some of the common Danilo forms, such as the open and the carinated bowls.

38 kg of daub were recovered from trench A. They might perhaps indicate the presence of a hut structure.

¯ 69

Fig. 26 - Tinj: location of the Neolithic site (dot), and of the soil sample (square). Scale in kilometres.

The pottery assemblageThe site was partly excavated in 1984 when two main trenches (A and B) were opened. They showed that

the site had been settled in two main periods separated by pavements of cobbles. The stratigraphic sequence ofboth trenches revealed natural topsoil down to a depth of 0.75 m covering the Neolithic layer. Four smallrefuse pits were discovered in trench A, and one in trench B.

The ceramic assemblage of Phase 1 consists of typical Impressed Ware pottery, representing up to 25% ofthe total assemblage. The decorative patterns indicate that the Impressed Ware occupation at Tinj belongs tothe Smilčić style in the subdivision proposed by BATOVIć (1966), and to the Impresso B, following MÜLLER’s(1994: 321) classification. Apart from Cardium decorated vessels, representing 12% of the total collection,other types of impressed decoration are present including bone instrumental, finger, fingernail, and incisedlines. The range of decorative styles has close parallels in the pottery assemblage from Smilčić, some 20 kmfrom Tinj.

The vessel shapes of Phase 2, however, are all undecorated, more closely resembling Danilo shapes thantypical Impressed Ware ones (CHAPMAN et al., 1996: 191). Together with the more recent radiocarbon dateGrN-15238, this might indicate that, Phase 2 might belong to a later Neolithic occupation phase.

CHAPMAN et al. (1996) subdivided the Tinj pottery assemblage into three main classes (fine/coarse, coar-se/fine and very coarse). The shapes are dishes, open bowls, miniature vessels, and necked forms. It is unclearif this generic description is to be related to the forms of Phase 1 or to the forms of both phases. The authorsalso observed that “oxidizing atmospheres were used for the firing of the most of the Tinj shards” (CHAPMAN etal., 1996: 189).

Other materialA small lithic assemblage of 255 chipped stone tools comes from the excavations. None of these pieces is

illustrated in CHAPMAN et al.’s (1996) report. The authors attribute the finds to twenty raw material classes,

70

among which are flint, chert and quartzite. The only tools seem to be abrupt retouch truncations and sickleblades. Two geometrics, among which one rectangular trapeze with piquant trièdre point, were collectedduring the preliminary surveys carried out in 1982 (BATOVIć and CHAPMAN, 1985: plate V, f and g). The samecollection includes denticulated blades, one crested blade and two small, trapezoidal greenstone adzes.

The economic subsistence strategyThe most important finds from Tinj are the plant remains that were recovered by intensive flotation of the anthro-

pogenic soil. Domestic cereals are represented by barley, emmer and einkorn, and possibly Triticum boeoticum.The faunal assemblage comprises mainly domestic animals. The identified species include sheep and

goat, cattle, pig and dog. Hunting, fowling and the gathering of marine molluscs were practised on a smallerscale, as indicated by a few bones of red deer, roe deer, badger, birds and by marine shellfish.


The geology of the area surrounding the site of Tinj-Podlivade is characterised by lenses of limestone andForaminifera located a few kilometres from sediments of alluvial origin. The Foraminifera belong to thegenera Nummulites Aturicus, N. Perforatus, N. Puschi, N. Incrassatus, Discocyclina pratti and Globigerinaofficinalis (Zadar, L 33-139 Osnova Geološka Karta SFRJ, 1:100000).

4.2. ANALYSES

Six potsherds have been analysed from the Impressed Ware site of Tinj: two different fabrics have beenrecognised (fig. 27; table 4, Appendix 3).

G1 - (2 samples: TN 1, 2) (fig. 28/a)Reddish, iron-rich, micritic matrix characterised by poorly-sorted angular and subangular quartz (25%; size range between 0.1 by0.08 and 0.04 by 0.02 mm), abundant rounded and subrounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (<20%; size range between 1.7by 1.5 and 0.7 by 0.6 mm; some of the fragments are fossiliferous), opaques and iron oxides (<10%), very rare pyroxene, occasionalflint, feldspar, and muscovite mica. Sample TN 2 contains one calcareous sandstone fragment and shows the inclusion of some terrarossa soil;

sub. a (1 sample: TN 6)Red brownish, iron-rich, micritic matrix, less calcareous than that of G1. It shows well-sorted angular and subangular quartz, finerthan that of group 1 (<20%; typical size is 0.03 by 0.02 mm), rare flint, iron oxides and smaller, mainly rounded fragments ofpolycrystalline limestone (5%; size range between 0.6 by 0.5 and 0.3 by 0.2 mm);

sub. b (1 sample: TN 3) (fig. 28b)Light brown very micritic matrix with poorly-sorted, abundant angular and subangular quartz (30%; size range between 0.18 by 0.1and 0.04 by 0.02 mm), rounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (15%; size range between 1.0 by 0.9 and 0.3 by 0.2 mm; onefragment is fossiliferous), rare calcareous sandstone rock fragments, very rare zircon, flint (2%), iron oxides (2%), and muscovitemica (2%).

G2 - (1 sample: TN 4) (figs. 28c and 28d)Brown-reddish, very iron-rich, slightly micritic matrix with abundant poorly-sorted quartz (20%; size range between 1.1 by 0.07 and0.05 by 0.03 mm) with large fragments of subrounded and subangular polycrystalline limestone (10%; size range 2.0 by 1.5 and 0.6by 0.3 mm; some of which fossiliferous), flint (2%), and rare pyroxene (<1%);

sub. a (1 sample: TN 5)The fabric is very similar to that of G2, with poorly-sorted quartz (same size range as G3). It does not show presence of limestonefragments. It has occasional flint, bohnerz, and some added crushed calcite (3%).

A soil sample, collected in the proximity of the site (0.5 km), has been analysed in thin section (figs 26, 28e and 28f). Its fabricis red-brownish, micritic, rich in poorly-sorted angular and subangular quartz (30%; size range between 0.9 by 0.7 and 0.04 by 0.02mm), abundant limestone, some of which is fossiliferous (20%; size range between 3.0 by 2.5 and 0.06 by 0.04 mm), one fragment ofcalcareous sandstone, opaques and iron oxides (5%), rare clay pellets, flint, and muscovite mica (1%).

4.2.1. Summary of group characteristicsGroup 1 is characterised by a red, micritic, iron-rich fabric with abundant, poorly-sorted quartz, limesto-

ne, iron oxides and muscovite mica. Its subgroup a is less calcareous, with finer quartz. The fabric of G1 sub.b is less rich in iron. The percentage of quartz is higher than that of group 1. It includes some muscovite mica,flint and rare calcareous sandstone fragments. Group 2 has an iron-rich fabric, less micritic than G1, withquartz coarser than that of the preceding groups, fragments of limestone, and flint. G2 sub. a does not showany fragment of limestone, while it has some added crushed calcite.

¯ 71

Fig. 27 - Tinj: Impressed Ware pottery.

The soil sample is very similar to the fabric of G1 (red-brownish, iron-rich, very micritic fabric with abun-dant quartz, poorly-sorted flint and fossiliferous limestone). It also shows one calcareous sandstone fragment asin G1 sub. b.

4.2.2. SEM-EDS analysesGroup 1 is characterised by high percentages of potash and iron oxide, whereas its subgroup a (TN 6)

contains less potash and iron oxide (table 4, Appendix 4). G1 sub. b shows a higher percentage of calciumoxide (due to the very micritic fabric and the calcareous sandstone fragments) and much lower iron oxide andpotash than that of G1. G2 and its subgroup are similar to each other, with the exception of calcium oxide thatis less represented in TN 5 because it does not show any polycrystalline limestone, but only few calcite. The

72

Fig. 28 - Tinj: photomicrographs of thin section samples: a) TN 1, b) TN 3, c) and d) TN 4, e) and f) soil sample (XPL, X40) (photographs by M.Spataro).

a)

c)

e)

b)

d)

f)

SEM-EDS data show that groups 1 and 2 are very similar (high percentages of iron oxide and potash) asalready noted in thin section.

4.3. DISCUSSION

Two sources were exploited for the different fabrics of the Tinj pottery. Groups 1 and 2 are very similar,very rich in iron, micritic, and with abundant quartz (as also tested from the SEM-EDS data). They also showthe same variety of rock fragments (calcareous sandstone) and a strong similarity (in particular G1 sub. b)with the soil sample analysed in thin section.

4.4. CONCLUSIONS

The geological characteristics of the area, the soil thin section and the fabrics of the samples suggest thatthe pottery was most probably a local product. The geology of the area is characterised by limestone andcalcareous soils. All the samples from this site show micritic, iron-rich, slightly micaceous fabrics with some

¯ 73

calcareous rock fragments, and some fossiliferous limestone (as for the case of the soil sample analysed). Theymost probably come from this pedological environment. It is reasonable to conclude that the sources exploitedfor the production of pottery are located close to each other.

This interpretation is also supported by the comparison of the Tinj ceramics with those of the neighbou-ring, contemporary site of Smilčić (Impressed Ware phase). Most of the Tinj samples (TN 1, 2, 3 and 5) showfabrics and styles very similar to groups 1 and 2 of the Smilčić Impressed Ware phase (Chapter 3, 5.6.).

5. SMILČIĆ (Zadar)

The open-air Neolithic settlement is located some 2.5 km west of the small village of Smilčić in a localitycalled Barice, some 21 km in the interior of Zadar (figs. 29 and 30). The site lies in a shallow depression,currently exploited for agricultural purposes, around a small, perennial stream. The site has an extension ofsome 5 square km.

The excavations were carried out by Š. BATOVI} (1960-1961; 1966; 1971) in 1957, 1959 and 1962 over anarea of 1,148 square metres. They brought to light an archaeological sequence 3.30 m thick. The Neolithicvillage had been inhabited during three main different periods. The first phase of occupation has been attribu-ted to the Impressed Ware (BATOVI}, 1962; 1966), the second to the Danilo (BATOVI}, 1962; 1971; 1990) andthe third to the Hvar Culture (BATOVI}, 1962; 1990).

5.1. THE IMPRESSED WARE SETTLEMENT

The first, Impressed Ware village was distributed over an area more restricted than those occupied by theDanilo and Hvar settlements, more close to the river course. It was surrounded by two circular (defensive)ditches, the external of which was 5.50 m wide and 3.10 m deep. The Impressed Ware archaeological layerwas not homogeneous, but characterised by almost circular spots of dark greyish organogenic soil rich inartefacts. A few pits were also discovered and excavated. They were of circular shape and 20-60 cm deep.These structures were particularly rich in potsherds and faunal remains.

Burial remainsThe Impressed Ware horizon yielded three human skulls, that BATOVI} (1967) relates to a Neolithic skull

cult, as well as the skeletons of two individuals buried in a crouched position, namely a child, ca. 8 years old,and a young male of about 15 years.

The material culture assemblagesThe flint industry of this phase is extremely poor. It has been studied by MARTINELLI (1990). It is represen-

ted by only 7 retouched tool types, among which are 1 transverse burin on retouch, 1 rectangular trapeze onbladelet, 6 retouched bladelet with simple, inframarginal (2) marginal (3) or deep (1) retouch, and 1 sidescraper on flake. Of particular importance is 1 (broken) bladelet with simple, deep retouch, which has atransversal gloss indicating that it had been inserted obliquely in a sickle for harvesting cereals.

The pottery assemblage is characterised by several forms of coarse ware with surfaces of buff colour, suchas hemispherical and conical bowls, more rarely biconical vessels and flasks (BATOVI}, 1966). Some 30% ofthe vessels are decorated. The more common decorations were obtained with valves of marine shells (Car-dium and Mytilus), and with impressed finger and fingernail patterns. The incised motifs are very rare as arethe ochre, red inlays. The decorations of the Impressed Ware vessels are often very regular, grouped into linesand horizontal bands. There are also Cardium zigzag motifs.

According to the characteristics of the pottery shapes and decoration, the first phase of occupation can beattributed to the B and C Impressed Ware horizons (MÜLLER, 1994: 321).

As reported by the excavator a great number of cattle bones was found. Red deer and wild goat bonesdocument hunting activities. A certain role was also played by fishing and the collection of marine molluscs.

5.2. THE DANILO AND HVAR SETTLEMENTS

The Danilo and Hvar villages are only partly located above the Impressed Ware one, while their largestportion lies directly on the sterile soil. The stratigraphy can be subdivided into four main phases of occupa-

74

Fig. 29 - Smilčić: location of the Ne-olithic site (dot) and of the soil sam-ple (square). Scale in kilometres.

tion, from 0.55 to 3.30 m of depth. The first three phases are characteristic of the Danilo Culture. On the basisof the results of the excavations this latter culture seems to develop from the late the Impressed Ware. Thefourth is to be attributed to a transitional period between Danilo and Hvar.

The uppermost phase documents the presence of a richer and more expanded village. The excavation didnot yield any hut or habitation structure, although a few pieces of daub were discovered. However, a fewcircular areas, particularly rich in material culture artefacts were noticed. They were similar to those of theImpressed Ware horizon and might represent the remains of the same type of structures.

Burial remainsSeven human skulls come from this site. They were discovered in the Danilo Culture layer without traces

of any burial practice. Also two skeletons were brought to light, crouched on their left side, among which oneadult male between 18 and 30 years of age (BATOVIć, 1967).

The material culture remainsThe chipped stone assemblage of the Danilo phase has been studied as a unitary complex. It is characte-

rised by a high laminar index. It has been obtained mainly from flint, even though 10 pieces of obsidian ofunidentified source are also present (MARTINELLI , 1990). It includes 94 retouched tools among which are 11burins, 4 end scrapers, 24 abrupt retouch instruments, 12 flat-retouched instruments, 35 retouched blades, 3

¯ 75

Fig. 30 - Smilčić: the area where the Neolithic site is located, as it appeared in 1999 (photograph by M. Spataro).

denticulates, and 5 pièces écaillées. Straight perforators and backed blades employed as sickles, and 3 rectan-gular geometrics, are of particular interest amongst the abrupt retouch instruments. The flat retouched toolsinclude 10 tanged arrowheads. According to BATOVIć (1971) these pieces make their first appearance in thethird occupation phase.

The pottery of the first phase is represented by biconical and hemispherical vessels, plates and typi-cal rhyta with wide strap handles. They are decorated with incised patterns sometimes filled with redinlay. The incised motifs mainly consist of triangles and recurrent spirals. The same forms and decora-tions are typical for the second phase of occupation, in addition to which meander motifs make their firstappearance.

The pottery of the third phase includes types similar to those of the first two as well as flat plates, strai-ners, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines, relief motifs and sherds filled with white inlay. The fourthphase pottery is represented by the same types as the preceding ones, with new types appearing and the fineware disappearing. Monochrome, coarse painted ware is rather common as are new decorative patterns inclu-ding circles and garlands.


The geology of the area where the site of Smilčić is located, is characterised by large strips of limestone,chalk and clastics. The soil contains abundant marine macrofauna and microfauna, including Macroforamini-fera and corals. The area surrounding the site shows deposits of stratified calcite and conglomerates. Someorganic lake sediments are located a few kilometres north of the site (Obrovac, L 33-140 Osnova GeološkaKarta SFRJ, 1:100000).

5.4. ANALYSES

5.4.1. Smilčić. The Impressed Ware PhaseThree different groups have been identified among the twenty-one potsherds analysed in thin section from

the Impressed Ware phase at Smilčić (figs. 31 and 32; table 5, Appendix 3 and table 2, Appendix 1).

76

G1 - (11 samples: SML 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20) (fig. 33a)Very homogeneous group with brown, micritic matrix, rich in poorly-sorted angular and subangular quartz (<15%; size range betwe-en 0.15 by 0.1 and 0.04 by 0.02 mm), mainly subrounded and rounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (<20%; size rangebetween 1.0 by 0.8 and 0.05 by 0.04 mm), opaques and iron oxides (5%), some flint (<2%), muscovite mica (2%), and occasionalcalcareous sandstone fragments (e.g. SML 15). No artificially added inclusions;

sub. a (5 samples: SML 3, 8, 12, 13, 16) (fig. 33b)Brown-dark brown, calcareous matrix, coarser than that of G1, characterised by poorly-sorted, abundant quartz (<20%; size rangebetween 0.12 by 0.11 and 0.04 by 0.02 mm), subrounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (<15%; same size range of G1),abundant opaques and iron oxides (<7%), and flint (<3%). There are no artificially added inclusions; one shell fragment is present inSML 13.

G2 - (3 samples: SML 1, 5, 21) (figs. 33c and 33d)Dark red, very iron-rich, micritic fabric, characterised by abundant rounded and subrounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone(<15%; typical size 0.4 by 0.2 mm), rich in angular and subangular quartz (15%; size range between 0.15 by 0.03 and 0.08 by 0.02mm), rich in opaques and iron oxides (<10%), and rare flint (1%). A microfossil is present in one sample (SML 5);

sub. a (1 sample: SML 9)Dark brown, iron-rich, slightly calcareous fabric characterised by poorly-sorted, abundant angular and subangular quartz (<25%;size range between 0.3 by 0.2 and 0.03 by 0.02 mm), some fragments of rounded polycrystalline limestone (5%; typical size as G2),flint (<3%), rare muscovite mica (1%), pyroxene (1%), and one fragment of calcareous sandstone (the size is 5.0 by 3.0 mm).

G3 - (1 sample: SML 10) (fig. 33e)Brown-reddish, iron-rich, micritic matrix. It has poorly-sorted angular and subangular quartz (<10%; size range between 0.15 by0.04 and 0.06 by 0.02 mm), added crushed calcite (10%; size range between 1.6 by 0.7 and 0.5 by 0.2 mm), rare muscovite mica, andpyroxene (1%).

One soil sample collected 0.5 km from the site has been analysed in thin section. It is an Ap horizon (colluvium) (R. MACPHAIL,pers. comm. 2001) (figs. 29 and 33f). It has a red iron-rich, micritic fabric characterised by abundant, poorly-sorted quartz (20%; sizerange between 1.5 by 1.0 and 0.03 by 0.02 mm), abundant subrounded limestone (15%; size range between 2.5 by 2.0 and 0.05 by0.04 mm), some chalk, abundant iron oxides (7%), some opaques, narrow strips of terra rossa, rare muscovite mica (1%), flint (3%),and fossiliferous limestone.

5.4.2. Summary of group characteristicsMost samples (20 out of 21: groups 1 and 2) do not show any artificially added inclusion.Group 1 has a very micritic fabric, with quartz, fragments of polycrystalline limestone, some muscovite

mica, flint and iron oxides. G1 sub. a shows the same size range with more abundant quartz, flint and ironoxides. Sample SML 13 contains one shell fragment. The fabric of group 2 is much richer in iron than that ofG1. It has similar quantities of polycrystalline limestone, quartz, and some flint. Group 2 sub. a has flint,muscovite mica and a micritic matrix identical to that of the preceding group. It shows a lower number oflimestone fragments and more abundant and coarser quartz than that of G2. The limestone fragments presentin these groups are naturally part of the fabric, as indicated by their rounded and subrounded shape. The fabricof group 3 (SML 10) is very iron-rich. It has a lower percentage of quartz compared to groups 1 and 2. It is theonly sample containing crushed calcite.

The soil sample is very similar to that of G2: they both show a calcareous iron-rich fabric with abundantquartz, iron oxides, flint, and fossils. The only difference is that the soil sample contains some narrow strips ofterra rossa soil, which are absent in the fabric of the potsherds.

5.4.3. SEM-EDS analysesGroup 1 shows a very high percentage of calcium and moderate iron oxide. Its results are very similar to

those of G1 sub. a (table 5, Appendix 4). The only difference is that the latter shows less calcium oxide(because of the lower percentage of limestone fragments) and more iron oxide and silica (more abundantquartz than that of G1). G2 is similar to G1. It shows a slightly higher quantity of aluminia and rather low CaO(because of the lower number of limestone fragments). G2 sub. a shows less calcium oxide (much lowercontent of limestone) and more silica (more abundant quartz). G3 is again very similar to the previous groups.The main difference between G1 and 2 and G3 (SML 10) is visible only in thin section. It is the only samplefrom the IW layer of Smilčić characterised by added calcite, though, in the SEM-EDS analysis, its calciumoxide percentage is similar to those of the other specimens, because SML 10 does not contain any limestonefragment. The homogeneous results confirm that similar sources have been exploited for the manufacture ofthese vessels.

¯ 77

Fig. 31 - Smilčić: pottery from the Impressed Ware Culture settlement.

78

Fig. 32 - Smilčić: pottery from the Impressed Ware Culture settlement.

¯ 79

Fig. 33 - Smilčić: photomicrographs of Impressed Ware Culture thin section samples: a) SML 2, b) SML 8, c) SML 21, d) SML 5, e) SML 10, f) soilsample (XPL, X40) (photographs by M. Spataro).

a)

c)

e)

b)

d)

f)

5.4.4. XRD analysisOnly one soil sample collected in the proximity of the site (about 0.5 km) has been analysed by XRD. Its

pattern (fig. 34) shows kaolinite, muscovite, chlorite, and quartz. All these minerals are characteristic ofsedimentary deposits typical of the area surrounding the site. It is also characteristic of the sherds from thissite analysed in thin section.

5.4.5. DiscussionTwo hypotheses can be put forward: 1) that the pottery of groups 1 and 2 was manufactured with material obtained

from the same source, or 2) from two sources very similar to each other. They are characterised by the same minerals(quartz, muscovite mica, iron oxides and limestone) in comparable percentages (see above Chapter 3, 5.4.2.). G2shows one microfossil Foraminifera. Group 2 sub. a comes from a similar source It shows the same variety ofpolycrystalline limestone, containing a great quantity of sandy quartz. The fabric of G3 can be compared to that ofgroup 2 but it is richer in iron; furthermore, it contains added crushed calcite instead of natural limestone fragments.

80

To conclude: groups 1 and 2 were manufactured with clay from the same source or with material exploitedfrom two almost identical, possibly neighbouring sources (as confirmed also by the SEM-EDS results). Wecannot exclude a similar source of provenance also for group 3. All the sources are micritic and rich in iron(apart G1, which is less iron-rich but as micritic as the other groups). The soil sample is very similar to G2(iron-rich and micritic fabric with flint, limestone and muscovite mica), it also shows the same fossiliferouslimestone of sample SML 5 (G2).

Fig. 34 - Smilčić: XRD pattern of the soil sample.

5.4.6. Smilčić. The Danilo phaseTwenty-one potsherds from the Danilo Culture phase of Smilčić have been analysed in thin sections (figs.

35-37; table 6, Appendix 3). Five different fabrics have been recognized. In addition, two daub fragmentshave also been analysed.

G1 - (4 samples: SMD 2, 3, 13, 14) (fig. 38a)Dark red, iron-rich, very slightly micritic matrix, characterised by well-sorted, fine angular and subangular quartz (<15%; size rangebetween 0.06 by 0.04 and 0.05 by 0.03 mm), some clay pellets (<3%), iron oxides (<7%), fragments of rounded polycrystalline limesto-ne (3%; typical size 0.1 by 0.1 mm), and abundant added crushed calcite (<30%; size range between 1.0 by 0.3 and 0.5 by 0.3 mm);

sub. a (6 samples: SMD 1, 6, 7, 9, 15, 19)Reddish, iron-rich matrix slightly micritic as G1, characterised by well-sorted angular and subangular quartz (25%; typical sizebetween 0.08 by 0.02 mm), rounded and subrounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (<3%; same size as G1), some ironoxides (5%), rare pyroxene, and abundant added crushed calcite (20%; typical size 0.4 by 0.2 mm);

sub. b (1 sample: SMD 4)Dark red, very iron-rich slightly micritic matrix characterised by few, well-sorted angular and subangular quartz (<5%, typical size0.03 by 0.02 mm), a great quantity of added crushed sparry calcite (<35%; size range between 1.0 by 0.3 and 0.5 by 0.3 mm), and veryoccasional rounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (2%; typical size 0.1 by 0.07 mm).

G2 - (4 samples: SMD 8, 16, 17, 18) (fig. 38b)Brown-reddish calcareous matrix, characterised by angular and subangular quartz (<20%; size range between 0.1 by 0.08 and 0.06 by0.04), fragments of mainly subrounded and rounded polycrystalline limestone (<7%; typical size 0.2 by 0.16 mm), some opaques andiron oxides (<3%), and added crushed sparry calcite (<20%; size range between 1.0 by 0.3 and 0.5 by 0.3 mm) (banded calcite is alsopresent).

¯ 81

Fig. 35 - Smilčić: pottery from the Danilo Culture settlement.

82


¯ 83


G3 - (1 sample: SMD 11) (fig. 38c)Dark brown-reddish matrix characterised by poorly-sorted, abundant angular and subangular quartz (<40%; size range between 0.2by 0.1 and 0.05 by 0.03 mm), rounded polycrystalline limestone (3%; typical size 0.5 by 0.3 mm), rare zircon (1%), opaques and ironoxides (5%), and rare muscovite mica (1%).

G4 - (1 sample: SMD 10) (fig. 38d)Brown-reddish iron-rich, micritic matrix, with abundant mainly rounded and subrounded polycrystalline limestone (20%; size rangebetween 2.0 by 1.25 and 1.7 by 1.5 mm), well-sorted angular and subangular quartz (7%; size range between 0.07 by 0.05 and 0.06by 0.03 mm), muscovite mica (2%), iron oxides and opaques (3%).

84

G5 - figulina pottery (total 4 samples):

G5a - (3 samples: SMD 20, 22, 23) fine figulina (fig. 38e and 38f)Reddish, very fine, slightly micritic, vitrified, iron-rich matrix. It shows very fine and well-sorted, angular and subangular quartz(<5%; typical size 0.02 by 0.01 mm), very fine muscovite mica (5%), iron oxides (3%), and rare pyroxene. SMD 22 shows rarepolycrystalline quartz.

G5b - (1 sample: SMD 21) coarse figulina (fig. 38g)Brown micritic iron-rich matrix coarser than that of G5a, richer in coarser muscovite mica (10%), rare biotite, abundant and muchcoarser quartz than that of G5a (20%; typical size 0.8 by 0.5 mm), rare polycrystalline quartz, pyroxene, feldspar, opaques and ironoxides (>5%).

Two daub fragments (SMD 5, 12) (fig. 38h) have been analysed. They show a light brown, micritic matrix, extremely rich inrounded and subrounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (<40%; typical size 0.8 by 0.6 mm), poorly-sorted angular andsubangular quartz (<15%; size range between 0.15 by 0.08 and 0.1 by 0.04 mm), clay pellets, opaques and iron oxides (<5%), andsome flint (3%). One of the samples (SMD 12) contains one shell fragment. Artificially added inclusions are absent.

5.4.7. Summary of group characteristicsThe first two groups are characterised by the same added crushed calcite. There are some slight differen-

ces in their fabrics.Group 1 has an iron-rich, very slightly micritic fabric, with angular and subangular quartz, clay pellets,

and some polycrystalline limestone. Its sub. a shows a higher percentage of quartz and rare pyroxene; G1 sub.b shows a very iron-rich fabric with some polycrystalline limestone and a lower percentage of very fine quartzcompared to the preceding groups. The fabric of group 2 is much less rich in iron, and more micritic than G1.It includes abundant pellets of limestone. Groups 3 and 4 have no added calcite. Group 3 (SMD 11) shows aniron-rich, non-calcareous matrix with a very high percentage of poorly-sorted quartz, naturally present roun-ded limestone, opaques, iron oxides, rare muscovite, and zircon. Group 4 has an iron-rich micritic matrix, veryrich in rounded and subrounded limestone. It also shows some muscovite and iron oxides. Group 5 is figulinaware. It has been subdivided into two subgroups: 1) the fine figulina (G5a), with an iron-rich slightly micritic,vitrified matrix, very fine, with few and well-sorted quartz, fine muscovite mica, iron oxides, and rare pyroxe-ne; and 2) the coarse figulina (G5b), that has abundant and coarser quartz muscovite mica, and a more calca-reous matrix than G5a.

The daub fragments are characterised by a very calcareous fabric, with abundant naturally present, roun-ded fragments of polycrystalline limestone with abundant quartz, some iron oxides and flint. They show somesimilarities with group 4 because of the presence of limestone, although the percentage of quartz is higher thanthat of group 4. One sample contains one shell fragment (SMD 12).

5.4.8. SEM-EDS analysesGroup 1 yielded homogeneous results with some fluctuations in the percentages of silica (28.60-49.00%)

and calcium oxide (12.40-27.80%) (table 6, Appendix 4). The latter is due to the bulk analyses, whether itincluded calcite or not. Its subgroup a shows very similar results. Its subgroup b shows a lower percentage ofsilica and aluminia, and more abundant calcium oxide (crushed calcite). Group 2 is slightly different from G1because of the slightly higher quantity of calcium oxide (more micritic and rich in limestone) and the loweramount of aluminia. Group 3 is clearly different from the previous two groups, because of the higher quantityof silica (very abundant quartz) and potash, and the very low presence of calcium oxide (CaO: 4.06%; it doesnot contain calcite). Group 5a is absolutely different from the other groups, because it contains much higherpercentages of MgO (4.34-5.40%), K2O (3.26-4.88%), and Fe2O3 (10.00-14.00%). Also the average of pho-sphorous oxide is quite high (2.10-2.50%), although this can be due to post-depositional factors. G5b isdifferent from G5a: calcium oxide is more abundant, whereas magnesia, and iron oxides are less represented,though still at significantly higher concentrations than in the four other groups. The material utilised for thedaub manufacture seems to derive from a source different from those of the potsherds. It shows much lessaluminia, titania and iron oxide than those of the sherds analysed, and is much richer in calcium oxide.

The SEM-EDS analysis confirms the groupings of the thin sections. In particular, the differences betweenG1-2 and G3 are very clear. Very important data come from the analyses of the fine figulina ware (G5a), fromwhich it is clear that a very different source, much richer in magnesia, potash, and possibly iron oxide, has

¯ 85

a)

c)

e)

g)

b)

d)

f)

h)

Fig. 38 - Smilčić: photomicrographs of Danilo Culture thin section samples: a) SMD 2, b) SMD 17, c) SMD 11, d) SMD 10, e) and f) SMD 20 (post-depositional factors), g) SMD 21, h) SMD 5 (XPL, X40) (photographs by M. Spataro).

86

been utilised for the manufacture of this pottery. An interesting result is that of the calcium oxide. Its percentageis quite high, considering that it can be identified only a slightly micritic matrix at the polarised microscope (inPPL, Plane-Polarised Light). This presence might be due to post-depositional factors since some secondarycalcite has been observed in some of the samples (fig. 38f). The results obtained from the coarse figulinawares (G5b) are also interesting. The percentages of magnesia and iron oxides that are lower than that of G5a,indicate the exploitation of a different source.

5.4.9. DiscussionGroups 1 and 2 have very similar fabrics with slightly variable percentages of iron oxides, quartz and

limestone. This might indicate that they come from different but similar sources, while group 3 clearly comesfrom another source. This is evident from the higher percentage and the larger size of the quartz inclusions.Given that its fabric is rich in quartz, no addition of other temper (e.g. crushed calcite) was required (the quartzhas been probably added because of its high percentage and bimodal distribution). The source exploited forthe vessel of group 3 is very iron-rich, non-micritic with rare rounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone.Group 4 seems to come from a different, very calcareous, clay deposit. The limestone is less rounded than thatof the daub fragments that show a fabric similar to that of sample SMD 10 (G4). Both fabrics (SMD 10 andthose of the daub fragments) are made from micritic clay with a high percentage of very rounded polycrystal-line limestone. Moreover, the daub samples show a quantity of rounded, polycrystalline limestone higher thanthat of G4, and one shell fragment.

It is very difficult to identify the source exploited for the manufacture of the fine figulina ware (G5a). Itsfabric is very fine, and poor in inclusions. The clay must have been washed and decanted in order to loose allthe heavier inclusions. This is why it did not keep all the characteristic of the original source. In any case,results obtained from the SEM-EDS (see above) show that the clay was very different from those utilised forthe ordinary ware. It also shows a vitrified fabric. Therefore we can assume that it was fired at a relatively hightemperature, of about 850 °C (Y. GOREN, pers. comm. 2000 and I. FREESTONE, pers. comm. 2001). The coarsefigulina (G5b) shows a very micritic fabric richer in inclusions, mainly quartz, carbonates, muscovite, andiron oxides. According to the SEM-EDS results, the clay employed for the manufacture of the coarse figulinais different, but probably related to that of the fine figulina. From a technological point of view, it seems tohave been washed and decanted for a shorter period. The firing temperature of this variety of figulina musthave been rather high, although lower than that of the fine type, since it shows regions of vitrification.

For the manufacture of the daub fragments, the Neolithic inhabitants of Smilčić exploited a source diffe-rent from those utilised for making pottery. It is characterised by a higher quantity of very rounded limestone,rare shell fragments, and quartz grains of a size larger than those of groups 1 and 2 (see also SEM-EDS data).It is reasonable to think that the inhabitants of Smilčić utilised local material for daub manufacture. Theroundness of the limestone grains suggests that it was collected from a riverbed, possibly that flowing close tothe site. Shell fragments are common to the soil of the area surrounding the site, characterised by marinemacrofauna (see Chapter 3, 5.3.).

To conclude: the sources of groups 1 and 2 should be located close to each other because of their similariron-rich fabrics with polycrystalline limestone. Group 3 is much richer in quartz than groups 1 and 2 and itdoes not show added calcite but few polycrystalline limestone, naturally present as indicated by its roundedand subrounded shape. The source for the daub fragments must have been located in a more micritic area,poorer in iron if compared to those of the preceding groups. Only group 4 is as micritic as the daub fragments.Nevertheless, it is slightly different because of the higher percentage of oxide particles, less rounded limesto-ne, lower percentage and finer quartz than the daub fragments.

5.4.10. Smilčić. The Hvar phaseTwenty-one potsherds from the Hvar phase settlement have been analysed in thin section (figs. 39 and 40;

tables 7, Appendix 3). The ceramic from this layer has been subdivided into four different groups.

G1 - (9 samples: SMH 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 13, 16, 19, 20) (fig. 41a)Brown micritic matrix, characterised by fine, well-sorted angular and subangular quartz (<15%; size range between 0.08 by 0.05 and0.04 by 0.02 mm), subrounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (>15%; typical size 0.2 by 0.1 mm), opaques and iron oxides(5%), and added crushed calcite (>20%; size range between 0.6 by 0.4 and 0.4 by 0.3 mm);

¯ 87

sub. a (3 samples: SMH 7, 11, 17) (fig. 41b)Brown calcareous matrix, similar to that of G1, more micritic, less iron-rich and with more abundant inclusions, mainly angular andsubangular, poorly-sorted quartz (>20%; size range between 0.05 by 0.03 and 0.03 by 0.02 mm), some subrounded fragments ofpolycrystalline limestone, and added crushed calcite (<20%; size range between 0.3 by 0.2 and 0.2 by 0.15 mm);

sub. b (2 samples: SMH 12, 15)Brown, iron-rich, very slightly micritic matrix, with well-sorted and very fine angular and subangular quartz (<15%; typical size 0.03by 0.02 mm), rich in iron oxides (<7%), rare fine subrounded limestone fragments (2%; typical size 0.03 by 0.02 mm), opaques (1%),and added crushed calcite (20%; size range between 1.0 by 0.6 and 0.3 by 0.2 mm).

G2 - (1 sample: SMH 4) (fig. 41c)Dark red iron-rich matrix, very rich in inclusions, characterised by poorly-sorted angular and subangular quartz (coarser than G1)(<20%; size range between 0.2 by 0.1 and 0.1 by 0.08 mm), flint (>3%), added crushed calcite (<15%; size range between 1.0 by 0.5and 0.4 by 0.3 mm), abundant iron oxides (7%), and abundant rounded limestone fragments (15%; size range between 4.5 by 2.2 and1.0 by 0.8 mm);

sub. a (1 sample: SMH 6)Red iron-rich matrix, very slightly micritic, characterised by poorly-sorted angular and subangular quartz (25%; size range between0.1 by 0.09 and 0.05 by 0.03 mm), flint (2%), occasional rounded limestone (<2%), rare muscovite mica (1%), rare clay pellets, andadded crushed calcite (<10%; size range between 0.5 by 0.3 and 0.3 by 0.2 mm);

sub. b (2 samples: SMH 1, 9)Red, iron-rich matrix, characterised by fine and well-sorted angular and subangular quartz (20%; typical size 0.05 by 0.03 mm),occasional flint, some rounded polycrystalline limestone (2%), and added crushed calcite (up to 20%; size range as G2 sub. a).

G3 - (1 sample: SMH 14) (fig. 41d)Brown, very micritic matrix, rich in rounded and subrounded polycrystalline limestone (20%; typical size 1.0 by 0.8 mm), well-sorted, fine angular and subangular quartz (10%; size range between 0.06 by 0.04 and 0.02 by 0.01 mm), and iron oxides (5%).

G4 - (2 samples: SMH 18, 21) fine figulina ware (figs. 41e and 41f)Reddish, very fine, slightly micritic, vitrified, iron-rich matrix. It shows very fine and well-sorted quartz (5%; typical size 0.02 by0.01 mm), very fine muscovite mica (<5%), very rare pyroxene (in sample SMH 21), rare polycrystalline quartz, and iron oxides(5%). Sample SMH 18 is also more vitrified than SMH 21, all the carbonates have been burnt out. SMH 21 shows a fragment ofquartzite, a low-grade metamorphic rock.

5.4.11. Summary of group characteristicsGroups 1 and 2 are characterised by artificially added inclusions of crushed calcite. Group 1 has a micritic

fabric with fine quartz and abundant limestone. G1 sub. a has a more micritic and less iron-rich similar fabric,but richer in quartz than that of the previous group. G1 sub. b shows iron-rich, slightly micritic fabric with finequartz and some rounded fragments of limestone. Group 2 has an iron-rich, non-micritic fabric with moreabundant and coarser quartz than that of group 1. It also shows a high percentage of fragments of limestoneand some flint; G2 sub. a has a slightly micritic fabric with a lower presence of flint and more abundant quartzthan G2; G2 sub. b shows the same fabric of G2 sub. a but with a lower percentage of quartz. Group 3 showsa very micritic fabric, very rich in polycrystalline limestone, a percentage of quartz lower than that of thepreceding groups, and no artificially added inclusions. Group 4 is composed of fine figulina ware characteri-sed by very fine quartz, muscovite mica, and some iron oxides. It is identical to the fine figulina of the Danilophase (G5a) with the same vitrified (indicator of high-firing), slightly calcareous matrix, with few inclusionsof quartz, mica and iron oxides.

5.4.12. SEM-EDS analysesThe results obtained from the samples of groups 1, 2 and 3 are rather homogeneous (table 7, Appendix 4).

G1 shows fluctuations of calcium oxide due to the presence of calcite in the areas analysed. The data ofsubgroup a are very similar to those of G1, whereas G1 sub. b has lower silica and slightly higher iron oxide.G2 has not been analysed. G2 sub. a is richer than G1 in silica (very abundant quartz) and iron oxide, with lesscalcium oxide (lower presence of calcite and non-micritic matrix); G2 sub. b is similar to G2 sub. a with alower quantity of silica (less abundant quartz), iron oxide and more calcium oxide (presence of calcite andlimestone). G3 has produced results similar to those of the previous groups (rich in iron and calcium oxides)with similar averages of sulphur oxide, soda, and magnesia with lower aluminia and titania. The data of thefine figulina (group 4) are totally different from those of the previous ones. They show percentages of magne-sia, potash, iron oxide, and aluminia higher than those of the other groups. The two samples of this group(SMH 18, 21) show a certain variability in the presence of calcium oxide (4.92-13.58%). This might depend

88

Fig. 39 - Smilčić: pottery from the Hvar Culture settlement.

¯ 89

Fig. 40 - Smilčić: pottery from the Hvar Culture settlement.

90

Fig. 41 - Smilčić: photomicrographs of Hvar Culture thin section samples: a) SMH 2, b) SMH 11, c) SMH 4, d) SMH 14, e) SMH 21, f) SMH 18(XPL, X40) (photographs by M. Spataro).

a)

c)

e)

b)

d)

f)

on post-depositional factors, which affect more the less vitrified sample (SMH 21) than the more highly vitrifiedone (SMH 18).

5.4.13. DiscussionDuring the late phase of the Middle Neolithic, the inhabitants of Smilčić primarily exploited a number of

similar clay sources, rich in polycrystalline limestone and fine quartz. The limestone shows mainly roundedand subrounded shapes; therefore we can suppose that it was naturally present in the clay. Groups 1 and 3 havea similar fabric with fine angular and subangular quartz, but different percentages of fragments of polycrystal-line limestone and a slightly variable percentage of iron oxides.

A different source was employed in the manufacture of the pottery of group 2. The fabric of sample SMH4 (G2) is rich in flint (>3%), coarse quartz and abundant iron oxides. This clay source was relatively differentfrom those used for the manufacture of the other vessels, non-micritic and iron-rich. Group 4, the fine figulinaware, is characterised by very rare and common inclusions. Therefore it is very difficult to identify a source of

¯ 91

provenance. It seems, however, that the fabric of these samples (SMH 18 and 21) is identical to that of the finefigulina from the earlier Danilo phase layer (G5a). This is also confirmed by the SEM-EDS results, fromwhich it is obvious that the clays exploited for the manufacture of this pottery are very similar (high percenta-ges of magnesia, potash, iron oxide, and rather low quantity of calcium oxide).

5.5. GENERAL DISCUSSION

On the basis of the analyses of the potsherds from the Smilčić Neolithic sequence, a number of interestingobservations can be made. The first is that the pottery of the Impressed Ware Culture at Smilčić was producedalmost without the addition of inclusions. The only exception is sherd SML 10. On the contrary, the pottery ofthe Middle Neolithic, i.e. Danilo and Hvar phases of occupation, is mainly tempered with crushed calcite.Furthermore, the fabric of just a few specimens from the Impressed Ware and the Danilo layers, shows veryfew fragments of marine shells (the potsherd SML 13 and the daub fragment - SMD 12). It is important topoint out that also the geology of the area shows the presence of fossil marine macrofauna.

The firing temperature never exceeded 750 °C, with the exception of the figulina pottery. According tothe microscopic analysis, no improvement in the technology of pottery production can be noticed from theEarly (Impressed Ware) Neolithic up to the end of the Middle Neolithic (Hvar Culture). The only difference isthe commoner use of temper (always crushed calcite) during the Middle Neolithic (Danilo) and the late phaseof the Middle Neolithic (Hvar), probably to obtain better quality vessels with more homogeneous and lessporous surfaces.

The vessels are characterised by addition of the same temper. This does not confirm what is known for thepottery style and typology of the three different horizons, which are extremely different and very distinctive,phase-by-phase. There are, for example, noticeable changes in the surface treatment as well as in the decora-tive patterns, and in the vessel forms. These differences are particularly striking between the Impressed Wareand the two later phases.

However, it is possible to say that some very similar fabrics recur in all the three phases. The SmilčićImpressed Ware fabrics have some close parallels with those of the more recent phases (i.e. Danilo and Hvar).They are always characterised by the occurrence of very calcareous matrices and polycrystalline limestone.For instance, group 1 of the Impressed Ware horizon is very similar to the Hvar period sample SMH 14 (G3),even though the percentage of quartz of the two specimens is not identical (the IW group shows some occasio-nal flint). The IW sample SML 9 (G2 sub. a) is almost identical to the Danilo phase sample SMD 11 (G3).They show a very high percentage of all range-sized quartz, some fragments of polycrystalline limestone andrare muscovite mica. They are close enough to make them one group, had they been from the same period.

Furthermore, some of the characteristics of the Danilo phase pottery recall those of the Hvar horizon. Twosamples, SMD 10 and SMH 14 (G4, Danilo and G3, Hvar), do not show any evidence of added inclusions.Their fabric is very similar, micritic and fine-grained. These sherds have a similar high percentage of polycry-stalline limestone and a similar size range and quantity of angular and subangular quartz. Another interestingparallel can be traced between the fabrics of SMD 19 and SMH 4 (G1, sub. a, Danilo phase and G2, Hvarphase, respectively). They show the same iron-rich fabric with a high percentage of quartz, some limestone,iron oxides, and added crushed calcite. The only difference is the presence of flint in the sample from the Hvarphase. Also the samples of group 1 (Danilo phase) and those of group 2 sub. b (Hvar phase) have a very similarfabric, they are both iron-rich with similar percentage of quartz and with the same sparry calcite (occasionalflint is present in SMD although absent in SMH), while the Danilo phase samples of group 2 and the Hvarphase G1 sub. b contains a very similar micritic fabric, with abundant quartz and added crushed calcite.

The fine figulina wares from the two later occupation phases show almost identical fabrics with a highquantity of magnesia, potash, iron oxide and aluminia. They are very similar also from a typological point ofview. The fine figulina from both layers shows the same fine, slightly micritic, high-fired, iron-rich, vitrifiedmatrix with very few mineral inclusions (as confirmed by the SEM-EDS results). The firing of this type ofpottery implies the use of a kiln because it has been highly fired (about 850°C; Y. GOREN, pers. comm. 2000;I. FREESTONE, pers. comm. 2001). A rigorous control of the firing temperature is also necessary. It must havebeen difficult to fire this type of pottery without any additional use of temper at the high temperature em-ployed without cracking.

On the basis of these considerations, two very different technologies were utilised in the pottery produc-tion at Smilčić during the Middle Neolithic. The ordinary pottery was manufactured with local clay, either

92

with or without temper, adding only crushed calcite and firing it at low-temperature, most probably in an openfire. The figulina pottery was manufactured by skilled potter(s) following a longer and different phases of claypreparation and firing. The clay must have been washed and left to decant for a much longer period than forthe ordinary pottery and later fired in a kiln. The coarse figulina ware from this site has been analysed onlyfrom the Danilo layer. It shows a very micritic fabric with higher percentages of quartz and muscovite than thefine figulina. It seems to have been fired at a similar high temperature, although the matrix is less vitrified thanthose of the fine samples (Chapter 5, 7.). Both quartz and muscovite are very refractory, and thus, the fabricsmay appear less vitrified even if fired at the same temperature.

5.6. CONCLUSIONS

Since the pottery of the three different habitation phases is characterised by very homogeneous fabricsthroughout a period of at least 1000 radiocarbon years, and given that the geology of the territory is highlycompatible with the fabrics of the potsherds analysed, it is reasonable to conclude that the clay was mostprobably obtained from local sources (see also the similarities between the soil sample and the fabrics of theSmilčić, IW phase). This observation is reinforced by the results of the analyses of the Impressed Ware potsherdsfrom the neighbouring site of Tinj, some 20 km southwest of Smilčić. As mentioned above, the ImpressedWare site of Smilčić has been attributed to the B and C phases of development of MÜLLER’s (1994: 321)subdivision. Thus, it is contemporary to that of Tinj. In fact it yielded a pottery assemblage very similar to thatof this latter site, from both typological and stylistic points of view (CHAPMAN et al., 1996). According to ouranalytical study, the Tinj group 1 shows many similarities with the Smilčić group 2 (e.g. SML 1). They havethe same iron-rich fabric with abundant quartz, rare flint, and fragments of limestone. The Tinj group 1 sub. bshows a fabric very similar to that of the Smilčić group 1, that is highly micritic, light brownish, with abundantquartz and some calcareous rock fragments. The only difference is in the lower percentage of quartz of thesherds from Smilčić. On the basis of the similarities between the two sites, it is possible to suggest a local/regional production for the pottery of both sites.

5.6.1. Correlation between fabric and typologyThe Impressed Ware pottery of group 1 is composed of sherds whose original vessel shape cannot be recon-

structed because of their very fragmentary state. They are mainly undecorated with the exception of SML 11,which has impressed motifs. Their surfaces are of variable colour because of the different firing atmospheres.Samples SML 4, 5, 7 and 15 are black, while SML 2, SML 18, SML 13, and SML 19 are buff. Group 1 sub. a iscomposed of impressed decorated sherds. Group 2 is represented by impressed sherds (SML 1, 5) and by oneundecorated specimen that is too small to be attributed to any defined shape (SML 21). Only one undecoratedsample has been attributed to group 3 (SML 9). Group 4 includes only one undecorated, grey sherd.

The Danilo phase. Group 1 is stylistically very inhomogeneous. SMD 2 belongs to a typical black, bur-nished, bowl with incised decorative patterns. SMD 14 is probably part of a similar bowl. Sample SMD 3 is abuff coloured base. SMD 3 is too small and atypical. Group 1 sub. a includes many sherds (SMD 6, 9, 19)decorated with incised, linear motifs. Sample SMD 1 belongs to an undecorated, carinated bowl of buff co-lour. G1 sub. b (SMD 4) includes only one undecorated, buff coloured sherd. Group 2 (SMD 17, 18) iscomposed of two black, burnished potsherds similar to sample SMD 2. They are decorated with incised linearmotifs. Two other sherds can be attributed to this group: one decorated with incised lines (SMD 8, 16), theother undecorated (SMD 16). Only one single fragment of necked jar has been attributed to group 3 (SMD 11).

Apart from the case of sherd SMD 11, fabric and typology never correspond. For instance, sample SMD2 and SMD 17 and 18 are typologically comparable, although they belong to distinct microscopic groups.Some relations have been noticed among the figulina potsherds. In fact, the fine group comprises only thinwalled potsherds; while the coarse group includes only pottery with thicker walls.

The Hvar phase. Group 1 is composed of one hemispherical bowl and a few potsherds with horizontalgrooves. Nothing can be said of group 1 sub. a that is represented by two specimens with horizontal grooves.Group 1 sub. b (SMH 12, 15) consists of two probable hemispheric bowls. Group 2 (SMH 4) is a peculiarvessel, typologically different from all the others. Group 3 (SMH 14) consists of only one vessel of buffcolour. Group 4 is that of the fine figulina pottery. This group shows clear correlation between fabric and

¯ 93

typology. Some stylistic parallels have been noted, for instance between groups 1 and 1 sub. a and betweengroups 1 sub. b and 2. Nevertheless, the only unquestionable correspondence is that of the figulina ware thatalways shows the same fabric. This fact has been noticed at Smilčić as well as at Danilo itself.

6. VRBICA ([ibenik)

The small open-air Impressed Ware site of Vrbica lies in the interior of [ibenik, in a locality calledBribirske Mostine (MENDUŠIć, 1998) (fig. 42). It was accidentally discovered in 1973, during the excavation ofa Medieval site located on the neighbouring hill of Bribirska glavica (BRUSIć, 1974). Several test trencheswere opened during the 1973 excavation campaign. One of these, measuring 6x4.5 m, showed traces of EarlyNeolithic occupation indicated by typical Impressed Ware material culture remains.

