PINE WOODS, ARIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND GIS

The appearance of mass tourism has led to abandonment of fertilefields, valleys and terraces built and maintained over centuries. This culturallandscape fras been left to the wild and galloping development of pinewoods whose roots are destroying and whose trunks and branches arecovering archaeological and other monuments. Such dense vegetation hasdisabled us to walk on many parts of the islands. However, thanks to arialphotographs of pre-tourist age we.99uld find some sites. For instance, wehave disCovered the prehistoric hillfort of Gradi5de above the village ofVrbanj just on the passage be-tween Stari Grad_ and Jelsa plains (A). Itappeaied to be the largest hillfort on this Plrt ol Hvar. Using GIS it wasfound that the hillfort controlled the whole Stari Grad and Jelsa plains (B).If this hillfort was in use during the Iron Age (this can be proven only withexcavations) Gradi56e could be the "exceedingly well fortified place" -

mentioned by Diodorus when describing how the Parians, while foundingthe colony at Stari Grad in 385148C, allowed the natives to remain unharmedon the island.

With the help of arial photography and GIS the hillfort of Gradi5ie isnow added to the already proposed sites of Purkin kuk (above Stari Grad)and the town of Hvar to be the "exceedingly well fortified place" on theisland of which Diodorus writes.

2OO1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITBS ON THECENTRAT DALMATIAN ISLANDS.DO THEY HAYE ANY FUTURE?

The Adriatic Island Projecthvar. split - zadar - ljubljana - birmingham'toronto

Split

Brai

Hvar

Palagruia

2O()1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ONCENTRAL DALMATIAN ISLANDS:

WHAT TO DO WITH THEM?

The Adriatic Island Pro.jecthvar - split - zadar - ljubljana - birmingham. t0r0nt0

Contact, c0mmerce and colonisation6000 BC - AD 600

summarv of main results

Branko Kirigincditor'

Hvar/Split 1998

-.

Publisher:Centar za zaititu kultume baltine otoka Hvara

Ljetnikovac Hanibala Luciia21450 Hvar, Croatiatel./fax (00 385 21) 741-009

Editor:Branko Kirigin

Printed by:DALMACUAPAPIR - SPLN

Printed in 500 copies

Illustrations : archive AIP

O AIP

Front cover: central part of the map of the Adriatic Sea made in 14T2by Gruioso Benincasa Anconitanus(Museo Coner, Venezia)

The booklet is published on the occasion of the World Archaeological Congress Intercongess onThe De-

struction and Consemation of Cultural Property,Bra(., Croatia, May 1998.

The booklet was funded by the Mini$ry ol culture of the Republic of Croatia.

"The whole lllyrian seaboard is exceedingly well supplied with harbours,

not only 0n the clntinulus coast itself but also in the neighbouring islands." (5.10)

"Dalmatian islands are rich in olives and yine" (317.10)

Strabo; Geography (second half of the lst cent, BC)

"(38514 BC) While these eyents were taking place (i.e. Dionysius the Elder joining w,ith the

Molossians and lllyrians in Epirus), the Parians, in accordance with an oracle, sent out a

colony to the Adriatic,founding it on the island of Pharos, as it is called,with the cllpera-

tion of the tyrant Dionysius." XV, 13

"This year (38413 BC) the Parians, who had settled Pharos, allowed the previous barbari-

an inhabitants to remain unharmed in an exceedingly well fortified place , v,hile they themse-

lves founded a city by the sea and huilt a wall about it. Later, however, the old barbarian

inhabitants of the island took offence at the presence of the Greeks and called in the lllyri-

ans of the opposite mainland. These, to a number of more than ten thousand, crossed over

to Pharos in many small boats, wrought hatoc, and slew many of the Greeks. But the gove-

rn"or of Lissus appointed by Dionysius sailed with a good number of triremes against the li-ght craft of the lllyrians, sinking some and capturing others, and slew more thanfive thou-

sand of the barbarians , w,hile taking slme twl thousand captive." XV , 14 .

Diodorus Siculus, World History (1st century BC) cfr,: C. H. Oldfather, The Loeb Classi-

cal Library, Cambridge Mass. - London 1954.

"Next t0 exploring for oneself, the best an explorer can do is to promote exploration in othe-rs. My highest ambition for these pages is to show how, much remains to he done. A party ofthree to four friends, forming a committee of discovery, could hardly spend their time betterthan by devoting the best season of the year,from April to lune included, to a careful studyof the Dalmatian Archipelago, visiting every site called Grad and collecting the folk-lorew hi c h ev erywher e abo unds."

Sir Richard Francis Burton, The Long Walls of Salona and the Ruined Cities of Pharosand Gelsa di Lesina, Joumal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 6,London 1875,252-296

4

^-. I.

CONTENTS

TheAdr ia t i c I s l andPro jec t . . . . . . . . 9

The Archaeology and History of the Central Dalmatian Islands . . . . . . . . . 12

The Island of PalagruZa: heart of the Adriatic . . . . 16PalagruZa in Prehistory; PalagruZa: the Island(s) of Diomedes;

PalagruZa in the Roman and Medieval periods

T h e l s l a n d o f V i s . . . . . . . . 2 3tIIe - a Greek colony on the island ofVis; TaleZ - the precursor to Issa?;Ikajicina - a prehistoric cave site on Vis

T h e I s l a n d o f H v a r . . . . . . . 2 8Pharos and its tenitory; Hvar town Castle: the largest Iron Agesetilement on the island; Grapdeva cave

T h e I s l a n d o f B r a d . . . . . . . 3 1Skip: Myceneans in the Adriatic?

T h e l s l a n d o f S o l t a . . . . . . . 4 2From 37 to 215 sites

ComputersandtheAdr ia t ic ls landProject . . . . . . .44

The Archaeological Heritage of the CentralDalmatian Islands: its condition andthe cunent state of knowledse . . . .46

Pr inc ipa lReferences . . . . . .48Acknowlegments; Participants of the Adriatic Island Project

t

;-.ry.jft f d .

The Adriatic Islands Project

nt/, island of Hvar has provided Croatia

I with many of its archaeological pionee-L rs including Petar Nisiteo,Sime Ljubi(,Grgur Butit and Grga Novak amongst manyothers. )ver more than a century , the work ofthese individuals provided the base for ourcurrent knowledge of Hvar and the surroundi-ng Central Dalmatian islands. However, mu-ch of this early work was neither systematicnor scientific. Consequently, valuable as itwas, there were severe limitations when mo-dern archaeologists attempted to use the data.Moreover, archaeological techniques havechanged dramatically since the days of thesepioneers.0f particular importance has beenthe emergence of new archaeological sunteymethodologies which began to be used in theMediterranean during the 70s and 80s. Thesemethodologies are nlt restricted to informati-on provided t'rom a small, 0r even large, tra-ditional ar chaeolo gical excavations. lnstead,they seek information on the whole landscapeand aim to study how the entire landscapechanged over time. }ver the last menty yea-rs, archaeological techniques and the questi-ons archaeologists ask of their data has cha-nged.

The Adriatic Islands Project has itself along history and it, in turn reflects the drama-

tic changes that have affected archaeology.The project originated in a sun,ey begun inI9B2 on the Greek field system 0n the StariGrad plain on Hvar, and was carried out inconjunction with an archival and bibliogra-phic study of the area. This suntey involvedonly afew archaeologists over a short ,winterseason, but the results were such that theyattracted the support of other experts and spe-cialists, kindly supported by the staff of theCentre for the Protection of the Cultural He-ritage of Hvar. Following this, a team fromthe University of Bradford (UK) joined theproject in 1987, and they were then joined bythe Royal0ntario Museum in Canada and theUniversity of London. At this early stage theproject was named "Hvar - archaeology of aM editerranean landscape"

The survey of the whole of the island ofHvar follov,ed from this collaboration. Thiswork was a landmark and resulted in the firrtcomplete archaeological sites and monumentsdatabase of the island of Hvar, which, it sho-uld be emphasised, was at that time withoutparallel elsewhere in Croatia.The scale of theenterprise can be illustrated simply by notingthat at the outset of the work there were c.200recorded sites on the island, but that by theend there were around 800!

t1t0 The Adriatic Island Project The Adriatic Island Project

Intensive survey of the Stari Grad plainwas followed by study of the town of Hvar,then the villages of Brusje, Poljica and Za-straiiifu and excavation in the cave at Pokri-venik. However, whilst exceptionally useful,all this work demonstrated that the prehistoricand antique periods of Hvar could not beunderstood without similar studies on the ne-ighbouring islands: Bra(, Solta. Vis, Biievo.Svetac and Palagruia.This archipelago clea-rly formed a " bridge" across the Adriatic andlinked its western and eastern shores. As a co-nsequence ofthis,1992 saw the beginnings ofthe Adriatic Islnnil Project and of suney onPalagruia, which was followed by excavationin 1993-4 and 1996. Archaeological sunteywas carried out on the islands of Vis and

Biievobenveen 1993 and 1994 andduringthecourse of 1992-6 there were a series of surveyand excavation campaigns on Hvar, Brai andSolto.

During the first phases of the project themost significant problem encountered was theextensive archive and bibliography associa-ted with earlier archaeological work on Hvar.This was not the case on Brat where therewas already an excellent publication on thearchaeology of the island by Dasen Vrsalovit.The remains of the early Christian and earlyMedieval periods had also been much studiedon Brai. Solta was also easier to survey, ifonly because, prior to our work, little workhad been carried out on the island.The suneyof the island of Svetac has been made in l98I

and there we did not have to go again (Fig.

