CHAPTER 8:
EARLY FARMING ADAPTATIONS OF THE
NORTHEAST ADRIATIC KARST
CLIVE BONSALL, DIMITRIJ MLEKUž, LÁSZLÓ BARTOSIEWICZ
AND CATRIONA PICKARD
INTRODUCTION
Straddling the modern political borders of Italy,
Slovenia and Croatia, the region known as the Caput
Adriae at the extreme northeastern end of the Adri-
atic Sea comprises the narrow coastal plain around
Trieste Bay, the 300-500 m high plateau of the Tri-
este Karst (Slovene ‘Kras’) and the northern part of
the Istrian peninsula. The Mesolithic-Neolithic
transition and early farming adaptations of this re-
gion have been intensively debated but poorly re-
searched. The Caput Adriae is underlain mainly by
carbonate sedimentary rocks; and the evidence for
Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic settlement
comes predominantly from caves and rock-shelters.
This chapter seeks to review that evidence and place
it in the wider regional context.
WHEN DID FARMING REACH THE EASTERN ADRIATIC?
The first farming communities of the eastern Adri-
atic made and used pottery decorated with stamped
and incised motifs, known as ‘impressed ware’. Since
sites with impressed ware far outnumber those with
well-documented evidence of cultivation and/or an-
imal husbandry, this distinctive pottery has tended
to be used as a proxy indicator of the spread of
The Origins and Spread of Domestic Animals in Southwest Asia and Europe, edited by Sue Colledge et al., 145–160. © 2013 Left Coast
Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
145
farming across the region, even though such an ap-
proach overlooks the possibility of hunter-gatherers
acquiring pots or pottery technology from farmers
(cf. Budja 2001).
The distribution of sites with Adriatic im-
pressed ware extends from northwest Greece, along
the eastern Adriatic and as far as southern Istria.
Most sites occur within 45 km of the coast (figure
8.1), although impressed pottery has occasionally
been reported from sites much farther inland—for
example, at Odmut in Montenegro and Obre in Ser-
bia. Though less well documented in the archaeo-
logical literature, inland sites with Adriatic im-
pressed ware are known from Albania, Epirus and
western Macedonia (e.g., Korkuti 1982, 1983, 2003;
Prendi 1976; Rodden and Wardle 1996).
Discussions of the the spread of impressed ware
have centred on a very limited set of radiocarbon
dates (table 8.1). Chapman and Müller (1990) ar-
gued that the 14C ages show a directional trend, with
the earliest sites in the south and the later sites in the
north. On that basis, they suggested that the spread
of farming through the eastern Adriatic was a grad-
ual process, beginning ca. 6200 cal BC and reaching
southern Istria ca. 5750 cal BC. Forenbaher and
Miracle (2005) proposed a more elaborate, two-
phase model for the expansion of the Impressed
146 BONSALL ET AL.

W E
Area shown
in Figure 3 S

47 46
38
43
44
45 42
41
39 40 37 36

32 35
33 30 34
31 23
2928 27 24
26 22 Karta 2.

25
20 19
21
A

18 14 13
11 10
d

7
Karta 3.
12
8 6
r

17 16 15
a 4
i

9
t
ic 3

S
e a

> 1000 m
200 - 1000 m
0 - 200 m
open-air site 2
1
cave site
200 km
100 mi

Figure 8.1. Distribution of impressed ware sites in the eastern Adriatic region: 1 Konispol, 2 Sidari, 3 Perast (Špila), 4
Crvena Stijena, 5 Hateljska pećina, 6 Jejinovaca, 7 Zelena pećina, 8 Cairi, 9 Gudnja, 10 Odmut Cave, 11 Vukova njive, 12
Iliciniva lazina, 13 Zukovicka pećina, 14 Ravlica pećina, 15 Špila Nakovana, 16 Vela špilja, 17 Markova špilja, 18 Zemunica, 19
Bisko, 20 Skarin Samograd, 21 Danilo, 22 Pokrovnik, 23 Gospodska pećina, 24 Krivace, 25 Vrbica, 26 Tinj (Podlivade), 27
Benkovac, 28 Smilčić, 29 Crno vrilo, 30 Vrsi (Jasenice), 31 Vrsi, 32 Nin, 33 Privlaka, 34 Zdrilo, 35 Vaganacka pećina, 36 Jami na
Sredi, 37 Vela jama, 38 Vorganska peć, 39 Debeljak, 40 Vižula, 41 Vrčevan, 42 Vela gromača, 43 Pradelelski, 44 Šandalja, 45
Verudica, 46 Vrčin, 47 Sveti Mihovil.

Ware Neolithic, comprising an initial ‘pioneer
colonisation’ phase lasting a century or less, during
which time immigrant farmers made exploratory
visits and set up short-term seasonal camps at caves
and open-air sites along the coastal strip of southern
Dalmatia (e.g., Gudnja and Vela Špila), followed by a
‘consolidation phase’, when the immigrants estab-
lished village settlements in areas of fertile soils (fig-
ure 8.2).
Both models assume that impressed ware origi-
nated in coastal northern Greece and spread from
south to north along the Adriatic rim, with immi-
gration playing a dominant role. According to
Forenbaher and Miracle (2005, 2006), the hilly inte-
rior continued to be occupied by hunter-gatherers
who adopted pottery before they made the transi-
tion to farming. The expansion of agriculture and
herding into the hinterland and north of the Istrian
Table 8.1. Radiocarbon dates for impressed ware sites in the eastern Adriatic published prior to 2007
Site code Site Material Pottery Domesticates 14 2σ cal BC age Median probability
Site Context dated Lab. Code C age BP ±
(Fig. 8.1) type association present range (cal BC)
1 C Konispol Cave IX/20 Cw IW X Beta-56415 7060 110 6205-5722 5930
1 C Konispol Cave XXI/29 Cw IW X Beta-67802 6830 80 5893-5570 5723
1 C Konispol Cave IX/18 Cw IW X Beta-56416 6800 140 5981-5484 5710
2 O Sidari C top Cw ('twigs') IW X GxO-772 7340 180 6562-5845 6208
9 C Gudnja I Cw IW X GrN-10315 7170 70 6216-5908 6043
9 C Gudnja I Cw IW X GrN-10314 6935 50 5973-5724 5816
9 C Gudnja II Cw IW–Danilo GrN-10311 6560 40 5613-5473 5516
10 C Odmut Cave IIB Cw IW X Si-2222 6900 100 5984-5636 5796
10 C Odmut Cave IIB Cw IW X Z-412 6736 130 5970-5393 5653
10 C Odmut Cave IIB Cw – X Si-2223 6530 100 5637-5312 5489
16 C Vela spila VI, bottom Cw IW Z-1967 7300 120 6423-5932 6172
16 C Vela Spila VI, middle Cw IW Z-1968 7000 120 6076-5646 5879
20 C Škarin Samograd II Bm IW X HD-11950 6780 50 5748-5575 5679
20 C Škarin Samograd II Bm IW X HD-11952 6600 100 5707-5370 5545
22 O Pokrovnik I Cs IW X ? 7000 100 6058-5709 5879
23 C Gospodska C Cw IW X Z-579 7010 90 6047-5724 5889
26 O Tinj-Podlivade I Cw IW X GrN-15236 6980 160 6211-5574 5866
26 O Tinj-Podlivade I Cw IW X GrN-15237 6670 260 6068-5037 5594
26 O Tinj-Podlivade I Cw IW X GrN-15238 6280 210 5619-4729 5209
40 O Medulin-Vižula I Cw IW HD-12093 6850 180 6078-5469 5760
40 O Medulin-Vižula I Cw IW HD-11733 6140 70 5294-4855 5088

