229 Arheološki vestnik 72, 2021, 229–262; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AV.72.08 Notranjsko-kraška halštatska skupina Uvodnik in kratek oris The Notranjska-Kras Hallstatt group An introduction and brief outline Biba Terž An Izvleček n otranjsko-kraška skupina se na osnovi vseh dosedanjih arheoloških raziskav, zlasti najnovejših (arheološka izkopavanja, lidarska snemanja s terenskimi preverjanji), kaže kot izredno kompleksno strukturirana socialna tvorba, kar zadeva tako značilnosti njene poselitve kot družbeno sfero. Svojo vlogo so zagotovo igrale geografska razgibanost prostora in naravne danosti za poselitev, kot so na eni strani notranjska polja in podolja s svojimi obrobji ter na drugi strani Kraška planota, kar je pogojevalo boljšo ali slabšo povezanost posameznih lokalnih skupnosti v okviru celotne kulturne skupine. n ovejše raziskave so pokazale, da so bile skupnosti teritorialno dobro organizirane in so svoj teritorij nadzorovale in varovale, kar najbolj jasno nakazujejo obrambne zapore na severnem kraškem robu. Glede na različnost v načinu pokopavanja ter na specifičnosti v nošnji/nakitu pridejo do izraza tudi druge fasete njene identitete, njene družbene strukturiranosti. Po samosvojem kulturnem izrazu se jasno razlikuje od sosednjih kulturnih skupin. Ključne besede: n otranjska; Kras; starejša železna doba; kronologija; poselitev; teritorialna organiziranost; pogrebni običaji; nošnja; družbena strukturiranost; depojske najdbe Abstract Archaeological investigations, past and more recent ones in particular (archaeological excavation, LiDAr scanning combined with ground-truthing), reveal the notranjska-Kras group as a highly complex entity with regards to its set- tlement and social structure. This was in part certainly due to the mountainous terrain and other natural conditions for habitation, with upland plateaus (polje, podolje) and their fringes in notranjska, on the one hand, and the Kras plateau, on the other; these predetermined the degree to which individual settlements/ communities were connected to each other and how they were involved in the cultural group as a whole. r ecent research has shown that the settlement communities were well-organised in terms of territories they controlled and protected; this is most clearly visible in the barrier system along the northern edge of the Kras plateau. The differences in the burial rite (poly-rituality) and the specifics of the costume/jewellery reflect the different facets of the group’s identity and social structure. It also boasts a specific cultural expression, in which it is distinguishable from the groups in its neighbourhood. Keywords: notranjska; Kras; early Iron Age; chronology; settlement; territorial organisation; burial rite; costume; social structure; hoard finds “Gabrovčev dan”, posvečen spominu na akad. prof. dr. Staneta Gabrovca, se je odvijal 17. janu- arja 2019 že tretjič. V okviru tematskega sklopa “Halštatske kulturne skupine na območju Slo- venije”, od katerega sta bili doslej obravnavani štajersko-panonska (AV 70) in dolenjska skupina (AV 71), so bile tokrat na znanstvenem srečanju predstavljene nove raziskave zadnjih let z obmo- čja notranjsko-kraške kulturne skupine. Čeprav niso vsi predavatelji oddali svojega članka, lahko vendarle z zadovoljstvom ugotovimo, da je v tem zvezku AV zbrana večina prispevkov s simpozija. 1 1 Prispevke s simpozija, ki so objavljeni v tej publikaciji, navajam s priimkom avtorja v oklepaju, kot npr. (Bavdek). 230 Biba Teržan n otranjski halštatski skupini je Stane Gabrovec pripisal celotno pokrajino n otranjske in Krasa vse do Tržaškega zaliva. 2 Gre za območje, kjer se stikata alpski in dinarski svet in kjer so v pokrajinskih značilnostih izražene geografske in geomorfološke 2 Gabrovec 1987, 151–152. razlike. na notranjskem prevladuje razmeroma gorat in razgiban svet, razčlenjen s kraškimi polji, medtem ko je Kras visoka planota nad Tržaškim zalivom. 3 Ta raznolikost je vplivala tako na pose- 3 Kranjc 1999, 9–11. Glej še druge prispevke v isti publikaciji (npr. Šebela 1999; Mihevc 1999) in v monografiji Mihevc 2005. Sl. 1: Halštatske kulture skupine v Sloveniji in sosednjih pokrajinah. Območje notranjsko-kraške skupine (rumeno) in lega kompleksnih arheoloških najdišč, ki so obravnavana v prispevkih simpozija. Fig. 1: Hallstatt cultural groups in Slovenia and neighbouring regions with marked area of the notranjska-Kras group (yellow) and the complex archaeological sites mentioned in the contributions at the Gabrovec Day symposium. 231 Notranjsko-kraška halštatska skupina. Uvodnik in kratek oris litev kot tudi na kulturne razmere, zato predlog za razširitev poimenovanja v “notranjsko-kraška skupina” (sl. 1). Čeprav so notranjska in tudi kra- ška arheološka najdišča, predvsem z mogočnimi kamnitimi nasipi obdana gradišča, že zelo zgodaj pritegnila pozornost raziskovalcev, 4 je ostala ma- terialna kultura tega območja zaradi razmeroma skromnih najdb manj poznana. Gabrovec je zato lahko gradil svojo študijo o notranjski skupini le na sorazmerno maloštevilnih najdiščih, kot so bile takrat nove objave arheoloških izkopavanj Mehtilde Urleb na Križni gori 5 in Carla Marchesettija pred prvo svetovno vojno na Brežcu pri Škocjanu 6 ter različnih železnodobnih najdišč, katerih najdbe, hranjene v muzejih na Dunaju in v Ljubljani, je zbral v posebni monografiji Mitja Guštin. 7 n ovejše raziskave pa kažejo, da gre za dokajšnjo kulturno raznolikost, zato se zdi upravičeno razširjeno poime- novanje skupine, kar podpirajo tudi tu predstavljeni prispevki. Osrednja študija o notranjski izpod peresa Alme Bavdek nudi izčrpen prikaz zgodovine arheoloških raziskovanj, govori pa tudi o njeni poselitvi in organiziranosti prostora, o rezultatih novejših arheoloških izkopavanj na naselbinah na Soviču nad Postojno in Cvingerju pri Dolenji vasi pri Cerknici ter na nekropoli pri Trnovem pri Ilirski Bistrici (Bavdek). To sliko dopolnjujejo strokovno poročilo o arheoloških izkopavanjih na Soviču (Omahen), predstavitev gradišč vzdolž gor- njega toka r eke na osnovi ovrednotenja lidarskih posnetkov in topografskih pregledov (Vidojević) ter prva objava bogatih grobnih najdb iz okolice Ulake nad Starim trgom pri Ložu (Laharnar, Murgelj). Temu sklopu notranjskih najdišč sledijo prispevki o novih, predvsem naselbinskih raziskavah na Krasu (Bratina; Vinazza) ter opazovalnem stolpu in obrambnih zaporah ob severnemu robu Kraške planote (Teržan, Turk). Opozorimo naj tudi na obravnavo keramike s kraških najdišč, pri kateri gre za poskus razlikovanja med bronasto- in žele- znodobno lončenino glede na sestavo lončarskih glin in način izdelave (Vinazza). Posebna študija je posvečena depojem z orožjem, ki daje zani- miv vpogled v vojaške in vojne razmere tistega časa (Guštin, Božič). Poleg naštetih prispevkov o novih raziskavah na n otranjskem in Krasu sta 4 Glej tu Bavdek (z zelo izčrpnim in natančnim pregledom zgodovine arheoloških raziskav na n otranjskem) pa tudi Vidojević, Bratina in Vinazza. 5 Urleb 1974. 6 r uaro Loseri et al. 1977. 7 Guštin 1979. pomembna tudi strnjena prikaza kulturne podobe njunega južnega sosedstva, na eni strani Kvarnerja (Blečić Kavur) in na drugi Istre (Mihovilić), pri čemer so ponovno prišle do izraza očitne razlike med Kvarnerjem kot sestavnim delom liburnskega kulturnega prostora in histrsko Istro na eni strani ter na drugi strani, kako malo skupnega ju druži z notranjsko-kraško kulturno skupino kot nedvomno samostojno entiteto. KRONOLOGIJA Arheološke najdbe na območju notranjsko- -kraške skupine, ki tvorijo osnovo za kronološko periodizacijo, so manj številne in bolj skromne v primerjavi z bogatimi grobnimi najdbami dolenjske halštatske skupine. Vzrok za to so drugačni po- grebni običaji s prevladujočimi žganimi grobovi v tradiciji kulture žarnih grobišč, torej z razmeroma preprosto osebno opravo in maloštevilnimi grobnimi pridatki. Zato je kronološka razčlenitev materialne kulture na notranjskem in Krasu bolj zapletena in zahtevna. V tej zvezi je treba poudariti, da je bilo na osnovi detajlnih analiz grobišč s Križne gore 8 in iz Brežca pri Škocjanu 9 za vsako posebej izdelanih že več predlogov kronološke periodi- zacije, vendar se je uveljavila za železno dobo na n otranjskem in Krasu enotna kronološka shema z osmimi časovnimi stopnjami, ki jo je predložil Guštin 10 in jo je sprejel tudi Gabrovec. 11 Datacije za posamezne časovne stopnje oz. podstopnje/faze zgodnje železne dobe smo poskušali preveriti tudi z radiokarbonskimi analizami izbranih vzorcev kosti iz grobov s Križne gore, Trnovega pri Ilirski Bistrici in Zidance pri Podnanosu. 12 Ob tem kaže poudariti, da pri naslavljanju posameznih sklopov obravnavanih grobov, kot npr. polmesečaste fibule in čolničaste fibule, nismo želeli uvajati novih oznak za posamezne časovne stopnje ali horizonte v okviru kronološke sheme za n otranjsko in Kras, temveč le navesti, katere vrste predmetov nam je uspelo radiokarbonsko datirati in v kateri časov- 8 Urleb 1974, 19–44; ead. 1973; Guštin 1979, 19–22, sl. 8–11; Cirone et al. 1990, 169–181, Tav. 74–81. 9 Vitri 1977, 39–42, Fig. 12; Guštin 1979, 18–23, sl. 6–7, 11; Malizia et al. 1990, 150–158. 10 Guštin 1973; id. 1979, 18–32, sl. 11. 11 Gabrovec 1987, 154–162, 903, sl. 9–10, t. 16–18; glej tudi Gabrovec 1999; Parzinger 1989, 22–24; Taf. 26–28; Borgna et al. 2018, Fig. 2. 12 Bavdek, Urleb 2014; Bratina 2014. Glej tudi tu Vinazza, sl. 5. 232 Biba Teržan ni stopnji se pojavljajo. Čeprav radiokarbonske datacije vzorcev iz obdobja starejše železne dobe (8.–4. st. pr. n. št.) zaradi “halštatskega platoja” na kalibracijski krivulji niso najbolj natančne in so njihovi verjetnostni časovni razponi razmeroma dolgi, smo pri njihovem ovrednotenju uporabili posebej modelirane vrednosti, ki lahko služijo le kot približek “absolutni” dataciji posameznih izbranih grobnih celot oz. najdb. Pokazalo se je, da moramo začetek železnega horizonta na no- tranjskem iskati že v 10.–9. st. pr. n. št., 13 da pa se datiranje posameznih časovnih stopenj bistveno ne spreminja, morda le njihov začetek; tako se stopnja n otranjska II (a–c) začne v času poznega 9. st. oz. okrog 800 pr. n. št. in se nadaljuje do zgodnjega 7. st. pr. n. št., ko se najpozneje sredi tega stoletja začne uveljavljati nov tipni spekter, značilen za stopnjo n otranjska III. 14 POSELITEV Kronološki oris n a osnovi kronoloških pokazateljev bomo poskusili na kratko orisati poselitveno sliko na n otranjskem in Krasu, pri čemer je namen opozoriti na nova spoznanja, ki so jih prinesle novejše raziskave, predvsem tiste, predstavljene na tem simpoziju, pa tudi druge že prej objavljene v strokovni literaturi. Do intenzivnejše poselitve na območju no- tranjsko-kraške skupine je prišlo v obdobju pozne bronaste dobe, v času kulture žarnih grobišč. n a to kažejo prenekatere keramične najdbe, predvsem tiste z značilnim psevdovrvičastim okrasom, ki jim lahko sledimo od obalnega območja, od gradišč na Tržaškem, kot npr. na kaštelirjih Katinara/ Cattinara, Dolga krona/Monte d´Oro in Jelarji/ elleri ter pripadajoči nekropoli pri Sv. Barbari pri Korošcih, 15 pa tudi na Sv. Mihaelu pri Štorjah, T omaju in Taboru pri Vrabčah vse do Cvingerja pri Dolenji vasi in Gradišča na Slivnici ob Cerkniškem 13 n a zgodnji pojav smo sklepali že na osnovi nekaterih železnih predmetov iz grobov pod Brežcem pri Škocjanu, prim. Vitri 1977, 39, Fig. 12; Teržan 1995, 353, 359–361, Abb. 28: 3,10; Trampuž Orel 2012, 21–23, Fig. 3. 14 Prim. Teržan, Črešnar 2014, 703–706, 713–718, sl. 36; 37; 39; 41; 44. 15 Maselli Scotti 1983, 207–209, Tav. 50: 2–4; ead. 1997, 51, 53, 108, Tav. 6: 19; 8: 11; 20: 21; 23: 8; 26: 1; Montagnari Kokelj 1996, t. 1: 8; 4: 1; Flego, r upel 1993, 171–176, 201–202, 207–214 itd. jezeru (Bavdek, pril. 1; Vinazza, t. 2: 21–23). 16 Deloma gre za gradišča, ki so bila poseljena v teku srednje bronaste dobe, nekatera celo že v zgodnji bronasti dobi, kot npr. Slivno/Slivia, Jelarji/elleri in Sv. Mihael pri Štorjah 17 ter morda novoraziskani Sovič, kjer so bile odkrite naselbinske plasti tako na vrhu hriba kot ob njegovem vznožju (Bavdek; Omahen), deloma pa gre za povsem nove posto- janke, kot nakazujejo poleg Cvingerja in Tržišča pri Dolenji vasi ob Cerkniškem jezeru ter Tabora pri Vrabčah še nekatera druga notranjsko-kraška najdišča (Bavdek; Vinazza). Za gradišči v Tomaju in na Taboru pri Vrabčah so na razpolago tudi radiokarbonske datacije, ki kažejo na čas naselitve obeh gradišč med pribl. 11. in 9. st. pr. n. št. (Bra- tina, sl. 11; Vinazza, sl. 5). 18 S psevdovrvičastim ornamentom okrašena keramika je bila razširjena tudi na nekaterih istrskih najdiščih, predvsem pa v širšem furlanskem in venetskem prostoru, kjer je zlasti na osnovi naselbinskih najdb iz Pozzuola del Friuli 19 in naselbini Frattesina-Fratta Polesine pripadajočih nekropol 20 dobro opredeljena v čas Bronzo finale 2–3 oz. v stopnji Ha A2/B1–2 v smislu Müller-Karpejeve kronologije. Zdi se verjetno, da so s tovrstno keramiko in tudi z nekaterimi drugimi najdbami bronastih predmetov, npr. s Cvingerja pri Dolenji vasi (Bavdek, t. 3: 1,15) ter kalupa za izdelavo plavutastih sekir in obročev iz naselbin- skega kompleksa Sermin, 21 nakazane novosti ter spremembe, ki so zajele celoten prostor notranjsko- -kraške skupine in ki nakazujejo izrazitejše navezave tod bivajočih skupnosti s severnojadranskim in furlansko-venetskim kulturnim krogom. Tak vtis daje tudi eno ključnih najdišč tega obdobja v notranjsko-kraški kulturni skupini, to je Škocjan pri Divači na Krasu, od koder je poleg naselbinskega kompleksa 22 znanih več nekropol in slavne depojske najdbe iz brezen Mušja in 16 Bavdek 2018, 166–167, Fig. 2; 1–4; 9; Bratina 2018b, 96–99, sl. 10: 1–2; Guštin 1979, 34, t. 7: 8; 8: 1–2,9; 36: 10. 17 Hänsel, Mihovilić, Teržan 1997, 87–95, sl. 46; Mihovilić, Hänsel, Teržan 2005, 401–402; Guštin 1979, t. 7: 6,9; 9: 1,4–7; 10: 4–5. Cf. Hellmuth Kramberger 2017, 321–333, 355–357, sl. 268. 18 Bratina 2014, 587–593; ead. 2018a. 19 Càssola Guida 1983, 196–199, Tav. 47: 1–4,6–11; Adam, Càssola Guida, Vitri 1986–1987, Fig. 31-b; Càssola Guida, Vitri 1988, 234–251, t. 6: 5–8; 7–8, 10–11. 20 Salzani, Colonna 2010, 303–304, Tav. 3: 9–10; 15: B1; 33: B1 itd. 21 Snoj 1992; žbona-Trkman, Bavdek 1995–1996, 59–65, sl. 2, t. 95: 2; 103–107. 22 Glej npr. Turk, Hrobat, Bratina 2016, sl. 13; Teržan 2016a, 415–430, 465–472. 233 Notranjsko-kraška halštatska skupina. Uvodnik in kratek oris Skeletna jama oz. Jama I in Jama II na Prevali. Domnevamo, da predstavlja celotno območje Ško- cjana kultno središče nadregionalnega značaja. Za to tezo govore kot prvo izjemna lega škocjanske naselbine nad prepadnimi stenami ponora reke r eke, kot drugo posebni značaj bronastih najdb iz obeh omenjenih jam 23 in kot tretje heteroge- nost grobnih pridatkov iz pripadajočih grobišč na Brežcu, v Ponikvah in na Griču nad Lisičino. Po številu grobov in njihovem bogastvu izstopa nekropola na Brežcu, 24 katere grobovi se po se- stavih pridatkov bistveno razlikujejo od drugih sočasnih grobov kulture žarnih grobišč na širšem jugovzhodnem alpskem oz. predalpskem in panon- skem prostoru. V pogrebne rituale vnašajo nove elemente, med katerimi so posebej indikativni pridatki, kot je orožje, zlasti meči. 25 Z njimi je namreč poudarjena vloga moške, vojaške kompo- nente v družbi, kar uvršča Škocjan oz. skupnost, ki je pokopavala na Brežcu, v italsko-villanovski kulturni koncept. V ženskih grobovih pa izstopajo predmeti nakita, katerih izvor je iskati v japodski Liki in na liburnskem severnem Jadranu. 26 neko - liko drugačen značaj izkazuje drugo škocjansko grobišče na Ponikvah, v katerem so zastopani grobovi s pridatki kontinentalnega “dobovskega tipa” . 27 Tretje grobišče, domnevno gomile, na Griču nad Lisičino pa izstopajo z nenavadnimi pridatki italske provenience. 28 Zato sklepamo, da je bila populacija v Škocjanu heterogena in je združevala značilnosti različnih kulturnih skupin z različnih geografskih področij. Še bolj kompleksno podobo ponujajo depojske najdbe iz Mušje jame, katerih revizija je bila obja- vljena pred kratkim. 29 Časovni razpon predmetov kaže, da se je deponiranje vršilo med 12./11. in 8./7. st. pr. n. št. Glede na to, da je zastopanost zvrsti predmetov skozi celotno obdobje precej izenačena, domnevamo, da se ritual v teku časa ni bistveno spreminjal. Med predmeti, ki so bili deloma raz- 23 Szombathy 1912; Vitri 1983; Merlatti 2001; Teržan et al. 2016. 24 r uaro Loseri et al. 1977; Teržan 1990, 69–72, sl. 14; ead. 2016a, 418–423, 466–468. 25 Glej npr. tudi Harding 1995, 60, 80–82, 85–86, Taf. 25: 204; 33: 253; 35: 266; Turk 2016a, 99–106, sl. 33–34. 26 Glej npr. T eržan 2016b, 233–254, 269–277, sl. 76–77; 83–86; ead. 2021. 27 r uaro Loseri, r ighi 1982, 12, 21, t. 5/Cq/2 14; 6/ Cq/2 15, 17 ipd.; Teržan 2016a, 423–425, 469. 28 Teržan 2016a, 421–423, 468–469, sl. 153. 29 Prim. Szombathy 1912; Teržan, Borgna, Turk 2016. Glej še tu Guštin, Božič. lomljeni, zviti in/ali uničeni, raztopljeni v ognju, preden so bili darovani numinoznim silam brezna, prevladuje orožje (sulice, meči, sekire, čelade ter prestižne bronaste posode), pri čemer ugotavljamo, da sega radij potencialne provenience posameznih tipov orožja, posod in tudi drugih predmetov od Transilvanije do srednjega Apeninskega polotoka in od Grčije pa do predelov severno od Alp in Karpatov vse do pribaltskega območja. 30 Posebne omembe vredno se zdi dejstvo, da je bilo v teku 8. oz. zgodnjega 7. st. pr. n. št. ritualno deponiranje v Mušjo jamo postopno opuščeno, nekoliko kasneje pa tudi pokopavanje na grobišču na Brežcu. Seveda se zastavlja vprašanje, zakaj je Škocjan izgubil svoj pomen nadregionalnega me- sta kultnega značaja, čeprav je bil obljuden tudi v mladohalštatskem obdobju, kot kažejo zakladna najdba nakita in mlajše najdbe posameznih grobov (Teržan, Turk, sl. 15). 31 V teku 9. in zgodnjega 8. stoletja na notranj- skem pridobijo na pomenu nove postojanke, kot so Šmihel, 32 Križna gora pri Ložu in Trnovo pri Ilirski Bistrici 33 (Bavdek). Svoj razcvet doživijo v 8.–7. st., čemur sledi proti koncu 7. st. oz. najkasneje na prehodu v 6. st. pr. n. št. njihov zaton, ki tako rekoč sovpada z omenjenim prenehanjem nekropole na škocjanskem Brežcu. Kljub temu življenje na n otranjskem in Krasu ni povsem zamrlo, o čemer pričajo sicer maloštevilne, povečini žal le posame- zne najdbe brez ohranjenih grobnih celot, npr. iz Tržišča pri Cerknici in Šmihela pod nanosom 34 ter pred nedavnim odkrite bogate grobne najdbe z Ulake pri Starem trgu pri Ložu (Laharnar, Murgelj, t. 2–7) in tudi izpod Ajdovščine nad r odikom (Teržan, Turk, sl. 14: 1–5). Prav nakit kot spiralne zapestnice, okrasni okrogli plošči in polmesečasti obesek v obliki glavnička 35 z Ulake ter spiralne zapestnice z rodiške Ajdovščine so morda odraz novonastalih razmerij moči, saj kaže na povezave s skupnostmi ob Jadranskem morju – na eni strani s histrskimi ali/in japodsko-liburnskimi, na drugi pa morda celo z nekaterimi na Apeninskem polotoku. Zato domneva, da so v 6. st. pr. n. št. na področje 30 Prim. T urk 2016b, 66–97, sl. 18; 24–25; Borgna 2016a; ead. 2016b, 141–155, sl. 47; 50; Teržan 2016a, 346–415, sl. 131–133; 137–145; 147–148; ead. 2019. 