): 3–46
INTRODUCTION
Zemunica cave is situated in Middle Dalmatia, in
was excavated in 2005 during rescue excavation
(funded by the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia) along the route of the Adriatic motorway, disclosing a sequence of occupation levels ranging from the Early Bronze Age to the Late Upper Paleolithic.
LATE UPPER PALEOLITHIC, EARLY MESOLITHIC
AND EARLY NEOLITHIC FROM THE CAVE SITE ZEMUNICA
NEAR BISKO (DALMATIA, CROATIA)
1 2 1, Mario Šlaus3, 4, Rainer Altherr4, Mateja Hulina5 6, Giovanni Boschian7,
1, James C.M. Ahern8 9, Michael Richards10, 11 1
3
4
6
7 8
Abstract
This paper presents results from lithic, pottery, zooarchaeological, osteological, petrological and geoarcheological analyses from the Early Neolithic, Mesolithic and late Upper Paleolithic levels of Zemunica Cave in Croatia. The site provides valuable information about the aforementioned periods in Dalmatia and original evidence supporting newly proposed models of the spread of Neolithisation in this area.
Keywords: Paleolithic, Mesolithic, early Neolithic, Zemunica, Dalmatia, Croatia
4
very little information is available as regards the Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic cultures on the Northern side of the Dinaric Alps, mostly because few sites were explored in this area.
lithic, pottery, zooarchaeological, osteological, petrological and geoarcheological analyses from the Early Neolithic, Mesolithic and late Upper Paleolithic levels. Geochronometric datings suggest use of this site by humans in the latest phases of the Pleistocene (late Upper Paleolithic), and early phases of the Holocene (Mesolithic and
Even though the formation of the Zemunica sequence was affected by erosional processes that complicate its interpretation, the site provides valuable information about the aforementioned
provides original evidence supporting newly proposed models of the spread of Neolithisation in the Eastern Adriatic. There is evidence of occupation only for the early phases of the Mesolithic with no evidence of later Mesolithic or transitional cultures. This gap is commonly known in Eastern Adriatic sites. The Paleolithic is represented by the latest phases of the Pleistocene
with fauna of that period, and lithic assemblages that lack diagnostic elements.
POSITION AND CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE SITE
Zemunica cave is situated in the vicinity of the
side of the Mali Mosor hills, around 35 km from
with widespread rocky outcrops, looking onto
polje sediments and soils) lies within vicinity of the cave (Fig. 1). During the Early Neolithic, the was in use, as demonstrated
The cave is situated in Turonian limestone with dolomite lenses, and develops around a minor fracture line that is well visible throughout
shaped, and measures 16 x 18 m, with a maximum height of about 4 m (Fig. 2). The entrance to the cave is via a natural ‘window’ through the middle of the ceiling, or from a relatively wide passage at the base of a cliff facing northwards.
Fig. 1. Map of Eastern Adriatic with the location of Zemunica
5Late Upper Paleolithic, Early Mesolithic and Early Neolithic from the cave site Zemunica
Consequently, it is exposed to external climate conditions, with strong seasonal oscillations of the temperature inside. The rock mass around the cave is heavily fractured and the cave itself is very shallow, so that the sediments are impregnated by
seasons.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Geoarchaeology
several years after the end of the excavations; consequently, not all the stratigraphic information
was directly available, and was extracted from
formalisation of the sequence of lithostratigraphic units, soil micromorphological analyses were
cases, the samples were collected at the boundary between units. These samples were impregnated by epoxy resin under medium vacuum, cut by
and aluminum oxide, using petroleum for cooling; 31 thin sections 90x65 mm and one 60x45 mm thin sections were obtained. These were observed under a standard polarising microscope, and described following the standard proposed by Bullock (1985) and Stoops (2003).
Fig. 2. Ground plan of the cave with the location of excavated trenches
6
Animal remains
Zemunica Cave contained a rich assemblage of vertebrate remains, mostly mammals. This report includes a preliminary analysis of a complete faunal assemblages from the Upper Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Early Neolithic horizons.
All remains were hand excavated or recovered through sieving (3 mm mesh). Vertebrate remains from younger deposits have not been studied. This faunal study is focused on the larger mammal assemblage (this category includes all mammals the size of a hedgehog and larger).
into the following body size categories: size 1 (micromammals), size 2 (hare to small carnivore size), size 3 (small ungulate size), size 4 (medium ungulate size) and size 5 (large ungulate size).
Lithic assemblage
We present here the lithic assemblages from the Upper Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Early Neolithic horizons. There were altogether 679 pieces. Technological categories were: pebble, cortical
blade, core, core fragments, core rejuvenation
used because of the small number of tools and tool types.
Lithic raw material and sourcing
Analysis of the lithic raw material encompassed
grouped according to petrographic characteristics and stratigraphic origin. The results of
microfacies analysis of representative samples of the assemblage. These material groups were then correlated with the possible rock sources on the basis of the geological literature and results
and analysis of geological samples from these
sample collection and unpublished research). The distances of chert outcrops from Zemunica Cave
were estimated according local road routes. Post deposition processes, particularly deep patina on
and had a negative impact on the accuracy of statistical data and correlation of artefacts with
limitations we are convinced that the results are a reliable indicator of the used lithic raw material, and hence an indicator of the movements of the Zemunica people throughout prehistory from the Late Upper Paleolithic to the Early Neolithic.
Pottery
The Neolithic layers of Zemunica cave yielded mostly Early Neolithic, so called impressed pottery. Additionally, there are a few shards from the Late Neolithic Hvar culture, but they were always admixed with Early Neolithic, Copper or Bronze Age pottery. Sometimes, also impressed pottery was admixed with later material.
The pottery assemblage from the early
potshards, weighing 7.65 kg. 89 shards could be
the Early Neolithic, eight to the Late Neolithic, and one to the Bronze Age; these units show little evidence of mixing with later material, but still present evidence of some intrusions.
Human remains
Analysis of the human skeletal material followed standard bioanthropological practice and included the inventory of skeletal and dental remains, determination of bone preservation, and age and sex estimation. Additionally, the presence of pathological changes was noted and described. The skeletal material was analysed according to the standards described by Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994), Bass (1987), Scheuer and Black (2004), White and Folkens (2005), and Lovejoy (1985). Only a portion of the collected human skeletal sample is reported here, and the analysis of the complete sample is in process. Estimation of the minimum number of individuals, as well as any assessments of population(s) and palaeodemography, are complicated by the levels
7Late Upper Paleolithic, Early Mesolithic and Early Neolithic from the cave site Zemunica
mixing. Since only a few of the human bones have been directly dated, it remains possible that at least some of the specimens from Mesolithic and Paleolithic levels are, actually Mesolithic and Paleolithic. Thus, the analysis of the Zemunica human remains reported here is done both in its entirety as well as by archaeological designation.
STRATIGRAPHY AND CULTURAL
HORIZONS
The excavations were concentrated in two trenches (trench 2 and trench 3), each 3 x 3 m in size at the top; their sequences are hereafter described, from the top downwards.
During the excavations, the criterion for dividing the Mesolithic from the Neolithic assemblages and levels was the presence of pottery shards and domesticated animals as both
most cases within this geographical area.
Trench 2
The total thickness of the sequence of archaeological levels in this trench is 4.6 m (Fig. 3). The
ical remains was attributed to the Early Bronze age. These levels contained several unstructured
Fig. 3.
8
and animal bones. Below the Early Bronze Age levels there were several thin layers ascribed to the Late Copper Age (Ljubljana culture), overly
109 – 113). After these, a thin sterile level separated the Mesolithic levels (SU 117 – 130) from the overlying Neolithic ones. At the bottom of the trench, late Upper Paleolithic levels were found (SU 136 – 146). These provided evidence of the earliest occupation of Zemunica Cave and were attributed to the Late Upper Paleolithic according to their lithic and faunal assemblages and – a
to a single AMS 14C date (Table 10).
Trench 3
The explored thickness of the sequence in this trench is about 3.0 m (Fig. 4).
ascribed to the Bronze Age. These were followed directly by the Late Neolithic (Hvar culture SU 53), and by a single level containing few shards of Middle Neolithic Danilo culture; levels of these cultures were not found in trench 2. Both horizons were very thin with low concentration of
Fig. 4.
9Late Upper Paleolithic, Early Mesolithic and Early Neolithic from the cave site Zemunica
trench 3 there was a very thin level containing only snail shells, bones and charcoal with no
in pottery shards, chipped stone artefacts, faunal and human remains; however, the context of the human remains cannot be described as burials, since the remains were very fragmented and scattered; the reasons for such fragmentation will be discussed elsewhere. During the excavations several areas of burned sediment were observed, which will be discussed in more detail in the Geoarchaeology section below.
Unlike what was observed in trench 2, the Mesolithic levels were directly overlain by the Neolithic ones. Here, they were characterized by an abundance of snail shells (SU 80 – 107, 134, 135). Below the Mesolithic levels, there was a Paleolithic level – SU 139.