Bm = mammalian bone, Cs = carbonized seeds, Cw = wood charcoal, IW = impressed ware. Site types: C = cave, O = open-air site. Calibrations were performed with CALIB 6.0 (Stuiver and Reimer 1993;
Stuiver et al. 2005) using the IntCal09 dataset (Reimer et al. 2009).
 N N

W E W E
ca. 5600 BC
S S

ca. 5750 BC

6850±180

6980 ±160 7010±90

Karta 2. Karta 2.
7000 ±100
6780 ±50

A
A
Karta 3. Karta 3.

d
d
6736 ±130 ca. 5700 BC

r
r
i i
a 7300 ±120 a ca. 6100 BC
t 7170±70 t
ic ic
S S
e a e a

ca. 6100 BC

> 1000 m
200 - 1000 m
0 - 200 m > 1000 m
open-air site 200 - 1000 m
0 - 200 m ca. 6200 BC
cave site 7340 ±180
200 km 7060 ±110 200 km
100 mi 100 mi ca. 6500 BC

Figure 8.2. (a) The earliest radiocarbon ages (14C years BP), as available in mid-2007, for individual impressed ware sites in the eastern Adriatic region (for details, see table 8.1). (b)
Stašo Forenbaher and Preston Miracle’s model of the expansion of farming and herding in the eastern Adriatic region. Black, solid lines: first phase of rapid ‘leapfrog colonisation’ as-
sociated with impressed wares. Grey lines: second phase of slower ‘agro-pastoral expansion’ associated with impressed wares. White lines: third phase of ‘agro-pastoral expansion’ as-
sociated with Danilo/Vlaška pottery. Black, dashed lines: adoption of herding and farming by indigenous hunter-gatherers (after Forenbaher and Miracle 2005, fig. 4). All dates are
cal BC.
 CHAPTER 8: EARLY FARMING ADAPTATIONS OF THE NORTHEAST ADRIATIC KARST
peninsula was viewed as a primarily ‘Middle’ Neo-
lithic phenomenon involving the active participa-
tion of local foragers.
It is important to recognise the shortcomings of
the radiocarbon record that underpins these inter-
pretations. As late as 2007, the published 14C record
for impressed ware contexts comprised just 21 dates
from ten sites (table 8.1). Nearly all the dates in table
8.1 should be classed as ‘unreliable’ (cf. Bonsall et al.
2002; Pettitt et al. 2003; Waterbolk 1971). All are ra-
diometric ages on bulk samples; they include no sin-
gle-entity accelerator mass spectometry (AMS)
dates on short-lived materials. The errors associated
with the individual measurements are, by current
standards, very large (AMS laboratories routinely
report results with one-sigma errors of ± 0.05% of
Modern, or lower); six of the 21 dates have associ-
ated errors greater than ± 2%, and in a further 11
cases the errors are greater than ± 1%. In the major-
ity of cases, the material dated was unidentified
wood charcoal, which raises the possibility that some
measurements will include an ‘old wood effect’, giv-
ing 14C ages that are up to several hundred years
older than the human activity that produced the
charcoal. Furthermore, some samples dated were
not from discrete archaeological features (e.g.,
hearths or pits), which raises doubts about their as-
sociation with impressed ware.
The earliest 14C dates for individual sites are shown
on figure 8.2. Adopting a critical view of this evi-
dence, the notion that impressed ware originated
along the Ionian coast of Greece before 6200 cal BC,
though plausible, rests on a single unsatisfactory
date from Sidari on Corfu; and the case for a late ar-
rival of the Neolithic on the Istrian peninsula relies
on an equally unsatisfactory date from Vižula.
Moreover, the 14C dates from Sidari and Vižula at
opposite ends of the impressed ware distribution are
statistically indistinguishable and therefore do not
demonstrate a directional trend in neolithisation
from southeast to northwest. Similarly, the data do
not necessarily support a maritime spread, since the
earliest dates for sites near the coast are not signifi-
cantly older than those farther inland. On the other
hand, the true coastal aspect of the Early Neolithic
may be largely hidden from view. Relative sea level
along the Dalmatian and Istrian coasts has risen by
ca. 14 m since 5500 cal BC (Benjamin et al. 2011, fig.
16.9; cf. Faivre et al. 2011; Lambeck et al. 2004), and
149
any low-lying coastal sites that survived the trans-
gression would now be underwater.
Arguably the most reliable 14C date in the im-
pressed ware series presented in table 8.1 is 7000 ±
100 BP (lab code unavailable), on carbonised cereal
grains from Pokrovnik (figure 8.1, site 22), which
has since been confirmed by a single-entity AMS
date of 6999 ± 37 BP (OxA-17194) from the same
site (Moore et al. in press). These dates strongly
imply that village settlements with a mixed farming
economy were established in northern Dalmatia by
5900 cal BC. Beyond this, conclusions are difficult to
draw. On the available 14C evidence, the neolithisa-
tion of the eastern Adriatic as far north as southern
Istria either could have occurred very rapidly
around 6000 cal BC or may have been a more grad-
ual process beginning several centuries earlier and
lasting for up to half a millennium, as envisaged by
Chapman and Müller (1990) and Forenbaher and
Miracle (2005).
THE LATE ARRIVAL OF FARMING
AT THE HEAD OF THE ADRIATIC?
The northern limit of the impressed ware expansion
through the eastern Adriatic is usually considered to
lie in southern Istria (figure 8.1). No early farming
sites with impressed ware are known from northern
Istria or the coastal fringe of Trieste Bay (for a more
detailed discussion, see Rowley-Conwy et al. this
volume, chapter 9). There are some rare finds of
sherds with impressed decoration from caves on the
Karst Plateau above Trieste Bay. However, most of
these sherds are from unknown or poorly docu-
mented contexts, and archaeological opinion is di-
vided on whether they represent genuine finds of
Early Neolithic impressed ware or belong to a later
period. Those archaeologists who accept them as
‘early’ have usually interpreted them as evidence of
exchange between local foragers and impressed
ware farmers to the south (e.g., Barfield 1972;
Müller 1994).
The conventional explanation for the lack of
impressed ware settlements beyond Istria is that the
area to the north was a zone of ‘concentrated hunter-
gatherer settlement’ (cf. Zvelebil and Lillie 2000, fig.
3.4) which farming was slow to penetrate. When the
Neolithic was eventually established across the re-
gion in the second half of the sixth millennium cal
150
BC, it was assumed to be the result of acculturation
of the Final Mesolithic inhabitants through contact
with Middle Neolithic populations to the south
(Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1984; Barfield
1972; Biagi and Starnini 1999; Chapman and Müller
1990; Müller 1994).
While the beginning of the Neolithic in the
northern Adriatic appears to be significantly later
than along the Dalmatian coast, there is no hard ev-
idence that the Caput Adriae remained a refuge for
hunter-gatherers during the first half of the sixth
millennium cal BC. Although Mesolithic sites are
known from northern Istria (Komšo 2006) and the
Trieste Karst (figure 8.3), none of these is securely
dated to the period after 6000 cal BC. A radiometric
14C date of 7050 ± 60 BP (R-1043) on bulk charcoal
from ‘Cut 3’ at Grotta Benussi (Alessio et al. 1978) is
often cited as evidence for the survival of Mesolithic
foragers on the Karst Plateau after 6000 cal BC.
However, like many archaeological caves in the
Karst, Benussi was not excavated stratigraphically
V i pa va
Benussi
Mitreo
Edera
Tartaruga
G u l
Zingari
Ciclami
f
f Triglavca
o
T
r i
e s
t e
10 km
Figure 8.3. Mesolithic and Neolithic sites (and caves) in the Trieste Karst (after Fabec 2003). Top right: location of Pupićina
Cave in northeastern Istria. Named sites are referred to in the text.
BONSALL ET AL.
but in coarse horizontal spits. Thus, the charcoal
that was dated did not come from a discrete archae-
ological feature or horizon and so may not represent
