352 Documenta Praehistorica XLVI (2019) Introduction In the context of European Prehistory, studies of the lithic industries of the Early Neolithic period in Dal- matia have long been neglected or have been limit- ed to typological aspects (∞e≠uk 1974; 1976; Müller 1994; Bass 1998). Regarding Northern Dalmatia, only one study, that from the open-air site Crno Vri- lo, has been published in detail, but again mostly focusing on typological observations (Korona 2009). More detailed data is available from Southern Dalma- tian cave sites, but the assemblages are small and/or from insecure contexts (Perho≠, Altherr 2011; Fo- renbaher, Perho≠ 2015; 2017; πo∏i≤ Klind∫i≤ et al. 2015). Recently, Zlatko Perho≠ and Sta∏o Forenba- her opened new areas of research that consider the Impressed Ware blade production of Northern Dalmatia (Eastern Adriatic, Croatia) in the context of Neolithisation Sonja Ka;ar Laboratoire TRACES UMR 5608, Université de Toulouse 2 – Jean Jaurès, Toulouse, FR sonja.kacar@gmail.com ABSTRACT – The lithic assemblages from the principal early Neolithic sites in Northern Dalmatia have been analysed with respect to the technological aspects and principles of schéma and chaîne opératoire, débitage economy and raw material economy. Northern Dalmatia, the most fertile region of the Eastern Adriatic, hosts the most important Neolithic open-air sites. Early Neolithic is associat- ed with the Impressed Ware culture and dates back to c. 6000–5400 cal BC. The Early Neolithic lithic assemblages are characterized by the pressure blade production techniques on high-quality Gargano cherts reflecting important socio-economic and technical mutations that are specific to the Neolithic. Moreover, the almost exclusive reliance on these exogenous cherts emphasizes the social aspects of such networks and reinforces the idea of cultural uniformity of Dalmatian and Apulian Impressed Ware. IZVLE∞EK – Analizirali smo zbire kamnitih orodij iz najpomembnej∏ih zgodnje neolitskih najdi∏≠ v severni Dalmaciji, pri ≠emer smo upo∏tevali predvsem tehnolo∏ke aspekte in principa schéma in chaîne opératoire, ekonomijo kamnitega odpada in ekonomijo surovin. Najpomembnej∏a neolitska najdi∏≠a na prostem so locirana v Severni Dalmaciji, ki je najbolj rodovitna regija na Vzhodnem Ja- dranu. Zgodnji neolitik tukaj povezujemo s kulturo Impresso, ki datira v ≠as ok. 6000 do 5400 pr. n. ∏t. Zgodnje neolitski zbiri kamnitih orodij so vezani na tehnologijo izdelave klin izdelanih iz visoko kakovostnih ro∫encev, ki prihajajo iz polotoka Gargano v Italiji, kar odseva pomembne dru∫beno- ekonomske in tehni≠ne spremembe, ki so specifi≠ne za obdobje neolitika. Poleg tega uporaba ro∫en- ca, ki prihaja skoraj izklju≠no iz drugih pokrajin, poudarja dru∫bene vidike tak∏nih mre∫ in krepi idejo o kulturni enotnosti v dalmatinski in apulski kulturi Imresso. KEY WORDS – lithic technology; Neolithisation; Dalmatia; Adriatic; Impressed ware; pressure flaking; Castelnovian KLJU∞NE BESEDE – tehnologija izdelave kamnitih orodij; neolitizacija; Dalmacija; Jadran; izdelki tipa Impresso; tehnika lomljenja pod pritiskom; kultura Castelnovian Izdelava klin tipa Impresso v severni Dalmaciji (Vzhodni Jadran, Hrva[ka) v kontekstu neolitizacije DOI> 10.4312\dp.46.22 Fig. 1. Map of the main Dalmatian and Apulian impressed ware sites and the other sites mentioned in text. Framed: study area. Dotted lines: the hy- pothesized position of coastline during the 6 th millennium BC (based on bathymetric charts and the presumption that the sea level was –10 to –15m lower than today (cf. Suri≤ 2006; Fontana et al. 2014). Dots: open-air sites, stars: caves. 1 Pokrovnik, 2 Ze- munica, 3 Vela spila, 4 Na- kovana, 5 Gudnja, 6 Crve- na Stijena, 7 Coppa Nevi- gata, 8 Rippa Tetta, 9 Mas- seria Giufredda, 10 Rendi- na, 11 Pulo di Molfetta, 12 Scamuso, 13 Su∏ac (background map designed by F. Tessier). Impressed Ware blade production of Northern Dalmatia (Eastern Adriatic, Croatia) in the context of Neolithisation 353 contrast to pottery, lithic production is an industry that the last hunter-gatherers and first farmers have in common. It consequently appears the most suit- able production to evidence plausible generic links between those two types of societies. Did the first farming communities use the same methods and techniques in their lithic production as the last hun- ter-gatherers? Do the general schémas opératoires differ from Neolithic to Mesolithic sites? Are there notable differences in strategies of raw material pro- curement from a diachronical perspective? In the literature dealing with the Mesolithic/Neoli- thic transition in the Eastern Adriatic, chipped stone industries have served either as evidence of cultural continuity (J. K. Kozłowski 1982; S. Kozłowski 2009; Marijanovi≤ 2007; 2009; Korona 2009) or for cultu- ral rupture (Müller 1994). Typology was the only basis for such claims, while the hypothesis for ‘con- tinuity’ was mostly founded on Montenegrin cave assemblages (Crvena Stijena, Odmut) (Benac 1955; Markovi≤ 1985; J. K. Kozłowski 1982; S. Kozłowski 2009; Marijanovi≤ 2009). Obviously, however, the uncertain stratigraphic contexts of the Montenegrin assemblages cannot be used as one reference data- base for the whole Eastern Adriatic. In general, lithic assemblages from Dalmatia reflect the complex strategies of lithic production as seen in the complex economy of raw material and a certain degree of techno-economic specialisation (Forenba- her, Perho≠ 2017; Mazzucco et al. 2018; Podrug et al. in press a; in press b; Ka≠ar 2019). This paper aims to examine the strategies of blade production typo-technological aspects together with the raw ma- terial economy and modalities of distribution (Fo- renbaher, Perho≠ 2015; 2017). However, synthesis work on the Early Neolithic as- semblages combining both techno-typological aspects (concepts of schéma opératoire and chaîne opéra- toire) and the débitage economy with raw material economy is still lacking. Lithic assemblages reflect the intentions of prehis- toric knappers and the procedures they performed in their project realization, i.e. the choice of raw ma- terials, methods and techniques employed, etc. While in some Mesolithic societies (i.e. the Early Mesoli- thic of the Balkans) their conceptual and operative schemes often depend on techno-environmental fac- tors, with the Neolithic the socio-cultural aspects of lithic productions are emphasized (cf. Inizan et al. 1999; Perlès 2009). Therefore, the study of the Early Neolithic chipped stone assemblages not only informs us of the techno- economical needs of the first farmers, but illustrates their social and ideological choices and relations. The strategies of the lithic production can reveal the contacts and interactions between the groups and their social and symbolic conceptions, but can also represent the routes and mechanisms of Neolithisa- tion (Perlès 2009; Forenbaher, Perho≠ 2017). Moreover, in the context of Neolithisation, the study of chipped stone industries is essential to our under- standing of the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition. In Sonja Ka;ar 354 in order to investigate its techno-economic and social aspects. As such it attempts to shed some new light on Neolithisation in the region. Materials and methods This study is based on Neolithic lithic assemblages from some main Impressed-ware sites in the πibenik and Zadar regions (Northern Dalmatia): Ra∏inovac, Vrbica, Konjevrate, Crno Vrilo, Tinj and Polje Ni∫e Vrcelja (Fig. 1). All the sites are open-air settlements, but the degree of research differs among them, as well as excavation strategies and methods employed. Konjevrate, Vrbica and Polje Ni∫e Vrcelja were part of rescue excavations where large surfaces were open: c. 487m 2 in Polje Ni∫e Vrcelja, c. 160m 2 in Konjevra- te and c. 50m 2 in Vrbica (Brusi≤ 1995; Men∂u∏i≤ 1998; Podrug 2013; Horvat 2015). Systematic exca- vations were carried on Crno Vrilo, where a total of 550m 2 excavated area has yielded the remains of a Neolithic village with rectangular houses (Marijano- vi≤ 2009). Trial excavations were conducted in Tinj and Ra∏ino- vac (Chapman et al. 1996; Podrug et al. in press a). In the latter only a small surface was open (4m 2 ). Except Vrbica, which lacks the organic material, all the sites were radiocarbon dated (Tab. 1). All 14 C dates mentioned in text have been recali- brated in OxCal v4.3 (Bronk Ramsey 2009) and Int Cal13 (Reimer et al. 2013). However, some dates and namely those obtained for Tinj should be dis- missed, as they show high standard deviation. Radio- carbon chronology ranges from the very beginning of 6 th millennium calBC to the c. 5400 calBC. The earliest dates, around 6000/5900 cal BC, have been obtained from Ra∏inovac in πibenik county. Crno Vrilo and Konjevrate can be placed roughly between 5800 and 5500 cal BC. The youngest dates are ob- tained from Polje Ni∫e Vrcelja, placing its occupation to the very end of the impressed-ware phase, c. 5500–5400 cal BC. Despite the lack of 14 C dates for the Vrbica assemblage, the presence of one bifacial retouched point, typical for the Danilo phase and Danilo-like sickle insert (Mazzucco et al. 2018), might suggest its affiliation with the later phase of Impressed ware culture. Following this, it should be noted that the majority of Early Neolithic material studied in this work be- longs to the later phase of Impressed ware (from c. 5800 cal BC), while only one assemblage (Ra∏inovac) can be dated to the very beginning of the Neolithic in the Adriatic region (c. 6000 cal BC) (Forenbaher et al. 2013; Forenbaher, Miracle 2014; McClure et al. 2014; Podrug et al. in press). However, the Ra∏inovac assemblage doesn’t show any significant difference from the technological and petrological points of view with other, younger as- semblages. Moreover, according to available publi- shed data, as well as from the author’s personal ob- servations, the Early Neolithic assemblages of South- ern Dalmatia, dated between c. 6000 to 5500 cal BC, are probably characterized by the same schéma opé- ratoire, i.e. the same technology and raw material economy (Bass 1998; Marijanovi≤ 2005; Forenba- her, Kaiser 2008; Forenbaher, Perho≠ 2015; 2017; Drni≤ et al. 2018; Mazzucco et al. 2018). Thus, although this paper deals with the Early Neo- lithic lithic production of Northern Dalmatia, broad- er conclusions can be drawn that will concern the whole of Dalmatia. The question of the origin of the Neolithic chert in- dustries and its place within the discussion of Neoli- thisation is limited, since the Late Mesolithic sites are absent from the region. The only site in Dalmatia where Late Mesolithic occupation is clearly attested is Vela Spila on the island of Kor≠ula, but the small quantities of collected lithic material do not allow any techno-typological and cultural attribution (∞e- ≠uk, Radi≤ 2005; Vukosavljevi≤ 2012). However, when discussing the relevance of lithic studies in the Neolithisation process, in order to compare the Impressed ware industries with the previous periods, we refer to the Castelnovian lithic production strate- gies of adjacent regions (Collina 2009; Binder et al. 2012; Ferrari 2011; Ka≠ar 2019). The Castelnovian techno-complex developed during the 7 th millenni- um BC and characterizes the Late Mesolithic lithic assemblages of the central-western Mediterranean, but is absent from Croatia and Greece (Kozłowski 2009; Marchand, Perrin 2017). While its absence from