Title:
A Connecting Sea: Maritime Interaction in Adriatic Prehistory
Session organizer:
Stašo Forenbaher
Institute for Anthropological Research
Zagreb, Croatia
Thematic block:
Archaeology and Material Culture: Interpreting the Archaeological Record
Format:
Regular session
Abstract:
Researchers have long realized that the Adriatic Sea was a medium of communication rather
than a barrier in prehistory. Hemmed in between the Balkans and peninsular Italy, with its head in
the Alpine foothills and its foot pointing towards the Aegean, the Adriatic touches different worlds.
Archaeological records frequently show that the coastal zones on both sides of the Adriatic had
more in common with each other than with their hinterlands. Whilst the Adriatic is a relatively
small and enclosed sea, travelling across its waters still presented serious hazards and took skill and
knowledge. This has been addressed by recent work, both above and below the waterline,
challenging our time­honoured notions of when, how and why the people living on the Adriatic
shores, took to the sea.
This session aims to cover the period from the earliest evidence for navigation to the end of
prehistory as signalled by Greek colonization. During this period, the region witnessed several
episodes of radical transformation, including a switch from foraging to farming and the emergence
of social elites. This session aims to question the role that maritime communication played in these
momentous events. Other themes that we would like to broach in this session include:
·
How geography, weather patterns and climatic change influenced the early Adriatic navigators.
·
How prehistoric maritime travellers may have viewed the comparative roles of the mainland
and the islands.
·
What the social, economic and technological underpinnings of maritime travel were, and the
knowledge which was involved.
·
Who was travelling across the Adriatic and why they initially decided to travel across water.
·
How distributions of raw materials and pottery styles may inform us about maritime travel and
how this changed over time resulting in the cultural diversity and coherence that characterized
this region throughout most of prehistory.
·
Finally, how the situation in the prehistoric Adriatic compares to other parts of the
Mediterranean, and to other inner seas elsewhere.
Participants will offer new insights relevant to some of these questions, augmented by the
results of recent fieldwork and current theoretical developments.
(1)
Beginnings of Trans­Adriatic Navigation: A View from Vela Cave
Dinko Radić
Navigation in southeastern Europe begins immediately after the end of the Glacial period
(some 10.000 BP), when, due to global warming, the sea level rose for almost a hundred meters.
The earliest of the ancient sailors navigated throughout the Mediterranean, but here our attention is
primarily focused on connections between Apulia and Dalmatia. The main reasons for sailing in
those days were search for sources of raw materials, exogamous marriage partners, and mutual
reciprocities of technology and various experiences.
Appearance and the construction of the primary navigational means represent an interesting
problem. Studies are at the very beginning, so it is incomparably easier to establish connections
between destinations (for example Cyprus and Palestine, Melos and Peloponnese, the islands of
Palagruža and Korčula) than to grasp the construction of the ancient vessels, remains of which have
not been preserved.
(2)
Changes in Seafaring and Use of the Sea during Neolithic: A View from Istria
Darko Komšo
Although the tradition of excavating Neolithic in Istria is older than 50 years now, only the
recent excavations yielded data connected with seafaring and use of the sea.
Kargadur is a Neolithic site located on the south­eastern coast of Istria. It consists of 2
phases, the Early Neolithic characterized by impressed ware, and Middle Neolithic characterized by
the “Danilo” pottery. The difference between the phases is not just based on stylistic characteristics
of pottery decoration, but also in the changes in subsistence strategies. One of the striking
differences is the change in the perception and the use of the sea.
During the Early Neolithic phase of the settlement, the use of local resources was
predominant. The sea use was confined to food collecting and fishing, which is evident from the
abundant seashell and fish remains, as well as several bone hooks. During the Middle Neolithic
phase of the settlement, situation changed drastically. The sea was still used as the food resource,
but the presence of exotic material, such as obsidian, exogenous flint and polished axes suggest the
exchange through seafaring with the distant areas.
(3)
Procurement of Raw Materials for Lithic Artefacts in the Prehistory of Middle Dalmatia
Zlatko Perhoč
Topics of this research project are: (1) provenance of the raw materials for lithic artefacts,
that were produced at the archaeological sites within the region under study; (2) sourcing and
transport of the raw material; (3) question of provenance of the imported lithic artefacts.
