KELLY REED VAMZ, 3. s., XLIX (2016) 7
: Archaeobotany in Croatia: an overview,
KELLY REED School of Life Sciences
CV4 7AL UnitedUniversity Kingdom of Warwick
Archaeobotany in Croatia: An overview
UDK / UDC: 561(497.5) Pregledni rad / Review
Introduction The study of plant macro-remains from ar- Plants are, and have been, an integral part chaeological sites is an important method to study aspects of past societies such as diet, drunk, used for clothing, fuel, for medicinal agriculture, trade/economy and the local purposes,of our daily utilised lives in whetherconstruction being or eaten,given environment. To date plant macro-remains cultural/ideological/ritual values. Archae- have been identified from 70 sites within - Croatia, spanning the early Neolithic (ca. 6000 cal BC) to the Middle Ages (16th century nutshells,obotany examines and fruit plantstones) remains recovered (primar from AD). Despite this number, poor recovery and ily macro-fossils such as grains, seeds, a bias towards the Neolithic period have led - to large gaps in our knowledge on the devel- archaeological excavations to reconstruct opment of agriculture in the region, which past agricultural systems, economies, en is further hindered by the low number of thevironments origin and and spread human of domestic activity. crops, Common di- excavations that include archaeobotanical themes in European archaeobotany include recovery. This paper summarises the archae- - obotanical evidence available per period in etary breadth and variability,1 land use and Croatia, highlighting the potential for future production, as well as distribution, and so research, as well as providing suggestions cial access to specific foods. for the recovery of carbonised plant macro- research,In Croatia, due archaeobotanical in part to the lack analysis of trained is remains. rarely undertaken as part of archaeological 1 Neolithic, Eneolithic, Bronze Age, - Iron Age, Roman, Middle Age, Methodology Van Zeist, Wasylikowsa, Behre 1991; Bogaard 2004; Keywords: 2014.Colledge, Conolly 2007; Van der Veen, Livarda, Hill 2008; Zo hary, Hopf, Weiss 2012; Chevalier, Marinova, Peña-Chocarro
VAMZ_3_49_2016.indd 7 02.05.2017 13:25:22 8 KELLY REED VAMZ, 3. s., XLIX (2016)
: Archaeobotany in Croatia: an overview, debates is the transmission and adoption of the discipline and its potential contribu- - tion.archaeobotanists During the 20 andth a limited awareness search suggests did not spread as one ‘crop have published evidence of archaeobotani- package’of certain across domesticated Europe.6 The plants, ‘crop which package’ re century only nine sites consisted of einkorn (Triticum monococ- multi-national projects.2 Since then there cum), emmer (Triticum turgidum ssp. dico- cal remains, with the majority being part of ccum Triticum dicoccum of archaeobotanical remains, including re- (Hordeum vulgare ssp. vulgare), pea (Pisum has been a greater increase in the recovery sativum- formerly), lentil (Lens culinaris), chickpea), barley (Cicer arietinum), bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia) informationcovery within about routine past rescuehuman excavations. plant econ- Linum usitatissimum).7 omiesThis provides from a range for the of firstarchaeological time important sites In Croatia, research suggests that farm- and flax ( ing settlements began to be established 8 - and periods across Croatia. How these - here,new discoverieshighlighting have the begunimportance to contribute of col- ca.chaeobotanical 6000 cal BC; remains however, (Tab. only 1, a Map few ex1). to Croatian archaeology are summarised lecting archaeobotanical samples and the cavations have yielded early Neolithic ar potential for future research. This paper have evidence of carbonised plant mac- does not aim to provide a detailed and com- In coastal Croatia, five early Neolithic sites 9 ro-remains: Pokrovnik, Crno vrilo, Tinj- prehensive history of Croatian archaeology Podlivade, Krćina and Kargadur-Ližnjan.- and archaeobotany. To aid future research also outline suggestions for best practice. While in continental Croatia, only two early in archaeobotany in Croatia this paper will Neolithic10 sites have so far yielded archaeo botanical remains: Sopot and Tomašanci- Prehistory Palača. All seven sites show evidence of- Neolithic (ca. 6000 to 4500 cal BC) ingthe the ‘crop establishment package’ in varyingof crop degreesagriculture (all except chickpea and bitter vetch) confirm The Neolithic period has received a great - in the early Neolithic. This evidence along in regards to the spread of agriculture and with the presence of other Neolithic mate deal of attention over the years, especially3 The Croatia,rial culture11 although has been evidence suggested of by continued some to hunterbe confirmation gatherer ofactivities populations suggest moving a more into seenits social as the and introduction economic consequences. of a farming econ- spread of a ‘Neolithic package’, which is - gion.12 At present, the absence of archaeo- items of material culture, including pol- complex diffusion of farming across the re omy, relates to the appearance of specific botanical evidence from Mesolithic sites - evidence in Croatia limit our understanding ished stone axes, ceramics, a new suite of4 and the restricted range of early Neolithic domestic animals and plants, as well as spe cific architecture and religious activities. at this time. of how human-plant relationships changed colonisingHow these farmers items arrived to local in hunter Europe gatherer is still 6 groupshighly debated, adopting with farming theories piecemeal ranging from 7 5 their neighbours. 8 Conolly, Colledge, Shennan 2008. Zohary 1996;et Zohary, al. Hopf, Weiss 2012. 2 A key aspect of these 9 Chapman, Müller 1990; Bogucki 1996; Forenbaher, Miracle 2005; Davison 2009. 2006; Forenbaher, Kaiser, Miracle 2013. 3 Gnirs 1925; Hopf 1964; Karg, Müller 1990; Chapman, 10 Müller Reed 2015. 1994; Huntley 1996; Komšo 2006; Legge, Moore Shiel, Batović 1996. 2011; Šoštarić 11 Legge, Moore 2011. Harris, Hillman 1989; Harris 1996; Whittle 1996; Perlès 12 2001;4 Bogaard 2004; Colledge, Conolly 2007; Hadjikoumis, Robinson, Viner 2011; Zohary, Hopf, Weiss 2012. 5 Chapman, Müller 1990; Biagi 2003; Forenbaher, Miracle Ҫilingiroğlu 2005. 2005; Bass 2008. Vlachos 2003; Borić 2005; Forenbaher, Miracle 2005.
VAMZ_3_49_2016.indd 8 02.05.2017 13:25:22 KELLY REED VAMZ, 3. s., XLIX (2016) 9
: Archaeobotany in Croatia: an overview,
REFERENCE Reed 2015. Reed Reed 2015. Reed Reed 2015. Reed Borojević et al. 2008. Borojević 2015. Ɖukić 2014; Reed 2002. Bronić Krajcar Obelić, Horvatinčić, Reed 2015. Reed Reed 2015. Reed Burić 2007, 45–46. 2015. Reed Gnirs 1925, 24–25. Hopf 1964; Reed 2006; Legge, Moore 2011. 2006; Legge, Moore Hopf 1964; Reed Karg, Müller 1990; Legge, Moore 2011. Müller 1990; Legge, Moore Karg, Reed 2015. Reed Reed 2015. Reed 1996. Huntley Šoštarić 2009. 2006, 212–214. Komšo Müller 1994, 64.
WEED SEEDS WEED WILD / / WILD
C C C C C C C C C C C
NUTS FRUITS / / FRUITS
C C C C C C C C C C C
/ HERBS /
VEGETABLES VEGETABLES OIL PLANTS OIL
C C C C C PULSES
C C C C C C C C C C CEREALS C C C C C C C IM C C C C C C C C C C C DATE 5050 – 3940 cal BC ca. 4990 – 4200 cal BC 5050 – 4490 cal BC 4540 – 4040 cal BC (Sopot culture) 5226 – 4167 cal BC 4680 – 4460 cal BC 4900 – 4600 cal BC 4900 – 4700 cal BC 5400 – 5200 cal BC (Danilo culture) 5300 – 4800 ca BC 5900 – 5100 cal BC 5815 – 5185 cal BC 5660 – 5300 cal BC culture) (Impresso culture) (Impresso 6060 – 5890 cal BC culture) (Impresso SITE TYPE Tell Tell Settlement Tell Tell Cave Tell Tell Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement Cave Settlement Settlement c Sopot Slavća Ivandvor-Gaj Otok Kapela Ravnjaš-Nova Grapčeva Bapska-Gradac Brezovljani Velištak Virovitica-Brekinja Gromače-Brijuni Gromače-Brijuni Danilo Pokrovnik Tinj-Podlivade Tomašanci-Palača Kargadur-Ližnjan Kargadur-Ližnjan cave Krčina Sopot SITE NAME Neolithi Crno vrilo Table 1. List of Croatian sites with archaeobotanical remains per period (C = carbonised, IM impression, M mineralised, W waterlogged, P Pseudo-fresh). *Note: Identifications based on a cumulative table and may not be accurate.
