“Mind the gap”: Caves, radiocarbon sequences, and the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition in Europe—lessons from the Mala Triglavca rockshelter site

“Mind the Gap”: Caves, Radiocarbon

Sequences, and the Mesolithic–Neolithic

Transition in Europe—Lessons from the

Mala Triglavca Rockshelter Site

Dimitrij Mlekuz,1, * Mihael Budja,1 Robert Payton,2

and Clive Bonsall3

1Department of Archaeology at the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana,

Askerceva 2, P.O. 580, SI-1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia2School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University,

King George VI Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK3School of History, Classics, and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh,

Old High School, Infirmary Street, Edinburgh, EH1 1LT, UK

Radiocarbon sequences from some northern Mediterranean cave sites show a temporal gapbetween Mesolithic and Neolithic occupations. Some authors regard this as a regionalphenomenon and have sought to explain it in terms of a general population decline in the lateMesolithic, which facilitated the replacement of indigenous foragers by immigrant farmers. Newevidence from the rockshelter site of Mala Triglavca, in Slovenia, leads us to question thisview. We describe the deposits in the rockshelter and discuss the results of AMS radiocarbondating of bone samples recovered in excavations in the 1980s. New archaeological investi-gations and associated soil/sediment analyses show that in the central part of the rocksheltera well-defined stratigraphic sequence can be established, despite post-depositional modifica-tion by soil forming processes. There is also evidence of substantial post-depositionaldisturbance of the cave sediments by human agency and geomorphological processes, whichhave created “temporal gaps” and “inversions” in the radiocarbon sequence. The relatively largeseries of radiocarbon dates obtained enables some of the post-depositional processes to beidentified. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

INTRODUCTION

It is often assumed that Mesolithic–Neolithic continuity or discontinuity of set-tlement relates to the processes involved in the transition to farming, and that itcan be recognized and read directly in the depositional sequences of archaeologicalsites and their associated artifact assemblages. This view derives from the concep-tual conversion of geological into cultural stratigraphy and the acceptance of linealradiocarbon sequences as representing sequential accumulations of deposits throughanthropogenic activities. Lineal series of radiocarbon dates from individual sites

Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, Vol. 23, No. 3, 398–416 (2008)© 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI:10.1002/gea.20220

*Corresponding author; E-mail: [email protected].

GEA233_20220.qxd 4/3/08 8:15 PM Page 398

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3

LESSONS FROM THE MALA TRIGLAVCA ROCKSHELTER SITE

399

tend to be interpreted as a direct record of habitation, with any discontinuity beingseen as a gap in occupation and, by extension, in local or even regionalMesolithic–Neolithic cultural trajectories. Thus the neolithization of southeast Europe,and the Adriatic basin in particular, has become instrumentalized by “comparativestratigraphy” which links Anatolia (Çatal Höyük, Suberde, and Beldiba) with thePeloponnese and southern Balkans (Franchthi, Argissa, Sesklo, Vlush, and Drenovac)and Adriatic (Skarin Samograd) (Parzinger, 1993:53, 65–78, 190, 254). Recently, atten-tion has focused on cave deposits, with several authors arguing for well-definedbreaks between the Mesolithic and Neolithic. In this paper, we discuss the evidencefrom the rockshelter site of Mala Triglavca, in Slovenia, which has a critical bearingon the issue.

Continuity or Gap?

Mark Pluciennik (1997) noted a hiatus of several centuries to a millennium ormore between Mesolithic and Neolithic occupations in radiocarbon sequences fromnorthern Mediterranean sites. Rather than accepting the “gap” as real, Pluciennikused it to highlight a number of conceptual issues relating to the transition to farm-ing. The gap was seen as symptomatic of the periodization of the archaeologicalrecord into Mesolithic and Neolithic and the treatment of the Neolithic as radicallydifferent from the Mesolithic. He proposed several possible explanations for thephenomenon, ranging from taphonomic and methodological problems connectedwith archaeological visibility, to changes in settlement pattern.

However, the evidence of discontinuous occupations of individual sites was trans-lated into regional cultural or demographic phenomena. Based on two well-studiedsites with clear evidence of the gap, Theopetra (Karkanas, 1999, 2001) and Franchthi(Farrand, 1993, 2000, 2003), Laurens Thissen suggested there was “a stratigraphic dis-continuity between the Latest (or Final) Mesolithic and the onset of the Neolithic bothin Thessaly (at Theopetra) and in Southern Greece at Franchthi” (Thissen, 2005:35).Others maintain that the gap is a wider regional phenomenon, using it to argue forradical change between the Mesolithic and the Neolithic. Biagi and Spataro (2001)reviewed the radiocarbon dates from selected cave sites in the central Mediterraneanand found evidence of a hiatus between the latest Mesolithic and earliest Neolithicoccupations in every case. From this, it was suggested that the late Mesolithic(“Castelnovian”) was a period of population decline, with the hunter-gatherersdisappearing altogether soon after the arrival of farming. This in turn was seen asevidence that neolithization of the circum-Adriatic region had proceeded largely by“demic diffusion” (Biagi & Starnini, 1999:12; Biagi, 2003:148–150).

In this paper we argue that the interpretation of the gap in terms of a widespreaddemographic decline of hunter-gatherers is problematic. There could be a numberof different, and quite complex, processes behind the phenomenon, unconnectedwith demographic trends. In some cases a gap may simply be a function of samplingbias, caused by too few dated samples and/or inconsistent stratigraphic or spatial sam-pling. Cave excavations in the region are typically small in scale (“sondages”), whichmeans that our interpretations are invariably based on only a very small sample of

GEA233_20220.qxd 4/3/08 8:15 PM Page 399

MLEKUZ ET AL.


the deposits. A lack of proper stratigraphic control in excavations has often com-pounded the problem.

In any case, Mesolithic settlement patterns should not be interpreted in a reduc-tionist manner. A Mesolithic settlement pattern is not just a distribution of points inspace, to be studied in isolation without reference to the wider context. Rather, it isa remnant of wider economic, demographic, and social structures. The long-termreproduction—social and demographic—of such structures is reflected in a stablesettlement system. In this perspective the Mesolithic record becomes a densely orloosely connected network spanning large areas (Wobst, 1974; Chapman, 1990).Hunter-gatherer settlement patterns and associated structures are dynamic andflexible, and this is another factor that potentially can affect the occupationalsequences of individual sites. Thus, gaps in the radiocarbon sequence of a particu-lar site do not necessarily reflect demographic breaks and depopulations, but equallycould be the result of factors such as altered mobility patterns or site use.

Moreover, other evidence argues against the idea that the transition to farming inthe region relates to demic diffusion of immigrant farmers and the demographicextinction of the indigenous hunter-gatherers. The European genetic landscape wasreshaped recently by the identification of subclades I1a, I1b*, I1b2, and I1c of I Y chro-mosomes. Haplogroup I is the only autochthonous haplogroup that is almost entirelyrestricted to the European continent, where it shows frequency peaks in two areas,Scandinavia and southeast Europe (Rootsi et al., 2004:129–134; Rootsi, 2006). The I1b*subclade reaches maximum frequencies in southeast Europe, including the Balkanpeninsula, suggesting strong Mesolithic– Neolithic demographic continuity in theregion (Barac et al., 2003).