31 T urk 2012, 92–94, sl. 4–6; r uaro Loseri 1983, 150–151, Fig. 26A–B. 32 Guštin 1979, 25–31, 70–78, t. 37–50; 58–60. 33 Urleb 1974; Bavdek, Urleb 2014; Bavdek 2018, 167–171. 34 Guštin 1979, t. 18–19; 60: 14–19; 61: 1–15. 35 Glej tudi Mihovilić 2013, 206–208, sl. 129–130; Kunstelj 2018, 211–213, sl. 8: 4, 7; 9. 234 Biba Teržan n otranjske in Krasa prodrli novi vplivi z juga in zahoda. Vendar je do ponovnega populacijskega in ekonomskega vzpona na n otranjskem in Krasu prišlo še nekoliko pozneje, s horizontom klasičnih certoških fibul, ki so zastopane na številnih no- tranjsko-kraških najdiščih. Pogoste so predvsem fibule tipa X, pa tudi VII in XII 36 kot vodilni tipi časovne stopnje n otranjska VI v 5. in 4. st. pr. n. št. (Laharnar, Murgelj, t. 2: 1; 5: 1–10; T eržan, T urk, sl. 14: 6–7). 37 T o je obdobje bistvenih sprememb tudi v načinu pokopavanja, saj je sodilo orožje (sulice in sekire) med standardne pridatke moških grobov, kot kažejo številne najdbe npr. iz Šmihela in Socerba (Guštin, Božič). 38 n ova arheološka izkopavanja v Tomaju so pokazala, da sodita v mladohalštatsko obdobje tudi obnova obzidja gradišča, tretja faza (Bratina, sl. 3 in 4), in izgradnja zapor na severnem kraškem robu (Teržan, Turk, sl. 13). Vprašanje, ali so te spremembe zgolj odraz nemirnega, vojaško obremenjenega obdobja ali pa je prišlo celo do prevlade morebitnih novih prišlekov – osvajalcev, ostaja še odprto. Poselitveni prostori Čeprav še vedno ne poznamo dovolj dobro niti naselbin niti nekropol starejše železne dobe na notranjskem in Krasu, kot ugotavlja tudi Alma Bavdek (Bavdek, pril. 1; Bratina), vseeno kaže predstaviti nekaj zanimivih novih dognanj, ki zadevajo poselitev prostora in gradnjo gradišč. Pečat pokrajini dajejo visoka kraška polja kot značilnost Dinaridov, ki potekajo v smeri SZ–JV in se vzhodno od pogorja Hrušice in Javornikov vrstijo od Logaškega in Planinskega polja preko Unškega in Cerkniškega polja ter Loške doline vse do Babnega polja. n a drugi strani tega pogorja pa 36 Cfr. T eržan 1976, 325–338, sl. 3–4; 25–26; 31; 35–36; 41. 37 Guštin 1973, 478–480, sl. 3; Guštin 1979, t. 2: 3 (Šilentabor); 3: 6,9 (Gradišče na Čepni); 4: 8 (Gradišče na Knežaku); 5: 3 (Ulaka); 6: 3,8 (Štorje); 20: 3–16 (Tržišče); 48: 10; 50: 13–16; 51: 3,11,14,19; 52: 1,11,15; 53: 8; 54: 3–4,9; 55; 57: 8–15; 58: 2–3; 61: 16–18; 62–64 (Šmihel); Horvat 1995, t. 11: 3; 7: 1–2; 14: 8; Crismani, r ighi 2002, 67–69, Fig. 4–26 (Socerb); Vinazza 2018 (T upelče); Laharnar 2022 (Baba pri Slavini, Ambroževo gradišče pri Slavini, Kerin nad Pivko, Primož nad r aduhovo vasjo pri Pivki, Šilentabor, Gradišče na Čepni, Gradišče nad Knežakom, Gradišče nad Gornjo Košano, Stari grad nad Uncem, Gradišče na Slivnici, ž erovinšček itd.). 38 Cfr. Guštin 1979, t. 2: 1–3; 51–58; 75–79; Crismani, r ighi 2002, 84–85, Fig. 168–179. so med n anosom in Snežnikom notranjska podolja, in sicer od Postojnskih vrat oz. Pivške kotline, Spo- dnje in Zgornje Pivke do Podgore ter Matarskega in Jelšanskega/Brgudskega podolja (Bavdek, pril. 1; Vidojević, sl. 3 in 4). Čeprav so nekatera polja sezonsko poplavljena in se občasno spremenijo celo v presihajoča jezera 39 ter so zato za trajno poselitev neprimerna, pa je na njihovem obrobju, dvignjenem nad poplavne ravnice, dovolj ugodnih mest za na- selitev. Zdi se, da gre za zelo načrtno poselitev in izrabo polj v sušnih obdobjih za kmetijske potrebe, morda pa celo za sezonski ribji ulov. 40 Vsako od polj oz. dolin obvladuje vsaj po ena večja utrjena naselbina, nekatere na zelo dominantnih, strateško pomembnih mestih, druge na nižjih vzpetinah. V eč naselbin je nanizanih na obrobju Cerkniškega jezera, ki so bolj ali manj sočasne, a njihovo trajanje in medsebojna razmerja še niso povsem razjasnjena (Bavdek, pril. 1). 41 Hkrati je pomenljivo, da so bili prehodi med polji in pokrajinami posebej varovani z utrjenimi postojankami, ki so omogočale tudi vizualno povezavo. Tako sta npr. Postojnska vrata na vzhodu nadzirala Sovič in Pečna reber, prelaz pri r azdrtem na zahodu pa sta verjetno kontrolirala Goli vrh in Gradišče (Bavdek, sl. 1 in 4), 42 prehod proti Kvarnerju je na Babnem polju nadzorovala Farjevka, nad drugim prehodom proti Kvarnerju pa je bdelo gradišče na Sv. Katarini nad Jelšanami (Bavdek, pril. 1 in Vidojević, sl. 4: 11; 9–11). ne- koliko drugačno sliko nudijo naselja na Pivškem, ki se vrstijo med osrednjima gradiščema, kot sta Grad pri Šmihelu, nekoliko umaknjen od prelaza pri r azdrtem pod nanos, 43 in Trnovo pri Ilirski Bistrici. Gre za niz utrjenih naselbin na visokem Taborskem grebenu vzdolž doline Pivke. S svojo lego pretežno na temenu pogorja nad prepadnimi stenami dajejo celo vtis neke vrste obrambne črte proti zahodu. Verjetno edini prelaz s Pivškega v r eško dolino pa sta morda prav tako varovali dve gradišči, Kerin in Sv. Primož, obe datirani v pozno bronasto in železno dobo (Bavdek, pril. 1). 44 Takšna poselitev na obrobju polj in dolin ter nadzor nad prehodi z utrjenimi postojankami in 39 Cf. npr. Prestor 2009; Schein 2009; Perne, T urk 2011, 29. 40 Glej npr. Schein 2009, 48–49, 59. V tem smislu se zdi posebno indikativna lega Cvingerja pri Dolenji vasi tik nad požiralnikom Velika Karlovica (Bavdek, sl.12 in 13). 41 Glej tudi Bavdek 2009. 42 Horvat, Bavdek 2009; Horvat, Bavdek 2010. 43 Verjetno gre za antično Okro, glej Šašel 1974; id. 1977; Slapšak 1999, 149–151; Horvat, Bavdek 2009, 19–22. 44 Prim. npr. tudi Horvat 1995, sl. 1; ead. 2005, 228–229, 237–243, sl. 2; glej tudi Laharnar 2022 (v tisku). 235 Notranjsko-kraška halštatska skupina. Uvodnik in kratek oris vizualno komunikacijo v marsičem spominja na poselitvene sisteme za časa bronaste in železne dobe do rimske okupacije, ugotovljene v dinarskem zaledju Jadrana, na visokih kraških poljih od Like 45 do Hercegovine. 46 V erjetno jih niso pogojevale zgolj geografske danosti, temveč tudi stopnja družbene organiziranosti tod živečih skupnosti ter njihov nadzor zlasti nad naravnimi viri, npr. pitno vodo, 47 ter pripadajočim jim ozemljem. Drugače je na Kraški planoti, kjer ji dajejo pe- čat tri ali štiri večje naselbine na vzpetinah, kot so Tomaj, Skopo in Sveto ter ob severnem robu morda še Štanjel, medtem ko je vrsta gradišč gosteje nanizanih predvsem na zahodni strani planote, na številnih vrhovih nad Tržaškim zalivom in na Kraškem robu. n a jugovzhodu pa je prostor kra- ške skupine zamejen s poselitvenim kompleksom Škocjana in nad njim rodiško Ajdovščino. 48 nove raziskave, ki izhajajo iz nove metode zračnega snemanja zemeljskega površja, t. i. lidar, kar je Boštjan Laharnar upravičeno označil kot “pravo revolucijo v arheološki topografiji”, pa v zadnjih nekaj letih omogočajo povsem nov vpo- gled v nastajanje kulturne krajine in poselitvene sisteme, tudi na n otranjskem in Krasu. 49 n e le, da so se izluščile konture utrjenih naselbin – gradišč z veliko večjo natančnostjo kot iz letalskih zračnih posnetkov in da je ponekod razvidna tudi njihova notranja pozidava in ureditev, še več, v njihovi neposredni okolici so se pokazali različni sledovi umetnih tvorb, kot so ograde, zidovi, groblje in mejni zidovi okoli večjih arealov, ki jih povezujejo z gospodarskim – kmetijskim zaledjem posameznih naselbin. r aziskave Laharnarja in njegove ekipe v okolici Gradišča nad Knežakom se niso omejile le na lidarske posnetke in njihovo interpretacijo, temveč so izbrane tvorbe preverili tudi s sondiranji in izkopavanji manjšega obsega, ki so pokazala na zelo kompleksno strukturirano izrabo gradišču pripadajočega območja, ponekod zamejenega celo 45 Glej npr. Drechsler-Bižić 1975, Plan 2. 46 Benac 1975, Plan 1; id. 1985, 56–69, 90–94, 135–146, 181–187, Karta 1–4 in še posebej Karta 5. 47 O tem, kako pomemben je bil npr. dostop do pitne vode, glej Šašel 1992a, 524–528. 48 Slapšak 1995; id. 1999, 158–163. Glej tudi Flego, r upel 1993; Zupančič 1990, 19–21; Càssola Guida, Càssola 2002, 7–10, Fig. 4. 49 Laharnar 2018, 30. Pri tem kaže omeniti, da B. Laharnar vodi raziskovalni projekt, v okviru katerega potekajo prav raziskave gradišč in njihovega zaledja na n otranjskem, predvsem na Pivškem. V pripravi za tisk je tudi njegova monografija Laharnar 2022 (v tisku). s posebnim zidom (sl. 2). na osnovi keramičnih najdb so jih datirali v starejšo železno dobo, ob- stajajo pa tudi indici, da so nekatere najdbe celo starejše, tj. iz bronaste dobe. 50 Podobno situacijo je ugotovila T anja Vidojević v zaledju gradišča Trnovo kot osrednji utrjeni naselbini na Ilirskobistriškem, kjer se je s suhim zidom varovano območje raz- tezalo od Trnovega do Sv. Ahaca in Stražice kot opazovalnima in obrambnima postojankama, kar je zabeležil že Müllner (Vidojević, sl. 1, 7–8). n a Krasu, kjer je natančno topografijo in temeljne prostorske študije izvedel Božidar Slapšak, 51 so bile odkrite podobne strukture. Glede na različno lego, velikost in utrjenost gradišč okoli Škocjana, kot so npr. Gradišče pri Divači, Graček nad Famljami in Volarija, ter glede na domnevni kamniti zid okoli celotnega škocjanskega območja sklepamo, da je bil tudi ta teritorij zamejen in posebej varovan, morda celo v podobnem smislu, kot so bili grški temenoi. 52 Podobno organiziranost prostora smo na osnovi lidarskih posnetkov in terenskih preverjanj ugotovili tudi v primeru Štanjela kot osrednjega gradišča verjetno s satelitskimi naselji, kot sta bili na bližnjih Kobdilju in Kobjeglavi (Bratina sl. 1; Teržan, Turk, sl. 8, 13). 53 Štanjel pa ni imel pod nadzorom le svojega kraškega zaledja, temveč tudi sam dostop na kraško planoto iz Vipavske doline. V njegovi neposredni bližini smo namreč na Ostrem vrhu z arheološkimi izkopavanji odkrili opazovalni stolp, datiran v halštatsko obdobje. Zanimivo je, da je bil njemu nasproti na drugi strani doline, po kateri se vzpenja pot na kraško planoto, postavljen še en stolp, Lukovska Škratljevica, torej je bil dostop tudi tu flankiran kar z dvema stolpoma. Glede na še druge podobne, čeprav arheološko še neraziska- ne kamnite ostaline, smo postavili tezo, da je bila vzdolž severnega kraškega roba postavljena vrsta utrjenih postojank, obrambnih in opazovalnih stolpov ter manjših, močno utrjenih gradišč, ki so nadzorovali in varovali dostop na kraško planoto, namenjeni so bili torej obrambi ozemlja kraške kulturne skupine (Teržan, Turk, sl. 1–13). Arheološko izkopavanje stolpa na Ostrem vrhu je omogočilo tudi odličen vpogled v način suho- 50 Laharnar 2018, 30–34, sl. 3; Laharnar, Lozić, Štular 2019, Fig. 2–5. Za rimsko obdobje na Knežaku glej Laharnar, Lozić, Miškec 2020. 51 Slapšak 1995; id. 1999. 52 Turk, Hrobat, Bratina 2016, sl. 13; Teržan 2016a, 416–417, sl. 151–152; Mlekuž 2019. 53 Za Štanjel glej tudi Bratina 2019. Za lociranje grobov v bližini Kobjeglave, ki so bili pripisani štanjelski nekropoli, glej Vinazza 2018. 236 Biba Teržan zidne gradnje. Pokazalo se je, da ne gre le za zelo skrbno zloženo kamenje s poravnanim notranjim in zunanjim licem zidu, temveč so bili pomemben element tudi leseni stebri kot oporniki celotne konstrukcije (Teržan, Turk, sl. 1–6). Zato naša do- mneva, da so bila tudi obzidja gradišč grajena na podoben način (Bratina, sl. 3 in 4). Vsekakor pa so novejša izkopavanja pokazala, da gradišča niso obdajali kamniti nasipi ali okopi, kot je bilo to do nedavnega pogosto zaslediti v literaturi, temveč da so dandanašnji kamniti nasipi ruševine mogočnih zidov. Ti imajo zunanje in notranje lice praviloma zgrajeno iz večjih kamnov ali kamnitih blokov, vmesni prostor, ki je lahko širok tudi več metrov, pa je povečini zapolnjen z manjšimi kamni in po- nekod še z zemljenim zasutjem, npr. na Gradu pri Sl. 2: Gradišče nad Knežakom z okolico. Arheološka interpretacija po lidarskih posnetkih: a – Gradišče nad Knežakom; b – Gradišče na Čepni; c – Zrmzlek (majhno gradišče?/stolp?); d –Gradišče pri Šembijah; e – Breg pri Šembijah (majhno gradišče); f – Gradišče Obroba; g – groblje; h – mejni zid območja; i – Šembijsko presihajoče jezero; j – srednje- in novoveška polja (prirejeno po Laharnar, Lozić, Štular 2019, Fig. 2). Fig. 2: Gradišče above Knežak and its surrounding area, archaeological interpretation based on LiDAr images: a – Gradišče above Knežak; b – Gradišče on Čepna; c – Zrmzlek (minor hillfort?/tower?); d – Gradišče near Šembije; e – Breg near Šembije (minor hillfort); f – Gradišče Obroba; g – cairn; h – boundary wall of a territory; i – intermittent Šembije Lake; j – medieval and post-medieval fields (adapted after Laharnar, Lozić, Štular 2019, Fig. 2). 237 Notranjsko-kraška halštatska skupina. Uvodnik in kratek oris Šmihelu, 54 Cvingerju pri Dolenji vasi pri Cerknici (Bavdek, sl. 14), Taboru pri Vrabčah (Vinazza, sl. 3) in Tomaju (Bratina, sl. 3 in 4). Pri morebitnem obnavljanju zidu so na zunanji strani prizidali do- datni podporni zid ali celo več front zidu, npr. na gradiščih na Ajdovščini nad r odikom, 55 Gračku pri Famljah 56 in v Tomaju 57 (Bratina, sl. 3 in 4). Ogromne kamnite ruševine (npr. Vidojević, sl. 10; Bratina) kažejo na mogočne zidove, grajene na suho, ki so morali v višino meriti tudi več metrov. Izgradnja gradišč z obrambnim obzidjem pomeni torej zelo zahtevne in velike, tako rekoč inženir- ske podvige, ki so jih lahko izpeljale posamezne skupnosti le pod vodstvom izkušenih mojstrov in dobro organizirane družbe. NAČIN POKOPAVANJA IN DRUŽBENA STRUKTURA V okviru notranjsko-kraške skupine so svoje pre- minule pokopavali na različne načine, prevladujoč običaj je bilo sežiganje in shranjevanje bodisi v žare bodisi v preproste grobne jame, nezanemarlji- vo pa je bilo tudi inhumiranje (Bavdek; Laharnar, Murgelj). Pri obeh načinih pokopa so bili pridani v grobove deli noše oz. nakita, ponekod drobno orodje, ne pa orožje. V nasprotju z dolenjsko hal- štatsko kulturno skupino, kjer je bilo orožje (sekira in sulice) praviloma sestavni del vsake moške grobne oprave, se v tej skupini pojavlja le izjemoma, npr. v nekaterih grobovih pozne bronaste oz. zgodnje železne dobe na grobišču na Brežcu pri Škocjanu in vsega treh grobovih na Križni gori. 58 Šele v stopnji notranjska VI, tj. v poznem halštatskem obdobju, predvsem pa v latenskem obdobju, je orožje postalo pogost in običajen grobni pridatek. r edkeje so bile poleg žar pridane še druge posode, izjema so grobovi na Križni gori, kjer so verjetno služile za popotnico v onstranstvo. Grobišča so bila praviloma plana, čeprav se v literaturi omenjajo tudi gomile, 59 v katerih pa pokopi z arheološkimi izkopavanji doslej še niso bili dokazani. Povečini so bile v njih odkrite čre- pinje posod, ne pa tudi druge najdbe, na osnovi 54 Urleb 1990. 55 Slapšak 1985. 56 novaković, Turk 1991a; novaković, Turk 1991b; Zupančič, Vinazza 2015, 694–695, sl. 3. 57 Bratina 2018b, 96–97, sl. 8–9. 58 Urleb 1974, t. 1: 8; 3: 15; 9: 4; T eržan 1990, 70–71, sl. 15. 59 Guštin 2011, 40. katerih bi bilo možno sklepati na grobove. Zato je verjetno, da gre za kamnite groblje, kakršne je Laharnar raziskal na območju pod Gradiščem pri Knežaku in ki jih povezuje s kmetijsko izrabo pro- stora. 60 n ekropole so ležale praviloma na pobočjih neposredno pod naselbinami, npr. na Križni gori 61 in Trnovem pri Ilirski Bistrici (Bavdek), pa tudi pod Jelarji pri Sv. Barbari pri Korošcih, 62 medtem ko je bilo v bližnji okolici Škocjana 63 in Gradu pri Šmihelu 64 več grobišč. Tako biritualnost v načinu pokopavanja kot tudi obstoj več sočasnih grobišč ali skupin grobov, bolj ali manj oddaljenih od naselbin, morda lahko razumemo kot odraz več različnih družbenih enot v smislu družin ali rodbin ter njihovega medse- bojnega spoštovanja pri sobivanju tako v okviru posameznih naselbin kot tudi celotne notranjsko- -kraške kulturne skupine. Zanimiv vpogled v družbeno strukturiranost posameznih naselbin ponuja analiza grobov glede na način pokopa in sestavo grobnih pridatkov, kot se kaže na primeru križnogorskega in šmihelskih grobišč. Od grobišč okoli dobro utrjene naselbine na Gradu pri Šmihelu sodita dve v zgodnjo železno dobo – Pod Kaculjem in na Mačkovcu. 65 Čeprav sta sočasni, se grobni pridatki, zlasti v ženskih grobovih, med seboj razlikujejo, kar daje slutiti, da gre za dvoje različnih družbenih skupnosti/ rodbin. na grobišču Pod Kaculjem prevladujejo v ženski noši očalaste fibule in zapestnice in ji tudi dajejo poseben pečat (sl. 3), medtem ko so grobovi z ločnimi fibulami zastopani v občutno manjšem številu in predstavljajo opazno manjšino 60 Glej Urleb 1974, 13, pril. 1; Osmuk 1988; Laharnar 2019, 266–268. 61 Urleb 1974, 11–14, sl. 2, pril. 1. 62 Montagnari Kokelj 1996; ead. 1997, Tav. 23–26; Maselli Scotti 1997, 7–11, Fig. 1–2; 12; 25–28; Škvor Jernejčič 2018, 538–545, Fig. 2. 63 r uaro Loseri et al. 1977, 19–22, Fig. 6; T urk, Hrobat, Bratina 2016, sl. 13. 64 Guštin 1979, 13, sl. 3. 65 Hoernes 1888, 217–249; Guštin 1979, 70–75, Abb. 3, Taf. 37–50. V objavljeni študiji T eržan 1992, 464–471, Abb. 9–10, katere rezultate povzemamo na tem mestu (glej sl. 3–5), smo se oprli tako na objavo Hoernesa kot Guština, pri čemer smo prevzeli oštevilčenje grobov po Guštinu, da bi bilo lažje poiskati opisni in slikovni prikaz posameznih grobov. Vendar naj opozorim, da Guštinovo preštevilčenje grobov ni najbolj posrečeno, saj so z njim na eni strani neupoštevane oz. zabrisane lokacije posameznih grobišč, na drugi strani pa niso omenjeni in upoštevani grobovi brez grobnih pridatkov. 238 Biba Teržan (sl. 4). 66 Fibule obeh tipov se skupaj pojavljajo le v redkih grobovih in kažejo morda na ožje so- rodstvene vezi osebe z eno in drugo skupnostjo. n a osnovi preostalih sestavin noše in nakita, kot 66 V okviru očalastih in ločnih fibul na slikah ne upoštevam njihove morebitne tipološke ali kronološke razlike (pod ločnimi fibulami so zabeležene tako eno- kot dvozankaste in polmesečaste fibule). Oznake noše I–VII se nanašajo na kategorizacijo Teržan 1978. so jagode, obeski in ovratnice, so poleg osnovnih označevalcev (fibula/zapestnica) razpoznavne še druge kombinacije, ki ustrezajo tipom noš in njihovi kategorizaciji glede na stan in status, kot prikazano na osnovi analize skeletnih, glede na spol in starost antropološko opredeljenih grobov s Križne gore. 67 r azen razlik v nošnji fibul se zdi 67 Urleb 1974, 14–19, sl. 3; 5; Teržan 1978. Sl. 3: Šmihel – Pod Kaculjem. Grobovi z nakitom, ki jim dajejo poseben pečat očalaste fibule (glej op. 66). Fig. 3: Šmihel – Pod Kaculjem. Graves with jewellery marked by spectacle fibulae (see Fn. 66). Pokop/ Burial Nakit / Jewellery Fibule / Fibulae Št. groba / Grave No. Žara / Urn Skleda / Bowl Nedoločljiv / Indeterminable Vijček / Spindle whorl Jagode / Beads Obeski / Pendants Ovratnica / Torques Zapestnica / Bracelet Ločna / Bow Polmesečasta / Crescent Očalasta / Spectacle Igla / Pin Drugo / Other Noša / Costume 32 1 1 ×   ×     1?   