UDK 903'i2/'i5(450.36+497.5''633/634'':325 Documenta Praehistorica XXXIII (2006) The spread of farming in the Eastern Adriatic Stašo Forenbaher1, Preston T. Miracle2 1 Institute for Anthropological Research, Zagreb, Croatia staso.forenbaher@zg.htnet.hr 2 Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, UK ptm2i@cam.ac.uk ABSTRACT - The beginning of farming in the Adriatic is a topic ripe for a new discussion and syn- thesis. Several lines of evidence suggest that immigration played a major role in the process. It invol- ved, however, both the actual movement of people and the active participation of the local popula- tion, and probably unfolded somewhat differently in different parts of the region. There is provocative evidence that the transition to farming occurred in a two-stage process. There was an initial stage of very rapid dispersal, perhaps by exploratory parties along the coast in the southern Adriatic. During the second stage, the eastern Adriatic littoral was probably colonized by farming communities, while the hinterland remained an agricultural frontier zone. IZVLEČEK - Začetek poljedelstva na področju Jadrana je tema, ki omogoča diskusije in nove sinteze. Predstavljamo dokaze, da je glavno vlogo pri procesu igralo priseljevanje. V regiji se je proces odvi- jal različno, vključeval je tako selitve ljudi, kot tudi aktivno udeležbo lokalnega prebivalstva. Doka- zujemo, da se je prehod h kmetovanju odvijal v dvostopenjskem procesu. V prvi stopnji je prišlo do hitre razpršitve, morda izvidnikov, vzdolž obale južnega Jadrana. V drugi stopnji so skupine kmeto- valcev verjetno kolonizirale obalne predele vzhodnega Jadrana, medtem ko je zaledje ostalo mejno področje kmetovanja. KEY WORDS - Neolithic; farming; Croatia; Adriatic; colonization Introduction Recent years have witnessed major advances in our understanding of the spread of farming in Europe, through the refinement of theoretical models (e.g. Price 2000; Thomas 1999; Whittle 1996; 2003), through the integration and comparison of archaeo- logical, linguistic, and genetic evidence (e.g. Bellwood & Renfrew 2002; Ammerman & Biagi 2003), and through the characterisation of human diets and po- pulation movements by studying stable isotopes in human bones (e.g. Milner et al. 2004; Richards et al. 2003; Price et al. 2002). The eastern Adriatic coast lies along a major route into Central Europe from the southeast, but our state of knowledge about the spread of farming in the region remains relati- vely undeveloped. Maps offering sophisticated mo- dels for the spread of farming into Europe can leave the eastern Adriatic region blank (Barker 1985.Fig. 21; Renfrew 1987; Tringham 2000.Fig. 2.1; Whittle 1996.Fig. 8.2; Zvelebil & Lillie 2000.Fig. 3.1) or merge it with one of the neighbouring regions (e.g. Zvelebil & Lillie 2000.Fig. 3.4). In this brief paper we hope to put the eastern Adriatic region 'on the map' through a summarized review of the available evidence and the presentation of a new model of the spread of farming in the region (Fig. 1). Models for the transition to farming The transition to farming in Europe has been explai- ned by a wide variety of models, ranging from a com- pletely autochthonous process where local foragers turn to farming, to a completely exogenous process where foreign farmers migrate into Europe and re- place the indigenous population (Barker 1985; Per- les 2001; Price 2000). Claims for a completely inde- pendent domestication of plants and animals in Early Neolithic Europe have been thoroughly refuted on genetic (Jones 2002.94, 107, 130), morphological (Rowley-Conwy 1995; Zohary 1996.143-144) and taphonomic grounds (Zilhäo 1993), while models that rely primarily on migrating farmers (e.g. Am- merman & Cavalli-Sforza 1973; 1984) are now thought to underestimate the contribution of Meso- lithic foragers to the process, whether considered in terms of the modern-day gene pool (e.g. Richards et al. 1996; Richards et al. 2002; Jones 2002.160-161) or the indigenous adoption and transmission of parts of the 'Neolithic package' (e.g. Price 2000; Tringham 2000; Zilhäo 2000; Zvelebil 1986; 2002). The Meso- lithic-Neolithic transition can no longer be considered in terms of a simple dichotomy between indigenous adoption and foreign migration. The major early domesticates were introduced into Europe at the start of the Neolithic. Since the crops could not have spread naturally into Europe, and domestic ani- mals are very unlikely to have done so, we must consider at least some form of population transfer. Zvelebil and Lillie (2000.62) have recently listed six different forms of popula- tion transfer that may have been important in the transi- tion to agriculture in Europe. We use these processes to frame our discussion of the transition to farming in the Eastern Adriatic; their defini- tion and archaeological signa- tures are listed in Table 1. Much of the Adriatic literature still tends to see population change - that is, migration - lurking behind every major change in pottery style, let alone the introduction of the earliest pottery (e.g. Benac 1979-1987; Dimitrijevic et al. 1998). The migra- tionist view is echoed in syntheses by Chapman et al. (1996.259) and Biagi & Starnini (1999), who note the rarity of Late Mesolithic occupation in the region and an abrupt shift from wild to domestic animals at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. Others have undermined the unity of the 'Neolithic package' in the region, arguing that there is no necessary asso- ciation between the appearance of ceramics and do- mestic plants and animals (Tringham 1971; Trump 1980). Tringham (1971) makes the strongest case for continuity of economic practices and lithic use from Late Mesolithic to Impressed Ware, citing evi- dence of wild fauna associated with impressed cera- mics. More recently, Budja has proposed a model of 'Neolithisation' in the region that acknowledges the acceptance by the autochthonous population of a li- mited number of innovations, while rejecting any form of migration (Budja 1993.177; 1996.69; 1999). Fig. 1. Some of the sites discussed in the text. Black number on white: open-air sites; white number on black: cave sites. 