Ljubljana I Cetina Loncarski Stilovi 3 T

UDK 902
ISSN 1330-0644
VOL 35/2018.
ZAGREB, 2018.
Pril. Inst. arheol. Zagrebu

Str./Pages 1–328, Zagreb, 2018.
Pril. Inst. arheol. Zagrebu, 35/2018 Izdavač/Publisher
Str./Pages 1–328, Zagreb, 2018. INSTITUT ZA ARHEOLOGIJU
INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
Adresa uredništva/Address of the editor’s oﬃce

Institut za arheologiju/Institute of archaeology
HR–10000 Zagreb, Ulica Ljudevita Gaja 32
Hrvatska/Croatia
Telefon/Phone ++385/(0)1 61 50 250
Fax ++385(0)1 60 55 806
e-mail: urednistvo.prilozi@iarh.hr
http://www.iarh.hr
Glavni i odgovorni urednik/Editor in chief

Marko DIZDAR
Uredništvo/Editorial board
Marko DIZDAR, Snježana KARAVANIĆ, Viktória KISS (Budapest, HUN) (prapovijest/Prehistory),
Goranka LIPOVAC VRKLJAN (antika/Antiquities), Tajana SEKELJ IVANČAN, Katarina Katja
PREDOVNIK (Ljubljana, SLO), Natascha MEHLER (Wien, AUT), Juraj BELAJ, Tatjana TKALČEC
(kasni srednji vijek i novi vijek/Late Middle Ages and Modern era), Predrag NOVAKOVIĆ
(Ljubljana, SLO) (metodologija/Methodology)
Izdavački savjet/Editorial advisory board

Dunja GLOGOVIĆ (Zagreb), Ivor KARAVANIĆ (Zagreb), Laszlo KÓVACS (Budapest, HUN),
Kornelija MINICHREITER (Zagreb), Mladen RADIĆ (Osijek), Aleksandar RUTTKAY (Nitra, SK),
Ivančica SCHRUNK (Minneapolis, USA), Željko TOMIČIĆ (Zagreb), Ante UGLEŠIĆ (Zadar)
Prijevod na engleski/English translation

Edward BOSNAR, Kristina BRKIĆ, Nikola CESARIK, Ivan DRNIĆ, Ana ĐUKIĆ, Nataša
ĐURĐEVIĆ, Emanuele FALCONE, Stašo FORENBAHER, Marija KOSTIĆ, Danijel LONČAR,
Marko MARAS, Tina MILAVEC, David ŠTRMELJ
Lektura/Language editor
Ivana MAJER (hrvatski jezik/Croatian, slovenski jezik/Slovenian)
Marko MARAS (engleski jezik/English)
Korektura/Proofreads
Katarina BOTIĆ
Marko DIZDAR
Grafičko oblikovanje/Graphic design

Roko BOLANČA
Računalni slog/Layout
Hrvoje JAMBREK
Tisak/Printed by
Tiskara Zelina d.d., Sv. I. Zelina
Naklada/Issued
400 primjeraka/400 copies
Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu uključeni su u sljedeće indekse/

Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu are included in following indices:
Ovaj rad licenciran je pod Creative Commons DYABOLA – Sachkatalog der Bibliothek – Römisch-Germanische Kommission des Deutschen
Attribution By 4.0 međunarodnom licencom / Archaeologischen Instituts, Frankfurt a. Main
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Clarivate Analytics services – Emerging Sources Citation Index
Attribution By 4.0 International Licence CNRS/INIST – Centre National de la Recherche Scientifi que/L’Institut de l’Information Scientifi
que et Technique, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy
EBSCO – Information servises, Ipswich
ERIH – European Reference Index for the Humanities, European Science Fundation, Strasbourg
SciVerse Scopus – Elsevier, Amsterdam
Pril. Inst. arheol. Zagrebu, 35/2018
Str./Pages 1–328, Zagreb, 2018.
Sadržaj Contents
Izvorni znanstveni radovi Original scientific papers
5 DARIO VUJEVIĆ DARIO VUJEVIĆ

STIPAN DILBER STIPAN DILBER
Izvor – špilja Ričina u Buškome jezeru. Prvi tragovi The Ričina spring cave in Buško Jezero. The
paleolitika na području zapadne Hercegovine first traces of the Palaeolithic in the western
Herzegovina region
29 IVAN DRNIĆ IVAN DRNIĆ

KONSTANTINOS P. TRIMMIS KONSTANTINOS P. TRIMMIS
ALEXANDRA HALE ALEXANDRA HALE
RICHARD MADGWICK RICHARD MADGWICK
KELLY REED KELLY REED
ANTONELA BARBIR ANTONELA BARBIR
MARIN MAĐERIĆ MARIN MAĐERIĆ
Assemblages from Marginal Spaces: The results of Nalazi iz marginalnih prostora: Rezultati istraživanja
the excavations in Mala (Nova) Pećina near Muć and Male (Nove) pećine pokraj Muća i neolitik
the Neolithic of Dalmatinska Zagora Dalmatinske zagore
71 HRVOJE KALAFATIĆ HRVOJE KALAFATIĆ

BARTUL ŠILJEG BARTUL ŠILJEG
KRUGOVI PARNJACI: novi uvidi u neolitičke TWIN CIRCLES: new insights in the Neolithic
obrasce naseljavanja settlment pattern
113 STAŠO FORENBAHER STAŠO FORENBAHER

Ljubljana i Cetina: lončarski stilovi 3. tisućljeća Ljubljana and Cetina: Pottery Styles of the Third
prije Krista na prostoru istočnoga Jadrana Millennium BC in the Eastern Adriatic
159 ZVONKO BOJČIĆ ZVONKO BOJČIĆ

DARIA LOŽNJAK DIZDAR DARIA LOŽNJAK DIZDAR
TOMISLAV HRŠAK TOMISLAV HRŠAK
Nove spoznaje o kronologiji groblja batina – New knowledge about the chronology of The Batina
sredno na početku starijega željeznog doba – Sredno cemetery at the beginning of the Early
Iron Age
193 KORNELIJA A. GIUNIO KORNELIJA A. GIUNIO

NIKOLA CESARIK NIKOLA CESARIK
DAVID ŠTRMELJ DAVID ŠTRMELJ
Šest baza počasnih statua iz Jadera Six Honorary Statue Bases from Iader
219 MIRKO RAŠIĆ MIRKO RAŠIĆ
JOSIPA BARAKA PERICA JOSIPA BARAKA PERICA
Starokršćanski kompleks u Docima kod Vitine: The early Christian complex in Doci, Vitina: the
rezultati revizijskih arheoloških istraživanja results of the revised archaeological research
239 TINA MILAVEC TINA MILAVEC

The elusive early medieval glass: remarks on Izmikajoče se zgodnjesrednjeveško steklo:
vessels from the Nin – Ždrijac cemetery, Croatia komentar k posodam z grobišča Nin – Ždrijac,
Hrvaška
Pregledni rad Report
251 ANA ĐUKIĆ ANA ĐUKIĆ

Prapovijesne glačane kamene izrađevine Prehistoric polished stone implements from
sjeverozapadne Hrvatske northwestern Croatia
291 MARIN ZANINOVIĆ MARIN ZANINOVIĆ

Kako sam ustanovio postojanje grčkoga katastra How I identified a Greek cadastre (chora) on the
(chora) u Starigradskom polju Stari Grad Plain
299 ANA AZINOVIĆ BEBEK ANA AZINOVIĆ BEBEK

Novovjekovna arheologija u Hrvatskoj – problemi Early Modern Archaeology in Croatia – Problems
metodologije, terminologije i imena of Methodology, Terminology and Nomenclature
321 Upute autorima Guidelines for contributors

Ljubljana i Cetina: lončarski stilovi 3. tisućljeća prije Krista na prostoru istočnoga
Jadrana
Ljubljana and Cetina: Pottery Styles of the Third Millennium BC in the Eastern Adriatic
Izvorni znanstveni rad STAŠO FORENBAHER

Prapovijesna arheologija Institut za antropologiju
Ulica Ljudevita Gaja 32
Original scientific paper HR–10000 Zagreb
Prehistoric archaeology staso.forenbaher@inantro.hr
UDK/UDC 903.02(262.3-11)”636/637”
Primljeno/Received: 15. 01. 2018.

Prihvaćeno/Accepted: 08. 05. 2018.
Ovaj rad nudi nov sintetički pregled lončarskih stilova trećega tisućljeća prije Krista na prostoru istočnoga Jadrana, temeljen na 146 nalazišta
s objavljenom karakterističnom lončarijom. Odmičući se od tradicionalnih koncepata arheoloških kultura i razdoblja, najprije se nastoji jasno
definirati ljubljansko-jadranski i cetinski lončarski stil. Potom se kritički preispituje građa koja je dosad bila korištena za datiranje tih stilova:
stratigrafski podaci iz višeslojnih nalazišta i asocijacije karakteristične lončarije s metalnim nalazima. Slijedi prvi pokušaj približnoga datiranja
spomenutih stilova putem raspoloživih radiokarbonskih datuma. U zaključku rada, ljubljansko-jadranski i cetinski stil smještaju se na temelju
svega iznesenog u svoj širi prostorni i vremenski kontekst.
Ključne riječi: lončarski stilovi, Jadran, Ljubljana, Cetina, eneolitik, brončano doba, treće tisućljeće prije Krista
This contribution provides a new synthetic overview of the eastern Adriatic pottery styles of the third millennium BC, based on 146 sites from
which characteristic pottery has been published. Parting with the traditional concepts of archaeological cultures and periods, it first seeks
clear definitions of Ljubljana-Adriatic and Cetina pottery styles. It follows with a critical reexamination of the evidence that, up to the present,
has been used for the dating of those styles: stratigraphic information from stratified sites and the association of characteristic pottery with
objects made of metal. This is followed by a pioneering attempt to date the same styles by using the available radiocarbon dates. In conclusion,
Ljubljana-Adriatic and Cetina styles are placed in their wider spatial and temporal context.
Key words: pottery styles, Adriatic, Ljubljana, Cetina, Eneolithic, Bronze Age, third millennium BC
KULTURE, RAZDOBLJA, STILOVI I CULTURES, PERIODS, STYLES AND

STOLJEĆA CENTURIES
Prošla su tri desetljeća otkako je Blagoje Govedarica Three decades have elapsed since Blagoje Govedarica
objavio sintezu pod naslovom Rano bronzano doba na po- published his synthesis titled Early Bronze Age in the eastern
dručju istočnog Jadrana (Govedarica 1989b). U međuvreme- Adriatic region (Govedarica 1989b). Since then, a number of
nu je prikupljen izvjestan broj novih nalaza koji su obogatili new finds have expanded the available body of archaeo-
korpus arheološke građe, no među njima nema ničega što logical evidence, but none of them stand out as radically
bi bitno odudaralo od nalaza pozatih već od ranije. Važnije different from the finds that we already knew. Of more im-
promjene dogodile su se u načinu provođenja arheoloških portance were changes in archaeological research practice,
istraživanja, u tehnikama prikupljanja podataka, analitičkim techniques of data recovery, analytical methods, and the-
metodama i teorijskim pristupima. Postupci iskopavanja oretical approaches. Excavation procedures have become
postali su znatno pažljiviji i precizniji, a dokumentiranje more careful and sophisticated, while documentation has
objektivnije i temeljitije pa su podaci prikupljeni u novi- become more thorough and objective. Compared to the
113
STAŠO FORENBAHER, Ljubljana i Cetina: lončarski stilovi 3. tisućljeća prije Krista na prostoru istočnoga Jadrana, Pril. Inst. arheol. Zagrebu, 35/2018, str. 113–157
je vrijeme cjelovitiji, pouzdaniji i uvjerljiviji od podataka iz information from older excavations, the recently recove-
ranijih iskopavanja. Radiokarbonsko datiranje preraslo je red information tends to be more complete, reliable and
u općeprihvaćen i standardan način određivanja starosti. convincing. Radiocarbon dating has matured to become
Dugotrajnu dominaciju kulturno-povijesne paradigme u the standard and universally accepted method of age de-
hrvatskoj prapovijesnoj arheologiji pomalo su načeli drugi termination. The persistent domination of the cultural hi-
teorijski pristupi objašnjenju i tumačenju arheoloških izvo- story paradigm in Croatian prehistoric archaeology is be-
ra. Zbog svega navedenog, sazrijelo je vrijeme za sintezu ginning to be challenged by other, more current theoretical
koja će se osloniti na suvremenije teorijske temelje i iskori- approaches to the explanation and interpretation of the
stiti nove i kvalitetnije podatke. archaeological record. Due to all of the above, the time is
Baveći se građom koja je predmet ovoga rada, većina ripe for a synthesis based on contemporary theoretical per-
arheologa govori o ljubljanskoj i cetinskoj kulturi i o razdob- spectives that will exploit the new and better information.
ljima kasnoga eneolitika i ranoga brončanog doba. Ovi tek When discussing the evidence that represents the su-
prividno jasni pojmovi opterećeni su teškom prtljagom ko- bject-matter of this paper, most archaeologists talk about
ja se nakupila tijekom njihove dugotrajne i često nekritičke the Ljubljana culture and the Cetina culture, and the Late
upotrebe te su puni zamki i dvosmislenosti. Copper Age and Early Bronze Age periods. Burdened by the
Arheološke kulture su prostorno i vremenski ograničene heavy baggage that has accumulated during their long and
cjeline, definirane na temelju određenih tipova građe koji often uncritical use, these deceptively clear terms are in fact
bi se uvijek trebali pojavljivati zajedno (primjerice, specifič- replete with traps and ambiguities.
nih vrsta lončarije, alata, ukrasa, načina pokopavanja, oblika Archaeological cultures are temporally and spatially
kuća). Još uvijek postoji sklonost da se takve cjeline smatra demarcated entities, defined by specific types of finds that
apsolutnim, oštro ograničenim tvorevinama te da ih se više supposedly always appear together (for example, specific
ili manje svjesno poistovjećuje s ‘onim što bismo danas zvali kinds of pottery, tools, decoration, burials, or houses). There
narodom’ (Kossinna 1911: 3; Childe 1929: V–VI). Umjesto da is still a tendency for such entities to be regarded as absolu-
ostanu praktično i fleksibilno pomagalo pri preliminarnoj te, sharply bounded units that, consciously or unconsciou-
organizaciji arheološke građe (Broodbank 2000: 54), arhe- sly, are equated with ‘what today would be called a people’
ološke kulture se pretvaraju u aktere na pozornici povijesti. (Kossina 1911: 3; Childe 1929: V–VI). Instead of remaining a
Pri tome se zaboravlja da se zapravo radi o konstruktima ko- practical and flexible tool for the preliminary classification
je su stvorili arheolozi u nastojanju da odgovore na posve of evidence (Broodbank 2000: 54), archaeological cultures
određena pitanja vezana uz kulturno-povijesnu paradigmu are converted to agents on the scene of history, while it is
(Trigger 1989: 148–206). forgotten that they are constructs created by archaeologi-
Već odavna znamo da etničke zajednice nisu jasno ome- sts in their attempt to answer quite specific questions rela-
đene, homogene i statičke cjeline (Barth 1969). Kulturni ted to the culture history paradigm (Trigger 1989: 148–206).
identitet je fluidna kategorija podložna neprekidnoj mijeni, It has been a while since we realized that ethnic commu-
a veze između etniciteta i materijalne kulture složene su i nities are anything but clearly bounded, homogeneous and
neizravne (Jones 1997). Povrh toga, prostorna i vremenska static units (Barth 1969). Cultural identity is a fluid category
raznolikost arheološke građe posljedica je mnoštva različi- susceptible to continuous change, while the relationship
tih čimbenika, a ne samo kulturnoga identiteta ljudi koji su between ethnicity and material culture is complex and in-
tu građu ostavili za sobom (Binford 1965). To su tek neki od direct (Jones 1997). Furthermore, the spatial and temporal
razloga zbog kojih je koncept arheološke kulture tijekom variability of archaeological evidence is a consequence of
posljednjih pola stoljeća doživio brojne žestoke i opravdane many different factors, and not just of the cultural identity
kritike (Shennan 1989: 5–17). Bez obzira na to, većina od nas of the people who left that evidence behind (Binford 1965).
i dalje rutinski opisuje arheološku građu slijedeći kulturno- For these and other reasons, the concept of archaeological
povijesnu paradigmu, iako je ona donijela arheologiji više culture has been strongly and rightly criticized over the last
štete nego koristi, zamućujući proučavanje društvenih i po- fifty years (Shennan 1989: 5–17). Regardless of that, most of
vijesnih procesa, iskrivljujući sliku prošlosti i skrećući istraži- us still routinely describe archaeological evidence in accor-
vanja na slijepi kolosjek. dance with the culture history paradigm, despite the fact
Dvostruko starija od koncepta arheološke kulture je po- that it has done more harm than good to archaeology by
djela prošlosti na arheološka razdoblja (Trigger 1989: 73– muddling the study of social and historical processes, dis-
79). Thomsenov sustav triju doba i njegova brojna kasnija torting the image of the past, and diverting research into
poboljšanja odigrali su svoju pozitivnu ulogu u vrijeme ka- blind alleys.
da se relativna starost prapovijesnih nalaza mogla odrediti The division of the past into archaeological periods is
jedino kombiniranjem stratigrafije i tipologije. Taj sustav je twice as old as the concept of archaeological culture (Trig-
još uvijek čvrsto uvriježen u arheološkome žargonu unatoč ger 1989: 73–79). Thomsen’s three-age system and its nu-
tome što istoimena razdoblja u različitim regijama nisu uvi- merous later improvements played out their positive role
jek istovremena, dok se prijelasci iz jednoga u drugo doba in times when stratigraphy and typology were the only
ponekad ne podudaraju s očitim promjenama u arheološ- available means of assessing the relative age of prehistoric
koj građi (Robb, Farr 2005: 25; Broodbank 2013: 13–14, 203). finds. That system is still firmly ingrained in the archaeolo-
Zahvaljujući sve većem broju kronometrijskih datuma, da- gical jargon, despite the fact that the namesake periods are
114
STAŠO FORENBAHER, Ljubljana and Cetina: Pottery Styles of the Third Millennium BC in the Eastern Adriatic, Pril. Inst. arheol. Zagrebu, 35/2018, P. 113–157
nas umjesto o arheološkim razdobljima možemo govoriti o not always contemporaneous in different regions, while the
vremenu izraženom u kalendarskim godinama, ponekad u transitions from one period to the next sometimes do not
tisućljećima i stoljećima, a ponekad čak i u desetljećima. coincide with evident changes in the archaeological record
Eneolitičko razdoblje na istočnome Jadranu opterećeno (Robb, Farr 2005: 25; Broodbank 2013: 13–14, 203). Thanks
je svim spomenutim problemima. Izraziti kontinuiteti pove- to the increasing number of chronometric dates, today we
zuju rani eneolitik s neolitikom i kasni eneolitik s brončanim can express time by calendar years in millennia, centuries,
dobom, dok se usred eneolitika događaju ključne promjene or sometimes even decades, rather than talk about archae-
materijalne kulture i društvene organizacije. Pri tome se ra- ological periods.
ni eneolitik obično izjednačuje s nakovanskom kulturom, a The eastern Adriatic Copper Age (or the Eneolithic) is
kasni eneolitik i rano brončano doba s ljubljanskom i cetin- particularly fraught with all of the aforementioned pro-
skom kulturom. blems. Evident continuities link the Early Copper Age with
Ljubljanska i cetinska kultura, kao i njihove različite pro- the Neolithic, and the Late Copper Age with the Bronze
storne i vremenske varijante, definirane su najvećim dije- Age, while the crucial transformations of material culture
lom na temelju lončarskih stilova (Dimitrijević 1967; 1979a: and society take place right in the middle of the Copper
317–328; Marović 1976: 67–71; Marović, Čović 1983; Gove- Age. Usually, the Early Copper Age is equated with the Na-
darica 1989b). Zahvaljujući tome, raspravu o spomenutim kovana culture, while the Late Copper Age and the Early
kulturama nije teško preformulirati u raspravu o lončarskim Bronze Age are equated with the Ljubljana culture and the
stilovima i njihovoj prostornoj i vremenskoj distribuciji. Na- Cetina culture, respectively.
puštanjem koncepata arheoloških razdoblja i kultura pribli- Definitions of the Ljubljana and Cetina cultures, and the-
žit ćemo se stvarnosti i ujedno izbjeći jalove diskusije radi ir different regional and temporal variants, are based mainly
li se o ‘samostalnim i cjelovitim kulturnim grupama’ ili ne on pottery styles (Dimitrijević 1967; 1979a: 317–328; Marović
(Govedarica 1989a: 407; 1989b: 95; Marijanović 1991: 217, 1976: 67–71; Marović, Čović 1983; Govedarica 1989b). The-
236–238; 1997; 2000: 126) te spadaju li one u kasni eneolitik refore it is fairly easy to reformulate the discussion of those
ili u rano brončano doba (Dimitrijević 1967: 8, 18; 1979a: 317; cultures into a discussion of pottery styles, including their
Batović 1973: 108, 113; Marović 1976: 71; Marović, Čović 1983: temporal and spatial distribution. By abandoning the con-
197–198; Govedarica 1989a: 409; 1989b: 11, 13–15; Marijano- cepts of archaeological periods and cultures we might get
vić 1991: 242; 1997: 1; Forenbaher, Kaiser 1997: 18). Zbog to- a step closer to reality, while avoiding barren discussions,
ga se u nastavku ovoga rada posve svjesno i namjerno neće such as whether or not a proposed culture represented ‘an
govoriti o kulturama i razdobljima, nego o lončarskim stilo- independent and complete cultural group’ (Govedarica
vima i vremenu trećega tisućljeća prije Krista. Pri tome će se 1989a: 407; 1989b: 95; Marijanović 1991: 217, 236–238; 1997;
zbog jednostavnosti pod ‘trećim tisućljećem’ podrazumije- 2000: 126), or whether it belonged to the Late Copper Age
vati razdoblje koje, prema trenutno raspoloživim kronome- or the Early Bronze Age (Dimitrijević 1967: 8, 18; 1979a: 317;
trijskim datumima, počinje oko 3000. godine i završava oko Batović 1973: 108, 113; Marović 1976: 71; Marović, Čović 1983:
ili ubrzo nakon godine 2000. pr. Kr. 197–198; Govedarica 1989a: 409; 1989b: 11, 13–15; Marijano-
vić 1991: 242; 1997: 1; Forenbaher, Kaiser 1997: 18). In this
UKRAŠENA LONČARIJA TREĆEGA paper, reference to cultures and periods will be avoided qu-
TISUĆLJEĆA PRIJE KRISTA ite consciously and intentionally. Instead, I shall be writing
Zajedničko obilježje ukrašene lončarije trećega tisućlje- about pottery styles and the third millennium BC. For the
ća prije Krista je geometrijsko ukrašavanje izvedeno kombi- sake of convenience, ‘third millennium’ denotes the period
nacijom urezivanja, utiskivanja i inkrustacije. Ispunjavanjem that begins around or soon after the year 3000 BC, and ends
ureza i sitnih otisaka bijelom pastom postiže se dramatično around or soon after the year 2000 BC.
isticanje motiva na tamnoj pozadini posude. Iako je inkru-
stacija ispala iz većine ulomaka ili se sačuvala samo u trago- DECORATED POTTERY OF THE THIRD
vima, dovoljno je česta i široko rasprostranjena da možemo MILLENNIUM BC
pretpostaviti kako je izvorno bila sveprisutna. The common trait of the decorated pottery of the third
Tako ukrašena lončarija u pravilu čini tek vrlo mali dio millennium BC is geometric decoration executed by a com-
ukupnoga skupa nalaza, iako se iz objavljenih izvještaja bination of incision, impression and incrustation. A drama-
ponekad može steći suprotan dojam. Ne iznenađuje da na tic enhancement of the motif on the dark vessel surface is
ilustrativnim tablama obično dominiraju atraktivno ukraše- accomplished by filling the incisions and the tiny impressi-
ni ulomci, dok se znatno brojnija neukrašena lončarija pri- ons with a white paste. Although the incrustation has di-
kazuje u daleko manjoj mjeri. Za većinu starih iskopavanja sappeared from most of the sherds, or only its traces rema-
nema podataka o tome što je sakupljano a što nije, no veli- in, it is widely distributed, and common enough to presume
ka učestalost ukrašene lončarije u skupovima nalaza poput that originally it was omnipresent.
onoga iz Iga posljedica je selektivnoga prikupljanja građe, As a rule, this kind of decorated pottery comprises only
a ne odraz stvarnoga stanja na nalazištu (Korošec, Korošec a small fraction of the total pottery assemblage, even if the
1969: 12). Niti u novijim radovima obično nema preciznih in- published reports sometimes suggest the opposite. Un-
formacija o omjeru ukrašene i neukrašene lončarije, već se surprisingly, attractively decorated fragments usually do-
nude samo subjektivne procjene da je ukrašavanje oskud- minate the illustrations, while the far more common plain
115
no (primjerice, Marijanović 2012: 93) ili da je ‘relativno velik pottery is much less represented. While for most of the old
procenat’ lončarije ukrašen (Milošević, Govedarica 1986: 61). excavations there is no information about what was or was
Kvantitativnih podataka je vrlo malo i većinom potječu not kept, the high frequency of decorated pottery in assem-
iz nedavno istraživanih špiljskih nalazišta. Ulomci lončarije blages like the one from Ig reflects a selective recovery of
ukrašeni karakterističnim urezivanjem i utiskivanjem čine finds, rather than the real situation at the site (Korošec, Ko-
4,2% skupa nalaza iz faze 4 Grapčeve spilje (Forenbaher, rošec 1969: 12). Precise information about the ratio betwe-
Kaiser 2008: 64),1 no taj podatak treba prihvatiti s oprezom en decorated and plain pottery is rarely provided even in
zboga malog uzorka od ukupno 212 ulomaka. Pouzdaniji recent publications. Subjective assessments prevail, stating
su podaci iz faze 3 Pupićine peći, gdje takvi ukrašeni ulom- that decoration is scant (e.g., Marijanović 2012: 93), or that a
ci čine samo 0,4% od ukupno 1566 ulomaka (Hulina et al. ‘relatively large percentage’ of pottery is decorated (Miloše-
2012: 158).2 Postoje i podaci o zasad neobjavljenim skupo- vić, Govedarica 1986: 61).
Quantitative information is scarce, and most of it comes
vima nalaza iz još dvaju novijih iskopavanja u špiljama. U
from recently excavated cave sites. Potsherds decorated
Spili kod Nakovane takvi ulomci čine samo 0,4% od ukupno
by characteristic incision and impression constitute 4.2%
2296 ulomaka prikupljenih iz faze 5b sektora 3 (Forenbaher,
of the assemblage from Phase 4 of the Grapčeva Cave (Fo-
Perhoč 2015: 172), dok u Veloj spili na Korčuli oni čine 1,8%
renbaher, Kaiser 2008: 64),1 but that figure must be viewed
od ukupno 2402 ulomka prikupljena iz konteksta pripisanih
with caution due to the small sample size (212 sherds in to-
trećem tisućljeću prije Krista.3 Nadalje, od ukupno 638 ulo- tal). More reliable data come from Phase 3 of Pupićina Peć,
maka lončarije prikupljenih iz plašta gomile Velike grude, where characteristic decorated sherds constitute only 0.4%
samo ih je devet (1,5%) ukrašeno na način blizak cetinsko- of the 1566 potsherds (Hulina et al. 2012: 158).2 Information
me stilu (Della Casa 1996: 66, 126, sl. 92: 110–118). S time se is also available on two unpublished pottery assemblages
može usporediti podatak iz Male glavice, gdje su iz plašta that were recovered from caves in relatively recent excava-
gomile prikupljena 4334 ulomka lončarije među kojima je tions. At Spila Nakovana, decorated Ljubljana-Adriatic and/
bilo 218 ukrašenih (Batović, Kukoč 1988). Ako od tog broja or Cetina sherds constitute only 0.4% of the 2296 potsherds
oduzmemo 90 ulomaka ‘ukrašenih barbotinom’, preostaje from Phase 5b in Sector 3 (Forenbaher, Perhoč 2015: 172),
128 ulomaka (3%) od kojih je samo dio ukrašen karakteri- while at the Vela Cave on the island of Korčula, they consti-
stičnim urezivanjem i utiskivanjem. Napokon, Salamandrija tute 1.8% of the 2402 potsherds from contexts attributed
na Palagruži s 15,5% karakteristično ukrašenih ulomaka od- to the third millennium BC.3 Furthermore, only nine of the
skače za red veličine od svih ostalih nalazišta za koja imamo 638 sherds (1.5%) that were recovered from the mantle of
kvantitativne podatke, što je jedan od glavnih razloga zbog the Velika Gruda burial mound were decorated in a manner
kojih Salamandriju smatramo nalazištem posebne namjene resembling the Cetina style (Della Casa 1996: 66, 126, Fig.
(Forenbaher 2018). 92: 110–118). In comparison, 218 of the 4334 potsherds that
were recovered from the mantle of the Mala Glavica burial
mound were decorated (Batović, Kukoč 1988), but ninety
were ‘decorated by barbotine’ (a coarse slip), while only a
fraction of the remaining 128 (3%) were decorated by cha-
racteristic incision and impression. Finally, with 15.5% con-
sisting of decorated Ljubljana-Adriatic and/or Cetina style
sherds, Salamandrija on Palagruža island surpasses all other
sites with quantitative information by an order of magnitu-
de, which is one of the reasons why we consider it a special
purpose site (Forenbaher 2018).
Decorative motifs are usually created by combining
incision and impression, less commonly by incision only,
and very rarely by impression only. Four basic decorative
elements are used: incised lines, dots, elongated
Sl. 1 Osnovni elementi ukrasa impressions, and triangular impressions (Fig. 1). Dot
Fig. 1 Basic decorative elements impressions may be made simply by driving a blunt end of
a small, round-sectioned stick into wet clay at a right angle.
Ukrasni motivi najčešće su izvedeni kombinacijom ure- Usually, their diameter is less than 2 mm across, only rarely
zivanja i utiskivanja, rjeđe samo urezivanjem, a tek vrlo ri- surpassing 3 mm. Elongated impressions were probably
jetko samo utiskivanjem. Pri tome se koriste četiri osnovna made by the blunt end of a flat stick, or by a tool akin to a
elementa ukrasa: urezane linije, točke, te dugoljasti i troku-
1 The previously published frequency of decorated pottery, 5.2% (Forenba-
1 Ranije objavljen podatak o 5,2% ukrašene lončarije (Forenbaher, Kaiser her, Kaiser 2008: 64), includes several decorated sherds that do not belong
2008: 64) uključuje i nekoliko ulomaka koji ne pripadaju ovoj kategoriji to this category of decorated pottery.
ukrašene lončarije.
2 The previously published frequency of decorated pottery, 2.1% (Hulina
2 Ranije objavljen podatak o 2,1% ukrašene lončarije (Hulina et al. 2012: et al. 2012: 158), includes a considerable number of decorated sherds that
158) uključuje i veći broj ukrašenih ulomaka koji ne pripadaju ovoj kate- do not belong to this category of decorated pottery.
goriji ukrašene lončarije.
3 The finds in question from the Vela Cave were recovered during the
3 Spomenuta građa iz Vele spile prikupljena je iskopavanjima 2010.–2013. excavation seasons 2010–2013.
116
tasti otisci (sl. 1). Točkasti otisci mogu se lako napraviti oko- screwdriver (Dimitrijević 1979a: 322), that had likewise been
mitim utiskivanjem zatupljenoga kraja štapića kružnoga driven into wet clay at a right angle. Such impressions are
presjeka. Promjer im je obično manji od 2 mm, a tek rijetko usually less than 2 mm wide, while their length varies. Most
veći od 3 mm. Dugoljasti otisci vjerojatno su bili izvedeni often, their curved contours produce an elliptical outline,
zatupljenim krajem plosnatoga štapića ili nekim sličnim ala- while exceptionally they may be rectangular. Apparently,
tom nalik na odvijač (Dimitrijević 1979a: 322) koji je također most of the triangular impressions were also made by the
okomito utiskivan u meku glinu. Takvi otisci obično su uži blunt end of a flat stick or some similar tool, which in this case
od 2 mm, a mogu biti više ili manje izduženi. Najčešće su za- had been pressed into clay while held almost parallel to the
obljenih rubova i eliptičnoga oblika, a tek vrlo rijetko uglati surface of the vessel, leaving a triangular impression with a
i pravokutnoga oblika. Čini se da su trokutasti otisci također single impressed tip and two clearly defined sides. It seems
najčešće bili izvedeni zatupljenim krajem plosnatoga štapi- that triangular impressions were made only exceptionally
ća ili nekim sličnim alatom koji je u ovom slučaju utiskivan by the blunt end of a small, triangular-sectioned stick. The
pljoštimice i blago zakošeno u odnosu na površinu posude, impressions are usually isosceles right triangles, but the less
ostavljajući otisak oblika trokutića s jednim utisnutim vr- carefully executed ones may be of irregular shape, or have
hom i dvije jasno definirane stranice. Tek iznimno rijetko či- curved contours. Usually, their longest side is shorter than 3
ni se kako su takvi otisci bili napravljeni zatupljenim krajem mm, only rarely surpassing 5 mm. Incised lines, created by a
štapića trokutastoga presjeka. Otisnuti trokutići obično su relatively sharp tool, are usually about 1 mm wide.
pravokutni i jednakokračni, no oni manje brižljivo izvedeni As a rule, all impressions within a decorative motif are of
mogu biti nepravilnoga oblika i zaobljenih obrisa. Njihova the same size and shape, although impressions of different
najduža stranica obično je kraća od 3 mm, a tek rijetko duža shapes or sizes may sometimes be combined. While seve-
od 5 mm. Urezane linije, izvedene nekim relativno šiljastim ral different tools may have been used for their execution,
alatom, obično su široke oko 1 mm. many complex designs could have been made by just one
Svi otisci unutar pojedinoga motiva u pravilu su jedna- simple ‘universal tool’, a round-sectioned stick with one
koga oblika i veličine, iako se ponekad kombiniraju otisci end blunt (for dot impressions), and the other flattened (for
različitih oblika, ili istoga oblika, ali različitih veličina. Za nji-
elongated impressions and triangles). Either end could have
hovu izradu vjerojatno se koristilo nekoliko različitih alata,
been used for incision.
no mnoge složene motive moglo se izvesti samo jednim
Two major styles of pottery decoration in the manner
jednostavnim ‘univerzalnim alatom’, štapićem s jednim za-
described above marked the third millennium BC in the
tupljenim krajem kružnoga presjeka za utiskivanje točaka,
eastern Adriatic. More or less following the established
te drugim plosnatim krajem za izdužene otiske i trokutiće,
terminology, I shall refer to them as Ljubljana-Adriatic and
dok je bilo koji kraj mogao poslužiti za urezivanje.
Cetina styles. The first term is a simplification of the rather
Treće tisućljeće prije Krista obilježila su na istočnome Ja-
cumbersome formulation ‘the Adriatic type of the Ljubljana
dranu dva glavna stila lončarije ukrašene na opisani način.
culture’; it emphasizes the Adriatic as the main region of the
Više ili manje slijedeći ustaljenu terminologiju, jedan od njih
style’s distribution, while honoring the fact that its original
zvati ću ljubljansko-jadranskim, a drugi cetinskim stilom. Pr-
definition was based primarily on the finds from Ljubljan-
vi termin je pojednostavljenje prilično nezgrapne formula-
cije ‘jadranski tip ljubljanske kulture’ koja ističe Jadran kao sko Barje. The second term derives directly from the term
glavno područje rasprostranjenosti ovoga lončarskog stila ‘Cetina culture’.
i ujedno poštuje činjenicu da se njegova izvorna definicija Before turning to specific traits of these styles, one sho-
uvelike temelji na nalazima s Ljubljanskoga barja. Drugi ter- uld note that small Ljubljana-Adriatic sherds are sometimes
min izravno je izveden iz pojma ‘cetinska kultura’. hard to distinguish from Cetina sherds. Vessel shapes may
Prije nego što se pozabavimo specifičnostima tih dva- be very similar, while decorative techniques, basic decora-
ju stilova, valja naglasiti kako je sitne ljubljansko-jadranske tive elements, and even parts of motifs may be identical.
ulomke ponekad teško razlikovati od cetinskih. Oblici posu- Because of that, many small fragments can be determi-
da mogu biti vrlo slični, a tehnike ukrašavanja, osnovni ele- ned only in general as characteristic third millennium BC
menati ukrasa, pa čak i dijelovi motiva mogu biti identični. pottery, even though they might come from vessels that, if
Zbog toga se za mnoge male ulomke može jedino reći da complete, would be easily recognizable as Ljubljana-Adria-
pripadaju karakterističnoj lončariji trećega tisućljeća prije tic or Cetina.
Krista, iako možda potječu od posuda koje bismo, da su ci-
jele, lako prepoznali kao ljubljansko-jadranske ili cetinske. Ljubljana-Adriatic style
The following definition of the Ljubljana-Adriatic style,
Ljubljansko-jadranski stil based on published finds from 80 sites,4 roughly coincides
Definicija ljubljansko-jadranskoga lončarskog stila ko- with the existing definitions of ‘Ljubljana culture’ pottery,
ja slijedi temelji se na objavljenim nalazima iz 80 nalazišta4 including its ‘Adriatic type’ (Dimitrijević 1967: 10–12; 1979a:
te se u glavnim crtama podudara s postojećim definicijama 320–322; Govedarica 1989b: 41–43). These definitions rely
lončarije ‘ljubljanske kulture’, uključujući i njen ‘jadranski tip’ heavily on the finds from the lake dwellings at Ig in Lju-
(Dimitrijević 1967: 10–12; 1979a: 320–322; Govedarica 1989b: bljansko Barje, which were recovered in the 1870s by Karel
4 Forenbaher 2018 donosi pregled temeljnih podataka i iscrpnu bibliografiju 4 Forenbaher 2018 provides an overview of basic information about all the
o svim nalazištima s kojih je objavljen barem jedan ulomak lončarije sites with at least one published Ljubljana-Adriatic potsherd, accompa-
ljubljansko-jadranskoga stila. nied by exhaustive bibliography.
117
Sl. 2 Karakteristična lončarija ljubljansko-jadranskoga stila: 1, 5–8, 10, 12 Ig (prema Korošec, Korošec 1969; Dimitrijević 1979a); 2–4,
9 Otišić (prema Milošević, Govedarica 1986); 11 Vaganačka pećina (prema Forenbaher, Vranjican 1985); 13 Marina (prema Radić
Rossi 2011); 14 Velika gruda (prema Primas 1996); 15 Mala gruda (prema Dimitrijević 1979a); 16–17 Boljevića Gruda (prema Guštin,
Preložnik 2015)
Fig. 2 Characteristic Ljubljana-Adriatic style pottery: 1, 5–8, 10, 12 Ig (after Korošec, Korošec 1969; Dimitrijević 1979a); 2–4, 9 Otišić (after Miloše-
vić, Govedarica 1986); 11 Vaganačka Pećina (after Forenbaher, Vranjican 1985); 13 Marina (after Radić Rossi 2011); 14 Velika Gruda (after
Primas 1996); 15 Mala Gruda (after Dimitrijević 1979a); 16–17 Boljevića Gruda (after Guštin, Preložnik 2015)
118
41–43). Te definicije oslanjaju se u velikoj mjeri na građu iz Deschman (Velušček, Čufar 2014), and catalogued and pu-
sojeničarskih naselja kod Iga na Ljubljanskome barju koju je blished almost a century later by Paola and Josip Korošec
sedamdesetih godina 19. stoljeća prikupio Karel Deschmann (Korošec, Korošec 1969). This body of evidence has been
(Velušček, Čufar 2014), a koju su skoro sto godina kasnije kata- expanded and augmented by numerous finds from the
loški obradili i objavili Paola i Josip Korošec (Korošec, Korošec eastern Adriatic, but none of the eastern Adriatic sites can
1969). Brojni nalazi s prostora istočnoga Jadrana nadopunili compare with Ig in terms of the sheer abundance of cha-
su i proširili taj temelj, no niti jedno od istočnojadranskih na- racteristic finds. Deschmann’s old finds therefore remain an
lazišta ne može se količinom karakterističnih nalaza uspore- unavoidable part of any attempt to redefine this style, even
diti s Igom. Zbog toga stari Deschmannovi nalazi ostaju ne- though Ljubljansko Barje is located on the geographical pe-
zaobilazni prilikom bilo kakvoga novog pokušaja definiranja riphery of its geographic distribution.
ovoga stila, iako se Ljubljansko barje nalazi na periferiji njego-
voga geografskog rasprostiranja. Vessel shapes and sizes
The repertoire of the vessel shapes decorated with cha-
Oblici i veličine posuda racteristic Ljubljana-Adriatic designs is rather limited. Ro-
Repertoar oblika posuđa ukrašenoga na karakterističan und-bellied jars with a volume from a few deciliters to seve-
ljubljansko-jadranski način prilično je ograničen. Česti su tr- ral liters are common (Fig. 2: 10–13). Their body is spheroid,
bušasti lonci i lončići, zapremine od nekoliko decilitara do sometimes slightly flattened, or with a barely indicated ca-
nekoliko litara (sl. 2: 10–13). Tijelo im je kuglasto, ponekad rinated shoulder. Usually, their constricted neck is low and
blago spljošteno ili s jedva naznačenim bikonitetom pri ra- cylindrical or slightly funnel-shaped, while tall cylindrical
menu. Stegnut vrat obično je nizak, prstenast ili blago ljev- necks are much less common. Larger jars may have wide,
kast, a tek rijetko srednje visok i valjkast. Veći lonci mogu horizontal, subcutaneously pierced lugs or short vertical
imati na ramenu široke, vodoravno probušene supkutane strap handles placed at the shoulder. Decoration usually co-
ušice ili kratke uspravne trakaste ručke. Ukras u pravilu obu- vers the neck and shoulder, and often continues across the
hvaća vrat i rame te često teče u vodoravnim pojasevima lug or handle.
preko ušice ili ručke. Open bowls of different sizes are another well-represen-
Druga dobro zastupljena skupina posuda su otvorene ted group (Fig. 2: 2–4). Many of them are fairly small (cup-
zdjele i zdjelice (sl. 2: 2–4). Mnoge od njih su razmjerno ma- sized), while other are medium-sized. Their shape varies
lih dimenzija, veličine šalice, iako ima i zdjela srednje veli- from shallow to relatively deep vessels with a rounded body
čine. Oblik im varira od plitkih do relativno dubokih posu- that expands towards the rim. The rim itself is often flat and
da zaobljenoga tijela koje je uvijek najšire pri obodu. Sam thickened, and a short strap handle may be placed below
obod često je zadebljan i zaravnjen, a ispod njega može se it vertically or horizontally. Rare examples have their rim
nalaziti kratka uspravna ili vodoravna trakasta ručka. Na ri- pierced by vertical perforations resembling subcutaneous
jetkim primjercima probušene su kroz obod uspravne rupi- lugs. These bowls are sometimes supported by a massive
ce nalik na supkutane ušice. Otvorene zdjele ponekad stoje cruciform or star-shaped pedestal, by a hollow cylindrical
na masivnoj križnoj ili zvjezdastoj nozi, na šupljoj valjkastoj or funnel-shaped pedestal (Fig. 2: 9), or by peg-shaped feet.
ili ljevkastoj nozi (sl. 2: 9), ili na čepastim nožicama. Ukras Decoration may cover the entire exterior and interior sur-
može prekrivati čitavu vanjsku i unutarnju površinu, uklju- face, including the wide top surface of the rim, the handle,
and the pedestal. Double series of alternating dots or tri-
čujući proširenu gornju plohu oboda, ručku i nogu. Po obo-
angular impressions delimiting a zigzag pattern, or small
du obično teku dvostruki nizovi naizmjeničnih točkastih
hatched triangles, lozenges, and other geometric shapes
ili trokutastih otisaka koji omeđuju cik-cak uzorak, ili mali
made by comb impression, usually run along the top of the
šrafirani trokuti, rombovi i drugi geometrijski likovi izvede-
rim. Exterior and interior decoration may be cruciform, star-
ni češljastim utiskivanjem. Ukras vanjske i unutarnje strane
shaped, or organized in horizontal zones.
posude može biti organiziran u vodoravnim pojasevima,
Deep carinated bowls are very characteristic, but not
križno ili zvjezdasto.
very common (Fig. 2: 5–8). Again, most of them are fairly
Duboke bikonične zdjele i zdjelice su vrlo karakteristične,
small, ranging in size from a large cup to a medium-sized
ali su prilično rijetke (sl. 2: 5–8). I one su uglavnom manjih bowl. Their body consists of the rounded lower part that
dimenzija, u rasponu od povećih šalica do srednje velikih meets the relatively tall, concave neck at the carinated sho-
zdjela. Njihov donji dio je zaobljen, dok se nad bikoničnim ulder. This vessel shape is often referred to as ‘terrine’ (Dimi-
ramenom uzdiže povisok, konkavno oblikovan vrat. Takav trijević 1979a: 320). Sometimes they have a wide, horizontal,
oblik posude često se naziva ‘terinom’ (Dimitrijević 1979a: subcutaneously pierced lug above the shoulder, or a ver-
320). Mogu imati široku, vodoravno probušenu supkutanu tical strap handle connecting the shoulder with the upper
ušicu nad ramenom ili uspravnu trakastu ručku koja spaja part of the neck. The neck may be decorated in horizontal
rame s gornjim dijelom vrata. Vrat može biti ukrašen razli- zones, by metopes, or by grid-like designs. A closely related
čitim pojasevima, metopama i rešetkastim kompozicijama. shape is a small, tall and slender vessel resembling a Bell
Oblikom im je bliska malena, uska i visoka posudica koja Beaker (Fig. 2: 1).
podsjeća na zvonasti pehar (sl. 2: 1). A few other distinctive vessel shapes are known only
Još nekoliko osebujnih oblika posuda poznato je samo from the southern part of the Ljubljana-Adriatic style dis-
iz južnoga dijela područja prostiranja ljubljansko-jadransko- tribution area, from burial mounds of Velika Gruda, Mala
119
ga stila, iz grobova u gomilama Velike i Male grude, Grude Gruda, Gruda Boljevića, Rubež, and Mogila na Rake (Fig. 2:
Boljevića, Rubeža i Mogile na rake (sl. 2: 14–17). Među njima 14–17). Among them are five examples of asymmetric dis-
je pet primjeraka obostrano ukrašenih asimertičnih plitica s hes with slab handles,5 all of them decorated on interior and
pločastom drškom,5 zatim tri pehara obloga trbuha i viso- exterior sides, three round-bellied beakers with a high, sli-
kog, blago konkavnog vrata s dugačkom trakastom ručkom ghtly concave neck and a long strap handle connecting the
koja spaja rame i obod, te visok i obostrano ukrašen lijevak. shoulder with the rim, and a tall funnel.
Sl. 3 Karakteristični detalji ljubljansko-jadranskoga načina ukrašavanja: 1–2 uske trake ispunjene naizmjeničnim otiscima; 3–5 češljasto
utiskivanje; 6–9 prostoručno i češljasto utiskivanje; 10 izrezivanje; 1, 3–5, 8–9 Vela spila; 6 Vaganačka pećina; 10 Sušac
Fig. 3 Characteristic details of the Ljubljana-Adriatic decorative style: 1–2 narrow bands filled with alternating impressions; 3–5 comb impressi-
on; 6–9 free-hand and comb impression; 10 excision; 1, 3–5, 8–9 the Vela Cave on Korčula; 6 Vaganačka Pećina; 10 Sušac
5 The frequently published reconstruction of a dish from Mala Gruda is