Greece can be interpreted by the early pres- ence of Neolithic colons in this region (from c. 6700 cal BC), its absence from the Croatian littoral (both Dalmatia and Istria) is curious because analo- gous industries have been found in the neighbouring regions (Italian and Slovenian Karst, Po valley, Mon- tenegro) (Biagi 2003; Turk 2000; Mihailovi≤ 2009; Kozłowski 2009; Ferrari 2011; Kaczanowska, Koz- łowski 2017; Ka≠ar 2019). We therefore think that the absence of Castelnovian finds along the Croatian coast is due to a lack of research and preservation Impressed Ware blade production of Northern Dalmatia (Eastern Adriatic, Croatia) in the context of Neolithisation 355 Site Location County Stratigraphic Analysis Laboratory Nr BP cal BC 2 sigma Material Comment Reference Unit Crno Vrilo Zekic ´, Ninski Zadar B\IX\ 1 14 C Z-3399 7560 120 6651 6207 animal bone not reliable Marijanovic ´ 2009 Dra[evac County (upper part) Crno Vrilo Zekic ´, Ninski Zadar A\IA\sterile 14 C Z-3398 6400 110 5563 5205 animal bone not reliable Marijanovic ´ 2009 Dra[evac County (lower part) Crno Vrilo Zekic ´, Ninski Zadar A\IA\1 AMS Beta-222405 6500 60 5561 5338 bone collagen too young| Marijanovic ´ 2009 Dra[evac County (upper part) Crno Vrilo Zekic ´, Ninski Zadar A\1A\ sterile AMS Beta-222406 6820 50 5803 5629 bone collagen Marijanovic ´ 2009 Dra[evac County (lower part) Crno Vrilo Zekic ´, Ninski Zadar A\1A\ sterile AMS Poz-18395 6900 40 5881 5716 bone collagen Marijanovic ´ 2009 Dra[evac County (lower part) Crno Vrilo Zekic ´, Ninski Zadar A\1A\1 AMS Poz-18393 6925 35 5886 5731 bone collagen questionable Marijanovic ´ 2009 Dra[evac County (upper part) Tinj Tinj, Zadar I (pit 1) 14 C GrN-15236 6980 160 6126 5619 high standard Chapman et al. 1991 Benkovac County deviation Tinj Tinj, Zadar I (pit 2) 14 C GrN-15237 6670 260 6081 5046 high standard Chapman et al. 1991 Benkovac County deviation Tinj Tinj, Zadar I (pit 3) 14 C GrN-15238 6280 210 5624 4770 high standard Chapman et al. 1991 Benkovac County deviation Polje ni/e Vrcelji, Zadar trench 1, 14 C Beta-293840 6520 40 5559 5461 charcoral Horvat 2015 Vrcelja Benkovac County upper part Polje ni/e Vrcelji, Zadar lower part 14 C Beta-293835 6480 50 5529 5331 animal bone Horvat 2015 Vrcelja Benkovac County Ra[inovac Piramatovci, {ibenik-Knin SU 3 AMS PSU-5612, 7060 25 6001 5895 bone McClure et al. 2014 Bribir County (upper part) UCIAMS-127394 bos taurus Ra[inovac Piramatovci, {ibenik-Knin SU 3 AMS PSU-6492, 7065 25 6004 5898 bone capra Podrug et al. in press a Bribir County (lower part) UCIAMS-158546 Konjevrate Konjevrate, {ibenik-Knin trench I, AMS PSU-5291, 6655 25 5630 5537 bone McClure et al. 2014 {ibenik County arbitrary layer 1 UCIAMS-116203 ovis aries Konjevrate Konjevrate, {ibenik-Knin trench I, AMS PSU-5557, 6175 30 5218 5038 bone too late for McClure et al. 2014 {ibenik County arbitrary layer 3 UCIAMS-119838 ovis aries Impressed ware Konjevrate Konjevrate, {ibenik-Knin trench III\ AMS PSUAMS-1431 6985 30 5980 5778 bone McClure et al. 2018b {ibenik County arbitrary layer 4 bos taurus Konjevrate Konjevrate, {ibenik-Knin bb\ arbitrary AMS PSUAMS-1432 6950 45 5974 5733 mamal bone McClure et al. 2018b {ibenik County layer 8 Konjevrate Konjevrate, {ibenik-Knin bb\ arbitrary AMS PSUAMS-1433 7000 30 5984 5806 bone McClure et al. 2018b {ibenik County layer 7 Capra hircus Tab. 1. Radiocarbon dates associated with Early Neolithic assemblages of Northern Dalmatia. Sonja Ka;ar 356 factors (the sites could have been submerged due to the Holocene sea-level rise or buried under allu- vial deposits). Lithic analyses have been carried out according to the concepts of chaîne and schéma opératoire, dé- bitage economy and raw material economy (Leroi- Gourhan 1965; Pelegrin 1988; Inizian 1980; Perlès 1980; 1990; 1991; Inizan et al. 1999; Soressi, Gene- ste 2011). When describing stone tools, the typol- ogy established by Didier Binder and further devel- oped by Thomas Perrin is generally used, but in its simplified form (Binder 1987; Perrin et al. 2017). Although the raw material was examined macrosco- pically by the author according to the protocol estab- lished by Bressy in 2003, we are here largely relying on the published and unpublished work of Perho≠ (Perho≠ 2009ab; Perho≠, Altherr 2011; Forenba- her, Perho≠ 2015; 2017; Vukosavljevi≤ et al. 2014; Vukosavljevi≤, Perho≠ 2017; Vujevi≤ et al. 2017; Perho≠, Ruka 2017). However, as his petrographic analysis on the assemblages mentioned in this arti- cle is still in progress, the results presented here should be considered preliminary. Our data will soon be correlated for a final publication, and here I take the opportunity to thank Perho≠ for allowing me use some of his preliminary results. Northern Dalmatia – geographic framework and subsistence strategies Northern Dalmatia, as a central part of the Eastern Adriatic region, includes Zadar and πibenik-Knin county, and spreads roughly from the southern edge of the Velebit mountain to the north to Krka River to the south. In the west, the region includes the Ad- riatic Sea and the Dalmatian islands (from Pag to Zlarin) and, on the east, it spreads to the Dinara mountains which constitute the natural border be- tween Croatia and Bosnia. Unlike the Italian coast- line, which is low and accessible, the Croatian coast is well indented and high (the Dinaric mountain range falls abruptly towards the coast, except for few narrow coastal plains). The relief of Northern Dalmatia is, compared to other parts of the region, less pronounced and characterized by the relative richness of the plains, in particular Ravni Kotari and poljes around πibenik. Almost all known Dalmatian open-air sites are situ- ated here, on the fertile soils and always close to water sources (Fig. 2). The region seems to have been rather densely pop- ulated during the Early Neolithic, with at least 20 open air-sites identified, the occupational sequence of 11 of which was confirmed by excavations (Hor- vat 2017; Podrug et al. in press a). There is still one obvious lack of data to inventory the zooarchaeological and archeobotanical record of the Early Neolithic in Northern Dalmatia, although in the present state of research, analysis broadly shows that the economy of the early Neolithic popu- lation was dominated by ovicaprines for a combined milk-meat husbandry strategy, and that agriculture is based on emmer, einkorn and barley (Radovi≤ 2011; Reed 2015; McClure et al. 2018a). According to the faunal record, it seems that hunt- ing and fishing played only a marginal role, although lithic kits might indicate this practice, notably with the presence of hunting equipment like trapeze ar- rowheads. However, trapeze arrowheads could have also been used in warfare or for some other pur- poses. The paucity of fishing equipment could be explained by the distance of the sites from the larg- er waterbodies, as well as by the perishability of the osseous material, but it can also reflect cultural choi- ces. In this regard, it is worth mentioning the results from the stable isotope analyses conducted recently on Early Neolithic humans from Zemunica cave (near Split in Southern Dalmatia), which show that the diet of these individuals was completely terres- trial, consisting mainly of domesticated animals (Guiry et al. 2017). Fig. 2. Piramatovac valley viewed from the southeast with position of Vrbica site (encircled). Photo by Emil Podrug. Impressed Ware blade production of Northern Dalmatia (Eastern Adriatic, Croatia) in the context of Neolithisation 357 The Neolithisation of the Eastern Adriatic The Neolithisation of the Eastern Adriatic region begins at the onset of the 6 th millennium and it is associated with the Impressed ware culture. During period, the same culture, with some regional diffe- rences in ceramic production which evolved over time, spread on the Italian shore of the Adriatic. The earliest Neolithic sites of Northern Dalmatia are dated from the beginning of 6 th millennium. They are thus contemporary with the oldest Neolithic oc- cupations of the Eastern Adriatic. In the light of new radiocarbon dates, Sta∏o Forenbaher and Preston Miracle (2014) recently revisited their former model of Neolithisation (Forenbaher, Miracle 2005; 2006) arguing that some interactions between local fora- gers and newcomer farmers (whose presence seems only evidenced in caves) took place all over the Ad- riatic coast during the beginning of 6 th millennium and that the real colonization (settlement founda- tion) occurred about 150 year later (c. 5900–5800 cal BC), moving progressively from the south to the north. Recent field research conducted in Northern Dalma- tia slightly modified this model. The early dates for open-air sites like Ra∏inovac and Pokrovnik appear to corroborate the simultaneity of cave and open-air settlements (Müller 1994; McClure et al. 2014), and challenge the proposed anteriority of cave sites over open-air sites (Batovi≤ 1979; Forenbaher, Miracle 2014; Forenbaher, Perho≠ 2017.202). The distinc- tion between cave and open-air sites is purely func- tional (McClure et al. 2014.1036), whereas only the latter can precisely reflect the Neolithic way of life (Guilaine 2005.60). Still, the majority of the open-air sites do not belong to the earliest phase of the Neolithic occupation, but are dated a few centuries later, between 5800 to 5400 cal BC. Moreover, Forenbaher and Miracle reopened the que- stion of the possible west-east direction of coloni- zation (from Apulia to Dalmatia), since the radiocar- bon dates obtained for South Italian villages are somewhat older than the Dalmatian ones (Müller 1994.259; Forenbaher, Miracle 2014.238, Forenba- her, Perho≠ 2015.66; 2017.202–204). However, as already mentioned, the new dates obtained from Pokrovnik and Ra∏inovac place the foundation of those villages at the beginning of 6 th millennium, which sets them as contemporaneous to the South Italian sites. It must be noted that those ‘early’ dates from Apulia (cf. Rendina, Masseria Giufreda and Pu- lo di Molfetta), are problematic, as they show large standard deviations and/or are coming from inse- cure or later contexts (Guilaine et al. 2003.372; Ra- dina 2007; Collina 2009.52,57; Guilbeau 2010.71). Moreover, all the recently obtained radiocarbon dates from the earliest Neolithic occupations of Apulia are still slightly younger then the Dalmatian ones (Bin- der et al. 2017). Thus, if one relies on firm data, the reliable current radiocarbon dates suggest a temporal priority to the Eastern Adriatic open-air sites. However, considering the latest discoveries in the strategies of raw material procurement, pointing to sources on the Gargano promontory, the possibility of Apulian influences in the Neolithisation process in Dalmatia should not be rejected (Forenbaher, Perho≠ 2015; 2017; Podrug et al. in press a). Nevertheless, while the richness of Neolithic sites confirms that that colonization played a major role in establishing a Neolithic way of life, evidence for the presence of last hunter-fisher-gatherers in the Eastern Adriatic is still pretty scarce. In the litera- ture, the open-air site of Lokve is sometimes referred to as Castelnovian (Kom∏o 2007.66; Mihailovi≤ 2009.103; Kaczanowska, Kozłowski 2017.203). However, the related material collected from unse- cure contexts (see Kom∏o 2009.292) displays impor- tant heterogeneity in the both raw material econo- my and typo-technology (Ka≠ar 2019). As already mentioned, thus far, Castelnovian