1. Piancada 2. Sammar- denchia 3. Selected caves of the Triestine Karst (Edera, Mitreo, Benussi, Ciclami, Vlaška) 4. Pupićina 5. Vizula 6. Jami na Sredi 7. Vela spilja (Lo- šinj) 8. Tinj 9. Smilčić 10. Pokrovnik 11. Skarin Samograd 12. Danilo 13. Gospodska 14. Grapčeva 15. Vela Spila (Korčula) 16. Gudnja 17. Ze- lena pećina 18. Crvena Stijena 19. Odmut 20. Selected open-air sites of the Tavoliere (Masseria Giufredda, Scramella San Vito, Ripa Tetta, Coppa Nevigata, Lagnano da Piede, Villa Comunale, Masseria Candelaro, Mas- seria Santa Tecchia, Masseria Fontanella Ulivetto) 21. Konispol 22. Sidari. Process Description Archaeological expectations Demic diffusion Demographic expansion of farming population leads to daughter groups budding off and colonizing new areas. Migration not directional< slow rate of migration. Full Neolithic package moves< abrupt change< slow spread (1 km\year) Folk migration Directional movement of population from old area to new. Not necessarily driven by demographic expansion. Similar to leapfrog colonization. Full Neolithic package moves< abrupt change< rapid spread Elite dominance Penetration of area by numerical minority who subsequently seize control and impose culture\language on indigenous majority. Piecemeal adoption of Neolithic package by socially central individuals, perhaps through feasting< gradual change Infiltration Gradual penetration of new area by small groups\individuals who are subordinate or perform specialist tasks for majority. Piecemeal adoption of Neolithic package by socially peripheral individuals. Leapfrog colonization Selective colonization of areas only marginally exploited by indigenous foragers, creating enclave settlements from which further dispersal of farming proceeds. Often movement by seafaring. Full Neolithic package moves< new settlements separate from Mesolithic< little interaction with indigenous people< abrput change< rapid spread Individual frontier mobility Individuals or small groups linked in social\economic exchanges between forager and farming communities. Direction and pace of change depends on existing social frameworks and communication routes and\or those established between forager and farming communities. Piecemeal adoption ofNeolithic package< innovations adopted within existing Mesolithic settlements< much interaction between indigenous and colonizing peoples Tab. 1. Expectations of different models of the Neolithization Process. Descriptions and expectations based on Barnett (2000); Zvelebil and Lillie (2000). Zvelebil and Lillie (2000.68-71) have recently sug- gested that 'Neolithisation' in Dalmatia involved the introduction of pottery into local forager communi- ties during an 'availability phase' along the agricul- tural frontier. Similar models have been proposed by others, although each puts a different degree of emphasis on population movement and local adop- tion (Barfield 1972.204; Skeates 2000.171-172; Zvelebil 2001.2-6). Zvelebil's 'integrationist' model remains the most elaborate, taking into account so- cial contexts of exchange (subsistence and other- wise) and intermarriage, and their effects on the mo- vement of populations across agricultural frontiers. Before developing a new model for the 'Neolithisa- tion' process in the eastern Adriatic, we summarize evidence about the pattern of change in the region. Farming and pottery in the eastern Adriatic The recognition of prehistoric farming sites in the eastern Adriatic region traditionally relies on the presence of pottery (e.g. Bagolini & von Eles 1978. 46; Batovic 1979; Chapman & Müller 1990.128, 132; Müller 1994; Skeates 2000.171; Sordinas 1969. 407), although such a simplified approach overlooks the possibility of hunter-gatherer groups obtaining pottery through exchange or adoption (Budja 2001. 40, 41). Over a decade ago, Chapman and Müller (1990.132) concluded that in Dalmatia, an integra- ted Neolithic 'package' consisting of four critical in- novations - domesticated plants and animals, cera- mics, and polished stone - was identifiable only at lowland open air sites. However, a reduced version of the Neolithic 'package' - domesticated animals, pottery and prismatic blade technology - is well at- tested at a much larger number of sites, many of which are caves, throughout the eastern Adriatic re- gion. By contrast, convincing evidence of domesti- cated animals or pottery in Mesolithic contexts is extremely rare. It follows that, although far from perfect, pottery is still the most useful 'proxy mea- sure' for exploring the spatial and temporal spread of farming in the eastern Adriatic. Recent work in caves shows some variety in the type of contact. The appearance of pottery may be asso- ciated with assemblages dominated by wild taxa (Cr- vena Stijena, Odmut, Zelena pećina, Mala Triglavca); in other caves there is a fairly even representation of wild and domestic taxa (Edera, Konispol, Azzura, Zingari), while domestic animals dominate the as- semblages in a third group of caves (Pupićina, Mi- treo, Podmol, Vela spila, Spila Nakovana; for refer- ences and detailed discussion, see Forenbaher & Mi- racle 2006; Miracle & Pugsley 2006). Seeds of do- mesticated plants have not been reported from any of the recently excavated caves where the use of flo- tation to recover plant remains was standard prac- tice. This holds true not only for Early Neolithic le- vels of those sites, but also for all later periods, when the cultivation of domesticated plants is not in doubt. Caves are rarely located near major tracts of arable land, but are often conveniently positioned for her- ders - either at, or on the way to, seasonal pastures. Such a contrast between open-air and cave sites has important implications for the process of 'Neolithisa- tion' in the region. The Mesolithic/Neolithic 'gap' A number of well-documented and dated northern Mediterranean sequences show a hiatus between the Mesolithic and Neolithic occupations of at least seve- ral centuries, if not several millennia (Biagi and Spa- taro 2000.48; Pluciennik 1997). The timing and duration of this Mesolithic-Neolithic gap is not syn- chronous, but varies widely from site to site. To exa- mine this pattern in greater detail, we briefly discuss sequences from six