1). 0n Palagrula, prior to our visit in 1992,there had been no archaeological study of theisland for more than a century, but the resultsof the work were exceptional. 0n Vis andBiievo, with the exception of study of the anci-ent city of Issa, there had never been anysy st ematic surv ey. Litt I e inf ormati o n w a s av a -

ilable on any aspect of the rural archaeologyofVis and its offshore islands.

The aims of the surtey were thereforegradually achieved, snd the whole chain ofislands was explored. Having achieved this,the results of the work were then integratedwithin a geographical information systemallowing the analysis of archaeological andenvironmental data at avery large scale.

In this booklet we present some of themost important and exciting results of the pro-ject, and hope that in doing s0 they may attra-ct further collaboration with other institutionsand experts.We also hope that the results maydemonstrate the need for slme sort of regio-nal "Topographic Centre", where this, andother data, may be preserved, curated andexpanded. In a similar manner we hope thatresults stimulate research on the many Adria-tic islands which have never attracted archa-eological research.They may also tempt otherarchaeologists back to those islands whichhave been studied in the past, but which wou-ld benefit so much from analysis using moremodern arc hae olo gic al methods.

(B. K. and V. G.)

A perspective view on thesourounding area of

Gradac hillfort on the eastside ofBra(.The gray

colour indicates what canbe seen from the hillfort,

while the green dots repre-sent burial mounds.Fig. 1. View on the remains of the 6th cent. AD Byzantine fortress at Svetac

l i :

i:i!{:,

of the Central Dalmatian IslandsThe Archaeology and History

he Central Dalmatian Islands are amo-ngst the most beautiful islands in theMeditenanean. From the earliest of ti-

mes these islands were settled. fought overand colonised by numerous peoples includingVenetians, Byzantines, Romans, Greeks,Illyrians. The importance of these islands mayseem strange to visitors today, However, thekey to understanding the history of the regionlies in the way the islands link the eastem andwestern shores of the Adriatic. To early mari-ners, who needed frequent safe ports andalways tried to sail in sight of land, the islandsrepresented the safest sea route from Greeceto ltaly. Traders also had to pass the CentralDalmatian islands to go north to the head ofthe Adriatic. There to join the great trade rou-tes into central and northern Europe. The isla-nds were also strategic positions. Greeks, Ro-mans and Venetians fought in turn to controlthem. The dramatic history of Central Dalma-tia is reflected in the archaeological and histo-ric monuments which are scattered across thelandscapes. Ancient burial mounds, prehisto-ric hillforts, Greek colonies, Roman villas andVenetian defences all bear witness to theimportance of the islands over millennia ofEuropean history,

The Adriatic Island Project is studyinghow these islands were settled. and the evide-

nce for how man used the area from the earli-est of times to the anival of the Croats. Theearliest communities in the area were hunter-gatherers who lived here more than 12-13,000years ago, during the Upper Palaeolithic (Ko-padina cave on the island of Brad). Unfortuna-tely most of the settlements of these peoplemay have been lost when, following the endof the Ice Age, the Adriatic basin was inunda-ted by the sea between 8,500 - 6000 B.C.After this time the islands were settled by pe-ople who were farmers. Carbon 14 dates fromthe settlements of early farmers show thatagriculture spread fiom south to north afterthe 8th millennium B.C, Within the CentralDalmatian islands this time. known as the Ne-olithic and Eneolithic period, is almost exclu-sively represented by cave sites. Key sitesinclude Grapdeva, Pokrivenik and Markovacaves on Hvar. An important exception t0 thissituation was the discovery, by the AdriaticIslands Project, of an open site associatedwith the very earliest Neolithic. The island ofPalagruZa provides some of the first evidencefor Early Neolithic ventures into the deep-wa-ters of the Adriatic. Thus demonstrating thatthe chain of islands was important for co-mmunication over 8,000 years ago!

The Adriatic Island Project t3

The first use of metals in Dalmatia is inthe form of simple copper and, later, bronzeobjects. During the Early Bronze Age our evi-dence is largely restricted to isolated finds incaves and burial mounds (tumuli). However.discovery of Early Bronze Age artefacts onthe island of Vela PalagruZa which seem to beassociated with use of a flint quany on MalaPalagruZa, is very exciting. 0n the islands ofVis and Svetac these finds have been found incaves. Aside from this, a series of tumuli onHvar represents the most significant group ofsites associated with the Early Bronze Age.However, the construction of a tumuli ceme-tery at Vira (Hvar) suggests that this periodmay also have witnessed the creation of the fi-rst public ritual monuments, and that thesewere associated with rituals linked to land fe-rtility. Soils on the Dalmatian limestone arevery fragile, and early farmers may have beenaffected by declining soil fertility and soil lo-ss only a very short time after the introductionof farming.

Evidence for settlement and land use du-ring the Middle Bronze Age is almost unkno-wn within the islands, and is poorly docume-nted elsewhere in central Dalmatia. It is onlyin the Late Bronze Age in Central Dalmatiathat we see a conspicuous increase in settle-ment evidence - mainly associated with defe-nded hilltop enclosures (hillforts or gradine).Work on the islands suggests a tendency forlarge hilltop enclosures to be sited with respe-ct to fertile land, and it is possible that they arepositioned to control agricultural resources -

again possibly the result of increased soil ero-sion caused by agriculture. More significanthas been the recent find of Mycenean potteryat Skrip on Brad, which suggests that by thelate second millennium BC, there was contactbetween this region and Greece. or communi-ties in contact with Greece.

In many ways the Iron Age is very simi-lar to the Late Bronze Age. It is dominated byhillforts, but there is increasing evidence forintensive extemal contact. Of particular impo-rtance is the presence ofpre-colonial Greek fi-nds at a number of localities in the region. Si-tes which are particularly important duringthis period include Hvar Castle, TaleZ (Vis)and PalagruZa. During the earliest period it islikely that we are seeing evidence for trade,and for Greek exploration, The links of the re-gion with Italy and to the Etruscan sites at thehead of the Adriatic must have been apprecia-ted as important by the Greeks. They mustalso have noted that the islands possessed la-nd which could be colonised. We know of se-veral Greek colonies in the area, but there issome debate as to which is the first. The colo-ny on Vis, named Issa, a Syracusean settleme-nt, founded under unknown circumstancesmay be later then Pharos on the island ofHvar. The first colony that can be confidentlydated is that of Pharos on Hvar. whose fou-ndation, by the Parian Greeks, at Stan Gradon Hvar in 385-4 B.C. is recorded by Diodo-rus Siculus (XV, 13-14). Diodorus provides adramatic account which tells how the city wasfounded - and then attacked by the local inha-

l il !

lp

1 t The Adriatic Islqnd Project The Adriatic lsland Project

bitants (a translation of the text is on the fro-nt, inside cover), According to Diodorus onlya last minute rescue by the navy of Dionysiusof Syracuse saved the colony,

Whichever was first, the fate of thesetwo cities varied considerably. Pharos mayeventually have been controlled by localdynasts, and probably went into steep declineand perhaps abandonment, during the 2nd ce-ntury BC. Vis, although besieged by Illyrianforces during the First Illyrian War (228 BC),seems t0 have maintained its independence,and indeed planted further colonies on otherislands and the mainland.

Elsewhere on the islands, the nativeinhabitants lived without significant change.Indeed, it is uncertain when the islands eve-ntually came under direct Roman control,although it seems likely that both Pharos andIssa were de t'aao Roman possessions by thelale lst century BC. Following incorporationinto Empire the Roman city of Salona (nearSplit) emerged as the local political and eco-nomic centre. The islands lost their strategicvalue, but the Pax Romana allowed them toflourish economically. The islands prosperedby feeding the growing urban populations ofthe coast.

The fate of the islands under the laterEmpire is less certain. Dalmatia passed betwe-en Westem and Eastem Empires during the

fourth century but it is likely that the centralDalmatian islands were largely unaffected bythe civil wars of that time. During the mid 5thcentury the arga functioned as a semi-indepe-ndent territory under the comes rei militaris ofSalona. However, after this date the regionchanged hands between the Goths, the Byza-ntine Empire and, at some time during the fi-rst half of the 7th century, the Croats. The fa-te of the Central Adriatic islands during thisperiod is uncertain. The islands were undou-btedly an important source of food whilst themainland urban centres functioned, but whenthe urban centres fell, or declined, much of theevidence we have for settlement disappears.

The Adriatic Islands hoject has reco-rded more than 2000 archaeological sites,amply reflecting the rich history of the region.The size of this booklet does not allow us toprovide all this information here. However,we can present short summaries of some ofthe most important sites. In doing this the textflows from island to island. We start with Pa-lagruZa, the tiny island group right in the ce-ntre of the Adriatic and finish with Solta, anisland just off the mainland. The following ta-ble provides a chronology for the islands andshows how the sites mentioned in the text arenlaced in time.

(V. G. and S. C.)

Sites

il

.l

i::

t

15

Chronological table for the key archaeological siteson the Central Dalmatian islands

Date7-800

AD

BC

5-300

1000

2200

6000

13000 The Upper Palaeolithic

PeriodThe Anival of the Croats

Domination by Rome

Greek colonisation

The Iron Age

The Bronze Age

The Neolithic

Salona, Roman Issa

Foundation ofGreek colonies at Pharos and Issa

Hillforts at Hvar Castle and Talei.A Greek sanctuary on Palagruia?