The same trench yielded also a few, typical, Danilo Culture potsherds. The excavation revealed the pre-sence of an archaeological layer some 10 to 30 cm thick, and of 4 shallow depressions, or pits. The archaeolo-gical horizon lay beneath an agricultural, disturbed layer some 20 cm thick. The 4 pits, 1.60-1.80 m long and0.60-0.80 m deep, were discovered in this layer. Pit 2, that yielded most of the material, had a grey to grey-brown fill, and several pebbles. The black, organogenic fill of the other three pits contained some pieces of redand yellow burnt soil that were interpreted by BRUSI} (1974) as remains of a house structure.

The material culture assemblageThe Impressed Ware site of Vrbica, attributed to phase A in the development of this culture (MÜLLER,

1994: 322), yielded 571 potsherds, 514 of which were studied (439 from the archaeological layers, 69 from pit2 and 6 from pit 1). Of the 43 vessel forms recognised by BRUSIć (1979), 27 are oval with convex base, 10 arelarge, open bowls, 2 are necked jars, 2 are deep open jars, and 2 are beakers. Two of the large, open bowls hadconvex bases.

The decorative patterns include finger and fingernail impressions and finger-pinched (“pizzicato”) motifsas well as triangular, instrumental decorations, while Cardium and Mytilus marine shell impressions are morerare. Only one sherd is decorated with parallel, incised lines. The decorations cover the entire vessel form andare often organized in horizontal lines.

Among the other peculiar artefacts is one fragment of polished greenstone adze. The flint assemblage,which is very rich, includes several complete, unretouched blades and few flakes. No retouched tool is men-tioned in the main excavation report (BRUSIć, 1994-1995).

Relative chronologyAccording to BRUSIć (1994-1995), the Impressed Ware ceramics from this site show many affinities with

those of the Italian Adriatic coastline, in particular those from the Prato Don Michele facies. Thus the site ofVrbica has been attributed to the oldest Impressed Ware A phase of the Dalmatian coast.

The special finds include one mushroom-shaped polished stone “earplug” (MÜLLER, 1994: 173), whoseimportance is due to the parallels with specimens from the Early Neolithic sites of Thessaly. Even though noradiocarbon date is available for Vrbica, the site is supposed to belong to a period around 7000 BP or slightlyearlier on the basis of these finds (MÜLLER, 2000: 153).


The geology of the area is very similar to that of the site of Konjevrate (Chapter 3, 7.1). The geologicalsubstratum of the region is mainly composed of large limestone deposits and narrow veins of limestone andForaminifera (Nummulites perforatus, Halkyardia minima, Discociklina discus and Assilina spira). A verysmall area with alluvial sands and small pebbles in stratified gravels is also present (Šibenik, K 33-138 Osno-vna Geološka Karta SFRJ, 1:100000).

6.2. ANALYSES

Twenty-three potsherds have been analysed: twenty-two of the Impressed Ware phase and one of theDanilo Culture phase (figs. 43-45; table 8, Appendix 3, and table 3, Appendix 1). Five different fabrics havebeen identified among the twenty-two Impressed Ware Culture samples.

94

Fig. 42 - Vrbica: location of the Neolithic site (dot) and of the soil sample (square). Scale in kilometres.

G1 - (4 samples: VRB 1, 5, 8, 10) (fig. 46a)Reddish, iron-rich, calcareous matrix characterised by well-sorted angular and subangular quartz (<15%; size range between 0.05 by0.03 and 0.03 by 0.02 mm), iron oxides (7%), muscovite mica (<3%), rounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (<3%; typicalsize 0.3 by 0.2 mm), some bohnerz (ARF, Argillaceous Rock Fragments), few clay pellets, and abundant added crushed calcite(<20%; size range between 1.0 by 0.2 and 0.4 by 0.3 mm);

sub. a (1 sample: VRB 6)Brown calcareous matrix less iron-rich than that of G1, rich in well-sorted angular and subangular quartz (15%; typical size 0.03 by0.02 mm), iron oxides (5%), some subrounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (3%; typical size 0.4 by 0.3 mm), occasionalmuscovite, and abundant added crushed and some banded calcite (<30%; size range between 1.0 by 0.7 and 0.4 by 0.2 mm).

G2 - (4 samples: VRB 7, 14, 18, 20) (fig. 46b)Dark brown, fine matrix characterised by few, fine and well-sorted angular and subangular quartz (5%; typical size 0.03 by 0.02 mm),abundant rounded limestone (<10%; size range between 1.25 by 1.0 and 0.3 by 0.2 mm), iron oxides (<5%), some muscovite mica(<3%), rare pyroxene (1%), and added crushed calcite (7%; size range between 0.8 by 0.4 and 0.6 by 0.5 mm);

sub. a (1 sample: VRB 16)Matrix very similar to that of G2, richer in iron oxides (10%). It shows presence of coarser, poorly-sorted angular and subangularquartz (10%; typical size 0.06 by 0.04 mm), rare clay pellets, and some added crushed calcite (5%; size range between 0.5 by 0.4 and0.1 by 0.07 mm);

sub. b (5 samples: VRB 4, 9, 11, 21, 22)Brown micritic matrix coarser than that of G2. It is characterised by well-sorted angular and subangular quartz (<20%; typical size0.05 by 0.03 mm), abundant fragments of limestone, some of which are rounded like those of G2 (<10%; size range between 1.0 by0.9 and 0.3 by 0.2 mm), abundant iron oxides (7%), muscovite mica (3%), and added crushed sparry calcite (<20%; size rangebetween 0.6 by 0.3 and 0.3 by 0.2 mm);

sub. c (1 sample: VRB 3) (fig. 46c)Brown-reddish iron-rich matrix, characterised by rounded fragments of limestone, similar to that of G2 (about 15%; same shape andsize of G2), with iron oxides (5%) and very rare, fine, well-sorted quartz. It does not show any added inclusion.

G3 - (4 samples: VRB 2, 12, 13, 15) (fig. 46d)Very iron-rich slightly micritic matrix. It shows fragments of polycrystalline and banded limestone (10%; same size G2), abundant

¯ 95

Fig. 43 - Vrbica: pottery from the Neolithic site.

96


¯ 97


98

angular and subangular quartz (20%; size range between 0.05 by 0.03 and 0.04 by 0.02 mm), muscovite mica (<3%), abundant ironoxides (10%), and added crushed calcite (<15%; size range between 0.8 by 0.6 and 0.3 by 0.2 mm).

G4 - (1 sample: VRB 17) (fig. 46e)Brown-reddish, coarse, very micritic matrix characterised by well-sorted angular and subangular quartz (<20%; typical size 0.06 by0.04 mm), rare pyroxene (<1%), some clay pellets, and rich in iron oxides (7%). There are two types of limestone: rounded shapepolycrystalline (>10%; size range between 1.0 by 0.5 and 0.3 by 0.3 mm) and fossiliferous. The fragments of fossiliferous limestone(<5%) show angular and subangular shape. Some microfossils of Foraminifera have also been observed.

G5 - (1 sample: VRB 23) (fig. 46f)Brown highly calcareous matrix rich in poorly-sorted angular and subangular quartz (20%; size range between 0.2 by 0.1 and 0.1 by0.07 mm), rounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (>10%; typical size 0.05 by 0.03 mm), iron oxides (5%), few clay pellets,and rare muscovite mica (1%).

In addition one potsherd of the Danilo settlement phase has been analysed (VRB 19; fig. 46g). Its brown calcareous fabric haspoorly-sorted, angular and subangular quartz (10%; size range between 0.08 by 0.05 and 0.05 by 0.03 mm), some muscovite mica,rare opaques and iron oxides (1%), and abundant added crushed calcite (35%; typical size 0.3 by 0.2 mm).

One soil sample collected in close proximity to the site has been analysed in thin section (figs. 42 and 46h). Its fabric is very richin iron oxides with well-sorted, fine angular and subangular quartz (15%; typical size 0.03 by 0.02 mm), subangular and subroundedfragments of limestone (>7%), and muscovite mica (<3%).

6.2.1. Summary of group characteristicsThree groups (1 and 1 sub. a and b, 2 and 3) have artificially added calcite. The other groups (1 sub. c, 4,

5 and 6) do not show any added temper.Group 1 has a reddish, slightly calcareous fabric with some well-sorted angular and subangular quartz,

some muscovite mica, rounded and subrounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone, some bohnerz, claypellets, iron oxides, and abundant added crushed calcite. The quartz of G1 sub. a is finer than that of G1. It hasalso some banded calcite. The fabric of group 2 is very different. It is dark brown, much more silty and finethan G1. It contains very occasional, well-sorted quartz and abundant, rounded, fine-grained limestone, rarepyroxene, some muscovite mica, and little added calcite. Group 2 sub. a has the same fabric of group 2 with ahigher percentage of quartz. G2 sub. b has the same rounded fragments of limestone of group 2. It has addedcrushed calcite, although its fabric is coarser and slightly micritic and contains a higher percentage of quartz.G2 sub. c is characterised by a silty, fine, iron-rich fabric with rounded limestone, and very rare quartz (asgroup 2), although it does not show any added calcite. Group 3 has a very iron-rich fabric with more abundantdetrital fraction compared to the preceding groups, with banded limestone, different from that found in theother groups, some polycrystalline limestone, muscovite, quartz, and added calcite. Group 4 has a reddish,very coarse matrix, more calcareous and coarse than the matrices of the above-mentioned groups. It is rich inquartz and in two different types of limestone: polycrystalline and fossiliferous. The fossiliferous limestone,which is not very abundant, has probably been added because of its subangular and angular shape (probablyindicating deliberate crushing). The fabric of group 5 is more micritic than those of the previous groups. Itshows a high percentage of poorly-sorted quartz and no added inclusions. The analyses of the Danilo phasepotsherd have shown a fabric very similar to that of group 1 sub. a (sample VRB 6). They both show a verycalcareous, brown fabric. The main difference consists in the less iron-rich fabric with poorly-sorted andcoarser quartz of the Danilo sample compared to that of the Impressed Ware.

The soil sample analysed in thin section shows some similarities with the fabric of group 4. They both aremicritic and iron-rich, although the soil is more micaceous and shows quartz grains finer than those of VRB 17.

6.2.2. SEM-EDS analysesThis is one of the few cases where this method was of no help to test the microscopic groups, mainly

because of the very homogeneous minerals that characterise the different fabrics (table 8, Appendix 4). Inparticular, the variability in the percentage of calcium oxide of groups 1 and 2 is mainly due to the limestonefragments (G2) and to the crushed calcite (G1). This can be noticed only through thin section analysis, sinceit focuses on size, shape, and arrangement of the inclusions.

G1 shows rather low silica, very high calcium oxide (crushed calcite) and a large variability in iron oxide(1.52-8.30%). According to the SEM-EDS results its subgroup could perfectly fit into it. Also G2 has ratherlittle silica, whilst aluminia is slightly better represented, and calcium and iron oxides show great variations

¯ 99

a)

c)

e)

g)

b)

d)

f)

h)

Fig. 46 - Vrbica: photomicrographs of thin section samples: a) VRB 5, b) VRB 18, c) VRB 3, d) VRB 12, e) VRB 17, f) VRB 23, g) VRB 19, h) soilsample (XPL, X40) (photographs by M. Spataro).

100

(CaO: 27.42-35.60%; Fe2O3: 1.66-5.02%). The subgroups show very few differences. G2 sub. a has lesscalcium oxide and more iron oxide and silica (in thin section the main difference with G2 is the higher percen-tage of quartz). G2 sub. b has yielded results similar to those of G2. G2 sub. c might perfectly fit into G2. G3has a quantity of iron oxide slightly higher than that of the other groups, though it does not show otherdifferences. G4 shows results similar to those of G3 (in thin section its fabric is fossiliferous). An interestingdatum comes from the analysis of the Danilo phase sample VRB 19. It matches very well with the results ofthe other IW specimens (only the percentage of iron oxide is much lower). All these data seem to reinforce theimpression of a common origin of these sherds. They have been usefully correlated with the SEM-EDS resultsobtained from the site of Konjevrate (Chapter 3, 7.2.2.).

6.2.3. XRD analysesOne soil sample collected in close proximity to the site was analysed by XRD. The pattern of the soil (fig.

47, top) shows the presence of quartz, calcite, muscovite, chlorite, and hematite. Four potsherds (VRB 3, 5, 7,9) studied in thin section were also analysed by XRD. The pattern of sample VRB 5 (G1; fig. 47, centre) isalmost identical to that of the soil. It shows the presence of quartz, calcite, muscovite, chlorite, and hematite.It also has some anatase that is not present in the soil sample. Anatase derives from the alteration of titanium-bearing minerals, and is associated with quartz, chlorite, hematite, etc. (FORD, 1949: 500). The pattern of VRB7 (G2; fig. 47, bottom) includes calcite, kaolinite (Chapter 2, 6.1.), anatase, and chlorite. In XRD terms, thiskaolinitic clay is very similar to that of group 1 (VRB 5). This contrasts with the thin section results, becausethe fabrics are very different, even though they show the same varieties of minerals (calcite, limestone, quartz,iron oxides). G2 is much finer and siltier than G1 and has very rounded limestone inclusions. It is obvious thatthe XRD analyses do not show the topography, size, or shape of the minerals, but only their identity. SampleVRB 3 (G2 sub. c; fig. 48, top) has the same kaolinitic clay of group 2 (VRB 7), and some quartz. Quartz isvery occasional in the thin section of sample VRB 3 as well as in those of group 2. The pattern of sample VRB9 (G2 sub. c; fig. 48, bottom) shows the same minerals of VRB 3 (G2 sub. c), with brookite instead of anatase.

To conclude, it is possible 1) to suggest a strong correlation between groups 1, 2 and the soil sample, and2) to confirm the close relationship between group 2 (VRB7) and its subgroups b and c (VRB 9 and 3). Thethin section results show a correlation between the soil and groups 1, 3 and 4; the XRD patterns show parallelsbetween the soil and groups 1 and 2. From a different perspective these data indicate that the ceramics assem-blage derive from a very similar environment closely related to the soil of the area surrounding the site.

6.3. DISCUSSION

Groups 1 and 2 come from different sources. The fabric of G1 is more calcareous, coarse and rich in ironoxides than that of G2, which has fine, silty fabric with peculiar, rounded limestone inclusions. Group 3derives from a source richer in fragments of polycrystalline limestone and iron oxides. Group 4 (sample VRB17) undoubtedly comes from a different source because of its very micritic matrix and the fossiliferous lime-stone that has been not observed in other samples. Also group 5 (VRB 23) has a highly micritic matrix, richerin quartz and poorer in iron oxides than that of G4.

It seems probable that the Impressed Ware inhabitants of Vrbica exploited five different sources. Group 2is characterised by a peculiar variety of rounded limestone probably collected from the proximity of a rivercourse (R. MACPHAIL, pers. comm. 2001). The clays exploited for the manufacture of the other groups werecollected from different areas, although they all contain the same varieties of minerals that are characteristic ofsedimentary deposits. An important difference is the fossiliferous limestone of sample VRB 17 that contrastswith the more common polycrystalline limestone of the other samples. The soil sample shows a fabric similar,but not identical, to the fabric of some ceramic groups (1, 3 and 4). This indicates a similar geological contextof provenance.

6.4. CONCLUSIONS

According to the soil (thin section and XRD) analyses and the geology of the area, the potsherds arecompatible with the pedology of the local soil.

The fabric of group 1 is rich in iron oxides (as the XRD analysis also revealed), with fine quartz. The clay ofthe vessels of group 2, silty and with very well-sorted fine quartz has been probably collected close to a water-course. This observation is based on the very rounded aspect of the limestone. The fabric of G4 shows some

¯ 101

Fig. 47 - Vrbica: XRD pattern of soil sample (top), and potsherds VRB 5 (centre) and VRB 7 (bottom).

102

Fig. 48 - Vrbica XRD pattern of potsherds VRB 3 (top) and VRB 9 (bottom).

similarities with that of the soil sample. Furthermore, the presence of Foraminifera microfossils, (sample VRB17, G4), reinforce the idea of a local provenance, because they are perfectly compatible with the local geology.Also the fabric of the Danilo potsherd stresses this hypothesis (VRB 19). It is very similar to that of sample VRB6 (G1 sub. a). It is difficult to suggest that the material employed in the production of both IW and Daniloceramics was imported from the same source throughout such a long time-span.

¯ 103

The knowledge of the relationships between the fabrics of the ceramics of the two contemporaneous,neighbouring sites of Vrbica and Konjevrate is another important provenance indicator. A few similarities canbe observed in the fabrics of the samples from these two sites. The Vrbica group 4 (sample VRB 17) is verysimilar to the Konjevrate group 5 (samples KNV 6, 23). They show the same coarse, iron-rich fabric withpolycrystalline limestone and quartz. The only difference consists in the fossiliferous limestone of sampleVRB 17. Both KNV 16 (G7) and VRB 23 (G5) have the same micritic fabric with abundant limestone frag-ments. The only difference is that sample VRB 23 has coarser and more abundant quartz. The sources exploi-ted for the manufacture of the sherds from both these sites come from a similar pedological background, eventhough not from the same source.

Given the similarities in the geology of the territory around Konjevrate and Vrbica, a common provenan-ce for some of the ceramic fabrics can be suggested. Nevertheless, there are some important differences betweenthe petrographic groups of Konjevrate and Vrbica group 2. The sherds from Vrbica G2 show a peculiar fine-grained, rounded limestone that does not occur in the Konjevrate potsherds (nor in many other Vrbica sherds).According to these considerations, it is possible to conclude that the production of this pottery is based on theexploitation of similar pedological areas and, consequently, that it is of local manufacture.

6.4.1. Correlation between typology and fabricThe typology of the four vessels of group 1 strongly resembles that of the Danilo Culture pots. Open

bowls with brown, burnished surfaces represents them. Also G1 sub. a (VRB 6) recalls the Danilo fine potterybecause of its identical form. The vessels of group 2 (VRB 7, 14, 18 and 20) show internal differences. Onlytwo sherds (VRB 18 and 20) have common decorations with elongated impressions. Also VRB 16 (G 2 sub. a)has an impressed decorative pattern. G2 sub. b (VRB 4, 9, 11, 21 and 22) is stylistically characterised by twogroups: the first (VRB 11, 21 and 22) with impressed Cardium motifs, while the second (VRB 4 and 9) has asimilar shape, even though it is decorated with impressed small dots. Sample VRB 3 (G2 sub. c) is a basefragment. The microscopic group 3 is composed of four sherds that typologically and stylistically have nothingin common between each other. Sample VRB 13 is typologically and stylistically very similar to VRB 11, 21and 22 (G2 sub. b) with impressed Cardium decorations. Sample VRB 12 is unique: it shows some incisedpatterns. The other two specimens (VRB 2 and 15) are undecorated. Therefore, they cannot be classifiedstylistically. Both sherds VRB 17 (G4) and VRB 23 (G5) have impressed motifs.

According to this criss-cross correlation it is possible to say that, at Vrbica, temper or fabric do notcorrespond to specific typological and decorated classes of pottery. The only exception is the Cardium Im-pressed Ware that mainly fits into a particular group (G2 sub. b), with sherds characterised by similar shapes.Most of them (3 out 5) are decorated with Cardium impressed motifs. Nevertheless, it is impossible to attribu-te any specific temper or matrix to any defined typological form.

To test the hypothesis of a local production system instead of a regional one, we can extend the parallelsto the potsherds of the neighbouring site of Konjevrate that show a similar matrix. The fabric of Vrbica group4 is very similar to that of Konjevrate group 5 (samples KNV 5, 6, 12, 23), although they do not show anycommon typological or stylistic feature. Two sherds from these sites, VRB 23 and KNV 16, are both characte-rised by very similar fabrics (see above) even though they are decorated with different Impressed Ware patter-ns (figs. 45 and 51). At present only these conclusions can be drawn. They suggest a local production at bothsites, with the utilisation of similar clay sources, but different stylistic patterns.

7. KONJEVRATE (Šibenik)

Almost nothing is known of the Early Neolithic site of Konjevrate, which lies in the interior of Šibenik(fig. 49), 15 km from the present coastline, in an area that is extremely rich in Neolithic settlements (Bribir,Vrbica, Škarin Samogrand and Krivace) (MENDUŠIć, 1998a; MÜLLER, 1998).

The site, the extension of which is still unknown, is located at an altitude of 210 m, close to the courseof the Krka River, near a perennial spring. It was discovered by chance in 1993, inside the modern villageof Konjevrate, during the opening of a new grave inside the cemetery of the church of St. Ivan (KRNCEVIć,1995).

The archaeological excavations were carried out by MENDUŠIć (1998) immediately after the discovery of

104

the site. A trench 2.5x2.5 m was opened, which yielded a great quantity of Impressed Ware potsherds and afew flint artefacts. They all belong to the Early Neolithic without any inclusion of more recent materials. Theywere found inside the Neolithic archaeological layer that did not produce any evidence of man-made featuressuch as pits and hearths.

The Impressed Ware layer was some 20 cm below a disturbed surface level. It was some 50 cm thick andwas excavated in artificial spits of 15 cm each. More than 1000 potsherds were recovered from this small trialtrench. They are now in the collections of the Šibenik City Museum.

The material culture remainsAs mentioned above, the excavation produced more than 1000 potsherds belonging to the Impressed Ware

tradition, decorated with Cardium, other marine shell, fingernail, finger and instrumental impressions. The deco-rative patterns were organised in rows of horizontal lines. Other finds include several flint artefacts, mainly onblade and bladelet, faunal remains, many of which were charred, and some pieces of daub. On the basis of theselatter finds, MENDUŠIć (1998a) suggested the presence of hut foundations close to the area where the trial trenchhad been opened. The settlement was attributed to the earliest phase A of the Impressed Ware Culture.


The geology of the territory around Konjevrate is homogeneous. Therefore it is very difficult to define aprecise source of provenance for these sherds. The geology of the Šibenik area is very similar to those ofVrbica and Danilo Bitinj. Konjevrate is located on a limestone deposit that alternates with conglomerates andfossiliferous limestone that originated during the first phases of the Eocene. This fossiliferous limestone con-tains Foraminifera, especially Nummulites szaboi and Halkyardia minima. It must be remembered that alsothe limestone deposit located along the Adriatic coastline is fossiliferous, especially rich in Foraminifera(Drniš, K 33-139 Osnovna Geološka Karta SFRJ, 1:100000).

7.2. ANALYSES

Twenty-five potsherds from the Impressed Ware site of Konjevrate have been subdivided into sevendifferent fabrics, based on thin section analysis (figs. 50 and 51; table 9, Appendix 3).

G1 - (5 samples: KNV 1, 9, 13, 17, 20) (fig. 52a)Reddish, iron-rich, slightly micritic, poly-sorted matrix characterised by well-sorted, fine angular and subangular quartz (<15%; sizerange between 0.05 by 0.04 and 0.03 by 0.02 mm), rich in iron oxides (<10%) and some opaques, rounded and subrounded fragmentsof limestone (<15%; size range between 2.7 by 2.5 and 0.4 by 0.3 mm), rare flint, and no added inclusions;

sub. a (1 sample: KNV 14) (fig. 52b)Reddish matrix, rich in iron, similar to that of G1, but with large clay pellets (>5%), well-sorted fine angular and subangular quartz(20%; size range between 0.05 by 0.03 and 0.03 by 0.02 mm), rounded and subrounded fragments of limestone (15%; size range 2.5by 2.0 and 0.3 by 0.2 mm), and some muscovite mica;

sub. b (4 samples: KNV 3, 11, 22, 24)Brown-reddish iron-rich matrix, similar to that of G1, more calcareous, with coarse angular and subangular quartz (<20%; size rangebetween 0.1 by 0.08 and 0.07 by 0.04 mm), abundant fragments (mainly rounded and very rarely subangular shape) of coarse-grainedlimestone (15%; size range as G1), opaques and iron oxides (<10%), muscovite mica (<3%), and some clay pellets;

sub. c (4 samples: KNV 7, 8, 21, 25) (fig. 52c)Matrix very similar to that of G1 sub. b, with added crushed sparry and banded calcite (>15%; size range between 1.2 by 0.75 and 0.5by 0.4 mm), and rounded fragments of fossiliferous limestone (7%; typical size 0.7 by 0.5 mm). One microfossil has been identifiedas belonging to the Foraminifera;

sub. d (1 sample: KNV 19)Matrix very similar to that of G1 sub. a, with coarser angular and subangular quartz (<20%; size range between 0.12 by 0.08 and 0.1by 0.06 mm), rounded and subrounded fragments of limestone (10%; size range as G1), iron oxides (10%), and rare feldspar (<1%).

G2 - (1 sample: KNV 4) (fig. 52d)Brown fine matrix characterised by elongated, subrounded and rounded fragments of limestone (<20%; size range between 3.0 by 1.2and 0.2 by 0.15 mm), poorly-sorted angular and subangular quartz (<15%; size range between 0.15 by 0.08 and 0.05 by 0.04 mm),iron oxides (3%), and some clay pellets.

G3 - (1 sample: KNV 18) (fig. 52e)Very dark red iron-rich matrix characterised by poorly-sorted, abundant angular and subangular quartz (25%; size range between0.13 by 0.1 and 0.09 by 0.05 mm), rare feldspar (1%), some subrounded fragments of polycrystalline and banded limestone (7%;typical size 0.4 by 0.3 mm), and added crushed calcite (10%; size range between 0.8 by 0.5 and 0.7 by 0.35 mm).

¯ 105

Fig. 49 - Location of the Neolithic sites of Konjevrate and Danilo Bitinj (dots) and of the soil samples (squares). Scale in kilometres.

G4 - (2 samples: KNV 10, 15) (fig. 52f)Red iron-rich matrix with well-sorted, fine angular and subangular quartz (<10%; typical size range between 0.04 by 0.02 mm), somerounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (<5%; size range between 1.5 by 1.0 and 0.2 by 0.15 mm), a great quantity of ironoxides (<15%), and abundant added crushed calcite (<30%; size range between 0.9 by 0.6 and 0.4 by 0.2 mm).G5 - (4 samples: KNV 5, 6, 12, 23) (fig. 52g)Red, iron-rich, micritic matrix with abundant well-sorted angular and subangular quartz (<15%; size range between 0.05 to 0.03 and0.03 to 0.02 mm), very occasional pyroxene (<1%), rich in rounded, subrounded and some angular fragments of polycrystalline andsome fossiliferous limestone (<20%; typical size 1.5 by 1.32 mm). Samples KNV 5, 6 and 12 show the presence of a few microfos-sils. One, in particular, has been identified as a Nummulite. The subangular limestone has been probably added as temper.

G6 - (1 sample: KNV 2) (fig. 52h)Red, calcareous, iron-rich matrix, similar to that of G5, characterised by well-sorted, few, angular and subangular quartz (7%; typicalsize range is 0.04 by 0.03 mm), and very rare polycrystalline quartz (<1%). It is richer in inclusions than G5 with a greater quantityof very rounded and subrounded fragments of limestone (40%; size range between 4.5 by 2.0 and 0.05 by 0.04 mm), and very rare,fine muscovite mica. The limestone might have been added as temper because of its bimodal distribution.

G7 - (1 sample: KNV 16) (fig. 53a)Brown very micritic matrix with well-sorted, fine quartz (<20%; size range between 0.05 by 0.03 and 0.04 by 0.02 mm), some muscovite (2%),abundant rounded and subrounded fragments of limestone (15%; typical size 0.6 by 0.3 mm), clay pellets, opaques and iron oxides (>5%).

106

Fig. 50 - Konjevrate: pottery from the Neolithic site.

¯ 107

Fig. 51 - Konjevrate: pottery from the Neolithic site.

108

a)

c)

e)

g)

b)

d)

f)

h)

Fig. 52 - Konjevrate: photomicrographs of thin section samples: a) KNV 1, b) KNV 14, c) KNV 7, d) KNV 4, e) KNV 18, f) KNV 15, g) KNV 5, h)KNV 2 (XPL, X40) (photographs by M. Spataro).

¯ 109

One soil sample has been analysed in thin section (figs. 49 and 53b). Its fabric is very iron-rich and slightly calcareous, with a highpercentage of well-sorted angular and subangular quartz (20%; size range between 0.07 by 0.04 and 0.03 by 0.02 mm), subangular andsubrounded fragments of limestone (<7%; typical size 1.3 by 1.2 mm), rare muscovite mica (1%), very rare zircon and pyroxene(<1%).

7.2.1. Summary of group characteristicsGroup 1 shows a fine, iron-rich, slightly micritic fabric with some quartz, abundant iron oxides, rare flint,

abundant polycrystalline limestone, and no artificially added inclusions. It comes from a source rich in ironand polycrystalline limestone. Most probably its subgroups come from different parts of the same clay depo-sit. They show differences in the quartz size range and in the percentage of the rounded and subroundedfragments of limestone. G1 sub. a shows the same fabric as G1, with some large clay pellets (fig. 52b),muscovite mica, and is rich in fine and well-sorted quartz. G1 sub. b has a more calcareous matrix with moreabundant and coarser quartz than G1; G1 sub. c has the same matrix as G1 sub. b with some added calcite; thefabric of G1 sub. d is similar to that of G1 sub. a, with coarser quartz and without clay pellets. The fabric of

a) b)

Fig. 53 - Konjevrate: photomicrographs of thin section samples: a) KNV 16 (XPL, X40), b) soil sample (XPL, X100) (photographs by M. Spataro).

group 2 is silty, less rich in iron than that of G1. It has some banded limestone naturally present in the fabric (itdoes not show any sharp edge). The fabric of group 3 is very different from the preceding ones. It is very iron-rich and poorly-sorted. It shows fragments of limestone and abundant quartz, with some added crushed calci-te. The fabric of group 4 is fine, iron-rich and siltier than that of G1. It shows the same variety of polycrystal-line limestone, less quartz than G3 and abundant artificially added inclusions (calcite). The fabric of group 5is very different from the above-mentioned groups because it shows abundant rounded and some fossiliferouslimestone. Some of the limestone has subangular shape; thus we cannot exclude that it has probably beenadded. Group 6 shows a micritic fabric very similar to that of group 5, with less quartz and very abundantrounded limestone. It is possible that the limestone has been added because of its bimodal distribution. Final-ly, the fabric of group 7 is more micritic than those of the other six groups, with fine quartz and roundedfragments of polycrystalline limestone.

7.2.2. SEM-EDS analysesAs for Vrbica, the data of the SEM-EDS analyses of Konjevrate are very homogeneous mainly because of

the results of soda, magnesia, aluminia, sulphur oxide, and titania (table 9, Appendix 4). Silica, iron and calciumoxides are subject to fluctuation/variations. G1 shows very homogeneous results apart from that of the iron oxide(3.72-9.94%). Its subgroups a, b and d might fit well into it, whereas sub. c shows higher percentages of calciumoxide (because of the presence of calcite, which is absent in G1 and the other subgroups), and a lower quantity ofsilica. G2 has yielded results similar to those of G1, although the percentage of iron oxide is much lower (2.94%).G3 shows a high percentage of titania (2.02%) and a very high percentage of iron oxide (17.18%) (in thin sectionit is very iron-rich indeed), less silica and calcium oxide than those of groups 1 and 2 (for the thin sections, seeabove). G4 does not show any difference from G1 and G2, apart from the higher percentage of aluminia (25.50%).G5 is similar to the preceding groups, whereas G6 shows the lowest percentages of silica (few quartz), and one ofthe highest quantities of calcium oxide (very abundant limestone). G7 shows similar results to G6 with a very

110

high percentage of calcium oxide (very micritic fabric with abundant limestone), higher silica (more abundantquartz), and much lower iron oxide (less iron-rich fabric).

In this case, it is not possible to test the microscopic groups with the SEM-EDS results, because of thevery homogeneous composition of the ceramic fabrics. Nevertheless, it is important to note that soda, magne-sia, titania, and sulphur oxide always show similar percentages.

These data support the hypothesis of material collected from different sources located in the same geolo-gical area. To test the microscopic groups is of little help because of the homogeneity of these data. Neverthe-less, they can be used to compare the results of the two assemblages of Konjevrate and Vrbica. According tothe results presented in tables 8 and 9 (Appendix 4) it is important to note that while soda, magnesia, sulphuroxide and potash are generally very similar, at Konjevrate the averages of silica and iron oxide are higher thanthose of Vrbica, whereas Vrbica has a higher average of calcium oxide.

7.2.3. XRD analysesThe soil sample analysed in thin section, collected close to a terra rossa deposit that outcrops a few

hundred metres from the Neolithic settlement, has been studied by XRD. The pattern shows the presence ofkaolinite, muscovite mica, quartz, calcite, and hematite (fig. 54, top). Also four potsherds (KNV 17, G1; KNV18, G3; KNV 19, G1 sub. d; KNV 23, G5; figs. 54, centre and 54, bottom, and 55, top and 55, bottom)analysed in thin section have been studied by XRD. All the patterns of the potsherds show quartz, calcite, andchlorite. Samples KNV 18 (G3; fig. 54, bottom) and KNV 19 (G1 sub. d; fig. 55, top) show also some kaolinite(Chapter 2, 6.1.) and hematite. Both these minerals are represented in the soil pattern. Even though the resultsobtained from the thin section analysis demonstrate that two distinct clay deposits were exploited for themanufacture of the two vessel groups (1 and 3), a common origin might be suggested mainly because of theoccurrence of the same clay mineral (kaolinite), that is almost impossible to identify through this type ofanalysis. It is interesting to note that groups G1 sub. d (KNV 19) and G3 (KNV 18) have strong similarities.The thin section shows the presence of the same minerals. Nevertheless, they can be attributed to two distinctgroups because of some differences (the matrix of G3 is very rich in iron, less very well-sorted and lessmicritic than that of G1). It is also important to note their strong similarities through the XRD analysis.

This method has demonstrated that the composition of the clay sources exploited by the Impressed Warepotters are very similar to each other. This had already been supposed on the basis of the results obtained fromthe thin section analysis. It is important to note that both XRD patterns of the samples of groups 3 and 1 showkaolinitic matrix with hematite, very similar to that of the soil sample.

7.3. DISCUSSION

Groups 1 and 2 come from different, though similar sources. The clay source of group 2 has quartzinclusions coarser than those of G1 and some banded limestone. Also groups 3 and 4 do not derive from acommon source. G3 does not show a micritic matrix; it is very iron-rich. Group 5 shows the same fabric as G6,though the latter has more abundant, rounded limestone and does not contain any fossiliferous limestone. Thesource exploited for the manufacture of group 7 is much more calcareous than those of the other groups. Itmust be different from the others. The sources exploited were at least seven. Those employed in the produc-tion of the pottery of groups 1, 2, 5 and 6 might be located very close to each other (or belong to differentlayers of the same formation). This is indicated by 1) the similar iron-rich fabric with quartz and small frag-ments of mainly rounded limestone, 2) the different percentage of limestone, and 3) the occurrence of similarfossils in two groups (1 sub. c and 5). In particular, G6 shows a matrix similar to that of G5, with very roundedlimestone inclusions. It was undoubtedly collected in the close proximity of a river or a beach; it is alsopossible that the limestone has been added (see Chapter 3, 7.2.1.). The source of group 4 is richer in ironoxides than that of G1. Group 3 comes from a different source. Compared to the others its fabric is much moreiron-rich. It is richer in quartz and contains some added crushed calcite. The source for the manufacture ofgroup 7 is more micritic than the preceding ones.

The thin section of the soil sample does not show any clay identical to that of the fabrics of the potsherds,although it is similar to the fabrics of the vessels of group 5 (e.g. KNV 5 and 12). They both have an iron-rich,micritic fabric with quartz, large fragments of limestone, and pyroxene. It might come from a similar sourcebecause of the presence of the same minerals. There are no minerals that might suggest a different provenance.Furthermore, the specificity of each single site of the Croatian coastline indicates a local production.

¯ 111

Fig. 54 - Konjevrate: XRD pattern of soil sample (top), and potsherds KNV 17 (centre) and KNV 18 (bottom).

112

Fig. 55 - Konjevrate: XRD pattern of potsherds KNV 19 (top) and KNV 23 (bottom).

7.4. CONCLUSIONS

The inhabitants of the Early Neolithic, Impressed Ware, settlement of Konjevrate probably exploited diffe-rent, although similar (see SEM-EDS results) sources for the manufacture of the pottery of groups 1, 2, 5, and 6.The clay source utilised for the production of group 3 is much more iron-rich and non-micritic. Nevertheless, asthe XRD pattern of sample KNV 18 (fig. 54, bottom) has demonstrated, it contains the same minerals of group 1.Therefore it is likely that all these groups are from a similar source. The source exploited for the manufacture of

¯ 113

group 6 must have been close to a river or to a beach. From a technological point of view, only groups 1 sub. c, 3and 4 clearly show addition of temper (crushed calcite, bimodal distribution of size and rhombohedric shape withsharp edges). It is also possible that G5 and G6 have been tempered with (some fossiliferous) limestone, becauseof its bimodal distribution and sometimes subangular shape. However, also the soil sample shows the presence ofsubangular limestone fragments that are naturally present in the fabric.

According to the minerals contained in the ceramic fragments and in the soil, and to the geology of thearea, it is possible to suggest that the source exploited for the production of the Early Neolithic pottery wasprobably local, or situated close to the site. It is reasonable to think of a local or regional pottery production.Also relevant to the definition of the local or regional provenance of the Konjevrate pottery is the comparisonwith the minero-petrographic groups of the contemporary, neighbouring site of Vrbica (Chapter 3, 6.4.) and ofthe SEM-EDS results of both sites (see above).

7.4.1. Correlation between typology and fabricThe considerations that follow are mainly based on the stylistic more than on the typological aspects,

because, in most cases, it is impossible to reconstruct the vessel shapes due to the high fragmentary conditionof the potsherds. From a stylistic point of view, group 1 is characterised by pottery with impressed motifs(KNV 1, 9, 13, 20). Only one sherd (KNV 17) shows light incised motifs. The sample KNV 14 (G1 sub. a) hassome impressed decorations with motifs that are slightly different from those of the preceding ones. Group 1sub. b includes vessels (KNV 3, 11, 22) with very similar decoration patterns with linear instrumental impres-sions. One specimen of the same subgroup has a slightly different motif (KNV 24), with parallel grooves. G1sub. c (KNV 7, 15) has two different typologies. Sample KNV 19, which constitutes G1 sub. d, is very diffe-rent from the other samples because it has an unusual decoration with small dots that has nothing in commonwith the other impressed decorations. The fragments KNV 8 and 21 (G1 sub. e) do not show any commonfeature. Sample KNV 4 (G2) and KNV 18 (G3) belong to different microscopic groups. Compared to thesamples of group 1, they are stylistically very similar to each other, decorated with impressed motifs. Themicroscopic group 4 is composed of sherds (KNV 10, 15) that have nothing in common either stylistically ortypologically. Group 5 is composed of vessels with very similar decorations composed of lines of recurrent,elongated impressions. Sample KNV 12, while showing the same common fabric, is decorated with a “roc-ker” pattern (fig. 50). Group 6 (KNV 2), which is very peculiar from a microscopic point of view, characteri-sed by very rounded limestone, has the same common impressed motifs of groups 1, 2 and 3. Sample KNV 16(G7) is from a large, deep flask with impressed decorations. It has nothing in common with the other potsherdsanalysed from this assemblage.

No real correspondence seems to exist between the fabric and the typology of the vessels from Konjevra-te, although the samples are of small dimension. The inhabitants of the Early Neolithic village utilised diffe-rent sources for the manufacture of similar vessels (groups 1, 2, 3 and 6).

All the sherds from this site are very typical of the Impressed Ware Culture. From a stylistic point of view,only two of them, KNV 16 and 19, differ from the rest of the assemblage. Nevertheless, the matrix of KNV 19is rather similar to that of G1, used for the production of Impressed Ware vessels. Only sample KNV 16, hasbeen manufactured with clay different from that of the preceding groups. This clay is more micritic, with veryfine quartz and polycrystalline limestone, but there is not diagnostic mineral, in contrast to all the otherfabrics. The typological analysis, whenever it has been possible to apply it to the definition of the vesselsshapes, does not show any comparison with the microscopic groups (see the already-mentioned samples KNV4 (G2) and 18 (G3)).

8. DANILO BITINJ (Šibenik)

The open-air Neolithic site of Danilo Bitinj is located in the fertile Valley of Danilo, an elongated depres-sion of karstic origin that lies some 18 km east of Šibenik (figs. 49 and 56). It was discovered by chance byRandic-Miocević in 1952 during an archaeological survey whose aim was the discovery of Roman objects.

The Neolithic site lies in a very fertile agricultural region and is distributed over an area of some 70x20 m,covering 1400 square m. The excavations by KOROŠEc (1958) revealed a Neolithic occupation some 1.50 mthick, whose lower part, 70-80 cm deep, was still intact, while the upper had been disturbed by deep plou-

114

ghing. The excavations revealed a number of features such as pits, even though remains of habitations or of so-called “hut-foundations” were never found. Nevertheless, the presence of large quantities of characteristicpieces of daub should indicated that houses might have existed in the excavated area or close to it. Highconcentrations of daub have been found in the eastern and northern side of the excavation. The pits are mostprobably to be interpreted either as rubbish pits, filled with archaeological soil mixed with potsherds, flinttools, charcoal and bones, or as clay-pits. According to KOROŠEC (1958), they are to be subdivided into twogroups, the first of which includes small and regular pits of symmetrical shape most probably employed asstorage pits; the second includes pits of larger dimension and irregular shape, poorer in material culture re-mains whose function was, most probably that of clay pits.

The excavation at the site also yielded three graves of young individuals buried in a crouched position,without grave goods. The skeletons were oriented in north-south and northwest-southeast directions. The greatquantity of daub pieces discovered in the same area of the graves seems to indicate that the individuals had beenburied inside, or very close to, the houses. An isolated skull was found in another area of the excavation.

Material culture remainsAll the above-mentioned pits are particularly rich in ceramic fragments, followed by chipped and po-

lished stones, bone and antler tools. Regarding the chipped stone tools, the site yielded a great variety of flinttools, among them a few long tanged arrowheads (obtained from blades with bifacial flat retouch) that aretypical of the Middle Neolithic of the Dalmatian coast. Knives obtained by the same technique are representedas well. Obsidian artefacts include only seven tools. Its provenance is still unknown since no analysis for itsidentification has so far been conducted. Among the polished stone tools are axes and adzes of differenttypology, a few hammerstones and pestles. Red-deer antler and bone tools are rare, comprising a few awls andsome smoothers. Furthermore, there are some peculiarly shaped stone and bone objects, possibly pendants,and a few ornaments made from marine shells.

The pottery can be subdivided into four different groups, including monochrome, plain and decoratedpottery with incised, geometric and curvilinear patterns (zigzags, rhombic, spirals, chess-boards, etc.), pain-ted pottery and unpainted figulina ware. The shapes of the plain and the incised pottery are very similar. Eachtype includes hemispherical bowls, jugs, flasks, and deep vessels with restricted mouth, high-pedestalledvases and shallow plates. The fabrics of both these categories seem to be identical (KOROŠEC, 1958: 108-109:tab. 1-4). The incisions are often filled with red (ochre) inlay, only one fragment has white inlay. According toKOROŠEC (1958) the technology employed in the manufacture of incised pottery is the same of that of the plainone, even though it was burnished after firing. The shallow plates and the deep vessels with restricted mouthare of a shape that is very similar to that of some characteristic Butmir Culture (BENAC, 1952) types (KOROŠEC,1959: T. LXXXIV).

Following KOROŠEC (1958: 97), from a technological point of view, the painted pottery is absolutelydifferent from the other types. It is fired at lower temperature and its surfaces are always polished and reddishin colour. The clay utilised for its manufacture was most probably imported (KOROŠEC, 1958: 57). The decora-tive patterns are represented by linear and geometric (rectangular, triangular, rhombic and chess-board) motifson the body vessel and, more rarely, in its internal surface, while spiral decorations are absent (BENAC andMARIJANOVIć, 1993: 135). The commonest shapes include flasks similar to the plain ware ones as well asshallow plates. The colours utilised to decorate the surfaces of the vessels are various ranging from white, red,and black to brown. White colour, more rarely light grey, was mainly used as a slip; while red was oftenemployed to decorate wide surfaces.

The Danilo pottery from Danilo Bitinj comprises several so-called “cult” vessels, or rhyta, and someother peculiar ceramic objects. The rhyta are distributed all along the Dalmatian coast (MONTAGNARI KOKELJ

and CRISMANI, 1993) as well as in Greece and in Central Bosnia (BIAGI, 2003). Their shape is very distinctive,with four (or two) legs, a circular open mouth and a wide stripe handle. They are often decorated with incisedpatterns, sometimes filled with red ochre. According to KOROŠEC (1958: 59), the two-legged types are proba-bly to be referred to female, human figures. Other plastic objects are represented by stylised animal heads,most probably bulls (KOROŠEC, 1958: 60).

Other interesting finds are four ceramic, cylindrical objects, probably phalli that are quite common toboth the Danilo and Hvar Cultures. BATOVIć (1968: 51) suggests that they represent male human figures thatprove “the bisexual elements of the fertility cult in the Danilo Culture”.

¯ 115

Fig. 56 - Danilo Bitinj: location of the Neolithic settlement in the centre of the picture (photograph by P. Biagi).

Subsistence EconomyThe subsistence economy of Danilo was based on animal husbandry and agriculture (BENAC and MARIJA-

NOVI}, 1993: 135), as is indicated by some specific implements such as stone tools related to agriculturalactivities, among which are axes and whetstones. Straw impressions related to house roofing have also beendiscovered. The analyses of the daub fragments have shown the presence of seeds of Triticum monococcumand dicoccum, Hordeum vulgare and Secale dalmaticum (KOROŠEC, 1958: 124-128; HOPF, 1964). The faunalremains include bones of both domesticated (cattle, sheep, goat, pig and dog), and wild animals (red and roedeer, chamois, fox, and various bird species). The diet of the Danilo inhabitants included also sea-shells(Mytilus, Cardium, Spondylus, Ostrea, Patella, Murex, Cypreae), and land snails.

Relationships with other CulturesThe relationships with other coeval cultures of both sides of the Adriatic are to be sought in several

varieties of pottery. The Danilo figulina pottery is very similar to that of the Neolithic village of Ripoli incentral Italy in both shapes and decorations (see Chapter 5, 5.). The use of bands of linear geometric motifs ofred and brown colour is common at both sites. Also at Ripoli the vessels very often show a whitish slip, withcoloured, painted geometric patterns. Among the differences one can note that lugs are present at Ripoli andabsent at Danilo.

The more evident relationships between the Danilo and Butmir Cultures lie in the occurrence of highpedestal and restricted mouth vessels at both sites, as well as in some decorative, linear geometric and spiralpatterns. The presence of clay animal heads is attested in both cultures, even though the Danilo specimens arealways incised, while those of Butmir are plastic or produce a plastic effect.

In the Trieste and Slovene Karst, many cave sites have yielded Danilo type wares. They have been descri-bed as belonging to the Vlaška horizon, a local, impoverished aspect of the Danilo Culture (BARFIELD, 1972).A recent re-examination of most of these finds (BARFIELD, 1999), and the preliminary results of the excava-tions at Edera Cave in the Trieste Karst (BIAGI et al., 1993), and at the open-air village of Sammardenchia,seem to demonstrate that the northernmost limit reached by the expansion of the Danilo Culture was theeastern Friuli Plain. This is indicated by the recovery of Danilo pottery and fragments of typical rhyta and ofone clay phallus at Sammardenchia (PESSINA et al., 1998: 139).

Even though no radiocarbon date is currently available for Danilo Bitinj, we know that this culture was

116

active since the middle of the seventh millennium BP. This is demonstrated by a series of radiocarbon datesfrom Gudnja pe}ina (CHAPMAN, 1988: 7), along the southern Dalmatian coast, and from Edera Cave in theTrieste Karst (NISBET, 2000; Biagi and Spataro, 1999-2000). The radiocarbon dates recently obtained for theHvar Culture site of Grapčeva spilja (FORENBAHER and KAISER, 2000) show that this latter culture is to beascribed to the first half of the sixth millennium BP.


The geology of the site is very similar to that of the Ravni Kotari region, in the Province of Zadar, located75 km to the south. It is characterised by limestone, dolomitic limestone, and some narrow lenses of fossilife-rous (Foraminifera) limestone (Drniš, K 33-139 Osnovna Geološka Karta SFRJ, 1:100000).

8.2. ANALYSES

Three different fabrics have been identified for the twenty-five potsherds analysed from the Danilo phaseof the site of Danilo Bitinj (figs. 57-59; table 10, Appendix 3).

G1 - (11 samples: DB 1, 3, 6, 8, 13, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24) (fig. 60a)Dark brown, iron-rich, slightly calcareous matrix characterised by poorly-sorted angular and subangular quartz (up to 15%; sizerange between 0.1 by 0.08 and 0.03 by 0.02 mm), some muscovite mica (about 2%), opaques and iron oxides (3%), rounded fragmen-ts of polycrystalline limestone (3%; typical size 0.5 by 0.2 mm). The temper is composed of crushed sparry calcite (<30%; size rangebetween 0.5 by 0.3 and 0.25 by 0.2 mm);

sub. a (3 samples: DB 2, 9, 18)Light brown calcareous matrix richer in well-sorted angular and subangular quartz than that of G1 (20%; typical size 0.03 by 0.02mm), opaques and iron oxides (<5%), clay pellets, rounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (5%; typical size 0.5 by 0.4 mm),and abundant added crushed calcite (>25%; size range between 1.0 by 0.5 and 0.5 by 0.3 mm);

sub. b (1 sample: DB 22) (fig. 60b)Dark brown, iron-rich, micritic matrix similar to that of G1, containing fine, well-sorted angular and subangular quartz (20%; typicalsize 0.03 by 0.02 mm), added crushed calcite (30%; same size range as G1), and one fragment of fossiliferous limestone (size: 4.0 by1.2 mm).

G2 - (4 samples: DB 4, 5, 7, 12) (fig. 60c)Brown-reddish, very iron-rich matrix characterised by iron oxides, well-sorted angular and subangular quartz (15%; typical size 0.04by 0.02 mm), muscovite mica (about 1%), rare pyroxene, rounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (2%; typical size 0.3 by 0.2mm), and abundant added crushed calcite (<30%; typical size 0.5 by 0.25 mm).

