Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ SREDNJi i RANi gORNJi pAlEOliTiK U hRVATSKOJ ThE MiDDlE AND EARlY UppER pAlEOliThiC

iN CROATiA

Pregledni članak / Review article UDK: 903(497.5)”6323” 903(497.5)”6325” Primljeno / Received: 15. 05. 2007. Prihvaćeno / Accepted: 08. 06. 2007.

Ivor Karavanić Odsjek za arheologiju Filozofski fakultet Sveučilište u Zagrebu Ivana Lučića 3 HR–10000 ZAGREB ikaravan@ffzg.hr

Ivor Janković Institut za antropologiju Gajeva 32 HR–10000 ZAGREB ivor@inantro.hr

Članak donosi pregled glavnih nalazišta, interpretacija i spoznaja u proučavanju srednjega i ranoga gornjeg paleolitika Hrvatske. Posebna je pozornost posvećena rezultatima novijih istraživanja i novijim interpretacijama ranijih istraživanja, bitnima za rekonstrukciju ponašanja i prilagodbe neandertalaca, njihova nestanka te pojave ranih suvremenih Europljana. Neandertalci su se podjednako dobro prilagođavali različitu okolišu u kontinentalnoj (sjeverozapadnoj) i mediteranskoj Hrvatskoj (Dalmacija). Arheološki nalazi s područja sjeverozapadne Hrvatske (špilja Vindija) upućuju na prijelaz srednjega u gornji paleolitik, povezanost neandertalaca s inicijalnim gornjim paleolitikom i moguće susrete neandertalaca i ranih modernih ljudi. S druge strane između kasnoga srednjeg paleolitika (Mujina pećina) i ranoga gornjeg paleolitika (Šandalja II) istočnoga jadranskog područja postoji vremenska praznina veća od 10 000 godina, uz vidnu razliku u načinu proizvodnje i tipologiji alatki. Tijekom posljednjih 15-ak godina spoznaje o paleolitiku Hrvatske znatno su dopunjene i promijenjene, što je rezultat istraživanja više nalazišta uporabom suvremenih metoda, ali i provedbe detaljnijih analiza ranije iskopana materijala. Ključne riječi: paleolitik, musterijen, orinjasijen, neandertalci, rani moderni ljudi, Hrvatska

The article provides an overview of the principle sites, interpretations and knowledge gained in the study of the Middle and early Upper Paleolithic in Croatia. Particular attention is accorded to the results of more recent research and newer interpretations of earlier research essential to the reconstruction of the behavior and adaptations of the Neandertals, their disappearance and the appearance of early modern Europeans. The Neandertals were equally capable of adapting to the different environments in continental (Northwestern) Croatia and Mediterranean Croatia (Dalmatia). Archeological materials from Northwestern Croatia (Vindija Cave) indicate the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic, the ties of the Neandertals to the initial Upper Paleolithic and possible encounters between Neandertals and early modern humans. On the other hand, there is a 10,000 year gap between the late Middle Paleolithic (Mujina Pećina) and the early Upper Paleolithic (Šandalja II) of the Eastern Adriatic region, with a visible difference in tool production methods and typology. Over the past fifteen years, knowledge on the Paleolithic in Croatia has been considerably supplemented and enhanced, which is the result of research at several sites using cutting-edge methods as well as thorough analyses of materials excavated previously. Key words: Paleolithic, Mousterian, Aurignacian, Neandertals, early modern humans, Croatia

 21 

Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ SREDNJi i RANi gORNJi pAlEOliTiK U hRVATSKOJ Opusc.archaeol. 30, 21­54, 2006.

1. Uvod
Paleolitik ili starije kameno doba arheološko je raz­ doblje koje započinje pojavom prvih ljudskih izra­ đevina (artefakta), odnosno predmeta koji su ljud­ skom rukom bili prilagođeni određenoj radnji. Na temelju današnjih spoznaja, ponajprije datacije ka­ menih alatki s prostora Afrike, paleolitik započinje prije više od 2,5 milijuna godina (Semaw et al. 1997; Semaw 2000). No budući da se najranije etape čovje­ kova kulturnoga – kao i biološkoga – razvoja odvija­ ju na tlu Afrike, priča o boravku čovjeka na tlu Euro­ pe i naše domovine započinje puno kasnije. Prvi tra­ govi čovjekova boravka izvan afričke pradomovine stari su otprilike 1,8–1,6 milijuna godina prije sadaš­ njosti, no ograničeni su na tlo Azije (Gabunia et al. 2000). Prve tragove osvajanja Europe prepoznajemo u sporadičnim nalazima kamenih alatki starih nešto manje od milijun godina (npr. Le Vallonet u Fran­ cuskoj, Isernia La Pineta u Italiji, Stránská Skála i Prezletice u Češkoj i dr.) te u još skromnijim skelet­ nim ostacima prvih europskih osvajača (Ceprano u Italiji i Gran Dolina u Španjolskoj). Što se naše do­ movine tiče, razdoblje donjega paleolitika Hrvatske nije zastupljeno velikim brojem nalazišta i nalaza. U literaturi se navode tek četiri lokaliteta na kojima su pronađene alatke pripisane donjem paleolitiku, i to prije svega na temelju tipoloških odlika nalaza (Malez 1979). Tri su nalazišta na otvorenom (Donje Pazarište, Punikve i Golubovec), dok se naziv Šan­ dalja I odnosi na izoliranu koštanu breču pronađenu na lokalitetu Šandalja kod Pule (usmeno priopćenje D. Rukavine). Unutar koštane breče, čiji su faunalni nalazi pripisani razdoblju donjega pleistocena, pro­ nađeni su sjekač i oblutak koji je možda poslužio za njegovu izradbu (Malez 1974; 1975). Iz koštane bre­ če izoliran je i nalaz zuba (sjekutić), koji je M. Malez (1975; 1980) pripisao ranomu pripadniku roda Homo ili čak nekomu ranijem homininu, no kasnije analize pokazale su da se ne radi o ljudskom, nego životinj­ skom zubu (Wolpoff 1996; 1999). Šandaljski sjekač, po tipologiji sličan sjekačima iz Valloneta (usmeno priopćenje H. de Lumleya), vjerojatno predstavlja najstariji trag ljudskoga boravka na prostoru Istre, no bez preciznije revizije tafonomije i sedimentacije koštane breče te podrobnije paleontološke analize taj nalaz nije moguće datirati preciznije od vremena donjega, odnosno starijega paleolitika. Na drugim su lokalitetima nalazi prikupljeni s po­ vršine (Vuković 1962–1963; Malez 1979). Gubitak stratigrafske pozicije onemogućava bilo kakvu data­ ciju, osim one temeljene na tipološkim karakteristi­ kama nalaza. Od triju lokaliteta koja se u literaturi navode Punikve sadrže nekoliko rukotvorina, među kojima se ističu dva ašelejenska šačnika, u Donjem

1. introduction
The Paleolithic, or Old Stone Age, is an archeologi­ cal period that began with the appearance of the first human artifacts, meaning items worked by human hands to serve a specific purpose. According to cur­ rent knowledge, primarily based on dating of stone tools from Africa, the Paleolithic first began over 2.5 million years ago (Semaw et al. 1997; Semaw 2000). However, since the earliest stages of human cultural, as well as biological, development occurred in Af­ rica, the story of human residence in Europe and in Croatia began much later. The first traces of human habitation outside the African cradle of humanity date to roughly 1.8 to 1.6 million years before the current era, but these traces are limited to Asia (Gabunia et al. 2000). The first traces of the conquest of Europe can be discerned in sporadic discoveries of stone tools a little less than a million years old (e.g. Le Vallonet in France, Isernia La Pineta in Italy, Stránská Skála and Prezletice in the Czech Republic, etc.) and in the even more meager skeletal remains of the first conquerors of Europe (Ceprano in Italy and Gran Dolina in Spain). As for Croatia, there are not a large number of sites or materials dated to the Lower Paleolithic. The literature specifies only four sites at which tools attributed to the Lower Paleo­ lithic were found, above all based on the typologi­ cal traits of the finds (Malez 1979). Three sites are open­air (Donje Pazarište, Punikve and Golubovec), while the term Šandalja I pertains to an isolated bone breccia found at the Šandalja site near Pula (oral communication from D. Rukavina). Within the bone breccia, in which the faunal remains have been attributed to the Early Pleistocene, a chopper was found together with a pebble which may have served to craft it (Malez 1974; 1975). A tooth (inci­ sor) was also isolated from the bone breccia which M. Malez (1975; 1980) attributed to an early mem­ ber of the genus Homo or even some earlier homi­ nin, although subsequent analysis showed that it was not a human but rather an animal tooth (Wol­ poff 1996; 1999). The Šandalja chopper, based on its typology, is similar to choppers from Vallonet (oral communication from H. de Lumley), and probably constitutes the oldest trace of human habitation in the territory of Istria, but without a more precise revision of the taphonomy and sedimentation of the bone breccia and a more thorough paleontological analysis, this artifact cannot be dated any more pre­ cisely than the earlier, Lower Paleolithic. At other sites, materials were gathered from the surface (Vuković 1962–1963; Malez 1979). The loss of stratigraphic position prevents all but typology­ based dating. Of the three sites specified in the li­

 22 

Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ ThE MiDDlE AND EARlY UppER pAlEOliThiC iN CROATiA Opusc.archaeol. 30, 21­54, 2006.

Pazarištu prikupljen je jedan šačnik, uz nekoliko ko­ mada koji vjerojatno nisu rukotvorine, a smještanje nalaza s Golubovca u donji paleolitik u potpunosti je dvojbeno. Dvojbeno je i pripisivanje površinskih nalaza s Dugog otoka donjemu paleolitiku, jer su pronađeni pomiješani sa srednjopaleolitičkima (v. Batović 1988). Razdoblje srednjega paleolitika na tlu Europe vre­ menski se poklapa s trajanjem musterijenske kultu­ re. Tom razdoblju s prostora Hrvatske pripisano je više nalazišta, pećinskih i lokaliteta na otvorenom (Malez 1979). Nekoliko vrlo značajnih pećinskih lokaliteta (primjerice Krapina, Vindija, Veternica) nesumnjivo pripada tom razdoblju, što potvrđuju rezultati više analiza. Vindijski su nalazi od velike važnosti za proučavanje prijelaza srednjeg u gornji paleolitik i složene arheološke i antropološke slike te smjene. Za razumijevanje razdoblja srednjega paleo­ litika Dalmacije ključno je nalazište Mujina pećina u zaleđu Kaštela i Trogira, jer je prvo musterijensko nalazište u tom dijelu Hrvatske koje je iskopavano suvremenom metodom i kronometrijski datirano. Ovaj rad donosi pregled glavnih nalazišta (sl. 1), spo­ znaja i suvremenih razmišljanja o razdoblju srednje­ ga paleolitika Hrvatske te prijelaza iz srednjega u

terature, Punikve contains several artifacts, among them two Acheulean hand­axes; one hand­axe was collected in Donje Pazarište together with several pieces that are probably not artifacts; dating of the materials from Golubovec to the Lower Paleolithic is entirely dubious. Also dubious is the attribution of the surface materials from the island of Dugi to the Lower Paleolithic, for these were found mixed with Middle Paleolithic items (see: Batović 1988). The Middle Paleolithic in Europe corresponds chronologically to the Mousterian culture. Several sites in Croatia, both caves and open­air (Malez 1979), have been attributed to this period. Several very important cave sites (for example: Krapina, Vindija, Veternica) undoubtedly belong to this pe­ riod, which has been confirmed by the results of a number of analyses. The Vindija materials are of great importance to the study of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic and the com­ plex archeological and anthropological picture of this change. The Mujina Pećina in the Kaštela and Trogir hinterland is a crucial site for an understand­ ing of the Middle Paleolithic in Dalmatia, because this is the first Mousterian site in this part of Croatia excavated using contemporary methods and dated chronometrically.

Slika 1. Glavna nalazišta srednjega i ranoga gornjeg paleolitika u Hrvatskoj (autorica karte: R. Šošić). Fig. 1. Main Middle and early Upper Paleolithic sites in Croatia (map by R. Šošić).

 23 

traces of life and so forth. stoljeća (v. Nalazi iz pećine Spy u Belgiji pronađeni 1886. knowledge and contemporary views on the Middle Paleolithic in Croatia and the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic (including the early Upper Paleolithic). kada Gorjanović od lokalnog učitelja S. In an atmosphere marked by opposition to evolutionary thought and given the lack of anthropological finds. the Middle Paleolithic in Croatia is richer in materials and sites than the preceding Lower Paleolithic. prona­ đeni su i ljudski skeletni nalazi koje pripisujemo ne­ andertalskim populacijama. Janković 2004. D. Furthermore. which gave its name to the entire population. Prvi prepoznati nalazi neandertalaca. were found in 1856 in the small Feldhofer Cave (Kleine Feldhofer Grotte) in the Neander Valley near Düsseldorf in Germany (Anonymous 1856. 1906) signified a turning point in views on the Neandertals and confirmed that it was not a pathological but rather normal. go­ dine (Fraipont & Lohest 1887) te naše Krapine (1899–1905. even though Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859) had yet to be published.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ SREDNJi i RANi gORNJi pAlEOliTiK U hRVATSKOJ Opusc. Fuhlrott 1859. 1). 2) prepoznato je kao poten­ cijalno zanimljiv paleontološki lokalitet 1895. pokazuje istovremenost ljudskih kostiju i nalaza izumrlih životinja (Radovčić 1988). animal remains. Kao što je napomenuto. Gorjanović­Kramberger uporabom tada nove metode analize flora. Gorjanović­ Kramberger 1899. gornji paleolitik (uključujući rani gornji paleolitik). Nalazišta kontinentalne (sjeverozapadne) hrvatske 2. Schaaffhausen 1859. premda anatomski nešto druga­ čijoj populaciji daleke prošlosti. proved that the human bones and remains of extinct animals were cotemporaneous (Radovčić 1988). 2006. Janković 2004. King 1864). Rehorića dobiva sakupljene nalaze nosoroga i bivola (Gorja­ nović­Kramberger 1918). prema kojima čitava populacija do­ biva ime. using the flourine test. a new method at the time.1 Krapina (hušnjakov brijeg) This work presents an overview of the principal sites (Fig. Croatia (1899–1905. godi­ ne. u maloj pećini Feldhofer (Kleine Feldhofer Grotte) u dolini Nean­ der kraj Düsseldorfa u Njemačkoj (Anonymus 1856. which demonstrated the true age of the ma­ terials. godine i po prvom posjetu pronalazi ljudski zub (Radovčić 1988). The sites are divided between two larger regions. The first recognized Neandertal remains. hominin skeletal remains were also found which were attributed to the Neandertal populations. Nalazište u Krapini (sl.1 Krapina (hušnjakovo hill) As mentioned. i početkom 20. Radovčić 1988. 21­54. Gorjanović­Kramberger 1899. Smith 1976. The discoveries made in Spy Cave in Belgium in 1886 (Fraipont & Lohest 1887) and in Krapina. U atmosferi protivljenja evolucijskoj misli te nedostatku antropoloških nalaza dio znan­ stvenika bio je sklon nalaze iz Neandertala tumačiti kao patološkog modernog čovjeka (Virchow 1872). premda će Darwinova knjiga O podrijetlu vrsta tek biti objav­ ljena (1859). Schaaffhausen 1859. razdoblje srednjega paleo­ litika Hrvatske puno je bogatije nalazima i nalazi­ štima od prethodnoga donjeg paleolitika.  24  . The Krapina finds played a major role in the consideration of hu­ man evolution at the end of the nineteenth and ear­ ly twentieth centuries (see: Smith 1976. 2. faune. numerous stone tools and remains of extinct fauna were also found at both sites.archaeol. Spriječen brojnim obave­ zama Gorjanović dolazi na lokalitet tek 23. Krapinski su nalazi imali važnu ulogu u raz­ mišljanju o evoluciji čovjeka krajem 19. albeit ana­ tomically somewhat different population from the distant past. nego normalnoj. which are different climatic zones and which therefore of­ fered differing conditions for adaptation by Paleo­ lithic hunters and gatherers. 1906) predstavljaju prekretnicu u razmišljanju o neander­ talcima te daju potvrde da se ne radi o patološkoj. što pokazuje istinsku starost nalaza. some scientists preferred to interpret the Neander­ tal discoveries as a pathological form of modern man (Virchow 1872). Fuhlrott 1859. kolovoza 1899. Nadalje na obama nalazištima pronađene su i brojne kamene alatke te nalazi izumrle faune. This was a time when the idea of evolution was already present in European intel­ lectual circles. King 1864). In addition to numerous arti­ facts. To je vrijeme kad su razmišljanja o evoluciji već pri­ sutna u intelektualnome svijetu Europe. otkriveni su godine 1856. 30. Sites in continental (Northwestern) Croatia 2. Henke 2006 i ondje navedenu literaturu). Uz brojne nalaze artefakata. Radovčić 1988. continental (North­ western) Croatia and Mediterranean Croatia. Henke 2006 and the literature cited therein). tragova života i dr. Nalazišta su podijeljena u dvije veće regije – konti­ nentalnu (sjeverozapadnu) Hrvatsku i mediteransku Hrvatsku – koje predstavljaju različite klimatske zone i koje su stoga nudile drukčije uvjete za prila­ godbu paleolitičkih lovaca i sakupljača. Uspješno zaustavlja daljnju 2. Dragutin Gorjanović­Kramberger.

Simek & Smith 1997). Ma­ lez 1970a. 1988). Ve­ ćina neandertalskih nalaza pronađena je u slojevima 3 i 4. 2) was recognized as a po­ tentially interesting paleontological locality in 1895. Krapina 3 (Krapina C) (photograph by: I. 1978. dok dentalne analize M. The  25  . the age of hominin skeletal remains has been determined to arround 130. prema Gorjanoviću pripada interglacijalu Riss­Würm. traces of Mousterian industry were found (Gorjanović­ Kramberger 1906. Janković). 1988). 2–4 = Homo sapiens zone. Malez 1978a. Gorjanović­Kramberger (1906) classified the site’s stratigraphy into nine layers: I = riparian sediment. 5–7 = Rhinoceros mercki zone. Pronađeni su ostaci najmanje 24 osobe (Gardner & Smith 2006). In all layers. 1979.archaeol. 2. 3). Analysis of the stratigraphy indicates the relatively quick accumulation of sedi­ ments. 8–9 = zona Ursus spelaeus (Gorjanović­Kramberger 1906. 2–4 = zona Homo sapiens. so there is no way of knowing how many important materials were irretrievably lost). Slika 3.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ ThE MiDDlE AND EARlY UppER pAlEOliThiC iN CROATiA Opusc. Rink et al. Krapinska kolekcija velikim brojem nalaza individua različite starosti i spola omogućuje jedinstven uvid u varijaciju unutar populacije i sto­ ga nije čudno da je i danas predmetom proučavanja paleoantropologa zainteresiranih za kasnije etape evolucije čovjeka. 1999. 3). which was confirmed by subse­ quent research (Malez 1970. Malez 1970a. Krapinska kolekcija predstavlja najbrojnije nalazište neandertalskih skeletnih ostataka (sl. 1979. Based on radiometric analysis. 1978a. godine. but the discovery of a child’s skull (Krapina 1) in the upper layer 8 should be noted.000 years before present (OIS5e. Rehorić (Gorjanović­Kramberger 1918). Wolpoffa (1978. 8–9 = Ursus spelaeus zone (Gorjanović­ Kramberger 1906. devastaciju nalazišta (Hušnjakovo je u to vrijeme služilo kao izvor pijeska za građevinske radove pa nikada nećemo saznati koliko je važnih nalaza ne­ povratno izgubljeno) i ubrzo započinje sustavna istraživanja koja traju sve do 1905. 1913. 30. 1913. Stratigrafija krapinskoga nalazišta ukupne je visine oko 9 m. Malez 1978a. The stratigraphy of the Krapina site has a total height of 9 meters. Krapina 3 (Krapina C) (snimio: I. Most of the Neandertal traces were found in layers 3 and 4. što je kasnijim istra­ živanjima potvrđeno (Malez 1970. The Krapina site generated the most numerous col­ lection of Neandertal skeletal remains (Fig. Radiometrijskim analizama starost ljudskih skeletnih ostataka određena je na otprilike 130 000 godina (OIS5e. Rink et al. Wolpoff & Caspari 2006) upućuju na prisutnost 80­ak jedinki. Prevented by numerous obligations. 1995). Gorjanović only managed to visit the site on 23 August 1899. 1995). and already during his first tour he found a hominin tooth (Radovčić 1988). 1995). He succeeded in halting fur­ ther devastation of the site (Hušnjakovo at the time was used as a sand quarry for local construction. Nalazište na Hušnjakovu u Krapini u vrijeme istraživanja. Rink et al. 21­54. Njegove signature na ostacima krapinskih ljudi. Site at Hušnjakovo in Krapina during the research period. Analize stratigrafije upućuju na relativno brzu akumulaci­ ju sedimenata. a rata sedimentacije bila je relativno brza (Gorjanović­Kramberger 1913). and according to Gorjanović it belongs to the Riss­Würm Interglacial Stage. Veliku zaslugu u tome ima upravo Gorjanović. 2006. 1995). 1913. The site in Krapina (Fig. 5–7 = zona Rhinoceros mercki. when Gorjanović received the collected remains of a rhinoceros and buffalo from a local schoolteacher named S. and soon systema­ tic research commenced and continued until 1905. Rink et al. 3. Slika 2. koji je u svojoj metodologiji istraživanja u mnogočemu bio ispred svojih europskih suvreme­ nika. Fig. 1978a. with the exception of the lowest (I). 1978. 1913. no valja spomenuti nalaz dječje lubanje (Krapi­ na 1) iz gornjega sloja 8. 1979. Fig. U svim slojevima – izuzev najdonjega (I) – pronađeni su nalazi musterijenske industrije (Gorjanović­Kramberger 1906. Simek & Smith 1997). Janković). Radovčić et al. Radovčić et al. Gorjanović­Kramberger (1906) stratigrafiju nalazišta dijeli u 9 slojeva: I = riječni sediment. while the sedimentation was relatively rapid (Gorjanović­ Kramberger 1913).