VAMZ_3_49_2016.indd 9 02.05.2017 13:25:23 10 KELLY REED VAMZ, 3. s., XLIX (2016)
: Archaeobotany in Croatia: an overview,
REFERENCE Reed 2015. Reed Reed 2015. Reed Reed 2013. Reed Borojević et al. 2008. Borojević Reed 2013; 2016. Reed Reed 2013; 2016. Reed Reed 2011; 2013; 2016; Ɖukić 2014. Reed Huntley 1996a. Huntley Reed 2013; 2016. Reed 2013; 2016. Reed Reed 2016. Reed 2016. Reed 2016. Reed 2016. Reed Reed 2013; 2016. Reed Reed 2013; 2016 Reed 2013; 2016; Ɖukić 2014. Reed 2013; 2016; Ɖukić 2014. Reed Borojević et al. 2008. Borojević
WEED SEEDS WEED WILD / / WILD
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
NUTS FRUITS / / FRUITS
C C C C C C C C C C C C C
/ HERBS /
VEGETABLES VEGETABLES OIL PLANTS OIL
C C C C C PULSES
C C C C CEREALS C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C DATE 4300 – 3900 cal BC 3637 – 3097 cal BC culture) (Hvar (early) 2565 – 2144 cal BC / 1879 – 1529 cal BC 3490 – 2790 2600 cal BC 2880 – 2480 cal BC 3340 – 2830 cal BC 3510 – 3330 cal BC 3370 – 2940 cal BC 4320 – 3360 cal BC ca. 3750 – 3600 cal BC ca. 4200 – 2900 cal BC 4340 – 3240 cal BC 4040 – 3950 cal BC 4320 – 3960 cal BC 4300 – 3900 cal BC 4203 – 4040 cal BC ca. 4200 – 2800 SITE TYPE Settlement Cave Cave Settlement Cave Tell Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement Tell SITE NAME Tomašanci-Palača Eneolithic Grapčeva Turska Peć Turska Tomašanci-Palača Bronze Age Bronze Grapčeva Vučedol Vinkovci, 14 Matije Gupca Vinkovci, Đakovo-Franjevac Virovitica-Batelije Buković-Lastvine Barbarsko C eminac-Vakanjac C epinski Martinci-Dubrava Tomašanci-Palača Lasinja Jurjevac-Stara Vodenica Jurjevac-Stara Livade Pajtenica-Velike Potočani Slavća
VAMZ_3_49_2016.indd 10 02.05.2017 13:25:23 KELLY REED VAMZ, 3. s., XLIX (2016) 11
: Archaeobotany in Croatia: an overview, et al. 2015.
Nye 1996. Nye Šoštarić 2003; 2005. Reed, Drnić 2016. Reed, REFERENCE Šoštarić 2015; Hänsel, Mihovilić, Teržan 1997. Teržan Hänsel, Mihovilić, Mareković 2013; Mareković et al. 2015. 2013; Mareković Mareković Brigić 2008; Hršak 2009; Šoštari c , Potrebica, Šoštari c et al . 2016. Reed 2013. Reed Šoštarić 2001. 2013. Reed Smith et al. 2006. Šoštarić 2004. Tillier et al. 2016. Šoštarić 2015. Nye 1996. Nye Huntley 1996b. Huntley 2013. Reed
WEED SEEDS WEED WILD / / WILD
C C C C C C C W P W C C C
NUTS FRUITS / / FRUITS
C C C C C C C C C,W C C
/ HERBS / VEGETABLES VEGETABLES
W OIL PLANTS OIL
C C PULSES
C C C C C C C CEREALS C C C C C C C C C C C C century AD century th century BC century BC th th century AD century AD century BC century BC th st nd nd – 12 – 12 – mid 5 – mid th th – 4 – 1 – 2 – 2 th th st st nd ca. 1 ca. 5 DATE (late) ca. 1800 – 1200 cal BC ca. 13 ca. 6 (late) (late) (late) (late) 820 – 410 cal BC ca. 2 ca. 1 (late) ca. 14 Villa Harbour structure Hillfort SITE TYPE Settlement Hillfort Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement Tumulus Town Settlement Hillfort Necropolis Necropolis Settlement Roman Danilo Island Pag Caska, Nadin-Gradina Ĉauševica SITE NAME Monkodonja Orubica-Veliki Šeš Orubica-Veliki Sisak Nova Bukovica-Sjenjak Nova Kalnik-Igrisce Okruglo Torčec-Gradić Age Iron Kaptol-Gradci Poreč Kiškorija Vitrovitica Nadin-Gradina Crišnjevi-Oštrov Mačkovac-Crišnjevi
VAMZ_3_49_2016.indd 11 02.05.2017 13:25:23 12 KELLY REED VAMZ, 3. s., XLIX (2016)
: Archaeobotany in Croatia: an overview, et al.
Šoštarić et al. 2006. Šoštarić, Jelinčić 2003; Šoštarić Dizdar, 2006. Šoštarić, Šegota 2010. c ec 2006, 200–201. c an, Tkal Iva Sekelj 2015. Petö Kenéz, Papeša, Rapan Šoštarić, Šegota 2010. Starčević 2010. Starčević et al. 2006; Krajačić Šoštarić 2003; Gluščević 2009; Čičak 2015. 2001. Šoštarić, Küster Šoštarić 2015. REFERENCE Šoštarić, Šegota 2010. Šoštarić, Šegota 2010. Šoštarić, Šegota 2010. Šoštarić 2004. Šoštarić, Šegota 2010a.
WEED SEEDS WEED WILD / / WILD
M M C C C C W W C C C C C C
NUTS FRUITS / / FRUITS
M M C W W C C C
/ HERBS / VEGETABLES VEGETABLES
W W OIL PLANTS OIL
M M C W W C PULSES
M M C CEREALS M C, M C C C C C W W C C C C C C century th century century nd nd century AD century AD century AD century AD th th th th century AD century AD century AD century AD 14th – early century AD century AD century AD th th th th th th th th / 12 / 11 14 – early – 15 – 16 / early 2 / early 2 / early th th th th th – 9 / 9 / 8 / 8 / 8 – 5 – 5 – 5 st st st st st th th th th th ca. 1 ca. 1 AD AD ca. 7 ca. 7 ca. 7 ca. 11 century AD ca. 1 ca. 1 ca. 8 ca. 8 DATE AD ca. 13 ca. 10 ca. 13 ca. 1 ca. 12 Cemetery Villa Cemetery Cemetery (Slav) Cemetery (Avar) Settlement Settlement Port Villa Settlement Settlement Castle SITE TYPE Settlement Settlement Cemetery Castle Illok Osijek-Silos Duga ulica 99, Vinkovci Duga Nuštar I* Pole Prečno Gucak* Pod Port of Aenona / Zaton of Aenona Port Brijun Veli Middle Ages Kiškorija Vitrovitica Blaževo Pole 6* Pole Blaževo Torčec-Gradić Torčec-Gradić Ledine* Rudičevo* SITE NAME Sćitarjevo Vrbovec
VAMZ_3_49_2016.indd 12 02.05.2017 13:25:23 KELLY REED VAMZ, 3. s., XLIX (2016) 13
: Archaeobotany in Croatia: an overview,
can also provide information about activi- remains collected from the late Neolithic The recovery of archaeobotanical remains The identification of burnt dung from plant - to our understanding of the possible diet ties associated with the yearly crop cycle,- ofcave domestic site of Turska herds. 16Peć has also contributed such as preparing the soil, sowing, harvest ing and crop processing. Each activity re such as cicer milkvetch For example,(Astragalus the cicer large), lies on variables such as labour availability,- alfalfanumbers (Medicago of wild plantsativa ),and fat weedy hen (Chenopo species,- technology, the local environment and any dium album), crabgrass (Digitaria sangui- other constraints imposed by the commu nalis) and clover (Trifolium sp.), suggests archaeobotanicalnity/society. Recently, remains these dating activities to the have Ne- begun to be explored from the analysis of- cropsthat farmers to feed theirmay livestock.have been In sowing addition, fields the olithic. For example, the recovery of suffi- for animals to graze and/or growing fodder cient quantities of carbonised cereal grain, provides valuable information about land chaff and crop weeds allowed the identifi useidentification and the seasonal of animal movement herds at of this herds site cation of crop processing activities at six around the Croatian landscape during the Neolithic sites (one early Neolithic and five late Neolithic. Ravnjaš.late Neolithic):13 The results Tomašanci-Palača, suggested that Sopot, the Čista Mala-Velištak, Turska Peć, Slavća, crop processing stages, such as threshing Eneolithic (ca. 4500 to 2400 cal BC) inhabitants conducted many of the early The Eneolithic (or Copper Age) is an im- portant period of socio-economic change and winnowing, away from the settlements- after harvest. The crops were then brought- tosis thein preparation settlement wherefor human further consumption. crop pro where economic and political complexities cessing occurred on a more day to day ba has been directed to understanding the began to emerge. However, less research The waste from these final crop processing - olithic/Eneolithicsignificant changes transition that occurred in southeast to these thestages hearth then or became burnt outside carbonised, the home, whether and Europesocieties sees in the a number Balkans. of Generally, communities the disNe- depositedaccidentally around or deliberately the settlement. being burnt in persing from the large centralised Neolithic During the late Neolithic (ca. 4800 to 4500 increased focus on herding and seasonal - transhumance.tells to form smaller17 A greater settlements focus withon ani an- manentcal BC) changesand long-lived in society tell are settlements seen in the Carpathian region, where larger more per- ing.14 mal products is suggested, where animals18 This emerge,also occurred along withat this large time scale is stillcattle unclear herd wereperiod exploited also sees notchanges only in for burial meat practice but for from theWhether plant changesrecord, butin crop recent agriculture archae- milk, wool or used as draft animals. obotanical research has highlighted its - allurgicaland the re-organisation goods.19 As the of tradeEneolithic networks, pro- to accommodate the demand for new met remainspotential collected to answer from these late questions. Neolithic tell, For settlements began to develop,20 example, the comparison of plant macro- gressed, larger more permanent fortified increase in the range of crops recovered at specialisation. The climate too changes along withdur- cave and flat open-air sites showed a slight- the emergence of social hierarchy and craft 15 ences in crop regimes. 16 Reed 2015. the tell sites, potentially indicating differ 17 et al. 2004. 13 Reed 2015. 18 14 Bognar-Kutzianet al. 2011. 1972; Parkinson 19 Sherratt 1981; 1983; Greenfield 2005; Trbojević- 15 Reed 2015. Parkinson et al. 2010. Bailey 2000; Tringham 2000; Orton 2012. 20Vukičević
Balen 2002; Tasić 2004.