GEOARCHAEOLOGY
The stratigraphically lowest group of units is a
are certainly not the lowermost of the Zemunica
and the shape of the cave suggests that the sequence is extending downwards (Table 1).
The lowest part of this level comprises
out at the bottom of trenches 3a and 3b (SU 106). The uppermost part is less stony or even stoneless and can be observed in trench 3b (SU 142) where
excavations stopped at the top of a unit comprised of blocks with red matrix (SU 106) that resembles
2, the reddish unit is overlain by a brownish to yellowish silty clay loam (SU 146 to SU 136)
concentrated at the bottom (SU 146); units 146 to 136 do not occur in trenches 3a and 3b.
units is clearly an erosional feature – a strong gap – that dips very gently southwards, putting into contact two completely different sedimentary environments. At the limit between trench 3a and 3b, this surface plunges steeply westwards; the
result is that at the bottom of trench 3b the reddish units crop out about 1 m deeper than in 3a. The
of the sediment, while the large blocks were left in place, with their bottom still included in the red sediment and the top protruding into the overlying levels. This erosional feature cannot
upper limit is very sharp and separates two very different deposition and alteration environments that can be compared with those separated by the erosion surface in trenches 3a and 3b.
directly overlying the gap is made up of levels that plunge into the erosional shape and tend to
progressively decreasing from the bottom to the top levels, and they are separated by sharp limits, probably erosional. The layer overlying SU 106 in trench 3b (SU 139) is a brownish silty loam (Mesolithic?) including common charcoal, organic matter and bone, which apparently resembles rather closely the group of units SU 130 to 118 (Mesolithic), even if these are less rich in charcoal and organic matter. This level is overlain in trench 3b by a sequence of two snail middens (SU 134) including reddish sediments resembling the bottom unit SU 106, but with
within each of the shell accumulation levels, the quantity of reddish sediment – which is dominant at the base of the level – decreases upwards. Aggregates of reddish sediment occur also
at microscopic scale as pedorelicts deriving from the dismantling of the underlying reddish unit.
thinner than those in 3b, and mainly made up of crushed snails; it is represented by a small lens (SU 86), which laterally merges into a sequence of lenses of moderately reworked ash (SU 103 and 91) that may be correlated with another ash lens overlying the upper red layer (SU 115) of the midden sequence exposed in the nearby trench. All these units include Mesolithic cultural remains; from the top of these levels upwards, clear indicators of stabling can be observed at microscopic scale (fecal spherulites and phytoliths).
10
Lithofacies Units Description
Trench 3B 3.0 7 Reworked surface layer. Calcareous rubble (angular to
matrix; poorly sorted; abrupt limitTrench 3A
Trench 3B
3.1 35
43 upper
Brown silty loam with occasional subangular stones; thin layer of charcoal at the bottom. Fine granular structure. Clear boundary, undulating and sub horizontal.
Trench 3A 3.2 36 Yellow clayey matrix. Boundary sharp, undulating.
Trench 3A
Trench 3B
3.3a 40, 52, yellow lens (?)
43 lower
Greyish brown silty clay with occasional angular clasts,
Trench 3A
Trench 3B
3.3b 53
45
horizontal and slightly undulating.
Trench 3A 3.4 60small clasts and frequent crushed shells.
Trench 3A
Trench 3B
3.5 63, 64, 81, 82
116,115 upper
Light brown silty clay, boundary abrupt, interrupted by a grey
Discontinuous grey ashy and reddish lenses in reddish brown silty loam matrix.
Trench 3A 3.6 83, 71?
Sandy loam matrix with small angular clasts and crushed shells.
Trench 3A
Trench 3B
3.7 86, 91, 92, 98?, 105, 103
115 lower, 134, 139
southern part with reddish matrix. Red pedorelicts and small
Trench 3A
Trench 3B
3.8 106, 112, 142
106
Reddish clay loam matrix, occasionally cemented. Polyhedric
unsorted subangular to subrounded clasts (up to 1m). Erosion feature.
Trench 2 2.1supported structure, with few matrix (sometimes openwork); poor sorting, with smaller size elements at the bottom, usually well oriented along the unit limit. Sharp limit, probably dipping southwards.
Table 1.
11Late Upper Paleolithic, Early Mesolithic and Early Neolithic from the cave site Zemunica
Trench 2 2.2subunits following colour (darker brown, sometimes reddish) or texture (more or less clay or skeleton); limits between subunits are usually clear to diffuse. Common skeleton, unsorted, subangular to subrounded (due to dissolution). Clear limit, gently dipping southwards.
Trench 2 2.3
chaotically dispersed. Frequent charcoal and amorphous
dipping southwards.Trench 2 2.4 Silty clay loam, not very different from 2); it can be divided into
some subunits with diffuse limits; the central one is light brown clay layer with some charcoal and almost no aggregation.
Trench 2 2.5
eastwards; abrupt limit, gently dipping southwards.Trench 2 2.6 109 Brown clay or silty clay, massive and sticky; few angular
common to very common charcoal. Abrupt limit. This level corresponds to SY 109 (the last one with Early Neolithic, as the recent one was not found here).
Trench 2 2.7 110aggregation; dominant, skeleton, angular to subangular, made
supported structure, sometimes openwork. Common bone and charcoal, occurring throughout the unit. Abrupt limit, gently
feature, with a dark reddish level underlying a blackish one. Combustion feature?.
Trench 2 2.8 113downwards. The snails are more commonly broken on the southern side, where the layer is remarkably thinner (trampling?). Sharp sigmoidal limit, subhorizontal.
Trench 2 9 118130
Dark brown silty clay loam, with very few skeleton mostly located at the bottom of the unit, subangular to subrounded,
to blackish subunits are also present, bounded by diffuse limits; the top limit one is particularly evident, with slightly variable thickness. Sharp limit, subhorizontal and smooth.
Trench 2 10 1389) (probably a facies of 9).
Trench 2 11 136143 coarse granular aggregation; very few unsorted angular to
subangular skeleton (up to 35 cm), concentrated in clusters;
Trench 2 12 146 Large blocks, terminating upwards with unsorted angular to
matrix with poorly developed medium granular aggregation.Trench 2 13 Reddish clay loam matrix, occasionally cemented. Polyhedric
aggregates with Fe coatings. At the bottom unsorted subangular to subrounded clasts (up to 1m).
12
snail midden (SU 113), which embeds Neolithic
also be pointed out that the boundary between the Mesolithic and Neolithic units here is an erosion surface, which may testify to natural erosion processes or human activities. Conversely, the
an evident erosion surface in trenches 3a and 3b, but is characterised by the formation of coarsely laminated levels in the Mesolithic (SU 91 in trench 3a, and the bottom of SU 115 in trench 3b) and by subsequent thin at the bottom of
layers examined are coprogenic and include
represented by a classical deposit of burnt stable layer (group of grayish ash accumulations with burnt dropping and phytoliths (SU 64), overlying a
frequent articulated phytoliths (SU 81). The high quantity of articulated long phytoliths and the lower amount of spherulites (mostly included inside preserved droppings and not dispersed among the phytoliths) in unit SU 81 may indicate the presence of a litter, possibly straw spread as bedding for the animals. This unit resembles the Neolithic burnt stable layer (SU 116) in trench 3b. Another possible (a group of dark brown, reddish and grayish layers) lies between units 114 and 45. The other Neolithic (SU 53, 115B, 114, 45) to Bronze Age (SU 40, 43) layers examined are brown to grayish brown and generally homogeneous, characterized by a very high quantity of spherulites and phytoliths equally dispersed in the groundmass. An accumulation of incompletely burnt or unburnt herbivore dung could be one possible explanation for the difference between the “classical ” and these brownish stable layers.
The topmost part of the sequence of trenches 3a (SU 53, 35) and 3b (SU 45, 43, 7) is a homogeneous brownish level overlying a wavy
yellowish silty clay lenses; at microscopic scale these are made up of an almost pure sediment rich
a colluvium but shows no similarity with any other sediment of the sequence is more likely the result of an intentional accumulation of selected sediment collected from a still unknown source outside the cave.
The lowermost unit of the sequence (SU 106, 147) does not contain cultural remains or
chronologic or cultural phase. Apparently, it
) developed outside the cave, mixed with ceiling breakdown blocks. By analogy with other similar contexts in the Adriatic area (Boschian, 1998), it may be tentatively ascribed to the (Late?) Pleistocene.
The yellowish level (SU 142) that overlies it in
microscopic scale, and may have been deposited in an aridic phase preceding the Mesolithic,
Blockley caves are not environments where primary loess deposition can be typically expected, so it may be inferred that it results from colluvium of aeolian sediments freshly deposited, which apparently is possible even during aridic phases (Boschian and Fusco, 2007).
