Prehistoric Populations of the Island of Hvar – an Overview of Archaeological Evidence

Home , Hvar, Hvar (city), Prehistoric Italy

Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 361–378 UDC 572:903(497.5)”63” Review

Prehistoric Populations of the Island of Hvar – An Overview of Archaeological Evidence

S. Forenbaher

Institute for Anthropological Research, Zagreb, Croatia

ABSTRACT

Prehistory of the island of Hvar was marked much more by continuity than by change. Only at one point during that long period, evidence clearly suggests arrival of a substantial body of immigrants. That event took place around 6,000 BC, and is associated with the introduction of farming. The next possible influx of immigrants may have happened around or soon after 2,500 BC, but the changes observable in the archaeological record are better explained by indigenous developments such as changes in the social organization of the local communities. By mid-first millennium BC, Hvar was populated by Illyrians who spoke an Indo-European language. It was then that the next confirmed penetration of a foreign population took place, with the establishment of Greek colonies. Four centuries later, Hvar was fully integrated into the Roman Empire.

Introduction

Over the last 25 years, modern popu- the early 4th century BC. For information lation of the island of Hvar has been sub- about the much longer prehistoric period, ject of intensive research, ranging from which preceded it, one must rely on mate- ethnohistoric and linguistic studies to po- rial remains which testify to the island- pulation genetics1–3. The well-documen- ers' activities, and occasional (rare) phys- ted historic migrations, which are partly ical remains of those ancient inhabitants responsible for its current population themselves. structure4,5, represent only the last chap- ter of a long history of the island’s occupa- Relative to the archaeology of the rest tion. Written sources concerning its in- of Dalmatia, investigations into Hvar's habitants cover slightly less than the last prehistory started early6,7. Excavations of two and the half millennia, beginning several key cave sites began during the with the Greeks' colonization of Hvar in second half of the 19th century and, in

Received for publication April 11, 2001

361 S. Forenbaher: Prehistoric Populations of the Island of Hvar, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 361–378 some cases, continued (with breaks) over reading this paper, which offers a brief many decades8–15. This has been both a discussion of the major changes observ- blessing and a curse, since the early ex- able in the prehistoric record which might plorations provided a relative abundance reflect the arrival of populations new to of coarse-grained information, while de- the island. stroying large parts of the investigated sites in the process. Evidence of Early Occupation The early explorers of Hvar worked according to the professional standards of On a geological time scale, Hvar is a their times. These standards have changed very young island. It came into being dramatically over the last few decades, about 11,000 years ago, when the globally and the quality of the old data is no lon- rising sea levels flooded the valley which ger satisfactory. Furthermore, develop- separated a 70 km long coastal mountain ment spurred by mass tourism since the range from the rest of the mainland. In 1960s damaged or destroyed numerous all likelihood, the island has been inhab- important sites before they could be prop- ited ever since. erly investigated. This leaves us today The Adriatic Sea, as we know it today, with an imperfect archaeological record, assumed its present form relatively re- which needs to be supplemented by new cently. At the time of the last glacial max- research, using up-to-date techniques, be- imum (around 18,000 bp) when sea levels fore it can be used as a reliable base for were some 120 m lower than today, the making inferences about the island's an- Adriatic's area was only half its current cient past. size17,18 (Figure 1). The shallow, north A recently completed archaeological -western part of the Adriatic basin was a survey of the island, carried out as a part wide steppe19, traversed by the river Po of the »Adriatic Islands Project«, is a ma- and its tributaries, and bordered by Dina- jor step in that direction7. It has produced ric mountains in the east and the Apenni- a comprehensive catalog, which lists more nes in the west. All of the Dinaric coastal than 700 sites of all periods, among them ranges, which were eventually to become over a hundred prehistoric sites. A small the Eastern Adriatic archipelago, were at number of them were test-excavated, in- that time simply a part of the mainland. cluding re-excavation of some of the key Deglaciation, accompanied by a global prehistoric cave sites such as Grap~eva rise of ocean levels, brought dramatic spilja16. This work provides reliable infor- changes in topography. By the time of the mation about the distribution of sites Pleistocene to Holocene transition, around across the landscape during different pre- 10,000 bp, much of the productive North historic periods, improves chronological Adriatic plain with its rich ungulate fa- control, and expands our knowledge about una was lost to the invading sea. Rela- the material culture of the ancient island- tively little is known about the human ers of Hvar. Nevertheless, our ideas about populations that inhabited the area dur- their use of the island landscape, subsis- ing this period. There are two main rea- tence economy, social organization, as well sons for this. First, undoubtedly, many as their interaction with neighboring po- sites were drowned when sea levels rose, pulations, are still quite sketchy. Extrap- and thus lost for investigation. Second, olating from such data to complex issues since Epipaleolithic and Mesolithic sites like population change and continuity is tend to harbor rather humble archaeolog- a notoriously risky undertaking. These ical remains, they are not coveted objects cautions must be kept in mind while of research among local archaeologists.

362 S. Forenbaher: Prehistoric Populations of the Island of Hvar, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 361–378

Fig. 1. Expansion of the Adriatic Sea since the last glacial maximum. Approximation based on Van Andel23, the Bathymetric Map of the Adriatic122, and ordinance survey maps 1:25,000. Alluviation and tectonic uplift/subsidence have not been taken into account. Dates for the Late Pleistocene are expressed in radiocarbon years before present (bp), without calibration, while dates for the Holo- cene, for which reliable calibration curves are available, are calibrated and expressed in years before Christ (BC).

363 S. Forenbaher: Prehistoric Populations of the Island of Hvar, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 361–378