Mycenean contacts on BradThe first hillforts.

Tumulus burials and the beginning ofthe cemetery at Vira

Cave sites at Grapdeva Spilja and KrajicinaFarming starts, first evidence fordeep sea sailing at PalagruZa.

Hunter-gatherers at Kopadina (Brad)

The Island of Palagruia:Heart of the Adriatic

^n f all the places explored by the Proje-

t lct, the island of PalagruZa is certainly\-/ the smallest. It also may well be themost surprising. 0n little more than a splinterof rock, archaeologists have found the tracesof the medieval, classical and prehistoric sai-lors who once plied the waters of the centralAdriatic. These remains indicate that long agoPalagruZa was far more important than its di-minuitive size might suggest.

Merely 1300 m long and 330 m wide,Palagruia is waterless and rugged. Cliffs and

steep slopes rise from the waves, folding kni-fe-like along a central ridge which rs indentedby a pair of small plateaux. Anchoring oneend of the island, at its highest point, standsthe oldest manned lighthouse in the Adriatic(fig. 2). Across a nanow channel lies Palagru-Za's sister island, Mala Palagruia, only a fifththe size but an even more forbidding tenain(Fig. 3), Parts 0f the scrub vegetation and ani-mal life forms here are indigenous to Palagru-ia and are unique. They are sustained by mo-derate amounts of rainfall throushout the ye-

The Adriatic lsland Projett l 7

ar. Yet despite its banen aspect, voyagers vi-sited PalagruZa repeatedly over the last eightthousand years. Why?

Palagruia is the central island in a chainthat spans the Adriatic. From Italy to Dalma-tia, the islands of Tremiti, Pianosa, PalagruZa,Suiac and Vis are stepping stones across thesea. Standing on one of these islands you cansee the next one, sometimes even the mainla-nd. Offering anchorage, a modicum of shelter,and a place t0 rest, these islands have attractedsailors and fishermen for millennia. Look atany map of the area. The logic is clear, By usi-ng these islands as stopping places, sailors co-uld traverse the Adriatic without losing sightof land. And PalagruZa is right in the middle.Indeed, ancient mariners could hardly help

making Palagruia a port of call, for, amongother things, two major cunents -one ealte-rly, the other westerly- converge 0n Palagru-ia. Where they meet, the water swirls andeddies around the island, helping to make Pa-lagruia the center of the Adriatic's most pro-ductive fishery. In retrospect, the island'sarchaeological riches might perhaps have be-en expected.

Indeed, PalagruZa has been known toarchaeologists since the late 19th century. TheItalian archaeologist, Carlo de Marchesetti,and the English adventuret, Sir Richard Bu-rton, visited the island in 1875 when the li-ghthouse was being built. They reported findi-ng stone blades, broken pottery, and archite-ctural fragments bearing Latin inscriptions.

Fig. 3. Vela Palagrui,a. View from the lighthouse on the central plateau called Salamandrijaand on Mola Palagruia in the background.Fig.2. View on the south side of Vela Palagruiawith the lighthouse in the background.

t918 The Adriatic Island Project The Adriatic Island Project

Their lead. however. was never followed inmore detail, so since 1992 the Project has vi-sited PalagruZa four times in order to cany outsurface survey. underwater reconnaissance.and limited test excavations. Thanks to this re-search we now recognize that Palagruia'sarchaeological record touches on several keyperiods of prehistory and history. Localitieson PalagruZa and Mala PalagruZa include pre-histonc remains of the Neolithic, of the Co-pper Age and of the early Bronze Age; histo-ric localities yielded Classical Greek, Helleni-stic, Roman, and late medieval finds.

Palagruia in Prehistory

Several potsherds and stone blades markthe first landfalls on PalagruZa, made someti-me around 6000 B.C. Like calling cards leftbehind after a visit, fragments of pottery disti-nctively decorated with the zigzag impressio-ns of a Cardium sea shell were found on theisland's eastemmost extremity. Test trenchingof this area revealed no structures, just a lowdensity distribution of Neolithic pottery andlithics. There was nothing t0 suggest thatanything more than a briefvisit (or visits) evertook place. And yet...

Pottery of the kind found on PalagruZa iselsewhere firmly associated with the spread ofthe first farmers throughout the north Medite-nanean basin. Known to archaeologists as theCardial Impressed Ware culture (Fig. 4), sma-ll communities of agnculturalists began settli-ng into places along the coast, never penetra-

ting far inland, in the seventh millennium B.C.With theh gardens and their flocks these peo-ple introduced food production, changing hu-man life in the Meditenanean forever. Givenhow dispersed these early farmers were, it isremarkable that their material worlds, the thi-ngs they made for themselves, are so similar.Somehow, despite distance, time and tide, pe-ople maintained contact with one another.And as PalagruZa so clearly shows, at least pa-rt of that contact was seabome, canied out byvoyagers sailing from one island to the next.

As the ensuing centuries stretched intomillennia, sailors calling on PalagruZa to rest,shelter or fish, left little trace oftheir passage.At some point early on, though, visitors madeanother discovery. They found that Mola Pa-lagntLa was an abundant source of chert, therock prefened by makers of stone tools - thechipped knives, blades and anowheads that si-

Fig.4. Early Neolithic pot fragment frlm theeast plateau onVela Palagruia.

gnp0st prehistOry, Nodules of grey-blue chertspeckle exposed rock faces all over the tinyislet; eroding out of their limestone matrix,broken nodules collect at the bases of cliffsand ledges. In places, gaping holes mark thespots where chert was quanied, The evidencesuggests that low-intensity chert mining onMala PalagruZa began in the Neolithic, proba-bly as a pastime 0n the part of disembarkedvoyagers.

The next chapter in PalagruZa's prehi-story takes place towards the end of the thirdmillennium B.C., as the Copper Age drew to aclose. The story can be read at a site at theisland's centre where a small plateau (Fig. 3)overlooks cliffs and the broad sween of the

pebble beach (Fig. 2). Excavation here failedto find any structural features dating to theprehistoric period. However, a careful searchof the slopes below located a profusion of sto-ne tools, lithic production debris and ceramicsof the Cetina culture scattered over 6000 sq.m. Other significant finds included decorated,stone archer's wristguards and several bladesof central Meditenanean obsidian. A systema-tic transect of the site was dug revealing thatthese artifacts were consistently associatedwith each other, washing down the north slo-pe of the island in a layer of colluvial sedime-nts.

The Cetina culture spans the transitionfrom the Copper Age to the Bronze Age. It is

Eo

It $-m-ffi &$ tr-W-ru {l

# e-ilt &-q

Ai[fiul

O Scnr:

ffiFig.5. Flint arrowheads and archers' wristguardfound at Salamandrija.

2t20 The Adriatic lsland Project The Adriatic Island Project

best known to archaeologists fiom a series ofstone caims, elite burials, in central Dalmatia.The burials typically contain as grave goods

intricately decorated beakers and other drinki-ng gear, finely flaked anowheads, and arche-rs' wristguards (Fig. 5). Like the closely rela-ted Bell Beaker phenomenon, this kind of eli-te. male. sumptuary behavior is a commonexpression of the competition for prestige inthird millennium B.C. Europe. Its appearancein Dalmatia is significant because it marks thefirst serious social differentiation to cleave lo-cal communities there as high status individu-als began to act out roles on a broader stage.Finds of Cetina pottery among rock-cut tombsin Puglia in Italy demonstrate the extent of thenetwork in which Adriatic elites now nartici-pated.

Finding Cetina material in the middle ofthe Adriatic now makes sense, and all the mo-re so when the nature of the material is consi-dered. Chipped stone artifacts, in astonishingnumbers, make up the largest part of the Pala-gruia assemblage. They show that highly ski-lled flint knappers used Mala PalagruZa chertto produce blades, blade segments, anowhea-ds, and lunate anow armatures. Extrapolatingfrom the controlled excavated sample, thousa-nds of anowheads and tens of thousands ofblades must have been made on PalagruZa -

far more than anyone there ever needed. It isreasonable t0 suppose that specialized stonetool production at this scale was aimed atexport, that these goods were destined for useelsewhere. For a while in the second half of

the third millennium B.C, PalagruZa seems tohave occupied an important position in a ne-wly-created network of elite-oriented produ-

ction and exchange that linked the centralAdriatic islands to the mainland of Dalmatia,to the Italian mainland regions of Puglia andCalabria, and even as far as the central Medi-tenanean Aeolian islands. It was on the basisof maritime networks like this one that the ea-rly civilizations of the Meditenanean were la-ter to emerge.

(T. K. and S. F.)

Palagruia: the Island(s)of Diomedes

Following the very important evidencefor prehistoric activity on PalagruZa , one ofthe most intriguing discoveries was copiousamounts of Greek Black- and Red-figure po-ttery and Hellenistic fine wares. More than2000 fragments have now been recovered atSalamandrija (Fig. 3) the island's centre pla-teau, (mostly representing kylixes andskyphoi, as well as bowls, plates and hyddae).The presence of such a variety of fine wares(along with the specific shapes of the vessels)suggested that there must have been a Greekshrine or sanctuary as early as late 6th centu-

ry BC. The position of the islands on importa-nt maritime routes further suggested that anyshrine may have been dedicated to the GreekHero Diomedes, whose cult was known to beimportant for sailors and traders.