sites in the Eastern Adriatic (Fig. 2, Tab. 2). In the Triestine Karst and Istria, the age difference between the youngest Mesolithic and oldest Neoli- thic dates at Pupićina Cave, Edera, and Ciclami is from 1100 to 1800 years. The similarity in timing and duration of the stratigraphic gaps is striking, at first glance suggesting that caves were not being vi- sited by Late Mesolithic bands in this area, because of a change in settlement pattern, depopulation, or both. Other evidence, however, argues against a sim- ple demographic expla- nation. Nine sites from the Triestine Karst are reported to contain evi- dence of Late Mesolithic occupation (Montagnari Kokelj 1993.74). Fur- thermore, at Benussi, there is a sequence of three radiocarbon dates associated with Late Me- solithic assemblages (Montagnari Kokelj 1993.70), the youngest of which overlaps the ol- dest Neolithic dates from Edera and Pupićina at 2 s.d. Late Mesolithic peo- ple were clearly in the region immediately prior to the first appearance of Neolithic pottery. In the south, only three sites have dated Late Meso- lithic and Early Neolithic components. Taken at face value, dates from Odmut Cave (Markovic 1985; Sre- jovic 1974) show a continuity of occupation from the latest Mesolithic to the earliest Neolithic. There are, however, problems with both the dates and the stratigraphy of Odmut (Forenbaher & Miracle 2006), and there may, in fact, be a gap between those lay- ers with pottery and those without pottery of at least 300 years. At Konispol Cave, the dates suggest a gap of some 130 years between the latest Mesolithic and earliest Neolithic dates (Harrold et al. 1999), but the stratigraphy and fauna fill this gap (Russell 1998; Schuldenrein 1998). The open air site of Sidari pro- vides provocative evidence of an in situ adoption of ceramics by indigenous Mesolithic people (Perles 2001). There is no stratigraphic break between the latest Mesolithic and the earliest Neolithic horizon, and the latter contains abundant plain ceramics, stone tools made using a 'Mesolithic' technology, and some sheep/goat. There is, however, a signifi- cant sterile layer between this 'earliest Neolithic' and 'Early Neolithic' (Impressed Ware) occupation of the site (Sordinas 1969). To summarize, three of six sites with dated sequen- ces (Ciclami, Pupićina, and Odmut) show a stratigra- phic break and temporal gap between the Mesolithic and Neolithic. At Edera there is a temporal gap of about 1100 years, but not a stratigraphic break. The two sites (Konispol and Sidari) with dated stratigra- phic evidence of continuity come from the southern Benussi Edera Ciclami Pupićina Odmut Konispol Sidari 5000 5500 _ 6000 u m 6500 u s 7000 7500 a o i —n-0- 1 i Y i i ü ö ( aH 1 I i Y i i, II D M 1 IM M II 1 t H MS i r ■ i ! S I ct ± S s Z s ? % S S i CD O o CD C3 s S S S s co CO co co to m c to m n g 2 s? 2 2 čn « CM N M (N ta N N n n M N 15 č3 w w E3 55 ^ co < O O O s ^ ö ö «J a- s o = Fig. 2. Calibrated radiocarbon dates from sites with Late Mesolithic (Benussi) or Mesolithic and Neolithic assemblages in the Triestine Karst, Istria, Montene- gro, Albania, and Corfu. Black symbols: Mesolithic; grey symbols: uncertain as- sociation; white symbols: Neolithic pottery. Site and context Lab no. bp s.d. Cal BC 1 s.d. range Cal BC 2 s.d. range Attribution Ref. Benussi 5-6 R-1045A 8650 70 7750 7580 7950 7570 Mesol th c 1 Benussi 5 R-1045 8380 60 7540 7350 7580 7200 Mesol th c 1 Benussi 4 R-1044 7620 150 6640 6250 7050 6050 Mesol th c 1 Benussi 3-4 R-1042 7230 140 6240 5920 6400 5800 Mesol th c 1 Benussi 3 R-1043 7050 60 5990 5840 6030 5770 Mesol th c 1 Edera 3B GrN-25139 8350 120 7550 7180 7600 7050 Mesol th c 2 Edera 3B GrA-11818 8250 50 7450 7140 7480 7080 Mesol th c 2 Edera 3B GrN-25138 8110 90 7310 6830 7450 6700 Mesol th c 2 Edera 3B GrN-25137 8060 70 7180 6820 7350 6650 Mesol th c 2 Edera 3B GrA-14106 8045 40 7080 6830 7200 6750 Mesol th c 2 Ciclami 9 R-1041 8260 60 7460 7140 7520 7080 Mesol th c 3 Pupićina M3 z-2635 8710 170 8200 7550 8300 7450 Mesol th c 4 Odmut IB SI-2221 7720 85 6640 6460 6800 6350 Mesol th c 5 Odmut IA SI-2226 7790 70 6690 6500 7000 6450 Mesol th c 5 Odmut IB SI-2220 715° 100 6160 5890 6230 5800 Mesol th cl 5 Odmut IA SI-2227 7080 85 6020 5840 6160 5740 Mesol th cl 5 Konispol Beta-67804 7630 140 6650 6260 7000 6100 Mesol th c 6 Konispol Beta-80000 7550 80 6470 6250 6510 6220 Mesol th c 6 Konispol Beta-67803 7510 90 6440 6250 6510 6100 Mesol th c 6 Konispol Beta-79999 7410 80 6390 6160 6430 6080 Mesol th c 6 Sidari D 7770 340 7100 6250 7600 6000 Mesol th c 7 References: 1. Montagnari Kokelj 1993 2. Biagi & Spataro 2000; 3. Biagi & Voytek 1994 4. Miracle 2001; 5. Srejović 1974; 6. Harrold et al. 1999; 7. Sordinas 1969. Tab. 2. Radiocarbon dates associated with Mesolithic assemblages from the Triestine Karst, Istria, Mon- tenegro, Albania, and Corfu. edge of the Adriatic. How might we explain the re- current gap in cave stratigraphies? Its time-transgres- sive nature, as well as the thick Late Mesolithic levels at several sites in both the northern and southern Adriatic, argue against a climatic cause of region-wide reduced sedimentation or erosion. In the Northern Adriatic the first pottery users visited caves that had long been abandoned. This abandonment more like- ly reflects a shift in settlement pattern (from caves to open air sites) than a decrease in population du- ring the Late Mesolithic. In the two dated sequences from the south, in contrast, there appears to be a continuity of occupation from the Mesolithic to Neo- lithic; and pottery use appears to have been incorpo- rated into a pre-existing strategy. We suspect that this geographic contrast in the continuity of occupation from the Mesolithic to Neolithic may correlate with a contrast in the processes involved in the adoption of pottery and farming in the two regions. The introduction of pottery into the Adriatic Since Chapman and Müller's (1990) discussion of the pattern of radiocarbon dates for the Eastern Adriatic Neolithic, there has been a slow but steady accumu- lation of radiometric dates from secure contexts (Fig. 3, Tab. 3). The basic pattern that they identified still holds; after the initial appearance of pottery on Corfu at the mouth of the Adriatic at ca. 6500 Cal BC, dates become progressively younger as one moves up the coast towards the northeast to the head of the Adriatic, where pottery makes its first appear- ance 1000 years later at about 5500 Cal BC. Poorly fired, mostly plain pottery appears just south of the Straits of Otranto around 6500 BC (Sordinas 1969. 