VAMZ_3_49_2016.indd 13 02.05.2017 13:25:23 14 KELLY REED VAMZ, 3. s., XLIX (2016)
: Archaeobotany in Croatia: an overview,
Map 1. Map of Croatia showing the location of Neolithic sites with archaeobotanical remains (1) Krćina and Turska Peć, (2) Grapčeva, (3) Danilo, (4) Pokrovnik, (5) Cista Mala- Velištak, (6) Tinj-Podlivade, (7) Crno Vrilo, (8) Kargadur-Ližnjan, (9) Gromače-Brijuni, (10) Brezovljani, (11) Virovitica-Brekinja, (12) Slavća, (13) Ravnjaš-Nova Kapela, (14) Zadubravlje-Duine, (15) Tomašanci-Palača, (16) Ivandvor-Gaj, (17) Pajtenica-Velike Livade, (18) Sopot, (19) Otok, (20) Bapska.
- recent archaeobotanical research in Croatia riod to a cooler Subboreal environment. 22 - ing this period from the warm Atlantic pe amination of thirteen Eneolithic sites (Tab. Archaeobotanical research for the Eneo- has1, Map begun 2) continuation to question this.from theFrom preceding the ex lithic is limited in the Carpathian Basin and Neolithic is seen in the range of crop spe- current theories in the region suggest that cies recovered (i.e. the continued cultiva- - gesting crop agriculture did not change sig- shiftthe change in focus in from climate, crop as cultivation well as possible to ani- tion of emmer, einkorn and barley) sug soil deterioration, may have influenced a 21 the limited archaeobotanical data has re- nificantly during this period. Unfortunately, mal husbandry, as well as a shift towards stricted further interpretation of possible hardier21 crops, such as barley. However, 22
Kosse 1979; Gyulai 2010. Reed 2013; 2016.
VAMZ_3_49_2016.indd 14 02.05.2017 13:25:24 KELLY REED VAMZ, 3. s., XLIX (2016) 15
: Archaeobotany in Croatia: an overview,
Map 2. Map of Croatia showing the location of Eneolithic sites with archaeobotanical remains (1) Grapčeva, (2) Buković- Lastvine, (3) Slavća, (4) Pajtenica-Velike Livade, (5) Jurjevac-Stara Vodenica, (6) Tomašanci-Palača, (7) Đakovo-Franjevac, (8) Vinkovci, 14 Matije Gupca, (9) Vučedol, (10) Cepinski Martinci-Dubrava, (11) Ceminac-Vakanjac, (12) Virovitica-Batelije, (13) Potočani (14) Barbarsko, (15) Lasinja.
cultivation methods.23 Bronze Age (ca. 2400 to 900 cal BC) regarding the introduction of ploughs and draft animals in agriculture Therefore and questionsthe rela- Once again the Bronze Age sees a re-organi- migration and transhumance from as far as tionship between agriculture and changes thesation Russian of society steppes, with episodes the Aegean of population and Ana- 23in society are still unknown. tolia.24 The European Bronze Age (ca. 2500
E.g. Bogaard 2004; Kreuz, Schäfer 2011. of ‘élites’ and social ranking,25 –direct 750 effectBC) is on also settlements, characterised resulting by the in rise the which had a 24 et al. 2012. 25 Kovács 1977; Todorova 1989; Gerling Harding 2000; Earle 2002; Kristiansen, Larsson 2005.
VAMZ_3_49_2016.indd 15 02.05.2017 13:25:24 16 KELLY REED VAMZ, 3. s., XLIX (2016)
: Archaeobotany in Croatia: an overview, appearance of larger more substantial sites located on hilltops or prominent positions can also provide information about the past - The recovery of plant remains from sites- ea.26 In the Carpathian Basin, some suggest - whichthe emergence offered strategic of these controllarger settlementsover an ar local environment, which can be particular- indicate political centres that controlled ly important when reconstructing agriculAlisma plantagoaquaticatural activities. At fromTorčec-Gradić, a Bronze Agefor exam occu- ple, the archaeological recovery of manufacture, trade and production, while- ingsmaller plant periphery and animal settlements products.27 focused on areaspation oflayer, marsh suggested land.32 thatThus, the agriculture landscape supplying these centres with goods includ once had areas of standing water, possibly The European Bronze Age also sees distinct would have had to be conducted away from- these waterlogged areas, or if seasonal, changes in crop cultivation where certain ing seasons of the crops and livestock in the may have restricted the growing and graz broomcornspecies begin millet to be(Panicum regularly milliaceum cultivated), speltas crops ( in their own right. These include) and Triticum aestivum ssp. spelta vicinity of the settlement. broad bean (Vicia faba).28 Iron Age (ca.1000 to 100 cal BC) species are also seen in the Carpathian Ba- sin, including the oil plant gold New of cultivated pleasure The Iron Age sees the continuation and (Camelina sativa Cartha- emergence of large proto-urban centres, mus tinctorius).29 - developed in the )face and of Safflowerchanging social ( or- 33 Rich burials con- ganisation is still However,unclear. how agriculture the centralisation of authority and the in tensification of trade. In Croatia, eleven Bronze Age settlements, taining34 imported luxury items also attest to including a hillfort, cave and necropolis, time. the transportation of luxury goods at this - Hillforts persist, but very few have tanical remains (Tab. 1, Map 3). Unfortu- - have so far yielded carbonised archaeobo ments.been extensively Evidence excavatedof archaeobotanical in Croatia andre- as such little is known about these settle - terpretation.nately, the majority Of particular of these interest sites had is lowthe - mains from the Iron Age are also rare with increasequantities in of presence plant remains, of broomcorn restricting millet in only three known sites, Kaptol-Gradci, Na (Panicum miliaceum plant macro-remains (Tab. 1, Map 3). At Ka- din-Gradine and Sisak, yielding carbonised as a summer crop during), which this may period. support30 At ptol-Gradci, evidence of cereals, wild fruits the theory that it began toOlea be fragments cultivated and weeds from a cremation grave suggest - possible ritual activities where these plants Ĉauševica the recovery of 31 Thus, the and later collected and deposited in the tu- may have35 been placed on the funeral pyre limitedmay also data indicate so far somesuggests of the that earliest the choice evi mulus. In Dalmatia, Nadin-Gradine hillfort ofdence crops of wildcultivated olives changedin Dalmatia. at this time in Triticum cf. aestivum ssp. spelta provides(Hordeum evidence vulgare ofssp. spelt vulgare wheat), ( broom- the Balkans, but the why and how are still corn millet (Panicum miliaceum), six-row) and barleygrape 26unknown. (Vitis sp.),36 -
27 GogâltanKovács 1977; 2008. Dimitrijević, Težak-Gregl, Majnarić-Pandžić 1998; Pavišić 2012. conducted. but due to the low quantity re 28 covered no additional analyses have been 29 32 Akeret 2005; Valamoti 2016. 30 33 Forenbaher 1995. Kroll 1990; Medović 2002; Gyulai 2010, 105. Šoštarić 2004. 31 34 Potrebica 2013. Reed 2013; Valamoti 2016. 35 Hršak 2009. Huntley 1996a. 36
Nye 1996.