This suggestion that there may have be-en a shrine to Diomedes on the island is ofimmense importance. Many ancient literarysources state that there were points on theAdriatic where the Trojan hero was worshi-pped, and some of these sites are known. Mo-st significantly, the ancient sources mentionan island (or two islands) of Diomedes situa-ted in the Adriatic. Unfortunately, none give aprecise location. Italian medieval cartogra-phers and historical geographers connectedthese islands with the Tremiti islands to thewest of Mount Gargano, possibly because itwas thought that the cult of Diomedes wasalso present 0n the Italian Adriatic coast, andalso because the Tremiti are the only Italianislands on the Adriatic coast. As a result of

this early identification, the location of theislands of Diomedes has rarely been a conte-ntious issue amongst academics. However,the discoveries on PalagruZa prompted a re-assessment of the evidence by project staff,Further reading of the texts of Strabo (2, 5,201123-124: 5, 1, 81214; 5, l, 9l2l5 and 6, 3,91283-284) suggested that the description ofthe island of Diomedes better conesponds toVela and Mala Palagruia, rather than the Tre-miti. The evidence of Greek activity found du-nng project work seemed to support this co-nclusion, particularly in comparison to the la-ck of Greek evidence on the Tremiti.

None of this would have been conclusi-ve but for further evidence provided by potte-ry collected on the central plateau of Vela Pa-

Fig.6. Fragment of a hlack gloss lqlix (a drinking cup) with the name of Diomedes

The Adriatic Island Project

lagruZa by jadranko Oreb, lighthouse keeperat PalagruZa. This pottery was brought to theattention ofproject staffin 1994, and compri-sed of over 100 Greek and Hellenistic finewares. Most significantly, amongst this colle-ction were several fragments of pottery withgraffiti of the sort archaeologists often find inGreek sanctuaries. One of the sherds with gra-ffiti bears the name of Diomedes (Fig. 6).This seems to be firm evidence of a sanctuarydedicated to the hero. and this has been furthersupported by finds of more pottery during1996, some of which also have graffiti menti-onlns Diomedes.

Palagruia in the Roman andmedieval periods

PalagruZa was also inhabited during theRoman period. A latin inscription recordingthe existence of a temple on the island was fo-und here during the l9th century. Excavationon Vela PalagruLa has also provided mosaictesserae, round bricks fiom a hypocaust, fineand coarse pottery, dollia and amphorae andglass. Late Roman material is also present inabundance, but no Early Christian objects ha-ve been recovered.

For the medieval period we only knowthat Pope Alexander III has landed on Pala-gruZa on March 3rd 1177. He was sailingfrom Vieste on Monte Gargano vra PalagruZa,Vis and Zadar to Venice where he negotiatedpeace with Frederik I Barbarossa. Except shi-pwrecks no other medieval finds have beendiscovered. 0n medieval maps PalagruZa isalways shown and always enlarged (see frontcover). The ruins of the St. Mihovil churchdate to the 18th cent, It was built by the fishe-rman from KomiZa on Vis.

Palagruia is an intriguing place. Appa-rently isolated, it was clearly an important po-int for successive travellers and traders whohave moved across the Adriatic throughoutthe past eight millennia. connecting commu-nities on both sides of the Adriatic. Shipwre-cks, unfortunately now all robbed, from allperiods further emphasise the role of the isla-nd. These, and the recent discoveries fiom Pa-lagruLa allow us to imagine why these islandsseemed so important to people in the past, andwhy such a small island group was importantenough to be mentioned in the ancient textsand to have shrines, sanctuaries and temples,and more recently chapels, built there.

(J. H. and B. K.)

The Island of Vk

IXXA -aGreekcolony

on the island of Vis"Agatharchides claims that the wine fromIssa, an islarul on the Adriatic sea, in contra-st with other wines, is the best"

Athenaeus I,28, d (51)

is, which lies some 8 miles to the sou-th-west of Hvar (Fig. 17), covers anareaof 90.26 km2. Durins the summe-

rs of 1993-4 and 1996-1, the Adriatic IslandProject canied out suruey, and a series ofexcavations, across the island. This field workrecorded more then 240 sites, as well as ma-pping the area of the ancient town of Issa. Pri-0r t0 this, a survey of classical sites on theisland was canied out in 1986 by local archa-eologists Dinko Radii and the Vid Bilidii,who recorded some 60 sites in addition t0 the20 sites fiom other periods which were alrea-dy known on the island.

The remains of the ancient city of Issa,which was founded by Syracuseans in the 4thcent. BC, are situated at the end of the bay ofVis and adjacent to the modem town of Vis.The ancient town covered an area of some 12hectares at its zenith (Fig. 7). Not much of thissettlement has been excavated and, sadly, mu-ch has already been destroyed, especially fo-

llowing the construction of new houses, hote-ls, entertainment complexes and roads. The si-te of Martvilo (which means the place of thedead) at Vis is particularly important as hereOne can still see the remains of the only anci-ent Greek graveyard in Croatia. Nearby, onthe hill slope at Gradina, visitors can also fo-llow the route of the 4th-3rd centuries BC ci-ty walls which lie preserved within long stoneclearance mounds. In several places the origi-nal masonry can still be seen. Near the shoreare the ruins of the Roman baths - the largestin the Adriatic. Whilst on the Prirovo peninsu-la one can see the remains of the Roman the-atre preserved within the walls of the Medie-val monastery. All around the seafiont are Su-bmerged remains of the sunken Greek andRoman ports, but these and other monumentsstill await investigation.

Fig. 7 . The position og Greek kolony of Issain the north bay of Vis.

251),1 The Adriqtic Island Project The Adriatit lsland Project

The rural sites on the island belong esse-ntially to the Hellenistic and early Roman pe-

riods. During this time the entire island wasoccupied and the land fully utilised. This su-ggests that as early as the Hellenistic period,Issa could have supported a considerable po-pulation. If so, this may help explain the evi-dence we have for other Greek colonisation inthe region. In the early 3rd century B.C. theIsseians founded a settlement somewhere ne-ar Lumbarda on the neighbouring island ofKordula - Kerlqra Melaina - where some 200colonists were settled. Following this, Issaalso founded settlements on the Dalmatian co-ast: atTragyrion (modem Trogir) and Epetion(modem Stobred). It is also likely that they la-ter settled at Salona (modem Solin). All ofthese settlements are on the coast, not far fromSplit. In this manner the oldest state (dinaste-

la) with democratic institutions on the Adria-tic grew and expanded - playing a vital role inthe settlement and development of the region.

The richness and the vitality of the peo-ple of Issa is perhaps best attested by a bronzehead of Aphrodite - the goddess of love, ma-de in the 4th century B.C., and found on theisland (Fig. 8). It is said that it was madeunder the strong influence of Praxiteles, themost famous Greek sculptor. This head ofAphrodite is a unique representation of thisgoddess in bronze. Although the sculpture is,perhaps, the most important from the island,the Archaeological collection in the modemtown of Vis contains much from this periodand, indeed, is probably the most important

collection of Greek material in Croatia as awhole.

What of the later history of the island?One of the most striking results of the field su-ruey 0n Vis was the discovery that whilst the-re was a proliferation of sites during the He-llenistic and Early Roman periods, very fewsites produced Late Roman finds. This pattemis in striking contrast to the neighboring isla-nds of Hvar, Brad and Solta, where Late Ro-man sites predominate in the archaeologicalrecord. What happened on Issa? After nearly500 years during which Issa was the mostimportant urban centre in the region, did it pe-rhaps decline in the later Roman period as Sa-lona became the central settlement and theother islands competed more successfully tosupply the regional centre?

Fig.8. Bronze head ofthe goddessAphrodite from Issa

(8.K.)

Talei - the precursor to Issa?

The hillfort site of TaleZ lies on the sou-them and central side of Vis. The site consistsof a series of massive tenaces and walls asso-ciated with a precipitous west-east ridge.Although many walls have either collapsed orbeen destroyed by later military activity, it isclear that they incorporate a minor peak at 245m above sea level. To the south the ridge do-minates a more gentle plateau covering about5 hectares. The land falls away sharply on allsides of this plateau, The site is also separatedby a steep valley from a nanow ridge to theeast which contains the Vela Gomila tumulus

Fi,q. 9. I icrl' on the I'e lu Gonilu tunulusnt,ur Tule: hillfort on l'is .

(Fig.g). Geodetic survey of the site also reve-aled the location of a semicircular structure 0nthe eastem edge of the hillfort - that which di-rectly overlooks the tumulus at Vela Gomila.This tumulus is the largest one on Vis. 0n itssurface prehistoric, Greek and Roman potterywas found. This may indicate that the tumuluswas an important "ritual" site for a long peri-od of time.

The results of surface survey at TaleZwere remarkable. Survey and excavation pro-vided tens of thousands of prehistoric objects(mainly pottery). What was surprising was thequantity of imported "Greek" wares foundwhich comprisedS.3To of the total, and datedfrom the 6th -4th century BC. Equally surpri-sing is the widespread occunence of iron slagand other evidence for metal working (Fig.10) on the site, which suggests that the hillfo-ft atTalei is associated with a hitherto unkno-wn, exploitable, iron resource.

Fig. 10. Iron ore and iron slag fromTalei

The significance of the results from Ta-lei cannot be underestimated. The presence ofa pre-Greek colonial settlement with access toan exploitable iron resource was totally une-xpected. The region is mineral deficient and

The Adriatic Island Proiect The Adriatic Island Project 27

the nearest known resources lie in Bosnia. Theimportance that must have derived from co-ntrol of this resource during the early IronAge must have been considerable. Indeed, thepresence of such iron reserves may also go so-me way to explaining early Greek activity bo-th on the island of PalagruZa and, perhaps,even the position of the later Greek colony ofIssa. Certainly the extraordinary quantities ofimported pottery 0n the site can only be expla-ined through the active exploitation of this re-source and trade with the Greek world. Thedating evidence for the abandonment of the si-te should coincide with the beginnings of Gre-ek urban settlement at Issa. Unfortunately, anexact date for the "foundation" of Issa cune-ntly escapes us. Despite this there can be littledoubt that the settlement of Talez must havecontrolled a large part (if not all) of the islandof Vis during the 5th century B. C. It therefo-re becomes a keysite for our understanding ofpre-colonial Greek contacts with the centralAdriatic.

ff. G.)

Krajicina - a prehistoric cave siteon Vis

Winding through the dense bramblesand thickets that blanket the north coast ofVis, a minor trail pauses at the lip of an extre-mely steep hillside, a cliff almost, before tu-mbling down towards the rocky shore below.This is the way to Krajicina Spilja, a large li-

mestone cave renowned among spelunkers asthe finest on Vis. Almost sixty meters long,the cave consists of five chambers and the pa-ssages that string them together. Travertineand roof-fall rubble cover most of the cave'sfloor. Stalactites and stalagmites encrust thehorizontal surfaces (Fig. 11).

Fig. 1l.The interior of the Kraicina caye onVis,

In 1994 small-scale excavations wereconducted at Krajicina to see if any part of theisland's basic prehistoric cultural chronologywas preserved there, Beneath a surface layerof disturbed deposits at the front of the cave,careful trowelling revealed a compact layer ofBronze Age date. Wide, flat-rimmed bowlswith tubular handles indicate an early Bronze

Age date, while an everted-rim form is morereminiscent of the late Bronze Age. This stra-tum overlies an older (but as yet undated) de-posit of mixed charcoal and shell (marine andtenestrial). Elsewhere in the cave, isolated fi-nds of early Neolithic, late Neolithic, and IronAge pottery make it clear that sporadic visitsto Krajicina have been a part of life on Vis fora long time.

Only a very restricted range of potteryappears at the site, and animal bones and sto-ne tools are quite rare. From this we can c0-nclude that the cave was used only for shortstays. Although some of the Bronze Age cera-

mics at Krajicina were intentionally placed inremote cracks and crannies and may thereforeindicate some kind ofritual behaviour, there islittle about this material t0 suggest that ritualpractices were among the major preoccupatio-ns of the prehistoric visitors to the cave. Inthis Krajicina differs from other caves in theAdriatic, where a prehistoric ritual focus ismore easily demonstrated. What then is the si-gnificance of Krajicina? Neither settlementnor shrine, the importance of this cave is thatit hints at the existence on Vis of a more exte-nsive, but still hidden, Bronze Age record.

(T. K.)

Greek colonies, emporia (Narona) and native tribeslssean colonisation {3-2nd cent BC)

The Island of Hvar

he island of Hvar is distinctively "Da-

lmatian". Strikingly long and thin, theisland stretches for 68 kilometres fiom

east to west, but never exceeds l5 kilometresin width. Although dominated by a rocky mo-untainous spine, which reaches 628 metresabove sea level at Sveti Nikola, Hvar's mostnotable characteristic is the wide and fertileplain which runs for six kilometres betweenthe towns of Stari Grad and Jelsa in the centralnorthem section of the island. Hvar has manyattractions. Frequently called the "Madeira ofthe Adriatic" in deference to its climate. theisland has attracted millions of tourists. Asidefrom this, it also possesses some of the mostimportant archaeological sites in the region.One eminent academic called Hvar "a muse-um sub divo", and it is no surprise that so ma-ny archaeologists and antiquaries have chosento study Hvar and its monuments. Perhapsmore suryrising is the fact that after such co-ntinuous and intensive study so much remai-ned to be discovered. Work by the project me-mbers on the island has involved the excava-tion and survey of Neolithic caves and Romanvillas, prehistoric tumuli and Greek watchto-wers. The Adriatic Islands Project started onHvar, and the outstanding results of study onthis island inspired the larger projecl.

Pharos and its territorv

In Stari Grad on Htar u,hen priests, ju-dges, doctors or other eminent people sit,v'e-arily , on return from the plain, they hoist the-mselves up, doff their cap and greet it, het'ou-se they know that it is their protider"

(Milidevii 1975,416)

On the northem side of the Island ofHvar sunounded by hills and situated betwe-en two deep bays is the Stari Grad Plain. Thisbeautiful plain is the largest and most fertilearea on the Adriatic islands Figs. 12 and 12a).Apart from its obvious agricultural wealth, itis also the site of the Greek colony of Pharos.Pharos was situated 0n the position of the mo-dem town of Stari Grad (which means "Old

Town"), and was founded in 385/4 BC byGreeks from the Aegean island of Paros. Weare particularly lucky in having a dramaticaccount of the founding of the colony in a te-xt written by the ancient historian DiodorusSiculus (XV. 13-14.). and which can be readin translation on the inside cover of this book.However, if this was the date of the foundati-on of the colony, it may not be the date of theanival of the Greeks on the island or even thefirst Greek settlement. Greek notten hts heen

The Adriatic Island Project 29

Fig. 12. Satellite image of the Stari Gradplane u,ith clear traces of Greek land divi-

sion. The v,hite line indicates the visual com-munication betvyeen Pharos and the towers

at Maslinovika andTor.

found at Stari Grad which suggests that an ea-rlier Greek settlement may have existed here,prior to the historic date for foundation. Intri-guingly, a settlement named Anchiala is me-ntioned by Stephen of Byzantium and thismay be a precursor to Pharos (Ethnika, s.t,.Pharos). Unfortunately, what form this earlysettlement may have taken cannot be proven,and we await further discoveries to clarifywhether the Greeks had such a settlement ornot.

Despite the clarity of the foundation ta-le, the position of Pharos on the island of Hvarwas a subject of domestic and foreign acade-mic debate for more than a century. Althoughm0st authorities eventually accepted the claimof Stari Grad as the site of the colonv. the si-

Fig. l2a.Viev'from the air on the Greekland division of the w,est part of the Stari Grad plane. SturiGrod in the background.The airport ground has devastated tu,o Roman sites. Photo; 8. Kragi(.

30 The Adriatic Island Project

ze of the town and its defences was not clearuntil a programme of excavation and surveywas canied out after 1992-3 and 1996. Wenow know that the town may have coveredmore than eight hectares and part was surrou-nded by a substantial wall.

The most striking discover by the Proje-ct team was in regard to the known Greek no-rt defence wall, The excavations made in 1993and 1996 have shown that the wall is not a thewall of the Greek colony, but a wall built outof Greek blocks in the Roman period (c. 3rdcent. AD)(Fig.13)

Beyond the walls are the remains of the

Fig. l3.Trench excavated at the inner sideofthe "north" wall ofPharos.

Pharos is remarkable because it contains theremains of a massive field system which waslaid out by the colonists. Survey and excavati-on inside the Stari Grad plain, as well as aeri-al photographic, geodetic and geomorphologi-cal analysis of the field system demonstratesthat the whole plain was divided into a seriesof plots (striga). Seventy three of these plotscan be identified, each measuring 906 x181.2m. (16.4 ha.) (Fig. on page 8), and cove-ring a total area of c. 1100 ha. Whilst similarsystems can be found elsewhere (eg Metapo-ntum and Chersonesus), the remains on Hvarare probably the best preserved examples ofsuch a system in the whole of the Greek wo-rld. Research on the plain suggests that the ba-sic unit used by the Parian colonists for layingout the field system was a "foot" measuring302.16mm. At the present moment this mea-sure is not paralleled elsewhere, but it is simi-lar to units used at Isthmia and Epidarus.

The field work has also shown that thearea was inhabited in the pre-Greek times.This is attested by numerous Bronze and IronAge burial mounds and hillforts. This evide-nce suggests that the Greeks did not come onno mans land. The conflict between the nati-ves and the Greeks, recorded by Diodorus,may have erupted over the agricultural land.

Survey suggests that there are only asmall number of Greek sites in the plain, andthat they are concentrated near Pharos. Thereare, however, numerous Roman vi//as, someof which are very large, and it is possible thatlater land use has destroyed or covered earlyGreek occupation (Fig. 14).

The Adriatic lsland Project

Despite this, it is probably true that themajority of Greeks lived within the city atPharos, if only because of the ever-present da-ngers of living outside the walls of the town.Diodorus Siculus' account of the attack by theoriginal inhabitants of the island emphasisesthe danger the colonists were in, whilst the re-

gion was frequently noted in ancient sourcesas unstable and with a reputation for piracy.This insecurity is best demonstrated by the co-nstruction of two defensive towers by the co-lonists. One was situated on the northem edgeof the plain, on a hill called Maslinovik Fig.15), whilst the other lies at Tor, high on a hi-

Fig. 15. Excavations made in 1987 at theGreek tower at Maslinovik.