401, 406, note 14). It is roughly contempora- neous with, or only slightly later than, the earliest pottery found elsewhere in Greece (Perles 2001.94- 95). Around (or soon after) 6200 BC, a characteris- tic pottery style known as Impressed Ware emerges somewhere on the northern Ionian coast (possibly, on Corfu), and then spreads rapidly into the imme- diate hinterland (Albania), up the Adriatic to south- ern Dalmatia, and to southeastern Italy (Sordinas 1969; Skeates 2000). Over the next few centuries, Impressed Ware spreads deeper into the Adriatic, reaching northern Dalmatia by around 5900 BC, and southern Istria by around 5750 BC. By that time it also reaches the deep hinterland of the eastern Adriatic (Marko- vić 1985). On the Italian side of the Adriatic its spread is somewhat dela- yed, reaching Abruzzo by 5750/5650 BC and East- ern Romagna by 5300 BC (Skeates 1994). Impressed Ware was the earliest pottery to appear almost throughout the length of the eastern Adri- atic (Batović 1979; Müller 1994). It seems, however, that it never reached the extreme north-western part of that region - north- ern Istria and the Triestine Karst (Forenbaher et al. 2004; Velušček 1997). Some time around 5600 BC, a new style known as Danilo (or Danilo/Vlaska) emerges in the eastern Adriatic, where it soon re- places the Impressed Ware. Only at that point does Danilo-like pottery reach the interior of Istria and the Triestine Karst, and as far to the northwest as Sammardenchia in Friuli (Pessina & Rottioli 1996. 85, Fig. 6), where it merges with pottery styles deri- ved from western Adriatic traditions. Calibrated radiocarbon dates allow us to consider the rates at which the pottery was spreading (Fig. 4). It took about 1000 years for pottery technology to move from Corfu to the Triestine Karst, a straight- line distance of roughly 875 km. This gives a rate of spread of about 0.9 km/year, which is close to the 1 km/year rate of the 'wave of advance' proposed by Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (1973). If, however, these were sea-faring people, for whom there is good evidence (Bass 1998; Forenbaher 1999), 1 km/year seems like a fairly leisurely pace. If, on the other hand, we consider the spread of Im- pressed Ware in some detail, a somewhat different pattern emerges. It took only about a century for Impressed Ware to move from Corfu to Korčula, a straight-line distance of roughly 460 km. This gives a considerably quicker rate of spread of about 4.5 km/year. Moving further to the north, it took about 300 years for Impressed Ware to move from Korču- Fig. 3■ Calibrated radiocarbon dates associated with Early and/or Middle Neolithic pottery from sites from Corfu, the Tavoliere, Albania, Montenegro, Dalmatia, Istria, and the Triestine Karst. Black symbols: Impressed Ware; grey symbols: plain pottery; white symbols: Danilo/Vlaška pottery; striped symbols: other Neolithic pottery. la to Istria, a the straight-line distance of roughly 300 km. The rate of spread has fallen to only 1 km/year. Furthermore, the early dates from southern Dalma- tia come from caves only, while those from northern Dalmatia and Istria come from both caves and open- air sites. From these admittedly scanty data, we sug- gest that the spread of the Neolithic along the east- ern Adriatic was not a smooth and continuous pro- cess. There may also have been a shift in settlement from short-term visits to caves in the very earliest phase to the longer-term occupation of open-air sites in the later phase. The processes of change The archaeological record thus testifies to temporal and spatial variability in the cultural practices asso- ciated with the first pottery and the apparent speed with which it moved up the Adriatic, whether piece- meal or as part of a package. It suggests that several different processes were important across the Meso- lithic-Neolithic transition along the eastern Adriatic. Beginning with the southern edge of the Adriatic, Si- dari and Konispol provide the most compelling evi- dence of the adoption of pottery and domestic ani- mals by small groups of seasonally mobile 'Mesoli- thic' hunter-gatherers. The first pottery found at Si- dari in Layer C base at about 6500 BC is apparently Site and context Lab no. (bp s.d. Cal BC 1 s.d. range Cal BC 2 s.d. range Attribution Ref. CORFU Sidari C bottom GXO-771 7670 120 6650 6400 6900 6200 Plain ware 1,2 Sidari C top GXO-772 7340 180 6390 6020 655° 5800 Impressed Ware 1,2 TAVOLIERE Masseria Giufredda MC-2292 7125 200 6220 579° 6400 5600 Impressed Ware 3 Scramella S. Vito R-350 7000 100 5990 577° 6°6° 5660 Impressed Ware 3 Scramella S. Vito R-351 6540 65 5610 539° 5620 536° Impressed Ware 3 Ripa Tetta Beta-47808 6890 60 5840 571° 589° 564° Impressed Ware 3 Coppa Nevigata OxA-1475 6880 90 5850 5660 598° 5620 Impressed Ware 3 Coppa Nevigata OxA-1474 6850 80 5800 564° 59°° 556° Impressed Ware 3 Lagnano da Piede UB-2271 6790 255 5980 547° 6300 5200 Impressed Ware 3 Lagnano da Piede UCLA-2148 6700 100 5720 553° 579° 547° Impressed Ware 3 Villa Comunale MC-2291 6750 220 5880 547° 6200 525° Impressed Ware 3 Masseria Candelaro OxA-3684 6640 95 5630 548° 573° 538° Impressed Ware 3 Masseria Candelaro OxA-3685 6510 95 5610 536° 563° 53°° Impressed Ware 3 Masseria S. Tecchia BM-2414 6520 70 5610 537° 5620 532° Impressed Ware 3 Mass. Font. Ulivetto BM-2415 6490 150 5620 5310 575° 5°5° Impressed Ware 3 ALBANIA Konispol Beta-56415 7060 110 6030 571° 6170 5800 Impressed Ware 10 Konispol Beta-67802 6830 80 579° 556° 589° 563° Early/Middle Neolithic 10 Konispol Beta-56416 6800 140 5840 545° 6°°° 555° Impressed Ware 10 MONTENEGRO (SOUTHERN HINTERLAND) Odmut IIA SI-2217 6985 100 598° 5660 6030 574° Starčevo 9 Odmut IIA SI-2219 6955 100 597° 5660 6010 573° Starčevo 9 Odmut IIB SI-2222 6900 100 589° 5620 599° 5660 Impressed Ware 9 Odmut IIB z-412 6740 130 574° 5510 59°° 535° Impressed