Coll. Antropol. 23 (1999) 2: 521-530
UDC 572:902.21(497.5)
Original scientific paper
The Earliest Islanders of the Eastern
Adriatic
S. Forenbaher
Institute for Anthropological Research, Zagreb, Croatia
ABSTRACT
The introduction of farming into the Mediterranean was a complex process marked
by regional variability. In the case of the Eastern Adriatic, the islands may have played
a crucial role by providing footholds for seaborne travellers. The original islanders were
bands of hunter-gatherers, who were pushed out of the north Adriatic plain by the ma-
rine transgression of the early Holocene. Farming was introduced around 6000 B.C.
Several lines of evidence suggest that this involved at least some population movement
from southern Italy, possibly along a chain of islands that span the central Adriatic.
‘The details of interaction between the immigrant and the autochthonous population re-
main elusive, due to the patchy character of the currently available data.
The beginnings of
Mediterranean farming
The spread of farming from Western
Asia into Europe is one of several ever-
-present topics in European prehistory.
Given the differences in environment, it
is not surprising that the changes
brought about by the introduction of do-
mesticates followed different trajectories
in the Mediterranean and in the heart of
the continent. As new archaeological data
accumulate, it is becoming clear that
even within the Mediterranean Basin
those processes were characterized by a
high degree of regional variability. It
Received for publication June 8, 1999.
seems unlikely, therefore, that sweeping
generalizations will give us satisfactory
answers, which should instead be sought
by intensive and highly detailed regio-
nal-level studies. It is in this context that
a review of the currently available data
on the introduction of farming into the
Eastern Adriatic is deemed appropriate.
During most of this century, the
spread of farming into the Mediterranean
was interpreted in terms of diffusion and
migration. ‘Traditional interpretations
rested on three main lines of evidence,
which were considered as established
facts: first, that the earliest domesticates
521S. Forenbaher: The Earliest Adriatic Islanders, Coll, Antropol. 23 (1999) 2; 521-530
were of West Asian origin; second, that
they usually appeared together as a
»Neolithic packages; and third, that their
spread was paralleled by a »circum-Medi-
terranean« distribution of the earliest
pottery, decorated by a characteristic
kind of impressed design’, Even though
the simplistic migrationist views have
been largely abandoned over the last 25
years*, the importance of agricultural im-
migrants received renewed support from
genetic studies? and has been proposed as
the possible mechanism for the spread of
Indo-European languages by one of the
most vocal opponents of diffusionism*,
Early radiocarbon dates seemed to
support the diffusionist hypothesis? but
as more dates became available this pat-
tern became less obvious. Although the
Eastern Mediterranean farming still has
clear temporal priority, it now seems that
the earliest farming in Iberia was practi-
cally contemporaneous with that in
southern Italy®, Furthermore, archaeolo-
gical research over the last few decades
has shown that two of the three »estab-
lished facts« supporting migration must
be rejected. It is now clear that the adop-
tion of specific domesticates and technol-
ogies varied from region to region, where
different elements of the »Neolithic pack-
ages may or may not have appeared to-
gether’, Secondly, the distribution of the
characteristically decorated _»Impresso«
wares is restricted to the Central and
Western Mediterranean only®. There is a
huge geographic gap between those finds
and the two early Levantine sites (Yii-
miik Tepe near Mersin and Tell Judaidah
in the Amuq plain) which were usually
cited as possible originating points of
such impressed decoration. Finally, the
impression-decorated pottery from those
sites is typologically very different from
the Central and Western Mediterranean
impressed wares®,
Since the evidence is always incom-
plete and often conflicting, it is not sur-
prising that the models which seek to ex-
plain the beginnings of farming in the
Mediterranean grade from those that
fully rely on migration’, to those that
minimise its importance, Most of
them fall somewhere inbetween'*", ac-
cepting the likelihood of some population
movement, while stressing the importan-
ce of autochtonous elements. One thing
that seems certain is that the mechanics
of change differed substantially from one
place to another, depending upon circum-
stances dictated by geography, natural
and social environment. Regionally focus-
ed prehistories of the transition to farm-
ing in the Mediterranean basin are there-
fore more appropriate than attempts to
find a single pattern of events. In this
vein, I shall next turn to an example from
the Eastern Adriatic where, by offering a
brief summary of the currently available
evidence and highlighting some of its
more obvious gaps I hope to provide a
useful base line for future research.
