SLOVENSKA AKADEMIJA ZNANOSTI IN UMETNOSTI Razred za zgodovinske in družbene vede ZNANSTVENORAZISKOVALNI CENTER SAZU Inštitut za arheologijo ARHEOLOŠKI VESTNIK 61 2010 ZALOŽBA Z R C LJUBLJANA 2010 ARHEOLOŠKI VESTNIK ISSN 0570-8966 Izdala in založila / Published by Glavna urednica / Editor-in-chief Izvršna urednica / Managing editor Uredniški odbor / Editorial board Lektorji / Language editors Računalniška grafika / Computer graphics Prelom / DTP Naslov uredništva / Address E-naslov / E-mail Spletni naslov / Website Tisk / Printed by Naklada / Printrun Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti in / and Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU Marjeta Šašel Kos Andreja Dolenc Vičič Dragan Božič, Slavko Ciglenečki, Bojan Djuric, Andreja Dolenc Vičič, Janez Dular, Stane Gabrovec, Jana Horvat, Primož Pavlin, Marjeta Šašel Kos, Biba Teržan, Peter Turk, Paul Gleirscher, Claudio Zaccaria Marjeta Humar, Sonja Likar, Barbara Smith Demo, Alan McConnell-Duff Mateja Belak, Tamara Korošec, Drago Valoh Mateja Belak Arheološki vestnik, Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU, Novi trg 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija tel. + 386 1 47 06 380, fax + 386 1 42 57 757 andreja.dolenc@zrc-sazu.si http://av.zrc-sazu.si Formatisk d. o. o., Ljubljana 750 izvodov / copies Vsebina Prazgodovinske dobe Matija ČREŠNAR: Nova spoznanja o pozni bronasti dobi Slovenije na primeru naselja Rogoza pri Mariboru (Povzetek) ...............................................................................................................................96 Rimska doba Janka ISTENIČ: Poznolatenske nožnice s predrtim okrasnim okovom iz bakrove zlitine ali srebra .... 151 Žiga ŠMIT, Janka ISTENIČ in Sonja PEROVŠEK: Analize PIXE poznolatenskih nožnic s predrtimi okovi (in pripadajočih mečev) iz Slovenije........................................................................................172 Marjeta ŠAŠEL KOS: Cernunos v Sloveniji? (Povzetek) .........................................................................186 Ivan KNEZOVIČ: Čaščenje Savusa in Nemeze v Andavtoniji (Povzetek) ............................................201 Helga SEDLMAYER: "Tuja domovina" - avtohtono in priseljeno prebivalstvo v vzhodnem Noriku v flavijsko-trajanskem času (Povzetek) ...................................................................................................288 Pozna antika Ante ŠKEGRO: Naronska škofija (Ecclesia Naronitana) (Povzetek) .....................................................244 Srednji vek Katarina PREDOVNIK in Tomaž NABERGOJ: Arheološke raziskave obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku v Sloveniji .................................................................................................................................. 280 Epigrafika Danilo BREŠČAK in Milan LOVENJAK: Nagrobnik dveh mestnih veljakov iz Celeje na območju Nevioduna..........................................................................................................................................306 Knjižne ocene in prikazi Paul T. Craddock: Scientific Investigation of Copies, Fakes and Forgeries, 2009 (Alessandra GIUMLIA-MAIR) ...................................................................................................................................................311 Daniela Sedran (ur.): Il peso nell'antichitä. Pesi e misure nel Friuli romano, 2009 (Margherita BOLLA) ......................................................................................................................................................311 Supplementa Italica. Nuova serie, 23, 2007 (Marjeta ŠAŠEL KOS) ......................................................312 Bibliographia archaeologica Slovenica selecta Bibliographia archaeologica Slovenica selecta (Tina MILAVEC) ...........................................................314 Contents Prehistory Matija ČREŠNAR: New research on the Urnfield period of Eastern Slovenia. A case study of Rogoza near Maribor..........................................................................................................................................7 Roman Period Janka ISTENIČ: Late La Tene scabbards with non-ferrous openwork plates.........................................121 Žiga ŠMIT, Janka ISTENIČ and Sonja PEROVŠEK: PIXE analysis of Late La Tene scabbards with non-ferrous openwork plates (and associated swords) from Slovenia.................................................165 Marjeta ŠAŠEL KOS: Cernunnos in Slovenia? ......................................................................................175 Ivan KNEZOVIČ: The worship of Savus and Nemesis in Andautonia.................................................187 Helga SEDLMAYER: "Fremde Heimat" - Autochthones und Allochthones in Ostnoricum während der flavisch-trajanischen Zeit ............................................................................................................203 Late Antiquity Ante ŠKEGRO: The Diocese of Narona (Ecclesia Naronitana) ..............................................................229 Middle Ages Katarina PREDOVNIK and Tomaž NABERGOJ: Archaeological research into the periods following the Early Middle Ages in Slovenia ........................................................................................................245 Epigraphy Danilo BREŠČAK and Milan LOVENJAK: The tombstone of two town magistrates of Celeia in the region of Neviodunum ...........................................................................................................................295 Book reviews Paul T. Craddock: Scientific Investigation of Copies, Fakes and Forgeries, 2009 (Alessandra GIUMLIA-MAIR) ...................................................................................................................................................311 Daniela Sedran (ed.): Il peso nell'antichitä. Pesi e misure nel Friuli romano, 2009 (Margherita BOLLA) ......................................................................................................................................................311 Supplementa Italica. Nuova serie 23, 2007 (Marjeta ŠAŠEL KOS) .......................................................312 Bibliographia archaeologica Slovenica selecta Bibliographia archaeologica Slovenica selecta (Tina MILAVEC) ...........................................................314 List of abstracts Matija ČREŠNAR: New research on the Urnfield period of Eastern Slovenia. A case study of Rogoza near Maribor ..........................................................................................................................................................7 Janka ISTENIČ: Late La Tene scabbards with non-ferrous openwork plates .........................................................121 Žiga ŠMIT, Janka ISTENIČ and Sonja PEROVŠEK: PIXE analysis of Late La Tene scabbards with non-ferrous openwork plates (and associated swords) from Slovenia ...................................................................................165 Marjeta ŠAŠEL KOS: Cernunnos in Slovenia?........................................................................................................175 Ivan KNEZOVIC: The worship of Savus and Nemesis in Andautonia...................................................................187 Helga SEDLMAYER: "A Foreign Homeland" - autochthonous and allochthonous in Eastern Noricum during the Flavian-Trajanic period ...............................................................................................................................203 Ante ŠKEGRO: The Diocese of Narona (Ecclesia Naronitana) ................................................................................229 Katarina PREDOVNIK and Tomaž NABERGOJ: Archaeological research into the periods following the Early- Middle Ages in Slovenia .....................................................................................................................................245 Danilo BREŠČAK and Milan LOVENJAK: The tombstone of two town magistrates of Celeia in the region of Neviodunum .......................................................................................................................................................295 New research on the Urnfield period of Eastern Slovenia. A case study of Rogoza near Maribor Matija ČREŠNAR Izvleček Arheološko najdišče Rogoza je bilo odkrito v sklopu gradnje slovenskega avtocestnega križa in je še pred celostno publikacijo postalo domala vzorčni primer pozno-bronastodobne naselbine. Območje je bilo poseljeno tudi v drugih časovnih obdobjih, kar smo ugotovili na podlagi keramičnega gradiva ter delno podkrepili tudi z radiokar-bonskimi datacijami. Gre za najdbe iz zgodnje bronaste dobe, starejše in mlajše železne dobe ter antičnega obdobja. Prispevek obravnava keramične, kovinske in kamnite najdbe iz pozne bronaste dobe ter ob tem vključuje tudi ugotovitve naravoslovnih analiz kovin, kamnitih najdb, kosti in rastlinskih ostankov. Osvetljuje pa tudi razvoj naselbine v Rogozi ter poselitveno sliko širše vzhodne Slovenije v pozni bronasti dobi, ki jo je zadnje desetletje pospešenega arheološkega terenskega dela dodobra spremenilo. Ključne besede: pozna bronasta doba, vzhodna Slovenija, keramika, kovinske najdbe, metalurgija, naselja, poselitvena slika Abstract The construction of the motorway network in Slovenia uncovered an archaeological site at Rogoza, which became a case study for an Urnfield period settlement even before it was fully published. Pottery and radiocarbon dates, to some extent, indicate that the area was inhabited in other periods as well. It yielded finds from the Early Bronze Age, the Early Iron Age, the Late Iron Age and the Roman period. This paper introduces pottery, metal and stone finds from the Urnfield period and includes results of analyses of metal, stone finds, bones and plant remains. It also presents the development of the settlement at Rogoza and the Urnfield period settlement patterns in eastern Slovenia, knowledge of which has considerably increased during the last decade, marked by intense archaeological fieldwork. Keywords: Urnfield period, Eastern Slovenia, pottery, metal finds, metallurgy, settlements, settlement patterns INTRODUCTION The Rogoza archaeological site was discovered during construction of the Slovene motorway network in 1998 and 1999, with the excavation area comprising c. 600 x 50m (fig. 1). This paper discusses the Urnfield period occupation of the area, with finds indicating earlier as well as later activity. The earliest identifiable remains date to the Early Bronze Age and are ascribed to the Kisapostag Culture. After the Urnfield period we can follow a change in the intended use of place, which is indicated by four barrows, dating to the Early Iron Age. Evidence of later activities is dispersed; they do not belong to closed archaeological contexts and can be dated to the Late Iron Age, Roman and Late Roman periods.1 1 The article (which was concluded in 2009) is a part of the author's PhD dissertation titled Rogoza pri Mariboru in njeno mesto v bronasti in starejši železni dobi Podravja, which was prepared under the supervision of Prof. Biba Teržan at the Department of Archaeology (Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, 2009). I would also like to thank the director of the excavations, Mira Strmčnik Gulič, who granted access to the material and the documentation of the site and allowed its publication. Fig. 1: Position of the Rogoza site (© GURS, www.geopedija.si). Sl. 1: Rogoza. Lega najdišča (© GURS, www.geopedija.si). GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW Rogoza is situated at the extreme north-west of the Dravsko-Ptujsko polje (Drava-Ptuj field), just below the south-eastern slopes of the Pohorje mountains, i.e. at the intersection of two of geographical units, the Pannonian and the Alpine (fig. 1). The western part the Dravsko-Ptujsko polje represents a basin next to the tectonic edge of the Pohorje and Kozjak mountains, which it then expands into a wide river valley. During the Pleistocene the Drava filled the basin with siliceous gravel, which covers as much as three quarters of the surface. The remaining area is covered with clayey loam alluvia, deposited above the gravel by the streams draining from the south-eastern Pohorje and Slovenske gorice mountains. Remains of at least three of such watercourses are also visible on the archaeological site in question. One can also notice that the area was subjected to drainage in the form of ditches in the recent past, due to excessive amounts of water. The occupation of the area was also influenced by soil. Distric rankers and distric brown soil with different thickness of humus covered noncarbonated gravel and sand over a large area of the Dravsko-Ptujsko polje. They are both good quality soils for growing cultigens.2 Lovrenčak 1998, 179-181. 2 y= 151202 p- — 1 — I x= 551670 y= 151802 x= 551750 y= 151202 x= 551726 y= 151802 Fig. 2: Rogoza. Digital model of the relief for the area where the palaeochannel turns towards the south-east (according to Novšak et al. 1999). Sl. 2: Rogoza. DMR - digitalni model reliefa geološke podlage na območju, kjer je nekdanji vodotok zavil proti jugovzhodu (po Novšak et al. 1999). The southern part of the site remained unoccupied and the negative archaeological structures are present mainly in its central part, which is also clearly visible on the plan of the settlement (inserts 2, 3). Why is this so? The answer is evident when we look at the data on stratigraphic layers from the southern, central and northern parts of the site. The southern sectors include relatively late alluvia with a vague chronological sequence, because the layers have been disturbed, which is a proof of frequent floods in the area. We can partly follow a similar sequence on the far northern part of the site. However, the fluvial activity is less extensive here and it occurred even later. The central part of the settlement is slightly raised, with its geological base, i.e. the Pleistocene Drava gravel, rising to a greater height, being located immediately below the modern ploughsoil in some places. Sectors where the watercourse turns towards the south-east, close to the edge of the terrace, are most important in understanding the activities; the stream channel is not visible towards the South (fig. 2; inserts 2, 3). The terrace rose over 0.80m towards the north-east and the settlement area, located towards the east, was therefore located above the floodplain. Watercourses gradually deposited different alluvia at the foot of the terrace prior to formation of the documented stream channel. Changes in the intensity of hydrological regime are seen in the different granulation of the alluvia. A breakthrough occurred in this period, i.e. the moment when the stream channel was formed. Similar processes continued, because the alluvia were still under deposition in the areas in a southerly direction. Moreover, the stream often meandered on this area, because of softer layers and, consequently, its channel was not identified here. The central place, with its gravel subsoil, offered conditions that were suitable for occupation and people repeatedly utilized it. Other layers, also of an alluvial origin, were documented as covering the terrace in some places. Postholes, storage pits and other settlement structures of unknown purpose were cut into them. CLASSIFICATION OF THE DISCOVERED MATERIAL A wide selection of archaeological finds that was the object of post-excavation analysis comprised more than 70,000 pieces of pottery, almost 3000 pieces of burnt clay daub and several thousand other finds. The corpus was reduced to 1335 pieces after a selection of finds suitable for further analysis was made; 1150 fragments of pottery were ascribed to the Urnfield period. Fifteen metal finds that were discovered in the settlement, including finished and part-finished products, probably lost metal and slag, are most probably contemporary. The identification of stone finds is harder, because they were often found with no reliable contexts and are chronologically hard to determine if we observe only their form. However, they become more significant once we determine how they were made and utilised. In addition, analyses of animal bones and other organic remains also contributed to the integrity of the research. Only a selection of objects is presented in plates at the end of this article, i.e. objects that are diagnostic for the dating of individual Urnfield period structures, while the technological and typological analyses, which encompass the entire pottery assemblage from the site, are published elsewhere.3 Črešnar 2011. The finds in the mentioned publication are listed according to certain codes (from G1 to G1335) and therefore a table, which eases correlation of both publications, is added at the end of the paper (insert 1). Each find presented here, in Figure or Plate, has a code ascribed to it, which was given to it in the catalogue of the primary publication. Granuarity / zrnavost very fine / zelo fina 0 - 0.25 mm fine / fina 0.25 - 0.50 mm medium / drobna 0.50 - 2.00 mm coarse / groba 2.00 - 3.00 mm very coarse / zelo groba over / nad 3.01 mm Surface treatment / obdelava površine perfunctory sponging / površno brisanje rough features are visible / vidne grobe poteze obdelave sponging / brisanje fine features are visible / vidne fine poteze obdelave smoothing / glajenje features of treatment are not visible / poteze obdelave so nezaznavne burnishing / poliranje the surface is shiny / površina sije Hardness / trdota soft / mehko 1., 2. after Mohs / po Mohsu hard / trdo 3., 4. after Mohs / po Mohsu very hard / zelo trdo 5., 6. after Mohs / po Mohsu extraordinarily hard / izredno trdo 7., 8. after Mohs / po Mohsu Fig. 3: Parameters used when analysing technological characteristics of the pottery. Sl. 3: Parametri, uporabljeni pri določanju značilnosti keramike. CERAMIC FINDS Characteristics and making of pottery Here we present results of the technological analysis of 1150 ceramic objects, the majority of them belonging to vessels and a small amount to other functional objects. We determined granularity of fabric, surface treatment, firing technique and hardness for each piece of pottery (fig. 3).4 4 Thirteen percent (13%) of the analysed pottery sherds were damaged to such an extent that some of the observed parameters could not be determined. Probable reasons for this could be the influence of secondary fire, water activity, moist environment and other post-depository factors. Pottery production The largest percentage among granularity classes is presented at c. 39% by fine-grained and medium-grained fabrics. Both occur among all typological groups of vessels, from pots to dishes and even cups. Very fine fabric is characteristic for the latter and is also present in other vessels. Some 11% of the analysed pottery was produced in such a fabric and approximately the same percentage of vessels is coarse-grained. Very coarse-grained fabric is very rare and it mainly occurs in sherds of large oval pots. Mica and quartz prevail among inclusions that were recognized in the fabric on a macroscopic level. They were included in nearly all sherds, only the size of grains and their incidence differ from one fragment to another. Their presence is not unexpected, because this is an area located on Pleistocene siliceous gravel alluvial deposits of the Drava River, which are covered by clayey loam deposits from the Pohorje. A smaller or larger amount of inclusions could be natural to the fabric, although some fragments with exceptionally increased concentration of mostly mica and with sharp-edged inclusions make us suspect quite the opposite. Intentional adding of tempera that raise resistance to temperature changes is undoubtedly proved by crushed pottery. However, they are exceptionally rare. We also noticed natural clay pellets and particles of unburnt organic substances, which were natural inclusions or were added deliberately into the fabric. The presence of the latter can indicate incomplete firing. All pottery was hand-thrown. All but one miniature vessel, that was most probably formed by pinching, were made with coiling (using round or flattened coils), which is clearly visible on some perfunctory sponged vessels that are exceptionally rare. Many more, some 33%, were well-sponged, which means that the surfaces of pre-fired or not completely dry vessels were rubbed but partly stayed uneven and coarse. In contrast, smoothing makes the surface even and with almost no irregularities; 60% of the pottery was treated in this manner. We have to add that smoothed surfaces are substantially differentiated from one another; the smoothing of many cups and dishes strongly resembles burnishing. The latter was only determined in a handful of objects, where the surface was burnished to a high gloss; the surface of the object was partly dried in order to achieve this. Some vessels exhibit different treatment of exteriors and interiors. This does not occur often and was mainly noticed on high vessels with inverted rims, where the interior was hard to reach and was not visible, so it did not affect the appearance of the product. Slightly more than half of all analysed pottery was fired under oxidising conditions. The process was not completed in almost half of these vessels. Some 14% of products were fired under reducing conditions, and a further 24% under reducing conditions with oxidising conditions used at the end of the firing process. Some three percent show incomplete or complete oxidation with reducing phase at the end of the process or uncontrolled firing. The hardness of pottery is also relevant. Analysis determined 57% of objects as very hard, some 24% as extraordinarily hard, 18% as hard, and an almost negligible number of vessels as soft. Based on the above, we can present somewhat different results to those introduced by the author some years ago, after the analysis of material from the Ruše II urnfield. There is more than one reason for this; we can firstly mention the different character of vessels; urnfields generally contain specially chosen pottery with only a few fragments of storage pots, which are the most common type of pottery in settlements. Secondly, the terrain itself is important; Ruše does not lie on marshy ground and the area was not subjected to such extensive and intense agricultural destruction as at Rogoza.5 Determination of colour is more problematic. Two questions arise here: how accurate do we need to be at this point to be able to guarantee comparisons of results that are, in spite of standardized use of the Munsell Soil Colour Charts, often questionable, and is there any sense in this sometimes excessive accuracy. Namely, sherds of the same vessel, discovered in the same stratigraphic unit, sometimes appear of a totally different colour. When a great variation in colour of the interior as opposed to the exterior of the vessels was determined, both colours were assigned to the vessel. The same principle was followed with regard to uneven coloured surfaces that were noticed on some 10% of pottery. Almost half of the objects with evenly coloured surfaces are brown, followed by red (21%), yellow (19%) and grey (12%). Brown tones prevail also on the external surfaces of multi-coloured objects, Crešnar 2006, 108-116. while internal surfaces are mainly darker and grey. Moreover, the percentage of brightest yellow and red tones is perceptibly reduced. Many reasons for differently coloured surfaces exist and the final appearance of pottery is probably a sum of all of them. One of the reasons is a difference in air inflow to external and internal surfaces of pottery during firing, which is dependent upon the type of kiln used, distribution of fuel and the position of vessels during the firing process. The second reason is how the vessel was used, whether it was exposed to an open fire, used to serve food etc. Last but not least are processes that influenced the pottery after its disuse and deposition. The objects studied here were deposited in a high moisture environment and were subjected to physical and chemical impacts of intense agriculture. Some types of vessels characteristically bear handles and lugs, which were often attached in two different manners. The first"l and most common is a technique using an indentation and a plug, where the body of pottery is perforated and the plug, formed on internal side of a lug or a handle, is fitted into the perforation. The area surrounding the indentation can be embossed, which allows for a better grip. The second technique did not use perforation for easier attachment of the lugs/ handles. Absence of any trace of surface treatment of some vessels indicates that the surfaces were not preliminarily additionally treated. Pottery decoration The major characteristic of pottery, introduced here only from technological and statistical point of view, is its decoration. Among 1150 studied objects, 414 or 36% were decorated. They carry different types of decoration, which were executed on raw, unfired surfaces. Different applied decorations are the most widespread, with ornamented ribs strongly prevailing, while extrusions and smooth ribs are less common. They represent as much as 36% of all decorations. They are followed by channelled decoration at over 20%, mostly as bands of oblique lines. All impressed and punched decoration techniques make a total of 15.5% and are more common than facets at 11% and incisions at 9%. Decoration with grooves is, at 3%, the least frequent among individual decorations. Let us also mention combinations of different ornaments that were documented on some 6% of 5 m 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 J (T^ 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ? 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 OOOO^ 44 \ 45 47 48 49 50 51 am 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 71 llUlUlf lUlUlÄ 72 73 A- C th 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Fig. 4: Types of ornamentation, motifs and location. Sl. 4: Načini krašenja posod, motivi in mesta okrasa. the decorated objects. Incisions occur in combinations with different types of prints of tools, while grooves, channelled decoration and facets usually occur independently. Fingertip impressions and impressions of sharp or blunt tools occur independently6 or in the already mentioned combinations. Fingertip impressions besides this only occur on plastic ribs. The latter can be undecorated, as with extrusions and other hand-formed appliques, but these are exceptionally rare. The mentioned decorative techniques were used in a selection of motifs; they also differ from one another according to their locations on the vessels. Incisions (fig. 4: 1-16) most often occur as horizontal lines, either single (fig. 4: 1), double ((fig. 4: 2) or arranged in bands ((fig. 4: 3). They are located on the shoulder, shoulder-to-neck transition and exceptionally also in the interior of the rim of a dish (fig. 4: 4); their position is indefinable on many body fragments. It is interesting that a single line appears only on the shoulder-to-neck transition, which is visually emphasised as a result, while sequences of horizontal lines are mainly present elsewhere. Oblique straight lines appear as independent decoration only once, as a set of parallel straight lines on a body fragment of a smaller vessel (fig. 4: 5). Single or double zigzag lines are rare (fig. 4: 6). Combined motifs are formed by horizontal and oblique incisions (fig. 4: 8) or hatched triangles (fig. 4: 7), horizontal and zigzag lines (fig. 4: 10,11). An interesting motif is a circular band of bunches of alternating incisions, found on the interior of the base of a vessel (fig. 4: 12). Complex motifs consist of combinations of incisions and wheel-stamped impressions (fig. 4: 13) or impressions of dots (fig. 4: 14,15); as an exceptional motif we have to emphasise the so-called triangle with two pennants on the top, which is represented only once (fig. 4: 16). Grooved horizontal lines mostly occur independently (fig. 4: 17) or as a band (fig. 4: 18). They are always located on the shoulder-to-neck transition. A band, encircling a vessel, can also appear as a vertical (fig. 4: 19) or oblique (fig. 4: 20) straight line. Both are present on shoulders and upper parts of lower bodies, while the latter also covers the rim of one dish (fig. 4: 21). Combined motifs consist of bands of horizontal and bunches of vertical lines (fig. 4: 22), bunches of 6 The expression tool stands for an instrument which causes different forms of impressions. oblique lines, running in opposite directions (fig. 4: 23); the latter also occur in combination with horizontal lines (fig. 4: 24). These mostly appear on the shoulder, although they also extend down the body, while another example carries decoration on the neck. Channelled decoration (^ig. 4: 25-39) appears as single (fig. 4: 25,26) or double horizontal lines (fig. 4: 27,28). These mostly occur on the shoulder-to-neck transition and rarely below or on the rim. Rare examples of several channels occur on shoulders (fig. 4: 29), necks (fig. 4: 30) or rim interior (fig. 4: 31). Vertical channelled decoration is often present only on lugs and handles, once on a rim (fig. 4: 32) and once on a rim-to-neck transition (fig. 4: 33). Oblique channelled decoration is the most common, forming bands of differently dense lines on shoulders of tall vessels (fig. 4: 34) and they are even more common on rims of dishes with inverted rims (^ig. 4: 35). Somewhat unusual motifs are those of undulating channelled decoration on the rim of a dish (fig. 4: 36) and two curved channels, which are also present on a dish (fig. 4: 37). Only one type of complex ornaments with channelled decoration is present, where they occur together with extrusions that can be encircled by them (fig. 4: 38), or include extrusions into a channelled decoration without any changes to the known concept (fig. 4: 39). Facets (fig. 4: 40-43) always occur independently. Even if some other type of decoration covers the same vessel, these are probably not combinations. This decoration is most often present on internal edges of the rims of tall vessels and probably has a functional meaning. The number of facets varies (fig. 4: 40,41). Moreover, facets, similarly to channelled decoration, also decorate shoulders (fig. 4: 42) and rim exteriors of different dishes with everted rims (fig. 4: 43). Applied decoration is the most common type of decoration (fig. 4: 44-65). Tiny circles are the smallest decoration of that kind. They only occur once and form a horizontal line (fig. 4: 44). Extrusions are more frequent; they can be conical (fig. 4: 45), rounded (fig. 4: 46) or pyramidal (fig. 4: 47). Two conical (fig. 4: 48) or pyramidal (fig. 4: 49) extrusions can form a lug with two horn-like projections.The lug with three horn-like projections is similarly formed (fig. 4: 50) and both indicate a functional nature of extrusions. Smooth plastic ribs can be horizontal (fig. 4: 51), curved with no apparent shape (fig. 4: 52,53) or they can form different geometrical forms (fig. 4: 54,55). Central Europe / Srednja Evropa (Müller-Karpe) Terms used in this article / termini, uporabljeni v tem članku Bd CI Mittlere Hügelgräberzeit Late Middle Bronze Age pozna srednja bronasta doba BD C2 Jüngere Hügelgräberzeit BdD Späte Hügelgräberzeit / Frühe Urnenfelderzeit Initial Urnfield period zgodnje žarnogrobiščno obdobje HaAl Ältere Urnenfelderzeit Early Urnfield period starejše žarnogrobiščno obdobje HaA2 Ha B1/2 Jüngere Urnenfelderzeit Late Urnfield period mlajše žarnogrobiščno obdobje Ha B3 Späte Urnenfelderzeit Final Urnfield period pozno žarnogrobiščno obdobje Fig. 5: Chronological table used in the article. Sl. 5: Kronološka tabela, uporabljena v članku. Decorated cordons are numerous and with a wide selection of impressions, but almost uniform in shape and are most characteristic for large oval storage pots. They can be attached to different areas, most often to upper parts of vessels, on and above the maximum girth, where they supplement the function of lugs. They are also present on fragments of portable oven lids. Only a few variants of oblique (fig. 4: 63), curved (fig. 4: 64) or double cordons (fig. 4: 65) are known. We recognized not only several variants of fingertip impressions, which are a characteristic feature of ornamented ribs (fig. 4: 56-59), but also impressions made on each side of the rib (fig. 4: 60,63) and impressions made with tools (fig. 4: 61,62). Fingertip impressions, which are so common in combination with applied cordons, are a typical type of decoration also among simple decorations (fig. 4: 60-73). They are very similar to each other, and all but one (fig. 4: 72) occur solely in a single line. They were used on many different types of vessels, from dishes with inverted (fig. 4: 66) and everted rims (fig. 4: 67,68) to large storage pots (fig. 4: 69,70). They are most often present on rims, exceptionally also on bodies of vessels (fig. 4: 71,72), usually just above the base (fig. 4: 73). A smaller number of more varied impressions were made with different tools that are not easy to identify. Different sizes of dots appear that, apart from the previously mentioned combinations with incisions, occur also independently. Single (fig. 4: 74,75) and double (fig. 4: 76) lines and undeterminable samples (fig. 4: 77) are present. A single spindlewhorl was decorated with small circles that were made by impressions of a hollow object with a circular cross-section (fig. 4: 78). Wheel-stamped impressions with characteristic swagging decora- tion (fig. 4: 79) and hanging triangles (fig. 4: 80) below the horizontal lines also occur. To conclude, let us list the impressions executed with a sharp tool, running in different directions as single (fig. 4: 81) and double lines (fig. 4: 82,83). The latter still contain encrustation. In conclusion, mention should also be made of some interesting data that are not directly connected with the techniques of pottery production, but with their maintenance. Namely, some pottery fragments were covered with a layer of resin.7 It covered several larger holes that were a result of vessel damage and permitted further use of these vessels. Moreover, some isolated finds dating to the Urnfield and the Early Hallstatt periods show evidence of patching. Two techniques were used. Apart from the one already mentioned, also seen on a footed dish from barrow 2 at Rogoza, it is possible to notice another technique. This appears to be used when another type of damage occurred, i.e. cracking. A cup and two pitchers from the Ruše I urnfield had a small hole drilled on each side of the crack. Cords were most probably threaded through them and consequently strengthened the damaged body of the vessel.8 POTTERY TYPOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY (Figs. 5-23) Pottery finds were categorised as pottery vessels and other ceramic objects; they are marked with 7 That is the object G1153 (Crešnar 2011). Information about the type of the coat was provided by A. Žibrat Gašparič, who determined the substance. 8 Müller-Karpe 1959,T. 111: G1; 112: K; 114: D3. abbreviations.9 Vessels were classified as dishes (S), bowls (Sk), cups (Skd), tray, pitcher, amphorae (A), pots (L), portable oven lids (P) and strainers. In addition, we studied sherds that we connected with forms of pottery to which they most probably belong. The category "other ceramic objects" comprises functional objects. All objects, if a significant difference in morphology of a certain part was noticed, were categorised according to types (1-x) and variants (a-x). Ceramic vessels Dishes (S) - figs. 6-8. Dishes with everted rims (So) - fig. 6 Type So1 (fig. 6) Rounded dishes with slightly convex bodies and vertical rims or rims that are leaning outwards. We distinguish four variants, based on morphology. The first variant (So1a) comprises shallow dishes with rounded rims, which lean outwards (pl. 7: 1); the interior of one of these dishes is decorated with uneven horizontal incisions or comb-like decoration.10 The second variant (So1b) comprises shallow dishes with rims, which lean outwards and are internally obliquely cut (pl. 3: 5)." The third variant (So1c) is a shallow dish with vertical, rounded rim (^ig. 6: G945). The fourth variant (So1d) comprises dishes with vertical or upright bodies and rounded rims; the majority of them are undecorated (pls. 7: 3; 9: 11; 14: 11; 16: 12). Only three carry a decoration below the rim; one shows two curved channels, the second carries incisions formed as a zigzag line (pl. 16: 12) and the third is decorated with an ornamented rib. Bodies of dishes, classified as variant four, can be slightly bevelled (pls. 7: 2; 12: 8; 15: 3; fig. 6: G487,G798) with rounded or cut rims. Some of them have or had lugs attached. Only one of them was decorated with shallow impressions (pl. 12: 8).'2 All of these dishes show good comparisons with eastern Slovenian settlements. The first variant (So1a) occurs in horizon I from Gornja Radgona, dated to Ha A2, while a similar vessel from the 9 The typology is based on the work of several authors (Patek 1968; Vinski Gasparini 1973; Oman 1981; Vrdoljak 1994; Horvat, M. 1999; Dular et al. 2002). 10 This variant also includes objects G109, G522, G523, G1121 and G1229 (Črešnar 2011). 11 This variant also includes object G258 (Črešnar 2011). 12 This variant also includes objects G25, G267, G414, G463, G519, G536, G567, G540, G882, G943, G1065, G1096 and G1176 (Črešnar 2011). Pobrežje settlement is probably somewhat later.13 The second variant (So1b) has analogies in the second layer phase of Brinjeva gora, which is the later one, dated to Ha A; its shape is rather unusual and uncharacteristic for wider surroundings.14 Its form can be compared with a dish found in the highest layer of Pečina na Leskovcu in the Trieste Karst. Leben ascribed its material to the Late Bronze Age. An analogous dish from the Gradina settlement on Brioni was dated to the Late Bronze Age phase of the Istrian Culture that, according to Batovič, shows connections with eastern Slovenia.15 The third variant (So1c) is perhaps somewhat later and was found in the third phase at Brinjeva gora and at Slivnica, where the Urnfield period date has not yet been confirmed.16 Moreover, a comparable dish was discovered at the Kapfsteiner Kogel settlement, where it was dated to the Ha B/Ha C transition.17 The earliest comparison to dishes with bevelled bodies of the So1d variant can be found at Šiman near Gotovlje or Dolge njive near Šikole. A great quantity of somewhat later examples, dating to the Early/Late Urnfield period transition, were found at the site of Oberravelsbach in Lower Austria; They are characteristic for the Initial and Early Urnfield periods in Pannonia, but can also be found in later periods.18 All other comparisons from the Drava region in Slovenia are later. They were discovered in settlements at Pobrežje, Orehova vas, Gornja Radgona, Slivnica and Hajndl near Ormož.19 Parallels can also be found among the sporadic finds from the Ruše II cemetery, as well as in grave 86 and in grave 38 from Pobrežje. The former is dated to the early Ha B on the basis of a spectacle fibula with a coiled figure-eight loop, whilst the bracelets decorated with alternating incisions and a twisted neck-ring in the latter undoubtedly date to a later phase of the site, which is analogous to the Ha B2 according to Müller-Karpe.20 Such vessels are furthermore present at 13 Šavel 1994, 48: 11, Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2006, t. 25: 261. 14 Oman 1981, 148-150, t. 15: 1. 15 Leben, 1967, 61, t. 13: 4; Batovič 1983, 295-301, footnote 53, t. 42: 9. 16 Oman 1981, t. 24: 9; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2000, t. 170: 1. 17 Penz 2001, T. 2: 12. 18 Patek 1968, 99-100, 103-105, T. 6: 25. 7: 1; Lochner 1986b, T. 4-5. 19 Šavel 1994, pril. 49: 15; Velušček 2002, t. 22: 1; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2000, t. 341: 4; Mele 2003, t. 2: 4. 20 Pahič 1957, t. 17: 4; 1972, t. 9: 9, 17: 3; Müller-Karpe 1959, Abb. 51: 10. Fig. 6: Typological table of dishes with everted rims (So). Scale = 1:5. Sl. 6: Tipološka delitev odprtih skled (So). M. = 1:5. the Dobova cemetery, with grave 14 dated to the latest phase of it, i.e. the Ha B2. Grave 395 can perhaps even be slightly later, as a dish with a foot decorated with oblique channelling dates it to the final stages of the Ruše I cemetery according to Müller-Karpe. Moreover, a pot or a dish with an accentuated shoulder-to-neck transition has a good analogy at Lepa ravna below Poštela.21 Even later analogies, dated to the Ha B/Ha C transition, can be found at a settlement at Kapfsteiner Kogel in south-eastern Austrian Styria and in the upland settlement at Poštela.22 Somewhat deeper dishes with more upright rims, classified as the same variant (So1d), have analogies with dishes with occasionally thickened rims from Oloris near Dolnji Lakoš, dating to the late Middle Bronze Age and the Initial Urnfield period (Br C/Br D). They may also be compared to examples from Hajndl near Ormož, where they date to the end of the Urnfield period and to the beginning of the Iron Age.23 Incised decoration, formed as a zigzag line, most probably dates it to the Late Urnfield period. This and other types of decoration are, together with settlement finds, best studied at Brinjeva gora and,are independently or in combination with other decorations, are present in almost all cemeteries of the Ruše group, which date to the Late Urnfield period.24 Very similar forms are present in Pannonian bowls with handles on or below rims, which are dated to the Br D/Ha A and Ha B.25 Type So2 (fig. 6) Dishes with rims thickened on one side (pl. 3: 6; fig. 6: G427) or bilaterally, i.e. T-sectioned rim (^ig. 6: G1237).26 Only one of the dishes is decorated; a line of fingertip impressions is visible on the exterior of the thickened rim. Many sherds are highly fragmented and forms are therefore hard to distinguish; dishes can be rounded or conical. One dish has a handle attached below its rim. Analogies are present at Oloris and Rabelčja vas near Ptuj. Dishes of this type date to the final stages of the Middle Bronze Age and to the beginning of the Urnfield period. This is confirmed by finds 21 Dular 1978, t. 1; Stare, F. 1975, t. 7: 6, 13: 1, 29: 15, 39: 4, 47: 4, 55: 6; Teržan 1990, t. 58: 9, 60: 2. 22 Teržan 1990, 35: 16; Penz 2001, T. 3: 2. 23 Dular et al. 2002, fig. 8: S6; Magdič 2006, t. 66: 4. 24 E.g. Müller-Karpe 1959, T. 112: H2, Pahič 1972, t. 4: 9; 1981, pril. 3: 17-5; Tomanič-Jevremov 1988-1989, t. 9: 3. 25 Patek 1968, 103-109, t. 7: 5,36. 26 This variant also includes objects G21, G90, G112, G241, G927, G1083 and G1292 (Crešnar 2011). from Šiman near Gotovlje and Selska cesta at Ptuj.27 Otherwise a bilaterally thickened rim has only been found at Slivnica, whereas rims, thickened on one side can be found at Slivnica, Pobrežje and Orehova vas.28 Internally or bilaterally thickened rims are also present at the Bakony mountain range, where they occur in the Early (Br D) as well as the Late (Br D/Ha A) period of the local barrow cemeteries.29 Externally thickened rims have even more comparisons. This type of rim is present on a conical vessel found at the settlement of Dolge njive near Šikole, where a handle with channelled decoration, a probable part of a "Säulchenschüssel" type vessel, dated to Ha A1, dominates the context (stratigraphi-cal unit - SE 22), which otherwise contains several finds that are suitable for comparisons. This type of rim on a rounded dish also occurs in grave 108 from Pobrežje, which dates to the early stage of the cemetery according to S. Pahič. Another example comes from grave 21, from the second urnfield from Ruše, which is even later.30 Analogous late comparisons come from the Kalakača settlement on the right bank of the Danube, where such a dish dates to the phase Bosut IIIa, which corresponds with HaB 1 and probably finishes with the end of Ha B2, according to the central European chronology.31 Type So3 (fig. 6) Conical dishes that differentiate from one another in inclinations of bodies and lips, but are studied as a single group because of indistinct diversity and their fragmentary preservation. Among them there are dishes with a more upright (fig. 6: G607,G763) and those with a bevelled body (fig. 6: G647,G761). One of the latter is decorated with fingertip impressions and the other with comb-like impressions.32 Only one dish has a base with a concave transition to body preserved. Three of them are decorated, one with fingertip impressions, one with an extrusion attached below its rim and the third one with an ornamented rib below its rim. One of the dishes has a handle attached to the rim.33 The dish with a slightly curved body is of a similar form (fig. 6: G1172). 27 Dular et al. 2002, fig. 7: S1,S2; Filipidis 2008, t, 7: 2; Strmčnik Gulič 1988-1989, t. 1: 11, 4: 18; Tomažič 2000, t. 17: 6, 22: 4, 41: 8, 49: 3. 28 Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2000, t. 147: 3, 264: 4; 2006, t. 18: 220; 2007, t. 2: 4, 5: 7. 29 Jankovits 1992, 76-77. 30 Pahič 1957, t. 8: 4-5; 1972, t. 22: 1. 31 Medovic 1988, sl. 311: 1; Teržan 1990, 40. 32 This variant also includes objects G517, G877 and G1071 (Crešnar 2011). 33 This variant also includes objects G117, G140, G500, G858, G860 and G961 (Crešnar 2011). Those with bevelled bodies have comparisons in the settlement at Dolge njive near Šikole, in the earliest Urnfield period phase at Brinjeva gora, at Slivnica, Hajndl and Poštela.34 We have to mention the Kapfsteiner Kogel settlement in Austrian Styria, where similar forms of dishes date to the Ha B/Ha C transition.35 Dishes with a slightly more upright wall have the earliest comparisons at Šiman near Gotovlje, dated to Br C/Br D; they later occur at Dolge njive near Šikole, i.e. a settlement from the Early Urnfield period, and also in a later layer, dated to Ha A at Brinjeva gora. They are present in the earliest horizon at Gornja Radgona, at Orehova vas and finally at Hajndl near Ormož, where such dishes date to the Late Urnfield period and to the beginning of the Early Iron Age.36 This type of dishes is also present in grave 38 of the Ruše I urnfield.37 Analogous forms also occur at the Horn cemetery, which dates to the developed phase of the Baierdorf-Lednice or Ha A1 period and is perceptibly later at the Kapfsteiner Kogel settlement, dating to the transition from the Urnfield period to the Early Iron Age.38 Another comparison comes from the Kalakača settlement in the Vojvodina where, it dates to the phase Bosut IIIa.39 Lips of dishes are often decorated with fingertip impressions, which can be traced in the area from Kalakača to the Drava region in Slovenia.40 One of these dishes (G607) has a lug attached to the rim. This decoration is often present at the Sarvaš settlement, located close to a palaeochannel of the Drava near Osijek. It is a representative of the Belegiš II group, with the most intense inhabitation during the Ha A period.41 The same goes for Meljski Hrib, which was also occupied in the Urnfield period. However the find is dated to the Eneolithic without any independent evidence.42 Dishes with somewhat transformed rims interestingly have mainly Urn- field period comparisons, as they can be found on the settlement at Kalnik near Križevci, which is according to Vinski-Gasparini dated to the second and third phase of the Urnfield Culture in northeastern Croatia, or the Ha A with some later elements. Such dishes continued to be used in later periods, which can be seen at Slivnica, Orehova vas, Pobrežje and Hajndl near Ormož. All these sites show an interestingly low percentage of this type of dishes in comparison to low dishes with inverted rims.43 Patek referred to this type as conical dishes. Although she did not further categorise them, however, she dated them to the Pannonian Urnfield period with continuation in the Hallstatt period.44 Type So4 (^ig. 6) Dish with bevelled body with a slight carination at the transition to a slightly outward leaning rounded rim (fig. 6: G900). Good analogies can only be found at Ormož, where both dishes occur in the first phase of the settlement and are dated to Ha B.45 Type So5 (fig. 6) Deep rounded dishes with everted rims. We distinguish two variants, based on morphology of the rim. The first variant (So5a) comprises dishes with a body with smooth transition to an everted, rounded rim. Among them, let us first mention dishes with rounded slightly everted rims, some of them with a slight external thickening (fig. 6: G276,G529).46 One of these is decorated with an extrusion. Moreover, also dishes with longer and rounded or narrowed everted rims (pls. 2: 5,10; 9: 5)47 occur. Their sizes vary considerably; the diameter of the largest dish (pl. 2: 5) is over twice as long as the diameter of the smallest one. The second variant (So5b) comprises dishes with a body, transitioning with a slight carination to an everted, mostly straight rim that could be partly transformed (pls. 2: 11; 7: 14; 9: 23; 14: 5,14; fig. 6: G789).48 34 Oman 1981, t. 6: 7; Teržan 1990, t. 35: 14; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2000, t. 161: 3, 343: 7; Tomažič 2000, t. 17: 6; Kovač 2004, t. 4: 7; Žižek 2005, t. 7: 1. 35 Penz 2001, T. 3: 11. 36 Oman 1981, t. 7: 6; Šavel 1994, t. 48: 16; Tomažič 2000, t. 40: 11; Mele 2003, t. 2: 7; Žižek 2005, 20: 5; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2006, t. 25: 257; 2007, t. 1: 4. 37 Kaerner 1989, T. 79: 1, who publishes three more pots than Müller-Karpe (1959, T. 109: H). 38 Lochner 1991a, T. 10: 21-22, 40: 28; Penz 2001, T. 3: 7. 39 Medovic 1988, sl. 307: 4. 40 Magdič 2006, t. 42: 7; Medovič 1988, 389. 41 Simic 1992, t. 2: 2-4. 42 Kavur 2001, 356, t. 1: 2. Many analogies to the first variant of dishes (So5a) exist, starting with Oloris, where they are 43 Vrdoljak 1994, t. 23: 1; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2000, t. 142: 6, 259: 4; 2006, t. 16: 169; 2007, t. 6: 8, 10: 11; Kovač 2004, t. 44: 2. 44 Patek 1968, 101, T. 6: 24. 45 Lamut 1988-1989, t. 5: 1, 8: 1. 46 This variant also includes objects G920, G923, G933, G1283, G1293, G1314 (Crešnar 2011). 47 This variant also includes objects G273, G399, G481, G586, G643, G915 (Crešnar 2011). 48 This variant also includes objects G217, G516, G645 (Crešnar 2011). - often decorated with smooth ribs - categorised as type S8. Chronologically, they occur from the late Middle Bronze Age to the Initial Urnfield period.49 They were also recognized at Siman near Gotovlje and in the second phase at Brinjeva gora, which is dated to Ha A, at Slivnica. An example was also found at Pobrežje, probably dating to the Later Urnfield period, and at Ormož, where it was found in the first horizon, dated to the Ha B.50 Velika Gorica supplements this image. There, a dish with roller-stamped impression, similar to the one known from Rogoza (fig. 4: 80), was discovered. It is dated to Vinski-Gasparini's fourth phase of the Urnfield Culture, which corresponds with Ha B1 and partly Ha B2 after Müller-Karpe.51 Such vessels were also studied by E. Patek, who dated them to the Ha A and Ha B.52 The earliest comparisons to the second variant (So5b), among the material from contemporary settlements, were recognised at Brinjeva gora, where two dishes were documented in the first Ha A layer.53 Another, similar dish form, is dated to probably the somewhat later first and the following second horizon of Gornja Radgona. Further parallels were recognised at Slivnica and Orehova vas . They are also found in the pottery assemblage of the first horizon at Ormož and at Hajndl near Ormož, where this type of dish was dated to the Urnfield period/Early Iron Age transition.54 One comparison comes also from the Late Urnfield necropolis in Maribor.55 Earlier parallels were yielded from the Baierdorf, dating to the Baierdorf-Lednice phase, i.e. Br D/Ha A1 transition, and the Horn cemetery, dating to the developed Baierdorf-Lednice phase, i.e. Ha A1.56 Type So6 (fig. 6) Large, deep, conical dishes, with a smooth or slightly carinated transition from a body to an everted rim. We distinguish two variants, based on morphology. 49 Dular et al. 2002, 152-153, fig. 8: S7, S8. 50 Oman 1981, t. 7: 4, 11:1; Lamut 1988-1989, t. 6: 13; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2000, t. 135: 2, 263: 2; Tomažič 2000, t. 4: 6; Velušček 2002, t. 34: 3. 51 Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 157, t. 105: 8. 52 Patek 1968, 102-103, T. 6: 34. 53 Oman 1981, t. 3: 1, 5: 3. 54 Savel 1994, pril. 48: 13, 50: 3; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2000, t. 17: 2, 130: 1; 2006, t. 6: 7; Lamut 2001, t. 3: 5; Mele 2003, t. 2: 10. 55 Kaerner 1989, T. 50: 1. 56 Lochner 1986a, T. 5: 6; 1991, t. 12: 10. Both dishes also have handles, which perhaps occur at the presented specimens, but they are very fragmented. The first variant (So6a) comprises dishes with short, slightly everted rims that are often transformed (pls. 8: 2; 14: 17; fig. 6: G565,G69 7).57 Two dishes have an ornamented cordon applied below their rims. One dish has a preserved base (pl. 14: 17), which is concave with a rounded transition to the body.58 The second variant (So6b) comprises dishes with a long, strongly everted, straight rim with a slight carination at the transition to the body. As above, rims can be transformed (fig. 6: G386,G555,G7 8 2).59 The body of one dish (fig. 6: G782) and rims of four dishes are decorated with fingertip impressions (fig. 6: G386,G782), an ornamented cordon is attached below the rim of one dish, and one dish shows both types of decoration (fig. 6: G555). Body to rim transition is emphasised with channelled decoration on the exterior of one dish.60 This type includes a great diversity and rather specific solutions of rim forms. It is therefore not easy to compare with material from other sites, but the chronology that was ascribed to some of the simplest forms can probably represent an orientation point also for some of the other forms. Variant So6a was discovered in the Ha A phase of Dolge njive near Sikole, in context SE 22, together with four other objects comparable to Rogoza, at Orehova vas and Hajndl near Ormož, which proves the occurrence of this variant also in the period of transition to the Early Hallstatt period.61 The early comparisons have contemporary finds at the Horn cemetery (Niederoesterreich / Lower Austria), dated to Ha A1.62 The second variant (So6b) is comparable to only one dish from Siman near Gotovlje that is, unlike the ones from Rogoza, decorated with a smooth plastic rib. The context ascribed to this dish (SE 26) includes two additional comparable finds with Sv1b clearly corresponding with Oloris near Dolnji Lakoš and, consequently, dating to Br C/Br D. Only one of the dishes with differently formed rims, i.e. G565, has an unambiguous comparison. This was recognized among the assemblage of the earliest horizon of Gornja Radgona, which is dated to the Ha A.63 57 This variant also includes objects G189, G199, G233, G234, G577, G605, G872 (Crešnar 2011). 58 This variant perhaps also includes objects t. 8: 7, G66, G237, G277, G372, G456, G457, G602, G881, G979 (Crešnar 2011). 59 This variant also includes objects G92, G433, G452, G455, G748 (Crešnar 2011). 60 This variant perhaps also includes objects G428 and G508 (Crešnar 2011). «1 Kovač 2004, t. 5: 3; Žižek 2005, t. 6: 2; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2007, t. 20: 8. 62 Lochner 1991a, T. 10: 16, 14: 11. 63 Savel 1994, pril. 48: 14; Tomažič 2000, t. 33: 4. Tall dishes (Sv) - fig. 7 Type Svl (fig. 7) Dishes with rounded or conical body with a carination at the transition to a curved, everted neck and a rim, which is leaning outward. We distinguish two variants, based on morphology. The first variant (Sv1a) comprises dishes with low, slightly everted or semi- everted rims (pls. 14: 13; 18: 2; fig. 7: G1061).®4 Bases are preserved on two dishes; both are flat, one has a sharp (G1061) and the other one a saddle-shaped transition to the body. The second variant (Sv1b) comprises dishes with high, slightly to strongly everted rims (pls. 2: 8; 8: 3; 18: 3; fig. 7: G1226,G1247), two of which are decorated at the body-to-neck transition. One dish is decorated with horizontal channelled decoration, whilst the other is decorated with horizontal punctate decoration. Analogies to the first variant (Sv1a) are known from Oloris, Rabelčja vas, Siman near Gotovlje and Podsmreka, which are all dated to the late Middle Bronze Age and the Initial Urnfield period. Analogous pottery, decorated with ornamented ribs, was also discovered at Žlebič near Ribnica in Dolenjska, which is, if we consider the rest of the finds from the site, most probably contemporaneous with the above sites.65 Furthermore, some interesting comparisons come from the site of Batkovic at Bijeljina on the far East of Bosnia. This variant of dishes occurs in graves accompanied with club-headed pins and poppy-headed pins, which can be dated mainly to the Initial and Early Urnfield periods (Br D, Ha A).66 This date could be further confirmed by an analogous dish from the Pobrežje settlement, the chronology of which has not yet been studied in detail. However, considering some of the early finds from the cemetery, it could date to Ha A.67 The earliest comparisons to the second variant (Sv1b), that are similarly decorated as fig. 7: 1226, are cups from the eponymous hoard of ceramic vessels found at Maisbirbaum in Lower Austria. The hoard dates to the late Middle Bronze Age, i.e. Br C2.68 A similarly formed and decorated vessel 64 This variant also includes objects G48, G190, G194, G623 (Črešnar 2011). 65 Puš 1988-1989, t. 9: 1; Strmčnik Gulič 1988-1989, 2: 6; Tomažič 2000, t. 49: 4; Dular et al. 2002, 153-156, fig. 9: Sk 2; Murgelj 2008, t. 43: 2. 66 Teržan 1995, 324-327, Abb. 3; Vinski-Gasparini 1973, t. 28: 24; 52: 39. 67 Pahič 1972, 15, t. 8: 18; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2006, t. 7: 3. 68 Neugebauer 1994, T. 89, 90. The similarity of the vessel's body is unquestionable, but the fragmentation makes us speculate about possible handles. with somewhat sharper neck-to-body transition originates from Kiringrad in the Kupa (Kolpa) river valley in Croatia, where it is dated to the Late Bronze Age.69 Further comparisons show a short time span of this variant; they were discovered at Rabelčja vas, Oloris and Siman near Gotovlje. In addition, Patek suggests that such vessels only date to the Br D in the Danubian area .70 Decoration with horizontal impressions of a sharp tool can be traced in settlements at Slivnica, Pobrežje and Orehova vas and among assorted material from the Ljubljana urnfield, where it is present much later, but its accurate date remains unknown. The same type of decoration is also used in vertical impressions (fig. 4: 83); comparisons are known from Maisbirbaum as well as Pobrežje.71 Type Sv2 (fig. 7) A dish with a rounded body with a sharp carination at the transition to a short, vertical neck with a smooth exterior and with internal carination, which continues to a short, strongly everted rim (fig. 7: G350). It is comparable to a dish from grave 113 from Dobova, however, its dating cannot be precise, being based on one find alone.72 Type Sv3 (fig. 7) Dishes with accentuated lower bodies. We distinguish five variants according to the form of necks and differences in body-to-neck transitions.73 The first variant (Sv3a) comprises dishes with smooth transition to a high conical neck and with a short, semi-everted, curved rim (pl. 8: 14; fig. 7: G441).74 The largest among them has the maximum girth ornamented with bands of oblique channelled decoration. The second variant (Sv3b) comprises dishes with slightly carinated transition to conical or slightly curved necks (pls. 3: 10; 12: 3,4; 16: 10; fig. 7: G633).75 The base is preserved on one specimen. It is curved with a rounded transition to the body, over the neck to an everted, curved rim. The 69 Balen-Letunič 1987, t. 2: 6. 70 Strmčnik Gulič 1988-1989, t. 2: 5, 4: 14; Tomažič 2000, t. 29: 7; Dular et al. 2002, 154-156, fig. 9: Sk 1. 71 Stare, F. 1954, t. 59: 5; Neugebauer 1994, T. 90: 7; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2000, t. 99: 3,8; 2006, t. 19: 234; 2007, t. 19: 14; Velušček 2002, t. 7: 7. 72 Stare, F. 1975, t. 18: 11. 73 The following objects can be ascribed to one of these variants: G183, G343, G484, G485 and G689 (Črešnar 2011). 74 This variant also includes objects G299, G811 (Črešnar 2011). 75 This variant also includes objects G89, G90, G609, G631, G635, G689, G984, G1206, G1245 (Črešnar 2011). Fig. 7: Typological table of tall dishes (Sv). Scale = 1:5. Sl. 7: Tipološka delitev visokih skled (Sv). M. = 1:5. majority of vessels are decorated (channelled decoration, grooves, incisions, punctate decoration).76 The third variant (Sv3c) comprises a dish with slightly curved base with rounded transition to a globular lower body. The transition between a low shoulder and a high curved neck is slightly carinated. The rim is high, strongly everted, curved and internally faceted (pl. 16: 9). A representative of the fourth variant (Sv3d) is a large dish with a slight carination at the body-to-conical neck transition, which continues to a high, strongly everted, internally faceted, curved rim (pl. 4: 6). The shoulder is decorated with oblique grooves. The fifth variant (Sv3e) represents a dish with strongly carinated transition to a funnel-shaped neck (pl. 18: 6). The shoulder is decorated with oblique channelled decoration. The chronological position of the first variant (Sv3a) can be indicated based on comparisons from the settlement at Žlebič, where the majority of material correlates with Oloris and Rabelčja vas. Besides that, there are also similarities with finds from the Late Urnfield period settlement at Pobrežje and the Kalsdorf at Graz cemetery, where this form dates to the second phase of the site or to Ruše II according to Pare.77 We can ease this discrepancy if we do not forget that such cups are foreign among material from Oloris and Rabelčja vas, that Žlebič also yielded dishes with inverted rims, which are not known at Oloris and only two specimens were found at Rabelčja vas. Furthermore Puš also emphasised the fact that only minor archaeological investigations were performed at Žlebič and it is therefore possible that it was inhabited during the Early and perhaps even in the Late Urnfield period.78 Dishes of the variant Sv3b slightly differentiate from one another, but are discussed as a single group as poor preservation makes more accurate classification impossible. The earliest parallels can be found in the second Ha A phase at Brinjeva gora, where it 76 This variant perhaps also includes object G630 (Črešnar 2011). 77 Puš 1988-1989, t. 4: 4; Tiefengraber 2005, 127-130, T. 16: 2; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2006, t. 16: 174. 78 Puš 1988-1989, t. 3: 2,7; Strmčnik Gulič 1988-1989, t. 4: 16, 5: 26. carries a characteristic decoration of bands of oblique channelled decoration on the shoulder over the entire Ha B period. Further analogies are seen among the pottery from Orehova vas and Hajndl, where they are placed parallel to settlement horizon III of Poštela or to the finishing stages of the Late Hallstatt period.79 However, they are mainly dated by vertical channelled decoration and not according to typological features. An analogous dish with oblique channelled decoration, similar to some dishes from Rogoza, was discovered in grave 13 of the Ruše II urnfield, where it was dated to the Ha B2. ^is variant is also present among pottery without reliable grave groups from Pobrežje. Dishes from Dobova, which are equivalent to the ones from Rogoza and have shoulders ornamented with oblique channelled decoration, are also contemporaneous. A much later Early Iron Age dish was yielded from trench 77 at Poštela.80 As one can notice, the mentioned decoration that occurs on such vessels has a long time span. It perhaps originates from the Baierdorf-Velatice Group, from the Initial/Early Urnfield period transition, when analogous decoration appears on a wider area; the closest comparisons can be found in western Hungary and in Croatia between the Sava and the Drava.81 Another decoration, i.e. bands of oblique grooves surrounding vessel's shoulder (pl. 3: 10), offers best comparisons at the Ruše I urnfield. ^e decoration can be dated on a basis of a jug from grave 137, which, because of a dish with an inverted rim, is decorated with horizontal facets and saddle-shaped spiral anklerings, dated to Ha B3 according to Müller-Karpe.82 ^e decorations of grooves, arranged in bands of bunches of oblique lines, running in opposite directions, or vertical lines, were rarely documented (e.g. pl. 16: 9,10) and represent a seldomly accurring decoration in general. ^e first type of decoration was discovered in the third phase of Brinjeva gora, dated to the Ha B, and both types were found at Slivnica and Pobrežje, where preliminary publications date them to the Late Urnfield period. MetznerNebelsick also identifies them as characteristic for the Urnfield period.83 Another decoration that is 79 Oman 1981, t. 7: 9; Magdič 2006, 103-104; t. 58: 6; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2007, t. 22: 1. 80 Pahič 1957, t. 5: 2; 1972, t. 32: 7; Stare, F. 1975, e.g.: t. 32: 2; Teržan 1990, 32-34, t. 14: 29; Crešnar 2006, 145. 81 Horvath 1994, T. 14: 1,2; Vinski Gasparini 1973, 70-71. 82 Müller-Karpe 1959, T. 113: F. 83 Oman 1981, t. 27: 8, 17; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2000, t. 148: 6, 266: 2; 2006, t. 13: 162, 20: 2; Metzner-Nebelsick 2002, 160-166, Abb. 64: 9-10. found on this type of dishes is that of horizontal facets on the shoulders (fig. 4: 42). ^ey date to Initial and Early Urnfield periods as recognised by E. Patek, based on Pannonian examples and do not later occur in such form. Vessels with this type of decoration also occur during the period of the Velatice-Očkov horizon in western Slovakia.84 ^is chronology is furthermore confirmed with finds from the upland settlement at Kalnik near Križevci (NE Croatia), which are dated from Br D/ Ha A to the end of the Ha A, and with a fragment from grave 5 of the Zagreb-Vrapče cemetery.85 In addition, we also trace punctate decoration in the form of dots, arranged in a horizontal line, which can be combined with horizontal incisions (fig. 4: 74). ^e latter occurs as early as the oldest Ha A phase of Brinjeva gora and in the early phase of the accompanying urnfield, where they occur in combination with hatched triangles and only much later, in Ha B, in combination with horizontal elements. ^is type of decoration is also seen in settlements at Pobrežje and Slivnica where they have more of a Late Urnfield period character.86 Variant Sv3c has an analogy in grave 125 in the Budapest-Bekasmegyer cemetery, which also yielded a knife with a good comparison at Dobova. They date to the phase Klentnice II according to Rihovsky, which corresponds to the Ha B1/Ha B2 transition. ^eir decoration on shoulders is not identical, as the vessel from Rogoza shows vertical channelled decoration, which otherwise frequently occurs on finds from the mentioned cemetery. However, it originates from earlier periods as it is present, in the Oberravelsbach in Lower Austria pottery hoard, which dates to the Ha A/Ha B transition.87 A similar vessel is also known from an upland settlement of Kalnik near Križevci (NE Croatia), which was populated from the Br D/Ha A1 transition to the end of Ha A2.88 A fragmented dish of variant Sv3e that is decorated with characteristic oblique channelled decoration has parallels in dishes that were discovered at the Horn cemetery in Lower Austria. 84 Paulik 1962, Abb. 14: 10-12; Patek 1968, 9697,102,107-108, T. 6: 12, 7: 24,25. 85 Vrdoljak 1994, t. 31: 7,8. 86 Oman 1981, 144-147, t. 27. 12, 34: 3, 45: 12; Pahič, V. 1988-1989, t. 1: 7; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2000, t. 367: 1,8; Velušček 2002, t. 2: 6. 87 Stare, F. 1975, t. 24: 13; Lochner 1986b,T. 1: 8,11-12, 3: 6,7; Kalicz-Schreiber 1991a, Abb. 15: 4, 19: 8; Rihovsky 1972, 61, T. 21: 236. 88 Majnarič-Pandžic 1992; Vrdoljak 1994, 29, 38-39, t. 31: 5. They are characteristic for the developed Baierdorf-Lednice period, i.e. Ha A1. An analogous example was discovered at Mala Pupelica near Bjelovar, which - based on this fragment - is dated to the contemporaneous second phase of the Urnfield period in north-eastern Croatia.89 Patek ascribed a similar date to a dish with a funnel neck and channelled decoration on shoulder, which supposedly only occurs in Ha A in Pannonia. However, a recent find from the Budapest-Bekasmegye cemetery extended its chronology to early Ha B. The same is also valid for a dish of variant Sv3d decorated with facets on the interior of the rim, with its shoulder decorated with oblique channelled decoration, which are, again, both characteristics of dishes dating to the Ha A.90 Similar dishes are very rare in eastern Slovenia. Among them, a dish from grave 164 at Pobrežje offers the most parallels to the studied dish. A vessel from Zgornja Hajdina can perhaps also be described as similar.91 Dishes with inverted rims (Sz) - fig. 8 Type Szl (fig. 8) Two hemispherical dishes with a slightly inverted to inverted, internally thickened rim (pl. 17: 7).92 The best comparison can be found at Oloris, and therefore we suggest dating to the late Middle Bronze Age and the Initial Urnfield period also for the Rogoza specimens.93 Type Sz2 (fig. 8) Hemispherical dishes. We distinguish three variants, based on morphology. The first variant (Sz2a) comprises dishes with a slightly inverted rim, that can be rounded (pls. 7: 4; 9: 12; fig. 8: G716,G1207) or narrowed (pl. 3: 7).94 Two of the dishes are decorated, one with oblique channelled decoration and the other one with an incised zigzag line. The second variant (Sz2b) comprises two large dishes with inverted to strongly inverted, rounded rims (fig. 8: G1312). The studied dish is in a good state of preservation with a saddle-shaped base-to-body transition. 89 Majnaric-Pandžic 1989, 22-24, fig. 4: 2; Lochner 1994, 198-199, Abb. 106. 90 Patek 1968, 100-101, t. 6: 18,20-22; Kalicz-Schreiber 1991b, Abb. 23: 1. 91 Müller-Karpe 1959, T. 116: 41; Strmčnik Gulič 1980, sl. 4: 3; Pahič 1991, t. 8: 1. 92 This variant also includes object G1201 (Crešnar 2011). 93 Dular et al. 2002, fig. 7: S1. 94 This variant also includes objects G530, G785, G884, G932, G1295, G1297 (Crešnar 2011). The third variant (Sz2c) is represented by a miniature dish with flat base with rounded transition to the body and with an inverted, narrowed rim (^ig. 8: G174). It is difficult to find parallels to dishes of variant Sz2a because of their bad state of preservation. It is probably a type of dishes that were found at the Pobrežje cemetery in vast amounts and are often decorated with incised zigzag decoration and - despite being more frequent in the later horizon - occur in both horizons of the site.95 Parallels can also be found in grave 8/1993 of the Ruše II urnfield, which is one of the latest graves of the necropolis, and in grave 5 from Ormož, where two such dishes occur. Several more analogous dishes occur at the appurtenant cemetery, which is dated to late Ha B.96 The same type of dish also occurs in the initial phase of development in the Burgstall settlement at Kleinklein, which is dated to the Late Urnfield period by Smolnik. There, two of the dishes show decoration analogous to fragment G716.97 Variant Sz2b also demonstrates many analogies. The earliest, not completely rounded dishes occur in the second Ha A layer at Brinjeva gora. All other analogies from Pobrežje and Ormož are later. They were yielded from the first and the second horizon of the settlement at the latter, i.e. in Ha B and its transition to the Early Iron Age. These dishes were also found at the Ormož cemetery, where the best comparison comes from the richest female grave 7, which also contained a range of bronze, iron, glass and gold jewellery pieces, and is dated to the threshold of the early Hallstatt period.98 Type Sz3 (fig. 8) Conical or rounded dishes with a smooth transition to inverted, curved rims. We distinguish three variants, based on morphology. The first variant (Sz3a) comprises two deep dishes with conical bodies and slightly inverted, rounded rims (pl. 14: 3).99 The second variant (Sz3b) comprises a vast majority of conical and rounded dishes with smooth transitions to inverted, curved rims. This was done for two reasons. The first reason is the almost impossible classification of this type of dishes, as the rim curvature does not seem to 95 Pahič 1972, t. 4: 9, 5: 3, 8: 3. 96 Tomanič-Jevremov 1988-1989, t. 11: 2,3; Crešnar 2006, 146, t. 2: B2. 97 Smolnik 1994, T. 89: 10,11. 98 Tomanič-Jevremov 1988-1989, t. 14: 2; Lamut 1988-1989, t. 8: 3; 2001, t. 9: 5; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2006, t. 5: 73. 99 This variant also includes object G1132 (Crešnar 2011). follow any rules. Moreover, it is often hard to evaluate the height of these vessels only from fragments. We therefore think that this kind of classification would be misleading. Furthermore, the only possible datable element, i.e. base-to-body transition, is usually not preserved.100 The second reason for combining these forms of dishes is that the majority of them are contemporary. They can be undecorated (pls. 7: 15; 8: 13; 14: 4,12; 15: 4; 16: 3; fig. 8: G449) or, even more often, tied to characteristic, sometimes chronologically sensitive decoration. The vast majority is decorated with oblique channelled decoration (pls. 2: 3; 8: 6; 9: 24; 10: 1; 15: 6,12,13; 16: 2,6; 18: 4,7,8; fig. 8: G284,G451), decoration with horizontal facets is also present (pls. 2: 4; 8: 10; 9: 1; 16: 8; fig. 8: G903), while vertical and horizontal channelled decoration, oblique grooves and extrusions are exceptionally rare (fig. 8: G1165). Lugs are common.101 The third variant (Sz3c) comprises dishes with inverted thickened rims. All but one are decorated: with oblique channelled decoration (pls. 7: 16; 9: 6; fig. 8: G1330), fingertip impressions (pl. 9: 18) or with shallow grooves.102 The earliest parallel to the first variant (Sz3a) is relatively early. It originates from Rabelčja vas. However, its date should perhaps be reconsidered as it does not come from a closed unit, and all other comparable finds are later.103 This variant can also be found at Dolge njive near Šikole, dated to the Early Urnfield period, and at Pobrežje, Gornja Radgona and Ormož, which all date to the Late Urnfield period.104 Also variant Sz3b, the deepest of these dishes, finds its earliest comparison at Rabelčja vas, which is, again, not from a closed unit. Other comparable finds are later.105 The majority of other forms, shown in figures, appear in the first (form as in pl. 18: 4) or in the second (form as pl. 16: 6) Ha A phase at Brinjeva gora, in the partly contemporaneous pottery repertoire of the first horizon at Gornja Radgona 100 Črešnar 2006, 125,126. 101 This variant also includes the unornamented objects G54, G76, G120, G121, G291, G464, G556, G619, G682, G733, G762, G818, G930, G1122, G1303, G1329, G1332, G1333, those ornamented with oblique channelled decoration G33, G111, G235, G240, G282, G438, G503, G504, G560, G562, G584, G692, G738, G747, G772, G773, G879, G899, G922, G975, G1059, G1068, G1141, G1156, G1157, G1306, those with horizontal facets G901, G1077, G1120, G1133, G1199 and other ornaments G29, G30, G280, G492, G504, G1165 (Črešnar 2011). 102 This variant also includes objects G1302, G1315 (Črešnar 2011). 103 Lamut 1988-1989, t. 8: 4; Strmčnik Gulič 1988-1989, t. 5: 27; Velušček 2002, t. 7: 6. 104 Šavel 1994, pril. 49: 6; Lamut 2001, t. 7: 7; Žižek 2005, t. 20: 1; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2006, t. 2: 25. 105 Strmčnik Gulič 1988-1989, t. 4: 16. and at Dolge njive near Šikole.106 They are more frequent in the Ha B, when they are present on almost all settlements and cemeteries over a wide area. Their use continues also in the Early Iron Age, as seen in rare finds from the Poštela complex.107 Dishes of variant Sz3c, also the less thickened ones, firstly appear in the second layer of Brinjeva gora; a somewhat later specimen is also known from Gornja Radgona. It also has parallels with settlements at Slivnica as well as Ormož, where it originates from a layer dating to the Urnfield period/ Early Iron Age transition.108 Strongly thickened dishes are somewhat later, first appearing in the early Ha B in the first horizon at Ormož, in the second layer of the Gornja Radgona settlement and in the contemporary grave 15b at Pobrežje. They become more frequent in the Ormož II period, i.e. at the transition to the Early Iron Age. Trench 64 from Poštela indicates that the use of this form continues, as it was found with material characteristic for the third settlement period.109 The most characteristic decoration, seen as a rule on rims of dishes with inverted rims of the type studied, is oblique channelled decoration, the origin of which was discussed above in the study of tall dishes of variant Sv3. However, dishes with inverted rims containing such decoration are even more frequent, which gives us an opportunity to generate a simplified development of this form. Bevelled wide channels occur on dishes with everted and inverted rims, as is shown by the rare examples in the first Ha A phase at Brinjeva gora, (e.g. pl. 16: 2). Their number increases in the second Ha A layer and their appearance is more varied. Apart from the already known variants, which are more frequent now, we recognize several other more upright and narrower ones (e.g. pl. 18: 4). Further developments in Ha B layers show a tendency towards upright, narrow and dense channels, which become more and more frequent. Their development ends with thickened inverted rims of dishes that show nearly vertical, extraordinarily narrow and dense 106 Oman 1981, t. 5: 2, 3: 17,20, 4: 8, 10: 11, 12: 6; Šavel 1994, pril. 48: 4, 49: 2; Žižek 2005, t. 10: 2. 107 For example: Lamut 1988-1989, t. 6: 14, 7: 12; 2001, t. 7: 10; Teržan 1990, t. 9: 18, 17: 20, 56: 5; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2000, t. 115: 1; 2006, t. 7: 1; Velušček 2002, t. 15: 6, 47: 9; Mele 2003, pril. 1: 1a,4a,5a. 108 Oman 1981, t. 16: 7; Lamut 1988-1989, t. 12: 14; Šavel 1994, 48: 18; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2000, t. 268: 2. 109 Pahič 1972, 3: 7; Lamut 1988-1989, t. 2: 6, 22: 3, 17, 23: 13; 2001, t. 21: 1; Teržan 1990, t. 9: 19; Šavel 1994, pril. 50: 14. Fig. 8: Typological table of dishes with inverted rims (Sz). Scale = 1:5. Sl. 8: Tipološka delitev zaprtih skled (Sz). M. = 1:5. channelled decoration, which firstly appears in the first phase of the Ormož settlement, dated to early Ha B. Quantities increase in the subsequent, Early Iron Age phase. However, we must emphasize that in spite of these developments, the earlier forms still continue to occur occasionally and are also present at Poštela.110 Oblique grooves present a similar decoration and are arranged in the same "" Oman 1981, t. 3: 6,17,20; 7: 9,11, 8: 8, 11: 5, 14: 10, 31: 10-12, 39: 5-8; Teržan 1990, t. 36: 2. E. Patek also came to the same conclusion for the area of Pannonia (1968, 102, T. 6: 31). way, which sometimes makes separation of the two decorations almost impossible. It is undoubtedly recognised in settlements at Pobrežje and Ormož, in the later one being dated to the Final Urnfield period/Early Iron Age transition. Contemporary use is also proven in northern Croatia, where it appears among material from the Trešcerovac cemetery, dating to the fourth period of the Urnfield Culture according to Vinski-Gasparini.111 Less numerous but chronologically important are also dishes with horizontally faceted rims. They appear at the Vörs-Battyani disznolegelö cemetery near the Little Balaton Lake, together with elements that are also characteristic for the later period of the Balatinmagyarod-Hidvegpuszta cemetery. This site is typical for the Baierdorf-Velatice (Ha A1) period.112 This decoration simultaneously appears also in the area of the Caka Culture in the Slovak Republic.113 Finds from the Drava region have been showing a different image so far. Horizontal facets initially appear at Brinjeva gora on dishes from the second layer, but they are more frequent in the later 4th phase. Their presence amongst material of the first horizon of the Ormož settlement is perhaps contemporary to the latter.114 They are also known from the settlements at Pobrežje and Orehova vas, however, they are rare and not precisely dated.115 A similar pattern can be seen in the mortuary data, where graves 86 and 137 from the Ruše II cemetery and grave 1 from Ormož seem to be most suitable for dating. The first grave is dated to Ha B2, on the basis of a harp fibula. The second grave contained saddle-shaped spiral anklerings and it is therefore dated to the closing phase of the cemetery or the Ha B3 period. The third grave is contemporary with the latter and is dated on the basis of a large spectacle fibula, a saddle-shaped anklering and a spiral bracelet.116 Grave 90 from Dobova contains perhaps the earliest dish with an inverted rim decorated in such manner in Slovenia. The grave is dated by a Velemszentvid type pin to the end of Vinski-Gasparini 1973, t. 101: 9; Lamut 1988-1989, t. 17: 23, 18: 3; Velušček 2002, t. 47: 1. Dular et al. 2002, 190-193, fig. 29-31; Horvath 1994, T. 29-32. "3 Paulik 1963, Obr. 10: 1, 29: 2, 30: 8; Patek 1968, 102, T. 6: 28,29. 114 Lamut 1988-1989, t. 5: 15; 2001, 3: 2; Oman 1981, t. 16: 3, 33: 6, 11. "5 Velušček 2002, t. 46: 1; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2007, t. 19: 7,9. Müller-Karpe 1959, T. 113: F3; Kaerner 1989, T. 96: 2; 111: 4; Tomanič-Jevremov 1988-1989, 290-291, t. 6, 7. the Ha A period and conditionally also to the early Ha B period.117 Finds from the settlement of Kalnik near Križevci in northern Croatia do not indicate a late adoption of this type of decoration in the area studied. Unlike the pottery from Rogoza, dishes with faceted rims are far more common than dishes with channelled decoration on the rims at Kalnik. However, a great number of vessels can be paralleled with examples from Rogoza. They date to the floruit of the Kalnik settlement, the Ha A period.118 Horizontal channelled decoration is even more exceptional and it appears only once. Its earliest comparisons are dated to the end of the Urnfield period when, presumably based on the material from the settlement at Ormož, it starts gradually to replace horizontal facets.119 Type Sz4 (fig. 8) Conical or rounded dishes with carinated transitions to rims. We distinguish three variants, based on morphology. The first variant (Sz4a) comprises dishes with a short, slightly inverted, rounded rim (pls. 7: 5; 16: 2; fig. 8: G196), obliquely cut on one dish (pl. 9: 25). Two of them are decorated with oblique channelled decoration (pl. 9: 25; 16: 2).i2» The second variant (Sz4b) comprises dishes with a high, inverted to strongly inverted rim. Two rims are ornamented with oblique channelled decoration (pl. 18: 5). The remaining examples are rounded (pl. 16: 1,7).'2' The third variant (Sz4c) comprises two dishes with rounded bodies with short and extremely inverted rims (pl. 9: 19; fig. 8: G422). Variant Sz4c shows the earliest analogies, which were recognized at Siman near Gotovlje and date to the late Middle Bronze Age/Initial Urnfield period transition. An analogous dish was also found in the assemblage from the Pobrežje settlement. The latter contains analogies for the first two variants of this type of dishes.122 Several parallels are known for the second variant (Sz4b), the oldest ones originate from the Early Urnfield contexts of Brinjeva gora, Gornja Radgona and Dolge njive near Sikole.123 Apart from the Pobrežje settlement, 117 Stare, F. 1975, t. 16: 11-12; Rihovsky 1979, 103-104, t. 30: 558. "8 Vrdoljak 1994, t. 16:1-3, 17:2-3, 18: 3. "9 Lamut 2001, 215, t. 5: 6. This variant also includes object G210 (Crešnar 2011). This variant also includes objects G454, G512 (Crešnar 2011). 122 Tomažič 2000, t. 12: 4; Velušček 2002, t. 45: 4; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2006, t. 5: 73. 123 Oman 1981, t. 11: 5, Savel 1994, pril. 48: 15; Žižek 2005, t. 3: 1. two similarly formed dishes are also ascribed to graves 7 and 52, dating to the early or late phase of the accompanying cemetery,124 to Orehova vas and to both earlier horizons of the settlement at Ormož, where the later of the two already reaches the Early Iron Age.125 An even later dish comes from a barrow from Velenik near Spodnja Polskava, which is, with accompanying material, securely dated to Horizon III of the Poštela settlement.126 Type Sz5 (fig. 8) A dish with a curved body with a high, slightly inverted, rounded rim (^ig. 8: G1284). It is decorated with an extrusion. The earliest comparison is a dish from the first layer of Brinjeva gora, which dates to the Early Urnfield period or Ha A. The second and the last comparison that considerably expands its chronology was found among the material from Horizon III at the Ormož settlement, which is characteristic for the developed Early Hallstatt period.127 The hiatus in chronology, i.e. the beginning of the Early Iron Age, can be bridged by a decorated dish in grave 1/94 from Kalsdorf near Graz.128 Fig. 9: Typological table of bowls (Sk). Scale = 1:5. Sl. 9: Tipološka delitev skodel (Sk). M. = 1:5. Bowls (Sk) - fig. 9. Type Sk1 (fig. 9) A rounded bowl with an everted rim with a strap handle attached underneath (pl. 15: 8). The body is decorated with an ornamented rib, running at the same height as the lower attachment spot of the handle. The best comparison is found at Oloris near Dolnji Lakoš where Dular assigned such bowls to type S7. The same variant can also be seen at Rabelčja vas, where applied cordons that are either smooth or ornamented present the most common type of decoration.129 Their dating to the end of the Middle Bronze Age and the beginning of the Urnfield period is therefore not controversial. 124 Pahič 1972, t. 2: 8,9, 11: 16. Following the chronology of C. Pare (1998, Abb. 25: 27) the chronological position of the grave 7 could be even wider. 125 Lamut 1988-1989, t. 9: 3; 2001, t. 5: 5; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2007, t. 17: 6. '2« Teržan 1990, 83, t. 71: 10. 127 Oman 1981, t. 4: 11; Lamut 2001, t. 23: 7. 128 Tiefengraber 2005, T. 19: 3. 129 Dular et al. 2002, fig. 8: S7, 16: 1; Strmčnik Gulič 1988-1989, t. 4: 8. Type Sk2 (fig. 9) Deep bowls with rounded bodies and a handle, attached to the same height as the rim. We distinguish two variants. The first variant (Sk2a) comprises two bowls with upright rims and with the maximum width on the rim (pl. 6: 1).'30 The second variant (Sk2b) comprises a bowl with articulated shoulder and everted rim (pl. 9: 9). The preserved base is straight with a sharp transition to the body. The transition from the shoulder to the low curved neck that continues to the semi- everted, curved rim, is smooth. The maximum width of the dish is on its lip and the widest part of its body is decorated with an ornamented rib. The first variant (Sk2a) has the best, fragmented, comparison at a settlement at Slivnica, which is unfortunately only preliminarily published. More distant comparisons come from a settlement at Kalnik near Križevci, dating from the Bd D/ Ha A1 to the end of the Ha A2 period, and from a cemetery at Burgschleinitz in Lower Austria, dated to the Early/Late Urnfield period or Ha A2/ Ha B1 period.131 The second variant (Sk2b) is comparable to a bowl from grave 32 in the Ruše II cemetery and from grave 31 from Pobrežje. The latter is more precisely dated as it is accompanied 130 This variant also includes object G807 (Crešnar 2011). '3' Lochner 1994, Abb. 108: Grab 11; Vrdoljak 1994, t. 29: 1. by bracelets, decorated with bunches of alternating incisions and a twisted neckring, which date the grave to the later period of the necropolis or to Ha B2 according to Müller-Karpe. A similar form with a handle attached lower on the body is found in a bowl from Ormož, dating to the second settlement horizon, i.e. Urnfield period/Early Iron Age transition. Type Sk3 (fig. 9) Deep bowls with rounded bodies and handles that are exceeding the rims. We distinguish two variants. The first variant (Sk3a) comprises a shallow bowl with a slightly inverted rim. The middle part of the vessel is the point of maximum width of the vessel. The lower part of the rim exceeding knee-formed handle is attached to this spot (pl. 17: 3). The second variant (Sk3b) represents a bowl with shoulder with smooth transition to a low, curved neck and a strongly everted curved rim. The lip is the point of maximum width of the bowl, which is exceeded by a strap handle (fig. 9: G307). The first variant (Sk3a) has a morphological comparison, but without the characteristic knee-form handle, among finds without reliable grave groups from the Pobrežje cemetery. The knee-form handle is a chronologically sensitive element and is discussed in more detail elsewhere. It is mostly present over the entire Late Urnfield period.132 Parallels for the second variant (Sk3b) can only be found among undetermined finds from the Pobrežje cemetery, which can at least serve as an orientation for dating of the dish.133 Cups (Skd) - fig. 10 Type Skd1 (fig. 10) A rounded cup with an upright rim and the rim exceeding knee-formed handle. Its rim is the point of maximum width of the cup (pl. 17: 14). If we firstly consider only the form of this vessel without the specific shape of its handle, we can trace many comparisons. One comes from the first settlement phase at Ormož and is dated to the early Ha B. A cup from Velika Gorica is contemporaneous, dated to Period IV of the Urnfield period in northern Croatia.134 An analogous vessel was furthermore discovered among finds with no reliable context at the Pobrežje cemetery, as the only grave good in grave 137 from Maribor and in grave 395 from Dobova, all of them probably dated to the Late Urnfield period. Grave 49 from the Ruše I cemetery could be most accurately dated, as it includes bracelets decorated with incisions that indicate dating to Ha B2 according to Müller-Karpe.135 If we also consider handles, one of the cups with a handle with two horn-like projections from Pobrežje shows the most similarities. Velušček dates it to the Late Urnfield period. An example from Kiringrad near Donji Kirin in the Kupa valley in Croatia is similarly dated on the basis of analogies.136 Type Skd2 (fig. 10) A rounded cup with a semi- everted rim, which is also the point of maximum width of the vessel. The cup has a rim exceeding strap handle (^ig. 10: G231). We have found only one suitable comparison, which comes from grave 48 from the Budapest-Bekasmegyer cemetery and dates to the older phase of the Ha B period.137 Type Skd3 (fig. 10) A cup with a globular lower body with smooth transition to the curved neck and slightly everted rim. The handle does not exceed the rim (fig. 10: G639). A handle, finishing below the lip is characteristic for this type. Comparisons can be found at Oloris near Dolnji Lakoš as well as at Rabelčja vas. However, this type of handles is almost unknown from Late Urnfield sites, as the rim exceeding handles prevail.138 Type Skd4 (fig. 10) Cups with upswung handles. We distinguish four variants, based on morphology of their bodies. The first variant (Skd4a) comprises two cups with low hemispherical lower bodies and with high funnel necks (pl. 17: 5).'39 Their bases are concave with rounded transition to bodies. 132 Pahič 1972, t. 35: 21; Velušček 1996, 63-64. See also: Handles - Type R4. 133 Pahič 1957, t. 13: 1; 1972, t. 6: 6; 35: 13. 134 Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 221, t. 105: 7; Lamut 1988-1989, t. 12: 3. 135 Pahič 1972, t. 35: 16; Kaerner 1989, T. 48: 2; 85: 4; Pare 1998, Abb. 25: 21. '3® Balen-Letunic 1987, 5, t. 2: 1; Pahič 1972, t. 13: 2; Stare, F. 1975, t. 56: 8,9; Lamut 1988-1989, t. 12: 3; Velušček 1996, 64. 137 Kalicz-Schreiber 1991b, T. 15: 2. 138 Dular et al. 2002, fig. 9: Sk 4; Strmčnik Gulič 1988-1989, t. 7: 14. 139 This variant also includes object G1246 (Črešnar 2011). Fig. 10: Typological table of cups (Skd). Scale = 1:5. Sl. 10: Tipološka delitev skodelic (Skd). M. = 1:5. A cup of the second variant (Skd4b) has a hemispherical lower body and a low curved neck (pl. 4: 5). Its base is concave with rounded transition to the body. Representative of the third variant (Skd4c) is a vessel with a concave base and a sharp transition to the body (pl. 17: 4). The fourth variant (Skd4d) represents a biconically formed cup with a curved base with sharp transition to a slightly convex body. The transition between the body and the conical neck is strongly carinated. The rim is strongly everted (pl. 18: 10). Several different analogies can be found for the cups of the first variant (Skd4a), the earliest of which dates to the late Middle Bronze Age (Br C2), or more precisely to the eponymous pottery hoard from Maisbirbaum. This cup does not have an upswung handle above the rim, which is reconstructed on the studied cup, but its form is almost identical. Apart from this example, cups decorated with lines of incisions or impressions executed with a sharp tool on the neck-to-body transition are interesting as these are identical to decoration seen on the dish Sv1b.140 A fragment from Rabelčja vas can be considered as the most similar Slovenian example.141 Further examples, bearing broken off upswung handles similar to those on the studied cup, come from the Horn cemetery, dating to the Ha A1 period. A contemporary cup comes from grave 3 at Balatonmagyarod Hidvegpuszt, where it is dated to the later period of the site. A similar and contemporaneous cup with more accentuated carination at the body-to-neck transition and slightly more everted rim, was yielded from grave 13, and was found together with a dish Sz3b with oblique channelled decoration on the rim and a wide pot.142 Its form strongly resembles an amphora of variant A2a. Furthermore, curved rims with smooth transitions to upright, curved necks (U2i) could belong to such pots. Analogous cups (Skd4a) were also found in a (settlement) pit at the Beli Manastir-Ciglana site, where also a fragment of a vessel with obliquely faceted shoulder and a club-headed pin were discovered. The context dates to the earlier phase of the Zagreb group, which corresponds with the second phase of the Urnfield period hoards of northern Croatia, i.e. Ha A1.143 The two hemispherical cups with short curved necks (Skd4b) have parallels in settlements at Slivnica and Ormož, where cups were found in the first phases of the sites and are dated to the early Ha B period. A contemporary cup is also known from Gornja Radgona, where it is dated to Horizon II. Another comparison comes from grave 11 at Pobrežje, which was, based on a tall biconical pot, functioning as an urn, dated to the late period of the cemetery according to Pahič, or to Ha B2 according to Müller-Karpe.144 Perhaps the earliest example was found at the settlement of Kalnik near Križevci, dated to the second and the third period of the Urnfield Culture according to Vinski-Gasparini, where most of the bowls and small dishes still show sharp body-to-neck transition.145 Neugebauer 1994, 163, Abb. 89: 14,16, 90: 15. I4' Strmčnik Gulič 1988-1989, t. 6: 24. 142 Horvath 1994, T. 13: 5, 14: 1,2,4. 143 Vinski Gasparini 1973, 177, t. 22: 1-7; 1983, sl. 35: 12. 144 Pahič 1972, t. 1: 15; Horval Savel 1981, t. 1: 15; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2000, t. 111: 5,6. 145 Vrdoljak 1994, t. 27. Fig. 11: Determined type of tray. Scale = 1:5. Sl. 11: Prepoznani tip pladnja. M. = 1:5. Fig. 12: Determined type of jugs. Scale = 1:5. Sl. 12: Prepoznani tip vrča. M. = 1:5. ^e third variant (Skd4c) can be compared with a dish from the settlement at Gornja Radgona, which is dated to the earliest settlement phase or Ha A. Later morphologically similar vessels, most probably bowls, come from cemeteries. They were identified in graves 4 and 27 from Mladinska ulica in Maribor, where bowls/cups were found together with low oval handled pots with everted rims. ^e latter have analogies in graves 31 and 38 at Pobrežje, which are, based on bracelets decorated with bunches of oblique alternating lines, dated to Ha B2 according to Müller-Karpe. Two analogous bowls/cups were also discovered in grave 38 from the Ruše I cemetery and in grave 19 from the Ruše II cemetery, dated to Ha B2 according to Müller-Karpe.146 At this stage, it is necessary to mention an example from grave 2 from the SAZU courtyard in Ljubljana, dated to the first phase of the cemetery. The grave also contains an onion-headed pin with a twisted neck, which has a parallel in a pin from grave 9 at Dobova, dated to Period II of the cemetery.147 Cups of the fourth variant (Skd4d) have parallels at the Balatonmagyarod-Hidvegpuszt cemetery, in a period which based on the occurrence of new forms of vessels and an appearance of oblique channelled decoration, is dated to the Ha A1 period.148 Tray - fig. 11 Only one tray was found at the studied site. It has a straight base with a sharp transition to a low, slightly convex body and a slightly inverted, rounded rim (fig. 11: G585). Jugs - fig. 12 Only one entirely preserved jug was discovered. It has a straight base with rounded transition to a spherical lower body with a smooth transition to a high, curved neck and a slightly everted, curved rim. The bottom part of the rim-exceeding handle is attached to the shoulder-to-neck transition (pl. 17: 6).149 The jug could be compared to one of the Rad-vanje jugs without reliable grave groups. A jug from the Maribor cemetery and two pitchers from graves 29 and 8/1993 from the Ruše II cemetery, with the latter being one of the latest specimens of the necropolis, are also similar.150 Amphorae (A) - fig. 13 Type Al (fig. 13) Amphorae with high conical necks. We distinguish two variants, based on morphology. The first variant (A1a) comprises an amphora with rounded lower body and a slightly carinated shoulder-to-neck transition. The strongly everted, curved rim is internally faceted (pl. 12: 1). Shoulder-to-neck transition is decorated with shallow channelled decoration and two extrusions. The second variant (A1b) represents a globular amphora with handles attached to its neck and with a smooth low body-to-neck transition (pl. 18: 9). An amphora of the third variant (A1c) has a rounded biconical body with a slight carination at the shoulder-to-neck transition (pl. 12: 5).151 '4® Pahič 1957, t. 9: 3; 1972, t. 6: 5-16, 9: 1-10; Müller-Karpe 1959, T. 109: H2; Horvat Šavel 1981, t. 6: 11; Kaerner 1989, T. 20: 3, 25: 1, 79: 3; Crešnar 2006, 145. 147 Stare, F. 1954, t. 6: 1-9; 1975, t. 6: 1-3; Teržan 1995, 353-361. 148 Horvath 1994, T. 13, 14; 1996, fig. 30: the lowest on the right. 149 This variant perhaps also includes objects G164, G103 (Crešnar 2011). 150 Pahič 1957, t. 11: 4; Müller-Karpe 1959, T. 117: 17, 119: 21; Crešnar 2006, 146, t. 2: B3. '5' This variant perhaps also includes object t. 12: 6, which, on the other hand, could be a pot, known from other sites of the Ruše Urnfield group (Kaerner 1989, T. 67: 2). Fig. 13: Typological table of amphorae (A). Scale = 1:10. Sl. 13: Tipološka delitev amfor (A). M. = 1:10. The first variant (A1a), represented by only one specimen, can be paralleled with an amphora from grave 245 at Dobova, which also included a fragment of a knife with straight back and blade with extant transition to a tanged hilt. Its form dates to a broad period and it could date to either Early or Late Urnfield period.152 The decoration of both amphorae can also be compared; shoulder-to-neck transition of both vessels is emphasised with parallel lines. The handles are also interesting as they show knee-formed carination and resemble handles attached to amphorae of variants A2 and A3c, both dated to the Early Urnfield period. The latter is confirmed by the presence of an internally faceted rim. Amphorae of the second variant (A1b) have comparisons in the Late Urnfield period sites of the Drava region, where globular amphorae with low shoulders are the most common. They are known from Zgornja Hajdina, from graves 41 and 134 at Pobrežje, as well as from grave 272 at Dobova in the Sava valley.153 The variant A1c amphora only has one morphological comparison with fragmentary pottery from Rabelčja vas. After a comparative hiatus, similarly formed pottery appears in graves 87 and 101 at Pobrežje, grave 2 152 It is similar to the knives of the types Stillfried and Reipersdorf as defined by Rihovsky (1972, 55-58, 60-61, T. 18: 199, 19: 207, 21: 233) and later also from Jiran (2002, 59-60, T. 20: 215), who also discusses their broad definition. 153 Müller-Karpe 1959, T. 117: 33; Stare, F. 1975, t. 39: 2; Kaerner 1989, T. 17: 1. in the Ruše II cemetery and grave 284 at Dobova, which is dated to the 4th phase of the site or Ha B2 according to Müller-Karpe.154 Type A2 (fig. 13) A globular amphora with a funnel neck. Its base is straight with a sharp transition to a high body. Carination is present on the shoulder-to-neck transition, which is followed by a high everted rim (pl. 10: 7). The best parallels can be seen among amphorae with oblique channelled decoration, found together with the so-called "Säulchenschüsseln" vessels and other related vessels, which are characteristic for the Early Urnfield period, such as, for example, those present at the Horn cemetery in Lower Austria, which are dated to the developed Baierdorf-Lednice period or the Ha A1. This type was also compared with a dish of variant Sv3e and with handles with oblique channelled decoration (R2j). Above all the form of the handles with a characteristic carination can also be compared. Namely, analogous forms appear on amphorae of variants A1a and A3c.155 Analogous vessels with identical handles can also be found among contemporary material of the Caka Culture in Slovakia.156 Similar vessels continue to appear in later periods. They are present in the 154 Pahič 1957: t. 1: 3; 1972, t. 18: 9, 20: 14; Stare, F. 1975, t. 42: 10; Strmčnik Gulič 1988-1989, t. 6: 33. 155 Lochner 1991a, T. 12: 2, 18: 2; 1994, 198-199, Abb. 106. 15« Paulik 1962, Abb. 35: 1. Zgornja Hajdina and Pobrežje cemeteries and have the typical smooth shoulder-to-neck transitions and richly incised or grooved decoration, characteristic of the Late Urnfield period.157 Type A3 (fig. 13) Amphorae with curved necks. We distinguish two variants, based on morphology. The first variant (A3a) represents an amphora with rounded body with a slight carination on the transition from the shoulder to the high neck. Its rim is slightly everted (pl. 5: 1). The second variant (A3b) comprises two globular amphorae with slightly concave bases with a sharp transition to the body, which, with a slight carination, continues to a very high neck. The rim is slightly everted. One of the amphorae is decorated with incisions (pls. 4: 4; 15: 11). Representative of the third variant (A3c) is an amphora with biconical body. The transition between its straight base and body is rounded, whereas there is a slight cari-nation at the transition to a very high curved neck. The rim is slightly everted. The shoulder-to-neck transition of the extant amphora is decorated with oblique channelled decoration (pl. 17: 2). The best analogy in the Drava region for the amphora with a rounded body and curved neck (A3a) is found at Zgornja Hajdina.158 An interesting and more than noteworthy connection can be made with some of the Pannonian single-handled vessels or jugs, decorated on occasion with similar decorations, which date to the Ha A and Ha B according to Patek. She also noted a great similarity between single- and double-handled vessels, i.e. jugs and amphorae. Furthermore, she labels variants A3b and A3c as early and characteristic for the Ha A period.159 Variant A3c has analogies in two graves from Pobrežje, both of which date to the early period of the cemetery. There is a further analogy grave 35 from the cemetery below Brinjeva gora. This example is decorated with oblique channelled decoration, which is similar to the ornament on the amphora under consideration.160 A somewhat different decoration of horizontal channelled decoration on a morphologically similar amphora with handles with triangular cross-section, comes from the Dobova cemetery.161 Similarly formed single- 157 Müller-Karpe 1959, T. 116: 41; Pahič 1991, t. 8: 1. 158 Pahič 1957, t. 11: 1; 1972, t. 14: 10; 1991, 87; Müller-Karpe 1959, 121-122, T. 114: E2, 117: 30; Pare 1998, Abb. 25: 31. 159 Patek 1968, 97-99, T. 5: 1-5,19. Pahič 1972, t. 12:1, 14: 15, Pahič, V. 1988-1989, 186, t. 10; Pittioni 1954, 409-444, t. 294, 296, 297. i«! Stare, F. 1975, t. 17: 6. handled vessels or jugs are also characteristic of the Burgschleinitz cemetery in Lower Austria, which dates to the Early/Late Urnfield period transition.162 We should also make mention of good analogies at Kalnik near Križevci, dated to the second and third period of the northern Croatian Urnfield Culture according to Vinski-Gasparini. Heavily fragmented vessels come from this site and, despite poor preservation, are all interpreted as single-handled.163 Amphorae of variant A3b with parallels at Pobrežje, which do not have reliable grave groups, are perhaps contemporaneous, as well as a single-handled vessel or a jug from the Oberravelsbach pottery hoard (Niederoesterreich / Lower Austria).164 An interesting analogy to the decoration on the amphora in pl. 4: 4 (variant A3b) comes from grave 256 at Dobova, where not only the decoration with zigzag lines is present, but also the previously mentioned motif of a "triangle with two pennants on the top".165 Type A4 (fig. 13) An amphora with rounded biconical body, rounded transition from a straight base upwards continuing to the neck and the semi- everted rim. Two parallel horizontal lines of fingertip impressions are seen just below the rim. (pl. 4: 3). Comparisons in decoration are present in the Initial or Early Urnfield period when fingertip impressions as independent decorations on bodies occur at Oloris, Rabelčja vas, Slivnica and in the second Ha A phase at Brinjeva gora. Local morphological analogies are less reliable, because all comparable biconical amphorae from the Drava region are notably less upright. However, they can be ascribed to the same period, as they all date to the early Pobrežje horizon, i.e. to the beginning of the Late Urnfield period.166 Vessels, comparable in form and handle position are also present to the east of the study area and are characteristic for the Ha B.167 A surprisingly similar vessel, but with no handles, and an almost identical decoration to the Rogoza example, was discovered at the Gladbäck cemetery in North Rhine - Westphalia. '^2 Lochner 1994, Abb. 112. 163 Vrdoljak 1994, t. 25: 2, 30: 1,2. 164 Pahič 1972, 33: 9; Lochner 1994, Abb. 108. 165 Stare, F. 1975, t. 37: 3; Crešnar 2006, 141-142. 'S® Pahič 1972, t. 8: 5, t. 17: 1-2; Stare, F. 1975, t. 42: 10; Oman 1981, t. 11: 7; Strmčnik Gulič 1988-1989, t. 3: 3; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2000, t. 111: 1; Dular et al. 2002, fig. 11: O16. Patek 1968, T. 8: 3. Some of the material from the cemetery of over 200 burials can be directly related to the area of the southern German Urnfield Culture and was probably used in the Ha B.168 Pots (L) - figs. 14, 15 Type L1 (fig. 14) Cylindrical or slightly funnel-shaped pots with rims that are vertical or slightly leaning outwards. The majority of rims are rounded (pls. 1: 3; 14: 18), some are thickened (fig. 14: G483,G934) and one is obliquely cut (pl. 9: 2). While the latter is decorated with fingertip impressions and with an ornamented rib attached just below the rim, others carry impressions or attached ribs.169 The relatively numerous pots have perhaps fewer analogies than we would expect, but they show an extremely long time span. They are present at Oloris, from the Br C/Br D onwards, as was also the case in Pannonia.170 This is followed by examples from the second Ha A phase of Brinjeva gora, by finds from the Early Urnfield period settlement at Dolge njive near Sikole, and also by finds from the later period of the Brinjeva gora cemetery and at Hajndl near Ormož, where they date to the Urnfield period/Early Iron Age transition. This form was also found in trench 64 at Poštela, among material of Poštela horizon III.171 Pots with slightly everted rims occur among material from Siman near Gotovlje, Slivnica, Pobrežje, with the latest example from Hajndl near Ormož.172 The internally cut rim is also interesting (pl. 9: 2). It has comparisons at the Early Urnfield period site of Dolge njive near Sikole, where such a pot is decorated with a smooth plastic rib, and in the second horizon of the settlement at Ormož, where it is dated to the Urnfield/Hallstatt period transition. A pot with a similarly formed rim was also discovered in grave 138-139 at Dobova.173 A somewhat more distant analogy, decorated with an '«8 Wand-Seyer 1985, 20-22; t. 1: 3. 169 This variant also includes objects with rounded rims G321, G674, G721, G828, G989, G1235, G1241 and with thickened rims G40, G131, G1286 (Crešnar 2011). '7" Dular et al. 2002, t. 15: 7; Patek 1968, 111-112, T. 8: 11. 171 Oman 1981, t. 17: 5; Teržan 1990, t. 9: 1; Mele 2003, pril. 4: 2b; Žižek 2005, t. 16: 1. 172 Tomažič 2000, t. 34: 4; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2000, t. 83: 4; 2006, t. 12: 143; Mele 2003, pril. 4: 2c. 173 Stare, F. 1975, t. 22: 3; Lamut 2001, t. 13: 3; Žižek 2005, t. 17: 3. ornamented plastic rib, similar to a fragment from Rogoza, was found in the Ha B1/B2 settlement at Kalakača on the Danube.174 Type L2 (fig. 14) Oval pots with rims that are tilted inward. Rounded rims prevail (pls. 7: 6; 9: 17,21; fig. 14: G885), but horizontal (pl. 15: 1; fig. 14: G551), obliquely cut (fig. 14: G626) and thickened rims also occur. One is decorated with curved channelled decoration (pl. 7: 6), two with extrusions, one with smooth cordons and one has lugs attached below the rim.175 L2 pots like L1 pots show a long period of use. The earliest comparisons from Oloris, i.e. from Br C/Br D are followed by widely contemporaneous finds from Slivnica, Pobrežje, the first horizon at Ormož and from nearby Hajndl. The latest parallels were, again, discovered at Poštela, in trench 77, dated to settlement horizon III. Finds from Burgstall at Kleinklein are also similar and they are present from the first to the last horizon of the site.176 The smallest among them with lugs attached below its rim can be paralleled with a smaller pot from the Early Iron Age grave 27 from Nova Tabla near Murska Sobota.177 A pot with an internally cut rim has only one parallel, in the first Ha A phase at Brinjeva gora. This is, of course, not enough for determination of its date. It is however interesting that variant L1 pots with similarly formed rims also appear as late as in Ha A.178 A triangle decoration, formed of smooth applied cordons, is also interesting as it can be traced in analogous form on pots from Oloris and also on pots from the Late Urnfield period cemetery at Pobrežje.179 Type L3 (fig. 14) Two most probably bucket-like or ovally formed pots with low shoulders and vertical rims (pl. 7: 7).'80 The oldest comparison is seen with a strongly fragmented pot from Siman near Gotovlje, ascribed to mixed layer and dated according to the 174 Medovic 1988, sl. 45: 15. 175 This variant also includes objects G203, G539, G1088, G1140, G1129, G1169, G1185, G1310 (Crešnar 2011). '7® Lamut 1988-1989, t. 5: 6; Smolnik 1994, T. 5: 9, 28: 12; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2000, t. 140: 1; 2006, t. 7: 4; Dular et al. 2002, t. 37: 1, 39: 5; Mele 2003, pril. 4: 3a. 177 Guštin, Tiefengraber 2001, sl. 4: 5. 178 Oman 1981, t. 3: 2. 179 Pahič 1972, t. 2: 3; Dular et al. 2002, t. 60: 1, 62: 10, fig. 11: O6. 180 This variant also includes object G533 (Crešnar 2011). Fig. 14: Typological table of pots, part 1 (L1-4). Scale L4 = 1:10, other 1:5. Sl. 14: Tipološka delitev loncev, 1. del (L1-4). M. L4 = 1:10, drugo 1:5. central corpus of the settlement, the Br C/Br D.181 A comparable pot, discovered at the mining area at Schwaz in the Austrian Tyrol, comes from the Urnfield period.182 An even later comparison was recognized at the upland settlement at Kap-fensteiner Kogel in Austrian Styria, dated to the Urnfield period/Early Iron Age transition. Last but not least, an analogous pot was also found in the Early Iron Age barrow 2 at Rogoza.183 '8' Tomažič 2000, t. 19: 4. 182 Rieser, Schrattenthaler 1998-1999, 143-144, Abb. 28: 7-8. 183 Penz 2001, T. 5: 7, 11; Črešnar 2011, G1262. Type L4 (fig. 14) Oval pots with slightly to strongly everted, mostly curved rims. We distinguish two variants, based on morphology.184 The first variant (L4a) comprises pots with slightly everted to semi- everted rims, that can be rounded (pls. 7: 13; 14: 10; 16: 4; fig. 14: G145,G293), horizontally (fig. 14: G182) or internally cut (fig. 14: G1197). When the base is preserved, the transition to the body is saddle-shaped. They are often decorated with ornamented rib below rims or with fingertip impressions (pl. 7: 13). Lugs also appear below rims (pl. 14: 10). Their sizes vary visibly.185 184 This variant also includes objects G309, G563, G789, G928, G1014, G1016, G1020, G1021 (Črešnar 2011). 185 This variant also includes objects with rounded rims G535, G1108, G1163 and other forms of rims G142, G232, G987, G1090, G1166, G1174 (Črešnar 2011). The second variant (L4b) comprises pots with semi-everted to strongly everted rims. Rim-to-body transition can be thickened. Large pots with shorter rims prevail (pls. 1: 6; 2: 7; 4: 1; 10: 6; 11: 6), some of the larger examples also having higher, often differently formed rims (pls. 1: 2; 10: 5; 18: 1). Similar forms were also recognized on smaller pots (pl. 2: 6; fig. 14: G459,G461). Extant bases show saddle-shaped (pl. 10: 5,6) or rounded (pl. 1: 2) transitions to bodies. Rims are often decorated with fingertip impressions, horizontal (pls. 1: 2; 11: 6). A curved (pls. 1: 6; 10: 5) ornamented cordon can be attached below rims. Cordons sometimes include lugs (pl. 2: 7). Some pots are decorated with both types of decoration (pls. 10: 5,6; 18: 1).'8« The first variant (L4a) is unadorned or is decorated with a characteristic decoration of pots of this type, with ornamented cordons or with fingertip impressions on rims. It was recognized at Oloris, Rabelčja vas, where it is dated to the Br C/Br D transition. It belongs to the Ha A horizon at Gornja Radgona and was also found at the Late Urnfield period at Pobrežje, in the first settlement phase at Ormož and also at the nearby Hajndl, where it dates to as late as the Early Iron Age.187 A somewhat different picture is displayed by variant L4b pots. The earliest were noted at Brinjeva gora, or more precisely in the earliest Ha A layer phase. Later, in the Ha B, they occur on almost all sites, both settlements and cemeteries. The former are Pobrežje, Gornja Radgona, Ormož and Hajndl, where these pots sometimes appear in the Early Iron Age. This is paralleled by finds from Poštela. They often function as urns on cemeteries. Such pot forms are most common at the Ruše I cemetery.188 Most frequent decorations are fingertip impressions on rims and, even more common, ornamented applied cordons. Observation of stratigraphic layers at Brinjeva gora offers some chronological differentiation of the latter. Cordons with fingertip impressions occur in different forms in all stratigraphic layers, while cordons, decorated with tools in different variants, largely appear in Ha B layers. We can also notice that fingertip impressions on cordons more frequently occur in earlier layers and are, as a rule, absent from the '8« This variant also includes objects with a shorter rim G360, G447, G477, G690, G852, longer rim G472 or smaller pots G143, G431 (Crešnar 2011). 187 Strmčnik Gulič 1988-1989, t. 6: 20; Savel 1994, pril. 48: 17; Lamut 2001, t. 3: 8; Dular et al. 2002, fig. 4: L2; Magdič 2006, t. 75: 4; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2006, t. 9: 2. 188 Müller-Karpe 1959, e.g. T. 113: H,K1; Oman 1981, t. 2: 1; Lamut 1988-1989, t. 3: 6; Teržan 1990, e.g. t. 50: 1,7; Savel 1994, pril. 49: 1, 51: 12; Magdič 2006, 77: 3; Velušček 2002, t. 9: 5. Late Urnfield cemeteries in the Drava region.189 Such decoration is also known at the upland settlement of Spičak Gradina II in Croatian Zagorje. This is a single-phased settlement, comparable with the Ruše Urnfield group.190 The difference in the dates of these forms at Gornja Radgona is also interesting. Savel lists analogous decorations as characteristic during the II. and III. settlement horizons at this site.191 Type L5 (fig. 15) Pots with wide rounded bodies with smooth or carinated transitions to low necks. Rims can strongly differentiate from one another. We recognise vertical (fig. 15: G1144), slightly everted (^ig. 15: G646) and strongly everted rims (pls. 3: 1; 11: 4; fig. 15: G416).'92 The type of pots occur in different sizes, let us emphasize only the smallest one (^ig. 15: G497). Only one base with a saddle-shaped transition to the body is preserved, but the rim is missing. Three pots are decorated with ornamented cordons, which emphasise transition from shoulder to neck in one case. One pot is decorated with incisions and wheel-stamped impressions (pl. 9: 3). A comparable pot with vertical rim, discovered in the mining area near Schwaz in the Austrian Tyrol193 is dated to the Urnfield period. A later parallel dated to the Urnfield period/Early Iron Age transition appears at the Kapfensteiner Kogel upland settlement in Austrian Styria. The same site also produced parallels to pots of this variant, but with differently formed rims.194 The best analogies for the forms with everted rims can be seen among the assemblages from cemeteries at Pobrežje, Spodnje Radvanje and Maribor.195 Similar pots also occur in settlements at Pobrežje, Slivnica, Orehova vas and Brinjeva gora, where they are ascribed to different layers.196 189 Oman 1981, e.g. t. 2: 1,3, 7: 2, 28: 2,5,9, 50: 1-20. The exception may be the cordon (t. 1: 9), but the drawing in the publication is of poor quality and the assumption can therefore not be confirmed. 190 Pavišic 1993, 175-177, t. 2: 1-6. 191 Savel 1994, pril. 48-51. 192 This variant also includes a fragmented rim t. 16: 14, slightly everted rims G223, G846, G1162, G1164, G1173, strongly everted rims G515, G587, G1126, G1304 and a pot without an extant rim G589 (Crešnar 2011). 193 Rieser, Schrattenthaler 1998-1999, 143-144, Abb. 28: 7-8. 194 Penz 2001, T. 5: 6-7,15. 195 Müller-Karpe 1959, T. 116: 43; 121: 8; Pahič 1972, t. 28: 1, Kaerner 1989, T. 49: 3. '9« Oman 1981, t. 14: 1, 28: 5, 30: 13; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2000, t. 143: 1; 2007, t. 20: 4; Velušček 2002, t. 5: 2. Fig. 15: Typological table of pots, part 2 (L5-9). Scale L7 = 1:10, other 1:5. Sl. 15: Tipološka delitev loncev, 2. del (L5-9). M. L7 = 1:10, drugo 1:5. The specific morphology of internal areas of rims with facets, recognized on some pots, is present on somewhat rounder pots from graves 9, 12, 53 and 219 at Dobova. The rim of the first pot is reconstructed, and the grave is dated on the basis of an onion-headed pin with a twisted neck to the 2nd period of the site, the Ha A2. The second grave also included a fragment of a datable cup, which is, according to Dular, characteristic for the 3rd phase of the cemetery, the Ha B1.197 The smallest pot has an interesting analogy at Dolge njive near Sikole, that is in the Early Urnfield period. All other analogies date to the Late Urnfield period. This is also valid for the pots from Ormož that date to the first horizon, the early Ha B, and from the settlement and the cemetery at Pobrežje.198 Type L6 (fig. 15) Pots with a rounded body that smoothly continues to curved neck and everted rim. We distinguish two variants. The first variant (L6a) comprises pots with a curved neck, transitioning to a slightly everted, curved rim (pl. 3: 4) and is in two cases decorated with fingertip impressions.199 The second variant (L6b) comprises pots with a curved neck that continues to a semi- everted to strongly everted, straight or curved rim. The majority of them are obliquely cut (pl. 11: 5,7,8), whereas one is rounded.200 One pot is decorated with an ornamented cordon that also includes a lug. Variant L6a has a wide selection of comparisons, starting with Oloris and Rabelčja vas in the late Middle Bronze Age or the Initial Urnfield period. Pots from Slivnica and Pobrežje show that it is not a short-lived variant, as the latter most probably dates to the Late Urnfield period.201 Variant L6b is short-term, represented in the first layer of Gornja Radgona, dated to Ha A, and in the first Ormož layer, dated to early Ha B. A similar example was found in grave 53 at Dobova that also contains a variant L5 pot.202 197 Stare, F. 1975, t. 6: 3, 11-12, 12: 6, 30: 9; Dular 1978, t. 1; Teržan 1995, 338-339. 198 Lamut 2001, t. 17: 8; Velušček 2002, t. 22: 2; Žižek 2005, t. 4: 2. 199 This variant also includes objects G288, G362 and G731 (Črešnar 2011). 200 This variant also includes objects G1027, G1046 and G1042 (Črešnar 2011). 201 Strmčnik Gulič 1988-1989, t. 5: 3; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2000, t. 134: 2; Dular et al. 2002, fig. 4: L1; Velušček 2002, t. 7: 9. 202 Stare, F, 1975, t. 12: 7; Lamut 1988-1989, t. 3: 5; Savel 1994, pril. 48: 12. Type L7 (fig. 15) Pots with high conical necks that continue to a globular body. We distinguish two variants, based on morphology.203 The first variant (L7a) comprises large pots with the maximum width located high on the body. A 1:3 ratio of the height of body versus height of neck is important for their classification. An almost entirely preserved example has a slightly concave base with a saddle-shaped transition to the body. The lower body is slightly bulged in one case (^ig. 15: G495) and concave (pl. 10: 8) in another. Its maximum diameter is on its upper part, where the shoulder continues to the neck with a carination that can be emphasised with channelled decoration. It is followed by a high, strongly everted, curved, internally faceted rim. Pots can be decorated with an ornamented cordon, sometimes with lugs, which can also occur independently. A few fragmented pots can perhaps also be included in this variant (e.g. pl. 11: 9).204 The second variant (L7b) comprises pots with the maximum width in the centre of the lower body with lugs often attached just below it. The transition from shoulder to neck is (slightly) carinated. The neck continues to a high, strongly everted, curved rim that can be internally faceted (pls. 3: 2; 6: 4). A reconstructed pot with an almost cylindrical neck can perhaps also be included in this variant (pl. 17: 13), but its preservation is exceptionally poor. Variant L7a has analogies with a pot from Spodnje Hoče, which was dated to the Initial Urnfield period and is discussed later. Unfortunately, an unusual method of dating without comparisons has been repeatedly used.205 A further analogy comes from the Late Urnfield settlement on the Ptuj Castle hill, but the material from this site has not yet been studied in detail.206 A wider spectrum of analogous pottery was recognised at the Kalakača settlement on the right bank of the Danube, dated to the Bosut IIIa phase. This phase starts in Ha B1 and probably finishes with the end of Ha B2, according to central European chronology.207 Pots with lower bodies of variant L7b with characteristic lugs have analogies in all phases at Brinjeva gora, but their number greatly increases in the Late Urnfield layers.208 Further comparisons were found in grave 10 at Burgschleinitz in Lower 203 This variant also includes objects t. 2: 2, 9: 8, G82, G169, G469, G793, G1078, G1119, G1257 and a pot deformed in secondary fire t. 12: 2 (Črešnar 2011). 204 This variant also includes objects G614, G615 (Črešnar 2011). 205 Strmčnik Gulič 2004, 242; Kavur 2007, 59. 206 Korošec, J. 1951, sl. 8. 207 Medovic 1988, sl. 308; Teržan 1990, 40. Similar, with some differences, are also some pots from Kalakača (for example: Medovic, 1988, sl. 110: 1). 208 Oman 1981, t. 1: 15; 30: 1, 31: 9; 51: 1. Austria. These are categorised as a local form and are dated to the Early/Late Urnfield period transi-tion.209 Similar pots, but mostly without lugs, are discussed in the Patek analysis of the Pannonian material. Mention should also be made of a more recent find from the Budapest-Bekasmegyer cemetery, dated to the Ha B1 phase of the Val-Chotin group.210 A similar pot without internally faceted rim was found in grave 277 at Ljubljana. This grave also included a chronologically important club-headed pin, characteristic mostly for the Initial and Early Urnfield periods, but sometimes also dated to the later phase or early Ha B period. An analogous pin also occurs in grave 36 at Pobrežje, one of the earliest graves in the cemetery.211 If the object in pl. 17: 13 is a pot with a completely cylindrical neck, no analogies have been found in Slovenia. Such a pot is present in grave 4 at Drljanovec near Nova Rača, close to Bjelovar. ^is site includes material from the Virovitica as well as the Zagreb phases according to Vinski-Gasparini. Another similar pot was found in the Horn cemetery in Lower Austria, where it is dated to the developed Baierdorf-Lednice phase or Ha A1.212 from the settlement at Pobrežje.214 ^e small variant L8b pot does not show any suitable analogies. An examination of the decoration, also related to decoration on a presumed fragment of amphora in pl. 12: 6, reveals analogies in the ornamental repertoire of the Ruše Urnfield group. ^e last did not yield any similarly formed small pots, mainly due to the occurrence of forms with globular bodies. However, some of the jugs are similar. ^ese are also a characteristic element of the group, which is often decorated with comparable motifs.215 Furthermore, a reliable chronological comparison of a pot with an extremely high neck of variant L8c was discovered among material from Dolge njive near Šikole. It is an important fact that the site itself is dated to a comparatively narrow period of time, the Early Urnfield period, whilst the pot itself was found in a pit along with a handle with oblique channelled decoration, which most likely represents a fragment of a "Säulchenschüssel" type vessel, typical for the Baierdorf-Lednice or Ha A1 period.216 A somewhat later parallel originates from grave 2/96 from the cemetery at Kalsdorf near Graz in Austrian Styria, where it is dated to the Ha B1.217 Type L8 (fig. 15) Pots with curved necks. We distinguish three variants, based on morphology. The first variant (L8a) comprises a smaller globular pot, with maximum diameter in the central part of the body. Shoulder to bevelled neck transition is slightly carinated. It finishes with an semi- everted, curved rim (pl. 17: 1).2'3 The second variant (L8b) comprises a smaller globular pot with slightly concave base with rounded transition to the body, which smoothly continues to an upright neck. The shoulder is decorated with extrusions and the neck shows an incised ornament (^ig. 15: G661). The third variant (L8c) comprises a globular pot, the body of which continues to an extraordinarily high neck and a semi- everted, curved and rounded rim (fig. 15: G46). The variant L8a pot has analogies in Saghegy in Vas county in Hungary, where it is dated to the end of the Ha A and to the beginning of the Ha B. This chronology is also probably valid for the analogy 209 Lochner 1991b, 271, 299, T. 13: 1, 15: 1; 1994, Abb. 108: grob 10. 2'" Patek 1968, 90, T. 3: 7, 48: 24, 103:1; Kalicz-Schreiber 1991a, Abb. 22: 5; Pare 1998, 400-401. 211 Puš 1971, t. 7: 1-2; Pahič 1972, t. 8: 18; Rihovsky 1979, 145-153; Teržan 1995, 330-339. 212 Majnaric-Pandžic 1989, t. 2: 3; Lochner 1991a, T. 24: 1. 213 This variant also includes object G1221 (Crešnar 2011). Type L9 (fig. 15) Rounded pot with high, curved, funnel neck (^ig. 15: G432). The rim is strongly everted and internally faceted.218 An identical pot comes from Sarvaš near Osi-jek, where it represents the only extant find from a destroyed grave. It is dated to the second phase of the Urnfield Culture in northern Croatia or Ha A1.219 Later comparisons originate from the Budapest-Bekasmegyer cemetery, where identical or analogous forms of necks and rims are extremely frequent and mostly decorated with channelled decoration or facets. They are dated to the Ha B1-2. Similar pots with slightly more conical necks are characteristic for the wider area of Pannonia, recognized by E. Patek in late Ha A and early Ha B contexts.220 214 Patek 1968, 36, 94-95, T. 11: 19, 12: 7; Velušček 2002, t. 12: 4. 215 E.g. Kaerner 1989, T. 48: 3,74: 5, 140: 2; Pahič 1972, t. 8: 6. 2'® Lochner 1994, Abb. 106; Žižek 2005, t. 5: 2. 217 Tiefengraber 2005, 127, T. 23: 5. 218 This variant also includes object G417 (Crešnar 2011). 219 Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 218, t. 25: 3. 220 Patek 1968, 94, T. 4: 2; Kalicz-Schreiber 1991a, Abb. 15: 4. Some similarity to other pots, this time with conical necks (Abb. 20: 2), and to some bowls (Abb. 19: 8, 23: 3) is also visible. Portable oven lids (P) - fig. 16 Type P1 (fig. 16) Hemispherical or rounded portable oven lids (fig. 16: G56,G202). Only one handle and one internally thickened base are preserved. Portable oven lids are decorated with ornamented cordons.221 Type P2 (fig. 16) Conical portable oven lids, without (^ig. 16: G128) or with (pl. 15: 2) horn-like projections alongside strap handles.222 Strainers - fig. 17 Only fragments of strainers, which do not allow reconstruction of their form, are preserved (fig. 17: G225,G1131).223 One everted rim is preserved. This, along with other fragments, allows us to predict that strainers were rounded or of a conical dish-like form. Parts of vessels Rims (U) - figs. 18, 19 Fig. 16: Typological table ofportable oven lids (P). Scale = 1:5. Sl. 16: Tipološka delitev pekev (P). M. = 1:5. Fig. 17: Determined type of strainers. Scale = 1:5. Sl. 17: Prepoznani tip cedil. M. = 1:5. Type U1 (fig. 18) Rims of smaller sized vessels that continue into differently formed and bent necks. Considering their morphology, they form four variants. The first variant (U1a) comprises semi- everted to extremely everted rims, with smooth transition to curved or straight high funnel necks. They are rounded (^ig. 18: G259), narrowed (^ig. 18: G374) or horizontally cut on top (fig. 18: G12 3 8).224 They could belong to dishes with everted rims, tall dishes, bowls or amphorae with funnel rims. The second variant (U1b) comprises short, slightly to strongly everted, curved rims that smoothly or with a slight carination continue to conical or curved necks that are frequently badly preserved. Rims are rounded (^ig. 18: G442), obliquely cut (fig. 18: G1305) or narrowed (fig. 18: G440,G859). Only one fragment is decorated with two horizontally incised lines and one is internally faceted.225 221 This variant also includes objects G592, G651, G660 (Crešnar 2011). 222 This variant also includes object G1288 and perhaps also rounded bases G80, G130, G213, G425, G511, G1121, G1232, G1253), vertically (G463, G1071) or horizontally cut bases (G211, G116, G436) (Crešnar 2011). 223 This variant also includes objects G874, G1138, G1196 (Crešnar 2011). 224 This variant also includes rounded rims G18, G23, G201, G629, narrowed rims G94, G323, G730, G936, G1100 or a horizontally cut rim G1320 (Crešnar 2011). 225 This variant also includes rounded rims G23, G257, G278, G625, G628, G712, G868, G1041, G1080 and nar- rowed rims G272, G606 (Crešnar 2011). They could belong to tall dishes, pitchers, amphorae and perhaps to smaller pots. The third variant (U1c) comprises strongly everted, straight rims that smoothly or with a slight carination continue into conical or curved necks. Two rims are rounded (fig. 18: G569), two internally thickened and rounded (^ig. 18: G373) and two externally vertically cut (^ig. 18: G47 9).22® They could belong to tall dishes, amphorae or smaller pots. The fourth variant (U1d) comprises high, strongly everted, curved rims that smoothly continue into upright (fig. 18: G295) or bevelled (pl. 16: 15; fig. 18: G576) necks and are rounded (pl. 16: 15; fig. 18: G295) or narrowed. A lug is attached just below the rim in one case.227 They could belong to large tall dishes, amphorae or smaller pots. Type U2 (fig. 19) Short rims of larger vessels that continue to differently formed and bent necks. We distinguish eleven variants, based on morphology. tte first variant (U2a) comprises rims on high, slightly curved necks that are leaning inwards, are vertical or slightly everted. ttree rims are rounded (pl. 5: 7), two are narrowed (fig. 19: G482) and one is horizontally cut (fig. 19: G3 9 4).228 One is externally decorated with a double ornamented cordon and one carries a groove on the neck-to-body transition. 226 This variant also includes rims G159, G458, G1043 (Crešnar 2011). 227 This variant also includes object G94 (Crešnar 2011). 228 This variant also includes rounded rims G835, G1322 and a narrowed rim G1239 (Crešnar 2011). Fig. 18: Typological table of fragments of small rims (U1). Scale = 1:5. Sl. 18: Tipološka delitev odlomkov manjših ustij (U1). M. = 1:5. They could belong to pots, amphorae, large tall dishes and less probably to jugs. The second variant (U2b) comprises semi- everted to strongly everted, curved rims with a smooth continuation to funnel and curved neck. The majority of lips are rounded; such fragments can be smaller (^ig. 19: G724) or larger (^ig. 19: G35). Two of the latter are decorated with an ornamented cordon below the rim. Rims can also be narrowed (^ig. 19: G1321), obliquely (fig. 19: G729) or vertically cut (^ig. 19: G260). One carries a carination on the internal side, where it is thickened, and one is decorated with fingertip impressions.229 The majority of them are probably pots, amphorae or larger dishes with everted rims. The third variant (U2c) comprises short, slightly everted to semi- everted rounded rims with a smooth transition to bevelled, conical or curved necks (^ig. 19: G468) or obliquely cut rims (pl. 7: 18; fig. 19: G850). Three rims are externally decorated with fingertip impressions, one is slightly curved and two have obliquely curved applied cordons attached below the rims.230 229 This variant also includes rounded rims of smaller G31, G32, G43, G400, G518, G618, G627, G790, G813, G916, G921, G1075, G1145, G1175, G1222, G1240, G1243, G1296, G1326 or larger dimensions G337, G518, G676, G679 and obliquely cut rims G506, G1135 (Črešnar 2011). 230 This variant also includes rounded rims G391, G650, G836, G841, G957, G1127 and obliquely cut rims G832, G1142 (Črešnar 2011). They could belong to larger tall dishes, amphorae or pots. The fourth variant (U2d) comprises short, strongly everted rims, that most often smoothly or with a slight carination continue into an upright, conical or curved neck. Only one rim has a strong carination at the rim-to-body transition (^ig. 19: G135). Lips are rounded (pl. 1: 7; fig. 19: G87), horizontally cut (fig. 19: G847) or narrowed (pl. 7: 17; fig. 19: G1211).23' They could most probably be attributed to pots. The fifth variant (U2e) comprises semi- everted to strongly everted, curved rims that smoothly continue into upright or oblique, conical or curved necks and have rounded (fig. 19: G617,G1045), oblique (fig. 19: G285) or horizontally cut lips (^ig. 19: G1307). Five rims are internally faceted, they can also be decorated with fingertip impressions.232 They could most probably be ascribed as parts of pots. One could even more specifically be ascribed to variant L4b or to an analogous variant and others to pots with high conical or curved necks. Some could also belong to tall dishes or amphorae. The sixth variant (U2f) comprises semi- everted to strongly everted, straight rims with smooth or slightly carinated transition to upright, conical or curved necks 231 This variant also includes rounded rims G327, G480, G833, G1328 and narrowed rims G1294, G1299 (Črešnar 2011). 232 This variant also includes rounded rims G191, G204, G226, G244, G318, G450, G574, G710, G891, G1029 and an obliquely cut rim G990 (Črešnar 2011). Fig. 19: Typological table of fragments of larger rims (U2). Scale = 1:5. Sl. 19: Tipološka delitev odlomkov večjih ustij (U2). M. = 1:5. and have rounded (fig. 19: G453,G783) or obliquely cut lips (^ig. 19: G251).233 Three of them carry carinations on the internal and at the same time thickened side, five are decorated with fingertip impressions, one has a horizontal channelled decoration, one vertical channelled decoration and one an ornamented applied cordon with an attached lug. They could most probably be determined as parts of pots and some could even more specifically be ascribed to variant L4b or to an analogous variant. The seventh variant (U2g) comprises semi- everted to strongly everted, straight rims, with smooth or slightly carinated transition to an oblique, conical or curved neck. Most of them are rounded (pl. 6: 3; fig. 19: G788) and some are obliquely cut (fig. 19: G550).234 Three of them carry a carination on the internal, thickened side. Five rims are decorated with fingertip impressions. They could most probably be determined as parts of pots, and some could even more specifically be ascribed to variant L5 or to an analogous variant. The eighth variant (U2h) comprises high, semi- everted to strongly everted, straight rims with smooth transitions to upright, conical or curved necks. The transition can be internally thickened or emphasised with a carination. Lips are rounded, horizontally (^ig. 19: G388) or obliquely cut (fig. 19: G10 2 5).235 They could be ascribed to pots or perhaps amphorae with high conical or curved necks. The ninth variant (U2i) comprises a high, strongly everted, curved rim with a smooth transition to an upright, curved neck. The lip is rounded and internally faceted (pl. 11: 2). The rim could be ascribed to a pot or an amphora with a cylindrical or slightly curved neck. The tenth variant (U2j) comprises high, strongly everted, straight rims with a (slight) carination to bevelled, conical or curved necks. Their rims are thickened with rounded lips (pls. 14: 9; 16: 13) or narrowed (fig. 19: G513,G642).23® Most fragments are internally faceted. They could most probably be determined as parts of pots or perhaps amphorae with high conical necks. The eleventh variant (U2k) comprises high, strongly to extremely everted, curved rims with smooth or slightly carinated transition to conical or curved necks. Most of the lips are rounded (pls. 1: 1; 3: 8; 9: 4,22; 11: 1,3; fig. 19: G838), three are narrowed (pl. 14: 8;fig. 19: G395,G641) and one is vertically cut (pl. 18: 11). Rims are often internally thickened and decorated with facets (pls. 1: 1; 11: 3; 16: 15; 18: 11)237 or channelled decoration (pl. 14: 8). Two of them are decorated with fingertip impressions. 233 This variant also includes rounded rims G270, G384, G594, G616, G644, G664, G887 (Črešnar 2011). 234 This variant also includes rounded rims G197, G777, G810, G831, G855, G893 and obliquely cut rims G383, G660, G691, G919 (Črešnar 2011). 235 This variant also includes rounded rims G310, G393, G1228, G1256, G1311, a horizontally cut rim G387 and an obliquely cut rim G1198 (Črešnar 2011). 236 This variant also includes the rounded rim G739 and the narrowed rim G359 (Črešnar 2011). 237 ^is variant also includes rounded rims G11, G168, G381, G702, G750, G792, G870, G925, G929, G988 (Črešnar 2011). Fig. 20: Typological table of fragments of larger rims (U3). Scale = 1:5. Sl. 20: Tipološka delitev odlomkov večjih ustij (U3). M. = 1:5. They could most probably be determined as parts of pots or perhaps amphorae with high conical necks. Type U3 (fig. 20) Everted rims with a continuation of the vessel leaning inwards. They are high, strongly everted, rounded rims with smooth or slightly carinated transition to the body (pl. 15: 5; fig. 20: G207). Two of them are additionally externally obliquely (fig. 20: G736) and two vertically cut (pl. 5: 6).238 One of them is decorated with fingertip impressions and three are internally faceted. They could belong to either larger dishes with everted rims, to pots or amphorae with curved or funnel necks. The rims have many comparisons at Slovene sites and neighbouring areas. Among the Slovene ones, let us again emphasise Oloris, which yielded some faceted rims, and Brinjeva gora. The latter shows rims with internal channelled decoration, which are characteristic only for the first two phases (Ha A), while faceted rims occur also in phase 3, which is the earliest dated to Ha B. Despite this, Pahič studied them as the characteristic Ha A element. The same is true for Velušček's study of such material from Kostel.239 Variants U2e, U2g and several forms of internally faceted rims show comparisons with the Urnfield period sites from northern Croatia. The most suitable material for comparison among them originates from the settlements of Gacište - Lanica near Virovitica, dated to Br D/Ha A1 transition, Novigrad na Savi, dated from Br D to Ha B with the most intense 238 This variant also includes rounded rims G7, G263, G406, G423, G426, G514, G564, G1220, the obliquely cut rim G878 and a vertically cut rim G909 (Črešnar 2011). 239 Oman 1981, e.g. t. 2: 2, 4: 2, 7: 15, 9: 9, 22:5 , 23: 4; Pahič 1981, 84; Velušček 1996, 65; Dular et al. 2002, fig. 6: L13. settlement during Ha A, and Kalnik near Križevci, with a settlement span from Br D to the end of Ha A.240 Parallels can also be found in northwestern Bosnia, where faceting is most common in the 3rd phase of the settlement at Zecova near Prijedor, dated to the Middle Bronze Age and mostly to the Urnfield period. Further parallels are also found in the earlier phase at Kekica glavica near Krupa in Bosnia, dated to the end of the Late Bronze Age.241 They appear in this period and later at Kalakača next to the Danube.242 Parallels can also be traced in contemporaneous horizons in Austria, Hungary and Slovakia, where they are known in the Baierdorf, Horn, Mende and Očkov cemeteries and are dated to the Br D and Ha A.243 Individual credible analogies can also be found for some other variants. Some of the variant U2a rims strongly resemble the rims of dishes and jugs in the Ruše I , Maribor and Pobrežje cemeteries.244 Rim U2k can be related to at least two vessels from the settlement of Kalnik near Križevec, which dates them to the Initial and Early Urnfield period.245 Some variant U3 rims resemble fragments of S5 dishes from Oloris and Rabelčja vas. This would date them to the late Middle Bronze Age and the Initial Urnfield period.246 Handles (R) - fig. 21 This study includes both fragmented handles, or handles still attached to ambiguous pottery fragments, and handles on better preserved vessels. This increases the possibility for determination of the type of vessel they belong to, and sometimes makes dating easier. Type R1 (fig. 21) Circular-oval handles with a much smaller opening as seen on R2, which is not suitable for holding in the hand. One handle is attached to the maximum width of an oval pot of variant L4a. The attachment point of three handles 240 Vrdoljak 1988, t. 26: 3, 29: 3, 31: 5; Pavišic 1992, t. 1, 2; Majnaric-Pandžic 1993, sl. 5, 9. 241 Benac 1959, 43-44, t. 18: 5, 19: 3; Covic 1962, 49-50,56. 242 Medovic 1988, sl. 308: 18-22. 243 Paulik 1962, Abb. 14: 1; Kemenczei 1975, Abb. 2: 1,2,4; Lochner 1986a, T. 3: 1; 1994, Abb. 106. 244 Kaerner 1989, T. 48: 5; 109: 1, 129: 1,7; Pahič 1972, t. 34: 10. 245 Vrdoljak 1994, t. 10: 1, 14: 1. 246 Strmčnik Gulič 1988-1989, t. 4: 16, 5: 27; Dular et al. 2002, 150, fig. 7. is unknown (pl. 7: 19), but we presume a similar location to that seen on the mentioned fragment.247 Type R2 (fig. 21) Oval handles with some examples showing a knee-formed carination, which form twelve variants according to their attachment point and outlines of their cross-sections. The first variant (R2a) comprises upswung handles with rounded cross-sections (pl. 4: 5; fig. 21: G1246), derived from cups. The second variant (R2b) comprises an upswung handle with an angular cross-section (^ig. 21: G231), derived from a cup. The third variant (R2c) comprises handles with rounded cross-sections, attached to rims (pls. 6: 1; 9: 9), derived from bowls.248 The fourth variant (R2d) comprises handles with rounded cross-sections. These are attached to the necks of bowls (pl. 15: 8), between the shoulders and necks of amphorae (pls. 12: 1; 18: 9; fig. 21: G776), to bodies, or have no determinable attachment spots (fig. 21: G505). One of the latter belongs to a portable oven lid.249 One of the handles is strongly narrowed in its central part and is of a so-called hourglass form (pl. 12: 1). The fifth variant (R2e) comprises handles with angular cross-sections that can show a knee-formed carination and are attached between necks and shoulders (pls. 5: 1; 10: 7) or oval with no determinable attachment point (^ig. 21: G209). Both determinable handles belong to amphorae. The sixth variant (R2f) comprises handles with an externally emphasised central ridge, i.e. they are externally triangularly formed. They are attached between necks and shoulders and are oval (pls. 12: 5; 15: 11) or can exhibit a knee-form carination (pls. 4: 4; 17: 2). Some of them have an indeterminable attachment point (pl. 9: 13).250 The majority of the determinable handles belong to amphorae. Particular emphasis is placed on a large handle with an externally exposed central ridge, which is attached to a portable oven lid (fig. 21: G128). The seventh variant (R2g) comprises two handles with sharp triangular cross-sections (^ig. 21: G229).25' The large handle with a sharp triangular cross-section with two horn-like projections belongs to a portable oven lid (fig. 21: G1288). The eighth variant (R2h) comprises externally concave handles with no determinable attachment points (^ig. 21: G525).252 The ninth variant (R2i) comprises handles that are externally decorated with two or three vertical channels (fig. 247 This variant also includes objects G72, G1279 and G145 (Crešnar 2011). 248 This variant also includes objects G639 and G807 (Crešnar 2011). 249 Uis variant also includes objects G81, G98, G108, G118, G158, G265, G370, G408, G924 and G1137 (Crešnar 2011). 