The project principally refers to chert and its varieties. Numerous outcrops of the siliceous
sediment in the region are investigated. The petrographical spectrum of lithic artefacts in the region
indicates diverse geographical origin of the raw material and different ways of its procurement and
transporation.
The aim of this research is to correlate archaeological sites and rock deposits within and
outside of the studied region. Archaeometrical methods and techniques are used in the analysis of
raw material provenance.
(4)
Around and Across the Adriatic: Obsidian Trade from the Tyrrhenian to Trieste
Robert H. Tykot
While early maritime travel in the Mediterranean has been demonstrated by the discovery of
Melos obsidian in Upper Paleolithic contexts at Franchthi Cave, and the presence of Mesolithic
settlements on at least a few of the larger islands, details about prehistoric seagoing are lacking,
especially around and across the Adriatic. In the central Mediterranean, obsidian sources and trade
have been well documented for the Tyrrhenian, in part because of the large number of excavated
sites where lithic assemblages have been found and studied, especially in Sardinia, Corsica, Sicily,
and mainland Italy. But it is only in recent times that obsidian artifacts found at sites along the
Adriatic, especially on the eastern shores and on islands such as Susac and Palagruza, have been
studied. Chemical analysis demonstrates that the vast majority of obsidian found along the Adriatic
came from Lipari, while at inland sites in peninsular Italy a mixture of obsidian sources are
represented. This paper specifically addresses the quantity and regularity of Neolithic obsidian trade
and distribution around and across the Adriatic, and how it changed over this 3000 year period, with
comparisons to other exchanged materials including ceramics and domesticated animals, and
suggestions regarding perishable but socioeconomically significant material.
(5)
Figulina Ware as a Marker of Economic Change in the mid­6th Millennium BC?
New Data on Figulina Pottery Production from the Middle Adriatic
Michela Spataro
Archaeologists have always seen figulina ware as a prestige item, with striking differences
in texture and decoration compared to contemporary everyday pottery. It appeared along both
Adriatic coastlines towards the end of the Early Neolithic, and was produced for more than a
millennium, throughout the Middle Neolithic. To reinforce the idea that this special type of pot was
a prestige/status item, some figulina pots have been found together with other exotic finds, such as
Spondylus beads (e.g. at La Vela di Trento).
In the last few years, figulina samples from Impressed Ware sites on both Adriatic coasts,
and also from Danilo and Hvar sites in Croatia and recently from a Square­Mouthed Pottery site in
Italy, have been analysed scientifically using thin­sectioning, Scanning Electron Microscopy­
Energy Dispersive Spectrometry and X­Ray Fluorescence.
The analyses show that the figulina ware was made by a more sophisticated method than
that used for the ordinary ceramics produced at these sites. The use of local clay sources to
manufacture figulina ware shows that this technology was widely dispersed, although practised by a
few specialist artisans.
(6)
Adriatic Offshore Islands and Long­Distance Interaction in Prehistory
Stašo Forenbaher
This presentation explores the proposition that the archaeological record of small, remote
islands with scarce resources reflects the intensity of long­distance interaction in prehistory, taking
as an example the Adriatic offshore islands. The best represented periods, the early Neolithic and
the end of the Copper Age, correspond to the times of large­scale stylistic unity, the former, of the
Mediterranean Impressed Wares, and the latter, of the Bell Beakers. During those periods, radical
innovations were introduced over vast areas of Europe, first, a new subsistence economy, and
second, a different kind of social organization. In both cases, long­distance interaction would have
played a crucial role.
(7)
Down to the Sea in Boats: Navigational and Technological Constraints on Adriatic Sailors of
the Copper Age.
Timothy Kaiser
The sea does not permit sailors to travel across its expanse without constraint. Winds and
currents sometimes permit maritime traffic and at other times they prevent it. Discovering when
and where optimal (or even just tolerable) conditions obtained would have been a particular
challenge to prehistoric sailors navigating the Adriatic. Refining that knowledge and disseminating
it must also have been crucial to the successful maintenance of long­distance overseas interactions.