5 Često objavljivana rekonstrukcija plitice iz Male grude nije pouzdana jer unreliable, since it is based on just a few fragments. A different recon-
se temelji na samo nekoliko ulomaka. Moguća je i drugačija rekonstruk- struction is plausible that would make it asymmetric and much more
cija iste posude koja bi tada bila asimetrična i znatno sličnija pliticama iz similar to the dishes from the other three aforementioned Montenegrin
preostala tri spomenuta crnogorska nalazišta (Primas 1996: 55–56). sites (Primas 1996: 55–56).
120
Ukrašavanje posuđa Vessel decoration

Vrlo karakteristično obilježje ljubljansko-jadranskoga A particularly characteristic trait of the Ljubljana-Adria-
stila su kompozicije sastavljene od uskih traka (obično užih tic style is designs composed of narrow bands (usually, less
od 5 mm) omeđenih urezivanjem ili češljastim utiskivanjem than 5 millimeters wide) delimited by incision or comb im-
i ispunjenih naizmjeničnim točkastim, dugoljastim ili tro- pression and filled with alternating dots, elongated impre-
kutastim otiscima koji između sebe stvaraju sićušni cik-cak ssions, or triangles defining a tiny zigzag pattern between
uzorak (sl. 3: 1–2, 6–9). Takve trake dolaze pojedinačno, u them (Fig. 3: 1–2, 6–9). These bands may be single, paired,
parovima ili po više njih usporedo, a mogu biti razmaknu- or multiple, either set apart or crowded next to each other.
te ili zbijene neposredno jedna do druge. Druga omiljena Another popular design is a series of hatched triangles, or a
kompozicija je niz šrafiranih trokuta ili dvostruki niz na- double series of alternating hatched triangles that, like the
izmjenično postavljenih šrafiranih trokuta koji također impressed ones, delimit a zigzag pattern. The design usu-
između sebe omeđuju cik-cak uzorak. Ukras je obično or- ally runs in horizontal zones. Parallel narrow bands alterna-
ganiziran u vodoravnim pojasevima. Usporedne uske trake te with series of hatched triangles, or bands consisting of
izmjenjuju se s nizovima šrafiranih trokuta ili s pojasevima ‘metopes’, vertically hatched rectangles bounded on both
sastavljenim od ‘metopa’, uspravno šrafiranih pravokutnika sides by short sections of narrow bands (Fig. 3: 6). Endless
omeđenih s obje strane kratkim odsječcima uskih traka (sl. variations and combinations of these standard elements
3: 6). Mogućnosti variranja i kombiniranja ovih standardnih create the impression that each vessel was decorated in a
elemenata gotovo su neograničene pa se stječe dojam da je distinctive way.
svaka posuda bila osebujno ukrašena. Aside from the simple tools that produce isolated do-
Osim jednostavnih alata koji ostavljaju pojedinačne ts and triangular or elongated impressions, special instru-
točkaste, trokutaste ili dugoljaste otiske, za utiskivanje se ments are used to create regular series of tightly packed, al-
koriste posebno pripremljeni instrumenti koji proizvode most identical, and sometimes very tiny impressions (Fig. 3:
pravilne nizove gustih, gotovo identičnih i ponekad vrlo 3–5). Experiments have indicated that such decoration can
sitnih otisaka (sl. 3: 3–5). Eksperimentiranje je pokazalo da be replicated easily and convincingly by using tools made
se takve ukrase može lako i uvjerljivo replicirati pomoću
by wrapping a cord around small, thin laths made of wood
tankih drvenih ili koštanih letvica gusto omotanih nitima
or bone (Leghissa 2015). Different tools may have been used
(Leghissa 2015), no nije isključeno da su se upotrebljavali i
as well, such as coiled wire, combs, or denticulate plaques
drugačiji alati poput žičanih zavojnica, češljeva, nazubljenih
or wheels. For the sake of simplicity, ‘comb impression’ will
pločica ili kotačića. Zbog jednostavnosti, na ovom mjestu
be used here as a common term covering all the variants
će se za sve varijante finoga utiskivanja izvedenog posebno
of fine impression made by special instruments. It should
pripremljenim instrumentom koristiti zajednički izraz ‘če-
be added that, since Ljubljana-Adriatic decoration tends to
šljasto utiskivanje’. Pri tome valja naglasiti da je ljubljansko-
jadranski ukras obično pažljivo izveden pa nije uvjek lako be carefully made, it is not always easy to establish whether
ustanoviti radi li se o brižljivom prostoručnom utiskivanju ili it was made by careful free-hand impression, or by one of
o upotrebi nekoga od spomenutih instrumenata. Povrh to- those special instruments. Furthermore, free-hand and
ga, prostoručno i češljasto utiskivanje često dolaze u kom- comb impressions are frequently combined (Fig. 3: 6–9).
binaciji (sl. 3: 6–9). Decoration is sometimes made by excision or carving
Ukrašavanje se ponekad izvodi izrezivanjem ili duborez- (duborez in Croatian), by removing small parts of the well-
nom tehnikom, odnosno uklanjanjem sitnih dijelova pro- dried vessel wall by knives or chisels. Sometimes, the result
sušene površine stijenke posude pomoću noževa ili dlijeta. can closely resemble impressed decoration, especially if the
Rezultat ponekad može biti vrlo sličan utiskivanju, naročito motif is filled with incrustation. Numerous vessels decora-
ako se uzorak ispuni inkrustacijom. Mnoštvo posuđa ukra- ted by excision from the lake dwellings of Ljubljansko Barje
šenoga izrezivanjem iz sojeničarskih naselja Ljubljanskoga (Korošec, Korošec 1969) are usually assigned to the Vučedol
barja (Korošec, Korošec 1969) najčešće se povezuje s vu- pottery style (Dimitrijević 1979a; Velušček, Čufar 2014). As
čedolskim lončarskim stilom (Dimitrijević 1979a; Velušček, opposed to that, only a very few such fragments from the
Čufar 2014). Nasuprot tome, sa širega prostora istočnog wider eastern Adriatic region have been published, most
Jadrana objavljeno je vrlo malo takvih ulomaka, većinom of them from cave contexts marked by Ljubljana-Adriatic
iz špiljskih konteksta obilježenih ljubljansko-jadranskom pottery: about a dozen from Gudnja (Marijanović 2005: Pl.
lončarijom: desetak iz Gudnje (Marijanović 2005: T. 49; T. 49; Pl. 51), and a few more from the Ravlića Cave (Marijano-
51) te još nekoliko iz Ravlića pećine (Marijanović 1981: T. 36: vić 1981: Pl. 36: 6; 2012: Pl. 68: 5; Pl. 73: 7) and the Vela Cave
6; 2012: T. 68: 5; T. 73: 7) i Vele spile na Korčuli (Čečuk, Ra- on Korčula (Čečuk, Radić 2005: Pl. 87: 1; Pl. 92: 5). To these
dić 2005: T. 87: 1; T. 92: 5). Njima se mogu pridodati jedan one may add a single sherd from the Renje hillfort near Vr-
ulomak s gradine Renje kod Vrpolja (Korošec 1962: T. 5: 5), polje (Korošec 1962: Pl. 5: 5), three vessels from Gruda Bolje-
tri posude iz Grude Boljevića (Baković, Govedarica 2009: sl. vića (Baković, Govedarica 2009: Figs. 9–11), and fragments
9–11) i dijelovi plitke zdjele s pločastom drškom iz raskopa- of a dish with a slab handle from the ransacked mound at
ne gomile u Rubežu kod Nikšića (Benac 1955: T. 1: 6), kao i Rubež near Nikšić (Benac 1955: Pl. 1: 6), as well as previously
ulomci omanje zdjele iz nalazišta na otvorenom u uvali Du- unpublished fragments of a small bowl from the open-air
goj na otoku Sušcu (sl. 3: 10). Možda ima još takvih ulomaka site in the Duga cove (Fig. 3: 10) on the island of Sušac. Other
koji nisu prepoznatljivi na objavljenim ilustracijama, no ni u excision-decorated sherds may be unrecognizable in pu-
tom slučaju njihov ukupni broj ne može biti velik. blished illustrations, but their total number cannot be great.
121
Zemljopisna rasprostranjenost i tipovi nalazišta Geographic distribution and site types

Lončarija ljubljansko-jadranskoga stila rasprostranjena The Ljubljana-Adriatic pottery style is distributed along
je duž istočne obale Jadrana (sl. 4) od Tršćanskoga Krasa do the eastern Adriatic coast (Fig. 4) from the Trieste Karst to Lake
Skadarskoga jezera, uključujući otoke i pojas zaleđa koji gra- Shkodër, including the islands and a stretch of hinterland up
vitira prema obali te je mjestimice širok pedesetak kilome- to 50 kilometers wide that gravitates towards the coast. The
tara. Neujednačena gustoća nalazišta unutar toga prostora variable density of sites within this area (e.g., the abundance
u velikoj je mjeri posljedica nejednakoga intenziteta istra- of sites in the Karst, or the scarcity of sites in Kvarner Bay and
živanja (primjerice, mnoštvo nalazišta na Krasu ili mali broj the Croatian Littoral) primarily reflects the unequal intensity
nalazišta u Hrvatskome Primorju i Kvarnerskom zaljevu). of research. Beyond that area, a small number of more-or-less
Izvan toga prostora, malobrojni više ili manje slični nalazi similar finds has been published from a few sites in the Po
Sl. 4 Karta rasprostiranja lončarije ljubljansko-jadranskoga stila:

Fig. 4 Distribution map of the Ljubljana-Adriatic pottery style:
1 Bernardine di Coriano; 2 Sant’Ilario d’Enza; 3 Castelazzo di Doberdò; 4 Grotta Caterina; 5 Grotta Cotariova; 6 Grotta degli Zingari;
7 Grotta dei Ciclami; 8 Grotta del Mitreo; 9 Grotta del Pettine; 10 Grotta del Pettiroso; 11 Grotta della Tartaruga; 12 Grotta Teresiana;
13 Riparo di Percedol; 14 San Michele; 15 Acijev spodmol; 16 Podmol pri Kastelcu; 17 Tominčeva jama; 18 Črni Graben; 19 Ig; 20
Parte; 21 Parte-Iščica; 22 Založnica; 23 Cingarela; 24 Laganiši; 25 Nezakcij; 26 Pećina kod Srbana; 27 Pećinovac; 28 Pupićina peć; 29
Jami na Sredi; 30 Vlaška peć; 31 Gomile više lada; 32 Lukovača; 33 Otišić; 34 Rudine; 35 Šparevine; 36 Eraci; 37 Kovačina; 38 Kruške;
39 Ograđe; 40 Sridnja gora; 41 Vukosavi; 42 Zemunica; 43 Pazjanice; 44 Šarina draga; 45 Škarin samograd; 46 Tradanj; 47 Ulnovac; 48
Vaganačka pećina; 49 Biranj; 50 Bubnjavača; 51 Grapčeva spilja; 52 Marina; 53 Grad; 54 Gudnja; 55 Spila (Nakovana); 56 Uvala Duga;
57 Vela spila; 58 Ravlića pećina; 59 Varvara; 60 Badanj; 61 Džakulina glavica; 62 Greben pećina; 63 Guvnine; 64 Hateljska pećina; 65
Lazaruša; 66 Zelena Pećina; 67 Alihodže; 68 Pod; 69 Gruda Boljevića; 70 Mala gruda; 71 Mogila na rake; 72 Odmut; 73 Rubež; 74 Spila
(Perast); 75 Velika gruda; 76 Vranjaj; 77 Bardhoc; 78 Gajtan; 79 Pazhok; 80 Salamandrija
122
objavljeni su s nekoliko nalazišta u dolini rijeke Po, u središ- River valley, in central Bosnia, and in northern and central Al-
njoj Bosni te u sjevernoj i središnjoj Albaniji. Izrazitu iznimku bania. A conspicuous exception is Ig in Ljubljansko Barje, the
predstavlja Ig na Ljubljanskom barju, nalazište koje je dalo site that yielded numerous characteristic finds, although it is
brojne karakteristične nalaze iako je smješteno u slivu rijeke located within the Sava River drainage area, some 70 kilome-
Save i odmaknuto od obale 70 km. ters away from the Adriatic coast.
Polovica od ukupno 80 nalazišta koja su dala ljubljansko- Half of the eighty sites that yielded Ljubljana-Adriatic
jadransku lončariju su špilje. Iz većine od njih prikupljeno je pottery are caves. Most of them yielded only a few charac-
tek nekoliko karakterističnih ulomaka, nerijetko samo po je- teristic sherds, or sometimes just a single sherd. A conside-
dan. Brojem takvih nalaza ističu se Grotta dei Ciclami (Gilli, rable number of Ljubljana-Adriatic sherds were recovered
Montagnari Kokelj 1993), Grotta del Mitreo (Montagnari Ko- from five caves, Grotta dei Ciclami (Gilli, Montagnari Kokelj
kelj, Crismani 1997), Grapčeva spilja (Novak 1955; Korošec, P. 1993), Grotta del Mitreo (Montagnari Kokelj, Crismani 1997),
1956; Forenbaher, Kaiser 2008), Vela spila na Korčuli (Čečuk, the Grapčeva Cave (Novak 1955; Korošec, P. 1956; Forenba-
Radić 2005) i Ravlića pećina (Marijanović 1981; 2012), no niti her, Kaiser 2008), the Vela Cave on the island of Korčula (Če-
iz jedne od njih nije objavljeno više od par desetaka uloma- čuk, Radić 2005), and the Ravlića Cave (Marijanović 1981;
ka. 2012), but the number of published sherds does not exceed
Sljedeća po zastupljenosti su nalazišta naseobinskoga a few dozen for any of those sites.
tipa na otvorenome. Deset od njih ukupno dvadeset su Open-air settlements are the next best represented site
gradine, pet su sojeničarska naselja na Ljubljanskome barju, type. Ten out of twenty are hillforts, five are lake dwellings at
dok o preostalih pet nalazišta ne znamo gotovo ništa. Obilje Ljubljansko Barje, while we know next to nothing about the
ljubljansko-jadranske lončarije prikupljeno je jedino iz soje- remaining five. Abundant Ljubljana-Adriatic pottery was re-
ničarskoga naselja Ig (Korošec, Korošec 1969) te iz nalazišta covered only from the lake dwelling at Ig (Korošec, Korošec
u vrtači u Otišiću (Milošević, Govedarica 1986). Razmjerno 1969), and from the site in a small karstic doline at Otišić (Mi-
velik broj sličnih, iako ne posve karakterističnih ulomaka pri- lošević, Govedarica 1986). A fairly large number of similar,
kupljen je s Varvare (Čović 1978) i Poda (Čović 1991b), dvaju though less characteristic sherds was recovered from Varva-
gradina smještenih duboko u zaleđu Jadrana. Sa svih osta- ra (Čović 1978) and Pod (Čović 1991b), two hillforts located
lih naseobinskih nalazišta potječu tek pojedinačni karakte- deep in the Adriatic hinterland. Only isolated characteristic
ristični ulomci. sherds were recovered from all other settlement sites.
Ljubljansko-jadranska lončarija pronađena je u gomila- Ljubljana-Adriatic pottery was found in burial mounds
ma na sedamnaest nalazišta. Posude priložene uz zgrčeno- at seventeen sites. Vessels deposited in stone cists next to
ga pokojnika u grobni sanduk od kamenih ploča pronađe- the flexed body of the deceased were found only at the
ne su samo na tri crnogorska nalazišta, Velikoj grudi (Primas three Montenegrin sites, Velika Gruda (Primas 1996), Mala
1996), Maloj grudi (Parović-Pešikan, Trbuhović 1974) i Mo- Gruda (Parović-Pešikan, Trbuhović 1974), and Mogila Na Ra-
gili na rake (Zagarčanin 2016). U svim ostalim slučajevima, ke (Zagarčanin 2016). In all other cases, Ljubljana-Adriatic
ulomci ljubljansko-jadranske lončarije prikupljeni su iz pla- potsherds were recovered from the mantle of the mound,
šta gomile ili iz tla pod gomilom. Ponekad se iz rasporeda or from the underlying soil. The distribution of the fra-
ulomaka može naslutiti da je posuđe bilo odlagano u sklopu gments sometimes suggests that the vessels were deposi-
pogrebnoga rituala, primjerice, u Grudi Boljevića (Baković, ted in the course of the burial ritual, for instance, at Gruda
Govedarica 2009; Guštin, Preložnik 2015). Drugdje se čini da Boljevića (Baković, Govedarica 2009; Guštin, Preložnik 2015).
su ulomci dospjeli u plašt slučajno, zajedno sa zemljom i ka- Elsewhere it seems that the fragments ended up in the
menjem od kojih je gomila bila podignuta. Većinom se radi mantle by accident, together with the soil and rocks used
o tek nekoliko karakterističnih ulomaka, a nešto više ih je in the mound’s construction. While only a few characteristic
objavljeno iz Gomila više lada i Lukovače kod izvora Cetine sherds tend to be present, relatively numerous sherds were
(Marović 1991), Eraka u zaleđu Ploča (Bilić et al. 2011), Grude published from the burial mounds at Gomile Više Lada and
Boljevića kod Podgorice (Baković, Govedarica 2009; Guštin, Lukovača near the source of the Cetina River (Marović 1991),
Preložnik 2015) i Bardhoca u Albaniji (Hoti 1982). Eraci near Ploče (Bilić et al. 2011), Gruda Boljevića near Pod-
Zasebnoj kategoriji pripada Salamandrija, nalazište po- gorica (Baković, Govedarica 2009; Guštin, Preložnik 2015),
sebne namjene na Palagruži, odakle je prikupljen veći broj and Bardhoc in Albania (Hoti 1982).
ljubljansko-jadranskih ulomaka (Forenbaher 2018). Jedini Salamandrija, a special-purpose site on Palagruža that
podmorski nalaz je trbušasti lonac, slučajno pokupljen s yielded a large number of Ljubljana-Adriatic sherds (Fo-
morskoga dna nedaleko Marine kod Trogira (Radić Rossi renbaher 2018), belongs to a separate category. The only
2011). submerged find is a round-bellied jar, a chance find from
the sea bottom near Marina by Trogir (Radić Rossi 2011).
Prostorna i vremenska raznolikost
Ljubljansko-jadranski stil očito nije homogen na čitavom Spatial and temporal variability
svojem području rasprostiranja. Primjerice, otvorene zdjele Evidently, the Ljubljana-Adriatic style is not homoge-
na masivnoj križnoj ili zvjezdastoj nozi pojavljuju se samo neous across its distribution area. For example, open bowls
na Krasu i u središnjoj Sloveniji, dok su asimetrične plitice s on a massive cruciform or star-shaped foot appear only in
pločastom drškom i pehari visokoga vrata s dugačkom tra- the Karst and in central Slovenia, while asymmetric dishes
123
kastom ručkom ograničeni samo na crnogorska nalazišta. with a slab handle and tall-necked beakers with a long strap
Sustavna analiza vjerojatno bi otkrila i druge, manje očite handle are restricted to Montenegrin sites. While a thorou-
regionalne razlike, no važno je istaknuti da se temeljni oblici gh analysis probably would detect other, less obvious regio-
i motivi ukrašavanja mogu naći na čitavome prostoru. nal differences, it is important to note that the basic shapes
Izvjesna lokalna varijabilnost je očekivana, jer sve što and decorative motifs can be found throughout the area.
znamo o organizaciji jadranskih društava i njihovoga gos- A certain amount of local variability is expected, since
podarstva u trećem tisućljeću prije Krista upućuje na to da everything that we know about the economy and organi-
izrada lončarije nije bila centralizirana. Lončari iz različitih zation of Adriatic societies in the third millennium BC su-
krajeva istočnojadranskoga prostora dijelili su zajednička ggests that pottery production was not centralized. Potters
shvaćanja o tome kako treba izgledati posuđe, no njihovi from different parts of the eastern Adriatic region would
proizvodi su se razlikovali u pojedinostima ukrašavanja i have shared common views about what their vessels sho-
oblikovanja. Unutar jadransko-ljubljanskoga stila vjerojatno uld look like, but their products differed in details of shape
će se moći razlikovati nekoliko podregionalnih varijanti, no and decoration. One should be able to distinguish among
zbog velike fragmentiranosti i razmjerno male ukupne koli- several subregional variants of the Ljubljana-Adriatic style,
but due to the high fragmentation and relatively small total
čine građe, takve podregionalne stilove zasad nije moguće
quantity of finds, such subregional styles currently cannot
jasno definirati, unatoč vrijednim pokušajima (Dimitrijević
be clearly defined, despite some worthy attempts (Dimitri-
1967; Govedarica 1989b). Izrazitu osebujnost i ujednačenost
jević 1967; Govedarica 1989b). The pottery from Montene-
pokazuje posuđe iz crnogorskih nalazišta, no pri tome valja
grin sites is unusually distinct and uniform, but one should
imati na umu da se još uvijek radi o malome broju nalaza
remember that, for the moment, those sites yielded only a
prikupljenih isključivo iz grobnih gomila.
small number of finds, all of them from burial mounds.
Još manje je uvjerljiv pokušaj podjele ‘klasičnoga tipa
The attempt to split the ‘classical type of the Ljubljana
ljubljanske kulture’ na dvije vremenske faze (Govedarica
culture’ into two chronological phases is even less convin-
1989b: 39–47). Taj se pokušaj oslanja na nesigurne stratigra- cing (Govedarica 1989b: 39–47). That attempt relies on the
fije triju špilja Tršćanskoga Krasa, Grotta del Mitreo (Mon- uncertain stratigraphies of three caves in Trieste Karst, Grotta
tagnari Kokelj, Crismani 1997), Grotta degli Zingari (Gilli, Del Mitreo (Montagnari Kokelj, Crismani 1997), Grotta Degli
Montagnari Kokelj 1996) i Grotta Tartaruga (Canarella, Redi- Zingari (Gilli, Montagnari Kokelj 1996) and Grotta Tartaru-
vo 1981; Govedarica 1989b), u kojima se pojavljuje skromna ga (Canarella, Redivo 1981; Govedarica 1989b), that yielded
količina ljubljansko-jadranske i cetinske (ili cetinskom stilu modest quantities of Ljubljana-Adriatic and Cetina (or Ceti-
bliske) lončarije, ponekad obje vrste lončaije zajedno unu- na-like) pottery, sometimes both appearing together within
tar istoga sloja. Preduvjet za pouzdanu vremensku podjelu the same layer. A reliable temporal division would require
bio bi dovoljan broj jasno stratificiranih ili čvrsto datiranih an adequate number of clearly stratified and securely dated
karakterističnih nalaza. Takvih nalaza jednostavno nema, characteristic finds. Since such finds simply are not availa-
pa se ljubljansko-jadranski stil zasad može promatrati samo ble, the Ljubljana-Adriatic style currently may only be regar-
kao jedinstven vremenski horizont. Izuzetak bi mogli pred- ded as a single chronological horizon. The only exception
stavljati jedino već spomenuti nalazi iz crnogorskih gomila may be the aforementioned finds from Montenegrin burial
uz koje se vezuju najraniji radiokarbonski datumi, o čemu će mounds, which are associated with the earliest radiocarbon
biti više riječi u nastavku. dates, a topic to be discussed below.
Cetinski stil Cetina style