250 "ttis variant also includes object G1109 (Crešnar 2011). 251 This variant also includes object G803 (Crešnar 2011). 252 This variant also includes objects G745, G1186, G1188 and G1200 (Crešnar 2011). Fig. 21: Typological table of handles (R). Scale = 1:5. Sl. 21: Tipološka delitev ročajev (R). M. = 1:5. 21: G1161).253 We were able to determine the attachment spot of only one handle that was connecting neck and shoulder, and it probably belongs to an amphora. The tenth variant (R2j) comprises a handle that is covered with oblique channelled decoration (pl. 8: 8), and most probably belongs to a "Säulchenschüssel" type dish. The eleventh variant (R2k) comprises a handle that is entirely vertically faceted (^ig. 21: G238). The twelfth variant (R2l) comprises a wide handle with low ribs on edges (fig. 21: G141) that could belong to a portable oven lid. Type R3 (fig. 21) These are mostly extended oval handles. We distinguish seven variants, based on their forms and cross-sections. Fragments comprising the first two variants are distributed considering their appearance and/or their attachment point. Other variants comprise fragments of handles that have no determinable attachment point and that could not be included to any of the first two types. They are categorised based on their cross-sections. The majority of these handles could be ascribed to bowls, cups or jugs. The first variant (R3a) comprises rim exceeding handles with rounded cross-sections (pl. 17: 4,5,6;fig. 21: G101).254 They differentiate from one another according to their state of preservation, which makes determination of their cross-sections, sizes, attachment points, forms and types of vessels to which they belong, more complicated. 253 This variant also includes objects G96, G611, G1130 and G1287 (Crešnar 2011). 254 This variant also includes objects G103, G164, G307, G342, G588 and G613 (Crešnar 2011). The second variant (R3b) comprises handles with rounded cross-sections (fig. 21: G68,G349).255 The ones with determinable attachment points were attached on inward leaning shoulders. The third variant (R3c) comprises handles with angular or rounded rectangular cross-sections (^ig. 21: G632,G931).25® The former is attached to an outward leaning body, most probably a bowl. The fourth variant (R3d) comprises handles with externally convex cross-sections (pl. 6: 2).257 The fifth variant (R3e) comprises handles with externally concave cross-sections (^ig. 21: G1212).258 The sixth variant (R3f) comprises handles that are externally decorated with two or three channels (pl. 1: 5,8).259 The seventh variant (R3g) comprises two vertically faceted handles (pl. 17: 9), one only externally and the other one over the entire circumference.260 Let us emphasise handles of types R2 and R3 with triangular cross-sections or with an externally exposed ridge (R2f, R2g, R3d). S. Pahič already recognized an increased concentration of this type in layers under the floor of building D at Brinjeva gora. He dated this type to the Ha A. Good analogies can also be found in the area of the Baierdorf group and even among contemporaneous finds from the Bakony mountains.261 A variant R2j handle can be correlated with an example from the settlement at Dolge njive near Sikole, which is dated to the Early Urnfield period. An analogous example was also discovered on the upland settlement at Kalnik near Križevci, where it is dated to the second and third phase of the Urnfield period in northeastern Croatia. All these handles are probably parts of the "SäulchenschüsseV" type vessels, which were found, for example, in the Horn cemetery in Lower Austria. These are characteristic for the developed Baierdorf-Lednice period or Ha A1.262 They appear together with handles showing the knee-formed carination, recognized on many types 255 This variant also includes objects G28, G486, G583, G591, G744, G824, G826, G898, G952, G1194, G1203 and G1214 (Crešnar 2011). 256 This variant also includes objects G156, G654, G701, G1107, G1139 and G1219 (Crešnar 2011). 257 This variant also includes objects G186 and G966 (Crešnar 2011). 258 This variant also includes objects G816 and G864 (Crešnar 2011). 259 This variant also includes objects G1073, G1317 and G1324 (Crešnar 2011). 260 This variant also includes object G74 (Crešnar 2011). 261 Pahič 1981, 118, footnote 94, 95; Lochner 1986a, T. 2: 6; Kustar 2000, 25, t. 18: 11,15,19,22. 262 Lochner 1994, 198-199, Abb. 106; Vrdoljak 1994, t. 36: 4; Žižek 2005, t. VI: 1. of the Rogoza amphorae or among handles.263 They have oval (R2e) or triangular cross-sections that were already studied, or externally emphasised ridges (R2f). The latter was also recognised among the earliest material from cemeteries at Brinjeva gora and Pobrežje.264 Amphorae, similar to those at Rogoza with identical handles, appear among the contemporary material of the Caka Culture in Slovakia.265 Handles with external vertical channelled decoration (R2i, R3f) were used during a limited period. But they also show a certain duality. Handles, decorated in such way and with rectangular cross-sections are present during the Br C/Br D transition at Oloris. Convex handles, like the ones from Rogoza, also occur in the later phases at Brinjeva gora, which are dated to the Late Urnfield period, and appear on vessels from Ha B cemeteries.266 An externally vertically faceted handle (R3g) has an analogy in grave 1 in the Baierdorf cemetery in Lower Austria, which is accompanied by a handle with oblique channelled decoration (R2j) and a handle with triangular cross-section. Both are also known at Rogoza. They are dated to the Br D/ Ha A transition.267 Additional types of chronologically narrowly determinable handles are those with a visibly concave exterior (R2h, R3e). These are completely absent from the sites of the Initial and Early Urnfield period, but they do appear in the Late Urnfield period, when they are common finds and are attached to the bowls, cups, jugs and amphorae discovered in cemeteries.268 Type R4 (fig. 21) Knee-formed handles with a rounded lower part and upper part, which is knee-formed in the direction towards the body. They can be ascribed to bowls and cups. We distinguish three variants, based on morphology. The first variant (R4a) comprises handles with a flat upper surface (pls. 3: 9; 7: 11; 17: 3,14).2®9 The second variant (R4b) comprises two handles with a narrowed upper surface (pls. 8: 9, 17: 10). The third variant (R4c) comprises a fragment of a handle with an external ridge that narrows upwards (^ig. 21: G435). 263 Lochner 1991a, T. 12: 2, 18: 2; 1994, 198-199, Abb. 106. 264 Pahič 1972, t. 14: 15; Pahič, V. 1988-1989, t. 1: 10. 265 Paulik 1962, Abb. 35: 1. 266 Pahič 1972, t. 30: 13; Oman 1981, t. 25: 4, 39: 9,12, 48: 9-10; Kaerner 1989, T. 86: 2, 101: 4. 267 Lochner 1986a, T. 1: 3. 268 Kaerner 1989, e.g. T. 25: 1, 30: 2; 31: 5; 33: 3; 41: 1. 269 This variant also includes object G699 (Crešnar 2011). Among the Rogoza examples we can recognize the types 3 and 4, which were determined by Velušček and dated to the Late Urnfield period. These two variants have been unknown in the Drava region until now.270 Similar, more recent finds were discovered in the Br D and Ha A1 Gacište - Lanica settlement near Virovitica, which dates their occurrence to a much earlier period.271 Moreover, the form, presented here as variant R4c, has not been previously determined. It is only known from the settlement at Pobrežje, where it is similarly badly preserved and does not help with reconstruction of these variants of handles.272 Lugs (Dr) - fig. 22 Fig. 22: Typological table of lugs (Dr), a selection. Scale = 1:5. Sl. 22: Tipološka delitev držajev (Dr), izbor. M. = 1:5. Lugs were categorised into three types (Dr 1-3). Let us first mention the rare tunnel lugs (e.g. fig. 22: G1146).273 These are present in much larger quantities at Oloris and also at Brinjeva gora, the latest appearing from phase 3, i.e. the earliest phase dated to the Late Urnfield period. But they are nevertheless much more common in earlier phases. Parallels can be found in large quantities among the Virovitica culture material from Virovitica and Sirova Katalena. They are rare at Zagreb-Vrapče, which dates to the later Zagreb group. They are, moreover, completely absent from the Late Urnfield sites of northern Croatia and from those attributed to the Ruše group.274 The tongue-shaped lug is the most common type with a wide variety of forms, including the trapeze-shaped lugs with rounded cross-sections and concave sides (Dr2b - e.g. pl. 12: 7).275 Fragments with presumed attachment points were attached to the maximum diameter of globular or biconical vessels. They appear only at Oloris and Brinjeva gora, where they are present in the earliest and the latest three phases, which makes their accurate dating difficult.276 270 Velušček 1996, 63-64, Abb. 3. 271 Pavišic 1992, t. 6: 1. 272 Velušček 2002, t. 22: 8. 273 This variant also includes objects G1242, G1289 and G1291 (Črešnar 2011). 274 Vinski Gasparini 1973, t. 7: 2,6, 8: 1, 11: 1-3,5,11, 14: 1, 23: 6; Oman 1981, t. 3: 11, 9: 5, 29: 17; Pahič 1981, 118; Dular et al. 2002, fig. 10: R3. 275 This variant also includes objects G14, G16, G34, G219, G312, G709, G820 and G1036 (Črešnar 2011). 276 Dular et al. 2002, fig. 10: R3, D4; Oman 1981, t. 6: 12, 29: 5, 57: 12,15. Lugs with rounded cross-sections and a gouge in the middle are also peculiar (Dr2c - fig. 22: G51).277 These are extremely interesting because of their long-term use. They appear in the Early Bronze Age and Early Iron Age periods at Slivnica and Pivola in the immeadiate vicinity of Rogoza. The means of production permit the identification of the Early Bronze Age examples, but the lack of difference in production technology among later specimens means that the Late Urnfield period and the Early Iron Age materials are often similar.278 Lugs formed from two or three horn-like projections also occur (Dr3a, b - pl. 7: 9; 12: 7; fig. 22: G150,G1079).279 The former have parallels in the cemeteries at Dobova, Ruše, Zgornja Hajdina and Ljubljana - Dvorišče SAZU (the SAZU courtyard in Ljubljana).280 Both variants also have parallels among spatially and chronologically precisely indefinable material from Poštela and on a pot from grave 6 in the Lepa ravna cemetery.281 Bases (D) - fig. 23 Let us emphasize only those forms of bases that are connected to certain forms of vessels or are chronologically important because of other features. 277 This variant also includes objects G248, G883, G970 and G1209 (Črešnar 2011). 278 Teržan 1990, t. 34: 12; Lamut 2000, t. 230: 6, 235: 9. 279 This variant also includes objects G842, G946, G1086 and G1116 (Črešnar 2011). 280 Puš 1971, t. 51: 1; 1982, t. 57: 7, 59: 1; Stare, F. 1975, t. 36: 7, 44: 1,13, 46: 1, 53: 2; Kaerner 1989, t. 11: 4, 92: 4. 281 Teržan 1990, t. 31: 21-23, 34: 9-13, 57: 5. D1 G302 D2 i G1179 D3 t. 1T:S D4 GfiSS D5 Q2S7 /.7;8 Pi ( /> V Fig. 23: Typological table of fragmented bases (D), a selection. Scale = 1:5. Sl. 23: Dna. Tipološka delitev odlomkov (D), izbor. M. = 1:5. Smaller concave bases with rounded transition to bevelled, rounded bodies are sometimes internally thickened or narrowed (D1 - e.g. fig. 23: G3 0 2).282 Fragments of this type show parallels as early as among vessels dated to Ha A, as are, for example, the Skd4a and Skd4d cups. Their quantity increases among the material from cemeteries of the Ha B Ruše Urnfield group, where they occur on dishes, cups and small amphorae. Moreover, they are completely absent from the settlement at Brinjeva gora, which could perhaps be linked to the state of the publishing of the excavated material.283 Among bases with rounded, rarely sharp transition to bodies (D2) let us emphasise a fragment that includes a tongue-shaped lug (fig. 23: G1179). Analogies are known among broadly dated finds from Poštela and from the settlement on the Kapfsteiner Kogel in the south-eastern part of Austrian Styria, where it is dated to the Ha B/ Ha C transition.284 Bases with saddle-shaped transitions to bodies (D3) that may be decorated with a horizontal line of fingertip impressions (pl. 17: 8)285 are known from Oloris and Rabelčja vas. No other comparisons have been found and we can therefore date 282 This variant also includes objects G854, G889, G1148 (Crešnar 2011). 283 E.g. Müller-Karpe 1959, T. 108: A,P1, 109: A4,F1; Pahič 1972, t. 8: 2, 12: 6; 25: 2,4,8. 284 Pahič 1985, t. 6: 11; Teržan 1990, t. 34: 17-21; Penz 2001, T. 7: 13. 285 This variant also includes objects G184, G334, G460, G509 and G1000 (Crešnar 2011). them to the late Middle Bronze Age and Initial Urnfield period.286 Bases with conically or roundly expanded base surface (D 4 - e.g. fig. 23: G665)287 are here never present on better-preserved vessels. Parallels occur at Oloris and at Rabelčja vas in large quantities. They are not so common in later periods, but pots from the Pobrežje cemetery prove the longevity of this type.288 Ring feet or low-footed bases were also discovered (D5). Some of them have many comparisons (pl. 7: 8; fig. 23: G2 9 7).289 They occur at Siman near Gotovlje, Oloris and Rabelčja vas. Other, geographically closer and chronologically later sites did not yield any comparisons.290 Sites of the Virovitica group in north-eastern Croatia are particularly helpful in establishing accurate dating. This type of base could belong to characteristic footed cups, the latest of which occur at the finishing stages of the mentioned group, at the time of enforcement of the "Baierdorf" elements in the Br D/Ha A1 transition.291 Decorated fragments of pottery We have already discussed the technological side of decoration as well as decoration that is present on typologically determinable types of vessels, which are therefore chronologically determinable. Here, we will introduce undeterminable decorated fragments and present their comparisons.292 Despite its rare occurrence, incised decoration has a broad motif span from the simplest, with one horizontal line, to more complicated, where incisions are sometimes accompanied by prints of dots, made with unidentified tools, and the so-called wheel-stamped impressions. Such and 286 Strmčnik Gulič 1988-1989, e.g. t. 3: 19; Dular et al. 2002, t. 20: 8-10, 54: 1-3. 287 This variant also includes objects G19, G100, G192, G262, G658, G666, G853, G914, G997, G1318 and G1327 (Crešnar 2011). 288 Pahič 1972, t. 24: 10, 26: 11, 35: 4; Dular et al. 2002, t. 38: 2, 44: 1-3, 54: 1-2, fig. 16: 11, 18: 4. 289 This variant also includes objects G106, G177, G415, G867 and G1124 (Crešnar 2011). 290 Strmčnik Gulič 1988-1989, t. 6: 28; Dular et al. 2002, t. 8: 6-7, 9: 8, 20: 11,13; 27: 13-15, 31: 8, 19; Tomažič 2000, pril. 6: dna I, II, III. 291 Vinski Gasparini 1973, t. 8: 5, 9: 6; Pavišič 1992, t. 5: 7. 292 In our opinion, division of ornaments into narrow variants would not bring any results here due to fragmen- tation of the material. similar assemblies, many of them being unique, are characteristic for cemeteries of the Ruše Urn-field group, which doubtlessly proves they were flourishing in the Late Urnfield period.293 The beginnings of their more numerous occurrence can be traced to the Early/Late Urnfield period transition, as seen in the finds from a pottery hoard at Oberravelsbach in Lower Austria.294 ^e technology of wheel-stamped impressions was used for making two similar motifs (fig. 4: 79,80). The first, most probably with a zigzag line below horizontal lines, has parallels over the entire Ha B period. It was found in grave 35 from Pobrežje, which is dated to the Ha B1 on the basis of a spectacle fibula with a coiled figure-eight loop, in grave 78 in the Ruše I cemetery, where a bracelet, decorated with bunches of alternating oblique lines, dates it to Ha B2, in grave 6 from Ormož, where a biconi-cal pot with such decoration is accompanied by a double-handled jug, dated to the end of the Urnfield period.295 ^e second motif with bands of swagging below horizontal lines shows - apart from loosely dated analogies from the Pobrežje settlement and the Mladinska ulica cemetery at Maribor - parallels in phase II at Ormož, i.e. the Ha B/Ha C transition and in the broadly contemporary grave 5 at Lepa ravna below Poštela.296 The majority of decorations with impressed dots or tiny circles were made with a selection of accessories that did not produce accurate shapes. They were used over the entire Late Urnfield period. Here, we have to emphasise larger accurate shapes of filled and empty tiny circles, which are rarer and were perhaps made with special tools or stamps. Analogies for the former (pl. 9: 14) can be seen in the Ha B layers of Brinjeva gora and in grave 31 from Pobrežje, which definately dates to the later Ha B2 period of the cemetery. The latter form of decoration (pl. 17: 11) forms parts of motifs at cemeteries at Hajdina, Maribor and Ruše, in the latest Ha B phase of Brinjeva gora and in the early Ha B at Ormož. Both ornaments occur at Poštela, where firedogs also carry such decoration.297 293 We should mention Müller-Karpe 1959, T. 116: 41, 117: 38; Pahič 1972, t. 6: 1; Kaerner 1989, T. 2: 2, 19: 3, 42: 3 as the most similar specimens. 294 E.g. Pahič 1957; 1972; 1981, t. pril. 3; Oman 1981; Lochner 1986b, T. 1: 1-4, 2: 2,8; Črešnar 2006, 132-142. 295 Pahič 1972, t. 8: 5; Tomanič-Jevremov 1988-1989, t. 12: 3. 296 Kaerner 1989, T. 62: 4; Teržan 1990, t. 56: 6; Lamut 2001, t. 21: 6; Velušček 2002, t. 2: 5, 41: 3. 297 Kaerner 1989, T. 14: 4, 52: 3, 87: 2; Lamut 2001, t. 3: 3; Oman 1981, t. 27: 13, 49: 25; Teržan 1990, t. 6: 21, 7: 1-4, 7, 12: 4. Rounded and conical extrusions (fig. 4: 45-47) individually appear at Rogoza. Parallels are known from Oloris, dated to the late Middle Bronze Age and the Initial Urnfield period, from several layers at Brinjeva gora, from the settlement at Orehova vas and from the settlements and cemetery at Pobrežje.298 Sets of extrusions appear in the final stages of the Urnfield period, but they do not replace individual extrusions. Both types of decoration occur simultaneously at Poštela.299 It appears that angular or pyramidal extrusions are somewhat later; the earliest comparison appears in the highest layer of Brinjeva gora, where sets of extrusions are also present. They occur in much greater quantities in the Early Iron Age contexts at Poštela.300 Some of the extrusions were dated to the Early Iron Age based on the technology of making and typological connections. However, a fragment in pl. 14: 6, with an extrusion, surrounded by wide channelled decoration, carries a different date. It does not have any parallels among the Middle Bronze Ages finds, when extrusions that are more convex are common. Comparison with Brinjeva gora is more probable, where a slightly convex extrusion encircled with a wide channel is present in the earliest Ha A phase and forms of extrusions alter during the Late Urnfield layers.301 A site at Podoli near Brno offers even better comparisons that are dated to the Late Urnfield period.302 Horizontal smooth applied cordons (fig. 4: 51) that rarely occur at Rogoza have parallels in contexts throughout the Urnfield period and remain in use during the Early Iron Age.303 Curved lines are somewhat different (fig. 4: 52) as they occur only in the second horizon of the settlement at Ormož, which is dated to the Urnfield period/Early Iron Age transition, and among the material with no reliable context from the Ljubljana cemetery.304 In conclusion, mention must be made of a fragment fig. 4: 54 that differs from others in decoration as well as in production technology. 298 Pahič 1972, t. 9: 9, 14: 7; Oman 1981, t. 9: 13, 43: 19, 49: 16; Dular et al. 2002, fig. 11: 10; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2006, t. 6: 1; 2007, t. 17: 12. 299 Lamut 1988-1989, t. 18: 15; Lubšina Tušek 1989, t. 12: 1; Teržan 1990, t. 4: 6, 6: 8. 3"" Oman 1981, t. 43: 17,19; Teržan 1990, t. 8: 22, 15: 29. 301 Oman 1981, t. 3: 3, 25: 16, 27: 5; 35: 20. 302 Rihovsky 1982a, e.g. T. 22: 4,22. 303 Pahič 1972, t. 12: 8; Teržan 1990, t. 31: 26; Dular et al. 2002, t. 46: 19-22; Velušček 2002, t. 2: 4. 304 Puš 1982, t. 57: 3; Lamut 1988-1989, t. 17: 9. The latter is similar to some fragments from the stratigraphical unit (SE) 008, but the style of decoration does not have regional comparisons. Some probable hints on its date can be found at Mistelbach (Niederoesterreich / Lower Austria), where a similarly decorated jug was discovered and provided an analogy for another decorated fragment.305 According to the latter, we could date it to the Mistelbach-Regelsbrunn horizon of the Middle Bronze Age in the Eastern Alpine area, that is the Br B1 period.306 Fig. 24: Technique and the result of tablet-weaving (according to Kurzinsky 1996, Abb. 13, 14). Sl. 24: Tehnika in rezultat ploščičnega tkanja (po Kurzinsky 1996, sl. 13, 14). Other pottery objects and their use Functional objects were placed into this group. We categorised pyramidal loomweights (e.g. pl. 13: 2-6), spindle whorls (e.g. pl. 14: 16) and clay rings (e.g. pl. 13: 1), which were further divided into types and variants according to size and morphological features. An exceptionally rare find and consequently one that is not consequently precisely defined is a so-called weaving tablet, a triangular tablet with slightly curved sides and with rounded, perforated corners (pl. 18: 14). These objects do not (yet) allow for more accurate typologically-chronological divisions. It is therefore most appropriate to compare the entire suite of these artefacts to an analogous set, discovered at Brinjeva gora. Despite the large number of differently formed objects, comparisons can be found for almost all of them.307 A probable weaving tablet deserves special attention.308 A similar object, in a poor state of preservation, was found at Hajndl near Ormož.309 It is probably a tablet that was used in the so-called tablet weaving (Brettchenweberei), where the weaver only needed a limited number of tablets and threads, depending on the desired width of the fabric (fig. 24). This weaving technique was perhaps already known during the Urnfield period in Europe, which - apart from Rogoza - is also confirmed by a find from the Ptuj Castle hill. The technique was widely used during the Early 305 That is the object G1110 (Crešnar 2011). 306 Benkovsky-Pivovarova 1976, t. 3: 5; Neugebauer 1994, 145-152, t. 79: 5; 80: 16. 307 Oman 1981, t. 30: 5-12,14, 31: 1-7, 32: 16-17, 42: 16-18, 53: 11,15-17, 54: 8-11; Pahič 1985, t. 11: 17. 308 Some doubt accompanies the interpretation as Slovenian ethnology does not know of examples made of burned clay, only wood. 309 Magdič 2006, t. 41: 13. Iron Age, as is also confirmed by Poštela.310 This weaving technique is a simple alternative to vertical looms, borne out by the presence of pyramidal weights, but it is only suitable for the weaving of narrower products. METAL FINDS The settlement did not yield many bronze finds; fragments of three pins, a fibula, fragments of two circlets/bracelets and one fragmented perforated tablet were found. Moreover, a copper plano-convex ingot and four amorphous lumps of copper were discovered, which are, along with four fragments of slag, important for identification of metallurgical activities in the settlement. ICP-AES analysis of their chemical composition that was performed on five of the listed objects (fig. 25) and is incorporated into their study, is also significant.311 Bronze finds A cigar-headed pin (pl. 9: 20) with incised decoration in the form of false twisting is best preserved among the bronze objects. It was found in a posthole (SE 226), which also contained six fragments of prehistoric pottery. 3'" Korošec, J. 1951, 328; Račič 1951, 147-148, sl. 10; Teržan 1990, t. 24: 1; Barber 1990, 118-122; Kurzynski 1996, 15-16. 311 Analyses were made in 2008 in the Analytical laboratory at the Institute of metals and technology (Analizni laboratorij na Inštitutu za kovinske materiale in tehnologijo) in Ljubljana under supervision of A. Kocijan, in the framework of the research programme of the National Museum of Slovenia, led by N. Trampuž Orel, whom I also thank for helping with the interpretation of the results. PI. nr./ t št. Object/ predmet Element (wt%) Cu Sn Pb As Ni Sb Co Bi Ag Fe Mn Zn Sum/ vsota As+Ni+ Sb+Co 18:13 axe / sekira (?) 90.66 0.00 0.03 2.24 0.21 6.67 0.00 0.02 0.18 0.01 0.00 0.00 100.02 9.15 15:9 drop with siag / Icapljicazžiinciro 95.07 0.27 0.04 2.74 0.09 0.18 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.00 0.00 98.57 3.12 6:5 pianoconvex ingot / pogača 96.18 0.03 0.01 0.82 1.11 0.59 0.04 0.00 0.08 0.42 0.00 0.01 99.29 2.56 9:10 ciroiet/obroeei< 80.90 16.50 0.15 0.51 0.31 0.41 0.03 0.01 0.38 0.18 0.00 0.02 99.40 1.41 14:2 drop (bigger)/ l(apijica (večja) 90.66 0.30 0.13 0.93 1.24 4.25 0.05 0.04 0.60 0.02 0.00 0.00 98.22 6.60 Fig. 25: Rogoza. Results of the ICP-AES analysis of the metal objects. Sl. 25: Rezultati analize ICP-AES na kovinskih najdbah iz Rogoze. A similar dresspin, decorated with alternating false twisting, comes from grave 30 at Brinjeva gora V. Pahič dated this grave to the early phase of the cemetery, to the HA A2/Ha B1 transition, based on a wide spectrum of finds, i.e. a vase-headed pin, a Marco type fibula according to Carancini, a double-edged razor and a spectacle fibula with a figure-eight loop.312 An almost identical pin originates from a hoard that is dated to Ha B1 from Pffefingen in south-western Germany. An even closer analogy was found in grave 164 at Do-bova, dated to the second period of the cemetery according to Dular, i.e. to the Early/Late Urnfield period transition. Another pin of the same type was discovered at this cemetery, however, it carries different decoration.313 A similar form and decoration is also present on a pin from a site at Marefy in Moravia, which is decorated with false twisting, interrupted with two bands of so-called spruce twigs.314 Furthermore, such pins are known from the settlement at Velemszentvid in western Hungary and a hoard from the same site. Exact dating of the hoard is not determined as it shows a long time span; the latest finds date to the beginning of the Late Urnfield period. An examination of the area to the north-east of the studied site shows one example at Graz, further examples in Moravia and one example in Slovakia.315 312 Carancini 1975, 37; Pahič, V. 1988-1989, 184-186, t. 1: 1-4, 6-7; Crešnar 2006, 142-143, sl. 34. 313 Müller-Karpe 1959, 176-178, T. 164: 1; Stare, F. 1975, t. 9: 1, 23: 6. Dular (1978, t. 1) ascribed the pin to pins with the onion head and a broadened neck. No reasons for this interpretation were given. 314 Rihovsky 1979, T. 47: 1153. 315 Rihovsky 1979, 95-100, 150-152, T. 27: 492, 47: 1153-1156. At Velemszentvid Rihovsky (1983, 35) only two pins were ascribed to this type (nr. 346, 347), but there The studied dresspin type is categorised as a variant of club-headed pins according to Rihovsky, which also includes pins with wide brimmed heads and conical-headed pins. While the later date to the Baierdorf-Velatice phase, with sporadic later specimens, cigar-headed pins are later, dated to the Domamyslice phase in Moravia, which corresponds with the Late Urnfield period. One definite example of a cigar-headed pin was discovered in a settlement at Lovčičky in Moravia. It has identical decoration to that on the example from Rogoza. It was identified by Rihovsky as a stipe-headed pin (Kolbenkopfnadel); another analogous pin from the same site was published later. Both are attributed to settlement contexts, which are dated to the Early Urnfield period.316 Vasic studied similar dresspins, found over a wider area of the central Balkans, together with typical club-headed pins, and dated them mostly to the Early Urnfield period, with a later example from Doroslova in north-western Vojvodina.317 The studied pins occur in the Early and Late Urnfield periods; the best comparisons are early. It is interesting that Slovene examples, which were documented in graves, originate from the earliest phases of the relevant cemeteries, from the Ha A/ could be several more (e.g. 285, 302, 308, 338, 340, 341). Novotna (1980, 144ss) published only one such pin, but she ascribed it to the ones with twisted necks. Furthermore, the ornament is incised and the lines are horizontal (nr. 963 - Vel'ky Grob). 3'« Rihovsky 1979, 151-155; 1982b, Abb. 4: 6; 1983, 36,44, T. 36: 4; Novotna 1980, 144ss. 317 Vasič (2003, 82ff) did not differ these pins from the others of the club-headed type, but there are some which could probably be excluded (nr. 536 - Adaševci, 545,548 - both Batajnica, 558 - Dobanovci, 561,562 - Doroslovo, 586 - Jagodina, 589 - Klenje, 596 - Male Livadice). Ha B transition and are not present in later periods. Based on the above, this type of dresspin probably dates to the Early Urnfield period, even though it is possible that some examples are later. In addition, two damaged pin heads are preserved. The first pin, found in the alluvium layer SE 006, could be a pin with a typical biconical head or, less probably, a pin with a rounded biconical head, which is decorated with open upright concentric triangles (pl. 15: 14). Its form is similar to the former type, as the concave lower part is not present anymore at the latter. However, the decoration is analogous to the second type, which is often decorated in a similar way. By contrast, this ornament does not occur on the first type, where decoration is mostly restricted to horizontal lines. Dating of pins with typical biconical heads, as defined for a wide area of the Eastern Alps by Rihovsky, has not yet been precisely determined as this type occurs during the entire Urnfield period, while the ones with rounded biconical heads mainly occur in Ha B.318 The closest good comparisons to pins with biconi-cal heads originate from northern Croatia, where they are characteristic for the first horizon of the Urnfield period after Vinski-Gasparini. A find from Laslov at Osijek dates to this period, while the head of a pin from a hoard found at Brodski Varoš near Slavonski Brod originates from the second horizon. They thus date to the Initial and Early Urnfield periods.319 The second pin head, found in the top fill of a palaeochannel beside the settlement, is badly damaged, but most probably belongs to a type of onion-headed pins (pl. 17: 16). According to Rihovsky, several variants of onion-headed pins, with no chronological classification, occur in the eastern Alpine area. They are largely dated to the Late Urnfield period and are distributed from eastern France to western Hungary.320 It is necessary to mention a nearby comparison of an early example of a pin with twisted neck found in grave 2 in the SAZU courtyard cemetery in Ljubljana. This dates to phase Ia of this cemetery. These pins, as already shown by Teržan, can furthermore be paralleled with finds from the island of Krk, where they occur together with large bow fibulae with two knobs, and consequently with the Fig. 26: Rogoza. Ring with the marked spot of the cut edge. Sl. 26: Rogoza. Obroček z označenim mestom razkosavanja. Adriatic-Mediterranean world of the late 11th and 10th century BC.321 It is also possible that this is a pin with a thickened neck. An early example of them comes from the Peklenica hoard, dating to the first phase of the Urnfield period in northern Croatia. Another example originates from a cemetery at Zagreb-Horvati, which dates to the third phase according to the same chronology. The studied type of dresspin is a characteristic element of this phase.322 A pin from grave 334a at Dobova, dated to the second phase of the site, is contemporary to the latter.323 In addition, Rihovsky came to a similar conclusion in observing the entire eastern Alpine world, as the studied pins most often occur from the Br C/ Br D transition to the Ha A period.324 Two fragments of smooth bronze bracelets or rings (pls. 9: 10; 18: 12)325 with oval cross-sections can be conditionally ascribed to ring jewellery. However, analysis of the metal indicates that one of them probably had a greater function as being used solely as body decoration (fig. 26). Analogous bracelets occur in graves of the Ruše Urnfield group, but the lenticular cross-section is much more frequent than the oval. The former can be recognised at unadorned bracelets, while bracelets that are mostly decorated with a motif of alternating bunches of incisions, and dated to Ha B2 according to Müller-Karpe, mostly have a circular cross-section, especially on the Ruše I 318 Rihovsky 1979, 120-121, T. 34-36; 1983, 22, T. 7-8. 319 Vinski Gasparini 1973, sl. 1: 10, t. 52: 35. 320 Rihovsky 1979, 182-188, T. 56. 321 Stare, F. 1954, t. 6: 1-9; 1975, t. 6: 1-3; Batovič 1983, t. 45: 5-7; Teržan 1995, 353-361. 322 Vinski Gasparini 1973, t. 20: 5, 93: 14,16. 323 Stare, F. 1975, t. 48: 12. 324 Rihovsky 1979, 74-95. Best comparisons can be seen at the types Deinsdorf (e.g. 398, 404, 407) and Graz (e.g. 459). 325 One comes from a sealed context (t. 9: 10), whereas the other comes from the arable land (t. 18: 12). urnfield and less at Pobrežje.326 Identical cross-sections can be seen on a fragment with no recorded findspot and a neck-ring from grave 26 of the Ruše I urnfield, which has a tiny diameter -and we can therefore presume that this is a child grave - and a bracelet with open ends from an unknown grave at Pobrežje.327 Another bracelet with similar cross-section originates from a hoard found at Kamena Gorica near Varaždin that is dated to the final stages of the Urnfield period in Northern Croatia.328 Additional and probably key data on one of the fragments (pl. 9: 10) were obtained by the ICP-AES analysis that revealed the chemical composition of the object. The high tin content (16.5%) stands out and indicates that this is a ring, used for making bronze out of copper. An additional clue, benefiting this hypothesis, is the detection that one side of the ring is completely flat, which indicates that it was cut (fig. 26). At least two hypotheses exist on how tin was added to relatively accessible copper in the process of the production of bronzes. The first hypothesis assumes that metal tin was added in the form of ingots, which were mainly discovered in Southwestern England and the Western Mediterranean, and the second one suggests that bronze objects with increased content of tin were added to copper. This possibility could apply to larger parts of central Europe and Slovenia, as no tin ingots have been found and low amounts of tin are usually present in objects (5.68%). The part of tin in these objects should exceed 10%. Several examples of such exceptional objects were found in Slovenia. They are not present among Br D material, but they do occur in hoards, dating to the Ha A (Debeli vrh, Hercegovščak, Hočko Pohorje and Pekel) and Ha B periods (Kanalski vrh), where they occur either as phalerae or as circlets or pendants.329 The best typological parallels for the Rogoza ring are an example from Hercegovščak, which contains 90% of tin, and rings/bracelets from Kanalski Vrh with some 70% of them containing over 10% of tin. Impurities are also important for dating. In the Rogoza ring, the total value of arsenic (As), nickel (NI), antimony (Sb) and cobalt (Co) is not more than 2%, with a relationship As>Sb>Ni. Analogous features are also characteristic for one of the Rogoza copper "droplets" (pl. 15: 9), which shows, due to the larger amount of arsenic, a higher total sum of impurities. According to previous analyses, such copper characteristics in Slovenia can mostly be connected to metallurgy in Ha A period, even though such metal remained in use until the early Ha B.330 Copper finds A completely extant copper plano-convex ingot (pl. 6: 5; fig. 27), discovered in a pit (SE 370) next to the palaeochannel together with a larger pot with a conical neck, is the most outstanding metal find. Its form and size could categorise it as an Uzsa-banya I type, as determined by Czajlik in western Hungary. This type is dated to the beginning of the Late Urnfield period, even though earlier examples are known.331 The best Slovene parallels can be found in the Dragomelj I settlement hoard, which contained 38 more or less completely preserved plano-convex ingots. Their sizes and forms strongly differentiate from one another. The size and weight of the studied ingot are analogous to the largest Dragomelj examples; in contrast, its high bell-formed cross-section is characteristic only for medium-sized Dragomelj ingots. The hoard contained an even larger amount of biconical ingots, which are also known from Kanalski Vrh and are characteristic for the area from central and northern Italy to central Slovenia during the Ha A2/Ha B1.332 The chemical composition of the Rogoza ingot gives much information (fig. 25). Considering the low content of tin (0.02-0.03%), this is a metallic copper that was created while smelting copper 326 Müller-Karpe 1959, 124, T. 108-115; Pahič 1972. 327 Müller-Karpe 1959, T. 109: A3; Kaerner 1989, T. 125: 10; Pahič 1972, t. 38: 11. 328 Vinski Gasparini 1973, t. 126: 9. 329 Trampuž Orel et al. 1996, 187. 330 Trampuž Orel, Drglin 2005, 47-49. The comparison with the Ha B hoards is slightly problematic because the majority of the analysed finds originate from the hoards of Veliki Otok, Kanalski vrh I and II. Moreover, there is only one hoard, which could be partly ascribed to this period in eastern Slovenia, but is not yet included in the overall statistics (Jereb 2009; Trampuž Orel, Urankar 2009). 331 Czajlik 1996. With its diameter of 19.6cm it falls on the verge between the medium sized (15-20cm; type Uzsabanya I) and large (20-30 cm; type Üjfalu) planoconvex ingots. 332 Trampuž Orel, Heath 2001, 158-159; Turk 1997; Turk 2000, 14-38, 141-151. Fig. 27: Rogoza. Plano-convex ingot. Sl. 27: Rogoza. Planokonveksna pogača. ore in a kiln, and it carries the shape of a pit into which the metal ran. Thicker ingots, like the one from Rogoza, could only be created with the developed type of kiln that included a grid for suppressing slag.333 The sum value of relevant impurities (2.5%) is on average somewhat higher than the most frequent value in ingots in Ha A hoards (0.5-1.0%), which, according to comparisons, allows us to place them among Ha A as well as Ha B objects.334 Its exact determination remians unknown even on observation of relationship of the impurities, Ni>As>Sb (3rd composition group), which is very rare in Slovenia during both mentioned periods. Analyses from Switzerland determine objects with such composition as Middle Bronze Age and Initial and Early Urnfield period specimens (Br D, Ha A1), while they are very rare in the Late Urnfield period. Similar composition of copper with high values of nickel and lower values of arsenic and antimony could perhaps be seen at unpublished analyses of three part-finished products from the already mentioned Dragomelj hoard.335 These are a fragmented ingot and two plano-convex ingots that are, observing their form, very similar to 333 Czajlik 1996, 166. As mentioned by Turk (2000, 141-142) the ingots could also be obtained by recycling. 334 Trampuž Orel, Drglin 2005, 48, fig. 6. 335 These are objects PL 3, PL 9 and PN 28 according to Turk 2000, sl. 17:1, 5; 22: 25. the Rogoza ingot, but smaller and consequently lighter. The value of nickel is perceptibly higher than the value of other impurities in all three specimens. The similarity to the above-mentioned finds, with the help of extensive studies conducted by N. Trampuž Orel, enables us hypothetically to search for the source of ore in the wider area of Mitterberg. These are, namely, the closest sources of copper ore with dominant nickel to Slovenia, which have evidence of mining throughout the entire Bronze Age.336 The amount of lead (Pb) with 0.01% value indicates that it is natural to the metal.337 Amorphous pieces of copper (pls. 14: 1,2; 15: 9; 18: 13) from different stratigraphic units from the ploughsoil down to the lower archaeological layers. Two of them (pls. 14: 1; 15: 9) carry impressions and remains of the surface, on which they fell in liquid or melted condition. One even has some slag preserved on it. These objects can be determined as droplets of copper, which were lost during metallurgical processes. Interpretation 336 Trampuž et al. 1996, 202, fig. 11 (introduces also a database for Switzerland - according to Rychner, Klänt-schi 1995); Trampuž Orel, Heath 2001, 158,161, fig. 6a. I also thank N. Trampuž Orel from the National Museum of Slovenia for sharing the analyses results (PL 3 = As -0.41%, Ni - 3.49%, Sb - 0.21%; PL 9 = As 0.71, Ni - 1,96%, Sb - 0.12%; PN 28 = As - 0.89%, Ni 3.87%, Sb 0.28%). 337 Trampuž Orel et al. 1996, 192. of the last piece (pl. 18: 13), which is, with its c. 41g, quite heavy, is somewhat more complicated. Its form resembles a fragment of an axe blade or an ingot/fragment of an edge of a copper ingot that is "worn out" to an extent that sharp edges, which occur at cutting, are no longer visible.338 Three of the amorphous pieces were analysed. Their chemical compositions strongly differentiate (fig. 25).339 The above-mentioned droplet with slag attached to it (pl. 15: 9) contains a certain relationship between impurities that parallels it to Ha A copper. The other two finds are completely different. The somewhat larger droplet of copper (pl. 14: 2) shows a total of 6.5% of impurities with the relationship of significant elements being Sb>Ni>As. Meanwhile, the third object (pl. 18: 13), shows a total of 9.1% of impurities with the relationship being Sb>As>Ni. This is a so-called copper with antimony as the dominant element, which is characteristic for the Ha B, which is furthermore confirmed by the high value of impurities (fig. 25).340 The chemical analyses discussed above indicate that, although rare, these finds offer a varied picture of metallurgy at Rogoza. Tin (Sn) is present in only two of all analysed objects. Four objects are made of copper, containing up to 0.3% of tin, which is characteristic for ingots dating to the Ha A and Ha B,341 while the circlet is bronze, with 16.5% of tin. As mentioned above, this is probably a functional object, used in alloying copper to bronze. Lead (Pb) content amounts from 0.01% (copper ingot) to 0.13% or 0.15% (circlet and droplet with slag) are within the ranges which are normal to be naturally present in ore. The sum value of impurities of arsenic, nickel and antimony is from 1.41% to 9.15%, which indicates two groups, the first one between 1.41% and 3.12%, and the second one from 6.60% to 9.15%. Moreover, the first group with a value around 2% is mostly characteristic for objects from the Ha A, while higher values occur in the Ha B (fig. 28). □ HaA(n = 434) ■ HaB(n = 131) ■ Rogoza (n = 5) j-oiQiOLpooooooooooo As + Ni + Sb (%) Fig. 28: Frequency of the sums of impurities of arsenic (As), nickel (Ni), antimony (Sb) in the analysed objects from the hoards dated to Ha A and Ha B from Slovenia, and their comparison with those from Rogoza (according to Trampuž Orel, Urankar 2009, sl. 91, 93). Sl. 28: Pogostost seštevkov nečistoč arzena, niklja, antimona v analiziranih predmetih iz depojev obdobij Ha A in Ha B v Sloveniji. Primerjava z rezultati analiz predmetov iz Rogoze (prirejeno po Trampuž Orel, Urankar 2009, sl. 1, 3). □ Ha A (n = 575) □ HaB(n = 336) ■ Pod Kotom ({ug) (n = ■ Rogoza (n = 5) group 1 group 2 group 3 group 4 group 5 group 6 skupina 1 siSb>Ni, (As>Ni>Sb, (Ni>As>Sb) (Ni>Sb>As, (Sb>Ni>As) (Sb>As>Ni, As>Sb=Ni, As=Ni>Sb) Ni=Sb>As, Sb>As=Ni) As=Sb>Ni) Ni>Sb=As) Fig. 29: Frequency of composition groups of impurities of arsenic (As), nickel (Ni), antimony (Sb) in the analysed objects from the hoards dated to Ha A and Ha B from Slovenia, and their comparison with those from Rogoza (according to Trampuž Orel, Urankar 2009, sl. 92). Sl. 29: Pogostost kompozicijskih skupin nečistoč arzena, antimona in niklja v predmetih iz depojev obdobij Ha A in Ha B v Sloveniji. Primerjava z rezultati analiz predmetov z najdišč Pod Kotom - jug in Rogoze (prirejeno po Trampuž Orel, Urankar 2009, sl. 2). 338 A similar observation is reported by P. Turk (2000, 20-21) in the connection with some objects from the upper layers of the hoard Dragomelj I. 339 The object t. 14: 1 was not suitable for analysis due to its fragility. 340 Trampuž Orel, Drglin 2005, 47-49. 341 Trampuž Orel et al. 1996, 183. On consideration of the relationships between the impurities studied, the artefacts can be categorised into four different composition groups (fig. 29). Group 1 comprises a type of copper with dominant arsenic, characteristic for objects dating to the Ha A in Slovenia and the Eastern Alps. It is connected with a sulphide ore, i.e. chalcopyrite, but the content of iron in the droplets is so low that it cannot be derived from the primary process of metal extraction from ore. In such cases the iron content is much higher, and a similarly low content could only be achieved in the next stages of the metallurgical process.342 In addition, the already mentioned group 3 with dominant nickel is documented, as well as groups 5 and 6 with dominant antimony. The latter two, in Slovenia and wider Eastern Alpine area, were used mainly in the Ha B1, when the Fahlerz type ore and other complex ores were once again used for copper production.343 Fig. 30: Rogoza. Fragments of slag found in the ploughsoil. Sl. 30: Rogoza. Koščka žlindre, odkrita v orni plasti. In addition, four pieces of slag were discovered at the site (fig. 30). These - together with the already mentioned semi products, the ingot and the ring, and raw material in the form of copper droplets, which were accidentally lost - are unambiguous indicators that the inhabitants of the Rogoza settlement were engaged in metallurgical activities; however, the area of these activities has yet to be determined.344 All finds that were presumably accidentally lost/deposited in random places, i.e. amorphous pieces of copper and slag, were discovered outside of the central part of the settlement. All three pieces, discovered further south, along with a bronze pin-head (pl. 17: 16), were discovered in the palaeochannel, which means that this material was not found in its original position. In addition, the northernmost pieces of slag, discovered in the ploughsoil, are not of any significance in this context (fig. 30). However, two droplets of metal (pl. 14: 1,2), found in adjacent quadrants play an important role. These are still partly disturbed layers, but the number of later finds is small and the significance 342 Trampuž Orel et al. 1996; Klemenc et al. 1999, 146-148. 343 Trampuž Orel, Heath 2001, 160-161; Trampuž Orel, Drglin 2005, 49-50. 344 If only processes of alloying and moulding had been taking place in the settlement, there is little possibility to find and correctly interpret a hearth/kiln used for that purpose, since the process is not as demanding as the primary extraction of metal from the ore (Fasnacht, Trachsel 2001). But if the slag really derives from the primary process i.e. the extraction from the ore, as mentioned by E. Pernicka (Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und Archäologie des Mittelalters of the Eberhard Karl University in Tübingen),we could expect some more evidence. of copper finds is therefore larger. Towards the North and South, buildings 28, 30 and 31 were recognised, two of them containing nearby hearths. These buildings form, together with some others, the less densely occupied fringe of the settlement where the majority of hearths were discovered.345 More dangerous activities, connected with the intense use of fire, such as metallurgy, representing a potential danger, were perhaps accommodated outside the central living areas of the settlement, in a possible "crafts" area.346 Findspots of a copper ingot and a bronze ring, discovered in pits, are important as well. They were accompanied by pottery and charred cereal grains, with determinable horsebean (Vicia faba var. minor) and perhaps barley (Hordeum). If, to conclude, we chronologically determine the entire corpus of metal finds, we find that both types of researches are bringing rather similar results that can easily be connected with results of the typologically-chronological analysis of the pottery. Typological analysis places the metal artefacts to the Early and beginning of the Late Urnfield period, whilst chemical analysis provides comparable dates. Namely, a comparison with the majority of artefacts with statistical data from 345 The site revealed eight hearths, all of which but one (no. 2) were located outside the centre of the settlement, but since a lot of the original surface has been destroyed, information is probably fragmentary. 346 The Slovenian missionary I. Knoblehar who was living in Sudan at the middle of the 19th century revealed many details about the metallurgy of the Nilotic peoples in his records. Metallurgists (i.e. ironworkers) were of the wealthiest social strata, but had to live outside the village and were disrespected as they did not possess cattle (Frelih 2005, 48,56). analyses of a variety of examples discovered in Slovenia can easily be linked to artefacts dating to Ha A, but with only two artefacts that most probably belong to the Ha B. LITHIC MATERIAL Only 43 stone artefacts were discovered, which is a small number considering the size of the settlement and durability of the material. Despite the limited size of the assemblage, a relatively large range of types is present.347 Querns were the most numerous (21 pieces or 48%), followed by a perceptibly smaller number of fine pounders (4 pieces or 9%) and tools on blades (4 pieces or 9%), while other types of artefacts are represented by two example (crushers, smoothers, whetstones, flakes, axes, coarse pounders) or one of each (shafthole blank, waste flake). It is impossible to date individual tools precisely as many of them occur in the period from the Neolithic to the Urnfield period or Early Iron Age. Despite this, we will make an attempt to introduce nearby comparisons and comparisons that could be broadly contemporaneous. The value of stone finds increases with observation of the technology of their making and their usability. Two types of axes occur. A polished flat high trapezoidal axe, which is strongly narrowed towards the cutting part/blade, represents the first type (pl. 5: 3; fig. 31: 1). It is made of serpentine and its form is, similar to many other polished tools, characteristic for a longer period of prehistory. Similar and perhaps contemporary artefacts were found in settlements at Pobrežje, Zavrč and at Ormož.348 There is even more evidence to confirm their use as late as the Early Iron Age. They are, for example, present in some Hallstatt period graves.349 A shafthole axe (pl. 15: 10; fig. 31: 2) has a high rounded-rectangular cross-section and is strongly narrowed towards the blade. It is partly broken off at the poll, just behind the shafthole. This artefact is also made of serpentine, with its form being the 347 It has to be emphasized here that all the stone material is likely to be of a local provenience (Crešnar 2011). 348 Velušček 2002, 42: 4; Lamut 2007, 25-27, sl. 2: 6. For this information, my acknowledgements go to M. Lubšina-Tušek and A. Magdič. 349 Teržan 1990, t. 60: 15; Stare, V. 1973, t. 49: 10; Tecco Hvala et al. 2004, t. 31: A1, A2. Fig. 31: Rogoza. Typology of stone tools. Scale = 1:5. Sl. 31: Rogoza. Tipologija kamnitega orodja. M. = 1:5. most widespread type of stone axes in north-eastern Slovenia, i.e. smaller perforated shafthole axes that most commonly occur during the late Neolithic and Eneolithic. The closest parallels can be found in stray finds of axes from Razvanje, Maribor and Zimica near Duplek.350 An interesting find of great expressional importance, that cannot be ascribed to tools, but is connected with their manufacture, is a slightly conical serpentine shafthole blank (fig. 31: 3). Its surface is covered with circular cuts that occurred on perforation by a stone tool, which is a direct evidence and mirrors technological processes that were used in the manufacturing of such tools. They used the drilling technique to make an eye for mounting of the haft. This was done with a hollow wooden or tubular bone drill, used together with quartz sand and water; this technique was experimentally tested.351 Its dimensions (H.: 27mm, diam.: 11mm) indicate that it was created by the perforation of a smaller axe or a thinner mattock.352 Several related finds are known from the immediate environs. For example, a conical shafthole blank, dating to the Eneolithic was discovered at Spodnje Hoče. A somewhat larger example is known from the Late Urnfield period cemetery at Mladinska ulica in Maribor; a fragment of a shafthole blank from the Pobrežje settlement could also be contemporary.353 Examples from the Ormož settlement are dated to the Urnfield period and the Early Iron Age, which chronologically ends their occurrence.354 Pounders, crusher and smoothers (pl. 13: 9,10; fig. 31: 4-7) are stone tools made of different rocks (quartz sandstone, vein quartz, serpentine, tuff-pyroclastic rock) used for crushing, grinding or smoothing. They slightly differ from one another according to their form, type of wear and perhaps their usage. The clearest and strongest wear damage can be seen on wide coarse pounders made of river cobbles with one or two badly damaged faces (fig. 31: 4).355 They differ from flat fine pounders made on partly transformed oval river cobbles, with one or two sides only slightly damaged or worn (pl: 13: 9,10; fig. 31: 5).356 For the third type of tools, let us emphasise differently formed crushers with a similar fine wear. The first one is a wide square crusher on a rectangular stone with battered edges (fig. 31: 6) and the second is a small flattened round crusher showing worn bands along the largest diameter (fig. 31: 7). Stones with completely smooth working surfaces were categorised as smoothers. The base of the first is completely straight and smooth, while the upper side has remained in its unshaped natural form (pl. 5: 2; fig. 31: 8); the second exhibits three sides that are completely smooth and straight with a parallel longer side and the shorter side being vertical to them.357 Pounders, crushers and smoothers can be studied together or separately from querns, their usability is actually nearly unlimited. Unworked river cobbles were, according to signs of use on the extant transverse sides, used for breaking or crushing temper, which was added to the clay during pottery production, for roughing out of stone tools or even in metallurgical processes.358 Partly transformed flat river cobbles of oblong oval or circular-oval form are worn on one or both transverse sides. Their wear is more refined, which indicates that they were used in breaking or crushing of softer or more fragile material. We could presume that both groups of stone tools had some kind of handle, which is indicated by their form and places where the greatest damage was done; they were perhaps used as a type of axe or hammer, as known from some archaeological experiments.359 Similarly formed tools with similar signs of use were also discovered in nearby settlements at Orehova vas, Pobrežje, Ptujski grad, Rabelčja vas and at Ormož. They are present in the first and second phase of the latter settlement and are dated to the Late Urnfield period and the beginning of the Early Iron Age.360 A rectangular stone with rounded 350 Holsten, Martens 1991; Lubšina-Tušek 1993, 47; t. 16: 12, 23: 11, 24: 5,8; Greif 1997, 45-48; Zurbruchen 2002, Abb. 1, 2; Mele 2007, 17-18, sl. 6, G18. 351 Greif 1997, 45-48; Mele 2007. 352 The form of the increment indicates that it was drilled from one side, which resulted in a conical eye (Lubšina-Tušek 1993, 47). 353 Lubšina-Tušek 1993, t. 24: 15; 23: 6; Velušček 2002, t. 42: 5. 354 Lamut 2007, 29-30, sl. 1. 355 This variant also includes object G290 (Crešnar 2011). 356 This variant also includes objects G289, G1056 and G1057 (Crešnar 2011). 357 This is the object G823 (Crešnar 2011). 358 Rieser, Schrattenthaler 1998-1999, Abb. 14: 1. 359 Rieser, Schrattenthaler 1998-1999, 165, 173-175. 360 Lamut 1988-1989, t. 6: 9, G14: 12; Lubšina-Tušek 1993, t. 16: 15, G17: 14-16; Velušček 2002, t. 1: 4, 3: 4; Tomanič-Jevremov et al. 2006, nr. 57-62, Strmčnik-Gulič 2007, t. 21: 3-5. edges, five battered sides and very slight damage can be doubtlessly described as a crusher. This is probably a stone that was used for further crushing of materials with smaller granulation, perhaps even grain. In addition, a round stone, showing chafed bands along the largest diameter was used for the same purpose. Both were, contrary to all other stone tools, definitely used with one hand. The latter has an interesting analogy at a mining area at Gallzein in Tyrol, where it was used for the fine crushing of copper ore. The site is dated to the Late Bronze Age and additionally presents comparisons for fine pounders, which were also used in preparation of ore.361 As noted above the two stone tools, categorised as smoothers, have some surfaces completely smooth. Their use is perhaps connected to the final grinding of grain to make flour, for the tanning of skins etc. Querns are flat stones with different thickness and a varied geological composition (mostly gneiss, mica schist and granodiorite), transformed or worn at least on one side, which can be explained as a consequence of repeated usage (pls. 5: 4,5; 7: 12; 10: 2; 13: 7,8; fig. 31: 10).362 They are most often interpreted as artefacts, used for grinding grain into groats and flour. It is worth considering the fact that Rogoza and also Ormož yielded an appreciably larger number of querns than the number of fine polished stones, crushers or smoothers, that could also be used for the same purpose. Some pounders show considerable signs of wear and we therefore have to perhaps assume that they were used in other processes, such as crushing of stone that was perhaps added to pottery fabrics. They were also used as static grindstones; polished stone tools were made on them with the help of quartz sand and water.363 Their use in metallurgical processes has been completely overlooked so far. They could serve as simple anvils, on which redhot metal was treated with pounders; this process was still used among several Nilotic groups in the 19th century (fig. 32).364 361 Rieser, Schrattenthaler 1998-1999, 145-146, 170-173, Abb. 24: 5,7. 362 This type also includes objects G335, G365, G367, G363, G366, G368, G378, G409, G418, G419, G493, G669, G789, G797, G799, G965, G1056, G1094, G1213 (Crešnar 2011). 363 Eibner 1992, fig. 4-5; Korošec 1951, G158-160; Lamut 2007, 27-28; Murgelj 2008, 13-14. 364 The use documented in the 19th century should have its roots in the ancient Egyptian civilisation. In the process of production of a great variety of iron artefacts Fig. 32: Use of stone tools in the metallurgical process. The Nilotic people of Bari, South Sudan, around 1860 (Frelih 2005, sl. 3; drawing: W. Harnier). Sl. 32: Uporaba kamna v metalurškem procesu. Nilotsko ljudstvo Bari, južni Sudan, okoli leta 1860 (Frelih 2005, sl. 3; risba: W. Harnier). In addition, two whetstones were discovered among stone material (pl. 2: 9; fig. 31: 9).365 The material chosen to make the one presented here, i.e. fine-grained sandstone, already partly determines the purpose of these tools. Both discovered whetstones are oblong, have a square or rectangular cross-section and show signs of wear. Similar whetstones were discovered in settlements at Oloris near Dolnji Lakoš, Ormož, Rifnik and at Poštela, where perforated variants, perhaps more suitable for transport, are frequent. These became more significant in the Late Urnfield period and Early Iron Age, when they also occur as grave goods.366 Identical whetstones were still used as late as the Late La Tene period and they have actually been used to this day.367 Two flakes and three blades were also discovered; we will discuss only two of the latter here (fig. 33: 1-2).368 At least one longitudinal edge was retouched on both artefacts. It is also important that it is possible macroscopically to note that the working edges of both blades are polished. Comparisons of this type of surface change show no metal accessories were used, but a stone anvil, wooden tongs and a stone pounder (Frelih 2005, 48,55-56, sl. 3,5). 365 This type also includes object G314 (Crešnar 2011). 3«« Pahič 1972, t. 5: 9; Pirkmajer 1983, t. 1: 2, 7: 4-6; Lamut 1988-1989, t. 21: 7, 27: 5; 28: 5; Teržan 1990, t. 45: 5,6,7; Dular et al. 2002, t. 65: 14. 367 Jansova 1986, t. 3: 23, 84: 6; 1988, t. 148: 76, 186: 23. 368 This type also includes objects G42, G61, G218 and G271 (Crešnar 2011). Fig. 33: Rogoza. Blades with marked macroscopically visible polishing (1, 2; M. = 1:2) and a proposed use in a wooden shaft (3) from Fiave (Leonardi 2004, sl. 7: 2). Sl. 33: Rogoza. Klini z vrisanimi makroskopsko vidnimi zagladitvami (1, 2; M. = 1:2) in predlagan način uporabe v lesenem držaju (3) s kolišča Fiave (Leonardi 2004, sl. 7: 2). that blades were used for cutting cereal stalks or other fibres of vegetal origin.369 Polishing is only present on one edge of both blades, which indicates that these are probably part of composite sickles. Similar examples are known from several sites dating from the Neolithic onwards.370 A curved wooden handle was used as a base of such tool, which was longitudinally gouged in the area that was used as a cutting edge. Blades were then fitted into the gouges and sometimes additionally strengthened with resin (fig. 33: 3). The blades discussed here do not show abrasions on dorsal parts, which sometimes occur on tools that were fitted onto wooden parts, but as was proved by experiments, the tool does not show any abrasions when the fitting is done properly.371 Different tool use is not only indicated by wear on individual types, which served as a guideline for the categorisation of different pounders, crushers and smoothers, but also by damage. Two broken axes and one of two coarse pounders on the one hand and all the other fully extant fine pounders, crushers and smoothers on the other, show that they were used for different purposes. There is 369 This kind of use causes high friction and high temperatures, which result in the creation of a silicate layer on the surface of the tool. This alters the reflection characteristics of the stone, which can be observed with the naked eye (Petru 1997, 79-83). 370 Leonardi 2004, fig. 7: 1-3. 371 Petru 1997, 81. no weight difference between the related groups of coarse and fine pounders. This is not corresponding with the results of analyses of material from Ptujski Grad, where heavier pounders were showing more damaged and were perhaps used for a longer time.372 Moreover, it is necessary to mention an exceptional amount of broken querns at this point. Only one was fully extant and one was in a fairly good state of preservation. It may be posited that, as already suggested, they were used in a variety of tasks, perhaps even forging. INTERPRETATION OF SETTLEMENT STRUCTURES As the description of the underlying geology has already mentioned , the central area with its gravel subsoil offered good conditions for occupation and it was utilised again and again. Here the best preserved remains, which date to the Urnfield period, are thoroughly studied (inserts 2, 3).373 The most common elements of the archaeological record are postholes that are dug into the ground, which often indicate the outline of the buildings, are described in more detail in the attached Catalogue of farmsteads and buildings. Other negative features, layers and finds are related to them. An attempt to explain these elements follows. The southernmost structures connected with the settlement were recorded beside a palaeochannel, which in this part traverses the site in an easterly direction (inserts 2, 3). The remains of a hearth have been found there, along with numerous shallow pits of irregular shape. Only one (SE 514) contains chronologically sensitive pottery fragments. Two of them belong to oval pots (pl. 1: 2,3), while the third (pl. 1: 1) shows an internally faceted rim, which is characteristic mainly for the Ha A. Buildings 1, 2 and 3, the remains of which are located slightly towards the north, surrounding a specific area with their layout and orientation (inserts 2, 3). We assume that these buildings belonged to a certain community that we categorized as farmstead (1).374 The central place yielded one 372 Tomanič-Jevremov et al. 2006, 187-188. 373 Dating of the buildings is based on typological study of the finds from the postholes, from other pits in their vicinity and from the (cultural) layers in and around them. 374 As defined by B.K. Roberts (1996, 15-16). larger oblong pit and some postholes, which form rows, running in different directions. We have not managed to find a suitable explanation for these. It is also interesting that pottery finds, located in a layer above the subsoil in the area of the houses, were mostly present outside the buildings. Two finds are suitable for more accurate definition (pl. 1: 7,8), a strongly everted rim of type U2d and a handle with vertical channelled decoration, according to which we presume an occupation in the time span from the Br D/Ha A transition to the beginning of the late Ha B.375 Two pottery finds (pl. 1: 4,5) are suitable for the chronological designation of building 1; these are body of a vessel, decorated with incisions and a concave handle, decorated with vertical channelled decoration, which is characteristic mainly for the Ha B. The radiocarbon date of pit SE 1120, with two postholes situated next to it and belonging to this building, shows a different picture. Analysis of charcoal dates it to 1698-1602 cal BC (2a - 68.7%) or 1691-1610 cal BC (1a - 64.9%).376 Dating of this building is therefore controversial, as the ceramic material and radiocarbon date show a completely different chronological position. There is a problem in the fact that the entire site completely lacks archaeological material, which would incontrovertibly prove the existence of a settlement on this area at the end of the Early Bronze Age. In contrast, among 20 C14 dates, there are another two that are almost identical. One originates from one of the earliest alluvia southward from the settlement (SE 008) and the other from a posthole SE 1413 next to building 20/21.377 The former is a layer with partly mixed archaeological material and the latter is also ambiguous. Posthole SE 900 was positioned next to it and contained a fragment of a bronze ring, which can be dated on the basis of its form and chemical analysis to the Ha A and early Ha B. There is no doubt about the importance of three contemporary dates, but the correct interpretation remains unknown. Namely, charcoal can be created in a range of different circumstances, and settlement activities are not the only source. A lack of datable archaeological 375 There was also a base decorated with fingertip impressions dated to the Br D/Ha A period (Crešnar 2011, G334). 376 KIA37299. 377 KIA37289 [1779-1632 (2a - 84.9%) and 1760-1685 (1a - 66.3%)], KIA37310 [1748-1608 (2a - 94.4%) and 1692-1630 (1a - 58.7%)]. material from the later phase of the Early Bronze Age makes us suspect that this area represented the economic hinterland of a nearby settlement. Charcoal could be a result of slash-and-burn agriculture, which created new agricultural areas, but natural fires are also possible.378 Buildings 2 and 3 are somewhat larger than building 1 and show an indistinct outline with some exceptionally shallow postholes.379 Additional rows of postholes are present at both and can be interpreted as extensions or fences. Building 3 only produced one fragment; a sherd of an oval pot decorated with an ornamented cordon (pl. 1: 6), which is chronologically insensitive. Building 4 (inserts 2, 3) was located next to a stream channel, east of farmstead 1. It was represented by a large pit (SE 658b) with a posthole. Apart from large amount of pottery material, a whetstone, calcited animal bones and large amounts of burnt clay daub were found in the pit. It is assumed that the building was reconstructed to some extent. The inventory includes larger and smaller oval storage pots (pl. 2: 6,7 - L4b), a pot with a conical neck (pl. 2: 2 - L7b) and a series of dishes with everted (pl. 2: 5,8 - Sv1b) and inverted rims (pl. 2: 3,4 - Sz3b). Although the oldest find (pl. 2: 8) shows analogies only in the late Middle Bronze Age and Initial Urnfield period, the majority of the other finds date to the Ha A, which is further confirmed by their decoration. A fragment with incised decoration (pl. 2: 1) is one of the later ones with parallels in the Late Urnfield contexts. The building therefore most probably dates to the Ha A and to Ha A/Ha B transition. Finds (storage pots, dishes, a grindstone and animal bones) indicate that it could be a storage pit. A smaller number of postholes and a larger number of deeper irregular pits were discovered slightly further north, close to a palaeochannel. A small amount of pottery was found in the postholes and in the layers above the structures. There are two finds that are worth mentioning; a dish of type So5a (pl. 2: 10) from pit SE 1126, used from the Initial to the Late Urnfield period, and a dish of type So5b, discovered in pit SE 1040 (pl. 2: 11), with parallels from the Ha A and early 378 An obviously too early date also came from pit SE 376, ascribed to building 13, which was dated to 31320 +240/-230 BP. 379 Ploughing also partly damaged the geological subsoil, which was only covered by ploughsoil in some areas. Ha B. Mention should also be made of a larger concentration of finds, located slightly to the west, found in a layer that lay above the lowest layers with finds, as well as the palaeochannel (SE 610). In addition to large amounts of pottery, dating to the Ha A and early Ha B, several stone tools were also found; these were mostly querns (pls. 3: 1-10; 4: 1-7; 5: 1-5). There were also millet (Panicum), barley (Hordeum) and horsebean (Vicia faba var. minor). These are unfortunately redeposited layers, located next to and above the palaeochannel, but it is possible that grinding and perhaps also other economic activities took place nearby. Building 5 (inserts 2, 3) was identified with some reservation, as several postholes and some larger pits were recorded next to it. The building can be spatially connected with four artefacts; two of them are chronologically important. A strongly everted rim of type U3 (pl. 5: 6) has analogies in the late Middle Bronze Age and Initial Urnfield period, while a slightly everted rim of type U2a (pl. 5: 7) mainly occurs during the Late Urnfield period. The building is possibly part of farmstead 2, which is located slightly to the north and is composed of buildings 9 to 14. The southernmost building is a smaller building 9 with six postholes, which can be compared with the similar building 14 with four postholes. Buildings of such dimensions have often been interpreted as granaries, but this cannot be proved here due lack of finds. Building 10 was erected on three rows of postholes, with the central row located not in the centre, but crossing it at one third of the width. The western row of postholes located in a ditch is interesting, as imprints of piles, used to make the core of the wall construction, were still visible. A similar construction has been found in the later settlement at Hajndl near Ormož and on some Hungarian settlements; however, entire buildings were built in such manner there.380 The remains of the identically oriented building 11 lay only c. 1.5m northwards, while the western side of a yard was closed with a complex of buildings 12/13 (fig. 34: 1), which cannot be precisely distinguished from one another. Several differently shaped pits are spatially connected to the above buildings, but some of them date to the Early Bronze Age. There are very few finds that could be connected to these buildings as only ploughsoil was found above the natural subsoil. Some finds (pl. 6: 1-3) Fig. 34: Rogoza. Buildings 12/13, 15/16 and 20/21, which presumably comprise multiple phases. Sl. 34: Rogoza. Objekti 12/13, 15/16 in 20/21 z domnevno večfazno poselitvijo. came from postholes, but only one of them can be connected to the ground plan of the determined building. It dates to the Early and Late Urnfield period. This dating is confirmed by a radiocarbon date from a charcoal sample from posthole SE 727, which dates to 1134-1010 cal BC (2a - 78.4%) or 1032-1030 cal BC (1a - 66.9%). 381 The northernmost building, located directly next to the palaeochannel, is the slightly trapezoidal building 6 (inserts 2, 3) surrounding pit SE 370, where one of the most important finds of this site was found. A complete pot (pl. 6: 4 - L7b), accompanied by an extant plano-convex copper ingot (pl. 6: 5), was found there. On consideration of the parallels, they can be dated to the Early/Late Urnfield period transition, which was also confirmed by the analysis of the chemical composition of the ingot. The pit also contained the burnt remains of wood Csanyi, Tarnoki 1994, fig. 114-116; Mele 2005. KIA37295. and a cereal grain. A similar assembly comes from posthole SE 900, allegedly part of building 20/21 (fig. 34: 3). A horsebean (Vicia faba var. minor) and a single grain, perhaps of barley (Hordeum), were discovered in it, along with fragments of uncharacteristic pottery and a fragment of a bronze ring or a bracelet (pl. 9: 10). The latter attracts attention because of its high, 16.5%, tin content, which places it among part-finished products that are used in the metallurgical process as a source of tin. Wood charcoal from pit SE 370 also permitted radiocarbon analysis, which dated the pit to 1211-994 cal BC (2a - 95.4%) or 1124-1022 cal BC (1a - 68.4%).382 Moreover, charcoal from a posthole SE 1101 that is a component part of building 6, was also analysed and it showed a similar date (1212-1008 cal BC [2a - 93.5%] or 1131-1041 cal BC [1a - 56.7%]).383 Buildings 7, 8 (inserts 2, 3) were located to the west of farmstead 3. Some pottery that is related to buildings 7 and 8 was discovered in a layer above the subsoil, which mainly occurs outside the ground plans of buildings next to farmstead 3. The southern, building 7, is probably connected to the gravel layer discovered next to it (SE 336). A larger amount of precisely dated mostly pottery finds is most probably connected to it as well. However, this is a partly disturbed layer, located only 0.20-0.25m below the surface of the plough-soil and it consequently also contained modern pottery. There is a wide range of prehistoric finds. Fragments, ascribed to the Early Iron Age, were found together with dominant Urnfield period finds. Various dishes with everted and inverted rims occur and some pots were also found. The dishes belong to four variants (pls. 7: 1 - So1a; 7: 2,3 - So1d; 7: 4 - Sz2a; 7: 5 - Sz4a). Their dates range from the Ha A to the Ha B. The variant L3 pot (pl. 7: 7) is already known in the Initial Urnfield period; a fragment of a footed vessel in pl. 7: 8 (D5b) could also belong to this period. It is therefore assumed that the building was mostly used during the Ha A. Mention should also be made of the only bone tool, found at Rogoza, a bone point, which also belongs to the assemblage in this layer (pl. 7: 10). Building 8 (inserts 2, 3) is positioned slightly towards the north. Its outline is indicated by two rows of five postholes each, with four pairs visible. However, a question arises about the number of buildings and the method of construction, because of the number of postholes and their position. It is possible that these are two buildings and the second one was slightly displaced. However, another possibility is that the postholes belong to a single building, constructed with pairs of postholes, as a similar method of construction was used at the eastern wall of building 11. It would be appropriate to discuss methods of construction here, but the absence of the remains of burnt clay daub does not provide any answers. Walls were perhaps formed of vertical stakes, interwoven with withys. A less likely type of construction is one with two vertical stakes and beams in between, as this type of construction has so far, only been seen in the construction of fences. Such a building would resemble a log cabin, with vertical stakes supporting it. The building was surrounded by some larger pits. The only datable find, possibly connected to the building, is a knee-shaped handle from posthole SE 346 (pl. 7: 11), which is located in the same row as the northern wall of the building, and perhaps belongs to an extension. Vessels with such handles most often occur at the beginning of the Late Urnfield period. The density of archaeological structures strongly decreases to the north of the above buildings. We can assume that this was a central place of the settlement, perhaps "a meeting place or market" with parallels in somewhat older settlements, such as Sodolek near Sv. Jurij ob Ščavnici and Pince (Pod Grunti) near Lendava.384 Only a few larger pits with some smaller postholes next to them were discovered on this area. The latter form some rows. No other discernible outlines were discovered. Larger oblong pits, located between farmsteads 2 and 3, bound the central place on the eastern side. One of the pits (SE 731) contained some charcoal, which allowed a radiocarbon analysis, dating the pit to 1300-1125 cal BC (2a - 95.4%) or 1263-1192 cal BC (1a - 53.3%).385 Farmstead 3 probably consists of buildings 15 to 18 and hearth 2 (inserts 2, 3). Building 15/16 (fig. 34: 2) revealed at least two phases of construction that cannot be accurately chrono- 382 KIA37291. 383 KIA37298. 384 Kavur 2007, fig. 2. The plan of Pince (Pod Grunti) was presented on 17th March 2008 in the Mestni muzej Ljubljana (Ljubljana City Museum) by B. Kerman. 385 KIA37296. logically determined, but their orientations differ. Moreover, the first phase, running more towards a N-S direction, perhaps "conceals" two additional (sub)phases of construction. Namely, this is either a building, constructed of two rows containing four pairs of postholes, or there were two buildings, with the second one shifted by half a metre in an almost parallel direction. A fragmented quern, used as packing in one of the postholes (SE 842), can perhaps serve as an indicator of the relative sequence of construction of one of the buildings (pl. 7: 12). Considering that damaged material was used in construction, we could assume that the building was constructed when the settlement had already been in existence for some time. This perhaps indicates that the building with a medium axis running in a SE-NW direction, is earlier. This building also shows additional postholes, which probably indicate that it had been subject to repair. Building 17 was located only four metres to the east. ^e building and its dimensions differ from the others and it represents one of the narrower buildings in the settlement (4.3 x 2.0m). Its plan is similar to building 26 (5.4 x 1.8m). ^e solid construction of shorter sides, which is seen in a great number of postholes and looser construction of longer sides, particularly the western side, with a single or no postholes, is characteristic for both. Such a construction could be morphologically compared with cattle pens, seen on some of the Slovene mountain pastures (fig. 35).386 A pit with a considerable quantity of charcoal and burnt clay, interpreted as hearth 2, was discovered to the east of this area. This interesting group of buildings comprises also a smaller building 18 with four postholes, the plan of which strongly resembles buildings 9 and 14 to the south. ^e lack of finds does not permit an accurate date for this farmstead; it only yielded finds from disturbed layers (pl. 7: 13-19). ^eir range lies within the "classical Rogoza" range, as a fragment of a pot in pl. 7: 14 dates to the late Middle Bronze Age and Initial Urnfield period, whilst the fragment of a thickened dish rim in pl. 7: 16 (Sz3c) dates to the Late Urnfield period. The rest of the finds also fall within this date range. The largest complex of buildings, farmstead 4, was located to the north of the central part of the settlement and comprised buildings 19 to 26 (inserts 2, 3). Fig. 35: Meadow at Velo polje. Cattle pen (Cevc 1984, 118). Sl. 35: Planina Velo polje. Pokrita živalska staja (Cevc 1984, 118). The central part of the farmstead consisted of buildings 20, 21, 23 and 24, which were arranged around a central space or courtyard. Buildings 19, 22, 25 and 26 were adjacent to them on the eastern side and formed an arc. These buildings may also have formed part of the farmstead. The southernmost building of this group was building 19, where only a decorated vessel body sherd was discovered (pl. 8: 1). Its form can be traced mostly in Late Urnfield contexts.387 A row of postholes was running towards the South to building 22 (inserts 2, 3). This building may also be associated with two gravel layers and perhaps with some of the pits adjacent to it. The most interesting of theses features is the oblong oval pit. An identical pit was discovered just three metres to the south, adjacent to building 19. Mention should also be made of the discovery of a quernstone (pl. 8: 4) to the south of building 22. There was a gravel layer (1.5 x 1.4m) only a few metres towards the east of the buildings. The chronological determination of the structures under consideration is not easy. The finds in layers above the natural subsoil in adjacent quadrants date either to the Early Bronze Age, or to the late Middle Bronze Age, Initial and Early Urnfield periods (pl. 8: 3) or Early and Late Cevc 1984, 118. 387 Stare, F. 1954, t. 59: 5; Strmčnik-Gulič et al. 2000, t. 99: 3,8; 2007, t. 19: 14; Velušček 2002, t. 7: 7. Urnfield periods (pl. 8: 2). There are even some Early Iron Age fragments present. The arc continues with building 25 only three metres to the north, (inserts 2, 3). A stone quern was discovered here, as was the case in building 22 (pl. 8: 5). An Early Iron Age bronze boat fibula was found in the layers above the remains of the building, and fragments of dishes, dated to the period from the Initial Urnfield period onwards, were discovered nearby (pl. 8: 6,7). A fragment, dated to the Early Bronze Age, a handle with oblique channelled decoration from an Ha A vessel (pl. 8: 8 - R2j) and a knee-shaped cup handle, characteristic for the early Ha B (pl. 8: 9 - R3b), were discovered to the east of this building. Despite the earlier and later finds, the overwhelming majority of the finds suggest an Urnfield period date for this building. The above mentioned building 26 was discovered a few metres to the north, (inserts 2, 3). As with building 17, it morphologically resembles a covered cattle pen. A few pottery artefacts, found lying on the natural subsoil, are connected with the building. They include a dish with an inverted faceted rim (pl. 8: 10 - Sz3b). It was found "in front of" the building and is characteristic mainly for the Ha A. Other finds, such as a fragment with ornamented cordons (pl. 8: 11,12), do not contradict this date. With regard to the central buildings of the farmstead, mention must first be made of buildings 20 and 21 (inserts 2, 3; fig. 34c), which were recognized among the large number of postholes. Larger and smaller postholes on the southern and eastern part bounded the first building. The plan resembled an open animal stable. An area southwards from the building was perhaps covered with a projecting roof, which is indicated by large postholes. Several smaller postholes may form a wall towards the interior of the building. Numerous small postholes were discovered also at the area of a presumed stable; their purpose is unknown. The second building (21) is somewhat shifted to the north. Its outline is most probably formed by six postholes with an additional three postholes, which were added during later repairs. A large irregular-shaped pit, located within both building plans, may be associated with one of the buildings. The area to the west of this building revealed a longer sequence of postholes, which encircled an irregularly shaped area of c. 80m2. Apart from a large and a small pit, no other structures were discovered in the interior. This area was probably an open enclosure. Buildings 23 and 24 were discovered still further to the north, (inserts 2, 3). The latter contained a large pit SE 933 with rich finds and two postholes. An extensive rubble layer was located a few metres to the west. What may be proposed for this complex or farmstead, containing buildings and other structures that form a central yard with a larger number of pits of unknown function (inserts 2, 3)? The majority of material is later, although some Early Bronze Age pottery was discovered in closed contexts, as well as in partially disturbed layers. A fragment of a dish with a faceted rim was found in pit SE 963 in the yard area (pl. 9: 1 - Sz3b). Its form and especially decoration place it to the Early Urnfield period. It is also worth mentioning the finds from pit SE 947 (pl. 8: 13,14,15). These date to the Early or the beginning of the Late Urnfield period. The widest selection of finds is probably found in a storage pit in building 24 (SE 933). This assemblage includes an internally faceted everted vessel rim (pl. 9: 4), largely mostly diagnostic for the Ha A, and other finds that occur throughout the Urnfield period (pls. 9: 5 - So5a; 9: 2 - L1). Mention should also be made of a bowl Sk2b (pl. 9: 9), a dish with an inverted rim with thickened lip Sz3c (pl. 9: 6) and some decorated pottery body sherds (pl. 9: 3,7,8). These largely have parallels in the Late Urnfield period. This pit also contained charcoal for radiocarbon analysis, which dates it to 1134-1004 cal BC (2a - 81.1%) or 1126-1038 cal BC (1a - 65.6%).388 The above mentioned pit SE 900 was also discovered close to buildings 20 and 21. It contained a bronze ring with high content of tin (pl. 9: 10), which is dated, on the grounds of its shape and the results of chemical analysis, to the Ha A or early Ha B. Radiocarbon analysis of charcoal from one of the postholes surrounding building 20, 21 (SE 1413), adds some confusion to the attempt to date this building complex. This posthole did not contain any finds and was dated to 1748-1608 cal BC (2a - 94.4%) or 1692-1630 cal BC (1a - 58.7%). As the association of this pit with the building is doubtful, and the nature of the dates in this period is questionable, the Urnfield period date of this building is preferred. KIA37310. One of the pits in this part of the settlement is later, dating to the Early Iron Age. Finds from the lowest layers above the natural subsoil date to the Early Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, as well as the La Tene and Roman periods, but, as elsewhere across the site, fragments of Urnfield period pottery predominate. Some of them are characteristic for the entire Urnfield period, such as deep dishes with everted rims So1d (pl. 9: 11), and others are more specific. A handle with an external central ridge (pl. 9: 13) occurs mainly on Ha A pottery, while decorations on pottery body sherds in pl. 9: 14,15 and a fragment of a dish in pl. 9: 1 (Sz2a) mostly date to the Late Urnfield period. Building 27, discovered slightly to the north (inserts 2, 3), was seen as a pit, bounded by twelve postholes, surrounding an area of 1.8 x 1.4m. It is similar to part of building 33 and hearth 7 (insert 2), which are among the northernmost buildings of the settlement. Finds, discovered in building 33, i.e. dishes, a storage pot and a portable oven lid (pl. 15: 1,2,3), indicate that this could be a place, connected with the storage or preparation of food. The three-aisled building 28 (inserts 2, 3), the only one of this type found at Rogoza, with a hearth (4) discovered close by, is located on an area where denser occupation starts and spreads towards the north. The only convincingly datable find, directly connected with the building, is a dish with an inverted thickened rim Sz3c (pl. 9: 18), which was discovered in one of the postholes. Comparisons come also from Early Urnfield contexts, but are more common in Late Urnfield contexts. Some finds from the layer above the natural subsoil can also be ascribed to the building. The most significant are a vessel foot (pl. 9: 16), resembling forms from the late Middle Bronze Age and the Initial Urnfield period, and a variant L2 pot (pl. 9: 17), present from the Urnfield period to the Early Iron Age. Radiocarbon analyses of charcoal are also important for dating of the building. The corner posthole SE 1338 in the far south of the building was dated to 1220-1041 cal BC (2a - 87.8%) or 1209-1111 cal BC (1a - 57.4%). A different date was given by the radiocarbon analysis of a sample from posthole SE 1329, located outside of the perimeter of the building, but in line with the eastern wall of the building. This posthole has the same diameter and depth as the postholes ascribed to this wall. The posthole was dated to 2065-1958 cal BC (2a - 57. 2%) or 2127-2089 cal BC (1a -30.1%), which approximately corresponds with the second Early Bronze Age date obtained from the site.389 The building most probably dates to the Ha A and early Ha B, due to the numerous later finds, which correlate with the time span of the settlement. The second building in this part of the settlement is building 29 (inserts 2, 3) that is chronologically determined by an inverted rim of a variant Sz4c dish (pl. 9: 19), which can be, according to oblique channelled decoration, already present in Ha A or later. This building is important as an area with postholes that do not form coherent plans starts just to the north and east of it. Many of them seem to form rows, so these could be remains of destroyed buildings, or more probably the remains of a larger or a few smaller enclosures, used for cattle, which were also traced close to some other buildings. The postholes here are smaller and shallower than those associated with buildings 29 and 30, which were located in the immediate vicinity. An additional problem is presented by the large concentration of postholes in the central part of the presumed enclosure. We came across Early Bronze Age fragments, mostly located in the southern part of this area, but none of them originating from a closed context. The other finds from the enclosure are later. A fragmentary cigar-headed pin (pl. 9: 20) was discovered together with some pottery fragments in posthole SE 226. It can be dated to the Early and the beginning of the Late Urnfield period. The pottery, found in the "cultural layers" is represented by a L2 pot fragment (pl. 9: 21) dating to the Urnfield period, a fragment of an internally faceted everted rim (pl. 9: 22) that is characteristic mostly for Ha A and fragments of dishes with everted and inverted rims with a characteristic decoration (pls. 9: 23 - So5b; 9: 24 - Sz3b; 9: 25 - Sz4a), which are dated to Ha A and early Ha B. The same is also true for the fragment of a vessel body in pl. 9: 26, decorated with incisions, which is particularly common in the Late Urnfield period. Buildings 30 and 31 (inserts 2, 3) were identified on the eastern edge of the enclosed area. 389 KIA37306. The second date comes from the pit SE 964 (2044-1903 cal BC (2a - 86.8%) or 2030-1950 cal BC (1a - 68.3%)), which also yields material of the Early Bronze Age Kisapostag Culture. The first was perhaps physically connected to the enclosure, as its postholes were discovered in the immediate vicinity of the enclosure. There was a second building only two metres towards the north-east, which was the only L-shaped building in the settlement. Very few finds can be connected to these buildings, the most important being a fragmented quern (pl. 10: 2), which was used as packing in one of the postholes. We can assume that the buildings were not constructed in the early phase of the settlement but were later, as damaged functional artefacts were recycled during their construction. The only find, connected with both buildings, is a fragment of a dish with an inverted rim of variant Sz3b (pl. 10: 1), dated to the Ha A and Ha B. Three larger oval pits that are probably associated with the above buildings were discovered a little further to the east. The presence of charcoal and burnt clay in one of the pits was interpreted as hearth 5 (SE 1512). It contained only one spindle whorl (pl. 10: 3) with a worn out base and apex. The other two pits are also unusual. The first (SE 1501) contained several fragments of the lower part of one pot (pl. 10: 4) and the second (SE 1503) yielded some fragments of quarry stones, one complete and one fragmented quern, a fine pounder, pyramidal loomweights, a clay cooking ring, a large number of partly burnt pottery fragments and a large quantity of burnt soil or clay daub (pls. 12: 2,9,10; 13: 1-10). Moreover, the diversity of pottery forms is surprising. Characteristic Ha A pottery forms are most common, including the amphorae in pl. 12: 1 (A1a), pl. 10: 7 (A2a) and a large number of diverse faceted everted rims of larger vessels (pl. 11: 2,3,4). However, material, more characteristic for Late Urnfield contexts is also present, including tall dishes of variant Sv3b (pl. 12: 3,4), but it occurs in much smaller amounts. Fragments of large vessels prevail, whilst dishes with inverted rims and other smaller vessels are completely absent. A radiocarbon date of 1128-975 cal BC (2a - 94.4%) or 1058-1009 cal BC (1a - 44.4%),390derived from a sample of charcoal from hearth SE 1512, correlates with the pottery assemblage but the question of whether this date can be extended to the wider context of buildings 30 and 31, remains unanswered. Two amorphous pieces or droplets of copper that were probably lost during metallurgical activi- ties were discovered to the south of the revised complex (pl. 14: 1,2). We cannot accurately date them based on the finds surrounding them; the analysis of chemical composition of the larger piece most probably dates it to Ha B. These are the only pieces found in the lower layers that indicate metallurgical activity, so they are even more important. Perhaps we can connect them with buildings 30 and 31, located slightly northwards from the droplet findspot, and hearth 5 that is situated next to them. The same could be claimed for building 28 with hearth 4, located to the south of the droplet findspot. A hearth was of course compulsory in metallurgical activities, which perhaps took place here. Archaeological experiments showed that the processes of alloying copper to bronze and manufacturing bronze objects do not leave much evidence which could be interpreted as metallurgical furnaces or hearths.391 Hearth 6 (inserts 2, 3) is located on the northern edge of the enclosed area with no buildings. This was perhaps "closing" the northern access to the enclosure that was surrounded with buildings from three sides, and could be used to distract potential stock raiders. Not many negative archaeological structures are present to the north. The area was evidently bounded and oriented by a path, paved with pebbles (SE 547) that ran in a SW-NE direction across the entire site (inserts 2, 3). In its southern part, two concentrations of larger quarry stones were found, which were on-field interpreted as stands. It is interesting that a row of postholes ran along southern side of the path, which was ending precisely at the above mentioned stone structures. The dating of the path was based on pottery finds, the majority of them being characteristic for the Ha A and Ha B (e.g. pl. 14: 3 - Sz3a; pl. 14: 4 -Sz3b; pl. 14: 5 - So5b; decorated fragment pl. 14: 6); one find was obviously earlier, Early Bronze Age in date, and one was later, dating to the Early Iron Age.392 Several comparisons for this path were recently discovered. A perceptibly wider path from nearby Pobrežje is dated to the Late Urnfield period, the same date was also ascribed to a path found at Dolge njive near Bela Cerkev in Dolenjska. Preliminary reports interpret both paths as routes leading to cemeteries, suggesting use KIA37305. 391 Fasnacht, Trachsel 2001. 392 Crešnar 2011, G1097,G1094. in ritual practices.393 A path with similar dimensions was recently discovered on a Late Hallstatt site at Grofove njive near Drnovo. Both paths from Dolenjska are accompanied by an interesting wider context. Grofove njive, a farmstead or a farm with a cemetery and a path leading close to or through it, is located very close to the Urnfield period settlement of Velike njive near Velika vas. A characteristic Dolenjska barrow with several inhumation graves was surrounded by an interrupted ditch, such as was the case at Rogoza, The site of Dolge Njive also revealed platforms next to a watercourse, which are similar to the one discovered close to former northern watercourse at Rogoza.394 Another parallel row of the postholes can be seen still further to the south of the path,; however, this is not easy to discern and explain. Its dating to Ha A is indirect, since the datable fragments of pottery, such as a faceted everted rim with channelled decoration and a body of a vessel with oblique channelled decoration (pl. 14: 7-9), come from a pit among the postholes. Another interesting group of structures was documented to the north of the path, denoted building 32. Its outline is undetermined, as seven postholes can be connected to a straight row, but only four belong to a presumed smaller building. A larger pit SE 554 was discovered next to this group of postholes. It contained larger amounts of pottery, from storage pots and dishes to spindle whorls and pyramidal loomweights (pl. 14: 11,14,15,16). Determinable finds consisted of a variant L4a pot (pl. 14: 10), characteristic for the entire Urnfield period, a variant Sv1a dish (pl. 14: 13), most frequent in the Br D and Ha A, a variant Sz3b dish with an inverted rim (pl. 14: 12), dated to the Ha A and Ha B. We also have a radiocarbon date from a charcoal sample from this pit (SE 554), which dates it to 1263-1112 cal BC (2a - 91.6%) or 1212-1127 cal BC (1a - 64.9%).395 An unusual structure was recognised only five metres away. This is a pit (SE 577) with an additionally deepened part containing four postholes. The function of this pit remains unknown. On the basis of a variant So13c dish and a variant L1a pot (pl. 14: 17,18), it can be dated to the Early or Late Urnfield period. The northernmost building, the bipartite building 33, is probably contemporary. One part is represented by a pit surrounded by eight postholes, whilst the second consists of four postholes. Associated finds include a chronologically determinable variant So1d dish and a variant L2 pot (pl. 15: 1,3) with examples dating to the Early and Late Urnfield contexts. Two additional hearths were recognized as independent structures. Hearth 7 is surrounded by an arc of five postholes on its southern side. No datable material was discovered, as was also the case with hearth 8.396 A row of four pits were discovered next to an Early Bronze Age pit. The second from the northeast (SE 1546) yielded a complete extant dish with an inverted rim (pl. 15: 4), dated to the Ha A and Ha B. The row of pits continued to a shallow pit, filled with larger quarry stones, some 20m towards the southwest. It is important to emphasise that the direction of this row of pits almost completely follows the direction of the paved path, which was discussed above. The remaining more extensive structures that were discovered on the site are four barrows of Early Iron Age date. The above mentioned small pebbles platform with no datable finds was discovered on the edge of the northern palaeochannel. The only morphological comparison is a platform, located next to a palaeochannel at Dolge njive near Bela Cerkev, which produced some charcoal, pottery and burnt fragments of human bones. It is therefore assumed that it was used in ritual practices.397 The hydrology of the area, illustrated in alluvium layers to the South of the settlement terrace, is crucial to the understanding of life in the settlement.398 The lowest alluvium that also contained archaeological finds (SE 008) was discovered to the south of the gravel terrace. A fragment of possibly 393 Mason 2004; Strmčnik Gulič et al. 2006, 25; Strmčnik Gulič, Kajzer Cafnik 2006. 394 Mason 2004, with later pers. com.; Pavlovič 2007, 17, pril. 4, 20, 21. 395 KIA 37293. 396 As these hearths cannot be dated, we cannot exclude that they may perhaps form a part of the burial complex, which doubtless surrounded the mounds. 397 Mason 2004, with later pers. com. 398 Drawings of 21 profiles are published in the original publication (Crešnar 2011). Late Neolithic pottery,399 a damaged serpentine shafthole axe (pl. 15: 10) and an amorphous copper droplet (pl. 15: 9) were amongst the finds in this layer. Some of the other pottery finds from this layer (pl. 15: 8 - Sk1; pl. 15: 5,7) have parallels at Oloris and Rabelčja vas, and the rest of them are typologically undeterminable and extremely hard. This is therefore not chronologically homogeneous material, but it represents a terminus post quem for creation of the layer. It was probably created over a short period of time, as is borne out by its gravel and sand composition. Charcoal, found in the layer was radiocarbon dated to 1779-1632 cal BC (2a - 84.7%) or 1760-1685 cal BC (1a - 66.3%), which is probably only an orientation date.400 Layers above the discussed layer (SE 005, SE 006, SE 006a) were fine sediments containing varied material, which indicates a calmer water regime. The earliest fragments from these layers, according to characteristic fabric and decoration, may date to the Early Bronze Age. Fragments of dishes with inverted rims, decorated with oblique channelled decoration (pl. 15: 6,12,13) that do not occur in this area before the Ha A, are also present, as well as a variant A3b amphora (pl. 15: 11), which is contemporaneous to the above mentioned dishes. One of the layers (SE 006) also contained a decorated biconical pinhead (pl. 15: 14) dated to the Early or the beginning of the Late Urnfield period. Charcoal, found in one of these layers (SE 006) was radiocarbon dated to 1125-971 cal BC (2a - 88.7%) or 1059-997 cal BC (1a - 50.5%).401 The earliest alluvial layers (SE 208, SE 212) are important for the chronological determination of the Holocene geological processes in the area. They were deposited after the breakthrough of the previously mentioned layers of sandy loam (SE 005, SE 006), when the bed of a palaeochannel was created. Different forms of dishes with inverted rims (pl. 16: 1,2,3) were discovered. Two of them carried oblique channelled decoration. Also a specific form of an ornamented cordon was present (pl. 16: 5), as well as incised 399 The fragment of pottery is made of fine clay, fired in an oxidising environment and still has some clay slip left on the surface. Following the analogies it could be ascribed to the local variation of the Lengyel Culture of the Late Neolithic from the first half of the 5th millennium BC (Šavel 1994, 39-50; Tomaž 1997, 119, 129; Guštin 2005b, 14-17, fig. 2, 3; Tomaž 2005, 115-116, fig. 6; Tomaž, Velušček 2005, 88-89; Turk, Svetličič 2005, 68-73). 400 KIA37289. 401 KIA37290. decoration of hatched triangles (pl. 16: 4). All the mentioned finds have parallels from the Ha A onwards, although the main period for some of them would be in the early Ha B. Radiocarbon analysis of charcoal dates this layer to 1132 and 998 cal BC (2a - 88.7%), or 1116 and 1037 cal BC (1a - 63.5%).402 On consideration of the typology of the material and all the above mentioned radiocarbon dates, it can be seen that this area was quite active during the period under discussion. After the lowest gravel and sand layer was deposited, the area was covered with water for some time, which deposited only little sediments. After that, several different sediments were deposited in a short period of time, which indicates a change in the course of the stream in the upper part of the palaeochannel. The question of how such a large amount of archaeological material was deposited in the layers mentioned remains unanswered. The large amounts of pottery fragments and burnt clay daub in layer SE 006 are important, as they could indicate a flood in the settlement area and consequently, partial removal of material from the southern part of the settlement. Similar events can also be seen from the later stratigraphic record. Only the lowest rubble layer in the palaeochannel was without archaeological material. Finer layers followed and were rich in archaeological material, from pottery fragments to burnt clay daub. After the settlement was abandoned, the occupation layers eroded into the streambed and on to the area next to it that was perceptibly lower than the eastern part of the terrace. Several different fills were recognized in different areas of the palaeochannel. Nevertheless, we did manage to reliably reconstruct their corporate identity, which is most clearly illustrated by the situation in the central part of the palaeochannel. The lowest fill, containing a considerable amount of finds, was discovered in the central as well as in the northern part of the palaeochannel, but the nature of the finds documentation only allowed for their categorisation in the first part. A footed base was discovered there, which perhaps dates to the end of the Middle Bronze age and the Initial Urnfield period (pl. 16: 11 - D5b). A dish with an inverted facetted rim (pl. 16: 8) and the dish with an everted rim in pl. 16: 9 (Sv3c) are somewhat later, characteristic for the Ha A. A conical dish with inverted rim in pl. 16: 6 (Sz3b) is charac- 02 KIA37288. teristic for the Ha A as well as the HA B, while a fragment of the dish in pl. 16: 7 (Sz4b) and the decorated fragment in pl. 16: 10,12 probably date to the Late Urnfield period. The pottery assemblage from the layer above this one is similar. The earliest material with, for example, a variant Sz1 dish (pl. 17: 7) and a base decorated with fingertip impressions (pl. 17: 8), dates to the Oloris-Rabelčja vas horizon. The fragment of a facetted handle in pl. 17: 9 (R3g), the cup in pl. 17: 5 (Skd4a), the amphora in pl. 17: 2 (A3c) and fragments of facetted everted rims (pl. 16: 13,14,15), can be dated to the Ha A. The cup in pl. 17: 4 (Skd4c) and the rounded pot with a curved neck in pl. 17: 1 (L8a) can be later. The rounded jug with a curved neck in pl. 17: 6, two knee-shaped handles (pl. 17: 3,10) and a spindlewhorl decorated with stamped hollow rings (pl. 17: 11) are of Ha B date. Most of the finds, such as dishes with inverted rims and large storage pots are chronologically imprecise, but definitely belong to the Ha A and Ha B repertoire. It must be noted that the finds from these two layers, positioned one above the other, do not differ chronologically, and fragments of the same object were found in both.403 A similar situation can be seen in the other parts of the palaeochannel. The already mentioned northern part of the streambed was documented in a different manner and most of the finds were studied as a whole, but a similar story unfolds. The earliest finds are the dishes with everted rims in pl. 18: 3 (Sv1b) and in pl. 18: 2 (Sv1a), with parallels mostly dating to the the Late Middle Bronze age and the Initial Urnfield period. The dish with an everted rim, decorated with oblique channelled decoration in pl. 18: 6 (Sv3e), the cup with an upswung handle in pl. 18: 10 (Skd4c) and the fragment of a facetted rim in pl. 18: 11 (U2k) can be dated to the Br D/Ha A. The majority of other finds, such as large storage pots (e.g. pl. 18: 1), dishes with inverted rims that are decorated with oblique channelled decoration (e.g. pl. 18: 4,7,8) occur in the Ha A, as well as in the Ha B. More characteristic for the latter are a variant Sz4b dish with an inverted rim and a variant A1b amphora (pl. 18: 5,9). The dating of the southernmost part, where the alluvial layers were already spreading over the floodplain, and where only the highest layer contained a larger amount of finds, is based on a head of a bronze dresspin (pl. 17: 16), diagnostic for the Ha A and early Ha B, a variant L7b pot (pl. 17: 13), contemporary with the latter, and the cup with a knee-shaped upswung exceeding handle in pl. 17: 14 (Skd1a), which are characteristic for the Ha B. Only a fragment of a footed base in pl. 17: 15 (D5b) is earlier, dated to the late Middle Bronze Age and the Initial Urnfield period. Observing the material from the layers studied above, one can notice that, despite some differences, there are no great chronological discrepancies and it is very probable that the palaeochannel was quickly filled. We can also assume that destruction of the settlement happened before the Early Iron Age barrows were erected in the northern part of the site, because no contemporary finds were recognised in the palaeochannel. However, they are otherwise known from some of the disturbed layers at Rogoza. The end of occupation at Rogoza can perhaps be connected to climatic change, which resulted in increased runoff in the streams from the Pohorje mountains, literally removing a great part of the settlement remains from the upper part of the terrace to the lower part of the terrace and into the palaeochannel. The highest layer that can be connected with the palaeochannel, is layer SE 610, which was lay above it.404 This also contained archaeological material dating to a long time period, which proves that fluvial activity did not abate in later periods. ^e finds include material from the Early Bronze Age. Moreover, a dish with an internally thickened rim (pl. 3: 6 - So2) that can be dated mainly to the Initial and Early Urnfield period was found. ^e Early Urnfield period is represented by a variant So 1b dish with internally cut rim (pl. 3: 5) and fragments of internally faceted everted rims (e.g. pl. 3: 8). ^ese are followed by a large variant Sv3d dish (pl. 4: 6) and a variant A3b amphora (pl. 4: 4), both present mostly in Ha A contexts, but also appearing later. The decorated dish with an everted rim in pl. 3: 10 (Sv3b), the rounded amphora in pl. 5: 1 (A3a) and the globular pot with a high conical neck in pl. 3: 2 (L7b) are characteristic for the Ha A and Ha B periods. ^e cup with an upswung handle in pl. 4: 5 (Skd4b) and the knee-shaped handle in pl. 3: 9 (R4a) 403 These are matching fragments of a clay cooking ring (t. 17: 12), which were found in different layers at least 8m apart. 404 Problem with this layer is that conflicting data are coming from the documentation, which complicates the determination of its definite relative-chronological position in the stratigraphy. are artefacts with mostly Late Urnfield parallels. The layer also contained a larger amount of charcoal, which was radiocarbon dated to 1213-1013 cal BC (2a - 93.5%) or 1132-1049 cal BC (1a - 52.6%).405 This date is even earlier than the dates that mark the creation of the palaeochannel and also pre-dates some of the settlement structures. Dates, derived from alluvial layers, which would help us to determine geological events chronologically, have to be used with caution; the last date is questionable and is not used in further analyses. Final remarks on the appearance of the Bronze Age settlement at Rogoza An examination of the Bronze Age material indicates that the somewhat raised ground that rises above the floodplain in the south to form the central part of the archaeological site at Rogoza was occupied at least twice. The following represents a summary of the results of the study of the Urnfield period material. The plans of 33 buildings were determined amongst a range of postholes and pits that had other functions. It is assumed that the majority of buildings were built in the widespread technique with postholes and posts. Analyses indicate that 76% of the posts were oak (Quercus), which shows an intentional choice of high quality building materials. Stone packing served to additionally strengthen the posts in the postholes. Pieces of burnt clay daub and small postholes, found in rows between the main postholes, indicate that wall structures were formed of vertical stakes, interwoven with withys and covered with clay (wattle and daub) (pl. 12: 9,10; fig. 36).406 Building 4 only had one extant posthole, which is probably a sign of a simple conical roof, while buildings 27 and 33 were probably forms with a simple projecting roof above the pit and an eventual activity area next to it. More pits of unknown purposes were discovered in and next to the buildings. The majority of buildings are bounded by two rows of three or four postholes. Buildings of different construction are rare. Two main size classes 405 KIA37294. 406 The data derives from three fragments of burnt clay daub, which bear traces of the wattle walls. One of them shows also traces of two parallel beams, but this is insufficient for the presence of a "log cabin" type of building. Fig. 36: Rogoza. Burnt clay daub with the imprint of the wattle of the wall construction. Sl. 36: Rogoza. Prežgan stenski omet z odtisi konstrukcije stenskega jedra. can be distinguished among rectangular buildings, the first one with dimensions of c. 5-6 x 3-4m (building 11) and the second one with buildings of c. 7-8 x 3-6m (building 15); the majority of the Rogoza buildings belong to the first size class. Some buildings do not belong to any of them. Buildings that are almost square and have sides shorter than 3m, such as buildings 9, 14 and 18, are often interpreted as granaries. Two narrower oblong buildings, buildings 17 and 26, were compared with buildings known in traditional architecture as cattle pens (fig. 35). Apart from these, the settlement also contained some smaller buildings, for example buildings 4, 27 and 33 that were perhaps used to protect different structures that were dug into the ground, such as storage pits and the activity areas associated with them. An interpretation of the larger dimensioned rectangular buildings is complicated. Five buildings of the smaller size class were connected with rubble layers, located either in them or in front of them (buildings 7, 8, 22, 24, 25), which can perhaps be connected with economic activities. Moreover, four of these are not connected to the central part of any of the determined farmsteads. This is also true of the two isolated examples of the three buildings with hearths (28, 31). Droplets of copper were uncovered nearby (pl. 14: 1,2), which are understood as evidence for metallurgical craft activities, although a smithy was not located. Hearth 5 next to building 31 is interesting also because some pits are located around it. On of them (SE 1503) contained a large number of different forms of, mostly burnt, pottery. It is most probably a waste pit, but could also be a pottery workshop with a pit for pot wasters located next to a hearth. We have to mention that only hearth 2 was included in the area of farmsteads, which is at the same time the only hearth that was discovered in the central part of the settlement. Others are located either towards the southern or northern fringe of the settlement.407 It is important to emphasise that each farmstead includes at least one larger building that could possibly be determined as a dwelling house. Buildings do not follow a common or dominant orientation within a settlement plan, as noticed at some settlements, such as Sodolek near Sv. Jurij ob Ščavnici and Dragomelj,408 but show a different plan. They are often built so as to surround a central place - a yard. The several buildings that were, considering their size and comparisons, used for different purposes, were sometimes located on a smaller area. A similar situation was recorded at Dragomelj, where farmsteads were located at some distance from one another.409 Curved rows of postholes can be often detected next to isolated buildings and farmstead buildings. They indicate the existence of enclosures. These enclosed areas, which belonged to individual buildings or farmsteads, were some of them probably intended for animals, of which only cattle and ovicaprids could be proved by bone finds.410 The largest enclosure, located in the northern part of the settlement, could also be interpreted as a possible cattle pen. Farmsteads, composed of several buildings and additional buildings that were isolated from the others, were arranged according to plan. The plan 407 It is also possible that the smaller hearths, located in the settlement, did not survive the intensive agricultural use of the area. 408 Turk 2003, fig. 3; Kavur 2007, fig. 2. 409 Turk 2003, 111-112, fig. 3. 410 My acknowledgements for the determination of the bones go to Dr. B. Toškan and J. Dirjec from Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana. (inserts 2, 3) shows that the settlement was of an oblong oval shape, bound by the palaeochannel, with a larger empty space located in the centre. Somewhat earlier settlements, such as Sodolek near Sv. Jurij ob Ščavnici and Pince (Pod Grunti) near Lendava, show a similar plan. The settlement at Lovčičky on Moravia, dating to the Urnfield period, is also of a similar form. It was not tightly bound to a palaeochannel and it was circular, but the centre did not contain any structures.411 Exact chronological definition is important in order to determine spatial dynamics. As indicated by comparisons of pottery material with contemporaneous material from sites in eastern Slovenia, from morphological and chemical analyses of metal objects and radiocarbon analyses, the site achieved its climax in the Early and during the transition to the Late Urnfield period. Seldom finds date to the "Oloris-Rabelčja vas horizon", which corresponds to the late Middle Bronze Age and the Initial Urnfield period. It is interesting that these finds are only present in farmsteads/parts of the settlement that were most densely inhabited, arranged around a central place, while buildings and structures, located to the north of building 28 did not contain any material dating earlier than Ha A. We have to mention at this stage that extensively repaired buildings or several phases of some of the buildings were only present in the area that was densely settled. We can therefore presume that when the settlement was founded at the beginning of the Ha A, initial occupation began in the area, which remained the centre of the settlement in the later stages. The northern settlement area, which, apart from a few buildings, also included a path, several hearths and a large enclosure, was probably occupied somewhat later, after the settlement was already in use for some time. The paved path, which dictated the orientation of nearby structures, and the construction of a larger enclosure or cattle pen, was a task which demanded the effort of the entire settlement and not only one farmstead. An activity that requires the participation of the whole community, with either religious or economic intentions, is urgent for the existence of such a community.412 411 Kavur 2007, fig. 2; Rihovsky 1982b, Abb. 16, 17 - the central building was later dated to the Neolithic period. The ground plan of Pince (Pod Grunti) was presented on 17th March 2008 in the City Museum of Ljubljana by B. Kerman. 412 Roberts 1996, 15-16. ROGOZA DURING THE URNFIELD PERIOD Chronological review The comparative analyses of pottery and metallic finds allow us to compose a synopsis of essential data and, consequently, to make an attempt at placing the Urnfield period settlement at Rogoza into a spatial and chronological context. The best and most frequent parallels for the pottery material can be found at partly contemporary sites in eastern Slovenia. However, only some of them have been studied in sufficient detail to be able to offer solid chronological support; comparisons are presented in the plates (insert 4).413 The earliest finds that can be connected with establishment of the Urnfield settlement at Rogoza have their best parallels at sites of the "Oloris-Rabelčja vas horizon". They are rare and are absent from sites dating to Ha A/Ha B. Here, we wish to consider type So2 dishes with everted rims, especially the ones with T-sectioned rims, Sv1b tall dishes, Sk1a bowls, Skd3a cups, and bases of D5b footed bowls. While the majority of them do not have suitable analogies in neighbouring regions, the best parallels for dishes with T-sectioned rims and footed bowls come from sites of the Virovitica group on the lower reaches of the Drava, where the latter examples are characteristic until the end of the phase/group, i.e. the Br D/Ha A1 transition.414 Pots and amphorae with strongly everted facetted rims occur almost contemporaneously. They are present in the Virovitica and Zagreb groups/phases (phases I and II according to Vinski-Gasparini) in northern Croatia, the Baierdorf-Velatice and Caka in eastern Austria and western Hungary, and in south-western Slovakia.415 They are also characteristic for several phases of the Brinjeva 413 The material from Rogoza is compared with the following eastern Slovenian settlements: Oloris near Dolnji Lakoš, Rabelčja vas near Ptuj and Siman near Gotovlje, dated to the Late Middle Bronze Age and the Initial Urnfield period, and Slivnica, Dolge njive near Sikole, Orehova vas, Pobrežje, Brinjeva gora, Gornja Radgona, Ormož and Hajndl near Ormož, dated to the Early and Late Urnfield period. Abb. 4 only presents vessels, which were, apart from Rogoza, found on at least two sites and are to an extent chronologically sorted. The foundations for the earlier material are finds from Oloris and Rabelčja vas, and for the later Brinjeva gora. 414 Vinski Gasparini 1973, t. 8: 5, 9: 6; Pavišič 1991, t. 3: 4,6; 1992, t. 5: 7. 415 Paulik 1962, Abb. 14: 1; Kemenczei 1975, Abb. 2: 1,2,4; Lochner 1986a, t. 3: 1; 1994, Abb. 106. gora settlement, the artefacts of which have been used here as an orientation for dating regional, mostly Ha A, comparisons. Similarly to the above mentioned rims, also the majority of vessel forms from Rogoza occur in settlements from the late Middle Bronze Age and the Initial Urnfield period, and also in the Early or even Late Urnfield periods. Variant So2 dishes with rims that are thickened on one side, type So1d, So3 and So5a dishes with everted rims, Sv1 a tall dishes and various pot types (L1, L2, L4a, L6a) confirm the above statement. Vessel forms that do not have any connections with the "Oloris-Rabelčja vas horizon" are broadly contemporary or occur with a slight chronological shift. Their chronologies are based mostly on finds from early phases of Brinjeva gora, the first horizon of Gornja Radgona and securely dated contexts from Dolge njive near Sikole. We have to mention the occurrence of oval pots with strongly everted rims (L4b), several differently formed dishes with inverted rims (Sz3b) and tall dishes (Sv3b), which often carry oblique channelled decoration, and vessels with upswung handles (Skd4b-d).416 These show parallels on contemporary settlements in the Drava region and Mura region, in the Ha A as well as early Ha B. Forms of vessels that show connections only with one of the neighbouring settlements are most common at Pobrežje. Moreover, the number of elements, related to the distant site at Brinjeva gora, is astonishing. However, some rare parallels can be found on all of the compared settlements. The most convincing comparisons from neighbouring countries are known from the Early Urnfield period. An amphora of type A2 shows similarities with vessels that carry oblique channelled decoration and are characteristic for the developed Baierdorf-Lednice phase or Ha A1 to be precise. Sv3d and Sv3e dishes and a handle (R2j) with oblique channelled decoration that could belong to a vessel of the "Säulchenschüssel" type date to the same period. An identical handle was also discovered at a settlement at Kalnik near Križevci in Croatian Zagorje, where it is dated to second and third horizons of the Urnfield Culture according to Vinski-Gasparini. Kalnik furthermore 416 Dishes with inverted rims Sz3b are known from Rabelčja vas in a somewhat deeper form (Strmčnik-Gulič 1988-1989, t. 4: 16,21, 15: 27). They do not derive from closed contexts, but are, on the other hand, not the only finds dated to the Ha A, which was already mentioned by Dular (Dular et al. 2002, 173-174). correlates with Rogoza with horizontally facetted dishes with inverted rims.417 These have parallels in western Hungary, in contexts that contain elements of the Baierdorf-Lednice repertoire or Ha A1, and in the contemporaneous Caka Culture in Slovakia.418 Somewhat later are variant A3a, A3b and A3c amphorae that represent the earliest vessels at cemeteries of the Late Urnfield period in Slovenia and on wider south-eastern Alpine and Pannonian areas; they are dated either to the Ha A or the Ha A/Ha B transition.419 Type L7b, L8c and L9 pots are also chronologically and spatially similar.420 Also metal finds from Rogoza were attributed to the Ha A and the beginning of the Ha B. The greatest importance was ascribed to a plano-convex copper ingot that, as a semi-product, chronologically corresponds with finished products. The same date was shown by chemical analyses of samples of copper and bronze and their comparison with the composition of alloys that are characteristic for the Ha A, as well as the Ha B. Comparisons, dating to Ha B, which presented novelties, were mostly found at a small area of the Ruše Urnfield group, which, as already noted by H. Müller-Karpe, shows a unique character with its geographical position that separates it from neighbouring groups.421 Apart from its unique decorations, seen on different fragments of vessels, we also have to mention a jug, two amphorae of type A1b and A1c, type L5 pots of, Sz2a hemispherical dishes, types Skd1a, Skd2a and Skd4b cups, Sk2a and Sk3 bowls and, last but not least, knee-shaped handles (R4). These forms of vessels occur in large amounts but there are mostly individual examples that correspond with the early Ha B. Finds date the foundation of the settlement at Rogoza to the Br D/Ha A transition and its abandonment to the Late Urnfield phase Ha B1. 417 Lochner 1994, 198-199, Abb. 106; Vrdoljak 1994, t. 36: 4. 418 Paulik 1963, Obr. 10: 1, 29: 2, 30: 8; Patek 1968, 102, T. 6: 28,29; Horvath 1994, T. 29-32; Dular et al. 2002, 190-193, fig. 29-31. 419 Patek 1968, 97-99, T. 5: 1-5,19; Lochner 1994, Abb. 108, Abb 112. 420 Patek 1968, 90, t. 3: 7, 48: 24, 103:1; Kalicz-Schreiber 1991b, t. 22: 5; Lochner 1994, Abb. 108: grob 10; Pare 1998, 400-401; Tiefengraber 2005, 127, t. 23: 5. 421 Müller-Karpe 1959, 115-116. His statements were recapitulated by E. Patek 1968, 51-52. Fig. 37: Presentation of radiocarbon dates from Rogoza accompanied with the probability calculation of the settlement's lifespan (Sum) (OxCal v 3.10). Sl. 37: Radiokarbonske datacije iz žarnogrobiščne naselbine v Rogozi z izračunom verjetnega časovnega razpona poselitve (Sum) ( OxCal v 3.10). This relative-chronological span correlates the settlement with recent absolute Central European dating in a period from c. 1200 to c. 950 BC.422 The radiocarbon dates from Rogoza, 11 showing comparable results (fig. 37), confirm this time span and indicate that the settlement existed for a slightly shorter period. The earliest date from a closed context (SE 731) dates the settlement to 1300-1125 cal. BC (2a - 95.4%) or 1263-1192 cal. BC (1a - 53.3%), while the latest date (SE 1512) is 1128-975 cal BC (2a - 94.4%) or 1058-1009 cal BC (1a - 44.4%).423 The latter, as already indicated by the finds, probably shows that the settlement did not exist through the entire Ha B1 period, but that it was abandoned at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC. This would mean that the settlement at Rogoza existed for c. 200 years with eight to ten generations living in the settlement, which is furthermore confirmed by a synthesis of all the important dates (fig. 37). 422 The absolute dates are summarized according to publications of Sperber 1987; 2003, footnote 19; Pare 1998, 294-299; Gleirscher 2006. Only definitions of Br C/Br D and Br D/Ha A1 transitions are somewhat uncertain and some changes can still be expected (Sperber 1987, Schopper 1996, Mäder, Sormaz 2000). 423 KIA37296, KIA37305. Settlement pattern Now that it is known when the settlement at Rogoza was occupied, it is possible to raise the question of the occupation of its hinterland in the Dravsko-Ptujsko polje and the wider region of eastern Slovenia from the Savinjska dolina to Prekmurje. A quick examination of the published settlements in eastern Slovenia shows that none is analogous to Rogoza. Occupation in the period from the Ha A to the early Ha B is documented only on the upland settlement at Brinjeva gora. Moreover, earlier elements, connected with the Oloris-Rabelčja vas horizon, are known from both sites. However, Rogoza was abandoned before Brinjeva gora.424 Also Orehova vas was perhaps contemporary, but an examination of the preliminary report shows that it lacks elements of the Initial Urnfield period.425 It is therefore necessary to observe occupation of the area during the late Middle Bronze Age and the Initial Urnfield period (Br C/Br D).426 The most comprehensively published settlements, Oloris at Dolnji Lakoš and Rabelčja vas, present two larger settlement cores, the first in southern Pomurje and the second near Ptuj (fig. 38). Oloris has a central geographical position in Pomurje. The settlement is located on a meander of a stream. Its formation is questionable as it is possible that it was created by settlers. The meander was furthermore strengthened with a wooden palisade. The recently discovered site at Pince (Pod Grunti) near Lendava lies to the south of this site and is furthermore interesting because of its semicircular shape, which is similar to that of Rogoza. It is located on somewhat raised ground next to a palaeochannel. This location offered 424 Dular et al. 2002, 177, fig. 22: 1-3. 425 Contemporary settlements can be also observed at Dragomelj and Podgorica, which are located in the flatland between Ljubljana and Domžale. Ceramic material has not been published, but we already mentioned plano-convex ingots from Dragomelj. Overlapping is also present at the radiocarbon dates, which range from 2990 +/- 40 BP to 2890+/-40 BC (Turk 2003). Those are, when using the same calibration programme as at the dates from Rogoza (OxCal 3.10), even more related. This is best seen at the latest date 2890+/-40 BC (1200-928 cal BC),which dates to 1220-970 cal BC (2a - 92,6%) or 1130-1000 cal BC (1a - 68,2%) according to the calibration we used and does not exceed the dates from Rogoza as such. 426 We are aware that there are some Oloris finds that could be dated to the Br B, but the majority are later (Dular et al. 2002, 170-174; Teržan 1995,133; 324-327; 1999, 133). a suitable settlement site in a marshy area. The majority of settlements in Pomurje exhibit similar locations.427 Only a settlement at Nova Tabla near Murska Sobota, lying towards the north-west, is different; it is located on flat ground according to the excavators. Mention should also be made of a settlement at Gosposko near Hotiza, which is thought to be a small tell type settlement; however, the settlement was almost entirely destroyed in the last century. Another recently discovered settlement is located to the west. This site is located at Sodolek near Sv. Jurij ob Sčavnici, in a valley surrounded by the Radgonske gorice in the east, the Slovenske gorice in the west and open towards Pomurje in the south-east. The settlement, investigated with modern methods, shows an outline that is analogous to Pince (Pod Grunti) and Rogoza, with a palaeochannel/ditch limiting its location. The Pesnica valley, where a settlement was discovered at Gomile near Lenart, is located towards the south, on the south-western side of the Slovenske gorice. A natural route across the valley leads to Ptuj, where the Rabelčja vas settlement was located at the foot of Mestni vrh. It was bounded by the Grajena stream in the west, with the settlement spreading towards the Drava in the South; the location of the Drava River channel during this period is unknown. A cemetery that probably accompanied the settlement, was found in its immediate vicinity at Potrčeva ulica. Two further settlements were discovered on the right bank of the Drava, at Ptuj (Selska cesta) and Stuki near Ptuj. A settlement at Njiverce, located some 800m from Stuki and with a preliminary date in the Initial Urnfield period, was perhaps also contemporary. The only site located on the northern edge of the vast lowland area of the Dravsko polje is Malečnik, on a high terrace at the foot of Meljski hrib on the left bank of the Drava. A settlement at Žutreki near Spodnja Gorica by Pragersko, located on the central part of the Dravsko - Ptujsko polje is perhaps also contemporary. Similar pottery finds were also discovered at Siman near Gotovlje, which is located beyond Konjiška gora in the Savinja valley, and at Crnolica near Sentjur, in the Voglajna valley. The listed sites indicate that during the Middle Bronze Age/Urnfield period transition the lowland parts were the most densely populated. Larger lowland areas or valleys allowed for a larger number 427 Savel 1994, 53-54, 80. ■ settlement / naselbina ^ cemetery/grobišče ♦ hoard/depo • isolated find / posamezna najdba Fig. 38: Eastern Slovenia with the sites dated to the Br C/Br D period. Sl. 38: Vzhodna Slovenija. Najdišča obdobja Bd C/Bd D. List of Urnfield period sites in eastern Slovenia* (figs. 38-40) Seznam poznobronastodobnih najdišč v vzhodni Slovenij* (sl. 38-40) 1. SETTLEMENTS / NASELBINE 19 Gradišče (Križevci pri Ljutomeru) 39 Ptujski grad (Ptuj) 20 Kujzjak (Sodinci) 40 Cerkvišče (Pušenci) 1 Biserjane (Sv. Jurij / Videm ob Ščavnici) 21 Malečnik 41 Rabelčja vas 2 Bistrica ob Dravi 22 Med cestami (Šikole) 42 Rifnik (Rifnik) 3 Blato (Slovenske Konjice) 23 Meljski hrib 43 Rogoza 4 Brinjeva gora (Zreče) 24 Miklavški hrib/Miklavžev hrib 44 Ruše 5 Cediljeki (Spodnja Gorica) 25 Nedelica 45 Slivnica pri Mariboru 6 Cirkovce (Kidričevo) 26 Njiverce 46 Šiman (Gotovlje) 7 Crnolica 27 Nova Tabla (Murska Sobota) 47 Šmatevž/Sv. Matevž 8 Dolge njive (Šikole) 28 Oloris (Dolnji Lakoš) 48 Sodolek (Sv. Jurij / Videm ob Ščavnici) 9 Draženci 29 Orehova vas 49 Orglarska delavnica (Spodnje Hoče) 10 Gaborkert (Lendava) 30 Ormož 50 Spodnja Hajdina (Ptuj) 11 Gmajna (Spodnja Gorica) 31 Pigl (Javornik) 51 Spodnje Hoče 12 Gomile (Lenart v Slovenskih goricah) 32 Pod Grunti (Pince) 52 Spodnje Radvanje 13 Gorice (Turnišče) 33 Pobrežje (Maribor) 53 Strmec 14 Gornja Radgona 34 Pod Kotom - sever (Krog) 54 Štuki 15 Gornje njive (Dolga vas) 35 Prapornice (Gančani) 55 Terme (Zreče) 16 Gosposko (Hotiza) 36 Pri Muri (Lendava) 56 Zavrč 17 Hajndl 37 Potrčeva ulica (Ptuj) 57 Zbelovska gora 18 Ivankovci (Lendava) 38 Selska cesta (Ptuj) 58 Žutreki (Spodnja Gorica) '' The date of some sites listed is determined as Bronze Age which is visible from the fig. 39. '' Nekatera najdišča s seznama so opredeljena kot bronastodobna, kar je vidno na sl. 39. Fig. 39: Eastern Slovenia. Sites ascribed to broader time spans of the Bronze Age (1) and the Urnfield period (2) and those dated to the Ha A period (3). Sl. 39: Vzhodna Slovenija. Najdišča širšega obdobja bronaste dobe (1) in kulture žarnih grobišč (2), ter najdišča kronološke stopnje Ha A (III). 2. CEMETERIES / GROBIščA 59 Benedikt v Slovenskih goricah 60 Bezena 61 Formin 62 Gorice (Turnišče) 63 Gračič 64 Limbuš 65 Mladinska ulica (Maribor) 66 Partizanska ulica (Maribor) 67 Miklavž na Dravskem polju 68 Nova Tabla (Murska Sobota) 69 Ormož 70 Pobrežje (Maribor) 71 Potrčeva ulica (Ptuj) 72 Ptujski grad (Ptuj) 73 Rabelčja vas 74 Rifnik (Rifnik) 75 Ruše I (Ruše) 76 Ruše II / Gasilski dom (Ruše) 77 Rogaška cesta (Spodnja Hajdina) 78 Spodnje Radvanje (Maribor) 79 Stari grad (Laško) 80 Za Raščico (Krog) 81 Zavrč 82 Zgornja Hajdina 83 Župečja vas 3. CAVE-SITE / JAMSKO NAJDIščE 84 Pavlakova jama (Nova Dobrava) Fig. 40: Eastern Slovenia. Sites dated to the Ha B period. Sl. 40: Vzhodna Slovenija. Najdišča obdobja Ha B. 4. HOARDS / DEPOJI 5. ISOLATED FINDS / POSAMEZNE NAJDBE 85 Bela (Poljčane) 98 Biserjane (Videm ob Sčavnici / Sv. Jurij) 115 Mozirska planina (Ljubno) 86 Cermožiše 99 Savlov potok (Bogojina) 116 Ormož 87 Cerovec pod Bočem 100 Savinja (Celje) 117 Tovarna ivernih plošč (Otiški vrh) 88 Creta 101 Cerkvenjak 118 Petrovče 89 Grabe 102 Gomilica (Turnišče) 119 Prevalje 90 Hercegovščak 103 Gorišnica 120 Ptuj - unknown site/neznano najdišče 91 Spure (Hočko Pohorje) 104 Gornja Radgona 121 Radizel 92 Hudinja 105 Gradec (Stari trg) 122 Rogaška Slatina 93 Pekel 106 Hočko Pohorje 123 Rogatec 94 Pod Kotom - jug (Krog) 107 Juršinci 124 Spodnji Kocjan 95 Podgradje 108 Kamnica 125 Trate na Muri (Sladki vrh) 96 Pušenci 109 Kuharjev breg (Pertoča) 126 Vičava 97 Slovenska Bistrica 110 Jakov Dol (Ločica pri Vranskem) 127 Vrhe 111 Macelj 128 Žalec 112 Maribor - unknown site/neznano najdišče 129 Zbelovska gora 113 Mariborski otok (Kamnica) 130 Ženik 114 Moškanjci 131 Zlatoličje of settlements in a comparatively small area, while smaller, perhaps more remote valleys, included only individual settlements. The only upland site recognised so far is Brinjeva gora, which is an exceptional site with continuous habitation from the Early Bronze Age onwards, which can perhaps be connected with utilization of the mineral wealth of southern Pohorje.428 While the above-mentioned sites, with the help of publications of Oloris and Rabelčja vas, are mostly precisely determined, many other sites are broadly dated to the Urnfield period and are therefore difficult to include in this study. These can be either isolated finds that do not allow accurate dating, or else sites, examined with modern excavation methods that have not been fully published yet and their preliminary reports are often insufficient. Despite this, we made an attempt, based on previous publications, to recognise settlement patterns of the Early and Late Urnfield periods or Ha A and Ha B (fig. 38-40). In Pomurje, a settlement and a cemetery from Gorice near Turnišče date to this period, while all other settlements and cemeteries were discovered in the surroundings of Murska Sobota. Nova Tabla is a settlement dating to the Late Urnfield period and is perhaps accompanied by a grave, while another grave presents a largely destroyed cemetery at Za Raščico near Krog. Finds from a upland settlement on the Gornja Radgona Castle hill date the site to the Ha A and Ha B with continuation in the Ha C. In the Late Urnfield period, on the south-eastern hillsides of the Radgonske gorice prior to the Sčavnica valley, a settlement Križevci pri Ljutomeru was located on an allegedly artificially created knoll.429 A settlement at Biserjane near Sv. Jurij and two isolated finds of socketed axes indicate the Late Urnfield period occupation of the Sčavnica valley. Slovenske gorice remained unoccupied with the exception of a cemetery near Benedikt. The southern Drava region is now occupied. A settlement and a cemetery at Zavrč, with the latter doubtlessly dating to the Ha B, while the settlement may be, according to the excavators, somewhat older, are the most southwardly located sites. The most important site of this area is without any doubt the Late Urnfield period site at Ormož with its own protourban organisation, located on a high terrace of the Drava River. It is an enclosed 428 Teržan 1983. 429 We would furthermore need a geological evaluation of the site for such an interpretation. settlement with a regular system of streets, houses and yards; a part of the associated cemetery was discovered just outside the central settlement area. A contemporary settlement at Kujzjak near Sodinci has a similar location to Ormož and was also located on a terrace between the lowland and hills and was likewise surrounded with a ditch and a bank. Ptuj also settles an extraordinarily important position (fig. 40). An interesting change in the inhabitation of Rabelčja vas has been discussed several times, i.e. the north-western part of the settlement from the Br C/Br D and partly also Ha A was reused as a Late Urnfield cemetery, while the settlement moved closer to a former cemetery on modern Potrčeva ulica. A Late Urnfield period settlement is also indicated in layers from the Ptujski grad, with a possible associated cemetery discovered below it to the east. The right bank of the Drava was also occupied. This is the site of an interesting complex of a settlement at Spodnja Hajdina, which is possibly associated with two cemeteries. They are located some 800m away from the settlement, but are closer to each other. Three settlements were discovered in the central part of the Dravsko-Ptujsko polje, but only the material from Dolge njive near Sikole, dated to the Ha A, was preliminarily studied. A location Cirkovce near Kidričevo, where an Urnfield period settlement with over 30 buildings was discovered, deserves special attention. The discovery of two possibly contemporary additional groups of structures with two and four buildings, lying 450m and 750m southward from the settlement, is also interesting. Such a distribution raises many new questions about the organization of the settlement and its surroundings. However, a key for further study is, again, an integrated publication of all mentioned sites. The occupation of the northern part of the Dravsko polje intensifies during the Initial/Early Urnfield period transition (figs. 39-40). The material from Rogoza is the best example here and can be connected with finds from Slivnica, Orehova vas and Pobrežje. Finds from Spodnje Hoče are perhaps also contemporary. While Pobrežje is located on a high terrace of the Drava, other settlements from the foot of Pohorje are frequently positioned next to smaller streams, perhaps on somewhat raised ground as seen at Rogoza. A question about spatial organization must be raised here, as individual sites lie c. 3.5km from one another. Moreover, a settlement on Meljski Hrib most probably controlled a passage across the river, which runs below the hill, and is similar to the locations of the settle- ments at Gornja Radgona and Ptujski grad. This site with an exceptional strategic position has unfortunately not been examined and does not allow for further discussion. It was as late as the Late Urnfield period when occupation expanded to a narrower part of the Drava valley all the way to Ruše (fig. 40). Settlements with associated cemeteries that were, similarly as at Ormož and Ptuj, located only some hundred metres away from the settlements, were discovered at Pobrežje, Ruše and perhaps also at Spodnje Radvanje. Other sites from a wider area around Maribor, apart from both Maribor cemeteries (Mladinska and Partizanska ulica) that could belong to a single settlement if we observe the site at Spodnja Hajdina, did not lie so close to one another. We could presume seven to eight settlement clusters within the study region. Intensity of occupation strongly decreases towards the west of the study area. The known sites, i.e. Brinjeva gora, Zbelovska Gora, Rifnik, Miklavški hrib above Celje and Stari grad above Laško, are sites that are located on topographically distinct positions. However, lowland settlements also existed, as can be proved by settlements at Blato near Slovenske Konjice in the Dravinja valley and Šmatevž in the Savinja valley. The latter was located on somewhat raised ground, above a stream. Eastern Slovenian hoards and isolated finds have to be observed as a separate perspective on settlement activities or activities in place. These have already been comprehensively studied and I will therefore not discuss their character or date. However, with observation of settlement patterns, the knowledge of which has recently increased drastically, the question of the inclusion of hoards in the cultural landscape can be raised.430 Finds from the Initial and Early Urnfield periods, or hoard horizons I and II according to Turk, can be divided into two groups ^gs. 38, 39). The rare first group comprises finds that were discovered in lowland areas and close to settlements, such as a spear from Gomilica near Turnišče. The area near Ptuj is perhaps similar, as it has also produced isolated finds dating to the Br D/Ha A, but occupation of 430 Čerče, Turk 1996; Turk 1996; Šinkovec 1996. The awareness that the finds without a good documentation of their provenience are of less importance, and can be even misleading is present in this research, but, on the other hand, the distribution of the majority of them is quite uniform and offers some interesting conclusions. the area remains doubtful during this period. Let us also mention two hoards. The first is from Pod Kotom, to the south at Krog near Murska Sobota that dates to the Ha A2/Ha B1 transition and was found some 3km away from a settlement at Nova Tabla near Murska Sobota. The second from Hercegovščak can be linked to a settlement at Gornja Radgona, which lies only 1.5km away. The position of the latter that was supposedly discovered on a ridge above a river valley is interesting, because analogous hoards have also been found elsewhere. The distribution of hoards partly follows river valleys and the fringes of the lowland areas at the foot of the hills. Finds near the Drava River are a good example, namely, in an area from Kamnica to Grabe we can list five isolated finds and two hoards, i.e. at Pušenci and Grabe. We also have to mention water finds in the Savinja River and probably also in the Bela stream, which were deposited into water irreversibly and indicate a different type of disposal. Upland finds or finds on somewhat remote areas will be discussed next. Some of them were deposited in distinct locations, which are raised above the lowland, such as a hoard on the Hočko Pohorje and at Čreta near Vransko. Others, mostly isolated finds, can be found in extremely remote places, such as the Mozirska planina. Isolated finds from the Late Urnfield period also show a variety of locations of disposal. As mentioned above, two socketed axes were found near a settlement at Biserjane, and water finds were discovered at Trate near the Mura and in the Bela Stream near Poljčane. Moreover, an upland find of a socketed axe was found on the Hočko Pohorje, but these types of finds are rare and therefore not easy to define. However, it is interesting that areas of the northern and southern Dravsko - Ptujsko polje can, based on isolated finds and hoards, be placed in the wider cultural landscape as early as in the Initial or Early Urnfield period, while more intensive occupation, as noted above, occurred during the Late Urnfield period. The relationship between settlements/settlement sites and hoard/isolated finds is exclusive to some degree during the Initial and Early Urnfield period, because finds only rarely occur in the immediate environs of settlements.431 However, they also show some connection, as they limit the central areas of inhabitation, i.e. the lowlands, and separate them 431 These are not hoards found in settlements, as the two from Dragomelj (Turk 2003), because they have to be considered as parts of settlements. from the uplands. Finds that were deposited on mountain pastures, next to possible routes and passes, are doubtlessly a reflection of activities that were performed there.432 Their meaning is perhaps analogous to the meaning of other deposits. In spite of limited data from unpublished archaeological sites, eastern Slovenia demonstrates an interesting settlement dynamic. While the Middle Bronze Age/Urnfield period transition shows denser occupation in southern Pomurje, the situation changes during the Early and Late Urnfield period, when, apart from Prekmurje, the Drava region begins to show more activity. Ptuj and its immediate environs were occupied more or less throughout the Bronze Age, but the two wave expansion also reaches the narrow valley parts all the way to Ruše. Moreover, the narrow Drava valley from Fala onwards seems to have been unsuitable for settlement. Only isolated finds were found in the Mislinja valley, most probably from the south-east, as from Hudinja near Vitanje to the north-west of Brinjeva gora one only has to follow the Jesenica and Paka valleys that lead to its southern end. Upland settlements became dominant in the Early and mostly in the Late Urnfield period. We can trace them from Gornja Radgona to Stari grad above Laško. They can be separated from contemporary agricultural settlements in lowland areas based on their strategic positions, from whence they control their wider surroundings. The relationship between different types of settlements has not yet been established. Namely, upland sites have not been studied in such detail as the lowland sites in recent years. Their location presents another difficulty, as they were repeatedly occupied and finds often originate from damaged and disturbed layers. While observing the abandonment of the settlement at Rogoza, we noted that it could be connected with climate changes and with larger amounts of rainfall.433 It is also important that, after the examination of preliminary reports of excavations at Orehova vas and Slivnica, we noted the lack of finds that could be dated to the developed Ha B. Perhaps we may suppose that, at the transition to the 1st millennium, the lowland parts at the foot of eastern hillsides of Pohorje no longer offered suitable conditions for settlement; the hydrology had changed and the area was considered to be too dangerous for occupation in spite of the undulating relief. Translation: Nives Kokeza and Philip Mason Sinkovec 1996, 156-163. 