‘Transition to Holocene
‘The Adriatic Sea, as we know it today,
came into existence relatively recently.
Due to the lower sea levels during the
last glacial maximum (about - 120 m
around 18,000 b.p.), its area was re-
duced to half its current size!”"*, The
shallow, north-western part of the Adri-
atic basin was a wide steppe, crossed by
the river Po and its tributaries, and bor-
dered by the Dinaric mountains in the
east and the Apennines in the west. All of.
the Dinaric coastal ranges, which were to
become the Eastern Adriatic archipelago,
(1) Dates for the Late Pleistocene are expressed in radiocarbon years before present (b.p.), without calibration,
while dates for the Holocene, for which reliable calibration curves are available, are expressed in years be:
fore Christ (B.C.)
522S, Forenbaher: The Earliest Adriatic Islanders, Coll. Antropol. 28 (1999) 2: 521-530
Land above 500m a..l
Land under 500 m a.s.
Coastal plain (today submerged)
Sea
Ky
Sa
Fig. 1. The extent of the Adriatic Sea during the last glacial maximum (around 18.000 b.p.).
were simply a part of the mainland (Fig-
ure 1).
Deglaciation, accompanied by global
rise of ocean levels, brought dramatic
changes in topography. By the time of
Pleistocene to Holocene transition,
around 10.000 b.p., much of the produc-
tive North Adriatic plain with its rich un-
gulate fauna was lost to the invading sea.
Relatively little is known about the hu-
man populations that inhabited the area
during this period. There are two main
reasons for this. First, undoubtedly, ma-
ny sites were drowned when sea levels
rose, and thus lost for investigation. Sec-
ond, the Epipaleolithic and Mesolithic
sites tend to harbor rather humble re-
mains such as hearths, nondescript mi-
crolithic artifacts and food waste, and are
unlikely to yield ‘spectacular finds’ in the
traditional sense of the term; conse-
quently, they are not coveted objects of re-
search among the local archaeologists. A
couple of research projects which have
been evolving over the last decade are
now beginning to yield reliable informa-
tion about bands of mobile hunter-
gatherers and their changing subsistence
strategies, as these groups adapted to
radical environmental changes!**!,
‘The earliest unequivocal evidence of
human presence on an Adriatic island co-
mes from Kopaéina cave on the island of
Brat, where layers containing faunal
remains, charcoal and lithic artifacts ha-
ve been dated by radiocarbon to around
13,000 and 12.000 b.p. (Z-2403: 12.935+
250 b.p., and Z-2404: 11.,850+220 b.p.)?.
At that time, however, all major islands
(including Brag) were attached to the
mainland, since the sea level was still al-
most 100 m lower than today”. Over the
next couple of millennia, the sea invaded
some of the intermontane valleys, sepa-
rating the outer line of islands (such as
Vis, Lastovo and Mljet), but most of the
large islands were formed only after
10.000 or 9.000 b.p., as the sea level rose
above the ~ 50 m line.
‘The best evidence for human occupa-
tion of these ‘islands in the making’ co-
mes from two cave sites located at the op-
523S, Forenbaher: The Earliest Adriatic Islanders, Coll, Antropol. 23 (1999) 2: 521-530
posite ends of the Eastern Adriatic
archipelago, coincidentally bearing the
same name: Vela spilja on the island of
Loginj* and Vela spilja on the island of
Koréula?®, Both contain thick stratified
deposits and, in both cases, the strata
that underlay the Early Neolithic levels
yielded lithic artifacts, faunal remains
and charcoal. Based on their context,
composition and formal artifactual analo-
gies, these assemblages are attributable
to the early Holocene, but they have not
been chronometrically dated. As a conse-
quence, it is impossible to ascertain
whether Loginj and Koréula were already
separated from the mainland at the time
of this occupation. One should not, how-
ever, attribute too much importance to
the actual event of an island's separation,
at least when its peopling is considered.
While local direct evidence for seafaring
attributable to this period is absent, such
evidence has been recovered from Fran-
chthi cave in Greece”, It seems unlikely
that the relatively narrow sea channels,
few of which today are wider than 5 km at
the narrowest point, and which must
have been much narrower during the
early Holocene, would have presented a
serious problem for those who needed or
wanted to cross them.