That situation is now changing, thanks to lithic »Hvar style« pottery31. Such pottery a pair of research projects which are be- has been firmly dated to the 5th millen- ginning to yield reliable information about nium BC by a series of radiocarbon deter- bands of mobile hunter-gatherers and minations from Grap~eva cave16. While it their changing subsistence strategies, as is not inconceivable that tools resembling these groups adapted to radical environ- Late Upper Paleolithic microgravettes mental changes19–21. were used this late on Hvar, the associa- The earliest evidence of human pres- tion between lithics and Hvar-style pot- ence on an Adriatic island comes from tery is highly suspect, because most of Kopa~ina cave on the island of Bra~22, the layers in this steeply sloping cave which is Hvar's immediate northern seem to have been heavily disturbed or 28 neighbor. Layers containing faunal re- even redeposited . Consequently, micro- mains, charcoal and lithic artefacts have gravettes from destroyed Upper Paleo- been dated by radiocarbon to the final lithic or Mesolithic strata may have end- Pleistocene, around 13,000 and 12,000 bp ed up in a secondary position, as residual (Z-2403: 12,935 ± 250 bp, and Z-2404: finds within much younger Neolithic lev- 11,850 ± 220 bp)20. At that time, however, els. The sheer quantity of lithic artefacts all islands except Su{ac, Palagru`a and suggests such a possibility. So too do three Jabuka islets were attached to the main- previously unpublished radiocarbon dates land, since the sea level was still almost on charcoal from levels containing micro- 100 m lower than today23 (Figure 1). gravettes and pottery: TO-3425 (14,430 ± 100 bp), TO-3426 (14,920 ± 100 bp), and While there is no unequivocal eviden- TO-3427 (15350 ± 110 bp). ce of human presence during the final Pleistocene on what was to become the is- Over the next millennium, the sea in- land of Hvar, there are some tantalizing vaded the lowest intermontane valleys, separating Vis from the mainland around hints. Numerous characteristically shaped year 11,500 bp (Figures 1 and 2). Most of flaked stone artefacts – tiny backed the large islands were formed only after bladelets also known as »microgravettes« 9,000 BC, during the Early Holocene, as – were recovered from Badanj cave, lo- the sea level rose above the –50 m line. cated in Pokrivenik bay on the northern Hvar was finally separated from the coast of the island. This tool type is a mainland approximately at that time. common component of lithic assemblages Evidence that at least some of these 'is- from Late Upper Paleolithic and Meso- lands in the making' continued to be in- lithic sites of the wider Adriatic regi- habited during that period comes from on24–27. The problem with microgravettes Hvar's immediate southern neighbor, the from Pokrivenik is that their archaeologi- island of Kor~ula32. Strata that underlay cal context is uncertain. Most of them the Early Neolithic levels in Vela cave, lo- come from the old excavations by Grga cated near the western end of Kor~ula, Novak28 and Vladimir Mirosavljevi}29, who yielded lithic artefacts, faunal remains did not report their position within the and charcoal. Based on their stratigra- site's stratigraphy. Much later they were phic context, composition, and formal recognized on purely typological grounds artefactual analogies, these assemblages as »Late Gravettian and Mesolithic«30. are attributable to the Early Holocene. Our own test excavations in Badanj, car- Unequivocal evidence for the occupa- ried out in 1991, discovered uncommonly tion of Hvar during the Pleistocene to Ho- high densities of lithic artefacts, includ- locene transition has not been recovered ing some microgravettes, within the same so far. However, given the fact that the is- levels that contained typical Late Neo- lands in its immediate neighborhood were

364 S. Forenbaher: Prehistoric Populations of the Island of Hvar, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 361–378

Fig. 2. Formation of the Middle Dalmatian islands. Approximation based on Van Andel23, the Bathymetric Map of the Adriatic122, and ordinance survey maps 1:25,000. Alluviation and tectonic uplift/subsidence have not been taken into account. inhabited during that period, and that at itself, it seems reasonable to assert that least some hints of Late Pleistocene or Hvar too was already inhabited when it Early Holocene settlement exist on Hvar became an island. Its original population

365 S. Forenbaher: Prehistoric Populations of the Island of Hvar, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 361–378 would have consisted of the descendants Numerous fragments of Impresso pot- of the hunting-gathering bands that used tery from the lowest levels of Markova to inhabit the coastal plains and inter- cave, which is located near the western montane valleys of the glacial Adriatic end of Hvar, constitute the earliest firm basin, now drowned by the sea. evidence of human presence on the island. If it is true – as most of the evidence suggests – that farming and pottery in Introduction of Farming this region appeared together41, then the Around 6000 BC, subsistence strate- people who inhabited Hvar during the gies of the people who lived along the sixth millennium BC must have had Eastern Adriatic littoral were trans- some knowledge of farming. Impresso formed by the introduction of domesti- levels in Markova cave contained animal 42,43 cated plants and animals. Although zoo- bones , but since results of faunal archaeological and paleoethnobotanical analyses were never published, we do not data obtained by controlled sampling are know whether the assemblages contained rather scarce, it is clear that the diet was domesticated species. Radiocarbon dates extended to include – aside from hunted for Impresso sites from both sides of the and gathered resources – such domesti- Adriatic suggest that farming was intro- cates as goat and/or sheep, as well as bar- duced into Dalmatia from Southern Italy, ley, emmer and einkorn wheat33,34. A for- and then spread northwards along the 39,44 eign origin of these domesticates is eastern Adriatic coast . This assump- unquestionable, since they have no local tion is further supported by recent finds wild ancestors. Instead, the progenitors of Impresso pottery on three offshore is- of domesticated cereal grains have been lands that provide a natural link between 45 securely identified, their relatedness to the opposite Adriatic shores, Vis ,Su- 46 47 the domesticates has been clarified by ge- {ac and Palagru`a . These finds dem- netic testing, and their primary niches lo- onstrate that technological means existed cated within Anatolia, Levant and north- at the time for a relatively fast movement ern Iraq35,36. Similarly, paleontological, of people, information and goods across 46 cytogenetic, as well as archaeological evi- fairly long stretches of open water .One dence indicates that the ancestry of do- should note that although the sea level at mesticated caprovines must be traced ul- 6000 BC was still about 15 m lower than 23 timately to Western Asia37,38. today , the distances which needed to be crossed were only insignificantly shorter, The beginning of food production in due to the steep shores which character- the Adriatic was closely paralleled by the ize most of the Eastern Adriatic islands introduction of important technological (Figure 1). innovations, groundstone tools39 and pottery vessels40. These novelties reflect It may be over-optimistic to scrutinize changes in life style, which involved for- the relatively meager archaeological re- est clearance, tillage, increased seden- cord of the early sixth millennium East- tism, and a greater need for transport ern Adriatic in hope of finding evidence and storage of agricultural products such for – or against – migration, but the com- as grain. The earliest pottery was often bined evidence is nevertheless sugges- decorated by impressions of the edge of a tive44. By all likelihood, there was some Cardium shell. The essential technologi- movement of people across the region. All cal and stylistic characteristics of this that we know about their social orga- 'Impresso' ware are fairly uniform through- nization48,49 suggests that they would have out the Adriatic region39. moved in small groups, probably consist-

366 S. Forenbaher: Prehistoric Populations of the Island of Hvar, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 361–378 ing of only a handful, or maybe a few Hvar During the Neolithic dozen, individuals. These regional developments must be viewed as a constituent Gaffney et al.7 list 17 sites and find- part of the large-scale process of introduc- spots on Hvar that yielded Neolithic mation of farming into Europe. In recent terial, dating to the two millennia be- years, converging archaeological and ge- tween approximately 6000 and 4000 BC netic evidence has been used to argue (Table 1). Thirteen of these are caves, that farming spread from Western Asia while the remaining four are findspots of by a migration of early Proto-Indo-Euro- isolated potshards or lithics. Two of the pean speakers50,51. This argument is based caves, Markova and Grap~eva, have been on a correlation between the observed ge- extensively excavated. Markova contained netic gradients (expected on the hypothe- a thick deposit which yielded a long se- sis of migration) and the dates for the quence spanning the entire Neolithic13,42, earliest farming settlements which stea- 43,56–58, while Grap~eva contained up to a dily grow younger from Western Asia to- meter thick sequence of Late Neolithic wards Western and Northern Europe52–55. strata only12. The supporting evidence is far from un- Since most of the Neolithic finds on equivocal, and its reassessment is well the island of Hvar were recovered from beyond the scope of this paper. Neverthe- caves, this may create an illusion that the less, accepting this hypothesis for the Neolithic islanders were primarily cave- sake of the argument, one might justifi- -dwellers. This was certainly not the case. ably offer the following scenario for the Conveniently located caves and rock shel- island of Hvar: Small groups of early ters were visited and used opportunisti- Proto-Indo-European speakers land on cally throughout prehistory, historic peri- the island some time around year 6000 ods, and are still used today, as tem- BC, after crossing the Adriatic from south- porary shelters, animal folds, and for a ern Italy. They bring the basic knowledge number of other purposes including ri- of farming and associated technologies. tual59,60. There is no doubt that the avail- Their subsistence strategy allows a much able sample of Neolithic sites is heavily higher population density in comparison skewed in their favor (Figure 3), for at with the hunting-gathering strategies of least two reasons. First, the karstic land- their autochthonous predecessors. The scape, which characterizes the island to- original occupants of the island are soon day, has been substantially modified by outnumbered, and are either forced to heavy erosion which was probably trig- adopt farming themselves and mingle gered by intensified agricultural exploita- with the newcomers, or face extinction. tion during the Bronze Age, and certainly