is ab- sent from Dalmatia. Further research is needed in order to demonstrate whether this outlines an histo- rical reality or if this situation is related to some other factors, such as, for example, some shift in the settlement pattern and/or loss of the sites by marine transgression, lack of research, and so on. Lithic production strategies in the Early Neoli- thic of South-eastern Europe and the Central Mediterranean ‘Prismatic blade technology’ or ‘long blade techno- logy’ is often considered to be a part of the so called ‘Neolithic package’, and thus one of the elements that transmits from the Near East to Europe. Without going into further discussion about the con- cept of this ‘package’ and its content, one cannot but Sonja Ka;ar 358 notice the sudden presence of long blades in Neoli- thic contexts all over South-eastern Europe. In order to obtain blade blanks two main knapping techniques are generally used during the European Neolithic: indirect percussion and pressure flaking. The technique of pressure flaking consists of apply- ing great force on one precise point on the platform in order to obtain blades or bladelets. Indirect per- cussion involves the application of an intermediary tool, called a ‘punch’, which can be made of wood, antler or bone (Inizan et al. 1999.32). The main advantage of pressure flaking and indirect percussion over direct percussion is greater produc- tivity and profitability. They both allow a Prehisto- ric knapper to maximize their production since they will obtain a considerable number of blades from a single block. The identification of the two techniques is possible due to experimental work by several archaeologists, like François Bordes, Don Crabtree, Jacques Texier, and Jacques Pelegrin. There are some general mor- phological criteria that individualized the two tech- niques (cf. Inizan et al. 1999; Pelegrin 2012). Thus, the pressure technique is identified by the regular- ity and standardization of blade products. This regu- larity is due to the immobilization of the core and the pressure force that is continuous and intense. Hence, a straight profile, parallel edges and ridges and a constant thickness characterize the blades. On the other hand, blades obtained by indirect percussion are in general larger, but less standardized and cha- racterized by a curved profile. However, as archaeo- logical and experimental examples show, blades ob- tained by indirect percussion can also be very regu- lar, whereas the pressure flaked blades could show high variation in regularity. Besides, one must bear in mind that experimentation conducted with pres- sure flaking is much better documented than experi- mentation on indirect percussion. Although the concept of pressure flaking was known since the Upper Palaeolithic, the two techniques were widely used in blade production since the Late Me- solithic (Binder, Perlès 1990; Inizan et al. 1999). Pressure flaking was widespread during the Late Me- solithic Castelnovian culture in the Mediterranean (Binder 1987; 2010). The closest Castelnovian indu- stries to the region, those from Montenegro, are also characterized by pressure flaking (Ka≠ar 2019). Du- ring the Neolithic, this technique is also common all over the Mediterranean (Binder 1987; 2007; 2010; Perlès 1990; 2001; Horejs et al. 2015) and at least in some parts of South-eastern Europe like Bos- nia and Serbia (I. Jovanovi≤ pers. comm.). The indirect percussion or ‘punch’ technique is pre- sent during the Late Mesolithic in Southern and Northern Europe (Allard 2007.219; Perrin 2009. 518; Ferrari 2011), but it seems marginal in the Castelnovian of Montenegro (Ka≠ar 2019). During the Neolithic, it became the common technique for blade production in different regions of Europe. In- direct percussion is well attested in the Early Neoli- thic Star≠evo-Körös culture (Mateiciucová 2007.701; πo∏i≤-Klind∫i≤, Karavani≤ 2004.26; Karavani≤ et al. 2010.15; pers. comm. J. Pelegrin and I. Jovano- vi≤, personal observations). In the Early Neolithic of Bulgaria (Karanovo I-II), it is a common technique for obtaining long blades (Gurova 2014). However, this technique was not exclusive for producing long and large blanks, since the Star≠evo-Körös assem- blages are characterized by bladelets (Mateiciucová 2007; πo∏i≤-Klind∫i≤, Karavani≤ 2004; Karavani≤ et al. 2010; personal observations). Large butts, some- times concave, pronounced bulbs together with a certain irregularity of blanks, point rather to the use of indirect percussion. As demonstrated above, the archaeological evidence shows that the use of so-called complex débitage techniques (pressure and indirect percussion) is not a Neolithic novelty, but appears from the Late Meso- lithic. However, the almost systematic use of exoge- nous rocks in this production, as recorded in some parts of the South-eastern Europe, is an element spe- cific to the Neolithic. The exploitation of exogenous raw materials certain- ly began in the Mesolithic (or in the final Palaeoli- thic), as evidenced, for example, by the Melian obsi- dian which circulates in the Aegean, but unlike the Neolithic, the production on these exogenous rocks does not differ from that of local rocks, since they are both characterized by an simple technical invest- ment (for an expedient production of flakes, see Perlès 1990; 1991; 2009). In Central and Western Europe, so-called ‘Carpathian’ obsidian and Wommerssom quartzite also appear to circulate over a larger area before the Neolithic (Ma- teiciucová 2007; Kozłowski 2009). Nevertheless, as claimed by Catherine Perlès (2009. 558), “[…] there is no economy of raw materials, Fig. 3. Illustration of known raw material di- stribution networks in the Central Mediterra- nean and the Balkans, during the Early/Middle Neolithic, between c. 6700 and 5000 cal BC (the displayed dates in- dicate the beginning of distribution in the Neo- lithic). Dotted lines: ma- ximum extension of the network in the Early Neo- lithic (light dotted lines with titles in bold repre- sent obsidian distribu- tion networks). A ques- tion mark (?) indicates the presence of high qua- lity chert of unknown, but probable exogenous origin. An asterisk (*) indicate the existence of pre-Neolithic networks (accord- ing to Perlès 1987; 1990; 2004; 2009; Kom∏o 2006; Mateiciucová 2007; Kaczanowska, Kozłowski 2008; Collina 2009; Guilbeau 2010, 2011; Guilbeau, Erdogu 2011; πo∏i≤-Klind∫i≤ 2011; Reingruber 2011; Gurova 2012,2014; Gurova et al. 2016; Conati Barbaro et al. 2014; Freund 2014; 2018; πari≤ 2014; Forenbaher, Perho≠ 2015,2017; Kozlowski, Kaczanowska 2015; Tykot 2014; Dogiama 2018; Starnini et al. 2018; Po- drug et al. in press a; background map by F. Tessier). Impressed Ware blade production of Northern Dalmatia (Eastern Adriatic, Croatia) in the context of Neolithisation 359 in the sense of a differential exploitation”. These exogenous rocks have therefore been exploited in the same way as the local raw material. Conversely, from the Neolithic, a more ‘complex’ raw material economy is implemented, and this change in the exploitation strategies of raw materials is linked to social or economic factors (Perlès 1990; 1991; 2009. 558–563). From the very beginning of the Neolithic (c. 6700– 6000 cal BC), several raw material distribution net- works were operating in the Central Mediterranean and the Balkans (Fig. 3). Those networks differ according to the extension of the network concerned, i.e. according to the distri- bution area: some may be considered local and/or re- gional (for example the ‘Marche’ cherts or the North- ern Bosnian rocks, ‘chocolate flints’ from Northern Greece, Mont Lessini cherts), and others interregio- nal (obsidian from Melos and Lipari, Gargano cherts). Nevertheless, at this stage, the characterization of these networks is limited and requires more in-depth regional studies. Moreover, the size of the territory alone is not sufficient to distinguish a regional net- work from an inter-regional one, but other factors, such as geographical constraints, must be taken into account (for example, ‘Carpathian’ obsidian circu- lates over an territory of significant size, but geogra- phically this is the relatively easily crossed Panno- nian Basin). In Figure 3 we have tried to trace these networks, which in our opinion can indicate not only the contacts between distinct geographical groups, but could also illustrate the routes and directions of Neolithization. In some cases these exogenous rocks of regional/in- terregional origin (‘Silex blond’ from Greece, ‘Balkan flint’/‘white-spotted flint’ in the Central Balkans and Gargano cherts in Southern Italy and Dalmatia) have been exploited in a different way than local cherts, indicating a complex form of techno-economic pro- duction (Perlès 1990; 2009; Collina 2009; Guilbeau 2010; Forenbaher, Perho≠ 2015; Guilbeau, Perlès 2016; Gurova et al. 2016; Ka≠ar 2019). Gargano cherts – an important element of Southern Italian and Dalmatian Impressed Ware culture Recent research has shown that artefacts made from Gargano cherts are recorded at many Early Neolithic sites of Southern Italy (namely from the Northern Apulian Tavoliere region, as well as from Northern Basilicata and Eastern Calabria) and Dalmatia, evi- dencing that those important source deposits have been used since the very beginning of the Neolithic, from c. 6000 cal BC (Collina 2009; 2015; Guilbeau 2011; 2012; Forenbaher, Perho≠ 2015; 2017; Taran- tini 2016; Mazzucco et al. 2018; Ka≠ar 2019). Sonja Ka;ar 360 The Gargano promontory, covering an area of about 2000km 2 , is situated on the western shore of Adria- tic in the vicinity of the Tavoliere plain, where one of the earliest Neolithic sites in Italy were documented. A large network of at least twenty mining sites have been discovered, mostly located on the north-eastern part of the Gargano promontory (between Vieste and Peschici), whose exploitation was dated from the Early Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age, c. 6000–2000 cal BC (Di Lernia et al. 1995; Galiberti 2005; Ta- rantini, Galiberti 2011; Tarantini et al. 2016). Three geological Gargano formations were exploited by prehistoric miners: the Maiolica, Scaglia and Peschici formations (Tarantini et al. 2017). In this region ho- mogenous cherts are abundant, and occur either as large lenticular nodules (Peschici Nummulite plat- form) or in the form of spherical and irregular nod- ules (Maiolica and Scaglia) (for details see Taranti- ni et al. 2017). The Defensola site, situated on the Gargano promon- tory, is considered to be the oldest mine in Europe. Radiocarbon dates indicate that this underground mine was used at least from c. 5800–5700 cal BC (Di Lernia et al. 1995.126–130; Guilbeau 2010.51; Ta- rantini et al. 2017.253) and many Impressa sherds have been collected from here. With regard to the current state of research, there is no evidence pointing to the complex exploitation of such cherts (from the primary sources requiring mi- ning activities) during the Mesolithic. The organisation of lithic blade production in Neolithic Northern Dalmatia The organisation of lithic production, reflected in the prehistoric knapper’s intentions, implies the concept of schéma and chaîne opératoire as well as the con- cepts of raw-material economy and débitage econo- my, and thus examines the lithic artefacts, from their extraction to final consumption (Leroi-Gourhan 1965; Inizan 1980; Perlès 1980; 1990; Soressi, Ge- neste 2011). Raw