1 2 1   I 36 1 1 × × × 2 2 2     30 1 1   2   2 1   8   1   1 2   2     56/57       2 1 1 1 1   5     ×         2?     2     21 1             1     2       50       1?   2       34/35     × × 1   1 1       61 1 1   1 2 1       58       1? 2 1     III 31 1 1   × 1   1       29   1   1   1       22       1   1       19               1     1       13 1 1 ×       1   1 1 1   Pr II 46     ×     ×     1   1 1   V 26 1 1   × ×   1 1     60 1 1       2     9   1   ×     2     2       ×     1     52           2 1   28           1     17                     1     * Pr = Prstan / Fingerring 239 Notranjsko-kraška halštatska skupina. Uvodnik in kratek oris indikativno tudi to, da so bile osebe z očalasti- mi fibulami na grobišču Pod Kaculjem pogosto pokopane v žari, pokriti s skledo (sl. 3), medtem ko so bile tiste z ločnimi fibulami pokopane brez žare. Izjemi sta le dve osebi z ločnimi fibulami, ki se glede na preostali nakit uvrščata med nosilke nošnje I. kategorije, tj. s parom zapestnic (sl. 4), torej med pripadnice najvišjega ranga v okviru ženske populacije na grobišču Pod Kaculjem. Podobno kot grobovi z ločnimi fibulami Pod Kaculjem, ki so bili pretežno brez žar, tudi na grobišču na Mačkovcu preminulih niso pokopa- vali v žarah, prav tako niso v grobove prilagali drugih posod, razen redkih izjem (sl. 5). To se zdi še posebej pomenljivo, ker so bile na grobišču na Mačkovcu označevalni element noše prav ločne fibule, saj so očalaste fibule predstavljale le redke izjeme (sl. 5). Čeprav so grobovi na Mačkovcu v celoti bolj skromni, pa se glede na ostale pridatke noše oz. nakita (zapestnice, ovratnice, obeski in jagode) ne razlikujejo od običajnih kategorij noš, kot smo jih ugotovili Pod Kaculjem in na Križni gori. To dejstvo seveda govori za standardizirane tipe noše/kombinacije nakita glede na starostno Sl. 4: Šmihel – Pod Kaculjem. Grobovi z nakitom, ki jim dajejo poseben pečat ločne fibule (glej op. 66). Fig. 4: Šmihel – Pod Kaculjem. Graves with jewellery marked by bow fibulae (see Fn. 66). Pokop / Burial Nakit / Jewellery Fibule / Fibulae Št. groba / Grave No. Žara / Urn Skleda / Bowl Skeletni / Inhumation Nedoločljiv / Indeterminable Jagode / Beads Obeski / Pendants Ovratnica / Torques Zapestnica / Bracelet Ločna / Bow Polmesečasta / Crescent Očalasta / Spectacle Igla / Pin Drugo / Other Noša / Costume 62 1 1     ×     2 1       2 Uo   45     × × 2 1     1 Pr   44 1 1+×   × 2 1     1 Pr I/III 33     × × 4 2         51               1 1     1     53       ×     1     1?       II 49     S       1             12                 1           20         1         10   1       1       V 4         1?         15                 1?           39           ×   2           IV 16       2         43       2         64     S         2           40       × × ×                 7     × ×             11   1   × ×           VII 6     ×             23       ×                     * Uo = Uhan/obroček / e arring/ring; Pr = prstan / Fingerring 240 Biba Teržan obdobje, stan in družbeni status ženskih oseb, kar je bilo očitno sprejeto in razpoznavno na celotnem ozemlju notranjsko-kraške skupine in tudi v širšem prostoru jugovzhodnoalpske halštatske kulture. 68 ž enska noša/nakit je torej predstavljala pomemben družbeni regulativ, zlasti v smislu razpoznavnosti, varnosti in zaščitenosti ženskega sveta. Ugotovljene razlike v načinu pokopavanja (ža- ra/brez žare) in v označevalnem nakitu (očalasta fibula/ločna fibula) lahko razumemo kot specifične identitetne oznake posameznih skupnosti/družin/ rodbin v okviru šmihelskega gradišča. Po grobnih pridatkih pa lahko sklepamo tudi na premoženjske razlike med njimi, saj so npr. ženski grobovi Pod Kaculjem nekaj bogatejši od tistih na Mačkovcu, kar morda kaže na socialno razslojenost prebival- stva znotraj naselbine. 68 Za dolenjsko kulturno skupino prim. Teržan 1985; ead. 2008, 246–262, sl. 24; 26. Še bolj zapleteno družbeno strukturo pa skriva v sebi nekropola pod Križno goro, 69 kjer so bili odkriti grobovi z žarami, žgani pokopi v prepro- stih jamah brez žar in skeletni grobovi. n a načrtu grobišča so sicer razpoznavna določena grupiranja grobov, ki pa nam jih ni uspelo jasno razmejiti ali kakorkoli opredeliti niti po načinu pokopa niti po značilnih grobnih pridatkih, kajti znotraj posamezne grupacije so povečini zastopane na različne načine pokopane osebe. 70 Kljub temu smo izvedli podrobno analizo grobov ter poskusili ugotoviti značilnosti skupnosti, ki so pokopavale na tem grobišču. Ker smo na osnovi kombinacije grobnih pri- datkov že poskušali razpoznati značilnosti posa- meznih noš glede na spol, stan in starost, 71 nas tu zanimajo podobni fenomeni, kot so se nam razkrili v primeru grobišč pri Šmihelu, in sicer v kolikšni meri so fibule v okviru ženske nošnje na Križni gori označevalke pripadnosti določeni skupnosti/rodbini. Pokazalo se je, da so podobno kot v Šmihelu merodajne na eni strani očalaste fibule in na drugi ločne (sl. 7–8), ki so zastopane tako rekoč v sestavih vseh tipov/kategorij noš: I. noša s fibulo in zapestnicami v paru, II. noša z ovratnicami in uhani, III. noša s posameznimi zapestnicami ali v neparnem številu, IV. noša samo s parnimi zapestnicami, V. noša samo s fibulami, obeski, jagodami itd. Ti dve vrsti fibul torej tudi na Križni gori ne gre razumeti le v smislu starostnih ali stanovskih razlik, temveč tudi kot označevalke pripadnosti določeni sku- pnosti/rodbini. 72 Zanimivo pa je, da se v načinu pokopavanja kaže ravno nasprotna slika kot na obeh grobiščih Šmihela (Pod Kaculjem in na Mačkovcu): ženske osebe z ločnimi fibulami so na Križni gori pogosteje pokopane v žarah, tiste z očalastimi fibulami pa v žganih grobovih brez žar. r azumevanje tega obratnega sorazmerja otežuje dejstvo, da so tako v prvi skupini (z loč- 69 Urleb 1974; T eržan 1978; ead. 1992, 467–469, Abb. 11–12. 70 Prim. Urleb 1974, 35–44, sl. 16–19; Teržan 1990, 67–69, sl. 14. 71 Teržan 1978; ead. 1990, 67–69, sl. 14. 72 Samoumevno je, da med posameznimi grobovi z enimi ali drugimi fibulami obstajajo tudi tipološke in kronološke razlike, npr. med navadnimi iz spiralne žice zvitimi očalastimi fibulami, ki so starejše, in dvodelnimi očalastimi fibulami z nosilno ploščico, ki so mlajše, ali pa med ločnimi eno- in dvozankastimi ločnimi fibulami različnih variant itd. V endar v okviru te raziskave kronološke dimenzije nismo upoštevali in vključili v razpravo, ker bi preseglo obseg in namen tega preglednega prispevka. Sl. 5: Šmihel – Mačkovc. Grobovi z nakitom, ki jim dajejo poseben pečat ločne fibule (glej op. 66). Fig. 5: Šmihel – Mačkovc. Graves with jewellery marked by bow fibulae (see Fn. 66). Pokop / Burial Nakit / Jewellery Fibule / Fibulae Št. groba / Grave No. Žara / Urn Skleda / Bowl Nedoločljiv / Indeterminable Jagode / Beads Obeski / Pendants Ovratnica / Torques Zapestnica / Bracelet Ločna / Bow Polmesečasta / Crescent Očalasta / Spectacle Igla / Pin Noša / Costume 76         ×   5 1       I 71       2? 1     72       × 1? 2 2     69             1 1   1   68           1?   1       II 81           1         1 70     × ×       1       V 74     ×   1     82           1     79   1     1     77         1     78                   1   241 Notranjsko-kraška halštatska skupina. Uvodnik in kratek oris nimi fibulami) kot drugi (z očalastimi fibulami) pogosti tudi skeletni grobovi (sl. 7–8). Kako torej razumeti to raznolikost znotraj Križne gore v načinu pokopavanja in v nošnji prav določenih vrst fibul kot označevalk pripadnosti posameznim družbenim skupnostim/rodbinam? Kljub vrsti nerazrešenih vprašanj lahko za- ključimo s tezo, da je bil sestav prebivalstva na Križni gori in Šmihelu, podobno kot tudi v Ško- cjanu, heterogen, čemur je morda iskati vzroke v navezavi na različne tradicije in provenience prvih naseljencev, graditeljev gradišč. Identiteta posameznih skupnosti v okviru naselbin se je, kot kaže, ohranjala in je bila razpoznavna: 1) glede na lego grobišč v odnosu do naselbine, 2) glede na razporeditev grobov v okviru posameznih grobišč v bolj ali manj razpoznavne skupine, 3) glede na način pokopavanja in 4) glede na nošo, zlasti to velja za žensko nošo, tj. sestavo nakita, pri čemer je bil označevalen element skupinske/rodovne/ rodbinske pripadnosti predvsem izbrana vrsta fibul (očalaste nasproti ločnim). Očalaste, ločne in še nekatere druge vrste fibul pa niso bile pomembne le kot označevalke pripa- dnosti določeni družbeni skupnosti/rodbini znotraj posameznih naselbin, temveč so bile sestavni deli nakita “narodne noše” notranjsko-kraške skupine. V okviru očalastih fibul z osmičko, ki so bile raz- širjene v pozni kulturi žarnih grobišč (v časovnih stopnjah Ha A2/Ha B1–3) in zgodnji železni dobi (stopnjah Ha C 1–2/Ha D1) med Baltskim in Sre- dozemskim morjem, je Sabini Pabst uspelo razločiti številne regionalne in lokalne variante. Med njimi je izdvojila tudi posebno varianto očalastih fibul z veliko osmičasto pentljo, ki jo je zaradi njene pogostnosti na notranjskem poimenovala tip Križna gora, značilen za stopnjo n otranjska II (sl. 6). 73 Mlajšo varianto teh fibul s prav tako veliko osmičko, vendar s trakasto ploščico kot nosilcem za iglo za pripenjanje fibule na oblačilo, je oprede- lila kot tip Tržišče, značilen predvsem za stopnjo n otranjska III. 74 Hkrati je njena analiza pokazala, da predstavljata obe za n otranjsko značilni varianti lokalni izvedbi očalastih fibul z najbližjimi primer- javami v japodski kulturni skupini, in sicer v tipih Kompolje in Prozor. 75 Zato lahko povzamemo, da očalaste fibule v ženski nošnji na n otranjskem na eni strani pričajo o navezavi na tradicijo kulture žarnih grobišč in izkazujejo na drugi strani nepo- sredno povezanost s sočasno nošnjo očalastih fibul pri svojih jugovzhodnih sosedih – pri Japodih. 76 n asprotno pa predstavljajo dvozankaste ločne fi- bule v notranjsko-kraški skupini izrazit balkanski tip fibul, ki mu je v številnih različicah mogoče slediti od centralnega Balkana preko Dolenjske 73 Glej Lazarevski Poklar 2000; Guštin 2011, 41. Mitju Guštinu se zahvaljujem za sliko in dovoljenje za objavo. 74 Pabst 2012, 57–59, 76, 199–209, Abb. 3: 4; 6: 1; Karte 14: 1; 20: 1; Liste 13; 25. 75 Pabst 2012, 59–63, 76–79, Abb. 3: 5; 6: 2; Karte 14; 20. 76 Za časovno opredelitev nošnje očalastih fibul z osmičko pri Japodih so na voljo tudi radiokarbonske datacije (Zavodny et al. 2019, Fig. 4). Sl. 6: Trnovo pri Ilirski Bistrici. Pridatki naključno odkritega žganega groba: bronasta očalasta fibula, ogrlica iz jantarnih in steklenih jagod ter bronastih spiralnih cevčic/saltaleonov (povzeto po Guštin 2011, 41). (n ajdbe so v privatni lasti). Fig. 6: Trnovo near Ilirska Bistrica. Goods in a cremation burial found by chance: bronze spectacle fibula, necklace of amber and glass beads, as well as bronze spiral tubes (f r o m G u š t in 2011, 41). (G o o d s a r e in p r i va t e o w n er s hi p). 242 Biba Teržan Sl. 7: Križna gora. Grobovi z nakitom, ki jim dajejo poseben pečat očalaste fibule (glej op. 66). Fig. 7: Križna gora. Graves with jewellery marked by spectacle fibulae (see Fn. 66). vse do Soče, torej do svetolucijske skupine, kjer poteka zahodna meja njihove razprostranjenosti. Pri tem kaže posebej poudariti, da dvozankaste ločne fibule kot tip razen redkih izjemnih pri- merkov niso bile razširjene v kulturnih skupinah obalnega pasu Jadrana in njegovega zaledja – niti pri Japodih, niti pri Liburnih, niti Histrih, pa tudi pri Venetih ne! 77 77 Müller 2009, 194–195, Abb. 203: karta s shematičnim prikazom razprostranjenosti dvozankastih ločnih fibul na Iz prikazane analize načina pokopa in nakita (sl. 3–8) lahko sklepamo, da je na n otranjskem prišlo v zgodnji železni dobi do nenavadne simbioze ja- podskih 78 in balkanskih elementov. Paradoksalno Balkanu je zavajajoča oz. ni točna. Ta tip fibul namreč ni bil razširjen v obalnem pasu Jadrana. Prim. Gabrovec 1970. 78 Omeniti kaže podobnosti v načinu pokopavanja (biritualnost) in grobnih grupacij z nekropolami predvsem na japodskem območju. Prim. Drechsler-Bižić 1987, 424–428; Balen-Letunić 2006, 33–36. Pokop / Burial Nakit / Jewellery Fibule / Fibulae Št. groba / Grave No. Skeletni / Inhumation Žgan / Incineration Žara / Urn Posoda / Vessel Skleda / Bowl Nedoločljiv / Indeterminable Vijček / Spindle whorl Gumbi / Buttons Jagode / Beads Obeski / Pendants Uhani/obročki / Earring/ring Ovratnica / Torques Zapestnica / Bracelet Ločna / Bow Polmesečasta / Crescent Očalasta / Spectacle Igla / Pin Drugo / Other Noša / Costume 25 S       1       × ×     2     2 1     13   × 1 1   × 2 1 1       10   × 1   × 3   1 1?     37   × 1 1   2   1       117   × 1 2   3?   1     I 147   × 1 1   2?   1       64 S   2   1       79 S ×   × × 2   1       100 S       1 ×     × × 2   4     1       141   ×   1   ×             1     1       124 S 1 1   × × 2 1   1 1       63 S 1 1   1 1   1     III 113 S 1     1 1   1       104 S         ×             1     1       121 S     1 1           1 1       1       126 S 1 × × × × 3 1     1     II 128 S           1       2         1       38   ×   1     1             1   2 1?     9   × 1 1   1 × ×     2       103 S 1 1   × ×     1 1       36 S 1 1     2 1       18   × 1 1       1   Kf V 20   × 1       1       90   × 1         1       23 S 1       1       127 S       1                     1       * Kf = Kačasta fibula / Serpentine fibula 243 Notranjsko-kraška halštatska skupina. Uvodnik in kratek oris je, da se odražajo predvsem v ženski noši, v kateri je določenim vrstam fibul/nakita torej pripadala označevalna in hkrati razločevalna vloga v smislu ožje (rodbinske?) identitete. Med značilne fibule notranjsko-kraške sku- pine sodijo tudi polmesečaste fibule, predvsem dvozankaste, okrašene z iztolčenimi bunkami na razširjenem loku, ki smo jih poimenovali kot tip Križna gora, 79 in pa velike čolničaste fibule z le 79 Teržan 1990, 59–60, 77, sl. 3: 1; 7: 3; 9: 2; 14. rahlo usločenim širokim čolničastim lokom (La- harnar, Murgelj, sl. 3–4; t. 3: 1). 80 Tako prve kot druge so bile sestavni del nakita ženske noše v času stopnje n otranjska III. V stopnji n otranjska IV pa izkazujejo lokalne posebnosti masivno lite kačaste fibule, ki so v večjem številu doslej znane predvsem s Tržišča pri Cerknici ter posamično iz 80 Guštin 1973, 472–477, sl. 2: 24,28; t. 9: 2,7; id. 1979, t. 18: 1–5; 58: 6; 60: 11–12. Sl. 8: Križna gora. Grobovi z nakitom, ki jim dajejo poseben pečat ločne fibule (glej op. 66). Fig. 8: Križna gora. Graves with jewellery marked by bow fibulae (see Fn. 66). Pokop / Burial Nakit / Jewellery Fibule / Fibulae Št. groba / Grave No. Skelet / Inhumation Žgan / Incineration Žara / Urn Posoda / Vessel Skleda / Bowl Nedoločljiv / Indeterminable Vijček / Spindle whorl Gumbi / Buttons Jagode / Beads Obeski / Pendants Uhani/obročki / Earring/ring Ovratnica / Torques Zapestnica / Bracelet Ločna / Bow Polmesečasta / Crescent Očalasta / Spectacle Protocertoška/Proto-Certosa Igla / Pin Drugo / Other Noša / Costume 22 S 1 1 1 2 1 52 × Ž 1 1 2 1 80 × Ž 1 × 2 1 69 × Ž 1 1 × 2 1 49 × Ž 1 2 1 I 72 S 2 1 × × 1 2 1 114 S 1 1 × 2 1 84 S 1 1 2? 1 120 S 1 2 1 78 S 1 1 1 1 125 S 1 1 1 III 110 × × × 1 1 115 S 1 1 × 1 1 (1) 1 II 47 × Ž 1 1 2 1 60 × 1 1 × × × 1 4 × Ž 2 2 × × × 1 Ko, Ps 122 × Ž 1 1 1 144 × Ž 1 1 1 135 × 1 1 1 134 × 1 1 V 11 × 1 1 1 Su 8 × 1 1 1 71 S 2 1 101 S 1 1 1 119 S 1 95 S 1 1 1 * Ko = Konjska oprema / Horse gear; Ps = Pasna spona / Belt clasp; Su = Sulična ost / Spearhead. 244 Biba Teržan Šmihela in Čepne pri Knežaku. 81 V nasprotju z očalastimi in dvozankastimi fibulami pa čolničaste in kačaste fibule odsevajo vplive z italskega oz. venetskega kulturnega prostora. S temi nekaj primeri značilnih tipov fibul smo želeli ponazoriti svojstven kulturni izraz notranj- sko-kraške skupine, ki se izkazuje ne le v komple- ksnosti načina pokopavanja in v specifičnostih nošnje, temveč tudi v oblikovanju nakita, v čemer se zrcali njena identiteta. DEPOJSKE NAJDBE Iz pozne bronaste in zgodnje železne dobe je z območja n otranjske in Krasa znanih tudi nekaj depojskih najdb, ki pa se po najdiščnih okolišči- nah in časovni dimenziji bistveno razlikujejo od že omenjenih v Mušji in Skeletni jami iz okolice Škocjana. Pri Velikem Otoku sta bila najdena kar dva depoja – manjši, najden pri vhodu v Mačkovco jamo, vsebuje plavutasti sekiri in okrasno plošči- co, večji pa bronaste surovce v obliki fragmentov kladivastih oz. bikoničnih ingotov. Ker imajo nekateri kosi posebne reliefne krožne označbe, neke vrste pečat, se domneva, da gre za posebno vrsto kovine. 82 Dejansko so spektrometrične in metalografske raziskave neve Trampuž Orel in njenih sodelavcev pokazale, da je v bronasti zlitini surovcev visoka vsebnost svinca in drugih slednih elementov, kar se kaže kot značilnost ingotov na našem območju v stopnji Ha B. Ingoti iz Velikega Otoka skupaj s tistimi iz depojev s Kanalskega vrha 83 kažejo torej na novo metalurško znanje in tehnološki napredek pri predelavi kompleksnih polimetalnih rud in izdelavi kovine s posebnimi lastnostmi za nadaljnje razpečevanje. 84 Glede na razmeroma številne podobne depoje z bikoničnimi surovci na prostoru med osrednjo Slovenijo in Furlanijo, vključno z n otranjsko, bi lahko sklepali, da so morebiti te polizdelke dragocene kovine tod izdelovali in jih posredovali v srednje evropski 81 Guštin 1973, 474–477, karta 3, sl. 2: 39; id. 1979, t. 3: 1; 19: 1–7; 60: 19; Tecco Hvala 2014, 130–131, sl. 3b, tip IIIb3, karta 6. 82 Čerče, Šinkovec 1995, 227–229, sl. 49, t. 139; Turk, Turk 2019, 202–205, sl. 253. Točna lokacija depoja Veliki Otok I ni znana. 83 žbona-Trkman, Bavdek, 1995–1996. 84 Trampuž-Orel 1996, 193–197, sl. 5–7, pril. A: 37; Trampuž Orel 1999, 417–419, Fig. 4; Trampuž Orel, Heath 2001, 150–163, 167–171. kot tudi italski, morda pa tudi širši sredozemski prostor. 85 Le nekoliko kasneje se na območju zahodne Slovenije, vključno z n otranjsko, pojavi še druga vrsta depojev, ki jih je Peter Turk širokopotezno označil kot depoji tipa Bologna/San Francesco – Šempeter (pri n ovi Gorici). 86 V njih so prav tako zastopani različni ingoti, od katerih so uhate sekire vredne posebne pozornosti. Predmeti so deponirani največkrat v obliki manjših fragmentov, le izjemo- ma celi. Takšni depoji oz. skupki koščkov kovine so bili v zadnjih dveh do treh desetletjih odkriti povečini z detektorjem kovin, in sicer pretežno v naselbinah, kar velja tudi za notranjske najdbe, npr. s Starega gradu nad Hruševjem, z Gradišča nad Zgornjo Košano, Babe nad Slavino, Gradišča nad Pivko, Gradišča nad Knežakom in Ulake (Laharnar, Murgelj, t. 1: 6–12). 87 Ob južni meji notranjsko-kraške skupine pa je bil pred nedav- nim odkrit depo pri Klani, skrit v popolni divjini (Blečić Kavur, sl. 7). Zaradi povečini nenavadnega kemijskega sestava (prav tako z visoko vsebnostjo svinca), zlasti uhatih sekir, sklepamo, da njihovi fragmenti in drugi bronasti koščki v teh depojih niso bili namenjeni zgolj metalurški dejavnosti, temveč so bili v obtoku tudi kot predmonetarno plačilno sredstvo. 