1982. Analysis of the Krapina remains indicates a typi­ cal Neandertal population. 1979. Radovčić et al. 1988. Naknadne analize ipak su pokazale da taj nalaz nije moguće is­ ključiti iz varijacije prisutne unutar neandertalskih populacija (Minugh­Purvis et al. 1982. Wolpoff (1999) zalaže za svojevrsnu prijelaznu morfologiju prema moder­ nijim populacijama kasnoga pleistocena. Radovčić et al. Škerlj (1958) believes that it is a modern human. Stringer & Gamble 1993. Frayer 2006). Viewed as a whole. 1970a. Boule 1911. 1984. (see Gorjanović­Kramberger 1906. Wolpoff 1999. 2000). Bailey 2002. 1982. 1913. Kallay 1970. taurodontism of the molars and the typical “shovel” form of the maxillary incisors. Caspari 2006. 1988. krapinski neandertalci pokazuju “tipične” neandertalske odlike (Smith 1976). Aiello & Dean 1990. 1912. so it is no surprise that even today it is studied by paleoanthropologists interested in the later phases of human evolution. 1906) to je pokušao objasniti kanibalizmom. Gorjanović­ ­Kramberger 1906. Kallay 1970. Gorjanović­Kramberger 1906. karakterističnoga pro­ gnatizma središnjega dijela lica. thanks to a large number of remains of individuals of various ages and sexes. 1970b. see Gorjanović­ Kramberger 1906. no i kulturna praksa. White i Toth (1991). fa­ cilitates an unique insight into the variation within the population. kranijalnoga kapaciteta koji je u vrhu vrijednosti ži­ vućih ljudskih populacija i mnogih drugih anatom­ skih detalja koji neandertalce. Gledajući u cjelini. Radovčić et al. Trinkaus 1978. 1979. 1988. who was in many ways a step ahead of his European contemporaries in terms of research methodology. Smith 1976. (v. 1984. Prirodni procesi. razlikuju od živućih pripadnika naše vrste (Homo sapiens sapiens) (Smith 1976. Smith 1976. at least in terms of frequency. a retromolar space on the mandible. Radovčić et al. Bailey 2006). 1988. 1982. Građa tijela i jaka mišićna hvatišta upućuju na visok stupanj tjelesne aktivnosti i prilagodbu na hladniji okoliš (za detaljan opis i uvid u anatomske odlike krapinskih neandertalaca i karakteristike neander­ talske anatomije v. 1999. Coon 1962. 1983. 1988. 30. Trinkaus 1981. 2006. Smith 1976. 1970b. Janković 2004 i ondje citiranu literaturu). Stringer & Gamble 1993. A great contribu­ tion in this regard was made by Gorjanović himself. Tomić­Karović (1970). Radovčić et al. The Krapina collection. Caspari 2006. Smith & Paquette 1989. Aiello & Dean 1990. nedostatka brade (mentum osseum). retromolarno­ ga prostora na donjim čeljustima i sl. 1970a. Trinkaus 1981. Smith & Paquette 1989. even though the afore­ mentioned child’s skull from the site’s upper layer (Krapina A) has been the subject of disagreement. the characteristic prognathism of the midfacial region. 1979. Wol­ poff 1978. Za takvo objašnjenje zalažu se i Ullrich (1978). Wolpoff (1999) calls for something of a  26  . remains of a minimum of 24 individuals were found (Gardner & Smith 2006). Wolpoff & Caspari 2006). Jednu od neobičnosti krapinskih nalaza prepozna­ jemo u stanju pronađenih ljudskih kostiju – vrlo su fragmentirane. for their position of the site’s stratigraphy is known (for an exhaustive account of publications on the Krapina finds. Analize krapinskih ostataka upućuju na tipičnu neandertalsku popula­ ciju. Janković 2004 and the works cited therein). 1983. B. bunning on the oc­ cipital bone and suprainiac fossa. see Frayer 2006). the lack of chin (mentum osseum). fauni i litičkim nalazima omogućuju primjenu mno­ gih suvremenih analiza jer je poznat njihov smještaj unutar stratigrafije nalazišta (za iscrpan pregled pu­ blikacija o krapinskim nalazima v. animal and lithic remains facilitated the appli­ cation of many modern analyses. etc. 1988. Wolpoff 1978. The build and sturdy muscular attachments indicate a high degree of physical activity and adaptation to a cooler environment (for a detailed description and overview of the anatomical features of Neandertals and the typical Neandertal anatomy. Conroy 1997. 1912. Smith 1976.archaeol. The cranial anatomy also demonstrates typical Neandertal traits such as elongated skull with low forehead and a robust supraorbital region which is characterized by a double arch. Boule 1911. Conroy 1997. while dental analysis by M. the Krapina Neandertals exhibit “typical” Neandertal qualities (Smith 1976). Bailey 2002. poput velikih dimenzija zuba. Radovčić et al. Wolpoff (1978.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ SREDNJi i RANi gORNJi pAlEOliTiK U hRVATSKOJ Opusc. Coon 1962. Gorjanović­Kramberger (1901. Naknadne analize krapin­ skih kostiju upućuju međutim i na moguća drugači­ ja tumačenja. Bailey 2006). a cranial capacity at close to the peak values for living human populations and many other ana­ tomic details that distinguish Neandertals. while M. Chiarelli (2004). Wolpoff 1999. dok se M. Wolpoff & Caspari 2006). such as large teeth. Trinkaus 1978. velike nosne regije. B. His markings on the remains of the Krapina homi­ nin. 21­54. Wolpoff & Caspari 2006) indicated the presence of roughly 80 individuals. from living members of our own species (Homo sapiens sapiens) (Smith 1976. taurodontizma kutnjaka i ti­ pičnog “lopatastog” oblika sjekutića gornje čeljusti. što naravno ima velik odjek u popularizaciji slike o neandertalci­ ma kao kanibalima. Kranijalna anatomija također pokazuje tipične neandertalske odlike u kombinaciji izdužene lubanje niska čela i naglašene supraorbitalne regije koja oblikuje dvostruki luk. izbočenja na zatiljnoj kosti i udubine nad inionom. Škerlj (1958) smatra da se radi o mo­ dernom čovjeku. barem u postotku zastupljenosti. iako je ranije spomenut nalaz dječje lubanje iz gornjega sloja nalazišta (Krapina A) bio predmetom neslaganja. 1913. a large nasal region.

2006. 1998: T.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ ThE MiDDlE AND EARlY UppER pAlEOliThiC iN CROATiA Opusc. no transitional morphology toward the more modern populations of the Late Pleistocene. 1998: P. 3). Subsequent analysis has nonetheless shown that this find cannot be excluded from the variation present within Ne­ andertal populations (Minugh­Purvis et al. 3). (2006) smatraju da su zarezi prisutni na brojnim krapinskim kostima mogli nastati kao rezultat odvajanja mekog tkiva. 2006) te Frayer et al. 21­54. 4. Fig. Mousterian tools from the Krapina site (several examples not oriented according to standards) (after Dimitrijević et al.archaeol.  27  . Musterijenske alatke s krapinskoga nalazišta (više primjeraka nije orijentirano prema pravilima) (prema Dimitrijević et al. 30. Russel 1987). mogli su rezultirati takvim stanjem krapinskih ko­ stiju (Trinkaus 1985. 2000). Russel (1987a). Ullrich (1989. Slika 4.

sub­ sequent analyses of the Krapina bones indicate a possible different explanations. but not for can­ nibalism but rather for secondary burial. 1913) this industry as Mousterian. 1999. and Chiarelli (2004). silificirane stijene (18. There are a total of 1. Russel 1987). 2. 21­54. Sansilbano­Collilieux & Tillier 2006). Mann & Monge 2006). Gorjanović­Kram­ berger (1906. Među lomljevinom stoga obično dominiraju prirodni noževi hrptenjaci i levaloaški odbojci (Simek & Smith 1997). A right parietal fragment (os parietale) Kr­34. 4). Wolpoff & Caspari 2006. particularly in the older layers. Gorjanović­Kramberger (1901. godine započeo M.3% oruđa i 5. Tomić­Karović (1970). 4) were also found at Hušnjakovo. Simeka (1991. F. mno­ ge od kojih su zaliječene.1% odbojaka) i rožnjaci (10. 1999. Smith 1976. 1913) industriju je odredio kao muste­ rijen. Wolpoff & Caspari 2006. Fragment desne tjemene kosti (os parietale) Kr­34. 1978. moguće su analize populacijske varijacije. a large number of stone tools (Fig. tzv. 2006. Litičkih nalaza ukupno ima 1191 (Simek & Smith 1997).2 Velika pećina Velika pećina smještena je između Krapine i Vindije. Gardner & Smith 2006. Na mnogim nalazištima neandertalaca zamijećene su česte traume na skeletima (Trinkaus 1983).191 lithics (Simek & Smith 1997). Since the number of individuals found at Hušnjakovo Hill is large and individuals of both sexes and various ages accumulated within a single population over a relatively short time. posebice u starijim slojevima. cobble wedge­metoda.2% oruđa i 55. Simek (1991. Natural processes as well as cultural practices may have resulted in the condition of the Krapina bones (Trinkaus 1985. Radovčić et al. Busby 2006. 1999. it is possible to analyze popu­ lational variation as well as individual development. ne u svrhu kanibalizma. At many Neandertal sites. Analiza J. Besides the Neandertal skeletal and Pleistocene fauna remains. Kricun et al. Radovčić et al. No zanimljiv je podatak da su katkad ozljede tolika razmjera da je ozdravljenje najvjerojatnije zahtijevalo brigu zajednice (Trinkaus 1983). Underdown 2006. Simek & Smith 1997) pokazuje uporabu levaloaš­ ke metode izradbe odbojaka. što će dalje pridonijeti razumijevanju ontogenetičkoga razvoja tih ljudi (v. F. Simek & Smith 1997). Gardner & Smith 2006.archaeol. da su unutar jedinstvene popula­ cije akumulirane u relativno kratku vremenu zastu­ pljena oba spola i individue različite životne dobi. Mann & Monge 2006). which naturally led to the popularization of the image of Neandertals as cannibals. Analysis conducted by J. Malez. Zupanič 1970). However. (2006) believe that the cuts present on numerous Krapina bones may have resulted from the removal of soft tissue. frequent skeletal trauma has been noted (Trinkaus 1983). nego sekundarnog ukopa. a industrija se prema Bordesovoj podjeli pobliže može odrediti kao šarentijenski musterijen (Simek & Smith 1997). Prva isko­ pavanja ondje je 1948. Busby 2006. 1999. Sirovinski materi­ jal uglavnom je lokalnoga podrijetla i moguće ga je pronaći u obližnjem potoku Krapinici. Osim nalaza skeletnih ostataka neandertalaca te nalaza pleistocenske faune s Hušnjakova potječe i velik broj kamenih alatki (sl. 1988.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ SREDNJi i RANi gORNJi pAlEOliTiK U hRVATSKOJ Opusc. Simek & Smith 1997) has identified the use of the Levallois technique to produce flakes. npr. 1978.9% odbojaka) (za detaljniji pregled analize sirovinskoga materijala v. which will continue to further the understanding of the ontogenic development of these people (see. However. White and Toth (1991).4% odbojaka). 1988. a s One of the unusual aspects of the Krapina finds is the very fragmentary state of the hominin bones found. Budući da je broj individua pronađenih na Hušnja­ kovu brijegu velik. Krapina nije izuzetak (Gor­ janović­Kramberger 1906. dok u mlađima prevladava metoda pro­ izvodnje odbojaka razbijanjem oblutaka. što se naknadnim analizama pokazalo isprav­ nim (Malez 1970a. 1906) attempted to explain this by cannibalism. 30. and it testifies to the arduous life of this population. The debitage is therefore dominated by the naturally­backed knives and Levallois flakes (Simek & Smith 1997).7 jedan je od najekstremnijih primjera zalije­ čene kranijalne ozljede (Kricun et al. 1978. Među alatkama velik je postotak zastupljenosti strugala. nedaleko od sela Goranca na Ravnoj gori. Such an explanation was also favored by Ullrich (1978). Mann & Monge 2006). To su razni tufovi (58. for example. Sansilba­ no­Collilieux & Tillier 2006). it is interesting that some injuries were so extensive that healing probably required nursing by the com­ munity (Trinkaus 1983). no i indi­ vidualnoga tjelesnog razvoja. Simek 1991. Gardner & Smith 2006. Simek 1991.7 is one of the most extreme ex­ amples of a healed cranial injury (Kricun et al. Krapina is no exception (Gorjanović­ Kramberger 1906. Ullrich (1989. Simek & Smith 1997). 2006) and Frayer et al. which was proven correct by sub­ sequent analysis (Malez 1970a. Under­ down 2006. Gardner & Smith 2006.8% oruđa i 27. Russel (1987a). and much of this trauma had healed. The raw materials were usually of lo­ cal origin and can be found in the nearby Krapinica  28  . while in the younger layers the so­called cobble­wedge method predomi­ nates. Gorjanović­ Kramberger classified (1906. Smith 1976. Mann & Monge 2006) i govori o tešku životu te populacije. Kricun et al. 1978.

000 years old. tako je i za nalaz čeone kosti starost pretpostavlje­ na na više od 33 000 godina prije sadašnjosti. sidescrapers account for a large percent­ age. 1967. with which Mann and Trinkaus essentially agreed (1974). These are various tuffs (58. Bordes 1961). Malez. industriju iz gornjega dijela istoga sloja odredio je kao proto­ orinjasijen ili musterijen. while those from the upper portion are probably only pseudo­tools (for pseudo­tools see Bordes 1961). although Malez (1967: 28) considers the artifacts of layer k Mousterian. All of these implements have small dimensions. otprilike 9 km od sela Ivanec i 20­ak km od centra Varaždina. and consists of 16 layers which settled from the end of the Riss Glaciation (oxygen isotope stage 6 or earlier) to the Holocene.3% of imple­ ments and 5. the industry can be rather proximately defined as Charentian Mousterian (Simek & Smith 1997). The finds from the lower portion of layer k can truly be described as Mousterian. Zanimljivo je da ju F. s čime se u osnovi slažu i Mann i Trinkaus (1974). The first digs there were launched in 1948 by M. and allowed for the genetic inheritance of earlier populations as a possible ex­ planation of its “Neandertal features”. a ne ranom anatomski modernom Europljaninu. and they were also conducted with some interruptions from 1957 to 1979. Kasnija revizija artefakata nije opravdala pripisivanje dviju industrija sloju k (Karavanić & Smith 1998).Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ ThE MiDDlE AND EARlY UppER pAlEOliThiC iN CROATiA Opusc. a kao mo­ guće objašnjenje “neandertalskih odlika” dopušta genetsko naslijeđe od ranijih populacija. It is interesting that F. i 1979. visine preko 20 m. The small number of finds in the layers in Velika Pećina indi­ cate a number of brief visits to the site. Na nekim je mjesti­ ma stratigrafija nalazišta deblja od 10 m. he designated the industry of the upper portion of that same layer as proto­Aurignacian or Mousterian. 5) smještena je u Hrvatskome za­ gorju. 1965. Arheološku industriju najdonjih slojeva – p do k – Malez (1979) određuje kao musterijen. One of the better known discoveries made in Ve­ lika Pećina is certainly the frontal bone (os frontale) found in layer j. Malez (1963. Međutim datiranje provedeno radiokarbonskom metodom s akceleratorom (AMS) na uzorku uze­ tom iz same kosti izazvalo je nemalu senzaciju – dobiven je rezultat od 5 045±40 (nekalibriranih) go­ dina prije sadašnjosti (Smith et al. Špilja je duboka otprilike 50 m. As its name indicates.archaeol. ši­ roka 28 m. godine. kao kod tzv. Kao što joj ime dade naslutiti. Jedan od najpoznatijih nalaza Velike pećine nesum­ njivo je čeona kost (os frontale) otkrivena u sloju j. 1999). Gornji slojevi Velike pećine sadrže eneolitičku keramiku i mnogobrojne ljudske kosti pa “glasovita” frontalna kost očito pripada čovjeku iz eneolitika.1% of flakes) and chert (10. 1980) classified this as a Neandertal bone.2 Velika pećina Pećina Vindija (sl. 2. 2. čime po­ staje jasno da se radi o holocenskome čovjeku. However. the frontal bone is assumed to be over 33. Sve alatke malih su dimenzija. 21­54.4% of flakes). while according to the classification by Bordes. The later revision of artifacts did not justify the clas­ sification of two industries in layer k (Karavanić & Smith 1998). Budući da je taj sloj neposredno ispod sloja i. the site’s stratigra­ phy is thicker than 10 m.9% of flakes) (for a more detailed review of raw material analyses. 1982) smatra u osnovi anatomski modernom. Time je taj nalaz u znanstvenim raspravama postao jedan od najranijih anatomski modernih Europljana i imao je važno mjesto u raspravama o mjestu neandertalaca unutar rodoslovlja anatomski modernoga čovjeka. The archeological industry of the lowest layers – p through k – were determined by Malez (1979) as Mousterian. At some places. špilja je većih dimen­ zija i prostire se 25 m u dubinu. a sastoji se od 16 slojeva koji su nataloženi u vremenu od kraja glacijacije Riss (stadij izotopa kisika 6 ili ranije) do holocena. this material signified one of the ear­ liest anatomically modern Europeans and played an important role in discussions on the position of Ne­  29  . which was dated to 33. the cave is rather large with a depth of 25 meters. Na potencijalno zna­ Velika Pećina (‘Big Cave’) is situated between Krapi­ na and Vindija.3 Vindija Creek. Since this layer is directly beneath layer i. Mali broj nalaza u slojevima Velike pećine upućuje na više kratkotrajnih boravaka na nalazištu. 30. prekidima je istražuje između 1957. 2006. Malez (1963.2% of implements and 55. 1982) basically considered it anatomically modern. mikromusterijena. see Zupanič 1970). Among the tools. Smith (1976. Nalaze iz donjega dijela sloja k uistinu možemo pripisati musterijenu.8% of imple­ ments and 27. as in the so­called Micro­Mousterian. 1965. koji je radiokarbonskom metodom datiran na 33 850±520 godina prije sadašnjosti (Vogel & Waterbolk 1972). Međutim iako Malez (1967: 28) rukotvorine iz do­ njega dijela sloja k smatra musterijenom. silicified rock (18. 1980) tu kost pripisuje neander­ talcu. in sci­ entific debate. 1967.850 ± 520 years before present by radiocarbon dating (Vogel & Waterbolk 1972). not far from the village of Goranec at Ravna Gora. Smith (1976. Thus. dok su oni iz gornjega dijela vjerojatno samo pseudo­ alatke (za pseudoalatke v.