G3 - figulina pottery (total 6 samples)3a) fine figulina (3 samples: DB 10, 15, 16) (fig. 60d)Reddish, very fine, very slightly micritic and vitrified matrix, very well-sorted and fine angular and subangular quartz (<5%; typicalsize 0.02 by 0.01 mm), fine muscovite mica (up to 3%), iron oxides (<7%), very rare pyroxene, and one crystal of feldspar in DB 10;3b) medium figulina (2 samples: DB 14, 25) (fig. 60e)Red-brownish, calcareous matrix characterised by fine rounded fragments of limestone (<15%; typical size 0.05 by 0.03 mm), poor-ly-sorted abundant angular and subangular quartz (15%; range size between 0.06 by 0.03 and 0.03 by 0.02 mm), rich in muscovitemica (>5%), iron oxides (7%), rare polycrystalline quartz, and pyroxene. Sample DB 14 shows one microfossil (fig. 60f);3c) coarse figulina (1 sample: DB 11) (fig. 60g)Brown calcareous matrix characterised by very abundant rounded and subrounded fragments of limestone (20%; typical size 0.05 by0.04 mm), well-sorted angular and subangular quartz (<25%; typical size 0.05 by 0.04 mm), muscovite mica (5%), iron oxides, rarefeldspar, pyroxene, and one single fragment of calcite.

One soil sample collected in the proximity of the site (0.5 km) has been studied in thin section (figs. 49 and 60h). It is a Beta Bclay (R. MACPHAIL, pers. comm. 2001). It shows a dark red, very iron-rich, non-calcareous fabric characterised by angular andsubangular quartz (20%; size range between 0.08 by 0.05 and 0.03 by 0.02 mm), abundant weathered limestone (20%; size rangebetween 3.0 by 2.0 and 0.05 by 0.03 mm), abundant iron oxides (>5%), very pure red clay, and rare muscovite.

8.2.1. Summary of group characteristicsGroup 1 has a dark brown, iron-rich, micritic fabric with quartz, fragments of polycrystalline limestone,

some muscovite, opaques, iron oxides, and added crushed calcite. The fabric of G1 sub. a is more micritic,richer in quartz, iron oxides and polycrystalline limestone than that of G1. The fabric of G1 sub. b is similar tothat of G1. It contains finer and more abundant angular and subangular quartz and some fossiliferous limesto-ne. Group 2 shows a brown reddish, non-micritic, iron-rich fabric with quartz, muscovite, pyroxene, and ahigh percentage of added calcite. The third group (G3) is that of the figulina pottery. Three different fabrics

¯ 117

Fig. 57 - Danilo Bitinj: potsherds from the Danilo Culture settlement.

118


¯ 119


120

a)

c)

e)

g)

b)

d)

f)

h)

Fig. 60 - Danilo Bitinj: Photomicrographs of thin section samples: a) DB 1, b) DB 22, c) DB 4, d) DB 15, e) DB 25, f) DB 14, g) DB 11, h) soil sample(XPL, X40) with the exception of DB 14 (XPL, X100) (photographs by M. Spataro).

¯ 121

have been identified within this ceramic group: a) fine, b) medium, and c) coarse. The fine figulina (G3a)shows a reddish, slightly micritic, very silty, vitrified and iron-rich matrix with very sparse detrital fraction,composed of very fine quartz and muscovite mica, iron oxides, and one small piece of feldspar. The mediumfigulina (G3b) has a brown, very calcareous matrix with abundant and coarser quartz, muscovite, and ironoxides. One of the samples shows one microfossil (DB14). The coarse variety G3c (DB 11) has a very calca-reous matrix very similar to that of G3b, although it is richer in inclusions. It has a higher percentage of quartzand small fragments of polycrystalline limestone.

The soil sample analysed in thin section shows some similarities with the fabric of G2 (iron-rich and non-calcareous), although it is richer in iron and limestone fragments.

8.2.2. SEM-EDS analysesThe results of the SEM-EDS analysis of the ordinary Danilo Bitinj pottery, groups 1 and 2, are very

homogeneous (table 10, Appendix 4). G1 shows some fluctuations in the percentages of silica (26.40-46.20%;most probably due to the presence of quartz) and aluminia (19.20-24.60%), and a high quantity of calciumoxide. G1 sub. a and b yielded almost identical results. The main difference between G1 sub. b and G1consists in the presence of fossiliferous limestone. The results obtained from G2 are similar to those of G1.This is interesting because the main difference observed in thin section is that of the matrix (micritic in G1 andnon-micritic in G2; the calcium oxide in both groups is due to calcite). In contrast, G3 yielded very differentdata.

The fine figulina (G3a) contains a very high amount of magnesia (4.70%), silica (47.25%), potash (3.60%),and iron oxide (10.28%), whereas the calcium oxide is rather low (13.73%). The percentage of magnesia ofthe medium figulina pottery (G3b) is higher (2.54-2.72%) than that of the ordinary pottery, although lowerthan that of G3a. The percentage of silica (45.80-47.20%), potash (3.36-3.66%) and iron oxide (8.30-9.00%)is high, whereas the content of calcium oxide is rather low (11.30-12.18%). The coarse figulina (G3c) has thehighest content of silica (51.75%), a high percentage of potash (3.33%), and iron oxide (8.93%), a quantity ofmagnesia (1.55%) and calcium oxide (7.20%) lower than that of the fine and medium figulina. The highpercentage of CaO in G3a might be due to secondary calcite, due to post-depositional factors, noted in thinsection.

To conclude, the SEM-EDS analyses clearly show that two very different sources were exploited for themanufacture of the Danilo Bitinj ceramic assemblage. The clay exploited for the production of the figulina wareis richer in magnesia, silica, potash, and iron oxide. Its content of calcium oxide is lower than that employed inthe ordinary pottery. The clays used for G3a, b and c show some differences, mainly in the contents of magnesiaand iron oxide whose percentages are higher than those of the fine figulina. It is very interesting to note that thepercentages of both potash and silica are rather similar (mainly between G3 a and b).

The fine figulina from Danilo Bitinj shows results very similar to those of the fine figulina from Smilčić(Danilo and Hvar phases) (tables 6, 7, and 10, Appendix 4). This might indicate that they come from commonsources (Chapter 5, 4.1.; 7.).

8.2.3. XRD analysesTwo soil samples have been collected and analysed by XRD. The pattern of the first sample (Danilo.1:

fig. 61, top) is characterised by kaolinite, muscovite mica, quartz, chlorite, and calcite. The second sample(Danilo.2: fig. 61, centre) shows kaolinite, muscovite mica, chlorite, calcite, quartz, hematite and chlorapatite.

Four potsherds analysed in thin section have also been studied by XRD. Two of these belong to theordinary pottery (DB 1, 13), the other two to the figulina ware (DB 10, 14). The patterns of the soil samplesand of the ordinary pottery (DB 1: fig. 62, top; DB 13: fig. 61, bottom) have kaolinitic matrices (Chapter 2,6.1.: in this case kaolinite does not occur with chlorite; therefore this pattern cannot be misunderstood). Thepottery (DB 1 and DB 13) shows almost the same minerals -i.e.- calcite, quartz, and hematite. Hematite is awidely distributed mineral in many formations: all rocks are iron-bearing (FORD, 1949: 485). The patterns ofthe soil also show some muscovite, which does not appear in the patterns of the sherds. Nevertheless, it isrepresented in their fabric, as demonstrated by the thin section analyses. The chlorite present in the soil (Da-nilo.1) is a common mineral closely related to the micas. Samples DB 1 (G1: fig. 62, top) and DB 13 (G1: fig.61, bottom) also show the presence of anatase. The patterns of the fine and medium figulina wares (DB 10,G3a and DB 14, G3b: figs. 62, centre and 62, bottom) are similar. Both show orthoclase, quartz, and musco-

122

vite. Orthoclase is a common silicate found in plutonic and igneous rocks, gneiss, and syenite. It also recurs incoarser sedimentary rocks, such as conglomerates and sandstones (FORD, 1949: 485). The medium figulinahas some calcite (this is also very clear from the thin section analysis), whereas the fine one, whose carbonateshave been completely burnt out, shows some albite. Albite does occur in many igneous rocks, even though itcan be also found disseminated in granular limestone in very low concentrations.

To conclude, the XRD analyses indicate two distinct groups of pottery characterised by similar minerals(DB 1 and DB 13 on one side, and DB 10 and DB 14 on the other). The patterns of the soil samples and thoseof the ordinary pottery of the microscopic group 1 show strong similarities. This is also confirmed by theresults of the thin section analysis.

An interesting point arises from the figulina wares patterns. They are very similar to each other, sugge-sting a possible common source or that they derive from a similar pedological area. The only difference is thepresence of albite, a mineral that occurs in limestone formations in very low concentrations. In this case, theSEM-EDS analyses have been more helpful in defining the differences in the clay of these two groups.

8.3. DISCUSSION

Group 1 comes from a calcareous clay source with abundant quartz and some mica muscovite. The matrixof group 2 is non-micritic; it is more silty and iron-rich than G1. It comes from a different source, richer in ironoxides. It is probably located in a very similar pedological area as attested by the presence of the same mine-rals. G3b and c most probably come from different (or from the same?) depositional layers of the same source.Their fabrics show strong similarities, they are characterised by the same calcareous matrix with variablepercentages of identical inclusions. The differences observed in their fabrics might derive from a longer pe-riod of decantation. It is very difficult to define a source of provenance for the potsherds of group 3a becausethey contain very few but common minerals (quartz, iron oxides, and mica). Their fabrics are absolutelydifferent from those of all the others samples so far analysed from this site: they are finer, more silty, vitrified,slightly micritic and the inclusions are very rare and fine.

8.4. CONCLUSIONS

The production technology of the ordinary pottery of both groups 1 and 2 is similar. They show a temperincluding added crushed sparry calcite. The firing temperature is always lower than 750 °C. This is demon-strated by the presence of intact single minerals of calcite. On the other hand, the presence of kaolinite sugge-sts a short firing. Therefore some areas of the pots did not fire at a temperature higher than 500-600 °C(Chapter 2, 6.1.). From a technological point of view, interesting similarities can be extended to the Danilophase pottery of Smilčić. The temper and the firing temperatures are the same in both cases (Chapter 6, 2.;4.2.).

The minerals that characterise the inclusions of the Danilo Bitinj vessels are identical to those included inthe soil samples. In particular, the fossils of sample DB 22 (G1 sub. b) belong to Foraminifera that are com-mon to the limestone deposits of the territory surrounding the site and the Dalmatian coast. On the basis ofthese data it is possible to suggest that these vessels were produced locally.

Another point is that of the figulina pottery. It is very difficult to define the provenance of the raw materialof the fine figulina ware. The minerals represented in its matrix are very few and common. The matrix itself isvery fine, silty and vitrified, rich in iron oxides, and muscovite mica. It also shows a low percentage of quartz.The figulina pottery of groups 3b and 3c, is much richer in detrital fraction (presence of a very high percentageof minerals), than group 3a. The minerals are those observed in the potsherds of group 3a, although their sizerange is larger. Another characteristic is the very calcareous matrix that is totally different from that of thefinest variety. Even though the XRD patterns show strong similarities between the two figulina groups (G3aand b), the thin sections of these vessels show a noticeable difference. The fine figulina, in contrast with themedium one, is much richer in iron oxides, poorer in carbonates, and with very rare inclusions. According tothe results of the XRD, G3a and b can be grouped together because the minerals of both samples are identical(they show the same kind of silicate, orthoclase). According to the SEM-EDS results, the clay of G3a, isdifferent from G3b because it contains higher percentages of magnesia and iron oxide and lower aluminia.

The manufacturing phases of the figulina ceramics are different from those of the ordinary pottery. Alonger process must have been used to decant the clay, and leaving the clay for at least 1-2 weeks (levigation).This process is necessary to obtain finer clay from which the coarse fraction has been eliminated. The fine

¯ 123

Fig. 61 - Danilo Bitinj: XRD pattern of soil sample 1 (top) and 2 (centre), and potsherd DB 1 (bottom)

124

Fig. 62 - Danilo Bitinj: XRD pattern of potsherds DB 13 ((top), DB 10 (centre) and DB 14 (bottom).

¯ 125

figulina was highly fired at a temperature of some 850 °C, as shown by the vitrified fabric. It is reasonable tothink that it has been fired in a kiln (therefore the potter could control the temperature) for 1-2 hours, becausealmost all the carbonates have been burnt off (I. FREESTONE, pers. comm. 2001) (Chapter 5, 7.).

8.4.1. Correlation between fabric and typologyThe inhabitants of the Middle Neolithic site of Danilo Bitinj exploited very similar clay sources for the

manufacture of stylistically and typologically different vessels. There is no firm evidence that indicates theexploitation of one particular source for the production of a specific typological class of ceramic. No correla-tion can be made between fabric and typology in this Danilo phase. The clay sources exploited are only two.Groups 1 and 2 include very different Danilo Culture shapes and decorations among which are dishes, largeopen bowls, sometimes carinated, cylindrical pedestals and oval-shaped deep, vessels. Some of the fine warepotsherds are decorated with scratched geometric motifs, while the coarse shapes bear linear incised patternsdescending from the rim.

Clear relationships between fabric and typology do exist in the figulina pottery. It is interesting to notethat the finer figulina ware of group 3a is characterised by a more refined and sophisticated typology andmorphology. The more typical shapes are hemispherical bowls and flasks with very thin walls (0.3-0.4 mmthick). Jugs with 1 cm thick walls, mainly represent the microscopic fabrics of G3b and c that group the coarsefigulina together. They are thicker than those of the fine figulina pottery. Another important point is that, fromtypological/stylistic, microscopic and SEM-EDS points of view, the figulina potsherds analysed from theDanilo and Hvar phases of the Neolithic site of Smilčić are extremely similar to the fine figulina ware ofDanilo Bitinj (Chapter 3, 5.5.). They also show the same types of correlations between fine and coarse waregroups (Chapter 5, 4.1.).

9. VELA [PILJA (Kor čula Island)

The cave of Vela špilja (The Great Cave) opens at an altitude of some 130 m above the Bay of Kala, on theIsland of Korčula. The area where the cave is located is called Pinski Point (figs. 63 and 64). Its entrance is 10m wide and faces south-west (ČEčUK, 1985). N. Ostojić was the first to mention the cave in 1853, and M.Sgjivoje initiated unsystematic excavations in 1950. One year later, G. Novak opened several trial trenchesfrom which Neolithic monochrome and painted wares were recovered. This pottery showed clear parallelswith the ceramics from Grapčeva spilja on the Island of Hvar, which had been attributed to the Hvar Culture.Systematic excavations were initiated in 1974 under the direction of G. Novak and, after his death in 1978, ofB. ČEčUK.

The first occupation layersFrom an archaeological point of view, the cave is extremely important. It was inhabited, at least since the

end of the Late Palaeolithic (ČEčUK and RADIć, 2000a). The discovery of an Epigravettian assemblage in thelowermost levels of the sequence is of great interest. According to the excavators the chipped stone assemblagefrom this layer is characterised by short and circular end scrapers, backed blades and microlithic geometrics.

The cave was occupied also during the Mesolithic period, most probably during the Pre-boreal or Borealclimatic phases, as well as by the beginning of the Neolithic. This latter phase is documented by CardiumImpressed Ware potsherds also with recurrent “rocker” decoration (ČEčUK, 1987; ČEčUK and RADIć, 2000;2000a; 2001).

The Neolithic sequence, some 3 m thick, has yielded occupation layers belonging to the three mainNeolithic cultural phases known along the Dalmatian coast, that is to the Impressed Ware, Danilo, and HvarCultures. The uppermost deposits have been attributed to the Chalcolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages. Later, Hi-storical occupations are attested by the recovery of Greek, Roman and Byzantine ceramics.

The Impressed Ware horizon was first recognised during the 1986 and 1987 excavations (ČEčUK, 1987),which carried out in the north-eastern and central part of the cave, after removing the Bronze Age and Chalco-lithic (Ljubljana Culture) layers. The material culture assemblage is composed of Cardium, instrumental andfingernail decorated potsherds, bone and flint artefacts and two small polished greenstone, pierced axes, mostprobably employed as pendants or amulets.

126

Fig. 63 - Vela špilja: location of the cave (dot) and soil sample (square).

Fig. 64 - Vela špilja: cave entrance (photograph by M. Spataro).

¯ 127

In the same area, below the Impressed Ware occupation, was found one layer, some 80 cm thick, rich inanimal bones, land snails and marine shells, containing just a few flint artefacts. At the base of this layer, 20cm above the bedrock, 2 skeletons were discovered. They lay in a crouched position and belonged to veryyoung individuals some 2-4 years old. They were surrounded by stones and cobbles, which indicate the pre-sence of an intentional grave. This layer is most probably to be attributed to the Mesolithic.

The Hvar CultureThe Hvar Culture layer is the richest Neolithic horizon so far discovered in the cave. The importance of this

ceramic assemblage is mainly due to the peculiarity of some of the painted potsherds which were recovered.According to ČEčUK (1977) a small number of potsherds, decorated with red painted lines, which have neverbeen found before at any Hvar site of the Dalmatian archipelago, show strong similarities with some ceramicsfrom southern Italy, Albania and Ionian Greece. Following ČEčUK (1987), the Hvar Culture painted pottery fromthis site shows a quantity of new decorative elements that might indicate a local new variant of this culture.

Two skeletons were discovered during the 1985 excavations. They were lying on their left side, in acrouched position. Their arms and legs were contracted and the heads bent and placed on a stone base. One ofthe individuals had a typical Hvar Culture vessel positioned as a grave good. Fragments of Hvar Culture blackpolished pottery were found close to the bones of the other skeleton and several marine shells were collectedclose to its skull. The discovery of intact Neolithic Hvar Culture graves is unique for the Dalmatian islands.Human remains of this period had already been recorded from Grapčeva spilja (NOVAK , 1955), Smilčić (BATO-VIć, 1966), and Lisičići (BENAC, 1954; 1955), although the human remains from these sites have always beenfound isolated and scattered throughout the archaeological layers.

Apart from the ceramic assemblage, the Hvar Culture sequence yielded numerous flints, polished stoneand bone artefacts (awls, points, pins) and several lower and upper querns of various shape and size. Tworeports have recently been published on the fauna from this cave.

The first regards the mammal and shellfish remains (BAKI ć, 2001), the second the bird bones (MALEZ,2001). This latter stresses the importance of the avifauna for the understanding of the environmental varia-tions that took place in the area during the periods when the cave was inhabited. Regarding the mammalbones, the assemblage is represented by both domestic (sheep/goat, cattle, ass) and wild animals (red deer,wild horse, boar). Of particular importance are also the large fish and marine mammal bones (dolphin, tuna,sea bream), and the marine shellfish (oyster and Mytilus), some of which show circular or squared perfora-tions. Even though no radiocarbon date is yet available from this cave a new series of dates from the neighbou-ring cave of Grapčeva would suggest that the Hvar horizon is to be attributed to the (entire) sixth millenniumBP. The dates obtained from this latter cave fall between 6000±80 BP (Beta-103487) and 5460±60 BP (Beta-103482) (FORENBAHER and KAISER, 2000).


The geology of the area surrounding the cave of Vela špilja is characterised by Lithothamnius limestoneand dolomite. A terra rossa outcrop is located some 2 km south of the site (Lastovo i Palagru•a, K 33-146 I 57Osnovna Geološka Karta SFRJ, 1:100000).

9.2 ANALYSES

Forty potsherds have been analysed from the Hvar Culture layer of the cave site of Vela špilja (figs.65-68; tables 11a, b, Appendix 3 and table 4, Appendix 1), from which five different groups have beenidentified.

G1 - (17 samples: VS 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 24, 26, 27, 35, 36, 39, 40) (fig. 69a)Brown, dark-brown, iron-rich calcareous matrix characterised by angular and subangular quartz (>15%; size range between 0.06 by0.04 and 0.03 by 0.02 mm), some rounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (3%; typical size 0.3 by 0.2 mm), abundant ironoxides and opaques, rare muscovite mica (<1%), and very abundant added crushed sparry calcite (<30%; size range between 1.5 by0.5 and 0.1 by 0.07 mm);

sub. a (6 samples: VS 3, 6, 7, 8, 19, 22) (fig. 69b)Brown, light brown, calcareous matrix less rich in iron than that of G1, characterised by well-sorted angular and subangular quartz(10%; same size range of G1), some opaques and iron oxides (<5%), very rare rounded fragments of limestone (<1%; typical size asG1), and abundant added crushed calcite (up to 20%; size range between 0.8 by 0.2 and 0.3 by 0.2 mm).

128

G2 - (1 sample: VS 34) (fig. 69c)Fine brown, slightly micritic, iron-rich matrix with well-sorted abundant angular and subangular quartz (25%; typical size 0.03 by0.02 mm), rare muscovite mica (1%), occasional rounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (typical size 0.04 by 0.03 mm), noadded inclusion and abundant iron oxides (<10%);

sub. a (1 sample: VS 18) (fig. 69d)This matrix is very similar to that of sample VS 34 (G2) but less micritic. It shows some added sparry calcite (15%; size rangebetween 1.0 by 0.7 and 0.2 by 0.1 mm);

sub. b (1 sample: VS 31)Brown iron-rich matrix similar to that of G2, more micritic, characterised by small rounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone(up to 10%; size range 0.35 by 0.3 and 0.07 by 0.05 mm), abundant poorly-sorted, angular and subangular quartz (25%; size rangebetween 0.08 by 0.04 and 0.03 by 0.02 mm), rare muscovite mica (1%), and iron oxides (7%).

G3 - (6 samples: VS 12, 13, 23, 29, 33, 38) (fig. 69e)Dark red very iron-rich matrix, mainly terra rossa, characterised by some fragments of rounded limestone (about 2%; typical size 0.1by 0.08 mm), few well-sorted angular and subangular quartz (5%; typical size 0.05 by 0.03 mm). The temper is composed of abun-dant crushed sparry calcite (up to 30%; size range between 0.9 by 0.6 and 0.6 by 0.5 mm).

G4 - (7 samples: VS 1, 2, 25, 28, 30, 32, 37) (fig. 69f)Reddish iron-rich matrix, slightly micritic, with well-sorted and fine quartz (10%; typical size 0.04 by 0.02 mm), some opaques, ironoxides (5%), rare fragments of rounded polycrystalline limestone (1%; typical size 0.3 by 0.2 mm), added crushed calcite (up to 30%;size range between 1.0 by 0.8 and 0.5 by 0.3 mm), and some elongated and rounded chunks of terra rossa soil.

G5 - (1 sample: VS 21) (fig. 69g)Dark red very iron-rich, silty and non-micritic matrix characterised by iron oxides (>10%), poorly-sorted angular and subangularquartz (<10%; size range between 0.08 by 0.03 and 0.12 by 0.06 mm), some rounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (<2%;typical size 0.2 by 0.1 mm), clay pellets containing quartz (3%), and some fragments of grog.

One soil sample (figs. 63 and 69h) collected at the entrance of the cave has been studied in thin section. It shows a brown-reddish, iron-rich, non-calcareous fabric with abundant, well-sorted, fine angular and subangular quartz (30%; typical size 0.03 by0.02 mm), opaques and iron oxides (3%), some limestone fragments (2%; typical size 0.06 by 0.04 mm), and rare flint and pyroxene(1%). It is a Bt/Ct, gleyic deep Ap (colluvium) probably from a luvisol area (R. MACPHAIL, pers. comm. 2001).

9.2.1. Summary of group characteristicsGroup 1 is characterised by a dark brown iron-rich micritic fabric, some quartz, few fragments of rounded

limestone, rare muscovite mica, iron oxides, and abundant added crushed calcite. The fabric of group 1 sub. ais slightly different because it has very rare fragments of polycrystalline limestone and is poorer in quartz andiron than G1. Group 2 has a brown, slightly micritic and iron-rich fabric with well-sorted fine angular andsubangular quartz smaller and more abundant than G1, rare muscovite, high percentage of iron oxides, occa-sional fragments of polycrystalline limestone, and no artificially added inclusions. G2 sub. a is almost identi-cal to G2, with some added crushed calcite. The matrix of G2 sub. b is very similar to that of G2, but moremicritic. Group 3 shows a very iron-rich fabric mainly of terra rossa, fine quartz, some rounded polycrystal-line limestone, and abundant added crushed calcite. Group 4 has a fine slightly calcareous fabric rich in ironoxides, some quartz, added crushed calcite and elongated, rounded chunks of terra rossa soil. Group 5 ischaracterised by a very silty, fine, iron-rich fabric with quartz, some clay pellets, and rounded polycrystallinelimestone pellets. It has been tempered with grog.

The soil sample shows some similarities with the fabric of G2 (VS 34), although the latter has less quartzand iron than the soil sample, and does not contain any pyroxene or flint.

9.2.2. SEM-EDS analysesGroup 1 shows a low percentage of aluminia (10.00-13.80%) and a very high percentage of calcium oxide

(with large fluctuations between 25.18 and 39.84%) (table 11, Appendix 4). The high percentage of calciumoxide is due to the micritic matrix and the added calcite; the variations to the presence or absence (in bulkanalysis) of calcite. G1 sub. a shows percentages very similar to those of G1. Small differences can be obser-ved in thin section but not in the SEM-EDS analyses (see thin section analysis). The data obtained from G2 arevery different from those of G1 and its subgroup. It has higher quantities of aluminia (17.80%), silica (60.20%),potash and iron oxide, while the percentage of calcium oxide is much lower (absence of calcite). Its subgroup(G2 sub. a) is almost identical. The only exception is the slightly higher percentage of calcium oxide, which ismost probably due to the small amount of added crushed calcite that is absent in G2. The percentage of silica

¯ 129

Fig. 65 - Vela špilja: pottery from the Hvar Culture layers.

130


¯ 131


132

Fig 68 - Vela špilja: pottery from the Havr Culture layers.

¯ 133

Fig. 69 - Vela špilja: photomicrographs of thin section samples: a) VS 14, b) VS 7, c) VS 34, d) VS 18, e) VS 29, f) VS 32, g) VS 21, h) soil sample(XPL, X40) (photographs by M. Spataro).

a)

c)

e)

g)

b)

d)

f)

h)

134

in G3 is lower than that of G1 and G2, mainly because of the smaller quantity of quartz in the fabrics. Thequantity of calcium oxide is similar to that of G1, while iron oxide is slightly more abundant. According toboth the SEM-EDS and the thin section results, G4 is rather similar to G3. The difference consists in theelongated, rounded chunks of terra rossa (see Chapter 3, 9.2.1.) and in a slightly higher concentration ofmagnesia and lower percentages of aluminia and titania in G4. Group 5 shows results very different fromthose of the preceding ones, because of the highest percentages of aluminia (25.60%) and iron oxide (11.38%)and the very low quantity of calcium oxide (5.06%). According to the above-mentioned results, compositionaldifferences can be noted among the microscopic groups; in particular, those of G2 and G5 are very differentfrom those of the other groups as also observed through thin section analysis.

9.3. DISCUSSION

Groups 1 and 1 sub. a come from very similar sources. The fabric of G1 is more iron-rich and containsmore quartz than that of G1 sub. a. These sources might be located close to each other because of the simila-rities observed in the fabrics. Group 2 derives from a more different source (as also testified by the SEM-EDSresults). Its fabric is much less micritic than G1. It is more silty and richer in well-sorted quartz than thepreceding group. The clay source exploited for the manufacture of group 3 is absolutely different from thoseof groups 1 and 2. It is non-micritic, mainly composed of terra rossa, and very rich in iron. This clay musthave been very plastic, needing a high quantity of temper, represented by the high percentage of added cru-shed calcite. The source exploited for the production of the ceramics of group 4 is silty, slightly micritic, withsome terra rossa soil. Finally, group 5 is characterised by a different clay source, much more silty, finer andbetter-sorted than those of the preceding groups (it also shows the highest percentages of aluminia and ironoxide: see SEM-EDS results). It contains some polycrystalline limestone and also grog.

All the above-mentioned sources clearly derive from sedimentary deposits, as shown by the abundance ofrounded and subrounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone and calcite.

9.4. CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the potsherds analyses, the inhabitants of Vela špilja, exploited at least five relativelydifferent sources for the production of their vessels during the Hvar habitation phase. The first source, for themanufacture of most of the ceramics of groups 1 and 1 sub. a, is very micritic. The sources utilised for groups2 and 5 are different from each other. G2 is slightly micritic with more abundant quartz, whereas G5 is non-calcareous, more silty and richer in iron than G2. Nevertheless, they are both very silty and less micritic thanthose employed for the ceramics of the preceding two groups (with the exception of sample VS 31, G2 sub. b).The source of group 3 is very rich in iron and composed of terra rossa, while that exploited for G4 must havebeen located close to a terra rossa outcrop (there are few chunks of terra rossa). Group 5 is characterised bya matrix siltier than the preceding ones. As mentioned above, a terra rossa outcrop is located close to the site.The iron-rich matrices such as those of groups 3 and 5 are very common to the karstic areas.

The data obtained from the geological map of the Korčula Island are in accordance with a local provenan-ce of the pottery of the Hvar phase of Vela špilja. The area is characterised by limestone, micritic soil, andterra rossa. Most of the pottery (groups 1, 2, 3 and 4) has been manufactured with these materials. Furthermo-re, there is a strong similarity between the fabrics of G2 and the soil sample.

It is important to point out a few technological observations made on the pottery from Vela špilja. Thefiring temperature was never higher than 750 °C. This is demonstrated by the presence of well-preservedsparry calcite. This temperature is rather low; it is the same firing temperature employed in pottery manufac-ture by the Early Neolithic inhabitants of the Dalmatian coast already some 1000 years before.

Another technological aspect is the addition of temper. Most vessels (thirty-eight out of forty) showartificially added inclusions (in groups 1, 1 sub. a, 2 sub. a, 3, 4 and 5). Only two samples do not show anyadded inclusion (in groups 2 and 2 sub. b). The temper employed consists of sparry and banded calcite withthe exception of sample VS 21 which contains grog. The banded calcite was probably collected from cavestalactites or stalagmites (e.g. samples VS 3 and VS 7 show different types of calcite).

Most of the Middle (Danilo Bitinj and Smilčić, Danilo phase) and Late Middle Neolithic (Smilčić, Hvarphase) pottery of the Dalmatian coast shows artificially added inclusions. This contrasts with that of the EarlyNeolithic sites where it was not that common (e.g. Vi•ula, Smilčić Impressed Ware phase, Tinj and Jami naSredi) (Chapter 6, 4.1.). The production of the Hvar phase Vela špilja ceramic is characterised by the same

¯ 135

technology already observed for the production of the Hvar phase pottery at Smilčić. A calcareous matrix iscommon to both sites. Furthermore, crushed calcite has been added as temper in most cases (Chapter 6, 4.3.).

9.4.1. Correlation between typology and fabricThe microscopic group 1 is not associated with any particular typological form. Group 1 sub. a includes

some restrict-mouthed (VS 3, 6, 14, 19) and other vessels decorated with horizontal incised lines. Unfortuna-tely, nothing can be said of the small fragment of group 2. Group 2 sub. a is a sherd of restrict-mouthed vessel,very similar to samples VS 3, 6 and 19 (G1). Sample VS 31 (G2 sub. b) is a sherd with buff surfaces. Notypological or stylistic similarities can be pointed out for group 3. VS 38 belongs to the same typological classof the restrict-mouthed vessels VS 3, 6, and 19 of G1 and VS18 of G2 sub. a. Group 4 includes two differenttypological classes, both belonging to the typical Hvar Culture fine ware. The first is characterised by grooveddecorations (VS 1, 2, 25), the second by black, burnished, fine wares (VS 28, 30, 32, 37).

Although its fabric is different, group 5 (VS 21) can be distinguished from the rest of the ceramic assem-blage also from a typological point of view. It is a unique piece, most probably a flask fragment, with concaveinstead of convex walls. Its interior surface shows traces of red paint. It does not show the presence of mine-rals of allochtonous origin (see Chapter 3, 9.2.).

No parallels can be traced between the groups defined according to the typological/stylistic characters ofthe vessels and those subdivided on the basis of the microscopic analysis. Shapes belonging to the sametypological category (see for example the restrict-mouthed vessels VS 3, 6, 14, 18, 19) have been attributed todifferent microscopic groups.

In general, the same fabric is found in different typologies/styles, while identical styles occur in differentfabrics. For instance, the small bowl VS 24, that does not find any typological parallel within the rest of theassemblage, is microscopically identical to other typologically diverse vessels. Also those ceramics that canbe attributed to the same typological class of production, as, for instance, the fine, black burnished wares (seeVS 14, 17, 25, 26, 27, 30, 33, 37 and 40), show dissimilar matrix and temper.

136

¯ 137

CHAPTER 4

THE ITALIAN SITES: ANALYSES AND RESULTS

1. FORNACE CAPPUCCINI (Faenza)

The prehistoric site of Fornace Cappuccini is known since 1941. It is located inside the modern town ofFaenza, on the left terrace of the Lamone River along the northern fringe of the Romagna Apennines (fig. 70).The site was first rescue excavated in 1978 because of the urban expansion of the town. During this firstseason several features were brought to light (ANTONIAZZI et al., 1985), among which an oval-shaped deepditch that might have delimited a Copper Age village. This ditch had been filled with deposits containingmaterial culture remains of different ages, from the Early Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age (GIUSBERTI, 1990;MORICO, 1998).

The excavations were resumed in 1990 (BERMOND MONTANARI et al., 1991). During this season a few otherfeatures were discovered, one of which belonging to the Early Neolithic Impressed Ware settlement. One pitwas found some 70 cm below a layer disturbed by deep ploughing. It consisted of two adjacent oval-shapedstructures with almost vertical edges, one of which was 95 cm deep. It contained potsherds, a rich flint assem-blage and a few charcoal pieces. The faunal remains, in a very bad state of preservation, were extremely rare.

The charcoals from three of the structures so far excavated have been radiocarbon dated to 6320±60 BP(Bln-3372), 6280±80 BP (R-2314) and 6100±170 BP (R-2313) (BERMOND MONTANARI, 2000). These resultsindicate that the Impressed Ware site flourished during the last three centuries of the seventh millennium BP.

The Early Neolithic Impressed Ware potteryThree ceramic classes characterise the Impressed Ware Culture pottery: coarse, semi-fine, and fine. This

subdivision is based on the thickness of the vessel walls and on empirical observations of the surfaces andinclusions (BERMOND MONTANARI et al., 1991; 1998).

The most typical forms include deep conical pots with opposite oval-shaped lugs, decorated with instru-mental, stab and drag, and fingernail impressions all-over the body. Other decorations on the same vessels arerepresented by incised, linear horizontal, and oblique motifs.

Other ceramic shapes include hemispherical bowls, which are sometimes undecorated. Some of thesevessels have two small handles. Horizontal, wide strap handles are also known, while necked flasks andcarinated bowls are more rare (ANTONIAZZI et al., 1985; BERMOND MONTANARI et al., 1991).

The Early Neolithic flint assemblageA very rich flint assemblage comes from the Early Neolithic Impressed Ware structures. It was mainly

obtained from local, very good quality Marche flint. Obsidian is also well represented. One of the structuresproduced a very high number of Liparian obsidian (AMMERMAN and POLGLASE, 1998), which represents 10% ofthe total chipped stone assemblage.

The flint industry, with a high blade index, is characterised by the abundance of bladelet burins (bothsimple and on truncation). Burin spalls are also present. Typical are also end scrapers with abrupt front. Othertools, always on bladelet, are represented by straight perforators, geometrical trapezes obtained with the mi-croburin technique, bladelets with abrupt, sinuous retouch and sickle blades with oblique sickle gloss. Mostcores are of bladelet subconical type. Many of these have been highly exploited.

Among the other finds are a few adzes polished from metamorphic rock and jadeite. The site gave almostno faunal remains because of the characteristics of the clayey soil that has destroyed most of the bones.

ConsiderationsFornace Cappuccini is a typical late Impressed Ware site of the Romagna coastline. Other sites of this age

are known around Rimini, at Misano Adriatico, and Imola. They belong to the more recent stream of theItalian, Adriatic Impressed Ware that extends from the Pescaro River to the south, to Bazzarola, in Emilia to

138

Fig. 70 - Fornace Cappuccini: location of the Neolithic site. Scale in kilometres.

the north. All the above-mentioned sites are datable to the last three centuries of the seventh millennium BP(BERMOND MONTANARI et al., 1991). They are more or less contemporary to the open-air settlement of Ripa-bianca di Monterado in central eastern Italy.

The differences in the ceramic and chipped stone assemblages between these sites and that of Ripabiancaconsist in the absence of figulina wares, the more monotonous variety of pottery forms and decoration and, asregards the flint industry, in the absence of Ripabianca Burins.


The site is located on an alluvial terrace composed of Holocene sandy-clayey and gravely-sandy deposits.10-12 km south-west of the site, in the vicinity of the modern village of Brisighella, the Lamone River passesthrough a flysh Eocene deposit. This latter includes lenses of conglomerate with granites, radiolarite limesto-ne, flints as well as Miocene sandstones, quartz and feldspar siltstones (Foglio 99 della Carta Geologicad’Italia, Faenza, 1:100000).

1.2. ANALYSES

Three fabrics have been identified for ten potsherds analysed from Fornace Cappuccini (fig. 71; table 12,Appendix 3).

¯ 139

Fig. 71 - Fornace Cappuccini: pottery from the Impressed Ware settlement.

140

a)

c)

b)

d)

Fig. 72 - Fornace Cappuccini: photomicrographs of thin section samples: a) FC 3, b) FC 9, c) FC 4, d) FC 10 (XPL, X40) (photographs by M.Spataro).

G1 - (2 samples: FC 1, 3) (fig. 72a)Brown-reddish, very iron-rich matrix characterised by a high percentage of coarse angular and subangular (mainly angular) quartz(30%; size range between 1.25 by 0.87 and 0.1 by 0.07 mm), abundant polycrystalline quartz (5%), subangular and angular flint (5%;typical size 0.4 by 0.3 mm), muscovite mica (3%), opaques and iron oxides (5%), rare feldspar (1%), very rare radiolarian chert, somesubangular fragments of granite (2%; typical size 1.5 by 1.0 mm), and subrounded/rounded fragments of siltstone (1%; size rangebetween 3.0 by 2.0 and 0.6 by 0.4);

sub. a (1 sample: FC 2)Dark brown-reddish, iron-rich matrix very similar to that of G1, with a higher percentage of quartz (35%);

sub. b (3 samples: FC 6, 7, 9) (fig. 72b)Dark brown-reddish, very iron-rich matrix with very well-sorted coarse, mainly angular quartz (<50%; size range between 0.5 by 0.3and 0.15 by 0.08 mm), occasional fragments of angular flint (3%), polycrystalline quartz (<3%), pyroxene (>3%), some feldspar(2%), some muscovite mica (2%), very rare radiolarian chert, opaques and iron oxides (3%), and one fragment of granite rock.

G2 - (2 samples: FC 4, 5) (fig. 72c)Dark reddish, very iron-rich matrix with poorly-sorted, abundant, mainly subangular quartz (<30%; size range between 0.42 by 0.3and 0.04 by 0.02 mm), some polycrystalline quartz (3%), feldspar (2%), pyroxene (2%), muscovite mica (3%), rare biotite, somesubangular and angular fragments of flint (2%; typical size 2.3 by 2.0 mm), iron oxides (7%), few subrounded and rounded fragmentsof granitic rock and subrounded fragments of siltstone (typical size 2.1 by 1.7 mm) (as in G1);

sub. a (1 sample: FC 8)Dark yellow-brownish matrix, with a high percentage of very well-sorted angular and subangular quartz (35%; size range between0.1 by 0.05 and 0.03 by 0.02 mm), muscovite mica (<5%), and rare pyroxene (<1%). It does not contain any flint inclusion.

G3 - (1 sample: FC 10) (fig. 72d)Dark brown-reddish matrix with poorly-sorted and very abundant poorly-sorted quartz (>40%; size range between 0.7 by 0.5 and0.04 by 0.02 mm), some polycrystalline limestone (2%), flint (2%), muscovite mica (3%), feldspar (2%), and rare pyroxene (1%).

1.2.1. Summary of group characteristicsGroup 1 shows an iron-rich fabric with abundant and coarse quartz, polycrystalline quartz, flint, musco-

¯ 141

vite mica, opaques, and some granite rock fragments. Sand rich in quartz and granitic fragments have mostprobably been added (the distribution is bimodal and the inclusions show very sharp and angular edges).Sample FC 1 (G1) shows very old, slightly metamorphous rock fragments that derive from low-grade meta-morphic sediments. This group includes some siltstones, granitic rocks and some metamorphic rocks (I. FRE-ESTONE, pers. comm. 2001). G1 sub. a has the same iron-rich fabric, with a percentage of quartz higher thanthat of G1. The fabric of G1 sub. b is similar to that of G1, with a lower percentage of flint and more abundantadded sand. The sandy quartz is characterised by a very well-sorted distribution. It contains polycrystallinequartz, pyroxene, feldspar, and rare muscovite. There is only one granite rock fragment. The fabric of group 2is similar to that of G1, although it is slightly more iron-rich and the percentage of flint is lower. It has beentempered with granitic sand. Compared to that of G1, this sand shows higher percentages of pyroxene, feld-spar, and rock fragments. The fabric of G2 sub. a is finer than that of G2. It is dark yellow-brownish with veryabundant, probably added, small-sized and very well-sorted quartz, a great quantity of muscovite and no flintinclusion. The fabric of group 3 is characterised by very abundant, poorly-sorted quartz, some flint, mica,pyroxene, and feldspar. It is more iron-rich than those of groups 1 and 2. Its inclusions are finer and morerounded.

1.2.2. SEM-EDS analysesThe most evident results of the SEM-EDS analysis consist in the very high quantity of silica (up to

73.60%) and the low percentage of calcium oxide (1.04-2.12%) (table 12, Appendix 4).Among the groups, subdivided on a microscopic basis, G1 and its subgroups show a percentage of silica

higher than that of groups 2 and 3. G1 sub. a is more iron-rich and contains less magnesia and silica and morealuminia and calcium oxide than G1. G1 sub. b has slightly more silica (due to the abundance of quartz) andsoda, lower quantities of iron and titania (than G1). G2 shows less silica (probably due to the lower percentageof flint) and more magnesia and slightly higher iron oxide than G1 and its subgroups. G2 sub. a has producedresults similar to those of G2 with a very high percentage of phosphorus oxide that might be due to post-depositional factors. G3 (FC 10) shows the lowest percentage of silica of the whole assemblage and thehighest of aluminia, titania, and iron oxide. To conclude, these data confirm the microscopic groups and thestrong similarities between groups and subgroups and stress the differences between G3 and the other groups,despite a certain similarity between G3 and sample FC 4 (G2).

1.3. DISCUSSION

The fabrics of G1 and of its subgroups are very rich in iron, and contain some flint. They most probablycome from the same source. The presence of pyroxene, biotite, muscovite, feldspar, and quartz in the sandshould indicate that granitic sources were exploited for temper. Given the presence of some siltstone, granitic,and metamorphic rocks (I. FREESTONE, pers. comm. 2001) the source might be located along the northernfringes of the Emilian Apennine chain that are rich in metamorphic rocks. The presence of polycrystallinequartz is to be noted among the other inclusions. The quartz is strained and the grains are irregular. All thesedata suggest metamorphism. The source of group 1 might be located in a very iron-rich deposit with siltstoneand flint, while the sand employed as temper is to be sought close to a granitic deposit because of the coarseinclusions. It is very probable that the inclusions of G1 and G2 were added. This interpretation is due to thesharp edges and to the high percentage of very homogeneous range-sized quartz that can be noticed especiallyin group 1 sub. b. The sands of groups 1 and 2 are characterised by granitic rocks with different percentages ofpyroxene, feldspar, and rock fragments. They might have been collected from two different zones of the samebasin. The fabric of G2 is more iron-rich than that of G1 although it shows the same variety of subroundedsiltstone and flint. The quartz sand is most probably added, as indicated by its bimodal distribution. It is as richin polycrystalline quartz, pyroxene and feldspar as that of G1: however the sand is finer. It might derive froma similar source. Group 3 has a much darker fabric, more iron-rich than those of G1 and G2 with probablyadded sand characterised by quartz, feldspar, flint, polycrystalline quartz, and rare pyroxene. The origin of theinclusions of G3 must be located in another area. The minerals that are much smaller and rounded than thoseof the other two groups show this. This probably indicates a longer transport.

1.4. CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the results of the analyses and of the characteristics of the geology of the area surroun-

142

ding the site, it is possible to conclude that the fabrics of groups 1 and 2 derive from similar sources becausethey show the same mineral inclusions (polycrystalline quartz, flint except G2 sub. a, pyroxene, feldspar,mica, granite and siltstone fragments). It is possible to suggest a local source for these groups. The materialmight have been collected from the proximity of the site or from the Lamone River bed (on the basis of thepresence of subrounded rock fragments). Group 3 is slightly different. It shows flint, mica, feldspar, andpyroxene that are also represented in groups 1 and 2, though it contains also limestone. Limestone occurs inthe conglomerates of the flysch formation some 12 km south-west of the site, along the course of the sameriver (Chapter 4, 1.1.).

1.4.1. Correlation between fabric and typologyGroup 1 is represented by only two Impressed Ware fragments. Group 1 sub. a includes one fragment

with impressed motifs. Nothing can be said of the typology and style of the samples of group 1 sub. b that aretoo small and undecorated. Group 2 is characterised by Impressed Ware potsherds. Group 2 sub. a is typolo-gically different from the sherds of the other groups. It is the rim of a flask or of a necked jar. Nothing can besaid of the plain potsherd of group 3 (FC 10).

To conclude: the Early Neolithic inhabitants of Fornace Cappuccini exploited two different sources forthe production of the IW ceramic of groups 1 and 2. On the contrary the source employed in the manufactureof one vessel, typologically distinct from the rest of the assemblage (FC 8), is the same of the more characte-ristics IW vessels.

Sample FC 10 (G3) shows a fabric very similar to that of the Ripabianca di Monterado sample RDM 17(G2 sub. a). They both are rich in iron, with the same poorly-sorted inclusions of quartz, polycrystallinequartz, flint and muscovite mica, a great quantity of feldspatic and granitic fragments. Their production styleis very similar. They both show the presence of iron minerals (R. MACPHAIL, pers. comm. 2001). The differen-ces are that RDM 17 is less iron-rich (I. FREESTONE, pers. comm. 2001) and shows some radiolarian chert. Theycome from a similar, but not from the same source. In fact, according to the SEM-EDS results, FC 10 showsless silica, potash, and calcium oxide, but a higher quantity of aluminia, iron oxide and titania (table 12,Appendix 4). From a typological point of view RDM 17 is an undecorated base fragment, while FC 10 is awall fragment of plain pottery.

According to the available radiocarbon dates, the Impressed Ware site of Fornace Cappuccini is more orless contemporaneous to that of Ripabianca di Monterado in the Marche, some 150 km to the south-southeast.Nevertheless, the pottery assemblage from this latter site is more various, since it is represented by ImpressedWares as well as incised and plain, well burnished ceramics that strongly recall types from the late seventhmillennium BP site of Catignano near Chieti, in the Abruzzi (TOZZI, 1982).

2. MADDALENA DI MUCCIA (Macerata)

The Impressed Ware open-air site of Maddalena di Muccia (figs. 73 and 74) is located on a fluvial terraceat the confluence of the Chienti di Pievetorina and the Chienti di Gelagna, some 400 m above sea level. It liesat the edge of the Apennines, in the interior of the Marche region (East-Central Italy), some 50 km from thepresent-day Adriatic coastline. Rolling hills are to the north and east, while to the south and the west thecountry rises up to some 1000 m.

The excavations, carried out between 1962 and 1965 by D.G. LOLLINI (1965; 1991a), extended over asurface of 6x10 m. They brought to light an Impressed Ware settlement characterised by several adjacent pitsof different size and shape and no other structures to interprete as hut foundations. All the archaeological findscome from the pit fillings. One radiocarbon date obtained from charcoals from pit 4-6 gave the result of6580±75 BP (R-643a) (ALESSIO et al., 1970: 603). This indicates that the site flourished around the middle ofthe seventh millennium BP.

The material culture assemblageThe coarse ware is the most characteristic and frequent pottery. It is often decorated with both digital

(finger, finger-nail, and “pizzicato”) and instrumental (points, dots, small circles) impressed motifs. Rareincised patterns are also known. They consist of bands of lines unsystematically distributed all over the surfa-

¯ 143

Fig. 73 - Maddalena di Muccia: location of the Neolithic settlement (dot) and soil sample (square). Scale in kilometres.

Fig. 74 - Maddalena di Muccia: location of the Impressed Ware settlement (arrow) (photograph by P. Biagi).

144

ce of the vessel. The vessels are open or, sometimes, with restricted mouth. The only reconstructed shapebelongs to a deep, oval-shaped pot with bands of incised lines descending from the rim with an internal plaincordon, to lean a lid (BENAC, 1971). Another, much more rare type of pottery has well-treated, burnishedsurfaces. This group comprises open and carinated bowls and a few wide, strap handles (SILVESTRINI andPIGNOCCHI, 1998).

The chipped stone assemblage is mainly composed of Marche flint, even though obsidian bladelets ofLiparian origin have been identified. The flint assemblage, with a very high laminar index, is represented byburins on retouch, long and short end scrapers, truncations on bladelet, straight perforators and several types ofgeometric tools among which are bipolar crescents, triangles and isosceles trapezes obtained with the microburintechnique that, to a certain extent, recall Castelnovian, Late Mesolithic types (BROGLIO and LOLLINI , 1963).

The polished stone industry includes one lower quern and a few axes/adzes only one of which is fromgreenstone, while all the others are from limestone.

The bone assemblage is abundant. It comprises long, conical points, perforators, pins, plaquettes and afew fish-hooks.

The subsistence economyThe faunal assemblage has been summarily synthesized by BARKER (1975). The most represented species

are pig (50%), red deer (almost 25%), caprines (15%) and cattle (8%). According to this author, the faunalsample should imply that much of the lower ground was wooded, and that caprines made a much smallercontribution to the diet than either pig or deer. In his opinion the Early Neolithic site, located on a middlealtitude fluvial terrace at the confluence of minor valleys descending from the surrounding hills, may havebeen selected at least in part to exploit the spring and the autumn movement of the deer.


The site of Maddalena di Muccia is located on red micritic limestone with seams or nodules of red flint,with intercalation of white subcrystalline limestone and of small nummulithic breccias of Early-Middle Eoce-ne period. There are also some thinly stratified white or greyish micritic limestone, alternated with strata ofmarl containing flint of different colour, and microfauna (Globotuncana helvetica, Plaeglobutruncana ste-phanii turbinata, Rotalipora appenninica, Planomalina buxtorfi) of Turonian p.p.-Cenomianian age. Thisgeology belongs to the so-called “Scaglia Rossa e Bianca” formation.