88 Če sledimo tej tezi n eve Tram- puž Orel, moramo seveda omeniti, da imajo tako kladivasti ingoti kot tudi uhate sekire kot značilni tipi depojev tega obdobja svoje izvorno področje v italskem prostoru (oz. vzhodnem Sredozemlju). 89 To verjetno pomeni, da so bili naši kraji s pre- vzemom takšnih plačilnih sredstev vključeni v širši predmonetarni sistem, ki je zaobjemal poleg Apeninskega polotoka tudi alpski svet z njegovim jugovzhodnim obrobjem, kjer se je obdržal, kot kažejo nekatere depojske najdbe, vse do zgodnjega 6. st. pr. n. št. Tretjo vrsto depojev na n otranjskem predstavljajo nenavadne najdbe večje količine orožja. Sestavljajo jih sulice, sekire, meči, ponekod še čelade in konjska oprema. Odkriti so bili povečini v neposredni bližini 85 T urk, T urk 2019, 205, sl. 254; žbona-Trkman, Bavdek 1995–1996, 64, sl. 6. Glej tudi Sperber 2000, 392–395, Abb. 11. 86 Turk 2018, 398–400, Fig. 1; 3. 87 Trampuž Orel, Heath 1998, 237–248, Fig. 1–5, Pl. 1; Laharnar, Turk 2017, 89–91, sl. 102; n anut 2018, 145–147, sl. 11: 16–24. 88 Trampuž Orel, Heath 1998, 240–246, Fig. 7, Tab. 1; Teržan 2008, 296–300, sl. 47–48; Turk 2018, 399–400; n anut 2018, 141–145, sl. 5–8. 89 nadaljnja diskusija v tej smeri bi presegla okvir tega prispevka. 245 Notranjsko-kraška halštatska skupina. Uvodnik in kratek oris naselbin, npr. ob vznožju gradišča v Tomaju ali pa Tržišča pri Dolenji vasi pri Cerknici. Peter Turk jih je poimenoval kot depoje tipa Tržišče-Porpetto in jih datiral v čas med 8. in 6. st. pr. n. št. 90 Ponov- no sta jih na simpoziju predstavila Mitja Guštin in Dragan Božič ter jih poskušala kronološko in prostorsko natančneje opredeliti (Guštin, Božič). Število kosov posameznih zvrsti orožja v posame- znih depojih kaže, da gre za orožje, ki je pripadalo organiziranim vojaškim enotam s poveljnikom na čelu (čelada, bronasta bojna sekira ali/in sulica), z nekaj konjeniki (konjska oprema in enorezni ukrivljeni meči) ter pešaki suličarji (železne sulice, ponekod tudi železne sekire). n jihovo deponiranje pa lahko razumemo kot tropaia, kot pravi Peter T urk v interpretatio Caput Adriae, v lokalnem obredu zmagovite vojaške demonstracije. 91 Ob tem se seveda poraja vprašanje, kdo je slavil zmago, ali napadalci ali uspešni branilci dobro utrjenih gradišč. V notranjsko-kraški skupini pridatki orožja v grobove v zgodnji starejši železni dobi niso bili običajni, zato nam je ostalo prikrito, kakšno orož- je so posedovali. Tudi v sosednjih skupinah, kot so japodska, histrska in svetolucijska, orožja med grobnimi pridatki razen redkih izjem praviloma ni, kar prav tako otežuje razpoznavanje eventualnih agresorjev iz sosedstva. Morda je šlo le za medse- bojna prerivanja znotraj notranjsko-kraške skupine, a ni izključeno, da so napadalci oz. plenilci prihajali tudi od drugod, kot bi morda lahko sklepali na osnovi mnogo kasnejših antičnih pisnih virov. 92 Če bi izhajali iz nekaterih značilnih tipov orožja, kot so npr. ukrivljeni meči – mahaire, in sledili njihovemu pojavljanju v grobovih kot zanesljivemu indikatorju, da so spadali k bojni opremi preminulih, bi se pokazala naslednja slika: mahaire so v času depojev iz T omaja ali Tržišča posedovali na eni strani bojevniki v dolenjski kulturni skupini, kot kažejo grobovi v n ovem mestu 93 in na nekaterih drugih dolenjskih in belokranjskih najdiščih. na drugi strani zasledimo mahaire, sicer bolj izjemoma, tudi pri Japodih (npr. v Prozoru) in v Istri (v Beramu, Picugih in n ezakciju). 94 Tako sta bili v histrskem n ezakciju v enem najbogatejših grobov iz sredine 90 Turk 2018, 400–404, Fig. 2–3; Laharnar, Turk 2017, 84–87, sl. 94–96, 98. 91 Turk 2018, 403–404. 92 Cfr. npr. Šašel 1977; id. 1992b. 93 npr. slavni grob s Kapiteljske njive I/16 z enako plavutasto sekiro, kot je bila v depoju iz Tomaja (cf. Knez 1993, t. 18: 6; 19: 46–47). 94 Glej Guštin 1974, 77–92 s seznamom najdišč in karto razprostranjenosti. 6. st. pr. n. št., grobu I/12, položeni kar dve mahairi na kamnito žaro, tretja pa je ležala ob robu grobne skrinje. 95 A kot je opozoril že Guštin, so mahairam podobni veliki bojni noži znani tudi iz grobov v sosednji Furlaniji, npr. iz Pozzuola del Friuli. 96 V Istri zasledimo tudi stožčaste čelade z grebenom enakega tipa, kot so mu pripadali fragmenti čelade iz depoja s Trnovega nad Ilirsko Bistrico. Zanimivo je, da so te čelade v istrskih grobovih služile celo kot žare, 97 kar je verjetno poudarjalo bojevniški značaj preminule osebe. Če bi torej sklepali le na osnovi v grobove pridanih mahair, bi prišle v poštev plenilske tolpe bodisi iz Dolenjske ali Bele krajine bodisi iz Japodije ali Istre, pa tudi Furlanije. Če bi poleg mahaire upoštevali še čelado z grebenom, bi ta kazala na Histre kot morebitne napadalce. Če pa bi se oprli na igle iz depoja v Tomaju, sta med njimi vsaj dve z majhno kroglasto glavico in svitkom pod njo, ki imata primerjave v Istri; 98 a so takšne igle s kroglasto oz. kroglastimi glavicami in svitki med njimi značilne zlasti za nošnjo v japod- ski skupini. 99 V tomajskem depoju je tudi nekaj fragmentov železnih igel z bronasto kroglasto glavico oz. glavicami, kakršne se pojavljajo v Istri kot del moške noše predvsem v grobovih III. stopnje, npr. v Beramu, Picugih, r ovinju in n ezakciju. 100 n avedene analogije za igle, mahaire in čelado dajejo misliti, da bi napadalci lahko bili Histri ali Japodi. S tem kratkim ekskurzom o mahairah, čeladah in iglah smo želeli le opozoriti, da so v depojih z orožjem na n otranjskem in Krasu kosi, ki niso nujno lokalni, temveč verjetno tuje provenience, zato jih razumemo kot kazalnike nestabilnih časov. Vprašanje ostaja, ali lahko katerega od obravna- 95 Mihovilić 2001, 84–85, 149, 165–166, t. 24: 2; 25: 1–2; ead. 1995, 284–285, Taf. 20: 1–3. 96 Glej tu Guštin, Božič, op. 68. 97 Kučar 1979, 90, T ab. 1: 3; Mihovilić 2013, 200, Fig. 117. 98 Kučar 1979, Tab. 2: 4; 12: 14. 99 Igli z majhno kroglasto glavico in diskom oz. svitkom pod njo ne predstavljata “prototipa” večglavih igel s trombastim zaključkom, kot to trdita tu Guštin, Božič, temveč gre za značilni japodski tip igel, ki se ohrani vse do zgodnjega 6. st. pr. n. št. Te japodske igle imajo od ene do več glavic, med katerimi so praviloma diski oz. svitki. Zato tudi datacija depoja iz Tomaja ni nujno 8. st. pr. n. št., lahko je tudi nekoliko kasnejši. Primerjaj Laharnar, Turk 2017, 86, sl. 96; Turk 2018, 401–402, Fig. 2, in Drechsler- Bižić 1958, 38, t. 3: 21–24; Lo Schiavo 1970, 460–461, t. 36: 1–2; Teßmann 2001, 69–70, Abb. 38–39. 100 Kučar 1979, 115, t. 2: 4,8; 3: 9; 4: 13; 6: 3–4; 12; Mihovilić 2001, 79–81, sl. 64; t. 5: 3; 6: 3; 27: 3; 37: 5; 56: 8; ead. 2013, 196–199, sl. 114; Matošević, Mihovilić 2004, 19, t. 1: 4. 246 Biba Teržan vanih depojev povežemo s prej omenjenimi in še nerazjasnjenimi cezurami, kot jih nakazujejo prenehanja nekropol na Brežcu pri Škocjanu, Pod Kaculjem in Mačkovcem pri Šmihelu ter na Križni gori. Če bi se oprli na kronološko razde- litev depojev, ki jo predlagata Guštin in Božič, bi lahko sklepali na periodične vojaške dejavnosti, morda v podobnem smislu, kot jih pripoveduje Odisej, čeprav je bila tudi njemu sreča opoteča: Preden sinovi Ahajcev polegli poljé so trojansko, bil sem devetkrat že vodja možem in jadrnim ladjam, zoper oddaljena ljudstva, in silo nagrabil sem plena. Vselej izbral sem si del, še več pa dobíl pri delitvi: naglo je raslo imetje, mi hiša cvelà v blaginji, Toda uničil je Zeus me Kroníon – tako je pač hotel – , s tropom blodečih gusarjev poslal me je v krajine tuje, noter v Egipt, to dolga je pot, da bi tam se pogubil. Prav na reki Aigiptu zasidral sem ladje somerne. Moji ljudje pa, vdani nasilju, so z burnim pohlepom vrgli na rop se in plen, po lepih egiptovskih poljih, ženske odgnali s seboj in z njimi negodne otroke, moške pa vse so pobili: … 101 r opanje, predvsem živine, in piratstvo je bilo, kot kaže, tradicionalna “gospodarska” panoga/ dejavnost v okviru homerske družbe. Vodje kot Odisej so bili basilei, a ropanje in plen nista bila v korist le njim samim in njihovemu spremstvu, temveč celotni pripadajoči skupnosti. 102 Povsem predstavljivo je, da so na podoben način delovale skupnosti v starejši železni dobi tudi izven grškega sveta, na zahodnem Balkanskem polotoku, v zaledju severnega Jadrana. S tega vidika in upoštevajoč predvsem depo- je z orožjem kot svojevrstne tropaia postanejo bolj razumljive s kamnitimi obzidji varovane naselbine – gradišča ter skrb zanje, ki se kaže v obnavljanju poškodovanih zidov (Bavdek, pril. 1; Bratina, sl. 3 in 4, 9 in 10; Vinazza, sl. 1) pa tudi 101 Homer, Odiseja, XIV 229–233; XVII 424–427, 431–434 (prevod A. Sovre, 1966). 102 Murray 1982, 63–65. v zamejevanju bližnje okolice z zidovi (sl. 2; glej še Vidojević), ki so verjetno služili prav varova- nju prostora za kmetijsko izrabo. ne nazadnje, varovanju širšega prostora – in ne le posameznih naselbin – je bil namenjen tudi obrambni sistem na Krasu z nizom utrjenih postojank, obrambnih ali razglednih stolpov ter manjših gradišč, vzdolž severnega kraškega roba nad Vipavsko dolino, ki so nadzorovali in zapirali dostop na kraško planoto. Kot kažejo radiokarbonske datacije z izkopavanj stolpa na Ostrem vrhu pri Štanjelu (Teržan, Turk), je bil ta sistem po vsej verjetnosti zgrajen v teku 8. st. in obnovljen v 5. st. pr. n. št. SKLEPNA BESEDA na osnovi dosedanjih arheoloških raziskav se notranjsko-kraška skupina kaže kot izredno kompleksno strukturirana tvorba, kar zadeva značilnosti njene poselitve in družbeno sfero. r azličnost v načinu pokopavanja ter svojskost v nošnji/nakitu sta odsev raznolikih faset njene identitete, zaradi česar se jasno razlikuje od so- sednjih kulturnih skupin. Svojo vlogo so pri tem zagotovo imele geografska razgibanost prostora in naravne danosti, z notranjskimi polji in podolji na eni strani ter Kraško planoto na drugi, kar je pogojevalo boljšo ali slabšo medsebojno poveza- nost krajevnih skupnosti posameznih območij. n ovejše raziskave so pokazale, da so bile skupnosti teritorialno organizirane in so svoj teritorij tudi varovale, kar najbolj jasno nakazujejo obrambne zapore na severnem kraškem robu. n a vprašanje, ali so morebiti v svojem družbeno-političnem razvoju celo dosegle prag protourbanega v smislu arhajskega starogrškega polisa ali zgodnjerimskega pomeria (pomerium), pa bodo lahko dala odgovor šele nadaljnja raziskovanja. 103 103 na koncu se želim zahvaliti Almi Bavdek, Mitju Guštinu in Boštjanu Laharnarju za konstruktivne diskusije, Manci Vinazza za pomoč pri pripravi slik 3–8, Boštjanu Laharnarju za sliko 2, Mitju Guštinu za sliko 6 ter Sneži Tecco Hvala in Mateji Belak za pripravo slike 1. ... ... 247 Notranjsko-kraška halštatska skupina. Uvodnik in kratek oris ADAM, A.-M., P . CÀSSOLA GUIDA, S. VITrI 1986–1987, L´insediamento protostorico di Pozzuolo del Friuli (Udine). – Bollettino della Società Adriatica di Scienze 69, 67–75. BALen-Le TUnIĆ, D. 2006, Japodi. Arheološka svjedočan - stva o japodskoj kulturi u posljednjem pretpovijesnom tisućlječu. – Ogulin. BAVDeK, A. 2009, Pregled skozi najstarejšo zgodovino Planinskega polja. – V / In: P. Jakopin (ur. / ed.), Pla- ninska dolina. Ljudje in kraji ob Unici, 79–89, Planina pri r akeku. BAVDeK, A. 2018, Late Bronze and e arly Iron Age in the n otranjska region in Slovenia. – V / In: Borgna, Càssola Guida, Corazza (ur. / eds.) 2018, 165–172. BAVDeK, A., M. UrLeB 2014, 32. Križna gora pri Ložu; 33. Trnovo pri Ilirski Bistrici. – V / In: Teržan, Črešnar (ur. / eds.) 2014, 525–547. Ben AC, A. 1975, Quelques caracteristiques des agglomera- tions fortifiees dans la region des Delmates. – V / In: A. Benac (ur. / ed.), Utvrđena ilirska naselja. Međunarodni kolokvij, Mostar, 24-26. oktobar 1974 / Agglomerations fortifiees Illyriennes. Colloque international, Mostar, 24-26. octobre 1974, Posebna izdanja 24, Centar za arheološka istraživanja AnU BiH 6, 81–91. Ben AC, A. 1985, Utvrđena ilirska naselja 1. Delmatske gradine na Duvanjskem polju, Buškom Blatu, Livanjskom i Glamočkom polju. – Djela 60, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja AnU BiH 4. BOr Gn A, e. 2016a, Čelade / e lmi. – V / In: Teržan, Bor- gna, Turk 2016, 119–140. BOr Gn A, e. 2016b, Drugi elementi zaščitne bojne opreme / Altri elementi dell´ armamento difensivo. – V / In: Teržan, Borgna, Turk 2016, 141–156. BOr Gn A, e., P. CÀSSOLA GUIDA, S. COr AZZA (ur. / eds.) 2018, Preistoria e Protostoria del Caput Adriae. – Studi di preistoira e protostoria 5. BOr GnA et al. 2018 = e. Borgna, P. Càssola Guida, S. Corazza, K. Mihovilić, G. Tasca, B. Teržan, S. Vitri 2018, Il Caput Adriae tra Bronzo Finale e antica età del ferro. – V / In: Borgna, Càssola Guida, Corazza (ur. / eds.) 2018, 97–118. Br ATIn A, P. 2014, 34. Zidanca pri Podnanosu. – V / In: Teržan, Črešnar (ur. / eds.) 2014, 549–561. Br ATIn A, P. 2018a, Bronze and Iron Age settlements in the Kras and the Vipava Valley, Slovenia. – V / In: Bor- gna, Càssola Guida, Corazza (ur. / eds.) 2018, 165–172. Br ATInA, P. 2018b, Gradišča Krasa. – V / In: Gradišča v zahodni in osrednji Sloveniji. Zbornik s posvetovanja o gradiščih, Pivka, 24. maja 2017, 91–101, Gorjansko. Br ATInA, P. 2019, Štanjelski hrib v preteklosti. Pregled arheoloških raziskav. – V / In: e. Belingar (ur. / ed.), Štanjel, variacije v kamnu, 43–57, Ljubljana. CÀSSOLA GUIDA, P . 1983, Pozzuolo del Friuli, Castelli- ere dei Ciastiei. – V / In: Preistoria del Caput Adriae. Mostra, 196–203, Trieste. CÀSSOLA GUIDA, P., F. CÀSSOLA 2002, Tergeste pre- romana e romana: nuove considerazioni. – V / In: A. Dugulin (ur. / ed.), La necropoli di San Servolo. Veneti, Istri, Celti e Romani nel territorio di Trieste. Civici Musei di Storia ed Arte di Trieste, 7–15, Trieste. CÀSSOLA GUIDA, P., S. VITrI 1988, La ceramica dei castellieri. – V / In: Castelli del Friuli 7, 221–259, Udine. CrISMAnI, A., G. rIGHI 2002, Le sepolture protostoriche e il catalogo dei materiali. Considerazioni sul materiale protostorico di San Servolo. – V / In: A. Dugulin (ur. / ed.), La necropoli di San Servolo. Veneti, Istri, Celti e Romani nel territorio di Trieste. Civici Musei di Storia ed Arte di Trieste, 63–94, Trieste. CIr One et al. 1990 = D. Cirone, C. M. Coletti, C. Belardelli, C. Giardino 1990, Križna gora (Postumia). – V / In: C. Belardelli, C. Giardino, A. Malizia, L´Europa a sud e a nord delle Alpi alle soglie della svolta protourbana. Necropoli della tarda età dei Campi di Urne dell´area circumalpina centro-orientale, 169–181, Treviso. Čer Če, P., I. ŠInKOVeC 1995, Katalog depojev pozne bronaste dobe / Cataloque of hoards of the Urnfied Culture. – V / In: B. Teržan (ur. / ed.), Depojske in posamezne kovinske najdbe bakrene in bronaste dobe na Slovenskem 1 / Hoards and Individual Metal Finds from the Eneolithic and Bronze Ages in Slovenia 1, Katalogi in monografije 29, 129–232. ČreŠ nAr , M., M. VInAZZA (ur. / eds.) 2018, Srečanja in vplivi v raziskovanju bronaste in železne dobe na Slovenskem. Zbornik prispevkov v čast Bibi Teržan, Ljubljana. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4312/9789610600855 DreCHSLer -BIžIĆ, r . 1958, naselje i grobovi preisto- rijskih Japoda u Vrepcu. – Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu, 3. ser. 1, 35–60. DreCHSLer -BIžIĆ, r . 1972–1973, n ekropola prahistorijskih Japoda u Prozoru kod Otočca. – Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu, 3. ser. 6–7, 1–54. DreCHSLer -BIžIĆ, r . 1975, Quelques caracteristiques des agglomerations fortifiees dans la region centrale des Iapodes. – V / In: A. Benac (ur. / ed.), Utvrđena ilirska naselja. Međunarodni kolokvij, Mostar, 24-26. oktobar 1974 / Agglomerations fortifiees Illyriennes. Colloque international, Mostar, 24-26. octobre 1974, Posebna izdanja 24, Centar za arheološka istraživanja AnU BiH 6, 71–79. DreCHSLer -BIžIĆ, r . 1987, Japodska grupa. – V / In: A. Benac (ur. / ed.), Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja 5. Željezno doba, 391–441, Sarajevo. FLeGO, S., L. r UPeL 1993, Prazgodovinska gradišča Tr - žaške pokrajine / I castellieri della provincia di Trieste. – Trst /Trieste. GABr OVeC, S. 1970, Dvozankaste ločne fibule. Doprinos k problematici začetka železne dobe na Balkanu in v jugovzhodnih Alpah / Die zweischleifigen Bogenfibeln. ein Beitrag zum Beginn der Hallstattzeit am Balkan und in den Südostalpen. – Godišnjak 8. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja 6, 5–65. GABr OVe C, S. 1987, n otranjska grupa. – V / In: A. Benac (ur / ed.), Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja 5. Željezno doba, 151–177, Sarajevo. GABr OVeC, S. 1999, 50 Jahre Archäologie der älteren eisenzeit in Slowenien / 50 let arheologije starejše že- lezne dobe v Sloveniji. – Arheološki vestnik 50, 145–188. GUŠTIn, M. 1973, Kronologija notranjske skupine (Crono- logia del gruppo preistorico della n otranjska [Carniola Interna]). – Arheološki vestnik 24 (1975), 461–506. GUŠTIn, M. 1974, Mahaire. Doprinos k povezavam Picena, Slovenije in Srednjega Podonavja v 7. stol. pr. n. št. (Ma- haira Krummschwerter: urgeschichtliche V erbindungen 248 Biba Teržan Picenum – Slowenien – Basarabi). – Opuscula Iosepho Kastelic sexagenario dicata, Situla 14–15, 77–94. GUŠTIn, M. 1979, Notranjska – K začetkom železne dobe na severnem Jadranu / Zu den Anfängen der Eisenzeit an der nördlichen Adria. – Katalogi in monografije 17. GUŠTIn, M. 2011, Po dolini r eke in Pivke skozi davno preteklost. – V / In: I. Simčič (ur. / ed.), Občina Ilirska Bistrica – Monografija, 34–47, Ilirska Bistrica. HÄnS eL, B., K. MIHOVILIĆ, B. Terž An 1997, Monko- donja. Utvrđeno protourbano naselje starijeg i srednjeg brončanog doba kod r ovinja u Istri (Monkodonja. A fortified protourban settlement from the older and middle bronze age near r ovinj in Istria). – Histria Archaeologica 28 (1999), 37–107. HArDIn G, A. 1995, Die Schwerter im ehemaligen Jugo- slawien. – Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV/14. HeLLMUTH Kr AMBer Ger , A. 2017, Monkodonja. Istraživanje protourbanog naselja brončanog doba Istre. Knjiga 2/1–2: Keramika s brončanodobne gradine Mon- kodonja / Forschungen zu einer protourbanen Siedlung der Bronzezeit Istriens. Teil 2/1–2: Die Keramik aus der bronzezeitlichen Gradina Monkodonja. – Monografije i katalozi Arheološki muzej Istre 28/1–2. HOerneS, M. 1988, Die Gräberfelder an der Wallburg von St. Michael bei Adelsberg in Krain. – Mittheilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 18, 217–249. HOr VAT, J. 1995, notranjska na začetku rimske dobe: Parti pri Stari Sušici, Ambroževo gradišče in Baba pri Slavini / n otranjska [Inner Carniola] at the Beginning of the r oman Period: Parti near Stara Sušica, Ambroževo gradišče and Baba near Slavina. – Arheološki vestnik 46, 177–216. HOr VAT, J. 2005, Poselitev na Pivškem in ob zgornjem toku r eke od pozne bronaste dobe do pozne antike. – V / In: A. Mihevc (ur. / ed.), Kras – voda in življenje v kamniti pokrajini / Water and life in a rocky landscape, 220– 248, Ljubljana. HOr VAT, J., A. BAVDeK 2009, Okra. Vrata med Sredo- zemljem in Srednjo Evropo / Ocra. The gateway bet- ween the Mediterranean and Central Europe. – Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 17. DOI: https://doi. org/10.3986/9789612545635 HOr VAT, J., A. BAVDeK 2010, Prelaz na Razdrtem in arheološka najdišča raziskana 1989. – Postojna. KneZ, T. 1993, Novo mesto III. Kapiteljska njiva, Knežja gomila / Fürstengrabhügel. – Carniola Archaeologica 3. Kr AnJC, A. (ur. / ed.) 1999, Kras – pokrajina, življenje, ljudje. – Ljubljana. Kr AnJC, A. 1999, Uvod – Lega in položaj. – V / In: Kranjc (ur. / ed.) 1999, 9–17. KUČAr , M. 1979, Prahistorijska nekropola Beram. – Histria Archaeologica 10, 85–131. KUnSTeLJ, M. 2018, Bronasti obeski – pričevalci čez- jadranskih povezav v pozni bronasti dobi. – V / In: Črešnar, Vinazza (ur. / eds.) 2018, 199–217. LAHArn Ar , B. 2018, Gradišča med n anosom in Snežni- kom. – V / In: Gradišča v zahodni in osrednji Sloveniji. Zbornik s posvetovanja o gradiščih, Pivka, 24. maja 2017, 26–47, Gorjansko. LAHArn Ar , B. 2022, Od Okre do Albijske gore. Notranj- ska med prazgodovino in antiko / From Ocra to Albion. Notranjska between prehistory and antiquity. – Katalogi in monografije 45 (v tisku / in print). LAHArn Ar , B., P. TUrK 2017, Železnodobne zgodbe s stičišča svetov. – Ljubljana. LAHArn Ar , B., P . TUrK 2018, Iron Age stories from the crossroads. – Ljubljana. LAHArn Ar , B., e. LOZIĆ, A. MIŠKeC 2020, Gradišče nad Knežakom. – V / In: J. Horvat, I. Lazar, A. Gaspari (ur. / eds.), Manjša rimska naselja na slovenskem prostoru / Minor Roman settlements in Slovenia, Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 40, 123–140. DOI: https://doi. org/10.3986/9789610502586 LAHArn Ar , B., e. LOZIĆ, B. ŠTULAr 2019, A structu- red Iron Age landscape in the hinterland of Knežak, Slovenia. – V / In: D.C. Cowley, M. Fernandez-Götz, T. r omankiewicz, H. Wendling (ur. / eds.), Rural Set- tlement. Relating buildings, landscape and people in the European Iron Age, 263–271, Leiden. LAZAre VSKI POKLAr , e. 2000, Prazgodovinska gradi- šča na Ilirskobistriškem in na Pivki. – Bistriški zapisi 5, 148–161. LO SCHIA VO, F . 