TABLE 1 FREQUENCIES OF SITES BY SITE TYPE AND PERIOD

Neolithic Copper Age Bronze Age Iron Age »Prehistoric« Site type N % N % N % N % N % Cave 13 76 2 50 7 29 5 33 7 10 Isolated find / scatter 4 24 2 50 1 4 0 0 13 19 Hillfort 0000625853710 Cairn burial 0 0 0 0 10 42 2 13 41 60 Total 17 100 4 100 24 100 15 100 68 100

367 S. Forenbaher: Prehistoric Populations of the Island of Hvar, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 361–378

Fig. 3. Relative frequencies of site types by period: left, by the four site types (caves, isolated finds, hillforts and burial cairns); right, cave sites versus all open sites combined. increased during the Graeco-Roman pe- ally impossible to discuss issues like so- riod33,61,62. Consequently, any earlier (Neo- cial organization or use of landscape by lithic and Copper Age) open-air sites lo- the Neolithic inhabitants of Hvar. If one cated on hilltops or slopes have been considers the Eastern Adriatic in general, eroded to bedrock and thus completely the absence of large, agglomerated settle- destroyed, while those located near valley ments and monumental architecture, as bottoms were buried under many meters well as any obvious status markers asso- of colluvium which made them archaeo- ciated with burials, suggests that Neo- logically inaccessible under normal condi- lithic social organization was character- tions. ized by small communities with little The second reason is the apparent ab- differences in ranking among the individ- sence of monumental architecture. While uals. Neolithic open-air settlement and burial Until very recently, archaeological in- sites on Hvar itself remain unknown, con- vestigations on Hvar followed a general temporary settlements from the mainland trend which focused on constructing cul- 33 63 64 – such as Tinj , Smil~i} , Danilo or tural histories by establishing pottery se- 65 Lisi~i}i – did not yield any substantial quences based on chronostratigraphic re- structural remains. Burials are poorly lationships and formal analogies with known in general, but the few that have contemporary pottery styles of the neigh- been excavated had not been marked on boring (and, sometimes, distant) regions. the surface by any kind of monument The island's most important contribution 40,66,67 that would survive until present . to that approach was the definition, All this makes detection of open-air sites based primarily on finds from Grap~eva difficult even under the best circumstan- cave, of a Late Neolithic pottery style ces. which became known as the »Hvar cul- The almost total absence of informa- ture«12. According to a recently obtained tion about open air sites makes it virtu- series of radiocarbon determinations16,

368 S. Forenbaher: Prehistoric Populations of the Island of Hvar, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 361–378 this stylistic complex roughly covers the polychrome wares of the Middle Neoli- fifth millennium BC. With some regional thic, to the mutually closely similar Late variation, it extends over the entire East- Neolithic »Hvar« and »Diana-Bellavista« ern Adriatic littoral and part of its hin- wares39,40,73–75. While some sort of inter- terland40. One should keep in mind, how- action between the opposing Adriatic ever, that »Hvar culture« is just an ex- shores seems undeniable, the present evi- pedient term, coined at the time when dence can hardly allow meaningful dis- prehistory of the region was poorly cussion of its nature and intensity, or how known. The available evidence gives no it may have changed through time. It particular reasons to believe that it origi- seems reasonable to propose that these nated on, or spread from, Hvar. contacts grew less intensive after the ini- Other classes of finds received much tial influx of immigrants from southern less attention. For example, the Adriatic Italy at the very beginning of the Neo- Neolithic subsistence economy can only lithic, after which there is no evidence for be the subject of speculation, due to ex- population change at least until the end tremely sketchy faunal reports and a to- of the Neolithic period. tal lack of paleobotanical data. Lithic as- Similarity between pottery styles can semblages and bone tools from Markova also be used to argue for contacts between cave have been summarily described68–70. Dalmatia and its Western Balkan hinter- They are reported to contain occasional land. Impresso pottery has been recovered artefacts made of obsidian, but Neolithic from sites in northern Bosnia76; the Mid- attribution of these artefacts should be dle Neolithic pottery from central Bosnia considered with caution. ^e~uk70, Novak has much in common with the contempo- and ^e~uk43 and Batovi}40 casually men- rary coastal »Danilo« wares40; the Late tion a few pieces of obsidian debitage Neolithic »Hvar« ware appears deep in in- and/or bladelets, and Batovi} ascribes terior of Hercegovina65. Since the area them to the Late Neolithic. Novak's site covered by similar pottery styles seems to reports do not mention them, however, be shrinking towards the coast as Neo- and their context has not been published. lithic progresses, it is tempting to inter- While Neolithic attribution seems rea- pret that reduction of territory as a reflec- sonable, a later date for these artefacts tion of decreasing interaction. One should remains a distinct possibility, since Mar- beware of hasty conclusions, however, kova cave contains a long stratigraphic since dissimilar styles do not necessarily sequence which continues into Copper indicate the absence of interaction, and Age, Bronze Age and later periods. Since may, on the contrary, be an index of in- the most likely, geographically closest, tense interaction77. source of this locally unavailable raw ma- The Eastern Adriatic Neolithic is fol- terial is the volcanic archipelago of Li- lowed by a rather poorly known Copper 71,72 pari , these artefacts are usually inter- Age which lasts roughly between 4000 preted as evidence of contacts between and 2500 BC. Even the proposed dates of Dalmatia and the Tyrrhenian coast of its duration must be regarded as very Italy. provisional78. Only four Copper Age sites Interaction with Italy is further indi- have been recorded on Hvar, two of which cated by numerous similarities, often are caves, while the other two are iso- cited in the literature, between Dalma- lated findspots7. Virtually nothing is tian and Italian pottery styles through- known aside from pottery. The earlier out the Neolithic, from the Early Neo- part of the Copper Age is characterized lithic Impresso pottery, through various by a distinct style of channeled ware79,80.