A few kilometres south of the site, the geology of the region is characterised by white, compact, well-stratified limestone with thin layers and nodules of brown to light grey flint containing rare ammonites. Amicrofauna with radiolarians and Nannoconus sp. is characteristic of the micritic limestone of the lowermostformation called “Calcare Rupestre” (rocky limestone) (Foglio 124 della Carta Geologica d’Italia, Macerata,1:100000).

2.2. ANALYSES

Twenty-seven potsherds have been analysed from the Neolithic Impressed Ware site of Maddalena diMuccia (figs. 75-77; table 13, Appendix 3). Four different fabrics have been recognised.

G1 - (12 samples: MDM 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 25, 27) (fig. 78a)This is an homogeneous group with a very iron-rich, red dark matrix characterised by a high percentage of probably added, sharpedged and very poorly-sorted flint (<30%; size range between 5.0 by 2.5 and 0.6 by 0.3 mm), some radiolarian chert (3%), very well-sorted, fine angular and subangular quartz (between 10% and 15%; typical size 0.03 by 0.02 mm), very rich in iron oxides (>10%),some feldspar (2%), pyroxene (less than 2%), some organic material, opaques and muscovite mica (3%);

sub. a (1 sample: MDM 2)Dark red, iron-rich matrix, very similar to that of G1 with poorly-sorted angular and subangular quartz (15%; size rangebetween 0.2 by 0.1 and 0.03 by 0.02 mm), poorly-sorted, sharp-edged flint (20%; size range like G1), pyroxene (3%), raremuscovite, and some subrounded fragments of limestone (size range between 1.2 by 1.0 and 0.2 by 0.18 mm). It contains oneshell fragment.

G2 - (5 samples: MDM 4, 7, 23, 24, 26) (fig. 78b)Very homogeneous group with well-sorted, iron-rich, very humic, dark red-brownish matrix, with very well-sorted and fine angularand subangular quartz (<20%; typical size 0.03 by 0.02 mm), abundant muscovite mica (<5%), some organic material (vegetable anddung), many clay pellets, rare radiolarian chert, some flint (<3%), rare feldspar (<1%), and polycrystalline quartz (<1%). The fabrichas been heavily tempered with grog filler (recycled pottery) (fig. 78c).

¯ 145

Fig. 75 - Maddalena di Muccia: pottery from the Impressed Ware settlement.

146


¯ 147


G3 - (3 samples: MDM 1, 13, 18) (fig. 78d)Red and brown, iron-rich matrix, very rich in poorly-sorted angular and subangular quartz (>30%; size range between 0.5 by 0.3 and0.07 by 0.05 mm), pyroxene (3%), muscovite (>3%) and biotite (2%) micas, polycrystalline quartz (2%), some flint (3%), rareradiolarian chert, iron oxides and opaques (5%), feldspar (2%), some organic material, rounded granitic rock fragments (MDM 1)composed of mica, quartz and feldspar;

sub. a (1 sample: MDM 17) (fig. 78e)Dark brown matrix very similar to that of G3, with abundant smaller-sized angular and subangular quartz (40%; size range between0.3 by 0.2 and 0.05 by 0.03 mm), some rounded and subrounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (5%; size range between 1.0by 0.8 and 0.15 by 0.1 mm), muscovite (5%) and biotite (2%) micas, one small fragment of calcite, feldspar (2%), rare organicmaterial traces, some flint (2%), few radiolarian chert, opaques and iron oxides (3%), some subangular and subrounded fragments ofmicaceous sandstone (fig. 78e) and granitic rock (2%; size range between 0.8 by 0.5 and 0.4 by 0.3 mm), and one shell fragment;

148

a)

c)

e)

g)

b)

d)

f)

h)

Fig. 78 - Maddalena di Muccia: photomicrographs of thin section samples: a) MDM 9, b) MDM 7, c) MDM 24, d) MDM 18, e) MDM 17, f) MDM22, g) MDM 16, h) soil sample (XPL, X40, except c), PPL, X40) (photographs by M. Spataro).

¯ 149

sub. b (3 samples: MDM 6, 12, 22) (fig. 78f)Matrix very similar to that of group 3, coarser, with some organic material (<5%), subangular and rounded fragments of graniticrocks (7%; size range between 2.7 by 2.5 and 1.5 by 1.0 mm), poorly-sorted quartz (<40%; size range between 0.4 by 0.2 and 0.04 by0.02 mm), pyroxene (<3%), flint (5%), occasional radiolarian chert, feldspar (3%), opaques and iron oxides (5%). There are somemicaceous sandstones and granitic rock fragments. The granitic rock fragments (fig. 78f) are composed of quartz, feldspar, andmuscovite and biotite micas. The biotite is very long and thick (up to 0.5 by 0.1 mm).

G4 - (2 samples: MDM 3, 16) (fig. 78g)Brown, iron-rich, very poorly-sorted and micritic matrix, characterised by a very high percentage of poorly-sorted, mainly angularfragments of limestone (up to 40%; size range between 2.8 by 0.7 and 0.15 by 0.1 mm), rare angular and subangular quartz (3%;typical size 0.02 by 0.01 mm), some opaques and iron oxides (5%). Both samples include fossiliferous limestone with the samespecies of fossils.

One soil sample collected some 1 km from the site has been studied in thin section (figs. 73 and 78h). It shows a very micriticfabric, abundant limestone (>20%), angular flint (7%), radiolarian chert (<2%), some opaques and iron oxides (3%) and one shellfragment. The soil formed out of a breccia (R. MACPHAIL, pers. comm. 2001). The limestone is fossiliferous.

2.2.1. Summary of group characteristicsGroup 1 is characterised by a reddish, iron-rich, poorly-sorted fabric with abundant flint, fine quartz, few

radiolarian chert, feldspar, some iron oxides and opaques, rare pyroxene, and muscovite mica. The flint wasprobably added to the clay because of its bimodal distribution and its very sharp edges. It must be pointed outthat the thin section of a soil sample collected next to the site shows the same type of angular (fig. 78h),coarser flint grains in much lower percentage than those of G1 (see also Chapter 4, 3.4.). Group 1 sub. a has afabric very similar to that of G1. It also contains some naturally present limestone inclusions of rounded andsubrounded shape. Group 2 shows an iron-rich matrix similar to that of G1, although it contains very fine,well-sorted angular and subangular quartz, more abundant than in group 1, and more humic soil. Its fabric iscomposed of abundant muscovite, some flint, rare feldspar, clay pellets, radiolarian chert, some organic mate-rial and dung indicated by visible voids with black burnt organic material. Contrary to that of group 1, itcontains a very small percentage of flint; it has been heavily tempered with grog. Grog fragments, with veryangular edges, are very common. They do not represent a natural soil inclusion (I. FREESTONE and R. MACPHAIL,pers. comm. 2001). Some natural, very rounded clay pellets are also present. It is also possible to see a coilboundary in a sample (MDM 23) (WOODS, 1989: 197). Group 3 is very different from the preceding ones. Ithas an iron-rich fabric characterised by very abundant and poorly-sorted quartz, some flint (of much smallersize than that of groups 1 and 2), rare radiolarian chert, some feldspar, pyroxene, muscovite and biotite micas,characterised by the same rock inclusions. It has been subdivided into two subgroups: G3 sub. a with finerquartz and one shell fragment, and G3 sub. b with a coarser fabric, rich in granitic rock fragments, with rarefragments of micaceous sandstone. The rock inclusions are granitic, because of the presence of quartz, feld-spar, biotite and muscovite micas. Because of their bimodal distribution it is possible that they have beenadded as temper. In contrast with the preceding groups, G4 has a very micritic matrix with a very high percen-tage of limestone, some of which is fossiliferous. Probably the limestone has been added because of thebimodal distribution and its mainly angular shape.

2.2.2. SEM-EDS analysesG1 shows homogeneous data characterised by high percentages of silica (59.60-71.20%) and iron oxide

(due to the iron-rich fabric with abundant flint), and quite low calcium oxide (1.46-2.84%) (table 13, Appen-dix 4). G1 sub. a is similar to G1, with a lower percentage of silica (56.00%), but more potash and calciumoxide (7.98%). The latter is due to the natural rounded fragments of limestone present in the fabric. G2 showsa slightly higher average of aluminia, calcium oxide, titania and iron oxide, whereas the silica is much lowerthan in G1 (mainly because it has not been tempered with flint as G1). G3 shows results similar to those of theprevious groups, with silica percentages lower than those of G1, and more iron oxide. Its subgroup a hasyielded almost the same results. G3 sub. b has similar data to G3, although it shows slightly higher aluminia,potash, titania and calcium oxide, but lower silica. The SEM-EDS data of G4 are very different from those ofthe preceding three groups. They are characterised by very low aluminia (12.40-12.80%) and silica (32.60-33.40%); calcium oxide is well represented (41.98-42.60%), and the percentage of iron oxide is much lowerthan in the other groups.

150

These results confirm the microscopic grouping especially for the strong similarities among the groupsand their subgroups. The difference between G1, G2 and G3 is more easily identifiable in thin section (mainlybecause of the very different fabric of G3). The results of G4 match perfectly well with those of the opticalmicroscope. The percentage of limestone fragments is very high, while quartz is rare (low silica). The fabric ismuch less iron-rich than those of groups 1, 2, and 3.

2.2.3. XRD analysisThe soil sample collected close to the Impressed Ware site has been analysed both in thin section (see

Chapter 4, 2.2.) and by XRD. The XRD pattern shows presence of kaolinite, muscovite, chlorite, and quartz(fig. 79).

Fig. 79 - Maddalena di Muccia: XRD pattern of the soil sample.

2.3. DISCUSSION

Groups 1 and 2 are different, although they seem to derive from a very similar pedological area. Theyboth are very iron-rich with fine quartz, radiolarian chert, and abundant iron oxides, although the fabric of G1contains large grains of flint that have probably been added. The clay sources are to be found close to eachother because of the presence of the same iron-rich fabric characterised by fine quartz and radiolarian chert.The source exploited for the production of group 2 has only occasional flint, some radiolarian chert, andabundant fine quartz as G1 but it is more humic than G1, whereas the one exploited for group 1 is very rich inflint. As mentioned above, group 2 has been heavily tempered with grog. It did not show many natural aplasticinclusions. As suggested by R. MACPHAIL (pers. comm. 2001), the source exploited for the manufacture of thevessels of this group might have been located close to a stable. Its soil is very humic, characterised by abun-dant vegetable matter and dung both naturally present in the soil, not added as temper. Group 3 is of a verydifferent clay source, more iron-rich and with less flint than those of groups 1 and 2. From a technologicalpoint of view, this group shows temper composed of sand with granitic rock fragments, occasional sandstonefragments, and very abundant quartz. The organic material has been most probably added. Finally, a differentclay source has been exploited for the production of group 4. The fabric is very micritic, poor in quartz, andrich in limestone inclusions as shown by the SEM-EDS analysis. Probably the limestone has been added astemper (bimodal distribution and sharp edges).

¯ 151

Three very different sources have been exploited for the pottery manufacture of the Impressed Ware siteof Maddalena di Muccia. There are some relationships between the soil sample and the fabrics of some of thegroups (1, 2, and 4). The soil has the same flint (in smaller percentage compared to that of G1), which ispresent in all groups (mainly in group 1). It is characterised by a micritic and fossiliferous fabric similar to thatof group 4.

2.4. CONCLUSIONS

The geology of the area surrounding the site (see Chapter 4, 2.1.) is characterised by abundant flint andradiolarian chert. Both these minerals are present in the fabrics of groups 1 and 2, in particular the flint grainsthat are also present in the soil sample of the site. These data might indicate the local provenance of these twogroups.

On the basis of the similarities between the soil and the thin section of the sherds, it is reasonable tosuggest that also the vessels of group 4 are of local provenance. They show a very similar calcareous fabricwith fossils, and a high percentage of limestone, similar to that of the soil sample. Group 3 and its subgroupscome from very different sources. Their fabrics are more iron-rich than those of G1 and G2 and show different,most probably added inclusions (fragments of granitic and sandstone rocks). The sandstone and the graniticrock fragments are not features represented in the geology of the area surrounding the site. The rock fragmentsmight belong to metamorphic rocks (a great quantity of quartz and muscovite). This reflects a more matureenvironment (old rocks). The presence of micaceous sandstone suggests that the clay derives from a differentgeological context (Jurassic rocks) (I. FREESTONE, pers. comm. 2001). The roundness of the inclusions mightindicate that this material derives from a river bed (I. FREESTONE, pers. comm. 2001), i.e. the temper was notobtained from crushed sandstone rocks. According to these observations two hypotheses can be suggested: 1)that the ceramic group has been imported from elsewhere, or 2) that the sand was collected from the bed of awatercourse rich in pebbles of allochtonous rocks. Since the geological maps of the Province of Maceratadoes not show any granite outcrop in this territory, we cannot exclude that the pottery of group 3 was importedfrom elsewhere and that the filler employed for its manufacture was collected from the bed of a river course.

2.4.1. Correlation between typology and fabricGroup 1 is characterised by a very homogeneous pottery assemblage with impressed decorative patterns.

Only one fragment is decorated with incised motifs (MDM 5). G1 sub. a is a piece of vessel bottom. Three ofthe five specimens attributed to group 2 are of characteristic fine pottery (e.g. MDM 23, 24 and 26). It isimpossible to reconstruct most of the shapes with the exception for a hemispherical, open bowl. Group 3 doesnot show any parallel between fabric and typology. Samples MDM 1 and MDM 13 are different from eachother. On typological ground MDM 1 can be classified as a fine, polished ware and MDM 13 is of dark,burnished ware. Sample MDM 18 (G3 sub. a) is again a piece of fine ware, G3 sub. b is represented by threetypologically different sherds. Group 4 consists of two potsherds (MDM 3 and 16). They are identical alsofrom a typological point of view. They both are of coarse, light buff (paglierino) ware.

To conclude, the same parallels can be extended to the fabric and to the typological characteristics of theMaddalena di Muccia ceramics. Group 1, composed of coarse Impressed Wares, is very homogeneous fromboth microscopic and typological points of view. It is represented by coarse wares always characterised byimpressed decorations.

3. RIPABIANCA DI MONTERADO (Ancona)

The open-air Neolithic site of Ripabianca di Monterado (fig. 80) lies at 40 m of altitude, on the left bankof the Cesano River, in the Marche Region, some 10 km from the present coastline. The archaeological site ison heavy soils that characterise the alluvial deposit of the area.

D.G. LOLLINI (1965) excavated the site in 1962 and 1964. The excavations revealed an irregular pit-structure measuring 8 by 10 m containing several smaller depressions. The deepest of these depressions, filledwith charcoal, with walls reddened and burnt by the heat, has been interpreted as an oven. Two skeletons ofindividuals buried on their back were found close to this structure. The remains of two other burials hadalready been disturbed by deep ploughing (LOLLINI , 1991).

152

Fig. 80 - Ripabianca diMonterado: location ofthe Neolithic settlement(dot) and of the soil sam-ple (square). Scale in ki-lometres.

The material culture assemblageThe ceramic assemblage of this site is composed of very different classes of pottery. The Impressed

Ware vessels are characterised by deep tronco-conical forms decorated with fingernail and linear, instru-mental impressions organized around the body, while the rim and the vessel foot are accurately polished.This category of vases is without handles. Oblique, oval-shaped lugs are often located in the central partof the body (SILVESTRINI and PIGNOCCHI, 2000). The incised wares are very common. Bands of deep irre-gular, parallel incisions run from the neck to the body of four-handled flasks. These bands are sometimesfilled with red or white colour. Incised and impressed patterns have been employed to decorate the samevessel. The fine, grey or blackish, burnished pottery is also very common. They often have four straphandles. The commonest shapes are flasks, beakers, tulip-shaped vases, deep, four-handled pots, pede-stal cups, carinated and hemispherical bowls. One only typical figulina fragment with one red-paintedstripe is also recorded. The pits produced a great quantity of pieces of daub, as well as three fragments ofceramic, female figurines.

The flint industry is particularly rich. Even though the chipped-stone assemblage from this site hasnever been studied in detail, some instruments are typical such as the “Ripabianca Burin” (BROGLIO and

¯ 153

LOLLINI , 1963), which is a blade or bladelet Burin on a side notch. Among the other tools, all chipped fromlocal flint, are abrupt retouch truncations, straight awls, retouched blades and a few geometrics amongwhich are some trapezes obtained with the microburin technique. Sickle blades with oblique “sickle gloss”are also recorded. Among the other stone materials are obsidian bladelets, greenstone axes and adzes, lowerand upper querns.

Particularly abundant is the bone industry that includes long points, perforators, spatulae (sometimesobtained from red deer antler), one handle and one “knife” obtained from cattle/deer rib.

Three radiocarbon dates have been obtained from charcoal. They are: 6265±85 BP (R-599), 6210±75 BP(R-598A), and 6140±70 BP (R-598) (ALESSIO et al., 1970: 602). This indicates that the site flourished duringthe last two-three centuries of the seventh millennium BP.

Subsistence economyIn BARKER’s (1975: 134) opinion, “the location of Ripabianca di Monterado was not suitable for cereal

cultivation without a plough”. This observation in mainly due to the location of the site on “heavy” alluvialsoils.

The meat diet of the inhabitants was basically supplied by caprines that represent the 64% of the bones.Pig was far less important and cattle represented only 6% of the total assemblage. Hunting activities seem tobe quite irrelevant, indicated by a very small amount of deer bones. Of interest is the recovery of a fewcharred, wild apples.

ConsiderationsThe discovery of the Neolithic site of Ripabianca di Monterado is of extreme importance not only for the

Neolithization of the Marche region, but also for the Neolithic of the entire central Italy. The material cultureassemblage recovered from this site is extremely important for the parallels that can be extended across theApennines towards the Tuscanian coast (Sarteano Culture) (GRIFONI, 1967) as well as towards the Po valley tothe north where the Vhò and Fiorano Culture sites of the same age are all characterised by the occurrence of“Ripabianca Burins” (BIAGI, 1995).

The suggestion of G. BARKER (1975) concerning the import of painted figulina potsherds from the sou-thern, Apulia Neolithic coastal sites remains to be proved.


The geology of the area is characterised by Upper Pliocene bluish, marl-silty clays with lenses of sandcontaining polygenetic pebbles (quartziferous porphyry, gneiss and granite of the Middle Pliocene age). Agood source of flint exploited during the Neolithic period is known in the alluvial deposit of the Apenninepiedmont just in the area where the site lies (FERRARI and MAZZIERI, 1998). Some 9 km from the site, in thelocality called S. Angelo, in an area characterised by calcareous marls with microfauna and Foraminiferabelonging to the species Bolivina arta Mac Fayden, Cassidulina cruysi Marks, Globorotalia menardii (d‘Or-bigny), Globoquadrina altispira (Cushman and Jarvis) (Schlier formation of Turtonian-Elvezian age) (Foglio110 della Carta Geologica d’Italia, Senigallia, 1:100000).

3.2. ANALYSES

Three different fabrics have been recognised among thirty potsherds analysed in thin section (figs. 81-85;table 14, Appendix 3).G1 - (8 samples: RDM 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14) (fig. 86a)Very reddish, iron-rich and poly-sorted matrix with angular shaped flint (20%; size range between 2.0 by 1.5 and 0.3 by 0.2 mm),abundant and poorly-sorted angular and subangular quartz (<20%; size range between 0.3 by 0.2 and 0.05 by 0.04 mm), polycrystal-line quartz (2%), some radiolarian chert (>2%), some limestone from breccia (<3%) (R. MACPHAIL, pers. comm. 2001), rare muscovi-te mica (>1%), feldspar (2%), very rare microcline (<1%), iron oxides and opaques (5%), rare pyroxene (<1%), and some organicmaterial;

sub. a (4 samples: RDM 3, 5, 15, 16)Red, brown-reddish, iron-rich, poly-sorted matrix with abundant angular flint (15%; same size range of G1), very abundant, poorly-sorted angular and subangular quartz (<30%; size range between 0.1 by 0.08 and 0.04 by 0.02 mm), rounded fragments of polycry-stalline limestone (<5%; size range between 2.7 by 2.5 and 0.5 by 0.4 mm), iron oxides (5%), radiolarian chert (<3%), polycrystallinequartz (2%), rare plagioclase (<1%), feldspar (2%), muscovite mica (2%), and rare pyroxene (<1%);

sub. b (1 sample: RDM 18)

154

Fig. 81 - Ripabianca di Monterado: pottery from the Impressed Ware settlement.

¯ 155


156


¯ 157

Fig. 84 - Ripabianca di Monterado: pottery from the Impresssed Ware settlement.

158


RDM 9

RDM 22

¯ 159

Very reddish, iron-rich matrix, with abundant angular flint (20%; same size range as G1), well-sorted and fine angular and subangularquartz (<10%; typical size 0.03 by 0.02 mm), radiolarian chert (>2%), muscovite mica (3%), feldspar (2%), pyroxene (1%), and nolimestone fragment.

G2 - (3 samples: RDM 2, 4, 19) (fig. 86b)Brown, micritic, iron-rich matrix with abundant inclusions among which are flint (<7%; typical size 0.3 by 0.2 mm), radiolarian chert(>3%), very abundant and poorly-sorted angular and subangular quartz (>30%; size range between 0.3 by 0.2 and 0.04 by 0.02 mm),rare rounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (2%), some polycrystalline quartz (2%), muscovite mica (3%), some clay pellets,feldspar (1%), rare pyroxene, and rare angular fragments of granite rock;

sub. a (1 sample: RDM 17)Dark brown, iron-rich matrix characterised by very abundant, well-sorted and fine quartz (>30%; typical size range 0.05 by 0.03mm), flint (<10%), radiolarian chert (>2%), muscovite mica (2%), feldspar (2%), iron oxides (5%), and very rare granite rockfragments. It does not show any limestone fragment;

sub. b (1 sample: RDM 10) (fig. 86c)Reddish, iron-rich matrix with poorly-sorted, very abundant angular and subangular quartz (30%; size range between 0.2 by 0.17 and0.04 by 0.02 mm), some subangular fragments of granite rock, feldspar (2%), long muscovite (3%; up to 0.4 by 0.02 mm) and rarebiotite mica, some pyroxene (2%), radiolarian chert (2%), and few clay pellets. One can note the presence of some granite rockfragments (composed of biotite and quartz) and the absence of flint;

sub. c (1 sample: RDM 7)Reddish, iron-rich, very silty matrix with abundant, well-sorted, fine quartz (20%; typical size 0.03 by 0.02 mm), abundant muscovitemica (<5%), some subangular fragments of flint (<5%), radiolarian chert (2%), opaques and iron oxides (5%). Some grog filler ispresent.

G3 - (9 samples of figulina ware: RDM 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30) (fig. 86d)Brown, micritic, fossiliferous, vitrified, very well-sorted matrix characterised by angular and subangular quartz (30%; size rangebetween 0.08 by 0.05 and 0.03 by 0.02 mm), fine rounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (<10%; typical size 0.06 by 0.04mm), radiolarian chert and flint (<2%), some muscovite mica (<3%), one shell fragment (RDM 30), one calcareous sandstone frag-ment (RDM 23), opaques and iron oxides (3%), feldspar and pyroxene (1%). The matrix of all samples is rich in microfossils;

sub. a (2 samples of figulina ware: RDM 26, 28) (figs. 86e)Dark brown, very micritic, fossiliferous, vitrified matrix with poorly-sorted abundant angular and subangular quartz (30%; size rangebetween 1.5 by 1.0 and 0.04 by 0.02 mm), flint (<5%), some radiolarian chert, feldspar (2%), muscovite mica (2%), fine roundedfragments of limestone (7%), and microfossils.

One soil sample collected 0.5 km from the site has been analysed in thin section (figs. 80 and 86f). Its fabric is characterised bya brown, micritic, fossiliferous mud, with poorly-sorted angular and subangular quartz (<30%; size range between 0.3 by 0.2 and0.03 by 0.02 mm), fine rounded fragments of limestone (<10%; typical size as that of G3), opaques and iron oxides (5%), feldspar(1%), angular fragments of flint (<2%; size range between 2.0 by 1.0 and 0.2 by 0.1 mm), muscovite mica (2%), and occasionalradiolarian chert.

3.2.1. Summary of group characteristicsGroup 1 contains a very iron-rich, non-calcareous fabric characterised by abundant quartz and flint, some

radiolarian chert, few limestone breccia, some polycrystalline quartz, muscovite mica, feldspar, iron oxidesand opaques, rare pyroxene and microcline, and some organic material. Group 1 sub. a shows a fabric withmore abundant polycrystalline limestone and quartz finer than that of G1. River sand has been probably addedas temper because of the poly-sorted minerals (R. MACPHAIL, pers. comm. 2001). G1 sub. b shows the samefabric of G1 with flint and without addition of sandy quartz. The flint has most probably been added becauseof the sharp edges and the bimodal distribution. The fabric of group 2 is more micaceous, with more abundantdetrital fraction and limestone, and a higher percentage of mainly finer quartz than that of G1. It includes flint,some polycrystalline limestone, muscovite, feldspar, radiolarian chert, some polycrystalline quartz, occasio-nal pyroxene, rare angular fragments of granite rock and few clay pellets. The fabric of RDM 17 (G2 sub. a)is similar to that of group 2, with a higher quantity and finer quartz than that of G2. Limestone is completelyabsent. G2 sub. b shows a fabric very similar to that of G2, with a higher percentage of quartz, granite rockfragments, muscovite, radiolarian chert, clay pellets, pyroxene, and rare biotite. It does not show any flint that,on the contrary, is present in the preceding groups. Its texture is very similar to that of the river sand. G2 sub.c shows the same fabric of G2 without addition of river sand. Some grog has been added. It can be classifiedas grog because of the presence of very angular fragments that do not seem to pertain to the natural soil or tobe related to the method of clay manufacturing. Group 3 is that of the figulina ware. It is very homogeneous,characterised by a brown micritic, well-sorted, fossiliferous fabric with abundant quartz, fine rounded lime-stone fragments, flint, radiolarian chert, one shell fragment, feldspar, muscovite, iron oxides, and pyroxene.

160

a)

c)

e)

b)

d)

f)

Fig. 86 - Ripabianca di Monterado: photomicrographs of thin section samples: a) RDM 14, b) RDM 4, c) RDM 10, d) RDM 23, e) RDM 28, f) soilsample (XPL, X40) (photographs by M. Spataro).

Its subgroup (G3 sub. a) has a fabric much coarser than that of G3, although it shows more fragments ofpolycrystalline limestone and larger-sized quartz and flint.

3.2.2. SEM-EDS analysesThe samples of G1 (table 14, Appendix 4) are characterised by homogeneous results that show a low percen-

tage of aluminia and a relatively high percentage of silica (64.40-71.40%); the latter is due to the abundant flintcontained in the fabrics. There is quite a low presence of calcium oxide (2.04-5.16%), whereas that of the ironoxide is relatively high. G1 sub. a shows a slightly higher percentage of iron oxide. G2 shows similar results withslightly higher soda and slightly lower percentage of silica (64.20-67.60%). The latter is related to the smallerabundance of flint. G2 sub. a is very similar to G2, with less silica, soda, magnesia, and potash and more manga-nese oxide and phosphorus oxide (the latter might be due to post-depositional factors). In thin section, thissubgroup shows a percentage of fine quartz higher than that of G2. Also G2 sub. b has yielded results similar to

¯ 161

that of G2 with lower aluminia, potash, titania and higher soda, whereas, in thin section, the main difference isthat it does not contain any flint. G2 sub. c and G2 produced similar results, although the latter shows higherpercentages of silica and soda and lower aluminia. G3 is very different from the rest of the assemblage. It has lesssilica and slightly lower aluminia, increased magnesia and potash, and much more abundant calcium oxide(15.98-24.30%). Its subgroup shows very similar results, with a higher percentage of soda and manganese oxide.

To conclude: according to these results, only the differences between the first two groups and G3 can bedefined. The results obtained from groups 1 and 2 do not show noticeable differences, mainly because of thehigh presence of silica which is due to the presence of flint (in G1) and quartz (in G2). It is significant that thedata of the subgroups are very similar to those of the group they belong (they might belong to the same group).Regarding the figulina (G3), a different source has been clearly exploited, much more micritic (high calciumoxide) and poorer in aluminia and silica.

3.2.3. XRD analysisThe soil sample collected from the proximity of the site already analysed in thin section (see Chapter 4,

3.2.) has also been studied with the XRD. The XRD pattern shows presence of kaolinite, quartz, muscovite,and chlorite (fig. 87).

3.3. DISCUSSION

Groups 1 and 2 come from non-calcareous, iron-rich sources characterised by flint and radiolarian chert.Probably the flint has been added. Group 2 shows a sandier, micaceous fabric, with more abundant quartz thanthat of G1. This group has the same type of minerals among which are quartz, flint, radiolarian chert, musco-vite mica, feldspar, and iron oxides; it also shows some granite rock fragments. The sand is a natural compo-nent of the soil, while the flint might have been added (I. FREESTONE, pers. comm. 2001). The figulina warederives from a very micritic source, which is characterised by a fossiliferous soil (absolutely absent in theprevious groups, as confirmed by the SEM-EDS analyses). The thin section of the soil sample shows the samefossiliferous and micritic limestone of the figulina ware, with radiolarian chert, flint, some muscovite micaand abundant quartz, more poorly-sorted than that of the figulina pottery.

Fig. 87 - Ripabianca di Monterado: XRD pattern of the soil sample.

162

3.4. CONCLUSIONS

Two sources were exploited for the manufacture of the ordinary vessels of groups 1 and 2. The inhabitantsof the Early Neolithic site of Ripabianca di Monterado utilised very rich and non-calcareous clay to producethe vessels of group 1, most probably adding some quartz sand (because of the bimodal distribution and sharpedges of the grains) (except for G1 sub. b) and flint. The flint might be either naturally present in the clay orcrushed and added by the potter, because of its very angular, triangular shape. Nevertheless, it must be stressedthat a few angular shaped flint grains are also present in the soil. The fabric of group 2 is more micaceous thanthat of G1. It seems to have been tempered with some flint. The sand is characterised by quartz, rare graniterock fragments and feldspar, possibly transported by a river. The figulina ware (G3 and G3a) comes from amicritic and fossiliferous deposit.

Therefore it is reasonable to think that, for the confection of the vessels of group 1, the Neolithic commu-nity exploited local sources, available in the proximity of the flint outcrop (see Chapter 4, 3.1.). Regarding theproduction of group 2, the fabric is characterised by granitic rock fragments. In the Provinces of Macerata,Senigallia and Ancona there is only one source characterised by polygenetic pebbles (granite, gneiss, etc.)crossed by the tributaries of the Cesano River, more precisely the territory between Mt. S. Giovanni and S.Costanzo. Since it is located some 7 km north of the site, we can think of a local source.

The source exploited for the production of the coarse figulina ware is characterised by the same highlymicritic and fossiliferous clay with quartz, some radiolarian chert, feldspar, pyroxene, polycrystalline quartz,small fragments of flint, and microfossils. The similarity between this group and the soil thin section is noti-ceable (figs. 86d and 86f). Therefore one might suggest a local provenance also for the Ripabianca figulinaware. According to the geological map, there is only one very micritic and fossiliferous soil deposit in thesurroundings. It is located in the area of S. Angelo, less than 9 km from the site.

From a technological point of view the so-called “ordinary pottery” of Ripabianca di Monterado, is notvery fine. It shows some organic material that might have been artificially added (G1), some quartz sand(groups 1 and 2), and flint. Only sample RDM 7 (G2 sub. c) contains some grog temper. The firing temperatu-re was not very high, since the matrix is non-vitrified and the micas are well preserved. It is possible that thetechnology employed in the production of the figulina pottery consisted in washing and decanting the clay forfew days before being utilised by the potters. This consideration is based on the observation of the soil samplecollected next to the site, which has a fabric, slightly coarser, although similar to those of the sherds analysed(e.g. the soil has some large flint grains that are not present in the figulina fabric). Nevertheless, the technolo-gical process must have not required many efforts, since the similarities with the natural clay are very close. Itis interesting to note that the ordinary pottery has been manufactured with iron-rich and non-micritic clay,whilst the figulina ware has been produced with a calcareous and fossiliferous soil. Therefore, two differentmaterials have been utilised for two typologically different classes of ceramic.

3.4.1. Correlation between Ripabianca di Monterado and Maddalena di MucciaFrom a minero-petrographic point of view, the pottery assemblages from Maddalena di Muccia and from

Ripabianca di Monterado, show few similarities. Both group 1 from Maddalena di Muccia, and group 1 fromRipabianca di Monterado have very iron-rich fabrics with flint and radiolarian chert. Nevertheless, the clayexploited for the Ripabianca di Monterado group 1 is richer in quartz and contains some limestone, which isabsent in MDM, G1. Both groups show the presence of organic material. Sample MDM 2 (G1 sub. a) showssome limestone. It is characterised by monocrystalline, non-polycrystalline limestone as that known for theRDM group 1. Two distinct sources must have been exploited. The Maddalena di Muccia groups 2 and 4 havenothing in common with the petrographic groups of Ripabianca di Monterado. In fact G2-MDM has only veryabundant and fine quartz in a very iron-rich fabric with very rare flint inclusions. G4 shows a very micriticfabric rich only in limestone part of which is fossiliferous.

Sample RDM 18 (G1 sub. b) is very similar to that of group 1, MDM. They have a red iron-rich fabricwith abundant fine quartz, flint, some radiolarian chert, feldspar, rare pyroxene, and muscovite. RDM 18 isricher in iron and muscovite and does not show any organic temper. These two groups must come from asimilar source.

3.4.2. Correlation between Ripabianca di Monterado and Fornace CappucciniSome similarities can be observed between Fornace Cappuccini group 1 and Ripabianca di Monterado

¯ 163

group 1. They are characterised by very iron-rich fabrics with flint and muscovite, tempered with quartz sandwith granitic rock fragments (e.g. FC 3 and RDM 14). The difference is the presence of occasional limestonein a non-calcareous matrix, and the slightly higher percentage of radiolarian chert in the Ripabianca di Mon-terado group, whilst the radiolarian chert is rare and the limestone is absent at Fornace Cappuccini. Bothgroups have been tempered with sand characterised by polycrystalline quartz, feldspar, and granitic rockfragments. Group 2 sub. a (RDM 17) of Ripabianca di Monterado shows strong similarity with sample FC 10of Fornace Cappuccini (G3) (Chapter 4, 1.4.1.).

3.4.3. Correlation between fabric and typologyGroup 1 is characterised by vessels with both finger and instrumental impressions. Apart from one sample

(RDM 16), decorated with incised lines, all the potsherds of group 1 sub. a have impressed motifs. The samplesof group 2 are characterised by different typological shapes including hemispherical bowls, one fragment ofdeep, large vessel and one flask (RDM 4) with horizontal, linear incised decorations. The potsherd RDM 17 (G2sub. a) is a plain base. It is impossible to attribute sample RDM 10 (G2 sub. b) to any typological form. Group 2sub. c (sample RDM 7) is a vessel with incised motifs. One vase with instrumental impressions constitutes itssubgroup. Group 3 fits into the same coarse figulina group. This site is very rich in figulina pottery. It is characte-rised by hemispherical bowls (RDM 25, 27 and 29) very similar to each other, deep vessels (RDM 21 and 30),and one carinated pot (RDM 28), most probably to be attributed to a tulip-shaped form. This sherd is typical forthe Ripabianca di Monterado phase. It represents a precise cultural and chronological indicator.

On the basis of the above-mentioned data, it is clear that the parallels that can be traced between vesselshapes, decorations and their fabric are not perfect. The only correspondence between typology and fabric isthat of the first group that is very homogeneous from every point of view (fabric, style, and typology).

Regarding the relationships between the similar fabrics of Ripabianca di Monterado and Maddalena diMuccia, the only common typological forms are those of RDM 18 and of Maddalena di Muccia group 1 (eventhough it must be stressed that there is a chronological gap of some two-three hundred radiocarbon yearsbetween the two Impressed Ware sites). They are stylistically identical because of the type of impressed motifsthat decorate their walls.

4. SCAMUSO (Torre a Mare, Bari)

The Neolithic site of Scamuso is located on a small calcarenitic promontory projecting towards the sea,some 3 km east of Torre a Mare, 18 km southeast of Bari, in Apulia (fig. 88). Its precise geographic location is40°04’50” lat. N. and 4°35’00” long. E. of Monte Mario (Rome) (BIANCOFIORE, 1957; COPPOLA, 1986). Thearchaeological site is partly eroded by the sea.

The first excavations were carried out in 1983 when two trenches, called AI and AIII, were opened. Theywere resumed between 1985 and 1988 when two more trenches were excavated (AIV and AV).

Trench AI was opened in the central part of the site. It revealed a sequence of some 70 cm. The uppermost,disturbed layer contained glazed wares of Historical age, while the lower one, subdivided into artificial spits,yielded Neolithic material attributed to different cultural aspects, to the Impressed Ware, Scratched Ware,Serra d’Alto and Diana Cultures.

Trench AIII was excavated in the western part of the settlement. It covered an area of 8 square m. Thesequence, 1.50 m deep, was subdivided into 20 artificial spits, the lowermost of which produced traces ofEarly Neolithic occupation. More precisely Impressed Ware sherds start to appear from spit 12, together withscratched and painted wares.

A “hut floor” was discovered in spits 14-20, down to the bedrock. It was partly excavated during the 1983campaign when a hearth, rich in charcoals, was found in the central part of the trench. The hearth was radio-carbon dated to 7290±110 BP (Gif-6339), which is one of the oldest dates so far obtained for the ImpressedWare Culture of Apulia (COPPOLA, 1986).

More extensive excavations were carried out in 1985-1988, when a surface of 77 square m was opened.The lowermost levels of this excavation are attributable to the Impressed Ware Culture, even though thestratigraphy of this trench is not very clear. Here the Impressed Wares make their appearance from the upper-most spits, where they are associated with Diana and red painted pottery. Also this deposit was excavated in

164

Fig. 88 - Scamuso: location of the Neolithic sttlement (dot) and of the soil sample (square). Scale in kilometres.

(18) artificial spits. Charcoals from spits 14 and 16 of layer III were radiocarbon dated to 6600±120 BP (Gif-7345: spit 14) and 6810±80 BP (Gif-7055: spit 16). Some authors consider these dates more reliable than thatobtained from the same levels (Gif-6339) during the preceding campaigns (BIANCOFIORE and COPPOLA, 1997).The thickness of this deposit varies from 0.80 to 1.50 m.

Spits 13 and 14 of layer III yielded a great concentration of daub fragments, which probably suggest thepresence of a “hut floor” foundation, even though the excavation did not yield any trace of walls or postholes. Apavement of cobble, with hearths was uncovered in the same spits. Traces of walled hut-foundations come fromthe overlying spits 7 and 8 (layer II), which are characterised by the occurrence of scratched and painted wares.

The Impressed Ware ceramic assemblageMost of the Impressed Ware potsherds were found in spits 17 and 18 of layer IIIc (31.58%) of the 1985-

88 excavations, although also monochrome brown pottery (15.86%) and undecorated wares (47.60%) comefrom these spits. These data seem to indicate that the first Neolithic occupation of the site does not belong toa pure Impressed Ware horizon, but that elements of other traditions also occur (BIANCOFIORE and COPPOLA,1997: 154). Spit 12 of layer IIIb has been related to Rendina Phase I (CIPOLLONI SAMPÒ, 1977-1982) because ofthe abundance of Guadone style Impressed Ware ceramics. This indicates that at least two distinct phases inthe development of the Impressed Ware Culture are attested at Scamuso.

The few Impressed Ware sherds illustrated in the above-mentioned reports, suggest that the first Impres-sed Ware Culture of this site is characterised by coarse, open bowls and necked jars decorated with finger,fingernail, instrumental, small dots, and Cardium “rocker” motifs. This is the pottery that BIANCOFIORE andCOPPOLA (1997) attribute to their Group R. Group I of the same authors refers to a class of finer ImpressedWares, including a small number of sherds decorated with instrumental, small dots, zigzag, and geometricpatterns. A third class, which is very poorly represented, is that of the Guadone style open bowls, whoseinternal surface is often painted with brown motifs.

BIANCOFIORE and COPPOLA (1997: 65) also published the percentages of the different Impressed Warevarieties. The R type pottery represents 8.47% of the total assemblage, while type I only 1.51%.

The chipped and polished stone assemblagesAccording to the excavators, the Neolithic chipped stone assemblage of the 1985-1988 excavations

includes 2500 flint artefacts and 265 obsidian pieces. The instruments have been described and illustrated

¯ 165

according to their spit of provenance. Their cultural attribution is sometimes difficult to argue. Nevertheless,there are some tools that are characteristic of the Impressed Ware horizon, such as the trapezoidal geometricinstruments. Some of these were probably obtained with the microburin technique, even though these residuesare not represented in the archaeological record. Other Early Neolithic tools are straight borers and narrowbladelets with abrupt, marginal retouch. All the other implements are of uncertain cultural attribution.

The above-mentioned tools show similarities with those from the Impressed Ware site of Torre Sabea(CREMONESI and GUILAINE , 1987). It is difficult to attribute all the “sickle gloss” blades to the Early Neolithicbecause of the size variability of the blanks. BIANCOFIORE and COPPOLA (1997: 151) mention the presence ofupper and lower querns obtained from limestone and sandstone pebbles as well as of limestone polishers andhammerstones.

The bone assemblageThe bone instruments are represented from layer IIIa upwards. They include long perforators, sometimes

finely polished, fishhooks, spatulae, polished flat fragments, and ornamental objects. Some of the perforators can be compared to similar specimens from Rendina III (CIPOLLONI SAMPÒ, 1977-

1982), while others find parallels in other instruments from the Middle Neolithic caves of Sant’Angelo nearCassano Ionio and San Biagio near Ostuni (COPPOLA, 1983).

The marine shells assemblageThe great number of worked marine shells led the excavators think that part of the site was devoted to the

workmanship of marine molluscs. The commonest shells are Monodonta turbinata employed for makingrings, a few broken specimens of which have been discovered, Cerastoderma edule (layer IIIb), and Denta-lium, sp. (layer IIIb). Other worked shells, used for making necklaces or beads, are Columbella rustica (layerIII), Conus mediterraneus (layer Ic), and Cyclops neritea (layer III).

The subsistence economyThe archaeobotanical analysis of the Early Neolithic levels was conducted on a good sample of charred

seeds recovered by flotation and water-sieving of the sediments, and on the study of the imprints of 239 piecesof daub (COSTANTINI et al., 1997: 200). The general picture obtained from their identifications is that of adeveloped and varied agricultural economic subsistence based on the cultivation of several species of cerealsand legumes among which are Triticum monococcum, T. dicoccum, T. aestivum, T. compactum, Hordeum,vulgare, Lens culinaris and Pisum sp., and a vine of Vitis sylvestris/vinifera.

In Apulia, a situation similar to that of Scamuso was already known from the identification of the charredarchaeobotanical remains from Coppa Nevigata (SARGENT, 1987), Passo di Corvo, Torre Sabea (COSTANTINI

and LENTINI, 1991), and Ripa Tetta (COSTANTINI and TOZZI, 1987).Regarding the faunal remains, the predominance of domesticated animals is well documented at Scamuso

since the beginning of the Neolithic. This situation is identical to that of other Apulian sites, among which areRendina (BÖKÖNYI, 1977-1982), Masseria Candelaro and Masseria Valente (BÖKÖNYI, 1983), Torre Sabea andRipa Tetta (CASTELLETTI et al., 1987). Caprovines, pig and cattle represent the majority of the bones from theEarly Neolithic spits, while the incidence of wild animals is irrelevant (CASSOLI e TAGLIACOZZO, 1997: 228).The meat diet of the Impressed Ware inhabitants was based on young sheep/goat individuals. A certain rolewas also played by the gathering of marine resources, as indicated by the presence of crabs and sea urchins,while marine shells were mainly collected for making ornaments (WILKENS, 1997: 246).


The geology of the area surrounding the village of Scamuso is characterised by white or yellowish arena-ceous limestones and by Pleistocene arenaceous-argillic limestone deposits, which often include fossiliferouslevels with Ostrea sp., Pecten sp., etc., and horizons of argillic marls. In the territory around the archaeologi-cal site, outcrop layers of the Cretaceous, carbonaceous platform, and of Pleistocene calcarenite, sandy andclayey deposits of “Tufi delle Murge”. They belong to two distinct sedimentary periods (SPECCHIO, 1985-1986). The upper part of the first cycle includes a yellowish and greyish marl-clayey deposit, known as“Argille di Rutigliano”, which lies above a sand layer. It contains some thin ashy levels, composed almostexclusively of pumice. The mineralogy of the clay is represented by illite, smectite, caolinite, quartz, feldspar,

166

pyroxene, granite, carbonates, amphibole, mica, rutile, zircon, iron oxides and hydroxides (DELL’A NNA, 1969).The second cycle is composed of sands, whose lower part is rich in Oysters and Pectinides, while its

upper part is rich in small Gastropods. They are followed by thin layers of terra rossa. The sands includequartz, calcite and feldspar. The stratigraphic position, the granulometry of the deposit and the abundance ofcalcarenitic pebbles indicate that these sediments are of alluvial origin (Foglio 177 della Carta Geologicad’Italia, Bari, 1:100000; Foglio 178 della Carta Geologica d’Italia, Mola di Bari, 1:100000).

4.2. ANALYSES

Four different fabrics have been recognised among the twenty-one potsherds analysed in thin sectionfrom the Impressed Ware site of Scamuso (figs. 89-91; table 15, Appendix 3).

G1 - (9 samples: SCA 2, 3, 6, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20) (figs. 92a and 92b)Yellowish-brown-reddish, slightly micritic, fossiliferous matrix, characterised by abundant, poorly-sorted, subangular and angularquartz with some rounded grains (25%; size range between 0.4 by 0.3 and 0.04 by 0.02 mm), abundant fine rounded fragments ofpolycrystalline limestone (up to 5%; typical size 0.08 by 0.06 mm), polycrystalline quartz (2%), flint (<3%), some very fresh feldspar(<3%), green pyroxene (>2%), occasional muscovite mica, some clay pellets, opaques and iron oxides (3%). SCA 12 contains a lavagrain. The fabric of most samples, with the exception of SCA 12, 16 and 17, contain microfossils;

sub. a (4 samples: SCA 4, 7, 10, 21) (fig. 92c)Fossiliferous matrix of light brown colour along the edges, and dark brown colour in the centre (due to reduced firing atmosphere).It is characterised by poorly-sorted, less abundant and finer quartz than that of G1 (20%; size range between 0.2 by 0.1 and 0.03 by0.02 mm). Some of the quartz grains are rounded. The fabric has a very high percentage of most probably added organic material(some 15%), most probably grass, rounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (7%; typical size 0.1 by 0.08 mm), some very freshfeldspar (>3%), green pyroxene (3%), few muscovite mica, rare lava grains (fig. 92d), some polycrystalline quartz, rare flint, veryfew amphibole, opaques and iron oxides (<3%). The fabrics of all samples, with the exception of SCA 21, contain many microfossils;

sub. b (1 sample: SCA 19)Brown micritic, fossiliferous fabric very similar, although more calcareous than that of G1. It shows poorly-sorted subangular andangular quartz (<15%; size range between 0.2 by 0.15 and 0.04 by 0.02 mm), abundant rounded fragments of polycrystalline limesto-ne (>15%; typical size 0.3 by 0.2 mm), flint (2%), feldspar (2%), some plagioclase, rare pyroxene (1%), muscovite mica (>1%), onecalcite fragment, and many microfossils. It contains one shell fragment.

G2 - (3 samples: SCA 1, 5, 8) (fig. 92e)Red, iron-rich matrix with poorly-sorted, abundant, mainly subangular quartz (>25%; size range between 0.4 by 0.3 and 0.05 by 0.04mm), very probably collected from a watercourse, abundant rounded and subrounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (>10%;size range between 2.5 by 1.6 and 0.8 by 0.6 mm) some of which are fossiliferous. It contains rare flint (>1%), polycrystalline quartz(<2%), feldspar (<2%), some pyroxene, rare muscovite mica, iron oxides (>5%), and rare bohnerz. Two samples (SCA 1 and 5) showsome subrounded calcareous sandstone fragments (quartz arenite given that almost all grains are made of quartz: I. FREESTONE, pers.comm. 2001);

sub. a (1 sample: SCA 14)Red iron-rich matrix with abundant, poorly-sorted, mainly subangular and rounded quartz (30%; size range between 0.48 by 0.3 and0.06 by 0.04 mm), flint (>3%), occasional pyroxene, feldspar (2%), rounded and subrounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone(7%; same range size G2), and one shell fragment.

G3 - (2 samples: SCA 9, 18) (fig. 92f)Dark red, very iron-rich matrix with many small rounded and subrounded fragments of polycrystalline limestone (15%; size range between1.2 by 0.9 and 0.2 by 0.1 mm), poorly-sorted angular and subangular quartz (15%; size range between 0.1 by 0.8 and 0.03 by 0.02 mm), highpercentage of iron oxides (>15%), muscovite mica (2%), rare feldspar, and pyroxene. They do not show any added inclusion.G4 - (1 sample: SCA 15) (fig. 92g)Brown calcareous matrix with few angular and subangular quartz (7%; size range between 0.2 by 0.17 and 0.03 by 0.02 mm),abundant rounded-shape fragments of polycrystalline limestone (20%; typical size 0.3 by 0.2 mm), rare polycrystalline quartz, veryrare feldspar, flint, calcite, and pyroxene. It does not show any added inclusion.

One soil sample (figs. 88 and 92h), collected from the lower sequence of the site, has been analysed in thin section. It shows abrown micritic fabric rich in poorly-sorted angular and subangular quartz (25%; size range between 2.5 by 2 and 0.04 by 0.03 mm),rare polycrystalline quartz and flint (1%), some muscovite mica (2%), abundant pyroxene (3%), opaques and iron oxides (>7%),some feldspar and plagioclase (2%), rare fine grained limestone, amphibole, and radiolarian chert (1%).

4.2.1. Summary of group characteristicsGroup 1 shows a yellowish, brown-reddish, slightly micritic, and fossiliferous fabric with abundant quar-

tz (mainly subangular grains), limestone and fragments of mud, polycrystalline quartz, some flint, fresh feld-spar and plagioclase, rare muscovite, some green pyroxene, clay pellets, opaques, and iron oxides. The fabric

¯ 167

Fig. 89 - Scamuso: pottery from the Impressed Ware layers.