1970, Il gruppo liburnico-iapodico per una definizione nell´ambito della protostoria balcanica. – Atti della Accademia nazionale dei Lincei 168, Memorie Ser. 8/14, 365–523. MASeLLI SCOTTI, P . 1983, Cattinara. – V / In: Preistoria del Caput Adriae. Mostra, 207–209, Trieste. MASeLLI SCOTTI, P. (ur. / ed.) 1997, Il Civico Museo Archeologico di Muggia. – Trieste. MALIZIA, A., C. BeLArD eLLI, C. GIArDIn O 1977, S. Canziano sul Timavo. – V / In: C. Belardelli, C. Giardino, A. Malizia, L´Europa a sud e a nord delle Alpi alle soglie della svolta protourbana. Necropoli della tarda età dei Campi di Urne dell´area circumalpina centro-orientale, 150–158, Treviso. MerLATTI, r . 2001, Il complesso protostorico della Grotta delle Ossa a San Canziano del Carso. – Atti e memorie della Società istriana di archaeologia e storia patria 101, nS 49, 7–85. MIHeVC, A. (ur. / ed.) 2005, Kras – voda in življenje v kamniti pokrajini / Water and life in a rocky landscape, Ljubljana. MIHeVC, A. 1999, Morfologija Krasa. – V / In: Kranjc (ur. / ed.) 1999, 41–47. MIHOVILIĆ, K. 1995, r eichtum durch Handel in der Hall- stattzeit Istriens. – V / In: B. Hänsel (ur. / ed.), Handel, Tausch und Verkehr im bronze- und früheisenzeitlichen Südosteuropa, Südosteuropa-Schriften 17, Prähistorische Archaeologie in Südosteuropa 11, 283–329. MIHOVILIĆ, K. 2001, Nezakcij. Prapovijesni nalazi 1900.–1953. / Nesactium. Prehistoric finds 1900–1953. – Monografije i katalozi Arheološki muzej Istre 11. MIHOVILIĆ, K. 2013, Histri u Istri / Gli Istri in Istria / The Histri in Istria. – Monografije i katalozi Arheološki muzej Istre 23. MIHOVILIĆ, K., B. HÄn SeL, B. Terž An 2005, Mon- codogno. Scavi recenti e prospettive future. – V / In: G. Bandelli, e. Montagnari Kokelj (ur. / ed.), Carlo Marchesetti e i castellieri 1903–2003. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Castello Duino (Trieste), 14–15 novembre 2003, Fonti e studi per la storia della Venezia Giulia 9, 389–408. 249 Notranjsko-kraška halštatska skupina. Uvodnik in kratek oris MLeKUž, D. 2019, Folded landscape: ritual landscape of Škocjan (Slovenia). – V / In: L. Buster, e. Warmenhol, D. Mlekuž (ur. / eds.), Between worlds – Understanding Ritual Cave Use in Later Prehistory, n ew York. MOnTAGn ArI KOKeLJ, e. 1996, La necropoli di S. Bar - bara presso il castelliere di Monte Castellier degli e lleri (Muggia-Trieste). – Aquilea Nostra 67, 9–36. MOnTAGn ArI KOKeLJ, e. 1997, La necropoli di S. Barbara (e lleri). – V / In: P . Maselli Scotti (ur. / ed.), Il Civico Museo Archeologico di Muggia, 145–151, Trieste. MUrr AY , O. 1982, Das frühe Griechenland. – dtv Geschi- chte der Antike, München. MÜLLer , r . 2009, Tracht in der eisenzeit. – V / In: S. von Schnurbein (ur. / ed.), Atlas der Vorgeschichte. Europa von den ersten Menschen bis Christi Geburt, 194–197, Stuttgart. nAnUT, T. 2018, Poznobronasto- in železnodobni de- pojski najdbi iz Dolenjih r aven na Cerkljanskem in s Sv. Jakoba na Kanalskem Kolovratu. – V / In: Črešnar, Vinazza (ur. / eds.) 2018, 137–161. n OVAKOVIĆ, P., P. TUrK 1991a, Graček pri Famljah – prazgodovinsko gradišče (arheološka izkopavanja). – Varstvo spomenikov 33, 249–253. n OV AKOVIĆ, P ., P . TUrK 1991b, Kamen na kamen pala- ča. Izkopavanja gradišča na Krasu. – Arheo 12, 57–68. OSMUK, n. 1988, Goriče pri Famljah. – Varstvo spome - nikov 30, 196–197. PABST, S. 2012, Die Brillenfibeln. Untersuchungen zu spätbronze- und ältereisenzeitlichen Frauentrachten zwischen Ostsee und Mittelmeer. – Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 25. PArZIn Ger , H. 1989, Chronologie der Späthallstatt- und Frühlatène-Zeit. Studien zu Fundgruppen zwischen Mosel und Save. – Acta Humaniora. Quellen und For- schungen zu prähistorischen und provinzialrömischen Archäologie 4. Perne, M., J. TUrK 2011, Podzemni svet. – V / In: I. Simčič (ur. / ed.), Občina Ilirska Bistrica – Monografija, 28–29, Ilirska Bistrica. PreSTO r , J. 2009, ž iveti ob vodi: presihajoče jezero, po- plave, posegi v vodni režim. – V / In: P. Jakopin (ur. / ed.), Planinska dolina. Ljudje in kraji ob Unici, 185–197, Planina pri r akeku. r UAr O LOSerI, L. 1983, Il tesoretto di San Canziano. – V / In: Preistoria del Caput Adriae. Mostra, 150–151. Trieste. r UAr O LOSerI, L., G. rIGHI 1982, La necropoli “ celtica” di S. Canziano del Carso. Scavi Marchesetti 1903–1904. – Atti dei Civici Musei di Storia ed Arte di Trieste. Monografie di Preistoria 3. r UAr O LOSerI et al. 1977 = L. r uaro Loseri, G. Steffè De Piero, S. Vitri, G. r ighi 1977, La necropoli di Bre- žec presso S. Canziano del Carso. Scavi Marchesetti 1896–1900. – Atti dei Civici Musei di Storia ed Arte di Trieste. Monografie di Preistoria 1. SALZAnI, L., C. COLO nn A 2010, La fragilità del urna. I recenti scavi a Narde – Necropoli di Frattesina (XII–IX sec.a.C.). Catalogo della mostra archeologica. – r ovigo. SCHeIn, V. et al. 2009, Cerkniško jezero. – Cerknica. SLAPŠAK, B. 1985, Rodik. Raziskave Arheološkega oddelka Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani / Ricerche del Seminario archeologico della Facoltà di Lettere di Lubiana. – Trst/ Trieste. SLAPŠAK, B. 1995, Možnosti študija poselitve v arheolo- giji. – Arheo 17. SLAPŠAK, B. 1999, Slovenski Kras v poznejši prazgodovini in v rimski dobi. – V / In: Kranjc (ur. / ed.) 1999, 145–163. Sn OJ, D. 1992, Sermin. – Varstvo spomenikov 34, 1992, 91–105. SPerB er , L. 2000, Zum Grab eines spätbronzezeitlichen Metallhandwerkers von Lachen -Speyerdorf, Stadt n eustadt a.d. W einstrasse. – Archäologisches Korrespon- denzblatt 30/3, 383–402. SZOMBATHY , J. 1912, Altertumsfunde aus Höhlen bei St. Kanzian im österreichischen Küstenlande. – Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission 2/2 (1913), 17–190. ŠAŠeL, J. 1974. Okra. – Kronika 22, 9–17. ŠAŠeL, J. 1977, Strabo, Ocra and Archaeology. – V / In: V . Markotic (ur. / ed.), Ancient Europe and the Mediter- ranean. Studies presented in honour of Hugh Hencken, 157–160. Warminster (= Opera selecta, Situla 30, Lju- bljana 1992, 630–633). ŠAŠeL, J. 1992a, Pastorizia e transumanza. Contributo alla discussione. – V / In: Opera selecta Jaroslav Šašel, Situla 30, Ljubljana, 522–528 (= Rivista storica dell' antichità 10, 1980, 179–185). ŠAŠe L, J. 1992b, Lineamenti dell´espansione romana nelle Alpi Orientali e dei Balcani occidentali. – V / In: Opera selecta Jaroslav Šašel, Situla 30, Ljubljana, 408–431 (= Antichità Altoadriatiche 9, 1976, 78–81). ŠeBeLA, S. 1999, Geologija Krasa – Kras v geološki pre- teklosti. – V / In: Kranjc (ur. / ed.) 1999, 19–25. ŠKVOr JerneJČIČ 2018, Il rituale e il costume funerario nell tarda età del bronzo e nella prima età del ferro nella Slovenia centrale e nell´Italia nordorientale. – V / In: Borgna, Càssola Guida, Corazza (ur. / eds.) 2018, 537–550. TeCCO HVALA, S. 2014, Kačaste fibule z območja Slo- venije / Serpentine fibulae from Slovenia. – Arheološki vestnik 65, 123–186. Terž An, B. 1976, Certoška fibula (Die Certosafibel). – Arheološki vestnik 27, 317–536. Terž An, B. 1978, O halštatski noši na Križni gori / Über das Trachtzubehör auf Križna gora. – Arheološki vestnik 29, 55–63. Terž An, B. 1985, Poskus rekonstrukcije halštatske družbene strukture v dolenjskem kulturnem krogu / ein r ekonstruktionsversuch der Gesellschaftsstruktur im Dolenjsko-Kreis der Hallstattkultur. – Arheološki vestnik 36, 77–106. Terž An, B. 1990, Polmesečaste fibule. O kulturnih pove- zavah med e gejo in Caput Adriae (Die Halbmondfibeln. Über die Kulturverbindungen zwischen der Ägäis und dem Caput Adriae). – Arheološki vestnik 41, 49–88. Terž An, B. 1992, Beobachtungen zu den ältereisenzeitli- chen Bestattungssitten im mittleren und südostalpinen r aum. – V / In: I. r . Metzger, P . Gleirscher (ur. / eds.), Die Räter / I Reti, 451–474, Bozen/Bolzano. Terž An, B. 1995, Stand und Aufgaben der Forschungen zur Urnenfelderzeit in Jugoslawien. – V / In: Beiträge zur Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums Hermann Müller-Karpe gewidmet, r ömisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Monographien 35, 323-372. 250 Biba Teržan Terž An, B. 2008, Stiške skice / Stična-Skizzen. – V / In: S. Gabrovec, B. T eržan, Stična II/2. Gomile starejše železne dobe / Grabhügel aus der älteren Eisenzeit, Katalogi in monografije 38 (2010) 189–325. Terž An , B. 2016a, Škocjan – kraj na stičišču svetov. Povzetek in sklepna beseda / San Canziano – crocevia di culture. Sintesi e considerazioni conclusive / Škocjan – at the meeting point of worlds. Summary and coclusion. – V / In: Teržan, Borgna, Turk 2016, 345–472. Terž An, B. 2016b, Fibule / Fibula. Obročast nakit / Oggetti di ornamento ad anello. – V / In: Teržan, Borgna, Turk 2016, 233–284. Terž An, B. 2019, Waffenweihungen in der Karsthöhle Mušja jama / Fliegenhöhle bei Škocjan (Slowenien): Sieger – Verlierer – Überlebende. – V / In: S. Hansen, r . Krause (ur. / eds.), Materialisierung von Konflikten / Materialisation of Conflicts. Beiträge der Dritten Internationalen LOEWE-Konferenz vom 24. bis 27. September 2018 in Fulda, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 346, 223–240. Terž An, B. 2021, Liburni in Caput Adriae v zgodnjem 1. tisočletju pr. n. št. – o liburnskih dvodelnih ločnih fibulah / Liburni and Caput Adriae in the early First Millennium BC – Discussing the Liburnian two-part Bow Fibulae. – Archaeologia Adriatica (v tisku / in print). Terž An, B., M. ČreŠ nAr (ur. / eds.) 2014, Absolutno datiranje bronaste in železne dobe na Slovenskem / Ab- solute Dating of the Bronze and Iron Ages in Slovenia, Katalogi in monografije 40. Terž An, B., M. ČreŠ nAr 2014, Poskus absolutnega datiranja starejše železne dobe na Slovenskem / Attempt at an absolute dating of the e arly Iron Age in Slovenia. – V / In: Teržan, Črešnar (ur. / eds.) 2014, 703–725. Terž An, B., e. BO r Gn A, P . TUrK 2016, Depo iz Mušje jame pri Škocjanu na Krasu. Depojske najdbe bronaste in železne dobe na Slovenskem III / Il ripostiglio della Grotta delle Mosche presso San Canziano del Carso. Ripostigli delle età del bronzo e del ferro in Slovenia III. – Katalogi in monografije 42. TeßMAnn, B. 2001, Schmuck und Trachtzubehör aus Prozor, Kroatien. ein Beitrag zur Tracht im japodischen Gebiet. – Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 33, 28–151. Tr AMPUž O reL, n. 1999, Archaeometallurgic investiga- tions in Slovenia. A history of research on non-ferrous metalls / Arheometalurške raziskave v Sloveniji. Zgodovina raziskav prazgodovinskih barvnih kovin. – Arheološki vestnik 50, 407–429. Tr AMPUž OreL, n. 2012, The beginnigs of iron in Slovenia / Začetki železa na Slovenskem. – Arheološki vestnik 63, 17–36. Tr AMPUž OreL, n., D. J. HeATH 1998, Analysis of Heavily Leaded Shaft-Hole Axes. – V / In: B. Hänsel (ur. / ed.), Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Euro- pas / Man and Environment in European Bronze Age, 237–248. Kiel. Tr AMPUž O reL, n., D. J. HeATH 2001, Depo Kanalski vrh - študija o metalurškem znanju in kovinah na za- četku 1. tisočletja pr. n. š. / The Kanalski vrh hoard - a case study of the metallurgical knowledge and metals at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC. – Arheološki vestnik 52, 143–171. Tr AMPUž O reL, n., D. J. HeATH, V. HUD nIK 1996, Spektrometrične raziskave depojskih najdb pozne bronaste dobe / Spetrometric r esearch of the Late Bronze Age Hoard Finds. – V / In: B. Teržan (ur. / ed.), Depojske in posamezne najdbe bakrene in bronaste dobe na Slovenskem II / Hoards and individual metal finds from eneolithic and bronze ages in Slovenia II, Katalogi in monografije 30, 165–242. TUrK, P. 2012, Arheologija. – V / In: B. Peric (ur. / ed.), Park Škocjanske jame, 104–117. – Škocjan. TUrK, P. 2016a, Meči in nožnice / Spade e foderi: – V / In: Teržan, Borgna, Turk 2016, 99–108. TUrK, P. 2016b, Sulične osti in kopita / Punte e puntali di lancia. – V / In: Teržan, Borgna, Turk 2016, 63–97. TUrK, P. 2018, e arly Iron Age Hoards from central and western Slovenia. – V / In: Borgna, Càssola Guida, Corazza (ur. / eds.) 2018, 397–406. TUrK, P, M. TUrK 2019, Najstarejše zgodbe s stičišča sveta. – Ljubljana. TUrK, P, M. TUrK 2021, The earliest stories from the crossroads. – Ljubljana. TUrK, P., K. Hr OBAT, P. Br ATIn A 2016, Katalog arhe- oloških najdišč Škocjana in okolice. – V / In: Teržan, Borgna, Turk 2016, 55–62. UrLeB, M. 1973, Halštatska nekropola na Križni gori pri Ložu (Die hallstattzeitliche nekropole auf der Križna gora bei Lož). – Arheološki vestnik 24 (1975), 507–520. UrLeB, M. 1974, Križna gora pri Ložu. Halštatska nekropola / Hallstattzeitliches Gräberfeld Križna gora. – Katalogi in monografije 11. UrLeB, M. 1990, Grad pri Šmihelu pod n anosom – rezul- tati zaščitnih izkopavanj (Grad bei Šmihel unter dem n anos – r esultate der Schutzgrabungen). – Arheološki vestnik 41, 89–104. VInAZZA, M. 2018, Pozabljeno starejšeželeznodobno grobišče iz Tupelč na Krasu? – V / In: Črešnar, Vinazza (ur. / eds.) 2018, 381–388. VITrI, S. 1977, 4. Associazioni e cronologia. – V / In: L. r uaro Loseri et al. 1977, 39–42. VITrI, S. 1983, Grotta delle Mosche (Fliegenhöhle).– V / In: Preistoria del Caput Adriae. Mostra, 145–149. Trieste. ZA VODnY et al. (B. J. Culleton, S. B. Mcclure, D. J. Kennett, J. Balen) 2019, r ecalibrating grave-good chronologies: new AMS radiocarbon dates from Late Bronze Age burials in Lika, Croatia. – Antiquity 93/367, 113–127. ZUPAn ČIČ, D., M. VInAZZA 2015, Suhozidna gradnja v prazgodovini na Krasu. – Kronika 63/3, 691–702. žBO n A-TrKMAn, B., A. BAVD eK 1995–1996, Depojski najdbi s Kanalskega Vrha / The Hoards from Kanalski vrh. – V / In: B. T eržan (ur. / ed.), Depojske in posamezne najdbe bakrene in bronaste dobe na Slovenskem / Hoards and individual metal finds from eneolithic and bronze ages in Slovenia I–II, Katalogi in monografije 29–30, 31–71, T. 95–118. žUPAn ČIČ, M. 1990, Arheološka podoba Brega s Kra- škim robom. – V / In: S. ž itko (ur. / ed.), Kraški rob in Bržanija, 19–26, Koper. 251 The n otranjska-Kras Hallstatt group. An introduction and brief outline ‘Gabrovec Day’ is a scientific symposium honour- ing the memory of Acad. Prof. Dr. Stane Gabrovec. It took place for the third time on 17 January 2019 and was dedicated to the third cultural group within the framework of the ‘Hallstatt cultural groups in Slovenia’; the first one presented the Styrian-Pannonian group (A V 70), the second one the Dolenjska group (AV 71) and the third, cur- rent one presents the n otranjska-Kras group. To our delight, most lecturers have submitted their written contributions, published in this volume of Arheološki vestnik, 1 which shed new light on the group, particularly with the results of the investigations in recent years. According to Gabrovec, the notranjska Hall- statt group extended across the n otranjska region and the Kras all to the Gulf of Trieste. 2 It is an area where the Alps and the Dinaric Alps meet, hence an area of marked differences in geography and geomorphology. n otranjska is dominated by relatively mountainous, undulated terrain dotted with upland plateaus (polje), while the Kras/ Karst is a high plateau overlooking the Gulf of Trieste. 3 This diversity influenced both the settlement and the cultural expression. The archaeological sites in n otranjska and the Kras, primarily the hillforts enclosed with mighty stone ramparts, attracted the attention of researchers very early on, 4 but their material culture remained poorly known due to the relatively modest finds. Gabrovec based his study of the n otranjska group on relatively limited evidence such as the finds that Mehtilda Urleb excavated on Križna gora 5 and the excavations that Carlo Marchesetti conducted prior to World War I at Brežec near Škocjan 6 but also from other 1 I refer to individual contributions with the name of the author in brackets, e.g. (Bavdek). 2 Gabrovec 1987, 151–152. 3 Kranjc 1999, 9–11. Also see other contributions in the same publication (e.g. Šebela1999; Mihevc 1999) and in the monograph by Mihevc (2005). 4 See here Bavdek (with an exhaustive and detailed history of archaeological research in n otranjska), as well as Vidojević, Bratina and Vinazza. 5 Urleb 1974. 6 r uaro Loseri et al. 1977. Iron Age sites, the finds from which are kept in the museums in Vienna and Ljubljana and have been published by Mitja Guštin. 