UDK 903(450.36 + 497-4)"634" Porocilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXIII, Ljubljana 1996

Neolitizacija na podrocju Caput Adriae: med Herodotom in Cavalli-Sforzo

Mihael Budja Oddelek za arheologijo, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani

Ker se v na5em prispevku ukvarjamo s pojasnitvami arheoloskih zapisov na razlicnih ravneh in pri tern ocenjujemo veljavnost modelov, konceptov in analit­skih pristopov, je potrebno ze na zacetku opozoriti na omejitve, ki bodo prav gotovo vplivale na uspes­nost nasega dela. Kljub temu, da se na epistemolo­ski ravni lahko sklicujemo na Van Fraassenov kon­struktivni empiricizem, je pri vzpostavljanju formal­ne legitimnosti arheoloskih pojasnitev vendarle tre­ba opozoriti na kljucni omejitvi. Prva doloca, da je znanstveno delovanje bolj oblikovanje modelov in manj raziskovanje tistega, cesar ne moremo nepo­sredno opazovati. Druga omejuje empiricni pomen znanstvenih pojasnitev z aktualnimi ideoloskimi konteksti (Van Fraassen 1980. VII,5). VeCkrat smo ze omenjali zanko, ki jo je Klein oznacil kot "dvojno prekinitev", prekinitev med preteklostjo in seda­njostjo ter svetom stvari in svetom idej (Klein 1987.90-160). Ali kot pravi Binford, arheoloske za­pise sicer lahko raziskujemo, ne 'moremo pa prouce­vati procesov, ki so jih nekoc ustvarjali (Binford 1977.6-10; 1983.95-108).

MED HERODOTOM IN CAV ALLI-SFORZO

Pojasnitev procesov neolitizacije Evrope je v kontek­stih, dolocenih s konceptoma dernske difuzije in me­je kmetovanja ter zaporedji genetskih pasov, ponov­no aktualizirala Herodotove razvojne in etnicne pa­sove ter delitev na civiliziran in barbarski del sveta. Meja med njima se je po Herodotu se v 5. stol. pred n. st. pokrivala z mejo kmetovanja (Sl. 1). V barbar­skem delu, na robu oikosa naj bi tako na jugu in vzhodu ziveli nabiralci Aithiopci in Padai, na severu in zahodu pa lovci Thyssageti, Iyrki in Androphagi. Pred njimi je pas nomadskih zivinorejcev, Libyci, Massageti in "nomadski Skyti". Tern sledijo "poljedel­ski Skyti", Garamanti, Maxyi, Kallipidi, Alizoni in Ge­loni, ki pa ze sodijo v ci':'iliziran del oikosa (Muller

1972. 101-131; Venc/1982.666-670). Ohranjeni zapi­si o odnosih med "barbarskimi" lovci in nabiralci ter "civiliziranimi" kmetovalci so zal v nasprotju z dom­nevnimi konstruktivnimi vzorci vedenja na podroc­ju meje kmetovanja (Zvelebi/1994(1995). 114-116, 134-136). Herodot, Strabo in Diodor opisujejo sovra5-tvo in destrukcijo (Sl. 2). Poucen je primer Aithiop­cev in Garamantov. Prve, lovce in nabiralce, ki so zi­veli v jamah, so na njihovem ozemlju drugi, kmeto­valci lovili in ubijali (Venc/1982.666-670). Prav za­to velja v konteksn1 humanisticnega vrednotenja raz­voja evropske civilizacije, ki je v 18. stoletju temelji­la na zapisih anticnih avtotiev, opozoriti na Rousso­jev skepticizem, povezan s pojavom kmetovanja. Ocenjuje namrec, da sta bila poljedelstvo in metalur­gija iznajdbi, ki sta povzroCili prvo revolucijo, civili­zirali Cloveka, a unicili Clovestvo (Harris 1981.3). Na drugi strani sta se v 19. stoletju uveljavili paradigmi,

Sl. 1. Herodotovi razvojni in etnieni pasovi (po K. E. Muller 1!)72. Abb. 10).

Fig.1. Herodotos' developmetttal and ethnic zones (after K. E. Muller 1!)72. Abb. 10).

61

Mihael BudJa

ki vzpostavljata linearno razvojno in periodno zapo­redje, v katerem se mobilne lovsko nabiralne skup­nosti povezujejo z mezolitikom, sedentarne kmeto­valske pa z neolitikom (Westropp, Brown). Delovati je zacel tudi konceptprekinitve (de Mortillet), s ka­terim je bila v arheoloske interpretacije vpeljana podmena o razvojni in poselitveni diskontinuteti v zgodnjem holocenu v Srednji in Jugovzhodni Evropi (Hoika 1993.6-8).

Sf. 2. Boj med skupinama, upodobljen v Morella Ia Vella, (Po Afu/ler Karpe, Hanbuclt tier Vorgesclzic!J­Ie 11.1!)68. 31!), 521,Taf. 267A}

Fig. 2. Battle bettiJee~tgroups, Morella Ia Vella, (aj ler Muller Karpe, Htmbuch der Vorgesclzichte 11.1!)68. 31!), 521,Taj 267A)

S Herodotovimi razvojnim.i in etnicnim.i pasovi se po­novno srecamo v Childovi tretji izdaji The Dawn of European Civilization (1939), v kateri je predstavil conalne stopnje kulturnega razvoja. Evropo je razde­lil na sest razvojnih pasov, k.i jih je zamejil med pis­mene mescane v Grciji in samozadostne neol.itske skupnosti v severni Nemciji in juzni Skandinaviji ter arkticne lovce na daljnem severu. V kontekstu neo­l.itskega koloniziranja Evrope je stopnje kulturne di­fuzije vzpostavil s pomocjo koncepta arheoloske kuiture in prostorske razprostranjenosti znacilnih artefaktnih zbirov. S konceptom neolitske revoluci­je pa je uveljavil "orientalni vidik" evropskega kul­turnega razvoja, ki je vkJjuceval tudi ocene o evrop­ski prazgodovini "kot zgodbi o imitaciji" ali "v naj­boljsem primeru prikrojitvi dosezkov Bliznjega vzhoda" in podmeno, da so "mezolitski mikroliti v

62

Evropi odraz nazadovanja skupin, ki se niso bile sposobne spoprijeti s teiavnim naravnim okoljem" (Trigger 1980. 66-67). Zmanjsevanje vloge mezolit­sk.ih skupnosti v procesih neolitizacije Evrope je se vedno aktualno. se posebej je ocitno pri avtorjih, ki celostno podobo evropske prazgodovine oblikujejo le s pomocjo periodne paradigrne in tipoloske deter­minacije artefaktnih zbirov, vkljucujoc kamnita oro­dja in keram.iko. Pri tem se vedno velja, da se mezo­litski in neolitski artefaktni zbiri kulturno in prostor­sko izkljucujejo. Tako Miiller-Karpe mezol.itske skup­nosti obravnava kot "mikrolitski kultumi pojav", ki naj bi dokazoval zaostanek v kulturnem razvoju (Miiller-Karpe 197619). Neolitizacijo pa je se vedno mogoce interpretirati kot "najzgodnejse neolitske p!asti s keramiko" (Parzinger 1993.12-15, 253).

Ammerman, Cavalli-Sforza in CavaUi-Sforza proces neolitizacije Evrope pojasnjujejo s pomocjo koncep­tov demske difuzije in meje kmetovanja. Pri tern zaporedje genetskih pasov, dokumentiran.ih s pomoc­jo analize neodvisnih alel, faktorske analize glavnih komponent ter ocene pogostosti prve genetske kom­ponente (St. 3a) povezujejo z neolitsko demsko difu­zijo kmetovalcev iz Jugovzhodne Azije v casu 7500 BP (Ammerman, Cavalli-Sforza 1984, Cavalli-Sfor­za, Cavalli-Sforza 1995.147-153, Fig. 610. Cavalli­Sforza 199657-65, Fig. 4./a). Povezovanje utemelju­jejo z oceno, da sta na kontinentalni ravni karti raz­prostranjenosti prve genetske komponente in raz­prostranjenosti CI4 datumov "prvega prihoda kme­tovanja", vezan.ih na zgodnje neolitska najdiSca v Ev­ropi identicni (Cavalli-Sforza 199653). Toda opo­zoriti velja, da se na podrocju Apeninskega polotoka, Balkana in Karpatske kotline pasovi razprostranje­nosti prve genetske komponente prekrivajo s cetrto (St. 3b ), ki naj bi jo bilo moe povezati z grsko kolo­n.izacijo Sredozemlja v casu okrog 1000 in 500 pred n. st. (Cavalli-Sforza, Cavalli-Sforza 1995.156, Fig. 613; Cavalli-Sforza 199660-63, Fig.4.1d). V genet­skem palimpsestu je torej mogoce identificirati dve prostorsko identicni distribuciji gJavn.ih genetskih komponent in ju na arheoloski interpretativni ravni povezati z neol.itsko demsko difuzijo in grsko kolon.i­zacijo. Kljub nespregledljivemu dejstvu, da Herodo­ta in Ammermana ter Cavalli-Sforzo locujeta dve ti­soC!etji in pol, ideoloski konteksti in raziskovaln.i pri­stopi, postane primerjava zanimiva tudi zaradi oce­ne, da se prostorska distribucija cetrte genetske kom­ponente veze na cas 5. stol. pred 11. st., v katerem je sicer nastal Herodotov posnetek geokulturne in et­nicne delitve sveta. Ceprav v nasem prispevku ne ocenjujemo veljavnosti genetskih map in geograf­skega strukturiranja genetskega palimpsesta ne pro-

Neolltizacija na podrocju Caput Adriae: med Herodotom in Cavalli-Sforzo

D . 5 coo - 5.500 . 1 coo • 1.500 - 1.coo • 1.500 . e coo

05000·550097000 · 7.500 ··-COO · I500 lill!II•8COOY£AIISAGO a

!~

'

..

Sl. 3. Zaporedjtt genetskilt pasov v Evropi, doku­mentiranih s pomocjo analize pogostosti itt raz­prostranjenosti proih petill glavnilt komponent. Razprostranjenost povezujejo z neolitsko demsko difuzijo kmetovalcev (a, b) in grsko kolonizacijo Sredozemlja (c) (poL. L. Cavalli-Sforza; F. Cava~ li-Sforza. 1995. Fig. 6.5; L. L. Cavalli-Sfm-za 1!)!)6. Fig. 4.1 a,d).