VAMZ_3_49_2016.indd 16 02.05.2017 13:25:24 KELLY REED VAMZ, 3. s., XLIX (2016) 17
: Archaeobotany in Croatia: an overview,
- Map 3. Map of Croatia showing the location of Bronze and Iron Age sites with archaeobotanical remains referred (1) Grapčeva, Sisak.(2) Okruglo, (3) Nadin-Gradina, (4) Ĉauševica, (5) Monkodonja, (6) Kalnik-Igrišče, (7) Torčec-Gradić, (8) Nova Bukovica-Sjen jak, (9) Kaptol-Gradici (10) Tomašanci-Palača, (11) Mačkovac-Crišnjevi, (12) Crišnjevi-Oštrov, (13) Orubica-Veliki Šeš, (14)
- the Iron Age has been suggested from car-
Recent excavations at Sisak, Croatia, un Bronze Age and Iron Age human bones.38 earthed an early Iron Age pot filled with bon and nitrogen stable isotope analysis of andarchaeobotanical 4th centuries remainsBC.37 within the floor - of a structure dating to between the 6th sentsThe lowa large recovery gap in ofour archaeolobotanical understanding of ( Preliminary results Setaria italica theremains development from Iron of Age agriculture sites, however, at this timepre found a high concentration of foxtail millet- ) within the pot, providing- for the first time evidence of millet culti and consumption how the development in the region. of proto-urban vation in the early Iron Age. This is par consumption in continental Croatia during centres may have influenced production ticularly interesting as an increase in millet 38 37 Lightfoot et al. 2015.
Reed, Drnić 2016.
VAMZ_3_49_2016.indd 17 02.05.2017 13:25:24 18 KELLY REED VAMZ, 3. s., XLIX (2016)
: Archaeobotany in Croatia: an overview,
Map 4. Map of Croatia showing the location of Roman and Middle Age sites with archaeobotanical remains (1) Danilo, (2) Nadin-Gradina, (3) Port of Aenona/Zaton, (4) Caska, (5) Veli Brijun, (6) Poreč, (7) Sćitarjevo, (8) Vrbovca, (9) Prečno Pole I, Pod Gucak, Ledine, Rudičevo, Torčec-Gradić, Blaževo Pole 6, (10) Vitrovitica Kiškorija, (11) Osijek-Silos, (12) Nuštar, (13) Ilok.
st th
Roman (1 – 5 century AD) coast with the Aegean and Black Seas and with the Danube. The initial Roman province of Illyricum- plant remains, including those preserved (Dalmatia) was gradually enlarged during a In Croatia, ten Roman sites have yielded series of wars that brought39 During much the of 1 thest to Dal 3rd mineralisation (Tab. 1, Map 4). In particu- matian coast and continental Croatia within through carbonisation, waterlogging and- theirinto Dalmatiacontrol by and 9 BC. Upper (Superior) and centuries AD, the region was reorganised oflar Veli plant Brijun remains and from preserved the ancient by waterlog harbor - ging were recovered from the Roman villa- Lower (Inferior) Pannonia. The Romans- etable and spice plants such as cucumber ruled the area for five centuries, making Sa (atCucumis Zaton providing sativus), theblack first mustardevidence of(Bras veg- lona (now Solin) their administrative head sica nigra), carrot (Daucus sativus), radish quarters, while trade prospered through 39the Migotti building 2012. of road networks, linking the
VAMZ_3_49_2016.indd 18 02.05.2017 13:25:25 KELLY REED VAMZ, 3. s., XLIX (2016) 19
: Archaeobotany in Croatia: an overview, (Raphanus sativus) Cichorium Early and late Middle Ages intybus).40 th to 12th century AD and 13th to and chicory ( 16th grape (Vitis The vinifera most), olive frequently (Olea europaea recorded) (7 plantFicus remains carica from these Juglans sites were regia of) After centur the fall ofy AD)the Roman Empire the Car- and pine nuts (Pinus pinea). These fruits - fig ( ), walnut ( pathian Basin once again filled with migrat and their presence at the Port and at the and nuts were all likely grown in Dalmatia Avarsing nomadic, in particular semi-nomadic began to settle and militaryin con- groups (e.g. Avars, Byzantines,th th Huns). The - tinental Croatia (ca. 6 /7 villa show that they were transported and establishing more permanent settlements traded across the region. The growth of ol and cemeteries as part of the centuryAvar Khaga AD)- seenives and from grapes the archaeological would have also remains supported of ol- ivethe andproduction grape pressing of oil and facilities, wine in suchDalmatia, as at - nate (Kingdom), which encompassed the Škicini.41 Carpathian Basin. The only archaeobotani Nuštar.cal evidence45 The carbonised directly associated remains, withalthough the Avars is from a Late Avar cemetery near havePlant also macro-remains provided information collected about from twoRo- manRoman ritual cemeteries, activities and Illok in the and case Sčitarjevo, of Illok low in quantity, included cereals, such as - ofrye 32 and burnt barley, fragments and a small interpreted number asof foodwild zation of the Limes.42 plant/weed species, as well as the recovery an insight into the process of early Romani- For example, many mush, possibly from cereals. Unfortunately of the cereal remains were recovered car these remains only hint at the types of ritual otherbonised hand, which remains suggested of fruits that and these lentil grains (lens activities that may be associated with Avar culinarishad been placed on the funeral pyre. On the funerary practices and the types of crops A series of Middle Age settlements in the re- placed in the grave either in a fresh, dried that may have been cultivated. ), which were not carbonised, were - gion of Torčecth (Tab.th 1, Map46 4), provide the or cooked form43 and may indicate activities- for the 7 to 15 Carbonised re- majority of the archaeobotanical evidence terraneanassociated are with also a funeraryseen from feast the remainsor a sacri of mains of cereals such as naked and spelt fice to the gods. Trade links with the Medi Triticum aestivum century. group, including T aestivum ssp. spelta) and millet (Panicum - olive and fig. miliaceumwheat ( Hor- deum vulgare ssp. vulgare), oat (Avena sp.) Written accounts also suggest that agricul ) dominated,Setaria while italica barley ( vinesture flourishedin Pannonia during from thethe RomanEmperor period Pro- Linum usi- th buswith (276 a reference – 282 AD)giving and permission in the 4 to grow tatissimumand foxtail )millet and fruits( such as peach) were ( onlyPru- a reference to Pannonia being a land rich in nusidentified persica ) sporadically. and grapes ( Vitis Flax vinifera ( agricultural produce and cattle.44 Unfortu century- - ever, the limited number of sites and) were ar- provide little information about the main chaeobotanicalalso likely cultivated evidence in has the restricted region. How our nately, the archaeobotanical remains so far understanding of the development of agri- - cereal crops grown during this time and ofwhether the Croatian agriculture Danube became region. ‘Romanized’ culture at this time, with little understand during this period, especially in the Limes ing of the development of land ownership, 40 differences in consumption between the 41 Šoštarić, Küster 2001; Krajačić 2009. classes, as well as the relationship between 42 45 Buršić-Matijašić 1988. the Rapan towns Papeša, and Kenéz, villages. Petö 2015. 43 et al. 2006. 46 Dizdar, Šoštarić, Jelinčić 2003. 44 Oliva 1962, 316–318. Šoštarić Šoštarić 2004; Šoštarić, Šegota 2010; 2010a.
VAMZ_3_49_2016.indd 19 02.05.2017 13:25:25 20 KELLY REED VAMZ, 3. s., XLIX (2016)
: Archaeobotany in Croatia: an overview,
Figure 1. Number of sites with archaeobotanical remains per period.