7 r ecent investi- gations have shown a great diversity within the cultural group that merits a broader name, i.e. the n otranjska-Kras group (Fig. 1), a renaming that is supported by the contributions presented in this volume. The main study on notranjska, written by Alma Bavdek, offers an exhaustive overview of the history of archaeological research, but also the settlement of the area and its spatial organisation, the results of the latest archaeological excavations in settlements at Sovič above Postojna and Cvinger near Dolenja vas, near Cerknica, and in the cemetery at Trnovo near Ilirska Bistrica (Bavdek). Adding to this are the report on the archaeological exca- vations at Sovič (Omahen), the presentation of the hillforts along the upper reaches of the r iver r eka that is based on an analysis of LiDAr images and topographic surveys (Vidojević) and the first publication of the rich funerary finds from the area of Ulaka above Stari trg pri Ložu (Laharnar, Murgelj). The presentation of the research at the sites in notranjska is followed by contributions presenting the recent investigations in the Kras, primarily of settlements (Bratina; Vinazza), as well as of the watch tower associated with the barri- ers along the northern edge of the Kras plateau (Teržan, Turk). The paper on the pottery from the Kras focuses on distinguishing between the ceramics of the Bronze and Iron Age respectively by studying the fabrics and production methods (Vinazza). A special study is dedicated to the weapon hoards that offer an interesting insight into the military and conflict situation of the day (Guštin, Božič). In addition to n otranjska and the Kras, two papers also take a look beyond the group’ s southern border, to the Bay of Kvarner (Blečić Kavur), on the one side, and Istra (Mihovilić) on the other. This revealed clear differences between Kvarner as part of the Liburnian cultural milieu and Histrian Istra, but also how little they have in common with the n otranjska-Kras group as a clearly independent entity. 7 Guštin 1979. The Notranjska-Kras Hallstatt group An introduction and brief outline Translation 252 Biba Teržan CHRONOLOGY The archaeological finds that came to light on the territory ascribed to the n otranjska-Kras group, which form the basis for its chronological division, are less numerous and more modest in comparison to the rich grave finds of the adjacent Dolenjska Hallstatt group. The reason for this lies in the dif- ferent funeral rites with the prevailing cremation burial following the Urnfield culture tradition, i.e. a relatively simple burial costume and modest grave goods. This renders the chronological division of the material culture in n otranjska and the Kras a more complex and demanding task. It should be noted that several chronological divisions were in the past proposed for the cemeteries at Križna gora 8 and at Brežec near Škocjan 9 separately, but the one that has been most widely accepted for the Iron Age in notranjska and the Kras is the common division into eight phases proposed by Guštin 10 and accepted by Gabrovec and others. 11 The dating of individual chronological phases or subphases of the early Iron Age was verified by the radiocarbon analyses obtained from select human bone samples from the graves at Križna gora, Trnovo near Ilirska Bistrica and Zidanca near Podnanos. 12 When dating certain types of finds, such as crescent-shaped or boat fibulae, we did not want to introduce new names for individual phases, only stated which types of objects could be provided with an absolute dating and in which of the phases they occurred. The radiocarbon dating of samples from the early Iron Age (8 th – 4 th centuries BC) is not very accurate due to the ‘Hallstatt plateau’ on the calibration curve and the ranges are relatively long. However, specially modelled values can nevertheless bring us closer to an absolute date for select grave groups or goods. These reveal that the beginnings of the Iron Hori- zon in n otranjska should already be sought in the 10 th –9 th centuries BC, 13 while individual phases 8 Urleb 1974, 19–44; Urleb 1973; Guštin 1979, 19–22, Fig. 8–11; Cirone et al. 1990, 169–181, Pl. 74–81. 9 Vitri 1977, 39–42, Fig. 12; Guštin 1979, 18–23, Fig. 6–7; 11; Malizia et al. 1990, 150–158. 10 Guštin 1973; id. 1979, 18–32, Fig. 11. 11 Gabrovec 1987, 154–162, 903, Fig. 9–10; Pl. 16–18; also see Gabrovec 1999; Parzinger 1989, 22–24; Pl. 26–28; Borgna et al. 2018, Fig. 2. 12 Bavdek, Urleb 2014; Bratina 2014. Also see here Vinazza, Fig. 5. 13 The early beginning has already been inferred from several iron objects in the graves below Brežec near Škocjan, remain roughly the same, possibly only altered as to their beginning. The n otranjska II (a–c) phase, for example, commences in the late 9 th century or around 800 BC and continues to the early 7 th century BC, with a new array of types appearing in the mid-7 th century at the latest that goes on to characterise the n otranjska III phase. 14 SETTLEMENT Chronological outline The previous knowledge and the new findings from recent investigations, particularly those pre- sented at Gabrovec Day, offer a following insight into the settlement of n otranjska and the Kras in the Iron Age. The notranjska-Kras group witnessed more intense settlement in the Late Bronze Age, in the time of the Urnfield culture. e vidence of this comes from numerous pottery finds, especially those with the characteristic pseudo-cord impressions that can be traced from the coastal areas and the hillforts around Trieste/ Trst such as on Cattinara/ Katinara, Monte d´Oro/ Dolga krona and Jelarji/ elleri with the associated cemetery at S. Barbara near Korošci, 15 but also on Sv. Mihael near Štorje, Tomaj and Tabor near Vrabče all to Cvinger near Dolenja vas and Gradišče on Slivnica near Lake Cerknica (Bavdek, Pl. 2: 18,21; Vinazza, Pl. 2: 21–23). 16 Some of these hillforts were already inhabited in the Middle, some even in the early Bronze Age; the latter are Castelliere di Slivia/ Slivno, Jelarji/ e lleri and Sv. Mihael near Štorje, 17 possibly also the newly investigated Sovič, where the cultural layers were unearthed both on the summit and at the foot of the hill (Bavdek; Oma- hen). Other hillforts most probably appeared in cf. Vitri 1977, 39, Fig. 12; Teržan 1995, 353, 359–361, Fig. 28: 3,10; Trampuž Orel 2012, 21–23, Fig. 3. 14 Cf. Teržan, Črešnar 2014, 703–706, 713–718, Fig. 36; 37; 39; 41; 44. 15 Maselli Scotti 1983, 207–209, Pl. 50: 2–4; Maselli Scotti 1997, 51, 53, 108, Pl. 6: 19; 8: 11; 20: 21; 23: 8; 26: 1; Montagnari Kokelj 1996; Flego, r upel 1993, 171–176, 201–202, 207–214 and others. 16 Bavdek 2018, 166–167, Fig. 2; 1–4; 9; Bratina 2018b, 96–99, Fig. 10: 1–2; Guštin 1979, 34, Pl. 7: 8; 8: 1–2,9; 36: 10. 17 Hänsel, Mihovilić, Teržan 1997, 87–95, Fig. 46; Mihovilić, Hänsel, Teržan 2005, 401–402; Guštin 1979, Pl. 7: 6,9; 9: 1,4–7; 10: 4–5. Cf. Hellmuth Kramberger 2017, 321–333, 355–357, Fig. 268. 253 The n otranjska-Kras Hallstatt group. An introduction and brief outline the e arly Iron Age, for example those on Cvinger and Tržišče near Dolenja vas at Lake Cerknica, Tabor near Vrabče and several other sites in notranjska and the Kras (Bavdek; Vinazza). For the hillforts in Tomaj and Tabor near Vrabče, we also have radiocarbon dates that place the begin- ning of settlement roughly between the 11 th and 9 th centuries BC (Bratina, Fig. 11; Vinazza, Fig. 5). 18 The pseudo-cord ware recovered from these sites is not limited to this group, but also known from several sites in Istra, even more so in the wider areas of Friuli and V eneto, where it is reliably dated to Bronzo finale 2–3, i.e. Ha A2/B1–2 according to the Müller-Karpe chronology, particularly on the basis of the settlement finds from Pozzuolo del Friuli 19 and the cemeteries associated with the settlement at Frattesina-Fratta Polesine. 20 It seems likely that such pottery, as well as several bronze objects found at Cvinger near Dolenja vas (Bavdek, Pl. 3: 1,15) and the mould for making winged axes and rings from the settlement complex at Sermin 21 indicate novelties and changes that swept across the n otranjska-Kras group, revealing close cultural ties of the local communities with those living in the northern Adriatic and the Friuli-Veneto area. evidence in support of this comes from one of the key sites of the period within the n otranjska- Kras group – Škocjan near Divača, in the Kras. In addition to the settlement complex, 22 this site includes several cemeteries and the well-known hoard finds from the abysses of Mušja jama/ Fliegenhöhle and Skeletna jama/ Knochenhöhle, also known as Jama I and Jama II at Prevala. The exceptional location of the Škocjan settlement above the precipitous slopes and associated with the water course (ponor) of the r iver r eka, the specific nature of the bronze finds from both abysses 23 and the heterogeneous nature of the grave goods from the associated cemeteries at Brežec, Ponikve and Grič above Lisičina reveal the area of Škocjan as a cult centre of a supraregional 18 Bratina 2014, 587–593; ead. 2018a. 19 Càssola Guida 1983, 196–199, Pl. 47: 1–4,6–11; Adam, Càssola Guida, Vitri 1986–1987, Fig. 31-b; Càssola Guida, Vitri 1988, 234–251, Pl. 6: 5–8; 7–8; 10–11. 20 Salzani, Colonna 2010, 303–304, Pl. 3: 9–10; 15: B1; 33: B1 and others. 21 Snoj 1992; žbona-Trkman, Bavdek 1995–1996, 59–65, Fig. 2; Pl. 95: 2; 103–107. 22 See e.g. Turk, Hrobat, Bratina 2016, Fig. 13; Teržan 2016a, 415–430, 465–472. 23 Szombathy 1912; Vitri 1983; Merlatti 2001; Teržan et al. 2016. importance. Of the cemeteries, the one at Brežec stands out in the number of burials and their rich goods, 24 substantially differing in the composition of grave goods from all other contemporary graves of the Urnfield culture in the wider south-eastern Alpine and Pannonian areas. They include new elements in the funerary ritual, some of which are significant, for example weapons, swords in particular. 25 These underline the role of the male, military component in society, which associates Škocjan or rather the community that buried their dead at Brežec with the Italic-Villanovian cultural concept. The goods that stand out in female burials are pieces of jewellery with the origin in Iapodic Lika and the Liburnian northern Adriatic. 26 The other Škocjan cemetery, at Ponikve, shows a slightly different character, consisting of burials with goods of the continental ‘Dobova type’ . 27 The third cem- etery, presumably a tumulus cemetery, located on Grič above Lisičina is distinguished by unusual items of Italic provenance. 28 We can infer that the population living at Škocjan was a heterogeneous one that combined the characteristics of different cultural groups from different geographic areas. An even more complex picture is the one gained from the hoard finds from Mušja jama/ Fliegen- höhle, the revision of which has recently been published. 29 The span of the objects shows that deposition took place between the 12 th /11 th and 8 th /7 th centuries BC. The incidence of the differ- ent types of objects remained roughly the same throughout this span, indicating minimal changes in the ritual. The objects that were partly broken, bent and/or destroyed, melted in fire before being offered to the numinous forces of the abyss are predominantly weapons (spearheads, swords, axes, helmets) and prestige bronze vessels. The radius of the potential provenance of individual types of weaponry, vessels and other objects reaches from Transylvania to the central Apennine Peninsula 24 r uaro Loseri et al. 1977; Teržan 1990, 69–72, Fig. 14; Teržan 2016a, 418–423, 466–468. 25 Also see e.g. Harding 1995, 60, 80–82, 85–86, Pl. 25: 204; 53: 253; 35: 266; Turk 2016a, 99–106, Fig. 33–34. 26 See e.g. T eržan 2016b, 233–254, 269–277, Fig. 76–77; 83–86; Teržan 2021. 27 r uaro Loseri, r ighi 1982, 12, 21, Pl. 5/Cq/2 14; 6, Cq 2 15,17 and others; Teržan 2016a, 423–425, 469. 28 Teržan 2016a, 421–423, 468–469, Fig. 153. 29 Cf. Szombathy 1912; Teržan, Borgna, Turk 2016. Also see here Guštin, Božič. 254 Biba Teržan and from Greece to areas north of the Alps and the Carpathians all to the Baltic coast. 30 The ritual deposition into Mušja jama gradually ceased in the course of the 8 th and the early 7 th century BC, slightly later also burials in the ne- cropolis at Brežec. This naturally begs the question of why Škocjan lost its significance as cult place of an overriding importance even though –as indi- cated by individual later graves and the jewellery hoard from the settlement itself – it continued to be inhabited in the Late Hallstatt period (Teržan, Turk, Fig. 15). 31 During the 9 th and early 8 th centuries BC, new settlements gained in importance in n otranjska, for example those at Šmihel, 32 Križna gora near Lož and Trnovo near Ilirska Bistrica 33 (Bavdek). They witnessed their heyday in the 8 th –7 th centuries BC and decline towards the end of the 7 th or at the transition to the 6 th century BC at the latest; this decline largely coincides with the above-mentioned end of the necropolis at Brežec near Škocjan. Few and mostly only stray finds without preserved as- sociated grave contexts from Tržišče near Cerknica and Šmihel below n anos, 34 the recently discovered rich funerary finds from Ulaka near Stari trg pri Ložu (Laharnar, Murgelj, Pl. 2–7) and Ajdovščina above r odik (T eržan, T urk, Fig. 14: 1–5) show that life in notranjska did not end completely. The jewellery as the spiral bracelets, decorative discs and the comb-shaped pendant 35 from Ulaka, as well as the spiral bracelets from Ajdovščina above r odik may point to a newly-established balance of power and ties with the communities living along the Adriatic – with the Histri and/or Iapodes/ Liburni, on the one side, and possibly with some of the communities on the Apennine Peninsula, on the other. This also suggests new influences arriving in the 6 th century BC to n otranjska and the Kras from the south and/ or west. However, a new population and economic rise occurred here slightly later, in the phase of the classic Certosa fibulae, which have been unearthed at numerous sites in n otranjska and the Kras. Particularly fre- 30 Cf. T urk 2016b, 66–97, Fig. 18; 24–25; Borgna 2016a; Borgna 2016b, 141–155, Fig. 47; 50; T eržan 2016, 346–415, Fig. 131–133; 137–145; 147–148; Teržan 2019. 31 Turk 2012, 92–94, Fig. 4–6; r uaro Loseri 1983, 150–151, Fig. 26A–B. 32 Guštin 1979, 25–31, 70–78, Pl. 37–50; 58–60. 33 Urleb 1974; Bavdek, Urleb 2014; Bavdek 2018, 167–171. 34 Guštin 1979, Pl. 18–19; 60: 14–19; 61: 1–15. 35 Also see Mihovilić 2013, 206–208, Fig. 129–130; Kunstelj 2018, 211–213, Fig. 8: 4; 7; 9. quent are the Certosa fibulae of Type X, but also Types VII and XII, 36 which become the leading types of the notranjska VI phase in the 5 th and 4 th centuries BC (Laharnar, Murgelj, Pl. 2: 1; 5: 1–10; Teržan, Turk, Fig. 14: 6–7). 37 This is also the period that witnessed significant changes in the funeral rites, with numerous finds from cemeteries such as Šmihel and Socerb 38 showing that weapons (spears and axes) were the standard goods in male burials (Guštin, Božič). The recent archaeological excavations at T omaj have revealed that the renovation of the hillfort, Phase 3 of the fortification walls, as well as walls in Zagrajec (Bratina, Fig. 3–4; 9–10) and the construction of the barriers along the northern edge of the Kras plateau (Teržan, Turk, Fig. 13) also date to the Late Hallstatt period. The question that remains unanswered is whether these changes merely re- flect a turbulent period with military conflicts or whether they also point to the arrival and eventual conquest from outside. Settlement pattern Although the knowledge of the e arly Iron Age settlements and associated cemeteries in n otranjska and the Kras is still scarce, as Alma Bavdek also notes (Bavdek, App. 1; Bratina), there are several important new research results pertaining to the settlement of the area and the construction of its hillforts. The landscape is marked by upland plateaus (polje) as a characteristic of the Dinaric Alps run- ning in a nW–S e direction. e ast of the Hrušica and Javorniki Hills, there is a series of upland plateaus from Logaško polje, Planinsko polje, Unško polje, Cerkniško polje, Loška dolina to Babno polje. On 36 Cf. T eržan 1976, 325–338, Fig. 3–4; 25–26; 31; 35–36; 41. 37 Guštin 1973, 478–480, Fig. 3; Guštin 1979, Pl. 2: 3 (Šilentabor); 3: 6,9 (Gradišče on Čepna); 4: 8 (Gradišče above Knežak); 5: 3 (Ulaka); 6: 3,8 (Štorje); 20: 3–16 (Tržišče); 48:10; 50: 13–16; 51: 3,11,14,19; 32: 1,11,15; 53: 8; 54: 3–4, 9; 55; 57: 8–15; 58: 2–3; 61: 16–18; 62–64 (Šmihel); Horvat 1995, Pl. 11: 3; 7: 1–2; 14: 8; Crismani, r ighi 2002, 67–69, Fig. 4–26 (Socerb); Vinazza 2018 (Tupelče); Laharnar 2022 (in print) (Baba near Slavina, Ambroževo gradišče near Slavina, Kerin above Pivka, Primož above r aduhova vas pri Pivki, Šilentabor, Gradišče on Čepna, Gradišče above Knežak, Gradišče above Gornja Košana, Stari grad above Unec, Gradišče on Slivnica, ž erovinšček and others). 38 Cf. Guštin 1979, Pl. 2: 1–3; 51–58; 75–79; Crismani, r ighi 2002, 84–85, Fig. 168–179. 255 The n otranjska-Kras Hallstatt group. An introduction and brief outline the other side of these Hills, there are lowland areas (podolje) of notranjska between Mounts nanos and Snežnik that range from Postojnska vrata or the Pivka Basin, Spodnja Pivka, Zgornja Pivka to Podgora, Matarsko podolje and Jelšansko/ Brgudsko podolje (Bavdek, App. 1; Vidojević, Fig. 3–4). The poljes are prone to seasonal floods and on occasion even turn into intermittent lakes, 39 what makes them unsuitable for permanent habitation, while their raised fringes offer enough space for establishing settlements. It appears to have been a planned settlement and agricultural use of the poljes in the dry seasons, possibly even seasonal fishing, especially at the end of the wet season. 40 e ach of the plateaus is dominated by a substantial fortified settlement, some located on dominant and strategically important spots and others on lower elevations. Several settlements have been recorded along the fringes of Lake Cerknica, which are more or less contemporaneous, though their duration and interrelationships are as yet not fully understood (Bavdek, Fig. 12–13; App. 1). 41 It is also noteworthy that the passages from one polje to the next are protected with fortified posts that also offered a visual control. For instance, Pos- tojnska vrata (Postojna-Gate) has been controlled by Sović and Prečna reber in the east and in the west the r azdrto Pass presumably by Goli vrh and Gradišče, 42 Farjevka controlled the passage to Kvarner at Babno polje, while the hillfort at Sv. Katarina above Jelšane watched over the alternative passage to Kvarner (Bavdek, App. 1 and Vidojević, Fig. 4:11; 9–11). The settlements in the Pivka area offer a somewhat different picture, succeed- ing each other between the two major hillforts at Grad near Šmihel, slightly removed from the r azdrto Pass below Mount n anos, 43 and Trnovo near Ilirska Bistrica. They form a series of forti- fied settlements along the high ridge of Taborski greben along the valley of the r iver Pivka. With their location mainly along the apex of the ridge and beside precipitous slopes they even give the impression of a defence line towards the west. The hillforts at Kerin and Sv. Primož, both dated to the 39 Cf. e.g. Prestor 2009; Schein 2009; Perne, T urk 2011, 29. 