433 The comparisons of phases of increased humidity differ quite considerably. This phase was observed at the transition from the Middle Bronze Age to the Urnfield period at Lake Balaton (Juhasz et al. 2001, 36-37; 2007, 183-188), other analyses have shown the phase between 1400 to 800 BC in the south-eastern Alps, but the data often vary from one site to another (Drescher-Schneider, Wick 2001). CATALOGUE OF FARMSTEADS AND BUILDINGS Farmstead 1 Building 1 (7.5 x 2.5m; pl. 1: 4,5): The outline is given by two rows of four postholes. There is a further posthole, which could derive from a later repair. There is a pit also associated with the house. Building 2 (7.5 x 5.7m): Its form is hard to distinguish. The dimensions lead one to expect ridge posts to carry the roof construction. There are also different rows of postholes associated with the building, which could be parts of extensions or fences. Building 3 (8.7 x 5.7m; pl. 1: 6): It has a slightly trapezoidal form, but its form is not perfectly clear. It may be linked to a large pit, positioned to the southeast and three postholes, possibly forming an extension. Farmstead 2 Building 9 (2.9 x 2.7m): This is a smaller building, defined by six postholes. Building 10 (5.0 x 3.8m): The rectangular building is formed by three parallel rows of postholes. The middle row is not central, but transverses the building at a third of its length. The western row is represented by postholes in a ditch, in which also clearly visible stakeholes of the poles building the wall construction were documented. The building may be associated with some pits to the west and postholes at its eastern side, which we can interpret as signs of later repair. In addition, there is also a curved row of postholes connected with the south-western corner of the building. Building 11 (5.4 x 3.0m): The rectangular building is formed by two parallel rows of postholes, where the eastern is represented by five pair of postholes, whereas the western is much less clear. Building 12/13 (4.7 x 3m, 5.7 x 3.7m; G662): These are two buildings that cannot be be clearly separated. The southern one is represented by two rows of postholes, while the second one also incorporates a row of ridge postholes. We have to mention the north-eastern extension of this row, where small single and double post-holes were found. This is an unusual form. Building 14 (1.95 x 1.74m): The rectangular building is formed by six postholes. Building 5 (7.4 x 3.8m; G337-G340 - pl. 5: 6,7): This rectangular building, formed by two parallel rows of three postholes, might also be included in this farmstead. Additional postholes from repairs can be observed in three of its corners. A ridge posthole was also found in the middle of the building . Some pits may also be connected with it. One is in the south-eastern corner of the building, the others are on its western side. A connection can be also presumed with the rows of postholes running in a SW-NE direction. Farmstead 3 Building 15/16 (8.5 x 3.3 m, 5.1 x 3.6m; pl. 7: 12): An extensive group of postholes reveals at least two buildings, which cannot be chronologically defined. The first group, oriented almost directly to the north, comprises one building formed by two rows with four pairs of postholes each, or distinguishes two building (sub)phases, where the second phase would only be moved by half a metre in the same direction. The second (or third) building has a different orientation. It has at least two additional postholes, which can be again interpreted as evidence of repairs. Building 17 (4.3 x 2.0m): This is a narrower object, where we can observe a different number of postholes on different sides. The side walls are interestingly stronger, i.e. more postholes, whilst the west side is supported by only one posthole. Hearth 2 was documented to the east of it. Building 18 (2.8 x 2.6m): This is a smaller building, comprising four postholes. Farmstead 4 Building 19 (6.0 x 2.7m; t. 8: 1): The form of this building is outlined by two rows of three postholes, around which there are other pits. There is a row of postholes leading from this building to the north, i.e. to building 22. Building 20/21 (6.9 x 2.6 m, 5.3 x 2.8m; G732): The outline of the first is formed by seven postholes. There are other postholes of different sizes located to the south and the east, which might mark a partly covered area around it. The second outline, originally formed by six postholes is shifted slightly to the north. There are three more postholes that bear witness to repairs. There is also a large pit, which can be ascribed to both houses, since it lies inside both their ground plans. Building22 (4.7 x 3.2m; G778- G785, G797 - pl. 8: 2-4): This building is outlined by two rows of postholes, the northern row with three and the southern row with two postholes. There are also two layers of gravel, which can be probably connected to it. Building 23 (5.6 x 2.8m): Its ground plan is constructed by two rows of postholes. In the south-western corner there were again multiple postholes, very likely linked to repairs. There are two pits, which can be probably connected with this building, one including a posthole, lying in the direction of the wall of the building. Building 24 (6.2 x 2.8m; G737-G752 - pl. 9: 2-9): Its outline is formed by two rows of four postholes, which are once more accompanied by others, probably deriving from repairs. There is one more pit with two postholes within it in the south-western corner. Building 25 (4.9 x 2.9m; G798, G800, G801, G808, G812 - pl. 8: 5-7): Each of its longer walls was supported by three posts; some repairs followed and left signs in additional ones A previously observed row of smaller postholes can be followed in a NE direction from the middle of the building. Building 26 (5.4 x 1.8m; G893-G897 - pl. 8: 10-12): Its shorter walls were supported by four and five posts, the south-eastern with two, whilst the north-western with only one. There are also a notable number of smaller postholes around it possibly forming a fence. Other (independent) buildings Building 4 (2.9 x 2.7m; G311-G329 - pl. 2: 1-9): The object beside the palaeochannel is marked by a large pit with a posthole. The pit contained a large amount of pottery, a whetstone, burnt animal bones and burnt daub. The varied nature of the pottery assemblage suggests that it could be interpreted as a storage facility. Building 6 (6.5 x 3.1m; pl. 6: 4,5): There were also other postholes at the palaeochannel, forming a trapezoidal building, in which a pit (SE 370) was found. This contained what is probably the most important find of the settlement, the copper plano-convex ingot. Building 7 (6.0 x 3.3m; G522-G548 - pl. 7: 1-10): Its outline is formed by two lines of four postholes each. Its northern part contained an oval pit, some smaller ones, possibly impressions of sunken piles, and a gravel layer. A similar layer was also found in the southern part, but this contained many pottery fragments. There is also a row of postholes forming a curve on the northern exterior of the building, possibly forming a fence. Building 8 (5.0 x 3.0m; pl. 7: 11): Its outline is formed by two rows of five postholes each, but four of them are double. It also had a ridge post. There are also postholes at the northern side of it, possibly representing an extension. Building 27 (1.8 x 1.4m): This is a pit, which is surrounded by twelve smaller postholes. Building 28 (7.3 x 5.2m; G867, G874-G876, G886 - pl. 9:16-18): Its ground plan is constructed of fours rows of four postholes each, where the southernmost is slightly displaced. Hearth 4 is located at the north-eastern corner. Building 29 (7.9 x 2.8m; pl. 9: 19): The outline is formed by two rows by four postholes each. There is also a shallow oblong pit in the interior of the building. Building 30 (7.9 x 2.9m; pl. 10: 1,2): Its original form is represented by two rows of five postholes, whilst the additional postholes on the northern side represent repairs. Building 31 (5.4 x 4.3m; pl. 10: 1): Its "L" form is outlined by seven postholes. ttere are three large pits in its immediate vicinity, one of which is hearth 5. Building32 (2.5 x 2.3m; G1098-G1106 - pl. 14: 10-16): This relates to the concentration of postholes on the north side of the path, which is hard to interpret. Its form is indefinite, but seven of the postholes form a row and four a square. There is also a large pit (SE 554), which contained a considerable amount of pottery, beside the latter. Building 33 (5.1 x 4.7m, 2.7 x 2.1m; G1177, G1182, G1183 pl. 15: 1-3): This is a building constructed by two parts, a square building formed by four postholes and a pit, around which there are eight smaller postholes. The finds of large storage jars and a portable oven lid suggest that it was used for storing and/or preparing food. CATALOGUE Plate 1 Each catalogue unit is composed in such a way that the number of the find, connecting its description with the main text, is followed by the number of the find in the primary publication in brackets.1 Than follows a description with the basic information, such as granularity of fabric, forming technique, surface treatment, firing technique,2 hardness, colour (Fig. 3)3 and ornamentation with the motif used. Data about the position of the find (stratigraphical unit -SE), its dimensions and weight conclude each description. The current custodian of the finds archive is the Institute for Protection of the Cultural Heritage, Maribor Regional Office. Abbreviations: SE = SU (stratigraphical unit) frg. = fragment(s) dmn. = dimensions th. = thickness h. = height 2r = maximum diameter 2rR = diameter of the rim 2rB = diameter of the base 2rH = diameter of the hole (e.g. spindle whorls) w. = weight 1 Črešnar 2011. 2 A significant number of pottery artefacts show a variety of different impacts (e.g. fire, humidity, post-deposition factors), which, to an extent, damaged or destroyed at least their exterior surface. These artefacts are described as refired/ destroyed. 3 Colours were defined using the Munsell Soil Colour Charts (Baltimore 1988). If the colours of the artefact's exterior and interior surface vary significantly, this is registered and divided by a slash (/). If the colours vary on one side, i.e. the surface is spotty, this was also registered, divided by a dash (-) and an explanation (- spotty). 1. (G147) Frg. of an ornamented rim; hand-thrown; granularity: rough; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: yellowish brown; firing: reduction / oxidation; ornament: facets; motif: horizontal lines. Position: SE 514; dmn.: 13.0 x 6.5cm; th.: 1.3cm; 2rR: 40.4cm; w.: 165.6g. 2. (G146) Frg. of an ornamented jar; hand-thrown; granularity: rough; refired / destroyed; ornament: ornamented cordon; motif: horizontal line. Position: SE 514; 2rR: 63.0cm; 2rB: 33.3cm; h.: 48.0cm; th.: 1.0cm; w.: 991.9g. 3. (G148) Frg. of rim and ornamented body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: soft; colour: yellowish brown; firing: oxidation; ornament: ornamented cordon; motif: horizontal line. Position: SE 514; 2rR: 18.4cm; h.: 8.1cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 154.8g. 4. (G330) Frg. of an ornamented body: hand-thrown; granularity: fine; refired / destroyed; ornament: incisions; motif: parallel lines. Position: SE 600; dmn.: 4.0 x 3.0cm; th.: 0.8cm; w.: 14.4g. 5. (G331) Frg. of an ornamented handle; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: perfunctory sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish brown; firing: oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: vertical line. Position: SE 600; dmn.: 3.6 x 3.2cm; th.: 1.1cm; w.: 20.7g. 6. (G336) Frg. of rim and ornamented body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: very hard; colour: yellowish red; firing: oxidation; ornament: ornamented cordon; motif: horizontal line. Position: SE 600; dmn.: 10.4 x 9.5cm; th.: 0.8cm; w.: 119.3g. 7. (G332) Frg. of rim and body; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish yellow / dark grey; firing: reduction / oxidation. Position: SE 600; dmn.: 5.5 x 2.5cm; th.: 1.0cm; 2rR: 22.6cm; w.: 20.6g. 8. (G333) Frg. of an ornamented handle; hand-thrown; granularity: rough; surface treatment: perfunctory sponging / smoothing hardness: very hard; colour: light brown; firing: reduction / oxidation; ornament: facets, channelled decoration; motif: vertical lines. Position: SE 600; dmn.: 4.0 x 3.2cm; th.: 1.1cm; w.: 16.4g. Plate 2 Plate 3 1. (G311) Frg. of an ornamented body: hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: dark brown; firing: incomplete oxidation / reduction; ornament: incisions; motif: horizontal lines with a zigzag line in-between. Position: SE 658b; dmn.: 4.5 X 3.1cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 11.0g. 2. (G312) Frg. of a jar body with a lug; hand-thrown; granularity: rough; refired / destroyed. Position: SE 658b; dmn.: 9.5 X 5.0cm; th.: 1.0cm; w.: 113.5g. 3. (G317) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish brown; firing: incomplete oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 658b; dmn.: 10.4 X 3.0cm; th.: 0.5cm; 2rR: 16.8cm; w.: 25.2g. 4.(G328) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: dark brown; firing: reduction; ornament: facets; motif: horizontal line. Position: SE 658b; dmn.: 6.3 X 2.4cm; th.: 0.6cm; w.: 12.5g. 5. (G319) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: rough; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: light brown; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 658b; dmn.: 9.0 X 7.5cm; th.: 1.1cm; 2rR: 26.6cm; w.: 95.7g. 6. (G320) Frg. of rim and ornamented body of a jar with lugs; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: red; firing: incomplete oxidation; ornament: ornamented rim with lug; motif: horizontal line. Position: SE 658b; dmn.: 7.5 x 5.2cm; th.: 0.7cm; 2rR: 15.4cm; w.: 45.8g. 7. (G326) Frg. of rim and body of a jar with lugs; hand-thrown; granularity: rough; surface treatment: perfunctory sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: yellowish red-brown - spotty; firing: incomplete oxidation; ornament: ornamented rim with lug; motif: horizontal line. Position: SE 658b; 2rR: 43.2cm; th.: 1.1cm; w.: 535.7g. 8. (G329) Frg. of a cup; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: greyish brown; firing: reduction / oxidation. Position: SE 658b; dmn.: 7.1 X 6.8cm; th.: 0.5cm; 2rR: 9.2cm; 2rR: 3.4cm; h.: 6.2cm; w.: 28.0g. 9. (G314) Whetstone made of sandstone. Position: SE 658b; dmn.: 11.0 X 2.9cm; th.: 2.7cm; w.: 139.9g. 10. (G494) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: brown; firing: reduction / oxidation. Position: SE 1127; dmn.: 5.5 x 3.0cm; th.: 0.6cm; 2rR: 17.1cm; w.: 17.4g. 11. (G341) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish yellow / dark grey; firing: reduction / oxidation. Position: SE 1041; dmn.: 6.5 x 3.9cm; th.: 0.7cm; 2rR: 18.4cm; w.: 24.6g. 1. (G358) Frg. of rim and body of a jar; hand-thrown; refired / destroyed. Position: SE 610; dmn.: 17.5 x 6.8cm; th.: 0.5cm; 2rR: 18.8cm; w.: 95.9g. 2. (G361) Frg. of a jar with a lug; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish yellow; firing: reduction / oxidation. Position: SE 610; 2rR: 31.2cm; 2rB: 21.2cm; h.: 30.8cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 537.3g. 3. (G396) Frg. of an ornamented portable oven lid; hand-thrown; granularity: small; refired / destroyed; ornament: ornamented cordon; motif: horizontal line. Position: SE 610; dmn.: 14.7 X 9.0cm; th.: 0.9cm; w.: 138.6g. 4. (G377) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a jar; hand-thrown; refired / destroyed; ornament: fingertip impressions; motif: horizontal line. Position: SE 610; 2rR: 21.2cm; th.: 1.0cm; w.: 600.2g. 5. (G224) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine (mica); surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: yellowish brown; firing: oxidation. Position: SE 610; dmn.: 2.9 X 2.5cm; th.: 0.6cm; w.: 5.0g. 6. (G241) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: brown; firing: reduction / oxidation. Position: SE 610; dmn.: 5.6 x 4.2cm; th.: 0.8cm; w.: 33.0g. 7. (G376) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish brown; firing: incomplete oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: horizontal line. Position: SE 610; dmn.: 3.5 x 2.7cm; th.: 0.5cm; 2rR: 14.0cm; w.: 8.2g. 8. (G236) Frg. of ornamented rim and body; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: greyish brown; firing: reduction / oxidation; ornament: facets; motif: horizontal lines. Position: SE 610; dmn.: 3.6 X 3.2cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 16.0g. 9. (G390) Frg. of a knee-shaped handle; hand-thrown; granularity: very fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: hard; colour: light grey; firing: oxidation. Position: SE 610; dmn.: 2.9 X 2.0cm; th.: 0.4cm; w.: 4.2g. 10. (G357) Frg. of an ornamented body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine (ceramics); surface treatment: sponging; hardness: hard; colour: light greyish brown; firing: oxidation; ornament: grooves; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 610; dmn.: 3.7 x 3.1cm; th.: 0.4cm; w.: 8.4g. Plate 4 1. (G403) Frg. of ornamented rim and ornamented body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: rough; surface treatment: perfunctory sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: brown / reddish yellow; firing: incomplete oxidation; ornament: fingertip impressions, ornamented cordon; motif: horizontal lines. Position: SE 610; dmn.: 8.6 x 7.8cm; th.: 1.3cm; 2rR: 32.4cm; w.: 116.9g. 2. (G405) Frg. of an ornamented body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; refired / destroyed; ornament: shallow grooves; motif: horizontal band of vertical and oblique lines. Position: SE 610; 2r: 24.4cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 462.4g. 3. (G408) Frg. of an ornamented amphora; hand-thrown; granularity: small; refired / destroyed; ornament: fingertip impressions; motif: horizontal lines. Position: SE 610; 2rR: 18.8cm; 2rB: 9.2cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 230.2g. 4. (G412) Frg. of an ornamented amphora;; hand-thrown; granularity: very fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: light brown-grey - spotty; firing: uncontrolled; ornament: incisions; motif: horizontal straight line, two zigzag lines, triangle with two pennants on the top. Position: SE 610; 2r: 9.4cm; h.: 6.8cm; th.: 0.3cm; w.: 34.4g. 5. (G410) Frg. of a cup; hand-thrown; granularity: very fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: grey; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 610; 2rR: 8.9cm; 2rB: 3.4cm; h.: 5.6cm; th.: 0.3cm; w.: 98.1g. 6. (G411) Frg. of an ornamented dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: greyish brown; firing: incomplete oxidation; ornament: facets, channelled decoration; motif: horizontal lines, horizontal band. Position: SE 610; 2rR: 29.2cm; h.: 12.8cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 727.6g. 7. (G404) Frg. of a spindle whorl; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: hard; colour: yellowish brown; firing: oxidation. Position: SE 610; 2r: 3.5cm; 2rL: 0.6cm, h.: 2.3cm; w.: 10.8g. Plate 5 1. (G413) Frg. of an ornamented amphora; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: light brown; firing: reduction / oxidation; ornament: grooves; motif: horizontal band of horizontal and vertical lines. Position: SE 610; 2r: 22.4cm; h.: 15.6cm; th.: 0.4cm; w.: 427.5g. 2. (G364) Smoother made of quartz pebble stone. Position: SE 610; dmn.: 12.7 x 8.7cm; th.: 3.9cm; w.: 550.0g. 3. (G380) Trapezoid formed axe made of serpentine. Position: SE 610; dmn.: 4.7 x 3.7cm; th.: 1.0cm; w.: 31.4g. 4. (G363) Frg. of quern made of amphibole. Position: SE 610; dmn.: 11.4 x 9.2cm; th.: 6.5cm; w.: 556.0g. 5. (G365) Frg. of quern made of gneiss. Position: SE 610; dmn.: 17.2 x 17.1cm; th.: 2.9cm; w.: 554.0g. 6. (G339) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish grey; firing: reduction / oxidation. Position: SE 600; dmn.: 8.1 x 4.0cm; th.: 0.8cm; 2rR: 32.2cm; w.: 44.7g. 7. (G340) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: light brown / dark grey; firing: reduction / oxidation. Position: SE 1011; dmn.: 8.9 x 5.7cm; th.: 0.5cm; 2rR: 11.6cm; w.: 24.1g. Plate 6 1. (G657) Frg. of a bowl; hand-thrown; granularity: rough; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: light brown; firing: reduction / oxidation. Position: SE 384; dmn.: 8.0 x 6.9cm; th.: 0.9cm; w.: 85.4g. 2. (G659) Frg. of a handle; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: dark brown; firing: reduction. Position: SE 385; dmn.: 7.2 x 4.5cm; th.: 0.2cm; w.: 43.0g. 3. (G662) Frg. of rim and body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: rough; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: red-brown - spotty; firing: oxidation. Position: SE 399; dmn.: 6.5 x 4.7cm; th.: 0.7cm; 2rR: 19.8cm; w.: 30.9g. 4. (G637) Ornamented pot with lugs; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: dark brown; firing: reduction; ornament: facets; motif: horizontal lines. Position: SE 370; 2rR: 23.9cm; 2rB: 10.8cm; h.: 27.5cm; th.: 1.7cm; 2rB: 13.0cm. 5. (G636) Cooper plano-convex ingot. Position: SE 370; dmn.: 19.5 x17.9cm; th.: 6.1cm; w.: 3471.0g. (ICP-AES analysis is published in the Fig. 26) Plate 7 1. (G534) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: dark brown; firing: incomplete oxidation / reduction. Position: SE 336; dmn.: 7.0 x 3.5cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 18.0g. 2. (G538) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: red; firing: reduction / oxidation. Position: SE 336; dmn.: 6.0 x 4.5cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 28.8g. 3. (G532) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: very hard; colour: brown; firing: reduction / oxidation. Position: SE 336; dmn.: 6.8 x 6.5cm; th.: 1.0cm; w.: 53.5g. 4. (G528) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: brown; firing: oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motiv: valoviti liniji. Position: SE 336; dmn.: 6.0 x 4.2cm; th.: 0.6cm; w.: 21.4g. 5. (G526) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: very fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: light brown; firing: reduction / oxidation. Position: SE 336; dmn.: 9.0 x 8.0cm; th.: 0.7cm; 2rR: 20.4cm; w.: 75.0g. 6. (G537) Frg. of rim and ornamented body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: very fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: light grey / dark grey; firing: oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: curved lines. Position: SE 336; dmn.: 5.0 x 4.6cm; th.: 0.6cm; w.: 22.0g. 7. (G527) Frg. of rim and body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: brown; firing: reduction / oxidation. Position: SE 336; dmn.: 7.2 x 5.4cm; th.: 0.6cm; w.: 36.8g. 8. (G548) Frg. of ringfoot and body; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: dark grey; firing: reduction. Position: SE 336; dmn.: 7.0 x 4.5cm; th.: 1.0cm; 2rB: 7.0cm; w.: 63.4g. 9. (G542) Frg. of body with a lug formed from three horn-like projections; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: yellowish brown; firing: reduction / oxidation. Position: SE 336; dmn.: 4.2 x 3.1cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 16.7g. 10. (G544) Bone point. Position: SE 336; dmn.: 5.4 x 1.5cm; th.: 0.3cm; w.: 3.1g. 11. (G549) Frg. of a knee-shaped handle; hand-thrown; granularity: very fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: light reddish brown; firing: oxidation. Position: SE 346; dmn.: 3.5 x 2.1cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 7.0g. 12. (G669) Frg. of a quern form gneiss. Position: SE 842; dmn.: 27.9 x 17.8cm; th.: 5.7cm; w.: 4613.8g. 13. (G684) Frg. of rim and ornamented body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: greyish brown; firing: incomplete oxidation; ornament: ornamented cordon; motif: horizontal line. Position: SE 002; dmn.: 11.2 x 9.5cm; th.: 1.2cm; w.: 150.1g. 14. (G677) Frg. of rim and body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: hard; colour: brown; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 001; dmn.: 7.5 x 5.2cm; th.: 1.0cm; w.: 50.7g. 15. (G678) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: hard; colour: reddish yellow; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 001; dmn.: 3.7 x 2.5cm; th.: 0.4cm; w.: 6.7g. 16. (G683) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: very fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: grey - spotty; firing: uncontrolled; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 002; dmn.: 3.5 x 3.4cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 13.8g. 17. (G685) Frg. of rim and body; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: brown; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 002; dmn.: 4.0 x 2.3cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 13.3g. 18. (G686) Frg. of rim and body; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: brown; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 002; dmn.: 3.7 x 3.4cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 11.9g. 19. (G673) Handle; hand-thrown; granularity: rough; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: red-brown - spotty; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 002 (?); dmn.: 5.3 x 5.1cm; th.: 1.3cm; w.: 41.2g. Plate 8 1. (G671) Frg. of an ornamented body: hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish yellow; firing: reduction / oxidation; ornament: tool impressions; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 1429; dmn.: 2.2 x 1.6cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 2.4g. 2. (G778) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish yellow; firing: reduction / oxidation. Position: SE 003a; dmn.: 4.7 x 4.5cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 21.0g. 3. (G780) Frg. of rim and body; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: grey; firing: oxidation. Position: SE 003a; dmn.: 6.2 x 4.8cm; th.: 0.5cm; 2rR: 14.8cm; w.: 24.1g. 4. (G797) Frg. of quern made of gneiss. Dmn.: 25.0 x 17.7cm; th.: 5.2cm; w.: 3013.0g. 5. (G798) Frg. of quern made of gneiss. Dmn.: 24.0 x 15.7cm; th.: 8.2cm; w.: 3890.3g. 6. (G800) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: yellowish brown; firing: reduction / oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 999=003a; dmn.: 3.4 x 1.3cm; th.: 0.6cm; w.: 4.7g. 7. (G801) Frg. of ornamented rim and body; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: perfunctory sponging; hardness: hard; colour: grey-reddish yellow -spotty; firing: reduction / oxidation; ornament: fingertip impressions; motif: horizontal line. Position: SE 999=003a; dmn.: 3.5 x 2.0cm; th.: 0.6cm; w.: 6.2g. 8. (G808) Frg. of an ornamented handle; hand-thrown; granularity: very fine; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: very hard; colour: light brown; firing: reduction / oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: vertical band of oblique lines. Position: SE 999=003a; dmn.: 4.0 x 2.3cm; th.: 1.0cm; w.: 18.3g. 9. (G812) Frg. of a knee-shaped handle; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; refired / destroyed. The object has strongly rounded edges. Position: SE 999=003a; dmn.: 3.4 x 2.6cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 10.5g. 10. (G897) Frg. of an ornamented dish; hand-thrown; granularity: very fine; surface treatment: burnishing; hardness: very hard; colour: brown; firing: incomplete oxidation / reduction; ornament: facets; motif: horizontal lines. 2rR: 22.1cm; 2rB: 8.7cm; h.: 6.4cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 79.0g. 11. (G894) Frg. of an ornamented body of a jar: hand-thrown; granularity: small; refired / destroyed; ornament: ornamented cordon; motif: horizontal line. Position: SE 003; dmn.: 4.2 x 3.0cm; th.: 0.9cm; w.: 13.4g. 12. (G895) Frg. of an ornamented body of a jar: hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish yellow; firing: incomplete oxidation; ornament: ornamented cordon; motif: horizontal line. Position: SE 003; dmn.: 3.7 x 3.0cm; th.: 0.9cm; w.: 13.0g. 13. (G756) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: greyish brown; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 947; dmn.: 11.2 x 8.0cm; th.: 0.5cm; 2rR: 28.8cm; w.: 61.9g. 14. (G755) Frg. of an ornamented body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: very fine; surface treatment: burnishing; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: brown / dark brown; firing: reduction; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 947; dmn.: 11.0 x 7.0cm; th.: 0.6cm; 2r: 23.1cm; w.: 65.5g. 15. (G754) Frg. of base and body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: rough; surface treatment: perfunctory sponging; hardness: hard; colour: reddish yellow / dark grey; firing: oxidation. Position: SE 947; 2rB: 11.1cm; h.: 11.5cm; th.: 1.0cm; w.: 454.5g. Plate 9 1. (G758) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: hard; colour: grey-brown - spotty / grey; firing: reduction / oxidation; ornament: facets; motif: horizontal lines. Position: SE 963; dmn.: 6.0 x 5.7cm; th.: 0.6cm; w.: 31.5g. 2. (G746) Frg. of ornamented rim and ornamented body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: very hard; colour: dark brown; firing: reduction; ornament: fingertip impressions, ornamented cordon; motif: horizontal lines. Position: SE 933; dmn.: 8.0 x 6.2cm; th.: 1.2cm; w.: 84.0g. 3. (G741) Frg. of rim and ornamented body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: dark brown / dark grey; firing: reduction; ornament: incisions, wheel-stamped impressions; motif: band of horizontal lines with changing ornamentation technique. Position: SE 933; dmn.: 4.3 x 3.6cm; th.: 0.6cm; w.: 13.8g. 4. (G740) Frg. of an ornamented rim; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: dark brown; firing: incomplete oxidation / reduction; ornament: facets; motif: horizontal lines. Position: SE 933; dmn.: 4.5 x 4.2cm; th.: 0.9cm; w.: 16.4g. 5. (G751) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: small; refired / destroyed. Position: SE 933; dmn.: 4.4 x 4.1cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 16.1g. 6. (G742) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: very fine; surface treatment: smoothing, sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: grey-brown - spotty; firing: oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 933; dmn.: 4.2 x 3.0cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 11.3g. 7. (G743) Frg. of an ornamented body; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: greyish brown; firing: reduction; ornament: ornamented cordon, incisions; motif: band of horizontal and oblique lines. Position: SE 933; dmn.: 3.6 x 3.1cm; th.: 0.8cm; w.: 10.5g. 8. (G737) Frg. of an ornamented body: hand-thrown; granularity: very fine; surface treatment: burnishing, sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: greyish brown; firing: reduction; ornament: incisions and impressions; motif: band of horizontal lines with a line of dots on both edges. Position: SE 933; dmn.: 3.3 x 2.6cm; th.: 0.3cm; w.: 3.3g. 9. (G749) Frg. of an ornamented bowl; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: reddish brown; firing: oxidation; ornament: ornamented cordon; motif: horizontal line. 2rR: 20.0cm; 2rB: 9.0cm; h.: 14.2cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 321.6g. 10. (G732) Frg. of bronze bracelet or ring. Position: SE 900; dmn.: 4.4cm; th.: 0.9cm; w.: 16.7g. (ICP-AES analysis is published in the Fig. 26). 11. (G880) Frg. of rim and ornamented body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: yellowish brown; firing: oxidation; ornament: shallow channelled decoration; motif: curved lines. Position: SE 1303; dmn.: 4.3 x 2.9cm; th.: 0.8cm; w.: 24.2g. 12. (G866) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: grey-brown - spotty; firing: uncontrolled. Position: SE 1303; dmn.: 4.4 x 4.1cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 17.9g. 13. (G865) Frg. of a handle; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish yellow; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 1303; dmn.: 3.4 x 2.4cm; th.: 0.8cm; w.: 10.4g. 14. (G861) Frg. of an ornamented body: hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: brown; firing: incomplete oxidation; ornament: shallow impressions of small rings. motif: horizontal line. Position: SE 1303; dmn.: 3.0 x 2.7cm; th.: 0.6cm; w.: 5.8g. 15. (G856) Frg. of an ornamented body: hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish yellow; firing: incomplete oxidation; ornament: ornamented cordon; motif: horizontal line. Position: SE 1303; dmn.: 4.2 x 2.8cm; th.: 0.8cm; w.: 8.1g. 16. (G867) Frg. of a vessel-foot; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: hard; colour: redish brown / black-brown - spotty; firing: uncontrolled. Position: SE 1303; 2rB: 4.1cm; th.: 3.1cm; w.: 1.5g. 17. (G876) Frg. of rim and body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: hard; colour: yellowish brown; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 1303; dmn.: 35.3 x 4.4cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 18.6g. 18. (G886) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: greyish brown; firing: incomplete oxidation; ornament: fingertip impressions; motif: horizontal line. Position: SE 1324; dmn.: 3.1 x 2.3cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 8.7g. 19. (G902) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: greyish brown; firing: oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 003; dmn.: 3.4 x 2.3cm; th.: 0.6cm; w.: 6.6g. 20. (G1064) Frg. of a cigar-headed pin with incised decoration in a form of false twisting. Position: SE 226; dol.: 8.8cm (reconstructed); th.: 0.3cm; w.: 0.7g. 21. (G954) Frg. of rim and body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: light grey / dark grey; firing: oxidation. Position: SE 003a; dmn.: 3.8 x 3.0cm; th.: 0.6cm; w.: 9.9g. 22. (G964) Frg. of an ornamented rim; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: greyish brown; firing: reduction / oxidation; ornament: facets; motif: horizontal lines. Position: SE 1237; dmn.: 3.9 x 3.0cm; th.: 1.0cm; w.: 16.6g. 23. (G939) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: small; refired / destroyed; ornament: fingertip impressions; motif: horizontal line. The object has strongly rounded edges. Position: SE 1303; dmn.: 5.2 x 4.9cm; th.: 1.0cm; w.: 25.7g. 24. (G937) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: yellowish brown; firing: reduction / oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 1303; dmn.: 2.7 x 2.5cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 6.4g. 25. (G956) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish yellow; firing: reduction / oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 003a; dmn.: 5.5 x 2.5cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 13.5g. 26. (G955) Frg. of an ornamented body: hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: light greyish brown; firing: oxidation; ornament: incisions; motif: horizontal lines. Position: SE 003a; dmn.: 3.6 x 2.6cm; th.: 0.8cm; w.: 7.8g. Plate 10 1. (G947) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish brown / grey; firing: oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 003a; dmn.: 2.7 x 2.6cm; th.: 0.6cm; w.: 7.2g. 2. (G965) Frg. of quern made of gneiss. Position: SE 1242; dmn.: 23.5 x 16.9cm; th.: 3.5cm; w.: 2199.3g. 3. (G1062) Spindle whorl; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: brown; firing: incomplete oxidation. It has the superior and the inferior surface grinded away. Position: SE 1512; 2r: 3.5cm; 2rL: 0.3cm, h.: 1.6cm; w.: 22.1g. 4. (G985) Base and the body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish yellow; firing: oxidation. Position: SE 1501; 2rB: 11.1cm; h.: 14.9cm; th.: 0.9cm; w.: 882.4g. 5. (G1001) Frg. of an ornamented jar; hand-thrown; granularity: rough; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: hard; colour: grey-reddish yellow - spotty; firing: incomplete oxidation; ornament: fingertip impressions, ornamented cordon with lug; motif: horizontal lines, curved line. Position: SE 1504; 2rR: 37.5cm; 2rB: 17.0cm; h.: 41.0cm; th.: 1.3cm; w.: 7168g (reconstructed). 6. (G1002) Frg. of an ornamented jar; hand-thrown; granularity: rough; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: hard; colour: reddish yellow / grey firing: uncontrolled; ornament: fingertip impressions, ornamented cordon; motif: horizontal lines. Position: SE 1504; 2rR: 45.5cm; 2rB: 23.0cm; h.: 48.5cm; th.: 1.4cm; w.: 8208g (reconstructed). 7. (G1003) Frg. of an amphora; hand-thrown; granularity: small; refired / destroyed. Position: SE 1504; 2rR: 44.5cm; 2rB: 19.5cm; dmn.: 34.4cm; th.: 1.3cm; w.: 6830g (reconstructed). 8. (G1004) Frg. of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: hard; colour: reddish yellow / grey firing: oxidation; ornament: shallow channelled decoration; motif: band of horizontal lines. Position: SE 1504; 2r: 48.0cm; h.: 41.5cm, th.: 1.0cm; w.: 6964g (reconstructed). Plate 11 1. (G1005) Frg. of rim and body; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: very hard; colour: light brown; firing: oxidation. Position: SE 1504; 2rR: 23.0cm; th.: 0.6cm; w.: 45.5g. 2. (G1007) Frg. of ornamented rim and body; hand-thrown; granularity: rough; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: very hard; colour: light red; firing: oxidation. Position: SE 1504; dmn.: 18.0 x 8.0cm; th.: 0.8cm; 2rR: 36.0cm; w.: 172.8g. 3. (G1033) Frg. of rim and body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: smoothing; colour: reddish yellow; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 1504; 2rR: 31.0cm; h.: 7.0cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 230.2g. 4. (G1012) Frg. of rim and ornamented body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: hard; colour: reddish yellow; firing: oxidation; ornament: ornamented cordon; motif: horizontal line. Position: SE 1504; dmn.: 6.7 x 4.8cm; th.: 1.0cm; 2rR: 22.7cm; w.: 36.3g. 5. (G1006) Frg. of rim and body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: small; refired / destroyed. Position: SE 1504; dmn.: 10.0 x 6.5cm; th.: 7.0cm; 2rR: 34.5cm; w.: 72.1g. 6. (G1026) Frg. of rim and ornamented body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish yellow; firing: oxidation; ornament: ornamented cordon; motif: horizontal line. Position: SE 1504; 2rR: 38.0cm; h.: 14.0cm; th.: 0.9cm; w.: 1159.0g. 7. (G1030) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: very fine; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: very hard; colour: light brown; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 1504; 2rR: 21.5cm; h.: 8.2cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 425.0g. 8. (G1032) Frg. of rim and body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; refired / destroyed. Position: SE 1504; dmn.: 19.0 x 10.0cm; th.: 0.7cm; 2rR: 25.0cm; w.: 233.5g. 9. (G1028) Frg. of rim and body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish yellow; firing: oxidation; ornament: shallow channelled decoration; motif: horizontal line. Position: SE 1504; 2rR: 37.0cm; h.: 18.0cm; th.: 1.0cm; w.: 748.0g. Plate 12 1. (G1037) Frg. of ornamented rim and ornamented body of an amphora; hand-thrown; granularity: rough; refired / destroyed; ornament: facets, incisions, boss; motif: band of horizontal lines. Position: SE 1504; 2rR: 28.5cm; h.: 15.5cm; th.: 0.8cm; w.: 641.0g. 2. (G1036) Deformed Frg. of rim and body of a jar with lugs; hand-thrown; refired / destroyed. Position: SE 1504; 2rR: c. 20.0cm; h.: c. 19cm; th.: 1.2cm; w.: 1701.0g. 3. (G1039) Frg. of rim and ornamented body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: smoothing; colour: reddish yellow; firing: oxidation; ornament: grooves; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 1504; 2rR: 13.5cm; h.: 8.5cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 72.4g. 4. (G1022) Frg. of an ornamented body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish yellow-grey - spotty; firing: oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 1504; el.: 14.0 x 6.1cm; th.: 0.4cm; 2r: 15.8cm; w.: 36.5g. 5. (G1031) Frg. of amphora body; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: smoothing; refired / destroyed. Position: SE 1504; 2r: 18cm; h.: 16.0cm; th.: 0.9cm; w.: 295.0g. 6. (G1023) Frg. of an ornamented body: hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: light brown; firing: reduction / oxidation; ornament: incisions; motif: band of horizontal lines and a zigzag line beneath them. Position: SE 1504; dmn.: 14.0 x 9.0cm; th.: 0.4cm; 2r: 22.2cm; w.: 67.9g. 7. (G1008) Frg. of body of a jar with lug; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish yellow; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 1504; dmn.: 11.0 x 4.5cm; th.: 2.5cm; w.: 116.7g. 8. (G1018) Frg. of rim and ornamented body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: smoothing; colour: reddish yellow; firing: incomplete oxidation; ornament: oval impressions. Position: SE 1504; dmn.: 3.2 x 2.9cm; th.: 0.6cm; w.: 12.2g. 9. (G1049) Frg. of burnt wall roughcast with impressions of the wall construction; hand-thrown; granularity: small; refired / destroyed. Position: SE 1504; dmn.: 10.0 x 7.5cm; th.: 2.5cm; w.: 107.6g. 10. (G1058) Frg. of burnt wall roughcast with impressions of the wall construction; Position: SE 1504; dmn.: 13.4 x 8.2cm; th.: 1.5; 2.3; 4.6cm; w.: 177.5g. Plate 13 1. (G1050) Clay ring; hand-thrown; granularity: rough; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: hard; colour: reddish yellow; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 1504; 2r: 12.0cm; 2rL: 4.5cm, h.: 3.7cm; w.: 409.1g. 2. (G1047) Frg. ofpyramidal loom weight; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: hard; colour: reddish yellow; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 1504; dmn.: 8.8 x 8.8cm; h.: 10.0cm; w.: 627.0g. 3. (G1048) Frg. ofpyramidal loom weight; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: smoothing; colour: greyish brown; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 1504; dmn.: 8.0 x 7.5 x 2.4cm; w.: 219.6g. 4. (G1051) Frg. ofpyramidal loom weight; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: hard; colour: reddish yellow; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 1504; dmn.: 8.0 x 4.2cm; h.: 10.4cm; w.: 428.5g. 5. (G1052) Frg. ofpyramidal loom weight; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: hard; colour: greyish brown; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 1504; dmn.: 8.0 x 6.2cm; h.: c. 10.5cm; w.: 369.9g. 6. (G1053) Frg. ofpyramidal loom weight; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: hard; colour: greyish brown; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 1504; dmn.: 9.0 x 8.5 x 8.0cm; w.: 299.0g. 7. (G1054) Quern made of gneiss. Position: SE 1504; dmn.: 31.8 x 17.4cm; th.: 6.6cm; w.: 5883.6g. 8. (G1055) Frg. of quern made of granodiorite. Position: SE 1504; dmn.: 13.6 x 8.2cm; th.: 4.5cm; w.: 966.5g. 9. (G1056) Fine pounder made oftuff-piroclastic pebble. Position: SE 1504; dmn.: 10.9 x 9.5cm; th.: 2.6cm; w.: 408.3g. 10. (G1057) Fine pounder made of serpentine pebble. Position: SE 1504; dmn.: 13.9 x 7.3cm; th.: 3.8cm; w.: 665.7g. Plate 14 1. (G944a) Amorphous piece of cooper. Position: SE 003a; dmn.: 0.9 x 0.7cm; th.: 0.4cm; w.: 0.4g. 2. (G961a) Amorphous piece of cooper. Position: SE 1237; dmn.: 1.9 x 1.1cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 3.4g. (ICP-AES analysis is published in the Fig. 26). 3. (G1087) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: reddish grey / dark grey; firing: reduction / oxidation. Position: SE 547; dmn.: 4.7 x 4.0cm; th.: 0.5cm; 2rR: 12.6cm; w.: 15.9g. 4. (G1095) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: reddish brown; firing: reduction / oxidation; ornament: shallow channelled decoration; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 547; dmn.: 9.0 x 3.3cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 28.0g. 5. (G1091) Frg. of a rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: grey-reddish yellow - spotty; firing: oxidation. Position: SE 547; dmn.: 4.5 x 3.6cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 8.7g. 6. (G1089) Frg. of an ornamented body: hand-thrown; granularity: very fine; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: red / light brown; firing: reduction / oxidation; ornament: boss, channelled decoration; motif: circular line. Position: SE 547; dmn.: 4.2 x 3.0cm; th.: 0.6cm; w.: 10.5g. 7. (G1149) Frg. of an ornamented body; hand-thrown; granularity: very fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish yellow; firing: oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 1606; dmn.: 6.0 x 5.0cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 17.5g. 8. (G1150) Frg. of an ornamented rim; hand-thrown; granularity: very fine; surface treatment: burnishing, sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: red-brown - spotty; firing: oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: horizontal lines. Position: SE 1606; dmn.: 8.4 x 4.0cm; th.: 0.9cm; w.: 35.5g. 9. (G1152) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: hard; colour: grey-reddish yellow - spotty; firing: oxidation; ornament: facets; motif: horizontal lines. Position: SE 1606; 2rR: 29.1cm; th.: 1.0cm; w.: 87.2g. 10. (G1101) Frg. of a jar with lug; hand-thrown; granularity: small; refired / destroyed. Position: SE 554; 2r: 19.6cm; h.: 8.6cm th.: 0.7cm; w.: 91.4g. 11. (G1098) Frg. of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: rough; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: very hard; colour: red; firing: oxidation. Position: SE 550; 2rR: 20.8cm; 2rB: 13.2cm; h.: 7.6cm th.: 1.0cm; w.: 248.3g. 12. (G1103) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: very fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: dark brown; firing: reduction. Position: SE 554; 2r: 15.6cm; h.: 3.2cm; th.: 0.8cm; w.: 50.4g. 13. (G1104) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: very fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: brown; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 554; dmn.: 3.4 x 3.2cm; th.: 0.3cm; 2rR: 7.6cm; w.: 4.0g. 14. (G1099) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish brown; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 554; dmn.: 4.0 x 3.9cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 13.1g. 15. (G1106) Frg. pyramidal loom weight; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; refired / destroyed. The object has strongly rounded edges. Position: SE 554; dmn.: 4.9 x 4.8 x 3.2cm; w.: 80.6g. 16. (G1105) Spindle whorl; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: brown - spotty; firing: uncontrolled. Position: SE 554; 2r: 3.9cm; 2rL: 0.6cm, h.: 2.4cm; w.: 29.8g. 17. (G1170) Frg. of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish yellow; firing: oxidation. Position: SE 577; 2rR: 29.6cm; 2rB: 13.2cm; h.: 14.2cm; th.: 1.2cm; w.: 460.7g. 18. (G1171) Frg. of rim and ornamented body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: reddish yellow; firing: oxidation; ornament: ornamented cordon; motif: horizontal line. Position: SE 577; dmn.: 6.4 x 5.0cm; th.: 0.7cm; 2rR: 9.2cm; w.: 31.9g. Plate 15 1. (G1183) Frg. of rim and body of a jar with lug; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: red-brown - spotty; firing: oxidation; ornament: boss Position: SE 585; dmn.: 9.6 x 8.2cm; th.: 0.6cm; 2rR: 18.2cm; w.: 76.2g. 2. (G1177) Frg. of a portable oven lid; hand-thrown; granularity: rough; surface treatment: sponging, smoothing; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish brown; firing: oxidation; ornament: horn-like projections. Position: SE 585; dmn.: 12.6 x 11.2cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 226.5g. 3. (G1182) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: reddish yellow; firing: oxidation. Position: SE 585; dmn.: 7.6 x 6.0cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 55.1g. 4. (G1250) Dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: red-brown - spotty; firing: oxidation. Position: SE 1546; 2rR: 17.3cm; 2rB: 7.4cm; th.: 0.6cm; w.: 575.8g. 5. (G138) Frg. of rim and body; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: dark grey; firing: reduction. Position: SE 008; dmn.: 4.0 x 3.2cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 10.8g. 6. (G154) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: spong- ing; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish yellow; firing: reduction / oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 006; dmn.: 3.0 x 2.9cm; th.: 0.8cm; w.: 10.1g. 7. (G137) Frg. of an ornamented body: hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: brown; firing: incomplete oxidation; ornament: boss Position: SE 008; dmn.: 5.0 x 3.0cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 9.6g. 8. (G132) Frg. of rim and ornamented body of a cup; hand-thrown; granularity: rough; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: hard; colour: yellowish brown-grey - spotty; firing: reduction; ornament: ornamented cordon; motif: horizontal line. Position: SE 008; 2rR: 6.3cm, h.:cm; th.: 1.2cm. 9. (G133) Amorphous piece of cooper with residue of slag. Position: SE 008; dmn.: 1.4 x 1.1cm; th.: 0.9cm; w.: 6.6g. 10. (G129) Frg. hammer-axe made of serpentine. Position: SE 008; dmn.: 12.3 x 5.5cm; th.: 4.0cm. (ICP-AES analysis is published in the Fig. 26). 11. (G86) Frg. amphora; hand-thrown; granularity: very fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: hard; colour: light brown; firing: reduction / oxidation. Position: SE 006a; 2rR: 10.0cm; 2rB: 5.2cm; th.: 0.3cm; w.: 182.4g. 12. (G85) Frg. of an ornamented dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: black-brown - spotty; firing: oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 006a; el.: 8.4 x 8.1cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 85.2g. 13. (G67) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: hard; colour: reddish brown; firing: incomplete oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 005a; dmn.: 6.2 x 3.4cm; th.: 0.8cm; 2rR: 15.6cm; w.: 24.6g. 14. (G78) Frg. of a pin with biconical head ornamented with open upright concentric triangles. Position: SE 006; dmn.: 1.0cm; 2r: 1.1cm; w.: 1.3g. Plate 16 1. (G105) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: hard; colour: reddish brown; firing: oxidation. Position: SE 208; dmn.: 5.1 x 3.2cm; th.: 0.6cm; 2rR: 24.2cm; w.:15.4g. 2. (G110) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: yellowish brown / greyish brown; firing: incomplete oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 208; dmn.: 4.7 x 4.2cm; th.: 0.4cm; 2rR: 22.2cm; w.: 17.1g. 3. (G113) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: very fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: hard; colour: reddish brown; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 208; dmn.: 13.0 x 2.4cm; th.: 0.4cm; 2rR: 17.8cm; w.: 25.7g. 4. (G107) Frg. of rim and ornamented body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: rough; refired / destroyed; orna- ment: ornamented cordon; motif: horizontal line. Position: SE 208; dmn.: 6.6 x 2.9cm; th.: 1.0cm; w.: 21.5g. 5. (G104) Frg. of an ornamented body: hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: hard; colour: brown; firing: incomplete oxidation; ornament: incisions; motif: horizontal lines, underneath oblique lines (hatched triangle). Position: SE 208; dmn.: 2.5 x 2.1cm; th.: 0.6cm; w.: 6.3g. 6. (G303) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish brown; firing: incomplete oxidation / reduction; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 658a; 2rR: 24.8cm; h.: 10.0cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 124.6g. 7. (G304) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: yellowish red; firing: reduction / oxidation. Position: SE 658a; dmn.: 9.5 x 4.0cm; th.: 0.6cm; 2rR: 20.2cm; w.: 26.9g. 8. (G296) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: greyish brown; firing: oxidation / reduction; ornament: facets; motif: horizontal lines. Position: SE 658a; dmn.: 6.5 x 3.7cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 21.9g. 9. (G306) Frg. of an ornamented jar; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: grey; firing: reduction; ornament: facets, grooves; motif: horizontal lines, horizontal band of vertical lines. Position: SE 658a; 2rR: 15.6cm; 2rB: 11.8cm; h.: 5.6cm; th.: 0.4cm; w.: 212.4g. 10. (G300) Frg. of an ornamented body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: very fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: hard; colour: greyish brown; firing: reduction; ornament: grooves; motif: horizontal and oblique lines. Position: SE 658a; dmn.: 3.6 x 3.6cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 6.9g. 11. (G297) Frg. of a footring; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: yellowish brown / dark brown; refired / destroyed. Position: SE 658a; 2rB: 8.1cm; th.: 1.4cm; w.: 68.2g. 12. (G292) Frg. of rim and ornamented body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: greyish brown; firing: reduction; ornament: incisions; motif: horizontal zigzag lines. Position: SE 658a; dmn.: 3.0 x 1.3cm; th.: 0.4cm; w.: 1.3g. 13. (G445) Frg. of ornamented rim and body; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: dark brown; firing: incomplete oxidation / reduction; ornament: facets; motif: horizontal lines. Position: SE 658; 2rR: 20.1cm; th.: 1.1cm; w.: 500.7g. 14. (G478) Frg. of ornamented rim and body; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: grey; firing: oxidation; ornament: facets; motif: horizontal lines. Position: SE 658; dmn.: 9.2 x 2.6cm; th.: 0.7cm; 2rR: 18.4cm; w.: 29.2g. 15. (G274) Frg. of an ornamented rim; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: hard; colour: reddish brown; firing: incomplete oxidation; ornament: facets; motif: horizontal lines. Position: SE 658; dmn.: 2.6 x 2.5cm; th.: 0.6cm; w.: 5.8g. Plate 17 1. (G466) Frg. of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: light brown / grey; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 658; 2rR: 9.6cm; h.: 7.9cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 62.6g. 2. (G430) Frg. of an ornamented amphora; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish brown / black; firing: incomplete oxidation; okras: kanelure motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 658; 2rR: 17.2cm; 2rB: 6.8cm; h.: 15.2cm; th.: 0.4cm; w.: 366.2g. 3. (G465) Frg. of a bowl with knee-shaped handle; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: brown; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 658; dmn.: 10.8 x 8.1cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 98.1g. 4. (G287) Frg. of a cup; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: brown; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 658; 2rR: 10.4cm; 2rB: 4.6cm; h.: 6.4cm; th.: 0.4cm; w.: 68.6g. 5. (G269) Frg. of a cup; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: grey; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 658; 2rR: 10.0cm; 2rB: 2.8cm; h.: 4.4cm; th.: 0.4cm; w.: 2.4g. 6. (G446) Frg. of a jug; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: hard; colour: reddish yellow-grey - spotty; firing: oxidation. Position: SE 658; 2rR: 6.6cm; 2rB: 5.3cm; h.: 9.6cm; th.: 0.4cm; w.: 258.9g (reconstructed). 7. (G279) Frg. of rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine (mica); surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: dark grey; firing: reduction. Position: SE 658; dmn.: 6.2 x 4.4cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 28.1g. 8. (G462) Frg. of an ornamented base and body; hand-thrown; granularity: rough; surface treatment: smoothing; colour: reddish yellow / grey; firing: incomplete oxidation; ornament: fingertip impressions; motif: horizontal line right above the base. Position: SE 658; dmn.: 7.5 x 6.2cm; th.: 1.3cm; 2rB: 8.2cm; w.: 67.5g. 9. (G264) Frg. of an ornamented handle; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: dark brown; firing: incomplete oxidation / reduction; ornament: facets; motif: vertical lines. Position: SE 658; dmn.: 8.2 x 3.7cm; th.: 1.5cm; w.: 52.6g. 10. (G488) Frg. of a knee-shaped handle; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: light red; firing: oxidation. Position: SE 658; dmn.: 3.0 x 2.4cm; th.: 1.0cm; w.: 8.0g. 11. (G275) Frg. of an ornamented spindle whorl; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: greyish brown; firing: incomplete oxidation; ornament: impressions in form of rings; motif: circular line. Position: SE 658; 2r: 3.6cm; 2rL: 0.5cm, h.: 2.5cm; w.: 24.1g. 12. (G268/G305) Frg. of a clay ring; hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: grey-brown / red-brown - spotty; firing: oxidation. Position: SE 658/658a; 2r: 13.6cm; 2rL: 5.6cm, h.: 4.5cm; w.: 212.4g. 13. (G178) Frg. of a jar with lugs; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: hard; colour: reddish brown / dark grey; firing: reduction / oxidation. Position: SE 530; 2rR: 20.0cm; ohr. h.: 19.2cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 355.6g. 14. (G179) Frg. of a cup with a knee-shaped handle; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish brown; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 530; dmn.: 8.0 x 5.6cm; th.: 0.5cm; 2rR: 11.2cm; w.: 48.4g. 15. (G177) Frg. of a footring; hand-thrown; granularity: rough; surface treatment: perfunctory sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish brown; firing: reduction / oxidation. Position: SE 530; 2rB: 6.2cm; th.: 1.0cm; w.: 70.5g. 16. (G166) Frg. of a bronze irregular formed onion-head of a pin. Position: SE 530; 2r: 0.9cm; h.: 1.2cm w.: 0.9g. Plate 18 1. (G603) Frg. of ornamented rim and ornamented body of a jar; hand-thrown; granularity: rough; surface treatment: smoothing; hardness: very hard; colour: red-brown - spotty / light brown; firing: uncontrolled; ornament: fingertip impressions, ornamented cordon; motif: horizontal lines. Position: SE 369; 2rR: 28.2cm; h.: 14.6cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 116.0g. 2. (G622) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: dark brown; firing: oxidation / reduction; ornament: facets; motif: horizontal lines. Position: SE 369b; 2rR: 11.2cm; th.: 0.3cm; w.: 12.7g. 3. (G572) Frg. of an ornamented dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish brown; firing: incomplete oxidation; ornament: grooves; motif: band of horizontal lines. Position: SE 369; dmn.: 7.8 X 5.1cm; th.: 0.4cm; w.: 26.0 g 4. (G571) Frg. of an ornamented dish; hand-thrown; granularity: very fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: brown - spotty; firing: oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 369; 2rR: 20.6cm; 2rB: 8.4cm; h.: 7.7cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 227.5g. 5. (G575) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: spong- ing; hardness: hard; colour: grey-reddish yellow - spotty; firing: incomplete oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Dmn.: 13.7 X 14.4cm; th.: 0.5cm; 2rR: 18.2cm; w.: 37.8g. 6. (G582) Frg. of an ornamented dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: reddish brown; firing: oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 369; 2rB: 7.8cm; th.: 0.7cm; w.: 252.0g. 7. (G595) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: reddish brown; firing: oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 369; dmn.: 5.0 X 2.4cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 9.8g. 8. (G561) Frg. of ornamented rim and body of a dish; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: reddish brown; firing: incomplete oxidation; ornament: channelled decoration; motif: horizontal band of oblique lines. Position: SE 369; dmn.: 5.2 X 3.1cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 13.7g. 9. (G610) Frg. body of an amphora; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: brown / black; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 369; dmn.: 9.5 X 7.2cm; th.: 0.4cm; 2r: 21.2cm; w.: 66.9g. 10. (G604) Frg. of a cup; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: brown; firing: incomplete oxidation. Position: SE 369; 2rR: 9.2cm; 2rB: 4.4cm; h.: 7.4cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 173.5g. 11. (G599) Frg. of an ornamented rim; hand-thrown; granularity: fine; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: very hard; colour: red-brown - spotty; firing: reduction / oxidation; ornament: facets; motif: horizontal lines. Position: SE 369; dmn.: 6.5 X 5.0cm; th.: 1.0cm; w.: 51.1g. 12. (G694) Frg. of bronze bracelet or ring. Position: SE 002; dmn.: 3.7cm; th.: 0.5cm; w.: 6.0g. 13. (G124) Amorphous piece of cooper. Position: SE 001; dmn.: 3.9 X 2.7cm; th.: 0.9cm; w.: 40.8g. (ICP-AES analysis is published in the Fig. 26). 14. (G152) Frg. of a triangular perforated ceramic artefact (weaving tablet); hand-thrown; granularity: small; surface treatment: sponging; hardness: extraordinarily hard; colour: greyish brown; firing: oxidation. Position: SE 002; dmn.: 5.2 X 4.5cm; th.: 0.9cm; w.: 25.0g. BALEN-LETUNIC, D. 1987, Prethistorijski nalazi s Kirin-grada. - Vjestnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 20, 1-30. BARBER, E. J. W. 1991, Prehistoric textiles: the development of cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. - Oxford. BATOVIC, Š. 1983, Kasno brončano doba na istočnom Jadranskom primorju. - In: Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja 4. Bronzano doba, 271-373, Sarajevo. BENAC, A. 1959, Slavonska i ilirska kultura na prehisto-rijskoj gradini na Zecovi. - Glasnik zemaljskog muzeja v Sarajevu 14, 13-51. BENKOVSKY-PIVOVAROVÄ, Z. 1976, Zur Enddatierung des Kulturkreises Mad'arovce-Veterov-Böheimkirchen. - Germania 54, 341-359. CARANCINI, G. L. 1975, Die Nadeln in Italien. - Prähistorische Bronzefunde 13/2, München. CEVC, T. 1984, Arhitekturno izročilo pastirjev, drvarjev in oglarjev na Slovenskem. -Ljubljana. CSANYI, M. and J. TARNOKI 1994, Türkeve - Terahalom. -In: Le Bel Age du Bronze en Hongrie, 159-167. - Budapest. CZAJLIK, Z. 1996, Ein spätbronzezeitliches Halbfertigprodukt: Der Gußkuchen. Eine Untersuchung anhand von Funden aus Westungarn. - Archaeologia Austriaca 80, 165-180. CERCE, P. and P. TURK 1996, Depoji pozne bronaste dobe - najdiščne okoliščine in struktura najdb / Hoards of the Late Bronze Age - tte Circumstances of their Discovery and the Structure of the Finds. - In: Teržan 1996, 7-30. CRESNAR, M. 2006, Novi žarni grobovi iz Ruš in pogrebni običaji v ruški žarnogrobiščni skupini (Die neuen Urnengräber aus Ruše und das Bestattungsritual in der Ruše Gruppe der Urnenfelderkultur). - Arheološki vestnik 57, 97-162. CRESNAR, M. 2011, Rogoza pri Mariboru. - Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije (in preparation). DRESCHER-SCHNEIDER R. and L. WICK 2001, Neue Pollenanalysen aus der Südoststeiermark und dem Bergenland und ihre siedlungsgeschichtliche Aussage. - In: Lippert 2001, 15-27. DULAR, J. 1978, Poskus kronološke razdelitve dobovskega žarnega grobišča (Versuch einer Einteilung des Urnenfeldes in Dobova). - Arheološki vestnik 29, 36-45. DULAR, J., I. SAVEL and S. TECCO-HVALA 2002, Bro-nastodobno naselje Oloris pri Dolnjem Lakošu / Bronzezeitliche Siedlung Oloris bei Dolnji Lakoš. - Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 5, Ljubljana. EIBNER, C. 1992, Der Kupferbergbau in den österreichischen Alpen in der Urzeit. - Archaeologie Österreichs 3/1, 12-16. FASNACHT, W. and M. TRACHSEL 2001, Temperaturmessungen im rekonstruieren urnefelderzeitlichen Bronzeschmelzofen von Säckingen. - In: S. Frölich (ed.), Workshop "Bronzemetallurgie" in Halle (Saale), 93-99, Halle (Saale). FILIPIDIS, E. 2008, Bronastodobno naselje Ptuj-Selska cesta - obdelava arheoloških ostalin in najdb iz izkopavanj 2006. (Diploma at the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana). FRELIH, M. 2005, Afrika, ki odhaja in se vrača: dr. Ignacij Knoblehar - katoliški misijonar v južnem Sudanu in raziskovalec reke Nil. - Azijske in afriške študije 9/3, 41-64. GLEIRSCHER, P. 2006, Urnefelderzeitliche Grabhügel und Siedlungen der älteren Hallstattzeit in der Steiermark. Zum Beginn der Hallstattkultur im Südostalpenraum. - Arheološki vestnik 57, 85-95. GREIF, T. 1997, Prazgodovinska kolišča na Ljubljanskem barju. Arheološka interpretacija in poskus rekonstrukcije načina življenja. - Arheo 18. GUSTIN, M. (ed.) 2005a, Prvi poljedelci. Savska skupina Lengyelske kulture / First Farmers. The Sava Group of the Lengyel Culture, Annales Mediterranea, Koper. GUSTIN, M. 2005b, Savska skupina Lengyelske kulture / The Sava Group of the Lengyel Culture. - In: Guštin 2005a, 7-16. GUSTIN, M. and G. TIEFENGRABER 2001, Prazgodovinske najdbe z avtocestnega odseka Murska Sobota - Nova Tabla (Vorgeschichtliche Funde aus dem Autobahnabschnitt bei Murska Sobota). - Arheološki vestnik 52, 107-116. HOLSTEN, H. and K. MARTENS 1991, Die Axt im Walde. Versuch zur Holzbearbeitung mit Flint-, Bronze- und Stahlwerkzeugen. - In: Experimentelle Archäologie, Bilanz 1991, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland 9, 231-243, Oldenburg. HORVAT, M. 1999, Keramika. Tehnologija keramike, tipologija lončenine, keramični arhiv. - Razprave Filozofske fakultete, Ljubljana. HORVÄTH, L. 1994, Anadok Delnyugat-Duaantul kesö-bronzkoranak törtenetehez (Angaben zur Geschichte der Spätbronzezeit in SW-Transdanubien). - Zalai müzeum 5, 219-235. HORVAT-SAVEL, I. 1981, Rezultati sondiranja prazgodovinskega naselja v Gornji Radgoni (Die Resultate der Sondierungen der vorgeschichtlichen Siedlung in Gornja Radgona). - Arheološki vestnik 32, 291-310. JANKOVITS, K. 1992, Späbronzezeitliche Hügelgräber in der Bakony-Gegend. - Acta archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 44, 3-82. JANSOVA, L. 1986, Hrazany. Das Keltische Oppidum in Böhmen I. - Praha. JANSOVA, L. 1988, Hrazany. Das Keltische Oppidum in Böhmen II. - Praha. JIRÄN, L. 2002, Die Messer in Böhmen. - Prähistorische Bronzefunde 7/5, München. JUHÄSZ, I. 2007, Paleoenvironmental studies in the Balaton region. - In: C. Zatyko, I. Juhasz, P. Sümegi (eds.), Environmental archaeology in Transdanubia,Varia archaelogica Hungarica 20, 27-52, Budapest. JUHÄSZ, I., R. DRESCHER-SCHNEIDER, V. ANDRIEU-PONEL and J. L. de BEAULIEU 2001, Anthropogenic indicators in a palynological record from Pölöske, Zala Region, Western Hungary - In: Lippert 2001, 29-38. KAERNER, J. 1989, Zur Chronologie der slowenisch draulän-dischen Urnenfelder und deren Beziehung zu benachbarten Gebieten. (M. A. thesis at the University of Heidelberg). KALICZ-SCHREIBER, R. 1991a, Die Vermittlungsrolle in süd-nord Richtung der Somogyvar-Vinkovci-Kultur in der frühen Bronzezeit. - Budapest Regisegei 28, 9-43. KALICZ-SCHREIBER, R. 1991b, Das spätbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Budapest (Ungarn). - Prähistorische Zeitschrift 66/2, 161-196. KAVUR, B. 2001, Meljski hrib and the late prehistoric regional settlement pattern. - In: Lippert 2001, 355-364. KAVUR, B. 2007, Middle to Late Bronze Age in Eastern Slovenia. The highways to archaeological knowledge. - In: G. Tiefengraber (ed.), Studien zur Mittel- und Spätbronzezeit am Rande der Südostalpen. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 148, 51-65, Bonn. KEMENCZEI, T. 1975, Zur Verbreitung der spätbronzezeitlichen Urnenfelderkultur östlich der Donau. - Folia Archaeologica 26, 45-70. KLEMENC, S., B. BUDIC and J. ZUPAN 1999, Statistical evaluation of data obtained by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES) for archaeological cooper ingots. - Analytica Chimica Acta 389, 141-150. KOROSEC, j. 1951, Prazgodovinska naselbina na Ptujskem gradu. - Dela 1. razreda SAZU 1/6, Ljubljana. KOVAC, o. 2004, Hajndl pri Ormožu - prazgodovinska naselbina, območje 1."(Diploma at the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana). KURZYNSKI, K. 1996, "^und ihre Hosen nennen sie bara-cas" Textilfunde und Textiltecnologie der Hallstatt- und Latenezeit und ihr Kontekst. - Internationale Archäologie 22, Espelkamp. KUSTÄR, R. 2000, Spätbronzezeitliches Hügelgrab in Isztimer-Csöszpuszta. - Alba Regia 29, 7-53. LAMUT, B. 1988-1989, Kronološka slika prazgodovinske naselbine v Ormožu (Chronologische Skizze der vorge- schichtlichen Siedlung in Ormož). - Arheološki vestnik 39-40, 235-276. LAMUT, B. 2000, Zgodnja bronasta doba. - In: M. Strmč-nik-Gulič (ed.), Poročilo o arheoloških raziskavah na avtocestnem odseku Slivnica-Pesnica, na odseku Slivnica. - Maribor. LAMUT, B. 2001, Ormož - The Chronological Structure of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Settlement. - In: Lippert 2001, 201-242. LAMUT, B. 2007, Kamnita orodja iz prazgodovinske naselbine v Ormožu. - In: B. Lamut (ed.), Kamen v davnini. Kamnine, fosili, kamnita orodja, 24-32, Ormož. LEBEN, F. 1967, Stratigrafija in časovna uvrstitev jamskih najdb na Tržaškem Krasu (prispevek k poznavanju jamske arheologije na slovenskih tleh) (Stratigraphie und zeitliche Einreihung der Höhlenfundstätten auf dem Triester Karst (ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Höhlenarchäologie auf slowenischen Boden)). - Arheološki vestnik 18, 43-111. LEONARDI, G. 2004, Note sul popolamento del territorio bellunese tra Neolitico ed Eta del bronzo. - In: G. Leo-nardi (ed.), Il popolamento delle Alpi nord-orientali tra Neolitico ed Eta del bronzo, 71-101, Belluno. LIPPERT, A. (ed.), Die Drau-, Mur- und Raab-Region im 1. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. Akten des internationalen und interdisziplinären Symposiums vom 26. bis 29. April 2000 in Bad Radkersburg, Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 78, Bonn. LOCHNER, M. 1986a, Das frühurnenfelderzeitliche Gräberfeld von Baierdorf, Niederösterreich - eine Gesamtdarstellung. - Archaeologia Austriaca 70, 263-293. LOCHNER, M. 1986b, Ein urnenfelderzeitliches Keramikdepot aus Oberravelsbach, Niederösterreich. - Archaeologia Austriaca 70, 295-315. LOCHNER, M. 1991a, Ein Gräberfeld der älteren Urnefelderzeit aus Horn, Niederösterreich. - Archaeologia Austriaca 74, 137-220. LOCHNER, M. 1991b, Studien zur Urnenfelderkultur im Waldviertel (Niederösterreich). - Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission 25, Wien. LOCHNER, M. 1994, Späte Bronzezeit, Urnenfelderzeit. -In: J. W. Neugebauer (ed.), Bronzezeit in Ostösterreich, Wissenschaftliche Schriftreihe Niederösterreich 98-101, 195-223, St. Pölten-Wien. LOVRENCAK, f. 1998, Pedogeografske značilnosti. - In: I. Gams, I. Vrišer (eds.), Geografija Slovenije, 173-185, Ljubljana. LUBSINA-TUSEK, m. 1993, Kamnito orodje v severovzhodni Sloveniji (Stone Tools in Northeastern Slovenia). - In: Ptujski arheološki zbornik ob 100-letnici muzeja in Muzejskega društva, 31-159, Ptuj. MÄDER, A. and T. SORMAZ 2000, Die Dendrodaten der beginnenden Spätbronzezeit (Bz D) von Elgg ZH-Breiti. - Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frügeschichte 83, 65-78. MAGDIC, A. 2006, Prazgodovinska naselbina Hajndl pri Ormožu. Izkopavanje 1999/2000 - Območje 2. (Diploma at the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana). MAJNARIC-PANDŽIC, N. 1989, Prilog poznavanju ka-snog brončanog doba u sveverozapadnoj Hrvatskoj (A Contribution to the Knowledge of the Late Bronze Age in North-West Croatia). - Arheološki radovi i rasprave 11, 9-28. MAJNARIC-PANDŽIC, N. 1992, Ljevaonica brončanih predmeta u kasnobrončanodobnom naselju na Kalniku kod Križevaca. - Opuscula Archaeologica 16, 57-73. MAJNARIC-PANDŽIC, N. 1993, Prilog poznavanju naselja i naseljenosti Brodskoga Posavlja u kasno brončano doba. - Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 16, 149-162. MASON, P. 2004, Dolge njive near Bela cerkev. - In: D. Prešeren (ed.), The Earth Beneath Your Feet. Archaeology on the Motorways in Slovenia. Guide to Sites, 123-125, Ljubljana. MEDOVIC, P. 1988, Kalakača: naselje ranog gvozdenog doba. - Posebna izdanja. Vojvodanski muzej 10, Novi Sad. MELE, M. 2003, Hajndl pri Ormožu - naselbina iz starejše železne dobe. (Diploma at the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana). MELE, M. 2005, Hajndl bei Ormož - eine neue Hausform der frühen Hallstattzeit im Südostalpenraum. - Archäologie in Deutschland 3/5, 21. MELE, M. 2007, Izdelava in uporaba glajenega kamnitega orodja. - In: B. Lamut (ed.), Kamen v davnini. Kamnine, fosili, kamnita orodja, 12-20, Ormož. METZNER-NEBELSICK, C. 2002, Der "Thrako-Kimmerische" Formenkreis aus der Sicht der Urnenfelder- und Hallstattzeit im südöstlichen Pannonien. - Vorgeschichtliche Forschung 23, Rahden. MURGELJ, I. 2008, Srednja bronasta doba na Dolenjskem - primer Podsmreka. (M. A. thesis at the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana). MÜLLER-KARPE, H. 1959, Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. -Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 22. NEUGEBAUER, J. W. 1994, Mittlere Bronzezeit (Hügelgräberzeit). - In: J. W. Neugebauer (ed.), Bronzezeit in Ostösterreich. - Wissenschaftliche Schriftreihe Niederösterreich 145-166, St. Pölten-Wien. NOVOTNA, M. 1980, Die Nadeln in der Slowakei. - Prähistorische Bronzefunde 13/6, München. OMAN, D. 1981, Brinjeva gora - 1953 (obdelava prazgodovinske keramike) (Brinjeva gora near Slovenske Konjice, excavation 1953). - Arheološki vestnik 32, 144-153. PAHIC, S. 1957, Drugo žarno grobišče v Rušah. - Razpr. 1. razreda SAZU 4/3, Ljubljana. PAHIC, s. 1972, Pobrežje. - Katalogi in monografije 6, Ljubljana. PAHIC, s. 1981, Brinjeva gora 1953 (Brinjeva gora 1953). - Arheološki vestnik 32, 71-143. PAHIC, s. 1985, Brinjeva gora 1954. - In: Doneski k pra-davnini Podravja 2, Maribor. PAHIC, s. 1991, Moji poslednji pobreški grobovi. - In: Doneski k pradavnini Podravja 6, Maribor. PAHIC, v. 1988-1989, Žarno grobišče na Brinjevi gori (Das urnenfelderzeitliche Gräberfeld von Brinjeva gora). - Arheološki vestnik 39-40, 181-215. PARE, C. 1998, Beiträge zum Übergang von der Bronze-zur Eisenzeit in Mitteleuropa. - Jahrbuch des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 45, 293-435. PATEK, E. 1968, Die Urnenfelderkultur in Transdanubien. - Archaeologia Hungarica 44, Budapest. PAULIK, J. 1962, Das Velatice-Beierdorfer Hügelgrab in Očkov. - Slovenska archaeologia 10/1, 5-96. PAULIK, J. 1963, Zur Problematik der Čaka-Kultur im Karpatenbecken. - Slovenska archaeologia 11, 269-332. PAVIŠIC, I. 1991, Prapovijestno nalazište Mali Zagreb u Špišic Bukovnici - prilog poznavanju virovitičke grupe. - Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu 8, 5-16. PAVIŠIC, I. 1992, Neki novi nalazi Virovitičke grupe iz Gacišta kod Virovitice. - Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu 9, 37-48. PAVIŠIC, I. 1993, Kasnobrončanodobno naselje Špičak u Bojačnom - Prilog poznavanju ruške grupe. - In: Ptujski arheološki zbornik ob 100-letnici muzeja in Muzejskega društva, 171-188, Ptuj. PAVLOVIČ, D. 2007, Grofove njive pri Drnovem. Halštatsko-dobna naselbina in gomila. (Diploma at the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana). PENZ, M. 2001, Späturnenfelder- und frühhallstattzeitliche Funde von der Höhensiedlung am Kapfensteiner Kogel. - In: Lippert 2001, 271-285. PERKO, D. and M. OROŽEN ADAMIČ (ed.) 1998, Dravska ravan. - In: Slovenija - pokrajine in ljudje, 592-605, Ljubljana. PETRU, S. 1997, Metode preiskav sledov uporabe na kamnitih orodjih iz najdišč Zakajeni spodmol in Mala Triglavca (Methods of research on use wear on the stone tools from the sites of Zakajeni spodmol and MalaTriglavca). - Poročila o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 24, 79-97. PIRKMAJER, D. 1983, Prazgodovinska naselbina na Rifniku. Materialne ostaline iz arheoloških izkopavanj v letih 1956 do 1961. (Diploma at the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana). PITTIONI, R. 1954, Urgeschichte des österreichischen Raumes. - Wien. PUŠ, I. 1971, Žarnogrobiščna nekropola na dvorišču SAZU v Ljubljani. - Razprave SAZU 7/1, Ljubljana. PUŠ, I. 1982, Prazgodovinsko žarno grobišče v Ljubljani. - Razprave SAZU 13/2, Ljubljana. PUŠ, I. 1988-1989, Bronastodobna naselbina pri Žlebiču (Bronzezeitliche Siedlung bei Žlebič). - Arheološki vestnik 39-40, 345-366. RAČIČ, B. 1951, Domače tkalstvo v Beli krajini. - Slovenski etnograf, 142-158. RIESER, B. and H. SCHRATTENTHALER 1998-1999, Urgeschichtlicher Kupferbergbau im Raum Schwaz-Brixlegg,Tirol. - Archaeologia Austriaca 82-83, 135-179. RIHOVSKY, J. 1972, Die Messer in Mähren und dem Ostalpengebiet. - Prähistorische Bronzefunde VII/1, München. RIHOVSKY, J. 1979, Die Nadeln in Mähren und Ostalpengebiet. - Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIII/5, München. RIHOVSKY, J. 1982a, Das Urnengräberfeld von Podoli. -Fontes Archaeologiae Moravicae 15, Brno. RIHOVSKY, J. 1982b, Lovčičky. Jungbronzezeitliche Siedlung in Mähren. - Materialien zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie 15, München. RIHOVSKY, J. 1983, Die Nadeln in Westungarn I. - Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIII/10, München. ROBERTS, B. K. 1996, Landscape of Settlement. Prehistory to the present. - London. SCHOPPER, F. 1996, Zu Radiokarbondatierungen mit-telbronzezeitlicher bis früheisenzeitlicher (ca. 1600-500 v. CHR) Funde in Mitteleuropa. - In: K. Randsborg (ed.) Absolute Chronology. Archaeological Europe 2500-500 BC, Acta Archaeologica 67, Suppl. I, 211-218, K0benhavn. SMOLNIK, R. 1994, Der Burgstallkogel bei Kleinklein II. Die Keramik der vorgeschichtlichen Siedlung. - Veröffentlichungen des vorgeschichtlichen Seminars Marburg 9, Marburg. SPERBER, L. 1987, Untersuchungen zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit im nördlichen Alpenvorland von der Schweiz bis Oberösterreich. - Antiquitas 3/29, Bonn. STARE, F. 1954, Ilirske najdbe železne dobe v Ljubljani. -Dela 1. razr. SAZU 9, Ljubljana. STARE, F. 1975, Dobova. - Posavski muzej Brežice 2, Brežice. STARE, V. 1973, Prazgodovina Šmarjete. - Katalogi in monografije 10, Ljubljana. STRMČNIK-GULIČ, M. 1980, Žarno grobišče iz Rabelčje vasi pri Ptuju. - Situla 20-21, 61-70, Ljubljana. STRMČNIK-GULIČ, M. 1988-1989, Bronastodobni naselitveni kompleks v Rabelčji vasi na Ptuju (Der Bronzezeitliche Siedlungskomplex in Rabelčja vas auf Ptuj). - Arheološki vestnik 39-40, 147-170. STRMČNIK-GULIČ, M. (ed.) 2000, Poročilo o arheoloških raziskavah na avtocestnem odseku Slivnica-Pesnica, na odseku Slivnica. - Maribor. STRMČNIK-GULIČ, M. 2004, Spodnje Hoče. - In: D. Prešeren (ed.), The Earth Beneath Your Feet. Archaeology on the Motorways in Slovenia. Guide to Sites, 250-251, Ljubljana. STRMČNIK-GULIČ, M. et al. 2006, Poročilo o arheoloških raziskavah na trasi avtoceste Slivnica - Pesnica, na odseku priključka Ptujska - priključek Zrkovska. - Maribor. STRMČNIK-GULIČ M. et al. 2007, Poročilo o arheoloških izkopavanjih v Orehovi vasi. - Maribor. STRMČNIK-GULIČ, M. and M. KAJZER CAFNIK 2006, Maribor - prazgodovinska naselbina na Pobrežju. -Varstvo spomenikov 43. Poročila, 133-135. ŠAVEL, I. 1994, Prazgodovinske naselbine v Pomurju. -Monumenta Pannonica, Murska Sobota. ŠIMIC, J. 1992, Horizont kasnig brončanog doba na lokalitetu "Gradac" u Sarvašu. - Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu 9, 31-48. ŠINKOVEC, I. 1996, Posamezne kovinske najdbe bakrene in bronaste dobe / Individual Metal Finds from the Eneolithic to Bronze Age. - In: Teržan 1996, 125-165. TECCO HVALA, S., J. DULAR and E. KOCUVAN 2004, Železnodobne gomile na Magdalenski gori / Eisenzeitliche Grabhügel auf der Magdalenska gora. - Katalogi in monografije 36, Ljubljana. TERŽAN, B. 1983, Das Pohorje - ein vorgeschichtliches Erzrewier? - Arheološki vestnik 34, 51-84. TERŽAN, B. 1990, Starejša železna doba na Slovenskem Štajerskem / The Early Iron Age in Slovenian Styria. -Katalogi in monografije 25, Ljubljana. TERŽAN, B. 1995, Stand und Aufgaben der Forschungen zur Urnenfelderzeit in Jugoslawien. - In: M. Erbach (ed.), Beiträge zur Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums, Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 35, 323-372, Bonn. TIEFENGRABER, G. 2005, Untersuchungen zur Urnefelderund Hallstattzeit im Grazer Becken. - Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 124, Bonn. TOMANIC-JEVREMOV, m. 1988-1989, Žarno grobišče v Ormožu. - Arheološki vestnik 39-40, 277-322. TOMANIC-JEVREMOV, M., A. TOMAŽ and B. KAVUR 2006, Neolitske in bakrenodobne najdbe s Ptujskega gradu (Neolithic and Cooper Age finds from Ptuj Castle). -In: A. Tomaž (ed.), Od Sopota do Lengyela. Prispevki o kamenodobnih in bakrenodobnih kulturah med Savo in Donavo / Between Sopot and Lengyel. Contributions to Stone Age and Copper Age Cultures Between the Sava and the Danube, Annales Mediterranea, 175-194, Koper. TOMAŽ, A. 1997, Tehnološka raziskava lončenine iz Moverne vasi v Beli krajini / Research into pottery technology from Moverna vas in the Bela krajina region. - Poročila o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 24, 113-130. TOMAŽ, A. 2005, Catež - Sredno polje. Analiza neolit-ske keramike iz objektov 055 in 093 (Analysis of the Neolithic pottery from pits 055 and 093). - In: Guštin 2005a, 113-127. TOMAŽ, A. and A. VELUSCEK 2005, Resnikov prekop na Ljubljanskem barju 1962 in 2002 (Resnikov prekop in the Ljubljansko barje 1962 and 2002). - In: Guštin 2005a, 87-98. TOMAŽIC, s. 2000, Keramika s prazgodovinskega najdišča Šiman pri Gotovljah. (Diploma at the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana). TRAMPUŽ OREL, N. and T. DRGLIN 2005, ICP-AES comparative study of some Late Bronze Age hoards: evidence for low impurity bronzes in the Eastern Alps. - In: Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research. Beam interactions with materials and atoms 239, 44-50, Amsterdam. TRAMPUŽ OREL, N. and D. J. HEATH 2001, Depo Kanalski vrh - študija o metalurškem znanju in kovinah na začetku 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. TRAMPUŽ OREL, D. J. HEATH and V. HUDNIK 1996, Spektrometrične raziskave depojskih najdb pozne bronaste dobe / Spectrometric research of the Late Bronze Age hoard finds. - In: Teržan 1996, 165-242. TRAMPUŽ OREL N. and R. URANKAR 2009, Kemijska sestava predmetov iz poznobronastodobne depojske najdbe Pod Kotom. - In: I. Savel, S. Sankovič, M. Jereb, Pod Kotom - jug pri Krogu, Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije 7, Ljubljana. TURK, P. 1996, Datacija poznobronastodobnih depojev / The Dating of Late Bronze Age Hoards. - In: Teržan 1996, 89-124. TURK, P. 1997, Das Depot eines Bronzegießers aus Slowenien - Opfer oder Materiallager? - In: A. Hänsel, B. Hänsel (eds.), Gaben an die Götter, Schätze der Bronzezeit Europas, Bestandkataloge 4, 49-52, Berlin. TURK, P. 2000, Depoji pozne bronaste dobe med panonskim in apeninskim prostorom. (Diss. at the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana). TURK, P. 2003, Late Bronze Age Lowland Settlement in Central Slovenia. - In: Diachronic Settlement Studies in the Metal Ages, 109-119, H0jbjerg. TURK, P. and V. SVETLICIC 2005, Neolitska naselbina v Dragomlju (The Neolithic settlement in Dragomelj). - In: Guštin, 2005a, 65-78. VASIC, R. 2003, Die Nadeln im Zentralbalkan. - Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIII/11, München. VELUSCEK, A. 1996, Kostel, prazgodovinska naselbina (Kostel, prähistorische Siedlung). - Arheološki vestnik 47, 55-134. VELUSCEK, A. 2002 (ed.), Pobrežje lA in B. Poročilo o zaščitnih arheoloških izkopavanjih. - Maribor. VINSKI-GASPARINI, K. 1973, Kultura polja sa žarama u sjevernoj Hrvatskoj / Die Urnenfelderkultur in Nordkroatien. - Zadar. VRDOLJAK, S. 1994, Tipološka klasifikacija kasnobron-čanodobne keramike iz naselja Kalnik-Igrišče (SZ Hrvatska). - Opuscula Archaeologica 18, 7-81. WAND-SAYER, G. 1985, Die jungbronzezeitlichen Gräberfelder von Gladbeck, Herne und Recklinghausen. -Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 22. - Mainz. ZURBRUCHEN, M. 2002, Steinzeitliche Werkzeugtechnologie. - Experimentelle Archäologie, Bilanz 2001. -Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland: Beiheft 8, 263-272. Oldenburg. ŽIŽEK, T. 2005, Dolge njive pri Šikolah. (Diploma at the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana). Nova spoznanja o pozni bronasti dobi vzhodne Slovenije na primeru naselja Rogoza pri Mariboru Povzetek Arheološko najdišče Rogoza je bilo odkrito v sklopu gradnje slovenskega avtocestnega križa v letih 1998 in 1999, območje izkopa pa je obsegalo približno 600 x 50 m (sl. 1, 2). Prve oprijemljivejše ostanke na tem mestu lahko datiramo v zgodnjo bronasto dobo ter jih pripišemo kulturi Kisapostag. Poznobronastodobni poselitvi je sledila sprememba namembnosti prostora, katere priča so štiri gomile iz starejše železne dobe. Dokazi o kasnejših aktivnostih so bolj razpršeni, saj ne pripadajo zaključenim arheološkim kontekstom, datiramo pa jih lahko v mlajšo železno dobo ter antično in poznoantično obdobje.1 Prodnata terasa, ki se je dvigala nad vodotokom in močvirnato ravnico, je bila najintenzivneje poseljena v pozni bronasti dobi, ostanke takratnega dogajanja pa obravnava ta prispevek. Primerjalni analizi keramičnih in kovinskih najdb nam dopuščata, da iz kopice pridobljenih podatkov izluščimo bistvene in s tem poznobronastodobno naselbino Rogoza postavimo v prostorski in časovni kontekst. Najboljše in najštevilčnejše paralele je keramičnemu gradivu moč poiskati na vsaj delno sočasnih najdiščih vzhodne Slovenije, od katerih pa so le nekatera raziskana do te mere, da ponujajo trdno kronološko oporo (pril. 4, sl. 6-23).2 Najstarejšim najdbam, ki jih povezujemo z začetkom poselitve žarnogrobiščne naselbine v Rogozi, najdemo najboljše primerjave v najdiščih "horizonta Oloris - Rabelčja 1 Prispevek (zaključen 2009) je del doktorske disertacije z naslovom Rogoza pri Mariboru in njeno mesto v bronasti in starejši železni dobi Podravja, ki sem jo na Oddelku za arheologijo na Filozofski fakulteti Univerze v Ljubljani izdelal pod mentorstvom prof. Bibe Teržan. Ob tej priložnosti se ji za vso podporo in nasvete najlepše zahvaljujem. Prav tako pa gre zahvala tudi Miri Strmčnik Gulič, vodji izkopavanj na arheološkem najdišču Rogoza, ki mi je gradivo prepustila v obdelavo in objavo (Črešnar 2009). 2 Vzhodnoslovenske naselbine, s katerimi primerjamo gradivo iz Rogoze, so Oloris pri Dolnjem Lakošu, Rabelčja vas pri Ptuju in Siman pri Gotovljah, ki jih avtorji datirajo v čas pozne srednje bronaste dobe in zgodnjega žarnogrobiščnega obdobja, ter Slivnica, Dolge njive pri Sikolah, Orehova vas, Pobrežje, Brinjeva gora, Gornja Radgona, Ormož in Hajndl pri Ormožu za čas delno starejše, predvsem pa mlajše kulture žarnih grobišč, ki se ponekod že preveša v starejšo železno dobo. V prilogi 4 so predstavljene le posode, ki so bile ob Rogozi odkrite še vsaj na dveh najdiščih. Z leve strani je najprej predstavljena lončenina, ki jo lahko zasledimo le v pozni srednji bronasti dobi in v zgodnjem žarnogrobiščnem obdobju, nato pa tista, ki se v omenjenem horizontu že pojavi, a ima pogosto tudi kasnejše primerjave. Poseben poudarek je na najdbah iz Olorisa pri Dolnjem Lakošu. Sledijo najdbe z najzgodnejšimi primerjavami v starejši ter na skrajni desni tudi mlajši žarnogrobiščni kulturi. Zaporedje najdb je predvsem navezano na njihovo prisotnost v plasteh brinjegorske naselbine. vas", a so redke, ki jih v najdiščih Ha A/Ha B ne srečujemo več. Naj na tem mestu torej izpostavimo odprte sklede So2, predvsem tiste s T-oblikovanim ustjem, visoke sklede Sv1b, skodele Sk1a, skodelice Skd3a in dna skodel na nogah D5b. Medtem ko večini ustreznih analogij v sosednjih pokrajinah nismo zasledili, pa imajo sklede s T-oblikovanim ustjem in skodele na nogah najboljše primerjave na najdiščih virovitiške skupine v spodnjem toku Drave, kjer so slednje značilne do konca omenjene skupine oz. prehoda iz Bd D v Ha A1.3 Približno sočasno se začnejo pojavljati tudi posode, lonci in amfore z močno izvihanimi fasetiranimi ustji. Zasledimo jih v skupinah oz. stopnjah Virovitica in Zagreb (stopnji I in II po Vinski-Gasparini) na severnem Hrvaškem, Baierdorf-Velatice in Čaka v vzhodni Avstriji in na zahodnem Madžarskem ter jugozahodnem Slovaškem.4 Takšne so značilne tudi za vrsto plasti naselbine na Brinjevi gori, katerih gradivo uporabljamo kot orientacijo za datacijo regionalnih primerjav predvsem iz časa Ha A. Podobno kot omenjena ustja, je tudi velika večina rogoških posod, ki jih po eni strani zasledimo v naseljih iz pozne srednje bronaste dobe in zgo dnje kulture žarnih grobišč, kasneje prisotna v tudi kontekstih starejše, nekatere pa celo mlajše žarnogrobiščne kulture. Takšno sliko nam posredujejo sklede z enostransko odebeljenimi ustji, ki smo jih opredelili kot varianto So2, odprte sklede tipov So1d, So3 in So5a, visoke sklede Sv1a ter različni lonci (L1, L2, L4a, L6a). Sočasno ali z manjšim časovnim zamikom pa se pojavijo tudi oblike posod, ki nimajo povezav s "horizontom Oloris-Rabelčja vas". Njihove datacije naslanjamo predvsem na najdbe iz spodnjih plasti na Brinjevi gori, prvega horizonta Gornje Radgone in dobro datiranih kontekstov z Dolgih njiv pri Sikolah. Potrebno je omeniti pojav ovalnih loncev z močneje izvihanim ustjem (L4b), pestro paleto različno oblikovanih, pogosto s poševnimi kanelurami okrašenih zaprtih (Sz3b) in visokih (Sv3b) skled ter posod s presegajočimi ročaji (Skd4b-d).5 Tem je najti primerjave v sočasnih naselbinah Podravja in Pomurja, tako v Ha A kot zgodnjem Ha B. Oblike posod, ki jih Rogoza deli le s po eno od sosednjih naselbin, so najštevilčnejše na Pobrežju. Presenetljivo je tudi število sorodnih elementov s precej oddaljeno Brinjevo goro, kakšno takšnih izstopajočih povezav pa lahko zasledimo prav na vsaki izmed primerjanih naselbin vzhodne Slovenije. Za čas starejše žarnogrobiščne kulture pa lahko navedemo tudi najbolj nedvomne primerjave iz sosednjih dežel. Amfori tipa A2 so sorodne posode, okrašene s poševnimi kanelurami, značilne za starejše žarnogrobiščno obdobje, 3 Vinski Gasparini 1973, t. 8: 5, 9: 6; Pavišic 1991, t. 3: 4,6; 1992, t. 5: 7. 4 Paulik 1962, sl. 14: 1; Kemenczei 1975, sl. 2: 1,2,4; Lochner 1986a, t. 3: 1; 1994, sl. 106. 5 Zaprte sklede variante Sz3b se v nekoliko globlji izvedbi pojavijo tudi Rabelčji vasi (Strmčnik Gulič 1989, t. 4: 16,21; 15: 27). A nobena izmed njih ne prihaja iz zaključenega konteksta, prav tako pa to niso edine najdbe, ki jih je moč časovno datirati v Ha A, na kar je opozoril tudi Dular (Dular et al. 2002, 173-174). natančneje za razvito stopnjo Baierdorf-Lednice oz. Ha A1. Njej ob bok lahko postavimo tudi skledi Sv3d in Sv3e ter poševno kaneliran ročaj (R2j), ki bi lahko pripadal posodi tipa "Säulchenschüssel". Enak ročaj je bil odkrit tudi na naselbini Kalnik pri Križevcih v hrvaškem Zagorju, kjer ga uvrščajo v drugi in tretji horizont žarnogrobiščne kulture po Vinski-Gasparini. Kalnik povezujejo z Rogozo tudi vodoravno fasetirane zaprte sklede.6 Tudi te imajo vzporednice na zahodnem Madžarskem, v kontekstih, kjer se pojavljajo elementi baierdorfsko-velatiškega reperoarja oz. Ha A1, ter v sočasni Čaka kulturi na Slovaškem.7 Nekoliko mlajše so amfore variant A3a, A3b in A3c, ki sodijo med najstarejše posode na grobiščih mlajše žarnogrobiščne kulture tako v Sloveniji kot širšem jugovzhodnoalpskem in panonskem prostoru, datirane pa so bodisi v Ha A bodisi na prehod Ha A/Ha B.8 Enako časovno in prostorsko so opredeljeni tudi lonci tipov L7b, L8c in L9.9 Prav tako smo v čas Ha A in začetka Ha B uvrstili kovinsko gradivo z Rogoze. Največji pomen smo pripisali planokonveksni bakreni pogači, ki pa kot polizdelek očitno časovno sovpada s končnimi izdelki. To so pokazale tudi kemijske analize bakrenih in bronastih vzorcev ter njihova primerjava s sestavo zlitin, značilnih tako za Ha A kot Ha B. Primerjave iz časa Ha B, ki dejansko predstavljajo novosti, smo našli predvsem na ozko regionalnem območju ruške žarnogrobiščne skupine, za katero je že H. Müller-Karpe ugotovil, da ima z geografsko lego pogojen samosvoj karakter, ki jo ločuje od drugih sosednjih skupin.10 Ob njej lastnih okrasih, ki smo jih ugotovili na različnih odlomkih posod, je potrebno omeniti predvsem vrč, amfori variant A1b in A1c, lonce tipa L5, polkroglaste sklede Sz2a, skodelice tipov Skd1a, Skd2a in Skd4a ter skodele Sk2a in Sk3 ter nenazadnje tudi kolenčaste ročaje (R4). Stevilo različnih oblik teh posod je sicer veliko, a gre v večji meri le za posamezne primerke, ki ne izstopajo iz okvira zgodnjega Ha B. Najdbe nam torej narekujejo, da ustanovitev rogoške naselbine datiramo v čas prehoda Bd D/Ha A, njeno opustitev pa v mlajšežarnogrobiščno stopnjo Ha B1. Takšen relativnokronološki razpon pa glede na trenutne absolutne datacije v srednji Evropi pomeni trajanje poselitve od pribl. 1200 do pribl. 950 pr. n. š.11 Podobne rezultate nam prinašajo tudi radiokarbonske datacije oglja z Rogoze, od katerih jih 11 sodi v ta časovni razpon (sl. 37), vendar kaže, da je bilo trajanje poselitve še nekoliko krajše. Najstarejši datum iz zaključenega konteksta (SE 731) tako začrtuje zgornjo mejo 1300-1125 cal. BC (2a - 95,4 %) oz. 1263-1192 cal. BC (1a - 53,3 %), najmlajši (SE 1511) pa spodnjo 1128-975 cal BC (2a - 94,4 %) oz. 1058-1009 cal BC (1a - 44,4 %).'2 To pa, kot narekujejo že najdbe, verjetno pomeni, da poselitev ni trajala skozi celotno stopnjo Ha B1, temveč da je bila naselbina opuščena nekje na prelomu v 1. tisočletje pr. n. š. To bi pomenilo, da je naselbina v Rogozi živela približno dvesto let, na kar kaže tudi sinteza vseh relevantnih datumov (sl. 37), v njej pa bi se lahko zvrstilo osem do deset generacij. Med kopico jam za sohe in jam drugih namembnosti smo izluščili tlorise 33 stavbnih objektov. Predvidevamo lahko, da je bila večina stavb grajena na splošno razširjen način z vkopanimi sohami, ki so bile po analizah lesnih ostankov kar v 76 % narejene iz hrasta (Quercus), kar govori o namerni izbiri kakovostnega gradbenega materiala. Za dodatno utrjevanje v jamah za sohe so služile kamnite zagozde. Po kosih prežganega stenskega ometa in odtisih zabitih kolov v vrstah jam za sohe, ki so se ohranili na najdišču, lahko sklepamo, da je jedro sten oblikoval preplet iz vejevja z vertikalnim vpetjem, ki je bil nato zamazan z glino (t. 12: 9,10; sl. 36).'3 Videz stavbnega objekta 4 z le eno jamo za soho napeljuje k domnevi, da gre za enostavno stožčasto streho ali streho na škarje, medtem ko lahko pri objektih 27 in 33 predvidevamo le neke vrste nadstrešek nad jamo in morebitnim delovni prostorom ob njej. V stavbah in ob njih so bile praviloma odkrite tudi druge jame neznanih namembnosti. Večino objektov označujeta dve vrsti s po tremi oz. štirimi jamami za sohe, medtem ko so drugače zasnovani objekti izjeme. Med pravokotnimi objekti sta zastopana dva glavna velikostna razreda, prvi z objekti dimenzij pribl. 5-6 x 3-4 m (npr. stavbni objekt 11) in drugi z objekti velikosti pribl. 7-8 x 3-6 m (npr. stavbni objekt 15), pri čemer večina rogoških stavb sodi v prvega. Ugotovili smo tudi nekaj izstopajočih objektov. Tisti, skoraj kvadratne oblike in s stranicami manjšimi od treh metrov (objekti 6 Lochner 1994, 198-199, sl. 106; Vrdoljak 1994, t. 36: 4. 7 Paulik 1963, sl. 10: 1, 29: 2, 30: 8; Patek 1968, 102, t. 6: 28,29; Horvath 1994, t. 29-32; Dular et al. 2002, 190-193, t. 29-31. 8 Patek 1968, 97-99, t. 5: 1-5,19; Lochner 1994, sl. 108, sl. 112. 9 Patek 1968, 90, t. 3: 7, 48: 24, 103:1; Kalicz-Schreiber 1991b, t. 22: 5; Lochner 1994, sl. 108: grob 10; Pare 1998, 400-401; Tiefengraber 2005, 127, t. 23: 5. 10 Müller-Karpe 1959, 115-116. Njegove ugotovitve pa povzema tudi E. Patek 1968, 51-52. " Absolutne datacije so povzete po objavah Sper- ber 1987; 2003, op. 19; Pare 1998, 294-299; Gleirscher 2006. Nekoliko slabše sta absolutno časovno datirana prehoda Bd C/Bd D in Bd D/Ha A1, pri katerih je glede na razhajanja med njihovimi datacijami (Sperber 1987; Schopper 1996; Mäder, Sormaz 2000) mogoče pričakovati še določene spremembe. 12 KIA37296, KIA37305. Od slednjega je skorajda zanemarljivo mlajši datum KIA37290, ki pa izvira iz na-plavinske plasti SE 006. 13 Med arheološkim gradivom so bili odkriti trije odlomki prežganega stenskega ometa, na katerih so vidni odtisi stenskega jedra. Medtem ko dva kažeta na debelino vej med 1 in 3 cm, kar po gostoti sledov pri enem izmed njiju sodeč ustreza odtisu prepleta, pa tretji kos kaže na prisotnost večjih lesenih elementov. Se posebej je zanimiv, ker daje vtis, da gre za dve večji bruni eno ob drugem, kar lahko primerjamo s kosi stenskega ometa na poznobro-nastodobni Brinjevi gori ter na starejšeželeznodobnem Kučarju pri Podzemlju, kjer hiše tudi zaradi drugih okoliščin interpretiramo kot t. i. brunarice. Kljub temu pa je verjetnost za stavbe v takšni obliki v Rogozi majhna in moramo računati, da gre za stavbne elemente, ki pa jih bomo brez prepotrebnih eksperimentalnih izkušenj zelo težko prepoznali. 9, 14 in 18), so pogosto označeni kot kašče. Dva ožja podolgovata objekta, katerih zahodna stranica kaže večjo odprtost (objekta 17 in 26) smo poskušali primerjati z objekti, znanimi v tradicionalnem stavbarstvu, kjer so tako grajene pokrite staje (sl. 35). Ob tem je bilo v naselju tudi nekaj različno oblikovanih manjših stavb, kot na primer 4, 27 in 33, ki so bile morda namenjene zaščiti različnih vkopanih struktur, kot so shrambne jame in delovni prostori ob njih. Težja pa je razlaga pravokotnih stavb večjih dimenzij. V razmislek je lahko, da je bilo kar pet izmed manjših objektov povezanih z gruščnatimi plastmi bodisi v njih bodisi pred njimi (stavbni objekti 7, 8, 22, 24, 25), kar lahko morda povežemo z gospodarskimi dejavnostmi, ob tem pa štirje od teh niso vključeni v osrednji del katerega izmed opredeljenih gospodarstev. Prav tako stojita samostojno dve od treh stavb (28, 31), ob katerih so ognjišča. Blizu sta bili odkriti tudi kapljici bakra (t. 14: 1,2), ki ju razumemo kot dokaza za metalurško-obrtne dejavnosti, čeprav delavnice za predelavo oz. obdelavo kovin nismo mogli locirati. Ognjišče 5 ob objektu 31 je zanimivo tudi zaradi jam okoli njega, od katerih ena (SE 1503) vsebuje veliko število različnih oblik posod, ki so v dobršni meri prežgane. Najverjetneje gre za odpadno jamo, ob tem pa se zastavlja vprašanje, če lahko kontekst razlagamo kot lončarsko delavnico, ki je ob peči imela tudi jamo, kamor so odlagali neposrečene izdelke. Ob tem je pomenljivo, da je bilo v sklop gospodarstev vključeno le ognjišče 2, ki je obenem tudi edino ognjišče, ki je bilo odkrito v osrednjem delu naselbine, vsa druga pa so odmaknjena bodisi v južno bodisi v severno obrobje.14 Pomenljivo pa je, da vsako izmed gospodarstev vključuje najmanj eno večjo stavbo, ki bi jo lahko opredelili kot bivalni objekt. Razvrstitev objektov v prostoru pa ne sledi skupni oz. prevladujoči orientaciji, kot to opazimo pri nekaterih drugih naselbinah, na primer v Sodoleku pri Sv. Juriju ob Sčavnici in Dragomlju,15 temveč je logika njihove postavitve drugačna. Pogosto so namreč postavljeni tako, da je med več objekti nastal nek osrednji dvoriščni prostor. Lahko pa je na manjšem prostoru združenih več objektov, za katere lahko glede na velikost in primerjave predpostavljamo različno namembnost. Podobno so opazili tudi na najdišču Dragomelj, kjer pa so bila gospodarstva razporejena nekoliko bolj vsaksebi.16 Ob samostojnih hišah kot ob hišah, vključenih v gospodarstva, pogosto zasledimo usločene linije jam za sohe oz. kole, ki napeljujejo na misel o obstoju ograd. Te so bodisi omejevale prostore pripadajoče posameznim stavbam oz. gospodarstvom, nekatere pa so bile namenjene za živino, med katero so z kostnimi ostanki dokazani govedo in drobnica.17 Zadrževanju živine pa bi nemara lahko služila največja izmed staj, ki je ležala v severnem delu naselbine. Gospodarstva z večjim številom stavbnih objektov pa tudi druge hiše, ki so stale posamezno, so bile v Rogozi razporejene po sistemu naselbine. Ta je imela, kot lahko razberemo iz tlorisa (pril. 2, 3), na vodotok vezano podolgovato ovalno obliko, v njeni sredini pa se je raztezal večji prazen prostor. Podobno obliko z osrednjim prostorom so imela tudi domnevno nekoliko starejša naselja kot so Sodolek pri Sv. Juriju ob Sčavnici in Pince (Pod Grunti) pri Lendavi. Sorodno zasnovo razkriva tudi naselje iz časa kulture žarnih grobišč Lovčičky na Moravskem. Slednje, ki ni v takšni meri vezano na vodotok, je oblikovano krožno, osrednji del pa je ponovno prazen.18 Ob poskusu določanja prostorske dinamike je pomembna predvsem natančnejša časovna opredelitev. Kot je moč razbrati iz primerjav keramičnega gradiva z bolj ali manj sočasnih vzhodnoslovenskih najdišč, pa tudi iz oblikovnih in kemičnih analiz kovinskih predmetov ter nenazadnje radiokarbonskih analiz, je najdišče doseglo vrhunec poselitve predvsem v času starejše in prehoda v mlajšo kulturo žarnih grobišč. Zelo maloštevilne najdbe lahko sledimo še v čas horizonta Oloris - Rabelčja vas, ki je datiran v čas pozne srednje in zgodnje pozne bronaste dobe. Ob tem pa je zanimivo, da so te najdbe osredotočene le na gospodarstva oz. del naselja z najbolj gosto postavitvijo stavb, ki so razporejene okoli osrednjega prostora, medtem ko objekti in strukture severneje od objekta 28 niso vsebovali gradiva, ki bi se pojavljalo pred stopnjo Ha A. Ob tem velja dodati, da le v delu najgostejše poselitve zasledimo stavbe, pri katerih lahko predvidevamo obsežnejša popravila oz. celo več faz poselitve na istem mestu. Torej lahko predvidevamo, da je bil ob ustanovitvi naselbine, v začetku Ha A, najprej poseljen prostor, ki je tudi kasneje obdržal osrednjo mesto v naselbini. Poselitev severnega območja, ki ob nekaj stavbah vključuje tudi pot, več ognjišč in veliko stajo, je verjetno sledila nekoliko kasneje, ko je naselbina že nekaj časa živela. Tlakovanje poti, ki je vplivala na usmeritev struktur ob njej, in izgradnja večje staje oz. staj za morebitno skupno živino, je delo, ki je vključevalo trud celotne skupnosti naselbine in ne le enega gospodarstva. Takšna skupna dejavnost bodisi v religiozne bodisi v gospodarsko preskrbovalne namene pa je za življenje in obstoj v takšnih skupnostih nujna.19 Matija Crešnar Univerza v Ljubljani Filozofska fakulteta Oddelek za arheologijo Aškerčeva 2 1000 Ljubljana matija.cresnar@ff.uni-lj.si 14 Ob tem se moramo zavedati, da to najverjetneje niso bila vsa ognjišča, ki so bila v naselju v uporabi. Manjša in nevkopana se zaradi uničenja plasti niso ohranila. 15 Turk 2003, sl. 3; Kavur 2007, sl. 2. 16 Turk 2003, 111-112, sl. 3. 17 Za opravljene analize se najlepše zahvaljujem Borutu Toškanu in Janezu Dirjecu z Inštituta za arheologijo ZRC SAZU v Ljubljani. 18 Kavur 2007, sl. 2; Rihovsky 1982b, sl. 16, 17. Načrt najdišča Pince (Pod Grunti) pri Lendavi je B. Kerman predstavil v Mestnem muzeju v Ljubljani (17. marca 2008) na arheološkem srečanju, kjer so bili predstavljeni rezultati arheoloških raziskav v letu 2007, dodatne informacije pa mi je posredoval S. Sankovič. Hiša, ki je bila v naselju Lovčičky postavljena v osrednjem prostoru, naj bi bila neolitska. 19 Roberts 1996, 15-16. Pl. 1: Rogoza. (1-3) pits from the southern part of the settlement, SE 514; (4-5) building 1; (6) building 3; (7-8) farmstead 1. All pottery. Scale = 1:3. T. 1: Rogoza. (1-3) jame južnega dela naselja, SE 514; (4-5) objekt 1; (6) objekt 3; (7-8) gospodarstvo 1. Vse keramika. M. = 1:3. Pl. 2: Rogoza. (1-9) building 4; (10) pit SE 1126; (11) SE 1040. 9 stone; other pottery. Scale 9 = 1:2; 1-6,8,10,11 = 1:3; 7 = 1:4. T. 2: Rogoza. (1-9) objekt 4; (10) jama SE 1126; (11) SE 1040. 9 kamen; drugo keramika. M. 9 = 1:2; 1-6,8,10,11 = 1:3; 7 = 1:4. Pl. 5: Rogoza. (1-5) alluvium overlaying the palaeochannel, SE 610; (6, 7) Building 5. 2-5: stone; other pottery. Scale = 1:3. T. 5: Rogoza. (1-5) naplavinska plast nad strugo vodotoka, SE 610; (6, 7) objekt 5. 2-5 kamen; drugo keramika. M. = 1:3. Pl. 6: Rogoza. (1-3) farmstead 2; (4-5) building 6, SE 370. 5 metal; other pottery. Scale = 1:3. T. 6: Rogoza. (1-3) gospodarstvo 2; (4-5) objekt 6, SE 370. 5 kovina; drugo keramika. M. = 1:3. Pl. 7: Rogoza. (1-10) building 7, SE 336; (11) building 8, SE 346; (12) building 15-16; (13-19) farmstead 3. 10 bone; 12 stone; other pottery. Scale 10 = 1:2; 1-9,11,13-19 = 1:3; 12 = 1:4. T. 7: Rogoza. (1-10) objekt 7, SE 336; (11) objekt 8, SE 346; (12) objekt 15-16; (13-19) gospodarstvo 3. 10 kost; 12 kamen; drugo keramika. M. 10 = 1:2;1-9,11,13-19: = 1:3; 12 = 1:4. Pl. 8: Rogoza. (1) building 19; (2-4) building 22; (5-7) building 25; (8, 9) area to the east of the building 25; (10-12) building 26; (13-15) farmstead 4, SE 947. 4,5 stone; other pottery. Scale 1-3,6-15 = 1:3; 4,5 = 1:4. T. 8: Rogoza. (1) objekt 19; (2-4) objekt 22; (5-7) objekt 25; (8, 9) območje vzhodno od objekta 25; (10-12) objekt 26; (13-15) gospodarstvo 4, SE 947. 4,5 kamen; drugo keramika. M. 1-3,6-15 = 1:3; 4,5 = 1:4. Pl. 9: Rogoza. (1) farmstead 4, SE 963; (2-9) building 24, SE 933; (10) farmstead 4, SE 900; (11-15) farmstead 4; (16-18) building 28; (19) building 29; (20) extensive enclosure, SE 226; (21-26) extensive enclosure. 10,20 metal; other pottery. Scale 10,20 = 1:2; 1-9,11-19,21-26 = 1:3. T. 9: Rogoza. (1) gospodarstvo 4, SE 963; (2-9) objekt 24, SE 933; (10) gospodarstvo 4, SE 900; (11-15) gospodarstvo 4; (16-18) objekt 28; (19) objekt 29; (20) večji ograjen prostor, SE 226; (21-26) večji ograjen prostor. 10,20 kovina; drugo keramika. M. 10,20 = 1:2; 1-9,11-19,21-26 = 1:3. Pl. 10: Rogoza. (1-2) buildings 30 and 31; (3) hearth 5, SE 1511; (4) pit SE 1501; (5-8) pit SE 1503. 2 stone; other pottery. Scale 1,3,4 = 1:3; 2 = 1:4; 5-8 = 1:8. T. 10: Rogoza. (1-2) objekta 30 in 31; (3) ognjišče 5, SE 1511; (4) jama SE 1501; (5-8) jama SE 1503. 2 kamen; drugo keramika. M. 1,3,4 = 1:3; 2 = 1:4; 5-8 = 1:8. Pl. 11: Rogoza. Pit SE 1503. All pottery. Scale = 1:4. T. 11: Rogoza. Jama SE 1503. Vse keramika. M. = 1:4. Pl. 12: Rogoza. Pit SE 1503. 9,10 burnt clay daub; other pottery. Scale 3-10 = 1:3; 1,2 = 1:4. T. 12: Rogoza. Jama SE 1503. 9,10 prežgan stenski omet; drugo keramika. M. 3-10 = 1:3; 1,2 = 1:4. Pl. 13: Rogoza. Pit SE 1503. 7-10 stone; other pottery. Scale = 1:4. T. 13: Rogoza. Jama SE 1503. 7-10 kamen; drugo keramika. M. = 1:4. Pl. 14: Rogoza. (1-2) "cultural layer" to the south of buildings 30 and 31; (3-6) path; (7-9) line of postholes parallel with the path; (10-16) building 32, SE 554; (17-18) pit SE 577. 1,2 metal; other pottery. Scale 1,2 = 1:1; 3-16,18 = 1:3; 17 = 1:4. T. 14: Rogoza. (1-2) "kulturna plast" južno od objektov 30 in 31; (3-6) pot; (7-9) s potjo vzporedna vrsta jam za sohe; (10-16) objekt 32, SE 554; (17-18) jama SE 577. 1,2 kovina; drugo keramika. M. 1,2 = 1:1; 3-16,18 = 1:3; 17 = 1:4. Pl. 15: Rogoza. (1-3) building 33; (4) pit SE 1546; (5-10) alluvium SE 008; (11-14) alluvial layers SE 005, SE 006, SE 006a. 10 stone; 9,14 metal; other pottery. Scale 9 = 1:1; 14 = 1:2; 1-8,10-13 = 1:3. T. 15: Rogoza. (1-3) objekt 33; (4) jama SE 1546; (5-10) naplavinska plast SE 008; (11-14) naplavinske plasti SE 005, SE 006 in SE 006a. 10 kamen; 9,14 kovina; drugo keramika. M. 9 = 1:1; 14 = 1:2; 1-8,10-13 = 1:3. Pl. 16: Rogoza. (1-5) alluvium SE 208; (6-12) lower fill of the central part of the palaeochannel; (13-15) upper fill of the central part of the palaeochannel. All pottery. Scale = 1:3. T. 16: Rogoza. (1-5) naplavinska plast SE 208; (6-12) spodnje polnilo osrednjega dela vodotoka; (13-15) zgornje polnilo osrednjega dela vodotoka. Vse keramika. M. = 1:3. Pl. 17: Rogoza. (1-12) upper fill of the central part of the palaeochannel; (13-16) upper fill of the southern part of the palaeochannel. 16 metal; other pottery. Scale 16 = 1:2; 1-11,14-15 = 1:3; 12-13 = 1:4. T. 17: Rogoza. (1-12) zgornje polnilo osrednjega dela vodotoka; (13-16) zgornje polnilo južnega dela vodotoka. 16 kovina; drugo keramika. M. 16 = 1:2; 1-11,14-15 = 1:3; 12,13 = 1:4. Pl. 18: Rogoza. (1-11) fill of the northern part of the palaeochannel; (12-14) ploughsoil. 12,13 metal; other pottery. Scale 12-13 = 1:2; 1,3-7,14 = 1:3; 2 = 1:4. T. 18: Rogoza. (1-11) polnilo severnega dela vodotoka; (12-14) orna plast. 12,13 kovina; drugo keramika. M. 12-13 = 1:2; 1,3-7,14 = 1:3; 2 = 1:4. INSERTS / PRILOGE Insert 1: Rogoza. Correlation of the finds presented in the paper with those from the catalogue of the primary publication (Črešnar 2011). Pril. 1: Rogoza. Povezovalna tabela v članku predstavljenih arheoloških najdb s tistimi iz kataloga najdb v osnovni objavi najdišča (Črešnar 2011). Insert 2: Rogoza. Plan of the archaeological site. Scale = 1:750. Pril. 2: Rogoza.Tloris arheološkega najdišča. M. = 1:750. Insert 3: Rogoza. Late Bronze Age settlement. Plan of the central part. Scale 1:250. Pril. 3: Rogoza. Tloris osrednjega dela poznobronastodobne naselbine (M. 1:250). Insert 4: Correlation of the material from Rogoza with material from partly contemporary settlements of eastern Slovenia. Pril. 4: Primerjava gradiva iz Rogoze z gradivom delno sočasnih naselbin vzhodne Slovenije. Figures / slike: 57 G396 8 G333 12 G669 7 G1003 5 G138 fig. / sl. 4: 58 G653 pl. / t. 2: 13 G684 8 G1004 6 G154 1 G984 59 G325 1 G311 14 G677 pl. / t. 11: 7 G137 2 G434 60 G355 2 G312 15 G678 1 G1005 8 G132 3 G255 61 G 856 3 G317 16 G683 2 G1007 9 G133 4 G523 62 G1163 4 G328 17 G685 3 G1033 10 G129 5 G566 63 G849 5 G319 18 G686 4 G1012 11 G86 6 G292 64 G1017 6 G320 19 G673 5 G1006 12 G85 7 G496 65 G835 7 G326 pl. / t. 8: 6 G1026 13 G67 8 G344 66 G886 8 G329 1 G671 7 G1030 14 G78 9 G222 67 G1083 9 G314 2 G778 8 G1032 pl. / t . 16: 10 G1023 68 G517 10 G494 3 G780 9 G1028 1 G105 11 G661 69 G477 11 G341 4 G797 pl. / t. 12: 2 G110 12 G1236 70 G810 pl. / t. 3: 5 G798 1 G1037 3 G113 13 G741 71 G782 1 G358 6 G800 2 G1036 4 G104 14 G737 72 G408 2 G361 7 G801 3 G1039 5 G107 15 G247 73 G462 3 G396 8 G808 4 G1022 6 G303 16 G412 74 G89 4 G377 9 G812 5 G1031 7 G304 17 G1078 75 G861 5 G224 10 G897 6 G1023 8 G296 18 G1037 76 G91 6 G241 11 G894 7 G1008 9 G306 19 G306 77 G214 7 G390 12 G895 8 G1018 10 G300 20 G1039 78 G275 8 G236 13 G756 9 G1049 11 G297 21 G30 79 G1060 9 G376 14 G755 10 G1058 12 G292 22 G413 80 G727 10 G357 15 G754 pl. / t. 13: 13 G445 23 G649 81 G1226 pl. / t. 4: pl. / t. 9: 1 G1050 14 G478 24 G300 82 G892 1 G403 1 G758 2 G1047 15 G274 25 G452 83 G134 2 G405 2 G746 3 G1048 pl. / t. 17: 26 G752 fig. / sl. 25: 3 G408 3 G741 4 G1051 1 G466 27 G295 1 G732 4 G412 4 G740 5 G1052 2 G430 28 G615 fig. / sl. 27: 5 G410 5 G751 6 G1053 3 G465 29 G580 1 G636 6 G411 6 G742 7 G1054 4 G287 30 G568 fig. / sl. 31: 7 G404 7 G743 8 G1055 5 G269 31 G1150 1 G380 pl. / t. 5: 8 G737 9 G1056 6 G446 32 G994 2 G133 1 G413 9 G749 10 G1057 7 G279 33 G644 3 G47 2 G364 10 G732 pl. / t. 14: 8 G462 34 G633 4 G908 3 G380 11 G880 1 G944a 9 G264 35 G451 5 G1244 4 G363 12 G866 2 G961a 10 G488 36 G582 6 G974 5 G365 13 G865 3 G1087 11 G275 37 G880 7 G44 6 G339 14 G861 4 G1095 12 G268/ G305 38 G1089 8 G364 7 G340 15 G856 5 G1091 13 G178 39 G1165 9 G1054 pl. / t. 6: 16 G867 6 G1089 14 G179 40 G990 10 G829 1 G657 17 G876 7 G1149 15 G177 41 G495 fig. / sl. 33: 2 G659 18 G886 8 G1150 16 G166 42 G635 1 G45 3 G662 19 G902 9 G1152 pl. / t. 18: 43 G1199 2 G58 4 G637 20 G1064 10 G1101 1 G603 44 G793 fig. / sl. 36: 5 G636 21 G954 11 G1098 2 G622 45 G206 1 G821 pl. / t. 7: 22 G964 12 G1103 3 G572 46 G802 2 G1049 1 G534 23 G939 13 G1104 4 G571 47 G1123 3 G1058 2 G538 24 G937 14 G1099 5 G575 48 G1079 plates / fabie; 3 G532 25 G956 15 G1105 6 G582 49 G150 pl. / t. 1: 4 G528 26 G955 16 G1106 7 G595 50 G542 1 G147 5 G526 pl. / t. 10: 17 G1170 8 G561 51 G978 2 G146 6 G537 1 G947 18 G1171 9 G610 52 G1128 3 G148 7 G527 2 G965 pl. / t. 15: 10 G604 53 G75 4 G330 8 G548 3 G1062 1 G1183 11 G599 54 G12 5 G331 9 G542 4 G985 2 G1177 12 G694 55 G203 6 G336 10 G544 5 G1001 3 G1182 13 G124 56 G1010 7 G332 11 G549 6 G1002 4 G1250 14 G152 ROGOZA Oloris pri Dolnjem Lakošu (Dular et al 2002) Rebelčja vas (Strmčnik GuliC 1989) Šiman pri Gotovljah CTomažič 2000) Slivnica pri Mariboru (Strmčnik Gullčetal. 2000) Pobrežje 1,11 (Velušček 2Ü02, Strmčnik Gullč at al. 2007) Dolge njive pri ŠIkoiah (Žižek 2005) Orehova vas (Strmčnik Gullč et al. 2007) Brinjeva gora (Oman 1981) Gornja Radgona (Šavel 1994) Ormož (1 - Lamut 1989, II - Lamut 2001) SE 26: 8E22 SE 17 8E4a SkdSa Sk4 t. 7: 14 Svia Sk1,Sk2 t. 2:6, 4:14 t. 23: 5, 49:4 ll-t.7:3 Svib Sk1 t. 2:5 t. 29: 7 D5 t. 31: 8 t. 6: 28 t. 37: 8 L6a L1 t. 3:5 t. 134: 2 l-t.7:9 So2 81, S2 1.1:11, 4:18 t. 22:4, 41:8, 49:3 t. 147: 3, 264:4 II-t. 18: 220 t. 4: 1 t. 2:4, 5:7 Sold 86 t. 5: 26 t. 49: 5 t. 341:4 l-t.22: 1, II-t. 25: 261 t. 18: 1 t. 4:1 pril. 49: 15 So5)l 88 t. 4: 6 t. 135: 2, 263:2 l-t.11:1, 34:3 t. 7: 4 l-t. 6: 13 U3 85 1.15: 24 L2 L2 t. 140:1 ll-t.7:4 t. 3: 2 l-t. 5:6 Lta L2 t. 6: 20 l-t.9:2 pril. 48:17 U2k L13 l-t. 18: 9, 48:5 1.1:1, 5:7 So3 t. 40: 11 t. 116: 3, 259: 4, 343:7 II-t. 4:62, 16: 169, 25:257 t. 7:1, 20:5 1.1:4 t. 6:7, 7:6 pril. 48:1,6 LI t. 34: 4 t. 83: 4, 137:3 II-t. 12: 143 1.16:1, 17:3 t. 17: 5 l-t. 13:3 So« t. 6:2 t. 20: 8 Sz3a t. 5: 27 II-t. 2:25 pril. 49: 6 S24c t. 12: 4 l-t.45: 21 t. 20:1 So5b 1.130:1 ll-t.6:7 t. 3:1 pril. 48:13 Sz3b t. 4:16 t. 76: 5, 115:1, 139:2 I-t. 7: 6, 15: 6, 47: 9, II-t.7:1 t. 10: 2 t. 5: 89, 6:1, 19:10 t. 3: 17,20, 4:8, 5: 2,10:11 pril. 48: 4,5, 49:16 I-t. 6:14, 7:12, 8: 4, II-t. 7:10 L4b l-t. 9:5 t. 2:1 pril. 49:1 l-t. 3:6 Sz4b ll-t. 8:1 t. 3:1 1.17: 6 1.11:5 pril. 48:15 I-t. 9: 3, II-t. 5:5 Sz3c t. 268:2 1.16:7 pril. 48:18 I-t. 12:14, II-t. 21:1 Sv3b t. 22:1 t. 7: 9 ll-t. 9:5 Sz2b l-t. 4:6 t. 8:13 U2| ll-t. 8:6 1.11:1 1.18:6 Sola II-t. 25: 256 pril. 48:11 L6b pril. 48:12 l-t. 3:5 So1c t. 170:1 1.18:1 t. 24: 9 L5 t. 143:1 l-t. 5:2, 22: 2, ll-t. 14: PN 7 t. 4:2 t. 20: 4 t. 30:13 ll-t. 17:8 Skd4d 1.111:5 l-t. 2: 1 Late La Tene scabbards with non-ferrous openwork plates Janka ISTENIč Izvleček V članku obravnavamo skupino nožnic in pripadajočih mečev iz obdobja prehoda pozne prazgodovine v rimsko dobo, za katero je Werner (1977) predpostavil noriški izvor, v novejših objavah pa domnevajo, da so jih izdelovali tudi na področju treverov. Naše raziskave so pokazale, da je barvna kovina pri vseh štirih primerkih iz Slovenije, pri katerih smo ugotavljali njeno sestavo, čista medenina. enako velja za tri primerke obravnavane skupine nožnic iz Nemčije in s Slovaške. Uporaba čiste medenine in žig z latinskim imenom na eni izmed nožnic s Poljske govorijo za njihovo izdelavo v keltsko-rimskem okolju, glede na njihovo razširjenost morda v severovzhodnem delu rimske Italije. Ključne besede: pozna latenska doba, zgodnja rimska doba, predrti okras, nožnice, meči, medenina Abstract this article looks at a group of swords and associated scabbards from the transition of the Late La Tene to the Roman period. Werner (1977) put forward the hypothesis of their Norican origin, while in later publications their production on the territory of the Treveri is also presumed. Our research has shown that parts of all four items from Slovenia for which the composition of the metal has been determined, are of pure brass. In view of the fact that the same applies to the three analysed items of this group from Germany and Slovakia, as well as the finding that the name stamp on one of the swords of the group reveals a Latin name, we assume that they were made in a Celto-Roman milieu; their distribution seems to suggest North-Eastern ancient Italy as the possible area of their production. Keywords: Late La Tene, Early Roman period, openwork decoration, scabbards, swords, brass 1. INTRODUCTION This article looks at a group of swords and associated scabbards from the transition of the Late La Tene to the Roman period. Joachim Werner (1977) put forward the hypothesis of their Norican origin. An openwork fitting on the front of the scabbard seems to be the most distinctive feature of the group. The motifs of the elaborate openwork decoration include, with few exceptions, stylised arcades, ovals and bars. Our research was based on a detailed examination of two items from the group: a sword with scabbard from the River Ljubljanica in central Slovenia (in publications before 2003, Vrhnika is given as its find-spot) and another one from Strmec above Bela Cerkev near Šmarjeta in Do- Fig. 1: Find-spots of scabbards with brass openwork plates in Slovenia. Sl. 1: Najdišča nožnic z okovom iz bakrove zlitine, okrašenim v predrti tehniki v Sloveniji. lenjska (earlier publications give Šmarjeta as its find-spot, since it is the first major settlement near the actual find-spot; fig. 1: 1,2). We were able to make a detailed comparison with two swords from the same group from the cemetery at Verdun near Stopiče in Dolenjska; with kind permission of Danilo Breščak. The sword from Mihovo was studied only from the photographs provided by Naturhistorisches Museum Wien and from notes written by Dragan Božič during his examination of the item in Vienna. 2. THE SURVEY OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH The fundamental study of the group of Late La Tene scabbards with openwork (opus interrasile) copper-alloy or silver plates and associated swords was published by Joachim Werner. In his 1977 paper he defined their characteristics, pointed to their wide distribution particularly among the Celtic and Germanic tribes, proposed their Nori-can origin and dated them to within the Augustan period.1 He indicated the key unsolved questions and suggested the direction of any follow-up research. Furthermore, he drew attention to the scabbards with iron fittings decorated with simple openwork, and interpreted them as imitations of Norican scabbards (Werner 1977). More than 30 years on, we can draw on detailed publications of scabbards with openwork copper-alloy or silver plates and associated swords from Büchel, Wederath-Belginum, Badenheim and Göblingen-Nospelt (Böhme-Schönberger 1998; Haffner 1995; Metzler, Gaeng 2009, 243-249, fig. 65: 22a), as well as on an in-depth survey by Astrid Böhme-Schönberger (1998). The most recent publication is by Metzler and Gaeng (2009, 243-249). Bochnak and Czarnecka (2004-2005, 29-33, fig. 4) discussed scabbards with iron openwork plates (the only reliable example seems to come from the cemetery at Kamienczyk), which do not seem to differ, either in the quality of the workmanship or in the motifs, from the ones made of copper alloy. They drew attention to various iron openwork examples from the Celtic world and assumed that the discussed scabbards with iron openwork were Celtic products. 1 Werner (1977) mentioned the dating in the early Augustan (1977, 380, 389), middle Augustan (o.c. 379) as well as late Augustan (o.c. 379) period. According to the latest two publications (BöhmeSchönberger 1998, 235, 239, fig. 6; Metzler, Gaeng 2009, 248, fig. 216), the swords and scabbards in question come from sites around the River Moselle in Germany and Luxemburg, in central and northern Germany, in Poland, Slovakia, southern Austria, Slovenia and Bulgaria; one item was also found in Sweden and another in Ukraine. They derive from rich graves, which would indicate that their owners belonged to the political and military elite (Böhme-Schönberger 1998, 244; Luckiewicz 2000, 375). Numerous Roman artefacts in grave B at Gö-blingen-Nospelt date this grave to between 30 and 15 B.C. or around 20 B.C. (Martin-Kilcher, Tretola Martinez, Vogt 2009, 354; Metzler, Gaeng 2009, 455-458) and provide the narrowest date-span for the scabbards and swords under discussion. Grave 784 from Wederath and the grave from Büchel (Haffner 1995, 149) are most likely roughly from the same period. Böhme-Schönberger (1998, 242-243; 2001, 83, 86) suggested an earlier date for the beginning of their manufacture, between 60 and 50 B.C. There is no consensus regarding the origin of these swords and scabbards. In addition to the thesis of their Norican origin (Werner 1977; Bockius 1991, 289-291; Böhme-Schönberger 1998, 240, 243), Frey (1986, 51-52) suggested that they were produced in various regions and that the Norican production site at Magdalensberg was only one of them. Haffner (1995, 150-151), in his paper dealing with swords and scabbards from Büchel, Wederth and Göblingen, assumed they were made in various workshops and in different regions, including the region inhabited by the Treveri. Böhme-Schönberger (1998, 225-226, 241) rejected Werner's division of the scabbards into those made in Noricum and imitations made elsewhere (followed by Bockius 1991), based on the quality of the openwork decoration made from observation of the drawings of the objects. According to her, the scabbards with opus interrasile plates and associated swords form one single group for which the same manufacturing technique and date apply. She divided them into three groups, on the basis of the form of their chapes and variations in openwork decoration: scabbards with a spur-like chape-end and openwork plate, where the cam-panulate end is clearly separated by a horizontal stripe (e.g. the scabbard from Büchel); scabbards with a boat-shaped chape-end and openwork plate, where the decoration continues uninterrupted into the campanulate end (the scabbard from Badenheim); and scabbards with a wheel-motif on the openwork decoration (e. g. the scabbards from Magdalensberg; o.c., 237-238, fig. 6). Examining the Polish examples, Luckiewicz (2000, 370-375) suggested that scabbards with bronze openwork plates were imported (Celtic), whereas the ones with an iron fitting with a much simpler decoration (i.e. net-like decoration), were Germanic. The latter were defined as a group by Böhme-Schönberger (1998, fig. 7) and later studied by Czarnecka (2002). Scientific research of the swords and scabbards from Zemplin, Büchel and Badenheim was carried out by Pleiner (1993, 97-98, fig. 11, pl. 30-32), Schwab (2005) and Westphal (1998). The sword and scabbard from Badenheim were damaged on the funeral pyre, making it impossible to determine the forging technique of the sword. The composition of the copper alloy of the scabbard's front plate and openwork fitting was not determined. Construction details are thoroughly described (Westphal 1998). The metallographic analysis of the sword from Büchel showed that its quality was in no way superior to that of the common Celtic swords (Schwab 2005, 334), challenging an important argument for locating the production of this group in the Norican region. Werner (1977, 386) and several others (most recently Böhme-Schönberger 1998, 240) assumed that richly decorated scabbards contained first-rate swords, which they associated with the high-quality Norican iron (ferrum nori-cum) mentioned in Pliny. The copper-alloy of the scabbard from Büchel is gunmetal and contains zinc, tin and lead (Schwab 2005, 332). The metallographic research of the sword blade with a name stamp from Zemplin (grave 78) showed it was decorated on the surface and made by pattern welding (Pleiner 1993, 97-98; Schwab 2005, 330). The copper alloy of this scabbard2 was also determined: it is brass with 18 % zinc (Longauerova, Longauer 1990). 2 It is very likely that the analysis refers to the scabbard from grave 78. The article namely does not give the number of the grave which contained the analysed fragments. However, it does say they were found together with an iron mail (Longauerova, Longauer 1990, 349), which was found in grave 78. 3. OBJECTIVES, RESEARCH STRATEGY, ANALYTICAL METHODS, RESEARCH METHODS AND TECHNIQUES The paper discusses scabbards with copper-alloy or silver openwork (opus interrasile) plates and associated swords. Scabbards with iron plates decorated with a relatively simple (openwork) decoration will not be included; neither will the scabbard from Kamienczyk with an iron openwork plate, which seems to differ from the ones of copper alloy only in terms of its material (cf. section 2 and list: 16). Of particular interest to us was the comment in Werner's article that Stane Gabrovec told him that the scabbards from the River Ljubljanica and Strmec above Bela Cerkev were of brass. Since apparently no analysis was made (Werner 1977, 394-395), it is not known how this conclusion was reached. The information regarding brass is extremely interesting as in the 1st century B.C. the use of brass in Europe was closely related to the Romans. It is generally assumed that it was the Romans who spread the use of brass through Europe (Craddock, Cowell, Stead 2004; Istenič, Šmit 2007). The close link between the use of brass and the Romans is even more relevant for pure brass, i.e. undiluted brass, which was produced intentionally, by cementation, and typically contained about 20 % zinc and very little lead and tin (cf. Craddock, Lambert 1985, 164; Jackson, Craddock 1995, 93-94). Brass is also an important dating element. The Romans started to produce and use brass about 60 B.C. (Istenič 2005, 189-190, 198-201; Istenič, Šmit 2007). Published analyses suggest that from the Augustan period, brass was widely used in coinage, Roman military equipment and brooches (Istenič 2009c, 238, fn. 12, 13). In the early period the use of brass seems to be linked primarily to the imperial coinage and the Roman army, both of which were controlled by the central administration (Istenič 2009c, 242). Two techniques were used to examine the composition of the metals from which the scabbards and swords were made. Energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (XRF), carried out at the National Museum of Slovenia by Zoran Milic, was applied to the unprepared surface of the objects and provided only an estimate of the metal composition. Proton induced X-ray emission spectrometry (PIXE) was used on unprepared and prepared areas (Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010). d Fig. 2: Sword in its scabbard from the River Ljubljanica, Bevke: a - front view, b - back view, c - openwork plate, d - top of the tang. Not to scale (photo: tomaž Lauko, National Museum of Slovenia). Sl. 2: Ljubljanica pri Bevkah. Meč v nožnici: a - sprednja stran, b - hrbtna stran, c - okrasni okov, d -zaključek ročaja. Brez merila (foto: Tomaž Lauko, Narodni muzej Slovenije). A more detailed description of the techniques is found in Šmit et al. 2005 (214-215). Binocular microscope and X-ray photography were used to research the manufacturing techniques. Additionally, as part of the research into the manufacture of the laddered chapes, the chape on the scabbard from the Ljubljanica was carefully treated by Sonja Perovšek (Conservation Dept., National Museum of Slovenia) to remove the corrosion as well as the plastic parts, added during restoration. 4. SWORD CORRODED IN ITS SCABBARD FROM THE RIVER LJUBLJANICA NEAR BEVKE (figs. 1 -3; insert 1) 4.1 The find-spot, circumstances of discovery, previous publications and storage In its original publication (Stare 1953), the sword and associated scabbard (fig. 2; insert 1) were treated as part of the hoard from around Vrhnika. This find-spot was later cited by everyone who wrote about them (Tackenberg 1970; Werner 1977, 368, fig. 1: 1; Frey 1986, 49-52, fig. 4: 1; Horvat 1990, 238-239, 293-294, pl. 27: 1; Böhme-Schönberger 1998, 221, fn. 9, 235, fig. 6: 21). Our research has shown that the so-called Hoard of Vrhnika did not exist; the objects were merely a collection of finds from the River Ljubljanica, presumably from around Bevke (Istenič 2003). A detailed examination of the archival sources (Bras Kernel 2006) shed some more light on the circumstances of the find, indicating that the objects came from the Ljubljanica near Bevke (fig. 1), or, more precisely, from the section of the river by the farm called Kamin. The examination of the object under binocular microscope during research related to this paper has further shown clear traces of purple algae, typical of the objects from the Ljubljanica (cf. Milic et al. 2009, 30, fig. 24). The sword in its scabbard was purchased by the Deželni muzej za Kranjsko (Provincial Museum for Carniola, predecessor of the National Museum of Slovenia) in 1913; it later disappeared to be finally sold, some time after 1953, to Mestni muzej (Town Museum), now Muzej in galerije mesta Ljubljana (Museum and Galleries of the City of Ljubljana; Bras Kernel 2006, 12-13, 17), where it is kept under Inv. No. 510:LJU;32582. 4.2 Description The sword corroded in the scabbard (figs. 2, 3; insert 1) was treated for conservation and restoration in the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum in Mainz in 1980.3 The overall surviving length, with sword in scabbard, is 75.3 cm. The lower parts and the ends of the two objects were not preserved. The iron blade of the sword shows through on various parts of the back, where the scabbard is damaged, most noticeably in its lower-most part, where it is 3 cm wide. At the centre of the blade (0.7 cm in length) there is a distinct groove 0.2 cm wide. 35.5 cm higher up, where a small part of the blade (presumably with its original edge) is exposed, its width can be estimated at 3.8 cm. The surviving length of the blade is 59 cm. The X-rays have shown that the central groove runs along the entire length of the sword (fig. 3c). The exposed parts of the sword and the width of the scabbard suggest that the blade of the sword tapered very slowly and evenly towards its tip. The tang, 18 cm long and rectangular in section, tapers towards its top which is covered by a brass sheet (figs. 2a, 3a; Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010, tab. 1: 7,8). The high campanulate hilt-end is also of brass (Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010, tab. 1: 7,8). The scabbard, 4.9 cm wide at the top, survives to a length of 58.3 cm. It consists of five parts: a front and a back plate, a long laddered chape, an openwork fitting and a loop-plate. The front plate is of brass, whereas the back one is made of an iron sheet. Both are about 0.5 mm thick and form a campanulate mouth at the top. A small hole on the front, 0.5 cm below the mouth, marks the position of a rivet. 3 The author would like to thank Ernst Künzl and Markus Egg from Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum for this information. Fig. 3: Radiographs of the sword in its scabbard from the River Ljubljanica, Bevke: a - handle, b - upper part, c - lower part. Not to scale (photo: Zoran Milic, National Museum of Slovenia). Sl. 3: Ljubljanica pri Bevkah. Rentgenski posnetki meča v nožnici: a - ročaj, b - zgornji del, c - spodnji del (foto: Zoran MiliC, Narodni muzej Slovenije). The brass fitting is 14.6 cm long, with elaborate openwork decoration (French a jour, German Durchbruchsarbeit; fig. 2c) on the front plate. Its top does not survive entirely. Parallels (cf. Werner 1977, figs. 9, 14, 18; Metzler, Gaeng 2009, fig. 65: 22a; Deimel 1987, pl. 69: 6,7) indicate that it was originally campanulate in shape and reached the top of the scabbard mouth; the small hole on the top of the front plate indicates it was riveted to the underlying brass sheet. The openwork fitting overlaps the back plate, forming a guttering 13.7 cm long and about 0.4 cm to 0.7 cm wide. The lower 3.5 cm of the guttering on the back does not survive, but its imprint is discern-able in the corrosion layer of the iron back plate. The decoration of the fitting is divided into two fields of distinctively different heights, separated by a stripe of undecorated sheet about 3 mm wide. The upper field survives to a length of 12.2 cm. It is decorated by five vertical, symmetrically placed openwork stripes. The central stripe consists of Fig. 4: Strmec above Bela Cerkev. Sword in its scabbard, in its present state. Scale 1:2 (by Ida Murgelj, National Museum of Slovenia). Sl. 4: Strmec nad Belo Cerkvijo. Meč v nožnici, dejansko stanje. M. = 1:2 (risba: Ida Murgelj, Narodni muzej Slovenije). horizontally placed ovals with circular enlargements along their longer sides (three on each side), whereas the two outer stripes consist of horizontally placed arcades. The central stripe is connected to each of the outer ones by horizontal bars decorated by circular enlargements. The lower field is 1.5-1.7 cm high and decorated by four relatively long and wide bars, with four circular enlargements each. A laddered iron chape survives to a length of about 33 cm. It had three groups of four rungs on the front and 18 or 19 rungs at the back (15 survive, while the position of another three can be discerned in the corrosion layer on the back plate). ^e rungs are narrower and higher in the middle and wider and lower on the sides. In cross-section they are flat on the bottom and rounded on the top. This shape of the rungs made the chape stronger than it would have been, had they been flat. Each of the rungs at the front, which are wider than the ones at the back, has a long and shallow groove in the middle. In the gap of about 6 cm between the openwork fitting and the laddered chape, the back plate overlaps the front by about 0.5 cm. A long iron suspension loop-plate is attached to the back plate with four iron and one brass rivet (figs. 2b, 3b, insert 1; Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010, tab. 1: 5). The suspension loop is rectangular. The upper loop plate tapers towards the circular reinforcement at the top of the scabbard. The lower loop-plate ends in a flat and nearly rectangular reinforcement, to which it tapers. 5. SWORD CORRODED IN ITS SCABBARD FROM STRMEC ABOVE BELA CERKEV (figs. 4-7; insert 2 ) 5.1 The find-spot, circumstances of discovery, previous publications and storage The sword comes from a grave discovered in early 1897 at the cemetery of Strmec above Bela Cerkev in the Dolenjska region (fig. 1). By February of that year it had already been acquired by Deželni muzej za Kranjsko (predecessor of the National Museum of Slovenia); the inventory book gave the nearest major settlement of Šmarjeta as its find-spot, which IT; fW .-I 1 > ..^.JŠ"'' l/r., i' te':. ■■■■jt.. Fig. 5: Strmec above Bela Cerkev. Sword in its scabbard: a - front view, b - back view, c - detail of the bend of the sword and scabbard. Not to scale (photo:Tomaž Lauko, National Museum of Slovenia). Sl. 5: Strmec nad Belo Cerkvijo: a - sprednja stran, b - hrbtna stran, c - detajl, meč in nožnica v prepogibu. Brez merila (foto: Tomaž Lauko, Narodni muzej Slovenije). was customary at the time. The grave group, which Dragan Božič (1999, 199; 1992, 91-102) managed to partly reconstruct from archive sources and called "Grave 1 from the Košak B plot", also contained a bronze helmet of Novo mesto type (Božič 1992, 103-104, pl. 21; Guštin 1984, pl. 48; Stare 1973, 25, no. 127, pl. 14: 1-4), a round iron shield boss (Stare 1973, 25, no. 128, pl. 11: 6; Božič 1992, 103-104, b a c Fig. 6: Strmec above Bela Cerkev. Tip of the sword, exposed during conservation. Not to scale (photo: Sonja Perovšek, National Museum of Slovenia). Sl. 6: Strmec nad Belo Cerkvijo. Konica meča v nožnici med konservacijo. Brez merila (foto: Sonja Perovšek, Narodni muzej Slovenije). pl. 20: 3), and a long curved knife (Stare 1973, 24, no. 84, pl. 8: 2; Božič 1992, 103, pl. 20: 1). During the later part of the Late La Tene period, cremated remains of the dead were buried at Strmec above Bela Cerkev. In the case of Grave 1 from the Košak B plot, a cremation is also indicated by the fact that the sword in its scabbard and the knife were deliberately bent, which is a practice associated with cremation burials (Božič 1999, 199). Yet it is worth mentioning that the scabbard and the sword exhibit no damage consistent with fire and high temperatures, which leads us to conclude that they were not on the funeral pyre at the time of the cremation. The sword in its scabbard was originally published, with a photograph, by Alfonz Müllner (1900, pl. 39: 8). The first drawing of its major parts, together with a short description, was published by Hermann Müller-Karpe (1951, 675, fig. 18: 1), followed by Tackenberg (1970, 252-253, fig. 2 - a drawing of a lesser quality), Vida Stare (1973, 24, no. 101, pl. 7: 3) and Joachim Werner (1977, 368, fig. 1: 2)). The find is kept by the National Museum of Slovenia (Inv. No. P 4371). In 2001 it was conserved by Sonja Perovšek (the National Museum of Slovenia Conservation department). 5.2 Description The sword and the scabbard to which it is corroded had been sharply bent forward and folded back on itself. As a result, the front of the scabbard's end touches the front of the openwork plate (^ig. 4). The sword's tang is rectangular in section and tapers towards the top, which does not survive (fig. 5a, b). The iron blade is exposed at the bend and at its end, where one or both plates are damaged (figs. 4, 6; insert 2). At the bend, the blade is at least 3.5 cm wide and has two grooves about 1 mm wide on the front and the back. The grooves are also clearly seen on the radiographs (cf. fig. 7). The ends of the blade taper sharply and form a point (^igs. 6, 7b). The surviving length of the sword, when not bent, would be about 77 cm, and the length of the blade about 65.4 cm. The scabbard is about 4.5 cm wide and 66.2 cm long. All the preserved parts, apart from four rivets, are of pure brass (Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010, tab. 2). The plates are made of brass sheet about 0.5 mm thick. In its present state, the front plate is positioned about 0.7 cm higher than the back plate and the blade. Presumably this displacement happened when the sword and the scabbard were bent. The campanulate mouth survives completely at the back, but lacks its top at the front. On the upper part of the scabbard, the front and the back plate are fixed by the openwork fitting, which overlaps the back by about 0.5 cm (^igs. 5, 6; insert 2). On the remaining part of the scabbard the back plate overlaps the front. Surviving parts of the openwork plate indicate four fields of decoration, divided by approximately 4 mm wide stripes, decorated only by two parallel grooves. The upper field, which is the largest, contains five partially preserved vertical and symmetrically placed rows of geometrical motifs. The central row consists of horizontally placed ovals with circular enlargements along their longer sides, whereas the two outer rows consist of horizontally placed arcades. The central row is connected to 1 1 "t' (i i ' 'id ' / i ) i' H, ■■L Fig. 7: Strmec above Bela Cerkev. Radiographs of the sword in its scabbard: a - upper part, b - lower part. Not to scale (photo: Zoran Milic, National Museum of Slovenia). Sl. 7: Strmec nad Belo Cerkvijo. Rentgenska posnetka meča v nožnici: a - zgornji del, b - spodnji del. Brez merila (foto: Zoran Milic, Narodni muzej Slovenije). each of the outer ones by a line of horizontally placed bars with four circular enlargements each. The second field repeats the motif of columns and arcades, this time vertically placed. The third field, of approximately the same size as the second one, contains an ornament of four vertically placed spear-like motifs. The fourth field, only about 5 mm wide, contained ten vertical bars with four circular enlargements (nine bars survive, partially or in full). A plate, about 0.5 cm high, decorated with a line of concentric circular grooves with central holes, is riveted to the front plate of the scabbard (insert 2). The rivets are clearly seen on the X-ray photograph (fig. 7b). A small part of a very similar decorative plate survives 4.5 cm below the openwork plate. Only one rivet (probably of brass) can be distinguished (fig. 7a); the position of the other one is indicated by its imprint on the front plate. A 23.7 cm long suspension loop plate is riveted with four iron rivets to the back of the scabbard (fig. 7a). The sword and the scabbard do not exhibit any traces of fire damage. This indicates that the blade was relatively soft, otherwise it would not have been possible to bend it without previously putting it in the fire. 6. SWORD CORRODED IN ITS SCABBARD FROM VERDUN, GRAVE 37 (figs. 8-9; insert 3) 6.1 The find-spot, circumstances of discovery, previous publications and storage Two swords in scabbards belonging to the group under discussion were discovered at the cemetery of Verdun near Stopiče (fig. 1). The cemetery has been briefly described several times (Breščak 1986; 1987; 1989; Breščak et al. 2002, 92-94, 135-143), while a detailed study by Breščak is forthcoming.4 Grave 37 contained a well preserved sword in its scabbard. The openwork plate, typical of the group, did not survive; however, it definitely belongs to the group of scabbards under discussion. The grave also contained a shield boss, a spearhead, two brooches, a belt-hook and a ribbed pottery vessel of La Tene form (Božič 2008, 53, fig. 25; Breščak 1989, 12; Breščak 2002, 93, 135-136, cat. no. 68; Božič 1999, 199). The sword and associated scabbard are kept in Dolenjski muzej (Dolenjska Museum) under Inv. No. A 1776. In 1986 it was restored in the RömischGermanisches Zentralmuseum in Mainz.5 The following description applies to the conserved sword. 4 Danilo Breščak kindly allowed us to include them in our paper. 5 The author would like to thank Danilo Breščak (ZVKDS) and Markus Egg (Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum) for this information. 6. 2. Description 18.5 cm of the blade are exposed in the upper part. It is 3.6 cm wide at the mouth and has sloping, asymmetrical shoulders. Two distinct 1.5 mm wide grooves run parallel along the centre of the blade. The original form of the blade's edges does not survive (figs. 8a,c; insert 3). The tang is 17 cm long and tapers towards its narrow top, covered by a 1.5 cm high and 1 mm thick brass sheet (Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010, tab. 3: 3). The lower part of the brass sheet is pressed against the tang, giving the impression of a knob with a vase-like base (fig. 8e; insert 3). The total length of the sword is 82 cm; the length of the blade is 65 cm. The X-rays reveal a long and distinct tip (fig. 9b). The entire length of the scabbard survives (72.5 cm); its greatest surviving width is 4.7 cm. The scabbard consists of a 2 mm thick iron back plate with a campanulate top, a front plate made of a thin (about 1 mm?) brass sheet (Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010, tab. 3: 2,3) that is only preserved in the lower two thirds of the scabbard, a laddered iron chape and a loop-plate. The laddered chape covers approximately the lower two thirds of the scabbard. It ends with a horizontal rung at the top - one on the front and one the back. Both are rectangular in section, the front one is 6 mm wide and the back one is 4 mm wide. The chape tapers into a spur-like tip at the bottom. It has 33 rungs on the front and five groups of three rungs on the back. All of them, similarly to the rungs of the scabbard from the Ljubljanica, are wider and lower at the sides and narrower and higher in the middle. The last two rungs on the front are linked by two additional rungs at an angle. The openwork fitting did not survive. The upper part of the front plate is not preserved either, which is rather surprising, since parallels show that these plates were made of a single sheet. The loop-plate is well preserved. It was fastened to the iron plate by two iron and two probably brass rivets (fig. 9a; insert 3; cf. scabbard from the Ljubljanica). The asymmetrically and irregularly shaped bottom end of the plate (fig. 8d; insert 3) would suggest it is not entirely preserved. The fastening details of the plate in this part are unusual. A flat iron lining is inserted under the plate and the upper-most rung of the laddered chape, through which the loop-plate is attached to the back plate. This was done presumably to reinforce the back plate and prevent the loop-plate from tearing off. Fig. 8: Verdun, grave 37. Sword in its scabbard: a - front view, b - back view, c - front view, upper part, d - back view, upper part, e - top of the tang. Not to scale (photo: Tomaž Lauko, National Museum of Slovenia). Sl. 8: Verdun, grob 37. Meč v nožnici: a - sprednja stran, b - hrbtna stran, c - zgornji del sprednje strani, d - zgornji del hrbtne strani, e - zgornji zaključek ročaja (foto Tomaž Lauko, Narodni muzej Slovenije). a It seems possible that initially the loop-plate had been fastened directly to the iron plate, as is the case with comparable scabbards (cf. e.g. the Ljubljanica, Strmec above Bela Cerkev), and was only later repaired with the iron lining. We found no other instances of such a fastening in any scabbard of the type under discussion. Interestingly, unlike the laddered chapes of the scabbards from the Ljubljanica and grave 131 at Verdun, this one has the groups of rungs (five groups of three) at the back rather than the front. 