Summary of the archaeobotanical Recovering Carbonised Plant evidence from Croatia Remains from Archaeological Sites - - terial is preserved on archaeological sites A total of 70 sites have yielded plant mac- inThe Croatia most common is through form carbonisation by which plant or char ma- ro-remains, whether preserved through- ring, although other forms of preservation waterlogging, mineralisation or carboni can also be found including mineralisation sation. Despite this the data is heavily bi ased towards prehistoric sites, particularly smallthe Neolithic number (Fig. of plant 1), with remains periods from such three as and waterlogging. Carbonisation occurs archaeologicalthe Iron Age only sites. being Datasets represented are also bylim a- activitieswhen organic such materialas cooking, is exposedburning rubbish to heat oreither using accidentally fuel.47 or deliberately, through volumes of sediment collected or from a carbonised remains can provide a direct smallited, whether number fromof samples poor preservation,taken, restricting low link to human activities Therefore at thean archaeologi recovery of- further interpretation, such as reconstruct- cal site.
ing crop husbandry regimes (i.e. whether a Sampling havefield isbegun manured, to be seenwatered in Neolithic or weeded). research The - potential to explore agricultural activities- The recovery rate of archaeobotanical evi potentialin Croatia, of as archaeobotanical well as aspects of research trade dur in conditionsdence is dependent of the site. onIt is both important the strategy that a Croatiaing the is Roman still to period;be realised. however, It is therefore the full of the excavation and the environmental- - sampling strategy be created prior to exca important that archaeobotanical recovery - - vation and in consultation with an archaeo be incorporated within all new excavations botanist, although it can always be modi within Croatia. The following section high fied as the project progresses. This ensures remainslights some from of archaeological the key aspects sites. to consider sufficient47 samples are taken for producing when recovering carbonised plant macro- Van der Veen 2007.
VAMZ_3_49_2016.indd 20 02.05.2017 13:25:25 KELLY REED VAMZ, 3. s., XLIX (2016) 21
: Archaeobotany in Croatia: an overview, Recovery - statistically significant results, as well as for One of the main methods to recover plant applying a range of relevant analytical tech - niques to answer the research questions - of the project (e.g. how were the cereals remains is through flotation, where sedi In order to reconstruct a reasonable and grown and processed). thisment case is placed the carbonised on a sieve inplant water remains, and gen to representative picture of agricultural and tly agitated to allow the organic material, in domestic activities on a site, samples need - - float to the surface (light fraction or flot), tures and features.48 It is important to not residue).while the Theresediment are anda number other heavyof different mate to be collected from a wide range of struc- rials sink to the bottom (heavy fraction or
target areas solely on the evidence of char ways to undertake this, which may depend coal, as many of the plant remains will not- on the availability of equipment, water and- be visible to the naked eye. In addition, power, as well as, the type of soil and size multiple samples within structures and fea of samples to be processed. A flotation ma tures should be taken, in order to identify chine is well suited to large samples and the full range of activities associated with- especially to sandy sediments with light- that area. For example, floor levels should ablecarbonised location macro-remains, to dispose of but the can sediment. require be sampled at different places to allow spa a large amount of water, power and a suit tial/depositional analyses (sampling each- lectedgrid or theevery greater other gridthe numberis a good of strategy). species Machine flotation can be less suited to clay- recoveredGenerally, at the a site. more49 samples that are col carbonisedrich soils, as material. the sample52 On may the notother disperse hand, Samples also need to be large enough to easily, which can impede the release of the and in some cases can shorten the process- remains in that feature. Research suggests ingbucket time flotation and decrease is useful the for amountsmall samples, of re- sufficiently represent the deposited plant mains that are damaged and lost because of continued submergence and agitation. It is that small samples are more likely to over- also a more mobile process that can be ap- represent more abundant taxa,50 Large while samples there is a greater probability of encountering rare taxa in larger samples. - plied in the field (Fig. 2). also increase the probability that sufficient An important aspect of flotation, as well numbers of seeds are collected to allow cer oras mesh in sieving, used to is collect that recovery both the efficiencylight and tain statistical analyses. is based heavily on the size of the sieve In Croatia, seed density is particularly low shouldat many be sites, taken. usually51 less than one seed heavy fraction. For example, if the sieve per litre, which means that larger samples- used for the light fraction is 1mm in size any- Where practical at least plant material smaller than this will be lost. sub-samples50 litres should can be be taken taken per to sample; assess howseed This will have a large impact on what spe ever, where time/resources are restricted cies are recovered and will ultimately affect interpretation. It is generally accepted that- density before the rest of the sample is- terial.a sieve53 of 300 – 500 μm is sufficient for the floated. This way samples with few plant recovery of most archaeological plant ma 52 remains can be abandoned, while rich sam 53 Pearsall 2000. ples48 Hillman can 1981. be fully processed. Wagner 1988. 49 Reed 2013, Chapter 10, Fig. 10.1. 50 Melzter, Leonard, Stratton 1992. 51 Reed 2013.
VAMZ_3_49_2016.indd 21 02.05.2017 13:25:25 22 KELLY REED VAMZ, 3. s., XLIX (2016)
: Archaeobotany in Croatia: an overview,
Figure 2. Bucket flotation to recover carbonised plant macro-remains, (a) the heavy residue and (b) the flot. Osijek, 2014 (Photo by K. Reed).
Recording Conclusion -
It is essential that all samples are adequate conductingThe study ofsampling archaeobotany programmes. in Croatia The ma is- Samplely recorded records and labelled,should provideespecially informa if they- still relatively young, with few excavations- are to be floated or analysed at a later date. ological sites in Croatia are carbonised and asjority such of provide plant remains valuable recovered information at archae about - tion informationon: – Site, context number and any other loca human activities at the sites. To go beyond – Sample number questions about what plants were present- – Context type (e.g. pit, house floor) - when; planned sampling strategies need to tion) be implemented for all new archaeologi – The volume of the sample (before flota cal excavations. Already archaeobotanical pastresearch agricultural has begun strategies, to show but the also possible on rit- – Date or period of context information that can be gained not only on - tomIt may half also of abe pit useful (50%). to Labellingidentify how must much also canual activitiesbe asked andand tradea greater networks. understanding As more beof alegible, context consistent was sampled, and permanent. e.g. top or botIt is ofdata the is role collected of agriculture more complex in social, questions cultural, best to use plastic or plasticised labels and technological and economic changes can be permanent markers. Samples should have a achieved. - ple to prevent loss of information. In addi- label inside and outside of the flot or sam-
tion, floated samples should be dried thor oughly before storage as when wet they can encourage the growth of fungi or bacteria, which will destroy the plant remains.
VAMZ_3_49_2016.indd 22 02.05.2017 13:25:26 KELLY REED VAMZ, 3. s., XLIX (2016) 23
: Archaeobotany in Croatia: an overview, Bibliography -