The Mesolithic levels occur in trench 2 (SU 130 to 118) as domestic waste probably mixed with colluvium of loess of the underlying levels; the same is somewhat less well represented in trench 3a (SU 139), where it is overlain by a sequence of shell middens including reworked reddish sediment (SU 134). These are probably
runoff processes that were modifying the still outcropping red sediment, and anthropogenous accumulation of snail shells.
these levels – mostly the top of the lower midden – clearly indicate that depositional and erosional processes were continuously alternating. This aspect, as well as the shape of the units, also suggests that some reworking may have affected the shell middens themselves, mostly the upper one which also includes more pedorelicts. These units testify to a somewhat intense reworking of the sediments, which characterizes all recent Mesolithic sediments and was probably due to
13Late Upper Paleolithic, Early Mesolithic and Early Neolithic from the cave site Zemunica
a phase of relatively strong runoff connected to increased rainfall. The end of the Mesolithic is apparently characterized by a rapid shift from detrital and ash deposition to coprogenic accumulation, corresponding to the coarsely laminated ashy levels of SU 103 and 91.
From the Neolithic onwards, apart from the evidence of some snail consumption, the deposits
goat and possibly cattle stabling within the cave, as in most caves of the Mediterranean area (Angelucci , 2009, and references therein)
ANIMAL REMAINS
Overview of vertebrate faunal assemblage
The whole faunal assemblage of Zemunica cave, from the Upper Paleolithic to the Early Neolithic, includes a total of 2032 animal bone and teeth fragments, weighing 13.7 kg, of which 1295 were
(63.7 % of remains).A brief overview of the entire vertebrate
faunal assemblage with basic quantitative data is presented in Table 2, although the lower
bats) and body size categories are not analyzed in detail.
Upper Paleolithic
The oldest, Upper Paleolithic layers yielded most of the vertebrate remains (1078 fragments),
remains). Approximately half of them were
( ) being the most abundant species
being equally represented. Almost all anatomical elements are present although some body parts are underrepresented ( head and trunk). Far behind in numbers are remains of bovids (
( ) based on morphology. They are followed by scarce remains of equids (sp.), wild boar ( ), roe deer (
), and by only a single bone of ibex
( ) and of general caprid (). The remainder of taxa includes hare
( sp.), marmot ( ), wolf ( ) and badger ( ).
Mesolithic
A total of 436 fragments were recovered from the
(66.9 % of the remains). The taxonomically
is dominated by red deer ( ), followed by considerably less roe deer (
) and in even fewer numbers wild boar ( ), as the most common species. Of other ungulates, chamois ( ) is represented by two teeth while a few bone fragments were attributed as generally caprids ( ). A single bone fragment of a bovid ( ) comes from the lowermost Mesolithic layer and may be intrusive from the
taxa include hedgehog ( sp.), hare ( sp.), beech marten ( ), badger ( ) and lynx ( ).
Early Neolithic
The Early Neolithic horizon yielded a total of 519 fragments of vertebrate bones and teeth, of which
quarters belonged to domestic taxa (75.6 %). The most numerous are bones and teeth of ovicaprids (Based on morphology and metrical data only sheep (vast majority of the material is too fragmented to
out the possibility that goats were also present at the site. The second most frequent taxon is domestic cattle ( ), closely followed by red deer ( ) as the most common wild taxon. Pig ( sp.) remains from this
potentially represent either domestic pig or wild boar. The remaining taxa include a few remains
14
Upper Paleolithic Mesolithic Early Neolithic
genus / species NISP % NISP % NISP %
sp. 0 – 2 2.0 0 –
0 – 0 – 2 0.7
sp 2 0.8 5 5.0 0 –
1 0.4 0 – 0 –
2 0.8 0 – 0 –
0 – 4 4.0 0 –
2 0.8 6 6.0 0 –
0 – 2 2.0 2 0.7
sp. 4 1.5 0 – 0 –
4 1.5 8 8.0 0 –
sp. 0 – 0 – 24 8.5
230 87.1 55 55.0 33 11.7
2 0.8 13 13.0 8 2.8
0 – 0 – 34 12.0
2 0.8 0 – 0 –
13 4.8 1 1.0 0 –
0 – 2 2.0 0 –
1 0.4 0 – 0 –
1 0.4 2 2.0 0 –
(0) – (0)* – (24) (8.5)
(0) – (0) – (156) (55.1)
ovicaprids 0 – 0* – 180 63.6
subtotal (ID to taxon) 264 100.0 100 100.0 283 100.0
264 44.0 100 34.2 283 64.8
size 5 10 1.7 8 2.7 17 3.9
size 4 310 51.7 140 48.0 47 10.7
size 3 16 2.6 42 14.4 86 19.7
size 2 0 – 0 – 1 0.2
size 1 (micromammalia) 0 – 2 0.7 3 0.7
total (Mammalia) 600 100.0 292 100.0 437 100.0
Mammalia 600 99.7 292 97.7 437 97.5
Aves 2 0.3 6 2.0 11 2.5
Pisces 0 – 1 0.3 0 –
Table 2.
15Late Upper Paleolithic, Early Mesolithic and Early Neolithic from the cave site Zemunica
of roe deer ( ) and sporadic ) and lynx
( ).
LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE
Paleolithic assemblage
The Paleolithic assemblage consists of 75 pieces.
make up more than 85% of the assemblage. Other
(3) and cores (3). There is one bladelet core in
technological categories are not present. Tools are, in percentage, more numerous than in other horizons – nine pieces with no typical elements of the late Epigravettian of the Eastern Adriatic
scrapers and four retouched pieces among which
Mesolithic assemblage
The Mesolithic levels contained 479 artefacts.
(190 artefacts) and SU 130 (115 artefacts). Tools comprise around 5% (28 pieces). The debitage categories are different from those of the Neolithic levels (Table 6). The composition suggests at least partial
is almost 10% of the whole assemblage. There
core was found). Several cores are small in size
and completely reduced. Those cores were made on somewhat better quality raw material but this raw material is also of local origin. Besides cores,
is also one backed bladelet (Fig. 6.17), four splintered pieces produced by bipolar technique and one borer (Fig. 6.12). Splintered pieces are fairly common in late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. Also present are some unretouched
tools) that were fairly common in the Mesolithic.
The Neolithic Impressa culture
of 143 artefacts, comprising only eight tools. Among the debitage categories, most numerous are chunks (more than 60 %) (Table 8). Flakes comprise 13% (19 pieces among which only eight are cortical). Blades comprise 11.2% (16 pieces, four of which are tools). Other technological categories present are three bladelets, one core, one core fragment and two core rejuvenation
core) was additionally shaped into a tool so it does not directly suggest production (it could be part of the tool kit visitors brought to the cave) (Fig. 6.8). The assemblage composition suggests that tools and blanks were produced off site.
levels we cannot come up with any conclusions about the typology (Table 9). There are seven
and one backed bladelet (Fig. 6.7). Backed bladelets are not unusual in Early Neolithic tool
ID total 602 100.0 299 100.0 448 100.0
* A single neonate mandible with teeth of a sheep from Mesolithic deposits is intrusive from younger Neolithic
16Table 3.
Early Neolithic
NISP (bone)
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
18
26
6
28
0
0
0
0
0
(10)
(131)
141
223
cut marks (%)
–
0.0
–
–
–
–
–
0.0
–
–
16.7
3.8
0.0
21.4
–
–
–
–
–
(30.0)
(7.6)
9.2
10.3
burning (%)
–
50.0
–
–
–
–
–
0.0
–
–
11.1
15.4
16.7
35.7
–
–
–
–
–
(40.0)
(15.3)
17.0
18.8
Mesolithic
NISP (bone)
2
0
5
0
0
1
2
2
0
5
0
53
13
0
0
1
0
0
2
(0)
(0)
0
86
cut marks (%)
0.0
–
0.0
–
–
0.0
0.0
0.0
–
0.0
–
5.7
7.7
–
–
0.0
–
–
0.0
–
–
–
4.6
burning (%)
0.0
–
0.0
–
–
0.0
0.0
0.0
–
20.0
–
18.9
23.1
–
–
0.0
–
–
0.0
–
–
–
16.3
Upper Paleolithic
NISP (bone)
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
2
0
212
2
0
1
8
0
1
1
(0)
(0)
0
232
cut marks (%)
–
–
0.0
–
0.0
–
0.0
–
–
0.0
–
10.8
0.0
–
0.0
0.0
–
100.0
0.0
–
–
–
10.3
burning (%)
–
–
0.0
–
0.0
–
0.0
–
–
0.0
–
0.9
0.0
–
0.0
0.0
–
0.0
0.0
–
–
–
0.9
sp.
sp.
sp.
sp.
ovicaprids
total
17Late Upper Paleolithic, Early Mesolithic and Early Neolithic from the cave site Zemunica
there is also the question of possible trampling and disturbances (Villa and Courtin, 1983). This
from Hvar culture levels in Badanj cave on the island of Hvar (Forenbaher, 2002), but most probably it is an earlier intrusion. One blade has traces of sickle gloss that result from intense
in the vicinity makes such assumption logical even though it can belong to different occupation
framework.