7. SWORD CORRODED IN ITS SCABBARD FROM VERDUN, GRAVE 131 (^igs. 10, 11; insert 4) 7.1 The find-spot, circumstances of discovery, previous publications and storage Another sword in its scabbard of the group under discussion was found in grave 131 at Verdun (ffig. 1), so far unpublished. The grave-goods comprise, in addition to many other items, of a shield boss of the type known from grave 37 at Verdun (cf. Božič 2008, fig. 25), a spearhead with Fig. 9: Verdun, grave 37. Radiographs of the sword in its scabbard: a - upper part, b - lower part. Not to scale (photo: Zoran Milic, National Museum of Slovenia). Sl. 9: Verdun, grob 37. Rentgenska posnetka meča v nožnici: a - zgornji del, b - spodnji del. Brez merila (foto: Zoran Milic, Narodni muzej Slovenije). e 'm m H Fig. 10: Verdun, grave 131. Sword in its scabbard: a - front view, b - back view, c - detail of the upper part of the front with the remains of the openwork plate, d - upper part of the back. Not to scale (photo: Tomaž Lauko, National Museum of Slovenia). Sl. 10: Verdun, grob 131. Meč v nožnici: a - sprednja stran, b - hrbtna stran, c - zgornji del sprednje strani z ostanki okova s predrtim okrasom, d - zgornji del hrbtne strani. Brez merila (foto: Tomaž Lauko, Narodni muzej Slovenije). faceted socket, and apron strap fittings of a Roman military belt, as well as a samian platter and a cup.6 The object was restored in the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum in Mainz in 1988.7 It is kept in Dolenjski muzej (Dolenjska Museum) under Inv. No. A 2211. 6 See also fn. 14. The author would like to thank Danilo Breščak (ZVKDS) for the information. 7 The author would like to thank Danilo Breščak (ZVKDS) and Markus Egg (Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum) for this information. b d a c Fig. 11: Verdun, grave 131. Radiograph of the tip of the sword and scabbard. Not to scale (photo: Sonja Perovšek, National Museum of Slovenia). Sl. 11: Verdun, grob 131. Rentgenski posnetek konice meča v nožnici. Brez merila (foto: Sonja Perovšek, Narodni muzej Slovenije). 7.2 Description The sword and scabbard are relatively poorly preserved, consequently, the PIXE analysis was made only on the broken-off bottom piece of the sword and scabbard. The upper part of the same plate was analysed by EDS XRF. The sword and scabbard are broken in two: there is a 70.5 cm long upper part and about 12.3 cm of a piece from the lower end of the blade, which most likely joins the upper part (fig. 10; insert 4). The tang is approximately 16.6 cm long and rectangular in section; it is 1.5 cm wide at the bottom and tapers towards the top. A large part of the campanulate hilt-end, made of copper alloy (presumably brass), is preserved. The blade was about 65 cm long, with a wide groove running along its central part. Its surviving width at the mouth is 4.1 cm. The X-rays reveal a distinctly pointed lower end of the blade (fig. 11) of which the last 2.8 cm is exposed at the back. The scabbard is 68 cm long and almost its entire length is preserved, save for the bottom terminal. It is widest at its mouth (4.8 cm), tapering slowly towards the tip, where the end of the surviving part is 3.5 cm wide. A brass plate (Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010, tab. 4: 2) made from a thin sheet partly survives at the front of the scabbard. In its upper section it is only preserved in parts; in its present state, it is mostly replaced by a plastic reconstruction. Its thickness could not be measured. Only fragments of the lower and upper parts of the 21.6 cm long brass8 openwork plate survive. It was divided into at least five decorative fields: three fields (c. 0.6, 1.2 and 0.6 cm high) at the bottom, a campanulate field (3.7 cm high) with a preserved rivet at the top, and at least one field in the middle (fig. 10c). The lateral campanulate-shaped fragment near the top of the plate is positioned about half a centimetre too low, which is probably the result of the restoration. At the bottom, the fitting ends with a 0.8cm-high stripe decorated with horizontal grooves. The openwork plate overlapped the back by about 0.6 cm on both sides. It was also fastened to the back by a 5 mm wide rung, placed 5 mm below the top of the U-shaped lateral part of the plate. In its present state, the back iron plate is about 2 mm thick. It has a campanulate upper part. An iron loop-plate is attached to the back plate by two iron rivets. The upper and lower terminals of the loop-plate do not survive. The lower two thirds of the scabbard were covered by an iron chape. Its lower, and probably also upper end, do not survive. The chape probably extended to the openwork fitting (cf. the scabbard from grave 37 at Verdun, figs. 8, 9; insert 3, and the scabbard from Büchel, Haffner 1995, 140, 142, 145, pl. 1). There are 28 (partly) preserved and evenly distributed horizontal rungs at the back; the ones on the front are so poorly preserved, we can only assume they were in four groups of three. The rungs are slightly narrower in the middle, as was the case with the scabbards from grave 37 at Verdun and from the River Ljubljanica. 8 The results of the EDS XRF analysis: 86.4 % Cu and 11.6 % Zn. iff (1 'fr - b a c 8. SWORD CORRODED IN ITS SCABBARD FROM MIHOVO, GRAVE 1657/8 (fig. 12) Another scabbard with an openwork copper-alloy fitting was found in the territory of Slovenia. It comes from the cemetery at Mihovo below Gorjanci (fig. 1: 4), excavated in the late 19th century. The finds are kept in the Natural History Museum in Vienna. Dragan Božič, who examined the finds from Mihovo, brought to our attention the sword in a scabbard from grave 1657/8 (Inv. No. 52526; fig. 12) and provided us with his notes on the object. According to them, the object is 66 cm long, with a 22 cm long loop-plate and 8 rungs at 2.2 cm intervals at the back of the scabbard. He also noted a campanulate hilt-end, an openwork plate of copper alloy and 7 rungs on the front. According to the sketch, the openwork plate has three decorative fields, a longer one followed by two shorter, all decorated with vertical ribbed bars. The object was drawn and described by Helmut Windl (1975, 60, pl. 26: 9) in his unpublished doc-torial thesis. From the very sketchy drawing it is not clear whether the sword and scabbard belong to the group under discussion. The description is more revealing and is quoted here in full: "Eisernes Schwert mit vielen anhaftenden Resten der Scheide. Rascher geschwungener Übergang des Blattes in die lange Griffangel, an deren Spitze scheinbar ein vollrunder Knopf sitzt. Das ziemlich gleichbreite Blatt (obere Breite 4,6, untere 3,9) endet zungenfor-mig. Der Scheidenmund ist analog der Klinge und schickt einen kleinen Fortsatz auf die Griffangel hinauf. Die Schlaufe ist ein rechteckiges Band mit langen, rechteckigen Nietplatten. Länge 74,0; der Griffangel 18,5; der eigentlichen Schlaufe 2,8; ihre B 2,0; einer Nietplatte mindestens 4,3; Länge des Scheidenvorsprungs auf die Angel mindestens 2,1." Anton Kern (Natural Museum in Vienna) kindly provided us with a photograph of the object (fig. 12) from which it appears to be covered by a Fig. 12: Mihovo, grave 1657/8. Sword in its scabbard: a -front view, b - back view, c - remains of the openwork plate at the front of the scabbard. Not to scale (photo: Alice Schumacher, © NHM Wien). Sl. 12: Mihovo, grob 1657/8. Meč v nožnici: a - sprednja stran, b - hrbtna stran, c - zgornji del sprednje strani z ostanki okova s predrtim okrasom. Brez merila (foto: Alice Schumacher, © NHM Wien). thick layer of corrosion products. The openwork copper-alloy plate can be seen on the front of the scabbard. The form of the top of the tang resembles the sword from grave 37 at Verdun. The laddered chape is not discernable. It seems that the bottom end of the sword and scabbard are not preserved. The available information would suggest that the scabbard had a characteristic openwork plate and a laddered chape. The length of the surviving part of the sword and scabbard is not clear (Božič: 66 cm; Windl: 74 cm). Any future research of the object would necessarily have to include conservation. According to the information provided by Windl (1975, 60, pl. 26: 8,9), the only other object in grave 1657/8 was a spearhead (50.5 cm in length) with a socket, round in section, and a severely damaged blade. In the opinion of Dragan Božič (pers. comm.), the grave-groups from Mihovo are not reliable. 9. MANUFACTURING TECHNIQUE Werner (1977, 369, 379, 385-386) did not express a clear opinion regarding the manufacturing technique of the openwork plates of the supposedly Norican scabbards. It seems he thought their decoration was cut out of the sheet metal (made by casting or hammering) and then filed. Haffner (1995, 140) quoted the restorer H. Born, who suggested the openwork plate on the scabbard from Büchl was made by removing the material (with a die stamp or a chisel - German Punze, files and saws) from a hammered thin sheet metal. Haffner presumed the openwork plates from the scabbards found at Büchel, Wederath and Göblingen-Nospelt were made by chisels and files, because the latter revealed traces consistent with these tools (ibid., 145, 150). Böhme-Schönberger (1998, 222, 225, 229) misunderstood Werner and thought he meant that the decoration on the supposedly Norican openwork plates was made by casting. She showed convincingly that the openwork plate of the scabbard from Badenheim, as well as other scabbards of the group under discussion was beaten into shape and its ornament made by removing the material from the sheet metal by drilling, chiselling, sawing and filing (durch Bohren, Meißeln, Sägen und Feilen; ibid., 222, 229). On the other hand, Metzler and Gaeng (2009, 249) reject the possibility that the openwork plates on the scabbards from Göblingen-Nospelt, Titelberg and Wederath were made by removing the material from the sheet metal and claim that the plates and their decoration were cast (Metzler, Gaeng 2009, 249). We agree with Böhme-Schönberger (1999, 222) that the openwork plates under discussion could not have been cast, because they are very thin. After careful examination of the scabbards from Slovenia, it seems clear that the basic shape of their openwork plates was formed by hammering and the decoration was made by various chisels, used to remove the excess metal and also for chasing.9 In his study of the scabbard from Badenheim, Westphal (1998) broached the interesting question of how the laddered chapes were made, but failed to give an answer. Haffner (1995, 140) suggested that the laddered chape of the scabbard from Büchel was made by forge welding.10 In our opinion forge welding is rather unlikely, because the inside of the chape was very narrow, and the appropriate anvil would be difficult to use. For the major part of the chape, the problem could be avoided by making a pipe-like chape and then flattening it. However, it is hard to imagine how the spur-like terminal could be formed by forge welding. Laddered chapes were not cast, because iron forging, rather than casting, was in use in Europe during the Late Iron Age and Roman periods; cast iron would also be too brittle for such a chape (Manning 1976, 143; Tylecote 1992, 48; Craddock 1995, 235, 239). For these reasons we decided to thoroughly examine the laddered chapes of the scabbards described in sections 4, 6 and 7. A careful inspection of the surface produced no indication of how and where the chapes were welded, soldered11 or riveted. The X-rays also did not show any traces of soldering or rivets. However, a meticulous research of the surface of the scabbard from the Ljubljanica by Sonja Perovšek (Conservation Dept. of the National Museum of Slovenia) which included removal of several plastic parts added during conservation in 1980, did yield results. It revealed very thin (less than 0.1 mm), yet compact layers of bronze with about 4-7 % tin in the rungs on the front of the scabbard, as well as on the inner side of a part of 9 For the description of the technique see BraunFeldweg 1988, 184 10 In forge welding the previously heated metal parts are joined by hammering. 11 In soldering, metal parts are joined by a solder (a metal or an alloy). the guttering (Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010, tab. 1: 11,12a,13-15). In the cross-section of the rungs two or three such layers are discernable. Metallographic analysis indicates that the bronze layers in the rungs were molten (Kosec et al. 2011). In addition, in one part of the guttering a brass layer with about 5 % zinc was discovered, less than a millimetre thick (Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010, tab. 1: 9). The results show the front rungs of the laddered chape were soldered, which indicates how the chape was constructed. The full report of the findings, together with photographic documentation, is forthcoming (Kosec et al. 2011). 10. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SCABBARDS AND THE ASSOCIATED SWORDS FROM THE LJUBLJANICA, STRMEC ABOVE BELA CERKEV AND VERDUN The four swords described in this paper are very similar. They are (or were) about 82 cm long (the swords from Verdun graves 37 and 131 survive full length, while the one from Strmec above Bela Cerkev lacks only the very top of the tang). Their blades are about 65 cm long and narrow (from 3.6 to 4.1 cm), have sloping shoulders, a narrow and distinctive tip (preserved on all the swords but the one from the Ljubljanica) and have a narrow (the Ljubljanica) or a wide groove (Verdun grave 131), or two narrow vertical grooves (Verdun grave 37, Strmec above Bela Cerkev) on the front and the back of the blade. Of the hilts only tangs and hilt-ends survive. The tangs are rectangular in cross-section and taper towards the top, which is covered by a brass sheet and gives an impression of a knob with a trumpet-like base (preserved in the sword from the Ljubljanica and grave 37 at Verdun). The brass hilt-ends survive on the swords from the Ljubljanica and grave 131 at Verdun. Both fully preserved tangs (from the Ljubljanica and grave 37 at Verdun) are 17 to 18 cm long. The most distinctive feature shared by the scabbards from the Ljubljanica, Strmec and Verdun are their openwork copper-alloy plates. They are from 16.7 (the Ljubljanica) to 21.5 cm (Verdun grave 37) long and were riveted to the top of the front plate (a rivet or its hole survive on scabbards from the Ljubljanica and grave 131 at Verdun). They overlapped the back by about 6 mm. The three surviving plates were decorated in the same technique, by removing the material. A comparison of the openwork plates from the Ljubljanica and Strmec can be made, as both are well-preserved. Their largest decorated fields are very similar; they consist of the same motifs with the same layout. The ornamental compositions in their lower parts, however, are different. Furthermore, the scabbards from the Ljubljanica and Verdun all consist of five parts: a back iron plate, a front brass plate, an openwork brass plate (not surviving on the scabbard from grave 37 at Verdun), an iron laddered chape on the bottom two thirds of the scabbard and an iron loop-plate, riveted to the back plate. They are (or originally were) approximately 72 cm long, and 4.7 (Verdun, grave 37) to 4.9 cm (the Ljubljanica, Verdun, grave 131) wide. Despite strong similarities, there are also subtle differences in terms of their construction (for example: the laddered chape of the scabbard from the Ljubljanica does not extend to the openwork plate, so the back plate overlaps the front in this part of the scabbard), as well as their decoration (see above). The scabbard from Strmec above Bela Cerkev is different: it is made entirely of brass and has no laddered chape. It has a front and a back plate, a decorated fitting and a loop-plate. In its upper part, the fitting overlaps the back, whereas along the rest of the length the back plate overlaps the front. Attached to the front plate are two narrow horizontal decorative plates, which the rest of the scabbards lack. The scabbards from the Ljubljanica and Verdun have excellent parallels among other scabbards with openwork copper-alloy plates (list). In addition to the openwork plate, they also have the campanulate mouth and the same five-part construction consisting of a back plate, a laddered chape and a loop-plate, all made of iron, as well as a copper alloy front plate and openwork plate. Similarly to the examples from the Ljubljanica, Strmec and Verdun, the decorated plates are fixed to their scabbards by overlapping the back plate (exception: Badenheim; list: 5) and, in most cases, also by a rivet below the top of the fitting (Göblingen-Nospelt, Wederath, Rz^dz, Wesöiki grave 50, Witaszewice, Zemplin grave 77 - list: 1, 4, 11, 14b, 15, 17a). ^e scabbards from Slovenia, Göblingen-Nospelt, Titelberg, Wederath, Büchel, Badenheim, Eggeby, Magdalensberg, and probably also Wesöiki graves 3 and 50 (list: 1-5, 9, 14a, b, 16; cf. Metzler, Gaeng 2009, fig. 215) also have in common a very similar central and largest field on the openwork plate. It is decorated by identical or very similar motifs with an identical layout. ^ere are only subtle differences between them, e.g. in the motifs to the left and right of the central vertical decorative row: mostly, they consist of horizontally positioned bars, whereas on the fittings from Gö-blingen-Nospelt and Wederath the two rows consist of S-shaped ornaments formed by two semicircles, placed opposite each other. Another variation is the arcaded ends of the ovals in the central vertical row on the scabbard from Badenheim (cf. Metzler, Gaeng 2009, fig. 215). In that it is made entirely of non-ferrous metal and has no iron laddered chape, the scabbard from Strmec resembles the copper-alloy scabbard from grave 108 at Zemplin (cf. Cosack 1977) and possibly also the one from grave 128 from the same cemetery (list: 17c, d); as well as the silver scabbard from the Axel Guttmann collection (list: 26); the copper-alloy scabbard with silver fitting from Belozem (list: 25); and probably also the scabbard from grave 147/1937 from Witaszewice (list: 15; its front plate overlapped the back one, which does not survive; cf. Kaszewska 1977, 109, fig. 1: 5). Apart from the scabbard from grave 108 at Zemplin that is quite different from the one from Strmec (and other scabbards with openwork plate), the rest of them seem to make up a small, homogenous subgroup of the scabbards under discussion. Another common feature of the subgroup is a similarly shaped scabbard end (see below). Apart from the examples from Slovenia, there are twelve other swords that were found either in scabbards with openwork plate (list: 1-5, 12, 13, 14a, 15, 17b, 23) or come from graves with such scabbards (list: 17d). They all have a copper-alloy campanulate hilt-end, sloping shoulders, a narrow blade (3,6-4,1 cm wide) and a long tang with a copper-alloy knob at the top. The latter is easily recognised; on the swords from Büchel and grave 78 from Zemplin (list: 3, 17b), it is indicated by a thorn-like projection at the top of the tang. In contrast to the others, the swords from Slovenian sites are shorter (their length is c. 82cm) and have a long and distinct tip of the blade. The blades vary in cross-section. They have either one wide groove (grave 131 from Verdun; list: 21b), two wide grooves (Göblingen-Nospelt?,12 12 According to the drawing showing the front view of the blade, it did not have any grooves, but the illustration of the section of the blade, given at two spots (in both cases at spots where the blade could not be observed because of the well preserved scabbard!) suggests two wide longitudinal grooves on both sides of the blade. Büchel, Wederath, Stara Wies; list: 1, 3, 4, 12), one narrow groove (Badenheim, Ljubljanica; list: 1, 5), two narrow grooves (Strmec near Bela Cerkev, grave 37 from Verdun, Danube; list: 20, 21a, 23) or three narrow grooves (Witaszewice; graves 78 and 128 from Zemplin; list: 15, 17b, d). 11. THE SUBGROUPS OF SCABBARDS WITH COPPER-ALLOY OR SILVER OPENWORK PLATE AND ASSOCIATED SWORDS Together with other examples (list), the scabbards from the Ljubljanica, Strmec, Verdun and Mihovo make up a clearly defined group. There are, however, differences within the group with regards, for example, the scabbard ends. These are either spur-shaped (Büchel, Stara Wies, Cie-cierzyn, Verdun grave 37; list: 3, 12, 13, 21a), rounded and slightly pointed (grave 108 in Zemplin, Strmec above Bela Cerkev, Belozem and the example from the Axel Guttmann collection; list: 17c, 20, 25, 26) or, in one case, boat-shaped (Badenheim; list: 5). The scabbards with spur- or boat-shaped ends have a laddered chape and are made of iron and copper alloy, while the scabbards with rounded ends are of copper alloys or silver only, have no laddered chape and are also shorter (about 70 cm long). Böhme-Schönberger (1998, 237-238, fig. 6) suggested the classification of the scabbards according to their chapes and the decoration of their openwork plates (cf. section 2). The scabbard from the Axel Guttman collection with the openwork plate (list: 26), which has characteristics of two different Böhme-Schönberger subgroups (the wheel motif and the horizontal partition of the campanulate part of the plate), would suggest the criteria of this division were not well chosen. In our opinion, two subgroups of the scabbards under discussion emerge from the differences in their length. The first group is characterized by a length of about 70 cm. It comprises all five examples from Slovenian find-spots, the scabbard from Wesolki grave 3 and the one from the Axel Guttmann collection (list: 14a, 19-22, 26). The second subgroup consists of scabbards which are about 80 cm long (Göblingen-Nospelt, Büchel, Wederath, Badenheim, Stara Wies, Donava, Belozem; list: 1, 3, 4, 5, 12, 23, 25). The two length-groups of the scabbards correspond well with the swords. The first subgroup of swords comprises of items c. 82 cm in length (Strmec above Bela Cerkev, both items from Verdun, grave 3 from Wesolki and, based on its presumed length, also the sword from Ljubljanica; list: 14a, 19, 20, 21a, b); the swords belonging to the second subgroup are 90-95cm long (according to their preserved or presumed length: Büchel, Wederath, graves 78 and 128 from Zemplin, Danube; list: 3, 4, 17b, d, 23). The shorter swords have a long and distinctive tip to the blade, resembling Roman gladii, while the longer swords either have a short (Büchel, Wederath; list: 3, 4) or a long tip to the blade (graves 78 and 128 from Zemplin, Donube; list: 17b, d, 25).13 12. THE DATING OF SCABBARDS WITH OPENWORK COPPER-ALLOY OR SILVER PLATE Five scabbards with openwork plate of copper-alloy or their fragments were found in graves, associated with other items, which allow for a relatively precise dating: grave B from Göblingen-Nospelt, dated to between 30 and 15 B.C. or around 20 B.C. (Martin-Kilcher, Tretola Martinez, Vogt, 2009, 354; Metzler, Gaeng 2009, 455-458), three La Tene D2 graves - grave 108 from Zemplin, grave 37 from Verdun and the grave from Strmec above Bela Cerkev (Božič 1999, 199-200) - as well as grave 131 from Verdun, which cannot be earlier than (late) Tiberian.14 Haffner (1995, 149) dated the two graves from Büchel and Wederath, which contained no Roman objects, to between 30 and 15 B.C., and the time of the manufacture of the two swords and scabbards from these graves to between 40 and 25 B.C. According to Böhme-Schönberger (1998, 242-243) the grave from Badenheim, which also 13 Dragan Božič drew my attention to the differences in the form of the blades' tips. 14 Such a dating is indicated by a samian platter of form Consp. 20.4 with a stamp ATICI in planta pedis and a cup of form Consp. 27.1 (Conspectus 86-87, 100-101; C V Arr, nos. 324, 325). Weapons of La Tene tradition - in addition to the sword and scabbard under discussion, also a shield boss of type Verdun grave 37 (cf. Božič 1999, 199) and a spearhead with a faceted socket - were no doubt old objects when they were deposited in the grave. This is not the case, however, with the apron strap fittings of a Roman military belt from the grave. Such fitments were namely in use from the Augustan period to the end of the 1st century AD (cf. Deschler-Erb 1999, 46-47). The author would like to thank Danilo Breščak for allowing her to examine the drawings of the grave goods. did not contain any Roman objects, belongs to the end of La Tene D1 or to the beginning of D2, that is, in her opinion, roughly between 60 and 50 B.C. (o.c. 242, 243). Her argument for this early dating was her equally early dating of the grave 108 from Zemplin, to which there are relevant objections (Božič 1999, 200, 211). On the basis of the graves they were found in, the wider time span of the scabbards in question seems to be La Tene D2. In the Eastern Alpine region this begins in about 70/60 B.C.15 and ends with the beginning of the middle Augustan period c. 15 B.C. (Božič 1999, 211-212; 2008, 145). Grave B from Göblingen-Nospelt, which provides the 15 Božič 1988 (86-87) suggested the beginning of Lt D2 around 70 B.C. The dating of the relative stages 2b and 2c of the Ornavasso - San Bernardo cemetery (Martin-Kilcher 1998, 249) positions it between 70 and 60 B.C. The dating of the Alesia group brooches would suggest its beginning around 60 B.C. (cf. Istenič 2005). ff ?s Fig. 13: Distribution of scabbards with openwork copper alloy or silver plates or their fragments. Nos. 8 and 16 are omitted. See List. 1 Göblingen-Nospelt, 2 Titelberg, 3 Büchel, 4 Wederath, 5 Badenheim, 6 Großromstedt, 7 Schkopau, 9 Eggeby, 10 Ko-paniewo, 11 Rz^dz, 12 Stara Wies-Kolonia, 13 Ciecierzyn, 14a-b Wesolki, 15 Witaszewice, 17a-e Zemplin, 18a-c Mag-dalensberg / Štalenska Gora, 19 Ljubljanica (Bevke), 20 Strmec above Bela Cerkev / nad Belo Cerkvijo, 21a-b Verdun, 22 Mihovo, 23 Danube near Pomaz / Donava pri Pomazu, 24 Nagyteteny, 25 Belozem. Sl. 13: Najdišča nožnic z okovom iz bakrove zlitine ali srebra, z okrasom narejenim v predrti tehniki. Številki 8 in 16 sta izpuščeni. Primerjaj Seznam. only reliable narrow dating for this type of scabbard, would suggest a more precise dating between 40/30 and 15 B.C. The scabbard from grave 131 at Verdun would support this dating. To summarise: the scabbards with openwork plates were no doubt in use between 40/30 and 15 B.C. although an earlier date, but not before about 60 B.C., cannot be excluded. 13. THE DISTRIBUTION OF SCABBARDS WITH OPENWORK COPPER-ALLOY OR SILVER PLATE Sites where scabbards with openwork copper-alloy or silver plates or their fragments have been found are included in list (nos. 1-7, 9-15, 17-26) and mapped on fig. 13. Most of them are situated between Luxemburg in the west and eastern Poland and Slovakia in the east, and between northern Poland in the north and Slovenia in the south; one item also comes from southern Sweden and one or two from Bulgaria. The distribution of the scabbards indicates that they were used in the areas inhabited by Celtic and Germanic tribes; one or two examples come from the Thracian area. Distinctly high concentrations (five examples) appear in the wider area of the Moselle and on the territory of central and southeastern Slovenia; also notable are the finds from Magdalensberg, Zemplin and Poland. Of the 32 scabbards of the group or their fragments, a clear majority (i.e. 29 items) come from graves; two come from rivers (list: 19, 23) and for one the details regarding its find-spot are unknown (list: 26). Their distribution is therefore probably related to the distribution of the graves with weapons (swords) of that period. A survey of weapons in the graves from the second half of 1st century B.C. in central Gaul (Riquier 2008) indicates that the scabbards from the group under discussion were most likely not in use there. The burial grounds of Ornavasso and Giubiasco would indicate the same for the region of Southern Alps (Pernet et al. 2006; Graue 1974). In southern Germany, Bohemia, Moravia, Hungary, northern Croatia and northern Serbia, the absence of scabbards is consistent with the scarcity or absence of graves (with weapons) from the second half of 1st century B.C. It can be concluded that the distribution of the scabbards under discussion is probably related not only to the regions where they were used, but also to the traditions involved in the burial of the dead. It would seem, however, that inside the Roman Empire, these swords and scabbards were used in the wider areas of the Moselle, the Middle Rhine and eastern Alps, which were inhabited by the Treveri, Norici and Taurisci. In the early Augustan period, these regions were already part of the Roman state or in close friendship with it. The scabbard and its associated sword from Belozem (and perhaps also the example from the Axel Guttmann collection) suggest their sporadic occurrence in Thracian tribes, as well. The leaders of some of them, and their warriors, took part in the civil wars following Caesar's death (in the battle of Philippi 42 B.C. with 3000 cavalrymen on each side, and in the battle of Actium 31 B.C.), and after the middle Augustan period, when a vassal kingdom was established there, its men fought on Roman side in many wars, including the Dalmatian-Pannonian war of 6-9 A.D. (Danov 1979, 121-132). In the regions which never became part of the Roman Empire, the swords and scabbards under discussion appear in the wide territory inhabited by various tribes called Germani by the Romans. 14. THE ORIGIN OF THE SCABBARDS WITH OPENWORK COPPER-ALLOY OR SILVER PLATE AND ASSOCIATED SWORDS The scabbards of the group originate in the La Tene tradition, as indicated by their construction from two metal plates and the way they are secured, by the campanulate top and the loop-plate, as well as the laddered chape. The front and the back plate of these scabbards were secured by a combination of two methods: by an overlapping plate and by a laddered chape. The first method is typical of Celtic swords from the Early La Tene period onwards (cf. Pernet et al. 2006, 36). The laddered chapes are typical of La Tene D2 (Lejars 1996, 92-93, fig. 7: 9-11; Sievers 2001, 153, 217-219, cat. nos. 138-139, 141-142, 144-145, 147-149, pls. 49-5216) and seem to derive from the La Tene D1 scabbards of the Alizay and Ludwigshafen types, characteristic of western Celtic regions (Haffner 1989, 203-206; Lejars 1996, fig. 7: 3-8; Metzler, Gaeng 2009, figs. 209, 210). Laddered chapes can have a spur-shaped end, which appears not only on scabbards with openwork copper-alloy plates, but also on iron scabbards with iron net-like fittings as well as on other types of The numbering on pl. 51 is incorrect.. scabbards. Spur-shaped chape ends were found in Germany and Poland; one example was also discovered in northern France, one in Slovenia (Verdun) and another one in Djerdap. They first appeared at the beginning of the Late La Tene period and seem to be of Germanic or perhaps Celtic origin (Gleser 1999, 77-83, 86-88, fig. 29, list 2; Gleser 2005, 118-124). Boat-shaped terminals are typical of the west-Celtic La Tene D1 scabbards of the Alizay and Ludwigshafen types (cf. Metzler, Gaeng 2009, fig. 209: 1,3, fig. 210; Pernet et al. 2006, 41-42, fig. 2.9: 3c), and the laddered chapes with a rounded end appear in several La Tene D2 graves from the western Celtic regions (Lejars 1996, fig. 7: 10,11; Pernet et al. 2006, 40, 42, fig. 2.9: 3a). Also of Celtic origin is the technique of openwork decoration made by removing the material from the metal sheet, which was already in use among the Celts during the early stages of the Late Iron Age (Schönfelder 2002, 122). The same technique was used in the openwork decoration of iron fittings on the wagon from the Late La Tene grave of a Celtic aristocrat from Boe in Aquitania (Schönfelder 2002, 115-126, figs. 78-80). The motifs of the openwork decoration of the scabbards in question have not been studied in detail by the author. In the opinion of Metzler and Gaeng (2009, 247), they consist of Celtic and non-Celtic motifs (arcades). Arcades are a dominant motif in nearly all the openwork plates in question and have been recognised as a Mediterranean motif by Künzl (1996, 397). The use of copper alloy for scabbards is rare during the Middle La Tene period (Guštin 1981, 228-229, pl. 46), but it is common from the beginning of Late La Tene onwards, when the scabbards of Ludwigshafen type start appearing (Pernet et al. 2006, 40-42; Lejars 1996, 79; Metzler, Gaeng 2009, 237-240, figs. 209, 210; Wyss, Rey, Müller 2002, cat. nos. 20-23, 37). The swords belonging to the scabbards under discussion also exhibit La Tene characteristics, such as the campanulate hilt-end and sloping shoulders. Long and narrow blades, tapering towards the pointed ends, (which is possibly a Roman influence), appear on some of the Late La Tene swords (cf. Lejars 1996, 90, fig. 6: 4; Wysss, Rey, Müller 2002, pls. 9-14: nos. 26,28,32,33,34,36,39-42,44). The knob-like top of the hilt is also known from other La Tene swords (e. g. Wyss, Rey, Müller 2002, 57, pls. 23, 24, 33, cat. no. 74; Sievers 2001, 217-219, cat. nos. 140, 141, pl. 50: 140,141). Metallographic features of two of the examined sword blades seem to be another indication of Celtic tradition (Schwab 2005, 327-331). It can be concluded that the shape of the scabbards and swords under discussion exhibit Celtic characteristics. The same applies to the technique of the openwork decoration, while part of its motifs and the long and pointed ends of the blades (cf. section 11) seem to exhibit Roman influence. Considering the obvious links of these scabbards and swords to Celtic tradition, it is surprising that all the copper-alloy parts of the items from Slovenia were of pure brass; the same goes for the scabbards from grave 78 in Zemplin (cf. Longauerova, Longauer 1990), grave 784 at Wederath and the one from Badenheim,17 while on the scabbard from Büchel brass diluted by tin and lead was applied (cf. Schwab 2005, 332, tab. 2). The fact that the scabbards' front plate and openwork plate as well as the swords' hilt-end and knob were of pure brass (i.e. brass with about 20 % zinc) clearly shows that freshly made pure brass (brass ingots: cf. Müller 2002, pl. 120: 1488; Riederer 2002, 132, cat. 1488) was used for their manufacture rather than melted brass objects (cf. Nieto 2004), since when brass is melted, the proportion of zinc is reduced (cf. Nieto 2004). An addition of other alloys to the molten brass would be even more obvious from its composition (cf. the scabbard from Büchel - Schwab 2005, tab. 2 and a brooch - Šmit et al. 2005, tab. 3). ^e Celts did not produce brass, but the Romans produced and used it from c. 60 B.C. (Istenič 2005, 204-205, 209-211; Istenič, Šmit 2007). ^e interpretation of the use of pure brass in the scabbards and swords under discussion is made difficult by the fact that the elemental composition of only a very few Late La Tene metal objects has been published. Such is the case with the swords with metal discs (of iron or copper alloy) on the tang. The swords of this kind from graves 805 and 809 at Wederath, dated to c. 30 B.C., suggest this group of swords is roughly contemporaneous with the swords and scabbards discussed in this paper. They appear on the north-eastern periphery of Gaul (there is a concentration of six find-spots in the Netherlands) and also to the east of the Rhine (Haffner 1989, 229-238; Roymans 2004, 108- 112, figs. 7.4, 7.5). ^e analysis of the discs from three 17 The author would like to thank Roland Schwab (Curt-Engelhorn-Zentrum Archäometrie, Mannheim) for the information regarding the composition of copper alloy of the scabbards from Wederath and Badenheim. swords from Netherlands has shown they were of bronze (Verwers, Ypey 1975, 87, 88, tab. 1).18 On the other hand, two swords of the group, from the River Scheldt near Denain and from Rögatz, have brass discs (Roymans 2004, 110-111; Verwers, Ypey 1975, 90-91). ^e analysed disc from Rögatz is of copper and zinc alloy (the relative proportions are not given; Verwers, Ypey 1975, 90-91); the absence of tin suggests pure brass. One of the discs on the sword from the Scheldt was analysed, probably on its surface; the result (copper with c. 12 % zinc and 1.5 % tin; Hantute, Leman-Delerive 1982, 90) seems to suggest that the disc was not made of pure brass.19 It can be concluded that in some of the swords with metal discs bronze was used, whereas in others brass was applied. Further research, which would have to include detailed analysis of a large number of swords, might show what kind of brass it was, how often it was used with these swords and what influenced the choice of the alloy (e.g. date and/ or place of their production). In comparison to the swords with discs on their handle, the use of pure brass on the scabbards with openwork plates is more consistent, as it appears on seven (of the eight analysed) scabbards (from Zemplin, Badenheim and Wederath and four from Slovenia). The copper alloy of the eighth scabbard was probably made of pure brass to which a small amount of tin and lead was added. In the context of the question regarding the origin of the scabbards and swords under discussion, we would like to draw attention to two swords with a name stamp on the upper part of their blade, which can be more or less closely linked to the scabbards under discussion: the sword with the VTILICI stamp from grave 78 at Zemplin in Slovakia (list: 17b) and the sword with the ALLIVS PA stamp from grave 20 at Wesoiki in Poland (D^browska, D^browski 1967, 28, fig. 23: 6, pl. 8: 3). ^e stamp on the sword from Wesoiki has regular and clear lettering, whereas the lettering on the Zemplin stamp, judging from the photograph, seems relatively irregular and unclear. 18 Six discs from three swords were analysed; their composition differs in all the three swords: on one of them the discs were of leaded bronze (5% of lead and 5-6 % of tin), on the second one of bronze with 12 % of tin and on the third one of leaded bronze with 5 % of lead and 12 % of tin. 19 It is not the relatively small percentage of zinc, but 1.5 % of tin that suggest the disc is not of pure brass; it is namely usual that the share of zinc is lower on the patinated (corroded) surface than in the core (cf. Istenič, Šmit 2007, 143). ^e shape of its shoulders, the grooves on the blade and particularly the form of the top end of the tang (cf. sword from Büchel, list: 3) link the sword from grave 78 in Zemplin to the swords which are associated with the scabbards under discussion (cf. list). Its length (95 cm) corresponds to their longer versions. In grave 78 from Zemplin, only parts of the scabbard survive; they are melted onto the blade of the sword. ^e published drawings alone do not allow classification as one of the scabbards under discussion, however Pleiner's description is clear: he mentions "fragments of copper/bronze scabbard, ornamented in an openwork style of Late La Tene Noric type" (Pleiner 1993, 97). Analysis has shown that the scabbards' fragments included pure brass with about 18 % zinc (Longauerova, Longauer 1990). The sword from Wesoiki - with the shape of the shoulders and blade, the "brass" knob (as it says in the description, although analysis probably has not been made) and its length (82.5 cm; D^browska, D^browski 1967, 28, fig. 23: 6) - matches well with the group of shorter swords, typical of the scabbards under discussion (cf. above, section 11). It comes from a cremation grave, where it was associated with a lower loop-plate from a scabbard (ibid., 23, fig. 23: 7). The plate is made of copper alloy20 and resembles the end of the lower loop-plate on the scabbard from Strmec above Bela Cerkev (fig. 5b; insert 2), which is of brass. Allius is a relatively common Latin name. It was used as a nomen, as well as a cognomen, and is known particularly in Italy, Hispania, Gaul and Dalmatia (Onomasticon I, 43-44). The stamp VTILICI is less clear. There is no known name that would correspond to the genitive or dative Utilici; the word resembles the Latin adjective utilis.21 In both cases the stamps probably refer to the maker of the sword. In the first case, the person no doubt had a Latin name (Allius), whereas in the second case this is not certain. La Tene swords (or rather, their blades) that we know of, carry, with one exception, anepigraphic stamps (Dulfba 2009; Wyss, Rey, Müller 2002, 37-39). We know of no early Roman swords with stamps, with possibly one exception.22 20 K. Czarnecka, pers. comm. Cf. also Appendix. 21 The author would like to thank Julijana Visočnik from Nadškofijski arhiv Ljubljana for this explanation. 22 Haffner (1989, p. 271) mentions a gladius with a stamp on its tang, from a destroyed burial ground at Bell (Mayen-Koblenz). The publication was unavailable to us, so we couldn't verify it.. It can be concluded that the scabbards and swords under discussion follow the La Tene tradition; some of the motifs of the openwork decoration and the long and pointed tips of the blades, observed on several swords, would indicate Roman influence. This is also evident in the use of pure brass. The name stamps on two of the swords, of which one certainly and the other probably belonged to the scabbards in question, would indicate that Romans were involved in their manufacture. The distribution of the scabbards under discussion (fig. 13), concentrated in Celtic and Germanic regions, in our opinion, does not necessarily reflect relations between the Celts and their eastern neighbours. It is also possible that they reflect Roman contacts with the Celts and other peoples of the newly conquered regions, as well as the ones from the Barbaricum, in the last decades B.C. The Treveri had had intense links to the Roman army as early as Caesar's Gallic wars (alternately as allies and enemies). Rich cavalry graves from Göblingen-Nospelt, including grave B with the sword and scabbard under discussion, are linked to the members of Treveri aristocracy (Metzler, Gaeng 2009, 513-519, 521), which commanded their military forces within the Roman army. The link of the Taurisci to the Roman army during the middle and late Augustan period and also later is indicated by the graves with Roman-type military equipment from Verdun (e.g. graves 1, 41, 84, 112, 136; cf. Breščak 1989, 10, 13; Breščak et al. 2002, 139, 141-142, cat. nos. 74 , 82)23 and Mihovo (Windl 1975, graves 1656/58, 1657/16, 1657/59, 1657/110, 1846/3, 1661/1, pls. 21: 1-5, 28: 1-3, 43: 1-5, 51: 15-19, 61: 5-7). In our opinion grave 1 from the Košak B plot at Strmec above Bela Cerkev and grave 37 from Verdun, dated to between 60/30 and 15 B.C., also belonged to Tauriscan warriors, who were presumably members of the ruling class with military-political relations with the Romans. In addition to the discussed swords and scabbards, which show Roman influence, they used their traditional weapons and attire and were buried with La Tene type pottery (cf. Božič 1999, 211; Mihaljevic, Dizdar 2007). Considering the narrower date-span of the scabbards in question, the most probable dating of the said graves would seem to be between 40/30 and 15 B.C. This would be consistent with the new situation which developed in the South-Eastern Alps after Octavian's Illyrian wars (35-33 B.C.). Only the published graves are included. In the case of the Treveri and Taurisci, we can assume the scabbards and swords under discussion were most likely used by their ruling men, who cooperated with the Romans. Their weapons were still completely traditional; only the scabbards and swords under discussion exhibit - in addition to predominant La Tene elements - clear Roman influence. The use of pure brass in the scabbards and swords under discussion, which generally exhibit Celtic characteristics in form and appearance, indicate they were produced in a milieu of intense Celto-Roman relations. A Latin name stamp on one of the swords suggests that Romans took part in their production. They were made in the Celtic tradition, with some Roman influence in form and decoration, and with materials used in the production of Roman weapons (brass). These observations, as well as the distribution of the discussed weapons lead us to the assumption that their production and distribution were in Roman hands. They were intended for cooperating Celts and others, who valued Celtic swords and were accustomed to using them. The Romans distributed these weapons as trade goods and/or as gifts. Their presence at Zemplin and on sites in Poland might reflect Roman gifts in the regions along the Amber Route. The hitherto presumed regions of origin of the scabbards and swords under discussion, i.e. the territories of the Norici and Treveri, were already partly Romanised Celtic environments in the period between 40/30 and 15 B.C., where we can well imagine the manufacture of such weapons. However, this does not apply to the third obvious concentration of the discussed weapons, i.e. the territory of Dolenjska (Slovenia), inhabited by the Taurisci. This leads us to the assumption that the concentrations of the discussed weapons on the territories of the Treveri, Norici and Taurisci are more likely to be related to the burial rites of these tribes and the cooperation of their leading men with the Romans than to the production of these weapons. The latter occurred in a region where the relations between the Celts and the Romans were close and from where a wide distribution of products to the territories indicated by the findspots of these items can be expected (fig. 13; list). In our opinion, the eastern part of Gallia Cisalpina, the province which became part of Italy in 42 B.C., seems to best meet the described requirements. The two lengths of the scabbards and swords (see section 11) might indicate that the longer ones (Göblingen-Nospelt, Büchel, Wederath, Badenheim, Stara Wies, Zemplin - graves 78 and 128, Danube and Belozem) were made for cavalrymen, while the shorter ones were intended for infantrymen. This assumption is in accordance with grave B from Göblingen-Nospelt and grave 129 from Zemplin, in which relatively long scabbards and swords of the discussed group were associated with spurs (Metzler, Gaeng 2009, fig. 65: 70a, b; Budinsky-Krička, Lamiova-Schmiedlova 1990, pl. 18: 1,2). It is also supported by the fact that only the longer items come from the territory of the Treveri. They had a strong cavalry, which cooperated with the Romans during the Gallic wars and was valued by Caesar (Metzler, Gaeng 2009, 513, 514). All four scabbards and swords from the territory of the Taurisci fall in the subgroup of shorter items (list: 19-21),24 which contains only two other examples (grave 3 from Wesolki and the example from the Axel Guttmann collection; list: 14a, 19-22, 26). 15. CONCLUSIONS Scabbards with openwork copper-alloy or silver plates make up a relatively homogenous group of La Tene weapons, which, according to the available information, add up to at least 32 examples. They come from graves and, in two cases, from rivers. No known examples come from settlements. They were produced and used roughly between 40/30 and 15 B.C. An earlier dating from about 60 B.C. seems unlikely, but cannot be excluded. Grave 131 from Verdun indicates that some of these items were kept for a long time. The scabbards and swords under discussion exhibit Late La Tene Celtic characteristics, but also a clear Roman influence. The use of pure brass, established for seven items (four from Slovenia, two from Germany and one from Slovakia) and a stamp bearing a Roman name on the sword from Wesolki, indicate strong links between their production and the Romans. It follows from our research that they were made in a milieu characterised by intense Celto-Roman relations, perhaps in eastern Gallia Cisalpina, and were produced for Celtic Roman allies as well as for others (i.e. Germanic tribes), who valued Celtic swords and had a tradition of using them. Acknowledgements Danilo Breščak (ZVKDS, OE Novo mesto) and Bernarda Županek (Muzeji in galerije mesta Ljubljana) allowed us to include the items from Verdun and the Ljubljanica in this article. Bernarda Županek also agreed to the research on the scabbard from the Ljubljanica. All of the above were essential for carrying out this research. Sonja Perovšek, Zoran Milic and Igor Ravbar (Conservation Dept., National Museum of Slovenia) contributed greatly to the discussions about the production method of the laddered chapes. With dedication and care, Sonja Perovšek also carried out the research work on the scabbard from the Ljubljanica. Julijana Visočnik (Nadškofijski arhiv Ljubljana) contributed the explanations of the two inscriptions on the sword stamps. The author would like to acknowledge Dragan Božič (Institute of Archaeology, Ljubljana) for suggestions regarding the publications, useful information, discussions and critical comments on the manuscript. Jana Horvat (Institute of Archaeology, Ljubljana) also read the manuscript and contributed some valuable insights. Peter Turk, Neva Trampuž Orel and Boštjan Laharnar (all National Museum of Slovenia) read the manuscript and contributed valuable remarks. Helena Bras Kernel and Barbara Jerin (National Museum of Slovenia) helped with editing the text. Katarzyna Czarnecka (Panstwowe Muzeum Archeologic-zne, Varšava/Warszava) kindly provided us with information regarding the swords and scabbards from graves 3 and 50 of the Wesolki cemetery, as well as grave 301 from Kamienczyk. Translation: Katarina Jerin, language editing: Alex Croom LIST (fig. 13) A list of Late La Tene scabbards with copper-alloy or silver openwork plates or their fragments.25 For each of 24 The scabbard and sword from Mihovo could not be considered 25 In our opinion, the copper alloy openwork plate from Tuczno (Poland; Makiewicz 1975, 139, pl. 9: 4; Werner 1977, 382, fig. 11, 3) and the net-like iron plate from Sofia Podueni (Bolgaria; Popov 1921, 33-34, figs. 34, 35) should not be included in the group under discussion (for different opinions see Böhme-Schönberger 1998, fig. 6: 6 and Czarnecka 2002, 97, 98, no. 12, 25). The published information would also seem to exclude from the group the sword with the remains of a scabbard from Sanzkow (Germany; Werner 1977, 388, fig. 16) and a fragment of the scabbard from Zvenihorod-Zaguminki, grave 7 (Ukraina; Werner 1977, 384, fig. 12: 1; Kropotkin 1977, 185, fig. 12: 1; Luckiewicz 2000, 374, fig. 15). Böhme-Schönberger (1998, fig. 6: 3,13) and Czarnecka (2002, 97-98, no. 9, 18) are of a different opinion. In the case of the item from Lučka (Ukraina), the information published by Luckiewicz (2000, tab. 1) does not indicate that it should be included in the group. The publication quoted by Czarnecka (2002, 98, no. 19), who included it in the group, was not available to the author. the items the latest publication with illustration is cited, as well as other publications relevant for determining the scabbard or its find-spot. Luxemburg 1. Göblingen-Nospelt, grave B; scabbard and associated sword. Metzler-Gaeng 2009, 80, 84, 243-244, figs. 65: 22a, 213, 215: 1. 2. Titelberg, area of the eastern cemetery and Celto-Roman sanctuary; upper part of the sword and scabbard with openwork plate. Metzler-Gaeng 2009, 248-249, figs. 214, 215: 2. Germany 3. Büchel, grave; scabbard and associated sword. Haffner 1995, 137-142, 148, figs. 2, 3, 9: 1, Falttafel 1; Schwab 2005. 4. Wederath, grave 784; scabbard and associated sword. Haffner 1995, 141-143, figures 4, 9: 2, folding plate 1. 5. Badenheim, grave; scabbard and associated sword. Böhme-Schönberger 1998, 218-223, figs. 11-13, Beilage 4. 6. Groß Romstedt, from a grave; small fragment of a sword's blade and a scabbard's openwork plate. Czarnecka 2002, 97, št. 6; Werner 1977, 381-382, fig. 11: 2. 7. Schkopau, cemetery, no information regarding the grave-group; fragment of the upper part of a scabbard with openwork plate. Schmidt, Nitzschke 1989, 93, E 7, pl. 78: 7. 8. Harsefeld, grave 8; openwork plate and scabbard end. Werner 1977, 383, 387, 400, fn. 45, fig. 15; BöhmeSchönberger 1998, 233-234, 237, fig. 5. Werner (1977, 383) describes the openwork plate as being quite substantial (recht massiv), suggests it was cast and presumes it is a Germanic imitation of a "Norican" item. According to Böhme-Schönberger, the openwork plate is an unfinished product, which was mounted upside down. The fragment of the scabbard end (Werner 1977, fig. 15: 2) clearly differs from other scabbards in the group. A sword with a stamp in the form of a rosette was found with the fragments of the scabbard (Werner 1977, 400, fn. 45). It seems very doubtful that the original scabbard belonged to the group under discussion, therefore it was not included in fig. 13. Sweden 9. Eggeby, barrow; openwork plate. Böhme-Schönberger 1998, 232-233, fig. 4; BöhmeSchönberger 2001, 79-80, fig. 1. The motifs and composition of the scabbard plate from Stara Zagora (Bolgaria; Werner 1977, 392-394, fig. 19; Popov 1921, 33-34, figs. 33, 34) do not correspond to the ones of the group under discussion. Poland 10. Kopaniewo (germ. Koppenow), grave 10; fragment of a scabbard with an openwork plate. Werner 1977, 377, fig. 6; Wol^giewicz, Wol^giewicz 1963, 99, pl. 1: 11. 11. Rz^dz (germ. Rondsen), cemetery, no information regarding the grave-group; fragment of an openwork plate. Werner 1977, 382-383, fig. 11: 1. 12. Stara Wies-Kolonia, grave 1; scabbard and associated sword. Werner 1977, 390, fig. 17; Kaszewska 1977, 119, no. 21, fig. 3; Böhme-Schönberger 1998, 226, fn. 22, 26. 13. Ciecierzyn, grave 118; scabbard and associated sword. Martyniak, Pastwinski, Pazda 1997, 28, t. 117: 1,2. 14a. Wesolki, gr. 3; scabbard and associated sword. D^browska, D^browski 1967, 14, sl. 7: 8; Kokowski 2003a, 107, cat. no. 214, fig. 16; Kokowski 2003b, 482-483. Only iron is mentioned amongst the metals in the published description of the scabbard (D^browska, D^browski 1967, 14; Kokowski 2003b, 482-483; cf. also Luckiewicz 2000, 370, tab. 1), but according to Bochnak and Czar-necka (2004-2005, 29), the openwork plate is of bronze or copper coated iron. 14b. Wesolki, grave 50; openwork plate and spur-like chape-end. D^browska, D^browski 1967, 56, fig. 57: 1,8; Luckiewicz 2000, 370, tab. 1, fig. 13: 1,8. 15. Witaszewice, grave 147/1937; fragments of scabbard and associated sword. Werner 1977, 391-392, fig. 18; Kaszewska 1977, 108, 120, no. 46, fig. 1: 3-5; Luckiewicz 2000, 370, tab. 1, 376, fig. 17. 16. Kamienczyk, gr. 301; scabbard and associated sword. D^browska 1997, 62, 90, pl. 138: 4, 201: 1; Bochnak, Czarnecka 2004-2005, 29, fig. 4. This scabbard seems to be the only one with an iron openwork plate, which is of the same quality and decorated with the same motifs as the plates of copper alloy. Nevertheless, we have included the item in the list, but excluded it from further discussion and fig. 13. Slovakia 17a. Zemplin, grave 77; two fragments of an openwork plate. Budinsky-Krička, Lamiova-Schmiedlova 1990, 253, 255, pl. 11: 10,11. 17b. Zemplin, grave 78; sword with remains of a scabbard. Budinsky-Krička, Lamiova-Schmiedlova 1990, 255, fig. 20a, pl. 11: 20; Lamiova 1993, 25, 27, fig. 18, 19, 25; Pleiner 1993, 97. The affiliation to the scabbards with copper alloy or silver openwork plates was made on the basis of a comment by Pleiner (1993, 97) that the openwork plate was decorated in "Norican style". 17c. Zemplin, gr. 108, two fragments of a scabbard: a fragment of its upper part with openwork plate and a fragment of its end. Cosack 1977; Budinsky-Krička, Lamiova-Schmiedlova 1990, 260-261, pl. 15: 30,31; Böhme-Schönberger 1998, 227, 233, 234, 237, fig. 3. It seems that the whole scabbard was of copper alloy (Cosack 1977). The end of the scabbard differs from the others in the group (it is longer and narrower; with four rivets on the front of the horseshoe-shaped end of the chape, and what seems like a rod-like fitting at the back). The openwork plate might be unfinished (cf. BöhmeSchönberger 1998, 227, 237, fig. 3). 17d. Zemplin, grave 128; fragment of an openwork plate and a fragment of a chape. Budinsky-Krička/Lamiova-Schmiedlova 1990, 265, pl. 18: 11,13. 17e. Zemplin, grave 136; small fragment of openwork plate. Budinsky-Krička/Lamiova-Schmiedlova 1990, 267, pl. 18: 27. Hungary 23. The Danube, near Pomaz and Szentendre, single find; scabbard and associated sword. Hunyady 1942-1944, 115-116, pl. 44: 5,5a,b (photograph); Bona 1963, 253, pl. 38: 4 (information regarding the find-spot); Hellebrandt 1999, 35-36, t. 4: 4 (poor quality drawing and information regarding the find-spot). 24. Nagyteteny, grave; scabbard and associated sword. Information by Andras Marton; some of the items from the same grave are published in Zsidi 2009, 111, nos. 294-296. Bulgaria 25. Belozem, barrow; scabbard and associated sword. Werner 1977, 372, fig. 3: 1, 378, 379, fig. 8. 26. Unknown site, perhaps in Bulgaria (cf. BöhmeSchönberger 1998, 230, fn. 42); scabbard and associated sword. http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_detaüs.aspx?pos= 8&int0bjectID=4265305&sid [date of accession Okt. 2010]. Austria 18a-c. Magdalensberg, Lugbichl, cemetery; fragments of three openwork plates. Deimel 1987, 263-264, pl. 69: 6-8. Slovenija (fig. 1) 19. The River Ljubljanica near Bevke; scabbard and associated sword (^igs. 2-3; insert 1). 20. Strmec above Bela Cerkev, grave 1 from the Košak B plot; scabbard and associated sword (^igs. 4-7; insert 2). 21a. Verdun, grave 37; scabbard and associated sword (figs. 8-9; insert 3). 21b. Verdun, grave 131; scabbard and associated sword (figs. 10-11; insert 4). 22. Mihovo, grave 1657/8; scabbard and associated sword (^ig. 12). appendix Just before the paper went to print, K. Czarnecka drew our attention to two papers by K. D^browski and J. Kolendo (Z badan nad mieczami rzymskimi w Europie srodkowej i polnocnej (odkrycie miecza z odciskiem stempla w Wesolkach, pow. Kalisz), Archeologia Polski 12, 1967, 383-426; Les epees romaines decouvertes en Europe centrale et septentrionale, Archaeologia Polona 13, 1972, 59-109). They include some important information about grave 20 from Wesolki. The osteological analysis suggests that a 30-45-year old man was buried in the grave. The knob at the sword's tang was analysed (brass with 10% Zn); there were remains of brass on the sword's blade (remains of the scabbard); the lower loop-plate is of iron (cf. this paper p. 162). The authors discussed the name ALLIVS PA and concluded that the maker of the sword originated from Italy. BOCHNAK, T. and K. CZARNECKA 2004-2005, Iron scabbard-plates decorated in openwork technique (opus interrasile) in Central Europe. Celtic import or locally made copy?. - Anodos. Studies of the Ancient World 4-5, 25-34. BOCKIUS, R. 1991, Fremdimpulse am Ende der Latene-zeit im Rhein-Main-Moselgebiet. - In: A. Haffner, A. Miron (eds.), Studien zur Eisenzeit im Hunsrück-Nahe-Raum. Symposium Birkenfeld 1987, Trierer Zeitschrift 13, 281-294. BÖHME-SCHÖNBERGER, A. 1998, Das Grab eines vornehmen Kriegers der Spätlatenezeit aus Badenheim. - Germania 76, 217-256. BÖHME-SCHÖNBERGER, A. 2001, Das silberne Zierblech von Eggeby. - Fornvännen 96, 79-88. BÖNA, I. 1963, Beiträge zur Archäologie und Geschichte der Quaden. - Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 15, 239-307. BOŽIČ, D. 1992, Mokronoška skupina latenske kulture v poznolatenskem obdobju. - Unpublished doctoral thesis / Neobjavljena disertacija, Ljubljana. BOŽIČ, D. 1999, Die Erforschung der Latenezeit in Slowenien seit Jahr 1964 / Raziskovanje latenske dobe na Slovenskem po letu 1964. - Arheološki vestnik 50, 189-213. BOŽIČ, D. 2008, Late La Tene-Roman cemetery in Novo mesto / Poznolatensko- rimsko grobišče v Novem mestu. - Katalogi in monografije 39, Ljubljana. BRAS KERNEL, H. 2006, "Vrhniški zaklad" je del zbirke najdb iz Ljubljanice pri Bevkah. - Argo 49/2, 11-24. BRAUN-FELDWEG, W. 1988, Metall. Werkformen und Arbeitsweisen. - Hannover. BREŠČAK, D. 1986, Verdun pri Stopičah. - Varstvo spomenikov 28, 276. BREŠČAK, D. 1987, Verdun pri Stopičah. - Varstvo spomenikov 29, 271. BREŠČAK, D. 1989, Verdun. Razstavni katalog. - Novo mesto. BREŠČAK, D., I. GALOVIC, Z. GREGL, B. KRIŽ, J. RA-DOVČIC and Ž. ŠKOBERNE 2002, Oživljene kulture : arheološka odkritja na Gorjancih/Žumberku od prazgodovine do zgodnjega srednjega veka / Revived cultures : archaeological excavations in the Gorjanci/Žumberak Hills from prehistory to the early Middle Ages. - Ljubljana. BUDINSKY-KRIČKA, V and M. LAMIOVÄ-SCHMIEDLOVÄ 1990, A late 1st century B.C.-2nd century A.D. cemetery at Zemplin. - Slovenska archeologia 38/2, 245-344. Conspectus = E. Ettlinger et al., Conspectus formarum terrae sigillatae Italico mondo confectae. - Materialien zur römisch-germanischen Keramik 10, Bonn 1990. COSACK, E. 1977, Zur spätlatenezeitlichen Schwertscheide von Zemplin, Bez. Trebišov (Slowakei). - In: Symposium Ausklang der Latene-Zivilisation und Anfänge der Germanischen Besiedlung im mittleren Donaugebiet, 41-46, Bratislava. CRADDOCK, P. T. 1995, Early Metal Mining and Production. - Edinburgh. CRADDOCK, P. T., M. COWELL and I. STEAD 2004, Britain's first brass. - The Antiquaries Journal 84, 339-346. CRADDOCK, P. T. and J. LAMBERT 1985, The Composition of the Trappings. - In: I. Jenkins, A Group of Silvered-Bronze Horse-Trappings from Xanten (Castra Vetera), Britannia 16, 141-164. CZARNECKA, K. 2002, Die Schwertscheiden mit dem Gittermusterornament in Mitteleuropa um die Zeitwende. - In: C. Carnap Bornheim et al. (eds.), Bewaffnung der Germanen und ihrer Nachbarn in den letzten Jahrhunderten vor Christi Geburt, Akten der Internationalen Tagung in Nal^czow, 23. bis 25. September 1999, Lublin. D4BROWSKA, I. and K. D4BROWSKI 1967, Cmentarzysko z okresow pöznolatenskiego i wptywöw rzymskich w Wesolkach, Pow. Kalisz. - Wroclaw, Warszawa, Krakow. D4BROWSKA, T. 1997, Kemienczyk. Ein Gräberfeld der Przeworsk-Kultur in Ostmasowien. - Monumenta ar-chaeologica barbarica 3, Krakow. DANOV, C. M. 1979, Die Thraker auf dem Ostbalkan von der hellenistischen Zeit bis zur Gründung Konstantinopels. - In: Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2/7, 21-185, Berlin, New York. DEIMEL, M. 1987, Die Bronzekleinfunde vom Magdalens-berg. - Kärntner Museumsschriften 71, Klagenfurt. DEMETZ, St. 1999, Fibeln derspätltene- und frühen römischen Kaiserzeit in den Alpenländern. - Frühgeschichtliche und Provinzialrömische Archäologie, Materialien und Forschungen 4, Rahden/Westf. DESCHLER-ERB, E. 1999, Ad arma! - Forschungen in Augst 28, Augst. DUL^BA, P. 2009, Celtic Long Swords with Punchmarks. - Barbaricum 8, 53-76 (in print). FEUGERE, M. 1985, Les fibules en Gaule Meridionale de la conquete ä la fin du V s. ap. J.-C. - Revue archeologique de Narbonnaise, Suppl. 12, Paris. FREY, O.-H. 1986, Einige Überlegungen zu den Beziehungen zwischen Kelten und Germanen in der Spätlatenezeit. - In: Gedenkschrift für Gero von Merhart, Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 7, 45-79. GLESER, R. 1999, Studie zum spätkeltischen Häuptlingsgrab 23 mit Wagenteilen und Bewaffnung aus der Nekropole von Hoppstädten-Weiersbach. - Mitteilungen des Vereins für Heimatkunde im Landkreis Birkenfeld 73, 29-100. GLESER, R. 2005, Studien zu sozialen Strukturen der historischen Kelten in Mitteleuropa aufgrund der Gräberanalyse. - Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 81, Bonn. GRAUE, J. 1974, Die Gräberfelder von Ornavasso. - Hamburger Beiträge zur Archäologie Beiheft 1, Hamburg. GUŠTIN, M. 1981, Keltische Gräber aus Dobova, Slowenien. - Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 11, 223-229. GUŠTIN, M. 1984, Die Kelten in Jugoslawien. - Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 31, 305-363. HAFFNER, A. 1989, Gräber - Spiegel des Lebens. - Mainz. HAFFNER, A. 1995, Spätkeltische Prunkschwerter aus dem Treverergebiet. - In: H.-H. Wegner (ed.), Berichte zur Archäologie an Mittelrhein und Mosel 4, Trierer Zeitschrift Beiheft 20, 137-151, Trier. HANTUTE, G. and G. LEMAN-DELERIVE 1982, Une epee gauloise du Musee de Denain (nord). - Etudes celtiques 19, 83-92 (with contributions by P. Caby and J. Bonte). HELLEBRANDT, M. 1999, Celtic finds from Northern Hungary. - Budapest. HORVAT, J. 1990, Nauportus (Vrhnika). - Dela 1. razreda SAZU 33, Ljubljana. HUNYADY, I. 1942-1944, Die Kelten im Karpatenbecken. - Dissertationes Pannonicae 2/18, Budapest. ISTENIČ, J. 2000, A Roman late-republican gladius from the River Ljubljanica (Slovenia). - Arheološki vestnik, 51, 71-182. ISTENIČ, J. 2003, The early Roman "Hoard of Vrhnika": a collection finds from the river Ljubljanica / Zgodnjerimski "Zaklad z Vrhnike": zbirka najdb iz reke Ljubljanice. -Arheološki vestnik 54, str. 281-298. ISTENIČ, J. 2005, Brooches of the Alesia group in Slovenia / Fibule skupine Alesia v Sloveniji. - Arheološki vestnik 56, 187-212. ISTENIČ, J. 2009a, Roman period. - In: P. Turk et al. (eds.), The Ljubljanica - a river and its past, 265-317, Ljubljana. ISTENIČ, J. 2009b, Rimsko obdobje. - In: Turk, Peter et al. (eds.), Ljubljanica - kulturna dediščina reke, 241-293, Ljubljana. ISTENIČ, J. 2009c, Roman military equipment and the beginnings of the Roman use of brass in Europe. -Xantener Berichte 16, 237-242. ISTENIČ, J. and Ž. ŠMIT 2007, The beginning of the use of brass in Europe with particular reference to the southeastern Alpine region. - In: S. La Niece, D. R. Hook, P. T. Craddock (eds.), Metals and mines: studies in archaeometallurgy, 140-147, London. JACKSON, R. P. J and P. T. CRADDOCK 1995, The Ribchester Hoard: A Descriptive and Technical Study. - In: B. Raftery (ed.), Sites and Sights of the Iron Age, 75-102, Oxford. KASZEWSKA, E. 1977, Problem der keltischen Besiedlung in Mittel und Nordpolen. - In: Symposium Ausklang der Latene-Zivilisation und Anfänge der Germanischen Besiedlung im mittleren Donaugebiet, 107-122, Bratislava. KOKOWSKI, A. 2003a, Die Przeworsk-Kultur. Ein Völkerverband zwischen 200 vor Chr. und 375 nach Chr. - In: Die Vandalen, 77-184, Nordstemmen. KOKOWSKI, A. 2003b, [214.1727-1728] Wesolki. - In: Die Vandalen. Katalogteil. Die Przeworsk-Kultur, 482-483, Nordstemmen. KOSEC, L., J. ISTENIČ, S. PEROVŠEK and M. GOSAR, Raziskave lestvičastega okova poznolatenske nožnice s predrtim okrasom iz Ljubljanice. - Arheološki vestnik 62, 2011 (forthcoming). KROPOTKIN, V. V. 1977, Denkmäler der Przeworsk - Kultur in der Westukraine und ihre Beziehungen zur Lipica-und Černjachov- Kultur. - In: Symposium Ausklang der Latene-Zivilisation und Anfänge der Germanischen Besiedlung im mittleren Donaugebiet, 173-200, Bratislava. KÜNZL, E. 1996, Gladiusdekorationen der frühen römischen Kaiserzeit: dynastische Legitimation, Victoria und Aurea Aetas. - Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 43, 383-474. LAMIOVÄ, M. 1993, Zemplin. - Košice. LEJARS, T. 1996, L'armement des Celts en Gaule du nord a la fin de I'epoque gauloise. Revue archeologique de Picardie 3/4, 79-103. LONGAUEROVÄ, M. and S. LONGAUER 1990, Structural analysis of a scabbard and a ring mail from Zemplin. - Slovenska archeologia 38, 349-354. tUCZKIEWICZ, P. 2000, Zur späteisenzeitlichen Bewaffnung in Polen. Stand der Forschung. - Jahrbuch des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 47, 355-437. MAKIEWICZ, T. 1975, Materialy ze zniszczonego cmen-tarzyska kultury prezeworskiej w Tucznie. - Fontes Archaeologici Posnanienses 26, 125-149. MANNING, W. H. 1976, Blacksmithing. - In: D. Strong, D. Brown (eds.), Roman Crafts, 143-154, London. MARTIN-KILCHER, St. 1998, Gräber der späten Republik und der frühen Kaiserzeit am Lago Maggiore: Tradition und Romanisierung. - Xantener Berichte 7, 191-252. MARTIN-KILCHER, St., D. C. TRETOLA MARTINEZ and R. VOGT 2009, Die Amphoren aus dem Grabbezirk von Goeblingen-Nospelt. - In: Metzler, Gaeng 2009, 333-393. MARTYNIAK, G., R. PASTWINSKI and S. PAZDA 1997, Cmentarzysko kultury przeworskiej w Ciecierzynie, gmina Byczyna, woj. opolskie. - Wroclaw. METZLER, J. and C. GAENG 2009, Goeblange-Nospelt, une necropole aristoratique trevire. Dossiers d'archeologie 13. - Luxembourg. METZLER-ZENS, N., J. METZLER-ZENS and P. MENIEL 1999, Lamadelaine, une necropole de l'oppidum du Titelberg. - Dossiers d'archeologie 6, Luxembourg. MIHALJEVIC, M. and M. DIZDAR 2007, Late La Tene bronze helmet from the River Sava near Stara Gradiška. - Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 40, 117-146. MILIC, Z., G. LEMAJIČ, S. PEROVŠEK and J. ISTENIČ 2009, Konserviranje in restavriranje najdb iz Ljubljanice. - In: P. Turk et al. (eds.), Ljubljanica, kulturna dediščina reke, 30-35, Ljubljana. MÜLLER, M. 2002, Die römischen Buntmetallfunde von Haltern. - Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 37, Mainz. MÜLLER-KARPE, H. 1951, Zeugnisse der Taurisker in Kärnten. - Carinthia I 141, 594-677. MÜLLNER, A. 1900, Typische Formen aus den archäologischen Sammlungen des krainischen Landesmuseums "Rudolfinum" in Laibach in photographischen Repro-ductionen. - Laibach. NIETO, S. 2004, Monnaies arvernes (Vercingetorix, Cas) en orichalque. - Revue Numismatique 160, 5-25. Onomasticon I = Onomasticon provinciarum Europae Latinarum. Vol. I: Aba-Bysanus. Ex materia ab A. Mocsy et al. collecta composuit et correxit B. Lörincz, Budapest 2005. PERNET, L., E. CARLEVARO, L. TORI, G. VIETTI, Ph. DELLA CASA and B. SCHMID-SIKIMIC 2006, La necropoli di Giubiasco (Ti) II. - Collectio arhaeologica 4, Zürich. PLEINER, R. 1993, The Celtic sword. - Oxford. POPOV, R. 1921, Materiali za proučvane na predistoriče-skata epoha v Sofijskata Kotlovina. - In: Predistoričeski i strarochristjanski pametnici ot Sofija i okolnost'ta, Materiali za istorjata na Sofija 5, 1-36, Sofia. RIDERER, J. 2002, Die Metallanalyse der Funde aus Kupferlegierungen von Haltern. - In: Müller 2002, 109-145. RIQUIER, S. 2008, L'armament republicain dans les sepultures de Gaule centrale. - In: M. Poux (ed.), Sur les traces de Cesar, Bibracte 14, Glux-en-Glenne. ROYMANS, N. 2004, Ethnic Identity and Imperial Power. - Amsterdam. SCHMIDT, B. and W. NITZSCHKE 1989, Ein Gräberfeld der Spätlatenzeit und der frührömischen Kaiserzeit bei Schkopau, Kr. Merseburg. - Veröffentlichungen des Landemuseums für Vorgeschichte in Halle 42, Berlin. SCHÖNFELDER, M. 2002, Das spätkeltische Wagengrab von Boe (Dept. Lot-et-Garonne). - Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Monographien 54, Mainz. SCHWAB, R. 2005, Untersuchung eines spätkeltischen Prunkschwertes von Büchel, Kreis Cochem-Zell. - In: H.-H. Wegner (ed.), Berichte zur Archäologie an Mittelrhein und Mosel 10, Trierer Zeitschrift Beiheft 29, 327-336, Trier. SIEVERS, S. 2001, Les armes d'Alesia. - In: M. Redde, S. von Schnurbein, Alesia. Memoires de l'Academie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 22, 121-241, Paris. STARE, F. 1953, Pomemben zaklad z Vrhnike (Nauportus). - Arheološki vestnik 4, 94-104. STARE, V. 1973, Prazgodovina Šmarjete. - Katalogi in monografije 10, Ljubljana. ŠMIT, Ž., J. ISTENIČ, V. GERDUN, Z. MILIC and A. MLADENOVIC 2005, Archaeometric analysis of Alesia group brooches from sites in Slovenia / Arheometrične analize fibul skupine Alesia s slovenskih najdišč. - Arheološki vestnik 56, 213-233. ŠMIT, Ž., J. ISTENIČ and S. PEROVŠEK 2010, PIXE analysis of late La Tene scabbards with non-ferrous openwork plates (and associated swords) from Slovenia / PIXE analize poznolatenskih nožnic s predrtimi okovi (in pripadajočih mečev) iz Slovenije. - Arheološki vestnik 61, 165-173. TACKENBERG, K. 1970, Ein spätlatenezeitlicher Schwertscheidenbeschlag aus Vrhnika (Nauportus) und seine Parallelen. - In: Adriatica praehistorica et antiqua, Festschrift Grga Novak, 251-264, Zagreb. TYLECOTE, R. F. 1992, A history of metallurgy. - London, Brookfield. WERNER, J. 1977, Spätlatene-Schwerter norischer Herkunft. - In: Symposium Ausklang der Latene-Zivilisation und Anfänge der Germanischen Besiedlung im mittleren Donaugebiet, 367-401, Bratislava. WESTPHAL, H. H. 1998, Die Untersuchung des Schwertes aus Badenheim. - In: Böhme-Schönberger 1998, 248-256. WINDL, H. 1975, Das latene- und kaiserzeitliche Gräberfeld von Mihovo, Unterkrain (Dolenjsko). - Unpublished doctoral thesis / neobjavljena disertacija, University of Vienna. WOt4GIEWICZ, M. D. and R. WOLAGIEWICZ 1963, Uzbrojenie ludnosci Pomorza zachodniego u progu naszej ery. - Materialy Zachodnio-Pomorskie 9, 9-166. VERWERS, G. J. and J. YPEY 1975, Six iron swords from the Netherlands. - Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 8, 79-91. WYSS, R., T. REY and F. MÜLLER 2002, Gewässerfunde aus Port und Umgebung. - Bern. ZSIDI, P. 2009, The Visual Store at Aquincum. - Budapest. Poznolatenske nožnice s predrtim okrasnim okovom iz bakrove zlitine ali srebra 1. UVOD V članku obravnavamo skupino mečev z nožnicami s prehoda poznega latena v rimsko dobo, za katere je Joachim Werner (1977) domneval noriški izvor. Najočitnejša značilnost te skupine so nožnice, ki imajo na sprednji strani okov z drobnim okrasom, izdelanim v predrti tehniki. Ta med drugim, razen pri par izjemah, prikazuje stilizirane arkade, ovale in stebričke. Naše raziskave temeljijo na podrobni preučitvi dveh predmetov te skupine: meča z nožnico iz reke Ljubljanice pri Bevkah v osrednji Sloveniji (v literaturi pred letom 2003 kot najdišče tega meča in nožnice navajajo Vrhniko) in s Strmca nad Belo Cerkvijo na Dolenjskem (v starejši literaturi kot najdišče navajajo Šmarjeto, tj. prvi večji kraj v bližini dejanskega najdišča; sl. 1). Natančno smo ju lahko primerjali z mečema in nožnicama iste skupine z grobišča v Verdunu blizu Stopič na Dolenjskem, za katere je Danilo Breščak (Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, Območna enota Novo mesto) prijazno dovolil, da jih vključimo v našo študijo. Primerek iz Mihovega pa obravnavamo le na podlagi fotografij, ki smo jih prejeli iz Naravoslovnega muzeja na Dunaju, in opažanj Dragana Božiča, ki si je predmet ogledal v naravi. 2. STANJE RAZISKAV Temeljno delo o poznolatenskih nožnicah z okovom iz bakrove zlitine ali srebra s predrtim okrasom (opus interrasile) je članek Joachima Wernerja iz leta 1977, v katerem je izhajal prav iz meča z nožnico iz Ljubljanice in iz primerka s Strmca nad Belo Cerkvijo. V njem je opredelil značilnosti te skupine, pokazal na njeno široko razširjenost predvsem pri Keltih in Germanih in postavil tezo o njenem izvoru v Noriku ter dataciji v avgustejsko dobo.1 Navedel je tudi ključna odprta vprašanja in nakazal smeri nadaljnjih raziskav. Poleg tega je opozoril na nožnice, ki jih krasi železen okov s preprostejšim predrtim okrasom, in jih opredelil kot posnetke noriških nožnic. Več kot 30 let kasneje razpolagamo z natančnimi objavami nožnic z okovom iz bakrove zlitine ali srebra s predrtim okrasom ter pripadajočih mečev iz Büchla, Wederatha, 1 Werner omenja datacijo v zgodnjeavgustejsko (1977, 380, 389), srednjeavgustejsko (o.c. 379) in celo poznoav-gustejsko (o.c. 379) dobo. Badenheima in Göblingen-Nospelta (Haffner 1995; BöhmeSchönberger 1998; Metzler, Gaeng 2009, 243-249, sl. 65: 22a) in s pregledno študijo Astrid Böhme-Schönberger (1998). Zadnji obravnavi teh mečev sta Czarnecka 2002 in Metzler, Gaeng 2009, 243-249. Bochnak in Czarnecka 2004-2005 (29-33, sl. 4) sta obravnavala nožnice z železnim okrasnim okovom (edini razmeroma zanesljivi primerek je z grobišča Kamienczyk), za katere se zdi, da se njihov okras po motivih in kvaliteti ne razlikuje od obravnavanih primerkov iz bakrove zlitine. Poudarila sta, da poznamo z območij, ki so jih poseljevali Kelti, številne primerke železne pločevine s predrtim okrasom, in postavila domnevo, da so nožnice z omenjenimi železnimi okovi keltski izdelki. Najdišča nožnic z okovom s predrtim okrasom iz bakrove zlitine oz. njihovih delov ležijo, glede na zadnji objavi (Böhme-Schönberger 1998, 235, 239, sl. 6; Metzler, Gaeng 2009, 248, sl. 216), na območjih ob reki Mozeli v Nemčiji in v Luksemburgu, v srednji in severni Nemčiji, na Poljskem in Slovaškem ter v južni Avstriji, Sloveniji in Bolgariji, po en primerek pa sta znana iz Švedske in Ukrajine. Izvirajo iz bogatih grobov, zato domnevajo, da so bili njihovi lastniki pripadniki politično-vojaške elite (Böhme-Schönberger 1998, 244; Luczkiewicz 2000, 375). Najnatančneje, tj. med 30 in 15 oziroma okoli 20 pr. Kr., je na podlagi številnih rimskih predmetov datiran meč v nožnici iz groba B grobišča Göblingen-Nospelt (Martin-Kilcher, Tretola Martinez, Vogt 2009, 354; Metzler, Gaeng 2009, 455-458). Približno iz istega obdobja sta verjetno grob 784 iz Wederatha in grob iz Büchla (Haffner 1995, 149). Böhme-Schönbergerjeva (1998, 242-243; 2001, 83, 86) je za začetek izdelave obravnavanih nožnic predlagala zgodnejšo datacijo, med 60 in 50 pr. Kr. O izvoru obravnavanih mečev in nožnic so mnenja različna. Ob bok tezi o njihovem noriškem izvoru (Werner 1977; Bockius 1991, 289-291; Böhme-Schönberger 1998, 240, 243) je Haffner ob objavi primerkov z najdišč Büchel, Wederath in Göblingen-Nospelt postavil domnevo, da so jih izdelovali v več delavnicah na različnih območjih, med drugim tudi na območju Treverov (Haffner 1995, 150-151). Že Frey (1986, 51-52) pa je menil, da so nožnice s predrtim okrasom izdelovali v več delavnicah, med drugim tudi v noriških delavnicah na Štalenski gori. Böhme-Schönbergerjeva (1998, 225-226, 241) je ugotovila, da Wernerjeva delitev nožnic na noriške izdelke in njihove posnetke, ki je temeljila na ugotavljanju kvalitete izdelave predrtega okrasa po risbah teh predmetov, ni ustrezna. Nožnice z okrasom opus interrasile in pripadajoči meči so po njenem mnenju po načinu izdelave in dataciji enotni. Po zaključku nožnice in okrasnem okovu jih je razdelila v tri skupine: nožnice z ostrogastim zaključkom in predrtim okovom, pri katerem je zvončasti del jasno ločen z vodoravnim pasom (npr. primerek iz Büchla), nožnico s čolničastim zaključkom in predrtim okovom, pri katerem okras neprekinjeno prehaja v zvončasti del (primerek iz Badenheima) in nožnice z motivom kolesa na predrtem okrasu (npr. primerki s Štalenske gore; o. c., 237-238, sl. 6). Luczkiewicz (2000, 370-375) je pri obravnavi poljskih primerkov menil, da so nožnice z bronastimi predrtimi okovi uvoženi (keltski) izdelki, tiste z železnimi okrasnimi okovi in z dosti preprostejšim, t. i. mrežastim predrtim okrasom, pa germanski. Zadnje je izpostavila že Böhme-Schönberger (1998, sl. 7), obravnavala pa jih je tudi Czarnecka (2002). Narejene so bile raziskave materialov meča in nožnice iz Badenheima (Westphal 1998) in Büchla (Schwab 2005) ter raziskava rezila meča iz groba 78 v Zemplinu (Pleiner 1993, 97-98, sl. 11, t. 30-32). Nožnica in meč iz Badenheima sta bila poškodovana v ognju na grmadi, zato ni bilo mogoče ugotavljati tehnike kovanja. Sestave barvne kovine, iz katere sta bila prednja platica nožnice in okrasni okov, niso določili, konstrukcijske podrobnosti pa so natančno opisane (Westphal 1998). Metalografske raziskave meča iz Büchla so pokazale, da meč po kakovosti v ničemer ne presega običajnih keltskih mečev (Schwab 2005, 334), s čimer je bil ovržen pomemben argument za lociranje delavnic obravnavane skupine na noriško območje. Werner (1977, 386) in številni za njim (nazadnje Böhme-Schönberger 1998, 240) so namreč domnevali, da so bili v bogato okrašenih nožnicah posebej dobri meči, ki so jih povezovali s kvalitetnim noriškim železom (ferrum noricum), omenjenim pri Pliniju. Barvna kovina nožnice iz Büchla je bakrova litina s cinkom, kositrom in svincem (Schwab 2005, 332). Rezilo meča z imenskim pečatom iz Zemplina (grob 78) je na površini okrašeno in je bilo izdelano v kovaški tehniki lamelnega damasciranja (Pleiner 1993, 97-98; Schwab 2005, 330). Ugotovljena je bila tudi sestava barvne kovine ostankov nožnice iz groba 78 grobišča v Zemplinu2: medenina z okoli 18 % cinka (Longauerova, Longauer 1990). 3. IZHODIŠČA, CILJI, STRATEGIJA, METODE IN TEHNIKE RAZISKAV našem prispevku ne bomo posvečali pozornosti. Iz obravnave smo izločili tudi primerek iz Kamienczyka, pri katerem se okov s predrtim okrasom od obravnavanih okovov iz bakrove zlitine ali srebra razlikuje po tem, da je iz železa (prim. pogl. 2 in seznam: 16). V Wernerjevem članku je našo pozornost posebej pritegnila navedba, da je Stane Gabrovec Wernerju sporočil, da sta nožnici iz Ljubljanice pri Bevkah in s Strmca nad Belo Cerkvijo iz medenine. Iz česa je prof. Gabrovec to sklepal, ne vemo, saj piše, da analize niso bile narejene (Werner 1977, 394-395). Podatek o medenini je izredno zanimiv, ker je njena uporaba v Evropi v 1. stol. pr. Kr. tesno povezana z Rimljani. Na splošno namreč velja, da so široko uporabo medenine v Evropo prinesli Rimljani (Craddock, Cowell, Stead 2004; Istenič, Šmit 2007). Tesna povezava uporabe medenine z Rimljani še posebej izrazito velja za t. i. čisto medenino, tj. nerazredčeno medenino, ki je nastala ob cementacijskem postopku in je vsebovala okoli 20 % cinka in zelo malo svinca in železa (Craddock, Lambert 1985, 164; Jackson, Craddock 1995, 93-94). Prisotnost medenine je tudi pomemben datacijski element. Rimljani so medenino namreč začeli pridobivati in uporabljati okoli 60 pr. Kr. (Istenič 2005, 204-205, 209-211; Istenič, Šmit 2007). Razpoložljivi podatki kažejo, da se je njena uporaba močno razmahnila v avgustejski dobi, predvsem pri kovanju denarja in izdelavi rimske vojaške opreme ter fibul (Istenič 2009c, 238, op.12, 13). Zdi se, da je bila uporaba medenine v zgodnjem obdobju povezana predvsem z imperialnim novčništvom in rimsko vojsko, tj. z dvema področjema, ki ju je nadzorovala centralna uprava (Istenič 2009c, 242). Podatek o medenini smo se torej odločili preveriti. Sestavo kovin smo ugotavljali najprej z rentgensko fluo-rescenco (EDS XRF), ki nam je omogočila osnovno, grobo opredelitev. Meritve je izvedel Zoran Milic na napravi v Narodnem muzeju Slovenije. Podrobnejšo sestavo kovin smo ugotavljali z metodo protonsko vzbujenih rentgenskih žarkov (PIXE; Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010). Obe tehniki in postopke analiz smo že opisali (Šmit et al. 2005, 228-229). Zanimalo nas je tudi, kako so bile nožnice narejene. To smo skušali ugotoviti z opazovanjem (makroskopskim in pod optičnim mikroskopom) in s pomočjo rentgenskih fotografij. Posebej dobre rezultate pa so dale raziskovalne sonde (previdna in postopna odstranitev ob rekonstrukciji dodanega materiala in korozije na izbranih mestih), ki jih je na nožnici iz Ljubljanice na več mestih naredila Sonja Perovšek (Konservatorski oddelek, Narodni muzej Slovenije). V prispevku bomo obravnavali nožnice z okrasnim okovom iz bakrove zlitine ali srebra s predrtim okrasom (opus interrasile). Nožnicam z železnimi okrasnimi okovi z dosti preprostejšim, t. i. mrežastim predrtim okrasom v 2 Ni povsem zanesljivo, zdi pa se zelo verjetno, da se analiza nanaša na nožnico meča iz groba 78. V objavi namreč ni zapisana številka groba, iz katerega so analizirani vzorci nožnice, piše pa, da so bili najdeni skupaj ("were found together in a cremation cemetery") z železno srajco (Longauerova, Longauer 1990, 349), ki izvira iz groba 78. 4. MEČ Z NOŽNICO IZ REKE LJUBLJANICE PRI BEVKAH (sl. 1-3; pril. 1) 4.1 Najdišče, najdiščne okoliščine, predhodne objave in hramba V prvi objavi (Stare 1953) je bil meč v nožnici (sl. 2; pril. 1) predstavljen kot del zaklada iz okolice Vrhnike. Ta najdiščni podatek so povzeli vsi, ki so se kasneje ukvarjali s tem mečem in nožnico (Tackenberg 1970; Werner 1977, 368, sl. 1: 1; Frey 1986, 49-52, sl. 4: 1; Horvat 1990, 135-136, t. 27: 1; Böhme-Schönberger 1998, 221, op. 9, 235, sl. 6: 21). V objavi iz leta 2003 smo pokazali, da t. i. vrhniški zaklad ni obstajal, predmeti, ki naj bi ga sestavljali, pa so zbirka najdb iz reke Ljubljanice, domnevno iz okolice Bevk (Istenič 2003). Dodatno je najdiščne okoliščine osvetlil poglobljen pregled arhivskih virov (Bras Kernel 2006), iz katerega izhaja, da predmeti izvirajo iz odseka Ljubljanice pri Bevkah (sl. 1), natančneje iz reke ob kmetiji z domačim imenom Kamin. Med podrobnim pregledovanjem meča in nožnice ob pisanju tega članka smo ugotovili, da so pod mikroskopom na predmetu jasno vidni ostanki vijoličnih alg, ki so značilne za predmete iz reke Ljubljanice (prim. Milic et al. 2009, 30, sl. 24). Meč v nožnici je odkupil Deželni muzej za Kranjsko (predhodnik Narodnega muzeja Slovenije), iz katerega pa je bil kasneje odtujen. Po letu 1953 ga je od svojega resta-vratorja Janka Vertina kupil Mestni muzej (danes Muzej in galerije mesta Ljubljana; Bras Kernel 2006, 17), kjer je inventariziran pod številko 510:LJU;32582. 4.2 Opis predmeta Meč v nožnici (sl. 2-3; pril. 1) je bil konserviran in restavriran v Rimsko-germanskem osrednjem muzeju (Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum) v Mainzu leta 1980.3 Meč v nožnici je ohranjen v dolžini 73,3 cm. Spodnji del obeh manjka. Rezilo železnega meča je vidno na več mestih na hrbtni strani, kjer je nožnica poškodovana, najbolje v skrajnem spodnjem delu, kjer je široko 3 cm. V sredini rezila se (v dolžini 0,7 cm) jasno vidi 0,2 cm širok žleb. 35,5 cm višje, kjer je viden delček rezila meča, za katerega se zdi, da ima ohranjen prvotni rob rezila, njegovo širino ocenjujemo na 3,8 cm. Ohranjena dolžina rezila je okoli 59 cm. Iz rentgenskih fotografij je jasno razvidno, da žleb v sredini rezila poteka po vsej dolžini meča (sl. 3c). Glede na vidne dele meča in širino nožnice ocenjujemo, da se je rezilo meča zelo počasi in enakomerno ožilo proti konici. Odlično je ohranjen ročajni trn, ki je dolg okoli 18 cm in ima pravokoten presek ter se oži od rezila proti vrhu ročaja, kjer je zaključek trna prevlečen z medeninasto (Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010, tab. 1: 7) pločevino (sl. 2a, 3a). K ročaju sodi tudi medeninast (Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010, tab. 1: 7, 8) branik zvončaste oblike. Nožnica je ohranjena v dolžini 58,3 cm, njena največja širina pa je 4,9 cm. Sestavljena je iz petih delov: hrbtne in sprednje platice, lestvičastega okova, okrasnega okova in okova z zanko za obešanje. Platici sta iz okoli 0,5 mm debele pločevine; hrbtna je iz železa, sprednja pa iz medenine. V zgornjem delu sta zvončasto oblikovani. Pol centimetra pod vrhom sprednje platice je luknja od zakovice. V zgornjem delu nožnice je na sprednji strani 14,6 cm dolg medeninast okov z izredno finim, v t. i. predrti tehniki (francosko "a jour", nemško "Durchbruchsarbeit") izdelanim okrasom, ki spominja na čipko (sl. 2c). Okov ima spodaj raven zaključek, zgoraj pa se prilagaja zvonča-sti obliki zgornjega zaključka nožnice, vendar ni v celoti ohranjen. Prvotno je segal do vrha nožnice, kjer je bil z zakovico pritrjen na sprednjo medeninasto platico, na kateri je ohranjena luknja od zakovice. Primerjave namreč kažejo, da so okrasni okovi na takih nožnicah segali do vrha zvončastega zaključka (cf. Werner 1977, sl. 9, 14, 18; Metzler, Gaeng 2009, sl. 65: 22a; Deimel 1987, t. 69: 6,7). Okov je ob podolžnih straneh zavit na hrbtno stran tako da tvori 13,7 cm dolg in okoli 4 mm (na sprednji strani) oziroma okoli 7 mm (na hrbtni strani) širok robni okov s presekom v obliki črke U. Spodnjih 3,5 cm tega okova na hrbtni strani manjka, viden pa je njegov odtis v koroziji železne pločevine. Okras na tem okovu je razdeljen v dve izrazito različno visoki polji, ki ju loči okoli 3 mm visok pas neokrašene pločevine. Zgornje polje je ohranjeno v višini 12,2 cm. V njem si z leve proti desni sledi pet navpičnih pasov, ki so postavljeni simetrično. V sredini je pas vodoravno ležečih ovalov z zaobljeno narebrenimi vodoravnimi stranicami (na vsaki stranici so tri odebelitve), ob obeh zunanjih straneh pa pasova vodoravno ležečih arkad. Sredinski pas s stranskima povezujejo vodoravna rebra, ki so okrašena s po tremi odebelitvami. Sledi spodnje, 1,5-1,7 cm visoko polje s štirimi razmeroma visokimi in širokimi stebrički s po štirimi odebelitvami. Na spodnjih pribl. 33 cm nožnice platici objema železen robni okov s presekom v obliki črke U, ki ga na sprednji in hrbtni strani povezujejo železne prečke: na sprednji strani so bile na ohranjenem delu tri skupine po štirih prečk, na hrbtni strani nožnice pa 18 ali 19 prečk (ohranjenih je 15, od treh pa so vidni jasni odtisi na koroziji železne pločevine). V prečnem preseku so rahlo izbočene, v sredini bolj izrazito kot ob robovih, zato so v narisu v sredini tudi ožje kot ob straneh. Taka oblika prečk je okovu dajala večjo trdnost, kot bi jo imel, če bi bile ploščate. Prečke na sprednji strani nožnice imajo po vsej dolžini v sredini plitev žleb in so širše kot prečke na hrbtni strani nožnice. V vmesnem delu, med medeninastim in železnim, z lestvičastimi prečkami povezanim robnim okovom, sta robova nožnice zavarovana tako, da je hrbtna železna platica prepognjena okoli roba in pribl. 5 mm prekriva sprednjo stran. Na hrbtno stran nožnice je s štirimi železnimi in eno medeninasto zakovico (sl. 2b, 3b; pril. 1; Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010, tab. 1: 5) pritrjen dolg železen okov z zanko. Okov se od pravokotne zanke, ki je približno na koncu zgornje tretjine okova, zožuje proti zgornjemu koncu, kjer se zaključi v obliki kroga na ustju nožnice, in proti spodnjemu koncu, kjer se splošči in konča trapezasto. 5. MEČ Z NOŽNICO S STRMCA NAD BELO CERKVIJO (sl. 4-7; pril. 2) 5.1 Najdišče, najdiščne okoliščine, predhodne objave in hramba 3 Za podatek se zahvaljujem Ernstu Künzlu in Markusu Eggu (Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum). Meč v nožnici izvira iz groba, ki so ga našli v začetku leta 1897 na grobišču Strmec nad Belo Cerkvijo na Dolenj- skem (sl. 1: 2). Februarja istega leta ga je Deželni muzej za Kranjsko (predhodnik Narodnega muzeja Slovenije) že pridobil, v inventarni knjigi pa so, kot je bilo tedaj običajno, kot najdišče zabeležili prvi večji kraj v bližini, tj. Šmarjeto. Grobna celota, ki jo je Draganu Božiču (1999, 211; 1992, 91-102) s pomočjo arhivskih virov uspelo delno rekonstruirati in jo je poimenoval "Grob 1 s parcele Košak B", je vsebovala še bronasto čelado vrste Novo mesto (Božič 1992, 103-104, t. 21; Guštin 1984, t. 48; Stare 1973, 25, št. 127, t. 14: 1-4), okroglo železno ščitno grbo (Stare 1973, 25, št. 128, t. 11: 6; Božič 1992, 103-104, t. 20: 3) in dolg ukrivljen nož (Stare 1973, 24, št. 84, t. 8: 2; Božič 1992, 103, t. 20: 1). V mlajšem delu poznega latena so na grobišču Strmec nad Belo Cerkvijo pokopavali sežgane ostanke pokojnikov. V obravnavanem primeru govori za to, da je bil grob žgan, tudi dejstvo, da sta bila meč v nožnici in nož namenoma zvita, saj je ta pojav povezan z žganimi pokopi (Božič 1999, 211). Velja pa omeniti, da na nožnici in meču ni videti poškodb, ki bi jih povzročila ogenj in visoke temperature, iz česar sklepamo, da ob sežigu pokojnika nista bila na grmadi. Meč v nožnici je prvič, skupaj s fotografijo, objavil Alfonz Müllner (Müllner 1900, t. 39: 8). Prvo risbo najpomembnejših delov predmeta in njegov kratek opis je podal Hermann Müller-Karpe (1951, 675, sl. 18: 1), nato pa Tackenberg (1970, 252-253, sl. 2 - slabša risba) in Vida Stare (1973, 24, št. 101, t. 7: 3) ter Joachim Werner (1977, 368, sl. 1: 2). Predmet hrani Narodni muzej Slovenije (inv. št. P 4371). Leta 2001 ga je konservirala Sonja Perovšek (Konservatorski oddelek Narodnega muzeja Slovenije). 5.2 Opis predmeta Meč in nožnica, v kateri leži, sta prepognjena naprej, tako da se sprednji del zaključka nožnice dotika sprednje strani zgornjega dela nožnice (sl. 4). Od ročaja meča je ohranjen trn pravokotnega preseka, ki se proti vrhu ročaja oži in ni ohranjen v celoti (sl. 5a, b). Rezilo železnega meča je dobro vidno na mestu, kjer platici nista ohranjeni (sl. 4, 6; pril. 2). Na prepogibu sta vidna okoli 1mm široka vzporedna žlebova v sredini sprednje in hrbtne strani rezila (sl. 5c). Žlebova sta jasno razvidna tudi z rentgenskih fotografij (sl. 7). Širina rezila na tem mestu je najmanj 3,5 cm. Zaključek meča je izrazito koničast (sl. 6, 7b). Meč bi bil v iztegnjenem stanju dolg 77 cm (zgornji del ročajnega trna ni ohranjen!), od tega je njegovo rezilo merilo 65,4 cm. Nožnica je dolga 66,2 cm in široka 4,5 cm. Vsi ohranjeni deli razen štirih zakovic so iz medenine (Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010, tab. 2). Sprednjo in hrbtno stran nožnice sestavljata platici iz okoli 0,5 mm debele pločevine. Sprednja platica v obstoječem stanju sega 0,7 cm višje kot hrbtna platica in rezilo meča. Domnevamo, da je do zamika prišlo, ko so meč in nožnico prepognili. Zvončasto oblikovan zgornji zaključek je na hrbtni platici ohranjen v celoti, pri sprednji pa mu manjka vrhnji del. V zgornji četrtini nožnice obe pločevini medsebojno povezuje okov s predrtim okrasom, ki je nameščen na sprednji strani in je ob stranskih robovih zapognjen tako, da sega okoli 0,5 cm na hrbtno stran nožnice (sl. 5,6; pril. 2). Na spodnjih pribl. treh četrtinah nožnice je hrbtna pločevina zapognjena okoli stranskega roba nožnice, tako da sega okoli 4 mm na sprednjo stran in na ta način povezuje sprednjo in hrbtno pločevino. Ohranjeni del okrasnega okova je razdeljen na štiri pravokotna okrasna polja. Ta so med seboj ločena z okoli 4 mm širokimi pasovi pločevine, ki so okrašeni le s po dvema vzporednima žlebičema. Največje je zgornje polje, na katerem je delno ohranjenih pet navpičnih in simetrično postavljenih vrst geometrijskih motivov. V sredini je pas vodoravno ležečih ovalov z zaobljeno narebrenimi vodoravnimi stranicami, ob obeh zunanjih straneh pa pasova vodoravno ležečih arkad. Sredinski pas s stranskima pasovoma povezujejo vodoravna rebra, ki so okrašena s po štirimi odebelitvami. Sledita dve približno enako visoki ornamentalni polji. V zgornjem, tj. drugem polju (gledano od ustja nožnice navzdol) se ponovi motiv arkad in stebričkov s po štirimi odebelitvami, ki je že v prvem okrasnem polju, le da je tu postavljen navpično. V spodnjem (tretjem) polju so upodobljeni štirje navpično postavljeni suličasti predmeti. V zadnjem, četrtem polju, ki je visoko le okoli 5 mm, je bilo navpično nanizanih deset stebričkov s po štirimi odebelitvami, od katerih jih je v celoti ali deloma ohranjenih devet. Na spodnji del sprednje strani nožnice je z zakovicama, ki sta jasno vidni na rentgenski fotografiji (sl. 7b), pritrjen okoli 0,5 cm širok okov z okrasom koncentričnih krogov, ki imajo na sredini luknjico (pril. 2). Ohranjen je tudi majhen del podobnega okova, ki je bil z dvema zakovicama pritrjen 4,5 cm pod okov s predrtim okrasom. Na tem okovu se je ohranila le ena, verjetno medeninasta zakovica (sl. 7a), drugo pa nakazuje odtis na pločevini. Na zgornji del hrbtne strani nožnice je s štirimi železnimi zakovicami (sl. 7a) pritrjen 23,7 cm dolg okov z zanko. Meč in nožnica sta prepognjena, ne kažeta pa sledov poškodb, ki bi jih povzročilo žganje na grmadi. Rezilo meča je moralo biti torej razmeroma mehko, da ga je bilo mogoče ukriviti, ne da bi ga razžareli. 6. MEČ Z NOŽNICO IZ GROBA 37 V VERDUNU (sl. 8-9; pril. 3) 6.1 Najdišče, najdiščne okoliščine, predhodne objave in hramba Na grobišču v Verdunu blizu Stopič (sl. 1: 3) sta bila najdena dva meča v nožnicah obravnavane skupine. Grobišče je bilo že večkrat kratko predstavljeno (Breščak 1986; 1987; 1989; Breščak et al. 2002, 92-94, 135-143), celostna objava pa je v pripravi.4 Iz groba 37 izvira dobro ohranjen meč v nožnici, na kateri značilni okrasni okov sicer ni ohranjen, vendar nedvomno sodi v obravnavno skupino nožnic. Grob je vseboval še ščitno grbo, sulično ost, dve fibuli, obročasto pasno spono in narebreno keramično pokalno posodo latenske oblike 4 Danilo Breščak nam je prijazno dovolil njuno obrav- navo v tem članku. (Božič 2008, 53, sl. 25; Breščak 1989, 12; Breščak et al. 2002, 94, 135-136, kat. št. 68; Božič 1999, 211). Meč v nožnici hrani Dolenjski muzej v Novem mestu pod inv. št. A 1776. Leta 1986 je bil restavriran v Rimsko-germanskem osrednjem muzeju (Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum) v Mainzu.5 Opis se nanaša na meč po konservaciji. 6.2 Opis predmeta Rezilo meča je vidno v zgornjem delu v dolžini 18,5 cm in je ob ustju široko 3,6 cm. Ramena so poševna oz. usločena in asimetrična. Dobro sta vidna okoli 1,5 mm široka žlebova, ki potekata vzporedno po sredini rezila. Robova rezila nimata prvotne oblike. Njuna sedanja debelina, ki je posledica konservacije, znaša od 2 do 6 mm (sl. 8a, c; pril. 3). Trnast nastavek ročaja meča je dolg 17 cm in se zožuje proti vrhu, kjer se nesimetrično in močno zoži ter je prevlečen z okoli 1 mm debelo medeninasto (Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010, tab. 3: 3) pločevino, ki je v spodnjem delu stisnjena, tako da daje vtis gumba z vazasto razširitvijo (sl. 8e; pril. 3). Spodnji zaključek meča je zaradi dobro ohranjene nožnice viden le na rentgenskem posnetku (sl. 9b), ki kaže dolgo in izrazito konico. Celotna dolžina meča je 82 cm, dolžina rezila pa 65 cm. Nožnica je ohranjena v celi dolžni, ki znaša 72,5 cm, njena ohranjena največja širina pa je 4,7 cm. Sestavljajo jo hrbtna železna platica debeline okoli 2 mm, ki je v zgornjem delu zvončasto oblikovana, tanjša sprednja (debel. okoli 1 mm?) platica iz medeninaste (Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010, tab. 3: 2,3) pločevine, ki je ohranjena le pribl. v spodnjih dveh tretjinah nožnice, robni železen okov s prečnimi lestvičastimi povezavami in okov z zanko za pripenjanje nožnice na jermen. Lestvičast okov pokriva pribl. spodnji dve tretjini nožnice. Zgoraj je zaključen z vodoravno prečko pravokotnega preseka širine 6 mm (spredaj) oz. 4 mm (zadaj), spodaj pa se zoži v zaključek, ki po obliki zaradi izrazite konice spominja na ostogo. Stranici okova povezuje na sprednji strani 33 prečk, na hrbtni strani pa pet skupin prečk po tri prečke. Vse so oblikovane podobno, kot pri nožnici iz Ljubljanice: ob straneh so širše in nižje, v sredini pa ožje in višje. Na sprednji strani konice nožnice sta zadnji dve prečki povezani poševno. Okov s predrtim okrasom in del sprednje platice, ki je bil pod njim, nista ohranjena. Preseneča, da se ni ohranilo nič od zgornjega dela sprednje platice. Primerjave namreč kažejo, da so bile te platice iz enega kosa pločevine. Okov z zanko je dobro ohranjen. V železno platico je bil pritrjen z dvema železnima in dvema verjetno medeninastima (prim. nožnico iz Ljubljanice) zakovicama (sl. 9a). Asimetričnost in nepravilna oblika spodnjega zaključka okova (sl. 8d; pril. 3) kažeta, da ni v celoti ohranjen, podrobnosti njegove pritrditve na tem mestu pa so nenavadne. Pod spodnji del okova in obenem tudi pod najvišjo prečko lestvičastega robnega okova je namreč zaklinjena ploščata železna podloga, skozi katero je okov pritrjen na železno platico. Zdi se, da so na ta način ojačali podlago, tj. železno platico, da se okov iz nje ne bi iztrgal. Ni izključeno, da je bil okov prvotno pritrjen brez te podloge, neposredno v platico, kot je to pri primerljivih nožnicah (prim. npr. Ljubljanica, Strmec nad Belo Cerkvijo), in so železno podlogo dodali ob popravilu nožnice. Takega pritrjevanja okovov z zanko namreč nismo opazili na nobeni drugi nožnici obravnavanega tipa. Zanimivo je, da ima lestvičasti okov skupine prečk (5 X 3 prečke) na hrbtni in ne na sprednji strani, kot je to npr. pri nožnicah iz Ljubljanice in iz groba 131 v Verdunu. 7. MEC Z NOŽNICO IZ GROBA 131 V VERDUNU (sl. 10, 11; pril. 4) 7.1 Najdišče, najdiščne okoliščine, predhodne objave in hramba Meč v nožnici obravnavane skupine je bil najden tudi v grobu 131 iz Verduna (sl. 1), ki še ni bil objavljen. Poleg meča v nožnici je med drugim vseboval ščitno grbo z odlično vzporednico v grobu 37 iz Verduna (cf. Božič 2008, sl. 25), sulično ost s fasetiranim tulcem, okove jermenov, ki so viseli z rimskega vojaškega pasu, ter sigilatni krožnik in skodelico.6 Predmet je bil konserviran v Rimsko-germanskem osrednjem muzeju (Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum) v Mainzu leta 1988.7 Hrani ga Dolenjski muzej v Novem mestu pod inv. št. A 2211. 7.2 Opis predmeta in načina izdelave Meč in nožnica sta razmeroma slabo ohranjena, zato smo PIXE analize naredili le na odlomljenem spodnjem delu meča in nožnice. Isto platico smo v zgornjem delu analizirali z EDS XRF. Meč in nožnica sta razlomljena v dva dela: 70,5 cm dolg zgornji del in okoli 12,3 cm dolg skrajni spodnji del (konico), ki je najverjetneje neposredno nadaljevanje zgornjega dela (sl. 10; pril. 4). Meč ima okoli 16,6 cm dolg ročajni trn pravokotnega preseka, ki je spodaj širok 1,5 cm in se proti vrhu oži. Ohranjen je velik del branika zvončaste oblike, ki je iz bakrove zlitine - domnevamo, da iz medenine. Rezilo meča je bilo dolgo okoli 65 cm in ima v sredini širok žleb. Ohranjena širina rezila ob ustju je okoli 4,1 cm. Rentgenski posnetek kaže izrazito koničast spodnji zaključek meča (sl. 11), katerega skrajni, 2,8 cm dolg del, je viden na hrbtni strani. Nožnica meri 68 cm in je ohranjena skoraj v celi dolžini, manjka le spodnji zaključek. Najširša je ob ustju (4,8 cm) in se počasi oži proti konici, kjer na koncu ohranjenega 5 Za podatek se zahvaljujem Danilu Breščaku (ZVKDS) in Markusu Eggu (Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum). 6 Glej tudi op. 14. Za podatke se zahvaljujem Danilu Breščaku (ZVKDS). 7 Za podatek se zahvaljujem Danilu Breščaku (ZVKDS) in Markusu Eggu (Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum). dela meri 3,5 cm. Na sprednji strani nožnice je bila medeninasta platica (Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010, tab. 4: 2) iz tanke pločevine. V zgornjem delu je ohranjena le na posameznih mestih; v obstoječem stanju jo večji del nadomešča rekonstrukcija iz plastike. Njene debeline ni bilo mogoče izmeriti. V zgornjem delu je bil čez to platico položen 21,6 cm dolg medeninast8 okov s predrtim okrasom, od katerega so ohranjeni le odlomki spodnjega in zgornjega dela. Ta okov je bil razdeljen na najmanj pet okrasnih polj: spodaj tri polja višine okoli 0,6, 1,2 in 0,6 cm, na vrhu zvončasto oblikovano polje višine 3,7 cm z ohranjeno zakovico, s katero je bil okov pritrjen na podlago, in najmanj eno vmesno polje (sl. 10c). Odlomek stranskega dela zvončasto oblikovanega zgornjega dela okova so pri restavriranju verjetno namestili prenizko. Okov se spodaj končuje z okoli 0,8 cm visokim robom z vodoravnimi žlebiči. Ob straneh je bil okov s prednje strani zavihan na hrbtno stran tako, da jo objema v širini okoli 6 mm. Poleg tega je bil okov pričvrščen s 5 mm široko prečko na hrbtni strani, ki je nameščena 5 mm pod zgornjim zaključkom robnega dela okova. Hrbtna železna platica je v sedanjem stanju debela okoli 2 mm. V zgornjem delu je zvončasto oblikovana. Nanjo je z dvema železnima zakovicama pritrjen okov z zanko. Zgornji in spodnji zaključek tega okova nista ohranjena. Železen robni okov je pokrival pribl. spodnji dve tretjini nožnice. Njegov spodnji in verjetno tudi zgornji zaključek nista ohranjena. Verjetno je segal do okova s predrtim okrasom (prim. nožnico iz groba 37 v Verdunu, sl. 8, 9, pril. 3 in nožnico iz Büchla, Haffner 1995, 140, 142, 145, t. 1, zgoraj). Na hrbtni strani je (delno) ohranjenih 28 enakomerno razporejenih vodoravnih prečk, na sprednji pa so tako slabo ohranjene, da lahko le domnevamo, da so bile razporejene v štiri skupine s po tremi prečkami. Prečke so v sredini rahlo ožje kot ob robovih, kot smo opazili tudi pri nožnicah iz groba 37 v Verdunu in iz Ljubljanice. 8. MEČ Z NOŽNICO IZ MIHOVEGA, GROB 1657/8 (sl. 12) Iz Slovenije poznamo še en primerek obravnavanih nožnic z okovom iz bakrove zlitine s predrtim okrasom. Izvira z grobišča Mihovo pod Gorjanci (sl. 1), ki je bilo raziskano ob koncu 19. stoletja, najdbe pa so shranjene v Naravoslovnem muzeju na Dunaju. Ogledal si jih je Dragan Božič, ki nas je tudi opozoril na nožnico iz groba 1657/8 (inv. št. 52526; sl. 12) ter nam dal na razpolago zapiske, ki jih je naredil ob ogledu. Iz njih izhaja, da je dolžina predmeta 66 cm in dolžina okova z zanko 22 cm ter da je na hrbtni strani nožnice osem prečk v medsebojni razdalji 2,2 cm. Na sprednji strani je videl ostanke zvončastega branika iz bakrove zlitine in predrtega okova (skica prikazuje okras v treh poljih, spodnjem višjem in nad njim dvema nižjima; vsi so okrašeni z navpičnimi stebrički z okroglimi razširitvami) ter sedem prečk. Predmet je v okviru svoje doktorske disertacije, ki je ostala neobjavljena, obravnaval Helmut Windl (1975, 60, t. 26: 9). Risba predmeta je zelo shematska in iz nje ni razvidno, da gre za meč in nožnico obravnavane skupine, Rezultati analize EDS XRF: 86,4 % Cu in 11,6 % Zn. bolj izpoveden pa je opis, ki ga v celoti navajamo: "Eisernes Schwert mit vielen anhaftenden Resten der Scheide. Rascher geschwungener Übergang des Blattes in die lange Griffangel, an deren Spitze scheinbar ein vollrunder Knopf sitzt. Das ziemlich gleichbreite Blatt (obere Breite 4,6, untere 3,9) endet zungenformig. Der Scheidenmund ist analog der Klinge und schickt einen kleinen Fortsatz auf die Griffangel hinauf. Die Schlaufe ist ein rechteckiges Band mit langen, rechteckigen Nietplatten. Länge 74,0; der Griffangel 18,5; der eigentlichen Schlaufe 2,8; ihre B 2,0; einer Nietplatte mindestens 4,3; Länge des Scheiden-vorsprungs auf die Angel mindestens 2,1." Naravoslovni muzej z Dunaja nam je prijazno posredoval fotografijo tega predmeta (sl. 12). Zdi se, da je pokrit z debelo plastjo korozijskih produktov. Na sprednji strani nožnice je viden okov s predrtim okrasom iz bakrove zlitine. Zaključek ročajnega trna spominja na primerek iz groba 37 v Verdunu. Lestvičasti okov ni viden. Zdi se, da sta spodnja, zaključna dela meča in nožnice odlomljena. Iz razpoložljivih podatkov torej izhaja, da je imela nožnica značilen okrasni okov in sprednjo platico iz bakrove zlitine ter v spodnjem delu lestvičasti okov. Dolžina ohranjenega dela meča in nožnice ni točno opredeljena (Božič: 66 cm; Windl: 74 cm). Proučitev tega predmeta bi nujno zahtevala vključitev konservatorskega postopka. Po podatkih, ki jih navaja Windl (1975, 60, t. 26: 8,9), a so po mnenju Dragana Božiča nezanesljivi, je bila v grobu 1657/8 poleg meča z nožnico le še sulična ost (dolžina 50,5 cm) s tulcem okroglega preseka z močno poškodovanim listom. 9. NAČIN IZDELAVE Werner se o izdelavi okovov s predrtim okrasom domnevnih noriških nožnic ni jasno izrazil. Zdi se, da je menil, da so bili narejeni z izsekavanjem in piljenjem pločevine, ki je nastala s tolčenjem ali z ulivanjem (Werner 1977, 369, 379, 385-386). Haffner (1995, 140) je navedel mnenje restavratorja H. Borna, da je bil okrasni okov nožnice iz Büchla narejen z odstranjevanjem materiala (s punco oziroma dletom, nem. "Punze", žaganjem in piljenjem) iz tanko skovane pločevine. Po Haffnerjevem mnenju so bili okrasni okovi iz Büchla, Wederatha in Göblingen-Nospelta narejeni z dleti in pilami, kajti na slednjem je namreč opazil sledove uporabe pile in dleta (ibid. 145, 150). Böhme-Schönbergerjeva (1998, 222, 223, 225) je napačno povzela Wernerja, ki naj bi po njenem mnenju o domnevnih noriških nožnicah napisal, da je bil njihov predrti okras narejen z ulivanjem. Za nožnico iz Badenheima je menila, da je bil njen predrti okov narejen z vrtanjem, sekanjem, žaganjem in piljenjem (ibid. 222, 229; durch Bohren, Meißeln, Sägen und Feilen). Nasprotno pa Metzler in Gaengova zavračata možnost, da bi bili okrasni okovi nožnic iz Göblingen-No-spelta, Titelberga in Wederatha narejeni z odstranjevanjem materiala iz pločevine, ter menita, da so bili ti okovi skupaj z okrasom uliti (Metzler, Gaeng 2009, 249). Strinjamo se z Böhme-Schönbergerjevo (1999, 222), da ulivanje obravnavanih okrasnih okovov zaradi njihove izredno majhne debeline tehnično ni izvedljivo. Po podrobnem pregledu zgoraj opisanih nožnic iz Slovenije 8 ne dvomimo, da so pločevino njihovih okrasnih okovov izdelali s tolčenjem, okras pa s pomočjo dlet z različno oblikovanimi delovnimi površinami, s katerimi so odstranili odvečno pločevino, in tudi puncirali.9 Zanimivo vprašanje, kako so bili narejeni lestvičati okovi, je pri obravnavi nožnice iz Badenheima odprl Westphal (1998), ki pa mu nanj ni uspelo odgovoriti. Haffner (1995, 140) je za lestvičasti okov nožnice iz Büchla menil, da je bil izdelan v tehniki kovaškega varjenja.10 Izdelava takih okovov s kovaškim varjenjem se nam zdi malo verjetna, saj je notranja širina okova zelo majhna in bi zato težko uporabili za tako varjenje potrebno nakovalo. V večjem delu okova bi to težavo lahko zaobšli tako, da bi najprej naredili cevast okov, ki bi ga nato sploščili. Vendar pa se zdi nemogoče, da bi na tak način v enem kosu oblikovali tudi ostrogasti zaključek. Lestvičastih okovov tudi niso ulili, saj železa v Evropi v mlajši železni in rimski dobi še niso ulivali, temveč so ga kovali; poleg tega bi bilo ulito železo zaradi svoje krhkosti za tak okov neprimerno (Manning 1976, 143; Tylecote 1992, 48; Craddock 1995, 235, 239). Iz navedenih razlogov smo se odločili lestvičaste okove v poglavjih 4, 6 in 7 opisanih nožnic podrobno raziskati. Pri ogledu smo ugotovili, da nikjer na površini ni videti, kako in kje so bili ti okovi varjeni, spajkani11 ali zakovičeni. Rentgenski posnetki prav tako niso pokazali sledov spaj-kanja ali zakovic. Rezultate pa je obrodilo restavratorsko raziskovanje lestvičastega okova nožnice iz Ljubljanice, ki ga je izvedla Sonja Perovšek. Na več mestih je odstranila rekonstruirane dele okova iz plastične mase in ostanke korozije. V prečkah na sprednji strani nožnice in na enem mestu tudi v robnem okovu so se ob tem pokazale zelo tenke (manj kot 0,1 mm), a kompaktne plasti rdečkaste zlitine brona z okoli 4-7 % kositra (Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010, tab. 1: 11,12a,13-15). V preseku prečk so vidne po dve ali tri take bronaste plasti, za katere so metalografske raziskave pokazale, da so staljene (Kosec et al. 2011). Poleg tega smo na enem mestu na notranji strani robnega, v U oblikovanega dela železnega lestvičastega okova odkrili manj kot milimeter debelo medeninasto plast z okoli 5 % cinka (Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010, tab. 1: 9); na sprednji strani je nalegala na medeninasto platico. Opisani izsledki, ki bodo podrobno in z ustrezno fotografsko dokumentacijo objavljeni naknadno (Kosec et al. 2011), kažejo, da je bil lestvičasti okov nožnice iz Ljubljanice spajkan na prečkah sprednje strani, kar nakazuje način njegove izdelave. 10. PRIMERJALNA ANALIZA MEČEV IN NOŽNIC IZ LJUBLJANICE, S STRMCA NAD BELO CERKVIJO IN IZ VERDUNA Vsi štirje obravnavani meči so si zelo podobni. Dolgi so (oziroma so bili) okoli 82 cm (cela dolžina je ohranjena 9 Opis tehnike: Braun-Feldweg 1988, 184. 10 Pri kovaškem varjenju z udarci (tj. kovanjem) spajamo do zmehčanja ali rahlega taljenja segrete dele. " Pri spajkanju kovinske dele spaja temu namenjena kovina ali zlitina (spajka). pri obeh primerkih iz Verduna, meču s Strmca nad Belo Cerkvijo pa manjka le vrh ročajnega trna), njihova rezila v dolžino merijo okoli 65 cm in so ozka (od 3,6 do 4,1 cm), imajo poševna ali rahlo usločena ramena, izrazito (dolgo) konico (ohranjena je pri vseh primerkih, razen pri meču iz Ljubljanice) ter en ozek (Ljubljanica) ali širok (grob 131 iz Verduna) žlebič oziroma dva ozka (grob 37 iz Verduna, Strmec nad Belo Cerkvijo) žlebiča na sprednji in hrbtni strani. Od ročajev so ohranjeni trni ploščatega preseka, ki se proti vrhu ožijo in so zaključeni z medeninasto oblogo, oblikovano tako, da daje vtis kroglastega zaključka s trombasto bazo (ohranjena pri mečih iz Ljubljanice in iz groba 37 v Verdunu), in medeninasti braniki, ki so ročaje zaključevali na spodnjem delu (ohranjeni so na primerkih iz Ljubljanice in groba 131 iz Verduna). Oba v celoti ohranjena ročajna trna (Ljubljanica, grob 37 iz Verduna) sta dolga 17-18 cm. Skupna in najizrazitejša značilnost nožnic iz Ljubljanice, s Strmca in iz Verduna so okrasni okovi iz medenine s predrtim okrasom. Njihove dolžine merijo od 16,7 (Ljubljanica) do 21,5 cm (Verdun grob 37). Na nožnico so bili pritrjeni tako, da so bili na sprednji strani na vrhu prikovičeni na sprednjo platico (ohranjeno pri nožnicah iz Ljubljanice in groba 131 v Verdunu) in na robovih zapognjeni čez rob, tako da okoli 6 mm objemajo hrbtno platico. Okrasni okovi vseh treh nožnic, na katerih so ohranjeni, so narejeni v enaki tehniki, tj. z odstranjevanjem materiala. Motive in kompozicijo lahko primerjamo pri nožnicah iz Ljubljanice in s Strmca, kjer sta okova dobro ohranjena. Oba imata izredno podobno največje okrasno polje, saj je sestavljeno iz enakih motivov, ki so tudi enako razporejeni. V spodnjem delu pa imata različni kompoziciji okrasa. Nožnice iz Ljubljanice in Verduna druži tudi konstrukcija iz petih delov, tj. hrbtne železne platice, sprednje medeninaste platice, okrasnega medeninastega okova s predrtim okrasom (pri primerku iz groba 37 iz Verduna ni ohranjen), železnega lestvičastega okova v pribl. spodnjih dveh tretjinah nožnice in železnega okova z zanko, ki je prikovičen na hrbtno platico. V dolžino merijo ali so prvotno merile okoli 72 cm, široke pa so od 4,7 (grob 37 iz Verduna) do 4,9 cm (Ljubljanica, grob 131 iz Verduna). Kljub izraziti podobnosti pa se te nožnice razlikujejo v podrobnostih, tako glede konstrukcije (npr.: pri primerku iz Ljubljanice lestvičasti okov ne sega do okrasnega okova, zato je v vmesnem delu hrbtna platica zavihana na sprednjo stran) kot glede okrasa (glej zgoraj). Od opisanih nožnic odstopa tista s Strmca nad Belo Cerkvij o, ki je cela iz medenine in nima lestvičastega okova. Sestavljena je iz sprednje in hrbtne platice, okrasnega okova in okova z zanko. Platici sta povezani tako, da je okrasni okov v zgornjem delu zavihan na hrbtno stran, na preostali dolžini pa je hrbtna platica zavihana na sprednjo. Na sprednjo platico sta pritrjena ozka prečna okrasna okova, ki ju druge obravnavane nožnice nimajo. Nožnice iz Ljubljanice in Verduna imajo odlične primerjave med drugimi nožnicami, ki jih krasijo okovi iz bakrove zlitine z okrasom, izdelanim v predrti tehniki (seznam). Poleg omenjenega okova jih z njimi družijo zvončast zgornji zaključek in enaka petdelna konstrukcija, sestavljena iz železne hrbtne platice, železnega lestvičastega okova, železnega okova z zanko ter iz sprednje platice in okrasnega okova, ki sta iz bakrove zlitine. Enako kot pri primerkih iz Ljubljanice, s Strmca in iz Verduna so bili tudi drugi okrasni okovi na nožnico pritrjeni tako, da so objeli rob nožnice (izjema: Badenheim; seznam: št. 5), in v večini primerov tudi z zakovico pod vrhom okova (Göblingen-Nospelt, Wederath, Rz^dz, Wesolki - grob 50, Witaszewice, Zemplin - grob 77; seznam: št. 1, 4, 11, 14b, 15, 17a). Nožnice iz Slovenije s primerki iz Göblingen-Nospelta, s Titelberga, iz Wederatha, Büchla, Badenheima, Eggebyja in s Štalenske gore ter verjetno grobov 3 in 50 grobišča Wesolki (seznam: št. 1-5, 9, 14a, b, 16; prim. Metzler, Gaeng 2009, sl. 215) dodatno druži podobnost okrasnih okovov: osrednje, tj. največje polje ima v vseh navedenih primerih enake ali izredno podobne motive, ki so tudi enako razporejeni. Razlike se kažejo v podrobnostih, npr. v motivih v obeh navpičnih pasovih levo in desno od osrednje navpične linije: pri večini okovov ta dva pasova sestavljajo vodoravno ležeča rebra, ki so lahko okrašena z odebelitvami, na okovih iz Göblingen-Nospelta in Wederatha pa imajo ta rebra obliko črke S, sestavljeno iz dveh nasproti ležečih polkrogov; izstopajo tudi arkadni zaključki ovalov v osrednji navpični liniji okrasa nožnice iz Badenheima (prim. Metzler, Gaeng 2009, sl. 215). Nožnici s Strmca so po tem, da so izdelane le iz barvnih kovin in da nimajo železnega lestvičastega okova, podobne nožnica iz bakrove zlitine iz groba 108 (prim. Cosack 1977) in morda tudi iz groba 128 v Zemplinu (seznam: št. 17c, d), srebrna nožnica iz zbirke Axla Guttmanna (seznam: št. 26) in nožnica iz bakrove zlitine s srebrnim okrasnim okovom iz Belozema (seznam: št. 25) ter verjetno nožnica iz groba 147/1937 grobišča Witaszewice (seznam: št. 15), pri kateri je sprednja platica zavihana na hrbtno stran, kjer je na robu prekrivala hrbtno platico, ki ni ohranjena (Kaszewska 1977, 109, sl. 1: 5). Nožnica iz groba 108 v Zemplinu se od nožnice s Strmca (in tudi drugih nožnic s predrtim okrasom) precej razlikuje, za ostale pa se zdi, da sestavljajo majhno in homogeno podskupino nožnic s predrtim okrasom. Druži jih tudi podobno oblikovan zaključek nožnice (glej dalje). Ob primerkih iz Slovenije je znanih 12 mečev, ki so bili najdeni v nožnicah s predrtim okrasom iz bakrove zlitine ali srebra (seznam: št. 1-5, 12, 13, 14a, 15, 17b, 23) ali pa izvirajo iz grobov z obravnavanimi nožnicami (seznam: št. 17d). Slovenske in ostale meče družijo zvončast branik iz bakrove zlitine, poševna ramena, ozko rezilo (največja širina okoli 3,6-4,1 cm) in dolg ročajni trn z zaključkom iz bakrove zlitine, ki je odličen razpoznavni znak in ga pri meču iz Büchla in groba 78 v Zemplinu (seznam: št. 3, 17b) nakazuje trnast nastavek na koncu ročajnega trna. Sicer pa se primerki iz Slovenije od večine ostalih razlikujejo po manjši dolžini (okoli 82 cm) in po tem, da imajo daljšo in izrazitejšo konico. Preseki rezil obravnavanih mečev so različni. Na sprednji in hrbtni strani imajo po en širok žleb (grob 131 iz Verduna; seznam: št. 21b), dva široka žlebova (Göblingen-Nospelt?,12 Büchel, Wederath, Stara Wies; seznam: št. 1, 3, 4, 12 ), en ozek žleb (Badenheim, Ljubljanica; seznam: št. 1, 5), dva ozka žlebova (Strmec pri Beli Cerkvi, gr. 37 iz Verduna, Donava; seznam: št. 20, 21a, 23) ali tri ozke podolžne žlebove (Witaszewice; grobova 78 in 128 iz Zemplina; seznam: št. 15, 17b, d). 11. PODSKUPINE NOŽNIC Z OKOVOM IZ BAKROVE ZLITINE ALI SREBRA S PREDRTIM OKRASOM IN PRIPADAJOČIH MEČEV Nožnice iz Ljubljanice, s Strmca, iz Verduna in Mihovega torej skupaj z drugimi primerki (prim. seznam) sestavljajo jasno opredeljeno skupino. Znotraj nje pa se nakazujejo razlike, npr. pri zaključkih nožnic, ki so lahko v oblike ostroge (Büchel, Stara Wies, Ciecierzyn, grob 37 iz Verduna; seznam: št. 3, 12, 13, 21a), zaobljeni in rahlo koničasti (grob 108 v Zemplinu, Strmec nad Belo Cerkvijo, Belozem in primerek iz zbirke Axla Guttmanna; seznam: št. 17c, 20, 25, 26) ali v enem primeru čolničasti (Badenheim; seznam: št. 5). Nožnice z ostrogastim in tista s čolničastim zaključkom imajo lestvičast okov ter so narejene iz železa in bakrove zlitine, nožnice z rahlo zaobljenim koničastim zaključkom pa so izdelane le iz barvnih kovin (bakrove zlitine ali srebra), nimajo lestvičastega okova in so krajše (dolžina okoli 70 cm). Böhme-Schönbergerjeva (1998, 237-238, sl. 6) je predlagala delitev nožnic, ki izhaja iz razlik v njihovem predrtem okrasu in iz različnih zaključkov nožnic (prim. pogl. 2). Nožnica iz zbirke Axla Guttmanna (seznam: št. 26) z okrasnim okovom, ki združuje značilnosti dveh različnih skupin (motiv kolesa in vodoravno oddeljenega zvončastega dela okova), nakazuje, da omenjena delitev nima dobre podlage. Pri obravnavanih nožnicah se po našem mnenju kažeta dve podskupini glede na njihovo dolžino. Prvo podskupino sestavljajo nožnice dolžine okoli 70 cm (pet primerkov s slovenskih najdišč, Wesolki - gr. 3, primerek iz zbirke Axla Guttmanna; seznam: 14a, 19-22, 26), drugo pa daljše nožnice dolžine okoli 80 cm (Göblingen-Nospelt, Büchel, Wederath, Badenheim, Stara Wies, Donava, Belozem; seznam: 1, 3-5, 12, 23, 25), Z dvema velikostnima skupinama nožnic se ujema delitev z njimi povezanih mečev. V prvo podskupino sodijo meči dolžine okoli 82 cm (Strmec nad Belo Cerkvijo, oba primerka iz Verduna, meč iz groba 3 z grobišča Wesolki in glede na domnevno dolžino celega meča tudi primerek iz Ljubljanice; seznam: št. 14a, 19, 20, 21a, b), drugo pa sestavljajo 90-95cm dolgi meči (glede na ugotovljene ali pa na podlagi ohranjenega dela meča domnevane dolžine v to podskupino sodijo primerki iz Büchla, Wederatha, grobov 78 in 128 iz Zemplina in iz Donave; seznam: 3, 4, 17b, d, 23). Vsi krajši meči imajo dolgo in izrazito konico, ki močno spominja na rimske gladije, med daljšimi meči pa so zastopani primerki s kratko (Büchel, Wederath; seznam: 3, 4) in dolgo konico (grob 78 in 128 iz Zemplina, Donava; seznam: 17b, d, 25).'3 12 Glede na naris rezilo tega meča ni imelo žlebov, risbi preseka rezila (obakrat risani na mestih, kjer je nožnica tako dobro ohranjena, da rezilo meča ni vidno!) pa kažeta po dva široka žlebova na vsaki strani. 13 Na razlike v oblikovanosti konic obravnavanih mečev me je opozoril Dragan Božič. 12. DATACIJA NOŽNIC Z OKOVOM S PREDRTIM OKRASOM IZ BAKROVE ZLITINE ALI SREBRA 13. RAZŠIRJENOST NOŽNIC S PREDRTIM OKRASOM NA OKOVU IZ BAKROVE ZLITINE ALI SREBRA Pet nožnic obravnavane skupine oziroma njihovih delov je bilo najdenih v grobovih, pri katerih ostali grobni pri-datki omogočajo razmeroma ozko datacijo. To so grob B iz Göblingen-Nospelta, datiran med 30 in 15 oz. okoli 20 pr. Kr. (Martin-Kilcher, Tretola Martinez, Vogt, R. 2009, 354; Metzler, Gaeng 2009, 455-458), trije grobovi relativ-nokronološke stopnje LT D2 - grob 108 iz Zemplina, grob 37 iz Verduna in grob s Strmca nad Belo Cerkvijo (Božič 1999, 211-212) ter grob 131 iz Verduna, ki ne more biti starejši kot (pozno)tiberijski.14 Haffner (1995, 149) je grobova iz Büchla in Wederatha, ki ne vsebujeta rimskih predmetov, datiral med 30 in 15 pr. Kr., čas izdelave v njima najdenih mečev in nožnic pa med 40 in 25 pr. Kr. Böhme-Schönbergerjeva (1998, 242-243) je grob iz Badenheima, ki prav tako ne vsebuje rimskih predmetov, umestila na konec stopnje LT D1 ali začetek relativnokronološke stopnje LT D2, oziroma pred sredino 1. stoletja (o. c. 242) ali 60/50 pr. Kr. (o. c. 243). Zgodnjo datacijo začetka obravnavanih nožnic je podkrepila z enako zgodnjo datacijo groba 108 iz Zemplina, ki pa, kot je pokazal Božič (1999, 200), ni utemeljena. Širši časovni okvir grobov z obravnavanimi nožnicami je torej glede na grobove, v katerih so bile najdene, relativ-nokronološka stopnja LT D2, ki se je na vzhodnoalpskem območju začela okoli 70/60 pr. Kr.15 in končala z začetkom srednjeavgustejske dobe okoli 15 pr. Kr. (Božič 1999, 211-212; 2008, 87, 145). Edini zanesljivo ožje datirani grob z obravnavano nožnico, tj. grob B iz Göblingen-Nospelta, nakazuje ožjo datacijo med 40/30-15 pr. Kr. Z njo se sklada tudi prisotnost take nožnice v (pozno)tiberijskem ali celo mlajšem grobu 131 iz Verduna. Skratka: obravnavane nožnice s predrtim okrasom so zanesljivo izdelovali in uporabljali med okoli 40/30 in 15 pr. Kr.; njihova zgodnejša datacija ni izključena, vendar ne pred okoli 60 pr. Kr. 14 Datacijo groba narekujeta sigilatni krožnik oblike Consp. 20.4 s pečatom ATICI in planta pedis in skodelica oblike Consp. 27.1 (Conspectus 86-87, 100-101; C V Arr, št. 324 in 325). Orožje latenske tradicije - poleg meča v nožnici obravnavanega tipa še ščitna grba tipa Verdun 37 (prim. Božič 1999, 211) in sulična ost s fasetiranim tulcem predstavljajo v grobu stare predmete, česar pa ne moremo trditi za okove visečega jermena rimskega vojaškega pasu, saj so bili v uporabi od avgustejske dobe do najmanj konca 1. stoletja (prim. Deschler-Erb 1999, 46-47). Za možnost vpogleda v risbe predmetov iz groba se zahvaljujem Danilu Breščaku (ZVKD). 15 Božič 1988 (86-87) je predlagal njen začetek okoli 70 pr. Kr., iz datacije relativnih stopenj 2b in 2c grobišča Ornavasso - San Bernardo (Martin-Kilcher 1998, 249) pa izhaja njen začetek med 70 in 60 pr. Kr. Zdi se, da datacija fibul skupine Alesia nakazuje začetek stopnje LT D2 okoli leta 60 (prim. Istenič 2005). V seznamu (z izjemo št. 8 in 16) in na sliki 13 smo zajeli nožnice z okovi iz bakrove zlitine ali srebra s predrtim okrasom oziroma njihove dele (običajno okrasne okove). Razširjene so med Luksemburgom na zahodu in vzhodno Poljsko ter Slovaško na vzhodu in med severno Poljsko na severu in Slovenijo na jugu. Najdba iz južne Švedske in eden ali dva primerka iz Bolgarije sta posamezna primerka, ki izstopata z siceršnjega okvira razširjenosti. Obravnavane nožnice in meči so torej razširjene na območjih, ki so jih naseljevala keltska in germanska ljudstva, en ali dva primerka pa izvirata s tračanskega območja. Izraziti zgoščenosti (po pet primerkov) sta na širšem območju reke Mozele, v osrednji ter južni Sloveniji, izstopajo pa tudi Štalenska gora, Zemplin in najdišča današnje Poljske. Od 32 nožnic obravnavane skupine oz. njihovih odlomkov jih velika večina, tj. 29, izvira iz grobov, dve iz rek (seznam: št. 19, 23), pri eni pa najdiščne okoliščine niso znane (seznam: št. 26). Na sliko njihove razširjenosti torej verjetno vpliva prisotnost oziroma odsotnost sočasnih grobov z orožjem oziroma z meči. Pregled orožja v grobovih druge polovice 1. stol. pr. Kr. v srednji Galiji (Riquier 2008) kaže, da tam obravnavanih nožnic zelo verjetno niso uporabljali. Enako nakazujeta grobišči Ornavasso in Giubiasco za območje južnih Alp (Pernet et al. 2006; Graue 1974). V južni Nemčiji, na Češkem, Moravskem, v Madžarski, severni Hrvaški in severni Srbiji pa se praznina na karti razširjenosti sklada z redkostjo ali odsotnostjo grobov (z orožjem) druge polovice 1. stoletja pr. Kr. Slika razširjenosti obravnavanih nožnic torej verjetno le deloma kaže območja, kjer so jih uporabljali, saj je odvisna od običajev, povezanih s pokopom umrlih. Kljub temu nakazuje, da so jih na območjih, ki so bila v zgodnjeavgustejski dobi že del rimske države ali z njo v tesnih prijateljskih stikih, uporabljali Kelti ob Mozeli in srednjem Renu ter v vzhodnih Alpah, ki jih lahko povežemo s Treveri, Tavriski in Noriki. Primerek iz Belozema (in morda tudi tisti iz zbirke Axla Guttmanna) nakazuje njihovo prisotnost pri tračanskih plemenih. Voditelji nekaterih med njimi so s svojimi možmi sodelovali v rimskih notranjih bojih po Cezarjevi smrti (v bitki pri Filipih 42 pr. Kr. s po 3.000 konjeniki na obeh sprtih straneh; v bitki pri Akciju 31 pr. Kr.), v srednjeavgustejski dobi pa je južno od Donave nastalo klientelno kraljestvo, ki je kot rimski zaveznik s svojimi možmi sodelovalo pri zatrtju panonsko-delmatskega upora v letih 6-9 (Danov 1979, 121-132). Na ozemljih, ki nikoli niso bila del rimske države, pa so obravnavane nožnice razširjene na območjih, poseljenih z različnimi ljudstvi, ki so jih Rimljani imenovali Germani. 14. IZVOR NOŽNIC S PREDRTIM OKRASOM NA OKOVU IZ BAKROVE ZLITINE ALI SREBRA Izvor obravnavanih nožnic je v latenski tradiciji. To kažejo konstrukcija iz dveh kovinskih platic in način njune povezave, zvončast zgornji zaključek ter okov z zanko za pripenjanje, pa tudi lestvičasti okov. Pri povezavi sprednje in hrbtne platice obravnavanih nožnic so uporabili kombinacijo dveh načinov: v zgornjem delu z zavojem ene platice čez rob, tako da objema rob druge platice, v spodnjih dveh tretjinah nožnice pa z robnim okovom, ki je povezan z lestvičasto postavljenimi prečkami. Prvi način je običajen za keltske meče od zgodnjelatenske dobe dalje (prim. Pernet et al. 2006, 36). Lestvičasti okovi so značilni za mlajši del poznega latena (Lejars 1996, 92-93, sl. 7: 9-11; Sievers 2001, 153, 217-219, kat. št. 138-139, 141-142, 144-145, 147-149, t. 49-52'®), izhajajo pa iz podobnih okovov na nožnicah tipa Alizay in Ludwigshafen, ki so značilni za LT D1 v zahodnem delu keltskega sveta (Haffner 1989, 203-206; Lejars 1996, sl. 7: 3-8; Metzler, Gaeng 2009, sl. 209 in 210). Lestvičasti okovi nožnic imajo lahko ostrogasto oblikovan zaključek. Razen na nožnicah z okovom iz bakrove zlitine s predrtim okrasom take zaključke najdemo na železnih nožnicah z železnim mrežastim okrasnim okovom in tudi na drugih vrstah nožnic. Znani so iz Nemčije in Poljske, po en primerek pa iz severne Francije, Slovenije (Verdun) in Djerdapa. Zdi se, da so germanskega ali morda keltskega izvora, njihovi začetki pa segajo na začetek poznolatenske dobe (Gleser 1999, 77- 83, 86-88, sl. 29, seznam 2; Gleser 2005, 118-124). Čolničasti zaključki nožnic so značilni za zahodnokeltska tipa poznolatenskih (LT D1) nožnic Alizay in Ludwigshafen (Metzler, Gaeng 2009, sl. 209: 1, 3, sl. 210; Pernet et al. 2006, 41-42, sl. 2.9: 3c), lestvičaste okove z rahlo ali izraziteje zoženim in zaobljenim zaključkom pa najdemo v grobovih mlajšega dela poznega latena (LT D2) prav tako zahodnega keltskega sveta (Lejars 1996, sl. 7: 10,11; Pernet et al. 2006, 40, 42, sl. 2.9: 3a). Keltskega izvora je tudi tehnika izdelave predrtih okrasov z odstranjevanjem materiala, ki so jo Kelti poznali že v zgodnji mlajši železni dobi (Schönfelder 2002, 122). V taki tehniki je narejen tudi predrti okras železnih okovov voza iz poznolatenskega (LT D2) groba keltskega veljaka z najdišča Boe v Akvitaniji (Schönfelder 2002, 115-126, sl. 78-80). V motive predrtih okrasov obravnavanih nožnic se nismo poglobili. Metzler in Gaeng (2009, 247) menita, da združujejo keltske in nekeltske motive (arkade). Arkade, ki so prevladujoč motiv na skorajda vseh predrtih okrasih obravnavanih nožnic, je kot sredozemski motiv na okrasih obravnavanih nožnic omenil že Künzl (1996, 397). Uporaba bakrove zlitine za nožnice je v srednjelatenski dobi redka (Guštin 1981, 228-229, t. 46), pogosta pa je od začetka poznolatenske dobe, ko se pojavijo nožnice tipa Ludwigshafen (Pernet et al. 2006, 40-42; Lejars 1996, 79; Metzler, Gaeng 2009, 237-240, sl. 209, 210; Wyss, Rey, Müller 2002, kat. št. 20-23, 37). Pri mečih, ki pripadajo obravnavanim nožnicam, prav tako prevladujejo latenske značilnosti, kot so zvon-čast branik in poševna ramena. Dolga in ozka rezila s koničastim zaključkom, ki so lahko posledica rimskih vplivov, poznamo z dela poznolatenskih mečev (prim. Lejars 1996, 90, sl. 6: 4; Wysss, Rey, Müller 2002, t. 9-14: št. 26,28,32-34,36,39-42,44). Gumbu podoben zaključek ročaja meča imajo tudi drugi latenski meči (npr. Wyss, Rey, Müller 2002, 57, t. 23, 24, 33, kat. št. 74; Sievers 2001, 217-219, kat. št. 140, 141, t. 50: 140,141). Metalografske značilnosti obeh rezil mečev, ki sta bila raziskana s tega vidika, prav tako ne kažejo odstopanj od keltske tradicije (Schwab 2005, 327-331). Oblika obravnavanih nožnic in mečev kaže torej keltske značilnosti. Enako velja za tehniko izdelave predrtega okrasa, medtem ko del motivov tega okrasa ter dolge in ozke konice dela obravnavanih mečev (prim. pogl. 11) verjetno odsevajo rimske vplive. Glede na jasno povezanost obravnavanih nožnic in mečev s keltskim svetom je izredno presenetljiva ugotovitev, da so pri primerkih iz Slovenije vsi deli iz barvne kovine narejeni iz čiste medenine in da isto velja za nožnice iz groba 78 v Zemplinu (cf. Longauerova, Longauer 1990), groba 784 v Wederathu in iz Badenheima17 ter da so na nožnici iz Büchla prav tako uporabili zlitino bakra in cinka (okoli 12 %), ki pa vsebuje tudi kositer in svinec (Schwab 2005, 332, pregl. 2). Dejstvo, da so sprednja platica in okrasni okov teh nožnic in branik ter vrhnji zaključki ročajev mečev iz čiste medenine (tj. medenine z okoli 20 % cinka), jasno kaže, da so za njihovo izdelavo uporabili svežo čisto medenino oziroma medeninaste ingote (prim. Müller 2002, t. 120: 1488; Riederer 2002, 132, kat. 1488), ne pa medeninastih predmetov, ki bi jih pretalili (prim. npr. Nieto 2004). Pri taljenju medenine se namreč delež cinka zmanjša (prim. npr. Nieto 2004), dodajanje drugih kovin staljeni medenini pa je v sestavi zlitine še očitneje (prim. npr. zlitino nožnice iz Büchla - Schwab 2005, pregl. 2 in sponke - Šmit et al. 2005, pregl. 3). Kelti medenine niso izdelovali, Rimljani pa so jo pridobivali in uporabljali od okoli 60 pr. Kr. (Istenič 2005, 204-205, 209-211; Istenič, Šmit 2007). Interpretacijo njene uporabe pri obravnavanih nožnicah in mečih otežuje dejstvo, da je elementna sestava ugotovljena in objavljena le za zelo redke kovinske predmete poznolatenske dobe. Med njimi so meči s številnimi ovalnimi kovinskimi (iz barvne kovine ali železa) ploščicami na ročajnem trnu, ki so sočasni v tem članku obravnavanim mečem in nožnicami, saj primerek iz grobov 805 in 809 grobišča v Wederathu kaže na datacijo okoli 30 pr. Kr. Znani so s severovzhodnega obrobja Galije (največ, tj. šest najdišč je na Nizozemskem) ter tudi najdišč vzhodno od Rena (Haffner 1989, 229-238; Roymans 2004, 108-112, sl. 7.4, 7.5). Analize ploščic na ročajih treh mečev iz Nizozemske kažejo, da so iz brona (Verwers, Ypey 1975, 87, 88, tab. 1).'8 Na dveh mečih te skupine, iz reke Scheldt pri kraju Denain in iz Rögatza, pa so take ploščice medeninaste (Roymans 2004, 110-111; Verwers, Ypey 1975, 90-91). Analizirana ploščica na meču iz Rögatza je iz bakra in cinka (razmerja niso podana) in ne vsebuje kositra (Verwers, Ypey o. c.), kar kaže na čisto Risbe na t. 51 so napačno številčene. 17 Za podatka o sestavi nožnic iz Wederatha in Baden-heima se zahvaljujem Rolandu Schwabu (Curt-Engelhorn-Zentrum Archäometrie, Mannheim). 18 Analiziranih je bilo šest ploščic s treh mečev; sestava brona se pri vseh treh mečih razlikuje (svinčev bron s 5 % svinca in 5-6 % kositra; bron z 12 % kositra in svinčev bron s 5 % svinca in 12 % kositra). medenino. Na primerku iz reke Scheldt so analizirali le eno ploščico, verjetno na patinirani površini, zato lahko glede na rezultate (Cu z okoli 12 % Zn in 1,5 % Sn; Hantute, Leman-Delerive 1982, 90) le domnevamo, da ploščica ni iz povsem čiste medenine.19 Dosedanji rezultati raziskav mečev s kovinskimi ploščicami na ročaju torej kažejo, da so pri enem delu teh mečev uporabili bron, pri drugem pa medenino. Nadaljnje raziskave, ki bi vključevale natančnejše analize in bi zajele več primerkov, bi lahko pokazale, kakšno medenino so uporabili, kako pogosta je bila in kaj je vplivalo na izbiro zlitine (npr. čas in/ali kraj izdelave). V primerjavi z meči z obročki na ročaju se zdi uporaba čiste medenine na nožnicah z okovom s predrtim okrasom skorajda dosledna, saj je bila ugotovljena pri sedmih nožnicah od osmih analiziranih (štirje primerki iz Slovenije ter nožnice iz Zemplina, Badenheima in Wederatha). Osmi primerek vsebuje visok delež cinka, kar nakazuje, da so dele te nožnice naredili iz medenine, ki so ji dodali malo kositra in svinca. V zvezi z vprašanjem izvora nožnic s predrtim okrasom iz bakrove zlitine ali srebra sta pomembna dva meča, ki imata na zgornjem delu rezila imenski pečat in ju lahko bolj ali manj tesno povežemo z obravnavanimi nožnicami. To sta meč s pečatom VTILICI iz groba 78 v Zemplinu na Slovaškem (seznam: št. 17b) in meč s pečatom ALLIVS PA iz groba 20 grobišča Wesolki na Poljskem (D^browska, D^browski 1967, 28, sl. 23: 6, t. 8: 3). Pečat meča z grobišča Wesolki ima pravilne in jasno vidne črke, tisti iz Zemplina pa se zdi glede na objavljeno fotografijo razmeroma nepravilen in težje berljiv. Meč iz žganega groba 78 v Zemplinu se po obliki ramen, rezila in žlebovih na rezilu in tudi po zaključku ročajnega trna (prim. meč iz Büchla, seznam: št. 3) dobro sklada z meči, ki so bili najdeni skupaj z obravnavanimi nožnicami (prim. seznam). Njegova dolžina (95 cm) ustreza daljšim primerkom obravnavanih mečev. V grobu 78 iz Zemplina so bili ohranjeni le deli nožnice, ki so pritaljeni na rezilo meča. Objavljene risbe ne dovoljujejo njene opredelitve med nožnice z okovom, okrašenim v predrti tehniki, vendar pa na to jasno kaže Pleinerjev opis, ki omenja "fragments of copper/bronze scabbard, ornamented in an openwork style of Late La Tene Noric type" (Pleiner 1993, 97). Analize so pokazale, da so ostanki te nožnice iz čiste medenine z okoli 18 % cinka (Longauerova, Longauer 1990). Meč s pečatom iz groba 20 grobišča Wesolki po "medeninastem" (tako piše v opisu, vendar analize najverjetneje niso bile narejene) zaključku ročaja, po obliki ramen in rezila ter po dolžini (82,5 cm; D^browska, D^browski 1967, 28, sl. 23: 6) ustreza krajši podskupini obravnavanih mečev (prim. zgoraj, pogl. 11). Izvira iz žganega groba, v katerem se je od nožnice meča ohranil le spodnji del okova z zanko za obešanje (ibid. 23, sl. 23: 7) iz bakrove zlitine,20 ki je precej podoben zaključku medeninastega okova z zanko s Strmca nad Belo Cerkvijo (sl. 5b; pril. 2). Allius je latinsko ime, ki je razmeroma pogosto. Uporabljali so ga kot gentilno ime in tudi kot kognomen, izpričano pa je predvsem v Italiji, Hispaniji, Galijah in Dalmaciji (Onomasticon I, 43-44). Pri pečatu VTILICI je zadeva manj jasna. Ime, ki bi ustrezalo genitivu ali dativu Utilici, ni znano, beseda pa spominja na latinski pridevnik utilis.21 V obeh primerih se pečata verjetno nanašata na izdelovalca meča. V prvem primeru je ta oseba nedvomno imela latinsko ime (Allius), v drugem pa to ni zanesljivo. Z latenskih mečev poznamo, z eno izjemo, anepigrafske pečate (Dul^ba 2009; Wyss, Rey, Müller 2002, 37-39). Z zgodnjerimskih mečev pečati niso znani, razen morda enega primerka.22 Obravnavane nožnice in meči torej izhajajo iz keltske tradicije, del okrasnih motivov predrtega okrasa nožnic, dolge in izrazite konice rezil dela mečev ter predvsem uporaba čiste medenine pa jasno kažejo rimske vplive. Imenska pečata na dveh mečih, od katerih eden zanesljivo, drugi pa verjetno sodi k obravnavanim nožnicam, nakazujeta, da so bili v njihovo izdelavo vključeni Rimljani. Razširjenost obravnavanih nožnic (sl. 13), ki ima težišče na keltskih in germanskih območjih, torej po našem mnenju ne odseva nujno povezav med Kelti in njihovimi vzhodnimi sosedi. Morda kaže na stike Rimljanov s keltskimi in drugimi ljudstvi na novo osvojenih območjih in zunaj rimske države v zadnjih desetletjih pr. Kr. Treverski vojščaki so bili z rimsko vojsko v intenzivnih stikih že v Cezarjevih galskih vojnah (izmenjujoče kot zavezniki ali sovražniki), kar se je nadaljevalo tudi kasneje. Bogate grobove konjenikov, med katere sodi tudi grob B z obravnavanim mečem in nožnico z grobišča Göblingen-Nospelt, povezujejo s predstavniki visoke treverske aristokracije (Metzler, Gaeng 2009, 513-519, 521), ki je vodila svoje vojaške oddelke v sklopu rimske vojske. Pri Tavriskih na delovanje domačinov v rimski vojski v srednje- in poznoavgustejski dobi ter tudi še kasneje kažejo grobovi z orožjem rimskih tipov iz Verduna (npr. grobovi 1, 41, 84, 112, 136; Breščak 1989, 10, 13; Breščak et al. 2002, 139, 141-142, kat. 74, 82)23 in Mihovega (Windl 1975, grobovi 1656/58, 1657/16, 1657/59, 1657/110, 1846/3, 1661/1, t. 21: 1-5, 28: 1-3, 43: 1-5, 51: 15-19, 61: 5-7). Po našem mnenju sta v grobu 1 s parcele Košak B s Strmca nad Belo Cerkvijo in grobu 37 iz Verduna prav tako pokopana tavriščanska vojščaka, verjetno iz vodilnega sloja, iz obdobja med 60/30 in 15 pr. Kr, ki sta sodelovala z Rimljani, verjetno tudi na vojaškem področju. Poleg obravnavanih mečev in nožnic, ki kažejo rimske vplive, sta uporabljala svojo tradicionalno oborožitev in nošo ter sta pokopana s keramiko latenskega tipa (Božič 1999, 211; Mihaljevic, Dizdar 2007). Glede na ožjo datacijo obravnavanih nožnic se zdi verjeten časovni okvir omenjenih grobov med okoli 40/30 in 15 pr. Kr. Ta se sklada z novo situacijo, ki je v jugovzhodnih Alpah nastala po Oktavijanovih ilirskih vojnah (35-33 pr. Kr.). 19 K taki domnevi nas ne navaja delež cinka, ki je v patini običajno precej nižji kot v jedru (prim. Istenič, Šmit 2007, 143), temveč 1,5 % kositra. 20 K. Czarnecka, pers. comm. Prim. Dodatek. 21 Za opredelitev se zahvaljujem Julijani Visočnik, Nadškofijski arhiv Ljubljana. 22 Haffner (1989, 271) omenja gladij s pečatom na ro-čajnem trnu iz uničenega grobišča Bell (Mayen-Koblenz). Zaradi nedosegljivosti literature tega nisem mogla preveriti. 23 Navajam le doslej objavljene grobove. Pri Treverih in Tavriskih so torej obravnavane nožnice in meče najverjetneje uporabljali njihovi vodilni možje, ki so sodelovali z Rimljani. Njihova oborožitev je še povsem tradicionalna, le obravnavane nožnice in meči kažejo poleg prevladujočih latenskih tudi nedvomne rimske elemente. Uporaba medenine pri obravnavanih mečih in nožnicah, pri katerih sicer prevladujejo keltski elementi, ter rimsko ime na najmanj enem od obravnavanih mečev kažeta na njihovo izdelavo na območju, kjer so bili stiki med Kelti in Rimljani intenzivni, pa tudi na vpletenost Rimljanov v njihovo izdelavo. Narejeni so v keltski tradiciji, vendar so opazni tudi rimski vplivi (motivi okrasa in oblika konice meča), in z materiali, ki so jih uporabljali pri izdelavi rimskega orožja (medenina). Iz navedenega in razširjenosti obravnavanih predmetov izhaja naša domneva, da sta bili izdelava in distribucija tega orožja v rimskih rokah. Namenjeno je bilo Keltom, ki so sodelovali z Rimljani, in drugim, ki jim je bilo keltsko orožje všeč ter so ga bili navajeni uporabljati. Domnevamo, da so jih posredovali predvsem kot darila in morda tudi kot trgovsko blago. Prisotnost obravnavanih predmetov na Rimljanom odmaknjenih območjih današnje Poljske in v Zemplinu je morda povezana z rimskimi darili na območjih ob jantarni poti. Doslej domnevani območji izdelave obravnavanih nožnic in mečev, to je noriško in treversko območje, sta med 40/30 in 15 pr. Kr. predstavljali razmeroma romanizirano keltsko okolje, v kakršnem bi obravnavane meče in nožnice lahko izdelovali; za tavriščansko območje, kjer je tudi izrazita zgoščenost teh nožnic in mečev, pa se to ne zdi verjetno. Zgoščenost obravnavanih nožnic na območjih, ki so jih poseljevali Treveri in Tavriski ter tudi Noriki, je zato po našem mnenju bolj verjetno povezana z njihovim pogrebnim kultom in s sodelovanjem njihovih vodilnih mož z Rimljani, kot pa z območjem izdelave teh predmetov. To morda lahko domnevamo na prostoru, kjer so bili stiki med Rimljani in Kelti intenzivni in od koder lahko predvidevamo široko distribucijo izdelkov na območja razširjenosti obravnavanih nožnic in mečev, čemur se zdi, da najbolje ustreza vzhodni del province Gallie Cisalpine, ki je bila leta 42 pr. Kr. vključena v Italijo. Dve velikostni skupini obravnavanih nožnic in mečev (glej pogl. 11) morda nakazujeta, da so bili daljši primerki (Göblingen-Nospelt, Büchel, Wederath, Badenheim, Stara Wies, Zemplin - gr. 78 in 128, Donava in Belozem) namenjeni bojevnikom, ki so se borili na konju, krajši pa tistim, ki so se borili peš. S to domnevo se sklada dejstvo, da sta v obeh grobovih z obravnavanimi meči in nožnicami, ki vsebujeta ostroge (grob B iz Göblingen-Nospelta - Metzler, Gaeng 2009, sl. 65: 70a,b; grob 129 iz Zemplina - Budinsky-Krička, Lamiova-Schmiedlova 1990, t. 18: 1,2), daljša meča. Njej v prid govori tudi prisotnost zgolj daljših primerkov pri Treverih. Ti so namreč imeli močno konjenico, ki je z Rimljani sodelovala že v času galskih vojn in jo je Cezar cenil (Metzler, Gaeng 2009, 513, 514). Vse štiri nožnice in meči z območja, ki so ga poseljevali Tavriski, sodijo med krajše primerke (seznam: 19-21)24, ki so sicer zastopani samo še dvakrat (Wesolki - gr. 3 in nožnica z mečem iz zbirke Axla Guttmanna; seznam: 14a, 19-22, 26). 15. SKLEP Nožnice s predrtim okrasom na okovu iz bakrove zlitine ali srebra sestavljajo posebno skupino poznolatenskega orožja, ki po razpoložljivih podatkih šteje najmanj 32 primerkov. Izvirajo iz grobov in v dveh primerih iz rek. Iz naselbin jih ne poznamo. Uporabljali so jih med 40/30 in 15 pr. Kr.; njihova zgodnejša uporaba, od okoli 60 pr. Kr. dalje, se ne zdi verjetna, ni pa izključena. Grob 131 iz Verduna nakazuje, da so bili posamezni primerki v uporabi tudi še kasneje. Obravnavana skupina nožnic in mečev ima poznolatenske keltske značilnosti, kaže pa tudi rimske vplive. Uporaba čiste medenine, ugotovljena pri sedmih primerkih (štirih iz Slovenije, dveh iz Nemčije in enem iz Slovaške) ter pečat z latinskim imenom na meču z grobišča Wesolki nakazujeta povezanost njihove izdelave z Rimljani. Te nožnice in meče so najverjetneje izdelovali na območju, kjer so bili stiki med Rimljani in Kelti intenzivni, morda v vzhodnem delu Gallie Cisalpine, in sicer za keltske zaveznike (predvsem njihove vodilne može) in druge (npr. Germane), ki so bili navajeni uporabljati keltske meče in so jih cenili. Zahvale Danilo Breščak (ZVKDS, OE Novo mesto) in Bernarda Županek (Muzeji in galerije mesta Ljubljana) sta dovolila, da smo v raziskavo vključili primerke iz Verduna in Ljubljanice. Bernarda Županek se je strinjala tudi z delno obnovo konservacije nožnice iz Ljubljanice in s tem povezanimi raziskavami. Vse našteto je bilo za izvedbo raziskave bistvenega pomena. Sonja Perovšek, Zoran Milic in Igor Ravbar (Konservatorski oddelek Narodnega muzeja Slovenije) so sodelovali pri razmišljanjih in pogovorih o načinu izdelave lestvičastih okovov. Sonja Perovšek je poleg tega izredno zavzeto in skrbno izvedla raziskovalne posege na nožnici iz Ljubljanice. Julijana Visočnik (Nadškofijski arhiv Ljubljana) je prispevala opredelitev obeh napisov na pečatih obravnavanih mečev. Za napotke glede literature, koristne podatke, diskusijo in kritične pripombe k rokopisu smo hvaležni Draganu Božiču (Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU). Dragocene pripombe k rokopisu so prispevali Peter Turk, Neva Trampuž Orel in Boštjan Laharnar (vsi Narodni muzej Slovenije) in še posebej Jana Horvat (Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU), ki je naše raziskave tudi spodbujala. Pri urejanju besedila in slikovnega gradiva sta bili v veliko pomoč Helena Bras Kernel in Barbara Jerin (obe Narodni muzej Slovenije). Katarzyna Czarnecka (Panstwowe Muzeum Archeolo-giczne, Varšava) nam je prijazno posredovala podatke o obravnavanih predmetih iz grobov 3 in 50 grobišča Wesolki in groba 301 grobišča Kamienczyk. Besedilo sta iz slovenskega v angleški jezik prevedli Katarina Jerin in avtorica. Angleško besedilo je lektorirala Alex Croom. Vsem navedenim se iskreno zahvaljujemo. Primerka iz Mihovega tu nismo mogli upoštevati. SEZNAM (sl. 13) Najdišča nožnic z okovom iz bakrove zlitine ali srebra z visoko kvalitetnim predrtim okrasom.25 Pri vsaki nožnici ali njenem delu je navedeno najnovejše delo, ki vsebuje ilustracijo, in druga dela, ki so relevantna za opredelitev nožnice oziroma njenega dela ali njenega najdišča. Luksemburg 1. Göblingen-Nospelt, grob B; nožnica z mečem. Metzler-Gaeng 2009, 80, 84, 243-244, sl. 65: 22a, 213, 215: 1. 2. Titelberg, vzhodno grobišče, brez ožjega konteksta (najdba iz groba ali keltskega in keltsko-rimskega svetišča); zgornji del meča in nožnice z okovom s predrtim okrasom. Metzler-Gaeng 2009, 248-249, sl. 214, 215: 2. Nemčija 3. Büchel, grob; nožnica z mečem. Haffner 1995, 137-142, 148, sl. 2, 3, 9: 1, t. 1: zgoraj; Schwab 2005. 4. Wederath, grob 784; nožnica z mečem. Haffner 1995, 141-143, sl. 4, 9: 2, t. 1: spodaj. 5. Badenheim, grob; nožnica z mečem. Böhme-Schönberger 1998, 218-223, sl. 11-13, pril. 4. 6. Groß Romstedt, grobna najdba; majhen odlomek meča in okova nožnice s predrtim okrasom. Werner 1977, 381-382, sl. 11: 2; Czarnecka 2002, 97, št. 6. 7. Schkopau, grobišče, posamezna najdba; odlomek zgornjega dela nožnice z okovom s predrtim okrasom. Schmidt, Nitzschke 1989, 93, E 7, t. 78: 7. 25 Okov iz bakrove zlitine s predrtim okrasom iz Tuczna (Poljska; Makiewicz 1975, 139, t. 9: 4; Werner 1977, 382, sl. 11: 3) in železen mrežasti okov z najdišča Sofija Podueni (Bolgarija; Popov 1921, 33-34, sl. 34, 35) po našem mnenju ne sodita v obravnavano skupino (drugačnega mnenja glede nožnic enega oziroma obeh najdišč: Böhme-Schönberger 1998, sl. 6: 6; Czarnecka 2002, 97, 98, št. 12 in 25). Vanjo na podlagi podatkov v dosegljivi literaturi prav tako nismo mogli uvrstiti meča z ostanki nožnice iz Sanzkowa (Nemčija; Werner 1977, 388, sl. 16) in odlomka nožnice iz groba 7 grobišča Zvenihorod-Zaguminki (Ukrajina; Werner 1977, 384, sl. 12: 1; Kropotkin 1977, 185, sl. 12: 1; Luckiewicz 2000, 374, sl. 15), v čemer se razhajamo z Böhme-Schönberger (1998, sl. 6: 3, 13) in Czarnecko (2002, 97-98, št. 9, 18). Za primerek iz Lučke (Ukrajina) podatki v Luckiewicz 2000, pregl. 