Fig. 3. Syntltetic map s of Europe, using tlte first ft ve p rincipal components from gene frequencies, ~ respond to spread of agrlcullttre in Ettrope (a, b) and Greek colonization in tlte Mediterranean regi­Otl (c) (after L. L. Cavalli-Sfona, F. Cavalli- Sfona. 1!)')5. Fig. 6.5; L. L. Cavalli-Sforza 1996. Fig. 4.1 a,d).

storske distribucije prve glavne komponente, pa je vendarle potrebno opozoriti, da analize DNA niso potrdile vecjih premikov prebivalstva v Evropi, ki bi jih lahko neposredno povezali z neolitsko demsko di­fuzijo kmetovalcev iz jugovzhodne Azije (Sykes eta/. 1996; Powledg~, Rose 1996.42-44).

V nadaljevanju sicer ostajamo v interpretativnih kon­tekstih, ki jih dolocata koncepta demske difuzije in meje kmetovanja, vendar sestopamo na raven ob­ravnave arheoloskih zapisov. V tern delu bomo opo­zorili na posledice arbitrarnega preoblikovanja arte­faktnih zbirov, ki je pogosto pogojeno z interpreta­tivnimi podmenami. Te so v nekaterih primerih se vedno vezane na periodno paradigmo in easovno iz­kljuCijivost posan1eznih delov artefaktnega zbira ter tipolosko dolocljivost kulturnih kontekstov.

Na regionalni ravni bo nasa pozornost usmerjena v mezolitsko neolitski palimpsest na podrocju Caput Adriae, ki naj bi ga meja kmetovanja ali "isohrona li­nija siritve kmetovanja v Evropo" po Ammermanu in CavalH-Sforzi v casu 6500 bp delila na dva dela (Ammerman, Cavalli-Sforza 1984.58-62, Fig. 4.5). Podrocje za mejo sta Chapman in Mliller oznacila kot "pribezalisce Iovcev", podrocje pred njo pa naj bi ko­lonizirali poljedelci (Chapman, Miille1' 1990.132).

INTERPRET A TIVNA OZADJA

Predno se posvetimo podrobnostim se nekaj misli o omejitvah, povezanih s selekcijo in preoblikovanjem artefaktnih zbirov. Arbitrarnim posegom v arheolo­ske zapise lahko sledimo na ravneh dokumentiranja in interpretiranja. Poseg na prvi ravni, Zilhao ga je oznaCU kot tafonomski./ilter (Zilhiio 1993.4749), je v zacetku vezan na razmejevanje posan1eznih plasti in interfacij v sicer stratificiranih mezolitskih in ne­olitskih jamskih depozitih. Kasneje mu lahko sledi­mo pri oblikovanju artefaktnih zbirov, s katerimi si­cer objektiviramo mezolitske in neolitske kulturne sekvence. Na ravni pojasnitve so posegi v arheolo­ske zapise pogojeni s koncepti in modeli, ki proces neolitizacije na kontinentalni ravni obravnavajo v kontekstu sekundamih centrov neolitizacije Evro­pe. Neolitizacijo povezujejo z distribucijo evropske­ga neolitskega paketa in migracijo kmetovalcev. Na regionalni ravni ju objektivirajo z zgodnjeneolit­skimi arheoloskimi kulturami, mejo kmetovanja pa povezujejo s prostorsko zamejeno razprostranjeno­stjo izbranih keramicnih tipov. Prepoznavna je tudi interpretativna podmena, ki doloca, da se poznome­zolitski in zgodnjeneolitski artefaktni zbiri casovno

63

Mihael Budja

in/ali prostorsko izkljucujejo. V kontekstu tipoloske­ga objektiviranja mezolitsko-neolitske sekvence to pomeni, da so v mezolitskem delu dokumentirani le artefaktni zbiri, ki vkljucujejo geometricna mikrolit­ska orodja in mikroburinsko tehniko, v neolitskem pa zbiri s keramiko, kamnita orodja v obliki dolgih klin in glajena orodja. V kontekstu razvoja zgodnjih pridelovalnih gospodarstev pa so prvi domestikati do­kumentirani lev okviru neolitskih artefaktnih zbirov.

Poucen primer je Zilhaova kritika pojasnitve "iokal­nega razvoja neolitika na Iberskem poiotoku", ki jo je vezal na domnevno stratigrafsko izkljucljivost po­znomezolitskih artefaktnih zbirov in zgodnjih dome­stikatov. Na ravni dokumentiranja arheoloskih zapi­sov je s pomocjo sindroma Verdeipino in na osno­vi osebnih izkopavalnih izkusenj opravil selekcijo ar­tefaktnih zbirov in dokazoval, da so v vseh jamskih najdiScih na Iberskem polotoku, v katerih je sicer dokumentirana neolitsko-mezolitska stratigrafska su­perpozicija, domestikati in keramika v mezolitskih kontekstih lahko le izkljucna posledica nestrokovnih izkopavanj in napacnega deterrniniranja zivalskih kostnih ostankov ali postdepozitnih procesov, ki so povzrocili njihovo infiltiranje v spodnje- rnezolitske plasti (Zilhao 1993.43,45,47,49). Na interpretativ­ni ravni se je tako namesto koncepta demske difuzi­je in modela, imenovanega val napredovanja, uvelja­vil kolonizacijski model, imenovan tudi model "zab­jega skoka", ki anticipira hitre selitve kmetovalcev iz Vzhodnega v Zahodno Sredozemlje (Arnaud 1982; Ziihao 1993.37,49; Harris 1996560). Zilhaov po­seg v artefaktne zbire na lberskem polotoku je delo­val tudi na indoevropski jezikovni interpretativni ravni. Renfrew je namrec na omenjene selitve kme­tovalcev navezal podmeno, da so ti " ... s seboj prine­sii tudi svoj jezik" (Renfrew 199682), ki ga je mo­goce urnestiti v proto- indo-evropsko jezikovno sku­pino in razvojno povezati z levantskim predneolit­skim "proto-nostratskim" jezikovnim jedrom in poz­no natufiansko kulturo (O.c. 79-82; Harris 1996557). Na drugi strani je na voljo pojasnitev, dvojni model (modelo dual) neolitizacije, ki pozno mezolitske in zgodnje neolitske artefaktne zbire na Iberskem polo­toku ne obravnava izkljucujoce, ampak postavlja v kontekst interakcije med lovci in nabiralci ter kme­tovalci. Pri tern domestikati v mezolitskih kontekstih niso izjema (Bernabeu Aubdn 199637-54).

Podobnim interpretativnim zapletom lahko sledimo tudi na podrocju Caput Adriae. V tem delu Sredozem­lja lahko pojasnitve procesov neolitizacije razdelin1o v dva temeljna interpretativna sklopa. V prvem so pojasnitve zamejene z oceno, da je neolitizacija pro-

64

ces, ki ga lahko enacimo z genezami in migracijan1i zgodnjeneolitskih kultur. Analitski pristopi temeljijo na nizu podmen, ki na prvi ravni pojasnitev doloca­jo, da so zacetki pridelovalnega tipa gospodarstva apriori vezani na zgodnjeneolitske kulture. Na drugi ravni dolocajo, da je identifikacija teh kultur vezana izkljucno na tipolosko doloCijive keramicne zbire in njihovo regionalno prostorsko razprostranjenost. Na podrocju Caput Adriae je proces neolitizacije tako vezan na zgodnjeneolitski kulturi impresso cardium in Vlaska, pri cemer naj bi poljedelci in zivinorejci regijo kolonizirali v dveh fazah, najprej Istro in za­tem krasko Dinarsko Slovenijo ter Trzaski Kras. Pr­va je dokumentirana s prostorom razprostranjenos­ti Joncenine okra5ene v tehniki impresso cardium. Druga faza in kultura Vlaska pa z razprostranjenost­jo loncenine t.i. tipa pokainih posod in okrasom v obliki trikotnikov. Kot antipod temu kulturnemu raz­voju sta doloceni castelnovienska kuln1ra in vloga Jovcev in nabiralcev, objektivirani z artefaktnim zbi­rom kamenih orodij geometricnih obtik, ki naj bi po definiciji dokumentirale pozni mezolitik. Pri tem pa periodna paradigma se vedno doloca, da se castelno­vienska kultura in kultura impresso cardium casovno izkljucujeta (Barfield 1972.187,201-204; Biagi eta/. 1993.45-68; Biagi 199681-84).

V drugem interpretativnem sklopu so pojasnitve ve­zane na model sekundarnih centrov neolitizacije ter na koncept neolitskega paketa in meje kmetovanja. V tem sklopu analitski pristopi temeljijo na treh te­meljnih podmenah. Prva doloca, da se domestikati pojavljajo le v kontekstu enovitega neolitskega pa­keta. Pri tem so z delom tega paketa - keramicnimi zbiri objektivirane zgodnje neolitske kulture. Druga doloca, da se meje teh kultur na podrocjih, ki meji­jo na t.i. nekolonizirana podrocja,prekrivajo z mejo kmetovanja. Tretja doloca, da je meja gibljiva in ve­zana na direktno difuzijo domestikatov ob vzhodni jadranski obali, njena hitrost pa merljiva. Chapman in Muller sta s pomocjo omenjenih podmen razvila pojasnitev, v kateri je neolitizacija vzhodnojadran­ske obale vezana na postopno sirjenje neolitskega paketa iz juzne Daln1acije na podrocje Trzaskega Krasa. Casovni zamik v sirjenju sta objektivirala z dvema sklopoma CI4 datumov, vezanih na pasova razprostranjenosti zgodnjeneolitskih najdiSc (Sl. 4). Prvi sklop, interpretirala sta ga kot pas siritve pride­lovalnega gospodarstva na vzhodno jadransko oba­lo, sta zamejila v cas 6500 -6000 BC. Drugega, ki naj bi predstavljal pas difuzije domestikatov v kontekstu siritve neolitskega paketa ob vzhodni jadranski oba­li, sta postavila v cas 6000-5500 BC. Siritev naj bi se koncala na robu Tria5kega Krasa z mejo razprostra-