Definicija cetinskoga lončarskog stila koja slijedi temelji The following definition of the Cetina style, based on
se na objavljenim nalazima iz 103 nalazišta6 te se uglavnom the published finds from 103 sites,6 roughly coincides with
podudara s postojećim definicijama lončarije ‘cetinske kul- the existing definitions of ‘Cetina culture’ pottery, or more
ture’, odnosno njezine druge, najprepoznatljivije faze (Ma- precisely, with its second and most distinctive phase (Ma-
rović 1976: 70–71; Marović, Čović 1983: 197–198; Govedari- rović 1976: 70–71; Marović, Čović 1983: 197–198; Govedarica
ca 1989b: 135–137). Te definicije oslanjaju se u velikoj mjeri 1989b: 135–137). Those definitions rely heavily on the finds
na građu iz grobalja pod gomilama oko vrela rijeke Cetine from the mound cemeteries around the source of the Ceti-
koju je prikupio Ivan Marović u nizu iskopavanja provedena River, recovered by Ivan Marović in a series of excavati-
nih tijekom treće četvrtine prošloga stoljeća (Marović 1963; ons conducted during the third quarter of the last century
1976; 1991). U međuvremenu su brojni novi nalazi s prostora (Marović 1963; 1976; 1991). Since then, that body of eviden-
istočnoga Jadrana nadopunili i proširili taj temelj, no nalazi- ce has been expanded and augmented by numerous new
šta uz gornji tok rijeke Cetine svojim brojem i koncentraci- finds from the eastern Adriatic, but the abundance and con-
jom još uvijek dominiraju u ukupnom korpusu građe. centration of sites along the upper course of Cetina River
remains dominant.
6 Forenbaher 2018 donosi pregled temeljnih podataka i iscrpnu bibliografiju 6 Forenbaher 2018 provides an overview of basic information about all the
o svim nalazištima s kojih je objavljen barem jedan ulomak lončarije sites with at least one published Cetina potsherd, accompanied by exhaus-
cetinskoga stila. tive bibliography.
124
Sl. 5 Karakteristična lončarija cetinskoga stila: 1 Škarin samograd (prema Marović, Čović 1983); 2, 5–6, 8–10, 12 Lukovača (prema Marović
1991); 3 Ljubomir (prema Marović, Čović 1983); 4 Rudine (prema Marović 1991); 7 Pisciulo (prema Cataldo 1996); 11, 15 Gomile više
lada (prema Marović 1991); 13 Gradac (prema Govedarica 2006); 14 Zelenovića ogradice (prema Marović 1991); 16 Bajagić (prema
Marović 1991); 17 Jukića gomile (prema Olujić 2012)
Fig. 5 Characteristic Cetina style pottery: 1 Škarin Samograd (after Marović, Čović 1983); 2, 5–6, 8–10, 12 Lukovača (after Marović 1991); 3 Ljubo-
mir (after Marović, Čović 1983); 4 Rudine (after Marović 1991); 7 Pisciulo (after Cataldo 1996); 11, 15 Gomile Više Lada (after Marović 1991);
13 Gradac (after Govedarica 2006); 14 Zelenovića Ogradice (after Marović 1991); 16 Bajagić (after Marović 1991); 17 Jukića Gomile (after
Olujić 2012)
125
Oblici i veličine posuda Vessel shapes and sizes

Repertoar oblika posuđa ukrašenoga na cetinski način The repertoire of the vessel shapes decorated by cha-
još je uži od ljubljansko-jadranskog. Vrlo su karakteristični racteristic Cetina designs is even more limited than the
pehari i peharići zapremine od nekoliko decilitara do pre- Ljubljana-Adriatic repertoire. Beakers of various sizes with
a volume from a few deciliters to over one liter are very cha-
ko jedne litre (sl. 5: 7–10). Tijelo tipičnoga cetinskog peha-
racteristic (Fig. 5: 7–10). The body of a typical Cetina beaker
ra obično je kuglasto ili lećasto spljošteno, no može biti i usually is spheroid or lens-shaped, but it may be markedly
izrazito bikonično. Vrat je slične visine kao i tijelo, poširok i carinated. The neck is roughly as tall as the body, rather wide
najčešće valjkast, iako može biti i blago stožast ili ljevkast. and usually cylindrical, although it may be slightly conical or
Završava razgrnutim obodom koji je jasno odvojen od vrata funnel-shaped. It ends in an everted rim that is clearly sepa-
oštrim lomom, no nije naročito širok. Karakteristično obli- rated from the neck by a sharp break in profile, but is not
kovana trakasta ručka povezuje rame s vrhom vrata. Izraz particularly wide. A characteristically shaped strap handle
‘stegnuta ručka’ bolje opisuje njen oblik od uobičajenoga connects the shoulder with the top of the neck. Its curved
sides gradually converge towards a narrowest point near its
izraza ‘iksoidna ručka’ jer se njeni rubovi lučno sužavaju
middle. The term ‘constricted handle’ describes its shape
prema sredini. Vrlo rijetko, takve stegnute ručke mogu imati better than the customary term ‘X-shaped handle’ (iksoidna
trokutasto perforirane krajeve (primjerice, Marović 1991: sl. ručka in Croatian). Exceptionally, such handles may have tri-
47: 1; Livadie 2010: sl. 15) pa bi za njih izraz ‘iksoidna ručka’ angular perforations near both ends (e.g. Marović 1991: Fig.
bio opravdaniji (sl. 6: 8). 47: 1; Livadie 2010: Fig. 15); for them, the term ‘ex-shaped’
Cetinski pehari ponekad imaju visoku valjkastu ili ljevka- seems more justified (Fig. 6: 8).
stu nogu na koju otpada trećina visine posude (sl. 5: 11–15). The Cetina beakers sometimes stand on a cylindrical
Takve posude upečatljivoga oblika često se nazivaju ‘posu- or funnel-shaped pedestal that makes up a third of the
vessel’s height (Fig. 5: 11–15). Vessels of this conspicuous
dama tipa Kotorac’, po nalazu prikupljenome prije stotinjak
shape are often called ‘Kotorac type vessels’, after a find
godina s Gradca u Kotorcu nedaleko Sarajeva (Korošec 1941). collected about a century ago from Gradac at Kotorac near
Zbog razlomljenosti nalaza ne može se pouzdano procijeni- Sarajevo (Korošec 1941). Due to the fragmentation of fin-
ti koliko su takvi pehari na nozi bili česti u odnosu na pehare ds, one cannot estimate reliably how common were such
s jednostavnim ravnim ili zaobljenim dnom. Ulomci visokih pedestalled beakers, compared to the simple beakers with
nogu razmjerno su uobičajen nalaz, no najčešće se ne može flat or rounded bases. Fragments of pedestals are relati-
utvrditi radi li se o nozi pehara ili možda zdjele. Nedvojbe- vely common, but in most cases it is impossible to decide
ni primjerci cetinskih pehara na nozi objavljeni su, osim s whether they belonged to a beaker or a bowl. Aside from
Kotorac, unquestionable examples of pedestalled Cetina
Kotorca, još samo s četiri nalazišta, od kojih su tri na izvoru
beakers have been published from just four more sites.
Cetine – Gomile više lada (Marović 1991: sl. 71: 1; 73: 1; 76: 1), Three of them – Gomile Više Lada (Marović 1991: Fig. 71: 1;
Lukovača (Marović 1991: sl. 42: 6; 46: 4) i Zelenovića ogradice 73: 1; 76: 1), Lukovača (Marović 1991: Fig. 42: 6; 46: 4), and
(Marović 1991: sl. 64: 1), a jedno, Vlake (Šuta 2013: sl. 10), u za- Zelenovića Ogradice (Marović 1991: Fig. 64: 1) – are at the
leđu srednje Dalmacije. Među njima su i dva pehara na nozi source of the Cetina River, while the fourth – Vlake – is in the
s nizom trokutastih perforacija na ramenu (Marović 1991: sl. hinterland of Middle Dalmatia (Šuta 2013: Fig. 10). Among
73: 1; 64: 1) koji predstavljaju iznimno rijetku varijantu ovoga them are two small pedestalled beakers with a series of tri-
tipa posude (sl. 5: 14–15). Svi objavljeni pehari na nozi, osim angular perforations at their shoulder (Marović 1991: sl. 73:
1; 64: 1), an exceptionally rare variant of this vessel type (Fig.
onoga s Gradca u Kotorcu, pronađeni su u gomilama.
5: 14–15). All of the published pedestalled beakers were fo-
Druga dobro zastupljena skupina posuda su otvorene und in burial mounds, except for the one from Gradac at
zdjele i zdjelice (sl. 5: 1–6). Mnoge od njih oblikom se ne Kotorac.
razlikuju od ljubljansko-jadranskih otvorenih zdjela. Dimen- Another well-represented group of vessels is open bowls
zije im variraju od zdjelica veličine male šalice do zdjela pro- of various sizes (Fig. 5: 1–6). Most of them do not differ in
mjera dvadesetak centimetara. Mogu biti plitke ili relativno shape from the Ljubljana-Adriatic open bowls. They vary in
duboke, blago zaobljenoga ili koničnog tijela koje je uvijek size from small cups to bowls some 20 centimeters across.
najšire pri obodu. Gornja ploha oboda je zaravnjena i pone- They can be shallow or relatively deep, and have a conical
or slightly rounded body that expands towards the rim. The
kad vrlo široka, vodoravna ili zakošena prema unutra, a is-
top side of the rim is flat and sometimes very wide, hori-
pod oboda može se nalaziti kratka uspravna stegnuta ručka. zontal, or inclined towards the middle of the vessel. A short,
Cetinske otvorene zdjele također vjerojatno mogu stajati na constricted strap handle may be placed vertically below the
šupljoj valjkastoj ili ljevkastoj nozi, no nedvojbeni primjer- rim. The Cetina-style open bowls may probably also stand
ci takvih posuda nisu objavljeni. Od ljubljansko-jadranskih on hollow cylindrical or funnel-shaped pedestals, althou-
otvorenih zdjela razlikuju se u prvom redu ukrasom. Ukra- gh unquestionable examples of such vessels have not be-
šena je u pravilu gornja ploha oboda i pojas ispod oboda s en published. They differ from the Ljubljana-Adriatic open
vanjske strane posude, dok unutarnja strana nije ukrašena. bowls primarily by their decoration. As a rule, the top side of
the rim and the exterior zone below the rim are decorated,
Nema supkutanih ušica niti zdjela na masivnoj nozi. Ostala
while the interior is left plain. Subcutaneous lugs and ma-
izrazito cetinska obilježja su stegnute ručke i istaknuto rav- ssive feet are absent. Other decisively Cetina characteristics
no dno koje je šire od donjega kraja trbuha. are constricted handles and protruding bases that are wider
Široki pehari s dvjema nasuprotnim ručkama znatno su than the bottom part of the vessel.
126
rjeđi (sl. 5: 16–17). Radi se o nevelikim posudama, zapremine Wide beakers with two opposing handles are much le-
od oko jedne litre. Trbuh im je zaobljen, a neizrazito rame ss common (Fig. 5: 16–17). These are relatively small vesse-
postupno prelazi u širok, blago ljevkast vrat. Dvije nasuprot- ls with a volume of about one liter. Their belly is rounded,
no postavljene stegnute ručke povezuju rame s obodom. while their inconspicuous shoulder continues into a wide,
slightly funnel-shaped neck. The two opposing constricted
Svi dobro sačuvani primjerci pronađeni su u gomilama,
handles connect the shoulder to the rim. All of the well-pre-
na nalazištima Bajagić (Marović 1991: sl. 88), Jukića gomile served examples were recovered from burial mounds, at
(Olujić 2012: sl. 11–13a; T. 8–10) i Shtoj (Koka 1985: T. 1: 1). Bajagić, (Marović 1991: Fig. 88), Jukića Gomile (Olujić 2012:
Figs. 11–13a; Pls. 8–10) and Shtoj (Koka 1985: Pl. 1: 1).
Sl. 6 Karakteristični detalji cetinskoga načina ukrašavanja: 1–2, 4, 8, 10–11, 14, 17 Lukovača; 3, 9, 16 Rudine; 5 Zelenovića ogradice; 6 Ba-
jagić; 12 Šparevine; 13, 15 Gomile više lada (sve prema Marović 1991); 7 Jukića gomile (prema Olujić 2012)
Fig. 6 Characteristic details of the Cetina decorative style: 1–2, 4, 8, 10–11, 14, 17 Lukovača; 3, 9, 16 Rudine; 5 Zelenovića Ogradice; 6 Bajagić; 12
Šparevine; 13, 15 Gomile Više Lada (all after Marović 1991); 7 Jukića Gomile (after Olujić 2012)
Ukrašavanje posuđa Vessel decoration

Poput ljubljansko-jadranske, karakteristična cetinska Like Ljubljana-Adriatic pottery, the characteristic Cetina
lončarija također je najčešće ukrašena kombinacijom ure- pottery is usually decorated by a combination of incision
zivanja i utiskivanja, no pritom se za utiskivanje koriste sa- and impression, but only simple tools were used to produce
mo jednostavni alati koji ostavljaju pojedinačne točkaste ili impressions of individual dots and triangles. Comb impre-
trokutaste otiske. Na posuđu karakterističnoga cetinskog ssion does not appear on characteristically shaped Cetina
oblika nema češljastog utiskivanja, što znači da se ne ko- vessels, which means that special tools (such as thin, cord-
riste posebno pripremljeni instrumenti poput tankih letvi- wrapped laths, combs, or coils) were not employed. Deco-
ca omotanih nitima, češljeva ili zavojnica. Ukrašavanje se ration was made by free hand, and was less precisely exe-
izvodi prostoručno i nije tako precizno kao na ljubljansko- cuted than on Ljubljana-Adriatic pottery.
jadranskoj lončariji. Most often, the decoration is organized in horizontal zo-
Ukras je i ovdje najčešće organiziran u vodoravnim nes, but in a manner that differs from Ljubljana-Adriatic zo-
pojasevima, no cetinski pojasevi izgledaju drugačije od nal decoration. Cetina-style zones are delimited by incised
ljubljansko-jadranskih. Razgraničuju ih urezane linije koje lines that girdle the vessel below the rim, at the transition
opasuju posudu ispod oboda, na prijelazu vrata u rame, pri from neck to shoulder, at the widest point of the belly, and
najširem dijelu trbuha te pri vrhu i pri dnu visoke noge, ako at the top and bottom of the pedestal, if there is one. These
127
ona postoji. Te granične linije mogu biti jedini ukras, ili se delimiting lines may be the only decoration, or they may be
uz njih mogu nizati otisci ili urezani prazni trokuti. Na bo- accompanied by a series of impressions or incised triangles.
gatije ukrašenim posudama, pojasevi sadrže različite geo- On richly decorated vessels, the zones contain various geo-
metrijske oblike. Najčešće su to segmenti zakošenih traka ili metric shapes. Among the most common are segments of
prelomljene trake u obliku uspravnoga ili obrnutog slova V, slanted bands, angular V-shape or inverted V-shape bands,
trokuti i rombovi, ili kompozicije sastavljene od takvih traka triangles and lozenges, or designs composed of such ban-
i geometrijskih likova. Plohe omeđene urezivanjem pone- ds and shapes. Areas delimited by incision may be hatched,
kad su šrafirane, no češće su ispunjene točkastim ili troku- but more often they are filled with impressed dots or trian-
tastim otiscima, pri čemu trokutići obično teku u pravilnim gles, with the latter usually distributed in regular rows, whi-
redovima, dok točke mogu biti razasute bez reda po čitavoj le the former may be scattered irregularly across the entire
površini geometrijskoga lika. Uobičajene su i trake sastav- area of the outlined shape. Also common are bands made
ljene od nekoliko uzdužnih, usporedo urezanih linija uz koje of several incised lines oriented lengthwise and sometimes
se također ponekad nižu otisci. Cetinske trake su relativno accompanied by a series of impressions. Compared to the
široke u usporedbi s ranije opisanim ljubljansko-jadranskim Ljubljana-Adriatic bands described above, Cetina-style ban-
trakama. ds are relatively wide.
Linije koje razgraničuju ukrasne pojaseve u pravilu obi- As a rule, the lines that delimit decorative zones cir-
laze i uokviruju donji kraj ručke, lomeći se pod pravim ku- cumvent the lower end of the handle and frame it within
tom (sl. 6: 1–7). Takvo uklapanje ručke u ukrasnu kompozici- a right-angled motif (Fig. 6: 1–7). This kind of integration of
ju specifično je za cetinski stil, kao i urezivanje linija duž oba the handle within the decorative design, as well as the lines
ruba same ručke (sl. 6: 1, 4, 17). Među lako prepoznatljive i incised lengthwise along both sides of the handle itself, are
vrlo karakteristične motive spadaju viseći polukrugovi koji specific traits of the Cetina style (Fig. 6: 1, 4, 17). Among ea-
prekidaju vodoravno pružanje ukrasa. Mogu se sastojati od sily recognizable and very characteristic motifs are hanging
zakrivljene trake sastavljene od nekoliko usporedo ureza- semicircles that interrupt the horizontal flow of decoration.
nih linija ili ispunjene otiscima, ili od polukruga omeđenoga They may consist of a curved band comprised of several
urezivanjem i ispunjenoga otiscima (sl. 6: 9–12). Također su parallel incised lines or filled with impressions, or a semi-
karakteristični rombovi i drugi geometrijski likovi ‘obješeni’ circle outlined by incision and filled with impressions (Fig.
o traku na mjestu gdje se ona lomi pod pravim kutom (sl. 6: 9–12). Also characteristic are lozenges and other geome-
6: 6–7, 13–14) kao i urezani ili utisnuti kružići koji ponekad tric shapes that ‘hang’ from a band at the point where that
‘vise’ poput trešnje na kraju urezane linije (sl. 6: 16–17). Ri- band zigzags at right angles (Fig. 6: 6–7, 13–14), as well as
jedak, ali lako repoznatljiv motiv kratke prelomljene trake s small incised or impressed circles that sometimes ‘hang’ like
vitičastim završecima (sl. 6: 15) također se smatra specifično cherries at the end of an incised line (Fig. 6: 16–17). A rare
cetinskim (Marović, Čović 1983: 211–212; Govedarica 1989b: but easily recognized motif, consisting of a short V-shaped
137), iako je samo u jednom slučaju jasno da se nalazio na segment of an incised band with curled ends (Fig. 6: 15), is
posudi koja donekle nalikuje cetinskom peharu (Dörpfeld also regarded as a specific Cetina trait (Marović, Čović 1983:
1935: T. 22: 1; prilog 25a). 211–212; Govedarica 1989b: 137), although there is only one
case where it is clear that this motif adorned a vessel so-
mewhat resembling a Cetina beaker (Dörpfeld 1935: Pl. 22:
1; Supplement 25a).
On the other hand, certain Cetina motifs do not differ at
all from those on Ljubljana-Adriatic pottery. This is primarily
true for the double series of alternating triangular impressi-
ons that delimit a zigzag pattern, which are common in both
styles. Other decorative designs differ only in the specific
technique of their execution. For example, the characteristi-
cally shaped Ljubljana-Adriatic vessels are sometimes ador-
ned with wide zigzag bands defined by series of alternating
hatched triangles, executed by comb impression (Fig. 7: 1).
Sl. 7 Slične kompozicije izvedene različitim tehnikama ukraša-
vanja: 1 češljastim utiskivanjem na ljubljansko-jadranskoj Almost identical designs can be found on the characteristi-
bikoničnoj zdjelici iz Iga (prema Korošec, Korošec 1969); 2 cally shaped Cetina vessels, except that they are outlined by
urezivanjem i utiskivanjem na nozi cetinske posude iz Zele- incision and filled with triangular impressions (Fig. 7: 2). Like
novića ogradica (prema Marović 1991) Ljubljana-Adriatic pottery, Cetina pottery is marked by the
Fig. 7 Similar designs executed by different decorative techniques: 1 great variability of decorative elements and the freedom of
by comb impression, on a Ljubljana-Adriatic carinated bowl their combination, which creates the impression that each
from Ig (after Korošec, Korošec 1969); 2 by incision and impre-
vessel is unique despite their general similarity.
ssion, on a Cetina pedestalled vessel from Zelenovića Ogradi-
ce (after Marović 1991)
Geographic distribution and site types
S druge strane, pojedini cetinski motivi ničim se ne raz- The density of the sites with Cetina style pottery is
likuju od onih na ljubljansko-jadranskoj lončariji. To ponaj- especially high in a 50-kilometer wide stretch of middle
128
prije vrijedi za dvostruke nizove naizmjeničnih trokutastih Dalmatia’s hinterland between the Krka and Neretva rivers
otisaka koji između sebe stvaraju uski cik-cak uzorak, a uo- (Fig. 8). In some measure, this conspicuous concentration is
bičajeni su za oba stila. Neke druge ukrasne kompozicije a consequence of Marović’s intensive exploration of the bu-
razlikuju se jedino specifičnom tehnikom izrade. Primjerice, rial mounds along the upper reaches of the Cetina River, and
karakteristično oblikovane ljubljansko-jadranske posude of many recent rescue excavations along the route of the
ponekad krase široke cik-cak trake definirane nizovima na- Dalmatian motorway. The characteristic Cetina finds appe-
izmjeničnih šrafiranih trokuta izvedenih češljastim utiski- ar in a much wider area that includes the eastern Adriatic
vanjem (sl. 7: 1). Gotovo identične kompozicije mogu se coast, the islands and the hinterland from the Trieste Karst
naći na karakteristično oblikovanim cetinskim posudama, to Shkodër Lake, as well as eastern Bosnia, southern Italy,
no tada su izvedene urezivanjem i ispunjene trokutastim and the Peloponnese. Some of the lapses in their distributi-
otiscima (sl. 7: 2). Unutar cetinskoga stila također postoji on (e.g. in the Croatian Littoral and Kvarner Bay) may be due
velika raznolikost i sloboda kombiniranja različitih ukrasnih to the low level of research, while others probably reflect
elemenata, pa se i ovdje stječe dojam da je svaka posuda the real situation, like the almost 500-kilometre-wide gap
jedinstvena unatoč njihove općenite međusobne sličnosti. that isolates the group of Peloponnese sites. At Ljubljansko
Barje, the conspicuous absence of Cetina finds cannot be
Zemljopisna rasprostranjenost i tipovi nalazišta accidental, given the extent and intensity of exploration.
Gustoća nalazišta lončarije cetinskog stila naročito je More than a third of the 103 sites that have yielded Ce-
velika u zaleđu srednje Dalmacije, između Krke i Neretve, u tina pottery are mound cemeteries, although one should
pojasu širokom pedesetak kilometara (sl. 8). Ta očita kon- note that human remains were not found in some of the
centracija tek donekle je posljedica Marovićevih intenzivnih mounds. Most of them yielded only a handful of characte-
istraživanja gomila uz gornji tok rijeke Cetine, kao i brojnih ristic sherds, or an isolated vessel. Substantial amounts of
nedavnih zaštitnih iskopavanja na trasi dalmatinske auto- finds were recovered from nine sites, eight of which are
ceste. Karakteristični cetinski nalazi pojavljuju se na znatno located in the upper reaches of the Cetina River: Bajagić, Ba-
širem području koje obuhvaća istočnu obalu, otoke i zaleđe lajića Gomila, Gomile Više Lada, Lukovača, Preočanska Kosa,
Jadrana od Tršćanskoga Krasa do Skadarskoga jezera, zatim Rudine, Šparevine, and Zelenovića Ogradice (Marović 1963;
istočnu Bosnu i južnu Italiju, a ima ih i na Peloponezu. Neke 1976; 1991), while one – Ervenik (Buttler 1932) – is in the
od praznina u njihovoj distribuciji (primjerice, na prostoru upper reaches of the Zrmanja River. Gomile Više Lada, Luko-
Hrvatskoga Primorja i Kvarnerskoga zaljeva) možda bi se vača, and Rudine, all of them located near the source of the
mogle objasniti niskim stupnjem istraženosti, dok su dru- Cetina, yielded particularly abundant Cetina pottery finds.
ge vjerojatno odraz stvarnoga stanja, poput skoro 500 km In most cases, Cetina pottery fragments are scattered
široke praznine koja izolira grupu nalazišta na Peloponezu. haphazardly throughout the mound mantle. Only occasio-
Ističe se odsutnost karakterističnih cetinskih nalaza na Ljub- nally it seems that vessels were deposited near the crema-
ljanskome barju koja, s obzirom na opseg i intenzitet prove- ted remains of the deceased, while even less often there are
denih istraživanja, sigurno nije slučajna. hints that a vessel might have served as an urn. Elsewhere it
Preko trećine od ukupno 103 nalazišta koja su dala ce- seems that the rare Cetina sherds ended up in the mantle by
tinsku lončariju su groblja pod gomilama, pri čemu valja accident, while quite often such sherds are found in the un-
napomenuti da u nekim gomilama nisu pronađeni ostaci derlying soil. Only two cases have been documented where
pokojnika. Iz većine od njih potječe tek šačica karakteristič- Cetina vessels were found within stone burial cists. In both
nih ulomaka ili pojedinačne posude. Znatnija količina nala- cases, these are characteristically decorated wide beakers
za prikupljena je s devet nalazišta, od kojih se osam nalazi with two opposing handles. Two or three such vessels were
uz gornji tok Cetine: Bajagić, Balajića gomila, Gomile više found in Mound 1, Grave 3, at Jukića Gomile in Dalmatinska
lada, Lukovača, Preočanska kosa, Rudine, Šparevine i Zele- Zagora, next to some cremation debris and two inhumati-
novića ogradice (Marović 1963; 1976; 1991) te jedno, Ervenik ons (Olujić 2012: 60, 64, Figs. 11–13; Pls. 8–10). A very similar
(Buttler 1932), uz gornji tok Zrmanje. Obiljem cetinske lon- vessel was found in Mound 6, Grave 14, at Shtoj near Sh-
čarije naročito se ističu Gomile više lada, Lukovača i Rudine, kodër in Albania, next to a contracted inhumation burial
sva tri smještena nedaleko izvora Cetine. (Oikonomidis et al. 2011: 187, Fig. 1: i).
U velikoj većini slučajeva, ulomci cetinske lončarije ra- Caves are the next best represented group, constituting
zasuti su bez reda kroz čitav plašt gomile. Samo ponekad a quarter of all sites. Most of them yielded only a few cha-
se naslućuje da su posude bile odlagane u blizini spaljenih racteristic sherds, or often just a single sherd. Four of the
ostataka pokojnika, a još rjeđe da su neke od njih možda caves, Grotta Dei Ciclami (Gilli, Montagnari Kokelj 1993), Stu-
mogle poslužiti kao urne. Drugdje se čini da su rijetki ce- bica (Brusić 1973), Škarin Samograd (Brusić 1973; Marović,
tinski ulomci slučajno dospjeli u plašt, a prilično često na- Čović 1983), and the Ravlića Cave (Marijanović 1981; 2012),
laze se i u tlu pod gomilom. Dokumentirana su samo dva yielded relatively numerous Cetina finds, but their number
nalaza cetinskih posuda u grobnome sanduku od kamenih never exceeds a few dozen.
ploča. U oba slučaja radi se o karakteristično ukrašenim ši- The open-air settlement sites are just as common as the
rokim peharima s dvjema nasuprotnim ručkama. Dvije ili tri cave sites. Nine out of 25 are hillforts, while we know next
takve posude pronađene su u grobu 3 gomile 1 na nalazištu to nothing about the rest. The lake dwellings of Ljubljan-
Jukića gomile u Dalmatinskoj Zagori, uz tragove paljevine i sko Barje are an exception, but they yielded only a few finds
129
Sl. 8 Karta rasprostiranja lončarije cetinskoga stila:

Fig. 8 Distribution map of the Cetina pottery style:
1 nepoznato nalazište (napuljski muzej) / unknown site (Museo di Napoli); 2 Casal Sabini; 3 Coppa Nevigata; 4 Fonti S. Callisto; 5 Fos-
sa Aimone; 6 Laterza; 7 Masseria Fontanarosa; 8 Navelli; 9 Pisciulo; 10 Popoli; 11 Pulo di Altamura; 12 Rodi Garganico; 13 Rutigliano;
14 Monte Mezzana; 15 Montesei di Serso; 16 Grotta Caterina; 17 Grotta Cotariova; 18 Grotta degli Zingari; 19 Grotta dei Ciclami; 20
Grotta del Mitreo; 21 Grotta della Tartaruga; 22 Grotta delle Gallerie; 23 Grotta Teresiana; 24 Acijev spodmol; 25 Ig; 26 Založnica; 27
Marlera; 28 Monkodonja; 29 Uvala Marić; 30 Jami na Sredi; 31 Bajagić; 32 Balajića gomila; 33 Bašćina; 34 Efendići; 35 Gomile više lada;
36 Lukovača; 37 Preočanska kosa; 38 Rudine; 39 Šparevine; 40 Zelenovića ogradice; 41 Begovići; 42 Biskupija; 43 Ervenik; 44 Jukića
gomile; 45 Kovačina; 46 Kruške; 47 Mali Mosor; 48 Matijin dolac–gomile; 49 Ograđe; 50 Podi; 51 Samogorska špilja; 52 Sridnja gora;
53 Unešić; 54 Vlake; 55 Vrba; 56 Zagomilje 2; 57 Gaj; 58 Mala glavica; 59 Mrdakovica; 60 Poljakuše; 61 Stanine; 62 Stubica; 63 Škarin
samograd; 64 Tradanj; 65 Vreline; 66 Zaton; 67 Bubnjavača; 68 Grapčeva spilja; 69 Kopačina; 70 Markova spilja; 71 Gudnja; 72 Spila
(Nakovana); 73 Vela spila; 74 Grabovica; 75 Krstina; 76 Orlov kuk; 77 Ravlića pećina; 78 Trostruka gradina; 79 Varvara; 80 Hateljska
pećina; 81 Lazaruša; 82 Ljubomir; 83 Orah; 84 Zelena Pećina; 85 Alihodže; 86 Gradac; 87 Pod; 88 Borci; 89 Ferizovići; 90 Rusanovići;
91 Vrtanjak; 92 Anište; 93 Velika gruda; 94 Vranjaj; 95 Gajtan; 96 Shkrel; 97 Shtoj; 98 Andravida-Lechaina; 99 Korakou; 100 Lerna; 101
Olympia; 102 Zygouries; 103 Salamandrija
130
ostatke dvaju inhumiranih pokojnika (Olujić 2012: 60, 64, sl. reminiscent of the Cetina style. Generally speaking, most
11–13; T. 8–10). Vrlo slična posuda pronađena je u grobu 14 of the pottery from the settlements may be described as
gomile 6 na nalazištu Shtoj nedaleko Skadra u Albaniji, uz similar to Cetina style pottery or reminiscent of it, while
ostatke pokojnika inhumiranog u zgrčenom položaju (Oiko- very characteristic examples of Cetina pottery are rather
nomidis et al. 2011: 187, sl. 1: i). rare. Interestingly, the relatively greatest quantity of such
Sljedeće po zastupljenosti su špilje koje čine četvrtinu pottery (several complete vessels and several dozen sherds,
od svih nalazišta. Iz većine od njih prikupljeno je tek nekoli- including some very characteristic ones) was recovered
ko karakterističnih ulomaka, nerijetko samo po jedan. Iz špi- from two sites on the Peloponnese, Lerna (Rutter 1982) and
lja Grotta dei Ciclami (Gilli, Montagnari Kokelj 1993), Stubica Olympia (Dörpfeld 1935), which probably reflects their tho-
(Brusić 1973), Škarin samograd (Brusić 1973; Marović, Čović rough exploration. All other settlement sites yielded only
1983) i Ravlića pećina (Marijanović 1981; 2012) potječe nešto isolated characteristic sherds.
veći broj cetinskih nalaza, no niti iz jedne od njih nije objav- In Apulia, Cetina style pottery was recovered from three
ljeno više od par desetaka ulomaka. repeatedly used rock-cut burial chambers. The beakers
Nalazišta naseobinskoga tipa na otvorenom podjedna- from burial contexts in Laterza (Biancofiore 1967; Marović
ko su brojna kao i špilje. Devet od njih ukupno 25 su gradi- 1975) and Pisciulo (Cataldo 1996) are particularly characte-
ne, dok o preostalim nalazištima na otvorenom ne znamo ristic, while the finds from the Casal Sabini burial (Cataldo
gotovo ništa, ako zanemarimo sojeničarska naselja na Ljub- 1996; Maran 2007) are only reminiscent of Cetina. Finally,
ljanskom barju, odakle je prikupljeno tek nekoliko nalaza the special-purpose site at Salamandrija on Palagruža,
koji podsjećaju na cetinski stil. Općenito govoreći, većina which yielded a large number of Cetina potsherds, belongs
lončarije iz naseobinskih nalazišta može se opisati kao bli- to a category of its own (Forenbaher 2018).
ska ili donekle nalik cetinskoj, dok su izrazito karakteristični
primjerci cetinskoga stila rijetki. Zanimljivo je da je relativno Spatial and temporal variability
najveća količina takve lončarije (nekoliko cijelih posuda i The Cetina pottery style is fairly uniform across a large
više desetaka ulomaka među kojima ima i vrlo karakteris- area. The majority of characteristic finds is concentrated in
tičnih) prikupljena iz dva nalazišta na Peloponezu, Lerne middle Dalmatia, but equally characteristic Cetina pottery
(Rutter 1982) i Olimpije (Dörpfeld 1935), što je vjerojatno appears from the Trieste Karst to the Peloponnese, and
posljedica njihove temeljite istraženosti. Sa svih ostalih na- from Apulia to Bosnia. Spatial variability is manifested pri-
seobinskih nalazišta potječu tek pojedinačni karakteristični marily by the fact that characteristic Cetina finds are rare in
ulomci. peripheral areas, where most of the Cetina-like finds are not
Posuđe cetinskoga stila pronađeno je u Apuliji u tri više- particularly characteristic, or display peculiar variants of de-
kratno korištene grobne komore usječene u stijenu. Naroči- coration and shape. As opposed to the ‘Ljubljana culture’,
to karakteristični su pehari iz grobnica u Laterzi (Biancofiore nobody has attempted to split the ‘Cetina culture’ regio-
1967; Marović 1975) i Pisciulu (Cataldo 1996), dok iz grobni- nally. Instead, a separate ‘Posušje culture’ was proposed for
ce Casal Sabini (Cataldo 1996; Maran 2007) potječu nalazi the Dalmatian hinterland, with an early ‘Nečajno phase’ that
tek donekle nalik cetinskim. Napokon, Salamandrija na Pa- would be contemporaneous to the ‘Cetina culture’ (Čović
lagruži pripada zasebnoj kategoriji kao nalazište posebne 1989). The assertion that those two cultures ‘…not only are
namjene s kojega je prikupljen velik broj ulomaka cetinske synchronous, but also coexistent… since their distribution
lončarije (Forenbaher 2018). areas… coincide geographically’ (Čović 1989: 93) ceases to
be problematic if one talks about Cetina and Posušje styles
Prostorna i vremenska raznolikost instead of cultures.
Cetinski lončarski stil prilično je ujednačen na velikom I. Marović and B. Čović proposed a tripartite division of
području. Većina karakterističnih nalaza koncentrirana je u the ‘Cetina culture’ (Marović, Čović 1983: 196–199). Their
srednjoj Dalmaciji, no podjednako karakteristična cetinska first phase is marked by a mixture of Ljubljana-Adriatic and
lončarija pojavljuje se na nalazištima od Tršćanskoga Krasa Cetina pottery (most of it modestly decorated and not quite
do Peloponeza i od Apulije do istočne Bosne. Prostorna raz- characteristic), the second phase is marked by characteri-
nolikost očituje se ponajviše time što su u perifernim po- stically decorated and shaped Cetina style pottery, while
dručjima karakteristični cetinski nalazi razmjerno rijetki u the third phase is marked by mostly plain pottery of the
odnosu na lončariju koja je bliska cetinskoj, ali nije izrazito developed Bronze Age, accompanied by occasional sherds
karakteristična, ili se odlikuje osebujnim varijantama ukrasa decorated in a Cetina manner. B. Govedarica essentially
i oblika. Za razliku od ‘ljubljanske kulture’, za sada nitko nije agreed with that division. His ‘Protocetina facies’ (Goveda-
pokušao regionalno podijeliti ‘cetinsku kulturu’. U zaleđu rica 1989b: 113–121) corresponds to the first phase of the
Dalmacije predložena je umjesto toga zasebna ‘posuška ‘Cetina culture’ as defined by Marović and Čović, his ‘Cetina
kultura’ čija bi najstarija ‘faza Nečajno’ bila istovremena s culture’ in the narrow sense (Govedarica 1989b: 129–138)
‘cetinskom kulturom’ (Čović 1989). Tvrdnja da su te dvije kul- corresponds to their second phase, while their third phase
ture ‘…ne samo sinhrone, već i koegzistentne… jer se njiho- is perceived by Govedarica at the earliest phase of his ‘Dina-
va područja rasprostiranja… geografski podudaraju’ (Čović ric culture’ of the developed Bronze Age (Govedarica 1989b:
1989: 93) prestaje biti problematičnom ukoliko umjesto o 145–147). Most researchers have accepted one of these di-
kulturama govorimo o cetinskom i posuškom stilu. visions (e.g., Marijanović 1991: 240; 1997). In contrast, in my
131
I. Marović i B. Čović predložili su podjelu ‘cetinske kul- earlier writings I have used the terms ‘first phase of Cetina
ture’ na tri stupnja (Marović, Čović 1983: 196–199). Njihovu culture’ (Forenbaher, Kaiser 1997: 18; Kaiser, Forenbaher
prvu fazu obilježava mješavina ljubljansko-jadranske i ce- 1999: 315), ‘early Cetina’ (Forenbaher, Kaiser 2008: 62), and
tinske lončarije (većinom, skromnije ukrašenih ili ne posve the ‘early Cetina style’ (Forenbaher 2011: 691) as synonyms
karakterističnih cetinskih nalaza), drugu fazu obilježava ka- for the ‘Adriatic type of the Ljubljana culture’, that is, for Lju-
rakteristično ukrašeno i oblikovano cetinsko posuđe, dok bljana-Adriatic pottery.
treću fazu čini pretežno neukrašena lončarija razvijenog Unfortunately, both aforementioned temporal divisions
brončanog doba uz pokoji ulomak ukrašen na cetinski na- of the ‘Cetina culture’ rely heavily on dubious associations
čin. B. Govedarica se u suštini složio s takvom podjelom. of finds from burial mounds, and unsound, often badly
Njegov ‘protocetinski facijes’ (Govedarica 1989b: 113–121) documented cave stratigraphies, as already noted on seve-
odgovara prvom stupnju ‘cetinske kulture’ po Maroviću i ral occasions (Della Casa 1995: 570–571; 1996: 128–131; Fo-
Čoviću, njegova ‘cetinska kultura’ u užem smislu (Goveda- renbaher, Kaiser 1997: 18; Velušček 1999: 69). The absence
rica 1989b: 129–138) odgovara njihovom drugom stupnju, of reliable information about context and association has
dok njihov treći stupanj Govedarica vidi kao najraniju fazu been substituted with the unwarranted assumption that
‘dinarske kulture’ razvijenoga brončanog doba (Govedarica any style must ‘evolve’ from a modest, simple and less cha-
1989b: 145–147). Jednu ili drugu podjelu prihvatila je većina racteristic form to an opulent, complex and characteristic
istraživača (primjerice, Marijanović 1991: 240; 1997). Za razli- form, and end in degeneration. A detailed discussion of
ku od njih, pisac ovih redaka u svojim je dosadašnjim rado- these problems follows later in this chapter, related to the
vima koristio izraze ‘prva faza cetinske kulture’ (Forenbaher, dating of the pottery styles.
Kaiser 1997: 18; Kaiser, Forenbaher 1999: 315), ‘rana Cetina’ Here, it suffices to say that an ‘early Cetina’ or ‘Protoceti-
(Forenbaher, Kaiser 2008: 62) i ‘ranocetinski stil’ (Forenbaher na’ style that would be clearly distinguishable from Ljublja-
2011: 691) kao sinonime za ‘jadranski tip ljubljanske kulture’, na-Adriatic and Cetina styles, while fitting chronologically
odnosno ljubljansko-jadransku lončariju. between them, has not yet been defined convincingly. In
Nažalost, obje spomenute vremenske podjele ‘cetin-
its stead, there are assemblages containing both Ljubljana-
ske kulture’ najvećim se dijelom temelje na dvojbenim
Adriatic and Cetina pottery, but not in a single case can one
asocijacijama nalaza iz gomila te nesigurnim i često loše
be certain whether that is a consequence of their contem-
dokumentiranim stratigrafijama špilja, na što se već u vi-
poraneity, disturbance of deposit, or inappropriate exca-
še navrata upozoravalo (Della Casa 1995: 570–571; 1996:
vation technique. While eventually it might prove possible
128–131; Forenbaher, Kaiser 1997: 18; Velušček 1999: 69).
to discern diachronic variability within the Cetina style, cu-
Nedostatak pouzdanih informacija o kontekstu i asocijaciji
rrently there is no hard evidence for it.
nadomješten je nezajamčenom pretpostavkom da stil mora
‘evoluirati’ od skromnijega, jednostavnijeg i manje karakte-
rističnog prema raskošnijem, složenijem i karakterističnom Other kinds of decorated pottery
te završiti degeneracijom. Podrobna rasprava tih problema Fragments decorated by coarse incision, furchenstich
slijedi u nastavku ovog poglavlja, vezano uz datiranje lon- (stab-and-drag style incisions), and cord impression are fo-
čarskih stilova. und occasionally together with Ljubljana-Adriatic or Cetina
Na ovom mjestu dovoljno je reći da ‘ranocetinski’ ili style pottery.
‘protocetinski’ lončarski stil, koji bi vremenski stajao između
ljubljansko-jadranskog i cetinskog stila te se jasno razlikovao Coarse incision
od njih, zasad nije uvjerljivo definiran. Postoje jedino This is a specific kind of incision that is sometimes com-
skupovi nalaza u kojima se ljubljansko-jadranska i cetinska bined with impression, but in contrast to decorative tech-
lončarija pojavljuju zajedno, no pritom se niti u jednome niques described above, it is executed by a relatively cru-
slučaju ne može sa sigurnošću reći je li to posljedica njihove de and blunt instrument, such as a wooden stick or lath.
istovremenosti, poremećenosti konteksta ili neprimjerene Pottery decorated in this manner is usually called žlijebljena
tehnike iskopavanja. Možda će se s vremenom pokazati keramika (Čović 1991a), the Croatian word žlijeb meaning
da unutar cetinskoga stila postoje dijakronijske razlike, gutter or channel.
no zasad nema čvrstih argumenata koji bi poduprli takvu Coarse incised decoration usually consists of several
pretpostavku. wide horizontal bands that run around the vessel. Each
band may consist of densely packed incised lines orien-
Druge vrste ukrašene lončarije ted lengthwise, crosswise, or at an angle to the band, of
Zajedno s lončarijom ljubljansko-jadranskoga ili ce- diamond lattice incision, alternating hatched triangles, or
tinskog stila ponekad se nalaze ulomci ukrašeni grubim other geometric shapes (Fig. 9). Series of round, elongated,
žlijebljenjem, brazdastim urezivanjem te utiskivanjem usu- or triangular impressions sometimes accompany the band,
kanoga konopčića. and there are also bands filled by alternating impressions.
Combinations of these motifs may constitute complex ge-
Grubo žljebljenje ometric designs. Incrustation that enhanced the decorative
Zapravo se radi o urezivanju koje se ponekad kombi- design has been preserved in a few cases. The only ascerta-
nira s utiskivanjem, no za razliku od ranije opisane tehnike ined vessel shape is a round-bellied jar with a low neck that
ukrašavanja, izvodi se pomoću nekoga razmjerno tupog i is cylindrical or slightly funnel-shaped (Fig. 10). The shoul-
132
grubog alata poput drvenoga štapića ili letvice. Tako ukra-

šeno posuđe obično se naziva žljebljenom keramikom (Čo-
vić 1991a). U skladu s tim običajem, ovdje će se koristiti izraz
‘grubo žljebljenje’ kako bi se taj ukras jasno razlikovao od
finoga žljebljenja (plitkih i glatkih žljebova izvedenih u pro-
sušenoj glini) koje obilježava neke druge, ranije lončarske
stilove.
Grubo žljebljeni ukras obično je sastavljen od nekoliko
poširokih vodoravnih traka koje opasuju posudu. Trake se
mogu sastojati od uzdužnih linija urezanih gusto jedna do
druge, mogu biti ispunjene kosim ili poprečnim urezima,
mrežastim šrafiranjem, naizmjence koso šrafiranim troku- Sl. 9 Ulomci lončarije ukrašeni grubim žljebljenjem iz Vele spi-
tima ili drugim geometrijskim likovima (sl. 9). Ponekad ih le na Korčuli, iz sloja obilježenoga ljubljansko-jadranskom
prate nizovi okruglih, dugoljastih ili trokutastih otisaka, a lončarijom
pojavljuju se i trake ispunjene naizmjeničnim otiscima. Spo- Fig. 9 Fragments of coarse incised pottery from the Vela Cave on
menuti motivi mogu se kombinirati u složenije geometrij- Korčula, from the context marked by Ljubljana-Adriatic
pottery
ske kompozicije. U pojedinim slučajevima sačuvala se inkru-
stacija koja je isticala ukrasni motiv. Jedini sigurno utvrđen
oblik posude je trbušasti lončić kuglastoga tijela i niskoga der sometimes has wide, horizontally pierced lugs, or short
prstenastog ili blago ljevkastoga vrata (sl. 10). Na ramenu vertical strap handles. As a rule, decoration runs around the
može imati široke, vodoravno probušene supkutane ušice neck and shoulder, often continuing across lugs or handles.
ili kratke uspravne trakaste ručke. Ukras u pravilu obuhvaća The geographic distribution of the coarse incised
vrat i rame te često teče preko ušice ili ručke. pottery (Fig. 11) is restricted to Dalmatia and Herzegovina,
including the islands, the coast, and a wide swath of the hin-
terland. Beyond that area, only a few finds have been publis-
hed from Montenegro, from Odmut (Marković 1985: Pl. 27:
2, 5; 28: 4, 6–8; 29: 8) and Spila near Perast (Marković 1985: Pl.
19: 1), and a couple from Istria, from the Pupićina Cave (Huli-
na et al. 2012: Pl. 4: 6) and Cingarela (Baćić 1956: Pl. 6: 3). Half
of the total of 33 sites is caves, but most of them have only
a few published sherds, and frequently just a single one. A
somewhat larger quantity of finds was recovered from four
caves: the Vela Cave on Korčula (Čečuk, Radić 2005: sl. 42; Pl.
85–86; 91: 1–5, 7; 92: 6; 94: 7, 10, 14) and Gudnja (Marijanović
2005: Figs. 23–26, Pls. 42–47) in southern Dalmatia, and the
Sl. 10 Karakteristična lončarija ukrašena grubim žljebljenjem: 1
Ravlića Cave (Marijanović 1981: Pl. 36: 1, 3; 2012: Pl. 67: 1–8;
Otišić (prema Milošević, Govedarica 1986); 2 Gomile više
lada (prema Marović, Čović 1983) 70: 1–2) and Lazaruša (Marijanović 2000: Pl. 5–6; 7: 1, 3, 5;
Fig. 10 Characteristic coarse incised pottery: 1 Otišić (after Milošević, 8: 6; 2003: Pl. 24; 25: 1, 3, 5; 26: 6) in Herzegovina. Coarse
Govedarica 1986); 2 Gomile Više Lada (after Marović, Čović incised pottery was also found in burial mounds at ten sites,
1983) but these are almost always isolated potsherds that were
recovered from the mantle. An exception is a complete little
Zemljopisna rasprostranjenost grubo žljebljene lončari- jar from the mantle of Mound 3 at Gomile Više Lada (Maro-
je (sl. 11) ograničena je na Dalmaciju i Hercegovinu te uklju- vić 1991: Fig. 73: 2). This kind of pottery was also recovered
čuje otoke, obalu i širok pojas zaleđa. Izvan toga područja from five open-air settlement sites, including three hillforts
objavljeno je samo nekoliko nalaza iz Crne Gore, iz Odmuta and two sites in small karstic dolines. A larger number of
(Marković 1985: T. 27: 2, 5; 28: 4, 6–8; 29: 8) i Spile kod Perasta finds was recovered only from Vrtača 1 at Otišić (Milošević,
(Marković 1985: T. 19: 1), te dva ulomka iz Istre, iz Pupićine Govedarica 1986: Pl. 1: 1, 3; 2: 1–4, 7, 9–10, 13; 3: 1, 7), and
peći (Hulina et al. 2012: T. 4: 6) i Cingarele (Baćić 1956: T. 6: from the Sveti Spas hillfort in Knin (Buttler 1933: Pl. 32: 1;
3). Polovica od ukupno 33 nalazišta su špilje, no iz većine od Korošec 1962: Pl. 7).
njih objavljen je tek poneki ulomak, često samo po jedan. The coarse incised pottery shares many traits with the
Nešto veća količina nalaza prikupljena je iz četiri špilje od Ljubljana-Adriatic style. Their jar shapes are almost iden-
kojih su dvije u južnoj Dalmaciji, Vela spila na Korčuli (Čečuk, tical, while the decorative motifs and compositions are si-
Radić 2005: sl. 42; T. 85–86; 91: 1–5, 7; 92: 6; 94: 7, 10, 14) i milar to the Ljubljana-Adriatic ones, although they consist
Gudnja (Marijanović 2005: sl. 23–26; T. 42–47), a dvije u Her- of larger elements and are more roughly executed. Coarse
cegovini, Ravlića pećina (Marijanović 1981: T. 36: 1, 3; 2012: incised pottery was found together with Ljubljana-Adriatic
T. 67: 1–8; 70: 1–2) i Lazaruša (Marijanović 2000: T. 5–6; 7: 1, pottery at the only three stratified cave sites where Ljublja-
3, 5; 8: 6; 2003: T. 24; 25: 1, 3, 5; 26: 6). Grubo žljebljena lon- na-Adriatic levels and Cetina levels can be set apart clearly
čarija pronađena je i u gomilama na deset nalazišta, no radi – at Gudnja (Marijanović 2005), the Ravlića Cave (Marijano-
133
Sl. 11 Karta rasprostiranja grubo žljebljene lončarije:

Fig. 11 Distribution map of coarse incised pottery:
1 Cingarela; 2 Pupićina peć; 3 Gomile više lada; 4 Lukovača; 5 Otišić; 6 Rudine; 7 Šparevine; 8 Eraci; 9 Kovačina; 10 Kruške; 11 Matijin
dolac–vrtača; 12 Ograđe; 13 Sveti Spas; 14 Tradanj; 15 Ulnovac; 16 Vaganačka pećina; 17 Bubnjavača; 18 Grapčeva spilja; 19 Gudnja;
20 Spila (Nakovana); 21 Vela spila; 22 Vilina pećina; 23 Grabovica; 24 Ravlića pećina; 25 Varvara; 26 Badanj; 27 Gornje Banje; 28 Guv-
nine; 29 Hateljska pećina; 30 Lazaruša; 31 Zelena Pećina; 32 Odmut; 33 Spila (Perast)
se gotovo uvijek o pojedinačnim ulomcima prikupljenima vić 2012), and the Vela Cave on Korčula (Čečuk, Radić 2005),
iz plašta gomile. Iznimka je cijeli lončić iz Gomila više lada, as well as at the Varvara hillfort at the source of the Rama
iz plašta gomile 3 (Marović 1991: sl. 73: 2). Takva lončarija (Čović 1978: Pl. 5: 4–5). Aside from that, it is present at ten
također je prikupljena s pet naseobinskih nalazišta na otvo- other sites that contained Ljubljana-Adriatic pottery only,
renome, uključujući tri gradine i dva nalazišta u vrtačama. the most important of which is Otišić (Milošević, Govedarica
Veći broj nalaza prikupljen je samo iz Vrtače 1 u Otišiću (Mi- 1986). Finally, coarse incised pottery was found in only three
lošević, Govedarica 1986: T. 1: 1, 3; 2: 1–4, 7, 9–10, 13; 3: 1, 7) burial mounds that contained Cetina pottery only: Mound
i s gradine Sveti Spas u Kninu (Buttler 1933: T. 32: 1; Korošec 3 at Gomile Više Lada and Mound 68 at Lukovača, both at
1962: T. 7). the source of the Cetina River (Marović 1991: Fig. 44: 5; 73:
Grubo žljebljena lončarija po mnogočemu je bliska 2) and at Grabovica near Tomislavgrad (Marović 1980: Fig.
ljubljansko-jadranskome stilu. Oblici lončića gotovo su 6: 1, 6). It is not surprising, therefore, that the coarse inci-
identični, a motivi i kompozicija nalikuju ljubljansko-jadran- sed pottery is sometimes regarded as a constituent part of
skim, iako su sastavljeni od krupnijih elemenata i znatno the ‘Adriatic type of Ljubljana culture’ (Milošević, Goveda-
grublje izvedeni. Takva lončarija pronađena je zajedno s lju- rica 1986: 67; Govedarica 1989b: 103–105; for an alternate
bljansko-jadranskom na sva tri višeslojna špiljska nalazišta view, see Marijanović 1991: 224, 235; 2000: 156). If their ge-
u kojima se ljubljansko-jadranski nalazi mogu stratigrafski ographic distributions coincided, one might say that these
odijeliti od cetinskih, u Gudnji (Marijanović 2005), Ravli- were the coarse products of the Ljubljana-Adriatic pottery
134
ća pećini (Marijanović 2012) i Veloj spili na Korčuli (Čečuk, style. In northern Adriatic and Slovenia, however, the coarse
Radić 2005), kao i na gradini Varvari na vrelu Rame (Čović incised pottery is virtually absent. Its distribution coincides
1978: T. 5: 4–5). Osim toga je prisutna na još deset nalazi- better with the main concentration of the Cetina style finds,
šta s isključivo ljubljansko-jadranskom lončarijom, od kojih which is probably not accidental.
je najvažnije Otišić (Milošević, Govedarica 1986). Napokon,
grubo žljebljena lončarija nađena je u samo tri gomile koje Furchenstich incision
su uz nju sadržavale isključivo cetinsku lončariju: u Gomi- A line produced by furchenstich incision (in Croatian,
lama više lada (gomila 3) i Lukovači (gomila 68) kod vrela brazdasto urezivanje) consists of a series of short overlap-
Cetine (Marović 1991: sl. 44: 5; 73: 2) te Grabovici kod Tomi- ping incisions, where the beginning and end of each incisi-
slavgrada (Marović 1980: sl. 6: 1, 6). Zbog svega navedenog, on is clearly visible (Fig. 12). It is made by a sharp instrument
nije neobično da se takvo posuđe ponekad smatra sastav- and sometimes contains traces of incrustation. Pottery
nim dijelom ‘jadranskoga tipa ljubljanske kulture’ (Miloše- decorated in this manner is relatively common in caves of
vić, Govedarica 1986: 67; Govedarica 1989b: 103–105; za the Karst and is very well known from the lake dwellings of
suprotno mišljenje, Marijanović 1991: 224, 235; 2000: 156). Ljubljansko Barje, where it tends to be assigned to Vučedol
Kada bi se njihove zemljopisne distribucije poklapale, rekli or Vinkovci-Somogyvár pottery styles (Dimitrijević 1967;
bismo da se radi o grubim proizvodima ljubljansko-jadran- 1979a; Parzinger 1984; Šavel, Sankovič 2010; Velušček, Čufar
skoga lončarskog stila. Međutim, na sjevernom Jadranu i u 2014). At those sites, furchenstich incision may adorn vessels
Sloveniji gotovo da i nema grubo žljebljene lončarije. Njena of various shapes, including many open bowls with a wide
distribucija bolje se poklapa s glavnom koncentracijom na- rim and several round-bellied jars whose shapes, decorati-
lazišta lončarije cetinskoga stila, što vjerojatno nije slučajno. ve motifs and compositions closely resemble the Ljubljana-
Adriatic style.
Brazdasto urezivanje With the exception of the Karst, furchenstich incision is
Linija izvedena brazdastim urezivanjem sastoji se od ni- rare in the wider eastern Adriatic region. Isolated fragments
za međusobno preklapajućih kratkih ureza, pri čemu je po- of this kind were recovered from just a few widely scattered
četak i kraj svakoga ureza jasno vidljiv (sl. 12). Napravljena je caves and burial mounds. The scarce contextual informati-
nekim oštrim instrumentom i u njoj ponekad ima tragova on suggests that they belong to the third millennium BC,
inkrustacije. Posuđe ukrašeno ovom tehnikom razmjerno se but it does not allow unequivocal association with either
često nalazi u špiljama Krasa, a naročito je dobro poznato Ljubljana-Adriatic or Cetina style pottery. The motif of a
iz sojeničarskih naselja Ljubljanskoga barja, gdje se obično V-shaped band with curled ends, executed by furchenstich
povezuje s vučedolskim ili vinkovačko-somogyvárskim lon- incision, appears on several potsherds from Mound 3 at Go-
čarskim stilovima (Dimitrijević 1967; 1979a; Parzinger 1984; mile Više Lada, and maybe also on those from Škarin Samo-
Šavel, Sankovič 2010; Velušček, Čufar 2014). Na tim nalazišti- grad (Marović, Čović 1983: Pl. 29: 6, 10; 31: 11; Govedarica
ma, brazdasto urezivanje može krasiti posude različitih obli- 1989b: Pl. 28: 5; 31: 6).
ka. Među njima su brojne otvorene zdjele širokoga oboda
i nekoliko trbušastih lončića koji su svojim oblikom te mo- Cord impression
tivima i kompozicijom ukrasa bliski ljubljansko-jadranskom This kind of decoration consists of a series of short, slan-
stilu. ted and rounded impressions that follow each other at an
angle of about 45° in straight or curving lines (Fig. 13). This is
often referred to as Schnurkeramik or Litzenkeramik. Accor-
ding to Čović, the decoration on Schnurkeramik (in Croa-
tian, vrpčasta keramika) would have been created by cord
impression, while the decoration on Litzenkeramik would
have been produced by pressing a more complex woven or
knitted textile against the wet and soft vessel surface (Čović
1980: 35, 41, footnote 1). Experiments have shown, however,
that both of these decorations can be produced easily by
impressing a twisted double cord (Grömer, Kern 2010; Leg-
hissa 2015: 284–285). In the first case, such a cord is used
Sl. 12 Ulomak lončarije ukrašen brazdastim urezivanjem iz Vele individually, while in the second case, one or two cords are
spile na Korčuli, iz sloja obilježenog ljubljansko-jadranskom impressed repeatedly in such a manner that their impre-
lončarijom ssions create a band. The remains of twisted double cords
Fig. 12 A fragment of pottery decorated by furchenstich incision from have been recovered from the lake dwellings at Ljubljansko
the Vela Cave on Korčula, from a context marked by Ljubljana- Barje (Leghissa 2015: Fig. 3: 2). Careful examination of impre-
Adriatic pottery
ssed band decorations indicated that these could not have
been created by woven or knitted textiles, since their radi-
Izuzev na Krasu, brazdasto urezivanje je rijetko na širem cally different structures would be evident in impressions.
prostoru istočnoga Jadrana. Pojedinačni ulomci prikupljeni Only parts of motifs were preserved in most cases. Stra-
su iz samo nekoliko raštrkanih špilja i gomila. Skromni po- ight and wavy bands composed of several parallel cord im-
135
daci o njihovom kontekstu upućuju na pripadnost trećem pressions predominate. They usually run horizontally, but
tisućljeću prije Krista, no najčešće ne dozvoljavaju nedvoj- sometimes they are vertical, slanted, or extended along a
beno povezivanje s lončarijom ljubljansko-jadranskoga ili strap handle. Series of hatched triangles and circles placed
cetinskog stila. Motiv prelomljene trake s vitičastim zavr- between the bands are less common. In a few cases, cord
šecima, koji se ponekad smatra specifičnim za cetinski stil, impression is combined with small impressed circles, trian-
izveden je brazdastim urezivanjem na nekoliko ulomaka iz gles, dots, or ovals. Incrustation filling the motif was preser-
Gomila više lada (gomila 3), a možda i na onima iz Škarinoga ved in rare examples. Only a few finds hint at the shapes of
samograda (Marović, Čović 1983: T. 29: 6, 10; 31: 11; Goveda- vessels that were decorated in this manner. Among them
rica 1989b: T. 28: 5; 31: 6). are deep bowls with a spheroid, slightly flattened body and
Sl. 13 Ulomci lončarije ukrašeni utiskivanjem uzice iz Trostruke gradine u Sovićima (prema Marović, Čović 1983)
Fig. 13 Fragments of pottery decorated by cord impression from Trostruka Gradina at Sovići (after Marović, Čović 1983)
Utiskivanje uzice a severely restricted mouth (Čović 1980: Fig. 1: 1–4), deep
Radi se o ukrasu sastavljenome od kratkih zakošenih i bowls with a rounded belly, a slightly restricted mouth, and
zaobljenih otisaka koji se nižu jedan do drugoga pod ku- a double vertically pierced lug at the rim (Marijanović 2000:
tom od oko 45°, tvoreći ravne ili zavojite linije (sl. 13). Za tako Fig. 8; 2005: Fig. 30), as well as jars with a vaguely marked
ukrašenu lončariju često se koriste izrazi ‘Schnur-keramika’ shoulder and a slightly restricted neck (Korošec, Korošec
i ‘Litzen-keramika’. Prema Čoviću, ukras na Schnur-kerami- 1969: Pl. 7: 10; Gilli, Montagnari Kokelj 1993: Fig. 37: 362).
ci (ili vrpčastoj keramici) izvodio bi se utiskivanjem uzice, a Relatively few cord-impressed fragments have been pu-
na Litzen-keramici utiskivanjem nekoga složenijeg tkanog blished from the wider eastern Adriatic region. They were
ili pletenog tekstilnog proizvoda u vlažnu i meku površinu recovered from seventeen sites, most of them in the Dalma-
posude (Čović 1980: 35, 41, bilješka 1). Eksperimentiranje je, tian hinterland (Dalmatinska Zagora and Herzegovina). Five
međutim, pokazalo da se oba spomenuta ukrasa lako mo- or more fragments have been published only from Trostru-
gu izvesti utiskivanjem uzice napravljene uvijanjem dvije ka Gradina (Oreč 1978: Pl. 17: 13–14; Čović 1989: Pl. 10: 1–7;
predene niti (Grömer, Kern 2010; Leghissa 2015: 284–285). 11: 1–8), Pod (Čović 1991b: Pl. 14: 3, 8; 19: 8; 20: 6; 25: 1–4),
U prvom slučaju se takva uzica utiskuje sama za sebe, a u the Ravlića Cave (Marijanović 2012: Pls. 85–86), and Lazaruša
drugom se jedna ili dvije uzice utiskuju više puta usporedo, (Marijanović 2000: Figs. 6–8; Pl. 7: 4; Pl. 8: 1, 4). Aside from
tako da njihovi otisci čine traku. Ostaci uzica od dvije niti these, there are a few finds from the lake dwellings at Lju-
pronađeni su na sojeničarskim naseljima Ljubljanskoga bar- bljansko Barje and a couple of caves in the Karst. With the
ja (Leghissa 2015: sl. 3: 2), dok pažljivo ispitivanje trakastih exception of finds from the Gudnja Cave (Marijanović 2005:
uzoraka ukazuje da se ne može raditi o tkanom ili pletenom Fig. 30), none have been reported so far from the coast and
tekstilu jer bi njihove bitno drugačije strukture bile prepo- the islands.
znatljive u otiscima. Cord-impressed potsherds appear in quite diverse con-
U većini slučajeva sačuvani su samo dijelovi motiva. Pre- texts, including those marked by Ljubljana-Adriatic pottery
vladavaju ravne i valovite trake od po nekoliko usporednih at Gudnja, Phase 5 (Marijanović 2005), Lazaruša, Phase 2
otisaka uzice, obično položene vodoravno, a tek ponekad (Marijanović 2000), and Pod, Phase A (Čović 1991b). At Lju-
uspravno, koso ili duž trakaste ručke. Rjeđe se pojavljuju ni- bomir, Mound 11, they were recovered from a context that
zovi šrafiranih trokuta ili krugovi smješteni u slobodnim pro- precedes the Cetina contexts (Čović 1980). They were found
136
storima između traka. U pojedinim slučajevima, utiskivanje together with Cetina style pottery at Zagomilje 2 (Mucić,
uzice kombinira se s malim kružnim, trokutastim, točkastim Kovačević Bokarica 2011), and on the ‘Okruglo’ location at
i ovalnim otiscima. Na malobrojnim primjercima sačuvala se Rudine (Marović 1991). At the Ravlića Cave, they were reco-
inkrustacija kojom je uzorak bio ispunjen. Nekoliko nalaza vered from Phase 4 contexts, which contained both Cetina
daje naslutiti ponešto o oblicima posuda ukrašenih ovom and later Bronze Age pottery (Marijanović 2012). At Tro-
tehnikom. Među njima su zatvorene zdjele blago spljošte- struka Gradina and Nečajno, they came from contexts con-
nog, kuglastog tijela i izrazito stegnutog oboda (Čović 1980: sidered to be younger than Cetina (Čović 1989). At Grotta
sl. 1: 1–4), zatim duboke zdjele obloga trbuha i blago steg- Dei Ciclami (Gilli, Montagnari Kokelj 1993), Kovačina (Šuta
nutoga oboda s dvostrukom vertikalnom ušicom pri obodu 2013), and the Zelena Cave (Čović 1980), they were recove-
(Marijanović 2000: sl. 8; 2005: sl. 30) te lonci neizrazitog ra- red from contexts where Ljubljana-Adriatic and Cetina pot-
mena i blago stegnutog vrata (Korošec, Korošec 1969: T. 7: sherds appear together. Motifs on bowls from Gudnja and
10; Gilli, Montagnari Kokelj 1993: sl. 37: 362). Lazaruša, created by combining cord-impressed bands with
Sa širega prostora istočnog Jadrana objavljen je raz- impressed dots and triangles, closely resemble Ljubljana-
mjerno mali broj ulomaka ukrašenih utiskivanjem uzice. Adriatic decorative motifs.
Prikupljeni su iz sedamnaest nalazišta od kojih je većina
u Dalmatinskoj Zagori i Hercegovini. Više od pet ulomaka Dating of Ljubljana-Adriatic and
objavljeno je samo s četiri nalazišta: Trostruke gradine (Oreč Cetina styles
1978: T. 17: 13–14; Čović 1989: T. 10: 1–7; 11: 1–8), Poda (Čović There are three different classes of data at our disposal
1991b: T. 14: 3, 8; 19: 8; 20: 6; 25: 1–4), Ravlića pećine (Marija- for establishing the age of Ljubljana-Adriatic and Cetina
nović 2012: T. 85–86) i Lazaruše (Marijanović 2000: sl. 6–8; T. styles: information about stratigraphic relationships betwe-
7: 4; 8: 1, 4). Uz to, postoji još nekoliko nalaza iz sojeničarskih en contexts that contained characteristic pottery, informa-
naselja Ljubljanskoga barja i iz dvije špilje na Krasu. Osim u tion about time-sensitive metal objects7 that were found
Gudnji (Marijanović 2005: sl. 30), na obali i otocima zasad in association with characteristic pottery, and radiocarbon
nema takvih nalaza. dates. All the existing attempts to date these styles rely
Ulomci ukrašeni utiskivanjem uzice pojavljuju se u vrlo rather imprudently on unsound information about site stra-
raznolikim kontekstima. Zajedno s lončarijom ljubljansko- tigraphy and association of finds (Della Casa 1995: 570–571;
jadranskoga stila dolaze u Gudnji, faza 5 (Marijanović 2005), 1996: 128–131; Forenbaher, Kaiser 1997: 18; Velušček 1999:
u Lazaruši, faza 2 (Marijanović 2000) i u Podu, faza A (Čović 69). Since most of the available information comes from old,
1991b). Iz gomile 11 u Ljubomiru prikupljeni su iz konteksta poorly documented and selectively published excavations,
koji prethodi cetinskom kontekstu (Čović 1980). Zajedno s or from informal digs, critical reassessment of their reliabi-
lončarijom cetinskoga stila nađeni su na nalazištu Zagomi- lity is due. Until now, radiocarbon dates related to Ljublja-
lje 2 (Mucić, Kovačević Bokarica 2011) i u Rudinama na polo- na-Adriatic and Cetina pottery have not been discussed
žaju ‘Okruglo’ (Marović 1991). U Ravlića pećini prikupljeni su systematically.
iz konteksta faze 4 koja, uz cetinsku, sadrži i kasniju bronča-
nodobnu lončariju (Marijanović 2012). Na Trostrukoj gradini Stratigraphic relationships
i Nečajnu potječu iz konteksta koji se smatraju mlađim od One of the traditional ways of establishing relative age
cetinskih (Čović 1989). U Grotta dei Ciclami (Gilli, Montagna- relies on the stratigraphic position of the finds. Both kinds
ri Kokelj 1993), Kovačini (Šuta 2013) i Zelenoj pećini (Čović of pottery whose mutual temporal relationship is being
1980) prikupljeni su iz konteksta u kojima ljubljansko-ja- considered have been reported from about forty sites. Un-
dranski i cetinski ulomci dolaze zajedno. Zanimljivo je da se fortunately, Ljubljana-Adriatic and Cetina style fragments
na zdjelama iz Gudnje i Lazaruše utiskivanje uzice kombini- have usually been found mixed together within the same
ra s točkastim i trokutastim otiscima tvoreći trakaste motive context, less commonly in different, stratigraphically unre-
koji su vrlo bliski ljubljansko-jadranskome stilu ukrašavanja. lated contexts, or their context is unknown. Based on the
published information, it is only on six sites that one may le-
Datiranje ljubljansko- arn something about the stratigraphic relationship betwe-
jadranskoga i cetinskog stila en Ljubljana-Adriatic and Cetina finds, although the situati-
Za određivanje starosti ljubljansko-jadranskoga i cetin- on is not completely clear on any of those sites.
skog stila stoje nam na raspolaganju tri vrste informacija: The Škarin Samograd Cave is among the most often ci-
podaci o stratigrafskim odnosima između konteksta koji ted sites. Both temporal divisions of Cetina culture that are
su sadržavali karakterističnu lončariju, podaci o vremenski in current use refer to its stratigraphy (Marović, Čović 1983;
osjetljivim metalnim predmetima7 pronađenima zajedno s Govedarica 1989b), despite the fact that Marović’s extensive
karakterističnom lončarijom te radiokarbonski datumi. Svi excavations, carried out more than half a century ago, rema-
dosadašnji pokušaji datiranja spomenutih stilova prilično in unpublished. A small number of characteristic potsherds
se olako oslanjaju na često nesigurne podatke o stratigra- is scattered across different publications and published wit-
7 U starijim publikacijama, metalni predmeti često se bez podrobnijega 7 In old publications, implements made of metal are routinely reported
obrazloženja spominju kao ‘brončani’ ili ‘bakreni’. Budući da se bez as ‘bronze’ or ‘copper’ finds. Since the composition of metal cannot be
provedene analize sastava ne može sa sigurnošću reći o kojoj se kovini ascertained without elemental analysis, I have used a neutral term ‘metal
radi, takvi nalazi obuhvaćeni su neutralnim terminom ‘metalni predmeti’. objects’ for all such finds.
137
fiji nalazišta i asocijaciji nalaza (Della Casa 1995: 570–571; hout detailed stratigraphic information. From the existing
1996: 128–131; Forenbaher, Kaiser 1997: 18; Velušček 1999: documentation (Marijanović 2005: 26–27) one may conclu-
69). Većina raspoloživih informacija potječe iz starih, nedo- de that the excavation proceeded in arbitrary layers that
voljno dokumentiranih i selektivno objavljenih istraživanja sometimes were about thirty centimeters thick, which must
ili iz nesustavnih iskopavanja, pa stoga valja kritički preis- have led to the mixing of finds from different periods. Aside
pitati njihovu pouzdanost. Radiokarbonski datumi vezani from a few photographs and sketches of trench profiles, the
uz ljubljansko-jadransku i cetinsku lončariju zasad nisu bili scanty field notes lack information about the stratigraphic
predmetom sustavnoga razmatranja. relations and the nature of the sediments. The available in-
formation leads to the conclusion that Cetina style pottery
Stratigrafski odnosi appeared through a layer that is more than 1.5 m thick, from
Tradicionalni način određivanja relativne starosti osla- the depth of 2.7 to 1.1 m, while the rare Ljubljana-Adriatic
nja se na stratigrafski položaj nalaza. Postoji četrdesetak potsherds appeared alongside Cetina pottery in the lower
nalazišta iz kojih su objavljene obje vrste lončarije čiji nas part of that layer, from the depth of 2.7 to 2.0 m (Govedarica
međusobni vremenski odnos zanima. Nažalost, ulomci po- 1989b: 113, 130, 132).
suda ljubljansko-jadranskoga i cetinskog stila najčešće su The Gudnja Cave is another often cited site. Like in the
pronađeni izmješani zajedno unutar istoga konteksta, rje- previous case, the results of the extensive excavations that
đe u različitim, stratigrafski nepovezanim kontekstima, ili were carried out half a century ago have not been publis-
im je kontekst nepoznat. Samo na šest nalazišta može se, hed during the lifetime of its excavator, Spomenka Petrak.
na temelju objavljenih podataka, ponešto zaključiti o me- Her excavation likewise proceeded in arbitrary layers that
đusobnom stratigrafskom odnosu ljubljansko-jadranskih sometimes were about thirty centimeters thick (Marijanović
i cetinskih nalaza, iako niti u jednome slučaju situacija nije 2005: 11–12). Based on his inspection of the fairly numerous
posve jasna. Late Copper Age finds, and relying on the typological traits
Jedno od najčešće spominjanih višeslojnih nalazišta je of the pottery, Dimitrijević had predicted (while withholding
špilja Škarin samograd. Na njenu stratigrafiju i nalaze pozi- the details) that Gudnja may be harboring two horizons of
vaju se obje vremenske podjele cetinske kulture koje su tre- the ‘Adriatic type of Ljubljana culture’, but he could not
nutno u upotrebi (Marović, Čović 1983; Govedarica 1989b), support his claim with stratigraphic information (Dimitrije-
iako su Marovićeva opsežna iskopavanja, provedena prije vić 1979a: 322; 1979b: 378). A limited re-excavation aimed at
više od pola stoljeća, ostala neobjavljena. Mali broj karak- reconstructing the site’s stratigraphy was undertaken fifte-
terističnih ulomaka lončarije rasut je po različitim publikaci- en years ago in order to fit the old finds, which were accom-
jama i objavljen bez podrobnijih stratigrafskih podataka. Iz panied by scant and deficient original documentation, into
postjeće dokumentacije (Marijanović 2005: 26–27) vidljivo an updated stratigraphic sequence (Marijanović 2005: 11).
je kako se iskopavalo proizvoljnim otkopnim slojevima, po- Unfortunately, the results of those excavations were ‘…not
nekad debelim tridesetak centimetara, što je moralo doves- presented separately, since they served only to resolve the
ti do miješanja građe iz različitih razdoblja. Osim nekoliko problems posed by the already existing body of finds’ (Mari-
fotografija i skica profila, oskudne terenske bilješke ne sa- janović 2005: 12). According to Marijanović, Ljubljana-Adria-
drže informacije o prirodi slojeva i stratigrafskim odnosima. tic and coarse incised pottery dominated in Phase 5, while
Iz raspoloživih podataka može se zaključiti kako se lončarija the following phase, Phase 6, contained Bronze Age finds,
cetinskoga stila pojavljuje kroz sloj debeo preko 1,5 m (od among which there were several characteristic Cetina style
2,7 do 1,1 m dubine) te da se u donjem dijelu toga sloja (od potsherds (Marijanović 2005: 88). Marijanović does not sta-
2,7 do 2,0 m dubine) uz nju pojavljuju i rijetki ljubljansko- te explicitly, however, whether his phase attributions were
jadranski ulomci (Govedarica 1989b: 113, 130, 132). based primarily on the available stratigraphic information
Drugo često spominjano nalazište je špilja Gudnja. Kao accompanying the old finds, or whether their typological
i u prethodnom primjeru, rezultati opsežnih iskopavanja traits prevailed in most cases (Marijanović 2005: 73–92).
provedenih prije pola stoljeća nisu objavljeni za života vo- The Ravlića Cave was excavated twice during the last
diteljice istraživanja Spomenke Petrak. I ovdje se kopalo four decades (Marijanović 1981; 2012). Compared to Gu-
proizvoljnim otkopnim slojevima, ponekad debelim tride- dnja and Škarin Samograd, both excavations were much
setak centimetara (Marijanović 2005: 11–12). Temeljem uvi- better documented and extensively published. The earlier
da u relativno brojne kasnoeneolitičke nalaze, Dimitrijević excavations proceeded in 10–15 cm thick arbitrary levels
je, ne upuštajući se u detalje, nagovijestio da se u Gudnji, (Marijanović 1981: 7), while later excavations followed the
prema tipološkim obilježjima lončarije, mogu očekivati dva principles of stratigraphic excavation (Marijanović 2012: 15).
horizonta jadranskoga tipa ljubljanske kulture, no tu svoju Phase 3 was attributed to the developed Copper Age and
tvrdnju nije mogao potkrijepiti stratigrafskim podacima an early stage of the Early Bronze Age. In earlier excavations,
(Dimitrijević 1979a: 322; 1979b: 378). Revizijska iskopava- this phase was represented by a layer with a thickness of 1.7
nja provedena prije petnaestak godina imala su za cilj re- m, while the corresponding layer in later excavations was
konstrukciju stratigrafjije nalazišta i uklapanje u nju starih only about twenty centimeters thick (Marijanović 2012: 20).
nalaza na temelju skromne i manjkave izvorne dokumen- All the characteristic Ljubljana-Adriatic potsherds, as well as
tacije (Marijanović 2005: 11). Nažalost, rezultati revizijskih a few fragments with decoration that closely resembles the
iskopavanja tom prilikom ‘nisu posebno prikazani jer su oni Cetina style, were attributed to an older Subphase 3a, while
138
poslužili samo za rješavanje problema koje je predstavljao the majority of the characteristic Cetina pottery was attri-
postojeći fundus građe’ (Marijanović 2005: 12). Prema Mari- buted to a younger Subphase 3b (Marijanović 1981: 36–41;
janoviću, u starijoj fazi 5 dominiraju ljubljansko-jadranska i 2012: 89–102). Based on published information, it remains
grubo žljebljena lončarija, dok mlađa faza 6 sadrži bronča- unclear whether this division reflects primarily the actual
nodobne nalaze među kojima ima karakterističnih ulomaka contents of stratigraphic contexts, or the attribution of cha-
cetinskoga stila (Marijanović 2005: 88). Pritom se eksplicitno racteristic potsherds to subphases according to their typo-
ne navodi je li većina nalaza iz starih iskopavanja pripisana logical traits. The latter is suggested by the fact that several
nekoj od tih faza na temelju raspoloživih podataka o njiho- characteristic fragments of the Nakovana bowls, attributed
vom stratigrafskom položaju, ili su u većini slučajeva pre- to Phase 3a in the older publication (Marijanović 1981: Pl. 33:
vagnula tipološka obilježja (Marijanović 2005: 73–92). 5–12), were reattributed in the more recent publication to
Ravlića pećina iskopavana je u dva navrata tijekom po- Phase 2c without any further explanation (Marijanović 2012:
sljednja četiri desetljeća (Marijanović 1981; 2012). U uspo- Pl. 54: 1–8).
redbi s Gudnjom i Škarinim samogradom, oba iskopavanja The only cave in the Karst that provides hints about the
su znatno bolje dokumentirana i opširno objavljena. Ranija stratigraphic relationship between Ljubljana-Adriatic and
iskopavanja provedena su proizvoljnim otkopnim slojevima Cetina pottery is Grotta Caterina. Among the finds from
debljine 10–15 cm (Marijanović 1981: 7), dok su kasnija sli- Trench AB, a single sherd from Layer 4 and a few sherds from
jedila načela stratigrafskoga iskopavanja (Marijanović 2012: Layer 3 were decorated in a characteristic Ljubljana-Adriatic
15). Faza 3, pripisana razvijenome eneolitiku i starijem stup- manner (Canarella, Pitti 1981: Fig. 5: 3–5; 4: 11), while a plain
nju ranoga brončanog doba, zastupljena je u ranijim isko- vessel resembling a Cetina beaker was recovered from the
pavanjima slojem debljine oko 1,7 m, dok je u kasnijim isko- overlying Layer 2 (Canarella, Pitti 1981: Fig. 4: 5).
pavanjima taj sloj bio debeo samo dvadesetak centimetara The only burial mound with a documented stratigraphic
(Marijanović 2012: 20). Starijoj podfazi 3a pripisani su svi ka- sequence of Ljubljana-Adriatic and Cetina pottery is Velika
rakteristični ulomci lončarije ljubljansko-jadranskoga stila, Gruda at Tivat. A cist grave, located near the center of the
ali i poneki ulomak ukrašen na način blizak cetinskome sti- original mound, contained an inhumation, accompanied
lu, dok je većina karakteristične cetinske lončarije pripisana by a characteristic Ljubljana-Adriatic dish (Primas 1996: Fig.
mlađoj podfazi 3b (Marijanović 1981: 36–41; 2012: 89–102). 5.3). A later enlargement of the mound mantle, Layer C1
Na temelju objavljenih podataka nije posve jasno koliko ta contained Late Bronze Age burials and yielded many pot-
podjela odražava stvarni sadržaj stratigrafskih konteksta, sherds, including a few that closely resemble Cetina style
a koliko je posljedica pripisivanja karakterističnih ulomaka pottery (Primas 1996: 67, Fig. 5.13B; Della Casa 1996: 66,
određenoj podfazi prema njihovim tipološkim obilježjima. 126, Fig. 92: 110–118). While the stratigraphic relationship
Na ovu drugu mogućnost upozorava činjenica da je neko- between these two contexts is beyond doubt, the highly
liko karakterističnih ulomaka nakovanskih zdjela koji su u fragmented and worn potsherds from Layer C1, scattered
starijoj publikaciji bili pripisani fazi 3a (Marijanović 1981: T. haphazardly across the mound, cannot be trusted for chro-
33: 5–12), u novoj publikaciji bez obrazloženja pripisano fazi nostratigraphic purposes. Judging by their typological he-
2c (Marijanović 2012: T. 54: 1–8). terogeneity, they belong to diverse periods, and they en-
Jedina špilja na Krasu iz koje možemo ponešto naslutiti o ded up in the mantle accidentally, so they are considered to
stratigrafskom odnosu između ljubljansko-jadranske i cetin- be in a secondary context (Della Casa 1995: 567–568).
ske lončarije je Grotta Caterina. Među nalazima iz sonde AB, Finally, at Gajtan, a settlement site near Shkodër, fra-
jedan ulomak iz sloja 4 i nekoliko ulomaka iz sloja 3 ukrašeni gments akin to Ljubljana-Adriatic pottery were recovered
su na karakterističan ljubljansko-jadranski način (Canarella, from the underlying Layer 1 that also contained Neolithic
Pitti 1981: sl. 5: 3–5; 4: 11), dok iz stratigrafski mlađega sloja 2 and/or earlier Copper Age pottery, while fragments akin to
potječe neukrašena posuda koja oblikom donekle podsjeća the Cetina style were recovered from the overlying Layer 2
na cetinski pehar (Canarella, Pitti 1981: sl. 4: 5). that also contained Late Bronze Age and Iron Age pottery,
Jedina gomila s dokumentiranim stratigrafskim slije- according to the scarce published information (Jubani
dom ljubljansko-jadranske i cetinske lončarije je Velika 1972).
gruda kod Tivta. Grob u sanduku, smješten pri sredini pr- Despite uncertainties outlined above, the rather uni-
vobitne gomile, sadržavao je, uz inhumirane ostatke pokoj- form stratigraphies of these six sites suggest that the Lju-
nika, plitku zdjelu karakterističnoga ljubljansko-jadranskog bljana-Adriatic style precedes the Cetina style. The reverse
stila (Primas 1996: sl. 5.3). Iz naknadno dodanoga gornjeg situation is mentioned only at the Grapčeva Cave, where a
dijela plašta gomile, iz sloja C1 u koji su bili ukopani kasno- layer attributed to Phase 4 yielded a few small decorated
brončanodobni grobovi, prikupljeno je mnoštvo ulomaka potsherds attributable to the third millennium BC. Among
lončarije, uključujući i nekoliko ulomaka bliskih cetinskom them, fragments akin to the Cetina style were recovered
stilu (Primas 1996: 67, sl. 5.13B; Della Casa 1996: 66, 126, sl. from stratigraphically older contexts of Phase 4, while Lju-
92: 110–118). Međusobni stratigrafski odnos između spome- bljana-Adriatic and coarse incised fragments were recove-
nuta dva konteksta je neupitan, no jako usitnjeni i istrošeni red from stratigraphically younger contexts of the same
ulomci iz sloja C1, nasumce razasuti plaštom gomile, ne mo- phase (Kaiser, Forenbaher 1999: 316; Forenbaher, Kaiser
gu poslužiti kao čvrst stratigrafsko-kronološki oslonac. Su- 2008: 62–64). This apparent inversion should not be given
deći po njihovoj tipološkoj heterogenosti, pripadaju različi- too much weight, since the total number of characteristic
139
tim razdoblima te su zajedno sa zemljom slučajno završili sherds is very small, and their reliable stylistic determina-
u plaštu, gdje se nalaze u sekundarnome kontekstu (Della tion is hampered by their small size. Furthermore, a sherd
Casa 1995: 567–568). akin to the Cetina style, recovered from the earliest context
Napokon, na naseobinskome nalazištu Gajtan kod Ska- of Phase 5 (overlying Phase 4), cautions of possible context
dra, prema oskudno objavljenim podacima, ulomci bliski disturbance.
ljubljansko-jadranskome stilu potječu iz stratigrafski stari- On the other hand, the frequent appearance of Ljublja-
jega sloja 1 koji, uz njih, sadrži neolitičku i/ili stariju eneoli- na-Adriatic and Cetina finds within the same contexts su-
tičku lončariju, dok ulomci bliski cetinskome stilu potječu iz ggests the possibility that these two styles may overlap in
stratigrafski mlađega sloja 2 koji uz njih sadrži kasnobronča- time. Some might prefer to call this stylistic overlap (if in-
nodobnu i željeznodobnu lončariju (Jubani 1972). deed it exists) the ‘younger phase of the classic Ljubljana
Unatoč opisanim nesigurnostima, prilično ujednačena culture’ (Govedarica 1989b: 46–47), ‘the proto-Cetina facies
stratigrafija ovih šest nalazišta ukazuje kako ljubljansko-ja- of the Cetina culture’ (Govedarica 1989b: 129–144), ‘the first
drasnki stil prethodi cetinskome stilu. Obrnuta situacija spo- stage of the Cetina culture’ (Marović, Čović 1983: 196) or ‘the
minje se jedino u Grapčevoj spilji gdje, iz sloja pripisanoga early phase of the Cetina culture’ (Marijanović 1997: 7). Ba-
fazi 4, potječe nekoliko malih ukrašenih ulomaka lončarije sed on the available stratigraphic information, however, it
koji se mogu pripisati trećem tisućljeću prije Krista. Među is impossible to say whether the contexts containing pot-
njima su ulomci bliski cetinskome stilu prikupljeni iz strati- sherds of both styles reflect their synchronicity, the mixing
grafski starijih konteksta faze 4 te ulomci ljubljansko-jadran- of finds of different ages, or poorly conducted excavations.
skoga stila i ulomci ukrašeni grubim žljebljenjem prikupljeni
iz stratigrafski mlađih konteksta iste faze (Kaiser, Forenba- Association with metal finds
her 1999: 316; Forenbaher, Kaiser 2008: 62–64). Ovoj privid- Another traditional dating method is based on the asso-
noj inverziji ne treba pridavati naročit značaj jer je ukupni ciation between the finds of unknown age and the time-
broj karakterističnih ulomaka vrlo malen, a zbog usitnjeno- sensitive metal implements of a known age. Unfortunately,
sti ih je teško pouzdano stilski odrediti. Uz to, jedan ulomak in the times under discussion, metal implements as time
blizak cetinskome stilu, prikupljen iz najstarijega konteksta indicators are not nearly as reliable as in some later prehi-
faze 5 (koja preslojava fazu 4), upozorava na moguću pore- storic periods. Most of those objects are plain and simply
mećenost konteksta. shaped basic types of metal implements that changed
S druge strane, česta pojava nalaza ljubljansko-jadran- little over the centuries. Their typological characteristics
skih i cetinskih nalaza unutar istoga konteksta sugerira mo- allow only for a rough and rather general age attribution.
gućnost vremenskoga preklapanja obaju stilova. Ukoliko Additional uncertainty stems from the fact that their ana-
postoji, to bi preklapanje neki možda radije zvali ‘mlađom logies, which are often sought in distant parts of Europe or
fazom klasične ljubljanske kulture’ (Govedarica 1989b: 46– eastern Mediterranean, are themselves unreliably dated.
47), ‘protocetinskim facijesom cetinske kulture’ (Govedarica For illustration, one might mention two outstanding exam-
1989b: 129–144), ‘prvim stupnjem cetinske kulture’ (Maro- ples: the flanged ax that was found with the ‘Iceman’ on the
vić, Čović 1983: 196) ili ‘ranom fazom cetinske kulture’ (Ma- Similaun Glacier, and the golden dagger from the central
rijanović 1997: 7). Raspoloživi stratigrafski podaci ne dozvo- burial at Mala Gruda. Following the typological criteria, the
ljavaju nam da utvrdimo radi li se o stvarnome sinkronitetu, hatchet was initially thought to date from around the year
o miješanju nalaza različite starosti, ili o loše provedenim 2000 BC (Sjøvold 1992), while the dagger was ascribed to
iskopavanjima. 1900–1800 BC (Parović-Pešikan 1976: 80). Today, both finds
are considered to be roughly a thousand years older than
Asocijacija s metalnim nalazima those first estimates.
Drugi tradicionalni način datiranja temelji se na asocija- Furthermore, the association between metal objects
ciji nalaza nepoznate starosti s vremenski osjetljivim metal- and Ljubljana-Adriatic or Cetina pottery is often questiona-
nim predmetima čija je starost poznata. Nažalost, u vreme- ble or even nonexistent. Most of the metal finds that were
nu o kojem ovdje govorimo, metalni nalazi nisu niti približ- recovered from the upper reaches of the Cetina River, and
no tako precizni i pouzdani vremenski pokazatelji kao što are considered as key components of the ‘Cetina culture’
je to slučaj u nekim kasnijim razdobljima. Većinom se radi o (Marović, Čović 1983; Govedarica 1989b), came from bu-
neukrašenim predmetima jednostavnih oblika koji nisu na- rial mounds that contained neither Cetina nor Ljubljana-
ročito vremenski osjetljivi, o temeljnim metalnim tipovima Adriatic style pottery, and therefore cannot be used to date
koji su se stoljećima vrlo malo mijenjali. Njihova opća tipo- either of these two styles. They include the short metal-hil-
loška obilježja dozvoljavaju samo grubo određivanje u neko ted sword decorated by engraving, the metal-hilted dag-
šire razdoblje. Dodatna nesigurnost proizlazi iz činjenice da ger, and the small flat dagger from Živalji (Marović, Čović
se analogije nerijetko pronalaze u udaljenim krajevima Eu- 1983: Pl. 33: 1, 5; 34: 1), the flat dagger with four rivets and
rope ili istočnoga Sredozemlja, pri čemu niti sami analogni the fragment of a lozenge-section dagger blade from Pe-
nalazi nisu pouzdano datirani. Za ilustraciju je dovoljno spo- nića Njivice (Marović, Čović 1983: Pl. 33: 6, 8), the small flat
menuti dva istaknuta primjera: sjekiricu s rubnim pojačanji- dagger from Veliki Rumin (Marović, Čović 1983: Pl. 33: 4), the
ma nađenu uz ‘čovjeka iz leda’ na Similaunskom ledenjaku elongated lozenge-section dagger decorated by engraving
i zlatni bodež iz središnjega groba u Maloj grudi. Prema from Župna Kuća in Bajagić (Marović, Čović 1983: Pl. 33: 3),
140
tipološkim kriterijima, za sjekiricu se najprije mislilo da pri- the knife from Kekezova Gomila (Marović, Čović 1983: Pl. 33:
pada vremenu oko godine 2000. pr. Kr. (Sjøvold 1992), dok 7), and the shaft-hole ax from Velike Gomile (Marović, Čović
je bodež bio pripisan vremenu oko godine 1900–1800. pr. 1983: Pl. 34: 9). The objects from Penića Njivice, Župna Ku-
Kr. (Parović-Pešikan 1976: 80). Danas se oba nalaza smatraju ća, and Kekezova Gomila, as well as the metal-hilted dagger
oko tisuću godina starijim od spomenutih prvih procjena. from Živalji, are chance finds from pillaged mounds, and
Povrh toga, asocijacija metalnih predmeta s ljubljansko- next to nothing is known about their context. Apart from
jadranskom i cetinskom lončarijom često je upitna ili uopće these, the lake settlements of Ljubljansko Barje also yiel-
ne postoji. Većina metalnih nalaza prikupljenih s prostora ded numerous metal finds (Korošec, Korošec 1969: Pl. 105)
gornjega toka rijeke Cetine, koji se smatraju ključnim dije- and an abundance of Ljubljana-Adriatic and other pottery,
lom sadržaja ‘cetinske kuluture’ (Marović, Čović 1983; Gove- but there is no information about the mutual relationship
darica 1989b), potječe iz gomila u kojima nije zabilježena ni between these two categories of finds. The same is true of
cetinska ni ljubljansko-jadranska lončarija pa ne mogu po- metal finds and Cetina style vessels from the burial cham-
služiti za datiranje niti jednoga od ta dva stila. Među njima ber 3 at Laterza (Biancofiore 1967). The copper shaft-hole
su kratki mač s punom kovinskom drškom ukrašen gravira- hammer-ax from the Vela Cave on Korčula (Čečuk, Radić
njem, bodež s punom kovinskom drškom i mali plosnati bo- 2005: Fig. 38), recovered from a layer marked by Ljubljana-
dež iz Živalja (Marović, Čović 1983: T. 33: 1, 5; 34: 1), plosnati Adriatic and coarse incised pottery, is not time-sensitive; it
bodež s četiri zakovice i ulomak bodeža rombičnoga presje- may belong to the fourth or the third millennium BC. All of
ka iz Penića njivica (Marović, Čović 1983: T. 33: 6, 8), mali plo- these finds are of little use for dating Ljubljana-Adriatic and
snati bodež iz Velikog Rumina (Marović, Čović 1983: T. 33: 4), Cetina pottery styles.
izduženi bodež rombičnoga presjeka ukrašen graviranjem Metal implements and Cetina pottery were found to-
iz Župne kuće u Bajagiću (Marović, Čović 1983: T. 33: 3), nož gether in only five burial mounds, where they were scatte-
iz Kekezove gomile (Marović, Čović 1983: T. 33: 7) te sjekira s red across the mound mantle, or recovered in a haphazard
rupom za nasad iz Velikih gomila (Marović, Čović 1983: T. 34: way. A short and flat dagger blade with a rounded base
9). Nalazi iz Penića njivica, Župne kuće i Kekezove gomile, and three rivets was recovered from Mound 3 at Gomile Vi-
kao i bodež s punom kovinskom drškom iz Živalja prikuplje- še Lada (Marović 1991: Fig. 75: 17); aside from Cetina style
ni su slučajno iz raskopanih gomila i o njihovom kontekstu pottery, this mound also yielded coarse incised potsherds.
ne zna se gotovo ništa. Nadalje, iz sojeničarskih naselja na A short and flat dagger blade with two rivet holes, disfi-
Igu potječu brojni metalni nalazi (Korošec, Korošec 1969: T. gured by corrosion, was recovered from a mound at Bego-
105) i obilje lončarije, uključujući i ljubljansko-jadransku, no vići (Beg Jerončić 2011: Pl. 1: 4). Two small gold ornaments
o njihovom međusobnom odnosu nema nikakvih podata- decorated by repoussé concentric circles and a bent tube
ka. Isto vrijedi za metalne nalaze i cetinske posude iz grob- made of sheet gold were recovered from a mound at Mali
nice 3 u Laterzi (Biancofiore 1967). Bakrena sjekira-čekić iz Mosor (Periša 2006: 368). A square-sectioned awl bit was re-
Vele spile na Korčuli (Čečuk, Radić 2005: sl. 38), prikupljena covered from pillaged Mound 10A at Rudine (Marović 1991:
iz sloja obilježenoga ljubljansko-jadranskom i grubo žlje- Fig. 9: 7). A heart-shaped cast metal pendant was recovered
bljenom lončarijom, vremenski je neosjetljiv tip predmeta from an obliterated mound at Ferizovići (Govedarica 2006:
koji može pripadati četvrtome, ali i trećem tisućljeću prije Pl. 2: 9). Assuming that the small, simple daggers were de-
Krista. Svi ti nalazi od slabe su koristi za datiranje ljubljan- posited simultaneously with the potsherds, they might ser-
sko-jadranskoga i cetinskog lončarskog stila. ve as a rough chronological indicator, suggesting that the
Metalni predmeti i cetinska lončarija pronađeni su za- Cetina pottery from the mound mantle probably belonged
jedno u samo pet gomila, gdje su bili razasuti po plaštu ili su to the third millennium BC. The square-sectioned awl bit is
pokupljeni bez stručnoga nadzora. Na Gomilama više lada, less time-sensitive, while the heart-shaped pendant from
iz gomile 3, prikupljena je kratka plosnata oštrica bodeža Ferizovići belongs to the middle of the second millennium
zaobljene baze s tri zakovice (Marović 1991: sl. 75: 17), a uz BC, according to its typological characteristics (Hänsel 1968:
lončariju cetinskoga stila bilo je i ulomaka grubo žljebljene 116–118). One should note that the association between
lončarije. Iz gomile u Begovićima prikupljena je kratka plo- metal finds and Cetina pottery is not completely reliable in
snata oštrica bodeža s dvije zakovice, izobličena korozijom any of these cases, since different objects may have ended
(Beg Jerončić 2011: T. 1: 4). Iz gomile u Malom Mosoru priku- up in the mantle at different times. Carefully executed and
pljene su dvije male zlatne aplike ukrašene tiještenim kon- documented recent excavations point in that direction by
centričnim krugovima i savinuta cijevčica od zlatnoga lima demonstrating that many burial mounds were used repe-
(Periša 2006: 368). Na Rudinama, iz raskopane gomile 10A, atedly, sometimes over long periods of time, or with lapses
prikupljeno je šilo kvadratnoga presjeka (Marović 1991: sl. that lasted several centuries.
9: 7). Iz razorene gomile u Ferizovićima prikupljen je lijevani Metal objects and Ljubljana-Adriatic pottery were found
srcoliki privjesak (Govedarica 2006: T. 2: 9). Pod pretpostav- together in three relatively well preserved and thoroughly
kom da su spomenuti mali, jednostavni bodeži dospjeli u documented Montenegrin sites. In each case, clearly asso-
gomile istovremeno s ulomcima lončarije, oni bi mogli po- ciated finds from burial mounds were recovered from safe
služiti kao grub vremenski pokazatelj prema kojem bi cetin- contexts by controlled excavation. The central burial at Ma-
ska lončarija iz plašta vjerojatno pripadala trećem tisućljeću la Gruda contained five square-sectioned golden hair rings
prije Krista. Šilo kvadratnoga presjeka još je manje vremen- with a mushroom-shaped end, an elongated golden dagger
141
ski osjetljivo, dok srcoliki lijevani privjesak iz Ferizovića pre- with a midrib and a well-defined angular plate with three
ma svojim tipološkim obilježjima pripada sredini drugoga rivet holes for handle attachment, a silver shaft-hole battle
tisućljeća prije Krista (Hänsel 1968: 116–118). Valja naglasiti ax with a repoussé-decorated gold sheet cap that covered
da asocijacija metalnih nalaza s cetinskom lončarijom niti u the handle top, as well as fragments of a characteristic Lju-
jednom slučaju nije posve pouzdana jer su različiti predme- bljana-Adriatic dish and a beaker (Parović-Pešikan 1976: Pls.
ti mogli dospjeti u plašt u različito vrijeme. Na to navode 3–4). The central cist grave at Velika Gruda contained eight
novija, pažljivo provedena i dokumentirana iskopavanja square-sectioned golden hair rings (three of them with a
koja ukazuju da su mnoge gomile bile korištene više puta, mushroom-shaped end, the rest with overlapping termina-
ponekad kroz duže vrijeme ili u razmacima od po nekoliko tions), a flat ax made of arsenic copper, two double-edged
stoljeća. knives (at least one of them made of tin bronze), and a cha-
Metalni predmeti i ljubljansko-jadranska lončarija pro- racteristic Ljubljana-Adriatic dish (Primas 1996: Fig. 5.1–5.4;
nađeni su zajedno u tri relativno dobro sačuvana i temeljito 6.4–6.5; 7.1; 7.2; 7.5). At Gruda Boljevića, two lozenge-secti-
dokumentirana crnogorska nalazišta. U sva tri slučaja radi oned golden hair rings with a mushroom-shaped end, an
se o jasno asociranim nalazima iz grobnih gomila, prikuplje- elongated blade of a small dagger with a slightly rhombic
nim iz sigurnih konteksta sustavnim iskopavanjem. U Maloj section and a rounded base disfigured by corrosion, a stone
grudi, srednišnji grob u sanduku sadržavao je pet zlatnih battle ax with a repoussé-and-incision-decorated gold leaf
karičica za kosu kvadratnoga presjeka i pečatasto prošire- cap that covered the handle top, as well as a dish, a bea-
noga završetka, izduženi zlatni bodež sa središnjim rebrom ker, and a funnel displaying characteristic Ljubljana-Adriatic
i jasno izdvojenom uglatom pločicom za pričvršćivanje drš- stylistic traits, were found above the central burial that did
ka s tri rupe za zakovice, srebrnu bojnu sjekiru s rupom za not contain any grave goods (Baković 2011: Figs. 1–7).
nasad i kapicom od zlatnoga lima ukrašenom iskucavanjem The golden hair rings from Montenegrin burial mounds
koja je pokrivala gornji kraj drška te ulomke plitice i pehara are closely similar to those from Burial R15b at Steno. Most
karakterističnih ljubljansko-jadranskih obilježja (Parović-Pe- of the finds from that mound cemetery on the island of Leu-
šikan 1976: T. 3–4). U Velikoj grudi, središnji grob u sanduku kas in western Greece are attributed to the EH II period (Ma-
sadržavao je osam zlatnih karičica za kosu kvadratnoga pre- ran 1997: 175; 2007: 9), while Burial R15b itself is sometimes
sjeka (tri pečatasto proširenoga završetka i pet s prekloplje- attributed to the early part of that period (Primas 1996: 85,
nim krajevima), plosnatu sjekiru od arsenskoga bakra, dva Fig. 6: 13A, 1–3), or maybe an even earlier time (Müller Celka
dvorezna noža od kojih je barem jedan izrađen od kositrene 2011). The golden dagger from Mala Gruda was compared
bronce te pliticu karakterističnih ljubljansko-jadranskih obi- at first to Cretan daggers (Parović-Pešikan 1976: 81), then
lježja (Primas 1996: sl. 5.1–5.4; 6.4–6.5; 7.1; 7.2; 7.5). U Grudi to Levantine daggers (Primas 1996: 89–90), and finally (and
Boljevića, nad središnjim grobom u kojem nije bilo priloga, most convincingly) to the Anatolian daggers attributable to
nađeni su na okupu dvije zlatne karičice za kosu rombič- the second phase of the Anatolian Early Bronze Age, which
noga presjeka i pečatasto proširenoga završetka, izdužena is roughly contemporaneous with the EH II period (Maran
oštrica maloga bodeža blago rombičnoga presjeka i zao- 1997: 175, Fig. 5: 2–5; 2007: 9). As for the silver battle ax from
bljene baze izobličena korozijom, kamena bojna sjekira-če- Mala Gruda, many similar objects were found in the western
kić s kapicom od zlatnoga lima ukrašenoga iskucavanjem i Balkan Peninsula and the middle Danubian regions, most
urezivanjem koja je pokrivala gornji kraj drška te plitica, pe- of them attributed to the Vučedol horizon (Durman 1983;
har i lijevak karakterističnih ljubljansko-jadranskih obilježja Primas 1996: 105–109, 154; Maran 2001: 278). The flat co-
(Baković 2011: sl. 1–7). pper ax belongs to a class of simple, rather diversely shaped
Zlatne karičice za kosu iz crnogorskih grobnih gomila vr- and widely distributed objects that are not particularly ti-
lo su slične onima iz groba R15b na nalazištu Steno. Najveći me-sensitive, but are present during the fourth and third
dio nalaza iz toga groblja pod gomilama na otoku Lefkasu millennia BC (Primas 1996: 94). Only general analogies are
u zapadnoj Grčkoj pripisuje se ranoheladskom II razdoblju proposed for double-edged knives, dated rather loosely to
(Maran 1997: 175; 2007: 9), dok se sam grob R15b ponekad the late fourth or third millennium BC (Primas 1996: 98).
pripisuje ranijem dijelu toga razdoblja (Primas 1996: 85, sl. While a general agreement about the absolute dating of
6: 13A, 1–3), odnosno možda još ranijem vremenu (Müller the EH II period has not been reached yet, most specialists
Celka 2011). Zlatni bodež iz Male grude uspoređivan je naj- maintain that this rather long-lasting period covered rou-
prije s kretskim bodežima (Parović-Pešikan 1976: 81), zatim s ghly the second and third quarter of the third millennium
levantskim bodežima (Primas 1996: 89–90) te napokon (i za- BC (Manning 1995; Broodbank 2000; Renfrew et al. 2012).
sad najuvjerljivije) s maloazijskim bodežima koji se pripisu- The Vučedol horizon has been dated by radiocarbon and
ju drugoj fazi ranoga brončanog doba Anatolije, razdoblju dendrochronology to the first half of the third millennium
koje je približno istovremeno s ranoheladskim II razdobljem BC, probably from around 2900 to 2600 BC (Forenbaher
(Maran 1997: 175, sl. 5: 2–5; 2007: 9). Za srebrnu bojnu sjekiru 1993: 247; Velušček, Čufar 2014: 42–43). It follows that, based
iz Male grude postoje brojne analogije s prostora zapad- on the association with metal objects; the Ljubljana-Adria-
noga Balkana i srednjega Podunavlja koje se većinom pri- tic pottery style at the southeastern end of its geographic
pisuju vučedolskom horizontu (Durman 1983; Primas 1996: distribution should belong to the second quarter of the
105–109, 154; Maran 2001: 278). Plosnata bakrena sjekira third millennium BC.
spada među široko rasprostranjene, jednostavne i oblikom A couple more sites that yielded metal finds and Lju-
142
neujednačene predmete koji nisu naročito vremenski osjet- bljana-Adriatic pottery may be mentioned for the sake of
ljivi, a pojavljuju se tijekom četvrtog i trećeg tisućljeća prije completeness. Two burial mounds at Bardhoc in Albania
Krista (Primas 1996: 94). Za dvorezne noževe s jezičcem na- contained numerous burials from diverse periods. Among
vode se samo općenite analogije, datirane prilično labavo the finds are flat dagger blades, a pin terminating in a re-
u kasno četvrto ili treće tisućljeće prije Krista (Primas 1996: poussé-decorated hammered cone, and potsherds reminis-
98). cent of Ljubljana-Adriatic pottery (Hoti 1982), but detailed
Iako ne postoji čvrst konsenzus o apsolutnom datiranju information about mutual relationship between those finds
ranoheladskoga II razdoblja, većina stručnjaka smatra da se remains unpublished. Finally, an object resembling a pin
radi o dugotrajnom razdoblju koje otprilike pokriva drugu i with a small and slanted discoid head and a series of slight
treću četvrtinu trećega tisućljeća prije Krista (Manning 1995; spherical and ring-shaped bulges along the neck was found
Broodbank 2000; Renfrew et al. 2012). Vučedolski horizont in a cleft near the mound edge at Sridnja Gora, while several
datiran je radiokarbonski i dendrokronološki u prvu polovi- characteristic fragments of Ljubljana-Adriatic pottery were
cu trećega tisućljeća prije Krista, vjerojatno od oko godine recovered from the mound mantle and the underlying soil.
2900. do 2600. pr. Kr. (Forenbaher 1993: 247; Velušček, Čufar Mutual association of those finds is extremely questionable.
2014: 42–43). Iz toga proizlazi da bi, na temelju asocijacije Based on its typological traits, the object resembling a pin
s metalnim predmetima, ljubljansko-jadranski lončarski stil was attributed to the mid-second millennium BC (Milošević
na jugoistočnom kraju svojega rasprostiranja trebao pripa- 2011: 32, 36, Figs. 9–10). It is more likely that this is an ear
dati drugoj četvrtini trećega tisućljeća prije Krista. syringe from the Roman period (Latinović et al. 2017: 170,
Zbog potpunosti valja spomenuti još dva nalazišta ko- Fig. 90).
ja su dala metalne nalaze i ljubljansko-jadransku lončariju.
Dvije gomile na nalazištu Bardhoc u Albaniji sadržavale su Radiocarbon dates
mnoštvo grobova iz različitih razdoblja. Među nalazima su There are only twenty radiocarbon dates from thirteen
plosnate oštrice bodeža, igla s glavicom u obliku raskovano- sites at our disposal for the chronometric dating of Ljublja-
ga tuljca ukrašenog iskucavanjem te ulomci lončarije koja na-Adriatic and Cetina pottery (Tab. 1). These were calibra-
donekle nalikuje ljubljansko-jadranskoj (Hoti 1982), no po- ted by the OxCal 4.3 calibration program (Bronk Ramsey
bliži podaci o međusobnom odnosu tih nalaza nisu objav- 2009), using the IntCal 13 atmospheric calibration curve
ljeni. Napokon, u Sridnjoj gori pronađen je u škrapi pri rubu (Reimer et al. 2013).
gomile metalni predmet nalik na iglu s malom, zakošenom, Begovići, Beta-248564, 3670±40 bp, calibrated 1SD ran-
diskoidno raskovanom glavicom i nizom laganih kuglastih ge: 2134–1979 BC, a human dental sample taken from a con-
i prstenastih zadebljanja na vratu, dok je iz plašta i podlo- centration of partially burned human bones that was loca-
ge gomile prikupljeno nekoliko karakterističnih ulomaka ted near the center of the burial mound. A small number
ljubljansko-jadranske lončarije. Međusobna asocijacija tih of characteristic Cetina style potsherds was recovered from
predmeta posve je upitna. Na temelju tipoloških obilježja, the mound mantle, some of them from near the concen-
predmet nalik na iglu bio je pripisan sredini drugoga tisuć- tration of human remains (Beg Jerončić 2011: 98; Jerončić,
ljeća prije Krista (Milošević 2011: 32, 36, sl. 9–10), no zapravo pers. com.).
se radi o ušnoj sondi iz rimskoga vremena (Latinović et al. Fossa Aimone, CIRCE-DSH-123, 3868±75 bp, calibrated
2017: 170, sl. 90). 1SD range: 2464–2212 BC, a charcoal sample from a settle-
ment context marked by pottery attributed to the Cetina
Radiokarbonski datumi culture (Livadie 2010: 163; Passariello et al. 2010: 30). The fin-
Za kronometrijsko datiranje ljubljansko-jadranske i ce- ds remain unpublished.
tinske lončarije stoji nam na raspolaganju samo dvadeset Grapčeva Cave yielded two radiocarbon dates: Be-
radiokarbonskih datuma iz trinaest nalazišta (tab. 1). Njiho- ta-103478, 4190±50 bp, calibrated 1SD range: 2882–2678 BC,
va kalibracija provedena je programom OxCal 4.3 (Bronk a charcoal sample from Stratigraphic Unit 1220 around the
Ramsey 2009), uz korištenje atmosferske kalibracijske krivu- middle of Phase 4, and Beta-103477, 3880±120 bp, calibra-
lje IntCal13 (Reimer et al. 2013). ted 1SD range: 2551–2144 BC, a charcoal sample from Strati-
Begovići, Beta-248564, 3670±40 bp, kalibrirani raspon graphic Unit 1200 near the top of Phase 4. Both contexts (SU
od 1 SD: 2134–1979 pr. Kr., uzorak ljudskoga zuba iz koncen- 1220 and SU 1200) contained occasional Ljubljana-Adriatic
tracije nagorijelih ljudskih kostiju pri sredini grobne gomile. and coarse incised potsherds, while fragments akin to the
U blizini spomenute koncentracije, ali i drugdje unutar pla- Cetina style were recovered from the overlying and the un-
šta gomile, pronađen je manji broj karakterističnih ulomaka derlying contexts (Forenbaher, Kaiser 2008: 62–64, Tab. 1),
lončarije cetinskoga stila (Beg Jerončić 2011: 98; Jerončić, signaling possible disturbance. Consequently, radiocarbon
osobno priopćenje). dates cannot be linked directly to either one of those styles,
Fossa Aimone, CIRCE-DSH-123, 3868±75 bp, kalibrirani but may be related to either of them.
raspon od 1 SD: 2464–2212 pr. Kr., uzorak drvenoga ugljena Grotta dei Ciclami, R-1037, 4160±50 bp, calibrated 1SD
iz naseobinskoga konteksta obilježenog lončarijom koja se range: 2874–2674 BC, a sample from Layer 4, which contai-
pripisuje ‘cetinskoj kulturi’ (Livadie 2010: 163; Passariello et ned numerous characteristic Ljubljana-Adriatic and Cetina
al. 2010: 30). Spomenuti nalazi nisu objavljeni. potsherds (Gilli, Montagnari Kokelj 1993: 157).
143
Kalibrirani 1SD
144
Pouzdanost* Radiokarbonska
Nalazište / Laboratorijski broj / Uzorak / Lončarski stil / raspon pr. Kr. /
/ starost /
Site Laboratory number Sample material Pottery style Calibrated 1SD
Reliability* Radiocarbon age
interval BC
Begovići Beta-248564 ljudski zub / human tooth cetinski / Cetina C 3670±40 2134-1979
Fossa Aimone CIRCE-DSH-123 drveni ugljen / charcoal cetinski / Cetina C 3868±75 2464-2212
ljubljansko-jadranski ili cetinski /
Grapčeva spilja Beta-103478 drveni ugljen / charcoal C 4190±50 2887-2681
Ljubljana-Adriatic or Cetina
Grapčeva spilja Beta-103477 drveni ugljen / charcoal C 3880±120 2559-2149
Grotta dei Ciclami R-1037 ? C 4160±50 2874-2675
Grotta del Mitreo R-903a drveni ugljen / charcoal C 3720±50 2198-2036
Grotta del Mitreo R-902 drveni ugljen / charcoal cetinski / Cetina C 3820±50 2391-2150
Gruda Boljevića KIA-19424 ljudska kost / human bone ljubljansko-jadranski / Ljubljana-Adriatic C 4440±35 3321-3018
Jukića gomile Beta-241024 ‘ostaci gara’ / ‘soot remains’ cetinski / Cetina C 3590±40 2014-1892
Jukića gomile Beta-241020 ‘ostaci gara’ / ‘soot remains’ cetinski / Cetina C 3850±60 2454-2209
Odmut z-409 drveni ugljen / charcoal ljubljansko-jadranski / Ljubljana-Adriatic C 4280±120 3089-2674
Pupićina peć OxA-18180 drveni ugljen / charcoal (salix) ljubljansko-jadranski / Ljubljana-Adriatic C 3963±27 2561-2464
Spila (Nakovana) z-3478 drveni ugljen / charcoal C 4185±95 2892-2633
Vela spila UB-33107 životinjska kost / animal bone ljubljansko-jadranski / Ljubljana-Adriatic A 3940±57 2560-2346
drveni ugljen / charcoal (legu-
Velika gruda UZ-2696/ETH-7685 ljubljansko-jadranski / Ljubljana-Adriatic A 4355±65 3086-2900
minosae)
Velika gruda UZ-2692/ETH-7631 drveni ugljen / charcoal (picea) ljubljansko-jadranski / Ljubljana-Adriatic B 4335±80 3090-2886
drveni ugljen/ charcoal (acer, ljubljansko-jadranski ili cetinski /
Velika gruda UZ-2693/ETH-7579 C 4155±65 2874-2639
pomoidae, leguminosae) Ljubljana-Adriatic or Cetina
Zagomilje 2 Beta-260022 ljudska kost / human bone cetinski / Cetina (terminus ante quem) C 3400±40 1744-1643
*A kratkoživući uzorak iz sigurnoga konteksta, B dugoživući uzorak iz sigurnoga konteksta, C uzorak iz nesigurnoga konteksta
*A short-life sample from safe context, B long-life sample from safe context, C sample from uncertain context
Tab. 1 Radiokarbonski datumi za lončariju ljubljansko-jadranskoga i cetinskog stila