Ware 9 Odmut IIB SI-2223 6530 80 5610 538° 563° 532° Impressed Ware 9 SOUTHERN DALMATIA Gudnja I GrN-10315 7170 70 6160 592° 6220 5880 Impressed Ware 4 Gudnja I GrN-10314 6935 50 585° 573° 598° 571° Impressed Ware 4 Gudnja II GrN-10311 6560 40 5610 547° 5620 542° Impressed Ware- Danilo 4 Gudnja III GrN-10313 6520 40 553° 538° 5610 537° Danilo 4 Gudnja III GrN-10312 6415 40 547° 532° 548° 5310 Danilo 4 Vela Spila VI bottom z-1967 7300 120 633° 6010 6420 5910 Impressed Ware 5 Vela Spila VI middle z-1968 7000 120 599° 574° 6200 5600 Impressed Ware 5 Grapčeva 1400 Beta-103488 7030 60 599° 584° 6020 574° Impressed Ware 6 NORTHERN DALMATIA Gospodska C z-579 7010 9° 599° 579° 6030 571° Impressed Ware 7 Skarin Samograd I HD-12094 6750 60 5715 5620 574° 553° Plain ware 7 Skarin Samograd I HD-11773 6740 50 572° 556° 573° 555° Plain ware 7 Skarin Samograd II HD-11950 6780 50 572° 5635 575° 556° Impressed Ware 7 Skarin Samograd II HD-11952 6600 100 563° 547° 572° 536° Impressed Ware 7 Pokrovnik I 7000 100 599° 577° 6°6° 5660 Impressed Ware 7 Pokrovnik II z-895 6300 150 547° 5060 555° 485° Danilo 7 Pokrovnik II HD-12842 6290 65 536° 5080 547° 5°5° Danilo 8 Tinj I GrN-15236 6980 160 6°°° 571° 6250 555° Impressed Ware 7 Tinj I GrN-15237 6670 260 585° 53°° 6200 5°°° Impressed Ware 7 Tinj I GrN-15238 6280 210 548° 499° 565° 47°° Impressed Ware 7 ISTRIA AND THE TRIESTINE KARST Vižula HD-12093 6850 180 597° 556° 6200 54°° Impressed Ware 7 Vižula HD-11733 6140 70 5210 495° 53°° 485° Impressed Ware 7 Ciclami Layer 8 R-1040A 6300 50 534° 514° 542° 5°7° Danilo/Vlaška 11 Edera Level 3a GX-19569 6700 130 572° 548° 585° 537° Plain ware 12 Edera Level 2a GX-19568 6615 390 6°°° 5°5° 6400 4600 Danilo/Vlaška 12 Edera Level 2a GrN-23129 6590 100 563° 547° 571° 536° Danilo/Vlaška 13 Edera Level 2a GrN-25474 6480 40 548° 537° 552° 532° Danilo/Vlaška 13 Edera Level 2a GX-19567 6445 210 565° 5°5° 575° 485° Danilo/Vlaška 12 Edera Level 2a GX-19022 6305 285 555° 485° 5800 45°° Danilo/Vlaška 12 Pupićina Horizon I z-2575 66OO 240 574° 53°° 6°°° 495° Danilo/Vlaška 14 Pupićina Horizon I OxA-8471 6495 60 552° 536° 5610 532° Danilo/Vlaška 15 Pupićina Horizon H Beta-131625 6680 100 567° 548° 578° 546° Danilo/Vlaška 15 Pupićina Horizon H Beta-131624 6270 120 537° 5°5° 55°° 485° Danilo/Vlaška 15 References: 1. Sordinas 1967, 2. Sordinas 1969; 3. Skeates 2°°°; 4. Chapman 1988, 5. Cecuk & Radić2°°1; 6. Forenbaher & Kaiser 1999', 7. Chapman & Muller 1990; 8. Biagi & Voytek 1994; 9. Marković 1985; 10. Harrold et al. 1999; 11. Gilli & Montagnari Kokelj 1992; 12. Biagi 1995,13. Biagi & Spataro 2000; 14. Miracle 1997, 15. Miracle & Forenbaher 2006. Tab. 3. Radiocarbon dates associated with Neolithic pottery assemblages from Corfu, the Tavoliere, Alba- nia, Montenegro, Dalmatia, Istria, and the Triestine Karst. unique to the region. The pre- sence of only parts of the 'Neo- lithic package' and their appea- rance within an existing Meso- lithic site suggests adoption through social interaction and exchange - probably 'individu- al frontier mobility' (Tab. 1). These cultural novelties were not moving between Mesolithic populations. Neither pottery nor domestic animals are pre- sent only 35 km away across the Strait of Corfu in Late Meso- lithic layers dating to ca. 6500- 6200 BC at Konispol Cave. It is only with the appearance of Im- pressed Ware that the Neolithic starts to move in the region. The earliest radiometrically da- ted Impressed Ware appears at Sidari Layer C top at about 6200 BC. There is little indica- tion, however, of cultural conti- nuity between this and the un- derlying Layer C base; there is a major stratigraphic and chro- nological gap (ca. 300 years) be- tween them. Impressed Ware at Sidari is associated with the full suite of domestic animals and other changes in lithic techno- logy and typology (Perles 2001.49-50). The identity of the inventors of Impressed Ware style remains elu- sive. Were they from the indigenous population, who perhaps acquired or invented new pottery making techniques during the several centuries when they were not occupying the site, or were these new immi- grant agropastoralists from the southeast, who bro- ught pottery with them? We doubt that there will be a satisfactory answer to this question any time soon. Rather, we think it is more productive to try to under- stand how and why Impressed Ware started to move. The coastal distribution of Impressed Ware sites and their presence on most of the eastern Adriatic is- lands, including a number of isolated islets far from the mainland (Bass 1998; Forenbaher 1999), indi- cates clearly that maritime communication was the key ingredient of its dispersion. Seafaring was not necessarily a Neolithic invention. There is indirect evidence of pre-Neolithic (11th Millennium BC) sea- faring from Franchthi Cave (Perles 2001.28, 35), as Fig. 4. Model of the spread of farming and herding in the Eastern Ad- riatic region. Black, solid lines: first phase of rapid 'leapfrog coloniza- tion' associated with Impressed Wares. Grey lines: second phase of slow 'agropastoral expansion' associated with Impressed Wares. White lines: third phase of'agropastoral expansion' associated with Danilo/Vlaska pottery. Black, dashed lines: adoption of herding and farming through 'individual frontier mobility'. well as the Mesolithic colonisation of Corsica and other Mediterranean islands during the early Holo- cene (Costa et al. 2003). The radiocarbon dates indicate that Impressed Ware and domestic animals took less time to move almost 500 km up the Adriatic to the Middle Dalmatian is- lands than they took to move 35 km across the Strait of Corfu to Konispol Cave. The former pattern is compatible with the model of 'leapfrog maritime co- lonisation' by small seafaring communities (Zilhäo 199337, 50; Zvelebil 2001.5), although the lack of dated open-air sites (permanent villages) associated with the earliest Impressed Ware in the southern Adriatic undermines the fit. We may have early Neo- lithic 'colonists' without evidence of their colonies. Without more information about the Late Mesolithic in the coastal region it is difficult to exclude an alter- native hypothesis: that local Mesolithic foragers ac- quired pottery and other