1 ne kažejo, da gre za nožnico obravnavane skupine, objava, ki jo navaja Czarnecka (2002, 98, št. 19), pa nam ni bila dosegljiva. Prav tako v skupino nismo vključili primerka iz Stare Zagore (Werner 1977, 392-394, sl. 19), ki po motivih in kompoziciji okrasa ne ustreza obravnavani skupini. 8. Harsefeld, grob 8; okov s predrtim okrasom in zaključek nožnice. Böhme-Schönberger 1998, 233-234, 237, sl. 5; Werner 1977, 383, 387, 400, op. 45, sl. 15. Werner (1977, 383) okrasni okov opisuje kot ulit in "recht massiv" ter domneva, da je germanski posnetek "noriških" nožnic. Po mnenju Böhme-Schönberger je to nedokončan okov, ki je bil na narobe pritrjen! Zaključek nožnice (Werner 1977, sl. 15: 2) se od primerkov obravnavane skupine izrazito razlikuje. Zraven delov nožnice je bil najden meč s pečatom v obliki rozete, njegova risba ni objavljena (Werner 1977, 400, op. 45). Pripadnost nožnice in meča k obravnavani skupini se nam zdi zelo vprašljiva, zato je tudi nismo vključili v sliko 13. Švedska 9. Eggeby, gomila; okov s predrtim okrasom. Böhme-Schönberger 1998, 232-233, sl. 4; ead. 2001, 79-80, sl. 1. Poljska 10. Kopaniewo (nem. Koppenow), grob 10; odlomek nožnice z okovom s predrtim okrasom. Werner 1977, 377, sl. 6; Wol^giewicz, Wol^giewicz 1963, 99, t. 1: 11. 11. Rz^dz (nem. Rondsen), grobišče (grobna celota ni poznana); odlomek okova s predrtim okrasom. Werner 1977, 382-383, sl. 11: 1. 12. Stara WieS-Kolonia, grob 1; nožnica z mečem. Werner 1977, 390, sl. 17; Kaszewska 1977, 119, št. 21, sl. 3; Böhme-Schönberger 1998, 226, op. 22 in 26. 13. Ciecierzyn, grob 118; nožnica z mečem. Martyniak, Pastwinski, Pazda 1997, 28, t. 117: 1,2. 14a. Wesolki, grob 3; nožnica z mečem. D^browska, D^browski 1967, 14, sl. 7: 8; Kokowski 2003a, 107, kat. št. 214, sl. 16; Kokowski 2003b 482-483. V opisu meča in nožnice (D^browska, D^browski 1967, 14; Kokowski 2003b, 482-483; prim. tudi Luckiewicz 2000, 370, pregl. 1) je omenjeno samo železo, Bochnak in Czarnecka (2001-2005, 29) pa menita, da je okrasni okov iz železa, ki je bilo na površini prekrito z bakrom ali bronom 14b. Wesolki, grob 50; okov s predrtim okrasom in ostrogast zaključek nožnice. D^browska, D^browski 1967, 56, sl. 57: 1,8; Luckiewicz 2000, 370, pregl. 1, sl. 13: 1,8. 15. Witaszewice, grob 147/1937; deli nožnice in pripadajoči meč. Werner 1977, 391-392, sl. 18; Kaszewska 1977, 108, 120, št. 46, sl. 1: 3-5; Luckiewicz 2000, 370, pregl. 1, 376, sl. 17. 16. Kamienczyk, grob 301; nožnica z mečem. D^browska 1997, 62, 90, t. 138: 4; 201: 1; Bochnak, Czarnecka 2004-2005, 29, sl. 4. Ta nožnica je edina, na kateri je po sedaj razpoložljivih podatkih okov s predrtim okrasom iz železa, motivi in kvaliteta okrasa okova pa se ne razlikujejo od tistih iz bakrove zlitine. Primerek smo kljub razliki v materialu vključili v seznam, pri siceršnji obravnavi in na sliki 13 pa ga nismo upoštevali. Slovaška 17a. Zemplin, grob 77; dva odlomka okova s predrtim okrasom. Budinsky-Krička, Lamiova-Schmiedlova 1990, 253, 255, t. 11: 10,11. 17b. Zemplin, grob 78; meč z ostanki nožnice. Budinsky-Krička, Lamiova-Schmiedlova 1990, 255, sl. 20a, t. 11: 20; Lamiova 1993, 25, 27, sl. 18, 19, 25; Pleiner 1993, 97. Uvrstitev med nožnice iz bakrove zlitine s predrtim okrasom je verjetna glede na omembo predrtega okrasa poznolatenskega noriškega stila (Pleiner 1993, 97). 17c. Zemplin, grob 108; dva odlomka nožnice: odlomek zgornjega dela s predrtim okrasom in odlomek spodnjega zaključka. Cosack 1977; Budinsky-Krička, Lamiova-Schmiedlova 1990, 260-261, t. 15: 30-31; Böhme-Schönberger 1998, 227, 233, 234, 237, sl. 3. Zdi se, da je bila cela nožnica iz bakrove zlitine (Cosack 1977). Od drugih nožnic s predrtim okrasom se izrazito razlikuje po zaključku (je daljši in ožji ter ima na sprednji strani podkvasto odebelitev in štiri zakovice, na hrbtni strani pa paličasto ojačitev) in okrasnem okovu, ki je morda nedokončan (prim. Böhme-Schönberger 1998, 227, 237, sl. 3). 17d. Zemplin, grob 128; odlomek zgornjega zaključka predrtega okova in odlomek spodnjega zaključka nožnice. Budinsky-Krička, Lamiova-Schmiedlova 1990, 265, t. 18: 11,13. 17e. Zemplin, grob 136; majhen odlomek okova s predrtim okrasom. Budinsky-Krička, Lamiova-Schmiedlova 1990, 267, t. 18: 27. Avstrija 18a-c. Štalenska gora / Magdalensberg, Lugbichl (območje nekropole) ; odlomki treh okovov s predrtim okrasom. Deimel 1987, 263-264, t. 69: 6-8. 21a. Verdun, grob 37; nožnica z mečem (sl. 8-9; pril. 3). 21b. Verdun, grob 131; nožnica z mečem (sl. 10-11; pril. 4). 22. Mihovo, grob 1657/8; nožnica z mečem (sl. 12). Madžarska 23. Donava, pri kraju Pomaz oz. Szentendre; nožnica z mečem. Hunyady 1942-1944, 115-116, t. 44: 5,5a,b (najboljša fotografija); Bona 1963, 253, t. 38: 4 (najdišče); Hellebrandt 1999, 35-36, t. 4: 4 (slaba risba; najdišče). 24. Nagyteteny, grob; nožnica z mečem. Ustna informacija Andras Marton; del predmetov iz istega groba je objavljen v Zsidi 2009, 111, št. 294-296. Bolgarija 25. Belozem, grobna gomila; nožnica z mečem. Werner 1977, 372, sl. 3: 1, 378, 379, sl. 8. 26. Neznano najdišče, morda v Bolgariji (Böhme-Schönberger 1998, 230, op. 42); nožnica z mečem. http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_detaüs.aspx?pos =8&intObjectID=4265305&sid [zadnji dostop 11. 10. 2010]. DODATEK Tik pred oddajo zadnjih korekur nas je K. Czarnecka opozorila na članka D^browski K. in J. Kolendo 1967, Z badan nad mieczami rzymskimi w Europie Srodkowej i polnocnej (odkrycie miecza z odciskiem stempla w Wesolkach, pow. Kalisz), Archeologia Polski 12, 383-426 in D^browski, K. in J. Kolendo 1972, Les epees romaines decouvertes en Europe centrale et septentrionale, Archaeo-logia Polona 13, 59-109. Vsebujeta pomembne podatke o grobu 20 z grobišča Wesolki: analiza osteoloških ostankov je pokazala na 30-45 letnega moškega; gumb na zaključku trna meča je bil analiziran (medenina z 10 % cinka); na rezilu meča so ostanki medenine (ostanki sprednje strani nožnice); spodnji del okova z zanko za obešanje je iz železa. Po podrobni analizi imenskega pečata avtorja sklepata, da je bil izdelovalec meča iz Italije. Slovenija (sl. 1 ) 19. Ljubljanica pri Bevkah; rečna najdba; nožnica z mečem (sl. 2-3; pril. 1). 20. Strmec nad Belo Cerkvijo, grob 1 na parceli Košak B; nožnica z mečem (sl. 4-7; pril. 2). Janka Istenič Narodni muzej Slovenije Prešernova 20 SI-1000 Ljubljana janka.istenic@nms.si PIXE analysis of Late La Tene scabbards with non-ferrous openwork plates (and associated swords) from Slovenia Žiga ŠMIT, Janka ISTENIČ and Sonja PEROVŠEK Izvleček Z metodo protonsko vzbujenih rentgenskih žarkov (PIXE) smo analizirali meče iz 1. stoletja pr. n. št. in pripadajoče nožnice s predrtim okrasom iz Ljubljanice pri Bevkah, s Strmca nad Belo Cerkvijo in iz Verduna (grob 37 in grob 131). Rezultati analiz kažejo, da so pri izdelavi teh predmetov uporabljali železo in medenino. Ključne besede: latenski meči in nožnice, PIXE, medenina Abstract The method of proton-induced X-ray emission (PIXE) was applied for the analysis of late 1st century BC swords and associated scabbards with openwork copper-alloy plates from the Ljubljanica River, Strmec above Bela Cerkev, Verdun grave 37 and Verdun grave 131. The results indicate that iron and pure brass were used in the manufacture of these objects. Keywords: Late La Tene scabbards and swords, PIXE, brass 1. INTRODUCTION 2. THE METHOD Analytical methods requiring little or no sampling material are desirable tools for the analysis of archaeological artefacts. The method of proton-induced X-ray emission analysis (PIXE) relies on irradiation of the selected areas by proton beam and detection of characteristic X-rays. Since protons of a few MeV energy penetrate just several 10 ^m into the target, and the excited X-rays attenuate in the target itself, the analysis is limited to the very surface layer of about 10 ^m. For a quantitative analysis of metals, the non-corroded metal surface has to be exposed. The procedure was applied to the characterization of metals in Late La Tene swords and associated scabbards from the River Ljubljanica near Bevke, Strmec above Bela Cerkev, Verdun grave 37 and Verdun grave 131. Our main interest was in the characterisation of copper-alloys. The analytical work was performed on the Tandetron accelerator at the Jožef Stefan Institute in Ljubljana. The measurements were done by the proton beam in air, which provided simple irradiation of the points selected for the analysis (cf. Šmit et al. 2005a). A few such points were prepared for analysis by gently removing the patina and on about 0.1 mm thick superficial metal layer. The impact proton energy was 3 MeV; however, the protons lose energy in the aluminium exit window (8 ^m thick) and the 1.2 cm air gap between the window and target, so the actual impact energy was 2.7 MeV. The Si(Li) X-ray detector was positioned at 45° with respect to the target normal at a distance of 5.7 cm. The X-ray spectra were measured by an absorber of 0.3 mm aluminium, which well attenuated the X-rays up to 10 keV, including the intense K lines of copper (8.04 and 8.9 keV). In this way it was possible to increase the sensitivity for mid-Z elements between silver and antimony to about 200 ^g/g. The disadvantage of the thick aluminium absorber is the reduced sensitivity to elements lighter than copper. For silicon X-ray detectors, the most critical is iron, as its X-ray lines coincide with the silicon escape lines of copper. The two sets of lines were separated in the procedure of fitting the spectra, although the distinction of two overlapping Gaussian lines is generally subject to considerable uncertainties. The iron concentrations in our previous work were then uncertain by 0.5 wt. %. To overcome this difficulty we applied a procedure that is based on two sequential measurements in each point, using different absorbers. One measurement is done, as before, with the aluminium absorber of 0.3 mm, while the other exploits the 5.7 cm air gap as the only absorber. The intensities of X-ray lines obtained from the two spectra are then normalized according to the most intense copper K-alpha line, modelling the attenuation effects. A set of values obtained in this way corresponds to a hypothetic measurement without an aluminium absorber, and can be used in our standard codes for evaluation of the concentrations. For metals, the calculation relies on the normalization procedure of setting the sum of all concentrations to unity. The area of the prepared measurement spot was about 3-4 mm2, which is slightly larger than the area of our beam with FWHM of about 0.78 mm. By imprecise aiming of the beam there would be the danger of hitting the unprepared area. To avoid this, the beam size was reduced by a diaphragm of 0.3 mm diameter. In order to lessen the beam broadening due to scattering in the air, the diaphragm was positioned about 3 mm from the target. The reduced beam size was appropriate for the measurement of light elements, but it deteriorated the sensitivity to mid-Z elements. The reason for this was intense bremsstrahlung radiation, induced by proton stopping in the diaphragm material. The high energy spectra were then rather measured without the diaphragm, in spite of the broad beam size. The proton current was about 1 nA and was set to attain a counting rate of about 400 s-1. This value did not completely prevent the pile-up effects of copper K lines, which appear in the spectra as a continuous background extending up to about 17 keV. The pile-up contribution to the spectral background reduced the sensitivity to high Z elements around lead and certain mid-Z elements (arsenic) to about 500 ^g/g. The measuring time was 5-10 minutes for a measurement with the aluminium absorber, and about 3 minutes for a measurement without it. The accuracy of the procedures was checked by analyzing a brass standard NIST 1107 as an unknown sample. The major concentrations were typically reproduced within a few percent, but increased to 10-20% on approaching the detection limits. 3. RESULTS AND COMMENTARY The investigated objects involved swords and associated scabbards from the River Ljubljanica near Bevke (kept in Muzej in galerije mesta Ljubljana, Inv. No. 510:LJU;32582), Strmec above Bela Cerkev (Kept in the National Museum of Slovenia, Inv. No. P 4371), grave 37 at Verdun near Stopiče (kept in Dolenjski muzej, Novo mesto, Inv. No. A 1776) and from grave 131 at Verdun (kept in Dolenjski muzej, Novo mesto, Inv. No. A 2211). The objects were prepared for analyses in the Conservation Department of the National Museum of Slovenia. Most of the analyses were made on the scabbard and sword from the River Ljubljanica. The results indicate that its front plate was made of brass containing about 16% zinc (tab. and fig. 1: spots 1,2). Only very small differences can be observed between the analysis of the prepared and unprepared measurement spots, indicating that there is practically no patina on the brass sheath. The sword's campanulate hilt-end and knob lining, as well as the lowest rivet on the scabbard's suspension loop plate were made of brass containing a somewhat larger (18-19%) zinc content (tab. and fig. 1: spots 5,7,8). Several measurements were made on copper-alloy layers revealed in the iron rungs on scabbard's front by removal of plastic parts added during restoration in 1980 (see Istenič 2010, 138) and by careful removal of corrosion. The results show that the copper alloy was bronze with about 4-7% tin (tab. and fig.1: spots 11a,12a,13,15). On the underside of the rungs and beneath them (between the rungs and the brass plate) there was a layer of iron corrosion products (tab. and fig. 1: spots 12b,16). Restoration work in 2010 also revealed a copper-alloy lining beneath the left and the right iron edge of the laddered chape (between the laddered chape and the back plate and front plate, respectively), at the height of the 9th front rung and 12th to 13 th rung on the back. According to measurement results, Fig. 1: Sword and scabbard from the River Ljubljanica near Bevke with locations of the areas measured by PIXE: • prepared area, O unprepared area. Scale 1: 4 (drawing by Ida Murgelj). Sl. 1: Mesta meritev z metodo PIXE na meču in nožnici iz reke Ljubljanice pri Bevkah: • mesto, s katerega je bila korozija odstranjena, O mesto, s katerega korozija ni bila odstranjena. M. = 1:4 (risba Ida Murgelj, Narodni muzej Slovenije). Fig. 2: Sword and scabbard from Strmec above Bela Cerkev with locations of the areas measured by PIXE: • prepared area, O unprepared area. Scale 1:4 (drawing by Ida Murgelj). Sl. 2: Mesta meritev z metodo PIXE na nožnici s Strmca nad Belo Cerkvijo: • mesto, s katerega je bila korozija odstranjena, O mesto, s katerega korozija ni bila odstranjena. M. = 1:4 (risba Ida Murgelj, Narodni muzej Slovenije). Spot Mesto Description Opis Fe Ni Cu Zn As Ag Sn Sb Pb Measurement details Meritve -podrobnosti 1 scabbard, front plate, unprep. sprednja platica nožnice, nepr. 0.62 0.14 81.1 16.7 0.1 0.8 0.68 B 2 scabbard, front plate, prep. sprednja platica nožnice, pripr. 0.42 81.3 16.4 0.1 0.8 1.00 A 3 scabbard, openwork plate, unprep. nožnica, okrasni okov, nepripr. 0.59 81.2 16.8 0.1 0.7 0.71 B 4 scabbard, openwork plate, prep. nožnica, okrasni okov, pripr. 0.41 81.8 16.3 0.1 0.7 0.75 A 5 scabbard, rivet, prep. nožnica, zakovica, pripr. 0.34 78.9 19.1 0.15 1.1 0.47 A 7 sword, knob-lining, prep. meč, obloga gumba na ročaju, pripr. 1.54 0.11 77.8 18.5 0.1 0.9 0.98 A 8 sword, hilt end, unprep., branik ročaja meča, nepr. 1.90 0.11 78.1 18.1 0.1 0.9 0.71 B 9 scabbard, lining beneath the lateral part of laddered chape; unprep. nožnica, podloga pod robnim delom lestvičastega okova 3.57 0.13 90.8 4.60 0.04 0.4 0.42 A 11 scabbard, copper alloy in the 3rd rung; unprep. nožnica, bakrova zlitina v tretji prečki, nepripr. 4.2 87.9 0.49 0.17 7.1 0.09 0.15 C 12a scabbard, copper alloy in the 2nd rung; unprep. nožnica, bakrova zlitina v drugi prečki, nepripr. 2.98 0.2 92.8 0.47 3.6 A 12b scabbard, corrosion layer on the underside of the 2nd rung; unprep. nožnica, korozija na spodnji strani druge prečke, nepripr. 93.9 3.5 2.31 0.16 3.6 C 13 scabbard, copper alloy beneath the 4th rung; unprep. nožnica, bakrova zlitina pod četrto prečko, nepripr. 4.14 0.1 88.9 0.86 0.12 5.7 0.11 B, mask 14 scabbard, lining beneath the lateral part of laddered chape; unprep. nožnica, podloga pod robnim delom lestvičastega okova, nepripr. 5.11 88.0 0.20 6.3 0.33 0.11 A 15 scabbard, copper alloy in the 4th rung; unprep. nožnica, bakrova zlitina v deveti prečki, nepripr. 7.13 87.6 0.09 4.7 0.48 B 16 scabbard, beneath the 2nd rung; unprep. nožnica, pod drugo prečko, nepripr. 96.8 1.80 1.19 0.17 B Tab. 1: Elemental concentrations (in wt %) measured by PIXE on the sword and scabbard from the River Ljubljanica given in weight %. Analyses have been carried out on the prepared or unprepared surface (abbreviated prep. and unprep. in the table). In numeration of the measured spots, 6 and 10 were omitted. Measurement details: A - soft X-ray spectrum was obtained by a narrow beam of 0.3 mm, hard X-ray spectrum by a broad beam of 0,78 mm; B - both soft and hard X-ray spectra were obtained by a broad beam; C - only hard X-ray spectrum by a broad beam was measured. During the measurement of spot 13, its surrounding was covered by an aluminium foil (mask). Tab. 1: Elementna sestava (v utežnih %), izmerjena z metodo PIXE na nožnici in meču iz reke Ljubljanice pri Bevkah. Meritve smo naredili na nepripravljeni povšini ali na površini, s katere smo odstranili vrhnji korozijski sloj (v tabeli okrajšano: nepr. in pripr.). Pri številčenju merjenih mest smo izpustili 6 in 10. Način meritve : A - nizkoenergijski spekter izmerjen z zaslonko 0,3 mm, visokoenergijski s širokim žarkom 0,78 mm; B - nizko in visokoenergijski spekter izmerjena s širokim žarkom; C - izmerjen le visokoenergijski spekter s širokim žarkom. Tab. 2: Elemental concentrations (in wt %) measured by PIXE on the scabbard from Strmec above Bela Cerkev. Analyses have been carried out on the prepared or unprepared surface (abbreviated prep., unprep. in the table). For measurement details see tab. 1. Tab. 2: Elementna sestava (v utežnih %), izmerjena z metodo PIXE na meču in nožnici iz Strmca nad Belo cerkvijo. Meritve smo naredili na nepripravljeni povšini ali na površini, s katere smo odstranili vrhnji korozijski sloj (v tabeli okrajšano: nepripr. in pripr.). Podrobnosti o meritvah: glej tab. 1! Spot Mesto Description Opis Fe Ni Cu Zn As Sn Pb Measurement details Meritve -podrobnosti 1 front plate, prep. sprednja platica, pripr. 0.43 0.14 77.5 21.1 0.09 0.5 0.22 A 2 front plate, unprep. sprednja platica, nepripr. 1.31 92.0 4.50 0.20 1.3 0.66 B 3 back plate, unprep. zadnja stranica, nepripr. 2.02 93.4 3.69 0.10 0.5 0.23 B 4 back plate, prep. zadnja patica, pripr. 0.35 76.4 22.3 0.11 0.7 0.19 A 5 openwork plate, prep. okov s predrtim okrasom, pripr. 0.33 77.2 21.4 0.14 0.7 0.24 B 6 openwork plate, unprep. okov s predrtim okrasom, nepripr. 2.30 90.2 4.94 0.26 1.8 0.45 B 7 suspension loop plate, unprep. okov z zanko, patina, nepripr. 2.25 91.1 4.55 0.20 1.7 0.20 B 8 suspension loop plate, prep. okov z zanko, pripr. 0.98 81.1 17.0 0.13 0.6 0.26 A 9 rivet, corrosion layer zakovica, rja 90.8 7.0 1.99 0.05 0.1 0.06 B the lining on one (right) side was of bronze with about 6% tin (tab. and fig. 1: spot 14) and on the other (left) side of brass with about 5% zinc (tab. and fig. 1: spot 9). Analytical results of the scabbard from Strmec above Bela Cerkev (tab. 2) indicate that the front and the back plate, as well as the openwork plate were made of pure brass containing about 21-22% zinc (tab. and fig. 2: spots 1,4,5). The suspension loop plate is also of pure brass, but with a lower zinc content (tab. and fig. 2: spot 8). The patina on these plates is well preserved. The results of measurements on the unprepared surface (tab. and fig. 2: spots 2,3,6,7) showing low percentages of zinc (3-5%) were therefore expected. De-zincification of the corrosion layer on objects made of brass is, in fact usual (Istenič, Šmit 2007, 143). The measurement of the iron rivet (tab. 2: spot 9) showed the presence of copper and zinc, which may indicate diffusion of the corrosion products of brass by the electrochemical processes. Front plate of the scabbard from Grave 37 at Verdun is of pure brass containing about 21% zinc (tab. and fig. 3: spot 2). The much smaller zinc percentage measured in the patina was expected (see above). Pure brass with a smaller percentage of zinc was used for the lining of the knob at the end of the sword's tang (tab. and fig. 3: spot 3). The sword and its associated scabbard from Grave 131 at Verdun are in poor condition. For this reason we made analysis only on the loose fragment of the sword's and scabbard's end. They indicate pure brass with a very high content of zinc (25.5%) for the front plate (tab. and fig. 4: spot 2). This is the highest zinc value we encountered in our analyses of Roman brass (cf. Šmit, Pelicon 2000; Šmit et al. 2005b). The upper limit for the zinc content in Roman brass made by cementation process is about 28% (Craddock 1995, 296-298 Craddock, Lambert 1995, 164). Fig. 3: Sword and scabbard from grave 37 at Verdun with locations of the areas measured by PIXE: • prepared area, O unprepared area. Scale 1:4 (drawing by Ida Murgelj). Sl. 3: Mesta meritev z metodo PIXE na meču in nožnici iz gr. 37 v Verdunu: • mesto, s katerega je bila korozija odstranjena, O mesto, s katerega korozija ni bila odstranjena. M. = 1:4 (risba Ida Murgelj, Narodni muzej Slovenije). Fig. 4: Sword and scabbard from grave 131 at Verdun with locations of the areas measured by PIXE: • prepared area, O unprepared area. Scale 1:4 (drawing by Ida Murgelj). Sl. 4: Mesti meritev z metodo PIXE na nožnici iz gr. 131 v Verdunu: • mesto, s katerega je bila korozija odstranjena, O mesto, s katerega korozija ni bila odstranjena. M. 1:4 (risba Ida Murgelj, Narodni muzej Slovenije). Tab. 3: Elemental concentrations (in wt %) measured by PIXE on the sword and scabbard from grave 37 at Verdun. Analyses have been carried out on the prepared or unprepared surface (abbreviated prep. and unprep. in the table). For measurement details see tab. 1. Tab. 3: Elementna sestava (v utežnih %), izmerjena z metodo PIXE na meču in nožnici iz groba 37 v Verdunu. Meritve smo naredili na nepripravljeni povšini ali na površini, s katere smo odstranili vrhnji korozijski sloj (v tabeli okrajšano: nepripr. in pripr.). Podrobnosti o meritvah: glej tab. 1! Spot Mesto Description Opis Fe Ni Cu Zn Ag Sn Pb Measurement details Meritve -podrobnosti 1 scabbard, front plate, unprep. sprednja platica nožnice, nepripr. 1.64 0.12 92.3 4.56 0.07 1.2 0.09 B 2 scabbard. front plate. unprep. sprednja platica. nepripr. 0.76 0.10 77.8 20.7 0.05 0.5 0.13 B 3 knob-lining. prep. obloga zaključka ročaja. pripr. 0.27 0.10 83.4 15.4 0.09 0.4 0.37 B Tab. 4: Elemental concentrations (in wt %) measured by PIXE on the scabbard fragments from grave 131 at Verdun. Analyses have been carried out on the prepared or unprepared surface (abbreviated prep. and unprep. in the table). For measurement details see tab. 1. Tab. 4: Elementna sestava (v utežnih %), izmerjena z metodo PIXE na meču in nožnici iz groba 131 v Verdunu. Meritve smo naredili na nepripravljeni površini in na površini, s katere smo odstranili vrhnji korozijski sloj (v tabeli okrajšano: nepripr. in pripr.). Podrobnosti o meritvah: glej tab. 1! Spot Mesto Description Opis Fe Ni Cu Zn Ag Sn Pb Measurement details Meritve - podrobnosti 1 patina 1.14 0.14 87.9 9.31 0.17 1.0 0.32 B 2 no patina brez patine 0.18 0.14 73.3 25.5 0.06 0.6 0.36 A Fig. 3 / Sl. 3 Fig. 4 / Sl. 4 4. CONCLUSION Analysis of late 1st century BC swords and associated scabbards with openwork copper-alloy plates from the River Ljubljanica, Strmec above Bela Cerkev, Verdun grave 37 and Verdun grave 131 shows an extensive use of pure brass. From the experimental view, our procedure was upgraded: we combined the soft and hard X-ray spectra for each analyzed spot. CRADDOCK, P.T. 1995, Early Metal Mining and Production. - Edinburgh. ISTENIČ, J. 2010, Late La Tene scabbards with non-ferrous openwork plates / Poznolatenske nožnice s predrtim okrasnim okovom iz bakrove zlitine ali srebra. - Arheološki vestnik 60, 121-164. ISTENIČ, J. and Ž. ŠMIT 2007, The beginning of the use of brass in Europe with particular reference to the southeastern Alpine region. - In: S. La Niece, D. R. Hook and P. T. Craddock (eds.), Metals and mines: studies in archaeometallurgy, 140-147, London. ŠMIT, Ž. and P. PELICON 2000, Analysis of copper-alloy fitments on a Roman gladius from the river Ljubljanica. - Arheološki vestnik 51, 183-187. ŠMIT, Ž., P. PELICON, J. SIMČIČ and J. ISTENIČ 2005a, Metal analysis with PIXE: the case of Roman military equipment. - Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Sect B 239, 27-34. ŠMIT, Ž., J. ISTENIČ, V. GERDUN, Z. MILIČ and A. MLADENOVIČ 2005b, Archaeometric analysis of Alesia group brooches from sites in Slovenia / Arhe-ometrične analize fibul skupine Alesia s slovenskih najdišč - Arheološki vestnik 56, 213-233. Analize PIXE poznolatenskih nožnic s predrtimi okovi (in pripadajočih mečev) iz Slovenije 1. UVOD Analitske metode, ki zahtevajo malo ali nič vzorčnega materiala, so zaželeno orodje za preiskave arheoloških predmetov. Metoda protonsko vzbujenih rentgenskih žarkov (PIXE) temelji na obsevanju izbranega mesta s protoni in zaznavanju karakterističnih rentgenskih žarkov. Protoni z energijo nekaj MeV prodrejo le nekaj 10 ^m globoko v tarčo, poleg tega se rentgenski žarki v tarči tudi absorbirajo, tako da je analiza omejena le na plitvo površinsko plast debeline približno 10 ^m. Za kvantitativno analizo je treba izpostaviti obsevanju nekorodirano kovinsko površino. Metodo smo uporabili za opredelitev kovin pri poznolatenskih mečih in pripadajočih nožnicah iz reke Ljubljanice pri Bevkah, s Strmca nad Belo Cerkvijo in iz Verduna (grob 37, grob 131). V študiji smo se v glavnem posvetili bakrovim zlitinam. 2. METODA Analize smo opravili na tandemskem pospeševalniku Inštituta Jožefa Stefana. Za meritve smo uporabili protonski žarek v zraku, ki nam je omogočal enostavno obsevanje na mestih, ki smo jih izbrali za analizo (cf. Šmit et al. 2005a). Nekaj takih mest smo pripravili za analizo tako, da smo previdno odstranili patino in približno 0,1 mm debelo površinsko kovinsko plast. Energija protonov je bila 3 MeV; ker pa so protoni izgubili nekaj energije v izstopnem okencu iz aluminija (debelem 8 ^m) in približno 1,2 cm široki zračni reži med okencem in tarčo, je bila dejanska vpadna energija 2,7 MeV. Si(Li) detektor rentgenskih žarkov je oklepal kot 45° z normalo na tarčo in je bil 5,7 cm oddaljen od nje. Rentgenske spektre smo merili z 0,3 mm debelim aluminijevim absorberjem, ki je močno udušil rentgenske žarke do energije približno 10 keV, vključno z močnimi rentgenskimi žarki bakra (8,04 in 8,9 keV). Na ta način smo povečali občutljivost za srednjetežke elemente med srebrom in antimonom na približno 200 ^g/g. Neugodna stran rabe debelega aluminijevega absorberja pa je bila zmanjšana občutljivost za elemente, lažje od bakra. Pri silicijevih rentgenskih detektorjih je najbolj kritičen element železo, saj njegovi rentgenski črti sovpadata s silicijevimi ubežnimi vrhovi bakrovih žarkov. Obe vrsti črt je mogoče ločiti z obdelavo spektrov, vendar je razločevanje dveh prekrivajočih se Gaussovih črt običajno obremenjeno s precejšnjo napako. Železove koncentracije pri našem prejšnjem delu so bile tako negotove za približno 0,5 %. Da bi zmanjšali to napako, smo uporabili postopek, ki je temeljil na dveh zaporednih meritvah na istem mestu, pri čemer smo uporabili različna absorberja. Eno meritev smo tako kot prej opravili z aluminijevim absorberjem debeline 0,3 mm, pri drugi meritvi pa smo kot edini absorber uporabili le 5,7 cm debelo zračno plast. Jakosti rentgenskih črt iz obeh spektrov smo normirali glede na najmočnejšo bakrovo črto, pri čemer smo učinek absorpcije v obeh absorberjih upoštevali računsko. Vrednosti, ki smo jih tako dobili, so ustrezale hipotetični meritvi brez aluminijevega absorberja, tako da smo nadaljnji izračun koncentracij lahko izvedli s programi, ki smo jih uporabljali že doslej. Pri kovinskih tarčah smo v računu uporabili normirni postopek, ki vsoto vseh dobljenih koncentracij postavi na ena. Površina mest, pripravljenih za meritev, je bila 3-4 mm2, kar je bilo nekoliko več kot površina protonskega žarka s širino na polovični višini (FWHM) okoli 0,78 mm. Ob netočnem usmerjanju žarka je bila nevarnost, da bi z žarkom zadeli nepripravljeno površino. Da bi se temu izognili, smo površino žarka zmanjšali z zaslonko premera 0,3 mm. Zaslonko smo postavili približno 3 mm od tarče, s čimer smo se izognili razširitvi žarka zaradi sipanj a v zraku. Zožen žarek je bil pripraven za merjenje lahkih elementov, vendar je poslabšal občutljivost za srednjetežke elemente. Razlog za to je bilo močno zavorno sevanje, ki so ga protoni vzbujali v zaslonki. Visokoenergijske rentgenske spektre smo zato raje merili brez zaslonke, kljub širšemu žarku. Tok protonov je bil okrog 1 nA in smo ga uravnavali tako, da smo dosegli hitrost štetja okoli 400 sunkov na sekundo. S tem sicer nismo povsem preprečili kopičenja sunkov (pile-up) pri bakrovih žarkih, kar se je v spektrih pokazalo kot zvezno ozadje do energije približno 17 keV. Prispevek kopičenja sunkov k ozadju v spektru je zmanjšal občutljivost za težke elemente okoli svinca in nekatere srednjetežke elemente (npr. arzena) na približno 500 ^g/g. Posamezna meritev z aluminijevim absorberjem je trajala 5 do 10 minut, brez absorberja pa okoli 3 minute. Natančnost metode smo preverjali z analizami medeninastega standarda NIST 1107, ki smo ga obravnavali kot neznan vzorec. Koncentracije večinskih elementov smo običajno reproducirali znotraj nekaj odstotkov, vendar pa je napaka narasla na 10-20 %, ko smo se približali meji zaznavanja. 3. REZULTATI IN KOMENTAR Preiskani predmeti so obsegali meče in pripadajoče nožnice iz reke Ljubljanice pri Bevkah (hrani Muzej in galerije mesta Ljubljana, inv. št. 510:LJU;32582), s Strmca nad Belo Cerkvijo (hrani Narodni muzej Slovenije, inv. št. P 4371), iz groba 37 iz Verduna pri Stopičah (hrani Dolenjski muzej, Novo mesto, inv. št. A 1776) in groba 131 iz Verduna (hrani Dolenjski muzej, Novo mesto, inv. št. A 2211). Predmeti so bili pripravljeni za analize na Konservatorskem oddelku Narodnega muzeja Slovenije. Večino analiz smo opravili na nožnici in meču iz Ljubljanice. Rezultati kažejo, da je bila sprednja platica nožnice narejena iz medenine z okoli 16 % cinka (tab. in sl. 1: mesti 1,2). Med analizami na pripravljenih in nepripravljenih mestih opazimo le majhne razlike, kar se dobro ujema z dejstvom, da na nožnici skorajda ni patine. Branik ročaja meča in obloga gumba na ročaju ter ena zakovica na okovu z zanko za obešanje nožnice so bili narejeni iz medenine, ki vsebuje malo več cinka (18-19 %; tab. in sl. 1: mesta 5,7,8). Nekaj meritev smo naredili na plasteh iz bakrove zlitine, ki so se pokazale v železnih prečkah na sprednji strani nožnice, potem ko smo z njih odluščili plastične dele, dodane med restavracijo leta 1980 (glej Istenič 2010, 157), in pazljivo delno odstranili korodirane dele. Rezultati kažejo, da je bakrova zlitina bron s približno 4-7 % kositra (tab. in sl. 1: mesta 11a, 12a,13,15). Na spodnji strani prečk in med njimi ter medeninasto pločevino smo ugotovili plast železovih korozijskih produktov (tab. in sl. 1: mesti 12b,16). Restavratorska dela leta 2010 so razkrila tudi podlogo iz bakrove zlitine pod levim in desnim železnim robom lestvičastega okova (med lestvičastim okovom in pločevino na sprednji oziroma hrbtni strani) v višini devete sprednje prečke ter dvanajste in trinajste prečke na zadnji strani. Po rezultatih meritev je bila ta podloga na eni (desni) strani iz brona z okoli 6 % kositra (tab in sl. 1: mesto 14), na drugi (levi) pa iz medenine z okoli 5 % cinka (tab. in sl. 1: mesto 9). Rezultati analiz na nožnici s Strmca nad Belo Cerkvijo (tab. 2) kažejo, da so sprednja in zadnja platica ter okov s predrtim okrasom narejeni iz čiste medenine z okoli 21-22 % cinka (tab. in sl. 2: mesta 1,4,5). Okov z zanko za obešanje je tudi iz čiste medenine, vendar vsebuje manj cinka (tab. in sl. 2: mesto 8). Nožnica ima izrazito patino, zato so rezultati meritev na njej (tab. in sl. 2: mesta 2,3,6,7), ki kažejo majhne vsebnosti cinka (3-5 %), pričakovani. Izluženje cinka iz korozijskih plasti na medeninastih predmetih je namreč običajno (Istenič, Šmit 2007, 143). Meritve na železni zakovici (tab. 2: mesto 9) kažejo prisotnost bakra in cinka, kar lahko razložimo s širjenjem korozijskih produktov medenine z elektrokemijskimi procesi. Sprednja platica nožnice iz groba 37 v Verdunu je iz čiste medenine, ki vsebuje okoli 21 % cinka (tab. in sl. 3: mesto 2). Precej manjša vsebnost cinka, ki smo jo izmerili v patini, je v skladu s pričakovanji (glej zgoraj). Čisto medenino z manjšo vsebnostjo cinka pa so uporabili za izdelavo obloge zaključka ročaja meča (tab. in sl. 3: mesto 3). Meč in pripadajoča nožnica iz groba 131 v Verdunu sta v slabem stanju. Zato smo opravili analize PIXE le na odlomku nožnice. Meritve na sprednji platici kažejo na čisto medenino z visoko vsebnostjo cinka (25,5 %; tab. in sl. 4: mesto 2). To je najvišja koncentracija cinka, ki smo jo doslej izmerili na rimskih medeninastih predmetih (cf. Šmit, Pelicon 2000; Šmit et al. 2005b). Zgornja meja za vsebnost cinka v rimski medenini, ki so jo izdelovali s cementacijskim postopkom, je okoli 28 % (Craddock 1995, 296-298; Craddock, Lambert 1995, 164). 4. SKLEP Analize nožnic s predrtim okrasom iz bakrove zlitine in pripadajočih mečev iz Ljubljanice pri Bevkah, s Strmca nad Belo Cerkvijo ter iz groba 37 in groba 131 v Verdunu kažejo na intenzivno rabo čiste medenine. Pri raziskavah smo izpopolnili postopek obravnave meritev tako, da smo pri rezultatu upoštevali meritve z mehkimi in trdimi rentgenskimi žarki. Žiga Šmit Univerza v Ljubljani Fakulteta za matematiko in fiziko Jadranska ulica 19 1000 Ljubljana ziga.smit@fmf.uni-lj.si Janka Istenič Narodni muzej Slovenije Prešernova 20 SI-1000 Ljubljana janka.istenic@nms.si Žiga Šmit Institut Jožef Stefan Jamova 39 SI-1000 Ljubljana ziga.smit@ijs.si Sonja Perovšek Narodni muzej Slovenije Prešernova 20 SI-1000 Ljubljana sonja.perovsek@nms.si Cernunnos in Slovenia? Marjeta ŠAŠEL KOS Izvleček Na nagrobniku s sedmimi doprsji iz 2. ali 3. stoletja po Kr., ki je bil najden zelo verjetno v Črnomlju v Beli Krajini, so na obeh stranskih ploskvah ohranjene slabo vidne reliefne upodobitve. Na desni strani je prikazan moški z rogovi in kopiti ter pes, ki ga grize v stegno. Na levi zgoraj je upodobljen konjenik s kopjem v roki, spodaj pa tri osebe; srednja je ženska, pred katero stoji moški s kopjem. Peter Petru je zelo poškodovane reliefe razložil kot prizore, povezane s kultom keltskega boga Cernuna in žrtvovanjem človeka, vendar podrobnosti, ki jih je mogoče razločiti, ne ustrezajo njegovi interpretaciji. Gre za upodobitev mita o Aktajonu, ki ga je Artemida/Diana spremenila v jelena in so ga raztrgali lastni psi. Ključne besede: rimska doba, Slovenija, Črnomelj, Panonija, Cernunos, Aktajon Abstract A tombstone with seven busts (second or early third century AD), which was most probably discovered at Črnomelj in Bela Krajina, displays poorly visible side reliefs. On the right side a human figure with horns and hooves and a dog trying to bite his thigh are depicted. On the left a horseman holding a spear is represented in the upper field, while in the lower part three figures are depicted, of whom the middle one is a woman; a man with a spear is standing in front of her. Peter Petru explained the badly preserved figures as scenes referring to the Celtic god Cernunnos and to human sacrifice performed in his honour. However, these depictions would better correspond to the episodes from the myth of Actaeon. Keywords: Roman period, Slovenia, Črnomelj, Pan-nonia, Cernunnos, Actaeon THE TOMBSTONE FROM BELA KRAJINA WITH PORTRAITS AND SIDE RELIEFS In the Roman lapidarium of the National Museum of Slovenia an interesting tombstone with seven busts is on display, of local grey limestone and of rustic workmanship, probably from the second century AD. Although its exact provenance has long been regarded as unknown, recently evaluated archivale data, as well as similar stelae with portraits, make it almost certain that it originates from Črnomelj in Bela Krajina.1 The upper part of the tombstone terminates in a rectangular frame, with two simply hollowed fields of portraits preserved, while the lower, inscribed, part is broken off (75 X 85 X 31.5 cm). Its surface is badly damaged. The three portraits in the upper field represent a mother, father, and their son in the middle, while the four busts in the lower field may represent their other children, of whom the first might be their grown-up daughter, the second a son, the third a daughter, and the last a small boy ((fig. 1). The main point of interest is represented by very badly preserved reliefs on both side panels; those on the left are divided into an upper and a lower field. Above, a rider is depicted, brandishing 1 AIJ 492 = RINMS 149 = ILSl 167; Lovenjak 2008, 90-91. Cf. Ferri 1933, 105, fig. 109 on p. 121, who erro- neously considered all stelae in the National Museum as originating from Emona. Fig. 1: Tombstone from Bela Krajina, probably Črnomelj: AIJ 492 = RINMS 149 = ILSl 167. Sl. 1: Nagrobnik iz Bele Krajine, verjetno iz Črnomlja: AIJ 492 = RINMS 149 = ILSl 167. a spear in his right hand. Below him three figures are represented: the middle one is a woman bending down towards something at her feet, while in front of her a figure holding something (perhaps a spear?) in his raised hand is depicted. Behind the woman there is an unidentifiable figure, not only badly carved but also much eroded. On the right side panel a human figure with antlers and hooves is depicted, and a dog trying to bite his thigh (fig. 2). Peter Petru devoted an article specifically to the badly preserved side scenes, which had not been noticed by the scholars who had published the tombstone earlier.2 He explained the reliefs as depicting human sacrifice, performed by the central female figure on the left, below the horseman. This rite should in his opinion be related to the cult of Cernunnos, the Celtic god with antlers (allegedly represented on the right side panel), which would have still survived into the Roman period.3 His thesis found general acceptance not only among Slovenian, but also among foreign scholars.4 Recently Mitja Guštin in an important article analyzed remains of figural art among the Taurisci, the Celtic people living south of the Karavanke Mts., particularly in Dolenjska (Lower Carniola). He accepted Petru's identification of the main figure with antlers as Cernunnos (similar to some of the depictions on the rocks in Val Cammonica), quoting, like Petru, as the best analogy the depiction of the god on the Gundestrup cauldron (fig. 3).5 Both scholars seem to see details in these reliefs that can no longer be discerned and could at best be declared ambiguous. Somehow differently, Marina Milicevic Bradač, also citing Petru, refers to the figure as an antlered man, a man-deer, who may have been able to communicate with a god such as Cernunnos, a "Master of animals", in a Fig. 2: Drawing of the side reliefs. Sl. 2: Risba reliefov na stranskih ploskvah. 2 Saria in AIJ 492, and Ferri 1933, cit. 3 Petru 1961. 4 Euskirchen 1997; Hachmann 1990, 831. 5 Guštin 2006, 125-127. Fig. 3: Cernunnos on the Gundestrup cauldron. From: Hachmann 1990, Insert 10. 2. Sl. 3: Cernunos s kotla iz Gundestrupa. Iz: Hachmann 1990, priloga 10, 2. similar way as shamans did. Regenerative power of antlers could be percieved as symbolizing the eternal regeneration cycle.6 In the course of the revision of all Roman stone monuments in the Museum lapidarium for publication, my attention was also drawn to this stele with portraits. Clearly, it would have been entirely incongruous that a human sacrifice, as a currently performed rite, could be depicted on a tombstone from Roman Pannonia, or, indeed, from anywhere in the Roman Empire. Stanko Kokole kindly suggested that the scenes be interpreted as three episodes from the myth of Actaeon.7 However, it would not be impossible that some time in the future a dedication or an image of Cernunnos will also appear in Slovenia, perhaps on a Roman period altar or depicted on a Celtic artefact.8 CELTIC GODS, HUMAN SECRIFICE, AND CERNUNNOS The peoples known by the classical writers as the Celts worshipped many gods and goddesses, and so did the Celtic Taurisci, which is well confirmed by the numerous Celtic deities epigraphically attested in the regions of Celeia and Poetovio.9 Some are noted or described by Greek and Latin authors, and these testimonies have been published by Ioannes Zwicker10 and recently, in two excellent monographs, by Andreas Hofeneder.11 Caesar, who fought against the Celts in free Gaul for eight years during his proconsulship in both Galliae (Cisalpina and Transalpina) and Illyricum, and eventually subdued most of them, is often cited as an important authority on Celtic gods, cults and rituals. He described their religion in the sixth book of his Gallic War, where he also mentioned the importance of human sacrifice among the Celts, who had practised it before they were conquered by the Romans.12 Reports of the ritual killing of war prisoners, for example, were also recorded for the Celtic Scordisci, who allegedly "sacrificed human blood to their gods, and drank from human skulls".13 To sacrifice a human being was believed to be most important when human life had been gravely endangered, as in the case of wars, natural catastrophes, or diseases and epidemics. The divinity responsible for having saved a human life could only be appeased by another man's life. Caesar called the gods of the Celts by Roman names, and it can legitimately be asked to what extent such a Roman interpretation was at all adequate. He claimed that Mercury was the most popular god among them, since the Celts regarded him as the inventor of all the crafts, a divine guide on their travels, and a patron of commerce. According to Caesar, they further worshipped Apollo, Mars, Jupiter, and Minerva, and he added that the concepts they had of these gods did not differ much from the ideas of other peoples about them.14 Tacitus made a similar statement concerning the religion of the Germans, who would also have worshipped above all Mercury, and next to him Hercules and Mars. On certain occasions they would sacrifice a human being to Mercury.15 Caesar's narrative can be supplemented by the data in Lucan, who described the three main gods of the Celts with their Celtic names: Esus, Taranis, and Teutates, claiming that all three of them demanded human sacrifice.16 This passage is accompanied by scholia containing a short commentary, in which Esus is equated both with Mars and with Mercury. Taranis, who was regarded as being the supreme god of the Celts, was made equal to Jupiter.17 He is often represented with a wheel and may have been the same as Caesar's Dis Pater. Caesar mentioned that, according to the teachings of the Druids, Dis Pater would have been the father 6 Milicevic Bradač 2002, 23; cf. p. 13. See also Lajoye 2008. 7 Mentioned by Kastelic 1998, 532-533; I owe the reference to Prof. Bojan Djuric. It may be interesting to add, that according to Milicevic Bradač, ibid., 26, it would be quite possible that some ritual reminiscence was preserved in the Actaeon story. 8 The identification of a head on a vessel from the third century BC from Novo mesto with Cernunnos does not seem to be correct, see Križ 2009, 157-159. 9 See several relevant chapters in Šašel Kos 1999. 10 Zwicker 1934. 11 Hofeneder 2005; Hofeneder 2008. 12 He dedicated ch. 16 to this topic. 13 Florus 1. 39; cf. Amm. Marcel. 27. 4. 4; Papazoglu 1978, 507 ff. 14 Bell. Gal. 6. 17.1. See, for an exhaustive commentary, Hofeneder 2005, 198 ff. 15 Germ. 9. 16 De bello civili (Pharsalia) 1. 444-446: ... et quibus immitis placatur sanguine diro Teutates, horrensque feris altaribus Esus (var. Hesus, Aesus) et Taranis Scythicae non mitior ara Dianae. Cf. Hofeneder 2005, 295 ff. 17 Cf. Commenta Lucani, p. 32 ed. Usener (cited after Zwicker 1934, LI 18, LII 19); for problems concerning this identification, see Wissowa 1916-1919, 40-45. Fig. 4: Human sacrifice depicted on the Gundestrup cauldron. From: Hachmann 1990, Insert 9. 1. Sl. 4: Upodobitev žrtvovanja človeka na kotlu iz Gundestrupa. Iz: Hachmann 1990, priloga 9, 1. of the Celtic nation.18 Teutates protected people in war and in peace, and was equated with Mars.19 A human sacrifice in honour of Esus has been described in the following way by the scholiast: a victim would be hung on a tree and wounded in order to bleed to death, the tree perhaps symbolizing the tree of life. Teutates demanded that the victim be thrown head first into a cauldron full of water, to die from suffocation.20 Such a scene is also represented on the Gundestrup cauldron (fig. 4). These were pan-Celtic divinities, and all three of them are also attested in Noricum and/ or the Celtic regions of Pannonia.21 Celtic gods are in general represented only rarely in reliefs or in sculpture.22 It is unusual that Cernunnos is not included among these important Celtic divinities; however, he may be concealed either under Caesar's Mercury or Apollo, or both. Although Cernunnos is not mentioned in any of the cited passages, he is known from several altars found in Celtic provinces.23 Several depictions of Cernunnos exist and his identification has never been disputed on the basis of the Paris and Reims altars.24 He is usually portrayed as sitting on the ground with crossed legs, accompanied by snakes, a deer and a bull. This specific way of sitting on the ground was characteristic of the Celts during their meals, for example, and was noted by several Greek writers as something unknown in the Mediterranean world, where chairs, low stools, banks and beds were in use.25 Cernunnos is sometimes represented also with a purse or a bag of money, from which gold coins are pouring out, which is reminiscent of Mercury. Mercury's traits were recognized in Esus, but could obviously be partly identified also in Cernunnos, and Cernunnos is indeed represented seated between Mercury and Apollo on the Reims monument (ßg. 5).26 One aspect of his worship may have concerned fertility,27 while possibly he was also a healing divinity, if the presence of a serpent and Apollo could have any significance 18 Bell. Gall. 6. 18. 19 Duval 1958 (1989), 275-287, especially 282-284. 20 See n. 16. 21 Scherrer 2004; Piccottini 1996; Šašel Kos 1999, 42-43; Hainzmann, Pochmarski 1994, 268-269 no. 101. 22 Frey 2007a. 23 Representations of Cernunnos have been collected by Hachmann 1990, 827-832. They are mainly limited to Galliae; cf., e.g., a recently published new discovery of his statuette from Cöte-d'Or: Deyts, Venault 2004. The sup- posed depiction of Cernunnos on an altar from Sucidava in Dacia (Sanie 1987), remains in my opinion doubtful. 24 Esperandieu 1911, no. 3133; see now Altjohann 2003. 25 By Posidonius, preserved in Athenaeus 4. 36; by Diodorus from Sicily 5. 28. 4, and by Strabo 4. 4. 3 C 197. 26 Blazquez 1988, IV 2, 562, fig. 13 (= Esperandieu 1913, no. 3653); De Vries 1961, 104-107; Bauchhenss 1984. 27 De Vries 1961, 106; Hatt 1989; Blazquez 1988. See also Frey 2007b, p. 15; fig. 16 on p. 22. Fig. 5: Cernunnos seated between Mercury and Apollo on the Reims monument. From: Blazquez 1988, IV 2, 562, fig. 13. Sl. 5: Cernunos med Merkurjem in Apolonom na oltarju iz Reimsa. Iz: Blazquez 1988, IV 2, 562, sl. 13. in this sense.28 It should be noted that the god is most often represented as seated. As is clear from the Gundestrup cauldron, his cult, too, was not unfamiliar with the human sacrifice that seems to have been characteristic of many Celtic divinities. Rites that included sacrificing humans have been archaeologically confirmed at several cult sites in the Celtic provinces, and they must have also been practised in Noricum and southwestern Pannonia. However, any such interpretation of archaeological remains can easily be overhasty and should be carefully pondered. There was a great diversity among various Celtic, or Gallic,29 peoples in terms of culture; some were more and some were less "civilized". Each had their own identity that was also reflected in their religion(s),30 but in general it could be claimed that their comprehension of "sacred" was not unlike the attitudes to the divine of Greeks and Romans. However, the majority of 28 De Vries 1961, 107, explained the snake in the usual way as a custodian of underground riches. 29 They were called Celts by the Greek writers, and Galli by the Latin writing Romans. Celtic peoples originally had no sanctuaries but square enclosures, separated from the secular world by ditches and walls; they included a sacred wood, a sacred pit and an altar. There were sacred places at lakes, (thermal) springs, rivers, and caves. In a similar way as the Mediterranean peoples, the Celts sacrificed to the gods most of all domestic animals and ritually offered them weapons.31 It is not at all easy to identify human sacrifices, since corpses discovered at a certain site or mass burials could be warriors killed in combats or a consequence of large-scale epidemics. Criminals could be executed either ritually, and sacrificed to a deity, or in a secular context. Perhaps the shaft-like cave of Durezza, discovered near Warmbad Villach (in Slovenian Toplice), an Iron Age site close to Villach (Beljak), the ancient Santicum (later an important Roman settlement in the territory of Virunum), was possibly the scene of human sacrifices, as could be indicated by the remains of at least 138 human skeletons and sacrificed animals, particularly also over 45 dogs. A dog is also depicted in the scene of the 30 Maier 2006. Brunaux 2006. human sacrifice on the Gundestrup cauldron. The latest analyses of the excavated skeletons, bones, and other material cannot confirm with certainty that the cave had indeed served as a site of ritual human sacrifice, rather than a place of burial. If it was a sacred site, the cave should be linked to the cult of fertility divinities, or else to the underground daemons from whom people wished to be protected.32 Human sacrifice may have been practised elsewhere in the southeastern Alpine and southern Pannonian regions, as perhaps also at the late La Tene site at Frauenberg near Flavia Solva, where a large sacred area has been partly excavated. However, any interpretation of the complex site at Frauenberg must still be regarded as preliminary, and, for the time being, hypothetical. In the Roman period a sanctuary of Isis (Noreia?) was built there.33 The Romans, too, used to ritually perform human sacrifice - although exceptionally - even as late as the first century BC, when a Celtic and a Greek couple were buried alive.34 A similar ritual had been carried out twice before that; it was mentioned or alluded to several times in classical literature,35 and explained by Cassius Dio (Zonaras). He noted that it had once been prophesied that Rome would be conquered by the Celts or Greeks respectively.36 However, sacrificing a human being was officially forbidden by the Roman state in 97 BC,37 and cruel rites involving human sacrifice that were dictated by the Celtic religion - as it was taught by the Druids - were specifically forbidden by Augustus.38 From that date onwards it is unthinkable that such a rite - as a possible reality - would have been depicted on a Roman tombstone. Tombstones, funerary stelae, cinerary urns, and sarcophagi were often richly decorated, very often also with scenes from Greek and Roman mythology; by then the reality of human sacrifice was long forgotten. 32 Gleirscher 2008. 33 Tiefengraber 1998. It is not at all easy to correctly assess archaeological remains of hypothesized Celtic cult places; see also Schrettle 2007, and other literature he cited. 34 Varhelyi 2007. 35 References collected by Varhelyi, op. cit. 36 8. 19. 9. 37 Under the consuls Cn. Cornelius Lentulus and P. Licinius Crassus: Pliny, N. h. 30. 12; cf. 28. 12, where he mentions the burial of a Greek man and a woman in the cattle market at Rome, in "our age". 38 Suet., Vita Claudi 25. 5; cf. Zwicker 1934, 58; cf. 63. ACTAEON Actaeon was a mythical hero from Thebes in Boeotia, a son of the priestly herdsman Aristaeus and of Autonoe, the sister of Semele (who was the mother of the god Dionysus, begot by Zeus). Both were daughters of Cadmus, a mythical king of Thebes, hence Actaeon was a descendant of the Theban royal house. Like Achilles, he was brought up by the centaur Chiron, who taught him the art of hunting. Actaeon was an unsurpassable hunter, and according to the mythical story he was punished by Artemis for a grave offence, which is variously transmitted in various classical texts. On the basis of collected evidence, Lamar R. Lacy concluded that it is not possible to distinguish three chronologically defined versions, as was postulated by earlier commentators. It had been supposed that originally the archaic Actaeon would have aspired to his aunt Semele's hand, thus competing with Zeus, who eventually became the father of Dionysus.39 In another, possibly classical, version Actaeon would have boasted of his hunting abilities and wanted to compete with Artemis, the divine hunter. This act expressed Actaeon's hubris, for which he had to be punished.40 According to the most common story, perhaps Hellenistic, Actaeon, while hunting in the woods, was transformed into a stag for having unintentionally come across Artemis taking a bath.41 However, this scheme is disproved by Apol-lodorus in his Library of Greek mythology (1st or 2nd century AD), whose narrative is based on early authors. He summarized two old versions of the myth, and his text reads as follows: "Actaeon, the son of Autonoe and Aristaeon, whom Chiron taught the art of hunting, was later devoured by his own dogs on Mt. Cithaeron. He died in this manner, as Acusilaus says, because Zeus cherished wrath against him for having courted Semele, or, as the majority says, because he saw Artemis bathing".4^ Paraphrased, the story continues that Actaeon stared at Artemis, surprised by her beauty, but her virginity was thus offended and she changed him into a stag; his fifty hounds pursued him and tore him to pieces. "The majority" clearly refers to the current and the most widespread story, since Acusilaus is expressly cited as the author of 39 Preserved in Pseudo-Apollodorus' Bibliotheke 3. 30-32. 40 Euripides, Bacchae 337-340; 1290-1292. 41 Apollodorus, 3. 30 ff. 42 Id., 3. 30-31. Fig. 6: Fragmentary depiction of Actaeon from the town tower at Ptuj, the so-called Povoden's Museum. From: Conze 1875, Pl. VII/2. Sl. 6: Poškodovana upodobitev Aktajona, vzidana v Povo-dnov stolp na Ptuju. Iz: Conze 1875, t. VII/2. Fig. 7: Actaeon from Pöchlarn (territory of Aelium Cetium). From: Ubl 1979: Pl. 24, no. 56. Sl. 7: Aktajon iz kraja Pöchlarn (območje mesta Aelium Cetium). Iz: Ubl 1979: t. 24, št. 56. a different version.43 This version of the story is certainly pre-Hellenistic; it is also preserved in Callimachus (who only alluded to it), as well as in Latin by Ovid.44 Diodorus from Sicily mentions yet another version of the myth, according to which Actaeon, upon seeing Artemis bathing naked in a spring, wanted to become her consort.45 Actaeon is also attested as one of the tutelary heroes of Plataea,46 where a spring sacred to Artemis is located, the site of his offence. He should perhaps best be explained as a righteous hunter, who was tragically induced by the sight of the bathing goddess to try to make himself her consort. This and/or his boasting signify a sacrilegious transgression of the ritually imposed hunter's deference to Artemis that had to be severely punished.47 In a society where hunting was an important activity, the cult of Artemis was of great significance, and all rites connected with it should be carried out according to ancestral customs. She played a significant role also among the (Norican?) Celts, as is described by Arrian.48 Like so many other Greek myths, the story of Actaeon, too, has been found represented several 43 Lacy 1990, 32 ff. 44 The 5th hymn of Callimachus, vv. 107-115; Ovid, Metamorphoses 3. 138 ff. 45 4. 81. 3-5. 46 Plutarch, Vita Aristid. 11. 3-4. 47 Lacy 1990; cited from p. 42. 48 Kyn. 34. 1-3; Grassl 1982, especially 251. times on Roman funerary monuments,49 thus also in Noricum and Pannonia. Part of a decorated funerary monument with a fragmentary depiction of Actaeon is immured in the town tower (fig. 6), the so-called Povoden's Museum at Poetovio (present-day Ptuj).50 An interesting marble slab with a relief is immured in the western wall of the parish church in Pöchlarn (Arelape); supposedly it was found at the nearby Harlanden (the area of Melk), a site belonging to the administrative territory of Aelium Cetium (present-day St. Pölten). Actaeon is represented frontally with antlers already growing out of his head and with three dogs attacking him (fig. 7). The high quality of the relief indicates the existence of a skilled workshop; the monument may be dated to the mid-second century AD.51 Unfortunately the decorated slab was found out of archaeological context, so it is not possible to know if other scenes from the Actaeon myth were also depicted. The same is true of another marble relief representing the unfortunate hero. It was originally immured in the cemetery wall of the church of St Martin near St. Michael im Lungau, in the broad area of Teurnia (St. Peter in Holz), and is presently kept in the Salzburg Museum Carolino Augusteum. Actaeon is depicted turned towards the right and kneeling, with small O-shaped horns growing out of his head. A dog is attacking him 49 Guimond 1981; also on sarcophagi, see Koch 1993, 73-74; 92. 50 Conze 1875, p. 11 and PI. VII/2. 51 Ubl 1979: pi. 24, no. 56; p. 59, no. 56. on each side. The relief is dated to the end of the second or the beginning of the third century AD.52 Other representations of Actaeon are known from Pannonia, as, for example, one from Komarno and another from Szekesfehervar.53 It should be added that ours was not a unique case of Actaeon having been erroneously interpreted as Cernunnos; a badly preserved relief of a male with antlers can indeed lead to the wrong conclusions.54 CELTIC SURVIVALS: AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF THE ROMAN PROVINCIAL CuLTuRE IN NORICuM AND SOUTHWESTERN PANNONIA The tombstone from Bela Krajina (White Car-niola) was manufactured in a local workshop, where the stonemason may have been an indigenous artist, a descendant of the Romanized indigenous early Iron Age inhabitants mixed with the Celtic Taurisci, who settled in southern Slovenia, Styria, and northwestern Croatia, after having conquered the former. Or, more likely, he may have been a descendant of the Colapiani, who inhabited the broad region of the Kolpa Valley.55 The Taurisci and their allies, the Celtic Boii, were later, in the first half of the first century BC, defeated by the Dacians. After the disintegration of the great Celtic coalition, the Latobici came to be attested in Dolenjska, both in literary sources and in Roman inscriptions, and partly also in Bela Krajina, in addition to the Colapiani. Many Iron Age survivals bear witness to the pre-Roman inhabitants in these regions, as for example the rich Roman period cemeteries of the first century AD at Mihovo, Novo mesto (Beletov vrt),56 Šmarjeta (Strmec) near Bela Cerkev, and Verdun, where burial rituals remained Celtic, as is indicated by the deliberately broken Roman and Celtic weapons found in the graves.57 Pre-Roman elements are further confirmed by Celtic forms of pottery and are partly also visible in funerary iconography, thus in the tombstone which is the object of this study, and also, for example, in a fragmentary tombstone 52 Glaser 1997: Pl. 29 no. 37; p. 55 no. 37. 53 Erdelyi 1974, 207-208, fig. 198 (Komarno), fig. 199 (Szekesfehervar). 54 Altjohann 2003, 76. 55 Božič 2001. 56 Božič 2008. 57 Guštin 2006, 127. Fig. 8: Fragmentary tombstone with three portraits from Mrzlo Polje near Ivančna Gorica. From: RINMS 150. Sl. 8: Odlomek nagrobnika s tremi portreti iz Mrzlega Polja pri Ivančni Gorici. Iz: RINMS 150. of local dark grey limestone with three portraits (the inscribed field is not preserved), from Mrzlo Polje near Ivančna Gorica. This monument, too, is kept in the National Museum of Slovenia (fig. 8).58 The faces are depicted in an unusual manner, reminiscent of the famous Celtic tete-coupee, they are elongated, with proportionally far too long jaws, cut below the chin horizontally. The portraits are of rustic but high quality workmanship, showing distinctive traits of the indigenous population, not unlike some of the portraits on tombstones from the Ig area (the territory of Emona). Particularly characteristic is also the hairstyle of the two deceased men, which is similar to that of Cernunnos on the Gundestrup cauldron.59 The figure of Actaeon as it is represented on the right side panel of the tombstone from Bela Krajina is clear enough and leaves no doubt as to its attribution. The two scenes from his myth on the left side of the tombstone are much more difficult to interpret; indeed, if they were found on their own, it would most probably be impossible to explain them in a plausible way. In combination with the Actaeon figure on the right, however, the upper scene on the left could represent Actaeon while hunting, whereas in the lower scene Artemis/Diana could be identified in the central female figure, perhaps trying to pick up her dress. Of the other two figures the one on the left may be Actaeon who sees her, and the other perhaps a Nymph who tries to protect her. The scene is depicted clumsily and could allow for other interpretations. It is also 58 RINMS 150 = ILSl 101. 59 Djuric 2007. possible that the scenes on the left have no relation to the depiction of the Actaeon on the right. As mentioned above, Petru mistakenly saw in it a scene of human sacrifice and found an analogy for it in the scene on a tombstone from Rogatec in Slovenian Styria (fig. 9).60 As for the Bela Krajina tombstone, the same is true of this depiction: human sacrifice that would reflect a real ritual act could by no means be represented on a Roman tombstone.61 Consequently this explanation is a priori erroneous, and the scene must again be interpreted in terms of Graeco-Roman mythology. The Rogatec monument is now kept in the Joan-neum in Graz and should be explained as a part of a tombstone, with a primitive depiction of Thetis holding her son Achilles by his heels and bathing him in the river Styx to make him immortal.62 60 Petru 1961, 38, Pl. 4. 2; Saria 1939, 54; cf. ANSI 288. See now Hudeczek 2004, 26-27 no. 5. 61 See also Schober 1930, 38. 62 As was correctly recognized by Saria 1939, 54. Fig. 9: Thetis bathing her son Achilles in the river Styx. From: Hudeczek 2004, 26-27 no. 5. Sl. 9: Tetida namaka sina Ahila v reki Stiks. Iz: Hudeczek 2004, 26-27 št. 5. Abbreviations AIJ = V. Hoffüler, B. Saria, Antike Inschriften aus Jugoslavien, Heft I: Noricum und Pannonia Superior, Zagreb 1938. ANSl = Arheološka najdišča Slovenije [Archaeological Sites of Slovenia], Ljubljana 1975. CSIR = Corpus signorum imperii romani. ILSl = M. Lovenjak, Inscriptiones Latinae Sloveniae 1: Neviodunum (Situla 37), Ljubljana 1998. LIMC = Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae. RINMS = M. Šašel Kos, The Roman Inscriptions in the National Museum of Slovenia / Lapidarij Narodnega muzeja Slovenije (Situla 35), Ljubljana 1997. ALTJOHANN, M. 2003, Cernunnos-Darstellungen in den gallischen und germanischen Provinzen. - In: P. Noelke et al. (eds.), Romanisation und Resistenz in Plastik, Architektur und Inschriften der Provinzen des Imperium Romanum. Neue Funde und Forschungen, 67-79, Mainz am Rhein. BAUCHHENSS, G. 1984, Apollo und Cernunnos. - In: LIMC II 1, 464. BLÄZQUEZ, J. M. 1988, Cernunnos. - In: LIMC IV 1, 839-844; IV 2, 560-563. BOŽIČ, D. 2001, Ljudje ob Krki in Kolpi v latenski dobi (Zur latenezeitlichen Bevölkerung an Krka und Kolpa). - Arheološki vestnik 52, 181-198. BOŽIČ, D. 2008, Late La Tene-Roman cemetery in Novo mesto. Ljubljanska cesta and Okrajno glavarstvo. Studies on fibulae and on the relative chronology of the Late La Tene period / Poznolatensko-rimsko grobišče v Novem mestu. Ljubljanska cesta in Okrajno glavarstvo. Študije o fibulah in o relativni kronologiji pozne latenske dobe. -Katalogi in monografije 39, Ljubljana. BRUNAUX, J.-L. 2006, La religion. Les donnees de la Gaule du Nord. - In: M. Szabo (ed.), Celtes et Gaulois, l'Archeologie face a l'Histoire 3 : les Civilises et les Barbares (du V au IIe siecle avant J.-C.). - Bibracte 12/3, 205-220, Glux-en-Glenne. CONZE, A. 1875, Römische Bildwerke einheimischen Fundorts in Österreich. II Heft: Sculpturen in Pettau und St. Martin am Pacher. - Wien. DE VRIES, J. 1961, Keltische Religion. - Die Religionen der Menschheit 18, Stuttgart. DEYTS, S. and S. VENAULT 2004, Un Cernunnos et un Sucellus decouverts a Mirebeau-sur-Beze (Cöte-d'Or). -Latomus 63/2, 388-393. DJURIC, B. 2007, Predrimske forme na nagrobniku iz Mrzlega Polja pri Ivančni Gorici [Pre-Roman elements on the tombstone from Mrzlo Polje near Ivančna Gorica]. - In: M. Blečic et al. (eds.), Scripta praehistorica in honorem Biba Teržan, Situla 44, 895-902, Ljubljana. DUVAL, P.-M. 1958 = 1989, "Teutates, Esus, Taranis". - In: Id., Travauxsur la Gaule (1946-1986) I-II, Collection de l'Ecole fran^aise de Rome 116, 275-287, Rome (= Etudes celtiques 8/1, 1958, 42-58). ERDELYI, G. 1974, A romai kofaragas es köszobräszat magyarorszägon. - Budapest. ESPERANDIEU, E. 1911, Recueil general des bas-reliefs, statues et bustes de la Gaule romaine IV. - Paris. ESPERANDIEU, E. 1913, Recueil general des bas-reliefs, statues et bustes de la Gaule romaine V. - Paris. EUSKIRCHEN, M. 1997, s.v. Cernunnos. - In: Der Neue Pauly 2, 1075. FERRI, S. 1933, Arte romana sul Danubio. - Biblioteca della Rivista Historia del "Popolo d'Italia" N. 3, Milano. FREY, O.-H. 2007a, Die Erscheinungsform keltischer Götter in vorrömischer Zeit. - In: H. Birkhan (ed.), Kelten-Einfälle an der Donau, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 345, 203-212, Wien. FREY, O.-H. 2007b, Keltische Kunst in vorrömischer Zeit. -Kleine Schriften aus dem Vorgesch. Seminar Marburg 57, Marburg. GLASER, F. 1997, Die Skulpturen des Stadtgebietes von Teurnia. - CSIR Österreich II/6, Wien. GLEIRSCHER, P. 2008, Menschen- und Tieropfer aus der Durezza-Schachthöhle über Warmbad Villach. - In: E. Lauermann, P. Trebsche (eds.), Heiligtümer der Druiden. Opfer und Rituale bei den Kelten, 142-153, Asparn/Zaya. GRASSL, H. 1982, Arrian im Donauraum. - Chiron 12, 245-252. GUIMOND, L. 1981, Aktaion. - In: LIMC I 1, 454-469; I 2, 346-363. GUŠTIN, M. 2006, Zu einigen Figuralmotiven im Gebiet der Taurisker. - In: W.-R. Teegen et al. (eds.), Studien zur Lebenswelt der Eisenzeit, Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 53, 115-131, Berlin, New York. HACHMANN, R. 1990, Gundestrup-Studien. Untersuchungen zu den spätkeltischen Grundlagen der frühgermanischen Kunst. - Bericht der Römisch-germanischen Kommission 71/2, 565-903. HAINZMANN, M. and E. POCHMARSKI 1994, Die römerzeitlichen Inschriften und Reliefs von Schloss Seggau bei Leibnitz. - Graz. HATT, J.-J. 1989, Mythes et dieux de la Gaule: 1. Les grandes divinites masculines. - Paris. HOFENEDER, A. 2005, Die Religion der Kelten in den antiken literarischen Zeugnissen. Bd. I: Von den Anfängen bis Caesar. - Wien. HOFENEDER, A. 2008, Die Religion der Kelten in den antiken literarischen Zeugnissen. Bd. II: Von Cicero bis Florus. - Wien. HUDECZEK, E. 2004, Die Römersteinsammlung des Landesmuseums Joanneum. Ein Führer durch das Lapidarium. - Graz. KASTELIC, J. 1998, Simbolika mitov na rimskih nagrobnih spomenikih: Šempeter v Savinjski dolini (Sepulchral Symbolism of the Mythological Imagery on Roman Tomb Monuments: Šempeter in the Valley of Savinja). - Ljubljana. KOCH, G. 1993, Sarkophage der römischen Kaiserzeit. -Darmstadt. KRIŽ, B. 2009, Mlajša železna doba (The Late Iron Age). -In: B. Križ, P. Stipančic, A. Škedelj Petrič, Arheološka podoba Dolenjske / The archaeological image of Dolenjska, 141-159, Novo mesto. LACY, L. R. 1990, Aktaion and a Lost "Bath of Artemis". -Journal of Hellenic Studies 110, 26-42. LAJOYE, P. 2008, Un monstre gaulois: Cernunnos, le dieu aux bois de cerf. - In: d'Encarna^äo, J. (ed.), Divinidades indigenas em anälise. Divinites pre-romaines - bilan et perspectives d'une recherche (Actas do VII workshop FERCAN Cascais 2006), Coimbra, Porto, 165-172. LOVENJAK, M. 2008, Rimski nagrobniki iz Črnomlja (Die römischen Grabsteine aus Črnomelj). - In: J. Weiss (ed.), Črnomaljski zbornik, 75-97, Črnomelj. MAIER, B. 2006, The religion of the Celts as an object for the comparative study of religions. - In: S. Rieckhoff (ed.), Celtes et Gaulois, l'Archeologie face a l'Histoire 1 : Celtes et Gaulois dans l'histoire, l'historiographie et l'ideologie moderne, Bibracte 12/1, 57-62, Glux-en-Glenne. MILICEVIC BRADAČ, M. 2002, Of deer, antlers, and shamans. - In: Znakovi i riječi / Signa et litterae, 7-41, Zagreb. PAPAZOGLU, F. 1978, The Central Balkan Tribes in Pre-Roman Times. Triballi, Autariatae, Dardanians, Scordisci and Moesians. - Amsterdam. PETRU, P. 1961, Cernunnos v Sloveniji (Cernunnos in Slowenien). - In: Arheološke študije / Varia archaeologica, Situla 4, 31-48, Ljubljana. PICCOTTINI, G. 1996, Aesus. - Carinthia I 186, 97-103. SANIE, S. 1987, Ein inschriftenloser Altar mit Reliefs von Sucidava. - Germania 65/1, 215-221. SARIA, B. 1939, Archaeologische Karte von Jugoslavien: Blatt Rogatec. - Zagreb. SCHERRER, P. 2004, Taranis im Donauraum? - Überlegungen zu lokalen Gottheiten in Noricum und Pannonien. - In: Festschrift Gerhard Winkler zum 70. Geburtstag, Jahrbuch des Oberösterreichischen Musealvereines. Gesellschaft für Landeskunde 149, 91-108, Linz. SCHOBER, A. 1930, Zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der provinzialrömischen Kunst. - Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 26, 9-52. SCHRETTLE, B. 2007, Romanisation im südöstlichen Noricum. Das Heiligtum auf dem Frauenberg und die Herausbildung einer norisch-römischen Provinzialkul-tur. - Römisches Österreich 30, 107-128. ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 1999, Pre-Roman Divinities of the Eastern Alps and Adriatic. - Situla 38, Ljubljana. TIEFENGRABER, G. 1998, Ein spätlatenezeitliches Heiligtum am Frauenberg bei Leibnitz? - In: Die Zeit der Kelten, Schild von Steier, Kleine Schriften 18, 43-54, Graz. UBL, H. 1979, Die Skulpturen des Stadtgebietes von Aelium Cetium. - CSIR Österreich I/6, Wien. VÄRHELYI, Z. 2007, The Specters of Roman Imperialism: The Live Burials of Gauls and Greeks at Rome. - Classical Antiquity 26/2, 277-304. WISSOWA, G. 1916-1919, Interpretatio Romana. Römische Götter im Barbarenlande. - Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 19, 1-49. ZWICKER, I. 1934, Fontes historiae religionis Celticae. Fontes historiae religionum ex auctoribus Graecis et Latinis collecti V 1. - Berolini. Cernunos v Sloveniji? Povzetek V lapidariju Narodnega muzeja Slovenije je na ogled rimskodobni nagrobnik s sedmimi portreti v dveh poljih, ki je bil zelo verjetno najden v Črnomlju v Beli Krajini, kot kažejo podobne stele s tega najdišča. Okvirno ga je mogoče datirati v 2. ali začetek 3. stoletja po Kr. Na obeh stranskih ploskvah so poškodovani in slabo vidni reliefi, na desni je upodobljena moška figura z rogovjem na glavi, ki jo napada pes, na levi pa v zgornjem polju jezdec s kopjem, spodaj pa tri figure, od katerih je srednja ženska. Pred njo stoji moški s kopjem v roki, za njo pa oseba, ki je ni mogoče pobliže opredeliti. Peter Petru je reliefe razložil kot upodobitev keltskega boga Cernuna, ki so ga značilno upodabljali z rogovjem na glavi. Reliefe na levi strani pa je interpretiral kot kultno žrtvovanje človeka, ki je bilo značilno za keltsko religijo v predrimskem času, ohranilo pa naj bi se še v rimski čas. Če so v dobi republike v Rimu ob izjemnih prilikah in zgolj v času vojne žrtvovali človeka, pa je bilo od Avgusta dalje žrtvovanje človeka strogo prepovedano. Zato nikakor ni mogoče, da bi tak prizor na rimskem nagrobniku odražal ritual, ki bi ga tedaj dejansko izvajali. Na nagrobnikih so bile v tem času največkrat upodobljene različne epizode iz grške mitologije, od prizorov iz Iliade in trojanske vojne, do scen iz mitoloških zgodb o grško-rimskih bogovih in herojih. Nekaj reliefov prikazuje tudi zgodbo o Aktajonu, ki je na lovu v gozdu ob jezeru zagledal boginjo Artemido/Diano golo pri kopeli. Boginja je to smatrala za svetoskrunstvo in ga kaznovala tako, da ga je spremenila v jelena, ki so ga napadli lastni psi in ga raztrgali. Obstaja več različic te mitološke zgodbe, v katerih je na različen način razloženo, zakaj se je to zgodilo, čeprav prevladuje mnenje, da naj bi Aktajon na boginjo naletel zgolj slučajno; gre torej za tragično usodo junaka in neizogibnost smrti. Prizor, kako Aktajona, ki mu že raste rogovje na glavi in ga napadata en ali dva psa, je upodobljen na več nagrobnih spomenikih v Noriku in Panoniji, med drugim tudi v Petovioni, kar morda kaže, da je bil ta motiv v tem prostoru priljubljen. Marjeta Šašel Kos Inštitut za arheologijo Znanstvenoraziskovalnega centra SAZU Novi trg 2 SI-1000 Ljubljana mkos@zrc-sazu.si The worship of Savus and Nemesis in Andautonia Ivan KNEZOVIČ Izvleček Abstract Oltar, posvečen rečnemu bogu Savusu, in kamnita plošča z reliefom Nemeze, oba iz Andavtonije (zdaj Ščitarjevo blizu Zagreba), pričata o kultih v tem rimskem mestu in osvetljujeta njegovo topografijo. Najdišče oltarja, ki ga je Savusu dal postaviti Mark Juencij Primigenij s svojimi družabniki (socii), je mogoče povezati s krajem, kjer je bilo zelo verjetno andavtonijsko pristanišče. Sklepamo lahko, da so Savusu postavljali spomenike predvsem prevozniki blaga in trgovci in da je bila plovba po Savi do Siscije mestoma nevarna; Andavtonija je bila pomembna postojanka na rečni poti, ki je povezovala Donavo z Ljubljanico. Spomenik z reliefom Nemeze, ki je upodobljena tudi z atributi Diane, pa dokazuje, da so v Andavtoniji organizirali gladiatorske igre in borbe z divjimi živalmi. Posvetitelj Julij Viktorin, ki je bil bodisi veteran bodisi član municipalne aristokracije, je morda sodeloval pri njihovi organizaciji. Ključne besede: Andautonia, rimsko cesarstvo, Savus, Nemeza, topografija, rimsko pristanišče, amfiteater, zagrebško območje Two monuments from Andautonia, present-day Ščitarjevo near Zagreb, provide evidence of the cults attested at the Roman town and serve as guidelines to its topography: an altar dedicated to the river deity Savus and a stele with the relief of the goddess Nemesis. The position where the altar dedicated to Savus was found and the content of the inscription indicate the possible location of the town's river-port. Monuments dedicated to Savus found along the river are associated with the profession of travellers seeking the protection of the river deity in their business ventures. The find from Andautonia attests to the role of the town in river traffic in Roman times. The depiction of Nemesis on a stele not only supports the conjecture of gladiatorial combats in Andautonia held in venues specifically assigned for such events, but also suggests other aspects of the worship of Nemesis in Andautonia and testifies to the great importance of her cult. Inscriptions on both monuments provide additional information about the people and social groups connected with the cults of Savus and Nemesis in Andautonia. Keywords: Andautonia, Roman Empire, Savus, Nemesis, topography, Roman port, amphitheatre, Zagreb region Long before any kind of systematic research was done, many archaeological finds, including some significant stone monuments, were discovered in the area of Andautonia (fig. 1). A stone altar dedicated to the river deity Savus was found in 1870 in a Sava oxbow near Ščitarjevo.1 A marble slab inscribed on both sides was discovered in the mid 18th century in Petrovina Turopoljska near Velika Gorica. An honorary inscription to Lucius Funisulanus Vettonianus, an Andautonian patron, was engraved on one side, and a relief dedicated to the goddess Nemesis with a votive inscription below it was depicted on the other.2 At the end of the 19th century, both monuments were transferred 1 CIL III, 4009; AIJ 475; Degmedžič 1957, 103; the dimensions: height 56 cm, width 36 cm, depth 21 cm. 2 CIL III, 4008, 4013; AIJ 475, 479; ILS 3908/9; Degmedžič 1957, 96-101. Fig. 1: Ščitarjevo and the archaeological park. Aerial view from the north (Archaeological Museum in Zagreb, photo D. Nemeth-Ehrlich). Sl. 1: Ščitarjevo in arheološki park. Zračni posnetek s severa (Arheološki muzej v Zagrebu, foto D. Nemeth-Ehrlich). to the National Museum in Zagreb, the precursor of today's Archaeological Museum in Zagreb, where they are currently preserved. 1. THE WORSHIP OF THE DEITY SAVUS The dedication to Savus from Andautonia reads: ......SAVO-AVG(usto) ......SAC(rum) ......M(arcus) IVENTIVS ......PRIMIGENIV(s) 5 .....EJT-SOCI V(otum)- S(olverunt)L(ibentes M(erito). In translation: Dedicated to Savus Augustus. Marcus Iuentius Primigenius with associates, fulfilled his vow willingly and deservedly. To date, eight inscriptions dedicated to the river god Savus were found in the Sava River basin along the watercourse from the area around Litija in Slovenia to Sisak in Croatia (ancient Siscia), including the one from Andautonia (fig. 2).3 The others are a limestone altar found in the Sava River bed at Vernek near Litija and a lead curse tablet 3 Šašel Kos 1994, 99-102 Fig. 2: Altar dedicated to Savus from the Savišce oxbow near Ščitarjevo, presently in the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb (Archaeological Museum in Zagreb, photo I. Krajcar). Sl. 2: Savusu posvečen oltar iz Savišca, starega savskega rečnega korita pri Ščitarjevu (Arheološki muzej v Zagrebu, foto I. Krajcar). found during the dredging of the Kupa River bed in Sisak.4 Five altars were dedicated to Savus as well as to Adsalluta. They probably originate from the site of Škarje in the hamlet of Sava near the village of Podkraj, close to Hrastnik.5 Roman period river names in these regions are mainly masculine such as the Dravus and Danubius, as is also the Latin name for the river, fluvius, while the present-day river name of the Savus is feminine, the Sava. The gentilicium luentius is known in this form from Salona.6 The family probably originated from northern Italy, later moving to Dalmatia and Pannonia; they were most probably tradesmen. The associates of luentius (socii) were probably business partners, or companions, in a business venture or association.7 The monument dates to the 2nd or 3rd century AD.8 Scholars were mostly interested in the nature of the business in which Primigenius and his companions were engaged. Viktor Hoffiller believed the altar was erected by members of the fishermen's guild (AIJ 475). Otto Hirschfeld presumed it was raised by customs officers leasing the customs duty (CIL III 4009), but Andautonia was far from the border. Ivica Degmedžic suggested the customs station (portorium) in Siscia, or a station along the road Siscia - Poetovio, possibly a border from the earlier period.9 However, as the dedication to Adsalluta (AIJ 26) from the sanctuary near Podkraj, mentioning helmsmen, may suggest, it seems more likely to connect the altar dedicated to Savus to navigation, transport, or trade on the Sava River (fig. 3).10 This is further indicated by the position where the monument was found. It seems that the Roman port was located at Savišce, a present-day Sava oxbow, approximately 800 m southeast from Andautonia. Here, a former meander brought the river closest to the town, creating favourable conditions for a port (fig. 4). In the mid-20th century, a possible layout of buildings or port devices was visible on the surface of the terrain at Savišce.11 4 CIL III 3896 = RINMS 95 (Vernek); curse tablet: AIJ 557; Marco Simon, Roda de Llanza 2008, 167-198. 5 Šašel Kos 1994, 103-104. 6 Brunšmid 1905, 140; Degmedžic 1957, 103. 7 Mocsy 1959, 23. Cf. Manigk 1925, 772-773 8 Rendic-Miočevic 1994, 131-132. 9 Degmedžic 1957, 103; on the importance of the Sis- cian portorium see Dobo 1968, 185. 1° AIJ 26; Šašel Kos 1994, 100-102. " Vikic-Belančic 1981, 129-130; PUMN I, graphical presentation 4. Fig. 3: Altar dedicated to Adsalluta (AIJ 26, drawing), found in secondary use at Šentjur na Polju. Sl. 3: Adsaluti posvečen oltar (AIJ 26, risba), najden v sekundarni legi v Šentjurju na Polju. Trial excavations on a small scale have not produced the expected results so far, since the area investigated was too small.12 The cult of Savus was limited to the upper course of the Sava to Siscia, associated with the Celtic people of the Taurisci,13 who formerly dwelt in this area (Pliny, N. h. III 131). At the end of prehistory, before the arrival of the Romans and also during Roman rule, the Taurisci controlled most of the fluvial navigation. It seems that Adsalluta was a local deity, worshipped at the site of the sanctuary of Savus and Adsalluta at the hamlet of Sava near Podkraj, situated above the dangerous rapids in the Sava River,14 and between waterfalls such as the ones 12 Trial excavation at Savišce was directed by Branka Vikic-Belančic and Marcel Gorenc from the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb in the 1980s, unpublished; Nemeth-Ehrlich, Vojvoda 1994, 41. 13 Šašel Kos 1994, 106. 14 Šašel Kos 1994; Krajšek, Stergar 2008. Fig. 4: Andautonia region: 1 Ščitarjevo - conjectured area of the Roman town, 2 Hamlet of Kutelo - possible location of the amphitheatre, 3 Savišce oxbow - conjectured location of the port on the Sava River (source: Basic state Map 1:5000, redcued 50%, Zavod za kartografiju "Geokarta", Belgrade 1966). Sl. 4: Območje Andavtonije: 1 Ščitarjevo - rimsko mesto; 2 zaselek Kutelo - možna lokacija amfiteatra; 3 staro rečno korito Savišce - možna lokacija pristanišča na Savi (vir: karta 1:5000, pomanjšana na 50 %, Geokarta, Beograd 1966). at Zidani Most, Prusnik near Zagorje, and Beli Slap between Trbovlje and Hrastnik.15 There, boatmen and merchants would erect altars dedicated to Savus and Adsalluta, or to Adsalluta alone.16 Downstream of Siscia no monuments or objects connected to the cult of Savus have been found 15 Dular 2009, 36 16 The analysis of the onomastics, social status, and ethnic origin of the dedicators of the altars suggests they were passing travellers, mostly tradesmen and their help- ers. An altar dedicated to Adsalluta is especially indicative because it mentions the helmsmen of river ships (AIJ 26). See Šašel Kos 1994, 113; cf. Fitz 1980, 164. so far. Strabo mentions a river Noarus flowing by Segestica and towards the Danube (VII 5.2 C 313-314; VII 5.12 C 318). According to the current interpretation, this could have been an older name for the Sava or a name from another language for the river. Noarus may perhaps have been an older name denoting only the lower part of the river,17 which could explain the lack of material evidence confirming the cult of Savus downstream of Sisak (Segestica/Siscia). Nevertheless, we can presume that Savus was, in a later period, worshipped along the entire course of the river, and we can expect material confirmation in the future. Since there are no rapids that would imperil navigation in the lower course of the river, we can anticipate such confirmation being found near ports and crossings like Servitium, Marsonia, or Sirmium. River shallows and bars were dangerous for navigation in summer, during low water levels in the lower Sava. Thus the cult of the river deity, a protector of navigation, could also be connected to such river sites. The starting point for navigation along the Sava was Nauportus, where on the small but navigable Ljubljanica River, vessels would load goods arriving from the Adriatic coast through the Postojna Gate.18 Such navigation took place along the Ljubljanica to the Sava, and further on towards present-day Slavonia and Syrmia, and then as far as the Danube, the border of the Empire and a waterway connecting several Roman provinces. River traffic was active in the opposite direction as well, involving the transport of various goods and products of Pannonia and other countries connected to the river network.19 This combined route had been used since prehistoric times, as can be inferred from the return route of Jason and the Argonauts from the Black Sea, such as it is described by Apollonius of Rhodes, i.e. along the Danube to the Adriatic Sea.20 Apart from ancient literary sources describing the navigation on the Sava River (notably Strabo), archaeological finds also supply important data. The remains of a river barge were found at the site of "Kovnica" in Sisak in 1985.21 Roman bricks with Siscia stamps found in Neviodunum (present-day Drnovo), provide reliable evidence of heavy cargo transport upstream along the Sava.22 A boat loaded with scrap bronze objects was found in the Kupa River at Kobilic Pokupski, not far from Karlovac. The cargo was probably being transported to the metal foundries in Siscia.23 Evidence confirming the use of smaller rivers for navigation in Roman times, in addition to the evidence from the Ljubljanica River,24 can be derived from archaeological finds from mining and metallurgical areas in northwest Bosnia. Iron ore and ingots were transported along the Japra and Sana Rivers to the Una,25 and further on along the Sava to Siscia. The return route was used for the transport of bricks with Siscian stamps, like the ones found in the Japra valley.26 Throughout history, upstream navigation on the Sava and other rivers was conducted with the aid of draught animals and human haulage pulling a ship or a barge from the shoreline. Downstream navigation was easier, except over dangerous rapids and waterfalls. Spring and autumn were the best seasons to navigate the Sava due to high river levels. Low water levels would make the journeys in the summer dangerous, especially over rapids, which were practically impassable in that season.27 The transport along the Sava remained more or less unchanged until the industrial revolution.28 It acquired special importance in the 18th and 19th centuries due to the increase of grain exports from Hungary and Slavonia. The grain was shipped upstream along the Sava and Kupa Rivers to Karlovac, where it was transferred to carts, and transported to the ports of Senj and Rijeka along recently opened roads.29 The other route went upstream along the Sava from Sisak to the area of Ljubljana (and even further upstream, as far as Kranj), and then by road to Trieste. The downstream route was mostly used for transporting imported goods such as sugar, coffee, and various manufactured products.30 The navigation route along the Sava towards Slavonia remained important until the construction of the railway line in the 19th century.31 The importance of Andautonia lay in its traffic position. The important Roman road Siscia - Poetovio crossed the Sava River here.32 The intersection of that road with the river transport system allowed the loads to be transferred from river vessels to carts or draught animals and vice versa, thus allowing various loads to be transported by road 18 Horvat, Mušič 2007; Istenič 2009. 19 See Strabo IV 6.10 C 207. 20 Šašel Kos 1994, 106. 21 Šaric 1986a, 28-29. 22 Petru 1990, 90; Durman 1992, 127. 23 Šaric 1986b. 24 Turk et al. 2009. 25 Downstream of Dubica on the Una, 97 iron ingots with an average weight of 4.4 kg were found. These finds also confirm the route of the Roman waterway: Durman 1992, 127; Durman 2002, 28-29. 26 Basler 1975-1976, pl. XVII/3; Durman 1992, 127. 27 Dular 2009, 40. 28 Planinc 1914, 123-126; Šašel Kos 1994, 110-111; Dular 2009, 40; Šašel Kos 2009, 47-49. 29 Karaman 1989, 65-69. 30 Planinc 1914, 123-126; Šašel Kos 1994, 110-111. 31 The construction of the railway line Zidani Most -Sisak in 1862 is especially important. At this point the river traffic upstream of Sisak, where goods were transferred to the railways, was reduced (Karaman 1972, 47-48). 32 Klemenc documented remains of the wooden bridge supports at Ščitarjevo: Klemenc 1938, 108. Fig. 5: The Sava River basin in the Andautonian region with topographical features marked. Sl. 5: Porečje Save, območje Andavtonije s topografsko pomembnimi točkami. to Poetovio, and further on to Carnuntum and the Danube limes. The goods from the northern provinces and areas outside the borders could arrive from the opposite direction, such as amber from the Baltic regions. At this site the former town lies on a naturally elevated position protecting it from floods, which also allowed the river to be crossed. The opposite river bank also had an elevated part near the present-day Ivanja Reka and Jelkovac. In cold and rainy seasons, the river would flood the surrounding lower terrain, creating a wide flooded area difficult to cross. The elevated parts allowed the road to pass through an area safe from the high Sava waters, since only the elevations were dry and passable and could provide access to the actual river bed, the location for a ferry or a bridge. Low-lying river banks and the fact that the river bed was higher than the surrounding areas made it impossible to cross the Sava downstream of Andautonia all the way to Siscia. This hydrological phenomenon was caused by the deceleration of the river flow and alluvial sedimentation in the riverbed. This is the reason why the Sava has no tributaries from the Zagreb area33 all the way to Sisak and the Kupa confluence (fig. 5). All the water from the right bank, from Turopolje onwards, is collected by the Odra, which flows into the Kupa just before Sisak. From the left bank, the water goes to the Lonja River, with its confluence into the Sava only twenty kilometres downstream of Sisak. In winter and spring, the flooded Sava waters in the area between the Odra and Lonja Rivers would create a ten kilometre wide floodplain zone very difficult to ford.34 A similar water regime existed until the modern regulation of the Sava River in the 20th century. The wider Zagreb area is distinguished by another hydrological phenomenon. After leaving its narrow valley near Krško, the Sava gradually turns from a typical mountain river with a fast flow and large river-fall into a lowland river. The large river-fall (around 3.6 m/km - altitude metres per linear kilometre of the river flow) extends to a place called Rugvica, a few kilometres downstream of Ščitarjevo (fig. 5). Further downstream, the river-fall is around 0.04 m/km.35 To this point of Rugvica, the river has mostly accumulated a post-Pleistocene thick gravel layer with larger sand grains, and with smaller sand grains with clay layers downstream. 33 Vugrov potok at Resnik is the Sava's final left tributary, and the smaller tributary at Lučko is a final right tributary. 34 Durman 1992, 118-120 35 Šterc 1979, 47-49; ZL II, 291-292. This is the reason why Rugvica is sometimes considered the point where the Sava becomes a lowland river.36 For several decades, this spot has been planned as the site of a modern river port for the city of Zagreb, receiving ships of the standard Sava size.37 This crucial point of the course of the river Sava and its navigation is located within the municipal territory of Andautonia. The above suggests another aspect of activities in the port of Andautonia. The cargo would not only have been transferred between land and river routes, but also within water routes themselves; from larger ships to smaller ones suitable for upstream navigation along the faster and more dangerous Sava. This would have been particularly useful for the upstream transport of heavier loads, such as grains from Pannonia, iron products, and building material from Siscian workshops and factories. The cargo would have been reloaded from larger to smaller ships appropriate for the upper course of the river, shipping goods from Italy and the Alpine provinces. The larger river ships that were emptied could load these goods and transport them downstream to their departure ports. Andautonia, at a significant intersection and an important point in Sava traffic, was a place where many river boatmen, road transporters, tradesmen and travellers would linger. A safe trip crossing dangerous points was believed to have depended on the benevolence of Savus, who was worshipped along the waterway. Marcus Iuentius Primigenius, a tradesman or a ship-owner, along with his business associates, probably raised the altar in the Andautonia port because their journey, or a business venture, was successful. It is likely that Marcus Iuentius Primigenius was an inhabitant of Andautonia, but we cannot exclude the possibility that he was a foreign merchant who erected the altar to the local divinity. Fig. 6: Marble slab with an honorific inscription to the senator L. Funisulanus Vettonianus from Petrovina Turopoljska, presently in the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb (Archaeological Museum in Zagreb, photo I. Krajcar). Sl. 6: Marmorna plošča s počastitvenim napisom senatorju Luciju Funisulanu Vetonianu iz Petrovine Turopoljske (Arheološki muzej v Zagrebu, foto I. Krajcar). was erased as a result of damnatio memoriae after his murder in 96 AD (CIL III, 4013; AIJ 479). In the second half of the 2nd century or in the 3rd century AD, the other side of the stele was used as a votive monument to Nemesis (fig. 7).38 Currently, this is the earliest inscription giving evidence of municipal rank, and the only one specifically calling Andautonia a municipium. It reads as follows: 2. NEMESIS AND ANDAUTONIA A relief of the goddess Nemesis with an inscription (CIL III, 4008; AI] 475) was engraved on a marble slab inscribed on both sides. The older honorary inscription to Lucius Funisulanus Vettonianus (fig. 6), an Andautonian patron, was erected at the end of the 1st century AD, during the reign of the emperor Domitian, whose name 36 Ridanovic 1993, 173; ZL II, 291-292. 37 Ilic 1993, 203-211; ZL II, 291-292. [D(eae) ] NEM(esi) REG(inae) AVG (ustae) SAC(rum) ...] IVL(ius) VICTORINVS VE[(teranus?)] [D(ecurio)] MVN(icipi) AND(autoniae) CVM SVIS V(otum) S(olvit) L(ibens) M(erito).39 In translation: Dedicated to Nemesis Regina Augusta^Iulius Victorinus, veteran, decurio (or citizen) of the 38 Rendič-Miočevic 1994, 117-119; Degmedžic 1957, 101. 39 The monument dimensions: height 85.9 cm, weight 63 cm, depth 13 cm Fig. 7: The marble Nemesis monument from Petrovina Turopoljska, presently in the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb (Archaeological Museum in Zagreb, photo I. Krajcar). Sl. 7: Marmorna plošča z upodobitvijo Nemeze iz Petrovine Turopoljske (Arheološki muzej v Zagrebu, foto I. Krajcar). municipality of Andautonia, with his (family?), fulfilled his vow willingly and deservedly. Monument recycling was rather frequent in antiquity. If there was a lack of stone or a monument carved on a rare stone of high quality became unsuitable or obsolete, it would be given a new purpose. The original content could remain in its place if the new user decided it would not obstruct the purpose of the new monument. In this case, the monument dedicated to Nemesis would be compatible with the one to Funisulanus, and the stele would be visible from both sides. The manner in which the name of Domitian was erased suggests that the inhabitants of Andautonia wanted to preserve the inscription to Funisulanus since it must have had great importance for the community. Another possibility is that the inscription with the erased emperor's name served its purpose until the monument to Nemesis was engraved. Then the Funisulanus inscription may have become obsolete; a century or even more had passed from its placement. The memorial to Funisulanus survived probably because the person ordering the monument or the stonemason knew the new monument would be embedded in or leant against a wall, therefore removing the old inscription was not necessary. The upper three quarters of the Nemesis monument contain an image of the goddess, which is placed in the aedicule with a vault which has an arch leant against the stylized Corinthian capitals of the pilasters framing the relief from both ends. The right pilaster with a capital is well preserved, while the left is damaged so only an outline of a capital can be distinguished. Nemesis is standing dressed in a short sleeveless chiton fastened with a circular plate fibula on each shoulder, and girded with a belt tied in a knot below the breasts. She is wearing boots.40 It is the way the belt is girded that has led some authors to the conclusion that Nemesis is here identified with Diana.41 The image of the goddess is rather clumsy in proportion, with a thick body and limbs and an oversized head. The hair with exuberant locks combed to the back can be seen on both sides of her face, with a parting in the middle. The hair is additionally decorated with a diadem on the top, also an attribute of Diana. The goddess carries a whip and a dagger (or a short sword) in her right hand, both turned upwards. The left arm is covered with an embossed rectangular shield with a prominent rhomboid umbo and reinforced edges. A burning torch, a palm branch and a trident all protrude above the shield. Below the shield, beside the left foot of the goddess, is an upright wheel with six spokes, and a griffin lifting its head and turning its snout towards the hand of the goddess. A bust of Sol is engraved in the upper left corner and Luna with a crescent moon upon her head on the right.42 We cannot be certain as how to read the remains of the letters that define the status of Victorinus. The older reading (CIL III, 4013) interprets the ligature at the end of the second line as VET. Brunšmid and Hoffiller explicitly claim that the letter T does not exist, which is also accepted in later scholarship.43 Nonetheless, the ligature was always interpreted as veteran. Today, we can distinguish a vertical cut after the ligature. Since earlier authors did not interpret it as a letter, the cut probably represents damage 40 Brunšmid 1905, 66. 41 Karanastassi, Rausa, de Bellefonds 1992, 766 42 Brunšmid 1905, 66; Degmedžic 1957, 100-101; Rendič-Mločevic 1994, 118. 43 Brunšmid 1905, 65-66; AIJ 479; Degmedžič 1957, 100-101; Rendič-Miočevič 1994, 118-119. Fig. 8: Relief of venatores and Diana from Teurnia, Noricum (Hornum 1993, pl. 25). Sl. 8: Relief borilcev z zvermi in Dijane iz Teurnije (Hornum 1993, pl. 25). caused by the metal clamps used to hold the monument earlier in the museum. A similar cut can be distinguished on the same edge of the monument above the capital of the right pilaster. The same ligature could perhaps also be read as the (later) title of a Roman knight (eques): v(ir) e(gregius). In either case, as a veteran or a knight, Iulius Vicotrinus was a highly respectable and honourable member of the Andautonian community. The damage at the beginning of the third line was usually interpreted as the letter D (decurio) or C (civis), i.e. a member of a municipal council or an ordinary citizen.44 Suis stands for people who were subordinates to Iulius Victorinus, as opposed to equal companions or associates (socii). The identity of this group is hard to resolve. They could have been slaves, servants, protegees, or members of his family. During the development of the cult of Nemesis, the Classical Greek goddess of righteous retribution assumed many meanings and attributes. The attribute personifications of Faith and Justice (Dike and Tyche) remained the core of the cult. Nemesis was also frequently depicted on the reverse of Roman coins as Pax Nemesis. As such, she was worshipped by army commanders, and was also the patroness of training fields as Nemesis Campestris. She also appears as the protectress of cities, most probably due to her relation to Tyche and Fortuna. In Imperial Rome, the cult of Nemesis was mostly connected to the amphitheatre games and their participants, gladiatores and venatores.45 Such is also the case of our monument, as is indicated by the attributes of the goddess. The shield, the dagger (or a short sword), and a trident are unquestionably attributes of gladiators. A trident is an assault weapon of the retiarii, gladiators using a net for defence, hence their name. A short sword and a shield were used by two kinds of gladiators: the Thracian and the Samnite (Thraex and Samnes). A whip and a torch are characteristic attributes of venatores, hunters and animal fighters in Roman games. A torch also symbolizes the power of the punishment, while a palm branch denotes victory.46 It is likely that the identification of Nemesis with Diana, the goddess of the hunt, was present because of the venatorial events such as hunting and animal taming (fig. 8). The wheel symbolizes ever-changing faith and fortune, and is considered an attribute of Tyche and Fortuna. The griffin, symbolizing strength and power, helps Nemesis to bring peace and maintain order in the state.47 Brunšmid 1905, 66-67. 45 On Nemesis in general, see Hornum 1993. 46 Hornum 1993, 67. 47 Rossbach 1902, 158; Hornum 1993, 31-32. There is another link between Nemesis and gladiatorial and venatorial spectacles. Criminals, war prisoners and fugitive slaves were punished during the games in fights with animals, i.e. order was restored and justice administered. In this case, the authority of Nemesis as a protectress of gladiatorial and venatorial fights (munus and venatio) could interweave with her role as protectress of justice and order, where helped by a griffin. It seems that the authority of Nemesis over maintaining order in the state was the reason her shrines were erected at the sites of games in amphitheatres. Here, the goddess was an ally of the state in righteous punishment.48 Monuments and altars dedicated to Nemesis were raised throughout the Roman Empire. Most often she was worshipped alongside amphitheatres, hippodromes, stadia, and theatres.49 The shrines in the vicinity of such facilities are of three different kinds. The first is an independent structure in the shape of a smaller temple. It is restricted to the cities of three Danube provinces, Noricum, Pannonia and Dacia: Flavia Solva, Aquincum, Carnuntum, Sarmizegetusa.50 The second type is a separated room for the cult, and the third is a designated space (usually a niche) in amphitheatres or other venues of gladiatorial or venatorial games. These shrines were distributed over the then entire Roman Empire. They were discovered in amphitheatres in Noricum, Pannonia, Hispania, Africa, and Britan-nia.51 Many inscriptions and monuments dedicated to Nemesis were found outside the framework of such structures, frequently dislocated or in secondary use. In Croatia, traces of the cult of Nemesis were found in amphitheatres in Salona, Pola, and perhaps in Burnum (Ivoševci).52 In Pola and Salona, the place of worship was situated in separate rooms within the amphitheatre and therefore belongs to the second kind. An altar dedicated to Nemesis was found in Daruvar, ancient Aquae Balissae (AI] 585). Our stele and the altar from Aquae Balissae 48 Hornum 1993, 88-89. 49 The original events in hippodromes, stadia, and theatres (races, athletic events, plays) were not connected to Nemesis. The cult of Nemesis was present there only because they also featured gladiatorial combats (Hornum 1993, 50-56). 50 Hornum 1993, 56-57. 51 Virunum (Gugl 2001a, Gugl 2001b), Savaria (Buocz 1994, 28-29), Scarbantia (Poczy 1980, 259). 52 Salona: Ceci 1962, 12; Pola: CIL V, 17; CIL V, 8134; CIL V, 8135; Burnum: Cambi et al. 2006, 21-23. fall outside such specific construction types and leave us uncertain of the kind they belong to. The relief of Nemesis with the described attributes indicates the presence of amphitheatre games, thus opening the possibility of an amphitheatre or a facility of similar character used for games in Andautonia. Although the monument was found in Petrovina, it can well be hypothesized that it was transported there from Andautonia and built into a medieval church. Due to its importance, the original monument raised for Lucius Funisulanus Vettonianus, an Andautonian patron, had to have been placed within the town. Most probably, the relief dedicated to Nemesis did stand there, or in the immediate vicinity. Gladiatorial games could have been organized in forum (Vitruvius V 5.2-3). In some cities, especially in communities with a Greek heritage, existing facilities such as theatres, stadia and hippodromes were used. In the east, the cult of Nemesis was confirmed in various structure types where the amphitheatre games were organized, but in the western part of the Empire so far it has been confirmed only in amphitheatres.53 Such a situation also applies to Roman Pannonia. In Andautonia, the cult of Nemesis most certainly was not connected to the theatre, stadium, or hippodrome since such facilities were quite uncommon in these parts of the Empire. Two possibilities remain: worship in an amphitheatre or in a forum. Even though we have no documented cases of worshipping Nemesis in a town forum so far, the possibility should not be excluded. In that case, it is considered that both sides of the monument could have been seen. On one side, the inscription to Funisulanus with the name of Domitian removed, as important for the community of Andautonia over a long period, and the relief of Nemesis, the protectress of games, justice and order on the other side. Consequently, both sides of the monument were important for the town and were appropriate for public space. At the time when the relief of Nemesis was made (the second half of the 2nd century, or the beginning of the 3rd century AD), Andautonia was in the period of its strongest development and spatial growth. The town was expanding in all directions, mostly towards the south, taking up a maximum space of 1000 x 400 m.54 Due to its size and importance, we can be quite certain 53 Hornum 1993, 50. 54 Nemeth-Ehrlich, Kušan-Špalj 2003, 119-120 that Andautonia had a separate facility used for gladiatorial games. In scholarship, the relief of Nemesis is considered a proof of this theory. It is assumed that the amphitheatre was made of wood (as were early amphitheatres in Italy) since it left no traces.55 The construction of wooden amphitheatres was retained even later on in European provinces rich in wood. The first amphitheatre in Carnuntum, a Roman army camp, was made of wood in the second half of the 1st century. A new one, made of stone, was constructed in its place around year 150.56 Traces of wooden construction in Andautonia are not preserved due to the nature of the material. Since merely a few remains from the earliest period of the town are preserved, we can only assume that the architecture of those times was wooden; wooden architecture in Andautonia is indicated by the traces of charred wood found during archaeological excavation at several locations in the town.57 Our monument dates to the second half of the 2nd century or the beginning of the 3rd century AD, when most facilities in Andautonia were made of stone. The amphitheatre in Andautonia would certainly have been made of stone, easily accessible from several quarries on Medvednica.58 There is no reason why the amphitheatre would have been made of wood when all other important structures were made of stone. The topography of other cities in the Roman Empire, especially those in Pannonia and the neighbouring province of Dalmatia, leads to further considerations. A large number of amphitheatres were placed outside the town walls due to lack of space. Carnuntum and Aquincum each had two amphitheatres, one for the army camp and another for the city. In both cases, the amphitheatre was outside the town walls.59 Scarbantia and Gorsium also had amphitheatres outside the town walls.60 In Salona, the amphitheatre was once again constructed outside the town walls and was only at a later period incorporated into the fortification system, while the one in Pola remained outside the town walls.61 Various sources confirm that in 351 AD, the emperor Constantius II defeated the usurper Magnentius by the walls of Mursa, at the amphitheatre outside the walls next to the southeast corner of the wall (Zosimus II 50.2). In such cases, the amphitheatres were in the vicinity of main roads leading from the town. Consequently, it can be presumed that the amphitheatre in Andautonia was located outside the town walls and outside the area of the explored remains of the town. When considering a possible location, several natural factors should be taken into account. Andautonia was expanding by following a natural elevation protected from the Sava floods, which therefore limited the town's expansion. The river is located north and east of the town, while its course underwent considerable changes over time. The terrain towards the Sava is low and prone to flooding, so it is highly unlikely that the amphitheatre was located there. The western side of the town had several streams, also making it an unsuitable location. The most favourable location was south of the town. The hamlet of Kutelo is located at that place today, also on elevated terrain protected from floods, and is separated from Ščitarjevo by a dry river bed (fig. 4). Several archaeological investigations at Kutelo have confirmed the existence of a cremation cemetery from the period between the 2nd and the 4th centuries AD, and discovered traces of the Roman road leading from Andautonia to Siscia.62 The excavations conducted so far covered a relatively small surface and no significant traces of architecture were found. The surface traces of the Roman town were erased by the intensive and long-term removal of stones used for construction purposes in Ščitarjevo, around Velika Gorica, and in Zagreb. Matija Petar Katančic, who could see the ruins of Andautonia at the end of the 18th century, mentioned outskirts of the Roman town in the present area of Kutelo and further to the south.63 Although Katančic did not identify the ruins as an amphitheatre,64 the description of a structure outside the central urban area could indicate that 55 Degmedžic 1957, 101; Poczy 1980, 255. Early amphitheatres in Italy: Meier 1894, 1960; Schneider 1918, 779. 56 Fitz 1980, 173; Hönle 1984, 157. 57 See Vikic-Belančic 1981; Vikic-Belančic, Gorenc 1984; cf. Nemeth-Ehrlich, Kušan-Špalj 2003, 123. 58 Vikic-Belančic 1981, 143; Gregl 1994, 36. 59 Szilagyi 1968, 127-128; Poczy 1980, 259; Kandler 2004, 15; Zsidi 2004, 217. 60 Gömöri 2003, 85; Fitz 2004, 203. 61 Suic 2003, 216, 225, 263-265. 62 In 1962 conducted by Branka Vikic-Belančic (Archaeological Museum in Zagreb), 1982 and 1983 conducted by Pavo Vojvoda (Turopolje Museum); Vikic-Belančic 1981, 132; Vojvoda 1997; Nemeth-Ehrlich, Kušan-Špalj 2003, 119. 63 Katančic 1795, 134. 64 Katančic was not very precise about the purpose and the function of the ruins. He identified only the town walls and the southern gate (Katančic 1795, 133-134). the town's amphitheatre might be located somewhere in this area next to the main road towards the south and Siscia. Perhaps future excavation will offer a more precise answer. Future research could be encouraged by a fairly new discovery of an amphitheatre in Virunum where, in 1999, two reliefs of Nemesis were found among the few amphitheatre remains.65 If the amphitheatre did in fact exist, our monument dedicated to Nemesis would have been placed inside or in a separate shrine close by. In that case, the inscription to Funisulanus was probably hidden by placing the monument inside the niche or immured in the shrine's walls. Due to the characteristics of the cult, Nemesis was worshipped by the gladiators and venatores themselves, as well as by other people, especially soldiers and public officials. Although it would seem likely that most dedicatory inscriptions would mention the actual participants of the amphitheatre games, the situation is quite different since soldiers, public officials, citizens, or even entire communities, such as cities, are mentioned more frequently.66 This was the case of Iulius Victorinus, if he was an ordinary citizen or a town councillor. He may have seen the goddess as a protectress of amphitheatre games and its participants, as indicated by the attributes of the goddess, but also as a patroness of the municipium of Andautonia.67 This latter role would have been especially indicative since the function of decurio gave him the right to perform public duties on behalf of the community. The town councillor (decurio) from Sarmizegetusa in Dacia is mentioned as a worshipper of Nemesis, and the decurio of Siscia is the dedicator of the altar to Nemesis from Savaria.68 Evidence of worshipping Nemesis as a protectress of the city was found in Carnuntum and Ephesus. It reflects the identification of Nemesis with Tyche/Fortuna.69 The group of people referred to by suis remains unknown. The weapons held by Nemesis are a combination of gladiatorial and venatorial weapons, therefore indicating that they might have been members, together with Victorinus, of the municipal association organizing gladiatorial and venatorial games. Some scholars connect this 65 Jernej 2000; Gugl 2001. 66 Hornum 1993, 70-74, 89. 67 Degmedžic 1957, 100-101. 68 CIL III, 13781; Hornum 1993, 73, 262; Savaria: Hornum 1993, 225.. 69 Hornum 1993, 41-42. relief of Nemesis with Diana, the protectress of hunters and hunting,70 and indeed, the purpose of venatorial games was to present hunters and hunting to urban spectators. It may be suggested that wild oxen were used in venatorial events in the Andautonian region, present-day Turopolje. Tur is an Old Slavic word for large extinct European wild cattle (Bos primigenius). The name Turopolje ("Aurochs Plain") stems from that word. The aurochs existed in this region until the end of the Middle Ages. 3. CULT MONUMENTS AS TOPOGRAPHICAL AND SOCIAL LANDMARKS Material evidence of ancient cults, one regional and the other spread throughout the entire Roman empire, imply not only the topography of the ancient town, but also shed light on the individuals and social groups worshipping them. From a strictly religious sphere, the data acquired from the monuments become referential, serving as evidence of urban and economic developments, topography and eco-history. The site of the discovery of the altar dedicated to Savus unquestionably indicates the location of the town's port on a meander of the Sava. The intersection of important water and land routes from Siscia to Poetovio gave great importance to the Andautonian port, as did the fact that this is the point where the course of the Sava becomes calmer, transforming it from a fast mountain river to a calm lowland one. The present knowledge of the cult of Savus restricts it to the upper course of the Sava to Siscia, and indeed, this part of the river is the most dangerous. However, new evidence of the cult of Savus downstream from Siscia would not be surprising. The protection of Savus was needed for a safe passage of boatmen and tradesmen along the river. Therefore, they were the main dedicators of the monuments. The Andautonian port was a suitable place to request the protection of Savus, which is confirmed by the altar erected by Marcus Iuentius Primigenius with his socii. The Nemesis monument can be regarded as evidence for amphitheatre games in Andautonia. By comparing this monument to similar ones in Pannonia and elsewhere, and analyzing the topography of Andautonia, we can conclude that there was an amphitheatre in the broader region Karanastassi, Rausa, de Bellefonds 1992, 766. of the town. The topographic factors for the location of the amphitheatre would indicate the area of Andautonia towards the south, close to the main road to Siscia.71 The cult of Nemesis was widespread across the Empire, mostly associated with gladiatorial and venatorial combats and the corresponding structures. In Pannonia, it was mostly connected with amphitheatres. Despite that fact, most dedicators were not participants of the games, but rather soldiers, town and state officials, as well as other members of communities. The two monuments under consideration also shed light on the people who raised them. Marcus Iuentius Primigenius was probably one of many who were conducting business connected to navigation on the Sava and the Andautonian port; perhaps he was a resident of the town. The cult of Nemesis and the characteristics of the relief indicate the presence of games, gladiators, and venatores. Iulius Victorinus was, as a veteran or perhaps a member of the equestrian order, a respectable citizen of Andautonia, perhaps even 71 An elevated terrain protected from floods outside the urban area can be found at the present-day hamlet of Kutelo, where Katančic described seeing the outskirts of the ancient town (Katančic 1795, 134). a decurio of the city. Data concerning the relation between this monument and gladiatorial games, possibly even an amphitheatre, suggest Nemesis as the protectress of the town. In both cases, the dedicators of these two monuments are witnesses of the dynamic development of ancient Andautonia, and its integration into the orbis Romanus in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank my main advisor, Professor Bruna Kuntic-Makvic of the Department of History at the Faculty of Arts, University of Zagreb, for her help in focusing my research, her useful references, and valuable comments. I would further like to thank Marjeta Šašel Kos, of the Institute of Archaeology in Ljubljana, for additional references and helpful suggestions. I am grateful for the excellent photographs of the Andautonian stone monuments that were kindly provided to me by Ante Rendič-Miočevic, director of the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb. I would also like to thank Jelena Marohnič, teaching assistant of the Department of History at the Faculty of Arts in Zagreb, for being so kind as to read the article and provide suggestions. My thanks also go to Željka Pleše for translating this text into English. Translation: Željka Pleše Abbreviations ARP 1980 = A. Lengyel, G. T. B. Radan (eds.), The Archaeology of Roman Pannonia, Budapest 1980. AIJ = V. Hoffüler, B. Saria, Antike Inschriften aus Jugoslavien, Heft I: Noricum und Pannonia superior, Zagreb 1938. CIL = Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum. ILS = Inscriptiones Latinae selectae. LIMC = Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae. PUMN = N. Benic-Hlebec et al., Plan uredenja manjeg naselja - Ščitarjevo, vol. I and II, Zagreb 1984. RE = Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Vitruvius = Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, Deset knjiga o arhitekturi - De architectura libri decem (transl. M. Lopac), Zagreb 1999. ZL = J. Bilic, H. Ivankovic (eds.), Zagrebački leksikon, vol. I and II, Zagreb 2006. BASLER, D. 1975-1976, Rimski metalurški pogon i naselje u dolini Japre. - Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevu 30/31, 121- 216. BRUNŠMID, J. 1905, Kameni spomenici Hrvatskoga narod-noga muzeja u Zagrebu: nastavak. - Vjesnik hrvatskoga arheološkoga društva, n. s. 8. BUÖCZ, T. 1994, Das Lapidarium des Savaria Museums. - Szombathely. CAMBI, N., M. GLAVIČIC, D. MARŠIC, Ž. MILETIC and J. ZANINOVIC 2006, Amphitheatre at Burnum: excavations: 2003 - 2005. - Šibenik. CECI, E. 1962, I monumenti pagani di Salona I. - Milano. DEGMEDŽIC, I. 1957, Sadržaj antiknih kamenih spomenika nadenih u Zagrebu i okolici. - In: Iz starog i novog Zagreba, 91-117, Zagreb. DOBÖ, Ä. 1968, Die Verwaltung der römischen Provinz Pannonien von Augustus bis Diocletianus. - Amsterdam. DULAR, J. 2009, Sava v bronasti in železni dobi. - In: Peternel 2009, 36-41. DURMAN, A. 1992, O geostrateškom položaju Siscije (On geostrategic location of Siscia). - Opuscula archaeologica 16, 117-131. DURMAN, A. 2002, Iron resources and production for the Roman frontier in Pannonia. - Historical Metallurgy 36/1, 24-32. FITZ, J. 1980, The way of life. - In: ARP 1980, 161-175. FITZ, J. 2004, Gorsium. - In: Šašel Kos, Scherrer 2004, 197-207. GÖMÖRI, J. 2003, Scarbantia. - In: Šašel Kos, Scherrer 2003, 81-92. GREGL, Z. 1994, Antičko (rimsko) razdoblje / The Classical (Roman) period. - In: Rendič-Miočevič 1994a, 33-36. GROH, S. 2005, Amphitheater in Noricum. - Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 74, 85-102. GUGL, C. 2001a, Nemesis in Virunum: Zwei neue Nemesis-Votivreliefs aus dem Amphitheater von Virunum. - Forum Archaeologiae, Zeitschrift für klassische Archäologie 18/ III/2001, http://farch.net/ [retrieved on 09. 08. 2010]. GUGL, C. 2001b, Zwei Nemesis-Votivreliefs aus dem Amphitheater von Virunum. - Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 70, 35-49. HÖNLE, A. 1984, Römische Amphitheater und Stadien: Gladiatorenkämpfe und Circusspiele. - Luzern. HORNUM, M. B. 1993, Nemesis, the Roman state and the games. - Leiden, New York, Köln. HORVAT, J. and B. MUŠIČ 2007, Nauportus, a commercial settlement between the Adriatic and the Danube. - In: M. Chiaba, P. Maggi, C. Magrini (eds.), Le Valli del Natisone e dell'Isonzo tra Centroeuropa e Adriatico. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, San Pietro al Natisone (UD) 15-16 settembre 2006, Studie e ricerche sulla Gallia Cisalpina 20, 165-174, Trieste, Roma. ILIČ, M. 1993, Riječna luka u Zagrebu. - Geografski glasnik Hrvatskog geografskog društva 55, 203-211. ISTENIČ, J. 2009, The early Roman military route along the river Ljubljanica (Slovenija). - In: A. Morillo, N. Hanel, E. Martin (eds.), Limes XX. XXth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. Leon 2006, Anejos de Gladius 13/1, 855-865, Madrid. JERNEJ, R. 2000, Ausgrabungen im Amphitheater von Virunum 1998 - 2000. - Forum Archaeologiae. Zeitschrift für klassische Archäologie 17/XII, http://farch.net/ [retrieved on 09. 08. 2010]. JONES, A. H. M. 1964, The Later Roman Empire, 284-602: A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey. - Baltimore. KANDLER, M. 2004, Carnuntum. - In: Šašel Kos, Scher-rer 2004, 11-66. KARAMAN, I. 1972, Privreda i društvo Hrvatske u 19. st. - Zagreb. KARAMAN, I. 1989, Privredni život banske Hrvatske od 1700. do 1850. - Zagreb. KARANASTASSI, P., F. RAUSA and L. M. A. LINANT DE BELLEFONDS 1992, Nemesis. - In: LIMC VI/1, 733-782. KATANČIČ, M. P. 1795, Specimen philologiae etgeographiae Pannoniorum in quo de origine lingua et literatura Croatorum, simul de Sisciae, Andautonii, Nevioduni, Poetovionis urbium in Pannonia olim celebrium et his intriectarum via militari mansionum situ disseritur auctore Math. Petro Katancsich in Archigymn. Zagreb. schol. human. professore p. o. - Zagreb. KLEMENC, J. 1938, Archaeologische Karte von Jugoslavien: Blatt Zagreb. - Beograd. KRAJŠEK, J. and P. STERGAR 2008, Keramika s svetiščnega območja v Podkraju pri Hrastniku / The pottery material from the sanctuary area at Podkraj near Hrastnik. - Arheološki vestnik 59, 245-277. LASZOWSKI, E. (ed.) 1910, Povijestplem. opčine Turopolja nekoč Zagrebačko polje zvane, vol. I. - Zagreb. LASZOWSKI, E. (ed.) 1911, Povijest plem. opčine Turopolja nekoč Zagrebačko polje zvane, vol. II. - Zagreb. MANIGK, A. 1927, s.v. Societas. - In: RE III.A/1, 772-781. MARCO SIMON, F. and I. RODÄ de LLANZA 2008, A Latin defixio (Sisak, Croatia) to the river god Savus mentioning L. Licinius Sura, Hispanus. - Vjesnik Ar-heološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 41, 167-198. MEIER, P. J. 1894, s.v. Amphitheatrum. - In: RE I.2, 1959-1962. MOCSY, A. 1959, Die Bevölkerung von Pannonien bis zu den Markomannenkriegen. - Budapest. NEMETH-EHRLICH, D. and D. KUŠAN-ŠPALJ 2003, Municipium Andautonia. - In: Šašel Kos, Scherrer 2003, 107-129. NEMETH-EHRLICH, D. and P. VOJVODA 1994, And-autonija - rimsko urbano središte / Andautonia - The Roman urban centre. - In: Rendič-Miočevič 1994a, 39-45. PETERNEL, J. (ed.) 2009, Ukročena lepotica - Sava in njene zgodbe. - Sevnica. PETRU, S. 1990, Neviodunum - Drnovo. - In: Arheološka najdišča Dolenjske, 89-92, Novo Mesto. PINTARIČ, T. and I. KNEZOVIČ 2005, Arheologija, Permanent exhibition catalogue. - Velika Gorica. PLANINC, A. 1914, Nekdanje brodarstvo po Savi. - Car-niola 5, 123-126. POCZY, K. 1980, Pannonian cities. - In: ARP 1980, 239-274. PUMN = BENIČ-HLEBEC, N. et al. 1984, Plan uredenja manjeg naselja - Ščitarjevo, vol. I and II. - Zagreb. RENDIČ-MIOČEVIČ, A. 1994, Katalog. - In: A. Rendič-Miočevič (ed.), ZagrebprijeZagreba: arheološka baština Zagreba od prapovijesti do osnutka biskupije 1094. g. / Zagreb before Zagreb, The archaeological heritage of Zagreb from prehistory to the foundation of the bishopric in 1094. Exhibition catalogue, 117-118, 131-132, cat. no. 200 and 276, Zagreb. RIDANOVIČ, J. 1993, Hidrogeografija. - Zagreb. ROSSBACH, O. 1902, s. v. Nemesis. - In: W. H. Roscher (ed.), Ausfürliches Lexicon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie III. 1, 117-166, Leipzig. SCHNEIDER, K. 1918, s.v. Gladiatores. - In: RE Suppl. III, 760-784. STIGLITZ, H. 1970, s.v. Carnuntum. - In: RE Suppl. XII, 1575-1588. SUIČ, M. 2003, Antičkigrad na istočnom Jadranu. - Zagreb. SZILÄGYI, J. 1968, s.v. Aquincum. - In: RE Suppl. XI, 61-139. SZIRMAI, K. 2005, Fortuna-Nemesis statues in Aquin-cum. - In: M. Sanader, A. Rendič Miočevič (eds.) 2005, Religija i mit kao poticaj rimskoj provincijalnoj plastici / Religion and myth as an impetus for the Roman provincial sculpture. Akti VIII. medunarodnog kolokvija o prob-lemima rimskogprovincijalnogumjetničkogstvaralaštva / The proceedings of the 8th International Colloquium on Problems of Roman Provincial Art, Zagreb, 5.-8. V. 2003, 287-291, Zagreb. ŠARIČ, I. 1986a, Zaštitno arheološko istraživanje lokaliteta »Kovnica« u Sisku 1985. godine. - Obavijesti hrvatskog arheološkog društva 18/1, 28-29. ŠARIČ, I. 1986b, Rimski brončani materijal izvaden iz rijeke Kupe kod Karlovca. - In: N. Majnarič-Pandžič (ed.), Arheološka istraživanja na karlovačkom isisačkom području, Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 10, 69-89. ŠAŠEL, J. 1970, s.v. Andautonia. - In: RE Suppl. XII, 71-72. ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 1994, Savus and Adsalluta (Savus in Adsaluta), Arheološki vestnik 45, 99-122 (revised in Pre-Roman Divinities of the Eastern Alps and Adriatic [Situla 38], Ljubljana 1999, 93-119). ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2002, The Noarus River in Strabo's Geography. - Tyche 17, 145-153. ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2009, Reka kot božanstvo - Sava v antiki. - In: Peternel 2009, 42-50. ŠAŠEL KOS, M. and P. SCHERRER (eds.) 2003, The autonomous towns of Noricum and Pannonia. Pannonia I. - Situla 41, Ljubljana. ŠAŠEL KOS, M. and P. SCHERRER (eds.) 2004, The autonomous towns of Noricum and Pannonia. Pannonia II. - Situla 42, Ljubljana. ŠTERC, S. 1979, Osnovne fizičkogeografske karakteristike savskog porječja izmedu Radeča i Siska. - Radovi ge-ografskog odjela 14, 47-59. TURK, P., J. ISTENIČ, T. KNIFIC and T. NABERGOJ (eds.) 2009, The Ljubljanica - a River and its Past. - Ljubljana. VIKIC-BELANČIC, B. 1981, Etape urbanog razvitka Anadutonije i antičko nasljede Zagreba / Etapen der urbanen Entwicklung Andautoniens und der antike Erbteil Zagrebs. - In: Ž. Rapanic (ed.), Arheološka istraživanja u Zagrebu i njegovoj okolici, Izdanja Hr-vatskog arheološkog društva 6, 129-154. VIKIC-BELANČIC, B. and M. GORENC 1984, Analiza i valorizacija prirodnog ambijenta naselja Andautonija - Ščitarjevo i prikaz kontinuiteta naseljenosti. - In: PUMN I 1984. VOJVODA, P. 1997, Arheologija - rimsko doba, Permanent exhibition catalogue. - Velika Gorica. ZSIDI, P. 2004, Aquincum. - In: Šašel Kos, Scherrer 2004, 209-230. Čaščenje Savusa in Nemeze v Andavtoniji Povzetek Avtor v članku ugotavlja, kako izpovedni so lahko rimski spomeniki z napisi in reliefi za topografijo antičnega mesta. Izhodišče sta mu oltar, posvečen rečnemu bogu Savusu, in plošča, na kateri je na eni strani napis patrona mesta Lucija Funisulana Vetonijana (L. Funisulanus Vettonianus) s konca 1. stoletja po Kr., na drugi strani pa relief Nemeze, pod katerim je vklesano posvetilo boginji; oba izvirata iz Andavtonije, danes Ščitarjeva blizu Zagreba. Savusa, katerega kult je bil regionalnega pomena, so, sodeč po doslej odkritih posvetilih, častili ob gornjem toku Save do Siscije (Siska), kult Nemeze pa je bil razprostranjen po celem imperiju. Spomenika nista pomembna le za topografijo mesta, temveč nam spregovorita tudi o posvetiteljih in o družbenih slojih, iz katerih sta eden in drugi izvirala, ter dokazujeta gospodarski razvoj mesta in njegovo vsestransko umeščenost v orbis Romanus. Savusov žrtvenik je bil odkrit leta 1870 v starem koritu reke Save v neposredni bližini Ščitarjeva. V 2. ali morda 3. stoletju ga je dal postaviti Mark Juencij Primigenij (M. luentius Primigenius) z družabniki (socii). Bil je verjetno eden mnogih, katerih posli so bili vezani na plovbo po reki, pa mu je bila zato pomembna naklonjenost rečnega božanstva. Kraj, kjer je bil oltar najden, kaže, da je v antiki obstajalo rečno pristanišče na nekdanjem meandru reke na južni periferiji Andavtonije. Pristanišče je bilo še posebej pomembno zato, ker sta se v mestu križali vodna in kopenska pot, ki sta povezovali Siscijo s Petoviono (Poetovio), hkrati pa je bilo to območje reke, kjer se njen hitri planinski tok spremeni v mirnega ravninskega. Zato morda ni naključje, da so bila posvetila Savusu najdena le ob zgornjem toku reke, čeprav ne moremo izključiti, da bodo v prihodnje prišla na dan tudi ob njenem spodnjem toku. Prevoznikom z ladjami in trgovcem je bila naklonjenost rečnega boga pomembna in gotovo so bili prav oni med najbolj številnimi posvetitelji oltarjev. Andavtonijsko pristanišče je bilo nedvomno zelo primeren kraj za kult Savusa, zato ne preseneča, da je bil oltar, ki ga je bil dal postaviti Mark Juencij Primigenij s svojimi družabniki, najden na tem mestu. Drugi spomenik je bil odkrit v 18. stoletju, vzidan v cerkev v Petrovini Turopoljski, ok. 15 km južno od Ščitarjeva. Relief z upodobitvijo Nemeze in zaobljubni napis sta vklesana na marmorni plošči, ki je bila uporabljena tudi na drugi strani, kjer je vklesan počastitveni napis Luciju Funisulanu Vetonianu (L. Funisulanus Vettonianus) iz časa cesarja Domicijana (81-96 po Kr.). V drugi polovici 2. ali v začetku 3. stoletja so ploščo uporabili za relief Nemeze in spremljajoči zaobljubni napis, ki ga je dal vklesati Julij Viktorin (lulius Victorinus). Napis je nekoliko poškodovan, zato ni povsem jasno, ali je bil Viktorin veteran ali rimski vitez, morda tudi član mestnega sveta (decurio). Doslej je to edini napis, na katerem je Andavtonija izrecno omenjena kot rimski municipij (MVN AND). Upodobitve gladiatorskih in lovskih atributov na Nemezinem reliefu kažejo, da so se v Andavtoniji uprizarjale gladiatorske igre in borbe z divjimi živalmi (venationes). Da je v mestu po vsej verjetnosti obstajal amfiteater, ne dokazuje le ta napis in njegova primerjava s podobnimi v Panoniji in drugod po imperiju, temveč je mogoče na njegov obstoj sklepati tudi na osnovi topografskih značilnosti Andavtonije. Te kažejo, da bi bil najugodnejši prostor za izgradnjo amfi-teatra južno od mesta ob glavni cesti proti Sisciji. Kult Nemeze je bil razprostranjen po vsem rimskem imperiju in je bil predvsem vezan na gladiatorske igre in borbe z divjimi zvermi ter z objekti, kjer so se le-te uprizarjale. V Panoniji je bil predvsem povezan z amfiteatri. Vendar pa posvetitelji večinoma niso bili neposredni udeleženci iger, temveč vojaki, mestni in državni visoki uradniki ter skupnosti meščanov. V eno teh skupin posvetiteljev sodi tudi Julij Viktorin. Nemeza bi mogla v Andavtoniji imeti tudi vlogo zaščitnice mesta, kar je v nekaterih rimskih mestih že znano. Prevod: Marjeta Šašel Kos Ivan Knezovic Odsjek za povijest Filozofski fakultet Sveučilište u Zagrebu Ivana Lučica 3 HR - 10 000 Zagreb iknezovic@ffzg.hr "Fremde Heimat" - Autochthones und Allochthones in Ostnoricum während der flavisch-trajanischen Zeit Helga SEDLMAYER Izvleček V vikusu pri trdnjavi Favianis (Mautern), na noriškem delu obdonavskega limesa, se da s pomočjo materialne kulture zaznati različne migracijske premike. Predalpsko območje vzdolž Donave je bilo od LT D dalje redko poseljeno. V 1. st. po Kr. je v Noriku potekala notranja migracija, z juga proti severu, na limes, ki je bila posledica rekrutacije v vojsko in priseljevanja železarjev. S premiki vojaških enot so v Favianis (Mautern) v 1. st. po Kr. prihajale tudi skupine iz Panonije in Zgornje Germanije. Spekter materialne kulture je večkulturen. Ključne besede: Norik, 1. st. po Kr., migracija, materialna kultura, regionalne posebnosti Abstract On the Norican Danubian limes at the vicus of the fort of Favianis-Mautern, it is possible to demonstrate diverse migration movements with the aid of material culture. In Noricum itself, during the 1st century A.D., an interior migration from south to north, to the limes, can be detected. Troop recruiting and the influx of specialists for iron processing are the decisive factors for this phenomenon. The extension of the limes is instrumental for this influx; the necessity for the influx was the population reduction in the Alpine forelands along the passage along the Danube since the period of La Tene D. In addition to the southern Norican settlers, groups from Pannonia and Upper Germany encountered each other in Favianis-Mautern during the 1st century A.D.; these groups arrived in Noricum through troop relocations. The spectrum of the material culture is polycultural. Keywords: Noricum, 1st century A.D., migration, material culture, regional specification Wie differenziert das Bild einer norischen Kultur römischer Zeit ist, konnte bereits J. Garbsch zeigen, der anhand von Elementen der Tracht, abgebildet auf Steindenkmälern und dokumentiert durch Grabungsfunde, drei unterschiedliche Trachtgruppen im Territorium der Provinz Noricum beschrieb (Abb. 1). Im Gebiet um Jwvavwm-Salzburg (Abb. 1: 3) und Virunum-Zollfeld (Abb. 1: 1) befinden sich regional klar begrenzte Gruppen, wohingegen die für das Territorium von Flavia Solva-Wagna (Abb. 1: 2) typische Tracht über das norische Gebiet hinaus bis in die westpannonische Region um Savaria-Szombathely und Sala-Zalalövö auftritt1. Gefäßkeramik wurde in Hinblick auf eine solche Differenzierung von Kulturgruppen in Noricum von der Verfasserin zur Klärung der Fragestellung nach der Herkunft der Bewohner des Kastellvicus Favianis-Mautern in Nordostnoricum herangezogen und das Ergebnis erzielt, dass ebenda ein kontinuierlich feststellbarer Zuzug von Bevölkerungsgruppen aus Südostnorcium während des 1. bis 4. Jhs. n. Chr. erfolgte2. Gemeinsam mit der südostnorischen Gruppe ist auch eine westpan-nonische Komponente in der materiellen Kultur Nordostnoricums zu erfassen. Für die frührömische Zeit ist darüber hinaus eine Stationierung Garbsch 1965, 123 ff. Abb. 59. 2 Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, 450 f. Abb. 204 (Perioden 1-2); 505 ff. Abb. 224 (Periode 4); 531 f. (Periode 5) (Mautern). Abb. 1: Die Trachtregionen in Noricum nach J. Garbsch mit einer Kartierung der hier behandelten Fundorte - Kastellvicus Favianis-Mautern, Siedlungsplätze Großpriel, Mannersdorf, Gleisdorf, Saaz, Frauenberg, Hügelgräber Teufelsdorf - und Migrationsrichtungen (unter Verwendung von Garbsch 1965, Abb. 59). Sl. 1: Območja noš v Noriku po J. Garbschu z označbami v članku omenjenih krajev in smeri migracij (po Garbsch 1965). von Truppen aus den Westprovinzen für den Ausbau des Donaulimes in flavischer Zeit belegt und auch diese militärischen Angehörigen haben Einfluss auf die sich entwickelnde nordostnorische römische Kultur. Um das Phänomen der Binnenmigration in Nori-cum besser erfassen zu können und die Ergebnisse der Untersuchungen in Favianis-Mautern anhand einer adäquaten Datenbasis zu vertiefen, wurden Bestände aus modern erforschten Fundplätzen in Südost- und Nordostnoricum gegenübergestellt. Folgende archäologische Quellen fanden Aufnahme in die hier präsentierte Analyse, welche sich auf den Zeitraum nach der römischen Okkupation und auf den Wandel von der keltischen in eine römische Kultur während des 1. bis frühen 2. Jhs. n. Chr. beziehen soll: Frauenberg (VB Leibnitz, Steiermark), Kultplatz, Schichtengrabungen mit kontextbezogener Fundauswertung der Jahre 2002-20043, Periode 5 (25 v./25 n. Chr.) bis Periode 8 (70/100 n. Chr.)/ Mindestfundanzahl 284. Saaz (VB Feldbach, Steiermark), Freilandsiedlung, Schichtengrabungen mit kontextbezogener Fundauswertung der Jahre 2002-20054, Periode 1 (70-100/110 n. Chr.)/Mindestfundanzahl 89. 3 Groh, Sedlmayer 2005, 33 ff. (Frauenberg). 4 Sedlmayer, Tiefengraber 2006, 29 ff.; 51 f. (Saaz). Mautern (VB Krems, Niederösterreich), Kastellsiedlung, Schichtengrabungen mit kontextbezogener Fundauswertung der Jahre 1997-19995, Periode 1 (70-100 n. Chr.)/Mindestfundanzahl 490, Periode 2 (100/110-130/140 n. Chr.)/Min-destfundanzahl 1300. Großpriel (VB Melk, Niederösterreich), Freilandsiedlung, Survey6, frührömisch/Mindest-fundanzahl 300. Gleisdorf (VB Weiz, Steiermark), Freilandsiedlung, Abhub-Grabungen der Jahre 1988-19907, Mindestfundzahl unbekannt. Mannersdorf bei Melk (VB Melk, Niederösterreich), Keramikbrennofen, Abhub-Grabung des Jahres 19938, Mindestfundanzahl 21. SIEDLUNGSKONTINUITÄT ZWISCHEN DER SPÄTLATENE- UND DER FRÜHRÖMISCHEN KAISERZEIT Ein Problem bei der Betrachtung der frührömischen Periode in Noricum ist die fast völlige Absenz von Belegen einer kontinuierlichen Platzentwicklung im Zeitraum zwischen der Spätlatene- und der frühen römischen Kaiserzeit. Eine solche Kontinuität ist in Südostnoricum bislang ausschließlich am Frauenberg bei Leibnitz anhand einer ausreichenden Materialbasis dokumentiert, wo aufgrund der ungebrochenen Kulttraditionen auch eine Siedlungskontinuität vorauszusetzen ist. Die schrittweise Entwicklung des Formenspektrums vom Spätlatenehorizont bis in die frührömische Periode ist durch mehrere Fundkomplexe am Frauenberg aufzuzeigen (Abb. 2)9, das Weitertragen der La-Tene-Traditionen ist insbesondere bei der feintonigen grau gebrannten Drehscheibenkeramik ersichtlich (Abb. 2: 12). Bei den Töpfen ist der Wandel von den La-Tene-D- 5 Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, 37 ff. (Mautern). 6 Die Bearbeitung der späteisenzeitlichen und römischen Oberflächenfunde von Großpriel erfolgt im Rahmen des am Österreichischen Archäologischen Institut laufenden FWF-Projekts P19227-G02 "Die ländliche Besiedlung im Hinterland von Mautern-Favianis" (Projektleitung: St. Groh) durch die Verfasserin. Für Detailinformationen zu den Fundvorkommen in Großpriel und die Möglichkeiten, die umfangreichen Sammlungen im Museum Melk bzw. in privater Hand zu bearbeiten, sei an dieser Stelle A. Harrer, Melk, und A. Linsberger, Großpriel, gedankt. 7 Lorenz, Maier, Lehner 1995, 33 ff. (Gleisdorf). 8 Krenn-Leeb 1993, 312 ff. (Mannersdorf). 9 Groh, Sedlmayer 2005, 129 ff.; 222 ff. Taf. 5-19 (Frauenberg). - Artner 1998-1999, 221 ff. Abb. 28 (Frauenberg). zeitlichen Formen mit Wulsträndern zu den frühkaiserzeitlichen mit Dreiecksrand bzw. mit rund verdicktem Rand zu beobachten (Abb. 2). Analogien der Gebrauchskeramik sind im frühestkaiserzeit-lichen Spektrum der Siedlung in der Ebene, dem späteren Flavia Solva, für einige wenige Typen wie die fassförmigen Becher oder Töpfe mit Dreiecksrand vorhanden10, im Übrigen müsste für das Solva der Frühzeit ein anderer Bezugspunkt in Hinblick auf das Formenrepertoire zu ergründen sein. Demgegenüber lässt sich eine Reihe von Funden aus den Kontexten am Frauenberg mit dem ältesten Horizont in den flavischen Flachlandsiedlungen vergleichen. Exemplarisch werden hier einige signifikante Gefäßtypen genannt, welche sowohl in den römischen Siedlungen von Saaz und Gleisdorf als auch am Frauenberg aufscheinen. Schüsseln: Schüssel mit profiliertem Wandknick und gekehltem Oberteil (Frauenberg: Abb. 2: 12; Saaz: Abb. 3: 2; Gleisdorf: Abb. 5: 3)11. Becher: Fassförmiger Becher (Frauenberg: Abb. 2: 13)12. Töpfe: Topf mit Dreiecksrand 3.1 (Frauenberg, La-Tene-zeitliche Vorläuferform: Abb. 2: 19; Gleisdorf: Abb. 6: 1-2)13, Topf mit Dreiecksrand 3.2 (Frauenberg: Abb. 2: 10,16; Saaz: Abb. 4: 1)14, Topf mit verdicktem, gerundetem Rand (Frauenberg: Abb. 2: 15; Saaz: Abb. 4: 3; Gleisdorf: Abb. 6: 7)15, Topf mit kurzem, innen gekehltem Rand 10 Hinker 2006, 52 Taf. 21: 165; 28: 194; 29: 199 (Wagna). 11 Groh, Sedlmayer 2005, 141 Tab. 31 (Periode 6); 143 Tab. 34 (Periode 7); 148 Tab. 37 (Periode 8) (Frauenberg). - Artner 1998-1999, 239 Abb. 24: 593; 257 Taf. 23: 309; 263 Taf. 47: 593 (Frauenberg). - Sedlmayer, Tiefengraber 2006, 143 Taf. 1: 146/3/21; 2: 147/5/23,147/5/31,167/1/20, 174/1/24 (Saaz, Periode 1). - Jeschek 2000, Taf. 69: 50-54; 70: 55-60; 71: 63-67; 72: 69-70,72; 73: 77 (Gleisdorf). 12 Groh, Sedlmayer 2005, 143 Tab. 34 (Periode 7); 148 Tab. 37 (Periode 8) (Frauenberg). - Artner 1998-1999, 262 Taf. 44: 560 (Frauenberg). - Sedlmayer, Tiefengraber 2006, 152 Taf. 1: 146/1/27 (Saaz, Periode 1). - Jeschek 2000, Taf. 25: 174 (Gleisdorf). 13 Jeschek 2000, Taf. 4: 23; 7: 48 (Gleisdorf). - Groh, Sedlmayer 2005, 232 Taf. 14: 110/29,130/91,329/10 (La-Tene-Vorläufer) (Periode 7) (Frauenberg). - Tiefengraber 2001, 683 Abb. 630 (Frauenberg, augusteisch). 14 Groh, Sedlmayer 2005, 141 Tab. 31; Taf. 12: 138/1 (Periode 6); 143 Tab. 34; Taf. 14: 110/27 (Periode 7); 148 Tab. 37; Taf. 18: 67/128 (Periode 8) (Frauenberg). - Artner 1988-1989, 93 Taf. 45: XXXI/1 (Gleisdorf). - Sedlmayer, Tiefengraber 2006, 153 Taf. 1: 146/1/23,146/1/25; 3: 147/5/21 (Saaz, Periode 1). 15 Artner 1998-1999, 252 Taf. 3: 35; 253 Taf. 6: 78 (Frauenberg). - Groh, Sedlmayer 2005, 143 Tab. 34 Taf. 14: (f Periode 4 - La Tene D Obdobje 4 - Lt D Periode 5 - augusteiscli-frülitiberiscli Obdobje 5 - avgustejsl(o-zgodnjetiberijsl(o ff CT 10 Periode 6 - mittel-Zspättiberisch Obdobje 6 - srednje/poznotiberijsl^o f 13 A a 14 15 16 Periode 7 - ciaudisch-neronisch Obdobje 7 - lprlel 10 Teufelsdorf 11 i 1 12 13 14 Mautern Abb. 10: Gegenüberstellung der geschweiften Fibeln vom Devin und aus Enns sowie der Drahtfibeln Almgren 15 aus Judenau, Favianis-Mautern und Großpriel. Drahtfibeln Almgren 15: 2 Großpriel, 3 Teufelsdorf, 4 Mautern, 5 Ratzersdorf, 6 Unterradlberg, 7 Ragelsdorf, 8 St. Pölten, 9 Pottenbrunn, 10 Etzersdorf, 11 Wolfersdorf, 12 Judenau. Geschweifte Fibeln: 1 Enns, 13 Devin (unter Verwendung von Pieta, Placha 1999, Abb. 13: 5; Jobst 1975, Taf. 13: 85; Peškar 1972, Taf. 1: 5; Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, Taf. 13: 986/1). M. = 1:2. Sl. 10: Primerjava fibul z usločenim lokom iz Devina in Ennsa ter žičnatih fibul Almgren 15 z najdišč Judenau, Favianis (Mautern) in Großpriel. Žičnate fibule Almgren 15: 2 Großpriel, 3 Teufelsdorf, 4 Mautern, 5 Ratzersdorf, 6 Unterradlberg, 7 Ragelsdorf, 8 St. Pölten, 9 Pottenbrunn, 10 Etzersdorf, 11 Wolfersdorf, 12 Judenau. Fibule z usločenim lokom: 1 Enns, 13 Devin (po: Pieta, Placha 1999; Jobst 1975; Peškar 1972; Groh, Sedlmayer 2006). M. = 1:2. Einen signifikanten Fibeltyp der nordostno-rischen Region repräsentiert ab frührömischer/ flavischer Zeit die einfache Drahtfibel Almgren 15, mit dekorativ graviertem oder gepunktetem Bügel, welcher von der augusteischen Form der geschweiften Fibel herzuleiten ist. Letztere tritt beispielsweise am Devin, am Magdalensberg und in Enns auf (Abb. 10)45. Drahtfibeln Almgren 15 sind in den Befunden der Vicusperioden 1 und 2 der flavisch-trajanischen Zeit in Favianis-Mautern präsent, darüber hinaus sind nordostnorische Belege in Ratzersdorf, Etzersdorf, Teufelsdorf, 45 Pieta, Placha 1999, 179 ff. Abb. 135 (Devin). - Jobst 1975, Taf. 13: 85 (Enns). - Sedlmayer 2009, 19 f. Taf. 5: 141-145 (Magdalensberg). - Allgemein zu den geschweiften Fibeln: Bockius, tuczkiewicz 2004, 61 ff. Abb. 10. Unterradlberg, Wolfersdorf, St. Pölten und Judenau nachgewiesen (Abb. 10)46. Diesem konzentrierten Vorkommen in Nordostnoricum steht eine in Hinblick auf die bislang bekannten Fundpunkte weniger dichte Verbreitung in Nordwestnoricum (Wels, Linz, Enns, Wallsee) gegenüber47. Die zuvor aufgeworfene Frage, ob das Auftreten von südostnorischen Formen in einem lokal hergestellten Keramikrepertoire des Kastellvicus 46 Peškar 1972, Taf. 1: 5 (Judenau). - Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, 420 Taf. 13: 986/1 (Periode 1); Taf. 41: 3853/1; 46: 2851/7; 54: 661/4,3313/1 (Periode 2) (Mautern). - Stundner 2006, 143; 154; 164 ff. Abb. 30-36 (St. Pölten); Abb. 108 (Pottenbrunn); Abb. 109 (Ragelsdorf); Abb. 111-112 und 136 (Unterradlberg); Abb. 113 (Wolfersdorf); Abb. 114 (Etzersdorf). 47 Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, 420. Favianis-Mautern ein Indiz für den Zuzug von al-lochthonen Bevölkerungsgruppen aus den südlichen Regionen von Noricum sein kann, scheint insofern geklärt, als sich neben dieser südostnorischen Gruppe sehr wohl auch eine eigenständige nordost-norische abzeichnet. Aufgrund des kleinräumigen Auftretens Letzterer und der geringen Dichte der Vorkommen könnte auf eine kleine Gruppe von Siedlern frührömischer Zeit zu schließen sein. Der bedeutende Cluster an südostnorischen Typen im lokal produzierten Gefäßrepertoire von Favianis-Mautern deutet demgegenüber auf einen eigenständig agierenden Kreis von Zugezogenen hin, welcher sich anhand der materiellen Kultur scharf abgrenzen lässt. MIGRATION AUS OBERGERMANIEN UND WESTPANNONIEN NACH NORDOST-NORICUM IN FLAVISCHER ZEIT Im Fundrepertoire der Periode 1 von Favianis-Mautern (70-100 n. Chr.) repräsentieren die nordostnorischen Elemente rund 3 Prozent der Gebrauchskeramik. Somit ist, gemeinsam mit den Gefäßen in südostnorischer Tradition, an typischen norischen Elementen ein Anteil von rund einem Drittel anzunehmen. Die regional oder lokal hergestellte frührömische Gebrauchskeramik setzt sich darüber hinaus zu einem ebenso repräsentativen Teil aus adaptierten bzw. kopierten Fremdformen zusammen. Neben der Imitation mediterraner Importe, welche rund 27 Prozent ausmacht, sind zwei weitere allochthone Gruppen scharf abzugrenzen. Bezüge zu Obergermanien und zu Pannonien sind festzustellen: Hinweise auf die Migration aus Obergermanien Für die Rezeption von Gefäßtypen, welche in der obergermanischen Limesregion häufig vorkommen, seien hier Parallelen aus dem Raum zwischen Rottweil in Baden-Württemberg und Okarben in Hessen angeführt und den Funden aus Favianis-Mautern gegenübergestellt: Parallelen aus dem Kastellvicus Favianis-Mautern (Periode 1/flavisch), dem Kastell Arae Flaviae-Rottweil (Periode 1, 75/85 n. Chr. und Periode 2, 85/90-110/120 n. Chr.), der Produktionsstätte Rheinzabern (80/100 n. Chr.), dem germanischen Siedlungsplatz Ladenburg (Zeitstufe II, 60-80 n. Chr.), der römischen Siedlung Sindelfingen und dem Kastell Okarben (70/80 n. Chr.): Schüsseln: Imitation Curle 11 (Abb. 11: 1,11)48, Knickwandschüssel 1 (Abb. 11: 3-4,13-14)49, Knickwandschüssel 6 (Abb. 11: 2,12)50. Becher: Terra-Nigra-Becher mit Steilrand51, Becher mit ausgebogenem Rand, gerillter Oberfläche (Abb. 11: 6,17)52. Krüge: Krug mit Trichterrand 2 (Abb. 11: 7,16)53, Krug mit Flachrand (Abb. 11: 5,15)54. Töpfe: Topf mit kurzem Rand und kantigem inneren Wandumbruch (Abb. 11: 9-10,19)55, Topf 48 Franke 2003, 170; 183 Taf. 12: 170; 37: 560 (Rottweil). - Knopf 2000, 111 Taf. 54: 3-4 (Sindelfingen). - Bernhard 1981, 135 Abb. 5: 18 (Rheinzabern). - Lunz-Bernhard 2002, 114 Beil. 3: 14 (Ladenburg). - Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, 258 Taf. 15: 3362/3 (Periode 1); Taf. 47: 3080/8 (Periode 2) (Mautern). 