POTTERY
A detailed analysis was carried out on 123 diagnostic shards (rims, bases, handles, decorated body
only the characteristics of surface treatment. Most shards (188) have plain surfaces, 30 are
the burnished shards belong to either monochrome Early Neolithic or Late (Hvar culture) pottery. The color of most shards displays various shades of
vessel parts, fragments of bodies are predominant,
Paleolithic - technological categories
category quantity %
pebble 0 0,00%
7 9,33%
corticated blade 0 0,00%
corticated bladelet 0 0,00%
31 41,33%
blade 3 4,00%
bladelet 0 0,00%
core 1 1,33%
core fragments 0 0,00%
0 0,00%
chunk 33 44,00%
total 75 100,00%
Table 4. Debitage categories in the Paleolithic levels
Paleolithic - tool types
type quantity %
retouched piece 4 44,44%
5 55,56%
total 9 100,00%
Table 5. Tool typology in the Paleolithic levels
Mesolithic - technological categories
category quantity %
pebble 1 0,21%
39 8,14%
corticated blade 5 1,04%
corticated bladelet 3 0,63%
172 35,91%
blade 33 6,89%
bladelet 19 3,97%
core 38 7,93%
core fragments 10 2,09%
11 2,30%
chunk 148 30,90%
total 479 100,00%
Table 6. Debitage categories in the Mesolithic levels
Mesolithic - tool types
type quantity %
retouched piece 19 67,86%
5 17,86%
1 3,57%
backed bladelet 1 3,57%
splintered piece 2 7,14%
total 28 100,00%
Table 7. Tool typology in the Mesolithic levels
18
Fig. 5. Selection of lithic artifacts from Zemunica
19Late Upper Paleolithic, Early Mesolithic and Early Neolithic from the cave site Zemunica
Fig. 6. Selection of lithic artifacts from Zemunica
20
followed by rims, and then bases and handles.
simple rounded, represented by 34 rims, and
types are fairly common in the Dalmatian Early
recorded their angle which was mostly convex
were everted. Only ten bases are present, belonging to
low pedestals (Fig. 9.9), two ring bases, one
were recorded. The angle between the base and
additional information about vessels’ shapes: two were more slanted, two less, and one about 45°. The base diameter was measurable for only two
bases (one ring and one low pedestal), and in both cases it measured 9 cm. Handles are represented
section, one vertically perforated lug handle (Fig.
are perforated with round holes that are usually thought of as mending holes (Fig. 8.3), but could have also been used for hanging the vessels
The shape of the vessels by their rim shape and slant was determined for 35 shards. All but three are different kinds of hemispherical vessels. The most common shape is a slightly restricted bowl (14 specimens) (Figs 8.3; 9.2; 11.3), followed by a
specimens) (Figs 7.1; 10.1; 19.2), then a restricted bowl (Figs 11.3, 4; 12.1), a vessel with a straight
11.1, 2), and open bowl (two specimens) (Figs 8.1;
with an everted rim are each represented by one specimen. The last one is probably a Bronze Age intrusion. Such vessel types, especially the hemispherical ones, are very common in all Dalmatian Early Neolithic sites, as well as on the
2009; Müller, 1994; Tiné, 2002).To determine the vessel size, nineteen rim
diameters, and wall thicknesses of 103 diagnostic
sized, ranging from 10 to 36 cm in diameter, and on average 8.4 mm thick
Decoration is the most characteristic feature of
shards, 74%) are decorated by three techniques: impression, incision and application. Sometimes incision was used together with incrustation or
with 83 shards decorated in that way; seven shards are incised (one with incrustation and one with burnishing), one has a round application, and one is painted. At least three incised fragments belong to Hvar culture: two decorated ones with rows of hatched triangles (one with incrustation) (Fig.
with lines and triangles (Fig. 13.5). A highly
Impressa culture - technological categories
category quantity %
pebble 0 0,00%
10 6,99%
corticated blade 1 0,70%
corticated bladelet 0 0,00%
20 13,99%
blade 11 7,69%
bladelet 3 2,10%
core 1 0,70%
core fragments 1 0,70%
2 1,40%
chunk 94 65,73%
total 143 100,00%
Table 8.
Table 9.
Impressa culture - tool types
type quantity %
retouched piece 7 87,50%
backed bladelet 1 12,50%
total 8 100,00%
21Late Upper Paleolithic, Early Mesolithic and Early Neolithic from the cave site Zemunica
burnished shard with red painted line beneath the rim on the inside, and some paint traces on the outside is somewhat similar to Guadone style (Tiné, 2001:143) and later pottery of the Early to Middle Neolithic transition.
The most frequent impressions are made by
3; 13.9, 12), usually organized in rows or chaotic,
made by shells (15 shards) (Figs 7.1, 2; 9.6; 11.4; 13.2) most frequently Cardium or a similar shell.
deep impressions probably made by a stick, nail or some kind of shell (Figs 9.2; 12.3, 4; 13.4, 10, 11). Sometimes, these motives are combined
together, as well as with triangular, round, oval or irregular impressions (Figs 7.3; 8.4; 12.1; 13.1) Almost always those motives cover the whole shard’s surface, sometimes in thick rows and sometime chaotically.
This decoration is common in most
2001; Starnini, 2002). The Zemunica pottery lacks organized motives seen for example in
Neolithic (Müller, 1994; Starnini, 2002).
Fig. 7. Selected pottery fragments from Zemunica
1 2
3
22
Fig. 8. Selected pottery fragments from Zemunica
23Late Upper Paleolithic, Early Mesolithic and Early Neolithic from the cave site Zemunica
Fig. 9. Selected pottery fragments from Zemunica
24
Stamp seal (pintadera)
of this class of objects from this period on the Eastern Adriatic coast and was recently published
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF HUMAN
REMAINS
Provenience and dating of the Zemunica
human remains
The AMS radiocarbon dating of some of the Zemunica remains as well as the site’s complicated depositional processes indicate that archaeological level attribution (e.g., “Paleolithic”) is not accurate for at least some of the human remains. All of the ten dated human remains are dated to around 7,000 14C yrs. A single
143 yielded a date of 7,006±29 14C yrs BP. These dates will be published elsewhere. Additionally, multiple specimens from the Mesolithic SU 122
also yielded similar ages. Only the remains from the Neolithic SU 108 yielded dates consistent with their archaeological designation. Furthermore, some elements from different levels articulate and are almost certainly from the same individual(s).
mixing affecting the Paleolithic, Mesolithic and
the Neolithic deposition.
Minimum number of individuals
and demography
present in the entire Zemunica sample. Adults,
all represented in the sample. The dentition and postcranial elements indicate that at least the following individuals of different ages are
Fig. 10. Selected pottery fragments from Zemunica
25Late Upper Paleolithic, Early Mesolithic and Early Neolithic from the cave site Zemunica
adolescent or adult is represented as well. Thus
individual represented.
“Paleolithic” (SU 139 and 143)
The human sample excavated from the Paleolithic levels comprises three teeth: a partial sacrum (PZ
21
and a right di1
Fig. 11. Selected pottery fragments from Zemunica
26
been directly dated, and it yielded a Neolithic date.
remains excavated from the Paleolithic levels also derive from the Neolithic via level mixing. Based upon incomplete sacral body fusion, the
from a minimum of twelve years (Johnston, 1961; Scheuer and Black, 2000) to a maximum
1987; Scheuer and Black, 2000). A portion of the
Fig. 12. Selected pottery fragments from Zemunica
27Late Upper Paleolithic, Early Mesolithic and Early Neolithic from the cave site Zemunica
Fig. 13. Types of decorations on pottery
28
left ala of S1 was removed for radiocarbon and isotopic analyses. The sacral specimen seems to derive from a fairly large individual, perhaps a
lingual shovelling. Although the two permanent incisors are similar in age at death (6.4 to 7.3 years; Smith, 1991), they are unlikely to be from the same individual. The mesiodistal length ratio
2 1 )) for the two teeth is 77.8. Analysis of
to recent, courtesy of M.H. Wolpoff) yielded an average ratio of 68.1 (
the same individual. The age at death estimation for the di1, based upon root formation (Smith, 1991) is 1.58 years. Thus, the Paleolithic sample comprises three specimens.