Akeret 2005 – Ö. Akeret, »Plant remains from TheChapman, Dalmatian Müller Evidence«, 1990 – J. C.Antiquity Chapman,, Durham, J. Mül - LXIV,ler, »Early 1990, Farmers 127–134. in the Mediterranean Basin: ginnings of Triticum spelta (spelt) cultivation in aEurope«, Bell Beaker Vegetation site in HistorySwitzerland, and Archaeobota and the be- The Changing Face of Dalma- ny, Basel, XIV/4, 2005, 279–286. tiaChapman, Shiel, Batović 1996 – J. C. Chapman, R. Shiel, Š. Batović, Balkan Prehistory: , Leicester, Leicester University Press, 1996. Exclusion, Incorporation and Identity, London, BaileyRoutledge, 2000 2000. – D. W. Bailey, PlantsChevalier, and People:Marinova, Choices Peña-Chocarro and Diversity 2014 through – A. TimeChevalier, E. Marinova, L. Peña-Chocarro (eds.), Vje- - , Earth Series 1, Oxford, Oxbow, 2014. snikBalen Arheološkog 2002 – J. muzeja Balen, u »Topografija Zagrebu, Zagreb, nalazišta 3. s., kostolačkeXXXV, 2002, kulture 35–52. u sjevernoj Hrvatskoj«, Ҫilingiroğlu 2005 – Ҫ. Ҫilingiroğlu,Documenta »The Prae con- - historicacept of , ‘NeolithicLjubljana, XXXII, package’: 2005, considering 1–13. its meaning and applicability«, Bassor seafaring 2008 – farmers?«,B. Bass, »Early European Neolithic Journal commu of Ar- (eds.), The Origins and Spread of Domestic Crops nitieschaeology in Southern, Praha, XI/2-3, Dalmatia: 2008, Farming 245–265. seafarers inColledge, Southwest Conolly Asia 2007 and –Europe S. Colledge, J. Conolly Left Coast Press, 2007. Neolithic of the upper Adriatic region«, in Niko- , Walnut Creek, lova,Biagi L. 2003 (ed.), – Early P. Biagi, Symbolic »New Systems data on for the Commu Early- S. Colledge, S. Shennan, »Founder effect, drift, nication in Southeast Europe, BAR International andConolly, adaptive Colledge, change Shennan in domestic 2008 –crop J. Conolly, use in Journal of Archaeo- 346. logical Science, Amsterdam, XXXV/10, 2008, early Neolithic Europe«, BogaardSeries 1139, 2004 Oxford, – A. Bogaard, Archaeopress, Neolithic 2003, Farming 337– 2797–2804. in Central Europe: An Archaeobotanical Study of Arheobotaničko istraži- Crop Husbandry Practices, London, Routledge, vanje antičke luke u Zatonu kraj Nina, master’s 2004. Čičak 2015 – M. Čičak, - Bognar-Kutzian 1972 – I. Bognar-Kutzian, The thesis, Zagreb, Sveucilište u Zagrebu, Prirodo Early Copper Age Tiszapolgar Culture in the Car- Davison et al. 2006 – K. Davison et al., »The role slovno-matematički fakultet, 2015. pathian Basin, Budapest, Archaeologica Hun- garica Akademiai Kaido, 1972. Journal of Archaeological Science, Amsterdam, XXXIII/5,of waterways 2006, in 641–652. the spread of the Neolithic«, farming in Europe«, American Scientist, Chapel Hill,Bogucki LXXXIV, 1996 1996, – P. Bogucki, 242–253. »The spread of early - Dimitrijević, Težak-Gregl,Prapovijest, Zagreb, Majnarić-Pandžić Naprijed, 19981998. – S. Dimitrijević, T. Težak-Gregl, N. Maj theBorić Mesolithic-Neolithic 2005 – D. Borić, transition«, »Fuzzy horizons in Milner, of narić-Pandžić, change: orientalism andMesolithic the frontier Studies model at the in Beginning of the 21st Century, kaoDizdar, prilog Šoštarić, poznavanju Jelinčić romanizacije 2003 – M. Dizdar,zapadno R.- N.,Books, Woodman, 2005, 81–105. P. (eds.), gaŠoštarić, Srijema«, K. Jelinčić, Prilozi »RanorimskiInstituta za arheologijugrob iz Iloka u Oxford, Oxbow Zagrebu, Zagreb, XX, 2003, 57–77. - aticBorojević Neolithic«, et al. 2008 Journal – K. Borojevićof Field Archaeologyet al., »Plant, useBoston, at Grapčeva XXXIII/3, cave 2008, and 279–303. in the eastern Adri Ɖukić 2014 – A. Ɖukić, »Biljni ostaci s četiri novoistraživana lokaliteta Đakovštine / Plant Hr- Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u remains from four newly excavated sites in the vatski arheološki godišnjak, Zagreb, IV, 2007 Zagrebu, Zagreb, 3. s., XLVII, 2014, 7–37. [2008],Burić 2008 45–46. – M. Burić, »Bapska-Gradac«, EarleĐakovo 2002 region«, – T. Earle, Bronze Age Economies: The Beginnings of Political Economies »Tragovi prethistorije Mutvorana i okolice«, , Oxford, PriloziBuršić-Matijašić o zavičaju , Pula, 1988 V, – 1988, K. Buršić-Matijašić, 95–104. Westview Press, 2002.
VAMZ_3_49_2016.indd 23 02.05.2017 13:25:26 24 KELLY REED VAMZ, 3. s., XLIX (2016)
: Archaeobotany in Croatia: an overview, Forenbaher 1995 – S. Forenbaher, »Trade and nog doba kod Rovinja u Istri«, Histria Archaeo- logica, Pula, XXVIII, 1997, 37–107. Croatia«, in Hänsel, B. (ed.), Handel, Tausch und Harding 2000 – A. Harding, European Societies ExchangeVerkehr im inbronze- Late Bronzeund früheisenzeitlichen and Early Iron Süd Age- in the Bronze Age, Cambridge, Cambridge Uni- osteuropa - - , Südosteuropa-Schriften 17, Prähis Harris 1996 – D. Harris (ed.), The Origins and Spreadversity Press,of Agriculture 2000. and Pastoralism in Eur- 269–282.torische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 11, Mün chen etc., Südosteuropa-Gesellschaft, 1995, asia Forenbaher, Kaiser, Miracle 2013 – S. Forenba- 1996. her, T. Kaiser, P. Miracle, »Dating the East Adri- Harris,, London, Hillman University 1989 – CollegeD. Harris, London G. Hillman Press, atic Neolithic«, European Journal of Archaeol- (eds.), Foraging and farming: The evolution of ogy, Praha, XVI/4, 2013, 589–609. plant exploitation Forenbaher, Miracle 2005 – S. Forenbaher, P. Miracle, »The spread of farming in the east- Hillman 1981 – ,G. One Hillman, World »ReconstructingArchaeology 13, ern Adriatic«, Antiquity, Durham, LXXIX/305, London, Unwin Hyman, 1989. - 2005, 514–528. mains of crops«, in Mercer, R. (ed.), Farming Gerling et al. 2012 – C. Gerling et al., »Immigra- cropPractices husbandry in British practices Prehistory from, Edinburgh, charred Edin re-
Hopf 1964 – M. Hopf, »Untersuchung der Getrei- Antiquitytion and transhumance, Durham, LXXXVI/334, in the Early 2012, Bronze 1097– Age burgh University Press, 1981, 123–162. 1111.Carpathian Basin: the occupants of a kurgan«, J. (ed.), Danilo in danilska kultura, Ljubljana, et al. et al., »Evi- dereste im Hüttenlehm aus Danilo«, in Korošec, dence for the Nutrition of Sailors from the Ro- Hršak 2009 – J. Hršak, Karbonizirani makrofo- manGluščević Harbour at 2006 Zaton – nearS. Gluščević Zadar«, Archaeolo- siliUniverzitetna s prapovijesnog založba, lokaliteta 1964, Kaptol-Gradci107–108. kraj gia Maritima Mediterranea, Pisa etc., III, 2006, Požege 147–161. Gnirs 1925 – A. Gnirs, Istria Praeromana, Kars- 2009. , master’s thesis, Zagreb, Sveucilište u Zagrebu, Prirodoslovno-matematički fakultet,
bad, Verlag von Walther Heimisch 1925. The urilor epocii bronzului din Bazinul Carpatic. ChangingHuntley 1996 Face – of J. Huntley,Dalmatia »The, Leicester, plant remains«, Leicester OGogâltan privire«. 2008 Analele – F. Gogâltan, Banatului »Fortificaţiile tell- in Chapman, J., Shiel, R., Batović, Š. (eds.), 2008, 81–100. - , Timişoara, XVI,- University Press, 1996, 187–189. (eds.),Huntley The 1996a Changing – J. Face Huntley, of Dalmatia »The , Leicester, plant re Greenfield 2005 – H. Greenfield, »A reconstruc mains«, in Chapman, J., Shiel, R., Batović, Š. tion of the secondary products revolution in - tractionSouth-eastern in central Europe: Balkans«, on the in originsMulville, and J., Out the- Leicester University Press, 1996, 204–205 ram,use ofA. domestic(eds.), The animals Zooarchaeology for milk, of wool, Fats, Oils, and (eds.),Huntley The 1996b Changing – J. Face Huntley, of Dalmatia »The , Leicester, plant re Milk and Dairying, Proceedings of the 9th ICAZ mains«, in Chapman, J., Shiel, R., Batović, Š. Conference - Archaeobotany in Hun- lithischeLeicester UniversityGetreidefunde Press, aus 1996, Pokrovnik, 225. Dal- gary: Seed, , Fruit,Oxford, Food Oxbow, and Beverage 2005, 14–31. Remains in matien«,Karg, Müller Archäologisches 1990 – S. Karg, Korrespondenzblatt J. Müller, »Neo , theGyulai Carpathian 2010 – F. Basin Gyulai, from the Neolithic to the Mainz, XX, 1990, 373–386. Late Middle Ages, Budapest, Archaeolingua, 2010. Komšo 2006 – D. Komšo, »Kargadur«, Hrvatski arheološki godišnjak, Zagreb, II, 2005 [2006], Hadjikoumis, Robinson, Viner 2011 – A. Hadjik- 212–214. oumis, E. Robinson, S. Viner (eds.), The Dynam- ics of Neolithisation in Europe: Studies in honour Kosse 1979 – K. Kosse, Settlement ecology of of Andrew Sherratt the Early and Middle Neolithic Körös and linear pottery cultures in Hungary, BAR International , Oxford, Oxbow books, 2011. Hänsel, Mihovilić, Teržan 1997 – B. Hänsel, K. - Series 64, Oxford, Archaeopress, 1979. Mihovilić, B. Teržan, »Monkodonja: utvrđeno protourbano naselje starijeg i srednjeg bronča
VAMZ_3_49_2016.indd 24 02.05.2017 13:25:26 KELLY REED VAMZ, 3. s., XLIX (2016) 25