Fig.16.The southface of the tower atTor.Brai in the backpround.

sl. 14 . The Stari Grad plane: Roman sites and the plots of the Greek land division. Large yel-low zones reDresent modern settlements,

J I The Adriatic Island Project

ll, south of the town of Jelsa and east of theplain (Fig. 16). These watchtowers orphryktoria communicated with each other bysmoke or fire signals. Taken together, thesetowers functioned as parts of a single defencesystem. The more distant tower at Tor was indirect visual communication with that at Ma-slinovik (a distance of 7.5 km), while the to-wer 0n Maslinovik, situated 3.5 km. fromPharos, was positioned to communicate be-tween Tor and the town (Fig. 12). Togetherthe towers controlled the northem and eastemapproaches to the colony. One suspects that,despite the victory of the Greeks over the na-tives in 384/3 BC, life may always have beenuncertain for the colonists and that defencealways remained important'

B. K. and B. S.)

Hvar town Castle: the largestIron Age settlement on the island

The site of the modem town of Hvarmust always have been attractive to settleme-nt (Fig. l7), Lying on the southwestem side ofthe island, the town possesses an excellent po-rt which is protected to the south by the Skoji(Pakleni) group of islands. It also has a largefertile area to the east that is well provisionedwith water. In the past, however, the site ofthe town of Hvar achieved a far wider signifi-cance because of its key role in long distancetrade up and down the eastem Adriatic course.The importance of the medieval and modemtown is emphasised in the splendid medievalbuildings set around the town piazza, its castle

Fig. U.View onthe town ofHvar andits castle, Inthe background are Skoji and the island ofVis.

The Adriutic Islund Project 33

and medieval cathedral. The Bishopric ofHvar includes the neighbouring islands ofBrad and Vis. During the Middle Ages Hvarwas the richest commune in Dalmatia. Theprominent position of Hvar amongst the Ce-ntral Dalmatian islands is clear, and it seemsreasonable to ask whether this oosition wasreflected in earlier times.

This was one of the questions which theAdriatic Islands Project team sought to inve-stigate when, in 1989, it canied out an exte-nsive survey of the Hvar Castle hill.

Clearly a strategic position, the hill,which dominates the harbour at Hvar. was theobvious site for lhe Venelians t0 conslruct acastle in the l2th century. Prior to the survey,there had always been a suspicion that a pre-historic site had preceded the castle. A shortassessment of the distribution of prehistoricmaterial within the outer ward of the VenetianCastle indicated that this was the case, andthat considerable quantrties of prehistoric ma-terial covered an extensive area,

The potential importance of the site ledto a more detailed surface survey over an areaof c, 1.43 ha, This survey allowed a more pre-cise definition of the prehistoric settlementarea, and provided considerable amounts ofdatable pottery. A few fragments suggestedthat there was some sort of settlement on thesite from the Eneolithic period onwards, butthe most intense occupation is testified duringthe Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages (c.25Vaof the collected material was of Bronze Agedate and l57a of Iron Age date). Of specialinterest is the presence of imported Italian,

Messapian and Appulian geometric potterydating from the 9th to the 4th centuries BC.These finds, along with imported pottery fromGreece and Greek colonies in Italy, indicatethat the site maintained extensive outside co-ntacts throughout m0st of the first millenniurnBC. Unfortunately, despite the quantity of theprehistoric finds on the hill, there are virtuallyno other traces of the settlement. It must havepossessed defences originally, but the co-nstruction of the medieval castle and later la-ndscaping have removed all traces of any ho-uses or walls.

The discoveries raise a number of veryimportant points about the status of the Hvarcastle site within the island as a whole. Theexistence of the Greek colony of Pharos atStari Grad, and literary and epigraphic evide-nce for troubled relations between the nativepopulations and colonists, has often led to anover-emphasis of the importance of the StariGrad plain within the pre-Roman history ofthe island. The results from Hvar Castle su-ggest that a more complex social situation exi-sted on the island during the first millenniumBC than is represented in the historical record,The finds fiom Hvar Castle indicate that thissettlement was probably the largest and mostimportant later prehistonc site on the island.The presence of imported pottery 0n the sitesuggests that the settlement had privilegedaccess to exotic imported goods during thepre-Greek period and that it enjoyed some de-gree of social pre-eminence within the island.This hypothesis is further strengthened by the

34 The Adriatic Island Proiect

proximity t0 the largest banow cemetery onthe island; at Vira to the north west of Hvar.

Almost certainly the importance of thesite at Hvar Castle was achieved as a result ofits geographical position on the eastem Adri-atic trade routes. If this is conect, the availa-ble data goes some way towards answeringsome fundamental problems with respect tothe nature of Greek/Native relations duringthe initial period of Greek colonisation onHvar, i,e. why were the colonists allowed toestablish themselves and why was there a pe-riod of peace between the two communitiesbefore the violent conflict recorded bv Diodo-rus?

The evidence seems to suggest that theGreek colony on the Stari Grad plain was pe-ripheral to the principal prehistoric settlementsituated above the town of Hvar. The distancebetween the two settlements piobably allowedthe peaceful establishment of the colony. Apeace which was shattered when the increasi-ng activities of the new colony eventually ca-me into conflict with the authority of the inha-bitants of the site at Hvar Castle.

(V. G. and B. K.)

Grapieva cave

The best known Neolithic cave site inthe eastem Adriatic lies hidden in a hill abovethe remote southem shore of the island ofHvar. From the top of the island, the ridgelinethat is Hvar's rugged spine, the view southopens towards the outlying islands of Siedro,

Kordula, Lastovo, Vis and the sea beyondwhere one can recognise PalagruZa. Descendfrom here across a short stretch of broken ro-ck and there you may notice a small, inconspi-cuous hole among the blocks of limestone.This is the entrance to Grapdeva cave.(Fig.18)

The entrance was once much larger, butat some time in the past a massive rock slidealmost succeeded in sealing up the cave. Theresult was a well-protected shelter that alsoacted as an almost ideal sediment trap, colle-cting over the passing millennia the refuse le-ft by occasional tenants of the cave.

Fig. lS.View at the enterance oftheGrapieva cave. In the background are the

islands of Stedro and Kordula.

The Adriatic Island Proiect 35

After crawling through, one enters aspacious hall, divided by stalagmitic pillarsand curtains into several chambers of differe-nt sizes. The first and largest ofthese measu-res some 20 meters across. The earliest explo-rers dug here late in the 19th century, lookingfor traces ofthe ancient pa$. They found thi-ck sediments, sealed at the surface by a trave-rtine slab.

Between 1887 and 1952, the cave wasexcavated by a number of different people.The most important excavations were caniedout during the second quarter of the 20th ce-ntury. They were directed by Grga Novak, anative of Hvar who was later to become presi-dent of the Academy of Sciences and Arts. Itis to his credit that the attractive, red-paintedpottery from the cave became synonymouswith the eastem Adriatic Neolithic, and thatthe first well-defined Neolithic "culture" inthe area was named after his island.

Novak excavated about half of the avai-lable area down to the bedrock. Most of therest of the cave was disturbed by earlier diggi-ng. Together, Novak and his predecessors ga-thered a massive amount of archaeoiogicalmaterial from the cave, but preserved relative-ly little of the contextual infttmation that wo-uld give meaning to the finds. This $ate ofaffairs inspired the latest archaeologicalexploration of Grapdeva by the Adriatic Isla-nds Project. In 1996 a small trench was ope-ned in order to leam something about the co-ntext of the Neolithic finds. This was to be do-ne by a minimal intervention, armed by the

more sophisticated recovery methods and ana-lytical techniques that have become availablein recent years (Fig. 19).

The te$ unit located the edge of Nova-k's trench, as well as the undisturbed culturalstrata beyond. More than 40 stratigraphic uni-ts (mostly superimposed hearth remains) wererecognized in an almost tluee meter thick se-quence. They represent some 3500 years ofoccasional occupation that spans the periodsfrom the Late Neolithic to the full-blown Bro-nze Age. Abundant fragments of charcoalthroughout the sequence have allowed reliableabsolute dating of the deposits and the associ-ated finds. This marks a maior contribution.

sl. 19. The interior of the Grapteva caveduring r e c ent e xc av ations.

36 The Adriatic Island Project

sequence had nothing to moor it in time; the-re were virtually no absolute dates. Now, so-me of the gaps have been filled and a reliablechronology is being built.

Analyses of the various classes of reco-vered archaeological materials are cunentlyunder way. For the moment, we know that thelate Neolithic occupants visited the cave repe-atedly during the 5th millennium B.C. Wealso know that goats and/or sheep were one oftheir main sources of protein, and that theyintensively collected marine molluscs fromthe tidal zone along the shore, but only exce-ptionally ventured offshore to fish. To someextent, they complemented their diet by colle-cting and processing acoms. Among the moreintriguing finds are occasional isolated human

bones (most of them fragmented) which indi-cate possible function of the cave as a burialplace, or for other ritual purposes which, forthe moment, remain unclear.

To reach Grapdeva, one takes a steep di-rt track that forks off the main longitudinalisland communication half-way between Jelsaand Poljica. Less than a kilometer up the tra-ck is Humac, a picturesque seasonal villagelocated near the island's crest, which seems t0have fallen asleep a couple of centuries ago.From here, one continues on foot along a ba-rely visible trail, for some 20 minutes. Theentrance to the cave is locked, but visits(including a guide) can be ananged throughthe Tourist Office in Jelsa.