It is, therefore, reasonable to assume
that most of the major Eastern Adriatic
islands have been inhabited from the
very moment they became islands. Their
original population would have consisted
of the descendants of the hunting-gath-
ering bands that used to inhabit the
coastal plains and intermontane valleys
of the glacial Adriatic basin, now drowned
by the sea.
The earliest farmers
Around 6.000 B.C., subsistence strate-
gies of the people who lived along the
Eastern Adriatic were transformed by
the introduction of domesticated plants
524
and animals. Although zooarchaeological
and paleoethnobotanical data obtained
by controlled sampling are rather scarce,
it is clear that the diet was extended to
include ~ aside from hunted and gathered
resources — such domesticates as goat
and/or sheep, as well as barley, emmer
and einkorn wheat. Caprovine bones do-
minate the faunal assemblages from the
earlier part of the 6th millennium B.C, at
most of the open-air settlement sites,
such as Tinj, Nin, Smiléé, or Medu-
lin®®8, Tinj yielded the only direct evi-
dence so far of early domesticated cere-
als?’, but it should be noted that the ab-
sence of plant domesticates reflects inad-
equate excavation techniques rather
than the actual situation, since recovery
methods aimed specifically at collecting
macrobotanical remains (such as flota-
tion) were not employed at other sites.
A foreign origin of these domesticates
is unquestionable, since they have no lo-
cal wild ancestors. Wild progenitors of ce-
real grains have been securely identified,
and their relatedness to the domesticates
has been clarified by genetic testing.
Their primary niches lay within Anatolia,
Levant and northern Iraq"*!, and it is in
that same region that the earliest evi-
dence of morphologically modified (i.e. do-
mesticated) plants occurs around 9.000
B.C.® Similarly, paleontological, cytoge-
netic, as well as archaeological evidence
indicates that the ancestry of domesti-
cated caprovides must be traced ultima-
tely to Southeast Asial®34_
‘The beginning of food production in
the Eastern Adriatic is closely paralleled
by the introduction of important techno-
logical innovations, groundstone tools®
and pottery vessels”. These novelties re-
flect. changes in life style which involved
forest clearance, tillage, increased seden-
tism, and a greater need for transport
and storage of agricultural products such
as grain. All sites mentioned above that
contained earliest domesticates also con-S. Forenbaher: The Earliest Adriatic Islanders, Coll. Antropol. 28 (1999) 2: 521-530
Scm
Fig. 2. Examples of Impresso potsherds from offshore islands: 1 Vis ~ Krajicina cave;
2 Palagruza (after Forenbaher and Kaiser™); 3 Susac (after Bass*!),
tained pottery (a possible exception is
Vaganatka cave where an undated
aceramic level, ascribed on stratigraphic
and typological grounds to the Mesolithic,
yielded caprovine bones*). The pottery
vessels were often decorated by impres-
sions of the edge of a Cardium shell. The
essential technological and stylistic char-
acteristics of this 'Impresso’ ware are
fairly uniform throughout the region®,
While direct evidence for the earliest
farming is currently available from only a
handful of mainland sites, the Impresso
pottery itself has a much more general
distribution which includes most of the
major Eastern Adriatic islands*®. If it is
true — as most of the evidence suggests ~
that farming and pottery in this region
appeared together"®, then the people who
inhabited the islands during the sixth
millennium B.C, must have had some
knowledge of farming. The degree to
which they may have depended on do-
mesticated plants and animals is some-
thing to be resolved by future fieldwork,
aimed more specifically at obtaining con-
trolled zooarchaeological and paleethno-
botanical samples.
‘Technological means certainly existed
at the time that would have allowed rela-
tively fast movement of people, informa-
tion and goods across fairly long distan-
ces. Impresso pottery that was recently
lagruza® (Figure 2) - can be taken as un-
equivocal evidence for sailing capabilt
ties? across open water. Palagruza is par-
ticularly remote, sitting in the very cen-
ter of the Adriatic. Reaching it involves
several long sea crossings along a chain of
islands, the last and the longest of them
(from Sugac to Palagruza) being 36 km. It
should be noted that, because of the
steeply sloping island shores, the distan-
ces that needed to be crossed to reach
those islands changed very little since
6.000 B.C., although in the meantime the
sea level has risen about 15 m™° As
Bass has shown in a recent study“, open
(2) Sailings is used here as a generic term that simply means »sea trvel«. We do not know wether the Neolithic
people sailed, rowed, or propelled their boats in some other manner,
525S, Forenbaher: The Earliest Adriatic Islanders, Coll. Antropol, 28 (1999) 2: 521-530
sec!