369 S. Forenbaher: Prehistoric Populations of the Island of Hvar, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 361–378

Since channeling as a decorative tech- gued – most vocally and influentially by nique comes into fashion roughly simul- Gimbutas82,83, expanding on the work of taneously in many parts of Southeastern Childe84 – that these changes reflected Europe, this might indicate that interac- immigration of Proto-Indo-European pop- tion with the Balkans hinterland is inten- ulations from their presumed original sifying once again. However, aside from homeland in South Russian steppes. The this rather small fraction of channeled concept has been severely criticized by shards, the rest of the pottery assemblage Renfrew51 and can no longer be taken at remains firmly embedded in local Medi- face value. More recently, however, a terranean stylistic traditions79. modified migrational hypothesis gained Relatively few human skeletal remains some support from genetic studies52.It have been recovered that may be attrib- may prove eventually that while the first utable to these periods. Formal burials farmers of the Early Neolithic were also are very rare during the Eastern Adriatic the earliest Proto-Indo-European speak- Neolithic66, and are totally absent during ers to reach Europe, a second influx of the Chalcolithic. It may be that the dead Proto-Indo-Europeans from South Rus- were regularly disposed in ways which sian steppes took place during the later are archaeologically invisible. On the is- part of the Copper Age. It is not the pur- land of Hvar, formal burials have not pose of this paper, however, to discuss been recovered so far, but isolated human general issues of European prehistory, bones have been reported from Neolithic but to investigate whether the archaeo- levels of several Hvar caves. Most were logical record of Hvar lends any support recovered by early investigators, which to the Copper Age Indo-European immi- means that their contexts are often inse- gration hypothesis. cure, and the material is usually no longer While one of the main characteristics accessible. An exception is the assemblage of the Eastern Adriatic Copper Age is its from recent test excavations of Grap~eva continuity with the preceeding period, its cave, where a number of disarticulated end (around 2500 BC or a little later) is human bone fragments have been reco- marked by a set of changes. On the island 81 vered . of Hvar, one salient change is the increase in the total number of sites. This becomes very obvious if one takes into ac- Emerging Social Complexity count the duration of the periods in ques- As opposed to the essential continuity, tion, and calculates numbers of sites per which characterizes the Neolithic to Cop- century for each period. With this correc- per Age transition in the Eastern Adri- tion, Bronze Age sites are almost twice as atic, the contemporary archaeological re- numerous as Neolithic sites (Figure 4). cord of Southeastern Europe is marked This may be seen as a reflection of popu- by substantial changes. It has been ar- lation increase, but such interpretation is

Fig. 4. Number of sites by period: left, total number of sites; right, number of sites per century.

370 S. Forenbaher: Prehistoric Populations of the Island of Hvar, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 361–378 not without problems, due to differential their construction. The presence of status chances of survival and recognition in- markers such as archery equipment, as herent to sites of different periods. While well as valuables such as bronze objects, the Neolithic is characterized by the ab- make some burials more prominent than sence of monumental architecture, and others85. On the island of Hvar, Gaffney numerous Neolithic sites may have been et al. list over 50 sites containing one or eroded away or buried by colluvium and several burial cairns7. More than 40 cairn thus made archaeologically invisible, the burials have been excavated, but most of Bronze Age is marked by the appearance those excavations took place during the of burial mounds and fortified settle- 19th century, and very little has been ments, both of which often remain visible published even from some of the more re- as prominent features of the modern cent excavtions86. Consequently, reliable landscape. On the other hand, more than information is lacking in spite of a rela- half of the 128 prehistoric sites on Hvar tively large number of explored cairns. A could not be attributed to a specific pre- single exception are the three burial cairns historic period7; most of those non-spe- around Bogomolje explored by Marovi}87. cific »prehistoric« sites are burial mounds, Based on such imperfect evidence, a few which almost certainly belong to Bronze general remarks can be offered. It is clear or Iron Age. This would make the in- that cairn burial became common on Hvar crease in the number of sites after the no later than during the Early Bronze Copper Age even more pronounced. How- Age. The custom continued essentially ever, it must be remembered that burial unchanged into the Iron Age, most likely mounds are mortuary monuments for a lasting until its end. Cairns vary consid- specific (small) segment of the society. erably in size, from low ones that are just Their construction is dependent on social a few meters across, to mounds several factors, and their increasing number does meters high and 30 meters in diameter. not necessarily reflect an increase in gen- They usually contain a single central bu- eral population. Consequently, while the rial, with the deceased in a flexed posi- general impression is that the population tion placed into a stone-slab cyst. Gen- of the island grew during the Bronze Age, erally, grave goods are not too copious: the magnitude of this growth is impossi- they may be completely absent, or consist ble to estimate due to many uncertainties of a pottery vessel or two, and only rarely involved. include bronze weapons, tools or orna- ments. Another change, already mentioned above, concerns mortuary customs. Be- Roughly contemporary with the intro- ginning around 2500 BC and continuing duction of cairn burials is the appearance into the Bronze Age, individual burials of hillforts, relatively small settlement under stone cairns became common sites occupying dominant points in the throughout the Eastern Adriatic. For the landscape. Their defensive positions are first time, there is clear evidence for dif- often strengthened by drystone ramparts ferential treatment of the dead. First of that encircle the sites or protect their eas- all, the overall number of such mortuary iest approaches. Very little systematic monuments is rather low. Clearly, not ev- work has been carried out on such sites, eryone was buried in stone cairns, but and details of their internal layout can only members of a particular segment of not be discussed. The question of their the society. There is considerable varia- function as local or regional centers re- tion in size of burial mounds, which in- mains unclear, especially for the Bronze volves differential labor expenditure for Age. Temporal attribution of hillforts is

371 S. Forenbaher: Prehistoric Populations of the Island of Hvar, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 361–378 based primarily on surface finds of pot- range of stone field remains, suggest that tery. Gaffney et al. list six hillforts with such intensification took place during the traces of Bronze Age, and eight with tra- Bronze Age33. The virtual absence of rele- ces of Iron Age occupation7. Like cairn vant classes of evidence from the island of burials, many of them survived until the Hvar itself prevents any meaningful dis- end of Iron Age and later, into the period cussion of this topic in local terms. of Roman domination. This shift of settle- Finally, there is evidence that interac- ment towards defensive positions hints at tion networks which were already in an increase in conflict situations, possibly place during the Neolithic were gaining as a consequence of growing population in extent and importance. Certain classes density. of Bronze Age pottery, and certain kinds Any reliable estimate of population of metal artefacts have been shown to ex- size during this period is hampered by hibit stylistic similarities over quite wide the lack of sophisticated settlement data. areas, suggesting interactions across the In a similar situation, Stan~i~ and Gaff- Adriatic and into the Balkan interior90–93. ney roughly estimated the population The introduction and increasing use of size of the neighboring island of Bra~ by metals required stable exchange networks, arbitrarily proposing an average of 100 since the Eastern Adriatic region lacks inhabitants for each one of its Bronze Age adequate sources of copper and tin94. hillforts88. When applied to Hvar, this Metallurgy would eventually provide op- would translate to a population of about portunities for economic specialization, 600 people for its six documented Bronze particularly in the case of prestige goods, Age hillforts. This estimate should be re- whose production readily lends itself to garded with greatest caution, however, elite control95. since it rests on several assumptions Even if one accepts the possibility of which call for further investigation. One immigration of Proto-Indo-European speak- of them is that we do not know whether ers from Central Asia into Eastern and all of the known Hvar hillforts were ever Central Europe during or near the end of occupied simultaneously. On the other the Copper Age, it does not follow that hand, there is a distinct possibility that the immigrants must have reached the 89 not all of them have been identified ,or Adriatic coast. Identifying ethnicity and that some have been damaged beyond documenting migrations from archaeolo- recognition. Furthermore, some of the se- gical evidence alone is notoriously elu- ven hillforts which have not been attrib- sive96–98. Given the scanty Eastern Adri- 7 uted to a specific prehistoric period may atic archaeological record for the period eventually prove to have been occupied in question, proving migration in this during the Bronze Age. Finally, the possi- particular case still remains an impossi- bility of dispersed settlement outside hill- ble task. Much has been made of the occa- forts is not taken into account. Conse- sional appearance of gouged pottery, re- quently, the proposed number of 600 sembling that from Vu~edol, in Copper people for the entire island is probably a Age contexts of some of the Eastern Adri- rather low estimate. atic sites79,99. Even if one could show that One may expect that agricultural in- the Copper Age Vu~edol population spoke tensification would have paralleled the a Proto-Indo-European language (which assumed population growth. In Northern one can not), occasional shards of stylisti- Dalmatia, evidence for adoption and pos- cally similar pottery can hardly be taken sible diversification of mixed farming as direct evidence for arrival of Proto practices, as well as remains of a wide -Indo-European speakers on the coast (in