Neolitizacija na podrotju Caput Adriae: med Herodotom 1n Cavalh-Sforzo

njenosti kulture z impressa cardium keramiko (Chap­man, MrWer 1990.128-129,132, Fig. I .; Chapman 1994.143-144. Fig. 6). Za njo naj bi lezalo pribezali­sce lovcev (Chaj)man 1990. 132), ki ga v arheolos­kih zapisih danes prepoznavamo v castelnovienskih artefaktnih zbirih. Postopnost neolitskega kolonizi­ranja vzhodne jadranske obale (Miiller) ali direktne difuzije domestikatov (Chapman) temelji na oceni razlik koledarskih vrednosti datumov zgodnjeneolit· skih depozitov v prvem in drugem pasu. Ocena ni nakljucna, saj se casovni in prostorski zamejitvi pa­sov do potankosti prekrivata z izohronima linijama siritve neoli tika v zaporedju 500 let, kot sta jih v tem delu Evropc definirala Ammerman in Cavalli­Sforza (1984.58-62, Fig. 4.5). Kljub vsemu ne gre spregledati ocene. da predlagana casovna sekvenca sirjenja pridelovalnega gospodarstva ni realna (Bud­ja 1993.176-177, 188-189). Tudi zato, ker sta hila ar­heoloska konteksta v Vela spilji in Gudnja pecini v juzni Dalmaciji slabo izbrana. e prvi ne drugi nam­rec ne opravicuje ocene, da gre v resnici za najsta­rejsa zapisa, ki bi ju lahko povezali z migracijo kme­tovalcev iz Apuli je in genezo kulture impressa cardi­um ter neolitizacijo vzhodne jadranske ohale na eni (Muller 1991.:)52. op.116; 199'1.273-274) in zacet­kom direktne difuzije domestikatov ob vzhodni ja­dranski obali na drugi strani (Chapman, Miiller 1990.128-129.132. Fig. 1.; Cllapman 1994.143-144. Fig. 6). Tako zapisa v Vela spilji. ki ga casovno deter­minira datum 7300 ± 120 BP, 6230-6000 (6120) cal. BC (Mtll!er I 994.330.348), ne moremo interpretira­ti kot neolitski paket ne kot zapis z domestikati v me­zoli tskem kontekstu. Oznacen je namrec kot meter dehel kulturni sloj. ld prekriva otroska skeleta in je stratigrafsko locen od zgodnjeneolitskega kulturnega

Sf. 4. Pojav itz s irjenje zgotl-1/jeneoli/.skilt gosp01larstev tza potlrocju jatlraua {Po}. Cltafr 11UUI 1994. Fig. 6).

Fig. 4. 71te j lt-st appearatzce a1ttl spreatl of Early Neolithic economies in Adriatic regio11 (after}. Chap-matt 1!)94. Fig. 6).

0

Q

0

0

0

0

sloja z impresso kcramiko in domcstikati ( Cduk 1989.17: 1995.16). Stratigrafski zapis ' Gudn ja peci­ni je bolj zapleten. Zgodnjcneolitski paket z impres­so cardium keramiko je nanll'ec dokumentiran \ "ne­kaj centimetro" deheli plasti" ( Hulll.'r 199<~.330. 348). \'elik casomi razpon treh C 11 datumm · ')60 let in nestratigrafska izkopaYanja opraYicujejo nas pomislek () clatiranju zgodnjeneolitskega paketa \'cas 7170 ± 70 BP. 6090-5920 (6010) cal. BP (Jft(/la 1994.348) . . enazadnje tudi podatek. da so hili \'ZOr­ci izbrani arbitrarno {!. c.), gel\ ori ,. prid oceni. da omenjeni datum lahko pm ezujemo z drugim strati­grafskim in kulturnim kontekstom.

Kritika Chapmanowga in Miillerje' ega model a dohi pravi pomen sele oh dejstnt. na katerega smo sicer ze opozorili (Bur(ia 1993. 176-I 78: 1996.323-329). da so na vzhodni jadranski ohali dokumentirani ar­heoloski zapisi. ki jih je mogoce oznaCiti kot zapise z domestikati " predneolitskih kontekstih. Ceprav so le redki radiokarhonsko datirani, je ,·endarle oCitno. da kronoloske razlike med zapisi ,. juzni Dalmaciji in na podrocj u Caput Adriae (Bur(ia I 993.1 77. 188-189) ne opraYicujejo interpretath nih pristopov. ki bi migracijo zgodnjeneolitske kulture impresso car­dium ali demske difuzije kmetoYalcev gracl ili na ca­sovni razliki med pojavom prYih domestikatov na juznem in severnem .Jadranu. Pri tem ,·elja posebej poudariti. da so hili zaracli podmene o izkljucljh osti poznomezolitskih zhiroY kamenih orodij in domesti­katov mnogi izvirni podatki. ki goYorijo o keramiki in domestikatih v poznomezolitskih castelnovienskih kulturnih kontekstih. na rami pojasnitev izbrisani ali zamolcani (Budja 1996.323-329). Tafonomski filter v nasem primeru tako deluje tudi na interpretativni

2 !::; 1

0 4500 - 5000 8C

0 5000 - 5500 8C

~ 5500 - eooo BC

Q eooo - esoo BG

• 8500 - 7000 8C

!::; LATE MESOL.ITHC

ASSeMBLAGES

65

Mihael Budja

ravni. Zal nas omejujejo tudi neprijazne okoliscine arheoloskili raziskav, ki zaradi nesistematicnih in nekonsistentnih raziskovalnih pristopov onemogo­cajo celovit studij mezoli tskih in neolitskih zapisov, ohranjenih na podrocju Caput Adriae. Nespregledlji­vo je namrec dejstvo, da je kra5ka Dinarska Sloveni­ja eno najbolj prekopanih arheoloskili podrocij. To­da noben spodmol, ne jamsko najdisce ni bilo izko­pano stratigrafsko. Na voljo ni C14 datumov, ne si­stematicnih studij razvoja paleookolja. Podatki o "artefaktnih skupkih ", ki jih je mogoce navezati le na mersko dolocene izkopne plasti in na retrograd­no pojasnjene profiJe izkopnih polj, so mnogo pre­malo. Povrsinski pregledi okolice jam in spodmolov niso bili opravljeni. Zaradi nesistematicnih razisko­valnih pristopov in arbitrarnih izkopavanj so v arhe­oloskih palimpsestih dokoncno izbrisani podatki o kulturnih in naravnih procesih. Zal smo izgubili moz­nost sistematicnega studija mezolitskili in zgodnje neolitskih gospodarstev tudi v kljucnih najdiScih, kjer je sicer dokumentirana celovita poznopleisto­censka in holocenska stratigrafska sekvenca (Budja I.e.). Kljub omejitvam pa je na podrocju Dinarske Slovenije in Tda5kega Krasa vendarle na voljo do­volj podatkov, da lahko aktualiziramo idejo o regio­nalnem razvoju zivinorejskega gospodarstva v po­znomezolitskem kontekstu, ki ga tradicionalno ozna­cujemo kot castelnovienskega. Asociaciji na Herodo­tov pas nomadskili zivinorejcev se ne odrekamo. Sprejemamo pa tudi idejo o kompleksnih mezolit­skih skupnostih, ki so selektivno razvijale ali prevze-

Periods Layers 3 4 5 Cervus elaplms 85/6 51/3 18/2 Capreolus capreolus - - 2/ 1 Lepus europaneus 2/ 1 - -Metes metes 1/1 2/1 -Ursus spelaeus 1/ 1 - -Ut-sus arctos - - -Canis lupus - - -Vulpes vulpes - - 1/1 L;mx s. pardina - - -Felis silvestris - - -Canis familiaris - - -Sus scrofa 18/ 3 S/2 S/ 2 Bos taurus 28/ 2 S/1 6!2 Capra s. Ovis - 11/3 8/ 2

male elemente pridelovalnega gospodarstva (Zvele­bil1990a.183-186; Zvelebil, Rowley-Conwy 1990. 57-93; Clark 1990.123-137; Budja 1993.177-178,189-190).

DOMESTIKATI IN LONCENINA V POZNOMEZO­LITSKIH KONTEKSTIH IN ZAKIJUCKI

V nadaljevanju predstavljamo depozite na podrocju Dinarske Slovenije in Tda5kega Krasa, v katerih so bili v poznomezolitskih kontekstih sicer dokumenti­rani domestikati in loncenina, vendar so bill ti zara­di podmene o izkljuCljivosti s t.i. poznomezolitskimi tipoloskimi zbiri mikrolitskih in geometricnih kame­nih orodij na interpretativni ravni iz artefaktnih zbi­rov izloceni (Budja 1996325-326,328-329).

Drobnica (Capra s. Ovis) je bila dokumentirana v ca­stelnovienskih kulturnih kontekstih v najdiscu na planem Pod Crmukljo pri Sembijah (Pohar 198616; Brodar 1992.25) in jamskem najdiscu Benussi (Rie­del 1975{1976). 140-141; Cremonesi 1978-1981.177-1 78). V jami Pod mol pri Kastelcu je kontekst z drob­nico oznacen kot mezolitski (Turk eta/. 72). Drob­nica (Capra s. Ovis), domace govedo (Bos taurus) in domaca svinja (Sus) so bili dokumentirani v ca­stelnovienskem kontekstu v Mali Triglavci (Tab.1) (Leben 1988.69-73). Loncenina je bila dokumentira­na v castelnovienskem kontekstu v jami Stenasca (Edera) in ze omenjenem najdiscu Pod Crmukljo

Neolithic Mesolithic 6 7 8 9 10

1/1 4/1 122/4 42/3 21/2 - - 6/1 - 2/1 - - - - -- - 1/1 1/1 -- - - - -- - 2/1 - -- - 1/1 - -- - - - -- - 1/1 - -- - 6/1 - -- - 1/1 - -

2/ 1 - 20/ 3 7/1 6!2 2/ 1 2/ 1 12/1 1/ 1 1/ 1

4/ 1-2 9/1 26/ 3 1/ 1 2/1

Tab. I . Mala Triglavca, pregled favue po plastell. Predstavljeno je stevilo doloiljivill kostnill ostankov I mi-11itnlllno stevilo osebkov po plastell. (Uporabljeno z dovoljenjem F. Lebna in I. Tttrka.)

Tab. I MamnUll species identified at Milia Trlglavcll. 11te 1111mber of identt.ftable specimeus I lite minimum number of individuals by wltic/1 eaclt ta.,;on is represetzted in eaclt layer. (Used willt permission of F. w bett aud I. Turk.)