Such interactions appear to have been exceptionally important at several prehistoric junctures,
notably the Copper Age. This paper considers how navigational considerations, environmental and
technological, may have affected the development of Copper Age networks in the eastern Adriatic.
(8)
What is Moving and What is Not: Archaeological Evidence of Human Mobility on the Shores
of the Adriatic between Copper and Bronze Age
Franco Nicolis
Since few years isotopic analyses have shown that people moved around all over Europe in
late prehistory. Archaeological reasoning is traditionally based on the evolution of the cultural
setting, but “cultures don’t migrate, people do” (D. Anthony). In this paper, a discussion of how
archaeological evidence can explain the human mobility in absence of analytical studies on human
remains will be presented.
The Adriatic sea, like the Alps, has never been a natural barrier. There is good evidence of
long distance interrelations between the two shores of the Adriatic, and beyond, in the mid/late 3rd
millennium BC, probably connected with the more complex phenomenon of the Bell Beaker. What
does this mean? Displacement of people or dissemination of ideas? But “ideas don’t migrate, people
do”. And why people were on the move? Was the long distance travel “an anonymous by­product
of the economic system” (F. Kvalo) or did it have an ideological and political significance (M.
Helms)?
(9)
Seafarers and Land Travellers in the Bronze Age of northern Adriatic
Elisabetta Borgna & Paola Cassola Guida
According to several contributions the Adriatic regions would have been involved not only
in coast­to coast contacts but also in the network of long­distance relationships that had linked
Western Anatolia, the Aegean islands, Greece and the central Mediterranean in the Early Bronze
Age (with reference to the Eastern and Aegean chronology).
Did small scale connections on a local level create the framework for a highly directional
organized exchange? Or were long­distance exchange activities responsible for the increase in local
mobility and tramping? In the paper the evidence for sea travelling is analysed taking into particular
consideration the function of monumental architecture in the making of coastal landscapes
consistent with sea­faring. Also inland monumental landscapes, such as the setting of EBA burial
tumuli in Friuli and Venezia Giulia, Northern Adriatic, may be considered in the perspective of
Adriatic mobility, as they seem to reveal a link ­ both conceptual and cultural ­ with the
monumental seascapes.
(10)
Prehistoric Occupation of the Albanian Adriatic Coast
Ols Lafe & Michael L. Galaty
In this paper we investigate patterns of settlement along the Adriatic littoral of Albania,
which varied in intensity during different periods of prehistory. We apply a “coastscape” model, as
developed by Pullen and Tartaron to explain occupation of the Saronic Gulf coast of the Aegean
Sea in Greece. In Albania, settlements on the coastal plain were strongly tied to settlements located
in their interior, mountainous hinterlands. These relationships were largely economic, related to
Adriatic trade. This can be contrasted to other Adriatic and Aegean “coastscapes”, where the
relationships between coastal and interior sites were defined politically, as well.
(11)
An Overview of Prehistoric Settlement Topography and Maritime Connections on Lastovo
Island, Croatia
Bryon Bass, Philippe Della Casa, Branko Kirigin, Dinko Radić, & Tea Katunarić
The Augusta Insula Project focuses on the Croatian island of Lastovo. These investigations
are part of ongoing archaeological and interdisciplinary research in the southern Dalmatian
archipelago conducted under the aegis of the Korčula Archaeological Research Group (KARG).
The multinational team for the 2001, 2003, and 2007 field campaigns consisted of archaeologists
and geologists from Croatia, Switzerland, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Field studies
focus on the application of heritage management practices pertinent to the island’s archaeological
and historical resources. The first season’s research consisted of preliminary bibliographic studies
and field survey, while the second field season consisted of limited subsurface archaeological
testing at the localities of Kaštel and Lučica. The third season focused on more intensive field
survey, informant interviews, and data collection. A GIS data base has been developed to examine
the inter­relationships of the sites, and their relationships to the regional prehistoric and
protohistoric coastal marine setting. The project is similar in scope to the Adriatic Island Project.
Eventually, a joint data­base (including Sušac and Pelješac Peninsula) will enable the study of a
large group of islands. Such a common data collection approach would be unique to Mediterranean
archaeological research.