a single burning event. The resultant 14C age, there-
fore, should be regarded as suspect.
Three recently excavated cave sites, Edera (Biagi
et al. 2008) and Mala Triglavca (Mlekuž et al. 2008)
on the Karst Plateau, and Pupićina (Miracle and
Forenbaher 2006) on the Istrian peninsula (figure
8.3), have radiocarbon series that potentially are
more reliable, since the deposits were excavated
stratigraphically and/or the 14C measurements were
obtained using a single-entity dating strategy. Inter-
estingly, in each of these sites, there is a significant
gap in the 14C sequence between the latest Mesolithic
and the earliest Neolithic occupations. Although this
gap varies in duration between the sites, each site
lacks 14C dates in the critical period between ca.
6000 and 5600 cal BC when, supposedly, the north-
ern Adriatic was still an area of concentrated
hunter-gatherer settlement. Various hypotheses may
W E
Valle
y S
Pupicina
Istria
30 km
Trhlovca
Mesolithi c site
Neolithic site
Mesolithic & Neolithic site
Mala
Cave
Italian-Slovenian border
Acijev Land over 200 m
Podmol
 CHAPTER 8: EARLY FARMING ADAPTATIONS OF THE NORTHEAST ADRIATIC KARST
be proposed to account for the Mesolithic/Neolithic
14C gap observed in northern Adriatic caves, includ-
ing: (1) coincidence; (2) sampling bias; (3) trunca-
tion of Mesolithic deposits by later Neolithic occu-
pation; and (4) a cessation of, or decline in, cave use
across the region, related to a change in the settle-
ment-subsistence system.
Hypothesis 1: This is not a convincing argument
since Mesolithic/Neolithic gaps in cave sequences
are not unique to the northern Adriatic; they are a
widespread phenomenon in inland caves through-
out the Balkans (Biagi and Spataro 2001).
Hypothesis 2: A ‘14C gap’ in just one site could
easily be a function of a sampling bias caused by too
few dated samples and/or inconsistent stratigraphic
or spatial sampling. But the absence of 14C dates
from the same time-range in three caves where dif-
ferent excavation and dating strategies were em-
ployed is more difficult to explain in these terms.
Hypothesis 3: Although the complete removal
of Final Mesolithic deposits from the Karst caves
during subsequent occupation events is unlikely, it is
also possible that localised disturbance by human
activity could lead to gaps or inversions in 14C se-
quences, as is shown by research at the Mala Tri-
glavca rock-shelter (Mlekuž et al. 2008). To confirm
or exclude this as the cause of the 14C gap between
6000 and 5600 cal BC would require more extensive
excavation and dating strategies than have been
hitherto employed.
Hypothesis 4: Population decline amongst in-
digenous hunter-gatherers has been proposed as an
explanation for the ‘14C gap’ (Biagi and Spataro 2001).
However, if demographic or cultural explanations are
preferred, then other possibilities also exist. Marine
shells are often present in Mesolithic levels of caves
on the Karst Plateau; and the vast majority of the
known sites with Mesolithic remains are less than ten
kilometres from the sea (figure 8.3). This raises the
possibility that an important use of the caves during
the Mesolithic was as logistical camps by hunting
parties who had residential bases on the coast. Did
cultural interaction with farmers to the south after
6000 cal BC result in changes in residential mobility
and subsistence patterns among the hunter-gatherers
which, in turn, impacted the scale and frequency of
their exploitation of the Karst Plateau?
Compared with the situation on the Karst
Plateau, the absence of sites around Trieste Bay that
151
were contemporaneous with the Impressed Ware
Neolithic of Dalmatia is perhaps easier to explain.
Relative sea level in the northeast Adriatic has risen
by an estimated 14 m since 6000 cal BC (Benjamin
et al. 2011, fig. 16.9; cf. Faivre et al. 2011; Lambeck et
al. 2004); and shoreline displacement and valley in-
filling have likely been important factors influenc-
ing archaeological visibility and preservation.
From the perspective of site discovery, caves are
relatively easy to locate in comparison with open-air
sites. In Istria and Croatian Primorje (the mainland
and islands immediately to the east and southeast of
Istria), targeted archaeological surveys since the
1990s have led to the discovery of 25 new Mesolithic
sites, including open-air sites, which previously were
under-represented in the archaeological record
(Komšo 2006). Given the lack of equivalent profes-
sional surveys farther north, and the small number
of well-dated Mesolithic cave sequences from the
Karst Plateau, it would be premature to conclude
that hunter-gatherers did not continue to frequent
the Karst after 6000 cal BC. Equally, until Mesolithic
sites belonging to the period 6000-5600 cal BC are
clearly documented, we should be cautious about
promoting hypotheses of the neolithisation of the
northeast Adriatic region that assume a primary
role for indigenous hunter-gatherers.
EARLY FARMING ADAPTATIONS ON THE TRIESTE KARST
The Trieste Karst is a low, limestone plateau (average
altitude 340 m) that occupies an area roughly 13 by
40 km between the Gulf of Trieste and the Vipava
(Vipacco) River valley (figure 8.3). The Karst
Plateau is characterised by numerous surface de-
pressions, many quite small (dolines), others (poljes
and uvalas) much larger; there are also literally
thousands of caves and rock-shelters. The Karst
caves have attracted archaeological interest since the
second half of the 19th century. Prehistoric remains
have been found in over 100 caves, although de-
tailed information is available for fewer than 20 sites
(Boschian and Montagnari Kokelj 2000). In most
cases, the archaeological excavations were limited in
extent. Trenches were dug in horizontal spits which
rarely corresponded with lithological or archaeolog-
ical layers (for discussion, see Fabec 2003). There-
fore, artefacts and ecofacts from these spits (includ-
ing bulk 14C samples) are best regarded as ‘mixed’
152 BONSALL ET AL.
assemblages, and this has a critical bearing on ar-
chaeological interpretations.
In most sites, the earliest Neolithic is repre-
sented by pottery of the so-called Vlaška group
(Barfield 1972). Characteristically, this pottery has a
crushed calcite temper that suggests it was made
within the Karst region. Radiocarbon dates for lev-
els with Vlaška pottery range between ca. 6600 and
5700 BP (5600-4600 cal BC), although the majority
of dates fall before 6200 BP (5150 cal BC). Vlaška
pottery resembles that from sites of the Middle Neo-
lithic Danilo culture in Dalmatia, and there has long
been a debate over whether the two groups should
be seen as a single tradition (Batović 1973; Forenba-
her and Kaiser 2006) or as distinct regional variants
(e.g., Barfield 1971; Biagi and Voytek 1994). Vessel
shapes are similar, as are decorative techniques and
motifs. The main differences between the two
groups are in the frequency of particular vessel
shapes and the near absence of painted pottery in
Vlaška assemblages. However, it is worth noting that
14C dates for Danilo culture sites where painted pot-
tery occurs (e.g., the type site of Danilo) cluster be-
tween 6300 and 6100 BP (5300-5000 cal BC) and are
therefore later than the majority of dates for Vlaška
sites on the Trieste Karst and the dates for the corre-
sponding horizons (I and H) at Pupićina Cave in Is-
tria.
There is some evidence that the Vlaška group
may not be the earliest Neolithic on the Trieste
Karst. At Edera Cave, below the lowermost horizon
(layer 2a) with Vlaška pottery, was a layer (layer 3a)
containing plain pottery sherds of apparently non-
local manufacture, along with the bones of domestic
and wild animals, shells of marine molluscs and a
lithic assemblage that includes trapezes and mi-