i 1986. were conducted by S. 1983. Analize nalaza anatomski modernih ljudi koji po­ tječu iz sloja D još uvijek traju. However. Karavanić). Ahern et al. dok su stariji slojevi E–M pleistocenski. Since layer G3 con­  30  . Fd . while the older layers E–M are Pleistocene. 1981. In addition to numerous faunal remains. Analysis of anatomically mo­ dern human remains from layer D is in progress. Systematic excavations were launched by the late M. Fs. under whose leadership most of the paleontological and archeological items. grebala). 1980. Fd . 21­54. Malez. kao i sav ljudski skeletni materijal (Malez 1979. 30. and to unraveling questions pertaining to the lifestyle of the later Neandertals and the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleo­ lithic and the arrival of the first groups of anatomi­ cally modern populations in Europe. The archeologi­ cal industry of the older layers (particularly layer K) is Mousterian. Općenito rečeno. Svjetski poznati nalazi neandertalaca nisu jedini ljudski skeletni ostaci otkriveni na tom lokalitetu. and minor ex­ cavations. 2004). Smith et al. Fd/d. 28 m wide. Kurtanjek & Marci 1990. which means that this was a Holocene man. stojeća (Hirc 1878). pri čemu su kompleksi F. 1950). iskopan veći dio paleontoloških i ar­ heoloških nalaza. G and K complex are additio­ nally broken down (Fg. Paunović et al. G1–G3. 1950).Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ SREDNJi i RANi gORNJi pAlEOliTiK U hRVATSKOJ Opusc. 1999). G i K dodatno podijeljeni (Fg. The cave is approximately 50 m deep. Fd/d. Slojevi A–D pripadaju holocenu. 5. 2006. godine vrši S. Uz brojne fau­ nalne nalaze nalazi špilje Vindije uključuju brojne rukotvorine srednjeg i gornjeg paleolitika te nalaze kultura kasnijih prapovijesnih i povijesnih razdob­ lja. Arheološka indu­ strija starijih slojeva (posebice sloja K) predstavlja musterijen uz uporabu levaloaške metode izradbe i dominaciju lokalnoga sirovinskog materijala slabi­ je kvalitete (kvarc) (Montet­White 1996. kao i pitanja vezanih uz način života kasnih neandertalaca te prijelaza srednjega u gornji paleolitik i dolaska prvih skupina anatomski mo­ dernih populacija na tlo Europe. and over 20 m high. with use of the Levallois technique and domination of local raw materials of poorer quality (quartz) (Montet­White 1996. Fs. Karavanić). Hirc indicated the potential importance of this site at the end of the nineteenth century (Hirc 1878). wherein the F. Budući da su u sloju G3 uz musterijenske alatke prisutni i elemen­ ti gornjega paleolitika (npr. 1983. were excavated between 1974 and 1986 (Malez 1979. Kurtanjek & Marci 1990. Layers A–D are Holocene. 2. as well as all human skele­ tal remains. beginning in 1928. arheološki nalazi s lokaliteta Vin­ dija važni su za razumijevanje srednjega paleoliti­ ka Hrvatske. Kur­ Vindija Cave (Fig. Wolpoff et al. G1–G3. čenje toga lokaliteta ukazuje D. Stratigrafija Vindije sastoji se od više od 12 m sedi­ menta podijeljena u 13 osnovnih stratigrafskih jedi­ nica (A–M). so the “famous” frontal bone obviously belonged to an Eneolithic man. 2004). Unutrašnjost špilje Vindije (snimio: I. Vuković (Vuković 1935. Blaser et al. Vuković (Vuković 1935. Smith et al. The upper layers of Velika Pećina contained Eneolithic pottery and many human bones. 1981. 2002). D. The stratigraphy of Vindija consists of over 12 m of sediment divided into 13 basic stratigraphic units (A–M). Wolpoff et al. Hirc još krajem 19. Fd/s.3 Vindija Slika 5. 2001. The internationally known Neandertal remains are not the only hominin skeletal remains discovered at this site. a manja iskopavanja počevši od 1928. 5) is located in the Hrvatsko Zagorje region. 1949. Fig. Paunović et al. K1–K3) (Malez & Rukavina 1979. pod čijim je vodstvom između 1974. Generally the archeological finds from the Vindija site are vital to the understanding of the Middle Paleolithic in Croatia. Malez et al. Interior of Vindija Cave (photograph by: I.archaeol. Ahern et al. 1949. AMS radiocarbon dating of a sample taken from the bone itself caused something of a sensation – the result was 5. Fd/s. and not an earlier anatomically modern European.045±40 (uncalibrat­ ed) years before present (Smith et al. 1980. and cultural finds of later prehistoric and histori­ cal periods. 1985). Sustavna iskopavanja započinje pokojni aka­ demik M. approximately 9 km from the vil­ lage of Ivanec and roughly 20 km from downtown Varaždin. andertals within the lineage of anatomically modern humans. Malez et al. 2002). 1985). 2001. Vindija Cave also produced nume­ rous artifacts of the Middle and Upper Paleolithic. K1–K3) (Ma­ lez & Rukavina 1979. a vidljiva je i veća zastupljenost nešto kvalitetnijega sirovinskog materijala (rožnjak) (Karavanić & Smith 1998. Blaser et al. Malez.

straight dihedral burin. jednostavno ravno strugalo. where a larger portion of the stone tools are made of chert. Slika 6. tanjek & Marci 1990. 2002). Odabrani nalazi iz sloja G1 špilje Vindije : 1. the initial industry of the Upper Paleolithic. odbojak sa sitnom obradbom. 3. and a greater presence of somewhat higher quality raw materials (chert) is notable (Karavanić & Smith 1998. Pri izradbi oruđa sred­ njeg i gornjeg dijela kompleksa G nije zamijećena uporaba levaloaške tehnike (Karavanić & Smith 1998). Perkić. 2. pseudotool. elements of the Upper Paleolithic (e. A very lovely leaf­ shaped bifacial point was also found. 6. Mjerilo je u centimetrima (crtež: M. and Upper Paleolithic bone points also appear for the first time (Karavanić 1993. 2004.archaeol. gdje je veći dio kamenih izrađevina izrađen od rožnjaka. 7. Kur­ tanjek & Marci 1990. completely disappear (Ahern et al. 2. Discrimi­ nating selection of higher quality raw materials is still more visible in layer G1. Kurtanjek & Marci 1990. modificirano prema Karavanić: 1995: sl. Kurtanjek & Marci 1990. 2004. Fig. Miracle 1998). leaf-shaped bifacial point. 2006. these are otherwise typical of the Szeletian culture (Fig. Koštani šiljak Vi-3437 i donja čeljust neandertalca Vi-207 (prema Janković et al. 1995). Besides Mousterian types. pseudoalatka. i. Among the stone tools.g. denticulates) predominate. so this inter­ pretation has been refuted several times (Karavanić & Smith 1998. those with Mousterian features (si­ descrapers. 7. 2002). 5. 6). Blaser et al. 21­54. 3). 3). Bone point Vi-3437 and the Neandertal mandible Vi-207 (based on Janković et al. complex G presents a more complicated picture. Selektivno biranje kvalitetnijega sirovinskog materijala još je vidljivije u sloju G1. 3). 3). while quartz tools. ravno dvopovršinsko dubilo. Perhaps in layer G1.e. since it is made a non­local material (red radiolarite). 2002). koštani šiljak s rascijepljenom bazom. Selected materials from layer G1 of Vindija Cave: 1. 1995. 2006: sl. kompleks G upućuje na složeniju sliku. split-base bone point. 7. Blaser et al. simple straight sidescraper. it is possible that it was imported. Karavanić & Smith 1998). 2002). 6. 2006: Fig. 5. massive base bone point. listoliki obostrano obrađen šiljak. koštani šiljak s punom bazom. dok oru­ đa na kvarcu. besides Mousterian tools. 3. it is matter of a regional transitional industry (Olschewian). no. 30. Karavanić 1993. even though quartz composes over half of the total debitage from this layer. 4. Blaser et al. Scale in centimeters (drawing by Marta Perkić. the industry of Vindija layer G1 was described as Aurignacian on a number of occa­ sions (Malez 1979. tains. 4. sasvim nestaju (Ahern et al. premda kvarc čini oko polovine sve­ ukupna lomljevinskog materijala iz tog sloja. which  31  . Use of the Le­ vallois technique was not observed in the produc­ tion of tools in the middle and upper portions of the G complex (Karavanić & Smith 1998). However.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ ThE MiDDlE AND EARlY UppER pAlEOliThiC iN CROATiA Opusc. Fig. Due to the characteristic split­base point. 6. finely-retouched flake. Slika 7. and it cannot be a reliable cultural indicator (Mon­ tet­White 1996). 6. endscrapers). modified after Karavanić: 1995: Fig. the stone in­ dustry of layer G1 also contains elements of the Up­ per Paleolithic (Fig. Blaser et al. 4). as well as massive base points.

) is within the local Mousterian and does not constitute a foreign element (Harrold 1989. Janković et al. dok je industrija Potočke zijalke orinjasijenska (v. Miracle 1998). This association between Neandertals and the industry of the Upper Paleolithic has been the subject of disagreement among experts (Karavanić & Smith 1998. Besides a split­base bone point (Vi­3437). wherein typical Aurignacian stone tools were not needed. 7). Otte 1990. Pronađen je i jedan vrlo lijep obostrano obrađen li­ stoliki šiljak. Strauss 1999). Clark 2002. nazupci). Svoboda 1993. kao što je primjerice lovna aktivnost. pri čemu tipične orinjasijenske kamene alatke nisu bile potrebne. and the very characteristic and recognizable reddish sediment of layer G1 was embedded in the split­base bone point (oral communication from J. cryoturbation was not noted in that part of the cave in which the mandible and point were found. Miracle 1998). Svoboda 2004. for example. 2004. Oliva 1993. and split­base and massive­base bone points. Do blaga povećanja ori­ njasijenskih elemenata dolazi u kamenoj industriji donjih slojeva kompleksa F špilje Vindije. 6. Cryoturbation and obsolete excavation techniques were the principal objections to acceptance of the Vindija Neandertals as creators of “more modern” industry. It is also possible that this is a manifestation of the Aurignacian conditioned by functional specialization. the man­ dible of a Neandertal (Vi­207) was also found in lay­ er G1 (Fig. 1995. a po prvi put javljaju se i gornjopaleolitički koštani šiljci (Karavanić 1993. 2006. 30. Karavanić & Smith 1998). such as.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ SREDNJi i RANi gORNJi pAlEOliTiK U hRVATSKOJ Opusc. br. 7). Cesaire) (Lévêque & Vandermeersch 1980. In recent years. hunting. Uz musterijenske tipove prisutni su u kamenoj industriji sloja G1 i elementi gornjega paleolitika (sl. wherein split­base  32  . koja dolazi i u Velikoj pećini te na nekim nalazištima u Sloveniji – Mokriškoj jami i Divjim Babama I. pa se i njihova izradba obično pripisivala anatomski modernim populacijama. A slight increase in Aurignacian elements came in the stone industry of the lower layers of the F complex at Vindija. a ne also came to Velika Pećina and some sites in Slove­ nia – Mokriška Jama and Divje Babe I. kao i nalaza ko­ štanih šiljaka s punom i rascijepljenom bazom. Montet­White 1996). Krioturbacije i zastarjele tehnike iskopavanja bile su glavni prigovor prihvaćanju vindijskih nean­ dertalaca kao tvorca te “modernije” industrije. pa njima srednjoeuropski orinjasijen možemo pripisati s ve­ ćom sigurnošću (Karavanić 1995. Radovčića) i još je danas vidljiv na nalazima neandertalaca i na jedno­ me koštanom šiljku s punom bazom iz istoga sloja. a vrlo karak­ terističan i prepoznatljiv crvenkast sediment sloja G1 bio je uglavljen u koštani šiljak s rascijepljenom bazom (usmeno priopćenje J. koji se tradicionalno vežu za orinjasijensku industriju gornjega paleolitika. Montet­White 1996). 1998. početnoj industriji gornjega paleolitika. Kozłowski 1996. Također je moguće da je riječ o manifestaciji orinjasijena uvjetovanoj funkcional­ nom specijalizacijom. 2004. tj. Možda je u sloju G1 riječ o regionalnoj prijelaznoj industriji (olševije­ nu). Clark & Lindly 1989. Churchill & Smith 2000. additional analyses have shown that the Aurigna­ cian does not constitute a homogenous and geo­ graphically widely distributed industry (Allsworth­ Jones 1986. 1996). inače tipičan za seletijensku kulturu (sl. D’Errico et al. so their production is usually associated with anatomically modern populations rather than Neandertals. Aniko­ vich 1992. which are traditionally tied to the Aurignacian industry of the Upper Paleolithic. however. It should once more be stressed that layer G1 has resulted in more Neandertal skeletal remains. pa je to tumačenje više puta opo­ vrgnuto (Karavanić & Smith 1998. Kozłowski 1990. However. Radovčić) and is even today visible on the Neandertal remains and on a massive­base bone point from the same layer. Golovanova & Doronichev 2003. so they can be classified as Central European Aurignacian with greater certainty (Karavanić 1995. Zilhão & D’Errico 1999. while the source of several initial Upper Paleolithic industries in Europe (Szeletian. 1995). D’Errico et al. Valja još jednom istaknuti da iz sloja G1 dolazi više neandertalskih skeletnih ostataka. Karavanić & Smith 1998. Ta asocijacija neandertalaca i indu­ strije gornjega paleolitika bila je predmetom nesla­ ganja stručnjaka (Karavanić & Smith 1998. 6). Krio­ turbacije međutim nisu zamijećene u dijelu pećine gdje su mandibula i šiljak pronađeni. etc. Zilhão & D’Errico 1999. Artifacts of Upper Paleolithic (Châtelperronian) industry were found together with Neandertal remains at two French sites (Arcy sur Cure and St. 1998. Karavanić 1993. postoji mogućnost da je importiran. te stoga ne može biti pouzdan kultur­ ni indikator (Montet­White 1996). Kozłowski 1996. 2006). Allsworth­Jones 1986. Hublin et al. U sloju G1 pronađena je uz koštani šiljak s rascijep­ ljenom bazom (Vi­3437) donja čeljust neandertalca (Vi­207) (sl.archaeol. 2000. Further­ more. Uluzzian. the typological approach. 4). Bro­ dar & Brodar 1983). 21­54. 2000. No među kamenim alatka­ ma prevladavaju one musterijenskih karakteristika (strugala. Gio­ ia 1988. Zbog karakteristična šiljka s rascijepljenom bazom i više njih s punom bazom industrija vindijskoga sloja G1 više je puta pripisana orinjasijenu (Malez 1979. while the industry of Potočka Zijalka is Aurignacian (see Brodar & Brodar 1983). No budući da je načinjen na materijalu koji nije lokalni (crveni radiolarit). Strauss 1999).

K tome tipološki pristup prema kojemu koštani šiljci s ras­ cijepljenom bazom arheološku industriju određuju kao orinjasijen za prostor središnje Europe vrlo je upitan (v. 2006). 1981. Ta gracilnost i “mo­ dernija” morfologija posebno je uočljiva na donjim čeljustima i u nadočnoj regiji vindijskih fosila (Smi­ th & Ranyard 1980. but comparisons with the chronologically older Neandertals of the Krapina site reveal interesting differences between the two samples. Cesa­ ire) (Lévêque & Vandermeersch 1980. Smith 1984.archaeol.g. etc. 1980. 1996). Kesterke & Ahern 2007). 21­54. 1999) ukazalo je na mogućnost da vindijska popu­ lacija predstavlja posljednje poznate neandertalce iz vremena kad anatomski moderni došljaci već više tisuća godina obitavaju na europskom kontinentu. The Vindija hominin skeletal remains from complex G represent a Neandertal population (Malez et al. 1994. 2006). Nadalje gracilnost i ana­ tomske odlike vindijskog uzorka nisu rezultat domi­ nacije žena i mlađih jedinki ni tjelesne građe uzor­ ka (Trinkaus & Smith 1985. Kesterke & Ahern 2007). neandertalcima. Miracle 1998). Smith & Ahern 1994. features of the su­ praorbital and occipital region in the remains from  33  . Smith & Ahern 1994. 2004). 1999) indicates the possi­ bility that the Vindija population constituted the last known Neandertals at a time when anatomically modern newcomers had been living on the European continent for over a thousand years. Golovanova & Doronichev 2003. Smith et al. 2004). Wolpoff et al. Svoboda 1993. Oase. 2004). Smith 1994. Otte 1990. 2002. 2006. 2006). 2006 and the literature cited therein). Ahern et al. Ahern et al. Churchill & Smith 2000. Miracle 1998). If the typo­ logical approach and acceptance of the Aurignacian as a unified cultural complex are rejected. 1981. Ahern & Smith 1993. 2004. Kostenki. The Vindija Neandertals from layer G1 are for now the youngest Neandertals in Central and Eastern Eu­ rope. Karavanić & Smith 1998. Gio­ ia 1988.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ ThE MiDDlE AND EARlY UppER pAlEOliThiC iN CROATiA Opusc. is highly questionable (see Miracle 1998). in which the Vindija materials exhibit a vi­ sibly more gracile morphology which is. Smith 1984. Ahern & Smith 1993. 2004. Janković et al. Ahern & Smith 1993. does not diminish their significance as the same technique must also be used to date other materials and sites of the late Middle and early Upper Paleo­ lithic before a more precise chronology of this in­ teresting prehistoric period can be established. This gracility and “more modern” morphology are particularly notable on the mandibles and supraorbitals of the Vindija fossils (Smith & Ranyard 1980. Nalazi gornjopaleolitičke industrije (šatelperonijen) pronađeni su uz nalaze neandertalaca na dvama francuskim lokalitetima (Arcy sur Cure i St. dok je ishodište nekih inicijalnih gornjopaleo­ litičkih industrija u Europi (szeletijen. and it was precisely the lower Danube Basin and Central Europe that were first settled by ana­ tomically modern newcomers (e. ulicijen itd. Recently the use of more precise ultrafiltration techniques for the Vindija remains from layer G1 has shown something of a different result: approximately 32–33. Kozłowski 1990. Moreover.) unutar lokalnoga musterijena i ne predstavlja strani element (Harrold 1989. Ahern 1998. Wolpoff et al. 1980. however. 1984. the morphology of the mandibular foramen of Oase 1. Direct dating of the Neandertal fossils from layer G1 to between twenty­eight and twenty­nine thousand years be­ fore present (Smith et al. Ahern et al. 1985. 1984. the gracility and anatomical features of the Vindija sam­ ple is not a result of predominance of women and younger individuals nor the body size in the sam­ ple (Trinkaus & Smith 1985. Svobo­ da 2004. 2004). Nedavno je uporaba preciznije tehnike ultrafiltra­ cije uzorka za vindijske nalaze iz sloja G1 pokazala nešto drugačiji rezultat: oko 32–33 000 godina pri­ je sadašnjosti (Higham et al. 30. Clark & Lindly 1989.000 years before present (Higham et al.g. U posljednje vrijeme međutim više analiza upućuje na to da orinjasijen ne predstavlja homogenu i geografski široko rasprostranjenu in­ dustriju (Allsworth­Jones 1986. Vindijski ljudski skeletni nalazi iz kompleksa G ne­ sumnjivo predstavljaju neandertalsku populaciju (Malez et al. see the discussion in Janković et al. 2002. Vindijski su neandertalci iz sloja G1 zasad najmlađi neander­ bone points lead to classification of the archeologi­ cal industry as Aurignacian in Central Europe. Direktno datiranje neandertalskoga fosila iz sloja G1 između 28 i 29 tisuća godina prije sadašnjosti (Smith et al.. Smith 1994. Smith 1982. in certain details. Hublin et al. 1994. Clark 2002. Smith et al. 1985. Ahern & Smith 1993. no usporedbe s vremenski starijim neandertalcima krapinskoga nalazišta otkrivaju zanimljive razlike tih dvaju uzo­ raka. closer to anatomically modern populations than the Krapina Neandertals. and if one takes into account the anatomical details visible on late Neandertal remains (such as Vindija) and cer­ tain characteristics that are Neandertal traits which appear on anatomically modern humans only after their arrival in Europe (e. Mladeč. This. Ahern 1998. pri čemu je na vindijskim nalazima vidljiva gracilnija morfologija koja je u određenim detalji­ ma bliža anatomski modernim populacijama nego krapinskim neandertalcima. Ahern et al. Smith 1982. Aniko­ vich 1992. To međutim ne umanjuje njihovo značenje – ista se tehnika mora upotrijebiti i za dataciju drugih nalaza i nalazišta kasnoga srednjeg i ranoga gornjeg paleolitika prije no što bude moguće postaviti precizniju kronologi­ ju tog zanimljivog razdoblja prapovijesti. Allsworth­Jones 1986. Oliva 1993.