66

Neoht1zac1Ja na podroqu Caput Adnae med Herodotom 1n Cavalii-Sforz_:>~-

(8iagi 1993.<18.61: !Jmdar I.e.). 1\ljub nejasnemu anefaktnemu in stratigrabkemu kontekstu 'endarle omenjamo tudi domaco m-co (Oris aries) in !once­nino ,. poznomezoli tskem zapisu ,. jami Pecina na I.eskO\'Cll (grotta :\zzu ra) (()·emoJJ£'Si ef a/. 1981.}0. 3 1. i -.61). Radiokarbonsko sta datirana ll' castelno­' ienska konteksta' lknussi in Stenasci (Ederi). (~ a­SO\ na sekn•nct ,. pn em komekstu ( hori!.On ta -1 in .)) sega od - <120 ± I '){) llt'kal. BP do - oi O:: 60 ne-1\al. BP ( 1/u//er 1991350: Biagi 1991. 6{}) . Drugi kontekst. deponiran ' plasti .1a " Stenasci. je datiran (J - 00 ± 1.10 nekal. BP (Hiagi 1993.-18.61). Podatke o domestikatih ,. castel noYiens~ i h kontebtih dobro dopolnjujcto paleobotanicni podatki o izralllcm an­tropogenem 'plin1 na gozdno 'egetacijo in intenLi' ­nem pasnist' u ,. ca~u obli kcl\ anja preclneol its~ega

depozita ' Podmolu pri 1\astelcu (Turk ef a/ 1993 -rr /.· Culihel ~!!. 199-J( 1995J.l0 -.2!Jl.

• The open-air sites

~ The cave sites and rock-shelters

Dinaric karst plateau

2 Flysch deposits

3 Alluvial deposits

4 Adriatic plain

5 Adriatic Sea level in the period 7950 - 6750 BP (after Segota, Filipc ic 1991 .160)

Omenjenim domest i ~atom in ~ollle~~tom. ' ~:ttnih

~o hili najdeni . dajt'jo posl'lwn poml·n prell'li podat­~i o \Tsti Oris CaJmt ·'1'· ' t:lllll Sandalp II ' htri ( 1/imc/e 1995. 112. !ah. 1.19) tnudoma(·enih 'rstah Crtjmt /iircus in !Jus lttii/'1/S hmclticems' Cneni Stijeni ' Crni (;ori. do~umcnuranth ' J)()!noml·tolll­~kem ~on tebtu (plast 1\ ) ( 1/a/e: !1r'i. /MJ). Zanl­mi' o korelacijo ponuja analiu pogostostt r:t1.lil'nih ~urostn i h i;branih s~upin Jo, nih il\ ali ' Sandalji. ~~ w pokal:lla. da ~l'' poj:t\ om drohntn·' arlll'olosl-.em ;apbu bbtH·no lnLtnj-a ddt·; jll\l'lltlntil o~ehkm. o('i tno pa :-.l' poH·(·a ~ll'\ · ilo odra~lih o~ehhm ( 1/im cle 1995. 308. 'htiJ - !() ). Zalmoramo ponm no ~pom­

niti na t afonom~kt filtl'r. ~.ljtt nolwno od omenwnih najcli~c ni bilo ~opano \lratigrah~o. Toda n:t drugi qrani identifibrija di' Jl' ~o;e 111 m n· ' prl'dnl'nlit­'kih kollll'~ ~tih n:t ):tdr:tth~l'lll podro(Jll potrju jl· \lakka\ l'' o on•no o j)()/reiJIIelll jlnnotlll'lll m::mis-

~ ~ /~ .

I ~ ., ~

\ \ I I \ }

\'/. 5. Razprostraujeuost p oz uomezolitsk ih mtj1IHi' l ift jJ01lrolj u Caput ,ldriae (fJo Budja 199 7 ) .

Fig 5. Late Mesolithic site distribution iu the Caput Adriae region ( a.f~er Budja 1997 ).

67

M1hael Budja

leku o zacetkih pt'idelovalnega gospodarstva v Evro­pi", ki jo je utemeljil s pomocjo glinastih kipcev v ob­liki divje koze, najdenih v zgodnjeneolitskih kontek­still v Donji Branjevini in Slatini (Makkay 199638).

Prispevek koncujemo z oceno dinamike spreminjanja poselitvenih vzorcev v poznem mezolitiku in zgod­njem neolitiku na podrocju Dinarske Slovenije, Trza5-kega Krasa in Istre. Verjamemo namrec, da je proces prehoda na kmetovanje povezan z razvojem poselit­venih vzorcev, ki vkljucujejo nove gospodarske pro­store. Kljub oceni. da je na vzhodni jadranski obali proces neolitizacije mogoce povezati z menjavo po­selitvenih vzorcev - poznomezolitskemu jamskemu poselitvenemu vzorcu naj bi sledil zgodnjeneolitski vzorec naselij na planem (Chapman, M1lller 1990. 1 32; Chapman 1994. 143-44), je na podrocju Dinar­ske Slovenije, TI'Zaskega Krasa in Istre podoba zani­mivejsa. jamski poselitveni vzorec na kra5kem dinar-

1

• The open-air sites \ .. The cave sites ~ ~

1 Terra rossa ~ 2 Regosol

3 Rendzina

skem predelu z omejenimi vodnimi \'iri in omejcni­mi podrocji prsti. primernih za poljedelstYo, ostaja nespremenjen tudi v neolitiku. Poljcdclstvo je s pri­sotnostjo peloda zit tu dokazano sele \' encolitiku (Turk eta/. 1993.71. Tab. 4). ~a drugi strani se v juz­ni lstri, na flisnem podrocju v casu zgodnjcneolitske kulture impresso cardium razvije \'ZOrec planih nasc­lij (Sl. S, 6) (Budja 1997. l' tisku). Toda interpretira­nje razvoja poselitvenih vzorcev na podrocju Caput Adriae je potrebno umestiti v kontckst sprcminjanja naravnega okolja. Nespregledljivo je namrec dejstvo, da je velik del regije v atlantiku dokoncno prekrilo morje. Ce velja ocena, da se je proccs odvijal posto­poma in da je bil Trzaski zaliY dokoncno poplavljcn sele po letu 5450 BP (Segota, Filipcic 1991.160). nam je danes dostopen le manjsi del mezolitskega in nco­li tskcga poselitvenga vzorca. Pomemhno je tudi. da so hila v delu rcgije. ki jo danes sicer prekrh·a mor­je, v zgodnjem holocenu dokumentirana slaclkO\od-

Sf. 6. Razprostrattjenost zgodnjeneolitskih najdisc na podrocju Caput Adriae (po Budja 1997).

Fig. 6. Early Neolithic site distributiott in tlze Caput Adriae regio11 (after Budja 1997).

68

Neolltizacija na podroCju Caput Adriae ... / Neolithization in the Caput Adriae region ...

"0'

r CANAL!

lit• RILlE VI

I SCARPATE

(Do Rossi, Maselli, C.escon- 1968, modilicolo)

Sf. 7. Geomorfologija d11a Triaikega zaliva tta podroifju Caput Adriae (po Afaroccco 1989.101) in /okaci­je sladkovodntlt mocvirij (*), datiranilt v las 9120 ± 120 BP (po Ogorelec et al. 1981.210-211).

Fig. 7. Geomorpltology oftlte Adriatic Plain in lite Caput Adria region (after Maroccco 1989.101) and C14 dating in tlte range o/9120 ± 120 BP oftlte wood deposited in lite "Peat ltorizon"(*) (after Ogorelec et al. 1981.210-211).

na moCvirja, eno je datirano v Ca.s 9120 ± 120BP (Ogcr relec eta/. 1981.210). Odkrite so tudi paleostruge, ki jib morda lahko povezujemo z dana5njima reka­ma Dragonjo in Rizano (SI. 7) (Marocco 1989.101). Toda poselitveni vzorec na kraskem robu ostaja, ne­glede na spremenjeno naravno okolje v regiji in ne­glede na bistveno zmanjsan potencial gospodarskih

• • •

podrocij mezolitskih in neolitskih skupnosti na po­drocju Trza5kega Krasa. Prav tako ostajajo podatki o Zivinoreji v predneolitskih kulturnih kontekstih. Mor­da je bil razvoj nomadskega pa5nistva na kra5ki pla­noti odgovor na izgubo gospodarskih prostorov na jadranski ravnici?

Neolithization in the Caput Adriae region: between Herodotus and Cavalli-Sforza

This paper is concerned with the explanation of ar­chaeological records at different levels and evaluates the applicability of models, concepts and analytical approaches in relation to them. This makes it essen­tial at the outset to draw attention to the restrictions, which will certainly influence the success of this work. The establishment of the formal legitimacy of archaeological explanations requires that one draws attention to certain key restrictions, in spite of the fact that one may refer on an epistemological level to the constructive empiricism of Van Frassen. The first restriction states that scientific work deals large­ly with model formation and less with research into that, which cannot be directly observed. The second restricts the empirical importance of scientific expla-

nations from actual ideological contexts (Van Fras­sen 1980. VI15). Mention has already been made on several occasions of the loop, which Klejn described as the "double discontinuity", the discontinuity be­tween the past and present and between the mate­rial world and the world of ideas (Klejn 1987.90-160). In other words, as Binford says, we can rese­arch the archaeological record, but we cannot study the processes, which created them (Binford 1977. 6-10; 1983.95-108).

BETWEEN HERODOTOS AND CAVALLI-SFORZA.

The explanation of the Neolithization processes of Europe in the contexts, defined by the concepts of

69

M1hael BudJa

demic diffusion, the agricultural frontier and the se­ries of genetic zones, once again actualizes Herodo­tos' developmental and ethnic zones and his divisi­ons into the civilized and barbarian world. The fron­tier between them, according to Herodotos, corre­sponded to the agricultural frontier in the 5th centu­ry BC (Fig. 1 ). The barbarian zone on the edge of the Oikos was inhabited by the Althiopi and Padai gath­erers to the south and east and by the Thyssageti, Iyrki and Anthropagi hunters to the north and west. There was an intervening zone of nomadic pastoral­ists, the Libyan, Massageti and "nomadic Scythians". These were followed in their turn by the "agricultu­ral Scythians", Garamanti, Maxyi, Callipidi, Alizoni, and Geloni, who already belonged to the civilized part of the Oikos (Mtlller 1972. 101-131; Vencl/982. 666-670). Unfortunately, the surviving records for the relations between "barbarian" hunters and gath­erers and "civilizecr farmers are at odds with the hy­pothetical constructive examples of knowledge in the agriculnu·al frontier zone (Zvelebil 1994 (/995).1 14-1 16, 134-136). Herodotos, Strabo and Diodorus des­cribe hatred and destmction (Fig. 2). The case of the Aithiopi and Garamanti is instructive. The former, hunters and gatherers, living in caves, were hunted and killed in their territory by the latter, who were farmers (Vend 1982.66-670). It is worth noting in the context of the humanistic evaluation of the devel­opment of European civilization, which was based on the records of ancient authors in the 18th century, that Rousseau was skeptical about the appearance of agriculture. He namely assessed that agriculture and metallurgy were discoveries that caused the first re­volution, the civilization of man, but destroyed hu­manity (Harris 1981.3). On the other hand the 19th century was dominated by paradigms that envisaged linear development and a succession of periods, which linked mobile hunter-gatherer groups with the Mesolithic and sedentary farmers with the Neolithic (Westropp, Brown). The concept of interruptions be­gan to function (de Mortillet). This led to the introduc­tion of the hypothesis of developmental and settle­ment discontinuity in the early Holocene in South­eastern Europe into archaeological interpretation (Hoika 1993.6-8).