croburins (Biagi et al. 1993, 2008). The apparent
combination of Mesolithic and Neolithic traits in
layer 3a at Edera Cave raises interesting questions. It
remains, however, an isolated case; and the associ-
ated 14C dates are not significantly older than those
from the earliest Vlaška horizon in the site.
CAVES AND HERDERS
All the known Trieste Karst sites with Vlaška pottery
are caves. No open-air sites have been recorded in
the region before the Chalcolithic or Early Bronze
Age.
Prevalent among the vertebrate faunal remains
attributed to Vlaška levels are bones and teeth of do-
mestic livestock, principally sheep and/or goats but
occasionally also cattle and pigs. Remains of wild an-
imals are invariably present and, in a few cases, dom-
inate the assemblages. Zooarchaeological summaries
frequently do not distinguish between sheep and
goat. Where data are available, sheep tend to be at
least three to five times better represented than goat
at prehistoric sites in southern Europe (Bartosiewicz
1999). At the Karst site of Pupićina, for example, the
ratio of sheep to goat was about 5:1 in the earliest
Neolithic, layers H and I (Miracle and Pugsley 2006,
table 7.5). Likewise, at Konispol Cave in Albania (fig-
ure 8.1, site 1), sheep were overwhelmingly dominant
in Neolithic levels (Russell 2000); and at the Early
Neolithic cave site of Grotta Scaloria, across the Adri-
atic in southeastern Italy, 86% of the 160 clearly iden-
tifiable caprine bones originated from sheep (Bar-
tosiewicz and Nyerges 2011). Although proportions
observed in small subsets cannot be extrapolated to
the entire assemblage, the regional tendency of sheep
dominance seems evident at most Neolithic sites.
Micromorphological studies of Neolithic de-
posits in three Karst caves (Azzurra, Caterina and
Edera) showed that the deposits were made up
largely of burnt animal dung (or the mineral inclu-
sions, e.g., faecal spherulites and phytoliths), mostly
of sheep or goat, and exhibited extensive evidence of
reworking and trampling. In places, the dung de-
posits took the form of layered heaps of ash, char-
coal and partially burnt dung (‘fumiers’) that were
usually poor in artefacts (Boschian and Montagnari
Kokelj 2000). Similar features have been recorded in
other Karst caves, including Mala Triglavca (Mlekuž
2005; Mlekuž et al. 2008). Several lines of evidence
indicate removal of the dung from one part of a cave
and its redeposition in another (often near the
walls), in a process that was repeated cyclically over
a long period. This in turn suggests an internal or-
ganisation of cave space, with areas set aside for the
stabling of caprines.
However, the caves were not just used as animal
pens but also for human habitation. Zoorchaeologi-
cal evidence indicates that caprines were culled,
processed and eaten on-site (Miracle and Pugsley
2006, 339-341; Mlekuž 2005, 38-40). It may be sug-
gested, therefore, that pastoralists regularly used
caves as shelters for themselves and their herds.
 CHAPTER 8: EARLY FARMING ADAPTATIONS OF THE NORTHEAST ADRIATIC KARST
The Karst region has very little arable land, and
in historical times, cultivation was largely confined
to the bottoms of dolines, where the soils are deeper
with better water storage capacity and where there is
greater protection from the bora wind. Barfield
(1972) argued that since Neolithic cave sites often
open from the sides of dolines, the inhabitants would
have engaged in cultivation of the doline floor.
However, no incontrovertible evidence of cultiva-
tion in the form of domesticated plant remains has
been reported from Vlaška levels in any cave on the
Trieste Karst.
All these lines of evidence point strongly to a
Neolithic economy based on livestock herding, with
the emphasis on caprines.
NOMADIC OR TRANSHUMANCE PASTORALISTS?
Mobility is a key feature of traditional herding and
serves to prevent local overgrazing. Pastoral mobil-
ity can take various forms. One variant may be re-
ferred to as ‘nomadic’ pastoralism, characterised by
the movement of entire communities with their
herds and by the lack of permanent base settle-
ments. Nomadic movements can be extremely com-
plex and variable and involve a strong element of
seasonality. In the absence of core settlements, they
offer greater flexibility (at least in sparsely inhabited
areas) in opportunistic exploitation of the habitat.
Another form is transhumant pastoralism,
which may be defined as the seasonally alternating
movement of livestock, together with the persons
who tend the herds, between two regions. Transhu-
mance presumes the existence of permanent ‘emit-
ting’ settlements. There may be varying degrees to
which sedentary agriculturalists were separated
from specialised herders within the same commu-
nity, but a distinction between the two social groups
is the key element in the definition of transhumance
adopted by Khazanov (1994, xxxvii).
These two forms of mobile pastoralism define
the end points of a continuum within which various
combinations and transitional forms may have ex-
isted. As sedentary agriculture expands, so there is a
tendency towards transhumance proper; but no-
madic groups may still move around independently,
sharing the same territory.
Distinction between the two forms archaeolog-
ically would be important from the viewpoint of
153
identity. Ethnographic examples have shown that
differing degrees, forms and freedom of mobility
shape attitudes towards the landscape as well as so-
cial relations within and between groups.
In the northeast Adriatic, transhumant pas-
toralism is documented historically since the 15th
century AD, while in Dalmatia it is recorded as far
back as the Roman period (Šašel 1980). However,
there is little evidence to indicate when this form of
pastoralism first developed in southeast Europe
generally. A zooarchaeological study by Greenfield
(1999) concluded that transhumant pastoralism ap-
peared in the central Balkans only at the end of the
Neolithic, ca. 3300 cal BC, linked to increased pres-
sure on grazing resources, although in a later publi-
cation he adopted a more cautious approach in light
of the paucity of data (Greenfield 2008). Did condi-
tions in the northeast Adriatic favour an earlier
evolution of transhumant pastoralism there? Were
the Neolithic herders of the Trieste Karst moving
their livestock onto the Karst Plateau in a regular
seasonal cycle?
Several authors have attempted to deduce the
season of occupation from the archaeofaunal re-
mains in Vlaška levels of cave sites in the Trieste and
Istrian Karsts, principally by assessing eruption and
tooth wear in the mandibles of herbivores.
Miracle and Pugsley (2006) considered the
evidence from four sites, Pupićina (H), Edera (2A),
Mitreo (5-6) and Zingari (5), where caprines domi-
nate the assemblages (figure 8.4). They found that in
all four sites, the majority (60-81%) of animals killed
were neonates and juveniles. Sub-adults (0-10%)
were poorly represented. From this, they concluded
that herders used the sites mainly during spring and
summer, a conclusion which would be consistent
with an economic system in which herds were taken
up onto the Karst in the warmer months of the year.
This interpretation, however, assumes that there was
a single birthing season for Neolithic caprines in the
early spring (e.g., February; cf. Miracle and Pugsley
2006, 332) and that tooth eruption/wear rates were
similar to those recorded for modern caprine popu-
lations (cf. Payne 1973).
Mlekuž (2005) also considered caprine tooth
wear data from the Trieste Karst caves but arrived
at a rather different interpretation. He suggested
that there might have been no distinct birthing sea-
son among Neolithic herds, with lambs being born
154 BONSALL ET AL.