(S. F and .T. K.)

Melting of the millenia old drystone walls of the Greek land division plots in Stari Grad planeWho v,ill stop them?

The Island of Brai

"et capris laudata Brattia"(Pliny, His. Nat,III 151)

he island of Brad is the third largestisland in the Adriatic Sea, Mountaino-us in aspect it is nearly 36 kilometres

in length and l2 kilometres wide. Its precipi-tous southern coastline rises to 778m abovesea level at Vidova gora, the highest peak onall the Adriatic islands. Composed primarilyof limestones and dolomite, the quanies ofthe island have been a source of stone for bu-ilding and decorative stonework for centuri-es. Indeed Brad "marble" was even used inthe construction of Diocletian's Palace inSolit.

Although studied for more than a ce-ntury, the archaeology of the island wasimperfectly known, and heavily biased towa-rds the prehistoric and Early Christian monu-ments 0n the island. However, this picturewas changed dramatically following an exte-nsive survey of Brad by the Adriatic IslandsProject team. During a four month field ca-mpaign in 1994 team members recorded atotal of 597 sites, an increase of nearly 60 pe-rcent. This massive increase of known archa-eology spans all periods from earliest prehi-story through to the early Middle Ages (Fig.

20). The important data from the survey nowpermits analysis of settlement on Brad for

every period. Hitherto unknown sites of the

Neolitic and Eneolitic period have been di-

scovered too.

Skrip: Myceneans in theAdriatic?

A peep through the excavation "keyho-

le", more often than not, opens up far widervistas. Nowhere has this been clearer than inthe team's investigation of the hillfort atShip, on the island of Brad. This site was theexcavation focus for an investigation of theorigins of later prehistoric tenitorial centrali-sation within the islands, the emergence ofhillforts or hilltop enclosures, and on Braditself, the apparent change in site distributio-ns from higher inland plateau locations in theLate Bronze Age (Fig. 20a-b) to the more

coastal orientated sites of the Iron Age (Fig.

20c-d). The sill partly preserved "megali-

thic" walled enclosure at Skrip (Fig.22) was

always presumed to be Greek Iron Age in da-te. There may still be grounds t0 suggest thatSkip was not a normal site. It may be no co-

The Adriatic Island Project

Fig. 20. Distribution maps of Bra(.a.) Thiessen polygons associated with Bronze

Age hillforts.b.)Site catchment of Bronze Age hilforts.

c.) Thiessan polygons associated with lron Agehilforts.

d.) Site catchment of lron Age hillforts.e.) Thiessan polygons associated with Roman sites

incidence that the site is associated in laterperiods with both a Roman temple and a se-

ries of altars recording Jupiter, Mithras,

Asclepius and Hercules. The concentration

of late Roman(?) burials clustering around

the Mausoleum (built in the 3/4th cent. AD)

may also be significant, perhaps suggesting

an early Christian community and meetingplace, whilst the number of later Christian

churches in the village of Skip is exceptio-

nal on the island. The sum of the evidence

suggests some continuous religious associa-

tion with the site. The area had already been

subjected t0 some of the most extensive seri-

es of excavations by other workers. Howe-

ver, the material results of this earlier work

suggested that a well directed, modem exca-vation might achieve significant results.

The Adriatic Island Project

Excavations at Skrip in 1995 sampled

two areas of deep stratigraphy surviving clo-

se to the east and west perimeters of the wa-

lled enclosure. To the west, and partly bene-

ath it, the earliest phase of activity at the site

involved the deposition of Early Bronze Age

Cetina type vessels within a natural rock cre-

vice. The earliest structure here seems to be

the base of a drystone revetted caim (Fig. 21

and24), of a type identified widely elsewhe-

re in the islands, Dalmatian mainland, and in

Bosnia. Many such caims probably origina-

ted in the Early and Middle Bronze Age, so-

me as burial mounds, while others functio-

ned primarily as ritual and tenitorial foci, as

here at Skip. No great interval may have se-

parated the erection of this caim with the bu-

ilding of a circuit of massive drystone "me-

galithic" walling around the top of the hill(Fig. 22). Behind this had accumulated over

2m of deposits, dumped from over the caim

to the east to seal its surviving lower reve-

tment and at least one shallow, drystone-bu-

ilt platform at its base. An extensive and we-

ll stratified assemblage of native coarseware

and animal bone was recovered here, associ-

ated with several sherds of Late Helladic IIIc

Mycenean pottery (Fig. 24). A second secti-

on to the east revealed the full width of the"Megalithic" wall and its rubble rampart ba-

cking, butted by occupation deposits and the

remains of a complete fired-clay oven within

a natural rock fissure.

Fig.22. Skrip. NiklaVujnovi( and theremains of the megalithic fortifications on

the western side.

Fig.23. Mycenean sherds from Skrip

Fig. 21. Skrip. View on trench 3 excavated in1995.

40 The Adriatic lsland Project

In contrast to the earlier assumed IronAge date for the walls at Skrip. virtually allof this activity can be assigned to the Mi-ddle-Late Bronze Age. Perhaps the mostexciting aspect of the work is the discoveryof Mycenean pottery in association with amassive defensive wall which must be of thesame date. Mycenean material, either fromthe core Mycenean tenitories in Greece orcentres with trading or permanent settleme-nts in ltaly, is very rare on the Eastem Adri-atic coast. The presence of Mycenean potte-ry at Skrip, once again, emphasises the stra-tegic importance of the islands for trade, andis indicative, perhaps, of maritime trade linksup to the head of the Adriatic. The amount of

such pottery, however, is very small; so wewould be unwise to suggest that this was aMycenean "colony" or settlement. It seemsbetter to suggest that the "Megalithic" styleof walling at Skip was perhaps inspired di-rectly by Mycenean or, perhaps more likely,south Italian prototypes. It may be that herewe are seeing a native settlement/ritual ce-ntre reflecting the aspirations of a local chiefor ruler. This may be illustrated by the factthat Skrip is one of the smallest hillforts onBrad and that it has the most monumental fo-rtifications. The context of contact or inspi-ration is less clear. It may simply be the re-sult of a single influential person's whim.However, Strlp may also be one part of the

\

@ ffi@wFqmh

_ , r ( ) m d f f i i d b f r b

ffi e'wqsnp

t ^rcbd{i:drffi.

Fig.24. Sketch plan of the Skrip hillt'ort

The Adriatic Island Project 11

complex trade network which linked theMyceneans with much of continental Euro-pe. It may not be too far fetched to imagineSt rip as one link in the chain that stretchedalong the eastem Adriatic shore past the no-rthem Dalmatian Islands (later known to theGreeks as Ihe Elecnides or Amber Islands),and perhaps helping to supply the Myceneanaristocracy with some of their luxury goods-including Baltic amber.

In any case Strip ls an exceptional siteand it should deserve more attention and ca-re. As early as 1764 (1 12 years before the di-scovery of Mycenae) the duke of Brad Fra-ncesco Badoer has lifted a ban prohibitingthe demolition of the fortifications ol Skrin.

(V. G.. P. L. and B. K.)

Peter Leach and Slohodan Cai'e u'lile dotuntenting the megalithic w,alls of Skrip

The Island of Soha

From 37 to 215 sites

, n X r . r .

fT.t h. island of Solta lies some I 6 km. so-

I uth of Split (Fig. 25) and is separatedI from Brad by a channelonly 700m. wi-

de. known as "the gates of Splii '. Solta is ve-ry small and even with the smaller islands(known as the Skoji), it has an area of only58.8 kilometres. To The Greeks the island wasknown as Olinta, and to the Romans as Sole-ntia. During 1994, team members exploredSolta in a programme of systematic fieldworksupported by archival and bibliographic rese-arch. Up until 1986 there had only been 37 re-corded archaeological sites on Solta. A fewshort months of fieldwork and research revea-led 215 archaeological sites. Thirty three ofthese sites were prehistoric in date and inclu-ded 4 hillforts and, more commonly a numberof burial mounds. These burial mounds canoccur as isolated tumuli or within larger grou-ps. From some of these metal objects of the la-te Bronze Age have been recovered. No Neo-litic sites have been found, although an earlyreport records flint anefacts from Solta.

Few Hellenistic fine wares were reco-rded on several sites, but the most frequent fi-nds date to the Roman period, and in the cou-rse of survey nearly 133 Roman locations we-

re recorded ranging from Roman villas (Fig.26) to small scatters of pottery, presumably allthat is left of smaller structures. The distribu-tion of these sites around the edges of fertileland suggests that they must have been farms.The greatest concentration of finds on the isla-nd occurs near Grohote (Fig. 25). Here archa-eologists have found the remains of mosaics,

Fig.25, Solta.View on the plane andGrohote. Split in the bacground.

The Adriatic lsland Projecl 43

inscriptions, fragments of columns, sarcopha-gi and the remains of a Early Christian church.The extent and quantity of finds here suggestthat these are the remains of an yiczs or a vi-llage.

The Roman occupants of Grohota andall the other Roman sites on Solta were proba-bly producing food to be sold to the cities onthe coast. In many ways this situation has exi-sted for many centuries, and the history of theisland of Solta has always been intrinsicallylinked with the fortunes of the nearest big ce-ntre - Split and, at an earlier period, Salona. In

making such an observation it is possible toview Solta as the last step ofthe island bridge$udied by the Adriatic Island Project.