We meet Herodotos' developmental and ethnic zones again in the tllird edition of The Dawn of European Civilization (Chi/de 1939), in which he presented zo­nal phases of cultural development. He divided Euro­pe into six developmental zones, which were boun­ded by the literate townsfolk in Greece and the self­sufficient Neolithic groups in Northern Germany and Southern Scandinavia and the Arctic Hunters in the

70

far north. He reestablished the degree of cu ltmal dif­fusion in the context of the • eolithic colonization of Europe with the aid of the concept of the arc/weolo­gical culture and the spatial distribution of characte­ristic artefact sets. However. his concept of the Neo­lithic Revolution brought into force the .. orientall'i­ew·· of European cultural development, which also included an evaluation of European Prehistory "as a sto1:y of imitatiou·· or '·at best an adajJtation of Middle Eastern ac/J iet•ements" and hypotheses that "Mesolithic microliths in Europe are a11 e.\1Jression of the stagnation ofgroups. il'IJich 1/'ere incapable of coming to terms u•ith the difficulties qf t!Je natu­ral environment" (1/'igger 1980.66-67). The diminu­tion of the role played hy \lesolithic groups in the 1 eolithization processes in Europe is still nrrrent. It is particularly evident in authors, who only formulate an holistic image of European Prehistory \\ ith the aid of period paradigms and the typological determinati­on of artefact sets, including stone tools and ceramics. This paradigm still maintains that Mesolith ic and i\e­olithic artefact sets are culturally and spatially mutu­ally exclusive. Thus Miiller-Karpc considers Mesolithic groups as "a microlilhic cultuml phenomenon", which supposedly indicates a retardation in cultural development (Mtlller-Katpe 1976. 19). Neolithization can still be linked with ·'the earliest Neolitl1ic lt~~'ers with ceramics" (Parzinger 1993.12-15. 123).

Ammerman, Cavalli-Sforza and Cavalli-Sforza explain the process of the Neolithization of Europe \\ ith the aid of the concepts of demic diffusion and the agri­cultural frontier. They link this series of genetic zo .. nes, documented hy the analyses of independent alels, the factor analyses of main components and an evaluation of the frequency of primary genetic com­ponents with the Neolithic demic diffusion of farm­ers from South-East Asia at 7500 BP (Ammerman, Ca t'alli-S.forza 1984; Ca ra II i-~forza. Cam II i-,V'orza 1995. 14 7-153, Fig 6.1 0; Camlli-Sforza 1996 5 7-65. Fig. 4. /a) (Fig. 3a.b). They support this connection with the evaluation that the distribution map of pri­mruy genetic component<; and CI-t dates for "thl' ini­tial arrit•al of agriculture··. connected with early ~eo­lithic sites in Europe. are identical on a continental level (Cavalli-Sfot·za 1996.53). However. it is worth noting that the distribution zone of primary genetic components matches that of the quaternary genetic component zone in the Apennine Peninsula. the Bal­kans and the Carpathian Basin. which is supposedly connected with Greek colonization in Mediterranean between JOOO and 500 BC (Cal'C/1/i-,~forza, Caoalli­S.f'orza I 995. 15 6, Fig. 6.13; Ca mlli-5forza 1996 60-6]. Fig 4. /d). It is possible, therefore, to identify two

Neolithization in the Caput Adriae region: between Herodotus and Cavalli-Sforza

spatially identical main genetic component distributi­ons in the genetic palimpsest and to link them on the archaeological interpretive level with Neolithic de­mic diffusion and Greek colonization (Fig. 3b,c). In spite of the unavoidable fact that Herodotos and Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza are separated by two and a half millennia, ideological contexts and rese­arch approaches, the comparison is also interesting, because of the evaluation that the spatial distribu­tion of the quaternary genetic components are rela­ted to the 5th century BC, the period which gave birth to Herodotos' record of the geocultural and eth­nic division of the world. Although this paper does not evaluate the applicability of genetic maps and the geographically structured genetic palimpsest or the spatial distribution of the quaternary genetic components, it is worth noting that DNA analyses have not confirmed a greater population movement in Europe that can be directly linked to demic diffu­sion of agriculturists from Southeastern Asia (Sykes et.al. 1996; Pow/edge, Rose 1996.42-44).

The remainder of this article will remain within the interpretative contexts, defined by the concepts of demic diffusion and the agricultural frontier, but on the level of the interpretation of archaeological records. This section will draw attention to the re­sults of arbitrary definition of artefact sets, which are frequently linked to interpretative hypotheses. These are still connected in some cases with the period pa­radigm and the chronological exclusivity of individu­al parts of the artefact set and the typological defini­tion of cultural contexts.

Attention will be directed on the regional level to­wards the Mesolithic-Neolithic palimpsest in theCa­put Adriae region, which was supposedly divided in­to two parts in 6500 bp by the agricultural frontier or the "isochronic line of agricultural expansion in Europe" according to Ammerman and CavalU-Sforza (Ammerman, Cavalli-Sforza 1984.58-62, Fig. 4.5). Chapman and Muller defined the area before the frontier as a "refuge for hunters", whilst the area be­hind the frontier was supposedly colonized by far­mers (Chapman, Miiller 1990.132).

THE INTERPRETATIVE BACKGROUND

Some further thoughts on the restrictions, connect­ed with the selection and formation of artefact sets, should be considered before going into greater de­tail. An arbitrary intervention in archaeological re­cords can be traced at the documentary and interpre-

tive levels. The intervention on the first level, de­scribed by Zilhao as the taphonomic filter (Zilhao 1993.47-49), is initially linked with the definition of individual layers and interfaces in othenvise strati­fied Mesolithic and Neolithic cave deposits. This can be followed later in the formation of artefact sets, which are used to objectivise Mesolithic and Neoli­thic cultural sequences. Interventions in tl1e archaeo­logical record are mediated on the explanatory level by concepts and models, which discuss tl1e NeoHthi­zation process on a continental level in the context of secondary centres of Neolithization in Europe. They connect eoHthization with the distribution of the Neolithic package and the migration of agri­culturists. These are objectivised through Early eo­lithic archaeological cultures on the regional level, whilst the agricultural frontier is equated with spa­tially restricted distributions of selected ceramic types. It is also possible to recognise the interpreti­ve hypothesis, which defines Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic artefact sets as chronologically and/ or spatially mutually exclusive. In the context of the typological objectisation of Mesolithic-Neolithic se­quences, this means that only artefact sets, contain­ing geometric microlithic tools and the microburin technique, are documented in the Mesolithic section, whHst sets with ceramics, stone tools in a long blade technology and polished stone tools are document­ed in the NeoHthic section. In the contexts of the de­velopment of early production economies, the first domesticates could only be documented in the frame­work of the Neolithic artefact sets.

An instructive example can be seen in the Zilhao crit­ical explanation of "the local development of the Neolithic in the Iberian Penninsula", in which he linked the putative stratigraphic mutual exclusivity of Late Mesolithic artefact sets and early domestica­tes. On the level of documentation of archaeological records, he used the Verdelpino syndrome and per­sonal excavation experience to make a selection of artefact sets and proved that all cave sites with a doc­umented Mesolithic-Neolithic stratigraphic superposi­tion in the Iberian Penninsula could only produce domesticates and ceramics in Mesolithic contexts as a result of poor excavation and incorrect identifica­tion of animal remains, or post-depositional process­es, which caused their infiltration into the lower, Me­solithic deposits (Zilhiio 1993.43,45,47,49). The con­cepts of demic diffiJsion and the wave of advance model were, thus, replaced on the interpretive level with the colonization model, known as the "leap­frog" mode~ which anticipates the rapid migration of Eastern Mediterranean farmers to the Western Medi-

71

M1hael Budja

terranean (Zilhao 1993.37,49; Harris 1996560). The Zilhao intervention in the artefact sets in the Ibe­rian Penninsula also had influence on the Indo-Eu­ropean interpretive level. Renfrew linked the latter settlement of agriculturists with the hypothesis that these " ... also brought their language with them" (Renfrew 1996.82), which could be placed in the pro­to-Indo-European language group and could be deve­lopmentally linked to the Levantine pre-Neolithic "Proto-Nostratic" linguistic core and the Late Natufi­an culture (Op.cit 79-82; Harris 1996.557). On tl1e other hand, the double model (mode/a dual) of Ne­olithization is also available as an explanatory mo­del, which does not discuss the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic artefact sets in the Iberian Penninsu­la as mutually exclusive, but considers them in the context of interaction between hunter/gatherers and farmers. Domesticates are not exceptional in Mesoli­thic contexts in this case (Bernabeu Aubdn 1996.37-54).

A similar interpretive entanglement can also be ob­served in the Caput Adriae region. The explanation of the Neolithization processes in this part of the Me­diterranean can be divided into two basic interpre­tive groups. The first are explicitly restricted to the evaluation that Neolithization is a process, which can be equated with the origins and migrations of Early Neolithic cultures. Analytical approaches are based on a series of hypotheses, which define on the first level of explanation that the beginnings of a produc­tive type of economy is a priori exclusively bound up with Early Neolithic cultures. The second level defines that the identification of these cultures is exclusively linked to typologically defmable ceramic sets and their regional spatial distribution. The Neo­lithization process in the Caput Adriae region is thus linked to Early Neolithic culture with Impresso Car­dium ceramics and the Vlaska culture. Farmers sup­posedly colonized the region in two phases. Initial colonization took place in Istria, followed by The Di­naric Karst. The first phase is documented by the spa­tial distribution of Impressa Cardium decorated ce­ramics. The second phase and the Vla$ka culture is defined by the distribution of so-called chalice ves­sels and triangular decoration. The antithesis of this cultural development is defined by the Castelnovien culture and the role of hunter-gatherers, objectified by an artefact set of geometric stone tool forms, which in their very definition document the Late Me­solithic. The temporal paradigm still demands that the Castelnovien and the Impresso Cardium cultures are chronologically exclusive (Barfteld 1972.187,201-204; Biagi eta/. 1993.45-68; Biagi 1996.81-84).