49 Franke 2003, 126 Taf. 2: 22; 9: 132; 12: 172-174; 14: 202-204; 18: 253-254 (Rottweil). - Knopf 2000, 113 Taf. 59: 3-4,9-11 (Sindelfingen). - Lunz-Bernhard 2002, 114 Beil. 3: 53 (Ladenburg). - Schönberger, Simon 1980, 102 f. Taf. 22: C289-290 (Okarben). - Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, 297 Taf. 2: 2480/19,2480/21-22; 8: 2099/7; 18: 111/4,111/25; 22: 533/34; 23,534/6 (Periode 1); Taf. 29: 2005/57; 37: 1712/2; 38: 1532/7; 39: 993/10; 41: 972/52; 44: 990/5; 46: 2856/1,2856/6-7,2982/2; 48: 2988/15; 49: 3434/17; 51: 3200/59; 53: 3290/5; 56: 1121/10; 63: 56/35; 66: 2383/3-4,2383/6; 67: 2405/14; 71: 1054/35; 76: 2983/27-28 (Periode 2) (Mautern). 50 Franke 2003, 171; 173 Taf. 12: 176; 18: 252 (Rottweil). - Knopf 2000, 113 Taf. 59: 2,7 (Sindelfingen). - Schönberger, Simon 1980, 103 Taf. 22: C301 (Okarben). - Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, 303 Taf. 11: 1055/33; 12: 1055/39.40; 18: 526/6; 23: 534/5,534/8 (Periode 1); Taf. 28: 2199/3; 29: 2005/61; 36: 1743/4; 40: 1005/6; 48: 2988/13; 50: 2909/18-19; 71: 1054/33,1054/64; 76: 2983/17 (Periode 2) (Mautern). 51 Franke 2003, 170 Taf. 12: 171 (Rottweil). - Knopf 2000, 99 f. Taf. 29: 9-10,12 (Sindelfingen). - Bernhard 1981, 130 Abb. 5: 6 (Rheinzabern). - Asskamp 1989, 206 Taf. 51: Grab 73/1 (70/100); 208 Taf. 57: Grab 79/2 (t.p.q. 75/76) (Weil). - Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, 265 Taf. 3: 2743/4; 14: 2968/3 (Periode 1); Taf. 45: 990/52 (Periode 2) (Mautern). 52 Franke 2003, 172 Taf. 15: 219 (Rottweil). - Knopf 2000, 106 ff. Taf. 43: 14; 48: 11,13 (Sindelfingen). - Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, 330 Taf. 58: 1195/15 (Mautern, Periode 2). 53 Franke 2003, 130 ff. Taf. 51: 816 (Rottweil). - Knopf 2000, 118 Taf. 68: 14-15 (Sindelfingen). - Lunz-Bernhard 2002, 114 Beil. 3: 54; Taf. 106: 77 (Ladenburg). - Des Weiteren: Baatz 1962, 42 Taf. 9: 17 (Mainz, 40/60-100 n. Chr.). - Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, 317 Taf. 4: 2156/3 (Periode 1); Taf. 24: 1501/14; 34: 2165/1 (Periode 2) (Mautern). 54 Franke 2003, 130 ff. Taf. 15: 223; 51: 817 (Rottweil). - Knopf 2000, 117 Taf. 68: 8 (Sindelfingen). - Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, 316 f. Taf. 12: 1055/52; 23: 534/14 (Periode 1); Taf. 35: 1534/2; 60: 1443/30; 65: 1858/16; 76: 2983/72 (Periode 2) (Mautern). 55 Franke 2003, 126 Abb. 63; Taf. 15: 210-212; 19: 264-269; 20: 287-290; 50: 796-797 (Rottweil). - Knopf2000, 106 f. Taf. 42: 4-9; 44: 13; 45: 6 (Sindelfingen). - Bernhard 1981, 135 Abb. 5: 35 (Rheinzabern). - Lunz-Bernhard 2002, Abb. 11: Frührömische Gefäßkeramik aus Area Flaviae-Rottweil (Obergermanien) und Favianis-Mautern (Noricum) im Vergleich (unter Verwendung von Franke 2003, Taf. 12: 170; 15: 219; 18: 252-254; 19: 264,269; 24: 332; 51: 816-817; Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, Taf. 2: 2480/21; 4: 2156/3; 12: 1055/52; 15: 3362/3; 17: 729/11; 21: 518/41; 46: 2856/7; 50: 2909/18; 58: 1195/15). M. = 1:5. Sl. 11: Primerjava zgodnjerimske keramike z najdišč Area Flaviae (Rottweil, Zgornja Germanija) in Favianis (Mautern, Norik) (po Franke 2003; Groh, Sedlmayer 2006). M. = 1:5. mit eingebogenem, gegliedertem Rand (Abb. 11: 8,18)56. Diese Übereinstimmung mit der frührömischen Kultur in Obergermanien spiegelt sich nicht nur im Fundrepertoire des Kastellvicus Favianis -Mautern wider, sondern wird auch durch die im militärischen Umfeld entstandenen Baustrukturen vermittelt. Für die im Lagerdorf Favianis-Mautern ausschließlich während der Gründungsphase des Kastells errichteten Mehrraumhäuser, mit großzügigen Dimensionen von 100 m^ Fläche und einer leichten Holz-Schwellbalkenkonstruktion, sind die besten Parallelen in den Westprovinzen zu finden (Abb. 12). Der treffendste Vergleich ist mit der spätflavischen Bebauung im Kastellvicus von Bendorf (Mayen-Koblenz) zu ziehen, wo beiderseits einer Straße in den Streifenparzellen Gebäude errichtet werde, welche, wie in Mautern, einen großen bis zu rund 80 m^ messenden Kernbereich und einen kleineren und zugleich schmäleren Anbau aufweisen57. Hinweise auf die Migration aus Nordwestpannonien Ein repräsentativer Anteil der Gebrauchskeramik in der Kastellsiedlung Favianis-Mautern ist mit dem für nordwestpannonische ländliche Siedlungen typischen Spektrum gut vergleichbar. Die Fundvorlagen für die großangelegten Siedlungsgrabungen der letzten Jahre in diesem Gebiet stehen zwar noch aus, doch lässt sich bei der Betrachtung der im Keramikproduktionszentrum von Mursella-Ärpas der zweiten Hälfte des 1. Jhs. n. Chr. hergestellten Ware unverkennbar der Bezug zum Fundplatz in Nordostnoricum erkennen. Die La-Tene-Traditionen werden hier durch die Herstellung feintoniger grauer Schüsseln und durch die römische Variation der keltischen Bemaltkeramik, der sog. pannonischen Streifenware, weitergetragen (Abb. 13)58. Mursella-Ärpas ist zur Produktionszeit dieser Töpfereien noch zu den zahlreichen ländlichen Siedlungen dieser westpannonischen Region zu zählen, die Stadterhebung erfolgt erst wesentlich später, in der hadrianischen Periode59. Im näheren Umfeld der römischen Colonia Savaria-Szombathely ist in den ländlichen Siedlungsplätzen60 eine Vermischung römischer und pannonischer Elemente typisch, welche dazu führt, dass italische Formtraditionen der Auerbergkeramik in die lokale Produktion übernommen werden (Abb. 14). Diese Typen gelangen ebenso ins Spektrum der Kastellsiedlung Favianis-Mautern. Zur Veranschaulichung dieser Kontakte zwischen Nordostnoricum und Nordwestpannonien werden Parallelen aus dem Kastellvicus Favianis-Mautern (Perioden 1-2/ flavisch-trajanisch, der Siedlung Mursella-Ärpas ("Töpferperiode", 50-100 n. Chr.) und der ländlichen Siedlung vor der Stadt Savaria-Szombathely (50/150 n. Chr.) gegenübergestellt: 114 Beil. 3: 34 (Ladenburg). - Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, 348 Taf. 17: 729/11 (Periode 1); Taf. 41: 988/5; 45: 990/16; 66: 2383/59; 73: 1054/89 (Periode 2) (Mautern). 56 Franke 2003, 175 Taf. 24: 332-333 (Rottweil, 85/90110/120). - Knopf 2000, 121 Taf. 76: 3-5 (Sindelfingen). - Bernhard 1981, 135 Abb. 5: 42-43 (Rheinzabern). - Lunz-Bernhard 2002, 114 Beil. 3: 26 (Ladenburg). - Schönberger, Simon 1980, 103 Taf. 24: C350 (Okarben). - Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, 364 f. Taf. 3: 2744/3; 4: 2612/24; 12: 1055/35-36; 21: 518/41; 23: 534/32 (Periode 1); Taf. 24: 1501/16; 36: 1975/2; 45: 990/10; 47: 3078/6; 48: 2988/4; 51: 2935/10; 52: 3200/29-30 (Periode 2) (Mautern). 57 Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, 115 ff. Abb. 112 (Vergleich für Mehrraumhäuser aus Mautern, Seebruck, Bendorf, London). Schüssel: Schüssel mit gekehltem Oberteil 1 (Abb. 13: 2,6)61. 58 Szönyi 2002, 68 Abb. 12 (Ärpas). 59 Szönyi 2002, 68 Abb. 9. - Szönyi 2004, 85 ff. Abb. 4-11 (Ärpas). 60 Matyas 2006, 159 ff. (Szombathely). 61 Szönyi 2002, 68 Abb. 12 (Ärpas). - Gabler 19961997, 276 f. Abb. 53: 2 (Sarvar). - Kelemen 1980, 71 Taf. 1: 1 (Balatonfüzfö, Datierung 120/160 n. Chr.). - Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, 290 Taf. 17: 535/15 (Periode 1); Taf. 58: 509/3; 59: 1384/1 (Periode 2) (Mautern). 8 10 Rottweil 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 16 m I ft ' i» n« «I ili«"" i k n ft If' "I If •' II ' I u, " « II n'hr' n i Mautern Abb. 12: Frührömische Häuser aus den Kastellsiedlungen von Bendorf (Obergermanien) und Favianis-Mautern (Noricum) im Vergleich (unter Verwendung von Groh, Sedlmayer 2006; Eiden 1982, Taf. 67). Sl. 12: Primerjava zgodnjerimskih hiš iz naselbin pri kastelih Bendorf (Zgornja Germanija) in Favianis (Mautern, Norik) (po Groh, Sedlmayer 2006; Eiden 1982). Szombathely Ärpäs Mautern Abb. 13: Frührömische Krüge, Schüsseln und Vorratstöpfe aus Westpannonien (Mursella-Ärpas, Szombathely) und Favianis-Mautern im Vergleich (unter Verwendung von Matyas 2006, Taf. 2: 12; Szönyi 2002, Abb. 12; Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, Taf. 9: 1960/3; 17: 535/3; 20: 1844/8; 59: 1384/1). M. = 1:5. Sl. 13: Primerjava zgodnjerimskih vrčev, skled in shrambnih posod iz zahodne Panonije (Mursella - Ärpas, Szombathely) in naselja Favianis (Mautern) (po Matyas 2006; Szönyi 2002; Groh, Sedlmayer 2006). M. = 1:5. Krüge: Krug mit Trichterrand 3.1 bzw. mit rund verdicktem Rand und Kragen (Abb. 13: 1,4-5)62. Töpfe: Topf mit Dreiecksrand 5.2.1 (Abb. 14: 1,4,8)63, Topf mit unterschnittenem Dreiecksrand 2 (Abb. 14: 2-3,5,10)64, Topf mit Dreiecksrand 4.2.2 bzw. Topf mit ausgebogenem, deutlich verdicktem Rand (Abb. 14: 6,11-12)65, Topf mit ausgebogenem, innen gekehltem Rand 1.1 (Abb. 62 Matyas 2006, 159 Taf. 2: 11-12 (Szombathely). -Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, 316 f. Taf. 4: 2156/2; 13: 986/16; 17: 535/3; 20: 1844/8 (Mautern, Periode 1). 63 Matyas 2006, 159 Taf. 7: 1; 8: 4; 9: 4 (Szombathely) - Mocsy 1954, 190 f. Taf. 6: 26/1 (Szombathely). - Groh Sedlmayer 2006, 335 Taf. 4: 2612/19; 6: 1655/10; 9: 1677/6 13: 986/23.25; 17: 535/12; 19: 111/26; 21: 517/4,518/15; 22 533/20,533/27; 23: 534/18 (Periode 1); Taf. 25: 1854/20; 26 1898/5; 30: 2005/43; 31: 2005/37; 37: 1712/5,1815/5; 39 1764/7; 43: 992/13,992/21-22,1044/2; 45: 990/12,990/29 46: 2856/13; 50: 2909/8; 51: 2935/2; 53: 3200/41; 66 2383/11; 70: 3629/8-9; 71: 3569/12; 76: 2983/44 (Periode 2) (Mautern). 64 Matyas 2006, 159 Taf. 6: 1; 7: 6; 9: 7 (Szombat-hely).- Mocsy 1954, 190 f. Taf. 12: 55/1; 14: 63/1-2 (Szombathely). - Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, 338 Taf. 9: 2099/5; 10: 1692/3; 12: 1055/12; 17: 535/11; 20: 3181/1; 21: 517/2 (Periode 1); Taf. 24: 2481/13-14; 27: 2364/6; 31: 1128/8,2005/28-29,2005/32; 32: 2005/30; 35: 1534/14,1917/1; 37: 1811/6,1815/4,1815/7,1815/9; 39: 3927/1; 42: 992/8.10; 43: 992/9; 45: 990/19-20,990/24; 48: 2988/2,3080/1; 53: 3200/37,3200/44; 57: 1128/8; 63: 18/6; 65: 1859/11; 75: 3025/12; 76: 2983/43 (Periode 2) (Mautern). 65 Szönyi 2002, 68 Abb. 13 (Ärpas). - Gabler 1996-1997, 276 f. Abb. 54: 2 (Sarvar). - Mocsy 1954, 190 f. Taf. 3: 6/1; 5: 18/1; 8: 35/2 (Szombathely). - Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, 334 Taf. 5: 2543/16; 10: 1694/2; 13: 984/6 ; 348 Taf. 2: 2480/10 (Mautern, Periode 1). r r Szombathely 11 12 14 Mautern Abb. 14: Frührömische Töpfe aus Westpannonien (Mursella-Ärpas, Szombathely) und Favianis-Mautern im Vergleich (unter Verwendung von Matyas 2006, Taf. 6: 1; 7: 1,6; 9: 4,7; Szönyi 2002, Abb. 13; Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, Taf. 2: 2480/10; 5: 2543/16; 8: 1726/7; 17: 535/11; 21: 517/4,517/6; 23: 534/17; 30: 2005/36). M. = 1:5. Sl. 14: Premerjava zgodnjerimskih loncev iz zahodne Panonije (Mursella - Ärpas, Szombathely) in naselja Favianis (Mautern) (po Matyas 2006; Szönyi 2002; Groh, Sedlmayer 2006). M. = 1:5. 14: 7,14-15)66, Topf mit gerilltem Flachrand 3 (Abb. 13: 3,7)67. Dekortypen: Wellenlinie kombiniert mit Kammstrich68, Ratterdekor kombiniert mit streifigem Überzug. Neben den analogen Keramikformen sind naturgemäß auch die vergleichbaren eingetieften Hütten, wie sie aus den pannonischen Siedlungen und aus Favianis-Mautern vorliegen bedeutsam. Grubenhütten sind im Kastellvicus Favianis-Mautern ab der ältesten Periode belegt. Im östlichen Vicusabschnitt ist aufgrund der gut beobachtbaren Relativabfolge der Befunde das Phänomen greifbar, dass die in der flavischen Vicusperiode 1 gemeinsam mit den oben besprochenen Mehrraumhäuser auftretenden Grubenhütten in den Folgeperioden 2-4 der mittleren Kaiserzeit die einzigen baulichen Strukturen darstellen. Insbesondere eine Gegenüberstellung mit den Befunden der ländlichen nordwestpannoni-schen Siedlungen von Bruckneudorf, Györ-Fövenyes domb/-Szabadret domb, Gyirmot, Mosonszentmiklos-Gergelyhoma, Rajka, Mursella-Arpas, Level und Menföcsanak-Szeles zeigt eine gleichartige Struktur mit Reihen von Grubenhütten, welche bei den beiden Letztgenannten entlang eines Weges bzw. einer Straße errichtet sind (Abb. 15)69. Die Hütten in Level und Menföcsanak-Szeles messen durchschnittlich 12-15 m^, im Vicus Favianis-Mautern70 sind die Ausmaße geringer, bei durchschnittlich 8,5 m^. Allerdings sind ebenda auf einer Grundstückseinheit (Streifenparzelle) durchwegs mehrere Grubenhütten zeitgleich genützt worden. Die Grubenhütten von Favianis-Mautern befinden sich demnach während der früh- bis mittelkaiserzeitlichen Perioden 1-3 angepasst an die flächige römische Erschließung und Vermessung der Kastellsiedlung jeweils in normierten Streifenparzellierungen. LOKALE, REGIONALE UND ÜBERREGIONALE GRUPPIERUNGEN FRÜHRÖMISCHER ZEIT IN FAVIANIS-MAUTERN Betrachtet man das Gefäßrepertoire des ostno-rischen Kastellvicus Favianis-Mautern während der flavischen Zeit in der Gesamtheit, so sind die unterschiedlichen, lokal hergestellten, aber formal aus anderen Kulturkreisen herzuleitenden Gruppen, welche wohl auf der Zuwanderung von Produzenten und Abnehmern beruhen dürften, evident. Die prozentualen Anteile im keramischen Fundbestand der flavischen Periode verteilen sich bei einer Analyse von 490 signifikanten Funden, beschränkt ausschließlich auf die Zählung von Randfragmenten, wie folgt (Abb. 16): Römische und germanische Importkeramik: 24 Prozent. Imitationen römischer Importe: 27 Prozent. Nordostnorische Komponente: 3 Prozent. Südostnorische Komponente: 23 Prozent. Obergermanische Komponente: 9 Prozent. Nordwestpannonische Komponente: 14 Prozent. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG 66 Szönyi 2002, 68 Abb. 13 (Arpas). - Mocsy 1954, 190 f. Taf. 9: 40/2; 15: 68/2 (Szombathely). - Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, 344 f. Taf. 12: 1055/19; 15: 2978/14; 22: 533/35; 23: 534/17 (Periode 1); Taf. 30: 2005/36; 24: 1501/5; 25: 1854/19; 41: 972/11; 42: 992/20; 48: 2987/2; 49: 3439/10; 51: 2935/5; 53: 3200/15,3200/31; 67: 2405/8,2405/13; 73: 1054/20,1054/74,1054/126; 76: 2983/38 (Periode 2) (Mautern). 67 Szönyi 2002, 68 Abb. 12 (Arpas). - Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, 362 Taf. 9: 1960/3 (Periode 1); Taf. 39: 1764/17; 39: 3896/1; 73: 1054/14-15 (Periode 2) (Mautern). 68 Mocsy 1954, 190 f. Taf. 6: 23/1 (Szombathely). 69 Szönyi 2005, 402 ff. Abb. 1-4 (Level, Menföcsanak-Szeles, Mosonszentmiklos-Gergelyhoma). - Szönyi 2002, 68 Abb. 16 (Arpas). - Biro 2006, 115 ff. (Gyirmot, Györ-Fövenyes domb/-Szabadret domb, Level, Menföcsanak-Szeles, Mosonszentmiklos-Gergelyhoma, Rajka). - Figler et al. 2006, 26 ff. mit Abb. (Level, Menföcsanak-Szeles).- Egry et al. 2006, 33 ff. mit Abb. (Menföcsanak, Gyirmot). -Jahresbericht 2004, 12 Abb. 2 (Bruckneudorf). 70 Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, 118 ff. Abb. 113-123 (Mautern). In der römischen Provinz Noricum lassen sich regionale Gruppen nicht nur anhand der charakteristischen Tracht (Abb. 1), sondern insbesondere auch anhand von charakteristischen Gebrauchsgeschirrtypen unterscheiden. Die exemplarische Betrachtung größerer Fundbestände des 1./frühen 2. Jhs. n. Chr. in Ostnoricum verdeutlicht, dass eine Bewertung der Charakteristika auf mehreren Ebenen zu erfolgen hat: Zu definieren ist primär das für die Region typische Spektrum und dieses ist von Fremdformen zu differenzieren. Fremdformen sind einerseits tatsächliche Importe, die adaptiert werden, andererseits durch Interaktion mit zuwandernden Gruppen in das lokale Repertoire infiltrierte Gebrauchsformen. Das hier vorgelegte Material dokumentiert die Differenzierung von regionalen Gruppen in Ostnoricum des 1./frühen 2. Jhs. n. Chr. Es er- Abb. 15: Frührömische Grubenhütten aus Level und Menöfcsanak-Szeles (Pannonien) sowie Favianis-Mautern (Noricum) im Vergleich (unter Verwendung von Groh, Sedlmayer 2006; Szönyi 2005). Sl. 15: Primerjava zgodnjerimskih zemljank z najdišč Level in Menöfcsanak-Szeles (Panonija) in Favianis (Mautern, Norik) (po Groh, Sedlmayer 2006; Szönyi 2005). folgt eine Gegenüberstellung von Funden aus den Siedlungsplätzen Favianis-Mautern und Großpriel sowie der Keramikproduktionsstätte Mannersdorf bei Melk in Nordostnoricum zum einen und aus den Siedlungsplätzen Frauenberg bei Leibnitz, Saaz und Gleisdorf zum anderen, wobei Letzterer auch eine Keramikproduktionsstätte repräsentiert. Die Definition einer repräsentativen südostnorischen Gruppe der frühen Kaiserzeit erfolgt insbesondere durch Vergleichsfunde (Abb. 3-7) aus Gleisdorf und Abb. 16: Gesamtspektrum (n = 490) der materiellen Kultur frührömischer/flavischer Zeit in Favianis-Mautern mit Bezugspunkten zu allochthonen Gruppen. Sl. 16: Celotni spekter (n = 490) materialne kulture zgodnjerimskega/flavijskega časa v naselju Favianis (Mautern) z ozirom na priseljene skupine. Saaz, römischen Siedlungen kleinstädtischen bzw. dörflichen Charakters. Die besondere Bedeutung des frührömischen südostnorischen Repertoires liegt darin, dass aufgrund der Kontinuität der Formentwicklung von La Tene D2 bis in römische Zeit, wie sie am Frauenberg bei Leibnitz (Abb. 2) aufgezeigt werden kann, ein Milieu mit starken keltischen Traditionen zu erfassen ist. In Nordostnoricum bilden insbesondere der Fundbestand aus dem Keramikbrennofen von Mannersdorf bei Melk (Abb. 9) sowie Keramik- und Kleinfunde aus Großpriel und Favianis-Mautern die Basis für eine Charakterisierung eines nordost-norischen Formenrepertoires frührömischer Zeit (Abb. 9-10). Im Unterschied zu Südostnoricum ist in der nordostnorischen Region, im Alpenvorland und an der Donau, eine Kontinuität in der Siedlungsentwicklung und somit eine Tradition von La Tene D2 bis in frührömische Zeit bislang nicht zu erfassen. Die übergeordnete Ebene in der Formenanalyse stellt jene Differenzierung dar, die neben dem regionalen Repertoire jene Elemente erfasst und benennt, die eine Adaption oder Interaktion aufgrund von Fremdeinflüssen indizieren. Bei der Adaption handelt es sich primär um die Aufnahme bzw. Imitation von Importen römischer bzw. mediterraner Tradition, sie beruht also primär auf der Akzeptanz anderer Koch-/Speisesitten bzw. auf Repräsentationswillen. Die Interaktion führt zu einer Übernahme von Fremdformen in die lokale Produktion, die das direkte Formwollen neuer Siedler/Bevölkerungsgruppen manifestiert. In Zusammenhang mit der frührömischen Entwicklung in Ostnoricum interessiert insbesondere die Interaktion, also die Übernahme von Typen, die aufgrund von Binnenmigration im römischen Reich, innerhalb einer Provinz, oder aber über Provinzgrenzen hinweg, durch die Kulturträger selbst transportiert werden. Im Fall von Noricum ist exemplarisch für den östlichen Abschnitt des Limes anhand des Kastellstandplatzes Favianis-Mautern aufzuzeigen, dass zum einen eine Binnenmigration innerhalb der Provinz im 1. Jh. n. Chr. von Süd nach Nord erfolgt, zum anderen aber eine Zuwanderung aus der obergermanischen Region und aus dem benachbarten Westpannonien. In flavischer Zeit ist im Fundspektrum von Favianis-Mautern eine Differenzierung vorzunehmen, die einerseits einen geringen regionalen nordostnorischen Anteil (Abb. 9-10 und 16) zeigt und andererseits große Gruppen, die auf Interaktionen mit Südostnoricum (Abb. 3-7 und 16), Nordwestpannonien (Abb. 13-14 und 16) und Obergermanien (Abb. 11 und 16) deuten. Diesem regen Austausch mit unterschiedlichen Regionen und der damit einhergehenden Ansiedlung von Bevölkerungsgruppen in Nordostnoricum könnte folgendes Modell zu Grunde liegen: In La Tene D erfolgt ein Rückzug der Bewohner aus dem Alpenvorland und dem Donautal in die inneralpinen Regionen. Aus der neuerlichen Erschließung dieser in frührömischer Zeit dünn besiedelten Landschaft an der Donau als wichtige West-Ost-Verbindung und der Sicherung sowie dem infrastrukturellen Ausbau dieses Gebiets durch permanent stationierte Truppenkörper resultiert der Bedarf nach einem wirtschaftlich funktionierenden Hinterland. Die Ansiedlung von unterschiedlichen Bevölkerungsgruppen aus Südostnoricum und Westpannonien erfolgt gemeinsam mit der Installierung von Truppenkörpern aus den Westprovinzen in flavischer Zeit. Als ein Schwerpunkt der Truppenversorgung ist die Eisenverarbeitung von Wichtigkeit und hier wiederum die Verbindung mit den Verhüttungsplätzen in Südostnoricum und den auf dieses Handwerk spezialisierten Bevölkerungsgruppen. ARTNER, W. 1988-1989, Die provinzialrömischen Gräber von Gleisdorf in der Oststeiermark. - Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte 38/39 (1994), Wien. ARTNER, W. 1998-1999, Der Frauenberg bei Leibnitz, Steiermark, in der Spätlatenezeit und in der vorclaudi-schen Kaiserzeit. - Archaeologia Austriaca 82/83, 221 ff. ARTNER, W., B. HEBERT und D. KRAMER 1991, Die vorläufigen Ausgrabungsergebnisse auf der Parzelle 1166/1 in Kalsdorf. - Archäologie Österreichs 2/2, 1991, 41 ff. ASSKAMP, R. 1989, Das südliche Oberrheingebiet in frührömischer Zeit. - Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 33, Stuttgart. BAATZ, D. 1962, Mogontiacum. Neue Untersuchungen am römischen Legionslager in Mainz. - Limesforschungen 4, Berlin. BERNHARD, H. 1981, Untersuchungen im frührömischen Rheinzabern. - Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 11, 127 ff. BIRÖ, S. 2006, Romaiak nyomäban...(Auf der Spur der Römer...). - A Györ-Moson-Sopron Megyei Müzeumok Kiallitasvezetöje 1, Györ. BOCKIUS, R. und P. tUCZKIEWICZ 2004, Kelten und Germanen im 2.-1. Jahrhundert vor Christus. - Monographien Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum 58, Mainz. EGRY, M. I. et al., Menföcsanak települesreszletek (Men-föcsanak Siedlungsdetails). - In: Biro 2006, 33 ff. EIDEN, H. 1982, Ausgrabungen an Mittelrhein und Mosel. - Trierer Zeitschrift, Beiheft 6, Trier. ERATH, G. und G. JESCHEK, Gleisdorf. - Fundberichte aus Österreich 33 (1995), 596 f. FIGLER, A. et al., M1 autopalya bennszülött falvak (Autobahn M1 einheimische Siedlungen). - In: Biro 2006, 23 ff. FRANKE, R. 2003, Die Kastelle I und II von Area Flaviae/ Rottweil und die römische Okkupation des oberen Neckargebietes. - Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 93, Stuttgart. FUCHS, G. (Hrsg.) 1994, Rettungsgrabung auf Parzelle 322/49 der KG Pichling bei Köflach, Steiermark. - Fundberichte aus Österreich 33 (1995), 109 ff. FUCHS, G. 2000, Römerzeitliche Siedlungsbefunde in Köflach-Pichling. - Archäologie Österreichs 11/2, 44 f. GABLER, D. 1996-1997, A Savari romai ütallomas es elsö szazadi elözmenye (Die römische Straßenstation von Sarvar und ihre Vorgängerbauten aus dem 1. Jh. n. Chr.). - Savaria 23/3, 237 ff. GARBSCH, J. 1965, Die norisch-pannonische Frauentracht im 1. und 2. Jahrhundert. - Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 11, München. GROH, St. und H. SEDLMAYER 2005, Der norisch-römische Kultplatz am Frauenberg (Österreich). - Protohistoire Europeenne 9, Montagnac. GROH, St. und H. SEDLMAYER 2006, Forschungen im Vicus Ost von Mautern-Favianis. - Der römische Limes in Österreich 44, Wien. HARL, O. 2003, Die Donauarmee als Träger der norisch-pannonischen Kunst - Der Fall Norikum. - In: P. Noelke, F. Naumann-Streckner, B. Schneider (Hrsg.), Romanisation und Resistenz in Plastik, Architektur und Inschriften der Provinzen des Imperium Romanum, 337 ff, Mainz. HEYMANS, H. 1997, Die Fibeln aus dem römerzeitlichen Vicus von Kalsdorf bei Graz. - Fundberichte aus Österreich 36 (1998), 325 ff. HINKER, Ch. 2006, Flavia Solva vor der Stadtrechtsverleihung. - Schild von Steier, Beiheft 3, Graz. Jahresbericht 2003 = Die Abteilung für Bodendenkmale des Bundesdenkmalamtes. Jahresbericht 2003. - In: Fundberichte aus Österreich 42 (2004), 9 ff. Jahresbericht 2004 = Die Abteilung für Bodendenkmale des Bundesdenkmalamtes. Jahresbericht 2004. - In: Fundberichte aus Österreich 43 (2005) 9 ff. JESCHEK, G. 2000, Die grautonige Keramik aus dem römischen Vicus von Gleisdorf. - Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Archäologie der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz 5, Wien. JOBST, W. 1975, Die römischen Fibeln aus Lauriacum. -Forschungen in Lauriacum 10, Linz. KELEMEN, M. H. 1980, Romai kori fazekaskemencek Balatonfüzfön (Töpfereiöfen aus der Römerzeit in Balatonfüzfö). - A Veszprem Megyei Müzeumok Közle-menyei 15, 49 ff. KERCHLER, H. 1967, Die römerzeitlichen Brandbestattungen unter Hügeln in Niederösterreich. - Archaeologia Austriaca Beiheft 8, Wien. KNOPF, Th. 2000, Das römische Sindelfingen. - Materialhefte zur Archäologie in Baden-Württemberg 55, Stuttgart. KRENN-LEEB, A. 1993, Ein römischer Lochtennenofen aus Mannersdorf bei Melk. - Fundberichte aus Österreich 32 (1994), 312 ff. LORENZ, Th., Ch. MAIER und M. LEHNER 1995, Der römische Vicus von Gleisdorf. -Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Klassische Archäologie der Karl-FranzensUniversität Graz 2, Wien. LUNZ-BERNHARD, G. 2002, Lopodunum III. Die neckarswebische Siedlung und Villa rustica im Gewann "Ziegelscheuer". - Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 77, Stuttgart. MÄTYÄS, S. 2006, Egy kora romai települes Savaria terri-toriumarol (An early roman settlement within Savaria). - Savaria 30, 159 ff. MÖCSY, A. 1954, Koraromai sirok Szombathelyröl (Frührömische Gräber in Savaria (Szombathely)). - Archaeologiai Ertesito 81, 167 ff. PEŠKAR, I. 1972, Fibeln aus der römischen Kaiserzeit in Mähren. - Prag. PIETA, K. und V. PLACHÄ 1999, Die ersten Römer im nördlichen Mitteldonauraum im Lichte neuer Grabungen in Devin. - In: Th. Fischer et al. (Hrsg.), Germanen beiderseits des spätantiken Limes, Spisy Archeologickeko Üstavu AV ČR Brno 14, 179 ff, Brno. PIETSCH, M. 2001, Eine neue spätkeltische Höhensiedlung bei Leonberg. - Archäologisches Jahr in Bayern (2002), 72 ff. PREINFALK, F. 2005, Die spätlatenezeitliche Siedlung von Haselbach. - In: Zeitschienen. Vom Tullnerfeld ins Traisental, Fundberichte aus Österreich Materialhefte A, Sonderheft 2, 102 ff. PREßLINGER, H. 1995, Metallurgische Untersuchungsergebnisse der Schlacken und Metallprodukte. - In: Lorenz, Maier, Lehner 1995, 177 ff. SCHMITSBERGER, O. 2004, Kurzer Überblick über das Fundmaterial. - In: F. Pieler, Rettungsgrabung im Bereich des westlichen Vicus von Favianis in Mautern, Melkerstraße, Fundberichte aus Österreich 43 (2005), 801 ff. SCHÖNBERGER, H. und H.-G. SIMON 1980, Das Kastell Okarben und die Besetzung der Wetterau seit Vespasian. - Limesforschungen 19, Berlin. SEDLMAYER, H. 2009, Die Fibeln vom Magdalensberg. - Archäologische Forschungen zu den Grabungen auf dem Magdalensberg 16, Klagenfurt. SEDLMAYER, H. und G. TIEFENGRABER 2006, Forschungen im südostnorischen Vicus am Saazkogel (Steiermark). -Sonderschriften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 41, Wien. SPAUL, J. 2000, Cohors^. The evidence for a short history of the auxiliary infantry units of the Imperial Roman Army. - British Archaeological Reports. International Series 841, Oxford. STIGLITZ, H. 1967, Ein neuer Soldatengrabstein aus Pöchlarn. - In: Festschrift F. Eichler, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts Beiheft 1, 132 ff, Wien. STRMČNIK-GULIČ, M. 1981, Antično grobišče v Starem trgu pri Slovenj Gradcu. - Arheološki vestnik 32, 348 ff. STUNDNER, J. 2006, Ausgewählte Fibeln des 1. und 2. Jahrhunderts aus Aelium Cetium und seinem Umland. - Römisches Österreich 29, 135 ff. SZÖNYI, E. 2002, Mursella municipium (Das Munizipium Mursella). - Arrabona 40, 51 ff. SZÖNYI, E. 2004, Mursella. - In: M. Šašel Kos, P. Scherrer (Hrsg.), The autonomous Towns of Noricum and Panno-nia / Die autonomen Städte in Noricum und Pannonien. Pannonia 2, Situla 42, 85 ff, Ljubljana. SZÖNYI, E. 2005, Landwirtschaftliche Siedlungen hinter dem Limes. - Baläcai Közlemenyek 9, 401 ff. TIEFENGRABER, G. 1999, Die spätlatenezeitliche Keramik der Steiermark, ungedruckte Diplomarbeit. - Graz. TIEFENGRABER, G. 2001, KG Seggauberg. - Fundberichte aus Österreich 41 (2002), 683. WINDL, H. 1972, Eine spätlatenezeitliche Siedlung in Herzogenburg, p. B. St. Pölten, NÖ. - Archaeologia Austriaca 51, 58 ff. "Tuja domovina" - avtohtono in priseljeno prebivalstvo v vzhodnem Noriku v flavijsko-trajan- skem času Povzetek V rimski provinci Norik je mogoče razlikovati regionalne skupine tako po noši (sl. 1) kot tudi po značilnih tipih posodja. Z vzorčnim opazovanjem večjih sklopov najdb v vzhodnem Noriku iz 1. in zgodnjega 2. st. po Kr. je bilo mogoče na več ravneh ovrednotiti značilnosti. Najprej je bilo potrebno definirati spekter, ki je značilen za regijo, in ga ločiti od tujih oblik. Tuje oblike predstavljajo po eni strani uvoženi predmeti, po drugi strani pa gre za oblike, ki so prešle v lokalni repertoar s prihodom novega prebivalstva. Predloženo gradivo dokumentira regionalne skupine v vzhodnem Norku v 1. in zgodnjem 2. st. po Kr. Na eni strani smo primerjali najdbe iz severovzhodnega Norika, to je iz naselbin Favianis (Mautern) in Großpriel ter iz lončarskega središča Mannersdorf pri Melku, na drugi strani pa najdbe iz jugovzhodnonoriških naselbin Frauenberg pri Lipnici, Saaz in Gleisdorf, pri čemer gre v zadnjem primeru tudi za lončarsko središče. Jugovzhodnonoriška skupina iz zgodnjega cesarskega obdobja je bila definirana na podlagi gradiva iz Gleisdorfa in Saaza (sl. 3-7), rimskih naselbin, ki imata značaj malih mest oziroma vasi. Na podlagi kontinuiranega razvoja oblik iz LT D2 v rimsko obdobje, ki se jasno kaže na Frauenbergu nad Lipnico (sl. 2), je mogoče sklepati na močno keltsko tradicijo v tej skupini. Severovzhodnonoriški oblikovni repertoar v zgodnje-rimskem času (sl. 9-10) je definiran s pomočjo najdb iz lončarske peči v Mannersdorfu pri Melku (sl. 9) ter keramike in drugih drobnih najdb iz naselij Großpriel in Favianis (Mautern). Za razliko od jugovzhodnega Norika v severovzhodnem Noriku, tako v predalpskem svetu kot tudi vzdolž Donave, ni bilo kontinuitete v naselbinskem razvoju med obdobjem LT D2 in zgodnjo rimsko dobo. Višjo raven analize predstavlja ugotavljanje tistih oblik, ki kažejo na adaptacijo tujih vplivov ali interakcijo z njimi. Pri adaptaciji gre prvenstveno za prevzem oziroma posnemanje uvoženih rimskih oziroma sredozemskih vzorov, torej za sprejemanje drugih kulinaričnih in kuharskih navad oziroma za željo po reprezentanci. Interakcija, ki pripelje do prevzema tujih oblik v lokalno proizvodnjo, pa je povezana s priseljevanjem novih skupin ljudi. V vzhodnem Noriku je posebej zanimiva interakcija, to je prevzem tipov s pomočjo notranje migracije ali preko provincialnih meja. V 1. st. po Kr. se v kastelu Favianis (Mautern) kaže migracija z juga na sever Norika ter prihod iz zgornjegermanskega prostora in iz sosednje zahodne Panonije. V flavijskem času opažamo v Favianis (Mauternu) diferenciacijo, na eni strani omejen regionalni severovzhodnonoriški delež (sl. 9-10, 16) in na drugi strani velike skupine, ki kažejo na interakcijo z jugovzhodnim Norikom (sl. 3-7, 16), severozahodno Panonijo (sl. 13-14, 16) in Zgornjo Germanijo (sl. 11, 16). V ozadju izmenjav med regijami in hkratnega preseljevanja se v severovzhodnem Noriku kaže osnovni model. V LT D se je prebivalstvo umaknilo iz predalpskega sveta in doline Donave v notranjealpska območja. Po vključitvi v rimsko državo je redko poseljen prostor ob Donavi predstavljal pomembno povezavo v smeri zahod-vzhod in imel obrambno funkcijo. Stalno stacionirane vojaške enote so gradile infrastrukturo. Pokazala se je potreba po bolj gospodarsko učinkovitem zaledju. Priselitev prebivalstva iz jugovzhodnega Norka in iz zahodne Panonije se je ujemala z nastanitvijo vojaških enot iz zahodnih provinc v flavijskem času. Predelava železa je imela prav poseben pomen v preskrbi vojaških enot, zato je bila pomembna tudi povezava z železarskimi obrati v jugovzhodnem Noriku in s prebivalstvom, ki je bilo specializirano v tej veji obrti. Prevod: Jana Horvat Helga Sedlmayer Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut Franz-Klein-Gasse 1 1190 Wien helga. sedlmayer@oeai. at The Diocese of Narona (Ecclesia Naronitana) Ante ŠKEGRo Izvleček Krščanski skupnosti naronitske škofije (Ecclesia Naronitana) je treba pripisati največje zasluge za pokristjanjevanje ljudstev, živečih v osrednjem delu vzhodnega Jadrana. Že zgodaj so glasniki vere širili krščanstvo na to območje, najprej vzdolž transportnih poti, ki so povezovale mesto Narona s Salono, in po dolinah Neretve, Trebižata in Bregave v Hercegovini. Sv. Venancij, ki je kot mučenik umrl med letoma 257 in 260 n. št. nekje med Dalmati (inter Dalmatas), je svojo misijonsko pot začel ravno z območja Narone. Naronska škofija je bila ustanovljena pred Marcelom (Marcellus episcopus Ecclesiae Naronitanae), edinem po imenu znanem škofu Narone. Zgodnje krščanske bazilike v zaledju Narone so bile zgrajene in okrašene v istem arhitektonskem slogu. Zatorej lahko upravičeno domnevamo, da so bila ozemlja, ki ležijo v neposredni bližini Narone in tudi v dolini Neretve, pod jurisdikcijo naronskega škofa. otoki Mljet, Korčula in Lastovo, polotok Pelješac in makarska obala so bili del epitavrske (Ecclesia Epitauritana) in salonske škofije (Ecclesia Salonitana) ter po letu 533 n. št. tudi mukurske (Ecclesia Muccuritana). Vsaj od 6. stol. naprej je imel salonski (nad)škof vrhovno cerkveno avtoriteto v Dalmaciji. Cerkvene stavbe, prvotno cerkve, locirane v zaledju, ki so ohranile svojo prvotno funkcijo ves srednji vek, kažejo na to, da nekaj segmentov krščanstva, ki se je širilo iz Narone, ni usahnilo po prenehanju delovanja naronske škofije. Ključne besede: rimska provinca Dalmacija, zgodnje krščanstvo, naronska škofija (Ecclesia Naronitana) Abstract The Christian community of the Diocese of Narona (Ecclesia Naronitana) deserves the most credit for the Christianization of the population living in the central part of the Eastern Adriatic. From very early times, heralds of the faith brought Christianity to this region primarily along the transportation routes that connected Narona with Salona, and the valleys of the Neretva, Trebižat, and Bregava rivers in Hercegovina. St. Venantius, who died a martyr between 257 and 260 A.D. somewhere amongst the Delmatae population (inter Dalmatas), departed on his missions from the Narona region. The Diocese of Narona was founded before the appearance of the name of its only known bishop, Marcellus (Marcellus episcopus Ecclesiae Naronitanae). The early Christian basilicas in the inner hinterland of Narona were built and decorated according to the same architectural style. Accordingly, it can be reasonably presumed that the territories gravitating towards Narona and its basin were under the jurisdiction of the bishop of Narona. The islands of Mljet, Korčula and Lastovo, the Pelješac peninsula and the coast around Makarska were all part of the Diocese of Epidaurus (Ecclesia Epitauritana) and the Diocese of Salona (Ecclesia Salonitana), and after 533 A.D., of the Diocese of Muccurum (Ecclesia Muccuritana) as well. From at least the 6th century onwards, the (arch) bishop of Salona had supreme ecclesiastical authority in Dalmatia. Sacred buildings, primarily churches located in the inner hinterland, which managed to maintain their original function throughout the Middle Ages, indicate that some segments of Christianity that spread from Narona did not cease after the disappearance of Narona. Keywords: The Roman Province of Dalmatia, Early Christianity, the Diocese of Narona (Ecclesia Naronitana) INTRODUCTION The Christianization of the inner central Eastern Adriatic hinterland is owed to the Diocese of Narona and even more so to the Diocese of Salona, whose beginnings can be traced as far back as the Apostolic times.1 Judging from the acts of the Salona Church Councils2 of 530 and 533 A.D., presided over by the archbishop of Salona, Honorius II (528-547),3 the Church of Salona played a leading role in organizing the Christian institutions in Dalmatia. The missionaries of Narona aimed their efforts primarily at the population inhabiting the territories which gravitated economically, culturally, and by transportation routes towards Narona and its basin. The surviving clergy of Narona and the Christianized population, as well as those of the Diocese of Sarsenterum (Ecclesia Sarsenterensis),4 all contributed towards the Christianization of the Slavic-Croatian people who settled these territories later on. AN OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH TO THE PRESENT Until now, only a single study has been dedicated to the Diocese of Narona, which only partially deals with the diocese itself and the question of the bishop's jurisdiction. According to this work, prior to 533 A.D. when the Diocese of Muccurum was founded,5 the Diocese of Narona comprised the former ager of Narona (the region of Ljubuški up to Klobuk; the regions of Mostar and Čapljina - all in Hercegovina; the Pelješac peninsula, the islands of Mljet, Korčula and Lastovo); the territory of the municipium Novae, (the region of Imotski) and the territory of the municipium Dilluntum, 1 Ad Rom. 15, 19-21: Ita ut ab Hierusalem, per cir-cuitum usque ad Illyricum repleuerim euangelium Christi. Sic autem hoc praedicaui euangelium, non ubi nominatus est Christus, ne super alienum fundamentum aedificarem: sed sicut scriptum est: Quibus non est adnuntiatum, de eo uidebunt: et qui non audierunt, intellegent. Ad Timoth. II, 4, 10: Festina uenire ad me cito. Demas enim me dereliquit, diligens hoc saeculum, et abiit Thessalonicam: Crescens in Galliam, Titus in Dalmatiam. Comp.: Cambi 1976, 239-240; Kovačic 2008, pass. 2 Dodig, Škegro 2008, 9-23. 3 Regarding this bishop: Kuntic-Makvic 1998, 997-1002. 4 Puljic, Škegro 2006a, 7-50; Puljic, Škegro 2006b, 219-241. 5 About this diocese: Škegro 2008a, 9-26; id. 2008b, 291-303. (the region of Stolac) and the Makarska coastline.6 The border between the Diocese of Narona and the Diocese of Salona - before the foundation of the Diocese of Muccurum - is placed in the Ma-karska district, between Epidaurus and Narona, south of Pelješac.7 The three basilicas discovered in Narona do not exclude the possible existence of still more basilicas.8 In his works on early Christian archeology on the Eastern Adriatic coast9 and the late Roman architecture of Narona, Nenad Cambi also studied the Diocese of Narona.10 According to him, the border between the Diocese of Narona and the Diocese of Epidaurus was south of Pelješac; the border with the Diocese of Salona up until the foundation of the Diocese of Muccurum was at Makarska, while the basilica at Cim in Mostar was its border to the north.11 According to Branka Migotti, the border between the Diocese of Salona and the Diocese of Narona (before the foundation of the Diocese of Muccurum) was on the Cetina River.12 Together with the Diocese of Salona, the Diocese of lader, and the Diocese of Epidaurus, Nenad Cambi contends that the Diocese of Narona was one of the most important dioceses on the Eastern Adriatic.13 Narona influenced the entire region, especially the continental hinterland, whereas the Diocese of Salona had the leading role in the coastal region. Cambi presumes that there existed several early Christian buildings,14 among them three basilicas15 - whose style (single aisle buildings with an apse and rooms built alongside its lateral walls) definitely influenced the ecclesiastical architecture in the whole region,16 particularly in its inner hinterland;17 the coastal region of Lučnjak,18 Gubavac19 and Sutvara in the Pelješac 6 Vučic 2005, 159, 163, 167. 7 Vučic, Antička Narona /www.vid.hr/narona.htm [date of accession Okt. 2010]. 8 Vučic 1998, 102-105; id. 2003, 202. 9 Cambi 1976, 246-247. '» Cambi 1984-1985, 33-59. 11 Cambi 1984-1985, 44. 12 Migotti 2008, 355, map 1, 356. 13 Cambi 1984-1985, 58. 14 Cambi 1984-1985, 35. 15 Cambi 1972, 62-63; id. 1976, 246-247; id. 1984-1985, 35; id. 1989, 2398, fig. 7. 16 Cf.: Ribarevic Nikolic 1998, 693-714. 17 Cambi 1976, 247; id. 1978, 145-146; id. 1980, 145, 146, 147; id. 1984-1985, 36. 18 Fiskovic 1963-1965, 156-163; id. 1980, fig. 27 a-b; Cambi 1984-1985, 50, fig. 16. 19 Fiskovic 1980, 151-155; Cambi 1984-1985, 50, fig. 17. channel,20 Ubli - on the island of Lastovo,21 as well as the monastic complex on the island of Majsan in the Pelješac channel.22 He considered the northwestern part of the island of Mljet part of the Diocese of Narona,23 as well as the basilica at Zmijavci in the region of Imotski.24 The 530 and 533 A.D. Church Councils acts of Salona; its former status as a Roman colony (Colonia lulia Narona), and the fact that it was one of the three juridical-administrative convents in Dalmatia (conventus iuridicus), were sufficient evidence for Cambi to consider Narona as the centre of a very important diocese.25 Like Igor Fiskovic,26 Cambi dated the intense Christianization of the rural Dalmatian regions to the 6th century.27 Regarding the Christian topography of Narona, Frane Buškariol (1957-1989)28 registered five early Christian basilicas on its territory (on the Prud - Pelješac - Korčula aqueduct route below the Vid - Prud - Ljubuški road,29 in the Erešove marshes30 on Popričica,31 and finally in Lučice - under the current church of St. Vitus32). He presumed that the basilica on the Prud - Pelješac - Korčula aqueduct route dated back to the mid 4th century33 and that it was renovated in the mid 5th or 6th century, after the cataclysmic destruction of Narona during the second half of the 4th century.34 Buškariol did not exclude the possible existence of another or even more basilicas in Narona.35 The fact that the architectural development of Narona was interrupted at the turn of the 6th and 20 Fiskovic 1980, 143-151; Cambi 1984-1985, 50, fig. 18. 21 Marconi 1934, 16-27; Jeličic, Nikšic 1980-1981, 57-61, tables IV-V; Fiskovic 1980, 234-236, fig. 29; Cambi 1984-1985, 50-51, fig. 19; id. 1989, 2422, 2423, fig. 25. 22 Fiskovic 1980, 230-233, fig. 23, 24, 25; Cambi 1984-1985, 52-53, fig. 20, 21; id. 1989, 2420-2422, fig. 23. 23 Cambi 1984-1985, 55. 24 Cambi, Gamulin, Tonkovic, 1999, pass.; Cambi 2007, 90. 25 Cambi 1984-1985, 44. 26 Fiskovic 1980, 236. 27 Cambi 1976, 268-269; id. 1984-1985, 43. 28 Buškariol 1989, 147-153, pl. I-IX; Marin 1999, 131-148. 29 Buškariol 1986, 122-123; id. 1989, 148-152, 136; Vučic 1998, 102-104. 30 Cambi 1976, 246; Buškariol 1989, 148; Marin 2001, 9-80. 31 Cambi 1976, 247; id. 1989, 2398, fig. 7. 32 Buškariol 1989, 148, 152. 33 Buškariol 1989, 148-152. 34 Buškariol 1989, 152. 35 Buškariol 1989, 152. 7th centuries did not necessarily mean the end of life in the Narona region.36 Emilio Marin regards Narona as a missionary religious centre for the hinterland,37 whose ministry certainly did not cease with the passage from ancient times.38 During the 6th century it was a well organized Christian community with a bishop at its head and three basilicas: (in Narona under the church of St. Vitus,39 and at the Erešove marshes site - fig. 1).40 According to Marin, the early Christian building style found in the hinterland41 and the Southern Dalmatian islands spread from Narona.42 While not attempting to define the territory of the Diocese of Narona, Marin pointed out that until 533 A.D., when the Diocese of Muccurum with its centre in Makarska was founded,43 its southern border was the Diocese of Epidaurus; in the northwest it shared a border with Salona. Marin did not exclude the possibility that Narona actively existed up until the 9th century,44 confirming this theory by pointing out the existence of churches in its inner hinterland.45 Furthermore, the basilica under St. Vitus' church - built according to Marin in the early 5th century46 and renovated under Emperor Justinian I (527-565),47 along with its baptistery (fig. 2)48 - also confirms its survival until the 9th century.49 The emergence of early Christian basilicas in the inner Narona hinterland was a consequence of the Christianization of the Dalmatian surroundings during Justinian's reign,50 more precisely after the re-conquest of Dalmatia (534-537)51 - however, not all authors agree on 36 Buškariol 1986, 27; id. 1989, 148, 151, 153. 37 Marin 1997, 65. 38 Marin 1993, 364; Marin et al. 1999, 232. 39 Marin 1998a, 475-506; id. 1998b, 547-551; id. 1994-1996, 9-94; Marin et al. 1999, 241-245. 40 Marin 1998b, 545, 551; Marin et al. 1999, 239, 245; Marin, 2001, 9-80. 41 Marin 1998b, 543-544; Marin et al. 1999, 237-238. 42 Marin 1994-1996, 29. 43 Marin 1998b, 545-547; id. 1994-1996, 29; Marin et al. 1999, 239-241. 44 Marin 1993, 361-368; id. 1995, 265-275; id. 1998b, 543-560; Marin et al. 1999, 217-227; 237-254. 45 Marin 1998b, 559; id. 1998c, 10; Marin et al. 1999, 253; Basler 1990b, 55-60. 46 Marin 2003, 12. 47 Marin 1994-1996, 10, 17, 22, 25. 48 Marin 1993, 361-368; id. 1998b, 543-560; id. 1994-1996, 25-26; id. 2003, 12. 49 Marin 1998a, 484; id. 1998c, 15, 28. 50 Marin 1998b, 545; Marin et al. 1999, 239. 51 Marin 1994-1996, 29. Fig. 1: Naronitan basilicas (according to Marin 2001). Sl. 1: Naronske bazilike (po Marin 2001). Fig. 2: The basilica under St. Vitus' church (according to Marin 1994-1996). Sl. 2: Narona. Bazilika pod cerkvijo Sv. Vida (po Marin 1994-1996). Fig. 3: The basilica on the Erešove marsh site (according to Marin 2001). Sl. 3: Narona - Erešove bare, bazilika (po Marin 2001). this.52 The erection of the basilica on the Erešove marshes site (fig. 3) - dated during the last phase of the construction of Narona, at the end of the 6th and the beginning of the 7th century,53 also does not exclude the possibility that Narona existed up until the 9th century,54 which is another vital confirmation of the Christianity of Narona.55 Pascale Chevalier, who studied early Christian architecture in Dalmatia extensively, proposed that the basilicas in the regions of Western Hercegovina 52 Jarak 2005, 306; Caillet 2008, pass. 53 Marin 2001, 32, 35, 39-42, 46-50; id. 2003, 12. 54 Marin 2001, 39, 40. 55 Marin 2001, 41. Fig. 4: Tombstone fragments from Kapljuč (Salona). Sl. 4: Salona - Kapljuč. Odlomki balustra. and Stolac,56 those on the islands in the Pelješac channel,57 at Polače on the island of Mljet, at Ubli on Lastovo, and on the island of Sučac, all belonged to the Diocese of Narona.58 st. venantius and narona The roots of the Christian community of Narona are much older than the events that followed the edict of 392 promulgated by Emperor Theodosius I (379-395), which ordered the destruction of the remaining pagan temples throughout the Empire,59 especially after Justinian's military and political campaigns in Dalmatia. Confirming this theory would be the case of St. Venantius, whose activities are linked to the region of Narona, which is particularly true now that it is known that the letters IVS on the tombstone fragment from Kapljuč in Salona (fig. 4),60 56 Klobuk, Dolac - Vitina, Borasi, Tihaljina, Crveni Grm, Biograci, Čerin, Donja Blatnica, Mogorjelo, Bacina, Staševica, Nerezi, Osinj, Crnici, Borojevici, Pješivac, Ston, Vranjevo Selo, Zablace. 57 Majsan, Lučnjak, Gubavac, Sutvara. 58 Chevalier 1996b, 24. 59 Marin 1998c, 118. 60 Marin 1994, 30-31; id. 1998c, 25-26; id. 2007, 252. Frane Bulic connected them to St. Venantius. Cf.: Bulic, Bervaldi 1912-1913, 19-20, tab. 10; id. 1928, 67, fig. 1: [Venant]ivs. The reconstruction of the gravestone - mensa resulted in the names of the four Salonitan martyrs, including also the presbyter Asterius - the letters IVS were a are no longer considered related to him. Numerous authors like: Daniele Farlati (1690-1773),61 Jacques Zeiller (1878-1962),62 Frane Bulic (1846-1934),63 Dominik Mandic (1889-1972),64 Atanazije J. Matanic (1922-2004),65 Duro Basler (1917-1990),66 Slavko Kovačic,67 Vicko Kapitanovic,68 and others point to the Martyrologium Hispaniense of Joannes Tamazus de Salazar for the connection between St. Venantius and Narona.69 According to the Martyrologium Hispaniense, St. Venantius departed from this region for his missions to Pannonia.70 He was killed during one part of his name. Comp.: Bulic 1986, 137; Egger 1926, 108, Nr. 285 + 156a, fig. 62; Br0ndsted 1928, pl. IV, no. 5: [Ant] iochian[vs] / [Gaia]nvs / Teli[vs] / [Pavlinia]nvs / Aste[r]ivs. 61 Farlati 1751, 563-564, 566, 569-570, 589. 62 Zeiller 1918, 49-52. 63 Bulic, Bervaldi 1913, 19-24; Bulic 1928, 58-64; id. 1986, 44. 64 Mandic 1935, 8; id. 1963a, 4, 16. 65 Matanic 1969, 978-979. «« Basler 1986, 38-39; id. 1990a, 56-57. 67 Kovačic 2008, 32. 68 Kapitanovic 2006, 14-16. 69 Farlati 1765, 163: In Dalmatia illustris observat memoria Martyrium S. VenantiiEpiscopi Toletani; cuius corpus a Joanne Pontif. Maximo IV. in Oratorio sui nominis apud Baptisterium Constantini, in omnium maxima Lateranensi Romana ecclesia translatum adservatur. Farlati 1751, 563, 589: Cum in Galliam Narbonensem, negotiis instantibus, Pannoniasque lustraturus abiisset, apud Dalmatas martyr effectus, aeternam remunerationem promeruit. 70 Farlati 1751, 563-564, 566, 589: Cum in Galliam Narbonensem (= in Dalmatia Naronensi), negotiis instan- -PRO-MONA \ salonae ---- issAc: PHAROS^ CORCYR^ NIGRA 100 km U epidaurumX \ n risinium^ Fig. 5: The territory of Delmatae. Sl. 5: Delmatsko ozemlje. of his journeys, and the bellicose Delmate, living in the territory between the Neretva and Krka rivers, the Glamoč-Livno-Duvno region, and the Adriatic sea (^g. 5), were the ones accused (apud Dalmatas martyr effectus). His death can be dated to the reign of Emperor Valerian (253-260), between 257 and 260.71 However, his martyrdom cannot be related to Delminium72 or the alleged Diocese of Delminium.73 The earlier mentioned Martyrologium refers to him as Toletan (S. Venantius episcopus Toletanus), which can undoubtedly be identified as the bishop of Salona (episcopus Salonitanus).'74 There is no undisputed evidence that St. Venantius was the founder of the diocese, or the first bishop of Narona - as has been presumed,75 although this possibility should not be excluded. St. Venantius only provides proof that in the Narona region Christianity existed during the mid 3rd century, if not earlier. Just as St. Paul the Apostle had done two centuries earlier, St. Venantius as bishop could strengthen his flock in their faith on his missionary journeys and organize ecclesiastical institutions. Yet, judging from the scarce material tibus, Pannoniasque lustraturus abiisset, apud Dalmatas martyr effectus, aeternam remunerationem promeruit.... 71 Marin 1994, 30-31; Paškvalin 1995, 764. 72 Farlati 1751, 588, 590; Bulic 1928, 62-68; Mandic 1963a, 15-16; Basler 1986, 38-39; id. 1990a, 56-57. 73 Cf.: Katičic 1998, 76-79; Škegro 2007, 283-302. 74 Farlati 1751, 569; Zeiller 1906, 65, b. 2, 68, 72-74; Bulic, Bervaldi 1912-1913, 20; Bulic 1928, 55; id. 1986, 44; Marin 1988, 24. 75 Basler 1986, 38-39; id. 1990a, 56; Kapitanovic 2006, 15. clues remaining, the number of Christians during his time was not great. They consisted mostly of foreigners who might have lived in Narona itself or in the villages or estates in its vicinity (villae suburbanae, villae rusticae). THE QUESTION OF THE EPISCOPAL OR CATHEDRAL BASILICA The investigations conducted thus far do not offer a clear answer to the question as to whether any of the known basilicas of Narona were a cathedral or episcopal church (basilica episcopalis). Frane Buškariol thought that the basilica on the aqueduct route Prud-Pelješac-Korčula (whose erection he dated to the mid 4th century,76 with a subsequent reconstruction dated in the mid 5th and into the 6th century)77 was one "of the churches built in the spirit of the 530 and 533 A.D. Salona Church Council acts".78 In referring to the conclusions of Nada Klaic (1920-1988),79 and her book where the signatures of the council's participants - amongst others the bishop of Narona, Marcellus,80 indicate that the basilica could have been the central episcopal church of Narona (fig. 6). Neither Emilio Marin,81 who did not exclude that there may have been a basilica under the church of St. Vitus,82 nor Pascale Chevalier, who considered the same basilica to be a possible cathedral of Narona,83 offered a clear answer. The two basilicas from Mogorjelo near Čapljina in the vicinity of Narona84 - dated to the first half of the 5th century,85 are sometimes related to the episcopal see of Narona.86 Considering its vicinity to Narona, the protection it could offer behind its strongly fortified walls, and its excellent position in relation to the hinterland of Narona, this possibility should not be excluded. 76 Buškariol 1989, 148-152. 77 Buškariol 1989, 152. 78 Buškariol 1989, 151. 79 Buškariol 1989, 151, n. 36, 147, n. 11. 80 Klaic 1967, 81, 85; Bratož 1986, 389; id. 1987, 193. 81 Marin 1994-1996, 23. 82 Marin 1997, 49. 83 Chevalier 1996a, 436-438. 84 About the basilicas: Dyggve, Vetters 1966, 44, fig. 21, pl. XVII, 2; Basler 1958, 45-60; id. 1972, 39, fig. 8; 1990, 91; Basler, Miletic, 1988, 331; Cambi 1984-1985, 36, 38, fig. 4. 85 Marijanovic 1990, 110-120; Paškvalin 2003a, 253-266; id. 1990b, 124, 125. 86 Marijanovic 1990, 117. Fig. 6: The remains of two basilicas along the route ofthe water supply line Prud-Pelješac-Korčula (according to Buškariol 1989). Sl. 6: Narona. Gstanki dveh bazilik na trasi vodovoda Prud-Pelješac-korcula (po Buškariol 1989). It is quite understandable that in dangerous times the bishop of Narona with his clergy and faithful could find safe refuge behind its fortified walls, and efficiently administer his diocese from there. Arguments that would confirm this are the facts that Mogorjelo was a major economic centre (fundus), whose primary role, just like that of Višici near Čapljina (villa fructuaria),8'7 was to supply Narona with basic commodities,88 and that dual basilicas "are usually found in diocesan centres".89 THE PROBLEM OF THE FOUNDATION Of THE DIOCESE OF NARONA Christianity in Narona could have received a further stimulus in the period following the radical confrontation with pagan cults, particularly after 392 A.D., when the Emperor Theodosius I promulgated the edict ordering the destruction of pagan temples throughout the Roman Empire.90 Gne can hardly believe that the major non-Christian temples of Narona - like the (Augusteum),91 the temple dedicated to the Roman emperors, whose destruction dates back to the end of the 4th or the beginning of the 5th century92 - could have survived. The construction of a somewhat more monumental Christian basilica, 87 Čremošnik 1965, 147-260. 88 Bojanovski 1969, 33, 45-47; Basler 1972, 42; id. 1984, 324; Škegro 1999, 183, 189, 190; Paškvalin 2003a, 254. 89 Migotti 1994-1995, 122. 90 Marin 1998c, 118. 91 Marin et al 2004, pass.; Marin 2003, 12, 14. 92 Marin et al 2004, 14. or episcopal church, could have followed after the destruction of this symbol of the imperial cult, for which numerous Christians gave up their lives in Dalmatia. If the basilica under St. Vitus' church had indeed been the episcopal or cathedral church - its building dates from the early 5th century93 -it follows then that the foundation of the Diocese of Narona should also be dated to that period. Its construction coincides with that of the cathedral of Salona (early 5th century).94 In this context the conclusion of Nenad Cambi that Iader, Salona, Epidaurus and Narona were 4th century episcopal sees is obvious.95 The opinion of Emilio Marin setting the beginnings of Christianity in Narona only from the mid 5th century can hardly be accepted.96 Keeping in mind that the neighbouring Mogorjelo Christians were evidently present during the 4th century (fig. 7a-b)97 or within the first half of the 5th century,98 it is plausible to assume that Christians may have also lived in Narona before that, or at least at the same time. Before the promulgation of the 313 tolerance act, Christians could meet for their religious services in some kind of private building (oratorium, domus ecclesiae), just as elsewhere in the Empire. It is not excluded that, like in Salona,99 this building was in the outskirts of the city or some nearby villa or village. Gne of those from 93 Marin 2003, 12. 94 Marin 1994, 38. 95 Cambi 2002, 209. 96 Marin 1998c, 110; id. 1999, 12. 97 Marijanovic 1990, 110-120; Paškvalin 2003a, 253-266; id. 1990b, 124, 125. 98 Paškvalin 2003a, 253-266. 99 Cambi 2002, 213; Mardešic 2008, 317-319, fig. 2. Fig. 7: a - Early Christian lamp (lucerna) from Mogor-jelo (according to Marijanovic 1990), b - Fragments and reconstructions of early Christian lamps (lucernae) from Mogorjelo near Čapljina (according to Marijanovic 1990). Sl. 7: a - Mogorjelo pri Čapljini. Zgodnjekrščanska oljenka (lucerna) (po Marijanovic 1990), b - Mogorjelo pri Čapljini. Odlomek in rekonstrukcija zgodnjekrščanske oljenke (lucerna) (po Marijanovic 1990). the last decades of the 3rd century, coinciding with the reign of the emperor Gallienus (253-268), was inside the Roman villa (villa suburbana) at Crkvina in Panik near Bileca, in the Trebišnjica valley.100 A similar role is attributed to the so-called "house with mosaics" from Stolac.101 It is not improbable that the peristyle building with mosaics belonging to a large economic complex (fundus) in Višici near Čapljina102 might also have had the same function. The Bishop of Narona's Territory of Jurisdiction the territory of the Diocese of Narona. Attempts to resolve the problem were based on the former Narona ager and the administrative convent borders (although they cannot be related to the propagation of universal Christianity and ecclesiastical administration) as well as on the emerging Narona basilica style with its decorative elements. Thus, central and lower Hercegovina, the Pelješac peninsula, the Makarska seacoast, the region of Imotski, as well as the islands of Mljet, Lastovo and Korčula were included in its territory.103 However, there is no justifiable geographic or economic reason, and especially no transportation motive, as to why the Makarska seacoast area and the islands would be included in the Diocese of Narona. The Makarska seacoast area has always been oriented towards Salona and its diocese, whereas Mljet, Korčula, Lastovo and the greater part of the Pelješac peninsula were oriented towards Epidaurus and its respective diocese, as otherwise the Diocese of Narona would have remained divided geographically and in its transport routes. On the other hand, the bishop of Epidaurus would have been in an unenviable economical position - having to take care of his own diocesan clergy and the poor would have been an enormous burden. For the pastoral care of these territories on the coast and the islands, the bishop of Narona must have had an entire fleet - which is hardly plausible considering the economic and social status of his diocese. The Diocese of Epidaurus and the Diocese of Salona, together with the Diocese of Muccurum from 533 A.D., were primarily dioceses situated on the coast and islands. The territories of Duvno and Buško Blato (Buško lake), whose orientation towards Narona and its basin can be confirmed not only by the communication routes (^g. 8), but also by the Narona basilica style with its ornamentation - of which the so-called whirling rosette is the most visible element104 - are not even mentioned as part of the Diocese of Narona. This above ornamentation has been recorded in the territories of Duvno and Buško Blato (Bogdašici -Šuica near Tomislavgrad (fig. 9a),105 Karaula near According to available documents, there is no clear indication either of the jurisdiction or of Čremošnik 1974, 243-248; ead., 1984, 77-96; Basler 1988, 31-40; id. 1991, 1. Truhelka 1892, 356-358; id. 1893, 291-295, Taf. 3; Čremošnik 1984, 63-77; Basler 1986, 16, fig. 3, 17; id. 1988, 32; id. 1990, 25, 26, fig. 8; Paškvalin 2003b, 45, 232. Čremošnik 1984, 18-42. '"3 Cambi 1984-1985, 44, 55; id. 2007, 90; Cambi, Ga- mulin, Tonkovic, 1999, pass.; Chevalier 1996b, 24; Marin 1998b, 545-547; id. 1994-1996, 29; id. 1999, 239-241; Vučic 2005, 159, 167; id., Ancient Narona /www.vid.hr/narona.htm [date of accession Okt. 2010]; Migotti 2008, 355, karta 1, 356. 104 Flowers with an oculus in their centre and bordered with grape vine leaves and tendrils. I»5 Patsch 1902, 7, fig. 8; id. 1904, 227-228, fig. 103; Truhelka 1931, 156, fig. 62; Sergejevski 1961, 222, fig. 13: 223, fig. 15: 4; Basler 1972, 116, 117, fig. 123. Fig. 8: The Roman road Salona-Narona with the rural routes (according to Bojanovski 1977). Sl. 8: Rimska cesta Salona-Narona s stranskima priključkoma (po Bojanovski 1977). Tomislavgrad (fig. 9b),106 Podgradina - Rešetarica near Livno (fig. 9c),107 Široki Brijeg (Mokro - fig. 9d)108 and Mostar (Han - Potoci - fig. 9e,109 Cim -fig. 9f-g,110 Žitomislici - fig. 9h).111 If the territories of Široki Brijeg and Mostar were in the Diocese of Narona - which is highly probable if communication routes, and economic and cultural elements are taken into consideration, then the territories of Duvno and Buško Blato could justly be included into its territory. Some authors, mostly because of the presence of a basilica at Cim, place the centre of the Diocese of Sarsenterum112 or the Diocese of I0« Patsch 1904, 208, fig. 65; Truhelka 1931, 154, fig. 59. 107 Vrdoljak 1988; 125, pl. XI, 1; Petrinec, Šeparovic, Vrdoljak 1988, 76, fig. 171, 173. 108 Sergejevski 1961, 223, fig. 15: 3; Basler 1972, 102, fig. 101; id. 1990a, 92, fig. 37; Glavaš 2006, 38. 109 Truhelka 1931, 153, fig. 58; Sergejevski 1961, 223, fig. 15: 6; Miletic 1962, 154-155, pl. III, 2; Basler 1972, 108, fig. 111, fig. 117; id. 1990a, 92, fig. 38. "0 Andelic 1974, 193, pl. V, fig. 1, 2; id. 1999b, 18, 55, pl. V, 1, 2. Andelic 1999a, 14, fig. 4a. 112 Tomaschek 1880, 547; Mandic 1957, 65-68; id. 1959, 77; id. 1963a, 19-23; id. 1963b, 24-31; Andelic 1980, 262; id. 1999a, 37; 1999b, 5; Basler 1984, 327, 339-340, fig. 103; id. 1990a, 101-102, fig. 47; id. 1991, 3; Bojanov- ski 1978, 114; id. 1988, 117, 135, 381; Dračevac 1987, 78; Martari/Mactaris in the Mostar region.113 Chevalier also attempted to place the centre of the Diocese of Martari/Mactaris in Mostar and included the basilicas from the regions of Mostar and Konjic in northern Herzegovina.114 However, the Diocese of Sarsenterum has more recently been identified in the eastern Herzegovinian region and also around Ston on the Pelješac peninsula.115 Considering the relatively good routes of communication with Narona and the Konjic region (fig. 10),116 it is reasonable to include northern Herzegovina in the Diocese of Narona (at least up until the foundation of the Diocese of Sarsenterum). Up until the time of the foundation of the dioceses of Sarsenterum, Muc- Čače 1993, 390-391; Vidovic 1996, 17; Šanjek 1991, 9; id. 1996, 33; id. 1997, 218; Atanackovic-Salčic 1997, 23-24; Goluža 1998, 97; Kuntic-Makvic 2003, 38; Barun 2003, 48; Vučic 2005, 166; Catholic Encyclopedia, Bosnia and Herzegovina: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02694a. htm [date of accession Okt. 2010]. "3 Chevalier 1996a, 394-400; Cambi 2002, 206, 209. 114 Chevalier 1995b, 22, 25: Cim, Sutina-Mostar, Potoci, Humi-Lišani, Kuti, Mokro, Bare, Ježeprašina, Lisičici and Razici. "5 Puljic, Škegro 2006a, 7-50; Puljic, Škegro 2006b, 219-241. 116 Bojanovski 1978, 66-98, add. I. Fig. 9: a - The whirling rosette ornamentation from the basilica at Bogdašici - Šuica near Tomislavgrad (according to Basler 1972), b - a fragment of the whirling rosette ornamentation from Karaula near Tomislavgrad (according to Patsch 1904), c - the whirling rosette ornamentation from the basilica at Podgradina-Rešetarica (Buško Blato) (according to Petrinec et al. 1999), d - the whirling rosette ornamentation from the basilica at Mokro near Široki Brijeg (according to Glavaš 2006), e - the whirling rosette ornamentation from the basilica at Han-Potoci near Mostar (according to Basler 1972), f-g - The whirling rosette ornamentation from the basilica at Cim near Mostar (according to Andelic 1974), h - Reconstruction of the whirling rosette ornamentation from the basilica at Žitomislici near Mostar (according to Andelic 1978). Sl. 9: a - Bogdašici - Šuica, Tomislavgrad. Vrtinčasti okras iz bazilike (po Basler 1972), b - Tomislavgrad - Karaula. Vrtinčasti okras (po Patsch 1904), c - Podgradina - Rešetarica, Buško Blato. Vrtinčasti okras iz bazilike (po Petrinec et al. 1999), d - Široki Brijeg - Mokro. Vrtinčasti okras iz bazilike (po Glavaš 2006), e - Mostar - Han-Potoci. Rekonstrukcija vrtinčastega okrasa iz bazilike (po Basler 1972), f-g - Mostar - Cim. Vrtinčasti okras iz bazilike (po Andelic 1974), h - Mostar - Žitomislici. Rekonstrukcija vrtinčastega okrasa iz bazilike (po Andelic 1978). curum and Ludrum (Ecclesia Ludroensis),11^ the territories extending from the Neretva marshes in the south to the Upper Neretva in the north, along with the Imotski region, western Herzegovina and the Duvno-Buško Blato region, all could have been part of the Diocese of Narona. To the northwest of the Diocese of Narona was the Diocese of Muccurum, which spread from the marshes in the southeast towards the eastern parts of Poljica in the northwest, and probably comprised the larger portion of Pelješac and the Central Dalmatian islands of Hvar, Korčula and Lastovo. The Neretva marshes and the mountain of Biokovo divided it from the Diocese of Narona.118 To the west of the Diocese of Narona was the Diocese of Ludrum, which at the time of its foundation was given the regions of Čikola and Vrba - Muc (Magnoticum, Magnioti-cum), the Sinj and Vrlika regions (Equitinum), the Glamoč-Livno region (Salviaticicum), and probably the Unac and upper Una valleys (Sarsiaticum).119 To the east of the Diocese of Narona was the Diocese of Sarsenterum, which occupied the territories of eastern Herzegovina - Stolac, Trebinja in the Popovo area, the Nevesinje highland, and the Dabar valley, as well as the region of Ston on the Pelješac peninsula.120 The territory of the Diocese of Narona relied on the Neretva basin and its centre, Narona, economically and culturally as well as in routes of transport. Additionally, this is a compact geographical unit, which provided its bishop dignity in his office with an unburdened pastoral ministry. 117 Farlati 1753, 173; 1765, 291; Kukuljevic-Sakcinski 1874, 198; Rački 1894, 16; Šišic 1914, 162; Klaic 1967; 83; Gunjača 1973, 54; Ivaniševic 1994, 161; Dodig, Škegro 2008: ut in Sarsentero, Muccuro et Ludro episcopi debeant consecrari^. Škegro 2008a, 9-26; id. 2008b, 291-303. "9 Škegro 2007a, 59-92; id. 2007b, 197-220; id. 2007c, 9-24. '20 Puljic, Škegro 2006a, 7-50; Puljic, Škegro 2006b, 219-241. Fig. 10: The Roman roads Narona - Northern Herzegovina (according to Bojanovski 1978). Sl. 10: rimskeceste iz Narone proti severni Hercegovini (po Bojanovski 1978). CONCUSION The Diocese of Narona had an important role in the Christianization of the population inhabiting the inner central eastern Adriatic hinterland, particularly in the Neretva, Trebižat, Bregava, and rama valleys and the surrounding regions. research carried out so far has resulted in the discovery of several early Christian basilicas in Narona and a number of basilicas in its hinterland, which testify to a process of Christianization in progress. However, these investigations have still not given a clear answer to the question as to which of the Narona basilicas was the episcopal, cathedral church of the diocese. If one were to judge by the evidence about St. Venantius in Salazar's Martyrologium His-paniense, and the objects of Christian provenance from Mogorjelo dating probably to the 4th century or within the first half of the 5th century, it can be reasonably concluded that the beginnings of the Narona Christian community must be considerably earlier than its only known bishop Marcellus, as documented sources show. The early Christian basilicas from the Narona hinterland that retained their original function well throughout the Middle Ages testify to the fact that all the segments of the Diocese of Narona did not cease simultaneously with its centre - Narona. Situated on the major road Aquileia - Salona - Epidamnos - Constantinopolis, and at an important port, it was a perfect starting point for the Christianization of the Dalmatian hinterland, where well organized communication routes existed. Although there are no precise sources that can prove it, it can reasonably be assumed that the territories that geographically, economically and culturally gravitated towards the Neretva river basin (from the Neretva marshes in the south to the Konjic region to the north), Western Herzegovina, the Imotski region, and most probably the Duvno-Buško Blato region, were within its boundaries. ANDELIC, T. 1974, Kasnoantička bazilika u Cimu kod Mostara. - Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine 29, 179-244. ANDELIC, T. 1978, Kasnoantička dvojna bazilika (basilica geminata) u Žitomislicima kod Mostara. - Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine 32, 293-314. ANDELIC, T. 1980, Neki objekti kasnoantičke sakralne arhitekture u okolini Mostara. - Dolina rijeke Neretve od prethistorije do ranog srednjeg vijeka. Znanstveni skup Metkovič 4-7. X. 1977, 257-266, Split. ANDELIC, T. 1999a, Ranokrščanska dvojna bazilika (basilica geminata) u Žitomisličima kod Mostara. - Mostar. ANDELIC, T. 1999b, Starokrščanska cimska bazilika u Mo-staru / Altchristliche Cimer Basilika in Mostar. - Mostar. ATANACKOVIC-SALČIC, V. 1997, Nove ranokršcanske crkve na području Mostara. - In: Hercegovina. Godišnjak za kulturno i povijesno naslijede 3 (11), 23-30, Mostar. BARUN, A. 2003, Svjedoci i učitelji. Povijest franjevaca Bosne Srebrene. - Sarajevo, Zagreb. BASLER, D. 1958, Bazilike na Mogorjelu. - In: Naše starine. Godišnjak Zemaljskog zavoda za zaštitu spomenika kulture i prirodnih rijetkosti Narodne Republike Bosne i Hercegovine 5, 45-62, Sarajevo. BASLER, D. 1972, Arhitektura kasnoantičkog doba u Bosni i Hercegovini. - Sarajevo. BASLER, D. 1984, Kasnoantičko doba. - In: Kulturna isto-rija Bosne i Hercegovine od najstarijih vremena do pada ovih zemalja pod osmansku vlast, 309-373, Sarajevo. BASLER, D. 1986, Krščanska arheologija. - Mostar. BASLER, D. 1988, Antički spomenici na području Trebin-jske biskupije. - In: Tisuču godina Trebinjske biskupije, 31-40, Sarajevo. BASLER, D. 1990a, Krščanska arheologija. - Mostar. BASLER, D. 1990b, Tragovi krščanstva od VII. do IX. stoljeca u zaledu Dalmacije. - In: Počeci hrvatskog krščanskog i društvenog života od VII. do kraja IX. stolječa. Radovi drugog medunarodnog simpozija o Hrvatskoj crkvenoj i društvenoj povijesti, Split, 30. rujna - 5. listopada 1985, 55-60, Split. BASLER, D. 1991, Arheološki spomenici krščanstva u Bosni i Hercegovini do XV. stolječa. - In: Krščanstvo srednjovjekovne Bosne. Radovi sa simpozija povodom 9 stolječa spominjanja Bosanske biskupije /1089 - 1989/, 1-9, Sarajevo. BASLER, D. 1993, Spatantike und frühchristliche Architektur in Bosnien und der Herzegowina. - Wien. BASLER, D. and N. MILETIC 1988, Mogorjelo, Čapljina. - In: Arheološki leksikon Bosne i Hercegovine, Tom 3., 331, nr. 25.224, Sarajevo. BOJANOVSKI, I. 1969, Antička uljara na Mogorjelu i rekonstrukcija njenog torkulara. - In: Naše starine. Godišnjak Zemaljskog zavoda za zaštitu spomenika kulture i prirodnih rijetkosti Narodne Republike Bosne i Hercegovine 12, 27-54, Sarajevo. BOJANOVSKI, I. 1977, Prilozi za topografiju rimskih i predrimskih komunikacija i naselja u rimskoj provinciji Dalmaciji. I - Prethistorijska i antička komunikacija Salona - Narona i njena topografija u svjetlu arheoloških i historijskih izvora. - Godišnjak 15, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja 13, 83-152. BOJANOVSKI, I. 1978, Prilozi za topografiju rimskih i predrimskih komunikacija i naselja u rimskoj provinciji Dalmaciji. II - Prethistorijska i rimska cesta Narona -Sarajevsko Polje s limitrofnim naseljim. - Godišnjak 17, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja 15, 51-125. BOJANOVSKI, I. 1988, Bosna i Hercegovina u antičko doba. - Sarajevo. BRATOŽ, R. 1986, Razvoj organizacije zgodnjekrščanske cerkve na ozemlju Jugoslavije od 3. do 6. stoletja. -Zgodovinski časopis 40/4, 363-395. BRATOŽ, R. 1987, Die Entwicklung der Kirchenorganisation in den Westbalkanprovinzen (4. bis 6. Jahrhundert). -Miscellanea Bulgarica 5, 149-196. BR0NDSTED, J. 1928, La basilique des cinq martyrs a Kapljuč. - In: Recherches a Salone 1, 33-186, Copenhague. BULIC, F. and J. BERVALDI 1912-1913, Kronotaksa solinskih biskupa uz dodatak Kronotaksa spljetskih nadbiskupa (od razorenja Solina do polovice XI. v.). - Zagreb. BULIC, F. 1928, Sv. Venancije prvi biskup solinski i mučenik duvanjski. - Vjesnik Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 15, 55-71. BULIC, F. 1986, Po ruševinama stare Salone. Prilog Vjesniku za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 79. - Split. BUŠKARIOL, F. 1985, Vid kod Metkoviča. - Arheološki pregled 26, 122-123. BUŠKARIOL, F. 1986, Nastavak zaštitnih istraživanja na trasi vodovoda u Vidu. - Obavijesti. Hrvatsko arheološko društvo 18/2, 26-27. BUŠKARIOL, F. 1989, Prinosi kasnoantičkoj sakralnoj topografiji Narone. - Lychnid 7, 147-153. CAILLET, J.-P. 2008, L'eglise salonitaine a l'epoque des eveques Etienne et Honorius II. - In: Salonitansko-splitska Crkva u prvom tisučlječu krščanske povijesti. Zbornik medunarodnoga znanstvenog skupa u povodu 1700. obljetnice mučeništva sv. Dujma, Split 14. - 15. svibnja 2004., 211-219, Split. CAMBI, N., A. GAMULIN and S. TONKOVIC 1999, Starokrščanska bazilika u Zmijavcima. - Split, Zmijavci. CAMBI, N. 1972, Narona, Vid - Metkovic, antički bedemi i starokršcanska bazilika. - Arheološki pregled 14, 62-64. CAMBI, N. 1976, Neki problemi starokršcanske arheologije na istočnoj jadranskoj obali. - In: IX kongres arheologa Jugoslavije Zadar 1972. Materijali 12, 239-282, Zadar. CAMBI, N. 1978, Unpublished Excavations and Finds of Early Christian Period in Yugoslavia. - In: Atti del IX congresso internazionale di archeologia cristiana, Roma 21-27 settembre 1975, vol. 2, 141-156, Roma. CAMBI, N. 1980, Antička Narona - urbanistička topografija i kulturni profil grada. - In: Dolina rijeke Neretve od prethistorije do ranog srednjeg vijeka. Znanstveni skup Metkovič 4 - 7. X. 1977., 127-153, Split. CAMBI, N. 1984-1985, Arhitektura Narone i njezina teritorija u kasnoj antici. - Radovi Filozofskog fakultetu u Zadru. Razdio povijesnih znanosti 24 (11), 33-59. CAMBI, N. 1989, Nuove scoperte di archeologia cristiana in Dalmazia. - In: Actes du XIe congres international d'archeologie chretienne, Lyon, Vienne, Grenoble, Geneve et Aoste (21-28 septembere 1986), Ecole fran^aise de Rome Pontificio instituto di archeologia cristiana. 2389-2440, Rome. CAMBI, N. 2002, Antika. - Zagreb. CAMBI, N. 2007, Antički i ranokršcanski urbanizam i umjetnost. - In: Dalmatinska Zagora - nepoznata zemlja: Galerija Klovičevi dvori, Zagreb, 4. rujna - 21. listopada 2007, 77-93, Zagreb. CHEVALIER, P. 1996a, Salona 2. Ecclesiae Dalmatiae. V architecture paleochretienne de la province romaine de Dalmatie (IVe-VIIe s.) 1, Catalogue. - Collection de l'Ecole fran^aise de Rome 194/2, Rome, Split. CHEVALIER, P. 1996b, Ecclesiae Dalmatiae. Varchitecture paleochretienne de la province romaine de Dalmatie (IVe-VIIe s.) 2, Illustrations et conclusions. - Collection de l'Ecole fran^aise de Rome 194/2, Rome, Split. ČAČE, S. 1993, Civitates Dalmatiae u "Kozmografiji" Anonima Ravenjanina. - Diadora15, 347-440. ČREMOŠNIK, I. 1965, Rimska vila u Višicima. - Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine 20, 147-260. ČREMOŠNIK, I. 1974, Prvi tragovi kršcanstva na nalazima vile u Paniku. - Situla 14-15, 243-248, Ljubljana. ČREMOŠNIK, I. 1984, Mozaici i zidno slikarstvo rimskog doba u Bosni i Hercegovini. - Sarajevo. DODIG, R. and A. ŠKEGRO 2008, Akti crkvenih sabora održanih 530. i 533. u Saloni. - Povijesni prilozi / Historical Contributions 35, 9-23. DRAČEVAC, A. 1987, Ponovno osnivanje katoličke bisku-pije u Stonu. - In: Zbornik radova u čast 650. obljetnice planske izgradnje Stona i Malog stona, 77-90, Ston. DYGGVE, E. and H. VETTERS 1966, Mogorjelo. Ein spätantiker Herrensitz in römischen Dalmatien. - Schriften der Balkan-kommission antiquarische Abteilung 13, Wien. EGGER, R. 1926, Forschungen in Salona 2. Der altchristliche Friedhof Manastirine. - Wien. FARLATI, D. 1751, Illyrici sacri tomus primus. Ecclesia Salonitana ab eius exordio usque ad saeculum quartum aerae Christianae. Auctore Daniele Farlato presbytero Societatis Jesu. - Venetiis. FARLATI, D. 1765, Illyrici sacri tomus tertius. Ecclesia Spalatensis olim Salonitana. Auctore Daniele Farlato presbytero Societatis Jesu. - Venetiis. FISKOVIC, I. 1963-1965, Ranokršcanske crkvice na Su-tvari, Gubavcu i Lučnjaku kraj Majsana u Pelješkom kanalu. - Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 65-67, 141-167. FISKOVIC, I. 1980, O ranokršcanskim spomenicima naronitanskog područja. - In: Dolina rijeke Neretve od prethistorije do ranog srednjeg vijeka. Znanstveni skup - Metkovič, 4. - 7. listopada 1977., 213-256, Split. GLAVAŠ, T. 2006, Sakralne gradevine u širokobriješkom kraju od ranog kršcanstva od kraja srednjeg vijeka (IV.-XV st.). - In: Sto godina nove crkve na Širokom Brijegu 1905.-2005, Široki Brijeg. GOLUŽA, B. 1998, Povijest Crkve. - Mostar. GUNJAČA, S. 1973, Ispravci i dopune starijoj hrvatskoj historiji. Knjiga I. Izvori (analiza i kritika). - Zagreb. IVANIŠEVIC, M. 1994, Povijesni izvori. - In: Salona christiana, 105-195, Split. JARAK, M. 2005, Questions concerning christianisation of the autochthonous romanized population of Dalmatia. - In: Illyrica antiqua ob honorem Duje Rendič-Miočevič. Radovi s medunarodnoga skupa o problemima antičke arheologije Zagreb, 6. - 8. XI. 2003, 304-314, Zagreb. JELIČIC, J. and G. NIKŠIC 1980-1981, Konzervacija ranokršcanske crkve u Ublima na Lastovu. - Godišnjak za zaštitu spomenika kulture Hrvatske 6-7,57-61. KAPITANOVIC, V. 2006, Rimski Ilirik u odrazu krščanske književnosti. - Split. KATIČIC, R. 1998, Litterarum studia. Književnost i nao-brazba ranoga hrvatskog srednjovjekovlja. - Zagreb. KLAIC, N. 1967, Historia salonitana maior. - Beograd. KOVAČIC, S. 2008, Pitanje početka salonitanske crkve u historiografiji i u sklopu opcih spoznaja o procesu širenja kršcanstva na Sredozemlju do sredine 3. stoljeca. - In: Salonitansko-splitska Crkva u prvom tisučlječu krščanske povijesti. Zbornik medunarodnoga znanstvenog skupa u povodu 1700. obljetnice mučeništva sv. Dujma, Split 14.-15. svibnja. 2004, 17-40, Split. KUKULJEVIC-SAKCINSKI, I. 1874, Diplomatički zbornik Kraljevine Hrvatske s Dalmacijom i Slavonijom 1 (503. - 1102.). - Zagreb. KUNTIC-MAKVIC, B. 1998, Honorius Iunior, Salonitanae urbis episcopus. Essai sur la Dalmatie de son temps. - In: Radovi XIII. medunarodnog kongresa za starokrščansku arheolgiju / Acta XIII Congressus internationalis archa-eologiae christianae, Split - Poreč (25. 9. - 1. 10. 1994.) 2, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku. Supl. 87-89 = Studi di antichita christiana pubblicati a cura del Pontificio istituto di archeologia cristiana 54, 997-1002, Split, Citta del Vaticano. KUNTIC-MAKVIC, B. 2003, Područje rimskog Ilirika uoči dolaska Hrvata. - In: Povijest Hrvata. Prva knjiga. Srednji vijek, 5-38, Zagreb. MANDIC, D. 1935, Duvanjska biskupija od XIV. - XVII. stoljeca. - In: Croatia sacra. Arkiv za crkvenu povijest Hrvata 5, 1-98, Zagreb. MANDIC, D. 1957, Gdje je bilo sijelo biskupije sarsen-terensis? - Dobri pastir. Revija Udruženja katoličkih svečenika BiH 8, 65-68. MANDIC, D. 1959, Ponovno o sijelu biskupije sarsen-terensis. - Dobri pastir. Revija Udruženja katoličkih svečenika BiH 9, 71-77. MANDIC, D. 1963a, Gdje je bilo sijelo biskupije Sarsite-rensis? - In: Rasprave i prilozi iz stare hrvatske povijesti, 19-23, Rim. MANDIC, D. 1963b, Ponovno o sijelu biskupije Sarsite-rensis? - In: Rasprave i prilozi iz stare hrvatske povijesti, 24-31, Rim. MANDIC, D. 1963c, Sv. Venancij ili sv. Dujam prvi biskup i osnovatelj solinsko-splitske biskupije? - In: Rasprave i prilozi iz stare hrvatske povijesti, 1-18, Rim. MARCONI, P. 1934, Antichita di Lagosta. Disegni e rilievi dell'architetto L. Leporini. - Bullettino della Commissione archeologica comunale 62, 3-27. MARDEŠIC, J. 2008, Stanje poznavanja episkopalnoga centra u Saloni s osvrtom na nova istraživanja. - In: Salonitansko-splitska Crkva u prvom tisučlječu krščanske povijesti. Zbornik medunarodnoga znanstvenog skupa u povodu 1700. obljetnice mučeništva sv. Dujma, Split 14.-15. svibnja. 2004, 317-330, Split. MARIJANOVIC, I. 1990, Prilog datiranju nekih starokršcanskih crkava u Bosni i Hercegovini. - Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine 45, 109-136. MARIN, E. 1988, Starokrščanska Salona. Studije o genezi, profilu i transformaciji grada. - Zagreb. MARIN, E. 1993, Kristionica u Naroni od V. stoljeca do vremena Domagoja? - In: Kačič. Zbornik fra Karla Jurišiča 25, 361-368, Split. MARIN, E. 1994, Civitas splendida Salona: geneza, profil i transformacija starokršcanske Salone. - In: Salona Christiana, 9-104, Split. MARIN, E. 1995, Sv. Vid de Narona: un exemple desor-mais etabli pour la discontinuite. - In: Orbis Romanus Christianusque (Melanges Noel Duval), 265-275, Paris. MARIN, E. 1997, Ave Narona. - Zagreb. MARIN, E. 1998a, Narona - basilique et baptistere paleo-chretiens de Sv. Vid. - In: Radovi XIII. medunarodnog kongresa za starokrščansku arheolgiju / Acta XIII Congressus internationalis archaeologiae christianae, Split - Poreč (25. 9. - 1. 10. 1994.) 3, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku. Supl. 87-89 = Studi di antichita christiana pubblicati a cura del Pontificio istituto di archeologia cristiana 54, 475-506, Citta del Vaticano, Split. MARIN, E. 1998b, Narona vom 6. bis zum 9. Jahrhundert. Domum tuam dilexi. - In: Miscellanea in onore di A. Nestori, Studi di antichita cristiana 53, 543-560, Citta del Vaticano. MARIN, E. 1998c, Salona Narona: razgovori. - Sarajevo, Sinj. MARIN, E. 1994-1996, Sv. Vid. Starokrščanska bazilika i kristionica Narone, srednjovjekovno groblje, novo-vjekovna crkva. - Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 87-89, 9-94. MARIN, E. 1999, Narona Vid kod Metkoviča. - Metkovič, Split. MARIN, E. 2001, Erešove bare villa suburbana iz 3. st. i starokrščanska crkva iz 7. st. u Naroni. - Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 94, 9-80. MARIN, E. 2003, Naronitanski Augusteum i arheološka istraživanja u Naroni 1988. - 2001. - In: Arheološka istraživanja u Naroni i dolini Neretve. Znanstveni skup Metkovič, 6. - 9, listopada 2001., 11-50, Zagreb, Metkovič, Split. MARIN, E. 2007, Mozaik u oratoriju sv. Venancija u La-teranskoj krstionici. - Prilozi Instituta za arheulogiju u Zagrebu 24, 251-256. MARIN, E. et al. 1999, Narona. - Zagreb, Opuzen. MARIN, E. et al. 2004, Augusteum Narone. Splitska siesta naronskih careva. - Split. MATANIC, A. G. 1969, Venanzio di Delminium. - Biblio-theca Sanctorum 12, col. 978-979. MIGOTTI, B. 1994-1995, Vrste i namjene ranokrščanskih zdanja u Dalmaciji. - Radovi Filozofskog fakultetu u Zadru, Razdio povijesnih znanosti 34(21), 113-144. MIGOTTI, B. 2008, Tragovi starokrščanskih bazilika na salonitanskom području izvan same Salone. - In: Salonitansko-splitska Crkva u prvom tisučlječu krščanske povijesti. Zbornik medunarodnoga znanstvenog skupa u povodu 1700. obljetnice mučeništva sv. Dujma, Split 14.-15. svibnja. 2004., 351-416, Split. MILETIC, N. 1962, Izveštaj o zaštitnom iskopavanju u Potocima kod Mostara. - Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine 17, 153-157. PAŠKVALIN, V. 1995, Pojava krščanstva u srednjoj Bosni i njegova hijerarhija u svjetlu novijih arheoloških iskopavanja. - In: Zbornik radova u povodu imenovanja vrhbosanskog nadbiskupa Vinka Puljiča kardinalom. »Črtajtegranice neprecrtajte ljude«, 755-781, Sarajevo, Bol (Brač). PAŠKVALIN, V. 2003a, Arheološki nalazi iz Mogorjela kod Čapljine. - In: Arheološka istraživanja u Naroni i dolini Neretve. Znanstveni skup Metkovič, 6. - 9, listopada 2001., 253-266, Zagreb, Metkovič, Split. PAŠKVALIN, V. 2003b, Krščanstvo kasne antike u zaledu Salone i Narone. Arheološka istraživanja kasnoantičkog krščanstva u Bosni i Hercegovini. - Sarajevo. PATSCH, C. 1904, Archäologisch-epigraphische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der römischen Provinz Dalmatien 6. - Wissenschaftliche Mittheilungen aus Bosnien und der Herzegowina 9, 171-301. PATSCH, K. 1902, Pojedini nalazi iz rimskog doba. - Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine 14, 1-16. PETRINEC, M., T. ŠEPAROVIC and B. M. VRDOLJAK 1999, Arheološka zbirka Franjevačkog muzeja u Livnu. - Split. PULJIC, I. and A. ŠKEGRO 2006a, Sarsenterska biskupija. - Povijesni prilozi / Historical contributions 30, 7-50. PULJIC, I. and A. ŠKEGRO 2006b, The Diocese of Sarsen-terensis. - Arheološki vestnik 57, 219-241. RAČKI, F. i894, Thomas Archidiaconus: Historia salonitana. Scriptores, vol. 3. - Zagrabiae. RIBAREVIC NIKOLIC, I. 1998, Genesis and formation of a complex type of church using early christian churches in Hercegovina as examples. - In: Radovi XIII. medunarodnog kongresa za starokrščansku arheolgiju / Acta XIII Congressus internationalis archaeologiae christianae, Split - Poreč (25. 9. - 1. 10. 1994.) 3, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku. Supl. 87-89 = Studi di antichita christiana pubblicati a cura del Pontificio istituto di archeologia cristiana 54, 693-714, Split, Citta del Vaticano. SERGEJEVSKI, D. 1961, Bazilika u Mokrom. - Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine 15-16 (19601961), 211-228. ŠANJEK, F. 1991, Krščanstvo na hrvatskomprostoru. Pregled religiozne povijesti Hrvata (7-20. st.). - Zagreb. ŠANJEK, F. 1996, Krščanstvo na hrvatskom prostoru. Pregled religiozne povijesti Hrvata (7.-20. st.). - Zagreb. ŠANJEK, F. 1997, Crkva i kršcanstvo. - In: Hrvatska i Europa. Kultura, znanost i umjetnost, sv. I., srednji vijek (VII-XII. stolječe) rano doba hrvatske kulture, 217-236, Zagreb. ŠIŠIC, F. 1914, Priručnik izvora hrvatske historije. Dio I. Čest 1. (do god. 1107). Uvod, natpisi i isprave. - Zagreb. ŠKEGRO, A. 1999, Gospodarstvo rimske provincije Dalmacije. - Zagreb. ŠKEGRO, A. 2007a, Ludrumska biskupija (Ecclesia Ludroen-sis). - Hercegovina. Godišnjak za kulturno i povijesno naslijede 21, 59-92. ŠKEGRO, A. 2007b, Problem Ludrumske biskupije. - Bosna franciscana XV/26, 197-220. ŠKEGRO, A. 2007c, The Diocese of Ludrum (Ecclesia Ludroensis). - Povijesni prilozi / Historical contributions 32, 9-24. ŠKEGRO, A. 2008a, Mukurska biskupija (Ecclesia Muc-curitana). - Povijesni prilozi / Historical Contributions 34, 9-26. ŠKEGRO, A. 2008b, The Diocese of Muccurum (Ecclesia Muccuritana) in Dalmatia. - Arheološki vestnik 59, 291-303. ŠKEGRO, A. 2007, Tobožnja Delminijska biskupija / The Alleged Diocese of Delminium. - Opuscula archaeo-logica 31, 283-302. TOMASCHEK, W. 1880, Die vor-slavische Topographie der Bosna, Herzegowina, Crna-Gora und angrenzenden Gebiete. Separatabdruck aus Mittheilungen der k. k. Geographischen Gesellschaft, 497-528. TRUHELKA, C. 1892, Prilozi rimskoj arheologiji Bosne i Hercegovine. - Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja 4, 340-365. TRUHELKA, C. 1893, Zenica und Stolac. Beiträge zur römischen Archäologie Bosniens und der Hercegovina. - Wissenschaftliche Mittheilungen aus Bosnien und der Herzegowina 1, 273-302. TRUHELKA, C. 1931, Starokrščanska arheologija. - Zagreb. VIDOVIC, M. 1996, Povijest Crkve u Hrvata. - Split. VRDOLJAK, B. M. 1988, Starokršcanska bazilika i rano-srednjovjekovna nekropola na Rešetarici kod Livna. - Starohrvatska prosvjeta, ser. III/18, 119-194. VUČIC, J. 1998, Prilog poznavanju ranokršcanske sakralne topografije u antičkoj Naroni. - Obavijesti. Hrvatsko arheološko društvo 30/3, 102-105. VUČIC, J. 2003, Ranokršcanska kamena plastika Narone. - In: Arheološka istraživanja u Naroni i dolini Neretve. Znanstveni skup Metkovič, 6. - 9, listopada 2001., 199-214, Zagreb, Metkovic, Split. VUČIC, J. 2005, Ecclesia Naronitana / Prostor i granice. -Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 96, 159-170. ZEILLER, J. 1906, Les origines chretiennes dans la province Romaine de Dalmatie. - Paris. ZEILLER, J. 1918, Les origines chretiennes dans les provinces Danubiennes de l'Empire Romain. - Paris. Naronska škofija (Ecclesia Naronitana) Povzetek Naronska škofija je znana predvsem po svojem škofu Marcelu (Marcellus episcopus Ecclesiae Naronitanae), sodniku cerkvenega koncila v letih 530 in 533 v Saloni, ko je bil predsednik koncila salonski nadškof Honorij II. (528-547). Dosedanja arheološka raziskovanja naronskega območja niso razrešila problema naronske škofovske (ka-tedralne) bazilike, kakor je spodletel tudi poizkus razlage zgodnjekrščanskega napisa na nagrobniku. Naronska škofija ima zgodnjekrščanski značaj, razvit že v času svojih misijonarskih odprav. Teh se je udeležil tudi škof sv. Venancij, ki je med 257 ter 260 izgubil življenje nekje med Dalmati (inter Dalmatas). Najstarejši zgodnjekrščanski predmet z naronskega območja je odlomek glinene oljenke (lucerna), najden v zgodnjekrščanski baziliki v Mogorjelu pri Čapljini, datiran na konec 4. oziroma začetek 5. st. V ta časovni razpon spada tudi zgodnjekrščanska bazilika pod cerkvijo Sv. Vida v Naroni in jo občasno enačijo z naronsko škofovsko baziliko oziroma katedralo. Upoštevaje časovno zamejitev naronske katedrale lahko tudi naronsko škofijo umestimo v že omenjeni čas. Znotraj obzidja naronske citadele sta dve zgodnjekrščanski baziliki. Zaradi varnosti, ki ko je omogočalo obzidje, ni presenetljivo, da je naronski škof v času nevarnosti živel v trdnjavi na Magorjelu pri Čapljini. Nejasno je, kdaj in v kakšnih okoliščinah je naronska škofija padla v pozabo. Zagotovo pa je, da so se nekateri elementi naronskega tipa krščanstva obdržali in preživeli tudi avarsko-slovansko naselitev. Nekatere bazilike, ki so bile na območju naronske škofije, so obdržale svojo prvotno funkcijo še v srednjem veku. Širjenje tako imenovanega naronskega bazilikalnega tipa ter posameznih ornamentalnih motivov, s katerimi so okrašene te cerkve, lahko prostorsko zamejimo. Vsekakor se je ta prostor, ki je bil do leta 533 pod jurisdikcijo naronskega škofa, razprostiral na severu od močvirnatega dela Neretve do Konjica, vključujoč zahodno ter vzhodno Hercegovino (do zaledja Dubrovnika). Po ustanovitvi sar-senterske škofije leta 533, ki jo v zadnjem času iščejo na območju zahodne Hercegovine (območje Stoca, Popovega polja, Dabarskega polja, Nevesinjske planote) in polotoka Pelješac okoli mesta Ston, sta pod naronsko škofijo ostali na jugu dolina Neretve z močvirjem do Konjica na severu ter zahodna Hercegovina z mestoma Šuico in Duvnom ter območjem okoli Buškega Blata. Prevod: Anja Ragolič Dr. Ante Škegro Hrvatski isnstitut za povijest Opatička 10 HR-10000 Zagreb askegro@isp.hr Archaeological research into the periods following the Early Middle Ages in Slovenia Katarina PREDOVNIK and Tomaž NABERGOJ Izvleček Avtorja predstavljata arheološke raziskave obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku v Sloveniji od prvih začetkov ob koncu 19. stoletja do sedanjosti. Ključne raziskovalne projekte in usmeritve, institucionalne okvire in temeljne koncepte, ki so določali razvoj t. i. arheologije mlajših obdobij, pojasnjujeta v kontekstu sočasnega razvoja slovenske arheologije ter družbenih okoliščin, v katerih stroka deluje. Posebej opozarjata na razmerja med arheologijo na eni ter zgodovino in umetnostno zgodovino na drugi strani, saj so ključna za razumevanje vloge arheologije pri raziskovanju obdobij, ki so bogato dokumentirana s pisnimi viri. Ključne besede: arheologija mlajših obdobij, arheologija srednjega veka, arheologija novega veka, zgodovina vede Abstract The authors outline the archaeological research into the periods following the Early Middle Ages in Slovenia, from its beginnings in the late 19'h century up to the present. The key research projects and orientations, institutional frameworks and the main concepts that have been determining the development of the archaeology of these later periods are explained within the context of the development of Slovenian archaeology and the social circumstances that surround the field. The authors point out the relations between archaeology on the one hand and history and art history on the other, seeing them as vital to understanding archaeology's role in researching periods that are well documented in written sources. Keywords: archaeology of later periods, medieval archaeology, post-medieval archaeology, disciplinary history INTRODUCTION Although fully established as an independent branch of archaeology only as recently as the 1990s, archaeological study in Slovenia of the periods following the Early Middle Ages boasts more than 110 years of history and an active development in the last two decades (Nabergoj 1995, 72). This certainly calls for a presentation and evaluation of the past development and achievements of Slovenian archaeology of later periods, as well as its problems and perspectives. And it is only right that this presentation should be published in the main Slovenian archaeological journal. Complementing the overviews published in the jubilee fiftieth issue of Arheološki vestnik more than ten years ago, this text symbolically acknowledges that archaeological study of more recent periods has a rightful place in Slovenian archaeology, along with the prehistoric, classical, Roman provincial and early medieval archaeology. Let us take this opportunity to point out again the terminological issues encountered when naming the branch of archaeology that we are describing (cf. Nabergoj 1995, 100-102; Štular 2008, 79-80; Predovnik 2008b, 81-82). The archaeological treatment of the periods following the Early Middle Ages logically continues the established classification of the discipline that follows the periodisation scheme established by historiography. It therefore stands to reason that early medieval archaeology should be followed by high and late medieval archaeology, then by post-medieval archaeology, archaeology of the (Early) Modern Period and ultimately even by contemporary archaeology. Actually, all of these terms are in use within the various archaeologi- cal communities both in Slovenia and throughout Europe when discussing specific chronologically defined research areas. With regard to the medieval period, we generally only differentiate between early medieval archaeology and late medieval archaeology, while the High Middle Ages are left out of the naming process. Actually, this dual differentiation is more in line with the development of material culture than is the historians' triple scheme. It is supported by the great changes that occurred within the social and economic structures on the establishment of the feudal system - by the universal rise of Christianity and the Church as a key social and political force. These processes left a distinct mark on material culture, primarily in the form of changing funeral rites on the one hand and the emergence of the feudal architecture on the other. We would thus be justified in speaking of an archaeology of the feudal era that would encompass the High and the Late Middle Ages in the narrower sense, and in the broader sense also the following period up until the dissolution of feudal institutions in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Of the other current concepts, at least the archaeology of capitalism should be mentioned, which encompasses also the very roots of the system in the 16th and 17th centuries (Johnson 1996). In German-speaking countries and environments rooted in the German archaeological tradition, the term "medieval archaeology" is used indiscriminately for archaeology of the Early, High, and Late Middle Ages, even though early medieval archaeology exists as a separate concept. Medieval archaeology is followed by archaeology of the Early Modern Period (16th to the 18th century), while the archaeological study of later periods remains unsystematic and has yet to be explicitly conceptualised.1 In the British and related archaeological traditions, a distinction is made between medieval - which can encompass also the Early Middle Ages - and post-medieval archaeology. However, the latter term is also problematic, since it is used as a chronologically-limited concept in spite of its semantic breadth and does not cover 1 Lately, certain younger researchers have offered different views. Sören Frommer has recently published his PhD introducing the concept of historical archaeology in an explicit way into the German archaeological milieu, grounding it in terms of epistemology and methodology (Frommer 2007). either the entire Modern Period or the recent past (cf. West 1999, 8-9). The confusion increases when trying to coin an appropriate umbrella term, a group designation for the archaeologies concerning the periods following the Early Middle Ages. Should this be an "archaeology after 1000 AD", "archaeology after the Early Middle Ages" or perhaps "historical archaeology"? The latter term has become established in certain European and particularly in non-European countries where it is understood as the study of the colonial period (Orser 1999). Historical archaeology is specific in a methodological sense, as it involves using both written and material sources. For this reason, some even speak of a documentary archaeology (Beaudry 1993). Neither of these terms is unproblematic, nor is historical archaeology in itself an unambiguous concept. In the Old World, where writing has a history going back several millennia, the adjective "historical" could also denote the archaeology of ancient civilisations, the European medieval archaeology and many others (cf. Andren 1998). Moreover, this "historical" aspect of archaeology could be understood in yet another way, as a special theoretical orientation of an archaeology aware of the dynamics of history and the contextual specificity of the phenomena it is studying. Historical archaeology in this sense could be seen as an antipode to processual archaeology (Predovnik 2002, 96; Predovnik 2008b, 82). In the early 1990s, the Department of Archaeology at the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, introduced a new subject into its undergraduate programme, the so-called Archaeology of Later (Historical) Periods. This designation was selected as an umbrella term for archaeology of the periods following the Early Middle Ages (Predovnik 1995, 10). The term is general enough to cover every kind of sub-discipline in terms of chronology and subject matter, as well as practical considering the Slovene grammatical rules. The syntagm itself is also known in English, German and other terminologies, though used only rarely in these linguistic environments. Slovenian archaeologists have yet to reach a consensus regarding the proper name for the archaeology of the periods following the Early Middle Ages. The experience of our colleagues from abroad tells us that there will always be present a certain amount of terminological uncertainty and diversity, since any chosen term stands for a concept which in itself is defined by the subject under study, and the understanding and definition of any given concept are dependent on the individual researcher's approach. Regardless of its designation, the archaeological study of material remains from the time after 1000 AD has become thoroughly established in Slovenia over the past two decades. This is also confirmed by the new Cultural Heritage Protection Act (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 16/2008, Article 3), which was adopted in 2008 and which grants the status of archaeological cultural heritage to all material traces of human activity that have been underground or underwater for at least one hundred years. Regarding war-related remains, the archaeological cultural heritage status is granted to those that have been underground or underwater for at least fifty years. Though somewhat arbitrary and not clearly grounded in terms of content, as we have already noted elsewhere (Predovnik 2008b, 85-86), this definition nonetheless institutes the archaeological study of material remains from the more recent past as a legal obligation. It is for this reason as well that we should take a look into the past and evaluate how Slovenian archaeology has so far dealt with the periods following the Early Middle Ages.2 FIRST STEPS Fig. 1: Alfons Müllner in ca. 1900 (Grafični kabinet Narodnega muzeja Slovenije; photo: I. Kotar). Sl. 1: Alfons Müllner ok. 1900 (Grafični kabinet NMS; foto: I. Kotar). The first publications on late medieval finds and sites on the territory of Slovenia were contributed by Alfons Müllner (fig. 1) at the end of the 19th century. These were often chance discoveries and finds that had been unsystematically obtained, e.g. from the Karst caves (Nabergoj 1995, 72) or from the - supposedly prehistoric - Kosova mound in Razvanje (Müllner 1878; Predovnik 2008a). Some of the medieval remains that he had documented, studied and published, Müllner failed to interpret correctly, either in terms of dating or function. For example, he believed that the medieval forts 2 The most comprehensive overview and evaluation of the Slovenian medieval and post-medieval archaeology so far has been published by Tomaž Nabergoj in his paper Arheologija in gotika (Archaeology and Gothic Art) in 1995 (Nabergoj 1995). Cf. also Ložar 1939; Slabe 1980; Guštin, Predovnik 1994; Guštin, Horvat 1994, 7-10; Predovnik 1995, 78-84; Guštin 1999a; Nabergoj 2008b. The (un) satisfactory protection of post-medieval archaeological heritage and the challenges presented by the new law have recently been discussed by Barbara Nadbath and Andrej Gaspari (Nadbath 2008; Gaspari 2008). of Atilov grad at Spodnji Kocjan (Müllner 1894b) and Repnikovo Gradišče near the hamlet of Rep at Veliko Tinje in the Pohorje mountain range (Müllner 1894c) were prehistoric "cult locations". Müllner was also the first to conduct systematic archaeological investigations of Slovenia's medieval sites. As curator of the Provincial Rudolfinum Museum, he performed excavations in 1892 at the old castle in Predjama (fig. 2) and in 1897-1898 in the area of the former burghers' hospital on Špitalska ulica (now Stritarjeva) in Ljubljana. Through his small-scale excavations in Predjama, his detailed description and graphic depiction of the castle's architecture and through his analysis of historio-graphic sources on "the most famous knightly castle in Carniola", Müllner set out to "critically expose the legend of Erasmus Lueger". He reasoned out the place and manner of how Erasmus was killed in 1484 from the ruined castle walls and the stone ball found in one of the rooms (Müllner 1892a, 1892b, and 1894a). After the 1895 earthquake, Müllner conducted archaeological excavations in Ljubljana where a new administrative building was to be Fig. 2: Predjamski Grad (Lueg). Müllner's drawing of the castle under excavation in 1892 (from: Argo 1, 1892). Sl. 2: Predjamski grad (Lueg). Müllnerjeva risba gradu ob raziskavah leta 1892 (iz: Argo 1, 1892). erected on the site of the former burghers' hospital where the Church of St. Elisabeth had also stood since the Middle Ages. After the discovery of skeletal remains and because of old reports indicating that the hero of the fight against the Turks, Herbard VIII Freiherr von Auersperg (died in 1575), was buried at St. Elisabeth's, they "reviewed each event with particular care and collected carefully each find" (Müllner 1897, 30). They excavated the remains of older foundations pertaining to the Baroque and Gothic phase of the church building and a total of 51 graves containing only rare grave goods and dating to between the 14th and 18th centuries.3 In the hospital complex, they discovered the remains of a tanner's workshop of unknown age (Müllner 1897, 1898, 1899, and 1900; Stare 1991). During the reconstruction that followed the earthquake, more medieval and post-medieval objects were found on the neighbouring house lots on Špitalska ulica (Müllner 1898; Ložar 1939, 188-189; cf. also Nabergoj 1999, 42-44). Furthermore, Müllner's research into the history of the iron industry in Carniola, in the Goriško region and in Istria, from its beginnings and up until modernity - that is, the 19th century - is also of importance for medieval and post-medieval archaeology (Müllner 1909). He studied both archaeological (material) and written sources. His work was later continued by Walter Schmid who, among other things, excavated the ruins of a smelter commonly called "the Furnace of St. Hema" in Nomenj near Bohinjska Bistrica in 1938 (fig. 3). He dated the smelter by the Plavževka stream at the foot of Jelovica Plateau and the remains of a house initially designated "the Manor of St. Hema" to the time between the 12th and the 14th centuries.4 Schmid was also interested in medieval earthen fortifications, the so-called hausbergs, which have been studied by Austrian researchers with increasing intensity since the late 19th century. Schmidt investigated or at least documented several sites, including Stari grad or Presek near Črešnjevec, the church of St. Rochus in Breg near Ptuj, Pekre, the Atilov grob mound at Spodnji Kocjan, Pameče, and Kogel near Raduše (Schmid 1915, 1922, and 1925). In 1938, he unearthed the ruins of two buildings on a moated site named Groblje at Žlan in Bohinj. He interpreted the site as a fortified farm - a hausberg (Gabrovec 1975, 165; Smolej 1938). Like most researchers of the time, Schmid also believed that hausbergs were earthen fortifications dating to the time of the Hungarian raids and thus (mistakenly) dated all of the above-mentioned sites to the 9th and 10th centuries (cf. Predovnik, Grosman 2007, 209). There was hardly any other notable field research done until the end of World War II. Of note are the excavations carried out at Predjama Castle before and during the war (Nabergoj 1995, 32-34), and in 1938 the discovery of medieval and post-medieval fireplaces and small finds in the upper strata inside the Ajdovska jama cave near the village of Nemška vas by Srečko Brodar (Brodar, Korošec 1953, 61-62). Interestingly, with the exception of Müllner's excavations of the Jama (Predjama) Castle, in these early days Slovenia witnessed no expressions of that romantic interest in medieval monuments, and 3 Based on an incorrectly identified coin, Müllner dated the oldest graves to the 12th or the 13th century. 4 Due to its technological characteristics, the plant was later dated to the 15th or the 16th century (Smolej 1953), whereas A. Valič speculated that it could even be as late as the 19th century (Valič 1975, 165). Fig. 3: Walter Schmid (Grafični kabinet Narodnega muzeja Slovenije; photo: studio Benque, Graz). Sl. 3: Walter Schmid (Grafični kabinet NMS; foto: atelje Benque, Graz). particularly in the monumental architecture (castles, monasteries or churches), that in many parts of Europe represented one of the vital roots of the later academic development of medieval archaeology. The political changes that occurred after World War I resulted in no new initiatives for Slovenian medieval archaeology, while other countries that had been created after the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary) were intentionally strengthening the national awareness of their citizens through archaeological and other research into their medieval history, mostly castles and the nobility. It was in the medieval period that they sought the roots of their nations as ethnic and linguistic communities, as well as the roots of their national sovereignties, which they were basing on the succession of medieval kingdoms. The position of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and later Yugoslavia was very different in this regard: this was a new multiethnic entity with no direct historical ancestors. This meant that historical events, personalities and monuments from the medieval period could have no part in the building of the new national and civil identities. Until World War II, Slovenian medieval (and post-medieval) archaeology had no concepts, theoretical premisses or specific methodologies of its own; it was merely an offshoot of prehistoric archaeology. With discoveries mostly occurring by chance, systematic surveys were rare and modest in scale. Nevertheless, this phase in the development of Slovenia's archaeology of later periods may be placed within the broader context of contemporary Central European archaeology, which had only just begun developing its excavating techniques and analytical tools, and in terms of interpretation was barely able to keep pace with the developments in history, anthropology and the social sciences in Europe and North America. Then, directly before the onset of World War II, Slovenian medieval archaeology gained its founder, Rajko Ložar. His theoretical insights are deemed to be high up, maybe even at the forefront of contemporary European medieval archaeology (Nabergoj 2005). RAJKO LOŽAR AND MEDIEVAL ARCHAEOLOGY In 1939, Rajko Ložar (fig. 4) published the article Staroslovansko in srednjeveško lončarstvo v Sloveniji (Early Slavic and Medieval Pottery in Slovenia) in the Slovenian Museum Society Bulletin (Ložar 1939). In it, he analysed the early and late medieval pottery from various sites kept by Slovenian museums at the time. The finds were poorly documented and in most cases unsystematically obtained, which is why Ložar could discuss them only typologically and base his dating on comparison with finds from other countries. As a loyal student of the Vienna School of Art History, he used the concepts of the evolution of form and style to determine the types and relative chronology of the objects (Ložar 1939, 180, 223-224; cf. Nabergoj 2005, 178; Nabergoj 1999, 39-41). His typochronological scheme remained the only tool for classification of late medieval pottery from Slovenian territory until the 1970s, when Vinko Šribar published his analyses of the pottery discovered in Otok pri Dobravi (Šribar 1974). Nowadays it is, of course, regarded as obsolete and is no longer useful as a reference, though it should be noted that Ložar's chronological definitions still apply to a certain degree. s r Fig. 4: Rajko Ložar while excavating at Globodol near Mirna peč in November 1939 (private archive). Sl. 4: Rajko Ložar na izkopavanjih v Globodolu pri Mirni peči novembra 1939 (zasebni arhiv). Ložar also defined the technological features and decorative principles of Early Slavic and later medieval pottery. He explained the differences observed within the context of wider historical processes and the dissimilarities between the Early Slavic and the feudal societies (Ložar 1939, 203-224). He used a problem-orientated approach, understanding pottery as the true research potential of archaeology, which should not limit itself to mere documentation and description but should also provide autonomous interpretations of material culture (cf. Nabergoj 2005, 180). The introduction to Ložar's article is particularly important because it contains his theoretical grounding for the archaeological study of the entire Middle Ages. He highlighted the importance of archaeology's contribution to studying the past, even for periods documented with written sources and especially taking into account the continuity of historical development, which dictates the equal archaeological treatment of the Early, High and Late Middle Ages, including the early Modern Period. He emphasised that the medieval, post-medieval and prehistoric archaeologies all share similar issues, and he reflected on the relations between medieval archaeology and history, art history and ethnology (Ložar 1939, 180-183). This introduction is actually a shorter version of a much longer text entitled Prispevki k arheologiji našega srednjega veka (Contributions Towards the Archaeology of our Middle Ages), which Ložar never published (fig. 5). As this manuscript was presented in detail a few years ago (Nabergoj 2005, 178-182), only some of its key arguments will be highlighted here. In Ložar's view, medieval archaeology is an autonomous and self-dependent discipline whose task it is to study material remains with the aim of complementing historiography's findings. He believed that written sources were more suitable for reconstructing a comprehensive image of the past, though this was not to imply that archaeology as a discipline was subordinate to history. Every period can be studied by various scientific disciplines, every one of them working in accordance with its own research goals, epistemologies, and theoretical orientations. Archaeological studies are justified whenever the specific nature of the primary sources demands the use of archaeological methods and approaches. Archaeology can function as an ancillary discipline to history, since "general historiography cannot do without archaeological work, especially in outlining the antiquities, the cultural and artistic production, and the craftsmanship of a nation, whereas it is more independent in tracing the political and other kinds of histories. Using merely written sources with regard to all of these areas would be nonsensical, and even impossible, considering that written sources from this period are generally silent on such subjects" (Nabergoj 2005, 180). At the same time, medieval archaeology is primarily an archaeology and, as such, discusses archaeological monuments in the same way and with as much independence as prehistoric archaeology does. Ložar's views on the nature and meaning of medieval archaeology and its relationship with historiography can be paralleled with the discussions about the theoretical basis of medieval archaeology in other European countries. Ložar articulated his views surprisingly early, bearing in mind that similar treatises were published elsewhere only more than three decades later (e.g. Jankuhn 1973; Dymond 1974; Schlesinger 1974). In this regard as well, Ložar appears to have been an exceptional ' /W- / r * fyi-^ t v J 1 ■srt.-v^ Fig. 5: Front page of Ložar's 1939 manuscript "Contributions Towards the Archaeology of our Middle Ages" (Arheološki oddelek Narodnega muzeja Slovenije). Sl. 5: Prva stran Ložarjevega rokopisa "Prispevki k arheologiji našega srednjega veka" iz leta 1939 (Arheološki oddelek NMS). and isolated thinker whose opinions, however, failed to find resonance due to his personal fate (Nabergoj 2005, 182). A NEW REALITY At the end of World War II, Slovenian archaeology was facing "a complete collapse in terms of staff" (Novakovic 2002b, 87) but it did not become paralysed. The birth of a new country brought with it an opportunity for renewal in terms of organisation and staff, and the formation of in-frastructural centres and networks. Even as early as 1945, the protection of cultural monuments and natural sights was regulated by law and, three years later, Slovenia acquired its own institution competent for this field (Jogan 2008, 54-57). The study of archaeology at the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, was renewed during the 1946/47 academic year (Novakovic 2004, 46). 1947 saw the establishment of the Archaeological Commission at the Academy of Sciences and Arts, the predecessor of today's Institute of Archaeology at the Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (Pleterski 1997). The change in the social system prompted a serious contemplation of the nature of the discipline, its tasks and methods, with which Slovenian and Yugoslav archaeology of the time was almost completely unfamiliar. In 1950, the first meeting of Yugoslav archaeologists in Niška Banja saw the establishment of a new agenda and premisses for the harmonious development of archaeology throughout the entire Yugoslav territory. They made it their priority to "...research the material culture of our nations starting with the period of the first Slavic lineage communities and up to the formation of bourgeois class society" (Korošec 1950b, 214). Despite the fact that the "formation of bourgeois class society" - a truly Marxist construct - was not specifically determined and, accordingly, neither was the chronological span of archaeological research,5 the chronological limit of archaeology in Slovenia was implicitly set to the 11th century, especially in relation to art history (cf. Kastelic 1964-1965). This decision was a consequence of inter-disciplinary relations, that is, the notions of the nature of material sources, more so than of denying the existence of these sources and their relevance to medieval history. It is therefore quite illustrative that the paper on the current state of archaeological work in Yugoslavia was presented at the conference in Niška Banja by "Jože Kastelic for archaeology up to the 10th century AD and by France Stele for later archaeology and art history" (sic) - an archaeologist and an art historian/ conservator. The ensuing debate "was focused on the relation of art history to archaeology and its subjects" (Korošec 1950b, 212-213). In that same year, Josip Korošec published a programme article entitled Arheologija in nekatere njene naloge (Archaeology and Some of its Tasks) (Korošec 1950a). In it, he touched upon the rela- 5 Should it extend to the rise of towns and bourgeoisie in the Late Middle Ages, or to the 18th and 19th centuries, when the bourgeoisie became the leading force in society? Fig. 6: Krancelj above Škofja Loka. In situ presentation of the excavated remains of the so-called Upper Tower in 1955 (Loški muzej; photo: T. Mlakar). Sl. 6: Krancelj nad Škofjo Loko. In situ prezentacija izkopanih ostankov Zgornjega stolpa leta 1955 (Loški muzej; foto: T. Mlakar). tionship between archaeology and historiography. He believed that socio-historical disciplines differ in their specific methodologies, which make them independent and equal, yet also that they are complementary and can help each other. Thus, archaeology and its methods are indispensable in the study of "later, e.g. medieval" issues (Korošec 1950a, 8). With this, Korošec joined Ložar's outlook on archaeological research into the Late Middle Ages. Korošec's opinion incited the historian Bogo Grafenauer to respond with a polemic treatise the next year (Grafenauer 1951). He pointed out that, while archaeological sources are indeed direct witnesses of the past, they are less reliable than "the critically assessed written sources" as they are subject to the archaeologist's interpretation. This makes material sources absolutely inferior to written sources. But most of all, Grafenauer was bothered by the fact that Korošec presumed archaeology to be independent even when discussing archaeological sources from "historical" periods. Grafenauer believed that archaeology in this case cannot provide independent interpretations of material sources; it can only assist history. Also, archaeological sources are supposedly only relevant for studying economic history and (partly) ethnogenesis. In studying other aspects of the past, they are only relevant when they are the sole source, namely in prehistory. The key issues the two disciplines were facing were thus their research competences and the boundaries of their working areas. Similar debates between archaeologists and historians also took place elsewhere in Europe and in many respects remain unresolved even now (cf. Nabergoj 1995, 82-84; Predovnik 2000, 36-45). In Slovenia, Grafenauer's views, which could be called "the tyranny of the historical record" (Champion 1990), prevailed - at least implicitly. Later, archaeology almost completely ceased defining its position on the matter,6 but in practice it followed the chronological limitation of its work to the end of the Early Slavic period. Archaeology renounced the systematic investigations of sites from later periods, and the majority of the 6 An attempt at a reconceptualization of the relationship between archaeology and history was made by Andrej Pleterski in his treatise on the retrograde analysis of written sources and their integration with the material sources, an innovative method that he had developed while studying the early medieval settlements in the region of Blejski kot. Pleterski advocated the necessity of an integral historical interpretation of both written and material sources. He wrote that "archaeology can only function as a science in connection with other disciplines, history in particular" (Pleterski 1979, 508). His argumentation was thoroughly analysed and problematised by Božidar Slapšak, who pointed out that understanding archaeology in terms of just "a technique with some mechanical rules for the 'objective' acquisition (and accumulation) of sources" is unproductive (Slapšak 1981, 53). The first in-depth reflections on the nature and role of archaeology in studying the so-called later periods of history were published as late as the mid-1990s (Predovnik 1995; Nabergoj 1995; Predovnik 2000). Fig. 7: Vinko Šribar at the island of Bled in 1967 (R. Šribar's private archive). Sl. 7: Vinko Šribar na Blejskem otoku leta 1967 (zasebni arhiv R. Šribar). recorded discoveries were made by chance, in the framework of rescue or systematic excavations of multi-period sites whose primary objective was to study the earlier remains. The excavation of Zgornji stolp (the Upper Tower) at Krancelj above Škofja Loka (fig. 6) is a good example. The exposed fortification on the hill overlooking the castle of Škofja Loka was probably built in the 12th century and abandoned after an earthquake in 1511. The ruins were covered by soil, which is why Stane Gabrovec began the excavation in 1954 under the assumption that he was unearthing a prehistoric burial mound. When the site he was excavating turned out to be the remains of a medieval building, the art historian Cene Avguštin took charge of the excavation (Avguštin 1954; Avguštin 1955). At the time, remains from more recent periods - if considered and documented at all - were studied exclusively in the context of the work done on multi-period sites. For example, in the early 1950s, five storage pits containing pottery from the 11th or the 12th century were excavated in the courtyard of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Ljubljana, in the area of a prehistoric burial site (Korošec 1951, 164-172).7 On Prešernova ulica in Celje, in the course of rescue excavations which were mainly undertaken because certain remains from the Roman period were threatened, the ruins of a late medieval building with a kitchen and the pertaining inventory were discovered (Bolta 1953). After the war, Yugoslav and Slovenian archaeology concentrated on research into the Early Slavic period in order to refute certain controversial ethnic interpretations by Italian and German archaeologists and to prove the early onset and the extent of the Slavic settlement, especially in the Primorska region (Korošec 1950b, 214; Pleterski 1997, 18). The primary interest was soon focused on older churches, where the archaeologists expected to find Early Slavic burial grounds. Excavations generally produced not only early medieval, but also later burials and the foundations of earlier phases of the church building. The excavations on Bled Island, both inside and outside the Church of the Assumption, which took place between 1962 and 1966, represent one of the first extensive research efforts of this kind (Nabergoj 1995, 10 with references; fig. 7). The excavations were performed by the Archaeological Scientific Documentation Centre of the National Museum of Slovenia under the leadership of Vinko Šribar. More than 120 inhumation graves were uncovered, three of them late medieval, as well as the remains of the predecessors to today's church building. The archaeological finds are partly displayed in situ, but we still lack a comprehensive excavation report. Founded in 1961, the Archaeological Scientific Documentation Centre was renamed the Centre for Early Medieval and Early Slavic Studies three years later (Stare 1993a; cf. Nabergoj 2008b, 92). Creating this special research department of the National Museum was the idea of its director, Jože Kastelic (cf. also Kastelic 1964-1965). Its task was to perform systematic research into archaeological and other sources from the Early Middle Ages on the Slovenian ethnic territory. In this, the archaeologists would cooperate with experts from the fields of history, (physical) anthropology, art history, and linguistics. The Centre was therefore supposed to research the early history of the Slovenian nation and thus to contribute towards establishing the national identity. 7 The dating appears to be incorrect as the published pottery is in all probability not older than the 13th century. JOŽE KASTELIC AND THE BOUNDS OF (EARLY MEDIEVAL) ARCHAEOLOGY The research performed on Bled Island was one of the factors that prompted the National Museum's director, Jože Kastelic, to publish a paper on the problems of early medieval archaeology in Slovenia, touching on the research into later periods (Kastelic 1964-1965). Kastelic placed the Early Middle Ages - archaeologically - between the Late Antiquity and the 11th century or the High Middle Ages. He underlined the common issues, namely, "the question of the connection between art monuments from the High Middle Ages and the objects from Early Slavic archaeological sites", as well as "the all-too-strict methodological differentiation between archaeology and art history". However, he was not entirely consistent: in his opinion, the archaeological studies of the continuity between the Late Antiquity and the Early Slavic period should include "the cult buildings and the objects of the goldsmith's trade", which are otherwise (also) studied by art history. On the other hand though, the remnants from "the period of the Slovenian Romanesque and Gothic art" - which "speaks to us mainly through its monumental remains, the architecture, sculpture and painting, and partly also through the objects of applied art" - were to be studied by art history (cf. Žvanut 1999). Kas-telic defined the material remains from the later Middle Ages as being "directly a subject of art history and not archaeology" and differentiated between the two disciplines "by their methods and mutual chronological boundary" (Kastelic 1964-1965, 110-114; cf. Nabergoj 1995, 78-80). He dedicated a great deal of attention to the latter and tried to set archaeology's upper limit using a calendar date from political history that would best fit the archaeological dating of the disappearance of Early Slavic burials - around the year 1000: as a suitable historical milestone he proposed the year 1024 when the Salian Dynasty came to power in the Holy Roman Empire. Even though Kastelic had mentioned several questions regarding the continuity between the Early and the High Middle Ages - especially "the contemporaneity of the Romanesque and possibly Pre-Romanesque architecture and Early Slavic burial sites" based on the example of the excavations on Bled Island, and about medieval castles having been built on the sites of older fortified settlements, he believed that archaeology's interest was limited to retrograde studies. With regard to churches, archaeology was interested in "finding Early Slavic burial sites and ... any ground plans of older cult buildings", while with regard to castles its efforts were directed into discovering the "'early medieval', that is, Early Slavic layers of a site" (Kastelic 1964-1965, 114-116, 118). Thus, from the viewpoint of architectural history, research into sacral buildings and fortifications was left to art historians (and architects). The views articulated by Kastelic were in accordance with the general, more or less implicitly established image of archaeology of the time and were an important determining factor in its further development. A clear-cut distinction was made between the "archaeological" and the "historical" periods of the past, denying the material sources from the latter the nature and epistemological potential that was at the same time attributed to the material sources from earlier periods. For the first time ever, the "magical" upper time limit of archaeology was set, splitting the Middle Ages into the archaeological Early and the (art) historical later Middle Ages.8 This understanding of archaeology's sphere of action has become firmly established in Slovenia. Attesting to this is the fact that the more recent periods were not systematically included in the central archaeological databases, or were even expressly disregarded (ANSI; Tecco Hvala 1993); they were not considered in multi-period projects like the Arheološka topografija Slovenije (The Archaeological Topography of Slovenia; Pahič 1962, 94-95), or even in expert and popular surveys of the field where Slovenian archaeology and its achievements persistently end at the conclusion of the Early Slavic period (Nabergoj 2008b, 90). In practice, however, archaeology has been acting in a different way for quite some time. In the field of cultural heritage management, the archaeological research of sites from periods following the Early Middle Ages has been gradually gaining in importance at least since the 1970s, and even became a standard prescribed by law in 2008. 8 As a consequence of these views, the excavations of certain monuments dating from the Late Middle Ages were undertaken by art historians without the assistance of archaeologists - for example Marijan Zadnikar, who directed the excavations around the church of the Cistercian monastery in Stična/Sittich (Nabergoj 1995, 38 with references), as well as the excavations and removal of rubble inside the church and the lesser cloister of the Žiče Carthusian monastery (Zadnikar 1965 and 1967). THE FORCE AND POWER OF IDEOLOGY Concerning the research into castles and, to a lesser degree, into monasteries and churches, we need to point out the ideological obstacles or rather, the politically-biased trends in the development of historical sciences and the general attitudes towards the remains of the past after World War II.9 Why was there an almost complete lack of modern historical writing providing an in-depth treatment of the aristocracy as such or at least of the development, role and significance of individual feudal families on Slovenian territory in the Middle Ages until the mid- 1990s, when the younger generation of Slovenian historians contributed several very important studies that incited further research? With the exception of one book by Janko Orožen published in 1971 (Orožen 1971) and the papers by Vlado Habjan touching on specific issues (ref. in Habjan 1999), until fairly recently there were no extensive overviews written even on the history of the counts of Cilli, our best known noble family. It was the publication of the proceedings of the International Symposium held in Celje in 1998 (Fugger Germadnik 1999a) and the catalogue of the Celje Regional Museum 1999-2000 exhibition (Fugger Germadnik 1999b; cf. also Guštin 2001f) that summarized the current knowledge from the standpoint of different disciplines and offered a suitable starting point for further detailed and comprehensive study of the Counts of Cilli.10 A part of the blame for the situation can undoubtedly be attributed to Slovenian historiography's programme from 1947. According to this, and based on historical materialism, "the centre of historical development" was shifted to "the economic and social system, and with it, to the general populace" (Grafenauer 1947, 22). Research into the aristocracy simply had no place in this concept of Slovenian 9 Though the influence of Marxist ideology on Yugoslav archaeology and its concepts was negligible (Novakovic 2002a) it was much more pronounced in historiography. The negative attitude towards the Middle Ages and the material remains from the feudal age and the ecclesiastical art monuments that marked the broader social climate of the post-war era resulted in an inappropriate, often even openly hostile, treatment of architectural monuments. This caused many problems, especially for art historians working in the area of heritage protection. 10 The publication of a truly comprehensive collection of documents on the Counts of Cilli is still in its initial stage. The first volume was prepared by Dušan Kos (Kos D. 1996). history "that in earlier periods dealt primarily with agrarian social history, and in later periods with proletarian social history" (Štih 1999, 13). It is understandable that, within the "analysis of this great line of Slovenian national history, a line of consistent struggle for the economic and social progress of a small proletarian nation against its external and internal enemies" (Grafenauer 1947, 25, note 76), this and certain other fields of medieval studies were almost completely ignored. With the enforcement of the national or ethnical principle (instead of the state) within Slovenian historiography from Levstik onward, "the majority of the aristocracy, the users of castles and mansions" belonged to the "doubly foreign, hostile sphere, and was thus unworthy of the historian's interest" (Šumi 1983, 10). In 1983, at the Slovenian Association of Conservators' conference on castles, Nace Šumi wrote: "The balance of today's level of Slovenian historiography is that the agents of feudalism, and in particular their strongholds, our castles and later mansions, are seen as a necessary evil within the Slovenian ethnical group. (... ) This orientation is one of the reasons why, when examining our recent history and the historiographic presentation of this period, we are faced with the typical extreme that could no longer separate the defeated representatives of the feudal stratum from the creations this stratum brought to life and which should therefore be treated as cultural heritage" (Šumi 1983, 10). Characteristically, in the first two decades after the war, Early Slavic burial sites from the 10th and 11th centuries were a self-evident subject of archaeological research in Slovenia while the contemporary early feudal castles were not.11 The ideological aspect 11 Supposedly existing as early as 895, Reichenburg Castle in Brestanica is often cited as the oldest castle in the Slovenian territory. A deed of King Arnulf from the same year mentions the Richenburch estate. The deed is only preserved as a 12th century copy and it seems that this part of the text is a later insertion, meaning that the existence of Rajhenburg at the end of the 9th century is highly questionable (cf. Štih 1996, 18, 24, note 103). Small-scale excavations were performed in the castle yard in Brestanica during renovation in 1978, yielding the remains of older walls that could not be dated precisely (Slabe 1982). The oldest castle with reliable written sources attesting to its existence in the territory of today's Slovenia, known as castrum Bosisen in the vicinity of Škofja Loka, was first mentioned in 973 and 989, but as yet it has not been precisely located (Berčič 2001). One possible site is Kremplnov hrib above Hosta near Suha, where interesting finds were discovered several years ago by members was obvious, and the concepts of nationality and class were politically charged to the point that they were mutually exclusive: in the new socialist reality the archaeology of elites, and foreign elites at that, was an impossibility. Consequently, the research into medieval standing buildings was generally limited only to art historical or architectural lines of research. It would therefore be futile to expect comprehensive analyses that would view, for example, a medieval castle or cloister in their primary, material and social sense - architecture as the concrete remains of places where members of a certain social group or stratum once lived - as well as in their secondary, symbolic sense - architecture as a hallmark, a distinctive element of a certain social entity, e.g. the feudal seigneury, as the symbol of a social group or class that is deemed unquestionably exploitative under the principles of dialectical materialism and the historiography based on it. After the socialist revolution, castles and the aristocracy could not have an equal position in the new schemes of the social orders, a fact clearly demonstrated by the burning and pillage of numerous castles throughout the region of Dolenjska and in some parts of Primorska during and after World War II. "The national liberation war has radicalised the anti-feudal position of our countryside and thus caused the not so infrequent equation of the struggle against the remnants of the old social order with the fighting against its visible outposts, the symbols of that same past. In a certain sense, the part that some important castles have played as strongholds of the class enemy in this struggle, indeed supported such a position" (Šumi 1983, 10-11). Of course, ideological considerations did not define everything. There is a curious contradiction that can be pointed out: although archaeology (by definition) studies material culture and - in a socialist reality - should, or would at least be allowed of staff of the Institute of Archaeology at ZRC SAZU (Pleterski 2002). First mentioned as Veldes in 1004, the castle of Bled was renovated for tourism and was never the subject of archaeological excavations, even though the Early Slavic burial sites around it were. However, Stanko Pahič did include a symbol for "early medieval castles (Hausbergs or mottes)" on the archaeological map within the project of the archaeological topography of Slovenia, actually documenting several in his own topographical work (Pahič 1962, 118). Dating these buildings to the Early Middle Ages is actually incorrect (Hinz 1981; cf. Predovnik, Grosman 2007). to, have an interest in the material culture of the "broadest rural populace" - the exploited class of medieval society - not a single deserted medieval village or farm in Slovenia was researched until the late 1990s.12 This was in spite of the fact that already in 1965, Jože Kastelic in his programme called attention to the "methodically very important" British Deserted Medieval Village Research Group dedicated to the archaeological research into deserted medieval settlements, especially villages (Kastelic 1964-1965, 122). And yet the agrarian settlement was the prevailing form of settlement in the Middle Ages, while at the same time it is the one that is least documented in the medieval written sources, if at all. Consequently, we now know almost nothing about the everyday life of the "silent majority" of the medieval population in Slovenia. Nothing about the types, characters and the development of their villages and dwellings, economic facilities, devices and tools. This could not have been a matter of ideological bias; the reason for completely ignoring the research into these complex issues was most likely the already mentioned conceptual limitation of archeology to the so-called "archaeological periods" coupled with an incomprehensible lack of interest in contemporary archaeological research carried out abroad, as well as the lack of cooperation with historians (and historical geographers and ethnologists). As early as 1940, historians had classified archaeology as one of the principal ancillary disciplines for the history of Slovenian colonisation, even though their interest at this time was only in the period preceding the arrival of the Slovenians (the Antiquity) and the "Early Slovenian period" (Kos 1940, 30; cf. also Kos 1948-1949, 137-138). It could not be said, then, that archaeology did 12 In 1997-1998, within the scope of archaeological research accompanying the construction of the motorway network, the multi-period site of Gornje njive near Dolga vas was excavated, where structural and other remains of a medieval settlement from the 12th and 13th centuries were uncovered (Kerman 2008). Supposedly late medieval settlement remains were also excavated on a motorway route at Obrežje and Leskovec near Celje (Mason 2004, 202-203; Brišnik et al. 2006). In 2007, rescue excavations at the site developed for the expansion of the border crossing at Zavrč produced the remains of fifteen residential and wooden outbuildings dating from the 13th to the 15th centuries (Lubšina-Tušek 2007, 311). For comparison, more than 2000 settlement sites from the period between the 11th and the 16th centuries have been documented archaeologically in the territory of Slovakia (Egyhazy-Jurovska 1999, 24). not receive from the historians any initiatives for investigating later periods. Although the history of "material culture" - in the broad sense, as recognised for example by Jacques Le Goff for the purposes of research and evaluation of the medieval civilisation of Western Europe, namely a "different Middle Ages, one without texts and inscriptions"13 - did not attract much interest from Slovenian historians, they nevertheless emphasised the significance of archaeological research for obtaining new and specific "field sources" in the 1970 monograph on Slovenian agrarian history. In addition to archaeological finds, e.g. agricultural implements, and the organic remains of cultivated plants, domestic and wild animals from archaeological sites, the remains of buildings "could be important for researching farmhouses up to the 17th century when other sources become somewhat more exhaustive" and excavations could provide a "more accurate image of the development of farming settlements". The archaeological methods of research into agriculture should be supplemented with new techniques and methods of the natural sciences: aerial photography (for discovering the field systems, field paths and any underground structures), pollen analysis (for the chronology of the changes in vegetation in an agrarian landscape) and the phosphate method (analysis of the phosphate levels in the soil to determine the location of abandoned settlements; Blaznik et al. 1970, 5-6, 564, 616).14 Unfortunately, historians did not go beyond these fundamental proposals, but even archaeology did not respond appropriately. There were most likely no real possibilities for work. The Slovenian archaeological community has always been small in number. In the 1970s, when the number of employed (that is, active) archaeologists began to grow, this was primarily due to the increase in staff active in the field of heritage protection. Archaeology as a whole was lacking in the institutional framework, the financial resources and staff needed to perform comprehensive systematic research of this kind. Yet the crucial problems remained, without a doubt, the theoretical premisses and the conceptual framework of Slovenian archaeology. 13 Cf. the quotes from Le Goff's La civilisation de l'occident medieval, 1965, translated in Nabergoj 1995, 84. 14 P. Blaznik wrote on the phosphate method in 1940 without specifically mentioning archaeology (Blaznik 1940, 39). THE PERIOD OF PRAGMATISM There were relatively few systematic archaeological studies undertaken on late medieval and later sites until the transformation of the heritage protection service in the 1970s, when a network of eight institutes for the protection of monuments was established (Jogan 2008, 84-89). With this network of regional institutions, and the direct and active cooperation from museums (Slabe 1981-1982, 98-99), it was possible to intensify and improve the documentation of monuments and the monitoring of the cultural heritage risk level within the entire Slovenian territory. Thus the profession was stren"lgthened in terms of staff, which was quickly reflected in the amount of rescue excavations performed. Even though the archaeology of the Late Middle Ages and later periods was not an established notion in Slovenia at the time, and the knowledge about the material culture of these periods was extremely limited, the high risk levels and the number of required rescue interventions on monuments, eventually prompted a pragmatic response from the profession. It could be said that theory was overtaken by practice. The preliminary reports on archaeological research into monuments and sites with medieval and post-medieval remains, published in Varstvo spomenikov (Journal for the Protection of Monuments) and elsewhere, clearly document this process: in the 1950-59 decade, 13 sites were researched, between 1960 and 1969 the number rose to 15, then in the 1970-1979 period as many as 48 were researched, with 55 researched in the 1980-89 decade (cf. Nabergoj 1995; fig. 8). The rise in the number of research excavations carried out in the 1970s and the 1980s is linked to wider social changes. In the wake of the post-war reconstruction, coupled with considerable economic growth and industrialisation of the 1960s, the world was facing an environmental crisis that set off ecological movements and raised ecological awareness. Even in the then Yugoslavia, and more so in Slovenia, the first efforts were made to protect the environment against the incessant draining of natural resources, the spread of industry and the concentric expansion of cities. This was reflected in the legislation, procedures and regulations on spatial planning in the 1970s and 1980s. The preservation of fertile soil and the protection of farmland against degradation and development for construction were particularly strong concerns. Consequently, the trend of urban centre development was reversed. 