“Mesolithic” (SU 81, 117 and 134)
Both mature and subadult remains are represented in the levels 81, 117 and 134 samples. The levels 81 and 134 adult remains derive from excavation trench 3, while the level 117 subadult remains come from trench 2. The former are represented
at death of the remains from the other two levels (81, 117) are less clear, but may be consistent with an adult age. There is neither overlap in anatomy nor disproportional sizes among these SU 81 and SU 134 remains to indicate the presence of more than one individual. One of the SU 134 bones,
The SU 117 remains are all consistent with an
mandibular condyle and superior ramus. The only possible indication that more than one individual is represented in the SU 117 sample, is a subadult talus
years (if female) or 11 years (if male) (O’Rahilly , 1960; Hoerr , 1962; Tachdjian, 1985;
Wakeley
two it is possible that three (or more) individuals are represented in the “Mesolithic” sample.
“Neolithic” (SU 63, 80, 108, 113, 114, 116, 122)
represented by both mature and immature remains. Foot bones and vertebrae are particularly abundant and include three articulating thoracic vertebrae from a single, mature individual (PZ
Pathology
The only clear case of pathology among the Zemunica remains is enamel hypoplasia in
hypoplasic lines on the crown. This specimen derives from a Paleolithic level, although it has not been directly dated and may be younger.
Taphonomy
Most of the complete bones, as well as probable articulations, derive from the “Neolithic” levels. Very few remains were excavated from the
Given the direct radiocarbon datesmentioned above, the differential densities of human remains
displacement of human remains from originally Neolithic provenience to the older levels. Although complete remains are more common from the “Neolithic” levels, the preservation and coloration of all of the human bones from across all three cultural horizons is similar. Some, albeit limited, evidence of burning is present among the “Mesolithic” and “Neolithic” remains (the lack of any burnt bones in the “Paleolithic” sample may
Remains from the “Mesolithic” and “Neolithic” levels are generally fragmented and were, for the most part, not distributed as articulated individuals. Even in areas of high human bone
represent multiple individuals of various ages.
29Late Upper Paleolithic, Early Mesolithic and Early Neolithic from the cave site Zemunica
DISCUSSION
Geoarchaeology
The lowermost observed level of the Zemunica cave sequence is composed of large limestone blocks, most probably deriving from ceiling breakdown during some still undated cold phase of the Late Pleistocene, as suggested by the oldest date available till now (see below), which marks the end of the Late Glacial. The
deriving from strongly developed soils; this colluvium mantles the top of the blocks with an almost stoneless level, testifying to a phase of climate improvement, shifting to a wetter and strongly dynamic phase. The high degree of evolution of the suggests
a rather warm and probably much older phase, possibly even an interglacial. The very sharp erosion surface marking the top of this level also
have been removed corroborating this hypothesis.The Late Glacial is well represented only in
Trench 2, by a brownish level that closely resembles loess from the textural and mineral point of view. The above mentioned erosional phase probably removed a large part of these levels from the area of Trench 3, where Upper Paleolithic levels with domestic waste residues overly directly the erosion surface. These levels do not contain large quantities of rubble deriving from the roof fall, unlike what is usual for Pleistocene sediments in the area. This may suggest warmer or mostly aridic climatic conditions during the latest phase of the Pleistocene in this area.
The Mesolithic levels are also mostly comprised of domestic waste deposits, including some unstructured hearths and large quantities of ash, bone fragments and more or less crushed
of thick layers dominated by colluviated land snails and pedorelics probably indicates cyclical reworking, probably seasonal, of anthropic snail accumulations by natural erosional processes.
The Neolithic use of the cave is characterised
and also cattle dung accumulation. Long bundles
of still articulated phytoliths can be found within these sediments, indicating that animals were penned inside the cave, and that a straw litter was laid down.
Chronology
A total of 10 charcoal and bone samples from the site were dated in the Beta Analytic laboratory, Miami, USA (Fig. 14). One comes from the Early Bronze Age levels, whilst the others will be discussed here.
The oldest date is 11,740±90 14
senting a late Pleistocene phase corresponding
oxygen isotope sequence (Blockley , 2012). The sample dated was charcoal, coming from a level with Pleistocene faunal remains and a lithic assemblage ascribed to a late Paleolithic cultural horizon.
Four other more recent dated samples fall within
10,000±70 14C uncal. BP), all of them are included within the (Early) Mesolithic age range.
However, some inconsistencies between these dates and the stratigraphy arise from disturbance of the archaeological deposits; these problems must be clearly pointed out here, because they prevent establishing a solid chronological framework for the Zemunica sequence.
As we already mentioned, the major criterion for distinguishing Neolithic from Mesolithic
Following this criterion, SU (stratigraphic unit) 121 from trench 2, was ascribed to the
and a charcoal sample collected from it was
14), consistently with the earliest phases of the Mesolithic. However, this level lies directly upon SU 122, which yielded abundant lithic artefacts and also eighteen animal bones; among these, eight belong to ungulates, nine are indeterminate while one can be attributed to juvenile specimen. This very early dating is consistent with the Early Mesolithic, but the occurrence of domesticates in such context is not convincing; therefore, an additional sample (bone, )
30
Neolithic date on the site.Domesticated animals in otherwise Mesolithic
contexts are not exceptional on the Eastern Adriatic
, and pottery in
Mesolithic levels in Crvena Stijena, but the context
prey of Mesolithic peoples who were hunting domesticated animals that belonged to the Neolithic inhabitants on the coast (Chapman and Müller, 1990:132), or as the result of local domestication (Budja, 1996:66).
sample No stratigraphic unit sample type BP
SJ 143 charcoal 11740±90
SJ 121, trench 2 charcoal 10000±70
SJ 115, trench 3 charcoal 9700±50
SJ 96, trench 3 charcoal 9620±50
SJ 115, trench 3 bone 9310±60
SJ 63, trench 3 bone 7120±40
SJ 113, trench 2 charcoal 7060±50
SJ 60, trench 3 charcoal 6920±40
SJ 122, trench 2 bone 6550±40
Table 10. AMS radiocarbon dates from Zemunica
Fig. 14. Probability distribution of radiocarbon determinations
31Late Upper Paleolithic, Early Mesolithic and Early Neolithic from the cave site Zemunica
However, the most parsimonious explanation for the occurrence of domesticates in Mesolithic levels is mixing, which was easily demonstrated in all such situations when geoarchaeological studies were carried out, e.g.
Mesolithic industries in some sites of the Trieste , 2009).
This mixing was simply due to repeated rearrangements of the cave catchment carried out by Neolithic shepherds when the area was becoming invaded by thick accumulations
Zemunica by the geoarchaeolgical investigations (see below), with the complication of other erosional processes and disturbances. Thin levels undergoing trampling – even moderate – under moist conditions also suggest the likely
Anthropic activities and trampling by livestock in the Neolithic period must have affected the Mesolithic levels to some extent. Some mixture possibly occurred during the rescue excavation, which was carried out in winter when the sediments were extremely wet and often frozen.
Another charcoal sample from trench 2 was
No samples from the Paleolithic levels were dated in trench 3; here, the Mesolithic levels
225631).Two samples from SU 115 were dated to
bone,
Neolithic because of the presence of sheep bones
15 animal bones of three different species – , and ,
together with lithics and pottery shards. These
Adriatic region (Forenbaher and Miracle, 2014). Subsequent soil micromorphological analyses revealed that this unit is in fact comprised of two
levels, of which only the top one includes fecal spherulites and other indicators of domesticates stabling. Consequently, the occurrence of inconsistent dates simply derives from the
Neolithic level during the excavation.Below SU 115 there were levels without any
Mesolithic fauna that were consequently ascribed to the Mesolithic.
Geoarchaeology data suggest that – apart excavation problems – a large part of the above mentioned inconsistencies derives from erosional
the sequence during its formation, and admixed part of the cultural remains; clear evidence of
evident, mostly above the sharp erosion surfaces. Hiatuses in the sequence may also justify wide gaps in the sequence of the dates. Further on, as mentioned before, the sediments are very muddy and soft during heavy rains, sometimes forming
to mention here that the frequency of cattle in the Zemunica Neolithic levels is very high (around
(Eren , 2010) as resulting from trampling by animals.
Two more datings were carried out on Neolithic levels in trench 3. One is from SU 63
225629).
cal issues we can conclude the following:1) Final phases of the late Upper Paleolithic are present in the cave.2) Only the early phase of the Mesolithic is present; at this stage of research there are no data suggesting occupation of the cave during the late Mesolithic 3) back to its very earliest presence on the Eastern
culture may be present at the site, and the dates suggest a longer period of occupation with varying intensity.
32
Faunal data
The assemblage of large mammal remains provides interesting hints for the interpretation of the Zemunica cave sequence and its evolution through time, from the palaeoecological and cultural points of view.