60

50
Figure 8.4. Relative age distri-
butions of caprine remains in
40 % Neonate
Early Neolithic (Vlaška group)
sites in the Trieste and Istrian % Juvenile
karsts, based on tooth 30
% Sub-adult
eruption/wear characteristics
20 % Adult
(data from Miracle and Pugsley
2006, table 7.32).
10

0
Zingari 5 Mitreo 5-6 Edera 2A Pupicina H
(N = 16) (N = 19) (N = 16) (N = 80)

at different times of the year. He also found more
variability between sites in the representation of
animals in different age classes (by including shed
deciduous teeth in the calculations). From this, he
concluded that it was not possible to establish a
clear pattern of seasonal use of the sites and sug-
gested that the Karst caves ‘were not merely outsta-
tions of a larger pastoral system, with central sites
elsewhere, but … comprised a full yearly cycle of
seasonal mobility’ (Mlekuž 2005, 38). Thus, Mlekuž
envisaged a system of nomadic pastoralism that in-
volved the movement of entire households with
their animals in search of good grazing and water,
and one in which individual caves were used simul-
taneously as animal pens and for human habita-
tion, at different times of the year.
Sample size and collection methods may not be
suitable for testing either hypothesis. Only Pupićina
has a large enough assemblage; and it is also the only
site where sieving and flotation were undertaken
systematically. A further limitation is the lack of
comparative archaeofaunal data for lowland sites,
especially along the coastal fringe. The nearest
open-air settlements with which the cave assem-
blages can be compared are sites in Dalmatia and
southern Istria belonging to the Impressed Ware
(Early Neolithic) and Danilo (Middle Neolithic)
cultures (table 8.2). Furthermore, nomadic pastoral-
ism need not imply that Neolithic people and their
herds were present on the Karst throughout the year.
The occurrence of marine shells and/or fish bones
in some sites suggests that the herders’ annual
round, at least on occasion, included visits to the
coast or exchange with coastal communities.
As far as pastoralism is concerned, the data
available permit the following observations:
1. Caprines were important in the local economy;
this makes speculation concerning seasonal
cave use justified.
2. Caprines were present in and around the Karst
caves at the time of lambing (more likely to have
been during spring than autumn) and the
months thereafter; but this does not exclude the
use of the caves at other times of the year.
3. The presence of sub-adults potentially overlaps
with the winter season; but the broad age range
makes precise estimation of season of occupa-
tion questionable.
4. The data are not sufficient to support or reject the
possibility of transhumant movements within
the region. In any case, the relationship between
potential ‘core’ settlements, a prerequisite of
transhumance, and the cave sites is unclear.
MEAT OR MILK?
An equally important question is how did the Neo-
lithic herders of the Trieste Karst exploit their do-
mestic animals? Did they prioritise the production
of meat and other primary products (bone, marrow
and hide), or was the emphasis on secondary prod-
ucts such as milk and wool?
Based on ethnoarchaeological research by
Payne (1973), ‘survivorship graphs’ (in reality, mor-
tality profiles) are commonly used to reconstruct
ancient sheep and goat herd maintenance strategies.
Payne produced three idealised curves representing
different management strategies aimed at maximis-
 CHAPTER 8: EARLY FARMING ADAPTATIONS OF THE NORTHEAST ADRIATIC KARST 155

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

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

Dalmatia Nin Open EN 394 347 88.1 24 6.1

Smili Open EN 78 10 12.8 15 19.2
Tinj-Podlivade Open EN 3209 2933 91.4 71 2.2
Špila I Cave EN 344 256 74.4 69 20.1
Vela spila Cave EN 15 15 100 0 0
Gospodska Cave EN 45 29 64.4 1 2.2
Smili Open MN 273 100 36.6 22 8.1
Špila II Cave MN 712 509 71.5 91 12.8
Vela spila Cave MN 9 6 66.7 1 11.1
Karst Pupićina, layers I-H Cave ‘EN’ 2873 2453 85.4 113 3.9
Ciclami, layers 7-8 Cave ‘EN’ 82 53 64.6 14 17.1
Edera, layer 2a Cave ‘EN’ 1107 1005 90.8 72 6.5
Mala Triglavca, layers 8-9 Cave ‘EN’ 248 27 10.9 207 83.5
Trhlovca, layers G-H Cave ‘EN’ 131 30 22.9 71 54.2
Tartaruga, layer 7 Cave ‘EN’ 257 41 16 129 50.2
Zingari, layer 5 Cave ‘EN’ 228 43 18.9 120 52.6
Podmol, layers K-M Cave ‘EN’ 46 32 69.6 0 0
Acijev spodmol, layer F Cave ‘EN’ 18 11 61.1 4 22.2
Mitreo, layers 8 + AB6 Cave ‘EN’ 139 78 56.1 12 8.6