40 See e.g. Schein 2009, 48–49, 59. Particularly indicative in this sense is the location of Cvinger near Dolenja vas just above the V elika Karlovica swallow hole (Bavdek, Fig. 12–13). 41 Also see Bavdek 2009. 42 Horvat, Bavdek 2009; Horvat, Bavdek 2010. 43 Presumably Ocra mentioned in ancient written texts, see Šašel 1974; Šašel 1977; Slapšak 1999, 149–151; Horvat, Bavdek 2009, 19–22. Late Bronze and Iron Ages, may have protected the only pass from the Pivka area to the valley of the r iver r eka (Bavdek, App. 1). 44 Such settlement pattern along the fringes of upland plateaus (polje and podolje) and valleys together with a control over the passages between them exercised by means of fortified posts and visual communications is in many ways reminiscent of the settlement known from the Bronze to Iron Ages all to the r oman occupation in the Dinaric hinterland of the Adriatic, along the upland plateaus from Lika 45 to Herzegovina. 46 Such a settlement pattern is probably not only the result of adapting to terrain, but also of the social organisation of the communities living here who controlled the natural resources in particular, for example drink- ing water, 47 as well as their territories. The situation on the Kras plateau is slightly dif- ferent. It is an area dominated by three or four large settlements on hilltops such as Tomaj, Skopo and Sveto, along the northern edge possibly also Štanjel, and a series of hillforts more densely spaced along the western side of the plateau, on the numerous peaks overlooking the Gulf of Trieste and along Kraški rob. In the southeast, the territory of the Kras community is delimited with the settlement complex of Škocjan and the hillfort at Ajdovščina above r odik. 48 The recent investigations, which apply new technologies of airborne scanning of the earth’s surface, i.e. LiDAr that Boštjan Laharnar right- fully terms a ‘proper revolution in archaeological topography’ , have offered a completely new insight into the formation of the cultural landscape and settlement patterns in n otranjska and the Kras as well. 49 n ot only have they revealed the contours of fortified settlements – hillforts – with an accuracy far exceeding that enabled by aerial photography and in some cases even revealing the buildings 44 Cf. also e.g. Horvat 1995, Fig. 1; Horvat 2005, 228–229, 237–243, Fig. 2; also see Laharnar 2022. 45 See e.g. Drechsler-Bižić 1975, Plan 2. 46 Benac 1975, Plan 1; Benac 1985, 56–69, 90–94, 135–146, 181–187, Maps 1–4 and particularly Map 5. 47 On the importance of the access to drinking water, see Šašel 1992a, 524–528. 48 Slapšak 1995; Slapšak 1999, 158–163. Also see Flego, r upel 1993; Zupančič 1990, 19–21; Càssola Guida, Cassola 2002, 7–10, Fig. 4. 49 Laharnar 2018, 30. Boštjan Laharnar currently heads a research project studying the hillforts and their hinterland in n otranjska, particularly the Pivka area. A monograph on this subject is also in preparation (Laharnar 2022). 256 Biba Teržan and their layout in the interior, but also traces of a variety of artificial features in their immediate proximity such as enclosures, walls, cairns and boundaries delimiting large areas that represented the economic – agricultural hinterland of indi- vidual settlements. The research that Laharnar and his team conducted in the area of Gradišče above Knežak is not limited to LiDAr images and their interpretation only, but also involved trial trenching and small-scale excavation. These revealed a very complex use of the area associated with the hillfort, in places even delimited with a boundary wall (Fig. 2). The excavated pottery dates these features to the e arly Iron Age, though some finds may be even earlier, from the Bronze Age. 50 Tanja Vidojević established a similar situation in the hinterland of Trnovo as the main hillfort in the Ilirska Bistrica area, the territory of which was protected with a stone wall reaching from Trnovo to Sv. Ahac and Stražica as watch and defence posts. Already Müllner observed this wall (Vidojević, Fig.1; 4; 7–8). In the region of the Kras, where Božidar Slapšak conducted detailed topographic surveys and groundbreaking spatial studies, 51 recent research also established the existence of similar structures. For example, the different location, size and fortification features of the hillforts around Škocjan, such as on Gradišče near Divača, Graček above Famlje and Volarija, as well as the presumed boundary wall enclosing the whole Škocjan area suggest that the Škocjan terri- tory as well was delimited and protected, possibly in a manner comparable to the Greek temenoi. 52 LiDAr images and ground-truthing revealed a most probably a similar spatial organisation at Štanjel as the central hillfort with presumed satellite settle- ments at nearby Kobdilj and Kobjeglava (Bratina, Fig. 1; Teržan, Turk, Fig. 8, 13). 53 Štanjel visually controlled not only its karst territory, but also the access to the Kras plateau from the Vipava Valley. The latter is suggested by the discovery at Ostri vrh, where archaeological excavations unearthed a watch tower from the Hallstatt period. Interestingly, another tower stood on Lukovska Škratljevica, on 50 Laharnar 2018, 30–34, Fig. 3; Laharnar, Lozić, Štular 2019, Fig. 2–5. For the r oman period on Knežak, see Laharnar, Lozić, Miškec 2020. 51 Slapšak 1995; id. 1999. 52 Turk, Hrobat, Bratina 2016, Fig. 13; Teržan 2016a, 416–417, Fig. 151–152; Mlekuž 2016. 53 For Štanjel, also see Bratina 2019. For the location of the graves in the vicinity of Kobjeglava, which are believed to form part of the Štanjel cemetery, see Vinazza 2018. the opposite side of the valley that hosts the access route to the Kras plateau; the said access was thus flanked by two towers here as well. Other similar, albeit archaeologically uninvestigated stone archi- tectural remains have led to the hypothesis that a series of fortified posts, defence and watch towers as well as smaller heavily fortified hillforts, was established along the northern edge of the Kras plateau that controlled and protected the accesses to the plateau and with it the territory of the Kras cultural group as a whole (T eržan, T urk, Fig. 1–13). The archaeological excavation of the tower on Ostri vrh also offered a remarkable insight into the drystone constructions. The wall was not only built of carefully laid stones forming flat interior and exterior faces, but also included wooden posts that strengthened the construction as a whole (Teržan, Turk, Fig. 1–6). We believe that the hill- fort fortifications must have been constructed in a similar fashion (cf. Bratina, Fig. 3–4). r ecent investigations have conclusively proven that the hillforts were not enclosed with ramparts of loose stones, as had often been suggested in literature, but rather with massive stone built walls. These walls usually had exterior and interior faces made of large stones or stone blocks, while the core, in some cases several metres wide, was mainly filled with stone rubble, at places with earth; such are the fortification walls at Grad near Šmihel pod nanosom, 54 Cvinger near Dolenja vas near Cerknica (Bavdek, Fig. 14), Tabor near Vrapče (Vinazza, Fig. 3) and Tomaj (Bratina, Fig. 3–4). The possible fortification renovations may have included buttressing or even several additional stone rows-faces built on the exterior side of the wall; examples of this art of construction are the hillforts on Ajdovščina above r odik, 55 Graček near Famlje 56 and Tomaj 57 (Bratina, Fig. 3–4). The massive stone ruins of the hillforts indicate mighty drystone fortification walls that must have reached several metres high (e.g. Vidojević, Fig. 10; Bratina, Fig. 3–4). The hillforts represented great feats of stonework and engineering that individual com- munities undertook under the guidance of master builders and a well-organised society. 54 Urleb 1990. 55 Slapšak 1985. 56 novaković, Turk 1991a; novakovič, Turk 1991b; Zupančič, Vinazza 2015, 694–695, Fig. 3. 57 Bratina 2018b, 96–97, Fig. 8–9. 257 The n otranjska-Kras Hallstatt group. An introduction and brief outline BURIAL RITE AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE The people of the n otranjska-Kras group buried their dead in different ways, most commonly by cremating their bodies and placing the remains either in urns or in simple grave pits, though in- humation was also practiced (Bavdek; Laharnar, Murgelj). r egardless of burial rite, the deceased were buried with their costume and jewellery, in some cases small tools, but not weapons. In contrast to the Dolenjska Hallstatt cultural group, where weaponry (axe and spears) was a standard component of male grave goods, the graves of the n otranjska-Kras group only exceptionally contain weapons, for example in some of the graves from the Late Bronze or e arly Iron Ages at Brežec near Škocjan and in altogether three graves at Križna gora. 58 Only in the n otranjska VI phase, i.e. the Late Hallstatt period, but particularly in the La Tène period do weapons become frequent and common grave goods. As for other goods, pottery is rare if excluding urns; the exception in this sense is Križna gora, where several vessels presumably contained provisions for the afterlife. The cemeteries are mainly flat. Tumuli are also mentioned in literature, 59 but excavations have as yet not confirmed that such mounds contained human burials; they revealed pottery sherds but no other finds that would confirm their funerary character. It is therefore likely that they are stone mounds or cairns such as Laharnar investigated below the hillfort at Knežak and connected to agricultural land use. 60 The necropoleis are usually located on the slopes directly below the settlements, such as is the case at Križna gora 61 and Trnovo near Ilirska Bistrica (Bavdek), as well as Sv. Barbara below Jelarji/ e lleri, 62 while the areas of Škocjan 63 and Grad near Šmihel 64 hosted several cemeteries. Both the biritual burial and the existence of several contemporary cemeteries or clusters of 58 Urleb 1974, Pl. 1: 8; 3: 15; 9: 4; Teržan 1990, 70–71, Fig. 15. 59 Guštin 2011, 40. 60 See Urleb 1974, 13, App. 1; Osmuk 1988; Laharnar 2019, 266–268. 61 Urleb 1974, 11–14, Fig. 2; App. 1. 62 Montagnari Kokelj 1996; ead. 1997, Pl. 23–26; Maselli Scotti 1997, Fig. 1–2; 12; 25–29; Škvor Jernejčič 2018, 538–545, Fig. 2. 63 r uaro Loseri et al. 1977, 19–22, Fig. 6; T urk, Hrobat, Bratina 2016, Fig. 13. 64 Guštin 1979, 13, Fig. 3. graves may reflect different social units such as extended families or clans and their mutual respect in living in the same settlement and the same cultural group. The analysis of the graves in terms of burial rite and composition of grave goods offers a revealing insight into the social structure of individual settle- ments, for example those at Križna gora and Šmihel. Several cemeteries are located around the well- fortified settlement on Grad near Šmihel, two of those, at Pod Kaculjem and Mačkovc dating to the e arly Iron Age. 65 Although contemporaneous, their grave goods differ, particularly in female burials, and suggest the existence of two different social units. Prevalent in the female costume at Pod Kaculjem is spectacle fibulae and bracelets (Fig. 3), while the graves with bow fibulae are in a minority (Fig. 4). 66 The fibulae of both types occur together in only rare graves and may point to close family ties of those individuals with both communities. In addition to the basic markers (fibula/bracelet), the costume and jewellery such as beads, pendants and torques reveal other combinations that mark different costumes and their categorisation based on social standing and status, as it was shown years ago on the basis of the inhumation graves from Križna gora that have been anthropologically identified as to their sex and age. 67 With the exception of the differences in the fibulae, it also seems indicative that the individuals with spectacle fibulae at Pod Kaculjem are frequently buried in urns covered with a bowl (Fig. 3), while the individuals with bow fibulae mostly without an urn. Only two individu- als with bow fibulae stand out, falling among the women wearing Category I costume (with a pair of bracelets) (Fig. 4), i.e. among the women of the 65 Hoernes 1888, 217–249; Guštin 1979, 70–75, Fig. 3; Pl. 37–50. The study by Teržan (1992, 464–471, Fig. 9–10), the results of which are summarised here (see Fig. 3–5), considers both the publication by Hoernes and that by Guštin, with the numbering of the graves taken from the latter so as to facilitate the search for the description and drawing associated with a particular grave. It should be noted, however, that the renumbering by Guštin has its drawbacks as it disregards both the location of individual cemeteries and the graves without grave goods. 66 The spectacle and bow fibulae are given in the Figures 3–5 and 7–8 without considering the possible typological or chronological differences (bow fibulae comprise the single- and two-looped, as well as semilunate examples). The numbers I–VII in the Figures 3–5 and 7–8 relate to the costume categories as shown by Teržan 1978. 67 Urleb 1974, 14–19, Fig. 3; 5; Teržan 1978. 258 Biba Teržan highest rank within the female population recorded in the Pod Kaculjem cemetery. Similarly as in the graves with bow fibulae at Pod Kaculjem that are mostly without urns, the deceased at Mačkovc were also not interred in urns. Moreover, the latter graves also largely lacked other pottery. This is all the more telling when considering the fact that the most characteristic element of the female costume at Mačkovc is a bow fibula, whereas spectacle fibulae are rare (Fig. 5). Although the burials at Mačkovc are more modest in general, other pieces of costume or jewellery (bracelets, torques, pendants and beads) show they do not differ from the common categories of costumes established for Pod Kaculjem and Križna gora. This speaks in favour of costume types/com- binations of jewellery standardised according to age, social standing and status of women, which appears to have been accepted and recognisable across the whole n otranjska-Kras group and wider in the south-eastern Alpine Hallstatt culture. 68 The female costume/jewellery therefore represented an important social regulation, particularly in the sense of marking age and rank and with it security and protection of the female sphere. The differences established in the burial rite (urn/no urn) and distinguishing jewellery (spec- tacle fibula/bow fibula) can be seen as external signs of individual social units such as families/ clans within the Šmihel hillfort. The grave goods, as the female burials at Pod Kaculjem are slightly richer compared to those at Mačkovc, may indicate social stratification of the settlement’s population. An even more complex social structure can be gleamed from the necropolis below Križna gora, 69 which revealed urn burials, cremation burials in simple pits without urns and inhumations. The plan of the necropolis reveals groupings, though we could not clearly distinguish them neither in burial rite nor characteristic grave goods as different rites occurred within individual group- ings. 70 n ot discouraged, we conducted a detailed analysis of the graves with the aim of identifying the traits of the community who buried its dead in this burial ground. 68 For the Dolenjska cultural group, cf. Teržan 1985; ead. 2008, 246–262, Fig. 24; 26. 69 Urleb 1974; Teržan 1978; ead. 1992, 467–469, Fig. 11–12. 70 Cf. Urleb 1974, 35–44, Fig. 16–19; Teržan 1990, 67–69, Fig. 14. As with the study of grave good combinations already confirming the existence of costumes distinguished according to sex, rank and age, 71 our attention here turned to the phenomena pre- viously observed at Šmihel, i.e. to what extent the fibulae as pieces of the female costume identified a woman as a member of a particular social unit/ family/ clan. Similarly as at Šmihel, the results showed that spectacle and bow fibulae served as distinguishing items, included in nearly all cos- tume categories (Fig. 7–8): costume with a fibula and pair of bracelets (I), costume with a fibula, torques and earrings (II), costume with a fibula and bracelet (III), costume with a fibula, beads and pendants (V), and so forth. At Križna gora, these two fibula types should not only be seen as only expressing different ages and standings, but also as items identifying an individual as member of a certain social unit. 72 Interestingly, the burial rite shows a picture contrary to that in both cem- eteries at Šmihel (pod Kaculjem and Mačkovc). At Križna gora, for instance, the women with bow fibulae are more frequently buried in urns, those with spectacle fibulae in cremations without urns. Understanding this inverse proportion is hindered by the fact that both the first (with bow fibulae) and the second groups (with spectacle fibulae) include numerous inhumations (Fig. 7–8). How then can we understand these differences in the burial rite and use of specific types of fibulae? Did they mark social units/families/clans living in the settlement of Križna gora, which also included individuals of foreign origin? This and numerous other questions must remain unanswered; what seems most probable is that the population living at Križna gora and Šmihel, similar as at Škocjan, was heterogeneous. The reasons for this should be sought in the different traditions and origins of the first settlers, those who constructed the hillforts. It would appear that the identity of the different communities within settlements was perpetuated and also recognis- able: 1) in the location of a cemetery in relation 71 Teržan 1978; ead. 1990, 67–69, Fig. 14. 72 Clearly there are typological and chronological differences between graves with one or the other type of fibulae, for example between the simple spectacle fibulae of coiled wire, which are earlier, and two-piece spectacle fibulae with a support strip, which are later, or between single- or two-looped bow fibulae of different variants, and so forth. This chronological dimension was deliberately disregarded here as it would exceed the extent and intention of the contribution that is primarily an overview. 259 The n otranjska-Kras Hallstatt group. An introduction and brief outline to the settlement, 2) in the disposition of graves within a cemetery to form more or less clearly discernible groups, 3) in the burial rite and 4) in the costume, particularly the female costume and the composition of jewellery pieces with a specific type of fibulae (spectacle versus bow) identifying the individual as a member of a specific social unit/family/clan. The spectacle, bow and several other types of fibulae were important not only as items identi- fying members of a community/clan within the settlement, but also as components of the costume specific to the n otranjska-Kras group. With regards to the spectacle fibulae with a figure-of-eight common in the Late Urnfield culture (Ha A2/Ha B1–3) and the e arly Iron Age (Ha C 1–2/Ha D1) between the Baltic and the Mediterranean, Sabine Pabst succeeds in identifying numerous regional and local variants. These include a variant, with a large figure-of-eight, that was most frequent in n otranjska and hence termed the Križna gora type, characteristic of the notranjska II phase (Fig. 6). 