372 S. Forenbaher: Prehistoric Populations of the Island of Hvar, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 361–378 fact, as already discussed, Proto-Indo Bra~88. Following their assumption, the -Europeans may have arrived there over eight Iron Age hillforts would add up to a three millennia earlier). Similarly, comb population of 1600 people for the island of -impressed wares which in the Eastern Hvar. All caveats regarding Bronze Age Adriatic mark the transition from Copper population estimates are equally valid for to Bronze age85,99–101, with close analogies the Iron Age. Nevertheless, it seems that in the Eastern Alpine region102 and gen- the general long-term trend of population eral affinities to the Bell-Beaker com- increase continues from Bronze to Iron plex79, may tell us something about inter- Age. Gaffney and collaborators argue that action networks, but should not be inter- a two-tier settlement hierarchy is observ- preted as direct evidence of migration. able for this period61,89. This pattern may Absence of evidence, however, is not evi- reflect political integration above a local dence of absence. One can not rule out a community level. priori some population influx – possibly, A variety of archaeological evidence an event that would fit an »elite domi- bearing on the question of interactions 51 nance« model , but which would be hard between the Eastern Adriatic and its to document archaeologically, especially neighboring regions throughout this pe- when one considers the character of the riod has been surveyed and discussed at currently available data. It should be length in the literature103–107. Of particu- stressed, however, that the changes ob- lar interest is the increasingly frequent served in the archaeological record of the occurrence of exotic goods originating from island of Hvar in particular, and in the the opposite shore of the Adriatic108,109 Eastern Adriatic in general, may be well and the Aegean105,110. Many of these im- understood in the context of emerging so- ported objects are luxury items – offensi- cial elites alone, and do not require a mi- ve and defensive weapons, or fine, wheel- grational explanation. -made, painted pottery. Intensive interaction with the growing Central and Western Mediterranean polities eventu- Illyrians, Greeks and Romans ally, before the close of the first millen- During the Iron Age, which covers nium BC, culminated in the full integra- roughly the last millennium BC, hillforts tion of the Eastern Adriatic into the and burial cairns similar to their Bronze Mediterranean world system. By that Age predecessors remain the most com- time, this region has emerged from being mon types of archaeological sites on Hvar. on its 'margin' to becoming a part of its 111 Although the total number of sites appar- 'periphery' . ently drops relative to the Bronze Age The island of Hvar, with its strategic (Figure 4), the number and the average location on maritime routes, must have size of hillforts seem to be increasing. played an important role in those net- One should remember, however, that over works. A major hilfort was located above 50% of all prehistoric sites have not been the best anchorage on the island's south- attributed to a more specific period. Most ern coast (today, the port of the town of of these are burial cairns, and a large Hvar). While all architectural remains of fraction of them might actually belong to this hillfort have been destroyed by con- the Iron Age. The estimate of the island's struction of later fortifications, a large total population can be attempted once surface scatter includes exotic finds such again by following the approach of Stan- as imported Apulian pottery (7th –5th cen- ~i~ and Gaffney, who propose 200 people tury BC)109. Recently, such pottery was for each Iron Age hilfort on the island of found also at Lompi}, a hillfort which

373 S. Forenbaher: Prehistoric Populations of the Island of Hvar, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 361–378 controls the entry into the bay of Stari on the Greek colony of Pharos, which took Grad119, while Stari Grad itself yielded a place soon after it was established in the few black-figure painted shards of Greek early 4th century BC, a written source re- provenience, dated to the late 6th or early fers to the autochthonous islanders of 5th century BC110. Hvar simply as 'barbarians', who were With Greek penetration, the Eastern supported by the 'Illyrians from the main- 118 Adriatic gradually enters the realm of land' . history. The earliest written sources (be- Greek colonization, which in the East- ginning around 500 BC with Hecateus of ern Adriatic was not particularly inten- Miletus) are scarce, sketchy, and often sive and took place relatively late, was contradictory, but by mentioning various nevertheless an important agent of change. autochthonous 'tribes', they provide the One of the two historically and archaeo- earliest names for the local ethnic com- logically well-attested colonies – Pharos – munities112. Eventually, all of these 'tribes' was on Hvar, at the present-day location came to be considered as members of a of the town of Stari Grad. It was founded much larger, composite and rather heter- in the year 385/4 BC, by colonists from ogeneous ethnic entity known as the Illy- the Aegean island of Paros119,120. The es- rians112–114. For the first time we know tablishment of the colony had a profound beyond doubt that these indigenous popu- impact on local developments. In biologi- lations spoke Indo-European languages115. cal terms, it brought the local, autoch- Some authors assume that the pres- thonous population into direct physical ence of Illyrians and their direct ethnic contact with foreigners from a distant re- predecessors in this region can be traced gion. In sociocultural terms, it introduced back to the Late Bronze Age90, or even writing, market economy, a different the Early Bronze Age112,113. Their argu- socio-political system and a number of ments, however, are based almost exclu- technological innovations. It also gave sively on stylistic continuities observable the island its name which, with minor al- in the material record, and therefore terations, survived until the present day. must be regarded with reserve. What is Hvar and its Greek colony continued certain, however, is that at the time of the to play an important role during the ini- first written sources, Illyrian 'tribes' were tial stages of the Roman drive into the already present for a while along the Balkans, which took place in late 3rd cen- Eastern Adriatic littoral. Which of these tury BC. Under Demetrios of Pharos, it 'tribes' inhabited Hvar? Some half a resisted the Roman advance – a mistake dozen names for ethnic groups are men- for which it was severely punished118.By tioned in or near the Middle Dalmatian the time of Christ, the island had become region (such as Hierastamni, Bulini, Hili, a part of Roman Dalmatia121 and with it Nesti and Manii, as well as Delmatae was fully incorporated into the Roman and, possibly, Ardiaei), but the early sour- empire, with free movement of people and ces usually provide just a hint of their goods across the Mediterranean and be- geographic location. Consequently, there yond. is much discord among different modern authors about actual territories of these Continuity and Change: 'tribes' (e.g., for Ardiaeii, see Benac113, A Tentative Conclusion Papazoglu116, Stip~evi}112, Sui}114, and Zaninovi}117). None of these names are di- As based on currently available ar- rectly related to any of the Middle Dalma- chaeological evidence, the proposed con- tian islands. When describing an attack clusions regarding population continuity