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

ing the yield of meat, milk and wool, respectively,
each of which results in a different herd structure. In
an idealised ‘milk strategy’, very young animals
(mainly males) are preferentially culled so that the
milk they would have received is available for
human consumption. In a ‘meat strategy’, most sur-
plus males are culled when nearly fully grown (two
to three years). In a ‘wool strategy’, there is no age-
specific cull and as many animals as possible of both
sexes are kept into adulthood. These idealised
curves provide a basis for the comparison of zooar-
chaeological assemblages.
Given the differences in the quantity and the fat
and protein concentration of the milk produced by
sheep and goats, the possibility that early goats
probably did not grow wool and, additionally, the
concomitant differences in the ecological/economic
niches occupied by these two species, such recon-
structions should always rely on teeth identified to
species level (Payne 1985). Payne’s original 1973
work, moreover, included a strong ethnographic
component, in contrast to most archaeological evi-
dence which, with the possible exception of decidu-
ous teeth lost in vivo, is relevant to patterns of food
consumption rather than of herd management. ‘Sur-
vivorship curves’ in archaeology are, therefore,
based on a correlation between the animals kept and
animals consumed; and such a correlation would be
reflected only in very large, statistically representa-
tive samples.
Survivorship graphs are available for Vlaška
group (caprine) assemblages from several cave
sites on the Trieste and Istrian Karsts (Miracle and
Pugsley 2006, fig. 7.27; Mlekuž 2005, fig. 15). In all
156
cases, the curves fall between Payne’s idealised
curves for meat and milk production strategies.
Miracle and Pugsley (2006) suggested that the curve
for horizons H and I at Pupićina (figure 8.5), based
on large samples, was closest to a ‘milk’ model, and
argued for a milk plus meat strategy. Mlekuž (2005)
disagreed and, on the basis of the cull profiles of the
Vlaška assemblages from Edera 2A, Ciclami 7-8,
Mitreo AB6-8 and Zingari 5, argued that the empha-
sis in all the sites was on meat production. Probably
no one single site on the Karst represents a full
yearly cycle of occupation. However, Payne’s impor-
tant observations concern the entire year; and they
become less directly relevant if we aim for a seasonal
interpretation. In the case of the Trieste Karst sites,
the applicability of Payne’s models is further con-
strained by very small sample sizes.
It is unlikely that herders relied exclusively on
milk or meat. A purely meat strategy would require
the keeping of larger numbers of caprines, which
would have been more difficult to manage in a heav-
ily wooded environment. Analysis of pottery
residues from Mala Triglavca confirmed the pres-
ence of milk lipids (Mlekuž et al. 2008), proving that
a knowledge of milking was in place.
THE ROLE OF HUNTING
The taxonomic richness and evenness of zooarchae-
ological assemblages from the eastern Adriatic were
analysed in detail by Mlekuž (2005, 29, fig. 8.5). In
this section, we assess how total assemblage size is
Figure 8.5. Miracle and Pugs-
ley’s graphs of percentage survival
of caprines in the earliest
percent survival
Neolithic (horizons H and I) at
Pupićina Cave plotted against the
‘milk’ and ‘meat’ survivorship
curves established by Payne
(1973). After Miracle and Pugsley
(2006 fig. 7.27a).
BONSALL ET AL.
related to the proportions of caprine bones and the
remains of hunted game in order to examine the ex-
tent to which opportunistic hunting may have re-
duced the need for meat exploitation of caprines.
Table 8.2 shows both the total number of iden-
tifiable specimens (NISP) of domesticates plus
hunted game and the numbers of identifiable speci-
mens of caprines and hunted game in 19 Early and
Middle Neolithic contexts from the eastern Adriatic.
These data were taken mainly from the larger
dataset used by Mlekuž (2005) in his synthesis of
Neolithic-Early Bronze Age pastoralism in the re-
gion, together with more recently published data on
Pupićina Cave taken from Miracle and Pugsley
(2006, 266, table 7.4). The term ‘hunted game’ is used
here to distinguish mammals of at least the size of a
hare or above which were acquired by hunting. Birds
and fish have been excluded not only because they
differ radically from mammals in terms of the num-
ber of bones in their individual skeletons and in
their taphonomic properties (Bartosiewicz and Gál
2007) but also because fowling and fishing are activ-
ities that differ technically from hunting larger, ter-
restrial game. Thus, while birds and fish (like shell-
fish) represent wild resources, they should not be
used together in calculations under the umbrella
term ‘wild animals’. Commensal and burrowing
small mammals, which may represent accidental in-
trusions, were likewise left out of our analysis.
When the average NISP values for pooled Im-
pressed Ware (ca. 6000-5500 cal BC) and Danilo
culture (ca. 5500-5000 cal BC) assemblages (mean
100 Pupićina
H (MNE = 80)
80
I (MNE = 21)
60
40 meat
20
milk
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
age in years
 CHAPTER 8: EARLY FARMING ADAPTATIONS OF THE NORTHEAST ADRIATIC KARST
value: 564, n = 9) are compared with those from
Vlaška contexts (ca. 5600-5200 cal BC) on the Is-
trian and Trieste Karsts (mean value: 513, n = 10),
no statistically significant difference can be estab-
lished, owing to the extreme dispersal of assemblage
sizes that creates a major overlap between the two
groups. The percentage contribution of caprine
bones, however, is significantly different (67% and
50%, respectively) in formal statistical terms (chi 2 =
13.2, p = 0.0003, df = 1).
Figure 8.6 shows the relationship between total
NISP and %NISP for caprines in the Early and Mid-
dle Neolithic assemblages listed in table 8.2 (sites
with %NISP for hunted game > 25% [n = 4] are in-
dicated). Only four sites exceed the NISP = 500
value that may be considered the empirical mini-
mum for any reasonable conclusion regarding taxo-
nomic composition: the open-air site of Tinj-Podli-
vade (NISP = 3209, caprine % = 91.4), Pupićina
Cave, horizons I-H (NISP = 2873, caprine % = 85.4),
Edera Cave, layer 2a (NISP = 1107, caprine % =
90.8) and Middle Neolithic Špila Cave II (NISP =
712, caprine % = 71.5). Only at the last mentioned
site is there more than 10% of hunted game.
Early and Middle Neolithic sites in Dalmatia
(with the exception of Smilčić where cattle remains
100
75
percent caprines
50
EN
25 MN
'EN'
Game >25%
0
1 10
NISP (domesticates + hunted game)
Figure 8.6 Caprine percentages plotted against the number of identifiable specimens (NISP) of domesticates and hunted
game (log scale) showing the increasing dominance of sheep/goat bones with assemblage size. The dashed line highlights
the visual trend.
157
predominate over those of caprines) broadly fit this
trend.
There is a group of outliers represented by small
cave assemblages from the Trieste Karst, which form
a tight cluster and are characterised by minimal con-
tribution of caprine remains and a high proportion
of game animals: Mala Triglavca, layers 8-9 (NISP =
248, game = 83.5%), Trhlovca, layers G–H (NISP =
131, game = 54.2%), Zingari, layer 5 (NISP = 228,
game = 52.6%) and Tartaruga, layer 7 (NISP = 257,
game = 50.2%). The Early and Middle Neolithic as-
semblages from the open-air settlement of Smilčić
show only small percentages of remains from game
mammals. Those caves in which the remains of