: Archaeobotany in Croatia: an overview, Kovács 1977 – T. Kovács, The Bronze Age in logical assemblages«, Journal of Archaeological Hungary, Budapest, Hereditas, 1977. Science, Amsterdam, XIX/4, 1992, 375–387. Biljni makrofosili iz Migotti 2012 – B. Migotti (ed.), The Archaeol- Antičke Luke u Zatonu kraj Nina, master’s thesis, ogy of Roman southern Pannonia: the state of Krajačić 2009 – M. Krajačić, research and selected problems in the Croatian part of the Roman province of Pannonia, BAR In- Kreuz,Zagreb, SchäferSveucilište 2011 u Zagrebu,– A. Kreuz, Prirodoslovno- E. Schäfer, matematički fakultet, 2009. 2012. - ternational Series 2393, Oxford,Das Archaeopress,ostadriatische »Weedture?«, findsVegetation as indicators History and for theArchaeobotany cultivation, Fruhneolithikum: Die Impresso-Kultur und die regimeBasel, XX/5, of the 2011, early 333–348. Neolithic Bandkeramik cul MüllerNeolithisierung 1994 – des J. Adriaraumes Müller, , Prahistorische Kristiansen, Larsson 2005 – K. Kristiansen, T. - Larsson, The Rise of Bronze Age Society: Travel, schaftsverlag Volker Spiess, 1994. Archaologie in Sudosteuropa 9, Berlin, Wissen Transmissions and Transformations, Cambridge, The Nye 1996 – S. Nye, »The plant remains«, in Kroll 1990 – H. Kroll, »Ein Fruchtfund von Car- Changing Face of Dalmatia, Leicester, Leicester Chapman, J., Shiel, R., Batović, Š. (eds.), thamusCambridge tinctorius University Press, 2005. die Bronzezeit Jugoslaviens«, Archäologisches University Press, 1996, 240–242. Korrespondenzblatt belegt, Mainz, diese XX, Färbepflanze 1990, 41–46. für - Legge, Moore 2011 – T. Legge, A. Moore, jerObelić, Boškovic Horvatinčić, Institute Krajcar Radiocarbon Bronić 2002Measure – B.- mentsObelić, XV«, N. Horvatinčić, Radiocarbon I., Tucson,Krajcar XLIV/2,Bronić, »Rud2002, the dispersal of agriculture«, in Hadjikoumis, 601–630. A.,»Clutching Robinson, at E., straw: Viner, the S. (eds.), Early NeolithicThe Dynamics and Oliva 1962 – P. Oliva, Pannonia and the onset of of Neolithisation in Europe: Studies in honour of crisis in the Roman Empire, Praha, Nakladatel- Andrew Sherratt 176–195. Orton 2012 – D. Orton, »Herding, Settlement, ství Československé akademie věd, 1962. Lightfoot et al. 2015, Oxford, – E. Lightfoot Oxbow books, et al., »Met 2011,- Euro- - pean Journal of Archaeology, Praha, XV/1, 2012, land and coastal Croatia seen through stable 5–40.and Chronology in the Balkan Neolithic«, als and millets: BronzeArchaeological and Iron Age and diet Anthro in in- Parkinson et al. et al., pological Sciences, Cham, VII/3, 375–386. »Settlement reorganization at the end of the isotope analysis«, Karbonizirani 2004 – W. Parkinson biljni ostaci kasnobrončanodobnog lokaliteta - Kalnik-IgriščeMareković 2013 – S. Mareković, - NeolithicEurasian in CentralPrehistory Europe:, Cambridge, Recent II/2, research 2004, in57–73. the Körös River Valley, southeastern Hunga Fakultet, 2013., doctoral thesis, Zagreb, Sveuči ry«,Parkinson et al. et al., »Ear- lište u Zagrebu,et al. Prirodoslovno-Matematičkiet al., »The botanical macroremains from the prehistoric of the Great Hungarian 2010 – W. Plain«, Parkinson Journal of Field Mareković 2015 – S. Mareković lyArchaeology copper age, Boston, settlements XXXV/2, in the2010, Körös 164–183. region - - tionsettlement and plant Kalnik-Igrišče consumption (NW inCroatia) Croatia in andthe cije kroz sjeverozapadnu Hrvatsku tijekom ka- neighboringcontext of current countries knowledge during the about Bronze cultiva Age«, Pavišić 2012 – I. Pavišić,Histria »Putovi Antiqua i komunika, Zagreb, Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae XXI, 2012, 263–277. LXXXIV/2, 2015, 227–235. snog brončanog doba«, , Wrocław, Pearsall 2000 – D. Pearsall, Paleoethnobotany: - A Handbook of Procedures, Second Edition, San sche Untersuchungen in der metallzeitlichen Diego, Academic Press, 2000. Medović 2002 – A. Medović, »Archäobotani The Early Neolithic in Siedlung Židovar, Vojvodina/Jugoslawien. Ein Greece: The First Farming Communities in Eu- 181–190. Perlès 2001 – C. Perlès, Vorbericht«, Старинар, Beograd, LII, 2002, rope Melzter, Leonard, Stratton 1992 – D. Meltzer, 2001. R. Leonard, S. Stratton, »The relationship be- Potrebica, Cambridge, 2013 – CambridgeH. Potrebica, University Kneževi Press,- - znoga doba, Zagreb, Meridijani, 2013. želje tween sample size and diversity in archaeo
VAMZ_3_49_2016.indd 25 02.05.2017 13:25:26 26 KELLY REED VAMZ, 3. s., XLIX (2016)
: Archaeobotany in Croatia: an overview, Rapan Papeša, Kenéz, Petö 2015 – A. Rapan Sherratt 1983 – A. Sherratt, »The development of Neolithic and Copper Age settlement in the analiza uzoraka iz kasnoavarodobnih grobova Papeša, Á. Kenéz, Á. Petö, »Arheobotanička- Oxford Journal of Ar- tanical Assessment of Grave Samples from the Greatchaeology Hungarian Plain. Part II: site survey and iz Nuštra (istočna Hrvatska) / The Archaeobo- settlementSmith et al. dynamics«,2006 – D. Smith et al., »Assessing tia)«, Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu, the later ,prehistoric Oxford, II/1, environmental 1983, 13–41. archaeol- Zagreb,Avar Age XXXII, Cemetery 2015, 261–288. of Nuštar (Eastern Croa Reed 2006 – K. Reed, Early Farming in Dalma- Environmental Archaeology, tia: Preliminary Archaeobotanical Report on the Abingdon,ogy and landscape XI/2, 2006, development 171–186. of the Cetina Middle Neolithic site of Danilo, MSc thesis, Lon- Valley, Croatia«, Karbonizira- - ni biljni ostaci antičkog lokaliteta Osijek-Silos, Starčević 2010 – S. Starčević, Reeddon, University 2011 – K. College Reed, London,»Biljni Instituteostaci / ofPlant Ar macro-remains«,chaeology, 2006. in Balen, J. (ed.), Ðakovo- master’s thesis, Zagreb, Sveucilište u Zagrebu, Franjevac: kasno bakrenodobno naselje / biljniPrirodoslovno-matematički ostaci iz prapovijesnog fakultet, lokaliteta 2010. u Novoj Ðakovo-Franjevac: Late Eneolithic Settlement, Šoštarić 2001 – R. Šoštarić, Prilozi »Karbonizirani Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu, Zagreb, XVIII, 2001, Zagrebu VII, Zagreb, Arheološki muzej u Za- 79–82.Bukovici na položaju Sjenjak«, grebu,Katalozi 2011, i monografije 126–127. Arheološkog muzeja u Vegetacijske pro- Reed 2013 – K. Reed, Farmers in Transition: The mjene u postglacijalu u Hrvatskoj, doctoral the- archaeobotanical analysis of the Carpathian Ba- Šoštarić 2003 – R. Šoštarić, - sin from the Late Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age (5000 – 900 BC), Volume 1-2, doctoral the- sis, Zagreb, Sveucilište u Zagrebu, Prirodoslov no-matematički fakultet, 2003. Šoštarić 2004 – R. Šoštarić, »Arheobotanička sis, Leicester, University of Leicester, School of Podravina, Koprivnica III/6, 2004, 107–115. analiza uzoraka s lokaliteta Torčec-Gradić«, Archaeology and Ancient history, 2013. - ment of postglacial vegetation in coastal Croa- VegetationReed 2015 History – K. Reed, and »FromArchaeobotany the field, toBasel, the tia«,Šoštarić Acta 2005 Botanica – R. Croatica Šoštarić,, Zagreb, »The developLXIV/2, XXIV/5,hearth: Plant2015, remains601–619. from Neolithic Croatia«, 2005, 383–390. Reed 2016 – K. Reed, »Agricultural Change in Copper Age Croatia (ca. 4500 – 2500 cal B.C)?«, - Archaeological and Anthropological Science, Šoštarić 2009 –Crno R. Šoštarić,vrilo 2 »Karbonizirani - ostaciu Zadru, žitarica, Odjel za tragovi arheologiju, poljodijelstva«, 2009, 49–52. in Mari cle/10.1007/s12520-016-0330-3 (1.11.2016.). janović, M. (ed.), , Zadar, Sveučilište Cham, 2016, http://link.springer.com/arti - litetuŠoštarić Virovitica 2015 – Kiškorija R. Šoštarić, Jug »Biljni/ Plant ostaciremains iz Reed, Drnić 2016 – K. Reed,Setaria I. Drnić,italica [L.] »Iron P. antickog i srednjovjekovnog naselja na loka- AgeBeauv.)«, diet Oxford at Sisak, Journal Croatia: of Archaeology archaeobotancial evidence of foxtail millet ( ment at the site Virovitica Kiškorija South«, in XXXV/4, 2016, 359–368. from the Roman and early medieval settle , Oxford, Rimsko selo u pro- vinciji Gornjoj Panoniji: Virovitica Kiškorija Jug - /Jelin Romancić Vu Villagecković, in K.the (ed.), Province of Upper Pan- Sekelj Ivacan, Tkalcec 2006 – Sekelj Ivacan, nonia: Virovitica Kiškorija South, Monographiae T., Tkalcec, T., »Slavensko paljevinsko gro Instituti archaeologici 7, Zagreb, Institut za ar- ulicablje na 99 položaju in Vinkovci«, Duga Priloziulica 99 Instituta u Vinkovcima/ za arhe- heologiju, 2015, 311–326. ologijuSlawisches u Zagrebu Brandgräberfeld, Zagreb, XXIII, am 141–212.Standort Duga Sherratt 1981 – A. Sherratt, »Plough and pas- »Roman plant remains from Veli Brijun (island ofŠoštarić, Brioni), Küster Croatia«, 2001 Vegetation – R. Šoštarić, History H. andKüster, Ar- revolution«, in Hodder, I., Isaac, G., Hammond, chaeobotany, Basel, X/4, 2001, 227–233. N.toralism: (eds.), Pattern aspects of of the the Past secondary, Cambridge, products Cam- et al. et al., »Com-
Šoštarić 2006 – R. Šoštarić bridge University Press, 1981, 261–301.