72

Explanations in the second interpretive group are linked to the secondary centres of Neolithization model, tlle concepts of tlle Neolithic package and tlle agricultural frontier. The first suggests tllat do­mesticates only appear in the context of a unitary Neolithic package. Part of this package, tlle ceramic set, objectifies Early Neolithic cultures. The second suggests that tlle border of these cultures is the same as the agricultural frontier in those areas, which border the so-called uncolonised regions. The third suggests that this frontier was flexible and connec­ted witll the direct diffusion of domesticates on the Eastern Adriatic coast. Chapman and Muller devel­oped an explanation with the aid of the above hy­potheses that links tlle Neolithization of the Eastern Adriatic coast with the gradual spread of the Neoli­tllic package from Soutllern Dalmatia to the Trieste Karst. The chronological differences in the rate of spread are objectified by two groups of C 14 dates, connected to the two distribution zones of Neolithic sites. They interpreted the first group as tlle zone of spread of the productive economy on the Eastern Adriatic coast, dated between 6500 and 6000 BC. The second supposedly represents the zone of diffu­sion of domesticates in the context of tlle spread of the Neolithic package on tlle Eastern Adriatic coast, dated between 6000 and 5500 BC (Fig. 4). This ex­tension supposedly ended on the edge of tlle Tries­te Karst, with the boundary of the Impresso Cardi­um ceramic culture distribution (Chapman, Muller 1990.128-129,132, Fig. 1; Chaprnan 1994.143-144, Fig. 6). A refuge of hunters supposedly lay beyond this frontier (Chapman. 1990.132), which is recogni­sable as the Castelnovien artefact set in tlle archae­ological record. The gradual nature of the Neolithic colonization of the Eastern Adriatic coast (Mz~ller) or the direct diffusion of domesticates (Chapman) is based on an evaluation of tlle difference in tlle calen­drical values of the dates of Early Neolithic deposits in the first and second zones. The evaluation is not coincidental, for the temporal and spatial definition of tlle zones precisely matches the two isochronic li­nes of Neolitl1ic expansion at a 500 years interval, as defined in this part of Europe by Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (1984.58, 62, Fig. 4.5). ln spite of the above, one should not overlook the suggestion that tlle posited temporal sequence for the expansion of a productive economy is unrealistic (Budja 1993.176 177, 188-189). This is also a result of the unsuitable nature of the selected archaeological contexts at Vela spilja and Gudnja pecina in Southern Dalmatia. Nei­ther tlle former nor the latter justifies tlle supposi­tion tllat it is in reality the earliest archaeological record, which can be linked with the migration of

8L

(,<(_/ __ / U6/ ,V_b/ ,,.,Jll()lllcl.l J 'JI J-(JI I (1)_6/) ':::_()I J•IJWN) .111' .1 \1!1 !"'111l.lH .Hp p111: ( ':::?7661 .mpii.IU <J/ WN1I .111/fOrf) ,l!tqtu.l~ .11!.111 <>![~lllll.l:) l)()d

,)JI\ .Ill' lJ,)dO ·llll II! \j\,)jliO.l jl!.lllljiU \1,)1 \Ollj.)Jq!:)

lll p.lJlf,)lliiUOJl lJ,l,llj \l!lj (Sf/() .\ IJ.U/IJ,')) IW~ d,l,HIS

((J(f .• ~'('f'lJN~':::(f"t)66/ IJ,Ijmff) SIOOI

.HUll' li.IJ,)lliO,lh lllll' JllllljO.I lllll JO ~),)\ jl!.l!hOIOd (j

)ll!lllll'·ll\ .lll"l P·llll'lO\ ·llll ljll \\ \11 \hllj.l\.1 jl!llllllll

.JI,llll JO \1\,ll[lOll\lj .lljl JO ,)\lll:J,)tj }) \,)1 ,) \fl,l.ltf.t,)J

-tq .HIIII' J,l, IWJ-ll.ll! ·lllllliO.IJ p.liHlj.)\,1 ,),1,)\\ l(.lllj \\

IIlli \j\.llliO) Ill' I \tlllj.ll'l!') lll p.llll,)lllll.lOjl ,),1,) \\ \.f,)l

-loti Jllll' ,,mJn,.ltuop IP!II '' 111 utH~J.t .wpp\ ]nth::> Ill \ji\Od,1p .1111 \jLJ,l\,l.lli.J,Hh:d ,)Ill JO .f,)jlllll!lll,).l ,)lj,J.

S\OIS n:>\OJ ((\\ S.LX:I.L\OJ JIII.U'IOS::m :u.n \I Ul::l.l.LOcl (J \JV S:l.I.VJI.I.S~H\100

(06/·MU 'H_/ __ I fMI lllJJII{f ._!/-r(IIJ(Jb/ ,y.IIJ/.') f6-d '()661

.1:111111) l.>JIIII<'f Jl(j,Jfc>.l/ .'C)f'l <JHI '()6{)/ lfCJ,>Jc>.I'L) \tu

ouo.1.1 l\llllliHud HpJo '-JII,llll.lj.) p.1Jd.n11: .ro p.ltlo

-1.1 ,,lp 'l·l \II 1.1,.1\ q 11q '' ·qlno.r:i l!l!l!IO".ll\ \.lldlllo.l

Jo r.1p1 .Hp Jd.uw <>l ·lllll~~od o~[l! sr 11 ·,o!opo.t.lll

Ill '1'1[1!.101'-l!d li[H:lliOll JO ,)11()/ .lljl 1111\\ liO!II!l)0\'1:

llll .lll'l[llld l,l Ol p.l.)lJ Oll \I ,),I.HIJ lJ,)I \OIIj.l!Sl!J P·ll

[1'1 \IJl'liOIII[lr.ll \I lj lll[ \\ j\.11110.1 I! ll! \IUOUOJ,) hll!

p.i.lll~ ltlh 1' JO lli.Hlldol.)\,lp p:uot:i.!.l ,)l[l.JO J!,lj)! .lljl

1/I[rnt 11' 111 1'.11''1 1J,,1U1. ·llll put: t:ni.H<>IS u1 um:>.u ll.ll'llt([ lljl wo.q l'll'P JU.ll.liJJih 11!1' .1.11: .u.11p '.1,1 \.l

\\Olj .;tltlll 11.11\,l.l ·ll[l Jtl .111d' Ill ( .J JI~IJlllf/) ,).)IJ,lllil

,), ltljdl'.thlll~.ll' .)ll.l10IOII put: ,)li,).)O]'-I·l[d ,))1![ ,lj

11dluo 1 .np p.ltli-Hlltllop .l\1 \\.I.HIIO lj.11lj \\ ·,,11!" \.l~

liO -..liiUOUO),) liiiii[O.l\ p111: lll[li[O\,)l\ JO \p111~ .11

Jl!tll.l)\ \' .H[l .IOj \llllll!.IOddo ,Jllll\0[ \l,lll!lllli.IOJIIII

O'[l' l \VI[ l \\ I' Nlllll[l!d 11: llhO[O.Wl[.l.ll! ,HIIlliO.IJ \,)

. .,...,11o.1d p~.Jnn·u put· p:.JnJpu uo nt:p p.1\l:.J,) 'llll!.lo'

.l.l.ll ,l \l'l[ '>IIIli II' \rl\ 1 \.ll!.llllj.ll! Jllll~ ..;,)l:iOIO[lOl[l.llll

tp.ll:.l,,l.l llll!lll.l)\ \'llll ·liiJ lJ,l~l!J.J,)Illlll IOU ,).J,) \\

\lltl.lt \ll.l .Lll[·ll['~ lll,l plll' .l \l!) JO (,1 \.Ill\ .l.WJ.IIl'\

h.tl'd' 0111 l[.llllll 'I 'l'.l.Jr p.111: \I!J\,) .Hp ll! \liOII.l.h

JO '-h \lt:lll! ,l[ll:.liltl.ll·l.l plll' \l!d' p.lll!\1!.)\,) (I!Jl!.IJ!l[.ll!

()} p.l)l' )('I ·Ill \lUll lll') q 111[ \\ ,.,,},\' I.J/Jj;Jf./11 .. 110

t:Jr(l lli-HlldtlJ.l\ l[l WllJ,)lllliO.II \li.1(),)J~[l!d JO \[1111' 111

l!llJ,l)\ \\ \lit: ll.l.llj .l.I.H[I '-l!l[ .Iilii .lJl[I!Jil! \I: ~.111:p t-1 :> Oil .).JI' ,l,l,ll[.l. \j[l!lll[dt:.J~Ill!.l)..; p.l)l! \1!,)\,) lf,),1lj 'l!l[

,)\(')Ill .J.l)j.ll['~lll.l Oil '.J,l\.l\\011 \J!,l.ll: [1!.11~010,)1!1[.1

II' p.lJl' \I' l\,l 'l·l \I,IJ,)J\,) I\Olll .Hp .JO ,)liO '-! l!!ll•l \

OIS Ill )\,II'\[ )l.ll'lii(J ·llllll!l[l ))I!J .11l[l![l!O \1!1111 lll! ,, II

uoth u .lt'l.l[l\ lllllr l ll[lll! p.l \.l.l,,!.Jd ·.;p.lo.l.!.l J!l!ll[

o.l\ [llll' liiiii[O'--ll\ li[I,[O \pill\ p.11l!.lh.lllll .lip SIU.l \

.l.lll -..unp.lltl.ld lj.l.IJ!,)\,l.l 111-ll\I\UO.HII pUt! .ll)l:llf

.l)' \'llll .){[I jO l[ll\,).1 I! \I! ·q l!l[ \\ '![.1.1l!,)S,).J [1!:11~0[0

-Jl!lfJ.Il! JO SJJII\!J<;LUI\J.qJ ,lll[l!.ll\0 \I!Jllll .Hp \lj p.l t'

-,),1.) Sl IIO!J.1J.IJS,).J .J.H[I.IIIJ 1! \I,)Jl!llll).IOJU 1 ,)SJ!,) \I I lll 1·1.\.ll ,1.\q,).I(IJ,))II! .1q1 uo S.lll!.I,)(Io OS[l! .J,)JI!.J 111,

-OIIOJI!I .lii.L '(61rftr966/ JJ,Ijm~!) [•1 \.1[ (.JOJI!lll'[

-\,) .Hp 110 j)J.IOII'ii! .10 p,)<.,J!.J,) hUI,)tj S]\,)Jll0.1 lJ,)I \II

-l,liSt~:) Jll[I!IOS,l\~ ,)JJ!'I lll S.lll!:l!JS.)LLIOj) jllll! S.l!llll!.l.