material procurement Due to the pioneering work of Perho≠, systematic geoarchaeological and petrographic investigations of chert outcrops and artefacts were initiated in the region (Perho≠ 2009ab; Perho≠, Altherr 2011; Fo- renbaher, Perho≠ 2015, 2017; Vukosavljevi≤ et al. 2014; Vukosavljevi≤, Perho≠ 2017; Vujevi≤ et al. 2017). According to recent research, during the Neolithic the Gargano cherts (and specifically the Maiolica- type cherts of Upper Jurassic–Lower Cretaceous age) were almost exclusively used in the production of blades (Forenbaher, Perho≠ 2015; 2017.193; Maz- zucco et al. 2018; Podrug et al. in press a; in press b; Ka≠ar 2019; pers.com. Z. Perho≠). Nevertheless, detailed petrographic characterisation and source identification are often problematic, since a thick white patina covers the majority of artefacts (Forenbaher, Perho≠ 2015; 2017; Podrug et al. in press a; in press b; Ka≠ar 2019). However, that is not the case for the artefacts from Crno Vrilo, as their pri- mary appearance has stayed unchanged. This assem- blage shows an important variability in the colour and structure of this Upper Cretaceous chert that might indicate different sources of procurement with- in the Gargano area, although these claims need to be confirmed by more detailed petrographic analysis. It is important to note that, despite the existence of the seemingly well-organized network of Gargano chert distribution, the Lipari obsidian does not reach the Dalmatian shore before the Middle Neolithic Da- nilo culture (Tykot 2015; Podrug et al. in press b). Besides this exogenous chert, the local Dalmatian cherts are also represented but in smaller quantities and almost exclusively evidenced by flakes and de- bris. The site of Konjevrate seems to be an exception, since local cherts prevail in the assemblage, but its stratigraphy was recently revisited confirming the pre-Neolithic attribution of these industries (Podrug, Ka≠ar in press). Lithic blade production From the very beginning of the Neolithic period in the Eastern Adriatic, the lithic production was orien- tated towards blade production (Müller 1994; Foren- baher, Perho≠ 2015; 2017; Mazzuco et al. 2018; Po- drug et al. in press a). The regularity of the blade edges and ridges and con- stant thickness indicate the use of pressure flaking. According to the lithic assemblages under study here, an average prismatic blade would have been around 14.6mm wide and about 3.8mm thick, and its aver- age length around 48.4 ±22.3mm (Tab. 4). Figure 4 indicates that the débitage aimed to produce blade- lets and blades between 10 and 16mm wide. Based on his experiments, Pelegrin has defined se- veral pressure flaking processes related to the width Impressed Ware blade production of Northern Dalmatia (Eastern Adriatic, Croatia) in the context of Neolithisation 361 of the blade blanks (Pelegrin 1988; 2012.468). The wider the blade is, the stronger must be the pressure exerted to detach the blade. Thus different tools were used in order to develop pressure of different in- tensities, with each tool corresponding to a certain ‘mode’ (for details see Pelegrin 1988; 2012.468). Most (60%) of the Early Neolithic blades from our assemblages evidence the use of a long crutch used in a standing position (mode 4, according to Pele- grin), as their width is between 12 and 16mm – and several pieces reach almost 20mm in width (Fig. 4). The best examples of large blades come from Crno Vrilo, where a few blades of impressive dimensions are preserved. The longest complete example mea- sures 156mm (Korona 2009.154). Along with these specimens there are dozens of pieces whose width exceeds 20mm (Fig. 4). According to Pelegrin’s expe- riments, these specimens could not be detached by abdominal pressure alone (mode 4), since the long crutch used in the standing position cannot provide the necessary pressure. According to traditional experiments, those blades could have been made by indirect percussion or by a more complex pressure mode (mode 5, according to Pelegrin), which consists of the use of a lever de- vice. However, recently, Heredia managed to obtain, in a non-systematic way and with certain difficulties, a few of larger blades (up to 28mm) by abdominal pressure alone, using the crutch with a copper tip in the standing position (mode 4, according to Pelegrin; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kvgaEH-Ll0). While pressure flaking characterizes the Dalmatian blade production, the use of indirect percussion is harder to demonstrate. However, we think that for some specimens, and especially those detached in order to repair the knapping surface (Pl. 2.1–4), the use of indirect percussion cannot be ruled out. On the other hand, the regularity and straightness of some blanks and their constant thickness point in- stead to the use of lever pressure (mode 5, accord- ing to Pelegrin; Pl. 1.1,2,4). The use of lever pres- sure is usually suggested for the production from later periods, for example, the Chalcolithic big bla- des from Karanovo V-VI (Manolakakis 1994). How- ever, such broad blanks are reported since the Early Neolithic in Southern Italy (Guilbeau 2011; Collina 2015) and in Greece (Perlès 1990; Guilbeau, Perlès 2016). Although the blade cores are absent from the assem- blages, the morphology of the blade blanks can in- dicate their form. They were of cylindrical or sub- conical shapes and débitage was always unipolar. The proximal parts of the blades (butts) indicate that the preparation of the striking platform was not systematic (butts are mostly plain and compose 45% of the assemblage, followed by linear with 25%), but the overhangs were carefully removed. Except in Crno Vrilo, lithic finds are scarcely repre- sented in the Dalmatian Early Neolithic assemblages, making the reconstruction of schéma and chaines opératoire somewhat difficult. However, it seems that the Dalmatian assemblages display always par- tial chaînes opératoires, i.e. some technical stages are always missing. Indeed, as already mentioned, the blade cores are always absent while the scarcity of cortical pieces, especially the large and thick ones pointing to decortication, trimming and shaping of the cores, implies that the first stages of reduction occurred somewhere else. Nevertheless, in the assemblages we studied, at least for some sites, there are some elements pointing to the possibility of in situ production. The presence of flakes, cortical flakes and debris, and specifically of technological pieces as core tablets, crested blades, overshot blades and core renewal flakes and blades, could indicate the local production of blades (Tab. 2). The presence of flakes (especially those bearing lami- nar negatives on the dorsal side) indicates in situ production, but one must keep in mind that pres- sure flaking produces few flakes. In this, the flakes are usually produced during the first stages of chaîne opératoire, i.e. core preparation, while small correc- tions of débitage surface/striking platform are most often realized by detachments of thin laminar flakes or small bladelets (Pl. 1.15). The presence, although rare (only 13 pieces from Crno Vrilo assemblage) of flakes bearing laminar negatives on the dorsal side, but which seem not to have been detached in order to rejuvenate the core, might indicate that, after blade production, the exploitation of the cores con- tinues in order to obtain flakes. These flakes, as well as those made of local cherts, could suggest an ad hoc or expedient production, with the expedient pro- ducts being those that “have been manufactured, used, and discarded over a relatively short time pe- riod” (Binford 1977). If this was a case, we can con- sider that the Early Neolithic people from Dalmatia were acquiring (more or less prepared) cores, and not exclusively finished semi-products. We have noted at least three flake cores on Gargano chert (Tab. 2; Pl. 1.16). Tab. 2. Lithic assemblage breakdown by main raw material groups and technological categories (sim- plified). The group ‘patinated, indeterminate, other’ clusters the raw materials which could not be iden- tified due to heavy patina or raw material types for which only a few pieces have been found. For this paper different types of local/regional cherts from Konjevrate were regrouped together as ‘local cherts’ since, according to new excavations, these industries are pre-Neolithic. The technical group ‘core-renewal flakes’ clusters flakes testifying to blade débitage (elements of reparations and flakes with blade’s negatives). Sonja Ka;ar 362 Blades 16 2 18 Cortical blades 4 4 Core renewal blades 4 4 Flakes 35 1 4 40 Cortical flakes 4 4 Core renewal flakes 4 4 Cores Debris 21 2 3 26 Small flakes (≥1cm) 1 1 Tested blocs Total 89 3 9 101 Blades 11 1 1 13 Burin spalls 1 1 Core renewal blades 1 1 Flakes 12 12 1 2 27 Cortical flakes 4 2 6 Core renewal flakes 3 1 4 Cores 1 1 Debris 5 10 2 17 Small flakes (≥1cm) Tested blocs Total 33 27 2 8 70 Blades 40 40 Cortical blades 9 9 Core renewal blades 4 1 5 Flakes 24 3 27 Cortical flakes 3 1 4 Core renewal flakes 6 6 Core 1 1 2 Debris 2 3 1 6 Small flakes (≥1cm) Tested blocs Total 89 4 6 99 Blades 10 2 9 21 Cortical blades 1 2 3 Core renewal blades 3 1 4 Burin spalls 1 1 Flakes 30 7 15 52 Cortical flakes 4 4 8 Core renewal flakes 10 7 17 Core 1 1 Debris 25 5 20 50 Chips 1 1 3 5 Tested blocs 1 2 3 Total 86 3 14 62 165 Blades 200 29 26 255 Cortical blades 14 1 2 17 Core renewal blades 10 2 3 15 Burin spalls 21 1 22 Flakes 405 82 79 48 614 Cortical flakes 47 21 9 6 83 Core renewal flakes 135 23 7 165 tablet 9 2 1 12 Core 1 10 1 12 Debris 96 25 38 21 180 Small flakes (≥1cm) 32 4 36 Tested blocs 1 1 Total 970 141 183 118 1412 Blades 12 34 2 48 Cortical blades 1 6 7 Core renewal blades 3 13 1 17 Burin spalls 3 3 Flakes 24 228 11 44 307 Cortical flakes 3 74 4 9 90 Core renewal flakes 8 66 3 7 84 Cores and fragments 1 67 4 72 – of which for blades 18 Debris and natural 2 155 7 16 180 pieces Small flakes (≥1cm) Tested blocs 5 5 Total 54 651 25 83 813 Superior chert Gargano Mediocre local chert Thermally altered Patinated\indeterm.\other Total Blanc Tinj-Podlivade Ra[inovac Vrbica Polje ni/e Vrcelja Superior chert Gargano Mediocre local chert Thermally altered Patinated\indeterm.