168


¯ 169


170

Fig. 92 - Scamuso: photomicrographs of thin section samples: a) SCA 20, b) SCA 11, c) and d) SCA 4, e) SCA 5, f) SCA 18, g) SCA 15, h) soilsample (XPL, X40, with the exception of d) SCA 4, XPL, X100) (photographs by M. Spataro).

a)

c)

e)

g)

b)

d)

f)

h)

¯ 171

of most samples contains microfossils. Group 1 sub. a is very similar to that of G1, although it shows abun-dant, probably artificially added, organic material (probably grass), and rare lava grains. The matrix of G1sub. b is almost identical, but more micritic, than that of G1. The quartz sand of G1 and its subgroups has been,most probably, added (bimodal distribution) (I. FREESTONE, pers. comm. 2001). Group 2 is characterised by ared iron-rich fabric, with quartz sand (most grains are subangular and rounded), and abundant fragments ofrounded polycrystalline limestone. Also the sandy quartz of this group has most probably been added. Somelimestone fragments contain fossils. Contrary to G1, this matrix is much more iron-rich and non-fossiliferous.The fabric contains some flint, polycrystalline quartz, feldspar, occasional pyroxene, muscovite mica, andiron oxides. Two samples (SCA 1 and 5) have small calcareous sandstone fragments. Group 2 sub. a is verysimilar to G2, although it contains more quartz sand and fewer fragments of limestone. The fabric of group 3is as rich in iron as that of G2, and it is richer in polycrystalline limestone. It shows little quartz, occasionalfeldspar, pyroxene and muscovite. It does not show any artificially added inclusion. Group 4 (SCA 15) showsa micritic fabric with abundant rounded-shape limestone, a low percentage of quartz, very occasional feldspar,flint, calcite, and pyroxene. It has not been tempered. The limestone is very fine-grained and rounded. It mighthave been collected in the proximity of a watercourse.

The fabric of the soil sample is not identical to that of the ceramic fabrics, although it shows strongsimilarities in the quartz sand of G1 and G1 sub. a. They both are characterised by abundant quartz, pyroxene,amphibole, feldspar, flint, and polycrystalline quartz. The fabric of the soil sample does not show any micro-fossil or lava grain.

4.2.2. SEM-EDS analysesThe samples of G1 have yielded quite homogeneous results with the exception of potash, which spans

from 2.76 to 5.16% and calcium oxide (2.40-13.90%) (table 15, Appendix 4). The latter is probably due to thevisible presence of limestone in the bulk analysis. Its subgroup a has produced almost the same data withslightly more abundant calcium oxide, due to the higher percentage of limestone. G1 sub. b (SCA 19) hasyielded different data: lower silica and iron oxide, very high soda (3.72%), magnesia (3.22%), and calciumoxide (22.22%). In thin section it is clear that SCA 19 contains less quartz and more limestone than G1 and G1sub. a. It is interesting to note that, on the basis of the SEM-EDS results, G1 and G1 sub. a are very homoge-neous. Also in thin section they are very similar, with the exception of the presence of organic temper in G1sub. a. G2 and G2 sub. a have yielded SEM-EDS results similar to those of G1, apart from a higher percentageof iron oxide. This is very interesting, because in thin section they look very different (see Chapter 4, 4.2.1.).G2 sub. a shows the same results of G2; the only difference is the (slightly increased) abundance of magnesiaand calcium oxide.

Groups 3 and 4 are definitely different from the others. G3 is different from the previous two groups: itcontains high iron oxide, less silica and potash (less quartz and feldspar), and much more calcium (abundantlimestone) and titania than groups 1 and 2. G4 is characterised by the lowest percentages of aluminia (7.60%),silica (22.60%; few quartz), and iron oxide (2.28%; non iron-rich), while calcium oxide is the highest (61.94%;micritic fabric and very abundant rounded fragments of limestone).

The SEM-EDS analyses confirm the differences between G3 and 4 and G1 and 2, although no differencehas been noticed between G1 and G2 (e.g. SCA 1, G2 and SCA 20, G1 have produced almost identical results).This method confirms the strong similarities within groups and their subgroups. In contrast, G3 and G4 can beundoubtedly defined as two distinct groups.

4.2.3. XRD analysesFour potsherds (SCA 1, 6, 10, 15) analysed in thin section have also been studied by XRD.The XRD pattern of sample SCA 6 (G1: fig. 93, top) shows muscovite, quartz, rutile, and chlorite. It is

very similar to that of SCA 1 (G2: fig. 93, bottom). Both show muscovite, quartz and rutile. Rutile is anaccessory mineral of granites. It occurs as an alteration of the mica, and, as in this case, with an abundantpresence of feldspar and quartz. SCA 6 shows chlorite that is not present in SCA 1, whereas SCA 1 has calcite.Chlorite is a micaceous mineral widely distributed. It can also derive from the alteration of pyroxene that isnaturally present in the clay of group 2 and “is often accompanied by other minerals such as limonite, calcite,etc.” (FORD, 1949: 669).

The pattern of SCA 10 (G1 sub. a: fig. 94, top) shows calcite, kaolinite (Chapter 2, 6.1.), muscovite, quartz,

172

chlorite, and anatase. Most of the minerals are present also in the previous two samples (G1 and G2). They are:calcite, muscovite, quartz and chlorite. This sample shows a kaolinitic clay with anatase. It is impossible toidentify kaolinite through an optical microscope because the clay mineral is too small (<4µ). Anatase occurs ingranite, mica schists, etc. It is often associated with quartz, hematite, rutile, etc. (FORD, 1949: 500). It is veryinteresting to point out that the soils surrounding the site are characterised by kaolinitic clay (see Chapter 4, 4.1),rutile and mica. The pattern of SCA 15 (G4: fig. 94, bottom) shows only calcite, muscovite, and quartz. Unfortu-nately, these minerals are extremely common. They are usually very typical of sedimentary environments. Thisis the reason why they are of no help in the identification the provenance of this sherd. The thin section analysisof this sherd shows also feldspar, flint and pyroxene in a silty, calcareous matrix.

To conclude: there is a strong correlation between the minerals of groups 1, 1 sub. a and 2. This evidencesupports the idea of similar sources that are compatible with the pedological context of the site, indicating alocal origin.

4.3. DISCUSSION

The micritic and fossiliferous matrix of group 1 has been most probably tempered with quartz sand withsubangular and round-shaped grains. The sand might be of volcanic origin, because of the presence of freshfeldspars and green pyroxene. Its subgroup a has been heavily tempered with organic material (probablygrass, because of the very elongated shape of the holes) and the same quartz sand of G1. The sand is ofvolcanic origin because of the very fresh aspect of the feldspar, plagioclase, green pyroxene, and rare lavagrains (fig. 92d). The fabric of group 2 is different from that of G1. It is iron-rich and neither fossiliferous normicritic. It contains some limestone and some calcareous sandstone fragments. It has been tempered withquartz sand (because of the rounded grains and the bimodal distribution). It also shows some pyroxene, feld-spar, and polycrystalline quartz like that of group 1, even though its percentage is lower. Group 3 has an iron-rich fabric, not as fossiliferous as that of group 2, with more fragments of polycrystalline limestone and non-artificially added quartz. Group 4 is very micritic, non-fossiliferous and without any addition of temper. In allthe groups the limestone is of rounded and subrounded shape, therefore it was naturally present in the clayexploited for the pottery manufacture.

4.4. CONCLUSIONS

Four different sources have been exploited for the production of the vessels of the Impressed Ware site ofScamuso. The source utilised for group 1 is most probably local. It shows a micritic, kaolinitic and fossilife-rous fabric with two types of added temper: organic material and sand.

The quartz sand is of volcanic origin because of the very fresh aspect of the feldspar plagioclase, greenpyroxene, and rare lava grains. The source is non-volcanic because there are no volcanic rock fragments,and the lava grains are very rounded. A watercourse has probably transported them. It is reasonable to thinkthat the potters mixed the local yellowish fossiliferous, micritic clay with some sand collected from the LaLama River that flows some 2 km apart; furthermore, the soil sample shows a similar detrital fraction (seeChapter 4, 4.2.1.).

The clay might have been collected from the vicinity of the site, not necessarily from a watercourse,because the local clays contain ashy levels characterised by pumice (see Chapter 4, 4.1.) with carbonates,granate, feldspars, pyroxene, amphibole, micas, zircon and rutile.

The source exploited for the manufacture of the vessels of group 2 is very different from the precedingone. Despite a similar chemistry and mineralogy, as indicated by SEM-EDS and XRD, there are clear differen-ces in the fabric, such as the occurrence of microfossils in G1 and rare fossiliferous limestone inclusions inG2, and a higher percentage of iron oxide in the latter. It does not show any fossiliferous and micritic matrix.On the contrary it is very rich in iron, with some calcareous rock fragments.

The added temper must have been similar to the sand utilised for the preceding group. It is characterisedby a lower percentage of the same minerals: feldspar, pyroxene, polycrystalline quartz, and flint. It does notshow any lava grain. A similarity between these two groups is confirmed also by the results of the XRDanalyses (see Chapter 4, 4.2.3.).

The source was probably located in an area belonging to the “second cycle” of sedimentation where thesands are composed of quartz, feldspar, and calcite. The clay exploited for the production of group 3 issimilar to that exploited for the manufacture of group 2 (non-fossiliferous, iron-rich, and micritic) characte-

¯ 173

Fig. 93 - Scamuso: XRD pattern of samples SCA 6 (top) and SCA 1 (bottom).

rised by some muscovite, feldspar and pyroxene, and richer in polycrystalline quartz. It does not show anyadded temper.

To conclude, the source utilised for group 4 is very micritic but non-fossiliferous. Also the XRD pattern ofthis sample is not of great help because it does not reveal the presence of minerals that indicate an allochto-nous provenance. The micritic clay is typical of the area surrounding the site; nevertheless, its source isdifferent from that of group 1 because it is not fossiliferous like those of groups 2 and 3. In effect, these latterdo not show any fossiliferous fabric.

174

Fig. 94 - Scamuso: XRD pattern of samples SCA 10 (top) and SCA 15 (bottom).

The inhabitants of the Early Neolithic village of Scamuso exploited, 1) for the manufacture of the vessels ofgroup 1, a micritic, yellowish-brownish, fossiliferous source adding sand that had been probably collected froma river, characterised by volcanic minerals; 2) for the production of group 2, an iron-rich clay with limestone, andquartz, and sand similar to that exploited for the temper of group 1; 3) for group 3 a basin more calcareous butsimilar to the above-mentioned one; 4) for group 4, a very micritic, non-fossiliferous, and yellowish clay.

¯ 175

According to the results of the XRD, the thin section analyses of the ceramics and of the soil, and of thestudy of the geology/pedology of the area, it is most probable that the sources exploited for the production ofthe four groups of pottery are located in the surroundings of the site (see Chapter 4, 4.1. and 4.2.3). It is alsovery probable that the temper employed for groups 1 and 2 was collected in a river flowing close to the site.

These data are of extreme importance since they indicate the local manufacture of Impressed Ware potte-ry at one of the earliest, Early Neolithic sites of the Italian Peninsula so far known.

4.4.1. Correlation between typology and fabricIn many cases it has been possible to define the style and, sometimes, the shape of the potsherds in order

to suggest some correlations between the microscopic groups identified in thin section, and the macroscopicgroups, defined on their typological-stylistic characteristics. Only one sherd is too small and undecorated tobe attributed to any macroscopic group. Since it is very difficult to reconstruct the shapes from these smallfragments, the correlations have mainly been based on the decorative motifs.

Group 1 is composed of sherds belonging to similarly decorated vessels. SCA 2, 6, 12, and 16 haveCardium impressions. Samples SCA 3 and 13 are identical: they have recurrent triangular, geometric motifsobtained with a sharp, pointed instrument. Group 1 sub. a includes, among others, two sherds with fingernailimpressions all over the body (SCA 10 and 21).

Two other samples are decorated with incised lines (SCA 4 and 7). The sherds of group 2 (SCA 1, 5, 8)show similar decorative patterns. Most of them have incised, linear motifs, with the exception of SCA 14 (G2sub. a) that is absolutely different. It is a bottom fragment with Cardium impressions. Sample SCA 1 is a flaskfragment. Group 3 (SCA 18 and SCA 9) is represented by very large vessels with very thick walls and incisedmotifs. Group 4 (SCA 15) is a fragment of brown, painted vessel. From a microscopic point of view, it is aunique piece.

There are some correlations also between macroscopic and microscopic groups. From a stylistic, morethan from a typological point of view, groups 1 and 2 are similar (therefore they would fit into only onegroup). Group 3 is characterised by very thick-walled, large, open vessels. This is also the case for SCA 12(G1 sub. c). It is interesting to note that also the single case of group 4 (SCA 15) is typologically verydifferent.

To sum up: these data suggest some correlations between the typology and the fabric of Scamuso cerami-cs. In many cases, as for groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, the correlation is clear, even though not perfect (see G2 sub. a).From a typological point of view the sherds of groups 1 sub. a and 2 might be grouped together. StylisticallyG2 sub. a has nothing in common with the potsherds of group 2. It should fit into group 1 because of the samedecorative, Cardium impressed, patterns.

5. CORRELATION BETWEEN THE FABRICS OF THE SOIL SAMPLES ANALYSED IN THIN SECTION

Since the soil samples collected from the vicinity of the sites have been considered as evidences ofrelationships with the ceramic assemblages, it is useful to compare the different fabrics in order to stress theirsimilarities and differences.

5.1. THE ITALIAN SOIL SAMPLES

Most of the soil samples from the Italian sites have been analysed in thin section (table 16, Appendix 3).They are characterised by strong differences. Starting from the north, the soil of Fagnigola is brown, iron-richand slightly micritic. It has some quartz, flint, rare limestone, occasional radiolarian chert, polycrystallinequartz, rare muscovite mica, iron oxides and opaques (Chapter 5, 3.). The Maddalena di Muccia (MDM) soilis totally different: its light brown fabric is very micritic with abundant limestone and angular flint (absent inFagnigola soil sample) and no quartz.

The soil formed out of a breccia (R. MACPHAIL, pers. comm. 2001) (Chapter 4, 2.2.). The fabric of the soilsample of Ripabianca di Monterado is light brown, very micritic with abundant quartz, feldspar, muscovitemica, which are absent in the MDM soil (Chapter 4, 3.2.). Moving further to the south, the Scamuso soilsample has nothing in common with the preceding ones (Chapter 4, 4.2.).

It shows a brown, slightly micritic fabric with very abundant quartz, flint, some muscovite, rare polycry-

176

stalline quartz, limestone fragments, feldspar, plagioclase, amphibole, radiolarian chert, and abundant pyro-xene. It differs from the other samples for the high quantity of pyroxene, the presence of feldspar, plagioclase,amphibole that are almost absent in the other soils.

5.2. THE ISTRIAN AND DALMATIAN SOIL SAMPLES

All the soil samples of the eastern Adriatic coast have been analysed in thin section (table 16,Appendix 3). The soil from Viùla (VZ) (Chapter 3, 1.2.) has a red fabric characterised by abundant,fine angular and subangular quartz, iron oxides, biotite and muscovite, rare pyroxene, and red clayfragments. The Jami na Sredi (JNS) sample (Chapter 3, 2.2.) has a reddish, non-calcareous fabric withabundant and fine angular and subangular quartz, fine muscovite, rare pyroxene, clay pellets, and someiron oxides. These two soils are similar, although Vi•ula shows some peculiar red clay fragments (whichcharacterise also the ceramic group 1, VZ), which are absent in JNS soil, and a finer and higher contentof quartz.

The soil sample collected in the proximity of the cave of Vela Jama (VJ) some 8 km from the placewhere the JNS soil was collected, is similar to the latter one (iron-rich and non-calcareous fabric with ahigh percentage of fine quartz), although VJ has a darker fabric with some terra rossa soil and fragmentsof calcite (absent in the preceding soils) (Chapter 3, 3.2.).

The Tinj (TN) soil sample is very different from the above-mentioned ones. It has a very micriticfabric with fossiliferous limestone, quartz much coarser than that of the preceding soils, limestone, andflint (Chapter 3, 4.2.). The Smilčić (SML) soil has been collected about 20 km from TN. It is similar tothat of TN because they both show a micritic fabric with abundant fragments of limestone, part of whichis fossiliferous, muscovite mica and flint.

Nevertheless, some differences have been noted, since Smilčić has a higher quantity of flint, is moreiron-rich and has some terra rossa soil (Chapter 3, 5.4.1.). The soil of Vrbica (VRB) is again differentfrom those already described. It has a very iron-rich and slightly calcareous fabric with very fine quartzand monocrystalline fragments of limestone (Chapter 3, 6.2.). It does not show the micritic fabrics ofSML and TN, and the very iron-rich non-calcareous fabrics of VZ, VJ and JNS. Furthermore, it showsless variety of inclusions.

The Konjevrate (KNV) soil is very similar to that of VRB: its fabric is very iron-rich and slightlycalcareous with abundant limestone (Chapter 3, 7.2.). The only difference is that at KNV, quartz is moreabundant and coarser than at VRB, and that rare zircon and pyroxene are present, which are absent atVRB. The Danilo Bitinj (DB) soil has a dark red, iron-rich and non-calcareous fabric with quartz, abun-dant limestone, and iron oxides (Chapter 3, 8.2.).

It is more iron-rich than the VRB and KNV soils, with more abundant and coarser limestone frag-ments. The limestone is also iron-rich, similar to that of G1-DB. The Vela špilja (VS) soil is brown-reddish, iron-rich and non-calcareous with very abundant, fine and well-sorted quartz, some limestonefragments, rare flint and pyroxene (Chapter 3, 9.2.). It is much finer than the VRB, KNV and DB soilsand shows less abundant limestone. It is very similar to the VJ soil (brown, iron-rich fabric with abun-dant fine quartz), although VJ shows no flint and pyroxene, whereas in VJ there is calcite that is absentin VS.

5.3. DISCUSSION

To conclude, whereas the soil samples of the Italian Neolithic sites show very strong differences, somesoils of the eastern Adriatic coastline show some similarities. This is the case of the sites of JNS/VJ and VS/VJ. JNS and VJ lie very close to each other in a similar geological environment.

The definition of the provenance of the ceramics is made easier by the similarity between the soils. Giventhat the sites are located some 7.5 km apart, it is possible to think of their local provenance because of thesimilarities observed between the two pottery assemblages (Chapter 3, 3.4.). VS and VJ are two islands, some270 km apart, characterised by a similar geology.

The pottery assemblage examined from these two sites are of different age and culture (Hvar and IW,respectively). Also the soils from VRB/KNV and DB are similar. Nevertheless, the pottery analysed from DBbelongs to the Danilo Culture, whereas that from VRB and KNV belong to the IW Culture. VRB and KNV arelocated close to each other. A local provenance of their assemblages has been suggested because of the diffe-

¯ 177

rences and peculiarities of the fabrics analysed. When similarities have been noticed, they have not beenconfirmed by the typological characteristics of the vessels (Chapter 3, 6.4.1.).

Differences among the soils often allowed one to allocate a local origin for the ceramic from nearbysites (e.g. MDM and RDM). This highlights the necessity to not only compare different fabrics and styles/typologies with each other, but also to relate them to the local soil composition.

178

¯ 179

CHAPTER 5

THE FIGULINA POTTERY: ITS PRODUCTION AND TRADE

1. PREFACE

This chapter deals with a specific class of pottery that often occurs, though in varying percentages, in theImpressed Ware sites of the region under study (Chapter 1, 2. c). The term “ceramica figulina” is commonlyused in Italy to indicate a particular class of ceramic of yellowish, light buff, straw, greyish, or pinkish colourthat was found in great quantity at the Middle Neolithic site of Ripoli in the Vibrata Valley (Abruzzi, centralItaly). According to U. RELLINI (1934) and G. CREMONESI (1965), unpainted and painted figulina wares havebeen collected in “really enormous quantities” from the Neolithic pits of Ripoli. RELLINI (1934: 33) alsonoticed that both the unpainted and the painted figulina vessels show identical characteristics: “la figulinachiara, gialliccia, più di rado tendente al rossiccio, è d’impasto ben depurato e fine, di cottura omogenea intutto il suo spessore, con le superfici farinose al tatto e allappanti……quella dipinta, anch’essa in grandissi-ma quantità, è la stessa cosa di quella acroma”.

The Neolithic open-air site of Ripoli mainly flourished during the second half of the sixth millennium BP,according to the four available radiocarbon dates that cover a time-span between 5630±80 BP (R-664) and5100±120 BP (Pi-unpubl.) (ALESSIO et al., 1971; SKEATES, 1994). Nevertheless, given the recovery of typicalFiorano style carinated bowls and rhombic, geometric arrowheads, it is most probable that the site began to beinhabited around the end of the seventh millennium BP. Even though no kiln has ever been excavated atRipoli, this settlement has often been considered a production centre for this class of ceramic. The only kiln sofar known in southern Italy is that of Serra d’Alto, a Middle Neolithic village located near Matera in Basilica-ta, from which RIDOLA (1924-1926) reports the excavation of two interconnected pits, the wider of which, witha maximum diameter of 1.10 m, was 1.80 m deep. From this pit, rich in charcoal and ash, he collected somefragments of figulina painted ware. According to the detailed author’s description, “la cavità maggiore mo-strava le tracce di fuochi intensi che avevano cotto le pareti e lasciato ceneri e carboni. La cavità minore,nella quale si mettevano i vasi, non mostrava tracce di fuoco”. Another kiln is known from the north ItalianMiddle Neolithic site of Rivaltella, Ca’ Romensini, attributed to the earliest phase of the Square-MouthedPottery Culture, dated between the end of the seventh and the beginning of the sixth millennium BP (6070±110BP: I-12519) (TIRABASSI, 1987). This site also yielded a few figulina painted sherds.

Along the Adriatic coastline, the figulina ware was in use from the first half of the seventh millennium BP,during the flourishing of the Impressed Ware Culture, up to the end of the sixth millennium BP. This meansthat its chronology covers a time-span of more than 1500 radiocarbon years. All the sites taken into conside-ration for this study on the figulina pottery, belong to different periods of the seventh millennium BP. Thismeans that they all are undoubtedly older than the above-mentioned two from which we have evidence ofkilns where figulina pottery might have been produced.

In one of her papers on the Neolithic of southern Italy, MALONE (1985: 122) estimates that 142 Italiansites have yielded figulina pottery. 50% of them are located between Apulia and the Abruzzi. She alsoprovides us with typological schemes of the types of figulina vessels that characterise the different culturalaspects of the Early and Middle Neolithic of central and southern Italy. In addition, also some north Italiansites have yielded fragments of imported figulina unpainted or painted sherds. Some of these belong to theEarly Neolithic Fiorano Culture, while the great majority are attributed to the Middle Neolithic Square-Mouthed Pottery Culture (BARFIELD, 1981). In both cases figulina vessels are often in the form of flasks oropen bowls or occur in the shape of unique handles and lugs. According to BARFIELD (1981: 32) “the vesselsare just as likely to have been prized as exchange objects in their own right”. He also suggests that flaskswere used to transport specific goods such as wine. Even though the present evidence for seeds of Vitis sp.is quite scarce in Neolithic northern Italy (BAGOLINI et al., 1973: 205), the employment of specific prestigepots for the preparation of alcoholic beverages has been demonstrated from other Neolithic areas of nor-thern Europe (HAYDEN, 1998: 30).

180

The discovery of one typical, complete Apulian, Serra d’Alto figulina small flask at Gaione, a Square-Mouthed Pottery settlement near Parma, in the Central Po Valley (BERNABÒ BREA et al., 1988), together with99 Sardinian and Liparian obsidian artefacts including not only bladelets and flakes, but also locally chippedcores (POLGLASE, 1988), reinforces the impression that a long-distance trade or exchange network of well-defined pottery shapes, as prestige items, was already active towards northern Italy at least by the MiddleNeolithic, if not before (TYKOT, 1996: 41; AMMERMAN and POLGLASE, 1997).

Painted, imported figulina potsherds are also recorded from the Ligurian caves of Arene Candide, Pollera,and dell’Acqua o del Morto (BERNABÒ BREA, 1946: 297). From this latter comes a neck fragment of flask,painted with typical Ripoli geometric patterns. It is similar to one of the two painted figulina flask bodyfragments discovered by Tiné in layer 13 of his excavations at the Arene Candide Cave (TINÉ, 1999: 395). Thislayer has been dated to the last three centuries of the seventh millennium BP (TINÉ, 1974).

There is no doubt that the generic term of ceramica figulina hides a variety of pottery of different colour,fabric, surface treatment, and painted decoration. However, up-to-now only five figulina samples have beenanalysed in thin section by T. MANNONI (1999). They all come from the Arene Candide Cave, although fromchronologically and culturally different archaeological contexts, ranging from the Impressed Ware to theSquare-Mouthed Pottery Culture. Their external, surface appearance is also different. They have been descri-bed as grey, red, and red-grey wares. Unfortunately the results of the analyses are somewhat disappointingsince they reached the only conclusion that “I campioni di ceramica figulina presentano un’argilla tantodepurata da non essere dissimile da quella delle migliori terre sigillate romane…...Le informazioni sullapossibile provenienza vengono così a scemare” (M ANNONI, 1999: 217).

Also the figulina pottery from the central Po Valley sites is not very homogeneous. For instance, thepotsherds recovered from the Vhò and Fiorano (BAGOLINI and BIAGI, 1975) sites are whitish or straw coloured.The texture is also different since their surfaces are sometimes “powdery”, sometimes more compact. A simi-lar observation can be made for the central and south Italian figulina that is represented by more “powdery”and more compact wares as well as by finer and coarser vessels.

2. ANALYSES

Thirty-five fragments of figulina ware have been analysed in thin section from seven sites. Most of thesesettlements are distributed along both the Adriatic coastlines, while two are located in the Friuli Plain of north-eastern Italy (Fagnigola: 1 sherd only comes from this site; P. BIAGI, pers. comm. 2001), and in the central PoValley (Fiorano Modenese: 1 sherd). The sites of the Italian Adriatic coastline and interior sampled for analy-sis are those of Ripabianca di Monterado (11 sherds), Gravina (3 sherds), and Grotta delle Mura (7 sherds);while those of the Dalmatian one are: Smilčić (Danilo phase: 4 sherds; Hvar phase: 2 sherds) and Danilo Bitinj(Danilo phase: 6 sherds). The figulina ware is not present in the other sites already mentioned in Chapters 3and 4. The sites have been grouped according to their distribution comparing 1) those located in northernItaly, even though their geographic position is not identical (for instance, Fiorano is in the Po Plain, whileFagnigola is in the Friuli Plain), 2) the Apulian sites and that of Ripabianca, along the Italian coast of theAdriatic, 3) the Dalmatian sites in the interior of Šibenik. Subsequently, the similar fabrics have been compa-red, and 4) the coarse figulina from the Apulian and the Dalmatian sites and the latter with the coarse figulinafrom Ripabianca di Monterado.

3. THE ITALIAN SITES

Fagnigola (Pordenone) (BIAGI , 1975)The only recovered figulina sherd has been analysed in thin section (FG 34; fig. 95a). It is characterised

by a reddish, very fine, slightly calcareous, vitrified, silty matrix with very rare inclusions, among which arefine, very well-sorted quartz (<5%; typical size 0.02 by 0.02 mm), some iron oxides (5%), very fine muscovitemica (1%), and one microfossil.

Twenty-six sherds belonging to the “ordinary” pottery have been analysed from the site of Fagnigola(SPATARO, 2000). They have been subdivided into two groups (G1 and G2), which are very different from the

¯ 181

figulina one. The fabric of the latter, is much more silty and finer than those of groups 1 and 2. The matrix isnot only different: it must have passed through a much longer preparation process.

One soil sample collected some 2 km from the site has also been analysed in thin section. Its fabric isbrown, iron-rich and slightly micritic. It shows poorly-sorted angular and subangular quartz (<20%; sizerange between 0.1 by 0.06 and 0.04 by 0.02 mm), some clay pellets, rare subrounded fragments of polycrystal-line limestone (size range 0.9 by 0.4 and 0.14 by 0.1 mm), very occasional radiolarian chert, some opaques,iron oxides, and rare muscovite mica.

The site is located close to old river courses on a very low hill surrounded by springs. The area is characte-rised by heavy, clayey soils of the lower Friuli Plain. They are located close to lighter clayey-sandy soils, moresuitable for Neolithic agriculture (Foglio 39 della Carta Geologica d’Italia, Pordenone, 1:100000).

On the basis of the thin section analysis, the ordinary pottery seems to have been produced locally (SPA-TARO, 2000: 204). On the contrary, the clay for the production of the figulina ware is to be sought elsewhere. Itis more micritic, much more silty and finer than those utilised for the ordinary pottery.

Fiorano Modenese (Modena) (MALAVOLTI , 1951-1952a)The Fiorano Culture is distributed over a large region of northern Italy including Emilia and the Veneto as

far as the Friuli Plain. Sites attributable to the Fiorano Culture have recently been discovered in north-westernTuscany (TOZZI and ZAMAGNI , 2000).

The site of Fiorano Modenese is located on the right alluvial loamy terrace of the Secchia River just to thenorth of the northernmost fringes of the Emilian Apennines in the Province of Modena (northern Italy). A localamateur, F. MALAVOLTI (1944), discovered the site in 1938. The same author carried out several rescue excava-tions at the site that is located inside a clay pit, at the depth of 2.50 m (MALAVOLTI , 1951-1952: 9). Thestratigraphy of the clay pit has shown Iron Age, Bronze Age, Early and Middle Neolithic occupation layersand a Late Pleistocene buried soil (CREMASCHI, 1987: 174). The Early Neolithic Fiorano horizon, some 30 cmthick, yielded many pit structures of different shape and size. Many of these were excavated by MALAVOLTI inthe 1940s as soon as they were brought to light by quarrying. Three radiocarbon dates have been obtainedfrom charcoal (Bln-3137: 5570±50 BP) and bone samples (pit 2, GrN-19838: 6690±180 and pit 5,GrN-19839: 6540±60 BP) (IMPROTA and PESSINA, 1998: 109). These dates are more recent or older than ex-pected and do not fit into the average dates already available for the other Fiorano sites of the Emilian region(BAGOLINI and BIAGI , 1990: 12).

The material culture assemblage of the Fiorano Culture layer produced typical Fiorano ceramics. Theyare represented by carinated bowls with wide, knobbed strap handles, hemispheric, four handled cups, spheri-cal, four handled flasks with four pierced small knobs on the rim and large, four handled, coarse ware jars withplain, vertical cordons descending from the rim. The figulina ware is at most 1% of the pottery assemblage.The flint industry is based on flint of pre-Alpine (Lessini Hills) provenance (BARFIELD, 1994). It is characteri-sed by a high blade index. The commoner instruments are burins on a side notch, straight perforators, rhom-boids obtained with the microburin technique and bladelets with sinuous edges. The cores are of the bladelettype of subconical shape. The greenstone assemblage, obtained from non-local material is represented by afew axes/adzes and rings with triangular section. The bone and shell assemblage consists of spearheads,double and single perforators, rings and plaquettes (BAGOLINI and BIAGI, 1975).

The faunal assemblage is mainly represented by bones of domesticated animals. The list provided byMALAVOLTI (1951-1952: 10) includes pig, ovicaprids and cattle followed by hare, mouse, badger, squirrel,boar, red and roe deer and few birds.

The only available sherd of figulina ware has been analysed from this site. The sample (FMD 1: fig. 95b)has a reddish, slightly micritic, vitrified, iron-rich matrix characterised by very well-sorted, fine quartz (<5%;typical size 0.02 by 0.01 mm), occasional muscovite, iron oxides (5%), and one fragment of pyroxene (thesize is 0.3 by 0.16 mm).

3.1. CORRELATION BETWEEN THE FIGULINA OF FIORANO MODENESE (FMD) AND FAGNIGOLA (FG)The samples FMD 1 and FG 34 are almost identical. They show the same vitrified, iron-rich, reddish, slightly micritic

fabric with very few, well-sorted and very fine quartz, fine muscovite and iron oxides. The only difference is that FG 34shows one microfossil that is absent in the Fiorano Modenese sample that, on the contrary, contains one pyroxene crystal.

182

a) b)

Fig. 95 - Photomicrographs of thin section figulina samples: a) FG 34 (Fagnigola: XPL, X100) and b) FMD 1 (Fiorano Modenese: XPL, X40)(photographs by M. Spataro).

a)

c)

b)

d)

Fig. 96 - Gravina di Puglia: photomicrographs of thin section figulina samples: a) GRV 1, b) and c) GRV 2, d) GRV 3. (XPL, X40, with the exceptionof c) GRV 2, XPL, X100) (photographs by M. Spataro).

Gravina di Puglia (Bari) (RADINA , 1981a; 1986)The Neolithic settlement at Gravina (Bari) is located on the slopes of the hill of Botromagno, outside the

area of the Iron Age settlement. The site was first identified by VINSON (1972: 65, site no. 2) and later excava-ted by Radina in the 1980s. So far only preliminary results have been published (RADINA , 1981a; 1986). Tracesof a ditch and possible hut remains were found. The pottery includes both Impressed and painted (figulina)wares, presumably dating to the Middle Neolithic, although no radiocarbon dates are available (R. WHITEHOU-SE, pers. comm. 2001).

¯ 183

Three figulina sherds have been analysed in thin section (table 17, Appendix 3). Only one group has beenidentified.

G1 - (1 sample: GRV 1) (fig. 96a)Reddish, micritic, fossiliferous, slightly vitrified matrix with very well-sorted angular and subangular quartz (10%; typical size 0.04by 0.02 mm), fine subrounded and subangular fragments of limestone (10%; typical size 0.05 by 0.03 mm), muscovite mica (3%),iron oxides (3%), some opaques, rare pyroxene, and many microfossils (Foraminifera);

sub. a (1 sample: GRV 2) (fig. 96b)Red-brownish, micritic, fossiliferous matrix similar to that of G1 with more inclusions. It shows well-sorted angular and subangularquartz (15%; typical size 0.05 by 0.03 mm), fine limestone (10%; size as G1), muscovite (3%), iron oxides (3%), some opaques, rarepyroxene, and many microfossils (Foraminifera; a possible sea-urchin) (fig. 96c);

sub. b (1 sample: GRV 3) (fig. 96d)Red-brownish, micritic, fossiliferous matrix very similar to that of G1 sub. a with coarser well-sorted angular and subangular quartz(15%; typical size 0.08 by 0.06 mm), more abundant rounded and subrounded fragments of limestone (15%; same size as G1), someopaques, muscovite mica, very rare feldspar, iron oxides (5%), and many microfossils (Foraminifera).

The three samples from Gravina are very similar. They are characterised by a reddish, red-brownish, micritic, fossiliferous matrixwith very well-sorted quartz, fine limestone fragments, some muscovite, rare pyroxene, iron oxides, and Foraminifera microfossils. G1 sub. a (GRV 2) shows the same fabric as G1, with quartz more abundant and coarser than that of G1. The quartz of G1 sub. b(GRV 3) is even coarser than that of G1 sub. a. In addition, it has more abundant fine fragments of limestone. They come probablyfrom the same source because of the identical micritic and fossiliferous fabric, which shows the same range of inclusions.

Grotta delle Mura (Bari) (CALATTINI and GRECO, 2000)The cave of Grotta delle Mura is located along the coast of Apulia, in the municipality of Monopoli

(Bari). It opens in the locality called Lido Rosso, some 500 m southeast of Monopoli, at the bottom of a smallbay. It is part of a wider karstic system of the Pleistocene limestone formation. The site was discovered by thespelaeologist Professor F. Anelli in 1952. The first excavations were carried out by O. Cornaggia Castiglioniin 1960 (CORNAGGIA CASTIGLIONI and PALMA DI CESNOLA, 1964). The deposits of the cave, more than 3 m thick,are composed of Middle Palaeolithic, Early and Late Epigravettian (Late Palaeolithic), Mesolithic, and Neo-lithic Impressed Ware layers. No radiocarbon date is currently available for the Mousterian, for the EarlyEpigravettian and for the Neolithic layers. The Final Epigravettian deposit, some 1 m thick, has produced fourradiocarbon dates, between 14,510±50 BP (Beta-91798) and 10,540±140 BP (Beta-91796) (CALATTINI , 1996a).The layers above have yielded a rich flint assemblage attributable to a local facies of the Sauveterrian Mesoli-thic. The lithic industry, composed of more than 5000 artefacts, includes long and circular end scrapers,double, bilateral, hypermicrolithic backed points, isosceles and scalene hypermicrolithic triangles, backedblades and points and truncation. The Mesolithic occupation of the cave has been dated to 8290±50 BP (Utc-1417) and to 8240±120 BP (Utc-780) (CALATTINI , 1996).

The uppermost occupation layer of Grotta delle Mura is attributed to the Impressed Ware Culture. According tothe excavator, this layer can be interpreted as a temporary stable for caprovids (CALATTINI and GRECO, 2000: 98). TheEarly Neolithic ceramic assemblage is represented by materials typical of the Guadone-Lagnano facies characteri-sed by evolved Impressed Wares and by figulina pottery with brown painted bands (CIPOLLONI SAMPÒ, 1998).

The pottery includes cylindrical, spherical and tronco-conical large vessels, flasks, hemispherical andcarinated bowls and cups. The Impressed Ware pottery is decorated with Cardium, “rocker”, finger and instru-mental motifs. Scratched, linear patterns are also represented. The figulina pottery is decorated with brownand red painted bands.

Seven figulina sherds have been analysed from Grotta delle Mura (fig. 97; table 17, Appendix 3). Threegroups have been identified.

G1 - (1 sample: GDM 20) (figs. 98a and 98b)Reddish, slightly micritic, vitrified, fossiliferous matrix characterised by well-sorted, angular and subangular quartz (7%; typical size0.05 by 0.03 mm), iron oxides (7%), rare opaques, muscovite mica (2%), rare feldspar, rare flint, rare pyroxene, one clay pellet, andmany microfossils (Foraminifera);

sub. a (2 samples: GDM 17, 25) (fig. 98c)Reddish, micritic, fossiliferous, vitrified matrix with well-sorted quartz (<20%; typical size 0.06 by 0.03 mm), many microfossils(also a possible sea-urchin: fig. 98d), rare feldspar, muscovite (2%), rare opaques, iron oxides (5%), subrounded fragments of lime-stone (10%; typical size 0.08 by 0.05 mm), very rare pyroxene, and flint in sample GDM 17.

184

Fig. 97 - Grotta delle Mura: figulina pottery from the Impressed Ware layers.

¯ 185

a)

c)

e)

b)

d)

f)

Fig. 98 - Grotta delle Mura: photomicrographs of thin section figulina samples: a) and b) GDM 20, c) GDM 25, d) GDM 17, e) GDM 9, f) GDM 10(XPL, X40, with the exception of a) GDM 20, XPL, X100) (photographs by M. Spataro).

G2 - (GDM 7)Brown-reddish, micritic, fossiliferous, slightly vitrified matrix characterised by angular and subangular quartz (10%; typical size0.05 by 0.03 mm), fine subrounded fragments of limestone (10%; typical size 0.05 by 0.02 mm), iron oxides (5%), opaques, musco-vite (3%), rare flint, and many microfossils (Foraminifera);

sub. a (2 samples: GDM 1, 9) (fig. 98e)Same brown-reddish, micritic, fossiliferous, slightly vitrified matrix of G2, characterised by well-sorted angular and subangularquartz (<20%; typical size 0.07 by 0.05 mm), rare flint, muscovite mica (3%), opaques, subrounded fragments of limestone (<15%;typical size 0.09 by 0.07 mm). Two coarser rounded fragments of limestone (0.7 by 0.5 mm) are also present.

G3 - (1 sample: GDM 10) (fig. 98f)Brown-reddish, fossiliferous matrix with poorly-sorted, very abundant, mainly rounded limestone (50%; size range between 2.5 by1.5 and 0.1 by 0.1 mm), iron oxides (1%), occasional opaques, rare muscovite, many microfossils and rare and well-sorted quartz(5%; typical size 0.07 by 0.05 mm).

186

Group 1 has a very fine reddish, vitrified, slightly micritic, fossiliferous fabric with some very well-sortedquartz, muscovite, some iron oxides, rare pyroxene and feldspar, and many microfossils. This is the onlyGrotta delle Mura sample that might be microscopically defined as fine figulina because of the size andquantity of the inclusions. G1 sub. a shows a reddish, vitrified, slightly micritic and fossiliferous fabric similarto that of G1, although richer in coarser quartz and with fine mainly subrounded fragments of limestone. Thefabric contains rare pyroxene, flint, feldspar, muscovite, and many microfossils. Group 2 has a brown-reddish,micritic, fossiliferous and vitrified fabric with well-sorted quartz, abundant fine fragments of limestone, somemuscovite, rare feldspar, flint, pyroxene, and iron oxides. The matrix of G2 is slightly more micritic than thatof G1. Group 2 sub. a shows the same fabric of G2 with more abundant and coarser quartz and limestonefragments. Group 3 shows a very different fabric, fossiliferous but very rich in coarse fragments of limestonewith very rare quartz and muscovite. It does not show any feldspar, pyroxene or flint.

The sources of groups 1 and 2 are very similar. They are both calcareous and fossiliferous and contain thesame inclusions. Group 2 is characterised by a fabric more micaceous and micritic than that of group 1; this lattercontains feldspar and pyroxene that are not represented in group 2. The source of G3 is different. It is much richerin coarse limestone fragments, less fossiliferous and with less quartz than those of groups 1 and 2. 15

Some of the microfossils of groups 1 and 2 are Nummulites of the Eocene period. There is also a possiblesea-urchin (GDM 17: fig. 98d) (Y. GOREN, pers. comm. 2001).

3.2. CORRELATION BETWEEN THE FIGULINA OF GROTTA DELLE MURA AND GRAVINA

The figulina samples from Gravina (GRV) and Grotta delle Mura (GDM) show some similarities. GRV 1(GRV, G1) and GDM 7 (GDM, G2) have a similar brown-reddish, fossiliferous, slightly vitrified fabric withwell-sorted quartz, rich in microfossils, fine muscovite, iron oxides, rare feldspar, and pyroxene. The differen-ce is that GDM 7 shows rare flint that is absent in GRV 1, and is richer than GRV 1 in microfossils. They mightcome from very similar sources.

Also GRV 2 (GRV, G1 sub. a) is similar to GDM 9 (GDM, G2 sub. a). They have a very similar fabric(micritic, fossiliferous, slightly vitrified) with muscovite and rare feldspar, pyroxene, although GDM 9 showsrare flint (absent in GRV 2) and quartz more abundant and coarser than that of GRV 2. Another parallel can beextended to the microfossils: e.g. GDM 20 (G1, GDM) and GDM 17 (G1 sub. a) has the same microfossils ofGRV 2 and GRV 3 (G1 sub. a, GRV; G1 sub. c, GRV) (e.g. possible sea-urchin and Nummulites) (figs. 96c and96d, and 98a and 98d).

It is possible to suggest that the figulina wares of these two Apulian sites come from very similar sources.The difference is that the samples from Grotta delle Mura show some occasional flint inclusions that areabsent in the Gravina samples. The sample GDM 10 has little similarity with the figulina from Gravina,because it is characterised by a fabric coarser than those of groups 1 and 2. It is less fossiliferous, poorer inquartz and richer in coarse fragments of limestone than the other analysed specimens.

Ripabianca di Monterado (Ancona) (for the site description see Chapter 4, 3.) (SILVESTRINI and PIGNOCCHI,2000)(11 figulina sherds: one group identified) (figs. 82-85)

G3 - (9 samples: RDM 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30) (fig. 86d)Brown, micritic, fossiliferous matrix with well-sorted quartz, limestone, radiolarian chert and flint, opaques and iron oxides, feld-spar, pyroxene, and many microfossils;

sub. a (2 samples: RDM 26, 28) (fig. 86e)Dark brown, very micritic, fossiliferous matrix with poorly-sorted quartz, radiolarian chert, muscovite, limestone, flint, and manymicrofossils (Chapter 4, 3.2.).

The fabric of G3 is very micritic and fossiliferous with quartz, flint, radiolarian chert, feldspar, pyroxene,muscovite and iron oxides. G3 sub. a is coarser than that of G3 with larger-size quartz and limestone fragmen-ts (Chapter 4, 3.2.1.).

15 Some other samples belonging to the ordinary pottery of GDM were analysed in thin section. They also show some Foraminifera characterised bythe same species of those of the figulina sherds.

¯ 187

The clay source utilised for this figulina is very micritic and fossiliferous, very similar to the soil samplecollected in the proximity of the site (Chapter 4, 3.4.).

3.3. CORRELATION BETWEEN THE FIGULINA SAMPLES OF RIPABIANCA DI MONTERADO, GRAVINA AND GROTTA DELLE MURA

The figulina ware from Ripabianca di Monterado (RDM) shows some similarities with the figulina fromGrotta delle Mura (GDM). The fabric of both these samples shows muscovite mica, rare feldspar, pyroxene,and Foraminifera. Their fabrics are micritic and fossiliferous, although the clay exploited for the manufactureof the GDM ceramics is much richer in microfossils and in iron than the clay employed in the production ofthe RDM figulina. On the other hand, the Ripabianca di Monterado samples show some radiolarian chert thatis absent from the GDM samples. Furthermore, the former is richer in flint than the GDM samples.

It is possible to suggest that the sources exploited for the figulina ware of these two sites are different. Asmentioned above, the sources for the production of the GRV and GDM figulinas are very similar and might belocated in the same region. On the contrary, the RDM source must be sought in a different area. From atechnological point of view, the same technique has been employed in the production of this pottery for allthree sites. The well-sorted fabric has been manufactured in the same way (decantation) in order to obtain aspecific fabric that was later fired at a relatively high temperature.

4. THE DALMATIAN SITES

Smilčić (Zadar) (for the site description see Chapter 3, 5.) (BATOVIć, 1960-1961; 1962)(total 6 samples) (figs. 36, 37 and 40)

(Danilo phase: 4 figulina sherds: 1 group identified)G5a - (SMD 20, 22, 23; fine figulina) (fig. 38e)Reddish, iron-rich, vitrified, very fine, slightly micritic matrix characterised by few and very fine, well-sorted, angular and subangu-lar quartz, very rare pyroxene, iron oxides, and very fine muscovite mica. One sample (SMD 22) contains rare polycrystalline quartz;G5b - (1 sample: SMD 21; medium figulina) (fig. 38g)Brown, slightly micritic, iron-rich, slightly vitrified matrix characterised by well-sorted, abundant, angular and subangular quartz,muscovite mica, rare polycrystalline quartz, pyroxene, feldspar, rare biotite, iron oxides and opaques (Chapter 3, 5.4.6.).

(Hvar phase; 2 figulina sherds: 1 group identified)G4 - (2 samples: SMH 18, 21; fine figulina) (figs. 41e and 41f)Reddish, vitrified, very fine, slightly micritic matrix characterised by few, very fine, and well-sorted angular and subangular quartz,iron oxides, muscovite, rare polycrystalline quartz and very rare pyroxene in sample SMH 21. The matrix of sample SMH 18 is morevitrified than that of SMH 21 whose carbonates have completely burnt out. Sample SMH 21 shows one fragment of quartzite (Chap-ter 3, 5.4.10.).

The fine figulina potsherds of the Danilo and Hvar phases are extremely similar. In particular, samples SMD22 (Danilo phase) and SMH 21 (Hvar phase) are practically identical. They show the same reddish, vitrified,slightly micritic fabric with rare pyroxene, muscovite and iron oxides, and rare polycrystalline quartz.

Danilo Bitinj (Šibenik) (for the site description see Chapter 3, 8.) (KOROŠEC, 1964)(total 6 samples: 1 group identified) (figs. 57 and 59)

G3a - (3 samples: DB 10, 15, 16; fine figulina) (fig. 60d)Reddish, iron-rich, vitrified, slightly micritic matrix with few, very fine, well-sorted quartz, fine muscovite, iron oxides and rarepyroxene;

sub. b (2 samples: DB 14, 25; medium figulina) (fig. 60e)Brown, micritic matrix with abundant quartz, muscovite, polycrystalline quartz, iron oxides, and one microfossil in DB 14 (fig. 60f);

sub. c (1 sample: DB 11; coarse figulina) (fig. 60g)Brown, micritic matrix with abundant quartz, iron oxides, abundant limestone, muscovite, feldspar and pyroxene (Chapter 3, 8.2.).

The fine figulina group 3a is characterised by a very fine, vitrified, slightly micritic, iron-rich fabric withvery few inclusions, among which are quartz, muscovite, and iron oxides. The fabric of the medium andcoarse figulina (G3b and 3c) is much more calcareous and richer in inclusions than G3a (Chapter 3, 8.2.1.).

188

4.1. CORRELATION BETWEEN THE FIGULINA WARES OF SMIL čIć AND DANILO BITINJ

The fine figulina fromSmilčić (Danilo-SMD and Hvar-SMH, phases) and Danilo Bitinj (DB) are almostidentical (see also SEM-EDS results, Chapter 3, 5.4.8.; 5.4.12.; 8.2.2.). They show a very fine, reddish, vitri-fied, slightly micritic, iron-rich fabric characterised by well-sorted and little quartz (same typical size), rarepyroxene, fine muscovite, and iron oxides. The difference is that the fine figulina from Smilčić shows, in twocases (SMD 22 and SMH 21), rare polycrystalline quartz that is absent from the fine figulina from DB. It isalso absent from the other samples from Smilčić, e.g. SMD 20, 23, and SMH 18. From a microscopic point ofview, the DB samples are slightly richer in iron oxides than those from Smilčić. All other parameters beingidentical, it is still reasonable to suggest that they come from the same, or from an almost identical source.This is also confirmed by the SEM-EDS results, which show very high percentages of magnesia, potash,silica, and iron oxide (tables 6, 7, 10, Appendix 4).

Regarding the medium and coarse figulinas, only one coarse fragment has been analysed from SMD(SMD 21). One group of medium (G3b) and one of coarse figulina (G3c) are represented at DB. Few simila-rities have been observed between SMD 21 and the medium figulina of DB. They both show the same inclu-sions (quartz, muscovite, feldspar, pyroxene, iron oxides, and opaques), although the fabric of G3b from DBis more micritic, with fewer inclusions, than sample SMD 21. The coarse figulina (DB, G3c) is again muchmore micritic and coarse than SMD 21. The source of the medium and coarse DB figulina specimens is moremicritic and slightly less iron-rich than that exploited for the production of SMD group.