on the western periphery of the city of Zagreb. Exchange of genes and cultural information between indigenous Neandertals and modern newcomers can even be assumed (v. Ulaz u špilju širok je oko 8 m. 1992. a multitude of archeological and paleonto­ logical material was found and subsequently pub­ lished in a number of papers (Malez 1963. Smith et al. Miracle and D. Excavations at Veternica were launched by M. 1997. Unfortunately. 1993.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ SREDNJi i RANi gORNJi pAlEOliTiK U hRVATSKOJ Opusc. 1989. 1997. The “primitive” aspect is probably due to the types of raw materials used (e. Given the results of the latest analyses.4 Veternica Špilja Veternica smještena je na jugozapadnoj padi­ ni Medvednice. 1992. Uzevši u obzir rezultate novijih analiza određen genetički kontakt neandertalaca i anatomski modernijih ljudi predstavlja realnu mogućnost (v. but rather just a reduction of their frequency over time. etc. talci u središnjoj i istočnoj Europi. there was a real possibility of some genetic contact between Neandertals and anatomically more modern humans (see Smith 1982. preko ranih skupina anatomski mo­ dernih ljudi gornjega paleolitika. Miracle & Brajković 1992). 2005. 1984. na zapadnome rubu grada Zagreba. through the early groups of anatomically modern humans of the Upper Paleo­ lithic. 2005. Kostenki itd. 2006).) – moguća su i drugačija objašnjenja od onih koja se u literaturi obično navode. dok je u mlađim (gornjim) slojevima prepoznao “tipični” i “razvijeni” musterijen. One should not lose sight of the fact that with refe­ rence to most features that are highly frequent in Ne­ andertal groups there is no sharp break. The cave’s entrance is roughly 8 m wide. Based on the results of a revision of ungulates and Upper Pleistocene stratigraphy. a ulaz­ na dvorana pruža se oko 15 m u dužinu i oko 7 m u širinu (Miracle & Brajković 1992). Smith 1982. godine. Neolithic and other. Predmosti i sl. a s pre­ kidima su trajala sve do 1971. Trinkaus et al. Miracle & Brajković 1992).4 Veternica Mladeč. 2. a na anatomski modernim ljudima javljaju se tek nakon njihova prvog dolaska na tlo Europe (npr. Frayer 1986. it is unclear  34  . 1981. with some interruptions. Churchill & Smith 2000 te raspravu i literaturu u Janković et al. 2003a. a upravo su donje Podunavlje i središnja Europa prvi europski prostori koje su naselili pripadnici anatomski modernih do­ šljaka (npr. 1992. Iskopavanja Ve­ ternice započeo je M. quartzite). he recognized the “typi­ cal” and “developed” Mousterian. During this re­ search. Oase. 2. The cave bear cult in Veternica is particularly inte­ resting (Malez 1983). Frayer et al. Wolpoff 1999. Malez in 1951. 2005). skupina mezolitič­ kih.archaeol. Brajković (1992) attributed the oldest layer (j) with paleontological and archeological materials to the period between the sub­stages of oxygen isotopes 5c through 5a. od kasnih neandertalaca. Tijekom istraživanja pronađeno je mnoštvo arheološkog i paleontološ­ kog materijala koji je objavljen u više radova (Malez 1963. 2006. Frayer 1986. 2003. later populations. Smith et al. Smith et al.). from the later Neandertals. Ne treba iz vida gubiti činjenicu da za većinu odlika koje su u visokoj frekvenciji prisutne u neandertal­ skih skupina ne vidimo oštar prekid. to groups of the Mesolithic. Malez 1951. 1981. T. 2003. 2006 i ondje navedenu literatu­ ru). Trinkaus et al. 2005). 1989. Brajković (1992) na temelju rezultata revizije ungulata i gornjopleistocenske stratigrafije pripisu­ ju najstariji sloj (j) s paleontološkim i arheološkim nalazima razdoblju između podstadija izotopa kisi­ ka 5c do 5a. then different explana­ tions than those commonly offered in the literature become plausible. 4 m high. 1984. basalt. 21­54. T. Predmosti. – v. odlike nadočne i zatiljne regije nalaza Mladeč. Kidder et al. Churchill & Smith 2000 and the discus­ sion and works cited in Janković et al. Mladeč. neolitičkih i drugih kasnijih populacija. until 1971. Miracle i D. 30. “Primitivni” aspekt vjero­ Veternica Cave is situated on the southwestern slopes of Medvednica Mountain. while in the younger (upper) layers. Smith et al. Kidder et al. Wolpoff 1999. Naime moguće je pretpostaviti razmjenu gena i kulturnih informacija između neandertalskih starosjedilaca i modernih došljaka (v. P. and continued. 2003a. The lithics from this layer were classified by Malez (1979: 269) as “primitive” Mousterian. volcanic tuff.g. nego smanji­ vanje njihove zastupljenosti kroz vrijeme. visok oko 4 m. P. Frayer et al. raspra­ vu u Janković et al. Ako odbacimo tipološki pristup i prihvaćanje orinjasijena kao jedinstvena kulturnog komplek­ sa – a u obzir uzmemo anatomske detalje vidljive na nalazima kasnih neandertalaca (poput Vindije) te određene karakteristike koje su odlike neander­ talaca. which was probably gathered on the Sava terraces and at other sites near the cave (Miracle & Brajković 1992). and the entrance chamber is approximately 15 m long and 7 m wide (Miracle & Brajković 1992). 2006). morfologija mandibularnoga foramena Oase 1. The Mousterian industry of Veternica should undergo a thorough technological and typological analysis to facilitate comparisons with other sites. Litičke nalaze iz tog sloja Malez (1979: 269) je pripisao “primitivnom” musterijenu. 1993. 1992.

Papagianni. Oni se čuvaju u Arheološko­ me muzeju u Zadru i označeni su nazivom užega prostora odakle su prikupljeni (primjerice Radovin. odnosno musterijenske kulture. Čondić i I. Hinić 2000).Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ ThE MiDDlE AND EARlY UppER pAlEOliThiC iN CROATiA Opusc. Chapman et al. bazalt. 21­54. An entire series of scientifically valu­ able sites are known to exist in this area. and these are very rare in the Eastern Adriatic territory. jer upućuju na postojanje nalazišta iz ranoga gornjeg paleolitika (orinjasijen).archaeol. i. Slivnica. 3. for they indicate the existence of sites from the early Upper Paleo­ lithic (Aurignacian). Chase & Dib­ ble 1987). Nažalost nije jasno potječe li većina akumuliranih medvjeđih kostiju i lubanja iz srednjopaleolitičkih ili gornjopaleolitičkih slojeva. Chapman (Chapman et al.2 Veli Rat A large number of flint artifacts and chips was col­ lected near the lighthouse on the Veli Rat promonto­ ry on the northern part of the island of Dugi. koji je najvjerojatnije prikupljan na savskim terasa­ ma i drugim nalazištima u okolici špilje (Miracle & Brajković 1992). Sites in Mediterranean Croatia 3. Chase & Dibble 1987). Generally Middle Paleolithic. Posebno je zanimljivo pitanje kulta špiljskoga med­ vjeda u Veternici (Malez 1983).” D. Although materials were not found in 80% of the reconnaissance area.1 The area between ljubački bay and posedarje 3. 1). Rekognosciranjima dijela Ravnih kotara koje je vodio J. although they unfortunately mostly aroused the interest of private collectors. Nalazišta mediteranske hrvatske 3. Čondić and I. materials are present. Jovići). Chapman et al. Mustač (oral commu­ nication) found not far from the small Church of St. and recently D. instead of human activity. Peter are particularly important. a ta su vrlo rijetka na istočnome jadranskom području. In the area between Ljubački Bay and Posedarje. (1996: 61) concluded: “Large areas of the Dal­ matian lowlands would have been at least potential settlement zones for migratory hunter­gatherers. Five percent of the artifacts were analyzed and could be attributed to the Middle Paleolithic. a odnedavna nalaze s tog područja analizira D. Batović (1965) collected numerous artifacts of Mous­ terian culture. Slivnica. Prisutni su uglavnom nalazi srednjega paleolitika. kao što je to slučaj na drugim europskim nalazištima (v. Š. Mousterian culture. Na navedenome području poznat je čitav niz znanstveno vrijednih nalazišta koja su nažalost ponajviše pobuđivala interes pri­ vatnih sakupljača. 44 sites were recognized in two clusters: Mataci­Stoići and Ljubački Bay. as is the case at other European sites (see Chase 1987.e. Musterijensku industriju Veternice trebalo bi detaljno analizirati s tehnološkoga i tipo­ loškog aspekta kako bi bila moguća usporedba s dru­ gim nalazištima. A part of the materials found south of Ražanac were probably also collected by M. Malez  35  . 2006. Karavanić conducted a brief reconnaissance with students from Zadar in 2002. Malez (1979) i oni se čuva­ ju u Zavodu za paleontologiju i geologiju kvartara HAZU (v. 3. Vujević began analyzing ma­ terials from this area. N. Pet posto rukotvorina bilo je obrađeno i mogu biti pripisane srednjem paleolitiku. 1996). The bone assemblages in indivi­ dual parts of the cave. a po­ sebno su važna njuškolika grebala koja je D.” D. (1996: 61) zaključuju: “Large areas of the Dalmati­ an lowlands would have been at least potential set­ tlement zones for migratory hunter­gatherers. 30. Batović (1965) prikupio je mnogobrojne nalaze musterijenske kulture. Vujević. 1996) utvrđena su 44 mjesta nalaza u dvama kla­ sterima – Mataci­Stoići i Ljubački zaljev. as to whether most of the accumulated bear bones and skulls are from the Middle Paleolithic or Upper Paleolithic layers. Papagianni. Chapman (Chapman et al. Malez (1979) and these are kept at the Institute of Quaternary Paleontology and Geology of the Croatian Academy of Arts and Science (CAAS) (see Hinić 2000). uključujući i dvije niše (Malez 1983: sl. Chase 1987. These are kept in the Archeological Museum in Zagreb and are designated according to the actual site at which they were collected (e. Jovići). Mustač (usmeno priopćenje) pronašao nedaleko od crkvi­ ce Sv. mogu­ će je umjesto aktivnošću čovjeka objasniti prirodnim procesima. Karavanić proveli su sa zadarskim studentima kraće rekognosciranje 2002. can. Premda na 80% rekognoscira­ na područja nalazi nisu pronađeni.g. Ra­ dovin. and nosed endscrapers which D. jatno je uzrokovan vrstama korištena sirovinskog materijala (primjerice vulkanski tuf. Nakupine kostiju u pojedinim dijelovima špi­ lje. also be explained by natural processes. godine. Petra.1 prostor između ljubačkog zaljeva i posedarja Na prostoru između Ljubačkog zaljeva i Posedarja Š. kvarcit). N. Dio nalaza južno od Ražanca vje­ rojatno je prikupio i M. During reconnaissance of a sec­ tion of Ravni Kotari led by J. 1). including two niches (Malez 1983: Fig.

Karavanić i N. Božićević (1987) objavio je njezin tlocrt i uzdužni presjek. M. Probno iskopa­ vanje provedeno je 2006. indicated the Mousterian culture. a nalaze se u Zavo­ du za paleontologiju i geologiju kvartara u Zagrebu. 3.archaeol. The test pit was set up in the cave’s main chamber approxi­ mately 20 meters from the entrance. while the attribution to the early Upper Paleo­ lithic is dubious. S. bivši kustos Zavičajnoga muzeja u Benkovcu. S. five Paleolithic sites were found and also published photographs of Mala Pećina (not far from Velika). The main chan­ nel makes a leftward turn after about 30 meters and then forks after another dozen meters. koju pogrešno potpisuje kao “Velika pećina – stanište paleolitskog čovjeka”. 30. Savić (1984) noted that during reconnaissance. Ve­ ličina sonde prvotno je bila 1 × 2 m. Litičke nalaze M. prikupio je više kamenih nalaza i koma­ da rožnjaka iz Velike i Male pećine i okolnih mjesta koji se čuvaju u muzeju. Ulaz u pećinu smješten je na jugo­ istoku. Nalazište stoga nedvojbeno tre­ ba pripisati srednjem paleolitiku. I. Malez koristi naziv Panjorovica. Karavanić and N. Sama špilja već je duže vrijeme poznata. 21­54. The size of the test pit was initially 1 x 2 m. while the presence of debitage and pseudo­tools is great. with  36  .Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ SREDNJi i RANi gORNJi pAlEOliTiK U hRVATSKOJ Opusc. Savić. which he mistakenly captioned as “Velika Pećina – of the Paleolithic man”. poput spomenutih nalaza iz Zavoda za pale­ ontologiju i geologiju kvartara HAZU. a proširena je sa sjeveroistočne strane da bi se došlo do zida špilje. A test excavation was conducted in 2006. Malez (1979) pripi­ suje musterijenu i orinjasijenu.3 Velika pećina in Kličevica Velika pećina nalazi se u kanjonu potoka Kličevice kod Benkovca. like the aforementioned material held in the CAAS Institute of Quaternary Paleontol­ ogy and Geology. 3. Primijenjena je suvremena metoda iskopavanja pa­ leolitičkih špiljskih nalazišta u kojoj se određuje tro­ dimenzionalan položaj svakog nalaza veličine 2 cm Velika Pećina is located in the canyon surrounding Kličevica Creek near the town of Benkovac. At this occasion. Božićević (1987) published its layout and longitudinal cross­section. Čondić (2006) s manjom ekipom prvi su put nalazište posjetili 2003. Hinić (2000) did not show the presence of any Aurignacian tool types. collected a number of stone artifact and chert fragments from Velika and Mala Pećina and surrounding sites which are held in the muse­ um. Malez. and it was expanded on the northeast side to reach the cave wall. 2006. Pritom je sa špiljskoga tla prikupljeno nekoliko artefakata koji su. no analiza koju je na materijalu iz Zavoda za paleontologiju i geologiju kvartara HAZU provela M. but an analysis of the materials held in the CAAS Institute of Quaternary Paleontology and Geology conduc­ ted by M. Mali ulaz i dug ulazni hod­ nik čine pećinu prilično tamnom. 3. Nekoliko artefakata koje je vjerojatno prikupio M. while Batović (oral communication) assumed the name Panđerovica from the local population.2 Veli Rat U blizini svjetionika na Velom ratu na sjevernome dijelu Dugog otoka prikupljen je velik broj kreme­ nih rukotvorina i krhotina. The cave itself has been known for some time. which is not surprising given that these materials were gathered on the surface. gdje su izravno izloženi djelovanju atmos­ ferilija i dolaze zajedno s prirodno raspucanim kr­ hotinama rožnjaka. Several artifacts probably gathered by M. A modern excavation method for Paleolithic cave sites was ap­ plied which determines the three­dimensional posi­ tion of each item with a size of 2 cm or more. I. a Š.3 Velika pećina u Kličevici refers to this site as Panjorovica. The site must therefore be unambiguously ascribed to the Middle Paleoli­ thic. pokazuje da je riječ o vrlo zanimljivu i znanstveno vrijednu nalazištu. Savić (1984) na­ vodi da je rekognosciranjima ustanovljeno pet pale­ olitičkih lokaliteta i donosi sliku Male pećine (nala­ zi se nedaleko od Velike). M. where they are directly exposed to weathering and are found together with naturally fragmented pieces of chert. dok je atribucija u rani gornji paleolitik dvojbena. The cave’s entrance is in the southeast. dok je zastupljenost krhotina i pseudoalatki vrlo velika. što ne čudi s obzirom na to da su nalazi prikupljeni s površine. Batović (usmeno pri­ općenje) od lokalnoga stanovništva preuzima naziv Panđerovica. upućivali na musterijensku materijalnu kulturu. godine. godine. the former curator of the Territorial Museum in Benkovac. several artifacts were collected from the cave floor which. Za taj lokalitet M. Malez and held in the Institute of Quaternary Paleontology and Geology in Zagreb. Hinić (2000) nije poka­ zala zastupljenost orinjasijenskih tipova alatki. The small entrance and the long entry corridor make the cave quite dark. Glavni kanal nakon 30­ak m skreće ulijevo te se nakon 10­ak m račva. Potonji autor. Čondić (2006) visited the site with a small team for the first time in 2003. Sonda je postav­ ljena u glavnoj dvorani špilje 20­ak m od ulaza. indicates that this is a very interesting and scientifically valuable site. Malez (1979) attributed the lithics to Mousterian and Aurignacian.

about 20 m long and 8 m wide. godine skupljeno mnoštvo kamenih rukotvorina s obilježjima sred­ njega paleolitika. Three dimensions of the positions of all items 2 cm or larger were taken.4 Mujina pećina the mandatory straining and washing of the entire sediment through a double sieve. godine (Ka­ ravanić & Bilich­Kamenjarin 1997. research was conducted in compliance with an uniform. many stone artifacts bearing Middle Paleolithic features were found. odbojaka i nepravilno izlomljenih komada (krhotina) pronađe­ no je i više komada oruđa. at an ele­ vation of approximately 260 m. Godine 1995.4 Mujina pećina Mujina pećina nalazi se sjeverno od Kaštela. Nalazi su i ucrtavani. which can be successfully con­ trolled. 3. Malez (1979) navodi da je još prilikom pregleda nalazišta 1977. wherein an attempt will be made to obtain a more detailed picture of life and adaptations of Neandertals in Dalmatia. very precise method.archaeol. koja zadovoljava zahtjevne standarde su­ vremene arheološke znanosti. 21­54. dok je istočni profil na izlazu iz peći­ ne oko metar deblji. i to u suradnji Arheo­ loškoga zavoda Filozofskoga fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu i Muzeja grada Kaštela (tada Zavičajnoga muzeja Kaštela). clay. na približno 260 m nadmorske visine.5 m deep. tj.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ ThE MiDDlE AND EARlY UppER pAlEOliThiC iN CROATiA Opusc. approximately one third of the sedi­ ment was left behind for future research. 3. with a sheltered right niche and a small plateau in front of the cave. a osim jezgara. Karavanić 2000). M. ili više. Skupljeni materijal bio je dovoljan za odredbu kul­ ture kao musterijenske. A total of 105 finds were collected and drawn. In 1995. The dif­ ferences in the sediment indicate climatic changes. vrlo preciznom metodom.5 m. 8). 30. uz obavezno prosijavanje i ispiranje sveg sedimenta kroz dvostruko sito. systematic research of the Mujina Pećina commenced in cooperation with the Depart­ ment of Archaeology of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Zagreb and the Kaštela Town Museum (at the time the Kaštela City Museum). trećina sedi­ menta ostavljena je za buduća istraživanja. dok su životinjske kosti i zubi rjeđe zastupljeni. E2 i u nekim dijelovima špilje E3) barem par tisuća godina stariji (Rink et al. rarely. and it is also applied in research of Paleolithic sites (Fig. a kraći izvještaj o prvome prob­ nom sondiranju 1978. while animal bones and teeth are less abundant. 8). Vo­ deći se suvremenim zahtjevima struke. odbojci. Besides these. The layers consist of stone debris and sand. which lasted until 2003 (Karavanić & Bilich­Ka­ menjarin 1997. several tools were also found. and besides cores. The site is very prom­ ising for further research. extends from the plateau. while a brief report on the first test ex­ cavation was published in 1978 by N. Razlike u sedimentu upućuju na klimatske promjene. U slojevima su pronađeni tragovi svih faza proizvodnje kamenog oruđa. Petrić (1979). silt and. Malez (1979) stated that during the visit to the site in 1977. while the eastern profile at the cave’s exit is a meter thicker. a primjenjuje se pri istraživanju paleolitičkih nalazišta (sl. during rinsing of the sediment a number of items were found in the sieve. Karavanić 2000). S predšpiljskoga prostora pruža se pogled na Kašte­ lanski zaljev i okolni teritorij koji se može uspje­ šno kontrolirati. and all excavated sediment was sieved so that even the tiniest material could be collected. among which stone artifacts of the Mousterian culture dominate. Clay is most abundant in the lowest (oldest) layers. 2006. Prikupljeno je i ucr­ tano 105 nalaza. a sav iskopani sediment prosijavan je kako bi se skupili i najsitniji nalazi. Mujina Pećina is located north of Kaštela. a kro­ nometrijsko datiranje (radiokarbonsko i electron spin resonance) pokazalo je da su gornji (B i C) i srednji slojevi (D1 i D2) nastali pred približno 40­ak tisuća godina. It is well­lit. 20­ak m duga i 8 m široka. objavio je N. 2002). The collected material was sufficient to determine the culture as Mousterian. koja su trajala do 2003. In compliance with the contemporary professional requirements. Throughout these years. Uzimane su tri dimenzije položaja svih nalaza veličine 2 cm ili više. Svih se godina istraživalo istom. flakes and irregularly broken pieces (debitage). Osim toga više je na­ laza prilikom ispiranja sedimenta pronađeno u situ. Ta istraživanja međutim nisu nastavljena. što ju čini ugodnom za život. među kojima prevladavaju kameni artefakti musterijenske kulture. Nalazište je vrlo perspektivno za daljnja istraživanja kojima će se nastojati dobiti detaljnija slika života i prilagodbe neandertalaca u Dalmaciji. Petrić (1979). These were also sketched. ima zaklonjenu desnu nišu i manji predšpiljski prostor. Slojevi se sastoje od kameno­ ga kršja te pijeska. Sjeverni stratigrafski profil Mujine pećine dubok je samo 1. dok su donji slojevi (E1. and chronometric dating (radiocarbon and electron  37  . Svijetla je. which makes it pleasant to inhabit. M. U najdonjim (najstarijim) slojevima zemlje je najviše. This research was not. not far from the road that leads to the Labin area. which meets the demanding standards of contemporary archeo­ logy. A view of Kaštel Bay and the sur­ rounding territory. however. The northern stratigraphic profile of Mujina Pećina is only 1. započeta su sustav­ na istraživanja Mujine pećine. silta i rijetko gline. nedaleko od ce­ ste koja vodi prema Labinštini. re­ sumed.