73 In comparison with it, the fibulae with a large figure-of-eight and a strip of metal as support for the pin represent a later variant of spectacle fibulae of the Tržišče type, characteristic of the notranjska III phase. 74 Her analysis also showed that both variants were a local version of the spectacle fibulae with closest parallels in the Iapodic cultural group, of the Kompolje and Prozor types. 75 T o summarise, the spectacle fibulae in the female costume of n otranjska are evidence of upholding the Urnfield culture tradition and of the direct relation to the contemporary fashion for spectacle fibulae with the neighbours to the southeast – the Iapodes. 76 In contrast, the two-looped bow fibulae in the n otranjska-Kras group represent a distinct Balkan type traceable in numerous variants from the cen- tral Balkans, Dolenjska to the r iver Soča, i.e. the Sveta Lucija group that marks the western border of their distribution. W e should add and stress that the two-looped bow fibulae, with rare exceptions, are absent in the cultural groups inhabiting the 73 See Lazarevski Poklar 2000; Guštin 2011, 41. I wish to thank Mitja Guštin for the illustration and permission to publish it. 74 Pabst 2012, 57–59, 76, 199–209, Fig. 3: 4; 6: 1; Map 14: 1; 20: 1; List 13; 25. 75 Ib., 59–63, 76–79, Fig. 3: 5; 6: 2; Map 14; 20. 76 The dating of the spectacle fibulae with a figure- of-eight among the Iapodes is supported by radiocarbon dates (Zavodny et al. 2019, Fig. 4). coastal regions of the Adriatic and its hinterland, that is among the Iapodes, the Liburni, the Histri and also the Veneti! 77 We may infer from the analysis of the burial rite 78 and jewellery (Fig. 3–8) that an unusual symbiosis of Iapodic and Balkan elements occurred in n otranjska in the e arly Iron Age. Paradoxically, these are mirrored primarily in the female cos- tume, in which certain types of fibulae/jewellery took on the role of identifying and distinguishing individuals within a narrow (family?) identity. Also characteristic of the n otranjska-Kras group are the crescent-shaped fibulae, primarily two- looped ones decorated with embossed dots on a widened bow, termed the Križna gora type, 79 as well as the large boat fibulae with an only slightly curved and wide boat-shaped bow (Laharnar, Murgelj, Fig. 3–4; Pl. 3: 1). 80 Both formed part of the female costume in the notranjska III phase. In the following, notranjska IV phase, it is the solid cast serpentine fibulae that exhibit local traits, more numerously only known from Tržišče near Cerknica and individually from Šmihel and Čepna near Knežak. 81 As opposed to the spectacle and two-looped fibulae, the boat and serpentine types of fibulae reflect influences from the Italian, especially Venetic areas. These examples of characteristic fibula-types were used to illustrate that the notranjska-Kras group is distinguishable not only in the complexity of burial practices and the specifics of the costume, but also in the shapes of the jewellery that mirror a distinct identity. HOARD FINDS Several hoard finds from the Late Bronze and e arly Iron Ages have come to light in n otranjska 77 Müller 2009, 194–195, Fig. 203: the schematic distribution map of the two-looped fibulae in the Balkans is misleading and incorrect, as they are all but absent along the coast of the Adriatic. Cf. Gabrovec 1970. 78 We should mention the similarities in the burial rite (birituality) and groups of graves within the necropoleis particularly in the Iapodic area. Cf. Drechsler-Bižić 1987, 424–428; Balen-Letunić 2006, 33–36. 79 Teržan 1990, 59–60, 77, Fig. 3: 1; 7: 3; 9: 2; 14. 80 Guštin 1973, 472–477, Fig. 2: 24,28; Pl. 9: 2,7; id. 1979, Pl. 18: 1–5; 58: 6; 60: 11–12. 81 Guštin 1973, 474–477, Map 3, Fig. 2: 39; id. 1979, Pl. 3: 1; 19: 1–7; 60: 19; Tecco Hvala 2014, 130–131, Fig. 3b, Type IIIb3, Map 6. 260 Biba Teržan and the Kras. In their context and time span, they differ substantially from the above-mentioned hoards of long duration in Mušja jama/Fliegenhöhle and Skeletna jama/Knochenhöhle in the Škocjan area. Two such hoards were found near Veliki Otok. The smaller one was discovered near the entrance to the cave of Mačkovca jama (two winged axes and a bronze disc). The larger one held pieces of raw bronze, mostly fragments of hammer-shaped or biconical ingots. 82 Some pieces bear round circular markings, sort of stamps, suggesting they marked a specific type of metal. The spectrometric and metallographic analysis that n eva Trampuž Orel and her colleagues conducted have shown that the bronze alloy of these ingots had a high content of lead and other trace elements, which appears to have been characteristic of the ingots of Ha B in our and a wider Alpine area. T ogether with hoards from Kanalski vrh, 83 the ingots from Veliki otok reveal metallurgic know-how and technological advancement in the processing of complex poly- metal ores and production of metals with specific characteristics for further distribution. 84 We may infer from the relatively numerous hoards of bi- conical ingots between Friuli and central Slovenia, which includes n otranjska, that this was the area where the semi-finished products of a valuable metal might have been produced and from where they were distributed further to continental eu- rope as well as into Italy and possibly wider in the Mediterranean. 85 Slightly later, another type of hoards appeared in western Slovenia. Peter Turk gave them a wide-ranging term of the Bologna/San Francesco – Šempeter (near nova Gorica) type. 86 These hoards also consist of different ingots, of which shaft-hole axes deserve special attention. The items were mostly deposited as small fragments, only exceptionally complete. In the last two or three decades, such hoards or assemblages of metal predominantly came to light with the help of metal detectors, mainly in settlements, including those 82 Čerče, Šinkovec 1995, 227–229, Fig. 49, Pl. 139; Turk, Turk 2019, 202–205, Fig. 253. The exact findspot of the Veliki otok I hoard is unknown. 83 žbona-Trkman, Bavdek, 1995–1996. 84 Trampuž-Orel 1996, 193–197, Fig. 5–7; App. A, 37; Trampuž Orel 1999, 417–419, Fig. 4; Trampuž Orel, Heath 2001, 150–163, 167–171. 85 Turk, Turk 2019, 205, Fig. 254; žbona-Trkamn, Bavdek 1995–1996, 64, Fig. 6; see also Sperber 2000, 392–395, Abb. 11. 86 Turk 2018, 398–400, Fig. 1; 3. in n otranjska, for example from Stari grad above Hruševje, Gradišče above Zgornja Košana, Baba above Slavina, Gradišče above Pivka, Gradišče above Knežak and Ulaka (Laharnar, Murgelj, Pl. 1: 6–12). 87 In the contrast to them, the most recently discovered hoard near Klana, at the southern border of the n otranjska-Kras group, was found in a very remote location (Blečić Kavur, Fig. 7). The mostly unusual chemical composition (also with a high lead content), of the shaft-hole axes in particular, suggest that their fragments and other bronze pieces in these hoards served not only as raw material for metallurgic activities, but also as a premonetary currency. 88 In light of this hypothesis proposed by neva Trampuž Orel, we should mention that the hammer-shaped ingots, as well as shaft-hole axes as the characteristic items in the both types of hoards trace their origins to Italy (or even the eastern Mediterranean), 89 which probably signifies that by adopting such currency these parts of Slovenia were incorporated into a wider premonetary system active across the Apen- nine Peninsula and the Alpine area including its south-eastern fringes, where several hoards show it survived all to the early 6 th century BC. The third type of hoards in n otranjska contain large quantities of weapons comprising spears, axes, swords and in some cases also helmets and horse gear. These mostly came to light in the immediate proximity to settlements, for example at the foot of the hillforts at Tomaj and Tržišče near Dolenja vas near Cerknica. Peter Turk named these the Tržišče-Porpetto type dating between the 8 th and 6 th centuries BC. 90 In their contribution in this volume, Mitja Guštin and Dragan Božič discuss this particular type of hoards and offer a more precise definition in both chronological and spatial terms. The number of pieces belonging to individual types of weapons per hoard reveals weaponry associated with organised military units with a commander at the head (helmet, bronze battle axe and/or spear), with several horsemen (horse gear and single-edged curved swords) and infantrymen-spearmen (iron 87 Trampuž Orel, Heath 1998, 237–248, Fig. 1–5, Pl. 1; Laharnar, Turk 2017, 89–91, Fig. 102; nanut 2018, 145–147, Fig. 11: 16–24. 88 Trampuž Orel, Heath 1998, 240–246, Fig. 7; Pl. 1; Teržan 2008, 296–300, Fig. 47–48; Turk 2018, 399–400; n anut 2018, 141–145, Fig. 5–8. 89 Further discussion of this topic would go beyond the scope of this contribution. 90 Turk 2018, 400–404, Fig. 2–3; Laharnar, Turk 2017, 84–87, Fig. 94–96; 98. 261 The n otranjska-Kras Hallstatt group. An introduction and brief outline spears, sometimes also iron axes). These hoards can be seen as tropaia, but in the interpretatio Caput Adriae, as stated Peter Turk, in the local ritual of a victorious military demonstration. 91 This naturally begs the question of who was the victorious party, was it the attackers or the successful defenders of the well-protected hillforts. As already mentioned, the burial practice of the n otranjska-Kras group in the e arly Iron Age did not involve offering weapons into graves, hence we have no knowledge as to the types of weapons they wielded. A similar practice has been observed in the neighbouring cultural groups such as the Iapodic, Histrian and Sveta Lucija groups, the graves of which contain weapons only exceptionally, further hindering the identification of potential aggressors from the vicinity. We may be dealing with the remains of internal disputes, though it is also possible that the aggressors or plunderers came from outside the n otranjska-Kras group; the latter possibility is raised by much later ancient written sources. 92 We may approach this issue by tracing the occurrence of certain characteristic types of weapons such as curved swords or machairas in graves, which is a reliable indication they formed part of the deceased’s battle gear. In the time of the Tomaj or Tržišče hoards, machairas were used by the warriors of the Dolenjska cultural group, as shown by the graves at n ovo mesto 93 and several other sites in Dolenjska and Bela krajina. Machairas were also found, albeit rarely, with the Iapodes (e.g. at Prozor) and in Istra (Beram, Picugi and n esactium). 94 For example, in n esactium, in one of the richest burials from the mid-6 th century BC, Grave I/12, two machairas were laid onto a stone urn, while yet a third one lay at the edge of the stone cist. 95 However, as Guštin already noted, large battle knives similar to machairas are also known from graves in neighbouring Friuli, for instance from Pozzuolo del Friuli. 96 Istra also yielded crested conical helmets of the same type as that of the fragments from the Trnovo hoard above Ilirska Bistrica. It is interesting that in the 91 Turk 2018, 403–404. 92 Cf.e.g. Šašel 1977; Šašel 1992b. 93 e.g. the well-known Grave I/16 from Kapiteljska njiva with a winged axe identical to that from the Tomaj hoard (cf. Knez 1993, Pl. 18: 6; 19: 46–47). 94 See Guštin 1974, 77–92 with a list of sites and a distribution map. 95 Mihovilić 2001, 84–85, 149, 165–166, Pl. 24: 2; 25: 1–2; ead. 1995, 284–285, Pl. 20: 1–3. 96 See here Guštin, Božič, Fn. 68. Histrian graves such helmets were even used as urns, 97 which probably emphasised the special role and rank of the deceased as an outstanding war- rior. If judging from the machairas as grave goods alone, we may posit the existence of plundering gangs either from Dolenjska/ Bela krajina or from the Iapodic area, as well as Istria, possibly even Friuli. If also considering the crested helmet, we may pinpoint the Histri as the aggressors. The T omaj hoard also includes dress pins, among them several with a small spherical head and a disc on the neck with parallels from Istra; 98 but such pins with one or more spherical heads, separated by discs are particularly characteristic of the costume in the Iapodic group. 99 The Tomaj hoard further consists of several fragments of iron pins with one or more bronze spherical heads, such as form part of the male costume in the graves of Phase III in Istra, found for example at Beram, Picugi, r ovinj and n esactium. 100 The parallels for the dress pins, machairas and helmet suggest that the aggressors might be sought among the Histri or Iapodes. This short excursion into machairas, helmets and pins was aimed at drawing attention to the fact that the weapon hoards from n otranjska and the Kras contain objects that may not be local in origin, but more likely foreign and should be seen as evidence of turbulent times. The question is whether some of these hoards may be connected with the above-mentioned and as yet unexplained interruptions indicated by the end of burial in the necropoleis at Brežec near Škocjan, Pod Kaculjem and Mačkovc near Šmihel and at Križna gora. Considering the chronological division of the hoards as proposed by Guštin and Božič, we may infer on periodic military activity, possibly similar 97 Kučar 1979, 90, Pl. 1: 3; Mihovilić 2013, 200, Fig. 117. 98 Kučar 1979, Pl. 2: 4; 12: 14. 99 The pins with a small spherical head/knobs and a disc or moulding below it do not represent a ‘prototype’ for the multi-knobbed pins with a trumpet guard, as Guštin and Božič claim (see here), but rather a characteristic Iapodic type of dress pins that was worn into the early 6 th century BC. These Iapodic pins have one or more knobs that are usually separated by discs. Hence the dating of the Tomaj hoard is not necessarily the 8 th century BC, it might also be slightly later. Cf. Laharnar, Turk 2017, 86, Fig. 96; Turk 2018, 401–402, Fig. 2, and Drechsler-Bižić 1958, 38, Pl. 3: 21,24; Lo Schiavo 1970, 460–461, Pl. 36: 1–2; Teßmann 2001, 69–70, Fig. 38–39. 100 Kučar 1979, 115, Pl. 2: 4,8; 3: 9; 4: 13; 6: 3–4; 12; Mihovilić 2001, 79–81, Fig. 64; Pl. 5: 3; 6: 3; 27: 3; 37: 5; 56: 8; Mihovilić 2013, 196–199, Fig. 114; Matošević, Mihovilić 2004, 19, Pl. 1: 4. 262 Biba Teržan to those recounted by Odysseus, although himself suffering from changing fortunes: For before the sons of the Achaeans set foot on the land of Troy, I had nine times led warriors and swift-faring ships against foreign folk, and great spoil had ever fallen to my hands. Of this I would choose what pleased my mind, and much I afterwards obtained by lot. Thus my house straightway grew rich,... But Zeus, son of Cronos, brought all to naught — so, I ween, was his good pleasure — who sent me forth with roaming pirates to go to Egypt, a far voyage, that I might meet my ruin; and in the river Aegyptus I moored my curved ships. But my comrades, yielding to wantonness and led on by their own might, straightway set about wasting the fair fields of the men of Egypt; and they carried off the women and little children, and slew the men; … 101 Plundering, particularly livestock, and pi- racy appear to have been traditional ‘branches of economy’ within Homeric society. Leaders such as Odysseus were basilei who practised plundering to the benefit not only of themselves and their reti- nue, but their community as a whole. 102 It is not unimaginable that the e arly Iron Age communities living outside Greece, in the western Balkans and the hinterland of the northern Adriatic, operated in much the same way. Bearing in mind such robbery operations and even more so the weapon hoards as tropaia, the need to protect settlements by enclosing them with stone fortification walls that had to be regularly maintained (Bavdek, App. 1; Bratina, Fig. 3–4; Vinazza, Fig. 1) and by delimiting the territory with boundary walls (Fig. 2; also see Vidojević, Fig. 1; 7–8), which probably served to protect the associated pasture and farm land, becomes much more understandable. Last but not least, the barrier system identified in a series of fortified posts, defence and watch towers, as well as small hillforts dotting the northern edge of the Kras plateau overlooking the Vipava V alley presumably also served to protect not only the accesses to the plateau or the territory of individual settlements, but also a wider area. The radiocarbon dates from the tower on Ostri vrh near Štanjel (Teržan, Turk) 101 Homer, Odyssey, XIV 229–233; XVII 424–427, 431–434 (translation A.T. Murray, 1919). 102 Murray 1982, 63–65. show that this system was most likely constructed in the course of the 8 th and renovated in the 5 th century BC. CONCLUSION The archaeological research of the n otranjska-Kras group reveals it as an entity that is highly complex in terms of both its settlement and social structure. The differences in the burial rite and the specifics of the costume/jewellery reflect the different facets of its identity, in which it is clearly distinguishable from neighbouring cultural groups. The undulated landscape and other natural conditions certainly played their part in these differences, with the upland plateaus (polje and podolje) and other lowlands in n otranjska, on the one side, and the Kras plateau, on the other, influencing the degree to which in- dividual settlements/communities were connected to each other and how they were involved in the cultural group as a whole. r ecent investigations have also shown that the communities had their own territories which they protected, also with the barriers constructed along the northern edge of the Kras plateau. Having said, the possibility of these communities reaching the threshold of a “protourban” society similar to the Archaic polis of ancient Greece or pomerium of early r ome remains unanswered until further investigations and research can provide some answers. 103 Translation: Andreja Maver 103 I wish to thank Alma Bavdek, Mitja Guštin and Boštjan Laharnar for constructive discussions, Manca Vinazza for her help in preparing Fig. 3–8, Boštjan Laharnar for Fig. 2, Mitja Guštin for Fig. 6, Sneža Tecco Hvala and Mateja Belak for Fig. 1, as well as Andreja Maver for the translation into english. ... ... Biba Teržan Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za arheologijo Zavetiška 5 SI-1000 Ljubljana Ljubinka.Terzan@ff.uni-lj.si