374 S. Forenbaher: Prehistoric Populations of the Island of Hvar, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 361–378 and change on the island of Hvar must be for later prehistoric periods must be re- taken as provisional, open to good deal of garded with the greatest caution. The is- modification which will probably come land’s Bronze Age population may have with future research. It seems, however, totaled about a thousand people, and it that the prehistory of the island (as well may have doubled during the Iron Age. as the wider Eastern Adriatic region) was marked much more by continuity than by At the dawn of history, in mid-first change. Only at one point during that millennium BC, Hvar was populated by long period, several lines of evidence sug- Illyrians who, beyond doubt, spoke an gest arrival of a substantial body of immi- Indo-European language. It was then grants. That event took place around that the next confirmed penetration of a 6000 BC, and is associated with the intro- foreign population took place, with the duction of farming. There is a distinct establishment of a Greek colony of Phar- possibility – but no consensus yet – that os early in the fourth century BC. Given these Early Neolithic farmers already the relatively small number of colonists, spoke an early Proto-Indo-European lan- their socio-cultural impact probably ex- guage. ceeded by far their biological contribution to the island's populace. Only four centu- The next possible influx of immigrants ries later, however, Hvar was already may have happened almost four thou- fully integrated into the cosmopolitan Ro- sand years later, around or soon after man Empire, where people and goods 2500 BC, with the hypothesized (but tra- moved freely from Iberia to the Levant ditionally widely accepted) Indo-European and from Africa to Scotland. migration into Europe. While such a possibility can not be dismissed out of hand, there is nothing in the archaeological evidence from Hvar (or from the wider East- ern Adriatic region in general) to support Acknowledgment it. The changes observable in the archaeological record are best explained by in- This paper was written as a part of the digenous developments such as changes Scientific Research Program »Anthropo- in the social organization of the local com- logical Research of the Population Struc- munities. ture of Croatia« (project no. 01960103 of Population estimates for the Neolithic the Ministry of Science and Technology, can not even be attempted, while those Republic of Croatia).

REFERENCES

1. RUDAN, P., D. F. ROBERTS, A. SUJOLD@I], KIRIGIN, M. PETRI], N. VUJNOVI]: The archaeo- B. MACAROL, N. SMOLEJ, A. KA[TELAN, Coll. logical heritage of Hvar, Croatia. (B. A. R., Oxford, Antropol., 6 (1982) 47. — 2. MARTINOVI], I., I. RU- 1997). — 8. BUCCICH, G., Bolletino di Archeologia e DAN, S. MASTANA, B. JANI]IJEVI], S. S. PAPI- Storia Dalmata, 8 (1885) 1. — 9. BUCCICH, G., Mit- HA, P. RUDAN, Coll. Antropol., 19 (1995) 505. — 3. teilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in TOLK, H. V., M. PERI^I], L. BARA], I. MARTINO- Wien, Sitzungsberichte, 15 (1885) 108. — 10. GASPE- VI] KLARI], B. JANI]IJEVI], I. RUDAN, J. PA- RINI, R., Bulletino di Archeologia e Storia Dalmata, RIK, R. VILLEMS, P. RUDAN, Coll. Antropol., 24 11 (1888) 1. — 11. NOVAK, G.: Hvar. (Beograd, 1924). (2000) 267. — 4. JOVANOVI], V., Coll. Antropol., 20 — 12. NOVAK, G.: Prestoric Hvar, Grap~eva Cave. (1996) 251. — 5. WADDLE, D. M., R. R. SOKAL, P. (Zagreb, 1955). — 13. NOVAK, G., Arheolo{ki radovi i RUDAN, Hum. Biol., 70 (1998) 845. — 6. PETRI], N., rasprave, 1 (1959) 5. — 14. RUTAR, S., Bulletino di Hvarski zbornik, 3 (1975) 243. — 7. GAFFNEY, V., B. Archeologia e Storia Dalmata, 2 (1888) 13. — 15.

375 S. Forenbaher: Prehistoric Populations of the Island of Hvar, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 361–378

SCHNEIDER, M., Bulletino di Archeologia e Storia sity College, London, 1996). — 39. MÜLLER, J.: Das Dalmata, 49 (1927) 98. — 16. FORENBAHER, S., T. Ostadriatische Frühneolithikum: Die Impresso-Kul- KAISER, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatin- tur und die Neolithisierung des Adriaraumes. (Volker sku, 92 (2000) 9. — 17. VAN ANDEL, T. H., Antiquity, Spiess, Berlin, 1994). — 40. BATOVI], [.: Adriatic 63 (1989) 733. — 18. SHACKLETON, J. C., T. H. VAN zone. In: GARA[ANIN, M. (Ed.): Prehistory of south ANDEL, C. N. RUNNELS, J. Field Archaeol., 11 Slavic countries. Vol. 2. (ANUBiH, Sarajevo, 1979). — (1984) 307. — 19. MIRACLE, P. T., C. J. O'BRIEN: 41. CHAPMAN, J. C., J. MÜLLER, Antiquity, 64 Seasonality of resource use and site occupation at Ba- (1990) 127. — 42. NOVAK, G., Arheolo{ki radovi i danj, Bosnia-Herzegovina: Subsistence stress in an rasprave, 7 (1974) 75. — 43. NOVAK, G., B. ÊÛK, increasingly seasonal environment? In: ROCEK, T. Arheolo{ki radovi i rasprave, 8–9 (1982) 11. — 44. R., O. BAR-YOSEF (Eds.): Seasonality and seden- FORENBAHER, S., Coll. Antropol., 23 (1999) 521. — tism: Archaeological perspectives from Old and New 45. KAISER, T., N. VUJNOVI], Obavijesti Hrvat- World sites. (Peabody Museum, Harvard, 1998). — skog arheolo{kog dru{tva, 27 (1995) 30. — 46. BASS, 20. MIRACLE, P. T., Atti del Museo Civico di Storia B., Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 11 (1998) Naturale (Trieste), 9 (1996) 33. — 21. MIRACLE, P. 165. — 47. FORENBAHER, S., V. GAFFNEY, J. W. T., Poro~ilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in HAYES, T. KAISER, B. KIRIGIN, P. LEACH, N. PE- eneolitika v Sloveniji, 26 (1997) 43. — 22. ÊÛK, TRI], Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku, B., Arheolo{ki radovi i rasprave, 12 (1996) 13. — 23. 86 (1994) 13. — 48. BINTLIFF, J. L.: European social VAN ANDEL, T. H., Antiquity, 64 (1990) 51. — 24. evolution: Archaeological perspectives. (University of BASLER, \: Paleolithic and Mesolithic in Bosnia and Bradford, Bradford, 1984). — 49. WHITEHOUSE, R.: Hercegovina. In: BASLER, \. (Ed.): Prehistory of Social organisation in the Neolithic of southeast Italy. south Slavic countries. Vol. 1. (ANUBiH, Sarajevo, In: WALDREN, W. H., R. CHAPMAN, J. LEWTH- 1979). — 25. BERNARDINI, E.: L'Italia preistorica. WAITE, R.-C. KENNARD (Eds.): The Deja conference (Roma, 1983). — 26. MALEZ, M.: Paleolithic and of Prehistory: Early settlement in the western Medi- Mesolithic in Croatia. In: BASLER, \. (Ed.): Prehis- terranean islands and their peripheral areas. (B. A. tory of south Slavic countries. Vol. 1. (ANUBiH, Sa- R., Oxford, 1984). — 50. AMMERMAN, A. J., L. L. rajevo, 1979). — 27. MIRACLE, P., N. GALANIDOU, CAVALLI-SFORZA: The Neolithic transition and the S. FORENBAHER, European Journal of Archaeolo- genetics of populations in Europe. (Princeton Univer- gy,3(2000) 293. — 28. NOVAK, G., Ljetopis Jugosla- sity Press, Princeton, 1984). — 51. RENFREW, C.: venske akademije znanosti i umijetnosti, 55 (1949) Archaeology and language: The puzzle of Indo-Euro- 149. — 29. MIROSAVLJEVI], V., Vjesnik za arheo- pean origins. (Cambridge University Press, New logiju i historiju dalmatinsku, 53 (1952) 123. — 30. York, 1987) — 52. CAVALLI-SFORZA, L. L.: The PETRI], N., Arheolo{ki pregled, 20 (1979) 10. — 31. spread of agriculture and nomadic pastoralism: In- KAISER, T., N. VUJNOVI], M. DARMANIN, S. FO- sights from genetics, linguistics and archaeology. In: RENBAHER, S. FRAME, B. MARIJANOVI], Obavi- HARIS, D. R. (Ed.): The origins and spread of agricul- jesti Hrvatskog arheolo{kog dru{tva, 24 (1992) 33. — ture and pastoralism in Eurasia. (Unversity College 32. ÊÛK, B., Lu{ko libro, 2 (1994) 41. — 33. Press, London, 1996). — 53. CHIKHI, L., G. DES- CHAPMAN, J. C., R. S. SHIEL, [. BATOVI]: The TRO-BISOL, G. BERTORELLE, V. PASCALI, G. changing face of Dalmatia. (Leicester University BARBUJANI, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 95 Press, London, 1996). — 34. SCHWARTZ, C.: The (1998) 9053. — 54. RENFREW, C.: Language families Neolithic animal husbandry of Smil~i} and Nin. In: and the spread of farming. In: HARIS, D. R. (Ed.): CHAPMAN, J. C., J. BINTLIFF, V. GAFFNEY, B. The origins and spread of agriculture and pastora- SLAPSAK (Eds.): Recent developments in Yugoslav lism in Eurasia. (Unversity College, London, 1996). archaeology. (B. A. R., Oxford, 1988). — 35. ZOHARY, — 55. SOKAL, R. R., N. L. ODEN, C. WILSON, Na- D.: Domestication of the southwest Asian Neolithic ture, 351 (1991) 143. — 56. NOVAK, G., Arheolo{ki crop assemblage cereals, pulses, and flax: The eviden- radovi i rasprave, 2 (1962) 19. — 57. NOVAK, G., Ar- ce from living plants. In: HARRIS, D. R., G. C. HILL- heolo{ki radovi i rasprave, 4–5 (1967) 95. — 58. NO- MAN (Eds.): Foraging and farming: The evolution of VAK, G., Arheolo{ki radovi i rasprave, 6 (1968) 61. — plant exploitation. (Unwin Hyman, London, 1989). — 59. FORENBAHER, S., Das Altertum, 41 (1996) 211. 36. ZOHARY, D.: The mode of domestication of the — 60. WHITEHOUSE, R.: Underground religion: founder crops of southeast Asian agriculture. In: Cult and culture in Prehistoric Italy. (University of HARRIS, D. R. (Ed.): The origins and spread of agri- London, London, 1992). — 61. GAFFNEY, V., Z. culture and pastoralism in Eurasia. (University Col- STANÎ^: GIS approaches to regional analysis: A lege, London, 1996). — 37. DONAHUE, R. E.: Desper- case study of the island of Hvar. (Faculty of Philoso- ately seeking ceres: A critical examination of current phy, Ljubljana, 1991). — 62. HORVAT, A.: Historical models for the transition to agriculture in Mediterra- deveopment of devastation and degradation of Karst. nean Europe. In: GEBAUER, A. B., T. D. PRICE In: BURA, D. (Ed.): Karst of Croatia. (Split, 1957). — (Eds.): Transitions to agriculture in prehistory. (Pre- 63. BATOVI], [., Diadora, 2 (1962) 31. — 64. KORO- history Press, Madison, 1992). — 38. LEGGE, T.: The [EC, J.: Neolithic settlement in Danilo Bitinj. (JAZU, beginning of caprine domestication in Southwest Zagreb, 1958). — 65. BENAC, A.: Neolithic Settle- Asia. In: HARRIS, D. R. (Ed.): The origin and spread ment at Lisi~i}i near Konjic. (Scientific Society of of agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia. (Univer- Bosnia-Hercegovina, Sarajevo, 1958). — 66. BATO-

376 S. Forenbaher: Prehistoric Populations of the Island of Hvar, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 361–378

VI], [., Arheolo{ki radovi i rasprave, 4–5 (1967) 263. (1995) 577. — 96. ANTHONY, D. W., Am. Anthropolo- — 67. BENAC, A., Diadora, 2 (1962) 5. — 68. Ê- gist, 92 (1990) 895. — 97. CORDELL, L. S., V. J. ÛK, B., Arheolo{ki radovi i rasprave, 6 (1968) 181. YANNIE, Ethnicity, ethnogenesis, and the individ- — 69. ÊÛK, B., Arheolo{ki radovi i rasprave, 7 ual. In: PREUCEL, R. W. (Ed.): Processual and (1974) 221. — 70. ÊÛK, B., Materijali Saveza ar- postprocessual archaeologies: Multiple ways of know- heolo{kih dru{tava Jugoslavije, 12 (1976) 47. — 71. ing the past. (Southern Illinois University, Carbon- HALLAM, B., S. WARREN, C. RENFREW., Proceed- dale, 1991). — 98. SHENNAN, S.: Archaeological ap- ings of the Prehistoric Society, 42 (1976) 85. — 72. proaches to cultutal identity. (Unwin Hyman, TYKOT, R. H., Journal of Mediterranean Archaeol- London, 1989). — 99. DIMITRIJEVI], S.: Vu~edol ogy, 9 (1996) 39. — 73. BENAC, A., Arheolo{ki radovi culture and Vu~edol culture complex. In: TASI], N. i rasprave, 10 (1987) 11. — 74. PETRI], N., Materi- (Ed.): Prehistory of south Slavic countries. Vol. 3. jali Saveza arheolo{kih dru{tava Jugoslavije, 16 (ANUBiH, Sarajevo, 1979). — 100. GOVEDARICA, (1980) 21. — 75. WHITEHOUSE, R., Proceedings of B.: Early Bronze Age in the Eastern Adriatic. (Center the Prehistoric Society, 35 (1969) 267. — 76. BENAC, for Balkanological Investigations, Sarajevo, 1989). — A., Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja (Arheologija), 27–28 101. MARIJANOVI], B., Vjesnik za historiju i arheo- (1973) 5. — 77. HODDER, I., Am. Antiq., 44 (1979) logiju dalmatinsku, 84 (1991) 215. — 102. KORO- 446. — 78. FORENBAHER, S., Opuscula archaeolo- [EC, J., P. KORO[EC: Finds from lake dwellings at gica, 23–24 (2000) 373. — 79. DIMITRIJEVI], S.: Ig, Ljubljana. (Ljubljana, 1969). — 103. BATOVI], Problem of the Eneolithic in the Eastern Adriatic. In: [.: Le relazioni tra la Daunia e la sponda orientale TASI], N. (Ed.): Prehistory of south Slavic countries. dell'Adriatico nell'eta del ferro. In: Civilta' preistori- Vol. 3. (ANUBiH, Sarajevo, 1979). — 80. PETRI], N., che e protostoriche della Daunia. (Firenze, 1975). — Pelje{ki zbornik, 1 (1976) 295. — 81. FRAME, S. A.: 104. BATOVI], [.: Le relazioni culturali tra le spon- Poetic spaces: The archaeology of a Mediterranean de adriatiche nell'etr del ferro. In: Adriatic coast in landscape. Ph.D. Thesis. (University of California, Prehistory (Zagreb, 1976). — 105. BATOVI], [., Vjes- Berkeley, 1998). — 82. GIMBUTAS, M., Am. Anthro- nik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku, 77 (1984) pol., 65 (1963) 815. — 83. GIMBUTAS, M., J. Indo- 37. — 106. ÔVI], B.: Middle Dalmatian group. In: Eur. Stud., 5 (1977) 277. — 84. CHILDE, V. G.: The GABROVEC, S. (Ed.): Prehistory of south Slavic Aryans: A study of Indo-European origins. (Kegan countries. Vol. 5. (ANUBiH, Sarajevo, 1987). — 107. Paul, Trench and Trubner, London, 1926). — 85. MA- GABROVEC, S., K. MIHOVILI].: Istrian group. In: ROVI], I., B. ÔVI]: Cetinska kultura. In: ÔVI], GABROVEC, S. (Ed.): Prehistory of south Slavic B. (Ed.): Prehistory of south Slavic countries. Vol. 4. countries. Vol. 5. (ANUBiH, Sarajevo, 1987). — 108. (ANUBiH, Sarajevo, 1983). — 86. PETRI], N., Vjes- GLOGOVI], D., Histria Archaeologica, 10 (1979) 57. nik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku, 72–73 — 109. PETRI], N., Diadora, 9 (1980) 197. — 110. (1979) 67. — 87. MAROVI], I., Vjesnik za arheologiju MIGOTTI, B., Vjesnik Arheolo{kog muzeja u Zagre- i historiju dalmatinsku, 78 (1985) 5. — 88. STANÎ^, bu, 19 (1986) 147. — 111. SHERRATT, A. G., J. Eur. Z., V. GAFFNEY.: GIS based analysis of the popula- Archaeol., 1 (1993) 1. — 112. STIPÊVI], A.: The tion trends on the island of Bra~ in central Dalmatia. Illyrians: History, life, culture. ([kolska knjiga, Za- In: BIETTI, A., A. CAZZELLA, I. JOHNSON AND A. greb, 1989). — 113. BENAC, A.: On ethnic communi- VOORRIPS (Eds.): Colloquium II, 13th International ties of the Early Iron Age in Yugoslavia. In: GABRO- Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences. VEC, S. (Ed.): Prehistory of south Slavic countries. (Forli, 1996) — 89. GAFFNEY, V., Z. STANÎ^, J. Vol..5. (ANUBiH, Sarajevo, 1987). — 114. SUI], M., FARLEY, B. HARRIS, F. LIMP, J. LOCKHART, I. Godi{njak (Center for Balkanological Investigations), WILLIAMS: Geographical information systems: Ter- 13 (1976) 179. — 115. KATIÎ], R.: Language of the ritorial analysis and Prehistoric agriculture on the is- autochtonous population of Illyrian provinces. In: land of Hvar, Dalmatia. In: FABI[, M., I. KUZMA, K. Symposium on the Illyrian territorial and chronologi- MARKOVA (Eds.): Actes du XIIe Congrès Interna- cal boundaries in prehistory. (ANUBiH, Sarajevo, tional des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistori- 1964). — 116. PAPAZOGLU, F., Zbornik radova Filo- ques. Vol. 1. (Bratislava, 1993). — 90. BATOVI], [.: zofskog fakulteta u Beogradu, 7 (1963) 21. — 117. ZA- Late Bronze Age in the Eastern Adriatic Littoral. In: NINOVI], M., Godi{njak (Center for Balkanological ÔVI], B. (Ed.): Prehistory of south Slavic countries. Investigations), 4 (1966) 27. — 118. ÂÊ, S.: An- Vol. 4. (ANUBiH, Sarajevo, 1983). — 91. BAUMGAR- cient written sources relating to the history of Hvar. TEL, E., Papers of the British School at Rome, 21 In: GAFFNEY, V., B. KIRIGIN, M. PETRI], N. VUJ- (1953) 1. — 92. ÔVI], B.: Regional groups of the NOVI] (Eds.): The archaeological heritage of Hvar, Early Iron Age. In: ÔVI], B. (Ed.): Prehistory of Croatia. (B. A. R., Oxford, 1997). — 119. KIRIGIN, B.: south Slavic countries. Vol. 4. (ANUBiH, Sarajevo, Paros, Parion ktisma. Ph.D. Thesis. (Faculty of Phi- 1983). — 93. KAISER, T., S. FORENBAHER, Antiq- losophy, Zadar, 2000). — 120. NOVAK, G., Rad JAZU, uity, 73 (1999) 313. — 94. FORENBAHER, S., Trade 322 (1961) 145. — 121. WILKES, J. J.: Dalmatia. and exchange in late Bronze and early Iron Age, (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1969). — Croatia. In: HÄNSEL, B. (Ed.): Handel, Tausch und 122. DR@AVNI HIDROGRAFSKI INSTITUT: Adri- Verkher im bronze- und früheisenzeitlichen Südost- atic Sea: Bathymetric map. (National Hydrographic europa. (Freie Universität, Berlin, 1995). — 95. Institute, Split, 1994). VRDOLJAK, S., S. FORENBAHER., Antiquity, 69

377 S. Forenbaher: Prehistoric Populations of the Island of Hvar, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 361–378

S. Forenbaher

Institute for Anthropological Research, Amru{eva 8, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

PRETPOVIJESNO STANOVNI[TVO OTOKA HVARA: PREGLED ARHEOLO[KE GRA\E

SA@ETAK

Pretpovijest otoka Hvara obiljeèna je kontinuitetom vi{e nego promjenom. Samo jednom tijekom tog dugog razdoblja arheolo{ka gra|a jasno ukazuje na priliv znatnijeg broja useljenika. Taj doga|aj zbio se oko godine 6000. prije Krista i povezan je s uvo- |enjem zemljoradnje. Slijede}e pritjecanje useljenika mo`da se dogodilo sredinom tre- }eg tisu}lje}a prije Krista ili ubrzo nakon toga, no promjene vidljive u arheolo{koj gra|i mogu se bolje objasniti promjenama dru{tvene organizacije autohtonih zajednica. Pre- ma najranijim povijesnim izvorima, sredinom prvog tisu}lje}a prije Krista na Hvaru ìve Iliri koji govore indoeuropskim jezikom. Do slijede}eg, povijesno dokumentiranog prodora strane populacije dolazi s osnivanjem gr~kih kolonija, po~etkom 4. stolje}a prije Krista. êtiri stolje}a kasnije Hvar je kona~no uklju~en u Rimsko carstvo.

378