UO I!Jl!jl L[.llllll II! [l·ll!llSJ.I S,)]l!J!IS.JlliOjl put: S).)S [Ot

.1lHJ]S .l!l[l!IOS.)l\ ,)11!'( JO \]1.\!SiljJ\,) llmllllll ,)L[J lllOlj

<;.)S,Hpod \q ,)l(l ll!lp ~!l[l lll! \\ liO!J.l,)liLJO.) ll! 'iilllllt I

-u.Hu 1p.1o\\ .\pt:[ll.l!!.md "! 11 ·.H11:ppv u.I.Hp.IO\J pu

U.J,ll[lllOS ,)Ill II! S,1Jl!J!JS,HLIO[l )S.I!j ,11[1 l!l! \\ S[l.IO) .

• ltp U,),) \\),)l[ ,1JlJ,U,lJJ![l [l!.Jodtti,)J I! JO \1\l!lj .llll II•

S.l.)lll.ll!J JO LHl!Sil.J.J!P .l!lll,)j) ,)lj) .10 ,),1111[11.1 llllllp.lr I

OSS,).l(IUI[ .l!ljl!IO,)t\ \[.11!:1 .Hp .JO liO!ll!.l~!lll .11p II' tp!lf \\ . ._.npw.tddn .Hp.).Jd.J,lllll .np \,1!1~11! 1011 op 1 t •

-8HI __ , r66t JJ,Ijmf!) Uol'ii.).l ,)I!!JP\ Jlllh::> .np l!lll!Lll[l!((li.I.H[IIlOS ll! ~p.1m.1.1 .1111 lJ,),l\\l,llJ s,!JlJ,

·J![l [I!J!~OIOLIO.Il[.l .Hpll!lp JU,l[ll \,) S! I! ·p.))t:p UOlj.ll'

-O!pl!.l ,).II! LLIJI[I JO \\,1j l(hllOljll\ ·..;J\,1111()) l!l!l!IO,l\

-,)J([UI ,,l)I!J!JS.HliO[l JO \p.IOJ.l.l ljl! \\ p.l!l!llha ,)q Ill! l

l[.l!l[ \\ 'ISI!OJ J!ll!!J[l\ ll.l.liSt!:l ,ll[l UO Sjl.IOJ,l.J p:.1!)JO[

-o.1np.11! p.1JU,1Ull\.1op ,).11: ,)J,Hp n:tp '({J(f-fff'IJM I '8_/-9.1 f66/ !J,fjmfl) p.)Ju,l-..ud \pt~.1.1p: 't:q .totpnr

.Jl{l l[.1!l[ \\ 'J.)I!J ,)l[l ,)p1S,1lj ,).)LJJ!J.IOdllll ,)11.11 "I! \llll!c

(IUO [.lj)Oill .l.!l!lll~ Jllll! lll!llltit!t[:) .11p JO ,lllhiJI.IJ .1111

'J\,1lllll.l [l!.l!llJil.l put: J!L[<h:.thlll!.l)\ .J,ll[IOUI! OJ p.)~lll

,)q llt:J ,)jl!p ,),\Ol[l! .1tpll!lp liO!J~,):i~n~ .Hp.JO .1110.\1' I

l'! ,,)ll'ii.Jt! 0~[1! (,) f.ltlffllll) p.)j.),)[,1" \i!.ll!.ll!l[.ll! ,).J,) \

s.11d Ull!S ,)lj I Jl!l!l LIO!JI!lli.IOJ Ill .1L[J. '(HI f' "661 ./,l

·fllfl) :>H ·p:J (()I ()t)) ()((J~-(}(J()l) 'dH {)_ t ()_I_ Ol .!lit

-~J!!d .l!l!l!IO·)\ .i[.ll!;[ .)tp JO hll!ll!p ,)l!llllOl[l! H[IHI[I

(JII~Ill 'IIO!JI! \1!,)\,) 11ll<h:.Jh!ll!.II\·UOLI .Hp jllll! ('>.JI!,l

()l)~) \,lll!Jl 1-1:) ,),).1111 .np JO ,))llll!.l ll!.lothu.)] .lp! \\ .llll

'(8' r·orP 661 .I.Jtf"tt) .. .1.)\J!Il111p ~.1.1],)lii!JII.l.) "·)I

I~ Ill p.l!ll.llllllJO[l ~! S.l]llii!.I,)J lllll![l.H::) 0~'-.l.ldtll[ ![II\\

.)~qJt!d J!l[li[O,)\ \j.it!~( .H[.(. \,lldliiOJ ,).lOlli 'I 1!111 l

-.1d t:lupn~) u1 p.loJ,).J .l!L[<h:.l:1tll:.n.., .1tf.L (I) 1 ':::661 .111 -/JcY ·,y//.J<J;) :_I (Jf-<61 cyii,JcJ,')) '>·lll!.l!JS.lliiOp put: ..;.)till

-t:.J,)J tllll!li.w:) os.;.wluq L[l!" .1.1 \1~1 p:.ll1l[ll1 .1!1!li[O.l\

\pt::l .Hplllo.q .1w.n:d.1' \llt!.11l(th:.t'iint:.Ji' 'I pur: 'LIOI

-,1J.1~" PI!IP 0\\1 \.l,l \0.1 tpll[" ·tpd.)p I'! ,).JJ,llll 1 .1.1 "'

'.J,) \t:[ [l!.lllllll.) I! '\I! p.1li!.J<lP Sl II 'j\,)JlJ().) .11111![0~.)1\ I'

ll] '\,)Jl!.)lj\,)lliOjl Sl! .lOll ,)~I!~Jt!d .l]l[l![O.l\ I! \I! p.)).).ld

-'·lllll .1q .1.1tp1.m un '(HI r mr 1661 .I.Jtt"lt J :m II')

(()( ll)) ()()()t)·()~·(l) 'ciH ()(It om_ JO ,)Jl!p IIO(j.II!JO!Pl!.l

I! Sl!l[ l[.l!lj \\ 't!([]d~ 1![,1 \ ll! jl.JO.),),I [I!J!'iiO[O,lJ:lj.l.ll! .lljl

smtt '(9 ·,~!:1 ·1 1 1-r1 1 1661 uJJII((/JJit:J , ;;:,_./ n t '6( {-,<{(/ 066/ .lcJ/1111\ '/IJJIIIc/IJif,')) J,1tpo .ll[l liO 1\l!IU

J!ll~!J[l\ ll.l.ilSJ!:I ,)lp :iuop: ~.111!.1!JS.)IUO[l JO liOISilJJ!P

1.1.1.qp ,)l[l.JO ~ll!lllll~.1q ·ll[l put: (I _(-f'_( 1661 '1}// ·tto T':::rt66f./,)""'n pm:q ,)II() .11puo 1\1!0.1 l!H!PP\

U.J,lJ~J:;l .Hp JO LIO!ll!/!l!l![ll.)\ .11[1 put: ,).Jilllll.l lllll!P

-.11::) OSS.l.JdlU( ,ll[l JO SIS,)U,l:i ,)lp 'l!l[lld\ lliO.IJ ~.J,)lll.ll!J

l <01':) li~P.Ae::ipuc sn;OpO.dH 'UililMiillj UO<fiaJ ilCUP'If 1nde:) il~l Ul UO<leZI~IIIOuN

Mihael BudJa

The context with sheep/goat at the Podmol near Ka­stelec cave was defined as Mesolithic (Turk eta/. 72). Sheep/goat (Capra s. Ovis), domestic cattle (Bos taurus) and domestic pig (Sus) were documented in the Castelnovien context at Mala Triglavca (Tab. 1) (Leben 1988.69-73). Pottery was documented in a Castelnovien context at Stenasca (Edera) cave and at the above mentioned Pod Crmukljo (Biagi 1993.48, 61; Brodar I.e.). In spite of the unclear artefactual and stratigraphic context, it is also worth mention­ing the domestic sheep (Ovis aries) and pottery in the Late Mesolithic record at the Pecina on Leskovec (grotta Azzura) cave (Cremonesi eta!. 1984.30,34, 37,61). Only the Castelnovien contexts from Benus­si and Stenasca (Edera) are radiocarbon dated. The chronological sequence in t11e first context (horizons 4 and 3) range from 7620 ± 150 uncal. BP to 7050 ± 60 uncal. BP (Mtlller 1994.350; Biagi 1994.60). The second context, deposited in layer 3a at Stena5ca is dated to 6700 ± 130 uncal. BP (Biagi 1993.48,61). The information on domesticates in Castelnovien contexts complements the palaeobotanical data on marked anthropogenic influence on the forest vege­tation and intensive grazing in the period of pre­NeoJitllic deposit formation at Podmol near Kastelec (Turk eta/. 1993.70, 71; Culiberg 1994 (1995). 207, 213).

The above mentioned domesticates and the con­texts, in which they were found, give an important meaning to the overlooked data on Ovis/ Capra sp. in the Sandalja II cave in lstria (Miracle 1995.112, Tab. 4.19) and on the domesticated species Capra hircus and Bos Taurus brachiceros, documented in a Mesolithic context (layer IV) in Crvena Stijena in Montenegro (Malez 1975.160). An interesting cor­relation in Sandalja is offered by a frequency analy­sis of the different ages of selected groups of game aninlals, which indicated that the proportion of juvenile individuals is noticeably reduced with the appearance of sheep/goat in the archaeological record, whilst the number of adult individuals incre­ases (Miracle 1995.308, Tab. 7.46). Unfortunately one must once more draw attention to the taphono­mic filter, because none of the above sites were stra­tigraphically excavated. On the other hand, howev­er, the identification of Capra hircus in pre-Neoli­thic contexts in the Adriatic area confirms Makkay's suggestion "of the necessary re-evaluation of the beginnings of a productive economy in Europe", which he supported with the aid of ceramic figurines in the shape of wild goats, found in Early Neolithic contexts at Donja Branjevina and Slatina (Makkay 1996.38).