38 ROSY
Markova
Krajicina
Fig. 3. Impresso sites in central Dalmatia,
GOSPODSKA
PECINA.
POKROVNIK
g
Z
AGE 6
6
SAMOGRAD
SKARIN
MEDULIN
Fig. 4. Radicarbon dates for Impresso in the Eastern Adriatic
(black: calibrated ISD range, white: calibrated 2SD range)
sea expanses were no obstacle for the
carly Adriatic seafarers. The geographic
distribution of Impresso sites in Middle
Dalmatia clearly supports this view (Fi-
gure 3).
Eleven radiocarbon dates from Im-
presso contexts, from six different Bast
ern Adriatic sites, are now available**
(Table 1). Nine of them fall within the
first half of the sixth millennium B.C.,
526
while two are several centuries later (Fig-
ure 4). If one assumes that the earliest
radiocarbon determination from each one
of those sites approximately dates its first
Impresso occupation, a suggestive pat-
tern emerges when those dates are plot-
ted on a map. A south-east to north-west
gradient becomes evident (Figure 5), sug-
gesting that it may have taken about
three centuries for the domesticates andS, Forenbaher: The Earliest Adriatic Islanders, Coll. Antropol. 28 (1999) 2: 521-530
Fig. 5. The earliest radiocarbon dates for
100 km. |
Impresso in the Eastern Adriatic. Calibrated
ages (intercepts with the calibration curve) are shown of the earliest radiocarbon
determination for each one of the sites.
pottery to spread from southern Dalma-
tia to Istria, at an average rate of about
two kilometers per year, or 50 km per
century. One should stress, however, that
this estimate is based on a rather small
number of radiocarbon dates. Further-
more, the assumption that the earliest
dates coincide with first occupations may
be unwarranted since there is little con-
textual information available to support
it, Consequently, the observed pattern
may change substantially as more dates
become available.
Who were the 'Impresso travellers!
of the Adriatic?
It may be over-optimistic to scrutinize
the relatively meager archaeological re~
cord of the early sixth millennium Bast-
TABLE 1
RADIOCARBON DATES FOR IMPRESSO POTTERY IN THE EASTERN ADRIATIC*
Tab no. Site ‘Age bp Cal. BG, ages_1SD range 28D range Sample
GrN 10315 Gudnja 7170870 5990 —-GD48-5955 6159-5860 charcoal
GN 10314 Gudnja 6935250 5748 «5813-5706. 5934-5675 charcoal
20579 Gospodska pecina ——7010:90 5850 5956-5732 5997-5672 charcoal
2 Pokrovnik 70008100 5840 «5956-5716 6003-5632 grain
HD 11950 Skarin Samograd 6780450 5621 «5674-5503 9705-5529 bone
HD 11952 Skarin Samograd 660041005520, 5480 6583-5435 5693-5319 hone
GrN 15236 Tinj-Podlivade 69801160 810 5972-8667 6122-5527 charcoal
GeN 15237 Tinj-Podlivade {6670260 6580, 5540, 5590 5741-5326 5996-5063 charcoal
GrN 15298 Tinj-Podlivade 62802210 5250 6433-4946 5583-4726 charcoal
HD 12093 -Medulin-Vitula 68508180 5690 5929-5528 6010-5433 bone
HD 11733__ Medulin-Vitula 6140270 5080 5210-4946 5250-8861 bone
(After Chapman and Maller.)
527§. Forenbaher: The Earliest Adriatic Islanders, Coll. Antropol. 28 (1999) 2: 521-530
ern Adriatic in hope of finding evidence
for - or against - migration, but a sum-
mary review is nevertheless suggestive
If one assumes that the existing radiocar-
bon dates are representative, then the
novelties ~ domesticates and pottery —
spread along the coast from the south-
-east towards north-west. This is hardly
surprising in the case of domesticates,
given their ultimate Western Asian ori
gin. Generally, widespread uniformity in
pottery testifies to interaction, and the
distribution of ‘Impresso’ wares around
the coasts of the Central and Western
Mediterranean suggests that this inter-
action was primarily maritime. We also
know that the technical and logistical
means existed for travelling across open
expanses of water.