Tab. 1 Radiocarbon dates for Ljubljana-Adriatic and Cetina style pottery
Sl. 14 Radiokarbonski datumi za ljubljansko-jadranski i cetinski lončarski stil (distribucije gustoće vjerojatnosti i kalibrirani rasponi od 1
SD)
Fig. 14 Radiocarbon dates for Ljubljana-Adriatic and Cetina pottery styles (probability density distributions and calibrated 1SD ranges)
145
Grapčeva spilja, na raspolaganju su dva radiokarbon- Grotta del Mitreo yielded two radiocarbon dates: R-
ska datuma: Beta-103478, 4190±50 bp, kalibrirani raspon od 903a, 3720±50 bp, calibrated 1SD range: 2198–2036 BC, a
1 SD: 2882–2678 pr. Kr., uzorak drvenoga ugljena iz SJ 1220 charcoal sample from an underlying Layer 5, which conta-
pri sredini faze 4 i Beta-103477, 3880±120 bp, kalibrirani ras- ined numerous Ljubljana-Adriatic potsherds, a fragment of
pon od 1 SD: 2551–2144 pr. Kr., uzorak drvenoga ugljena iz a characteristic Cetina beaker, and several other fragments
SJ 1200 pri vrhu faze 4. Oba konteksta (SJ 1220 i SJ 1200) akin to the Cetina style, and R-902, 3820±50 bp, calibra-
sadržavala su poneki ljubljansko-jadranski i grubo žljeblje- ted 1SD range: 2391–2150 BC, a charcoal sample from the
ni ulomak, dok su ulomci bliski cetinskome stilu prikupljeni overlying Layer 4, which contained fragments of plain ve-
iz stratigrafski mlađih, ali i iz starijih konteksta (Forenbaher, ssels whose shapes resemble Cetina pottery (Montagnari
Kaiser 2008: 62–64, Tab. 1). Takva situacija upozorava na Kokelj, Crismani 1997: 13). The inversion of radiocarbon da-
moguću poremećenost te se stoga radiokarbonski datumi tes relative to the stratigraphic sequence signals uncertain
ne mogu pozdano povezati samo s jednim od spomenutih contexts.
stilova, već se mogu odnositi na bilo koji od njih. Gruda Boljevića, KIA-19424, 4440±35 bp, calibrated
Grotta dei Ciclami, R-1037, 4160±50 bp, kalibrirani ras- 1SD range: 3321–3018 BC, a human bone sample from an
pon od 1 SD: 2874–2674 pr. Kr., uzorak iz sloja 4 koji je sadr- inhumation burial in a pit located near the center of the mo-
žavao veći broj karakterističnih ulomaka lončarije ljubljan- und (Guštin, Preložnik 2015: 31–32). The burial itself did not
sko-jadranskoga i cetinskog stila (Gilli, Montagnari Kokelj contain any grave goods. Three vessels were found in the
1993: 157). mantle above the central burial, all of them decorated in a
Grotta del Mitreo, na raspolaganju su dva radiokar- characteristic Ljubljana-Adriatic manner. Invoking undistur-
bonska datuma: R-903a, 3720±50 bp, kalibrirani raspon od bed stratigraphy, one of the excavators deems that those
1 SD: 2198–2036 pr. Kr., uzorak drvenoga ugljena iz strati- vessels were deposited during the funeral (Baković, Gove-
grafski starijega sloja 5 koji je sadržavao veći broj ulomaka
darica 2009: 13, 15). Others doubt the soundness of strati-
ljubljansko-jadranske lončarije, dio karakteristično ukra-
graphy and attribute the three vessels to a hypothetical se-
šenoga cetinskog peharića i još nekoliko ulomaka bliskih
cond burial, while noting the absence of a second body (Gu-
cetinskom stilu i R-902, 3820±50 bp, kalibrirani raspon od 1
štin, Preložnik 2015: 21, 23–25). They regard the radiocarbon
SD: 2391–2150 pr. Kr., uzorak drvenoga ugljena iz stratigraf-
date as too early, explaining it away with the reservoir effect
ski mlađega sloja 4 koji je sadržavao ulomke neukrašenoga
without any further discussion (Guštin, Preložnik 2015: 17).
posuđa oblikom donekle nalik na cetinsku lončariju (Monta-
The reservoir effect influences the accuracy of radiocar-
gnari Kokelj, Crismani 1997: 13). Inverzija datuma u odnosu
bon dates when aquatic animals or plants are sampled for
na stratigrafski slijed upozorava na nesigurnost konteksta.
dating. The apparent age of such samples may be several
Gruda Boljevića, KIA-19424, 4440±35 bp, kalibrirani
centuries too old (Jull et al. 2013). The reservoir effect may
raspon od 1 SD: 3321–3018 pr. Kr., uzorak ljudske kosti iz in-
be transferred to land dwellers through the food chain. If
humacije u jami pri sredini gomile (Guštin, Preložnik 2015:
a community bases its diet on marine or fresh water food
31–32). Uz ostatke pokojnika nije bilo grobnih priloga. U
plaštu gomile nad središnjim grobom pronađene su tri po- resources, a human bone sample will yield an anomalously
sude ukrašene na karakterističan ljubljansko-jadranski na- old date (Philippsen 2013). There are no indications, howe-
čin. Pozivajući se na neporemećenu stratigrafiju, jedan od ver, that the exploitation of marine, riverine, or lake resour-
voditelja iskopavanja smatra da su te posude bile odložene ces played a major role in the diet of the eastern Adriatic
u sklopu pogrebnoga obreda (Baković, Govedarica 2009: communities during the third millennium BC. Gruda Bo-
13, 15). Drugi dovode u pitanje pouzdanost stratigrafije te ljevića is some thirty kilometers distant from the Adriatic
pripisuju spomenute tri posude hipotetskome sekundar- coast, about ten kilometers from Lake Shkodër, and about
nom grobu, iako priznju da nema traga ostacima drugoga two kilometers from the Morača River; its location does not
pokojnika (Guštin, Preložnik 2015: 21, 23–25). Radiokarbon- suggest a diet based on fish or mollusks. The radiocarbon
ski datum smatraju previsokim, navodeći bez podrobnijega date from Gruda Boljevića therefore should not be dismi-
obrazloženja efekt rezervoara kao mogući razlog (Guštin, ssed out of hand, just because it seems to be surprisingly
Preložnik 2015: 17). early.
Efekt rezervoara utječe na točnost radiokarbonskih da- Jukića Gomile yielded two radiocarbon dates, both
tuma dobivenih datiranjem uzoraka vodenih životinja i bi- from Mound 1: Beta-241024: 3590±40 bp, calibrated 1SD
ljaka. Prividna starost takvih uzoraka može biti nekoliko sto- range: 2014–1892 BC, a sample of ‘soot remains’ from Burial
ljeća veća od njihove stvarne starosti (Jull et al. 2013). Kroz 3 located near the center of the mound, and Beta-241020,
prehrambeni lanac, efekt rezervora može se prenijeti i na 3850±60 bp, calibrated 1SD range: 2454–2209 BC, a sample
stanovnike kopna. Ako se prehrana neke ljudske zajednice of ‘soot remains’ from the mantle. The central stone cist of
temelji na morskim ili slatkovodnim izvorima hrane, uzorak Burial 3 contained the remains of at least two inhumations
ljudske kosti dati će previsok radiokarbonski datum (Phi- and one cremation, hinting at multiple episodes of use, as
lippsen 2013). Zasad, međutim, nema nikakvih naznaka da well as the fragments of at least three vessels shaped and
je iskorištavaje hrane iz mora, jezera ili rijeka u trećem tisuć- decorated in a characteristic Cetina manner. It remains
ljeću prije Krista igralo važnu ulogu u prehrani stanovnika unclear which of the burial episodes was dated by radio-
istočnojadranske regije. Gruda Boljevića udaljena je tride- carbon, and whether the Cetina pottery belonged to that
146
Sl. 15 Modelirani datumi za početak i kraj ljubljansko-jadranskoga i cetinskog stila (distribucije gustoće vjerojatnosti i kalibrirani rasponi
od 1 SD)
Fig. 15 Modeled start and end dates for Ljubljana-Adriatic and Cetina styles (probability density distributions and calibrated 1SD ranges)
setak kilometara od obale Jadrana, desetak kilometara od episode. Likewise, the association of the other radiocarbon-
Skadarskoga jezera i oko dva kilometra od rjeke Morače, pa dated sample with Cetina pottery is possible, but by no me-
smještaj nalazišta ne sugerira prehranu temeljenu na ribi ili ans certain (Olujić 2011: 661; 2012: 64, 68).
školjkama. Stoga radiokarbonski datum iz Grude Boljevića Odmut, Z-409, 2330±120 bp, calibrated 1SD range:
ne treba olako odbaciti samo zato jer je iznenađujuće visok. 3089–2674 BC, a charcoal sample collected near the top of
Jukića gomile, na raspolaganju su dva radiokarbonska Stratum VI or Layer 3 (Srdoč et al. 1977: 473; Breunig 1987:
datuma iz gomile 1: Beta-241024: 3590±40 bp, kalibrirani ras- 104). The same radiocarbon date was reported slightly
pon od 1 SD: 2014–1892 pr. Kr., uzorak ‘ostataka gara’ iz gro- differently in two other publications, first as z-37, 2335±90
ba 3 smještenoga pri sredini gomile i Beta-241020, 3850±60 bp (Marković 1977: 11), and then as z-409, 2335±90 bp ‘from
bp, kalibrirani raspon od 1 SD: 2454–2209 pr. Kr., uzorak Stratum IV’ [sic!] (Marković 1985: 44). Most of the characte-
‘ostataka gara’ iz plašta gomile. Središnji grob 3 u sanduku ristic Ljubljana-Adriatic potsherds were recovered from the
od kamenih ploča sadržavao je ostatke barem dvaju inhu- upper part of Stratum VI or Layer 3.
miranih i jednoga spaljenog pokojnika te dijelove najmanje Pupićina Peć, OxA-18180, 3963±27 bp, calibrated 1SD
tri posude oblikovane i ukrašene na karakterističan cetinski range: 2561–2464 BC, a charcoal sample of a willow tree re-
147
način. Budući da je bio više puta korišten, pitanje je na koju covered from Context 605 of Phase 3, which contained rare
se epizodu ukapanja odnosi radiokarbonski datum iz groba Ljubljana-Adriatic and coarse incised fragments, but also
i pripada li cetinska lončarija upravo toj epizodi. Povezanost some typologically older and younger pottery finds (Hulina
drugoga datiranog uzorka s cetinskom lončarijom također et al. 2012: 141, 158–164).
je moguća, no nipošto nije sigurna (Olujić 2011: 661; 2012: Spila (Nakovana) yielded three radiocarbon dates, all
64, 68). from Sector 3: z-3478, 4185±95 bp, calibrated 1SD range:
Odmut, Z-409, 2330±120 bc, kalibrirani raspon od 1 2892–2633 BC, a charcoal sample from the earliest context
SD: 3089–2674 pr. Kr., uzorak drvenoga ugljena prikupljen (SU 1013) of Phase 5a; z-3480, 4160±75 bp, calibrated 1SD
pri vrhu stratuma VI, odnosno sloja 3 (Srdoč et al. 1977: 473; range: 2877–2647 BC, a charcoal sample from the latest
Breunig 1987: 104). Isti taj datum je objavljen donekle različito context (SU 1010)8 of Phase 5a; and z-3481, 3485±90 bp, ca-
na još dva mjesta, najprije kao z-37, 2335±90 bc (Marković librated 1SD range: 1917–1691 BC, a charcoal sample from
1977: 11), a zatim kao z-409, 2335±90 bc ‘iz stratuma Odmut SU 1002 of the overlying Phase 5b. Sector 3 is located in the
IV’ [sic!] (Marković 1985: 44). Većina karakterističnih ulomaka narrow passage that connects the cave entrance with the
ljubljansko-jadranskoga stila prikupljena je upravo iz gor- interior of the cave. In that area, the transition between the
njega dijela stratuma VI, odnosno sloja 3. stratigraphic units was not always clear. In such circumstan-
Pupićina peć, OxA-18180, 3963±27 bp, kalibrirani ra- ces, excavation proceeded in arbitrary levels, which inevita-
spon od 1 SD: 2561–2464 pr. Kr., uzorak pougljenjenoga bly resulted in the mixing of the finds from the neighboring
drva vrbe prikupljen iz konteksta 605 faze 3 koji je sadržavao stratigraphic contexts. About a dozen characteristic Lju-
rijetke ljubljansko-jadranske i grubo žljebljene ulomke, ali bljana-Adriatic and Cetina potsherds, as well as five coarse
i tipološki stariju i mlađu lončariju (Hulina et al. 2012: 141, incised sherds, were scattered throughout the layer attribu-
158–164). ted to Phase 5. Plain Nakovana style pottery dominates in
Spila (Nakovana), na raspolaganju su tri radiokarbon- the lower part of that layer (Phase 5a), while its upper part
ska datuma iz sektora 3: z-3478, 4185±95 bp, kalibrirani (Phase 5b) is dominated by the plain pottery of the third
raspon od 1 SD: 2892–2633 pr. Kr., uzorak drvenoga uglje- millennium BC, which is accompanied by occasional later
na iz najstarijega konteksta faze 5a (SJ 1013), zatim z-3480, Bronze Age potsherds (Forenbaher, Perhoč 2015: 42, Tab. 2).
4160±75 bp, kalibrirani raspon od 1 SD: 2877–2647 pr. Kr.,
Vela Cave (Korčula) yielded two radiocarbon dates
uzorak drvenoga ugljena iz najmlađega konteksta faze 5a
from Trench 1 (excavation 2010–2013): UB-35652, 4491±50
(SJ 1010)8 i z-3481, 3485±90 bp, kalibrirani raspon od 1 SD:
bp, calibrated 1 SD range: 3336–3099 BC, a domestic ani-
1917–1691 pr. Kr., uzorak drvenoga ugljena iz konteksta SJ
mal bone sample from SU 7, the youngest context of Pha-
1002 stratigrafski mlađe faze 5b. Sektor 3 nalazi se u tijesnom
se 3, marked by Ljubljana-Adriatic pottery; and UB-33107,
prolazu koji povezuje ulaz s unutrašnjom dvoranom špilje.
3940±57 bp, calibrated 1 SD range: 2560–2346 BC, a dome-
Prijelaz između stratigrafskih jedinica na tome prostoru je
stic animal bone sample from SU 10, an underlying context
često bio nejasan. U takvim slučajevima iskopavalo se proiz-
of the same phase. The first of these two dates is unexpec-
voljnim otkopnim slojevima, što je neizbježno dovelo do
tedly early: it corresponds to the dates for the Nakovana
miješanja nalaza iz susjednih stratigrafskih konteksta. Kroz
pottery from the Vela Cave and several other sites (Forenba-
čitav sloj pripisan fazi 5 razasuto je desetak karakterističnih
her 2000). Furthermore, it is the only date in a series of six
ljubljansko-jadranskih i cetinskih ulomaka, kao i pet uloma-
dates from Trench 1 that is out of stratigraphic sequence.9
ka ukrašenih grubim žljebljenjem i utiskivanjem. U donjem
dijelu spomenutoga sloja (faza 5a) prevladava neukrašena Presumably, a residual animal bone from an earlier context
nakovanska lončarija, dok u njegovome gornjem dijelu had been selected for radiocarbon dating in this particular
(faza 5b) prevladava neukrašena lončarija trećega tisućljeća case. Therefore, the UB-35652 date will be excluded from
prije Krista uz koju se pojavljuju i kasniji brončanodobni further discussion and modeling.
ulomci (Forenbaher, Perhoč 2015: 42, tab. 2). Velika Gruda yielded three radiocarbon dates: UZ-2692/
Vela spila (Korčula), na raspolaganju su dva radio- ETH-7631, 4335±80 bp, calibrated 1SD range: 3090–2886 BC,
karbonska datuma iz sonde 1 (istraživanja 2010.–2013.): a fir wood sample from the central burial; UZ-2696/ETH-
UB-35652, 4491±50 bp, kalibrirani raspon od 1 SD: 3336– 7685, 4355±65 bp, calibrated 1SD range: 3086–2900 BC, a
3099 pr. Kr., uzorak kosti domaće životinje iz najmlađega charred pulse plant sample from the top part of the primary
konteksta faze 3 (SJ 7) obilježene ljubljansko-jadranskom mound mantle; and UZ-2693/ETH-7579, 4155±65 bp, calibra-
lončarijom i UB-33107, 3940±57 bp, kalibrirani raspon od ted 1SD range: 2874–2639 BC, an aggregate charcoal sam-
1 SD: 2560–2346 pr. Kr., uzorak kosti domaće životinje iz ple (fruit seeds, pulses, maple tree) from two charcoal con-
stratigrafski starijeg konteksta iste faze (SJ 10). Prvi od ova centrations found in a pit that was sunk into the mantle of
dva datuma neočekivano je visok: istovremen je s datumi- the primary mound above the central burial (Primas 1996:
ma za nakovansku lončariju iz Vele spile i iz nekoliko drugih 48–52). The central stone cist contained an inhumation bu-
nalazišta (Forenbaher 2000). Povrh toga, to je jedini u nizu
od šest datuma iz sonde 1 koji odskače od stratigrafskoga 8 Based on the preliminary analysis of the pottery assemblage, SU 1010
initially was attributed to Phase 5b (Forenbaher, Perhoč 2015: Tab. 2);
following the detailed analysis, it was reattributed to Phase 5a.
8 Kontekst SJ 1010 bio je na temelju preliminarne analize skupa nalaza
lončarije pripisan fazi 5b (Forenbaher, Perhoč 2015: tab. 2), no naknadno 9 The remaining radiocarbon dates from the most recent excavations of the
je na temelju detaljne analize pripisan fazi 5a. Vela Cave will be published elsewhere.
148
slijeda.9 Pretpostavljamo da je u ovom slučaju za datiranje rial, accompanied by a characteristic Ljubljana-Adriatic dish.
odabrana životinjska kost koja je zaostala iz nekoga ranijeg Among numerous small and weathered potsherds that we-
konteksta. Zbog toga ćemo datum UB-35652 izostaviti iz re recovered from the upper part of the mantle (a secon-
daljnjih rasprava i modeliranja. dary enlargement of the primary mound) there are several
Velika gruda, na raspolaganju su tri radiokarbonska da- decorated potsherds akin to the Cetina style.
tuma: UZ-2692/ETH-7631, 4335±80 bp, kalibrirani raspon od The excavator Margarita Primas regarded the first two
1 SD: 3090–2886 pr. Kr., uzorak drva smreke iz središnjega dates as too early, the first one maybe due to the old wood
groba, zatim UZ-2696/ETH-7685, 4355±65 bp, kalibrirani ra- effect, the second one due to the possibility that old char-
spon od 1 SD: 3086–2900 pr. Kr., uzorak pougljenjene ma- coal was introduced into the mantle of the primary mound
hunarke iz vršnoga dijela plašta primarne gomile i UZ-2693/ together with the soil. She relied on the third date, the one
ETH-7579, 4155±65 bp, kalibrirani raspon od 1 SD: 2874–2639 from the pit above the burial, while admitting that this pit
pr. Kr., kompozitni uzorak drvenoga ugljena (jezgričavo may have been disturbed, if not excavated, at some later
voće, mahunarke, javor) iz dvije koncentracije ugljena koje point in time (Primas 1996: 48–52, 72). The date in question
su zatečene u jami ukopanoj u plašt primarne gomile nad (UZ-2693/ETH-7579) is doubly unreliable, however, due to its
središnjim grobom (Primas 1996: 48–52). Središnji grob u aggregate composition, and its uncertain context. Since it is
sanduku od kamenih ploča sadržavao je, uz inhumirane os- not clear whether the pit was excavated immediately after
tatke pokojnika, karakterističnu ljubljansko-jadransku pliti- the primary burial or during some later intervention, one
cu. Iz gornjega, naknadno dodanoga dijela plašta sekundar-
cannot decide whether the sample dates Ljubljana-Adria-
ne gomile, prikupljeno je mnoštvo sitnih, istrošenih uloma-
tic or Cetina pottery. Compared to this, contexts of the first
ka lončarije među kojima je i nekoliko ulomaka ukrašenih na
two radiocarbon dates (UZ-2692/ETH-7631 and UZ-2696/
način blizak cetinskome stilu.
ETH-7685) are sounder, the date from the primary mound
Voditeljica iskopavanja Margarita Primas smatra prva
mantle comes from a short-life sample, and the very fact
dva datuma previsokim, prvi možda možda zbog staroga
that both of them are statistically identical suggests that
drva, a drugi zbog mogućnosti da je stari ugljen unesen u
they are reliable, rather than a product of chance. They sho-
plašt primarne gomile zajedno sa zemljom. Pouzdaje se u
uld not be easily dismissed just because they seem to be
treći datum iz jame iskopane nad grobom, iako dozvoljava
mogućnost da je ta jama, ako ne iskopana, onda barem too early.
dosegnuta kasnijim remećenjem (Primas 1996: 48–52, 72). Zagomilje 2, Beta-260022, 3400±40 bp, calibrated 1SD
Međutim, taj treći datum (UZ-2693/ETH-7579) dvostruko range: 1744–1643 BC, a human bone sample from an inhu-
je nepouzdan, kako zbog kompozitnoga sastava uzorka, mation burial without any grave goods, cut into settlement
tako i zbog nesigurnoga konteksta. Budući da nije jasno je deposits (Mucić, Kovačević Bokarica 2011: 139). Among the
li jama iskopana neposredno nakon primarnoga pokopa ili pottery fragments that were recovered from the settlement
tijekom neke kasnije intervencije, ne znamo treba li taj da- there are decorated potsherds akin to the Cetina style. The
tum dovesti u vezu s ljubljansko-jadranskom ili možda s ce- radiocarbon date from the burial may serve as a terminus
tinskom lončarijom. U usporedbi s tim, konteksti prva dva ante quem for the pottery finds from the settlement.
datuma (UZ-2692/ETH-7631 i UZ-2696/ETH-7685) su čvršći, Based on the above, and with appropriate caution, six
uzorak iz plašta primarne gomile je kratkoživući, a i sama radiocarbon dates may be associated with Ljubljana-Adria-
činjenica da su datumi statistički identični sugerira da se ne tic pottery, five may be associated with Cetina pottery (plus
radi o slučajnosti, nego o pouzdanom datiraju središnjega one as terminus ante quem), while the remaining eight dates
groba. Stoga ih ne treba olako odbaciti samo zato jer se čine may be associated with either one of these styles. The small
visokim. total number of dates and dubious contexts from which
Zagomilje 2, Beta-260022, 3400±40 bp, kalibrirani ra- most of the samples were recovered prevent the accurate
spon od 1 SD: 1744–1643 pre. Kr., uzorak ljudske kosti iz in- dating of these pottery styles. If one would stick firmly with
humacije ukopane bez grobnih priloga u naseobinski sloj the stern criteria of ‘chronometric hygiene’ (Spriggs 1989:
(Mucić, Kovačević Bokarica 2011: 139). Među lončarijom 590–605; Taché, Hart 2013: 363–365), one should discard
prikupljenom iz naseobinskoga konteksta ima ulomaka them all. In spite of that, when taken at their face value, the-
ukrašenih na način blizak cetinskome stilu. Prema tome, se radiocarbon dates provide a rather convincing general
radiokarbonski datum iz groba može poslužiti kao terminus
chronological outline (Fig. 14). The dates for the Ljubljana-
ante quem za cetinske nalaze iz naselja.
Adriatic style begin just before the year 3000 BC and cover
Na temelju izloženoga, uz ljubljansko-jadransku
the first half of the third millennium, while the dates for the
lončariju može se s izvjesnom mjerom opreza vezati šest
Cetina style cover the second half of the third millennium
radiokarbonskih datuma, uz cetinsku pet plus jedan kao
and end soon after the year 2000 BC. Accordingly, the dates
treminus ante quem, dok se preostalih osam datuma može
odnositi na bilo koji od ta dva lončarska stila. Mali uku- for the contexts containing a mixture of Ljubljana-Adriatic
pni broj datuma, kao i dvojbeni konteksti iz kojih potječe and Cetina pottery cover almost the entire third millenni-
većina uzoraka, sprečavaju precizno datiranje spomenutih um BC, and maybe also the first centuries of the second
millennium BC if one includes the date from Phase 5b of
9 Ostali radiokarbonski datumi iz najnovijih istraživnja Vele spile bit će Spila (Nakovana), which contained some later Bronze Age
objavljeni na drugome mjestu.
149
lončarskih stilova. Kada bismo se dosljedno držali strogih pottery in addition to Ljubljana-Adriatic and Cetina sherds.
kriterija ‘kronometrijske higijene’ (Spriggs 1989: 590–605; Finally, the date from the Zagomilje burial, which may serve
Taché, Hart 2013: 363–365), morali bismo ih sve odbaciti. as terminus ante quem for the Cetina pottery at that site, falls
Unatoč tome, radiokarbonski datumi uzeti zdravo za gotovo around the year 1700 BC and is the youngest of all dates.
pružaju prilično uvjerljiv općenit kronološki obris (sl. 14). Da- The Bayesian statistical modeling of start and end dates
tumi za ljubljansko-jadranski stil počinju malo prije godine for each style was carried out by the OxCal 4.3 computer
3000. pr. Kr. i pokrivaju prvu polovicu trećega tisućljeća, program (Bronk Ramsey 2009), first by applying the ‘inde-
dok datumi za cetinski stil pokrivaju drugu polovicu trećega pendent phases model’. That model assumes that each gro-
tisućljeća i završavaju ubrzo nakon godine 2000. pr. Kr. up of dates for a specific pottery style is independent, and
Sukladno tome, datumi za kontekste u kojima se miješaju
estimates the start and the end for each style separately
ljubljansko-jadranska i cetinska lončarija pokrivaju skoro
(Fig. 15). With a 68% probability, the modeled start of the
cijelo treće tisućljeće prije Krista, a možda i prva stoljeća
Ljubljana-Adriatic style would be between the years of 3337
drugoga tisućljeća, ako među njih ubrojimo datum iz faze
and 3027 BC, while its end would be between the years of
5b nakovanske Spile koja, uz ljubljansko-jadranske i cetin-
2525 and 2253 BC; the modeled start of the Cetina style
ske ulomke, sadrži i kasniju brončanodobnu lončariju. Na-
pokon, datum iz groba u Zagomilju koji se na tom nalazištu would be between 2520 and 2255 BC, and its end between
može uzeti kao terminus ante quem za cetinsku lončariju 2021 and 1794 BC.
pada oko godine 1700. pr. Kr. i najmlađi je od svih datuma. Since radiocarbon dates do not suggest a major tem-
Sl. 16 Modelirani datumi za prijelaz od ljubljansko-jadranskoga na cetinski stil (distribucije gustoće vjerojatnosti i kalibrirani rasponi od 1
SD)
Fig. 16 Modeled dates for the transition from the Ljubljana-Adriatic to the Cetina style (probability density distributions and calibrated 1SD ran-
ges)
150
Sl. 17 Radiokarbonski datumi za ljubljansko-jadranski stil (distribucije gustoće vjerojatnosti i kalibrirani rasponi od 1 SD) grupirani po re-
gijama. Uključeni su i datumi iz miješanih (ljubljansko-jadranskih i cetinskih) konteksta Grapčeve spilje i nakovanske Spile. Prikazan
je samo najraniji datum sa svakoga nalazišta
Fig. 17 Radiocarbon dates for the Ljubljana-Adriatic style (probability density distributions and calibrated 1SD ranges) grouped by region. Dates
from mixed (Ljubljana-Adriatic and Cetina) contexts of the Grapčeva and Nakovana caves have been included. Only the earliest date from
each site is shown
Bayesovsko statističko modeliranje datuma početka i poral overlap between the two styles, Bayesian modeling
kraja svakog pojedinoga stila provedeno je programom was repeated by applying the ‘sequential phases model’.
OxCal 4.3 (Bronk Ramsey 2009), najprije koristeći ‘model That model assumes that the group of dates for one pottery
nezavisnih faza’. Taj model pretpostavlja da je svaka od sku- style immediately precedes the group of dates for the other
pina datuma za određeni lončarski stil posve nezavisna te pottery style, in a chronological order established by ar-
procjenjuje vrijeme početka i kraja za svaki stil zasebno (sl. chaeological evidence, and estimates the time of transition
15). S vjerojatnošću od 68%, modelirani početak ljubljans- from one style to the other (Fig. 16). With a 68% probability,
ko-jadranskoga stila bio bi između godine 3337. i 3027. pr. the modeled transition from the Ljubljana-Adriatic style to
Kr., a kraj između godine 2525. i 2253. pr. Kr. Modelirani the Cetina style would have taken place between the years
početak cetinskoga stila bio bi između 2520. i 2255. pr. Kr., a of 2470 and 2324 BC.
kraj između 2021. i 1794. pr. Kr. The Montenegrin burial mounds yielded the earliest
Budući da radiokarbonski datumi ne ukazuju na znat- radiocarbon dates for the Ljubljana-Adriatic style. Farther
nije vremensko preklapanje stilova, Bayesovsko statističko up the Adriatic towards the northwest, the earliest availa-
modeliranje je ponovljeno koristeći ‘model nastavljajućih ble dates are at least two centuries younger (Fig. 17). If the
faza’. Taj model pretpostavlja da skupina datuma za je- apparent temporal priority of the southern Adriatic sites
dan lončarski stil neposredno prethodi skupini datuma za gains further support from future radiocarbon dates, this
drugi lončarski stil, redosljedom koji je određen na temelju would have major consequences for the interpretation of
arheološke građe, te procjenjuje vrijeme prijelaska od jed- the origin of the Ljubljana-Adriatic pottery style and other
noga stila na drugi (sl. 16). S vjerojatnošću od 68%, modeli- important changes that accompanied its appearance. For
rani prijelaz od ljubljansko-jadranskoga na cetinski stil odi- now, however, it would be irresponsible to draw far-re-
grao bi se između godine 2470. i 2324. pr. Kr. aching conclusions based on a few uncertain dates.
151
Najraniji datumi za ljubljansko-jadranski stil su oni iz Concluding Remarks On The Dating Of The Pottery
crnogorskih grobnih gomila. Dalje uz Jadran prema sjevero- Styles
zapadu, najraniji raspoloživi datumi su barem dva stoljeća All of the discussed dating techniques indicate that the
mlađi (sl. 17). Ukoliko bi daljnji radiokarbonski datumi pot- Ljubljana-Adriatic style preceded the Cetina style, while the
vrdili vremensku predost južnojadranskih nalazišta, to bi typological traits of the associated metal implements and
znatno utjecalo na interpretaciju porijekla ne samo ljubljan- the radiocarbon dates place both styles roughly within the
sko-jadranskoga stila, nego i drugih značajnih promjena third millennium BC. According to the cross-dating of me-
koje nastupaju usporedo s njegovom pojavom, no zasad tal implements, the Ljubljana-Adriatic style would belong
bi bilo neodgovorno izvlačiti dalekosežne zaključke na to the second quarter of the third millennium, while accor-
temelju nekoliko nesigurnih datuma. ding to the radiocarbon dates it would cover the entire first
half of the third millennium BC. The dendrochronological
Zaključno o datiranju lončarskih stilova
analyses that were carried out at Ljubljansko Barje suggest
sva tri načina datiranja ukazuju da ljubljansko-jadranski
similar dates, by dating the abandonment of the Parte-
stil prethodi cetinskom stilu, dok tipološka obilježja asoci-
Iščica lake dwelling around the transition from the 28th to
ranih metalnih predmeta i radiokarbonski datumi okvirno
the 27th century BC (Velušček, Čufar 2014: Tab. 2). From this,
smještaju oba stila u 3. tisućljeće prije Krista. Prema unak-
rsnom datiranju metalnih nalaza, ljubljansko-jadranski stil the sites of the Vučedol culture, were collected several fra-
pripadao bi drugoj četvrtini trećega tisućljeća, dok bi prema gments of pottery of a close Ljubljana-Adriatic style (Ve-
radiokarbonskim datumima pokrivao čitavu prvu polovicu lušček et al 2000: Pl. 3: 11; 6: 3). Unfortunately, the Ljubljana-
trećega tisućljeća prije Krista. Na slično vrijeme ukazuju Adriatic style has not been firmly dated yet at Ljubljansko
dendrokronološke analize provedene na Ljubljanskome bar- Barje. Apparently, it precedes the Vinkovci-Somogyvár style
ju prema kojima se sojeničarsko naselje Parte-Iščica napušta in that area, but the mutual relationship of those two styles
oko godine 2700. pr. Kr. (Velušček, Čufar 2014: tab. 2). S toga remains unclear (Velušček 2014: 640–641).
nalazišta pripisanog ‘vučedolskoj kulturi’ prikupljeno je If one accepted the radiocarbon date from Gruda Bolje-
nekoliko ulomaka lončarije bliske ljubljansko-jadranskome vića, the Ljubljana-Adriatic style would have begun in the
stilu (Velušček et al. 2000: T. 3: 11; 6: 3). Nažalost, ljubljansko- southern Adriatic shortly before the year 3000 BC. Due to
jadranski stil na Barju još uvijek nije čvrsto datiran. Čini se da a plateau in the calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2013), the
na tom prostoru prethodi vinkovačko-somogyvárskom sti- calibrated 1SD range of that date spans the entire last third
lu, no međusobni vremenski odnos tih dvaju stilova zasad of the fourth millennium BC, but it seems unlikely that the
je nejasan (Velušček 2014: 640–641). Ljubljana-Adriatic style could have appeared long befo-
Ako prihvatimo radiokarbonski datum iz Grude re the year 3000 BC, since the earliest dates for Nakovana
Boljevića, ljubljansko-jadranski stil počinjao bi na južnome pottery fall within that range (Forenbaher 2000: 380, Tab. 2).
Jadranu nešto prije godine 3000. pr. Kr. Kalibrirani raspon The duration of the Ljubljana-Adriatic style until about the
od 1 SD za taj datum razvučen je preko cijele posljednje year 2400 BC relies on a couple of late dates. One of them
trećine četvrtoga tisućljeća zbog zaravnjenosti kalibracij- (from the Pupićina Cave) dates a context that contained Lju-
ske krivulje (Reimer et al. 2013), no teško je vjerovati da bi
bljana-Adriatic potsherds, but also later finds. Furthermore,
ljubljansko-jadranski stil mogao počinjati znatno prije go-
several sites at Ljubljansko Barje that were marked by the
dine 3000. pr. Kr. jer oko toga vremena padaju najmlađi da-
Vinkovci-Somogyvár pottery style and dated by dendroc-
tumi za nakovansku lončariju (Forenbaher 2000: 380, tab.
hronology around the middle of the third millennium BC
2). Trajanje ljubljansko-jadranskoga stila otprilike do godine
(Parte, Založnica, Črni Graben and Špica) yielded very few
2400. pr. Kr. oslanja se na samo dva kasna datuma. Jedan
od njih (onaj iz Pupićine peći) datira kontekst koji je, uz Ljubljana-Adriatic finds. For the moment, we may cautiou-
ljubljansko-jadranske, sadržavao i mlađe nalaze. Osim toga, sly consider the possibility that the Ljubljana-Adriatic style
s niza nalazišta Ljubljanskoga barja obilježenih lončarijom lasted slightly more than five centuries, possibly until the
vinkovačko-somogyvárskoga stila i dendrokronološki year 2400 BC.
datiranih oko sredine trećega tisućljeća prije Krista (Parte, Cetina style pottery replaced Ljubljana-Adriatic style
Založnica, Črni graben i Špica), prikupljen je tek poneki ri- pottery around the middle of the third millennium BC.
jetki ljubljansko-jadranski nalaz. Zbog toga zasad treba s Based on the existing information, some temporal over-
oprezom prihvatiti mogućnost da ljubljansko-jadranski stil lap between the two styles can neither be confirmed nor
traje nešto duže od pet stoljeća, možda do godine 2400. pr. rejected. The typology of the associated metal finds does
Kr. not provide grounds for a more precise dating of the Cetina
Sredinom trećega tisućljeća prije Krista, ljubljansko- style within the third millennium BC. According to radiocar-
jadransku lončariju smjenjuje cetinski stil. Izvjesno vremen- bon dates, that style appeared around the year 2400 BC and
sko preklapanje oba stila ne može se na temelju postojećih lasted about five centuries, until around the year 1900 BC.
podataka ni potvrditi ni odbaciti. Vremenski položaj cetin- The characteristic Cetina finds from Lerna and Olympia pro-
skoga stila unutar trećega tisućljeća prije Krista ne može vide additional support to this dating. In both cases, they
se pobliže odrediti prema tipologiji asociranih metalnih were recovered from contexts attributed to the EH III period
nalaza, dok se prema radiokarbonskim datumima taj stil (Rutter 1982: 461, 481; Maran 1987: 79; Rambach 2007: 84),
152
javlja oko godine 2400. pr. Kr. i traje oko pet stoljeća, ot- which covers roughly the last quarter of the third millenni-
prilike do godine 1900. pr. Kr. Dodatnu potporu takvome um BC (Manning 1995; Broodbank 2000).
datiranju pružaju karakteristični cetinski nalazi iz Lerne i It follows from the above that the Ljubljana-Adriatic
Olimpije. U oba slučaja prikupljeni su iz konteksta pripisan- pottery style is contemporaneous with the Vučedol style
ih ranoheladskom III razdoblju (Rutter 1982: 461, 481; Maran – not only with the ‘late Vučedol’, but also with the ‘classic
1987: 79; Rambach 2007: 84) koje otprilike pokriva posljed- Vučedol’ (Marijanović 1993: 56; Della Casa 1996: 135, Tab. 18;
nju četvrtinu trećega tisućljeća prije Krista (Manning 1995; Velušček, Čufar 2003: 132; Maran 2007: 8). The earliest dates
Broodbank 2000). from the Montenegrin burial mounds are even a bit earlier
Na temelju svega iznesenog može se zaključiti da je lju- than the earliest date from Vučedol (Beta-252282, 4340±40
bljansko-jadranski lončarski stil istovremen s vučedolskim bp, calibrated 1SD range: 3011–2905 BC), while most of the
stilom i to ne samo s ‘kasnim Vučedolom’ nego i s ‘klasičnim dates for Vučedol fall around or after the year 2900 BC (Fo-
Vučedolom’ (Marijanović 1993: 56; Della Casa 1996: 135, renbaher 1993: 267, Fig. 6; Balen 2010: 111). Ljubljana-Adria-
tab. 18; Velušček, Čufar 2003: 132; Maran 2007: 8). Najraniji tic style pottery appears two or three centuries before the
datumi iz crnogorskih grobnih gomila čak neznatno Bell Beakers and overlaps with the early Bell Beakers only
prethode najranijem datumu s Vučedola (Beta-252282, during the second quarter of the third millennium BC (Van-
4340±40 bp, kalibrirani raspon od 1 SD: 3011–2905 pr. Kr.), der Linden 2006). Cetina style -pottery overlaps widely in
dok većina vučedolskih datuma pada oko ili nakon godine time with the late Bell Beakers and Vinkovci-Somogyvár
2900. pr. Kr. (Forenbaher 1993: 267, sl. 6; Balen 2010: 111). pottery (Forenbaher 1993: 247–248, Fig. 8; Velušček, Čufar
Nadalje, lončarija ljubljansko-jadranskoga stila pojavljuje se 2014: Tab. 2).
dva do tri stoljeća prije zvonastih pehara te se vremenski Ljubljana-Adriatic and Cetina pottery styles belong to a
preklapa s ranim zvonastim peharima tek u drugoj četvrtini third millennium BC Pan-European artistic ‘macro-tradition’
trećega tisućljeća prije Krista (Vander Linden 2006). Cetinski (Robb 2015: 643) of pottery decorated by a combination of
lončarski stil dobrim dijelom je istovremen s kasnim zvo- incision, impression and incrustation. Aside from the de-
nastim peharima i vinkovačko-somogyvárskom lončarijom corative technique, different styles of this macro-tradition
(Forenbaher 1993: 247–248, sl. 8; Velušček, Čufar 2014: tab. are linked by similar basic decorative motifs, similar ways in
2). which those motifs are combined into complex designs, si-
Ljubljansko-jadranska i cetinska lončarija uklapaju se u milar kinds and shapes of vessels, and similar purpose and
paneuropsku umjetničku ‘makro-tradiciju’ (Robb 2015: 643) depositional contexts of decorated vessels. Despite large
lončarije trećega tisućljeća prije Krista ukrašene kombinaci- distances, those similarities sometimes can be striking. In
jom urezivanja, utiskivanja i inkrustacije. Osim same tehnike regions to the west of the Adriatic, from the Iberian Penin-
ukrašavanja, različite stilove te makro-tradicije povezuju sula to Central Europe and Sicily, vessels more or less akin to
slični temeljni ukrasni motivi i načini njihovoga slaganja u Ljubljana-Adriatic style pottery appear within Bell Beakers
kompozicije, slične vrste i oblici posuda te slična namjena
assemblages (Harrison 1977; Nicolis, Mottes 1998; Nicolis
i kontekst odlaganja ukrašenoga posuđa. Unatoč velikim
2001; Vander Linden 2006; Guilaine et al. 2009). In the midd-
udaljenostima, sličnosti ponekad mogu biti iznenađujuće
le Danubian region, similar vessels may be found among
bliske. Na prostorima zapadnije od Jadrana, od Pirenejsko-
Vučedol pottery (Schmidt 1945; Dimitrijević 1979a; Dur-
ga poluotoka do srednje Europe i Sicilije, posuđe više ili
man 1988), while Vinkovci-Somogyvár assemblages con-
manje nalik ljubljansko-jadranskome pojavljuje se unutar
tain vessels akin to Cetina style pottery (Dimitrijević 1982;
asemblaža zvonastih pehara (Harrison 1977; Nicolis, Mottes
Bondár 1995; Velušček, Čufar 2003). To the east and south,
1998; Nicolis 2001; Vander Linden 2006; Guilaine et al.
Ljubljana-Adriatic and Cetina pottery may be compared to
2009). U srednjem Podunavlju sličnoga posuđa ima među
the southeast European Schnurkeramik (Roman 1992), the
vučedolskom lončarijom (Schmidt 1945; Dimitrijević 1979a;
Cycladic EH II period ‘stamped-and-incised’ pottery (Bro-
Durman 1988), dok među vinkovačko-somogyvárskom
lončarijom ima posuđa nalik cetinskom (Dimitrijević odbank 2000: 202–203), and maybe even to some of the
1982; Bondár 1995; Velušček, Čufar 2003). Prema istoku i finds from Malta (Maran 1997: 173, 185). The fuzzy borders
jugu, ljubljansko-jadranska i cetinska lončarija mogu se of their geographic distribution and similar finds from dis-
uspoređivati s jugoistočnoeuropskom ‘Schnur-keramikom’ tant regions testify of mobility, connectedness, and shared
(Roman 1992), s cikladskom ‘žigosanom i urezanom’ ideological tenets. At this point one should remember that
lončarijom ranoheladskoga II razdoblja (Broodbank 2000: Ljubljana-Adriatic and Cetina styles extend across the stra-
202–203), a možda i s pojedinim nalazima s Malte (Maran tegically important region between Central Europe, the Bal-
1997: 173, 185). Nejasne granice rasprostranjenosti stilova kan Peninsula, and the eastern and western Mediterranean.
i slični nalazi iz udaljenih krajeva svjedoče o pokretljivosti,
povezanosti i zajedničkim ideološkim načelima. Pritom ne Acknowledgements
treba zaboraviti da se ljubljansko-jadranski i cetinski stil I am grateful to Ida Beg Jerončić and Tomislav Jeron-
rasprostiru na strateški važnom prostoru između srednje čić, Dinko Radić and Ivan Šuta for sending me their unpu-
Europe, Balkana te istočnog i zapadnog Sredozemlja. blished articles and reports, sharing new information, and
153
Zahvale complementing the published data about finds with their