\other Total Blanc Crno Vrilo Sector A Konjevrate 88–90 campaign However, we cannot conclude that all the blades were produced in situ. While this may be suggested for blades obtained by abdominal pressure flaking (mode 4), for large blades (≥20 mm), and especial- ly if we consider that they were produced by lever pressure, the introduction as finished semi-products could not be ruled out. Following criteria established by Perlès (1990.27; 2001.208) the lever pressured blades suggest high technological investment and obvious socio-economical specialization. Those blades must have been produced by specialized, well-trained knappers possessing the necessary equipment and who invested time in order to obtain the important knowledge and know-how needed for mastering the Impressed Ware blade production of Northern Dalmatia (Eastern Adriatic, Croatia) in the context of Neolithisation 363 core preparation as the techno- logically most demanding part of the chaîne opératoire. But is it possible to demonst- rate that one population of bla- des (and namely the ‘large’ ones) were introduced as fini- shed semi-products while oth- ers were produced in situ? For example, in the Crno Vrilo assemblage cortical and core- renewal blades, i.e. pieces that might indicate in situ produc- tion, are represented with 32 pieces, whereas the width of eight specimens exceeds 20mm (Fig. 5). Two different hypothesis can be proposed to explain the presence of those specimens. According to the first, the production occurred in situ and those specimens point to the beginning of blade débitage or to the core renewal (technical pieces). The second hypothesis implies that the production occurred somewhere else (and not on the site) and that the blades that we consider today as ‘technical’ were also circulating as finished products. This was sometimes observed in other Neolithic contexts, like in the Chas- séen of Southern France. Here the regular presence of core renewal blades suggests that the robustness of blanks is sought more than their regularity (Léa 2004.135, 147, 164, 169). Besides, in the Crno Vrilo assemblage six specimens that refer either to cortical or core renewal blades (including two ‘larges’ ones) are retouched and/or glossy, while seven others (in- cluding two ‘larges’ ones) have very worn edges, pro- bably indicating their use. Moreover, use-wear ana- lysis of the harvesting techniques on the Dalmatian impressed ware assemblages has shown that the dif- ferent types of blades and bladelets (central, cortical and technical) have been intentionally segmented for use as sickle elements (Mazzucco et al. 2018). On the other hand, and since we consider that for some technical pieces the use of indirect percussion cannot be ruled out, it is possible that some large blades were produced in situ while others (made by lever pressure flaking) could have been introduced as finished semi-products. Future research is needed to clarify the matter. Tools With the introduction of farming, the technical needs of prehistoric societies changed, as witnessed in the lithic tool assemblages. The lithic débitage was now orientated towards blade production in order to ob- tain long, regular and thin blanks that can could hafted onto the wooden or bone handles as sickle implements. The traces of use and the dullness of once sharp edges indicate that the majority of bla- des were used blank. The intensive use of blank bla- des in various activities could produce non-intenti- onal retouch. For that reason, exhaustive typological analyses of Neolithic lithic assemblages are not ne- cessary, but a combined typo-functional approach is needed. Impressed ware assemblages from Northern Dalma- tia indicate that the tools are mostly made on bla- des (Tab. 3). In most cases (46%) the retouches were not carefully made and the majority of tools can be regrouped as ‘pieces with irregular removals’. Other tool groups can be divided as follows: blades with continuous semi-abrupt retouches (11%), blades and bladelets with abrupt retouches (less frequent 6%), drills and ‘becs’ (pointed blades with abrupt and semi- abrupt retouches: 7%), truncations (2%), bitrunca- tions and geometrical trapezes (6%, almost exclu- sively symmetrical, with no use of the microburin technique), and burins and burin spalls (almost only evidenced in the Crno Vrilo assemblage, where it re- presents 19% of all tools). Glossy blades are well re- presented in almost all assemblages (33% of all tools). In Crno Vrilo, for example, 21% of all blades from sector A are characterized by a so-called ‘sickle- gloss’, although their presumed function is yet to be characterized. The notched blades, the typical tools of Castelnovian assemblages, with notches resulting from a voluntary Fig. 4. Distribution of the impressed ware blades according to their width (Ra∏inovac, Vrbica, Polje ni∫e Vrcelja, Tinj-Podlivade, Crno Vrilo, Konje- vrate). Only blades on supposed Gargano cherts were counted. Sonja Ka;ar 364 retouch (Gassin et al. 2013), are almost completely absent from Early Neolithic lithic as- semblages. On the other hand, the production of trapezes continued during the impress- ed ware phase, and these bi- truncated blade fragments are represented with at least 14 pieces (Tab. 3). However, the Castelnovian trapezes are usu- ally made with the microbu- rin technique and are symmet- rical, whereas the Early Neoli- thic ones do not use this tech- nique and are less standard- ized as they generally come in various forms and shapes. Tools made on flakes will not be discussed here, but it can be stated that flake assemblages consist mainly of expedient tools characterized by retouched flakes, scrapers and splintered pieces. Early Neolithic lithic production and its rele- vance to the Neolithisation of the Eastern Ad- riatic From the very beginning of the Neolithic period in both Dalmatia and Apulia, the blade production is characterized by pressure flaking on Gargano cherts (Collina 2009; 2015; Guilbeau 2010; 2011; Foren- baher, Perho≠ 2015; 2017; Mazzucco et al. 2018; Podrug et al. in press a; Ka≠ar 2019). Indirect percussion seems to be used to a much les- ser extent and perhaps mainly for repairing the knap- ping surface or detaching the blades, which would have been too difficult to detach by pressure (Colli- na 2009; 2015; Ka≠ar 2019). As we have seen, both techniques are known from the Late Mesolithic, but the Early Neolithic lithic pro- duction is characterized by more complex procure- ment strategies, as evidenced in the development of sophisticated raw material economy (Binder 1987; Perlès 1990; 1991; 2009; Allard 2007.219; Perrin 2009: 518; Perrin, Binder 2014; Ka≠ar 2019). There is no evidences of complex mining during the Mesolithic, neither on the Italian nor Croatian sides of the Adriatic. It is true that the Mesolithic sites and specifically those belonging to its late phase are ra- ther scarce in the Adriatic region, but even where the Castelnovian is surely attested (Uzzo, Latronico, Ede- ra, Crvena Stijena, Odmut) there are no indications of complex strategies involving interregional net- works of raw material procurement (Collina 2009; Mihailovi≤ 2009; Ka≠ar 2019). Instead, the produc- tion of blade blanks relies on local sources of procu- rement, such as pebbles of small to medium size. The dominance of Gargano cherts in Dalmatia and Apulia assemblages reinforces the idea of cultural unity under the (Italo-Dalmatian) impressed ware Fig. 5. Cortical and technical blades from Crno Vrilo: frequency of blade widths. Tab. 3. Tools on blades: typological breakdown. Crno Ra[inovac Vrbica Tinj Vrcelji Konjevrate Konjevrate TOTAL % Vrilo Gargano other Pieces with irregular removals 72 4 12 5 3 4 3 103 46 Notched pieces 4 1 5 2,2 Pieces with abrupt retouch 8 2 1 2 13 5,8 Pieces with semi-abrupt retouch 13 2 3 1 6 25 11,2 Borers and drills 14 1 15 6,7 Truncations 4 1 5 2,3 Bitruncations 81 41 146,3 Burins and burin spalls 29 1 2 3 35 15,6 Scrapers 3 3 3 9 4 Total tools on blades 155 10 18 9 9 6 17 224 100 of which glossy blades 61 1 6 2 2 1 73 32,5 Impressed Ware blade production of Northern Dalmatia (Eastern Adriatic, Croatia) in the context of Neolithisation 365 ceramic style. The Gargano network spread over South Italy and Dalmatia at the same time, and since the very start of the 6 th millennium BC (Collina 2009; 2015; Guilbeau 2010; 2011; Forenbaher, Per- ho≠ 2015; 2017). This date points to the very beginning of the Neoli- thisation of the whole Adriatic region. The presence of Gargano cherts in Eastern Adriatic assemblages raises many questions, especially why and how this raw material arrived in Dalmatia. Was it necessary because of the lack of good quality raw material or the lack of (locational) knowledge? Or was it a choice due to the social and/or symbolic value of exogenous material? First of all, according to Perho≠’s research there are no comparable (by quality and nodule size) cherts in the Dalmatia, nor in the adjacent regions (Perho≠ 2009ab; Perho≠, Altherr 2011; Forenbaher, Perho≠ 2015; 2017.205; Vukosavljevi≤ et al. 2014; Vuko- savljevi≤, Perho≠ 2017; Vujevi≤ et al. 2017; Podrug et al. in press a; in press b) 1 1 . This implies that Gar- gano cherts were a rare good. In this sense, the pre- ference for Gargano cherts in Dalmatia can be inter- preted by a relative poverty of raw material suitable for complex pressure flaking (Forenbaher, Perho≠ 2017.204–205; Mazzucco et al. 2018; Ka≠ar 2019). However, this does not imply that the Gargano chert distribution has only an economic (utilitarian) role and thus the social aspects of such networks cannot be neglected (Perlès 1990; 2001; 2007; 2009; Foren- baher, Perho≠ 2017.206; Ka≠ar 2019). On the con- trary, the hypothesis of a cultural choice, revealing a social rather than a techical logic (Perlès 2009), must be privileged. Or, as Forenbaher and Perho≠ re- cently concluded “Perhaps the true value and pur- pose of the trans-Adriatic exchange of Gargano cherts was to maintain social networks that link- ed the small farming communities scattered around the Adriatic shores and islands” (Forenbaher, Per- ho≠ 2017.206). According to the same authors, the existence of a Gargano network of distribution from the very be- ginning of the 6 th millennium might hint to the West- East direction of Neolithisation (from Apulia to Dal- matia), supporting the hypothesis that migration played an important role in spread of farming (Fo- renbaher, Perho≠ 2017.204). In this sense the domination of Gargano cherts in the southern Dalmatia as documented in Nakovana cave was interpreted as indicating that the early Neo- lithic occupants of the cave were recent arrivals, not yet possessing the necessary locational knowledge (Forenbaher, Perho≠ 2015.66; 2017.204). However, although these claims sound plausible, one should keep in mind that reliable current radiocar- bon dates show no temporal priority of Italian sites and that many data points are probably lost due to the Holocene sea-level rise. no. 1 14 14 Minimum 37,6 7,1 1,6 Ra[inovac Maximum 37,6 24,5 5,9 Average 37,6 13,3 3,6 SD 4,6 1,1 no. 6 54 54 Minimum 31,9 6 1,7 Vrbica Maximum 71,8 24,3 10,6 Average 55 15,2 4,3 SD 17,4 3,7 1,9 no. 33 280 287 Crno Vrilo Minimum 28,8 4,1 0,9 (Sector A) Maximum 132,5 27,8 8,5 Average 50,9 14,1 3,7 SD 21,5 5,1 1,3 no. 2 26 26 Tinj- Minimum 9,1 4,1 2,3 Podlivade Maximum 84,6 31,5 7 Average 46,9 16,8 4,1 SD 53,4 6,1 1,4 no. 7 28 28 Minimum 17,3 5,5 1,8 Polje ni/e Maximum 50,3 19,3 8,6 Vrcelja Average 34,2 12,8 3,7 SD 10,7 3,3 1,7 no. 1 15 15 Konjevrate Minimum 36,4 6,9 1,6 (campaign Maximum 36,4 26,3 8,3 1988-1990) Average 36,4 14 4 SD 4,2 1,9 no. 50 417 424 Minimum 9,1 4,1 0,9 All sites Maximum 132,5 31,5 10,6 Average 48,4 14,6 3,8 SD 22,3 4,6 1,4 Early Neolithic Impressed Ware Lenght (mm) Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Tab. 4. Blades and bladelets metric data. The length was measured only for complete specimens. 