By all likelihood, there was some mo-
vement of people across the region. All
that we know about their social organiza-
tion®”4243 suggests that they would have
moved in small groups, probably consist-
ing of only a handful, or maybe a few
dozen, individuals. Where were these tra-
vellers coming from? The evidence of
their presence on off-shore islands sug-
gests that they were able to sail across
substantial distances (30-40 km at the
minimum) relatively quickly. In other
words, they could have come from afar,
but that does not imply that they arrived
directly from the Eastern Mediterranean
shores. In fact, both radiocarbon dates
and the distribution of Impresso pottery
contradict that notion. Based on pottery
typology and the slightly earlier southern
Italian dates, Muller has argued that the
early farmers of the Eastern Adriatic ar-
rived from Apulia®. Impresso finds that
were recently recovered along the chain
of islands which span the Adriatic be-
tween Gargano and central Dalmatia
seem to support this views"%, If that is
true, then the early Adriatic mariners
who settled on central Dalmatian islands
were the first farmers of the Eastern
528
Adriatic, Alternatively, they may have
arrived along the south-eastern Adriatic
coast. The gradient of radiocarbon dates
from central Dalmatia north-westwards
supports either hypothesis.
If indeed immigrants were arriving on
the shores of the Eastern Adriatic, an ob-
vious question to ask is: how did they in-
teract with the native hunter-gatherers?
Given the technological and organiza-
tional constraints of the early village-
-level food-producing societies, the initial
flow of immigration would have been a
trickle rather than a flood, and the poten-
tial for conflict situations between new-
comers and natives would not have neces-
sarily been great. The archaeological
record certainly does not suggest high
levels of violence during the period in
question. Some of the autochtonous hun-
ter-gatherers may have resorted to raid-
ing the farmers’ flocks, while others may
have adopted the new domesticates and
relatively quickly switched to farming.
Miller® argues for a parallel existence,
lasting several centuries, of farmers
along the coast and hunter-gatherers in
the immediate hinterland, but the cur-
rently available evidence remains incon-
clusive.
One obvious avenue of research that
remains virtually unexplored is the in-
vestigation of physical remains of these
ancient people themselves. Among other
things, it should allow comparison be-
tween populations that preceded the in-
troduction of farming with those that im-
mediately followed it, as well as between
the Eastern Adriatic farming population
and its neighbors in Southern Italy*® and
elsewhere. Unfortunately, the currently
available sample of human skeletal re-
mains is hopelessly inadequate. It con-
sists of only half a dozen more-or-less
complete skeletons for the entire area
and time span under consideration (an
adult from Oporovina cave in Istria, a
couple of children from Vela cave on Kor-8. Forenbaher: The Earliest Adriatic Islanders, Coll. Antropol. 23 (1999) 2: 621-530
@ula”“", a child and a young adult from
Smiléié*, and possibly an adult from Me-
dulin®), plus a number of isolated human
bones from several other sites, most of
them caves. The rarity of burials suggests
that the dead may have been commonly
disposed of in ways which are archaeolog-
ically invisible", such as exposure, cre-
mation and scattering of ashes, dumping
in rivers, ete., or most burials may have
been destroyed by the intense erosion and
colluviation which characterize the kar-
REFERENCES
1. BERNABO BREA, L., Rivista di studi Liguri
1-2 (1950) 21. —2. ANTHONY, D. W,, American An-
thropologist, 92(1990) 895.—3. AMMERMAN, A. J.,
L, L. CAVALLI-SFORZA.: The neolithic transition
and the genetics of populations in Europe. (Princeton
University Press, Princeton, 1984). — 4. RENFREW,
Cz Archaeology and language: The puzzle of
Indo-European origins. (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1987). — 5. CLARK, J. D., Proceedings of
the Prehistoric Society, 21 (1965) 58. — 6. MULLER,
J. Das Ostadriatische Frahneolithikum: Die Impres-
so-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adriaraumes.
(Wolker Spiess, Berlin, 1994). — 7, MALONE, C,, 8.
STODDART, Current Anthropology, 33 (1992), 594.