Idi Beg Jerončić i Tomislavu Jerončiću, Dinku Radiću i own investigations. Emil Podrug provided detailed infor-
Ivanu Šuti zahvaljujem za uvid u neobjavljene radove i iz- mation about the current state of the finds from the third
vještaje te ustupanje novih i nadopunjavajne objavljenih
millennium BC in the Šibenik area. Branko Kirigin invited
podataka iz vlastitih istraživanja. Emil Podrug opskrbio me
me to participate in his explorations of Palagruža, and en-
podrobnim podacima o tekućem stanju nalaza iz trećega
tisućljeća na šibenskome području. Za sudjelovanje u istra- trusted me with the prehistoric finds from that island. The
živanjima na Palagruži i obradu njene prapovijesne građe writing of this paper was supported in part by the project
zahvaljujem Branku Kiriginu. Pisanje ovoga rada dijelom je H2020-TWINN-2015 #692249 MendTheGap, funded by the
potpomognuto sredstvima projekta H2020-TWINN-2015 European Union.
#692249 MendTheGap, financiranog od strane Europske
unije.
Prijevod / Translation
Stašo Forenbaher
Lektura / Proofreading
Marko Maras
154
LITERATURA / BIBILOGRAPHY
Baćić, B. 1956, Arheološko iskopavanje špilje Cingarele kod Momjana, Čović, B. 1991a, Eneolitska žljebljena keramika na istočnoj jadranskoj
Jadranski zbornik, Vol. 1, 323–364. obali i njenom zaleđu, in: Zbornik radova posvećenih akademiku
Baković, M. 2011, The Princely Tumulus Gruda Boljevića Podgorica, Mon- Alojzu Bencu, Čović B. (ed.), Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i
tenegro, in: Ancestral Landscapes: Burial Mounds in the Copper and Hercegovine, Sarajevo, 67–78.
Bronze Ages (Central and Eastern Europe – Balkans – Adriatic – Aege- Čović, B. 1991b, Pod kod Bugojna, naselje bronzanog i željeznog doba u
an, 4th-2nd millennium B.C.), Borgna E., Müller Celka S. (eds.), Maison centralnoj Bosni, Sveska 1, Rano bronzano doba, Zemaljski muzej,
de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée – Jean Pouilloux, Lyon, 375–381. Sarajevo.
Baković, M., Govedarica, B. 2009, Nalazi iz kneževskog tumula Gruda Bo- Della Casa, P. 1995, The Cetina Group and the Transition from Copper to
ljevića u Podgorici, Crna Gora, Godišnjak, Centar za balkanološka Bronze Age in Dalmatia, Antiquity, Vol. 69 – Issue 264, 565–576.
ispitivanja, Vol. 38(36), 5–21. Della Casa, P. 1996, Velika Gruda II, Die Bronzezeitliche Nekropole Velika
Balen, J. 2010, Eneolitičke kulture na prostoru istočne Hrvatske (unpublis- Gruda (Opš. Kotor, Montenegro), Rudolf Habelt, Bonn.
hed PhD thesis), Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Zagreb. Dimitrijević, S. 1967, Die Ljubljana-Kultur: Problem des Substrats, der
Batović, Š. 1973, Odnos jadranskog primorja prema području jugoistoč- Genese und der regionalen Typologie, Archaeologia Iugoslavica,
nih Alpa u neolitu i eneolitu, Arheološki vestnik, Vol. 24, 62–127. Vol. 8, 1–27.
Batović, Š., Kukoč, S. 1988, Grobni humak iz ranog brončanog doba u Dimitrijević, S. 1979a, Vučedolska kultura i Vučedolski kulturni kompleks,
Podvršju kod Ražanca, Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru, Razdio in: Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja. III: Eneolit, Tasić N. (ed.), Sara-
povijesnih znanosti, Vol. 27(14), 5–64. jevo, Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, 267–341.
Barth, F. 1969, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, Boston, Little, Brown and Dimitrijević, S. 1979b, Problem eneolita na istočnoj jadranskoj obali, in:
Co. Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja. III: Eneolit, Tasić N. (ed.), Saraje-
Beg Jerončić, I. 2011, Istraživanje grobnog tumula u Begovićima u Kozici vo, Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, 367–379.
kod Vrgorca, in: Arheološka istraživanja na trasi autoceste u Zabio- Dimitrijević, S. 1982, Die Frühe Vinkovci-Kultur und ihre Beziehungen
kovlju i Plini, Tomasović M. (ed.), Gradski muzej, Makarska, 97–109. zum Vučedoler Substrat, Opuscula archaeologica, Vol. 7, 7–36.
Benac, A. 1955, Nekoliko nalaza sa područja Nikšića u Crnoj Gori, Glasnik Dörpfeld, W. 1935, Alt-Olympia: Untersuchungen und Ausgrabungen zur
Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevu (arheologija), Geschichte des ältesten Heiligtums von Olympia und der älteren
Nova Serija, Vol. 10, 85–90. griechischen Kunst, E. S. Mittler & Sohn, Berlin.
Biancofiore, F. 1967, La necropoli eneolitica di Laterza, Origini, Vol. 1, Durman, A. 1983, Metalurgija vučedolskog kulturnog kompleksa, Opus-
195–300. cula archaeologica, Vol. 8, 1–87.
Bilić, M., Ivišić, A., Vulić, Š. 2011, Arheološka istraživanja u Istočnoj Durman, A. 1988, Vučedolska kultura / The Vučedol Culture, in: Vučedol:
Plini s posebnim osvrtom na groblja kasnog srednjeg vijeka, Three Thousand Years B.C., Durman A. (ed.), Muzejski prostor, Za-
in: Arheološka istraživanja na trasi autoceste u Zabiokovlju i Plini, greb, 45–48.
Tomasović M. (ed.), Gradski muzej, Makarska, 249–284. Forenbaher, S. 1993, Radiocarbon Dates and Absolute Chronology of the
Binford, L. R. 1965, Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Central European Early Bronze Age, Antiquity, Vol. 67 – Issue 255.
Process, American Antiquity, Vol. 31(2), 203–210. Forenbaher, S. 2000, “Nakovana Culture”: State of Research, Opuscula ar-
Bondár, M. 1995, Early Bronze Age Settlement Patterns in South-West chaeologica, Vol. 23–24, 373–385.
Transdanubia, Antaeus, Vol. 22, 197–268. Forenbaher, S. 2011, Grad, Hrvatski arheološki godišnjak, Vol. 5, 690–692.
Breunig, P. 1987, 14C-Chronologie des vorderasiatischen, südost- und Forenbaher, S. 2018, Special Place, Interesting Times: the Island of
mitteleuropäischen Neolithikums, Fundamenta, Reihe A, Vol. 13, Palagruža and Transitional Periods in Adriatic Prehistory, Archaeo-
Böhlau Verlag, Köln-Wien. press, Oxford.
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009, Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates, Radio- Forenbaher, S., Vranjican, P. 1985, Vaganačka pećina, Opuscula archaeo-
carbon, Vol. 51(1), 337–360. logica, Vol. 10, 1–21.
Broodbank, C. 2000, An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades, Cam- Forenbaher, S., Kaiser, T. 1997, Palagruža, jadranski moreplovci i njihova
bridge University Press, Cambridge. kamena industrija na prijelazu iz bakrenog u brončano doba,
Broodbank, C. 2013, The Making of the Middle Sea, Oxford University Opuscula archaeologica, Vol. 21, 15–28.
Press, Oxford. Forenbaher, S., Kaiser, T. 2008, Lončarija, in: Grapčeva špilja: pretpovijesni
Brusić, Z. 1973, Eneolit i rano brončano doba na sjeverozapadnom Balkanu stan, tor i obredno mjesto, Forenbaher S., Kaiser T. (eds.), Književni
(unpublished MA thesis), Filozofski fakultet, Zagreb. krug, Split, 37–71.
Buttler, W. 1932, Ausgrabung eines prähistorischen Grabhügels bei Erve- Forenbaher, S., Perhoč, Z. 2015, Lithic Artifacts from Nakovana (Pelješac):
nik, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku, Vol. 50, 354–364. Continuity and Change from Early Neolithic until the End of Pre-
Buttler, W. 1933, Burgwälle in Norddalmatien, Bericht der Römisch-Ger- history, Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu, Vol. 32, 135–204.
manischen Kommission, Vol. 21, 183–189. Gilli, E., Montagnari Kokelj, E. 1993, La Grotta dei Ciclami nel Carso Tries-
Canarella, D., Pitti, C. 1981, Gli scavi nella Caverna Caterina sul Carso Tri- tino (materiali degli scavi 1959-1961), Atti della Societa per la Preis-
estino, Atti della Societa per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione toria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Vol. 7, 65–162.
Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Vol. 4, 9–32. Gilli, E., Montagnari Kokelj, E. 1996, La Grotta degli Zingari nel Carso
Canarella, D., Redivo, B. 1981, La Grotta della Tartaruga, Atti della Societa Triestino (materiali degli scavi 1961-1965), Atti della Societa per
per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Vol. la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Vol. 9,
4, 45–71. 63–126.
Cataldo, L. 1996, La tomba di Casal Sabini e i rinvenimenti funerari tra En- Govedarica, B. 1989a, O kulturnom i hronološkom položaju nalaza ljub-
eolitico ed età del Bronzo nel teritorio di Altamura (Bari), le facies ljanske kulture na jadranskom području, Arheološki vestnik, Vol.
culturali indigene e i contatti transadriatici con il Mediterraneo 39–40, 401–411.
orientale, Origini, Vol. 20, 109–164. Govedarica, B. 1989b, Rano bronzano doba na području istočnog Jadrana,
Childe, V. G. 1929, The Danube in Prehistory, Oxford University Press, Ox- Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo.
ford. Govedarica, B. 2006, Finds of the Cetina-type in the Western Balkan Hin-
Čečuk, B., Radić, D. 2005, Vela spila: višeslojno pretpovijesno nalazište – terland and the Issue of Culture-Historical Interpretation in the
Vela Luka, otok Korčula, Centar za kulturu, Vela Luka. Prehistoric Archaeology, Vjesnik za arheologiju i povijest dalmatin-
Čović, B. 1978, Velika gradina u Varvari, I dio (slojevi eneolita, ranog i sku, Vol. 99, 27–41.
srednjeg bronzanog doba), Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Grömer, K., Kern, D. 2010, Technical data and experiments on corded wa-
Hercegovine u Sarajevu (arheologija), Nova Serija, Vol. 32, 5–175. re, Journal of Archaeological Science, Vol. 37 – Issue 12, 3136–3145.
Čović, B. 1980, «Schnur» i «Litzen» keramika na području Neretve, Izdanja Guilaine, J., Tusa, S., Veneroso, P. 2009, La Sicile et l’Europe Campanifor-
Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, Vol. 5, Split, 35–43. me: La collection Veneroso à Sciacca, Archives d’Écologie Préhisto-
Čović, B. 1989, Posuška kultura, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Herce- rique, Toulouse.
govine u Sarajevu (arheologija), Nova Serija, Vol. 44, 61–127. Guštin, M., Preložnik, A. 2015, Gruda Boljevića, kneževska humka kasnog
155
bakarnog doba, in: Podgorica, praistorijske humke i srednjovje- Marijanović, B. 2003, Eneolitik i eneolitičke kulture u Bosni i Hercegovini,
kovne nekropole, Gruda Boljevića, Saveljić-Bulatović L., Guštin M., Sveučilište u Mostaru, Mostar.
Hincak Z. (eds.), Javna ustanova Muzeji i galerije Podgorica, Pod- Marijanović, B. 2005, Gudnja: višeslojno prapovijesno nalazište, Dubrovač-
gorica, 15–47. ki muzeji – Arheološki muzej, Dubrovnik.
Hänsel, B. 1968, Beiträge zur Chronologie der Mittleren Bronzezeit im Kar- Marijanović, B. 2012, Ravlića pećina – prapovijesno naselje, Hrvatska fra-
patenbecken, Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. njevačka arheološka zbirka, Mostar.
Harrison, R. J. 1977, The Bell Beaker Cultures of Spain and Portugal, Harvard Marković, Č. 1977, The Stratigraphy and Chronology of the Odmut Cave,
University, Cambridge. Archaeologia Iugoslavica, Vol. 15, 7–12.
Hoti, A. 1982, Varreza tumulare e Bardhocit në Rrhetin e Kukësit, Iliria, Marković, Č. 1985, Neolit Crne Gore, Filozofski fakultet, Beograd.
Vol. 12(1), 15–48. Marović, I. 1963, Iskopavanja kamenih gomila oko vrela rijeke Cetine
Hulina, M., Forenbaher, S., Miracle, P. T. 2012, Prapovijesna keramika iz god. 1953, 1954. i 1958., Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatin-
unutrašnjeg dijela Pupićine peći (iskopavanje 2001. godine), His- sku, Vol. 61, 5–80.
tria Archaeologica, Vol. 42, 137–184. Marović, I. 1975, I tumuli di Bajagić (Dalmazia), in: Civilta’ preistoriche e
Jones, S. 1997, The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Reconstructing Identities in the protostoriche della Daunia, Atti del Colloquio Internazionale, Foggia
Past and the Present, Routledge, London. 1973, Firenze, 245–246.
Jubani, B. 1972, La ceramique Illyrienne de la cite de Gajtan, Iliria, Vol. 2, Marović, I. 1976, Rezultati dosadašnjih istraživanja kamenih gomila oko
409–450. vrela rijeke Cetine u god. 1953, 1954, 1958, 1966 i 1968., Materijali
Jull, A. J. T., Burr, G. S., Hodgins, G. W. L. 2013, Radiocarbon Dating, Re- Saveza arheoloških društava Jugoslavije, Vol. 12, 55–75.
servoir Effects, and Calibration, Quaternary International, Vol. 299, Marović, I. 1980, Novi prilozi upoznavanju ranog brončanog doba u
64–71. srednjoj Dalmaciji i južnoj Bosni, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju
Kaiser, T., Forenbaher, S. 1999, Adriatic Sailors and Stone Knappers: Pa- dalmatinsku, Vol. 74, 5–26.
lagruža in the 3rd Millenium BC, Antiquity, Vol. 73 – Issue 280, Marović, I. 1991, Istraživanja kamenih gomila cetinske kulture u srednjoj
313–324. Dalmaciji, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku, Vol. 84,
Koka, A. 1985, Kultura e varrezës tumulare të Shtojit, Iliria, Vol. 15(2), 15–214.
241–250. Marović, I., Čović, B. 1983, Cetinska kultura, in: Praistorija jugoslavenskih
Korošec, J. 1941, Bericht über die bisher unveröffentlichten, vorgeschich- zemalja. IV: Bronzano doba, Čović B. (ed.), Sarajevo,, Akademija
tlichen Funde auf der Gradina “Gradac” bei Kotorac, Glasnik Ze- nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, 191–231.
maljskog muzeja u Sarajevu, Vol. 52, 77–81. Milošević, A. 2011, Prapovijesni tumul na Sridnjoj gori kod Dujmovića u
Korošec, P. 1956, Nekaj novih podatkov o slavonskoj kulturi na področju Grabovcu, in: Arheološka istraživanja na trasi autoceste u Zabiokov-
jadranske obale, Arheološki vestnik, Vol. 7, 369–383. lju i Plini, Tomasović M. (ed.), Gradski muzej, Makarska, 29–40.
Korošec, P. 1962, Neka pitanja oko eneolita Dalmacije, Arheološki radovi i Milošević, A., Govedarica, B. 1998, Otišić, Vlake – praistorijsko nalazište
rasprave, Vol. 2, 213–238. u vrtači I, Godišnjak, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, Vol. 24(22),
Korošec, P., Korošec, J. 1969, Najdbe s koliščarskih naselbin pri Igu na Ljub- 51–71.
ljanskem barju, Narodni muzej, Ljubljana. Montagnari Kokelj, E., Crismani, A. 1997, La Grotta del Mitreo nel Carso
Kossinna, G. 1911, Die Herkunft der Germanen, Kabitzsch, Würzburg. Triestino, Atti della Societa per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Re-
Latinović, S., Nagradić Habus, S., Lončar, D. 2017, Anamneza: povijest bo- gione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Vol. 10, 7–98.
lesti u antičkom svijetu, Arheološki Muzej, Zagreb. Mucić, K., Kovačević Bokarica, N. 2011, Doprinosi poznavanju po-
Leghissa, E. 2015, Način okraševanja keramike ljubljanske kulture in pra- vijesti Vrgoračke krajine na osnovi rezultata novijih arheoloških
menaste keramike – eksperimentalna arheologija, Arheološki ves- istraživanja, in: Arheološka istraživanja na trasi autoceste u Zabio-
tnik, Vol. 66, 275–292. kovlju i Plini, Tomasović M. (ed.), Gradski muzej, Makarska, 125–
Livadie, C. A. 2010, La Campania media e la Penisola sorrentino-amalfita- 212.
na dall’età del Rame all’età del Ferro: alcune situazioni a confron- Müller Celka, S. 2011, Burial Mounds and ‘Ritual Tumuli’ of the Aegean
to, in: Sorrento e la Penisola Sorrentina tra Italici, Etruschi e Greci nel Early Bronze Age, in: Ancestral Landscapes: Burial Mounds in the
contesto della Campania antica, Senatore F., Russo M. (eds.), Scien- Copper and Bronze Ages (Central and Eastern Europe – Balkans –
ze e Lettere, Roma, 149–175. Adriatic – Aegean, 4th-2nd millennium B.C.), Borgna E., Müller Celka
Manning, S. W. 1995, The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Early Bron- S. (eds.), Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée – Jean Pouil-
ze Age: Archaeology, Radiocarbon and History, Sheffield Academic loux, Lyon, 415–428.
Press, Sheffield. Nicolis, F. 2001, Bell Beakers Today: Pottery, People, Culture, Symbols in Pre-
Maran, J. 1997, Neue Ansätze für die Beurteilung der Balkanisch-Ägäis- historic Europe, Provinzia Autonoma di Trento, Servizio Beni Cul-
chen Beziehungen im 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr, in: The Thracian World turali, Trento.
at the Crossroads of Civilizations I, Roman P. (ed.), Institutul Român Nicolis, F., Mottes, E. 1998, Simbolo ed enigma: Il bicchere campaniforme
de Tracologie, Bucureşti, 171–192. e l’Italia nella preistoria europea dell III millennio a.C., Provincia Au-
Maran, J. 2001, Der Depotfund von Petralona (Nordgriechenland) und tonoma di Trento, Trento.
der Symbolgehalt von Waffen in der ersten Hälfte des 3. Jahrtau- Novak, G. 1955, Prethistorijski Hvar, Grapčeva spilja, Jugoslavenska aka-
sends v. Chr. Zwischen Karpatenbecken und Âgäis, in: Lux Orientis: demija znanosti i umjetnosti, Zagreb.
Archäologie zwischen Asien und Europa, Dobiat C., Leidorf K. (eds.), Oikonomidis, S., Papayiannis, A., Tsonos, A. 2011, The Emergence and the
Marie Leidorf, Rahden, 275–284. Architectural Development of the Tumulus Burial Custom in NW
Maran, J. 2007, Seaborne Contacts in the Aegean, the Balkans and the Greece (Epirus and the Ionian Islands) and Albania and its Con-
Central Mediterranean in the 3rd Millennium BC: the Unfolding of nections to Settlement Organization, in: Ancestral Landscapes:
the Mediterranean World, in: Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas: Burial Mounds in the Copper and Bronze Ages (Central and Eastern
Prehistory Across Borders, Galanaki I., Tomas H., Galanakis Y., Laffi- Europe – Balkans – Adriatic – Aegean, 4th-2nd millennium B.C.), Bor-
neur R. (eds.), University of Liège, Liège, 3–21. gna E., Müller Celka S. (eds.), Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditer-
Marijanović, B. 1981, Ravlića pećina (Peć Mlini), Glasnik Zemaljskog mu- ranée – Jean Pouilloux, Lyon, 185–201.
zeja Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevu (arheologija), Nova Serija, Vol. Olujić, B. 2011, Zagvozd – AN 60 Jukića gomile 1 i AN 61 Jukića gomile 2,
35–36, 1–97. Hrvatski arheološki godišnjak, Vol. 5, 660–665.
Marijanović, B. 1991, Ljubljanska kultura na istočnoj jadranskoj obali, Vje- Olujić, B. 2012, Istraživanja dvije kamene gomile na području Zagvozda
snik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku, Vol. 84, 215–245. (Imotski, Hrvatska), Opuscula archaeologica, Vol. 36, 55–91.
Marijanović, B. 1993, Vučedolska kultura na istočnoj jadranskoj obali, Oreč, P. 1978, Prapovijesna naselja i grobne gomile (Posušje, Grude i
Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku, Vol. 86, 53–61. Lištica), Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevu
Marijanović, B. 1997, Cetinska kultura – rana faza, samostalna kultura ili (arheologija), Nova Serija, Vol. 32, 81–291.
integralni dio eneolitika, Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru, Raz- Parović-Pešikan, M. 1976, Najnovija istraživanja u Boki Kotorskoj s poseb-
dio povijesnih znanosti, Vol. 36(23), 1–8. nim osvrtom na problem ilirskih i predilirskih veza s Egejom, Ma-
Marijanović, B. 2000, Prilozi za prapovijest u zaleđu jadranske obale, Filo- terijali Saveza arheoloških društava Jugoslavije, Vol. 12, 77–85.
zofski fakultet, Zadar. Parović-Pešikan, M., Trbuhović, V. 1974, Iskopavanja tumula ranog bron-
156
zanog doba u Tivatskom polju, Starinar, Vol. 22, 129–141. Identity, in: Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, Shen-
Parzinger, H. 1984, Die Stellung der Ufferrandsiedlungen bei Ljubljana nan S. J. (ed.), Unwin Hyman, London, 1–32.
im Äneolitischen und Frühbronzezeitlichen Kultursystem der Sjøvold, T. 1992, The Stone Age Iceman From the Alps: The Find and the
mittleren Donauländer, Arheološki vestnik, Vol. 35, 13–75. Current Status of Investigation, Evolutionary Anthropology, Vol.
Passariello, I., Talamo, P., D’Onofrio, A., Barta, P., Lubritto, C., Terrasi, F. 1(4), 117–124.
2010, Contribution of radiocarbon dating to the chronology of Spriggs, M. 1989, The Dating of the Island Southeast Asian Neolithic: An
Eneolithic in Campania (Italy), Geochronometria, Vol. 35, 25–33. Attempt at Chronometric Hygiene and Linguistic Correlation, An-
Periša, D. 2006, Mali Mosor, Hrvatski arheološki godišnjak, Vol. 2, 366–368. tiquity, Vol. 63 – No. 240, 587–613.
Philippsen, B. 2013, The freshwater reservoir effect in radiocarbon dat- Srdoč, D., Sliepčević, A., Obelić, B., Horvatinčić, N. 1977, Ruđer Bošković
ing, Heritage Science, Vol. 1(24), 1–19. Institute Radiocarbon Measurements IV, Radiocarbon, Vol. 19(3),
Primas, M. 1996, Velika Gruda I: Hügelgräber des frühen 3. Jahrtausends v. 465–475.
Chr. im Adriagebiet – Velika Gruda, Mala Gruda und ihr Kontext, Ru- Šavel, I., Sankovič, S. 2010, Za Raščico pri Krogu, Zavod za varstvo kulturne
dolf Habelt, Bonn. dediščine Slovenije, Ljubljana.
Radić Rossi, I. 2011, Problematika prapovijesnih i antičkih arheoloških Šuta, I. 2013, Korištenje vrtača u prapovijesti srednje Dalmacije, Tuscu-
nalazišta u hrvatskom podmorju (unpublished PhD thesis), lum, Vol. 6, 7–24.
Sveučilište u Zadru, Zadar. Taché, K., Hart, J. P. 2013, Chronometric Hygiene of Radiocarbon Data-
Rambach, J. 2007, Olympia and Andravida-Lechaina: Two Bronze Age bases for Early Durable Cooking Vessel Technologies in North-
Sites in the Northeast Peloponnese with Far-Reaching Overseas eastern North America, American Antiquity, Vol. 78(2), 359–372.
Cultural Connections, in: Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas: Pre- Trigger, B. G. 1989, A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge Uni-
history Across Borders, Galanaki I., Tomas H., Galanakis Y., Laffineur versity Press, Cambridge.
R. (eds.), University of Liège, Liège, 81–90. Vander Linden, M. 2006, Le Phénomène campaniforme. Synthèse et nou-
Reimer, P. J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Blackwell, P. G., Bronk Ramsey, velles perspectives, British Archaeological Reports lnternational
C., Buck, C. E., Cheng, H., Edwards, R. L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P. Series 1470, Archaeopress, Oxford.
M., Guilderson, T. P., Haflidason, H., Hajdas, I., Hatté, C., Heaton, T. Velušček, A. 1999, Neolithic and Eneolithic Investigations in Slovenia,
J., Hoffmann, D. L., Hogg, A. G., Hughen, K. A., Kaiser, K. F., Kromer, Arheološki vestnik, Vol. 50, 59–79.
B., Manning, S. W., Niu, M., Reimer, R. W., Richards, D. A., Scott, E. Velušček, A. 2014, Absolute Chronology of the Slovenian Neo- and En-
M., Southon, J. R., Staff, R. A., Turney, C. S. M., van der Plicht, J. eolithic – Contribution to the Discussion, in: Absolute dating of the
2013, IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves Bronze and Iron Ages in Slovenia, Črešnar M., Teržan B. (eds.), Uni-
0-50,000 Years cal BP, Radiocarbon, Vol. 55(4), 1869–1887. verza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana, 629–641.
Renfrew, C., Boyd, M., Bronk Ramsey, C. 2012, The Oldest Maritime Velušček, A., Čufar, K. 2003, Založnica pri Kamniku pod Krimom na
Sanctuary? Dating the Sanctuary at Keros and the Cycladic Early Ljubljanskem Barju – naselbina kulture Somogyvar-Vinkovci,
Bronze Age, Antiquity, Vol. 86 – Issue 331, 144–160. Arheološki vestnik, Vol. 54, 123–158.
Robb, J. 2015, Prehistoric Art in Europe: A Deep-Time Social History, Velušček, A., Čufar, K. 2014, Pile Dwellings at Ljubljansko Barje, in: Studia
American Antiquity, Vol. 80(4), 635–654. Praehistorica in Honorem Janez Dular, Tecco-Hvala S. (ed.), Ope-
Robb, J., Farr, R. H. 2005, Substances in Motion: Neolithic Mediterranean ra Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 30, Inštitut za arheologijo
“Trade”, in: The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory, Blake E., Znanstveno-raziskovalnog centra Slovenske akedemije znanosti
Knapp A. B. (eds.), Blackwell, Oxford, 24–45. in umetnosti, Ljubljana, 39–64.
Roman, P. I. 1992, Beiträge zur Problematik der schnurverzierten Keramik Velušček, A., Čufar, K., Levanič, T. 2000, Parte-Iščica, arheološke in
Südosteuropas, Philipp von Zabern, Mainz. dendrokronološke raziskave, Arheološki vestnik, Vol. 51, 83–107.
Rutter, J. B. 1982, A Group of Distinctive Pattern-Decorated Early Hellad- Zagarčanin, M. 2016, ‘Mogila na rake’: Princely Tumulus from the Early
ic III Pottery from Lerna and its Implications, Hesperia, Vol. 51(4), Bronze Age, Zbornik Nova antička Duklja – New Antique Docleia,
459–488. Vol. 7, 7–20.
Schmidt, R. R. 1945, Die Burg Vučedol, Arheološki Muzej, Zagreb.
Shennan, S. J. 1989, Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Cultural
157
158

