Macroscopic, petrographic and XRD analysis of Middle Neolithic figulina pottery from central Dalmatia Melissa L. Teoh a, b , Sarah B. McClure c, * , Emil Podrug d a Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department, Salem, OR, USA b Museum of Natural and Cultural History, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA c Department of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park,16802 PA, USA d  Sibenik City Museum,  Sibenik, Croatia article info Article history: Received 3 March 2014 Received in revised form 9 June 2014 Accepted 10 July 2014 Available online 24 July 2014 Keywords: Figulina Danilo culture complex Middle Neolithic Croatia XRD Petrographic analysis abstract This article focuses on macroscopic, petrographic and X-ray Diffraction (XRD) analyses of figulina pottery from Middle Neolithic (c. 5500e4900 cal BC) villages on the Dalmatian coast of Croatia. Samples were collected from four sites: Smil ci c (Zadar), Kriva ce and Danilo Bitinj (  Sibenik) and Pokrovnik (Drni s) to characterize the degree of variation in figulina production between sites and assess if figulina was pro- duced locally or at a single locale in the region. Figulina is of particular interest because it represents a departure from other Neolithic ceramic technologies in pastes, firing, and decoration. This ware is found in small numbers at Middle Neolithic villages, but has parallels in the northern and western Adriatic. Our analyses suggest that this ware was produced within villages with little exchange between sites. Simi- larities to other regions (Istria, Italy) may indicate a special function or role of this pottery style within Middle Neolithic societies. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The central Dalmatian coast of Croatia is defined by a karst limestone landscape with relatively small, elongated valleys divided by low hills. Beginning ca. 6000 cal BC, early farmers pro- duced Impressed Ware pottery throughout the eastern Adriatic. The ceramic repertoire expanded during the Middle Neolithic (ca. 5500e4900 cal BC), known as the Danilo culture, to include various innovations in ceramic technology (Fig. 1). Paralleling de- velopments elsewhere in the Adriatic, ceramic styles became regionalized and diversified, and included a mix of coarse and fine wares, as well as a greater array of vessel forms including plates and open bowls. In the case of central Dalmatia, decoration styles changed dramatically from impressed motifs to incised and carved curvilinear designs on typical Danilo wares. In addition, two new types of pottery were introduced: anthropomorphic or zoomorphic footed vessels known as rhyta (Rak, 2011), and high-fired, painted buff wares known as figulina (Batovi c, 1979: 544e548; Chapman, 1988; Koro sec, 1958: 40e53, 1964: 33e40; Spataro, 2002)(Fig. 2). Unlike everyday (smudged and non-smudged) Danilo pottery, figulina was widely distributed in Middle Neolithic assemblages throughout the Eastern and Western Adriatic (Chapman, 1988; Malone, 2003; Robb, 2007; Spataro, 2002, 2009). Few chemical or petrographic characterizations of figulina are available for Dalmatia, and Spataro (2002) is the only published dataset. In her comparison of Neolithic ceramic technology throughout the Adriatic, she sug- gests that figulina production in Dalmatia was independent of production elsewhere in the Adriatic. This paper complements Spataro's (2002) pioneering work by focusing on larger sample sizes from four open-air sites within a defined region, the central Dalmatian coast, to assess the degree of variation in figulina pro- duction between sites. By analyzing the petrography and mineral composition, we examine to what extent figulina was produced locally (i.e., within 4 km of the village) or if there is evidence for regional production centers on the Dalmatian coast. 1.1. Dalmatian Middle Neolithic The earliest farming populations in central Dalmatia are recor- ded at ca. 6000 cal BC and are characterized by the establishment of villages, reliance on agropastoral subsistence, and a distinctive pottery known as Impressed Ware. By the Middle Neolithic (ca. 5500e4900 cal BC), relatively little changed in terms of subsistence * Corresponding author. E-mail address: sbm19@psu.edu (S.B. McClure). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Archaeological Science journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.07.007 0305-4403/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Journal of Archaeological Science 50 (2014) 350e358