Palaeoecology
The larger mammal assemblage from Zemunica consists of more than two thousands remains and shows some interesting temporal changes in taxonomic composition. Red deer dominates in both Paleolithic and Mesolithic horizons and continues to be the most common wild species in the Neolithic, indicating a surrounding environment of open forests with grassy glades
transition and in the Early Holocene. However,
grassland environment (e.g., horse and aurochs) are no longer present in the assemblage from the beginning of the Mesolithic, with an exception of a single bovid bone fragment that may be
frequency of taxa adapted to more forest cover (e.g., roe deer and wild boar) increases over time suggesting increase in tree cover and perhaps more temperate conditions in the area around Zemunica during Early Holocene. That assumption is also supported by the increase in
medium sized carnivores). Scarce remains of taxa characteristic of rocky terrain (e.g., chamois and ibex) are found in both Paleolithic and Mesolithic contexts, indicating the existence of some rocky areas near the cave.
Hunting and herding
The taxonomic composition of the mammal assemblage from the oldest deposits at Zemunica suggests a specialized hunting of red deer, mainly of juvenile and adult age. Other taxa, whether
Paleolithic diet. Although red deer continued to dominate in the Mesolithic, data indicate that the Mesolithic diet was not solely based on this species but to somewhat lesser degree also included roe
deer and wild boar. These three mammal species were a typical choice in the menu of Mesolithic hunters in the region (Miracle, 2002). The Early Neolithic is characterized by sudden appearance and dominance of domestic taxa (sheep and cattle), introduced by the spread of herding in the eastern Adriatic. Although based on limited
goats in Zemunica were probably kept for meat, but since the sample is very small this hypothesis
A single shed deciduous tooth of a sheep may be used as indirect evidence for penning of animals
herding practices, hunting was still represented in Zemunica, but to a much lesser extent.
Food preparation and consumption
Butchery and burning patterns are often clear evidence of human manipulation of animal
horizons of Zemunica (Table 3) cut marks are present almost only on the remains of red deer, with the exception of a single bone of ibex from the Paleolithic and one of roe deer from the Mesolithic, indicating a human agency as responsible for the accumulation of that material. However, one cannot rule out the possibility that Paleolithic and Mesolithic hunters brought to the cave some other carcasses, especially ungulates. Smaller wild taxa (e.g., marten and hedgehog) probably used the cave as a den or to hibernate during winters and their remains may be naturally deposited. The vast majority of the cut marks are located on long bones (especially on hind limbs) and their shape and position suggest them
or consumption (see Binford, 1981), indicating that most of the initial butchery (skinning and disarticulation) took place somewhere else, potentially at the place where the animals were
are fairly frequent and present on almost all taxa (Table 3). Their position on skeletal elements
carcasses of the main domestic taxa were almost
The frequency of burning on animal remains varies throughout the sequence, being most rare
33Late Upper Paleolithic, Early Mesolithic and Early Neolithic from the cave site Zemunica
in the Paleolithic deposits and relatively frequent in the Mesolithic and Neolithic layers (Table 3). While burning is not necessarily evidence of food preparation and consumption by humans, it does suggest that these remains were deposited in the
made. This temporal shift in increased number of burnt bones corresponds with a number of
2006), assuming more intensive use of the cave in the Early Holocene and potentially somewhat different methods of food preparation in relation to the Pleistocene.
Lithic assemblage
The provenance of the group of patinated and
microfacies analysis of artefacts has not yielded expected results we relied on their macroscopic characteristics and have cautiously set the correlation with geological samples of chert of similar textures from the explored outcrops. Besides these limitations, the results of the analysis presented in this paper are believed to be a realistic indicator of used sources of lithic raw material: from the Upper Paleolithic to the Neolithic the Zemunica people have continuously used almost exclusively local resources in lithic raw material procurement. These were nodular cherts that appear in the limestone from Lower and Middle Eocene and Upper Cretaceous. Formations of these carbonate deposits, as well as related chert outcrops are found in the wider hunting area of Zemunica, but not in the immediate vicinity of the site. Given the nature of the outcrops, chert could have been procured by breaking the rock and taking out the nodules from the host rock, collecting eroded nodules and debris in the vicinity of primary outcrops or by
deposited in loose sediments. When taking into account that the Zemunica people selected raw material of lower quality from the chert outcrops located in their hunting territory, and that they did not use the sources with higher quality cherts at all, it can be concluded that the rock type was not
six out of 653 lithic artefacts from Zemunica were
that originate out of this region. Because of this minimal share in the total lithic assemblage and because of the nonexistence of basic forms
represent the remains of embedded procurement by the Zemunica people (Floss, 1994). However they present a trace of some exterritorial hunting or knowledge of other rock types in far away
case, since there are no such rocks in the wider
the maximum movement distance. , lack of a greater share of lithic artefacts produced
Zemunica lithic assemblage, which are more or less present among the artefacts at other prehistoric sites in Dalmatia (Vela Spila on the
supports our opinion that the Zemunica people
research).
Paleolithic
The assemblage found in the Paleolithic levels is
not chronologically or culturally diagnostic. We can observe the presence of long and wide blades that are not present in later periods in Zemunica
are no abruptly retouched tools so characteristic for the late Upper Paleolithic in the Eastern Adriatic. Completely reduced bladelet cores made on good quality raw material are one of the typical elements of the late Epigravettian
dates and lithic assemblage composition (but not so much by typology) we can compare Zemunica
categories are very rare, which is not the case for
and Pellagatti, 2007:32). On the other hand, there are no backed bladelets in the Paleolithic assemblage, nor evidence of microburin
34
technique which was present on some Eastern Adriatic sites in this period (Whallon, 2007). Microburin technique is not present in Zemunica,
the closest contemporary sites to Zemunica, nor , 2011). Again
according to the assemblage composition, the Paleolithic levels from Zemunica resemble
2007:34). Tool typology from Zemunica is more similar to the sites in Dalmatia, like Vela
in this case a major difference is also the lack of geometrical pieces and backed bladelets in
, 2011). However, this tool typology can be the result of the small excavated area of the cave.
Mesolithic
Degradation of style, structure and typology is a most characteristic and generally applicable manifestation of early Holocene industries of the Middle and Southern Balkans followed by the decline of the technology and production of stone
The most visible manifestations of these processes are a decrease in quantity of backed bladelets (which can indicate different activities) and geometric pieces with a proportional increase of simple tools on simple irregular
industries can be divided into two general groups. Both are characterized by the decrease of the number of tool types (especially ones characteristic for Epigravettian) and absence
the group with no trapezes there are sometimes , 1994).
At the present state of research, the Mesolithic lithic industry of Zemunica can be placed in the group without trapezes, with some Epigravettian elements such as backed bladelets and circular endscrapers. This lack of any diagnostic types in Mesolithic assemblages is documented in several sites throughout Balkans (Merkyte, 2003:315). Technology of production is also very basic as at
stijena, and there is also a very low selection of raw material. The closest tool typology is
numerous, and there are less than 10% of blades
(Basler, 1975), while there is an abundance of
Zemunica where there is one backed bladelet,
not a single backed bladelet, missing altogether
similar site is Medena stijena where in level 4
1996:45). The main difference is that in Medena stijena there are a few trapezes. There is a visible decline of both technological and typological
represented mostly by endscrapers, retouched
Neolithic
(and Mesolithic) assemblage is very similar to that of Zemunica (Forenbaher, 1999). Also there are similarities with the lithic industries from Gudnja
is characteristic of the Early Neolithic, with some other, “earlier” characteristics are also present. There are clear differences between the Zemunica
Pottery
The Zemunica Neolithic pottery assemblage shows all the typical characteristics of Early
not possible. However, recent research suggests
35Late Upper Paleolithic, Early Mesolithic and Early Neolithic from the cave site Zemunica
, 2013:603). Various types of decorations and high concentration of good quality pots are in contrast
types from cave sites (Müller, 1994)
CONCLUSIONS
The stratigraphic sequence of Zemunica Cave spreads from the Late Upper Paleolithic to the Early Bronze Age.
Within this framework, the presence of occupational levels ascribed to the Late Upper Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Early to Late
if some dates are not consistent with the cultural
reworking and mixing due to erosional processes, as demonstrated by the geoarchaeological studies that revealed evidence of some hiatuses. Some of these correspond to parts of the sequence including the unclear dates
Regardless of these problems, Zemunica
multilayered sequences of Early Neolithic remains in the Eastern Adriatic, like Odmut,
repeated use, of various purposes and intensity. Archaeological evidence from the Paleolithic
levels is very scarce. The faunal assemblage and radiometric dating suggest that these levels belong to the late phases of the Pleistocene, but the lithic assemblage does not include tool types diagnostic of that period. With reference to lithics, Zemunica can be placed in the middle Dalmatian part of the hexagonal models proposed by R. Whallon,
because of the occurrence of splintered pieces and thumbnail endscrapersas well as the lack of trapezes, truncations and microburin technique
The criteria for ascribing levels to the Mesolithic were the following: – no pottery fragments; – the composition of the lithic assemblage;
– abundance of land snail shells; – changes in the faunal assemblage composition; – the radiometric dating.