innovations, and then dis- persed them by sailing up and down the Adriatic. Beyond the coastal strip in the southern Adriatic and Albania, Impressed Ware and other innovations were introduced through contact between agricultu- ral and hunter-gatherer groups. Radiocarbon dates suggest a piecemeal adoption of parts of the 'Neo- lithic package' at Konispol, Odmut, Crvena Stijena, and Zelena pećina, slightly after the initial spread of Impressed Ware up the Adriatic. Some of these sites are located in areas unsuitable for agriculture, in remote parts of the hinterland separated from the coast by high mountain ranges; others overlook val- leys with good agricultural potential. Only at Konis- pol do we have detailed enough data to discuss the process of adoption of pottery and domestic ani- mals. Russell (1998.149) suggests that cattle were relatively important in the transitional assemblages at Konispol and that these animals may have been provided to the hunter-gatherer inhabitants as bride- wealth. Cattle and other domestic animals may have also been important in feasts. Without further infor- mation about the social contexts of consumption and use of food and pottery, the process by which these novel resources were adopted by the Mesoli- thic hunter-gatherers remains vague. For the time being, a variant of Individual Frontier Mobility would appear to be the most likely process. After 6000 BC, Impressed Ware made its way up the northern Adriatic, reaching southern Istria by ca. 5750 BC. Along the way, our Impressed Ware pot- ters started to live in open-air sites that look like more permanent villages. Faunal assemblages, whe- ther from caves or open-air sites, are dominated by domestic animals. Direct evidence about plant foods is scarce, although site locations show a preference for land suitable for agriculture. Although the evi- dence is patchy at best, we suggest that it is only at this time that we have the assembly of the entire 'Neolithic package'. Why did the pace of pottery adoption change after 6000 BC? The northern Adriatic may have suppor- ted larger and more successful groups of native hun- ter-gatherers, who resisted the immigration of far- mers. Some evidence for this model comes from the large number of Mesolithic sites at the head of the Adriatic, and the delay in the appearance of agricul- ture in the region. On the other hand, the relative population densities might have been reversed (re- latively lower in the north and higher in the south), suggesting that social leveling mechanisms in rela- tively small indigenous populations in the northern Adriatic undermined the acquisition and spread of prestige items like pottery and domestic animals. Re- gardless of whether Impressed Ware was carried by migrating farmers or passed among resident hunter- gatherers, the density and social organization of Late Mesolithic people is key to our understanding of the process. A two-stage model of dispersal We are thus proposing a two-stage model for the dis- persal of Impressed Ware, in which there is an initial stage of pioneer exploration followed by a later stage of colonization (Fiedel & Anthony 2003). The first stage occurs rapidly and is limited to the islands and the coastal strip of the southern Adriatic. Rather than establishing permanent settlements, these people may have made short-term, seasonal camps in caves and the open-air. They apparently brought domestic animals with them, and may have seeded islands with flocks in anticipation of future visits. The Im- pressed Ware 'pioneers' rapidly explored the south- ern Adriatic, establishing contacts with indigenous hunter-gatherer groups in the hinterland, and pro- bably relying on these native groups as a source of information and perhaps marriage partners. The ini- tial Impressed Ware occupations at Vela Spila and Gudnja may be evidence of these first 'scouts'. During the second phase of Impressed Ware expan- sion, settled farmers became established. There was less reliance on native hunter-gatherers for informa- tion and other resources, and in any case, those that held on in the region had probably been decimated by the loss of personnel to farming, disease, through marriage, or conflict. Exceptions might have been the hinterland of Montenegro, where important ele- ments of the foraging lifestyle continued into the Middle Neolithic (Crvena Stijena) or even Late Neo- lithic (Odmut). Farming eventually reached the head of the Adriatic about 5600 BC, now associated with Middle Neolithic Danilo/Vlaska pottery. Conclusion Archaeological evidence suggests that immigration played a major role in the introduction of farming into the eastern Adriatic. This is not to say that this was a one-sided affair in which indigenous foragers were passive recipients. It must have been a com- plex process that involved both the actual move- ment of people and the active participation of the local population. There is no reason to believe that this process unfolded along identical lines through- out the region. There is provocative evidence that the transition to farming occurred in a two-stage pro- cess. An initial stage of very rapid dispersal, perhaps by exploratory parties along the coast in the south- ern Adriatic, was followed by a second stage, dur- ing which the eastern Adriatic littoral was probably colonized by enclave-forming farming communities. The hinterland, and perhaps also parts of the coast, remained an agricultural frontier zone for a while. -ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS- This research was supported in part by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Croatia, project MZT-0196004. REFERENCES AMMERMAN A. J., & BIAGI P. (eds.) 2003. The Widening Harvest. The Neolithic Transition in Europe: Looking Back, Looking Forward. Archaeological Institute of Ame- rica, Boston. AMMERMAN A. J., & CAVALLI-SFORZA L. L. 1973. A popu- lation model for the diffusion of early farming in Europe. In C. Renfrew (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory. Duckworth, London: 335-358. 