hunted game dominate might have served as tempo-
rary or occasional hunting camps. However, if this
were the case, the presence of domestic animal bones
in the same small assemblages remains to be ex-
plained. As noted above, given that many cave sites
were not excavated stratigraphically but in coarse,
horizontally aligned spits, the high percentage of
wild animals in some Neolithic contexts could be the
result of contamination from earlier, Mesolithic de-
posits. This would seem likely given the evidence of
disturbance of older deposits by Neolithic herders
(see above). At Mala Triglavca, for example, most
100 1000 10000
158 BONSALL ET AL.
AMS 14C dates on wild animal bones from the ‘Ne-
olithic’ horizon (cf. Leben 1988) fall within the
Mesolithic time range (Mlekuž et al. 2008).
If one disregards those sites where stratigraphic
integrity may be compromised, then the remaining
assemblages show a general tendency (table 8.2; fig-
ure 8.6, dashed line) for early herders not to rely sys-
tematically on hunting for their meat provisions. For
these sites, there is a high, statistically significant
Spearman rank correlation (rs = 0.674; P = 0.019)
between assemblage size and the percentage contri-
bution of caprine bones.
This pattern corresponds with that observed in
southeast Europe generally. Large Early Neolithic
assemblages tend to be dominated by bones of
caprines, with only small contributions by hunted
game. Boessneck (1956, 1962) demonstrated this
first for Thessaly, but the same trend is evident
throughout the Balkans (e.g., Blažić 2005; Bökönyi
1988; Russell 2000) and the south of Italy (e.g., Bar-
tosiewicz and Nyerges 2011; Cipolloni Sampò 1973;
Tagliacozzo 1994, 2006)—and even in the once
marshy Great Hungarian Plain (Bartosiewicz 2007).
CONCLUSIONS
It will be clear from the foregoing discussion of the
earliest Neolithic settlement of the northeast Adriatic
Karst that many issues remain to be resolved. Based
on the available archaeological and radiocarbon evi-
dence, we offer the following tentative conclusions.
The earliest Neolithic of the northeast Adriatic
Karst is dated to ca. 5600-5200 cal BC, following a
gap in the 14C record of several centuries. All known
sites are caves; Neolithic cave use is not only indi-
cated by pottery (Vlaška-Danilo) but also by the
dominance of domestic animals mixed with the re-
mains of game in the faunal assemblages.
The evidence points strongly to an economy
based on the herding of caprines. Caves appear to
have served simultaneously as animal pens and for
human habitation. While caprines were evidently
kept for both meat and milk (the latter also identi-
fied by lipid analyses), neither form of exploitation
seems markedly to have dominated over the other.
Where contamination from earlier, Mesolithic
deposits can be ruled out, the limited evidence of
wild animal remains is indicative of the use of hunt-
ing to provide a supplementary meat source and,
possibly, to offer herd protection. Some caves, when
not occupied by herders and their animals, may
have been used as hunting camps.
What form of mobile pastoralism characterised
the earliest Neolithic of the northeast Adriatic is still
an open question. Whether they were transhumant
or nomadic herders, the first Neolithic inhabitants
of the Karst probably had their origins mainly
among the early agro-pastoralists of southern Istria
and Dalmatia.
Mobile pastoralism is an efficient way of using
areas with limited soil and water resources. Like the
Adriatic Karst, large areas of southeast Europe were
better suited to herding than to arable farming. It
follows that the origins and spread of farming in Eu-
rope were not simply a matter of the expansion of
sedentary agriculture. In many areas, the first farm-
ers may have been mobile herders.
REFERENCES
Alessio, M., Allegri, L., Bella, F., Improta, F., Belluomini,
G., Calderoni, G., Cortesi, C., Manfra, L., & Turi, B.
1978. University of Rome carbon-14 dates XVI. Ra-
diocarbon, 20(1): 79-104.
Ammerman, A., & Cavalli-Sforza, L. 1984. The Neolithic
transition and the genetics of population in Europe.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Barfield, L. 1971. Northern Italy before Rome. London:
Thames & Hudson.
——. 1972. The first Neolithic cultures of north eastern
Italy. Fundamenta, A/3(7): 182-216.
Bartosiewicz, L. 1999. The role of sheep versus goat in
meat consumption at archaeological sites. In L. Bar-
tosiewicz & H. Greenfield (eds.), Transhumant pas-
toralism in southern Europe: recent perspectives from
archaeology, history, and ethnography: 47-60. Bu-
dapest: Archaeolingua.
——. 2007. Mammalian bone. In A. Whittle (ed.), The
Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: investi-
gations of the Körös Culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, Co.
Békés: 287-325. Budapest: Institute of Archaeology,
Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Bartosiewicz, L., & Gál, E. 2007. Sample size and taxo-
nomic richness in mammalian and avian bone as-
semblages from archaeological sites. Archeometriai
Műhely, 2007(1): 37-44.
Bartosiewicz, L., & Nyerges, É. Á. 2011. Prehistoric animal
remains from Grotta Scaloria di Manfredonia – Fog-
 CHAPTER 8: EARLY FARMING ADAPTATIONS OF THE NORTHEAST ADRIATIC KARST
gia, Puglia (Italy). Budapest: Manuscript on file, In-
stitute of Archaeological Sciences, Loránd Eötvös
University.
Batović, S. 1973. Prapovijesni ostaci na zadarskom otočju.
Diadora, 6: 5-165.
Benjamin, J., Bekić, L., Komšo, D., Koncani Uhač, I., & Bon-
sall, C. 2011. Investigating the submerged prehistory of
the eastern Adriatic: progress and prospects. In J. Ben-
jamin, C. Bonsall, C. Pickard & A. Fischer (eds.), Sub-
merged prehistory: 193-206. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Biagi, P., & Spataro, M. 2001. Plotting the evidence: some
aspects of radiocarbon chronology of the Meso-
lithic-Neolithic transition in the Mediterranean
basin. Atti della Società per la preistoria e protostoria
della regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 12: 15-54.
Biagi, P., & Starnini, E. 1999. Some aspects of the neo-
lithization of the Adriatic region. Atti della Società
per la preistoria e protostoria della regione Friuli-
Venezia Giulia 11: 7-17.
Biagi, P., Starnini, E., & Voytek, B. 1993. The Late Mesolithic
and Early Neolithic settlement of northern Italy:
recent considerations. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleoli-
tika, neolitika in eneolitika v Slovenij 21: 45-67.
——. 2008. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Tri-
este Karst (north-eastern Italy) as seen from the ex-
cavations at the Edera Cave. In C. Bonsall, V.
Boroneant. & I. Radovanović (eds.), The Iron Gates in
prehistory: new perspectives: 250-260. Oxford: Ar-
chaeopress BAR International Series 1893.
Biagi, P., & Voytek, B. 1994. The neolithisation of the Tri-
este Karst in north-eastern Italy and its neighbouring
countries. Josa Andras Muzeum Evkonyve a
Nyiregyhazi 36: 63-74.
Blažić, S. 2005. The faunal assemblage. In S. Karmanski
(ed.), Donja Branjevina: a Neolithic settlement near
Deronje in the Vojvodina (Serbia): 74-76. Trieste: So-
cietà per la preistoria e protostoria della regione
Friuli-Venezia Giulia.
Boessneck, J. 1956. Zu den Tierknochen aus neolitischen
Siedlungen Thessaliens. Berichte der Römisch-Ger-
manischen Kommission 36: 1-51.
——. 1962. Die Tierreste aus der Argissa-Magula vom
präkeramischen Neolithikum bis zur mittleren
Bronzezeit. In V. Milojcić, J. Boessneck & M. Hopf
(eds.), Argissa-Magula 1: das Präkeramische Neo-
lithikum sowie die Tier- und Pflanzenreste: 27-99.
Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.
Bökönyi, S. 1988. The Neolithic fauna of Divostin. In A.
McPherron & D. Srejović (eds.), Divostin and the
159
Neolithic of central Serbia: 419-446. Pittsburgh: Uni-
versity of Pittsburgh, Department of Anthropology.
Bonsall, C., Anderson, D. E., & Macklin, M. G. 2002. The
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in western Scotland
and its European context. Documenta praehistorica
29: 1-19.
Boschian, G., & Montagnari-Kokelj, E. 2000. Prehistoric
shepherds and caves in the Trieste Karst (northeast-
ern Italy). Geoarchaeology, 150(4): 331-371.
Budja, M. 2001. The transition to farming in southeast
Europe: perspectives from pottery. Documenta prae-
historica 28: 27-47.
Chapman, J. C., & Müller, J. 1990. Early farmers in the
Mediterranean basin: the Dalmatian evidence. An-
tiquity, 64(242): 127-134.
Cipolloni Sampò, M. 1973. Villaggio del Rendina: sco-
perta di una nuova facies decorativa del neolitico ita-
liano a ceramica impressa. In M. V. Garasanin, A.
Benac & N. Tasic (eds.), Actes du VIIIe Congrès inter-
national des sciences préhistoriques et protohis-
toriques. Beograd, 9–15 septembre 1971, Vol. II: 359-
367. Beograd: Union internationale des sciences
prehistoriques et protohistoriques.
Fabec, T. 2003. Neolitizacija Krasa. Arheološki vestnik 54:
73-122.
Faivre, S., Fouache, E., Ghilardi, M., Antonioli, F., Furlani,
S., & Kovačić, V. 2011. Relative sea level change in
western Istria (Croatia) during the last millennium.
Quaternary International, 232(1-2): 132-143.
Forenbaher, S., & Kaiser, T. 2006. The pottery of Pupićina
Cave. In P. T. Miracle & S. Forenbaher (eds.), Prehis-
toric herders of northern Istria: the archaeology of
Pupićina Cave, Vol. 1: 163-223. Pula: Arheološki
Muzej Istre.
Forenbaher, S., & Miracle, P. T. 2005. The spread of farm-
ing in the eastern Adriatic. Antiquity, 79: 514-528.
——. 2006. Pupićina Cave and the spread of farming in
the eastern Adriatic. In P. T. Miracle & S. Forenbaher
(eds.), Prehistoric herders of northern Istria: the
archaeology of Pupićina Cave, Vol. 1: 483-523. Pula:
Arheološki Muzej Istre.
Greenfield, H. J. 1999. The origins of transhumant pas-
toralism in temperate southeastern Europe. In L.
Bartosiewicz & H. Greenfield (eds.), Transhumant
pastoralism in southern Europe: recent perspectives
from archaeology, history, and ethnography: 15-36.
Budapest: Archaeolingua.
——. 2008. Faunal assemblages from the Early Neolithic
of the central Balkans: methodological issues in the
 160 BONSALL ET AL.
reconstruction of subsistence and land use. In C.
Bonsall, V. Boroneant. & I. Radovanović (eds.), The
Iron Gates in prehistory: new perspectives: 103-114.
Oxford: Archaeopress BAR International Series
1893.
Khazanov, A. M. 1994. Nomads and the outside world. 2nd
edition. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Komšo, D. 2006. The Mesolithic in Croatia. Opuscula ar-
chaeologica 30: 55-92.
Korkuti, M. 1982. Vashtëmia – një Vendbanim I Neolitit
të Hershëm [Vashtëmia – an Early Neolithic settle-
ment]. Iliria, 12(2): 91-146.
——. 1983. Vendbanimi Neolitik i Kolshit [Early Neolithic
at Kolshit]. Iliria, 13(2): 11-75.
——. 2003. Researches and studies of prehistory of Alba-
nia. In D. V. Grammenos (ed.), Recent research in the
prehistory of the Balkans: 205-256. Thessaloniki: In-
stitute of Northern Greece.
Lambeck, K., Antonioli, F., Purcell, A., & Silenzi, S. 2004.
Sea-level change along the Italian coast for the past
10,000 yr. Quaternary Science Reviews 23: 1567-1598.
Leben, F. 1988. Novoodkrite prazgodovinske plasti v
jamah na Krasu. Poročilo o Raziskovanju Paleolita.
Neolita in Eneolita v Sloveniji 16: 65-76.
Miracle, P. T., & Forenbaher, S. (eds.). 2006. Prehistoric
herders of northern Istria: the archaeology of Pupićina
Cave, Vol. 1. Pula: Arheološki Muzej Istre.
Miracle, P. T., & Pugsley, L. 2006. Vertebrate faunal
remains from Pupićina Cave. In P. T. Miracle & S.
Forenbaher (eds.), Prehistoric herders of northern
istria: the archaeology of Pupićina Cave, Vol. 1: 259-
399. Pula: Arheološki Muzej Istre.
Mlekuž, D. 2005. The ethnography of the Cyclops: Neo-
lithic pastoralists in the eastern Adriatic. Documenta
Praehistorica 32: 15-51.
Mlekuž, D., Budja, M., Payton, R., & Bonsall, C. 2008.
‘Mind the Gap’: caves, radiocarbon sequences, and
the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Europe: les-
sons from the Mala Triglavca rockshelter site. Geoar-
chaeology, 23(3): 398-416.
Moore, A., Menðušić, M., Podrug, E., & Zaninović, J. in
press. The inception of farming as a transforming
process: initial results from new excavations at
Danilo and Pokrovnik in Dalmatia. In D. Borić & M.
Gurova (eds.), Identities of the Early Neolithic
Balkans. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Müller, J. 1994. Das Östadriatische Frühneolithikum: Die
Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adria-
raumes. Berlin: Volker Spiess.
View publication stats
Payne, S. 1973. Kill-off patterns in sheep and goats: the
mandibles from Aşvan Kale. Anatolian Studies 23:
281-303.
——. 1985. Morphological distinctions between the
mandibular teeth of young sheep, Ovis, and goats,
Capra. Journal of Archaeological Science, 12: 139-147.
Pettitt, P. B., Davies, W., Gamble, C. S., & Richards, M. B.
2003. Palaeolithic radiocarbon chronology: quantify-
ing our confidence beyond two half-lives. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 30: 1685-1693.
Prendi, F. 1976. Neoliti dhe Eneoliti ne Shgiperi. Iliria, VI:
21-99.
Reimer, P. J., Baillie, M. G. L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.
W., Blackwell, P. G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C. E.,
Burr, G. S., Edwards, R. L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.
M., Guilderson, T. P., Hajdas, I., Heaton, T. J., Hogg, A.
G., Hughen, K. A., Kaiser, K. F., Kromer, B., McCor-
mac, F. G., Manning, S. W., Reimer, R. W., Richards, D.
A., Southon, J. R., Talamo, S., Turney, C. S. M., van der
Plicht, J., & Weyhenmeyer, C. E. 2009. IntCal09 and
Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0-
50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon, 51: 1111-1150.
Rodden, R. J., & Wardle, K. A. (eds.). 1996. Nea Nikomedia
I: The excavation of an Early Neolithic village in
northern Greece 1961–1964. Oxford: Alden Press.
Russell, N. 2000. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in
the faunal assemblage from Konispol Cave, Albania.
Iliria, 1-2 (1999-2000): 79-95.
Šašel, J. 1980. Pastorizia e transhumanza. Contributo alla
discussione. Rivista Storica dell’Antichita 10: 179-185.
Stuiver, M., & Reimer, P. J. 1993. Extended 14C data base
and revised CALIB 3.0 14C age calibration program.
Radiocarbon, 35(1): 215-230.
Stuiver, M., Reimer, P. J., & Reimer, R. 2005. CALIB Radio-
carbon Calibration (rev. 5.0.2): On-line manual.
http://radiocarbon.pa.qub.ac.uk/calib/manual/.
Tagliacozzo, A. 1994. I dati archeozoologici: economia di
allevamento e caccia a Broglio di Trebisacce. In R.
Peroni & F. Trucco (eds.), Enotri e Micenei nella
Sibaritide: 587-652. Taranto: Istituto per la Storia e
l’Archeologia della Magna Grecia.
——. 2006. Animal exploitation in the Early Neolithic in
central-southern Italy. Munibe (Antropologia–Arke-
ologia) 57 (2005-2006): 429-439.
Waterbolk, H. T. 1971. Working with radiocarbon dates.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 37: 15-33.
Zvelebil, M., & Lillie, M. 2000. Transition to agriculture in
eastern Europe. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe’s first
farmers: 57-92. Cambridge: University Press.