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 11 M ______ ..nil 1870-79 1890-99 1910-19 1930-39 1950-59 1970-79 1990-99 1880-89 1900-09 1920-29 1940-49 1960-69 1980-89 2000-07 Fig. 8: Number of archaeological interventions on sites with remains from the later periods in Slovenia by decade (completed after Varstvo spomenikov and Nabergoj 1995). Sl. 8: Število terenskih arheoloških raziskav na najdiščih z ostalinami iz mlajših obdobij v Sloveniji po desetletjih (dopolnjeno po objavah v reviji Varstvo spomenikov in po Nabergoj 1995). While the decades after the war witnessed the depopulation and decay of urban historical centres, from the mid-1970s onwards, the old settlement nuclei experienced a noticeable rise in construction activity, restoration of historic buildings and infrastructure, and new building projects within already urbanised areas. ^e monument protection service thus faced an increasing volume of work, supervising the numerous development projects in the old settlement areas and often performing the necessary rescue archaeological research. The "softening" of ideological views and a more liberal social climate in the late 1960s and early 1970s resulted in a more positive evaluation of the past, even of the monuments from the feudal period. The castles and mansions, deliberately neglected and hardly ever the subject of systematic and quality restoration and revitalisation efforts in the postwar period, now once again acquired a cultural value. A more appropriate attitude towards these monuments started to develop slowly, along with investments in their restoration, maintenance and revitalization. The attitude towards ecclesiastical buildings as cultural monuments developed in a similar way. Archaeology was given a place in the preventive interventions on such historic buildings, but only as a specialised (excavation) method for obtaining data on architectural development, while it generally had no important role to play in the interpretation of these monuments. The archaeologists themselves consented to such a role. They were forced to do so for practical reasons, not due to some deeper insight arising from the realisation of the necessity and possibilities of solving general historical issues. They stressed the need for "expert knowledge" and for interdisciplinary treatment. However, due to the "wider social interest", "researching a 'non-archaeological' building with an archaeological method" was only justified "for buildings or parts of buildings where achieving a complex or important conclusion can be expected, but cannot be performed through other research methods." Found objects "that are mass-produced and were once in relatively common use", which are "usually only interesting within the context of excavation", must be "sensibly screened in accordance with the general principles of screening of the excavated finds, especially when dealing with material from later periods uncovered from the ground, more so than with material from ancient times. In this way, only exceptional finds from excavations of non-archaeological buildings are to be kept and taken care of by museums" (Mikl-Curk 1981, 92-93). Marijan Slabe presented a different position, one that was more in favour of the fully-up-to-standard archaeological treatment of remains from more recent periods, while he was undertaking research in Škofja Loka (Slabe 1974; Slabe 1980a;fig. 9). Rescue excavations at Mestni trg produced the ruins of a Fig. 9: Marijan Slabe receiving the Slovenian Archeological Society's Life Work Prize in 2003 (Arheološki oddelek Narodnega muzeja Slovenije; photo: T. Lauko). Sl. 9: Marijan Slabe, prejemnik nagrade Slovenskega arheološkega društva za življenjsko delo za leto 2003 (Arheološki oddelek NMS; foto: T. Lauko). Gothic building of the medieval commune and numerous objects from the Late Middle Ages and the Modern period, among them large quantities of decorated tableware from the second half of the 16th century and the early 17th century. Slabe determined these to be the products from domestic workshops made according to Italian models, and he termed the ware "loška meščanska slikana keramika" (the Loka Painted Burghers' Ware) (Slabe 1977; cf. also Predovnik 2009). At the same time, he realised how unsuitable the prior practice had been, seeing that it primarily dictated the protection of archaeological remains "that had originated from no later than the 11th or the 12th century, simply because the cultural heritage from more recent periods was protected mainly because of its art-historical and partly ethnographic importance." Experience has shown that "for various reasons, it is our duty to protect also the layers of soil in such areas, which are usually rich in material remains, but have so far often been neglected and discarded." In Škofja Loka, using the appropriate archaeological approaches to research has resulted in the discovery of a great number of "small finds ranging from the remains of ceramic pots for everyday use to what is commonly called the precious parlour inventory, which on the one hand provides an insight into the material life and social standing of the population in the past, and sheds light on the well-developed trade routes with the neighbouring countries of Italy and Austria on the other..." Slabe underlined the epistemological value of this material, "which in many ways explains and illuminates the past way of life and, in combination with the written sources, completes the historical image of the town in a certain period of its late medieval and later development" (Slabe 1974, 75-76). Experience in conservation and wide professional interests led the same author to prepare the first overview of archaeological studies of the more recent periods. The article was printed in the publication accompanying the exhibition Rešena arheološka dediščina Slovenije (The Rescued Archaeological Heritag"le of Slovenia) (Slabe 1980b). The achievements presented there led to the conclusion "that the archaeological method of work cannot be avoided in this historical and cultural structure", due to the demands of science as well as those of heritage protection (Slabe 1985, 35). fje predominant (mis-)understanding of archaeology's role within the framework of heritage protection was primarily caused by seeing archaeology as the Method - that is, excavation - which can be offered as a service to other disciplines and can therefore be separated from the appropriate interpretative tools. Another problem was that the nature and epistemological value of material sources were poorly conceptualised, if at all. fje (conservation) practice separated material sources into two categories: the architectural remains held a primary position and the research was subjected to them, while the unearthed objects were generally "just" used to explain and illuminate the past way of life and to complement the historical reconstruction from written sources. More often than not, small finds were subjected to passing through the thick sieve of established art historical and archaeological criteria on what was important and worth preserving, and what was so fragmentary, unimpressive, without meaning, seemingly familiar15 and on the whole so uninteresting that it should just be discarded. 15 The deceptive nature of the notion that it is impossible to learn anything new about the recent past, simply because its traces are present at every step we make, is the subject of the volume The familiar past? Archaeologies of later historical Britain (Tarlow, West 1999). Context - the spatial relations between individual structures and finds - which is the third essential category that can only be evaluated meaningfully by archaeology and its methods (especially strati-graphic excavations and appropriate documenting), was not defined as such and was thus often neglected. This meant, in practice, that unprofessional (methodologically incorrect) excavating or digging through different structures was often carried out by the art historians themselves, or else by architects without the cooperation of archaeologists. Poor documentation of the archaeological contexts has resulted in the loss of much valuable data and even finds. We dare to conclude that, up to the second half of the 1990s, the monument protection service in Slovenia did not - in practice and even less in theory - manage to address adequately, in a sound and modern way, any of the three vital elements of research: the source, the method and the problem. Therefore, in contrast to the contemporary development of science in other countries, it could not build the conceptual framework and the theoretical foundations for autonomous, legitimate and scientifically sound archaeological research into the heritage of "non-archaeological" periods. In spite of the great progress that has been made in the last two decades, many problems still persist, especially with regard to adequate interdisciplinary research. As Marko Stokin pointed out years ago, the consequence of this problematic understanding of (medieval) archaeology and the lack of connection between the different disciplines is that we still lack the adequate analytical methods which would enable us to address in an appropriate way complex sites, such as urban settlements, or to interpret the social processes, the development of towns and architecture (Stokin 1995, 53). THE FIRST SYSTEMATIC RESEARCH PROJECTS AND THE BEGINNINGS OF INSTITUTIONALISATION In the 1970s, the first major shifts towards establishing the archaeology of later periods occurred also in the field of systematic research. As early as 1967, systematic archaeological investigation of the site of Otok pri Dobravi (Otok near Dobrava) in the Šentjernejsko polje plain began on the initiative of the historian Ferdo Gestrin. Otok is the location of the medieval market town of Gutenwert (also: Gutenwerth) which was deserted in the late 15th century (fig. 10). The research was conducted by archaeologists of the Centre for Medieval and Early Slavic Studies at the National Museum under the leadership of Vinko Šribar (cf. Nabergoj 1995 with references; Bartosiewicz 1999; Stare 2000). Special attention was "given to the share that the Slovenian early medieval culture had in the formation of cultural and civilising processes in the context of mature feudalism" (Šribar, Stare 1981, 7). This is why, at first, the issues of continuity, especially the supposed continuous, organic development of late medieval urban centres from earlier, Early Slavic settlements, were at the forefront. Still, the archaeological record of the site where, beside the rare remains from the Roman period and the 10th and 11th centuries,16 mostly the architectural remains, infrastructure, burials and, of course, objects from the Late Middle Ages were found, required an "equal" treatment of the structures and artefacts from every period. Furthermore, it eventually caused a widening and shift of research interests. Vinko Šribar and his colleagues believed that separating the Middle Ages into the archaeological early and "non-archaeological" late Middle Ages made no sense, and accordingly changed the name of the Centre for Early Medieval and Early Slavic Studies to the Centre for Medieval Archaeology in 1977. The Centre's activities prompted the National Museum to establish a new post of museum curator for archaeology of the High Middle Ages (Stare 1993a). Based on the data and finds obtained from Otok, Vinko Šribar and his colleague Vida Stare published a number of papers on the urban and architectural development of this medieval settlement (Šribar 1975b; Šribar, Stare 1978), on the various groups of artefacts (Šribar 1 976; Stare 1983; Stare 1993b; Stare 2002), and the typochronologies of metal and ceramic finds (Šribar 1972-1973; Šribar 1983). Unfortunately, the latter two schemes, which could serve as basic dating tools for further studies of late medieval sites in Slovenia, have proven problematic. The chronological distribution of individual types follows the relative sequence of the six horizons17 at the site, which have been dated absolutely to individual centuries, in descending order from 16 Only a single "residential sunken building" has been published so far. It was supposedly built in the 10th century and was still in use in the 11th century (Stare 1993c). 17 Šribar initially defined eight phases of building development at the site (Šribar 1968-1969, 34). Fig. 10: Otok near Dobrava - Gutenwert. Excavation area 1 with uncovered foundations of a Romanesque church and remains of several workshops (R. Sribar's private archive). Sl. 10: Otok pri Dobravi - Gutenwert. Izkopno polje 1 z odkritimi temelji romanske cerkve in delavniškimi objekti (zasebni arhiv R. Šribar). the late 15th century (the 1st horizon) to the early 11th or the late 10th century (the 6th horizon). It is unclear whether these "horizons" stand for the phases, that is, periods of settlement or perhaps for the horizontal "cultural" strata, or whether they are simply identical to the "plana", the arbitrary horizontal layers of soil by which the site was excavated in accordance with the then valid methodology (cf. Šribar 1972-1973, 23-29 and Šribar 1979, 48-58). As it turns out, the "pla-num" method of excavation used resulted in the mixing of the cultural content of the individual stratigraphic units, e.g. two or more strata, fill deposits, and other stratigraphic units that were (partly) excavated at the same time. It is also unclear which objects were found within intact, closed contexts and which in mixed ones. For this reason, the typochronological schemes of pottery and metal objects from Otok pri Dobravi place individual early types into the latest horizons, while some very late types are attributed to older horizons. These schemes and the related dates of the appearance of individual types are therefore useful as dating tools only with certain reservations and a great deal of scepticism. Despite this, the indisputable fact is that the excavations at Otok pri Dobravi have a special place in the history of Slovenian archaeology, and rightly so. Not only was this the first planned and systematic investigation of a site from the later periods and the first investigation of a deserted medieval settlement, but it was also one of the first open-area excavations carried out in Slovenia. The excavation director, Vinko Šribar, was developing new methods for documentation to meet the requirements of the project (Šribar 1974). However, the actual value of the discoveries from Otok is difficult to assess as we still lack a comprehensive site report. It is as yet impossible to examine critically the published definitions Fig. 11: Stari grad above Celje (Arheološki oddelek Narodnega muzeja Slovenije; photo: J. Hanc). Sl. 11: Stari grad nad Celjem (Arheološki oddelek NMS; foto: J. Hanc). and interpretations of the individual architectural remains, of the urban development and of the small finds. The research potential remains, of course, seeing that the complete documentation and the artefacts are kept in the National Museum of Slovenia and the site is suitably protected, allowing for further archaeological research. Vida Stare recently published the results of excavations in the Church of St. Nicholas, the only standing building in the area of the former settlement. Forty-four medieval and post-medieval inhumations were excavated, along with the remains of older building phases of the existing church, the foundations of its predecessor and several foundations from the Roman period that are interpreted as the remains of a Roman river port (Stare 2000). St. Nicholas' is thus the first of the three areas excavated at Otok between 1967 and 1984 to have a full site report published.18 Archaeologists from the Centre for Medieval Archaeology have researched several sites besides 18 Beside the church, the excavations also took place at the so-called Excavation Areas 1 and 2, located on the southern and central parts of the settlement respectively. Bled Island and Otok pri Dobravi. The Centre ceased to exist with Vinko Šribar's retirement in 1987, but the post of museum curator for archaeology of the High Middle Ages still remained at the National Museum (Stare 1993a, 31). There is another research project that deserves mentioning - the excavations at Stari grad nad Celjem (the Old Castle above Celje; fig. 11). As with Otok pri Dobravi, the initiative came from outside archaeology. Archaeologists were invited to excavate by Ivan Stopar, an art historian and conservator at the Institute for the Protection of Monuments in Celje. The excavations were carried out by the Department of Archaeology at the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana and were directed by Tatjana Bregant in 1972-1983 and 1986 (Bregant 1974; Stopar 1975; Bregant 1977; Bregant 1983). Archaeological excavations covered every accessible area inside the castle core and some smaller sections of the moat and the castle yard. Considering that we still have no comprehensive publication on these excavations which would include the full graphical documentation and a catalogue of small finds, again the conclusion applies that the interpretative potential of the archaeological research performed was and still is not exploited to its full extent.19 Regarding the interpretation of the structures discovered, especially with regard to the castle's architectural development from the first half of the 13 th century onward, the archaeologist's opinion differed greatly from that of an art historian and an architect (Kramberger, Stopar 1987; cf. Stopar 1982), but due to the lack of published archaeological data it is difficult to judge them critically. Tatjana Bregant's thesis that the Gothic castle hall developed from the original tower is in all likelihood wrong, but this does not justify the conclusion that the "methodological starting point" of archaeological interpretations is "speculative" (Kramberger, Stopar 1987, 85). An erroneous interpretation of individual archaeological data does not deny the epistemological potential of archaeological sources or the epistemological relevance of archaeological methodology as such. This incomprehension stems from the belief that it is sufficient for different disciplines to approach an issue each from their own perspective and using their own methods, and then finally to compare the results. Such multidisciplinarity only serves to increase the disagreements and distrust between the various disciplines, when they should instead be working together in a truly interdisciplinary way to complement and understand one another better (cf. Predovnik 1995, 74-77). The published interpretations of archaeological data from the Old Castle above Celje have turned out to be problematic in several other points as well. Ten "cultural horizons", that is, eight construction phases of stone buildings and two earlier phases of wooden buildings have been identified. The horizons were dated through small, mostly ceramic finds to the period between the mid-10th century and the 17th century and linked with the information from the written sources (Bregant 1983, 40; Bregant 1984). According to the excavator's interpretation, the rocky promontory overlooking the confluence of the Savinja and Voglajna rivers was occupied even before the construction of the feudal fortification, as the latter was sup- 19 The publications to this date include the (incomplete) reports on excavations (e.g. Bregant 1974; Bregant 1977), a selection of excavated stove tiles (Bregant 1984), a few fragments of "chronologically defined" ceramics (Šribar, Stare, Bregant 1974, 45-49), a selection of ceramic and metal items (Fugger Germadnik 1999a, passim; Guštin 2001f, passim), and the ceramic finds from sectors A and B (Brišnik 1999). posedly built on the site of an Early Slavic hillfort. A decade ago, a revision was performed of the finds from the so-called sectors A and B where structures and pottery from the first and second "residential horizons" from the period between the 10th and 12th centuries were supposedly found. The revision showed that the preserved collection of pottery contains no fragments older than the 12th century, and the reviewer pointed out the problems encountered in establishing a pottery sequence for the site, due to the planum excavation and documentation methods used (Brišnik 1999, 269-270). This calls for further critical assessment of the finds and field documentation. Despite these attempts at systematic research, when discussing the legacy of more recent periods, archaeology still accepted the status of a mere method and critique of sources while relinquishing the interpretation of these same sources to history or art history. In 1987, Božidar Slapšak critically summed up the state of archaeology in the period of pragmatism as we have termed it in the title of the previous chapter: "It needs to be emphasised that, regarding the interpretation of material sources from the later historical periods (after 1000 AD), archaeology still acts merely as the interpreter of vertical relationships - the sequence of construction phases or the phases of use in architectural remains: it is the only historical discipline with suitable stratigraphic and typological methods for evaluation of the stratified finds. Archaeology figures only as a supporting technical discipline, uncovering through excavations the horizontal relationships on the micro-level, the explanation of which is then relinquished to disciplines mastering the dominating sources for the period: written documents and art. This state of affairs is characteristic of a 'phase of unconceptualised practice': the archaeology of later historical periods in Slovenia as yet has no institutional backing. The attempt within the framework of the Gutenwerth project is, in our circumstances, nothing short of extraordinary" (Slapšak 1987, 145, note 3). NEW CONCEPTS AND THE BIRTH OF A DISCIPLINE In the 1980s, Slovenian archaeology began to open up intellectually towards the Anglo-Saxon world, from which it adopted certain initiatives for theoretical reflection and conceptual and methodological development. In 1981, the Slovenian Fig. 12: Koper, Kapucinski vrt, the 1986 excavation. Remains of early medieval, late medieval and postmedieval stone buildings and infrastructure (Pokrajinski muzej Koper; photo: V. Šribar). Sl. 12: Koper, Kapucinski vrt, izkopavanja leta 1986. Ostanki zgodnjesrednjeveških, poznosrednjeveških in zgodnje-novoveških kamnitih stavb in infrastrukturnih objektov (Pokrajinski muzej Koper; foto: V. Šribar). ▼ Fig. 13: Ljubljana Castle. From 1990 until 2000, the teachers and students of the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, were involved in extensive excavations at the northern artillery platform directed by the City Museum of Ljubljana (Oddelek za arheologijo FF UL; photo: D. Grosman). Sl. 13: Ljubljanski grad. Pri obsežnih izkopavanjih, ki jih je vodil ljubljanski Mestni muzej, so v letih od 1990 in 2000 na območju severne grajske bastije sodelovali tudi učitelji in študentje Oddelka za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani (Oddelek za arheologijo FF UL; foto: D. Grosman). Archaeological Society began publishing Arheo, a journal that featured original theoretical contributions and translated articles from other publications, thus introducing to Slovenian archaeologists the new (and the not so new) views of their American and British colleagues. New concepts, new interpretative approaches and, last but not least, new methodologies were presented by foreign visiting lecturers at the Department of Archaeology at the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana,20 and the teachers of the department were testing them in practice in their own research work at home and in international projects. The development of the archaeology of later periods is inseparably linked to the introduction of a crucial methodological innovation that also entered Slovenian archaeology from the West: the stratigraphic excavation method. Consistent application of this method demands an equal treatment of all units of stratification regardless of their cultural content or age. The method was tried out successfully even before the original manual was translated into Slovenian (Harris 1989) in the rescue excavations at the Kapucinski vrt (Capuchin Garden) in Koper in 1986-1987 (Cunja 1989; Cunja 1996; fig. 12). It was also applied in the lengthy excavations at Ljubljana Castle which started in 1988 (Šinkovec 1991; fig. 13), then again in Koper in the excavation inside the Church of St. Clara in 1989 (Grosman 1991, 32-36) and elsewhere.21 Being protective in nature, all of these excavations were rescue interventions performed on complex multi-period sites with a significant or even predominant share of remains from periods after the Early Middle Ages. The quantity of data gathered, the number of field projects conducted and artifacts acquired have gradually demanded a more appropriate treatment of the medieval and post-medieval archaeological heritage. This incited the interest of only a small number of individuals at first, but the circumstances matured in the early 1990s, when the archaeology of periods following the Early Middle Ages became established also at the academic level. In 1990/91, at the incentive of professor Mitja Guštin, the ar- chaeological curriculum at Ljubljana's Faculty of Arts was complemented with a new course called the Archaeology of Later Historical Periods (fig. 14; Novakovic et al. 2004, 97-100).22 Adhering to the general structure of the study programme, whose core consists of courses devoted to the various archaeological periods, this course was designed so as to include all periods after the end of the Early Middle Ages, or rather, everything from the traditional upper chronological limit of archaeology - the 11th century - onwards until modernity. The course was actually introduced in the academic year 1993/94, when the first seminars were held, complemented with occasional lectures by Slovene and foreign visiting lecturers (Guštin 1994).23 From 1992 to 1995, professor Guštin and his students were excavating the medieval fortress at Stari grad nad Podbočjem (the Old Castle above Podbočje; Predovnik 2003; fig. 15), discussing various topics related to the archaeology of later periods in the seminar on prehistoric archaeology of the Bronze and Iron Ages.24 The full implementation of the course in all four years of the undergraduate programme followed gradually and only became fully established at the onset of the new millennium. 20 The first one was Lewis Binford, who visited the Department of Archaeology in the academic year of 1985/86 (Novakovic et al. 2004, 82). 21 The fact that none of these excavations have been published completely does not deny their significance for the archaeology of later periods or their historical place within the methodological development of Slovenian archaeology. 22 In Slovenia, this term was first used by Božidar Slapšak in 1982 in his article O zgodovini in arheologiji (On History and Archaeology) published in the journal Arheo (Slapšak 1981). Slapšak pointed out that "expanding the subject of archaeology to the latest historical periods" is only possible if the differentiation between archaeology and history as scientific disciplines is based on the different nature of their sources. In the opposite case, archaeology as a "synthesising and integrative science" can be defined only through the demarcation of its field of interest in relation to history, that is, chronologically (Slapšak 1981, 52-53). This latter premise has been determining the relationship between the two disciplines ever since the discussion between Korošec and Grafenauer in the 1950s, preventing the establishment of the archaeology of later periods as an independent and legitimate scientific (sub) discipline. Due to the same consideration the academic course was renamed in 1995, when the adjective "historical" was dropped from the course title because it implicitly supported the traditional separation into archaeological and historical periods with all of the negative consequences this had on the discipline's development. 23 Vinko Šribar held a lecture with the title Uvod v arheologijo visokega in poznega srednjega veka (An Introduction to the Archaeology of the High and Late Middle Ages) at the Department of Archaeology on 10 May 1988, some years before the official introduction of the course. 24 This also resulted in the publication of older excavations carried out at Stari grad nad Podbočjem (Guštin et al. 1993). Fig. 14: Professor Mitja Guštin, instigator of systematic development of the archaeology of later periods as an independent field of study and research (photo: A. Gombač). Sl. 14: Profesor Mitja Guštin, pobudnik sistematičnega razvoja arheologije mlajših obdobij kot samostojnega študijskega in raziskovalnega polja (foto: A. Gombač). T Fig. 15: Stari grad above Podbočje - the fortress of Kostanjevica. Excavated walls of a square tower and the foundations of a building dating from ca. 1200 preserved underneath (Oddelek za arheologijo FF UL; photo: S. Firšt). Sl. 15: Stari grad nad Podbočjem - trdnjava Kostanjevica. Izkopani zidovi kvadratnega stolpa in pod njimi ohranjeni temelji stavbe iz časa okoli 1200 (Oddelek za arheologijo FF UL; foto: S. Firšt). In the 1993/94 seminar on the archaeology of later periods, students discussed the stove tiles unearthed at Ljubljana Castle, in cooperation with the City Museum of Ljubljana. The professor and students attending the seminar presented their work to the general public with a small exhibition at the Jakopičevo Razstavišče gallery and in a published volume. The book entitled Ljubljanski grad. Pečnice (Ljubljana Castle. Stove Tiles) was published as the first volume in a new series of monographs named Archaeologia historica Slovenica, which the Department of Archaeology started publishing with the ambition to stimulate research into the more recent periods and to create a platform for the publication of finds and research projects, thus expanding knowledge and connecting the interested researchers (Guštin, Horvat 1994).25 As early as 1995, the first two graduation theses dealing with the archaeology of later periods were defended. Both of them were general surveys aiming to strengthen the emerging discipline and link it to the domestic and international research traditions. An exhaustive overview and analysis of archaeological research into the High and Late Middle Ages in Slovenia was prepared by Tomaž Nabergoj, who published his thesis in the National Museum's exhibition catalogue Gotika na Slovenskem - svet predmetov (Gothic in Slovenia - the World of Objects; Nabergoj 1995). The conceptual development of historical archaeology throughout Europe and the USA was presented by Katarina Predovnik in her thesis (Predovnik 1995; cf. Pre-dovnik 2000). Both authors typically assumed a somewhat apologetic stance, seeing that the rigid traditional understanding of archaeology as the antipode rather than as another facet of history called for a clear definition of the significance of archaeological research into "historical" periods.26 Nabergoj pointed out some specific dilemmas arising from the insufficient consideration of the archaeological potential of the material culture of 25 To this date, another five volumes have been published in the series (Guštin, Predovnik 1997; Guštin 2001f; Predovnik 2003; Podpečan 2006; Predovnik et al. 2008). 26 It seems that the archaeology of later periods will not lose this attitude for a while yet, in spite of its recent development and achievements. Although Slovenian archaeologists have become more or less reconciled with researching the medieval and early modern periods, they remain ambivalent towards research into later periods (cf. the series of contributions on post-medieval archaeology in the 25th issue of Arheo). Historical archaeology is regulated and prescribed as a norm by the new Cultural Heritage Protection Act, yet the archaeologists and representatives of related disciplines (history, cultural anthropology, and art history) still have insufficient knowledge and understanding of this segment of archaeological research, which is why they often reject it. The archaeology of later periods has yet to open a debate on the subject with the related disciplines. For now, their perception of archaeology remains within the limits set by Bogo Grafenauer in the mid-20th century (Grafenauer 1951; Grafenauer 1960). the centuries following the Early Middle Ages in Slovenia. Katarina Predovnik, on the other hand, tried theoretically to define the epistemological possibilities of historical archaeology in accordance with the concepts of material culture, literacy and social theory current in the so-called post-processual archaeology. Other seminar papers and graduation theses soon followed. In the period between 1995 and 2008, eighteen archaeology students completed their undergraduate studies at Ljubljana's Faculty of Arts, obtaining bachelor's degree with a thesis on the archaeology of later periods. Furthermore, two students obtained a master's degree and one a PhD with theses on the same subject (fig. 16). In 1995, again at the initiative of Mitja Guštin, the Centre for Medieval and Post-Medieval Studies was established at the Department of Archaeology at the Faculty of Arts (Novakovic et al. 2004, 99-100). In 1996 it opened a branch office in Celje, which operated until 2001 in cooperation with the Celje Regional Museum. Led by professor Guštin, the Centre was "established with the intention of speeding up the development of medieval and post-medieval archaeology in Slovenia and encouraging the analysis and publication of the finds lying forgotten in museum storage rooms" (Guštin 2001e, 7). One of the key initiatives for establishing the Centre - and its Celje office in particular - was the □ diploma / BA ■ magisterij / MA ■ doktorat/PhD 3 - 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Fig. 16: Number of bachelor's degree, master's degrees, and PhD theses defended at the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana from 1995 until 2008 (source: archive of the Department of Archaeology). Sl. 16: Število diplomskih, magistrskih in doktorskih del s področja arheologije mlajših obdobij, obranjenih na Oddelku za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani v obdobju 1995-2008 (vir: interni arhiv Oddelka za arheologijo). desire for a comprehensive analysis and publication of the finds and data from excavations in Celje, especially the excavations at Stari grad nad Celjem carried out by the Department of Archaeology and those conducted by the Institute for the Protection of Natural and Cultural Heritage in Knežji dvor (the Princely Court) in Celje. ^e initial idea was not realised in full though, since only small assemblages of artefacts from these two large excavation projects were actually evaluated and published (e.g. Brišnik 1999a; contributions in Guštin 2001f). Still, the Centre documented and often also took care of the publication of archaeological finds from several other medieval and post-medieval sites, e.g. the castles at Slovenska Bistrica, Slovenske Konjice, Šalek, Podsreda, Žebnik, Stari grad nad Podbočjem, Zgornji stolp at Krancelj, along with the finds from the monasteries of Olimje, Žiče, and Ptuj, from the town centres of Slovenj Gradec, Ljubljana and Celje, and the objects recovered from the underwater sites of the Ljubljanica river, Piran and Sv. Ivan near Umag (Croatia). ^e Centre also carried out the Celjski knezi (the Princes of Celje) project, prepared a touring exhibition presenting an overview of the archaeological research into the Middle Ages in the Štajerska and Prekmurje regions and, in 1998, collaborated with the Celje Regional Museum in the organisation of the resounding international symposium Celjski grofje - stara tema, nova spoznanja (The Counts of Celje - New Findings on an Old Subject; Fugger Germadnik 1999b). fje Centre's activity has died down since the doors of the Celje branch office finally closed in 2003. fje institutional infrastructure of the archaeology of later periods is complemented by the posts of curators for the archaeology of (High and) Late Middle Ages at the National Museum of Slovenia and the City Museum of Ljubljana. fjese are in charge of the archaeological movable heritage of the periods following the Early Middle Ages, researching and presenting it to the public at permanent and temporary exhibitions. fjen there is the main Slovenian archaeological research institution, the Institute of Archaeology at the Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (IzA ZRC SAZU). For a long time, its research activities were limited to researching the "traditional" archaeological periods - in line with the orientations and tasks set out by Josip Korošec in 1948, on the founding of the Archaeological Section at the Historical Institute: "the archaeological scientific research of the Slovenian territory ranging from the Neolithic period to the settlement by the Slavs and the Early Middle Ages, including the 11th century". Even though there were plans to expand the Institute's scope of activity beyond this chronological limit as early as in 1989 (Pleterski 1997, 88), this did not happen until the beginning of the new millennium, when they finally acquired a new member of staff - a researcher for the archaeology of the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern period.27 Finally, in the last decade the journal Arheološki vestnik, the principal Slovenian archaeological journal published by the Institute, began publishing papers on the archaeology of later periods. We could say that this was an important symbolic break from tradition and the final affirmation of the new discipline as a legitimate and meaningful segment of archaeology. Another institute active in the fields of medieval and post-medieval archaeology was founded in 2003. Headed by Mitja Guštin, the Institute for Mediterranean Heritage was established at the Science and Research Centre of Koper, engaging in multi-period and interdisciplinary research (fig. 17). In cooperation with partners from Italy, Croatia and Austria, members of the Institute conducted research into the material heritage of the Venetian Republic on the eastern Adriatic coast in the framework of the European project called Dediščina Serenissime (The Heritage of the Serenissima), which extended over several years (cf. for example Guštin et al. 2006). fje Institute is especially active in the field of publishing (Preložnik 2008): regarding the archaeology of later periods, six volumes have already been published in the Annales Mediterranea series (Guštin 2004; Lazar 2004; Mileusnic 2004; Zagarčanin 2004; Guštin et al. 2006; Lazar, Willmott 2006; Guštin et al. 2008), as well as a number of graduation theses and other papers by students of cultural heritage studies at the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Primorska 27 The Early Slavic period is the last period presented in the popular book surveying the archaeology of the Slovenian territory, Zakladi tisočletij (Treasures of the Millennia). The volume was written by the researchers of the Institute and their co-workers and was published in 1999 (Aubelj, Božič, Dular 1999). It is an important and richly illustrated popular scientific book aiming at the popularisation of archaeology among the general public. The book can also be understood as archaeology's contribution towards building a new national identity after Slovenia's attainment of independence, even though this was not the direct motive for its publication. Still, this "national project" is in keeping with the old understanding of the chronological limits of archaeology, which had already been surpassed in Slovenia at the time. Fig. 17: Koper, Ukmarjev trg. Rescue excavations were conducted in 2007 by the Institute for Mediterranean Heritage at the Science and Research Centre of Koper at the University of Primorska (Inštitut za dediščino Sredozemlja ZRS UP; photo: A. Ogorelec). Sl. 17: Koper, Ukmarjev trg. Zaščitna izkopavanja je leta 2007 opravil Inštitut za dediščino Sredozemlja Znanstvenoraziskovalnega središča Univerze na Primorskem (Inštituta za dediščino Sredozemlja ZRS UP; foto: A. Ogorelec). presented in the new periodical Studia universitatis hereditati (Guštin 2008). The establishment of the archaeology of later periods as an independent academic discipline went hand in hand with changes in practice. Ever more often, the research projects and small finds were presented at special permanent and temporary exhibitions,28 and the number of publications 28 To name but a few: the exhibitions on the excavations at Kapucinski vrt in Koper (Guštin, Cunja 1989; Cunja 1989) and on the pottery and glass vessels from the castles in the northern part of the Primorska region (Žbona-Trkman et al. 1991); the occasional exhibitions in Križanke Cultural-Information Centre on the research conducted by the City Museum of Ljubljana, such as the Mesto pod muzejem (The City under the Museum) exhibition in 2000; the Gotika na Slovenskem - svet predmetov exhibition (Gothic in Slovenia -the World of Objects; Lozar Štamcar 1995); the multi-period exhibition on pottery in the Šentjernejsko polje region (Križ et al. 1996); the exhibition on the archaeological research conducted on sites from the later periods in the Štajerska region (Guštin, Predovnik 1997); the permanent exhibition increased significantly (fig. 18). In the last twenty years, several comprehensive site reports including the catalogues and evaluation of small finds have been published,29 as well as numerous theme of Pomurje Museum (Balažic, Kerman 1997); the exhibition on the Šaleška valley "between the Romanesque and the Baroque" (Ravnikar 1998); the exhibitions on the Counts of Celje (Fugger Germadnik 1999b), on the medieval and post-medieval ceramics from the underwater rubbish dumps at Sv. Ivan near Umag and in Piran (Guštin 2004), on research in ŠkoTha Loka (Štukl 2004); and finally, two recent examples - the exhibitions Zakladi Narodnega muzeja Slovenije (The Treasures of the National Museum of Slovenia; Nabergoj 2006) and Ljubljanica - kulturna dediščina reke (The Ljubljanica - A River and its Past; Turk et al. 2009) at the National Museum of Slovenia. 29 E.g. reports on the following sites: Stari grad nad Podbočjem (Guštin et al. 1993; Predovnik 2003), the Ša-lek Castle (Brišnik, Ravnikar 1999), the manor in Polhov Gradec (Železnikar 2002), the shepherd's hut on the Velika planina mountain (Železnikar 2006), the Church of St. Bartholomew in Šentjernej (Predovnik et al. 2008), Mali grad in Kamnik (Štular 2009) and others. 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 □ terenske raziskave / site reports _ ■ artefakti / artefact studies □ arhitektura in urbanizem / architecture and urbanism ■ naravoslovne analize / scientific reports - □ problemske objave / problem-oriented studies □ 3H 1870-79 1880-89 1890-99 1900-09 1910-19 1920-29 1930-39 1940-49 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-09 Fig. 18: Number of publications on the archaeology of later periods in Slovenia by decades. Only comprehensive site reports (exhaustive reports including a catalogue of small finds), theoretical discussions and problem-orientated studies are included (sources: Nabergoj 1995 and COBISS). Sl. 18: Število objav s področja arheologije mlajših obdobij na Slovenskem po desetletjih. Upoštevane so samo celovite objave terenskih raziskav (izčrpno poročilo s katalogom najdb), teoretske razprave in tematske študije (vir: Nabergoj 1995 in COBISS). studies on individual groups of artefacts,30 treatises addressing the issues of urban archaeology (Stokin 1995; Cunja 1998; Guštin 2001a; Guštin 2001c), pottery production in the Slovenian territory (Župančič, Cunja 2000; Mileusnic 2008; Predovnik 2009) and the discipline's research history, concepts and current state (Guštin, Predovnik 1994; Nabergoj 1995; Guštin 1999a). Theme meetings and conferences, especially the international ones, offered opportunities for the exchange of knowledge and experience. On the occasion of the exhibition Drobci nekega vsakdana (Fragments of an Ordinary Day) presented at Kromberk Castle in January 1995, the Goriški 30 See for example the treatises on stove tiles (Stare 1993; Guštin, Horvat 1994, Guštin 2001d), medieval pottery (Nabergoj 1999; Kos, Nabergoj 2000; Štular 2005; Štular 2007), ceramic goblets and cups (Guštin 1999b; Guštin 2001b), pottery from highland sites in the Kamniško-Sa-vinjske Alps (Horvat 1996; Cevc 2000; Predovnik 2006), decorated tableware (Cunja 2000; Cunja 2001; Guštin 2004; Predovnik 2009), Spanish majolica (Guštin, Gelichi 2001), glass vessels (Kos, Žvanut 1994; Lazar 2001; Petek 2004), metal objects (Stare 2002), weapons (Nabergoj 2001; Štukl 2007; Rozman 2008), and numerous other thematic contributions. For medieval monetary issues, mints and coins, see for example Kos P. 1996 and Šemrov 2001. Modern analytical methods from natural sciences have already been introduced to artefact studies: non-destructive nuclear spectroscopic methods were used in establishing the chemical composition of medieval glass vessels (Šmit, Kos 2004) and medieval coins (Šmit, Šemrov 2006). muzej Kromberk museum and the Department of Archaeology at the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, jointly organised a discussion meeting on medieval and post-medieval archaeological heritage. In cooperation with the Archaeological Museum of Udine, Italy and the Archaeological Society of Friuli, they also organised a special section with contributions by Slovenian researchers at the conference on late medieval and renaissance ceramics in North-eastern Italy and the neighbouring regions which took place in Udine, Italy in March 1996 (Buora et al. 1999). In December 1997, it was followed by a conference on research into the high and late medieval and early modern ceramics in Slovenia organised by the National Museum of Slovenia.31 The symposium on the Counts of Celje, organised by the Celje Regional Museum in cooperation with the Centre for Medieval and Post-Medieval Studies in May 1998, was marked by its international and interdisciplinary character (Fugger Germadnik 1999a). Slovenian researchers began working more closely with their foreign colleagues, especially those from the neighbouring states of Italy, Austria and Croatia.32 31 Cf. Nabergoj 1999, 41 and the series of five articles on the study of medieval and post-medieval ceramics in Slovenia published in Argo 43/1 (Ljubljana 2000, pp. 29-74). 32 Especially the international projects and theme conferences organised since 2003 by the Institute for Mediterranean Heritage (cf. for example Guštin et al. 2006). On the whole, the approaches and research objectives of the archaeology of later periods so far do not reach beyond the traditionally established limits set by the cultural-historical and typochronological paradigms that still visibly define the greater part of Slovenian archaeological output. The attractive ambition to place the archaeology of later periods on a different footing at its very beginning, to make it more introspective and link it with modern theoretic approaches (Predovnik 1995 and 2000), unfortunately still remains almost completely unrealised. In a way, it is understandable that the protagonists of this young discipline directed most of their research efforts towards establishing the fundamental database (with the publication of site reports and artefact assemblages) and dating tools (typochronologies). Still, there have been some attempts to introduce new concepts into the medieval and post-medieval studies. They are typically in the field of spatial studies. In her analysis of the evolution of settlement in the territory of the former Carthusian monastery of Žiče/Seitz, Katarina Predovnik used the concept of landscape - and architecture - as materialisation of mental models, grounding her explanations on (implicitly) phenomenological premises (Predovnik 1997; Predovnik 1998). The concept of landscape as a field of direct sensory perception and experience-based comprehension of space was introduced in some detail by Dimitrij Mlekuž. In his case study on modelling the soundscape of the surroundings of Polhov gradec in the pre-industrial era he practically examined the possibilities of applying the GIS tools to spatial studies, where space is conceptualised not as abstract and objective, but instead as centred on the subject - the person perceiving, experiencing and interacting with this space (Mlekuž 2002a and 2002b). The GIS analytical tools were used in an The Department of Archaeology of the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana also collaborated with their Austrian colleagues in the organisation of the conference on motte-and-bailey castles in Hollenegg near Deutschlandsberg in Austrian Styria in October 2006 (Felgenhauer-Schmiedt et al. 2007). The archaeologists from Goriški muzej Kromberk have had a long tradition of professional cooperation and joint projects with their Italian colleagues from the Archaeological Museum of Udine. The successful international cooperation between the Municipality of Maribor and the Maribor Regional Museum, Slovenia, and the Varaždin City Museum from Croatia on the so-called Bastion project in the framework of the European Interreg IIIA initiative in 2004-2006 should also be mentioned here. innovative way by Matjaž Bizjak in his graduation thesis on the system of defence against the Turks in the area of the Pivka and Reka river valleys (Bizjak 2 0 0 6).33 GIS tools were also applied by Benjamin Štular in his interpretation of the dynamics of human "conquest" and use of the Alpine environment based on the case of the mountains around Bled (Štular 2006) and in his analysis of the logic of the spatial placement and architectural development of Mali grad (Small Castle) in Kamnik (Štular 2009). Endeavouring to extend and transcend the discipline's limits in every aspect, Blaž Podpečan used the current approaches of the so-called archaeology of emotion in his study on post-medieval tombstones in the Spodnja Savinjska Valley. He treated the tombstones as complex sources with material, artistic and verbal (written) elements forming a total system of communication. He offered a convincing explanation of the social integration and cultural determination of distinctly personal emotions and the seemingly individualised private experience manifested through the material practices of mourning and commemoration (Podpečan 2006). In the last two decades, and especially since the second half of the 1990s, the number of archaeological field investigations documented in professional publications has been rising sharply (fig. 8). There were 55 reported in 1980-1989, 93 in 1990-1999, and as many as 126 in the eight-year period between 2000 and 2007. Of course, this general assertion of the legitimacy and necessity of field work carried out on sites containing the remains from the periods following the Early Middle Ages is partly the result of systematic education and research efforts in the academic sphere, but there are also other reasons for this high trend of growth. As mentioned previously, since the late 1980s new fieldwork methods were being introduced into Slovenian archaeology. ^e role of the stratigraphi-cal excavation method for the equal treatment of all periods has already been referred to. Similarly "chronologically" neutral are the various prospecting methods for reconnaissance and non-destructive documentation of the (sub)surface archaeological 33 This study nearly consistently realised the call for "analysing spatial relationships on a regional level" expressed by Božidar Slapšak already in 1987 in his contribution on fortified churches and other fortifications (slov. tabor) established as part of the system for defence against the Turks (Slapšak 1987, 144-145). Fig. 19: Čadraže on the Šentjernejsko polje plain. The supposedly medieval moated site was discovered in the early 1990s by aerial prospection in the framework of the Roman Countryside Project (Oddelek za arheologijo FF UL; photo: D. Grosman). Sl. 19: Čadraže na Šentjernejskem polju. Domnevno srednjeveški utrjeni objekt je bil odkrit pri aeroprospekcijah v sklopu projekta Rimsko podeželje v začetku 1990-ih let (Oddelek za arheologijo FF UL; foto: D. Grosman). record and its interpretation in terms of past settlement patterns and dynamics of the uses of space (cf. Novakovic 2003): field surveys, geophysical methods, specialised reconnaissance from the air and the interpretation of aerial photographs 34 etc. (fig. 19). These approaches and methods became fully established in Slovenian archaeology owing to the project for the protection of archaeological heritage in the context of the construction of the Slovenian national motorway network. In 1994, a methodology was designed in this context for preliminary and rescue interventions in the field, the evaluation of archaeological potential and incorporation 34 Substantial use of aerial photography, and especially specialised archaeological aerial prospections and recording from the air, was made possible only after the attainment of independence by Slovenia, when its airspace was opened up for civil use. For the first discoveries of previously unknown late medieval sites, see Grosman 1996, 70-73; cf. also Kerman 1999. of archaeology into the spatial planning processes and activities that affect the physical environment (Djuric 2004b). All Slovenian archaeological institutions and almost all archaeologists working in Slovenia took part in this project, with varying degrees of intensity. The prescribed methodology soon became an established norm, not just in the motorway project but in general. The development of the so-called preventive archaeology was followed by legislation, with the new Cultural Heritage Protection Act applied in 2008. This new way of understanding archaeology's role in spatial planning resulted in a sharp increase in the overall archaeological work performed, and with it, a rise in the number of documented and investigated sites and other remains from the more recent periods. In the framework of the motorway project, the following sites with late medieval and early modern settlement remains must be mentioned: Gornje njive near Dolga vas (Kerman 2008), Obrežje Fig. 20: Valmarin near Spodnje Škofije. Excavations on the motorway route, section Klanec - Ankaran, were carried out in 2001 by Pokrajinski muzej Koper in cooperation with the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana (Oddelek za arheologijo FF UL; photo: D. Grosman). Sl. 20: Valmarin pri Spodnjih Škofijah. Izkopavanja na trasi avtocestnega odseka Klanec - Ankaran je leta 2001 izvedel Pokrajinski muzej Koper v sodelovanju z Oddelkom za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani (Oddelek za arheologijo FF UL; foto: D. Grosman). (Mason 2004) and Leskovec near Celje (Brišnik et al. 2006). Further, the remains of the manor of Forsthof were excavated in Medlog (Tomažič 2004), and in Valmarin at Spodnje Škofije the outhouse of a former grange of the Koper bishopric (Cunja 2004; fig. 20). At the site of Gošča in the Dolenjska region a post-medieval brickworks was discovered (Žižek 2004), while the excavations at Mrzlo polje near Ivančna Gorica (Nabergoj 2007), Šušec near Razdrto (Svoljšak 2000-2004) and some other sites produced old infrastructure - roads and field paths, waste pits, field boundaries and similar. More often than not, the medieval and post-medieval finds recorded in the course of preliminary archaeological investigations are "merely" the scattered traces of husbandry-related activities, such as various farming practices resulting in the "littering" of the landscape. The number of new discoveries is boosted also by the increasingly intense archaeological research of underwater sites, especially since the establishment of the Underwater Archaeology Group by the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia (cf. for example Podvodna arh. Slov. 1, 1982; Podvodna arh. Slov. 2, 1984; Bitenc, Knific 1997; Gaspari, Erič 2008). Among the finds that have - one way or another - "ended up" in seas, rivers or lakes, there are many objects from the later periods preserved in excellent condition that - despite originating from very particular contexts - significantly complement our knowledge of the past through material sources.35 AT THE END OF A BEGINNING The described development of archaeological research into periods following the Early Middle Ages can be evaluated in various ways. It might seem late and inappropriate when judged by the 35 For example, valuable data on the consumption and even production of decorated tablewares on the eastern Adriatic coast were gathered from the finds collected from underwater rubbish dumps at Piran and near Umag (Guštin 2004). The riverbed of the Ljubljanica river is an almost inexhaustible source of information that has yet to be fully evaluated (Turk et al. 2009). Certain groups of items, e.g. swords (cf. Nabergoj 2001), other larger pieces of armament and tools, eating knives with decorated handles etc. are only rarely represented in the usual archaeological contexts, if at all. criteria of the leading research environments, such as those of the British and North American archaeologies. However, when placed within the context of the central European archaeological traditions, and taking into account the proverbial small size of Slovenian archaeology (in terms of geography, staff and financing), the results of the efforts made so far, especially over the last two decades, seem much more satisfactory. We do not wish to present an agenda for further development here, but it is necessary to point out a few weaknesses. The lack of thorough publications on the primary data is a key obstacle that the discipline will have to overcome as soon as possible, since further progress will be difficult to achieve without a suitable empirical base. With such desiderata as Otok pri Dobravi and Stari grad nad Celjem, the already unfavourable ratio between the number of researched and the number of published sites and artefact collections is growing even worse because of the increasing intensity of field research. The current extremely limited application of the analytical tools of natural sciences in the study of artefacts, taphonomic processes, demographic36 and environmental data is another pronounced weakness.37 Artefact studies are based exclusively on typological and comparative approaches, and the rare exceptions which do encompass such analyses lack the reflection needed for a full appreciation of the interpretative potential of the data obtained. Overall, we can conclude that, in dealing with later periods, Slovenian archaeology has not yet managed to liberate itself from the "tyranny of the historical record" and is only rarely attempting to build independent and thoughtful interpretations based principally on material sources. Such a stance is undoubtedly a sign of "beginner's problems", but also of the common lack of theoretical reflection within Slovenian archaeology. It is probably still too early for a realistic evaluation of the range and depth of the effects that the "moving of boundaries", by establishing a new discipline, will have on the broader understanding of the nature and subject of archaeology. We do believe, however, that this development is required and can only benefit archaeology as a whole, seeing that it forces the discipline to reflect on the fundamental premises of archaeological work, its epistemological possibilities and limitations, directing archaeology towards a more complete and complex understanding of the past through direct contact and intertwining with similar disciplines. 36 So far, the anthropological analyses of skeletal remains from just two sites with burials from the more recent periods have been published: the parish church in Kranj (Leben-Seljak 1996) and the church of St. Bartholomew in Šentjernej (Leben-Seljak 1999). 37 The only published study of this kind is the analysis of animal bones from the Otok pri Dobravi site (Bartosie-wicz 2006). Translation: Alkemist, prevajalske storitve, d. o. o. ANSl = Arheološka najdišča Slovenije [Archaeological Sites of Slovenia], Ljubljana 1975. Podvodna arh. Slov. 1 = P. Petru (ed.), Najdbe v Ljubljanici. Pridobitve leta 1981 (Podvodna arheologija v Sloveniji 1) Ljubljana 1982. Podvodna arh. Slov. 2 = B. Gombač (ed.), Podvodne raziskave v Sloveniji. Posvet in javna razgrnitev dosežkov, Ljubljana, 24. 11. 1982 (Podvodna arheologija v Sloveniji 2) Ljubljana 1984. ANDREN, A. 1998, Between Artifacts and Texts: Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective. - New York. AUBELJ, B., D. BOŽIČ and J. DULAR (eds.) 1999, Zakladi tisočletij. Zgodovina Slovenije od neandertalcev do Slovanov. - Ljubljana. AVGUŠTIN, C. 1954, "Zgornji stolp" na Kranclju in nekdanja župna cerkev v Stari Loki. Poročilo o izkopavanjih v l. 1954. - Loški razgledi 1, 107-120. AVGUŠTIN, C. 1955, Zaključek izkopavanj na Kranclju. - Loški razgledi 2, 100-104. BALAŽIC, J. and B. KERMAN (eds.) 1997, Pokrajinski muzej Murska Sobota. Katalog stalne razstave. - Murska Sobota. BARTOSIEWICZ, L. 2006, Animal bones from the medieval settlement Otok (Gutenwerth) near Dobrava pri Škocjanu, Slovenia. - Arheološki vestnik 57, 457-478. BEAUDRY, M. C. (ed.) 1993, Documentary Archaeology in the New World. - Cambridge. BERČIČ, B. 2001, Castrum Bosisen: kje in kaj je bil? Prispevek za razmislek. - Loški razgledi 48, 21-26. BITENC, P. and T. KNIFIC 1997, Arheološko najdišče Ljubljanica (The Ljubljanica as an archaeological site). - Argo 40/2, 19-32. BIZJAK, M. 2006, Sistem protiturške obrambe na območju Pivškega podolja in doline Reke: uporaba GIS. - Unpublished graduation thesis, Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za arheologijo. BLAZNIK, P. 1940, O metodah proučevanja kolonizacij-ske zgodovine. - Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 35/1-2, 33-40. BLAZNIK, P., B. GRAFENAUER, S. VILFAN and F. ZWITTER (eds.) 1970, Gospodarska in družbena zgodovina Slovencev. Zgodovina agrarnih panog 1. Agrarno gospodarstvo. - Ljubljana. BREGANT, T. 1974, Raziskovanja na Starem gradu nad Celjem 1972. leta (Forschungsarbeiten auf Stari Grad in Celje im Jahre 1972). - In: Celjski zbornik 1973-1974, 269-307, Celje. BREGANT, T. 1977, Stari grad nad Celjem. Raziskovanja v letih 1973 in 1974. Poizkus rekonstrukcije rasti grajskega jedra. - Ljubljana. BREGANT, T. 1983, Prispevek arheoloških raziskav k proučevanju stavbnega razvoja Starega gradu Celje (The contribution of archaeological researches for the study of the development of the building of the Old Castle of Celje). - Varstvo spomenikov 25, 1983, 39-52. BREGANT, T. 1984, Pečnice s Starega gradu Celje. - Ljubljana. BRIŠNIK, D. 1999, Stari grad nad Celjem: keramično gradivo iz sektorjev A in B (Die alte Burg Ober-Cilli. Keramische Funde aus Sektor A und B). - In: Fugger Germadnik 1999a, 261-307. BRIŠNIK, D. and T. RAVNIKAR 1999, Grad Šalek. - Velenje. BRIŠNIK, D., T. ŽIŽEK, G. TICA and M. BRICELJ 2006, Ljubečna, Leskovec. - Varstvo spomenikov 43. Poročila, 111. BUORA M., B. ŽBONA TRKMAN and M. GUŠTIN (eds.) 1999, Ceramica dal Bassomedioevo al Rinascimento in Italia nordorientale e nelle aree transalpine: atti della giornata di studio (Udine, 16 marzo 1996). - Archeologia di frontiera 2, Udine. CEVC, T. 2000, Lončene posode pastirjev: sklede in latvice iz poznega srednjega in novega veka iz planin v Kamniških Alpah. - Ljubljana. CEVC, T. (ed.) 2006, Človek v Alpah: desetletje (1996-2006) raziskav o navzočnosti človeka v slovenskih Alpah. -Ljubljana. CHAMPION, T. 1990, Medieval archaeology and the tyranny of the historical record. - In: D. Austin, L. Alcock (eds.), From the Baltic to the Black Sea, 79-95, London. CUNJA, R. 1989, Koper med Rimom in Benetkami. Izkopavanje na vrtu kapucinskega samostana. - Ljubljana. CUNJA, R. 1996, Poznorimski in zgodnjesrednjeveški Koper: arheološko izkopavanje na bivšem Kapucinskem vrtu v letih 1986-1987 v luči drobnih najdb 5. do 9. stoletja / Capodistria tardoromana e altomedievale: lo scavo arche-ologico nell'ex orto dei Cappuccini negli anni 1986-1987 alla luce dei reperti dal V al IX secolo d. C. - Koper. CUNJA, R. 1998, Archeologia urbana in Slovenia: alcuni risultati e considerazioni dagli scavi di Capodistria. -Archeologia Medievale 25, 199-212. CUNJA, R. 2000, Poznosrednjeveška in renesančna keramika v slovenski Istri (La ceramica tardomedievale e rinascimentale nell' Istria slovena). - Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia 10/1 (=20), 63-76. CUNJA, R. 2001, Italijanska majolika iz Celja / Maioliche italiane dagli scavi di Celje. - In: Guštin 2001f, 97-123. CUNJA, R. 2003, Valmarin pri Sp. Škofijah. - In: Djuric (ed.) 2003a, 269-270. CUNJA, R. 2004, Valmarin near Spodnje Škofije. - In: Djuric (ed.) 2004a, 277-278. DJURIC, B. (ed.) 2003a, Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije. Vodnik po najdiščih. - Ljubljana. DJURIC, B. 2003b, Terra gentis humanae memoria: varovanje arheološke dediščine in projekt izgradnje avtocest. - In: Djuric (ed.) 2003a, 7-24. DJURIC, B. (ed.) 2004a, The Earth Beneath Your Feet. Archaeology on the Motorways in Slovenia. Guide to Sites. - Ljubljana. DJURIC, B. 2004b, Terra gentis humanae memoria: Archaeological heritage protection and the Motorway Construction Project. - In: Djuric (ed.) 2004a, 9-28. DYMOND, D. P. 1974, Archaeology and history: a plea for reconciliation. - London. EGYHÄZY-JUROVSKÄ, B. 1999, Village Settlement in Slovakia in the Romanesque period from the Aspect of Archaeology. - In: Romanesque Monuments in Slovakia, Pamiatky muzea. Cultural Heritage Magazine 2, 24, Bratislava. FELGENHAUER-SCHMIEDT, S., P. CSENDES and A. EIBNER (eds.) 2007, Motte, Turmhügelburg, Hausberg. Zum europäischen Forschungsstand eines mittelalterlichen Burgentypus. - Beiträge zur Mittelalterarchäologie in Österreich 23. FROMMER, S. 2007, Historische Archäologie. Ein Versuch der methodologischen Grundlegung der Archäologie als Geschichtswissenschaft. - Tübinger Forschungen zur historischen Archäologie 2. FUGGER GERMADNIK, R. (ed.) 1999a, Zbornik mednarodnega simpozija Celjski grofje, stara tema - nova spoznanja, Celje, 27. - 29. maj 1998 / Sammelband des internationalen Symposiums Die Grafen von Cilli, altes Thema - neue Erkenntnisse, Celje, 27. - 29. Mai 1998. - Celje. FUGGER GERMADNIK, R. (ed.) 1999b, Grofje Celjski / Die Grafen von Cilli. Exhibition catalogue. - Celje. GABROVEC, S. 1975, Žlan. - In: ANSl, 165. GASPARI, A. 2008, Perspektiva arheologije bojišč in raziskav ostankov iz zadnjih dveh stoletij na Slovenskem (Battlefield archaeology and research of military remnants from the last two centuries in the territory of modern day Slovenia). - Arheo 25, 101-106. GASPARI, A. and M. ERIČ 2008, Arheološke raziskave struge Ljubljanice med Verdom in Vrhniko (Archaeological research of the Ljubljanica riverbed between Verd and Vrhnika). - Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia 18/2, 407-430. GRAFENAUER, B. 1951, O arheologiji in zgodovini (On archaeology and history). - Zgodovinski časopis 5, 163-174. GRAFENAUER, B. 1960, Struktura in tehnika zgodovinske vede (uvod v študij zgodovine). - Ljubljana. GROSMAN, D. 1991, Kocka, kocka, kockica ... Od arheološkega zapisa v zemlji do arheološkega zapisa na papirju. - Arheo 12, 25-36. GROSMAN, D. 1996, Antično Posavje: uporaba nede-struktivnih arheoloških metod (Roman Posavje). - In: M. Guštin et al. (ed.), Rimsko podeželje (Roman Countryside), 43-82, Ljubljana. GUŠTIN, M. 1994, Predgovor / Foreword. - In: Guštin, Horvat 1994, 7-10. GUŠTIN, M. 1999a, Le ricerche archeologiche sul Medio-evo e sull'eta moderna in Slovenia. - In: Ceramica dal Bassomedioevo al Rinascimento in Italia nordorientale e nelle aree transalpine. Atti della giornata di studio (Udine, 16 Marzo 1996), Archeologia di frontiera 2, 121-126, Udine. GUŠTIN, M. 1999b, Srednjeveške keramične čaše iz izkopavanj v mestu Celje (Mittelalterliche Tonbecher aus den Ausgrabungen in der Stadt Celje). - In: Fugger Germadnik 1999a, 249-260. GUŠTIN, M. 2001a, Archeologia urbana in Slovenia. - In: S. Gelichi (ed.), Dalla carta di rischio archeologico di Cesena alla tutela preventiva urbana in Europa, 53-57 and 105, Firenze. GUŠTIN, M. 2001b, Celjske čaše / Die Tonbecher vom Typ Celje. - In: Guštin 2001f, 139-193. GUŠTIN, M. 2001c, Mittelalterliche Städte auf römischen Ruinen in Slowenien. - In: Zwischen Römersiedlung und mittelalterlicher Stadt: Archäologische Aspekte zur Kontinuitätsfrage, Beiträge zur Mittelalterarchäologie in Österreich 17, 241-249, Wien. GUŠTIN, M. 2001d, Pečnice z grbom grofov celjskih / Stove tiles with the Celje family coat of arms. - In: Guštin 2001f, 63-68. GUŠTIN, M. 2001e, Srednjeveške študije v Celju / Medieval studies in Celje. - In: Guštin 2001f, 7-8. GUŠTIN, M. (ed.) 2001f, Srednjeveško Celje / Medieval Celje. - Archaeologia historica Slovenica 3, Ljubljana. GUŠTIN, M. (ed.) 2004, Srednjeveška in novoveška keramika iz Pirana in Svetega Ivana / Ceramiche medievali e postmedievali da Pirano e San Giovanni / Srednjov-jekovna i novovjekovna keramika iz Pirana i Svetog Ivana. - Koper, Piran, Umag. GUŠTIN, M. (ed.) 2008, Miscellanea aetatis mediae. - Studia universitatis hereditati 1, Koper. GUŠTIN, M. and R. CUNJA 1989, Koper med Rimom in Benetkami. Izkopavanje na vrtu kapucinskega samostana. Exhibition catalogue. - Ljubljana. (German / Italian edition: Koper zwischen Rom und Venedig/ Capodistria tra Roma e Venezia. - Koper, 1991.) GUŠTIN, M., R. CUNJA and K. K. PREDOVNIK 1993, Podbočje - Stari grad. - Posavski muzej Brežice 9. GUŠTIN, M. and S. GELICHI 2001, Keramika španske proizvodnje v Sloveniji / Ceramiche di produzione spagnola dalla Slovenia. - In: Guštin 2001f, 125-138. GUŠTIN, M. and Ma. HORVAT (ed.) 1994, Ljubljanski grad. Pečnice / Ljubljana Castle. Stove Tiles. - Archaeologia historica Slovenica 1, Ljubljana. GUŠTIN, M. and K. PREDOVNIK 1994, Zu den mittelalterlichen und neuzeitlichen archäologischen Forschungen in Slowenien. - Beiträge zur Mittelalterarchäologie in Österreich 10, 41-49. GUŠTIN, M. and K. PREDOVNIK (ed.) 1997, Drobci nekega vsakdana / Bruchstücke eines Alltags. - Archaeologia historica Slovenica 2, Ljubljana. GUŠTIN, M., S. GELICHI and K. SPINDLER 2006, The Heritage of the Serenissima: the presentation of the architectural and archaeological remains of the Venetian Republic, proceedings of the international conference, Izola - Venezia, 4.-9. 11. 2005. - Koper. GUŠTIN, M., V. BIKIC and Z. MILEUSNIC 2008, Ottoman times: the story of Stari Bar / Osmanska vremena: priča o Starom Baru. - Koper. HABJAN, V. 1999, Družbeno-razvojni pomen knezov iz Celja v slovenskem poldrugem tisočletju (Die gesellschaftlich-entwicklungsgeschichtliche Bedeutung der Fürsten von Cilli in Slowenien des 15. Jahrhunderts). - In: Fugger Germadnik 1999a, 51-70. HARRIS, E. C. 1989, Načela arheološke stratigrafije. -Ljubljana. (Slov. translation of the book: E. C. Harris, Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy, London 1979.) HINZ, H. 1981, Motte und Donjon. Zur Frühgeschichte der mittelalterlichen Adelsburg. - Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters, Beiheft 1. HORVAT, M. 1996, Obdelava lončenine z Velike planine (Pottery from Velika Planina). - Traditiones 25, 81-89. JANKUHN, H. 1973, Umrisse einer Archäologie des Mittelalters. - Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 1, 9-19. JOGAN, S. 2008, Pravno varstvo dediščine: ogrožanje in uničevanje kulturne in naravne dediščine ter pravni vidiki njunega varstva. - Koper. JOHNSON, M. 1996, An Archaeology of Capitalism. - Oxford. KASTELIC, J. 1964-1965, Nekaj problemov zgodnjesre-dnjeveške arheologije v Sloveniji (Quelques problemes concernant l'archeologie du Haut moyen age en Slovenie). - Arheološki vestnik 15-16, 109-124. KERMAN, B. 1999, Settlement Structures in Prekmurje from the Air / Poselitvene strukture v Prekmurju iz zraka. - Arheološki vestnik 50, 333-347. KERMAN, B. 2008, Srednjeveško obdobje. - In: Gornje njive pri Dolgi vasi, Zbirka Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije 6, 31-36, Ljubljana. KOROŠEC, J. 1950a, Arheologija in nekatere njene naloge (Archaeology and some of its tasks). - Zgodovinski časopis 4, 5-22. KOROŠEC, J. 1950b, Prvo posvetovanje jugoslovanskih arheologov. - Zgodovinski časopis 4, 212-215. KOROŠEC, P. 1951, Slovanske ostaline na dvorišču SA-ZU v Ljubljani (Slav remains in the courtyard of the Slovene Academy of Sciences and Arts). - Arheološki vestnik 2/2, 156-183. KOS, D. 1996, Celjska knjiga listin I. Listine svobodnih gospodov Žovneških do 1341. - Celje. KOS, Ma. and T. NABERGOJ 2000, Preučevanje srednjeveške in novoveške keramike na Slovenskem. - Argo 43/1, 29-30. KOS, Ma. and M. ŽVANUT 1994, Ljubljanske steklarne v 16. stoletju in njihovi izdelki / Glass factories in Ljubljana in the 16th century and their products. - Viri. Gradivo za materialno kulturo Slovencev 1, Ljubljana. KOS, Mi. 1940, Stanje in naloge slovenske kolonizacij-ske zgodovine. - Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 35/1-2, 26-32. KOS, Mi. 1948-1949, O nekaterih nalogah slovenskega zgodovinopisja (Some tasks of the Slovene historiography). - Zgodovinski časopis 2-3, 135-143. KOS, P. 1996, Der Friesacher Pfennig und seine Nachprägungen im slowenischen Gebiet. - In: R. Härtel, M. J. Wenninger (eds.), Die Friesacher Münze im AlpenAdria-Raum, Akten der Friesacher Sommerakademie Friesach (Kärnten), 14. bis 18. September 1992 / La moneta frisacense nell'Alpe Adria, atti del convegno internazionale Friesach (Carinzia), 14-18 settembre 1992, 157-190, Graz. KRAMBERGER, D. and I. STOPAR, 1987, Program sanacije in prezentacije gradu Celje. - In: Celjski zbornik 1987, 85-94, Celje. KRIŽ, I. et al. 1996, Od antičnega vrča do majolke / Vom antiken Krug bis Majolka. Exhibition catalogue. - Novo mesto. LAZAR, I. 2001, Srednjeveško steklo iz Celja / Medieval glass from Celje. - In: Guštin 2001f, 69-96. LAZAR, I. (ed.) 2004, Drobci antičnega stekla / Fragments of ancient glass. - Koper. LAZAR, I. and H. WILLMOTT 2006, The glass from the Gnalič wreck. - Koper. LEBEN-SELJAK, P. 1996, Paleodemografska analiza ne-kropole pri farni cerkvi v Kranju / Paleodemographic analysis of the necropolis at the parish church in Kranj. - Antropološki zvezki 4, 95-107. LEBEN-SELJAK, P. 1999, Antropološke raziskave v Šentjerneju (Anthropologische Untersuchungen in Šentjernej). - In: M. Dražumerič, S. Granda (eds.), Zbornik ižupnije Šentjernej, 61-68, Ljubljana. LOZAR ŠTAMCAR, M. (ed.) 1995, Gotika v Sloveniji - svet predmetov / Gothic in Slovenia - the world of objects. Exhibition catalogue. - Ljubljana. LOŽAR, R. 1939, Staroslovansko in srednjeveško lončarstvo v Sloveniji (Altslawische und mittelalterliche Keramik Sloweniens). - Glasnik Muzejskega društva za Slovenijo 20, 180-225. LUBŠINA-TUŠEK, M. 2007, Zavrč. - Varstvo spomenikov. Poročila 44, 309-311. MASON, P. 2003, Obrežje MMP. - In: Djuric (ed.) 2003a, 202-203. MASON, P. 2004, Obrežje - International Border Crossing. - In: Djuric (ed.) 2004a, 208-210. MIKL-CURK, I. 1981, Teorija varstva arheoloških spomenikov v naši praksi (Theory of conservation of archaeological monuments in our practice). - Varstvo spomenikov 23, 81-94. MILEUSNIC, Z. (ed.) 2004, Gnalič. - Koper. MILEUSNIC, Z. 2008, Prispevek k poznavanju lončarskih delavnic v Kopru (Contribution to cognisance of potter's workshops in Koper). - Annales, Series Historia et So-ciologia 18/2, 463-470. MLEKUŽ, D. 2002a, Modeliranje preteklih zvočnih krajin. - In: T. Podobnikar, D. Perko, M. Krevs, Z. Stančič, D. Hladnik (eds.), Geografski informacijski sistemi v Sloveniji 2001-2002, 55-63, Ljubljana. MLEKUŽ, D. 2002b, Prisluhnimo krajinam: modeliranje preteklih zvočnih krajin. - Arheo 22, 59-65. MÜLLNER, A. 1878, Archäologische Excurse durch Südsteiermark und Krain I: Die Tumuli nächst Rothwein bei Marburg. - Mitteilungen der k.k. Zentralkomission 4, 83. MÜLLNER, A. 1892a, Die Felsenburg Lueg in Innerkrain. - Argo 1/2, 14-16 and T. II. MÜLLNER, A. 1892b, Mittheilungen aus dem Museum. - Argo 1/4, 78-79. MÜLLNER, A. 1894a, Die Felsenburg Lueg in Innerkrain. - Argo 3/3, 57-66; 3/6, 105-114. MÜLLNER, A. 1894b, Das Gradišče "Attilov Kocian" bei Kapellen. - Argo 3/11, 218-219, T. XVI: 1-3. MÜLLNER, A. 1894c, Eine heidnische Opferstätte am Bacher in Steiermark. - Argo 3/11, 216-218, T. XV, fig. 1-5. MÜLLNER, A. 1897, Die Ausgrabungen in der Spitalgasse in Laibach 1896 und 1897. - Argo 5/2, 30-33; 5/3, 51-54; 5/4, 63-66; 5/6, 98-100. MÜLLNER, A. 1898, Die Ausgrabungen in der Spitalgasse in Laibach 1896 und 1897. - Argo 6/6, 104-109. MÜLLNER, A. 1899, Das Bürgerspital (Meščanski špital). - Argo 7/2, 38-40. MÜLLNER, A. 1909, Geschichte des Eisens in Krain, Görz und Istrien von der Urzeit bis zum Anfange des XIX. Jahrhunderts. - Wien, Leipzig. NABERGOJ, T. 1995, Arheologija in gotika / Archaeology and Gothic. - In: Lozar Štamcar 1995, 7-107. NABERGOJ, T. 1999, Srednjeveška keramika iz Ljubljane in Ljubljanice iz zbirk Arheološkega oddelka Narodnega muzeja Slovenije (Medieval pottery from Ljubljanica and the Ljubljanica from the collections of the Archaeological Department of the National Museum of Slovenia). - Argo 42/1, 39-66. NABERGOJ, T. 2001, Oboroženi stan srednjeveške družbe na Slovenskem na osnovi materialnih virov. Primer: meči. - Unpublished MA thesis, Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za arheologijo. NABERGOJ, T. 2005, Muzealec v Narodnem muzeju in začetki arheologije srednjega veka (Ložar as curator at the National Museum and his beginnings in the archaeology of the Middle Ages). - In: I. Slavec Gradišnik (ed.), Pretrgane korenine: sledi življenja in dela Rajka Ložarja, 159-189, Ljubljana. NABERGOJ, T. (ed.) 2006, Stopinje v preteklost: zakladi iz arheoloških zbirk Narodnega muzeja Slovenije. Exhibition catalogue. - Ljubljana. NABERGOJ, T. 2008a, Mrzlo polje. Sektor C. - In: Mrzlo polje pri Ivančni gorici, Zbirka Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije 5, 46-60, Ljubljana. NABERGOJ, T. 2008b, Muzeji in arheologija obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku (Museums and archaeology of the periods following the Early Middle Ages). - Arheo 25, 89-96. NADBATH, B. 2008, Posrednjeveška arheološka dediščina: raziskave, zaščita in varovanje (Post-medieval archaeological heritage: research, protection and management). - Arheo 25, 97-100. NOVAKOVIC, P. 2002a, Archaeology in five states - a peculiarity or just another story at the crossroads of "Mitteleuropa" and the Balkans: a case study of Slovene archaeology. - In: P. F. Biehl et al. (ed.), Archäologien Europas, 323-352, Münster, New York, München, Berlin. NOVAKOVIC, P. 2002b, Refleksija o treh esejih. - Arheo 22, 83-90. NOVAKOVIC, P. 2003, Osvajanje prostora: razvoj prostorske in krajinske arheologije. - Ljubljana. NOVAKOVIC, P., M. LOVENJAK and M. BUDJA 2004, Osemdeset let študija arheologije na Univerzi v Ljubljani. - Ljubljana. OROŽEN, J. 1971, Zgodovina Celja in okolice, I. del: Od začetka do leta 1848. - Celje. ORSER, C. E. 1999, Negotiating our "familiar pasts". - In: Tarlow, West 1999, 273-285. PAHIČ, S. 1962, Arheološka topografija Slovenije. - Argo 1/4, 93-120. PETEK, B. 2004, Pregled oblik srednjeveškega stekla iz Turjaške palače v Ljubljani (A summary of forms of medieval glass from the Auersperg Palace in Ljubljana). - In: Lazar 2004, 115-126. PLETERSKI, A. 1979, Povezovanje tvarnih in pisanih virov pri proučevanju zgodnjega srednjega veka (alpskih Slovanov) (Links between material and written sources in the study of the Early Middle Ages - Alpine Slavs). - Arheološki vestnik 30, 507-519. PLETERSKI, A. 1997, Inštitut za arheologijo polstoletnik / Fiftieth Anniversary of the Institute of Archaeology. -Ljubljana. PLETERSKI, A. 2002, Kremplnov hrib nad Hosto. - In: Enciklopedija Slovenije 16, Dodatek A-Ž, Kazalo, 114. PODPEČAN, B. 2006, Nagrobnik, podoba živih (The Gravestone: An Image of the Living). - Archaeologia historica Slovenica 5, Ljubljana. PREDOVNIK, K. K. 1995, O stvareh in besedah. Arheologija mlajših obdobij. - Unpublished graduation thesis. Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za arheologijo. PREDOVNIK, K. 1997, Svet puščave: materializacije kartuzijanske duhovnosti (The world of desert: materializations of Carthusian spirituality). - Poligrafi 7/8, year 2, 145-174. PREDOVNIK, K. 1998, Die Kartause Seitz: natürliche und ideologische Momente in der Genese einer Kulturlandschaft. - In: K. Spindler (ed.), Mensch und Natur im mittelalterlichen Europa. Archäologische, historische und naturwissenschaftliche Befunde, Schriftenreihe der Akademie Friesach 4, 261-278, Klagenfurt. PREDOVNIK, K. 2000, Cur archaeologia medievalis? - Časopis za kritiko znanosti, domišljijo in novo antropologijo 28/200-201, 31-51. PREDOVNIK, K. 2002, Anders Andren: Between artifacts and texts: historical archaeology in global perspective. - Arheo 22, 91-97. PREDOVNIK, K. 2003, Trdnjava Kostanjevica na Starem gradu nad Podbočjem (The Fortress of Kostanjevica (Veste Landestrost) at Stari Grad above the Village of Podbo-čje). - Archaeologia historica Slovenica 4, Ljubljana. PREDOVNIK, K. 2006, Srednjeveška in novoveška lončenina s planin v Kamniško-Savinjskih Alpah (Mittelalterliche und neuzeitliche Keramik der Almen in den Kamniker Alpen). - In: Cevc 2006, 182-208. PREDOVNIK, K. 2008a, Kosova gomila v Razvanju in vprašanje obstoja mot na slovenskem ozemlju (Kos' barrow in Razvanje and the question of the existence of mottes in Slovenia). - Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia 18/2, 369-384. PREDOVNIK, K. 2008b, Nova obzorja: arheologija mlajših obdobij (New horizons: archaeology of the later periods). - Arheo 25, 81-88. PREDOVNIK, K. 2009, Prunk bei Tisch. Vom Beginn der Neuzeit in den slowenischen Ländern. - In: B. Scholk-mann et al. (eds.), Zwischen Tradition und Wandel. Archäologie des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts, Tübinger Forschungen zur historischen Archäologie 3, 281-290. PREDOVNIK, K. and D. GROSMAN 2007, Turmhügelburgen im Gebiet des heutigen Sloweniens - eine Forschungslücke. - In: Felgenhauer-Schmiedt et al. 2007, 209-224. PREDOVNIK, K., M. DACAR and M. LAVRINC 2008, Cerkev sv. Jerneja v Šentjerneju: arheološka izkopavanja v letih 1985 in 1986 (St. Bartholomew Church in Šentjernej: Archaeological Excavations in 1985 and 1986). - Archaeologia historica Slovenica 6, Ljubljana. PRELOŽNIK, A. 2008, Izdajateljska dejavnost Inštituta za dediščino Sredozemlja UP ZRS - serija Annales Mediterranea. - Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia 18/2, 491-493. RAVNIKAR, T. (ed.) 1998, Šaleška dolina med romaniko in barokom. Exhibition catalogue. - Velenje. ROZMAN, L. 2008, Srednjeveško hladno strelno orožje - arheološke najdbe puščic, lokov in samostrelov. -Unpublished graduation thesis, Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za arheologijo. SCHLESINGER, W. 1974, Archäologie des Mittelalters in der Sicht des Historikers. - Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 2, 7-31. SCHMID, W. 1915, Die Ringwälle des Bacherngebietes. -Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission 2/3, 229-305. SCHMID, W. 1922, Beiträge zur Geschichte der frühmittelalterlichen Besiedelung der Steiermark. - Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereines für Steiermark 18, 27-45. SCHMID, W. 1925, Südsteiermark im Altertum. - In: F. Hausmann (ed.), Südsteiermark: ein Gedenkbuch, 1-27, Graz. SLABE, M. 1974, Varovanje zemeljskih slojev s kulturnimi ostanki na področju Škofje Loke (La protection des couches de terre contenant les restes des cultures anciennes sur le territoire de Škofja Loka). - Loški razgledi 21, 73-78. SLABE, M. 1977, Loška slikana meščanska keramika (La ceramique peinte de la bougeoisie de Škofja Loka). -Loški razgledi 24, 55-57. SLABE, M. 1980a, Ob otvoritvi razstave meščanske keramike. - Loški razgledi 27, 311-313. SLABE, M. 1980b, Raziskovanje kulturnih ostalin mlajših dob. - In: Rešena arheološka dediščina Slovenije 1945-1980, 35-36, Ljubljana. SLABE, M. 1981-1982, Spomeniško varstvo in muzejstvo -skupne naloge pri celoviti skrbi za kulturno dediščino. - Argo 20-21, 92-99. SLABE, M. 1982, Raziskave z arheološko metodo na brestaniškem gradu. - In: Brestanica. Zbornik člankov in razprav, 23-44, Brestanica. SLAPŠAK, B. 1981, O zgodovini in arheologiji. - Arheo 2, 51-54. SLAPŠAK, B. 1987, Tabori v sistemu protiturške obrambe. - Kronika 35/3, 143-146. SMOLEJ, S. 1953, Najstarejša livarna železa na Slovenskem. - Kronika 1/1, 54-57. STARE, V. 1983, Werkzeuge zum Gerben von Häuten aus Otok bei Dobrava - Gutenwerth in Südslowenien vom 10. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert. - Balcanoslavica 10, 93-105. STARE, V. 1993a, Center za arheologijo srednjega veka Narodnega muzeja 1960-1987. - Argo 35, 27-33. STARE, V. 1993b, Pečnice z Otoka pri Dobravi, freisinškega trga Gutenwerth. - Kronika 41/2, 38-44. STARE, V. 1993c, Stanovanjska jama z Otoka pri Dobravi (Erdwohngrube aus Otok (Gutenwerth) bei Dobrava). - Zgodovinski časopis 47/2, 225-249. STARE, V. 2000, Pokopališče v cerkvi sv. Miklavža na Otoku pri Dobravi (Gutenwert). - Argo 43/2, 32-47. STARE, V. 2002, Kovinski predmeti z jugovzhodnega dela naselja na Otoku pri Dobravi (Gutenwert). - Argo 45/1-2, 18-43. STOKIN, M. 1995, Vloga srednjeveške arheologije pri raziskavah urbane stavbne dediščine (Ruolo dell'archeologia medievale nello studio degli antichi centri urbani). -Annales 6, 49-54. STOPAR, I. 1975, Grad Celje. Stavbnozgodovinske raziskave (The old castle of Celje). - Varstvo spomenikov 17-19/2, 33-45. STOPAR, I. 1982, K problemu cisterne na gradu Celje (About the problem of the cistern at the castle of Celje). - Varstvo spomenikov 24, 5-15. SVOLJŠAK, D. 2000-2004, Razdrto, Šušec - Šušet. - Varstvo spomenikov 39-41. Poročila, 164-167. ŠEMROV, A. 2001, Novci grofov (knezov) Celjskih, Friderika II. in Ulrika II. / Die Münzen der Grafen (Fürsten) von Cilli, Friedrichs II. und Ulrichs II. - In: Guštin 2001f, 45-62. ŠINKOVEC, I. 1991, Kako smo prehiteli gradbene stroje. - Arheo 12, 50-57. ŠMIT, Ž. and Ma. KOS 2004, Analize stekla z jedrskimi spektroskopskimi metodami (Glass analyses by means of nuclear spectroscopic methods). - In: Lazar 2004, 141-144. ŠMIT, Ž. and A. ŠEMROV 2006, Early medieval coinage in the territory of Slovenia. - Nuclear instruments & methods in physics research. Section B, Beam interactions with materials and atoms 252, 290-298. ŠRIBAR, V. 1968-1969, O raziskovalnih in konservatorskih problemih pri odkrivanju freisinškega trga Gutenwerth (Otok pri Dobravi na Dolenjskem) (Des problemes des recherches et de la conservation dans la decouverte du bourgade freisingien Gutenwerth). - Varstvo spomenikov 13-14, 29-38. ŠRIBAR, V. 1972-1973, Razvoj srednjeveške keramike na Otoku pri Dobravi - freizinški trg Gutenwerth (Die Entwicklung der mittelalterlichen Keramik in Otok bei Dobrava - dem Freisinger Marktflecken Gutenwerth). - Slovenski etnograf 25-26, 9-37. ŠRIBAR, V. 1974, Ob dokumentaciji arheološkega odkrivanja freisinškega trga Otok pri Dobravi - Gutenwerth (On the documentation of the archaeological unearthing of the Freising market place Otok near Dobrava - Gutenwerth). - Varstvo spomenikov 17-19/1, 7-18. ŠRIBAR, V. 1975a, Die Entwicklung der mittelalterlichen Keramik in Otok bei Dobrava - dem Freisinger Marktflecken Gutenwerth. - Balcanoslavica 3, 37-47. ŠRIBAR, V. 1975b, K problemu urbanistične zasnove Otoka pri Dobravi - freisinškega trga Gutenwerth (Otok bei Dobrava - der Freisinger Marktflecken Gutenwerth). - Loški razgledi 22, 24-46. ŠRIBAR, V. 1976, K poznavanju železarske dejavnosti na freisinški posesti v Sloveniji (Zur Kenntnis der Eisenverarbeitung auf dem Freisinger Besitztum in Slowenien). - Loški razgledi 23, 47-50. ŠRIBAR, V. 1979, Arheološko odkrivanje Otoka pri Dobravi - freisinškega trga Gutenwerth. Katalog kovinskega gradiva iz Izkopnega polja 1 iz leta 1968-1971 (unpublished catalogue of the National Museum of Slovenia). - Ljubljana. ŠRIBAR, V. 1983, Chronologie der Eisenfunde des 10.-15. Jh. aus Otok bei Dobrava - Gutenwerth. - Balcanosla-vica 10, 79-92. ŠRIBAR, V. and V. STARE 1978, Zur Entwicklung der Wohnarchitektur vom 10. bis zum 15. Jh. auf Otok bei Dobrava. - Balcanoslavica 7, 49-70. ŠRIBAR, V. and V. STARE 1981, Srednjeveško naselje Otok pri Dobravi. Arheološka pričevanja o nastajanju slovenskih mest. Exhibition catalogue. - Ljubljana. ŠTIH, P. 1996, Kranjska (Carniola) v zgodnjem srednjem veku (Krain (Carniola) im Frühmittelalter). - In: J. Kos et al. (eds.), Zbornik Brižinski spomeniki, Dela 2. razreda SAZU 45, 13-26. ŠTIH, P. 1999, Celjski grofje - še vedno raziskovalni problem? (Die Grafen von Cilli - noch immer ein Forschungsproblem?) - In: Fugger Germadnik 1999b, 11-22. ŠTUKL, J. 2004, Arheološke raziskave srednjeveške Škofje Loke, katalog razstave, 24. 6. 2004-1. 6. 2005 (Loški muzej). - Škofja Loka. ŠTUKL, J. 2007, O puščičnih osteh za lok in samostrel z območja srednjeveške Škofje Loke (About the arrow and boltheads from the area of medieval Škofja Loka). - Arheološki vestnik 58, 367-374. ŠTULAR, B. 2005, Lončenina s kamniškega Malega gradu: izkopavanja leta 1992 (The pottery from Mali grad in Kamnik. Excavations 1992). - Arheološki vestnik 56, 435-452. ŠTULAR, B. 2006, Prostor blejskih planin v srednjem veku (Raum der Bleder Almen im Mittelalter). - In: Cevc 2006, 230-241. ŠTULAR, B. 2007, Lonci v opremi visokosrednjeveške kuhinje s kamniškega Malega gradu (High medieval kitchen pottery. The Kamnik Mali grad case study). -Arheološki vestnik 58, 375-404. ŠTULAR, B. 2008, Kje so meje slovenske arheologije? O posrednjeveških arheologijah v Sloveniji (The limits of Slovenian archaeology? Post-medieval archaeologies in Slovenia). - Arheo 25, 79-80. ŠTULAR, B. 2009, Mali grad. Visokosrednjeveški grad v Kamniku / High Medieval Castle in Kamnik. - Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 15, Ljubljana. ŠUMI, N. 1983, Mesto gradov in dvorcev v zgodovinskih znanostih in naši družbeni zavesti (The place of castles and mansions in historical sciences and in our social consciousness). - Varstvo spomenikov 25, 9-12. TARLOW, S. in S. WEST 1999, The familiar past? Archaeologies of later historical Britain. - London, New York. TECCO HVALA, S. 1993, Kataster arheoloških najdišč Slovenije ali zgodba o nastanku neke računalniške baze podatkov (prvi del). - Arheo 15/1992, 62-64. TOMAŽIČ, S. 2003, Medlog. - In: Djuric (ed.) 2003a, 185-187. TOMAŽIČ, S. 2004, Medlog. - In: Djuric (ed.) 2004a, 191-193. TURK, P., J. ISTENIČ, T. KNIFIC and T. NABERGOJ (eds.) 2009, Ljubljanica - kulturna dediščina reke. - Ljubljana (English edition: P. Turk et al. (eds.) 2009, The Ljubljanica - a River and its Past. - Ljubljana.) VALIČ, A. 1975, Nomenj. - In: ANSl, 165. WEST, S. 1999, Introduction. - In: Tarlow, West 1999, 1-15. ZADNIKAR, M. 1965, Žičko kartuzijo rešujemo (La chartreuse de Žiče). - Varstvo spomenikov 9, 12-22. ZADNIKAR, M. 1967, Žička kartuzija (La chartreuse de Žiče - Seitz). - Varstvo spomenikov 11, 30-33. ZAGARČANIN, M. 2004, Stari Bar. Keramika venecijanskog doba / Pottery from Venetian Period. - Koper. ŽBONA-TRKMAN, B. et al. 1991, Grajska zapuščina. Katalog ob razstavi keramike in stekla, 14. - 17. stol. Exhibition catalogue. - Grad Dobrovo. ŽELEZNIKAR, J. 2002, Graščina v Polhovem gradcu (The manor house at Polhov Gradec). - Arheološki vestnik 53, 301-371. ŽELEZNIKAR, J. 2006, Arheološko odkritje ovalne pastirske bajte na Veliki planini (Archäologische Entdeckung einer ovalen Sennhütte auf der Velika Planina). - In: Cevc 2006, 209-229. ŽIŽEK, I. 2003, Gošča. - In: Djuric (ed.) 2003a, 137-138, Ljubljana. ŽIŽEK, I. 2004, Gošča. - In: Djuric (ed.) 2004a, 141-142, Ljubljana. ŽUPANČIČ, M. and R. CUNJA 2000, K lončarski delavnici v Kopru (About the potter's workshop in Koper). - Annales, Series historia et sociologia 10/1 (= 20), 77-82. ŽVANUT, K. 1999, Umetnostna produkcija med antiko in visokim srednjim vekom in problem njenega vrednotenja (Art between Antiquity and the High Middle Ages, and the Problem of its Evaluation). - Zbornik za umetnostno zgodovino 35, 33-47. Arheološke raziskave obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku v Sloveniji UVOD Arheološko preučevanje obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku, ki se je kot samostojna veja arheologije v polni meri uveljavilo šele v devetdesetih letih 20. stoletja, se lahko na Slovenskem pohvali z več kot stodesetletno zgodovino (Nabergoj 1995, 73) in živahnim razvojem v zadnjih dveh desetletjih. Prav je torej, da v osrednji slovenski arheološki reviji podrobneje predstavimo in ovrednotimo dosedanji razvoj in dosežke, pa tudi probleme in perspektive arheologije mlajših obdobij. To besedilo se pridružuje preglednim člankom, ki so bili v Arheološkem vestniku objavljeni v jubilejni petdeseti številki pred desetimi leti, in na simboličen način potrjuje, da ima v slovenski arheološki stroki poleg prazgodovinske, klasične, rimske provincialne in zgodnjesrednjeveške arheologije svoj domicil tudi arheološko preučevanje mlajših obdobij. Uvodoma velja - ponovno - opozoriti na terminološke zagate pri poimenovanju veje arheologije, ki jo predstavljamo (prim. Nabergoj 1995, 99-103; Štular 2008, 79-80; Predovnik 2008b, 81-82). Arheološka obravnava obdobij po koncu zgodnjega srednjega veka logično nadaljuje ustaljeno sistematizacijo vede. Ta sledi periodizacijski shemi, kot jo je vzpostavilo zgodovinopisje. Arheologiji zgodnjega srednjega veka bi potemtakem morala slediti arheologija visokega in poznega srednjega veka pa arheologija novega veka, arheologija moderne dobe in končno celo arheologija sodobnosti. Vse te izraze dejansko uporabljamo tako v slovenskem kakor tudi v drugih evropskih arheoloških okoljih, kadar govorimo o specifičnih časovno opredeljenih raziskovalnih področjih. Kar zadeva srednjeveško obdobje, običajno ločimo le med zgodnjesrednjeveško in poznosrednjeveško arheologijo, visoki srednji vek pa iz poimenovanj izpuščamo. Takšna dvojna členitev celo bolje ustreza razvoju materialne kulture kot pa zgodovinarska tridelna shema. Opredelimo jo lahko z velikimi spremembami družbenih in gospodarskih struktur ob vzpostavitvi fevdalnega reda, vsesplošni uveljavitvi krščanstva in Cerkve kot ključne družbene in politične sile. Ti procesi so se namreč jasno odrazili tudi v materialni kulturi, predvsem kot sprememba pogrebnih običajev na eni in pojav fevdalne arhitekture na drugi strani. Tako bi lahko upravičeno govorili tudi o arheologiji fevdalne dobe, ki bi v ožjem smislu obsegala visoki in pozni srednji vek, v širšem pa tudi čas do razkroja fevdalnih institucij konec 18. in v začetku 19. stoletja. Med že uveljavljenimi vsebinskimi pojmi velja omeniti vsaj še arheologijo kapitalizma, ki zajema tudi korenine tega pojava v 16. in 17. stoletju (Johnson 1996). V nemško govorečih deželah in v okoljih, ki izhajajo iz nemške arheološke tradicije, namesto o zgodnje-, visoko-in poznosrednjeveški govorijo preprosto o srednjeveški arheologiji, tudi v primeru, ko ločeno uporabljajo pojem arheologija zgodnjega srednjega veka. Sledi ji arheologija zgodnjega novega veka (16. do 18. stoletje), medtem ko arheološko preučevanje kasnejšega časa ni sistematizirano in tudi ni izrecno konceptualizirano.1 V britanskem in z njim povezanih arheoloških okoljih pa ločijo med srednjeveško, ta lahko obsega tudi zgodnji srednji vek, in posrednjeveško arheologijo. A tudi slednji izraz je problematičen, saj je kljub svoji semantični širini uporabljan kot časovno zame- 1 Drugačne poglede v zadnjem času ponujajo nekateri mlajši raziskovalci. Sören Frommer je nedavno objavil svojo doktorsko disertacijo, s katero je v nemški prostor prvič eksplicitno vpeljal pojem historična arheologija in ga tudi epistemološko in metodološko utemeljil (Frommer 2007). jen in ne vključuje moderne dobe in sodobnosti (prim. West 1999, 8-9). Zapleti so še večji, ko poskusimo oblikovati nekakšen krovni izraz, skupno poimenovanje za arheologije obdobij, ki sledijo zgodnjemu srednjemu veku. Naj bo to arheologija po letu 1000, arheologija po zgodnjem srednjem veku ali morda zgodovinska (historična) arheologija? Prav slednji izraz se je ustalil v nekaterih evropskih in še posebej v zu-najevropskih deželah, kjer historično arheologijo razumejo kot preučevanje kolonialnega obdobja (Orser 1999). Njena specifika je obenem metodološke narave, saj arheologovo delo obsega tudi uporabo pisnih in ne le materialnih virov. Nekateri zato govorijo celo o dokumentarni arheologiji (Beaudry 1993). Noben izraz ni neproblematičen in tudi historična arheologija ni enoznačen pojem. V starem svetu je raba pisav razširjena že več tisočletij in zato lahko za "historično" označimo tudi arheologijo antičnih civilizacij, evropsko srednjeveško arheologijo in še mnoge druge (prim. Andren 1998). In zakaj ne bi nenazadnje historičnosti arheologije razumeli še drugače, kot posebne teoretske naravnanosti arheologije, ki se zaveda zgodovinske dinamike in kontek-stualne specifičnosti pojavov, ki jih preučuje? V tem smislu bi historično arheologijo lahko videli kot protipol procesni arheologiji (Predovnik 2002, 96; Predovnik 2008b, 82). V začetku devetdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja je Oddelek za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani v študij arheologije vpeljal predmet z nazivom arheologija mlajših (zgodovinskih) obdobij. Ime je bilo izbrano kot krovno poimenovanje za arheologijo obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku (Predovnik 1995, 10). Izraz je dovolj splošen, da vanj lahko umestimo vse različne kronološke in vsebinske poddiscipline, dovolj praktičen z vidika slovenske jezikovne rabe in ga v tej obliki pozna tudi angleška, nemška in še katera terminologija, četudi je v teh jezikovnih okoljih uporabljan le poredko. Slovenska arheološka stroka se v tem pogledu torej še ni poenotila. Kot kažejo izkušnje tujih kolegov, bo nekaj terminološke nedorečenosti in pestrosti vselej ostalo, saj za imeni stojijo vsebinski koncepti, te pa narekuje sam predmet raziskave in se spreminjajo v skladu s pristopi raziskovalcev. Kakorkoli jo že poimenujemo, arheološka obravnava materialnih ostalin iz časa po letu 1000 se je tudi na Slovenskem v zadnjih dveh desetletjih dodobra uveljavila. Nenazadnje to potrjuje tudi novi, leta 2008 uveljavljeni Zakon o varstvu kulturne dediščine (Ur. l. RS, št. 16/2008, 3. člen), ki status arheološke kulturne dediščine dodeljuje vsem materialnim sledovom človekovega delovanja, ki so pod površjem zemlje ali pod vodo že vsaj sto let, v primeru ostalin vojaškega značaja pa imajo status arheološke kulturne dediščine vse tiste, ki so v zemlji ali pod vodo že vsaj petdeset let. Takšna opredelitev je sicer nekoliko arbitrarna in vsebinsko ni jasno utemeljena, o čemer smo že pisali (Predovnik 2008b, 85-86), pa vendar je na ta način arheološka obravnava materialnih ostalin mlajših obdobij postala tudi zakonsko predpisana obveza. Tudi zato je prav, da se ozremo v preteklost in ovrednotimo dosedanje soočanje slovenske arheologije z obdobji po zgodnjem srednjem veku.2 PRVI KORAKI Prve objave poznosrednjeveških najdb in najdišč z območja Slovenije je konec 19. stoletja prispeval Alfons Müllner (sl. 1). Pogosto je šlo za naključna odkritja in nesistematično pridobljeno gradivo, denimo iz kraških jam (Nabergoj 1995, 73) ali iz - domnevno prazgodovinske - Kosove gomile v Razvanju (Müllner 1878; Predovnik 2008a). Nekaterih srednjeveških ostalin, ki jih je dokumentiral, raziskal in objavil, Müllner ni znal pravilno opredeliti ne v časovnem ne v funkcijskem pogledu. Tako je za srednjeveški utrdbi Atilov grad pri Spodnjem Kocjanu (Müllner 1894b) in Rep-nikovo gradišče v bližini zaselka Rep pri Velikem Tinju na Pohorju (Müllner 1894c) domneval, da sta prazgodovinski "kultni lokaciji". Müllner je zaslužen tudi za prvi sistematični arheološki raziskavi srednjeveških najdišč pri nas. Kot kustos Deželnega muzeja Rudolfinuma je namreč leta 1892 izkopaval v starem gradu v Predjami (sl. 2) in v letih 1897-1898 na območju nekdanjega meščanskega špitala v Špitalski ulici (danes Stritarjevi) v Ljubljani. Z izkopavanji manjšega obsega v Predjami, z natančnim opisom in izrisom grajske arhitekture ter z analizo historiografskih virov o "najznamenitejšem od vseh viteških gradov na Kranjskem" je Müllner želel "kritično osvetliti pravljično zgodbo o Erazmu Luegerju". Sodeč po porušenem zidu in najdeni kamniti krogli v enem od prostorov je predpostavil, kje in kako je bil leta 1484 ubit Erazem Jamski (Müllner 1892a, 1892b in 1894a). V Ljubljani pa je po potresu leta 1895 Müllner vodil arheološka izkopavanja ob gradnji nove stavbe kresije na lokaciji nekdanjega meščanskega špitala, kjer je že v srednjem veku stala tudi cerkev sv. Elizabete. Zaradi najdenih okostij in starih poročil, da je bil tam pokopan junak bojev proti Turkom Herbard VIII. Turjaški (umrl 1575), so "s posebno skrbnostjo gledali na vsak dogodek in skrbno zbrali vsako najdbo" (Müllner 1897, 30). Izkopali so ostanke starejših temeljev iz baročne in gotske faze ter skupno enainpetdeset grobov od 14. do 18. stoletja z redkimi pridatki.3 V špitalskem kompleksu so odkrili tudi ostanke časovno neopredeljive usnjarske delavnice (Müllner 1897, 1898, 1899 in 1900; Stare 1991). Ob popotresnih gradbenih delih so na lokacijah sosednjih hiš v Špitalski ulici našli še več srednjeveških in novoveških najdb (Müllner 1898; Ložar 1939, 188-189; prim. tudi Nabergoj 1999, 42-44). Za arheologijo srednjega in novega veka so nenazadnje pomembne tudi Müllnerjeve raziskave zgodovine železarstva na Kranjskem, Goriškem in v Istri, in sicer vse od začetkov pa do sodobnosti, torej 19. stoletja (Müllner 1909). Preučeval je tako arheološke (materialne) kakor tudi pisne vire. Njegovo delo je kasneje nadaljeval Walter Schmid, ki 2 Najobširnejši pregled in ovrednotenje slovenske arheologije srednjega in novega veka je doslej objavil Tomaž Nabergoj v prispevku Arheologija in gotika leta 1995 (Nabergoj 1995). Prim. tudi Ložar 1939; Slabe 1980; Guštin, Predovnik 1994; Guštin, Horvat 1994, 7-10; Predovnik 1995, 78-84; Guštin 1999a; Nabergoj 2008b. O (ne) ustreznem varovanju posrednjeveške arheološke dediščine in izzivih, ki jih pred konservatorsko stroko postavlja novi zakon, sta nedavno pisala Barbara Nadbath in Andrej Gaspari (Nadbath 2008; Gaspari 2008). 3 Na podlagi nepravilno opredeljenega novca je Müllner najstarejše grobove sicer datiral v 12. ali 13. stoletje. je med drugim leta 1938 v Nomenju pri Bohinjski Bistrici izkopaval ruševine topilnice železa, t. i. "plavž sv. Heme" (sl. 3). Topilnico ob potoku Plavževka ob vznožju Jelovice je skupaj z ostanki hiše, prvotno opredeljene kot "gradič sv. Heme", datiral v 12.-14. stoletje.4 Schmid se je poleg tega zanimal tudi za srednjeveške zemljene utrdbe, t. i. hausberge, ki so jih od konca devetnajstega stoletja vse bolj intenzivno preučevali avstrijski raziskovalci. Raziskal ali vsaj dokumentiral je več lokacij, med drugim Stari grad ali Presek pri Črešnjevcu, sv. Rok na Bregu pri Ptuju, Pekre, Atilov grob pri Spodnjem Kocjanu, Pameče in Kogel pri Radušah (Schmid 1915, 1922 in 1925). Leta 1938 je na ledini Groblje v Žlanu pri Bohinju izkopal ostanke dveh stavb znotraj z nasipi utrjenega prostora. Najdišče je označil za utrjeno kmetijo - hausberg (Gabrovec 1975; Smolej 1938). Kot večina tedanjih raziskovalcev je bil tudi Schmid mnenja, da so hausbergi zemljene utrdbe iz časa madžarskih vpadov, in je zato vsa omenjena najdišča (napačno) datiral v 9. in 10. stoletje (prim. Predovnik, Grosman 2007, 209). Drugih pomembnejših terenskih raziskav do konca druge svetovne vojne skorajda ni bilo. Omenimo lahko npr. izkopavanja v Predjamskem gradu v medvojnem obdobju in med samo vojno (Nabergoj 1995, 33) ter odkritje srednjeveških in novoveških kurišč in drobnih najdb v vrhnjih plasteh v Ajdovski jami pri Nemški vasi, kjer je leta 1938 izkopaval Srečko Brodar (Brodar, Korošec 1953, 61-62). Zanimivo je, da se - z izjemo Müllnerjevih razskav gradu Jama - v tem zgodnjem obdobju pri nas ni izrazilo tisto romantično zanimanje za spomenike srednjega veka, predvsem monumentalno arhitekturo (gradovi, samostani, cerkve), ki je mnogokje v Evropi predstavljalo eno od pomembnih korenin poznejšega akademskega razvoja srednjeveške arheologije. Niti politične spremembe po prvi svetovni vojni slovenski srednjeveški arheologiji niso prinesle novih spodbud. Medtem pa so druge države, ki so nastale po razpadu Avstro-Ogr-ske, Poljska, Češkoslovaška in Madžarska, načrtno krepile nacionalno zavest svojih državljanov prav z arheološkimi in drugimi raziskavami narodne zgodovine srednjega veka, predvsem gradov in plemstva. Ravno v srednjem veku so namreč iskale korenine svojih narodov kot etničnih in jezikovnih skupnosti pa tudi korenine svoje državne suverenosti, ki so jo utemeljevale na nasledstvu srednjeveških kraljestev. Položaj kraljevine Srbov, Hrvatov in Slovencev oziroma kasnejše Jugoslavije je bil v tem pogledu bistveno drugačen: nastala je kot nova polietnična tvorba, ki ni imela neposrednih zgodovinskih prednikov. Pri oblikovanju nove nacionalne in državljanske identitete zgodovinski dogodki, osebnosti in spomeniki iz srednjeveškega obdobja zatorej niso mogli odigrati nikakršne vloge. Slovenska arheologija srednjega (in tudi novega) veka je bila v času do druge svetovne vojne brez lastnih konceptov, teoretskih izhodišč in specifičnih metodologij in je bila le nekakšen odvod prazgodovinske arheologije. Odkritja so bila v veliki meri naključna, sistematične raziskave pa maloštevilne in skromnega obsega. In vendar lahko to 4 Obrat je bil kasneje zaradi tehnoloških značilnosti datiran v 15. ali 16. stoletje (Smolej 1953), A. Valič pa je bil mnenja, da bi utegnil biti celo mlajši, iz 19. stoletja (Valič 1975). fazo v razvoju arheologije mlajših obdobij na Slovenskem umestimo v širši kontekst tedanje srednjeevropske arheologije, ki je svoje izkopavalne tehnike in analitična orodja komajda razvijala ter na interpretativnem področju lovila korak za razvojem zgodovine, antropologije in socialnih ved v Evropi in severni Ameriki. Tik pred drugo svetovno vojno pa je slovenska srednjeveška arheologija z Rajkom Ložarjem dobila utemeljitelja, čigar teoretski razmisleki sodijo v sam vrh, če že ne kar na čelo sočasne evropske arheologije srednjega veka (Nabergoj 2005). RAJKO LOŽAR IN ARHEOLOGIJA SREDNJEGA VEKA Leta 1939 je Rajko Ložar (sl. 4) v Glasniku Muzejskega društva za Slovenijo objavil članek z naslovom Staroslovan-sko in srednjeveško lončarstvo v Sloveniji (Ložar 1939). V njem je analiziral zgodnje- in poznosrednjeveško lončenino z različnih najdišč, ki so jo tedaj hranili slovenski muzeji. Najdbe so bile slabo dokumentirane in večinoma pridobljene nesistematično, zato jih je Ložar lahko obravnaval zgolj tipološko, časovno pa je svoje opredelitve utemeljil s primerjavami iz tujine. Pri določanju tipov in njihovem relativnokronološkem razvrščanju je kot zvest učenec dunajske umetnostnozgodovinske šole uporabil koncepte razvoja forme in stila (Ložar 1939, 180, 223-224; prim. Nabergoj 2005 178; Nabergoj 1999, 39-41). Njegova tipo-kronološka shema je vse do sedemdesetih let, ko je Vinko Šribar objavil analize lončenega posodja z Otoka pri Dobravi (Šribar 1974), ostala edino orodje za opredeljevanje poznosrednjeveške lončenine s slovenskega ozemlja. Sedaj je seveda zastarela in kot referenčno delo ni več uporabna, ni pa odveč pripomniti, da Ložarjeve časovne opredelitve v grobem še vedno veljajo. Ložar je poleg tega opredelil tudi tehnološke značilnosti ter principe okraševanja staroslovanske in kasnejše srednjeveške lončenine. Opažene razlike je pojasnil v kontekstu širših zgodovinskih procesov in razlik med staroslovansko in fevdalno družbo (Ložar 1939, 203-224). Lončenino je obravnaval problemsko in je v tem videl raziskovalni potencial arheologije, ki naj ne ostaja zgolj pri beleženju in opisovanju materialne kulture, marveč naj jo tudi suvereno interpretira (prim. Nabergoj 2005, 180). Posebej pomemben je uvodni del članka, v katerem je Ložar teoretsko utemeljil arheološko preučevanje celotnega srednjega veka. Opozoril je na pomen arheološkega prispevka k preučevanju preteklosti tudi v času, ki je dokumentiran s pisnimi viri, še posebej zaradi kontinuitete zgodovinskega razvoja, ki zahteva enakovredno arheološko obravnavo zgodnjega, visokega in poznega srednjega veka pa tudi novega veka. Poudaril je problemsko sorodnost arheologije srednjega in novega veka ter prazgodovinske arheologije in razmišljal tudi o razmerjih med arheologijo srednjega veka ter zgodovino, umetnostno zgodovino in etnologijo (Ložar 1939, 180-183). Omenjeni uvod je pravzaprav krajša različica mnogo obsežnejšega besedila z naslovom "Prispevki k arheologiji našega srednjega veka", ki ga Ložar ni nikoli objavil (sl. 5). Ta spis je bil pred nekaj leti že podrobno predstavljen (Nabergoj 2005, 178-182), zato bomo v nadaljevanju navedli le nekaj ključnih poudarkov. Ložar je zagovarjal stališče, da je arheologija srednjega veka avtonomna in samostojna veda, katere naloga je raziskovanje materialnih ostalin z namenom dopolniti spoznanja zgodovinopisja. Pisni viri so po njegovem mnenju sicer primernejši za rekonstrukcijo celovite podobe preteklosti, vendar to ne pomeni, da je arheologija podrejena zgodovinski vedi. Vsako obdobje lahko obravnava več znanstvenih strok, vsaka v skladu s svojimi raziskovalnimi cilji, spoznavnimi in teoretskimi usmeritvami. Arheološke raziskave so upravičene vselej, kadar specifična narava primarnih virov zahteva uporabo arheoloških metod in pristopov. Arheologija lahko nastopa kot pomožna veda zgodovine, saj "obče zgodovinopisje ne more pogrešati arheološkega dela, zlasti ne pri očrtu starožitnosti, kulturne, umetniške in obrtne tvornosti naroda, dočim je pri vrisavanju politične itd. zgodovine bolj neodvisno. Na vseh teh poljih bi bilo golo uporabljanje pisanih virov nesmiselno, pa tudi nemogoče, kajti pisani viri v tem času o takih predmetih večinoma molče" (Nabergoj 2005, 180). Hkrati pa je arheologija srednjega veka predvsem arheologija in obravnava arheološke spomenike na enak način in enako suvereno kot prazgodovinska arheologija. Ložarjeva stališča o naravi in smislu srednjeveške arheologije ter o njenem razmerju do zgodovinopisja lahko primerjamo z razpravami, ki so teoretsko utemeljile arheologijo srednjega veka v drugih evropskih deželah. Presenetljivo je, da je Ložar svoje poglede artikuliral že tako zgodaj, saj so podobne razprave drugod objavljali šele več kot tri desetletja kasneje (npr. Jankuhn 1973; Dymond 1974; Schlesinger 1974). Tudi v tem se Ložar kaže kot izjemen in osamljen mislec, čigar nazori pa so zaradi njegove osebne usode ostali brez odmeva (Nabergoj 2005, 182). NOVA STVARNOST Ob koncu druge svetovne vojne se je slovenska arheologija soočila s "popolnim kadrovskim kolapsom" (Novakovic 2002b, 87), ki pa je ni ohromil. Nastanek nove države je namreč pomenil priložnost za organizacijsko in kadrovsko prenovo stroke ter izgradnjo infrastrukturnih centrov in omrežij. Že leta 1945 je bilo zakonsko urejeno področje zaščite kulturnih spomenikov in naravnih znamenitosti in tri leta kasneje je Slovenija dobila lastno ustanovo, pristojno za to področje (Jogan 2008, 54-57). Študij arheologije na Filozofski fakulteti Univerze v Ljubljani je bil obnovljen v študijskem letu 1946/47 (Novakovic 2004, 46), leta 1947 pa je bila ustanovljena še Arheološka komisija Akademije znanosti in umetnosti, predhodnica današnjega Inštituta za arheologijo Znanstvenoraziskovalnega centra Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti (Pleterski 1997). Sprememba družbenega sistema je narekovala resen razmislek o naravi vede, njenih nalogah in metodah dela, kakršnega slovenska in jugoslovanska arheologija dotlej skorajda ni poznala. Na prvem posvetovanju jugoslovanskih arheologov leta 1950 v Niški Banji so bili postavljeni novi programski temelji in izhodišča za skladen razvoj arheologije v celotnem jugoslovanskem prostoru. Med drugim so za prednostno nalogo določili "raziskovanje materialne kulture naših narodov, pričenši od dobe najstarejših slovanskih rodovnih združenj do prvega pojava razredne meščanske družbe" (Korošec 1950b, 214). Čeprav "prvi pojav razredne meščanske družbe" - izrazit marksistični konstrukt - ni bil izrecno določen in s tem tudi kronološki razpon arheoloških raziskav ne,5 je bila časovna zamejitev arheologije v Sloveniji implicitno postavljena v 11. stoletje, predvsem v odnosu do umetnostne zgodovine (prim. Kastelic 1964-1965). Takšna odločitev je bila prej posledica razmerij med strokami oziroma pojmovanj o naravi materialnih virov, kakor pa negiranja obstoja teh virov in njihovega pomena za srednjeveško zgodovino. Zato je ilustrativno, da sta na posvetu v Niški Banji referat o stanju arheološkega dela v Jugoslaviji pripravila "Jože Kastelic za arheologijo do X. stoletja n. e. in France Stele za kasnejšo arheologijo in umetnostno zgodovino" (sic!), torej arheolog in umetnostni zgodovinar - konservator. Debata po referatu "je bila osredotočena okoli razmerja umetnostne zgodovine do arheologije in njenih področij" (Korošec 1950b, 212-213). Josip Korošec je istega leta objavil programski članek z naslovom Arheologija in nekatere njene naloge (Korošec 1950a). V njem se je med drugim dotaknil razmerja med arheologijo in zgodovinopisjem. Menil je, da se različne družbenozgodovinske vede med seboj ločijo po specifičnih metodah dela, zato so samostojne in enakopravne, se pa med seboj dopolnjujejo in so si lahko v pomoč. Tako je tudi arheologija s svojimi metodami lahko nenadomestljiva pri raziskovanju "kasnejših, recimo srednjeveških" vprašanj (Korošec 1950a, 8). Korošec se je s tem pridružil Ložarjevemu pogledu na arheološke raziskave poznega srednjega veka. Koroščevo mnenje je zbodlo zgodovinarja Boga Grafe-nauerja, ki je naslednje leto odgovoril s polemično razpravo (Grafenauer 1951). Opozoril je, da so arheološki viri sicer res neposredne priče preteklosti, a so v primerjavi "s kritično preverjenimi pisanimi viri" manj zanesljivi, saj so podvrženi arheologovi interpretaciji. Zato so materialni viri absolutno podrejeni pisnim. Najbolj pa je Grafenau-erja zmotilo to, da je Korošec predpostavil samostojnost arheologije pri obravnavi arheoloških virov tudi v "zgodovinskih" obdobjih. Grafenauer je menil, da arheologija pri interpretiranju materialnih virov v tem primeru ne more biti samostojna, marveč je lahko le v pomoč zgodovini. Poleg tega naj bi bili arheološki viri relevantni predvsem za preučevanje gospodarske zgodovine in deloma etnogeneze, za preučevanje drugih vidikov preteklosti pa le, kadar so edini vir, torej v prazgodovini. Ključno je bilo potemtakem vprašanje raziskovalnih pristojnosti ene in druge vede ter razmejitev njunih delokrogov. Podobne polemike so med arheologi in zgodovinarji potekale tudi drugod po Evropi in v marsičem še danes niso zares presežene (prim. Nabergoj 1995, 81-83; Predovnik 2000, 36-45). Pri nas je Grafenauerjev pogled, ki bi ga lahko poimenovali kar "tiranija zgodovinskega zapisa" (Champion 1990), vsaj implicitno obveljal. Arheologija se do njega kasneje skorajda ni več opredeljevala,6 je pa v praksi sledila kro- 5 Naj bi segal do uveljavitve mest in meščanstva v poznem srednjem veku ali vse do 18. in 19. stoletja, ko je buržoazija prevzela vodilno vlogo v družbi? 6 Razmerja med arheologijo in zgodovino je poskusil na novo konceptualizirati Andrej Pleterski v razpravi, v kateri je predstavil inovativno metodo retrogradne analize nološki zamejitvi svojega dela s koncem staroslovanskega obdobja. Sistematičnim raziskavam najdišč iz kasnejšega časa se je odpovedovala, do večine zabeleženih odkritij pa je prišlo naključno, v sklopu zaščitnih ali sistematičnih raziskav multiperiodnih najdišč, katerih primarni cilj je bilo preučevanje starejših ostalin. Lep primer so izkopavanja Zgornjega stolpa na Kranclju nad Škofjo Loko (sl. 6). Izpostavljena utrdba je bila na hribu nad loškim gradom verjetno postavljena v 12. stoletju, opuščena pa je bila po potresu leta 1511. Ruševine je pred izkopom prekrivala zemlja in tako je leta 1954 Stane Gabrovec izkopavanje pričel z domnevo, da ima pred seboj prazgodovinsko grobno gomilo. Ko se je izkazalo, da gre v resnici za ostanke srednjeveškega objekta, je vodenje izkopavanj prevzel umetnostni zgodovinar Cene Avguštin (Avguštin 1954; Avguštin 1955). Ostaline iz mlajših obdobij so bile v tem času - če so sploh bile upoštevane in dokumentirane - raziskovane izključno v sklopu raziskav multiperiodnih najdišč. Tako so denimo v začetku petdesetih let na dvorišču SAZU v Ljubljani na območju prazgodovinskega grobišča izkopali pet shrambnih jam z ločenino iz 11. ali 12. stoletja (Korošec 1951, 164-172),7 na Prešernovi ulici v Celju pa so ob zaščitnih izkopavanjih - zastavljena so bila zlasti zaradi ogroženosti antičnih ostalin - odkrili ostanke poznosre-dnjeveške stavbe s kuhinjo in pripadajočim inventarjem (Bolta 1953). Jugoslovanska in slovenska arheologija je po vojni namenila posebno pozornost raziskovanju staroslovanskega obdobja, da bi tako ovrgla nekatere sporne etnične interpretacije italijanskih in nemških arheologov ter dokazala starodavnost in obseg slovanske poselitve, posebno še na Primorskem (Korošec 1950b, 214; Pleterski 1997, 18). Kaj kmalu so postale predmet zanimanja starejše cerkve, ob katerih so arheologi predvidevali obstoj staroslovanskih grobišč. Izkopavanja so običajno razkrila ne le zgodnjesre-dnjeveške, marveč tudi kasnejše pokope in temelje starejših gradbenih faz cerkvene stavbe. Ena prvih obsežnih raziskav te vrste so bila izkopavanja na blejskem Otoku, znotraj in okoli cerkve Marijinega vnebovzetja v letih 1962-1966 (Nabergoj 1995, 9-11 z literaturo; sl. 7). Izkopavanja je opravil Arheološki znanstveni dokumentacijski center Narodnega muzeja pod vodstvom Vinka Šribarja, odkritih pisnih virov ter integrirane uporabe materialnih in pisnih virov, ki jo je razvil ob študiju zgodnjesrednjeveške poselitve Blejskega kota. Pleterski je zagovarjal nujnost integralne zgodovinske interpretacije tako pisnih kot materialnih virov in je med drugim zapisal, da je "le v povezavi z drugimi vedami (zlasti zgodovino) arheologija sploh lahko znanost" (Pleterski 1979, 508). Njegova izvajanja je temeljito razčlenil in jih problematiziral Božidar Slapšak, ki je opozoril, da je razumevanje arheologije kot zgolj "tehnike z nekimi mehanskimi pravili za 'objektivno' pridobivanje (in kopičenje) virov" neproduktivno (Slapšak 1981, 53). Prvi temeljiti razmisleki o naravi in vlogi arheologije pri preučevanju t. i. mlajših zgodovinskih obdobij so bili opravljeni šele sredi devetdesetih let (Predovnik 1995; Nabergoj 1995; Predovnik 2000). 7 Kot kaže, je datacija napačna, saj objavljena lončenina najbrž ni starejša od 13. stoletja. pa je bilo več kot sto dvajset skeletnih pokopov, med njimi trije poznosrednjeveški, ter ostanki predhodnic današnje cerkvene stavbe. Arheološka odkritja so delno predstavljena in situ, celovite objave izkopavanj pa še nimamo. Arheološki znanstveni dokumentacijski center je bil ustanovljen leta 1961, tri leta zatem pa je bil preimenovan v Center za zgodnjesrednjeveške in staroslovanske študije (Stare 1993a; prim. Nabergoj 2008b, 92). Ta posebna raziskovalna enota Narodnega muzeja je nastala po zamisli tedanjega ravnatelja Jožeta Kastelica (prim. tudi Kastelic 1964-1965) in naj bi se posvečala sistematičnim raziskavam arheoloških in drugih virov iz obdobja zgodnjega srednjega veka na slovenskem etničnem ozemlju. Pri tem naj bi arheologi sodelovali s strokovnjaki s področja zgodovine, (fizične) antropologije, umetnostne zgodovine in jezikoslovja. Center naj bi torej raziskoval predvsem starejšo narodovo zgodovino in s tem pripomogel k vzpostavljanju nacionalne identitete. KASTELIČEVA ZAMEJITEV (ZGODNJESREDNJEVEŠKE) ARHEOLOGIJE Prav raziskave na blejskem Otoku so med drugim spodbudile k razmisleku ravnatelja Narodnega muzeja, Jožeta Kas-telica, ki je objavil razpravo o problemih zgodnjesrednjeveške arheologije v Sloveniji in se z njo dotaknil tudi raziskav poznejših obdobij (Kastelic 1964-1965). Kastelic je zgodnji srednji vek - v arheološkem smislu - umestil med pozno antiko in 11. stoletje oziroma visoki srednji vek. Opozoril je na problemske stične točke oziroma "vprašanja zveze umetnostnih spomenikov visokega srednjega veka in staroslovanskih arheoloških terenov" ter na "preostro metodično delitev med arheologijo in zgodovino umetnosti". A pri tem ni bil dosleden: tako bi naj po njegovem mnenju v arheološke raziskave vprašanja kontinuitete med pozno antiko in staroslovansko dobo morali vključiti "kultne objekte in umetno zlatarsko obrt", ki so sicer (tudi) predmet raziskav umetnostne zgodovine. Nasprotno pa naj bi preostanke iz "dobe slovenske romanike in gotike", ki "nam govori predvsem s svojimi monumentalnimi ostanki, z arhitekturo, plastiko in slikarstvom, deloma pa tudi s spomeniki umetne obrti", preučevala umetnostna zgodovina (prim. Žvanut 1999). Kastelic je materialne ostaline iz kasnejšega srednjega veka označil kot "neposredno predmet umetnostne zgodovine in ne arheologije", obe znanosti pa ločil "po metodi in po medsebojni kronološki razmejitvi" (Kastelic 1964-1965, 110-114; prim. Nabergoj 1995, 79-81). Slednji je posvetil precej pozornosti in je poskušal zgornjo časovno mejo arheologije opredeliti s koledarskim datumom iz politične zgodovine, ki bi kar najbolje ustrezal arheološki dataciji prenehanja staroslovanskih pokopov v času okoli leta 1000: kot ustrezen zgodovinski mejnik je tako predlagal leto 1024, ko je v nemškem cesarstvu zavladala salijska dinastija. Čeprav je Kastelic navedel nekatera vprašanja kontinuitete med zgodnjim in visokim srednjim vekom, predvsem "paralelnost romanske in morebitne predromanske arhitekture s staroslovanskim grobiščem" (na primeru izkopavanj na blejskem Otoku) in nastanek srednjeveških gradov na mestu starejšega utrjenega selišča, pa naj bi bilo zanimanje arheologije omejeno le na retrogradne raziskave: v primeru cerkva na "iskanje staroslovanskih nekropol in ... morebitnih starejših tlorisov kultnih arhitektur", v primeru gradov pa na odkrivanje "'zgodnjesrednjeveške', to je staroslovanske plasti lokalitete" (Kastelic 1964-1965, 114-116, 118). Preučevanje sakralne in utrdbene arhitekture je bilo tako prepuščeno umetnostnim zgodovinarjem (in arhitektom), seveda predvsem z vidika arhitekturne zgodovine. Stališča, ki jih je artikuliral Kastelic, so se skladala s tedanjo splošno, bolj ali manj implicitno uveljavljeno podobo arheologije in so pomembno določala tudi njen nadaljnji razvoj. Vzpostavljen je bil oster rez med "arheološkimi" in "zgodovinskimi" obdobji preteklosti, materialnim virom slednjih pa je ta pogled odrekal naravo in spoznavni potencial, kakršnega je hkrati pripisoval materialnim virom starejšega časa. Prvič je bila izrecno zakoličena "magična" zgornja časovna meja arheologije, ki je srednji vek presekala na arheološki zgodnji in (umetnostno)zgodovinski poznejši srednji vek.8 Takšno razumevanje delokroga arheologije se je na Slovenskem trdno zasidralo. Nenazadnje o tem priča dejstvo, da mlajša obdobja niso bila sistematično upoštevana v centralnih podatkovnih bazah - ali so bila iz njih celo izrecno izključena - (ANSl; Tecco Hvala 1993), multi-periodnih projektih, kot je bila Arheološka topografija Slovenije (Pahič 1962, 94-95), in tudi ne v strokovnih in poljudnih pregledih, v katerih se slovenska arheologija in njeni dosežki vztrajno zaključujejo s koncem staroslovanske dobe (Nabergoj 2008b, 90). Ob tem pa se je stroka v praksi že dolgo vedla drugače in se je arheološko raziskovanje najdišč obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku na področju varovanja kulturne dediščine postopno uveljavljalo vsaj od sedemdesetih let dalje, leta 2008 pa je postalo celo z zakonom predpisan standard. SILA IN MOC IDEOLOGIJE V zvezi s preučevanjem gradov, v manjši meri tudi samostanov in cerkva, je treba posebej opozoriti na ideološke prepreke oziroma politično pogojene smernice v razvoju zgodovinskih ved in obravnave ostalin preteklosti po drugi svetovni vojni.9 Zakaj vse do srede devetdesetih let, ko mlajša generacija slovenskih zgodovinarjev prispeva 8 Posledica teh pogledov je, da so se izkopavanja nekaterih spomenikov iz poznega srednjega veka lotevali umetnostni zgodovinarji brez sodelovanja arheologov - npr. Marijan Zadnikar, ki je vodil izkopavanja ob cerkvi cistercijanskega samostana v Stični (Nabergoj 1995, 37-39 z literaturo) ter izkopavalno-očiščevalna dela v cerkvi in malem križnem hodniku kartuzije Žiče (Zadnikar 1965 in 1967). 9 Vpliv marksistične ideologije na razvoj jugoslovanske arheologije in njenih konceptov je bil sicer zanemarljiv (Novakovic 2002a), bolj opazen pa je bil v zgodovinopisju. Negativno vrednotenje srednjega veka in materialnih ostalin fevdalne dobe ter cerkvenih umetnostnih spomenikov, ki je zaznamovalo širšo družbeno klimo v povojnem času, je privedlo do neustreznega in neredko odkrito sovražnega ravnanja s stavbnimi spomeniki. To je povzročalo težave predvsem umetnostnim zgodovinarjem, ki so delovali na področju spomeniškega varstva. nekaj pomembnih študij in spodbudi nadaljnje raziskave, pravzaprav ni bilo sodobnih zgodovinopisnih del, ki bi poglobljeno obravnavala plemstvo nasploh ali vsaj razvoj, vlogo in pomen posameznih fevdalnih rodbin na Slovenskem v srednjem veku. Celo za grofe Celjske smo - z izjemo študije Janka Orožna iz leta 1971 (Orožen 1971) in tematskih člankov Vlada Habjana (nav. v Habjan 1999) - šele z zbornikom mednarodnega simpozija v Celju leta 1998 (Fugger Germadnik 1999a) in s katalogom razstave v Pokrajinskem muzeju Celje v letih 1999-2000 (Fugger Germadnik 1999b; prim. tudi Guštin 2001f) dobili obsežen pregled dosedanjih spoznanj z vidika različnih strok ter primerno izhodišče za poglobljeno in celovito raziskovanje te najbolj znane plemiške rodbine pri nas.10 Del krivde za takšno stanje nedvomno lahko pripišemo programu slovenskega zgodovinopisja iz leta 1947. Po njem je bilo na podlagi historičnega materializma "težišče zgodovinskega razvoja" preneseno na "gospodarski in družbeni ustroj in s tem na široke ljudske množice" (Grafenauer 1947, 22). V takšnem konceptu slovenske zgodovine, "ki se je v starejših obdobjih ukvarjala predvsem z agrarno-socialno, v novejših pa s proletarsko-socialno zgodovino", raziskave plemstva niso imele pravega mesta (Štih 1999, 13). Razumljivo je, da so "v analizi te velike linije slovenske narodne zgodovine, v liniji dosledne borbe majhnega prole-tarskega naroda proti zunanjim in notranjim sovražnikom za gospodarski in družbeni napredek" (Grafenauer 1947, 25 op. 76), ta in nekatera druga področja srednjeveških raziskav ostala skoraj povsem neobdelana. Zaradi uveljavitve narodnostnega oziroma etničnega načela (namesto državnega) v slovenskem zgodovinopisju vse od Levstika naprej je "velik del plemstva, uporabnikov gradov in dvorcev", sodil v "dvakrat tujo, sovražno sfero, zatorej nevredno zgodovinarjevega zanimanja" (Šumi 1983, 10). Nace Šumi je leta 1983 ob posvetu Slovenskega konservatorskega društva o gradovih zapisal: "Bilanca današnje stopnje slovenskega zgodovinopisja je ta, da se nosilci fevdalizma, še zlasti pa njihove postojanke, naši gradovi in kasneje dvorci, upoštevajo kot nujno zlo znotraj slovenske etnije. /.../ V naši najnovejši zgodovini in zgodovinopisni podobi tega časa se med drugim tudi zaradi take usmeritve srečamo s tisto značilno skrajnostjo, ki ni znala več ločevati premaganih zastopnikov fevdalne plasti od stvaritev, ki jih je ta plast priklicala v življenje in ki naj bi jih torej obravnavali kot kulturno dediščino" (Šumi 1983, 10). Značilno je, da so bila v prvih dveh povojnih desetletjih staroslovanska grobišča iz 10. in 11. stoletja samoumeven predmet arheoloških raziskav na Slovenskem, sočasni najzgodnejši fevdalni gradovi pa ne.11 Ideološki moment 10 Objava zares obsežnega diplomatarija Celjskih je šele na začetku. Prvi zvezek je pripravil Dušan Kos (Kos D. 1996). " Kot najstarejši grad na današnjem slovenskem ozemlju se pogosto navaja grad Rajhenburg v Brestanici, ki naj bi bil obstajal že leta 895. V darovnici kralja Arnulfa iz tega leta, ki je sicer ohranjena le v prepisu iz 12. stoletja, je namreč omenjena posest Richenburch. Kakor kaže, je ta del besedila kasnejši vrinek, to pa pomeni, da je obstoj Rajhenburga konec 9. stoletja zelo vprašljiv (prim. Štih 1996, 18, 24 op. 103). Na dvorišču brestaniškega gradu so je bil tu očiten, koncepta nacionalnosti in razrednosti pa preveč politično obremenjena in zato izključujoča: arheologija elit, in še tujih vrh tega, v novi socialistični stvarnosti ni bila mogoča. Raziskovalna problematika srednjeveških stoječih arhitektur nasploh je bila zato zvedena na umetnostnozgodo-vinske ali arhitekturne vidike preučevanja. Zaman bi torej pričakovali celostne analize, ki bi npr. srednjeveški grad ali samostan videla tako v njunem primarnem, materialnem in družbenem pomenu - arhitektura kot konkretni preostanek bivališča pripadnikov določene družbene skupine ali plasti - kot v drugotnem, simbolnem - arhitektura kot zaščitni znak, kot prepoznavni element določene socialne entitete, npr. fevdalnega gospostva, kot simbol družbene skupine ali razreda, vsekakor "eksploatatorske-ga" po naziranjih dialektičnega materializma in na njem utemeljenega zgodovinopisja. Gradovi in plemstvo po socialistični revoluciji v novih shemah družbenih redov niso mogli dobiti enakopravnega mesta, kar se je pokazalo tudi v požigih in ropanjih številnih gradov na Dolenjskem in delno na Primorskem med drugo svetovno vojno in po njej. "Narodnoosvobodilni boj je radikaliziral protifevdalno razpoloženje našega podeželja, zato je mogel povzročiti ne tako redko izenačitev boja proti ostankom starega družbenega reda z bojem proti vidnim postojankam, simbolom te preteklosti. Delež nekaterih pomembnih gradov kot trdnjav razrednega sovražnika v tem boju je seveda takšen položaj po svoje podpiral" (Šumi 1983, 10-11). Seveda pa ideološki oziri niso bili vsedoločujoči. Opozorimo lahko na zanimivo nasprotje: čeprav arheologija po definiciji preučuje materialno kulturo in bi se v socialistični stvarnosti morala in smela zanimati vsaj za materialno kulturo "najširših kmečkih množic" kot izkoriščanega razreda srednjeveške družbe, pri nas vse do konca devetdesetih let ni bila raziskana niti ena sama opuščena srednjeveška vas ali vsaj kmetija.12 In to kljub dejstvu, da bila ob prenovi leta 1978 opravljena manjša testna izkopavanja. Odkriti so bili ostanki starejših zidov, ki pa jih ni bilo mogoče natančneje časovno opredeliti (Slabe 1982). Najstarejši, s pisnimi viri zanesljivo izpričan grad na tleh današnje Slovenije je t. i. castrum Bosisen pri Škofji Loki, omenjen leta 973 in 989, ki še ni zagotovo lokaliziran (Berčič 2001); morda gre za lokacijo Kremplnov hrib nad Hosto pri Suhi, kjer so pred nekaj leti zanimive najdbe odkrili sodelavci Inštituta za arheologijo ZRC SAZU (Pleterski 2002). Blejski grad, prvič omenjen kot Veldes leta 1004, ki so ga za potrebe turizma sicer prenovili in ob njem raziskali staroslovanska grobišča, sam ni bil predmet izkopavanj. Je pa npr. Stanko Pahič med simbole za arheološko karto v okviru projekta arheološke topografije Slovenije uvrstil tudi enega za "zgodnjesrednjeveške gradiče (Hausberge)" in je nekatere pri lastnem topografskem delu dejansko dokumentiral (Pahič 1962, 118). Datiranje teh objektov v zgodnji srednji vek sicer ni pravilno (Hinz 1981; prim. Predovnik, Grosman 2007). 12 V letih 1997 in 1998 je bilo v sklopu arheoloških raziskav ob gradnji avtocestnega omrežja raziskano mul-tiperiodno najdišče Gornje njive pri Dolgi vasi, kjer so med drugim odkrili stavbne idr. ostaline srednjeveškega naselja iz 12. in 13. stoletja (Kerman 2008). Domnevni je Jože Kastelic v svojem programskem prispevku že leta 1965 opozoril na "metodično zelo važno" skupino za arheološke raziskave opuščenih srednjeveških naselij, predvsem vasi, v Angliji (Kastelic 1964-1965, 122). In vendar je bila agrarna naselbina najbolj razširjena naselbinska oblika v srednjem veku, hkrati pa tista, o kateri srednjeveški pisni viri povedo najmanj, če sploh kaj. O vsakdanjem življenju "molčeče večine" srednjeveškega prebivalstva pri nas, o vrstah, značaju in razvoju njihovih vasi in bivališč, gospodarskih objektov in naprav ter orodij zato ne vemo skoraj ničesar. Ideološke obremenjenosti tu ni moglo biti; vzrok popolnemu zanemarjanju raziskav te kompleksne problematike je bila najbrž že omenjena konceptualna zamejitev v deklarirana "arheološka obdobja", ob tem pa še nerazumljivo nezanimanje za sočasne arheološke raziskave v tujini in nesodelovanje z zgodovinarji (in historičnimi geografi ter etnologi). Zgodovinarji so npr. že leta 1940 uvrščali arheologijo med poglavitne pomožne vede za slovensko koloni-zacijsko zgodovino, čeprav sta jih tedaj s tega vidika zanimala le obdobje pred prihodom Slovencev (antika) in "staroslovenska doba" (Kos 1940, 30; prim. tudi Kos 1948-1949, 137-138). Ne bi mogli reči, da arheologija v tem niti za raziskave poznejših dob ni dobila nobene vzpodbude s strani zgodovinske stroke. Čeprav zgodovina "materialne kulture" v tistem širokem pomenu, kakor ga je za raziskovanje in vrednotenje srednjeveške civilizacije zahodne Evrope priznaval npr. Jacques Le Goff, in torej "drugačen srednji vek, brez tekstov in napisov",13 slovenskih zgodovinarjev resda nista kaj dosti zanimala, so v monografski obravnavi slovenske agrarne zgodovine leta 1970 vendarle poudarili pomen arheoloških raziskav za pridobivanje novih in specifičnih "virov terenskega značaja". Poleg arheoloških najdb, npr. poljskega orodja, ter organskih preostankov kulturnih rastlin, domačih živali in divjadi z arheoloških najdišč bi namreč stavbni ostanki "utegnili biti pomembni za raziskavo kmečkega doma prav do 17. stol., ko postajajo drugi viri nekoliko izčrpnejši", in izkopavanja bi lahko dala "točnejšo sliko o razvoju kmečkih naselij". Arheološke metode v raziskovanju poljedelstva pa bi dopolnili z novimi tehnikami in naravoslovnimi metodami: fotografijo iz zraka (za odkrivanje oblik poljske razdelitve in poljskih poti ter struktur pod zemljo), pelodno analizo (za kronologijo razvoja rastlinstva v agrarni pokrajini) in fosfatno metodo (analiza vsebnosti fosforne kisline v zemlji za ugotavljanje lokacij propadlih naselbin; Blaznik et al. 1970, 5-6, 564, poznosrednjeveški naselbinski ostanki so bili prav tako v sklopu avtocestnih izkopavanj odkriti še na Obrežju in v Leskovcu pri Celju (Mason 2003, 202-203; Brišnik et al. 2006). Leta 2007 pa so ob zaščitnih raziskavah zaradi širitve mejnega prehoda v Zavrču izkopali ostanke petnajstih bivalnih in gospodarskih lesenih objektov, datiranih v 13.-15. stoletje (Lubšina-Tušek 2007, 311). Za primerjavo: na Slovaškem je bilo arheološko dokumentiranih več kot 2000 lokalitet naselbinskega značaja iz obdobja od 11. do 16. stoletja (Egyhazy-Jurovska 1999, 24). 13 Prim. citate iz Le Goffovega dela La civilisation de l'occident medieval, 1965, prevedene pri Nabergoj 1995, 83. 616).'4 Dlje od teh načelnih predlogov zgodovinarji žal niso šli, a tudi v arheologiji nanje ni bilo odziva. Prej-kone pa ni bilo niti pravih možnosti za delo. Slovenska arheološka srenja je bila od nekdaj maloštevilna. Ko se je v sedemdesetih letih število zaposlenih oziroma aktivnih arheologov pričelo povečevati, pa je šlo predvsem za kadre, dejavne na področju spomeniškega varstva. Za sistematične obsežne raziskave te vrste stroka ni imela ne institucionalnega okvira ne finančnih in kadrovskih možnosti. A brez dvoma je bila glavna težava prav v teoretskih podmenah in konceptualni zasnovi (takratne) slovenske arheologije. OBDOBJE PRAGMATIZMA Načrtnih arheoloških raziskav na poznosrednjeveških in kasnejših najdiščih je bilo vse do preoblikovanja spo-meniškovarstvene službe v sedemdesetih letih, ko se je izoblikovala mreža osmih zavodov za varstvo spomenikov (Jogan 2008, 84-89), razmeroma malo. Ta pokrajinsko zasnovana mreža inštitucij pa je - ob neposrednem in aktivnem sodelovanju muzejev (Slabe 1981-1982, 98-99) - omogočila intenzivnejše dokumentiranje in ustreznejše spremljanje stanja ogroženosti kulturne dediščine na celotnem ozemlju Slovenije. Stroka se je s tem tudi kadrovsko okrepila, kar se je hitro odrazilo v številu opravljenih zaščitnih raziskav na terenu. Četudi arheologija poznega srednjega veka in kasnejših obdobij tedaj v Sloveniji še ni bila uveljavljen pojem in je bilo poznavanje materialne kulture tega časa izredno skromno, sta stopnja ogroženosti in število potrebnih zaščitnih intervencij na spomenikih sčasoma privedla do pragmatičnega odziva stroke. Lahko bi rekli, da je praksa prehitela teorijo. Objave preliminarnih poročil o arheoloških raziskavah spomenikov in najdišč z ostalinami iz obdobja srednjega in novega veka v reviji Varstvo spomenikov in drugih publikacijah nazorno dokumentirajo ta proces: v desetletju 1950-1959 je bilo raziskanih trinajst, v letih od 1960-1969 petnajst, v razdobju 1970-1979 pa kar osemin-štirideset in v desetletju 1980-1989 petinpetdeset najdišč (prim. Nabergoj 1995; sl. 8). Razmah zaščitnih raziskav v sedemdesetih in osemdesetih letih je povezan s širšimi družbenimi spremembami. Svet se je po obdobju povojne obnove, velike gospodarske rasti in industrializacije v šestdesetih letih soočal z okoljsko krizo, ki je privedla do vzpona ekoloških gibanj in dviga ekološke zavesti. Tudi v tedanji Jugoslaviji in posebno še v Sloveniji so se pričeli zavzemati za zaščito okolja pred nezadržnim izčrpavanjem naravnih virov, širjenjem industrije in koncentrično ekspanzijo mest. V sedemdesetih in osemdesetih letih se je to odrazilo tudi v zakonodaji, postopkih in predpisih za prostorsko načrtovanje. Posebej je bila izražena skrb za ohranjanje rodovitne zemlje ter zaščito kmetijskih zemljišč pred degradacijo in pozidavo. Posledično se je obrnil trend razvoja urbanih središč. Medtem ko so se v povojnih desetletjih zgodovinska mestna središča praznila in je stavbni fond v njih propadal, je od 14 O fosfatni metodi je že leta 1940 pisal P. Blaznik, ki pa arheologije posebej ni omenil (Blaznik 1940, 39). sredine sedemdesetih let dalje opaziti porast gradbene dejavnosti v starih poselitvenih jedrih, obnavljanje stavbne dediščine in infrastrukture ter novogradnje znotraj že urbaniziranih predelov. Spomeniškovarstvena služba je bila tako soočena z vse večjim obsegom dela, saj je bilo v starih naselbinskih območjih potrebno poskrbeti vsaj za nadzor gradbenih izkopov, neredko pa tudi za izvedbo predhodnih arheoloških raziskav. "Mehčanje" ideoloških nazorov in nekoliko svobodnejša družbena klima ob koncu šestdesetih in v začetku sedemdesetih let sta privedla tudi do drugačnega, bolj pozitivnega vrednotenja preteklosti, celo spomenikov fevdalnega časa. Gradovi in dvorci, po vojni načrtno zanemarjani in le redko predmet sistematičnih in kvalitetnih obnov in revitalizacij, so ponovno postali kulturna vrednota. Počasi se je pričel vzpostavljati ustreznejši odnos do teh spomenikov, z njim pa tudi vlaganja v njihovo obnovo, vzdrževanje in ponovno oživitev. Podobno je bilo tudi z odnosom do cerkvenih objektov kot kulturnih spomenikov. Arheologija je v zaščitnih posegih na tej stavbni dediščini dobila svoje mesto, vendar zgolj kot specializirana (izkopavalna) metoda za pridobivanje podatkov o stavbnem razvoju, medtem ko v postopku interpretacije spomenika največkrat ni igrala pomembne vloge. Na takšno vlogo so arheologi pristajali sami. Vanjo jih je silila praksa in ne kak globlji uvid, ki bi izhajal iz zavedanja o nuji in možnostih razreševanja splošnih zgodovinskih vprašanj. Pri tem so poudarjali potrebo po "strokovnosti" in interdisciplinarni obravnavi. Vendar naj bi bilo zaradi "širšega družbenega interesa" "raziskovanje 'nearheološkega' objekta z arheološko metodo" upravičeno "le na objektu ali na delu objekta, kjer pričakujemo kompleksno ali pomembno spoznanje, pa do njega z drugimi raziskovalnimi metodami ne moremo." Pri najdenih predmetih "še dokaj pogoste rabe in serijske izdelave", ki so "navadno zanimivi le v kontekstu izkopavanja", se je zato "treba pri obravnavi gradiva iz novejših dob, ki smo ga našli v zemlji, prej kot pri gradivu iz starih dob odločiti za pametno selekcijo v skladu s splošnimi načeli selekcije gradiva z izkopavanja. Muzejske oskrbe je torej z izkopavanj nearheoloških objektov deležno le izjemno gradivo" (Mikl-Curk 1981, 92-93). Drugačen, polnovredni arheološki obravnavi ostalin mlajših obdobij bolj naklonjen pogled je predstavil Marijan Slabe ob raziskavah v Škofji Loki (Slabe 1974; Slabe 1980a; sl. 9). Zaščitna izkopavanja na Mestnem trgu so namreč razkrila ostanke gotske stavbe srednjeveškega komuna ter številne predmete iz poznega srednjega in novega veka, med drugim velike količine okrašenega namiznega posodja iz druge polovice 16. in začetka 17. stoletja. Slabe jih je opredelil za izdelke domačih delavnic po italijanskih vzorih ter produkcijo poimenoval loška meščanska slikana keramika (Slabe 1977; prim. tudi Predovnik 2009). Ob tem se je zavedel neustreznosti dotedanje prakse, ki je narekovala varovanje predvsem tistih arheoloških ostalin, "ki po svojem poreklu niso presegale 11. oziroma 12. stoletja, in sicer iz preprostega vzroka, ker je bila kulturna dediščina iz mlaj ših obdobij zavarovana predvsem po umetnostnozgodovinski in deloma po etnografski strani." Izkušnje so pokazale, da "smo iz več vidikov dolžni varovati na takem prostoru tudi zemeljske sloje, ki so po navadi bogati z materialnimi ostanki, a so bili doslej pogosto zanemarjeni in odvrženi." Uporaba ustreznih arheoloških pristopov pri raziskavah v Škofji Loki je rezultirala v odkritju velikega števila "drobnih najdb od ostankov keramičnih posod vsakdanje uporabe do tako imenovanega žlahtnega, salonskega inventarja, ki odraža na eni strani vpogled v samo materialno življenje in socialni nivo takratnega prebivalstva, na drugi pa tudi razvite trgovske vezi z bližnjimi deželami Italije in Avstrije". Slabe je poudaril spoznavno vrednost tega gradiva, "ki nam v mnogočem pojasnjuje in osvetljuje takratni način življenja in tako ob pisnih virih dopolnjuje historično podobo mesta v določenem obdobju njegovega predvsem poznosrednjeveškega in tudi kasnejšega razvoja" (Slabe 1974, 75-76). Konservatorske izkušnje in široki strokovni interesi so botrovali tudi nastanku prvega pregleda arheoloških raziskav mlajših obdobij izpod peresa istega avtorja. Prispevek je bil objavljen v publikaciji, ki je izšla ob razstavi Rešena arheološka dediščina Slovenije (Slabe 1980b). Predstavljeni dosežki so naravnost silili k ugotovitvi, "da se v tej zgodovinski-kulturni strukturi ni mogoče izogniti arheološkemu načinu dela", in sicer tako zaradi zahtev znanosti kot spomeniškega varstva (Slabe 1985, 35). Prevladujoče (ne)razumevanje vloge arheologije v okviru spomeniškega varstva je izhajalo predvsem iz obravnave arheologije kot metode, beri: izkopavanja, ki jo je mogoče preprosto ponuditi kot uslugo drugim strokam in jo ločiti od ustreznih interpretativnih orodij. Druga kleč je bila ta, da sta bili narava in spoznavna vrednost materialnih virov pomanjkljivo - če sploh - konceptualizirani. V (konservatorski) praksi so bili materialni viri ločeni na dve kategoriji: primarni pomen so imeli arhitekturni preostanki in tem so bile podrejene raziskave, predmeti, ki so bili odkriti pri izkopu zemeljskih plasti, pa so načeloma "le" pojasnjevali in osvetljevali takratni način življenja ter dopolnjevali historično podobo, znano iz pisnih virov. Drobno gradivo je nemalokrat šlo skozi gosto sito uveljavljenih umetno-stnozgodovinskih in tudi arheoloških meril o tem, kaj je pomembno in vredno ohranitve, kaj pa tako fragmentarno, neizrazito, nepovedno, navidez poznano15 in nasploh tako nezanimivo, da se zavrže. Tretja pomembna kategorija, ki jo arheologija s svojimi metodami (posebno stratigrafskimi izkopavanji in ustreznim dokumentiranjem) edina lahko relevantno obravnava, namreč kontekst - prostorski odnosi med posameznimi strukturami in najdbami -, ni bila posebej opredeljena in je bila pogosto zapostavljena. V praksi je to pomenilo, da so bili zaradi nestrokovnega (metodološko nepravilnega) izkopavanja ali prekopavanja različnih struktur, ki so ga neredko opravili kar umetnostni zgodovinarji ali arhitekti brez sodelovanja arheologov, in zaradi pomanjkljivega dokumentiranja najdiščnih kontekstov izgubljeni številni dragoceni podatki in tudi najdbe. Drznemo si zaključiti, da spomeniškovarstvena služba vse do druge polovice devetdesetih let pri nas ne v praksi in še manj v teoriji ni primerno, utemeljeno in sodob- 15 O tem, kako varljiv je lahko občutek, da o bližnji preteklosti ne moremo izvedeti nič novega zgolj zato, ker nas njeni ostanki spremljajo na vsakem koraku, pišejo avtorji zbornika The familiar past? Archaeologies of later historical Britain (Tarlow, West 1999). no obravnavala nobenega od treh bistvenih elementov raziskovanja: vira, metode, problema. Zato v nasprotju s sočasnim razvojem znanosti v tujini ni zmogla izoblikovati konceptualnih okvirov in teoretskih podlag za vzpostavljanje avtonomnega, enakopravnega in znanstveno utemeljenega arheološkega preučevanja dediščine iz "nearheoloških" obdobij. Kljub izrazitemu napredku v zadnjih dveh desetletjih mnogi problemi ostajajo, predvsem kar zadeva ustrezno interdisciplinarno obravnavo. Kakor je pred leti opozoril Marko Stokin, je posledica problematičnega razumevanja (srednjeveške) arheologije in nepovezanosti različnih strok ta, da nimamo ustreznih analitičnih metod, s katerimi bi bilo mogoče ustrezno obravnavati kompleksna najdišča, kot so na primer urbana naselja, interpretirati družbene procese, razvoj mest in stavbarstva (Stokin 1995, 53). PRVE SISTEMATIČNE RAZISKAVE IN ZAMETKI INSTITUCIONALIZACIJE V sedemdesetih letih so se prvi večji premiki v smeri uveljavitve arheološke obravnave mlajših obdobij zgodili tudi na polju sistematičnega raziskovalnega dela. Že leta 1967 so se na pobudo zgodovinarja Ferda Gestrina raziskav konec 15. stoletja opustelega srednjeveškega trga Gutenwert (tudi: Gutenwerth) na ledini Otok pri Dobravi na Šentjernejskem polju (sl. 10) lotili sodelavci Centra za zgodnjesrednjeveške in staroslovanske študije Narodnega muzeja pod vodstvom Vinka Šribarja (prim. Nabergoj 1995 z literaturo; Bartosiewicz 1999; Stare 2000). Posebno pozornost so sicer "posvetili deležu, ki ga ima slovenska kultura zgodnjega srednjega veka pri formiranju kulturne in civilizatorične tvornosti v času razvitega fevdalizma" (Šribar, Stare 1981, 7), in tako so bila v začetku v ospredju vprašanja kontinuitete, predvsem vprašanje o morebitnem organskem razvoju poznosrednjeveških urbanih središč iz starejših, staroslovanskih naselbin. Toda arheološki zapis na najdišču, kjer so bili poleg skromnih ostalin iz rimskega obdobja ter iz 10. in 11. stoletja16 odkriti predvsem arhitekturni ostanki, infrastruktura, pokopi in seveda predmeti iz poznega srednjega veka, je zahteval ne le "enakopravno" obravnavo struktur in artefaktov iz vseh obdobij, marveč je sčasoma privedel do razširitve in premika težišča raziskovalnih interesov. Svoje prepričanje, da je ločevanje srednjega veka na arheološki zgodnji in "nearheološki" pozni srednji vek nesmiselno, so Vinko Šribar in sodelavci izrazili tudi s preimenovanjem Centra za zgodnjesrednjeveške in staroslovanske študije v Center za arheologijo srednjega veka, kar se je zgodilo leta 1977. V Narodnem muzeju je poleg tega prav zaradi dejavnosti Centra nastal nov arheološki kustodiat za visoki srednji vek (Stare 1993a). Vinko Šribar in njegova sodelavka Vida Stare sta na podlagi podatkov in gradiva, pridobljenega na Otoku, objavila več razprav o urbanističnem in arhitekturnem razvoju tega srednjeveškega naselja (Šribar 1975b; Šribar, Stare 1978), o posameznih sklopih drobnih predmetov 16 Objavljena je le ena "stanovanjska jama", bivalni objekt, ki naj bi bil nastal v 10. stoletju, uporabljan pa naj bi bil vsaj še v 11. stoletju (Stare 1993c). (Šribar 1976; Stare 1983; Stare 1993b; Stare 2002) in tudi tipokronologijo kovinskega in keramičnega gradiva (Šribar 1972-1973; Šribar 1983). Prav slednji dve shemi, ki bi lahko predstavljali temeljno datacijsko orodje za nadaljnje raziskave poznosrednjeveških najdišč pri nas, sta se izkazali za problematični. Časovna razvrstitev posameznih oblikovnih tipov namreč sledi relativnemu zaporedju šestih horizontov17 na najdišču, ki so na drugi strani absolutnokronološko datirani v posamezna stoletja, in sicer v padajočem zaporedju od poznega 15. (1. horizont) do začetka 11. ali konca 10. stoletja (6. horizont). Ob tem ni povsem jasno, ali so "horizonti" faze oziroma obdobja poselitve, horizontalne "kulturne" plasti ali pa so morda izenačeni kar s "planumi" oz. režnji, po katerih je bilo najdišče izkopavano - skladno s tedaj veljavno izkopavalno metodologijo (prim. Šribar 1972-1973, 23-29 in Šribar 1979, 48-58). Kot se izkaže, je izkop po poljubnih režnjih privedel do mešanja kulturnega inventarja posameznih stratigrafskih enot, denimo dveh ali več plasti, polnil jam idr. enot stratifikacije, ki so bile (delno) izkopane hkrati. Prav tako ni jasno, kateri predmeti so nastopali v intaktnih, zaprtih kontekstih in kateri v premešanih. Zato so v tipo-kronoloških shemah lončenine in kovinskih predmetov z Otoka pri Dobravi nekateri zgodnji oblikovni tipi uvrščeni v najmlajše horizonte, nekateri zelo pozni pa so pripisani starejšim horizontom. Kot datacijsko orodje sta zatorej ti preglednici, in s tem tudi časovne opredelitve pojavnosti posameznih oblikovnih tipov, uporabni le pogojno in z veliko mero kritičnosti. Kljub zadnji pripombi ostaja nesporno dejstvo, da gre izkopavanjem na Otoku pri Dobravi v zgodovini slovenske arheologije posebno mesto. Ne samo, da je bila to prva načrtna in sistematična raziskava najdišča iz mlajših obdobij in hkrati prva raziskava opustelega srednjeveškega naselja, marveč je šlo tudi za eno prvih izkopavanj večjih, odprtih površin. Ob tem je vodja izkopavanj Vinko Šribar razvijal tudi nove metode dokumentacije (Šribar 1974). Vendar pa je dejanski pomen odkritij z Otoka težko realno ovrednotiti, kajti celovite objave izkopavanj še vedno nimamo. To onemogoča kritično preverjanje že objavljenih opredelitev in interpretacij posameznih arhitekturnih osta-lin, urbanističnega razvoja naselja in drobne materialne kulture. Potencial ostaja, saj vso dokumentacijo in drobno gradivo hrani Narodni muzej Slovenije, poleg tega je najdišče ustrezno zaščiteno in so še vedno mogoče nadaljnje arheološke raziskave. Nedavno je Vida Stare objavila rezultate izkopavanj v cerkvi sv. Nikolaja (Miklavža), edini še stoječi stavbi na območju nekdanjega naselja. Izkopanih je bilo štiriinštirideset skeletnih pokopov iz srednjega in novega veka ter ostanki starejših stavbnih faz obstoječe cerkve, temelji zidov njene predhodnice in nekaj temeljev iz rimskega obdobja, ki jih interpretirajo kot ostanke stavb nekdanjega rečnega pristanišča (Stare 2000). S tem je zaokroženo objavo dočakalo prvo od treh izkopišč, ki so bila na Otoku raziskana v letih od 1967 do 1984.'8 Sodelavci Centra za arheologijo srednjega veka so poleg blejskega Otoka in Otoka pri Dobravi raziskali še več drugih najdišč. Z delovanjem je Center dokončno prenehal po upokojitvi Vinka Šribarja leta 1987, vendar je Narodni muzej ohranil delovno mesto kustosa arheologa za visoki srednji vek (Stare 1993a, 31). Druga raziskava, ki jo velja omeniti, so izkopavanja Starega gradu nad Celjem (sl. 11). Pobuda zanje je podobno kot v primeru Otoka pri Dobravi prišla od zunaj. K izkopavanjem je arheologe namreč povabil umetnostni zgodovinar Ivan Stopar, konservator v celjskem Zavodu za spomeniško varstvo. Izkopavanja je prevzel Oddelek za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani in jih pod vodstvom Tatjane Bregant opravil v letih 1972-1983 in 1986 (Bregant 1974; Stopar 1975; Bregant 1977; Bregant 1983). Arheološko izkopavanje je zajelo vse dostopne površine v grajskem jedru ter manjše predele v grajskem jarku in predgradju. Spet pa velja ugotovitev, da interpre-tativni potencial opravljenih arheoloških raziskav ni (bil) izkoriščen v polni meri, kajti celovite objave izkopavanj z grafično dokumentacijo in katalogom drobnega gradiva še danes nimamo.19 Pri interpretaciji odkritih struktur in predvsem stavbnega razvoja gradu od prve polovice 13. stoletja dalje je med arheologinjo ter umetnostnim zgodovinarjem in arhitektom prišlo do bistvenih razhajanj (Kramberger, Stopar 1987; prim. Stopar 1982), ki pa jih je zaradi pomanjkljivih objav arheoloških podatkov težko kritično presojati. Teza Tatjane Bregant, da je gotski palacij gradu nastal iz prvotnega stolpa, je najverjetneje zares napačna, toda sklep, da je "metodološko izhodišče" arheoloških interpretacij "spekulativno", ni upravičen (Kramberger, Stopar 1987, 85). Napačna interpretacija konkretnih arheoloških podatkov ne zanika izpovednosti arheoloških virov in tudi ne epistemološke relevantnosti arheološke metodologije kot take. Bistvo tega nerazumevanja je v prepričanju, da je dovolj, če različne stroke posamezen raziskovalni problem obravnavajo vsaka s svojega zornega kota in vsaka z lastnimi metodami, nato pa primerjajo rezultate. Takšna multidisciplinarnost samo še povečuje razhajanja in nezaupanje med vedami, namesto da bi se ob resničnem interdisciplinarnem delu medsebojno dopolnjevale in zbliževale (prim. Predovnik 1995, 74-77). Objavljene interpretacije arheoloških podatkov s Starega gradu nad Celjem se sicer tudi na nekaterih drugih točkah kažejo kot problematične. Prepoznanih je bilo deset "kulturnih horizontov" (osem gradbenih faz zidane arhitekture in dve predhodni fazi lesenih stavb), ki so jih s pomočjo drobnih najdb, predvsem keramičnih, datirali od sredine 10. do 17. stoletja in jih povezali s podatki iz pisnih virov (Bregant 1983, 40; Bregant 1984). Pred nastankom fevdalne utrdbe naj bi bil skalni pomol nad sotočjem Savinje in Voglajne že poseljen; na njem naj bi stalo utrjeno staroslovansko gradišče. Pred desetletjem je 17 Šribar je sprva opredelil osem gradbenih faz (Šribar 1968-1969, 34). 