1984. The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of Populations in Europe. Princeton University Press. Princeton. BAGOLINI B. & VON ELES P. 1978. L'insedimento neoli- tico di Imola e la corrente culturale ella ceramica impres- sa nel medio e alto Adriatico. Preistoria Alpina 14:33-63. BARFIELD L. H. 1972. The first Neolithic cultures of North Eastern Italy. In H. Schwabedissen (ed.), Die Anfänge des Neolithikums vom Orient bis Nordeuropa. Teil VII: West- liches Mittelmeergebiet und Britische Inseln. Böhlau Verlag, Köln-Wien: 182-217. BARKER G. 1985. Prehistoric Farming in Europe. Cam- bridge University Press. Cambridge. BARNETT W. K. 2000. Cardial pottery and the agricultural transition in Mediterranean Europe. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe's First Farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge: 93-116. BASS B. 1998. Early Neolithic offshore accounts: remote islands, maritime exploitations, and the trans-Adriatic cul- tural network. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 11(2): 165-190. BATOVIC S. 1979. Jadranska zona. In M. Garasanin (ed.), Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja, Vol. II: Neolitsko do- ba. Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo: 473-634. BELLWOOD P. & RENFREW C. (eds.) 2002. Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. BENAC A. (ed.) 1979-1987. Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja (5 Volumes). Svjetlost, Sarajevo. BIAGI P. 1995. North Eastern Italy in the Seventh Mille- nium BP: a Bridge between the Balkans and the West? In The Vinča Culture, its Role and Cultural Connections. Museum Banaticum Temesiense, Timisoara: 9-22. BIAGI P. & SPATARO M. 2000. Plotting the evidence: some aspects of the radiocarbon chronology of the Meso- lithic-Neolithic transition in the Mediterranean Basin. Atti della Societa per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Re- gione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 12: 15-54. BIAGI P. & STARNINI E. 1999. Some aspects of the neoli- thization of the Adriatic region. Atti della Societaper la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 11: 7-17. BIAGI P. & VOYTEK B. 1994. The Neolithisation of the Trieste Karst in North-Eastern Italy and its neighboring countries. Josza Andras Muzeum Evkonyve 36: 63-73. BUDJA M. 1993. The Neolithisation of Europe: Slovenian aspect. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in ene- olita v Sloveniji 21:163-193. 1996. Neolithization in the Caput Adriae region: be- tween Herodotus and Cavalli-Sforza. Poročilo o razis- kovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 23: 61-76. 1999. The transition to farming in Mediterranean Eu- rope - an indigenous response. In M. Budja (ed.), 6th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 26:119- 141. 2001. The transition to farming in southeast Europe: perspectives from pottery. In M. Budja (ed.), 8th Neoli- thic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 28:27-47. CHAPMAN J. C. 1988. Ceramic production and social diffe- rentiation: the Dalmatian Neolithic and the Western Medi- terranean. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 1/2: 3-25. CHAPMAN J. C. & MÜLLER J. 1990. Early farmers in the Mediterranean Basin: the Dalmatian evidence. Antiquity 64:127-134. CHAPMAN J., SHIEL R. & BATOVIĆ S. 1996. The Changing Face of Dalmatia. Leicester University Press. London. COSTA L., VIGNE J.-D., BOCHERENS H., DESSE-BERSET N., HEINZ C., DE LANFRANCHI F., MAGDELEINE J., RUAS M.-P., THIEBAULT S. & TOZZI C. 2003. Early settlement on Tyr- rhenian islands (8th millennium cal. BC): Mesolithic adap- tion to local resources in Corsica and northern Sardinia. In L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Loeffler & A. Äkerlund (eds.), Mesolithic on the Move. Papers presented at the Sixth International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000. Oxbow Books, Oxford: 3-10. ČEČUK B. & RADIĆ D. 2001. Vela spilja - preliminarni re- zultati dosadašnjih istraživanja. In B. Čečuk (ed.), Arheo- loška istraživanja na području otoka Korčule i Lasto- va. Hrvatsko arheološko društvo, Zagreb: 75-118. DIMITRIJEVIĆ S., MAJNARIĆ-PANDŽIĆ N. & TEŽAK-GREGL T. (eds.) 1998. Prapovijest. Naprijed, Zagreb. FIEDEL S. J. & ANTHONY D. W. 2003. Deerslayers, path- finders, and icemen. Origins of the European Neolithic as seen from the frontier. In M. Rockman & J. Steele (eds.), Colonization of Unfamiliar Landscapes: The Archaeo- logy of Adaptation. Routledge, London: 144-168. FORENBAHER S. 1999. The earliest islanders of the East- ern Adriatic. Collegium Antropologicum 23: 521-530. FORENBAHER S. & KAISER T. 1999. Grapčeva spilja i ap- solutno datiranje istočnojadranskog neolitika. Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 92: 9-34. FORENBAHER S., KAISER T. & MIRACLE P. T. 2004. Pupi- cina Cave pottery and the Neolithic sequence in Northeast- ern Adriatic. Atti della Societaper lapreeistoria e proto- storia della regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 14: 61-102. FORENBAHER S. & MIRACLE P. T. 2006. Pupicina Cave and the spread of farming in the Eastern Adriatic. In P. T. Miracle & S. Forenbaher (eds.), Prehistoric Herders in Is- tria (Croatia): The Archaeology of Pupicina Cave. Ar- chaeological Museum of Istria, Pula, Volume 1: 483-530. GILLI E. & MONTAGNARI KOKELJ E. 1992. La Grotta dei Ciclami nel Carso Triestino (materiali degli scavi 1959- 1961). Atti della Societa per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 7: 65-162. HARROLD F. B., KORKUTI M. M., ELLWOOD B. B., PETRU- SO K. M. & SCHULDENREIN J. 1999. The Palaeolithic of southernmost Albania. In G. N. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Pana- gopoulou, C. Perles & K. Zachos (eds.), The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas: 361-372. Proceedings of the ICOPAG Conference, Ioannina. British School at Athens Studies 3, London. JONES M. 2002. The Molecule Hunt. Penguin. London. MARKOVIĆ Č. 1985. Neolit Crne Gore. Centar za Arheo- loška Istraživanja Filozofskog Fakulteta u Beogradu, Knji- ga 5, Beograd. MILNER N., CRAIG O. E., BAILEY G. N., PEDERSEN K. & AN- DERSEN S. H. 2004. Something fishy in the Neolithic? A re-evaluation of stable isotope analysis of Mesolithic and Neolithic coastal populations. Antiquity 78: 9-22. MIRACLE P. T. 1997. Early Holocene foragers in the karst of northern Istria. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neo- lita in eneolita v Sloveniji 24: 43-61. 2001. Feast or famine? Epipalaeolithic subsistence in the northern Adriatic basin. In M. Budja (ed.), 8th Neo- lithic Studies, Documenta Praehistorica 28:173-196. MIRACLE P. T. & FORENBAHER S. 2006. Excavations at Pupicina Cave. In P. T. Miracle & S. Forenbaher (eds.), Prehistoric Herders in Istria (Croatia): The Archaeology of Pupičina Cave. Archaeological Museum of Istria, Pula, Volume 1: 63-122. MIRACLE P. T. & PUGSLEY L. 2006. Vertebrate faunal re- mains at Pupicina Cave. In P. T. Miracle & S. Forenbaher (eds.), Prehistoric Herders in Istria (Croatia): The Ar- chaeology of Pupičina Cave, Volume 1:259-400. Archa- eological Museum of Istria, Pula. MONTAGNARI KOKELJ E. 1993. The transition from Meso- lithic to Neolithic in the Trieste karst. Poročilo o razisko- vanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 21: 69-83. MÜLLER J. 1994. Das Ostadriatische Frühneolithikum: Die Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adria- raumes. Volker Spiess, Berlin. PERLES C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece. Cam- bridge University Press. Cambridge. PESSINA A. & ROTTOLIM. 1996. New evidence on the ear- liest farming cultures in northern Italy: archaeological and palaeobotanical data. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 23: 77-103. PLUCIENNIK M. 1997. Radiocarbon determinations and the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Southern Italy. Jour- nal of Mediterranean Archaeology 10:115-150. PRICE T. D. 2000. Europe's first farmers: an introduction. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe's First Farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1-18. PRICE T. D., BURTON J. H. & BENTLEY R. A. 2002. Charac- terization of biologically available Strontium isotope ratios for the study of prehistoric migration. Archaeometry 44: 117-135. RENFREW C. 1987. Archaeology and Language: The Puz- zle of Indo-European Origins. Cape. London. RICHARDS M. R., CORTE-REAL H., FORSTER P., MACAULAY V., WILKINSON-HERBOTS H., DEMAINE A., PAPIHA S., HEDGES R., BANDELT H. -J. & SYKES B. 1996. Paleolithic and Neolithic lineages in the European mitochondrial gene pool. American Journal of Human Genetics 59: 186- 203. RICHARDS M. R., MACAULAY V. & BANDELT H. -J. 2002. Analyzing genetic data in a model-based framework: infe- rences about European prehistory. In P. Bellwood & C. Renfrew (eds.), Examining the Farming/Language Dis- persal Hypothesis. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cam- bridge: 459-466. RICHARDS M. P., SCHULTING R. J. & HEDGES R. E. M. 2003. Sharp shift in diet at onset of Neolithic. Nature 424:366. ROWLEY-CONWY P. 1995. Making first farmers younger: the West European evidence. Current Anthropology 36: 346-353. RUSSELL N. 1998. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the faunal assemblage from Konispol Cave, Albania. In H. Buitenhuis, L. Bartosiewicz, A. Choyke (eds.), Archaeozo- ology of the Near East III. Groningen Institute of Archa- eology, Groningen: 145-159. SCHULDENREIN J. 1998. Konispol Cave, southern Alba- nia, and correlations with other Aegean caves occupied in the Late Quaternary. Geoarchaeology 13:501-526. SKEATES R. 1994. Towards an absolute chronology for the Neolithic in Central Italy. In R. Skeates & R. White- house (eds.), Radiocarbon Dating and Italian Prehistory. British School at Rome, London: 61-72. 2000. The Social Dynamics of Enclosure in the neoli- thic of the Tavoliere, South-east Italy. Journal of Medi- terranean Archaeology 13(2): 155-188. SORDINAS A. 1967. Radiocarbon dates from Corfu, Greece. Antiquity 51: 64. 1969. Investigations of the Prehistory of Corfu during 1964-1966. Balkan Studies 10:393-424. SREJOVIC D. 1974. The Odmut Cave - a new facet of the Mesolithic culture of the Balkan Peninsula. Archaeolo- gia Iugoslavica 15: 3-7. THOMAS J. 1999. Understanding the Neolithic. Rout- ledge. London. TRINGHAM R. 1971. Hunters, Fishers and Farmers of Eastern Europe 6000-3000 BC. Hutchinson. London. 2000. Southeastern Europe in the transition to agricul- ture in Europe: bridge, buffer, or mosaic. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe's First Farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 19-56. TRUMP D. H. 1980. The Prehistory of the Mediterranean. Allen Lane. London. VELUŠČEK A. 1997. Impreso keramika iz jame Pejca v Las- ci pri Nabrežini. Annales 10:11-18. WHITTLE A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic: the Creation of New Worlds. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. 2003. The Archaeology of People: Dimensions of Neolithic Life. Routledge. London. ZILHÄO J. 1993. The spread of agro-pastoral economies across Mediterranean Europe: a view from the far west. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 6(1): 5-63. 2000. From the Mesolithic to Neolithic in the Iberian peninsula. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe's First Farmers: 144-182. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. ZOHARY D. 1996. The mode of domestication of the foun- der crops of Southwest Asian agriculture. In D. R. Harris (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pasto- ralism in Eurasia. UCL Press, London: 142-158. ZVELEBIL M. 1986. Mesolithic societies and the transition to farming: problems of time, scale and organisation. In M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in Transition, Mesolithic So- cieties in Temperate Eurasia and Their Transition to Farming. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 167- 188. 2001. The Agricultural Transition and the Origins of Neolithic Society in Europe. In M. Budja (ed.), 8th Neo- lithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 28:1-26. 2002. Demography and the dispersal of early farming populations at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition: lin- guistic and genetic implications. In P. Bellwood & C. Renfrew (eds.), Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge: 379-394. ZVELEBIL M. & LILLIE M. 2000. Transition to agriculture in eastern Europe. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe's First Far- mers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 57-92.