VAMZ_3_49_2016.indd 26 02.05.2017 13:25:26 KELLY REED VAMZ, 3. s., XLIX (2016) 27
: Archaeobotany in Croatia: an overview, Jézégou, M.-P. (eds.), Les ports dans l’espace Mé- Roman Graves in Ilok (Cuccium diterranéen antique. Narbonne et les systèmes (parativeAndautonia Analysis), Croatia of Plant– A Contribution Finds from to Early Un- portuaires fluvio-lagunaires, Actes du colloque derstanding Burial Rites in Southern) and Šćitarjevo Panno- de Montpellier des 22 – 24 mai 2014, Supplément nia«, Collegium Antropologicum, Zagreb, XXX/2, 2006, 429–436. Montpellier, Presses universitaires de la Médi- terrannée,à la Revue Archéologique2016, 381–396. de Narbonnaise, , »Direct Dating of Botanical Todorova 1989 – H. Todorova, »The transition Šoštaric, Potrebica, Brigić 2008 – R. Šoštarić H, from the Late Neolithic to the Bronze Age in Potrebica,Remains from A. Brigić the Prehistoric Site of Kaptol- Bulgaria«, in Maniatis, Y. (ed.), Archaeometry. Samples in an Archaeological ContextPrilozi Instituta – Plant Proceedings of the 25th International Sympo- za arheologiju u Zagrebu, Zagreb, XXIV, 2008, sium, Athens, 1986, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1989, 79–88.Gradci near Požega (Croatia)«, 697–703. et al. »Analiza biljnih ostataka sa srednjevjekovnog et al., »Arheological and archaeo- Šoštarić, Šegota 2010 – R. Šoštarić, V. Šegota, zoologicalTrbojević-Vukičević evidence of milk 2011 as a food– T. Trbojević-in the ter- Vukičević Mljekarstvo, Zagreb, LXI/4, lokaliteta Torčec kraj Koprivnice / The analysisPo- 2011, 319–325. dravinaof plant remainsu ranom fromsrednjem the medievalvijeku , Monograph site Torčec- Tringhamritory of Croatia«, 2000 – R. Tringham, »Southeast- neariae Instituti Koprivnica«, archaeologici in Sekelj 2, Ivančan, Zagreb, T. Institut (ed.), za ern Europe in the Transition to Agriculture in arheologiju, 2010, 373–388. (ed.), Europe’s First Farmers, Cambridge, Cam- »Analiza biljnih ostataka iz srednjovjekovnog Europe: Bridge, Buffer or Mosaic«, in Price, T. Šoštarić, Šegota 2010a – R. Šoštarić, V. Šegota,- Valamoti 2016 – S. Valamoti, »Millet, the late sis of Plant Remains from the Vrbovec Medi- bridge University Press, 2000,Panicum 19–56. miliaceum in burga Vrbovca u Klenovcu Humskome / Analy prehistoric Greece«, Archaeological and An- Burg Vrbovec u Klenovcu Hum- thropologicalcomer: on the Sciences tracks , ofCham, VIII/1, 51–63. evalskome: Fortified Deset sezona Town inarheoloških Klenovec Humski«,istraživanja in, Van der Veen 2007 – M. van der Veen, »Forma- Zagreb,Tkalčec, MuzejiT. (ed.), Hrvatskog Zagorja, Institut za tion processes of desiccated and carbonized arheologiju, 2010, 247–253. et al. et al., »Diet practice«, Journal of Archaeological Science, at the Roman Village of Virovitica Kiškorija Amsterdam,plant remains XXXIV/6, – the identification2007, 968–990. of routine South,Šoštarić Croatia«, 2015 Collegium – R. ŠoštarićAntropologicum, Za- Van der Veen, Livarda, Hill 2008 – M. Van der greb, XXXIX/4, 2015, 829–842. et al. et al., »Prilog Roman Britain – dispersal and social access«, EnvironmentalVeen, A. Livarda, Archaeology A. Hill, »New, Abingdon food plants XIII/1, in Šoštaric 2016 – R. Šoštaric - 2008, 11–36. poznavanju halštatskih pogrebnih običaja –- derstandingarheobotanički of Hallstatt nalazi tumula Burial 13 Customs i 14 iz – Kap Ar- Prog- chaeobotanicaltola kraj Požege evidence / A Contribution from Tumuli to the13 and Un ressVan Zeist,in Old Wasylikowsa, World Palaeoethnobotany Behre 1991 –, RotterW. van- Prilozi In- dam,Zeist, Balkema, K. Wasylikowsa, 1991. K.-E. Behre (eds.), stituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu, Zagreb, XXXIII, 2016,14 at the 307–315. Site of Kaptol, near Požega«, - spectives on the beginning of the Neolithic in Greece«,Vlachos 2003Documenta – D. Vlachos, Praehistorica »Who did, Ljubljana, it? Per development of Bronze Age cultures in Vojvo- Tasić 2004 – N. Tasić, »Historical picture of XXX, 2003,131–137. [2004], 23–34. Tillierdina«, Старинар,et al. 2016 Beograd, – M. Tillier LIII-LIV, et al. 2003-2004 »Carpolo- Popper,Wagner V. 1988 (eds.), – G.Current Wagner, Paleoethnobotany »Comparability, among recovery techniques«, in Hastorf, C., végétale et environnement des sites de Caska gie en contexte portuaire romain: Economie 17–35. (île de Pag, Croatie), du Castélou-Mandirac Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1988, (Narbonne) et d’Arles Rhône 3«, in Sanchez, C.,
VAMZ_3_49_2016.indd 27 02.05.2017 13:25:27 28 KELLY REED VAMZ, 3. s., XLIX (2016)
: Archaeobotany in Croatia: an overview, Europe in the Neo- lithic: the creation of new worlds, Cambridge, Domestication of plants in the Old Whittle 1996 – A. Whittle, World:Zohary, the Hopf, origin Weiss and 2012 spread – D. Zohary,of domesticated M. Hopf, - E.plants Weiss, in south-west Asia, Europe, and the Medi- Cambridge University Press, 1996. terranean Basin AsianZohary agriculture«, 1996 – D. Zohary,in Harris, »The D. (ed.), mode The of Ori do- Press, 2012. ginsmestication and Spread of the of founderAgriculture crops and of Pastoralism Southwest , Oxford, Oxford University in Eurasia Press, 1996, 142–158. , London, University College London
VAMZ_3_49_2016.indd 28 02.05.2017 13:25:27