It should also be noted that in some sites the existence of a gap is by no meanscertain, because the 2-sigma calibrated age ranges of the radiocarbon dates for thelatest Mesolithic and earliest Neolithic occupations overlap. This is the case, forexample, at Sidari on Corfu (Sordinas, 1969), Konispol in Albania (Russell, 1998;Schuldenrein, 1998), Odmut in Montenegro, (Srejovic, 1974; Kozlowski, Kozlowski, &Radovanovic, 1994), and Vela Spila in Croatia (Cecuk & Radic, 2005). However, con-sidering the circum-Adriatic region as a whole, it is noticeable that there are signif-icantly fewer radiocarbon dates for the period 6600–6000 cal B.C. compared to thesix centuries immediately before or after; this requires explanation, but it is beyondthe scope of the present paper, except to observe that this period contained two keyevents, one climatic (the “8.2 ka event”) and the other cultural (the spread of agri-culture through the Balkan and Italian peninsulas), which probably impacted sig-nificantly on demography, settlement pattern, and the use of caves and rockshelters(e.g., Bonsall et al., 2002; Weninger et al., 2006; Budja, 2007).

Mlekuz (2005) and Forenbaher and Miracle (2005, 2006) considered the evidencefrom the northern Adriatic in some detail. They acknowledged that the individual 14Csequences from cave and rockshelter sites on the Triestine karst and in Istria (e.g.,Benussi/Pejca na Sedlu, Edera/Stenasca, and Pupicina) show a temporal gap betweenthe latest Mesolithic and earliest Neolithic occupations. However, they observedthat the gap varied in duration and was not synchronous among the sites, that thelatest date for a Mesolithic context at Benussi is similar to the earliest dates for

GEA233_20220.qxd 4/3/08 8:15 PM Page 400



401

“Neolithic” contexts at Edera (layer 3a), Podmol pri Kastelcu (layer 13), Istria, andthat there are still a number of sites with undated Late Mesolithic–Early Neolithicsequences. From this they concluded that, in spite of the existence of temporal gapsin individual sites, there was no reason to assume a general hiatus in settlementacross the region as a whole. Rather, it was suggested that the lack of radiocarbonevidence and hence the existence of gaps at individual sites could reflect complexeconomic and social processes occurring in the region at the time, either pioneercolonization of farmers and subsequent interactions with indigenous populations inthe hinterland (Forenbaher & Miracle, 2006) or internal transformations of Mesolithicgroups (Mlekuz, 2005).

Current distributions of Mesolithic sites have been distorted by sea level rise dur-ing the early- to mid-Holocene, and the Mesolithic settlement pattern is biased infavor of upland caves throughout the Dinarides, while there is a selective field sur-vey bias in favor of lowland, open-air Neolithic sites (Chapman, 1994). The datedarchaeological record for the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition is thus an obviouslybiased sample, based mainly on cave stratigraphies (cf. Biagi & Spataro’s [2001] sam-ple, which consists of caves only).

Caves are sediment traps in which archaeological deposits can accumulate overlong periods of time. This characteristic has made them invaluable for recording long-term patterns of social and demographic processes. However, as geoarchaeologicaland taphonomic studies have accumulated, it has become increasingly apparentthat the interpretation of the archaeological record from these contexts is oftenproblematic.

An important topic which has to be considered in the discussion ofMesolithic–Neolithic continuity is the evidence of sedimentary hiatuses or erosionalsurfaces between Neolithic and Mesolithic layers. Well-documented examples havebeen reported from Franchthi Cave (Farrand, 1993, 2000, 2003) and Theopetra Cave(Karkanas, 1999, 2001) in Greece, and linked to climate change (Karkanas, 2001).They have been noted also at many sites on the northern Adriatic karst, includingEdera, Caterina, Azzura, Zingari, and Lonza (Boschian & Montagnari Kokelj, 2000).In Grotta Azzura, intact Mesolithic layers were found in a test trench in the front ofthe cave; the test trench inside the cave contained only traces of Castelnovian lay-ers (Cremonesi et al., 1984). In the Pupicina Cave, the Middle Neolithic strata aredeposited directly on an Early Mesolithic surface, which was compacted throughtrampling (Miracle & Forenbaher, 2006). While climate change may have been a con-tributory factor, these erosional surfaces and sedimentary hiatuses may largely reflectintensive anthropogenic modifications of the cave interiors, which happened at leastonce, at the beginning of the Neolithic, destroying evidence of late Mesolithic occu-pation. Reworking of older deposits appears to have been a primary process in theformation of the Neolithic layers in Edera (Boschian & Montagnari Kokelj, 2000).This discontinuity also marks a completely different use of caves: from gatheringsof people in the Mesolithic, to animal shelters or sheep pens in the Neolithic, whichis a well-known pattern in caves and rockshelters throughout the Mediterranean(Brochier et al., 1992; see also Boschian & Montagnari Kokelj, 2000). This couldexplain the presence of Late Mesolithic Castelnovian microliths in Neolithic deposits

GEA233_20220.qxd 4/3/08 8:15 PM Page 401

MLEKUZ ET AL.


in the Triestine karst caves (Montagnari Kokelj, 1993) and the presence of “anom-alous” radiocarbon dates and inversions in radiocarbon sequences.

MALA TRIGLAVCA CASE STUDY

Mala Triglavca (45°40�N, 13°58�E) is a rockshelter site on the Dinaric Karst ofsouthwestern Slovenia, 15 km from the northern Adriatic coast (Figure 1). The rock-shelter opens in the side of minor doline, its north-facing entrance lying at ca. 435 mabove sea level. It was formed in the bedded rudist limestone and is a remnant of theancient cave system of the river Reka.

Mala Triglavca was first described by France Leben on the basis of excavationsundertaken between 1979 and 1985 (Leben, 1988). Leben excavated the deposits inthe western half of the rockshelter to a depth of ca. 4 m below the cave floor.Excavation and recording were based on a grid of 2 m squares, and the depositswere removed in horizontal units (“spits”) of up to 20 cm thickness. No sieving or flota-tion was undertaken. Though never fully published, Leben’s excavation showed thesite to have a rich archaeological inventory (see Leben, 1988; Turk & Turk, 2004)and a long occupation sequence extending back to the early stages of the Mesolithicat least.

Following site reconnaissance in the summer of 2001, new excavations werestarted in 2002 as a joint venture between the universities of Ljubljana and Edinburgh,with the parallel aims of clarifying the results of Leben’s excavation and establish-ing a benchmark archaeological sequence for the local region.

Here we provide a description of the deposits within the rockshelter and discussthe results of AMS radiocarbon dating of animal bones and bone artifacts fromLeben’s excavation. We also highlight problems connected with the conversion ofstratigraphic sequences into cultural and periodic sequences.

Cave Soils and Sediments

Leben described the cave sediments in a paper written several years after hisexcavation (Leben, 1988). The paper records five stratigraphic layers but these are not easy to relate to the layers shown in the published diagram (Leben, 1988:Figure 9). That diagram shows the sequence of deposits between the entrance andthe back wall of the cave. The position of the section line in relation to Leben’s exca-vation grid is shown in Figure 2b. In the central part of the cave, Leben’s field draw-ing appears to show seven main layers, which we have labeled I–VII in Figure 2a. Itis not entirely clear how these correspond with the five layers described in his 1988paper, but we suggest the correlation shown in Table I.

The lowermost layer (VII � 5) was described by Leben (1988) as “autochthonousred clay with rubble.” Archaeologically sterile, it was interpreted as Pleistocene inage. The overlying layers were attributed by Leben to the Holocene. Leben’s (1988)lithological descriptions are incomplete, and the accounts in his field notes give lit-tle further information. The distinctions between layers III–VI appear to have been

GEA233_20220.qxd 4/3/08 8:15 PM Page 402



403

(a)

(b)

Figure 1. (a) Location map; (b) Mala Triglavca (photo).

GEA233_20220.qxd 4/3/08 8:15 PM Page 403

Figure 2. (a) Leben’s main axial section drawing; (b) Leben’s excavation grid; (c) (on next page) sectioncorresponding to west wall of Leben’s trench, recorded in 2001.

GEA233_20220.qxd 4/3/08 8:15 PM Page 404



405

based mainly on small differences in color and stoniness. Horizontal “ash lenses”occurred throughout this part of the sequence.

He noted lateral changes in the composition of the sediments. Thus, he describesthe deposits at the cave entrance as a “unified layer of compact red/brown clayey soilwith rubble and stones” and notes that the deposits at the rear of the cave are morestony with occasional pockets of dark soil. According to the field drawing, layerboundaries became uncertain in the rear half of the cave, but occasional stone linesare shown which could relate to paleosurfaces.

In his 1988 paper, Leben simplified this part of the sequence into two layers (3 and4) based mainly on archaeological content. Layer 4 (VI in Figure 2a) was assignedto the Mesolithic based on the presence of microliths and an absence of pottery.This layer also contained bone artifacts (including mattocks and piercers) and frag-mentary remains of wild animals (mainly deer). Layer 3 contained Neolithic potteryas well as stone and bone tools. The faunal assemblage from this layer was dominatedby the bones of wild animals, but approximately one-third were those of domesticatedanimals, including cattle, sheep, goats, and dogs. At the upper boundary of layer 3,Leben (1988) reported finding Eneolithic and EBA pottery.

Layers 1 and 2 (I–II) at the top of the sequence were described in Leben’s field notesas consisting of “rubble and humus,” with layer 2 reported as having a greater stonecontent. Pottery recovered from these layers was interpreted as belonging to vari-ous periods from LBA to modern.

Figure 2. Continued

GEA233_20220.qxd 4/3/08 8:15 PM Page 405

Tab

le I

.C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f so

ils a

nd s

edim

ents

in M

ala

Trig

lavc

a ro

cksh

elte

r: (

a) p

rese

nt s

tudy

; (b)

Leb

en’s

stu

dy.

A. P

rese

nt S

tudy

B. L

eben

’s S

tudy

(Le

ben,

198

8, a

nd f

ield

doc

umen

tati

on)

Laye

r(f

ield

La

yer

draw

ing,

Laye

r D

escr

ipti

on(L

eben

198

8)cf

. Fig

. 2)

Des

crip

tion

Ah

0–10

/36

cm. V

ery

dark

gra

yish

bro

wn

(10Y

R 3

/2),

ver

y ca

lcar

eous

loam

; 1

IU

p to

30-

cm-t

hick

laye

r of

rub

ble

and

pH 8

.45;

man

y ve

ry s

mal

l and

sm

all a

ngul

ar (

tabu

lar

to e

quan

t fo

rm)

hum

us; m

any

root

s.lim

esto

ne s

tone

s; s

tron

gly

deve

lope

d m

ediu

m t

o fi

ne g

ranu

lar

biot

ical

ly

deri

ved

soil

stru

ctur

e; m

any

med

ium

and

coa

rse

woo

dy r

oots

; com

mon

to

man

y fi

ne f

ibro

us r

oots

pro

lifer

ate

in s

ome

area

s; s

harp

irre

gula

r lo

wer

bo

unda

ry; v

aria

ble

hori

zon

thic

knes

s of

10

to 3

0 cm

.

2AB

10/3

6–68

/84

cm. S

ame

colo

r, t

extu

re, s

oil s

truc

ture

, roo

t fr

eque

ncy

as t

he

2II

Laye

r of

cav

e hu

mus

wit

h an

gula

r ov

erly

ing

Ah

hori

zon;

pH

8.4

5; s

tone

s in

crea

se a

brup

tly

to e

xtre

mel

y ab

unda

ntru

bble

, wit

h m

any

larg

er s

tone

s ve

ry la

rge

and

larg

e an

gula

r (t

abul

ar t

o eq

uant

for

m)

limes

tone

sto

nes,

(c

olla

psed

cav

e ce

iling

). I

t va

ries

so

me

wit

h su

brou

nded

ele

men

ts o

n on

e si

de; t

his

hori

zon

beco

mes

muc

h in

thi

ckne

ss f

rom

20–

30 c

m (

in t

heth

icke

r ne

ar t

he b

ack

wal

l of

cave

; occ

asio

nal p

aler

col

ored

gra

yish

bro

wn

cent

ral p

art

of t

he c

ave)

to

up t

o (1

0YR

5/2

) to

ligh

t br

own

(10Y

R 6

/3)

extr

emel

y ca

lcar

eous

, fri

able

, hor

izon

tally

12

0 cm

(ne

ar t

he s

outh

ern

and

alig

ned

lens

oid

bodi

es 2

–3 c

m t

hick

and

20–

30 c

m lo

ng; c

lear

irre

gula

r lo

wer

w

este

rn c

ave

wal

l, w

here

at

this

bo

unda

ry. T

he in

crea

sed

freq

uenc

y of

larg

e an

gula

r/ta

bula

r lim

esto

ne w

ith

one

dept

h lo

ose

blac

k so

il w

ith

ston

es

edge

sm

ooth

ed a

nd s

ubro

unde

d in

dica

tes

solu

tion

wea

ther

ing

and

rock

fall

from

st

art

to a

ppea

r). B

ound

ary

wit

h th

e ca

ve r

oof,

whi

ch is

mos

t lik

ely

due

to f

rost

wea

ther

ing.

laye

rs 1

and

3 is

not

cle

ar.

3AB

68/8

4–16

0/17

0 cm

. Sam

e co

lor

and

text

ure

as 2

AB

; pH

8.2

0; s

tron

gly

deve

lope

d 3

III–

IV“H

oriz

on 3

a.”

Bla

ck, h

umos

e, lo

ose

fine

gra

nula

r to

fin

e su

bang

ular

blo

cky

biot

ical

ly d

eriv

ed s

oil s

truc

ture

; far

de

posi

t w

ith

less

rub

ble

than

laye

rfe

wer

sto

nes;

woo

dy r

oots

sti

ll co

mm

on a

s ab

ove,

but

the

fre

quen

cy o

f fi

brou

s 2.

Con

tain

s m

any

feat

ures

: ash

root

s de

crea

ses

to c

omm

on; o

ccas

iona

l fai

nt, e

xtre

mel

y ca

lcar

eous

bro

wni

sh

lens

es a

nd p

atch

es o

f bu

rned

cla

y.gr

ay (

10Y

R 5

/2)

to li

ght

brow

n (1

0YR

6/3

) fr

iabl

e, h

oriz

onta

lly a

ligne

d le

nsoi

d T

hick

ness

100

–120

cm

. Pot

tery

.bo

dies

; an

angu

lar

ston

e lin

e oc

curs

at

106–

118

cm. T

he o

bser

ved

litho

logi

cal

disc

onti

nuit

y in

sto

ne c

onte

nt in

dica

tes

in-w

ashi

ng o

r bl

owin

g in

of

soil

mat

eria

l.

GEA233_20220.qxd 4/3/08 8:15 PM Page 406

4AB

160/

170–

194–

204

cm. S

ame

colo

r, t

extu

re, r

oot

freq

uenc

y as

2A

B; p

H 8

.34;

ab

unda

nt la

rge

angu

lar

(tab

ular

to

plat

y fo

rm)

limes

tone

sto

nes

of n

o pa

rtic

ular

alig

nmen

t; s

tron

gly

deve

lope

d, b

ioti

ical

ly d

eriv

ed, m

ediu

m t

o fi

ne g

ranu

lar

soil

stru

ctur

e; a

brup

t, ir

regu

lar

boun

dary

. Thi

s ho

rizo

n th

icke

ns

tow

ard

back

wal

l of

cave

and

the

low

er b

ound

ary

plun

ges.

The

lith

olog

ical

di

stin

ctne

ss o

f th

is m

ore

ston

y la

yer

indi

cate

s a

maj

or r

ockf

all f

rom

the

ca

ve r

oof.

5bA

h18

6–20

4 cm

. A d

isco

ntin

uous

bur

ied

hori

zon

(pal

eosu

rfac

e) o

f bl

ack

(7.5

YR

2/0

) 3b

V“H

oriz

on 3

b.”

Dar

ker

sand

y an

d bu

rned

hu

mos

e, c

alca

reou

s lo

am, p

H 8

.16.

Les

s st

ony

than

4A

B w

ith

com

mon

to

man

y so

il w

ith

smal

l rub

ble

(or

no r

ubbl

e).

larg

e an

gula

r (t

abul

ar t

o pl

aty

form

) lim

esto

ne s

tone

s. S

tron

gly

deve

lope

d N

o po

tter

y.m

ediu

m t

o fi

ne b

ioti

cally

der

ived

gra

nula

r st

ruct

ure.

Com

mon

bur

ned

and

unbu

rned

bon

es. A

brup

t, s

moo

th b

ound

ary.

The

hig

her

orga

nic

mat

ter

cont

ent

of t

his

hori

zon

coul

d be

due

to

addi

tion

of

orga

nic

mat

eria

l by

hum

an a

genc

y.

6Bk

204–

240/

250

cm. L

ight

gra

y (1

0YR

7/1

to

7/2)

to

light

bro

wni

sh g

ray

(10Y

R 6

/2),

4

VI

Bla

ck, d

arke

r la

yer

of r

ubbl

e, w

ith

extr

emel

y ca

lcar

eous

, hor

izon

tally

alig

ned

lens

oid

body

of

loos

e to

mas

sive

silt

fe

atur

es o

f de

com

pose

d ru

bble

and

lo

am; s

tone

s de

crea

se t

o co

mm

on, i

.e.,

few

er s

tone

s th

an in

5bA

h; p

H 8

.45;

tw

o re

mai

ns o

f he

arth

s.

loca

lly c

omm

on s

mal

l nod

ules

of

CaC

O3; b

lack

incl

usio

n si

mila

r to

5bA

h le

ns;

few

woo

dy r

oots

. The

less

sto

ny c

hara

cter

, len

soid

for

m, a

nd b

lack

incl

usio

n of

th

is d

isco

ntin

uous

hor

izon

sug

gest

a p

it in

fill.

7bA

h24

0/25

0–28

0 cm

(ba

se o

f se

ctio

n). B

lack

to

very

dar

k br

own

(10Y

R 2

/1 t

o 2/

2),

hum

ose,

ver

y ca

lcar

eous

loam

; pH

8.0

7; a

bund

ant

med

ium

and

larg

e an

gula

r lim

esto

ne s

tone

s; s

tron

gly

deve

lope

d m

ediu

m t

o fi

ne t

o m

ediu

m g

ranu

lar

biot

ical

ly d

eriv

ed s

oil s

truc

ture

; occ

asio

nal f

ine

woo

dy r

oots

; com

mon

ani

mal

bo

nes

ofte

n co

ncen

trat

ed in

less

sto

ny p

ocke

ts s

ugge

st a

mid

den;

few

sna

il sh

ells

; lo

wer

bou

ndar

y no

t se

en. T

he h

igh

freq

uenc

y of

ani

mal

bon

es a

gree

s w

ith

Lebe

n's

desc

ript

ion

of h

is la

yer

4, r

egar

ded

as M

esol

ithi

c in

age

. Lar

ge o

rgan

ic m

atte

r co

nten

t m

ay r

elat

e to

the

dec

ay o

f m

idde

n m

ater

ial a

nd b

ones

tra

nsfo

rmed

by

biot

ic s

oil f

orm

ing

proc

esse

s.

Not

see

n5

VII

Aut

ocht

hono

us r

ed c

lay

(“ca

ve e

arth

”)w

ith

rubb

le. P

leis

toce

ne d

epos

it.

GEA233_20220.qxd 4/3/08 8:15 PM Page 407

MLEKUZ ET AL.


This division of the cave sediments into a linear sequence of “geological”(Pleistocene–Holocene) and “archaeological” (Mesolithic–Neolithic–Eneolithic–Bronze Age) strata and associated artifact assemblages (Leben, 1988) is a classicexample of the “systemic cultural strategy” of the 1980s, when stratigraphy wasregarded as the primary tool for determining the continuity or discontinuity of periodsand cultures in a given region.

In 2001, as a preliminary to the current series of excavations in Mala Triglavca, thesection corresponding to the S wall of Leben’s trench—which was 2–3 m east ofLeben’s main axial section—was examined and recorded after cleaning. However, thelowermost layer encountered by Leben had been obscured by debris fall and was notre-examined at that time. Detailed description of the cave deposits was confined tothe central portion of the exposed face, between the 92 and 94 m grid lines, althoughobservations on the deposits at the rear of the cave and toward the entrance werealso made.

Initial observations showed that the cave deposits had been extensively modifiedby soil forming processes, including biotic disturbance and soil structure develop-ment. Therefore, it was decided to adopt a pedological (as opposed to sedimento-logical) approach to the description of the section, using internationally acceptedmethods described in Hodgson (1976). This recognizes layers as soil horizons, butdoes differentiate lithologically distinct layers through the use of numerical prefixes(Table I; Figure 2c). Soil pH was measured on soil samples collected from the mainhorizons recognized. This was done using a pH meter with combined electrode onsoil suspensions with a soil:distilled water ratio of 2:5 (Avery & Bascomb, 1982).Calcium carbonate content was estimated by the dilute hydrochloric acid field testusing the criteria defined by Hodgson (1976).

Starting from the cave floor, we distinguished seven horizons/layers. Broadly,these correspond to layers I–VI in Figure 2a (Leben’s [1988] layers 1–4).

Table I shows that the materials have similar texture (particle size distribution)and reaction throughout, being a calcareous loam with average pH in the range8.0–8.5. All horizons other than 6Bk show strong evidence of organic matter incor-poration, giving dark colors and clear evidence of biotic structure development;hence the granular structure observed throughout. These properties, together withthe low porosity and packing density observed in all horizons other than 6Bk, indi-cate biotic disturbance of the cave sediments and their transformation into mullhumus typical of soil surface horizons (Babel, 1975; Duchaufour, 1982). Living plantroots extend through all horizons, but are most abundant in the first three (Ah, 2AB,3AB), including both fibrous and woody tree roots. These originate mainly from for-est trees growing outside the cave. Rooting effects, including organic matter addi-tion from dead roots, together with mixing by soil-ingesting invertebrates, are the mainprocesses that have altered the sediments forming granular structured soil material.

The lithological differences between the soil horizons relate mainly to the fre-quency of stones and boulders and the occurrence of extremely calcareous hori-zontal lenses. The latter occur throughout the 2AB, 3AB, and 4AB horizons. In themain, these features correspond to the “ash lenses” described by Leben. They are palercolored, friable bodies up to 8 cm thick and 40 cm across in the section described.

GEA233_20220.qxd 4/3/08 8:15 PM Page 408



409

The strong concentration of CaCO3 in these lenses, indicated by a very strong reac-tion with dilute HCl and high pH, suggests that if these are ash lenses, then some recal-cification has occurred. At present it is difficult to estimate the contribution ofdissolved calcium percolating through the developing soil horizons, which may havean external source, for example, calcium dissolved from the cave roof rather thanfrom the cave sediments.

At a depth of 186 cm, a much darker humose layer was encountered (5bAh). Thiswas black (7.5YR 2/0) in color and is interpreted as a buried surface with a largerorganic carbon content, possibly with finely divided charcoal. The color suggeststhe addition of organic material by human agency. This layer also contained commonburned and unburned bone fragments.

In one place in the central part of the section, this dark layer rested directly onlighter grayish, extremely calcareous material, which took the form of a lenticu-lar body ca. 115 cm long and 40–50 cm thick (6Bk). This very porous but massivematerial compressed easily and was non-sticky, indicating a high carbonate or ashcontent. In places, firmer and denser areas coincided with the presence of smallnodules of calcium carbonate. It also contained black, humose inclusions similarin composition to the 5bAh horizon. The much less stony character of this featuresuggests some kind of pit infill. The other pedological features indicate solution ofcalcium derived from the ash and/or limestone fragments and re-precipitationof secondary calcium carbonate as intercalary crystals or nodules. Although theblack color of this horizon might suggest finely divided charcoal, no other evidenceof burning in the form of larger charcoal fragments or burned stones was recorded.

Toward the base of the section, at approximately 240 cm, another black to verydark brown humose horizon was recorded (7bAh). This was also interpreted as aburied surface. As with the overlying horizons, this was a very calcareous loam andcontained abundant medium and large angular limestone stones. Bones were alsocommon, concentrated in less stony pockets, together with a few landsnail shells.

The variability in stone content throughout the section can in part be attributedto rockfalls from the roof and walls of the cave, most probably due to frost shatter-ing. In the 2AB horizon, stones were very large and extremely abundant, consisting ofangular limestone, but with subrounded elements on one side. This juxtapositionof form can be attributed to solution weathering on the cave roof, thus proving theorigin of this stony material. This is further proven by the thickening of this extremelystony layer towards the rear wall of the rockshelter, where stones are tabular orplaty with a distinct horizontal alignment indicating a recent fall from the roof withlittle disturbance of horizontal bedding.

In parts of the underlying horizons, stone lines were apparent. In the 3AB horizonat 106 cm an alignment of medium to large angular stones may also represent aminor rockfall from the cave roof or an artificial stone pavement. However, much ofthe 3AB horizon was much less stony than the overlying or underlying horizons.

Generally, the variation in frequency of stones in the different horizons couldrelate to variations in the intensity of rockfalls, inwashing or wind deposition ofstoneless sediment, or, indeed, preferential removal of stones by human agency. Thehorizons recognized in the central part of the section became difficult to trace toward

GEA233_20220.qxd 4/3/08 8:15 PM Page 409

MLEKUZ ET AL.


the rear of the rockshelter. The more chaotic arrangement of stones and boulders andsubhorizontal alignment, along what appear in some cases to be shear planes, sug-gests that disturbance through rotational slumping of the materials has occurred.This was confirmed in 2006, after several seasons of excavation, when pottery fromdifferent periods (Middle Neolithic/Vlaska culture and Eneolithic/Ljubljana culture)was found on either side of a distinct shear plane. Moreover, the horizontal alignmentof the recent rockfall described earlier is nowhere seen in these lower layers to therear of the rockshelter. Possible explanations include slumping of super-saturatedcave sediments after overloading by rainwater running into the cave, and move-ments triggered by seismic activity. There is a significant slope leading into the rock-shelter, and the amount of surface water which runs in during storms can be high.Solution weathering at the rear of the cave may periodically have destabilized the adja-cent deposits, facilitating movement.

Radiocarbon Dating

Samples of terrestrial mammal bone from Leben’s excavation were selected forAMS 14C dating. The objectives were to establish the ages of the different layers andto test the stratigraphic integrity of the sequence.

All the dated materials show evidence of anthropogenic modification, either in theform of manufacturing traces (bone tools) or fragmentation (animal bones).

Eight samples from bones of large mammals were submitted to the Poznan lab byDM. A further 12 samples were taken from individual antler and bone artifacts by CBusing high-speed steel drills and submitted to the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit.The samples submitted to Oxford weighed between 200 mg and 620 mg, while thosesubmitted to Poznan were fragments weighing between 300 mg and 1200 mg. Collagenextractions were performed using each laboratory’s standard procedure. The Oxfordprocedure included an ultrafiltration step. This usually produces collagen of improvedquality (for details, see Bronk Ramsay et al., 2004; Higham et al., 2006:556). Collagenquality and chemical integrity are assessed using the atomic ratio of carbon to nitrogen(C:N atomic ratio), the percentage of collagen extracted compared with the startingweight of bone (wt% collagen), and the carbon yield of the collagen on combustion.Problem bones may be screened on the basis of these parameters. Bone is consideredacceptable if measured C:N ratios of collagen fall between 2.9 and 3.5. In addition, bonethat is composed of less than 1 wt% collagen is not dated. Collagen yield in five of thesamples submitted to Oxford fell below this threshold value, and so only seven ofthe 12 samples submitted were actually dated. The 15 radiocarbon dates obtainedfrom the Oxford and Poznan labs are presented in Table II.

The radiocarbon sequence documents frequent use of the cave from 8400 yr B.P.to at least 3700 yr B.P. The dates fall into three distinct clusters (8400–7900,7600–7200, and 6600–6000 yr B.P.) with some outliers. However, the clusters as wellas the gaps in the sequence (7900–7600 yr B.P., 7200–6600 yr B.P.) could be theresult of the sampling.

A consideration of the relation between depth/stratigraphic context and age revealssome obvious “inversions” in the sequence. However, the inversions can be observed

GEA233_20220.qxd 4/3/08 8:15 PM Page 410

Tab

le I

I.A

MS

14C

age

s an

d as

soci

ated

con

text

ual d

ata

for

bone

sam

ples

fro

m L

eben

’s e

xcav

atio

n in

Mal

a Tr

igla

vca

rock

shel

ter.

14

C a

ge

Cal

yr

B.C

.M

edia

n pr

obab

ility

Sa

mpl

e G

rid

Leve

lLa

b ID

yr B

.P.

Err

or�

13C

age

rang

e (2

�)

of c

al y

r B

.C. a

ge r

ange

Red

dee

r m

andi

ble

42.

70P

oz-1

4232

7630

5065

91–6

420

6477

Larg

e un

gula

te h

umer

us5–

63.

50–3

.70

Poz

–142

4182

1050

7446

–707

072

26La

rge

ungu

late

sca

pula

72.

90–3

.05

Poz

-142

4359

8040

4988

–475

048

69B

os

seu

Bis

on

skul

l5–

63.

50–3

.70

Poz

-142

4480

2050

7075

–671

069

32Su

s s

crofa

max

illa

3A“d

irec

tly

abov

eP

oz-1

4245

8070

5071

80–6

820

7046

Ple

isto

cene

laye

r”R

ed d

eer

antl

er4

2.50

–2.7

0P

oz-1

6341

7950

5070

41–6

691

6867

Hum

an s

kull

42.

50 “

abov

e P

oz-1

6342

5120

4040

31–3

798

3893

brec

cia

depo

sit”

Capra

horn

cor

e3

1.90

Poz

-153

4336

9040

2198

–195

920

81

Ant

ler,

red

dee

r (“

beam

chi

sel”

)5

4.10

OxA

-151

3466

0237

�20

.456

17–5

485

5546

Ant

ler,

red

dee

r (“

beam

chi

sel”

)4

4.05

OxA

-151

3584

3045

�20

.875

82–7

367

7514

Ant

ler,

red

dee

r (“

beam

chi

sel”

)5–

63.

60–3

.75

OxA

-151

3672

5540

�21

.962

21–6

034

6133

Bon

e, la

rge

ungu

late

(“s

plin

ter”

)4

3.70

–3.9

0O

xA-1

5137

7229

38�

18.7

6211

–602

060

90B

one,

roe

dee

r (“

fine

1/2

poi

nt”)

63.

05–3

.25

OxA

-151

3882

2540

�21

.174

46–7

081

7242

Bon

e, r

oe d

eer

(“ti

p of

med

ium

poi

nt”)

72.

90–3

.05

OxA

-151

3964

5136

�19

.254

81–5

343

5418

Bon

e, r

ed d

eer

(“fi

ne p

oint

”)4

3.70

–3.9

0O

xA-1

5223

6647

37�

19.3

5635

–551

155

79

Cal

ibra

tion

per

form

ed w

ith

CA

LIB

5.0

.2 (

Stui

ver

& R

eim

er, 1

993;

Stu

iver

, Rei

mer

, & R

eim

er, 2

005)

usi

ng t

he I

ntC

al04

cur

ve (

Rei

mer

et

al.,

2004

).

GEA233_20220.qxd 4/3/08 8:15 PM Page 411

MLEKUZ ET AL.


only in the sequence from grid squares 4 and 5 in the rear of the cave, close to thecave wall, where horizon boundaries became uncertain, evidence for rockfallsincreases (Table I), and the presence of shear planes was noted.

The dates from the central part of the cave (grid squares 2, 3, 6, 7), where hori-zons could be clearly defined, show no obvious inversions. Here, a long gap of 177014C years can be observed between OxA-15139: 6451 � 36 yr B.P.) and OxA-15138:8225 � 40 yr B.P. The dates come from successive spits. The boundary between thesespits at 3.05 m depth corresponds to the boundary between Leben’s “horizons” 3a and3b (4AB and 5bAh, Table I). According to the excavator, the main difference betweenthe two layers was the presence of pottery and bones of domesticated animals in layer3a and their absence from layer 3b (Leben, 1983).

Therefore, the gap of 1770 radiocarbon years probably corresponds to a sedi-mentary hiatus or erosional surface separating Mesolithic and Neolithic deposits inthe central part of the cave. The recorded morphology of the 5bAh horizon supportsthis feature as a paleosurface (Table I). The “missing” dates corresponding to this tem-poral gap (OxA-15136: 7255 � 40 yr B.P., Poz-14232: 7630 � 50 yr B.P., Poz-16341:7950 � 50 yr B.P.) occur in the deposits at the rear of the cave, in grid squares 4 and 5.Occasional stone lines inclined upward toward the back of the cave suggest that thedeposits in this part of the cave were formed in a different way from those in the cen-tral area of the cave. These deposits could be the result of movement of materialfrom the central part of the cave due to human agency, combined with naturalprocesses operating at the back of the cave, redepositing rockfall as scree, which wassubsequently buried by finer sediment to produce inclined stonelines. Therefore, itmay be suggested that at some time before 6400 yr B.P., sediments originally depositedbetween 8200 and 6400 yr B.P. in the central part of the cave were moved toward therear of the cave and redeposited against the cave wall. One date (OxA-15136: 7255 �40 yr B.P.) is on a bone tool (red deer antler beam “chisel”), while others (Poz-14232:7630 � 50 yr B.P., Poz-16341: 7950 � 50 yr B.P.) are on fragmented animal bones andantlers (Table II). Thus, in our opinion all three dates, which correspond to the hia-tus in the central part of the cave, indicate human use of the cave during this period.The deposits at the rear of the cave contain large quantities of cultural material,including lithics, bone tools, pottery, and fragmented animal bones.

However, there appears to have been another process that altered the positionof deposits within the cave. Two dates, OxA-15223: 6647 � 37 yr B.P. and OxA-15137: 7229 � 38 yr B.P., from the rear of the cave (grid squares 4 and 5) create adepth/age inversion with the dates above them (Poz-14232: 7630 � 50 yr B.P., Poz-16341: 7950 � 50 yr B.P., OxA-15136: 7255 � 40 yr B.P.). They relate to a level cor-responding to Leben’s Mesolithic layer 4 (equivalent to 7bAh in Table I). This sug-gests that there were post-depositional processes that led to vertical displacementof material. It seems likely that this movement is connected with the curvedshear/erosional planes discovered in 2006 (see above), most likely caused byperiodic slumping of cave sediments after overloading by rainwater running intothe cave. These rotational slumps (Selby, 1993) were probably localized and con-nected with the presence of cavities or conduits penetrating the bedrock at the backof the cave, which provided a further destabilizing factor. Unfortunately, the low

GEA233_20220.qxd 4/3/08 8:15 PM Page 412



413

resolution of Leben’s contextual information for the dated material does not allowus to localize those processes.

The evidence presented for disturbance of the cave sediments by soil formation,in particular bioturbation, rooting (Table I), is not regarded by the present authorsto have significantly affected the stratigraphic sequence of the sediments in the cen-tral parts of the cave. The finer fractions of the sediments have certainly been sub-stantially transformed into soil materials with the form of mull humus; however,larger clasts (stones and boulders) and larger archaeological objects, including thoseused for dating, have probably remained more or less in situ, providing lithologicallydistinct layers. However, smaller, undated animal bones and bone tools could indeedhave been translocated by soil forming processes.

CONCLUSIONS

It is worth reiterating that there is always a very high probability that any site hassuffered some degree of post-depositional disturbance. It is not just a question ofwhether a site is undisturbed, but rather the nature and extent of the disturbances.

The evidence from the current excavations and associated soil/sediment analysesat Mala Triglavca show that in the central part of the cave a well-defined stratigraphicsequence can be established, despite post-depositional modification by soil form-ing processes. There is, however, also evidence for post-depositional disturbance ofthe cave sediments by human agency and geological/geomorphological processes.Leben’s description of the cave sediments assumed a straightforward stratigraphicsequence, failing to recognize the significance of post-depositional modifications.This is a common failing of archaeologists’ interpretations of cave sequences. Wherecontrols can be established, some post-depositional disturbances—for example,those resulting from soil forming processes such as bioturbation—do not signifi-cantly alter the superpositioning of larger components within sequential layers/horizons, as in the sequence described in Table I. However, the current study hasfound substantial evidence for other post-depositional processes of greater magni-tude, including rotational slumps and possible anthropogenic removal and transportof soil material. In places, such processes have transformed the stratigraphic sequencein Mala Triglavca rockshelter, altering the original stratigraphic relationships, thuseffectively creating a series of secondary deposits with residual finds.

The relatively large set of radiocarbon dates obtained on bone samples fromLeben’s excavation now enables some of the processes to be identified. Verticaldisplacement of material has created “temporal gaps” and “inversions” in the radio-carbon sequence. Two separate processes are indicated. One accounts for theradiocarbon gap detected in the sequence from the middle of the cave, which can beexplained by late Mesolithic deposits having been removed from this area and rede-posited against the rear wall of the cave—a process that was probably linked tohuman activity—and subsequently modified by natural processes, resulting in inclinedstonelines. Another post-depositional process resulted in the movement of materialdeeper into the cave, possibly due to rotational slumps, as evidenced by the presenceof distinct shear planes. The precise nature of these anthropogenic and natural

GEA233_20220.qxd 4/3/08 8:15 PM Page 413

MLEKUZ ET AL.


processes, and the relationship between them, is uncertain but may be resolvedthrough ongoing excavation of the site.

The work at Mala Triglavca underlines the fact that any stratigraphic or radio-carbon sequence may be a complex palimpsest, created and recreated through aseries of interlinked processes. On the one hand, “gaps” in the radiocarbon sequencedo not necessarily represent periods of abandonment of a cave, but may reflect episodesof post-depositional disturbance and intensive modification and transformation of thecave sediments. They may also be created by having too few radiocarbon samplesand by the selectivity of the sampling. Small-scale excavation (typical for cave sites),failure to appreciate the effects of post-depositional processes, direct translation ofseries of radiocarbon dates into cultural sequences, and interpretive models thatsee the Neolithic as radically different from the Mesolithic, have all contributed tothe creation of such gaps. The gaps detected by some researchers in the radiocar-bon sequences of caves in southeast Europe around the time of the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition are perhaps symptoms of our approach toward the transitionrather than a reflection of radical cultural or demographic change associated withthe displacement of Mesolithic foragers by immigrant farmers.

This research was cofinanced by the Slovenian Research Agency, Research Programme Arheologija P6-247 (Mihael Budja) and ALPIne NETwork for Archaeological Sciences, EU “Culture 2000” Programme(Mihael Budja). Dimitrij Mlekuz’s contribution was carried out within the Junior Researcher Program,funded by the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology of Slovenia. Clive Bonsall wishesto thank the British Academy, the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland, and the Munro Fund,Hayter Fund, and Development Trust Research Fund of the University of Edinburgh for the award ofresearch grants to support the work at Mala Triglavca.

REFERENCES

Avery, B.W., & Bascomb, C.L. (1982). Soil survey laboratory methods. Soil Survey Technical Monographno. 6. Harpenden: Soil Survey of England and Wales.

Babel, U. (1975). Micromorphology of soil organic matter. In J.E. Geiseking (Ed.), Soil components, Vol. 1,Organic components (pp. 369–473). New York: Springer Verlag.

Barac, L., Pericic, M., Martinovic Klaric, I., Rootsi, S., Janicijevic, B., Kivisild, T, Parik, J., Rudan, I.,Villems, R., & Rudan, P. (2003). Y chromosomal heritage of Croatian population and its island iso-lates. European Journal of Human Genetics, 11, 535–542.

Biagi, P. (2003). A review of the late Mesolithic in Italy and its implications for the Neolithic transition.In A.J. Ammerman & P. Biagi (Eds.), The widening harvest: The Neolithic transition in Europe: Lookingback, looking forward (pp. 133–155). Boston: Archaeological Institute of America.

Biagi, P., & Spataro, M. (2001). Plotting the evidence: Some aspects of radiocarbon chronology of theMesolithic–Neolithic transition in the Mediterranean basin. Atti della Società per la Praistoria eProtoistoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, 12, 15–54.

Biagi, P., & Starnini, E. (1999). Some aspects of the neolithization of the Adriatic region. Atti della Societàper la Preistoria e Protoistoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, 11, 7–17.

Bonsall, C., Macklin, M.G., Payton, R.W., & Boroneant, , A. (2002). Climate, floods and river gods:Environmental change and the Meso–Neolithic transition in south-east Europe. Before Farming: TheArchaeology of Old World Hunter-Gatherers, 3/4, 1–15.

Boschian, G., & Montagnari Kokelj, E. (2000). Prehistoric shepherds and caves in the Trieste Karst (north-eastern Italy). Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, 15, 331–371.

GEA233_20220.qxd 4/3/08 8:15 PM Page 414



415

Brochier, J., Villa, P., Giacomarra, M., & Tagliacozzo, A. (1992). Shepherds and sediments: Geo-ethnoarchaeology of pastoral sites. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 11, 47–102.

Bronk Ramsey, C., Higham, T.F.G., Bowles, A., & Hedges, R.E.M. (2004). Improvements to the pre-treatmentof bone at Oxford. In N. Beavan Athfield & R.J. Sparks (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th InternationalRadiocarbon Conference, Wellington. Radiocarbon, 46, 155–163.

Budja, M. (2007). The 8200 cal BP “climate event” and the process of neolithisation in south-easternEurope. Documenta Praehistorica, 34, 191–201.

Cecuk, B., & Radic, D. (2005). Vela Spila. A stratified prehistoric site Vela Luka—island of Korcula (Croatia).Vela Luka: Centar za kulturu “Vela Luka.”

Chapman, J. (1990). Demographic trends in Neothermal south-east Europe. In C. Bonsall (Ed.), TheMesolithic in Europe. Papers presented at the Third International Symposium, Edinburgh 1985 (pp. 500–515). Edinburgh: John Donald.

Chapman, J. (1994). The origins of farming in south east Europe. Préhistoire Européene, 6, 133–156.Cremonesi, G., Meluzzi, C., Pitti, C., & Wilkens, B. (1984). Grotta Azzura: Scavi 1982 (nota preliminare).

Il Mesolitico sul carso Triestino. Società per la Preistoria e Protoistoria della Regione Friuli-VeneziaGiulia, Quaderno 5, 65–108.

Duchaufour, P. (1982). Pedology, 2nd ed. London: Allen & Unwin.Farrand, W.R. (1993). Discontinuity in the stratigraphic record: Snapshots from Franchthi Cave. In

P. Goldberg, D.T. Nash, & M.D. Petraglia (Eds.), Formation processes in archaeological context (pp. 85–96), Monographs in World Archaeology No. 17. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.

Farrand, W.R. (2000). Depositional history of Franchthi Cave—Sediments, stratigraphy, and chronology.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Farrand, W.R. (2003). Depositional environments and site formation during the Mesolithic occupationsof Franchthi Cave, Peloponnesos, Greece. In N. Galanidou & C. Perlès (Eds.), The Greek Mesolithic:Problems and perspectives (pp. 69–78). London: British School at Athens.

Forenbaher, S., & Miracle, P. (2005). The spread of farming in the Eastern Adriatic. Antiqutity, 79, 514–528.Forenbaher, S., & Miracle, P. (2006). Pupicina Cave and the spread of farming in the eastern Adriatic. In

P. Miracle & S. Forenbaher (Eds.), Prehistoric herders of northern Istria: The archaeology of PupicinaCave, Vol. 1 (pp. 483–523). Monografije i katalozi, 14. Pula: Arheoloski Muzej Istre.

Higham T., Bronk Ramsey, C., Karavanic, I., Smith, F.H., & Trinkaus, E. (2006). Revised direct radiocar-bon dating of the Vindija G1 Upper Paleolithic Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences of the USA, 103, 553–557.

Hodgson, J.M. (1976). Soil survey field handbook. Soil Survey Technical Monograph no. 5. Harpenden: SoilSurvey of England and Wales.

Karkanas, P. (1999). Lithostratigraphy and micromorphology of Theopetra cave deposits, Greece: Somepreliminary results. In G.N. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perlès, & K. Zachos (Eds.), ThePalaeolithic archaeology of Greece and adjacent areas (pp. 240–251). Proceedings of the ICOPAGConference, Studies 3. Athens: British School at Athens.

Karkanas, P. (2001). Site formation processes in Theopetra Cave: A record of climatic change during theLate Pleistocene and Early Holocene in Thessaly, Greece. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal,16, 373–399.

Kozlowski, J.K., Kozlowski, S., & Radovanovic, I. (1994). Meso- and Neolithic sequence from the OdmutCave (Montenegro). Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.

Leben, F. (1983). Mala Triglavca. Elaborat: Izkop 1983. Manuscript at the Archive of the Institute ofArchaeology at ZRC-SAZU (No. 175). Ljubljana: ZRC-SAZU, Institute of Archaeology.

Leben, F. (1988). Novoodkrite prazgodovinske plasti v jamah na Krasu. Porocilo o Raziskovanju Paleolita,Neolita in Eneolita v Sloveniji, 16, 65–76.

Miracle, P., & Forenbaher, S. (2006). Changing activities and environments at Pupicina cave. In P. Miracle& S. Forenbaher (Eds.), Prehistoric herders of northern Istria: The archaeology of Pupicina Cave, Vol.1 (pp. 455–481). Monografije i katalozi, 14. Pula: Arheoloski Muzej Istre.

Mlekuz, D. (2005). The ethnography of the Cyclops: Neolithic pastoralists in the eastern Adriatic.Documenta Praehistorica, 32, 15–51.

Montagnari Kokelj, E. (1993). The transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic in the Trieste Karst. Porocilo oRaziskovanju Paleolita, Neolita in Eneolita v Sloveniji, 21, 69–84.

GEA233_20220.qxd 4/3/08 8:15 PM Page 415

MLEKUZ ET AL.


Parzinger H. (1993). Studien zur Chronologie und Kulturgeschichte der Jungstein-, Kupfer- undFrühbronzezeit zwischen Karpaten und Mittlerem Taurus. Römisch-Germanische Forschungen, 52.Frankfurt am Main: Philipp von Zabern.

Pluciennik, M. (1997). Radiocarbon determinations and the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition in southernItaly. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 10, 115–150.

Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Bertrand, C.J.H., Blackwell, P.G., Buck, C.E., Burr,G., Cutler, K.B., Damon, P.E., Edwards, R.L., Fairbanks, R.G., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T.P., Hogg, A.G.,Hughen, K.A., Kromer, B., McCormac, F.G., Manning, S., Bronk Ramsey, C., Reimer, R.W., Remmele, S.,Southon, J.R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F.W., van der Plicht, J., & Weyhenmeyer, C.E. (2004). INT-CAL04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 kyr BP. Radiocarbon, 46, 1029–1058.

Rootsi, S. (2006). Y-chromosome haplogroup I prehistoric gene flow in Europe. Documenta Praehistorica,33, 17–20.

Rootsi, S., Magri, C., Kivisild, T., Benuzzi, G., Help, H., Bermisheva, M., Kutuev, I., Barac, L., Pericic, M.,Balanovsky, O., Pshenichnov, A., Dion, D., Grobei, M., Zhivotovsky, L.A., Battaglia, V., Achilli, A., Al-Zahery, N., Parik, J., King, R., Cinnioglu, C., Khusnutdinova, E., Rudan, P., Balanovska, E., Scheffrahn,W., Simonescu, M., Brehm, A., Goncalves, R., Rosa, A., Moisan, J., Chaventre, A., Ferak, V., Furedi,S., Oefner, P.J., Shen, P., Beckman, L., Mikerezi, I., Terzic, R., Primorac, D., Cambon-Thomsen, A.,Krumina, A., Torroni, A., Underhill, P.A., Santachiara-Benerecetti, A.S., Villems, R., & Semino, O.(2004). Phylogeography of Y-chromosome haplogroup I reveals distinct domains of prehistoric geneflow in Europe. American Journal of Human Genetics, 75, 128–137.

Russell, N. (1998). The Mesolithic–Neolithic transition in the faunal assemblage from Konispol Cave,Albania. In H. Buitenhuis, L. Bartosiewicz, & A. Choyke (Eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East III(pp. 145–199). Groningen: University of Groningen, Institute of Archaeology.

Schuldenrein, J. (1998). Konispol Cave, southern Albania, and correlations with other Aegean caves occu-pied in the Late Quaternary. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, 13, 501–526.

Selby, M.J. (1993). Hillslope materials and processes, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Semino, O., Passarino, G., Oefner, P.J., Lin, A.A., Arbuzova, S., Beckman, L.E., De Benedictis, G., Francalacci,

P., Kouvatsi, A., Limborska, S., Mika, A., Mika, B., Primorac, D., Santachiara-Benerecetti, A.S., Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., & Underhill, P.A. (2000). The genetic legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in extantEuropeans: A Y chromosome perspective. Science, 290, 1155–1159.

Sordinas, A. (1969). Investigation of the prehistory of Corfu during 1964–1966. Balkan Studies, 10,392–424.

Srejovic, D. (1974). The Odmut Cave—A new facet of Mesolithic culture of the Balkan Peninsula.Archeologia lugoslavica, 15, 3–6.

Stuiver, M., & Reimer, P.J. (1993). Extended 14C data base and revised CALIB 3.0 14C age calibration pro-gram. Radiocarbon, 35, 215–230.

Stuiver, M., Reimer, P.J., & Reimer, R. (2005). CALIB radiocarbon calibration (rev. 5.0.2): On-line manual.http://radiocarbon.pa.qub.ac.uk/calib/manual/.

Thissen, L. (2005). Coming to grips with the Aegean in prehistory: An outline of the temporal framework,10.000–5500 cal BC. In C. Lichter (Ed.), How did farming reach Europe? Anatolian–European rela-tions from the second half of the 7th through the first half of the 6th millennium cal BC (pp. 29–40).Byzas 2. Istanbul: Yayinlari.

Turk, M., & Turk, I. (2004). Archaeological finds. In I. Turk (Ed.), Viktorjev spodmol and Mala Triglavca:Contributions to understanding the Mesolithic period in Slovenia (pp. 176–196). Opera InstitutiArchaeologici Sloveniae, 9. Ljubljana: ZRC-SAZU.

Weninger, B., Alram-Stern, E., Bauer, E., Clare, L., Danzeglocke, U., Jöris, O., Kubatzki, C., Rollefson, G.,Todorova, H., & van Andel, T. (2006). Climate forcing due to the 8200 cal yr BP event observed at EarlyNeolithic sites in the eastern Mediterranean. Quaternary Research, 66, 401–420.

Wobst, H.M. (1974). Boundary conditions for Paleolithic social systems: A simulation approach. AmericanAntiquity, 39, 174–178.

Received 9 July 2007Accepted for publication 14 January 2008Scientific editing by Panagiotis Karkanas

GEA233_20220.qxd 4/3/08 8:15 PM Page 416

Documents

“Mind the gap”: Caves, radiocarbon sequences, and the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition in Europe—lessons from the Mala Triglavca rockshelter site