In 2010, seven years ago, the second volume of the publication of the Hallstatt period barrows from Stična, the studies, was published in Ljubljana by the National Museum of Slovenia (Narodni muzej Slovenije): Stična II/2, Katalogi in monografije 38. The first volume, the catalogue, appeared in 2006: Stična II/1, Katalogi in monografije 37. The main chapters in the second volume were written by Stane Gabrovec (born in 1920) and Biba Teržan (born in 1947), both professors at the University of Ljubljana and ordinary members of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
The chapter by Gabrovec (pp. 7-60) gives an overview dealing first with the history of research of tumulus 48, tumulus 5 and some others (especially those excavated by the Duchess of Mecklenburg), as well as describing the topography of the tumulus cemetery of Stična. In the second part of this chapter Gabrovec writes about the burial rite, stratigraphy and chronology of barrow 48. For several reasons everyone expected that his study would provide a clear picture of the interments in tumulus 48, which contained almost 200 graves. It was expected that he would provide correct dates for all the datable graves, with a detailed analysis of the burial rite and the grave architecture (e. g. the dimensions of the grave pits) and describe in detail the range of objects found in the graves: fibulae, weapons, belt fittings, ring ornaments, glass and amber beads, ceramics and bronze vessels.
We should not forget that barrow 48 is of crucial importance for understanding the evolution of the Dolenjska group of the Hallstatt culture from the 7th to the 5th centuries BC, because the grave groups from Magdalenska gora and Stična in the Mecklenburg Collection are mixed and useless for scientific research, and because the hundreds of graves excavated before 1914, mostly by Jernej Pečnik and Ferdinand Schulz for the museums in Ljubljana and in Vienna at different sites of the Dolenjska group, are often not reliable at all.
Gabrovec’s first chronology of the Dolenjska group was already created in 1963. The last two phases, the Certosa and Negova phases, were convincingly subdivided into two sub-phases in 1976 by his student Biba Teržan in her study of the Certosa type fibulae. In the last extensive presentation of this group, published in 1987 in volume 5 of The Prehistory of Yugoslav Lands (Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja), Gabrovec devoted a lot of space to the chronology. He divided the whole time span of the Dolenjska group into five main phases: Podzemelj, Stična, Serpentine, Certosa and Negova. The main types of each of these phases were presented separately in six figures. If we take, for example, fig. 4 on p. 57 illustrating objects of the Serpentine phase (stupanj zmijolikih fibula), there are about one third which are in reality earlier, from the Stična phase, or later, from the Certosa phase. Earlier are the serpentine fibula no. 8 (cf. grave 48/27 from Stična) and the bracelet no. 14 (a thick solid bracelet with overlapping tapering ends, which is decorated with groups of transverse incisions or narrow ribs). To the types, which appear only in the Certosa phase and not before, belong the double-crested helmet, the pottery with indented walls (nos. 17, 18 and 21), the footed vase of type 10 after Dular (no. 20), and as well very probably the decorated rectangular bronze belt plate no. 16. The rest of the fibulae (nos. 6, 7, 9-13: serpentine fibulae with a saddle-shaped bow, leech fibulae, serpentine fibulae with wings, fibulae with a ribbed bow and a long foot, serpentine fibulae with plates, and band bow fibulae), the spiral band earrings (no. 12), the ribbed bracelets and anklets with overlapping tapering ends (no. 13) and the red-and-black vessels (nos. 22 and 23: the footed vase of type 9 after Dular and the situla with horizontal ribs) are without any doubt typical of the Serpentine phase!
In his study from 2010 Gabrovec ascribed a limited number of graves from barrow 48 to four stratigraphic and chronological phases: I, II, III and IV (pp. 46 and 55-56, fig. 21 on p. 40 and fig. 23 on p. 50).
Among the graves of phase I appears grave 19-22, a supposed central chamber, which did not exist and was a pure fabrication by Biba Teržan (cf.
https://www.academia.edu/29260635 and
https://www.academia.edu/11505808, Abstract). Gabrovec assigned to phase II not only graves of the Stična 2 phase, but also several graves of the following Serpentine phase (e. g. nos. 136, 147 and 151). Similarly, he ascribed to phase III not only graves of the Serpentine phase, but also one grave of the Stična 2 phase (no. 74) and two from the Certosa phase (nos. 85 and 99). Finally, in his list of graves of phase IV, not only graves from the Certosa phase, but also some of the preceding Serpentine phase appear (e.g. nos. 44 and 171). That means that graves from the Serpentine phase with their typical inventory (serpentine, leech and band bow fibulae, ribbed bracelets and anklets with overlapping tapering ends, spiral band earrings, red-and-black pottery) were ascribed by him to three chronological phases, which is completely wrong.
Especially poor is his presentation of the last phase IV. Although he first assigned to it no less than 97 graves (p. 44) and then (p. 55) about 19 graves with fibulae (13 serpentine, 19 Certosa, two animal-shaped and one three-knobbed), in the table on fig. 21 with typical graves of the four chronological phases (I-IV) there are only 10 graves of phase IV (cf. p. 47, Mit Beginn). They are all female and only two contain fibulae (nos. 8 and 36). All male graves of the Certosa phase and almost all graves with fibulae of this phase have simply disappeared!!?
To emend this false picture, I have written a study for the journal Prilozi 33, published by the Institute of Archaeology in Zagreb, in which I ascribed to Phase IV (= Certosa phase) 36 graves and presented also 36 metal (iron and bronze), glass, amber and pottery objects, which are typical for it.
The chapter by Gabrovec on the Hallstatt barrows from Stična, especially the sub-chapter on the chronology (pp. 46-55), is unfortunately, contrary to expectation not a scientific work. Had its author been a student of archaeology, in no way could he get a positive mark for it.
The publication of the Stična II/2 volume was made possible by Biba Teržan, the main co-author, and by the two reviewers, Janez Dular and Mitja Guštin. They are all students of Gabrovec and they all got the prize of the Slovenian Archaeological Society for their life’s work. This prize is given to those archaeologists, who contributed through their main achievements to the development of Slovenian archaeology and to the growth of its reputation at home and abroad. Stična II/2 volume has thrown a shadow on the work of Gabrovec in 2010, when the late professor reached 90 years. The duty of Teržan, Dular and Guštin was simply to emend it very much or not to include it in the publication. As a member of the editorial board I had no possibility to react, because the chief and responsible editor Peter Turk, who did his job in an extremely poor way, did not allow sight of the submitted texts and illustrations to three members of it (Istenič, Knific and me). The volume with studies on the Stična Hallstatt barrows (Stična II/2) has very much diminished the reputation not only of the publisher (The National Museum of Slovenia in Ljubljana), but also of the whole of Slovenian Early Iron Age archaeology.
The abstract was kindly proof read by John Collis from the University of Sheffield (UK).
Avče in the Soča Valley, May 2, 2017 (Tuesday)