2006. deer and large bovids such as aurochs and steppe bison. kozoroga. godine (snimio: S. which have fractures and therefore are not suitable for the knapping of larger flakes (Karavanić 2003a). jezgre i gotovo oruđe. cut­marks. Ta pojava može biti objašnje­ na uporabom malih oblutaka lokalnoga sirovinskog materijala. so the mate­ rials from Mujina Pećina must also be ascribed to this population. poput onih u tzv. Preston T.archaeol. many faunal remains were also found at Mujina Pećina. ali i uporabom lokalnih rožnjaka. jelena i velikih bovida – pragoveda i stepskog bizo­ na. udupci. The cave was also a bear’s den. Miracle (2005) ascertained indisputable traces of human activi­ ty (fracture damage. denticulates. Local raw material (chert) was used for production. urezi od re­ zanja. divokoze i kozoroga u Mujinoj pećini uglavnom potječu od odraslih je­ dinki te da pokazuju tragove komadanja trupla upu­ ćuje na važnu ulogu lova u životu neandertalaca iz Mujine pećine (Miracle 2005). The fact that the deer.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ SREDNJi i RANi gORNJi pAlEOliTiK U hRVATSKOJ Opusc. Perhaps their summer or winter habitat  38  . The tools are generally small in size. ibex. charring) on the bones of chamois. when it was inhabited by bears. Ta se kultura u Europi veže isključivo za neandertalca pa ju tim ljudima treba pripisati i u Mujinoj pećini. E3) are a few thousands years older at a minimum (Rink et al. 21­54. to take advantage of the remains of food and refuse left behind. as well as the use of local chert. no te opasne životinje ondje nisu bile lovlje­ ne. a ne ljudi. and probably also during spring. Excavation of Mujina Pećina in 2000 (photograph by: S. mikromustrijenu. Specific flakes and cores indi­ cate the application of the Levallois technique (for more precise results of the technological analysis. premda više nalaza upućuje i na udaljenija mjesta s kojih su pojedini komadi mogli biti doneseni. premda ostaci samih fosilnih lju­ di tu nisu pronađeni (Janković & Karavanić 2007). People probably did not stay in the cave during the summer. Fig. E2 and in some parts of the cave. koji se uglavnom mo­ gao prikupiti u neposrednoj okolici špilje. or in the winter. although the human fossil remains were not found here (Janković & Karavanić 2007). 8. Iz oštećenja na kostima vid­ ljivo je da su zvijeri dolazile u špilju nakon što bi je ljudi napuštali. They pro­ bably came here in spring­time in the period of layer D1. Karavanić 2004). 9). Na temelju mliječnih zuba te fetalnih i/ili neona­ talnih životinjskih kostiju Miracle (2005) je također spin resonance) has shown that the upper (B and C) and middle layers (D1 and D2) were formed ap­ proximately 40. Burić). Tipologija oruđa (odboj­ ci s obradom. the remains of equids and hares were proba­ bly brought to the site by carnivores and not people. This pheno­ menon can be explained by the use of small peb­ bles of local origin. 2002). it could generally be collected in the cave’s immedi­ ate vicinity. nagorenost) na kostima divokoze. 30. while the lower lay­ ers (E1. see Karavanić 2004). similar to those of the so­called Micro­Mousterian. people came to Mujina Pećina during au­ tumn. Preston T. Iskopavanje Mujine pećine 2000. flakes. and the remains of wolves were also found. this culture is exclu­ sively associated with the Neandertals.e. Traces of all phases of stone tool produc­ tion were found. On the other hand. koji imaju pukotine i stoga nisu pogodni za lomljenje većih odbojaka (Karavanić 2003a). Špilja je bila i medvjeđi brlog. Nalazi speci­ fičnih odbojaka i jezgara pokazuju primjenu leva­ loaške metode (za preciznije rezultate tehnološke analize v. Slika 8. S druge pak strane ostatke ekvida i zeca na lokalitet su vjerojatno do­ nijele zvijeri. notches. chamois and ibex remains in Mujina Pećina gene­ rally come from adult animals and that they bear the traces of cutting of carcasses indicate the im­ portance of hunting in the lives of the Neandertals from Mujina Pećina (Miracle 2005). Besides stone tools. Miracle (2005) utvrdio je nedvojbene tragove ljud­ ske djelatnosti (oštećenja od razbijanja.000 years ago. a pronađeni su i vučji ostaci. 9). Mi­ racle (2005) concluded that during the formation of layer B. The typology of the tools (re­ touched flakes. kako bi se okoristile ostacima hrane i otpacima koji su poslije čovjeka ostali. Alatke su uglavnom malih dimenzija. Za izradu se rabio lokalni si­ rovinski materijal (rožnjaci). Činjenica da ostaci jelena. Based on milk teeth and fetal and/or neonatal animal bones. In Europe. i. Burić) Uz kamene rukotvorine u Mujinoj su pećini pro­ nađeni i mnogobrojni faunistički ostaci. although a number of finds also indicate more distant sites whence individual pieces may have been brought. strugala) potvrđuje prvotnu odredbu materijalne kulture kao musteri­ jenske (sl. sidescrapers) confirms the first determination of the culture as Mousterian (Fig. The damage on the bones indicates that the carni­ vores probably came to the cave after people left it. nazupci. but these dange­ rous animals were not hunted here. cores and finished tools.

modified according to Rink et al. A particularly interesting discovery entails two charred areas in layer D2. drill. Fig. since this is a sheltered section. layer D1: 8. oldest (E3. a možda bi ju posjetili i u proljeće. Mjerilo je u centimetrima (crtež: M. They were not specifically bordered. A large piece of a deer antler and several discarded stone artifacts and bones were found around the fire site in the right niche. 11. E2 and E1).9.: 2002. nazubak. levaloaški odbojak.e.5 Šandalja ii utvrdio da su u razdoblju nastajanja sloja B ljudi u Mujinu pećinu dolazili tijekom jeseni. poprečno izbočeno strugalo. A large concentration of lithics were found in the same layer (D2) in the right niche. i. izmjenično dubasti šiljak. Selected tools from Mujina Pećina – layer B: 1. modificirano prema Rink et al. svrdlo. this need not be true. lead­ ing to the conclusion that the cave was inhabited on a more long­term basis at that time. sloj D1: 8. and was thus co­ vered by rising sea levels or destroyed by tidal action. It was pro­ bably gathered in the nearby area and dried prior to burn­ ing. ni zimi. Culiberg. musterijenski šiljak. If the frequency of materials is considered by layer. alternating bec. 2. Malez (Miracle 1995). 3. notch. Thanks to an analysis of charcoal conducted by M. 4). or even during short periods if activities were particularly intense (Conard 1996). Ljudi u špilji nisu boravili tijekom ljeta. Perkić. the period of formation of layers D1 and D2. denticulate. 12. Mousterian point. 3. transverse convex sidescraper. alternate sidescraper. 9. flake core. The basic stratigraphy  39  . denticulate.archaeol. simple convex sidescraper. rather than in. 21­54. 2006. 12. 6. which were probably fire sites (Karavanić 2000. 10. 2. 5. 10. The Upper Paleolithic site of Šandalja II is located in a quarry next to the city of Pula. Fig. most were found in the lowest. 6. kad su u njoj bili medvjedi. it was ascertained that the prehistoric people of Mujina Pećina used juniper (Juniperus sp. Levallois point. 4). Scale in centimeters (drawing by Marta Perkić.: 2002. izmjenično strugalo. 11. 4. Levallois blade. jezgra za odbojke. 7. 2003). for it was es­ tablished that large concentrations of materials in layers can also be due to consecutive brief stays in the cave.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ ThE MiDDlE AND EARlY UppER pAlEOliThiC iN CROATiA Opusc. 3. rather the fire was tended at the habitat level. 9. which is not surpris­ ing.) as fuel wood for their fires. However. was close to the sea­coast of the time. udubak. jednostavno izbočeno strugalo. 30. Tijekom proljeća možda su tu došli u razdoblju sloja D1. which probably only testifies to brief hunting epi­ sodes. Slika 9. Odabrane alatke iz Mujine pećine – sloj B: 1. 5. levaloaško sječivo. It has been excava­ ted 22 times from 1962 to 1989 under the leadership of M. 7. sl. 4. nazubak. say. making it the most pleasant place to be when temperatures were low and strong winds were blowing.

The sediments from layers A to H can be macroscopically distinguished along the profile and their stratigraphic sequences are almost constant throughout the entire site. 1979. they are probably the result of a brief stay during the ear­ ly Upper Paleolithic. Djind­ jian et al. U istome je sloju (D2) u desnoj niši primijećena pove­ ćana koncentracija litičkih nalaza. najstarijim (E3. 1987).000 and 23. 1964. Among the lithics of layer G. Ona nisu posebno omeđena. there are no indicators for a more precise determination as the initial phase of the Au­ rignacian or the close of the Mousterian. najviše ih je u najdonjim. Beside faunal remains and lithics. while the results obtained for layer H do not chronologically fit into the dated stratigraphic sequence (see Srdoč et al. Oko vatrišta koje je bilo u desnoj niši pronađen je veći komad jelenjega roga te nekoliko porazba­ canih kamenih rukotvorina i kosti. E2 i E1). Naslage je od A do H moguće na profilu makroskopski razlikovati i njihove su stratigrafske sekvence gotovo konstantne kroz cijelo nalazište. but it is not found on any drawings of the stratigraphic profile. 30. which do not con­ tain any Aurignacian industry will be made in this article. 21­54. 3.archaeol. Uz faunističke nalaze i litički materijal u holocenskome sloju A pronađeni su i ulomci brončanodobne keramike. based on only rare finds of lithic industry. 1964. Treba napomenuti da se u literaturi spominje sloj i.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ SREDNJi i RANi gORNJi pAlEOliTiK U hRVATSKOJ Opusc. Considerable changes in the thickness of in­ dividual layers are also visible at horizontal distances of only several meters (Miracle 1995). Osnovna stratigrafija sadrži 8 nasla­ ga (A–H) ukupne debljine više od 8 m (Malez 1963. F and E were formed between 28. Možda im je ljetno ili zimsko stanište bilo blizu ta­ dašnje obale. as done by  40  . 1979. The culture of the remaining. Zahvaljujući analizi ugljena koju je provela M. do 1989. Based on the results of radiocarbon dating.000 years before present. 2003). 1999). Maleza (Miracle 1995). nego je vatra zapaljena na stanišnoj razi­ ni. bone artifacts. but they can generally be placed in the early Upper Paleolithic. koji vjerojatno svjedoče samo o kraćim lovnim epi­ zodama. numerous faunal and human remains from the late Epigravettian (Malez 1972. G/H).) koju su vjerojatno skupili u okolici te prije paljenja sušili. No to ne mora biti točno jer je ustanovlje­ no da velike koncentracije nalaza u slojevima mogu nastati i kao posljedica uzastopnih kratkih boravaka u špilji ili pak tijekom kratka perioda ako je djelat­ nost bila izrazito intenzivna (Conard 1996). recimo. godine pod vodstvom M. tj. three keeled endscrap­ ers are particularly important. and at various parts of the cave there are clear differences in the relative thicknesses of the layers. koštane izrađevine. Malez & Vogel 1969). The physical features of the sediments in the entire site are very similar. is also mentioned in the literature. Since there are no elements that could indicate the presence of the Middle Paleolithic. Therefore no reference to layer i and the younger layers D. However. that is older than the layer H. mnogobrojni osta­ ci faune te ostaci čovjeka iz kasnog epigravetijena (Malez 1972. Iskopavano je 22 puta od 1962. Fizička obilježja sedimenta na cijelu su nalazištu vrlo slična. koja najvjerojatnije predstavljaju vatrišta (Karavanić 2000. a u raznim dijelovima špilje dolazi do jasne razlike u relativnim debljinama naslaga. There are no examples of what. The exceptionally meager lithics of layer i consist of eight flakes (one original flake and two second­ ary) and four tools. Znatne promjene debljine pojedinoga sloja uočljive su i pri vodoravnim udaljenostima od samo nekoliko metara (Miracle 1995). therefore a cultural determination is not possible.5 Šandalja ii Gornjopaleolitičko nalazište Šandalja II nalazi se u kamenolomu kraj Pule. što nije čudno s obzirom na to da je riječ o zaklonjenu dijelu. It should be noted that layer i. 2006. pa se nameće misao da je špilja dugotrajnije bila nastavana tada nego. probably because it was reached at the very end of excavations. when a number of works on Šandalja’s stratigraphy had already been completed (Malez 1990). Posebno zanimljiva otkrića jesu dva područja go­ renja u sloju D2. koji je stariji od sloja H. the industry of this layer can probably be attributed to the Aurig­ nacian. The tools are few in number and atypical. layers G. cannot be reliably de­ termined either. pa je prekriveno izdizanjem morske razine ili uništeno valovima. 1979. Culiberg doznali smo da su praljudi iz Mujine pećine kao loživo za vatru upotrebljavali borovicu (Juniperus sp. u razdoblju nastajanja slojeva D1 i D2. fragments of Bronze Age pottery were also found in Holocene layer A. during the era of Au­ rignacian industry. according to Malez (1987: 17). vjerojatno zato što se contains 8 layers (A–H) with a total thickness of over 8 m (Malez 1963. Ako proma­ tramo učestalost nalaza po slojevima. C. B and A. from which over fifteen thousand lithics from the Up­ per Paleolithic. and based on them and the chronostratigraphic position. a ne nalazi se ni na jednome crtežu stratigrafskoga profila. 1987) were extracted. oldest layers of Šandalja (H. could indicate “the presence of the final phase of the Mousterian”. koji je pri niskim temperaturama i oštrim vjetrovima mož­ da bio i najugodnije mjesto za boravak. Malez & Vogel 1969) iz kojih je pri­ kupljeno više od 15 tisuća litičkih nalaza iz gornjega paleolitika.

blades and blade­ lets has also been ascertained.6 bukovac pećina The Bukovac Pećina is located in Croatia’s Gorski Kotar region. kada je već više radova sa stratigrafijom Šandalje bilo objav­ ljeno (Malez 1990). Malezu (1987: 17) upućivali “na prisustvo završne faze musterijena” nema. i. 10). It is therefore possible that the original came from later layers. and one split­base point from layer H which. The presence of flakes. Among the bone tools. ali nema orinjasijenskih sječiva (sl. 1999). rather they should simply be attributed to the Aurignacian (Karavanić 2003a). The Epigravettian layers were excavated by the same method. flakes that are wider than they are long. što može upućivati na odnošenje samih alatki s nalazišta ili pak na njihovu proizvod­ nju na drugome mjestu. Basler (1983: 49). G/H) samo na osnovi oskudnih primjeraka litičke industri­ je također nije moguće pouzdano kulturno odrediti. 21­54. Malez (1987: 17) and Đ. Budući da nema elemenata koji bi mogli upućivati na prisut­ nost srednjega paleolitika. Stoga se na sloj i te na mlađe naslage – D. and similar to those which appear in the Franco­Can­ tabrian Magdalenian (oral communication from L. Basler (1983: 49). while he attributed the in­ dustry of layer E to the younger Aurignacian. Given the relatively small number of tools in layer E. Srdoč et al. C. and the somewhat larger number in layer F. ali nije jasno treba li njihov M. Međutim nema pokazatelja za precizniju odredbu u početnu fazu orinjasijena ili u završetak musterijena. dok se rezultat do­ biven za sloj H kronološki ne uklapa u datiranu stra­ tigrafsku sekvencu (v. dok industriju sloja E određuje kao mlađi orinjasijen. Primje­ raka koji bi po M. Alatke su malobrojne i nisu tipične. rather only the Epigravettian is present. ali okvirno se mogu smjestiti u rani gornji paleolitik. Typical Aurignacian implement. Za Maleza (1987: 17) tipološke značajke alatki iz sloja F upućuju na stariji orinjasijen. Njuškolika i kobilična gre­ bala česta su. koje ne sadrže orinjasijensku industriju – u ovome članku nećemo osvrtati. For Malez (1987: 17). Vrlo je malen postotak lomljevine prerađene u alatke.e. 10). Njih primjerice u sloju F među odbojcima ima više od 20%. do njega došlo na samu kraju iskopavanja. S obzirom na relativno malen broj alatki u sloju E. Izrazito malobrojan litički materijal sloja i sastoji se od 8 odbojaka (jedan prvotni odbojak.archaeol. For example. Pelegrin i F. although in Šandalja II there is no Magdalenian. pa kulturna determinacija nije moguća. but it is unclear as to whether their absence should be interpreted as a lack of production or to methodological flaws in excavation. kao što su to učinili M. in layer F they ac­ count for 20% of the flakes. 30. Pločice su izrađivane istom tehnikom. tj. Blaser). which may indicate the removal of the tools themselves from the site or their production at an­ other location. Sječiva su izrađi­ vana tehnikom izravna odbijanja mekanim čekićem (tu su opservaciju na uzorku materijala iz sloja F po­ tvrdili J. and numerous tiny materials were collect­ ed therein (e. Blades were made by direct knapping by soft hammer technique (this ob­ servation was confirmed by J. vjerojatno se radi o jedno­ me kratkotrajnu boravku tijekom ranoga gornjeg pa­ leolitika. B i A. U litičkome materijalu sloja G tipološki su važna 3 kobiličasta grebala te po njima i kronostratigrafskoj poziciji možemo reći da industrija sloja vjerojatno pripada orinjasijenu. although the relationship between bladelets and choppers varies from layer to layer. 3. Prisutna je izrada odbojaka. but there are no Aurignacian blades (Fig. Four pierced animal teeth from the Au­ rignacian layers are decorative elements (probably jewelry) and they indicate symbolism. so it is therefore likely that the Dufour bladelets in the Aurignacian layers would have been noticed and collected had they been present in a higher percentage.e. Bladelets were made using the same technique. i. Prema rezultatima radiokarbonskoga datiranja slo­ jevi G. Flakes predominate. Pelegrin and F. contrasts from the customary Aurignacian split­base points. Strauss). dva drugot­ na) i 4 alatke. 1979. Djindjian et al. premda od­ nos pločica i sječiva varira od sloja do sloja. southeast of the town of Lokve on the  41  .Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ ThE MiDDlE AND EARlY UppER pAlEOliThiC iN CROATiA Opusc. ridged bladelets). Odbojci prevladavaju. failure to sieve the sediment. the most frequent are awls. also appeared in the later layers F and E and the E/F transition. i nešto veći u sloju F. već ih jednostavno valja pripisati orinjasije­ nu (Karavanić 2003a). Ostale najstarije naslage Šandalje (H. The presence of wide flakes has been noted. such as nosed and keeled endscrapers. sječiva i pločica. ne može se utemeljeno govoriti o nekim vidnim razlikama između industrija tih dvaju slojeva. U kasnijim slojevi­ ma F i E te prijelazu E/F također dolaze tipična ori­ njasijenska oruđa. Uočljiva je prisutnost širokih odbojaka. odnosno u vrijeme orinjasijenske industrije.g. there are no grounds for drawing visible differences between the industries of these two layers. 2006. F i E nataloženi su približno između 28 000 i 23 000 godina prije sadašnjosti. Malez (1987: 17) i Đ. due to its shape and dimensions. Nosed and keeled endscrapers are frequent. Bla­ ser based on a sample of the materials). Nema pločica Duffor. kao što su njuškolika i kobiličasta grebala. odbojaka kod ko­ jih je širina veća od dužine. the typological features of tools from layer F indicated the older Aurignacian. A very small percentage of the debitage were retouched into tools. There are no Dufour bladelets.