4.2. CORRELATION BETWEEN THE FINE FIGULINA OF DANILO BITINJ AND SMIL čIć AND THAT OF FIORANO MODENESE

AND FAGNIGOLA

Strong similarities can be observed between the fabrics of the fine figulina of the Dalmatian sites I haveanalysed and those of Fagnigola (FG) and Fiorano Modenese (FMD) in northern Italy. They are characterisedby the same reddish, vitrified, slightly micritic, very fine and well-sorted fabric with fine quartz and muscovi-te, rare pyroxene, and iron oxides. FMD 1 and FG 34 show the same typical size of SMD, SMH and DBsamples. SMD 22 shows also the same tonality of colour of FMD 1, whilst the other samples from DB andSMH are slightly more reddish. Therefore it is possible to suggest the exploitation of very similar, or identical,sources for the production of this type of pottery. We can definitely speak of the same production technique forthe fine figulina wares from both Adriatic coastlines. The manufacture of this pottery implies the use of kilnsin order to control the high firing temperature (about 850 °C) (Chapter 2, 5.2.l). This contrasts with KOROŠEC’s(1964; Chapter 3, 8.) opinion of low-firing temperature for the production of figulina wares.

4.3. CORRELATION BETWEEN THE COARSE FIGULINA OF DANILO BITINJ , SMIL čIć AND THAT OF GROTTA DELLE MURA

AND GRAVINA

No significant similarity can be observed between the fabrics of the Dalmatian sites of DB, SMD, and theItalian site of GDM because the latter is more iron-rich than the coarse figulina from DB and SMD. Further-more, the GDM samples show a very fossiliferous fabric, whereas the fabric of DB and SMD is non-fossilife-rous (with the exception of DB 14 that shows one microfossil).

Some analogies can be noticed in the inclusions of the above-mentioned fabrics. All samples show well-sortedquartz, rare pyroxene, feldspar, muscovite, iron oxides, and opaques in a calcareous fabric. The GDM samples showflint and, only in one case, polycrystalline quartz (GDM 17), whereas the DB and SMD potsherds do not show anyflint but, in most cases minor amounts of polycrystalline quartz and very rare biotite mica (SMD 21).

The fabrics of DB 14 and GRV 1 are very similar. They show the same vitrified, micritic fabric: DB 14 isslightly richer in iron and with only one microfossil, whereas GRV 1 is very fossiliferous. DB 14 has rarepolycrystalline quartz that is absent in GRV 1; the latter has quartz finer than that of DB 14. From a microsco-pic point of view, only one sample from GDM can be classified as fine figulina (GDM 20). It has nothing incommon with the fine figulina of the other sites (FG, FMD, SMD, SMH, and DB). It is more micritic, veryfossiliferous, less vitrified and contains more abundant and coarser quartz than the others.

4.4. CORRELATION BETWEEN THE COARSE FIGULINA OF RIPABIANCA DI MONTERADO AND THAT OF SMIL čIć AND

DANILO BITINJ

Because of the quantity and size of the inclusions, the figulina from RDM can be classified as coarsefigulina. It shows few similarities with the coarse specimens from SMD and DB that show a micritic matrix

¯ 189

and very similar inclusions, although they do not come from the same or from similar sources. This has beenestablished because: 1) the fabric of the RDM figulina is very fossiliferous; this contrasts with those from theCroatian sites, 2) the samples from RDM always contain flint, which is missing from the Dalmatian samples,and 3) the size range of the quartz is very different. Furthermore, the coarse figulina potsherds from SMD, DBand RDM have different chemistry, although they show some similarities in the high percentage of potash andmagnesia. Nevertheless, the quantity of iron is much lower in the figulina of the Italian site than in those of theDalmatian coast (tables 6, 10, 14, Appendix 4).

5. TYPOLOGICAL COMPARISONS

Apart from the limited number of north Italian sites from which figulina potsherds have been sampled,almost exclusively in the form of flasks and hemispherical bowls, the central and south Italian figulina vesselsare extremely varied. From Ripoli, the site most often associated with the term “figulina”, considered by someauthors strictly connected with the Danilo Culture because of the great quantity of painted wares, RELLINI (1934:28) reports the presence, among the figulina pottery (of yellowish, clear, rarely pearl-coloured, often painted), ofmedium and large-sized bowls, cups, tulip-shaped vessels, large dishes, jars, and necked flasks with globularbody. These latter shapes are typified by the presence of four handles on the body and four small, horizontallypierced knobs just below the rim. The painted decorative patterns include thin bands of brownish zigzag lines,triangles filled with single or net motifs, various triangle panels often delimited by rows of pointed bands, brownand wide, red painted bands. Linear geometric patterns prevail (RELLINI , 1934: 37).

The painted Danilo pottery, that KOROŠEC (1958: 163) supposed “was not made of the clay found in thatlocality or in its immediate vicinity” on the basis of the results of the chemical analysis “of an excellentlypurified clay containing various substances in the following order of sequence: silicium dioxide, aluminiumtrioxide, ferrum trioxide, calcium monoxide and manganic monoxide” is mainly represented by several typesof open bowls, ring-bottomed dishes, necked flasks, and rare tureens. The decorative, painted patterns arerepresented by criss-cross brownish bands of lines, various net, triangle and sandglass motifs, and by widerreddish bands. Squared and rhombic brownish motifs are also known as are a few recurring, dynamic, spiraldesigns. A few sherds are decorated with panels of whitish rhombic motifs and wide brownish zigzag bandsfilled with white dots. Given the dissimilarities in the ceramic forms and in the decorative patterns, it isdifficult to understand why KOROŠEC (1958: 167) suggested that the Danilo painted ware derived from that ofRipoli. Furthermore, it is to be remembered that, according to the radiocarbon chronology we now know thatthe Danilo Bitinj, Danilo Culture, village began to flourish at least 300-500 radiocarbon years before that ofRipoli. Even though KOROŠEC (1958) was not aware of the noticeable differences between the Ripoli andDanilo vessel forms and decorative patterns, he concluded “despite its diversities, the ornamentation showscertain similarities, both Danilo and Ripoli displaying the same distribution. At Ripoli, the ornamental patter-ns are likewise executed in brown and red, the latter colour being used in both cultures only in the form ofbroad bands…...There exist similarities also in individual ornamental patterns. True, these are never identi-cal, but connections are obvious. Most likely similarities will also be found in certain other details as well asin the stone and flint artefacts” (K OROŠEC, 1958: 167). In the light of the results of the new analyses, it isdifficult to sustain that the Danilo painted wares come from the Ripoli environment. Korošec’s suggestion thateither “our pottery comes from Italy” or that “other details suggest that this pottery (Danilo) used to beexported from the Dalmatian mainland to Italy” seems to be unfounded. Furthermore, his second suggestionthat either “our pottery comes from Italy” or that “other details suggest that this pottery (Danilo) used to beexported from the Dalmation mainland to Italy” seems to be unfounded. The same can be said for the HvarCulture painted ware that is rather different from that of Danilo both in vessel shapes and decorations. Thebest collection so far known is that of Grapčeva spilja in the Hvar Island, published by NOVAK (1955), eventhough a pottery sample has been published also from Vela špilja on the Korčula Island (ČEčUK, 1978; ČEčUK

and RADIć, 1995; 2001). The pottery shapes and decorations from these two assemblages and from the HvarCulture in general, find little comparison with those of both Ripoli (IHDE, 1995: 76) and Danilo. The onlyradiocarbon dates so far available for the Hvar Culture come from the stratigraphic sequence of Grapčevaspilja. They all fall between the end of the seventh (Beta-103485: 6130±80 BP) and the middle of the fol-lowing millennium (Beta-103482: 5460±60 BP) (FORENBACHER and KAISER, 2000: 33).

190

6. DISCUSSION

According to the above-mentioned results, it is clear that the fine figulina from Danilo and Smilčić (bothDanilo and Hvar phases) is almost identical. It is possible to suggest 1) the existence of regional productioncentre(s) along the eastern Adriatic coastline serving both sites, or 2) that Smilčić itself was a manufacturingcentre because of the striking similarities between the figulina sherds of the Danilo and the Hvar phasesrepresented at the site that cover a time-span of some 500 years. Furthermore, it is to be stressed that thedistance between the sites of Smilčić and Danilo Bitinj is only some 75 km. It is important to point out themacroscopic similarities between the figulina from the Croatian sites and that from the south Italian ones(GRV and GDM), and their microscopic differences (see Chapter 5, 4.3.). Even though the bulk of the inclu-sions is almost the same for the figulinas of both areas, the clear difference consists in the presence of flint inthe Italian wares, which is absent in the Dalmatian ones.

The coarse figulina from the south Italian, Apulian sites shows strong similarities between each other.This might suggest a regional production of this pottery. On the other hand, the fabrics of the figulina of thecentral Italian site of Ripabianca di Monterado seem to indicate a different source of provenance. Thissource might even be local because of its strong similarity with the thin section of a soil sample collectedfrom the site itself. The figulina pottery from Ripabianca has never been described in detail. SILVESTRINI andPIGNOCCHI (1998: 76) report the presence of fragments of pseudofigulina and of one single piece of redpainted figulina pottery. The term pseudofigulina is employed by these authors to indicate the roughness ofthe outer surfaces and the occurrence of visible filler grains in the fabric. In another paper LOLLINI (1991:60) wrote that “è documentata anche una ceramica giallastra di impasto depurato di tipo figulina, mentredella figulina vera e propria con decorazione dipinta a fasce rosse non marginate, se ne è rinvenuto un soloframmento”.

The figulina samples of the north Italian sites of Fiorano Modenese and Fagnigola have an extremelysimilar matrix that probably indicates a common origin. Unfortunately it is very difficult to draw any conclu-sion because of the very limited number of samples from these two sites.

Given the similarities between the fabrics of the fine figulina wares from the sites of Smilčić, DaniloBitinj, Fiorano Modenese and Fagnigola, we cannot exclude the possibility that this pottery was exchanged ortraded between the two coasts of the Adriatic, as already pointed out by BATOVIć (1975) and KOROŠEC (1964).

In this context it must be stressed that samples from some of the most important central Italian sites, suchas Ripoli (RELLINI , 1934; CREMONESI, 1965) and Catignano (TOZZI, 1982) that are very rich in figulina pottery,have not been available for analysis. Thus we cannot exclude the existence of a production centre differentfrom those taken into consideration for this work. Catignano, in particular, is an extremely important siteespecially because of its close connections with that of Ripabianca di Monterado from which typical, ordinaryCatignano decorated vessels have been recovered.

7. FIGULINA PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY

A specific technique has been employed in the production of both fine and coarse figulina wares. Thepotter knew very well the variety of clay to employ, the manufacturing process to follow through a long andcareful preparation, and the firing temperature to utilise. A clay source different from that utilised for the“ordinary” pottery must have been used for the production of the fine figulina wares. This is clear from theSEM-EDS analyses of the figulina wares from Smilčić and Danilo Bitinj. The clay employed at these sites isricher in magnesia, potash, and iron oxide and poorer in calcium oxide (Chapter 3, 5.4.8.; 5.4.12.; 8.2.2.).Most probably this would imply a technological process longer than that of the “ordinary” vessels (Chapter 6,4.). Regarding the Italian sites, a well defined variety of micritic and fossiliferous clay has always been em-ployed.

A skilful person and a kiln were needed. One of the most important pieces of evidence for the use of akiln is the fairly high firing temperature of about 800-850 °C testified by the vitrification of the matrix andthe burning of the carbonates (Chapter 2, 5.2., l), in contrast with that of the every day, ordinary pottery thatis always lower than 750 °C. This is testified by the presence of calcite filler in the Early (e.g. Jami na Sredi)and in the Late Middle Neolithic ceramics (e.g. Vela špilja). These observations suggest that 1) a speciali-

¯ 191

sed class of artisans was already established, and 2) the presence of structures for pottery production. Thesetwo factors would suggest that the figulina pottery production was already well organised at least by themiddle of the seventh millennium BP, involving some sort of central, regional production (I. FREESTONE,pers. comm. 2001).

8. TRADE AND EXCHANGE NETWORK

It must be stressed that the figulina is a wider regional, less a local product than the “ordinary”pottery; it marks the probable existence of long-distance trade activities already established by the se-venth millennium BP, as documented also by the circulation of other materials such as obsidian andSpondylus (SÉFÉRIADÈS, 2000).

Ethnographic parallels indicate that pottery is usually of local production and that most potters usuallysell their pots at a market rather close (some 5 km) to their home, and that purchased vessels are not transpor-ted very far from the point of sale. The commoner picture for pots is that at least 90% of the sold items remainwithin a radius of 15 km from the market (DIETLER AND HERBICH, 1994: 466). If this model might be applicableto the ordinary Adriatic pottery, it is clear that this is not the case for the figulina ware whose distributioncertainly implies some kind of down-the-line exchange pattern (Chapter 1, 3.3.2.) or perhaps (?) the existenceof central places for the redistribution of these special goods (RENFREW, 1975).

Despite dissimilarities among the various regions, there is no doubt that exchange or trade activities hadalready been established between the two coasts of the south Adriatic Basin at least by the middle of theseventh millennium BP (Chapter 1, 3.1.; 3.2., and Chapter 6, 7.).

Even though no specialised site of this kind has ever been discovered for the figulina ware, a MiddleNeolithic redistribution centre for the Sardinian obsidian has been suggested at Pescale di Prignano, in thecentral Emilian Apennines (MALAVOLTI , 1951-1952a) where 950 obsidian artefacts, mainly bladelets (813),but also some retouched instruments (18) and cores (6) have been found. The fact that some varieties offigulina wares were considered as prestige items (Chapter 6, 6.) is also indicated by the recovery of a locallymade Serra d’Alto vessel in one of the Square-Mouthed Pottery burials of La Vela di Trento (BAGOLINI, 1990;MOTTES, 1997: 67).

This discovery is of extreme importance in the study of the relationships between south and northernItaly, even though, in this case, only the idea and not the material culture artefact seems to have travelled.Trento lies on the left bank of the Adige River. The Adige Valley represents the main route across theAlpine chain that links the Mediterranean world to central Europe. The same cemetery produced eviden-ce of long, Spondylus beads, other prestige ornaments whose distribution might have followed a similarroute. The existence of prestige items is well documented during the flourishing of the Square-MouthedPottery Culture. Hyaline quartz bladelets have been collected at Casatico di Marcaria, in the central PoValley (BIAGI et al., 1983).

The rock crystal raw material outcrops are known in north-western Lombardy and in South Tyrol where itwas mainly exploited during the Mesolithic (BROGLIO and LUNZ, 1983). Other materials are represented byjadeite axes and rings whose outcrops are known in the western Ligurian and southern Piedmont (D’AMICO etal., 2002). In the Adige Valley cemetery of La Vela, the presence of one complete, typical Hinkelstein shoe-last-chisel indicates that contacts were already active between the southern and the northern side of the Alpinewatershed around 5500 BP.

The results of these analyses, which indicate the existence of both local and regional production centres(see Chapter 5, 6.) reinforce the idea of networks among sites. According to the data that have been developed,the models of circulation of the figulina wares do not seem to follow the same routes we presently know forother materials that were traded throughout the Adriatic during the same period, namely obsidian, flint (Chap-ter 1, 3.1.; 3.2.) and possibly greenstones (PETRIć, 1995)16.

16 Almost nothing is known of the provenance of the greenstone axes so far found along the coast of Dalmatia. The only tools analysed are thosereported by the above-mentioned author, who attributes his oldest specimens to the middle of the sixth millennium BP. The raw material sourceshe suggests for the Dalmatian objects are those already known in south western Piedmont and in western Liguria (D’AMICO, 2000: 69).

192

¯ 193

CHAPTER 6

COMPARISONS AND DISCUSSION

1. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE IW SITES

This chapter takes into reconsideration the results of the scientific analyses developed in Chapters 3 and4, which would indicate that the Impressed Ware ceramics of both the Dalmatian and the Italian coastlineswere produced locally (tables 1-3, Appendix 2). The description of the sites is provided from the north to thesouth starting from those of Istria, continuing with those of Dalmatia and then with those of the Italian Adria-tic coast (fig. 1). It also discusses the relationships between the cultural aspects that have been examined, thepossible exchange of ceramics between the two coasts and the pottery typological characteristics as indicatorsof spread of similar ideas and manufacture technology out of the original production centre.

1.1. THE ISTRIAN AND DALMATIAN SITES

Descending from Istria, minero-petrographic analyses show close similarities between the soil samplecollected from an outcrop located very close to the Neolithic settlement of Vi•ula, and one of the ImpressedWare ceramic groups from the same site (Chapter 3, 1.3.).

The cave sites of Jami na Sredi and Vela Jama, on the Islands of Cres and Lošinj, in the north KvarnarArchipelago, have yielded Impressed Ware pottery assemblages very similar, from both typological (MÜLLER,1994: 137) and technological points of view. The clay sources employed are also very similar, in some casesalmost identical, suggesting a local production (Chapter 3, 3.4.).

Moving farther to the south, the Impressed Wares from Tinj-Podlivade and Smilčić, some 20 km apart,show very similar fabrics (Chapter 3, 5.6.). The pottery from these two sites are comparable also from atypological point of view. CHAPMAN et al. (1996: 192) attributed it to the same phase of the IW Culture.

The ceramic assemblages from the open-air settlements of Konjevrate and Vrbica, in the interior of Šibe-nik, show few similarities. Nevertheless, they have unique and specific traits that do not occur elsewherealong the eastern Adriatic coast. The comparison suggests that similar (but not identical) sources were exploi-ted for their production (Chapter 3, 6.4.). The strong affinities observed between the IW pottery fabrics, thegeology of the surrounding areas, the soil sample thin section (and in most cases XRD) analyses and thecomparison with the pottery assemblages of the neighbouring, “contemporary” settlements, should indicatethat the Impressed Ware ceramics of this region were produced locally.

1.2. THE ITALIAN ADRIATIC SITES

From the north to the south, the Italian Impressed Ware sites considered for this research are those ofFornace Cappuccini, Maddalena di Muccia, Ripabianca di Monterado, and Scamuso.

The results of the analyses of the ceramic assemblage from Fornace Cappuccini indicate that the IWpottery of this site is of local production. The presence of flint, granite and siltstone rock fragments in thefabric, finds close parallels in the geology of the area (Chapter 4, 1.4.).

The minero-petrographic analyses of the Maddalena di Muccia potsherds have revealed three fabrics ofprobable local and one (G3-MDM) of non-local provenance (Chapter 4, 2.4.). This latter is characterised bysandstone inclusions and granitic rock fragments. They do not occur in the geology of the area surrounding thesite, and, more generically, of the Province of Macerata.

The pottery from Ripabianca di Monterado has been subdivided into two groups of ordinary and one offigulina wares. The results indicate the local manufacture of the entire pottery assemblage because of thesimilarities between the ceramic groups and the geology of the area surrounding the site. The thin sectionanalysis of a soil sample collected in the proximity of the site confirms this view (Chapter 4, 3.4.).

The analyses of the assemblage of the IW Apulian site of Scamuso, point to a local manufacture for theseceramics because of the fossiliferous and micritic matrix, with temper of volcanic origin (e.g. G1-SCA) whichmatches with the geology of the area where the site is located (Chapter 4, 4.4.).

194

It is very difficult to suggest the existence of a trade/exchange ceramic network between the ImpressedWare sites of the Dalmatian coast on the basis of the results of the analyses of the pottery assemblages. This ismainly due to the great homogeneity of the geology of this territory, and of its related islands (Chapter 2, 1.).

Nevertheless, given the relatively high number of sites analysed, and the selection of “contemporary”,close sites, it is reasonable to suggest that all the ceramic assemblages examined are of local origin. This isconfirmed by 1) the regional uniqueness of this production, 2) the results obtained from the study of thematerials from three superimposed Neolithic layers at Smilčić, and 3) the technological characteristic of itsmanufacture based on open fires without the employment of specialists in pottery firing (Chapter 6,5.), whichcontrasts with that of the figulina ware production.

Stylistic analysis is not very helpful for the definition of regional variants because the pottery typologyand decoration from all the other assemblages is very uniform, with the exception of that of the Istrian site ofVi•ula. They are all to be attributed to phases A and B of MÜLLER’s (1988: 110) seriation.

Regarding the pottery production of the Italian IW sites, it is reasonable to suggest a local production forall the examined cases. The only exception is a group of potsherds from Maddalena di Muccia whose prove-nance seems to be non-local (G3; Chapter 4, 2.4.). This does not necessarily imply trade or exchange ofpottery. Their presence might be simply due to the occasional transit of people in the area. The limited numberof potsherds analysed cannot allow further hypotheses.

The idea of exchange or trade does not find support in the pottery of the almost contemporaneous sites ofFornace Cappuccini and Ripabianca di Monterado, located 150 km apart. The only exception is representedby one potsherd from Fornace Cappuccini (sample FC 10, G3), which is compatible with the geology of thearea surrounding the site. This specimen is very similar to the Ripabianca di Monterado sample RDM 17 (G2,sub. a). According to this evidence (R. MACPHAIL and I. FREESTONE, pers. comm. 2001) we cannot exclude thepossibility of a pottery trade/exchange from Fornace Cappuccini to Ripabianca, but not vice-versa. In thiscase, the typological/stylistic analysis might help shed more light on this problem. As stressed in Chapter 4, 2.the typology of the RDM pottery assemblage is very rich. Some vessels, such as the burnished wares, areidentical to those of Catignano. Given the archaeological evidence, the trade route one would expect is fromRipabianca to Fornace, not the opposite, because of the wider stylistic-typological variety which characterisesthe Ripabianca assemblage (Chapter 4, 1.4.1.).

1.3. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE TWO COASTS

The results so far obtained would indicate that, at least as regards the sites taken into consideration, nopottery trade activity took place between the two coasts during the Early Neolithic Impressed Ware Culture.Although the distribution of the Cardium decorated pottery covers a large region of the Adriatic, there is noscientific proof that the vessels were exchanged between the two coasts. At this stage of the research it wouldbe of great importance to analyse the potsherds from the early Impressed Ware site of Prato Don Michele inthe San Domino Island of the Tremiti Archipelago (FUSCO, 1965), that of Mala Palagru•a, (FORENBAHER andKAISER, 1997), and Sušac Islands (BASS, 1998) midway between the Apulian Tavoliere and the Dalmatiancoast.

From a microscopic point of view, only two types of temper occur in the east Adriatic assemblages (withthe exception of one sherd from Vela špilja, VS 21, that contains grog): sparry calcite and very rarely organicmaterial (at Vi•ula). The use of calcite is more probably linked with the raw material resources available inDalmatia17. Contrary to the Dalmatian situation, more varieties of temper were employed by the ImpressedWare potters of the western coast. None of the potsherds so far examined has produced evidence of calcite.This material is naturally present in the vessel fabrics (Chapter 4, 4.2.1.) of Scamuso, a site located in an areaof limestone. The potsherds analysed from this settlement show the occurrence of quartz sand with rare inclu-sions of volcanic origin, and organic material.

The ceramics from the Middle Adriatic IW sites of Ripabianca di Monterado, Maddalena di Muccia andFornace Cappuccini, contain different varieties of temper, such as organic matter, flint, grog, siltstone, andgranitic rock fragments. The potsherds from one of the oldest South Italian sites, Scamuso, roughly contempo-rary to the earlier Impressed Ware sites of the Dalmatian coast, does not show either sparry calcite or a fabric

17 In a recent article concerning the Early Neolithic ceramics of the Franchthi Cave in Argolis, K. VITELLI (1993: 193) suggests that “calcite or shellcan produce what other additives to a clay body do not, a watertight body for low-fired ceramics” (BUDAK , 1991).

¯ 195

similar to those of the potsherds of the “contemporaneous” Dalmatian sites. According to the available data,the hypothesis of ordinary pottery trade/exchange between the two coasts during the first half of the seventhmillennium BP should be rejected.

From typological and stylistic points of view, the Impressed Wares of the two areas are very different. TheDalmatian aspect has been subdivided into different groups first by BATOVI} (1966) and later by MÜLLER

(1988; 1994). Both these authors recognized different phases of development of the ceramic assemblages.While the Cardium Impressed Ware is distributed, along the eastern Adriatic coastline, from Montenegro toIstria (MÜLLER, 1988: 121), along the Italian side, the same type of pottery is not attested north of the PescaroRiver, in the Abruzzi. North of this river, the Impressed Ware Culture consists of regional variants that maketheir appearance around the middle of the seventh millennium BP, at the sites of Maddalena di Muccia andPortonovo di Ancona (SILVESTRINI and PIGNOCCHI, 2000).

Only two centuries later the Impressed Ware site of Ripabianca di Monterado is strongly influenced byother cultural aspects such as that of Catignano, in the Abruzzi, whose radiocarbon dates fall between 6330±70BP (R-996a) and 5910±65 BP (R-1777) (BAGNONE and TOZZI, 1988-1991). The pottery assemblage from thislatter site is absolutely different from that of the Impressed Ware tradition. It is composed of fine, burnishedand figulina wares painted in red and brown (RADI , 1995). The characteristic shapes of the four handled flasksare almost identical to those of the same class of vessels of the Ripoli Culture as well as to those of the Fioranoand the Vhò Cultures that flourished in the Po Plain around the last two centuries of the same millennium BP.Bands of incised lines with red inlay, characteristic of the Catignano settlement, are also known at Ripabiancadi Monterado.

2. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE DANILO CULTURE SITES

The pottery from two Danilo Culture sites has been examined. They are Danilo Bitinj (DB) and Smilčić,Danilo phase (SMD).

From a typological/stylistic point of view, the ordinary pottery from both these sites shows many simi-larities. The decorative patterns include incised herringbone and spiral motives (SMD 2, 14, 17: figs. 35and 37; DB 9, 12, 17, 24: fig. 57) and linear grooves (SMD 7: fig. 35; DB 3, 8: figs. 58 and 59), whilesimilar large bases (SMD 3; DB 19), and necked jars (SMD 9, 11, 23; DB 8) characterise the vessel shapes.No correlation could be extended to the figulina potsherds of both sites because of their very fragmentarystate of preservation.

From a microscopic point of view, the ordinary pottery is mainly represented by coarse wares with darkbrown, iron-rich fabrics including quartz and crushed calcite. Only two potsherds from Smilčić (G3 and G4-SMD) do not show artificially added inclusions. The fabrics of G1 (SMD) and G2 (DB) are very similar. Theyare iron-rich with fine quartz, rounded fragments of limestone, and abundant added crushed calcite. Given thehomogeneity and the identity of the geology of the two sites (Chapter 3, 5.3. and 8.1.), it is very difficult todefine whether they were traded/exchanged.

Furthermore, the SEM-EDS results (tables 6 and 10, Appendix 4) seem to support the idea of a localprovenance. In fact, the results obtained from these two groups are rather different: G1, SMD shows a higherpercentage of magnesia and much more abundant silica, potash, and iron oxide. On the other hand, G2, DB ischaracterised by a percentage of calcium oxide higher than that of G1-SMD.

Regarding SMD, we can suggest a local pottery production because of the similarity of the fabrics with 1)the fabrics of the potsherds analysed from the earlier (IW) and mainly the later phase of occupation (Hvarphase), and 2) the daub fragments (SMD 5 and 12) (Chapter 3, 5.4.9.; 5.5.). Nevertheless, given the restrictednumber of sites analysed, it is very difficult to establish whether or not the ordinary pottery was traded. Theindubitable data regard 1) the almost identical typological characteristics, and 2) the employment of the samemanufacturing technique. Only the fine figulina ware, which has almost identical fabrics at both sites, mighthave been reasonably manufactured in a regional production centre (Chapter 5, 4.1.; 6.).

On the basis of these observations, the general picture currently available is that of two sites belonging tothe same culture, where the ordinary pottery, characterised by the same typology and style, was most probablyof local manufacture, following the same techniques and knowledge. Contrary to this, the analyses of thefigulina ware would suggest regional production centres for trade/exchange activities. Therefore, the present

196

evidence is that of an organised local production for the daily-used pottery and a more complex figulinaproduction system finalised to a wider exchange system. Unfortunately, the data currently available for abetter understanding of the routes/network trades followed by the figulina pottery are very limited.

3. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE HVAR CULTURE SITES

The pottery from two Hvar Culture sites has been examined. They are Smilčić, Hvar phase (SMH) andVela špilja (VS). From a typological/stylistic point of view, the two assemblages show some similarities.Some sherds are decorated with linear, incised patterns (VS 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 16, 20, 22, 23: figs. 65-68; SMH1, 3, 4, 7, 16, 18: figs. 39 and 40). The shapes include open bowls (VS 24, 39: figs. 54, 56; SMH 7, 19: fig. 39),vessels with restricted mouth (VS 1, 6, 18, 19; SMH 13, 14: fig. 40), and deep jars with slightly out-turned rim(VS 3: fig. 66; SMH 3, 4, 5: figs. 39 and 40).

From a microscopic point of view, the two assemblages show some common characteristics: G1-SMH issimilar, but not identical to G1-VS, because the former is richer in rounded fragments of limestone and thequartz is slightly coarser than that of G1-VS. Similar sources were exploited for the production of thesegroups. As mentioned above and in the conclusions of Chapter 3, 5.5. the assemblage from Smilčić, Hvarphase, seems to be of local production because of the strong similarities with the pottery fabrics of the lower-lying Neolithic layers (IW and Danilo occupation phases). Also in this case it is difficult to suggest anypottery movement due to trade or exchange, because of the similar geology that characterises the region whereboth these sites are located. Furthermore, the SEM-EDS data (tables 7 and 11, Appendix 4) seem to confirm adifferent origin for the two groups. In effect, G1-SMH is characterised by higher percentages of iron oxide andtitania, and much higher quantities of aluminia and phosphorus oxide (although the latter might be due topost-depositional factors) than G1-VS. In contrast, G1-VS shows percentages of magnesia and manganeseoxide higher than that of G1-SMH.

No trade/exchange activity can be suggested for these ceramics because the other VS fabrics do not showany relationship with those of SMH. The matrix of G2-VS is much finer than those of SMH, while the potsher-ds of G3 and 4-VS show the presence of terra rossa soil, which is never present in the fabrics of SMD. Thetypological and mineralogical characteristics of G1-VS are not different from those of the other ceramicgroups of the same site (G2-4). Thus it is difficult to suggest that only those vessels, whose typology is similarto those produced with terra rossa soil, were imported.

4. CHANGES IN THE POTTERY TECHNOLOGY/PRODUCTION?

4.1. EARLY NEOLITHIC POTTERY PRODUCTION

The ceramics analysed from the IW sites are characterised by very similar technologies and techniques.Their fabrics are coarse, often with added temper (Jami na Sredi, Vrbica, Konjevrate, Vela Jama, Maddalena diMuccia, Fornace Cappuccini, Ripabianca di Monterado, and Scamuso). In a few cases they do not containartificially added inclusions (e.g. most of the sherds from Vi•ula, Tinj, and Smilčić). The firing temperature isalways rather low, of some 650-700 °C, as testified in most cases by a non-vitrified fabric and the presence ofsparry calcite. The temper more frequently utilised at the sites of the Dalmatian coast, is crushed calcite mostprobably because this is the commonest mineral available in the region. In very few cases it has been possibleto observe that, during the pottery manufacture also some limestone was crushed and added as temper. This issuggested by the angular and subangular shape of some limestone observed in a few thin sections of Jami naSredi (G1), Vrbica (G4), and Konjevrate (groups 5 and 6).

Organic temper was contained in some of the assemblages, such as those of Vi•ula (G2, G2 sub. a and b),Maddalena di Muccia (G1 and G3), Ripabianca di Monterado (G1), and Scamuso (G1 sub. a). Another temperis quartz sand of volcanic origin utilised for the manufacture of the Scamuso ceramics. Only in two cases grogwas utilised as temper: they are the Middle Adriatic IW sites of Maddalena di Muccia and Ripabianca diMonterado (G2-MDM and G2 sub. c-RDM).

Temper was also obtained by adding granite, calcareous sandstone and siltstone rock fragments. This facthas been noticed at the Italian IW sites of Maddalena di Muccia (groups 3, 3 sub. a and b), Ripabianca di

¯ 197

Monterado (groups 2 and 2 sub. b), and Fornace Cappuccini (groups 1, 1 sub. a and b, and group 2).On the basis of the results obtained from the sherds analysed, there is no proof that temper might indicate

a functional variability of the different classes of pottery.18

4.2. MIDDLE NEOLITHIC POTTERY PRODUCTION

The ceramic assemblages analysed from the Middle Neolithic sites are those from Smilčić and DaniloBitinj (Danilo Culture). The technology employed is very similar at both sites. The coarse fabrics are low-fired with crushed calcite used as temper. Smilčić also shows two fabrics without crushed calcite. The first ischaracterised by abundant, most probably added, quartz (G3, SMD), the second (G4, SMD) by naturallypresent limestone. Therefore 14 sherds out of 16 show added calcite, while all the ordinary pottery of DaniloBitinj contains crushed calcite19.

To conclude, the technology of the pottery manufacture of the Middle Neolithic does not show any diffe-rence among these two sites. A unique case is that of the figulina pottery, that shows a more advanced techno-logy at both Smilčić and Danilo Bitinj (Chapter 5, 7.).

4.3. THE LATER M IDDLE NEOLITHIC PHASE

The ceramics from two sites of the later phase of the Middle Neolithic (Hvar Culture) were analysed:Smilčić and Vela špilja.

The first assemblage shows that 18 out of 19 sherds are of coarse fabric with added calcite. Only onesherd (SMH 14, G3) does not show any artificially added inclusion. Most of the potsherds from Vela špilja arecharacterised by added calcite; only one contains grog temper (VS 21, G5). The firing temperature is alwaysbelow 750 °C. The pottery from these sites does not show any difference in both the manufacturing and firingtechniques.

5. DISCUSSION

The ordinary pottery production of the Adriatic coastlines does not show any technological change betweenthe Early and the Middle Neolithic. In most cases the fabrics are coarse and rich in temper. No clear correla-tion is attested between the fabric and the typology of these ceramics.

Most of the Early Neolithic potsherds show the inclusion of temper. It becomes even more clear duringthe Middle Neolithic and the later phase of the same period, while the firing temperature remains alwayslower than 750 °C (Chapter 2, 5.2., i).

On the other hand, this very homogeneous picture contrasts with that of the treatment of the vessel surfa-ces that varies considerably from the Early to the later phases of the Middle Neolithic. The surfaces of theImpressed Ware pottery are very porous and often rough, whereas those of the Danilo and Hvar Cultures arewell treated, burnished, polished, sometimes of black or dark brown translucent colour. This fact has alreadybeen observed by MUNTONI (1999: 239) who, suggested that often, while similar composition and fabricationare characteristic traits common to prehistoric wares, “forms and surface finishing techniques seemed to bethe major source of variation”. According to the same author, most archaeologists who “interpret stylisticmodes as a result of cultural change” might utilise incorrect parameters, while “more significant modifica-tions should be noticed if the culture had really changed”. In this author’s opinion, at “synchronic level”,these modifications would derive from selections operated by different groups to answer to some kind of localor social pressure. At “diachronic level” it might indicate that the pottery tradition was too strong to developinto new ceramic forms; in this case only new types of decorative patterns represent the innovations.

Clear technological changes took place with the appearance of the figulina wares since a specialisedpotter and a kiln were introduced in a new production system. Unfortunately, given the limited size of theexcavated area, little is known of the site dimensions through the different habitation periods. BATOVIć (1964;

18 At the site of Malo Korenovo, which belongs to the Linear Pottery Culture (LBK), granitic rocks seem to have been utilised as temper specificallyfor the cooking vessels, undoubtedly for pots coarser than those whose fabric is characterised by a finer material, such as alluvial silt (SPATARO,2003).

19 Also most of the pottery from layers 2a and 2 of Edera Cave, radiocarbon dated from the beginning of the Neolithic to the Chalcolithic, showsadded crushed calcite (18 sherds out of 19 - layex 2a, 9 sherds out of 10 - layer 2) (SPATARO, 2001).

198

pers. comm. 1999) reported that the Impressed Ware sites of the interior of Zadar and [ibenik are muchsmaller than those of the Middle Neolithic (Danilo) and Late Middle Neolithic (Hvar) periods of the sameprovinces. This is the case, for instance, of the sites of Smilčić (Zadar) and of Bribir ([ibenik). This wouldindicate that the population had increased from the middle of the seventh millennium BP onwards, exactlywhen, figulina ceramics start to make their appearance along the coast of Dalmatia.

During the Early and the Middle Neolithic periods, the manufacture of the every day, ordinary potterycontrasts with that of the fine wares some of which might perhaps have acted as prestige items. This phenome-non that occurred almost simultaneously along both the Adriatic coasts, indicates that, around the end of theEarly Neolithic, the pottery production system changed. It became more complex and most probably impliedexchanges on a regional scale.

6. FIGULINA WARE IN ITS CONTEXT

The occurrence of figulina wares seems to increase in a later period in the development of the ImpressedWare Culture, roughly around the middle of the seventh millennium BP, when the Guadone style takes over, atleast in some regions. This latter style has been dated at Monte Maulo, in the Biferno Valley, between 6540±80BP (OxA-651) and 6210±70 BP (OxA-653) (BARKER, 1995: 105).

Ceramics decorated in the Guadone style are known also in central Bosnia at Obre I (BENAC, 1973) and ineastern Herzegovina, where the cave site of Hateljska pećina produced evidence of some characteristic Gua-done decorated potsherds (MARIJANOVIć, 2000: T. XIII/3). According to BENAC (1973: 405), at Obre I, thispottery belongs to “the very end of the early Neolithic period” and “the origin of this kind of pottery………should be looked for in Dalmatia or in settlements belonging to the same group as the early settlement atSmilčić” . This indicates that, following the above-mentioned author, no trade or exchange of pottery tookplace between the Italian shore of the Adriatic, the Dalmatian and the Bosnian sites, but that (perhaps) thetechnology employed in the manufacture of new pottery styles with monochrome, well-burnished surfaces,“tremolo” and other decorations was transmitted throughout the entire region.

The figulina wares represent another aspect of the mid seventh millennium BP pottery technology thatgreatly evolved during that period. Its manufacture involves the use of kilns and firing temperatures higherthan those utilised for the production of the Impressed Ware vessels. According to MÜLLER (1988: 122) rela-tionships might have existed between the painted figulina wares of Apulia and those of Greece, around themiddle of the seventh millennium BP. If this is correct it would indicate that the complexity of the picture thatwas emerging during that period is to be understood even on a wider geographic scale.

If we restrict this view to the Adriatic, we can observe, around this period (mid seventh millennium BP),that 1) noticeable changes are taking place in the Impressed Ware tradition along the Italian coastline north ofthe Abruzzi region, 2) according to the radiocarbon dates obtained from the cave site of Gudnja pe}ina (CHAP-MAN , 1988), along the Dalmatian coast the Danilo Culture makes its appearance in the southern part of thisregion, 3) cultural transformations occurred in central Bosnia, where the Kakanj Culture developed out of aStarčevo Culture complex at Obre I, 4) that the “rhyton cult” (PERIć, 1996) of the Kakanj and Danilo Cultures(Chapter 6, 7.), starts to spread, rapidly towards the north, 5) figulina painted wares become a common featureof distinct cultural aspects along both the Adriatic coastlines, 6) the trade of obsidian increases, sometimesfollowing long-distance routes (TYKOT, 1996) (Chapter 1, 3.2.; 7, 1.).

7. LATER CHANGES IN POTTERY TYPOLOGY DUE TO EXCHANGES BETWEEN THE TWOADRIATIC COASTLINES

The site of Obre I in central Bosnia is of key importance for the understanding of some of the events thattook place in the Adriatic during the seventh millennium BP. Basically, the Obre I stratigraphy is representedby two evolving cultural aspects: those of Starčevo and Kakanj. The Starčevo Culture is commonly conside-red to represent the earliest Neolithic of this region of the Balkan Peninsula (TRINGHAM, 1971). The Obre Ioldest dates for this culture fall between 7240±60 BP (UCLA-1605I) and 6710±60 BP (UCLA-1605G) (GIM-BUTAS, 1984: 250), which means that they are roughly contemporary to the early spread of the Cardium Im-

¯ 199

pressed Ware in the Adriatic. Here the Impressed Ware, Guadone style pottery makes its appearance in thesecond, over-lying occupation layer. According to BENAC (1973: 405) “the Impresso component of the IIndstratum of Obre I belongs to the very end of the early Neolithic period”.

At Obre I “the Impresso pottery ware of the Adriatic type are much richer” including simple shapessometimes with very well-burnished surface “covered with a brilliant black slip”, decorated with “tremolo”rows, hatched triangles and nail impressed motifs that are also very common to the site of Zelena pećina alonga tributary of the Neretva River, near Mostar (BENAC, 1957a). Following BENAC (1973: 388), the hypothesisthat the Starčevo/Impresso Culture represents “the immigration of the bearers of these cultures to the area ofObre and……the establishment of a new settlement on the periphery of both culture complexes” must be takeninto consideration.

Also the excavations carried out at Obre II (BENAC, 1973a) have produced evidence of relationshipsbetween the two coasts of the Adriatic during the middle of the sixth millennium BP, demonstrated by thepresence of one imported Serra d’Alto typical vessel at Obre II itself (BENAC, 1987).

Furthermore, the excavations at the Apulian Tavoliere site of Passo di Corvo have yielded a unique classof pottery with geometrical, rhombic patterns of pointillée decorations (TINÉ, 1983: Tav. 118). This ceramicassemblage had been compared by the excavator with similarly decorated potsherds from the Neolithic levelsof Knossos in Crete (TINÉ, 1983: 181), while both the decorative technique and the rhombic pattern is typicalof the Butmir Culture, as demonstrated by BENAC (1987: 18).

This discovery reinforces the evidence of relationships between the two coasts of the Adriatic during theMiddle Neolithic period.

The over-lying upper layers of the Obre I sequence are represented by the Kakanj Culture that is strictlyrelated to that of Danilo. The Kakanj Culture is characterised by the appearance of a new “cult” object thatsubstitutes the typical Starčevo Culture “altars”: the rhyton. Following the typological subdivision suggestedby BENAC (1973: 384), the Obre I rhyta include, among others, typical Kakanj types.

These latter are characterised by thickened, conical legs, sometimes decorated with geometrical, scra-tched, linear motifs. A new re-interpretation of these vessels recently proposed by PERI} (1996), suggests thatthe classical Kakanj rhyta are to be interpreted as representations of female cattle and that the Thessalianspecimens, with shorter and wider, pointed legs, as sows.

This author hypothesises that the rhyton “cult” spread very rapidly from Greece and the Peloponnese tothe Balkan Peninsula, following transhumant herdsmen who moved from the permanent valley bottom settle-ments, to the seasonal upper mountain pastures bearing these unique vessels with them.

At this point it is of great importance to note the presence of typical Kakanj rhyta in the northernmostregion reached by the spread of the Danilo Culture, in its local Vlaška variant, that is the Trieste Karst of northeastern Italy, where rhyta are known from many cave sites (MONTAGNARI KOKELJ and CRISMANI, 1993). TheEdera Cave, Kakanj type rhyton (BIAGI and SPATARO, 2001) comes from an Early Neolithic ash level radiocar-bon dated to the middle of the seventh millennium BP.

The present radiocarbon evidence seems to indicate a rapid spread of this new cultural Danilo aspecttowards the northwest as well as the diffusion of this “cult” in other areas such as the Trieste Karst by the verybeginning of the Neolithic in that region.

The scientific analysis of the Edera rhyton has demonstrated its local production. This indicates that, inthis case, the idea of the rhyton “cult” was diffused, and not the specific item itself (BIAGI and SPATARO, 2001;SPATARO, 2001: 98; BIAGI, 2003). Relationships between the eastern Adriatic and Apulia are also demonstratedby the discovery of two foot fragments of typical, eastern Adriatic cultual vessels or rhyta (PERIć, 1996) fromthe site of Le Macchie near Bari (RADINA , 1981).

Regarding the possible typological variations deriving from the import of ceramics from elsewhere, eventhough the Danilo Culture layer at Smilčić yielded eight typical Korenovo Culture potsherds (TEžAK-GREGL,1993: 14), no typological change can be noted in the pottery assemblage from this site, denoting the influenceof this Linear Pottery aspect in the local wares.

200

¯ 201

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSIONS

1. IMPRESSED WARES AND OBSIDIAN IN THE ADRIATIC: EARLY NEOLITHIC TRADE ANDEXCHANGE

All the results obtained from the analysis of the Impressed Ware potsherds from the examined sites indi-cate that the production of this class of Early Neolithic ceramic was local. These data contrast with the sugge-stions put forward by some authors concerning the transport of pottery across the southern Adriatic because ofthe easy navigation across the sea in Neolithic times, thanks to the great number of islands forming a natural“bridge” between the Apulian Tavoliere and the Dalmatian coast (BASS, 1998: 167). Experiments have recen-tly demonstrated that Early Neolithic navigation was effectively possible across this sound (TICHÝ, 2000).Given the limited number of sites and of potsherds analysed from each site, it is not possible to be undoubtedlysure that Impressed Ware vessels were not transported across the Adriatic by the beginning of the seventhmillennium BP. A further step in the research would be the examination of a greater number of potsherdsincluding those from the Impressed Ware sites discovered on the Islands of Palagru•a and Sušac (BASS, 1998:168), just midway between the two opposite shores, to check their local manufacture or their potential importfrom the south-west.

This evidence contrasts with that already known for obsidian that was traded, mainly in the form offinished products, namely bladelets, throughout the Adriatic from the beginning of the seventh millenniumBP. The detailed study undertaken by TYKOT (1996: 69) on the Mediterranean obsidians shows the distributionof the Neolithic and post-Neolithic finds. His analyses demonstrate that Liparian obsidian was traded acrossthe Adriatic as far as the Trieste Karst and the eastern Friuli Plain, as well as all along the western Adriaticcoastline. Unfortunately, all the obsidian specimens from the Dalmatian Neolithic sites have not been exami-ned and their source of provenance is uncertain. Nevertheless, these data indicate that obsidian was tradedover long distances towards the east and northeast, while this cannot be ascertained for the ceramics of theperiod under discussion. As pointed out by TYKOT (1996: 64) “Cardial ceramics, for example, were also beingexchanged in the Early Neolithic, although the distances involved were on the order of 50-70 km rather thanthe hundreds travelled by obsidian” as also remarked by BARNETT (1990) for the Impressed Wares.

Another point that needs clarification is that of the methodology employed in the scientific identificationof pottery and obsidian. While pottery is the commonest assemblage from an archaeological (Neolithic) site,obsidian is simply the opposite. While ceramic vessels are utilised every day, obsidian artefacts (bladelets) areusually unretouched or unused (un-functional or new), and are often interpreted as prestige items. Furthermo-re, the scientific analysis of obsidian can be carried out on all the (few) available specimens from each archa-eological site (AMMERMAN and POLGLASE, 1997: 583); its raw material, volcanic sources are very few and wellknown, and their identification rather easy (CANN and RENFREW, 1964). Pottery, on the contrary is, as mentio-ned above, extremely common to any archaeological site. The samples that can be scientifically analysed arefew (according to the presently adopted methodology 20 to 30 samples). Furthermore, their study is undoubte-dly difficult, costly and takes much longer than that needed for other materials such as obsidian, greenstones,and flint. These contrasting data have to be taken into consideration. They mean that, while the results obtai-ned from the obsidian source of provenance determination are very reliable, because many or all the availablesamples have been analysed, those obtained from the ceramics are not, because the specimens examinedrepresent an extremely limited sample of the total assemblage available. The scientific analysis of the entirepottery assemblage from an excavated Neolithic site is simply impossible and will never be conducted withthe currently available scientific methods and funds.

The results that have been so far obtained from the Impressed Ware pottery of both the Adriatic coastalsites do not indicate any wide distribution or long-distance diffusion of these vessels; on the contrary, theydemonstrate their local or regional production. Their dispersal is always restricted to a rather limited radius,similar to that observed by BARNETT (1990: 863; 2000: 108) for the Impressed Wares of Languedoc in southe-

202

astern France. With the exception of the Trieste Karst Edera Cave, layer 3a (SPATARO, 2001) my results do noteven reinforce the hypothesis of exchange or interaction of pottery vessels between the last hunter-gatherersand the first farmers of the study region. This is contra ZVELEBIL and LILLIE (2000: 71) who showed a distribu-tion map of the Adriatic region “where pottery was introduced first into foragers communities in the “Availa-bility” phase”. It is also difficult to define whether the results of this study contribute to reinforce the “wave ofadvance” model proposed by AMMERMAN and CAVALLI -SFORZA (1971), although this appears to be the moreacceptable solution, since the local (or regional) production of Early Neolithic pottery might have been manu-factured by local potters belonging to communities that moved from an old to a newly established site. Eventhough this model is purely theoretical and further scientific evidence is highly needed, in my opinion it mightbe achieved by mean of the multiplication of the scientific analysis of pottery. The results obtained through themethodologies employed in this work (Chapter 2, 5.), might constitute a fundamental database for the conti-nuation of these analyses and the further development of these studies.

2. FIGULINA WARE IN THE ADRIATIC - MID SEVENTH MILLENNIUM BP

Given that the circulation of pottery during the Early Neolithic was minimal, as we have seen, it undou-btedly changed later, at a certain stage of the production of the figulina wares. It is well known that, insouthern Italy, this type of pottery began to be manufactured quite early. Since before the middle of theseventh millennium BP (WHITEHOUSE, 1969: 280), figulina wares have been common to various south andcentral Italian Neolithic cultural aspects; their production continued until at least the middle of the sixthmillennium BP, or even later, with the Serra d’Alto and the Ripoli Cultures (FRANGIPANE, 1975: 135; MALONE,1985: 142). The distribution of figulina wares along both sides of the Adriatic is a phenomenon that, accordingto the analyses so far conducted, seems to have taken place mainly around the last centuries of the seventhmillennium BP, and to have continued at least until the middle of the sixth, as documented by the import ofpotsherds at some north Italian sites (BARFIELD, 1981: 33).

A few interesting data suggest that, during the above-mentioned period, not only some specific types offigulina vessels were traded (Chapter 5, 6.), but also that the transmission of ideas was taking place. This isindicated, for example, by recent information obtained from a locally made, typical central Bosnian Kakanj“cult” rhyton discovered in the Trieste Karst Edera Cave (BIAGI and SPATARO, 2001; SPATARO, 2001). Thisdiscovery reinforces the importance of the role that transhumance might have played from the Balkans towar-ds northern Italy, following routes that herders travelled until World War Two. This implies important mecha-nisms which undoubtedly led to: “1) the transmission of ideas, 2) the redistribution of rare raw materials, 3)the distribution of finished products and 4) the archaeological distributions of material traits” (NANDRIS,1999: 125).