Starting with PalagruZa, each island loo-ks to its neighbours north, south, east and we-st until eventually the islands of Solta andBrac finally link them with the mainland, andthus with the important pass at Klis, behindSplit, which leads directly into the heart of thecontinent.

(N.-V. and J. B.)

Fig.26. Solta. Starine near Gornje Selo: late Roman and medieval fortffied farmstead

Computers and the Adriatic Island Project

rchaeology is often been perceived as arather old-fashioned discipline whichhas no need for advanced comDuter te-

chnology. However, things are very differenttoday. Archaeologists have not only startedusing computers to write their texts, they havebecome a basic part of the archaeological too-lbox.

The Adriatic Islands Project has been atthe cutting edge of research in archaeologicalcomputing, and has led the way in the applica-tion of regional computer databases, geogra-

phical information systems and remote sensi-ng in archaeology. A11 the data collected duri-ng more than ten years of field work has beenstored in a large sites and monuments databa-se (Fig. 27). This database contains extensiveinformation on all the known archaeologicalsites on the Central Adriatic Islands from theearliest prehistory to the early medieval peri-od. Now that it is available in digital formatthis information can be easily accessed andused in any number of archaeological ana-lyses. Apart from its academic use this data is

Fig. 27. Data base for Dalmatian islands.

The Adriatic Island Project 4)

also used to study the condition of archaeolo-gical monuments and to manage them as a re-source. Having such an extensive databaseallows archaeologists to predict the impact ofeconomic development on the cultural herita-

At the same time that archaeologists we-re canying out field work on the ground, theywere also using airbome and satellite remotesensing techniques to gather information on

Fig.28. LANDSAT TM image of Brat.

archaeology and the local environment. Forinstance, aerial photography has been used toplot the extent of the exceptional Greek fieldsystem 0n Stari Grad plain on the island ofHvar, while interpretation of LANDSAT TM

satellite images has allowed archaeologists toplot land-use and examine land potential acro-ss very large, and poorly mapped regions(Fig.28).

A11 this information is integrated into aGeographical Information System (GIS). GISis a fairly new technology used for the spatialanalysis of archaeological data. Using a varie-ty of analytical modules provided by a GIS,archaeologists can analyse the relationship be-tween the natural environment and archaeolo-gical site locations, model the tenitories of pa-st communities and much more. Innovativeuse of GIS can give us an insight into how pa-st societies used the land and for what. Fina-lly, using all the environmental and archaeolo-gical information within the GIS archaeologi-sts can construct predictive models for the lo-cation of different types of archaeological si-tes, enabling the discovery of new sites as we-ll as protection and management of existingarchaeological resources.

(2. s.)

lnformation on cell 1282045? Yes, I think we've got it here somewhere.

The Archaeological heritage ofthe Central Dalmatian islands:

its condition and the current stateof knowledge

ne of the most important aspects ofAdriatic Islands Project is its abilityto provide quantitative information on

the state of preservation of the cultural monu-ments in the study area. This information canbe used to assist in providing policies for pro-tection and conservation. Preliminary analysisof this information suggests that, until very re-cently, the destruction of cultural sites on theislands was a relatively slow process, and waslargely restricted to natural erosion and agri-cultural damage. However, the rate of destru-ction has increased dramatically in the last 30years and the cunent situation is outlined inthe following table:

Brad Solta HvarWell preserved 43 37 52Sfight damage 16 5 13Damaged 16 13 3Destroyed 9 11 13Excavated 14 10 19

Destruction data for the AIPm percentages

Most of the damage recorded in table Iresults fiom the development of mass tourismand the construction of tourist and infiastru-cture facilities. Unfortunately, specific typesof monument are particularly vulnerable todevelopment. Significant lengths of the rema-rkable Greek land divisions on the Stari Gradplain on Hvar have already disappeared (Fig.

0n page 36). However, the most obvious vi-ctims are the prehistoric stone tumuli on theislands which are being robbed for hard core.

N. G.)

The case of hydroarchaeology

Leaving the land it will come as no gre-at surprise to realise that the coastal seas ofthe Central Dalmatian islands are also amo-ngst the most attractive archaeological regio-ns of the eastem Adriatic coastline. Here onefinds virtually every type of underwaterarchaeological find or site, covering every ti-me period, and originating from many partsof the Mediterranean - both east and west.

The Adriatic lsland Project 1 1

Most of the sites are concentrated around theisland of Hvar, especially its southwest part,then around PalagruZa, Svetac and Vis, andmuch less around Brac and Solta. Many ofthese finds are unique. This observation must,however, be put into the context of the veryhigh levels of damage recorded for underwa-ter sites including deliberate or accidental de-struction and theft of antiquities from sites.Whilst the information we have on the levelsof exploration and condition is far below thatof sites on land, the data collected by the pro-ject suggests that the majority of underwatersites have now been damaged or looted. Thedata from Hvar suggests that a fundamental

change has to be made in regards to how sho-ud the hydroarchaeological monuments betreated. Out of more then 220 sites aroundHvar some 50Va are mOre or less damaged,25Va are destroyed and the other 25Va of lhetotal are intact or of unknown state. Only l\Vahave been excavated or surveyed by archaeo-logists. In l5Va cases the first reports on the-se sites came from local sport divers (Fig.29). The time span cover the period from the5th cent. BC to the medieval times. Most si-tes belong to the 2-1 cent. BC and most findsare of Lamboglia 2 type of amphorae.

(M. P.)

Fig.29. Hidroarchaeological collection of Jura.jToto Meneghello at Palmiiana, Hvar.

.;,1

I

Principal Project References

V. Gaffney, B. Kirigin, M. Petrii, N. Vujnovii, S. Cade, Archaeological heritage of the islandof Hvar, Croatia, British fuchaeological reports, Intemational Series 660, Oxford 1997.

S. Forenbaher, V. Gaffney, J. Hayes, T. Kaiser, B. Kirigin, P. Leach, N. Vujnovii, Hvar-Vis-Palagruia 1992-1993, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 86, Split 1994,16-28.

V. Gaffney and Z. Standid, GIS Apporaches to Regional Analysis: A Case Study of the Isla-nd ofHvar, Ljubljana 1991. Second Edition 1996.

Adriatic Island Project volumes in preparation:

The Archaeological Heritage of the island of Brai (BAR IS, Oxford 1999)

The Archaeological Heritage of the islands of Solta, Vis, Biievo, Svetac and Palagruia(BAR IS,Oxford 2000)

The Adriatic Island Project: Intensive Surveys and Excavations (BAR IS, Oxford 2001)

The Adriatic Island Project: Final Report (BAR, Oxford 2002)

The short review of the results made by the Project presented in thisbooklet raise the question on how should these monuments be protected?Such decisions are not for archaeologists alone, but archaeologists have arole t0 inform and influence. By making the Adriatic Island Project data0n monument survival available to anyone in the region who has an inte-rest in their protection we hope we are doing just that.

Acknowledgements

The members of the Adriatic Islands Project would like to thank the following institutions and indi-

viduals for their assistance without which the work would not have been nossible:

The Archaeological Museum in Split, The Centre for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of

Hvar, The Department of History of the Philosophy Faculty in Zadar, The Department of Archaeology of

the Philosophy Faculty in Ljubljana, The Research Centre of the Slovene Academy of Arts and Sciences,

The Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit, The Department of Ancient History and Archaeolo-

gy (University of Birmingham), The Royal Ontario Museum, The National Geographic Society, The Bd-

tish Academy, The Prehistoric Society, Professor M. Fulford, EOSAT, Commission of the European Co-

mmunities, Directorate General for Science, Research and Development, XII-B, Prof.Sander van der Le-

euw, University of Paris I, France, Research Support Scheme of the OSI/HESP, grant NO.:1363 ll99T T\e

Mini$ry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Slovema.

We would like to thank British Archaeological Reports (lntemational Series) and the Split-Dalma-

tian County for their support for the publication of the first volume of the project's results (The Archaeo-

logical Heritage of Hvar, Croatia).

We would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Croatian Ministry of Culture for their su-

bstantial financial support for this publication, and the Tounst Agency of Hvar who also provided assista-

nce during the printing of this booklet.

Participants in the Adriatic Islands Project(abbreviations in parenthesis are the names of authors of this booklet)

John Bintl iff (1987-1989)

Goran BoZovi6 (1987-1988)

Josip Burmaz (from 1994) (J. B.)

Frank Carter (1988-1989)

Slobodan iade (from 1986) (S. e.)

Margareth Darmanin (from1990)

StaSo Forenbaher (from 1991) (S. F.)

Sheelagh Frame (from 1990)

Vincent Gaffney (from 1987) (V. G.)

John W. Hayes (fiom 1989) (J. H.)

Timothy Kaiser (from 1989) (T.K.)

Tea Katunari6 (from 1996)

Branko Kirigin (from 1982) (8.K.)

Anamarija Kurili6 (from 1992)

Peter Leach (from 1994) (P. L.)

Jagoda Mardeiii (from 1996)

Marinko Petri6 (from1986) (M. P.)

TomaZ Podobnikar (from 1994)

Petar Popovid ( 1982-1988).

BoZidar Slap5ak (from 1982) (8. S.)

Zoran Standid (from 1985) (2. S.)

Nik5a Vujnovii (from 1984) (N. V.)

Helen Watson (from 1987)

F

q