74

We conclude this contribution with an evaluation of the dynamics of changing settlement patterns in the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic in Dinaric Slove­nia, the Trieste Karst and Istria. It is believed that the process of transition to agriculture is connected with the development of settlement patterns, which inclu­de new economic areas. In spite of the suggestion t11at the Neolithization process on the Eastern Adria­tic coast may be linked to a change in settlement pat­terns, Late Mesolithic cave settlement patterns sup­posedly being succeeded by Early Neolithic open set­tlements (Chapman, Miiller 1990.132; Chapman 1994.143-144), the situation is much more interest­ing in Dinaric Slovenia, the Trieste Karst and lstria. The cave settlement pattern in the karstic Dinaric re­gion with its restricted water sources and restricted soils, suitable for agriculture, also remained unchan­ged in the Neolithic. Agriculture is only indicated by the presence of cereal pollen in the Eneolithic (Turk et at. 1993.71, Tab. 4). In contrast to this, an open settlement pattern developed during the Early Neo­lithic lmpresso Cardium culture period in the flysch region of southern Istria (Fig. 5-6) (Budja 1997. in press). Thus, the interpretation of the development of the settlement pattern in tl1e Caput Adriae region must be placed in the context of the changing natur­al environment. It is impossible to overlook the fact that a large part of the region was covered by the sea in the Atlantic. If the hypothesis that this process was gradual and that the Gulf of Trieste was only finally submerged after 5450 BP is valid (Segota, FilipCic 1991.160), then we only have access to a small part of the Mesolithic and Neolithic settlement pattern. It is also important that part of the region, covered by sea today, has been documented as freshwater marshes in the early Holocene, one of which is dated to 9120 ± 120 BP (Ogorelec et at. 1981.210). Palaeo­channels, which can be connected with the modern Dragonja and Rizana rivers, have also been discov­ered (Fig. 7) (Marocco 1989.101).

The settlement pattern remains unchanged although the lanscape was changed and the potential of the economic areas of Mesolithic and Neolithic groups in the Trieste Karst was essentially diminished. The data on livestock keeping in pre-Neolithic cultural contexts also remains. Perhaps the development of nomadic pastoralism on the Karst plateaux was an answer to the loss of the economic areas in the Adriatic lowlands?

Neoht1zac1Ja na podroeju Caput Adnae . I Neohth1zat10n m the Caput Adnae reg1on . .

REFERENCES/ LITERATURA

A.t'vl.MERMAN A. ] ., CAVALLI-SFORZA L. L. 1984. The eo lithic Transition and the Genetics of Populations

in Europe. Princeton University Press. Princeton.

BARFIELD L. H. 1972. The first neolithic cultures of north eastern Italy. Fundamenta A/3. Teil VII. Koln.

BERNABEU AUBAN). 1996. Indigenismo y mJgracio­nismo. Aspectos de Ia neolitizaci6n en Ia fachada ori­ental de Ia Pennninsula Iberica (Indigenism and mi­grationism. Aspects of the eolithization in the East of the Iberian Peninsula). Trabajos de Prehistoria 53/2. Madrid.

BIAGI P. et al. 1993. The late Mesolithic and Early eolithic Settlement of orthern Italy: Recent Consi­

deration. Porocilo o raziskovanju paleolita. neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji XXI. Ljubljana.

BIAGI P. 1996. La eolitizzazione deU'Italia: H - II Neolithico de'll ltalia settentrionale 9. The eolithic in the ear East and Europe. XIIl lnternational Con­gress of Prehistoric and Protohi toric Sciences Forli -!tali a.

BI FORD L. R. 1977. General Introduction. ln For Theory Building in Archaeology, edited by L. R. Binford, pp. 1-10. Studies in Archaeology. Acade­mic Press. ew York.

BI FORD L. R. 1983. In Pursuit of the Past. Decoding the Archaeological Record. Thames and Hudson. New York.

BRODAR M. 1992. Mezolitsko najdisce Pod Crmuk­ljo pri Sernbijah. Arheoloski vestnik 43. Ljubljana.

BUDJA M. 1993. eolithization of Europe. The Slove­ne aspect. Porocilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji XXI. Ljubljana.

BUDJA M. 1996. Neolithization of Europe. The Slove­ne Aspect. Contribution to the Discussion. Arheolos­ki vestnik 47. Ljubljana.

BUDJA M. 1997 (in press). Paleoenvironment - The Determinant of the Archaeological interpretative \lodels. V Urban and Landscape Archaeology. Pu­la

CA V ALU-SFORZA L. L., CAY ALLI-SFORZA F. 1995. The Great Human Diasporas. The History of Diversity and

Evolution. Addisson - Wesley Publishing Company. Reading.

CA \'ALU-SFORZA L. L. 1996. The spread of agricultu­re and nomadic pastoralism: insights from genetics, linguistics and archaeology. In Tlte .)jJread qf Agri­culture and Pastoralism in Eurasia . D. R. Harrris ed .. UCL Press. London.

CHAPMAN) .. ~ICLLER). 1990. Early farmers in Dal­matia. Antiquity 6'-1 142. Oxford.

CHAPMAN J. 1994. The Origins of Farming in South East Europe. Prehistoire Europe 6.

CLARK R. 1990. The beginnings of agriculture in sub­alpine Italy: some theoretical considerations. In nze

eo!ithization of Alpine Region . P. Biagi ed. \lomo­grafie di " atura Bresciana" 13. Brescia.

CREMONESI G. 1978-1981. Cartteristiche economi­co-industriali del .\1esolitico nel Carso. Alli della So­cieta per Ia Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Fruli-Venezia Giulia I\- . Pisa.

CREMO 1ESI G. et al. 1984. Grotta Azzura: Scavi 1982. II Mesolitico sui Carso Triestino. Trieste.

CULIBERG M. 199'! ( 1995). Desertification and Re­forestation of the Carst in Slovene. PoroCilo o raz­iskovanju paleolitika. neolitika in eneolitika v Slo­veniji XXII. Ljubljana.

CECUK B. 1989. lstrazivanja u Veloj spilji na otoku Korculi I spilji Kopacini na otoku Bracu Obavijesti HAD 21/ 1. Zagreb.

CECUK B., RADIC D. 1995. \'ela spilja. Katalog izloz­be. Vela Luka

HARRIS D. R. 198 1. Breaking Grou nd: Agricultural Origins and Archaeological Explanations. Institute of Archaeology Bulletin 18. London.

HARRIS D. R. 1996. The origins and spread of agri­culture and pastoralism in Eurasia: an overview. In n1e Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, D.R. llarrris eel.. UCL Press. London.

HOIKA]. 1993. Grenzfragen. Oder: james Watt unci die Neolithisierung. i\rch{iologische lnformationen 16/ l. Bonn.

75

Mihael Budja

KLEJN S. L. 1987. Arheoloski viri. Studia Humanita­tis, Ljubljana.

LEBEN F. 1988. Novoodkrite prazgodovinske plasti v jamah na Krasu. PoroCilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji XVI. Ljubljana.

MAKKAY). 1996. Theories about the Origin, the Distribution and the End of the Koros Culntre. At the Fringes of Three Worlds. Szolnok.

MALEZ M. 1975. Kvartarna fauna Crvene stijene. Cr­vena stijena. Zbornik radova. Niksic.

MAROCCO R. 1989. Lineamenti geomorfologici della costa e dei fondali del Golfo di Trieste e considera­zioni sulla loro evoluzione tardo-quaternaria. Int. J. Speleol. 18.

MIRACLE P. T. 1995. Broad-spectrum adaptations re­examined: hunter-gatherer responses to late glacial environmental changes in the Eastern Adriatic. Ph. D. Dissertation. Cambridge.

MULLER K. E. 1972. Geschichte der antiken Ethnogra­phie und ethnologischen Theoriebildung. Von den anfangen bis auf die byzantinischen historiographen. Teil I. Studien zur Kulturkunde. 29 Band. Wiesbaden.

MULLER}. 1991. Die ostadriatische Impresso-Kultur: Zeitliche Gliederung und kulturelle Einbindung. Germania 69/2. Mainz.

' .. MULLER J. 1994. Das ostadriatische Friihneolithi-kum. Die Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adriaraumes. Prahistorische Archaologie in Siid-

1 osteuropa 9.

MULLER-KARPE H. 1976. Geschichte der Steinzeit. 2. Aufl. Miinchen.

OGORELEC B. et al. 1981. Sediment of the salt marsh of Secovlje. Geologija 24/2. Ljubljana.

PARZINGER H. 1993. Studien zur Chronologie und Kulmrgeschichte der Jungstein-, Kupfer- und Friih­bronzezeit zwischen Karpaten und Mittlerem Tau­rus. Romisch-Germanische Forschungen Band 52. Frankfurt a. M.

POHAR V. 1986. Kostni ostanki iz mezolitskega naj­diSca Pod Crmukljo pri Sembijah (Ilirska Bistrica). PoroCilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneoli­ta Sloveniji XIV. Ljubljana.

76

POWLEDGE T. M., ROSE M. 1996. The Great DNA Hunt. Archaeology. Sept./Oct.

RENFREW C. 1996. Language fanlilies and the spread of farming. In Jhe Spread of Agriculture and Pasto­ralism in Eurasia, D. R. Harrris ed., UCL Press. Lon­don.

RIEDEL A. 1975 (1976). La fauna epipaleolitica della grotta Benussi (Trieste). Atti e Memorie Commissio­ne Grotte "E. Boegan" vol. XV. Trieste.

SYKES B., H. CORTE-REAL, P. FORSTER et al. 1996. Paleolithic and Neolithic lineages in the European mitochondrial gene pool. American journal of Hu­man Genetics, 59/ 1

SEGOTA T., FILIPCIC A. 1991. Archaeologic and geo­logic proofs for Holocene sea level position on the East Adriatic littoral. Rad Hrvatske akadenije znano­sti I umjetnosti. Knj. 458. Zagreb.

TRIGGER B. 1980. Gordon Childe. Revolutions in Archaeololgy. London.

TURK et al. 1993. Podmol pri Kastelcu - novo vec­plastno arheolosko najdisce na Krasu, Slovenija. Arheoloski vestnik. 44. Ljubljana.

VAN FRASSEN B. C. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

VENCL S. 1982. K otazce zaniku sberaesko-loveckych kultur. Archeologicke rozhledy XXXIV ;6. Praha.

ZlLHAO J. 1993. The Spread of Agro-Pastoral Econo­mies across Mediterranean Europe: A View from the Far West. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 6; 1.

ZVELEBIL M. 1990. Mesolithic societies and the transition to farming: problems of time scale and organisation. In Hunters in transition. M. Zvelebil ed. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge.

ZVELEBIL M. 1994 (1995). Neolithization in Eastern Europe: A View from the Frontier. Porocilo o razis­kovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Slove­niji XXII. Ljubljana.

ZVELEBIL M., ROWLEY-CONWY P., 1990. Foragers and farmers in Atlantic Europe. In Hunters in tran­sition. M. Zvelebil ed. New Directions in Archaeolo­gy. Cambridge.