3. OLD MODELS AND NEW PROPOSALS FOR FURTHER STUDIES

In some of the study regions, such as the western Adriatic coast, the temporal dimension of the wave ofadvance model of demic diffusion proposed by AMMERMAN and CAVALLI -SFORZA (1971) can be suggested, as ithas been for other areas of Europe, for example the south Balkan Peninsula (THISSEN, 2000a: 193), for whicha time-scale less rigid than that proposed by the above authors has been proposed. At this stage of the researchit is not easy to suggest the role that pottery can play in the scientific proof of such model. As far as we know,it is presently clear that 1) the Impressed Ware Culture took some 1000 radiocarbon years to spread from theTavoliere up to the coasts of Romagna, that is to cover some 1000 kilometres (SKEATES, 1994: 65), 2) the firstNeolithic, made its appearance, in Apulia, at the end of the eighth-beginning of the seventh millennium BP,while the earliest Neolithisation of the Romagna coast took place not earlier than during the last three centu-ries of the seventh millennium BP, and that 3) the Impressed Ware ceramic assemblages of the two above-mentioned regions (Apulia and Romagna) show very different typological and decorative characteristic traits.Much less is known of the chronology of the spread of this culture along the Dalmatian coast, mainly becauseof the scarcity of radiocarbon dates from most of the key sites. Although the situation here seems to bedifferent from that of the opposite coast, it is important to observe that only the more recent aspects of this

¯ 203

culture are represented in Istria. At these sites, namely those around Medulin (Pula) and Vela Gromača (BAćić,1969; 1973), the Impressed Ware ceramics have always been found associated with linear incised decoratedpottery which led MÜLLER (1994) to introduce the term Medulin for this specific ceramic group.

Apart from the case of Edera Cave (SPATARO, 2001), after the original diffusion of people, the exchan-ge/diffusion of ideas, more than of ceramic vessels and other material culture remains, seems to have been ofgreat importance in the case of the Impressed Ware Culture. It is interesting to note that, at least as regards theDalmatian coast, the vessel forms and decorations do not vary over well-defined regional or super-regionalboundaries, even though their production was always at local or regional scale. Further results might possiblybe obtained taking into consideration a higher number of specimens from other Impressed Ware Apulian sitesfrom which very early radiocarbon dates have been obtained.

The changes took place only around the middle of the seventh millennium BP, when the Danilo Cultu-re substituted the Impressed Ware one along the Dalmatian coast, and the Catignano and later the RipoliCultures took over along the central Italian coast. Changes in the structural development of the archaeologicalsites can also be noticed from this period onwards. In central Italy, settlement sites with long, apsed habitationstructures have been excavated at Catignano, where the site was re-inhabited several times as documented byseveral super-imposed house remains (TOZZI, 1982: 320). In Dalmatia, where Neolithic open-air settlementsof different age and culture are known, the Impressed Ware villages are always spread over areas smaller thanthose covered by those of the Danilo and Hvar Cultures (Chapter 6, 5.). Although the available data on theNeolithic structural remains of the area are scarce, they seem to indicate that social changes occurred aroundthe middle of the seventh millennium BP. These changes might be indicated, along the western Adriatic coast,by the construction of habitation structures more complicated than those of the preceding centuries, and, inDalmatia, by the establishment of villages of greater extension than those of the Impressed Ware Culture(BATOVIć, 1972).

To conclude: by the middle of the seventh millennium BP many changes were taking place in the Adriaticbasin and more generally in the Mediterranean region. They can be described as follows:1) along the western coast of the Adriatic, while in southern Italy the Guadone style and the figulina wares

were taking over and substituted the Cardium and instrumental Impressed Wares (CIPOLLONI SAMPÒ et al.,1999), in Central Italy, north of the Abruzzi, new aspects of this culture started to flourish (RADIć, 1995);

2) the Danilo and Kakanj Cultures made their appearance along the Dalmatian coast and its interior (KORO-ŠEC, 1964; BENAC, 1973);

3) the “cult” rhyton vessels spread along the same territories covered by the Kakanj and Danilo Cultures,possibly from Greece (PERIć), 1996);

4) the expansion of the distribution of this “cult” is indicated by the occurrence of fragments of rhyta atsome sites of the south Italian coast of the Adriatic, and moving towards the north, as far as the FriuliPlain (BIAGI and SPATARO, 2001);

5) the figulina wares became more and more common reflecting more complex pottery production systemsin an evolving society, whose structure was subject to a rapid change (MALONE, 1985);

6) the distribution map of the obsidian finds shows that the trade of (finished) objects was already active atthe beginning of the Neolithic throughout most of the Mediterranean. Nevertheless, little is known of theobsidian trade along the Dalmatian coast, because of the limited number of artefacts of identified sourceof provenance, most of which are still unpublished (BATOVIć, pers. comm. 2000);

7) while at the beginning of the Neolithic the (Cardium IW) pottery production system was local and therelationships between villages were not based on the exchange of vessels, this pattern seems to changearound the mid seventh millennium BP;

8) the relationships between the coast and the settlements of the interior, along the course of the Sava Riverand its surrounding region, seem to be well established around the middle of the same millennium. Thediscovery of typical potsherds of the LBK Korenovo Culture (DIMITRIJEVIć), 1961) in the Danilo Culturelayers of the coastal site of Smilčić (TEžAK-GREGL, 1993: 14), are very indicative in this respect.Thus, according to the evidence to date available, based on the scientific analyses of potsherds from a

reasonable number (11) of Impressed Ware sites of both the Adriatic coastlines, it can be stressed that there areno elements indicating that pottery exchange/trade activities were already established by the first half of theseventh millennium BP, nor that they took place during the second half of the same millennium. Nevertheless,

204

regional or possibly wider exchange networks did take place from the middle of the seventh millennium BP. Itis for this reason that the number of figulina pottery samples and sites to analyse should be increased includingmaterial from other representative sites such as, for instance, Ripoli and Catignano in the Abruzzi. The analy-sis of ceramic specimens from these two Central Italian key sites might shed more light on the relationshipsbetween the Abruzzi and the Dalmatian coast, since this first region has been supposed by KOROŠEC (1956) tobe a possible centre for the production and distribution of this special pottery throughout the Adriatic duringthis period.

Further analyses that might help improve our knowledge of the figulina ware diffusion, would considerthe employment of other techniques such as the XRF and chemical analyses to detect trace elements; methodsthat have not been adopted in the present work.

¯ 205

APPENDIX 1

Table 1 - Vi ula (Pula): provenance of the potsherds analysed according to their location (layer and depth from surface).

206

Table 2 - Smilči} (IW) (Zadar): provenance of the potsherds analysed according to their location (layer and depth from surface).

¯ 207

Table 3 - Vrbica (Šibenik): provenance of the potsherds analysed according to their location (layer and depth from surface).

208

Table 4 - Vela špilja (Korčula Island): provenance of the potsherds analysed according to their location (layer and depth from surface).

¯ 209

APPENDIX 2

Table 1 - Characteristics and number of potsherds analysed from the Dalmatian sites.

210

Table 2 - Characteristics and number of potsherds analysed from the Dalmatian sites.

¯ 211

Table 3 - Characteristics and number of potsherds analysed from the Italian sites.

212

¯ 213

APPENDIX 3

Tables 1 - Thin section analysis of Vi•ula potsherds.

clay

214

Table 2a - Thin section analysis of Jami na Sredi potsherds.

¯ 215

Table 2b - Thin section analysis of Jami na Sredi potsherds.

216

Table 3 - Thin section analysis of Vela Jama potsherds.

Table 4 - Thin section analysis of Tinj-Podlivade potsherds.

¯ 217

Tables 5 - Thin section analysis of Smilčić (IW) potsherds.

218

Table 6 - Thin section analysis of Smilčić (Danilo phase) potsherds.

¯ 219

Tables 7 - Thin section analysis of Smilčić (Hvar phase) potsherds.

220

Table 8 - Thin section analysis of Vrbica potsherds.

¯ 221

Table 9 - Thin section analysis of Konjevrate potsherds.

222

Table 10 - Thin section analysis of Danilo Bitinj potsherds.

¯ 223

Table 11a - Thin section analysis of Vela špjlia potsherds.

224

Table 11b - Thin section analysis of Vela špjlia potsherds.

¯ 225

Table 12 - Thin section analysis of Fornace Cappuccini potsherds.

,

226

Table 13 - Thin section analysis of Maddalena di Muccia potsherds.

¯ 227

Table 14 - Thin section analysis of Ripabianca di Monterado potsherds.

228

Table 15 - Thin section analysis of Scamuso potsherds.

¯ 229

Tables 16 - Thin section analysis of Istrian, Dalmatian and Italian soil samples.

,

,

230

Table 17 - Thin section analysis of Gravina (GRV) and Grotta delle Mura (GDM) figulina potsherds.

¯ 231

APPENDIX 4

Table 1 - SEM-EDS analysis of Vi•ula potsherds.

Table 2 - SEM-EDS analysis of Jami na Sredi potsherds.

232

Table 3 - SEM-EDS analysis of Vela Jama potsherds.

Table 4 - SEM-EDS analysis of Tinj-Podlivade potsherds.

Table 5 - SEM-EDS analysis of Smilčić (IW phase) potsherds.

¯ 233

Table 6 - SEM-EDS analysis of Smilčić (Danilo phase) potsherds.

Table 7 - SEM-EDS analysis of Smilčić (Hvar phase) potsherds.

234

Table 8 - SEM-EDS analysis of Vrbica potsherds.

¯ 235

Table 9 - SEM-EDS analysis of Konjevrate potsherds.

236

Table 10 - SEM-EDS analysis of Danilo Bitinj potsherds.

¯ 237

Table 11 - SEM-EDS analysis of Vela špilja potsherds.

238

Table 12 - SEM-EDS analysis of Fornace Cappuccini potsherds.

Table 13 - SEM-EDS analysis of Maddalena di Muccia potsherds.

¯ 239

Table 14 - SEM-EDS analysis of Ripabianca di Monterado potsherds.

240

Table 15 - SEM-EDS analysis of Scamuso potsherds.

¯ 241

R E F E R E N C E S

ADAM, E. 1999 - Preliminary presentation of the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic stone industries of Theopetra Cave, WesternThessaly. In BAILEY , G.N., ADAM , E., PANAGOPOULOU, E., PERLÈS, C and ZACHOS, K. (eds.) The Palaeolithic of Greece and adjacentareas. British School at Athens. Studies, 3: 266-270. London.

ALESSIO, M., BELLA , F., IMPROTA, S., BELLUOMINI , G., CORTESI, C. and TURI, B. 1970 - University of Rome Carbon 14 Dates VII.Radiocarbon, 12: 599-616.

ALESSIO, M., BELLA , F., IMPROTA, S., BELLUOMINI , G., CORTESI, C. and TURI, B. 1971 - University of Rome Carbon-14 Dates IX.Radiocarbon, 13 (2): 395-411.

AMMERMAN, A.J. 1985 - The Acconia Survey: Neolithic Settlement and the Obsidian Trade. Institute of Archaeology. OccasionalPublication, 10. London.

AMMERMAN, A.J. 2002 - Looking back. In AMMERMAN, A.J. and BIAGI, P. (eds.) The Widening Harvest. Archaeological Institute ofAmerica, Monographs, 1. Boston (in press).

AMMERMAN, A.J. and ANDREFSKY, W. 1982 - Reduction Sequences and Exchange of Obsidian in Neolithic Calabria. In ERICSON, J.E.and EARLE, T.K. (eds.) Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange: 149-172. Academic Press, London.

AMMERMAN, A.J. and CAVALLI -SFORZA, L.L. 1971 - Measuring the rate of spread of early farming in Europe. Man, 6: 674-688.

AMMERMAN, A.J. and CAVALLI -SFORZA, L.L. 1984 - The Neolithic Transition and Genetics of Populations in Europe. Princeton UniversityPress, Princeton.

AMMERMAN , A.J., MATESSI, C. and CAVALLI -SFORZA, L.L. 1978 - Some new approaches to the study of the obsidian trade in theMediterranean and adjacent areas. In HODDER, I. (ed.) The spatial organisation of culture: 179-196. Duckworth, London.

AMMERMAN, A.J. and POLGLASE, C. 1993 - The exchange of obsidian at Neolithic sites in Italy. In SCARRE, C. and HEALY, F. (eds.) Tradeand exchange in prehistoric Europe. Oxbow Monographs, 33: 101-107. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

AMMERMAN, A.J. and POLGLASE, C.R. 1997 - Analyses and descriptions of the obsidian collections from Arene Candide. In MAGGI, R.,STARNINI , E. and VOYTEK, B. (eds.) Arene Candide: a functional and environmental assessment of the Holocene sequence(excavations Bernabò Brea - Cardini 1940-50). Memorie dell’Istituto Italiano di Paleontologia Umana, n.s. 5: 574-585. Rome.

AMMERMAN, A.J. and POLGLASE, C. 1998 - Obsidian at Neolithic sites in Northern Italy. Preistoria Alpina, 34: 291-296.

ANDREOLOTTI, S. and STRADI, F. 1963 - L’industria mesolitica della Cavernetta della Trincea in Val Rosandra. Atti e Memorie dellaCommissione Grotte E. Boegan, III: 71-85. Trieste.

ANTONIAZZI, A., BAGOLINI , B., BERMOND MONTANARI, G., MASSI PASI, M. and PRATI, L. 1985 - Die Jungsteinzeit in Fornace Cappucciniin Faenza und die Impressokeramik in der Romagna. A Béri Balogh Ádám Múzeum Évkönyve, XIII: 337-363. Szekszárd.

ARANGUREN, B. and REVEDIN, A. 1989-1990 - Primi dati sugli scavi a Perriere Sottano (Ramacca, Catania). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche,XLII: 305-310.

ARANGUREN, B. and REVEDIN, A. 1998 - Il giacimento mesolitico di Perriere Sottano (Ramacca, CT). Bullettino di PaletnologiaItaliana, 89: 31-79.

ARNOLD, D.E. 1985 - Ceramic theory and cultural process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

BAćIć, B. 1969 - Medulin, I•ula, Istra - neolitsko naselje. Arheološki Pregled, 11: 23-24. Beograd.

BAćIć, B. 1973 - Vela Gromača kod Kavrana. Histria Archeologica, IV (1): 7-29. Pula.

BAGNONE, D. and TOZZI, C. 1988-1991 - Catignano. Archivio di Tipologia Analitica, 16: 77-97. Siena.

BAGOLINI , B. 1984 - Influssi Adiratico-Balcanici nella formazione e sviluppo del Neolitico dell’Italia settentrionale. In Rapporti tra iBalcani e l’Italia meridionale nell’età neolitica. Atti dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, CCCLXXXI: 111-144. Roma.

BAGOLINI , B. 1990 - Nuovi aspetti sepolcrali della Cultura dei Vasi a Bocca Quadrata a La Vela di Trento. In BIAGI , P. (ed.) TheNeolithisation of the Alpine Region. Monografie di Natura Bresciana, 13: 227-235. Brescia.

BAGOLINI , B., BARFIELD, L.H. and BROGLIO, A. 1973 - Notizie preliminari delle ricerche sull’insediamento neolitico di Fimon-MolinoCasarotto (Vicenza) (1969-1972). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche, XXVIII (1): 161-215.

BAGOLINI , B. and BIAGI , P. 1975 - Introduzione al Neolitico dell’Emilia e Romagna. In Atti della XIX Riunione Scientifica dell’IIPP:79-136. Firenze.

BAGOLINI , B. and BIAGI , P. 1980 - The Mesolithic and Early Neolithic Settlement of Northern Italy. In KOZŁOWSKI, J.K. and MACHNIK ,J. (eds.) Problèmes de la Néolithisation dans certains Régions de l’Europe: 9-26. Ossolineum, Kraków.

BAGOLINI, B. and BIAGI, P. 1987 - The first Neolithic chipped stone assemblages of Northern Italy. In KOZŁOWSKI, J.K. and KOZŁOWSKI,S.K. (eds.) Chipped Stone Industries of the Early Farming Cultures in Europe. Archaeologia Interregionalis: 423-448. Warszaw-Kraków.

242

BAGOLINI, B. and BIAGI, P. 1990 - The Radiocarbon Chronology of the Neolithic and Copper Age of Northern Italy. Oxford Journal ofArchaeology, 9 (1): 1-24.

BAGOLINI , B., DELUCCA, O., FERRARI, A., PESSINA, A. and WILKENS, B. 1989 - Insediamenti neolitici ed eneolitici di Miramare (Rimini).Preistoria Alpina, 25: 53-120.

BAILEY , D.W. 2000 - Balkan Prehistory. Routledge, London and New York.

BAKI ć, J. 2001 - Prehana korisnika Vele špilje u svjetlu prehrane stanovnika u Neolitiku. In Arheološka istra•ivanja na področjuotoka Korčule i Lastova. Hrvatska Arheološko Društvo, 20: 125-131. Zagreb.

BARFIELD, L.H. 1972 - The First Neolithic Cultures of north eastern Italy. In SCHWABEDISSEN, H. (ed.) Die Anfänge des Neolithikumsvom Orient bis Nordeuropa. Fundamenta A (3): 182-216. Böhlau, Köln.

BARFIELD, L.H. 1981 - Patterns of north Italian trade 5000-2000 b.c. In BARKER, G. and HODGES, R. (eds.) Archaeology and ItalianSociety. Prehistoric, Roman and Medieval Studies. BAR International Series, 102: 27-51. Oxford.

BARFIELD, L.H. 1987 - Recent work on sources of Italian flint. In SIEVEKING, G. DE G. and NEWCOMER, M. (eds.) The human uses of flintand chert: 231-239. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

BARFIELD, L.H. 1994 - The exploitation of flint in the Monti Lessini, northern Italy. In ASHTON, N. and DAVID , A. (eds.) Stories inStone. Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper, 4: 71-86. Lithographic Service, London.

BARFIELD, L.H. 1999 - The Moser collection in the Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna. Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoriadella Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, XI: 19-62. Trieste.

BARKER, G.W.W. 1975 - Prehistoric territories and economies in central Italy. In HIGGS, E.S. (ed.) Palaeoeconomy: 111-176. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

BARKER, G. 1981 - Landscape and Society. Prehistoric Central Italy. Academic Press, London.

BARKER, G. 1985 - Prehistoric farming in Europe. New Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

BARKER, G. 1995 - A Mediterranean Valley. Landscape Archaeology and Annales History in the Biferno Valley. Leicester UniversityPress, London.

BARNETT, W.K. 1990 - Small-scale transport of early Neolithic pottery in the west Mediterranean. Antiquity, 64 (245): 859-865.

BARNETT, W.K. 1991 - The identification of clay collection in prehistoric pottery at the Early Neolithic site of Balma Margineda,Andorra. In MIDDLETON, A. and FREESTONE, I. (eds.) Recent Developments in Ceramic Petrology. British Museum OccasionalPaper, 81: 17-37. London.

BARNETT, W.K. 2000 - Cardial pottery and the agricultural transition in Mediterranean Europe. In DOUGLAS PRICE, T. (ed.) Europe’sFirst Farmers: 93-116. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

BAROCELLI, P. 1934 - La più antica ceramica dipinta in Italia. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana, LIV: 115-136.

BARTHÉS, P. 1994 - L’apport du remontage des vases dans l’analyse et l’interprétation d’une stratigraphie d’habitat néolithique.L’exemple de l’abri de Font-Juvénal à Conques-sur-Orbiel (Aude). In Terre cuite et société. La céramique, document technique,économique, culturel: 199-215. APDCA, Juan-les-Pins.

BASILI, R., DI LERNIA, S., FIORENTINO, G. and GALIBERTI, A. 1995 - Review of prehistoric flint mines in the “Gargano” Promontory(Apulia, Southern Italy). Archeologia Polona, 33: 414-436.

BASS, B. 1998 - Early Neolithic Offshore Accounts: Remote Islands, Maritime Exploitations, and the Trans-Adriatic Cultural Network.Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 11 (2): 165-190.

BATOVIć, [. 1960-1961 - Neolitsko naselje u Smilčiću. Diadora, 1: 5-26. Zadar.

BATOVIć, [. 1962 - Neolitsko nazalište u Smilčiću. Diadora, 2: 31-115. Zadar.

BATOVIć, [. 1966 - Stariji Neolit u Dalmaciji. Arheološki Muzej, Zadar.

BATOVIć, [. 1967 - Pokapanje pokajnika v Smilčiću i Kult mrtvih u Neolitu Dalmacije. Atheološki Radovi i Rasprave, IV-V: 263-298. Zagreb.

BATOVIć, [. 1968 - Problem kulta phallosa u Danilskoj kulturi. Diadora, 4: 5-51. Zadar.

BATOVIć, [. 1970 - Odnos Danilske i Hvarske kulturne skupine. Diadora, 5: 5-32. Zadar.

BATOVIć, [. 1971 - Barice, Smilčić près de Zadar - site néolitique. In BENAC, A., GARAŠANIN, M. and TASIć, N. (eds.) Epoque préhistoriqueet protohistorique en Yougoslavia - Recherches et résultats. UISPP, Beograd.

BATOVIć, [. 1972 - Problemi neolitica na istočnoj Jadranskoj obali. Materijali, XII: 17-24. IX Kongres Arheologa Jugoslavije, Zadar.

BATOVIć, [. 1975 - Odnos Jadranskog primorja prema področju Jugoistočnih Alpa u neolitu i eneolitu. Arheološki vestnik, XXIV: 62-127. Ljubljana.

BATOVIć, [. 1975a - Le relazioni tra la Daunia e la sponda orientale dell’Adriatico. Civiltà Preistoriche e Protostoriche della Daunia.In Civiltà Preistoriche e Protostoriche della Daunia: 149-157. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Firenze.

BATOVIć, [. 1978 - Origines du Néolithique a l’Adriatique et les rapports avec la Méditerranée Occidentale. Godišnjak, XVI: 45-60.Sarajevo.

¯ 243

BATOVIć, [. 1984 - Le relazioni tra i Balcani e l’Italia meridionale in età Neolitica. In Rapporti tra i Balcani e l’Italia meridionalenell’età Neolitica. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, CCCLXXXI: 5-27. Roma.

BATOVIć, [. 1989 - Istrazivanje prapovijesti sjeverne Dalmacije od 1984 do 1988. Diadora, 11: 5-57. Zadar.

BATOVIć, [. 1990 - Benkovacki karj u Prapovijesti. Radovi Razdio Povijesnih Znanosti, 29 (16): 5-142.

BATOVIć, [. and CHAPMAN, J. 1985 - The Neothermal Dalmatia Project. In MACREADY S. and THOMPSON F.H. (eds.) ArchaeologicalSurvey in Britain and Abroad: 158-195. The Society of Antiquaries, London.

BENAC, A. 1952 - Prehistorijsko naselje nebo i problem Butmirske Kulture. Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana.

BENAC, A. 1954 - Prethodna istra•ivanja na Neolitskom naselju u Lisičićima. Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzej u Sarajevu, 1954: 137-150. Sarajevo.

BENAC, A. 1955 - Neolitsko naselje u Lisičićima kod Konjica. Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzej u Sarajevu, 1955: 49-77. Sarajevo.

BENAC, A. 1957 - Crvena Stijena-1955 (I-IV stratum). Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzej u Sarajevu, 1957: 19-50. Sarajevo.

BENAC, A. 1957a - Zelena pećina. Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzej u Sarajevu, 1957: 61-92. Sarajevo.

BENAC, A. 1971 - Le Néolithique ancien dans les Balkans du Nord-Ouest et ses relations avec les régions voisines. In Actes du VIIICongrés International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques de l’UISPP, 1: 97-108. Beograd.

BENAC, A. 1973 - Obre I - A Neolithic settlement of the Starčevo-Impresso and Kakanj Cultures at Raskršće. WissenschaftlicheMitteilungen des Bosnisch-Herzegowinischen Landesmuseums, III (A): 327-430. Sarajevo.

BENAC, A. 1973a - Obre II - A Neolithic settlement of the Butmir group at Gornje polje. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen des Bosnisch-Herzegowinischen Landesmuseums, III (A): 5-325. Sarajevo.

BENAC, A. 1975 - Qualche parallelo tra la Daunia e la Bosnia durante il Neolitico. In Civiltà Preistoriche e Protostoriche dellaDaunia: 145-148. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Firenze.

BENAC, A. 1987 - Kulturni odnosi sjeverozapadnog Balkana i Italjanske oblasti Tavoliere u Neolitsko doba. Arheološki Radovi iRasprave, 10: 11-23. Zagreb.

BENAC, A. and BRODAR, M. 1958 - Crvena Stijena -1956. Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzej u Sarajevu, 1958: 21-64. Sarajevo.

BENAC, A. and MARIJANOVIć, B. 1993 - Les Balkans du Nord-Ouest. In KOZŁOWSKI J.K. (ed.) Atlas du Néolithique Européen. Vol. 1.L’Europe Orientale. ERAUL, 45: 127-150.

BERMOND MONTANARI, G. 2000 - Datazioni radiometriche di Fornace Cappuccini - Faenza (Ravenna). In BIAGI, P. (ed.) Studi sulPaleolitico, Mesolitico e Neolitico del Bacino dell’Adriatico in ricordo di Antonio M. Radmilli. Società per la Preistoria eProtostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 8: 21-26. Trieste.

BERMOND MONTANARI, G., MASSI PASI, M. and MENGOLI, D. 1991 - L’insediamento neolitico di Fornace Cappuccini di Faenza (Ravenna).Preistoria Alpina, 27: 173-195.

BERNABEU AUBAN, J. 1997 - Indigenism and Migrationism. The Neolithisation of the Iberian Peninsula. Poročilo o raziskovanjupaleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji, XXIV: 1-18. Ljubljana.

BERNABÒ BREA, L. 1946 - Gli scavi nella Caverna delle Arene Candide. Parte I. Gli strati con ceramiche. Collezioni di MonografiePreistoriche ed Archeologiche, I. Istituto Internazionale di Studi Liguri, Bordighera.

BERNABÒ BREA, L. 1956 - Gli scavi nella Caverna delle Arene Candide (Finale Ligure). Parte prima: gli strati con ceramiche, vol. 2°:Campagne di scavo 1948-50. Collezioni di Monografie Preistoriche ed Archeologiche, I. Istituto Internazionale di Studi Liguri,Bordighera.

BERNABÒ BREA, L. and CAVALIER , M. 2000 - La Grotta del Santuario della Madonna di Praia a Mare (Praia a Mare - Cosenza). Livelliolocenici. Memorie dell’Istituto Italiano di Paleontologia Umana, n.s. 6: 15-99. Roma.

BERNABÒ BREA, M., GHIRETTI, A., POLGLASE, C.R. and VISCONTI, V. 1988 - I siti neolitici lungo il Torrente Cinghio (Parma). PreistoriaAlpina, 24: 103-164.

BERNABÒ BREA, M. and TINÉ, S. 1980 - Il villaggio neolitico del Guadone di S. Severo (Foggia). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche,XXXV: 45-74.

BEVILACQUA , R. 1994 - La Grotta Continenza di Trasacco. I livelli Mesolitici ed Epigravettiani. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche, XLVI(1): 3-40.

BIAGI , P. 1975 - Stazione neolitica a Fagnigola (Azzano Decimo, Pordenone). Relazione preliminare dello scavo 1974. Annalidell’Università di Ferrara, n.s., sezione XV, II (6): 247-269. Ferrara.

BIAGI, P. 1987 - Il Neolitico della Liguria e del Piemonte. In Atti della XXVI Riunione Scientifica dell’IIPP: 203-216. Firenze.

BIAGI, P. (ed.) 1995 - L’insediamento neolitico di Ostiano-Dugali Alti (Cremona) nel suo contesto ambientale ed economico. Monografiedi Natura Bresciana, 22: 9-143. Brescia.

BIAGI, P. 2001 - Some Aspects of the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic Periods in Northern Italy. In KERTÉSZ, R. and MAKKAY , J.(eds.) From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Archaeolingua, 11: 71-88. Budapest.

BIAGI, P. 2002 - A Review of the Late Mesolithic in Italy and its Implication for the Neolithic Transition. In AMMERMAN , A.J. andBIAGI, P. (eds.) The Widening Harvest. Archaeological Institute of America, Monographs, 1. Boston (in press).

244

BIAGI, P. 2003 - The Rhyton of the Balkan Peninsula: Chronology, Origin, Dispersion and Function of a Neolithic “Cult” Vessel.Journal of Prehistoric Religion, XVII. Jonsered (in press).

BIAGI , P. 2003a - New data on the Early Neolithic of the Upper Adriatic. Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects, 6. Sofia-Karlovo (in press).

BIAGI, P., BARKER, G.W.W. and CREMASCHI, M. 1983 - La stazione di Casatico di Marcaria (Mantova) nel quadro paleoambientale edarcheologico dell’Olocene antico della Val Padana Centrale. Studi Archeologici, 2. Istituto Universitario, Bergamo.

BIAGI, P. and SPATARO, M. 1999-2000 - Plotting the Evidence: some aspects of the radiocarbon chronology of the Mesolithic-NeolithicTransition in the Mediterranean Basin. Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia,XII: 15-54. Trieste.

BIAGI, P. and SPATARO, M. 2001 - Il rhyton della Caverna dell’Edera di Aurisina (Trieste) e il problema della produzione e distribuzionedei rhyta neolitici nella regione adriatica. Rivista di Archeologia, XXV: 5-11. Venice.

BIAGI, P. and SPATARO, M. 2002 - The Mesolithic/Neolithic Transition in North Eastern Italy and in the Adriatic Basin. In BADAL , E.,BERNABEU, J. and MARTÍ, B. (eds.) Neolithic Landscapes of the Mediterranean. Saguntum, EXTRA-5: 167-178. Valencia.

BIAGI, P., STARNINI , E. and VOYTEK, B.A. 1993 - The Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic Settlement of Northern Italy: RecentConsiderations. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji, XXI: 45-68. Ljubljana.

BIANCOFIORE, F. 1957 - Villaggio capannicolo a “Scamuso”, Bari. Archivio Storico Pugliese, X: 224-227. Bari.

BIANCOFIORE, F. and COPPOLA, D. 1997 - Scamuso. Per la storia delle comunità umane tra il VI ed il III millennio nel Basso Adriatico.Dipartimento di Storia dell’Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”. Paletnologia. Roma.

BINDER, D. 2000 - Mesolithic and Neolithic interaction in southern France and northern Italy: new data and current hypotheses. InDOUGLAS PRICE, T. (ed.) Europe’s First Farmers: 117-143. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

BJÖRK, C. 1995 - Early Pottery in Greece. A technological and functional analysis of the evidence from Neolithic Achilleion Thessaly.Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, CXV. Paul Åströms Förlag, Jonsered.

BLAKELY , A. and BENNETT, W.J. Jr. 1989 - Analysis and Publication of Ceramics. The Computer Data-Base in Archaeology. BARInternational Series, 551. Oxford.

BÖKÖNYI, S. 1977-1982 - The early neolithic fauna of Rendina: a preliminary report. Origini, XI: 345-350.

BÖKÖNYI, S. 1983 - Animal bones from test excavations of early neolithic ditched villages on the Tavoliere, South Italy. In CASSANO,S.M. and MANFREDINI, A. (eds.) Studi sul Neolitico del Tavoliere della Puglia. BAR International Series, 160: 237-249. Oxford.

BÖKÖNYI, S. 1991 - The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in South Italy: the switchover from hunting to animal husbandry. In Mésolithiqueet Néolithisation en France et dans les Régions Limitrophes. Actes du 113e Congrès National des Société Savantes: 29-36.CTHS, Paris.

BOSCHIAN, G. and PITTI , C. 1984 - I livelli mesolitici della Grotta dell’Edera. In Il Mesolitico sul Carso Triestino. Società per laPreistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 5: 143-210. Trieste.

BRADFORD, J.S.P. 1949 - Buried Landscapes in Southern Italy. Antiquity, XXIII (89): 58-72.

BREGANT, T. 1968 - Ornamentika na Neolitiski Keramiki v Jugoslaviji. Mladinska Knjiga, Ljubljana.

BRODAR, M. 1992 - Mezolitsko najdišce Pod Črmukljo pri Šembijah. Arheološki vestnik, 43: 23-34. Ljubljana.

BROGLIO, A. 1971 - Risultati preliminari delle ricerche sui complessi epipaleolitici della Valle dell’Adige. Preistoria Alpina, 7: 135-241.

BROGLIO, A. 1973 - La preistoria della Valle Padana dalla fine del Paleolitico all’inizio del Neolitico: cronologia, aspetti culturali etrasformazioni economiche. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche, XXVII: 133-160.

BROGLIO, A. 1992 - Mountain sites in the context of the north-east Italian Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. Preistoria Alpina, 28(1): 293-310.

BROGLIO, A., FAVERO, V. and MARSALE, S. 1987 - Ritrovamenti mesolitici attorno alla Laguna di Venezia. Istituto Veneto di Scienze,Lettere e Arti. Rapporti e Studi, X: 195-231. Venice.

BROGLIO, A. and KOZŁOWSKI, S.K. 1983 - Tipologia ed evoluzione delle industrie mesolitiche di Romagnano III. Preistoria Alpina, 19:93-148.

BROGLIO, A. and LOLLINI , D.G. 1963 - Nuova varietà di bulino su ritocco a stacco laterale nella industria del Neolitico medio diRipabianca di Monterado (Ancona). Annali dell’Università di Ferrara, n.s. XV, 7: 143-155. Ferrara.

BROGLIO, A. and LOLLINI , D.G. 1982 - I ritrovamenti marchigiani del Paleolitico Superiore e del Mesolitico. In 1° Convegno sui beniculturali e ambientali delle Marche: 27-61. Paleani, Roma.

BROGLIO, A. and LUNZ, R. 1983 - Osservazioni preliminari sull’utilizzazione del cristallo di rocca nelle industrie mesolitiche delbacino dell’Adige. Preistoria Alpina, 19: 201-208.

BRUSIć, Z. 1974 - Vrbica, Krkovic kod Bribira - stariji neolit. Arheološki Pregled, 16: 12-13. Beograd.

BRUSIć, Z. 1979 - Prethistorijski i ranoantički nalazi u Šibenskoj okolici. Novija i Neobjavljena Istra•ivanja u Dalmaciji: 25-34.Hrvatsko Arheološko Društvo, Zagreb.

¯ 245

BRUSIć, Z. 1994-1995 - Naselje iz starijeg neolitika na Vrbici kod Bribira. Diadora, 16-17: 1-49. Zadar.

BUDAK, M. 1991 - The Function of Shell Temper in Pottery. The Minnesota Archaeologist, 50 (2): 53-59.

BUDJA, M. 1999 - The transition to farming in Mediterranean Europe - an indigenous response. Documenta Praehistorica, XXVI:119-141. Ljubljana.

CALATTINI , M. 1996 - Le niveau Mésolithique de Grotta delle Mura (Bari). In Proceedings of the XIII Congress UISPP, 2: 29-34.ABACO, Forlì.

CALATTINI , M. 1996a - Le niveau de l’Epigravettien final de Grotta delle Mura (Bari, Italie). In Proceedings of the XIII CongressUISPP, 3: 517-524. ABACO, Forlì.

CALATTINI , M and GRECO, M. 2000 - Alcune considerazioni sul livello neolitico di Grotta delle Mura. In BIAGI, P. (ed.) Studi sulPaleolitico, Mesolitico e Neolitico del bacino dell’Adriatico in ricordo di Antonio M. Radmilli. Società per la Preistoria eProtostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 8: 91-100. Trieste.

CANDUSSIO, A., FERRARI, A., FERRARI, U., MESSORI, A., PESSINA, A., PEZ, O., QUAGLIARO, F., TOSONE, R. and TULLIO , B. 1991 - Nuovi sitimesolitici in Provincia di Udine. Natura Bresciana, 26: 251-287. Brescia.

CANN, J.R. and RENFREW, C. 1964 - The characterization of obsidian and its application to the Mediterranean region. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society, 30: 111-133.

CANNARELLA , D. and CREMONESI, G. 1967 - Gli scavi nella Grotta Azzurra di Samatorza nel Carso Triestino. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche,XXII (2): 281-330.

CARDINI , L. 1970 - Praia a Mare. Relazione degli scavi 1957-1970 dell’Istituto Italiano di Paleontologia Umana. Bullettino diPaletnologia Italiana, 79: 31-59.

CASSOLI, P.F. and TAGLIACOZZO, A. 1997 - Nuovi dati faunistici del sito neolitico di Scamuso (Bari). Scavi 1986-1988. In BIANCOFIORE,F. and COPPOLA, D. (eds.) Scamuso. Per la storia delle comunità umane tra il VI ed il III millennio nel Basso Adriatico: 215-234.Dipartimento di Storia dell’Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”. Paletnologia. Roma.

CASTELLETTI, L., COSTANTINI, L. and TOZZI, C. 1987 - Considerazioni sull’economia e l’ambiente durante il Neolitico in Italia. In Attidella XXVI Riunione Scientifica dell’IIPP: 37-55. Firenze.

CASTELLETTI, L., MASPERO, A. and TOZZI, C. 1994 - Il popolamento della Valle del Serchio (Toscana Settentrionale) durante il Tardiglacialewürmiano e l’Olocene antico. In BIAGI, P. and NANDRIS, J. (eds.) Highland Zone Exploitation in Southern Europe. Monografie diNatura Bresciana, 20: 189-204. Brescia.

ČEčUK, B. 1970 - Kampinijen na istočnoj oboli Jadrana. In Adriatica Praehistorica et Antiqua: 87-104. Zagreb.

ČEčUK, B. 1977 - Vela i Jakasova špilja na otoku Korčuli. In Dolina rijeke Neretve od prethistorije do ranog srednjeg vijeka. HrvatskoArheološko Društvo: 25-34. Split.

ČEčUK, B. 1978 - Notizie preliminari degli scavi dell‘Isola di Korčula (Curzola). In Atti della XX Riunione Scientifica dell‘IIPP: 261-268. Firenze

ČEčUK, B. 1982 - Prilog Proučavanju Keramike Impresso-Cardium na otocima Lošinju i Cresu. In Arheološka Istra•ivanja na otocimaCresu i Lošinju. Hvratsko Arheološko Društvo, 7: 12-32. Zagreb.

ČEčUK, B. 1982a - Prilog proučavanju keramike impresso-cardium na otocima Lošinju I Cresu. In Arheološka Istra•ivanja na otocimaCresu i Lošinju. Hrvatsko Arheološko Društvo, 7: 19-32. Zagreb.

ČEčUK, B. 1985 - Vela špilja na Korčuli. Neolitisko i eneolitisko nalazište. Arheološki Pregled: 46-47. Beograd.

ČEčUK, B. 1987 - Vela špilja na Korčuli. Višeslojno nalazište. Arheološki Pregled: 44-46. Beograd.

ČEčUK, B. 1996 - Špilja Kopačina kod Donjeg Humca na otoku Braču. Arheološki Radovi i Rasprave, 12: 13-30. Zagreb.

ČEčUK, B. and DRECHSLER-BIčIć, R. 1984 - Pregles arheoloških istrazivanja u spiljama področju sr Hrvatske. The ninth YugoslavianCongress of Spelaeology: 185-198. Zagreb.

ČEčUK, B. and RADIć, D. 1995 - Vela Špilja. Pretpovijest Otoka Korčule. Centar za kulturu, Vela Luka.

ČEčUK, B. and RADIć, D. 2000 - Vela Špilja ’99. Obavijesti, XXXII (1): 21-24. Zagreb.

ČEčUK, B. and RADIć, D. 2000a - Arheološka istra•ivanja u Veloj špili: sezona 2000. Obavijesti, XXXII (3): 54-58. Zagreb.

ČEčUK, B. and RADIć, D. 2001 - Vela Špilja - preliminarni rezultati dosadašnjih istra•ivanja. In Arheološka istra•ivanja na področjuotoka Korčule i Lastova. Hrvatsko Arheološko Društvo, 20: 75-118. Zagreb.

CHAPMAN, J. 1988 - Ceramic Production and Social Differentiation: the Dalmatian Neolithic and the Western Mediterranean. Journalof Mediterranean Archaeology, 1 (2): 3-25.

CHAPMAN, J. 2000 - Fragmentation in Archaeology. People, places and broken objects in the prehistory of south-eastern Europe.Routledge, London and New York.

CHAPMAN, J. and MÜLLER, J. 1990 - Early farmers in the Mediterranean Basin: the Dalmatian Evidence. Antiquity, 64 (242): 127-134.

CHAPMAN, J., SCHWARTZ C., TURNER, J. and SHIEL, R.S. 1990 - New absolute dates for prehistoric and Roman Dalmatia. Vjesnik zaArheologiju i Historiju Dalmatinsku, 83: 29-46. Split.

246

CHAPMAN, J., SHIEL, R. and BATOVIć, Š. 1996 - The Changing Face of Dalmatia. Archaeological and Ecological Studies in aMediterranean Landscape. The Society of Antiquaries, London.

CHERRY, J.F. 1990 - The first colonization of the Mediterranean islands: a review of recent research. Journal of MediterraneanArchaeology, 3: 145-221.

CICCONE, A. 1993 - L’industria mesolitica della Grotta Azzurra di Samatorza: scavi 1982. Atti della Società per la Preistoria eProtostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, VII: 13-45. Trieste.

CIPOLLONI SAMPÒ, M. 1977-1982 - Scavi nel villaggio neolitico di Rendina (1970-1976). Relazione preliminare. Origini, XI: 183-323.

CIPOLLONI SAMPÒ, M. 1998 - L’Italie du Sud. In GUILAINE , J. (ed.) Atlas du Néolithique Européen. 2A, L’Europe Occidentale. ERAUL,46: 9-112.

CIPOLLONI SAMPÒ, M., TOZZI, C. and VEROLA, M-L. 1999 - Le Néolithique ancien dans le sud-est de la Péninsule Italienne: caractérisationculturelle, économie, structures d’habitat. In VAQUER, J. (ed.) Le Néolithique du nord-ouest Méditerranéen: 13-24. SociétéPréhistorique Française, Paris.

CLARK, J.G.D. 1952 - Prehistoric Europe: the Economic Basis. Methuen, London.

CLARK, R. 2000 - The Mesolithic Hunters of Trentino. A Case Study in Hunter-Gatherer Settlement and Subsistence from NorthernItaly. BAR International Series, 832. Oxford.

CLARKE, D. 1969 - The Economic Context of Trade and Industry in Barbarian Europe till Roman Times. In POSTAN, M. (ed.) TheCambridge Economic History of Europe, II (1). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

CLARKE, D. 1976 - Mesolithic Europe: the Economic Basis. Duckworth, London.

CLARKE, D. 1976a - The Beaker Network: social and economic models. In LANTING, J.N. and VAN DER WAALS, J.D. (eds.)Glockenbechersymposion Oberried: 459-477. Haarlem.

CLARKE, D. 1978 - Analytical Archaeology. Methuen, London.

CODACCI, G. 2000-2001 - Il sito neolitico di Vi•ula - Isola del Vescovo presso Medulin. Thesis submitted for Dott. Examination.University Ca’ Foscari, Venice. Faculty of Arts and Philosophy (unpublished).

COPPOLA, D. 1983 - Le Origini di Ostuni. Testimonianze archeologiche degli avvicendamenti culturali. Arti Grafiche Pugliesi, MartinaFranca.

COPPOLA, D. 1986 - La comunità neolitica di Scamuso. Torre a Mare, Bari. Rivista di Antropologia, LXIV: 17-48. Firenze.

CORNAGGIA CASTIGLIONI, O and PALMA DI CESNOLA, A. 1964 - Grotta delle Mura - Monopoli. III: Paletnologia dei livelli pleistocenici.In Atti della VIII e IX Riunione Scientifica dell’IIPP: 249-264. Firenze.

COSTANTINI, L, COSTANTINI BIASINI , L. and LENTINI, A. 1997 - Agricoltura e note sull’ambiente dell’abitato neolitico di Scamuso. InBIANCOFIORE, F. and COPPOLA, D. (eds.) Scamuso. Per la storia delle comunità umane tra il VI ed il III millennio nel BassoAdriatico: 199-210. Dipartimento di Storia dell’Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”. Paletnologia. Roma.

COSTANTINI, L. and LENTINI, A. nd - Agricoltura e ambiente del sito neolitico di Torre Sabea (Gallipoli), Puglia (in press).

COSTANTINI, L. and TOZZI, C. 1987 - Un gisement à céramique imprimée dans le subappennin de la daunia (Lucera, Foggia): le villagede Ripa Tetta. Economie et culture matérielle. In GUILAINE , J., COURTIN, J., ROUDIL, J-L. and VERNET, J-L. (eds.) PremièresCommunautés Paysannes en Méditerranée Occidentale: 387-394. CNRS, Paris.

COURTIN, J., GAGNIÈRE, S., GRANIER, J. LEDOUX, J-C. and ONORATINI, G. 1970-1972 - La Grotte du Cap Ragnon, commune du Rove(Bouches-du-Rhône). Bulletin de la Société d’Études des Sciences Naturelles de Vaucluse: 113-170.

COURTY, M.A., GOLDBERG, P. and MACPHAIL, R. 1989 - Soils and Micromorphology in Archaeology. Manuals in Archaeology Series.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

CREMANTE, G. and STORTI, C. 1997 - Indagini strumentali e osservazioni tecnologiche su campionature qualificate di ceramiche neolitichedi provenienza italiana a confronto di ceramiche di Tessaglia, Macedonia e Creta. In BIANCOFIORE, F. and COPPOLA, D. (eds.)Scamuso. Per la storia delle comunità umane tra il VI e il III millennio nel Basso Adriatico: 255-324. Dipartimento di Storiadell’Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”. Paletnologia. Roma.

CREMASCHI, M. 1987 - Paleosols and vetusols in the Central Po Plain (Northern Italy). UNICOPLI, Milano.

CREMONESI, G. 1965 - Il villaggio di Ripoli alla luce dei recenti scavi. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche, XX (1): 85-155.

CREMONESI, G. 1978 - Nuovi ritrovamenti del Paleolitico superiore e Mesolitico a Torre Testa (Brindisi). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche,XXXIII: 109-159

CREMONESI, G. 1984 - I livelli mesolitici della Grotta della Tartaruga. In Il Mesolitico sul Carso Triestino. Società per la Preistoria eProtostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 5: 65-108. Trieste

CREMONESI, G. and GUILAINE , G. 1987 - L’habitat de Torre Sabea (Gallipoli, Puglia) dans la cadre du Néolithique ancien de l’Italie dusud-est. In GUILAINE , J., COURTIN, J., ROUDIL, J-L. and VERNET, J-L. (eds.) Prémières Communautés Paysannes en MéditerranéeOccidentale: 377-385. CNRS, Paris.

ĆUS-RUKONIć, J. 1982 - Arheološka topografija otoca Cresa i Lošinja. In Arheološka Istra•ivanja na otocima Cresu i Lošinju. HrvatskoArheološko Društvo, 7: 9-17. Zagreb.

¯ 247

D’A MICO, C. 2000 - La pietra levigata neolitica in Italia settentrionale e in Europa: litologia, produzione e circolazione. In PESSINA, A.and MUSCIO, G. (eds.) La Neolitizzazione tra Oriente e Occidente: 67-80. Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale, Udine.

D’A MICO, C., BERNABÒ BREA, M., BIAGI , P., PEDROTTI, A., PESSINA, A. and STARNINI , E. 2002 - Archaeometrical analysis of polishedstone tools from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age in Northern Italy. In Archaeometry Symposium 1998. BAR, InternationalSeries 1043, Oxford (in press).

DELANO SMITH , C. 1978 - Daunia Vetus. Terra, vita e mutamenti sulle coste del Tavoliere. Amministrazione Provinciale di Capitanata,Foggia.

DELL’A NNA, L. 1969 - Ricerche mineralogiche e chimiche sulle “Argille di Rutigliano”. Periodico di Mineralogia, 38: 515-577.

DELL‘A NNA, A. and RADINA , F. 1994 - Analisi mineralogiche di alcuni manufatti ceramici neolitici provenienti dal territorio di Rutigliano(Bari, Puglia). In BURROGATO, F., GRUBESSI, O. and LAZZARINI , L. (eds.) First European Ceramic Workshop: 441-459. Rome.

DE LUMLEY, H. 1976 - Les lignes de rivage quaternaire de Provence et de la région de Nice. In La Préhistoire Française. Tome I: 311-325. CNRS, Paris.

DIETLER, M. and HERBICH, I. 1994 - Ceramics and Ethnic Identity: Ethnoarchaeological observations on the distribution of potterystyles and the relationships between the social contexts of production and consumption. In Terre cuite et société. La céramique,document technique, économique, culturel: 459-472. APDCA, Juan-les-Pins.

DI LERNIA, S. 1993 - L’indicatore ceramico nell’archeologia mineraria: il caso-studio della Defensola. Vieste (FG). Rassegna diArcheologia, 11: 45-65. Firenze.

DI LERNIA, S., FRANCHI, R. and PALLECCHI, P. 1993 - Manufacture characteristics, provenance problems and content residues: anarchaeometrical approach to the Neolithic pottery of the Defensola mine (Vieste, FG - Italy). Quaternaria Nova, III: 151-175.

DIMITRIJEVIć, S. 1961 - Problem Neolita i Eneolita u sjeverozapadnoj Jugoslaviji. Opuscola Archeologica, V: 5-87. Zagreb.

DURIčIć, L. 1996 - The chipped stone industry from the rock-shelter of Trebački Krš. In SREJOVIć, D. (ed.) Prehistoric settlements incaves and rock-shelters of Serbia and Montenegro. The University of Belgrade. Centre for Archaeological Research, 16: 75-102. Beograd.

DURRENMATH, G. 1996 - Contraintes, typologies, cultures. Abord quantitatif du dégraissant de céramiques du Néolithique final enProvence. In Production et identité culturelle. Actualité de la recherche: 187-202. APDCA, Antibes.

FERRARA, A., REINHARZ, M. and TONGIORGI, E. 1959 - Carbon-14 Dating in Pisa. Radiocarbon, 1: 103-110.

FERRARI, A. and MAZZIERI, P. 1998 - Fonti e processi di scambio delle rocce silicee scheggiabili. In PESSINA, A. and MUSCIO, G.(eds.) Settemila anni fa il primo pane: 165-170. Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale, Udine.

FERRARI, A. and PESSINA, A. 1996 - Sammardenchia e i primi agricoltori del Friuli. Banca di Credito Cooperativo di Basiliano.

FERRARI, A. and PESSINA, A. 2000 - Il sito neolitico di Sammardenchia fra Oriente e Occidente. In PESSINA, A. and MUSCIO, G. (eds.) LaNeolitizzazione fra Oriente e Occidente: 185-198. Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale, Udine.