 42  . endscraper on flake. grebalo na odbojku. 10. northwestern slopes of Sleme Hill (Malez 1979). 13.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ SREDNJi i RANi gORNJi pAlEOliTiK U hRVATSKOJ Opusc. Fig. renewed research is sorely needed. 12. and today the overriding view is that it was Aurignacian or Olschewian (Malez 1979. piece (blade) with retouch at both ends. atypical perforator. premda u Šandalji II nema magdalenijena. closer to Adriatic than continental sites. pa je vjerojatno da bi i duforske pločice u orinjasijenskim slojevima bile zamijećene i priku­ pljene da su bile prisutne u većem postotku. Selected tools from the Aurignacian layers of Šandalja II – layer F: 1–4. atypical keeled endscraper. 16. sloj E: 11. Based on the bone point. a jedan šiljak s rascijepljenom bazom iz sloja H po svom obliku i dimenzijama odudara od uobičajenih orinjasijenskih šiljaka s rascijepljenom bazom. Ho­ rusitzky 2004). 2006. svrdlenica. njuškolika grebala. Szilágy (Malez 1979). tj. The cave was first test excavated by T. Bezić. one can assume that this is truly one of those rare sites with traces of the early Upper Paleolithic in Croatia. kobilična grebala. 5. Odabrane alatke iz orinjasijenskih slojeva Šandalje II – sloj F: 1–4. 6. Straussa). 13. a sličan je onima ka­ kvi se pojavljuju u franko­kantabrijskome magda­ lenijenu (usmeno priopćenje L. Kor­ mos (1912) and L. jednostavna grebala. Slika 10. 6). 7–8. This point was the basis for differing attributions of the material culture (v. 16. 15. 9. 6. izostanak tumačiti nepostojanjem njihove izradbe ili metodološkim manjkavostima iskopavanja. 12. 7–8. Although Malez (1979) studied the site. Epigravetijenski slojevi iskopavani su istom metodom te su u njima priku­ pljeni mnogobrojni sitni nalazi (primjerice pločice s hrptom). keeled endscraper. 6). after Karavanić 2003a: Fig. Montet­White 1996. Bezić. 10.archaeol. Od koštanih alatki najčešći su probojci.e. piece (blade) with retouch at one end and truncated butt. 10. Scale in centimeters (drawing by M. 30. while the test pit deeper inside the cave resulted in fau­ nal remains and a lovely example of a bone point. Although the local environment is not Mediterra­ nean. and it is possible that a bone “flute” (i. Mjerilo je u centimetrima (crtež: M. layer E: 11. komadić (sječivo) s obradbom na dvama rubovima. 21­54. 9. simple endscrapers. neprosijavanjem sedimenta. komadić (sječivo) s obradbom na jednome rubu i zarupkom. 14. Bukovac Pećina is placed in the section with Mediterranean sites because it is in the border zone between the Mediterranean and continental zones of Croatia. The frontal section of the test pit generated no results. prema Karavanić 2003a: sl. 15. nego je prisutan epigravetijen. 5. Malez 1979). kobiličasto grebalo. 14. nosed endscraper. Četiri probušena životinj­ ska zuba iz orinjasijenskih slojeva pripadaju dekora­ tivnim elementima (vjerojatno nakit) i upućuju na simboliku. Stoga je možda moguće da izvorno potječe iz kasnijih sloje­ va. a Paleolithic musical in­ strument) comes from the same site (Horusitzky 2004).

Premda je M. a moguće je da s istog nalazišta potječe i koštana “fru­ la”. kojih ponašanje nije strogo ovisilo o uvjetima koje je pred njih postavljao okoliš (v. 2006. divokozama i kozorozima (Miracle 2005). 3. the situation on the Eastern Adriatic coast and its hinterland is entirely different. Sonda u prednjem dijelu nije dala rezultate. Miracle 1999). chamois and ibex (Miracle 2005). the Neandertals from Mujina Pećina fed on steppe bison. Komšo). Malez (1979) istraživao lokali­ tet. whose behavior was not dependent on the conditions placed before them by the environ­ ment (see Patou­Mathis 2000). bliže jadranskim nego kontinentalnim na­ lazištima. 30. neandertalci iz Mujine pećine hranili su se stepskim bizonima. More re­ cent. A brief comparison of sites in continental (Northwestern) and Mediterranean Croatia The Neandertals from Mujina Pećina lived approxi­ mately 90. Dok arheološki nalazi s područja sjeverozapadne Hr­ vatske (špilja Vindija) upućuju na prijelaz srednjega u gornji paleolitik. For example. deer. na obama su područjima (Hrvatsko zagorje i Dalmacija) ti ljudi proizvodnju svojih alatki uspješno prilagodili različitim vrstama najlakše dostupnih sirovinskih materijala. a analiza stabilnih izotopa vindijskih neandertalaca (sloj G1) pokazala je da je gotovo isključiv izvor nji­ hove prehrane bilo meso (Richards et al.archaeol. which implies use of hard hammer. there are no sites with confirmed Middle and early Upper Paleolithic layers. these people managed to adapt the production of their tools to the various types of most easily acquired raw ma­ terials. Neandertalci iz Krapine bili su uspješni lovci na nosoroge i druge životinje (Patou­Mathis 1997. Malez 1979). so it would appear that insufficient research cannot be the sole reason for the absence of 4. high degree of intel­ ligence. The reasons may lie in the relatively meager research conducted in this region. Kratka usporedba nalazišta kontinentalne (sjeverozapadne) i mediteranske hrvatske Neandertalci iz Mujine pećine živjeli su 90­ak tisuća godina nakon krapinskih. društvenih odnosa i prilagodbene spretnosti neandertalaca.000 years after the Krapina Neandertals. a danas pre­ vladava mišljenje da je riječ o orinjasijenu ili olševi­ jenu (Malez 1979. Sve to govori o razvijenoj lovnoj aktivnosti. 21­54. while at the Mujina Pećina site such artifacts are very rare and produced using the Levallois technique. Prvi su špilju sondirali T. in Šandalja II. Moreover. and the sites from the early Upper Paleolithic are very few (Karavanić 2003a). Kormos (1912) i L. jugo­ istočno od Lokava na sjeverozapadnoj padini brda Sleme (Malez 1979). 2000). truly intense research in Istria (Miracle 1997. in both regions (Hrvatsko Zagorje and Dalmatia). dok je sonda u dubini pećine uz faunističke nalaze dala i lijep primjerak koštanoga šiljka. ponovljena istraživanja bila bi prijeko potrebna. visoku stup­ nju inteligencije. and the analysis of the sta­ ble isotopes of the Vindija Neandertals (layer G1) in­ dicated that their diet consisted almost exclusively of meat (Richards et al. Horusitzky 2004). jele­ nima. While the archeological finds from the Northwest­ ern Croatia (Vindija Cave) indicate the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic and to a tie between Neandertals and the initial Upper Paleo­ lithic and perhaps even encounters between Nean­ dertals and early modern people. Premda su prebivali u drukčijem okolišu. 4. blades were produced using the soft hammer technique. Na osnovi tog šiljka materijalna je kultura različito determinirana (v. Montet­White 1996. pragovedima. Iako okoliš ondje nije medi­ teranski. odnosno paleolitička svirala (Horusitzky 2004). 2000). Bukovac pećinu navodimo u poglavlju s mediteranskim nalazištima jer se nalazi u graničnoj zoni između mediteranskog i kontinentalnog dijela Hrvatske. Szilágy (Malez 1979). and were perhaps contemporaneous to a group of Neandertals from Vindija (layer G3).6 bukovac pećina Bukovac pećina nalazi u Gorskom kotaru. Miracle 1999). povezanost neandertalaca s ini­ cijalnim gornjim paleolitikom i možda moguće su­ srete neandertalaca i ranih modernih ljudi. All of this points to the prolific hunting activities. The Neandertals from Krapina successfully hunted rhinoceros and other game (Patou­Mathis 1997. social relations and adaptive ability of the Neandertals. There is a chronological gap greater than 10.000 years between the late Mousterian of Mu­ jina Pećina and the Aurignacian of Šandalja II. Patou­Mathis 2000). 2005) and other parts of the Eastern Adriatic region resulted in only a single site with early Upper Paleolithic layers (oral communication from D. situacija na istočnoj jadranskoj obali i njezinu zaleđu posve je  43  .Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ ThE MiDDlE AND EARlY UppER pAlEOliThiC iN CROATiA Opusc. with a visible difference in production methods and tool typology. aurochs. Na temelju koštanoga šiljka možemo pretpostaviti da se uistinu radi o jednom od rijetkih lokaliteta s tragovima ranoga gornjeg paleolitika u Hrvatskoj. throughout the entire Eastern Adriatic coast and its hinterland. Although they lived in a different environment. a možda usporedno s jednom skupinom istih ljudi iz Vindije (sloj G3). It is unclear as to why Šandalja II is one of the rare sites with Aurignacian industry in the entire Eastern Adriatic region. Komšo et al.

uz vidnu razliku u načinu proizvodnje i tipologiji alatki. Cjelovit odgovor možda leži u kombinaciji svih navedenih mogućnosti ili nekih od njih. while the princi­ ple of testing a hypothesis while applying standard research methodologies to research cave sites was usually absent. Komšo et al. Primjerice u Šandalji II sječiva su proizvođena tehnikom odbijanja mekim čekićem. pa su uništeni ili zatrpani djelovanjem valova i prekriveni podiza­ njem razine mora krajem pleistocena. 2005) i drugim dijelovima istočnojadranskoga područja otkriven je samo jedan lokalitet sa slojevima ranoga gornjeg paleolitika (us­ meno priopćenje D. 2006. 5. although it could be one of any number of reasons. during the past century only a few were systematically examined. Štoviše na području cijele istočne jadranske obale i zaleđa ne postoji nijedno nalazište s pouzdano utvr­ đenim slojevima srednjega i ranoga gornjeg paleoli­ tika. Štoviše faunistički materijal prikupljen u špiljama sjeverozapadne Hrvatske (Vindija. it is possible that this area was simply not very densely populated during the Aurignacian. However. while the Neandertal remains were tho­ roughly analyzed in cooperation with foreign scho­ lars and published in more respected journals. može biti da je to područje u vremenu orinjasijena bilo slabije nasta­ vano. several detailed analyses of lithic and faunal remains were conducted. Subsequent excavations were generally conducted to collect material that could provide new informa­ tion on a given culture or period.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ SREDNJi i RANi gORNJi pAlEOliTiK U hRVATSKOJ Opusc. Međutim ni ta mogućnost ne čini se dovoljnom. zaključak Premda se na tlu Hrvatske nalaze paleolitička na­ lazišta važna za proučavanje materijalnih kultura i razvoja hominina. Kasnija iskopavanja obično su pro­ vođena radi prikupljanja materijala koji bi pružio nove informacije o nekoj kulturi ili razdoblju. Nije jasno zašto je Šandalja II jedno od rijetkih nalazišta s orinjasijenskom industrijom na cijelom istočnojadranskom prostoru. Veternica) were primarily examined from the paleontological standpoint. Velika Pećina. Moguće je da se dio tadašnjih lokaliteta nalazio blizu morske obale. za koje nije bilo uspostav­ ljeno sustavno nazivlje (v. 1995b). Litički nalazi. dosta intenzivnim istraživanjima u Istri (Mi­ racle 1997. It can be said that research into the Paleolithic in Croatia over the past decade has been conducted at two levels. or any attempt to locate sources of raw materials. only served to deter­ mine material cultures. Razlozi mogu ležati u relativno slaboj istraženosti tog područja. a nalazišta iz ranoga gornjeg paleolitika veoma su malobrojna (Karavanić 2003a). Iskopavanje Kra­ pine provedeno je vrlo precizno. A comprehensive answer may lie in a combination of some or all of these possibili­ ties.archaeol. and new projects were also launched which generally had different objectives. drukčija. The collected archeological material was generally only superficially processed and published in advance. This research was often conducted jointly by Croatian and foreign researchers and in­ stitutions. for which no systematic terminology was adopted (see Karavanić 1992. far above the customary levels of the time. even this reason seems inadequate. It is possible that some of the sites of the time may have been located close to the sea. Velika pećina. Lithics. 1995b) služili su samo za određivanje materijalnih kultu­ ra. without a thorough­going zooarcheological analysis. so that they were destroyed or bu­ ried due to tidal action and concealed by rising sea levels at the end of the Pleistocene. s obzirom na sadašnje stanje istraženosti. 30. 21­54. ili za pokušaj lociranja izvora 5. dok je princip testiranja hipoteza uz primjenu standardne metodologije istraživanja špiljskih nalazišta obično izostao. more sites with layers of this age. given the current state of research. Ipak. The ex­ cavations at Krapina were conducted very meticu­ lously. without implementation of detailed typological/statistical and technologi­ cal analysis. Veternica) bio je ponajprije promatran s pa­ leontološkoga gledišta. tijekom prošloga stoljeća svega ih je nekoliko sustavno istraženo. pa se čini da nedovoljna istraženost ne može biti isključivi razlog nepostojanja više nalazišta sa slojevima te starosti. koja podrazumijeva uporabu tvrdog čekića. Komše). faunal materials collect­ ed in the caves of Northwestern Croatia (Vindija. Conclusion Although there are Paleolithic sites in Croatia’s ter­ ritory which are vital to the study of material cul­ ture and human evolution. premda bi mog­ la biti jedan od razloga. Između kasnoga musterijena Mujine pećine i orinjasijena Šandalje II postoji vremenska praznina veća od 10 000 godina. Nevertheless. Novi­ jim. bez provedbe detaljnijih tipološko­statističkih i tehnoloških analiza. dok su na lokalitetu Mujina pećina te ruko­ tvorine vrlo rijetke i proizvedene levaloaškom me­ todom.  44  . The first level encompasses research into new sites using state­of­the­art methods to study the adap­ tations by hunters and gatherers to the changing environment of the Middle and Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. bez detaljnijih arheozoološ­ kih analiza. Moreover. and they satisfy modern scientific criteria for multidisciplinary research. Over the past ten or so years. iznad tada uobi­ čajena načina. Karavanić 1992.

zahvale Autori su zahvalni pokojnoj dr. a započeti su i novi projekti koji su uglavnom posta­ vili drukčije ciljeve. Ph. Maji Paunović. Ahernu (University of Wyoming) na mnogobrojnim stručnim razgovorima. and Domagoj Tončinić.D.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ ThE MiDDlE AND EARlY UppER pAlEOliThiC iN CROATiA Opusc. Heleni Tomas i mr. obrazovanja i športa Republike Hrvatske (projekti broj: 130­0000000­0871 i 196­196­2766­2740). sc. (University of Wyoming) for many substantial conversations. as well as to anonymous reviewers. faunal analysis (including taphonomy). Revizije dostupna materijala i istraživanja paleolitičkih nalazišta koja su u tijeku trebali bi dati nove podatke važne za rekonstrukciju okoliša i sagledavanje djelatnosti paleolitičkih lovaca i skupljača na tlu Hrvatske. Ph. Marku Leneyu na pruženim stručnim informacijama. Prikazani rezultati dijelom su proi­ zašli iz znanstvenih projekata Ministarstva znanosti. includes implementation of standard technological and ty­ pological analysis of lithics. dr. Druga razina obuhvaća analizu neobjavljena. Trenutno raspoložive rezultate i interpretacije sva­ kako valja sagledati u kontekstu dosadašnjih istra­ živanja paleolitika u Hrvatskoj. for example. 30.D. Acknowledgements The authors would like to convey their gratitude to the late Maja Paunović. Domagoju Tončiniću na pozivu da za prigodan broj časopisa Opuscula archaeologica napišemo ovaj članak te anonimnim recenzentima.archaeol. Fredu H. sirovinskoga materijala. Ph. koja je omogućila rad na materijalu Vindije i Šanda­ lje II (Zavod za paleontologiju i geologiju kvartara HAZU). dr. M. re­ newed analyses of published materials and dating and application of newer methods to materials from earlier­examined sites. M. This. Jamesu C. James C.D. sc. 2006. for providing technical information. sc. Revi­ sion of available material and research into Paleo­ lithic sites currently under way should provide new data vital to the reconstruction of the environment and understanding of the activities of Paleolithic hunters and gatherers in Croatia’s territory. M. who enabled work on the material from Vindija and Šandalja II (CAAS Department Quaternary Paleontology and Geol­ ogy). Smith. Ph. and Helena Tomas. for ask­ ing us to write this article for the anniversary is­ sue of the journal Opuscula Archaeologica. Education and Sports of the Republic of Croatia (project nos. dating and determination of diet based on stable isotopes.. Fred H. datiranje i određivanje prehrane na osnovi sta­ bilnih izotopa. Možemo reći da se istraživanja paleolitika u posljednjih 10­ak godina u Hrvatskoj provode na dvjema razinama. U posljednjih 10­ak godina provedeno je nekoliko detaljnih analiza litičkog i faunističkog materijala.D. Također smo zahvalni prof. petrografsku analizu. The currently available results and interpretations certainly should be viewed in the context of all pre­ vious research into the Paleolithic in Croatia. Ph. We are also grateful to Prof. The results presented herein are due in part to research projects funded by the Ministry of Science. dr. The second level encompasses analysis of unpub­ lished although previously excavated materials. doc. dr. ponovne analize objavljena ma­ terijala te datiranje i primjenu novijih metoda na materijalu s nalazišta koja su ranije istražena. sc. 21­54. (Loyola University Chicago) and Prof. Prva razina obuhvaća iskopavanja novih nalazišta primjenom suvremene metodologije radi proučava­ nja prilagodbe lovaca i skupljača na promjene okoli­ ša tijekom srednjeg i gornjeg paleolitika te mezoliti­ ka.A. To pri­ mjerice obuhvaća provedbu standardne tehnološke i tipološke analize litičkoga materijala. Ta istraživanja često zajedno provode hrvatski i inozemni znanstvenici i institucije te ona zadovolja­ vaju suvremene znanstvene principe multidiscipli­ narnih istraživanja. faunističku analizu (uključujući tafonomi­ ju). Ahern. Mark Leney. prije iskopana materijala. sc.D. sc. dok su ostaci neandertalaca u suradnji sa stranim znanstvenicima bili detaljno obrađeni i objavljeni u više renomiranih časopisa. Smithu (Loyola University Chicago) i prof.  45  . petrographic analysis.: 130­0000000­ 0871 and 196­196­2766­2740). Prikupljeni arheološki ma­ terijal bio je uglavnom samo letimično i prethod­ no obrađen i objavljen.