— 8. LEWTHWAITE, J. G., The transition to food
production: A Mediterranean perspective. In: ZVE-
LEBIL, M. (Ed.): Hunters in transition: Mesolithic
societies of temperate Eurasia and their transition to
farming. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1986). — 9. GEDDES, D. 8., Journal of Archaeologi-
cal Science, 12 (1985) 25. —~ 10. SOKAL, R. R,, N. L.
ODEN, C. WILSON., Nature, 35 (1991) 143. — 11.
ZILHAO, J., Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology,
6 (1993) 5. — 12. BARKER, G. W. W: Prehistoric far-
‘ming in Europe. (Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, 1985). — 13. DENNEL, R., The origins of erop
agriculture in Burope. In: COWAN, C. W,, P. J. WAT-
SON (Eds.): The Origins of agriculture: An interna-
tional perspective. (Smithsonian Institution, Wash-
ington, 1992), — 14, WHITEHOUSE, R., The first
farmers in the Adriatic and their position in the neo-
lithic of the Mediterranean, In: Premiéres Commu-
nautés en Méditerranée occidentale, Colloque Inter
national, Montpellier, 1983. (C.N.R.S., Paris, 1987).
— 15. EVANS, J. G., The development of neolithic
communities in the central Mediterranean: Western
Greece to Malta. In: Premiéres Communautés en Mé-
diterranée occidentale, Colloque International, Mont-
pellior, 1983. (C.N.RS,, Paris, 1987). — 16. DONA-
HUE, R. E., Desperately secking ceres: A critical
examination of current models for the transition to
stic environment of the Eastern Adriatic
littoral. Or, perhaps we simply have not
been looking in the right places.
In order to resolve some of the ques-
tions asked in this paper, a multidiscip
nary approach combining archaeology,
physical anthropology and molecular ge-
netics is needed if our theories about the
continuity and change at the time of the
introduction of farming into the region
are to gain substance.
agriculture in Mediterranean Europe. In: GEBAU-
ER, A. B, T. D. PRICE (Eds. Transitions to
agriculture’ in prehistory. (Prohistory Press, Madi-
son, 1992). —17. VAN ANDEL, T. H., Antiquity, 63
(1989) 733. — 18, SHACKLETON, J. C., T. H. VAN
ANDEL, C. N. RUNNELS, Journal of Fiekd Archacol-
ogy, 11 (1984) 307. — 19. MIRACLE, P. T, C. d
O'BRIEN, Seasonality of resource use and site oceu-
pation at Badan, Bosnia-Herzegovina: Subsistence
Stress in an increasingly seasonal environment? In:
ROCEK, T. R., 0. BAR-YOSEF (Eds): Seasonality
and sedentism: Archaeological perspectives from Old
and New World sites, (Peabody Museum, Harvard,
1998), — 20. MIRACLE, P.'T, Atti del Museo Civico
di Storia Naturale, (Trieste) 9 (1996) 33, — 21. MIRA
CLE, P. T, Porotilo 0 raziskovanju_paleolitika,
neoitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji, 26 (1997) 43. — 22
EBCUK, B,, Arheoloski radovi i rasprave,12 (1996)
13, — 23. VAN ANDEL, T. H, Antiquity, 66 (1990)
51, ~- 24, MIROSAVLIEVIC, V., Arheoloski radovi i
rasprave, 8 (1968) 27. —25, PERLBS,C,, In search of
Tithie strategies: A cognitive approach to prehistoric
chipped stone assemblages. In: GARDIN, J.C. C. 5
PEEBLES (Bds.): Representations in archacology.
(Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1992). —26
GECUK, B,, Lusko libro, 2,(1994) 41. — 27. CHAP-
MAN, J. C.,R. S. SHIEL, 8, BATOVIG: The chang-
ing face of Dalmatia, (Leicester University Press
London, 1996). — 28, SCHWARTZ, C., The neolithic
animal husbandry of Smileié and Nin, Tn: CHAP-
MAN, J. C.,J. BINTLIFF, V. GAFFNEY, B. SLAP-
SAK (Eds): Recent developments in Yugoslav ar-
chacology. (B.A.R. International Series vol. 431, Ox-
ford, 1986). — 29. BATOVIC, & Adriatic zone. In:
BENAC, A. (Ed): Prehistory of South Slavic
countries, vol. 2 (ANUBIH, Sarajevo, 1979). — 30
HOPF, M., Berytus, 36 (1988) 27. 31, ZOHARY, D.,
Domestication of the Southwest Asian neolithic crop
assemblage coreals, pulses, and flax: the ovidence
from living plants, in: HARRIS, D. R,, G. C. HILL-
MAN (Eds): Foraging and farming: The evolution of
529S. Forenbaher: The Earliest Adriatic Islanders, Coll. Antropol. 23 (1999) 2: 521-830
plant exploitation. (Unwin Hyman, London, 1989). —
32, MILLER, N. F., The origins of plantcultivation in
the Near East. In: COWAN, C. W., P. J, WATSON
(Eds): The origins of agriculture: An international
perspective. (Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
1992), — 33. GEDDES, D. S., Journal of Archaeologi-
cal Science, 12 (1985) 25. —'34. LEGGE, 7, The be-
ginning of eaprine domestication in Southwest Asia.
In: HARRIS, D. R. (Ed): The origins and spread of
agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia, (niversity
College of London Press, London, 1996). — 35. FO-
RENBAHER, S,, P. VRANJICAN, Opuseula archaoo-
Togica, (Zagreb) 10 (1985) 1. — 38. CHAPMAN, J. C.,
J. MCULER, Antiquity, 64 (1990) 127. — 37. KAI.
SER, T,, N. VUINOVIC, Obavijesti Hevatskog arheo-
loskog druatva, 27 (1995) — 38. BASS, B., B. KI-
RIGIN, D. RADIC, Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheoloskog
drustva, 29 (1997) 70. — 39, FORENBAHER, S.
KAISER, Opuscula archaeologica, (Zagreb) 21 (1997)
15,—40, SEGOTA,"', A. FILIPCIC, Rad HAZU, 458
(1991) 149 — 41, BASS, B., Journal of Mediterranean
S. Forenbaher
Archaeology, 11 (1998) 165. — 42, BINTLIFF, J. L,
The neolithic in Europe and social evolution. In
BINTLIFF, J. L. (Ed.): European social evolution:
Archaeological Perspectives. (University of Bradford,
Bradford 1984), — 43. WHITEHOUSE, R., Social or-
ganisation in the neolithic of Southeast Italy, In:
WALDREN, W. H.R. CHAPMAN, J. LEWTH-
WAITE, R-C. KENNARD (Eds): The Deja conference
of prehistory: Early settlement in the western Medi
terranean islands and their peripheral areas. (B.A.R
International Series vol.229/1V, Oxford, 1984). — 44
CAZZELLA, A., Berytus, 36 (1988) 87. — 45. ROBB,
J.E,, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 7 (1994),
27 — 46. LENGYEL, B. Scoperta della vestigia del’
‘uomno preistorio nelle caverne della riviera liburnica
In: Atti del I congresso speleologico nazionale. (7
este, 1983). — 47. CECUK, B., D. RADIC: Vela Spilja
prehistory of the island of Koréula. (Centar 2a kul-
turu, Vela Luke, 1995), — 48. BATOVIG, &,, Arheo-
lofki radovi i rasprave, 45 (1967) 268. — 49, BE-
NAC, A., Diadora, 2 (1962) 5
Institute for Anthropological Research, Ilica 1/VII, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
NAJRANIJI STANOVNICI ISTOCNOJADRANSKIH OTOKA.
SAZETAK
Uvodenje zemljoradnje u prostor Sredozemlja bio je slozen proces, obiljezen regio-
nalnom raznolikoséu. U primjeru istoénog Jadrana, otoci su moZda odigrali kljuénu
ulogu, pruzajuéi uporiéte pomorskim putnicima. Najraniji otogani bili su lovei-sakup-
Yjaéi koji su tijekom ranog holocena bili potisnuti iz sjevernojadranske ravnice zbog
podizanja morske razine. Zemljoradnja se potela uvoditi oko godine 6000. pr. K. Raz~
liéite kategorije arheoloske grade ukazuju na vjerojatno pristizanje nove populacije iz
juine Italije, mozda duz niza otoka koji se proteze preko sredignjeg Jadrana. Zbog ne-
potpunosti raspolozivih podataka, podrobnosti o uzajamnom djelovanju doseljenika i
autohtonog Zivlja za sad nisu jasne.
530,