Radiocarbon dating mostly accords with the faunal assemblage, suggesting occupation during the earliest phases of the Mesolithic. No different phases of the Mesolithic can be distinguished according to the lithics, as tools are represented only by endscrapers and retouched pieces, a characteristic similar to some levels of
references above).There is no evidence of a Late Mesolithic
phase at Zemunica; this agrees with the data from other sites of the Adriatic coast, where a gap between the Mesolithic and the Neolithic is common (Forenbaher and Miracle, 2014:126; Biagi and Spataro, 2000:48), as there is but a single date from a Late Mesolithic phase in Dalmatia
cal BC; Forenbaher fox dominate the faunal assemblage of this phase
the earlier phases (Forenbaher , 2013:595). A possible transitional period is observed also
Miracle, 2014:127). Conversely, the faunal assemblage of Zemunica
is typical of the Eastern Adriatic Early Mesolithic – dominated by red deer, roe deer, wild boar and terrestrial mollusks (Forenbaher , 2013).
The lithic assemblage is different from the Neolithic levels, which also suggests possibly a different use of the cave during these two periods.
About 45 Early Neolithic sites were found until now on the Eastern Adriatic Coast
(2009:118) distinguished seven areas based on geological base, relief, soil type, hydrography,
part under the Velebit chain, 5) Dalmatia (from
southern Adriatic from the mouth of Neretva to Ortrant, and 7) the hinterlands of Herzegovina and Montenegro.
According to the same author the area under Biokovo mountain represents one of the gaps in
36
the distribution of Early Neolithic sites. However,
clearly contrast such conclusion. Likewise, new archaeological surveys carried out in the area suggest that such conclusions must be revised
the area east of Biokovo should be regarded as a zone of Early Neolithic occupation. Despite these
not have the characteristics of settlements.However, new research suggests that the
earliest Neolithic phase in the eastern Adriatic was characterized by great mobility and exploration. These data also suggest that almost all parts of the eastern Adriatic, including its hinterlands, were involved in the process of change at the same time and at a larger scale than previously thought (Forenbaher and Miracle, 2014:123). The situation in Zemunica would support such a suggestion.
Together with Vela cave on the island of Lošinj and Gudnja, Early Neolithic dates from Zemunica represent the earliest date for the
and Miracle, 2014:129). Four major innovations represent a “full
scaled” “Neolithic package” in Dalmatia: domesticated animals, plant cultivation, pottery production and use, and polished stone tools (Chapman and Müller, 1990:132). A “reduced version” of this package, represented by domesticated animals, prismatic blade technology and pottery is much more common, especially in cave sites (Forenbaher and Miracle, 2005). This form is present also at Zemunica, together with additional indirect evidence of plant cultivation – one sickle blade with sickle gloss; furthermore, domesticated animals are especially frequent in the faunal assemblage, and there is a prismatic blade technology, as well as pottery. Polished stone tools were not found at Zemunica, but are
well as one millstone fragment (Müller, 1994:74), numerous fragments of daub, and storage pits,
pottery culture. Unfortunately, no animal bones
Considering that a large part of the Zemunica Neolithic (and later) sediments derive from the
some cattle dung, we can propose the hypothesis
the same settlement system: the cave was used
funerary rituals, whereas the farmers' settlement
as most of the Early Neolithic cave sites, in this area and on the western side of the Adriatic, are situated far from plain and fertile land, following the model
Brochier for southern France (Brochier , 1999)
entails that caves – were used seasonally by transhumant shepherds directly
The presence of human remains indicates the importance of the cave in the lives of the Neolithic population in the area, regardless of the purposes for which the site was used; the occurrence of dispersed human remains is common also in other similar sites and still requires an explanation. The reduction of the full Neolithic package could be the result of the local geography where some communities still depended to some extent on traditional hunting, combined with a limited
However, more and more evidence of systematic use of caves for stabling animals from the Early Neolithic onwards has been accumulating in the
2000; Boschian, 2006; Boschian and Miracle, 2008; Angelucci , 2009), from the Trieste
geoarchaeologically unpublished Vela Spilja
differences between the "standard" and "reduced" versions of the Neolithic package in terms of different use of the sites, considering that the shepherd's "kit" would have been simpler than the farmer's one.
Analysis of the new and old radiocarbon dates “shows that around 6,000 cal BC pottery styles emerged, spread and disappeared at different rates within the region” which calls into question the old division of the Neolithic into three phases (Forenbaher , 2013:604).
37Late Upper Paleolithic, Early Mesolithic and Early Neolithic from the cave site Zemunica
Although the presence of all phases is
radiocarbon dating, clear evidence of erosional and other depositional processes explained above requires more excavation and analyses to provide a clearer stratigraphic and chronology context to sustain or negate the above conclusions.
Acknowledgements
comments and corrections as well as to reviewers. Excavation of Zemunica Cave was funded by Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia.
REFERENCES
. Manson Publishing, London.
shelters in the Mediterranean region during the Neolithic.
. Zajednica kulturnih ustanova,
BASS W.M. 1987. . Missouri Archaeological
Society, Columbia..
Arheološki muzej, Zadar.
some aspects of the radiocarbon chronology
Mediterranean Basin.
. Academic Press, Orlando, San Diego.
FENSEN J.P., SVENSSON A., LOTTER A.F.,
members. 2012. Synchronisation of palaeoenvironmental records over the last 60,000 years, and an
event stratigraphy to 48,000 b2k.
, Società Preistoria Protostoria
(eds) , .
and Cultural Relations around
Boschian (ed.) . Atti Società
toscana Scienze naturali, Mem., Serie A, 112
Prehistoric Shepherds and Caves in the Trieste
, Travaux Centre Archéologie Préhistorique Valence No. 2. Centre d’Archéologie Préhistorique de Valence, Valence,
. Muzej grada Šibenika, Šibenik.
BUDJA M. 1996. Neolithization in the Caput Adriae
38
Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Fayetteville.
. Waine Research Publications, Wolvehampton.
CHAPMAN J., MÜLLER J. 1990. Early Farmers in the Mediterranean Basin: the Dalmatian evidence.
. Centar za kulturu Vela Luka, Vela Luka.
EREN M., DURANT A., NEUDORF C., HASLAM
of animal trampling effects on artifact movement in dry and water saturated substrates: a test case from
37,
FORENBAHER S. 1999. The earliest islanders of the Eastern Adriatic. 23,
FORENBAHER S. 2002. Prehistoric Populations of
Evidence. 26(1),
FORENBAHER S. 2006. Flaked Stone Artifacts.
, Archaeological Museum
krug, Split.
of Farming in the Eastern Adriatic. 79,
Dating the East Adriatic Neolithic.
the eastern Adriatic in the light of new radiocarbon dates
FLOSS H. 1994.
Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Mainz – Habelt, Bonn.
FLÜGEL E. 1978.
. Springer Verlag, Berlin.
biostratigraphy and sedimentary evolution of the Budva Zone (Dinarides, Montenegro
. Geological Survey of Federation Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo.
of the deposits of Grotta dei Piccioni and Grotta
Boschian (ed.) . Atti Società
toscana Scienze naturali, Mem., Serie A, 112 (2007),
JOHNSTON F.E. 1961. Sequence of epiphyseal union
and lithic technology in the Northern Adriatic area.
1994. Jagellonian
u Cetinskoj krajini od 1980. do 2006. Godine.
arheološkog društva 27. Hrvatsko arheološko
LOVEJOY C. 1985. Dental Wear in the Libben
Determination of Adult Skeletal Age at Death.
LYMAN R.L. 1994. . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
39Late Upper Paleolithic, Early Mesolithic and Early Neolithic from the cave site Zemunica
Arheološki muzej, Dubrovnik.
University of Zadar, Department of Archaeology, Zadar.
, , 1:100.000. Savezni geološki zavod, Beograd.
. Savezni geološki zavod, Beograd.
MARJANAC T. 1993. Unpub
lished Ph.D. thesis University of Zagreb, Zagreb.. Centar za
Beograd, Zavod za zaštitu spomenika culture Crne Gore, Beograd, Cetinje.
. Environmental Protection Research Division (Quartermaster Research and Development Center, U.S. Army,
eastern Europe.
ro (Fascicule 1).Faculty of Philosophy, Center for Archaeological Research,
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, Center for Archaeological Research, Beograd.
(eds)
prilog prethistoriji jadranskog kulturnog kruga,
nalazište na otoku Lošinju,
MÜLLER J. 1994.
. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, Band 9, Wissenschaftsverlag Volker Spiess, Berlin.
The skeletal development of the foot.
37(2), 70.
Zone (DOZ). Basic data on the geology end
Dalmatia. Supplying raw material to prehistoric
lithic industries in middle Dalmatia.
. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis University of Zagreb, Zagreb.
. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
America (ed.). Boulder, Colorado.
. Elsevier, Oxford..
Elsevier Academic Press, London.
Advances in
40
, 1:100.000. Savezni geološki zavod, Beograd.