Ljubljana I Cetina Loncarski Stilovi 3 T

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ljubljana I Cetina Loncarski Stilovi 3 T

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ljubljana I Cetina Loncarski Stilovi 3 T

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UDK 902

Pril. Inst. arheol. Zagrebu

Adresa uredništva/Address of the editor’s oﬃce

Glavni i odgovorni urednik/Editor in chief

Izdavački savjet/Editorial advisory board

Prijevod na engleski/English translation

Grafičko oblikovanje/Graphic design

Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu uključeni su u sljedeće indekse/

Izvorni znanstveni radovi Original scientific papers

5 DARIO VUJEVIĆ DARIO VUJEVIĆ

29 IVAN DRNIĆ IVAN DRNIĆ

71 HRVOJE KALAFATIĆ HRVOJE KALAFATIĆ

113 STAŠO FORENBAHER STAŠO FORENBAHER

159 ZVONKO BOJČIĆ ZVONKO BOJČIĆ

193 KORNELIJA A. GIUNIO KORNELIJA A. GIUNIO

239 TINA MILAVEC TINA MILAVEC

Pregledni rad Report

251 ANA ĐUKIĆ ANA ĐUKIĆ

291 MARIN ZANINOVIĆ MARIN ZANINOVIĆ

299 ANA AZINOVIĆ BEBEK ANA AZINOVIĆ BEBEK

321 Upute autorima Guidelines for contributors

Izvorni znanstveni rad STAŠO FORENBAHER

Primljeno/Received: 15. 01. 2018.

KULTURE, RAZDOBLJA, STILOVI I CULTURES, PERIODS, STYLES AND

5 The frequently published reconstruction of a dish from Mala Gruda is

Ukrašavanje posuđa Vessel decoration

Zemljopisna rasprostranjenost i tipovi nalazišta Geographic distribution and site types

Sl. 4 Karta rasprostiranja lončarije ljubljansko-jadranskoga stila:

Cetinski stil Cetina style

Oblici i veličine posuda Vessel shapes and sizes

Ukrašavanje posuđa Vessel decoration

Sl. 8 Karta rasprostiranja lončarije cetinskoga stila:

grubog alata poput drvenoga štapića ili letvice. Tako ukra-

Sl. 11 Karta rasprostiranja grubo žljebljene lončarije:

Tab. 1 Radiokarbonski datumi za lončariju ljubljansko-jadranskoga i cetinskog stila

Zahvale complementing the published data about finds with their

You might also like