1 However, according to Perho≠’s publication (2009b.48, Fig. 2), one can note the existance of good-quality chert of non-negligible size (c. 10cm) in southern Dalmatia (Stra≠in≠ica, Vela Luka, Kor≠ula). Sonja Ka;ar 366 In order to understand the nature of social interac- tions between western and eastern shores of Adria- tic which might illustrate the alternative routes of Neolithisation, it is necessary to see in which form Gargano cherts arrived in Dalmatia (as finished semi- products or as blade cores) and how they were dis- tributed (by direct or indirect procurement?). Unfortunately, we have seen that, according the cur- rent state of research, it is not clear in which form Gargano cherts reach Dalmatia. However, unlike Fo- renbaher and Perho≠ (2015; 2017), who concluded that the Gargano blades arrived as finished semi- products, we think that the presence of some ele- ments pointing to blade production in situ might also indicate the acquisition of cores, i.e. blade blanks were not exclusively imported. This implies that the chaines opératoires of the Dal- matian and South Italian assemblages do not differ substantially, since the Gargano cherts were intro- duced into the Italian sites as partially worked blocs/ cores in the initial phase or finished blanks, and ne- ver as raw materials (Collina 2009; Guilbeau 2010; 2011). It can thus be presumed that the first phases of re- duction (decortication and trimming) were conduct- ed near or inside the mines (Di Lerna et al. 1995; Tarantini et al. 2016). The shaped blocs, or even more or less finished cores, could then be distributed over the land and sea. This preparation would faci- litate transportation (since the merchandise would have been less heavy) and at the same time ensure the quality of the blocs (cf. Perlès 1990.27). But how were the cherts further distributed? As al- ready mentioned, all the southern Italian assemblages that have been studied with regard to the raw mate- rial economy, and even those situated closest to the Gargano mines (Ripa Tetta) or closest to the littoral (Scamuso), lack any evidence of primal reduction (Collina 2009; 2015). Following this and taking into account the important presence of Gargano arte- facts at the Crno Vrilo site, a simple down-the-line distribution (Renfrew 1984) should be ruled out. Besides, the long-distance procurement that requires navigation skills and some complex logistical organi- sation provides more supports for the idea of trade than direct acquisition (Perlès 1990.17–23; 1992. 116). It is therefore reasonable to assume that the Garga- no mines were held and exploited by a limited group of specialist who controlled the chert distribution as well (Tarantini et al. 2016). If the chert was distributed in the form of more and less prepared cores, then this implies that the most demanding part of the débitage (core preparation) occurred out of the consumer sites. The consumer sites would then receive prepared cores and only needed to detach the blades. This final task – blade detaching – is actually the easiest part of pressure flaking débitage (Binder, Perlès 1990.266; Perlès 2007.57; Abbès 2013). However, we cannot exclude the possibility of inter- mediary site(s) where the blades were produced for trade. One part of Gargano artefacts was probably circulated as finished products and the lever pres- sured blades could have been traded this way (Col- lina 2009; 2015; Forenbaher, Perho≠ 2015; 2017; Mazzucco et al. 2018; Ka≠ar 2019). Those sites could have been located on the coast and thus today would be submerged. The blades manufactured with lever pressure seem to be present in Dalmatia since the very beginning of the Neolithic. They are reported at the oldest lev- els of Pokrovnik, dated to c. 6000 cal BC (Mazzuco et al. 2018). The technique of lever pressure is un- doubtedly a Neolithic innovation: it is recorded in a few Neolithic contexts, but never earlier (Pelegrin 2006; Guilbeau, Perlès 2016.3). To sum up, although the size and the means of the Gargano chert distribution network and its relevance to the Neolithisation dispersion routes have yet to be solved, it is clear that this complex economy of raw material reflects social choices that are specific to the Neolithic. Moreover, even though the pressure blade flaking technology emerged in the Balkans during the 7 th millennium, as witnessed in the Montenegrin Late Mesolithic Castelnovian industries (with the blank size pointing to the use of a short crutch, mode 3, according to Pelegrin 1988; 2012), at the onset of Neolithic period more complex modes (modes 4 and 5 according to Pelegrin 1988; 2012) of pressure flak- ing were developed in connection with a new inter- regional procurement network centred in the Garga- no area. It thus seems that we may be dealing with two distant phenomena of probably different ori- gins. The origin of Castelnovian pressure blade pro- duction might be in North Africa (Marchand, Per- rin 2017), whereas impressed ware pressure blade production is closely connected to processes of Neo- Impressed Ware blade production of Northern Dalmatia (Eastern Adriatic, Croatia) in the context of Neolithisation 367 lithisation. The latter shows great connections with Italian impressed ware industries and Greek Early Neolithic industries, both in complex raw material procurement strategies and production techniques, and might thus originate from the Near-East (Turkey or Levant) (Perlès 1990; 2001; Binder 2007; Guil- beau 2010; 2011; 2017; Guilbeau, Perlès 2016; Ho- rejs et al. 2015). In other words, the Early Neolithic blade production of Dalmatian impressed ware should be considered as integral part of the Neoli- thic package, showing no connections to the Cas- telnovian or any other Mesolithic lithic traditions. Conclusion Interactions between the eastern and western shores of the Adriatic seemed to have maintained the Neoli- thisation process in this part of Mediterranean: the importation of Gargano cherts in Dalmatian lithic as- semblages parallels the expansion of the Impressed ware culture and the new type of economy, based on subsistence production. The beginning of the Neoli- thic period in Dalmatia is thus characterized by pro- found economic, technical, social and cultural chan- ges that also affected lithic assemblages, since the earliest impressed ware lithic production shows no links to the previous periods. The author would like to thank Zlatko Perho≠, Sta∏o Forenbaher, Catherine Commenge, Denis Guilbeau, Emil Podrug, Thomas Perrin, Nicolas Tardy, Frede- ric Abbès, Jacqueline Balen, Marcel Buri≤, Natalija ∞ondi≤, Ivana Galovi≤, Kristina Horvat, Jelena Jo- vi≤, Florine Marchand, Sarah McClure, Jean Vaquer, Jakov Vu≠i≤ and Dario Vujevi≤ for their help and to a reviewer, Boris Kavur, for his comments, which have helped to improve the paper. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS References ∴ ∴ Abbès F. 2013. Quelques réflexions sur les débitages de lame de silex par pression. ArchéOrient- Le Blog (Hypo- theses.org), 27 septembre 2013. http://archeorient.hypotheses.org/1672 Allard P. 2007. Mesolithic- Neolithic transition in Paris Ba- sin: A review. In A. Whittle, V. Cummings (eds.), Going over. Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Northern Europe. Proceedings of the British Academy 144. Oxford Univer- sity Press. Oxford: 209–221. Bass B. 1998. Early Neolithic offshore accounts: remote islands, maritime exploitations, and the trans-Adriatic cul- tural network. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 11(2): 165–190. Batovi≤ π. 1979. Jadranska zona. In A. Benac (ed.), Prais- torija jugoslavenskih zemalja 2: Neolitsko doba. Akade- mija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Sarajevo: 62–127. Benac A. 1955. Crvena Stijena (I-IV stratum). Glasnik Ze- maljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine. Arheologija XIII: 19–50. Biagi P. 2003. The Late Mesolithic in Italy. In A. J. Ammer- man, P. Biagi (eds.), The Widening Harvest: The Neoli- thic Transition in Europe: Looking Back, Looking For- ward. Colloquia and Conference Papers 6. Archeological Institute of America. Boston, Massachusetts: 133–156. Binder D. 1987. Le Néolithique ancien provençal: typo- logie et technologie des outillages lithiques. Gallia Préhi- stoire, supplément XXIV. Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique. Paris. 2007. PPN Pressure Technology: views from Anatolia. In L. Astruc, D. Binder, and F. Briois (ed.), Technical systems and PPN communities in the near East. As- sociation pour la promotion et la diffusion des connais- sances archéologiques. Antibes: 235–43. 2010. Mésolithique et Néolithique ancien en Italie et dans le sud-est de la France entre 7000 et 5500 BCE cal: questions ouvertes sur les dynamiques culturelles et les procès d’interaction. In T. Perrin, C. Manen, G. Mar- chand, P. Allard, D. Binder, and M. Ilett (eds.), Transi- tions, ruptures et continuité durant la Préhistoire. XXVIIe Congrès préhistorique de France, session H. Pa- ris. Société Préhistorique Française. Bordeaux: 341–355. Binder D., Perlès C., Inizan M.-L., and Lechevallier M. 1990. Stratégies de gestion des outillages lithiques au Néolithi- que. Paléo 2(1): 257–283. Binder D., Collina C., Guilbert R., Perrin T., and Garcia- Puchol O. 2012. Pressure-knapping blade production in the north-western Mediterranean region during the sev- enth millennium cal BC. In P. Desrosiers (ed.), The Emer- gence of Pressure Blade Making. Springer. Boston, Mas- sachusetts: 199–217. Sonja Ka;ar 368 Binder D. and 23 co-authors 2017. Modelling the earliest north-western dispersal of Mediterranean Impressed Wa- res: new dates and Bayesian chronological model. Docu- menta Praehistorica: 44: 54–77. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.44.4 Binford L. R. 1977. Forty-seven trips: A case study in the character of archaeological formation processes. In R. V. S. Wright (ed.), Stone tools as cultural markers: change, evolution and complexity. Prehistory and Material Cul- ture. Series 12. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Canberra: 24–36. Bressy C. 2003. Caractérisation et gestion du silex des si- tes mésolithiques et néolithiques du Nord-Ouest de l’arc alpin. Une approche pétrographique et géochimique. Bri- tish Archaeological Reports IS 1114. Archaeopress. Oxford. Bronk Ramsey C. 2009. Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon 51(1): 337–360. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200033865 Brusi≤ Z. 1995. Naselje iz starijeg neolitika u Vrbici kod Bribira. Diadora 16–17: 1–21. Chapman J. C., Shiel J. R., and Batovi≤ π. 1996. The Chang- ing Face of Dalmatia. Leicester University Press. London. Collina C. 2009. Evolution des industries lithiques du Néolithique ancien en Italie du sud. PhD dissertation. University of Provence/ Sapienza University of Rome. Aix- Marseille 1. 2015. Le Néolithique ancien en Italie du sud. Evolu- tion des industries lithiques entre VII e et VI e millé- naire. Archaeopress. Oxford. Conati Barbaro B., La Marca C., and Silano C. 2014. La neolitizzazione delle Marche: nuovi dati e prospettive di ricerca. Picus XXXIV: 77–91. ∞e≠uk B. 1974. Kamene i ko∏tane rukotvorine Markove spilje II. Arheolo∏ki radovi i rasprave 7: 221–256. 1976. Kamena i ko∏tana industrija iz Markove spilje. In Batovi≤ π. (ed.), Materijali XII. IX. Kongres arheologa Jugoslavije, Zadar 1972. Hrvatsko arheolo∏ko dru∏tvo. Zadar: 47–54. ∞e≠uk B., Radi≤ D. 2005. Vela Spila. Vi∏eslojno pretpo- vijesno nalazi∏te Vela Luka- otok Kor≠ula. Centar za kul- turu “Vela Luka”. Vela Luka. Di Lernia S., Fiorentino G., Galiberti A., and Basili R. 1995. The Early Neolithic mine of Defensola “A” (I18): flint ex- ploitation in the Gargano area. Archaeologia Polonia 33: 119–132. Dogiama L. 2018. Casting a wide Network: Preliminary resuts from the Early Neolithic Chipped Stone from Ra- venia, Pieria, Greece. In A. Sarris, E. Kalogiropoulou, T. Kalayci, and L. Karimali (eds.), Communities, Landsca- pes, and Interaction in Neolithic Greece. Proceedings of the International Conference, Rethymno 29–30 May, 2015. International Monographs in Prehistory. Archaeolo- gical Series 20. Ann Arbor: 446–480. Ferrari S. 2011. Il Mesolitico recente in Emilia e il com- plesso culturale castelnoviano: dinamiche insediative e sistemi tecnici litici. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Uni- versity of Ferrara. Ferrara. Fontana A., Corregiari A., and Jura≠i≤ M. 2014. Il mare Adriatico dall’ultima glaciazione a oggi: evoluzione geo- morfologica e aspetti paleoambientali. / The Adriatic Sea from the last glaciation until today: geomorphological evolution and paleoenvironmental aspects. In P. Visenti- ni, E. Podrug (eds.), Adriatico senza confini.Via di co- municazione e crocevia di popoli nel 6000 a.C./The Adriatic, a sea without borders:communication routes of populations in 6000 BC. Civici Musei di Udine. Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale. Udine: 23–41. Forenbaher S. 2006. Flaked stone artefacts. In P. T. Mi- racle, S. Forebaher (eds.), Prehistoric Herders of north- ern Istria. The Archaeology of Pupi≤ina Cave 1/1. Mono- grafije i katalozi 14. Pula: 225–258. Forenbaher S., Kaiser T. 2008. Grap≠eva Spilja: Prapo- vijesni stan, tor i obredno mjesto (Rezultati arheolo∏- kog istra∫ivanja 1996 godine). Knji∫evni Krug. Split. Forenbaher S., Kaiser T., and Miracle P. T. 2013. Dating the East Adriatic Neolithic. European Journal of Archaeo- logy 16(4): 589–609. https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957113Y.0000000038 Forenbaher S., Miracle P. T. 2005. The Spread of Farming in the Eastern Adriatic. Antiquity 79: 514–528. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00114474 2006. Pupi≤ina Cave and the Spread of Farming in the Eastern Adriatic. In P. T., Miracle, S. Forebaher (ed.), Prehistoric Herders of northern Istria. The Archaeo- logy of Pupi≤ina Cave 1/1. Monografije i katalozi 14. Pula: 483–519. 2014. Transition to farming in the Adriatic: a view from the eastern shore. In C. Manen, T. Perrin, and J. Gui- laine (eds.), La Transitions en Méditerranée ou com- ment les chasseurs devinrent agriculteurs (Epipaléo- lithique, Mésolithique, Néolithique ancien). Actes du colloque, Museum de Toulouse, 14–15 avril 2011. Édi- tions Errance / Archives d’Écologie Préhistorique. Arles: 71–77. Impressed Ware blade production of Northern Dalmatia (Eastern Adriatic, Croatia) in the context of Neolithisation 369 Forenbaher S., Perho≠ Z. 2015. Lithic artifacts from Nako- vana (Pelje∏ac): Continuity and Change from Early Neoli- thic until the end of Prehistory. Prilozi Instituta za ar- heologiju 32: 5–74. https://hrcak.srce.hr/148843 2017. Lithic Assemblages from Nakovana (Croatia): Raw Material Procurement and Reduction Technology from the Early Neolithic until the End of Prehistory. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 30(2): 189– 211. https://doi.org/10.1558/jmea.35405 Freund K. P. 2018. A long-term perspective on the exploi- tation of Lipari obsidian in central Mediterranean prehi- story. Quaternary International 468: 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.10.014 Gassin B., Marchand G., Claud É., Gueret C., and Philibert S. 2013. Les lames à coches du second Mésolithique: des outils dédiés au travail des plantes? Bulletin de la Socié- té préhistorique française 110(1): 25–46. Guilaine J. 2005 [1994]. La mer partagée: la Méditerra- née avant l’écriture: 7000–2000 avant Jésus-Christ. Ha- chette Littérature. Paris. Guilaine J., Gasco J., Evin J., and Valladas H. 2003. Torre Sabea et la chronologie absolue méditerranéenne. In J. Guilaine, G. Cremonesi (eds.), Torre Sabea. Un établisse- ment du Néolithique ancien en Salento. Collection de l’École française de Rome 315. École Française de Rome. Rome : 368–373. Guilbeau D. 2010. Les grandes lames et les lames par pression au levier du Néolithique et de l’Énéolithique en Italie. Unpublished PhD dissertation. École doctorale Mili- eux, cultures et sociétés du passé et du présent, Universi- té Paris Nanterre. http://www.theses.fr/2010PA100146 2011. Le début du Néolithique en Italie méridionale: ce que nous disent les productions en silex du Gargano. Origini XXXIII, Nuova Serie V: 83–106. in press (2017). The organization of the Aegean first farming communities through the technological study of the chipped stones. The example of Ugurlu-Zeytinlik (Gökçeada Island, Turkey). In Godon M. (ed.), Merging techniques & cultures. Technological Approaches in Archaeology. Institut Français d'Études Anatoliennes. Istanbul. Guilbeau D., Erdogu B. 2011. Des “lames de Karanovo” dans le site neolithique d’Ugurlu (ile de Gökçeada, Tur- quie). Bulletin de correspondance Hellénique 135: 1–19. Guilbeau D., Perlès C. 2016. Please help us find the ori- gins of Greek and Italian Early Neolithic lever pressure- flaking! Paper presented at the 8 th International Confe- rence on PPN Chipped and Ground Stone Industries of the Near East: Near Eastern Lithic Technologies on the Move – Interactions and Contexts in the Neolithic Tra- ditions at the University of Cyprus in Nicosia, 23–27 No- vember 2016. Guiry E., Karavani≤ I., Klind∫i≤ πo∏i≤ R., Talamo S., Rado- vi≤ S., and Richards M. P. 2017. Stable Isotope Palaeodie- tary and Radiocarbon Evidence from the Early Neolithic Site of Zemunica, Dalmatia, Croatia. European Journal of Archaeology 20(2): 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2016.24 Gurova M. 2012. “Balkan flint”– fiction and/or trajectory to the Neolithisation: Evidence from Bulgaria. Bulgarian e-Journal of Archaeology 1: 15–49. https://be-ja.org/index.php/Be-JA/article/view/56 2014. Neolithic flint assemblages from Bulgaria: an overview. Samarsky nauchny vestnik 3(8): 94–108. Gurova M., Andreeva P., Stefanova E., Stefanov Y., Ko≠i≤ M., and Bori≤ D. 2016. Flint raw material transfers in the prehistoric Lower Danube Basin: An integrated analytical approach. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5: 422–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.12.014 Horejs B., Mili≤ B., Ostmann F., Thanheiser U., Weninger B., and Galik A. 2015. The Aegean in the Early 7 th Millen- nium BC: Maritime Networks and Colonization. Journal of World Prehistory 28: 289-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-015-9090-8 Horvat K. 2015. Polje ni∫e Vrcelja – an early Neolithic site in the Benkovac aerea. Vjesnik za arheologiju i histori- ju dalmatinsku 105: 9–35. 2017. Ambijentalne osnove razvoja neoliti≠kih zajed- nica isto≠nog Jadrana – primjer benkova≠kog pod- ru≠ja. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Za- dar. Zadar. Inizan M.-L. 1980. Séries anciennes et économie du dé- bitage. Préhistoire et technologie lithique. Publications de l’URA 28, Cahier 1 du CRA. Éditions du Centre natio- nal de la recherche scientifique. Paris: 28–30. Inizan M-L., Redouron-Balinger M., Roche H., and Tixier J. 1999. Technology and terminology of knapped stone. Préhistoire de la pierre taillée. Tome 5. Cercle de recher- ches et d'études préhistoriques. Nanterre. Kaczanowska M., Kozłowski J. K. 2008. The Körös and the early Eastern Linear Culture in the northern part of the Carpathian Basin: a view from the perspective of lithic in- dustries. Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis 7: 9–22. Sonja Ka;ar 370 2017. The Mesolithic lithic industries of the Eastern Ad- riatic zone. Folia Quaternaria 86: 191–215. http://www.ejournals.eu/FQ/2018/Vol-86/art/13386 Ka≠ar S. 2019. Les sociétés mésolithiques de l'arc adri- atique oriental: des origines à la néolithisation, de l’Is- trie aux côtes épirotes. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Toulouse 2- Jean Jaurès/University of Zag- reb. Toulouse – Zagreb. Karavani≤ I., πo∏i≤ Klind∫i≤ R., Bun≠i≤ M., and Kurtenjak D. 2010. Chipped stone assemblage from the Early Neoli- thic site of Zadubravlje. Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu 26(1): 5–20. Kom∏o D. 2007. Mezolitik u Hrvatskoj./Mesolithic in Cro- atia. Opuscula archaeologica 30: 55–92. 2009. Upland colonisation, patterns of settling and ha- bitation in Northern Istria, Croatia. In S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren, and P. Woodman (eds.), Mesoli- thic Horizons. Proceedings of the Seventh Internatio- nal Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe. Congress in Belfast (MESO 2005). Oxbow Books. Oxford: 288–295. Korona M. 2009. Kremeni artefakti. In B. Marijanovi≤ (ed.), Crno Vrilo 2. Sveu≠ili∏te u Zadru. Odjel za arheolo- giju. Zadar: 145–217. Kozłowski J. K. 1982. La Néolithisation de la zone balka- no-danubienne du point de vue des industries lithiques. In J. K. Kozłowski (ed.), Origin of the Chipped Stone In- dustries of the Early Farming Cultures in Balkans. Panst- wowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe Warszawa. Warszawa-Kra- kow: 131–170. Kozłowski J. K., Kaczanowska M. 2015. Mavropigi chipped stone assemblage. In G. Karamitrou-Mentessidi, N. Efstra- tiou, M. Kaczanowska, and J. K. Kozłowski (eds.), Early Neolithic settlement of Mavropigi in Western Greek Ma- cedonia. Eurasian Prehistory 12(1–2): 71–115. Kozłowski S. K. 1987. The Pre-Neolithic base of the early Neolithic stone industries in Europe. In J. K. Kozłowski, S. K. Kozłowski (eds.), Chipped stone industries of the early farming cultures in Europe. Papers of the Intern. Sympo- sium/ Warsaw University, Jagiellonian University Cracow, held at Krakow-Mogilany in October 1985. Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Archaeologia interregiona- lis. Warsaw: 9–18. 2009. Thinking Mesolithic. Oxbow Books. Oxford. Léa V. 2004. Les industries lithiques du Chasséen en Languedoc oriental. Caractérisation pour l’analyse tech- nologique. British Archaeological Reports IS 1232. Archa- eopress. Oxford. Leroi-Gourhan A. 1965. Le geste et la parole. Volume 2: la mémoire et les rythmes. Bibliothèque Albin Michel. Sciences. Manolakakis L. 1996. Production lithique et émergence de la hiérarchie sociale: l’industrie lithique de l’énéolithique en Bulgarie: première moitié du IVe millénaire. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 93(1): 119–123. Marchand G., Perrin T. 2017. Why this revolution? Ex- plaining the major technical shift in Southwestern Europe during the 7 th millennium cal. BC. Quaternary Interna- tional 428: 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.07.059 Markovi≤ ∞. 1985. Neolit Crne Gore. Centar za Arheolo∏- ka Istra∫ivanja Filozofskog Fakulteta u Beogradu. Knjiga 5. Univerzitet u Beogradu. Filozofski Fakultet. Beograd. Marijanovi≤ B. 2007. Neka pitanja ranog neolitika isto≠- nog Jadrana. Archaeologia Adriatica 1(1): 7–54. 2009. Crno Vrilo 1. Sveu≠ili∏te u Zadru. Odjel za arheo- logiju. Zadar. Mateiciucová I. with the contribution of Malecka-Kukaw- ska J. 2007. Worked stone: obsidian and flint. In A. Whit- tle (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös Culture site of Ecseg- falva 23, County Békés. Varia archaeologica Hungarica, vol. 21. Institute of Archaeology. Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Budapest: 677–726. Mazzucco N., Guilbeau D., Ka≠ar S., Podrug E., Forenbaher S., Radi≤ D., and Moore A. 2018. The Time is Ripe for a Change. The Evolution of Harvesting Technologies in Central Dalmatia During the Neolithic Period (6 th Millen- nium cal BC). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 51: 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2018.06.003 McClure S., Podrug E., Moore M. T. A., Culleton B., and Kennet J. D. 2014. AMS 14 C chronology and ceramic se- quences of early farmers in the eastern Adriatic. Radio- carbon 56(3): 1019–1038. https://doi.org/10.2458/56.17918 McClure S. B., Magill C., Podrug E., Moore A. M. T., Harper T. K., Culleton B. J., Kennett D. J., and Freeman K. H. 2018a. Fatty acid specific δ 13 C values reveal earliest Me- diterranean cheese production 7,200 years ago. PLoS ONE 13(9): e0202807. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202807 McClure S. B., Podrug E., and Kennett D. J. 2018b. Ra- diocarbon Dates from Konjevrate, Croatia. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.18113/S1SS77 Impressed Ware blade production of Northern Dalmatia (Eastern Adriatic, Croatia) in the context of Neolithisation 371 Men∂u∏i≤ M. 1998. Neoliti≠ka naselja na ∏ibensko-drni∏- kom podru≠ju, in: Podru≠je ∏ibenske ∫upanije od pretpo- vijesti do srednjeg vijeka. Znanstveni skup πibenik 18–20 october 1995. Hrvatsko Arheolo∏ko Dru∏tvo 19: 47–62. Mihailovi≤ D. 2009. Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic chip- ped stone industries from Crvena Stijena. Prehistoric set- tlements in caves and rockshelters of Serbia and Monte- negro, fascicule II. Centre for Archaeological Research. Fa- culty of Philosophy. University of Belgrade. Belgrade. Müller J. 1994. Das ostadriatische Frühneolithikum, Die Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adriarau- mes. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, Band 9. Wissenschaftsverlag Volker Spiess. Berlin. Pelegrin J. 1988. Débitage expérimental par pression, “du plus petit au plus grand”. In J. Tixier (ed.), Technologie préhistorique. Centre national de la recherche scientifi- que. Unités de Recherche Associées 28. Éditions du CNRS. Paris: 37–53. 2006. Long blade technology in the Old World: an ex- perimental approach and some archaeological results. Skilled Production and Social Reproduction. Stone Stu- dies 2: 37–68. 2012. New Experimental Observations for the Charac- terization of Pressure Blade Production Techniques. In P. M. Desrosiers (ed.), The Emergence of Pressure Blade flaking. From origin to modern Experimentation. Springer: 465–500. Perho≠ Z. 2009a. Sources of chert in Middle Dalmatia. Supplying raw material to prehistoric lithic industries. In S. Forenbaher (ed.), A Connecting Sea. A Maritime In- teraction in Adriatic Prehistory. British Archaeological Reports IS 2037. Archaeopress. Oxford: 25–47. 2009b. Sources of chert for prehistoric lithic industries in middle Dalmatia. Archeometriai Mühely 6(3): 45–56. Perho≠ Z., Altherr R. 2011. Lithic finds from the Island of Su∏ac. Opuscula archaeologica 35: 7–35. Perho≠ Z., Ruka R. 2017. Potential Prehistoric Sources of Chert in the Western Lowland of Albania. In Procedings of the International Conference: New Archaeological Discoveries in the Albanian Regions. 30–31 January, Ti- rana. Academy for Albanian Studies. Institute of Archeo- logy. Tirana: 33–65. Perlès C. 1980. Économie de la matière première et éco- nomie du débitage: deux exemples grecs. Préhistoire et technologie lithique, Cahiers no. 1 de l’URA 28, Centre na- tional de la recherche scientifique. Paris: 37–41. 1990. L’outillage de pierre taillée néolithique en Grèce: approvisionnement et exploitation des matières premiè- res. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 114(1): 1–42. 1991. Économie des matières premières et économie du débitage: deux conceptions opposées. 25 ans d’étu- des technologiques en préhistoire: Bilan et perspecti- ves. Actes des XI èmes rencontres internationales d’ar- chéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes, Editions APDCA, Juan- les-Pins: 35-45. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Cambridge. 2007. Échanges et technologie: l’exemple du Néolithi- que. In Evin J. (ed.), Un siècle de construction du dis- cours scientifique en Préhistoire. Volume III. Aux conceptions d’aujourd’hui. Congrès du centenaire de la Société préhistorique française / XXVI e Congrès pré- historique de France, Avignon, 21–25 septembre 2004. Société Préhistorique Française. Paris: 53–62. 2009. Les industries lithiques néolithiques: logiques techniques et logiques sociales. De Méditerranée et d’ail- leurs... Mélanges offerts à Jean Guilaine. Archives d’é- cologie préhistorique: 557–571. Perrin T. 2009. New perspectives on the Mesolithic/Neoli- thic transition in northern Italy. In S. McCartan, R. Schul- ting, G. Warren, and P. Woodman (ed.), Mesolithic Hori- zons, volume II. Oxbow Books. Oxford: 514–520. Perrin T., Binder D. 2014. Le Mésolithique à trapèzes et la néolithisation de l’Europe sud-occidentale. In C. Manen, T. Perrin, and J. Guilaine (eds.), La transition néolithique en Méditerranée, ou comment des chasseurs devinrent agriculteurs. Actes du colloque, Muséum de Toulouse, 14– 15 avril 2011. Éditions Errance/Archives d’Écologie Pré- historique. Arles: 271–281. Perrin T., Angelin A., and Defranould E. 2017. Liste typo- logique pour les industries de pierre taillée de la Préhi- stoire récente européenne, version 2018–02, en ligne. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01638819 Podrug E. 2013. Neolithic Immovable Finds in the πibenik Area. Diadora 26/27: 185–212. Podrug E., McClure S., Perho≠ Z., Ka≠ar S., Reed K., and Za- vodny E. in press a. Ra∏inovac kod Ωdrapnja (Sjeverna Dal- macija) – nalazi∏te ranog neolitika. Archaeologia Adria- tica. Podrug E. and 14 co-authors. in press b. Kriva≠e – rezulta- ti arheolo∏kog iskopavanja srednjeneoliti≠kog naselja i geolo∏kog istra∫ivanja paleojezera u Bribirsko-ostrovi≠- Sonja Ka;ar 372 kom polju (sjeverna Dalmacija). Obavijesti Hrvatskog Ar- heolo∏kog Dru∏tva. Hrvatsko arheolo∏ko dru∏tvo. Zagreb. Podrug E., Ka≠ar S. in press. Lokalitet Konjevrate-Grob- lje. Hrvatski Arheolo∏ki Godi∏njak. Radina F. 2007. L’insediamento preistorico al Pulo di Mol- fetta. In F. Radina (ed.), Natura, Archeologia e Storia del Pulo di Molfetta. Bari. Radovi≤ S. 2011. Ekonomija prvih sto≠ara na isto≠nom Jadranu: zna≠enje lova i sto≠arstva u prehrani neoliti≠- kih ljudi. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Zag- reb. Zagreb. Reed K. 2015. From the Field to the Hearth: Plant Remains from Neolithic Croatia (ca. 6000–4000 cal BC). Vegeta- tion History and Archaeobotany 24(5): 601–619. Reimer P. and 25 co-authors 2013. IntCal13 and Marine 13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0–50,000 Years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4): 1869–1887. https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947 Reingruber A. 2011. Early Neolithic settlement patterns and exchange networks in the Aegean. Documenta Prae- historica 38: 291–305. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.38.23 Renfrew C. 1984. Approach to Social Archaeology. Edin- burge University Press. Edinburgh. Soressi M., Geneste J.-M. 2011. The History and Efficacy of the Chaîne Opératoire Approach to Lithic Analysis: Stu- dying Techniques to Reveal Past Societies in an Evolutio- nary Perspective. In G. B. Tostevin (ed.), Reduction Se- quence, Chaîne Opératoire and Other Methods: The Epi- stemologies of Different Approaches to Lithic Analysis. PaleoAnthropology 2011. Special Issue: 334–350. http://doi.org/10.4207/PA.2011.ART63 Suri≤ M. 2006. Promjene u okoli∏u tijekom mla∂eg ple- istocena i holocena – zapisi iz morem potopljenih siga isto≠nog Jadrana. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Univer- sity of Zagreb. Zagreb. Starnini E., Biagi P., and Mazzucco N. 2018. The begin- ning of the Neolithic in the Po Plain (northern Italy): Pro- blems and perspectives. Quaternary International 470: 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.05.059 πari≤ J. 2014. Artefakti od okresanog kamena u starijem i srednjem neolitu na tlu Srbije. Arheolo∏ki Institut. Beo- grad. πo∏i≤-Klind∫i≤ R. 2011. The supply system of siliceous rocks between the Drava, Sava and Danube rivers during the Star≠evo culture. Documenta Praehistorica 38: 345– 356. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.38.27 πo∏i≤ R., Karavani≤ I. 2004. Cijepani liti≠ki materijal s pra- povijesnog nalazi∏ta Slav≠a, Nova Gradi∏ka. Vjesnik Arhe- olo∏kog muzeja u Zagrebu 37(1): 17–41. πo∏i≤ Klind∫i≤ R., and 13 co-authors. 2015. Late Upper Pa- leolithic, Early Mesolithic and Early Neolithic from the Cave Site Zemunica near Bisko (Dalmatia, Croatia). Eura- sian Prehistory 12(1–2): 3–46. Tarantini M., Galiberti A. 2011. Le miniere di selce del Gargano, VI-III millennio a.C. Alle origini della storia mineraria europea. Rassegna di Archeologia – Preistoria e Protostoria 24A. All’Insegna del’Giglio. Firenze. Tarantini M., Eramo G., Monno A., and Muntoni I. M. 2016. The Gargano Promontory Flint. Mining Practices and Ar- chaeometric Characterisation. In A. Tomasso, D. Binder, G. Martino, G. Porraz, P. Simon, and N. Naudinot (eds.), Ressources lithiques, productions et transferts entre Al- pes et Méditerranée. Actes de la journée de la Société pré- historique française de Nice, 28–29 mars 2013, Séances de la Société préhistorique française 5. Société préhisto- rique Française. Paris: 257–275. Turk I. 2004. Viktorjev Spodmol in Mala Triglavca. Pri- spevki k poznavanju mezolitskega obdobja v Sloveniji/ Viktorjev spodmol and Mala Triglavca. Contributions to understanding the Mesolithic period in Slovenia. Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 9. In∏titut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU. Ljubljana. Tykot R. H. 2014. Obsidian use and trade in the Adriatic. In P. Visentini, E. Podrug (eds.), Adriatico senza confini. Via di comunicazione e crocevia di popoli nel 6000 a.C./The Adriatic, a sea without borders: communica- tion routes of populations in 6000 BC. Civici Musei di Udine. Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale: 171–181. Vujevi≤ D., Perho≠ Z., and Ivan≠i≤ T. 2017. Micro-Mouste- rian in Northern Dalmatia. Quaternary International 450: 50–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.11.019 Vukosavljevi≤ N., Perho≠ Z., and Altherr R. 2014. Prijelaz iz pleistocena u holocen u pe≤ini Vlakno na Dugom otoku (Dalmacija, Hrvatska) – liti≠ka perspektiva / Pleistocene- Holocene transition in the Vlakno Cave on the island of Dugi otok (Dalmatia, Croatia) – lithic perspective. Prilozi instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu 31: 5–72. Vukosavljevi≤ N., Perho≠ Z. 2017. Lithic raw material pro- curement of the Late Epigravettian hunter-gatherers from Kopa≠ina Cave (island of Bra≠, Dalmatia, Croatia). Quater- nary International 450: 164–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.09.017 Impressed Ware blade production of Northern Dalmatia (Eastern Adriatic, Croatia) in the context of Neolithisation 373 Pl. 1. Early Neolithic lithic assemblages from Northern Dalmatia. 1–4, 9–11,15 Crno Vrilo: lever pres- sured blades (1–2 and possibly 3–4) and pressure flaked blades, mode 4 (9–12, 15); 5, 6, 8 Ra∏inovac blades and core renewal flake (core tablet); 7, 13 Vrbica: core renewal flake (core fragment) and crested blade; 12, 14 Konjevrate: blade and crested blade; 16. Vrbica flake core. N. 1, 2, 5 and 12 are retouched (1 notched bladed, 2 burin, 5 blade with abrupt retouch, and 12 borer) and 9–11 are glossy. All artefacts are on presumed Gargano flint. Sonja Ka;ar 374 Pl. 2. Early Neolithic blades from Northern Dalmatia. Blades testifying to core renewal (1, 3, 4, 5) and cortical blade (2); 1– 4 (1, 2 Vrbica; 3 Tinj; 4 Konjevrate) are probably made by indirect percussion and 5 (Ra∏inovac) probably by direct percussion. Pressure flaked blades: 6 Konjevrate and 7 Polje Ni∫e Vrce- lja. Pressure flaked bifacial point from Vrbica (8). All artefacts are on presumed Gargano flint.