FITZPATRICK, E.A. 1984 - Micromorphology of Soils. Clapham & Hall, London.

FORD, W.E. 1949 - A textbook of mineralogy with an extended treatise on crystallography and physical mineralogy. John Wiley &Sons, New York.

FORENBAHER, S. and KAISER, T. 1997 - Palagru•a, jadranski moreplovci i nijhova kamena industrija na prijelazu iz bakrenog u bron~anodoba. Opuscola Archaeologica, 21: 15-28. Zagreb.

FORENBAHER, S. and KAISER, T. 2000 - Grapčeva spilja i apsolutno datiranje istočnojadranskog neolitica. Vjesnik za Arheologiju iHistoriju Dalmatinsku, 92: 9-34. Split.

FRANGIPANE, M. 1975 - Considerazioni sugli aspetti culturali neolitici a ceramica tricromia dell’Italia meridionale. Origini, IX: 63-152.

FREESTONE, I.C. 2001 - Post-depositional Changes in Archaeological Ceramics and Glasses. In BROTHWELL, D.R. and POLLARD, A.M.(eds.) Handbook of Archaeological Sciences: 615-625. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

FREESTONE, I. and GAIMSTER, D. (eds.) 1997 - Pottery in the making. World ceramic traditions. British Museum Press, London.

FRELIH, M. 1987 - Novo Odkrita prazgodovinska plana najdišča na Ljubljanskem Barju. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita ineneolita v Sloveniji, XV: 109-125. Ljubljana.

FUSCO, V. 1965 - Resti di un insediamento neolitico nell’Isola di San Domino alle Tremiti. In Atti della X Riunione Scientificadell’IIPP: 71-90. Firenze.

GALIBERTI , A., SIGILLI , S. and TARANTINI , M. 2001 - La miniera Neolitica della Defensola (Vieste-Foggia): lo stato delle ricerche.Origini, XXIII: 85-110.

GEDDES, D.S. 1980 - De la chasse au troupeau en Méditerranée Occidentale. Les débuts de lélevage dans le bassin de l’Aude. Archivesd’Ecologie Préhistorique, 5: 1-145. Toulouse.

GIMBUTAS, M. 1984 - The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe 6500-3500 BC. Myths and Cult Images. Thames and Hudson,London.

248

GIUSBERTI, G. 1990 - Sepolture, resti faunistici, manufatti in osso e in pietra dal fossato di Fornace Cappuccini: un’indagine interpretativa.In Archeologia a Faenza: 36-45. Bologna.

GORGOGLIONE, M.A., DI LERNIA, S. and FIORENTINO, G. 1995 - L’insediamento preistorico di Terragna (Manduria - Taranto). RegionePuglia, Manduria.

GRIFONI, R. 1967 - La Grotta dell’Orso di Sartiano. Il Neolitico. Origini, I: 53-115.

GRIFONI CREMONESI, R. 1996 - La Neolitizzazione dell’Italia: II - Il Neolitico dell’Italia settentrionale. In The Neolithic in the NearEast and Europe. Colloquium XVII UISPP: 69-80. ABACO, Forlì.

GRIXONI, E. 1997 - Grotta Marisa (Laghi Alimini - Otranto). In INGRAVALLO, E. (ed.) La passione dell’origine. Giuliano Cremonesi ela ricerca preistorica nel Salento: 87-103. Conte Editore, Lecce.

GRYGIEL, R. 1986 - The household cluster as a fundamental social unit of the Brzesc Kujawski group of the Lengyel Culture in thePolish lowlands. Prace I Materiały. Muzeum Archeologicznego I Etnograficznego w Łodzi. Seria Archeologiczna, 31: 43-270.

GUERRESCHI, A. 1983 - Tendenze evolutive in senso mesolitico dell’Epigravetiano italico finale dell’Italia nord-orientale. PreistoriaAlpina, 19: 209-212.

GUILAINE , J. 2002 - Aspects de la Néolithisation en Méditerranée et en France. In AMMERMAN, A.J. and BIAGI, P. (eds.) The WideningHarvest. Archaeological Institute of America, Monograph, 1. Boston (in press).

GUILAINE , J. and CREMONESI, G. 1987 - L’habitat néolithique de Trasano (Matera, Basilicate). Prémiers resultats. In Atti della XXVIRiunione Scientifica dell’IIPP: 707-719. Firenze.

GUILAINE , J., FREISES, A. and MONTJARDIN, R. 1984 - Leucate-Corrège. Habitat noyé du Néolithique Cardial. Centre d’Anthropologiedes Sociétés Rurales, Toulouse.

GUILAINE , J., SIMONE, L. and THOMMERET, J. 1981 - Datations C14 pour le Néolitique du Tavoliere (Italie). Bulletin de la SociétéPréhistorique Française, 78 (5): 154-160.

HAALAND , R. 1978 - Ethnographic Observations of Pottery-Making in Darfur, Western Sudan, with some Reflenctions on ArchaeologicalInterpretation. In KRISTIANSEN, K. and PALUDAN -MÜLLER, C. (eds.) New Directions in Scandinavian Archaeology. Studies inScandinavian Prehistory and Early History, 1: 47-61. The National Museum of Denmark, Copenaghen.

HAMEAU , P. 1987 - Le Niveau a Céramique Imprimée dans le Néolithique Grec. In GUILAINE , J., COURTIN, J., ROUDIL, J-L. and VERNET,J-L. (eds.) Prémières Communautés Paysannes en Méditerranée Occidentale: 329-334. CNRS, Paris.

HARROLD, F.B., KORKUTI, M.M., ELLWOOD, B.B., PETRUSO, K.M. and SCHULDENREIN, J. 1999 - The Palaeolithic of Southern Albania. InBAILEY , G., ADAM, E., PANAGOPOULOU, E., PERLÈS, C. and ZACHOS, K. (eds.) The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and AdjacentAreas. British School at Athens, Studies, 3: 361-372. London.

HARROLD, F.B., RUSSELL, N. and WICKENS, J. 2002 - The Mesolithic of Konispol Cave. In KANER, S. (ed.) From the Jomon to Star Carr.BAR International Series. Oxford (in press).

HAYDEN, B. 1998 - Practical and Prestige Technologies: The Evolution of Material Systems. Journal of Archaeological Method andTheory, 5 (1): 1-56.

HEIMANN, R. and FRANKLIN , U.M. 1979 - Archaeo-thermometry: the assessment of firing temperature of ancient ceramics. Journal ofthe International Institute of Conservation-Canadian Group, 4: 23-45.

HIGGS, E.S., VITA-FINZI, C., HARRIS, D.R. and FAGG, A.E. 1967 - The Climate, Environment and Industries of Stone Age Greece: PartIII. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, XXXIII: 1-29.

HIGHAM , C. and MALONEY, B. 1989 - Coastal adaptation, sedentism, and domestication: a model for socio-economic intensification inprehistoric South-East Asia. In HARRIS, D.R. and HILLMAN , G.C. (eds.) Foraging and Farming. The Evolution of Plant Exploitation.One World Archaeology, 13: 650-666. Unwyn Hyman, London.

HODDER, I. 1978 - Some effects of distance patterns of human interaction. In HODDER, I. (ed.) The spatial organization of culture: 155-158. Duckworth, London.

HOPF, M. 1964 - Untersuchung der Getreidereste im Hüttenlehm aus Danilo. In KOROŠEC, J. (ed.) Danilo in Danilska Kultura: 107-110. Arheološki Oddelek Filozofske Fakultete. Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana.

IHDE, C. 1995 - Die Elefantendarstellungen der Hvar-Lisičići-Kultur und das Problem ihrer Herleitung. Arheološki vestnik, 46: 53-88.Ljubljana.

IMPROTA, S. and PESSINA, A. 1998 - La neolitizzazione dell’Italia Settentrionale. Il nuovo quadro cronologico. In PESSINA, A. andMUSCIO, G. (eds.) Settemila anni fa il primo pane. Ambienti e culture delle società neolitiche: 107-115. Museo Friulano di StoriaNaturale, Udine.

INGRAVALLO , E. 1977 - Stazione con industria litica del territorio di Oria. Ricerche e Studi, X: 3-22. Taranto.

INGRAVALLO, E. 1980 - La stazione Mesolitica di S. Foca. Studi di Antichità: 59-77. Galatina.

KARDULIAS, P.N. and RUNNELS, C.N. 1995 - The Lithic Artifacts: Flaked Stone and Other Nonflaked Lithics. In RUNNELS, C.N., PULLEN,D.J. and LANGDON, S. (eds.) Artifact and Assemblage. The Finds from a Regional Survey of the Southern Argolid, Greece: 74-139. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

¯ 249

KNOWLES, K. and SKEATES, R. 1995-1996 - Thin section analysis of neolithic pottery fabrics from La Quercia, Southeast Italy:identification and interpretation. Accordia Research Papers, 6: 119-132.

KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA, N. 1998 - The significance of Theopetra Cave for Greek prehistory. In OTTE, M. (ed.) Préhistoire d’Anatolie.Gènese des deux mondes. ERAUL, 85: 241-252.

KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA, N. 1999 - The Palaeolithic deposits of the Theopetra Cave in Thessaly, Greece. In The Palaeolithic of Greeceand adjacent areas. British School at Athens, Studies, 3: 232-239. London.

KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA, N. 2000 - The Mesolithic/Neolithic Transition in Greece as Evidenced by the Data at Theopetra Cave inThessaly. Documenta Praehistorica, XXVII: 133-140. Ljubljana.

KOROŠEC, J. 1956 - Ceramica dipinta della costa Dalmata. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana, X (65): 297-320.

KOROŠEC, J. 1958 - Neolitska naseobina u Danilu Bitinju (text). Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti, Zagreb.

KOROŠEC, J. 1959 - Neolitska naseobina u Danilu Bitinju (plates). Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti. Zagreb.

KOROŠEC, J. 1964 - Danilo in Danilska Kultura. Arheološki Oddelek Filozofske Fakultete. Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana.

KOROŠEC, J. and KOROŠEC, P. 1974 - Bribir i njegova okolica u prapovijesno doba. Diadora, 7: 5-34. Zadar.

KOROŠEC, J. and KOROŠEC, P. 1980 - Istra•ivanje na Bribirskoj glavici u Bribiru. Diadora, 9: 95-164. Zadar.

KOUMOUZELIS, M., KOZŁOWSKI, J.K., NOWAK, M., SOBCZYK, K., KACZANOWSKA, M., PALIKOWSKI , M. and PAAZDUR, A. 1996 - Prehistoricsettlement in the Klisoura Gorge, Argolid, Greece (excavations 1993-1994). Préhistoire Européenne, 8: 143-173.

KOZŁOWSKI, J.K. 1990 - Le complexe Impresso-Cardial et les Civilisations Balkano-Danubiennes au sud des Alpes. In CAHEN, D. andOTTE, M. (eds.) Rubané et Cardial. ERAUL, 39: 65-72.

KOZŁOWSKI, J.K. and KOZŁOWSKI, S.K. 1979 - Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in Europe. Taxonomy and Palaeohistory. PraceKomisji Archeologicznej, 18. Polska Akademia NAUK, Kraków.

KOZŁOWSKI, J.K. and KOZŁOWSKI, S.K. 1983 - Le Mésolithique a l’est des Alpes. Preistoria Alpina, 19: 37-56.

KOZŁOWSKI, J.K., KOZŁOWSKI, S.K. and RADOVANOVI ć, I. 1994 - Meso- and Neolithic Sequence from the Odmut Cave (Montenegro).Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Waszawa.

KOZŁOWSKI, S.K. 1987 - The Pre-Neolithic Base of the Early Neolithic Stone Industries in Europe. In KOZŁOWSKI, J.K. and KOZŁOWSKI,S.K. (eds.) Chipped Stone Industries of the Early Farming Cultures in Europe. Archaeologia Interregionalis: 9-18. Warszawa-Kraków.

KRNCEVIć, Z. 1995 - Historijat Arheoloških istrazsvanja na Šibenskom podrucju. Muzej Grada Šibenik: 9-56. Šibenik.

LAMBECK, K. 1996 - Sea-level change and shore-line evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic times. Antiquity, 70 (269):588-611.

LEBEN, F. 1967 - Stratigrafija in časovna uvrstitev jamskih najdb na Tr•aškem Krasu. Arheološki vestnik, XVIII: 43-86. Ljubljana.

LEBEN, F. 1978-1979 - Introduzione alla Preistoria dell’Istria. Atti del Centro di Ricerche Storiche di Rovigno, IX: 185-248. Rovigno.

LEBEN, F. 1988 - Novoodkrite prazgodovinske plasti v Jama na Krasu. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji,XVI: 65-76. Ljubljana.

LEIGHTON, R. 1999 - Sicily before history. An archaeological survey from the Palaeolithic to the Iron Age. Duckworth, London.

LETSCH, J. and NOLL, W. 1983 - Phase formation in several ceramic subsystems at 600 °C - 1000 °C as a function of oxygen fugacity.Berichte des Deutschen Keramischen Gesellschaft, 60: 259-267.

LEWTHWAITE, J. 1981 - Ambiguous first impressions: a survey of recent work on the Early Neolithic of the west Mediterranean.Journal of Mediterranean Anthropology and Archaeology, 1 (2): 292-307.

LEWTHWAITE, J.C. 1986 - The Transition to Food Production: a Mediterranean Perspective. In ZVELEBIL , M. (ed.) Hunters in Transition.Mesolithic Societes of Temperate Eurasia and their Transition to Farming: 53-66. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

LEWTHWAITE, J. 1987 - Three steps to leaven: applicazione del modello di disponibilità al Neolitico Italiano. In Atti della XXVIRiunione Scientifica dell’IIPP: 89-102. Firenze.

LEWTHWAITE, J, 1987a - Essai dans le cadre du Néolithique ancien Méditerranéen pour extraire de sa coquille le «facteur social». InGUILAINE , J., COURTIN, J., ROUDIL, J-L. and VERNET, J-L. (eds.) Premières Communautés Paysannes en Méditerranée Occidentale:737-743. CNRS, Paris.

LOLLINI , D.G. 1965 - Il Neolitico delle Marche alla luce delle recenti scoperte. In Atti del VI Congresso dell’UISPP: 309-315. Firenze.

LOLLINI , D.G. 1991 - Monterado (AN) - Loc. Ripabianca. Scavi 1962 e 1964. In LOLLINI , D.G. (ed.) Museo Archeologico Nazionaledelle Marche. Sezione preistorica. Paleolitico-Neolitico: 58-63. ERREBI, Falconara.

LOLLINI , D.G. 1991a - Muccia (MC) - Loc. Maddalena. Scavi 1962 e 1965. In LOLLINI , D.G. (ed.) Museo Archeologico Nazionale delleMarche: 52-57. ERREBI, Falconara.

LONGACRE, W. 1981 - Kalinga pottery: an ethnoarchaeological study. In HODDER, I., ISAAC, G. and HAMMOND , N. (eds.) Pattern of thepast. Studies in honour of David Clarke: 49-66. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

250

MAGGETTI, M. 1982 - Phase Analysis and its Significance for Technology and Origin. In Archaeological Ceramics: 121-133. SmithsonianInstitution, Washington.

MAGGETTI, M. 1990 - Il contributo delle analisi chimiche alla conoscenza delle ceramiche antiche. In MANNONI, T. and MOLINARI , A.(eds.) Scienze in Archeologia: 65-88. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Archeologia e Storia delle Arti. Sezione Archeologica.Università di Siena, 20. All‘Insegna del Giglio, Firenze.

MAGGETTI, M. and ROSSMANITH, M. 1981 - Archaeometry of kaolinitic clay. Review d’Archéometrie, supplement: 185-191.

MAGGI, R. and CHELLA, P. 1999 - Cronologie par le radiocarbon du Néolithique des Arene Candide (Fouilles Bernabò Brea). InVAQUER, J. (ed.) Le Néolithique du nord-ouest Méditerranéen: 99-110. Carcassonne.

MALAVOLTI , F. 1940 - Ceramica acroma e dipinta tipo Ripoli nell’Emilia. Atti della Società dei Naturalisti e Matematici di Modena,LXXI: 243-248. Modena.

MALAVOLTI , F. 1944 - Una stazione ed un sepolcreto eneolitici alle Fornaci Carani di Fiorano Modenese. Atti della Società dei Naturalistie Matematici di Modena, LXXV: 142-163. Modena.

MALAVOLTI , F. 1951-1952 - Appunti per una cronologia relativa del neo-eneolitico emiliano. Emilia Preromana, 3: 2-28. Modena.

MALAVOLTI , F. 1951-1952a - L’ossidiana del Pescale (Modena). Emilia Preromana, 3: 127-132. Modena.

MALEZ, M. 1975 - Kvatarna fauna Crvene Stijene. In BASLER, D. (ed.) Crvena Stijena. Zbornik radeva. Nikšic.

MALEZ, M. 1979 - Gospodska Pećina - novi lokalitet paleolitika u Dalmaciji. Vjesnik Split, LXXII-LXXIII: 5-9. Split.

MALEZ, V. 2001 - Fosilna avifauna Vele špilje na otoku Korčuli (Hrvatska). In Arheološka istra•ivanja na podroćju otoka Korčule iLastova. Hrvatsko Arheološko Društvo, 20: 119-124. Zagreb.

MALONE, C. 1985 - Pots, Prestige and Ritual in Neolithic Southern Italy. In MALONE, C. and STODDARD, S. (eds.) Papers in ItalianArchaeology IV. Part ii Prehistory. BAR International Series, 244: 118-151. Oxford.

MALONE, C. 1997-1998 - Processes of colonization in the central Mediterranean. Accordia Research Papers, 7: 38-57.

MANFREDINI, A. 1972 - Il villaggio Trincerato di Monte Aquilone nel quadro del neolitico dell’Italia Meridionale. Origini, VI: 29-154.

MANFREDINI, A. 1987 - Il Tavoliere: indagine in un’area campione. In Coppa Nevigata e il suo territorio. Testimonianze archeologichedal VII al II millennio a.C.: 42-47. Quasar, Rome.

MANNONI, T. 1983 - Caratterizzazioni mineralogico-petrografiche e tecniche di alcune ceramiche del Tavoliere. In TINÉ, S. (ed.) Passodi Corvo e la civiltà neolitica del Tavoliere: 94-97. SAGEP, Genova.

MANNONI, T. 1999 - Caratterizzazioni petrografiche delle ceramiche neolitiche. In TINÉ, S. (ed.) Il Neolitico nella Caverna delle AreneCandide (Scavi 1972-1977): 214-218. Collezione di Monografie Preistoriche e Archaeologiche, X: 214-218. Istituto Internazionaledi Studi Liguri, Bordighera.

MARIJANOVIć, B. 2000 - Prilozi za prapovijest u zaledu jadranske obale. Filozofski Fakultet, Zagreb. Monograph, 2. Zagreb.

MARIJANOVIć, B. 2002 - Prilog daljem poznavanju starijeg Neolitika u Dalmaciji. Radovi. Razdio Povijesnih Znanosti, 26: 27-36.Zadar.

MARKOVIć, E. 1985 - Neolit Crne Gore. The University of Belgrade. Centre for Archaeological Research, 5. Belgrade.

MARTINELLI , M.C. 1990 - Industrie litiche di alcuni siti neolitici della Dalmazia e loro raffronti con contemporanee industrie dell’Italiasud-adriatica e delle Isole Eolie. Rassegna di Archeologia, 9: 125-151. Firenze.

MARTINI , F. 1993 - Grotta della Serratura a Marina di Camerata. Culture e ambienti dei complessi olocenici. Garlatti e Razzai,Firenze.

MARTINI , F. 2000 - Note sulla facies mesolitica dell’Epipaleolitico indifferenziato: riflessioni e aggiornamenti. In BIAGI , P. (ed.) Studisul Paleolitico, Mesolitico e Neolitico del Bacino dell’Adriatico in Ricordo di Antonio M. Radmilli. Società per la Preistoria eProtostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 8: 141-149. Trieste.

MARTINI , F., PALLECCHI, P. and SARTI, L. 1995 - La ceramica preistorica in Toscana. Artigianati e materie prime dal Neolitico all‘Etàdel Bronzo. Garlatti e Razzai, Firenze.

MATSON, F.R. 1969 - Some aspects of ceramic technology. In BROTHWELL, D. and HIGGS, E. (eds.) Science in Archaeology: 592-602.Thames and Hudson, London.

MATTHEW, A.J., WOODS, A.J. and OLIVER, C. 1991 - New Comparisons Charts for Visual Percentage Estimation in ArchaeologicalMaterial. In MIDDLETON, A. and FREESTONE, I. (eds.) Recent Developments in Ceramic Petrology. British Museum OccasionalPaper, 81: 211-263. London.

MENDUŠIć, M. 1998 - Neolitica naselja na Šibensko-Drniskom podrucju. Područje Šibenske •upanije od pretpovijesti do srednjegavijeka. Hrvatsko Arheološko Društvo, 19: 47-62. Zagreb.

MENDUŠIć, M. 1998a - Konjevrate. Ranoneolticko naselje. Arheološki Pregled 1988: 46. Beograd.

M IDDLETON, A., LEESE, M.N. and COWELL, M.R. 1991 - Computer-assisted approaches to the grouping of ceramic fabrics. InM IDDLETON, A. and FREESTONE, I. (eds.) Recent Developments in Ceramic Petrology, British Museum Occasional Paper, 81:265-276. London.

¯ 251

M IHAILOVI ć, D. 1996 - Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic chipped stone industries from the rock-shelter of Medena Stijena. In SREJOVIć,D. (ed.) Prehistoric settlements in caves and rock-shelters of Serbia and Montenegro. The University of Belgrade. Centre forArchaeological Research, 16: 9-60.

M IHAILOVI ć, D. and DIMITRIJEVIć, V. 1999 - La fin du Paléolithique superieur et le Mésolithique dans le Monténégro - évolution destechniques et du mode de subsistance. In THÉVENIN, A. (ed.) L’Europe des derniers chasseurs. Épipaléolithique et Mésolithique.Actes du 5e Colloque International UISPP commission XII: 391-398. CTHS, Paris.

M IHOVILI ć, K. 1994 - Preistoria dell’Istria dal Paleolitico all’età del Ferro. In Atti della XXIX Riunione Scientifica dell’IIPP: 101-118.Firenze.

M ILLIKEN , S. and SKEATES, R. 1990 - The Alimini Survey: The Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in the Salento Peninsula (S.E. Italy).Institute of Archaeology Bulletin, 26: 77-95.

M ILLS, N. 1983 - The Neolithic of Southern France. In SCARRE, C. (ed.) Ancient France 6000-2000 BC: 91-145. Edinburgh UniversityPress, Edinburgh.

M IRACLE, P. 1997 - Early Holocene foragers in the Karst of northern Istra. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitikav Sloveniji, XXIV: 43-62. Ljubljana.

MIRACLE, P. and FORENBAHER, S. 1998 - Pupićina Cave project: Brief summary of the 1998 season. Histria Archaeologica, 29: 27-48. Pula.

M IRACLE, P., GALANIDOU , N. and FORENBAHER, S. 2000 - Pioneers in the Hills: Early Mesolithic Foragers at Šebrn Abri (Istria, Croatia).European Journal of Archaeology, 3 (3): 293-329.

M IROSAVLJEVIć, V. 1959 - “Jamina Sredi”, prilog prethistorijskoj kulturi na otoku Cresu. Arheološki Radovi i Rasprave, 1: 131-174.Zagreb.

M IROSAVLJEVIć, V. 1960 - Prethistorijski Objekti na Otoku Cresu. Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti u Zagrebu, 64:204-218. Zagreb.

M IROSAVLJEVIć, V. 1968 - Vela špilja prethistorijsko nalazište na otoku Lošinju. Arheološki Radovi i Rasprave, VI: 27-60. Zagreb.

M IROSAVLJEVIć, V. 1971 - Jamina Sredi dans l’île de Cres. In Epoque préhistorique et protohistorique en Yougoslavie - Recherches etrésultats: 102-105. Radiša Timotić, Beograd.

MLEKUž, D. 2001 - Floods and fires: Landscape dynamics at Ljubljana Moor, Slovenia. In FEWSTER, K.J. and ZVELEBIL , M. (eds.)Ethnoarchaeology and Hunther-Gatherers: Pictures at an Exhibition. BAR International Series, 955: 43-52. Oxford.

MONTAGNARI KOKELJ, E. 1993 - The transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in the Trieste Karst. Poročilo o raziskovanjupaleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji, XXI: 69-83. Ljubljana.

MONTAGNARI KOKELJ, E. and CRISMANI, A. 1993 - La presenza di “vasi a quattro gambe” nel neolitico del Carso Triestino. AquileiaNostra, LXIV: 10-66. Aquileia.

MOORE, M. D. and REYNOLDS, R.C. Jr. 1997 - X-Ray Diffraction and the Identification and Analysis of Clay Minerals. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford (2nd edition).

MORICO, G. 1998 - Il sito di Faenza, Fornace Cappuccini: il fossato. In Atti del XIII Congresso UISPP: 17-23. ABACO, Forlì.

MOTTES, E. 1997 - Peninsular cultural influences in the Square Mouthed Pottery Culture of Trentino. Preistoria Alpina, 33: 63-67.

MÜLLER, J. 1988 - Cultural Definition of the Early Neolithic and its Interaction in the Eastern Adriatic. Berytus, XXXVI: 101-125.Beirut.

MÜLLER, J. 1988a - Škarin Samograd - eine frühneolithische Station mit monochromer Ware und Impresso-Keramik in der Ostadria.Archäologische Korrespondenzblatt, 18: 219-235.

MÜLLER, J. 1994 - Das ostadriatische Frühneolithikum. Die Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adriaraumes. PrähistorischeArchäologie in Südosteuropa. Band 9. Volker Spiess, Berlin.

MÜLLER, J. 1998 - Neue Frühneolithische Fundstellen an der Osteradria. In Područje Šibenske •upanije od Pretpovijesti do Srednjegavijeka. Hrvatsko Arheološko Društvo, 19: 63-74. Zagreb.

MÜLLER, J. 2000 - “Earplugs”, ceramics and sheep: examples of communication and boundaries in the Adriatic early Neolithic. InBIAGI, P. (ed.) Studi sul Paleolitico, Mesolitico e Neolitico del bacino dell’Adriatico in ricordo di Antonio M. Radmilli. Societàper la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-venezia Giulia, Quaderno 8: 151-159. Trieste.

MUNTONI, I.M. 1999 - From Ceramic Production to Vessel Use: A Multi-Level Approach to the Neolithic Communities of the Tavoliere(Southern Italy). In OWEN, L.R. and PORR, M. (eds.) Ethno-Analogy and the Reconstruction of the Prehistoric Artefact Use andProduction. Urgeschichtliche Materialhefte, 14: 237-254. Tübingen.

MUSSI, M., COUBRAY, S., GIRAUDI, C., CAZZELLA G., TONIUTTI, P., WILKENS, B. and ZAMPETTI, D. 2000 - L’exploitation des territoires demontagne dans les Abruzzes (Italie centrale) entre le Tardiglaciaire et l’Holocéne ancien. In CROTTI, P. (ed.) Meso ’97. Cahiersd’archéologie Romande, 81: 277-284. Lausanne.

NANDRIS, J. 1999 - Ethnoarchaeology and Latinity in the mountains of southern Velebit. In BARTOSIEWICZ, L. and GREENFIELD, H.J.(eds.) Transhumant Pastoralism in Southern Europe. Recent Perspectives from Archaeology, History and Ethnology.Archaeolingua, series minor, 11: 111-131. Budapest.

252

NISBET, R. 2000 - Nota preliminare sull’antracologia dei depositi olocenici della Grotta dell’Edera, Carso Triestino (Scavi 1990-1999). In BIAGI , P. (ed.) Studi sul Paleolitico, Mesolitico e Neolitico del Bacino dell’Adriatico in Ricordo di Antonio M. Radmilli.Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 8: 161-170. Trieste.

NOVAK, G. 1955 - Prethistorijski Hvar, Grapčeva spilja. Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti, Zagreb.

ODETTI, G. 1975 - Foto aerea e villaggi neolitici nel Tavoliere. In Civiltà Preistoriche e Protostoriche della Daunia: 134-136. IstitutoItaliano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Firenze.

ORTON, C., TYERS, P. and VINCE, A. 1993 - Pottery in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

ÖZDOĞAN, M. 1997 - The beginning of Neolithic economies in Southeastern Europe: an Anatolian perspective. Journal of EuropeanArchaeology, 5 (2): 1-33.

ÖZDOĞAN, M. 1998 - Anatolia from the Last Glacial maximum to the Holocene climatic optimum: cultural formations and the impactof the environmental setting. Paléorient, 32 (2): 25-38

PAPATHANASSOPOULOS, G.A. (ed.) 1996 - Neolithic Culture in Greece. N.P. Goulandris Foundation, Athens.

PERIć, S. 1996 - Kult-Rhytone der Neolithischen Viehzüchter der Balkanhalbinsel. Starinar, XLVII: 21-66. Beograd.

PERLÈS, C. 1987 - Les industries du Néolithique «préceramique» de Grèce: nouvelles études, nouvelles interprétations. In KOZŁOWSKI,J.K. (ed.) Chipped stone industries of the early farming cultures in Europe. Archeologia Interregionalis: 19-39. Kraków.

PERLÈS, C. 1999 - Long-term perspectives on the occupation of the Franchthi Cave: continuity and discontinuity. In BAILEY , G.N.,ADAM , E., PANAGOPOULOU, E., PERLÈS, C. and ZACHOS, K. (eds.) The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas.British School at Athens, Studies, 3: 311-318. London.

PERLÈS, C. 2001 - The Early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

PESSINA, A., FERRARI, A. and FONTANA, A. 1998 - Le prime popolazioni agricole del Friuli. In PESSINA, A. and MUSCIO, G. (eds.) Settemilaanni fa il primo pane. Ambienti e culture delle società neolitiche: 133-146. Museo Friulano di Scienze Naturali, Udine.

PETRIć, N. 1978-1979 - Introduzione alla Preistoria dell’Istria. Atti del Centro di Ricerche Storiche di Rovigno, IX: 185-248. Rovigno.

PETRIć, N. 1995 - Sjerike od •adeita i nefrita u pretpovijesti Hrvatske. Histria Archaeologica, 26: 5-27. Pula.

PIERRET, A. 1994 - Identification des techniques de façonnage: intérêt des données expérimentales pour l’analyse des microstructures.In Terre cuite et société. La Céramique, document technique, économique, culturel: 75-91. APDCA, Juan-les-Pins.

PLOG, S. 1980 - Stylistic variation in prehistoric ceramics. Design analysis in the American Southwest. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

PLUCIENNIK, M. 1994 - Holocene hunter-gatherers in Italy. In SKEATES, R. and WHITEHOUSE, R. (eds.) Radiocarbon Dating and ItalianPrehistory. Accordia Specialist Studies on Italy, 3: 45-59. London.

PLUCIENNIK, M. 1997 - Radiocarbon Determinations and the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in Southern Italy. Journal of MediterraneanArchaeology, 10 (2): 115-150.

PLUCIENNIK, M. 2000 - Riconsidering Radmilli’s Mesolithic. In BIAGI, P. (ed.) Studi sul Paleolitico, Mesolitico e Neolitico del Bacinodell’Adriatico in Ricordo di Antonio M. Radmilli. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia,Quaderno 8: 171-184. Trieste.

POLGLASE, C.R. 1988 - Analyses of the Obsidian Collection from the Gaione Site, Parma. Preistoria Alpina, 24: 140-155.

PSYCHOYOS, O. 1988 - Déplacements de la Ligne de Rivage et Sites Archéologiques dans les Régions Côtières de la Mer Egée, auNéolithique et a l’Age du Bronze. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature, pocket-book, 62. Paul Åströms Förlag,Jonsered.

RADI, G. 1995 - Osservazioni sulla Ceramica Impressa Abruzzese Marchigiana. In Miscellanea in Memoria di Giuliano Cremonesi:129-156. ETS, Pisa.

RADINA , F. 1981 - Le Macchie: lo scavo e i materiali. Atti del 3° Convegno sulla Preistoria-Protostoria della Daunia: 113-126. SanSevero.

RADINA , F. 1981a - Resti di una capanna neolitica a Botromagno (Gravina di Puglia - Bari). Taras, 1: 290-292. Taranto.

RADINA , F. 1986 - Primi dati sull’insediamento neolitico di Ricotto a Botromagno (Gravina di Puglia, Bari). Gravina, 2: 111-116.

RADMILLI , A.M. 1997 - La vita in Abruzzo ventimila anni fa. Il Paleolitico superiore. ETS, Pisa.

RANDLE, K., BARFIELD, L.H. and BAGOLINI , B. 1993 - Recent Italian obsidian analyses. Journal of Archaeological Science, 20: 503-509.

RELLINI , U. 1934 - La più antica ceramica dipinta in Italia. Collezione Meridionale Editrice, Roma.

RENFREW, C. 1975 - Trade as action at a distance. In SABLOFF, J.A. and LAMBERG-KARLOWSKY, C.C. (eds.) Ancient Civilisation andTrade: 3-59. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

RENFREW, C. 1977 - Alternative models for exchange and spatial distribution. In EARLE, T.K. and ERICSON, J.E. (eds.) ExchangeSystems in Prehistory: 71-90. Academic Press, New York.

¯ 253

RICE, P.M. 1987 - Pottery analysis. A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

RIDOLA, D. 1924-1926 - Le grandi trincee preistoriche di Matera. La ceramica e la civiltà di quel tempo. Bullettino di PaletnologiaItaliana, XLIV-XLVI: 3-83.

RILEY, J.A. 1975 - The Pottery from the First Session of Excavation in the Caesarea Hippodrome. Bulletin of the American Schools ofOriental Research, 218: 25-63.

RILEY, J.A. 1976 - Amphorae. In Humphrey, J.H. (ed.) Excavations at Chartage 1975: Conducted by the University of Michigan, 1:108-20. Cérès Productions, Tunis.

RILEY, J.A. 1981 - The Coarse Pottery from Berenice. In LLOYD, J.A. (ed.) Excavations at Sidi Khrebesh, Benghazi (Berenice), 2: 91-467. Supplements to Libya Antiqua, V (II). Department of Antiquities, Tripoli.

RODDEN, R.J. and WARDLE, K.A. 1996 - Nea Nikomedeia I. The Excavation of an Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece 1961-1964. The British School at Athens. Supplementary Volume, 25. London.

ROUDIL, J-L. 1990 - Cardial et Néolithique ancien Ligure dans le sud-est de la France. In CAHEN, D. and OTTE, M. (eds.) Rubané etCardial. ERAUL, 39: 383-392.

ROWLEY-CONWY, P. 1995 - Making First Farmers Younger: the West European Evidence. Current Anthropology: 36: 345-353.

ROWLEY-CONWY, P. 1997 - The animal bones from Arene Candide (Holocene sequence): the animal bones. In MAGGI, R., STARNINI, E.and VOYTEK, B.A. (eds.) Arene Candide: a functional and Environmental Assessment of the Holocene Sequence (ExcavationsBernabò Brea - Cardini 1940-50). Memorie dell’Istituto Italiano di Paleontologia Umana, n.s. 5: 153-278. Rome.

RUNNELS, C.N. 1995 - Review of Aegean Prehistory IV: The Stone Age of Greece from the Palaeolithic to the Advent of the Neolithic.American Journal of Archaeology, 99: 699-728.

RUNNELS, C.N. 2002 - The Origins of the Greek Neolithic. In AMMERMAN, A.J. and BIAGI, P. (eds.) The Widening Harvest. ArchaeologicalInstitute of America, Monograph, 1. Boston (in press).

SAMPSON, A., KOZŁOWSKI, J.K. and KACZANOWSKA, M. 1998 - Entre l’Anatolie et les Balkans: une sequence Mésolithique-Néolithiquede l’Ile de Gioura (Sporades du Nord). In OTTE, M. (ed.) Préhistoire d’Anatolie, Genèse de deux mondes. ERAUL, 85: 125-141.

SARGENT, A. 1987 - Relazione sui resti paleobotanici di Coppa Nevigata. In Atti della XXVI Riunione Scientifica dell’IIPP: 761-764.Firenze.

SCHNEIDER, G. 1989 - A technological study of North-Mesopotamian Stone Wares. World Archaeology, 21 (1): 30-50.

SCHULDENREIN, J. 1998 - Konispol Cave, Southern Albania, and Correlationships with Other Aegean Caves Occupied in the LateQuaternary. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, 13 (5): 501-526.

SÉFÉRIADÈS, M. 2000 - Spondylus Gaederopus: Some Observations on the Earliest European Long Distance Exchange System. InHILLER, S. and NIKOLOV, V. (eds.) Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa: 423-437. Phoibos Verlag, Wien.

SHACKLETON, J.C. and VAN ANDEL, TJ.H. 1986 - Prehistoric Shore Environments, Shellfish Availability, and Shellfish Gathering atFranchthi, Greece. Geoarchaeology: an International Journal, 1 (2): 127-143.

SHEPARD, A.O. 1956 - Ceramic for the archaeologist. Carnegie Institution of Washington DC. Publication 609.

SILVESTRINI, M. and PIGNOCCHI, G. 1998 - La neolitizzazione lungo l’Adriatico: le Marche. In PESSINA, A. and MUSCIO, G. (eds.)Settemila anni fa il primo pane. Ambienti e culture delle società neolitiche: 70-77. Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale, Udine.

SILVESTRINI, M. and PIGNOCCHI, G. 2000 - Il primo neolitico delle Marche: considerazioni e riflessioni alla luce delle recenti acquisizioni.In PESSINA, A. and MUSCIO, G. (eds.) La neolitizzazione tra oriente e occidente: 341-354. Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale,Udine.

SKEATES, R. 1994 - Towards an absolute chronology for the Neolithic in central Italy. In SKEATES, R. and WHITEHOUSE, R. (eds.)Radiocarbon Dating and Italian Prehistory. Accordia Specialist Studies on Italy, 3: 61-72.

SKEATES, R. 1994a - A radiocarbon date-list for prehistoric Italy (c.46,400 BP – 2450 BP/400 cal. BC). In SKEATES, R. and WHITEHOUSE,R. (eds.) Radiocarbon dating and Italian Prehistory. Accordia Specialist Studies on Italy, 3: 147-288.

SKEATES, R. 1999 - Unveiling Inequality. Social Life and Social Change in the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic of East-Central Italy. InTYKOT, R.H., MORTER, J. and ROBB, J.E. (eds.) Social dynamics of the prehistoric Central Mediterranean. Specialist Studies onthe Mediterranean, 3: 15-45. Accordia Research Institute, London.

SKEATES, R. 2002 - Radiocarbon Dating and the Interpretation of the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in Italy. In AMMERMAN, A.J. andBIAGI, P. (eds.) The Widening Harvest. Archaeological Institute of America. Monograph, 1. Boston (in press).

SORDINAS, A. 1969 - Investigations of the Prehistory of Corfu during 1964-1966. Balkan Studies, 10 (2): 393-424. Thessaloniki.

SORDINAS, A. 1970 - Stone Implements from Northwestern Corfu, Greece. Memphis State University Anthropological Research Center.Occasional Papers, 4: 1-41. Memphis, Tennessee.

SPATARO, M. 2000 - Analisi archeometrica delle ceramiche della stazione neolitica di Fagnigola, Boschetto Mantova (AzzanoDecimo-Pordenone). In BIAGI , P. (ed.) Studi sul Paleolitico, Mesolitico e Neolitico del Bacino dell’Adriatico in Ricordodi Antonio M. Radmilli. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 8: 195-206. Trieste.

254

SPATARO, M. 2001 - An Interpretative Approach to the Prehistory of the Edera Cave in the Trieste Karst (North-Eastern Italy): theArchaeometry of the Ceramic Assemblage. Accordia Research Papers, 8: 83-99.

SPATARO, M. 2003 - Pottery technology and manufacture at the Korenovo culture (LBK) site of Malo Korenovo (Bjelovar, Croatia).Opuscola Archaeologica, 26. Zagreb (in press).

SPECCHIO, V. 1985-1986 - Rilevamento geologico della della parte centro-occidentale dell’area della Tav. 178 III S.O.- N.O.“Rutigliano” . Tesina di rilevamento geologico, Dipartimento di Geologia e Geofisica dell’Università di Bari (inedita).

SREJOVIć, D. 1974 - The Odmut Cave - a new facet of Mesolithic culture in the Balkan Peninsula. Archaeologia Jugoslavica, XV: 3-6. Beograd.

STANčIć, Z., BARFIELD, L., VUJNOVIć, N. and BURMAZ, J. 2000 - Report on the flint assemblages field survey on the Island of Brač.Obavijesti: XXXII (1): 25-34. Zagreb.

STUIVER, M., LONG, A. and KRA, R.S. 1993 - Calibration 1993. Radiocarbon, 35 (1).

TAGLIACOZZO, A. 1993 - Archeozoologia della Grotta dell’Uzzo, Sicilia. Supplemento al Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana, 84:1-278.

TASCHINI, M. 1964 - Il livello mesolitico del Riparo Blanc al Monte Circeo. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana, 73: 65-88.

TEžAK-GREGL, T. 1993 - Kultura Linearnotrakaste Keramike u Središnjoj Hrvatskoj. Dissertationes et Monographiae, 2. Departmentof Archaeology, University of Zagreb.

THISSEN, L. 2000 - Thessaly, Franchthi and Western Turkey: Clues to the Neolithisation of Greece? Documenta Praehistorica, XXVII:141-154. Ljubljana.

THISSEN, L. 2000a - A Chronological Framework for the Neolithisation of the Southern Balkans. In HILLER, S. and NIKOLOV, V. (eds.)Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa: 193-212. Phoibos Verlag, Wien.

TICHÝ, R. 2000 - Namořní plavba v Raném Neolitu. Příspèvek Experimentální Archeologie k Počatkúm Neolitizace Středomoři.Archeologické rozhledy, LII (2): 234-260. Prague.

TINÉ, S. 1971 - Lo stile del Kronio in Sicilia, lo stile di Ghar Dalam a Malta e la successione del Neolitico nelle due isole. In Atti dellaXIII Riunione Scientifica dell’IIPP: 75-88. Firenze.

TINÉ, S. 1974 - Il Neolitico e l’età del Bronzo della Liguria alla luce delle recenti scoperte. In Atti della XVI Riunione Scientificadell’IIPP: 37-52. Firenze.

TINÉ, S. (ed.) 1983 - Passo di Corvo e la civiltà neolitica del Tavoliere. SAGEP, Genova.

TINÉ, S. (ed.) 1999 - Il Neolitico nella Caverna delle Arene Candide (scavi 1972-1977). Collezione di Monografie Preistoriche edArcheologiche, X. Istituto Internazionale di Studi Liguri, Bordighera.

TINÉ, S. and ISETTI, E. 1980 - Culto neolitico delle acque e recenti scavi nella Grotta Scaloria. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana, 82: 31-70.

TIRABASSI, J. 1987 - Relazione preliminare della prima campagna di scavi a Rivoltella - Ca’ Romensini (RE) - 1981-83. In Atti dellaXVI Riunione Scientifica dell’IIPP: 581-594. Firenze.

TITE, M.S. 1995 - Firing temperature determinations - How and why?. In LINDHAL , A. and STILBORG, O. (eds.) The Aim of LaboratoryAnalyses of Ceramics in Archaeology. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien Konferenser, 34: 37-42. Stockholm.

TITE, M.S. 1999 - Pottery Production, Distribution, and Consumption. The Contribution of the Physical Sciences. Journal ofArchaeological Method and Theory, 6 (3): 181-232.

TOZZI, C. 1982 - La transition du Néolithique Ancien au Néolithique Moyen dans la cote Adriatique (Abruzzo-Marche). In Le NéolithiqueAncien Méditerranéen. Archéologie en Languedoc n° spécial 1982: 319-326. Montpellier.

TOZZI, C. 1988 - Contributo alla conoscenza del villaggio neolitico di Ripa Tetta (Lucera). In Atti del VI Convegno Nazionale sullaPreistoria, Protostoria e Storia della Daunia: 11-26. S. Severo.

TOZZI, C. and ZAMAGNI , B. 2000 - Il Neolitico Antico nella Toscana Settentrionale (Valle del Serchio). In TOZZI, C. and WEISS, M-C.(eds.) Les Premier Peuplements Holocènes de l’Aire Corso-Toscane: 57-69. ETS, Pisa.

TRINGHAM, R. 1971 - Hunters, Fishers and Farmers of Eastern Europe 6000-3000 BC. Hutchinson, London.

TUSA, S. 1976-1977 - La ceramica preistorica della Grotta dell’Uzzo. Kokalos, XXII-XXIII: 798-816. Palermo.

TYKOT, R.H. 1996 - Obsidian Procurement and Distribution in the Central and Western Mediterranean. Journal of MediterraneanArchaeology, 9 (1): 39-82.

VAN ANDEL, TJ.H. and RUNNELS, C.N. 1995 - The earliest farmers in Europe. Antiquity, 69 (264): 481-500.

VAN ANDEL, TJ.H. and SHACKLETON, J.C. 1982 - Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Coastlines of Greece and the Aegean. Journal ofField Archaeology, 9: 445-454.

VAN ANDEL, TJ.H. and SHACKLETON, J.C. 1984 - Coastal Palaeogeography of the Central and Western Mediterranean during the Last125,000 Years and Its Archaeological Implications. Journal of Field Archaeology, 11: 307-314.

VARTANIAN , E., GUIBERT, P., NEY, C., BECHTEL, F., SCHVOERER, M., GUILAINE , J. and CREMONESI, G. 2000 - Chronologie de la Néolithisationen Italie du sud-est. Nouvelles datations grâce a la Thermoluminescence (TL) sur le Site de Matera-Trasano. In BIAGI, P. (ed.)Studi sul Paleolitico, Mesolitico e Neolitico del Bacino dell’Adriatico in Ricordo di Antonio M. Radmilli. Società per la Preistoriae Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 8: 245-268. Trieste.

¯ 255

V INSON, S.P. 1972 - Ancient roads between Venosa and Gravina. Papers of the British School at Rome, 40: 58-90.

V ITELLI , K.D. 1993 - “Looking up” at Early Ceramics in Greece. In SKIBO, J.M. and FEINMAN , G.M. (eds.) Pottery and People. ADynamic Interaction: 184-198. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

WHITBREAD, I.K. 1986 - Argillaceous Rock Fragments. Archaeometry, 28 (1): 79-88.

WHITEHOUSE R. 1969 - The Neolithic Pottery of Southern Italy. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, XXXV: 267-310.

WHITEHOUSE, R. 1986 - Siticulosa Apulia Revisited. Antiquity, LX: 36-44.

WHITEHOUSE, R. 1987 - Il Neolitico Antico: Cronologia Assoluta. In CASSANO, S.M., CAZZELLA , A., MANFREDINI, A and MOSCOLONI, M.(eds.) Coppa Nevigata e il suo territorio. Testimonianze archeologiche dal VII al II millennio a.C.: 95-97. Quasar, Roma.

WILKENS, B. 1997 - I molluschi di Scamuso. In BIANCOFIORE, F. e COPPOLA, D. (eds.) Scamuso. Per la storia delle comunità umane trail VI ed il III millennio nel Basso Adriatico: 245-247. Dipartimento di Storia dell’Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”. Paletnologia.Roma.

WILLIAMS , D.F. 1983 - Petrology of ceramics. In KEMPE, D.R.C. and HARVEY, A.P. (eds.) The Petrology of Archaeological Artefacts:301-350. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

WILLIAMS THORPE, O., WARREN, S.E. and BARFIELD, L.H. 1979 - The sources and distribution of archaeological obsidian in northernItaly. Preistoria Alpina, 15: 73-92.

WOODS, A.J. 1989 - Fired with enthusiasm: experimental open firings at Leicester Univerity. In GIBSON, A. (ed.) Midlands Prehistory.Some recent and current researches into the prehistory of central England. BAR British Series, 204: 196-226. Oxford.

YOUNI, P. 1996 - The Early Neolithic Pottery: Technology. In RODDEN, R.J. and WARDLE, K.A. (eds.) Nea Nikomedeia I. The Excavationof an Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece 1961-1964. The British School at Athens. Supplementary Volume, 25: 55-79.London.

ZILHÃO , J. 1992 - Gruta do Caldeirão. O Neolitíco Antigo. Trabalhos de Arqueologia, 6. Lisboa.

ZILHÃO, J. 1993 - The spread of agro-pastoral economies across Mediterranean Europe: a view from the Far West. Journal ofMediterranean Archaeology, 6 (1): 5-63.

ZILHÃO , J. 1997 - Maritime pioneer colonisation in the Early Neolithic of the west Mediterranean. Testing the model against theevidence. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitica in eneolitika v Sloveniji, XXIV: 19-42. Ljubljana.

ZILHÃO , J. 2002 - The Neolithic transition in Portugal and its implications for the understanding of the spread of agriculture in Europeas a process of demic diffusion. In AMMERMAN, A.J. and BIAGI, P. (eds.) The Widening Harvest. Archaeological Institute ofAmerica. Monograph, 1. Boston (in press).

ZVELEBIL , M. 1986 - Mesolithic Prelude and Neolithic Revolution. In ZVELEBIL , M. (ed.) Hunters in Transition. Mesolithic Societies ofTemperate Eurasia and their Transition to Farming: 5-16. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

ZVELEBIL , M. 1995 - Neolithization in Eastern Europe: a view from the frontier. Poročilo o raziskovanju neolitica in eneolitika vSloveniji, XXII: 107-151. Ljubljana.

ZVELEBIL , M. 2000 - The Social Context of the Agricultural Transition in Europe. In RENFREW, C. and BOYLE, K. (eds.) Archaeogenetics:DNA and the population prehistory of Europe. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge: 57-79.

ZVELEBIL , M. and LILLIE , M. 2000 - Transition to agriculture in eastern Europe. In DOUGLAS PRICE, T. (ed.) Europe’s First Farmers: 57-92. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

ZVELEBIL , M. and ROWLEY-CONWY, P. 1984 - Transition to Farming in Northern Europe: a Hunter-gatherer Perspective. NorwegianArchaeological Review, 17: 104-128.

Author’s address:

MICHELA SPATARO, Via Giorgione 9 – I-30020 MARCON (VE)

E-mail: [email protected]

256

CENTRALGRAFICA S.N.C. - VIA ISOLA D’I STRIA, 2 - 34145 TRIESTE - TEL. 040.829800 - FAX 040.822439 - E-MAIL : [email protected]

Date post:	22-Jun-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	25122brescia
View:	56 times
Download:	7 times

M. Spataro 2002 - The First Farming Communities of the Adriatic: Pottery Production and Circulation...

Documents