18 Poleg cerkve še t. i. izkopno polje 1 na južnem in izkopno polje 2 na osrednjem delu naselja. 19 Doslej so bila objavljena (delna) poročila o izkopavanjih (npr. Bregant 1974; Bregant 1977), izbor izkopanih pečnic (Bregant 1984), nekaj fragmentov "časovno opredeljene" keramike (Šribar, Stare, Bregant 1974, 45-49), izbor keramičnih in kovinskih predmetov (Fugger Germadnik 1999a, passim; Guštin 2001f, passim) ter keramično gradivo iz sektorjev A in B (Brišnik 1999). bil opravljen revizijski pregled gradiva iz t. i. sektorjev A in B, kjer naj bi bile odkrite strukture in lončenina iz prvega in drugega "stanovanjskega horizonta", torej iz časa od 10. do 12. stoletja. Revizija je pokazala, da med ohranjenim in pregledanim keramičnim gradivom ni odlomkov, ki bi bili starejši od 12. stoletja, avtorica revizije pa je opozorila tudi na težave, ki jih pri vzpostavljanju relativne kronologije in vrednotenju gradiva povzroča tedanji način izkopavanja in dokumentiranja po poljubnih režnjih (Brišnik 1999, 269-270). Problematika vsekakor zahteva nadaljnje kritično ovrednotenje najdb in dokumentacije. Kljub navedenim poskusom sistematičnega raziskovalnega dela je arheologija pri obravnavi zapuščine mlajših obdobij še vedno pristajala na status metode in kritike virov, katerih interpretacijo pa je prepuščala zgodovini ali umetnostni zgodovini. Stanje stroke v obdobju, ki smo ga v naslovu prejšnjega razdelka označili za obdobje pragmatizma, je Božidar Slapšak leta 1987 kritično povzel z besedami: "Velja poudariti, da je pri nas k preučevanju materialnih virov za mlajša zgodovinska obdobja (po l. 1000) arheologija inter-pretacijsko pritegnjena še vedno zgolj kot pojasnjevalka vertikalnih razmerij (sosledja gradbenih faz oz. faz uporabe pri stavbnih ostalinah: za to ima pač edina med historičnimi vedami izdelano primerno stratigrafsko pa tipološko za vrednotenje gradiva v plasteh - metodo), sicer nastopa zgolj kot pomožna tehnična disciplina, z izkopavanjem razkriva horizontalna razmerja na mikro ravni, njih razlaga pa je prepuščena vedam, ki obvladujejo dominantni (pisni, umetnostni) vir za ta obdobja. Takšno stanje je značilno za 'fazo nekonceptualizirane prakse': arheologija mlajših zgodovinskih obdobij v Sloveniji še nima institucionalnega zaledja. Za naše razmere izjemen je poskus v okviru projekta Gutenwerth" (Slapšak 1987, 145 op. 3). NOVI KONCEPTI IN ROJSTVO DISCIPLINE V osemdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja se je slovenska arheologija pričela intelektualno odpirati proti anglosaškemu svetu, od koder je prevzela nekatere pobude za teoretsko refleksijo, konceptni in metodološki razvoj. Leta 1981 ustanovljena revija Slovenskega arheološkega društva, Arheo, je z objavljanjem izvirnih teoretskih prispevkov in prevodov slovenske arheologe seznanjala z novimi (pa tudi ne več povsem novimi) pogledi ameriških in britanskih kolegov. Nove koncepte, nove interpretativne pristope in nenazadnje nove metodologije so predstavljali tuji predavatelji, ki so gostovali na Oddelku za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani,20 v lastnem raziskovalnem delu doma in v mednarodnih projektih pa so jih praktično preizkušali tudi učitelji oddelka sami. Z razvojem arheologije mlajših obdobij je neločljivo povezana uvedba pomembne metodološke novosti, ki je v slovensko arheologijo prav tako prišla z zahoda: metode stratigrafskega izkopavanja. Dosledna uporaba te metodologije namreč ne dopušča nobenega (vrednostnega) razlikovanja pri obravnavi enot stratifikacije glede na njihovo kulturno vsebino ali starost. Še preden je bil v slovenščino preveden izvirni priročnik (Harris 1989), so metodo uspešno preizkusili pri zaščitnih izkopavanjih na Kapucinskem vrtu v Kopru leta 1986-1987 (Cunja 1989; Cunja 1996; sl. 12), vpeljali so jo tudi pri dolgoletnih izkopavanjih na Ljubljanskem gradu, ki so se pričela leta 1988 (Šinkovec 1991; sl. 13), nato ponovno v Kopru pri izkopu notranjosti cerkve sv. Klare leta 1989 (Grosman 1991, 32-36) in drugod.21 Vsa ta izkopavanja so bila sicer zaščitne narave, potekala pa so na kompleksnih multiperiodnih najdiščih s pomembnim ali celo prevladujočim deležem ostalin iz obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku. Količina zbranih podatkov, opravljenih raziskav in pridobljenega drobnega gradiva je sčasoma sama na sebi zahtevala ustreznejšo obravnavo arheološke dediščine srednjega in novega veka. Sprva je vzbudila zanimanje le redkih posameznikov, v začetku devetdesetih let pa so razmere dozorele tudi za uveljavitev arheologije obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku na akademskem nivoju. Na pobudo profesorja Mitje Guština je bil v letu 1990/91 študij arheologije na ljubljanski Filozofski fakulteti dopolnjen z novim predmetom, poimenovanim Arheologija mlajših zgodovinskih obdobij (sl. 14; Novakovic et al. 2004, 97-100).22 Predmet je bil zasnovan tako, da je - sledeč siceršnji strukturi študija, katerega osnovo tvorijo obdobni arheološki predmeti - zajel vsa obdobja po koncu zgodnjega srednjega veka oziroma vse od tradicionalno pojmovane zgornje časovne meje arheologije v 11. stoletju pa do sodobnosti. Predmet je dejansko zaživel šele v študijskem letu 1993/94, ko so bili izvedeni prvi seminarji, dopolnjevala pa so jih občasna predavanja domačih in tujih gostujočih predavateljev (Guštin 1994).23 Že od leta 1992 dalje (do 20 Prvi med njimi je bil Lewis Binford, ki je na Oddelku za arheologijo gostoval v študijskem letu 1985/86 (Novakovic et al. 2004, 82). 21 Dejstvo, da nobeno od omenjenih izkopavanj še ni v celoti objavljeno, ne zanika njihovega pomena za arheologijo mlajših obdobij in tudi ne zgodovinskega mesta, ki ga imajo v metodološkem razvoju slovenske arheologije. 22 Ta pojem je pri nas prvi uporabil Božidar Slapšak leta 1982 v svojem prispevku "O zgodovini in arheologiji" v reviji Arheo (Slapšak 1981), kjer je opozoril, da je "razširitev predmeta arheologije na najmlajša zgodovinska obdobja" mogoča le, če arheologijo in zgodovino kot vedi razločujemo na osnovi različnosti njunih virov. V nasprotnem primeru je mogoče arheologijo kot "sin-tetizirajočo in integrirajočo vedo" opredeliti zgolj na podlagi razmejitve njenega delovnega področja v odnosu do zgodovine, torej v kronološkem smislu (Slapšak 1981, 52-53). Prav slednje izhodišče je vse od diskusije med Korošcem in Grafenauerjem v petdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja določalo razmerja med strokama in onemogočalo vzpostavitev arheologije mlajših obdobij kot samostojne in legitimne znanstvene (pod)discipline. Enak razmislek je botroval preimenovanju študijskega predmeta v letu 1995: iz imena je bil izpuščen pridevnik "zgodovinskih", saj je namreč implicitno potrjeval tradicionalno ločevanje na arheološka in zgodovinska obdobja z vsemi negativnimi posledicami, ki jih je imelo za razvoj vede. 23 Že nekaj let pred uradno uvedbo študijskega predmeta je imel Vinko Šribar na Oddelku za arheologijo predavanje z naslovom "Uvod v arheologijo visokega in poznega srednjega veka" (10. maja 1988). 1995) je profesor Guštin s študenti izkopaval srednjeveško utrdbo na Starem gradu nad Podbočjem (Predovnik 2003; sl. 15) in v okviru seminarja iz arheologije prazgodovinskih kovinskih obdobij obravnaval posamezne teme s področja arheologije mlajših obdobij.24 Polno izvajanje predmeta skozi vse štiri letnike dodiplomskega študija se je sicer razvijalo postopoma in se je v celoti ustalilo šele v začetku novega tisočletja. V sklopu seminarja iz arheologije mlajših zgodovinskih obdobij so študentje v letu 1993/94 v sodelovanju z Mestnim muzejem Ljubljana obravnavali pečnice, izkopane na Ljubljanskem gradu. Profesor in seminaristi so svoje delo predstavili javnosti z manjšo razstavo v Jakopičevem razstavišču in tudi v knjižni obliki. Monografija z naslovom "Ljubljanski grad. Pečnice" je izšla kot prvi zvezek v novi seriji Archaeologia historica Slovenica, ki jo je Oddelek za arheologijo pričel izdajati z namenom, spodbuditi raziskovanje mlajših obdobij ter oblikovati platformo za objavljanje gradiva in raziskav, širjenje znanja in povezovanje vseh zainteresiranih raziskovalcev (Guštin, Horvat 1994).25 Že v letu 1995 sta sledili prvi dve diplomski deli iz arheologije mlajših obdobij. V obeh primerih gre za pregledni študiji, ki naj bi nastajajočo disciplino utemeljili in jo povezali z domačo in tujo raziskovalno tradicijo. Izčrpen pregled in analizo arheoloških raziskav visokega in poznega srednjega veka na Slovenskem je pripravil Tomaž Naber-goj, ki je svoje diplomsko delo v celoti objavil v katalogu razstave Narodnega muzeja "Gotika na Slovenskem - svet predmetov" (Nabergoj 1995). Konceptni razvoj historične arheologije v Evropi in Združenih državah Amerike je predstavila Katarina Predovnik (Predovnik 1995; prim. Predovnik 2000). Značilno je, da sta oba avtorja zavzela nekakšno apologetsko držo, kajti rigidno tradicionalno pojmovanje arheologije kot antipoda in ne drugega jaza zgodovine je zahtevalo jasno utemeljitev smisla arheoloških raziskav v "zgodovinskih" obdobjih.26 T. Nabergoj je opozoril predvsem na konkretne zagate zaradi premajhnega upoštevanja arheološkega potenciala materialne kulture 24 Rezultat tega dela je med drugim tudi objava starih izkopavanj na Starem gradu nad Podbočjem (Guštin et al. 1993). 25 Doslej je v tej seriji poleg navedenega izšlo še pet zvezkov (Guštin, Predovnik 1997; Guštin 2001f; Predovnik 2003; Podpečan 2006; Predovnik et al. 2008). 26 Zdi se, da se arheologija mlajših obdobij te drže še dolgo ne bo otresla, vsemu razvoju in uspehom navkljub. Če se je slovenska arheologija že bolj ali manj sprijaznila z raziskovanjem srednjega in zgodnjega novega veka, pa ostaja ambivalentna do raziskav novejšega časa (prim. blok prispevkov o posrednjeveški arheologiji v 25. številki revije Arheo). Kot normo jih predpisuje novi Zakon o varstvu kulturne dediščine, vendar je tako med arheologi kakor tudi med predstavniki sorodnih disciplin (zgodovine, kulturne antropologije, umetnostne zgodovine) poznavanje in razumevanje tega segmenta arheološkega raziskovanja še premajhno in stališča zato neredko odklonilna. Diskusije s sorodnimi vedami sicer arheologija mlajših obdobij sploh še ni odprla. Percepcija arheologije s stališča teh strok zaenkrat ostaja v okvirih, ki jih je že sredi dvajsetega stoletja začrtal Bogo Grafenauer (Grafenauer 1951; Grafenauer 1960). stoletij po zgodnjem srednjem veku pri nas, K. Predovnik pa je poskušala teoretsko opredeliti spoznavne možnosti historične arheologije v skladu s sodobnimi koncepti materialne kulture, pismenosti in družbene teorije, značilnimi za t. i. poprocesno arheologijo. Kmalu so sledila nova seminarska in diplomska dela. Tako je med leti 1995 in 2008 študij na ljubljanski Filozofski fakulteti z univerzitetno diplomo iz arheologije mlajših obdobij zaključilo osemnajst arheologov in arheologinj, magisterij sta pridobila dva arheologa, en arheolog in ena arheologinja pa sta pridobila tudi naziv doktorja oziroma doktorice znanosti (sl. 16). Leta 1995 je bil, spet na pobudo Mitje Guština, ustanovljen Center za srednjeveške in novoveške študije Oddelka za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete (Novakovic et al. 2004, 99-100). Leta 1996 je nastala njegova izpostava v Celju, ki je nato v povezavi s Pokrajinskim muzejem Celje delovala do leta 2001. Center, ki ga je vodil profesor Guštin, je bil "ustanovljen z namenom, da pospeši razvoj arheologije srednjega in novega veka na Slovenskem ter vzpodbudi obdelavo in objavo gradiva, ki je pozabljeno ležalo v muzejskih depojih" (Guštin 2001e, 7). Ena ključnih pobud za ustanovitev Centra in še posebej njegove celjske izpostave je bila želja po celoviti obravnavi in objavi gradiva in podatkov z izkopavanj v Celju, predvsem izkopavanj Oddelka za arheologijo na Starem gradu nad Celjem in izkopavanj Zavoda za varstvo naravne in kulturne dediščine v Knežjem dvoru v Celju. Pobuda je bila uresničena le v manjši meri, saj so bili prav od obeh velikih izkopavanj ovrednoteni in objavljeni le manjši sklopi najdb (npr. Brišnik 1999a; prispevki v Guštin 2001f). Sodelavci Centra so poleg tega dokumentirali ali tudi poskrbeli za objavo arheoloških najdb z nekaterih drugih srednjeveških in novoveških najdišč, npr. gradov Slovenska Bistrica, Slovenske Konjice, Šalek, Podsreda, Žebnik, Stari grad nad Podbočjem, Zgornji stolp na Kranclju, samostanov Olimje, Žiče, Ptuj, mestnih jeder Slovenj Gradca, Ljubljane in Celja in podvodnih najdb iz Ljubljanice, Pirana in Sv. Ivana pri Umagu. Center je izpeljal raziskovalni projekt Celjski knezi, pripravil je potujočo pregledno razstavo arheoloških raziskav srednjega veka na Štajerskem in v Prekmurju, leta 1998 pa je sodeloval s Pokrajinskim muzejem Celje pri organizaciji odmevnega mednarodnega simpozija "Celjski grofje - stara tema, nova spoznanja" (Fugger Germadnik 1999a) in razstave "Grofje Celjski" (Fugger Germadnik 1999b). Od dokončne ukinitve celjske izpostave leta 2003 je dejavnost Centra zamrla. Institucionalno infrastrukturo arheologije mlajših obdobij dopolnjujeta še kustodiata za (visoki in) pozni srednji vek v Narodnem muzeju Slovenije in v Mestnem muzeju v Ljubljani, ki skrbita za arheološko premično dediščino obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku, jo raziskujeta in javnosti predstavljata v sklopu stalnih in občasnih razstav. Prav tako ne gre pozabiti temeljne slovenske raziskovalne ustanove za področje arheologije, Inštituta za arheologijo ZRC SAZU. Njegova raziskovalna dejavnost je bila dolgo usmerjena le v raziskave "tradicionalnih" arheoloških obdobij, pač v skladu z usmeritvami in nalogami, ki jih je ob ustanovitvi tedanji Arheološki sekciji pri Zgodovinskem inštitutu začrtal Josip Korošec leta 1948: "arheološko znanstveno raziskovanje Slovenije, časovno od mlajše kamnite dobe /neolita/ do naselitve Slovanov in zgodnji srednji vek do vključno XI stoletja". Četudi so že leta 1989 nameravali svoje delovanje razširiti tudi onkraj te časovne meje (Pleterski 1997, 88), se to ni zgodilo vse do začetka novega tisočletja, ko so končno pridobili novega sodelavca - raziskovalca za področje arheologije poznega srednjega in novega veka.27 Nenazadnje je v minulem desetletju z objavljanjem člankov s področja arheologije mlajših obdobij pričel tudi Arheološki vestnik, osrednja slovenska arheološka revija, ki nastaja na inštitutu. Lahko rečemo, da je bil to na simbolni ravni pomemben prelom, ki je novo disciplino "ustoličil" kot legitimen in polnopraven segment arheologije. Leta 2003 je nastala še ena ustanova, ki je dejavno posegla na polje arheologije srednjega in novega veka. V okviru Znanstveno-raziskovalnega središča Koper je bil namreč ustanovljen Inštitut za dediščino Sredozemlja pod vodstvom Mitje Guština, katerega dejavnost je sicer multiperiodna in interdisciplinarna (sl. 17). V okviru večletnega evropskega projekta Dediščina Serenissime so tako sodelavci inštituta z italijanskimi, hrvaškimi in avstrijskimi partnerji preučevali materialno zapuščino iz časa beneške republike na vzhodni jadranski obali (prim. npr. Guštin et al. 2006). Posebno bogata je publicistična dejavnost Inštituta (Preložnik 2008): v zbirki Annales Mediterranea je doslej izšlo že šest knjig s področja arheologije mlajših obdobij (Guštin 2004; Lazar 2004; Mileusnic 2004; Zagarčanin 2004; Guštin et al. 2006; Lazar, Willmott 2006; Guštin et al. 2008), tematski prispevki - diplomska in druga dela študentov kulturnega dediščinarstva na Fakulteti za humanistične študije Univerze na Primorskem - pa izhajajo tudi v novi periodični publikaciji Studia universitatis hereditati (Guštin 2008). Uveljavitev arheologije mlajših obdobij kot suverene discipline v akademskem okolju je šla z roko v roki s spremembami v praksi. Raziskave in gradivo so bili vse pogosteje predstavljani na posebnih občasnih in stalnih razstavah,28 izrazito se je okrepila tudi publicistična 27 S staroslovanskim obdobjem se tako končuje tudi pregled arheologije slovenskega ozemlja v monografiji "Zakladi tisočletij", ki so jo pripravili raziskovalci inštituta s sodelavci in je izšla leta 1999 (Aubelj, Božič, Dular 1999). Gre za pomembno poljudnoznanstveno delo, ki je bogato ilustrirano in namenjeno čim širši uveljavitvi arheologije med laično publiko. Knjigo lahko razumemo tudi kot prispevek arheologije k oblikovanju nove nacionalne zavesti po osamosvojitvi Slovenije, četudi to ni bil izrecni motiv za njen nastanek. Pri tem pa ta "nacionalni projekt" ne odstopa od starih, tedaj tudi v Sloveniji že preseženih pojmovanj o časovni zamejenosti arheologije. 28 Če omenimo le nekatere: razstava o izkopavanjih na Kapucinskem vrtu v Kopru (Guštin, Cunja 1989; Cunja 1989), o lončenini in steklovini iz severnoprimorskih gradov (Žbona-Trkman et al. 1991), priložnostne razstave o opravljenih raziskavah, ki jih je v Kulturno-informacijskem centru Križanke pripravljal Mestni muzej Ljubljana (npr. Mesto pod muzejem leta 2000), razstava "Gotika na Slovenskem - svet predmetov" (Lozar Štamcar 1995), razstava o lončarstvu na Šentjernejskem polju skozi čas (Križ et al. 1996), o arheoloških raziskavah najdišč mlajših obdobij na Štajerskem (Guštin, Predovnik 1997), stalna razstava Pomurskega muzeja (Balažic, Kerman 1997), razstava o dejavnost (sl. 18). V zadnjih dvajsetih letih je izšlo več celovitih objav terenskih raziskav, ki vsebujejo katalog in vrednotenje drobnega gradiva,29 številne tematske študije o posameznih skupinah artefaktov30 pa tudi problemske razprave o arheoloških raziskavah urbanih naselij (Stokin 1995; Cunja 1998; Guštin 2001a; Guštin 2001c), produkciji keramike na slovenskem ozemlju (Župančič, Cunja 2000; Mileusnic 2008; Predovnik 2009) ter pregledi zgodovine, konceptov in stanja stroke (Guštin, Predovnik 1994; Na-bergoj 1995; Guštin 1999a). Priložnost za izmenjavo znanja in izkušenj so prinesla tematska srečanja in posvetovanja, še posebno tista z mednarodno udeležbo. Pogovor o arheološki dediščini srednjega in novega veka sta ob razstavi "Drobci nekega vsakdana" na gradu Kromberk januarja 1995 pripravila Goriški muzej in Oddelek za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani. V sodelovanju z muzejem iz italijanskega Vidma in Furlanskim arheološkim društvom sta Goriški muzej in Oddelek za arheologijo v okviru posveta o poznosrednjeveški in renesančni keramiki v severovzhodni Italiji in sosednjih deželah, ki je potekal v Vidmu marca 1996, organizirala poseben blok predavanj slovenskih raziskovalcev (Buora et al. 1999). Decembra 1997 je sledil posvet o raziskavah visoko- in poznosre-dnjeveške ter zgodnjenovoveške keramike na Slovenskem Šaleški dolini "med romaniko in barokom" (Ravnikar 1998), o Celjskih grofih (Fugger Germadnik 1999b), o srednjeveški in novoveški keramiki s smetišč na morskem dnu pri Sv. Ivanu blizu Umaga in v Piranu (Guštin 2004), o raziskavah v Škofji Loki (Štukl 2004), nedavno pa denimo tudi razstavi "Zakladi Narodnega muzeja Slovenije" (Nabergoj 2006) in "Ljubljanica - kulturna dediščina reke" (Turk et al. 2009) v Narodnem muzeju Slovenije. 29 Npr. objave izkopavanj na najdiščih Stari grad nad Podbočjem (Guštin et al. 1993; Predovnik 2003), grad Šalek (Brišnik, Ravnikar 1999), graščina v Polhovem Gradcu (Že-leznikar 2002), pastirski stan na Veliki planini (Železnikar 2006), cerkev sv. Jerneja v Šentjerneju (Predovnik et al. 2008), Mali grad v Kamniku (Štular 2009) idr. 30 Gl. npr. razprave o lončenih pečnicah (Stare 1993; Guštin, Horvat 1994, Guštin 2001d), srednjeveški lončenini (Nabergoj 1999; Kos, Nabergoj 2000; Štular 2005; Štular 2007), keramičnih čašah in lončkih (Guštin 1999b; Guštin 2001b), lončenini z visokogorskih najdišč v Kamniško-Savinjskih Alpah (Horvat 1996; Cevc 2000; Predovnik 2006), okrašeni namizni lončenini (Cunja 2000; Cunja 2001; Guštin 2004; Predovnik 2009), španski majoliki (Guštin, Gelichi 2001), steklenem posodju (Kos, Žvanut 1994; Lazar 2001; Petek 2004), kovinskih predmetih (Stare 2002), orožju (Nabergoj 2001; Štukl 2007; Rozman 2008) in številne druge tematske prispevke. O srednjeveškem denarništvu, kovnicah in novcih prim. npr. Kos P. 1996 in Šemrov 2001. V artefaktne študije so že bile vpeljane tudi sodobne analitske metode naravoslovnih ved: nedestruk-tivne jedrske spektroskopske metode so bile uporabljene za ugotavljanje kemične sestave srednjeveškega steklenega posodja (Šmit, Kos 2004) in srednjeveških novcev (Šmit, Šemrov 2006). v organizaciji Narodnega muzeja Slovenije.31 Mednarodna in interdisciplinarna udeležba je zaznamovala simpozij o Celjskih grofih, ki ga je Pokrajinski muzej Celje v sodelovanju s Centrom za srednjeveške in novoveške študije pripravil maja 1998 (Fugger Germadnik 1999a). Slovenski raziskovalci so začeli dejavneje sodelovati s tujimi kolegi, posebno še iz sosednjih dežel Italije, Avstrije in Hrvaške.32 V splošnem lahko rečemo, da dosedanji raziskovalni pristopi in zastavljeni cilji arheologije mlajših obdobij ne sežejo onkraj tradicionalno uveljavljenih okvirov kulturnozgodovinske in tipološko-kronološke paradigme, ki še vedno prepoznavno določata večji del slovenske arheološke produkcije. Privlačna zamisel, da bi arheologijo mlajših obdobij že ob samem nastanku zasnovali na drugačnih izhodiščih, bolj reflektirano in na sodobnejših teoretskih podmenah (Predovnik 1995 in 2000), ostaja skorajda v celoti neuresničena. Seveda je na nek način razumljivo, da je levji delež raziskovalnih naporov protagonistov mlade discipline usmerjen v vzpostavljanje osnovne baze podatkov (beri: objavljanje terenskih raziskav in artefaktnih zbirov) in temeljnih datacijskih orodij (tipokronologij). In vendar beležimo tudi drugačne poskuse, ki v študij srednjega in novega veka vnašajo nove koncepte. Značilno je, da so povečini povezani s prostorskimi študijami. Katarina Predovnik je v svoji študiji o razvoju poselitve na območju nekdanje kartuzije Žiče uporabila koncept krajine - in arhitekture - kot udejanjenja idejnih modelov in je svoje pojasnitve utemeljila na (implicitno) fenomenoloških izhodiščih (Predovnik 1997; Predovnik 1998). Koncept krajine kot polja neposredne čutne zaznave in izkustvenega dojemanja prostora je podrobneje predstavil Dimitrij Mlekuž. Na konkretnem študijskem primeru modeliranja zvočne podobe okolice Polhovega Gradca v predindustrijski dobi je praktično preveril možnost uporabe GIS-orodij za prostorske študije, v katerih prostor ni razumljen kot abstraktna in objektivna danost, marveč je osrediščen okrog subjekta - človeka, ki ta prostor zaznava in je z njim v interakciji (Mlekuž 2002a in 2002b). Analitska orodja GIS sta na inovativen način uporabila: Matjaž Bizjak, ki je v svojem diplomskem delu obravnaval sistem protiturške obrambe na območju Pivškega podolja 31 Prim. Nabergoj 1999, 41 in tematski blok petih člankov o preučevanju srednjeveške in novoveške keramike na Slovenskem v reviji Argo 43/1 (Ljubljana 2000, str. 29-74). 32 Predvsem imamo v mislih mednarodne projekte in tematska posvetovanja, ki jih od leta 2003 izvaja Inštitut za dediščino Sredozemlja (prim. npr. Guštin et al. 2006). Oddelek za arheologijo ljubljanske Filozofske fakultete je poleg tega sodeloval z avstrijskimi kolegi pri organizaciji in izvedbi posvetovanja o motah in sorodnih utrdbah oktobra 2006 v Holleneggu pri Deutschlandsbergu na avstrijskem Štajerskem (Felgenhauer-Schmiedt et al. 2007). Dolgo tradicijo strokovnih stikov in skupnih projektov imajo sodelavci Goriškega muzeja z italijanskimi kolegi iz Mestnega muzeja v Vidmu. Omeniti velja tudi uspešno čezmejno sodelovanje Mestne občine Maribor, Pokrajinskega muzeja Maribor in Mestnega muzeja Varaždin v projektu Bastion v programu evropske pobude Interreg IIIA v letih 2004-2006. in doline Reke (Bizjak 2 0 0 6),33 in Benjamin Štular pri interpretaciji dinamike človekovega "osvajanja" in rabe visokogorja na primeru blejskih planin (Štular 2006) ter v analizah logike prostorske umestitve in stavbnega razvoja kamniškega Malega gradu (Štular 2009). Disciplinarne meje vseh vrst pa poskuša premakniti in celo preseči študija Blaža Podpečana o novoveških nagrobnikih na območju Spodnje Savinjske doline, v kateri je uporabil novejše pristope t. i. emotivne arheologije. Nagrobnike je obravnaval kot kompleksne vire z materialnimi, likovnimi in verbalnimi (pisnimi) prvinami, ki sooblikujejo celovit sistem komunikacij. Prepričljivo je pojasnil družbeno vpetost in kulturno določenost izrazito osebnih čustev in dozdevno individualiziranih intimnih izkušenj, ki se manifestirajo v materialnih praksah žalovanja in ohranjanja spomina na pokojnike (Podpečan 2006). Izredno hitro je v zadnjih dveh desetletjih naraščalo število opravljenih in z objavami v strokovnih publikacijah dokumentiranih terenskih raziskav, posebno še od druge polovice devetdesetih let dalje (sl. 8). Medtem ko smo jih za obdobje 1980-1989 našteli petinpetdeset, jih je bilo v desetletju 1990-1999 triindevetdeset in v dve leti krajšem obdobju 2000-2007 že sto šestindvajset. Seveda je splošna uveljavitev terenskega raziskovanja najdišč z ostalinami iz obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku tudi posledica sistematičnega izobraževalnega in raziskovalnega dela v akademski sferi, vendar obstajajo še drugi razlogi za tako visok trend rasti. Kot smo že omenili, se je slovenska arheologija od konca osemdesetih let dalje seznanjala z metodološkimi novostmi v terenskem raziskovanju. O vlogi metode strati-grafskih izkopavanj za nediskriminatorno obravnavo vseh obdobij smo že govorili. Podobno "obdobno nevtralne" so različne prospekcijske metode, ki omogočajo prepoznavanje in nedestruktivno dokumentiranje površinskega in podpovršinskega arheološkega zapisa ter njegovo interpretacijo v smislu preteklih poselitvenih vzorcev in dinamike rabe prostora (prim. Novakovic 2003): terenski pregledi, geofizikalne metode, namenska aerosnemanja in interpretacija zračnih posnetkov34 idr. (sl. 19) Dokončno uveljavitev teh pristopov in metod pa slovenska arheologija dolguje projektu varovanja arheološke dediščine ob gradnji avtocestnega omrežja, v okviru katerega je bila leta 1994 izdelana metodologija za izvedbo predhodnih in zaščitnih raziskav, vrednotenje arheološkega potenciala in vključevanje arheologije v postopke načrtovanja in izvedbe posegov v prostor (Djuric 2003b). Pri izvedbi teh raziskav so bolj ali manj intenzivno sodelovale vse slovenske arheološke ustanove in tudi skorajda vsi v Sloveniji dejavni arheologi. Predpisana metodologija je kmalu postala uveljavljen 33 Ta študija je tako rekoč dosledno uresničila zamisli o "analizi prostorskih razmerij na regionalni ravni", ki jih je že leta 1987 artikuliral Božidar Slapšak v svojem prispevku o taborih v sistemu protiturške obrambe (Slapšak 1987, 144-145). 34 Uporabo aerofotografije in še posebej izvajanje namenskih snemanj in prospekcij iz zraka je omogočilo šele odprtje zračnega prostora po nastanku nove države. Za prva odkritja dotlej neznanih poznosrednjeveških najdišč gl. Grosman 1996, 70-73; prim. tudi Kerman 1999. standard, ne le ob raziskavah na trasah avtocest, marveč tudi sicer. Razvoju t. i. preventivne arheologije je z novim Zakonom o varstvu kulturne dediščine iz leta 2008 sledila še zakonodaja. Posledica novega razumevanja vloge arheologije v posegih v prostor je izrazito povečan obseg dela, s tem pa se je seveda povečalo tudi število evidentiranih in raziskanih najdišč in drugih ostalin iz mlajših obdobij. V sklopu avtocestnega projekta velja omeniti odkritja poznosre-dnjeveških in zgodnjenovoveških naselbinskih ostankov na najdiščih Gornje njive pri Dolgi vasi (Kerman 2008), Obrežje (Mason 2003) in Leskovec pri Celju (Brišnik et al. 2006). V Medlogu so bili raziskani ostanki dvorca Forsthof (Tomažič 2003), v Valmarinu pri Spodnjih Škofijah pa gospodarsko poslopje nekdanje pristave koprske škofije (Cunja 2003; sl. 20). Na lokaciji Gošča na Dolenjskem je bila odkrita novoveška opekarna (Žižek 2003), na Mrzlem polju pri Ivančni Gorici (Nabergoj 2007), na Šušcu pri Razdrtem (Svoljšak 2000-2004) in še na nekaterih drugih najdiščih pa stari infrastrukturni objekti - cestišča in poljske poti, odpadne jame, poljske meje ipd. Še najbolj pogosto so srednjeveške in novoveške najdbe, evidentirane ob predhodnih arheoloških raziskavah, "zgolj" razpršena sled gospodarske rabe prostora, denimo kmetijskih dejavnosti in z njimi povezanega "smetenja" krajine. Število novih odkritij dodatno povečuje vse intenzivnejše arheološko raziskovanje podvodnih najdišč, posebno še po ustanovitvi Skupine za podvodno arheologijo pri Zavodu za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije (prim. npr. Podvodna arh. Slov. 1, 1982; Podvodna arh. Slov. 2, 1984; Bitenc, Knific 1997; Gaspari, Erič 2008). Med najdbami, ki so tako ali drugače "končale" v morju, rekah ali jezerih, je seveda veliko odlično ohranjenih predmetov iz mlajših obdobij, ki - četudi izhajajo iz specifičnih kontekstov - pomembno dopolnjujejo naše poznavanje preteklosti po materialnih virih.35 Na tem mestu ne želimo zapisovati programskih izhodišč za nadaljnji razvoj. Opozorimo le na nekaj šibkih točk. Ena ključnih ovir, ki jih bo stroka morala čimprej premostiti, je pomanjkanje kvalitetnih objav primarnih podatkov, kajti brez ustrezne empirične baze bo težko napredovala. Vse intenzivnejša terenska raziskovalna dejavnost ob starih dezideratih (Otok pri Dobravi, Stari grad nad Celjem) neugodno razmerje med številom raziskanih in številom objavljenih najdišč in artefaktnih zbirov le še poslabšuje. Druga izrazita pomanjkljivost je zaenkrat zares skrajno omejena uporaba analitskih orodij naravoslovnih ved pri preučevanju artefaktov, tafonomskih procesov, demografskih36 in okoljskih podatkov.37 Artefaktne študije temeljijo izključno na tipološkem in komparativističnem pristopu, redke izjeme, ki vključujejo naravoslovne analize, pa so premalo reflektirane, da bi uspele v polni meri izkoristiti interpretativni potencial pridobljenih podatkov. Končno lahko ugotovimo, da se slovenska arheologija pri obravnavi mlajših obdobij doslej še ni otresla "gospostva zgodovinskega vira" in se le redko loteva suverenih, premišljenih in prvenstveno na materialnih virih utemeljenih interpretacij. Takšna drža je brez dvoma znak začetniških težav in siceršnjega pomanjkanja teoretskega premisleka v slovenski arheologiji. Najbrž je še prezgodaj, da bi lahko realno ovrednotili domet in globino učinkov, ki jih za širše razumevanje narave in predmeta arheologije ima in jih bo še imelo "premikanje meja" z vzpostavljanjem nove discipline. Verjamemo pa, da je ta razvoj za arheološko vedo kot celoto lahko samo koristen in celo nujen. Sili jo namreč v razmislek o temeljnih podmenah arheološkega dela, njegovih spoznavnih možnostih in omejitvah ter arheologijo ob neposrednem srečevanju in prepletanju s sorodnimi disciplinami usmerja k bolj integralnemu in hkrati kompleksnemu pojmovanju preteklosti. OB KONCU NEKEGA ZAČETKA Opisani razvoj arheoloških raziskav obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku lahko seveda ocenjujemo različno. Če ga presojamo z merili vodilnih raziskovalnih okolij, kot sta denimo britanska in severnoameriška arheologija, se morda zdi zapoznel in neustrezen. Če pa ga umestimo v kontekst srednjeevropskih arheoloških tradicij in upoštevamo pregovorno majhnost slovenske arheologije (v geografskem, kadrovskem in finančnem oziru), tedaj se izkupiček dosedanjih prizadevanj, posebno v zadnjih dveh desetletjih, vendarle zdi bolj zadovoljiv. 35 Dragocene podatke o potrošnji in celo proizvodnji dekorativnega namiznega posodja na vzhodni jadranski obali tako na primer prinašajo najdbe s podvodnih smetišč pri Piranu in v bližini Umaga (Guštin 2004). Skorajda neizčrpen vir podatkov, ki jih še nismo niti približno ovrednotili, je seveda predvsem struga Ljubljanice (Turk et al.2009). Nekatere skupine predmetov, kot so denimo meči (prim. Nabergoj 2001), drugi večji kosi bojne opreme in orodja, jedilni noži z okrašenimi ročaji ipd., so v običajnih arheoloških kontekstih redko, če sploh, zastopane. 36 Doslej so bile objavljene antropološke analize le z dveh grobišč s pokopi iz mlajših obdobij: farne cerkve v Kranju (Leben-Seljak 1996) in cerkve sv. Jerneja v Šentjerneju (Leben-Seljak 1999). 37 Edina objavljena študija te vrste je analiza živalskih kostnih ostankov z najdišča Otok pri Dobravi (Bartosi-ewicz 2006). Katarina Predovnik Oddelek za arheologijo Filozofska fakulteta Univerza v Ljubljani Aškerčeva 2 1000 Ljubljana katja.predovnik@ff.uni-lj.si Tomaž Nabergoj Narodni muzej Slovenije Prešernova 20 SI-1000 Ljubljana tomaz.nabergoj@nms.si The tombstone of two town magistrates of Celeia in the region of Neviodunum Danilo BREŠČAK and Milan LOVENJAK Povzetek V članku je obravnavan rimski nagrobnik odkrit leta 2008 ob prenovi fasade cerkve sv. Petra na Jezeru pri Trebnjem, ki omenja dva visoka uradnika v Celeji, Gaja Longinija Severina in njegovega sina Longinija Avita. Opisane so okoliščine odkritja tega in drugih obdelanih antičnih kamnov v cerkvenem zidu, zgodovina same cerkve, način prezentacije in zaščite spomenikov, podani so rezultati geološke analize kamnine in geofizikalnih raziskav prostora, samemu opisu nagrobnika pa sta dodana še tekstnokritični in historični komentar. Seznam mestnih fukcionarjev iz Celeje, ki so bili doslej znani predvsem z napisov iz južnega dela province Norik, se sedaj prvič dopolnjuje tudi na podlagi kakega napisa iz province Panonije. Ključne besede: Slovenija, Dolenjska, Panonija, Nevi-odun, antika, napisni kamni, nagrobni spomeniki, rimska zgodovina, epigrafika Abstract The article deals with a Roman tombstone discovered in 2008 during the renovation of the facade of the church of St. Peter at Jezero near Trebnje, which mentioned two town magistrates of Celeia, Gaius Longinius Severinus, and his son, Longinius Avitus. The circumstances of the discovery are described, as are other worked Roman stones reused in the church wall, the history of the church, the method of presentation and conservation of the monuments, the results of the geological analysis of the stones, and the geophysical investigation of the site. The description of the monument is followed by a textual analysis and historical commentary. The list of town magistrates of Celeia, who were previously attested mostly on inscriptions from the southern part of the province of Noricum, has thus been supplemented for the first time with this newly found inscription from the province of Pannonia. Keywords: Slovenia, Dolenjska, Pannonia, Neviodunum, antiquity, inscription slabs, tombstones, Roman history, epigraphy INTRODUCTION East of the village of Jezero near Trebnje, on the slight rise below the grove Lojšč, on the left of the motorway Ljubljana-Novo mesto, the church of St. Peter is situated (fig. 1). According to oral tradition, the church was built after a vow by a count from the castle in the nearby forest of Lojšč. He promised to build a church if the nearby lake disappeared, which apparently happened. The geography of the microlocation shows that not far away from the church, to the south of Jezero village and between Ponikve and Sveta Ana, there are the last sinkholes of the karst Temenica stream, which arises again below Vrhpeč village, runs through the Mirna Peč plain to Dolenja Vas, becomes subterranean again and arises to the surface at Luknja, continuing to Zalog, where it flows into the Krka river. The choice of site for the church, which is mentioned in documents for the first time in 1391, (filialis ecclesia sancti Petri in Laypacho) as a chapel of the Trebnje parish church, and was also mentioned (die Kirche s. Petri zu Naiseru) by Valvasor in his monumental work Die Ehre des Herzogthums Crain [The Glory of the Duchy of Carniola] in 1689, seems logical. On the one hand there was a lot of building material on the site taken from the Roman cemetery and, on the other, there were symbolic Fig. 1: Jezero, St. Peter. View from the south-west (photo: F. Aš). Sl. 1: Jezero, sv. Peter. Pogled z jugozahoda (foto: F. Aš). motives in consecrating the church to St. Peter. The linking of this saint to pre-Christian sites is not unique (e.g. the parish church of St. Peter in Šempeter in the Savinjska valley, the parish church of St. Peter in Črnomelj). To symbolically conquer the "dragon" of pre-Christian beliefs, the nearby church was consecrated to St. George. A similar example could be mentioned with the church of St. George above the Roman temple dedicated to the god Mithras at Rožanec near Črnomelj, where the church is located in the forest above the temple. HISTORY OF RESEARCH when the tombstone for Gaius Claudius Romanus1 (fig. 2A: 2; 2B: 2) and a cuboid block with a relief of a two-handled vessel (cantharos) with a vine growing,2 (fig. 2B: 1) were published for the first time. In the 1930s, the discovery of the badly damaged funerary inscription for Gaius Aurelius Firminus, decurio of Emona,3 followed (fig. 2A: 3), and towards the turn of the century also part of a milestone leaning against the northern wall,4 where it could still be seen up to two or three years ago, when it disappeared. All the other spolia were immured in the church below the facade surface and could not be seen until 2008. The church of St. Peter at Jezero near Trebnje has already been known in the archaeological literature as a site of Roman tombstones and building blocks since the second half of the 19th century, 1 CIL 3, 3914 = 10785 = ILSl 76. 2 ILSl 107. 3 AIJ 237 = ILSl 68. 4 ILSl 184. Fig. 2: Jezero, St. Peter. The position of Roman building elements: A - south, B - west, C - north, and D - east facade. The darker hatching (1, 2, 3, 4): tombstones. The lighter hatching: spolia. (Drawn by B. Zaietelj). Sl. 2: Jezero, sv. Peter. Položaj rimskih gradbenih členov: A - južna, B - zahodna, C - severna, D - vzhodna fasada. Temnejši raster (1, 2, 3, 4): nagrobniki. Svetlejši raster: spolije. (Risba: B. Zaletelj). Fig. 3: Location of the Brnek hill with traces of at least four Roman quarries (source: DTK 25, Velika Loka © Geodetska uprava RS, reduced to 50 %). Sl. 3: Lega hriba Brnek s sledovi vsaj štirih antičnih kamnolomov (vir: DTK 25, Velika Loka © Geodetska uprava RS, pomanjšano na 50 %). Roman cremation and inhumation graves were found in the vicinity of the church.5 In the 1960s, a grave with a house urn was found in Hrastar's field south of the church (Inv. No. NM Lj. R 8073),6 and the complete grave inventory is in the National Museum of Slovenia in Ljubljana. According to locals, mortar appears on the soil surface while ploughing in Zupančič field, where a metal part of a belt was found in the early fifties. At the end of the fifties, when the Ljubljana-Zagreb motorway was built,7 the builders came across several graves near the Jezero village crossover, but the stone monuments with inscriptions were crushed and used in the lower layer of the road. The Roman public road (via publica), leading from Emona (Ljubljana) and Praetorium Latobico-rum (Trebnje) towards Neviodunum (Drnovo near Krško),8 ran south of the church and the mentioned milestone must have been placed along it, some three Roman miles east of Praetorium Latobicorum (fig. 3). This was a mansio and an important station of the beneficiarii consularis near the borders between Italy and Pannonia Superior.9 5 Knez 1975, 230; Petru 1971, 47-48. 6 Petru 1960-1961, 208; Petru 1962-1963, 500. 7 For discoveries at the building of the motorway through Dolenjska and the lower Sava region see Petru 1961. 8 For via publica from Emona towards Neviodunum and the milestones along it, see ILSl, p. 333-336 and inscriptions nos. 178-194; Lovenjak 1997; Bavec, Lovenjak 2006; Lovenjak 2006 and Breščak 2008d. For the history and epigraphy of Neviodunum and its territory see ILSl and Lovenjak 2003a. 9 For Praetorium Latobicorum see Saria 1954; Šašel Kos 1995; Šašel Kos 1997, 419 and inscriptions nos. 152-174 and ILSl, p. 223-225 and inscriptions nos. 115-147. The church of St. Peter, belonging to the Trebnje parish, was gradually renovated. Firstly a new roof was built, using beaver tailed tiles. The bell tower was covered with copper, and in the spring of 2008 the construction of the new facade started. Without all the necessary documents, the facade surface on the bell tower and the nave were removed, destroying a fresco of St. Christopher on the southern facade. After inspection by the Institute for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage from Novo Mesto,10 several until then unknown stone blocks were documented, some with traces of metal clamps, and an inscribed monument was found in the southeastern corner of the nave with a completely preserved inscription, mentioning Gaius Longinius Severinus and members of his family (fig. 2A: 4; 5: 4; 8; 9).11 The church is architecturally divided into a three-sided presbytery, a longitudinal nave, and a bell tower on its northern side. The nave is medieval, while the presbytery and the bell tower were added in the 17th century. Below the present 10 Documentation listing the appropriate procedures for the previously started renovation was issued. As the most numerous possible presentations of the newly discovered Roman slabs were a prerequisite, a small hole was cut to make it possible to see the gravestone. The step in front of the southern entrance to the church was removed and replaced with metal steps, which enable viewing the wall structure below the entrance, and thick glass protective plates were installed to prevent precipitation and icing on the stones. 11 See Breščak 2008a-c. Fig. 4: Jezero, St. Peter. The ground plan of the church and the position of stone blocks. The darker hatching represents the stones in their original position - in situ, the lighter ones have been moved and used as steps at both entrances (F. Aš and B. Zaletelj). Sl. 4: Jezero, sv. Peter. Tloris cerkve in položaj kamnitih blokov. V temnejšem rastru so prikazani kamni v prvotni legi - in situ, lažji kamni so bili odstranjeni in uporabljeni kot stopnice pri obeh vhodih (F. Aš in B. Zaletelj). apse floor, the foundations of an older and smaller semi-circular apse may be hidden; the opening into the apse wall used to be narrower, as can be seen from the position of the newly found tombstone. It could be seen in full in the presbytery during the Middle Ages, but when the church was rebuilt, the whole southern wall of the enlarged church was constructed on top of it. The slight decline of the terrain on the southern side of the church showed that the wall foundation is a little wider (10 cm) and levelled, while the wall constructed on it is up to 1 m thick. The complete southern wall is based on two rows of Roman blocks, while both corners are made of worked Roman stone almost to the top (fig. 2A). The tombstones which were higher, heavier to relocate, and statically more reliable were obviously used as support elements of both southern corners and therefore also the apse. Thus the tombstone of Gaius Claudius Romanus was placed in the southwestern corner (fig. 2A: 2; 2B: 2; 5: 2), while the newly discovered tombstone of Gaius Longinius Severinus was placed in the southeastern corner supporting the eastern wall (fig. 2A: 4; 5: 4). Due to the slightly higher level of the terrain on the northern side, the link between the wall and the wider foundation could not be traced, but presumably the worked Roman stones were used in the corners only (fig. 2C). A large stone block can be seen in the foundation of the western wall on the southern side next to the church entrance (fig. 2A), because the interior plaster had been removed due to rising damp. Obviously the Roman stone blocks were used in the second phase of building, when the semi-circular apse was replaced by a three-sided one, and the bell tower was added. Several worked Roman stones could be seen immured in different parts of the presbytery wall (fig. 2D), two of them next to the floor where the roughcast had been removed. The southwestern corner of the bell tower built next to the nave was constructed on a Roman tombstone (fig. 2B: 1; 5: 1), which only visible side is decorated with a cantharos, a vine and a bird on top. Besides the above mentioned stones, four more worked Roman blocks could be observed in the structure of the bell tower (fig. 2B). In front of the tower before the church entrance, three large stones were used as steps, with holes for iron clamps cast with lead (fig. 4). A one ton heavy block and a slab were placed in front of the main entrance to the church as well. This block has a levelled rectangular worked field with three small holes where a tombstone (a stele) was probably attached. These elements were obviously picked from among the ones that are still in rows in situ around the church: one row is in front of the southern church wall, where only three blocks could be seen in the past, but now more of them Fig. 5: Jezero, St. Peter. The restored south facade from the southeast. 1-4: tombstones. (Photo: J. Grobovšek). Sl. 5: Jezero, sv. Peter. Obnovljena južna fasada z jugovzhoda. 1-4: nagrobniki. (Foto: J. Grobovšek). have appeared after the lowering of the terrain, and another one is northwest of the bell tower, where a corner and part of the northern wall can be seen (fig. 4). There is an iron clamp with a lead cast between two blocks in its original position in front of the newly discovered tombstone. Stone blocks in the form of slabs 15-20 cm thick and 49-66 cm wide, of different lengths probably depending on the geological conditions in the relevant layer in the quarry are difficult to interpret without further analyses. The most probable explanation seems to be that they were used as a fence structure of worked blocks for a family grave or graves inside a Roman cemetery. A recent analogy was discovered at the Roman cemetery at Draga near Bela Cerkev.12 There the boundaries of the grave plot were made of slightly thicker stones than here and they were placed on a levelled sand foundation and connected with iron clamps cast with lead. When the old plaster of the church was completely removed, detailed documentation could be carried out and pictures of the Roman worked stones were taken. It can be claimed that four of them are Roman tombstones, and it can be assumed with great probability due to the measurements that there are more of them built into the wall, at least three or four. The total number of immured stones amounted to 54; five were repositioned and used in front of the entrance: three at the western side, two at the southern one, one of which was transported to the entrance hall of Grm Castle, Novo Mesto, the location of the Institute for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage. The other one (fig. 2A), kept in its secondary position, can be seen below the new metal stairs; the number of stones presumably used as grave borders has increased from four to eleven. Of course, the immured spolia can no longer be seen after the roughcast was applied.13 Geophysical investigation of the immediate vicinity of the church, as well as its interior, was Križ 2003, 30. 13 A compromise with the local church community was reached, so that all the blocks of worked stones in the corners and two rows of re-used spolia in the southern wall of the nave can still be seen. After the walls had been covered with roughcast and whitewashed, all the visible stones were cleaned. Since the inscription areas of the tombstones are in poor condition, especially the one belonging to Gaius Aurelius Firminus, the tombstones were covered with safety glass and covers were built above them, so that they would not be damaged too much by leakage. Walking surfaces of safety glass were also used for the flooring inside the presbytery next to the vaulted wall, where the wall and the floor were opened next to the newly discovered inscription. 12 carried out by Brane Mušič and his team using the geo-radar method.14 The data show a strong concentration of high amplitudes of radar reflection typical for stone structures. No evidence was gained for the assumption that the Roman itinerary road continued through the meadows south of the church. This may be supported by the claims of local inhabitants that the so-called Roman road is the rut among fields leading to the southeast from the motorway towards the village of Jezero. Due to the frequency and structure of the radar reflection, it can be claimed that the church was built directly on Roman ruins. In the framework of the conservation activities, a preliminary study of the origin of the stone blocks was carried out by Tomaž Verbič.15 Macroscopic analysis confirmed the hypothesis that the original quarry was at Dolenja Nemška vas near Trebnje, only two km away. Field survey showed that Lower Jurassic carbonate rock was intensively extracted from the forest covered hill of Brnek. At the foothills of Brnek there are at least four abandoned quarries (fig. 3; 6) whose layers, macroscopic similarity, and post-sedimentation processes correspond greatly, especially due to the fact that there is no similar limestone in the vicinity. The visible layers of the abandoned quarry opposite the fire brigade house are evident (fig. 7): the rock is arranged in strata, which enabled, with clever extraction, relatively simple formatting and working of the final products. Trebnje and its surroundings have both old and recent stone finds. It would be interesting to carry out a wider geologic-petrographic investigation, which would include the stone monuments from this area kept in the National Museum of Slovenia in Ljubljana, in the Museum of Dolenjska at Novo mesto, as well as three recently discovered milestones, two from Karteljevo and one from Trebnje.16 The analysis of stone blocks from the above mentioned burial place at Draga near Bela Cerkev has shown that the stones originated from the same quarry.17 The problem of transportation, beyond the possibility of using water for transport, should be investigated and it is clear that the archaeological site of Jezero near Trebnje deserves systematic interdisciplinary research in the future. Fig. 6: The Brnek hill near Dolenja Nemška vas with the positions of abandoned Roman quarries (source: TTN5, Višnja Gora 50 © Geodetska uprava RS, created by T. Verbič). Sl. 6: Hrib Brnek pri Dolenji Nemški vasi s položajem opuščenih rimskih kamnolomov (vir: TTN5, Višnja Gora 50 © Geodetska uprava RS, izdelal: T. Verbič). 14 Mušič 2008. 15 Verbič 2008. 16 Bavec, Lovenjak 2006; Breščak 2008d. 17 Verbič 2002. Fig. 7: The abandoned quarry at the western slope of the butte of Brnek near Dolenja Nemška vas. Sl. 7: Opuščen kamnolom na zahodnem vznožju osamelca Brnek pri Dolenji Nemški vasi. THE TOMBSTONE FOR GAIUS LONGINIUS SEVERINUS, ACUTIA MATRONA AND LONGINIUS AVITUS The tombstone is immured in the southeastern nave (fig. 8) on a slightly wider foundation. It lies on its right lateral surface, and there are other Roman stones placed on it, smaller and smaller in size towards the top. On the southern facade of the church the upper part of the stone can be seen with the carving widened towards the bottom: a transportation hole or a groove for fixing Fig. 8: Jezero, St. Peter. The position of the immured tombstone of Gaius Longinius Severinus at the southeastern nave corner during the investigations (photo: F. Aš). Sl. 8: Jezero, sv. Peter. Položaj nagrobnika Gaja Longinija Severina v jugovzhodnem vogalu cerkve med raziskavami (foto: F. Aš). an additional part of the grave architecture. In the earlier phase of the church, when the nave ended in a semi-circular apse, the whole inscription field could be seen, while later, when the apse was reconstructed into a three-sided shape, the inscription was hidden and therefore well preserved. It cannot be checked whether both side surfaces were ornamented. Minor damage can be noticed in the middle of the lower edge of the stone. The inscription field (fig. 9) is 95.5 cm high, 73.5 cm wide and is framed by a three-profile moulding with the total width of 10.5 cm. The upper part of the inscription field is in the shape of two symmetric volutes, which spread in a widened form from both sides almost to the inscription margin. The inscription is divided into nine lines; there was not enough space for the last two letters in the eighth line, so they are carved on the profiled edge. Triangular punctuation marks appear between the individual words, but not systematically between all of them. The geological analysis of the material showed that the rock belongs to Lower Jurassic limestone from the Brnek near Dolenja Nemška vas quarry, which lies approximately two km towards the west (municipality of Trebnje).18 The dimensions of the monument: 134 x 95 x 63 cm. Height of the letters: from 7.7 cm in the first to 4.7 cm in the last line. The inscription runs as follows: D(is) M(anibus). C(aius) Longinius Severinus an(norum) LX, dec(urio) II vir iur(is) 5 dicundi Cl(audiae) Celeia(e), vi(v)us fec(it) sib(i) e(t) Acut(iae) Matronae coni(ugi) et Long(inio) Avito fil(io) an(norum) XXXVII, dec(urioni) II vir(i) i(uris) d(icundi) Cl(audiae) Cel(eiae). Translation: To the Spirits of the Departed. Gaius Longinius Severinus, 60 years old, decurio (member of the city council) and a joint mayor of Claudia Celeia had erected (the tombstone) while still living, for himself and for his wife Acutia Matrona and for his son Longinius Avitus, 37 years old, decurio and a joint mayor of Claudia Celeia. Ligatures: 7 VT, AE; 8 ET, AV. 2: The fourth letter in the nomen gentile is carved as C with an additional rounded stroke above the lower end. - 4 and 9: Above the vertical strokes of the numeral II (duo) there is a horizontal line. - 6: The middle V is missing in the word vivus. - 7: The conjunction ET is not in the ligature, as it would be expected, because the upper horizontal stroke is not lengthened towards the left. The horizontal strokes of both Ts are not straight, but form slight semicircles on both sides, which seems to be the carver's peculiarity.19 The last O is carved into C and diminished, it measures 2.3 cm. - 8: The horizontal strokes of both Ts are formed similarly as in the previous line. The fourth letter in Longinius is without the rounded addition as in the second line. The last two vertical strokes in the numeral are carved into the margin and are smaller than the previous letters in this line. The tombstone, which is walled into the church at Gatina near Grosuplje, ca. 30 km to the west 18 Verbič 2008. 19 The similar form of T can be found e.g. also on the votive altar for Diana in Emona, from the 1st or 2nd centuries AD, erected in honour of Titus Vellius Onesimus. He was a sevir and Augustalis of Emona, sevir of Aquileia and Augustalis of Parentium (CIL 3, 3836 + p. 1734 = Šašel Kos 1997, No. 9). Fig. 9: Jezero, St. Peter. The inscription field of the tombstone of Gaius Longinius Severinus (drawn by A. Fortuna-Saje). Sl. 9: Jezero, sv. Peter. Napisno polje nagrobnika Gaja Longinija Severina (risba: A. Fortuna-Saje). (already in the ager of Emona),20 has a similar volute ornament finishing the upper edge of the inscription field, the only difference being that the intermediate space is somewhat narrower, and the letters D(is) M(anibus) are carved above the volutes. The reason for the erection of the family tombstone seems to have been the death of Longinius Avitus, who died at age 37. His father Gaius Longinius Severinus was 60 at the time, while the CIL 3, 13402 + p. 2 3 2 8 27 = AIJ 221. age of his mother, Acutia Matrona, is not mentioned. All three were Roman citizens. Longinius Avitus has no praenomen. This might indicate a later dating for the monument, i.e. in the period after AD 212, when citizenship was given to almost all free inhabitants of the Roman Empire and the praenomen was often omitted. The names of the deceased are Italic and do not include any indigenous Celtic elements. The nomen gentile Longinius, derived from the well-attested cognomen Longinus, has been fairly rarely 20 discovered so far.21 The feminine form of this name appeared as a cognomen on an inscription from Zgornja Pohanca in the Lower Posavje (Sava basin) region.22 The cognomen Severinus is more frequent and has already been attested in fifteen cases in Pannonia.23 The nomen gentile Acutius, which appears here in the feminine form, is rather sporadic outside Italy, where it is quite frequent. It is attested only on one inscription in Noricum (in the form [A]cutius), and has not yet been known from Pannonia.24 The cognomen Matrona is also rather rare in Noricum, while it has been documented in seven cases in Pannonia.25 Avitus was a very popular cognomen in both provinces,26 and has already been known from five inscriptions in Neviodunum and its ager.27 It is also attested on four inscriptions from Celeia.28 Gaius Longinius Severinus and his son Longinius Avitus carried out duumviral duties in Celeia,29 where they were also members of the city council, a local senate. It is possible that they were joint mayors in Celeia at the same time, although this cannot be concluded from the inscription itself. Thanks to Roman jurists and other sources (see Corpus iuris civilis), the general conditions for membership in the city council, for the duumvirate and other functions in autonomous towns, as well as their special competences and duties, are well known. The lowest age for membership in the council, and also for the duumvirate, was 25. As a rule, the city council had 100 members, but the number varied according to the size of the city. Certain preliminary qualifications were necessary for membership in the council, such as possession of property amounting to some prescribed sum, free status, and membership as citizens of a town. The members of the city council were called decuriones or curiales, because their sessions took place in the curia. Resolutions of the curia were called decreta (sing. decretum), i.e. decreto decurionum in inscriptions.30 The council sessions were announced and led by the duumviri ("two men"), who belonged, to- 21 Onomasticon 3, 31. 22 ILSl 90: C[l(audia) ?] Longinia. 23 Onomasticon 4, 76. 24 See Onomasticon 1, 20-21. 25 Onomasticon 3, 44. 26 See Onomasticon 1, 97-98. 27 ILSl 7, 9, 31, 70 and 155. 28 CIL 3, 5196, 5226, 5256 and 11699. 29 On the history of Celeia see Šašel 1970 and Lazar 2002. 30 For decuriones see Langhammer 1973, 188-278 and Rainer 2006, 273-277. gether with the aediles, to a class of higher ranking town magistrates (magistratus maiores) and were elected from the members of city council for a period of one year. Their further duties were also the organization of the people's assembly, of the elective assembly every five years (s.c. duumviri quinquenales31), and of cult rites in the city. They were further involved with the administration of justice, wielded power as the local police force, supervised the jobs of lower ranking officials (magistratus minores), managed city finances, and represented the local community to outsiders. After their mandate had expired, they were members of the city council until their death or, from the point of view of legal formality, until the next election (lectio senatus), which took place every fifth year. The functions were not reimbursed, but they held certain honors (honores). Occasionally, honorific inscriptions and statues for former magistrates were erected by local inhabitants in response to their special concerns for the community. Eventually, and especially from the 3rd century onwards, the offices became a burden (onus) and hereditary, which made them unpopular.32 Members of the urban aristocracy of Celeia are attested - outside Celeia, from where the majority of the inscriptions come - in different parts of southern Noricum as well, for example at Vranje near Sevnica, Rimske Toplice, Šempeter, Vojnik, Trbovlje, Črešnjevec, and Slovenske Konjice.33 The recent inscription from Jezero is the first example from the area of Neviodunum in the province of Pannonia. Out of the fifteen inscriptions mentioning the mayors of Celeia which have been attested so far, the following names are more or less preserved: (--- ) Maximus, L. Appuleiu(s---), C. Bellicius In-genuus, Bellicius Victor, (P. Mat?)t. P. fil. (Belli?) cinus, P. Mattius L. f. Bellicus, M. Mess., Cn. Pomp. lustinus, C. Spectatius Finitus, C. Spectatius C. fil. Cla. Priscianus, and (- T)erentius Procu(lus?).34 31 For Emona such a joint mayor in charge of the census is represented by C. Bassidius Secundus, known from one inscription found in Ig (CIL 3, 10738 + p. 2 3 2 8 26 = AIJ 127 = Šašel Kos 1997, Nr. 79). 32 For duumviri or duoviri see Langhammer 1973, 62-149 and Rainer 2006, 271-272. 33 On magistrates from Celeia see in general Šašel 1970, 140-143 and Šašel Kos 1984. All the known material was compiled by Wedenig 1997, 109-152 and pi. 16, 65-66; see also Lovenjak 2003b, 340-341, no. 9 for duumvir P. Mattius Bellicinus. 34 See Wedenig 1997, pl. 16 on p. 65-66. In addition to these, Metilius Maximianus must also have been a duumvir in Celeia in the 3rd century, since the inscription on his tombstone from Šentjanž near Rečica ob Savinji35 states that he was a nobleman (vir egregius) and that he performed all the functions in an autonomous city (omnibus muneribus functus). His function as mayor is implicitly reflected in the cognomen of his son Dumviranus, who was probably born in that year.36 All the above mentioned officials were members of the city council as well, which is explicitly stressed in one example only, in the inscription for Cn. Pomp. Iustinus. Other officials attested as de-curiones in Celeia are D. Castricius Verus Antonius Avitus, T. Iulius Bellicus, Maronius Marcellinus, L. Mattius P. f. Cla. Probus, Secundius Verinus and two persons whose names are not attested in inscriptions, but according to the context, it can be concluded that in both cases their nomen gentile was Terentius.37 C. Spectatius Finitus and C. Spectatius C. fil. Cla. Priscianus, father and his son, attested on a Šempeter tombstone,38 were b oth mayors in Celeia, similarly to the two Longinii in the inscription from Jezero. Certain other officials with the same nomen gentile, such as Bellicius, Mattius or Terentius (attested on two or more inscriptions), were probably also relatives. Some general characteristics suggest that the inscription from Jezero cannot be dated very early, especially the form of the letters and the omission of the praenomen in the name of Longinius Avitus. It can be dated to the end of the 2nd, or in the first half of the 3rd century. Translation: Dragica Breščak 35 CIL 3, 5111 (see Wedenig 1997, 109-111). 36 The cognomen is attested in this inscription only (see Onomasticon 2, 111). 37 See Wedenig 1997, T. 16, 65-66. 38 ILIug 372. Abbreviations AIJ = V. Hoffiller, B. Saria, Antike Inschriften aus Jugosla-vien 1: Noricum und Pannonia Superior, Zagreb 1938. CIL = Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum. ILIug = A. et J. Šašel, Inscriptiones Latinae quae in Iugoslavia inter annos MCMXL et MCMLX repertae et editae sunt (Situla 5), Ljubljana 1963. ILSl = M. Lovenjak, Inscriptiones Latinae Sloveniae 1: Neviodunum (Situla 37), Ljubljana 1998. Onomasticon 1-4 = Onomasticon provinciarum Europae Latinarum. Vol. I: Aba-Bysanus. Ex materia ab A. Mocsy et al. collecta composuit et correxit B. Lörincz, Budapest 2005; Vol. II: Cabalicius-Ixus. Ex materia ab A. Mocsy et al. collecta composuit et correxit B. Lörincz. Forschungsgesellschaft Wiener Stadtarchäologie, Wien 1999; Vol. III: Labarum-Pythea. Ex materia ab A. Mocsy et al. collecta composuit et correxit B. Lörincz. Forschungsgesellschaft Wiener Stadtarchäologie, Wien 2000; Vol. IV: Quadratia-Zures. Ex materia ab A. Mocsy et al. collecta composuit et correxit B. Lörincz. Forschungsgesellschaft Wiener Stadtarchäologie, Wien 2002. ZVKDS NM = Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, območna enota Novo mesto / Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Novo Mesto regional office. BAVEC, U. and M. LOVENJAK 2006, Nova rimska milj-nika na Karteljevem. - Rast 2 (104), april 2006, 48-52. BREŠČAK, D. 2008a, Odkritje med obnovo fasade. - Dolenjski list 15. 5. 2008, 30. BREŠČAK, D. 2008b, Jezero pri Trebnjem - 1800 let spomenikov. - Rast 6 (120), december 2008, 511. BREŠČAK, D. 2008c, Cerkev sv. Petra v Jezeru pri Trebnjem (informative leaflet / informativna zloženka). - Trebnje. BREŠČAK, D. 2008d, Trebnje. - Varstvo spomenikov. Poročila 44, 286-287. KNEZ, T. 1975, Jezero. - In: Arheološka najdišča Slovenije, 230, Ljubljana. KRIŽ, B. 2003, Draga pri Beli Cerkvi - antična nekropola, (exhibition catalogue / katalog razstave). - Novo mesto. LANGHAMMER, W. 1973, Die rechtliche und soziale Stellung der Magistratus Municipales und der Decuriones in der Übergangsphase der Städte von sich selbstverwaltenden Gemeinden zu Vollzugsorganen des spätantiken Zwangs-staates (2.-4. Jahrhundert der römischen Kaiserzeit). - Wiesbaden. LAZAR, I. 2002, Celeia. - In: M. Šašel Kos, P. Scherrer (eds.), The Autonomous Towns of Noricum and Pannonia / Die autonomen Städte in Noricum und Pannonien. Noricum, Situla 40, 71-101, Ljubljana. LOVENJAK, M. 1997, Štirje novi miljniki s ceste Emona-Neviodunum (Vier neue Meilensteine von der Straße Emona-Neviodunum). - Arheološki vestnik 48, 89-96. LOVENJAK, M. 2003a, Municipium Flavium Latobicorum Neviodunum. - In: M. Šašel Kos, P. Scherrer (eds.), The Autonomous Towns of Noricum and Pannonia / Die autonomen Städte in Noricum und Pannonien. Pannonia 1, Situla 41, 93-105, Ljubljana. LOVENJAK, M. 2003b, Rimski napisi iz Celja, najdeni med 1991 in 2003 / Die römischen Inschriften von Celje, gefunden in den Jahren 1991 bis 2003. - Arheološki vestnik 54, 331-368. LOVENJAK, M. 2006, Rimski miljniki na Dolenjskem. Rimska državna cesta Emona-Neviodunum-Siscia. -Rast 2 (104), april 2006, 39-47. MUŠIČ, B. 2008, Jezero pri Trebnjem. Poročilo o geofizikalni raziskavi. (Arhiv elaboratov / Archives of ZVKDS NM). PETRU, P. 1960-1961, Jezero pri Trebnjem. - Varstvo spomenikov 8, 208. PETRU, P. 1961, Podoba antičnega podeželja na Dolenjskem in v spodnjem Posavju v luči najdb na avtomobilski cesti. - In: Dolenjski zbornik, 193-202, Novo mesto. PETRU, P. 1962-1963, Okras antičnih žar v obliki hiš. -Arheološki vestnik 13-14, 497-512. PETRU, P. 1971, Hišaste žareLatobikov. - Situla 11, Ljubljana. RAINER, J. M. 2006, Römisches Staatsrecht. Republik und Prinzipat. - Darmstadt. SARIA, B. 1954, Praetorium Latobicorum. - In: Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft XXII/2, 1638-1639. ŠAŠEL, J. 1970, Celeia. - In: Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Suppl. 12, 139-148 (= Opera selecta, 1992, 583-587). ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 1984, Prerez čez zgodovino celejanskih prebivalcev v luči onomastičnih in prozopografskih podatkov (Inhabitants of Celeia in the light of the onomastic and prosopographic evidence). - Živa antika 34, 251-255. ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 1995, The beneficiarii consularis at Praetorium Latobicorum. - In: Römische Inschriften -Neufunde, Neulesungen, Neuinterpretationen. Festschrift fur Hans Lieb, Arbeiten zur römischen Epigraphik und Altertumskunde 2, 149-170. ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 1997, The Roman Inscriptions in the National Museum of Slovenia. - Situla 35, Ljubljana. VERBIČ, T. 2002, Mnenje o izvorni lokaciji kamnitih preklad na arheološkem najdišču Draga. (Archives of Dolenjski muzej Novo mesto). VERBIČ, T. 2008, Predhodno poročilo o izvorni lokaciji rimskih kamnitih blokov z lokacije Jezero pri Trebnjem. (Archives of ZVKDS NM). WEDENIG, R. 1997, Epigraphische Quellen zur städtischen Administration in Noricum. - Aus Forschung und Kunst 31, Klagenfurt. Nagrobnik dveh mestnih veljakov iz Celeje na območju Nevioduna UVOD Vzhodno od vasi Jezero pri Trebnjem, na rahli vzpetini pod gozdičem Lojšč in levo od magistralne ceste proti Novemu mestu, leži cerkvica sv. Petra (sl. 1). Po ljudskem izročilu naj bi jo dal zgraditi graščak z gradu v gozdiču Lojšč, ki naj bi tako izpolnil zaobljubo, da bo postavil cerkev, če odteče jezero v bližini. Geografija mikropro-stora pokaže, da so južno od vasi Jezero med Ponikvami in Sv. Ano zadnji ponori kraške reke Temenice, ki zopet privre na dan pod vasjo Vrhpeč, teče po Mirnopeškem polju do Dolenje vasi, ponovno ponikne in od Luknje nadaljuje svojo pot do Zaloga pri Novem mestu, kjer se izliva v Krko. Izbira lokacije za gradnjo cerkve, ki je v listinah prvič omenjena leta 1391 (filialis ecclesia sancti Petri in Laypacho) kot podružnica župnije v Trebnjem in jo omenja (die Kirche s. Petri zu Naiseru) tudi Valvazor v Slavi vojvodine Kranjske iz leta 1689, se zdi logična. Na eni strani jo je vodilo praktično dejstvo, da je bilo na rimskem grobišču z razgradnjo grobov, grobnih parcel in nagrobnikov na voljo veliko uporabnega gradbenega materiala, na drugi pa povsem simbolni vzgibi v posvetitvi sv. Petru. Ni namreč osamljen primer posvetitve krščanskih cerkva, postavljenih neposredno na predkrščanska grobišča, temu patronu (npr. župna cerkev sv. Petra v Šempetru v Savinjski dolini, župna cerkev sv. Petra v Črnomlju). Da bi uspešno premagali "zmaja" predkrščanskih verovanj, so bližnjo cerkvico v Lukovku posvetili sv. Juriju. Tudi to ni osamljen primer, saj poznamo podobno simbolno prevlado nad antičnim templjem, v tem primeru posvečenem bogu Mitri, v Rožancu pri Črnomlju, kjer cerkev sv. Jurija stoji sredi gozda nad vasjo, v pobočju nad mitrejem. ZGODOVINA RAZISKAV V arheološki literaturi je bila cerkev sv. Petra znana kot lokacija vzidanih rimskih nagrobnikov in gradbenih blokov od druge polovice 19. stoletja, ko sta bila prvič objavljena zapisa o nagrobniku Gaja Klavdija Romana1 (sl. 2A: 2; 2B: 2) in kvadru z reliefom dvoročajne posode, iz katere raste vinska trta2 (sl. 2B: 1). V tridesetih letih 20. stoletja je bil prvič objavljen tudi zapis o zelo poškodovanem nagrobnem napisu Gaja Avrelija Firmina,3 člana emonskega mestnega sveta (sl. 2A: 3), konec prejšnjega stoletja pa še odlomek miljnika, prislonjen ob severno fasado cerkve,4 kjer je po izjavah domačinov stal še do pred dvema ali tremi leti, ko je izginil neznano kam. Vsi drugi kamni so bili do obnove cerkve leta 2008 skriti pod ometom. V okolici cerkve so bili v preteklosti odkriti rimski žgani in skeletni grobovi.5 V šestdesetih letih 20. stoletja 1 CIL III 3914 = 10785 = ILSl 76. 2 ILSl 107. 3 AIJ 237 = ILSl 68. 4 ILSl 184. 5 Knez 1975, 230; Petru 1971, 47-48. je bil na Hrastarjevi njivi južno od cerkve najden grob s hišasto žaro (inv. št. NM Lj. R 8073),6 katerega inventar je shranjen v Narodnem muzeju v Ljubljani. Domačini vedo povedati, da se pri oranju na Zupančičevi njivi na površini pojavi malta, na isti njivi pa so v zgodnjih petdesetih letih našli kovinsko "šnolo", verjetno pasno spono. Na grobove naj bi naleteli tudi ob gradnji stare magistralne ceste Lju-bljana-Zagreb7 tik pred nadvozom pri vasi Jezero, a so jih brigadirji v udarniški vnemi baje uničili, "kamnite spomenike z napisi" pa zdrobili in vgradili v spodnji ustroj ceste. Južno od cerkve je tekla rimska državna cesta iz Emone in Pretorija Latobikov (Trebnje) proti Neviodunu (Drnovo pri Krškem),8 ob kateri je stal prvotno tudi omenjeni miljnik, približno tri rimske milje vzhodno od Pretorija Latobikov (sl. 3). To je bila obcestna postaja poštne službe (mansio) in pomembna beneficiarijska postojanka blizu meje med Italijo in Zgornjo Panonijo.9 Krajani vasi Jezero so se lotili postopne prenove cerkve in najprej prekrili streho in zvonik z bakreno pločevino, v letu 2008 pa so brez ustreznega konservatorskega soglasja začeli z deli na fasadi in odbili vse stare omete na zvoniku in zunanji steni ladje, med drugim tudi fresko sv. Krištofa na južni fasadi. Spomladi tega leta je sledil konservatorski nadzor Zavoda za varstvo kulturne dediščine območne enote Novo mesto10 ob katerem je bila v zidovih cerkve dokumentirana cela vrsta doslej neznanih obdelanih kamnitih blokov s sledovi namestitve železnih spon, v jugovzhodnem vogalu cerkvene ladje pa reliefno obdelano napisno polje z v celoti ohranjenim napisom, ki omenja Gaja Longinija Severina in člane njegove družine (sl. 2A: 4; 5: 4; 8; 9)." Cerkveno arhitekturo sestavljajo tristrano zaključen prezbiterij, podolžna ladja in ob njeno vhodno fasado prislonjen zvonik. Ladja je v osnovi še srednjeveška, prezbiterij in zvonik sta iz prvih desetletij 17. stoletja. Pod tlaki današnjega prezbiterija se verjetno skrivajo temelji 6 Petru 1960-1961, 208; Petru 1962-1963, 500. 7 Za odkritja ob gradnji magistralne ceste skozi Dolenjsko in spodnje Posavje gl. Petru 1961. 8 Za rimsko državno cesto iz Emone proti Neviodunu in miljnike na tej trasi gl. ILSl, str. 333-336, in napise št. 178-194; Lovenjak 1997; Bavec, Lovenjak 2006; Love-njak 2006 in Breščak 2008d. Za zgodovino in epigrafske spomenike Nevioduna in njegovega območja gl. ILSl in Lovenjak 2003a. 9 Za Pretorij Latobikov gl. Saria 1954; Šašel Kos 1995; Šašel Kos 1997, 419, in napise št. 152-174 in ILSl, str. 223-225, ter napise št. 115-147. 10 Za že začeto obnovo fasad so bili izdani kulturno-varstveni pogoji, v katerih je bilo upoštevano ugotovljeno stanje. Zahtevana je bila predstavitev čim večjega števila vzidanih antičnih blokov, v temeljih zidu prezbiterija pa je bila prebita svetlobna lina, ki omogoča vsaj informativen ogled novoodkritega nagrobnika. Odstranjena je bila stopnica pred južnim vhodom v cerkev in nadomeščena s kovinskimi stopnicami, ki omogočajo nemoten vpogled v strukturo zidu pod vhodom, pred vse štiri nagrobnike so bile nameščene kaljene steklene zaščitne plošče, ki bodo preprečevale vpliv podnebnih sprememb in zmrzali na kamnih. " Gl. Breščak 2008a-c. prvotno manjše polkrožne apside, pa tudi odprtina v sla-voločni steni je bila prvotno ožja. Na to kaže prav na novo odkriti rimski nagrobnik, ki je bil v srednjem veku v celoti viden zunaj prezbiterija, ob prezidavi pa so nanj naslonili novo južno steno povečane in tristrano zaključene gradnje. Malenkostno znižanje zemljišča ob južni steni ladje je pokazalo, da so temelji zidu nekoliko širši (za okoli 10 cm) in izravnani, nanje pa so zgradili steno, debelo do enega metra. Celotna južna stena stoji na dveh vrstah rimskih blokov, oba južna vogala ladje sta šivano pozidana skoraj do vrha (sl. 2A). Pri gradnji so nagrobnike, ki so večji in težji za prestavljanje in dvigovanje, pa tudi statično zanesljivejši, očitno uporabili kot nosilne elemente obeh južnih vogalov in posredno tudi slavoločne stene. Tako je nagrobnik Gaja Klavdija Romana položen v jugozahodni vogal in nosi zahodno steno (sl. 2A: 2; 2B: 2; 5: 2), na novo odkriti nagrobnik Gaja Longinija Severina pa v jugovzhodni vogal in nosi vzhodno steno ladje (sl. 2A: 4; 5: 4). Pri severni steni zaradi nekoliko višjega terena ni bilo mogoče videti stika med steno in razširjenim temeljem, kaže pa, da so bili tu bloki šivano zloženi zgolj v oba vogala (sl. 2C). Velik kamnit blok je videti tudi v temeljih zahodne stene na južni strani ob vhodu v cerkev (sl. 2A), saj so v notranjosti ometi pri tleh zaradi vlage odluščeni. Očitno so antične nagrobnike in obdelane bloke uporabili tudi v drugi fazi gradnje, ko je bila odstranjena polkrožna apsida in nadomeščena s tristrano zaključenim prezbiterijem na vzhodni strani ladje ter prizidan zvonik na zahodni. V stenah prezbiterija je bilo videti več masivnih blokov, vzidanih na stikih posameznih pol (sl. 2D), dva sta vidna v delu zidov pri tleh, kjer so stene brez ometa. Jugozahodni vogal k ladji prislonjenega zvonika stoji na rimskem nagrobniku (sl. 2B: 1; 5: 1), katerega bočno polje, ki je edino dostopno, je okrašeno s kantarosom, vinsko trto in ptico na vrhu. V strukturi gradnje zvonika je bilo videti poleg opisanega bloka še štiri obdelane, ki so bili umeščeni v oba zunanja vogala (sl. 2B). Pred zvonik so bili kot stopnica pred vhodom prestavljeni trije večji kamniti bloki z vklesanimi vdolbinami za namestitev železnih, s svincem zalitih spon (sl. 4). Iz večjega, okoli tono težkega bloka, in kamnite plošče je bil oblikovan tudi dostop do južnih vrat v cerkev. Na omenjenem bloku je videti poravnano pravokotno klesano polje s tremi manjšimi vdolbinami. Nanj je bila prvotno verjetno postavljena stela. Očitno so bili tudi ti elementi pobrani izmed ostalih, ki še vedno v originalnem položaju (in situ) ležijo v vrstah okoli cerkve: ena pred njeno južno fasado, kjer so bili doslej vidni trije bloki v vrsti, po zniževanju terena pa se jih je pokazalo še več, druga pa severozahodno od zvonika, kjer je videti vogal in del severne vrste (sl. 4). Med dvema blokoma v tleh pred novoodkritim nagrobnikom je še ohranjena železna spona s svinčeno zalivko na prvotnem mestu. Kamnite bloke v obliki plošč, katerih debelina je 15 do 20 cm, širina od 49 do 66 cm, dolžina pa je različna, odvisna verjetno tudi od geoloških danosti v plasti pri pridobivanju v kamnolomu, je brez podrobnejših raziskav težko zanesljivo opredeliti. Še najverjetneje gre za kamnito, med sabo povezano zložbo plošč obrobe družinske grobne parcele (ali več parcel) znotraj antičnega grobišča. Analogija iz zadnjih let je bila odkrita na rimskem grobišču v Dragi pri Beli Cerkvi.12 Tu je bila ograja grobnega polja zložena iz še nekoliko debelejših obdelanih blokov, ki so bili položeni na izravnano peščeno podlago in med seboj prav tako povezani z železnimi, s svincem zalitimi sponami. Ko so bili stari ometi s cerkve v celoti odstranjeni, je bilo mogoče opraviti podrobno dokumentiranje in fotografiranje vzidanih obdelanih rimskih kamnov. Za zdaj lahko trdimo, da so štirje od teh zagotovo rimski nagrobniki, za nekatere (vsaj tri ali štiri) pa to na podlagi merjenj njihovih dimenzij z veliko verjetnostjo lahko domnevamo. Skupno število vzidanih kamnov se je povzpelo na 54; pet jih je bilo prestavljenih in so v uporabi kot stopnice pred vhodoma: trije z zahodne, dva z južne strani cerkve, od katerih je bil eden prepeljan v vhodno avlo gradu Grm v Novem mestu - na sedež Zavoda za varstvo kulturne dediščine, drugi pa je ohranjen v svoji sekundarni legi (sl. 2A), vendar viden pod novimi kovinskimi montažnimi stopnicami. Število vidnih kamnov v domnevni funkciji omejitve grobne parcele se je z dosedanjih štirih povzpelo na enajst. Seveda vse vzidane spolije po obnovi ometov niso več vidne.13 V bližnji okolici in notranjosti cerkve je Brane Mušič z ekipo opravil obsežne geofizikalne raziskave z georadarjem.14 Tako pridobljeni podatki kažejo na veliko koncentracijo visokih amplitud radarskih odbojev, ki so značilne za kamnite strukture. Domneva, da bo na travniških površinah južno od cerkve ugotovljena trasa rimske itinerarske ceste, se ni potrdila. To morda potrjuje izjavo domačinov, ki pod imenom Rimska cesta poznajo kolovoz med njivami, ki vodi od trase magistralne ceste na jugovzhod proti vasi Jezero. Glede na množino in strukturo odbojev lahko trdimo, da je bila cerkev zgrajena neposredno na antičnih ostalinah. V okviru konservatorskih del je bila opravljena tudi predhodna študija o izvoru kamnitih blokov kot uporabljenega materiala, ki jo je opravil Tomaž Verbič.15 Makroskopska analiza je potrdila domnevo, da je izvorni kamnolom vzidanih blokov v Dolnji Nemški vasi pri Trebnjem, le slaba 2 km zahodno od Jezera. Terensko opazovanje je pokazalo, da je kamnit in z gozdom poraščen osamelec Brnek v preteklosti doživel obsežno lomljenje spodnjejurske karbonatne kamnine. V vznožju hriba Brnek so vsaj štirje opuščeni kamnolomi (sl. 3; 6), v katerih so plastovitost, makroskopska podobnost in postsedimentacijski procesi zelo veliki. Pogled v razgaljene plasti opuščenega kamnoloma nasproti gasilskega doma v zahodnem vznožju hriba je zelo nazoren: kamnina je na- 12 Križ 2003, 30. 13 Ob usklajevanju želja župljanov in zahtev strokovne službe je bil sklenjen kompromis, vidni so ostali vsi bloki v šivanih vogalih ladje ter dve vrsti spolij v južni steni ladje. Po nanosu ometov in beležev je bilo izvedeno tudi čiščenje vseh vidnih kamnov, nagrobniki pa so bili zaščiteni z varovalnim kaljenim steklom in vzidanim odkapnim profilom, da ne bi bili več izpostavljeni izpiranju, saj je zlasti stanje napisnega polja nagrobnika Gaja Avrelija Firmina zelo slabo. Kaljeno pohodno steklo je bilo položeno tudi v notranjosti cerkve v prezbiteriju tik za slavoločno steno, kjer je bil opravljen preboj stene in tlakov ob novoodkritem napisu. 14 Mušič 2008. 15 Verbič 2008. ložena v plasteh (sl. 7), ki so ob preudarnem izkoriščanju omogočale razmeroma enostavno formatiranje in dodelavo končnih izdelkov. Glede na dejstvo, da v širšem okolju ni nahajališča podobne apnenčaste kamnine, iz Trebnjega in njegove okolice pa poznamo vrsto starih in sedaj tudi novih najdb, bi bilo zanimivo izpeljati širšo geološko petrografsko raziskavo, ki bi vključila vse kamnito gradivo, ki ga hranita Narodni muzej Slovenije v Ljubljani in Dolenjski muzej v Novem mestu, pa tudi vse tri novoodkrite miljnike, dva s Karteljevega in enega iz Trebnjega.16 Analiza kamnitih blokov iz že omenjenega rimskega grobišča iz Drage pri Beli Cerkvi je pokazala, da gre za isti izvorni kamnolom.17 Ob tem puščamo problematiko transporta zunaj možnosti uporabe vodnih poti ob strani. Vsekakor pa sedaj nekoliko poglobljena podoba o arheološkem najdišču Jezero pri Trebnjem kaže, da gre za lokacijo, ki bi bila vredna sistematičnega raziskovanja v okviru študijskega projekta z interdisciplinarno obravnavo. NAGROBNIK GAJA LONGINIJA SEVERINA, AKUTIJE MATRONE IN LONGINIJA AVITA Nagrobnik je vzidan v jugovzhodni vogal cerkvene ladje (sl. 8) na nekoliko razširjenem temeljnem zidu. Leži na desni bočni stranici, nanj pa so šivano postavljeni drugi rimski kamni, ki so proti vrhu vedno manjši. Na južni fasadi cerkve je vidna vrhnja stranica nagrobnika s proti dnu razširjeno vdolbino, transportno režo ali utorom za pritrditev dodatnega člena nagrobne arhitekture. Celotno napisno polje je bilo v starejši gradbeni fazi cerkve, ko se je ladja končevala s polkrožno apsido, vidno, kasneje, po prizidavi tristransko zaključenega prezbiterija, pa v celoti skrito. To dejstvo je pripomoglo k dobri ohranjenosti napisa. Ali sta ornamentirani obe bočni strani spomenika, ni bilo mogoče preveriti. Manjša poškodba kamna je vidna v sredini spodnjega roba. Napisno polje (sl. 9) je visoko 95,3 cm in široko 73,5 cm ter obrobljeno s trojno profilirano obrobo skupne širine 10,5 cm. Zgornji rob napisnega polja ima obliko dveh simetričnih volut, ki se proti sredini iztekata v široko, z obeh strani skoraj do roba napisnega polja segajočo razširitev. Besedilo je razdeljeno v devet vrstic s skupno sto enajstimi znaki. Za zadnja dva znaka v osmi vrstici je zmanjkalo prostora znotraj napisnega polja in sta vklesana na profiliranem robu. Med posameznimi besedami so vklesana trikotna ločilna znamenja, vendar ne dosledno med vsemi. Geološka analiza kamnine je pokazala, da gre za zgo-dnjejurski apnenec iz kamnoloma Brnek pri Dolenji Nemški vasi, ki leži približno 2 km zahodneje.18 Spomenik meri v višino 134 cm, v širino 95 cm in v globino 63 cm. Črke so velike od 7,7 cm v prvi do 4,7 cm v zadnji vrstici. Besedilo napisa se glasi: D(is) M(anibus). C(aius) Longinius 16 Bavec, Lovenjak 2006; Breščak 2008d. 17 Verbič 2002. 18 Verbič 2008. Severinus an(norum) LX, dec(urio) II vir iur(is) 5 dicundi Cl(audiae) Celeia(e), vi(v)us fec(it) sib(i) e(t) Acut(iae) Matronae coni(ugi) et Long(inio) Avito fil(io) an(norum) XXXVII, dec(urioni) II vir(i) i(uris) d(icundi) Cl(audiae) Cel(eiae). Prevod: Bogovom Manom. Gaj Longinij Severin, star 60 let, mestni svetnik in župan Klavdije Celeje, je dal napraviti za življenja (spomenik) sebi, svoji ženi Akutiji Matroni in sinu Longiniju Avitu, staremu 37 let, mestnemu svetniku in županu Klavdije Celeje. Ligature: 7 VT, AE; 8 ET, AV. 2: Četrta črka v gentilnem imenu Longinius je vklesana kot C z dodatno ovalno vijugo nad spodnjim zaključkom. - 4 in 9: Nad navpičnima hastama števnika II (duo) je prečna črta. - 6: V besedi vivus manjka srednji K - 7: Veznik ET ni v ligaturi, kot bi pričakovali, saj zgornja prečna črta ni podaljšana v levo. Prečna črta T-ja je v obeh primerih sestavljena iz dveh lokov, kar je bila, kot kaže, kamnosekova posebnost.19 Zadnji O je vklesan pomanjšano znotraj C-ja in meri 2,3 cm. - 8: Prečna črta T-ja je v obeh primerih oblikovana iz dveh lokov, podobno kot v prejšnji vrstici. Četrta črka v gentilnem imenu je brez podobnega ovalnega dodatka kot v drugi vrstici. Zadnji dve navpični črti v števniku sta vklesani na obrobo in manjši od ostalih črk. S podobnim volutnim ornamentom kot tu je zaključen tudi zgornji rob napisnega polja na nagrobniku, vzidanem v cerkvi v Gatini pri Grosupljem (ager Emone),20 le da je tam vmesna razširitev precej ožja, črki posvetila D(is) M(anibus) pa sta vklesani nad volutama. Vzrok za postavitev družinskega nagrobnika je bila, kot kaže, smrt Longinija Avita, ki je umrl v starosti 37 let. Njegov oče Gaj Longinij Severin je bil takrat star 60 let, medtem ko starost matere Akutije Matrone ni navedena. Vse tri osebe so imele rimsko državljanstvo. Prenomen, prvo ime v trojni imenski formuli rimskih državljanov, je pri Longiniju Avitu izpuščen, kar bi morda kazalo na poznejšo datacijo spomenika, tj. na obdobje po letu 212, ko se je s podelitvijo državljanstva vsem svobodnim prebivalcem imperija vedno bolj opuščal. Imena pokojnikov so italska in ne vsebujejo nobenih domačih keltskih elementov. Rodovno ime Longinius, izpeljanka iz precej razširjenega kognomena Longinus, je bilo glede na doslej znana pričevanja precej redko.21 Na napisu iz Zgornje Pohance v spodnjem Posavju, v mestnem teritoriju Nevioduna, nastopa ženska oblika tega imena kot kognomen.22 Pogosteje je na napisih izpričan kognomen Severin, ki je v Panoniji znan s 15, v Noriku pa z 10 napisov.23 Rodovno ime Acutius, ki tu nastopa v ženski obliki, je zunaj Italije, kjer je izpričano na več kot tridesetih napisih, znano le posamično, v Noriku samo na enem napisu ([A]cutius), v Panoniji pa doslej sploh še ni bilo znano.24 Tudi kognomen Matrona je bil precej redek, je pa v Panoniji s sedmimi primeri najštevilneje zastopan prav v tej provinci, nekoliko manj v Noriku.25 Kognomen Avitus je bil v Panoniji in Noriku zelo priljubljen26 in je doslej na področju Nevioduna znan že s petih napisov.27 Nastopa tudi na štirih napisih iz Celja.28 Gaj Longinij Severin in njegov sin Longinij Avit sta v Celeji29 opravljala duumvirat, kolegialno najvišjo funkcijo v rimskih avtonomnih mestih, in bila tudi člana mestnega sveta. Morda sta bila na čelu mestne uprave kot župana celo sočasno, vendar na to s samega napisa ne moremo sklepati. Po zaslugi rimskih pravnih piscev in drugih virov (gl. Corpus iuris civilis) poznamo zahteve, ki jim je moral zadostiti posameznik za članstvo v mestnih svetih, za opravljanje duumvirata in drugih funkcij v avtonomnih mestih, tako kot tudi njihove pristojnosti in dolžnosti. Najnižja starostna meja za članstvo v mestnem svetu je bila 25 let. Svet je imel praviloma sto članov, vendar je bilo to število lahko tudi večje ali manjše, odvisno od velikosti mesta. Za vstop v svet je bilo treba izpolniti tudi nekatere druge pogoje kot npr. imeti premoženje v predpisani vrednosti, svobodni status ob rojstvu in polnopravne državljanske pravice v tem mestu. Člani sveta so se imenovali dekurioni (decuri-ones) ali kuriali (curiales), ker so zasedali v kuriji (curia). Njihovi sklepi so bili imenovani decreta (edn. decretum), na napisih v obliki decreto decurionum.30 Seje mestnega sveta so sklicevali in vodili duumviri ali duoviri ("dva moža"), ki so skupaj z edili (aediles) spadali v razred višjih mestnih uradnikov (magistratus maiores) in so jih izvolili izmed članov mestnega sveta za obdobje enega leta. Njihove druge dolžnosti so bile sklic ljudske skupščine, sklic volilne skupščine vsakih pet let (t. i. duumviri quinquenales31) in skrb za izvajanje javnih kultnih obredov v mestu. V njihovo pristojnost je sodilo tudi sodstvo, imeli so lokalno policijsko oblast, opravljali so nadzor nad delom nižjih magistratov (magistratus minores), upravljali z mestnimi financami in zastopali mestno skupnost navzven. Po izteku mandata so ostali člani mestnega sveta do konca življenja oz. formalnopravno do ponovnega izbora (lectio 19 Podobna oblika črke T nastopa na primer tudi na Diani posvečeni votivni ari iz Emone iz 1. ali 2. stoletja. Postavljena je bila v čast Tita Velija Onesima, sevira in avgustala v Emoni, sevira v Akvileji in avgustala v Parentiju (CIL 3, 3836 + p. 1734 = Šašel Kos 1997, No. 9). 20 CIL 3, 13402 + p. 2 3 2 8 27 = AIJ 221. 21 Cf. Onomasticon 3, 31. 22 ILSl 90: C[l(audia)?] Longinia. 23 Onomasticon 4, 76. 24 Onomasticon 1, 20-21. 25 Onomasticon 3, 44. 26 Onomasticon 1, 97-98. 27 ILSl 7, 9, 31, 70 in 155. 28 CIL 3, 5196, 5226, 5256 in 11699. 29 Za zgodovino Celeje gl. Šašel 1970 in Lazar 2002. 30 Za dekurione gl. Langhammer 1973, 188-278 in Rainer 2006, 273-277. 31 V Emoni je bil tak župan, zadolžen za izvedbo cenzusa, Gaj Basidij Sekund, ki ga poznamo z napisa, najdenega na Igu (CIL 3, 10738 + p. 2 3 2 826 = AIJ 127 = Šašel Kos 1997, Nr. 79). senatus), ki je bil izveden vsakih pet let. Funkcije niso bile plačane, prinašale so le določene časti (honores). Posebej zaslužnim uradnikom so včasih v mestih postavljali častne napise in kipe za njihove zasluge za skupnost. Sčasoma, posebej od 3. stoletja dalje, so javne službe postale dedne in vedno večje breme (onus), s tem posledično tudi vedno bolj nepriljubljene.32 Člani celejske mestne aristokracije so razen v Celju, od koder je znanih največ njihovih napisov, izpričani tudi v različnih delih nekdanjega južnega Norika, tako na primer na napisih z Vranja pri Sevnici, iz Rimskih Toplic, Šempetra, Vojnika, Trbovelj, Črešnjevca in Slovenskih Konjic.33 Novi napis iz Jezera je prvi primer s področja Nevioduna v provinci Panoniji. Na petnajstih doslej znanih napisih, ki omenjajo celejske župane, so bolj ali manj v celoti ohranjena imena naslednjih: (---) Maximus, L. Appuleiu(s---), C. Bellicius Ingenuus, Bellicius Victor, (P. Mat?)t. P. fil. (Belli?)cinus, P. Mattius L. f. Bellicus, M. Mess., Cn. Pomp. Iustinus, C. Spectatius Finitus, C. Spectatius C. fil. Cla. Priscianus in (- T)erentius Procu(lus?).34 Poleg teh je duumvirat v Celeji nekje v 3. stoletju opravljal tudi Metilius Maximianus; na njegovem 32 Za duumvire ali duovire gl. Langhammer 1973, 62-149 in Rainer 2006, 273-277. 33 Za magistrate iz Celeje na splošno gl. Šašel 1970, st. 140-143, in Šašel Kos 1984. Vse dotlej znano gradivo je zbral Wedenig 1997, 109-152 in t. 16 na str. 65-66; gl. tudi Lovenjak 2003b, 340-341, št. 9 za župana P. Matija Belikina. 34 Gl. Wedenig 1997, t. 16 na str. 65-66. nagrobniku, odkritem v Šentjanžu pri Rečici ob Savinji,35 je navedeno, da je bil viteškega stanu (vir egregius) in da je opravil vsa bremena (omnibus muneribus functus), tj. vse funkcije v nekem avtonomnem mestu. Da je opravljal tudi župansko funkcijo, posredno priča tudi kognomen enega od njegovih sinov Dumvirana (Dumviranus), ki je bil, kot kaže, rojen ravno v tistem letu.36 Vsi navedeni uradniki so bili tudi člani mestnega sveta, kar pa je izrecno poudarjeno le na napisu za Gneja Pompeja Justina. Kot člani mestnega sveta v Celeji so na napisih izpričani še D. Castricius Verus Antonius Avitus, T. Iulius Bellicus, Maronius Marcellinus, L. Mattius P. f. Cla. Probus, Secundius Verinus in dve osebi, katerih imeni na napisih nista ohranjeni, na podlagi preostalega besedila pa lahko sklepamo, da gre obakrat za rodovno ime Terentius.3"7 Podobno kot na novem napisu iz Jezera sta župansko funkcijo v Celeji kot oče in sin opravljala tudi Gaj Spektatij Priscijan in Gaj Spektatij Finit, ki ju poznamo iz ene od šempeterskih grobnic,38 so pa sorodstvene vezi zagotovo obstajale tudi med drugimi, katerih rodovna imena nastopajo na dveh ali več napisih (npr. Belikij, Matij ali Terentij). Glede na obliko črk in opuščanje prenomena pri imenu Longinija Avita napis lahko okvirno datiramo v konec 2. ali prvo polovico 3. stoletja. 35 CIL 3, 5111 (gl. Wedenig 1997, 109-111). 36 Kognomen je izpričan samo na tem napisu (gl. Onomasticon 2, 111). 37 Gl. Wedenig 1997, t. 16 na str. 65-66. 38 ILIug 372. Danilo Breščak Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije Območna enota Novo mesto Skalickega 1 SI-8000 Novo mesto danilo.brescak@zvkds.si Milan Lovenjak Univerza v Ljubljani Filozofska fakulteta Osrednja humanistična knjižnica Aškerčeva 2 SI-1000 Ljubljana milan.lovenjak@ff.uni-lj.si Paul T. Craddock: Scientific Investigation of Copies, Fakes and Forgeries. Elsevier, Amsterdam 2009. ISBN 9780-7506-4205-7, 628 pp. In 2009 the prestigious editor Butterworth-Heinemann/ Elsevier published an impressive volume, written by the well-known scholar Paul Craddock, an expert in ancient materials, who, from the beginning of his very long career and until his retirements in 2007 has been one of the supporting pillars of the prestigious Research Laboratory (which changed its name several times, and also recently) of the British Museum. The book has over 600 pages, richly illustrated in b/w and colour photographs, and already its impressive bibliography (from page 525 to page 594) can give an idea of the vast amount of topics discussed in the volume. As stated in the Foreword, the book "is intended as a comprehensive guide to the technical and scientific study of a wide range of antiquities and artistic creations", and it illustrates various methods employed in the scientific and technical studies on authentication. The work clarifies many important issues, beginning with the differences between forgeries, fakes, pastiches and imitations. A short, but important section is dedicated to the legal aspects of authentication studies and the risks they can involve. The author also discusses the questions of disclosure of the methods and the publication of details of such studies, which might suggest to forgers more ways and treatments to create an antique appearance. The conclusion is that the "increased range of knowledge on technology is more useful in detecting forgeries than facilitating better ones. One does not fight fraud with ignorance." I believe we fully agree. The topics are distributed over 20 chapters, dedicated to different problems. In the first four the sources, approaches and analytical methods, as well as the production of three-dimensional copies are discussed in great detail. The topics of chapters 5 and 6 are physical dating techniques: radiocarbon dating, thermoluminescence and dendrochronology, with their principles and related problems. Then the authentication of different materials and the questions posed in the different cases are addressed. Two chapters are dedicated to metals, their composition and production and working techniques, with special attention to coins. Ceramics, with many case studies, are discussed in chapter 9, glass and enamels in chapter 10, stone (even including prehistoric flints) and sculpture in chapter 11. The chapter on paintings contains a table of pigments of different colours with date of discovery, date of industrial production, where they are described and by which artists they were used, and also sections on methods of analysis, examinations of different kinds; and, finally, special topics, such as varnishes, craquelure and the work of the famous forger Han van Meegeren. Chapter 13 is dedicated to paper (but also papyrus), prints and documents, with details on watermarks and filigranology, ageing, ink, watercolours etc., with detailed photos and micrographs of forged pieces. Chapter 14 is dedicated to the patination of copper, chapter 15 to gold and silver and chapter 16 to gemstones and jade. Chapters 17 and 18 concern organic materials, both natural (ivory, antler, bone, horn, leather, wax, amber, lacquer, wood etc) and synthetic (plastics and their identification by different methods), and their "substitutes". Chapter 19'h is dedicated to famous frauds, and in particular to Charles Dawson. Chapter 20 deals with conservation and restoration problems, how much attractive appearance and visibility of repair conflict with authenticity. Many cases in which conservation goes "into the realms of deception" and "disguises the true extent of damage and replacement" are reported. Several case studies illustrate the many possibilities of concealment, cleaning and how de-restoration can be carried out. The volume is excellent, clear and pleasant to read, and no existing publications are comparably useful, rich and complete. It will become a standard work and a cornerstone of the research and scientific examination of antiquities and works of art. However, objectively, there are some things which should have been done better. First of all, in the text there are myriads of small errors, oversights and wrong spellings, which an attentive reader - possibly familiar with the vocabulary, the bibliography and the world of art and archaeology - would have readily spotted. As an example, on page 403, in just a few lines of the section on pearl simulants, there are three mistakes: the fish Alburnus lucidus is called "Albunus lucidus", the component from its scales, used for making pearl imitations, is mentioned as "guarnine" instead of guanine, and the title of the 15'h century treatise Segreti per Colori, with several recipes for making pearls from fish scales, is given as "Segretti per Colori". A pity. Secondly, the index at the end of the volume shows an extremely peculiar structure (probably not the author's fault), with entries like "Amiens Chalice and Slade Gup (sic)", "Combat of nude men, Pollajuolo, after cast proved to be 15'h c.", "Misrepresentation" (without specifying that it is here a legal term) and "Omnipresent coal"(?!). But a term like "brass" can be found only by looking under "Copper alloys". The famous Russian forger Botkin is found under "Enamel fakes and forgeries", while under "The Etruscan terracottas" there is also the entry "major doubts began to emerge". Despite these (unfortunate) lapses, this remains an excellent book, which will be of valuable assistance to all engaged in the professions of art history/conservation. Alessandra GIUMLIA-MAIR Daniela Sedran (ed.): Il peso nell'antichita. Pesi e mi-sure nel Friuli romano, catalogo della mostra (San Vito al Tagliamento, Museo Civico "Federico De Rocco", 26 set-tembre 2009 -15 febbraio 2010). San Vito al Tagliamento 2009, 159 ps. L'agile volume a cura di Daniela Sedran, inserito nella collana "Quaderni Sanvitesi" e nato come catalogo della mostra omonima, suggella anche il primo ventennio di attivita della Societa Friulana di Archeologia, celebrando la sinergia instauratasi fra istituzioni diverse nel territorio friulano e l'opera di valorizzazione dell'archeologia locale condotta instancabilmente per decenni da Maurizio Buora, gia direttore dei Civici Musei di Udine. Il volume si apre in chiave divulgativa con una pa-noramica di Daniele Callari su nascita e sviluppo della pesatura nelle grandi civilta antiche, dalla Mesopotamia all'Egitto a Creta, in cui viene evidenziata la connessione fra introduzione della misura nelle attivita economiche ed evoluzione della struttura statale, senza tralasciare il ruolo della pesatura (del cuore del defunto) nella sfera religiosa in Egitto e il frequente nesso fra pesi e contesti religiosi in Mesopotamia e Siria (Ebla). Segue, a cura di Jessica Botti, un capitolo sulla pesatura nella protostoria in Italia, con particolare riguardo all'area settentrionale, che prende avvio dal ruolo del metallo nello sviluppo dei sistemi ponderali, mentre le misure di capacita furono predilette per lo scambio di derrate alimentari; seguendo le vicende del metallo, con cenni al rapporto con la (pre)monetazione, si arriva all'affermazione della libra come unita di misura in area laziale. La parte restante del volume si deve a Daniela Sedran. Nel capitolo sulla pesatura reale e simbolica, con qualche ripetizione rispetto ai precedenti, si giunge al mondo romano, con l'esame degli strumenti per la pesatura (bilancia a due bracci e stadera) ed una breve analisi del sistema ponderale. Al volume Pondera. Pesi e misure nell'antichitä, catalogo della mostra (Campogalliano, 2001), a cura di C. Corti, N. Giordani, Modena 2001, che ha avuto il merito di riaccendere l'attenzione sui sistemi di misura antichi, i saggi introduttivi del catalogo della mostra di S. Vito al Tagliamento devono molto, mentre viene sviluppata in modo autonomo la parte del vero e proprio catalogo dei pesi rinvenuti nel territorio friulano centrooccidentale, cui e premesso un capitolo di orientamento sulla romanizza-zione in Friuli, in chiave divulgativa. Con lodevole approfondimento e presentata la tipologia dei pesi, per la maggior parte in piombo, suddivisi per funzione in due grandi categorie (da bilancia e da stadera), evidenziando comunque le possibili interazioni, e poi per forma. Vanno segnalate per l'immediatezza di lettura le tabelle proposte alle pp. 56-59. Il catalogo e organizzato topograficamente. In esso compare un solo busto (di figura femminile) in bronzo, da Zuglio (pp. 107-108), mentre nelle tabelle (a p. 58) ne e segnalato un altro, da Montereale Valcellina, non menzionato altrove nel volume. Nel commento a questo tipo (pp. 42-44), non e ricordato il volume di Norbert Franken, Aequipondia. Figürliche Laufgewichte römischer und frühbyzantinischer Schnellwaagen, Bonn 1994, fondamentale per le considerazioni su tecnica di fabbricazione, botteghe, cronologia, ecc.; nel testo di Franken, il busto da Zuglio non compare, ma viene trattato il gruppo di riferimento (pp. 42-43, Gruppe 6), bekränzte Frauen mit Mittelscheitelfrisur, all'interno del quale l'esemplare friulano si avvicina ad A 112 (per la presenza di una fascia sul capo al posto della corona) e ad A 120, datato al II sec. d.C., per il taglio del busto e la struttura del panneggio; per il gruppo lo studioso tedesco evidenzia anche le difficolta esistenti nell'interpretazione del soggetto. I pesi dalla zona centrooccidentale del Friuli, da bilancia e da stadera, sono quindi per la stragrande maggioranza in piombo; ad ogni tipo e dedicato nel catalogo della mostra di San Vito un commento accurato nella descrizione, nel rilevamento delle presenze e nel riferimento al sistema ponderale romano; inquadramenti cronologici sono stati possibili in pochi casi (ad esempio per esemplari collo-cabili - per il peso o per la presenza dell'iscrizione in greco relativa al valore - al IV-VI secolo). Le difficolta di datazione dipendono dalle modalita di reperimento, nella maggior parte dei casi per raccolta di superficie e al di fuori di un contesto stratigrafico; nel catalogo vengono comunque premesse alle schede degli esemplari indicazioni sulle localita di ritrovamento, con cenni agli altri materiali antichi da esse provenienti e all'eventuale interpretazione dei siti, talvolta inquadrabili come insediamenti o ville in ambito rustico. Si tratta in conclusione di un'iniziativa da elogiare in quanto dedicata ad una classe di materiali ancora poco studiata nell'Italia settentrionale a nord del Po (si ricorda al proposito E. Cavada, L. Endrizzi, F. Mulas, S. Zamboni, Lineamenti di metrologia antica: stadere e bilance romane nel Trentino, in Archeoalp - Archeologia delle Alpi, 2, Trento 1993, pp. 83-127, con ulteriore bibliografia), ben-che indicativa di scambi commerciali e quindi foriera di informazioni sulla vita economica in eta romana. Margherita BOLLA Supplementa Italica. Nuova serie 23. Edizioni Quasar, Roma 2007, 524 str., fotogr. napisov. Triindvajseti zvezek v seriji Supplementa Italica ima prek 500 strani in je, kot vsi drugi, pomembno dopolnilo Mom-msenovega Korpusa latinskih napisov (Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum), saj prinaša novoobjavljene latinske napise iz raznih mest Italije in njim pripadajočega podeželja, kjer je vsako leto najdenih veliko novih rimskih napisov. Serijo je v okviru italijanske Narodne akademske zveze zasnoval Silvio Panciera, zdaj upokojeni profesor na univerzi La Sapienza v Rimu in še vedno idejni vodja teh zvezkov, ki pri založbi Quasar izhajajo (skoraj) vsako leto in za katere tudi vsakokrat napiše tehten predgovor. Ta zvezek prinaša 264 novih latinskih napisov, skupno pa jih je bilo v seriji objavljenih nekaj manj kot 4000 iz več kot četrtine rimskih naselbin na Apeninskem polotoku, Siciliji in Sardiniji. K temu je treba dodati še celo vrsto napisov, ki so bili revidirani in včasih tudi bistveno drugače interpretirani. To delo poteka vzporedno z dopolnjevanjem dveh velikih epigrafskih podatkovnih baz v okviru EAGLE (Electronic Archive of Greek and Latin Epigraphy), namreč EDR (Epigraphic Database Roma: www.edr-edr.it) in EDB (Epigraphic Database Bari: www.edb.uniba.it), ki vsebujeta prek 40.000 napisov iz Italije ter s Sicilije in Sardinije pred 7. stoletjem po Kr. in katerih število se stalno in naglo povečuje. Ti dve podatkovni bazi dopolnjujeta epigrafsko elektronsko bazo v Heidelbergu, EDH (www.uni-heidelberg.de/institute/sonst/ adw/edh/index.html), ki vsebuje že prek 41.000 napisov iz provinc (tudi iz Slovenije) in tudi veliko fotografij. Knjiga je razdeljena na tri večje razdelke, od katerih je prvi zelo obsežen, druga dva pa kratka: Supplementa, ki vsebujejo nove napise iz petih antičnih mest in sicer iz Butunta iz Druge regije (Apulije in Kalabrije; avtor Cu-stode Silvio Fiorello), iz mest Firmum Picenum (Federica Squadroni) in Potentia (Simona Antolini) iz Pete regije (Picena) in iz mest Asisium (Giovanna Asdrubali Pentiti, Maria Carla Spadoni in Enrico Zuddas) in Matilica (Silvia Maria Marengo) iz Šeste regije (Umbrije). Drugi razdelek avtorice Marcelle Chelotti je naslovljen Supplementorum supplementa in vsebuje nove napise iz Gnatije, ki dopolnjujejo dodatek k napisom tega mesta izpred desetih let. Tretji razdelek pa prinaša drugi del epigrafske bibliografije, ki ga je oskrbel Gian Luca Gregori. Vsako od obravnavanih mest je nastalo v različnih okoliščinah in živelo na svoj način, napisi pa nam neposredno govorijo o njihovih prebivalcih, ki so jih sooblikovali in vsakemu mestu dali svojstven pečat. Tudi italska mesta so imela vsako svojo identiteto, v kateri se je zrcalila specifična geografska lega, njihova zgodovina iz časa pred rimsko zasedbo, tradicija predrimskih verovanj in institucij ter mešanje prebivalstva v času pozne republike in imperija. Ker pa nam je znan le zelo majhen odstotek prebivalstva, ki je v teh mestih nekoč živelo in bilo soudeleženo pri njihovem zgodovinskem razvoju, je pričevanje rimskih spomenikov poleg drugega arheološkega gradiva in ostalin kot mozaični kamenček v nikdar dokončanem mozaiku zgodovine mesta. Kljub fragmentarnosti na vseh ravneh pa je vrednost rimskih napisov ravno v tem, da so neposredne in zgovorne priče nekdanjega življenja. Iz mesta Bituntum, zdaj Bitonto na širšem območju Barija, je znanih deset novih napisov, kar je proporcionalno zelo veliko, saj jih v Mommsenovem času praktično ni bilo. Poleg odlomka miljnika, katerega besedilo je mogoče rekonstruirati glede na to, da je bil najden na Trajanovi cesti (yia Traiana), ki je vodila iz Beneventa v Brundizij, je bil najden nagrobnik enega od štirih županov mesta (quattuorviri) iz družine Lukanijev, ki priča o tem, da je bil Bituntum rimski municipij (štirje župani so bili namreč značilni za rimske municipije - ne sicer za vse -, medtem ko sta bila v kolonijah po dva). Pred tem je bil konec 3. stoletja pr. Kr. Bitunt zavezniško mesto, nato pa je zgubil avtonomijo, ker je podprl Hanibala. Zanimiv je z girlandami okrašen sarkofag devetletne Petilije Sekundi-ne, svečenice boginje Minerve, pa tudi nagrobnik nekega vladarskega sužnja, ki je opravljal redko izpričan poklic lovca na volkove (luparius). Sledi 21 napisov iz mesta Firmum Picenum, zdaj Fermo, ki se po drugem delu imena razlikuje od mesta Firmum Apulum blizu Ascoli Satriano, dve mesti s podobnim imenom pa sta nastali tudi na Iberskem polotoku (Firmum Iulium in Firma Augusta). Rimljani so v tem naselju na ozemlju, ki so ga zaplenili Picenom, že leta 264 pr. Kr. ustanovili latinsko kolonijo. Mesto je bilo nekaj časa rimski municipij, vendar že od 41 pr. Kr. naprej rimska kolonija, ki je večkrat omenjena tudi v literarnih virih. Med pomembnimi novimi napisi je nagrobnik rimskega viteza Nonija Flaka (nagrobno parcelo mu je dodelil mestni svet), ki je bil vojaški tribun Pete makedonske legije; legija je imela svoj tabor med drugim v Dalmaciji in Meziji. Znan je eden od mestnih županov iz družine Terencijev, ki je v mestu zgradil svetišče cesarskega kulta in ob tej priliki za mestno prebivalstvo priredil tudi banket. Najdenih je bilo več pepelnic pokojnikov z grškimi imeni (npr. Myrsine, Nimphinis), kar kaže na številčen suženjski in osvobojenski sloj. Iz Potentije (Potenza), ki je kot rimska kolonija nastala ob reki Flosis (Potenza), je bilo odkritih 48 novih napisov, med njimi oltar s posvetilom enemu od princev z Avgu-stovega dvora, morda Gaju Cezarju, in še nekaj drugih vladarskih napisov, predvsem znameniti fragment fastov (seznam konzulov). V mestu Asisium (zdaj Assisi) je prva naselbina znana že iz 6. stoletja pr. Kr., v 4. stoletju pa se je začela počasi urbanizirati. V času rimske republike je imelo mesto, kot vse kaže, z Rimom pogodbo o zavezništvu. Asisij je utrpel veliko škodo kmalu po Cezarjevi smrti, ko sta v požaru med drugimi umrla tudi oče in neki sorodnik pesnika Propercija; družina Propercijev je v tem in sosednjih mestih dobro dokumentirana. Pod Avgustom je umbrijsko mesto dobilo status rimskega municipija, katerega živahno življenje v času rimskega imperija osvetljuje kar 112 novih napisov. Za nas je posebej zanimiv napis dveh županov (quattuorviri) iz družine Tetienov (Tettieni), ki je izpričana tudi v Emoni;1 njeno poreklo je morda umbrijsko. Cela vrsta zanimivo okrašenih nagrobnikov govori o družinah, ki so živele v mestu dolga stoletja, med njimi tudi take z zelo redkimi imeni, kot npr. Cipellii, ki so drugje skoraj neznani, ali pa Vibatii, katerih osvobojenec se je imenoval Decibalus - podobno kot slavni dačanski kraj Decebal - in je po vsej verjetnosti izviral iz dačansko-mezijskega prostora. Ime rimskega municipija Matilica je morda keltskega izvora; upravljala sta ga duumvira, namreč po dva župana in ne štirje, kot je bilo značilno za sosednje municipije. V njem je bilo najdenih 15 novih napisov, med katerimi prevladujejo fragmenti, med maloštevilnimi ohranjenimi pa so predvsem nagrobniki sužnjev in osvobojencev. Knjiga je nedavno objavljen zvezek dragocene serije, ki prinaša nove rimske napise, med katerimi se vedno znova najdejo tudi zgodovinsko izjemno zanimivi, vsi po vrsti pa pričajo o socialni strukturi posameznih italskih mest, o kultih in institucijah, skratka, dajejo nam zanimiv vpogled v tedanji vsakdan. Napisi vsakega mesta imajo v knjigi posebno številčenje, tako da jih ni mogoče citirati brez navedbe strani. Morebitna pomankljivost je dejstvo, da latinska (in redka grška) besedila napisov niso prevedena; pogosto so res enostavna in se zdi prevod odveč, včasih pa interpretacija ni povsem jasna in je pomanjkanje prevoda zelo moteče, posebej, če sporni del besedila oz. nejasne besedne zveze tudi v komentarju niso primerno razložene. Morda pri komentarjih moti tudi navedba literature v oklepajih med besedilom, ki ga pogosto razbije na nelogičnih mestih in s tem prekine tok misli. Ti dve pripombi pa nikakor ne zmanjšata pomembnosti knjige, ki je neobhodna za vsako knjižnico, če želi imeti vsaj osnovno epigrafsko literaturo. Vsa dela, ki dopolnjujejo Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum, sodijo namreč med najbolj osnovno literaturo, ki jo nujno potrebuje vsak, ki se ukvarja z antično zgodovino. Marjeta ŠAŠEL KOS 1 Glej A. Gabucci, G. Mennella, Tra Emona e Augusta Taurinorum: un mercante di Aquüeia, AN 74, 2003, 317-342. Bibliographia archaeologica Slovenica selecta Na pobudo Andreja Preložnika letos dodajamo v posebni rubriki tudi seznam člankov iz osrednjih arheoloških revij, Arheološkega vestnika, Documenta Praehistorica, Arhea in Varstva spomenikov, kar se nam je prejšnja leta zdelo odveč. Načrtujemo, da bi prihodnje leto bibliografija izšla v prenovljeni obliki. Še vedno bo nosila ime "selecta", ker se bojimo, da zaradi nesodelovanja večine kolegov - kar seveda zelo obžalujemo - nikdar ne bo popolna. It was decided this year, upon the sensible suggestion of Andrej Preložnik, to add to the bibliography a list of articles from the central archaeological journals: Arheološki vestnik, Documenta Praehistorica, Arheo and Varstvo spomenikov, which was previously believed to be superflous. It is planned that next year the bibliography will appear in a different form. It will still, however, bear the name "selecta", as we fear that the lack of participation by the majority of colleagues - which is greatly to be regretted -means that it will never in fact be complete. Marjeta ŠAŠEL KOS 1. OSREDNJE SLOVENSKE ARHEOLOŠKE REVIJE 2009 / 1. THE CENTRAL SLOVENIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOURNALS 2009 Predkovinske dobe / Stone Ages Budja, M., Early Neolithic pottery dispersals and demic diffusion in Southeastern Europe, Documenta Praehistorica 36, 2009, 117-137. Mason, P., M. Andrič, Neolithic/Eneolithic settlement patterns and Holocene environmental changes in Bela Krajina (south-eastern Slovenia), Documenta Praehistorica 36, 2009, 327-335. Mlekuž, D., The materiality of dung: the manipulation of dung in Neolithic Mediterranean caves, Documenta Praehistorica 36, 2009, 219-225. Petru, S., Palaeolithic art in Slovenia, Documenta Praehistorica 36, 2009, 299-304. Weninger, B., L. Clare, E. J. Rohling, O. Bar-Yosef, U. Böhner, M. Budja, M. Bundschuh, A. Feurdean, H.-G. Gebe, O. Jöris, J. Linstädter, P. Mayewski, T. Mühlenbruch, A. Reingruber, G. Rollefson, D. Schyle, L. Thissen, H. To-dorova, C. Zielhofer, The Impact of Rapid Climate Change on prehistoric societies during the Holocene in the Eastern Mediterranean, Documenta Praehistorica 36, 2009, 7-59. Dular, J., M. Tomanič Jevremov, Sledovi poznolatenske poselitve v Ormožu (Spüren spätlatenezeitlicher Besiedlung in Ormož), Arheološki vestnik 60, 2009, 159-193. Gaspari, A., R. Masaryk, Na sledi prazgodovinskega Navporta. Gradišče na hribu Tičnica na Vrhniki / Tracing the prehistoric Nauportus. The hillfort on Tičnica hill near Vrhnika, Arheološki vestnik 60, 2009, 195-206. Laharnar, B., The Žerovnišček Iron Age hillfort near Bločice in the Notranjska region / Železnodobno gradišče Žerovnišček pri Bločicah na Notranjskem, Arheološki vestnik 60, 2009, 97-157. Ramšak, A., Gomile starejše železne dobe na Godeško-Reteških dobravah pri Škofji Loki (Early Iron Age tumuli at Goreško-Rateške dobrave near Škofja Loka), Arheološki vestnik 60, 2009, 33-61. Rimska doba / Roman Period Gaspari, A., Rimski in srednjeveški most čez Savo ter stolp Klauzenštajn v Zidanem mostu / The Roman and Medieval Bridges over the Sava and Klausenstein Tower at Zidani most, Varstvo spomenikov 45, 2009, 7-37. Horvat, J., Romanizacija, Arheo 26, 2009, 161-165. Lozic, E., Roman stonemasonry workshops in the Ig area / Rimske klesarske delavnice na Ižanskem, Arheološki vestnik 60, 2009, 207-221. Kovinske dobe / Metal Ages Bavdek, A., A. Mihevc, B. Toškan, A. Velušček, Arheološke najdbe iz Križne jame / Archaeological finds from Križna jama cave, Arheološki vestnik 60, 2009, 17-31. Božič, D., A Hallstatt grave containing a cuirass, excavated near Stična by the Duchess of Mecklenburg in 1913. The reliability of grave groups from the Mecklenburg Collection / K halštatskemu grobu z oklepom, ki ga je leta 1913 pri Stični izkopala vojvodina Mecklenburška. O zanesljivosti grobnih celot Mecklenburške zbirke, Arheološki vestnik 60, 2009, 63-95. Črešnar, M., Radiokarbonsko datiranje bronaste in starejše železne dobe - slovenska perspektiva (Radiocarbon dating of the Bronze and Early Iron Age - The Slovenian Perspective), Arheo 26, 2009, 33-51. Pozna antika in zgodnji srednji vek Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages Krasnik, B., Tkanje, ostanki tkanin in oblačila starih Slovanov (The Weaving, Textile Finds and Clothing of the Ancient Slavs), Arheo 26, 2009, 63-107. Milavec, T., Crossbow fibulae of the 5th and 6th centuries in the southeastern Alps / Samostrelne fibule 5. in 6. stoletja na jugovzhodnoalpskem prostoru, Arheološki vestnik 60, 2009, 223-248. Milavec, T., A review of research into the Early Middle Ages in Slovenia / Pregled raziskav zgodnjega srednjega veka v Sloveniji, Arheološki vestnik 60, 2009, 249-270. Epigrafika in numizmatika Epigraphy and Numismatics Kos, P., B. Žbona Trkman, A Hoard of Roman Republican and Norican coins from the vicinity of Kobarid / Zakladna najdba rimskih republikanskih in noriških novcev iz okolice Kobarida, Arheološki vestnik 60, 2009, 271-282. Miškec, A., The Augustan conquest of southeastern Alpine and western Pannonian areas: coins and hoards / Avgustejska zasedba jugovzhodnoalpskega prostora in zahodne Panonije: posamične in zakladne novčne najdbe, Arheološki vestnik 60, 2009, 283-296. Diskusija / Discussion Andrič, M., Holocenske paleoekološke in paleohidrološke razmere na Ljubljanskem barju - prispevek k diskusiji / The Holocene palaeoecological and palaeohydrological conditions at Ljubljansko barje - a contribution to discussion, Arheološki vestnik 60, 2009, 317-331. Velušček, A., Ljubljansko barje, problemi razlage virov/ The Ljubljansko barje, problems of interpretation, Arheološki vestnik 60, 2009, 297-315. Arheološka teorija in ostalo Archaeological theory and varia Kelleher, S., B. Štular, Urban Historic Landscape Characterisation in Practice: Oldbury Town Centre Case Study (Historični značaj urbane krajine v praksi: primer zgodovinskega središča mesta Oldbury), Arheo 26, 2009, 125-139. Mlekuž, D., Poplavne ravnice v novi luči: LiDAR in tafonomija aluvialnih krajin (Floodplains in a New Light: LiDAR and the Taphonomy of Alluvial Landscapes), Arheo 26, 2009, 7-22. Pirkovič, J., Zbirateljstvo arheoloških najdb in tako imenovana abolicija v novem Zakonu o varstvu kulturne dediščine / The collection of archaeological finds and the "amnesty" in the new Cultural Heritage Protection Act, Varstvo spomenikov 45, 2009, 255-279. Štular, B., Uporaba etnoloških primerjav v visokosre-dnjeveški arheologiji. Primer lončenine s kamniškega Malega gradu (The Use of Ethnological Analogies in High Medieval Archaeology. The Case Study of the Potery from Kamnik Castle (Mali Grad)), Arheo 26, 2009, 109-123. Vidrih Perko, V., "Arheološka" dediščina ali o političnem pomenu kulturne dediščine in njenem vplivu na javnost ("Archaeological" Heritage or About the Political Meaning of Cultural Heritage and its Influence on the Public), Arheo 26, 2009, 141-153. 2. OBJAVE SLOVENSKIH AVTORJEV V TUJEM TISKU 2009 PUBLICATIONS BY SLOVENIAN AUTHORS ABROAD 2009 Predkovinske dobe / Stone Ages Andrič, M., J. Massaferro, U. Eichner, B. Ammann, M. C. Leuenberger, A. Martinčič, E. Marinova, A. Brancelj, A multi-proxy Late-glacial palaeoenvironmental record from Lake Bled, Slovenia. - Hydrobiologia 631, 2009, 121-141. Budja, M., Ceramic trajectories: from figurines to vessels. - V / In: Ceramics before farming: the dispersal of pottery among prehistoric Eurasian hunter-gatherers (Walnut Creek 2009) 499-525. Kovinske dobe / Metal Ages Bernardini, F., A. De Min, G. Demarchi, E. Montagnari Kokelj, A. Velušček, D. Komšo, Shaft-hole axes from Slovenia and North-Western Croatia: a first archaeometric study on artefacts manufactured from meta-dolerites. -Archaeometry 51/6, 2009, 894-912. Bernardini, F., E. Montagnari Kokelj, A. Velušček, Prehistoric cultural connections in Northeastern Adriatic regions identified by archaeometric analyses of stone axes. - V / In: A connecting sea: maritime interaction in Adriatic prehistory, BAR International series 2037 (Oxford 2009) 47-57. Gaspari, A., Bronze sword of the Arco type found in Sava River near Gornje Pijavško (Posavje, Slovenia). - V / In: Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the EAA. Session: Underwater archaeology (Zagreb 2008) 267-280. Guštin, M., Der Torques: geflochtener Drahtschmuck der Kelten un ihrer Nachbarn. - V / In: Artefact: Festschrift für Sabine Rieckhoff zum 65. Geburtstag, Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 172 (Bonn 2009) 477-486. Guštin, M., The golden mask from the unknown. - V / In: Relics of old decency: Archaeological Studies in Later Prehistory: Festschrift for Barry Raftery (Dublin 2009) 137-141. Hänsel, B., D. Matoševic, K. Mihovilic, B. Teržan, O socialnoj arheologiji brončanodobnog utvrdenog naselja i grobova na Monkodonji. - Histria archaeologica 38-39, 2007-2008 [2009] 81-122. Hänsel, B., D. Matoševic, K. Mihovilic, B. Teržan, Zur Sozialarchäologie der befestigten Siedlung von Monkodo-nja (Istrien) und ihrer Gräber am Tor. - Praehistorische Zeitschtift 84/2, 2009, 151-180. Jeraj, M., A. Velušček, S. Jacomet, The diet of Eneolithic (Copper Age fourth millenium cal. B. C.) pile dwelleres and the early formation of the cultural landscape south of the Alps: a case study from Slovenia. - Vegetation history and archaeobotany 18/1, 2009, 75-89. Mihovilic, K., B. Hänsel, D. Matoševic, B. Teržan, Gradina Monkodonja - Moncodogno i nekropola tumula Mušego -Mon Sego / The Monkodonja - Moncodogno Hillfort and the Mušego - Mon Sego necropolis of tumuli. - V / In: Arheologija i turizam u Hrvatskoj (Zagreb 2009) 106-121. Teržan, B., Kaukasisches Symbolgut in Südosteuropa. Bemerkungen zu Goldfibeln von Michalkow - Fokoru -Dalj. - V / In: Der Schwarzmeerraum vom Äneolithikum bis in die Früheisenzeit (5000-500 v. Chr.), Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 25 (Rahden/Westf 2009) 190-216. Teržan, B., Der geflügelte Löwe aus Hallstatt mit dem Schinken im Rachen. - Mittheilungen der anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 139, 2009, 195-201. Teržan, B., Japodska nevesta iz okolice Novega mesta (A lapodian bride from the vicinity of Novo mesto). - Vjesnik arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu s. 3, 42, 213-230. Tolar, T., A.Velušček, Discovery of flax (linum usitatis-simum) at Ljubljansko barje, Slovenia. - Histria Antiqua 18/1, 2009, 187-194. Rimska doba / Roman Period Djuric, B., J. Davidovic, A. Maver, H. W. Müller, Stone use in Roman towns. Resources, transport, products and clients. Case study Sirmium. Second report. - Starinar 57, 2007 (2009), 83-100. Djuric, B., H. W. Müller, White marbles in Noricum and Pannonia: an outline of the Roman quarries and their products. - V / In: Leukos lithos (Paris 2009) 111-127. Gaspari, A., Exploitation of the navigable waterways on the Ljubljansko barje during the Roman period: supposed remains of boat equipment and cargo from the Ljubija stream near Verd. - Histria Antiqua 18/1, 2009, 389-396. Gaspari, A., A Late Republican Gem with Dionysiac Representation from Emona. - V / In: Aquileia e la glittica di etä ellenistica e romana (Trieste 2009) 367-369. Groh, S., M. Guštin, I. Lazar, H. Sedlmayer, Neue Forschungen in der römischen Villa Maritima von San Simone/ Simonov zaliv bei Isola/Izola, Slowenien. - Archäologie Österreichs 20, 1, 2009, 53-57. Guštin, M., Hufmesser, ein Gerät der Antike. - Mittheilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 139, 2009, 255-260. Guštin, M., Contracta pisces aequora sentiunt: od arheološkog nalaza do izloška? - Histria Antiqua 18/2, 2009, 425-432. Istenič, J., Roman military equipment and the beginnings of the Roman use of brass in Europe. - V / In: Waffen in Aktion, Xantener Berichte 16 (Mainz am Rhein 2009) 237-242. Istenič, J., The early Roman military route along the river Ljubljanica (Slovenia). - V / In: Limes XX: estudios sobre la frontiera romana / Roman frontier studies, Anejos de Gladius 13 (Madrid 2009) 855-865. Lazar, I., The bowl from Bakar: a vessel for honourable guests. - Histria Antiqua 18/1, 2009, 459-465. Lazar, I., I principali monumenti antichi tra Aquileia e Poetovio. - V / In: Vesuviana: archeologie a confronto, Studi e scavi, n. s. 23 (Bologna 2009) 309-319. Lazar, I., What do we know about stone-cutting in Celeia (Noricum). - V / In: Les ateliers de sculpture regionaux: techniques, styles et iconographie (Arles, Aix-en-Provence 2009) 633-637. Nestorovic, A., Roman Gems from Slovenia - brief overview. - V / In: Aquileia e la glittica di etä ellenistica e romana (Trieste 2009) 361-365. Županek, B., D. Mlekuž, Lubiana: origini di una capi-tale. - Archeologia viva 28/138, 2009, 50-63. Pozna antika in zgodnji srednji vek Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages Bratož, R., Cristianesimo in Istria. Una sintesi e al-cune riflessioni: con particolare riguardo allo sviluppo dell'organizzazione ecclesiastica. - V / In: Il cristianesimo in Istria fra tarda antichitä e alto medioevo, Sussidi allo studio delle antichitä cristiane 20 (Roma 2009) 9-46. Bratož, R., Eine Region im Wandel - der West- und Mittelbalkanraum in spätantiken und mittelalterlichen Chroniken. - V / In: Jenseits der Grenzen: Beiträge zur spätantiken und frühmittelalterlichen Geschichtsschreibung, Millennium-Studien 25 (Berlin, New York 2009) 199-238. Knific, T., Late Roman belt buckles from the Ljubljanica river (Slovenia) - Histria Antiqua 18/1, 2009, 453-458. Modrijan, Z., Glazed pottery from Tonovcov grad and Korinjski hrib (Slovenia). - V / In: La ceramica invetriata tardoromana nell'arco alpino orientale e nelle province Danubiane (Carlino 2009) 33-40. Pleterski, A., The inventing of Slavs or inventive Slavs?: o ideovem svete a zpusobu bydleni starych Slovanu. - Ar-cheologicke rozhledy 61/2, 2009, 331-336. Šmit, Ž., D. Jezeršek, T. Knific, J. Istenič, Pixe-PIGE analysis of Carolingian glass from Slovenia. - Nuclear instruments & methods in physics research. Section B. Beam interactions with materials and atoms 267, 2009,121-124. Srednji in novi vek / Middle and New Ages Gaspari, A., Srednjeveški meč iz reke Lahinje v Črnomlju. - V / In: Jurišičev zbornik (Zagreb, Zadar 2009) 179-189. Lazar, I., H. Willmott, The glass from the Gnalic wreck: preliminary report. - In/V: Annales du 17e Congres de l'Association internationale pour l'Histoire du verre (Brussels 2009) 333-338. Predovnik, K. K., Prunk bei Tisch: vom Beginn der Neuzeit in den slowenischen Ländern. - V / In: Zwischen Tradition und Wandel, Tübinger Forschungen zur historischen Archäologie 3 (Erlangen 2009) 281-290. Epigrafika in numizmatika Epigraphy and Numismatics Kos, P., Sondertypus der Kugelreitermünze - Fundort Aquileia - nicht aus dem Schatzfund von Haimburg! - Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 49/1, 2009, 1-5. Kos, P., The Durdevac hoard. - V / In: Coinage in the Iron Age: essays in honour of Simone Scheers (London 2009) 289-311. Šašel Kos, M., P. Kos, The lapidarium of the National Museum of Slovenia. - Sylloge epigraphica Barcinonensis 7, 2009, 109-125. Šašel Kos, M., Antinous in Upper Moesia: the introduction of a new cult. - V / In: Opinione pubblica e forme di comunicazione a Roma: il linguaggio dellepigrafia, Epigrafia e antichita 27 (Faenza 2009) 205-216. Šašel Kos, M., A new altar to the nymphs and the magii in Dalmatia. - Histria Antiqua 18/2, 2009, 191-202. Visočnik, J., Two new manuscripts mentioning the lost Mercury-inscription CIL III 5196. - Römisches Österreich 32, 2009,123-134. tur, Denkschriften 373, Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 14 (Wien 2009) 229-240. Vermeulen, F., B. Mušič, Investigating the impact of Roman urbanisation on the landscape of the Potenza Valley: a report on fieldwork in 2007. - Babesch 84, 2009, 85-110. 3. IZBOR OBJAV TUJIH AVTORJEV O SLOVENSKEM OZEMLJU IN GRADIVU 2009 SELECTED PUBLICATIONS BY FOREIGN AUTHORS ABOUT THE SLOVENIAN TERRITORY AND MATERIAL 2009 Arheološka teorija in ostalo Archaeological theory and varia Benjamin, J., M. Črešnar, Submerged prehistoric site discovery and a proposed application in the Croatian Adriatic. - V / In: Jurišicev zbornik (Zagreb, Zadar 2009) 52-67. Bintliff, J. L., B. Slapšak, B. Noordervliet, J. Zwienen, J. van Verweij, The Leiden-Ljubljana ancient cities of Boeotia project: summer 2007 - spring 2008. - Pharos 15, 2007, 17-42. Djuric, B., P. Mason, B. Mlakar, K. Kovačec Naglič, B. Petek, Listing archaeological sites - integrating heritage: the case of Slovenia. - Listing archaeological sites, protecting the historical landscape, EAC occasional paper 3 (Brussels 2009) 87-93. Erič, M., Datirani deblaki in ladja na Ljubljanskem barju in v Prekmurju v Sloveniji. - V / In: JurišiCev zbornik (Zagreb, Zadar 2009) 151-162. Erič, M., T. Verbič, Importance of early preparation for archaeological research of large rivers: case of the lower Sava in Slovenia. - V / In: Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the EAA. Session: Underwater archaeology (Zagreb 2008) 303-313. Guštin, M., I programmi di studio e le ricerche sul patrimonio culturale dell'Istituto per il patrimonio del Maditerraneo dell'Universita del litorale di Capodistria-Slovenia. - V / In: Vesuviana: archeologie a confronto, Studi e scavi, nuova serie 23 (Bologna 2009) 303-307. Haneca, K., K. Čufar, H. Beeckman, Oaks, tree-rings and wooden cultural heritage: a review of the main characteristics and applications of oak dendrochronology in Europe. - Journal of Archaeological Science 36/1, 2009, 1-11. Pleterski, A., Mitsko kolo: kolo Sv. Katarine / Mythical wheel, wheel of St. Catherine. - V / In: Etnolog Vitomir Belaj (Zagreb 2009) 215-233. Pleterski, A., Nekateri topografski vidiki obrednih mest. - Studia ethnologica Croatica 21, 2009, 27-46. Poglajen, S., Comparison between unsing a single beam echosounder and a multi beam echosounder in archaeological fieldwork. - V / In: Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the EAA. Session: Underwater archaeology (Zagreb 2008) 88-96. Štih, P., Suche nach der Geschichte oder Wie der ka-rantanische Fürstenstein das Nationalsymbol der Slowenen geworden ist. - V / In: Vergangenheit und Vergegenwärtigung: frühes Mittelalter und europäische Erinnerungskul- Kovinske dobe / Metal Ages Benjamin, J., C. Bonsall, The prehistoric chert dagger from Piran, Slovenia: an underwater find from the northern Adriatic (Prazgodovinsko roženčevo bodalo iz Pirana, Slovenija: podvodna najdba iz severnega Jadrana). - Arheološki vestnik 60, 2009, 9-15. Thomas, J.-L., Cremation Studies: developmental Research within Slovenian Osteoarchaeology (Preučevanje kremacij: razvoj raziskav v slovenski osteoarheologiji), Arheo 26, 2009, 53-61. Rimska doba / Roman Period Zanier, K., Tra Aquileia e Lacus Timavi: il contesto del "ponte" romano di Ronchi dei Legionari. - Studi e ricerche sulla Gallia Cisalpina 22 (Roma 2009). 4. IZBOR OBJAV V SLOVENSKIH NEARHEOLOŠKIH PUBLIKACIJAH 2009 SELECTED PUBLICATIONS IN SLOVENIAN NON-ARCHAELOGICAL LITERATURE 2009 Predkovinske dobe / Stone Ages Toškan, B., Small terrestrial mammals (Soricomorpha, Chiroptera, Rodentia) from the early Holocene layers of Mala Triglavca (SW Slovenia) / Mali terestični sesalci (Soricomorpha, Chiroptera, Rodentia) iz zgodnjeholocenskih plasti Male Triglavce (JZ Slovenija). - Acta Carsologica 38/1, 2009, 117-133. Kovinske dobe / Metal Ages Dular, J., Sava v bronasti in železni dobi. - V / In: Ukročena lepotica. Sava in njene zgodbe (Sevnica 2009) 36-41. Janžekovič, F., A. Velušček, Ptice med najdbami iz koliščarskih naselbin na Ljubljanskem barju. - Svet ptic 15/1, 2009, 7-9. Jovanovic, A, Ajdovska jama na Silovcu pri Sromljah: rezultati arheoloških raziskav v letih 2004 in 2005. - Rast 20/6, 2009, 613-618. Kerman, B., Bronastodobna naselbina v Tilošu pri Fi-lovcih. - V / In: Košičevi dnevi XXI (Bogojina 2009) 65-69. Pavlin, P., Bronastodobno bodalo z Iga. - Bilten 78, 2009, 11-12. Svoljšak, D., Zaklad bronastih srpov v Grgarju. - V / In: Grgarski zbornik (Grgar 2009) 12-20. Rimska doba / Roman Period Karinja, S., Pomorski promet in pristanišča v najstarejših kulturnozgodovinskih obdobjih ob slovenski obali. - Studia lustinopolitana 2/1, 2009,159-182. Tušek, I., Mitraizem in Hajdinčani / Der Mithraskult und die Gemeinde Hajdinas / Mithraism and the people of Hajdina. - V / In: Hajdina (Maribor 2009), 52-75. Šašel Kos, M., Reka kot božanstvo: Sava v antiki. -V / In: Ukročena lepotica: Sava in njene zgodbe (Sevnica 2009) 42-50. Župančič, M., "Iter privatvm" pri Črnem Kalu: od Črnega pila do Predloke? (k C.I.L. V, 509) - Annales. Series Historia et Sociologia 19/1, 2009, 15-20. Pozna antika in zgodnji srednji vek Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages Bitenc, P., T. Knific, Naselbina staroselskih Romanov na Ajdovskem gradcu nad Vranjem. - V / In: Ukročena lepotica: Sava in njene zgodbe (Sevnica 2009) 69-76. Knific, T., Naselitev Slovanov v Posavju. - V / In: Ukročena lepotica: Sava in njene zgodbe (Sevnica 2009) 77-84. Krasnik, B., Noša starih Slovanov: od tekstilne surovine do šivanja oblačil. Sprehod skozi izdelavo tkanin pri starih Slovanih. - Zgodovina v šoli 18/1-2, 2009, 3-15. Osredkar, M., O Turkih, ajdih in cerkvah, ki nočejo stati pri miru: zgodnji srednji vek Moravške doline, kot ga kažeta arheologija in ljudsko izročilo / The Turks, the Ajd and moving churches, Early Medieval period in Moravška dolina according to archaeology and folklore. - Studia Mythologica Slavica 12, 2009, 63-86. Štih, P., Državne tvorbe v srednjem veku na slovenskem ozemlju. - Zgodovina v šoli 18/1-2, 2009, 3-15. Visočnik, J., Exceptional depiction on the strap end from Rakova Jelša. - Studia Mythologica Slavica 12, 2009, 55-62 Žorž, A. Zgodnjesrednjeveški obredni prostor na najdišču Spodnje Škovce. - Studia Mythologica Slavica 12, 2009, 31-54. Srednji in novi vek / Middle and New Ages Gaspari, A., Visoko- in poznosrednjeveško orožje iz arheoloških kontekstov: primer: viteški meč iz poznorimskega vodnega zbiralnika na Ajdovskem gradcu nad Vranjim / High and late medieval weapons from archeological contexts: example: a knight's sword from a Late Roman water cistern at Ajdovski Gradec above Vranje. - Vojaška zgodovina 10/1, 2009,145-159. Guštin, M., A. Preložnik, M. Sakara Sučevic, Grobnica v nekdanji cerkvi sv. Katarine v Piranu. - Annales. Series Historia et Sociologia 19/2, 2009, 303-312. Komplet, B., Z. Mileusnic, Potopljena ladja pri Gnalicu. - Potapljač 7/34, 2009, 22-23. Nabergoj, T., T. Lauko, Srednjeveško orožje in bojna oprema iz slovenskih muzejskih zbirk / Medieval arms and armour in Slovenian museum collections. - Vojaška zgodovina 10/1, 2009,123-143. Nabergoj, T., Marko Anton Kappus (1657-1717): misijonar, ki je odkrival Mehiko. - Vigenjc 9, 2009, 23-32. Nabergoj, T., O zgodovini in drugih zgodbah, ki še niso napisane: izbrane arheološke najdbe iz srednjega veka na območju Posavja. - V / In: Ukročena lepotica: Sava in njene zgodbe (Sevnica 2009) 102-116. Svoljšak, D., Arheološka izkopavanja v cerkvi sv. Martina v Grgarju. - V / In: Grgarski zbornik (Grgar 2009) 28-46. Železnikar, J., Polhograjska graščina v luči arheoloških spoznanj / The manor house of Polhov Gradec in the light of archaeological finds. - V / In: Gospod z rožo (Polhov Gradec, Ljubljana 2009) 217-242. Epigrafika in numizmatika Epigraphy and Numismatics Visočnik, J., Izgubljeni napis z reliefom Merkurija (CIL III 5196). Dva nova rokopisa o izgubljenem spomeniku iz Celeje. - Annales. Series Historia et Sociologia 19/2, 2009, 291-302. Arheološka teorija in ostalo Archaeological theory and varia Bavdek, A., Pregled skozi najstarejšo zgodovino. - V / In: Planinska dolina: ljudje in kraji ob Unici (Planina pri Rakeku 2009) 79-89. Brišnik, D., Usnjarstvo na Slovenskem v zrcalu arheologije. - V / In: Usnjarstvo na Slovenskem, Lapis Bellus, Gradiva 3 (Šoštanj 2009) 18-27. Dular, J., Kako je nastala in zakaj je odšla na tuje Mec-klenburška zbirka. - Argo 52, 1/2 , 2009, 30-47. Guštin, M., Koprske soline na Bonifiki pri Bertokih: rezultati zgodovinskih in arheoloških raziskav. - V / In: Soline: ogrožena kulturna krajina / un ambiente culturale in pericolo / cultural landscape in danger, Annales Medi-terranea (Piran, Koper 2009) 75-84. Koprivnik, V., V mozaiku časa (In the mosaic of time / Im Mosaik der Zeit). - V / In: Mariborska pokopališča (Maribor 2009) 23-37. Lubšina Tušek, M., Zgodovinski pregled območja občine Hajdina / Historische Übersicht über die Gemeinde Hajdina / Historical Review. - V / In: Hajdina (Maribor 2009), 9-51. Strmčnik, M., Podobe življenja in smrti (Pictures of life and death / Bilder von Leben und Tod). - V / In: Mariborska pokopališča (Maribor 2009) 39-53. Strmčnik Gulič, M., Zapis v zemlji (The record in the soil / Niederschrift in der Erde). - V / In: Bistriški zbornik III. Svet med Pohorjem in Bočem (Slovenska Bistrica 2009) 7-28. Šmit, Ž., A. Miškec, Merjenje gostote kot analitska metoda: primer fibul iz zaklada Drnovo - Argo 52, 1/2, 2009, 148-149. Šprajc, I., C. Morales-Aguilar, R. D. Hansen, Early Maya astronomy and urban planning at El Mirador, Peten, Guatemala. - Anthropological notebooks 15/3, 2009, 79-101. Vidrih-Perko, V., Muzej za tretje tisočletje - središče kolektivnega spomina: pojav nove muzeologije in rojstvo ekomuzeja (II. del). - Argo 52, 1/2, 2009, 76-93. Vuga, D., Simbolika obeh poznohelenističnih pompe-janskih pivskih vrčev - askoi, 'azkoi - iz Polhovega Gradca / Symbolism of two Hellenistic Pompeian wine jugs - askoi - from Polhov Gradec. - V / In: Gospod z rožo (Polhov Gradec, Ljubljana 2009) 243-253. Železnikar, J., Ostanki arheološke preteklosti v občini Dobrova - Polhov Gradec / Archaeological remains in the municipality of Dobrova - Polhov Gradec. - V / In: Gospod z rožo (Polhov Gradec, Ljubljana 2009) 275-298 Županek, B., Z arheologijo onkraj meja: rehabilitacijsko-arheološko raziskovanje rimskih ostalin za mladostnike s posebnimi potrebami. - Zgodovina v šoli 18, 1-2, 2009, 64-66. 5. NOVE SLOVENSKE ARHEOLOŠKE MONOGRAFIJE RECENTLY PUBLISHED SLOVENIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS Aktualna arheološka odkritja: iz muzejskih depojev. -Muzejski listi 35 (Maribor 2009). Brodar, M., Stara kamena doba v Sloveniji / Altsteinzeit in Slowenien. - (Ljubljana 2009). Cestnik, V., Arheološka dediščina Vač: vodič po arheološki poti Vače. - (Vače 2009). Cestnik, V., Željeznodobna nekropola Kaštel kod Buja: analiza pokopa željeznodobne Istre / Iron Age necropolis Kaštel near Buje: analysis of burial practice in the Iron Age Istria. - Monografije i katalozi 18 (Pula 2009). Djura Jelenko, S., M. Kumprej Gorjanc, B. Toškan, P. Leben-Seljak, J. Dirjec, S. Javornik, Svet živih - svet mrtvih: Kolaciona - 100 let. - (Slovenj Gradec 2009). Horvat, J., A. Bavdek, Okra. Vrata med Sredozemljem in Srednjo Evropo / Ocra. The gateway between the Mediterranean and Central Europe. - Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 17 (Ljubljana 2009). Križ, B., P. Stipančič, A. Škedelj-Petrič, Arheološka podoba Dolenjske. Katalog stalne arheološke razstave Dolenjskega muzeja Novo mesto / The archaeological image of Dolenjska. Catalogue of the permanent archaeological exhibition at the Dolenjski muzej Novo mesto. - (Novo mesto 2009). Mihovilič, K., B. Hänsel, B. Teržan, D. Matoševič, Ž. Kovačič, Monkodonja i Mušego: izložba Rovinj. - Katalog 79 (Pula 2009). Šavel, I., Pod Kotom - jug pri Krogu. - Zbirka Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije 7 (Ljubljana 2009). Štular, B., Mali grad. Visokosrednjeveški grad v Kamniku / Mali grad. High medieval castle in Kamnik. - Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 15 (Ljubljana 2009). Tica, G., B. Mušič, Spodnja Senarska pri Lenartu. - Zbirka Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije 10 (Ljubljana 2009). Tiefengraber, G., B. Kavur, A. Gaspari (ur. / eds.), Keltske študije II / Studies in Celtic Archaeology: papers in honour of Mitja Guštin. - Protohistoire Europeenne 11 (Montagnac 2009). P.Turk, J. Istenič, T. Knific, T. Nabergoj (ur. / eds.), Ljubljanica: kulturna dediščina reke (Ljubljana 2009). P.Turk, J. Istenič, T. Knific, T. Nabergoj (ur. / eds.), The Ljubljanica - a River and its Past (Ljubljana 2009). Udovč, K., Mačkovecpri Novem mestu. - Zbirka Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije 8 (Ljubljana 2009). Velušček, A. (ur. / ed.), Koliščarska naselbina Stare gmajne in njen čas: Ljubljansko barje v 2. polovici 4. tisočletja pr. Kr. / Stare gmajne pile-dwelling settlement and its era: the Ljubljansko barje in the 2nd half of the 4th millennium BC. - Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 16 (Ljubljana 2009). Navodila avtorjem: http://av.zrc-sazu.si/Si/navodila.html Guidelines to the contributors: http://av.zrc-sazu.si/En/guidelines.html Priprava slikovnega gradiva: http://av.zrc-sazu.si/Si/AV_slike.html Illustrations: http://av.zrc-sazu.si/En/AV_slike.html Arheološki vestnik je vključen v naslednje indekse: / The Arheološki vestnik is included in: AHCI - Arts and Humanities Citation Index® (Thomson Reuters) AIO - Anthropological Index Online - Royal Anthropological Institute, Centre for Anthropology at the British Museum in London Antiquite - Bulletin analytique d'histoire romaine (BAHR), CNRS/Marc Bloch University, Strasbourg DYABOLA. Sachkatalog der Bibliothek - Römisch-Germanische Kommission des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Frankfurt a. Main ERIH - European Reference Index for the Humanities - European Science Foundation -Strasbourg EUROsources - RAABE Fachverlag für Wissenschaftsinformation, Bonn Francis. Bulletin signaletique 525. Prehistoire et Protohistoire - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy IBR - International Bibliography of Book Reviews of Scholarly Literature - Zeller Verlag, Osnabrück IBZ - International Bibliography of Periodical Literature - Zeller Verlag, Osnabrück Ulrich's international periodicals directory - R. R. Bowker, New Providence N. J. Natisnjeno s podporo Javne agencije za knjigo Republike Slovenije. Funded by the Slovenian Book Agency.