University of Michigan). The Pleistocene Perspective (Papers of the World Archaeological Congress). Paris. in J. 1–25.). Boule: “L’homme fossile de la Chapelle­aux­Saints”. New York. Caspari: “The Krapina Occipital bones”. 29–35. M. L’Anthropologie 106. Brodar: Potočka zijalka. M. P. 7–54. J. Blaser. 1856. Anikovich 1992 Anonymus 1856 Bailey 2002 Bailey 2006 Basler 1983 Batović 1965 Batović 1988 Blaser et al. Anikovich: “Early Upper Paleolithic industries of eastern Europe”. Ljubljana. Kurtanjek & M. F. Sarajevo. D. 1913. Smith: “The transitional nature of the late Neandertal mandibles from Vindija cave. Basler: “Paleolitske kulture u jadranskoj regiji Jugoslavije”. 1983. 2006. I. in M. Washington. 1983. Za­ greb. Annales de Paléontologie 6. Batović: “Paleolitički i mezolitički ostaci s Dugog otoka”. C. 1912. 253– 267. A. Ahern: Late Pleistocene frontals of the Hrvatsko Zagorje: an analysis of intrapopulational variation among south central European Neandertals (unpubslihed PhD dissertation. 148– 156. 205–245. Bordes: Typologie du Paléothique ancien et moyen. 1993. 2002 Ahern et al. Ahern & F. Periodicum Biologorum 108. 205–209. Lon­ don. Allsworth­Jones: “The Szeletian: main trends. 299–307. Diadora 3. Paris. Hawks & S. Janković & F. A. 6. R. Ahern. 25–67. Zagreb. Bailey: “Beyond shovel­shaped incisors: Neandertal dental morphology in a comparative context”. recent results. Journal of World Prehistory 6. Zadar. Croatia”. 2004 Aiello & Dean 1990 Allsworth­Jones 1986 J. J. 1998. 85–92. 21­54. 1990. S. Journal of Human Evolution 46. 419–432. M. M. S. C. 1–63. 2006. Brodar & M. 2006. neolita in eneolitav Sloveniji 16. Bordeaux. Smith: “New disco­ veries and interpretations of hominid fossils and artifacts from Vindija Cave. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine 38. Božićević: “Speleološke pojave benkovačkog kraja i njihovo značenje”. 1911. 21–56.). 365–371. Busby: “A multivariate analysis of the ontogeny of the scapular axilliary border”. Foley & W. 2002 Bordes 1961 Boule 1911 Boule 1912 Boule 1913 Božićević 1987 Brodar & Brodar 1983 Busby 2006 Caspari 2006  46  . Anatomical Record 269. 2002. Southampton. I. 1992. Lee: “The Late Neandertal supraorbital fossils from Vindija cave. M. I. Paunović: “L’industrie du site néandertalien de la grotte de Vindija (Croatie): une révision des matièrs premières lithiques”. Benkovac. Journal of Human Evolution 43. A. Benkovački kraj kroz vjekove (Zbornik 1).archaeol. M. M. Ljubljana. S. C. Karavanić. Croatia: A biased sample?”. S. 2002. H. 1965. Croatia”. Š. J. 30. Annales de Paléontologie 7. 1986. Pekić (eds. New York. Zagreb. Day. I. 1–70. Periodicum Biologorum 108. Paris. and pro­ blems for resolution”. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolita. F. Medini. 2002. H. J. M. Paunović. Boule: “L’homme fossile de la Chapelle­aux­Saints”. Š. R. 111–172. Đ. Ahern. Petricioli & M. Periodicum Biologorum 108. 387–398. 1961.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ SREDNJi i RANi gORNJi pAlEOliTiK U hRVATSKOJ Opusc.). Annales de Paléontologie 8. Dean: An Introduction to Human Evolutionary Anatomy. Aiello & C. M. Elberfelder Zeitung. 1987. Anonymus: “Note on the find”. Boule: “L’homme fossile de la Chapelle­aux­Saints”. Batović: “Prvi paleolitski nalazi u srednjoj Dalmaciji”. 1988. Paris. 2004. Bailey: “A closer look at Neanderthal postcanine dental morphology: The mandibular dentition”. New York. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 16 (suppl. H. C. liTERATURA / bibliOgRAphY Ahern 1998 Ahern & Smith 1993 Ahern et al. 9. Rukang (eds. 47. D. L. Ann Arbor. New York. 2006.

D. Chase & H. Dimitrijević. H. A. P. C. 2006 Fuhlrott 1859 J. M. S. Smith: “Makers of the Early Aurignacian of Europe”. Zilhão. 1986. Russell & J. The human revolution: behavioural and biocultural perspectives on the origin of modern humans. 1987. Smith (eds. 1993. Frayer. Middle Paleolithic and Middle Atone Age Settlement System. Mellars & C. illustrated bibliography. M. Washington. American Anthropologist 95. G. Mizerová (eds. Fuhlrott: “Menschliche Überreste aus einer Felsengrotte des Düssel­ thals”. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 43. 1997. Rotterdam. 626–676. Continuity or replacement: controversies in Homo sapiens evolution. D’Errico. 1887. Clark & C. Pope: “The fossil evidence for modern human origins”. Chicago. Washington. Clark: “Neandertal archaeology: implications for our origins”. 1998 Djindjian et al. Churchill & F. Thorne & G. 1996. Orschiedt. New Facts. S. Težak­Gregl & N. New York. Frayer: The Krapina Neandertal – A comprehensive. C. 4–9. in P.). New York. Conceptual issues in modern human origins research. J. D. en Belgique”. 2006. H. American Anthropologist 104. 255–268. B. Wien. M. H. Fossil Man. Willermet (eds. J.  47  . P. New Ideas. New York. Liège. Conroy: Reconstructing Human Origins: A Modern Synthesis. 61–115. J. centennial. D. Chiarelli: “Spongiform encelopathy. F. Julien. Clark & J. 1999 Fraipont & Lohest 1887 Frayer 1986 Frayer 1992 Frayer 1997 Frayer 2006 Frayer et al. 1998 Dimitrijević et al.). Forlì. Cook. Conard: “Middle Paleolithic Settlement in Rhineland”.). Frayer: “Perspectives on Neanderthals as ancestors”. 1–44. Current Anthropology 39. New Jersey.archaeol. XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences (UISPP). W. C. M. M. in V. D. A. Radovčić: “Krapina 3: Cut marks and ritual behavior?”. Baffier & J. R. Zagreb. Stringer (eds. Smith. in N. 131–153. D. D. 2000. W. G. Human Evolution 19. Chase: “The cult of the Cave Bear”. 2002. Djindjian. Chapman. 1997. 14–50. S. Vereins der preußischen Rheinlande und Westfalens 16.). Periodicum Biologorum 108. 1998. 2006. Lindly: “The case of continuity: Observations on the bi­ ocultural transition in Europe and Western Asia”. Dibble: “Middle Paleolithic symbolism: A review of cur­ rent evidence and interpretations”. Firenze. in G. Papers in honor of Jan Jelínek’s life anniversary. H. al 1996 Chase 1987 Chase & Dibble 1987 Chiarelli 2004 Churchill & Smith 2000 Clark 2002 Clark & Lindly 1989 Conard 1996 Conroy 1997 Coon 1962 D’Errico et al. Coon: The Origin of Races. F. W. 21­54. Expedition 29. Archives de Biologie 7. 1999. Kozłowski & M. cannibalism and Neanderthals extinction”. D. 50–67. Otte: Le Paléolithique supérieur en Europe. 1992. J.). 2006. Zagreb. G. 1998. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6. J. Lohest: “La race humaine de Néandertal ou de Cannstadt. F. Conard (ed. New York. Frayer: “The persistence of Neanderthal features in post­Neanderthal Europeans”. Shiel & Š. Brno. G. G. 30. W. 1859. S. Paris. 587–757. Wolpoff. 1993 Frayer et al. Pelegrin: “Neanderthal accul­ turation in Western Europe? A critical review of the evidence and its inter­ pretation”. A. D. E. N. Lon­ don. Majnarić­Pandžić: Prapovijest. 519–524. W. J. Frayer. L. Novotný & A. Philadelphia. G. J.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ ThE MiDDlE AND EARlY UppER pAlEOliThiC iN CROATiA Opusc. Batović 1996: The Changing Face of Dalmatia: Archaeological and Ecological Studies in a Mediterranean Landscape. Chapman et. A. 1996. 1987. Fraipont & M. 81–92. 1989. 263–296. Frayer: “Cranial variation at Mladeč and the relationship between Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic hominids”. in G. 2004. 1962. W. New York. Zagreb. G. Bräuer & F.

­A. Smith & E. M.). Washington. Ein Bertrag zur Paläoanthropologie. Zagreb. Justus. Golovanova & Doronichev 2003 L. 699. 1996 J. Liège. Zagreb. Gardner & Smith 2006 J. 2006. Zagreb. De Lumley. Horusitzky: ”Les artefacts en os et bois de cerf à Bukovac. 1988. Zagreb. Hublin. Karavanić. 1918. 2000. 1019–1025. Gorjanović­Kramberger: Pračovjek iz Krapine. Brajković. Stringer (eds. Zagreb. Filozofski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu / unpublished undergraduate thesis. M. L. and age”. New Jersey. 2000  48  . Expedition 49/1. Gorjanović­Kramberger 1918 D. Janković & I. H. Spoor. R. geological setting. Zagreb. Wien. V. M. University of Zagreb). Janković et al. Gorjanović­Kramberger: “Paleolitički ostaci čovjeka i njegovih suvre­ menika iz diluvija u Krapini”. M. 2003. Gabunia et al. Kozłowski (ed. Études et Recherches Archeologiques. Ahern. 1901. Gioia: “Problems related to the origins of Italian Upper Paleolithic: Uluz­ zian and Aurignacian”. B. O. Horusitzky 2004 F. Gorjanović­Kramberger 1913 D. Hinić: Površinski nalazi Panđerovice i Ražanca (neobjavljen diplomski rad. I. Zonneveld: “On the characteristic arc­ hitecture of the bony labirynth of the inner ear in Neandertals. 1913. 553–557. Gorjanović­Kramberger: Der Diluvijale Mensch von Krapina in Kroatien. Harrold 1989 F. Republic of Georgia: taxonomy. G. Doronichev: “The Middle Paleolithic of the Cau­ casus”. 677–713. Bosinski. 239–252. A. 1989. 457–466. Golovanova & V. Trinkaus: “Re­ vised direct radiocarbon dating of the Vindija G1 Upper Paleolithic Nean­ dertals”. C. H. Ljubljana. 1996. Zagreb. M.). Philadelphia. H. Gabunia. 2004. Higham. 71–140. Washington. 21­54. Wiesbaden. F.). Arheološki vestnik 55. Periodicum Biologorum 108. Nioradze. Janković: “Neandertalci”. I. 90–98. Majsuradze & A. B. Bronk Ramsey. The human revolution: behavioural and biocultural perspectives on the origin of modern humans. Washin­ gton. 2006. Higham et al. Janković 2004 I. in V. J. 471–484. A. in J. Karavanić: “Digging up Neandertals at Mujina Pećina? A Mousterian cave site in Croatia”. Ferring. Jöris. London. Science 288. Swisher. Tvalchrelidze. 1899. 224–226. Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu 21. Smith: “The paleopathology of the Krapina Neander­ tals”. J. Gioia 1988 P. Klaić (ed. 2006 I. Gorjanović­Kramberger 1906 D. 2000. Prirodni zemljopis Hrvatske. Antón. D. A late Ne­ andertal associated with Upper Paleolithic artefacts”. Gorjanović­Kramberger: “Der paläolitische Mensch und seine Zeitgeno­ ssen asu der Diluvium von Krapina in Kroatien”. G. Mittheilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 31. Mauch Lenardić & F. 1906. in P. Zagreb. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103. 1878. 30. Collegium Antropologicum 30. Braun & F. C. Châtelperronian and early Aurignacian in We­ stern Europe: continuity or discontinuity?”. S. 2006. C. Janković & Karavanić 2007 I. 71–101. 2004. Harrold: “Mousterian.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ SREDNJi i RANi gORNJi pAlEOliTiK U hRVATSKOJ Opusc. Zagreb. Gorjanović­Kramberger 1901 D. C. Lordkipanidze. Gorjanović­Kramberger 1899 D. Mouskhelishvili: “Earliest Pleistocene hominid cranial remains from Dmanisi. Gardner & F. C. Z. Hirc: “Vindija”. Mellars & C. Henke: “Gorjanovic­Kramberger’s research on Krapina – Its impact on paleoanthropology in Germany”. Journal of World Prehistory 17. Janković. 35– 39. Lokve (Cro­ atie): Une seconde flûte possible? Relations entre les chasseurs de Lokve et les montagnards d’Olcheva au début du Paléolithique supérieur”. 164–197. 2007. Vekua. 9–37. Karavanić. 2006. Nature 381. 177–196. Periodicum Biologorum 108. Henke 2006 W. J. Hirc 1878 D. Ljetopis Jugoslavenske akademija znanosti i umjetnosti 14. Hinić 2000 M. F. 2006 T. Hublin et al. K. 2006.archaeol. Smith: “Vindija Cave and the modern human peopling of Europe”. C. D. Gorjanović­Kramberger: Život i kultura diluvijalnoga čovjeka iz Krapine u Hrvatskoj. La Mutation.

Rotterdam. T. 1970. Kesterke & J.). 2006. Čondić: “Probno sondiranje Velike pećine u Kličevici kod Benkovca”. W. Quaterly Journal of Science 1. J. 30. Colloquia of the XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences 5. Krapina 1899–1969. 53–163. 223–248. An Archaeological Perspective. Karavanić & I. L’Anthropologie 107. Karavanić: “Strukovno nazivlje za donji i srednji paleolitik”. Hrvatski arheološki godišnjak 1. Krapina 1899–1969. Ma­ lez (ed. I. Karavanić: ”Prijedlog osnovnoga strukovnog nazivlja za srednji i mlađi paleolitik”. 201–208. Cavalli­ ­Sforza. Journal of Anthropological Research 51. The Emergence of Modern Humans. Zagreb. Collegium Antropologicum. H. J. Jantz & F. 419–437. 1992. I. Opuscula archaeologica 17. 1992 King 1864 Komšo et al. 1995.): Continuity or replacement: controversies in Homo sapiens evolution. in M. K. 2000. Karavanić & F. in G. 1970. Zagreb. 777–778. in O. 1993. 157–177. Current Anthropology 41. M. I. Paris. H. 195–204. 9–35. 2003. 1990. Cambridge. Zagreb. Croatie) dans le contexte de la région de l’est de l’Adriatique”. Ithaca. Bilich­Kamenjarin: “Musterijensko nalazište Mujina Peći­ na kod Trogira. Balbo & P. I. 2004. 205–218. Ka­ štel Lukšić. 2005 Kormos 1912 Kozłowski 1990 Kozłowski 1996 J. Smith: “The Middle/Upper Paleolithic interface and the relationship of Neanderthals and early modern humans in the Hrvatsko Za­ gorje. 1997. Karavanić: “Gornjopaleolitičke kamene i koštane rukotvorine iz špilje Vindije”. I. 153–164. Bar­Yosef. Zagreb. Kozłowski: “A multiaspectual approach to the origins of the Upper Pa­ laeolithic in Europe”. Opuscula archaeologica 19. C. J. Karavanić & F. M. 2007. 1912. Journal of Human Evolution 34. 365–373. Zagreb. J.). London. 2003. Croatia”. L. I. Opuscula archaeologica 16. Karavanić: ”L’industrie aurignacienne de la grotte de Šandalja II (Istrie. Földtani Közlöny 52. Zagreb. H. in P. Karavanić: Život neandertalaca. rezultati trogodišnjih iskopavanja”. J.). D. Smith: “Defining modern humans: a multivariate approach”.). Zagreb. Zagreb. 139–140. Miracle: “Čepićko polje”. Croatia”. in M. in M. T. Kidder. J. King: “The reputed fossil Man of Neanderthal”. 97–104. Krapina 1899–1969. 1970. Zagreb. Smith: “More on the Neanderthal problem: the Vindija case”. 165–176. Kallay: “Paleostomatološke osobine krapinskih neandertalaca”. Kallay: “Komparativne napomene o čeljustima krapinskih praljudi s obzi­ rom na položaj među hominidima”. Albuquerque. I. R. 2004 [2005]. I. Abaco–Forlì. Ahern: “Is the late mandibular sample from Vindija Cave (Croatia) biased?”. 1998. Mellars (ed. Zagreb. L. Smith (eds. A. 45–50. Komšo. 577–602. I. Kallay 1970 Kallay 1970a Kallay 1970b Karavanić 1992 Karavanić 1993 Karavanić 1995 Karavanić 1995a Karavanić 2000 Karavanić 2003 Karavanić 2003a Karavanić 2004 Karavanić & Bilich­Kamenjarin 1997 Karavanić & Smith 1998 Karavanić & Smith 2000 Karavanić & Ćondić 2006 Kesterke & Ahern 2007 Kidder et al. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic. 2000. Karavanić: “Upper Paleolithic occupation levels and late­occuring Nean­ dertal at Vindija cave (Croatia) in the context of Central Europe and the Bal­ kans”. I. Kozłowski: “Cultural context of the last Neanderthals and early Mo­ dern Humans in Central­Eastern Europe”. Piperno (eds. Karavanić: Mujina pećina: tragovi života dalmatinskoga pračovjeka. Malez (ed. 1864. I. 88–97. Chicago. H. Kormos: “Die ersten Spuren des Urmenschen in Karst­Gebirge”. R. 838–840. 1992.). Opuscula archaeologica 21. Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 38/2. Antiquity 74.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ ThE MiDDlE AND EARlY UppER pAlEOliThiC iN CROATiA Opusc. Bräuer & F. J. 1995. March & M. I. Karavanić & N. 21­54. 2006. Karavanić: “Research on the Middle Paleolithic in Dalmatia. K. Budapest. New York. 15–35. Zagreb. 7–9. Kallay: “Osobitosti zubi krapinskih neandertalaca”.archaeol.  49  . 1996. Malez (ed.

