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