. Savezni geološki zavod, Beograd
Delphino, A. Pessina, V. Tiné (eds) .
STOOPS G. 2003. . Soil
Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin.
Pintadera kulture keramike impresso iz špilje Zemunice.
. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia.
Delphino, A. Pessina, V. Tiné (eds) .
. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis University of Zagreb, Zagreb.
value of MR imaging in the diagnosis of the os trigonum syndrome.
WHALLON R. 2007. Social territories around the
(ed.)
. Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam.
APPENDIX
LITHIC RAW MATERIAL
The chipped stone industry from Zemunica Cave is almost entirely made from nodular chert created
Eocene and Cretaceous limestone, siliceous rocks
heated chert (Fig. 15).
Chert from Eocene limestone
One third (33%) of total lithic assemblage weight was made from Eocene limestone chert. During
Eocene chert outcrops were found in the area
slopes of Mosor Mountain, hence in relative proximity of the Zemunica Cave. Macroscopic characteristics and microfacies of chert and topography of outcrops show distinctive differences between artefacts made of chert from Lower and Middle Eocene limestone.
Chert from Lower Eocene limestone
Cherts from this group (accounting for 13% of total weight of the assemblage) were developed in Foraminifera limestone of Lower Eocene. The geographically closest location of this limestone to Zemunica Cave is the Central Dalmatian basin
1973; Marjanac, 1993) where we have explored the following important outcrops: Saldun and
name, which are approximately 40 km away from Zemunica, and Seget Donji and outcrops in the region of Plano and Labin Dalmatinski near Trogir (45 km). Lower Eocene chert from Zemunica Cave is the same as in the outcrops, as determined by the type of primary
partially translucent, waxy to glassy gloss and weathered type which was eroded from the host rock, pale yellowish grey or entirely grey colour, without gloss, opaque and of poor technical
41Late Upper Paleolithic, Early Mesolithic and Early Neolithic from the cave site Zemunica
quality. When viewing the polished section under
preserved fossils of Foraminifera of Nummulite and Discocyclina (Fig. 16) according to which
, 1971;
artefacts made from the abovementioned two types of chert (fresh and weathered) from the same petrographic group, we can observe to what extent the Zemunica people took into account the quality of raw material during lithic production. On the abovementioned autochthonous outcrop
opened in the host rock, as well as nodules which fell out of the rock as a result of weathering processes, cracked and spread around in the immediate vicinity. Smaller nodular fragments, which were exposed to weathering for a longer time, are dried out, have lost their colour and are of poorer quality than the fresh chert. Both
of these types are equally represented in the Zemunica lithic assemblage inferring that fresh and better quality cherts were not necessarily a
Cherts from the Middle Eocene limestone
Among the artefacts made from the Middle Eocene limestone chert (ca. 20% of total weight share) it is possible to differentiate several
or they are extremely rare so they appear more homogenous than the Lower Eocene chert (cf.
and pronounced pastel brown colour (e.g.,
Extremely weathered examples are of pale light brown colour, while some of them are covered
Euroasian Prehistory
chert from
Lower
Eocene
limestone
chert from
Middle
Eocene
limestone
chert from
Upper
Cretaceous
limestone
radiolarite
claystone not determ. heated
1 2 3 4 5 6
ca % g 13 20 38,8 0,9 22,7 4,6
0 10 20 30 40 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
Fig. 15. Diagram of weight share of the total lithic artefacts from Zemunica Cave (1 chert from Lower Eocene limestone, 2 chert
chert, 6 heated chert)
42
only with surface patina of this colour (
slightly coarse surface, these nodular cherts have a faded porcelain shine. They are not opaque and their technical quality ranges from good to very
translucent. Visible in thin section are fossil fragments and complete plankton Foraminifera in a matrix of cryptocrystal quartz which is
grained brown variety is related to the cherts of Starosevski gaj type which are most abundant in the eponymous site (40 km from Zemunica Cave), but which also appear elsewhere on the
(outcrop Sitno, 15 km away) and on southern slopes of Biokovo near Baška Voda (45 km away). A black variety ( , N1), with glassy gloss and mainly opaque, is related to the cherts of Opor type that are found on the eponymous
also be found in his vicinity. Groups of artefacts made of foraminifera cherts from Lower Eocene limestone can be associated with caution to the
(e.g.,
translucent cherts of glassy gloss. These cherts,
texture of the rock from which they were created, and a thin section of the sample does not show fossils (Fig. 18). According to geological samples from the researched outcrops, this group can
Eocene limestone.
Cherts from Upper Cretaceous limestone
Upper Cretaceous limestone cherts contribute to 38.7% of the total weight, and are hence the largest group in the Zemunica Cave lithic assemblage. This group is composed of several varieties with small textural differences.
correlate it with the possible outcrop due to the
and any type of rounding, as well as earthy fracture, grainy surface, detritical texture, lack of
limestone than to chert. A third of the artefacts
Fig. 16.
43Late Upper Paleolithic, Early Mesolithic and Early Neolithic from the cave site Zemunica
Fig. 17.
Fig. 18.
44
variety of cherts created in the limestone of
1973). They are mainly to
have thin pale yellowish brown patina. They
grained surface resembling unglazed porcelain. Thin section shows a matrix of cryptoquartz of mosaic structure, lithoclasts, rare fragments of
fossils. A fragment of the tube of bryozoa (Fig. 19) suggests a Cretaceous age for these cherts (cf. Flügel, 1978). Upper Cretaceous cherts, whose structure corresponds to this variety, were found on Vilaja Mountain in the hinterland of the Town of Trogir, i.e., on the southern slopes of the Sirištak peak (50 km away from Zemunica). The majority of artefacts from this group were made from an opaque variety of cherts with greyish shades, to without gloss, or less frequently from cherts of
and
poor translucence on the thin part. Their surface is amorphous, smooth, without macroscopically
visible fossils. They are very prone to patination with ferrous oxide from the soil in which they were embedded, so the true colour could be
microscopic analysis. Outcrops, which are possible sources of raw material, show nodules with grey and opaque phase and nodules with light yellowish brown, glassy and translucent phase.
to the abovementioned groups of artefacts, are located in the areas approximately 30 km away from the Zemunica Cave in the Upper Cretaceous limestone in the Dugobabe area (north east of the
km away) and in the area of Vilaja (Sirištak Peak,
which is 35 km away from Zemunica.
Siliceous rock of out-of-region origin
The Zemunica lithic assemblage includes only a
claystone (0.9% of total weight), which are however important for the reconstruction of the
Fig. 19.
45Late Upper Paleolithic, Early Mesolithic and Early Neolithic from the cave site Zemunica
prehistoric Zemunica groups’ exploitation areas and mobility, because the raw material used is not of local origin.
Radiolarite
Only three artefacts from the lithic assemblage are made of radiolarite of very dark red colour (waxy gloss and exquisite technical quality. Thin section under the microscope with plane polar light (Fig. 20), in cryptocrystal quartz mass shows numerous round shape features of 0.1
2001). The closest sources of radiolarite are gravel sediments of Neretva River approximately 115 km from Zemunica. More distant sources of radiolarite can be found south east of Zemunica in the Montenegrin coast where they appear in the coastal gravel and as autochthonous
numerous autochthonous outcrops of radiolarite
formation) and allochtonous outcrops in the gravel
northwest of Zemunica, gravel of radiolarite are found in conglomerates and loam sediments on the slopes of a hill near Ozalj eroding into the
River (270 km away). Radiolarite gravel appears
The raw material of three artefacts produced
origin. The rock is amorphous, homogenous, of purple colours (e.g., 5RP
technical quality. A thin section shows that in the matrix made of cryptocrystal quartz are visible irregularly shaped black stains of organic matter and opaque minerals, probably hematite (Fig. 21). There are no fossil remains, or even the smallest
Fig. 20.
46
trace of volcanic glass and other phenocrysts,
with Triassic pelithic clastic rocks of Velebit Mountain which we found in the deposits and
Donje Pazarište in Lika (210 km away from
Altherr, 2011).
Petrographically undetermined cherts
This group is composed of cherts which cannot be petrographically reliably determined without
accounts for 22.7% of the total lithic assemblage
with sediments from the cave, however after washing them in water and even attempting to clean them with diluted solution of hydrochloric acid it was established that they were deeply
cherts from Upper Cretaceous and Middle Eocene limestone outcropped in the wider area of Zemunica, because of somewhat visible characteristics such as grey or pale brown colour
surface, conchoidal fracture, nodular rind and lack of macrofossils.
Heated chert
The group of heated chert (4,6% of total weight) is made of lithic artefacts which accidentally
, , ,
light grey or reddish colour and a frequent lack of any gloss and spherical splits and cracks of irregular net structure. We assign these cherts into the group of diagenetical cherts because of the abovementioned and other characteristics that we
rind and conchoidal fracture).
Fig. 21.