Malez 1964 M. Krapina 1899–1969. K. Berkeley. Zagreb. 65–108. Malez 1967 M. 1964. in V. 1965. 1983. 1981. Malez 1980 M. Malez (ed. Malez 1987 M. in M. 79–80. 13–29. Zagreb. 1978. in M. Brantingham. Collegium Antropologicum 4 (suppl. Kozłowski: “Early Upper Paleolithic backed blade industries in Cen­ tral and Eastern Europe”. 227–238. Sarajevo. 1963. Malez 1970 M.). 181–201.). in M. 1978. Comptes Rendus de l’ Academie des Sciences D291. L. Vandermeersch: “Découverte de restes humains dans un niveau castelperronien à Saint­Cesaire (Charente Maritime)”. Arheološki radovi i rasprave 4–5. G. 1999 M. in P. M. The Early Upper Paleolithic beyond Western Europe. Be­ nac (ed. Malez: “O značenju otkrića ostataka roda Homo u naslagama vilafranka Šandalje I kod Pule”. Radovčić: The Krapina Hominids. fosilnog čovjeka i njegovih materijalnih kultura na tlu Sjeverne Hrvatske” (posebni otisak iz knjige Varaždinski Zbornik). Malez: “Stratigrafski. Finkel. 1980. Kricun et al. Lampl & J. 1999. Za­ greb. 2004. Zagreb. Jurkić (ed. Pula. Malez 1978 M. Zagreb. Malez 1965 M. Mann.). Malez 1972 M.archaeol.).). Malez: “Paleolit Velike Pećine na Ravnoj Gori u sjeverozapadnoj Hrvat­ skoj”. J. Jugoslawien)”. Malez: “Populacije neandertalaca i neandertalcima sličnih ljudi u Hrvat­ skoj”. Malez (ed. Malez 1975 M. Malez: “Pregled paleolitičkih i mezolitičkih kultura na području Istre”. 187–189. Malez 1978a M. Krapina 1899–1969. 1972. Malez: “Razvoj kvartara. Varaždin. godini”. Rad Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 371. 1–39. 1979. Kerry (eds. in M.). 309–324. Malez: “Ostaci fosilnog čovjeka iz gornjeg pleistocena Šandalje kod Pule (Istra)”. J.). Malez 1963 M. in Ž. Malez (ed. Ljetopis Jugoslavneske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 690. 57–129. Palaentologia Iugoslavica 12. Zagreb.). Zagreb. Zagreb. Malez 1983 M. Zagreb. Malez: “Šandalja bei Pula – ein neuer und wichtiger paläolithischer Fun­ dort in Istrien”. 154–155. A. Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja I: paleolitsko i mezolitsko doba. Lévêque & B. A Radiographic Atlas of the Skeletal Collection. Malez: “Paleolitik na području Zagreba”. 1990. 1967. 7–68. Rapanić (ed. Kurtanjek & Marci 1990 D. Malez 1970a M. Malez: “Nalazišta paleolitskog i mezolitskog doba u Hrvatskoj”. Kurtanjek & V. Rad Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 449. Monge. Malez: “Paleolitska kultura Krapine u svjetlu novijih istraživanja”. Malez 1981 M. Geološki vjesnik 18. 30. Kozłowski 2004  50  . J. Zagreb.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ SREDNJi i RANi gORNJi pAlEOliTiK U hRVATSKOJ Opusc. 331–371. 14–29. paleofaunski i paleoklimatski odnosi Krapinskog nalazišta”. S. Malez 1979 M. 1987. Kuhn & K. Marci: “Petrografska istraživanja paleolitskih artefakata spilje Vindije”. Zagreb. Malez: “Istraživanje pleistocenske stratigrafije i faune u 1962. 1974. M. 2006. Zagreb. Lévêque & Vandermeersch 1980 F. Zagreb. E. in A. 1970. Kricun. Malez: “Novi pogledi na stratigrafiju Krapinskog nalazišta”. Arheološka istraživanja u Istri i Hrvatskom primorju (Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 11). Krapinski pračovjek i evolucija hominida. Malez: “Sites of fossil men in Croatia”. Paris.). Arheološka istraživanja u Zagrebu i njegovoj okolici (Izdanja Hrvatskoga arheološkog društva 6). Malez 1974 M. 1980. 305–313. 1970. 13–44. Malez (ed. W. Bulletin scientifique Yougoslavie 9. 3–47. Bulletin scientifique Yougoslavie 19. 1975. 61–102. Zagreb. Krapinski pračovjek i evolucija hominida. 21­54. Malez: “Über die bedeutung der entdeckung von geröllgeräten in den villafranchiumschichten der Šandalja I in Istrien (Kroatien. Malez: “Nalazišta fosilnih hominida u Hrvatskoj”.

International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 15. Rukavina: “Položaj naslaga spilje Vindije u sustavu članjenja kvartara šireg područja Alpa”. New York. Boca Raton. 1980. M. Patou­Mathis: “Neanderthal subsistence behaviour in Europe”. White (eds. 1980 Mann & Trinkaus 1974 Mann & Monge 2006 Minugh­Purvis et al. 2000. New York. Smith: “Krapina 1: A juvenile Ne­ andertal from the Early Later Pleistocene of Croatia”. An Archaeological Perspective. 121–133. Program and Book of Abstracts. Zagreb – Krapina. 2000. Smith. P. Minugh­Purvis & J. Montet­White: Le paléolithique en ancienne Yougoslavie. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolita. Liège. M. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 10. Zagreb. M. 2001. Ljubljana. Mauch Lenardić: “Last glacial settlement of Croatia: catalogue of fossil sites dated to the OIS 2 and 3”.  51  . A. 1996. New York. 1–14. University of Michigan). Geologia Croatica 45. M. Mann & E. Brajković. 37–56. C. Miracle: Broad-spectrum adaptations re-examined: Hunter-gatherer responses to late glacial environmental changes in the eastern Adriatic (un­ published PhD dissertation. Miracle: “Late Mousterian subsistence and cave use in Dalmatia: the zooarchaeology of Mujina Pećina. T. A. Malez & D. New York. N. Radovčić & F. T. 1990. 187–218. A. Monge: “A Neandertal parietal fragment from Krapina (Cro­ atia) with a serious cranial trauma”. Miracle: “Early Holocene foragers in the karst of northern Istria”. P. International Conference “The Krapina Neandertals and Human Evolution in Central Europe”. Mellars (ed. Brajković: “Revision of ungulate fauna and Upper Pleisto­ cene stratigraphy of Veternica Cave (Zagreb. Miracle: “Rhinos and beavers and bears. Miracle & D. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 111. 85–105.). A. P. P. Grenoble. 2005. G. 1997. M. Zagreb. Acta geologica 26. Rukavina: “Upper Pleistocene ho­ minids from Vindija Cave. godini”. Malez. Préhistoire Européenne 10. Oliva: “The Aurignacian in Moravia”. The Complex Record of the Early Upper Paleolithic. 1990. Malez & J. Yugoslavia”. Jambrešić. 63–90. The Emergence of Modern Humans. The Origins and Past of Modern Humans. neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 24. 43–61. 1998. Periodicum Biologorum 108. 2006. 379–395. oh my! Zooarchaeological perspectives on the Krapina fauna 100 years after Gorjanović”. T. Radovčić & D. Croatia. Pike­Tay & R. M. Toward Reconciliation (Recent Advances in Human Biology 3). 2000 Miracle 1995 Miracle 1997 Miracle 1998 Miracle 1999 Miracle 2005 Miracle & Brajković 1992 Montet­White 1996 Oliva 1993 Otte 1990 Patou­Mathis 1997 Patou­Mathis 2000 Paunović et al. Mann & J. 495–502. D. 393–424. P. P.archaeol. Omoto & P.). Otte: “From Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic: the nature of the transiti­ on”. Rad Jugoslaveske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 383. Malez 1990 Malez & Vogel 1969 Malez & Rukavina 1979 Malez et al. 438–456. Before Lascaux. M. 1979. Malez & J. H. Yearbook of Physical Antrhopology 17. 34. in H. 1993. Zagreb. Trinkaus: “Neandertal and Neandertal­like fossils from the Upper Pleistocene”. Ann Arbor. 1974. 30.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ ThE MiDDlE AND EARlY UppER pAlEOliThiC iN CROATiA Opusc. J. Geološki vjesnik 22. M. V. in P. 1992. Patou­Mathis: “Analyses taphonomique et palethnographique du ma­ tériel osseux de Krapina (Croatie): nouvelles données sur la faune et les re­ stes humains”. Ithaca. T. 171–187. 1969. Croatia”. 2006. 365–367. 1999. 27–70. Tobias (ed. H. 2001 M. Croatia)”. 169–193. Miracle: “The spread of modernity in Paleolithic Europe”. Zagreb. Vogel: “Rezultati određivanja apsolutne starosti pleisto­ censkih naslaga Šandalje II kod Pule u Istri”. Malez: “Izvještaj o radu Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti u 1989. Paunović. Zagreb. Chicago. 277–282. F. in K. 1995.). Current Anthropology 21. Ljetopis Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 93. T. Knecht. 1997. Singapore. 21­54. Zagreb. T.

Dalmatia.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ SREDNJi i RANi gORNJi pAlEOliTiK U hRVATSKOJ Opusc. H. Kara­ vanić: “Neanderthal diet at Vindija and Neanderthal predation: The eviden­ ce from stable isotopes”. Tillier: “Variation in intracranial morp­ hology within the Krapina hominid sample. 2002. Croatia”. F. Washington. Petrić 1979 Radovčić 1988 Radovčić et al. London. 1987. W. B. 2006. Bar­ toll: “ESR and AMS­based 14C dating of Mousterian levels at Mujina Peći­ na. 21­54. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. London. Medicin. J. Smith. Paunović & I. C. Holen (eds. Smith. London. 1859. 1987. S. F. B.). 1997. P. Lawrence. H. New York. Wiss. Richards. R. Radovčić: Gorjanović-Kramberger i krapinski pračovjek. J. D. Petrić: “Mujina pećina. J. Raw Material Economies among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers (Publications in Anthropology 19). New York. Knoxvi­ lle. 2006. 24. F. J. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97. H. 2000. Zagreb. P. H. Nature 378. 30. 1988. 443–447. Trogir – paleolitičko nalazište”. Pettit. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 72. Spencer (eds. H. F. E. 59–72. M. 1991. The Origins of Modern Humans: a World Survey of the Fossil Evidence. F. 373–379. 127–134. 1995. Semaw. Radovčić: “ESR ages for Krapina Hominids”. Smith: “Fossil hominids from the Upper Pleistocene of Central Europe and the origin of Modern Europeans”. Arhiv Anat. Yugoslavia)”. Russell: “Mortuary practices at the Krapina Neandertal site”. Ethiopia: Their implications for understanding stone technology and patterns of human evolution between 2. 667–703. Harris. Rink. J. Zagreb. F. Smith & J. Russell: “Bone Breakage in the Krapina Hominid Collection”. J. H. 7663–7666. E. Current Anthropology 23. 1984. Schaaffhausen: “Zurkenntis der ältesten Rassenschädel”. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 44. Radovčić. Trinkaus. J.6–1. Zagreb.5 million years ago”. Smith: The Neandertal Remains from Krapina: A Descriptive and Comparative Study (University of Tennessee Reports of Investigation 15). Trinkaus & M.archaeol. Evidence from Krapina 1 and 2”. Semaw: “The world’s oldest stone artefacts from Gona. 1976. Phys. P. van der Plicht. F. New York. Smith & F. Smith: “Upper Pleistocene Hominid Evolution in South­Central Euro­ pe: A Review of the Evidence and Analysis of Trends”.5­million­year­old stone tools from Gona. 381–397. I. 1976. Journal of Archaeological Science 29. M. Simek & F. Smith: “Chronological changes in stone tool assemblages from Krapina (Croatia)”. 1995 Rink et al. W. 1988 Richards et al. 1978 [1979]. Feibel. in A. H. 2000. 561–575. L. 1197–1214. 453–478. M. H. N. 2000 Rink et al. 72. Schwarcz. Savić: Perspektive muzejske službe u Benkovcu (elaborat). 1984. 2002 Russell 1987 Russell 1987a Sansilbano­Collilieux & Tillier 2006 Savić 1984 Schaaffhausen 1859 Semaw 2000 N. in F. H. Simek: “Stone tool assemblages from Krapina (Croatia. Renne. S. Montet­White & S. Arheološki pregled 20. 1982. 333–336. F. D. Pettit. J. Semaw et al. New York. Chicago. W. Zagreb. Journal of Human Evolution 32. H. 943–953. Nature 385. Periodicum Biologorum 108. Benkovac. M. P. M. H. 1988. Ethiopia”. Wolpoff: The Krapina Hominids: An Illustrated Catalog of Skeletal Remains. H. F. Bernor. Albuquerque. M. M. Sansilbano­Collilieux & A. K. Mowbray: “2. Smith & J. New York. F. 1997. S. Smith: “A fossil hominid frontal from Velika Pećina (Croatia) and a consideration of Upper Pleistocene Hominids from Yugoslavia”. 1997 Simek 1991 Simek & Smith 1997 Smith 1976 Smith 1976a Smith 1982 Smith 1984  52  . Fesseha & K. H. Karavanić.). Rink. 9. 25. 137–209. Journal of Archaeological Science 27.

H. Yugoslavia”. The Emergence of Modern Humans: Biocultural Adaptations in the Later Pleistocene. 21­54. Cambridge University Press. Srdoč. 183–187. Trinkaus: “Functional implications of the Krapina Neandertal lower limb remains”. discontinuities. Falseti & S. Pettit. Pike­Tay & R. Berkeley. 1989. J. C. Smith & S. Svoboda: “The complex origin of the Upper Paleolithic in the Czech and Slovak Republics”. F. P. H. J. 44. 181–210. H. London. Amsterdam. 1983. Horvatinčić: “Rudjer Bošković Insti­ tute Radiocarbon Measurements V”. The Early Upper Paleolithic beyond Western Europe. Delson (ed. Stringer & C. Svoboda: “Continuities. The Complex Record of the Early Upper Paleolithic. Current Anthropology 40. species and speculations in the study of modern hu­ man origins”. 1985. 1958. 1970. B. E. 1999 Smith et al. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 93. L. B. 1999. A. L. 2004. Quaternary International 137. Zagreb. Aspects of Human Evolution. 2006. 1981. H. Nitecki (eds. J. 1979 Strauss 1999 Stringer & Gamble 1993 Svoboda 1993 Svoboda 2004 Škerlj 1958 Tomić­Karović 1970 Trinkaus 1978 Trinkaus 1981 Trinkaus 1983 Trinkaus 1985 Trinkaus & Smith 1985 F. 1978. Zagreb. 1994. Yugoslavia”. E. Radiocarbon 21. Kerry (eds. Paquette: “The adaptive basis of Neandertal facial form. C. 227–249. in E. Janković & I. in E. Smith 1994 Smith & Ahern 1994 Smith & Paquette 1989 Smith & Ranyard 1980 Smith et al. Malez (ed. Brantingham. 352–355.). Trinkaus: “Cannibalism and Burial at Krapina”. B. Donnelly: “Modern Human origins”.archaeol. Stringer (ed. Karavanić & M. Smith. K. B.). 1993. 1980. H. in P. Boyd & M. F. in M. Before Lascaux. Trinkaus: “Neandertal limb proportions and cold adaptation”. 275–280.). Trinkaus (ed. P. and interactions in Early Upper Paleolithic technologies. F.). A. 203–216. 1999. Cambridge. M. H. 30. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 32. Ancestors: The Hard Evidence. A. V. Chicago.). Smith.). Krapina 1899–1969. Bulletin scientifique Yougoslavie 4. Ranyard: “Evolution of the supraorbital region in Upper Pleistocene fossil hominids from South­Central Europe”. New York. with some thoughts on the nature of modern human origins”. B. 30–49. New York. C. 1989 Smith et al. H. Karavanić: “The assimilation model. modern human origins in Europe. H. London. Kuhn & K. 589–610. Croatia. F. E. New York. A. E. Ahern: “Additional cranial remains from Vindija cave. Smith: “The fate of Neandertals”. M. 23–36. Krapinski pračovjek i evolucija hominida. in C. 12281–12286. 2005. 325–333. Knecht. E. Origins of Anatomically Modern Humans. Smith. 1979. F. 1993. Trinkaus. White (eds. Smith & G. I. 1985. Boca Raton. I. New York. Trinkaus: The Shanidar Neandertals. 187–224.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ ThE MiDDlE AND EARlY UppER pAlEOliThiC iN CROATiA Opusc. B. E. 1994. Sliepčević. Washington. in M. Malez (ed. New York. Croatia. 131– 137. London. Gamble: In Search of the Neanderthals. Tomić­Karović: “Krapinski neandertalac i kanibalizam”. Journal of Human Evolution 14.). S. Smith. Obelić & N. 375–383. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 68. F. Za­ greb. C. F.  53  . 2005 Srdoč et al. A. G. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 96. A view from the Middle Danube”. W.). 35–68. Trinkaus & F. D. in H. in M. 1985. Strauss: “The Neanderthal problem continued”. Malez: “Additional Upper Pleistocene human remains from Vindija Cave. D. Smith & J. 1989. Paunović: “Direct radiocarbon dates for Vindija G1 and Velika Pećina Late Pleistocene ho­ minid remains”. Škerlj: “Were Neanderthalers the only inhabitants of Krapina?”. H. H. Tucson. 1985 Smith et al. 155–192. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 53. 7–19. and the extinction of Neandertals”. Smith: “Samples. New York. Nitecki & D. New York.

Wolpoff. M. Varaždin. 64–114. Gherase & O. Tucson. 243–249. Malez. H. J. T. Ş. S. H. 11231–11236.). 1979. Toth: “The question of ritual cannibalism at Grotta Gua­ ttari”. H. 1970. 1999. Zagreb. A. Malez (ed. in M. Wolpoff: Human Evolution. Higham. Rodrigo. 355–364. in M. in M. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 50. S. Washington. Chicago. New York. R. J. H. 1999. R. 21­54. 2006. Krapina 1899–1969. O. D. New York. H. G. burials or cannibalism?”. S. H.). Zagreb. Zagreb. Wolpoff & R. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 4. Malez (ed.Ivor KARAVANIĆ & Ivor JANKOVIĆ SREDNJi i RANi gORNJi pAlEOliTiK U hRVATSKOJ Opusc. 1981. 1978. Journal of Human Evolution 45. M.). Varaždin. Bailey. Trinkaus. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 54. 425–432. Milota. Underdown: “A comparative approach to understanding Neanderthal trauma”. Za­ greb. 1981 Zilhão & D’Errico 1999 Zupanič 1970 E. Wolpoff: “The dental remains from Krapina”. S. Milota. H. Berlin 1872. 245–253. Zagreb. Waterbolk: “Groningen radiocarbon dates X”. 241–256. M. Moldovan. S. New York. Rukavina: “Upper Pleistocene human remains from Vindija cave. Periodicum Biologorum 108. New York. Malez (ed. Zupanič: “Petrografska istraživanja paleolitskih artefakata krapinskog na­ lazišta”. S. 6–110. Romania”. Godišnjak Gradskog muzeja Varaždin 2–3. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100. M. 30. Krapinski pračovjek i evolucija hominida. Caspari: “Does Krapina reflect early Neandertal paleo­ demography?”. Mircea. Ullrich: “Neandertal remains from Krapina and Vindija – mortuary prac­ tices. 1949. H. 2003 Trinkaus et al. C. 131–140. Trinkaus.). Vogel & H. 485–493. Virchow: “Unterschung des Neanderthal – Schädels”. E. Periodicum Biologorum 108. 157–165. 1950. Ullrich: “Kannibalismus und leichenstückelung bein Neandertaler von Krapina”. 1989. Bronk Ramsey & J. D’Errico: “The Neanderthal problem continued: reply”. Krapinski pračovjek i evolucija hominida. Rodrigo. 23–30. 118–124. 2003. Historijski zbornik 3. Vuković: “Paleolitska kamena industrija spilje Vindije”. Current Anthropology 40. 499–545. Moldovan: “Human cranial remains from the Peştera cu Oase. Sarcina. Periodicum Biologorum 108. 2003. 2003a Ullrich 1978 Ullrich 1989 Ullrich 2006 Underdown 2006 Virchow 1872 Vogel & Waterbolk 1972 Vuković 1935 Vuković 1949 Vuković 1950 Vuković 1962–1963 White & Toth 1991 Wolpoff 1978 Wolpoff 1979 Wolpoff 1996 Wolpoff 1999 Wolpoff & Caspari 2006 Wolpoff et al. Vuković: “Prethistorijsko nalazište spilje Vindije”. H. Zagreb. F. 2006. 293–318. 1962–1963. 1991. J. R. Yugoslavia”. Historijski zbornik 2. S. Smith. New York. Vuković: Istraživanje prethistorijskog nalazišta u spilji Vindiji kod Voće. Wolpoff: “The Krapina dental remains”. M. Ullrich: “Krapina – a mortuary practice site with cannibalistic rites”. 503–517. Zagreb. T.  54  . 1972. 119–144. Croatia. Zilhão & F. Athreya. M. Bîlgăr. Zagreb. Radiocarbon 14. M. Budapest. M. J. 1935. 2006. H. Chicago. Radovčić & D. Wolpoff: Paleoanthropology (2nd ed.archaeol. Current Anthropology 32. White & N. 1996. Humanbiol Budapest 19. Vuković: “Paleolitska kamena industrija nalazišta Punikve kod Ivanca”. Romania”. Trinkaus et al. Ş. 1978. 15–19. 2006. van der Plicht: “An early modern human from the Peştera cu Oase. L.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful